there will be blood

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
P

phil

Sicc OG
#1
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
116
#1
i cant decide which movie was less deserving of all the hype between this and no country for old men.

they were both boring with anticlimatic endings. the acting and everything was great its just like it seemed there wasnt much story to it. very boring.

what happened to movies that entertain?
 
P

phil

Sicc OG
#3
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
116
#3
they werent bad movies just not worthy of all the praise they received. movies (i thought) are for entertainment.
 
Jake

Jake

Sicc OG
#7
May 1, 2003
9,427
154
63
45
#7
old country and there will be blood were both dope movies

not hyphy enough for the siccness i guess
 
TONY206

TONY206

/b/ased
#9
Jun 13, 2002
13,154
525
113
siccness.net
#9
I left the theaters for the first time ever in 15 mins of watching Funny Games and watched No Country for Old Men later that nigh. It sucked ass. I wish I would've stayed at the theater.
 
Nuttkase

Nuttkase

not nolettuce
#12
Jun 5, 2002
38,763
159,575
113
45
at the welfare mall
#12
Both movies were great. There Will Be Blood was a lot better though IMO. Great acting, really good dialog , amazing cinematography, and a great chemistry between the two opposing actors (Day-Lewis and Paul Dano.)

90% of moviegoers these days just want to go and watch CGI crapfests like 300 or Transformers. All visuals and no substance. I mean they are cool for what they are (well 300 sucked, Transformers was okay to an extent) but they lack anything worth thinking about once the movie has ended.

If you didn't find either of those movies entertaining you probably fall into the CGI crowd.
 
C

City Situation

Sicc OG
#14
Oct 21, 2006
1,812
1
0
55
#14
Does anyone actually go to the theaters expecting to see a good movie? I just go as a social thing, I just want the movie to be entertaining. If it happens to be a good movie, great, but I don't expect it.
 
B

BaSICCally

Sicc OG
#15
May 11, 2002
4,039
12
0
45
#15
Nuttkase said:
Both movies were great. There Will Be Blood was a lot better though IMO. Great acting, really good dialog , amazing cinematography, and a great chemistry between the two opposing actors (Day-Lewis and Paul Dano.)

90% of moviegoers these days just want to go and watch CGI crapfests like 300 or Transformers. All visuals and no substance. I mean they are cool for what they are (well 300 sucked, Transformers was okay to an extent) but they lack anything worth thinking about once the movie has ended.

If you didn't find either of those movies entertaining you probably fall into the CGI crowd.
Click to expand...
what he said...
 
TONY206

TONY206

/b/ased
#17
Jun 13, 2002
13,154
525
113
siccness.net
#17
Nuttkase said:
Both movies were great. There Will Be Blood was a lot better though IMO. Great acting, really good dialog , amazing cinematography, and a great chemistry between the two opposing actors (Day-Lewis and Paul Dano.)

90% of moviegoers these days just want to go and watch CGI crapfests like 300 or Transformers. All visuals and no substance. I mean they are cool for what they are (well 300 sucked, Transformers was okay to an extent) but they lack anything worth thinking about once the movie has ended.
Click to expand...
You're right, No Country For Old Men left me thinking for days...






















"Why did I waste my time on this shit?!"
 
H

Home-E

Sicc OG
#18
Apr 27, 2005
1,405
0
0
#18
There will be blood sucked. Daniel Day Lewis was an INCREDIBLE actor in that movie, but there was no climax.

No country for old men could have been a classic but it was Anti-climactic. All they had to do was show lluwellyns shootout and it would have been great
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom