Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ok the ones that win awards and are blockbusters but you hate them yourself. Everyone likes The Good The Bad and the Ugly but i hate it. I also dont dont like Kingdom of heaven and Narnia

Which blockbuster do you hate ??

What awards did The Good, The Bad & The Ugly get? And how much did it gross?

The "blockbusters" I don't like are usually directed by Michael Bay. Funny that.

lord of the rings...hated them

I can't think of any, I don't really hate many films.

There's an awful lot of blockbusters I don't like.

The Matrix sequels

POTC 3 + 4 maybe 2 aswell

I think all of POTC were awful.

Really ?? i liked the first one

Fantastic Four.

I rarely walk out of any movie feeling disappointed, because I never go see unless I'm sure I'll like the premise, and coincidentally it's always been pulled off.

I went to F4, as I go to most Marvel movies, cos I like the comics. It was actually the biggest piece of shit, and what annoys me is what females in the movies seem to say. Jessica Alba said "Yeah we tried to make it true to the comics, but it's also very funny and kinda sexy.". Why? Why does it need to be sexy? Just make it good.

-AC

cloverfield

I didn't think much of Fantastic Four either, haven't bothered with the sequel even. I saw it for free though, so didn't waste money on it at least.

Saw films.

Underworld films.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
cloverfield

Haha, we've actually influenced you, I knew it.

Sweet.

-AC

LOTR.....OMG I hated them.

Originally posted by coolmovies
POTC 3 + 4 maybe 2 aswell

There is a fourth movie?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
LOTR.....OMG I hated them.

Thats just because you're a star wars fan and you're not allowed to like them

had a wee look through my dvd collection

world trade centre
28 weeks later
apocalypto
the descent

but above all....the village

Ohhh, The Village. Good one. I'm right there with you.

Mission impossible 2
Independence day
Spiderman 3
The rock
Batman forever/ Batman and robin
Alexander

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Haha, we've actually influenced you, I knew it.

Sweet.

-AC

?

How so?

You hate Cloverfield now? All that time hyping it and you hate it? You said you liked it, now you hate it. Must be cos of the debate.

Still gonna pay money to see the sequel of a movie you hate?

-AC

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Independence day

If you hate lotr then i hate star wars

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You hate Cloverfield now? All that time hyping it and you hate it? You said you liked it, now you hate it. Must be cos of the debate.

Still gonna pay money to see the sequel of a movie you hate?

-AC

Doesn't mean i think the movie itself sucked. I hated that it did what it did and how it ended. While you loved it. So?

And debate? Were you trying to win it? I was merely discussing it with you, (directly) not trying fancy an audience.

And i'll watch pt. 2 cos it'll make pt. 1'll cure my animosity towards pt. 1.

lol, it seems like that upsets you as much as my disagreeing with you.

Correction

This is how meant to write the third line:

"i'll watch pt. 2 cos it'll cure my animosity towards pt. 1."

The "blockbusters" I don't like are usually directed by Michael Bay. Funny that.

Yep. I call his movies fads.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Doesn't mean i think the movie itself sucked. I hated that it did what it did and how it ended. While you loved it. So?

And debate? Were you trying to win it? I was merely discussing it with you, (directly) not trying fancy an audience.

And i'll watch pt. 2 cos it'll make pt. 1'll cure my animosity towards pt. 1.

lol, it seems like that upsets you as much as my disagreeing with you.

I just have a distaste for people who go see movies they hate just so they can moan.

If you hate one, why bother seeing two? Especially since AGAIN you have convinced yourself it'll be better and cure your animosity toward a movie (Sadness). Why don't you just wait and see? Why assume it will do what you want? Did the first movie not teach you a lesson?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I just have a distaste for people who go see movies they hate just so they can moan.

If you hate one, why bother seeing two? Especially since AGAIN you have convinced yourself it'll be better and cure your animosity toward a movie (Sadness). Why don't you just wait and see? Why assume it will do what you want? Did the first movie not teach you a lesson?

