-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/victims-of-hype-the-biggest-disappointments-of-2008.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Moving HP to '09 ticked me off, but it's like getting an extra 6 months to live (the series will inevitably end). On to my next rebuttal, why are you in a rush to end the HP cinematic experience? Why not make the final movie into two films? There won't be anything else in the HP universe ... ever to touch film ... I would rather visit the theater twice and know I will get my $20 worth instead of one HP and one crap (see above list of disappointments).
It will be a while until I will have a chance to have my literary experience spill so brilliantly onto the screen (Narnia, Twilight, Eragon ... all busts)
Moving HP to '09 ticked me off, but it's like getting an extra 6 months to live (the series will inevitably end). On to my next rebuttal, why are you in a rush to end the HP cinematic experience? Why not make the final movie into two films? There won't be anything else in the HP universe ... ever to touch film ... I would rather visit the theater twice and know I will get my $20 worth instead of one HP and one crap (see above list of disappointments).
It will be a while until I will have a chance to have my literary experience spill so brilliantly onto the screen (Narnia, Twilight, Eragon ... all busts)
... and nice article!!
That being said, where is The Spirit on the list? It had so much hype.... it's ridiculous!
And as for the disappointment over Indy 4 -- well, it's been 19 years and regardless if fans been more receptive to it -- there would've been a good degree of disappointment. And I liked it, it wasn't hideous or unwatchable, but its silliness was on par with the first three flicks. I grew up on the first two flicks (LC didn't jive with me), but I didn't feel like Lucas and Spielberg raped my childhood.
The other 3 are my all-time favorite movies and to even suggest this is part of the same series is ridiculous. They claimed they would use the same cameras as the first film and NO CG to keep it like the old ones.. but what do you see 5 minutes into the movie (right after Indy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator and flying 400 feet into the air and somehow still surviving) a fucking CG prairie dog.
WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?
The fucking MONKEY had Shia's Hairstyle.
Fuck George Lucas.
And I really wish some of you people would learn to carry on a conversation without having to resort to the use of four-letter words. It makes you sound like an uneducated buffoon.
The first 3 Indiana Jones movies are not just classic movies, they're movies that Spielberg and Lucas made as a tribute to the movies and TV shows they loved to watch as kids. NOT QUITE ON PAR is the largest understatement of the year. This film was made for MONEY and MONEY alone with absolutely no thought of integrity or the reasons they first made the Indiana Jones films.
This was NOT a good film. This was a film that was produced with the sole intent of making money. There's not one enjoyable scene in the movie. Everything looks like they tried REALLY hard and everything failed miserably.
Ants crawling up to get that guy. WHAT? Swinging through the trees to land on a car?! FUCK THAT. Aliens at the end. Poor acting all around. Even Harrison Ford was bad, and that's difficult to do. I'm assuming it's difficult to act when you know you're absolutely destroying an iconic film character.
As for the personal insults John, you can't go ahead and call me an uneducated buffoon because I throw the word fuck in here and there when you, just two posts down are saying that Batman is "just as twisted and screwed up as the villains he fights". THAT'S THE POINT.
Anyway, please don't say Indiana Jones was not bad without going back and watching it again. Just look at all the little things (the big things too, actually).
All I know is that Harrison Ford knows Indiana Jones better than anybody, and HE liked the movie. That's good enough for me.
And by the way, since when is Batman being as much of a mental case as his villains the point? Batman is supposed to be the HERO. Yeah, I know, I guess that's something of an old-fashioned concept to some of you young bucks.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know this: I had the opportunity to meet Bob Kane once when I was working as a newspaper reporter in the Chicago area and he attended a comic book convention there. I had the chance to spend some time with the man, get some insights as to this character he co-created. Based on that conversation I just can't see him looking at this movie as being a true representation of his creation.
I will concede that it is a pretty accurate depiction of Batman as re-imagined by Frank Miller. But that is in no way meant as a compliment. Miller represents everything I hate about what's happened to comics since around the mid-80s. His stuff has absolutely no charm about it whatsoever. His heroes are as nasty as his villains, so there's nobody to root for. Maybe that's why his movie version of "The Spirit" is so lousy. Maybe that's why a lot of us who were reading comic books before anyone was changing your diapers find so little to enjoy about the genre anymore.
I don't mind Miller wanting to explore the dark side of human nature if that's his schtick - but let him do it with his own characters, as he did with "Sin City." Quit messing up these iconic characters others created that have been around and known and loved for decades. Me, I'm ready for a return to some good old fashioned adventure stories where you can tell the difference between the heroes and villains you leave the theatre feeling better than you did going in. Guess that's a foreign concept these days, too.
One last thing and I'll crawl back under my rock. My observation about your language was just that - an observation. I try to be more mature about such things, but trust me - you'll know it when I've really insulted you.
Peace...
The movie "The Dark Knight" is based off Frank Miller's Batman, I'm pretty sure, and as a result is much darker. I'm down with seeing the flawless hero against the evil villain every once in a while, but something I'd like to sit down and get some humanity out of these characters. Nobody is good all the time. Everyone is flawed in some way and it's interesting to see characters make the wrong choices sometimes because of mixed up emotions or just plain selfishness. It's realistic. It may not be as light-hearted and fun but if I leave a film where the hero triumphs over the villain too many times I start to get bored. It's fun o mix it up here and there. I agree, though, that Frank Miller's version of Batman may not be the truest version, but it's the version Chris Nolan decided to portray. Plus, as you said of Indy it's just a FUN movie. Cool stunts, explosions, interesting character portrayal, etc. The difference between the two films is that Batman is a re-imagining of a character and the Indy film is supposed to be an extension of the story and it really just falls so short when compared to the originals.
Side note: Frank Miller is a terrible director and the reason Sin City worked was because Rodriguez basically was the director and Miller helped point him in certain directions.
Anyways, the observation about my language was intended as an insult, but that's fine. I'm not really offended. Have a good one man.
As for your comments about The Dark Knight and flawed heroes, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Sure, in real life everyone is flawed. Batman ain't real life. It's make believe. And the reason make believe is a fun place to visit is because it isn't real life. The heroes CAN be flawless; I don't expect that in real ife but I don't think it's too much to ask for in a fantasy. If I want real life I'll stay home from the theater and go on about my everyday life.
There's nothing fun about The Dark Knight. Cool stunts and explosions? Yes. Interesting character portrayals? At times. (Personally I think Heath Ledger was better in The Patriot, but that's a whole other argument...) But fun? Not by a long shot.
You're right about one thing: Frank Miller is a terrible director. He's not much of a writer or artist either, but that's just my opinion.
In any event, I won't think any less of you for liking The Dark Knight if you'll cut me some slack for preferring Indy 4. At the end of the day, they're just movies, after all. And everybody has different tastes.
Peace....
NOW Indy4 what can I say? That was just awful if you were to get a tiny boat with other 6 memeber and riding 3 high waterfalls? Don't you think you would've gotten hurt or off the boat? or even topsy turvy? Now Shia Labouf swinging on the trees?
Still awaiting to see Ben Button.
I got to the movies to be entertained and to have a good time. The Dark Knight provided none of this. The title says it all - it was TOO DARK.
Of course, I'm one of those old fogies who grew up watching the Adam West TV show, so I guess my opinion doesn't count for much. Hey, Fox, when are we going to see THAT series released on DVD?
year
Dark Knight-classic and doesn't need a stupid statue to tell us
And for your dissapointments from last year I really liked pirates 3. Great year though