MovieChat Forums > quartz > Replies
quartz's Replies
It was the fifth film in the franchise. It's to be expected that the writers find a way of turning an "invincible robot" into something slightly less invincible.
honestly, the problem is that this film isn't Judgement Day. Judgement Day was supposed to be the day the nukes dropped on the planet and wiped out 3 billion people or whatever. this instalment isn't anything to do with that, it's just the next phase of Skynet trying to wipe out JC
but at the time, it was a long awaited sequel. so the title Judgement Day was quite cool. and that's about it
indeed. 'hey pal, only what you see'.
They magically get hold of it - not that they get hold of a magical weapon
But I suppose if you're the 5th film in the franchise, you need to up the weapons game. if the bad guy is the robot, obviously 'just being able to kill it' is no good. if the good guy is the robot, you want some sort of danger
I thought T3 was under rated....as in, I thought it was better than people made it out to be. mind you I liked 4 and 5, so I might be doing something wrong
I like the part with the space ships
Jason Statham - 'nuff said (I haven't seen it)
this sounds like the sort of question you'd get on quora..
some people use crayons, some people use watercolours. she uses shit. maybe it's her thing
sounds like a Brother Beyond tune
couldn't tell you, I've never heard any of her tunes (hth)
ah. there you go.
this is going to start getting silly. there was a post somewhere else couple years ago, that said TNG is now older, than the original series was when TNG came out. what are they going to do when Chris Pine gets older that Bill S was, when the original series started..
because Kubrick? and you can't say bad things about Kubrick like you can with Nolan, because he's snuffed it?
I watched both versions of the Amityville horror recently. I preferred the 2005 version to the 1979 version. the 2005 version was much faster paced, the 1979 version was more "this" - maybe that was the audience in 1980. maybe 1980's horror scenes tend to be about the persons reaction to the thing happened (close up shot of person going "aaaaaargh"), rather than the actual thing that is happening
when satellites get destroyed, they blow up spectacularly. because, orbiting satellites have lots of combustible fuel in them which can explode. right? if you're lucky, it'll be a blue explosion
oh, and robot arms on space stations can turn into crazed maniacs, because the one thing you want from a robotic arm in space, is that it can move really, really fast
and micro thrusters in EVA jetpacks can randomly get jammed on
I enjoyed Day After Tomorrow...
justification - the end scene is a chase from a baddie which is coming down vertically from the sky
But....the democratic convention gets blown up. like, that's a good thing, right?
It's just special FX about something to do with the climate
I watched the Shining the other day properly for the first time. my main thoughts weren't "this is a great film" although of course it was a "quality product" so to speak, my main thoughts were "each of these scenes took about 50 takes"
ah. yeah. I didn't see the "new avengers" - the 70s TV show. the, er, "new" avengers movies are fine. actually that's another review
maybe he needs the money. maybe she makes a great stew