TF Views

Remove Mission Impossible 2 and 3 from history please. Holy shit did John Woo get jacked up on hollywood excesses and get stupid as fuck. And JJ Assface turned MI3 into an unrecognizable clusterfuck of wrongheaded ideas.

Tigermegatron wrote:Val Kilmer was a horrible choice to play batman/bruce wayne,as he was too stiff,didn't inject that much persona in the character & seemed rather booring/stale in the role. George clooney played a much better Batman compared to Val Kilmer. George's batman/bruce wayne was full of all the emotions,not stiff,not booring,not stale.

Val Kilmer was a great choice to play Bruce Wayne. Unfortunately he tanked his performance intentionally when he found out the studio promised he'd work with Tim Burton and then pulled the old switcharoo.

Clooney was the worst thing ever, Clooney was playing Clooney wearing a batsuit. The only thing that will redeem Clooney is when Ben Affleck steps into the role to be even worse by comparison.

Shock wrote:Dare Devil: I didn't see it, but all accounts I've heard have been bad. And I don't like Ben Afleck anyway.

Daredevil strives for adequacy and comes up just short, but that's its second flaw. Its first is casting Affleck and Garner and Colin Farrell in those roles and Mark Steven Johnson as the writer/director, the guy simply wasn't up to the task. It's not "bad" though, it's not a bad film in that classic sense, just mediocre and I think that's its biggest sin, it's middling with an uncharismatic cast and generic, simple script.

Also, I can't believe we're on a TF website and none of us has mentioned the TF movies. The first one suffered primarily from shaking cam syndrome and massive plot holes. Also, I didn't care for the robot designs. ROTF was even worse, sure there was less shaky cam, but again the plot holes piled up and the designs weren't better and the "humor" was just not funny. DOTM was way better than the previous 2, but again, 2 times 0 is still 0.

I'd erase all of them, so there'd be no sequels to talk about. But they start shitty and get worse, so it's not like they are damaging a cinematic franchise in any way, just extending its existing flaws. The problem is that they now stand as an island, they're not truly indicative of Transformers brand, but they are indicative of the Michael Bay Transformers movie style, so they've become so offensive that they're not even directly connected and thus not offensive to the brand as much. They stopped existing to further the Hasbro brand and became only there to further the Bay/Paramount/Shitty Summer Movies brand.

And I still haven't made it past page 1 yet Ok, so here goes...

Sparky wrote:Superman 3, 4 and Returns - 3 and 4 were so bad that Returns decided to ignore they existed. And Returns really wasn't better.

Spuerman 3 wasn't THAT bad, was it? I remember it being a huge step down from Superman 2, but still had some charm and an interesting plot and execution, and Richard Pryor. Been a while though.

Spider-Man 3 - I've seen a lot of people say they thought Venom was the worst part of the film, but for me, I though Venom was one of the best parts of it. As a whole, it just wasn't all that good of a movie and didn't really do justice to the characters.

Oh god yes, that movie was so bad. Can't say anything good about Venom though, bad execution across the board from page to casting to screen.

O6 wrote:Sometimes a bad movie makes me laugh, and I can get some entertainment out of it regardless of the level of badness. Batman and Robin has a few places that do that, but then there are long stretches that are just embarassing and make me cringe. Any time Poison Ivy shows up on screen is bad, which is a crime. I shouldn't be wanting to fast forward when Uma Thurman is on the screen, I should be enjoying the beautiful actress on the screen. But I'm not, because her acting is terrible and the part is written badly, and she's just stinking up the screen every time she appears.

And that led directly into her turn as Emma Peel in "The Avengers" which describes IDENTICALLY to what you have there, it's a fucking miracle she has a career at all after those 2 horribly botched Hollywood roles.

TM wrote:Those Lethal weapon movies were pure torture to watch. they were just so long,booring,dull & chock full of obnoxious/macho/corny/cheesy/outdated jokes/dialogue. the plots/stories. Joe Pesci & even joked on saturday night live in a "live skit parady" that his character was needed in some of these movies to make the movies funny,so viewers wouldn't fall asleep while watching them due to them being so booring.

