Page 1 of 22

Official X-Men: The Last Stand Review Thread [SPOILERS!]

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 12:54 pm
by MasterWhedon
Seeing as the early reviews are being mentioned in the News thread, I figured it was time to start this up.

We're still about two weeks out, but there are some reviews up on the main page. Harry has a positive take on the film HERE, and Merrick's got a pretty negative one HERE.

This is likely one of the films there will be a split over, but I know most of us are at least hoping for something good.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:07 pm
by MasterWhedon
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Kind of suprised that AICN people are hinting at possible plantage, but even the negative one doesn't call it all-out crap. Sounds Sith-esque.

"I'm Juggernaut, bitch"? I don't know about the comics. Is that like his catchphrase? Or is it a Ratner fanboy reference? Please explain, someone!

It's a really sutpid YouTube video you can see HERE. Basically, someone takes footage from the X-Men cartoon and dubs voices over, saying "bitch" a lot.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:13 pm
by AtomicHyperbole
Kind of suprised that AICN people are hinting at possible plantage, but even the negative one doesn't call it all-out crap. Sounds Sith-esque.

"I'm Juggernaut, bitch"? I don't know about the comics. Is that like his catchphrase? Or is it a Ratner fanboy reference? Please explain, someone!

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:16 pm
by Lurker Johnson
This is going to be one of those movies that I have to see no matter what. I'll definitely be letting you all know how I feel afterward.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:18 pm
by AtomicHyperbole
MasterWhedon wrote:It's a really sutpid YouTube video you can see HERE. Basically, someone takes footage from the X-Men cartoon and dubs voices over, saying "bitch" a lot.


Ah, figured it was a reference to that. Can't understand the talkbacker hate towards a harmless nod of respect to a (unfunny, but still popular) popular fan joke. But then, I can't understand talkbacker hate.

"Plant" ranks up there with "fanboy" in the list of words the internets needs to blacklist.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:31 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
MasterWhedon wrote:H@rry updates that positive "review" with this...

Grande Rojo wrote:Hey folks, Grande Rojo here... Moriarty and I had read this review and felt that there was better than even odds that this was an earnest review from a fan, but it wasn't jiving, sadly, with what we had heard of the quality. SO - in our own excitement over the chance that we MAY be wrong about X3... we printed it. TURNS out that the review was created by some misguided whiney fanboy that just wanted us to shut up with the negativity in regards to the film. Frankly - right now I'm really depressed - because what this review did was give false hope. And it flushed out someone that had seen the film that thought it was a waste and mediocre. What this means is - AICN will have to not run any positive reviews of X3 unless they come from established sources. This is sad. I really want X3 to be good. Now we'll just have to wait and see. It wasn't written by a studio plant - which at least is a sign that the studio doesn't feel the need to plant reviews online yet. But discount the following. Sadly.

Peven..............?


lol. It was a douchebag from superherohype.com. I was going to berate him on his boards for sending a fake review, but didn't feel it was worth the effort or the inevitable flame war that would find its way into the Zone eventually...

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:34 pm
by TonyWilson
I don't like the idea that Harry is only going to run positive reviews from established sources when he doesn't say the same thing about the negative reviews. I have never ever been one to call out Harry for his favoutitism, but honestly this does look to be being far too one sided regarding caution about fake reviews.

Anyone with me on this?

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:37 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
TonyWilson wrote:I don't like the idea that Grande Rojo is only going to run positive reviews from established sources when he doesn't say the same thing about the negative reviews. I have never ever been one to call out Grande Rojo for his favoutitism, but honestly this does look to be being far too one sided regarding caution about fake reviews.

Anyone with me on this?


Yeah, that struck me as a little strange too, but he just got burned by a fake review so I can understand him being a little pissed. If I were him I'd probably overreact and ban all X3 reviews on AICN, but he didn't do that.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:38 pm
by MasterWhedon
H@rry updates that positive "review" with this...

