Disappointing Movies

Tools    





Im talkin Wild Wild West level stuff here! XMen 3 Spidey 3 Pirates 3! All stunk, but had no business stinking. Some movies fall short, but this is aimed towards movies with money, talent, time, and marketing there shouldnt be failures.

Indiana Jones And The Crystal Skull was horrendous! So bad I wonder if Speilbergs lost his touch. Harrison and he held out for 15 or so years...for that!? Truly a "WTF!?" type movie. Remember kids - Monkies hate russians.

I could go on a rant about The Thin Red Line, but I wont. It dissappointed. Very much.

Never saw Speed 2. Heard it sucked a bunch.

Aliens 3 was a stinker. Droopy, gloomy, and they were fighting a dog alien! Who gives a spit about some dumbassed dog alien when the android, the marine, and the kid died BEFORE THE BEGINNING CREDITS WERE DONE! They strived to f-up in that movie. Actually thats like X-Men 3 where they killed Cyclops with a star trek security guard indifference.

What the hell was the storyline about in Spider-Man 3?! Augh! Pick a villain you wanting to sell a toy m-****ers!

Another thing on Wild Wild West....I heard beforehand how bad it was. I felt mentally prepared to watch it, and not take it serious. FAIL! Oh the waste! Salmas hiney couldnt save!

George Romero has been passed by. His last two zombie movies were "Meh".

No Country For Old Men should NOT have won Best Picture, and yeah its because of the last 30 minutes. Oh so sorry, but if the Coehns were focused throughout that work it would have been an incredible three way shootout not seen since The Good The Bad And The Ugly. Im not dissuaded by the marketing machine! THEY BLEW IT! Straight up - Way of The Gun was a better movie.



Welcome to the human race...
No Country For Old Men should NOT have won Best Picture, and yeah its because of the last 30 minutes. Oh so sorry, but if the Coehns were focused throughout that work it would have been an incredible three way shootout not seen since The Good The Bad And The Ugly. Im not dissuaded by the marketing machine! THEY BLEW IT! Straight up - Way of The Gun was a better movie.
Yeah, and if it had gone with the shootout it would've been just another thriller that would've been forgotten, not to mention miss the point of the rest of the movie. What the Coens did was take the whole thriller concept and twist it brilliantly. It challenged the norm. Some people loved it, some people hated it, everyone was definitely changed by it.

The rest of your post should be posted separately under the title "***** You Already Know".
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



The movie Gosford Park, imho, was way overrated, rather slow and dull, and wasn't worth the Academy Award for the Best Picture of the year 2001.

Tampopo, a movie about food and cooking, was also a disappointment for me. Too slow, and uninteresting.

The movies Sleeper and Play It Again, Sam also proved disappointing to me. I'm not a big fan of Woody Allen, anyway, though.



Yeah, and if it had gone with the shootout it would've been just another thriller that would've been forgotten, not to mention miss the point of the rest of the movie. What the Coens did was take the whole thriller concept and twist it brilliantly. It challenged the norm. Some people loved it, some people hated it, everyone was definitely changed by it.

The rest of your post should be posted separately under the title "***** You Already Know".
LOL! Oh enlightened one please tell me how a movie audience was changed by a ending where they copped out. Iroquoise they didnt want to end it "like any ol thriller" and didnt know what to do otherwise. They didnt even show Brolin dying because they themselves were making it up as they went along. Brilliant filmaking my ass ....why didnt Harrelson grab that money when he saw it? Because it was an extra unexplained scene that fallls under sloppy filmmaking is why.

What the Coehns showed is called "being too full of themselves", and alot of supposedly smart people too timid to call a spade a spade. NCFOM and The Thin Red Line were extremely overrated, and the critics to the coffee shop crowd were too afraid of their respective peers to call it a lemon - PERIOD. If you want to review film you shouldnt sugarcoat it or make excuses for it if you dont know what the point is.



