Star Trek - no spoilers please

Caged_Faraday wrote:His credibility is going to be determined on whether he can avoid making another Star Trek V.

...or Insurrection...

SomeArztOnYou wrote:

Caged_Faraday wrote:His credibility is going to be determined on whether he can avoid making another Star Trek V.

...or Insurrection...

Agreed.

Thank you, Birthday Fairy.

I did not like Cloverfield, it wasn't a terrible film but it just did not deliver for me, the payoff i.e. that inferior Godzilla/Jurassic Park thing was a huge let down. It did not scare me or raise my pulse much, I can honestly say the Jeepers-Creepers monster was more sinister, and that wasn't all that either.

Matt Reeves did direct it, but I find it hard to imagine that he didn't take lots of direction from the established J.J. In terms of originality, big monster terrorises city, it's hardly new, so I wanted something jaw-dropping about it, but I felt I never got any jaw-dropping moments.

It did have a different approach camera wise, but nothing brilliant; the first time you watch it you can live with the shaky thing going on because your mind is still in suspense, waiting to see what is going to happen, but now I have seen it, I imagine if I ever watch it again, I'll be fast-forwarding through most of it!

CF you are right, ther eare too many re-makes and unoriginal films being churned out, I am dubious about the remake of The day the Earth stood still with Keanu Reeves, but I did like a Scanner Darkly and thought that was different.

My main problem with Coverfield was the begining and end and much of the middle. But seriously a nuke in Central Park that destroys everything and everyone but leaves the camera perfectly in tact, come on I expected more. I did however like the idea of the film as well as the young up incoming cast. Star Trek hopfully will be much much better.

I loved the beginning, middle and end but overall I hated it.

And Vinnie, I like chasing you around the site from forum to forum.

solarchap wrote:CF you are right, there are too many re-makes and unoriginal films being churned out, I am dubious about the remake of The day the Earth stood still with Keanu Reeves, but I did like a Scanner Darkly and thought that was different.

I thought A Scanner Darkly was fantastic. Just brilliantly done.

VincentTheDog:

But seriously a nuke in Central Park that destroys everything and everyone but leaves the camera perfectly in tact, come on I expected more.

There's no evidence it was a nuke. In fact, given the multiple blasts it almost certainly wasn't. It was called the 'hammer down protocol', and that was the only indication about what kind of method was being used.

Solarchap:

I wanted something jaw-dropping about it, but I felt I never got any jaw-dropping moments.

Really? Are you sure?

How about the Statue of Liberty's head bouncing to a standstill in a street? The first 'oh my God' moment at the parasites dropping off the creature? The night-vision switch (if there ever was a shit-your-pants moment, that was it)? The race to the helicopter, and the take off (maybe you were too busy yawning to notice how absolutely spectacular that entire sequence was)? Not to mention Hud's final stand-off against the creature?

My point is, I go to the cinema a lot. And there's a lot of crap films I sit through. And Cloverfield delivered something spectacular that was head and shoulders above most of that. And people are gonna get mealy-mouthed and grumble about it?

I actually liked Cloverfield.

I could have done with less of the whiney 20-somethings and their pretentious posing but it was a pretty cool take on the classic giant-monster flick.

Plus, the opening credits had a Dharma Initiative logo in it!



And the supposed nuke could have been a fuel-air bomb. Packs a near-nuclear punch for a conventional bomb.

Lateralus wrote:The new Hulk movie is a sequel to the Ang Lee Hulk.
Picks tight up with Banner in S.America trying to find a cure.

"The Incredible Hulk" was a box-office bruiser, yanking in $54.5 million over opening weekend and laying to rest the stigma of his unappreciated big-screen adventure five years ago.

The new movie is not a sequel to 2003's "Hulk" but, in Marvel's terms, a reboot. Fans found the earlier movie too dark and brooding. CNN.com entertainment.

I saw the new Hulk.

Yeah, it does re-write the Eric Bana version. The rebooted story is basically covered in the opening credits, with Ed Norton testing himself and going green and freaking out and heading off to Brazil to avoid being used by the military.

It's a decent film, actually. I think fans of the comic will like it a lot more than the previous one.

AngeloComet wrote:I saw the new Hulk.

It's a decent film, actually. I think fans of the comic will like it a lot more than the previous one.

As a huge comic book fan especial Marvel Comics I thought there was a lot in for the fans. From screen shots taken right from the TV show to creating two of the Hulks best villians.

Heck, now i might actually have to pay to see the whole thing i guess.

Yea Lateralus for Comic book fans there were a lot of "fanboy" moments. Hey Now I`m on Jacob`s List!