General Summer Movie Thread

[Nash13]

1408.

More interesting than suspence/scary. Overall, not the best movie in the world, not the worse movie in the world. John Cusack is a really good actor.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

evan almighty...ehhh.. very general movie. do yourself a favor and walk out on the ending oh and show up late to miss the first 20-30 mins...the middle I thought was okay though. kinda cute I guess. oh and dont bring any athiest friends to see it just because they like Steve Carell. You're better off watching the Office.

That's what I've heard.

I love Steve Carell. Love him. Love him in the office, loved him on the daily show. He is my leader. So I'm going to do him, as well as myself a favor, and NOT go see this movie. He was due for something that was bad.

I've heard it was the script, not him. Is that at least true?

[Big Boy Laroux]

yeah, i have no desire to see evan almighty, and i like steve carrell...

I have one major problem with the previews they've been showing on TV. I would think one of the biggest plot points of the movie would be whether or not a flood actually happens. The fact that everyone thinks he's crazy, and he's the only one that believes it's coming. I think the audience should be made to feel the same way.

but the previews actually show the flood! i know this isn't supposed to be a suspenseful movie or anything, but they basically wrap up the whole plot in the TV previews!

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

That's what I've heard.

I love Steve Carell. Love him. Love him in the office, loved him on the daily show. He is my leader. So I'm going to do him, as well as myself a favor, and not go see this movie. He was due for something that was bad.

I've heard it was the script, not him. Is that at least true?

yeah, he must have got payed a nice penny for this movie..otherwise I'd expect him to turn it down. certainly not office humor. I think the cost to make evan almighty was 170$ mil, and I guarantee at least 20 of that went to Carell. maybe 25

[Male30Dan]

I thought Evan Allmighty was pretty damn funny, (again, mostly in the middle, but still). I found myself laughing a good bit and the rest of the theatre was too!

[jthig32]

The second Fantastic Four sucked just about as much as the first. The Silver Surfer was cool, but that was the only redeeming quality.

Really, when your four main characters are all played by horrible actors, your movie is in bad shape from the beginning.

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The second Fantastic Four sucked just about as much as the first. The Silver Surfer was cool, but that was the only redeeming quality.

Really, when your four main characters are all played by horrible actors, your movie is in bad shape from the beginning.

you've gotta be kidding. I really enjoyed the 2nd one.. what do you call bad acting? I thought they did a good job sticking to the original characters dialogue. sure some of the lines are corny or whatever but thats how they are meant to be. plus the silver surfer/dr doom are just bad ass villians. whens the last time batman or spiderman has gone up against such crazy powered superheroes?

[MavsX]

transformers?

[ames7]

Saw Evan Almighty last night. Meh. It was fairly amusing. Carrell has gotten to the point where he can make up a lot of ground by himself.

Let me tell you who is not funny & I am now officially annoyed with: Wanda Sykes. You know what it was? It wasn't just that nothing she said was funny, it was that her delivery was such that after every line, there was a built-in pause for laughter THAT NEVER CAME. So painful...

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

you've gotta be kidding. I really enjoyed the 2nd one.. what do you call bad acting? I thought they did a good job sticking to the original characters dialogue. sure some of the lines are corny or whatever but thats how they are meant to be. plus the silver surfer/dr doom are just bad ass villians. whens the last time batman or spiderman has gone up against such crazy powered superheroes?

Most of the dialogue was bad, not just cheesy, and it was performed by bad actors. The Silver Surver stuff was cool, as I said. The rest of the movie was boring and completely uncompelling, just like the first.

[Flacolaco]

I'm just waiting for HP:OOTP 2 weeks from today. We bought our tickets already. That's right, it's going to be dork city.

When does the Simpsons movie come out?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I'm just waiting for HP:OOTP 2 weeks from today. We bought our tickets already. That's right, it's going to be dork city.

When does the Simpsons movie come out?

Simpsons movie comes out July 27th, my birthday.

I am somewhat excited about OOTP, but it is overshadowed by the book being less than a month away.....