-AC

Well since i saw the movie first before I said hated it, it won't stop me from seeing the pt. 2 because it'll finally offer what you also have a distaste for: closure. (it better)

Obviously my first comment was too complicated. I'll make it simpler.

Why are you deciding NOW what it'll have in it, knowing that if it doesn't, it'll lead to more crying and whining about how they didn't spell it out for you in coloured crayon?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Obviously my first comment was too complicated. I'll make it simpler.

Why are you deciding NOW what it'll have in it, knowing that if it doesn't, it'll lead to more crying and whining about how they didn't spell it out for you in coloured crayon?

-AC

lol you've never liked me while i've felt indifferent about you.

and i didn't mean to make you sound dumb, sorry if you took it that way but pt. 2 will obviously have an explaination and closure. It better.

crying and whining, lol

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
lol you've never liked me while i've felt indifferent about you.

and i didn't mean to make you sound dumb, sorry if you took it that way but pt. 2 will obviously have an explaination and closure. It better.

crying and whining, lol

This isn't about you and I, stay focused, boy.

I'll ask you again;

WHY are you assuming what it will have in it, saying "It better.", if you know that failure to meet your expectations will result in more bitching about it? Why pledge your money to see a movie that's still in pre-production, under the premise that "It'll have closure."? Even if it does, which you don't know, who's to say it's what you'll want? He's not making this movie for you.

You're just looking for an excuse to moan, and I love the fact that after being this movie's hype-man, we've all caused you to list it as a movie you hate, which you just did.

You're easily led astray.

-AC

I didnt like the Saw movies, but I dont know if they qualify as blockbusters.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
LOTR.....OMG I hated them.

What, Viggo wasn't hot enough for you? I bet if it had Brad Pitt, you'd be singing a different tune.

What did you hate about them? I've only ever heard someone say they "hated" the LOTR series once before.

Originally posted by Robtard
What, Viggo wasn't hot enough for you? I bet if it had Brad Pitt, you'd be singing a different tune.

What did you hate about them? I've only ever heard someone say they "hated" the LOTR series once before. Remember what Randall Graves said about LOTR in Clerks II? That pretty much sums it up.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Remember what Randall Graves said about LOTR in Clerks II? That pretty much sums it up.

Though a hilarious scene in Clerks II, it really isn't so.

calling someone "boy", is in no way racist. wtf. You're not even black.

Originally posted by Robtard
Though a hilarious scene in Clerks II, it really isn't so. To me it does.....walking...walking...walking......the occasional battle scene...........................more walking.

Originally posted by BackFire
Underworld films. Hardly blockbuster....



For me, Harry Potter.

The movie was supposed to be like 'just footage'. That was it's purpose.

Originally posted by BackFire
The movie was supposed to be like 'just footage'. That was it's purpose.

And now it's new purpose should be for it to get analyze, investigated and concluded. Just like footage.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Remember what Randall Graves said about LOTR in Clerks II? That pretty much sums it up.
By that logic I could say "Interview With the Vampire" is just a movie about two vampires who move from place to place over decades of time and suck people's blood.

AC is white.

It's obvious that he's racist.

Now he's going to weasel out and say "No, I mean he happens to be white and that happens to be a racial slur. I didn't say he meant it racially.".

All this because he can't understand Cloverfield.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You could say that, and I could also say SW is just a bunch of idiots running around blowing shit up. I could say the Godfather is a bunch of Italians talking with funny accents. I could say Forrest Gump is all about a retard who had amazing experiences.

Which kind of cheapens your reason for disliking LOTR...

OKay guys. Cut it out.

"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

^?

I'm not insulting him; just having a discussion.

Well there's not much to discuss now, so we might as well let it go.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You could say that, and I could also say SW is just a bunch of idiots running around blowing shit up. I could say the Godfather is a bunch of Italians talking with funny accents. I could say Forrest Gump is all about a retard who had amazing experiences.
That's my point...

So how can you say you dislike the LOTR films because "it's just walking with some battle scenes thrown in."?

I'm not saying you have to like the LOTR films, we all have different tastes, but your reasoning for not liking it is just ridiculous.

keep it in one thread at least

The bottom line is, you can simplify almost anything to make it seem like nothing if you want.

Some things genuinely do not have a lot there, and some do. Rocky is the action version of Jessica Alba's Honey. Youngster against adversity but achieves success in the end. That's pretty much all it is.

But to say something like The Matrix is nothing but "Fighting the bad guys and then winning.", you'd obviously be wrong. You have to look at what is AIMED at achieving, and what's actually achieved.

I personally didn't like any of the Lord of the Rings movies. Bored me to utter death.

-AC

I agree with you

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I personally didn't like any of the Lord of the Rings movies. Bored me to utter death.

-AC

Refreshing view... and rarely heard.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Which kind of cheapens your reason for disliking LOTR... good point....lets just say I hate the LOTR movies for my own reasons, because they bore me to death.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
good point....lets just say I hate the LOTR movies for my own reasons, because they bore me to death.

Fair point then.

300, and The Matrix.

Originally posted by SelphieT
300, and The Matrix. I liked 300, but the matrix......I agree. meh.

Spider-Man 3, The Matrix 2 and 3, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Borat, The Island, Terminator 3................to name a few.

Originally posted by Impediment
Spider-Man 3, The Matrix 2 and 3, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Borat, The Island, Terminator 3................to name a few. Not bad, meh and meh, Loved it, meh, never saw it, GOOD, Not bad.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I liked 300, but the matrix......I agree. meh.

300 is just not my kind of movie......I mean, I like violence, but this is like a "yay it go boom boom" kinda movie.

Meh, anything with Keanu Reeves excluding Bill and Ted is just usually laughably pathetic.

Originally posted by SelphieT
Meh, anything with Keanu Reeves excluding Bill and Ted is just usually laughably pathetic.

Probably the other way around, but to each their own.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Probably the other way around, but to each their own.

-AC

I guess I haven't seen the good Keanu Reeves movies then.

But I did see that Little Budda movie, and his accent was the funniest thing......

My guilty pleasure is that I own Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Raeann totally despises that movie.

Originally posted by Impediment
My guilty pleasure is that I own Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Raeann totally despises that movie.

One of the few movies Keanu acted well in.

Originally posted by SelphieT
300 is just not my kind of movie......I mean, I like violence, but this is like a "yay it go boom boom" kinda movie.


Maybe thats the whole point of 300 being an action movie thats based on a famous battle.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Maybe thats the whole point of 300 being an action movie thats based on a famous battle.

........I thought it was based on a graphic novel, which loosely based the actual accounts.

Originally posted by SelphieT
........I thought it was based on a graphic novel, which loosely based the actual accounts.

More or less, yeah. It is.

Originally posted by Impediment
More or less, yeah. It is. That movie was blown way out of proportion, it had to be. 300 soldiers against how many Persians?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
That movie was blown way out of proportion, it had to be.


How about the frank Miller graphic novel is it the same deal, I reackon it would be if its a comic.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
That movie was blown way out of proportion, it had to be. 300 soldiers against how many Persians?

That actually, is how the story goes. There's another version of it made in the 60s or something: 300 Spartans.

I dont buy that. No way they hold their own against an army that big.

Originally posted by queeq
OKay guys. Cut it out.

"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

One of the most stupid phrases around, that one.

As for some more blockbusters that I don't like:- Matrix, Star Wars, Bruce Almighty, Any Arnold Swarchenegger film, Rush Hour, American Pie (2 onwards).

Communist.

Originally posted by queeq
That actually, is how the story goes. There's another version of it made in the 60s or something: 300 Spartans.

That's a classic! I'd take that over 300 anyday, which verges on homoeroticism.

There is a movie I really disliked but it wasn't a blockbuster...and that movie is halloween 6, it was terrible

Originally posted by exanda kane
That's a classic! I'd take that over 300 anyday, which verges on homoeroticism. whether one likes 300 or not, one must admit that the cinematography was AMAZING.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No its not, like AC said, and I said previously, they bore me to death. I fell asleep so many times I lost count.
That's all fine then.