I was really pumped for the original Spider-man, then after it came out I was like: "That was it?" I think it's an alright movie, but I thought they skipped out on him fighting crime by over-using montages, and I thought the movie overall seemed a little kiddiefied.
__________________


...uh the post is up there...



Welcome to the human race...
TONGO - for the sake of everyone who hasn't seen NCFOM sake, I'm putting my responses in spoiler tags (I would advise you to do the same). My rebuttal is below. Your posts are in bold.

WARNING: "No Country For Old Men" spoilers below


LOL! Oh enlightened one please tell me how a movie audience was changed by a ending where they copped out. Iroquoise they didnt want to end it "like any ol thriller" and didnt know what to do otherwise.

Okay, let's suppose that this were your average cliché-ridden thriller movie. The good guy/s win (or at least one of them wins after one dies), the bad guy/s lose, people enjoy the safe predictable outcome and eventually forget the movie (quickly or slowly, it's irrelevant). The Coens (not Coehns, Coens) are, if their filmography is anything to go by, not particulary fond of making predictable movies. They like to do stuff that's outside the box, and that's one of the reasons they are so critically acclaimed.

The reason the ending is seen by a lot of people as a "cop out" is because it just ends. There's no real resolution by the end of the film because there is no way any resolution can be achieved by the end. Moss is dead and Sheriff Bell is retired and unable to do anything about Chigurh. Regular endings demand the problems be solved, whether for a happy ending or not; No Country could not have its problems solved because that would be highly illogical and not fitting in with the movie as a whole. Keep in mind that NCFOM is based off a book and the book ends exactly the same way.

I stated that the ending changed the audience is because everyone remembered the utterly unorthodox conclusion. Look all over the Internet and you see people talking about the ending. It was something fresh and original, and whether or not people personally liked the ending (and of course it's a hard ending to like), they certainly seem to enjoy talking at length about it with other people. People always remember what's different - would movies like Chinatown or Se7en have been as memorable if they had happy endings? The same thing goes for No Country for Old Men.

One last thing - just because the Coens didn't end it like an ordinary thriller is not because they didn't know how to do it. They didn't end it like an ordinary thriller because they were not making an ordinary thriller.

They didnt even show Brolin dying because they themselves were making it up as they went along. Brilliant filmaking my ass ....why didnt Harrelson grab that money when he saw it? Because it was an extra unexplained scene that fallls under sloppy filmmaking is why.

Let me ask you this - do you really need to see Brolin die? Don't blame the Coens for making this up as they go along because that's exactly how it happened in the original novel. If anything, the shock of that scene is even more powerful than if you had seen Brolin die on-screen.

As for Harrelson not grabbing the money - once again, do you need an explanation? I think that seems to be your whole problem with NCFOM - the fact that you wish to be spoon-fed every little detail and explanation for every action. You can't put this down to sloppy filmmaking - the Coens elect not to provide you with easy answers. But if you really want one, you can probably use your head to think of possible answers. Wells didn't want the money because - whatever. Here's my own theory for example - if Wells took the money, Chigurh would've started chasing him for it (since we later find out he knows where Wells is and kills him) so he leaves it for Moss to find and deal with. Was it what the Coens or McCarthy were trying to say? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, it makes sense in the context of the scene and character so does it really matter if it's not concrete?

What the Coehns showed is called "being too full of themselves", and alot of supposedly smart people too timid to call a spade a spade. NCFOM and The Thin Red Line were extremely overrated, and the critics to the coffee shop crowd were too afraid of their respective peers to call it a lemon - PERIOD. If you want to review film you shouldnt sugarcoat it or make excuses for it if you dont know what the point is.

I don't see how just because the Coens did everything differently to the average thriller means they are "too full of themselves". They've always wanted to add their personal touch to the films they make, and they always do, and that's what makes their films such unique gems. Smart people like it because it's not your average superficial thriller like many of the ones that flood megaplexes all year. Even the ones who praise the movie but don't get it, well that's them. I can't speak on their behalf because I'm not one of them. For me, I reckon NCFOM is a modern masterpiece and I do understand the film and "know what the point is".

