|
Can someone better than me do Dreamcatcher? http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dreamcatcher.htm Budget 68 Million Dom Gross: 33 Million I'm not too sure what exactly the filmmakers were thinking when they made this. On paper it sounds lie it would profit: "Morgan Freeman starring in an adaptation of a Stephen King novel with an alien invasion." For those of you who have actually seen the film- that's not quite what it's about. It's rare to see a movie that shifts the plot almost becoming a completely different film by the end. It destroyed the career of Lawrence Kasdan but also helped give Damian Lewis his first mainstream movie. It has it's faults but the movie is tremendously entertaining. It's not quite like Independence Day as the "government vs. aliens" plays a very minor portion in the movie. There are some genuinely good ideas like "memory warehouse", but some that just fall flat like the shitweasels. While I've never read the book I hear it's a very close adaptation and maybe it if it were played more loose it would have done better business.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
spaceships posted:All this and much more is in this movie. There are also things that aren't in this movie, but I think that can be said of a lot of movies, so we shouldn't hold that against this one. It opened to a spectacular $2,723,211 on 1,092 screens, and has grossed roughly $11,100,000 to this day. Victory! This movie was like the first time I realized my older sister and I could like the same things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Deep Rising Deep Rising is a movie that is 2 F-Bombs, 400 deskeletonized debutantes and 4 months from being regarded as a modern action classic. Stephen Sommers is a talented action director, and it's no small miracle that he was given the reigns of The Mummy after Deep Rising sank to the bottom of the Pacific. While Ebert savaged this creature feature for having no depth whatsoever and being "an Alien paint-by-numbers," he neglects to realize that with genre pictures, it isn't big ideas that carry the day, but execution. And Deep Rising is not short on perfect execution. Each character is nearly a Joss Whedon level quip-machine, and they utilize their ability to make light of a dismal situation perfectly, while the body count rises at a steady rate. But as I said, the movie just doesn't work as a hard-R rated picture. Released in the death slot of the 'end-of-January' dumping grounds, it's clear Hollywood Pictures had no confidence in this film after their first choice - Harrison Ford - backed out of the film's lead role. But as a PG-13 mid-Summer action/comedy, this film would have done fantastic. Unfortunately, to get there, they'd need to cut the cursing and the half-digested passengers and crew of the Argonautica. It's a cop-out to say that the studio is responsible for not making a film the hit it needed to be, but in the case of Deep Rising, the choice to make a hard-R creature feature and drop it in the same ghastly release window of films like Dante's Peak was the death knell for what should have been a fun summer B-movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
I would like to do The Zybourne Clock, which had a budget of $60 millions--nearly half of which was spent creating the most realistic CGI steam pathing algorithms ever seen in a major motion picture--and yet it brought in a mere fraction of that amount at the box office. Received at the time of its release as yet another maudlin piece of Oscar bait for star Sean Penn, mine own personal goonpinion discovers a stirring reflection on the nature of time itself, with the best effects work the Jim Henson Workshop has put out this side of Lexx.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
So my schedule this semester is pretty tightly packed. I'm not sure if I'll be able to do this. Sorry 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World I have seen this film a countless amount of times. I have written a major essay on this film in a theory course using Lacan. I have no issue with claiming that this is the best film of the century (which, admittedly, is hyperbole) . I am not really surprised it bombed, because it featured Michael Cera in the lead, at a time when he seemed to be everyone's least favourite actor, and was a difficult film to market. Personally, I wasn't excited to see the film until I read the graphic novels, because the trailer made the film look like a confusing, terrible mess. So, why do I love it? The language of the film is embedded with video game logic, laid over the reality of Toronto. It makes it appear as if the film is occurring in an alternate universe. But, this appearance is deceiving, and part of the subversive nature which makes up the theme. It is a film that confronts the middle class white male's casual misogyny and racism. The same male who conflates reality and video games into one inseparable worldview. While Scott believes that he's embarking on a hero's quest reminiscent of a video game to "get the girl", in reality, he is confronting his biggest challenge yet; a woman with a difficult past that he has to acknowledge and not treat as an object.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
Looking things over, I thought this is the one I could get the most out of (and it barely fits the guidelines): Constantine Budget: $100 million Domestic Gross: $76 million While Constantine follows in the footsteps of other pseudo-religious thrillers in blending Protestant millennialism with Catholic ceremony, the film strikes out on its own with two theological points that are troubling in context. The most important of these is that because suicide is a "mortal sin", Constantine is condemned to hell when he dies for a suicide attempt when he was a teenager. While this drives the movie, it also sends a negative message to people who may be in need of help that watch the film. People who attempt suicide are likely to make additional attempts and the film tells them, contrary to any Christian denomination's teachings, that just for trying to commit suicide that God has turned against them and there is no hope for them except through the most extraordinary of interventions. On top of that, Constantine attempts to split the hair of "faith" and "knowledge" while failing to recognize that for those with faith in a religion there is no effective difference. In the world of the film where supernatural intervention is a regular occurrence and people can be born with the ability to recognize angels and demons, this dividing line means that an unlucky person can find themselves condemned to hell just for learning too much. Random Stranger fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Remember, everyone, pitches are due tomorrow, so if you want in this book, you gotta let us know by then! If we need an exact time for any reason, I'll say by 11:59 PM PST.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Dragonslayer Budget: $18,000,000 Box Office: $14,110,113 This is a film with an interesting reputation--it's developed something of a cult following on home video largely because of the excellence of the effects and its commitment to the realization of its setting, but it's still rarely brought up as anything other than a "guilty pleasure" sort of escapist fantasy starring some young actors a bit out of their depth and a few veteran Shakespeareans slumming it. At the time of its release it got something of a reputation as a Star Wars rip-off (I still don't really see it, except that the male lead looks a bit like Mark Hamill), and audiences were shocked by levels of violence and gore that were then completely unexpected in a Disney production. Peter MacNicol, the aforementioned Hamill-esque lead, is reportedly so embarrassed by the film that he leaves it off his CV to this day. The effects are indeed excellent, and the film deserves every bit of praise it's gotten in that respect. But the thing that's kept me coming back to it as an adult is the way it takes a very old type of story--the young hero does battle with the dragon to rescue the princess--and uses it to make statements on class, revolution, the nature of social hierarchy, and the way capitalism systematically oppresses those living under it. The dragon comes to symbolically represent several different concepts, from the system of capitalism itself to the type of shadowy (and often hypothetical) threat that serves to scare people into accepting a political agenda. The film examines these ideas from many different angles, demonstrating the ways that religion, nostalgia for "the good old days," and desire for security can appeal to oppressed people while simultaneously rendering them ineffective resisters, ultimately concluding that the only way to truly escape oppression is to take on the powers that produced it and make a new life outside of the old familiar constructs. Plus the effects are really baller, guys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
I'd love to write an ode to Death to Smoochy (2002)- Budget: $15m Domestic/Int'l Gross: $8.3m My questions are: How could a movie with such an amazing, star-studded cast (Robin Williams, Edward Norton, Danny DeVito) fail so badly? Was this just a film made for industry types? Was the world just not ready for such a dark comedy, only six months after 9/11? Over a decade after its flop, I'd like to take a look at what the world was like during the aftermath of 9/11, and determine why audiences who couldn't stomach the black absurdity of Smoochy can, today, eat up dark comedy like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
pancaek posted:I'd love to write an ode to Death to Smoochy (2002)- The comparison is funny because Danny DeVito is a big part of both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Here's my pitch, cunts. Hulk (2003) fell short of its budget by a mere five million dollars, which is nothing really, won't even get you four square meals a day for a week assuming you eat yachts like I do. For all of its disappointing returns and mixed critical reception, Hulk is truly the definitive movie of the superhero genre because it established the formula through which a generation of dad-hating, Marvel-loving weirdos. When Hulk was made, it was right in the midst of the X-Men/Spider-Man superhero movie revival period and it somehow established the formula that a lot of subsequent movies in the genre would stick to, which is to tell a very simple story about a man trying to understand himself in spite of who his dad is, only loaded with visual metaphors to the point of ridiculousness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:The comparison is funny because Danny DeVito is a big part of both. Exactly. I'm curious if it was more an issue of bad timing, rather than it being an issue of a poorly-produced/written/acted movie (which IMO, it wasn't).