Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.