Savvy?



You can take the guy out of movieforums.org but you can't take the movieforums.org out of the guy can you Rob?

By the way all you had to do was ask Yoda to switch your username and he would have done it for you in a flash. Unlike another site we all know you love so much.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



A system of cells interlinked
The Thin Red Line is a fantastic piece of film. Malick is great, and I like all of his stuff a whole helluva lot. I take it you didn't like the pace? That's typical Malick. Regardless, it's a five star film, for sure.

As for Way of The Gun being a better film than the Coen's No Country for Old Men, that is just a stack of horse ****. So let me get this straight. So... a film has to have a gun fight at the end to be good? That would have been so "Hollywood typical Ending", and would have sent the film into mediocre territory. Nah, no thanks, I'll take the ending in the film, which is more realistic and not some half-assed sophomoric film student's version of "How to make a ****** shoot-em-up that is exactly like 6000 other ****** shoot-em-up films." Why not just watch Smokin' Aces for that. It has some cool cardistry in it, at least.

The Way of the Gun was a poorly directed copycat flick that sooooo wanted to be Guy Richie's Lock, Stock and Two Smokin' Barrels, but wasn't. It sure tried, but it came across as cliche', uninspired, and monotonous. The final gunfight was pretty cool, I will admit, but, why make that again?

Some of your other choices are spot on, though. X-men III was a disaster of a screenplay, as they tried to cram two major storylines into the same film. Why not just make the Dark Phoenix saga? The mutant antidote plot was certainly a large enough issue, as well. Yeah man, that thing fell on its face. A rough screenplay, some poor editing, and some downright silly stuff turned this series on its ear. Bummer, because X2 was fantastic.

I am right there with you on the abysmal Spiderman III, as well. You will find plenty of posts authored by me on this site railing that piece of ****. Terrible film.

As for Wild Wild West.... I haven't seen it, and plan on that being the case for the rest of my life.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



The movie Gosford Park, imho, was way overrated, rather slow and dull, and wasn't worth the Academy Award for the Best Picture of the year 2001.

Tampopo, a movie about food and cooking, was also a disappointment for me. Too slow, and uninteresting.

The movies Sleeper and Play It Again, Sam also proved disappointing to me. I'm not a big fan of Woody Allen, anyway, though.
We agreed so much on West Side Story that it doesn't bother me that we disagree on Gosford Park. Was Park deserving of an Oscar? Maybe not. I don't put too much stock in Oscars because they've often been awarded to the wrong winners for the wrong reasons.

I liked Park for 3 reasons: First, virtually all of the performers had starred in their own series on British TV, most of which were shown on Mystery! on public TV in this country. I enjoyed their TV work and it was interesting seeing them all together in one film. 2. I liked the 1920s-1930s style music. There were some pretty funny songs in there, especially one that I think was titled "And Mother Came Too." 3. I liked the gimmick that the audience never sees what's going on upstairs unless one or more of the servants is present. The whole thing is seen through the eyes of the staff, and the British upper crust are so used to ignoring the lower classes that they never catch on to who killed the squire or why.

I also liked the manic silliness of Sleeper and the whole concept and delivery of Play It Again, Sam. But my wife is not a Woody Allen fan, either.



So... a film has to have a gun fight at the end to be good? That would have been so "Hollywood typical Ending", and would have sent the film into mediocre territory.
Whoa, let's not be so fast in tarring films with Hollywood's "typical" happy endings as being forgetable! Hollywood has prettied up a lot of memoriable pictures. One of my favorites is On the Waterfront that has for years been considered one of the all-time greats from Hollywood. But before it was a movie, it was a best-seller book that was read and appreciated by millions. Still for all its grimey realism through most of the movie, Hollywood tacked on a "happy ending" as a badly beaten but unbowed Marlon Brando manages to make the long walk to a job at the end of the pier, supposedly forever breaking the power of the corrupt union. The book's ending was much more lifelike: They find that character's body punctured with dozens of icepick wounds and stuffed in a metal barrel.

