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.
It's fascinating to me how many movies folks mention here as disappointing are favorites of others (including myself ). I'm guessing this is due to high expectations / wanting them to be really great, and feeling they fell short. Dunkirk falls into this category, I think.
Here's another interesting war movie - Rotten Tomatoes score 41%, Audience score 92%:
I saw it in the theater with no expectations and was shocked at how good it was - particularly the feel of the dive bombers doing their runs. I had never really pictured this and it was very cool to experience in that setting (although I'm sure not totally realistic). Anyway, from my point of view it's well worth checking out if you missed it, but if you are a big history buff it might make your "disappointment" list here
Omg yes! Midway was absolutely fantastic. I was expecting an action movie with a thin WW2 veneer and was very pleasantly surprised that they actually touched on just about every contributing factor to the outcome of that battle. The embellishment was kept to a minimum. I would have preferred if they left out Pearl and the Doolittle Raid to focus solely on Midway itself but it was still a solid flick in my book.
Hmm maybe I was thinking about Jaws2 got a mix up. But I agree 3 was just garbage.
Jaws 2 had the shark get electrocuted.
And the less said about Jaws 4, the better. Though it did have an immortal line delivery by Michael Caine and also the appearance of his miraculously drying shirt.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I didn't mind Dunkirk I guess it depends on your level of expectation going into the movie. I really don't like Fury but I wasn't expecting it to be a good movies from the start but with Fury I'd not count myself disappointed.
I found it odd that people don't like Battlefield Los Angeles. I thought as alien invasion films go it was pretty solid. I mean there's some funny things about the aliens motivations but when is there not? The acting was all pretty solid and I liked the progression from getting murderised by the aliens then learning the physiology of their enemy, adapting and finally overcoming.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/01 22:11:17
Wasn't the reason for the Jaws 3 effects being as they were because it was an early "3D" film and the method used looked good in a specially made 3D cinema, but fell flat when shown in regular. A feature that I think also happens to other specialist 3D films, but where they today produce two versions - a 3D and a regular - so that you view using the right screen with the right version.
I recall when 3D glasses were "all the rage" for a bit and if you took them off the film was blurry.
Something I feel needs mentioning... the nature of a movie's continuity errors and problems with suspension of disbelief, shouldn't necessarily be something that makes the movie automatically "bad".
Case in point? Schwarzenegger's "Commando". Brilliant cheesy action movie, if that's what you're after. With such magical cinematic gems as:
- the single-blow instant-kill elbow to the face!
- the magical self-repairing car, that flips multiple times with visible damage and a door ripped clean off, before driving away seconds later in perfect condition!
- the assault rifle with an endless magazine that never needs reloading - except when necessary for dramatic purposes!
- the rocket launcher that can be fired from the back of a moving car without swerving or ripping off the poor untrained civilian's arm!
Honestly, half of the fun is watching for these kinds of moments, and building a drinking game around them.
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch
OldMate wrote: I didn't mind Dunkirk I guess it depends on your level of expectation going into the movie. I really don't like Fury but I wasn't expecting it to be a good movies from the start but with Fury I'd not count myself disappointed.
I found it odd that people don't like Battlefield Los Angeles. I thought as alien invasion films go it was pretty solid. I mean there's some funny things about the aliens motivations but when is there not? The acting was all pretty solid and I liked the progression from getting murderised by the aliens then learning the physiology of their enemy, adapting and finally overcoming.
I liked Battle LA just fine, it was a fun movie that hit the right notes. I personally think OG Independence Day does alien invasion blockbuster the best though. It's just so entertaining.
OldMate wrote: I didn't mind Dunkirk I guess it depends on your level of expectation going into the movie. I really don't like Fury but I wasn't expecting it to be a good movies from the start but with Fury I'd not count myself disappointed.
I found it odd that people don't like Battlefield Los Angeles. I thought as alien invasion films go it was pretty solid. I mean there's some funny things about the aliens motivations but when is there not? The acting was all pretty solid and I liked the progression from getting murderised by the aliens then learning the physiology of their enemy, adapting and finally overcoming.
