ice age 3 sucks... dont watch it

Printable View

07-10-2009, 05:32 AM
saaya

ice age 3 sucks... dont watch it

its not like part1 or 2 were great, but they were funny movies to watch with a chic/gf/wife or as a family i guess... so i thought lets check out ice age3... well my gf said it was ok, but i was bored to death... there were 2 scenes that made laugh slightly and maybe 5 scenes that made me smile... that was it...

while my gf said it was ok, she only laughed mildly around 5 times, and overall the entire cinema was pretty quiet throughout the movie, almost no laughter or giggle or anything...

the movie is clearly not made by the same people who did the first part and is really obviously a cheap "lets make some more money" sequel.

i saw transformers2 recently and while the movie was a joke story and character wise, at least there were loads of special effects that kept me entertained, most of the time at least, so it was at least somewhat entertaining. ice age3 was a waste of time and money... if i wouldnt have seen it in 3d i probably would have walked out of the movie before it finished...

SPOILER ALERT:
for those interested, the sloth finds 3 trex eggs that hatch, they think hes their mom, the trex mom comes and takes them home, together with the sloth, everybody else tries to rescue the sloth. it turns out theres an even bigger dino than the trex and together with the trex mom they defeat it and then go back home... the end :yawn2:
there, i saved you 2 hours and 10$...
07-10-2009, 06:12 AM
zalbard

Watched it at home. Crappy rip quality but the movie wasn't worth more. I agree with Saaya, it's an OK movie probably, but not worth going to the cinema for IMO.
07-10-2009, 07:16 AM
soundood

dont listen to saaya, hes got swine flu from the other thread :ROTF:

on a serious note, i agree with you saaya, it was total cods wallop, ill make sure i will never download another copy, or spend $10 on sweets :rofl:

disclaimer: i dont really 'snatch' movies from the interweb, its the machines, Skynet and all
07-10-2009, 07:32 AM
labs23

Phew! A saviour blooper.:clap: The series just got worst, huh?. The first was good, and meltdown was okay for me. I guess i'm gonna wait 3 on DVD.
07-10-2009, 09:14 AM
DeltZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by labs23

Phew! A saviour blooper.:clap: The series just got worst, huh?. The first was good, and meltdown was okay for me. I guess i'm gonna wait 3 on DVD.

stream it, sounds like it's not even worth the div x quality download :P
07-10-2009, 10:06 AM
CaptMorgan

I thought this was the 4th one????
07-10-2009, 11:21 AM
Chris_redfield

No I'm pretty sure its the 3rd. Plus technically surely its a prequel because the dinosaurs died out before man arrived so the baby that existed in the first one wouldn't have existed during the period of the third film. I realise that this makes me sound like an uptight a$$hole but also why the hell would the mammoth have helped out the baby in the first one. Man didn't just wipe out his family like the flashbacks reveal, we were also responsible for pretty much wiping out his entire race. Thats like having a film about Anne Frank where Anne Frank's father goes on a quest in order to re-unite Hitler with his lost son! Talk about historical innacuracy.

I don't know why they even bothered to franchise Ice Age, I really don't like the series. It had a minimal amount of charm and the most basic computer animation. You can pretty much tell that a film is going to be crap when the most recognised character from the series and the one they use to market the film doesn't have any influence on the main plot whatsoever.

The annoying thing is I'm going to have to go to the cinema to see it because my brother wants to go and if I don't take him he wont get to go.
07-10-2009, 11:26 AM
zalbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_redfield

Plus technically surely its a prequel because the dinosaurs died out before man arrived so the baby that existed in the first one wouldn't have existed during the period of the third film.

It's a sequel. And dinosaurs they find are in some hidden underground cave [deep under snow and ice] with palms, tropical climate and sun (watch the BS meter spike...), which apparently remained untouched by Ice Age.
07-10-2009, 11:37 AM
Chris_redfield

I would have found it more believable if a cartoon Richard Attenborough waddled onto screen, found a mosquito and used the DNA found in its stomach to clone a dinosaur.
07-10-2009, 03:40 PM
MomijiTMO

Yeah generally sequels suck and if it's a kid show, it will most definitely bore you to the stage where you just start to look at the colours and shadows in an attempt to not fall asleep.
07-11-2009, 09:18 AM
saaya

if you watched it youll see this movie is targeted at 5-10 year olds... they should have warned people with an ESRB rating of 3+ or something... if id have seen that id have checked before going to the cinema to watch it... its like going to the cinema expecting kung fu panda and ending up with this purple dinosour for 90 minutes or tele tubbies or some other brain shorting stuff :D

and no, its not worth a dvd and yes, not even worth a high quality download... :D
07-31-2009, 10:30 AM
Foamy