Grande Rojo wrote:Hey folks, Harry here... Moriarty and I had read this review and felt that there was better than even odds that this was an earnest review from a fan, but it wasn't jiving, sadly, with what we had heard of the quality. SO - in our own excitement over the chance that we MAY be wrong about X3... we printed it. TURNS out that the review was created by some misguided whiney fanboy that just wanted us to shut up with the negativity in regards to the film. Frankly - right now I'm really depressed - because what this review did was give false hope. And it flushed out someone that had seen the film that thought it was a waste and mediocre. What this means is - AICN will have to not run any positive reviews of X3 unless they come from established sources. This is sad. I really want X3 to be good. Now we'll just have to wait and see. It wasn't written by a studio plant - which at least is a sign that the studio doesn't feel the need to plant reviews online yet. But discount the following. Sadly.

Peven..............?

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:40 pm
by TonyWilson
MasterWhedon wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I don't like the idea that Grande Rojo is only going to run positive reviews from established sources when he doesn't say the same thing about the negative reviews. I have never ever been one to call out Grande Rojo for his favoutitism, but honestly this does look to be being far too one sided regarding caution about fake reviews.

Anyone with me on this?

Yeah, I'm totally with you. Now anyone who wants can write up a review ragging on the film and it'll be published simply because it's what he's expecting.

If it's legit sources, make it legit sources on all ends.


I just can't see the point, all that will happen is people won't believe the bad ones....at all. Plus they will then jump on the positives as being above reproach, Grande, if you read this, I have to say I would check sources for all the reviews, it will save you hassle and you'll be more credible.
I want this to be a great movie too. So why would you be okay with posting possible fake negative reviews unless you really do have it in for the film no matter what its quality is?

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:44 pm
by MasterWhedon
TonyWilson wrote:I don't like the idea that Grande Rojo is only going to run positive reviews from established sources when he doesn't say the same thing about the negative reviews. I have never ever been one to call out Grande Rojo for his favoutitism, but honestly this does look to be being far too one sided regarding caution about fake reviews.

Anyone with me on this?

Yeah, I'm totally with you. Now anyone who wants can write up a review ragging on the film and it'll be published simply because it's what he's expecting.

If it's legit sources, make it legit sources on all ends.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 5:31 pm
by unikrunk
well, the clip was good, but IMO only because of McKellen. He sells it; calm, collected, he really has taken the Magnus thing to a nice place.

Jackman, well, he can frown really well, and Ole Sparky looks like a drugged china doll.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 8:23 pm
by MasterWhedon
Merrick has posted another negative review HERE from a Joe Schmo called secret_riddle.


EDIT: I've only read half the review and I already hate this guy.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 8:31 pm
by MasterWhedon
Seriously, I want to strangle that fucker.

That review should NOT have been posted for many, many reasons, chief among them: 1) if you're going to only post positive reviews from "known" sources, you should do the same for the negative ones--this reeks of hypocrisy--and 2) it's possibly the worst review I've ever read on anything in my entire life.

Honestly though, I'm digging the plot as outlined in the review. It's pretty much everything we've known all along, and as I sit with it I like the structure of it and the larger ideas.

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 8:36 pm
by TonyWilson
Oooooooouuuuuuch.
Bad review, in EVERY sense.
90 minutes long? Er, WTF?

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 10:16 pm
by TheBaxter
the 7-minute preview on fox tonight left me completely underwhelmed. nothing in it got me very excited. beast makeup looked pretty good though. and mckellen always is great. but i'm waiting to see something that compels me to see this, and in 7 minutes of footage i couldn't find one thing.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 4:07 am
by AtomicHyperbole
So far, I think it's great from these new clips we're seeing. Any fucker that can sit through Sith or Val Helsing and call them "popcorn entertainment" should be fine with it on their basis. Even Berry's grown some acting chops since the last two and Beast looks and sounds great. Some neat little asides too.

And agreed on the slightly hypocritical stance taken on the reviews front. Why is X3 getting some kind of special treatment, why is there all this concentrating on its production and focussing down on the negatives on this just one film? What happened to waiting to see the final product for yourself? All I'm seeing points to that this film will at least be more entertaining than the first, which was sporadic at best. I'm not expecting another X2, which was still quite flabby.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 4:22 am
by AtomicHyperbole
Oh and - Negative review is fake too, apparently...

