MyADSL Movie Thread

It would be like saying... "Why were you so excited by the Spiderman movies. They had live-action Spiderman in the seventies!"


then you go watch the movies and you understand why...
 
Have you ever seen the old spidey/GIJOE movies? Cheese man, pure cheese. Flimsy plot without the crutch of modern GFX. Also... those movies had BAD acting. They make Megan Fox look like an Academy Award nominee.
 
smokey said:
Have you ever seen the old spidey/GIJOE movies? Cheese man, pure cheese. Flimsy plot without the crutch of modern GFX. Also... those movies had BAD acting. They make Megan Fox look like an Academy Award nominee.
Click to expand...

I cannot say that I have...Not a big fan of the Spiderman movies at all. The cartoons were cool, but the movies lacked a certain punch.
 
I liked it. It was cool seeing Spidey as he was meant to be done. X-Men 1&2 though are just awesome movies. All round cool. Hopefully singer will come back for another movie with TXM.
 
smokey said:
I liked it. It was cool seeing Spidey as he was meant to be done. X-Men 1&2 though are just awesome movies. All round cool. Hopefully singer will come back for another movie with TXM.
Click to expand...

X-Men also disappointed me. Maybe I just don't like cartoon/comics that are made into movies. I loved X-men cartoons. The transition to live action did not work for me for the most part.

The third movie sucked. A lot. At least one of them is called something like Man United. Which made me smile. :)
 
hj2k_x said:
X-Men also disappointed me. Maybe I just don't like cartoon/comics that are made into movies. I loved X-men cartoons. The transition to live action did not work for me for the most part.

The third movie sucked. A lot. At least one of them is called something like Man United. Which made me smile. :)
Click to expand...

It made me hurl, but I still watched it! :p

I like seeing how what the powers would look like in real life (so to speak)... I have to disagree... as an avid fan of the comics, I can tell you the first 2 were spot on. Making the leap from X-Men:TAS to the movies would have been weird (considering I was weirded out that Rogue didn't have powers, or that Gambit wasn't there at first)... but looking at the movie from a broader perspective... I diggit no end. Also, how could you not like Wolvie. He was awesome in the movie. Magneto rocked as well :D
 
smokey said:
It made me hurl, but I still watched it! :p

I like seeing how what the powers would look like in real life (so to speak)... I have to disagree... as an avid fan of the comics, I can tell you the first 2 were spot on. Making the leap from X-Men:TAS to the movies would have been weird (considering I was weirded out that Rogue didn't have powers, or that Gambit wasn't there at first)... but looking at the movie from a broader perspective... I diggit no end. Also, how could you not like Wolvie. He was awesome in the movie. Magneto rocked as well :D
Click to expand...

Ya, I did not hate them. I did not like what they did with Gambit, my favourite X-man, in that Wolverine movie, either.
 
No accent! Grrrrr. He also didn't have his red eyes which was a let down. He is one of the worst characters ever though, IMO.
 
Just watched Ice Age 3 with the kids. I quite enjoyed it. If you enjoyed the first two you will like this one. There are some nice funny moments for the adults as well. :)
 
Cool. Always liked Ice Age. :D

Though Finding Nemo was loads better. That crab who does the kung-fu bit is classic. :D
 
smokey said:
1. Plot was decent. What were you expecting... Shakespeare?
Click to expand...

Plot? No, there was no plot. What you're euphemistically calling a "plot" was merely the events the "scriptwriters" put in to connect the transformer fight scenes.

2. Que? It's not a movie where immense emotions are expressed. There's firefights and running and a few silly sequences to break it all up. LeBouef was good, his dad was good, Megan Fox was sexy (have you seen her in other movies... I'm mean she's eye-candy dude FFS). The Green Mile this is not.
Click to expand...

Firefights, and running...and running...and running...and running... (Sorry, got distracted there).

Acting...yeah. How is it that directors like James Cameron, Ridley Scott or John McTiernen can have movies that are considered action classics - Die Hard, Aliens, Gladiator, Terminator & T2, Predator - yet have top-notch acting.

Fact is, Michael Bay can only direct explosions competently.

3. Didn't have a problem picking it up despite watching the original way way back. For everything else, there is suspension of disbelief.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but there were serious continuity issues, ones that should not have been in any competently directed movie. Basically, lazy directing, or no eye for detail. I was going to say that moviegoers aren't that stupid, but it's apparent that they really are.

4. :rolleyes: It's a movie about giant robots that transform into liddle iddy-biddy cars. Need I say more.
Click to expand...

So? Why treat the audience like idiots? Look at Terminator and Terminator 2 - classic action movies about robots that want to kill people, and James Cameron managed to get it right.

5. You're blind.
Click to expand...

Here you go - the action sequences in this are just as competent:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqN_wCK9hM[/ame]

6. Like what? That toaster humping Megan Foxes leg was classic. Hell, I'd expect anything that could move to hump her leg. As I said before... she is HAWT. Name some more scenes and we can talk about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the humping robot. And the college girl transformer. And the Racist Twins. And the Devastator balls. And the household appliances (that might have been funny if it hadn't already been done to death in the Gremlins movies). The pot brownies. ~*"Robot Heaven"*~. The humping dogs. The "romantic moments" between Sam and Mikaela. And a whole bunch more that I'm hoping I've scrubbed from my memory.

Frankly, in a decade where we have had superhero movies like X-Men, X-Men 2, Spiderman and Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight , and Iron Man, there's no excuse for expensive dreck like Transformers 2. I think it's telling that one of the explosions in the movie took longer to set up than it took to film the entire movie.
 
Claymore said:
1. Plot? No, there was no plot. What you're euphemistically calling a "plot" was merely the events the "scriptwriters" put in to connect the transformer fight scenes.

2.Firefights, and running...and running...and running...and running... Acting...yeah. How is it that directors like James Cameron, Ridley Scott or John McTiernen can have movies that are considered action classics - Die Hard, Aliens, Gladiator, Terminator & T2, Predator - yet have top-notch acting.

3.I'm sorry, but there were serious continuity issues, ones that should not have been in any competently directed movie. Basically, lazy directing, or no eye for detail. I was going to say that moviegoers aren't that stupid, but it's apparent that they really are.

4. So? Why treat the audience like idiots? Look at Terminator and Terminator 2 - classic action movies about robots that want to kill people, and James Cameron managed to get it right.

5. Yeah, the humping robot. And the college girl transformer. And the Racist Twins. And the Devastator balls. And the household appliances (that might have been funny if it hadn't already been done to death in the Gremlins movies). The pot brownies. ~*"Robot Heaven"*~. The humping dogs. The "romantic moments" between Sam and Mikaela. And a whole bunch more that I'm hoping I've scrubbed from my memory.

6. Frankly, in a decade where we have had superhero movies like X-Men, X-Men 2, Spiderman and Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight , and Iron Man, there's no excuse for expensive dreck like Transformers 2. I think it's telling that one of the explosions in the movie took longer to set up than it took to film the entire movie.
Click to expand...

1. It's what makes it popcorn frenzy goodness lad.

2. Now you bringing out the big guns. First off... Die Hard had about as much acting as sieve has water. Terminator and T2 are classics. Few movies have that type of depth. I mean if you were really expecting deep plot/wow acting in a movie based on a cartoon that itself was based on a toy range... erm... yeah...

3. What continuity issues? I'm sorry, but I go to these movies to see big explosions and giant robots fighting. I really don't pay much attention to detail in movies like this. I can barely remember a thing apart Fox sitting on that bike in hot-pants and Megatron's samurai skills in the forest. That's the stuff I pay to see. The rest is just filler.

4. Different movies there chum. Terminator was Cameron's baby. He made it with a point. Transformers are toy that got made into a cartoon that got made into a movie. If you want meaning in everything you watch... I feel for you.

5. I had to go to the loo when that college girl transformer... er... transformed. I got back and didn't really care because they were being chased and there was going to be GIANT ROBOT FIGHT SCENES.

The twins were irritating, but I find all characters like that irritating. Expect in Don't be a Menace. That was classic.

