What film did you watch last night?

Nope. He is thinking Rocky4. That was the movie, which is most akin to an 80's music video.

For me: I love all the Rocky movies (including 5).
I also loved Roadhouse as a 15 year old kid.
 
sunama said:
I saw Abduction last night.

Overall, 6.5/10.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with your comments, should really have hated this and despite Lautner having some 'questionable' acting skills as said, the first half was very well setup but degenerates into typical action fair. Although still generally enjoyable action fair as it had a fairly decent budget behind it. Was very surprised as most critics reviews have absolutely panned it but I get the feeling they focused on Lautner a bit too much ;)

7/10
 
For those of you who have seen the Twilight movies (I haven't seen these), is Lautner really "that" bad an actor?

I'm thinking to myself that I have rarely if ever, seen such bad acting make it into a Hollywood movie (as what I witnessed in Abduction). Normally, the truly terrible actors get filtered out during the auditioning process...but Lautner appeared to make it through.

Most of the time, it felt as if the director had told the entire cast, "Guys, we have Lautner who can't act, so I need you all to make him look good. Do whatever it takes."
 
Lautner is perfectly fine, as shown in Adbuction.

It's just that Twilight is stupidly boring and bland as far as films go.
 
thedoc46 said:
Tucker & Dale Vs Evil

Was supposed to be The red neck equiv to Shaun of The Dead...
Click to expand...

Was it ? Wow it failed in that respect !!
have to agree on the score 6/10 seems about right if not a bit over.

Watched "In Time" with Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried .. Mmmmm Hot.. tbh if the eye candy hadnt been there it would have got a lower score :D

6/10
 
mrk said:
Lautner is perfectly fine, as shown in Adbuction.
Click to expand...

How can you say that? If I was a drama teacher and I wanted to show my students how not to act, this is the movie I would show.

Without doubt, this is the one acting performance which sticks in my mind as the worst.

I read a review on Abduction, to see if it was just me or if other people also felt the same.

Have a read:
http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/abduction-movie-review.php

There’s a reason Taylor Lautner was nearly replaced after the first Twilight movie: He’s not an actor. He’s a pair of abs attached to an inbred two by four. There are park statues with more range than Taylor Lautner. The kid is about as versatile as a blood clot and as charming as a yeast infection. According to entertainment news and junket headlines, Lautner is being groomed to be the next big action star, but that’s only because future casting directors have not seen Abduction. He can’t hack it. Granted, Hollywood doesn’t ask a lot of its action stars (see Arnold Schwarzenegger) but there is a minimum threshold to qualify, namely the ability to change facial expressions. Lautner has two looks: Stoic puffy face, and stoic puffy face with his nose slightly scrunched. He is so wooden that he makes Keanu Reeves look like Robin Williams on a coke bender. I’ve seen better acting on story boards.
Click to expand...

Also, have a read of the following imdb forum thread:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1600195/board/nest/188594979

..virtually every comment on there shares my opinion.

Thank goodness for that...I thought I was being unfair to Lautner.
 
Last edited:
That review was some what laughable with all the mock references almost every paragraph.

Lautner is still new, he's going to be great in action movies that have combat scenes no doubt and his fighting is pretty damn good too given how new he is.

All actors start somewhere.

I give the movie 6.5 out of 10 and that's not bad considering.
 
If you look at Home & Away and Neighbours, there are many young actors/actresses in there. Some are aged around 14-15, ie. younger than Lautner.

I have never seen such wooden/bad acting as I saw in Abduction, from Lautner.

I remember Leonardo Di Caprio giving some pretty amazing performances in movies when he was younger than Lautner (granted the Di Caprio will finish up his acting career as one of the all time greats, but still). You cannot use age to allow such bad acting to be let off the hook.

I do hope that he takes some acting classes. Also, the kid lacks charisma...it's almost as if he freezes when the camera is on him and he looks incredibly nervous. Was he like this in the Twilight movies?

Furthermore, the director should've picked up on what was gong on been more hand on. There are some actors, which a director doesn't even have to direct. Tom Hanks, Di Caprio, Pacino, etc. These guys can come on camera after a short briefing and deliver the performance in one take. Some actors need a lot of direction and clearly this is the case with Lautner.

So, I will say that the director also has to take some of the flack for this.

I will still say, though, that the first half of the movie was entertaining and had me fully focussed on what was going on.

Anyway, no more Lautner bashing. I'm beginning to sound as if I hate the kid, when I have nothing against him.
 
You can't compare his character and performance between the 2 movies though, the roles were completely different and commanded different styles of acting (or lack of). It would indeed be down to the director to say what he wants how he wants.

His latest film is an action film at heart as well.
 
Deathly Hallows Part 1 - not that bad. Not sure about this obsession with shooting everything in near total darkness though, i get it, the film's supposed to be emotional. But it's also supposed to be a film, not a radio show.

I just feel sorry for people who ditched their CRTs, at least i can actually see blacks. Must look horrible with grey :p
 
Last night I watched Captain America, thought it was much better than the non story that was Thor and on a par with the first Iron Man as far as Marvel Studio films go.
 
Saw 3D :D

I know they're not great movies, but I do love the contraptions he builds.

EDIT: Also watched "Mamma Mia" (I was forced to), and "The Adjustment Bureau".
 
Last edited:
Stranger tides on the 3d tele i brought my mama for christmas.

Watched it at the cinema, it was far too dark in some scenes, flip reverse that watching it on the tv though.

The depth of the 3d is simpley stunning, my folks were well impressed.
 
lokiss said:
Stranger tides on the 3d tele i brought my mama for christmas.

Watched it at the cinema, it was far too dark in some scenes, flip reverse that watching it on the tv though.

The depth of the 3d is simpley stunning, my folks were well impressed.
Click to expand...

How did the cinema experience compare with the TV-3D experience?
Is 3D on TV just a poor gimmick?
What's your opinion?
 
Far better on the tv.

Stranger tides is one of the better films though, it was shot with a 3d camera, and there's clearly some good cinematography going on. It was just too dark in the cinema as said to make a lot of that out. A prime example of that would be when depp is flighting Cruz in the tavern.. in the cinema you couldn't make it out, on the tv it was clear as day.

Don't get me wrong, swords through doors ect... thats gimmick, but you take it as a pinch of salt when you watch 90 odd other minutes of what is an enhanced experience.

Horses for courses though, not every film is decent.. thor/tron and the like.. you'll barely notice the 3d... just check up what to buy from av reviews.

That said, this was with passive glasses, i wasn't sure what to expect, but it worked just as well as the active shutters.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom