|
Post by Omnion (yes, he is a man) on Feb 22, 2005 16:17:45 GMT
Just to totally debunk ones voted for by other people ( ) Hero: Excellent. Van Helsing: Brainless fun. A.I.: Very good. Would've been excellent, if it weren't for that daft last twenty minutes. Resident Evil Apocalypse: Brilliantly stupid. Bulletproof Monk: Ditto. (Although MUCH MUCH stupider than REA.) Alien Resurrection: Better than Alien 3. WHICH WAS ALSO GOOD, SMARTYPANTSES. Here's my response! Hero- It's not excellent, it's okay. Van HElsing- Brainless CRUD A.I- I have to agree that it's a good film, no idea why so many people hate it... Resident Evil- (minor note: people saying that a film is 'fun' is the first sign of it being drat .) Bulletproof Monk- Ouch. Sucked. Alien Resurrection- Haven't seen it, but I also haven't seen anyone saying it's not the worst in the series...
|
|
|
Post by Samface on Feb 22, 2005 16:27:55 GMT
Resident Evil- (minor note: people saying that a film is 'fun' is the first sign of it being drat .) Erm, I didn't say it was fun...Anyway, a lot of the reason I like it is through its last ten minutes, when any fragment of sense goes flying out the window and a security guard gets a tazer in his eye. I'm easily pleased. ;D Yep, but it sucked so completely and flawlessly it was hilarious. I just did.
|
|
|
Post by Omnion (yes, he is a man) on Feb 22, 2005 16:32:33 GMT
Resident Evil- Oops, I meant Van Helsing...
Bulletproof Monk- Yeah, I know! Sucking so bad it's funny is NOT a good point.
Alien 4- Duh, I meant apart from you. (should've put in an 'else', darn it...)
|
|
|
Post by Samface on Feb 22, 2005 16:43:09 GMT
Bulletproof Monk- Yeah, I know! Sucking so bad it's funny is NOT a good point. Aww. Well, League of Extraordinary Where The Heck Has The Plot Gone? sucked but wasn't funny about it. So, um, there. >_> <_<
|
|
|
Post by Balls on Feb 22, 2005 17:34:32 GMT
All Vin Diesel films, especially The Fast And The Furious, which the people at school seem to fantasise over.
"Guess What!" "What?" "2 Fast, 2 Furious has a FORD ESCORT in it!" "Oh my GOD!" [erection]
|
|
|
Post by Zerolus on Feb 22, 2005 17:55:25 GMT
All Vin Diesel films, especially The Fast And The Furious, which the people at school seem to fantasise over.
"Guess What!" "What?" "2 Fast, 2 Furious has a FORD ESCORT in it!" "Oh my GOD!" [erection] >.< Its funny because its true. There's one guy at my school who is obsessed with cars. He honestly thinks they're the best things in the world.
|
|
|
Post by RSM on Feb 22, 2005 18:46:51 GMT
Sex Lives of the Potatoe Men
When I saw the trailer I thought "What...The....Heck..."
|
|
|
Post by Samface on Feb 22, 2005 20:31:11 GMT
THANK YOU NiGHTS! I withdraw my nomination of LXG as Worst Film Ever and offer up 2 Fast 2 Furious instead. I caught the last 20 minutes of it and it made me want to claw out my own eyes.
|
|
|
Post by 321boom on Feb 22, 2005 21:27:49 GMT
In this era of over-reliance on CGI, action scenes and appealing to the lowest common denominator taking priority over good storyline, dialogue and characterization, movies are getting worse and worse. I partly agree but I think it depends. Ususally CGI ruins everything but when you look at the qualty of Lord of the Rings you have to admit that the CGI has worked unbeleivable well. Maybe CGI is good in some films and not in others, because all I know is that Lord of the Rings (the movies) frickin' rocked!
|
|
Ed
Ex-Hume
Satan (Apparently)
Posts: 4,320
|
Post by Ed on Feb 22, 2005 21:46:02 GMT
I partly agree but I think it depends. Ususally CGI ruins everything but when you look at the qualty of Lord of the Rings you have to admit that the CGI has worked unbeleivable well. Maybe CGI is good in some films and not in others, because all I know is that Lord of the Rings (the movies) frickin' rocked! I didn't like the LOTR CGI, actually. I thought it fell down at several points, notably the cave troll and the Witch-King's steed that got comically decapitated (more a conceptual problem admittedly). Richard Elson pointed out some shoddy work on Smeagol and the wargs in The Two Towers IIRC. Of course, a lot of the effects worked pretty well and were seamless, but I think it should have been used more sparingly in places.
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Feb 22, 2005 21:47:49 GMT
And of course Legolas levitating up the Elephant thing (Forget the name)
|
|
|
Post by 321boom on Feb 22, 2005 21:48:48 GMT
I didn't like the LOTR CGI, actually. I thought it fell down at several points, notably the cave troll and the Witch-King's steed that got comically decapitated (more a conceptual problem admittedly). Richard Elson pointed out some shoddy work on Smeagol and the wargs in The Two Towers IIRC. Of course, a lot of the effects worked pretty well and were seamless, but I think it should have been used more sparingly in places. It's a matter of opinion. Most people I have met and heard of seem to think that CGI is a bad thing. Does this mean that CGI is not going to be used in films any more is the public continue not to like it?
|
|
Ed
Ex-Hume
Satan (Apparently)
Posts: 4,320
|
Post by Ed on Feb 22, 2005 21:53:41 GMT
It's a matter of opinion. Most people I have met and heard of seem to think that CGI is a bad thing. Does this mean that CGI is not going to be used in films any more is the public continue not to like it? That's why I said "I think". The main thing is, what looks best. You can still tell when CGI is being used on certain things, and there it can be problematic.
|
|
|
Post by Baxter on Feb 23, 2005 15:32:21 GMT
All Vin Diesel films, especially The Fast And The Furious, which the people at school seem to fantasise over.
"Guess What!" "What?" "2 Fast, 2 Furious has a FORD ESCORT in it!" "Oh my GOD!" [erection] I know the feeling... Chav: "2 Fast 2 Furious is wicked! Well better dan da first one!" Me: "Really? How come?" Chav: "Becoz it az a pink car innit!" ¬_¬ I partly agree but I think it depends. Ususally CGI ruins everything but when you look at the qualty of Lord of the Rings you have to admit that the CGI has worked unbeleivable well. Maybe CGI is good in some films and not in others, because all I know is that Lord of the Rings (the movies) frickin' rocked! I didn't mean that all CGI is bad, far from it. What I meant was that it annoys me how a lot of films nowadays try to hide shoddy stories with "cool effects".
|
|
|
Post by Samface on Feb 23, 2005 19:21:08 GMT
I didn't mean that all CGI is bad, far from it. What I meant was that it annoys me how a lot of films nowadays try to hide shoddy stories with "cool effects". ...As opposed to when they hid shoddy stories with shoddy effects?
|
|
|
Post by Omnion (yes, he is a man) on Feb 23, 2005 19:50:25 GMT
*thinks of Van helsing and LXG and shudders*
|
|
|
Post by Samface on Feb 23, 2005 19:55:42 GMT
Actually I was more getting at the point that a lot of people seem to think "OMG FILMZ SUCK THESE DAYS THEY USED TO BE SO MUCH BETTORZ", which is clearly rubbish. "But old films are classic! Look at the seventies!" they cry. But there were just as many bad films back then, they've just been forgotten.
|
|
Ed
Ex-Hume
Satan (Apparently)
Posts: 4,320
|
Post by Ed on Feb 23, 2005 20:49:50 GMT
Actually I was more getting at the point that a lot of people seem to think "OMG FILMZ SUCK THESE DAYS THEY USED TO BE SO MUCH BETTORZ", which is clearly rubbish. "But old films are classic! Look at the seventies!" they cry. But there were just as many bad films back then, they've just been forgotten. Indeed. All the same, these days I find that given the choice between a lot of the substandard mulch at the cinema these days, including a few gems a year, and the option of a vast amount of all those gems from years gone by, some of which have been quite forgotten, I tend to prefer the older films. I also don't think the kind of films I really like are being made these days. The War on Terror is an enormously rich social background to explore, but I couldn't think of one "In the Heat of the Night" or "Bad Day At Black Rock". I'm a little sad at the plight of the sweeping intergenerational narratives of "Gone With the Wind" and "Giant", and science fiction that is more ideas than images like "The Day The Earth Stood Still". But speaking of images, where's the kind of fairy tale vernacular that's absorbed so easily by films like "Nosferatu" and "Night of the Hunter"? Modern thrillers or horror films tend to have a very different sensibility. Of course, there's new stuff that's great too. The kind of quiet naturalism of something like "Lost in Translation", or the awe-inspiring animated works like "Spirited Away" and "The Incredibles". "Memento" and "Insomnia" are wonderful actors' films, finding moments in the still just like a lot of my favourite films of the past, but both are propped up by gimmicks of sorts (albeit, very successful ones). I suppose the difference is that the medium of cinema has changed so much. Once, cinema was something wonderful and mysterious. The images had to be draw people in. Also, there was less of an emphasis on structure. "Psycho" revolutionised the industry by Hitchcock's demand that people actually go in and the beginning of the film, rather than whenever they pleased. That takes the emphasis away from performance and experience, and more towards narrative and character. You need to hook people on the premise so that they'll commit to being in your power for 2 hours. That