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.

What is the story behind the name of that film? I can’t piece together how such an abrasive title came to be.

Well, you know Ecks and Severs were such popular and well-known characters prior to the movie that....... ugh...... you got me.

No idea.

 The Forgemaster wrote:
or based on a book/book series tends to disapoint. there are some exceptions but...

it...that....literally I would say sixty or seventy percent of movies that are produced are originally based on print media.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd say for me the most disappointing has to be the new Pacific Rim.

I'm not ashamed to say I did not actually see the movie after seeing the trailer. It was very clearly the most shameless of cash grabs based on desperately trying to sequel/franchise a film that was unexpectedly successful. I've always hated those.

I am rarely disappointed by any movie because I don't watch movies I know I wont like. Sometimes I am presently surprised. Sometimes though... The most disappointing movie I saw was The last Jedi.

Terrible acting / terrible characters / incoherent plot / breaking the laws of the setting. Absolutely terrible.

I really like Scott Pilgrim, but I'm a little heartbroken it came out before the comic and went the original ending route. For the most part, it's fine, but the one real, honest good moment lost is that Scott doesn't really beat Gideon and win the girl; he frees Ramona from the baggage of Gideon, but it's ultimately Ramona who chooses Scott and defeats her Evil Ex directly. It really changes the meaning behind the story and while they kind of try to say the same thing with Nega-Scott, it's just not as satisfying.

 Blackie wrote:
At least I didn't experienced the sound issue with Tenet, as in theatres here foreign movies are dubbed, and all dialogues were pretty clear. I prefer to watch movies in their original languages though and I've been actually tempted to give Tenet a second chance but now to discover that it suffers even from another (major) issue is simply too much .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:
Us, by Jordan Peele.

I'd heard a lot of good things, the acting was really excellent, and the first half (?) was intriguing ...... then as it progessed, and more was revealed, the whole thing descended into a downward spiral of improbable nonsense. Nothing wrong with a film with an underlying message, but this was all MESSAGE with the barest veneer of a story.

That was also another really bad one, indeed.

Compared to the brilliance of Get Out, Us felt almost sophic in how it tried to bend over backwards to make a point while simultaneously muddling that point so much I no longer understood exactly what point the film was trying to make, only that it was trying to make one and failing.

 Easy E wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Discounting some straight-to-video stuff - like Ecks versus Sever (although some is a guilty pleasure) the most disappointing I saw at the cinema was Avatar. Risible plot and the much exalted special effects were of no consequence.

Sadly, Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever was not straight to video. It had a theatrical release..... I saw it.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 The Forgemaster wrote:
or based on a book/book series tends to disapoint. there are some exceptions but...

it...that....literally I would say sixty or seventy percent of movies that are produced are originally based on print media.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd say for me the most disappointing has to be the new Pacific Rim.

I'm not ashamed to say I did not actually see the movie after seeing the trailer. It was very clearly the most shameless of cash grabs based on desperately trying to sequel/franchise a film that was unexpectedly successful. I've always hated those.

I'd have to agree with the 2nd pacific rim, i enjoyed the 1st, but the 2nd was trash.

Sure, but it was fun trash.

 Easy E wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Discounting some straight-to-video stuff - like Ecks versus Sever (although some is a guilty pleasure) the most disappointing I saw at the cinema was Avatar. Risible plot and the much exalted special effects were of no consequence.

Sadly, Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever was not straight to video. It had a theatrical release..... I saw it.

I saw my step-son's dvd copy and just, well.... assumed.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Discounting some straight-to-video stuff - like Ecks versus Sever (although some is a guilty pleasure) the most disappointing I saw at the cinema was Avatar. Risible plot and the much exalted special effects were of no consequence.

Sadly, Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever was not straight to video. It had a theatrical release..... I saw it.

.

I saw my step-son's dvd copy and just, well.... assumed.