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Look, I wrote a pitch (while on migraine medication, please forgive me if it doesn't make any sense) Pacific Rim (2013) Budget: $190,000,000 Domestic Gross: $100,970,269 Commonly referred to by critics as having "more style than substance", this midsummer blockbuster helmed by Guillermo del Toro did end up recouping its budget - but only with help from an international audience. This film about Gundams punching out Godzilla has a lot going for it: brilliant effects, spot-on artistic design, and a perfectly tailored soundtrack, but that's not all. There's a very human heart beating in the middle. For all that Pacific Rim will largely be remembered for its bombast and grandiose style, its tapestry pulls together most impressively with an examination of its characters. Yeah, you read that right. The simple, familiar character archetypes throughout the film do something special here, not in their individual arcs, but in their relationships - their arc as a collective. The reason I love this movie that everyone else enjoys for its spectacle, that I really love it, is because it's one of the few times I've seen it purely exemplified where adversity can be overcome by a collective arc. Sacrifice does not belong to our hero alone, but to everyone, and it is not only through sacrificing ourselves that we can overcome, but through accepting the sacrifices of the ones we love (represented with some excellent visual cues - the style is part of how they deliver the substance). This is, at its core, a film about solidarity, with some surprising depth to its symbolism (it's all about the shoes, the acts of god, and the little touches in the drift). These familiar characters may seem simple, but they are people, and it is in how they relate to one another that the film really shines. Tl;dr - This is a film where the day is saved using the power of love and friendship, wherein the power of love and friendship is used to brutally rip the acid-spitting tongue out of a dragon-dinosaur. That's the best thing I've ever heard. TwistedLadder fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
I'm gonna get at least one more in that I may or may not actualyl write but better safe than sorry: Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003) Budget: $80 Million Domestic Gross: a little over $20 Millon This is the movie Joe Dante was meant to direct. He's always had a sense of cartoon anarchy in his films and here he can fully explore that. This is through and through a Looney Tunes movie that takes classic characters and puts them in a modern setting with a wacky adventure and ti never really feels forced, just like a cartoon. Sure the plot isn't amazing but it's just there to have scene after scene that is a constant love letter to classic Warner Brothers cartoons and the sillier side of Hollywood in general. Brendan Frasier gets alot of flack as an actor for some reason but here he proves himself extremely able at doing physical comedy and almost holding his own again the cartoons (though really no one can). This is the best Looney Tunes movie there is and probably the best one we're gonna get and it's a shame it was overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Short pitch because I lack real internet and I am on my phone. Soldier Soldier is one of the greatest action movies that people overlooked in the 90s. It manages to meld a nearly completely silent character into the someone who the audience feels sorry for because of his attempt to grasp at learning humanity. He functions in the same way as Robocop, but instead of having the lose of his humanity happen later in life he is indoctrinated into the thought process of being nothing but a killing machine directly from conception. It is a shame that people nowadays put Drive on such a pedestal while ignoring Soldier even though they are so similar in their execution and themes. On top of that it has Kurt Russell in prime form and is in the same universe as Blade Runner, so how cool is that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
 Neo's first plan for assaulting the building was a complete failure. Johnny Mnemonic (1995) Budget: $26 million Domestic Gross: $19 million A mere four years before The Matrix, this cyberpunk Keanu Reeves vehicle has a pedigree that seems like it should pull more than a 14% rating on RT. William Gibson penned both the short story it's based on and the screenplay, it's directed by Robert Longo(who mostly does painting and sculpture this is his single feature film), and an eclectic cast(the aforementioned Reeves, Ice-T, Udo Kier, Henry Rollins, Dina Meyer, Takeshi Kitano, and Dolph Lundgren) make it a special little financial failure. Reeves plays the titular Johnny, a "mnemonic courier" who has traded his childhood memories for the ability to store and smuggle electronic data in the far off future of 2021. Doing "one last job" in Beijing, he finds his cranial cargo isn't just a world saving MacGuffin that everyone wants, but it has pushed his brain beyond capacity meaning certain death in a matter of days if it's not removed in time. Sounds like a scifi action romp not too dissimilar from Elysium right? Rollins' character is even a well connected hacker named Spider!