| Author | Comment |
Zinearety
Probe
Posted: 16 Mar 2002
19:56 GMT
Total Posts: 14 | This is sort of off topic, but still...
I went to see Time Machine today, and to be honest, it was decent. I own the original one from back in the 60s and I thought that this one couldn't compare, but it was similar enough to earn the tital, but different enough so you didn't have to compare the two.
Go see it, it's not an award winning movie, but it's probably worth the $5 to get in. (or the 2 hours to download it off the internet with a good connection)
-Zinearety- |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 17 Mar 2002
09:35 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | what the heck kind of place do you live in where movies only cost $5??? here they're like $7 matinaie, and $9 normal.
---
-Barrett A |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 17 Mar 2002
11:43 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | Here it cost like 5 dollars if they're cheap and 7 dollars regular |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 17 Mar 2002
16:41 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | ok, i've downloaded and watched the time machine. all i have to say is that, in order to be considered a movie, the main character needs to freeking accomplish something. HE ACCOMPLISHED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, EXCEPT GET HIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN WIFE BY THE END OF THE MOVIE RAN OVER BY A CARRIAGE!!! this movie could have been made to be much, much better.
[Edited by Barrett on 17-Mar-02 19:41]
---
-Barrett A |
Zinearety
Probe
Posted: 17 Mar 2002
19:32 GMT
Total Posts: 14 | Well, if you have ever watched the original movie, then you would be quite impressed how they did a remake without trying to fight the old version. Second, you obviously don't know what to look for in a good movie becuase you judged the movie immediately after you watched it, and you only look for the cool scene.
You have to learn to respect the surrounding BS, because you miss alot when you just brush them off.
I personally like the original Mr. Philby myself, but oh well... |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 26 Oct 2002
18:23 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | am i supposed to like a movie when it has a bad ending? the main character is supposed to have something good happen! (unless it's a tragedy, but in this one, the tragedy happens in the first 20 minutes and the rest is talking to some weird guy, which means he should have been able to save his wife)
---
-Barrett A |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 29 Oct 2002
12:40 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | I saw the Time machine a long time ago at the theatre. It was a pretty good movie.
What he accomplished was a mental revelation. He realized he couldn't save his wife, but he could help others. The movie didn't portray the idea well enough. I think they only gave 2 examples of him trying to save her. In addition to that, the big scene the character accomplished was defeating that mutated guy towards the end. People just don't enjoy movies anymore, or bother to reflect upon them.
saying Time Machine was a bad movie, is like saying A.I. sucked. I loved A.I., because it had so much meaning to it. There are bad movies though. Such as Battlefield Earth, US Navy Seals 2, Iron Monkey, Drunken Master, etc. |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 29 Oct 2002
17:04 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | actually, A.I. did suck and personally, i don't get why people liked it so much. that kid actually looked like $hit and he though he was so cool when he showed up on the oscar ceremony. he looked really nasty and disgusting there. okay, end of my rave. oh, btw The Count of Monte Cristo seemed nice but the ending sucked since it made the "american" way (e.g. happy end) while in the book it was far different.
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 29 Oct 2002
19:43 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | I know what you mean. The book was better. |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 29 Oct 2002
23:01 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | i know it'd be very hard to make a movie just as good as the book, but just making up stuff is not cool. of course, its not intended for people who actually read the book and those who did read the book would probably consider it not worthy watching this movie anyways. LOTR was very close to the book actually, so it came out nicely but still not as good. anyways, both of these movie are nice to watch withiut actually going and comparing them to a book. in fact, maybe what they did to Count of Monte Cristo wasn't too bad, because i did feel kind disappointed at what happened when i was reading that book.
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 30 Oct 2002
14:44 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | The movie LOTR was extremely close to the book, as far as movies go. However, they did leave out a bit due to possibly budgets, and especially from time constraints. I didn't even realize the movie was like 3 and 1/2 hours long until I left the theatre! Anyways, my point is they left out Tom Bombadil ("Old man willow") and the whole scene with him out altogether! That just bugged me, but still I loved the movie. |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 30 Oct 2002
15:18 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | from my understanding, the tom bombadil part is supposed to be in the special extended DVD release.. but that's what i heard from my brother and i'm not sure.
---
-Barrett A |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 31 Oct 2002
09:53 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | LOTR was a great movie. there might have been only one or two slow parts, but it kept going. I didn't even look at my watch untill it was over and then I realized how long it was just like Billy. I can't wait for TT. |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 31 Oct 2002
21:54 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | i'm also waiting for TT. but still, i sat my @$$ off while watching LOTR. although it was great and very similar to the book, it was a bit long for movie theatre watching. i guess there were just too many nasty fat people sitting around me and eating their stupid popcorn and that kinda made me impatient to get outta there. it was a whole different thing when i wathced LOTR on DVD at home. >8]{
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
