Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BiggusGeekus" data-source="post: 320377" data-attributes="member: 1014">Other than to serve no story purpose other than filler?&nbsp; Eh.&nbsp; OK.&nbsp; I'll buy &quot;not especially bad&quot;.How about at the end when the Jermey Irons tosses aside the magic staff thingie for no other reason than to do the coup de gras without it?Look, the director put his heart and soul into the thing.&nbsp; I'll grant you that.&nbsp; But, my hand to God, the script, acting, and direction were all poor.&nbsp; The makup artist should have been shot and had his/her corpse recycled into the ecosphere.&nbsp; Everything else was meerly cliche/uninspired.&nbsp; I did my part.&nbsp; I saw it in the theater opening weekend.&nbsp; Sure, I snuck in a flask of vokda because I read the outstandingly bad reviews.&nbsp; But I was there for it as a fan.&nbsp; The movie was bad.&nbsp; I can accept that.&nbsp; This isn't a big industry.&nbsp; I read once where we draw in less annual revenue than the quilt-making hobbists.&nbsp; The fact that we got our own zowie-bang special effects movie is an accomplishment and a tribute to the director's efforts.&nbsp; Maybe next time we can get quality as well.However, in the spirit of the thread I will attempt to list the things I liked.* I thought the beholders (while out of place) were cool looking.* I liked seeing Tom Baker* The first half hour where they dumped all the special effects budget (*) was visually pleasing ... though this may have just been the vodka kicking in.-BG*PS movie watching tip!&nbsp; Look for flicks with big openings and low budget endings.&nbsp; That's a sure sign someone screwed up on the budget and ran out of money.&nbsp; Gladiator is a good example.&nbsp; Big battle in the beginning, dramatic one-on-one in the end with NOONE in the audience!&nbsp; Classic case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BiggusGeekus, post: 320377, member: 1014"] Other than to serve no story purpose other than filler? Eh. OK. I'll buy "not especially bad". How about at the end when the Jermey Irons tosses aside the magic staff thingie for no other reason than to do the coup de gras without it? Look, the director put his heart and soul into the thing. I'll grant you that. But, my hand to God, the script, acting, and direction were all poor. The makup artist should have been shot and had his/her corpse recycled into the ecosphere. Everything else was meerly cliche/uninspired. I did my part. I saw it in the theater opening weekend. Sure, I snuck in a flask of vokda because I read the outstandingly bad reviews. But I was there for it as a fan. The movie was bad. I can accept that. This isn't a big industry. I read once where we draw in less annual revenue than the quilt-making hobbists. The fact that we got our own zowie-bang special effects movie is an accomplishment and a tribute to the director's efforts. Maybe next time we can get quality as well. However, in the spirit of the thread I will attempt to list the things I liked. * I thought the beholders (while out of place) were cool looking. * I liked seeing Tom Baker * The first half hour where they dumped all the special effects budget (*) was visually pleasing ... though this may have just been the vodka kicking in. -BG *PS movie watching tip! Look for flicks with big openings and low budget endings. That's a sure sign someone screwed up on the budget and ran out of money. [i]Gladiator[/i] is a good example. Big battle in the beginning, dramatic one-on-one in the end with NOONE in the audience! Classic case. [/QUOTE]

Verification