The last film you´ve seen and your thoughts about it

"...Looks like you're on the wrong side of the reee-vuuuur!"

-Fred

Yes, I saw the reviews for the 3rd Mummy when I went to see Hancock... Looks like it is going to be good... At least they are getting away from the Egypt story and going with something else... Should make it a whole new experience...

I liked the first two Mummy films, so I might end up seeing the third one. My only problem is they didn't get Rachel Weisz back to play the role of Eve again. Not that I don't like Maria Bello, it's just I like seeing returning actors in returning parts.

Also, I have mixed feelings about the director, Rob Cohen. He did the Fast and the Furious, the Skulls and xXx, which were all terrible, but he also did Daylight and Stealth, and I liked both of those.

t's just I like seeing returning actors in returning parts.

We got a new cast in this year's Incredible Hulk. Also, we've had a different actor portray the Batman for each sequel in that series, xcept that Christian Bale will be the first to play Batman more than once. However, even though Christian Bale is returning we won't be seeing Katie Holms return to play his girlfriend (can't remember her character's name.)

That being said, I agree with you. I like seeing the same actors return.

I'll have you know, Doc, that Michael Keaton did two Batman films - Batman and Batman Returns

Also, Maggie Gyllenhaal will replace Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Which for my part is a-okay, as I think Katie Holmes can't act her way out of a wet paper bag.

-Fred

Yes Micheal Keaton played Batman twice... The reason he didn't return for other Batman Movies was he didn't believe the series should go on any farther... He said in an Interview that if you continue with Batman too far you will end up having people dislike Batman altogether and he wouldn't be a part of that... Then there was also the Money Factor, once they got him over the "Beat It Until It's Dead" issue they didn't want to pay him what he felt he was worth... So they chose to go elsewhere and Val Kilmer stepped up, considering he hadn't done anything in a couple of years he needed to get back on the big screen so he had his people flood the Batman scene until they agreed to use him... On a Personal Note, I have to say that I think that Kilmer was the Worst Batman of all so far... They tried to introduce the old time Jokes in Kilmer's Batman and he sounded so dumbfounded when Chris O'Donnell said it...
Though it was never Said, I also believe that Keaton didn't want to "Share" the Spotlight with a Sidekick...

O'Donnell "Holy Rusted Metal Batman!!!"
Kilmer "Huh?!?"
O'Donnell "The Ground, It's All Metal and Full Of Holes, You Know, Holy..."
Kilmer "Oh..."

Actually found it on Youtube, listen to how stupid Kilmer Sounds... O'Donnell had to Explain it to him...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k2qvULu70dE




As for the Hulk having a whole new cast and all... I really think the 2nd Hulk was a clunker... You only got to see the Hulk Twice through the whole 2 Hour Movie... And they weren't very long periods of time either... You saw the Hulk more in a 1 Hour Episode from the old shows then you did in this movie... Not to mention Ed Norton's "I'm Too Good For You" Attitude... Just about every part I see him in is acting like he is too good for that part... I don't really care for him all that much...
I will give him credit for The Score though, he plays a good retard... And watching DeNiro stick it to him in the end, just priceless...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qva-10DN7l8 Trailer...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cs9nzdpAH0g&feature=related DeNiro Sticking It To Norton...

Because of this thread I decided to go see Hancock last night, and I have got to say...that I was utterly disappointed! Yes, you heard me ~ disappointed. Let me explain...I never go to the movies, because I never feel like I'm getting my money's worth.

I have a theory that the only reason to go see a movie in the theater is that it needs to be seen big. There are several such movies - Deep Impact, The Matrix, Beowolf3D, and several others have blown me away in my seat over the years - excellent effects that need to be seen big, and excellent sound that needs to heard big.

Now, I'm not speaking of my local theaters with the 20 foot screen and the 5.1 Dolby or whatever - I'm talking IMAX, or Spectrum or Colosseum in Oslo, with THX surround and 10000 foot screens - yess. Then, movies like above mentioned are worth it. Movies with great stories I can enjoy in my own home - who wants to see a 100 foot face anyway ~ anyway...

This is why I only go see 'big' movies in the movie theater. And that's what Hancock was - 'big'. But you know what? The story sucked! And I found myself grinding my teeth in agony over this piece of Sh*t. I'm sorry, but I was looking for the twist at the end, but unless you were talking about the 'twister' (as shown in the trailer) that suddenly appears out of nowhere(and wasn't explained, btw), then I have no clue what the twist was.

I found it to be predictable, lame, and lacking everywhere but, guess, in the effects and sound department. Oh yes, they had that under control. But I just think this goes to prove that effects and sound don't mean crap for a movie if the story sucks. They could have gone so many ways to give the story substance, but they chose the easy product-line movie formula. Many of you might disagree with me on my next comment...but...I think the same goes for Transformers, The 'Hulk', National Treasure 2, and yess...Indiana Jones 4! there I said it ~ The Kindom...of the Crystal Skull...was nothing but a disappointment to me, and I could go into the 'why', but I think that's fairly covered in my statements about Hancock.