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TbmcgGsXyU So what went wrong? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJmKLzmPMso Johnny is not the most sympathetic dude. He made his faustian pact years ago and has been trying to convince himself that he's happy with it despite the constant churning misery. With no past and no home he lives moment to moment, paycheck to paycheck. The futuristic cut of his suit makes him look like a boy forever trapped in his father's clothing as a costume. A manchild playing at James Bond when he's closer to a drug mule.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p0jmewhXeU In 1995* only 1 in 10 American adults were going online. Japan's economic growth had collapsed a few years earlier, so zaibatsus and yakuza weren't as intimidating as they were back in '81 when the short story was published. Oh, and the studio went at the film with a hatchet to turn a scifi comedy with action elements into an action film. The Japanese cut retains some of the cut scenes, but mostly to showcase Takeshi Kitano. It helps the film, but I think it might be outside the scope of this project so I'll leave it be for now.   Electronic AIDS, military hacker dolphins, Lundgren as a post-human messianic hitman, Ice-T as the leader of the Lo-Teks...     ...dang Udo, quit staring like that. It's an overwhelmingly strange film, especially when it's been cut and sold as action. Sony didn't anticipate failure either. There was a remarkably modern marketing campaign behind it with an internet scavenger hunt(which is more or less what an ARG is), website full of merch from in film corporation PharmaKom, even a couple videogames. edit. Might write up another proposal for Freejack. Also I have the feeling I'll be taking a lot more screenshots. Really love how this looks:  *The Net came out the same year funnily enough. Maybe the Speed stars were early adopters? Maarak fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Maarak posted:Johnny Mnemonic (1995)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Howard the Duck Budget: 37 million Gross: 16.3 million Howard the Duck is deeply flawed. It almost has to be, sadly; it is the failed attempt to weld two movies that don't have much to do with each other together, and the seams are rather obvious. The strange thing about this is that both movies are fairly well made on their own merits. The first component of Howard the Duck is a movie about an unwilling immigrant stuck in lower class urban 1980s America. Like its source material, it is informed by a strong satirical streak and a counter-cultural worldview, and is not afraid of embracing the perversion, violence, and hypocracy of the back alleys of American life. It is played more or less straight, slowly devolving into the semi-horror of the main character, dumped by his love interest, destitute and unable to return home, being forced to work in a sleazy bathhouse until he snaps under the weight of his inner moral compass. The second component is a technically superb (even today, the effects hold up well, especially the incredibly expressive and natural looking robotic Howard head) if unimaginative sci-fi action adventure movie about stopping evil aliens from using a laser ray to invade earth, with the complicating factor that the evil aliens have possessed the ray's inventor and that the protagonists need the ray intact. The first component on its own is a fascinating idea, especially when you consider that the main character is not just a figurative alien, but a literal one, and a vaguely Disneyfied 4-foot anthropomorphic duck to boot. You can imagine what a Sayles or a Lynch or a Cronenberg could do with that. But it's not commercial, either. The second component is commercial, but isn't really art either. In addition, Howard the Duck is a fascinating insight and metaphor for what the post-Return of the Jedi career of George Lucas would become. He was still that kid who wanted to corner you in the hall and talk about Brakhage, who would want to make the first component film for the sake of the art. But the film could not exist without the groundbreaking technical structure and talent he had assembled around him, which forced him into commercial compromises that ultimately destroyed the film he wanted to make, and would foreshadow what the Star Wars prequels would become. On another note, if more stuff is needed I wouldn't be opposed to writing about Ishtar or Heaven's Gate (or one of my favorite bombs, Brain Donors), though I would need to watch them again and try to come up with an angle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Tossing in a last-minute pitch for Josie and the Pussycats. Budget: $39 million Domestic Gross: $14 million Josie and the Pussycats was critically panned on its release in early 2001. Ebert gave it half a star, saying the film "ignores bountiful opportunities to be a satire of the Spice Girls and other manufactured groups, and gets dragged down by a lame plot involving the scheme to control teen spending with the implanted messages." Many reviewers latched onto the fact that, for having its central villainous plot center on subliminal messaging controlling people's buying habits, there is an absolutely ludicrous amount of product placement in the film. The problem with this approach is it fails to understand the real target of the film's satire isn't the music industry but consumerism and the wholly commercialized world we live in but don't realize. None of the product placement in the film was paid: it was all added for its own purpose, not for profit, and its purpose is to make visible the nearly-subliminal branding that surrounds us all the time, even pervading music and, as made explicit towards the end, films. Josie and the Pussycats might not be largely mediocre, but it's certainly not hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
This is for Mugrim, his internet is too spotty to post it himself: Sunshine As many fans of this movie have probably pointed out time and time again, the basic plot of this film sounds very generic and even hokey. The sun has a 'Q ball' in it that if left unadulterated will launch Earth into a permanent winter as it cools down the overall heat of the star. Of course Boyle and Garland restrain on the boring explanations and let the symbols and concepts play out. "Our sun is dying" This is the beauty of how Boyle and Garland treat this wonderful film. They are straight to the point and lack subtlety. What makes this film amazing is how it deals with a large number of themes in a very adult manner, an aspect missing from the vast majority of sci-fi movies ever created. The Crew of the Icarus 2 is on the way to the sun to reignite it. As you may have guessed by the name, the Icarus 1 was the first attempt to accomplish this goal, but the moment they hit the radio deadzone of the Sun, no one knows what happened to it outside of the fact that the payload to reignite the Sun never hit its target. The Icarus 2 has a crew that is fully competent and mature. While emotions can run strong, crew members quickly realize their irrational actions and then correct them quickly. This alone seems a strong comment on the genre at large in which experts rarely feel like experts, adults rarely feel like adults. What distinguishes Sunshine from much of it's genre is that the action that ultimately propels the first to second act forward is human error. Not some clumsy mistake, or a failed AI gone mad, or the emotional reaction of another, but simply one of the most brilliant humans alive makes a simple mistake while trying to accomplish a nearly impossible task. The film portrays the sun as Godlike repeatedly, and there is an internal tension created by the two creators differing opinions on mysticism and the nature of god that is expressed throughout the film. The Sun treats all things equally. When balanced and used appropriately it gives life and power. The closer one gets to the Sun however the more their mind, will, and body are damaged. Multiple characters throughout the film give themselves over to the Sun and the more they do, the more they lose of their individuality and will. Dying from the Sun obliterates everything you are as you surrender to the collective unconscious of a fiery god and heaven. This is seen most notably through the destruction of human skin. The line between a benevolent life giving god and an almost lovecraftian deity satisfied in it's complete indifference as it radiates power is blurred. The Sun has it's own morality and meaning that is so strong it is a character, not a set piece. The third act intro has a twist that while unfortunate on a literal story telling level, is fantastic on a symbolic one. This third act turned off a lot of people from various perspectives, but does contain the danger of spirituality alluded to on the opposite end of the film. The crews last scene is it's centerpiece and even announces it an extremely analytical way by alluding to the Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel. This movie is beautiful in every scene, and in much the same way they describe the sun it will envelope you if you let it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Well, we have our pitches! Here's the list! AccountSupervisor: Sucker Punch axleblaze: Looney Tunes: Back in Action, Strange Days CloseFriend: Southland Tales, The Quest Criminal Minded: Killer Joe Dark Weasel: Margaret Davros1: Escape from LA Dissapointed Owl: The Majestic Egbert Souse: Hugo Fat Lou: Soldier Filthy Hans: The Color of Night General Ironicus: Chaplin Hewlett: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within HypnoCabbage: Howard the Duck Jay Dub: The Hudsucker Proxy Jefferoo: Punisher: War Zone LtKenFrankenstein: Ravenous Maarak: Johnny Mnemonic Maxwell Lord: The Avengers (1998) mugrim: Sunshine pancaek: Death to Smoochy PateraOctopus: Dragonslayer penismightier: Dangerous Game/The Body Snatchers Pick: Treasure Planet Professor Clumsy: Hulk RandallODim: Josie & the Pussycats Random Stranger: Constantine Sheldrake: The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle spaceships: Big Trouble in Little China StoneOfShame: The Adventures of Baron Munchausen Tars Tarkas: Tank Girl Tharizdun: Deep Rising TrixRabbi: Battleship Twin Cinema: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World TwistedLadder: Pacific Rim Vargo: Prince of Persia, John Carter Xenophon: The Big Year Yoshifan823: Super Mario Bros. I'm editing the OP as we speak. Thank you all very much for the work you've already done! Also, now that the pitch stage is over, we get to the actually-hard part: writing. This thread is now for discussing your project. Feel free to talk out your ideas with your fellow CineD denizens. Let us know how it's coming along. See what other people think of your movie and whether they have something to say that you may want to write in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
