Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Chronicles of Riddick

  • Thread starter Thread starter Code
  • Start date Start date
C

Code

Guest
Pitch Black was a diverting little movie about a spaceship that crash-lands
on a planet with these night creatures that look like a cross between
Alien's xenomorphs and Starship Troopers' bugs. One by one they get picked
off but eventually three of them make it off the planet alive, one of them
being Riddick (Vin Diesel), a convict who can see in the dark.

This movie has three times the budget and acts as a sequel to Pitch Black,
expanding the universe Riddick lives in. And what a silly universe it is.

This movie reminded me of The Phantom Menace more than anything else,
except The Phantom Menace's plot was more decipherable. Here we're not
really sure what's happening nor are we ever given reason to care. There's
this group called the Necromongers which act like the Nazis cross-bred with
the Borg. The leader is called Lord Marshal, and he and his group go from
planet to planet wearing their metal uniforms with frowny faces on their
shoulders looking to assimilate or kill everyone on every planet they
visit. Why? Beats me.

The names in this universe are so sophomoric. Planets have names like
Helion Prime and Crematoria. Races have names like Furions, Elementals and
of course, Necromongers. The Necromongers dream of finding the
Underverse. The what? Did David Twohy's kids help him name everything?

The characters are baffling as well. Why bother casting Judi Dench if
she's going to disappear literally halfway through the movie? Karl Urban,
who inherited good geek karma as Eomer from Lord of the Rings, blows it all
here with his embarrassing line-reads as a Macbeth type thinking of
betraying the Lord Marshal. Thandie Newton at least seems to be winking at
the camera in her Lady Macbeth role.

Here's one big problem my friend and I talked about in the parking lot
after the movie: at this big prison, the warden pays bounty hunters for
his capture, and apparently other prisons also pay for captives, so somehow
the wardens are able to profit off of certain prisoners, I gather. Then
comes this scene where he randomly releases cave wolves into the prison to
eat and kill whatever prisoners they catch. Now why the smurf would he do
this on a random, regular basis when he's paying money to get these prisoners?

Incidentally, the cave wolves are horrible CGI. They're like the
Ghostbuster terror dogs cross-bred with the Princess Bride's Rats of
Unusual Size. All is forgiven with the Day After Tomorrow wolves compared
with these beasts.

The fight scenes are chopped up beyond comprehension, which I found to be
laziness on the director's part. Might as well be slide-shows of the
fights for all the sense they make. Maybe even some Batman sound effects
when bad guys get punched. BAM! SOCKO!

Oh, and there's a scene where they try to outrun the sun.

And don't get me started on the painfully inept voice-over dialogue.

The ending leaves it wide open for a sequel, but how can we expected to
care about what happens next when it's not really clearly at any point
what's happening at all? Rated PG-13 for action violence and one F-word.
 
My jaw dropped at that ending.. i was like "are you kidding me." You keep what you kill.. that was just silly.
 
why you create your brand new thread? we already got 3 of 'em about the movie!!

The movie was based upon the concept of an evil "religion" that was trying to spread itself through terror and war throughout the universe. And how innocent people of many different races (remember that speech in the hall?) all gather together and fight against it. Notice the emphasis they placed on "converting" over to "our side"?

Maybe it was a bit over your head. It was supposed to be symbolism of the the terrorists of islam vs the west. The directors would never admit it -- but one can deduce the eerie similarities with what's going on. Spaces "War on Terror".

The movie is a lot more deeper than mere comments about the "silly fighting".
 
Razorguns said:
The movie was based upon the concept of an evil "religion" that was trying to spread itself through terror and war throughout the universe. And how innocent people of many different races (remember that speech in the hall?) all gather together and fight against it. Notice the emphasis they placed on "converting" over to "our side"?

Maybe it was a bit over your head. It was supposed to be symbolism of the the terrorists of islam vs the west. The directors would never admit it -- but one can deduce the eerie similarities with what's going on. Spaces "War on Terror".

The movie is a lot more deeper than mere comments about the "silly fighting".

that is the damn funniest thing I've read all day. I supposed you thought Armageddon was a social commentary on the AIDS epedemic and it's impact on world wide health.
 
Razorguns said:
The movie was based upon the concept of an evil "religion" that was trying to spread itself through terror and war throughout the universe.

hello, catholicism and islam.
 
