Didn’t Lois Lane tend toward the competent? I could be wrong, but I thought she was a very good journalist (Wikipedia calls her “award-winning.”) In the movie, much is made of how incompetent the character is.
It may be that Paltrow is a terrible actress–I don’t have an opinion on her either way–but the way that character was written was really a bad idea. She would have been so much more interesting if she’d been super-competent within her field.
The latter day (well, I’d say Bronze Age onward) comic-book Lois Lane is competent, certainly, but in the Fleischer cartoons, she was always hiding in the bad guy’s vehicle to “get the story” or doing something else stupidly self-endangering. I suppose on at least one occasion she made herself useful, in the sense of breaking the bad guy’s machine or something, but overall she was pretty much damsel-who-put-herself-in-distress.
I agree. I really like this film, and I had no idea it got such lousy ratings.
Re: Mars Attacks, if I recall it was lambasted…including by me. However, I think I could enjoy it today…the same cannot be said for Sleepy Hollow, Planet of the Apes or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
There is an alternate ending on the DVD, and if that was the first ending, I’m glad the test audiences complained - I hated it. I thought it diminished then point (as I saw it) of the movie.
Sleepy Hollow was extremely well-liked by critics and audiences.
Stargate. The Emmerich film, not the TV show. Its use of language was a striking contrast to the usual pop-culture portrayal of aliens speaking English.
First Knight. No, it’s not classic Arthuriana, it just uses the names. But it’s not like the traditional medieval mishmash we call “classic Arthuriana” is historical or even consistent with the earliest known sources of the Arthur tradition. It’s a good movie, that remembers that medieval Europe was a) Christian, and b) not overrun with magic-users. And its climax is an argument about God and justice!
Kevin Costner’s The Postman. Gets slammed by David Brin fans (but not Brin himself) for not being as far into bonkers sci-fi as the novel. Gets slammed by film buffs for not being Il Postino. Has some serious issues, what with the star being the executive producer, the director, and having final edit. Self-indulgent, runs long. It’s still a beautiful meditation on the nature of good government and civil society. With horses.
I liked it well enough. Some relatives who were very into free-form roleplay loved it–because it’s about storytelling, in some way? I think it’s one of those things that you like or you don’t, but its objective badness quotient is pretty low. There was, iirc, just one bit that I thought was weak rather than just peculiar; but it’s been several years.
I’m quite sure I have seen worse movies.
Carson: “I did not know that.” There should be a thread about films that you’re utterly stunned to find out were popular.
Edit: I think a lot of people liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory too…but not I.
Yeah, that was something. I kind of thought that was Will Smith deciding to make it all about the Smiths.
I could tell it was a satire when I watched it. I may have read an interview with Verhoeven beforehand, I don’t know.
I’m not a great Verhoeven fan, but ST and Robocop are movies of his that I liked for the satire–or movies I didn’t like much, but had satirical bits I did like.
Both of these are sort of painful (intentionally) and funny both. I won’t knock them.
You should check out the physical variation/transformation Keaton gets up to in Multiplicity. He’s a really good actor.
I have a soft spot for *Bedazzled *maybe for similar reasons I have a soft spot for Joe Vs. the Volcano. I may be a sucker for movies that blatantly play with visual and casting motifs. And Bill Murray would not have been an improvement on Brendan Fraser. Might have made a good devil.
Yes, the book was much better, and the movie followed only about the first 1/4 of the book’s plotline. I did see it in the theater when it first came out. The seats were filled, and I didn’t notice anyone leaving early. I thought the movie was okay, but maybe just because I was a Tom Petty fan.
And that’s the problem. You know what, I think I’ll write a screenplay:
A handsome young man and a beautiful young woman, both scions of families of power and wealth. The families are rivals and the young people become implacable enemies who spend their entire lives trying to destroy each other, but end up each becoming richer and more powerful than ever. It’ll be a brilliant satire on the current political situation with the Democrats and Republicans.
When you name your work directly after a source, you assume an obligation to at least remain somewhat true to the actual source, not take a giant shit on it and call it art. Verhoeven is a pretentious prick and a fraud.
Again, calling it Starship Troopers likely wasn’t Verhoeven’s decision. The studio purchased the film rights to the book after the film (which was originally titled “Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine”) had begun production.
Except all the characters had names from the book and the movie followed the book’s general plot outline. If there was an original script, it was altered beyond all recognition to match the book.
Or this:
Plus, FWIW:
Og knows that the problems with Starship Troopers have been hashed out *ad nauseum * on this Board, but I’d just like to add a couple of thoughts.
1.) I can’t think of any other film in which the gulf between the source material and the film have been so incredibly wide. I’m not talking about minor changes in plot and dialogue. The two are separated by miles in basic philosophical outlook, in their approach to scientific accuracy (Heinlein is probably pirouetting in his grave over the scientific howlers alone in ST, regardless of what else they’ve done to his work – and Heinlein was one of the top “hard” sf writers), and in mere common sense (the troopers go down practically unarmored onto a planet literally swarming with bug warriors that are essentially no-cost killing machines? Whose bright idea was that? And the soldiers round up The Bugs by getting in a circle and firing at them? Wasn’t that a bad ethnic joke — (reviled nationality here) Firing Squad?)
2.) I think another beef the Heinlein fans had with Veerhoeven and company was that few enough adaptations of significant SF works get made, with big budgets and good effects, and here they had to trash it this way, ignoring the well thought-out details of culture and engineering, making people do dumb things, and being philosophically 180 degrees from the original. I think that also explains the grief over I, Robot
I think the main beef Heinlein fans had with Verhoeven and company is that they felt they were mocking Heinlein.
Re: The Last Action Hero: I think everybody got that it was supposed to be a satire. It just wasn’t a *good *satire, because most of the jokes were too obvious. For instance, the kid points out the 555 area codes, a trope of which the audience has already known about for decades.
Also, I remember at the time it was heavily promoted through merchandise like toys, fast food cups, etc like it was another Arnold action movie, and Arnold action movies are always supposed to be blockbusters. I think the negativity was more due to the excess commercial stimulation than the movie itself.
Right. Same with Superman Returns.