Movies that could have, should have, been much better than they were.

Cold Mountain - the book was awesome, the movie was so close to being. But it added too much action early (in what should have been a human drama), and a super human indian that is no where in the book and has no point to the story, and just wasn’t as dark and desperate feeling as the book. Which is a shame because sprinkled in with the bad was some really good bits and acting that just couldn’t quiet hold the movie completely up.

Gettysburg - Gahhhh this should be an all time classic war movie, but there are these expositions, and maudlin acting at just a few spots mixed in with all the fanastic acting that just ruins it.

The Return of the Jedi - Really George, you had it nailed… you brought the story together, you had the ground battle, the space battle and Luke’s epic struggle to bring Vader back to the light side all happening at once. It was frantic, it was dark, it was on the verge of being EPIC!!!.. and in the midst of it all you gave us… EWOKS, fricken annoying teddy bears, comic relief, a kid’s marketing ploy… DAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

At its most basic outline, Highlander is one of the coolest and most poorly utilized concepts in movies and television. I mean, get one B- history major on the writing team, and the screenplays write themselves.

Did you see the original concepts for the Ewoks? Nasty little fanged guys out of a nitemare.

It’s not off-limits. It’s just recent history, and using an already debunked version of events and treating it as factual is insulting and wrong. There have been lots of things in media about the assassination, some even intentionally fictional, but no others try to posit a conspiracy theory based on debunked theories. The same thing will happen if you try that with any other recent history.

Plus, no one has misunderstood the movie. Oliver Stone honestly believes the story he presented is factual, and thus presented it as if it were factual. As you point out, even gave out footnotes and references to people to back it up. That’s not something you do if you’re just trying to write a story.

People who do not believe in a conspiracy hate it because it makes a conspiracy seem possible to those who do not care to do research. People who do believe in even the slightest bit of a conspiracy hate it because everything in it is easily debunked.

I had more written, but I don’t want to hijack this thread into discussing the problems with JFK conspiracy theories. I’ll just mention one brief thing that is relevant to what you said. Nearly everything I saw on the assassination went out of its way to explain the “magic bullet” as not being magical. That’s the exact opposite of your claim that people just dismissed the movie because of the source material.

I never saw anyone mention that the problem with the book was just that it came from Garrison’s research. Heck, I didn’t even know it all came from that. I thought this whole time that Stone just put his own theories into Garrison’s mouth.

I won’t hijack this thread either, but one thing you said struck me. you said that you thought Stone put his own theories into Garrison’s mouth. I don’t know if you meant to say that, or if I was whooshed, but this is why i think the movie was and still is misunderstood. Stone based the bulk of the movie on Garrison’s two books, “On the Trail of the Assassins” and “Heritage of Stone”. He also used a book called “Crossfire - The Plot That Killed Kennedy” by Jim Marrs.

I would venture to say that 95% of the people who saw JFK or criticized it when it came out never cracked one of the three books. I’ve read them all, and the movie is based on Garrison’s investigation, (OTTOTA) and he pulls some details on the actual hit and some other details from CTPTKK. I think Stone does believe in a conspiracy that killed JFK, but he didn’t present his movie as a history lesson. He’s always maintained in interviews that his movie was supposed to be a representation of Garrison’s investigation, which if you read Garrisons book, it is. He also admits to changing a few details to make the story flow better. He has documented all that he did. If you read the two books, I believe you will understand why Garrison’s investigation went in the directions it did, and how he came to charge Clay Shaw. Whether you believe in any conspiracy or not, Stone was true to the story.

I’ll give you one example that is always given as to why the movie isn’t credible: the meeting between Garrison and Mr. X that took place in DC in the movie never happened. This is what Stone will call “creative license”. But if you read Garrison’s book, you will find that the meeting with Mr. X actually takes place in Chicago, and Mr. X was actually a guy named Fletcher Prouty. The info in the movie was basically the same, but Stone chose to present it in a way that made the scene more dramatic. If you read the book, this scene makes sense because Stone wanted to get the info to the viewer, and his clandestine meeting flowed much better than the Chicago meeting. Not exactly a criminal change by Stone, but it WAS inaccurate. And i believe he documented this extensively, as he did everything else for the movie. As far as I’m aware, Stone didn’t make anything up in the movie relating to the basic facts of Garrisons’s investigation or the assassination itself that didn’t appear in one of his two main source material books.