Lethal Weapon 2 is pretty good. After that they go downhill horribly, because Richard Donner can't tell a good script from a bad one, and once Shane Black had blown his wad twice he decided to move on to making the same fucking film for another 25 years over and over.

The God Father part 3 wasn't as good as the first 2 movies. as the story made no sense. what little story/plot it had was pathetic.

Yeah, that was boring as shit and just not compelling at all, I remember seeing it in the theater and feeling totally WTF about it.

Shock wrote:Eyes Wide Shut. I'm not really sure I can elaborate since I've blocked it from memory and there is not enough money on this planet to pay me to see it again. I do seem to recall thinking the whole thing was an excuse for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman to be fucking a lot on the big screen. And there was some cult or something... I dunno, but I will say Tom Cruise should quit acting. I cannot watch a movie with him anymore whithout thinking "Oh goodie, it's Tom Cruise again". I mean, even in A Few Good Men, one of his best performances ever, I still can't tell you his character's name.

I can't speak to Eyes Wide Shut, by then I had left the video store and realized how terrible even "great" movies can be in the late '90s when Hollywood had been infected by the corporate machine, but Nicole Kidman at that time seemed like a lock to want to watch fuck, so it must be pretty bad.

As for Tom Cruise, I must begrudgingly disagree with you, the guy does scream "I am Tom Cruise" whenever he's on screen, and I want to hate him for it, but he's not a bad actor, he has natural talent and can transform a lot of roles into a mix of his charisma and real work. Risky Business, The Firm, Top Gun, Mission Impossible 1, Minority Report, Rain Man, A Few Good Men, The Last Samurai, these movies don't work DESPITE him, they work in large part BECAUSE OF him. On the other hand, mentioning Mission Impossible reminded me that I need to put the 2nd and 3rd on my list (4 was ok, but it wasn't good because of him).

As for Spiderman 3, I actually liked it. I thought they actually did a good job, with the exception of casting Topher Grace who I agree should quit acting.

I like Topher Grace, but I dislike almost everything they cast him in since That '70s Show because someone is working hard to change his appeal to the point where it's grating.

Anything with Martin Lawrence. That guy is my nemesis. Or I'm his. Whichever. It fits in comic book terms because we're exact opposites. He's an unfunny rich black guy that carries a gun and I'm a hilarious poor white guy who does not own any guns. But as for his movies, he's not funny and can't act and should not be on screen ever.

Yeah, he's marginally talented and somehow that shaky foundation has turned a half-funny standup into a media powerhose despite a total lack of skill.

Ishtar: This movie was so bad that I'm pretty sure it HAS been erased from history.

Bullshit, that is such a lazy cliche! Ishtar is fine, this is the most overhyped "failure" ever, it's a Hope & Crosby-inspired road movie, it's not perfect but it's closer to an 8 than a 3.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within: Again, this had as much to do with the game as... screw it, I don't have a funny analogy for this. But it had nothing in common but the name. And the plot was convoluted as well.

It looked nice but was lazily scripted nonsense.

TM wrote:While the first Airplane movie was epic awful...

You should really consider taking a nice long trip to somewhere else after that comment. Then lose your luggage and wallet.

Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey was a really horrible sequel. the script/plot was awful,the dialogue was more corny/cheesy. the 2nd movie just felt like it was made for toddlers & not adults.

Yeah, Bogus Journey does need to go away, it undid all the good things about the first movie and it did so with a half-baked script and too much money.

Shocko wrote:The Potter movies were all pure awesome, you just don't have the capacity to appreciate all the subtle nuances.

The middle movies are generic action fare and misfire badly for me, but the first few and last few hold up much better.

Anderson wrote:Wasn't there some talk of making a third Bill and Ted movie? I have to be honest, I'll probably go see it if they do.

Yes, and there still is, the money comes in and goes out as the pre-script treatment keeps getting reworked. Still on, I believe.

O6 wrote:Grievous was supposed to be boss as hell, and then they made him lame and killed him off anyway.

*Cough cough* any villain who comes out coughing and wheezing for no reason starts on the wrong foot. Then he is a super badass cyborg but he gets bested over and over, and eats it halfway through the movie. He's a pointless distraction, a half-baked character whose best ideas were left in the backstory we didn't get. I understand we're supposed to be jumping into these stories mid-stream, but you don't just go dumping villain after villain into each film hoping one will snag, you need a little foundation.

Anderson wrote:It is interesting to revisit the major angst over Micheal Keaton's casting, which I remember very well. The whole deal with Ben Affleck is very similar.

It really isn't. I remember seeing the first trailer way in advance of the film and then going to dinner with my mom and we discussed it at length. Keaton's casting was taking an actor that the world mainly knew from his comedic roles in smaller films and turning towards his darkness, it was a bold artistic choice, one borne of working with the man (Burton had wanted Sammy Davis Jr. to play Beetlejuice, not Keaton who he had to be convinced of), it was a visionary choice. Ben Affleck is an obvious choice built not of artistic vision but of corporate laziness, a decision by committee to exploit a rather middling actor's current wave of popularity (most likely that popularity taking place outside the US, I might add), we've already seen all that Affleck has to offer and even in this same genre, he comes up short in every way, and he's not a relative unknown, he's hired BECAUSE of his face value.

Mako wrote:Sure. There will always be the Michael Bay's of the world, where their flicks mean jack shit nothing. That doesn't mean that all summer action flicks are devoid of substance.

This is quite true, but what I think you're not catching is that analyzing from a scientific standpoint Tim Burton's artistic vision is a circle-jerk. Science cannot fully quantify art, science can barely hope to understand art and generally fails at that. Where Jungian symbolism may scream to the scientific mind looking to analyze a choice, the artistic vision didn't give it remotely any thought, it was a natural choice at the time. The difference in some ways between art and science is that science is built on the shoulders of giants while art really doesn't have to be, so while art can speak science's language, science cannot speak art's language.

Totally not what I was even talking about. All I said, was that a lot of people today still fall back on Jung and Freud's work, because it's more commonly known. So even though it's outdated, the same patterns and symbols keep cropping up in movies and lit. You can dismiss their work and their models, but you can't dismiss that people still use them.

Using Freudian work is dismissible, it's flawed work based on interference from outside forces and it's woefully focused on singular motivations with little integrity or consideration for variance.

Sparky wrote:Super hero is used to describe costumed crime fighters and vigilantes in general, not just those that have superpowers. And Batman spent years training his body which he maintains in order to be at his peak physical condition in order to do what he does. You'd expect someone like that to be muscular.

That's what foam rubber is for. Keaton was considered a miscast at first blush because his movies were lighter comedies - Night Shift, Mr Mom, Gung Ho - and his dramatic turn soon before in "Clean and Sober" really didn't hit the mark at the time.

Just being an A-list actor doesn't make someone the right choice for a role. Most of the actors that have played Batman I generally think of as only getting half the role right. Like with Val Kilmer, he was a decent Batman, but a terrible Bruce Wayne because he was so serious all the time, like he forgot to change character when he took off the mask. Michael Keaton I tend to think of the same way with his portrayal. He's a much more serious type of Bruce Wayne, although not quite as bad as Val Kilmer was.

Consider the source on this, TM just called Michael Keaton an "A-list actor" in 1988, that's insane. It's not worth arguing with after that. YOU WANNA GET NUTS?!? LET'S GET NUTS!!!!

I gotta head out, this thread is interesting. Page 6 is where I had to stop.

Remove Mission Impossible 2 and 3 from history please. Holy shit did John Woo get jacked up on hollywood excesses and get stupid as fuck. And JJ Assface turned MI3 into an unrecognizable clusterfuck of wrongheaded ideas.

Ghost Protocol is actually really, really good though. I'm as surprised as anyone else.

