Metal Reviews

Newest and Best Metal Reviews!
FAQ :: Search :: Members :: Groups :: Register
Login
It is currently Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:00 am



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2   
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:04 pm 
Offline
Einherjar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:24 pm
Posts: 2527
MetalKnight wrote:
Dead Machine wrote:
Wow, you must've seen no other movies in 2005 or just have really horrible taste.
...


Okay. Fvck you! I shall hate you from now on! :evil: 8)

I think your comment is unjusted. I watch a SHITLOAD of movies, much more than anyone of my fellows, and I can handle quality drama and oldskool classic movies and enjoy it unlike some who can't even bother.

I truly believe those 3 movies I listed as best of my 2005 were good. For instance, WOTW seems to be only hated because Tom Cruise was on it!? :? Fvck that. He was good in it.

And I see ur best of was dramas all together. But the difference with newer movies is (ok, I'm guilty here) that I can't bother to watch some drama or anything un-funny or un-eventful when I have to PAY for the movie, thus when I go to the movie theater I wanna get "pumped" so to speak :roll:
But when those movies come from the telly, I'll probably watch and rate them then :)


Yeah, you have bad taste alright. War of the Worlds was at best decent, and the other two were total shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:07 am 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 7711
Location: Leeds, UK
Dead Machine wrote:
MetalKnight wrote:
Dead Machine wrote:
Wow, you must've seen no other movies in 2005 or just have really horrible taste.
...


Okay. Fvck you! I shall hate you from now on! :evil: 8)

I think your comment is unjusted. I watch a SHITLOAD of movies, much more than anyone of my fellows, and I can handle quality drama and oldskool classic movies and enjoy it unlike some who can't even bother.

I truly believe those 3 movies I listed as best of my 2005 were good. For instance, WOTW seems to be only hated because Tom Cruise was on it!? :? Fvck that. He was good in it.

And I see ur best of was dramas all together. But the difference with newer movies is (ok, I'm guilty here) that I can't bother to watch some drama or anything un-funny or un-eventful when I have to PAY for the movie, thus when I go to the movie theater I wanna get "pumped" so to speak :roll:
But when those movies come from the telly, I'll probably watch and rate them then :)


Yeah, you have bad taste alright. War of the Worlds was at best decent, and the other two were total shit.


War of the Worlds was a totally awesome example of how to ruin a classic novel, and that's it. I think Cruise must have a clause in his contract that he has to get an "action hero" moment in every film he does, no matter how innapropriate it may be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:59 am 
Offline
Ist Krieg
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:44 pm
Posts: 6817
Location: Florida
The Batman movie in 2005 was pretty cool... Other than that, I haven't seen any.

Now, here are some of my favorite movies:

Citizen Kane
Fight Club
The Shining
The LotR films

More on the way as I think of them...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:34 am 
Offline
Metal Fighter
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:32 am
Posts: 359
Location: Finland
Radagast wrote:
MetalKnight wrote:
And my last years best movies were (from those that I've seen):

The Exorcism Of Emily Rose
War Of The Worlds
Fantastic Four


Wow two of those films sucked utterly.

My favourites of '05
-Batman
-Sin City
-King Kong

and not a lot else really. There were some real pissers last year. I heard Crash and Downfall were really good, but my wanker friends went to see them without me.


Ok, which two? And I see YOUR favorites for 2005 are basically from the same genres as mine, so I'm curious why you think they were so much better?

Here's my reasoning: I've seen Batman Returns and thought it wasn't as good as I'd hoped for. Bale looked good as Batman, but as a whole there was just something that didn't click me right, with the "Batman voice" and all :) Oh, yeah, and Katie Holmes was unconvincing and totally miscast. LOTS of ppl seem to like this movie and it has gotten very high ratings in imdb, and I don't get it?! :? For me this was one of the less satisfying movies of '05.

I was so ready to slander the new King Kong to the next oblivion before seeing it and I had zero "wantness" to see it, although I was going to see it :roll: Reading Jackson's reasoning for his remake made me finally understand why he dunnit. So, it was better than I had believed it to be! Nice effects for the most part, Kong was vicious as hell and Naomi Watts was very good in her role. Too bad that there were about 3 major goofs that I've yet to seen since like 70's and the ending was very anti-climatic as it fell flat and emotionless. The thing is I had just seen the somewhat *hated* 2nd make of Kong from 1976 prior to this and found it to be quite good, and most of all the ending was way better and emotional. And who could forget Jessica Lange's awesome performance (mostly because she was so hot!) and she wins Naomi Watts for me by the Breasts Reveal :P Image

Dead Machine wrote:
MetalKnight wrote:
Dead Machine wrote:
Wow, you must've seen no other movies in 2005 or just have really horrible taste.
...


Okay. Fvck you! I shall hate you from now on! :evil: 8)

I think your comment is unjusted. I watch a SHITLOAD of movies, much more than anyone of my fellows, and I can handle quality drama and oldskool classic movies and enjoy it unlike some who can't even bother.

I truly believe those 3 movies I listed as best of my 2005 were good. For instance, WOTW seems to be only hated because Tom Cruise was on it!? :? Fvck that. He was good in it.

And I see ur best of was dramas all together. But the difference with newer movies is (ok, I'm guilty here) that I can't bother to watch some drama or anything un-funny or un-eventful when I have to PAY for the movie, thus when I go to the movie theater I wanna get "pumped" so to speak :roll:
But when those movies come from the telly, I'll probably watch and rate them then :)


Yeah, you have bad taste alright. War of the Worlds was at best decent, and the other two were total shit.


Why were they shit? Care to explain? And if you feel so above-all to mock my taste in films then I don't think u have any better taste than mine or anyone elses for that matter. I would like you to explain one by one for each of my movies why you dislike them so much? Or do you just hate anything that has more action and/or entertainment value than oscarworthyness? You only listed 3 movies which were your best of 2005, they were all dramas, I can't mock you for that. I bet they are all good movies. And if you'd put a longer list (of dramas?) maybe I'd found 1 or 2 movies that could end up on my list too.

rio wrote:
War of the Worlds was a totally awesome example of how to ruin a classic novel, and that's it. I think Cruise must have a clause in his contract that he has to get an "action hero" moment in every film he does, no matter how innapropriate it may be.


I only read to the part "War of the Worlds was a totally awesome" when I was jumping with joy... but alas! I was wrong.
I thought they kept the story as close to as possible to the original? At least they got the alien ships right and all? :| The ONLY thing I didn't like in this movie was the half-cute-Spielperg-aliens in the middle of the film Image Oh, here we go with the Cruise thing again! What if the actor would have been Arnold or Robin Williams? Would you still have bastardized them? I don't think Cruise was any more action hero in this film than Harrison Ford in any of his films. Actually, Harrison Ford beats the living shit out of anybody in his films regardless of his occupation! :P In WOTW Cruise just kept keeping his children out of harms way, it's not like he went all taekwondo on anybody :roll:


I have speaketh. M'kay.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:08 am 
Offline
Ist Krieg

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6519
Location: USoA
Metalknight. I don't want to offend you, but I saw Exorcism of Emily Rose, and I thought it was utter garbage. Did you like it because it scared you? Because I just laughed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:07 am 
Offline
Ist Krieg
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:37 pm
Posts: 7932
Location: Glasgow
MetalKnight wrote:
Radagast wrote:
MetalKnight wrote:
And my last years best movies were (from those that I've seen):

The Exorcism Of Emily Rose
War Of The Worlds
Fantastic Four


Wow two of those films sucked utterly.

My favourites of '05
-Batman
-Sin City
-King Kong

and not a lot else really. There were some real pissers last year. I heard Crash and Downfall were really good, but my wanker friends went to see them without me.


Ok, which two? And I see YOUR favorites for 2005 are basically from the same genres as mine, so I'm curious why you think they were so much better?


