Yay! Never mind your favourite films, or those you despise. Not even those you consider to be fundamentallly underrated, but those whilst no great shakes seem to be regarded with a little more scorn than they actually deserve.

My vote? GI Joe, Rise of Cobra.

Granted, it's hardly groundbreaking. It's nowhere even near original, but it is otherwise pretty solid. Plot is good fun, acting is.....acceptably ropey, and the effects are there. All in all it's not a film I ever expected much from, yet seemed to deliver ever so slightly more than it's promise.


Plus...Rachel Nicols is in it. Giggedy.

I enjoyed that film too. Loved them suits.

Didn't expect much of it but was pleasantly surprised by it.

Are we picking mediocre films that are kinda OK? What a great idea!

I vote for that one with Ronald Reagan and a chimpanzee. I can't remember the name, but it's reasonably funny, as far as I can recall.

Just any film, usually bought as the third in a 3 for 2 deal which wasn't entirely bobbins, and actually quite enjoyable.

For instance not Valentine. A film so terrible they actually tell you on the back of the case who the killer is, and why he looks nothing like the person everyone thinks he is. Even the normally delectable Denise Richards in a Bikini can save that codswallop.

Kilkrazy wrote:Are we picking mediocre films that are kinda OK? What a great idea!

I vote for that one with Ronald Reagan and a chimpanzee. I can't remember the name, but it's reasonably funny, as far as I can recall.

Suitably intrigued, I found this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043325/

Is that the one?

That's the one!

Final Fantasy: Spirits Within.

I thought it was a really good CGI movie. Of course the only problem was that it was carrying the title of "Final Fantasy" and there wasn't much of anything from the series. Not a Final Fantasy fan at all, but I was still expecting it to be like the games in someway.

There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it. I thought it was pretty good, not amazing if anything. It was twisty enough to keep me interested and the acting was great as well.

"Star Wars Episode I" (Read statement before taring and feathering me lol)

I'm not actually a huge fan of this movie but I definitely liked it more than the other prequels. To me the Star Wars prequels really fell a part when Hayden Christen stepped onto the screen. Episode I, if you take out Jar Jar and the little kid is actually not a terrible movie, it's not good either but It's not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. It's holds up a hell of a lot better than the last two movies and the acting is much better (in the sense though that it's like the thinnest kid in fat camp lol). Episode II and III are definitely the worst in my opinion.

Avatar.

There I said it.

Also Star Wars: The Phantom Menace/Revenge of the Sith.

Also Also Terminator:Salvation and Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen.

This is the finest thread we've ever had!

I can't believe we didn't have this thread in our lives before and that now we have this thread, I can't imagine life without it...

Oh look there... is that some buseytro....omfgwtfbbq!

BUSEYTROLLZ DEPLOYED!!!!one1wun!1

Pointless multiple images removed. Please don't spam threads just because you don't like them.

GiJoe was a film squandered. Of all the things they could have done with the franchise they produced nonsensical rubbish that was mostly back to back explosions. Why did we need power armour in the film? Why can we just have soldiers?

I detested the way that Scarlett was making eyes at Ripcord when she has *always* been Snake-eyes girl. Always. But this is hollywood and the attractive female star can't be paired off with a mute masked man. Oh by the way, Snake-Eyes wears a mask because he was horrifically injured saving Scarlett from a helicopter crash. But seeing as they've airbrushed their romance he's now silent because of taking a "vow of silence". LAME.

And the Baroness, they gutted that character, clearly you can't have a strong woman being a villainess just because it suits her, oh no she has to controlled by nanites. Furthermore she's always been Destro's (willing) girl and not a bit of fluff for Duke. Again Hollywood changing fundamental things to fit the "handsome good guy gets the girl" mould.

Then there's the trailer park universe aspect to it, it's bad enough in the comics but now we find out that the Baroness is Duke's ex and the cobra commander is also Duke's ex-buddy. WTF?!

Oh and the plot didn't make any sense. It seemed to be about "the Doctor" manipulating things so that he could take over and become Cobra Commander. Hence "Rise of the Cobra". But here's what I don't get; the bad guys appear to have a colossal underwater city bristling with missiles which is utterly destroyed just so "the Doctor" can escape in a tiny submarine as "Cobra Commander". Commander of what?!?! As an organisation they appeared to already have a GDP greater than the US with a colossal defense budget and medium sized army, and it's all thrown away so 'the Doctor' can become Commander. What's the point of all this terrorism when you already have more money than god?

Durr...

It's just like they took many ideas and characters from the GiJoe universe, put them all through a mincer and pressed what came out into the standard hollywood action movie mould just like every other crash-bang-wallop flick. And that's why it was a waste and stole 2 hours of my life.



...............




Star Wars Episode One was the least offensive of the prequel films. I find it decent enough viewing, Jar Jar Binks aside of course. And Anakin is a bit painful to watch. But it's fairly light hearted and the lightsabre duel at the end will always be impressive. Shame Darth maul hardly got any screen time. Episode II has it's moments, but I think all the stuff introducing the bug people was a mistake. Where did they come from? It's a bit of a mixed bag and a fair bit of the "romance" dialogue is atrocious. Episode III is pretty poor though, it just doesn't seem to convince at all. Anakin's turn to the dark side just doesn't work, they tried to build up his dark side but he still seems like a troubled but fundamentlly good person, and then just makes a colossal switch to the dark side and starts killing children. Eh? The ending of the film is there to satisfy a check list; Qui Gon's ghost here to teach Obi Wan? Check (though offscreen). Yoda going to Dagobah? Check. Babies adopted? Check. Padme inexplicably dying? Check. Droids given to Captain Antillies? Droids mind wiped? Sort of, they specifically only mind wipe C3PO and not R2D2, presumably because he can't speak english and therefore isn't a security risk.

Do Avatar and Shutter Island count? Avatar definatly doesn't i would have though??? $2,000,000,000 income!!

I have a list of movies too, but I'm not sure if they qualify.

Highlander, Lake Placid, Tremors, Starship Troopers, Ghostbusters, Willow, The Princess Bride, The Rundown, Serenity, Kung Fu Panda, and a bunch more, but like I said I'm not sure what the qualifications are.

Are they suppose to be universally thought of as a bad movie, but I liked it? Or are they suppose to be pretty good movies that just don't get enough appreciation?

Somewhere in the middle. Films that managed to excel your admitedly low expectations.

Starship Troopers...

And the Star Wars prequels. I really dont get all the prequel trilogy hate. Honestly, I think its the Halo effect. Some guy of minor importance/popularity said that the movies sucked, and everyone else is too afraid of being ostracized for having an original opinion so they just go with it. Well, I for one enjoyed the movies, and I thought Jar Jar was an entertaining character (though I still think he's annoying as sin... but he was MEANT to be annoying). Also keep in mind that I was brought up watching the original trilogy. Like, I watched those movies once a week at least as a child, so don't go accusing me of being in the 'prequel generation'. I knew more about star wars than most adult 'diehard fans' did when the phantom menace was released.

I would also add Noises Off to that list too. That is a funny movie.

I was pleasantly surprised with Brotherhood of the Wolf too.

Don't mess with the Zohan. It works because it insults everyone equally.

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it.

Shutter Island is a bad movie because it is pointless.


One movie that pleasantly beat my low expectations for it was The Rocker. Surprisingly decent.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Seriously a far better film than people give it credit for. Take the 'Indy in the fridge' scene. Is it daft? Yup. Is it anywhere near realistic? Nope. Is it a very good send up of the Government Advice of the time on how to survive a Nuclear attack (i.e. duck and cover)....absolutely!

Is it different from the other Indies? Yup, but then it is paying homage to a different era of B-Movie, like...the 50's B-Movie, when Sci-Fi came into it's own.

I wouldn't say it's up there with my favourites, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Christ, if you want to pick holes in a film, why not start with Raiders of the Lost Ark? Shut in the room where the Ark was....the torches go out...but the light doesn't. No feasible reason for said room being full of snakes...even the opening sequence...Indy, betrayed twice in rapid succession. One dies in the temple, the other at the hands of natives...Indy then legs it, back to the plane...the two seater plane..... Crystal Skull is not unique in it's rather slapdash action affairs. But slap on the old Rose Tinted and everyone suddenly forgets this!

Brotherhood of the Wolf is so awesome. It cannot have a place on the list of mediocre films.

Riverworld was OK, despite my initial upset. The concept was interesting, the acting acceptable, but it was definitely a movie that wasn't living up to the book.

boogeyman wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised with Brotherhood of the Wolf too.

This too. I was also very surprised by Solomon Kane, I thought it would be a low B level movie but it was pretty good stuff. Can't beleive it took so long to get over here.

Back in my fraternity, we used to have a rating called "Better than it Had Any Right to Be." Basically, movies that sound terrible, but are actually pretty good.

The best example is "A Knight's Tale." Fun, quick paced, funny at the right moments, decent acting, and really quite good once you get passed the premise of "70's sports movie set in a the high middle ages"

"Down Periscope" is a great contender, because not only is it a funny Kelsey Grammar project in which he's not Dr. Crane, but it's also a good submarine movie in it's own right.

Closer to the OP's suggestion, I guess I'd go with "America's Sweethearts." It's a banal rom-com, but it's got some good john cusack moments, and a brilliant Christopher Walken bit at the end that makes it worthwhile.

Polonius wrote:Back in my fraternity, we used to have a rating called "Better than it Had Any Right to Be." Basically, movies that sound terrible, but are actually pretty good.

The best example is "A Knight's Tale." Fun, quick paced, funny at the right moments, decent acting, and really quite good once you get passed the premise of "70's sports movie set in a the high middle ages"

"Down Periscope" is a great contender, because not only is it a funny Kelsey Grammar project in which he's not Dr. Crane, but it's also a good submarine movie in it's own right.

