Existing Posts
Matt wrote: Adrian wrote: BTW, Matt, I actually liked Garfield for what it was.
Okay, okay...I'll admit that as a twenty-first century version of a medieval torture device it wasn't half bad.

Well, it probably helped that at the time, I had 3 cats, that all sort of resembled the cats in the movie, and a dog. Of course, seeing a Pembroke Welsh Corgi on screen is kind an oddity as well (though he has all of about 5 seconds screen time.)
Okay, okay...I'll admit that as a twenty-first century version of a medieval torture device it wasn't half bad.
Well, it probably helped that at the time, I had 3 cats, that all sort of resembled the cats in the movie, and a dog. Of course, seeing a Pembroke Welsh Corgi on screen is kind an oddity as well (though he has all of about 5 seconds screen time.)
Adrian wrote: BTW, Matt, I actually liked Garfield for what it was.
Okay, okay...I'll admit that as a twenty-first century version of a medieval torture device it wasn't half bad.
Okay, okay...I'll admit that as a twenty-first century version of a medieval torture device it wasn't half bad.
Yup. All because Garfield has a sequel. But then again, Garfield: SE was released in Australia even before talks of sequel. So Australia is one of the first to get a SE Garfield. I hope the sequel's good.
WidscreenEys wrote: Yea well, what about Garfield The Movie: Purrrfect Edition? That movie was garbage but got a SE. And while half of $45 Million isn't record breaking $9 a ticket totaling half of $45 million is alot of people. So 4 others telling me it isn't worthy of a SE doesn't quite sell me on the idea.
You are talking two very different things here though. The only reason Garfield is getting a SE is to promote the sequel. There is no sequel to Flight of the Phoenix.
BTW, Matt, I actually liked Garfield for what it was.
You are talking two very different things here though. The only reason Garfield is getting a SE is to promote the sequel. There is no sequel to Flight of the Phoenix.
BTW, Matt, I actually liked Garfield for what it was.
You're right, Garfield was garbage, but it still made Fox a bunch of money whereas Phoenix didn't and there's no built-in, niche market for it like there is with movies like Garfield and Elektra. Besides that, as someone already stated it got a fairly decent release the first time and one that was a lot better than far more worthy films have gotten.
Yea well, what about Garfield The Movie: Purrrfect Edition? That movie was garbage but got a SE. And while half of $45 Million isn't record breaking $9 a ticket totaling half of $45 million is alot of people. So 4 others telling me it isn't worthy of a SE doesn't quite sell me on the idea.
There you go!
Not to mention the original release had a commentary, deleted scenes, and a making of. I don't know how much more extra material one could expect of a movie that only made half of it's estimated cost of $45 million at the US box office.
The 2004 remake was a lifeless bore...check out the 1965 original with Jimmy Stewart and Sir Richard Attenborough instead.
Judging from the NO REPLIES here, I guess I'm not the only one who did not care for this movie. And you can't compare a comic book adaptation with an action/ adventure movie! They are two very different movies altogether. And I prefer Elektra, but only because Jennifer Garner's in it.
M.I.A. --- Flight of the Phoenix: Special Edition
With FOX re-releasing everything from A to C**p, why has there been no news on any kind of release for 2005's Flight of the Phoenix?! It was a better movie than Elektra and that got a Special Editon!! WTF!?

