What's spinning in your DVD PLAYER? eh? eh? General Movie Discussion - Page 29 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Big Boy Laroux · 05-25-2008, 05:56 PM

watched Superbad and Walk Hard this past weekend. I liked both of them, although I liked superbad more. I don't think the rewatchibility factor is high with either of them, at least for me.

LonghornDub · 05-25-2008, 07:01 PM

I thought the new Indy was horrendous. I'd give it a 1.5/10. George Lucas has lost his damn mind.

Big Boy Laroux · 05-25-2008, 08:31 PM

i heard the same review from a friend. Said it was ridiculously cheesy.

Ninkobei · 05-25-2008, 10:59 PM

I'll agree that Indy is bad. the whole ending didnt make any sense to me and they skipped out on one of the more interesting parts (not wanting to give anything away, but I wanted to see another dimension). and please, Shia lebouf, dont make any more movies.

jthig32 · 05-26-2008, 12:38 AM

The original three Indys are cheesy. What would you expect?

Saw Prince Caspian tonight. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that movie. If you liked the first I don't see why you wouldn't like this one.

I was a bit aggravated with some of the liberties they took with the source, but other than that I was quite pleased.

Nash13 · 05-26-2008, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

The original three Indys are cheesy. What would you expect?

Saw Prince Caspian tonight. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that movie. If you liked the first I don't see why you wouldn't like this one.

I was a bit aggravated with some of the liberties they took with the source, but other than that I was quite pleased.

Are you kidding? Not one of those character were interesting. And in the first one, the forest animals at least contributed to the story rather than throw out a bunch of one-liners. The villan wasn't nearly as good as the 1st. The prince, who was one of if not the lead character, is the worse actor ever. I thought the movie was ok at best. It was a typical sequel.

Flacolaco · 05-26-2008, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

The original three Indys are cheesy. What would you expect?

Saw Prince Caspian tonight. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that movie. If you liked the first I don't see why you wouldn't like this one.

I was a bit aggravated with some of the liberties they took with the source, but other than that I was quite pleased.

1 and 3 are greatness. Pure greatness.

Temple of doom is awful.

Prince Caspian is good if you liked the first one? What if you didn't like the first one?

jthig32 · 05-26-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nash13

Are you kidding? Not one of those character were interesting. And in the first one, the forest animals at least contributed to the story rather than throw out a bunch of one-liners. The villan wasn't nearly as good as the 1st. The prince, who was one of if not the lead character, is the worse actor ever. I thought the movie was ok at best. It was a typical sequel.

If you have a problem with the villain then you have a problem with the book, not the movie. I didn't think Caspian was any worse of an actor than the boy who plays Edmund. It's a bunch of child and young adult actors, you have to deal with a bit of bad acting at times.

I will say one of the things that frustrated me was the way they removed the battling the Narnians did on their own before the four arrived. In the book the animals and Caspian go to Aslan's Howe themselves, and fight Miraz on their own for a while. Then when things get desperate they blow the horn. I guess they figured they didn't want to go that long without the four children inovled in the movie, but I thought it was a bad decision.

But overall I still enjoyed the movie quite a bit.

And if you didn't like the first I certainly wouldn't bother seeing this one.

jthig32 · 05-26-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

1 and 3 are greatness. Pure greatness.

Temple of doom is awful.

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've only ever seen the first one, and I was bored out of my mind.

sike · 05-26-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

If you have a problem with the villain then you have a problem with the book, not the movie. I didn't think Caspian was any worse of an actor than the boy who plays Edmund. It's a bunch of child and young adult actors, you have to deal with a bit of bad acting at times.

I will say one of the things that frustrated me was the way they removed the battling the Narnians did on their own before the four arrived. In the book the animals and Caspian go to Aslan's Howe themselves, and fight Miraz on their own for a while. Then when things get desperate they blow the horn. I guess they figured they didn't want to go that long without the four children inovled in the movie, but I thought it was a bad decision.

But overall I still enjoyed the movie quite a bit.

And if you didn't like the first I certainly wouldn't bother seeing this one.

As somewhat of a purist, I didn't like the Susan/Caspian kiss and love situation...also, I don't remember there being THAT much rivalry between Peter and Caspian in the book...But overall PC is not one of my favorite in the series (its my 4th most liked) and I think they did a fine job with source material far less interesting than the first book.

sike · 05-26-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've only ever seen the first one, and I was bored out of my mind.

You are a nerd and there is no defense for you on this issue. ROTLA is one of the greatest action adventure movies of all time...it helped create a genre.

dude1394 · 05-26-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

1 and 3 are greatness. Pure greatness.