But when you first said you didn't like them you said "walking, walking, more walking, occasional battle."

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I dont buy that. No way they hold their own against an army that big.
300 was just Frank Miller's adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae, which did happen.

Battle of Thermopylae

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
whether one likes 300 or not, one must admit that the cinematography was AMAZING.

It wasn't amazing, it was indulging.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats my description of it, deal with it.
I am dealing with it...

Get pissed off more because someone questioned you?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
no, not pissed off, just curious as to why some people cant deal with the fact that I see those horrid movies in a certain way. You dont have what it takes to piss me off.
Deal with what? I'm not going to debate with someone over there reasons for not liking a movie, but you seem to think I am upset over you not liking the movie, which I'm not.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats my description of it, deal with it.

Actually, that's (more so) Kevin Smith's humorous description of it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I meant him, the guy from before. oops.
It's all good.

Transformers.

I liked that one.

Doubt it was a blockbuster, but I know it was popular. Eurotrip.

I remember my dad dragging me to see Close encounters of the third kind. I cried I hated it so much.

And you only see the aliens for like, what? 5 minutes at the end?

I know, right? I seriously cried because I had to see it like three times.

CE3K is one excellent film. The few minutes of aliens were perfect.

And disliking Close Encounters because you only see the aliens for five minutes is a bit like dislikin' Cloverfield because you get no profile shot of the monster, nor is there any exposition to where it came from or how to stop it.

Originally posted by exanda kane
And disliking Close Encounters because you only see the aliens for five minutes is a bit like dislikin' Cloverfield because you get no profile shot of the monster, nor is there any exposition to where it came from or how to stop it. I disliked Close Encounters because I thought it was incredibly dull and boring.

I meant in general, not to anyone in particular, but I'll take the bait; do you think every film is dull and boring? Yet you like 300? In the words of G.O.B, COMON!

Originally posted by exanda kane
I meant in general, not to anyone in particular, but I'll take the bait; do you think every film is dull and boring? Yet you like 300? In the words of G.O.B, COMON!

OK, here is a list of boring films, along with a list of non boring kickass films.

BORING: Close encounters, LOTR, Eternal sunshine, Star Trek, Charlies angels.....



NON BORING KICK ASS: SW, Shoot 'em up, ID4, Love actually, indy trilogy, Boondock saints......


This is my opinion, thats all, due to my taste....and 300 is FAR from boring.

Oooooo...Controversial.

Shoot 'Em Up and Indy are good choices, but considering there are only two good Star Wars films, can you just say SW as a blanket term for all of them? LOTR was a far better trilogy.

300 though, dear, dear me.

It's gonna be hard to have a decent filmnight with Rogue.

Yeah, probably end up watching the Bring It On trilogy (is there a trilogy btw?).

300 was continual hype from beginning to end. I don't see how anyone could find that boring, but that's me.

-AC

Well, I can. I personally found it rather enjoyable, not great but alright. But in defense of those bored by it, it is very constant from beginning to end. It shows very little variation in tempo, style or story. The only thing that changes are the looks of the assailants (which goes from ugly to the ridiculous). Other than that it pretty much flatlines in story development.

Any movie involving a Marvel Comics Character.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
300 was continual hype from beginning to end. I don't see how anyone could find that boring, but that's me.

-AC Exactly, non stop killing and blood flying everywhere, what more do you want?

It does get boring.

what parts?

.

I bet you do.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
what parts?

Well, it's just shouting and fighting all the time. After a while you think killing them is doing the viewer a favour.
Too bad, because the story itself lends to a great film. This was just testosteron top gear.

the blood....OH THE BLOOD.

Yeah, that got boring after a while.

