|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:37 am
Could have came up with a better idea? It doesn't sound like a good movie.
www.snakesonaplane.com
So you can check out the trailer.
So what do you think? Good or Bad?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:33 pm
I think it looks vastly entertaining. And Samuel L. Jackson is in it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The_Wicked_Man Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:46 pm
New Line Cinema has refused to give critics a preview screening, so they are obviously ashamed of the overall work. Hopefully, Snakes will be one of those "so bad, it's good"/unintentionally hilarious flicks . . . or else all the Internet hype and fandom would be for naught.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:00 am
The_Wicked_Man New Line Cinema has refused to give critics a preview screening, so they are obviously ashamed of the overall work. Hopefully, Snakes will be one of those "so bad, it's good"/unintentionally hilarious flicks . . . or else all the Internet hype and fandom would be for naught. Maybe, I think I'm going wait to rent it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:12 am
The_Wicked_Man New Line Cinema has refused to give critics a preview screening, so they are obviously ashamed of the overall work. Hopefully, Snakes will be one of those "so bad, it's good"/unintentionally hilarious flicks . . . or else all the Internet hype and fandom would be for naught. Thousands of snakes, locked on a plane at 40,000 feet, and a foul mouthed Samuel L.....how in the piss could this not be a fun film? As far as letting critics preview...good, let those ******** go get real jobs........do you really use critics opinions when deciding what to see? Perhaps they barred critics from the film, for the same reason many of us want to see the film? Because it isn't meant to take it's self too seriously...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:44 am
razorgod As far as letting critics preview...good, let those ******** go get real jobs........do you really use critics opinions when deciding what to see? Not every critic is full of s**t. And no, I don't use someone else's opinion when deciding what I want to see; I merely use what they write as a guide of what I could expect to see in the theaters. If I hear about a movie that sounds really interesting, I will still go see it to form my own opinion--even if the reviews I read are mediocre or worse ( Saw, The Butterfly Effect, Bubba Ho-tep, X-Men 3). However, more times than not, I find myself agreeing with the negative reviews and regretting that I ever questioned a witness' testimony. razorgod Perhaps they barred critics from the film, for the same reason many of us want to see the film? Because it isn't meant to take it's self too seriously... Critics can get a joke. Roger Ebert's reviews of early Abrahms, Zucker, & Zucker comedy films are all positive. More recently, Shaun of the Dead received so much well-deserved acclaim. Perhaps they barred critics from the film because they don't see a "so bad it's good" film; they just see a shitty movie, and don't want negative reviews to threaten first week boxoffice earnings.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
The_Wicked_Man Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:45 am
I think it'll be a gay movie. I saw a preview in the theater, and it did not make me want to see it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:15 am
The_Wicked_Man Not every critic is full of s**t. Probably not, but I've found that a majority of them can be quite full of themselves....which leads to a lot of questionable reviews. IMO. I think people put too much stock in the opinions of critics like Siegel, Ebert and Roeper........whoever else is out there. Quote: Critics can get a joke. Roger Ebert's reviews of early Abrahms, Zucker, & Zucker comedy films are all positive. More recently, Shaun of the Dead received so much well-deserved acclaim. Siegel recently "walked out screaming" at a screening of Clerks 2, he felt it was over the top, but in the same breath he hailed Clerks 1 as the most important film of our time.....WTF? You can imply sex with a dead guy, but if you imply sex with a donkey...THEN you're over the top? I wqonder how he'd feel about sex with a dead donkey...I just don't see how Clerks could could be so over the top of anything else that Smith has done......... I could probably, easily, find reviews that I agree with the final verdict, but rarely do I ever agree with the "meat" of the review. Quote: Perhaps they barred critics from the film because they don't see a "so bad it's good" film; they just see a shitty movie, and don't want negative reviews to threaten first week boxoffice earnings. Quite possibly, but it's just as likely an attempt to stir up a little last minute buzz on the film before launching it...it could backfire and hurt the opening day ticket sales...but given the buzz already generated...probably not. Guess we'll see on Friday or Saturday.........
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The_Wicked_Man Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:57 pm
razorgod Siegel recently "walked out screaming" at a screening of Clerks 2, he felt it was over the top, but in the same breath he hailed Clerks 1 as the most important film of our time.....WTF? You can imply sex with a dead guy, but if you imply sex with a donkey...THEN you're over the top? I wqonder how he'd feel about sex with a dead donkey...I just don't see how Clerks could could be so over the top of anything else that Smith has done......... Part of what made the original Clerks special is its simplicity. Small budget, filmed with intention to only show to the director's friends, character motivated, etc. It really is a very important film of the 1990's. However, can anything I just said about Clerks be said of the sequel? Absolutely not. Small budget? The film was made for 185 times the original movie's budget. Filmed with intention to only show to the director's friends? Smith's personal attachment to the sequel is somewhat alienated by having it financed and distributed by more affluent institutions. Character motivated? Not only have all the main actors from the original become semi-famous and, therefore, flood the sequel with personality (the kind of impression you get when you noticed Bruce Willis is starring in another Bruce Willis role), but Ben Affleck shows up to cement the A-list vibe of what should be an independent film. Furthermore, what's up with the big dance number with the crane shot, the more than obvious attacks on websites which seem to be carried over from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ("Rotten Tomatoes sucks!"), and the masturbatory references to previous Kevin Smith movies (I'm not talking about those little things like having Dante and Randall work at a Moobies resturaunt; I'm talking about the video store clerk who asks if he could "recommend a little movie called ‘Dogma’" before giving a big thumbs-up towards the camera)? If anything, I'd agree with Joel Siegel on all grounds. Clerks II is over-the-top, a lot more than it should be. razorgod Quite possibly, but it's just as likely an attempt to stir up a little last minute buzz on the film before launching it...it could backfire and hurt the opening day ticket sales...but given the buzz already generated...probably not. Guess we'll see on Friday or Saturday......... If critics aren't getting their own screening, the only buzz the Summer's most hyped movie is going to get is by word-of-mouth by the people who see it Friday night. The only thing I see wrong with New Line's decision is that if this is supposed to be fun, campy, "check your brain at the door and enjoy yourself" movie, why isn't the studio allowing the press to be a part of that atmosphere? Even the Internet fans aren't taking this movie too seriously; why New Line would expect critics to ignore the public's expectations and how the film is being promoted and treat it like Sophie's Choice is very odd.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 am
The_Wicked_Man Part of what made the original Clerks special is its simplicity. Small budget, filmed with intention to only show to the director's friends, character motivated, etc. It really is a very important film of the 1990's. However, can anything I just said about Clerks be said of the sequel? Absolutely not. Recreating Clerks 1 was not Smith's goal with the sequel. The goal was to fulfill a promise to Jason Mewes for making it through rehab and staying clean, and in the process revisit what DAnte and Randal were up to ten years later...something fans have been screaming for since Mallrats. Quote: Small budget? The film was made for 185 times the original movie's budget. 5 million is hardly big budget in Hollywood....yeah, Smith didn't have to max out any credit cards to pay for it, but it wasn't no "Pirates of the Carribean" sized budget either. Quote: Filmed with intention to only show to the director's friends? Smith's personal attachment to the sequel is somewhat alienated by having it financed and distributed by more affluent institutions. I doubt Smith put himself in a finanacial predicament to just have a home movie....I'm sure he never realized how big it was going to become, but it was by no means a home movie. Quote: Character motivated? Not only have all the main actors from the original become semi-famous and, therefore, flood the sequel with personality (the kind of impression you get when you noticed Bruce Willis is starring in another Bruce Willis role), but Ben Affleck shows up to cement the A-list vibe of what should be an independent film. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "flood the sequel with personality", but if your implying that they were off character...I disagree. Dante and Randal, while sharing that same dynamic they did in Clerks 2...have actually grown up a little, while keeping their friendship intact. Ben Affleck, has been an Askewniverse fixture since Mallrats...before he was "A-list". Quote: Furthermore, what's up with the big dance number with the crane shot, the more than obvious attacks on websites which seem to be carried over from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ("Rotten Tomatoes sucks!"), All part of the fun. It's an Askewniverse flick....that's all I can say. Quote: I'm talking about the video store clerk who asks if he could "recommend a little movie called ‘Dogma’" before giving a big thumbs-up towards the camera)? When did that happen? Quote: If anything, I'd agree with Joel Siegel on all grounds. Clerks