The greatest hack in Hollywood… ever?
-
cloudforever99 — 17 years ago(August 23, 2008 09:59 AM)
You guys don't know what your talking aboutLet me give you a few reasons to why Brett Ratner could be considered a good Director
1.Steven Spielberg had faith in him and initially got him started in Directing (cr1c84edibility point # 1 )
2. His movies gross a LOT of money.people like his moviespeople think his movies are good..(credibility point # 2)
3. Very big established actors want to work in his projects ( Pierce Brosnan, Patrick Stewart, Ian Mckellen, Jackie Chan ( Who may be one of the biggest star in the world) (credibility point # 3)
4. If you enjoy action cinema you will appreciate how his movies are shotAn action movie fan who doesn't like his movies IMO just has poor taste
This is the dumbest thread. -
cloudforever99 — 17 years ago(August 25, 2008 05:47 PM)
In this article it mentions the steven spielberg funfact
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/celebrity/brett_ratner
he didn't produce anything but it's a hell of a gesture for "the Spielberg" to give a random newcomer a production grant, and may instantiate just a "smidgeon" of crediblity I think
Im just sayin that in terms of pure enjoymentthe majority of america disagrees with you guys when you say these are not good movies
I consider my self the typical action fan.I've been into martial arts and sports my whole life, and have been going to movies every friday(hehe well almost every friday) for the last 15 yearstheyre my passion and I grade them solely on enjoyment and how psyched I feel when I leave the movie theater.And Brett just delivers that formula I want..
I may have come off too harsh with the "bad taste" line, I'll take that backSome people just have different tastes I suppose
And I will say that X-Men 3 was a disaster, but I believe thats really the only exception and I hear he didn't have too much time to really work with the project -
cloudforever99 — 17 years ago(August 26, 2008 11:06 AM)
LOL I sure as hell would show up to the midnight showing of Rush Hour 4
arguing back and forth like this is going to prove futilewe'll just say I have a different opinion then those who started this thread lob68l
WAtch any of the behind the scenes fottage from a Brett Ratner Movie ( I suggest After the Sunset), and you'll see this mans talent and passion for film-making It might even turn u into a fan
You can't make it big in Hollywood on connections alonecmon nowThats just some weak rationale -
dude_guy99 — 17 years ago(August 29, 2008 02:51 PM)
Rush Hour 2 was just re-hashed jokes from the first one
and heres a new pieces of information you folks are just going to LOVE
new Brett Ratner project hes trying to get greenlit
here it is.
Guitar Hero: The Movie
no f u cking joke
I Was Here But I Disapear -
patkav6 — 14 years ago(July 24, 2011 11:30 PM)
The rush hour movies were terrible. I'll never understand the hype. I think they are actually racial against asians, and I don't get offended easily. I liked ratners Family Man. Other than that I haven't seen many of his films. It looks like he's moving to documentaries or shorts. Not to comare, but I can't place him with direcotrs like Spielberg, Howard, Scorcese who continue to put out great films that stand the test of time.
-
Pzachlen — 11 years ago(June 11, 2014 09:25 AM)
This man is a Crook . Check this out.
2000 made FAMILY MAN budget 60,000,000.00 his salary 5,000,000.00
2001 made RUSH HOUR budget 90,000,000.00 his salary 5,000,000.00
2002 made RED DRAGON budget 78,000,000.00 his salary 6,000,000.00
2006 made X MEN LAST STANDING budget 210,000,000.00 his salary 8,000,000.00
2008 RUSH HOUR budget 140,000,000.00 his salary 7,500,000.00
Is this man for real. Moulin Rouge in 2001 cost 52,000,000.00 to make. he spent 90,000,000.00 the same year for RUSH HOUR. There is something very wrong here. -
DeclanCochran — 11 years ago(July 28, 2014 09:40 AM)
Brett Ratner, is the hackiest hack in hacksville; Brett Hackner. Although I'd argue there's stiff competition from Len Wiseman and Shaun Levy in terms of the lame studio moviemaking fare. It makes me sad that those people are allowed to make films, and they're basically studio whores.
McG is a woeful director, but he doesn't quite make enough films to qualify as a hack, for me; a hack generally makes quite a few films, because the studio trusts their lack of soul to bring the films in and cater to the lowest common denominator, hence giving them work in place of other directors with talent.
Technically, I'd argue Bay isn't really a hack. He has a distinctive enough style and enough tropes and continual motifs throughout his films to make him an auteur (he said grudgingly). A really, really crap auteur.What would you do if I died today? I'd die tomorrow. -
cyber_nerdz — 11 years ago(September 15, 2014 04:33 AM)
Ratner, McG, and Bay, yes they make terrible movies but surely the real question should be why do so many people pay to watch these movies? Studios want to make money they don't care about art or even good writing they care about money ideally with as little risk attached as possible!
If you really dislike their movies (which I can understand), figure out how to make the paymasters change their mind about the risk/reward balance or convince the more stupid in the ether to stop paying money to watch these movies. -
horrorules — 11 years ago(December 12, 2014 10:27 AM)
red dragon is a very great and underrated movie.
Ratner is not a bad director
ehy H2 haters, look this
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr226/zombiezombie/suck.jpg