I'm gonna have to agree with AC and Rogue Jedi on this specific matter. 300 is one of the least boring films I can think of; even if you're somehow bored to death with the story/action, the movie looks amazing visually. Secondly, the battles weren't really gratuitous if you think about it. If I remember correctly, there were 3 main battles in the film; none of them lasted too long and each one was different (in choreography, etc). Lastly, if you're bored by stunning visuals and tons of action then I think you ended up watching the wrong movie in the first place. "Wild Hogs" was in theaters at that time, maybe you guys should've seen that instead >_>

I don't think the battles different that much. They all used the same slow-veryfast-slow kind of effects. All of it in fact was fairly slow.
And visually amazing looks don't make a great film. They make a film look great, but pretty pics don't make the story. And why is it wrong to ask the filmmakers to ask fro both appropriate looks as well as an enteratining story? You pay good money for it.

I liked Wild Hogs.

it wasnt that bad.

Originally posted by queeq
I don't think the battles different that much. They all used the same slow-veryfast-slow kind of effects. All of it in fact was fairly slow.
And visually amazing looks don't make a great film. They make a film look great, but pretty pics don't make the story. And why is it wrong to ask the filmmakers to ask fro both appropriate looks as well as an enteratining story? You pay good money for it.

The slow-fast style was used in every battle, I'll grant you that, but in comparing the first battle to the Immortals battle, everything looked a hell of a lot different. So, even though the style is the same, the look and outcome of the battles were different. But that's just me. Even if I found all the battles to be repetitive, I'd be happy considering that any one of the battles kicked ass.

And I didn't mean to imply that visuals make the movie. That isn't what I meant. I just tried to convey that I would find it hard to be bored when the look of the film is so appealing to the eyes.

Lastly, it definitely isn't wrong to ask filmmakers that. I support it 100 percent, but I also understood that this film was an adaption of Frank Miller's graphic novel (which I also read beforehand) and I knew that the story wasn't complex or anything. I really think that people shouldn't have expected an Oscar-caliber plot from this film.

Originally posted by BackFire
Saw films.

Underworld films.

Hey, BackFire I agree with you. I also hate films with topic related to underworld activities.

this has to be a joke.

Ok I liked alien but now i really hate it becouse the movie looks out of date

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
The slow-fast style was used in every battle, I'll grant you that, but in comparing the first battle to the Immortals battle, everything looked a hell of a lot different. So, even though the style is the same, the look and outcome of the battles were different. But that's just me. Even if I found all the battles to be repetitive, I'd be happy considering that any one of the battles kicked ass.

And I didn't mean to imply that visuals make the movie. That isn't what I meant. I just tried to convey that I would find it hard to be bored when the look of the film is so appealing to the eyes.

Lastly, it definitely isn't wrong to ask filmmakers that. I support it 100 percent, but I also understood that this film was an adaption of Frank Miller's graphic novel (which I also read beforehand) and I knew that the story wasn't complex or anything. I really think that people shouldn't have expected an Oscar-caliber plot from this film.

Well, why not? Or as Uberto Eco stated: a film is a film, a book is a book. (or graphic novels) They need different things to work.

I never read Miller's graphic novel, I heard he withdrew from the project as well. But even so, a film should be good. It was rather entertaining, but it did feel like a big missed chance to do more with it. Some character development would hev been nice.

Are you asking why people shouldn't have expected a stunning plot? Because the source material (aka the 300 graphic novel) didn't have one. Simple as that. You'd have to change the film completely from the graphic novel in order to get the film that you're looking for.

I thought the film was much better than the graphic novel by the way. It actually added quite a bit more (the entire subplot about the Queen/events back at Sparta, etc). So, in my opinion, if they added any more to the film, it would've been just too different from the source. They did an excellent job making an action-packed, visually stunning, badass movie. Don't know what else anyone (who knew anything about the project) was looking for.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Are you asking why people shouldn't have expected a stunning plot? Because the source material (aka the 300 graphic novel) didn't have one. Simple as that. You'd have to change the film completely from the graphic novel in order to get the film that you're looking for.

