Films most people love but you think are garbage

[plastroncafe]

Even Doctor Manhattan's Blue Peen, or the awesomeness that was Jackie Earle Haley, couldn't save that movie from being all style and no soul.
Having said that, the trailer and opening credit sequence were amazeballs.

[Xiewin]

Well GOTG for me, obviously.

1 dimensional characters, an un-interesting/rushed story, forced comedy and unearned character relationships. It's pretty much in the same league as the current ninja turtle movie for me. Nothing but more hollywood garbage.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Even Doctor Manhattan's Blue Peen, or the awesomeness that was Jackie Earle Haley, couldn't save that movie from being all style and no soul.
Having said that, the trailer and opening credit sequence were amazeballs.

We'll agree to disagree. I saw some of the drafts where the writers were getting further away from the book to "Do Something" with the material, and good god, it would've been awful. Not a good idea in the bunch.

If they HAD to make the movie - and they were going to no matter what - then doing it strictly Paint-By-Numbers is as good as it was ever going to get, in my opinion. The movie we got was the best possible movie they could or would have made, so frankly, since they HAD to... I'll enjoy what we got and thank Azathoth (Who Waits...) that it wasn't worse.

[shuriken]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I love Watchmen. I got to see Malin Ackerman's nipples AND her O-Face. I'm good.

Haha yeah. I can't hear the song alleluyah without thinking about that scene now. forever burned in the back of my mind. Either way watching that in a theater with my girlfriend at the time led to fun times. SOOOO yeah that movie for me=fun times.
I think it gets a lot of hate but it's decent.
Ooooh American Graffiti. Holy s**t was that boring. There was a time about 3 years ago when I wanted to see each of AFI's top 100 movies and after that one I just couldn't.

[pennydreadful]

I'm dragging this thread back to life because I have a confession to make and this is the appropriate place to do it:

I can't stand Nolan's Batman movies.

There, I said it. It's out in the open now.

[Leo656]

That is pretty wacky.

Although I'm the Lone Wolf who thinks "Begins" is actually the best stand-alone film in the bunch. Partly because it fits neatly into just about every Batman continuity without contradicting anything, while "Dark Knight" goes completely off the rails to do its own thing. Which it does in an entertaining way, but I've never been sold on killing off a major villain like Two-Face five minutes after his creation, for example, and a lot of other little things in that flick.

Much as I like DK, I think people over-sell it because "Joker is in it!" and the strength of Ledger's performance. I don't actually think it's either a better Batman movie OR a better "movie" movie than Begins. I think they're about equal quality but Begins, to a "Purist", is the best Batman movie anybody is ever gonna make.

I know romantically people also fetishize the Perfectly Adequate 1989 movie, but when you're as Totally Over Tim Burton as I am, it's easy to see the ton of things "wrong" with it. Always worth a watch, though. And they did have a better Bat-suit.

[ScrewtheMirageTMNT]

-Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes
-Edge of Tomorrow
-X-Men: Days of Future Past

They were so boring and formulaic. I am including these because of how many movie critics dug them.

[Katie]

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

I'm dragging this thread back to life because I have a confession to make and this is the appropriate place to do it:

I can't stand Nolan's Batman movies.

There, I said it. It's out in the open now.

I agree. The second one was the only tolerable one.

I also didn't like Guardians that much. I don't understand all the comparisons to Star Wars or why everyone goes nutty for the soundtrack. I like all the music, but it was awesome before the movie. In fact the movie kind of ruined that music for me for awhile.

Also, the movie was resolved with a dance off and the care bear stare moment.

Just not my idea of a great movie.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

I'm dragging this thread back to life because I have a confession to make and this is the appropriate place to do it:

I can't stand Nolan's Batman movies.

There, I said it. It's out in the open now.

For the most part, I agree with you.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

I'm dragging this thread back to life because I have a confession to make and this is the appropriate place to do it:

I can't stand Nolan's Batman movies.

There, I said it. It's out in the open now.