[Nash13]

Live Free or Die Hard.


You take away Die Hard out of the title, and change Bruce Willis' character name from McClane, it would be a decent popcorn flick. It was a disgrace to the other 3.

[nashtymavsfan13]

I've seen the second Fantastic 4 and Ocean's 13 recently. I thought both were solid, pretty good movies. I didn't mind the acting by the Fantastic 4, I thought they were pretty funny actually. With Alba I wasn't really paying attention to the acting too much, but I've heard people say he was horrible.

Ocean's 13 had a good plot, and the movie moved pretty well throughout. I thought it was funny at times and overall was just cool how they planned everything out and then did it so smoothly.

Neither are probably ones I want to watch again as soon as they come out on DVD, but they are solid ones to watch at least once.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Most of the dialogue was bad, not just cheesy, and it was performed by bad actors. The Silver Surver stuff was cool, as I said. The rest of the movie was boring and completely uncompelling, just like the first.

There is definitely one in the group that is far from being a 'bad actor'....... he's just working with cheesy dialogue that's supposed to be delivered in a cheesy manner.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

There is definitely one in the group that is far from being a 'bad actor'....... he's just working with cheesy dialogue that's supposed to be delivered in a cheesy manner.

I'm not sure who you're referencing. I guess I can accpet an argument that the dialogue itself was responsible for most of the cringy-worthy lines.

But, Alba is horrendous. And, not that hot with blonde hair. There, I said it.

[Murphy3]

I'm definitely not referencing Alba....
Michael Chiklis

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I'm definitely not referencing Alba....
Michael Chiklis

But don't you think there's a distinction between beaing a good TV actor and a good movie actor?

I dunno. It is certainly possible that he was simply doing what was asked. I'll have to see him in some other movie role before I can say he's a legitimate movie actor.

[Usually Lurkin]

jthig is right. The "fantastic 4" were fantastically horrible. But the others are right, too. The fantastic 4 are stupid in the comic book. Maybe it's movie making genius to take a bunch of really crappy actors to perform crappy characters.

Here's hoping that the next movie is a Silver Surfer movie, and the FF movie franchise either splits off to straight to DVD crapola where it belongs (maybe Cuba Gooding Jr. can star as Black Panther or a Skrull) or dies the death it deserves.

[Ninkobei]

Mr. Brooks was pretty good. a nice unexpected movie of the year.. and of a genre I dont normally see. it has at least a few unexpected twists in it...

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by jthig32

But don't you think there's a distinction between beaing a good TV actor and a good movie actor?

I dunno. It is certainly possible that he was simply doing what was asked. I'll have to see him in some other movie role before I can say he's a legitimate movie actor.

Why? That doesn't make sense. What's so different about acting in something that's aired on TV compared to something that's seen on the big screen? Neither are usually performed in front of an audience....

Yeah, he might not be a 'star', but he's definitely a good actor.

As for the Fantastic 4, I must say that it'd be next to impossible for anyone to look as if they're a good actor with what they've been given to work with.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Why? That doesn't make sense. What's so different about acting in something that's aired on TV compared to something that's seen on the big screen? Neither are usually performed in front of an audience....

Yeah, he might not be a 'star', but he's definitely a good actor.

As for the Fantastic 4, I must say that it'd be next to impossible for anyone to look as if they're a good actor with what they've been given to work with.

Well, maybe it's more about whether you're a flexible actor, or a character actor. I don't watch the show, but clearly lots of people love Chiklis' character on the Shield. If he played that role, or a similar role, in a movie, I'm sure he'd be fine. But can he play a different role? Could he create a character that was completely different, and make it believable?

What makes a movie actor different from a tv actor is having to create, and BE many different characters, not the same character for 10 years. Perhaps that is the distinction I'm speaking of. So yes, clearly Chiklis is a good actor, but he might need to be given a particular character.

The others are just bad, although the guy that played Reed Richards wasn't terrible in King Arthur.

