Chaplin
Better off silent
Buzz is phenomenal. It went from mild interest for me to must-see status now.
man, I can't understand how any cinefile only had mild interest in this...just based on Cuaron alone, I was jacked to see this movie. the trailer only made me want to see it more and now, after early reviews I'm pretty much salivating.
I had interest in it. So what if it was mild--it looked boring in the original teaser, but I know from watching Moon that trailers could be deceiving.
You are boring and full of spit!man, I can't understand how any cinefile only had mild interest in this...just based on Cuaron alone, I was jacked to see this movie. the trailer only made me want to see it more and now, after early reviews I'm pretty much salivating.
man, I can't understand how any cinefile only had mild interest in this...just based on Cuaron alone, I was jacked to see this movie. the trailer only made me want to see it more and now, after early reviews I'm pretty much salivating.
What is the big deal about Cuaron again?
Y Tu Mama Tambien, Prisoner of Azkahban, Children Of Men, all great movies IMO.
Not so sure about "great," but whatever.Y Tu Mama Tambien, Prisoner of Azkahban, Children Of Men, all great movies IMO.
All great movies (Prisoner of Azkahban is my favorite HP), but I don't get the must-see vibe from him that I get from say, Spielberg or Scorsese. At least not until Gravity.
One word describes this film perfectly: overhyped. Stunning visuals and good use of angles and wide lens shots. Clooney's character rocked and Bullock's wasn't bad. The imagery hammer was about 1,000 lbs, though, and the plot had more holes than Carter had little liver pills. I mean, you'd have thought it was a comedy, it elicited that much laughter. I want 1 1/2 hours of my life back, along with my ten bucks.
One word describes this film perfectly: overhyped. Stunning visuals and good use of angles and wide lens shots. Clooney's character rocked and Bullock's wasn't bad. The imagery hammer was about 1,000 lbs, though, and the plot had more holes than Carter had little liver pills. I mean, you'd have thought it was a comedy, it elicited that much laughter. I want 1 1/2 hours of my life back, along with my ten bucks.
I do however know what Sandra Bullock ******* for an hour and a half sounds like.
Anytime a filmmaker has to invent the technology to realize his vision, you can usually count on a great movie. They've invested too much to make anything less. Think:
Star Wars
Lord of the Rings
Avatar
I am sure there are more examples.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that neither Peter Jackson or James Cameron invented CGI.
did crisper say they did?
Crsiper said they created new technology for movies, which they did.
here's an article all about the innovations Cameron has made in film:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/visual-effects/4339455
and Peter Jackson helped created WETA, which is one of the biggest FX firms in the world and amongst the most respected. there are countless articles about this.
One word describes this film perfectly: overhyped. Stunning visuals and good use of angles and wide lens shots. Clooney's character rocked and Bullock's wasn't bad. The imagery hammer was about 1,000 lbs, though, and the plot had more holes than Carter had little liver pills. I mean, you'd have thought it was a comedy, it elicited that much laughter. I want 1 1/2 hours of my life back, along with my ten bucks.
Wow! That is REALLY at odds with all the critics. RT has it at 98% fresh.
With all due respect, since I do agree with a lot of what you say about movies, I'll gladly pay the bucks and be my own judge on this one.
Take a bag with you if you're prone to motion sickness.
Steve
With all due respect, since I do agree with a lot of what you say about movies, I'll gladly pay the bucks and be my own judge on this one.