Saw over that Cinescape that Dreamworks is going to turn the Microsoft computer game Crimsonskies into a movie:

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=27965


Atlest this once has a chance of not sucking, unlike Tomb Raider

>Dreamworks is going to turn the Microsoft computer game Crimsonskies

Crimson Skies is actually a tabletop game, which the Microsoft game adapted. Although movie adaptations of games, in general, have been pretty abysmal

---

Quote:

Atlest this once has a chance of not sucking, unlike Tomb Raider

---

>I haven't seen it yet, but I've talked to several people that have liked it.

Those people are WRONG. ;)

I mean, I'm a big fan of boobies and all that, and Angelina Jolie rocks. But sex appeal can't save that film's overwhelming stupidity.

I checked with MS today about the Crimson Skies thing, and they could only give me the "well we haven't ANNOUNCED anything" comment. So it's not official, but they're not exactly denying it.

I hereby nominate Bruce Campbell for the role of Nathan Zachary. Anyone second that?

> I hereby nominate Bruce Campbell for the role of Nathan Zachary. Anyone second that?


As everyone knows Bruce Campbell should be casted in every role in every movie. Male and female. He is, after all, the King. :)

And Queen, apparently.

I'll second that Jason, but I bet it goes to Brendan Fraser... or a cheaper version of same.

-Andrew

I have never played Crimson Skies, nor have I seen Tomb Raider yet, so I really have nothing to say (except that I have to agree with Jason about Angelina Jolie's big rockin' boobies).

- James

Watch Foxfire sometime.

Aszurom,

you mean "Firefox"? Clint Eastwood movie, Atari coin-op, laserdisc based game? :)

- mike - i know these things are bad for me -

I wouldn't say that tomb raider sucked - i thought it wasn't a bad movie. It was entertaining, was visualling stunning (i liked the scene with the chinooks taking off in the distance, with angelina jolie walking towards the camera especially), and was in my friends vernacular, shiny.

It's all how you look at the movie. Go in and expect a detailed plot, and you'll be sunk without a trace. Go in for a nice relaxing movie, and you'll have a good time.

I didn't think it was particularly visually stunning, myself. I see half a dozen movies a year with better cinematography. They had several nice sets, but the editing was a mess. It's as if they used hyperactive fast-MTV-cuts to cover up the fact that the action scenes' choreography didn't fit together.

I can dig a good "popcorn flick" where you just go along for the ride, but I just can't take a movie that's just so overtly dumb AND empty. Tomb Raider was right up there with Armageddon in my book - that much money will buy you plenty of eye candy, but that alone does not entertainment make.

I suspect Pearl Harbor had similar problems, though it was apparently stretched out to 3 hours with some slow sections (which I hear were chock full of bad writing). I wouldn't know, I didn't see it.

Hmm...Wel, I liked Armageddon...Maybe I just don't like good "quality" movies...

Bye...I'm off to see Tomb Raider! ;-)

Okay, not really...But I probably will see it, eventually.

Murph,

I gotta say, I like a lot of so-so movies (according to the blowhards) -- I loved Gladiator.

However, Tomb Raider is one to miss. Entertaining? A little. A fair trade for 2 hours of your time? Not remotely.

People who say that Gladiator wasn't that great just can't stand big movies. Gladiator kicked ass. It had good dialogue, great cinematography, a good plot, good action, soundtrack, etc.

I mean, hell, it was nominated for 12 oscars, and won five. Movie snobs will turn up their noses and say that doesn't mean squat. Fine. Screw them and their pretentious movie snob crap. =)

Some movies that win oscars are lame. Granted. But "so-so" movies just don't take home Best Picture, Best Actor, Costume Design, Sound, and Visual Effects.

Putting Gladiator in the same sentence with Armageddon or Tomb Raider is... well... something I just did. BUT IT AIN'T RIGHT. =)

Jesus, where did THAT come from?

Uh, no kidding. Where DID that come from. I think you were the first person who mentioned Gladiator in this thread, though I'm too lazy to scroll up and make sure...

Hmm...it's late. You must be tired. J

I love big movies. I'm the furthest from a film snob you can find - I love B level movies that are crappy but entertaining. But Gladiator was dissapointing to me. It was big, but it really never fleshed out to the level that I was hoping for. And I went into it expecting and hoping to be blown away.

FWIW

Jeff

Interesting, Jeff. I've felt that way about other movies that I had high hopes for.

Generally, I try NOT to get my hopes up anymore about overhyped movies, I find that I enjoy them more if I keep low expectations.

YMMV, that's just me.

I also loved Gladiator and even bought the DVD. Didn't see Tomb Raider but I am looking forward to Final Fantasy and Planet Of The Apes.

"Hmm...Wel, I liked Armageddon...Maybe I just don't like good "quality" movies..."

The following is from an acquaintance of mine (with a severe space fetish), who outlined his argument for why Armageddon is a better film than Citizen Kane. I felt like it would be amusing in this conversation.

"Let's match 'em up:

ARMAGEDDON star: Bruce Willis, pitched Seagram's Golden Wine Cooler at start of TV fame. CITIZEN KANE star: Orson Wells, pitched Almaden jug wine at sad, fat end of career. Advantage: ARMAGEDDON.

ARMAGEDDON vehicles: titanium-hulled space shuttles carrying six-wheeled nuclear-bomb-sporting rock drilling trucks. CITIZEN KANE vehicle: Rosebud, the sled. Advantage: CITIZEN KANE.

ARMAGEDDON production values: Liv Tyler's tummy... IN COLOR. CITIZEN KANE: Entire movie filmed like the first ten minutes of WIZARD OF OZ. Advantage: ARMAGEDDON.

ARMAGEDDON director: Michael (CON AIR, THE ROCK) Bay. CITIZEN KANE director: Orson (TOUCH OF EVIL) Welles. Advantage: CITIZEN KANE.

Looks like we'll have to go to the tie-breaker: costumes. CITIZEN KANE: a Dickensian level of Victorian haberdashery. ARMAGEDDON: EVERYBODY IN SPACE SUITS! WE HAVE A WINNER! ARMAGEDDON MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN TO BE BETTER FILM! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SPACESUITS! WHEEE!"

Back to working.

-Thierry

"The following is from an acquaintance of mine (with a severe space fetish), who outlined his argument for why Armageddon is a better film than Citizen Kane."

Sorry, but it doesn't hold up. I can -- in fact, I have -- prove that TWINS OF EVIL is a better film than Armageddon, Citizen Kane, Reindeer Games, or Pitch Black.

http://www.dailyradar.com/columns/showbiz_column_159.html

-Tom

"I can -- in fact, I have -- prove that TWINS OF EVIL is a better film..."

Did that star Mary Kate and Ashley?

Just curious

Bruce Willis died in a nuclear explosion in Armageddon. Doesn't that count as a good thing?

No, true evil never stays dead.

Well that DOES explain Billy Crystal, I guess.