Closer to the OP's suggestion, I guess I'd go with "America's Sweethearts." It's a banal rom-com, but it's got some good john cusack moments, and a brilliant Christopher Walken bit at the end that makes it worthwhile.

+1 for A Knight's Tale. I still watch it when I see it on TV

All of the Sinbad movies.
Warlords of Atlantis.
And there is a real old one called The Thief of Bagdad starring Steve Reeves that has poor effects but a solid story and would make a great remake with some shiny new CGI.

The last Rocky movie. It's not as much about boxing as about growing old alone.

A Black Ram wrote:

Same here though

Haters are gonna hate if they don't get the sarcasm but I thought Starship Troopers was hilarious, as was Battlefield Earth.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it.

Shutter Island is a bad movie because it is pointless.

Spoiler:

The movies' big reveal is that the main character is crazy and the investigative mystery side of the movie which attracted audiences is a ruse to tell you about the crazy guy.
I remember thinking: "Oh so the point of this movie is to show you how this guy gets better". Cue the final dialogue between him and the guy he thinks is his partner... "Or not.". The ending made the whole movie meaningless.

One movie that pleasantly beat my low expectations for it was The Rocker. Surprisingly decent.

Yeah, the ending obviously went over your head.

Oh me too, Starship troopers was great, Battlefield Earth takes a certain kind of person to like it. And Im one of them Also Ill add this one


It should be a flop, but I really like watching it. And I think makes Elisabeth Shue incredibly cute

To name but a few:

Starship Troopers 1 (2 was laughable (lolololol tiitties); not seen 3, but apparently it's basically recycled bits of 1 and 2.

Stardust; for what it looks like, it's not really that bad of a film.

Van Wilder: Party Liason. I love this film, but people either haven't heard of it or think it's crap. (There is one hilarious scene, and I mean side-splittingly funny. Any old cream-cake who's seen it should know which one i'm on about.)

EDIT: Word to the wise. Anyone who trawls the internet for the Van Wilder scene I mean whilst at work does so at their own risk. It is really, REALLY NSFW.

Van Wilder: Party Liason. I love this film, but people either haven't heard of it or think it's crap. (There is one hilarious scene, and I mean side-splittingly funny. Any old cream-cake who's seen it should know which one i'm on about.)

There are a lot of scenes in the movie like this. Which one? The one with the old lady? The one with the dog and the pastries? Or perhaps you're referring to the laxatives towards the end?

Ok I guess this topic is on guilty pleasures as well (or is it the same thing?) in that case:

"The Rock"

The only Michael Bay film I can stand mostly because it's hilariously bad but in a tolerable cheesy way. Plus me and my friends like watching it for some reason.

"Air Force One"

Not sure if this counts in this category but it holds a special place in my heart because it holds my all-time favorite Harrison Ford one-liner "GET OFF MY PLANE!" Lol I like it mostly because Mike Nelson likes to riff on that line a lot in rifftrax.

"300"

This is more of just a guilty pleasure for me because I'm usually a stickler for movies based on historical events but for a change I through that out the window and I enjoyed this moved in an effed up kind of way lol.

300 is a good example of, if your taking something from history, and NOT going the historical route, thats how you do it. Either be accurate or be 300 about it, thats the only ways IMO

Oh god, I forgot all about Con Air. The best terrible movie ever made. It's unrelentingly awful, but just try to turn away if you come across it while channel surfing.

You've got steve buschemi being creepy as all get out. You've got nick cage doing the world's worst accent for the first half of the film, then forgetting it for the rest. You have the least plausible manslaughter conviction in history. You have an ending that manages to be even dumber, bigger, and more preposterous than the other two hours of the film. and most importantly: you have John Malkovich, who clearly realizes that he's in a terrible movie but decides to have fun with it anyway.

Okay.....

CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK

There i said it....

I liked Chronicles of Riddick. It's a good, simple action film.

Richard the III, the 1930's one. It was awesome to see Gandalf pop some fool in the face.

Amaya wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it.

Shutter Island is a bad movie because it is pointless.

Spoiler:

The movies' big reveal is that the main character is crazy and the investigative mystery side of the movie which attracted audiences is a ruse to tell you about the crazy guy.
I remember thinking: "Oh so the point of this movie is to show you how this guy gets better". Cue the final dialogue between him and the guy he thinks is his partner... "Or not.". The ending made the whole movie meaningless.

One movie that pleasantly beat my low expectations for it was The Rocker. Surprisingly decent.

Yeah, that's totally correct, I was going to say something for a second there because I thought maybe I got it wrong, but I'd just forgotten how it ended. Cool flim...

For my vote, I pick that one with the guy that lands on earth in a spaceship in the middle ages and chases an alien monster with the help of some vikings...It was just a bit better than I thought it would be, and yet, not quite good enough to remember the title...

Yeah, the ending obviously went over your head.

Spoiler:

He's not insane. He just doesn't want to live with the knowledge that he killed his wife.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, I think I typed in the wrong bit there! Sorry!

Well, I never thought the Star Wars Prequels were that bad. I mean, they weren't the best, but people on the internet always act like certain parts are just intolerable, but I can live with them really.

What about the last 2 Alien movies? They weren't bad either.

Spider man 3. At least I've heard some people don't like it. Why? Again, not the best, it could have been better, but terrible? No way.

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen. Why do people hate it more than the first? I've never really got that, its at least decent.

Avatar. Duh.

Watching one now, Outland, 1981 Sean Connery is a Marshall on a space mining colony.



Realistic tech, good, pragmatic-looking designs, but a paint by numbers plot and it's set in the future era when we have interplanetary mining but have not yet developed color computer monitors.

I mean 1981, I'm not expecting anyone to forsee the internet and mobile computing but... no color monitors? Seriously?

Still decent enough and you can see how informs later SF like Aliens.

Apparently Outland is basically High Noon in space. In point of fact, it inspired a song by Star One called "High Moon".

On topic, I have to go with the original Dune movie. Apparently it got a lot of flak back in the day, but I thought it was a fairly epic film. On a similar note, I'm going with Avatar. Despite what people say about it, I thought it had a really amazing, epic feel to it, especially near the end when nature fights back.

MGS has made my day, yet again.

Eragon. It is indeed a bad movie, but I can watch it even if I have other options.

I don't think Avatar really fits the bill on this topic. The few people with good taste didn't lather it with fan boy love but the vast number of mouth-breathers thought it was pretty good.

I place the Darkman 1 movie along this category;

for a movie with a dark hero premise, it was a decent attempt and was interesting to see.

I concur with Stardust. I thought it was a really good movie though and vastly underrated.

To add to the list, The Scorpion King and Prince of Persia.

Amaya wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it.

Shutter Island is a bad movie because it is pointless.

Spoiler:

The movies' big reveal is that the main character is crazy and the investigative mystery side of the movie which attracted audiences is a ruse to tell you about the crazy guy.
I remember thinking: "Oh so the point of this movie is to show you how this guy gets better". Cue the final dialogue between him and the guy he thinks is his partner... "Or not.". The ending made the whole movie meaningless.

One movie that pleasantly beat my low expectations for it was The Rocker. Surprisingly decent.

Yeah, the ending obviously went over your head.

Spoiler:

He's not insane. He just doesn't want to live with the knowledge that he killed his wife.

Transporter 2

Took a brilliant franchise and gutted it to B grade all the way.
Watchable, but reluctant to stay watching if distracted by something going on in my house.

WarOne wrote:I place the Darkman 1 movie along this category;

for a movie with a dark hero premise, it was a decent attempt and was interesting to see.

Hells yea! I love Darkman, it was kindda zany in a cool crazy way. And any excuse for Liam Neeson to kick someones ass is good enough for me

I completely forgot to add "Big Trouble in Little China" in my first list.

Another movie that had one scene in it that absolutely made the movie for me was "Open Range" (not really a Kevin Kostner fan either). I loved the final shoot out and how it started. That was classic.

Ah, alas, I have a very recent one to add:

Tron

I wanted it to be spectacular. I really tried to make myself believe it was. But it was just OK.

And there's nothing wrong with that. I was glad I saw it. But it falls squarely in the middle of the "not bad, not great" category.

Interesting idea... you do usually only tend to hear about the best/worst of movies, not the in-betweeners!

The Kilted Samurai wrote:"300"

This is more of just a guilty pleasure for me because I'm usually a stickler for movies based on historical events but for a change I through that out the window and I enjoyed this moved in an effed up kind of way lol.

The film was an adaptation of a graphic novel. All in all an enjoyable film.

Another vote for Chronicles of Riddick. I've got loads of mediocre films, I like something not too complicated. Shooter, Bulletproof Monk, King Kong, all those sorts of thing.

8mm is actually a really good movie, that everyone disliked because of seven coming out just before.

Any movie with talking animals in I like. Not animated or cgi or weird moving mouths though.

Brother got bad reviews but I like it.

chowderhead13 wrote:Don't mess with the Zohan. It works because it insults everyone equally.

You'll have to explain that to me.

Amaya wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it.

Shutter Island is a bad movie because it is pointless.

Spoiler:

The movies' big reveal is that the main character is crazy and the investigative mystery side of the movie which attracted audiences is a ruse to tell you about the crazy guy.
I remember thinking: "Oh so the point of this movie is to show you how this guy gets better". Cue the final dialogue between him and the guy he thinks is his partner... "Or not.". The ending made the whole movie meaningless.

One movie that pleasantly beat my low expectations for it was The Rocker. Surprisingly decent.

Yeah, the ending obviously went over your head.

Spoiler:

He's not insane. He just doesn't want to live with the knowledge that he killed his wife.

Ignoring the truth for what you'd rather believe, that dominates your life, is the definition of insane. Although I understand how somebody could think they are different. He is in the exact same state at the end of the movie as the beggining.

Avatar 720 wrote:To name but a few:
Van Wilder: Party Liason. I love this film, but people either haven't heard of it or think it's crap..

Yeah, I thought this was decent, knockabout fun. Disposable, but fun. Kind of like 'Old School' in that respect.

I thought The Football Factory was underrated. Danny Dyer gets a (largely deserved) bad rap, but he's quite good in this.

WARNING: Contains strong language

Having a deep affinity for horror films,the vast majority of the movies I watch could easily fit on this list,at least from a certain perspective.
For example,when I plop down in front of the television and watch "Friday the 13th"..I know going into it I won't be viewing "great cinema"...but at the end of the film..I've enjoyed the ride.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Van Wilder: Party Liason. I love this film, but people either haven't heard of it or think it's crap. (There is one hilarious scene, and I mean side-splittingly funny. Any old cream-cake who's seen it should know which one i'm on about.)

There are a lot of scenes in the movie like this. Which one? The one with the old lady? The one with the dog and the pastries? Or perhaps you're referring to the laxatives towards the end?

Highlighted the bit that should've given it away

Eragon. It is indeed a bad movie, but I can watch it even if I have other options.

Ever since I saw it after reading it and Eldest (the only two out when the movie was made) umpteen times and knowing the ins and outs, I was horrified by the abortion of a movie they made the book into. Not only did they skimp out on so many small details (or get them wrong) but they skimped out on so many of the larger details that making Eldest into a film is now no longer possible (similarly so with Brisingr) unless the first film is re-made.

namegoeshere wrote:8mm is actually a really good movie, that everyone disliked because of seven coming out just before.

Any movie with talking animals in I like. Not animated or cgi or weird moving mouths though.

Brother got bad reviews but I like it.

chowderhead13 wrote:Don't mess with the Zohan. It works because it insults everyone equally.

You'll have to explain that to me.

Amaya wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it.

Shutter Island is a bad movie because it is pointless.

Spoiler:

The movies' big reveal is that the main character is crazy and the investigative mystery side of the movie which attracted audiences is a ruse to tell you about the crazy guy.
I remember thinking: "Oh so the point of this movie is to show you how this guy gets better". Cue the final dialogue between him and the guy he thinks is his partner... "Or not.". The ending made the whole movie meaningless.

One movie that pleasantly beat my low expectations for it was The Rocker. Surprisingly decent.

Yeah, the ending obviously went over your head.

Spoiler:

He's not insane. He just doesn't want to live with the knowledge that he killed his wife.

Ignoring the truth for what you'd rather believe, that dominates your life, is the definition of insane. Although I understand how somebody could think they are different. He is in the exact same state at the end of the movie as the beggining.

No he isn't.



He isn't "ignoring the truth for what he'd rather believe" he has accepted the truth, but cannot live with it, and so engineers himself not having to live with the truth.

Jay and Silent bob strike back, dogma, clerks 1-2, not good, but amusing.

I Know Who Killed Me. Everyone who I've mentioned it to calls it "that movie where Lindsay Lohan is a stripper." It's got a bit more going on than that, and I actually didn't catch what was going on til they revealed it.

Ulver wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:"300"

This is more of just a guilty pleasure for me because I'm usually a stickler for movies based on historical events but for a change I through that out the window and I enjoyed this moved in an effed up kind of way lol.

The film was an adaptation of a graphic novel. All in all an enjoyable film.

Another vote for Chronicles of Riddick. I've got loads of mediocre films, I like something not too complicated. Shooter, Bulletproof Monk, King Kong, all those sorts of thing.

Yeah I know it was a graphic novel but that graphic novel is "based" on history. After I through out that part I just paid attention to the fact that it was a comic book movie and it was much more enjoyable.

One of my favorite movies. It's not that good, but definitely worth a watch if you ever see it on tv, or in a bargain bin of some sorts.

The Kilted Samurai wrote:Yeah I know it was a graphic novel but that graphic novel is "based" on history.

It isn't really based on history either, it is based on Spartan mythology.

"Air Force One"

Not sure if this counts in this category but it holds a special place in my heart because it holds my all-time favorite Harrison Ford one-liner "GET OFF MY PLANE!" Lol I like it mostly because Mike Nelson likes to riff on that line a lot in rifftrax.

Air force One was a great movie!

Anyway a ok movie is Stargate. Sorry but it was ok.

Godzilla- newer version, ok it sucked I lied. >.>
<.<

Anyway an ok movie was the Untouchables, the one dealing with Capone. Sean Connery pulled it out of the gutter in my mind.

Another one is Indiana jones and the crystal skulls, for what it is worth it was ok, but not in the least bit good.

Ultramarines movie, yeah it was fine, but i wish GW put more money into it.

Ahtman wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:Yeah I know it was a graphic novel but that graphic novel is "based" on history.

It isn't really based on history either, it is based on Spartan mythology.

Yes, the Battle of Thermopylae never happened, Xerxes never invaded Greece, etc...

Yeh, the storys are supposed to be wildly exaggerated though. Maybe he's thinking of the battle of troy or something.

Well, it wasn't 300 against 1 million. It was more like 5,000 - 10,000 Greeks against a Persion force of 100,000.

The exact numbers don't matter. The Greeks were outnumbered, but they made an impressive stand.

It may have been a historical event but miller wasn't interested in telling it as a historical event. He was telling it as myth as passed down by Spartan storytellers. Myth doesn't mean Zeus or Hercules, it just means sacred story. The battle as told by the Spartans is more myth than historical fact.

It is the difference between the actual history of, say, WWII, and how it is passed down. Real history includes the East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, American Oil embargo, ect. The myth is the that Japanese just invaded out of no where and that America won the war, as told from the American perspective.

Just because it wasn't portrayed completely truthfully doesn't mean it wasn't based off an historical event, which is what he was saying.

Despite the fact that it may (and likely was) beefed up a bit by storytellers, the fact of the matter is that at the core of it all is an actual event that took place.

Hanging on by a thread there. You could just admit you had herodotus confused with homer.

Ahtman wrote:It may have been a historical event but miller wasn't interested in telling it as a historical event. He was telling it as myth as passed down by Spartan storytellers. Myth doesn't mean Zeus or Hercules, it just means sacred story. The battle as told by the Spartans is more myth than historical fact.

It is the difference between the actual history of, say, WWII, and how it is passed down. Real history includes the East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, American Oil embargo, ect. The myth is the that Japanese just invaded out of no where and that America won the war, as told from the American perspective.

Yeah, no.

Your second statement is irrelevant. Miller's 300 is a heavily stylized portrayal of a historical event. Ignoring every little detail of the WW2 is just par for the course in school history books. There's a difference between altering the historical image and skipping over what are considered to be less important details.

whatwhat wrote:Yeh, the storys are supposed to be wildly exaggerated though. Maybe he's thinking of the battle of troy or something.

No I'm speaking of the historical event, which YES I KNOW, everyone, is a widely over exaggerated Greek myth of the actual event.

Amaya wrote:Well, it wasn't 300 against 1 million. It was more like 5,000 - 10,000 Greeks against a Persion force of 100,000.

The exact numbers don't matter. The Greeks were outnumbered, but they made an impressive stand.

Exactly. This what I meant when I said history. Now lets get back on topic of guilty pleasure films shall we? lol

Amaya wrote:Well, it wasn't 300 against 1 million. It was more like 5,000 - 10,000 Greeks against a Persion force of 100,000.

The exact numbers don't matter. The Greeks were outnumbered, but they made an impressive stand.

it was 500,000 persians dude. XD

Anyway 300.

Asherian Command wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well, it wasn't 300 against 1 million. It was more like 5,000 - 10,000 Greeks against a Persion force of 100,000.

The exact numbers don't matter. The Greeks were outnumbered, but they made an impressive stand.

it was 500,000 persians dude. XD

Anyway 300.

So....the second Matrix movie wasn't as bad as the third, so I'd have to place it within the category of "not that bad" movies.

It's incredibly difficult to think of movies that are mediocre, as they have no reason to really stick in your mind like a great or an awful movie does.

The Island, Hannibal, Diary of the Dead, Minority Report, Push, and Pineapple Express are all movies that I've watched recently that I would consider to be simply good, not great.

Ah, glad this thread is still around. I now nominate, 'Men who stare at goats'

It was supposed to be a comedy...it failed at that for me but was an okay movie. I wouldn't watch it again, but I don't hate it for taking two hours of my life!

Men who stare at goats was hilarious!

Asherian Command wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well, it wasn't 300 against 1 million. It was more like 5,000 - 10,000 Greeks against a Persion force of 100,000.

The exact numbers don't matter. The Greeks were outnumbered, but they made an impressive stand.

it was 500,000 persians dude. XD

Anyway 300.

Accounts range from 70,000 to 2.6 million Persians.

I serously doubt that at anyone circa 500 BC was capable of raising and supporting an army that large. 100,000-200,000 is believable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:Men who stare at goats was hilarious!

I liked it.

Speaking of Clooney, I liked Fantastic Mr. Fox even though the whole movie was giant "WTF moment."

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It may have been a historical event but miller wasn't interested in telling it as a historical event. He was telling it as myth as passed down by Spartan storytellers. Myth doesn't mean Zeus or Hercules, it just means sacred story. The battle as told by the Spartans is more myth than historical fact.

It is the difference between the actual history of, say, WWII, and how it is passed down. Real history includes the East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, American Oil embargo, ect. The myth is the that Japanese just invaded out of no where and that America won the war, as told from the American perspective.

