Page 187 of 187 FirstFirst ... 87 137 177185186187
Results 2,791 to 2,797 of 2797
  1. #2791
    Join Date
    Jun 2005


    The Beguiled (1971)

    From IMDB Trivia:

    Director Don Siegel said that the film was commercially a failure because Universal Studios released it with advertisements that suggested it was an action movie. And the result disappointed the die-hard fans of Clint Eastwood's usual films. Siegel also said that this film should have been shown in local theaters in NYC, and then could have probably been a moderate success instead of a total failure at the box office.
    This is a good movie with good acting from Eastwood and from all the actresses, including the youngest one who was 12 at the time.

    I will have to assume this film's commercial box office failure caused it to be overlooked and passed on at the Academy Awards of 1972.

    The stars in this film deserved to be nominated.

    Eastwood is wounded Union soldier, John McBurney, who is saved by an all girls school headmistress and her students.

    Everyone is creepy in here: Eastwood character is trying to charm everyone at the all girls school, including the youngest one who was 13.


    There are even 2 scenes where he tells the 13 year old girl that she is old enough to be kissed and he kisses her on her mouth.

    WTF AGAIN????

    All the girls are competing with each other to get McBurney's attention and affection, including the 13 year old one.

    TRIPLE WTF???????

    Then there is the plot twist and the subsequent ending which I won't give away:



    I doubt the new version by Sofia Coppola will be this risque considering the attitude of the world today regarding sex and anything out of the ordinary is not PC.

  2. #2792
    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Thumbs down

    The Mummy (2017)


    A Mummy movie this is not!

    The Brendan Fraser's Mummy films were Mummy movies.

    This could had been just another Mission Impossible movie with Ethan Hunt playing a weekend Tomb Raider searching for long lost artifacts and fighting ancient curses.

    Furthermore, both actresses were wasted. Once again as always in any film starring Tom Cruise, the focus is on him.

    They left the ending open for a sequel.....

    .....Please Don't!

    Once is painful enough!!


  3. #2793
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Canada, Quebec,
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BabyDriver2-500x190.jpg 
Views:	3 
Size:	22.7 KB 
ID:	21997
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	baby-driver-bradleyfarmer-musiceditor.jpg 
Views:	2 
Size:	170.9 KB 
ID:	21998

    8/10 !

  4. #2794
    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Thumbs down

    2:22 (2017)

    In this movie about a man who re-lives the same events over and over, over a period of weeks;

    Teresa Palmer, as she always is, is very hot.

    The rest of the movie and it's thinly veiled murky story line and weak twists.... well.... not so hot.

    Technically not even lukewarm.


  5. #2795
    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Thumbs up

    All Quiet on the Western Front (1979) The 157 minutes Uncut Edition

    An excellent ITC Entertainment produced TV movie adaptation of the classic 1928 anti-war World War I novel by Erich Maria Remarque.

    Strong acting all around by a cast of familiar talent including Richard Thomas, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasence and Ian Holm in a film featuring a big budget, excellent production values, and sprawling realistic battle scenes.

    You wouldn't think this was a TV movie while you were watching it.

    This was billed as a remake of the 1930 Best Picture and Best Director Academy Awards winning theatrical movie adaptation by director Lewis Milestone.

    Calling it a remake is an injustice.

    It's a standalone film by its own rights.


  6. #2796
    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by j7wild View Post
    That Dunkirk beach looks too empty and clean and the troops were all too orderly in formation as if they were arranged by platoons and companies! Did no one involved in the production go online and looked at historical photographs of Dunkirk?
    This was my immediate reaction the first time I saw the very first teaser trailer and people chewed me out for it saying "you got all that from one little trailer?"

    Dunkirk (2017)

    Yup! My take of the movie based on that one trailer 8 months ago was right on the money.

    This film is not so epic and sweeping as the trailers and the critics and online articles about it want you to think.

    It's also not historically authentic.

    Go GOOGLE and BING image search photos of Dunkirk and you will see the beaches full of men, chaos everywhere, war materiel and equipment and vehicles scattered all over it and most of it burning. All kind of boats and ships in the water trying to pick up 1000s and 1000s of men from the water.

    Historical records show over 861 boats of all sizes showed up to pick up and help the evacuate over 330,000 men.

    In the movie at the height of the evacuation, I counted maybe 2 dozen.

