Who else thinks this movie looks terrible? I think a lot of people will go see it just because Peter Jackson worked on the screenplay.
Printable View
Who else thinks this movie looks terrible? I think a lot of people will go see it just because Peter Jackson worked on the screenplay.
It's hard for any movie to be good where the primary focus seems to be on the FX.
People will say "but duh, sci-fi something something" but the best sci-fi still revolves around character and plot. Also a lot of recent movies could benefit from slowing down and not being so fuckin hyper-kinetic.
The phrase is stop and smell the roses, not run screaming past the roses while being chased by a pack of giant cg robots.
The entire premise seems lame. In any post-apocalyptic world, resources are going to be scarce because...well... Apocalypse. Nothing says efficiency like driving a fuckingcitymegapolis around like a tank. Also... were geographical features destroyed during this cataclysm, or is London driving around mountains, oceans, etc.?
People want instant gratification all the time. If a movie has a slower pace and makes you think, people will get bored. Probably the reason why Michael Bay movies are liked these days. I prefer movies without FX.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
Chill out guys, these movies are mostly base on fantasy rather then technology so that we can enjoy them as something utterly impossible to happen in our life span and awed at the extraordinary visuals that our modern tech can made look real. But I agree that a decent story can also make them memorable and more fun to watch like Matrix and Star Trek and Star Wars.
Now I like Max. Punish away, I don`t even know the film
If the medium is indeed the message then it is telling Max that he has piss for brains.
Not nearly as bad as some say, but probably would've been better off as a series in order to let the characters breathe more. Too much squeezed in.