Fantastic Four was just utter, braindead shit. For something so overblown its plot was so wafer-thin and rushed it was unreal.

"Ok, let's all go to space....oh shit radiation!
Wow weird shit is happening. Well, as long as we can use our powers responsibly.
Thing: I'm sad
Jessica: I'm hot. But I'm wearing glasses 'cause I'm also intelligent
Human Torch: KOMEDY!!!11
Leader guy: Well at least nothing bad happened
Dr Doom: Hey my name's Doom. Shouldn't I have an evil plan by now?

.......


.......


.......


Dr Doom plans to use his powers to smash stuff. He does. Fantastic Four do various things and stop stuff being smashed. End"

As for The Exorcsim of Emily Rose, well what the Hell was the point? All of the courtroom scenes were rendered totally worthless because the horror scenes kept tell us straight-up that the demonic possesion was real! If the film had left all the dopey horror shit out completely and had just focused on a priest killing a girl during a botched exorcsim, it might have been an interesting film. But with all that supernatural guff going on, we 'knew' the preist was in the right all along.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:37 am 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 7711
Location: Leeds, UK
MetalKnight wrote:
I only read to the part "War of the Worlds was a totally awesome" when I was jumping with joy... but alas! I was wrong.
I thought they kept the story as close to as possible to the original? At least they got the alien ships right and all? :| The ONLY thing I didn't like in this movie was the half-cute-Spielperg-aliens in the middle of the film Image Oh, here we go with the Cruise thing again! What if the actor would have been Arnold or Robin Williams? Would you still have bastardized them? I don't think Cruise was any more action hero in this film than Harrison Ford in any of his films. Actually, Harrison Ford beats the living shit out of anybody in his films regardless of his occupation! :P In WOTW Cruise just kept keeping his children out of harms way, it's not like he went all taekwondo on anybody :roll:


I have speaketh. M'kay.


Many reasons I didn't like it.

1) It's not often I get patriotic, but this story should have been set in 19th century London. That would have had such a unique atmosphere. It's awesome the way a group of people cycle over on olde-style bicycles to wave a white flag at the Martians, then get vapourized, and the witnesses then dash home to inform their wives about it over tea and newspapers. As it was this felt like Just-Another-Hollywood-Blockbuster, where Cruise steals a car and you get "dry wit" from the oldest kid.

2) The reason I love the book is because the narrator is totally helpless, and is only able to watch in horror while- as far as he is concerned- the apocalypse has arrived. It's psychological horror, which is something fully beyond the capabilities of Cruise, Robin Williams, or god forbid Arnie. I would have had an unknown in the lead role. Instead, of course, we have him throwing grenades about.

3) The fucking family! Having a child in a film negates its purpose. We should be guessing what's going to happen. Instead, we know that everything will be ok from the first reel, because no director with that budget would have the bollocks to kill one. In the book the is no extra "family bonding" bullshit- just one man's horrific journey through the end of the world, and eventually to redemption.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:50 am 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 29895
Location: UK
rio wrote:
MetalKnight wrote:
I only read to the part "War of the Worlds was a totally awesome" when I was jumping with joy... but alas! I was wrong.
I thought they kept the story as close to as possible to the original? At least they got the alien ships right and all? :| The ONLY thing I didn't like in this movie was the half-cute-Spielperg-aliens in the middle of the film Image Oh, here we go with the Cruise thing again! What if the actor would have been Arnold or Robin Williams? Would you still have bastardized them? I don't think Cruise was any more action hero in this film than Harrison Ford in any of his films. Actually, Harrison Ford beats the living shit out of anybody in his films regardless of his occupation! :P In WOTW Cruise just kept keeping his children out of harms way, it's not like he went all taekwondo on anybody :roll:


I have speaketh. M'kay.


Many reasons I didn't like it.

