Yeah, I thought The Book of Eli was really good. Plenty of action and a good story, something a lot of movies are missing.
Sean Aaron ~ "The secret is out: I'm really an American cat-girl." Q: How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two, one to hold the light bulb, the other to rotate the universe.
I saw Legion at the theater. It was "meh". Seemed like a great idea. I didn't even have a problem with the actors (except for that Fast N Furious: Tokyo Drift dude). I can't quite put my finger on what it was missing, but it could have been so much more. 6/10 and rated mostly for what it COULD/SHOULD have been.
@y2josh Percy Jackson was awesome, I liked it alot more than Harry Potter. After my brother and I saw it, we took all of our cousins to see it, It is so good
Wildvine53
3DS Friend Code: 2878-9589-2016 | Nintendo Network ID: Wildvine53
Anyone here have any thoughts on how the new Alice in Wonderland movie that's coming to theatres this Friday is gonna be? Looks interesting.
Its gonna be awesome and I shall tell why. 1. Tim Burton. 2. Helena Bonham-Carter. 3. Johnny Depp.
QUEEN OF SASS
It's like, I just love a cowboy
You know
I'm just like, I just, I know, it's bad
But I'm just like
Can I just like, hang off the back of your horse
And can you go a little faster?!
Anyone here have any thoughts on how the new Alice in Wonderland movie that's coming to theatres this Friday is gonna be? Looks interesting.
Its gonna be awesome and I shall tell why. 1. Tim Burton 3. Johnny Depp.
Counterpoint: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). You usually can't go wrong with those two, but that remake was terrible and devoid of charm.
Well, at least it was better than the first Charlie and the Chocolate Factory [it was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory].
Are you kidding, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was not better than the original Willy Wonka, that movie's a classic, you don't know what you're talking about. The fact is Tim Burton makes terrible remakes. Chocolate Factory, Planet of the Apes, now Wonderland. He's best when he's making up his own stuff like Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Even then, personally, I don't think he's made a good movie since Sleepy Hollow in 1999. That's 11 years of bad movies, imo. So my hopes aren't up for this. Besides, his dark worlds don't fit with the vibrant, colorful worlds depicted by Lewis Carol or depicted by the classic Disney animated movie. I just looks ugly. I don't like Tim Burton's twisted sense of design unless it's in a gothic story. Alice in Wonderland is not a gothic story.
Anyone here have any thoughts on how the new Alice in Wonderland movie that's coming to theatres this Friday is gonna be? Looks interesting.
Its gonna be awesome and I shall tell why. 1. Tim Burton 3. Johnny Depp.
Counterpoint: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). You usually can't go wrong with those two, but that remake was terrible and devoid of charm.
Well, at least it was better than the first Charlie and the Chocolate Factory [it was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory].
Are you kidding, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was not better than the original Willy Wonka, that movie's a classic, you don't know what you're talking about. The fact is Tim Burton makes terrible remakes. Chocolate Factory, Planet of the Apes, now Wonderland. He's best when he's making up his own stuff like Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Even then, personally, I don't think he's made a good movie since Sleepy Hollow in 1999. That's 11 years of bad movies, imo. So my hopes aren't up for this. Besides, his dark worlds don't fit with the vibrant, colorful worlds depicted by Lewis Carol or depicted by the classic Disney animated movie. I just looks ugly. I don't like Tim Burton's twisted sense of design unless it's in a gothic story. Alice in Wonderland is not a gothic story.
I guess I see what you're saying, but my PERSONAL PREFERENCE is the new one.Have you ever heard of this thing called an opinion? Most people are allowed to have one. Also, let me specify why I liked the new one better. First of all, the Oompa Loompas don't look like mutant elves who attach bricks to their waists. Secondly, for the most part, it followed the book much better [except for Willy wonka himself]. Oh, if you've read the book, you appreciate the remake much more.
Oh, and as for Alice in Wonderland, I think Tim Burton is perfect for it. He makes quirky films, and that is EXACTLY how to describe the book. Also, he's bound to follow the book better than Disney. Disney makes classics, but they also add things. For instance: Tarzan-one of my favorite movies. In the book, it's much different than the movie. Tarzan's father is killed by the ape leader, the she-ape is killed by a tribe of natives, Tarzan pulls pranks on the natives, Clayton is Tarzan's cousin, and Tarzan travels to Jane's homeland after she leaves only to find out that she is engaged to Clayton. Not exactly as happy as the movie, is it?
Just let it happen.
3DS Friend Code: 5026-4947-0924 | Nintendo Network ID: Percentful
Anyone here have any thoughts on how the new Alice in Wonderland movie that's coming to theatres this Friday is gonna be? Looks interesting.
Its gonna be awesome and I shall tell why. 1. Tim Burton 3. Johnny Depp.
Counterpoint: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). You usually can't go wrong with those two, but that remake was terrible and devoid of charm.
Well, at least it was better than the first Charlie and the Chocolate Factory [it was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory].
Are you kidding, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was not better than the original Willy Wonka, that movie's a classic, you don't know what you're talking about. The fact is Tim Burton makes terrible remakes. Chocolate Factory, Planet of the Apes, now Wonderland. He's best when he's making up his own stuff like Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Even then, personally, I don't think he's made a good movie since Sleepy Hollow in 1999. That's 11 years of bad movies, imo. So my hopes aren't up for this. Besides, his dark worlds don't fit with the vibrant, colorful worlds depicted by Lewis Carol or depicted by the classic Disney animated movie. I just looks ugly. I don't like Tim Burton's twisted sense of design unless it's in a gothic story. Alice in Wonderland is not a gothic story.
I guess I see what you're saying, but my PERSONAL PREFERENCE is the new one.Have you ever heard of this thing called an opinion? Most people are allowed to have one. Also, let me specify why I liked the new one better. First of all, the Oompa Loompas don't look like mutant elves who attach bricks to their waists. Secondly, for the most part, it followed the book much better [except for Willy wonka himself]. Oh, if you've read the book, you appreciate the remake much more.
The truth is the book isn't that great literature. It was a case of the movie surpassing the source material mainly because of Gene Wilder's performance. Johnny Depp just did a Michael Jackson impression. I don't recall the book ever involving a Michael Jackson impression. And like I said before, Burton can't do colorful, it always comes off as just garish or subdued in his movies. He's only good for movies fitting within a gothic subtext. Alice in Wonderland is NOT a gothic story. Poe is gothic.
The truth is the book isn't that great literature. It was a case of the movie surpassing the source material mainly because of Gene Wilder's performance. Johnny Depp just did a Michael Jackson impression. I don't recall the book ever involving a Michael Jackson impression.
Did you seriously just say that? Methinks you don't know what great literature is. Also, did you not read my comment that the Willy wonka in the original fit the book better?
Just let it happen.
3DS Friend Code: 5026-4947-0924 | Nintendo Network ID: Percentful
The truth is the book isn't that great literature. It was a case of the movie surpassing the source material mainly because of Gene Wilder's performance. Johnny Depp just did a Michael Jackson impression. I don't recall the book ever involving a Michael Jackson impression.
Did you seriously just say that? Methinks you don't know what great literature is. Also, did you not read my comment that the Willy wonka in the original fit the book better?
I do know what great literature is. Salinger, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Asimov, Orwell, Poe, Hemingway. Roald Dahl is not great literature. He wrote some stories that some children like and that's about it, none of it means anythings, literature is artistically supposed to mean something. Even Dr. Seuss managed to fit meaning into his childrens tales. But this isn't a literature thread, it's a movie thread, and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was better than the book and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was worse than all.
Forums
Topic: Movie thread.
Posts 341 to 360 of 6,568
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic