Bruce Almighty 2
55 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Wasn't that exactly what happened with The Mask 2? I haven't seen it (and never will), so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought nobody replaced Jim Carrey as Stanley Ipkiss in that movie. It's just a new guy with the same mask surrounded by a bunch of new guys. About the movie, I can't see "Evan Almighty" working at all. Steve Carrell is funny, of course, but the plotline sounds incredibly weak to me. Now God wants a second flooding and picks Evan Baxter?? Why Evan? I'm expecting a "I need a new guy for some reason, so I'm picking you because you were around last time" kind of explanation. So this is another sequel of a Jim Carrey movie without Jim Carrey I won't see. I hope they reconsider it, and cancel this waste of time.
Well, the thing is, that new guy tries to be The Mask as we know it. That doesn't work. Also, it's simply a weak cast, a weak story and an idiotic film. Steve Carell IS Steve Carell, not someone that want's to be a second Bruce. He can do his own thing. EDIT : Forgot this, honestley, I didn't think the storyline about Jim turning in to god because he complains a lot (hell, was he? I know different guys ) promised a good story. But that's the beauty of comedie. The story isn't exactly the highest priority if you can laugh your ass off. Sorry, bad English Last edited by grinchy steve on Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ok, all right. If they were trying to imitate Jim Carrey's Mask, then there's a big mistake.
Well, I think it had much more potential. He complains a lot and God was like "Let's see if you can do it better". That's an interesting premise, in my opinion. Simple, but interesting. But now it's second flooding time (that alone doesn't sound good to me already. It looks to me like an easy resort.), and it looks like God will choose Evan as a second Noe just because Bruce isn't available and he was a funny secondary character in the other movie (He won't say that in the movie, of course, but that will be the real reason). I just don't see it strong or interesting enough. Besides, Evan sure was funny in Bruce Almighty, but I'm not sure this character would work as the main character. Of course, I can be wrong, but for the moment I don't like the idea.
well personally i'm for it...............it's a different take on it........Toms directing and hell, if Jims not going to do it ...why not make it with someone else??.............
i think it'll do quite well.............watch this space........ fluffy Fluffy
I think this movie could be very funny. Steve and Tom are creative people in their own ways, yes even without our beloved Jim, they are still very clever. Just imagining some guy trying to build an ark in New York City, is a pretty funny sight. SO I am sure it will be great.
I still don't like the floody, floody thingyGod said he wouldn't do it again. I just don't like the floody, flood thing.
I believe fire is next. Why not go that route. Water has been used.
RE: Bruce.wierd. I kinda pictured it to be Jim getting his godly powers back on a vacation in greece and meeting Zeus.
yours sincerly, Countess Olafina equalor
Some other poster mentioned "God promising never to flood the earth again," and they're right. That's why he created the rainbow. Anyways the first Bruce Almighty was ok--it's my least favorite out of all Jim's movies directed by Tom; the ending bore me to tears. And the only reason why I kinda' enjoyed the first Bruce was of course some very funny scenes with Jim Carrey, and good acting by Morgan Freeman.
This movie will probaly bomb without Jim Carrey.
55 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest | ||