Biggest Disappointments...

Sorry, I thought LOTR was exceptional on nearly every level.
And can we please not mix our genres? Star Wars is fantasy, not Science Fiction. As mentioned above, Blade Runner and Aliens, THAT's Science Fiction.

Here's a dissapointment...
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome!

Mad Max - Fierce, down and dirty, gritty filmmaking.
The Road Warrior - Kinetic and powerful, awesome.
Beyond Thunderdome - What the F*ck was that?!

Godfather 3 - Correct, should never have been made. Not a horrible movie, but c'mon! It's The Godfather!
 
Noct said:
newsflash, read all about it: Star Wars was always nerdy. They're not exactly art films. Their target audience is kids. You have to adapt to that way of thinking when you watch them. To gripe about them would kind of like going to a playground with 3rd graders to play basketball, then whining because your teammates are too short.

The originals were nerdy as hell too. I had an argument the other night with an old friend about this. How can you get any more nerdy than Luke Skywalker? How can the acting and terminology get any worse? It was always about accepting the fantasy and just going with it. I can see all the negative points brought up about the new trilogy. I just think most of it is over trying to live up to the original, and the original time period and political climate where Star Wars thrived.
Click to expand...

Newsflash ? No no no. Disagree completely.

The originals; scratch that ...

The first 2 films hold up as adult films. There are not catered towards children anymore than Raiders of the Lost Ark was.

Obi Wan severing off the aliens arm in the bar, Darth Vader almost choking the dude to death, Darth Vader breaking the neck of Rebel guy and then tossing him aside, the burning bodies of Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen, the Sand Person attacking Luke, the overall violence of Stormtroopers and Rebels having laser fights ......

All signs of a nice childrens film, right ?

Star Wars became 'kids film's' offically with Jedi and the original did so by accident.

Adapt to the material ? The films just plain suck. When I see The Lion King, I'm not adapting to view more like a child would, I just like it because it is really well done and nice story and a great job at filmmaking. I'm not going to dumb down for it.

Geeky ? Noooooo. Star Wars was cool. Geeky was Star Trek and D & D.

Star Wars was cool. That's the difference between then and now

To gripe about them would kind of like going to a playground with 3rd graders to play basketball, then whining because your teammates are too short.
Click to expand...

:undecided I really really really tried to make the correlation on this one. No idea what it means. Is this where were supposed to dumb down for the film and think like a child ?

Newsflash ? Not even a soundbite. :laugh:
 
John Wesley Norton said:
Sorry, I thought LOTR was exceptional on nearly every level.
And can we please not mix our genres? Star Wars is fantasy, not Science Fiction. As mentioned above, Blade Runner and Aliens, THAT's Science Fiction.

Here's a dissapointment...
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome!

Mad Max - Fierce, down and dirty, gritty filmmaking.
The Road Warrior - Kinetic and powerful, awesome.
Beyond Thunderdome - What the F*ck was that?!

Godfather 3 - Correct, should never have been made. Not a horrible movie, but c'mon! It's The Godfather!
Click to expand...

Spaceships? Space? Robots? Lasers?

Science Fiction by every definition

Science Fiction Fantasy ? Yes

Blade Runner ? Scifi Noir

Aleins ? Scifi Horror

Gotta mix genres, its the only way to classify these things.

-

I have come to appreciate Beyond Thunderdome over the years.
 
For as little as i expected from it, the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was surprisingly good.

Biggest disappointment? My favorite directors usually come through and i don't expect much from anyone else so this is tough for me. I guess I was really disappointed in Million Dollar Baby. Eastwood can direct the hell of a movie, but he picked a dud of a story with this one.
 
The Transporter 2--it went from something fun and enjoyable in the first film, to the land of comic book stunts in the second.
 
king kong was unwatchable.

lotr 3 was okay but suffered the same problem in the last hour or so.

Too Long.

Now i usually have no problem with 3 hour films, but the length in both cases usually had little to do with telling the story.

i.e. cue another shot of kong looking at girl
cue shot of girl looking away and then back at kong
two shot of kong and girl looking at each waterfall
kong looks back at girl
girl looks at kong
kong looks away
girl looks at kongs massive penis...

i think you catch my drift.

on the flip side, i was pleasantly suprised by lord of war. i literally found the dvd as i was unpacking for a friend. having never heard of it i popped it in and enjoyed the hell out of it.
 
