|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 11, 2021 3:14:18 GMT
Jurassic Park III - Has a reputation for basically being the Batman & Robin of the JP series, which is completely untrue. I think it's better than the newer films. *I have never seen it compared to Batman and Robin. It didn't get much attention when it was released. The previous ones have more comedy than it does. But it is only 90 minutes which is rather short. Oh no I didn't mean people literally compare it to Batman & Robin, just that it tends to get treated as if it's the equivalent of Batman & Robin for the JP series, or like Star Trek V or Superman IV or something. For me it is better than Jurassic World and only slightly worse than The Lost World and Fallen Kingdom. It is mocked most for the infamous talking dinosaur dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 11, 2021 3:15:08 GMT
Prometheus - ship crew full of meat for the grinder, & ppl waiting for them to be action heroes. An Engineer fossilized corpse was encountered & walked over in Alien, & ppl are like who are these fcukers & why should we even care how non-canon they are.
Batman Forever - it is not B&R & nor does not pretend to be Burton-Keaton either. PG Batman, that's fine.
Avatar is an interesting one. We're consumed with re-watches & dissection. Meanwhile, Avatar 3D was one of the most legitimately entertaining cinematic experiences in history.
Reminds me of harsh reviews from before the blockbuster age. Critics were shown films for a first time, no home release or anything, & were tasked with initial response. Nowadays, anyone can binge over & again a film to appreciate it more. Blade Runner for example... I've not met many who love the film who yet were deer in headlights their first viewing. Like critics of the day when they first saw & wrote about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 11, 2021 3:21:58 GMT
1. He nearly killed Vader, a mass murdering tyrant, in a moment of anger, before stopping himself. His entire reason for being there in the first place was to redeem his father, not to kill him. 2. He ignited his lightsaber in front of Ben while he was sleeping. It definitely seems like that was more than just a thought. And again, Ben was not a mass murdering tyrant at that point. He was a teenager who hadn’t done anything wrong just yet. 1. All of which can be applied to the Ben scene, except that Luke didn't swing at the kid like Jason Voorhees until chopping his hand off. 2. That's Brandishing a Weapon, not Attempted Murder. As far as Kylo not having done anything yet, we're talking about Luke Skywalker: a Force sensitive demigod. It's not like he was going off of a hunch or something. It's the old "would you kill baby Hitler?" question. Killing Kylo would prevent the same bloodshed his grandfather committed before the fact. Ultimately, Luke chose not to, but for four years he's had to answer to the Thought Police. Why would Luke have been angry in the Ben scene? When it came to Vader, he was fighting for his life, as were his friends, and the Emperor kept egging him on. The movie does make it clear that Luke saw darkness in his nephew, but the problem is that we have no real indication of what specifically he saw that would cause him to even consider murdering Ben. We’re just told that Luke saw something bad, and then immediately, we’re shown a flashback of him brandishing his lightsaber in front of Ben while he’s asleep. The idea maybe could’ve worked if it was supposed to be the culmination of Luke’s downward spiral. The movie could’ve established that Luke was already losing trust in the Jedi order, and that maybe he already experienced some kind of loss, but from what the film presents, the moment when he tried to kill Ben was apparently the entire reason for his downward spiral in the first place. It just seems forced.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 11, 2021 3:25:05 GMT
Jurassic Park III is my second favorite JP movie. What's your first? Jurassic Park |
|
|
|
Post by Spitfire926f on Jan 11, 2021 4:10:48 GMT
Prometheus - ship crew full of meat for the grinder, & ppl waiting for them to be action heroes. An Engineer fossilized corpse was encountered & walked over in Alien, & ppl are like who are these fcukers & why should we even care how non-canon they are. Batman Forever - it is not B&R & nor does not pretend to be Burton-Keaton either. PG Batman, that's fine. Avatar is an interesting one. We're consumed with re-watches & dissection. Meanwhile, Avatar 3D was one of the most legitimately entertaining cinematic experiences in history. Reminds me of harsh reviews from before the blockbuster age. Critics were shown films for a first time, no home release or anything, & were tasked with initial response. Nowadays, anyone can binge over & again a film to appreciate it more. Blade Runner for example... I've not met many who love the film who yet were deer in headlights their first viewing. Like critics of the day when they first saw & wrote about it. I was going to mention Batman Forever. I thought Kilmer was great. I like Prometheus as well, but feel like they should have just started a different franchise instead of attaching it to Alien. |
|
|
|
Post by judgejosephdredd on Jan 11, 2021 7:08:46 GMT