I'll second it. The first was OK, but I just HATED Heath's Joker- WAAY too much "psycho" and not enough "clown". I much preferred Jack's take, which to me balanced Joker perfectly. I also loved Mark Hamil's voice-acting in B: TAS, so I felt that between Jack and Ledger, Jack did it FAR better. His humor was still macabre and sadistic, but funny. Heath's Joker was NOT funny. AT ALL. I get that Joker is a complete psychopath, but he's also got style and panache, class, and a sense of irony. As Joker himself once said (in a crossover comic with Carnage, of all people!) "Anyone can butcher. A true artist does it with STYLE!" And that, I feel is the difference between Burton's Bat-flicks, and Nolan's. Jack as Joker actually got the style part right! (And he was STILL a sick little puppy....)

[Leo656]

Well, yeah, you're "right"... if you never or barely read comics and thus can't realize your idea of the character is actually Completely Backwards.

S'okay, it happens. They've only gone out of their way to state, "Joker's NOT a clown, he's a psychopath", like, a million times in the books over the years. No, really, I'd have to look it up, but I promise you, those exact words have been spoken in that exact same order by more than one main character. "Style" is one thing, but he's not a comedian. He skins people for fun. He doesn't do "camp". He's Evil. He's not "funny".

Jack Nicholson wasn't playing The Joker, he was playing Jack Nicholson In Clown Face. Which was fine, because Tim Burton also wasn't making a Batman movie, he was making a Tim Burton movie starring a guy dressed kinda like Batman.

The movie and everybody in it were fine. It's a good movie in and of itself. But if anyone is basing their idea of Batman's universe or the characters off of That Movie, then I'm sorry, but You're Wrong. Those characters appear that way ONLY in those films, and thus are in no way "definitive".

I had issues of my own with Dark Knight and Rises, but Ledger's Joker was "The Joker" as he actually "exists" within the larger fiction. That's the Joker of the books, the ongoing "official" media. That's the fact. Nicholson's portrayal was Fun and worked fine for the movie it was in. It was also Completely Inaccurate. Them's the breaks.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Man, seeing you guys hate on some movies I love is really depressing me! But this IS the internet, so it's not like I didn't know what I was getting into.

There are a number of trending film franchises that I can't stand or have no interest in:

1. Spiderman (Amazing or the original trilogy)
2. Planet of the Apes
3. Thor
4. Transformers
5. James Bond
6. Star Wars (original trilogy and prequels)

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Well, yeah, you're "right"... if you never or barely read comics and thus can't realize your idea of the character is actually Completely Backwards.

S'okay, it happens. They've only gone out of their way to state, "Joker's NOT a clown, he's a psychopath", like, a million times in the books over the years. No, really, I'd have to look it up, but I promise you, those exact words have been spoken in that exact same order by more than one main character. "Style" is one thing, but he's not a comedian. He skins people for fun. He doesn't do "camp". He's Evil. He's not "funny".

Jack Nicholson wasn't playing The Joker, he was playing Jack Nicholson In Clown Face. Which was fine, because Tim Burton also wasn't making a Batman movie, he was making a Tim Burton movie starring a guy dressed kinda like Batman.

The movie and everybody in it were fine. It's a good movie in and of itself. But if anyone is basing their idea of Batman's universe or the characters off of That Movie, then I'm sorry, but You're Wrong. Those characters appear that way ONLY in those films, and thus are in no way "definitive".

I had issues of my own with Dark Knight and Rises, but Ledger's Joker was "The Joker" as he actually "exists" within the larger fiction. That's the Joker of the books, the ongoing "official" media. That's the fact. Nicholson's portrayal was Fun and worked fine for the movie it was in. It was also Completely Inaccurate. Them's the breaks.