>you thought Armageddon was a social commentary

Nah. Armageddon was just an over-the-top, highly expensive publicity machine for 3 Aerosmith videos.
 
bowe.jpg


I was so f'n pissed when i watched the whole movie and Riddick Bowe didn't make a SINGLE damn apperance.

False advertising man.
 
Odd that the writer/director predicted the war on terror, since he wrote it not long after Pitch Black.

Nice try though.

It was a shitty excuse to waste a few million dollars.

Plot was thin.
Dialogue was horrid.
Acting was worse thing Hollywood has seen since Ernest Goes to Prison.

Razorguns said:
why you create your brand new thread? we already got 3 of 'em about the movie!!

The movie was based upon the concept of an evil "religion" that was trying to spread itself through terror and war throughout the universe. And how innocent people of many different races (remember that speech in the hall?) all gather together and fight against it. Notice the emphasis they placed on "converting" over to "our side"?

Maybe it was a bit over your head. It was supposed to be symbolism of the the terrorists of islam vs the west. The directors would never admit it -- but one can deduce the eerie similarities with what's going on. Spaces "War on Terror".

The movie is a lot more deeper than mere comments about the "silly fighting".
 
>Plot was thin.
>Dialogue was horrid.
>Acting was worse thing Hollywood has seen since Ernest Goes to Prison

Thanks for describing all the new Star Wars movies to a Tee.
 
didn't watc hthe movie, didn't read your review (in this post) but I can tell it sucks!

When people stop going to the movies just for the sake of going to the movies, they might start trying to put a little bit of quality in to them.
 
Yup, I agree.

CoR sucked as bad as the entirety of the new SW movies. In many cases, it sucked moreso simply because there's no brilliant heritage and history.

Razorguns said:
>Plot was thin.
>Dialogue was horrid.
>Acting was worse thing Hollywood has seen since Ernest Goes to Prison

Thanks for describing all the new Star Wars movies to a Tee.
 
Haven't seen Garfield yet, don't ruin it for me. Going tomorrow with the Wee One.




Razorguns said:
Well I disagree big time. There's always Stepford Wives and Garfield for ya. :)
 
Razorguns said:
why you create your brand new thread? we already got 3 of 'em about the movie!!

The movie was based upon the concept of an evil "religion" that was trying to spread itself through terror and war throughout the universe. And how innocent people of many different races (remember that speech in the hall?) all gather together and fight against it. Notice the emphasis they placed on "converting" over to "our side"?

Maybe it was a bit over your head. It was supposed to be symbolism of the the terrorists of islam vs the west. The directors would never admit it -- but one can deduce the eerie similarities with what's going on. Spaces "War on Terror".

The movie is a lot more deeper than mere comments about the "silly fighting".

LMAO!!

No offense dude but Chronicles of Riddick was a typical stupid action movie. I can't believe you are looking into it THAT deeply lol. There was NO substance to the movie whatsoever.

"The concept of an evil "religion" that was trying to spread itself through terror and war throughout the universe. And how innocent people of many different races (remember that speech in the hall?) all gather together and fight against it. Notice the emphasis they placed on "converting" over to "our side"

..... This has got to be the most over-the-top over-analyzing description for a shitty ass Vin Diesel flick I've ever read. For your information, ALL movies are like that! Fuck by your description Starship Troopers would be a profound movie with some deep symbolic underlying message lmaoo!! The "concept" as you put it is pretty played out.
 
You're mistaking this with XXX.

This is fruitless. I can't talk intelligently with you simpletons. Let's go down a level. Let's talk about HOOTERS!!!!
 
I wasn't expecting much from CofR and I actually liked the movie. Some of it was hokie, but good campy science fiction gets that way somtimes.

Code, I think you took this movie way to seriously. For Christ sake.... Vin Diesel is in the title role... not Laurence Olivier. That should tip you off that it was going to be semi-stupid.

I give it 3 chomps and an alien :chomp: :chomp: :chomp: :alien:
 
I will play devil's advocate and say I really enjoyed this movie...I thought it was Vin's best work since Pitch Black(no overacting BS,just a reserved,violent performance),and I will be going back to see it again.I thought it was highly entertaining,but I must admit that Sci-Fi/Action is my favorite film genre,so perhaps I'm more biased to these types of films.All in all I really liked it.I guess we all see things from different viewpoints.
 
Top Bottom