I meant to say that I actually liked Dunkirk, too - and felt people who didn't must have had really high expectations. So, I agree with you
I was actually quite disappointed by Battlefield Los Angeles, again because I was expecting something so awesome (it's my favorite genre!) and I felt like the main character in particular was just terrible (some combination of lines / plot / character / acting... just did not work for me).
scarletsquig wrote: Incredibles 2 - so, very, very disappointing. I don't even want to talk about it!
That's an interesting selection! It wasn't something I was that invested in but I do tend to agree... big lost opportunity...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 00:43:29
scarletsquig wrote: Incredibles 2 - so, very, very disappointing. I don't even want to talk about it!
All I can remember about that film was that there was mind control via television. It was very forgettable.
Also in 3D animation films...Sausage Party. I don't recall when or why I watched it, but browsing YouTube or Reddit mindlessly would have been more productive.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
RiTides wrote: It's fascinating to me how many movies folks mention here as disappointing are favorites of others (including myself ). I'm guessing this is due to high expectations / wanting them to be really great, and feeling they fell short. Dunkirk falls into this category, I think.
Here's another interesting war movie - Rotten Tomatoes score 41%, Audience score 92%:
I saw it in the theater with no expectations and was shocked at how good it was - particularly the feel of the dive bombers doing their runs. I had never really pictured this and it was very cool to experience in that setting (although I'm sure not totally realistic). Anyway, from my point of view it's well worth checking out if you missed it, but if you are a big history buff it might make your "disappointment" list here
I think the only really bad part about Midway* was how the CGI ships, planes, and explosions could often be very uncanny valley at times. Especially in moments of high tension or suspense, I found the really obvious CGI is obvious effects to be rather defeating for the movie's efforts. The destruction of the Arizona in particular was hard to feel anything about solely because you can practical see the green screen set it was filmed on.
*Other than some nonsensical historical anachronisms that don't make sense in such a serious attempt at historical accuracy but none of those really detracted from the film. It's a far more faithful attempt at telling the story straight than most war movies.
Lance845 wrote: I barely remember Battle LA, but I do remember seeing the aliens and being like "Oh. Necrons with Gauss weapons." Which is pretty sweet.
I consider this movie to be one of my favorite comedies. It's just such a laughably bad and cliche'd effort. I had no real expectations of it but it ended up being so bad I enjoyed it XD I think I've come to a similar place with Battleship. Gotta give some credit to actors who are in a god awful movie, know they're in a god awful movie, and still try to give it their best shot and manage to make the movie kind of fun for how hard they're trying and how bad the final product still is. Respect
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 04:42:11
I really enjoy Battle LA, even if it is just a pastiche of every war film cliche you could imagine. Apart from the very beginning; most alien invasion films lean into this disbelief/not realising what’s happening confusion, normally with the hero being the only one to realise the danger. Battle LA shows a much more competent military, who march into the briefing room and are like, “right identical objects slowing down and manoeuvring, so aliens, and they’re coming down in large numbers off the coast of occupied areas, therefore invasion. Hop to it.”
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
insaniak wrote: I strongly suspect that in order to have not seen that coming, you would need to have left the room 15 minutes prior to the film starting...
Really? I really enjoyed that film and it was a surprise to me. It was fun film with silliness and even the death at the end was a bit different to the normal filme fare..
Honestly, the only way that death could have been more blatantly telegraphed was if he was wearing a bikini, took off his top, and said 'Gosh, I hope there's no sharks in this here pool...'
The movie had kind of 'anti-telegraph' maneuver when they talked that standing next to the pool might be dangerous, which usually means it isn't. Also, there was this kind of mystery story with his character which was left incomplete.
Jaws 3d could have had the best sfx in the history of cinema and it still would have sucked.
The movie was just so stupid. How was a giant shark able to swim around in a relatively small environment meant to be visually accessible and observable ? What? A romulan scout vessel crashed on earth and the shark swallowed it's cloaking device?
It was undetected for so long then suddenly everyone can see it all the time?