I didn't like Thin Red Line as a movie, but I didn't like it as book either, primarily for the same reason--the story "moves" with glacial slowness and none of the characters are all that interesting.



Some excellent calls in this thread.
have to agree on the latest Indiana Jones - that was an amazing steamy load of ****. but then again Lucas fell off years ago and you have to wonder about Spielberg now after a movie like War of the Worlds. Disagree with the hate for No Country - it blew me away in the theatre, suspense, action, comedy, excellent performances what more can you ask for when films like Zohan are cleaning up at the box office.

But recent epic failures imo have been:

spiderman 3
rambo
the mist
number 23
indiana jones 4
sex and the city



Iroquoise
Let me ask you this - do you really need to see Brolin die? Don't blame the Coens for making this up as they go along because that's exactly how it happened in the original novel. If anything, the shock of that scene is even more powerful than if you had seen Brolin die on-screen.

As for Harrelson not grabbing the money - once again, do you need an explanation? I think that seems to be your whole problem with NCFOM - the fact that you wish to be spoon-fed every little detail and explanation for every action. You can't put this down to sloppy filmmaking - the Coens elect not to provide you with easy answers. But if you really want one, you can probably use your head to think of possible answers

___________________________________________________________________

Before I post back Mr Iroqouise a quick word to P Water. Dont be hatin on the Org P Water cause YOU sir have 1,285 posts there, sixth overall, and still have more posts than me. As usual youre cranky, but I like that about you man! The Org is a small place to chill, and Tyler is open about his Tylerness. Sorry but any man that makes a webpage for the sole purpose to give him money for the sake of and be open about it.....you gotta respect that. In time P Water you might appreciate others eccentricities more in life, (theatrical drama) but open your eyes man!

To you Iroquoise I thank you for your sane constructive response. No I did not know thats how the book ended and yes it makes a HUGE difference on my perspective of the film and the directors. Ah if only life could always work out so smoothly... Must sheepishly confess that I think its better than Way Of The Gun now. Its amazing how learning helps make an opinion eh?

Sedai you like The Thin Red Line?! A big Gomer Pyle "Shame shame shame!" on you my friend for lauding that turd with big star corn.

The Mist. What an ending.



It seems that a lot of the movies mentioned on here are sequels - that's no coincidence, I'm sure. Why can't the Hollywood moguls get it into their heads that more doesn't necessarily mean better? Practically every superhero movie franchise has started out with one bad guy, then had two in the sequel, three in the third installment... until the entire narrative becomes a jumbled mess as they try to juggle the hundreds of characters. It's not just bad guys either - look at X-Men 3. That has enough characters for a whole mini-series.

Mind you, I kind of liked Indy 4 - nowhere near as good as the original or third, but much better than the second. Plus it has to be a whole lot better than the Lara Croft movies, right? Ford could have done with a quick pick-me-up or two, but it wasn't an all-out disaster like, say, Batman & Robin.
__________________
Check my blog at www.theflickerproject.com.
Another day, another movie...



As far as recent films are concerned, The Happening was pretty disappointing. Though, it has had me thinking a lot since watching it, so it can't be that bad.
__________________
Cinexcellence.com We discuss movies. Join the discussion.--Twitter -- YouTube -- Facebook



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
I got "Dragon wars" on DVD recently and I found it a good film, and the CGI was fantastic, I was really disappointed with the actors and the acting. If it had a bigger production company I think it would of been allot better in my view. At the end I was left wanting MORE allot more. Its a shame because it could of been fantastic if it wasnt for the acting.
__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

~When im listening to Metallica, Nothing else matters~

N3wt's Movie Reviews New DVD Thread Top-100



Projecting the image of success
I thought The Village was disappointing. The ending twist was pretty good. Overall, I thought it lacked polish.
__________________
"Love the life you live."
All this porn ain't gonna watch itself.
"I'm gonna be alright, and you're gonna be alright, you ain't gotta hold my hand just walk with me tonight."

