Films you found to be not as good as the hype...

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 09 Apr 2009, 20:40

I feel Ron Howard is a pretty damn good director. Haven't seen all his movies, but the ones I did see, were very good.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 09 Apr 2009, 20:50

bradavon wrote:
Ransom, Apollo 13, Cocoon and Splash are also good but IMO Forrest Gump is his only great film.

Ron Howard didn't make Forrest Gump,Robert Zemeckis did

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 09 Apr 2009, 21:22

Yeah I was like whut??

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 09 Apr 2009, 21:45

Forrest Gump was good but A Beautiful Mind was boring IMO. It didn't deserve best picture.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 09 Apr 2009, 23:45

bradavon wrote:It's all natural. You were the one annoyed Reeves wasn't in Superman Returns when you know full well it was impossible.

You really aren't faking!!

Right okay because if you say Hard Target is better, it must be.

Finally. I'm glad we got that sorted.

I've never enjoyed a JCVD movie, the guy is an awful actor and painful to watch.

Disagree, but we'll move on.

You forgot Travolta btw.

I try to forget Travolta's performance in Face/Off. Hard to believe the same guy starred in Pulp Fiction and Get Shorty.

Face/Offf is a very good Hollywood action film, obviously it's no Predator or Terminator 1+2 but no one said it was.

Face/Off is a mainstream action movie for people who don't really like action movies. The type of person who thinks Spider-Man is a martial arts movie.

Markgway wrote:Are you sure?

Yes, I'm sure. You now nothing about martial arts choreography.

Because the title of the thread is: "Films you found to be not as good as the hype..."

Not:

"Films you found to be not as good as the hype... except those Mark happens to like".

It's nothing to do with you not appreciating Police Story or Drunken Master II - they're not for everyone I know. It's your bizarre assertion that the martial arts were dull and average. That's so ill-informed as to be silly and irrelevant. It's like me saying Fred Astaire was a lame dancer. A dim-bulb comment that only you would make.

Christ you can be deliberately annoying at times.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

luckystars wrote:And can Mark and Brad get a room - they make me not want to log in these days

Fuck off then!! :x

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 09 Apr 2009, 23:49

romerojpg wrote:Total Recall and Robocop are masterpieces.

I don't know if I'd say "masterpieces" as such... but I'm definately on your side this time. 8)

You shoot Yi-Long in the face, I'll kick Brad in the balls. :shock:

P.S. I enjoyed Starship Troopers. I just think it's not in the same smart, sharp league as Verhoeven's earlier movies. The satire is REALLY heavy-handed and the acting is fucking appalling.

saltysam wrote:A Beautiful Mind & Forrest Gump- these films won oscars,unbelievably! Ron Howard is a poor director imo.

Gump is a load of mawkish pants.

But Howard has his moments. RANSOM was a cracking thriller.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 09 Apr 2009, 23:57

EvaUnit02 wrote:Full Metal Jacket - 3.75/5:
Fantastic first half during the boot camp, weak second half when they get to Vietnam. It didn't feel like any Vietnam that I've other films before. It did look like the abandoned industrial sector of Western city (South London was where it was shot, I think. Fucking Kubrick should've gone to Thailand like everyone else.).

Spot on assessment.

Now Poltergeist is really overrated too.

Yes, but the final third is very good.

Oh and fuck, Matilda May was utterly smoking hot, spending most of the film totally naked.

I really should see this film... for the, erm, science.

Gremlins: I liked the self-aware sequel that takes the piss out of its self a lot more than the original, TBH.

Both are fun, but don't quite hit the target. The sequel is too all over the place to work as anything other than wacky satire.

But oh man, was Phoebe Cates was really hot back then.

Kevin Kline is a lucky, lucky bastard.

Rocky IV is pretty much Rambo II is boxing ring and it is fucking awesome.

Lol... it's true. Rocky III is my fave as it has the best balance of drama and action, but IV is great fun. 90m of pop rock, training sequences, and muscly guys walloping each other in the face. What's not to like??

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 10 Apr 2009, 00:16

EvaUnit02 wrote: The Hills Have Eyes (Craven original): 1/5
It's very shit, why does this film have a following? It's like it wants to be Texas Chainsaw Massacre but comes across as too campy with the bad make-up and over-the-top performances. Craven should've hired Tom Savini.

Yup I hate it when people praise this film as one of the single best horror films ever made

I just guess some people are blind and on massive amounts of crack! I hated it so much, it was like some joke it was so badly made and acted, by students from the look of it. The gore was just like some childs make up effects on a school christmas show.