Yeah, no.

Your second statement is irrelevant. Miller's 300 is a heavily stylized portrayal of a historical event. Ignoring every little detail of the WW2 is just par for the course in school history books. There's a difference between altering the historical image and skipping over what are considered to be less important details.

If you consider how much weight I put on your thoughts/opinions, on really just about anything, it won't be a surprise that just because you disagree doesn't mean that I am wrong.

I'm not the guy who came in and said that the Battle of Thermopylae never happened.

Amaya wrote:I'm not the guy who came in and said that the Battle of Thermopylae never happened.

He never said it didn't happen, although he contradicted himself by saying:

It isn't really based on history either, it is based on Spartan mythology.

and then

It may have been a historical event...Myth doesn't mean Zeus or Hercules, it just means sacred story.

myth   /mɪθ/ Show Spelled
[mith] Show IPA

–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Amaya wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well, it wasn't 300 against 1 million. It was more like 5,000 - 10,000 Greeks against a Persion force of 100,000.

The exact numbers don't matter. The Greeks were outnumbered, but they made an impressive stand.

it was 500,000 persians dude. XD

Anyway 300.

Accounts range from 70,000 to 2.6 million Persians.

I serously doubt that at anyone circa 500 BC was capable of raising and supporting an army that large. 100,000-200,000 is believable.

Modern scholars tend to throw out numbers around 100,000-300,000. However given that the Greek army (including non-spartan states) numbered roughly 10,000 and the last stand had just more than 1000 the battle is still an amazing example of battling against the odds.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Amaya wrote:I'm not the guy who came in and said that the Battle of Thermopylae never happened.

He never said it didn't happen, although he contradicted himself by saying:

It isn't really based on history either, it is based on Spartan mythology.

and then

It may have been a historical event...Myth doesn't mean Zeus or Hercules, it just means sacred story.

More muddled than contradictory. Just because a story uses a historical period or moment as a framework for the plot doesn't necessarily make it a historical movie. The Battle of Thermopylae is just an excuse to put some badassery on screen and makes zero pretense of following reality. A historical film would be concerned with the details of history. Das Boot is a good counterpoint. Unlike 300 which has a few real names, it is truly fictional, but the difference is that Das Boot is trying to show what life was like for those men at that time and in that place. Das Boot is much more of a historical film, even if the individual people aren't real. Then there is something like Gettysburg which is trying to be historically accurate in most respects.

Amaya wrote:myth   /mɪθ/ Show Spelled
[mith] Show IPA

–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

This seems to underscore more premise more than back yours up.

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it. I thought it was pretty good, not amazing if anything. It was twisty enough to keep me interested and the acting was great as well.

"Star Wars Episode I" (Read statement before taring and feathering me lol)

I'm not actually a huge fan of this movie but I definitely liked it more than the other prequels. To me the Star Wars prequels really fell a part when Hayden Christen stepped onto the screen. Episode I, if you take out Jar Jar and the little kid is actually not a terrible movie, it's not good either but It's not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. It's holds up a hell of a lot better than the last two movies and the acting is much better (in the sense though that it's like the thinnest kid in fat camp lol). Episode II and III are definitely the worst in my opinion.

They got extra points in episode 1 for haveing a puppet yoda IMO.

Don't know if anyone has mentioned "Starship Troopers" yet.

Goliath wrote:

namegoeshere wrote:8mm is actually a really good movie, that everyone disliked because of seven coming out just before.

Any movie with talking animals in I like. Not animated or cgi or weird moving mouths though.

Brother got bad reviews but I like it.

chowderhead13 wrote:Don't mess with the Zohan. It works because it insults everyone equally.

You'll have to explain that to me.

Amaya wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it.

Shutter Island is a bad movie because it is pointless.

Spoiler:

The movies' big reveal is that the main character is crazy and the investigative mystery side of the movie which attracted audiences is a ruse to tell you about the crazy guy.
I remember thinking: "Oh so the point of this movie is to show you how this guy gets better". Cue the final dialogue between him and the guy he thinks is his partner... "Or not.". The ending made the whole movie meaningless.

One movie that pleasantly beat my low expectations for it was The Rocker. Surprisingly decent.

Yeah, the ending obviously went over your head.

Spoiler:

He's not insane. He just doesn't want to live with the knowledge that he killed his wife.

Ignoring the truth for what you'd rather believe, that dominates your life, is the definition of insane. Although I understand how somebody could think they are different. He is in the exact same state at the end of the movie as the beggining.

No he isn't.

Spoiler:

The entire point of the end scene is the name that he calls his "partner" by while walking away, he refers to him by his real name, not the name he had as a marshal, which shows that he has realised that the entire marshal thing is a lie.
The reason he supposedly "is in the exact same state" is because he cannot live with the knowledge that he killed his wife, and so convinces them, by talking as if he is still a marshal, to lobotomise him, so he doesn't have to live with the knowledge.

He isn't "ignoring the truth for what he'd rather believe" he has accepted the truth, but cannot live with it, and so engineers himself not having to live with the truth.

Ah ok, I'm wrong then. So the movie does have a point, he goes from crazy to sane but wanting a lobotomy to go back. I still personally don't like the movie. I Like Inland Empire and stuff, I don't hate metaphorical / dream movies, just pseudo wtf movies.

9th Gate is underated.

Animal factory too.

My vote goes for a film called 'Bitch Slap'. Its actually so bad its funny. The acting is awful, the plot...ummmm the plot is there somewhere, the special effects are dodgy to. And yet it just seems to WORK...im bemused.....but please do check it out, you will be dissapointed but in a good way. I promise.

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it. I thought it was pretty good, not amazing if anything. It was twisty enough to keep me interested and the acting was great as well.

"Star Wars Episode I" (Read statement before taring and feathering me lol)

I'm not actually a huge fan of this movie but I definitely liked it more than the other prequels. To me the Star Wars prequels really fell a part when Hayden Christen stepped onto the screen. Episode I, if you take out Jar Jar and the little kid is actually not a terrible movie, it's not good either but It's not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. It's holds up a hell of a lot better than the last two movies and the acting is much better (in the sense though that it's like the thinnest kid in fat camp lol). Episode II and III are definitely the worst in my opinion.

Darth Maul, that is it. Just Darth Maul.

Just because a story uses a historical period or moment as a framework for the plot doesn't necessarily make it a historical movie.

We're not arguing whether the movie itself is historical, we're arguing about whether it's BASED on history.

Take all the films that involves Dracula, they're not legends themselves, but they're based on the legend of Dracula.

Can we add any bad movie made entertaining by Mystery Science Theater 3000?

Dodgeball. A cliché movie built upon a million sports movies, but still somehow fun to watch. Must be Ben Stiller.

I'd reckon its the pirate character, Steve? That guy made me like that film, even though I normally can't stand Vaughn.

Although I also though he was passable in four Christmas's.

Vaughn is a massive prick, but the rest of the cast makes up for it. Yes, especially Steve the Pirate, Rip Torn as hobo teacher and Ben Stiller as that loveable prick next door.

There's a sci fi film Called 'Screamers' that is pretty good, Crippled by a low budget and a ropey end-game but very atmospheric and often creative with how it used it's limited budget. It was an adaptation of a Phil Dick story called 'The second variety' the most influential story ever in sci fi (Battle star galactica (ron moore) and the terminator owe it a great debt.). Outland doesn't fit in here; it is admittedly forgotten but it is widely regarded as decent. I think somebody was just trying to show off their mastery of sci fi :-P Another movie that is silly but good fun is 'Casshern' (i think it is korean.) I HATE eastern cinema (apart from takeshi Miike and non prententious action/martial arts) but i like this film.

Definitely The Princess Bride.

Honestly, first coupla minutes of the film I thought it was a right load of crap. But give it a chance and it just gets funnier and funnier. Nice, subtle humour, no slapstick, just wit and timing.

Love it.

Howard A Treesong wrote:GiJoe was a film squandered. Of all the things they could have done with the franchise they produced nonsensical rubbish that was mostly back to back explosions. Why did we need power armour in the film? Why can we just have soldiers?

I detested the way that Scarlett was making eyes at Ripcord when she has *always* been Snake-eyes girl. Always. But this is hollywood and the attractive female star can't be paired off with a mute masked man. Oh by the way, Snake-Eyes wears a mask because he was horrifically injured saving Scarlett from a helicopter crash. But seeing as they've airbrushed their romance he's now silent because of taking a "vow of silence". LAME.

And the Baroness, they gutted that character, clearly you can't have a strong woman being a villainess just because it suits her, oh no she has to controlled by nanites. Furthermore she's always been Destro's (willing) girl and not a bit of fluff for Duke. Again Hollywood changing fundamental things to fit the "handsome good guy gets the girl" mould.

Then there's the trailer park universe aspect to it, it's bad enough in the comics but now we find out that the Baroness is Duke's ex and the cobra commander is also Duke's ex-buddy. WTF?!

Oh and the plot didn't make any sense. It seemed to be about "the Doctor" manipulating things so that he could take over and become Cobra Commander. Hence "Rise of the Cobra". But here's what I don't get; the bad guys appear to have a colossal underwater city bristling with missiles which is utterly destroyed just so "the Doctor" can escape in a tiny submarine as "Cobra Commander". Commander of what?!?! As an organisation they appeared to already have a GDP greater than the US with a colossal defense budget and medium sized army, and it's all thrown away so 'the Doctor' can become Commander. What's the point of all this terrorism when you already have more money than god?

Durr...

It's just like they took many ideas and characters from the GiJoe universe, put them all through a mincer and pressed what came out into the standard hollywood action movie mould just like every other crash-bang-wallop flick. And that's why it was a waste and stole 2 hours of my life.

