Shit. How did I forget Rocky III.


It is about the money in the end for the studios. No better proof than what happened to the initial go with the X-Men movies. Brian Singer put out two relatively strong and decent movies IMO and was willing to deliver a third if Fox Studios would have been willing to wait until after he finished what turn out to be a weak Superman reboot, but wanted that money from an establish little franchise so badly that they went with Brett Ratner and got that shitty ass X-3. Greed is a mother fucker. Bet if they would have waited for Singer they would have made money plus a little extra based on what he did with the first two movies.

 

I could you forget this moment. Its what I like to call every white man's fear lol

[YOUTUBE]bF_iiX1HepM[/YOUTUBE]

 

I see what you mean by how trilogies can ultimately kill a franchise and very rarely does it ever work. Die Hard with a vengeance with Sam L. was pretty good IMO.

They could've kept that bullshit-assed 4th Die Hard movie for the birds though. Shit was beyond awful.

 

They just want money. That's why I'm all for bootlegging. Make a decent product and I'll be happy to pay but don't make a piece of shit like Spiderman 3 or The Phantom Menace and expect me to pay. The fucking nerve.

 

I think Signs was so bad it actually pissed me of. I wanted to sue Mr. Shalyalyalyalyman for the 2 h of my life I lost. What a piece of shit that was.

And yeah - Titanic - the scene where dude lets go and drowns made me laugh out loud, man was he a bad actor back then.

 

Like I said in another thread Hollywood is completely out of new ideas. That's why we're seeing all these re-hashed storylines and re-releases of old movies in 3D and imax.

Truth be told I haven't been to the movies in about two years because of my dissatisfaction. I really haven't seen a decent product worth paying movie prices for.

 

i agree with this completely. and let's be honest now, did we really need to remake footloose????:smt101

 

Of course. People nowadays don't wanna watch that old shit. They want shiner new versions of old shit. Duh!!

 

Exactly. Now they're gonna do Spiderman again (didn't they just make 3 of those this millennium?) Plus another Jason Bourne movie.

Not to mention the remakes of both "Total Recall" and "Sparkle". smh

 

I forgot that fucker M. Knight who in fairness made two great movies, The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I loved those films outside of those two movies I want to punch him in the gut for every minute I've wasted on shit like The Village and that shitty one with Mark Whalberg. The story lines are weak and the twists stopped be amazing a looooong time ago. Fucking hack

 

I will be fair they have done some real cool original shit like that movie Chronicle. Great take on teenagers getting super powers.

 

Nope. Especially when the remake was almost a shot for shot, dialogue for dialogue copy of the original. They even had 2 of the actual original songs in the remake. WTF?? They remade the other songs from the first movie.

I was initially upset about the reboot of the Spiderman series. I loved the first two Spiderman movies. I liked a few elements of the 3rd movie, but overall that one sucked.

However, I recently saw a trailer for The Amazing Spiderman and it looks like a completely different movie. I know nothing about the comic book Spiderman story, but it seems like Peter Parker's father isn't dead in the new movie? Maybe that's part of the comic book story to Spiderman?

Anyway, I will go see The Amazing Spiderman because it seems like a different movie from the ones they made only 10 years ago (which is totally absurd).

Remakes can be okay if they improve on the original movie. But shot for shot remakes? Stupid.

And don't even get me started on the Ferris Bueller's Day Off remake. So unnecessary. That movie STILL stands up today.

 

Bookie you ain't neva lyin'.:smt023

 

Watching The Karate Kid remake and I have to be honest its amazing. So well done. I love seeing a young black protagonist whose entire story line isnt about neing black. This kid can really act

 

Okay, I actually forgot about that one and it was pretty damn good. I was a little skeptical at first seeing how I actually remember as a little kid going with my family to the original when it premiered.

But when I finally saw the remake I was more than impressed. Jackie Chan held it down and was more of his own character as opposed to emulating the original Mr. Miyagi.

 

I have to warn people about this movie. It was so painfully bad that I could only make it to the 40min mark because I was starting to feel that chewing my own arm off would be more fun than watching this movie to the end.

Pimp.


Crap, crap, crap, crap, CRAP.
The people who made it tried to make it like a documentary....it starts by telling you that they followed around a guy who's involved in the sex industry in Soho (London) and that some of the filming was done using hidden cameras.

What do I say to that? BOLLOCKS. That's what. The actors are recognisable actors (if you're familiar with British movies or, lets face it, Lord of the Rings) for a start, which wouldn't neccessarily be a problem, but the dialogue is so obviously scripted (which says a lot about the lack of talent the actors have) that it's just pathetic.

Do not watch. I only paid $1 to hire this movie and it was too much to pay.

 

Sorry to hear this. I hadn't heard of the movie, but Danny Dyer was great in 'Dead Man Running', so when I saw the jpeg I got excited.

 

Yeah, it's sad. He's probably the worst thing in the movie, to be honest. I don't know what they were thinking. :smt011

 

I never heard of this movie. It's a shame, because I love Billy Boyd.

It scored a 2.8 out of 10 on IMDb, and it's not even listed on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

Actually from what little I saw of Billy Boyd in this film, he wasn't too bad. It's really not worth seeing just for him, though. He doesn't play a huge roll (well, not in the first 40mins of it and it's too awful to watch much more than that).