It seems that so many big movies that could have story potential all cater to the lowest common denominator while patronizing the rest of us. Just so you all know I'm not a crazy 'big movie' hater, I think I should say that the last 'big' movie I saw that I thoroughly enjoyed was X-Men 3 (I think - the one with the Golden Gate)...So this was my rant - I never rant, so I hope you all enjoyed it! And NO, I don't have any ill feelings toward any of you, even if you did enjoy Hancock - you're all amazing and I love you for it! Peace!

Bests, Rockefeller

To each their own Rock, that is why there are sooo many different Types of movies, because in this world we are many different types of people... Nice explanation of your feelings, but if you don't mind just a tad of Critic, I simply ask that next time your gonna be so wordy just Space it out a little, makes it a lot easier on the Eyes...

I agree with many of your points... I'm not much of a Theater person either, unless I've heard raving reviews from people whose opinions I trust... Granted I liked Hancock myself, though I don't think it was worth the money of seeing it in the Theater... I have to disagree with you on Indy 4 though, I loved that movie, though I'm a huge Harrison Ford fan... Can't really think of anything he has done that I haven't liked...

As for the Hulk, I stated opinion of that in my last post above... Transformers I didn't see in the Theater, but did enjoy the movie... I thought the story could have used a bit more to it, but all around I liked the movie... I'm awaiting Part 2 to see what they could possibly come up with considering all of the Major Bad Robots we remember from the Cartoon were destroyed in the First movie...

National Treasure One and Two, I loved both of those along with The Da Vinci Code and Sahara... I thought Sahara was a great movie that just never got the Uplift it deserved...

About Indy4, I'm a huuuge Harrison fan as well...in fact, I was following the production of this thing since I first heard of it over a year before it was released. And I don't think I'm one of those fans who set their expectations too high - I simply took the enjoyment I had received from the previous films and expected something similar. Sadly this wasn't the case - I felt they did waay too much with Indy4, and that waay too fast. Something I've seen lacking quite a bit in recent big films like this is good pacing.

I thought that in Indy they made the puzzles way too simple, and they solved them way too fast. I found this to be the case in National Treasure 2 as well (but not 1, as I enjoyed it thoroughly). There were also a ton of plot-holes, and I remember asking myself over and over how such brilliant film-makers could allow themselves to accept these. Granted, one should suspend one's disbelief while watching fantasy films such as this, but you suspend it to fit within the portrayed universe.

So if a doorway to a tomb that can obviously only be opened once is opened for the first time through some elaborate mechanism, how come the following chambers contain the remains of previous 'conquistadors'? Just stuff like that...

Anyway, back to the main reason for my previous post - I thought that Hancock was entertaining, and it's story followed all the rules - but seriously - if you're gonna try to have an elaborate explanation behind a freaky phenomenon, at least try to be a little creative and let the audience think a little and have the mystery revealed over time, rather than have something be a mystery throughout half the film, then completely change the storyline with a plot-twist, and then reveal the mystery at the end in two lines of dialogue like looking up an answer in the back of the book - and then finally conclude the film with some fancy effects of your hero flying around showing off CG effects. Reminded me of the end of all the spiderman movies if you ask me - blaugh...

Bests, Rockefeller

I liked the Plot twist with the Origin of Hancock being presented as it was... Don't want to Spoil for anyone... But I do agree, they could have figured out a way to prolong it a bit... Instead of the Revealer revealing everything in the first meeting like that...
Would have also been neat if there had been an exchange of words with the person on why Hancock was who he was...

Bafitis wrote: Would have also been neat if there had been an exchange of words with the person on why Hancock was who he was...

Yeah but that was eventually established anyway.

-Cub. =o)

Oh I know it was Established, but it would have been kewl if they had had a Character for that person and maybe some dialog...

Yesterday, I went to see Kit Kittredge: An American Girl

I gotta tell you. I really enjoyed this movie. It takes place during the Great Depression in Cincinnati, Ohio. Many of Kit's friends and neighbors have lost their homes and when Kit's father's car dealership is repossessed by the bank, Dad goes to Chicago to look for work while Kit and her mother start taking in borders.

The hardship, suffering and sacrifice many had to make during this period was wellportrayed in this movie and I think this experience (world-wide) had a lot to do with the character of the generation that was a product of it and to a great extent is why they are what we often call The Greatest Generation. I really admire the people of that generation - like mine and JTOG's parents and most of your grandparents.

Even though it's called "An American Girl", it could have been anywhere. Worth seeing. Yeah, it's rated G and it's, arguably, a kid's movie. But it's much more than that.

Yesterday, I saw Journey to the Center of the Earth

I am sorry to say that I was quite disappointed. Two reasons:

1. I thought it was going to be in 3D, but that's only at the IMAX (so I'll have to see it again there.)

2. Without the 3D, the film was way too thin and corny.

However, I could tell that there were a LOT of gratuitous 3D shots that will look really spectacular in 3D. So if you like 3D (I love it) it will probably be worth seeing at the IMAX. But on a flat screen? It doesn't measure up.