Summed up pretty much everything I had issue with, on top of that, whats with the matching suits again Hollywood. Like with X-men, is there some unwritten Hollywood rule 'thou shall not be an indivual in a team based movie?' bugged me to hell.

One of my fave things with GI Joe was the different miltary units coming together.



As to my own,

Adventures in Babysitting I really like, even though hardly anyone has ever heard of the film, when I've raised it in the past.

Howard the Duck, its often rated in the worst ever films lists when they come up, but its a film I really like.

Hudson Hawk, this film gets blasted everytime I see it in any kind of worst list, but I love it, one of my favourite films. Richard E Grant and Sandra Bernhard play possibly my two fave villians in any film.

Hudson Hawk!

I loved that film, i watched it about ten times when i was a lad, and then i grow up and read that it was a huge flop and a massive turkey!?

I think it is awesome, Willis was likeable as the lead, and yes Richard E Grant and his missus were funny as feth.

I don't know how anyone can say the men who stared at goats was good. I had a bad feeling about it but was persuaded to watch it. I can watch almost anythin but not that. it's the only film I can remeber which I just got up and left midway through. I couldn't find anything funny about it the plot didn't seem to be going anywhere.

mattyrm wrote:Hudson Hawk!

I loved that film, i watched it about ten times when i was a lad, and then i grow up and read that it was a huge flop and a massive turkey!?

I think it is awesome, Willis was likeable as the lead, and yes Richard E Grant and his missus were funny as feth.

I liked it as a kid but not so much on a rewatch.

Screamers - awesome.

Flannel pyjamas.

Starchaser the legend of Orin.

kravus master of Horus wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:There's a few on my list that people will probably hate me for but here it goes:

"Shutter Island"

I'm not sure what people hated so much about it. I thought it was pretty good, not amazing if anything. It was twisty enough to keep me interested and the acting was great as well.

"Star Wars Episode I" (Read statement before taring and feathering me lol)

I'm not actually a huge fan of this movie but I definitely liked it more than the other prequels. To me the Star Wars prequels really fell a part when Hayden Christen stepped onto the screen. Episode I, if you take out Jar Jar and the little kid is actually not a terrible movie, it's not good either but It's not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. It's holds up a hell of a lot better than the last two movies and the acting is much better (in the sense though that it's like the thinnest kid in fat camp lol). Episode II and III are definitely the worst in my opinion.

Darth Maul, that is it. Just Darth Maul.

Yea thats the reason for me as well. I watch it for Pod racing and Darth Maul. He was a bad ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

namegoeshere wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Hudson Hawk!

I loved that film, i watched it about ten times when i was a lad, and then i grow up and read that it was a huge flop and a massive turkey!?

I think it is awesome, Willis was likeable as the lead, and yes Richard E Grant and his missus were funny as feth.

I liked it as a kid but not so much on a rewatch.

Screamers - awesome.

Flannel pyjamas.

Starchaser the legend of Orin.

Yep. I watched it almost weekly when I was a child, as an adult I was bummed I bought it.

And Screamers IS an awesome flick. I watch that often. And that "can I come with you" is a bit creepy

Used to think darth maul was cool but now i realise the fights in the prequel are just over-choreographed boring swordplay, who cares if yoda flips around and stuff?! Do you remember when luke has Vader on his ass in Jedi? He just starts striking at him furiously hoping to break the block by brute force, Now thats a fight! In a proper story/character driven film Fights are about violence, about the emotions. If you want mindless kung fu pick a martial arts movie from an all night garage.

The seth rogen vehicle Zack and Miri is pretty decent. I actually dont mind him to be honest.

You're right a fight is about emotion and violence, but aren't the jedi trained to control their emotions and be disciplined?

Luke wasn't disciplined to the point of most other Jedi. Yoda taught him a bit, but he never recieved anywhere near the amount of training most others recieved; there's no concievable way that you could teach Luke what was taught to children from a young age through to adulthood in such a short space of time.

True. Which is why I liked watching him hacking away through Vader's defense, but it doesn't mean all of the other trained jedi would not fight with discipline and control.

Yeah, Luke was about 12 years too old to start training as an Old Republic Jedi. That said, the prequels were giant pieces of crap from both a technical and logic standpoint, but that's not the topic at hand.

Adventures in Babysitting was pretty good.
How about Evil Aliens, Dance of the Dead, Black Sheep (not the Chris Farley one), Ninja Assassin, Dragonheart, and Sky High?

Underworld and Underworld: Evolution. How can you dislike a film that features Kate Beckinsale kicking ass in a tight leather outfit?

Perkustin wrote:Used to think darth maul was cool but now i realise the fights in the prequel are just over-choreographed boring swordplay, who cares if yoda flips around and stuff?! Do you remember when luke has Vader on his ass in Jedi? He just starts striking at him furiously hoping to break the block by brute force, Now thats a fight! In a proper story/character driven film Fights are about violence, about the emotions. If you want mindless kung fu pick a martial arts movie from an all night garage.

Funnily enough, loads of geeks complain that the fight in Return of the Jedi was all flips and flash stuff, because they compare it to the very static fight in the original film.

The Darth Maul duel was the only good prequel duel.

Amaya wrote:The Darth Maul duel was the only good prequel duel.

Yeah the ones that followed were to repetitive. It's so easy to follow it's just high slash, high slash, low slash, low slash, spin slash/jump/kick, high slash again, repeat. lol

I don't know about that. The problem with the later ones is that they are too over the top and flashy. It doesn't even look like they're trying to hit each other. The OT and Darth Maul duels actually looked like the duelists were trying to kill one another.

Amaya wrote:I don't know about that. The problem with the later ones is that they are too over the top and flashy. It doesn't even look like they're trying to hit each other. The OT and Darth Maul duels actually looked like the duelists were trying to kill one another.

That too, they just got so repetitive to me more than anything, it became less sword dueling and more sword dancing =P.

Yeah, but the first film gets ruined by the opening, the middle part, and the very end. Plus the whole Tatooine scene. Aside from still wondering why Qui-Gon is in this movie at all, why do you bring a cartoon rabbit and a pretty, young, and vulnerable girl into a disreputable space port? Leaving both the security captain and your apprentice to sit on the ship... And the climax of the movie you have four completely different things with wildly different emotions going on... tf?

Amaya wrote:Underworld and Underworld: Evolution. How can you dislike a film that features Kate Beckinsale kicking ass in a tight leather outfit?

You cannot; it's... it's impossible.

I'm reading through this and I'm having issues with the fact that someone said Clerks 1 and 2 were merely "ok". Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back I will give you as being merely ok. Most of Kevin Smith's movies are amazing storeis about romantic relationships, dealing with becoming an adult, and realizing where you are and who you want to be in life. Dogma is a great commentary on some of the problems with organized religion.

The Kilted Samurai wrote:

Amaya wrote:The Darth Maul duel was the only good prequel duel.

Yeah the ones that followed were to repetitive. It's so easy to follow it's just high slash, high slash, low slash, low slash, spin slash/jump/kick, high slash again, repeat. lol

I find many of the best parts of the fights in the original trilogy wasn't the swordplay itself, but the static between each strike, where both fighters are sizing one another up. That's where a lot of the real feeling comes in. The 'fight' between Vader and Obi-Wan in A New Hope had so much more tension than any fight in the prequel trilogy, and only a single stroke was made.

loranafaeriequeen wrote:I'm reading through this and I'm having issues with the fact that someone said Clerks 1 and 2 were merely "ok". Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back I will give you as being merely ok. Most of Kevin Smith's movies are amazing storeis about romantic relationships, dealing with becoming an adult, and realizing where you are and who you want to be in life. Dogma is a great commentary on some of the problems with organized religion.

Low-hanging fruit though, to be honest.

I detest that man's films. The dialogue is uniformly appalling.

The Super Mario Bros movie and the Street Fighter movie.

In fact, I find a lot of the new (awful) video game movies just illustrate how much more enjoyable these ones were.

Albatross wrote:Low-hanging fruit though, to be honest.

I detest that man's films. The dialogue is uniformly appalling.

True. Any romantic conversation, especially the ones between Padme and Anakin, is cringe inducing.

Although to be fair, the dialogue in the original trilogy wasn't as bad. Mostly because I presume that the actors knew when to tell Lucas that his writing was crap, rather than to simply revere him and his word as the second coming of Space Christ.

Anyway, as far as underrated movies go, I'm going to have to jump on The Fountain and Mirrormask.

The Fountain was simply an amazing movie, and the only reason it got mixed reviews was because half the critics out there have no idea what the movie was about. Visually and aurally stunning, and with some incredibly powerful and complex themes. As far as movies that centre around a love based plot, this is my favourite.

And in the case of Mirrormask... well, Neil Gaiman is my favourite writer, but I still got to say that he really took the piss when it came to the plot (it's not bad, but coming from the author of The Sandman, American Gods, Coraline and Stardust, you expect more) . But at least the dialogue was still great, with Gaiman's usual sense of wit. But on a whole, the movie is a vehicle for Dave McKean's amazing art direction, and it does that wonderfully. If you like Dave McKean's artwork (and if you have any taste at all, you do), then this movie is pure gold.

@Fafnir - Uh, I meant Kevin Smith films! I went back and fixed it after I saw that you posted just after lorana....

I agree on the Star Wars thing, for what it's worth.

Fafnir wrote:

Albatross wrote:Low-hanging fruit though, to be honest.

I detest that man's films. The dialogue is uniformly appalling.

True. Any romantic conversation, especially the ones between Padme and Anakin, is cringe inducing.

Although to be fair, the dialogue in the original trilogy wasn't as bad. Mostly because I presume that the actors knew when to tell Lucas that his writing was crap, rather than to simply revere him and his word as the second coming of Space Christ.

