 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > but that it failed to meet fan expectations.
> That, and the acting sucked.
I have seen movies with truely bad acting, and I didn't see any of that in
the SW trilogy. I never understood what people are talking about when they
say there's bad acting in the trilogy. Granted, perhaps not oscar-worthy
acting, but bad?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Me? I find only a handful of movies that are worth watching more than
> once in the theatre, and many more that are worth watching many times at
> home (especially while doing something else, perhaps).
Here movie theatres are way too expensive to go and watch a movie more
than once (if at all). If it wasn't for that I might perhaps go more often.
As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
(No, it's nothing pornographic or the like.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4783710e$1@news.povray.org...
> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III
> sucks beyond belief...]
Where did you see that? Of the 3 movies of the new trilogy it was the one
that had the best reviews (see the Wikipedia article and the IMDB and
RottenTomatoes ratings for instance).
In any case Warp is right, the problem with these movies were not that they
sucked: the whole Star Wars franchise is a tribute to the cheesy serials
from Lucas' childhood after all, so the suckage was built-in, from Darth
Vader to Jar-Jar. It was that the fans expectations were impossible to meet.
The material was cheesy from the very start, but it didn't look that way
when the fans were little kids in the 80s. The new movies are cheesy too,
but the fans grew up...
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> but that it failed to meet fan expectations.
>
> That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors, given
> how it was filmed.
>
> In the later parts of 2 and 3, you wind up meeting every major character
> from 4, 5, and 6, which felt jammed in. Some fans have retconned it to
> make sense, implying that (for example) Chewbacca was using Solo as
> cover for spying, rather than just being the first mate of the ship.
I don't know about bad acting - most of the acting was fairly
reasonable. However, the editing leaves much to be desired. Character
says 3 lines. Cut to fantastical shot. Cut to another character.
Character says a few words. Cut to another impossible landscape. Cut to
something happening in space. Cut. Cut. Cut.
If you watch the originals, there are whole scenes where nothing
"really" happens much. Like some people walk around, and it's kinda
spooky, and they mutter a few words to each other, and you're not really
sure what's going to happen next... The new films don't appear to
contain anything like that.
Also the story is pretty weak. But hey.
I actually quite enjoyed Star Wars I. I still watch it from time to
time. But once you've watched it once, there's not a huge amount to
watch again. I would say it's the best of the new batch. The other two
just seem to offer nothing. [Unless you just want to enjoy the -
admittedly cutting edge - visuals.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III
>> sucks beyond belief...]
>
> Where did you see that? Of the 3 movies of the new trilogy it was the one
> that had the best reviews (see the Wikipedia article and the IMDB and
> RottenTomatoes ratings for instance).
Hmm, OK. The false concencus effect then, perhaps?
> In any case Warp is right, the problem with these movies were not that they
> sucked: the whole Star Wars franchise is a tribute to the cheesy serials
> from Lucas' childhood after all, so the suckage was built-in, from Darth
> Vader to Jar-Jar. It was that the fans expectations were impossible to meet.
> The material was cheesy from the very start, but it didn't look that way
> when the fans were little kids in the 80s. The new movies are cheesy too,
> but the fans grew up...
I wouldn't say there's anything "cheesy" about any of the films in the
series - old or new. The problem is that the new films are an endless
cascade of fantastical over-the-top visuals linked by little or no
story, never mind dialog or character interaction. But there we are...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
> twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
> I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
It was Titanic!
Everyone went crazy going and seeing that move in the movie theatre again
and again...
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have seen movies with truely bad acting,
Yes. Most anything with Drew Carrey, for example. :-)
I just found the actors to be (for the most part) wooden. The more
central the character, the more unemotional the acting was. Anakin
should be way more broken up over his conflicts, but instead the most
emotive acting comes when he wears his mask.
Contrast with, for example, Luke leaning back in bed after Lea kisses
him, with Solo rolling his eyes. Nothing like that anywhere in the
I/II/III movies. The most emotive characters in the prequels were the
special effects ("It's a trap!")
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Here movie theatres are way too expensive to go and watch a movie more
> than once (if at all). If it wasn't for that I might perhaps go more often.
I can remember two myself:
Galaxy Quest
Joe vs the Volcano.
I think there was one other, but I don't remember what it was. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:46:15 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
Do you just mean "12 Monkeys", the Terry Gilliam movie? That one was
pretty hard to follow, but Gilliam tends to be very surreal.
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
It's Kubrick - almost gotta expect that.
> #1 Dune.
It's a classic Messiah story; the David Lynch movie was abbreviated far
too much compared to the book, I found the miniseries on SciFi to be
better...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:52:03 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie Does it 'star'
>> Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
A comedy should make one laugh; I don't know about you, but Sandler
doesn't make me laugh. Nor does Vaughan.
>> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided to spread her talents into the
>> medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
First time I saw it, I thought it was OK. The second time I saw it, I
didn't like it - seemed to send the message that violence is OK. I know
it's more complicated than that, but still.
>> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend have a
>> prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.
Never saw it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
