Destructis Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 It was worth seeing and I enjoyed it. It wasn't really what I expected though. I thought that the action sequences would have been more of the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 Tops at the box office again this weekend. I'm guessing this leaves no doubt about a sequel getting the green light. I'll be looking forward to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Saw it Friday and thought it was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Just got back. On a scale of 1-10, I'm giving this movie a 6. And that's only because I'm feeling generous. It would have been better in 3-D. The first hour dragged on, and it was about twenty minutes too long. I realize there hasn't been a ton of great movies out lately, but this isn't one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I originally had no interest in seeing this, but went at the behest of a good friend and was pleasantly surprised. I had heard most folks were finding it pretty good, including a number of movie critics who didn't expect it to be good either. Of course, it's more of a "re-imagining" than a remake, though there are several references to the original , including a couple subtle ones. The special effects were well done, and for this kind of flick, the acting, screenplay, cohesion, and development of plot and events were all in the "better than average" category and really much of it was actually quite well done. The production values weren't Big Spectacle over-the-top, but were of superior grade. I can easily see how the next two sequels could be constructed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 Just got back. On a scale of 1-10, I'm giving this movie a 6. And that's only because I'm feeling generous.It would have been better in 3-D. The first hour dragged on, and it was about twenty minutes too long. I realize there hasn't been a ton of great movies out lately, but this isn't one either. First person I've heard say that. Most people I know think 3-D is pretty lame in all but the rarest circumstances. I can't think of a movie that 3-D has made more appealing besides Avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 JMU, I hate 3-d movies but that's because I'm one of those who gets headaches. Couldn't even watch Avatar in 3-d, had to get a 2-d dvd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 For me, 3D has been more lame than not 90% of the time. Avatar was one exception, though 2D was perfectly fine (I saw it three ways on the big screen, one being Imax). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 For me, 3D has been more lame than not 90% of the time. Avatar was one exception, though 2D was perfectly fine (I saw it three ways on the big screen, one being Imax). Agreed, and this seems to be the consensus from just about everyone I know. I'm also not sure how this movie would have enhanced by 3D. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't be shocked that McD5 and I have differing opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.