Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: Andrew on January 08, 2007, 09:02:49 AM

Title: Doom (2005)
Post by: Andrew on January 08, 2007, 09:02:49 AM
I finally watched "Doom" last week.  Several people had told me it was terrible, but I did not find that to be true.  The two secure teleport centers that controlled access between Earth and Mars were a neat idea and I think they fit in well with the rest of the movie.  Overall, there was enough action, though I could have done with more encounters between the creatures and the Marines.  I felt like they spent half of the movie chasing shadows.

Of course, as a Marine, some things made me cringe.  Them calling The Rock "Sarge" was definitely one of them.  The long-haired, completely rancid corporal was such a stupid character as to earn a boo from me.  The size of the team was another problem, because I cannot imagine them using anything smaller than a platoon to respond to a situation as serious as the plot creates.

The lack of a communications system between Earth and Mars was idiotic.  Even if the weird liquid globe transport system cannot be used as a medium for radio signals or anything, they would have come up with a system.  Maybe even, depending how restrictive the teleporter was, something that stored messages on little round flash drives and then dropped them into the portal.  When the message globes dropped into the room on the opposite planet, a wireless technology would retrieve the message.  A little robot (or a graded floor) would take care of cleaning up all the message globes and putting them back into the que.  Awkward, but such a system could prove faster than the ten-minute delay (I think it is about that) we currently have between Earth and Mars.

The strange doorway system to the lab was interesting, but not developed or explained well enough.  Perhaps it was there as an added defense for airborne contaminants.  I do not know, but the liquid door thing was novel enough that I would have liked it developed a bit more.  Here, the only reason I can see for its existence was one or two spooky scenes as Samantha looked out through it and also to trap the one creature at a point halfway through the door.

Why the film makers chose to discard the basis of all of the Doom games, the opening of a gateway to Hell, is a mystery.  I understand that John would not have been a match for the infected Sarge without the super juice.  Easy enough to mitigate.  In addition to the prototype BFG, they were playing around with a genetic serum based on the expanded genomes they found in the Martians.  There, you still have your super juice and the monsters that possess the people are creatures from Hell.  Making the threat an actual invasion from Hell gives you plenty of atmosphere.  In the "Doom III" game, there is a great part where a researcher says, "The Devil is real.  I built his cage."  Instead, this plot reminds me of "Ghosts of Mars" in a few ways.  And that is a bad sign.

I actually enjoyed the homage to Doom (well, more like Doom III) near the end.  That was when the film went to first person shooter mode, as John raced through the facility and shot all of the monsters to pieces.  They ran that for just long enough and it did not look too out of place. 

Why wasn't a backup squad on the other (Earth) side of the portal?  Oh, because they would have wasted the infected Sarge when he came through.
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Ash on January 08, 2007, 10:56:42 AM
I thought this was pretty good so I bought it last year.
Everybody made this out to be such a terrible movie but I thought it was good.

I've been an avid Doom player ever since it came out in the early 90's and I agree that they should've kept the gateway to Hell theme.
Blame that on studio execs who think they know what we as an audience want.
They don't have a clue.

Still, Doom was pretty good and is definitely worth a look if you haven't seen it.   :thumbup:
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Dr. Whom on January 08, 2007, 01:10:32 PM
Well, I've stayed away from it ever since SFX Magazine (I think) said of it 'another four letter word would have been so much more appropriate'. A few times I've come close to renting it. I'll take the plunge next time.
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on January 08, 2007, 01:30:49 PM
I tired to rent this from Netflix but it came to me broke. Might be a sign................

Nah I put back in my queue.  :bouncegiggle:
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: CheezeFlixz on January 08, 2007, 01:40:51 PM
I enjoyed it, I picked it up at a Blockbuster sidewalk sale for like $2.00 which was less than if I rented it. It wasn't a FANTASTIC film but it didn't blow chunks either. It was neat as far as films go. I say you're not going to be going I want my 2 hours back if you watch it, but I can't make promises. It's in my movie collection, but so is the "The Beast of Yucca Flats".
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Mofo Rising on January 08, 2007, 02:18:34 PM
I wouldn't say that it was a bad film, just that it was so thoroughly not good.
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Him on January 08, 2007, 03:18:31 PM
"Now here's a movie that probably will never be described as whimsical. It's called Doom. It's based on the popular video game, and it's a vile, dopey, indecipherable, ear splitting waste of time. The performances are awful, the action sequences are impossible to follow, the violence is gratuitous, the lighting is bad, I have my doubts that the catering truck was even up to snuff on this project." ~ Richard Roeper

Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on January 08, 2007, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Him on January 08, 2007, 03:18:31 PM
"Now here's a movie that probably will never be described as whimsical. It's called Doom. It's based on the popular video game, and it's a vile, dopey, indecipherable, ear splitting waste of time. The performances are awful, the action sequences are impossible to follow, the violence is gratuitous, the lighting is bad, I have my doubts that the catering truck was even up to snuff on this project." ~ Richard Roeper



Sounds like a winner  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: rebel_1812 on January 08, 2007, 03:34:14 PM
Quote from: Him on January 08, 2007, 03:18:31 PM
"Now here's a movie that probably will never be described as whimsical. It's called Doom. It's based on the popular video game, and it's a vile, dopey, indecipherable, ear splitting waste of time. The performances are awful, the action sequences are impossible to follow, the violence is gratuitous, the lighting is bad, I have my doubts that the catering truck was even up to snuff on this project." ~ Richard Roeper



very pretensious quote.
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Shadow on January 08, 2007, 06:32:33 PM
Was I the only one who was kinda disappointed when The Rock turned into the bad guy?
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Torgo on January 08, 2007, 07:11:29 PM
I hated how they ended up visualizing the BFG.  Talk about a huge let down.
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Andrew on January 08, 2007, 07:13:30 PM
I didn't think the BFG was terrible with what they had to work with.  On the other hand, The Rock's sudden transformation into the evil "kill 'em all" guy was abrupt.
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Fearless Freep on January 09, 2007, 07:58:25 AM
Not a great movie but an entertaining one if you are a fan of the games or of action-shooters.

