|
Paco the Taco
|
It comes out tomorrow! Who is going to see it? I won't get to until evening...or sometime later this weekend. Homework and the usual will keep me quite busy until then.
Taco out...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
OoPpEe
Spectre
Posts: 42
|
Already have money put aside to see it, I don't have high hopes for it though.
It BETTER have a CyberDemon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
  
Posts: 1011
|
Doom the movie isn't a bad movie, it's just not doom.
And there's at least one typo in the credits, and there's Z-fighting on the rifle in the fps credits.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
Kain-Xavier
|
Doom the movie isn't a bad movie, it's just not doom. I have a similar opinion, but I liked the direction that they took it in. It wasn't what I wanted, but it wasn't what I didn't want either. It was a somewhat pleasant surprise. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
I'm going to reserve my judgement about the movie until I've actually seen it, but did anyone else see The Rock being interviewed about this movie on the Daily Show?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
I'll try to catch the Portuguese translation of that Daily Show to see what he says about the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
l4mby
|
It got some really bad reviews. rottentomatoes.com ripped it apart and gave it only a 20%. Some of the comments from critics are funny tho. Here's the link: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/doom/I take that back, it just dropped to 19%. *snickers* I'll see the movie regardless just to see it. If I enjoy it or not is another story. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
When it comes to movies, especially action movies, I often find when critics say "It sucks" I end up liking the film to a large degree. I also see critics give 4 star ratings to the most boring and uninteresting fare you can find. Why? It's "drama", or in other words, some sop of an actress boohooing and basically behaving like a real person in front of the camera, in a real-world scenario, doing nothing interesting, and certainly nothing you couldn't see without needing a film to view it. Screw that. I want tank battles, explosions, or 10 foot tall knights swinging axes at each other. You know, stuff you normally DON'T get to see.
Movie critics are a bunch of stuck up, snobbish, egotistical elitist know-it-alls, whose opinions stink far worse than anything I've ever left on the ground behind me. If the movie critics hate it, great. Odds are I'll love it. I'm certainly going to see it. :rules:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
Movie critics are a bunch of stuck up, snobbish, egotistical elitist know-it-alls.. I disagree. (but keep in mind that I don't generally read American movie reviews/reviewers) There's not a homogenous market and audience for movies. Blockbusters are 'good for everyone' and quite often made for the money, experimental / technical research movies are made by and for experimenters, Films Noir are made for Film Noir-lovers, Bollywood movies are made for an Indian audience, et cetera. The same problem arises that exists with all art criticism. Some people simply enjoy seeing a nicely hand-crafted picture of a ship sitting on a dock. They don't want nor care for the underlying intentions of the artist, historical context, the philosophy of art or even mathematical beauty. They don't want it to be thought-provoking or confrontational. This, just as with those who prefer Aliens vs. Predator over, say, La Haine, is ofcourse fine. Serious movie/art critics, however, are generally more interested in what lies beyond the realm of entertainment (or kitsch), since this has more depth. The director is trying to do something more than throw explosions and car chases at the viewer (and use violence as a means to create suspense - but this is a different topic altogether), and good movie critics are the ones who know enough to see through and enjoy these aspects - ones that remain hidden to most of the average movie's viewers. Let's say an intricate plot is presented in a way that can only be detected and appreciated by those who know what's going on, that it is more abstract and maybe requires a few views before it all falls into place. -- Whether this be by having studied movies thoroughly or having read the right kind of culture produce, and even whether this is more valuable than single-layer presentation or not, is a discussion I'm not about to lose myself into - it is my opinion that more depth makes for a better movie (or song, or any work of art) and that we should all seek to understand and discover the underlying qualities. I am fully aware that a lot of people disagree with me on this and that, certainly from a philosophical standpoint, it is by no means decided what art is, what its value is and whether complication or simplification are the highest ways of abstraction and aesthetic. -- If you don't care for this (whatever you may want to call it), you'll not care for the opinions of experts and wanna-be experts alike (and you won't know or want to know the difference between those two). However, I think it is wrong to judge them as you do - just as I think it is wrong to judge Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment to be a 'boring piece of shit' when compared to Dan Brown's Digital Fortress, simply because you personally don't enjoy what the former has to offer (regardless of whether this has to do with a lack of knowledge about Russian history or not), or because the latter is a more accessible page-turner. Either product aims at a (more or less specific) audience and it is within that audience that you are best off seeking advice or reviews - anything outside of that is not 'snobbish' or 'know-it-all', but rather a regarding of the matter in a different light. Whether this gives those critics the right to look down upon others is not a point I'm willing to argue - what I do know is that there's more to movie/art criticism than most people know, and that studying it has enriched my life as much as any effort I have made. Although it comes at a price (since there comes a time when it becomes harder to enjoy blockbuster movies, for instance), this is a price well worth paying, just like it is well worth losing an appetite for sitcoms by learning to appreciate ancient Greek comedy. Yes, ofcourse there are action movies that have more to show for them than some 'drama movies' - every rule has its exceptions. Fight Club, Bourne Identity are two damn good action movies that pop to mind. I can't really think of a 'boohoohoo' type drama that sucked at this time, but I'm sure I've seen a few. And having said all that, I can safely say I'll probably enjoy watching the Doom movie. Hell, I even loved watching The Man with the Screaming Brain ( imdb). And I'm willing to go so far as to say that there are probably people out there who consider themselves art critics, pretend not to like these kinds of action movies at all and who are snobbish, stuck-up and even egotistical (although I fail to see how that's related  ). These are the same people that look down upon others simply because they were born as rich aristocrats and they best crawl back to the whole whence they came. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-10-23, 12:06 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I think it is wrong to judge them as you do What's this? A definitive statement by Tab? By jove, I nailed him good! 
Seriously though, my point is that movie critics often times are so dull and stuffy they don't know how to have fun, and they wouldn't know entertainment if it bit them on the nose. I'm talking about the "film academy" level of movie critics, not the local paper's "go and see a flick and write something about it" people. I don't care how they want to rate "serious drama". I never said they shouldn't critique that. The problem I have is that they always put drama and "human condition" stuff levels above anything else. Sci-fi, fantasy, action, etc, always take a back seat. Look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Regardless of whether or not someone liked the films, the cinematography, effects work, acting, costuming - all of it worked seamlessly to create a very believable world. The artistry behind creating the film was amazing, and on top of that, it did exactly what the director set out to do. Yet, it took until Return of the King for the Film Academy to even recognize the work, and even then it was only because there were so many ticket sales and so much public opinion behind the movies that they HAD to recognize it. Sure it got a ton of awards, but it was completely unfair to the other two films, and it was also unfair to the other films that were up for judging that year that probably should have gotten some of the awards that ROTK received had it not been for this. Why? Why did it take so long? Because of the elitist attitudes of the film academy, and the fact that they flat out don't want to take sci-fi and fantasy films seriously.
What do films like Doom get ripped apart for? Often it's because someone goes in with an expectation, a prejudice, of what a film should be, and what they think the particular film they're going to see will be. That taints the experience and biases the opinion. A film like Doom, can easily be measured and critiqued for technical reasons, but the subjective part is often what gets attacked. You go into it knowing it's a monster movie where everyone is going to die. If that right there already turns you off then you have no business writing a critique. If you've been getting in your head "Doom movie? Based on a video game... it's going to suck", and you go see it... well odds are you'll think it sucks regardless. So Mr. Critic goes in, gets exactly what he expects because you know he won't change his attitude (after all, HE'S the critic) comes out and writes what he would have if he hadn't even seen the movie. This goes from "I don't like monster films and/or video game movies" to "this movie is bad". It is nothing more than a personal opinion. I'm not saying they all do this, but a great many do. Now I'm not talking at all about whether someone blasts Doom in particular over the comparison to the game. That's different, that implies someone at least knows the game, and that involves "purism" so I can and do understand rants of that nature. I'm willing to set that aside and judge the film on its own merits. I'm just ticked about the whole film critic attitude toward action/sci-fi/fantasy in general.