I liked the KONG film; l i k e d

I think it could have been PJ's Swan Song (Like LOTR isn't enough) ...

I would never say KONG was unwatchable.
 
Brandon Rice said:
Kong was great IMO! I was stunned and moved by it when I saw it in the theatre the first time.
Click to expand...
You are easily "stunned and moved." :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
The Phantom Menace. Without question. After that stinker, I had less hopes for the other two so they weren't nearly as big a disappointment. There are so many things wrong with the prequels it's hard to know where to begin, and it makes my head hurt to think of them all, so I won't. I won't even mention Jar-Jar, as that's going for the low hanging fruit. The biggest mistake was George directing them the way he did, mainly against green screen with minimal sets. George was never a great director of actors, but in the movies he directed that work, American Grafitti and the first Star Wars, he put his talent in real environments and sets and the actors were able to inspire their own performances. Neither film has outstanding acting, but the actors were beliveable in their roles. In the prequels, his actors were stranded in green screen limbo, so they needed a strong director who could inspire them and shape their performances, and GL is just not up to this task. The movies suffered greatly as a result, with incredibly stiff and stilted acting throughout. Of course, no amount of great acting could have saved the shitty writing, but that's a whole other nut. Just top to bottom there's bad choices. GL himself once said one bad idea can kill a thousand good ideas. Unfortunately he fell prey to his own words.
 
Contact.

After Forrest Gump? Some liked Contact but I just hate it more and more when I think about it.
 
Contact was a huge let-down in the end ....

Any Sci-Fi that pull's that BS copout routine is lame in my book:

Contact, Mission to Mars ... (Now that I think about it, both of those Mars flicks sucked) have those endings where some profound mysterious being or alien or god or whatever talks to them (The Abyss as much as I loved, in the end just makes me roll my eyes ....)

2001 is like that as well ....

Lame lame lame

Someone have some balls and predict what the universe is or will be; at least a film like The Black Hole gives us something in the end

--

But wait; Forrest Fump was a let-down too you ?

The one nominated for 14 Academy Awards and winner of Best Actor, Director and Picture ?

That Forrest Gump ?
 
No, Forrest Gump was hugely enjoyable. Zemeckis reached his apex with it and then...big sigh...Contact.

A.I. is a close second for me. I read the short story it was based on and I remember the hype about Kubrick bringing it to the screen. It promised to be his grand finale.

Then old Stevie just had to step in after Kubrick's passing. (which I still wonder about)

Gotta sharply disagree with you about 2001 though. Maybe you meant 2010?

2001 is one of the greatest films ever.
 
2001 is one of the greatest films ever.
Click to expand...

Sigh .....

That film lacks soul.

I find this to be one of the more boring, slow paced prentencious films ever made. It is a huge leap in cinematography and special effects for 1968, but other than that ....

Could it have any less emotion in the film ?

-

A.I. was great until Act 3.
 
John_Hudson said:
A.I. was great until Act 3.
Click to expand...


AI falls into this weird category of films that I call 'TWO IN ONE'

Essentially this means that at some point in the film it just takes a weird left turn and becomes a completely different film that what you started out watching. For example:

Hostel - Fun teen sex romp to torture room stomach churn

There are others but I can't think right now
 
John_Hudson said:
Sigh .....

That film lacks soul.

I find this to be one of the more boring, slow paced prentencious films ever made. It is a huge leap in cinematography and special effects for 1968, but other than that ....

Could it have any less emotion in the film ?

-

A.I. was great until Act 3.
Click to expand...

Funny how 2001 strikes people differently. What you call "slow paced pretentious" I call deliberate pacing to establish a mood and atmosphere. Blade Runner can feel extremely slow, but it's stunningly brilliant.

2001 isn't so much about emotion as it is about intelligence and the destiny of mankind. It's all about symbolism and metaphor. I love it...but it's an acquired taste...especially for newer generations.

You're right, A.I. felt like it was going somewhere until the last act, but man did that last act obliterate whatever goodwill I had for the effort.
 
Jeremy Ordan said:
AI falls into this weird category of films that I call 'TWO IN ONE'

There are others but I can't think right now
Click to expand...
The Island...1st half, reasonable but derivative sci-fi, 2nd over-the-top mindless action flick.


Now, regarding 2001, I loved it when I saw it in 1968. It blew me away. To me, the years have not been kind to 2001. I can barely set through it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top