Mr. Metro's Reviews [Archive]

Mr. Metro

10-25-08, 02:58 PM

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/6/MPW-3129

I first saw Donnie Darko on TV. It was on HBO in 2007 and I remembered watching it. Whenever it was over, I just sat there for a minute and realized what I just watched. What I watched was very well put together, very cinematic, and extremely cult. Donnie Darko, in my book, acheives great heights in cinema, and every horror movie fan should enjoy this. Its cast is perfect as well. Jake Gyllenhaal was the perfect role. Holmes Osborne did good too. If you're a horror movie fan - Then you will like this. Take my word for it, come back to this thread, and tell me what you thought.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/4box.gif

Mr. Metro

10-25-08, 03:19 PM

http://media.movieweb.com/img/s/e/e/PHbP5jcbPDisee_m.jpg (http://www.movieweb.com/features/pop.php?p=PHbP5jcbPDisee)

Zack Snyder's film unpacks gore, war, violence, and grief about the little Spartan army that could. Infact, the entire film was shot behind a green screen - Which bores the crap out of you. Because the entire background looks gothic and dark, and the picture looks misty sort of like the background of the poster. To tell you the truth, I didn't fall asleep in it but it was definitely awful. Who wants a boring background with no texture. It may not sound like a big deal to you, but the entire movie seems dark. I hate movies like that because it ruins visuals. However, 300 does pack a promising leadership in action. This movie is mostly for Gladiator and Braveheart fans, but most likely the film is quite entertaining. It may be boring most of the time, but a historical visual epic on the historic battle seems too good to be true.

3

meatwadsprite

10-25-08, 03:28 PM

Not sure how you can think the film is anything short of beautiful (visually that is).

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:enr86eZOK2pKtM:http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Three_Hundred_300/300_movie_image_gerard_butler.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:iA2GJ3SWU8sodM:http://www.tamaleaver.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/windowslivewriter300anonlinemarketinghit-912c3007.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:XBHPi9wlz26B0M:http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/05/arts/3001600.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:h9MseaQ0XpdQCM:http://blogs.indiewire.com/gabe/archive/300b.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-jbFKDYzv_W32M:http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/brown/archives/300small.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:zAgjZawncxcxXM:http://r4nt.com/images/v6/article/large_pic/250/300_lg.jpg

Regardless , why do you give it a 3 out of 5 if you thought it was boring ?

Mr. Metro

10-25-08, 03:31 PM

http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/thestrangers/thestrangers4_large.jpg

Liv Tyler always seems to be good in everything she's in. Scott Speedman included. But The Strangers suprised me, only because it wasen't scary at all. It was like watching One Missed Call over and over again - It's a movie you don't want to watch again. I was really disappointed in this becaue the trailer looked scary. The creepy soundtrack and the way they trick Liv and Speedman's characters into doing the wrong things... But the plot, storyline, and outline is just too "normal". Sure it would be scary if that happened to me or you, but I don't see it happening in the near future. Any horror fan would know that The Strangers was ALRIGHT. But, it lacked effort and that's what caused it to sink. The soundtrack and the costume design are just scary. Now that I will agree on. But, when it comes to the plot - They always do stupid things like in every horror movie noawadays. Instead of heading for the door, they head for UPSTAIRS. The Strangers lacks morals in deadly situations (even though it's not supposed to), but I have to say overall: The Strangers was alright, but not good due to its unsteady plot and tangled outline.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/2box.gif

honeykid

10-25-08, 10:10 PM

They always do stupid things like in every horror movie noawadays. Instead of heading for the door, they head for UPSTAIRS.

To be fair, that's always happened in horror films. If they just ran out the door and legged it, there'd be no tension. It's just a horror trait, y'know, like bad guys not being able to shoot straight in action films.

PrometheusFG

10-25-08, 10:33 PM

I didn't enjoy 300 at all. It bored me as well.

honeykid

10-26-08, 12:00 AM

That's probably because 300 is crap.

Also, did anyone else think it looked as if it'd been shot in a small room or stage? Most of the scenes, that aren't fight scenes, seemed to have the actors all in one space, with no one really moving very much. That could've be the directors want, but to me it appeared to look very cramped.

mark f

10-26-08, 12:12 AM

Sorta like the frame of a comic or graphic novel?