That’s what I meant by the movie being misunderstood.

As for your point about the “magic bullet”. There are only two things that make the magic bullet magical to me. The weight of the bullet fragments retrieved from Connelly added to the weight of the magic bullet itself was higher than the weight of a pristine bullet. That and the fact that the bullet itself was barely damaged, and the fragments didn’t exactly fit back into magic bullet like pieces of a puzzle. Maybe that can be explained, but not in this thread, and I’ve never read anything that made any sense to me.

End hijack

Live and Let Die – Roger Moore’s first outing as James Bond disappointed me when it first came out. This had been a successful franchise, and had been fun, even when it went somewhat over the top. But this movie was just awful:

1.) At the very beginning I saw, in the opening credits, credit for “shark scenes” . Oh, great, I think, it’s going to be kinda like Thunderball, where you have scenes with Bond barely escaping the sharks, a guy getting attacked by a shark, and guysfighting off sharks – all scenes that had been done with both sharks and stuntpeople in the same shot. In this film, though, the actors are intercut with scenes of sharks. They could’ve filmed it in an aquarium!

2.) Mr. Big’s death scene (Bond forces a gas device in his mouth, and he inflates like a balloon, rises out of the water, and explodes) is easily the most ludicrous and ridiculous one seen in the series up to that point.

3.) The film has a racist feel to it, no matter what they do to try and avoid that.

4.) James Bond smoking a cigar? Really?

5.) Sherrif Pepper, an increment on the police chief in the previous Diamonds are Forever, who also chased Bond. But Pepper plays it for all the character-actor Southern humor he can manage. A definite move in the wrong direction to low comedy. It was even worse when Pepper shows up, off-the-wall implausibly, in the next film, The Man with the Golden Gun.

6.) Bond defends himself from a poisonous snake with a spray bottle-turned-flamethrower. not only unlikely, but it just looks BAD. Even finishing up with Bond using the product afterwards, as if nothing had happened, doesn’t help.

7.) After fighting Russian agents, SPECTRE, and Goldfinger, in plots that involve national secrets, atomic weapons, space ships, and bioweapon terror, it seems more than a little bit of a letdown to have Bond fighting the leader of a Caribbean island and a drug lord. if ever a movie needed SPECTRE, this is it.

There was some good stuff in it – the local scenes and exotica, the “Fleming sweep” that moved the plot from location to location. The chase scene and stunt with the double-decker bus. But it wasn’t enough to save this flick.

All right, all right, not going to hijack this either, just want to clarify. I’m not talking about facts. To me, the facts are pretty simple: Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter, he probably did it out of misplaced Communist sympathies, and while others may have wanted him dead, they weren’t in on it. I know this, I believe this.

But the fact is that thousands, if not millions, didn’t believe, they flat-out spat on the Warren Commission Report, and to this day it’s impossible to convince them otherwise. Why? What was unique about this period, this political and social climate, this pivotal snapshot in history, that this one murder (hardly the only high-profile murder of the era) generated such fanatical belief in a conspiracy that persists to this day? THAT’S the story I’m interested in. I don’t need a documentary, I don’t need to hear how the Mafia collaborated with the KGB or how the Trilateral Commission changed the parade route or whatever crap; just tell me what made people cling to such outlandish beliefs. You don’t need 6 hours for this, you just need a sample of concerned parties (including Mr. Garrison, who is an important player if not the shining hero Stone portrays him as) going through the events, plenty of soul-searching, and even having the occasional heated confrontation that threatens to get violent. Argue nothing, conclude nothing, and let the audience decide who they think did it. Hell, most of them have before they even entered the theater.

Charlie Wilson’s War should have been as great as A Few Good Men: Top drawer writer/director in Aaron Sorkin, stellar cast including Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julia Roberts. They cheaped out on the battle scene (Looked like it was shot indoors) and didn’t do enough to draw a line from the 80s Mujahaddeen to today’s al Qaeda. Kind of a mess, really.

Am I the only person who saw coming, and hated, the ending of Sky Captain?

