I can't help but be reminded of Hank's magical bow from the original Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. Not that there was anything wrong with it; it was at least more reliable than Presto's magical hat.
As for the movie trailers... Immortals looks just bad. Musketeers looked interesting until the ninja with the weird crossbow jumped out of the lake and it went downhill from there.
Those movies may become cult classics one day (I'm pretty sure the new Conan will), but I don't think they're worth seeing in theaters.
Might watch that.
The other? Looks boring :/
They're bound to be interesting, I'm sure.
I can't help but be reminded of Hank's magical bow from the original Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. Not that there was anything wrong with it; it was at least more reliable than Presto's magical hat.
I saw both of these previews when I went with some friends to see Conan. And two of them said exactly the same thing about the bow.
As for the movie trailers... Immortals looks just bad. Musketeers looked interesting until the ninja with the weird crossbow jumped out of the lake and it went downhill from there.
Those movies may become cult classics one day (I'm pretty sure the new Conan will), but I don't think they're worth seeing in theaters.
Yeah, about that new Conan becoming a cult classic? I don't think so. I mean, with the first one you had an ok plot with good pacing. With the second, you have an ok plot that was utterly destroyed by the pacing. The editor should be shot. Trust me, it really is that bad - and unfortunate. I liked the movie but hated the fact that it could have been so much better had it been properly edited (likely, though, that would have required at least two movies). So yeah, I just think it's too bad to ever get that status. Er, bad in the wrong ways. And it's a damned shame because it could have been genuinely good.
Yeah, about that new Conan becoming a cult classic? I don't think so. I mean, with the first one you had an ok plot with good pacing. With the second, you have an ok plot that was utterly destroyed by the pacing. The editor should be shot. Trust me, it really is that bad - and unfortunate. I liked the movie but hated the fact that it could have been so much better had it been properly edited (likely, though, that would have required at least two movies). So yeah, I just think it's too bad to ever get that status. Er, bad in the wrong ways. And it's a damned shame because it could have been genuinely good.
Yeah, it felt rushed at times, like the editors wanted to show fighting and nothing else. I wish secondary characters got fleshed out more, like Artus or Ela-Shan. Strangely enough Conan's father was developed more than in Arnie version.
Maybe it'll be better on a disc.
) could have been great - ripoff or not. They just decided to cram too much plot into too little duration.Yeah, it felt rushed at times, like the editors wanted to show fighting and nothing else. I wish secondary characters got fleshed out more, like Artus or Ela-Shan. Strangely enough Conan's father was developed more than in Arnie version.
Maybe it'll be better on a disc.
My friends think it was done just to give the DVD release more 'extras'. I don't think even an extended cut loaded with extras would be enough to fix it, though. A pity.
But yeah, it's like the editors all decided that what made Conan awesome was boobs and blood. While that helped, the first movie was also, you know, a decent film in its own right. It's all flash and no substance these days, it seems. At least with action. Now, with something like The Expendables, I'm ok with that. Conan, though, deserved better.
www.intimemovie.com/
I certainly dig the concept.
Also, Inception.
I mean I found it to be pretty complicated as far as stories go. It was one of the few that was actually complicated to follow.
Ronan (get it? cuz Jason Momoa played Ronon Dex in Stargate: Atlantis?
A bit. Momoa did a good job tough. He played Conan, not some dumb muscle in a fur diaper
Maybe this action movie will have substance:
www.intimemovie.com/
I certainly dig the concept.
Also, Inception.
I think it will be wasted. Probably by "action"
Also, how come people who are 25 all look in their 30s? :P
And maybe they look older because it's supposed to be a sad world? :P I dunno. Didn't really notice it.
A bit. Momoa did a good job tough. He played Conan, not some dumb muscle in a fur diaper
Yeah, I liked his Conan. He was a little like Ronon, though. Then again, that's the character that made me like Momoa in the first place. ;)
What half did they make up and what half did they leave out? It seemed pretty well thought out to me... did I honestly miss that much of it?
