Leave a comment

Comments 4

deadshrimpblues May 8 2009, 16:41:03 UTC
It's entertaining in that Iron Man kind of way where I went in expecting not a precious lot and came out pleasantly surprised at having been entertained for the full two two hours and however many minutes.

Reply

mudpuppy83 May 8 2009, 18:30:53 UTC
Definitely. I was also rather surprised that, despite its brazen disregard for the series' canon, I never felt like it was insulting the legacy of one of my favorite franchises.

Reply


sarah_1228 May 8 2009, 17:21:37 UTC
i didn't think Eric Bana had enough screen time which bugged me cuz i really like him as and actor

Everybody hates prequels. Okay, maybe not everybody, but it's not uncommon to hear groans from fans of a franchise when somebody announces that the next film is going to take us

well (for me) it's been succusful now 3 time now with Star Trek,then with 007 and Batman

the cast had really big shoes to fill and i believe they filled them great

and note i like how they used the now famous AU to explain the difference between this film and the tv series

Reply

mudpuppy83 May 8 2009, 18:37:59 UTC
See, I normally have no problem with Bana (I prefer his Hulk to Ed Norton's, for instance) but I felt his villain got too much screentime. if he had appeared a little less it might not have been so obvious that he was so terminally lame as a villain.

And I don't know if I'd count Casino Royale and Batman Begins as prequels. They were pretty much just reboots. Granted, I guess this film was too--what with the time travel creating an alternate reality--but I consider it more of a prequel.

And yeah, making it an alternate reality is nice because it allows the TV shows and movies we already love to continue to "exist", just in a different reality.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up