Gwyneth Paltrow’s character, who’d been taking incredible pictures throughout, had left her camera’s lens cap on?

I recently re-watched “Contagion” with Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne, and many others, and I think it fits squarely in this discussion. The cast was first rate; the story idea was a contagious virus threatening the whole world (always a favourite of mine); somehow the movie was just okay, not fascinating or enthralling. I have a hard time figuring out why it wasn’t better - the story was too big, and they tried to do too much? We never developed any real sympathy with any of the characters? The director doesn’t understand why world-wide crises are interesting?

What I know of JFK’s assassination and spycraft is what leads me not to believe Lee Harvey Oswald did it. The classic way many agencies handle an assassination that they absolutely do not want to be linked to is to recruit some chump to do it, then have him killed by someone they are sure won’t crack under pressure. Enter Jack Ruby. Both men have enough dubious background that they could have easily been recruited by some low level handler without really knowing who really recruited them, or why. And there’s that amazing bullet. I don’t have any theories about who did it or why, but the whole thing stinks on ice. It’s not culture, it’s all those suspicious aspects of the case. Is that so hard to understand?

I agree with **Contact **even though it is my personal favorite movie, and I’ve never read the book. I think the movie could have been better, and the ending really weakened it. Still my personal favorite :slight_smile:

I don’t know if Inglorious Basterds could have been any better but to me it is the weakest of the Tarantino films, even more so than Jacky Brown (which took me several viewings to fully appreciate but Basterds hasn’t gotten my attention for even a 2nd viewing).

First thing came to mind was Dune. The book was awesome so it was quite a let down how the movie turned out. It seemed so confusing to me and I had read the book! Can imagine how lost people must have been who had not read the book. It was jumping all over the place as if they had cut it to pieces, which I guess was the case because that was a long book and to get that story crammed into a 2 hour flick would be incredibly difficult. They definately could have done a better job if they would have made it into a two part or maybe even a three part film.

Another movie I want to mention is True Romance. Personally, I liked the movie, but I read somewhere that the writer Quentin Tarantino was unhappy with the end result. Apparently, the director Tony Scott changed the ending. Point is, although I personally did like the movie, I would love to see how Tarantino would have done it if he had been the director.

Terminator 3 could have been a total classic with just one little change: have Kristinna Lokken play the whole movie in the nude. Remember how she looked in that opening scene? So freaking amazing! So have her do the whole movie naked. You can give it some SF handwaving to make it plausible: “She has to be naked because she’s an advanced model and an unexpected programming glitch causes clothing to mess up her circuitry.”

Coulda been FANTASTIC!

I could’ve written this post.

We watched The Look of Love last weekend.

Summary: It’s the story of Paul Raymond. The Brit’s answer to Hefner/Guccione/Flynt. Strip clubs, porn mags, etc. From the 1950s to the 1990s.

Horribly made film. I am surprised it’s 56% at RT.

The first part is in black and white. Why? Because it’s the 1950s, you dummy. They didn’t invent colors until the 1960s!

The movie just rushes. One quick scene right after another. They were clearly cramming too much into the movie and needed it to move along. The 1950s stuff was especially rapid and that made it even more confusing since the characters were new and you didn’t know who was who.

Oh, it’s told in flashback and it wasn’t clear at times what part was “past” and what part was “present”. Given the pacing of the film, this made things even more crammed in and confusing.

It seemed at first it was going to focus on Raymond’s relation with his daughter. Then she more or less disappeared. Then she came back. And the film again focused on the father-daughter thing.

What a mess. If they had selected one third as many events to cover and showed them in greater depth, it might have been an okay film. And just stay with the father-daughter story.

Very good cast. E.g., we just saw Steve Coogan in What Maisie Knew recently. Very good dramatic turn. Doubly so for someone more known as a comedian.

They had a good opportunity to tell the story of The King of Soho and botched it.

It would be a great film to cover in class in film school showing what-not-to-do.

But they struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering. :frowning:

Ah yes, that movie was something about hidden treasure right? It was in Alba’s pants, and not very well hidden. 5 stars.

Every superhero movie can be improved by paring the origin story down to about 5 minutes.

:dubious: Nothing Clancy-comparable can be ruined by making it funny. It can only be improved.