X
Comments to #32
All comments (2)
2
1.
Driver 5 year s ago
Everything shown above from 2010 on is complete sh*t as movies go. Hollywood sucks - can't come up with an original plot to save their own disgusting, heartless evil souls.
1
2.
Christmas 5 year s ago
Driver, 2011 Harry Potter epic was pretty original both literary and cinematically. That was from Warner Bros. I agree though that they're relying more on blockbuster action films based on comic books rather than more interesting content. But people want to be entertained, and this post was about what's been most popular, not what's had the most integrity. The older I get I become more irritated by so many film re-makes instead of original content too. As if the greats needed improving. But some classics come more alive again when coupled with new technologies in sound, color, etc. It keeps us engaged for entertainment.
1963: "Cleopatra"
Adjusted gross: $453.8 million
Unadjusted gross: $57.7 million
What it's about: A four-hour historical epic about the life of the Egyptian queen Cleopatra, starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, who had a legendary Hollywood romance behind the scenes.
2
1.
Driver 5 year s ago
Everything shown above from 2010 on is complete sh*t as movies go. Hollywood sucks - can't come up with an original plot to save their own disgusting, heartless evil souls.
1
2.
Christmas 5 year s ago
Driver, 2011 Harry Potter epic was pretty original both literary and cinematically. That was from Warner Bros. I agree though that they're relying more on blockbuster action films based on comic books rather than more interesting content. But people want to be entertained, and this post was about what's been most popular, not what's had the most integrity. The older I get I become more irritated by so many film re-makes instead of original content too. As if the greats needed improving. But some classics come more alive again when coupled with new technologies in sound, color, etc. It keeps us engaged for entertainment.