|
|
Post by Scifishocks on Feb 16, 2007 16:04:53 GMT 1
I'm going to leave it up as it is a poll and it would be interesting to see how many have or haven't seen it.
Any sign of unrest, however, and the poll will be deleted and the instigators will be stomped on mercilessly.
I am watching.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Feb 16, 2007 16:04:59 GMT 1
Yes, I've seen it and it was IMO a very poor film. Poorly directed, poorly acted, poor effects, poorly edited. Music was ok though and it did stick the closest to the original story. Overall 2/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusti on Feb 16, 2007 16:47:11 GMT 1
I'm going to leave it up as it is a poll and it would be interesting to see how many have or haven't seen it. Any sign of unrest, however, and the poll will be deleted and the instigators will be stomped on mercilessly. I am watching. Come on then put yer dukes up! (Raises fists in a cartoon boxer like manner...) |
|
|
|
Post by rusti on Feb 16, 2007 16:48:28 GMT 1
i've not seen it but ive seen enough clips and chapters to get a fairly good idea as to how scrotum scratching appalling it is.
I say ive seen 65% to 75% of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 16, 2007 17:39:55 GMT 1
Overall I found it a very amateur effort. I've seen much better produced fan films. What's most surprising to me is the way it was marketed at Wal-Mart. I understand the distributor was the one that distributes titles imitating popular titles (for instance, when Disney has a new animated film they'll release one with a similar title and Disney-esque cover art), so I can understand they'd carry the title as a knock-off of Spielberg's film. But what I do *not* understand is why Wal-Mart put the film in the "new release" rack along with major motion pictures, instead of putting it on the discount rack with the other knock-off titles.
Anyway, Pendragon got my money for the first-released DVD, and they won't get any more. However, I appreciate reading reviews of the new edits.
|
|
bobble
Newbie!
Spaced Invader
Posts: 22
|
Post by bobble on Feb 16, 2007 17:50:40 GMT 1
To be honest, i would not mind seeing it for 2 reasons
a - yes it is the closest to the book and...
b - to see what all the fuss is about and make up my own mind....I'm not bending over backwards to get hold if it but if a copy comes up, I'll give it a watch....
|
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Feb 16, 2007 17:53:17 GMT 1
Yes, I've seen it and it was IMO a very poor film. Poorly directed, poorly acted, poor effects, poorly edited. Music was ok though and it did stick the closest to the original story. Overall 2/10. What he said. And that's all I'm saying... |
|
Ashe Raven
Been Here a while!
Peace on Earth? Bwhahahahahahah!
Posts: 109
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 16, 2007 22:56:36 GMT 1
I have seen it. my comments stand that it was an awful film that was doomed to failure from the start because.
1: Timothy Hines had no patience to do the job properly
2: His ambitions were over exceeded by his decteption to others as well as himself
3: As for the production values the very very few highs (The handling machine, the Tripod striding over the cannons) were overshadowed by a dire acting, dire editing and poor direction.
There will be no "directors cut" in my shelf as Hines has already shown trhough his handling of the initial and failed much promised Cinema release when we all knew the truth cleary shows he is undesrving of any more than the $6 I already paid for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Feb 17, 2007 1:06:15 GMT 1
I have seen it and as a now fully trained animator and film editor it is my profession opinion to comment on its utter wankness. I went to the loo half an hour ago and created something better than timbo the bimbo did with way too much money and not enough intelligence.
But I am not going to comment on this shit film for fear of the little tim nice but dim getting revenge in his comical fashion
|
|
|
|
Post by Anim8tr on Feb 17, 2007 2:47:07 GMT 1
Perhaps, a vote for "Attempted; but couldn't endure entire film?"  |
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on Feb 17, 2007 3:02:09 GMT 1
I have seen it but I have no intention of watching it again.
Hine's did have an idea - but he didn't pull through with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by McTodd on Feb 17, 2007 13:01:54 GMT 1
3: As for the production values the very very few highs (The handling machine, the Tripod striding over the cannons) were overshadowed by a dire acting, dire editing and poor direction. Completely agree with your overall assessment, and also that the handling machine and the shot of the tripod striding over the guns were actually pretty damn good. Shame nothing else in the entire film measured up to those. Bizarrely, I still dig out the DVD once in a while and watch the odd bit. Not much, though... |
|
|
|
Post by Scifishocks on Feb 17, 2007 16:38:26 GMT 1
Alright. Fair enough, people want to comment on why they have voted how they have, but can we keep it constructive please?
Some of the comments here are bordering on the abusive and, no matter how some of us may feel about the people responsible for the film over this, this is not what this thread is about.
Please keep your answers succinct and to the point on this one, I closed the PP section for a reason, remember?
Satire is one thing but abuse is quite another. Please stay the right side of the line or this will disappear as well.
Thanks.
|
|
Ashe Raven
Been Here a while!
Peace on Earth? Bwhahahahahahah!
Posts: 109
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Feb 17, 2007 17:10:53 GMT 1
I asume that last response was to Redweed's post Nerfy  |
|
|
|
Post by Scifishocks on Feb 17, 2007 17:16:33 GMT 1
I'm not naming names, I just want people to keep to the point on this one. That's all.
|
|