Pretty much this. If you watch the documentaries on the original trilogy it was a group effort with collaboration from all involved, especially the actors and different directors. The documentaries of the prequels makes it seem like he surrounded himself with sycophants and that the actors were phoning it in.

Well, it's not like the actors had much help to begin with. In addition to horrible dialogue and direction, all they ever had was a blue wall to interact with (and I guess for those really emotional scenes, they got a green wall).

I mean, if you've seen Black Swan (And you all should have. If you havn't go out and watch it right now. I don't care if it's 4 in the morning, it's that good. Go.), you know Natalie Portman is an amazing actress. And we get none of that in the prequels. When you see these actors really acting, and you see what we got in the prequel trilogy, you really feel bad for what could have been.

Fafnir wrote:Well, it's not like the actors had much help to begin with. In addition to horrible dialogue and direction, all they ever had was a blue wall to interact with (and I guess for those really emotional scenes, they got a green wall).

I recall an interview with Liam Neeson in which basically said just that, only not as nicely as you did.

Fierce Creatures with Michael Palin and John Cleese. Wasn't fantastic, but was reasonably entertaining.

rubiksnoob wrote:Fierce Creatures with Michael Palin and John Cleese. Wasn't fantastic, but was reasonably entertaining.

Yes..but basically anything with John Cleese is entertaining.

FITZZ wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Fierce Creatures with Michael Palin and John Cleese. Wasn't fantastic, but was reasonably entertaining.

Yes..but basically anything with John Cleese is entertaining.

.

I recall a film called "The Out of Towners" with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, John Cleese played a Hotel Concierge and he was the ONLY thing funny about that film.

Event horizon is a film that I think should have got better reviews then it did. The concept was brilliant and it was pretty freaky.

A damn good sci-fi film in my books. And Sam Neil showed a darker side in this film you dont see in many of his other films

The Island? I've seen that movie twice and enjoyed it alot better the second time. I know it's Bayhem but hey, on that note i second all the people that have mentioned how Transformers 2 is a good popcorn movie. Ps i hate the bad boys Movies so i am not a michael Bay fanboy by any means.
On the star wars note George lucas DID write all the good dialogue in the first films but in the prequels because of his complete creative control he went too far. All the dialogue and ideas (apart from the rare comic relief. On that note Jarjar was merely an Ewok-like misfire) are highly indulgent in the prequels. In the originals certain concessions to commercial success had to be made hence the witty dialogue and general banter. Lucas probably wanted to make 'The Star Wars' like his dystopian (commercial) flop THX 1138. The producers didnt like this idea so persuaded him to include the chummy banter from his more successful American graffitti.

Just saw part of it today, but I always enjoyed "Sneakers".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also understand the annoyance of JarJar, but when I saw the movie the first time I was sitting next to a family with younger kids (probably around 7 yrs old) and I understood immediately the draw of JarJar when those kids would laugh at everything he did. He wasn't in the movie for those of us that grew up on Star Wars or the older kids/younger adults that wanted all the cool science fiction action, he was there for those kids.

Couple movies come to my mind, one has been said before.

Men Who Stare at Goats. and Burn After Reading.

Another one that has received cult status that i enjoy from time to time is Dark City.

FITZZ wrote: .

I recall a film called "The Out of Towners" with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, John Cleese played a Hotel Concierge and he was the ONLY thing funny about that film.

FITZZ wrote:
I recall a film called "The Out of Towners" with Steve Martin

FITZZ wrote:Steve Martin

Do not mention Steve Martin's name. Cheaper by the Dozen, the Pink Panther remakes. . . . these things can not be forgiven.

Ultramarines Movie.

I said it.

The rock was always fun for me

"1941" from what I know the movie wasn't well received but hell I thought it was funny at least =P.

rubiksnoob wrote:
Do not mention Steve Martin's name. Cheaper by the Dozen, the Pink Panther remakes. . . . these things can not be forgiven.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles too!!!? '0.0'

Perkustin wrote:The Island? I've seen that movie twice and enjoyed it alot better the second time. I know it's Bayhem but hey, on that note i second all the people that have mentioned how Transformers 2 is a good popcorn movie. Ps i hate the bad boys Movies so i am not a michael Bay fanboy by any means.
On the star wars note George lucas DID write all the good dialogue in the first films but in the prequels because of his complete creative control he went too far. All the dialogue and ideas (apart from the rare comic relief. On that note Jarjar was merely an Ewok-like misfire) are highly indulgent in the prequels. In the originals certain concessions to commercial success had to be made hence the witty dialogue and general banter. Lucas probably wanted to make 'The Star Wars' like his dystopian (commercial) flop THX 1138. The producers didnt like this idea so persuaded him to include the chummy banter from his more successful American graffitti.

Excuse me?

In the words of Tim from Spaced...'Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like fething SHAFT'

"A Complete History of my Sexual Failures", and" Frequently Asked Questions about Time Travel" are a pair of films that are little known, but either really quite touching (for the former at least, even though the guy is a complete prat) and funny, in that British sence of humour way. "Yeah, well I really thought that interview with ***** was going to go alright...till I remembered that she was a complete psychopath", after meeting an ex girlfriend to discuss how she fealt about their relationship (she was behind a screen typing her words into a speaker hook to a laptop¬¬).

Ghost Rider.

Hahaahaahaahaaa!

Who am I kidding? That movie was horrible.

There was this one movie... it was Dragons, Fire and Ice... or some name like that.

Personally I was expecting it to be terrible, but it wasn't to bad of a film considering it was an animated film based off a line of mega-blocks.

Gitkikka wrote:Ghost Rider.

Hahaahaahaahaaa!

Who am I kidding? That movie was horrible.

Short as the scene might be, where the old and new Ghostriders are riding together, to the refrains of Ghostriders In The Sky...makes that movie Win all on it's own.

That, and I'm looking forward to the sequel!

+1 to Howard the Duck. That movie is basically the definition of guilty pleasure.

Outlander! Oh wait.. that movie is just awesome

Ultramarines. It's not as ropy as everyone says.

Ice Pirates.

because its cool when your freighter gets infected with space herpes.

Guitardian wrote:Ice Pirates.

because its cool when your freighter gets infected with space herpes.

+1

Van Helsing

It's by no means a good movie, but it's a fun, stupid action movie that pays homage to the old monster movie greats. For a guy who tends to hate action movies, I really don't mind this one. It's just so filled with camp that it's hard not to like in one way or another.

I'll second "Van Helsing" and add in "A league of Extraordinary Gentlemen".

Oh I can't forget about "The Crow" either.

I think this counts as it did not do well at the box office, but it is a great movie "The Shawshank Redemption".

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Controversial! Really didn't like some bits of that one. Others were cool.

Fafnir wrote:Van Helsing

It's by no means a good movie, but it's a fun, stupid action movie that pays homage to the old monster movie greats. For a guy who tends to hate action movies, I really don't mind this one. It's just so filled with camp that it's hard not to like in one way or another.

+1. I never expected it to be a cinematic masterpiece, but it was fun and entertaining.

Equilibrium wasn't all that bad either, but man it got slammed hard by critics.

I really liked Equilbrium. Worked nicely if you ask me.

As for Van Helsing.... It has it's moments!

Zardoz, also +1 for Equilibrium.

Mr Mystery wrote:League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Controversial! Really didn't like some bits of that one. Others were cool.

I actually didn't like it at all the first time I saw it and then came across it again one night when nothing else was on and decided it wasn't as bad as I thought it was the first time.

I just remember one:

Expendables. I bought it just knowing that it was designed to be an OTT, mindless action movie.. It provided all that, and was actually pretty good.

boogeyman wrote:Oh I can't forget about "The Crow" either.

I think this counts as it did not do well at the box office, but it is a great movie "The Shawshank Redemption".

Both The Crow and The Shawshank Redemption were very well recieved. Shawshank is considered to be one of the greatest films ever made. It comes quite close to overrated status, really.

And the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was horrible if you know the actual source material. So much wasted premise.

I think, so far, at least half the movies on this list really don't qualify.

And the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was horrible if you know the actual source material. So much wasted premise.

This. I don't need a 100% accurate translation of a work to enjoy it, but it didn't even capture the spirit of the comics in any way.

Last of the Mohicans. It didn't get much respect when it was released and it's pretty much forgotte now, but it is an excellent film with a beautiful score. It has some of the most moving scenes in modern cinema and the best fight scenes of any movie set in 18th century America.

And Daniel Day Lewis is just plain awesome.

Edit: Final 7-8 minutes of the movie.

At first I didn't like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
But after watching it again along with the other three,it wasn't all that bad.

There is plently of bad movies that I liked.
The Conan movies,for example.

Ahtman wrote:I think, so far, at least half the movies on this list really don't qualify.

And the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was horrible if you know the actual source material. So much wasted premise.

This. I don't need a 100% accurate translation of a work to enjoy it, but it didn't even capture the spirit of the comics in any way.

True, but would someone who hadn't read, or was even aware of the source material enjoy it, ala V for Vendetta? From what I understand, not a great representation of the theme or content of the book, but still one of my favourite films.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I just remember one:

Expendables. I bought it just knowing that it was designed to be an OTT, mindless action movie.. It provided all that, and was actually pretty good.

The enemy has always hated shotguns.....

I tend to be overly critical of movies, so there's not a whole ton I tend to like more than the groupthink agrees on. But, after going through my rated Netflix movies, here's a few I did enjoy much more than the "average":

K-19: The Widowmaker
The Ninth Gate
Event Horizon
The Quick and the Dead
Fanboys
Gattaca
Girl, Interrupted
Election


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and the Princess Bride totally doesn't count. It's widely accepted as an absolute classic children's movie.

