MovieChat Forums > lordbishop34 > Replies
lordbishop34's Replies
[quote]Great actors are made, not born. [/quote]
I am going to disagree a little here. Most big name actors have a little something, charisma, a good look, they way the carry themselves on screen, something that is unique to them that catches on with audiences. That is something they are born with and is nurtured over time. Certainly good directors can shape these people, but there has to be something to work with first.
ITs a shame to because one could argue he is a better actor now than he ever was. He still puts out a dud here and there but some of his stuff over the last few years havn't been bad.
Maybe, but he has been DTV for awhile now on his own except for the occasional film like the Mechanic sequel. If Meg is a hit than perhaps, The FF spin off I don't think will be a good judge because the Rock is a big draw there. You never know, but for the purposes of the OP's list as of right now I wouldn't include Statham.
I think she would have to have success beyond Wonder Woman before I would add her to a list.
Lol more rational. If people are more rational on pot I would be scared to see how they are when not lighting up.
Not Jason Statham anymore
I would add Dwayne Johnson
H1 H2 and H4 are good H20 does the retcon thing, its decent.
H3 is unrelated to Michael Myers
H5 continues h4's story so its worth a watch but its not very good
H6 had production issues, its also watchable and has its good parts including Paul Rudd!Last Appearance of Donald Pleasance, he died i think during production.
H8 is a terrible movie
ZH1 is alright
ZH2 is a terrible film.
He already essentially remade the first Star Wars film and that was certainly not as good as the original. Why would you think he or they could remake the rest with greater success? To revitalize something it would have to be dormant which it wasnt, Disney paid 4 bil to get the rights to SW. It was the already existing excitement for all things Star Wars that TFA and R1 succeeded in taking advantage of. Both flawed films but good enough to rake in what was already there. Then TLJ came, had a nice opening but then started to lag after that falling short of its projection after launch which even if it had reached it would have been a few hundred million less than TFA anyways. Finally Solo is here, the first Star Wars film expected to lose a significant amount of money.Lets be serious here, the Disney Star Wars has earned a lot of money and could certainly still earn lots of money, but there is an underlying problem with the last two films. If Part 9 performs worse than TLJ, that will only compound the problem.
I think it will take a few more box offices flops for that. Oceans 8 May finish over 40 mil domestic open. They will consider that a success somewhat related to the Ocean name.
IS that something that actually bothered you?
I had kind of the opposite reaction. I feel this will probably end up being not as good as some of the sequels its replacing. Laurie Strode as Sarah Conner not impressing me much. Though i do like the mask.
It helps it a lot, its a known thing. It is without a doubt drawn more attention because of that name than it would have ever had being an original concept. People did and still do like the first film. Ocean has value even if the films were in decline, and Clooney's current success has little to do with a past good film, he isn't the star of this film.
Can they make a film without the Ocean name and be successful? sure, but that doesn't change that its safer doing it this way. Its a lazy way to create a female led film, much like the Ghostbusters debacle.
That review is exactly why people believe the reviews are agenda driven bias rather than serious critical review.
Why do people always ignore the people that rate it 10/10? You know there are more of those right? More people that sit down so concerned about the score and scores of other people and have to "help" the ratings.. " its really a 6 out of 10 but I rated it a 10 because someone gave it a low score" What of them, are they really better people that the feel the need to alter the score so the film seems better than it really is.
TLJ 10 star: 53016 vs 1-4 scores combined: 55425
TLJ is a film hated by ALOT of people
Solo 10 star: 9677 vs 1-4 scores combined: 7276
Solo is a film that some people like but see as unnecessary
Are there people that rate it low on purpose? Yes, but there are people that rate it high as well.
AS for whether it ruins star wars? It depends the 9 films make up the full core story. Quite of few find when watching films or reading a book that a bad ending can negatively effect the whole experience, why would Star Wars be any different?
It will be a blu ray rental for me, reviews I have read says its not as good as Ocean's eleven and for whatever reason the the synopsis of Dannys estranged sister Debbie comes in to pull off the heist of the century reads more like something you would see on a DTV release. Almost like we cant get the people we want back so ..here is his sister and her friends!
Nothing will change with Abrams doing 9 unless he chooses to quit. Its the long term projects that will be in question. I think Part 9 will have an effect on those. Part 8 sagged during its theatrical run and showed signs beyond just internet hate that there may be a problem. 1.3 bil hides the issue, but its there. Solo's flop, something I didn't think was possible is alarming on many levels. I thought the worse Solo would do and be disappointing was earn less than R1. The fact the question is not if it will lose money but how much will it lose is certainly an issue for Disney. Disney is still riding high on the overall success for the films but it seems unlikely the company isn't considering long term issues.
It doesn't matter there is about the same number of 10 making the 1s largely not matter, eventually if it follows the norm there will be more 10s then 1,2,3 and probably 4s combined...and from what i have read its as much a 10 as it is a 1... both are inflated with people voting higher or lower based on some kind of irrational bias.
They really misjudged this, the first film was not a huge success. I was shocked when they made a sequel.
I enjoy some of his stuff, he is fun to watch. He and Scott Adkins came around the wrong time. If they had reached their primes in the 80s, they may have hit it big.
Its a bomb, it doesn't matter where it is at in the TOP 5, plenty of films have bombed that open in the TOP 5,they only open a few films per week in wide release. That film is on pace to take a loss, it came in way below expectations, and considering the expectations weren't great to begin with that's quite an achievement.