Here's the thread.

Harry and co. are getting played. Time to stop posting reviews altogether on this until someone's truly seen the film they can trust.

edit - LOL! I look out the window and I see a van for a plumbing company called PLANT. :D

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 5:00 am
by Al Shut
Is it just me or is this shit getting more and more ridiculous. First superman script rewiev that wasn't a review giganto fuss and now both positive and negative X-Men plants, parially just to proof that there are plants??? WTF! Maybe I have been living in my own personal lala world but I can't remember things beeing that crazy.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 5:03 am
by RogueScribner
Isn't there any sort of screening process before they post reviews? Like confirming when and where this supposed screening took place, whether or not it was public, who they work for, etc. This is going to tarnish their rep if they keep posting bogus stories.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 5:16 am
by AtomicHyperbole
It's crazy because a bunch of retards at SHH have a vendetta against this site and are making it their mission to undermine the site.

This kind of thing has happened in the past with regularity, it's all part of the minefield of running a reviews site that requires readership input.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 6:55 am
by EWS
I find it childish and actually behaviour that would be more linked to a 12 year old, rather then adults. The hurting truth really is that they will probably get their own way, and that AICN will stop posting reviews sent in by fans alltogether, which is a shame because some of my decisions to go see movies are based on what fans themselves have said.

Those over at SHH should really be ashamed of themselves, are they afraid that Harry and co will be able to shut them down if they get reviews of a movie? Are they afraid that people will overlook them? These are both movie news sites (well, AICN branches out a bit, not sure at SHH, I don't visit).

It is rather pathetic, that some childish inbred eejits have decided to take it upon themselves to try and discredit someone who has built up such a great reputation for themselves. I for one still trust Harry and co, and know that if I want really cool news, this is the place to be.

I'm behind you Harry, who else is with me?

Speaking of an X3 review though, I managed to see the X3 trailer on the big screen (finally) and must say that I thought it looked pretty darn good. I am not looking forward to this, and I am not going in with high hopes, but I think I will probably enjoy it, and I predict that I will give it somewhere in the region of a 7.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 7:18 am
by AtomicHyperbole
I agree, the SHH people are fucking dickwads - all it's showcasing is a vendetta by them, nothing more. Harry and co immediately debunk/take down reviews that are proved fake no matter what... only this time they're shooting themselves in the foot a bit by the stance they laid out re positives. That's the only problem I have here, but hell, they're not marketers...

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 10:09 am
by Peven
MasterWhedon wrote:H@rry updates that positive "review" with this...

Grande Rojo wrote:Hey folks, Grande Rojo here... Moriarty and I had read this review and felt that there was better than even odds that this was an earnest review from a fan, but it wasn't jiving, sadly, with what we had heard of the quality. SO - in our own excitement over the chance that we MAY be wrong about X3... we printed it. TURNS out that the review was created by some misguided whiney fanboy that just wanted us to shut up with the negativity in regards to the film. Frankly - right now I'm really depressed - because what this review did was give false hope. And it flushed out someone that had seen the film that thought it was a waste and mediocre. What this means is - AICN will have to not run any positive reviews of X3 unless they come from established sources. This is sad. I really want X3 to be good. Now we'll just have to wait and see. It wasn't written by a studio plant - which at least is a sign that the studio doesn't feel the need to plant reviews online yet. But discount the following. Sadly.

Peven..............?


:lol: geez, i guess now is when the reactionary zoner, that'd be me, goes on a rant about H@rry being unfairly anti-X3? :wink: honestly, i'm so used to it by now that i'm not surprised and therefore not as riled up about it as i have been in the past. plus, i actually think the clips that have been put up in the last few days look pretty good overall, much better than the Leno clip did, and if when X3 comes out in theatres and people enjoy it, and it puts up solid numbers, that will be the most satisfying response to the X3/Ratner haters. if the final product is not as good as the recent clips have looked, then that will be a real drag. in two weeks we'll see.

