As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

A Thread About Movies

1464749515299

Posts

  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    Soul plane?

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    It's inconceivably to me that Universal spent 12 million dollars on Halo before it collapsed. I mean, I don't doubt it happened, but in any other context, imagine pouring 12 million into a project that evaporates over a bad deal.

    Though arguably this situation gave us District 9, so it's difficult to complain.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    It's inconceivably to me that Universal spent 12 million dollars on Halo before it collapsed. I mean, I don't doubt it happened, but in any other context, imagine pouring 12 million into a project that evaporates over a bad deal.

    Though arguably this situation gave us District 9, so it's difficult to complain.

    It's been rumored that Warners spent around $100 million for Superman Lives, paying Tim Burton, Jim Carrey, Nicholas Cage, and Kevin Smith millions for their work, as well as being pretty deep into pre-production (having sets built and costumes made) before the plug was finally and thankfully pulled.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I couldn't finish District 9. Maybe it's because of how talked up it had been, but I was very underwhelmed and meh'd out by the experience.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Edd wrote: »
    It's inconceivably to me that Universal spent 12 million dollars on Halo before it collapsed. I mean, I don't doubt it happened, but in any other context, imagine pouring 12 million into a project that evaporates over a bad deal.

    Though arguably this situation gave us District 9, so it's difficult to complain.

    It's been rumored that Warners spent around $100 million for Superman Lives, paying Tim Burton, Jim Carrey, Nicholas Cage, and Kevin Smith millions for their work, as well as being pretty deep into pre-production (having sets built and costumes made) before the plug was finally and thankfully pulled.

    It's the pay or play deals that are adding up the expenses. Anyone with those gets millions whether they stay with the project or not. It's very easy for a project to get in the red when that happens. That and many execs are fucking clueless in shepherding things properly.

    Harry Dresden on
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Edd wrote: »
    It's inconceivably to me that Universal spent 12 million dollars on Halo before it collapsed. I mean, I don't doubt it happened, but in any other context, imagine pouring 12 million into a project that evaporates over a bad deal.

    Though arguably this situation gave us District 9, so it's difficult to complain.

    It's been rumored that Warners spent around $100 million for Superman Lives, paying Tim Burton, Jim Carrey, Nicholas Cage, and Kevin Smith millions for their work, as well as being pretty deep into pre-production (having sets built and costumes made) before the plug was finally and thankfully pulled.

    It's been reported that Burton alone had a 10 million dollar fee stipulated in his contract regardless of whether or not he ultimately directed a film. There's a man knew what he was getting into.

    Pretty much what Harry said.

    Edd on
  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    I couldn't finish District 9. Maybe it's because of how talked up it had been, but I was very underwhelmed and meh'd out by the experience.

    ...

    How far did you get?

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    I would love to believe that District 9 only cost its reported 30 million or so production budget, because if so, goddamn is there a lot of fat in Hollywood productions.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I couldn't finish District 9. Maybe it's because of how talked up it had been, but I was very underwhelmed and meh'd out by the experience.

    ...

    How far did you get?

    Somewhere between a quarter and halfway.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    District 9 is great up until it turns into an action movie half-way through. Like Apocalypto.

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    District 9 is great up until it turns into an action movie half-way through. Like Apocalypto.

    And unlike Apocalypto, then it's awesome.

    You've spent long enough to know these characters outside of an action film context - long enough to know their strengths, their weaknesses (in every sense of those terms), the nature of their relationships - and so when that final act turns into a non-stop snowballing escape scene / multi-faction showdown, I find it immensely more satisfying than most such sequences would otherwise be as a result.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    I would love to believe that District 9 only cost its reported 30 million or so production budget, because if so, goddamn is there a lot of fat in Hollywood productions.

    It's a lot of everything.

    PotC: At World's End cost 300 million which is outrageous until you find out that 40 million goes to Johnny Depp's bank account and everyone else is getting a yacht at the after party.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    I couldn't finish District 9. Maybe it's because of how talked up it had been, but I was very underwhelmed and meh'd out by the experience.

    ...

    How far did you get?

    Somewhere between a quarter and halfway.

    You quit before it became the best action movie of 2009. I mean, there is a power armor scene later. Power armor.

  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    Yeah, I loved District 9. That was some good stuff, man.

    steam_sig.png
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    So, I saw three movies last weekend.

    Machete. This movie was awesome. It has the perfect tone for what it was. An obviously goofy film with a fake serious overtone. It is pure mexploitation, but in the same way dolomite is. Aware of what it is. All the action is super fake and over the top awesome.

    Horrible Bosses. This film was entertaining but I think the plot went in kind of a silly direction.
    the main characters hardly do anything. One of the bosses actually kills the other one and Anistons character nothing really happens to. The protagonists are likeable, but almost just there to showcase their crazy bosses. Although Charlie Day is still awesome.
    Worth a watch though.

    The kids are alright. This film ends up being more of a statement about gay parenting than anything else. It was entertaining but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again.
    it ends up saying exactly what the title advertises. The kids were alright without a father. In fact things get screwed up a bit when the sperm donor comes to play father. They were fine enough without him. The adults have problems, but they are just that, adult problems just like any other family. I feel bad for Rufalo's character. He just kind of gets left in the cold. Hes a good guy, but no one is really a bad person in that movie.

    JebusUD on
    I write you a story
    But it loses its thread
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    I would love to believe that District 9 only cost its reported 30 million or so production budget, because if so, goddamn is there a lot of fat in Hollywood productions.

    It's a lot of everything.

    PotC: At World's End cost 300 million which is outrageous until you find out that 40 million goes to Johnny Depp's bank account and everyone else is getting a yacht at the after party.

    And then...it's still fairly outrageous. Even though it focuses on the greed of an outsider (Microsoft), I think the Halo article in Wired does a good job of putting Hollywood costs in meaningful perspective. That there was ever a moment in which Microsoft would be paid 75 million up front and not have to foot any additional costs in the production of a sprawling sci-fi epic (to say nothing of perks) is exactly why we've got a system that depends on the success of a few massive but unambitious projects every summer in order to keep the lights on. Too many people (or possibly too few) are making too much money before the cans ship to theaters.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    So I just came back from the Avengers.

    Yeah..., I just saw the Avengers before you Americans did and I am gloating. Sucks to be anybody that have to wait until May 4th.

    The Dark Knight held the record as the best live action comic movie Hollywood has ever made. Emphasis on held, because Avengers just took the crown in my book.

    This was a true team up movie like we always wanted, the best heroes joining up to save the world. This is the culmination of 4 years of waiting since that teaser at the end of Iron Man. This is the result of 5 movies hinting at a bigger picture, setting up the characters and the world they inhabit piece by piece.

    We don't need to be told that Tony Stark is a cocky charming bastard, we already know. When we see Loki, we know his motivation, to prove himself better then his brother Thor. We don't need setups to show their back story or how they got their powers, because we already have that. People can bitch and Ross probably will, but this was one awesome movie that didn't need to spend it explaining everything to the audience.

    Joss Whedon can be proud of his accomplishment. This is a movie universe I want to see more of. Black Widow & Hawkeye the movie anyone?

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • The JudgeThe Judge The Terwilliger CurvesRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    District 9 had one of the better single-moment audience reactions that I've witnessed in the last few years.
    The Warlord's head going kablooey.

    The Judge on
    Last pint: Turmoil CDA / Barley Brown's - Untappd: TheJudge_PDX
  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    So I just came back from the Avengers.

    Yeah..., I just saw the Avengers before you Americans did and I am gloating. Sucks to be anybody that have to wait until May 4th.

    The Dark Knight held the record as the best live action comic movie Hollywood has ever made. Emphasis on held, because Avengers just took the crown in my book.