I had the feeling The Last Jedi would've been mentioned in this thread... My two cents on your two cents on the negative complaining about the movie - No, Luke was not a boy scout to begin with, but he evolved into a hero with good judgement and wisdom at the end of Return of the Jedi. Seeing him deconstructed into a reclusive quitter who drinks green breast milk on an island somewhere was certainly not expected but it didn't feel earned or organic or very plausible a transition, it felt like a deconstruction for the sake of it to say, "hey you overgrown children there is no such as an aspirational hero, get over it!" Snoke was set up as the big bad of the whole sequel trilogy and in the end they didn't do anything of note with him and killed him off for shock value, and the only thing they could do to try and explain his role was to make him a science lab experiment by Palpatine. Rey was arguably even more of a Mary Sue here than in The Force Awakens, Rise of Skywalker tried to give her some substance but it was too little too late and didn't work out very well in the end. Most people take issue with that out of all the ways to have Leia use the force they decided to use it in a sequence which just looked silly - She cheats death and flies through space like Mary Poppins to safety? Why not have her use the force in a battle? What does him drinking green breast milk have to do with anything? He was a farmboy. He's even seen drinking blue milk in ANH. And acting like Rian Johnson hates aspiration and heroism is another area I don't think people are being fair. It's as if they completely missed the entire final act where Luke comes in, saves the day, and reignites idealism across the galaxy and for a new generation. Sometimes things are set up and then subverted. Psycho, by all accounts a classic, set up Janet Leigh as the main character before killing her off halfway through. I don't know why this kind of thing became a crime in 2017, but it'd be one thing if Snoke was actually interesting or compelling. He wasn't. He was through and through a lame Emperor copycat, and seeing a rehash of the OT was one of things everyone was complaining about with TFA. Johnson then has the idea to bypass that and make the more interesting Kylo Ren the Big Bad, and suddenly the ST is not rehashy enough (cue Trevorrow - who would have stuck out Kylo Ren as Big Bad - getting fired and Abrams being brought in to complete the rehash circle). Are you gonna back up that Rey comment with an explanation or anything? TFA didn't have her go on a fool's errand motived by a crush and fail miserably. Though there are plenty of silly looking things in this franchise, if one finds Leia pulling herself through space too much, fair enough. But I'm talking about the people who take it a step further by acting like TLJ made her force sensitive out of nowhere. Um, I think you're looking into the 'drinking green breast milk' part of my comment a bit too far there, it was just describing Luke's new kind of lifestyle as a recluse at the start of The Last Jedi, nothing more really. Nobody missed the entire final act of the film, that Luke wasn't like that from the start of the picture is what's disappointing. He had a great arc in the original trilogy and to discover that he became a broken clock of a person in recent memory just feels like a knife to the heart for many fans, it wasn't a good subversion of expectations it felt like a middle finger - and it's kinda telling when you have interviews and Twitter comments from Mark Hamill strongly suggesting he didn't like what Johnson and Kennedy were doing with the character. Luke at the end of season 2 of The Mandalorian, now THAT is the Luke Skywalker everybody wanted. Subversion has become problematic in recent memory because most filmmakers applying it to genre entertainment do not know how to effectively do it. Psycho is an example of subversion done right, you get to know who Marion Crane is and feel all the emotions she has when she decides to take a huge risk in her life and when she dies nearly halfway into the picture it is an absolute shock because you are set on following her arc from start to finish. We only saw a little bit of Snoke in The Force Awakens, there was anticipation to learn more about him and what he is to Empire and The Last Jedi right before they almost did anything with him killed him off. It's not clever or interesting, it's pretty sloppy storytelling especially coming off of The Force Awakens. Johnson's whole approach to The Last Jedi was essentially not to make a second half of a three part story but a second half and a third half of one. He threw out most of what Abrams was trying to set into motion and made it so hectic for Trevorrow that the latter eventually left and Abrams was brought in to try and fix the mess Johnson had made. In all honesty, The Last Jedi serves as a good example as to why you don't let somebody like Rian Johnson try to take over the driver's seat in the middle of a trip, Star Wars is not a kind of property you can deconstruct as much as you like and expect everyone to love it in the end you have to follow certain rules and respect certain things in the canon as well as what past artists have contributed. If anything he should have been rewarded with a one-off that was a stand alone story set in the Star Wars universe, but nothing major to where it would be impactful on the property as a whole. They gave her no origin, said her parents were nobodies, and offered no real explanation for her amazing force abilities, she was OP from start to finish and just learned to home in on certain powers here and there, not a lot of growth. I would say because she didn't she use it at all in The Force Awakens is what brought on such raised eyebrows, if she had done something of similar note in that film there probably wouldn't have been as much complaining about that particular moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 11, 2021 7:46:10 GMT