one thing i will say is that i simply don'y buy H@arry's disclaimer of "i really want to like this movie". i say bullshit. i think thats just standard ass-covering, because his actions have been pretty clear in revealing just the opposite. he really doesn't want to like it, doesn't want to see it do well at the box office, and has looked for any excuse not to give it any positive coverage. he openly despises Ratner and doesn't want to see him succeed, imo. on the other hand, a movie he really wants to like is "Superman Returns", made by a director he openly likes and supports, and a peruse of his coverage of it reveals that pretty obviously. cest la vie. this is his site and if he wants to color his coverage based on who he likes or dislikes behind the camera that is his perogative.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 10:33 am
by TonyWilson
Peven I agree with you....up to a point. However I think Harry is right to be more suspicious of X3 then he is Superman Returns, because of various reasons that have been given by many many posters over time.



One thing that is bugging me hugely is his decision to post any old negative x3 reviews but only go for positive ones from proven sources. If, as you say Harry wants X3 to fail, why would he appear to be being so utterly biased while at the same time denying he wants one to fail and the other to succeed. It makes absolutley no sense.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 10:51 am
by Peven
human beings have a habit of doing things that don't make sense. i think H@rry would like to see an X3 movie do well, IF Ratner was not directing. i think giving Ratner credit for making a decent X3 movie will be like pouring lemon juice on an open sore for H@rry. not that i have any knowledge of H@arry having open sores. :lol: anyway, i understand the reasons people have given for why they think SR will be so good, and its mostly based on past performance, not anything that has come out of the present production. which, i think, is hardly a concrete premise. i think SR looks ok so far overall, but no matter how good Singer did on X1 and X2, that isn't going to make Routh look any older or more commanding, or change the fact that the storyline is recycled from the Donner films. i say judge a movie, or in this case a film's pre-release materials, based on the actual materials. seriously, who here has sat in a theatre watching a so so movie thinking, "wow, i like this, because the last movie this director made was great, so that makes up for the fact that what i am seeing right now isn't that great". don't get me wrong though, i think SR will probably be a fairly decent movie, as a popcorn matinee flick, i'll go see it with my kids, and we'll probably have a good time.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 11:02 am
by TonyWilson
Peven wrote:human beings have a habit of doing things that don't make sense. i think H@rry would like to see an X3 movie do well, IF Ratner was not directing. i think giving Ratner credit for making a decent X3 movie will be like pouring lemon juice on an open sore for H@rry. not that i have any knowledge of H@arry having open sores. :lol: anyway, i understand the reasons people have given for why they think SR will be so good, and its mostly based on past performance, not anything that has come out of the present production. which, i think, is hardly a concrete premise. i think SR looks ok so far overall, but no matter how good Singer did on X1 and X2, that isn't going to make Routh look any older or more commanding, or change the fact that the storyline is recycled from the Donner films. i say judge a movie, or in this case a film's pre-release materials, based on the actual materials. seriously, who here has sat in a theatre watching a so so movie thinking, "wow, i like this, because the last movie this director made was great, so that makes up for the fact that what i am seeing right now isn't that great". don't get me wrong though, i think SR will probably be a fairly decent movie, as a popcorn matinee flick, i'll go see it with my kids, and we'll probably have a good time.


Shit man, you don't learn do you? When there was no footage from SR then people were cautiously confident because of the track records of those involved and the blogs looked good. Now people have seen footage and they think it's good, why do you have such a problem with that?
With X3 we had a terrible script review, a shite director and very rushed production, plus bad casting choices hanging over from Matthew Vaughn we had a teaser that looked shiny but had no sense or feel of direction and a trailer that confirmed the worst fears from the script review.
The Superman trailer had astounding effects (for the love of sweet baby jesus don't be a contrarian and say the fx don't look stunning), then we got a short opinion on the script that Mori read and people's reactions dimmed somewhat, so really people are basing their opinions on the evidence to hand obviously you feel differently but instead of allowing others a different opinion you try and rationalise you being out of step by suggesting that those who like the look of SR are only judging on track record, that's just fucking absurd man, the proof is all over the Zone afterall.

You are right know one likes a film based on previous work (who is arguing that?) but have you never seen a trailer that looked ace, then seen it was directed by Micheal Bay and perhaps used BOTH pieces of information to make a judgement?

You need to get over this ridiculous idea that people only like SR and dislike X3 from previous experience and understand that yes savvier people than you (or me) like what they have SEEN.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 11:18 am
by Peven
the fx of the SR material are the strongest thing about them, Tony. i might not go as far as "astounding", but they are very solid from what i can see. and i stick to my point that a lot of opinons about both X3 and SR over this past winter and spring were based on heresay and/or what people thought of X1 and X2, or Rush Hour 1 and 2. i don't throw past performance out the window either, but it certainly takes a back seat to the movie, or its teaser/trailer, at hand. look, everyone has their bias, EVERYONE. whether it is pro or con, they are as prevelant here about movies/actors/directors as anywhere.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:01 pm
by MasterWhedon
The 7-minute clip that aired last night can be seen HERE.

I liked it quite a bit, especially that opening bit between Wolverine and Cyclops.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:12 pm
by Chairman Kaga
AtomicHyperbole wrote:"I'm Juggernaut, bitch"? I don't know about the comics. Is that like his catchphrase? Or is it a Ratner fanboy reference? Please explain, someone!

So he actually says that in the movie?

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 1:10 pm
by Peven
too bad X3 isn't getting the IMAX treatment as well. i think the golden gate scene, along with the big mutant vs mutant battle would be kick ass on a giant screen.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 8:31 pm
by MasterWhedon
H@rry has a review up HERE from someone he vouches for. It's not a negative review as much as a "meh" one.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 8:34 pm
by raasnio
MasterWhedon wrote:The 7-minute clip that aired last night can be seen HERE.

I liked it quite a bit, especially that opening bit between Wolverine and Cyclops.


Thank you for the link! 8)

Am I still in the minority on this? That Ratner can make a great X-Men film? Ok. Either way, his films have always been more entertaining than Singer's. At least I think so.

I'm betting this continues the trend.

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 9:27 pm
by Theta
raasnio wrote:

Am I still in the minority on this? That Ratner can make a great X-Men film? Ok. Either way, his films have always been more entertaining than Singer's. At least I think so.


Raas...if we ever go to bar-crawling and then to a movie theater...I'm picking the movie. :P

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 9:32 pm
by Theta
AtomicHyperbole wrote:It's crazy because a bunch of retards at SHH have a vendetta against this site and are making it their mission to undermine the site.


Did I miss something? Were they unhappy with negative reviews being printed of "Catwoman" or something, or is it just typical high-school?

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 11:19 pm
by raasnio
Theta wrote:
raasnio wrote:

Am I still in the minority on this? That Ratner can make a great X-Men film? Ok. Either way, his films have always been more entertaining than Singer's. At least I think so.


Raas...if we ever go to bar-crawling and then to a movie theater...I'm picking the movie. :P


LOL.

I must admit that The Usual Suspects put me to sleep. I tried watching it twice. Bam! Both times. I think I find Singer too restrained.

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:05 am
by DennisMM
raasnio wrote:
MasterWhedon wrote:The 7-minute clip that aired last night can be seen HERE.

I liked it quite a bit, especially that opening bit between Wolverine and Cyclops.


Thank you for the link! 8)

Am I still in the minority on this? That Ratner can make a great X-Men film? Ok. Either way, his films have always been more entertaining than Singer's. At least I think so.

I'm betting this continues the trend.


I'm of the opinion that, based on his last several movies, Ratner is not a particularly talented man. He doesn't seem to be growing as a director and probably can't make more than a passable movie. He turned Red Dragon into a bore, which is very sad. That said, however, I am feeling more hopeful after seeing the 7-minute preview. Perhaps Ratner has managed to use his passable abilities and talented cast for niceness and not evil.

Halle Berry still sucks, though. In the first movie she tried a sort of African-British accent from time to time. In X2 she sounded American, period. I swear she was letting some "street" creep into her voice in the 7-minute clip.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 7:48 am
by Jumpman
Here's a review from chud.com member Lee and it's as we feared:

Review: X-Men 3: The Last Stand
Dir: Brett Ratner

Starring: Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry, Famke Janssen, Anna Paquin, Kelsey Grammer.

Let’s start this review off with a bit of internet rumour and hyperbole; hey you should be used to this as a regular internet user! You see back in its early development X3’s director was Bryan Singer, the director of the original two movies. Meanwhile elsewhere in Hollywood the beleaguered production of the new Superman movie was being helmed by Brett Ratner. Soon though and under the usual cover of “Creative Differencesâ€

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:18 am
by Jumpman
True. They do hate everything. But, they may be right on this one....

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:19 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
No Phoenix action? Surely that can't be!!


Anyway, Fuck Chud mate. It's not even worth posting.

THEY HATE EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:28 am
by AtomicHyperbole
Sounds like the guy was expecting an essay. X1 had some moments, but neither exactly rang with themes that weren't already part of the material.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:37 am
by TonyWilson
If that is just bluster, which it could well be, it's bluster that speaks to everything I was worried about.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:41 am
by AtomicHyperbole
I'm not worried. Why? X-Men was a solid franchise but nothing exceptional... people are acting like it was the holy grail or Singer performed miracles. Solid action flick is what I'm looking for. People unholy bitched about the first (which wasn't that good), the second was a real improvement but was still Blade 2 messy fun and if they can do nothing but entertain with the third, great. Seriously, people sound like they're expecting this unholy great essay on human society and get their panties in a bunch that it isn't. Fuck off will it be. I bet it's exactly like the trailer and clips shown.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:49 am
by TonyWilson
AtomicHyperbole wrote:I'm not worried. Why? X-Men was a solid franchise but nothing exceptional... people are acting like it was the holy grail or Singer performed miracles. Solid action flick is what I'm looking for. People unholy bitched about the first (which wasn't that good), the second was a real improvement but was still Blade 2 messy fun and if they can do nothing but entertain with the third, great. Seriously, people sound like they're expecting this unholy great essay on human society and get their panties in a bunch that it isn't. Fuck off will it be. I bet it's exactly like the trailer and clips shown.



Ah, but I thought X2 was really really quite fantastic, better than Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins, behind Unbreakable though.
Singer has subtelty and it really worked with X2, I just wanted to see that again. The characters were well written, ok it wasn't Mamet, but it was real enough so that I cared about all the spectacle.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:50 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:51 am
by Chilli
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.


Nah, the film still sounds shite.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:51 am
by TonyWilson
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:54 am
by Chilli
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.


People have a right to bitch if it's crap 'cos of Ratner, but it just feels that they're already slagging/gonna slag it off more than it might deserve, simply 'cos they saw his name, (wonder if they'd be more forgiving if the exact same looking film had Singer's name on it) and a lot of the things they're already/gonna criticize it for might not be responsible by Ratner.


Kirk - if Singer directed the same script that Ratner is purported to have directed, and not changed anything within said script, it would be visually pleasing shite.

Some of us want better than that.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:57 am
by Seppuku
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.


People have a right to bitch if it's crap 'cos of Ratner, but it just feels that they're already slagging/gonna slag it off more than it might deserve, simply 'cos they saw his name, (wonder if they'd be more forgiving if the exact same looking film had Singer's name on it) and a lot of the things they're already/gonna criticize it for might not be responsible by Ratner.


If Uwe Boll were directing this movie then you'd be quaking in your boots right now, because Directors are important to a movie- they're often the difference between it being good or bad.

I'm sure if the film turns out good we'll all have to eat our boxers, but all we have to go on are a bunch of TV Spots, trailers, negative reviews, plants etc. And they all add up to what looks like a poor film. Plus there's LordoftheRatsner. Yes, he might just affect the movie that he's DIRECTING.

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:00 am
by Seppuku
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Fuck off people, Ratner isn't that shit. He fucking outdid Ridley Scott's Hannibal with Red Dragon, for heavens sake.

edit - wow, I'm sounding angry today. Er... hugs all round!


That's because Hannibal was piss-poor source material. And I still think even that's up for debate. As a big fan of Manhunter I'd prefer to watch Hannibal than the same fucking movie just done worse.

:roll: I'm sounding a wee bit tetchy myself. How's about that hug!