II is over-the-top, a lot more than it should be. NONONO...don't get it twisted, he didn't walk out because it was "over the top"...he walked out because of the continued references to the Donkey Show. He was disgusted and angry, and he displayed his disgusted anger as he exited the theater. How full of yourself do you have to be, in order to disrupt a press screening the way he did? He left 40 minutes into the movie, he didn't even get to the dance number you're referring to. Quote: If critics aren't getting their own screening, the only buzz the Summer's most hyped movie is going to get is by word-of-mouth by the people who see it Friday night. Are you joking, this movie already has a buzz to it. I haven't seen a movie yet this summer, that didn't have a SoaP trailer attached to it, and the audiences were just eating it up. And then the Internet has been glowing with the buzz on this movie...some people think it's going to be great, some people think it's going to suck- but either way both camps have said they are going to see this. (There's always people who say "******** this" I'm not going...) But for the most part it's been positive. I'll be surprised if it flops. Just judging the reactions of movie audiences and the internet talk being generated.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The_Wicked_Man Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:41 am
razorgod Quote: I'm talking about the video store clerk who asks if he could "recommend a little movie called ‘Dogma’" before giving a big thumbs-up towards the camera)? When did that happen? When they go to a video store to find a vulgar movie to play back at Moobies. The store's walls are also decorated with posters from other Kevin Smith movies. razorgod NONONO...don't get it twisted, he didn't walk out because it was "over the top"...he walked out because of the continued references to the Donkey Show. He was disgusted and angry, and he displayed his disgusted anger as he exited the theater. How full of yourself do you have to be, in order to disrupt a press screening the way he did? He left 40 minutes into the movie, he didn't even get to the dance number you're referring to. My mistake. razorgod Are you joking, this movie already has a buzz to it. I haven't seen a movie yet this summer, that didn't have a SoaP trailer attached to it, and the audiences were just eating it up. Well, yeah, there's that kind of buzz....but I'm talking about that first-week vibe where everyone is wondering whether the film is actually good or bad. Critics are good for this sort of thing because of their relation with the media, but without that, the only people who are going to get a chance to answer the question whether or not SoaP is worth seeing are people who have seen it within the first two days. There's just something about hearing an actual person give an opinion on a movie that is so much more enlightening than an advertisement.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:01 am
The_Wicked_Man When they go to a video store to find a vulgar movie to play back at Moobies. The store's walls are also decorated with posters from other Kevin Smith movies. WTF? I've seen this movie like 7 times already, and I don't recall the scene you're talking about....weird. Placement wise, when did it happen? No problem, I really wasn't trying to get into an analysis of Clerks, but more of an example of how full of themselves I think Movie Critics can be. I think sometimes they take their job a little too seriously. The_Wicked_Man but I'm talking about that first-week vibe where everyone is wondering whether the film is actually good or bad. Critics are good for this sort of thing because of their relation with the media, but without that, the only people who are going to get a chance to answer the question whether or not SoaP is worth seeing are people who have seen it within the first two days. There's just something about hearing an actual person give an opinion on a movie that is so much more enlightening than an advertisement. Maybe my problem with the word of mouth, is becuase I'm constantly finding myself in disgreement with the opinion of damn near everyone. Xmen 3, Clerks 2, and the new Fast and the Furious movie, to name just a couple of movies that I didn't find as disappointing as the word of mouth generated about them........
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The_Wicked_Man Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:19 am
razorgod WTF? I've seen this movie like 7 times already, and I don't recall the scene you're talking about....weird. Placement wise, when did it happen? Saw it at a special preview screening a little while before its initial release. Haven't seen the movie after that, so I guess it's possible that Smith removed it from the final work. Maybe it'll resurface on DVD.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:10 am
The_Wicked_Man razorgod WTF? I've seen this movie like 7 times already, and I don't recall the scene you're talking about....weird. Placement wise, when did it happen? Saw it at a special preview screening a little while before its initial release. Haven't seen the movie after that, so I guess it's possible that Smith removed it from the final work. Maybe it'll resurface on DVD. That must be it, because I don't recall that scene ANYWHERE....kind of had me worried there for a second....you never know when you're gonna start going senile.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:57 pm
yeah that movie looks really dumb... scream
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|