But it was dog squeeze.
Huh. Not finding that for a PS3 copy.
So, I saw S Squad last night... personally, I'm shocked at how negative the reviews were. I don't think the film was anywhere close to as bad as the reviews made it seem. Being rated worse then Green Lantern & F4 is a joke. The movie had its flaws, but none the less it was entertaining and was still fun seeing some villains on the big screen. Will Smith was great as Deadshot & Margot Robbie did a great Harley Quinn. Still not 100% sure how I feel about Letos Joker, it was a bit over the top, but then again he is playing a coocoo for coco puffs Joker (and unfairly comparing him to Ledgers performances, which is a totally different style of movie/Joker).
It definitely felt rushed, like all DC movies? However, it's pretty hard to develop 5-8 core villains/heroes in a 2 hr film.
Bottomline: Don't let the critics scare you from seeing SS. I still had a good time seeing the movie, was worth my $10 easily. I'd give it a 7.5/10.
It definitely felt rushed, like all DC movies? However, it's pretty hard to develop 5-8 core villains/heroes in a 2 hr film.
Bottomline: Don't let the critics scare you from seeing SS. I still had a good time seeing the movie, was worth my $10 easily. I'd give it a 7.5/10.
That's what I don't get. They keep trying to go about this backwards. Despite the fact that Marvel has already laid out the perfect formula right in front of them.
Got some real goobers handling the film side of DC's properties.
It sounds like Geoff Johns is really getting involved in the DC Cinematic universe, so hopefully that'll help. I'm glad DC didn't follow the Marvel plan of producing a solo Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg, and WW all before Justice League.
However, SS definitely should have followed the plan. Hard Joker/Harley/Deadshot get caught by Batman in his solo film. Flash catch Cpt Boomerang in his solo film and vice versa, that way we atleast have background stories for some of the characters.
Too late now
And awful.
Jurassic World isn't one I will try to defend. Just lazy and mailed in all around. You don't make that kind of money and not get a sequel though.
Just because a movie is good AND makes money doesn't mean a sequel will be good. Jurassic Park 2 and Ghostbusters 2 come to mind.
But a sequel to a weak movie can either be mailed in for a buck OR actually improve on the original.
But a sequel to a weak movie can either be mailed in for a buck OR actually improve on the original.
I think we all knew it was going to get a sequel just by the way it was left open-ended. Doesn't mean we should get a sequel.
I can't wait for Star-Lord to fight the weaponized Raptors!
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't have to be for everyone. I'm sure there were plenty of people who really loved it. Particularly younger kids.
Hey, ISIS!: If you hate America, you need to bomb Hollywood; not gay discos and athletic events!
We can't be right all the time... I think this movie is dropping to only 500 theaters this weekend or next.
I think it's still quite a loss... even with foreign sales.
Ouch!
Approximately $144 million, I believe. Probably another $100 million for promotions.
Yeah I was gonna say home video/ppv sales will still be through the roof. But $100 million marketing budget tough to overcome.
Thought I read Feig (sp?) said it would need to reach $500million to be successful... now what is considered successful, who's to say. Turn a profit of "x" amount?
Resident Evil is a highly prized game franchise. I never saw any used under $30 when I last checked (about 3 years ago). Dunno why but the value never drops on that series.
Exactly. That's why his argument doesn't hold.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
