It's great that the special effects used in Terminator 2 have been improved upon, and are now much cheaper to do than they used to be.

Thing is, it's also cheaper-looking. THere's one scene in a warehouse where Manson' character walks through and slaughters everyone. Problem is that you don't really get to see every gratuitous death...

I noticed that too, and I think the network put that restriction on them. I don't think it was an "oh, we can't afford those effects"; I think the truth was they could afford it, but didn't want too much gore.

I don't like the style of most movies today anyways especially because of all the "realism" when it comes to gore. I mean when did all this "we must pile up at least 10.000 bodies which were ripped to shreds in a single scene" directory style start anyways and is this really what the audience goes to cinema for? I'm not in any way against violence of any sorts nor am I one of those hardcore paranoid anti- weapon dudes, but for me there's a distinct difference between good movies and bad movies as there is one between gore effects required to tell the story and gore effects that have just been put in the film to cover up it's overall poor quality with some "eye candy".

I dunno about you, but 95% of people I meet have no appreciation for plot, or characters, or in fact anything other than bodycount, naked boobs or cars. These are the same sort of people who put "reading is for suckers" on their myspace. This is why Hollywood gears it's films towards idiots, because that's what the main population is.

I dunno about you, but 95% of people I meet have no appreciation for plot, or characters, or in fact anything other than bodycount, naked boobs or cars. These are the same sort of people who put "reading is for suckers" on their myspace. This is why Hollywood gears it's films towards idiots, because that's what the main population is.

And it's the exact reason why I haven't been to any cinema lately. While lately means not at all in the last 8 years. It's like with computer games: all the classics, the real good stuff has been released prior to 2000 ... almost everything after that was just plain soulless bull. Two of the few exceptions to this rule are Uplink (game) and donnie darko (film), which were both released in 2001.

I have to say you have missed a couple of gems if you haven't seen any cinema for 8 years. [REC] at the cinema in particular was one of the best experiences I have had full stop. It was really that good. Although it is barely justifiable by some of the trash I had to go see (Shrooms, The Day The Earth Stood Still, I Am Legend, Be Kind Rewind). The Simpsons movie was also well worth the time.

Company of Heroes, STALKER (Admittedly, when it works), World In Conflict, Fallout 3, Day Of Defeat Source and if they ever iron out the problems Empire Total War.

"TES 4.5" What's that mean?

"TES 4.5" What's that mean?

Oh, and by no means is Fallout 3 a 'true' Fallout. The humour just isn't there really. It is however, a very engrossing game with brilliant art direction and definitely the best RPG of late. (Although admittedly it is up again vomit-streaking failures like Fable 2)

console tards