Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Jupiter Ascending actually deserves a mention as well. That movie was pretty bad. I couldn't decide whether to laugh or to facepalm when they explained the bee part of the plot line.
Yeah, lol... yeah.. *sigh*
I actually liked some of the space opera sci-fi plot elements, too... some royal class monopolizing the galaxy.. haha... it was kind of cool. And it has some nice visuals. I was looking forward to a Wachowskis space opera. And I actually somewhat enjoyed it the first time, but yeah, it didn't have good repeat value. It sucks pretty badly. But I really don't think it deserves a worst film ever nomination, though.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, lol... yeah.. *sigh*I actually liked some of the space opera sci-fi plot elements, too... some royal class monopolizing the galaxy.. haha... it was kind of cool. And it has some nice visuals. I was looking forward to a Wachowskis space opera. And I actually somewhat enjoyed it the first time, but yeah, it didn't have good repeat value. It sucks pretty badly. But I really don't think it deserves a worst film ever nomination, though.
I liked the visuals and some of the concepts, but I think the execution was poor. But, honestly, the thing that really threw me off was Eddie Redmayne's performance. It was just bizarre. I normally like him as an actor, but that was not a flattering role.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ Well, why didn't he just stick with his vision and make the first of the three films? That's the way they typically do things anyway. If it's successful then he can make the next one.
Every one agrees how DC execs interfere too much with their films, go against what directors, writers & actors originally wanted but M.Night is the only one that gets solely blamed for why a movie flops?
Juz saying if the studio restricts the funding in the first place they're not exactly going to give the greenlight to produce 1/3 of a story when they have no interest in funding a trilogy.
Look what happened to The Golden Compass.
Big names, big budget...studio never followed through.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I liked the visuals and some of the concepts, but I think the execution was poor. But, honestly, the thing that really threw me off was Eddie Redmayne's performance. It was just bizarre. I normally like him as an actor, but that was not a flattering role.
Yeah, he was awful in that. He was too over-the-top theatrical evil villain and it came across terribly. But I think you have to blame the directors for it. Because I think he won best actor for his portrayal of Stephen Hawking that same year or around the same time anyway.. heh.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, he was awful in that. He was too over-the-top theatrical evil villain and it came across terribly. But I think you have to blame the directors for it. Because I think he won best actor for his portrayal of Stephen Hawking that same year or around the same time anyway.. heh.
Yeah, he is generally a really good actor. I've enjoyed his performances in most of the things I have seen him in. And that's what made that performance so particularly cringe-worthy. Like you said, I have to believe there was some wonky direction going on there, because Redmayne has proven that he can deliver great performances if given a decent script and proper direction.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, just imagine if the Wachowskis had said, "Oh, well they won't greenlight our whole trilogy, so lets just try to cram them all together in one film." We would have ended up with Jupiter Ascending instead of the great Matrix Trilogy... haha
Was it truly great though? The third Matrix film was all kinds of bad.