6. The Dark Knight was brilliant, but seriously... it was not a masterpiece. It wouldn't make my Top 20, nevermind my Top 10. Face it - it's a comic-book movie. Also, comparing Transformers (need I remind you what it had as a base) to X-men, Spiderman (45 odd years of story lines to choose from, both corny and excellent) and Batman (even longer time and even more stories) is like comparing coal and diamonds.

--

Do you take everything as seriously as movie involving giant fighting robots? :confused:
 
Last edited:
smokey said:
1. It's what makes it popcorn frenzy goodness lad.
Click to expand...

Don't "lad" me, sonny boy.

2. Now you bringing out the big guns. First off... Die Hard had about as much acting as sieve has water.
Click to expand...

What!? Did you actually see it? Alan Rickman's performance is considered one of the classic villain performances, and even the supporting cast did very well. Look at the ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, ratings by real movie critics - Die Hard is up at 94%, and Transformers 2 is at 28%. Says a lot, huh?

I mean if you were really expecting deep plot/wow acting in a movie based on a cartoon that itself was based on a toy range... erm... yeah...
Click to expand...

So compare it to a movie based on a friggin' Disney theme park ride, like Pirates of the Caribbean; Pirates was in a bloody different league. (We'll not talk about the sequels, OK?)

Doesn't matter what the source material is, a competent director can make a good movie of it. Even Michael Bay somehow managed an OK job of Transformers.

3. What continuity issues?
Click to expand...

Here you go, a small list: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1055369/goofs

I'm sorry, but I go to these movies to see big explosions and giant robots fighting. I really don't pay much attention to detail in movies like this. I can barely remember a thing apart Fox sitting on that bike in hot-pants and Megatron's samurai skills in the forest. That's the stuff I pay to see. The rest is just filler.
Click to expand...

That basically says it all - you're happy to accept mediocrity because of Megan Fox's hot pants.

4. Different movies there chum. Terminator was Cameron's baby. He made it with a point. Transformers are toy that got made into a cartoon that got made into a movie. If you want meaning in everything you watch... I feel for you.
Click to expand...

Why not? Is there something wrong with expecting excellence in a movie with a $200 million budget?

The twins were irritating, but I find all characters like that irritating.
Click to expand...

Jar-Jar Binks syndrome.

6. The Dark Knight was brilliant, but seriously... it was not a masterpiece. It wouldn't make my Top 20, nevermind my Top 10.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of The Dark Knight. It was, however, critically acclaimed.

Face it - it's a comic-book movie. Also, comparing Transformers (need I remind you what it had as a base) to X-men, Spiderman (45 odd years of story lines to choose from, both corny and excellent) and Batman (even longer time and even more stories) is like comparing coal and diamonds.
Click to expand...

My point exactly, coal and diamonds. (And see my point about about the origins being irrelevant).

Do you take everything as seriously as movie involving giant fighting robots? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yep. And why not? I spent good money and seventeen hours of my time to watch incomprehensible rubbish.
 
Last edited:
This might just sound to stupid.
But does anyone think Megan Fox was just treated as a s3x object in this movie?? I mean the opening scene with her painting the bike was hot but a little over the top, how do you paint the side of the bike by sitting on top of it...?

I like the first one, she actually played a part in the movie...

And the stupid Harlem/Brooklyn wanna be robots... where they get those personalities from?

:o
 
JK8 said:
This might just sound to stupid.
But does anyone think Megan Fox was just treated as a s3x object in this movie?? I mean the opening scene with her painting the bike was hot but a little over the top, how do you paint the side of the bike by sitting on top of it...?

I like the first one, she actually played a part in the movie...

And the stupid Harlem/Brooklyn wanna be robots... where they get those personalities from?

:o
Click to expand...

Have you seen Megan Fox in other movies? She is about as good an actress as Angelina Jolie.

Those Hood Bruthah's were irritating, but not to the point of distraction. Those types of characters irritate me no end. Then again, they were giant robots and not Eddie Murpheys unemployed friends... so that's why it wasn't such an issue with me :);)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X