*Cough cough* any villain who comes out coughing and wheezing for no reason starts on the wrong foot. Then he is a super badass cyborg but he gets bested over and over, and eats it halfway through the movie. He's a pointless distraction, a half-baked character whose best ideas were left in the backstory we didn't get. I understand we're supposed to be jumping into these stories mid-stream, but you don't just go dumping villain after villain into each film hoping one will snag, you need a little foundation.

Yeah, it's even worse if you watched Clone Wars in the leadup to that movie, like I did, because that series made him (and Mace Windu) out to be like the biggest badass in the world. And then I saw him in the movie and I'm like, wtf, this guy is a wuss.

YOU WANNA GET NUTS?!? LET'S GET NUTS!!!!

Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?

JediTricks wrote:Spuerman 3 wasn't THAT bad, was it? I remember it being a huge step down from Superman 2, but still had some charm and an interesting plot and execution, and Richard Pryor. Been a while though.

You thought Richard Pryor being in it was a good thing? He was a decent comedian but his role in the film felt completely unnecessarily to me. I felt like Superman 3 was almost an unintentional parody, it was that bad.

Consider the source on this, TM just called Michael Keaton an "A-list actor" in 1988, that's insane. It's not worth arguing with after that. YOU WANNA GET NUTS?!? LET'S GET NUTS!!!!

Yeah, A-list is an overstatement, but still, Michael Keaton is a decent enough actor and had some pretty big hits at the time.

Superman 3 suffered from a LOT of production problems, specifically at the script level. Richard Pryor was a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the plot, especially at the end when the villains are using old style Atari-eque graphics to control missiles aimed at Superman. Or the fight in the wrecking yard between Clark and "Superman" where he's essentially fighting himself. The basic plot itself was ok, with Pryor's character stealing the fraction cents and sending them to another account, a plot that was used to great effect in the movie Office Space.

JediTricks wrote:

Mako wrote:Sure. There will always be the Michael Bay's of the world, where their flicks mean jack shit nothing. That doesn't mean that all summer action flicks are devoid of substance.

This is quite true, but what I think you're not catching is that analyzing from a scientific standpoint Tim Burton's artistic vision is a circle-jerk. Science cannot fully quantify art, science can barely hope to understand art and generally fails at that. Where Jungian symbolism may scream to the scientific mind looking to analyze a choice, the artistic vision didn't give it remotely any thought, it was a natural choice at the time. The difference in some ways between art and science is that science is built on the shoulders of giants while art really doesn't have to be, so while art can speak science's language, science cannot speak art's language.

Let's just get off of this, cuz we're going in circles at this point.

JediTricks wrote:Clooney was the worst thing ever, Clooney was playing Clooney wearing a batsuit.

Clooney is Clooney, no matter what movie he's in. Or at least, I've never seen him play anyone other than himself.

I was an extra in Leatherheads, which filmed in this area, so Clooney is one of the few actors I've actually seen up close and personal. Terrible movie, but there was no way to know that during production. I had a fun time getting a little movie-making experience though, and seeing some of how the process works behind the scenes.

I still say it was Uma Thurman who really stank up the screen in Batman and Robin though, and she was far worse than Clooney. The only two actors who acquitted themselves well were Chris O'Donnell and Micheal Gough.

Spuerman 3 wasn't THAT bad, was it? I remember it being a huge step down from Superman 2, but still had some charm and an interesting plot and execution, and Richard Pryor. Been a while though.

Superman 3 is perhaps the casebook example of a mixed bag when it comes to quality. The Clark Kent going home/Lana Lang plotline is well done and charming and humanizes Superman. And watching "bad" Superman doing petty things when he becomes a villain is the right kind of humor. On the other hand, the villains and Richard Pryor's character are pure camp. They're cartoons. I'm cringing every time they're on the screen. I know Hackman trended in that direction with his portrayal of Luthor, but he never took it as far as Pryor and Vaughn did.

It's not a movie that's all bad, but the bad parts drag the whole thing down considerably.

I haven't seen Superman III in forever, so there's a lot of it U don't recall. The only bit that sticks out in my head is when the supercomputer turns that lady into a crazy evil robot. Holy crappy, you guys, that scene was terrifying. At least it was when I saw it back when the movie was in theaters.