The totally awesome and soul consuming TFH One a Day Reviews.



The most disappointing film to me was The Towering Inferno: not only did I have to pay what were then big bucks for the tickets but I had to wait in a long line under a hot Houston summer sun to buy them, all for an unimaginative Hollywood formula film with too many stars doing too little. How Hollywood was it? Steve McQueen's part had to be enlarged so that he had the same number of lines and equal billing with Paul Newman. The special effects were cheesy and the story never focused on anyone long enough for you to give a rat's patootie who lived or died.

One critic had what I thought was a very valid complaint and original idea for the film, which he noted featured two stars famous for their physical abilities: dancer Fred Astaire and football hero O.J. Simpson (in the pre-murder days when he was still popular). The critic (I forget who) wondered why the studio didn’t take those two stars, so famous for their physical movements, and put them in some scene together that allowed them to move. Coming up with a scene that could spotlight both actors would have been a challenge and an imaginative accomplishment. Instead, Astaire gets an Oscar nomination for again playing a kindly old gentleman and O.J. plays a security guard who rescues a cat.

Worst yet, I later read the two books on which that movie was based (to avoid two studios coming out at the same time with two similar films, each from one book). Either of the books was much better than the film, and they had more interesting characters who were not used in the film. One was a homosexual interior designer who tries to torch the office of his failing business inside the highrise. The other was a Puerto Rican kid whose mom worked as a cleaning lady in the building; he tries to torch the place so she can come home. Neither is the cause of the resulting inferno, but together they do a great job of trying to warn and evacuate others when the bigger inferno erupts.

Another big disappoint was John Wayne’s last film, The Shootist, because again the book had the better story and ending. In the book, it’s the kid who kills the old gunfighter, then steals his guns, horse, and the money the old man left for the kid’s mother and sets out to live his fantasy of being a famous gunfighter. Much more interesting than the silly finish to the movie.



A system of cells interlinked
Sedai you like The Thin Red Line?! A big Gomer Pyle "Shame shame shame!" on you my friend for lauding that turd with big star corn.
You mean, a shame on you, right? Lots of people like The Thin Red Line. Not only do I like it, but I think it's one of the better war films out there. Yes, better than the other war film that came out that same year. You will find many people right here on the site who not only like it, but hold it just as highly. Critical response sits at about 80% positive, as well, so, perhaps once you realize you are in a small minority of people that don't like it, it won't seem so astounding when you run across people that do.

It's fine if you didn't care for it, but, if you can't see the level of skill at least on the technical side... I don't know what to say. At least one of the soldiers didn't wander out in front of a sniper yelling in all directions, and they didn't randomly decide they needed a linguist along on the mission for absolutely no reason whatsoever, like other, less well-done war films of that era...



Yeah, Malick didn't spoon feed a silly plot to his audience, with cute music queues to let everyone know when they were supposed to cry. Instead, he used metaphorical cinematic language to illustrate the nature of order and chaos, fear, duty, and other issues in a philosophical way. I could see why some people would think that is just too much work to have to put into understanding a piece of art.

Their loss, completely.

Saving Private Ryan


The Thin Red Line



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
What the Coens showed is called "being too full of themselves", and alot of supposedly smart people too timid to call a spade a spade.
That supposed to be racist? We had one of those before on this board, he's banned now....
__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
If I were buying a laser gun I'd definitely take the XF-3800 before I took the "Pew Pew Pew Fun Gun."



I am right there with you on the abysmal Spiderman III, as well. You will find plenty of posts authored by me on this site railing that piece of ****. Terrible film.
I don't think I've even seen III... or if I have, I've totally blocked it out... hmmm...

As for Wild Wild West.... I haven't seen it, and plan on that being the case for the rest of my life.

Very wise decision...
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)