I’m curious…just what did people EXPECT from a movie about giant robots vs. giant monsters? Shakespeare?
Me too, though it is not amazing or anything.
No, just a really good movie. I was mostly bored.
You guys are talking crazy. ** Into Darkness** was freaking awesome.
The old Star Trek is dead. It time to move on folks.
What does the old Star Trek have to do with why this one’s problems? People critiqued Star Trek V, remember.
I was joking.
I expected it to be entertaining. It was tedious.
And if the new ST had decent acting, or even half-way believable plotlines, then I could accept it. But it’s crap.
I don’t remember either of those things in the old Star Trek.
For me, it’s Lone Ranger, not close. Maybe 70 minutes of movie spread over 2 1/2 hours, basically all spent watching Johnny Depp in make-up make his patented dead-pan face over and over again while his character gets into one ridiculous situation after another. Stupid plot, stupid writing, stupid acting. God, this was awful.
WWZ was mindless action fun; I’ve wasted two hours of my life on worse.
Oblivion was horrible, but at least *looked *gorgeous.
Surprised more people haven’t mentioned Man of Steel, which was interesting for the first two thirds of the movie, but the last 30 minutes just blew monkey balls. Yes, we know Superman is superman, do we really need a 30-minute long action/fight sequence to hammer the point home?
Star TrecK: Darkness was completely ruined by the last quarter of the movie.
And even though it was made for and initially released on TV, Sharknado was indeed released in theaters for a limited showing in August.
A tough choice, but desecrating both a franchise and a specific film (Into Darkness) trumps doing only the former (The Lone Ranger).
Big disappointment. The Lone Ranger was never a reluctant hero and in this movie, they played him as a whiny little git. Yeah, Johnny Depp as Tonto had some good zinger lines, but it wasn’t enough to carry the movie. And the dead bird? Gimme a break.
I didn’t, and don’t expect to, see The Butler, but I despise it on the grounds that from the very first trailer I saw for it, it was such shameless award bait that I couldn’t help but be glad it got not a single Academy Award nomination.
The karmic price to be paid, of course, is that Bad Grandpa will for all time now be correctly referred to as Academy Award-nominated Bad Grandpa.
By “limited release”, we can only hope they meant the first 20 minutes or so of the film, which is about all I could stand to watch, even with a bunch of bikini-wearing babes in it.
Forgot about that clunker. I didn’t watch many of the movies mentioned, because I look at reviews before plunking down that kind of cash. I can never figure out why people support the absolute crap that’s being produced (like The Lone Ranger). The reviews hammer a film, yet people still go and then bitch about it. The ones I’m panning are movies that I’ve seen on PPV or even on cable before watching. Even then, I won’t pay for something like TLR. Perhaps if I was housebound and bored to death. Maybe.
I said almost that exact same thing after seeing it. There was a pretty good hour-plus Lone Ranger movie buried inside all that overblown multi-hour excess dreck, but Gore Verbinski and the screenwriters (and Johnny Depp) couldn’t control themselves.
I just chortled at a comment somebody made that there won’t be deleted scenes included on the DVD for the 3-hour “The Wolf of Wall Street” - because there weren’t any. One might say the same for “The Lone Ranger” - although I see there is A deleted scene on the BluRay. One.
There was a Die Hard 5 ??? I vaugely remember hearing about Die Hard 4: Die Really, Really Hard or whatever it was called, but #5 flew completely under my radar.
I was a bit disappointed by Hobbit: TDoS, but only because I didn’t know it was going to be the middle of a trilogy, and I don’t see how Peter Jackson has enough story left for a third movie, unless he’s planning to do some serious padding.
Well, part is padding. But if you read other sources, Gandalf & Co were doing some very interesting things while the dwarves were marching along. I am glad we’re seeing that.
Sometimes it’s general optimism, sometimes it’s liking a particular element (director, actor, topic, setting) and sometimes it’s just plain curiosity. I didn’t see The Lone Ranger but I kinda wanted to. I do like Depp and Hammer. I didn’t read any reviews but I got the vibe that it wasn’t very good which didn’t mean much to me, but the previews were horrible too. It was on my list to check out at some point, but it was SO low-priority I never got around to it before it left the theaters. Since the likelihood of me seeing something low-priority at home that I missed in the theater are practically nil, I probably will never see it. But…
Bad reviews mean little to me. If a critic likes a film it gets put on my list, but if a critic doesn’t like a film I disregard their opinion since if I listened to critics I’d have missed some of my favorite films. Return to Oz got eviscerated when it was released and it’s one of my All-Time Favorite films. More recent movies that (while not favorites) I quite liked that are rated Rotten are Out Of The Furnace, The Book Thief, 47 Ronan, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Escape Plan, The Family and Runner, Runner (9%!! Fuck me, the Affleck hate is out of control).
If I only saw a few movies a year in the theater I could see how a broad range of reviews, coupled with research into the story and filmmaker pedigree would be extremely important, but since I see an insane amount of movies in the theater it’s not as important. Still, there are movies I’ll see no matter what. I like Ben Affleck as an actor and as a director. I like Justin Timberlake as an actor. I’ve liked Gemma Arterton in everything I’ve seen her in. The director Brad Furman made the excellent The Lincoln Lawyer which brought Matthew MacConaughey back from the dead. No way was I not going to see it, no matter what the critics said. It’s wasn’t great, but I thought it was good, and it sure was a helluva lot better than 9% would indicate. Fuckers.
Yeah, I agree. While neither Hobbit was a fraction as good as the LOTR movies and for me they don’t have the magic of, especially, Fellowship of the Ring, we’re getting to see more of Middle Earth and any disappointment I may have is tempered by…MIDDLE EARTH! ON THE BIG SCREEN! The more the better.