|
|
Post by rickdeckard45 on Feb 20, 2017 2:23:07 GMT
rickdeckard45 Blomkamp's movie is likely not going to happen with Scott moving forward on the prequels. relieving. with how elysium and chappie went, looks like the franchise dodged a bullet there regardless of how one feels about alien 3... |
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
|
Post by bb15 on Feb 20, 2017 2:39:26 GMT
Mentioned before on this forum?
Superman Returns, definitely. I have no qualms about saying that I find it an excellent film. I'm not a big Cable Guy fan, but it has its moments; it certainly didn't deserve the scorching criticisms it received. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow Not Mentioned
Congo ('95) (one of my favorites) The Lone Ranger (surprisingly good, in spite of manifold plot problems; the climax is utterly brilliant) Pirates of the Caribbean 4The Rocketeer
( another one of my favorites) The Haunting ('99) (yes, it's not a good movie. But it has some good ideas, and the set design is incredible; it doesn't deserve the vitriol) Allied ('16) didn't receive terrible reviews, but they weren't so great either. I thought it was one of the greatest movies I've seen in recent years. Dick Tracy
A Walk in the Woods (I cannot understand how critical the reviews were for this. Humor is so utterly subjective, I confess, but I found it hilarious) Godfather III is not great, but I found it better than I expected. Another Coppola film, Bram Stoker's Dracula, has such brilliant imagery that I couldn't help enjoying it just for the pomp, ceremony, color, and scale. Keanu Reeves's performance is bloody awful, as is acknowledged by just about everyone (including Coppola), but I thought Winona Ryder's performance was not as bad as the critics made it out to be. Moreover, the acting is less central to this movie than the sheer spectacle. As Roger Ebert wrote, "I enjoyed the movie simply for the way it looked and felt. ... The movie is an exercise in feverish excess, and for that if for little else, I enjoyed it." Marnie is one of my favorite Hitchcocks, an opinion shared with just about no one. Knowing me, I'll probably think of more to add to this list. There are some movies on your list which I've supported for years and I own on disk. "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" Great tribute to the old adventure serials and 1940s Superman cartoons. Good cast. The CGI has a comic book / old movie feel. "Bram Stoker's Dracula" This is one of the best vampire movies. Fine attention to detail and a nice alternative to the Lugosi classic. Imo at least BB ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Feb 20, 2017 4:58:48 GMT
Mentioned before on this forum?
Superman Returns, definitely. I have no qualms about saying that I find it an excellent film. I'm not a big Cable Guy fan, but it has its moments; it certainly didn't deserve the scorching criticisms it received. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow Not Mentioned
Congo ('95) (one of my favorites) The Lone Ranger (surprisingly good, in spite of manifold plot problems; the climax is utterly brilliant) Pirates of the Caribbean 4The Rocketeer
( another one of my favorites) The Haunting ('99) (yes, it's not a good movie. But it has some good ideas, and the set design is incredible; it doesn't deserve the vitriol) Allied ('16) didn't receive terrible reviews, but they weren't so great either. I thought it was one of the greatest movies I've seen in recent years. Dick Tracy
A Walk in the Woods (I cannot understand how critical the reviews were for this. Humor is so utterly subjective, I confess, but I found it hilarious) Godfather III is not great, but I found it better than I expected. Another Coppola film, Bram Stoker's Dracula, has such brilliant imagery that I couldn't help enjoying it just for the pomp, ceremony, color, and scale. Keanu Reeves's performance is bloody awful, as is acknowledged by just about everyone (including Coppola), but I thought Winona Ryder's performance was not as bad as the critics made it out to be. Moreover, the acting is less central to this movie than the sheer spectacle. As Roger Ebert wrote, "I enjoyed the movie simply for the way it looked and felt. ... The movie is an exercise in feverish excess, and for that if for little else, I enjoyed it." Marnie is one of my favorite Hitchcocks, an opinion shared with just about no one. Knowing me, I'll probably think of more to add to this list. There are some movies on your list which I've supported for years and I own on disk. "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" Great tribute to the old adventure serials and 1940s Superman cartoons. Good cast. The CGI has a comic book / old movie feel. "Bram Stoker's