Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sorcerer's Apprentice

eloisel

eloisel

Forever Empress E
I enjoyed it.

The special effects and cgi were pretty good. I enjoyed the necessary scene of the apprentice using magic to clean up and making a big mess out of it.

There were a few places that were genuinely funny.

It was well made with some interesting things to look at.

The story wasn't bad but it could have been better. A bit pat.

I always enjoy the Tesla coils.

It would have been better if this movie could have upped it a notch to be a blockbuster but as it is it is a pretty good movie - About an A-/B+. Something younger kids could see without too much worry and without boring mom and dad to death. The giant stone eagle and bronze bull coming to life might have been a bit scary for the little ones but not too much.

The very long intro of the pre-story would make an interesting prequel.

Overall, another one better to see at the bargain matinee and to see on the big screen first.
 
From what I've seen of the CGI, it seems along the lines of Night Watch and Day Watch. Though, if they're not protecting some magic chalk, the plot is probably a lot better than those two movies.
 
"Raising Arizona", "Leaving Las Vegas" = Nick Cage Not being a Whore

"Ghostrider", any of the "National Treasure" movies = Nick Cage being a Whore.

Where does this rate? I am curious.
 
Consumer said:
"Raising Arizona", "Leaving Las Vegas" = Nick Cage Not being a Whore

"Ghostrider", any of the "National Treasure" movies = Nick Cage being a Whore.

Where does this rate? I am curious.
Click to expand...

I liked the first National Treasure. The second one wasn't so bad, I'd just already seen it in the first one.

Cage was also good in "Peggy Sue Got Married."

I've not seen it but I think he gots lots of props for "Moonstruck."

He is an actor. He is a good one. He has lots of castles and stuff to support.
 
Conchaga said:
From what I've seen of the CGI, it seems along the lines of Night Watch and Day Watch. Though, if they're not protecting some magic chalk, the plot is probably a lot better than those two movies.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Night Watch and Day Watch.

The Sorcerer and his apprentice aren't protecting some magic chalk.

The story isn't bad but you have to keep in mind it is a Disney picture. Some places where I would have ramped it up, they have to hold back because of the target audience.

One of the scary sorcerer's had the most stupid magic method and the effect wasn't as scary as the dragon in "Enchanted" even though it could have been off the chart.

Same with the giant bronze bull becoming animated. In a movie intended for an adult audience, that bull would have torn down the town, or at least did major scaring of the citizenry.

The bad guy recruits a modern day sorcerer who, for all his evil ways, is somewhat softened by his modern lifestyle and, with a little positive encouragement, would probably waffle and not support the ultimate evil plot. The story didn't even pursue that conflict line which I think would have made for an interesting turn in the story.

I still enjoyed the movie.
 
Silhouette said:
But hes legendary for accepting a cheesy rubbish scripts, 1 in 5 of his films are win.
Click to expand...

I think it is a crap shoot as to which movies are going to achieve popularity. That is assuming the production values are good, everybody is doing their job, and the story is interesting. Audiences are fickle and spoiled by a barrage of really good movies. It is hard to keep topping the last amazing movie.
 
eloisel said:
I've not seen it but I think he gots lots of props for "Moonstruck."

He is an actor. He is a good one. He has lots of castles and stuff to support.
Click to expand...

I saw "Moonstruck", he was good in that.

And I agree with your second statement as well. The problem with Cage is he IS good, so I get very disappointed when he is in a bad movie.
 
eloisel said:
I think it is a crap shoot as to which movies are going to achieve popularity. That is assuming the production values are good, everybody is doing their job, and the story is interesting. Audiences are fickle and spoiled by a barrage of really good movies. It is hard to keep topping the last amazing movie.
Click to expand...

ok that is one perspective, which is right upon you, for me on the other hand, the last film that came out that i watched more than once came out like 4 years ago called dead mans shoes.

Im constantly disappointed by films of the modern era, much better were the days of such greats as "The Ladykillers" "Double Indemnity" the original "Cape Fear"

i was born 40 years too late :(
 
I like good movies - old or new. I am getting a little burned out on 3-D right now though. I think I got tired of it some 30 years ago when Hollywood went through a resurgence of 3-D phase. I think people got tired of it some 30 years before that too.
 
The original "The Haunting" (1963).

Minimal special effects. Excellent writing, good acting. Scary and suspenseful!

Remake in 1999. CGI. Poor treatment of the original material. Actors phoning it in.

Yeah...

I'm waiting for the remake of "Casablanca".

(With Freddy Prinz Jr. as Rick Blaine, Lyndsy Lohan as Ilsa Lund, Joaquin Phoenix as Victor Laszlo, Jerry Lewis (in CGI makeup) as Captain Louis Renault, and Chris Rock as "Sam", Michael Bay Directing, and Produced by George Lucas)
 
its because they used to have to rely on the wrighting for it to be a good film rather than copping out with visualy stunning effects, they were better because they had to be well written there was way more presure on it.
 
plus a well writen and directed film does not need special effects to to create suspense and atmosphere, its all vision and music choice.
 
Consumer said:
The original "The Haunting" (1963).

Minimal special effects. Excellent writing, good acting. Scary and suspenseful!

Remake in 1999. CGI. Poor treatment of the original material. Actors phoning it in.

Yeah...
Click to expand...

I was thinking of that very same movie as I was posting above. The original has very little in the way of special effects and yet it is very scary and keeps you engaged the whole film. The remake with Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta-Jones just sucked. I think everyone did their job it just wasn't a good remake because it wasn't better than the original.

I'm waiting for the remake of "Casablanca".

(With Freddy Prinz Jr. as Rick Blaine, Lyndsy Lohan as Ilsa Lund, Joaquin Phoenix as Victor Laszlo, Jerry Lewis (in CGI makeup) as Captain Louis Renault, and Chris Rock as "Sam", Michael Bay Directing, and Produced by George Lucas)
Click to expand...

That is why you have needles stuck all over your face.
 
Silhouette said:
its because they used to have to rely on the wrighting for it to be a good film rather than copping out with visualy stunning effects, they were better because they had to be well written there was way more presure on it.
Click to expand...

The visual aspect of a movie is very important - otherwise it is a radio program.

Some movies are awesome because of all the special effects. The stories really couldn't come to life if the special effects weren't possible. I loved the remake of King Kong. The first KK was good storywise but the recent remake took it up lots of notches because of the special effects.

We still need a good story though.
 
Alec guinness, care to tell me what that is an anogram of?

because that is why he picked it as a stage name.

He was fucking ace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top