It's hard to believe in a man with the powers of a spider, but the point isn't to believe it. The point is to enjoy it.
That's what people don't get.
It doesn't matter how unrealistic something is as long as it's enjoyable (Subjective) and done well (Subjective).
However, when you have to turn off your brain to ENJOY, then it becomes dumb.
-AC
Turn off your brain is just a phrase! If the movie is done properly like GI JOE was you enjoy the film even though the some of the stunts were a little over the top (as if snakeeyes could be leaping over cars while ontop of the hummer, and i think storm shadows arms would of been ripped off when he grabbed on to the plane.) but while i was watching the film it was done so well that you weren't thinking about that. as i said charlies angels wasn't done that way. and vertical limit i laughed outloud in the thearter when chris odonnel jump accross that kazzam, it was just not done right for you to suspend disbielf
Originally posted by darthmaul1
Turn off your brain is just a phrase! If the movie is done properly like GI JOE was you enjoy the film even though the some of the stunts were a little over the top (as if snakeeyes could be leaping over cars while ontop of the hummer, and i think storm shadows arms would of been ripped off when he grabbed on to the plane.) but while i was watching the film it was done so well that you weren't thinking about that. as i said charlies angels wasn't done that way. and vertical limit i laughed outloud in the thearter when chris odonnel jump accross that kazzam, it was just not done right for you to suspend disbielf
As per AC's example, Spider-man swinging around New York and stopping a train is "over the top" unbelievable, yet the movie didn't cast story, dialogue and acting (some exceptions) to the wind, as GI Joe did.
Originally posted by darthmaul1
Turn off your brain is just a phrase! If the movie is done properly like GI JOE was you enjoy the film even though the some of the stunts were a little over the top (as if snakeeyes could be leaping over cars while ontop of the hummer, and i think storm shadows arms would of been ripped off when he grabbed on to the plane.) but while i was watching the film it was done so well that you weren't thinking about that. as i said charlies angels wasn't done that way. and vertical limit i laughed outloud in the thearter when chris odonnel jump accross that kazzam, it was just not done right for you to suspend disbielf
That's the thing, the unrealism isn't what bothers me...as I just said.
The fact that it's shit is what bothers me. I don't enjoy things that are shit, and if me turning my brain off is what's required for me to like your movie...well. As a director you should be ashamed.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's the thing, the unrealism isn't what bothers me...as I just said.The fact that it's shit is what bothers me. I don't enjoy things that are shit, and if me turning my brain off is what's required for me to like your movie...well. As a director you should be ashamed.
-AC
Darthy is a director? YOU LIE!
Originally posted by Robtard
As per AC's example, Spider-man swinging around New York and stopping a train is "over the top" unbelievable, yet the movie didn't cast story, dialogue and acting (some exceptions) to the wind, as GI Joe did.
exsqueeze me? Baking powder? The stories dialogue and acting in spiderman were good???? I don't think so Tim. I am assuming your exception is Kirstin dunst? If so i agree with you there she sucked. The only good character and actor was JJJ (J.K. Simmons), all the rest were just what i would expect from that type of movie not great and not bad either. but these are action flicks and you don't go to them to see great acting.
Originally posted by darthmaul1
exsqueeze me? Baking powder? The stories dialogue and acting in spiderman were good???? I don't think so Tim. I am assuming your exception is Kirstin dunst? If so i agree with you there she sucked. The only good character and actor was JJJ (J.K. Simmons), all the rest were just what i would expect from that type of movie not great and not bad either. but these are action flicks and you don't go to them to see great acting.
It's a superhero film, so expecting Gandhi is foolish. But yes, the dialogue and story were good, it was Spider-man.
There's action flicks and there's shitty action flicks, GI Joe was the later, deep in the barrel too.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not Oscar worthy, but good enough. Hans was great in a cheesy sort of way. Willis played the lone action-hero well, one-liners, jokes and whatnot.
With Willis it felt natural and went with the flow (it was really funny). In Joe it felt forced, over done and didn't flow right (it was horrid).
Originally posted by Robtard
Not Oscar worthy, but good enough. Hans was great in a cheesy sort of way. Willis played the lone action-hero well, one-liners, jokes and whatnot.Edit: I'd like to change my response to 'The Nuuls', for efficiency and to-the-point directness.
I looked for a video clip where McClane is trying to tell that douche to "get out of there". The acting at that part was so horrible that I laughed out loud.
There were a couple of other parts like that.
You have to admit....some parts were just ridiculously lame.
Originally posted by The Nuul
With Willis it felt natural and went with the flow (it was really funny). In Joe it felt forced, over done and didn't flow right (it was horrid).
A shitty action flick would be starship troopers 2 and 3 or TF2, gi joe IMO was an excellent action film and as for the humor GI JOE being forced??
not as much as TF2, now that was forced.
I loved everything about this movie, was like watchin James Bond on Steroids, it was a blast. and after the last bond film (piece of crap) this is exactly what we needed.
Originally posted by darthmaul1
exsqueeze me? Baking powder? The stories dialogue and acting in spiderman were good???? I don't think so Tim. I am assuming your exception is Kirstin dunst? If so i agree with you there she sucked. The only good character and actor was JJJ (J.K. Simmons), all the rest were just what i would expect from that type of movie not great and not bad either. but these are action flicks and you don't go to them to see great acting.
I love how you're acting like it's fact.
Cute.
The acting in most movies is better than that of G.I. Joe, in my opinion.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The acting in most movies is better than that of G.I. Joe, in my opinion.-AC
There isn't exactly an abundance of talent in it. Even those actors who have done great performances in other things fall short. Christopher Eccleston in the 2 part tv drame "the 2nd coming" for example. Dennis Quaid has also done some good work (and also a lot of crap)
It's a bit of a recurring theme recently though so it must have underlying issues. Look at the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Samuel L Jackson, Ewan McGregor...Both were utterly terrible in them.
Then there's the fact that some people just make bad choices...Halle Berry and Sharon Stone in Catwoman being and example that comes to mind (seeing as it was on TV tonight)...DeNiro in "Rocky and Bullwinkle" is another.
Still...Actors are people. If you're being offered a ton of money to do something non-taxing and know it's going to be bullshit then why not. Unlike musicians they can actually get away with doing the pop culture revenue generators and then switch to doing the small arty indie films for much less money "for the art" without doing their reputations too much damage.