Mr. Metro

10-26-08, 02:40 AM

https://ca.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/64/MPW-32238

The best thing about this 1997 low-budget horror flick is that is happens to sink the audience into its plot, but then throws it back out. Cube happens to be a corny low-budget piece of trash. It has a promising plot and it is an extremely good thriller, but is it worth money? No, it is not. Tacky and corny special effects, actors you've never heard of before, and of course stupid music and an ending that is just awful, Cube may be a high-pitched thriller, but it is only becoming less and less interesting along the way, until its idiotic conclusion.

3

honeykid

10-26-08, 02:56 AM

Sorta like the frame of a comic or graphic novel?

Is that what they were going for? If that's the case, then it's even worse. What little I've seen of the medium has been presented much better than that.

Mrs. Darcy

10-26-08, 12:28 PM

Mr. Metro

10-26-08, 01:03 PM

http://image.mcomet.com/iw/2002/0285492/2007_10_26_01_25_02_14062_0_1.jpg

This may have a bigger budget than 1997's Cube, but it still doesn't add up to be a faithful film. Only fans of the original will like this sequel, but if you didn't like the first one, then you will surely hate this one even more. Cube was a high-class thriller, and that's one of the things I liked about it. But still it wasn't a good one in my book. And the original thriller touch of Cube is absent in Cube 2: Hypercube. For a horror movie, you would expect a little more action. Instead, the film doesn't focus on one area. It just bounces back at you and the plot changes instantly over and over again. That's why it may be a faithful sequel to the series's fans, but not a faithful movie to moviegoers.

2.5

honeykid

10-26-08, 10:22 PM

I haven't met anyone who has seen Cube, and I was just wondering whether to see it or not when I happened across it on IMDB a couple of weeks ago. I was intrigued with the plot and thought it might be worth a watch.

I really enjoyed Cube, but then I saw it way back, before the sequel, prequel and the good word of mouth that Cube received. I will say that I haven't seen either of the other Cube's and the main reason for that is that I didn't think that they'd be any good. As a stand alone film I think that Cube is worth seeing, but I couldn't see how it could support either a sequel or a prequel.

epsicolian

10-27-08, 05:26 AM

wow love to see it

Thursday Next

10-27-08, 07:19 AM

I haven't met anyone who has seen Cube, and I was just wondering whether to see it or not when I happened across it on IMDB a couple of weeks ago. I was intrigued with the plot and thought it might be worth a watch.

It is worth a watch. It is low budget and the acting is not of the highest calibre, perhaps, but it is entertaining and really quite tense in places. I didn't think the ending was idiotic either.

blibblobblib

10-27-08, 01:21 PM

Cube happens to be a corny low-budget piece of trash. It has a promising plot and it is an extremely good thriller, but is it worth money? No, it is not. Tacky and corny special effects, actors you've never heard of before, and of course stupid music and an ending that is just awful, Cube may be a high-pitched thriller, but it is only becoming less and less interesting along the way, until its idiotic conclusion.
Wow, i actually think i might disagree with you 100%. I thought Cube was a brilliant, low-budget, dark, tense, well-written, science fiction, thriller that delivered where almost every modern horror fails. And the ambiguous ending was perfect for me.

Yeah the acting was crap, and the soundtrack (which i don't really rememver there being much of) wasnt great, but other than that. pretty good effort i thought.

Mr. Metro

11-01-08, 06:41 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/CUBEZEROPOSTER.jpg

If you're a fan of the Cube series, then you might as well not watch this prequel. Fan or no fan, this is extremely unfaithful as a film, and as a Cube film. In this one, we finally get a look outside of the cube. Instead of being able to make a thrilling plot, the film wraps itself around audience and goes too far-fetched for fans to enjoy. So what does Cube Zero have to offer? Pretty much nothing but a waste of time. But if you enjoy those tacky, low-budget titles, then you might as well watch this, but if you're an average movie-goer, then you will not enjoy this film. At all.