I disagree though. Very often books are adapted or stuff added in to make it work as a movie. Besides, the graphic novel is also based on a historical event. There's a lot more source material on the battle of Thermopylae. The source material however should never be a restriction in making a film.

while i think 300 was great...perhaps gates of fire would have been a better source for dramatic effect...although alot of its drama was put into context by huge amounts of background of the characters which probably would not have be plausible to cover in a 2 hour film

Thought 300 was big, loud, way over-hyped, cliche ridden, and so over oiled and muscley that it comes across as something the missus is more likely to like than I.

The jerky undercrank/ overcrack effect in the action is an effect overused and over celebrated too.

I mean, did the improved roto-camera effects and shit hot CGI save the Matrix sequels....?

True, I only watched it the once, but those were the memories of the experience. I felt it wasn't terrible, but that also I wouldn't be breaking my neck to get a copy in.

I felt angry though as usual at the hype machine for getting me all expectant and leaving me pissing in the wind.

I agree, it was entertaining, but not really something entertaining enough to watch a couple of time. They kinda overdid the testosteron in this one.

Originally posted by queeq
I disagree though. Very often books are adapted or stuff added in to make it work as a movie. Besides, the graphic novel is also based on a historical event. There's a lot more source material on the battle of Thermopylae. The source material however should never be a restriction in making a film.

Did you not read the rest of my post? They did add a decent amount of things to make it work as a film.

Straying too far from source material is usually what makes a shitty adapted film. I don't look at it as a restriction anyway; if you don't want to stay true to what you're making a film on, then don't do it at all, go make your on film on the Battle of Thermopylae.

Good one.

So whatcha mean anyway? One cannot debate a film unless you remake it yourself? I paid money to see it, I think I can discuss whether I felt it was my money's worth...

If you don't want to debate films, whacha doing here?

Again, you missed my point entirely.

In my previous post, I wasn't saying "you" as in YOU, I meant: if "one" doesn't want to stay true to the film, then don't make it.

Are we clear on that?

In no way did I say that you shouldn't be able to discuss the film and your opinion of it. I'm actually surprised that that is what you took away from my post.

OKay sorry...

But being true to the film is... being true to the film. Which is the end product. If you mean being true to the graphic novel, I disagree. You can take the spirit or approach or even visual style, but you still have to mold it to make it into a movie.

I agree with Queeq. After all, he's being reasonable.

Originally posted by queeq
OKay sorry...

But being true to the film is... being true to the film. Which is the end product. If you mean being true to the graphic novel, I disagree. You can take the spirit or approach or even visual style, but you still have to mold it to make it into a movie.

I did mean stay true to the source/graphic novel. And of course you have to mold it to make it into a movie, but what you were saying previously was borderline ridiculous, considering you were heavily implying changing the film completely from the graphic novel.

Originally posted by exanda kane
I agree with Queeq. After all, he's being reasonable.

And thank you. Your comments are always so very insightful.

Cheers wuzzletoff, jaded insults from you are always welcome.

But 300 just isn't that interesting to discuss, so I'm leaving it to others. If I want to see a bad film, I'll watch one that knows it is a bad film, i.e. Bloodsport or Commando.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I did mean stay true to the source/graphic novel. And of course you have to mold it to make it into a movie, but what you were saying previously was borderline ridiculous, considering you were heavily implying changing the film completely from the graphic novel.

I never said completely. But what works for a grpahic novel, doesn't have to work for a movie.

I kinda like how Sydney Pollack selects stories: he sometimes takes lousy books with a great idea. He gets the rights cheaply (since th ebook's not very good) and works out the idea properly to be good for movie. I was thinking more along those lines.

BTW, didn't Frank Miller back out of the project because he didn't like where it was going?

Wait, how can you feel it wasn't true to the graphic novel?

There was about 8 pages of the novel, 300, so obviously for it to be a movie there had to be more.

-AC

How is the novel, compared to the movie?

It's good, it's nothing amazing, really.

It's not Sin City quality or depth. I think it actually works better as a movie.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
How is the novel, compared to the movie?

i think it couldn't have been more directly comparable to the novel

http://videoeta.com/news/2243

http://www.solaceincinema.com/2006/10/04/300-comic-to-screen-comparison/

the link shows the parts from the novel compared directly to their scenes in the film