The plot changed how the stuff worked when it was convenient to do so. They never worked in bounds of anything. I can't get too specific, unfortunately, cuz it's been some time since I've seen it. But they do leave a lot out so that they can just do whatever and, IIRC, the confusion comes from not knowing stuff cuz they left it out - not from being puzzled by the many layers they put in. Like I said, though, it was ok. I just don't think it was as masterfully written as so many like to say it was.
Can you explain the plot to Inception? You know, why the dream within the dream worked, and why Inception was believed not to work, and how reaching that conclusion caused the death of the girl?
I mean I found it to be pretty complicated as far as stories go. It was one of the few that was actually complicated to follow.
The dream within a dream was supposed to represent deeper and deeper layers of the subconscious mind. I've had dreams of my own where I dreamt, then thought I woke up, and then woke up later and realized that that had been a dream too. It's kind of trippy because the "waking up" portion usually feels real and not like a normal dream. Anyone that's had one like that probably sees why it would be easier to implant an idea in the dream within a dream rather than just the dream itself.
The problem with Inception and why it was deemed not to work was that the mind recognizes that the idea did not come from itself and naturally resists it. Making it work required constructing dreams that lead the person to the conclusion that you want them to reach, so even though it's your idea, they think of it on their own and thus accept the idea.
But there was a lot that didn't make sense. Like in the beginning where he puts his gun down because his friend is held hostage. But he already knows that killing his friend would just wake him up, whereas putting his gun down gave them the opportunity to torture his friend instead. So why would he do that? Or why are they so confident that even if they plant the idea that it will work? People don't always follow their own ideas, even ones that they think are good ideas, even ones that they believe came from a parent or friend. And if this guy had his mind specially trained to resist intrusion, even if they trick him while inside the dream, how would he not recognize the hoax when he woke up? And I'm still not clear on why the drop wouldn't wake someone up from any level of sleep. Or why a drop within a dream (since it's just a dream and not their real body) would wake them from another dream. Or how the other dreams even keep functioning once the dreamer goes to the next level of dreaming.
Ok, so what about the third Conan movie, the one that just got out?
D'oh!
The guy playing Porthos in Musketeers played Pullo in Rome.
Mickey Rourke is the only actor I recognise in Immortals.
Yeah, about that new Conan becoming a cult classic? I don't think so. I mean, with the first one you had an ok plot with good pacing. With the second, you have an ok plot that was utterly destroyed by the pacing. The editor should be shot. Trust me, it really is that bad - and unfortunate. I liked the movie but hated the fact that it could have been so much better had it been properly edited (likely, though, that would have required at least two movies). So yeah, I just think it's too bad to ever get that status. Er, bad in the wrong ways. And it's a damned shame because it could have been genuinely good.
I get the feeling they had filmed much more, but someone said "it's too long. People will not see it if it's too long. Cut it down to size." With any luck, the DVD may have the uncut version.
As for Musketeers... it needs zombies. If you're going to have the girlie from the resident evil movies flying around killing stuff, it may as well be zombies she's killing. At least that would make sense.
Mickey Rourke is the only actor I recognise in Immortals.
Even having actors like Mickey Rourke in that film can't get me past the fact that the BBEG is apparently wearing either an overgrown venus flytrap or a shark with dental problems as a helmet...
Mickey Rourke is the only actor I recognise in Immortals.
Even having actors like Mickey Rourke in that film can't get me past the fact that the BBEG is apparently wearing either an overgrown venus flytrap or a shark with dental problems as a helmet...
I think he's cosplaying as the pokemon Pinsir.
Mickey Rourke is the only actor I recognise in Immortals.
Even having actors like Mickey Rourke in that film can't get me past the fact that the BBEG is apparently wearing either an overgrown venus flytrap or a shark with dental problems as a helmet...
Actually, it's the OG monster hoodie.
