MovieChat Forums > RickGee > Replies
RickGee's Replies
Yes, if they're good movies. Which he hasn't done in a while.
My wife and I loved it, but we're older. I'm wondering if a lot of the reviewers/commenters are too young to get a lot of the references to the time period. I would assume professional writer reviewers have enough education to know about things that happened before they were born, but who knows?
I wouldn't rely on anything from SXSW to reflect attitudes of normal people.
Most of them were comedians, so I wasn't expecting award-winning acting. Still, my wife and I laughed a lot and a couple of scenes were outright bizarre- and hilarious.
If they can make a movie (and a good one at that) about how McDonald's came to be, I guess they can make one about how Pop Tarts came to be.
The most advanced species we have ever met is a giant octapus.
Abbot and Costello
Because the filmmakers thought that filming everything in the dark might not be annoying enough, so they further obscured those scenes with fog, just to make sure.
That is correct. Still a cheesy line to end a mediocre film.
It was not hard to understand. It was just annoying.
The town may have been okay, but that doesn't mean Kane would have been. There is nothing to indicate the Miller gang would have just forgotten about him if he had left town when they arrived. He knew he would always be looking over his shoulder until he confronted them.
Peck starred in The Gunfighter, which came out in 1950, and thought it was the definitive western so he passed on High Noon.
You may be projecting.
These days Reynolds picks up extra cash from acting. Most of his $350 million worth did not come from screen roles.
It's been 8 years since your response so no one will probably see this, but I had to vent about the comments I see that shaky cam is there to be realistic or, as you put it, "let the viewer feel what it's like to be in the middle of it." But that is not true. I have been in crises situations, and the people, places and thinks I am looking at are not jumping around like they are in a shaky cam. A shaky cam might be described as showing a viewer what a recording looks like when a person is running around in a crises situation, but not what is feels like to actually be there observing.
Further, for many of us, the shaky cam is distracting, gets old quick and makes it difficult to endure an entire movie of that junk.
But it was guaranteed to confuse people given that Halloween II did have to do with Michael Myers.
Well, especially at the time, people naturally assumed that something called "Halloween III" would have a connection to Halloween and Halloween II. When it didn't, people dismissed it as either bad or a rip-off, or both. I thought it was a cheap stunt myself. As a stand-alone movie, it's not that bad but it really isn't all that good either. A 5/10 is probably about right.
It's hard to believe people still think Michael Jackson was innocent.
"And if Manson was a WS why did he choose to target white people?"
Because he was so deranged he thought he would kill white people, blame it on blacks, start a race war, and survive to become the new leader. At least, that was Bugliosi's theory when he prosecuted him.
I agree with most everything you said. My wife, who will watch Chris Pine read the phone book, was very disappointed. We both thought it was slow, and the time jumps annoying. It wasn't suspenseful at all. And I know a lot of people will get their kicks from the sex scenes, but they were unnecessarily long and didn't add anything to the movie for me. Plus, as you asked, WTF with the unexplained suicide? This isn't even a MacGuffin, just a red herring.