Dead on arrival?
>>67765593
It's a movie about a gimmick. It will have moderate success but every copycat movie will bomb because the novelty will have worn out
>>67765593
Just like this thread
It looks like a non-stop rollercoaster of chills, thrills, spills and kills.
>>67765593
too niche for normies but thats fine by me since then it will be /tv/s darling like Dredd and we'll actually be able to discuss a movie without shitposting for a bit
>>67765719
So just like Expendables?
>>67765723
Brutal
>>67765732
>too niche for normies
Literally We Want the Call of Duty Audience: The Flick.
If the production budget was low enough they can make a quick buck.
>Using GoPros to film
>>67765750
No dumbshit. The expendable was an action movie franchise. Casting action heroes in an action movie isn't a gimmick. Shooting an entire movie in 1st person is a gimmick
>>67765593
>Dead on arrival?
Yes. This year's Shoot 'Em Up
![864086_054[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9HMHpy3.jpg "864086_054[1].jpg")
>>67765996
>implying Shoot 'Em Up wasn't patrician tier cinema
found the pleb
>>67765593
Dead in concept phase tbqh. I can't imagine watching this and not being nauseated.
>>67765996
I enjoyed SEU.
You knew exactly what you were getting when you rented the DVD.
>>67766101
I enjoyed Shoot Em Up, but it fucking tanked. These seem similar in my mind and fall into a similar genre.
is the entire movie going to be in first person?
why would anyone think this is a good idea?
>>67766191
>>67766101
This and both Crank movies are gulty pleasure. Hope Hardcore (henry) fits that place too.
And why the "henry" thing? before it was called just Hardcore. It's because the George C. Scott cinema scene movie with same title?
seems like something made in 1996 and having gone direct to VHS
>>67766211
the movie is clearly aimed at 12 year olds playing Call of Duty
>>67766226
Crank 1 and 2 are unironic masterpieces.
Wait this is an actual movie?
Like it'll be shown in theaters and shit?
I thought this was just some dumb YouTube video by pewdiepie or something.
>>67766348
It's a real movie for theaters, but give me a brofist anyway.
>>67766286
>Crank 1 and 2 are unironic masterpieces.
I haven't seen the second movie. I just assumed it would be terribad since the MC was supposed to die at the end of the first.
Seemed like the original was supposed to be a "one and done" and they only did the second for a cash grab.
![565a12f7c9a19650d57feee86d5610c4382eee8a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LIgFKEc.jpg "565a12f7c9a19650d57feee86d5610c4382eee8a[1].jpg")
>>67765593
is this the same shit?
will it be better as this? some shilled this yesterday, but didn't watched it yet. rating say its mediocre. i bet it's true for the whole genre.
we will have a lot of POV in the next years right?
>>67766481
You should really watch the 2nd one. It takes itself less seriously than the first one, and that's a lot.
Also, Bai Linggiant nipples
>>67766858
What with VR being pushed so hard. Only a matter of time for this shit to align.
>>67766858
Rachel Nichols picks the worst movies to be in. She's great in all of them almost without exception but they're always bombs, even the good ones(like Conan, which was great fun) bomb.
>>67766101
This movie was fucking dogshit.
Crank is okay though
Looks like an hour long cutscene
>First Person Shooter: The Movie
Literally just play an fps instead
much more interactivity
>>67767139
even on youtube now >snoopovision
>>67766172
jesus how old are you
It's been done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FftHaYHTVI
The trailer made me dizzy, I see lawsuits and shitty reviews in it's future