But I love the Remake from 2006! that blew my socks off, perfectly made and acted, with massive amounts of gore and nasty shit. I hated the organal so much its amazing they could even remake that turd and get good results.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Apr 2009, 00:35

saltysam wrote:Ron Howard didn't make Forrest Gump,Robert Zemeckis did

I blame you of course, for confusing me

. Okay Apollo 11 is his best work then.

Markgway wrote:It's nothing to do with you not appreciating Police Story or Drunken Master II - they're not for everyone I know. It's your bizarre assertion that the martial arts were dull and average.

Do I have to add IMO just to make you happy? The fact I found it boring has nothing to do with the technical level of the martial arts. I found the martial arts mostly boring (especially in Drunken Master 2). As to being average, well like I just said IMO. I found it average. I wasn't saying it's not impressive from a "technical point of view", you added that bit.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Apr 2009, 01:18

EvaUnit02 wrote:Full Metal Jacket - 3.75/5:
South London was where it was shot, I think. Fucking Kubrick should've gone to Thailand like everyone else.

I've not seen it but thought the same. I may feel even more so, seeing as I know that part of the world. I'm in no rush to check it out tbh.

EvaUnit02 wrote:I didn't enjoy it much at all, unlike Mulholland Dr, Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart - which are all excellent. Weird for sake of being weird.

I definitely agree about Mulholland Drive (my fave Lynch film) and Blue Velvet, both excellent films. I thought the same about Lost Highway, Weird for sake of being weird.

I take it you heard what Lynch did with the cow? Hilarious .

EvaUnit02 wrote:Now Poltergeist is really overrated too. More laughably cheesy rather than scary.

I don't recall it being scary but not cheesy either. Just a good horror film, not amazing though.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Rocky - 3/5
Utterly criminal how Taxi Driver lost to this film.

I cannot believe that either. It's a nice enough film but like the rest of them, it's entirely passable for me. Except Rocky 4, which is definitely a guilty pleasure.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 10 Apr 2009, 01:19

Mulholland Dr I think I gave 0.5 out of 5

but I still own it, it's strangley curiously watchable and I will go back one day. I only paid £1 as well which helps haha

APPINESS · Post by **APPINESS** » 10 Apr 2009, 02:25

Other Overated films.

Trainspotting. Not a bad film just way too overatted.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. What a mind trip, in a bad way. I suppose I must dislike films about mindless junkies.
A Clockwork Orange. Maybe I should give this another chance, but then again maybe not. Mindless sickening violence.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 10 Apr 2009, 10:44

Maybe Fred Astaire's dancing might not be to everyone's taste, I don't know

Just going back to something Mark said. Does someone saying they didnt like Fred's dancing as much but (say) Gene Kelly was better make them ignorant? I don't think so because the comment has been qualified and backed up. Simply saying ".... was lame" and not backing it up is ignorant.
If Brad doesnt like the martial arts in Police Story that's just his opinion

IMO Jackie did some of his greatest work in the 80's.

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 10 Apr 2009, 12:40

APPINESS wrote:Other Overated films.

Trainspotting. Not a bad film just way too overatted.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. What a mind trip, in a bad way. I suppose I must dislike films about mindless junkies.
A Clockwork Orange. Maybe I should give this another chance, but then again maybe not. Mindless sickening violence.

Those 3 I rate as five star films sorry - I can understand people hating each one tho

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 10 Apr 2009, 13:11

grim_tales wrote:Maybe Fred Astaire's dancing might not be to everyone's taste, I don't know Just going back to something Mark said. Does someone saying they didnt like Fred's dancing as much but (say) Gene Kelly was better make them ignorant? I don't think so because the comment has been qualified and backed up. Simply saying ".... was lame" and not backing it up is ignorant.
If Brad doesnt like the martial arts in Police Story that's just his opinion IMO Jackie did some of his greatest work in the 80's.

If Brad had said he didn't like Drunken Master II because the story was weak I wouldn't have said anything... if he'd said the comedy was lame I would've said nothing... if he'd criticized the acting I would've kept quiet... but to call the martial arts dull and average displays an astonishing ignorance of the genre. The final battle in particular is excellent by any standard. Even if I thought the film was crapola I wouldn't call the Kung Fu dull or average. My annoyance was at that particular remark not his general dislike of the movie (an opinion which he's fully entitled to).

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 10 Apr 2009, 13:34

Fair enough. I agree, the last fight is awesome

diceman · Post by **diceman** » 10 Apr 2009, 14:06

HungFist wrote:
IronMonkey wrote:
HungFist wrote:
gasteropod wrote: (the Final Cut )
(the Director's Cut )
No, the Final Cut!
Go watch George Lucas films. The new editions.

Whoa, the entire board wants to kill me today

I won't (yet), since you still need to send me some stuff.

