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

I hate movies where they give a good movie title and then the movie is sh*t Ex hide ans seek and it isn't very good. Can you name movies what do that.

24 Hours in London has a great cover to go with the title which makes it seem like it could be a Lock Stock/Snatch type movie. It was awful. Don't ever see it.

Bleed....looked like a good horror flick but it sucked.....i seen better acting in a porn

Don't tell me you have seen a porno called "Bleed."

Originally posted by wuTa
Bleed....looked like a good horror flick but it sucked.....i seen better acting in a porn

HaHa...I own that.

Batman.

Originally posted by DarkAge
Batman.

Awww, Com'on the early ones were good, the later ones sucked the big one thou.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Chronicles of Riddick
The Last Samurai
Alexander

Dreamcatcher
Hellboy

There is also some titles that sounds stupid and are stupid like "A Werewolf in London" come on!JM

Originally posted by Myth
Don't tell me you have seen a porno called "Bleed."

no...the movie is called Bleed...its a horror flick, well suppose to be.....all i said was i've seen better acting in a porno

Matrix Revolutions

Originally posted by Nevermind
Awww, Com'on the early ones were good, the later ones sucked the big one thou.

Why does everybody always say that...

The Tim Burton ones were all style and no substance. Just because it looks and sounds cool doesn't mean it is.

Originally posted by Myth
Dreamcatcher
Hellboy

Good call on Dreamcatcher, but Hellboy? I liked that...

Torque
Mortal Kombat
Dumb and Dumberer .. I thought it was a clever title, but bad film (well I haven't actually seen it, but come on...)
Battlefield Earth

Originally posted by DarkAge
Why does everybody always say that...

The Tim Burton ones were all style and no substance. Just because it looks and sounds cool doesn't mean it is.

i agree

Taking Lives

Originally posted by DarkAge
Why does everybody always say that...

The Tim Burton ones were all style and no substance. Just because it looks and sounds cool doesn't mean it is.

I call bullshit on that one. "Batman Returns" had some of the deepest character study in ANY film I personally have ever seen. You can't deny that, either.

Originally posted by DarkAge
Batman.

I have to agree with Nevermind on this one

Originally posted by DarkAge
Why does everybody always say that...

The Tim Burton ones were all style and no substance. Just because it looks and sounds cool doesn't mean it is.

HAHAHA

so what defines cool, if not looks and sounds? lmfao, that was priceless.

IRobot, i hated that film

Batman was not loyal to the characters much. Instead it developed and ADAPTED the story. I see it as a fan fic, in that it strays a lot from the continuity and character of the comics (ie Batman has guns on his Batmobile and kills people). But its a bloody awesome fan fic at that.

Forget the comics for just ONE second, and put aside all of the fanboy inhibitions, and view it as a MOVIE. That's what I do.

Batman and Batman Returns are absolutely brilliant movies in their own right. Anyone that doesn't notice the character development is a zealot.

There's plenty of room for Tim Burtons Batman, Bob Kane's Batman, the 60's TV Show Batman, the Animated Batman.

Batman, in the comics alone, has gone through many changes in his character. For people to say Batman is a crap film because it betrays the comic, because he kills criminals, is full of crap. Batman used to carry a gun, of all things, during one comic stint. He has gone through many, many changes in the comic books so how CAN a movie of such a mess of a comic, cater for everyone?

Batman is a character that has been constantly changed. He isn't like Spider-Man where the characters have stayed intact since they began. Batmans been all over the place so the movies can interpret that how they damn well like, to be fair.