It had a full grown man in diving gear stuck in it's throat and it's still swimming around trying to eat people? Hey, I get a peanut stuck in my throat and i'm not doing xxxx until i swallow it or cough it out.
It gets dumber. A dead man holding into a grenade? the shark politely pulling out of the control center before exploding. I'm sorry, this is hurting my brain too much to go on....
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..."
OldMate wrote: Hmm a tie between Starship Troopers 3 and Jaws 2.
I loved the original starship troopers,
Ugh. Starship Troopers. It was nothing like the novel. I wanted to see power armoured apes killing high tech enemies on the bounce, sorta like the SM. What did we get? Imperial fething Guard against Tyranids. Generic mass enemy shooting, hardly any tension. Plot armour was thick with that one, as were plot guns. Yeah that little piece thrown in to show how to effectively neutralize a Bug with basically a CNS shot, but then the literal Space Cadet can do it after a crash landing with a PDW when the dual DShK mounts couldn't?
The novel wasn't about meat grinder need for new recruits to run the economy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 15:15:52
Jadenim wrote: I really enjoy Battle LA, even if it is just a pastiche of every war film cliche you could imagine. Apart from the very beginning; most alien invasion films lean into this disbelief/not realising what’s happening confusion, normally with the hero being the only one to realise the danger. Battle LA shows a much more competent military, who march into the briefing room and are like, “right identical objects slowing down and manoeuvring, so aliens, and they’re coming down in large numbers off the coast of occupied areas, therefore invasion. Hop to it.”
I agree the film plays things straighter than a typical alien invasion movie, but I wouldn't really call assuming an alien invader has no air support particularly competent XD It's the first thing in the movie that has me go 'lolwut'? Aliens have landed for all of thirty minutes and the military has decided 'they have no heavy weapons and no air support, stupid aliens are invading with nothing but infantry'. It's just a really dumb assumption to make. The movie is made of moments like that, along with lots of jilted dialogue that feels copy pasted from other movies, actors that are trying but just can't save the completely uninspired script, and occasional situational weirdness that makes a bad movie funny. EDIT: Not to mention what is clearly bad cutting in post-production.
My favorite scene is the alien autopsy, where tension and suspense are built up for the grand reveal that the alien weak point is... In the chest. AKA Center of Mass. AKA where any trained soldier should already be aiming, but apparently there's a hidden menu in the movie where the Marines have to perform a monotonous task, fill out the 'pointless discovery' bar with mashing the stab button a few times, and only then do they get a damage buff that lets them actually kill aliens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 16:20:37
Jadenim wrote: I really enjoy Battle LA, even if it is just a pastiche of every war film cliche you could imagine. Apart from the very beginning; most alien invasion films lean into this disbelief/not realising what’s happening confusion, normally with the hero being the only one to realise the danger. Battle LA shows a much more competent military, who march into the briefing room and are like, “right identical objects slowing down and manoeuvring, so aliens, and they’re coming down in large numbers off the coast of occupied areas, therefore invasion. Hop to it.”
I agree the film plays things straighter than a typical alien invasion movie, but I wouldn't really call assuming an alien invader has no air support particularly competent XD It's the first thing in the movie that has me go 'lolwut'? Aliens have landed for all of thirty minutes and the military has decided 'they have no heavy weapons and no air support, stupid aliens are invading with nothing but infantry'. It's just a really dumb assumption to make. The movie is made of moments like that, along with lots of jilted dialogue that feels copy pasted from other movies, actors that are trying but just can't save the completely uninspired script, and occasional situational weirdness that makes a bad movie funny. EDIT: Not to mention what is clearly bad cutting in post-production.
My favorite scene is the alien autopsy, where tension and suspense are built up for the grand reveal that the alien weak point is... In the chest. AKA Center of Mass. AKA where any trained soldier should already be aiming, but apparently there's a hidden menu in the movie where the Marines have to perform a monotonous task, fill out the 'pointless discovery' bar with mashing the stab button a few times, and only then do they get a damage buff that lets them actually kill aliens.
I don't recall Battle LA very well, I did recall the silly COM damage chart, which was hilarious. The lack of air support/armour/artillery rings a bell but it's fuzzy.