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:
The Conan movies,for example.

There is only one Conan movie... the "other" one shall be purged from all recollection

Yeah! LONG LIVE CONAN THE DESTROYER!




What?

The matrix, i know some people think the movie is a little weird but hey it was a good movie

shame they didnt make any sequels, nope none at all. Just think! there could be random rumors flying round about a 4th and 5th movie...


(Maybe someone saw inception and went "wait!!! we can explain this stuff that doesent make sense! Matrix within a Matrix WWWWWOOOOAAAHHHHHHH")

I swear to god, hear me now DAKKA, if the Wachowski brothers did that, I would fly to where ever they are at that point in time, and I would either A. Beat them senseless-er with a crowbar or B. Just strait out finish the whole mess and kill them with said crowbar



Matrix was a good movie. The second one was only really worth it because of the Twins and I personally thought The Merovingian had style. That was it. The 3rd one......well so far Im doing ok stripping it from my brain.

Another nomination for consideration...

National Treasure, and it's sequel. Pretty standard adventure McGuffin fare, and has Nick Cage in it, so not exactly high hopes all round.

Watching the sequel on iPlayer just now, and you know what, I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed it.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I think, so far, at least half the movies on this list really don't qualify.

And the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was horrible if you know the actual source material. So much wasted premise.

This. I don't need a 100% accurate translation of a work to enjoy it, but it didn't even capture the spirit of the comics in any way.

True, but would someone who hadn't read, or was even aware of the source material enjoy it, ala V for Vendetta? From what I understand, not a great representation of the theme or content of the book, but still one of my favourite films.

Nah. The movie actually captured the spirit and some of the visuals of the comic quite well. Usually the ones I hear complain are of the same type that whine that Gimli is 2 inches to short and Legolas's bow should have been a different color wood and so that must mean that Peter Jackson is an idiot.

Some one put up the original, however frankly that was genuinely dire, the sequwel using only one of the characters from the first film and a tiny fraction of the budget was considerably better. It was not only a good film it was also a good adaption puting the flavour of D&D on the screen looking complete and understandable to people who know the game wthout sacrificing the story or accessibility to people who have not. The olot was good, the ascripting was intelligent, the actors looked real and the characters believable, at least within D&D standards.

Its not a mediiocre film, its a good film that drops nack tyo mediocre status because it bites off more than it can chew with regards to special effects. I don't mind low budget special effects, in fact I often prefer them, but Wrath of the Dragon God tried to be 'epic' in scope and the lack of budget for epicness was evident. If they wanted something to match the scale of Avatar they needed and Avatar scale budget.



Wing Commander the game was a match for Star Wars, Wing Commander the Film wasn't. George Lucas managed to make Chewbacca look real in 1976, despite over 20 years of progress Chris Roberts utterly failed to make the Kilrathi anything other than laughable. The film was a lot better than it has been credited as. Even Freddie Prinz Jnr as Maniac didnt spoil it, in fact that character was done right. Some of the pilot 'culture' came across as wooden, but the mantality did nevertheless hold and was countered by excellent perroances by good name actoors like Jurgen Prochnow and David Suchet.
Having Prochnow lurk iunder Kilrathi ASDIC was painful to watch but mercifully quickly over and that too can be forgiven, the glove puppet quality Kilrathi however were beyond dire and sunk the quality of the film well into medicrity or lower.
nevertheless I can recommend it. The plot was good, though a whole traitor substory was cut, pacing was good and the combat was definatekly watchable. 40K fans will love the fighters, frankly the Rapiers dont lok anything like they did in the game, being made from forward sections of old English Electric Lightnings with huge gatling guns on the nose. However the squat rivetted barrrel of gunbarrels would put the 40K fighters to shame. That fighter and the ship that carried them was ready made for 40K. Someone on set decided to 'make it orky'. Fun.

Gibbsey wrote:The matrix, i know some people think the movie is a little weird but hey it was a good movie

The original Matrix was almost universally well reviewed and made a ton of money. Doesn't fit here at all.

Hmm...its a good thing this thread has a definitive objective that isnt hazy or open to interpretation at all. I dont even know how to respond to this....a thread about films that were critically castrated or eviserated by the media or public, but that I dont mind watching??? What kind of sense does this make?

Element206 wrote:Hmm...its a good thing this thread has a definitive objective that isnt hazy or open to interpretation at all. I dont even know how to respond to this....a thread about films that were critically castrated or eviserated by the media or public, but that I dont mind watching??? What kind of sense does this make?

plenty. With some films you need to jump off the bandwagon and avoid reviewer bias, sometimes you might find a reason my a bad film appeals to you, the actress was dead hot, or you associate yourself with the franchise it came from. some films just have a reputation for suckage that just isn't deserved, others were ahead of their time.

Event Horizon was a pretty good movie

NSFW (language, not the other stuff in the film... and yes this scene is hilarious and tone is very different to the rest of the movie)

Event Horizon started out well and then it devolved into a stupid gorefest.

Ahtman wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I think, so far, at least half the movies on this list really don't qualify.

And the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was horrible if you know the actual source material. So much wasted premise.

This. I don't need a 100% accurate translation of a work to enjoy it, but it didn't even capture the spirit of the comics in any way.

True, but would someone who hadn't read, or was even aware of the source material enjoy it, ala V for Vendetta? From what I understand, not a great representation of the theme or content of the book, but still one of my favourite films.

Nah. The movie actually captured the spirit and some of the visuals of the comic quite well. Usually the ones I hear complain are of the same type that whine that Gimli is 2 inches to short and Legolas's bow should have been a different color wood and so that must mean that Peter Jackson is an idiot.

I wouldn't consider changing the entire message of the story, removing the main character (Finch) from relevance, and dumbing down the plot and characterization to the point of black-and-white on the same level of triviality as the type of wood used for Legolas' bow.

The visual design was excellent, but short of that, the movie betrays everything the comic stood for.

Amaya wrote:Event Horizon started out well and then it devolved into a stupid gorefest.

What were you expecting- Star Trek?

Fafnir wrote:I wouldn't consider changing the entire message of the story, removing the main character (Finch) from relevance, and dumbing down the plot and characterization to the point of black-and-white on the same level of triviality as the type of wood used for Legolas' bow.

I'm glad you liked Finch so much you imagined he was the main character in the comics, but he wasn't; there are several narrators in the comic of which he is one. He is a main character but he is not the main character and he plays the same role in the movie as he does in the comic. They chose not to show every single panel in the comic, so what? No film can translate a book (comic or otherwise) with 100% accuracy. If they could, though, what would be the point? At that point just read the book. The basic message was still the same, not sure what you read or imagined the message was. Are you also mad that they didn't have the extended song sequence set in the club? That magical supercomputer wasn't in it? They took a comic book series and condensed it to fit in a reasonable amount of time. The plot wasn't all that dumbed down; truncated and dumb aren't the same thing.

If you mean the message was different in that it wasn't specifically targeting Thatcherism like the book that came out during that period, I agree. I also think that the movie was wanting a broader audience than those that lived through that time period. Of course this gets back to the fact that it is not the comic. It isn't supposed to be the same as the comic. It was never intended to be exactly the same as the comic. As it's own film it is ok and as a translation it did ok. If you want to see what an actually screwed up book to movie transition watch The Spirit. It failed on every level. V just updated things a bit, made it more suitable for a wide audience, and truncated things a bit. I can't imagine why you are shocked and outraged, just outraged, that a book is more nuanced and has the ability to fit more plot in than a film version. I mean really, who saw that coming, other than anyone who has read a book and seen a film version. The movies are always broader than the books.

Also, I didn't say the only way to dislike the movie was to nitpick details, just that is mostly what I hear.

Compared to Evey, Finch was a much more important character as far as plot progression is concerned. And his personal conflict and development is trivialized in the movie (I can understand removing the LSD sequence, but you don't need to toss everything else out with it) to simply being a good guy working for the wrong organization (because Norsefire is absolutely evil in the movie, and V is absolutely good in the movie).

Additionally, the comic wasn't just about thatcherism, it was about facism and anarchy. The movie reduced it to a simple revenge plot with a call for social revolution thrown in.

They dumbed down Susan's character to being nothing more than a Hitler impersonator. He was so much more than that in the comic. You actually felt something when he died. Although he was very hatable, he was also someone you could pity. He was a great character. None of that is in the movie.

V's characterization, surprisingly, isn't too offensive. Hugo Weaving does a great job, after seeing his performance, I wouldn't have anyone else as the roll, but once again, the writers dumbed him down considerably. By centering the movie on his revenge, rather than using it as a cover like in the comic, they really lost the sense of enigma that made him such a monolithic character. I think the writers kind of missed the point. Just because he's the title character doesn't mean he's the main character.

I wasn't asking for 100% accuracy. I know that that's impossible, and in many cases, not advisable. However, they took out so much of what made V for Vendetta so unique and so powerful that it was barely a shadow of its former self.

Fafnir wrote:Compared to Evey, Finch was a much more important character as far as plot progression is concerned. And his personal conflict and development is trivialized in the movie (I can understand removing the LSD sequence, but you don't need to toss everything else out with it) to simply being a good guy working for the wrong organization (because Norsefire is absolutely evil in the movie, and V is absolutely good in the movie).

Additionally, the comic wasn't just about thatcherism, it was about facism and anarchy. The movie reduced it to a simple revenge plot with a call for social revolution thrown in.

It didn't really come across as that simplistic.

They dumbed down Susan's character to being nothing more than a Hitler impersonator. He was so much more than that in the comic. You actually felt something when he died. Although he was very hatable, he was also someone you could pity. He was a great character. None of that is in the movie.