Temple of doom is awful.

Prince Caspian is good if you liked the first one? What if you didn't like the first one?

Have to agree about the Indys...1&3...some of the best entertainment ever. #2 sucked, #4..speilberg sold out on the story. Way too much chase crapola.

sike · 05-26-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

#4..speilberg sold out on the story. Way too much chase crapola.

I keep hearing this from EVERYBODY....sheesh why wait 20 years and then come out with junk?

dude1394 · 05-26-2008, 11:24 AM

I wouldn't exactly call it junk. It's got plenty of good fight scenes, chase scenes, etc. Not nearly enough story or comedy. I gave it a C.

But it's all about the benjamins brotha....

alexamenos · 05-26-2008, 11:34 AM

on my first viewing way back when in the theatres, i thought Temple of Doom sucked....it was gory, and campy and i was disappointed that we got a (mostly) self contained action inside mystery mountain instead of a grand globe hopping epic of biblical proportions.

but...

one thing i like to judge a movie on is the test of time thing....how well it holds up to second, and perhaps third viewing.

in that regards i think Temple of Doom holds up pretty well -- it's a fun, crazy, and often very dark ride with over-the-top acting, zany villians, a classic damsel in distress, and a colorful sidekick.

it's like a B-movie on steriods. i give it an A+ as a B movie, so it's a solid "B" in my book.

sike · 05-26-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

it's like a B-movie on steriods. i give it an A+ as a B movie, so it's a solid "B" in my book.

thats just the problem...its not a low-budget, no talent B movie...it was the follow up to Raiders and was then followed by The Last Crusade....making at best a C- in my book...whereas Raiders is an A+ and Crusade is a solid A. (For its time and genre)

Big Boy Laroux · 05-26-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've only ever seen the first one, and I was bored out of my mind.

yet you feel qualified to make a broad statement saying all 3 Indy movies were cheesy?

alexamenos · 05-26-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

thats just the problem...its not a low-budget, no talent B movie...it was the follow up to Raiders and was then followed by The Last Crusade....making at best a C- in my book...whereas Raiders is an A+ and Crusade is a solid A. (For its time and genre)

yeah............

..........maybe it's the expectations game at play???? when i viewed it then, i was disappointed. when i watch it now, without trying to fit it neatly into the Raiders trilogy, it's a fun movie that holds up fairly well...

and the chick is hot even if she's over-the-top.

sike · 05-26-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

yeah............

..........maybe it's the expectations game at play???? when i viewed it then, i was disappointed. when i watch it now, without trying to fit it neatly into the Raiders trilogy, it's a fun movie that holds up fairly well...

and the chick is hot even if she's over-the-top.

wasn't she Spielberg's wife?

jthig32 · 05-26-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

yet you feel qualified to make a broad statement saying all 3 Indy movies were cheesy?

Well the first one was cheesy, certainly. That's the one I can speak to. And I doubt the sequels got less cheesy, generally it's just the opposite.

And most of the people I know that like them admit that they are cheesy and campy.

jthig32 · 05-26-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

As somewhat of a purist, I didn't like the Susan/Caspian kiss and love situation...also, I don't remember there being THAT much rivalry between Peter and Caspian in the book...But overall PC is not one of my favorite in the series (its my 4th most liked) and I think they did a fine job with source material far less interesting than the first book.

Agree on both counts. As they were leaving at the end I was thinking "don't kiss him don't kiss him don't kiss...aaaahhhh".

And I agree on the content of the book as well. PC just doesn't have the greatest source material for a movie. Heck they had to completely add a battle scene that flat out didn't exist in the book to make it more interesting.

sike · 05-26-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Agree on both counts. As they were leaving at the end I was thinking "don't kiss him don't kiss him don't kiss...aaaahhhh".

And I agree on the content of the book as well. PC just doesn't have the greatest source material for a movie. Heck they had to completely add a battle scene that flat out didn't exist in the book to make it more interesting.

and there is no doubt that Miraz is a total let down after the White Which. Talk about a drop off of gargantuan proportions...Lewis should have known better.

(Look at me, questioning C.S. Lewis!)

sike · 05-26-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well the first one was cheesy, certainly. That's the one I can speak to. And I doubt the sequels got less cheesy, generally it's just the opposite.

And most of the people I know that like them admit that they are cheesy and campy.

good fun campy...not just campy campy.

Big Boy Laroux · 05-26-2008, 12:37 PM

to me, there's a difference between campy and cheesy. cheesy is a negative - a "roll your eyes, this is dumb" movie.