[Usually Lurkin]

David Caruso works well as 'police dude' on tv, but is a complete failure on the big screen. Half the cast of Friends just looked bad in movies. Jeff Goldblum is annoying on the big screen, but is absolutely unwatchable on tv.

edit: oh yeah, and Eriq LaSalle. Good on ER, sucked in the movies.

[Murphy3]

There's a difference between an actor that can do one specific thing really well with a specific cast but struggle when outside of that particular area.... Chiklis has had a long career on multiple successful shows.. He didn't just fall into a role that happened to work for him.

As for what's different between a TV actor and a movie actor...Well, don't you think that there's alot of big screen actors that have a specific niche? There's plenty of people in movies that predominantly play a specific role..

I'm not saying that he will find success as a movie star. I'm only saying he is a good actor regardless of whether it's on the big or small screen. With acting, it's not always about ability.....

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

edit: oh yeah, and Eriq LaSalle. Good on ER, sucked in the movies.

Excuse me? I don't believe you've been letting your Soul Glo.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

There's a difference between an actor that can do one specific thing really well with a specific cast but struggle when outside of that particular area.... Chiklis has had a long career on multiple successful shows.. He didn't just fall into a role that happened to work for him.

As for what's different between a TV actor and a movie actor...Well, don't you think that there's alot of big screen actors that have a specific niche? There's plenty of people in movies that predominantly play a specific role..

I'm not saying that he will find success as a movie star. I'm only saying he is a good actor regardless of whether it's on the big or small screen. With acting, it's not always about ability.....

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that all movie actors are people that can do multiple roles. The majority of movie actors are character actors.

But as people pointed out, there are plenty of examples to show people having success in a particular tv role or two, and failing miserably when trying to do movie roles.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

Excuse me? I don't believe you've been letting your Soul Glo.

The man was outperformed by his hair.

[Nash13]

Originally Posted by Nash13

Live Free or Die Hard.


You take away Die Hard out of the title, and change Bruce Willis' character name from McClane, it would be a decent popcorn flick. It was a disgrace to the other 3.

The reaction to this movie is making me more furious than the movie itself. movie-goers and critics seem to love it. It's the highest rated Die Hard sequel on Rotten Tomatoes, and is on the top 250 list of ALL TIME movies on imdb. It's a joke. There's VERY little about this movie that reminds you of the first 3.

[Big Boy Laroux]

But seriously, it's not like the Die Hard movies are Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. They are action flicks. Do the movies have to remind you of the others? As long as it's john McLaine kicking ass, that's all that matters.

What continuity did the other die hard movies have? They all had Bruce willis and they all had a black sidekick. Anything else? #2 had nothing to do with the Grubers. #3 had nothing to do with his wife.

So is it just because there's no black sidekick?

I know about the ratings difference, so maybe that's what you're talking about. Is it more stylized violence, as opposed to realistic? Not enough F-bombs?

I'll give my full opinion after I see it, which I definitely will.

[FreakNasty]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

As long as it's john McLaine kicking ass, that's all that matters.

And that he did.

[Murphy3]

Die Hard 4 is definitely a solid movie....

[Nash13]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

But seriously, it's not like the Die Hard movies are Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. They are action flicks. Do the movies have to remind you of the others? As long as it's john McLaine kicking ass, that's all that matters.

What continuity did the other die hard movies have? They all had Bruce willis and they all had a black sidekick. Anything else? #2 had nothing to do with the Grubers. #3 had nothing to do with his wife.

So is it just because there's no black sidekick?

I know about the ratings difference, so maybe that's what you're talking about. Is it more stylized violence, as opposed to realistic? Not enough F-bombs?

I'll give my full opinion after I see it, which I definitely will.

Yeah, too me, the movies have to remind me of the others, that's the point of calling it a Die Hard movie. The thing that makes the Die Hard movies different from other action movies is John McClane. The whole approach to his character in the 4th was off. In the other movies, he's in a joking mood most of the time, even while in intense situations. It's also the one-liners he gives out, there was maybe one one-liner in the 4th. It wasn't necessarily the PG-13 rating, just how they did his character (although a couple of F-bombs might have helped.

