Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 9:27 am
by GORDON
The movie was 'eh.' At no point did I feel like the machines had really overrun the world and there was no safe spot for humans. Tons of plot holes. Tons of things that didn't make sense. Tons of things that were just stupid and unrealistic, even for a sci-fi flick. I think they got the wrong director, and I can't figure out where the $200 million budget went.
Edited By GORDON on 1243259088
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 4:06 pm
by Leisher
GORDON wrote:Vince wrote:I'll probably enjoy it more than Star Trek. I'm not expecting anything other than a cool action flick. No deeper meaning. The further I get away from having seen Star Trek the less impressed I am.
I'll ban you so help me god.
I second the banning threat.
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:47 pm
by GORDON
The more time I have to think about it, the more I think, as released, this movie was terrible.
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:44 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:The more time I have to think about it, the more I think, as released, this movie was terrible.
That describes my feeling about most of the flicks I've seen over the past ten years. I blame the general hackery of modern writing, acting, directing, & cheap (in every sense of the word) computer animation.
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 11:56 am
by Malcolm
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 12:11 pm
by GORDON
As much of a bummer as that is, it is a hell of a lot more plausible than the fantasy ending it actually had.
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:18 pm
by Vince
That would have been pretty good. I mean, it'd be a movie you'd remember for a while. One of those that suddenly pops back into your head for no reason and you think, "That was totally f'd up. OMG!"
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:41 pm
by TPRJones
Yeah, I wish more directors would do that sort of thing. Well, besides independent crappy directors who do it all the time but don't first build up anything interesting to tear down.
Joss Whedon comes the closest.
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:11 pm
by Leisher
independent crappy
Just because they're independent doesn't mean they're crappy.
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 2:34 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:independent crappy
Just because they're independent doesn't mean they're crappy.
TPR's statement seems true more often than not.
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 2:36 pm
by GORDON
This is a button for Leisher. Don't push it.
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 2:43 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:This is a button for Leisher. Don't push it.
It's a bit late for that, ain't it?
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 pm
by TPRJones
Leisher wrote:independent crappy
Just because they're independent doesn't mean they're crappy.
Oh, I agree very much. There are some very good independent films out there. But the directors that do take this specific sort of risk are usually both independent and crappy.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:36 pm
by GORDON
Been thinking about it... I don't think there was a single time in the PG-13 movie that we saw a terminator actually... terminate somebody.
The more I think about this movie, the better T3 seems in retrospect.
Edited By GORDON on 1243989380
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:24 pm
by Vince
Well that's tragic
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:48 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:The more I think about this movie, the better T3 seems in retrospect.
I've been saying for years that T3 wasn't that bad.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:54 am
by GORDON
Holy crap, just realized... not only did we not have terminators terminating anyone, we had one spend a long time talking about its feelings. No shit.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:29 pm
by Vince
Did they go ahead and give him a vagina to make the disguise that much more realistic?
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:32 pm
by GORDON
They made it a point to show he didn't have any male urges, so I'd say yes, he probably had a vagina.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:14 pm
by Vince
I see they're making a sequel about the vampire with the vagina that befriends that highschool chick.