1. All of which can be applied to the Ben scene, except that Luke didn't swing at the kid like Jason Voorhees until chopping his hand off. 2. That's Brandishing a Weapon, not Attempted Murder. As far as Kylo not having done anything yet, we're talking about Luke Skywalker: a Force sensitive demigod. It's not like he was going off of a hunch or something. It's the old "would you kill baby Hitler?" question. Killing Kylo would prevent the same bloodshed his grandfather committed before the fact. Ultimately, Luke chose not to, but for four years he's had to answer to the Thought Police. Why would Luke have been angry in the Ben scene? When it came to Vader, he was fighting for his life, as were his friends, and the Emperor kept egging him on. The movie does make it clear that Luke saw darkness in his nephew, but the problem is that we have no real indication of what specifically he saw that would cause him to even consider murdering Ben. We’re just told that Luke saw something bad, and then immediately, we’re shown a flashback of him brandishing his lightsaber in front of Ben while he’s asleep. The idea maybe could’ve worked if it was supposed to be the culmination of Luke’s downward spiral. The movie could’ve established that Luke was already losing trust in the Jedi order, and that maybe he already experienced some kind of loss, but from what the film presents, the moment when he tried to kill Ben was apparently the entire reason for his downward spiral in the first place. It just seems forced. In the Ben scene he was reacting with fear, which in Star Wars is pretty much synonymous with hate. We don't see what Luke sees - the implication is that it's pretty heinous, so much so it can't be shown. And whether Ben would have turned anyway or if Luke pushed him was the question the scene raised and a reoccurring theme in the franchise, that of nature vs nurture. Luke speaks with disdain of the Jedi in the prequels - with good reason: they were arrogant, dogmatic, and hypocritical. I think he'd already been set on trying to do better, and because he trained another Vader, he lost his faith completely. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jan 11, 2021 8:08:26 GMT
Ordinary People - Gets a lot of crap for winning a trophy over Raging Bull, I actually think it's the better movie. Ishtar - Largely infamous for its behind the scenes problems, but I think it's definitely preferable to any of the dozens of shit comedies that are released every year. Jurassic Park III - Has a reputation for basically being the Batman & Robin of the JP series, which is completely untrue. I think it's better than the newer films. Green Book - So because Spike Lee badmouthed it, it's now pretty much known as some white-savior movie about a heroic white guy who rides around the south protecting a helpless, impotent black guy. I feel that most people who think this haven't actually seen it. I agree with you about Ordinary People. It's one of my all-time favourite films.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 11, 2021 8:18:02 GMT
What does him drinking green breast milk have to do with anything? He was a farmboy. He's even seen drinking blue milk in ANH. And acting like Rian Johnson hates aspiration and heroism is another area I don't think people are being fair. It's as if they completely missed the entire final act where Luke comes in, saves the day, and reignites idealism across the galaxy and for a new generation. Sometimes things are set up and then subverted. Psycho, by all accounts a classic, set up Janet Leigh as the main character before killing her off halfway through. I don't know why this kind of thing became a crime in 2017, but it'd be one thing if Snoke was actually interesting or compelling. He wasn't. He was through and through a lame Emperor copycat, and seeing a rehash of the OT was one of things everyone was complaining about with TFA. Johnson then has the idea to bypass that and make the more interesting Kylo Ren the Big Bad, and suddenly the ST is not rehashy enough (cue Trevorrow - who would have stuck out Kylo Ren as Big Bad - getting fired and Abrams being brought in to complete the rehash circle). Are you gonna back up that Rey comment with an explanation or anything? TFA didn't have her go on a fool's errand motived by a crush and fail miserably. Though there are plenty of silly looking things in this franchise, if one finds Leia pulling herself through space too much, fair enough. But I'm talking about the people who take it a step further by acting like TLJ made her force sensitive out of nowhere. Um, I think you're looking into the 'drinking green breast milk' part of my comment a bit too far there, it was just describing Luke's new kind of lifestyle as a recluse at the start of The Last Jedi, nothing more really. Nobody missed the entire final act of the film, that Luke wasn't like that from the start of the picture is what's disappointing. He had a great arc in the original trilogy and to discover that he became a broken clock of a person in recent memory just feels like a knife to the heart for many fans, it wasn't a good subversion of expectations it felt like a middle finger - and it's kinda telling when you have interviews and Twitter comments from Mark Hamill strongly suggesting he didn't like what Johnson and Kennedy were doing with the character. Luke at the end of season 2 of The Mandalorian, now THAT is the Luke Skywalker everybody wanted. Subversion has become problematic in recent memory because most filmmakers applying it to genre entertainment do not know how to effectively do it. Psycho is an example of subversion done right, you get to know who Marion