Wish they had kept more of the "Gateway to Hell" plot from the games.   That atmosphere is what makes Doom what it is

Lots of nice homages and references to the games.

The "FPS" point of view was really cool and not overdone.

The Sarge's transformation of personality was a bit abrupt and too heavyhanded.  I could understand a "devotion to the mission" getting carried too far, but that was just too much, too soon.

A larger variety of enemies would've been really good.  Since they threw out the "Hell" aspect I suppose it would've been hard to toss some of them in without it getting silly

Would've been nice to see it more as an "Army Of Darkness" style with more of an average guy with a shotgun against an army of demons
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Mr. DS on January 09, 2007, 12:15:40 PM
I actually watched this movie for non-review purposes and ended up reviewing it.  Very clone like to Aliens or just about any other space adventure.  Got sick of the "room clear" searches but still found the effects to be amusing.  I think they said little CGI was used.

Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Torgo on January 09, 2007, 05:38:21 PM
Quote from: Andrew on January 08, 2007, 07:13:30 PM
I didn't think the BFG was terrible with what they had to work with.  On the other hand, The Rock's sudden transformation into the evil "kill 'em all" guy was abrupt.

I thought that the only part of the film in which it truly came to life for me was the 1st person shooter segment near the end. That was hilarious.   
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: Inyarear on January 10, 2007, 10:56:32 PM
Yes, I've heard that the movie was based more on Doom III than on any of the originals. It was mainly hearing that they were throwing out the whole "Gateway to Hell" concept that made me decide not to bother seeing it, though. If they'd kept the themes about Hell, those would have given it just a smidgen more intellectual and philosophical depth, which would probably have been enough for me. Without that, though, you just have another "Kill'em all and let God sort'em out!" flick.

Nobody was expecting a C.S. Lewis-quality theological treatise, mind. I'm just saying it would have been nice for it to have, say, the same level of intellect as 6th Day starring Schwartzenegger: in that film, there were actually a lot of very deep philosophical issues, though they were mostly handled with the usual breezy humor and groaner punchlines from Schwartzenegger and Co. "Car chase. Cool!" "Try to stay dead this time." "I wish I could say 'The one and only.'" "When I told you to go screw yourself, I didn't mean for you to take it literally." The science wasn't all that great either, but it's more about philosophy than science anyway.

With Hell, in addition to the theological issues, the writers could have gotten into the paranoia of knowing there may well be horrors beyond anything we've imagined lurking just out of reach from us, and that the barrier between us and those things may be very thin indeed. The question "What does Hell want with a moon base?" would have been good to explore, as well as "Are there some things mankind really was never meant to know?" From what little plot there was in the manual for the original Doom, there seemed to be the hint that the people responsible for building and operating the gates disregarded numerous warnings that they were meddling with things better left alone, and that this was a richly-deserved punishment for their sins.

A loner's atmosphere would probably have been better, too. Part of the whole emotional appeal of the game was a kind of heroism inherent in being the only survivor. Also, the lone marine was the kind of character all the Doom gamers liked to play: isn't that why the gamers came to see the movie? I'm hoping that Hollywood will "get" this little point about the target audience someday, but so far my hope has been in vain...
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: dean on January 11, 2007, 02:42:52 AM

This, like quite a few recent VideoGame movies like Resident Evil suffers from the writer's changing too much.

On their own the movies aren't that bad.  Doom was enjoyable, but nothing fancy.

It just always seems that when they take a key feature of the game [ie the oft quoted Gateway to Hell Problem] then you lose alot of the charm of the film.

It's almost better off if they made the movie, and named it something else, since then at least it gives someone the option to make a movie that's actually got the game as a basis.

I suppose they have to get funding somehow, which is why I suppose they frustrate me so...
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on January 11, 2007, 10:10:24 AM
Quote from: dean on January 11, 2007, 02:42:52 AM

This, like quite a few recent VideoGame movies like Resident Evil suffers from the writer's changing too much.

On their own the movies aren't that bad.  Doom was enjoyable, but nothing fancy.

It just always seems that when they take a key feature of the game [ie the oft quoted Gateway to Hell Problem] then you lose alot of the charm of the film.

It's almost better off if they made the movie, and named it something else, since then at least it gives someone the option to make a movie that's actually got the game as a basis.


I suppose they have to get funding somehow, which is why I suppose they frustrate me so...

I agree with you Dean. Looking back at the Resident Evil movies if you actually change some key names like Umbrella and the logo and other minor adjustments (Like the monsters) you could named it anything.
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: BTM on January 11, 2007, 06:19:19 PM
Quote from: AlexB on January 08, 2007, 01:10:32 PM
Well, I've stayed away from it ever since SFX Magazine (I think) said of it 'another four letter word would have been so much more appropriate'.

HAHA!  That's funny!  : :twirl:
Title: Re: Doom (2005)
Post by: ~Archivist~ on January 17, 2007, 01:48:13 AM
I only played the original PC game a bit, and none of the others.  I wasn't expecting that much when it was announced, but the trailer looked good, so I took a punt and saw it in the cinema.  Me and my mate were the only other people in there, other than two giggling teenage girls who threw candy at us!

I was really impressed.  It could have been a brainless gunfest but it became an involving and even thought-provoking movie.  The plot device that only a certain percentage of the population became 'monsters' was a good move.  And the action wasn't bad at all.  I really liked it, and have the DVD.