RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message


sanchia -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (18/6/2010 6:33:09 PM)

It will blow more than Eyjafjallajokull.




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 12:43:32 AM)

The Hobbit -

Looks absolutely dire is putting it mildly. As a huge fan of LotR this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of those films. Where's the darkness? Why is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Legolas and Sean Bean now a bunch of annoying dwarves and hobbits? Why is there jokes and dwarf 'comedy'?
Please do not give me the 'but it's a kids book and not LotR''. Make it an adult film then. Why put EXACTLY what's in the book on film. Have some balls and makes changes for a film adaptation of a book made 75 years ago.

Cloud Atlas -

Wachowski's yet again manage to ruin another interesting premise. The trailer is so sentimental and saccharine that it was only missing the 'little girl voiceover'. Tom Hanks is a nail in the coffin for any film post 2002 and Halle Berry for anything post her DOB.

Skyfall -

Bond is Sean Connery. What came after wasn't Bond. Did Dr. No really deserve twenty two sequels?




chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:03:09 AM)

Why can't people at least wait until they've seen these damn things before pouring buckets of shit over them? I mean, FFS![8|]




giggity -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:09:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

The Hobbit -

Looks absolutely dire is putting it mildly. As a huge fan of LotR this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of those films. Where's the darkness? Why is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Legolas and Sean Bean now a bunch of annoying dwarves and hobbits? Why is there jokes and dwarf 'comedy'?
Please do not give me the 'but it's a kids book and not LotR''. Make it an adult film then. Why put EXACTLY what's in the book on film. Have some balls and makes changes for a film adaptation of a book made 75 years ago.

Cloud Atlas -

Wachowski's yet again manage to ruin another interesting premise. The trailer is so sentimental and saccharine that it was only missing the 'little girl voiceover'. Tom Hanks is a nail in the coffin for any film post 2002 and Halle Berry for anything post her DOB.

Skyfall -

Bond is Sean Connery. What came after wasn't Bond. Did Dr. No really deserve twenty two sequels?


Yeah! Making it adult will make it better! Chronicles of Narnia's problems were started when they didn't have a kiddie porn ring in the middle of it. Fantastic Mr. Fox, why that was okay but what it really needed was for Mr Fox to have a smack addiction and slap his son around. As for Matilda, well Trunchbull I didn't even take her seriously unless she kills a few kids and eats them.

Do you have any idea how moronic you sound?




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:11:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Why can't people at least wait until they've seen these damn things before pouring buckets of shit over them? I mean, FFS![8|]


The purpose of this thread is to make assumptions based on the little we've seen. The final quality of a film will obviously differ from trailers. Take it with a pinch of salt.




chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:11:31 AM)

You have to ask...?




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:19:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

The Hobbit -

Looks absolutely dire is putting it mildly. As a huge fan of LotR this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of those films. Where's the darkness? Why is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Legolas and Sean Bean now a bunch of annoying dwarves and hobbits? Why is there jokes and dwarf 'comedy'?
Please do not give me the 'but it's a kids book and not LotR''. Make it an adult film then. Why put EXACTLY what's in the book on film. Have some balls and makes changes for a film adaptation of a book made 75 years ago.

Cloud Atlas -

Wachowski's yet again manage to ruin another interesting premise. The trailer is so sentimental and saccharine that it was only missing the 'little girl voiceover'. Tom Hanks is a nail in the coffin for any film post 2002 and Halle Berry for anything post her DOB.

Skyfall -

Bond is Sean Connery. What came after wasn't Bond. Did Dr. No really deserve twenty two sequels?


Yeah! Making it adult will make it better! Chronicles of Narnia's problems were started when they didn't have a kiddie porn ring in the middle of it. Fantastic Mr. Fox, why that was okay but what it really needed was for Mr Fox to have a smack addiction and slap his son around. As for Matilda, well Trunchbull I didn't even take her seriously unless she kills a few kids and eats them.


The difference is that Narnia, Fox and Matilda are kids films made primarily for kids and families. Is Matilda a better film as an 18, no. If The Expendables 3 was a PG would it be worse than if it were an 18, yes.

quote:

Do you have any idea how moronic you sound?