The ones I really want to see are Constantine and Josie and the Pussycats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:The ones I really want to see are Constantine and Josie and the Pussycats. I liked both movies so I'll probably end up agreeing through the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:The ones I really want to see are Constantine and Josie and the Pussycats. My favorite part about Constantine is the movie is set in LA and it is raining nonstop. Yes, Los Angeles... noted for its heavy rainfall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Tharizdun posted:My favorite part about Constantine is the movie is set in LA and it is raining nonstop. Yes, Los Angeles... noted for its heavy rainfall. That and that there is such a thing as a heaven-version of LA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Also it has Dina Meyer in it, and she's hot. If anything Dina Meyer is a good reason to avoid a movie. When you realize that she has been in both Star Trek: Nemesis and Birds of Prey you start to wonder if she's intentionally starring in poo poo movies. Tharizdun posted:My favorite part about Constantine is the movie is set in LA and it is raining nonstop. Yes, Los Angeles... noted for its heavy rainfall. My favorite part is to watch the entirety of the cast act circles around Keanu Reeves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:My favorite part is to watch the entirety of the cast act circles around Keanu Reeves. This is never true. You will never find a finer actor than Keanu Reeves 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:If anything Dina Meyer is a good reason to avoid a movie. When you realize that she has been in both Star Trek: Nemesis and Birds of Prey you start to wonder if she's intentionally starring in poo poo movies. Paper Jam Dipper posted:This is never true. You will never find a finer actor than Keanu Reeves  Just draw a face on him and you're off to the races.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:If anything Dina Meyer is a good reason to avoid a movie. When you realize that she has been in both Star Trek: Nemesis and Birds of Prey you start to wonder if she's intentionally starring in poo poo movies. Let's not forget Starship Troopers!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
There were a couple of movies I'm surprised didn't make the list of selected films. I didn't see anyone pick up The Fantastic Mr. Fox, nor Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I also partially assumed Last Action Hero would have maybe had some fans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
The Rat posted:Let's not forget Starship Troopers! But Starship Troopers is legitimately a great film?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
I'm glad someone is doing Looney Toons Back in Action, it has one of my favorite casting gags in a movie. Also wasn't Death To Smoochy during the time when Robin Williams was doing all those dark movies?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I'm glad someone is doing Looney Toons Back in Action, it has one of my favorite casting gags in a movie. Yeah he did One Hour Photo, then Smoochy, then Insomnia and a few others. He ended the run with RV, proving he should have stuck to the dark films.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I'm glad someone is doing Looney Toons Back in Action, it has one of my favorite casting gags in a movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Tharizdun posted:I'm drawing a blank. Are you talking about Brendan Fraser being such a looney tunes mark that he begged Joe Dante to do Taz's voice? He's gotta be talking about the Matthew Lillard joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Vargo posted:He's gotta be talking about the Matthew Lillard joke. Maybe it's Kevin McCarthy's cameo... He shows up for a few seconds as his character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers yelling "You're next!" in a hall, complete with being in B&W.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 20:10
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Long Kiss Goodnight: $65M/$33M Someone totally should do this movie because it rules.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Ya, Long Kiss Goodnight bombing was a loving tragedy. It's my favorite Shane Black movie, and one of Sam Jackson's best roles. Probably a combination of bad marketing and people still pissed over Cutthroat Island, but man it's a bummer. One of the few good action heroines too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
bullet3 posted:Ya, Long Kiss Goodnight bombing was a loving tragedy. It's my favorite Shane Black movie, and one of Sam Jackson's best roles. I'd look forward to reading it, and I don't think it's that awful but it really suffered from winking at the audience so hard it sprained an eyelid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:48
|
|