Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

After Earth- starring Will Smith, directed by M. Night Shamalamadingdong


Cary Kollins

Recommended Posts

Spoiler Alert:

 

This movie is terrible.

 

and no I haven't seen it.

 

 

 

 

If you thought this looked decent in the preview, I'm here to save you some money this weekend.  I thought the trailers looked God-awful.  Maybe I just had a clue because of how terrible M. Night's last effort "The Happening" was.

 

"After Earth" is apparently following the trend of crappy films by M. Night, who showed so much promise with films like "The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable" and "Signs".

 

 

Here are some snippets of reviews for "After Earf":

 

"If you're still wondering whether "After Earth" is a disaster, the question is not if, but how big?"  1.5 out of 5 -LA Times http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-after-earth-review-20130531,0,5520934.story

 

"After Earth has all the trappings of a vanity project, a chance for Will Smith to create a vehicle for his son. Thus, the naturally ebullient actor buries his charm under a military bearing and a strange southern accent that all the performers assume, for some reason. This leaves Jaden out there on his own, with nothing to support him but a tedious plot, a look of panic and his eyes, and M. Night Shyamalan"  1.5 out of 5  http://o.canada.com/2013/05/30/movie-review-after-earth/

 

 

 

 

"Neither of these two have an ounce of charisma in this film – and that’s fuging amazing because they both absolutely have crazy charisma.   To suck the life out of Will Smith, I really have to give M Night credit.    That’s not easy to do.  I’ve seen Will Smith in a whole lot of bad sci fi movies that I love, because no matter what…  I fuging love Will Smith.    But here.    Here it is so easy to just not care."  http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62629

 

"Though a scant 100 minutes long, After Earth feels longer and slower than your average PBS pledge drive.'' D - http://www.mania.com/mania-review-after-earth_article_137649.html

 

 

 

 

 

see more glowing reviews at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/after_earth/reviews/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the trailer for this before Star Trek and thought it looked decent...

 

They played a clip from the movie on the radio this morning and listening to that I thought "holy over acting batman" Will Smith sounded really dumb...

 

I'll probably save this one for DVD.

 

 

I may see 'Now you see me' instead...  I think my son would like that one.

 

 

WWZ is the next big one out for me...  3 weeks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the trailer for this before Star Trek and thought it looked decent...

They played a clip from the movie on the radio this morning and listening to that I thought "holy over acting batman" Will Smith sounded really dumb...

I'll probably save this one for DVD.

I may see 'Now you see me' instead... I think my son would like that one.

WWZ is the next big one out for me... 3 weeks.

Don't forget "Man of Steel" June 14th. Holy hell that movie is going to be awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"After Earth" is apparently following the trend of crappy films by M. Night, who showed so much promise with films like "The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable" and "Signs".

 

"The Sixth Sense" was decent, but I though "Unbreakable" and "Signs" were both epic crap. M. Night has always been a ***** hair above awful, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like he got burned out on making movies...  shame.

 

 

He should have been the next great action star.

 

 

I think he just lost the hunger or drive to put in the work.  He made a poo ton of money from his previous films, and I think the past 5 years or so he's devoted his time to raising his family and just enjoying it.

 

I guess that's just where his priorities were.

 

He even turned down the role of Django, which worked out great for the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Sixth Sense" was decent, but I though "Unbreakable" and "Signs" were both epic crap. M. Night has always been a ***** hair above awful, imo.

 

 

Yea I haven't watched "Signs" in a long time, but I remember liking it a lot.  "Unbreakable" is the same way, and lots of people feel it's very underrated.

 

I remember watching "The Sixth Sense" sitting like front row in the theater, and just having my mind blown by the twist.  That was a great movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just lost the hunger or drive to put in the work.  He made a poo ton of money from his previous films, and I think the past 5 years or so he's devoted his time to raising his family and just enjoying it.

 

I guess that's just where his priorities were.

 

He even turned down the role of Django, which worked out great for the rest of us.

 

He's a closet Scientologist. That's the real problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...