I was the same with Hurt Locker. Saw a bootleg copy in the Middle East and thought it was a pretty decent indie-B grade DVD movie. Then I see it beating Avatar at the Oscars

I've seen plenty of crap, but that wasn't disappointing, I knew it was rubbish going in (Cineworld's subscription service has a lot to answer for - I've seen loads of awful films I would have avoided if I actually had to fork out for a ticket at the door).

Off the top of my head, Prometheus and Alien Covenant spring to mind; five hours or so spent answering questions about the Alien setting that no-one need care enough about to ask. Prometheus was full of stupid people acting out of character to drive the plot. Covenant might have been a half-decent sci fi film about AI, creating life and the responsibilities of a creator, but it was lumbered with a pointless connection to Alien.

The Terminator sequels after T2 were worse than I'd hoped (sadly that franchise started on a high and has gone downhill with every sequel); I didn't bother seeing the most recent one. And the Matrix sequels, which were just re-telling the same story that The Matrix did, but with more goth dancing and monologuing.

Batman vs Superman might have been a disappointment, but they at least had the decency to warn me with the title of the film. That's not a plot, it's two nine year olds arguing in the playground

Kayback wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Discounting some straight-to-video stuff - like Ecks versus Sever (although some is a guilty pleasure) the most disappointing I saw at the cinema was Avatar. Risible plot and the much exalted special effects were of no consequence.

Sadly, Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever was not straight to video. It had a theatrical release..... I saw it.

.

I saw my step-son's dvd copy and just, well.... assumed.

I was the same with Hurt Locker. Saw a bootleg copy in the Middle East and thought it was a pretty decent indie-B grade DVD movie. Then I see it beating Avatar at the Oscars

Oh, gods. I had blocked out The Hurt Locker. I'm usually disappointed in any military movie as gross inconsistencies are abound, and doubly so for OIF and OEF movies as their goal was to propagandize against the war, but The Hurt Locker pushed this further into gak town than any military movie in history.

I hate that movie already, but I couldn't imagine how much more intensely I would have hated it had I watched it in country.

Gods and Generals

Rewatched this recently because I guess I remembered it being better for some reason? Holy gak this movie is bad XD Like, you'd think a film about eccentric weirdo Stonewall Jackson and the first phases of the Civil War would be exciting, but instead it's really really boring.

Not even going to into the film's questionable historical depictions and platitudes the mods won't like that. But I also kind of don't have to.

This movie is the equivalent of that guy you know who thinks being able to remember some nice quotes and turns of phrase qualifies as being intelligent. The action scenes are about the only saving grace, and they're few and far between enough they can't save everything else which feels like a really fethed up aesop that is using the worst examples to try and equivocate on the worst lessons. Every character is a cardboard cut out of the cardboard cut out versions of the historical persons. And it's so long...I've always thought the Civil War is this overblown thing people like to glorify for god awful reasons on basically all sides and this movie does everything in its power to reinforce my bias XD

EDIT: And maybe the worst part of the movie is the horrifically missed opportunity for excellence. It must have been one of the most jarring times to be alive to be alive at the start of the American Civil War. The film doesn't absolutely nothing to explore this moment, which is history to us but was life then. It just pontificates on the war like it's a stage play and treats the characters like they're actors playing out a part rather than people who lived in one of the strangest and bitterest of times.

I'd be interested in a movie like that, and shockingly I think you could be generous as feth with the Southern characters and still be less delusional about them or the war than this movie is.

Battlefield Earth. With the length of the book and the progression of the story it should never had been made into a movie. I could easily see it being at least a three season tv show.

 LordofHats wrote:
Gods and Generals

Rewatched this recently because I guess I remembered it being better for some reason? Holy gak this movie is bad XD Like, you'd think a film about eccentric weirdo Stonewall Jackson and the first phases of the Civil War would be exciting, but instead it's really really boring.

Not even going to into the film's questionable historical depictions and platitudes the mods won't like that. But I also kind of don't have to.

