Fan Edit Highly Rated Movies You Do Not Like 051712
Man, what a great thread this is!
Oh man, 3 is wayyy worse than 2. I do like 2 the best - most interesting villain, some of the best action, good script, etc. Some of the acting can be a bit mediocre, and I didn't really care for Peter losing his powers either, too inexplicable and cliche. And I do like X2 and Iron Man 2 more. But I enjoyed it.
The action scenes were pretty good, I guess. I can concede that point to you. And I like Movie Doc Ock more than I like Movie Green Goblin. I didn’t like the script at all, but you’re more than welcome to.
A couple of other things I thought about that I will acknowledge are good about Spidey 2: A) The opening pizza delivery scene. Not only is it funny and entertaining, it works much better than the opening of 1, with Peter doing the dreaded voice-over narration just talking about his origins. B) I was grateful that the sequel didn’t give us multiple villains. Spidey 2 just had one villain – unlike 3.
Speaking of 3, it certainly was flawed, but at least everything related to the main point thematically. The whole movie was about Peter fighting his dark side, the temptation to misuse his power. Sandman (as annoying as his retcon was) was the main source of Peter’s temptation. The alien suit was the means by which he could give in to his darkness. And Eddie Brock was a representative of who Spidey could become if he did give in to the darkness (which is why Movie Eddie is a geek like Peter instead of a tough guy like in the comics, to better draw the parallel).
Spidey 3 would certainly have been better with 2,700 villains and 4,300 different plot threads. But at least they all connected to each other. (Even the whiny romantic subplot relates to Peter’s character development.) There’s just too much in Spidey 2 that has no reason for being there. For me, anyway.
I will say this: If that one fan editor (I forget his name) ever gets done with his cut of the best parts of Spidey 1 and Spidey 2, it just might be the best superhero movie ever.
thank you TomH for using the porno word correctly. it's not always about humping and the true meaning has been lost to most people.
Thanks for the kind words, Bailey!
No Country for Old Men.
(in that films defense, i probably didn't "get it.")
I loved that film, but I guess it can be confusing for others. It seems like it’s a heist film starring Josh Brolin, but it’s really a drama starring Tommy Lee Jones about a character who’s watched how much society has devolved into violence.
Also, there were a lot of long stretches with no dialogue, because the Coens have gotten so good at telling their stories visually. That’s great filmmaking to my mind, fwiw.
Some of the movies in this thread are only highly rated by geeks. Popular and highly rated are not the same things. "300"? Really? The New Yorker: "A muscle-magazine fantasy crossed with a video game and an Army recruiting film"; Roger Ebert: "300 has one-dimensional caricatures who talk like professional wrestlers plugging their next feud." I could go on.
I see your point, theslime. “300” was really successful at the box office, so that’s part of what I’m counting. (Others have counted “Transformers,” which also certainly wasn’t big with the critics.)
At any rate, what I read over and over again from a lot of critics at the time of the release of “300” was along the lines of “It delivers exactly the crazy, over-the-top action it promises.” Considering how many of my favorite films have been trashed by the critics for being “too violent” when they weren’t even remotely, it bugged me that some critics gave this one a free pass.
Care Bears on crack.
I really want to see a movie (or fan edit) with this title now.
Superman The Movie. Sorry. I'm not a big comic-reader, so maybe the first hour was interesting to all you Superman-nerds, but I found it too slow despite some bright spots. Then after a tedious, artistic, hour, the movie just slides completely into corniness, especially with Luthor's henchman. I never finished it :|
Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking, QC! I liked it a little better than you did, but I agree with all of your points.
I recently listened to a podcast where people were talking about their favorite (and least favorite) comic book movies. Nearly every movie got ripped on a little bit, but there was nothing but gushing for “Superman: The Movie.” Even “The Dark Knight” got ripped on a little bit – but not Superman!!
It has an important place in cinema history as the first superhero movie ever. And I suppose people connect with it more than the others because they first saw it as kids. But I don’t think people have the right to call the ’89 Batman campy and corny while letting goofy Lex Luthor get off scot free.
I find most Kubrick to be too emotionally remote for me to care much about the characters. I fully appreciate the artistry, but if I can't care about who I'm watching, I'm not sure why I'm watching.
You totally nailed it, Hebrides. Kubrick spends as much time as possible making the humans of “2001” distant, remote, and machine-like. Then I’m supposed to care what happens to Dave when HAL goes ballistic?
This is the one thing I will come to Avatars defense on, when the big bag humans come to take stupid named ore-ium from the NA`vi, their forces seem overwhelming and have the advantage, the whole fight seems to at least have a lot at stake, if Lucas had filmed the battle on Endor with the same level of loss and casualties for the Ewoks that would've bumped up the films entertainment by about 60%
When I watched Avatar and it got to the big battle, I said to myself, “Holy crap. James Cameron just went from ripping off Pocahantas to ripping off Return of the Jedi!”
RotJ is one of my top 10 films of all time, but from an adult perspective, I agree that it would have been better with more casualties. At least one major character should have died, too.