But seriously, it's "Final Cut" all the way. What Ridley Scott did here is a subtle improvement in every way. Nothing like George Lucas fucking "Star Wars" up the ass or Wong Kar-Wai tampering with "Ashes of Time", thus destroying large parts of his original vision.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 10 Apr 2009, 14:09

I thought Lucas said some stuff about how he always wanted SW to be in CGI etc, its just in the 70's he didnt have the technology to do it.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 10 Apr 2009, 14:13

They should remake the complete Star Wars saga in gorgeous CGI. I've said so many times before. I'm not a fan of the movies, but I do love the vision, the design and the epic scope of the story and it's universe. The movies are let down by mediocre acting and dialogue, and poor special effects.

However, I'd prefer to see a CGI version of Lanfeust of Troy, instead of Star Wars.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 10 Apr 2009, 15:06

grim_tales wrote:I thought Lucas said some stuff about how he always wanted SW to be in CGI etc, its just in the 70's he didnt have the technology to do it.

Yes, yes, and Charlie Chaplin wanted to have a spacecraft in Modern Times, they just hadn't invented it yet.

Movies are products of their time. That's one of the best things about them. It sucks when an old film has been spiced with new technology and above all, new thinking. If I try to watch the new version of Star Wars I can't make out which parts of the film resemble 1970's thinking, beliefs and ideologies, and what originates from 1990's or 2000's (except the most obvious changes, like added cgi). This makes films much less interesting and less rewarding for thinking people.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 10 Apr 2009, 15:31

HungFist wrote:
grim_tales wrote:I thought Lucas said some stuff about how he always wanted SW to be in CGI etc, its just in the 70's he didnt have the technology to do it.
Yes, yes, and Charlie Chaplin wanted to have a spacecraft in Modern Times, they just hadn't invented it yet.

Movies are products of their time. That's one of the best things about them. It sucks when an old film has been spiced with new technology and above all, new thinking. If I try to watch the new version of Star Wars I can't make out which parts of the film resemble 1970's thinking, beliefs and ideologies, and what originates from 1990's or 2000's (except the most obvious changes, like added cgi). This makes films much less interesting and less rewarding for thinking people.

I agree. They should let the movies that are already made, be.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Apr 2009, 16:01

APPINESS wrote:A Clockwork Orange. Maybe I should give this another chance, but then again maybe not. Mindless sickening violence.

I wouldn't say it was mindless violence but agreed it is overrated. I've seen it a couple of times and have enjoyed it but it's not really a keeper for me. Not in the way The Shining and 2001 are.

Markgway wrote:If Brad had said he didn't like Drunken Master II because the story was weak I wouldn't have said anything... if he'd said the comedy was lame I would've said nothing... if he'd criticized the acting I would've kept quiet...

It's all those too. Okay enough Mark, move on.

You clearly don't understand what I was saying about the martial arts so I'm not going to repeat myself. I already said technically I can see it's impressive (just not for me). For me it's dull and average, end of.

grim_tales wrote:I thought Lucas said some stuff about how he always wanted SW to be in CGI etc, its just in the 70's he didnt have the technology to do it.

The thing is that maybe true but it's so easy to say that now. I doubt it would've been as popular if he had done that.

Besides it's a dumb comment, computers back then were dumb processing units, which virtually no one had any concept at all of knowing what they would become capable of.

Yi-Long wrote:They should remake the complete Star Wars saga in gorgeous CGI. I've said so many times before. I'm not a fan of the movies, but I do love the vision, the design and the epic scope of the story and it's universe. The movies are let down by mediocre acting and dialogue, and poor special effects.

I'm unsure if you're joking of being serious here. I'm going to say a bit of both:

CGI = No
Acting/Dialogue = Yes

Sure the acting and dialogue in particular is poor at times but then like I keep saying it's even worse in many so called classic martial arts films. Which for me is why they're simply not as good as most say.

Oddly this doesn't bother me in the slightest in Star Wars, maybe because I grew up with them.

HungFist wrote:Movies are products of their time. That's one of the best things about them. It sucks when an old film has been spiced with new technology and above all, new thinking.

I agree about Star Wars, entirely fucked up * but I disagree with Blade Runner, all the changes respect the original material and instead enhance what Scott was originally thinking, take the fixes to the film such as the stunt person fix.

* although I don't mind the new versions half as much as many. I didn't get the Original Version DVDs for example, as despite the changes the SE DVDs are much more watchable.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 10 Apr 2009, 16:12

Star Wars last time i watched it had dated appallingly unlike the likes of say Jaws,made around the same time which still holds up today.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Apr 2009, 16:15

Agreed Jaws holds up very well. I don't think Star Wars holds up badly though either.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 10 Apr 2009, 16:21

Empire Strikes Back was a superior movie to Star Wars imo. Must give that another watch soon.