|
|
 |
03-29-2004, 03:52 AM
|
#1 of 17 
|
|
Crawdaddy
Administrator
Location: Michigan
Join Date: Dec 1998
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 18,201
|
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Walking Tall" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "Walking Tall" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy
G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.
|
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 04:32 AM
|
#2 of 17
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 4,622
|
Looks like it has a running time in the area of 75 minutes. I thought it was short and it looks like it was.
|
|
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 11:05 AM
|
#3 of 17
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 2,257
|
I just watched the original Walking Tall, and it would be hard to capture that 70's, sweaty, downright nasty feeling. And 75 minutes long?! They should have watched the original and seen what a real "smackdown" looks like! I almost thought of going to see the remake until checking out the original.
And you believe, at heart, everyone's a killer...
|
|
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 11:33 AM
|
#4 of 17
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 4,622
|
To be fair, there are copious amounts of smacking. Just they don't put much running time of movie in between the smackings.
You can expect |
|
|
|
|
03-30-2004, 12:57 AM
|
#5 of 17
|
|
Member
Location: San Leandro, Ca.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 4,219
|
Why do they keep letting The Rock star in movies??
The movie looks horrible but I am sure teens will go see it and it will make 100 Million.
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2004, 01:47 AM
|
#6 of 17
|
|
Location: Rocky Mountains
Join Date: Jul 2001
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 3,010
|
Quote:
|
Why do they keep letting The Rock star in movies??
|
Why did they keep letting Arnold star in movies? Because he had presence and was a blast to watch on the silver screen kicking some ass. |
|
|
|
|
03-30-2004, 03:26 AM
|
#7 of 17
|
|
Crawdaddy
Administrator
Location: Michigan
Join Date: Dec 1998
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 18,201
|
Quote:
| The movie looks horrible but I am sure teens will go see it and it will make 100 Million. |
Ahem, I haven't been a teen for 30 years and I'm going to see it. If you're not going to see the film then I don't understand why you're posting in this thread.
Crawdaddy
G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2004, 10:10 AM
|
#8 of 17
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 4,622
|
I wouldn't call it a bad film at all (very fun, in fact), just terribly short.
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2004, 03:44 PM
|
#9 of 17
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 674
|
I thought it was quite an enteraining movie but agree with everything said here about it being to short. I kept looking at my watch after it was over and couldn't believe it was over already. I also wasn't so sure about The Rock as an action star having been a fan of Arnold but after seeing this movie it's changed my about him.
-Mike
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2004, 09:05 PM
|
#10 of 17
|
|
Member
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Join Date: Mar 2002
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Local Date: 10-07-2008
Posts: 1,905
|
I'm not a teen, either, and I liked it a lot, although it isn't the Rock that got me to the theater - it was rockin' Neal McDonough (Boomtown). Better than The Rundown, and Johnny Knoxville makes a far less annoying sidekick than Seann William Scott.
|
|
|
|
|