Actually, I have thought (much after the fact, mind) that Jack is closer to the comics I HAVE read (the crossover with Carnage being one) than Ledger. Not to mention Hamill's version, which though toned down, was also pretty darned creepy at times. Both seem more suited to a guy calling himself Joker and killing people in creative ways (Jack's hand-buzzer springs to mind, or the "Joker-Fish" ep from B: TAS- I later found out that one was based on a comic issue- so naturally I had to hunt it down. The only real difference was that he killed the patent-office guy.) than a guy who resorts to cutting his own face like some suicidal emo. He's psycho, sure, but he's a creative and gleeful psycho in very version but Nolan's I've ever seen. The issue with Carnage (they traded enemies in hopes of finally beating Bats and Spidey, respectively) had him using explosive jack-in-the-boxes. For kicks. Except that he got pissed when Carnage just wanted to kill Bats by hacking him to pieces- and then promptly turned on him to warn the pair! Because he was disgusted by Carnage's lack of "class" as a killer. That, to me, speaks volumes to who he is- and it's NOT the Nolan Joker. An unrepentant murderer he may be, but he apparently has standards- and Carnage just didn't measure up, LOL! Even beating Robin to death had its own macabre sense of giddy fun to it- for him at least. He's brutal, but still has fun with his work! I didn't see ANY of that in the Nolan film. He just seemed more like Charles Manson in make-up to me. Or maybe Ed Gein.....

[Leo656]

To me, the guys who wrote the character in the books - consistently, not just non-canon one-shots - are the ones doing the "authentic" portrayal. I definitely see Adams, O'Neal, Dixon, Loeb, and Morrison in Ledger's version. He took it his own way, made it a little more "real", but it was still right off the page. No, he didn't have any exploding jack-in-the-boxes or dynamite-loaded pies but all that silly sh*t came much later in the books, anyway. The original visual of The Joker was to be both horrific and ironic, and only became a "merry prankster" once the Code kicked in and they had to worry about scaring kids. "This guy who looks like a clown is actually going to murder the f*ck out of you, then stay up all night thinking of how he's going to do it to somebody else tomorrow". Jack's version was a little too... "straight". He seemed too much like a guy acting out a personal vendetta and not someone who was actually psychotic. I didn't believe he was insane, it was more "This disfigurement is merely going to free me to act without restraint in a manner I've always dreamed of." Fine, but... Joker's irredeemably F***ing insane, so yeah, that's a different guy. This is the guy who, when he got the power of Mxyzptlk and took over the entire universe, murdered Batman every day just to bring him back to life and kill him in even more brutal fashion the next day. He ate China, literally, as in the entire population of China, he ate them. He's a friggin' lunatic. Ledger's portrayal was more accurate, I'm sorry. I know you don't read a ton of DC, but I'm serious, you can trust my judgment on this, if for no other reason than I've most likely read a few hundred more of the books that are relevant to this particular conversation.

It's like Catwoman and the awful "cat" motif with all the purring, or making her as a person someone who's obsessed with cats, none of which is actually "legit" either. People get hung up on a motif and forget where the character came from. She was "Catwoman" because she was a Cat burglar not a "crazy cat-lady". All that stuff gets tacked on by people who don't "get it" and people who don't know any better start thinking it's "official". That's another perfect example, is Pfeiffer's Catwoman. She's most people's favorite, despite being just as "Awful" as Halle Berry if we're going by faithfulness to the source. A fun portrayal? Sure, but that's technically Not the character, like, at all. They still changed everything about her but the name "Selina Kyle". Meanwhile, the version in DKR is a little bit dry, but infinitely more true to the source.

See, some people just don't like the "darker, more realistic' style of Nolan's movies, and that's their prerogative. As a purist, though, I *have* to elevate them far ahead of Burton's movies because 95% of what's in those movies is, for once, right from the books, which for some reason nobody ever does when they make these movies. Style is one thing, and I can understand people not liking the Nolan films' Style, but I'm perfectly willing to settle for a film universe where the characters are actually the same as the ones in the books for a change. Plus, those movies finally made it officially "acceptable" for grown-ups to like comic book movies, so that's plenty enough for me.

