I was using the surfing to represent the overblown depiction of the battle as a whole, but: sure. If you don’t have time to spare for important stuff, you certainly don’t have time to spare for nonsense.
Sure, if the battle was supposed to be the climax of the story. In the movie, it almost overshadowed the quest of the Ring Bearer, and the actual climax of the story.
They had to win that battle three times: the arrival of the Rohirrem, the defeat of the Witch King, and the ghosts killing the Oliphaunts. Why not take out the Oliphaunts, who never showed up for that battle in the books?
I’m fine with showing the battle of Pelennor Fields, and making it epic, but giving it that much focus and time, and then claiming “there was no time” to fit in the Scouring just shows, to me, that Jackson has a misplaced sense of what parts of the book were the important bits.
The Duck Who Fell to Earth may be supremely confusing and boring in parts, but it is faithful to its source material.
Melvin and Howard the Duck remains the Lucas-Demme abomination that single-handedly killed off duck-cinema for more than 20 years, until the one-two punches of Into the Wild and the weird-spanish El Laberinto del Pato brought it back. As much as I like his movies, I don’t think giving Guillermo del Toro a 10-picture deal to do Donald Duck movies is… I dunno. The first one was good.
The Hobbit is a favorite of mine; it’s everything the overblown trilogy wasn’t, and Br. Theodore’s Gollum is, for me, the way he should sound. The Rankin-Bass Return of the King isn’t so great: it was clearly rushed, and doesn’t even bother to include Gimli, Legolas, Arwen, or Saruman.
As with all lists of this sort, our responses say far more about ourselves than the movies we trash (or honor, for that matter), so, [quote=“IronEdithKidd, post:312, topic:78302”]
Waterworld is irredeemably awful.
[/quote]
I am lulled into cine-graphic obedience by Kevin Costner’s affectless acting. His dulcet monotone coupled with melodramatic plots and Planet of the Apes level mythmaking have resulted in more accidental screenings of Waterworld than I care to share. I’ll flip by it on TBS and just…stop. Damn you Kevin Costner: forever hooked on you because of the one film where your style made sense: Dances With Wolves.
It wasn’t really awful until the ending. Then the ending retroactively made the entire movie horrible, the aliens mind-bogglingly stupid, and caused my brain to briefly short-circuit.
And the godamn movie times. The. Godamn. Movie. Showtimes. The theater closest to me plays all the 3D stuff at the standard times, 3:30, 5:30, 7:30, but they play the related 2D version of the same movie at 4:10, 6:47, or 9:22, or some other mildly inconvenient time slot.
And because of that, I’ve pretty much boycotted 3D movies since…that one time I was able to drag my now-ex to see Avatar. And we both liked it and had a good time. Which was also the last time we had a good time doing anything.
I’ve wondered why it wasn’t a great movie instead of merely a good one. The most I can come up with is that the music got annoying before long. If it had the score from from The Magnificent Seven, it might be considered a great movie.
I know, I know, but I loved Signs. Aliens attack; twist ending: God is real.
You want talk about M. Night Shyamalan’s endings. Holy shit was the ending of Unbreakable the worst thing that ever happened to me in a movie theatre. If you stop watching that movie when his wife says, “It’s over now” and the screen fades to black then it might be one of my favourite movies. If you include that last scene and the text-over at the end, then… oh god, I don’t even know.
No, but like the best Star Trek movies and TV eps they were delightfully campy even when they had a serious side.
But then someone decides these movies should be serious. They amp up the explosions and remove most if not all of the silliness that gave them so much of their charm and fun.
There is no Bond or Star Trek movie that should be considered great cinema, but IMO there is a clear dividing line between the Fun and No Fun eras of both franchises, and aside from having the benefit of modern technology, those on the No Fun side of the divide are in no way better than their predecessors.
The first Trek reboot had as much camp as lens flares. Lack of camp wasn’t why it was unengaging for me.
The problem is that IDGAF about blockbuster movies.
What you may also want is a premium cable series, which we have with Brian Fuller as the showrunner. Have you seen Hannibal? That man is an art-camp geek mastermind who absolutely adores the source material.
Yes, there was some camp in the 2009 ST. I guess my complaint is not so much that it was absent, but that it fell flat. Mostly facile attempts to establish the new cast as properly filling the shoes of the old characters. (And the decision to go with the old characters is what doomed the whole thing from the start IMO.)
I have seen most of Hannibal. I don’t hate it, but it doesn’t really click for me the way I had expected it to. I also didn’t care for Pushing Daisies, and enjoyed Wonderfalls but wasn’t upset by its short run.