I'm sure you can understand exactly how hard it would be for a movie to get that across; and I did feel pity in the movie as well, but merely because the guy was utterly helpless and pissing his pants (which wasn't really what came across beforehand).

I think the writers kind of missed the point. Just because he's the title character doesn't mean he's the main character.

To be honest I don't really think he was portrayed as the main character. In the movie this was definitely Evey.

EDIT: You know, I thought you guys were still talking about The League for a while.

I think Pathfinder would fit here.

Fafnir wrote:Additionally, the comic wasn't just about thatcherism

No, it wasn't just about that, but it was a huge part of it. I could be wrong, I'm just going by what Alan Moore said about it, and really, what does he know about it?

Fafnir wrote:it was about fascism and anarchy. The movie reduced it to a simple revenge plot with a call for social revolution thrown in.

It doesn't seem like you watched the movie with an open mind but raged before the credits even began; it never had a chance. Of course the movie dealt with fascism and anarchism. Almost any review on it even talks about that, and it isn't a coincidence that anon and other pseudo anarchists reappropriated the imagery of the film to put face on their cause(s).

Your criticisms are entirely personal and difficult to apply outside your take on the movie. In the end it comes back to you not liking it becuase it wasn't exactly the same as the novel.

I think Pathfinder would fit here.

Finally, another film that actually fits the criteria. Good call.

Ahtman wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Additionally, the comic wasn't just about thatcherism

No, it wasn't just about that, but it was a huge part of it. I could be wrong, I'm just going by what Alan Moore said about it, and really, what does he know about it?

It's no secret that Alan Moore wrote it in response to Thatcher's government. But the themes go a hell of a lot deeper than that. To say otherwise is to underestimate Moore's talent as a writer. It's what helps make the comic such a timeless piece.

Fafnir wrote:it was about fascism and anarchy. The movie reduced it to a simple revenge plot with a call for social revolution thrown in.

It doesn't seem like you watched the movie with an open mind but raged before the credits even began; it never had a chance. Of course the movie dealt with fascism and anarchism. Almost any review on it even talks about that, and it isn't a coincidence that anon and other pseudo anarchists reappropriated the imagery of the film to put face on their cause(s).

Your criticisms are entirely personal and difficult to apply outside your take on the movie. In the end it comes back to you not liking it becuase it wasn't exactly the same as the novel.

See, here's the funny part. I saw the movie with the most open of minds, since I hadn't even read the comic at that point. After reading the comic (inspired by having just read The Killing Joke and Watchmen) and realizing what that mediocre action flick could have been... well, the rest is history.

Fafnir wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Additionally, the comic wasn't just about thatcherism

No, it wasn't just about that, but it was a huge part of it. I could be wrong, I'm just going by what Alan Moore said about it, and really, what does he know about it?

It's no secret that Alan Moore wrote it in response to Thatcher's government. But the themes go a hell of a lot deeper than that. To say otherwise is to underestimate Moore's talent as a writer. It's what helps make the comic such a timeless piece.

That is a beautiful strawman you are buyilding there sir. I know that I didn't say there no other layers but Thatcherism, but you have masterfully invented that I have, and to put a cherry on top also put words in mouth as to the competency of Mr. Moore. Bravo *golf clap*

The only reason I mentioned Thatcherism was in case that is what you had meant by it not have the theme from the graphic novel. If you had, I agreed that it was absent.

Fafnir wrote:See, here's the funny part. I saw the movie with the most open of minds, since I hadn't even read the comic at that point. After reading the comic (inspired by having just read The Killing Joke and Watchmen) and realizing what that mediocre action flick could have been... well, the rest is history.

You still aren't coming across that way. You are still basically arguing that the movie was bad becuase it was a less dense version of the comic. WELL NO gak. I had read the comic several times before the the movie was ever even announced and even read the annototed version and I still don't have a problem with the movie lacking the books layers and nuance. It's ok to not like it, it isn't that great a movie, but I find your reasoning to cast dispersions on it dubious at best. Still, to each his own.

Ahtman wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Additionally, the comic wasn't just about thatcherism

No, it wasn't just about that, but it was a huge part of it. I could be wrong, I'm just going by what Alan Moore said about it, and really, what does he know about it?

It's no secret that Alan Moore wrote it in response to Thatcher's government. But the themes go a hell of a lot deeper than that. To say otherwise is to underestimate Moore's talent as a writer. It's what helps make the comic such a timeless piece.

That is a beautiful strawman you are buyilding there sir. I know that I didn't say there no other layers but Thatcherism, but you have masterfully invented that I have, and to put a cherry on top also put words in mouth as to the competency of Mr. Moore. Bravo *golf clap*

The only reason I mentioned Thatcherism was in case that is what you had meant by it not have the theme from the graphic novel. If you had, I agreed that it was absent.

Your response made it sound like you were adding extra emphasis to the critique on Thatcherism, as if you stressed it as the only important theme.

Fafnir wrote:See, here's the funny part. I saw the movie with the most open of minds, since I hadn't even read the comic at that point. After reading the comic (inspired by having just read The Killing Joke and Watchmen) and realizing what that mediocre action flick could have been... well, the rest is history.

You still aren't coming across that way. You are still basically arguing that the movie was bad becuase it was a less dense version of the comic. WELL NO gak. I had read the comic several times before the the movie was ever even announced and even read the annototed version and I still don't have a problem with the movie lacking the books layers and nuance. It's ok to not like it, it isn't that great a movie, but I find your reasoning to cast dispersions on it dubious at best. Still, to each his own.

Because everyone and their dog seems to be praising it as one of the greatest films ever made. Maybe it's because I'm a university student, and thus live in a rotting sea of Che Guevera posters owned by dumbass rebels who don't even know who Che Guevera was.

That, and as I said previously, the fact that it wastes so much of the source material's potential.

Fafnir wrote:Because everyone and their dog seems to be praising it as one of the greatest films ever made. Maybe it's because I'm a university student, and thus live in a rotting sea of Che Guevera posters owned by dumbass rebels who don't even know who Che Guevera was.

I empathize on this point.

I want to praise Last Action Hero. It got panned, but it's reflection on what makes a movie a movie and knowingly acknowledging the tropes it used were fething brilliant.

I second Last Action Hero and Hudson Hawk.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice is my vote. Typical Nick Cage acting and I went in not expecting much but was pleasantly surprised.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I want to praise Last Action Hero. It got panned, but it's reflection on what makes a movie a movie and knowingly acknowledging the tropes it used were fething brilliant.

I didnt know last action hero did that badly...

I honestly thought Pathfinder was gak. I struggled to stop myself dropping to sleep.

Here's some more suggestions:

Stargate
Mystery Men
Transformers (the original animated movie)

Highlander 2 was really silly.

But it had OO7 in it,so it was pretty good on that level.

Highlander 2 was really silly.

But it had OO7 in it,so it was pretty good on that level.

That movie was so bad that the franchise actually disavows its existence in the 3rd film by starting back at the point where the 1st film ends. No redemption.

loranafaeriequeen wrote:

Highlander 2 was really silly.

But it had OO7 in it,so it was pretty good on that level.

That movie was so bad that the franchise actually disavows its existence in the 3rd film by starting back at the point where the 1st film ends. No redemption.

QFT

Gibbsey wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I want to praise Last Action Hero. It got panned, but it's reflection on what makes a movie a movie and knowingly acknowledging the tropes it used were fething brilliant.

I didnt know last action hero did that badly...

I don't know if it did badly per se, but it is perceived as a flop, which was a rarity for Arnie at the time.

I also agree on Last Action Hero. Thats a good movie, and a bit silly.

Pathfinder was a pile of steaming crap. I tried watching it a 2nd time just to see if I was wrong. Nope. Even worse the 2nd time around.

American werewolf in london, quite a good film but not the best.

Amaya wrote:Last of the Mohicans. It didn't get much respect when it was released and it's pretty much forgotte now, but it is an excellent film with a beautiful score. It has some of the most moving scenes in modern cinema and the best fight scenes of any movie set in 18th century America.

And Daniel Day Lewis is just plain awesome.

Edit: Final 7-8 minutes of the movie.

Spoiler:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tiKM4fxY1U

Absolutely could not agree more! awesome flick! and the score during the last 8 minutes is hauntingly good, imho. a bit repetative, but awesome.
when the score first came out, we used to listen to it and a few others while having all night Magic: the addiction games! drinking lots of beer and strong sweet tea.


my nomination for a movie i hated to like would be Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man. "like my daddy used to say before he left this s****y world..."

and an all time classic would be Buckaroo Bonzai and the 8th dimension. freakin' great movie.
And who didn't love the song at the end of the credits. Music and clothes scream 80's!
Too bad they never made the sequel...

Please don't tell me someone is bashing V for Vendetta...

Amaya wrote:Please don't tell me someone is bashing V for Vendetta...

If I can restrain my unadulterated nerdrage, so can you.

Oh yeah, almost forgot Judge Dredd.

As a Dredd film, it's diabolically pish. They show his face. His clone twin looks nothing like him. They get so much wrong it's not funny....

Yet, as a science fiction braingum type film, it's actually alright to watch.

As far as I can remember, I enjoyed these movies when I was young, but doubt they are that good and would probably ruin my image of them if I watched them again.

Time Bandits
Krull
Never Ending Story
Flash Gordon
Any of the kung-fu or monster movies on Svengoolie (old tv show that was like MST 3000) Actually, maybe these movies just happened to be on before or after Svengoolie.

Matrix Reloaded. First was good, but many people seem to not like the second. I thought it was pretty good though. I never saw the third one actually, but from what I hear I'm glad I've never seen it.

Did anyone mention Waterworld yet?