Another thing that i didn't like about the 4th is all the other characters. Something else that made the other Die Hards a little more enjoyable is the other characters in the movies. Rather it be the villans, the villan's sidekicks, McClane's sidekicks, the reporter from the first 2 movies, other cops, etc., they had other characters that made the movies more fun to watch. The only interesting character in the 4th was Justin Long's.

But like i said, it was a decent action movie, but a bad Die Hard movie.

[Big Boy Laroux]

Wait, you watch Die Hard movies for the other characters? The first 3 have McLaine, one sidekick (urkel's neighbor, random black dude, and Sam Jackson), and a bad guy. Everyone else pretty much is worthless and not worth remembering. In fact, the sidekicks aren't even needed.

As for the villains, Hans Gruber was awesome. His brother was ok. #2's villain wasn't anything to write home about.

So Long gets the sidekick role here. Olyphant gets the villain role. As long as they are serviceable, it works.

Now, I said I haven't seen it, but I just don't agree with what you're saying about the die hard movies I HAVE seen.

As for how McLaine acts in this movie, I would assume they're not pretending like this one happens right after #3. So Mclaine has aged. I would assume (it's been like 12 years since #3) that a guy could change a little bit in 12 years.

Like I said before, if it's entertaining, it's entertaining.

[Nash13]

I didn't say i watch Die Hard movies for other characters, but a good cast and characters make for a more enjoyable movie.

If/when you see Live Free or Die Hard, you will notice the differences in the cast. Long's just decent and all though i like a lot of other stuff Olyphant does (They show the trailer for Hitman, which he looks awesome in), his character wasn't that interesting. Kevin Smith's role was unfunny to me (although i love all Smith's movies).

[Nash13]

Oh yeah, on imdb, Live Free or Die Hard is rated higher than the 1st, now if anybody wants to try and convince me that it is better, then you're not worth discussing this with.

[Ninkobei]

I thought Die Hard was okay. bad acting in some parts..mac guy + kevin smith = not that great of actors (who was it that complained about Fantastic Four acting? they should be all over this). kind of "unbelievable" and not in the good way. overall Im not mad that I went to see it but it could have been better. Also I heard somewhere that they spent more money on the special effects in Die Hard than on the entire Transformers movie..not sure if that is true but wow...

[Big Boy Laroux]

Nash, no way will it ever be better than #1. You're right, that is ridiculous.

Just so you know, I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, especially since I haven't seen it. Just was commenting on #'s 1-3.

So I have to see that and transformers (I may go opening day). I just want to be entertained. Transformers could be horrible, and everyone who sees it could tell me that, but I'll still see it in theaters. I did read a review online (not official critic - a blog), where the person said transformers was like watching Jurassic Park. The WOW factor of seeing all this on the big screen was very high.

Anyone seen any box office stats for Die Hard?

[spreedom]

I think the first Die Hard is the best action movie of all-time, because I really think it was the first successful (critically and financially) popcorn movie with a one-liner-delivering, flawed, reluctant hero who people can't help but love. Is the new one as good as the first? Not by any stretch of my imagination (though everyone is definitely welcome to their own opinion) but is it a really fun action movie with a lot of funny dialogue and cool action scenes? I'd definitely say yes. I'd probably rank the DH movies in this order:
1.) Die Hard
2.) Die Hard With a Vengeance
3.) Live Free or Die Hard
4.) Die Harder (seriously, WTF is up with this movie's story/title? brutality to the max)

with the second movie being a distant fourth. I really enjoyed the new one, despite its noticably frequent overdubbing (likely to ensure that it would get the PG13 rating) and it's something I'll buy on DVD and watch again pretty regularly.

Edit: sorry for how much of a jumbled mess that was.. multitasking leaves my thoughts looking frazzled.

[Nash13]

BBL, Live Free or Die Hard did 33mil over the weekend and 48mil since wed. It still finished 2nd to Ratatouille.

[spreedom]

Ratatouille looked horrible..