means film stars are advertising tools in a different way, and you need to be big and explosive so you can show 90 second clips in front of other films. Also, of course, television and video have changed things. There's much more interchange between film and television in terms of acting, writing and production values -- indeed, I think a lot of American television is of a higher quality than American films. It also means that films are increasingly shot with television and video success in mind, and so even big blockbusters need to suit the small screen, which means you have to be a lot more obvious. (The rise in widescreen televisions and HDTV is swinging the pendulum back the other way, of course). Of course, video is also a good outlet for films that are substandard. I suspect there's less total dross on the cinema screens these days simply by virtue of better media coverage and more alternative venues for B-movie tripe to be killed off quickly. But it also means filmmakers are bound to service several masters at once -- the big screen, the small screen, the needs of television and cinema trailer makers and so on. There's nothing wrong with the medium evolving, but that's not to say that everything evolves simply for the sake of becoming better. There are all sorts of pressures on the film industry: economic, technological, sociological, commercial. I don't think we're in a dark age for cinema, but nor would I say we're in a golden age. I think we are in a golden age for particularly American television: that medium is really evolving in a way that cinema presently isn't. And even at a time when cinema receipts are at a record high and more money is flowing to Hollywood than just about any point in its history, I find that given the choice between an average action flick at the cinema or '24'; or another SFX junket or any of the many classic films from the last century that can be picked up for £3-8, it's the cinema that loses out for me. It's not that cinema is suddenly very bad. It's just that at present, it's reached a sort of plateau. (Except for specific cases, such as computer animation anyway).
|
|
JJ
Script Hume
Bit of a hack, really.
Posts: 4,902
|
Post by JJ on Feb 24, 2005 12:51:47 GMT
I'm totally non-cynical about films. I enjoy nearly everything I see to some extent. Except '2 Fast 2 Furious' which doesn't even have any decent car chases in. Regarding the Lord of the Rings CGI, I don't think any of it was bad or disappointing at all. The Scorpion King was bad CG. The [censored]ised Licker in Resident Evil was bad CG. Gollum was a frickin' revelation, and a milestone.
|
|
|
Post by Baxter on Feb 24, 2005 15:20:29 GMT
...As opposed to when they hid shoddy stories with shoddy effects? Same thing. *thinks of "Evolution" and shudders*
|
|
|
Post by Sin on Feb 24, 2005 16:35:04 GMT
I didn't like the LOTR CGI, actually. I thought it fell down at several points, notably the cave troll and the Witch-King's steed that got comically decapitated (more a conceptual problem admittedly). This is slightly unrelated to the topic, but it is just something that has been bothering me for sometime. In the book of Return of the King did the Ringwraiths always ride on the Dragon-like creatures? It was just that when I read the book I was under the impression that they rode on winged horses (after the first ones are 'killed' of course). Then I was quite suprised when they were on the Dragons for the film.
|
|
Ed
Ex-Hume
Satan (Apparently)
Posts: 4,320
|
Post by Ed on Feb 25, 2005 10:10:48 GMT
This is slightly unrelated to the topic, but it is just something that has been bothering me for sometime. In the book of Return of the King did the Ringwraiths always ride on the Dragon-like creatures? It was just that when I read the book I was under the impression that they rode on winged horses (after the first ones are 'killed' of course). Then I was quite suprised when they were on the Dragons for the film. Me too. I'm informed that they rode "winged steeds" in the book and so the dragons is a fair interpretation (though I haven't checked it myself). I still think it's a bit lame though, and detracts from the scariness of the Nazgul themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Omnion (yes, he is a man) on Feb 25, 2005 16:06:38 GMT
Yeah, but dragons are cool! (like the Nazgul themselves!)
|
|
|
Post by ronson on Feb 26, 2005 17:04:38 GMT
spiderman 2? come on surely one of the best!
worst has to be white squall, gigli, how to lose a guy in ten days, gangster number 1 and all the other lock stock wanabees (excluding layercake).
just simply poor script, acting, direction, cgi and action.
|
|
|
Post by Retro on Feb 26, 2005 19:33:28 GMT
Me too. I'm informed that they rode "winged steeds" in the book and so the dragons is a fair interpretation (though I haven't checked it myself). I still think it's a bit lame though, and detracts from the scariness of the Nazgul themselves. I had a good hunt through the books, and it was indeed dragon like creatures on which they rode. The chapter with Eoywn standing up to one has it. *knows WAY too much about LOTR to be healthy* *twopped with a REAL Dictionary to bring him back to the real world*
|
|