Also, I can appreciate heavy drama. There are some movies I have not watched precisely because they are too emotional, and I don't want to get worked up over it. I just think it's sad and pathetic that some people think they are above watching fun and exciting things, or that action, sci-fi, and fantasy are somehow "beneath" them. It's like the guy who wears the $400 suit and goes to operas and wouldn't be caught dead playing in the dirt, versus the guy with the $10 t-shirt throwing a football with his son. I just don't see why one always has to exclude the other. Then again, I see movies because I want to be entertained, not because I am looking for social commentary. Perhaps that's why I tend to like films the critics often bash? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Moshman
|
I'm gonna black and shrink the text so is not to spoil it for someone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOOM the movie isn't bad but I am a bit disappointed on the way they changed the storyline from the original. The demons not being demons, but rather being a mutation. I do love the "icing on the cake" per se when they brought in that BFG, and holy shit on a shingle, what a big fvcking gun!!! Blue ray instead of green though. The Rock was the perfect "Doom Guy" and good acting from his end.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd give the move a B+ overall.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-10-23, 23:47 by Little Washu »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
What's this? A definitive statement by Tab? I guess you missed a few hundred then. Anyway, my point was that this is not, in most cases, about a personal, undefensible bias. It is hard to explain the difference between Art and Kitsch, and it is even harder to convince people that there is nothing wrong with kitsch for the sake of what it is. I make it. I enjoy making it. I'm proud of making it to my best efforts. But it is not, by academic standards, art. Whether you agree with the latter or not, there is more to it than personal bias. Don't get me wrong here, I don't believe there's any good in a serious movie critic that goes and sees the Doom movie just to pound it into the ground. If she goes to see the movie in the hopes of seeing a work of art (by her job's standards), she has not done her homework. If she is not able to appreciate the skill in setting up scenes of action, special effects and good one-liners, she is in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and shouldn't try to write a serious article about it. If she did, and write a crushing 'it sucks' review, she would make a mistake quite comparable to an early disagreeable teen calling Amadeus a boring piece of crap. I'm probably reading very different movie reviews by very different critics than you have encountered. The last sci-fi reviews I've read concerned the new BSG series and Firefly, and nothing but love is what they expressed. Rightfully so, say I. The Dutch movie-goers community is a bit more down-to-earth than most of our neighbouring communities, so perhaps, as I hinted at earlier, there's a lot more bullshit being spouted by so-called critics in the States, I don't know. Point me in the direction of reviews that you think are typically of the wrong sort, if you like, perhaps that'll clear things up for me. The Doom movie was never made to be a 'work of art', it was made for a wholly different purpose - people ripping it apart because they were expecting that, are themselves at fault - and keeping that in mind, I go and see, and doubtlessly enjoy, the movie. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-10-24, 10:20 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
OoPpEe
Spectre
Posts: 42
|
The movie was alright, I will be buying it when it comes out on DVD. I wasn't disappointed in it, but I didn't come out saying it was the best movie I ever saw either. The movie had Doom elements, but they changed too much in my opinion.
Doom is "Hell Unleashed" and that is in the literal form.
They made it a mutation a-la T-Virus (Resident Evil), that didn't bother me too much overall though.
What didn't make it a great movie was the lack of well Doom.