0

Mr. Metro

11-01-08, 06:47 PM

http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/southlandtales/southlandtales3_large.jpg

Being faithful to Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly's second directorial film collides once more with the prime time plot: The end of the world. After the success of Donnie Darko, you would think Kelly would create another cult classic following in the footsteps of Robert Rodriguez, Zack Snyder, and Quentin Tarintino. But, Kelly is not so lucky. With an all-star cast including Dwayne Johnson, Seann William Scott, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Mandy Moore, and Justin Timberlake - Kelly's promising cast, plot, and trailer definitely makes you want to see this. But it isn't worth it. Being a Richard Kelly fan myself, I have to admit that Southland Tales is a waste of time. Even Richard Kelly fans as myself will despise this film.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/1.5box.gif

rice1245

11-01-08, 08:29 PM

those are my thoughts exactly! i saw the trailer and was like 'omg that looks bomb' and then i turned it off twenty minutes into it when i found out that the republicans are pretty much responsible for the end of the world...that's just ridiculous

rice1245

11-01-08, 08:31 PM

Zack Snyder's film unpacks gore, war, violence, and grief about the little Spartan army that could. Infact, the entire film was shot behind a green screen - Which bores the crap out of you. Because the entire background looks gothic and dark, and the picture looks misty sort of like the background of the poster. To tell you the truth, I didn't fall asleep in it but it was definitely awful. Who wants a boring background with no texture. It may not sound like a big deal to you, but the entire movie seems dark. I hate movies like that because it ruins visuals. However, 300 does pack a promising leadership in action. This movie is mostly for Gladiator and Braveheart fans, but most likely the film is quite entertaining. It may be boring most of the time, but a historical visual epic on the historic battle seems too good to be true.

3

i gotta disagree with you on that one =\ 300 was the most visually pleasing movie i have ever seen

Mr. Metro

11-02-08, 11:53 AM

http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/iamlegend/iamlegend3_large.jpg

When it comes to Will Smith, his films are quite enjoyable. Francis Lawrence's adaption of two previous films and a novel written in 1926, may just halt him in his career. Legend's plot is fast-paced and well-thought, but it's corny special effects practically lowered it down a notch. Liking the idea of an apocalyptic thriller where one man has survived, is a fine way to point the film out. But, he doesn't really know if he is the last man on Earth in the film, which he never leaves New York because it's "ground-zero". But, just like he has no belief in the survivor's colony. In the end, what do you think we see? A survivor's colony. This is the sort of stuff that breaks it down. However, Legend is a great visual epic noir with a plot tone that surpises for an apocalyptic thriller that is different from most other ones.

3

Mr. Metro

11-02-08, 12:10 PM

http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/cloverfield/cloverfield6_large.jpg

The hand-held camera technique has found its way back into Hollywood again. In 2000, The Blair Witch Project showed audiences a realistic vision of three kids getting lost in the woods, being stalked and hunted by a witch. Quarantine had a taste towards horror as well. Cloverfield is an extremely realistic visual of what would happen if such an event took place. As the trailer states (which makes you want to see it even more): Witness the most historic event in the world, from the eyes of those who are there. That gives me goosebumps. This film has made its way into Hollywood and becoming as popular as it is, anybody who has never seen Cloverfield must, if they want to be blown away.

3.5

Mr. Metro

11-02-08, 12:20 PM

http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/beowulf/beowulf14_large.jpg

Academy-Award winning director Robert Zemeckis explores the novel Beowulf (Nowell Codex) in this visually outstanding epic. This action-packed adventure of special effects and an outstanding musical score features an all-star cast such as: Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich, Robin Wright Penn, and Angelina Jolie. Visually outstanding, Beowulf explores the ultimate violent rage of Grendel, a monster who is terrifying towns because of her anger, and her son who started the rampage. So if you're looking for a good movie to watch, and you haven't seen Beowulf, watch it and you won't be dissapointed.

3.5

MovieMan8877445

11-02-08, 12:26 PM

Meh, Beowulf wasn't that good to me, I had expected more, but didn't get it.

Mr. Metro

11-02-08, 01:53 PM

Mr. Metro

11-02-08, 03:00 PM

http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/quarantine/quarantine1_large.jpg

How stupid can Hollywood get? This film is a remake of 2007's [REC] (which I thought was extremely scary). Quarantine goes there. It follows The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, Cannibal Holocaust, The Last Broadcast, and Zero Day. But it still misses primal horror technique, for example: Scaring you (like jumping out at somebody), and it doesn't make you wonder like Cloverfield, where you have no idea where the monster came from. The only real thing you wonder about is what's going on in the beginning. Why were they being called there? You never wonder why they're sealing it off, because the movie is so predictable, including from the poster and trailer. Especially the trailer (and again, especially the beginning of the trailer).

3