• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Jonah Hex movie thread:Casting,Pics,Rumors,Spoilers till Release

It's 80 minutes "long"? The studio did a real edit job or they really didn't film 110min or so of footage?

Ebert giving it 2 of 4 stars is better than I would have thought. He mentions things in his review that Joe Regular isn't going to see as a contridiction, such as they did filming in Louisiana but we have desert settings. It's unclear how he lets that affect his grade.

I'm going to see this, obviously, but did expect at least a movie of about 100 minutes.
 
80 minutes long? That's barely worth putting my pants on for. Shit, the TV-movie-of-the week is longer than that without the commercials put in.
 
I'm guessing the studio cut it to death to get a PG-13, but that's just speculation.

It's PG-13??

Oh holy shit. Why'd they even bother?

No shit. What's with movie studios these days so afraid to make their action movies R-Rated? What happened to their dicks?! Oh, it's OK to make gross-out, sexualy-driven comedies that are Rated-R but heaven forbid we make a movie about a mutilated western action-hero/comic character Rated-R! :rolleyes: Oh, and let's edit it down to 80 minutes. Because it's not an action movie it's a damn kids movie and we don't want them squirming in their seats!

An 80-minute long, PG-13 rated "action" movie about a hardened, mutilated, western hero. Gee sign me up. :rolleyes:
 
Holy frak! The studio cut Jonah Hex to shreds. The runtime is 80 minutes!!!! And even shorter if you take out the credits!!!!

An 80-minute run time should make those here who whine about a movie with a run time of 2 hours long, and longer, as being too much time to tell a story.

From USA Today:

See 'Jonah Hex,' if you are male, teen and not picky
Jonah Hex
* 1/2 (out of four)
Stars:
Josh Brolin, John Malkovich, Megan Fox, Will Arnett, Aidan Quinn
Director: Jimmy Hayward
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, disturbing images and sexual content.
Running time: 1 hour and 27 minutes
Opens Friday nationwide
 
More reviews are in..and they are not very positive really:lol:
Comic vine:
http://www.comicvine.com/unscripted-review-jonah-hex-the-movie/112-983/
Film Freak Central:
http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/jonahhex.htm

Im not at all interested of seeing this, since it seems like a bad movie allready from the trailer, from the reviews and has there been any good films with Megan Fox yet?!?..not really:shifty:
I dont know the comic book at all...but I think I would have better Wild West experience from buying an album of that, or watching some of those Eastwood westerns, rather than seeing this on the cinema:)
Maybe I will rent this...some day:p
 
From early box office reports Deadline Hollywood is projecting that it'll only make about $8.5 million this weekend. They're also reporting that Warners slashed the budget in half (from $80 million to $40 million) just before filming began, although reshoots may have brought the budget up to about $65 million.

With the failure of Jennifer's Body and Jonah Hex and being dropped from Transformers 3 Megan Fox's career has done a spectacular swan dive. Pretty soon the only people calling her up with offers will be Hugh Hefner and Uwe Boll.

Edit to add: Deadline Hollywood has now revised their projected opening for Jonah Hex down to just $6 million. Ouch.
 
Last edited:
It's not like Fox is a great actress with anything to offer producers and directors much beyond her body -which either has to be heavily make-uped (adding to the budget) or covered (defeating the purpose of having her) to conceal her nasty, ugly, skanky tatts. I mean she's not a great actress, she's apparently a bitch to direct/have work for you so what does she have to offer? He career is tanking and, yeah, she'll be Asylumn's go-to girl before too long, that or doing porn.
 
Screw the critics, Jonah Hex didn't suck. That's not saying it was a great movie. There are some similarities to the Wild, Wild West (time period, President Grant, a super weapon, and a villain with a similar goal, but a different motivation). But Hex was better.

I didn't read the comics so I don't know how much they changed stuff or if the movie was true to the comics but its a good guess that a lot was changed. However, Josh Brolin, when I could understand him, made a pretty good Hex. Megan Fox just looked good, her line delivery was lazy and her Southern accent sounded more like Southern California. I also think John Malkovich had a hard time with his Southern accent too. The trailer looked cheesy and a lot of the descriptions in the reviews sounded horrible, but when I saw them on film it wasn't that bad.

Maybe if they had made it more of a gritty Western it would've been better, or made it R-rated, or removed or toned down the supernatural elements, or took out the super weapon, but I don't think those things really made the film horrible. It was a decent film. Not a travesty like WWW.
 
It's not like Fox is a great actress with anything to offer producers and directors much beyond her body -which either has to be heavily make-uped (adding to the budget) or covered (defeating the purpose of having her) to conceal her nasty, ugly, skanky tatts. I mean she's not a great actress, she's apparently a bitch to direct/have work for you so what does she have to offer?

Frankly I was wondering this myself.

It's not as if Hollywood has a dearth of attractive women who can't act -- so why do they keep casting an attractive woman who can't act AND is a bitch?

Good Lord, that woman CAN NOT ACT.
 
It's not like Fox is a great actress with anything to offer producers and directors much beyond her body -which either has to be heavily make-uped (adding to the budget) or covered (defeating the purpose of having her) to conceal her nasty, ugly, skanky tatts. I mean she's not a great actress, she's apparently a bitch to direct/have work for you so what does she have to offer?

Frankly I was wondering this myself.

It's not as if Hollywood has a dearth of attractive women who can't act -- so why do they keep casting an attractive woman who can't act AND is a bitch?

Good Lord, that woman CAN NOT ACT.

Haven't you heard? Megan Fox is so :drool: for the wanky Internet Fanboys because she dresses in skimpy clothes which therefore means she's necessary eye candy in any movie.

It's funny how the same people who this she's drool-worthy suddenly complain that she can't act and isn't all that. In other news, it was reported today that the sky is blue.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top