Crane is and feel all the emotions she has when she decides to take a huge risk in her life and when she dies nearly halfway into the picture it is an absolute shock because you are set on following her arc from start to finish. We only saw a little bit of Snoke in The Force Awakens, there was anticipation to learn more about him and what he is to Empire and The Last Jedi right before they almost did anything with him killed him off. It's not clever or interesting, it's pretty sloppy storytelling especially coming off of The Force Awakens. Johnson's whole approach to The Last Jedi was essentially not to make a second half of a three part story but a second half and a third half of one. He threw out most of what Abrams was trying to set into motion and made it so hectic for Trevorrow that the latter eventually left and Abrams was brought in to try and fix the mess Johnson had made. In all honesty, The Last Jedi serves as a good example as to why you don't let somebody like Rian Johnson try to take over the driver's seat in the middle of a trip, Star Wars is not a kind of property you can deconstruct as much as you like and expect everyone to love it in the end you have to follow certain rules and respect certain things in the canon as well as what past artists have contributed. If anything he should have been rewarded with a one-off that was a stand alone story set in the Star Wars universe, but nothing major to where it would be impactful on the property as a whole. They gave her no origin, said her parents were nobodies, and offered no real explanation for her amazing force abilities, she was OP from start to finish and just learned to home in on certain powers here and there, not a lot of growth. I would say because she didn't she use it at all in The Force Awakens is what brought on such raised eyebrows, if she had done something of similar note in that film there probably wouldn't have been as much complaining about that particular moment. Yes, fans wanted a stunt double with Hamill's face hastily pasted on to walk in and hack up stormtroopers. I get that. Luke even quips about that in the film (incidently, that scene in Mandalorian is around the same length as Luke's fight with the First Order, with both probably totalling the amount of time you can have a God level character with no discernable flaws around). Aside from TFA pushing TLJ into a corner to explain why Luke wasn't doing that very thing from the beginning, I just don't think "Luke didn't play out my fanfic" is very good film criticism. At least thatguy is trying to make an argument for why it's not in character. As far as Snoke goes, I can't help but feel like giving Snoke an extended backstory, richly developing him, and then killing him off at the same point would have gone over better. In fact, I think it would have been worse. He's a two-dimensional secondary villain and dies as such. "He threw out most of what Abrams was trying to set into motion and made it so hectic for Trevorrow that the latter eventually left and Abrams was brought in to try and fix the mess Johnson had made" - if I'm being honest, this kind of feels like the tin foil hat propaganda you'd read on the Star Wars board. I remember a common "fact" there was that Trevorrow left because Johnson killing off Luke fumbled all of his awesome Luke plans. That turned out to be horseshit. And as it happens, what Johnson did wasn't so hectic that Trevorrow couldn't turn out a pretty decent follow up you can read right now. All JJ set up was mystery boxes, and when forced to open them, all he can give us are the same things we've seen. Had TLJ not existed, we'd probably still have gotten the same Rise of Skywalker if not only with Snoke instead of Palpatine. Mary Sue's are typically of great lineage and family, so I don't see how her parents being drunk nobodies makes her more of one. TLJ honoring an aspect of Leia's character set up in RotJ and glossed over in TFA is not a fair criticism of TLJ, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jan 11, 2021 14:05:48 GMT
Song of the South. It’s not glorifying slavery since it takes place during Reconstruction. While being a paid laborer on a plantation in real life was no Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah day the movie has a positive message and James Baskett is wonderful.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Jan 11, 2021 14:14:23 GMT
Man of Steel - a fantastic modern day interpretation of Superman with incredible action that makes you feel the weight of these superpowered beings fighting and moving
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jan 11, 2021 14:57:25 GMT
People are gonna hate me by saying this, but Super Mario Brothers. I think it’s looked at better today, but back then when it first came out this thing was panned with everyone saying how dark and unlike the movie was like the video game and how the movie wasn’t very fun.
First of all this was the first Live Action video game movie so I’m gonna give it credit for being the first, but you’re already taking a game that had a simple premise. Rescue princess from Koopa which the movie ACTUALLY FOLLOWED!!!! I mean it’s kinda funny how people are saying this is nothing like the game when the brothers who are plumbers go to this world to rescue a princess. There’s still goombas and Yoshi even makes an appearance and Toad is in it and there’s even Bomb ombs. It seemed like the only thing that bothered people were they were wanting an EXACT translation of the game. Back then this is TOTALLY what the movie should have done. Shouldn’t movie adaptions be bigger than the source material?