One honourable mention is ... Battleship. I actually really enjoyed that movie. As silly as the premise was, making a movie over that board game, and the twin Barrett against the windshield trick was questionable AF (why not open up with the 5"? )
But like the low bar set for many of my Night Shift movies I actually thought the trick of incorporating the pre laid wave height net as grid references for calling the shots, like in the game, was it's saving grace. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying it was a good movie but a decent bad movie that *didn't* disappoint.
Kayback wrote: One honourable mention is ... Battleship. I actually really enjoyed that movie. As silly as the premise was, making a movie over that board game, and the twin Barrett against the windshield trick was questionable AF (why not open up with the 5"? )
Yeah I mentioned BS earlier. It's in the same category as Battle LA for me. The movie is bad, cliched, and uninspired but it's got this odd mix of badness that makes it a very funny movie to me. Lots of things are super questionable in it.
I rather liked how the ship's fire control officer, his immediate subordinate, and I think the chief engineer are the ones sent out on a dingy to investigate the weird structure found in the ocean. It reminded me of how silly it is that Star Trek always sends the command screw into dangerous and unknown situations, because it's not like the ship might need its tactical officer, chief medic, or chief engineer for anything else anytime soon XD Also the MC being a complete looser who somehow managed to get into an officer program right off the bat despite having no apparent qualifications for it XD The roller ball weapons were also just straight silly.
I also agree that the movie's battleship grid moment was actually a fairly neat idea as far as cinema goes. Unlike Battle LA, Battleship actually had a few decent ideas (like the alien's motives being mostly inscrutable). The scene where the Missouri fires all its guns was also just the kind of 'look at this dakka' moment I'd expect from a B-grade movie. A shame the scene was preceded by the really nonsensical one where navy men trained for running warships are apparently world class snipers XD
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 16:48:45
I love that the aliens in Battleship don't actually appear aggressive and only retaliate when fired upon. It's not a good or smart movie by any means, but when they're powersliding the battleship for the broadside in one of the stupidest things I've ever seen, I was still on my feet cheering.
Battle LA is clearly a videogame. It even ends with "hold this point until the timer expires" before the last boss reveals his final form.
Super Ready wrote:Something I feel needs mentioning... the nature of a movie's continuity errors and problems with suspension of disbelief, shouldn't necessarily be something that makes the movie automatically "bad".
Case in point? Schwarzenegger's "Commando". Brilliant cheesy action movie, if that's what you're after. With such magical cinematic gems as:
- the single-blow instant-kill elbow to the face!
- the magical self-repairing car, that flips multiple times with visible damage and a door ripped clean off, before driving away seconds later in perfect condition!
- the assault rifle with an endless magazine that never needs reloading - except when necessary for dramatic purposes!
- the rocket launcher that can be fired from the back of a moving car without swerving or ripping off the poor untrained civilian's arm!
Honestly, half of the fun is watching for these kinds of moments, and building a drinking game around them.
Haha totally agree it is definitely part of the charm of that film. Friends and I used to love watching it repeatedly, saying the lines as they were coming up and laughing at some of those bits.
OldMate wrote:I didn't mind Dunkirk I guess it depends on your level of expectation going into the movie. I really don't like Fury but I wasn't expecting it to be a good movies from the start but with Fury I'd not count myself disappointed.
I have a question about Fury - I still haven't watched that film after reading someone's account of SS troops suicide-charging the tank at the end of the film.
As I like history (and hate films that take liberties, or just make gak up - U571 etc.) is there actually much enjoyment to be had in that film?
Pacific wrote: I have a question about Fury - I still haven't watched that film after reading someone's account of SS troops suicide-charging the tank at the end of the film.
As I like history (and hate films that take liberties, or just make gak up - U571 etc.) is there actually much enjoyment to be had in that film?
I think the primary reason to watch Fury is 2 fold;
-The tanks used in the film are not replicas. The Shermans and Tiger 131 were all loaned to the production by museums (mostly the Bovington Tank Museum). You get to see these tanks do cool gak and that's mostly the movies main pro.