No need for abuse. If you can't discuss something on the internet that is contrary to your opinion then don't.




Hood_Man -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:19:53 AM)

The next Batman [8D]




chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:41:34 AM)

Everything. Everything's rubbish. And furthermore, it's not as good as it used to be. I don''t know why I bother sometimes. It wasn't like this in my day, mutter, mumble, moan... Bring back borstal!




Prophet_of_Doom -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 2:01:26 AM)

In terms of The Hobbit, Jackson is a known admirer of the books (a geek, in his own words) and therefore with LOTR wanted to make what he saw as a faithful adaptation. So, one can safely assume that's exactly what he's doing with The Hobbit. Why should he update it or make an 18 certificate version when he's making HIS version? Hey, why don't we just have full-on dwarf love action while we're at it?! It's just unfortunate that he's made them in this order (although I doubt if he'd gone with The Hobbit first, he'd ever have had the chance to make LOTR) because in terms of tone, The Hobbit doesn't naturally follow on. We're going from the dark and sinister LOTR to the far more jovial and fairy-tale like The Hobbit. It would be a bit like playing the new Star Wars Trilogy in reverse ... the story of an angry young man who grows his missing limbs back and becomes happy again. It just doesn't quite work. For what it's worth, I think The Hobbit looks awful too. Freeman seems woefully miscast and (I'm assuming this is in part thanks to the new technology) the Shire looks like something out of Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But ... I'm only saying that because we're in this thread! I genuinely hope it proves me wrong.




MB2 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 2:12:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


Skyfall -

Bond is Sean Connery. What came after wasn't Bond. Did Dr. No really deserve twenty two sequels?


...Darth Silas?

I think The Hobbit will be awesome. No basis for it, beyond the trailer immediately transporting me back to 2003 in terms of vibe.




giggity -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 9:14:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

The Hobbit -

Looks absolutely dire is putting it mildly. As a huge fan of LotR this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of those films. Where's the darkness? Why is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Legolas and Sean Bean now a bunch of annoying dwarves and hobbits? Why is there jokes and dwarf 'comedy'?
Please do not give me the 'but it's a kids book and not LotR''. Make it an adult film then. Why put EXACTLY what's in the book on film. Have some balls and makes changes for a film adaptation of a book made 75 years ago.

Cloud Atlas -

Wachowski's yet again manage to ruin another interesting premise. The trailer is so sentimental and saccharine that it was only missing the 'little girl voiceover'. Tom Hanks is a nail in the coffin for any film post 2002 and Halle Berry for anything post her DOB.

Skyfall -

Bond is Sean Connery. What came after wasn't Bond. Did Dr. No really deserve twenty two sequels?


Yeah! Making it adult will make it better! Chronicles of Narnia's problems were started when they didn't have a kiddie porn ring in the middle of it. Fantastic Mr. Fox, why that was okay but what it really needed was for Mr Fox to have a smack addiction and slap his son around. As for Matilda, well Trunchbull I didn't even take her seriously unless she kills a few kids and eats them.


The difference is that Narnia, Fox and Matilda are kids films made primarily for kids and families. Is Matilda a better film as an 18, no. If The Expendables 3 was a PG would it be worse than if it were an 18, yes.

quote:

Do you have any idea how moronic you sound?


No need for abuse. If you can't discuss something on the internet that is contrary to your opinion then don't.


They're family films and so is Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is also made for families. Because it's.A.Kids.Book.




elab49 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 9:26:31 AM)

How odd. Posting to provoke a deliberate response then going high horse when you get it [8|]

Giggity, the site offers a block button (bottom left hand side of the post). Vad3r used to recommend people use it all the time.




tommyjarvis -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 9:42:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Why can't people at least wait until they've seen these damn things before pouring buckets of shit over them? I mean, FFS![8|]


Aren't you the same person that was moaning about homersimpson_esq complaining about your thread? [sm=rolleyes10.gif]

I guess he won you over after all.  




