i thought it was thoroughly entertaining, and surprisingly decent despite all you haters out there. the fps had me grinning throughout, and i was say the last 20 minutes were edge of your seat. all action, all violence, all good with me. what do you expect of a doom movie, folks? gimme a break and just accept it for what it is.

I don't think anyone has asked this before but ARE THERE ANY MONSTERS FROM THE GAMES IN IT?

Only from Doom 3. None of the cool ones from the first two are in it.

Thanks, Doctor. Sounds like they've missed some good opportunities with the franchise.

yeah, I was kind of expecting to see the giant floating 'head' monster.



one scene seemed trunscated - the scene where one of our hapless victims has his legs bisected - it happens so fast, you have no idea what just happened - dare I say this seem looked trimmed to get an R-rating.

saw it today for free, I got 2 free movie passes at work for having the best available stats on my phone this week
I could handle all the changes made except for one
the BFG is supposed to shoot green energy.
that stayed constant through all 3 games, even Doom 3 which was a remake and not a sequel, and what is what this movie was most closely based off of the 3 games, kept the BFG green

too bad it was basically stolen from Resident Evil

I was under the impression

I thought I caught a glimpse of a small spider looking thing in the background for a split second but definitely no minigun equiped one like in doom 2 or the spiders from doom 3

I guess I'll tag this

I finally got around to seeing this. It was pretty disappointing and I wasn't expecting much going in. I would've liked to have seen a much more over-the-top approach based on the original game and it's sequel. As it was, it was simply shades of Event Horizon and any cliche action movie. The dialogue was especially predictable. Was there no script before everybody signed on or something?

Doom dropped 78% in its second week, so yeah, I guess Doom is doomed.

A movie like Doom tends to have a front-loaded audience of hardcore fans of the game. It fell off 75% this weekend, from number 1 to number 7. After the second weekend, it's limping in at 22 M box office against a 70 M budget.

I don't think a lot of people who are going to see this have not seen it yet.

This is not a bad movie that will be vindicated by its "popcorn" appeal. It's a bad movie that is flopping.

I see no purpose in excusing bad movies as being "mere entertainment." Perhaps this is an approach that works for those who indiscriminately consume all media, but I believe it's worthwhile to differentiate between the "popcorn" flicks that are good, and those that aren't. It's worthwhile to recognize the difference between "Spider-Man" and "Fantastic Four," between "Land of the Dead" and "Resident Evil," between "The Matrix" and "The Island."

"Die Hard" does not aspire to be "Citizen Kane," but it's a great film. The pacing works, the characters are interesting and well-developed with clear motivations, and there is real personality in the hero and the villain. the script is funny, the actors are charismatic, and the action sequences are conceived in a way that is exciting without being exceedingly absurd, and are filmed in a way that makes sense.

Conversely, there are plenty of suspense-thriller films with cardboard characters, bad scripts, incomprehensible plots and incoherent action sequences. It's worthwhile to differentiate between the two kinds of movies.

Every genre, even shlock-horror, has its gems, and I see no reason not to hold "Doom" up against "Aliens."

Even genre films can and should be divided into the worthwhile and the worthless. The low aim of a film's aspiration does not, in and of itself, justify the film's existence, especially if a film motivated by commercial interest fails to make money, or if a film aspiring to be entertainment fails to be entertaining. I think that the lesson of the declining box office is that good movies are good business and bad movies will not find an audience in an era of more diverse media choices.

Of course, I'd say it's faulty logic to say that any of these films are intended as bad films. It's not like any of these filmmakers were thinking "let's make a bad movie!"

I'm not even sure the box office reflects anything about cinematic quality...I'd even argue this year had some of the best Hollywood movies around. There are too many external factors that seem to be dictating box office moreso than actual film quality.

Besides, everyone has their own taste. You made the comparison of Land of the Dead to Resident Evil, with Land representing the quality film. Though I'd argue Land isn't that great of a film itself.

rented this the other night. I can see why it dropped over 70% during its second weekend. Total crap. Tried to be Aliens, Resident Evil, and any other sci-fi you can think of and failed miserably.

It seemed like every line uttered was with a closeup and gritting teeth. The dialogue was what really got to me.

The Rock: "I need soldiers! I don't need anyone else.....but soldiers!" ugh

The finale was decent, but everything else was blah.

I watched the extended edition the other day and the scene that bothered me (when it really shouldn't) is the sewer scene - on Mars - a desert planet... dry... desolate... where in the hell is all the water coming from...???

that bothered me too
the "sewer" system in a research lab on anohter plaent would likely be very closed with much smaller diameter pipes
definitely not stuff you can just walk around in

This movie needed some more extravagant monsters from the games, bottomline. What they had was okay, but nowhere near as mindblowing as seeing a cyber-demon or spider-tank.

Just caught this on DVD last night, and I guess low expectations are a good thing, I thought it was pretty damn good. I know the dialog was campy, but I thought that the Rock and Karl Urban did more than I thought they could with what they had. I thought there should have been more monster fighting though, I'm still trying to figure out where that supposed $70m budget went, other than the 'nano wall'

I agree, I was expecting the worst movie of all-time but I blind bought it because I will always support the Rock. I was never bored and actually kind of liked it. No where near as bad as people claim it to be.

I rented the film recently and I too liked it. It wasn't the best film I've seen but it sure was enjoyable as a guilty pleasure. The FPS sequence was sweet, too. I wish it had been longer than five minutes.

That said, this film cost $70 milion? Are you serious?

I enjoyed it, but thought it could be a lot better. It was actually slower paced then i thought it would be.