Dracula" This is one of the best vampire movies. Fine attention to detail and a nice alternative to the Lugosi classic. Imo at least BB ;-) Good to see another Sky Captain fan! I wasn't so sure about it the first time I saw it--the CG does give it a comic-book feel, but it almost makes it feel too cartoony--but its heart is so very much in the right place that I have to give that a pass. Some critics thought Jude Law sounded tired; I thought he was quite good as the Errol Flynn-esque hero. And Miss Paltrow was quite fetching in her '40s Lois Lane/Hildy (Hildegarde, that is) Johnson attire. (I'm a little bothered at the use of Olivier's ghost, however; that does feel a bit weird.) It is 100x more entertaining than the majority of cinematic blockbusters nowadays. I've wanted to see it again for a long time. By the way, have you seen The Rocketeer? Very similar, and you'll probably love it if you like old adventure serials and '40s Superman comics (as I do too). Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't perfect--Reeves's performance stinks, plain and simple--but it is a spectacle, as I noted above. You're right about the "fine attention to detail," remarkable in such a big, overbearing production, and I really like the old-fashioned special effects. My biggest caveat with it is the love story angle--not the angle per se (I'm not a Dracula purist by any means, though I am a great fan of the book) but how much it mangles the plot because of it. Dracula is evil--but we're supposed to say, oh, he loves her, that's what matters! It doesn't fit with all the scenes of Drac's evilness. One can't really have it both ways. That aside, it's a grand, operatic film, utterly sui generis. I do find it underrated and like it quite a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 20, 2017 7:34:14 GMT
I know everybody's going to disagree with me, but Super Mario Bros...it's a fun movie, and that's all it was meant to be. Everybody complains 'ooh it's not like the game', then play the game...and how boring of a movie would that be, 90 minutes of them just hopping up and down ladders, etc?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 9:21:38 GMT
The Star Wars prequels
Honestly i think most movies that gets a lot of hate does not deserve it. Or people are exaggerating about how bad they are. There are few movies that are truly awful most movies are average.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 12:18:40 GMT
The first three Spider-Man movies. Come on guys, you loved them at the time! 1 is a classic and 3 is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. (2 however is actually overrated; Sam just made the same movie 3 times) Now Amazing Spider-Man 1-2, those are bullshit. Finally we see what would have happened if someone with no love or understanding of the character made a movie about him. Nothing more than shlock trying to cash in on the fads of the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 13:10:55 GMT
Spider-Man 3: I can understand why people might not like the Sam Raimi SM movies in general, but it always baffled me how so many people could call the first two films masterpieces and then hate the third one for being "too silly." That's like hating "Toy Story 3" for being a lot like the first two movies in tone. It's just a bit hypocritical. Speaking of which, while I do agree about two criticisms (Venom in this movie sucks, and that dancing scene is atrocious), everything else just feels like either nitpicking or being way too harsh on the movie for not being close to its source material. As for the complaint about the movie being too cluttered, the only real casualty was Venom. Peter, Mary Jane, Harry, and Sandman all had fully fleshed out character arcs. I just feel like people took the butchering of one character and applied it to the whole movie. Ironically, "Iron Man 2" did a far worse job of balancing multiple characters and sub-plots, but got a free pass because people really love Robert Downey Jr, I guess (so do I, but that's not the point). But at least S3 was entertaining, whereas IM2 was outright boring. Should have just quoted your post and said yes to this. Spider-Man 3 might actually be my favorite of the trilogy. I roll my eyes when people say it's crap but act like 2 was a masterpiece- come on guys, he made the same movie 3 times! All are just as goofy and full of plot holes, 3 is not some dip in quality. I love them, and even I question why Peter takes his mask off about five separate times for five different people in the third act of 2 lol. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 20, 2017 15:09:20 GMT
The Star Wars prequels seem to get more (unnecessary) hate than everything and anything else combined.
|
|
