Bullets 'n' Babes

EvaUnit02 wrote:

thelostdragon wrote:Critics hate it! Probably because it is full of racist jokes!

Nope, because they thought that it's a bad film.

Well, duh...!

I seem to remember the critics hating the past two so on this one it doesn't mean much to me, you're either a Jackie fan or you're not.

I'll be seeing it tonight.

Its gonna be bollocks, but hell who cares I will see it next weekend, but its far from something I expect to be in my top 50 of the year thats for sure. Just stupid, midless fun like the first two films.

bradavon wrote:I seem to remember the critics hating the past two so on this one it doesn't mean much to me, you're either a Jackie fan or you're not.

I'll be seeing it tonight.

I'm a Jackie fan, but not sure if I want to see this.. ironically, I watched the first Rush Hour in 1998, back when I was first getting into JC movies... and quite enjoyed it I guess

I really disliked part 1, thought part 2 was good to really good and not sure what part 3 is going to be like. Certainly getting the feeling it is milking a franchise somewhat, but I'll see it at some point. Not sure if it'll be in the cinema though.

I'll rent the DVD even though I know it's gonna be a steaming bag o' cat shite.

Going in with open eyes Mark then?

Really Rush Hour 2 was milking it too, it's not like they can add anything or remove it really. There's not much there to start with, just like most of Jackie's films. Along as there is enough I'm usually happy with them.

Ratner is mostly an awful director but here he is in his element, there's not a huge amount he can cock up IMO. It's not like I think many of the so called Jackie classics I like anyway.

Personally I prefer the Rush Hour films to the Shanghai ones, Knights was a stinker.

Funny I preferred the Shanghai films to the Rush Hour ones

bradavon wrote:Ratner is mostly an awful director

As far as I'm aware, he hasn't made an awful film yet. I know he's nothing special, mind.

gasteropod wrote:

bradavon wrote:Ratner is mostly an awful director

As far as I'm aware, he hasn't made an awful film yet.

Seems he has now.

Ratner is a mediocre hack at best.

Red Dragon was far from awful, average at best. Not a patch on Manhunter though, Manhunter is wonderful (and that includes the bad 80's songs, they're a part of the experience).

I have yet to see an awful film by Ratner.

But have you seen a good film by him yet, or just lots of mediocre average ones.

I really enjoyed Rush Hour 2, but I would never put it in the same "good" category as other recognisably good films... if that makes sense.

Well, I have enjoyed all the movies I have seen from him so far, meaning both Rush Hours and X-Men 3.

Okay he's no McG who is awful.

Despite the terrible review on DVD Times, I'd still like to see the film, and will be getting the trilogy on Blu-ray when it comes out. I didn't think Chris Tucker nearly ruined The Fifth Element at all, I liked his part in it.

Chris Tucker is fine IMO, not half as annoying as people make out.

You lot are confusing bad scripts with bad direction, Ratner is NOT bad, he obviously can direct and well. But he is always lumbered with shitty scripts that are frankly a mess and full of shite. X Men 3 is the best example of this, total shit script from beginning to end with no focus at all. He was fooked from the word go.

Hence all his films seem to feel wrong, bland or pretty unimpressive. One day he will get a good script to make a film from.

Chris Tucker is a fucker, he is gonna get $50+ million from this film, that pathetic the fat shit does not deserve that in any alternate universe!

Surely if a director is good enough he can make an OK film even if the script is bad/not very good?

Like "Versus"?

grim_tales wrote:Surely if a director is good enough he can make an OK film even if the script is bad/not very good?

How? if the plots shit that it, end of film.


Nothing wrong with Versus script, it does exactly what is required of it. Theres a big diffeence between shit script (X MEN 3, Rush Hour film) and simple scripts like Versus, which has no complex stuff to get across or charecters to pad out the talking anyway.

romerojpg wrote:How? if the plots shit that it, end of film.

I cannot believe a member of an Asian film board would make a statement like this! If there's one thing any HK film fan should have learnt by now, it's that you can make a decent film with a lousy (or non-existent) narrative. The Action genre, both here in the west and in asia is full of examples of this.

Ahh action yes, asian action esspecially Hollywood films seem to need more.

Shingster wrote:

romerojpg wrote:How? if the plots shit that it, end of film.

I cannot believe a member of an Asian film board would make a statement like this! If there's one thing any HK film fan should have learnt by now, it's that you can make a decent film with a lousy (or non-existent) narrative. The Action genre, both here in the west and in asia is full of examples of this.

Exactly!