-Actually pretty good acting and characters. The main cast of the movie did a rather stellar job bringing the film to life. The movie trends more toward the 'war is hell' side of things but also has lots of 'oh yeah!' moments.
I wouldn't call the movie particularly historically accurate but I also wouldn't say it's wildly inaccurate. Several of it's commonly cited inaccuracies aren't even all that far fetched in real terms. One example is the battle with the Tiger which some criticized for only featuring one Tiger (Tigers in the late war tended to operate in pairs) and for the battle opening with the destruction of the tank at the back of the column (it would make more sense to destroy the tank at the front). But German tank crews at the end of the war were scarce and often inexperienced or poorly trained. Expecting a Tiger crew to be aces who would make smart moves just because they're in a tiger is fallacious. Breakdowns and fuel shortages also led droves of German vehicles to simply be abandoned so it's not unrealistic to find a lone Tiger wandering the German country side as the battle lines broke down at the war's end. It's partner could have been lost off screen and such is largely irrelevant to the film itself. I would not consider these things to be particularly inaccurate.
The adheres a bit to the work of Belton Cooper's book Death Traps which is now largely considered to be a very misleading account of armored warfare in WWII (by historians) but it it is in line with how most people think about the war and most of the scenes in the movie are based on accounts from tankers who served in the war.
People have panned the final battle scene of the film, but I think it's not nearly as unrealistic as some critics claim. The immediate inspiration for it seems to have been a anecdote from Death Traps that never happened and was one of many examples of Belton Cooper having no idea what he was talking about. Others have suggested the ending was inspired by the 1943 film Sahara, which has a similar ending featuring the crew of an M3 Lee. There is a real life analog for the final scene however, so I wouldn't consider the film too unrealistic just borderline miraculous; Audie Murphy, Holtzwihr Germany 1945. Murphy's M10 Tank Destroyer was disabled in combat and Murphy ordered the vehicle abandoned because it was stuck in a road with no cover. For over an hour, Murphy fought alone from the tank destroyer as it burned, directing artillery fire, repelling assaults from German troops, and firing the vehicle's mounted 50 caliber machine gun. He was credited with killing 50 German soldiers and was awarded the Medal of Honor for the action. The makers of Fury don't seem to have known about Murphy's story but the scene at the end of the movie is rather similar, just with the crew of an M4 instead of an M10.
There was also a similar action in the Korean War with an M26. The commander of that tank was also awarded the Medal of Honor.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/11/02 18:09:52
LunarSol wrote: I love that the aliens in Battleship don't actually appear aggressive and only retaliate when fired upon. It's not a good or smart movie by any means, but when they're powersliding the battleship for the broadside in one of the stupidest things I've ever seen, I was still on my feet cheering.
Battle LA is clearly a videogame. It even ends with "hold this point until the timer expires" before the last boss reveals his final form.
Battleship
Its a great fun film agreed its notable the Aliens go out of their way to not target civilians having a really specific TOE - which of course is used aganst them!
Skyline is also excellent and I enjoyed the sequal alot too
Battle LA - started well and goes down hill with the autopsy scene a high point and is (IMO) greatly inferior to both these films
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Super Ready wrote: Something I feel needs mentioning... the nature of a movie's continuity errors and problems with suspension of disbelief, shouldn't necessarily be something that makes the movie automatically "bad".
Case in point? Schwarzenegger's "Commando". Brilliant cheesy action movie, if that's what you're after. With such magical cinematic gems as:
- the single-blow instant-kill elbow to the face!
- the magical self-repairing car, that flips multiple times with visible damage and a door ripped clean off, before driving away seconds later in perfect condition!
- the assault rifle with an endless magazine that never needs reloading - except when necessary for dramatic purposes!
- the rocket launcher that can be fired from the back of a moving car without swerving or ripping off the poor untrained civilian's arm!
Honestly, half of the fun is watching for these kinds of moments, and building a drinking game around them.
). I'm guessing this is due to high expectations / wanting them to be really great, and feeling they fell short. Dunkirk falls into this category, I think.
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch 