Same thing with "Man of Steel". There's a lot wrong with it. There's serious tone and dialog problems. It's also, if we add up all the really obscure references that even I missed the first few times, the Most Faithful Comic Adaptation Ever Made, and by a wide margin. People don't really look into that, mostly because they can't get past the Tone, but I have to give people credit for doing their homework and actually putting the books on screen, whether it's Nolan's Batman, or Man of Steel, or whatever. I can appreciate people like Burton doing "their version" when it's done well, but I'm always going to knock points off for deviation.

It's pretty clear we use a different "grading system", though. See, with Marvel movies, I have to have a different system because I know f*ck-all about those books except what I got from video games and the backs of trading cards. I couldn't possibly apply the same criteria. But I do know enough to know Spidey 3 and X-Men 3 were dog sh*t, and a lot of that had to do with deviating from the source.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I'll agree with the Spidey 3 and x-Men 3, bit, at least. I guess it boils down to which version just felt more in tune with the over-all comic-book world, to me. Burton's certainly IS a comic book movie. Nolan's films didn't FEEL like comic book movies, and it's largely because he went TOO dark, IMHO. It was trying too hard to be gritty, realistic, and dark, and that's just not what a comic movie should be, IMO. Nearly all the Batman material I'm familiar with was at most, a little twisted and freakish, but not dark and gritty to the point where it feels more like a modern attempt at a noir film. With a guy in a bat suit a la the Shadow. Now THERE'S a movie that Nolan should have done! It fits better with his style, actually, now that I think about it.

On a side-note, you know what I'd like to see? A less-campy reboot of The Phantom! Not that I didn't love Billy Zane and Treat Williams, mind (and Kristie Swanson), but I could get behind a newer, more serious version, too.

[Leo656]

I don't mind "darker" because I'm fine with comics and their adaptations being taken out of their "For Children and Man-Children" box. Whether or not they "feel" like comic book movies, they're still Good Movies. They're exceptionally well-made. To me, that counts for a lot more in the big picture. I'm all for anything that makes people stop thinking someone is brain-damaged just because they're over age 10 and still like super-heroes. Most movies in the genre are either Good Super-Hero Movies, or Good Movies Period, but not both. Well, two-and-a-half of Nolan's movies were both (A lot of the third one is pretty busted on a technical level because they rushed it out). There's a reason people insisted, and still do, that Begins and Dark Knight "elevated" the genre. Because for the first time, when you said to an adult contemporary that you were going to a comic book film, they didn't roll their eyes and ask "Why?" Nobody said, "Wow, that was a really good super-hero movie", they just said, "Wow, that was a really great movie." People who ordinarily would treat super-heroes (and especially their fans) with naught but disdain and mockery were suddenly losing their sh*t in the theater because the people making the movies decided that winking at the audience was in no way necessary.

I'm not going to even pretend I don't love and appreciate that. We're kind of sliding backwards now, because too many people tried to ape the "style" and forgot to put a good movie in there too, and so now there's a backlash. But to date, for the most part those are the only "comic book movies" that aren't looked down on by the masses or graded in their own cute little "category". They're Just Good Movies and that's all anyone treats them as, and rightly so. People can go back and forth on whether they prefer This Style or That Style, but let's be honest, nobody is EVER going to pull that off again to that degree. I give them all the credit in the world for that.

[ScrewtheMirageTMNT]

To me, most of the X-men movies are like big budget b movies without the humor. Tobey doesn't sound right for spider-man/peter parker, bad casting, he can act but just isn't quite right. God, no. Nolan doing a movie on the shadow. Him making three batman movies that I didn't enjoy is enough for me.

[Shiro Kame]

2014 turtles. It was #1 in Canada, but the story and stupidity of April and stuff that doesn't make sense, along with Splinter being a bad parent makes me never want to see this movie ever again.

[Amaranthus]

Originally Posted by Shiro Kame

2014 turtles. It was #1 in Canada, but the story and stupidity of April and stuff that doesn't make sense, along with Splinter being a bad parent makes me never want to see this movie ever again.

Trust me. That's not a movie most people love.

[ProactiveMan]

I really dislike Almost Famous. It feels like your dad lecturing you about how much better things were when he was a lad. Get out of here old man, I'm trying to listen to my compact discs.