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jan 11, 2021 14:59:15 GMT
People are gonna hate me by saying this, but Super Mario Brothers. I think it’s looked at better today, but back then when it first came out this thing was panned with everyone saying how dark and unlike the movie was like the video game and how the movie wasn’t very fun. First of all this was the first Live Action video game movie so I’m gonna give it credit for being the first, but you’re already taking a game that had a simple premise. Rescue princess from Koopa which the movie ACTUALLY FOLLOWED!!!! I mean it’s kinda funny how people are saying this is nothing like the game when the brothers who are plumbers go to this world to rescue a princess. There’s still goombas and Yoshi even makes an appearance and Toad is in it and there’s even Bomb ombs. It seemed like the only thing that bothered people were they were wanting an EXACT translation of the game. Back then this is TOTALLY what the movie should have done. Shouldn’t movie adaptions be bigger than the source material? Yeah I kind of agree. I mean, I think they got a bit carried away with the Blade Runner vibe, but how exactly was it gonna follow the game? A movie about a fat guy jumping on turtles wouldn't have been very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jan 11, 2021 15:08:32 GMT
The Greatest Show on Earth is a terrific time capsule of the American Circus when it was "under tent". It has a soapy story that actually works and a fantastic incident with a train.
It is hated not because it is somehow flawed, BUT because it was awarded the Best Picture Oscar and some other worthy film was not. Some of the people who actively hate it have admitted to never having seen it !
I echo the post about the much abused Song of the South which is another often hated but not personally watched film.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jan 11, 2021 15:20:19 GMT
People are gonna hate me by saying this, but Super Mario Brothers. I think it’s looked at better today, but back then when it first came out this thing was panned with everyone saying how dark and unlike the movie was like the video game and how the movie wasn’t very fun. First of all this was the first Live Action video game movie so I’m gonna give it credit for being the first, but you’re already taking a game that had a simple premise. Rescue princess from Koopa which the movie ACTUALLY FOLLOWED!!!! I mean it’s kinda funny how people are saying this is nothing like the game when the brothers who are plumbers go to this world to rescue a princess. There’s still goombas and Yoshi even makes an appearance and Toad is in it and there’s even Bomb ombs. It seemed like the only thing that bothered people were they were wanting an EXACT translation of the game. Back then this is TOTALLY what the movie should have done. Shouldn’t movie adaptions be bigger than the source material? Yeah I kind of agree. I mean, I think they got a bit carried away with the Blade Runner vibe, but how exactly was it gonna follow the game? A movie about a fat guy jumping on turtles wouldn't have been very interesting. Exactly!!!! The Blade Runner setting was a bit odd, but I guess they wanted the movie to be edgy. Also I was confused were the Goombas still bad guys in the movie? They seemed kind of friendly and really cute in the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 11, 2021 18:35:06 GMT
Beowulf’s dead eyes are the only thing wrong with the movie.
It was one of the best examples of where animation could go and the score is amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jan 11, 2021 19:37:20 GMT
Oh no I didn't mean people literally compare it to Batman & Robin, just that it tends to get treated as if it's the equivalent of Batman & Robin for the JP series, or like Star Trek V or Superman IV or something. For me it is better than Jurassic World and only slightly worse than The Lost World and Fallen Kingdom. It is mocked most for the infamous talking dinosaur dream. Which has never made sense to me, since it's a dream. If they actually had a dinosaur talk and it's wasn't a dream I could understand it being mocked.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 11, 2021 19:39:29 GMT
For me it is better than Jurassic World and only slightly worse than The Lost World and Fallen Kingdom. It is mocked most for the infamous talking dinosaur dream.Which has never made sense to me, since it's a dream. If they actually had a dinosaur talk and it's wasn't a dream I could understand it being mocked. I think the problem people generally have is that the movie tries to play that moment as a jump scare, but it just comes across as silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 11, 2021 20:16:09 GMT
For me it is better than Jurassic World and only slightly worse than The Lost World and Fallen Kingdom. It is mocked most for the infamous talking dinosaur dream.Which has never made sense to me, since it's a dream. If they actually had a dinosaur talk and it's wasn't a dream I could understand it being mocked. I hate that scene too and it deserves all the ridicule it gets imo. The issue is that it is unintentionally hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Jan 11, 2021 20:48:53 GMT
Sphere (1998) - panned by critics and bombed and even appeared on worst of the year lists but I’m not sure why. A pretty good and well shot mix of Forbidden Planet and The Abyss with a great cast and is also a faithful adaption of the book
|
|