Lets see what Doom elements it had:
Marines
UAC
Mars
Mars Base
Teleporters
Imps
Zombies
Pinky
"Sarge" being a bad guy by the end (Like in Doom 3)
BFG
Hellknight
Recognizable things though were just:
BFG
Zombies
Pinky
Imp
HellKnight
I saw so much potential of The Rock turning into a CyberDemon (no a "true" CyberDemon though), when I saw him wrap the bar around his fist. I pontentially saw him taking off, mutation completing and that arm would have mechanical elements to it (would still be missing the leg though). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-10-25, 07:16 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kain-Xavier
|
Yar... I don't mean to be a bastard, but you might want to add some spoiler tags to your post Ooppee. I've already seen the movie, but if I hadn't I wouldn't want to know the monster roster and the final battle and such.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
Not that I don't want to see it, it's because I can't, I rarely go to the cinema and it hasn't arrived here
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I guess you missed a few hundred then. Nah, just having a bit of fun is all. Yes, I'd say it's almost certainly a difference in which critics are being read. I'm not railing about specific reviews of Doom, it's just a peeve I've had for a long time regarding US critics and their attitudes towards genres I happen to like.
perhaps, as I hinted at earlier, there's a lot more bullshit being spouted by so-called critics in the States, I don't know. I would have to say this is the case. I spoiler-tagged OoPpEe's post, and did my best to make sure I didn't catch anything that might spoil the film for me in the process. For those who don't know how to use them, here's how you spoiler tag something:[/color] [s]Text containing spoiler stuff. [/s] This will end up looking like this: Text containing spoiler stuff. Mouse over it and you can read it.[/color] |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-10-25, 07:20 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Ok, I've seen it. Impressions spoiler tagged below.Decent film on its own, I've seen better and I've seen worse. I agree with Angst's assessment that it's just not Doom. The break with the Doom storyline, with the zombification, etc, not being caused by possession really takes a lot away from it. There's so much that could have been done with the film that wasn't. The monster types were extremely limited as a result as well. No cacodemons, no flying skulls, no arachnotrons or revenants... no fireballs from the imps. We like all that stuff, and sadly it wasn't present. With the whole Hell aspect missing, it feels more like a shadow of Doom, and not the real thing. I certainly would have written it differently. Imagine if the archaeological dig turned up a doorway straight to Hell instead of all this genetics stuff? They had the plot device right there for it, but they missed the target.
The second major nitpick I have was the weapons, or lack thereof. No rocket launcher? No plasma rifle? Come on, the only advanced weapon they had was the BFG, which was parked in a big empty room. I didn't see much of what looked like parts of advanced weapons laying around, like you'd expect to see in an R&D lab. Besides that, Doom was most memorable for blowing stuff away with the 12 gauge repeatedly. We didn't get to see much shotgun work at all, Goat got maybe 2 shots off with it, and I think Destroyer only managed to frag a monkey with that big chaingun of his. Most of the shooting was done with a pretty standard issue machinegun.
Karl Urban and The Rock did great jobs in playing their parts, though I think Sarge's "kill everything" attitude at the end was a little over the top. He did look like he was having a psychotic episode though, maybe it was all a bit too much for him? Everyone handled their weapons correctly, and Reaper moved exactly as I'd expect to see a special ops guy move. Kudos to the trainer for that at least. The first-person sequence was fantastic, though a few bits of it were a bit too obviously staged. I think this was the highlight of the movie and it actually did feel like you were watching someone play a video game in a real-life setting. I didn't see any real problems with the acting or casting, though I absolutely hated Portman. The guy was a scumbag and didn't look like he belonged on a special ops team. It would have been nice to see him get slowly disemboweled by a Hell Knight.
One of the best scenes in the film was the pit fight between Destroyer and the Hell Knight. I absolutely loved that part. I do like the fact that the movie took itself seriously, and though it strayed a lot from the Doom storyline, it came out decent in the end as a result. It certainly wasn't apoligetic about the gore. They did right by going for an R rating. If this ended up being a PG-13 film it would have turned out as utter crap. My hope is that this acts as a turning point in the "game-to-film" thinking of a lot of writers and directors. I do think it's a step in the right direction, and was worth taking the time to see. Maybe the Quake movie (if one is ever made) will finally get it right?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
I look forward to seeing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
