• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Favorite Edit of the Year (FEOTY) Nominations for 2020 are now open! Submit your entries here.

A few reviews

TMBTM

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,903
Reaction score
4
Trophy Points
83
Neglify said:
Oh nice, I never even knew Kev Smith did a podcast commentary for it. Did he do one for Batman 89 as well? Which Podcast? Smodcast regular or Hollywood Babble On?

Yes he did.

basicaly, just go to youtube and write "Kevin smith podcast" or "commentary" and choose the "20 minutes long" filter on the search option and you'll get most of those videos.
 

TMBTM

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,903
Reaction score
4
Trophy Points
83
LOL,
Ranger beat me to it.....
I removed my youtube links so it's not "double post."
 

ranger613

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
TMBTM said:
LOL,
Ranger beat me to it.....
I removed my youtube links so it's not "double post."

Lol. They're a nice way to rewatch these movies
 

Neglify

Well-known member
Messages
13,971
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
123
Awesome thanks.

Someone disliked TMBTM's post about removing his videos so it's not a double post? :?
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,451
Reaction score
35
Trophy Points
158
Vultural said:
Your move.

No thanks. I don't care what the internet thinks and obviously I shouldn't have cared what you think. I do care what this community thinks, which is why I felt the need to defend myself.

But as I said, I'm ready to move on. At this point I'm more concerned how anyone could possibly give Batman Returns a mere 2.5/5. I think it's even better than Batman 89.
 

ranger613

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
TV's Frink said:
No thanks. I don't care what the internet thinks and obviously I shouldn't have cared what you think. I do care what this community thinks, which is why I felt the need to defend myself.

But as I said, I'm ready to move on. At this point I'm more concerned how anyone could possibly give Batman Returns a mere 2.5/5. I think it's even better than Batman 89.
Well, I remember liking it a lot more as well, but re watching it (with commentary mind you) I realize just how little batman there actually is (his character or personality is not explored at all) relative to the significantly heavier emphasis on the two villains (who, granted, are not among my favorites). The film really centers around catwoman and especially penguin, who both have fuller arcs (penguin has more screen time I believe);, Burton was likely more interested in the "freak"/outsider angle the penguin embodied, like he does in most of his stuff. 2.5 is not bad, it's ok! Batman 89 at least had an origins story for batman and some development, the best cut of it is [MENTION=8734]Dwight Fry[/MENTION]'s great edit
 

Dwight Fry

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,110
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
I'm actually with Ranger here (and thanks for the praise to my edit!) as I think Batman Returns is a pretty good Tim Burton movie but a pretty bad Batman movie. It's just Burton using the Batman characters as avatars to tell something totally unrelated to their universe. I much prefer Batman'89, which, flaws or not, is a Batman movie.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,451
Reaction score
35
Trophy Points
158
I guess the difference is that I have no loyalty to Batman, and in fact I generally have no interest in superhero movies, so all I cared about was how good the movie was. How good of a Batman movie it was held no importance to me.
 

TMBTM

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,903
Reaction score
4
Trophy Points
83
Burton's Batman movies are (were?) both good but now I fall asleep watching them..
Same with Indiana Jones and Last Crusade, who was released same time as the first Batman, by the way. Part is because I think all those movies have VERY choreographed looking actions. You can almost feel the stuntmen getting ready to enter the frame before they are... you can feel Jack Nicholson must stop right at THIS point to make his little joke at THAT precise moment or else it would fall flat, Sean Connery must sit on THAT chair to open the trap to escape at THAT precise moment, etc... So it makes for fun scenes, sure, but on several watching it does not work that good anymore.
If that makes sens.
 

Dwight Fry

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,110
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Even as a self-contained movie it had fatal flaws, mostly silly lines ("Eat floor. High fiber") and silly scenes (DJ Bat-scratching!)
 

ranger613

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Dwight Fry said:
I'm actually with Ranger here (and thanks for the praise to my edit!) as I think Batman Returns is a pretty good Tim Burton movie but a pretty bad Batman movie. It's just Burton using the Batman characters as avatars to tell something totally unrelated to their universe. I much prefer Batman'89, which, flaws or not, is a Batman movie.

TMBTM said:
Burton's Batman movies are (were?) both good but now I fall asleep watching them..
Same with Indiana Jones and Last Crusade, who was released same time as the first Batman, by the way. Part is because I think all those movies have VERY choreographed looking actions. You can almost feel the stuntmen getting ready to enter the frame before they are... you can feel Jack Nicholson must stop right at THIS point to make his little joke at THAT precise moment or else it would fall flat, Sean Connery must sit on THAT chair to open the trap to escape at THAT precise moment, etc... So it makes for fun scenes, sure, but on several watching it does not work that good anymore.
If that makes sens.

Dwight Fry said:
Even as a self-contained movie it had fatal flaws, mostly silly lines ("Eat floor. High fiber") and silly scenes (DJ Bat-scratching!)

Yeah, I think we all kinda agree on the same thing-- we don't Hate the movie, they're just (1) dated, and (2) deviate too much from the 'dark and serious' reimagining it was supposed to be. Echoing TMBTM, I noticed that the whole movie looked like it was shot on built sets or stages, giving everything an unnatural, fake look (vs the Nolan films which looked very real). And of course like Dwight Fry said, the lines were just awful--"Hear me roar", "I'd like to fill her void", etc. Oh and Batman is also a violent murderer lol (blows guy up with dynamite, intentionally sets a guy on fire (!), murders Joker instead of capturing him, pushes Catwoman off roof, machine guns henchmen from his car, etc etc)-- compare with Nolan's Batman. It's nostalgic and I like it for that reason, but other than that, it doesn't hold up..

Oh and Dwight, no prob man, I Loved your edit, it fixed all the problems I had with the original (the silly scenes, some of the songs, and 'restoring' Joe Chill--thank you!;-)) . Sorry I haven't left a review yet, will do soon.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,451
Reaction score
35
Trophy Points
158
Snowpiercer (2013)

This was pretty fantastic. Leaving aside the general WTF of the plot device (a train that can circle the globe endlessly for years and years strikes me as fairly unlikely), this movie was great fun.

7 protein blocks out of 8.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,451
Reaction score
35
Trophy Points
158
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (EE) (2014)

I know a lot of people have a lot of problems with this movie but I'm an ardent defender of it. I presume it helps that I never read the Tolkien books until after seeing the LOTR movies so I have no devotion to the books. I also forgive PJ his occasional missteps give how incredible the movies are overall. This was the first time watching the movie since seeing it in the theaters two years ago, so I wasn't 100% sure of what was new for the EE, but in general I thought it all worked just fine as a whole.

7.5 riddles in the dark out of 8
 

Vultural

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
41
TM2YC said:
Please can you delete both the ^ reviews that contain these words and perhaps post them over on IMDB where I won't have to see them. Thanks.

Understood, sir. I have complied with request and deleted both reviews.
I apologize if either review offended others. Even if by accident, such was never my intention,
I shall endeavor to improve.
Apologies for the tardy reply. Thank you for your comments, TMTYC.
 

TM2YC

Well-known member
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
132
Trophy Points
178
Vultural said:
Thank you. My reviews of Mr Nice and Ferris Wheel At Night were already posted on IMDB.
I shall endeavor to improve.
Apologies for the tardy reply. Thank you for your comments, TMTYC.

I wasn't actually serious.
 

Vultural

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
41
TM2YC said:
I wasn't actually serious.

I took - and take - you dead serious.
You are a Site Administrator.
Your requests carry weight and, from your history of posts, I know you are not a frivolous or impulsive character.
Consequently, I did as requested, as well as extended an apology.
Again, thank you for your advice and assistance.
I shall not broach the topic again.

Best, V
 

ranger613

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
46
Waterworld (aka Fishtar), 1995
Waterworld-Costner.jpg


Ugh, ok, probably going to have disagreements on this one but fine -- this was a solidly entertaining movie and I liked it. Honestly, I didn't just expect this to be bad, I expected it to be shit, with the reputation it has, and intentionally avoided it whenver it was on tv. I've never seen it until Dustin6595 made a fanedit request prompting me to get the BluRay, and I watched it yesterday.

44% n RT is pretty ridiculous for this movie to have. So as far as I read, most of the criticism for the movie per contemporary reviews are (1) we don't like Kevin Costner because he was apparently a prick on set, (2) we don't like Kevin Costner because he was divorcing his wife at the time, (3) the movie rips off Road Warrior, (4) it was the most expensive movie ever made, therefore it should have looked better, (5) Kevin Costner acts like he doesn't care about anything in the movie, his heart's not in it, (6) it was silly and over the top, (7) It's over 2 hours.. These are all pretty irrelevant reasons to hate on the movie, and some very silly too, like the actual film was 2h 7min excluding credits. 7 mins over 2 h is a huge gripe?