Campy i can see. Campy can be (and often is) fun, as well as funny.

sike · 05-26-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

to me, there's a difference between campy and cheesy. cheesy is a negative - a "roll your eyes, this is dumb" movie.

Campy i can see. Campy can be (and often is) fun, as well as funny.

no doubt.

Flacolaco · 05-26-2008, 02:57 PM

Finally saw National Treasure 2 last night.

Pretty solid, I guess. Too much action, car chase stuff for me, not enough pseudo-fake history and clues.

sike · 05-26-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Finally saw National Treasure 2 last night.

Pretty solid, I guess. Too much action, car chase stuff for me, not enough pseudo-fake history and clues.

for a "leave your brain behind" movie...it was fine. (Funny enough, I watched it last night as well)

jthig32 · 05-26-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Finally saw National Treasure 2 last night.

Pretty solid, I guess. Too much action, car chase stuff for me, not enough pseudo-fake history and clues.

Now there is a typical sequel. They didn't have enough cool history stuff left in their bag so they filled it with generic Hollywood stuff.

It wasn't terrible as long as you went into it expecting a sequel.

sike · 05-26-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Now there is a typical sequel. They didn't have enough cool history stuff left in their bag so they filled it with generic Hollywood stuff.

It wasn't terrible as long as you went into it expecting a sequel.

As it ended I was thinking, "Man, those dudes from days gone by sure knew how to set up cool booby traps!"

untitled · 05-26-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

I keep hearing this from EVERYBODY....sheesh why wait 20 years and then come out with junk?

It has happened before...

sike · 05-26-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitled

It has happened before...

I think we've found a common link...

fluid.forty.one · 05-26-2008, 07:05 PM

Just got out of narnia. It was really good, we were late to it so we had to sit in the front row so I might have missed stuff.

mcsluggo · 05-27-2008, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've only ever seen the first one, and I was bored out of my mind.

Raiders of the Lost Ark?

sorry, but there is absolutly no way I will EVER give a single ounce of credence to an opinion you give an a movie again. Ever. Period.

really, I am serious.

(it would be roughly equivalent to letting you set me up on a blind date a few minutes after you stated that "you didn't understand the facination men seemed to have with women, per se, but you DID like to put lipstick on electric sanders and pickle jars and such")

ShaggyDirk · 05-27-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Raiders of the Lost Ark?

sorry, but there is absolutly no way I will EVER give a single ounce of credence to an opinion you give an a movie again. Ever. Period.

really, I am serious.

(it would be roughly equivalent to letting you set me up on a blind date a few minutes after you stated that "you didn't understand the facination men seemed to have with women, per se, but you DID like to put lipstick on electric sanders and pickle jars and such")

agree.. I read his take yesterday and I am still trying to understand. it's even to ridiculous to be a bit

jthig32 · 05-27-2008, 01:26 PM

Dunno what to tell you. I saw it for the first time a couple months ago and was completely unimpressed. Perhaps it was ahead of its time when it was released. Maybe if I had seen it then I would have loved it. But comparing it to the current adventure films of the day, it's pretty bland. If I'm going to watch a mindless action flick (which I am fine with, I love mindless action flicks) I prefer for the action and the main character to be interesting.

So I guess the list of universally loved films that I was bored by is up to two, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Pulp Fiction.

ShaggyDirk · 05-27-2008, 01:43 PM

It's the formula that worked in the early 80's. Before Lucas went crazy, that particular formula was in both the Star Wars Trilogy and the Indy Trilogy. It wasn't just some mindless action flick in it's time. It is a fully developed plot with an unforgetable character. I agree with most of the things you say in this thread, but this is just so far gone from what I would consider a debatable difference of opinion.

Big Boy Laroux · 05-27-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

But comparing it to the current adventure films of the day, it's pretty bland.

let me guess, you prefer "National Treasure"?

jthig32 · 05-27-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

let me guess, you prefer "National Treasure"?

Well.....yeah.

National Treasure is certainly nothing special, but I'd be lying if I denied enjoynig it more than the first Indy. I'm sure I'll catch more grief for that.

Big Boy Laroux · 05-27-2008, 02:31 PM

well, seeing as national treasure is essentially an Indy rip-off, that's why i mentioned it.

an indy rip-off with a far less interesting main character.

jthig32 · 05-27-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

well, seeing as national treasure is essentially an Indy rip-off, that's why i mentioned it.

an indy rip-off with a far less interesting main character.

Well I don't find either character interesting.

However, the historical puzzles were far more interesting, imo.