Bloke from Oz -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 9:53:06 AM)

Jack Reacher, and any film Tom Cruise stars in for at least the next couple of years.

The next couple of films Roland Emmerich directs.

Any, and I emphasise, ANY, other film Michael Bay directs at all, after all those Transformers films.




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 11:30:04 AM)

Superman -

For Superman to work as a film they need to make drastic changes to the character and mythology, which I can't see happening. It'll be more Captain America and less The Dark Knight. Also, It's confirmed they won't be using the John Williams score which was the best thing about the previous films. I'm also annoyed they casted Henry Cavill and not John Hamm. A slightly older, broken down, vulnerable Clark Kent would be so much more interesting than Mr. Perfect.





homersimpson_esq -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 12:09:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tommyjarvis

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Why can't people at least wait until they've seen these damn things before pouring buckets of shit over them? I mean, FFS![8|]


Aren't you the same person that was moaning about homersimpson_esq complaining about your thread? [sm=rolleyes10.gif]

I guess he won you over after all.  


It's my winning smile.




Lucky Day -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 12:22:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Bay


Toy Story 3 - saw the trailers/teasers, where was the humour? Why are they ripping off the story from the first film? Why can't Pixar just do something original like the Newt film they scraped or throw Toy $tory 3 in the bin and give us John Carter of Mars now.



[sm=happy07.gif]

Plonker. Even relative to the clear intentions of the original poster this raised a smile.




chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:06:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tommyjarvis

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Why can't people at least wait until they've seen these damn things before pouring buckets of shit over them? I mean, FFS![8|]


Aren't you the same person that was moaning about homersimpson_esq complaining about your thread? [sm=rolleyes10.gif]

I guess he won you over after all.  


What? The thread he completely missed the point of? Is there a prize or something for the fanboy who most spectacularly misses the point round 'ere? Cos you and yer mate are definitely in the running... [sm=rolleyes10.gif]

(I must say, the smug, sneering and woefully misplaced Ha-I've-got-you! triumphalism of posts like that is one of the things I love best about t'internet.)

What is it, though, with all the constant online negativity? I know this is supposed to be a negative thread - the clue's in the title - but that's the problem. Threads like this do seem to predominate online generally, not just here. Yeah, and before anyone else misses the point completely, any supposedly "negative" threads I might have instigated recently were clearly meant to be light-hearted if not downright satirical. Layers of irony, yeah...? No? Oh forget it then.

The online community/madhouse's default setting seems to be one of overwhelming negativity and hyper-criticality. In every sense. (Yeah, yeah, I know - you're entitled to your opinion. Well guess what? That's a two-way street and I'm entitled to mine too. And, it must be said, some opinions are more valid, well-informed and thought-through than others. Feel free to chuck your tuppence' worth in as well.) It's not just films or stuff like Doctor Who (the branch of fandom I'm probably more familiar with than is good for my mental health), it's everything. People included. Look at the abuse that's been heaped on the likes of Tom Daley, Rebecca Addlington and Gary Barlowe on (anti) social networks like Twitter recently. This happens all the time. I happen to have first-hand experience of it. (I have a virtual stalker on Twitter who I managed to acquire on a Doctor Who website. And I'm not even on Twitter!) No, let me guess - I probably bring that on myself, yeah? I expect I'm about to find out...

What is wrong with these people? Are they so perfect, are their lives so blessed that anything and anyone who fails to live up to their impossibly exacting standards is somehow deserving of their scorn, disapproval and ridicule? Or could it be they are just bitter, sad and resentful about their lot in life and the cards Fate has dealt them? Hmmm... Let me think now...

It can't just be cliques, sectarianism/tribalism, playground bullying and the safety of anonymity. (Although these things clearly play their part.) It has to be something more fundamental than that. Maybe we're all just nasty, spiteful wee shits underneath and the internet, freed from the shackles of normal social convention and etiquette, allows us to behave online the way we would like to in "real" life. I find that sad and dispiriting, to tell the truth. And more than a bit worrying. There is A LOT of bitterness, anger and frustration out there. And a lot of Mark Chapmans and Travis Bickles just waiting to happen. That chap in Aurora, Colorado, for instance.

And no, this isn't an act. I am actually like this - pray for my friends and family. I've actually been trying to popularise what I modestly call "Kilby's Law" which is: Don't ever say anything to or about someone online that you wouldn't happily say to their face down the boozer if they had a glass in their hand. And, yes, I do try to live by that. (Cue: inevitable diatribes.) I'm telling you, if it caught on, it would revolutionise t'internet. Not as much as a rudimentary grasp of spelling and grammar would, but there you go. You can't have everything. Where would you keep it all?

As should be clear by now, my default setting online is one of bemused detachment. Especially when it comes to mystifyingly irate/uptight online types who are easy to rile, quick to anger and even quicker to start fights with all and sundry - paths to the dark corners of the internet are they. Which is why I go out of my way to avoid conflict. No, really. (Cue: selective quoting-out-of-context of things I have said by The Unusual Suspects - online fandom is nothing if not mindnumbingly pedantic and tediously predictable.)

I know I can be annoying, but I find it's easy to wind up people who are wound-up already. And even easier to upset people who go through life just looking to be upset all the time. You know the type. Cos I have long suspected that a lot of "fans" go to the movies with their teeth, fists and buttocks clenched, just waiting to be offended by what they're watching. This thread, and countless others, proves it. Where's the fun in that? I'm sorry, but that's just weird. And probably unhealthy. Haven't you guys heard of "the benefit of the doubt"? Cos it's a cinch a lot of you are only prepared to willingly suspend your disbelief about an inch off the ground. My god, you guys can be hard to please. Talk about a tough audience!

Cos if you decide, months in advance, that Skyfall and The Hobbit WILL suck, then guess what...? People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. That means some people do habitually make their minds up in advance, regardless of the evidence. It's called prejudice. Literally "before judgement." Not a good thing.

when I pay my hard-earned (which is increasingly hard to come by these days) I want to be entertained. I go out of my way to be entertained - is that so wrong? To the point that even when a movie does suck, I actively seek out things to enjoy, whether it's a performance, the lighting or the music. I don't know. Maybe that makes me a slack-jawed simpleton, but it's better than nitpicking endlessly and finding fault with every damn thing. I might be easily pleased, but I'm happier than The Angry Brigade and will probably live longer. Sometimes it's better to be a fool satisfied...

After all, It's Only A Movie!

(Hope this isn't too off-topic. I'm just trying to get a civilised discussion going and this seemed like the thread to do it on. So please don't wilfully misinterpret or twist what I'm trying to say here. I'm actually being serious for once. Serious as cancer. Like Leigh Francis.*)







* Joke! It is possible to be funny and serious at the same time. I hope...




elab49 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:11:22 PM)

No, it just misses a rather significant point.

This thread was started by a troll to troll. A long-banned troll. Well, in that incarnation anyway. [8|]




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:15:29 PM)

Teehee.




chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:21:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

No, it just misses a rather significant point.

This thread was started by a troll to troll.




Fish gotta swim, haters gotta hate, trolls gotta go.


quote:

A long-banned troll. Well, in that incarnation anyway. [8|]


He! They're like Time Lords in that respect. More bloomin' aliases than Carlos The Jackal...

(The point still stands, BTW.)




paul_ie86 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:23:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: tommyjarvis

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Why can't people at least wait until they've seen these damn things before pouring buckets of shit over them? I mean, FFS![8|]


Aren't you the same person that was moaning about homersimpson_esq complaining about your thread? [sm=rolleyes10.gif]

I guess he won you over after all.  


What? The thread he completely missed the point of? Is there a prize or something for the fanboy who most spectacularly misses the point round 'ere? Cos you and yer mate are definitely in the running... [sm=rolleyes10.gif]

(I must say, the smug, sneering and woefully misplaced Ha-I've-got-you! triumphalism of posts like that is one of the things I love best about t'internet.)

What is it, though, with all the constant online negativity? I know this is supposed to be a negative thread - the clue's in the title - but that's the problem. Threads like this do seem to predominate online generally, not just here. Yeah, and before anyone else misses the point completely, any supposedly "negative" threads I might have instigated recently were clearly meant to be light-hearted if not downright satirical. Layers of irony, yeah...? No? Oh forget it then.

The online community/madhouse's default setting seems to be one of overwhelming negativity and hyper-criticality. In every sense. (Yeah, yeah, I know - you're entitled to your opinion. Well guess what? That's a two-way street and I'm entitled to mine too. And, it must be said, some opinions are more valid, well-informed and thought-through than others. Feel free to chuck your tuppence' worth in as well.) It's not just films or stuff like Doctor Who (the branch of fandom I'm probably more familiar with than is good for my mental health), it's everything. People included. Look at the abuse that's been heaped on the likes of Tom Daley, Rebecca Addlington and Gary Barlowe on (anti) social networks like Twitter recently. This happens all the time. I happen to have first-hand experience of it. (I have a virtual stalker on Twitter who I managed to acquire on a Doctor Who website. And I'm not even on Twitter!) No, let me guess - I probably bring that on myself, yeah? I expect I'm about to find out...

What is wrong with these people? Are they so perfect, are their lives so blessed that anything and anyone who fails to live up to their impossibly exacting standards is somehow deserving of their scorn, disapproval and ridicule? Or could it be they are just bitter, sad and resentful about their lot in life and the cards Fate has dealt them? Hmmm... Let me think now...

It can't just be cliques, sectarianism/tribalism, playground bullying and the safety of anonymity. (Although these things clearly play their part.) It has to be something more fundamental than that. Maybe we're all just nasty, spiteful wee shits underneath and the internet, freed from the shackles of normal social convention and etiquette, allows us to behave online the way we would like to in "real" life. I find that sad and dispiriting, to tell the truth. And more than a bit worrying. There is A LOT of bitterness, anger and frustration out there. And a lot of Mark Chapmans and Travis Bickles just waiting to happen. That chap in Aurora, Colorado, for instance.

And no, this isn't an act. I am actually like this - pray for my friends and family. I've actually been trying to popularise what I modestly call "Kilby's Law" which is: Don't ever say anything to or about someone online that you wouldn't happily say to their face down the boozer if they had a glass in their hand. And, yes, I do try to live by that. (Cue: inevitable diatribes.) I'm telling you, if it caught on, it would revolutionise t'internet. Not as much as a rudimentary grasp of spelling and grammar would, but there you go. You can't have everything. Where would you keep it all?

As should be clear by now, my default setting online is one of bemused detachment. Especially when it comes to mystifyingly irate/uptight online types who are easy to rile, quick to anger and even quicker to start fights with all and sundry - paths to the dark corners of the internet are they. Which is why I go out of my way to avoid conflict. No, really. (Cue: selective quoting-out-of-context of things I have said by The Unusual Suspects - online fandom is nothing if not mindnumbingly pedantic and tediously predictable.)

I know I can be annoying, but I find it's easy to wind up people who are wound-up already. And even easier to upset people who go through life just looking to be upset all the time. You know the type. Cos I have long suspected that a lot of "fans" go to the movies with their teeth, fists and buttocks clenched, just waiting to be offended by what they're watching. This thread, and countless others, proves it. Where's the fun in that? I'm sorry, but that's just weird. And probably unhealthy. Haven't you guys heard of "the benefit of the doubt"? Cos it's a cinch a lot of you are only prepared to willingly suspend your disbelief about an inch off the ground. My god, you guys can be hard to please. Talk about a tough audience!

Cos if you decide, months in advance, that Skyfall and The Hobbit WILL suck, then guess what...? People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. That means some people do habitually make their minds up in advance, regardless of the evidence. It's called prejudice. Literally "before judgement." Not a good thing.

when I pay my hard-earned (which is increasingly hard to come by these days) I want to be entertained. I go out of my way to be entertained - is that so wrong? To the point that even when a movie does suck, I actively seek out things to enjoy, whether it's a performance, the lighting or the music. I don't know. Maybe that makes me a slack-jawed simpleton, but it's better than nitpicking endlessly and finding fault with every damn thing. I might be easily pleased, but I'm happier than The Angry Brigade and will probably live longer. Sometimes it's better to be a fool satisfied...