I don't care about Kevin Costner, just like I don't care about 'Mad Max' Mel Gibson-- they're characters in movies as far as I'm concerned, not people, so their personal lives mean jack shit to me. Nobody today cares about how much this movie costs,but it looks pretty damn impressive-- very few CGI shots unlike contemporary films of the time, lots of practical effects and sets which is always awesome. Costner's Man with No Name character is an unlikeable rogue (not Bull Durham, Silverado, Dances with WOlves or Field of Dreams dude)--he suggests child murder, forced prostitution and beats a woman into submission with a paddle--he is very reminiscent and clearly modelled on Eastwood's Leone character and even Max from Mad Max 2; angry loner type, but unlike the latter two who had charisma,Costner's Mariner was just flat out apathetic, cold and brutal in many scenes,something not all audience (including myself) warmed to at all, but that was the Character. And as for his 'heart not being in it', he reportedly put over 20 mil of his own money into making it, and did most of the stunts himself--actually more than any other star I remember--its clearly Costner sliding down or up pulleys and harnesses in those scenes which don't appear to have safety nets. He was in top form.

Silly and over the top? Well, it was no more silly and over the top than Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. Both films had eye rolling goofy and ridiculous moments (The Humungous?). Yea they're not The Insider or Schindler's List, they're action-adventure films, so they're going to be a little stupid. Waterworld has its share of ridiculous moments, but nothing worse than what you would find in any other/today's summer blockbusters.

The movie takes the Mad Max/ Road Warrior concept and applies it to a new world to make a very unique and interesting environment. This is infinitely more interesting to me than a reboot or sequel or rebooquel or whatever the fuck else hacks refer to it as nowadays. The movie writers also explicitly state they were influenced by the Mad Max trilogy-- I see this as a good thing as an interesting idea can be changed to conform to a new setting.

Plot-wise, (theatrical cut, which I feel is the definitive cut) the film does not drag (except after the climax for about 10 mins), all the scenes had something interesting, it was quite well directed, the music was good, the villains were great to watch. My only gripe was that it should have been more hardcore and amped up the violence and cursing for an R. These lines from the final cut for example: "You freaking re***d. What in the screwed-up world do you think you are?" really annoyed me, they should not have toned it down for a PG-13. There are things I would cut to tighten pacing, and of course the goofy acrobatics in one scene, silly dialogue by a little girl in another, etc.

It's not a great movie, or a masterpiece, and its not the Lord of the Rings story-wise, but it's a very enjoyable escapist flick which delivers 100% on its promise. It's hard to believe this movie has a rep as bad as it does. It's also definitely my favorite film from Kevin Costner (I don't like anything else he's been in, literally--yes all of them from Dances to Bull to Field to Silverado to 3000 miles to Jack Ryan and Man of Steel). But I love Road Warrior, and this movie did a pretty damn good job of being Road Warrior on water, which is fun to watch and I definitely will revisit again.

Score: 3/5 (enjoyable escapist fun)-- should be a 73% on RT

Note: Just reading the cutlist, I can tell the theatrical version is my preferred cut. The runtime is perfect and nothing really drags. I'm more interested in the characters' actions than why the world is the way it is, so I'll only be using the Theatrical bluray for the Ocean Warrior edit.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,451
Reaction score
35
Trophy Points
158
I think it's a pretty solid movie, actually.
 

bionicbob

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
6,843
Reaction score
74
Trophy Points
103
ranger613 said:
Waterworld -- this was a solidly entertaining movie and I liked it.

I agree. It is a fun and well executed movie and does not deserve it's bad rep. :thumb:

You should try watching THE POSTMAN next.... hee hee.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
33
Trophy Points
48
TV's Frink said:
Snowpiercer (2013)

This was pretty fantastic. Leaving aside the general WTF of the plot device (a train that can circle the globe endlessly for years and years strikes me as fairly unlikely), this movie was great fun.

7 protein blocks out of 8.
Saw this one over the weekend. I couldn't help but imagine the studio pitch: "it's like Hunger Games meets the Raid!" I liked it but it felt a little more hollow than I hoped.
 
Top Bottom