In my opinion this was a great movie .
07-31-2009, 07:52 PM
lolhalol

but still .. the most important thing is. did they show the squirrel with the acorn ?
07-31-2009, 08:04 PM
dinos22

i went to see it with my daughter
it was ok to me hehehe :)
07-31-2009, 08:23 PM
foxmulder881

Funny enough, when someone says 'don't watch x movie', it makes me wanna go and watch it...
08-02-2009, 04:18 AM
gillll

yes the movies sucks big time... even the squirrel wasn't good enough like in the 2nd movie.
08-02-2009, 05:45 AM
Kallenator

I have a hard time enjoying the first two. So I am pretty determined to not see this one.

While we are on the subject, don't see Harry Potter and the half blood Prince, because it's cluster :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed, if you find a movie that is worse cut you deserve a gold medal!
(Let's not forget the rubbish acting, tremendous amount of annoying cheese, bad lines and complete rape of the source material.)
08-04-2009, 06:25 AM
GeorgeStorm

Watched it on thurs,
I thought it was really funny?
Much better than the second, but hey, thats just me.
08-04-2009, 09:09 AM
saaya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kallenator

I have a hard time enjoying the first two. So I am pretty determined to not see this one.

While we are on the subject, don't see Harry Potter and the half blood Prince, because it's cluster :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed, if you find a movie that is worse cut you deserve a gold medal!
(Let's not forget the rubbish acting, tremendous amount of annoying cheese, bad lines and complete rape of the source material.)

i never got what all the fuss with harry potter was about to begin with...
i had just read lotr and then the movies came out and people got into fantasy stuff and there was harry potter which was kinda similar... supposedly...

i started reading one book and thought it was ridiculous, a book for little kids... i mean the hobbit and lotr are supposed to be children books too but idk... they are actually pretty deep... while harry potter was really superficial...

i saw one of the movies on a flight a while ago, a part of it, and i kept raising my eyebrows, like wtf? :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm

Watched it on thurs,
I thought it was really funny?
Much better than the second, but hey, thats just me.

like what?
theonly part i liked was where the weird animal from the dino cave tried to reconstruct what happened at the lake where the sloth and trex mom and her kids were the day before...

i cant think of a single funny moment or scene in the entire movie... :shrug:
08-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Kallenator

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

i never got what all the fuss with harry potter was about to begin with...
i had just read lotr and then the movies came out and people got into fantasy stuff and there was harry potter which was kinda similar... supposedly...

i started reading one book and thought it was ridiculous, a book for little kids... i mean the hobbit and lotr are supposed to be children books too but idk... they are actually pretty deep... while harry potter was really superficial...

i saw one of the movies on a flight a while ago, a part of it, and i kept raising my eyebrows, like wtf? :lol:

Yeah, the movies aren't that good and the first books are for kids. However the last books in the series are ramping it up.

Lotr is in a completely different league, I haven't read any other fantasy book that is even close to that "style".
In my opinion they are also to slow and heavy to digest.
(Hobbit is excluded, that is very different.)
08-04-2009, 05:57 PM
saaya

well, he wrote hobbit first and you can tell that he rewrote and reworked it a million times over the years to shrink it down and make it as compact as possible...
if you know tolkien you know that he kept drifting off all the time and he went into more detail and more detail and more and more... :D
he tried to correct that in the hobbit and boiled it down again and again... and i have no doubts that if he would have had more time to live, he would have done the same with lotr and probably boiled it down to 1/2 to 1/3 of its current size :D

but idk... i loved lotr... i read the 6 complete books in like 3 weeks :D
oh and if you like lotr check out otherland... a bit trashy scifi like sometimes, but its an awesome book overall imo :D
oh yeah... well its around 4000 pages, i should mention that :lol:

enough ot :D
08-05-2009, 04:32 AM
mhar998

i havent even seen the 1st or 2nd ones so i will follow the trend and not see the 3rd one
08-05-2009, 08:39 AM
Mescalamba

Well.. not going to cinema, maybe wait for DVDrip.. download and delete.. as I usually do with crap movies. :) Not that I´m watching most movies more than one time.. and when I do, I usually have BR or DVD. :)