After all, It's Only A Movie!

(Hope this isn't too off-topic. I'm just trying to get a civilised discussion going and this seemed like the thread to do it on. So please don't wilfully misinterpret or twist what I'm trying to say here. I'm actually being serious for once. Serious as cancer. Like Leigh Francis.*)







* Joke! It is possible to be funny and serious at the same time. I hope...


Having had cancer, I can assure you I take none of this seriously.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:34:00 PM)

Haven't you been pre-judging Total Recall and Keith Lemon before seeing them?




Deviation -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:46:35 PM)

I do hope that vad3r knows that The Hobbit book was far more light-hearted than Lord of the Rings, not that he will care, he wants to just provoke reactions and not maintain a consistent argument.

Oh and amazing rant kilby. I do pre-judge films btw, like how I prejudged The Expandables 2 for its conception for being a sequel to the abomination movie-raping first that killed Del Toro's chances of doing At the Mountain of Madness by being succesful and generic mediocre tosh. Open mind be damned.

The pettyness in this post is absolutely intentional.




chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:47:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Haven't you been pre-judging Total Recall and Keith Lemon before seeing them?


Nope.

As I alluded above, I knew someone would say that. (And somehow, I suspected that someone would be you...) No. I have yet to see Total Recall (which I will in, as always, an open-minded spirit of hope and optimism) and reserve my judgement on it till that time - you never know,maybe the music's good! [sm=zwinker25.gif] I was merely commenting on the two-star review - when in Rome, and all that...

(I haven't got round to Bourne or The Expendables 2 yet, but I'm still hopeful about them, despite what I've heard. I'm one of life's optimists, me. Sure, a pessimist can never be disappointed only pleasantly surprised, but... where's the fun in that?)

As for Keith Lemon... Well, I'd rather eat my own flesh than squander two of the precious hours I still have left on something which, on the balance of probabilities, I would be unlikely to enjoy. That was kind of a central point above - why waste time and money going to see something you simply know you won't like? Unless you're a masochist, or something.

I have no opinion one way or t'other about Keith Lemon: The Film. But it's reasonable to assume what to expect given his cretinous track record. My comments were about Leigh Francis. Who I know from bitter experience (geddit?) really is about as funny as the last series of Torchwood.

Thank you for your contribution. Do feel free to nit/cherry-pick my response to death at your leisure...





Rgirvan44 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:52:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Haven't you been pre-judging Total Recall and Keith Lemon before seeing them?


Nope.

As I alluded above, I knew someone would say that. (And somehow, I suspected that someone would be you...) No. I have yet to see Total Recall (which I will) and reserve my judgement on it till that time. I was merely commenting on the two-star review - when in Rome, and all that...

As for Keith Lemon... Well, I'd rather eat my own flesh than squander two of the precious hours I still have left on something which, on the balance of probabilities, I would be unlikely to enjoy. That was kind of a central point above - why waste time and money going to see something you simply know you won't like? Unless you're a masochist, or something.

I have no opinion one way or t'other about Keith Lemon: The Film. But it's reasonable to assume what to expect given his track record. My comments were about Leigh Francis. Who I know from bitter experience (geddit?) really is about as funny as the last series of Torchwood.

Thank you for your contribution.



My mistake. You were pre-judging the Robocop and Starship Troopers remakes.

"Wow! Two stars? As many as that? I'm really looking forward to the pointless/gutless/nutless remakes of Robocop and Starship Troopers now. Your move, creeps!"




Timon -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 1:58:00 PM)

The prosecution rests, your honour!




Deviation -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 2:01:14 PM)

How many people here pre-judged Fast Five and Rise of the Planet of the Apes negatively before release?






elab49 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 2:09:49 PM)

Me Me me!!!!

And I didn't rate either really. Fast Five 'meh with one interesting, although silly, stunt' - ROTPOTA as previous discussions (ie I still prefer the original - Deep Blue Sea).




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125