    This was a true team up movie like we always wanted, the best heroes joining up to save the world. This is the culmination of 4 years of waiting since that teaser at the end of Iron Man. This is the result of 5 movies hinting at a bigger picture, setting up the characters and the world they inhabit piece by piece.

    We don't need to be told that Tony Stark is a cocky charming bastard, we already know. When we see Loki, we know his motivation, to prove himself better then his brother Thor. We don't need setups to show their back story or how they got their powers, because we already have that. People can bitch and Ross probably will, but this was one awesome movie that didn't need to spend it explaining everything to the audience.

    Joss Whedon can be proud of his accomplishment. This is a movie universe I want to see more of. Black Widow & Hawkeye the movie anyone?

    <3:mrgreen:<3

    steam_sig.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Word is that Sony is eager to get their newly-acquired James Bond property back to its old regular cycle of releasing a film every two years, and has already set a tentative "holiday 2014" release date for the next film in the series after this November's Skyfall.

    Daniel Craig is expected to return for the fourth film, having recently signed a deal with EON granting him first-refusal rights for the next FIVE films in the 007 franchise.

  • MrIamMeMrIamMe Registered User regular
    Black Widow definitely proves her place as a spy in a team of super powered people.

    Joss Whedon must be a Hulk fan. I would see a Hulk movie made by Mr Whedon.

    Also, this movie is fantastic as a comic book movie, but honestly I prefer the grittier Dark Knight.

    Definitely a 9/10 for The Avengers though.

    Saw it in 2D, since I hate 3D, so your mileage may vary, but the shakey cam was not overly bad, nor was it used overly much. Lots of static camera + action so you could follow what the hell was happening. There was quite a bit of humour, the acting was good across the board and it was entertaining.

    I am stunned, stunned and amazed.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Joss Whedon can be proud of his accomplishment. This is a movie universe I want to see more of. Black Widow & Hawkeye the movie anyone?

    There have already been rumors about Black Widow, Hawkeye and SHIELD films. That needs to happen.

  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    District 9 is great up until it turns into an action movie half-way through. Like Apocalypto.

    District 9 is great for those of us who actually like action movies.

  • SarcasmoBlasterSarcasmoBlaster Austin, TXRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I thought the action in District 9 was fucking awesome. It didn't bother me at all when it went balls-to-the-walls in the last half.

    EDIT: I don't think it was a great movie or anything, but becoming too action oriented wasn't a problem I had with it.

    SarcasmoBlaster on
  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    wandering wrote: »
    District 9 is great up until it turns into an action movie half-way through. Like Apocalypto.

    Are you retarded? That was one of the best parts

    EDIT: Also I am totally holding judgement on The Avengers until after a year passes by when it's released, cause when it drops on may 4th I expect a wave of fans to pronounce it as the best comic book film ever while collectively taking predictable slams on The Dark Knight because hey why not.

    Godfather on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Godfather wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    District 9 is great up until it turns into an action movie half-way through. Like Apocalypto.

    Are you retarded? That was one of the best parts

    EDIT: Also I am totally holding judgement on The Avengers until after a year passes by when it's released, cause when it drops on may 4th I expect a wave of fans to pronounce it as the best comic book film ever while collectively taking predictable slams on The Dark Knight because hey why not.

    Expect the process to repeat once Dark Knight Rises is released.

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    I keep referring to Cabin in the Woods as "the best biopic about Abraham Lincoln I have ever seen" and nooooobody thinks it's funny. Crickets listening to crickets.

    Thread, please do me a solid. Please help validate my humor.

    Given the juxtaposition between what the movie is actually about and what I am pretending it is about, I mean...that's funny, right? I understand how humor works at this most basic of levels?

  • pirateluigipirateluigi Arr, it be me. Registered User regular
    I keep referring to Cabin in the Woods as "the best biopic about Abraham Lincoln I have ever seen" and nooooobody thinks it's funny. Crickets listening to crickets.

    Thread, please do me a solid. Please help validate my humor.

    Given the juxtaposition between what the movie is actually about and what I am pretending it is about, I mean...that's funny, right? I understand how humor works at this most basic of levels?

    Humor is usually supposed to be funny. I appreciate that you're trying something new with it, however.

    http://www.danreviewstheworld.com
    Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
    G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    I keep referring to Cabin in the Woods as "the best biopic about Abraham Lincoln I have ever seen" and nooooobody thinks it's funny. Crickets listening to crickets.

    Thread, please do me a solid. Please help validate my humor.

    Given the juxtaposition between what the movie is actually about and what I am pretending it is about, I mean...that's funny, right? I understand how humor works at this most basic of levels?

    Humor is usually supposed to be funny. I appreciate that you're trying something new with it, however.

    Ouch!

    :(|) :(|) :(|)

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Look at Pirate's post, Monkey.

    That's Comedy.

  • Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    Damn. I actually read past it and had to read it again. The tone was so polite I almost missed it.

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Having actually heard someone say it multiple times, I'm going to have to confirm that the answer to the question "...that's funny, right?" is always "apparently not."

  • EuphoriacEuphoriac Registered User regular
    I always prefer saying "I'm sure it sounded great in your head" in the most pitying voice possible. Their deflation is always a joy to behold.

  • SarcasmoBlasterSarcasmoBlaster Austin, TXRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    So, Mulholland Drive. First of all, Naomi Watts totally killed it (did she win an Oscar for this?). Second:
    Obviously it is strange as shit, but even though it is all over the map from a narrative standpoint, it never felt sloppy. Everything felt very deliberate. I know there are numerous interpretations of what is this film is actually "about", and I think that my interpretation is largely in line with what is probably the "standard" way to view it, though even that does not tie everything together in anything resembling a neat little package. So I sort of have to wonder. Although this probably common knowledge, found out that the film started off as a TV pilot. The pilot wasn't picked up, so Lynch filmed the ending and put it in the film. Now it makes me wonder how much of the ambiguity is intentional. Like, is this sort of a sloppy film that people assign meaning to when none is there? Is a cigar just a cigar in this case, and do some of the dangling plot threads have no meaning beyond the fact that they were intended to be expanded upon in the television show? I don't really think so, but awhile back (possibly ITT) there was a conversation about giving some filmmakers credit were perhaps none is do (That boom mike was in the shot intentionally!), so that thought did cross my mind here.

    SarcasmoBlaster on
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    So, Mulholland Drive. First of all, Naomi Watts totally killed it (did she win an Oscar for this?). Second:
    Obviously it is strange as shit, but even though it is all over the map from a narrative standpoint, it never felt sloppy. Everything felt very deliberate. I know there are numerous interpretations of what is this film is actually "about", and I think that my interpretation is largely in line with what is probably the "standard" way to view it, though even that does not tie everything together in anything resembling a neat little package. So I sort of have to wonder. Although this probably common knowledge, found out that the film started off as a TV pilot. The pilot wasn't picked up, so Lynch filmed the ending and put it in the film. Now it makes me wonder how much of the ambiguity is intentional. Like, is this sort of a sloppy film that people assign meaning to when none is there? Is a cigar just a cigar in this case, and do some of the dangling plot threads have no meaning beyond the fact that they were intended to be expanded upon in the television show? I don't really think so, but awhile back (possibly ITT) there was a conversation about giving some filmmakers credit were perhaps none is do (That boom mike was in the shot intentionally!), so that thought did cross my mind here.

    It's been a long time since I've watched it, but if I recall my interpretation correctly:
    Everything prior to the opening of the blue box was a fantasy; an idealized version of Watt's life and the way she'd wished things had gone. Everything after is stone cold reality with occasional dips back to fantasy. Until the very end, which I could never really wrap my head around coherently. Because, seriously, wtf?

  • SarcasmoBlasterSarcasmoBlaster Austin, TXRegistered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    So, Mulholland Drive. First of all, Naomi Watts totally killed it (did she win an Oscar for this?). Second:
    Obviously it is strange as shit, but even though it is all over the map from a narrative standpoint, it never felt sloppy. Everything felt very deliberate. I know there are numerous interpretations of what is this film is actually "about", and I think that my interpretation is largely in line with what is probably the "standard" way to view it, though even that does not tie everything together in anything resembling a neat little package. So I sort of have to wonder. Although this probably common knowledge, found out that the film started off as a TV pilot. The pilot wasn't picked up, so Lynch filmed the ending and put it in the film. Now it makes me wonder how much of the ambiguity is intentional. Like, is this sort of a sloppy film that people assign meaning to when none is there? Is a cigar just a cigar in this case, and do some of the dangling plot threads have no meaning beyond the fact that they were intended to be expanded upon in the television show? I don't really think so, but awhile back (possibly ITT) there was a conversation about giving some filmmakers credit were perhaps none is do (That boom mike was in the shot intentionally!), so that thought did cross my mind here.

    It's been a long time since I've watched it, but if I recall my interpretation correctly:
    Everything prior to the opening of the blue box was a fantasy; an idealized version of Watt's life and the way she'd wished things had gone. Everything after is stone cold reality with occasional dips back to fantasy. Until the very end, which I could never really wrap my head around coherently. Because, seriously, wtf?

    That's sort of the way I took it.
    The "pre-blue box" part is all a dream-like manifestation of Watt's sub-conscious. I don't know that I'd call it ideal, although there are ideal parts of it. She's certainly the ideal representation of herself in it. In the dream she's the young, beautiful, talented starlet just waiting to be discovered. In reality she's been used up and tossed aside, and was apparently never much of an actress. "Rita" is also idealized. In the beginning of Watt's "dream" she wants Rita dead. She can't bring herself to kill her though, so she's given a bonk on the head and becomes a damsel in distress completely dependent on Watt's. I think that the shadow-cabal of power-brokers who wanted Camille Rhodes represent her sub-conscious trying to come up with some reason for her failings as an actress. She didn't get the role in that movie, so she makes it the result of some vast conspiracy.

    Things I still don't get: The Cowboy, the opera singers and the magician, and "monster" in the alley, and hallucinagenic grandma and grandpa.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    I saw The 5-Year Engagement today. These are my thoughts. Minor spoilers abound, though no one should really be worried about spoilers for a romantic comedy. These things basically run on rails.


    If you're simply looking for an objective measurement, this is a "good" film, and you won't regret the time or money spent. There are lot of positive things to take away from this film. First of all, it's breezy, and it takes its humor from realism and human interaction, not raunch or absurdity (with one minor exception). Second, it's a rare thing in the rom-com genre: a film where the central romance not only starts en media res, but is given detail over a significant stretch of its life (the titular five years). It's not about the hoary staples of the genre, like the "meet cutes" and the choosing of lovers. It's about how relationships can be a lot of fucking work, even when the people involved are crazy about each other and want the same things. For that, I applauded the film, as I find myself doing with many of the films in the Apatow stable; point of interest- this film was written by star Jason Segel, and honestly it's probably his best work both in writing and acting. The kid's got nuance beyond "daffy-but-earnest manchild." Here, both he and the always fantastic Emily Blunt are playing adults with real adult jobs, with real adult friends, dealing with real adult problems; they just manage to make it all funny to watch, albeit in a very heartfelt way.

    To be more precise, I most appreciated how the cliches of the genre that generally make the genre intolerable to watch were largely absent; to wit, I'm talking about how most plotlines in romantic comedies are dependent on a series of external devices to motivate the plot. So-and-so has problems with commitment because "oh my god how could I ever give up my life of being such an awesome sex-machine bachelor?" or "I'm totally in love with this guy but I can't be with him because of my totally ridiculous rule where I can only go on three dates ever with a dude," or some equally stupid shit.