This movie is the equivalent of that guy you know who thinks being able to remember some nice quotes and turns of phrase qualifies as being intelligent. The action scenes are about the only saving grace, and they're few and far between enough they can't save everything else which feels like a really fethed up aesop that is using the worst examples to try and equivocate on the worst lessons. Every character is a cardboard cut out of the cardboard cut out versions of the historical persons. And it's so long...I've always thought the Civil War is this overblown thing people like to glorify for god awful reasons on basically all sides and this movie does everything in its power to reinforce my bias XD

EDIT: And maybe the worst part of the movie is the horrifically missed opportunity for excellence. It must have been one of the most jarring times to be alive to be alive at the start of the American Civil War. The film doesn't absolutely nothing to explore this moment, which is history to us but was life then. It just pontificates on the war like it's a stage play and treats the characters like they're actors playing out a part rather than people who lived in one of the strangest and bitterest of times.

I'd be interested in a movie like that, and shockingly I think you could be generous as feth with the Southern characters and still be less delusional about them or the war than this movie is.

That sounds a bit like Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” film; I have yet to figure out how you can make the biography of one of the most influential and successful leaders in history boring, but he managed it.

Might not quite top the list as *most* disappointing, but the recent Netflix Army of the Dead was really bad - and I had really high hopes for it.

The trailer looked fun, some of the characters looked interesting (Tig Notaro as a helicopter pilot? Color me intrigued!), and so long as it tried to avoid most of the tired zombie trope that gets recycled over and over...

It fell right into the trope, face first. Little flickers of fun here and there, but mostly really pretty bad...

I watched a good bit of the movie on Netflix 2x speed just to get it over... Bummer! (and how far has Zach Synder fallen since the great, character driven remake of Dawn of the Dead? Sheesh!)

Anyone else notice the fake dead pixels with Army of the Dead? Thought it was my TV, but apparently it was an issue with one of the cameras they shot with. It's literally a small thing, but it really colored my whole impression of the quality level of the film. Like...maybe fix that first?

 gorgon wrote:
Anyone else notice the fake dead pixels with Army of the Dead? Thought it was my TV, but apparently it was an issue with one of the cameras they shot with. It's literally a small thing, but it really colored my whole impression of the quality level of the film. Like...maybe fix that first?

I didn't but I can't tell the difference between "normal Tv" and HD etc....

The Film was pretty weak though

Yes, character and plot holes abound, but what sent me into a rage was:

Army of the Dead had some good acting, but it felt like the screenplay had been rewritten multiple times by different people... really all over the place.

Sometimes that's because half the film is on the cutting room floor. I know a good few films have been torn apart there - Alien 3 was massacred to make it fit theatre time frames and it suffered a lot for it. I know Sergio Leone had huge problems as wel.

Of course directors and writers can also get carried away - I think Gangs of New York had something like 8 hours cut from it.

 Overread wrote:
Sometimes that's because half the film is on the cutting room floor. I know a good few films have been torn apart there - Alien 3 was massacred to make it fit theatre time frames and it suffered a lot for it. I know Sergio Leone had huge problems as wel.

Of course directors and writers can also get carried away - I think Gangs of New York had something like 8 hours cut from it.

Alien 3 sounds like it was problematic from start to finish. Them completely cutting Paul McGann out of the film was pretty mad. I had read that David Fincher has practically disowned it and puts it down to him being young and inexperienced, although I don't think it's a bad film in most senses (and in many ways positively shines in terms of what came after in the franchise). But, reading some of the rejected script/storyline ideas, which featured Hicks and Newt in a far more interesting setting, I really think it was a missed opportunity.

Another vote for Us. I enjoyed Get Out but Us was just riddled with plot holes.

While thinking of book adaptations, I have to mention Mortal Engines. The trailer got me into the books, and I loved them. The movie on the other hand was an awful adaptation. While they inevitably have to cut some of the plot out due to timing, there's very, very little resemblance to the original plot or characters.

Fantastic visuals, awful movie.

Scream - another film I hate

Went to see it when I was still young - and nearly walked out but I was not driving.

Deeply unpleasant violence-porn - especially in the sadistically long initial killing of Drew Barrymore - no idea why people like this film given that the so called satire is drowned out in the flood of voyeuristic sadism against all the female characters. I longed for one of them to get out a gun and blow the idiots in masks away.

The violence in scream was meant to evoke the violence in the slasher movies it was sending up, misogynistic, fetishized and gratuitous. Sounds like it worked.

Maybe it needed to be exaggerated to Robocop levels of excess in order to be proper parody rather than falling into the same mold?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The violence in scream was meant to evoke the violence in the slasher movies it was sending up, misogynistic, fetishized and gratuitous. Sounds like it worked.

Maybe it needed to be exaggerated to Robocop levels of excess in order to be proper parody rather than falling into the same mold?

It never seemed to be sending up anything - half of an hour torturing a girl at the start for instance and glorying in it - repeated a number of times - but then the old snarky remark to somehow balance it,.....hmmm not buying it myself - personalyl I just found it to the same old torture porn "pretending" to be something else and i imagine enjoyed in exactly the same way.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Another vote for Us. I enjoyed Get Out but Us was just riddled with plot holes.

While thinking of book adaptations, I have to mention Mortal Engines. The trailer got me into the books, and I loved them. The movie on the other hand was an awful adaptation. While they inevitably have to cut some of the plot out due to timing, there's very, very little resemblance to the original plot or characters.

Fantastic visuals, awful movie.

For me the point at which I had no faith that the Mortal Engines movie would be anywhere near good as the books was as soon as Hester was revealed in the trailer. Her facial scars are downgraded from a missing eye, mouth permanently twisted into a sneer, and a destroyed nose into having both eyes, intact nose, mouth perfectly functional and some superficial scarring on her chin and cheek. Her appearance in the book is a visual metaphor of her soul, split in half between the good in her and the violence inflicted upon her which she has internalised into hatred of pretty much the entire world around her.

They discarded that kind of visual storytelling when adapting it into a visual medium. The whole point is that Tom sees past that outer ugliness to the true Hester inside. That doesn't work when she isn't ugly to begin with. It's basically doing the whole "ugly high schooler takes off her glasses and lets her hair down and now she is gorgeous, even though she wasn't actually ugly before because we couldn't actually cast a not stereotypically attractive actress in the lead role of our film."

 Mr Morden wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The violence in scream was meant to evoke the violence in the slasher movies it was sending up, misogynistic, fetishized and gratuitous. Sounds like it worked.

Maybe it needed to be exaggerated to Robocop levels of excess in order to be proper parody rather than falling into the same mold?

It never seemed to be sending up anything - half of an hour torturing a girl at the start for instance and glorying in it - repeated a number of times - but then the old snarky remark to somehow balance it,.....hmmm not buying it myself - personalyl I just found it to the same old torture porn "pretending" to be something else and i imagine enjoyed in exactly the same way.

Probably because you watched it after the age of Torture Porn, when it came out just before that hit, yet after Slashers were a big thing in Horror. Timing is everything with some of these films.

Just like there is no way you could capture the feel of watching the original Exorcist in theatre or the mass-hysteria/hype around the Blair Witch Project. Therefore, if you watch these films now..... it is hard to understand what made them so special.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The violence in scream was meant to evoke the violence in the slasher movies it was sending up, misogynistic, fetishized and gratuitous. Sounds like it worked.

Maybe it needed to be exaggerated to Robocop levels of excess in order to be proper parody rather than falling into the same mold?

It never seemed to be sending up anything - half of an hour torturing a girl at the start for instance and glorying in it - repeated a number of times - but then the old snarky remark to somehow balance it,.....hmmm not buying it myself - personalyl I just found it to the same old torture porn "pretending" to be something else and i imagine enjoyed in exactly the same way.

Fair enough, I guess.

As someone who never enjoyed slasher movies unironically, I enjoyed Scream as a parody of slasher movie tropes. But I can see where you’re coming from.