1) It's not often I get patriotic, but this story should have been set in 19th century London. That would have had such a unique atmosphere. It's awesome the way a group of people cycle over on olde-style bicycles to wave a white flag at the Martians, then get vapourized, and the witnesses then dash home to inform their wives about it over tea and newspapers. As it was this felt like Just-Another-Hollywood-Blockbuster, where Cruise steals a car and you get "dry wit" from the oldest kid.

2) The reason I love the book is because the narrator is totally helpless, and is only able to watch in horror while- as far as he is concerned- the apocalypse has arrived. It's psychological horror, which is something fully beyond the capabilities of Cruise, Robin Williams, or god forbid Arnie. I would have had an unknown in the lead role. Instead, of course, we have him throwing grenades about.

3) The fucking family! Having a child in a film negates its purpose. We should be guessing what's going to happen. Instead, we know that everything will be ok from the first reel, because no director with that budget would have the bollocks to kill one. In the book the is no extra "family bonding" bullshit- just one man's horrific journey through the end of the world, and eventually to redemption.


And, dare I add, the complete bollocks at the end. God loved mankind so much he put the widdle bacteria there to kill the big bad aliens who would come along years later?? Ridiculous. And what the flying fuck was Tim Robbins doing in it? He's much bigger than Cruise, anyway, in a real fight he'd have beat the shit out of him. And the aliens would've just blown the building up instead of looking for them.

FF? Utter bullshit in every way possible, aimed purely at the teen market who are still confused over their own sexuality, thus thinking Jessica Alba is the hottest thing since tinned peas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:43 pm 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 7711
Location: Leeds, UK
Bacteria are there in the book, but without the religious message. Originally it is purely scientific: The Martians punish humanity for getting ahead of itself, but are undone by what we perceive as earth's lowliest creatures- "our microscopic allies". Of course, in the original it's more obvious how it happened... The martians feed by injecting human blood into their own veins.

So, Spielberg, what's God got to do with it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:50 pm 
I liked WOW on a simple, wow aliens! level.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:57 pm 
Offline
Ist Krieg
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:37 pm
Posts: 7932
Location: Glasgow
Disemboweller wrote:
I liked WOW on a simple, wow aliens! level.

Exactly. Stuff gets blowed up good without Michael Bay-type one-liners. Okay, the ending was gay, but it was Spielbergo, what were you expecting?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:00 pm 
Radagast wrote:
Disemboweller wrote:
I liked WOW on a simple, wow aliens! level.

Exactly. Stuff gets blowed up good without Michael Bay-type one-liners. Okay, the ending was gay, but it was Spielbergo, what were you expecting?


He usually manages to fit some god-stuff in there. Still, the guy's about entertainment, there's worse stuff elsewhere in supposedly better films (critically).


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:05 pm 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 7711
Location: Leeds, UK
Entertainment? Pah!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:09 pm 
Offline
MetalReviews Staff
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 29895
Location: UK
Disemboweller wrote:
Radagast wrote:
Disemboweller wrote:
I liked WOW on a simple, wow aliens! level.

Exactly. Stuff gets blowed up good without Michael Bay-type one-liners. Okay, the ending was gay, but it was Spielbergo, what were you expecting?


He usually manages to fit some god-stuff in there. Still, the guy's about entertainment, there's worse stuff elsewhere in supposedly better films (critically).


You miss the point. Because of subliminal messages like that, the people of the world will continue to believe in a creator. Or something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:10 pm 
Offline
Ist Krieg
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:37 pm
Posts: 7932
Location: Glasgow
Zad wrote:
Disemboweller wrote:
Radagast wrote:
Disemboweller wrote:
I liked WOW on a simple, wow aliens! level.

Exactly. Stuff gets blowed up good without Michael Bay-type one-liners. Okay, the ending was gay, but it was Spielbergo, what were you expecting?


He usually manages to fit some god-stuff in there. Still, the guy's about entertainment, there's worse stuff elsewhere in supposedly better films (critically).


You miss the point. Because of subliminal messages like that, the people of the world will continue to believe in a creator. Or something.


Subliminal? :lol: "GOD SAVED THE DAY! HE IS A HUNK!!!"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group