    Instead, this movie wisely mines the honest and real drama in any early relationship, like dealing with parents and family demands, the expectations of what married life is supposed to be like, how to reconcile career paths that are moving in opposite directions, and generally being very unhappy in a relationship despite wanting to desperately keep it afloat. These are great things, real things, that so many more movies (even, or especially, comedies) should be about, but instead we get time and time again in the genre the courtship drama of two beautiful people who for some reason have the damnedest time agreeing to sleep with each other. There's a reason that people look down on the genre, and I'd posit it's not because "it's for chicks" or anything as stupidly unaware as that, but rather that the genre largely involves characters and situations that are more unrelatable than most Asian horror movies.

    So, in light of all this, it pained me to see the catalysts that motivated the final act revert to such common tropes and (in my view) cheat the audience out of something a little more honest and direct.
    The instability in Segel and Blunt's relationship hits a boiling point when, after leaving San Francisco and being miserable in Michigan for three years so his fiance can advance her career, Segel's character finds out that Blunt had a fleeting romantic dalliance with her boss. In the fallout from this, Segel loses fidelity with one of his own coworkers, and this was the first hoary trope of the genre that bothered me: the equalizing of the emotional damage. It's basically a rule at this point for these movies; whenever one party has a lapse of infidelity, the relationship cannot reform until the other is debased by similar infidelity, even if they don't want to be party to it. For example, in this film Emily Blunt's character is kissed by her boss while both are tipsy and doesn't stop him for quite a while, whereas Segel's character is basically sexually assaulted by a random girl he barely knows while stinking drunk, and he still manages to keep his faithfulness. Segel, however, is forced by the script to feel like he has become a terrible person by this act of (not even) infidelity, and this is where the genre-mandated "end of second act break-up" happens, because of course it does.

    Jump to a few months thereafter, we find that Blunt's character has shacked up with her boss full-time (which completely undermines her legitimacy, right?), and Segel moved back to San Francisco, where he's trying to feign interest in a mean (but attractive) nymphomaniac (again, the equalization of infidelity; She's out doing wrong, but it's okay because He is, too). But because this is a rom-com we have to resolve this third act with both people coming to their senses and getting back together, as that is genre mandate. How this is catalyzed to come about, however, really bothered me. The entire nature of the conflict in the relationship is the fact that Segel gave up a very lucrative career to support his fiance, and his unhappiness (and her unhappiness with his unhappiness) tore them apart. The script intervenes here by throwing us the revelation that Blunt's boss (and boyfriend) just hired her to get into her pants, and he's helping further her career just because he wants to keep her in Michigan.

    It's at this point that the movie just breaks and coasts downhill on the tracks to its obvious conclusion. There's nothing tying Blunt to Michigan anymore, and Segel still loves her, so they get back together, get married, and ride off into the sunset in a very stereotypical fashion of the genre precedent. It's totally passive, and that's a terrible way to resolve what to that point had been a very poignant and honest look into the hardships of a relationship; the script simply works their troubles out for them. Their biggest conflict was their divergent careers, but once Blunt moves back to California, the topic is never brought up again. Where will she work? What will she do? Who cares, everyone's happy, let's sing and dance. The end wants us to rejoice in their love and feel good about them finally getting together, but all I saw was the problems being exactly the same, just flipped from the characters.

    Regardless, it's a very enjoyable film, and no one should shy away. Come for the Segel and Blunt, stay for the Chris Pratt and Alison Brie.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    District 9 is great up until it turns into an action movie half-way through. Like Apocalypto.

    District 9 is great for those of us who actually like action movies.

    District 9 is a good action movie.

    I was just expecting more from it after watching the advertisements and the first half. I mean, I still liked the film, but it was kinda jarring to me how it changes gears.

  • CarpyCarpy Registered User regular
    I'm watching doom for the first time, holy shit is this terrible.

  • hadokenhadoken Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I just watched "An American Dream" with my dad, which means I finally understand some jokes in Scary Movie.

    To be honest I felt the District 9 action sections were really well made and didn't detract from the movie.

    -edit- Totp :S. so why is there a tendency in some people to be put off when a film changes gears?

    hadoken on
This discussion has been closed.