Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
And it was FUCKING AMAZING.
I can't believe anyone gave it less than a five star review, frankly.
I don't remember the reviews. I just remember them being 'Meh' in the papers.
or horrific insanity?
I've not read the graphic novel so I have no idea what's been changed. But I can't see why anyone who'd not read it wouldn't like this?
I also noted the director was first assistant on three of Hollywood's shittest outpourings (namely Star Wars II and Matrix 2 and 3), making me think he should have been at the helm of those two.
cliched production design
hamfisted performances from usually proficient actors and actresses
predictable plot, and badly written - made little sense; a religious takeover of british politics? yes very likely. this a film by americans written about america but they don't have the balls to say so.
cliched matrix style effects
what worked well in the novel came across in the film as the phantom of the opera vs nazis with british accents.
Dunno, I'm not saying it's better than Fight Club but then you seem to want a totally different sort of movie from what you've written there? As a fairly straight-forward comic-book style action film it's far better than dross like Daredevil.
I actually thought the direction was good. It was certainly slick and well paced and the 'religious takeover' wasn't really there. It was a takeover by the sort of elements the BNP and Moseley always have represented. The use of religion by such types is a natural fallback to control.
just one that doesn't piss all over alan moore's genius ;o)
The things that irk me however are as follows:-
Bollocks - how many times?
Oh look mummy, they're playing music
but these are just superficial, I thought that the whole film was excellent, with some intriguing characters. I like films that make you think and this was no exception.
Did anyone else think that Dietrich was V's former gay lover?
i thought: 'when will it end'
actually i enjoyed the last 45 minutes because me and the girlfriend were driven to drink from boredom and spent that time repeating everything that portman said in her ludicrous accent. funnier than it sounds.
watching bad films. alcohol made Van Helsing entertaining!
but not Catwoman. being drunk during that just led me to vocally insult both the film and people around me for being there.
Hmm. I guess it is, but it's utter guff. You can't possibly suggest this was in the same league of shit film making as Van Helsing? That director really is a fucking useless hack. The Mummy's just as shit.
and v for for vendetta aren't miles apart from each other. v for vendetta just has a higher sense of (deluded) self-importance
and yeah, it both takes itself a little more seriously and is far better directed.
Van Helsing is visually a total mess to begin with. I'll admit Helsing was more amusing to watch than I'd expected.
his comments don't have anything to do with Moore, surely? I'm sure fans of the comic wouldn't be happy, but then films that are great adaptations are very few and far between. And generally you probably like which ever one you read/saw first regardless.
"what worked well in the novel came across in the film as the phantom of the opera vs nazis with british accents."
weren't novel-specific I meant, obviously!
just means that it looks the same as any other hollywood action scifi film.
i'm certainly not opposed to mainstream blockbusters, just ones that insult my intelligence, repeat things i've seen a thousand times and bore me to death.
children of men despite the rather overly earnest trailer.
have come to realise that if there were a nemesis section of this site based on film, Theo would be top of my list.
By quite some way
Assuming you class the 80% of these as worthless:
Though if you don't like Fight Club you probably shouldn't be allowed near a cinema again! ;-)
only cast the merest glance over your extensive collection, but anyone that owns Airplane II and Romeo & Juliet is alright by me.
I take it all back
Romeo & Juliet is a great film.
Airplane II is mostly gash but was dirt cheap and I bought it because I loved it as a kid.
was agreeing with you without any sense of irony, I think Romeo & Juliet is brilliant
very good visual gag in it
Shatner is actually giving one of his greatest performances in Airplane! II. Give you an idea of how bad an actor he really is, I guess.
you obviously agree then.
Shatner is fantastic in Star Trek (the series) what are you talking about....he has to play a borderline psychotic egomaniac, I think he does it rather well
I would like to see William Shatner, John Travolta and Peter Falk in something together
there are a few others I seem to remember, pretty much all involving Shatner.
I think he's too hammy in Star Trek. I like how Nicholas Meyer explained the only way to get a natural performance out of him for Wrath of Khan was to keep retaking the scene over and over until he got so bored he just said the line (partcularly "Khan? Here it comes.")
and also haven't read the novel.
It almost beat the wicker man remake in terms of "so bad its funny"
But not quite.
And I thought V for Vendetta was certainly better.
I enjoyed most of Batman Begins but no part of it that Liam Neeson was involved in.
ive not seen v for vienetta like but i cant imagine it being better
it's definitely the better film, but overall, I think it's let down by trying to do too much in its time and by the choice of main 'bad guys', who really didn't seem to fit at all with Batman in my view.
Neither of these should be a problem with the new Batman flick so I have high hopes, but by the end of it I just felt a bit disappointed and cheated by the plotting.
And also, I thought the opening 15-20 mins were a mess, lazily relying on you wanting to see a film about Batman to be drawn in, because the plotting and editing certainly don't do it any favours.
Most of the criticisms are surely more to do with the stylistic direction rather than the quality?
I've not read the graphic novel, mind. But in any case I've always felt films should be judged as a separate piece of work to whatever they're based on.
It was silly in places but I felt on the whole the film worked, was fun and the ending was really exhilarating in its own way.
is the stylistic direction separate from the quality? film is a visual art...
and anyway the fact that its an adaptation is only one of my criticisms.
...that I think most of the criticisms are more to do with people not liking the direction the Wachowski brothers took the film in, rather than them failing to make the film they wanted to make.
My logic (flawed though it may be) is that a film is only 'bad' if the director has failed in what they were trying to do. If they've done what they're were trying to do but people don't like it then it becomes more of a dislike of the style than the film being bad.
I'm not sure if that makes sense. And obviosuly I'm simplifying somewhat - it's much more complex than that.
You could take Temple of Doom as an example there. Spielberg doesn't really put a foot wrong in the filmmaking stakes, it just happens to be really quite bad.
But y'know, if you compared it to Tomb Raider or Van Helsing, it's easy to see that Temple of Doom is actually a well-made film (with a woman who can't stop screaming) and the other two are simply embarrassing messes for the directors/writers involved.
is shockingly bad.