    Nolan's version had men neatly in single and double file, plenty of clean empty sandy beach in between each row of men, boxes of ammunition neatly stacked up here and there, a few military trucks parked here and there - and this is even toward the end of the movie when they said they evacuated almost 400,000 men.

    Throughout the entire movie, there wasn't anywhere near 10,000 men on the beach much less 400,000 men.

    Furthermore these were men that have been fighting the Germans for almost 7 months starting back in Belgium and then pushed back into French until they were cornered with the sea against their back at Dunkirk.

    Yet the troops all had nice clean brand new looking uniforms.

    Also by the end of the movie the beach was still nice and neat and clean and devoit of any military equipment that was left behind by the British Expeditionary Force and the French Army.

    According to WIKI:

    The loss of materiel on the beaches was huge. The British Army left enough equipment behind to equip about eight to ten divisions. Discarded in France were, among huge supplies of ammunition, 880 field guns, 310 guns of large calibre, some 500 anti-aircraft guns, about 850 anti-tank guns, 11,000 machine guns, nearly 700 tanks, 20,000 motorcycles, and 45,000 motor cars and lorries.
    None of that was shown and with today's CGI technology, it would had been easy to show that on the beach right before the closing credits but no, as I've said the beaches were still nice and empty with clean sand during the final shots.

    You really got to wonder where the $150 million budget went?

    The air scenes with the Spitfires fighting the German Luftwaffe were filmed with real air worthy World War II airplanes so there was no CGI there.

    Also the movie suffers from the same issues Interstellar had: you couldn't understand most of the dialogue.

    I saw it in IMAX 70mm and most of the dialogue audio was too low or some of it because of the British accent, just came across as garbled mumbling.

    But when the action started, the special effects sound of gunshots and boats and ships engines combined with the music track just drowned out all the dialogue tracks.

    Sorry Nolan, I have been waiting to give you a chance to redeem yourself ever since your movie failures after the success of Inception but you haven't done so.

    Here's my review of Interstellar from November 2014:

    This movie is a fine example of why I think Nolan is an over-rated unoriginal plagiarizing hack!

    His Dark Knight films were a sacrilegious executionable offense to all fine film makers.

    If Stanley Kubrick wasn't rolling in his grave after Gravity, he has to be rolling in his grave now.

    Maybe he will do better next time but right now looking at IMDB, he has nothing in the works listed as Director, Writer or Producer.


    Screenshots from the 1958 movie Dunkirk, made on a budget of a bit over $1,000,000, which adjusted for inflation is still only $8.6 millions.

    Compare those screenshots to the ones of Nolan's Dunkirk we've all seen online by now and no, they didn't have any of the extras in the 1958 version holding cardboard cutouts to make it look like there are more people on the beach than they actually were.

    They also didn't use cardboard cutouts of military vehicles and inflatable military vehicles like Nolan did.

    Which makes me ask again where did the $150,000,000 budget go?

    Also notice how the sand have dunes and craters from explosions caused by the bombing from the Luftwaffe.

    In Nolan's version, the beach was just one big long flat sand with no dunes and no craters in the sand even from the aerial shots.

    Even the French 1964 movie Weekend at Dunkirk.

    and the 5 minutes Dunkirk scene in Atonement, a movie that was not about Dunkirk,

    look better and more historically accurate and detailed than Nolan's bloated $150 million dollar crap.

    Last edited by j7wild; Today at 07:24 AM.

  7. #2797
    Join Date
    Feb 2008

    You quoted your post in the M-L thread, and since this place is a graveyard there was absolutely not a single comment made.
    If "People chewed you out", sure as hell wasn't here. LOL

    I can't see through walls, but I can kick your ass.

Similar Threads

  1. Battlefield Earth, Glitter, Troll 2 and other lousy movies
    By trailergod in forum General Chatter - Movie Related
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 10:35 PM
  2. Bring back REAL action movies!!
    By water49 in forum General Chatter - Movie Related
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-07-2004, 08:51 PM
  3. Why does Dimension/Miramax get the rights to and ruin so many HK movies?
    By water49 in forum General Chatter - Movie Related
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2004, 07:00 PM
  4. Your Monthly movies (January)
    By ZUBi in forum General Chatter - Movie Related
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-10-2003, 11:01 AM



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts