The 13th Warrior spent a lot of money on the sea scenes. The version of the film that was scheduled to be distributed in 1998 got terrible preview reactions, so they went back for reshoots and didn’t release the film until the next year. They also completely changed the film score. This probably accounts for some of the reasons that big-budget films are often complete messes. The budget is so big because the filmmakers kept trying to fix a bad film.
I am not a big fan of slapstick and this looked like it was full of slapstick. Some of the reviews confirmed it for me:
(both taken from Rotten Tomatoes)
That was enough to confirm for me that it was going to be bad.
I find Lauren Graham adorable though. OK, not enough so as to make me want to see the film, but she is adorable.
Now that the thread is meandering considerably, I’d just like to comment on this:
Sometimes, maybe. But sometimes they engage in extraordinary acts of philanthropy and compassion, create great works of art, advance scientific knowledge, and save inumerable lives.
Some people thought the film’s depiction of the Jewish characters was offensive. And a number of people in the mainstream were unsure if audiences would be big on a movie based on the major story of Christianity- but films with Christian themes or remakes of Christian themes often cause controversy. Before Passion, I think the last two religious-themed films which caused controversy were The Last Temptation of Christ (for depicting Jesus having sex) and Monty Python’s Life of Brian (for satirizing the Christ story).
Except, of course, that it wasn’t. It was satirizing the dunderheads who follow Christ without understanding what he meant. (As stated by one of the Pythoners in an interview I saw with them.)
There was also Jesus of Montreal, that recent film where the actress portraying Mary wound up pregnant at the tender age of 16, and there was another one, which involved a modern day “Virgin Mary” as a prostitute.
Not as far as Dio’s concerned. He’s made no bones about his distaste for anything even vaguely religious.
It’s almost rather refreshing.
ALMOST.
But given his attitudes, it’s pretty clear that he’d have hated this movie even if it were funny. It was utterly predictable. One wonders why he bothered to plunk down good money to see it in the first place, when he could have gone to “Hostel 2” or something more up his alley.
I remember a mere 16 years ago when Terminator 2 came out, it cost $100 million to make, and was declared the most expensive film ever. I remember some magazine (perhaps Rolling Stone?) even asking if Hollywood should spend that much money making a movie. I think the answer in most cases is no, they should not. I’m amazed T2 doesn’t even appear on the list Wendell posted.
Riiiiight.
From what I’ve read so far even Cosby couldn’t save this sinking ship.
Har, har. 
He actually answers that question in post 14.
I, personally, am not surprised to find out it sucks; I kinda enjoyed Bruce Almighty, but expected less than nothing from this lame excuse for a sequel, and my only surprise at the 20% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes is that it didn’t do worse.
That’s not true. I don’t automatically hate anything with a religious theme. I’m fine with that if it’s sincere and if it makes an effort to tackle Big Questions in a thoughtful way (I really liked Robert Duvall’s The Apostle, for instnace). This movie doesn’t really care about religion, though. It just uses it in a very glib and facile way. It’s a put on. The studio wants to appeal to Red State Christians (and even though no political parties are mentioned, I think it’s vaguely hinted that Evan is a Republican), but the writing doesn’t show any real religious knowledge or affection for faith. It’s just a shuck and jive. I actually think Christians will be pretty unsatisfied by this movie. It doesn’t offend them but it doesn’t really give them anything but some insincere backslapping either. It’s kind of the cinematic equivalent of shooting some finger guns at people of faith and say “Hey, religion, I think that’s great.” It’s smarmy.
Well, most fundamentalists don’t look into things- if they see “Christ” and “satire” in the same sentence, they rebel. Most of them are probably some of those dunderheads.
That’s good to hear, but you can understand how so many people come to the other conclusion, what with blanket statements like this: “I’m not real big on people with power being guided by God. They end up driving planes into buildings or invading Iraq.” Where are the qualifiers? Where is the tempered judgment? Where is the clue that you’re not on automatic?
Gr8Kat writes:
> I remember a mere 16 years ago when Terminator 2 came out, it cost $100
> million to make, and was declared the most expensive film ever. I remember
> some magazine (perhaps Rolling Stone?) even asking if Hollywood should
> spend that much money making a movie. I think the answer in most cases is no,
> they should not. I’m amazed T2 doesn’t even appear on the list Wendell posted.
$100 million in 1991 is less than $155 million in 2005 dollars, so it isn’t on the list.
Best movie review I have read in quite some time. I HATE movies made by stupid people for stupid people.
I think the cap on movie costs should be $50 million, which means that if you’ve got an Oscar winner who demands $20 mil per picture, then you only have $30 million to make your movie, or convince your star to work for a percentage of the box office take.
Hmm. As a former Christian I found it kind of weird and very offputting in the trailer that they undermined the message of God’s covenant with the rainbow jut so they could make a cheesy looking comedy. I mean, obviously they get around it in the film, but still.
I don’t think being critical of the film necessarily equates with being negative toward Christianity. I thought the message from the trailer was pretty damn negative toward respecting the actual biblical text equated with the obviously Christian God they were presenting in Morgan Freeman’s character. It kind of pissed me off, and I’m so far lapsed it’s not even funny.
Me neither. “I’m not real big on people with power being guided by God. They end up driving planes into buildings or invading Iraq.” I wouldn’t call that “critical of the film”.
I guess i’m the only person here who loved it. And i’d see it again. I feel like the critics were being a bag of dicks who just need something to complain about. I enjoyed it for being a comedy, albeit a PG comedy which did have me worried at first. But my cousin, my friend, and myself were all delightedly surprised walking out of the theatre.
It was a critique of a scene in a film which endorsed theocratic politics.