brianleahy
Colonel Panic
There's Something About Mary (Bodily fluids? Body parts caught in zippers? Scuze me? A big laughing crowd might have made SOME difference, but I've heard 3rd graders tell funnier jokes than this)
Dead Ringers (Identical twin psycho gynecologists. I kid you not.)
Ishtar (The first hour was unwatchable; there was just 1 joke repeated until I was ready to scream "Yes, I get it, their music sucks and they don't realize it. I GET IT ALREADY!!!")
The Man Who Fell To Earth (An alleged sci-fi flick, this yawner is about David Bowie as a Martian who becomes a drug addict and neglects his mission of bringing water back to the home planet?!?!?!)
Personally (and what is this thread about if not sharing opinions?) I don't think its entirely fair to condemn a movie based on a comic book (which, incidentally, I adore and collect in vast quantities) just because it failed to meet your personal expectations for a cinematic adaptation of the comic. The goals - not to mention audience - of movies differ greatly from comics, and most comics have SO MANY characters, and SO MUCH back story that it's just not possible to do a complete adaptation. I thought The Hulk was a good film - not great, but good. Bar none the most believable depiction of super strength ever shown on screen. It beat the pants off the 1978 Superman film.
I also question the validity of condemning a movie because it's 'dated'. By that standard, there were no great movies made before about 5-6 years ago! Nonsense.
I also resist condemning movies I haven't seen. After 'Mary' I avoid Farrelly Brothers films like the plague, but you won't hear me slam them.
I say judge movies by the standard they strive for; as (I think) Gene Siskel once said "You shouldn't compare Richard the 3rd (that's Shakespeare, folks) to Friday The 13th."
Dead Ringers (Identical twin psycho gynecologists. I kid you not.)
Ishtar (The first hour was unwatchable; there was just 1 joke repeated until I was ready to scream "Yes, I get it, their music sucks and they don't realize it. I GET IT ALREADY!!!")
The Man Who Fell To Earth (An alleged sci-fi flick, this yawner is about David Bowie as a Martian who becomes a drug addict and neglects his mission of bringing water back to the home planet?!?!?!)
Personally (and what is this thread about if not sharing opinions?) I don't think its entirely fair to condemn a movie based on a comic book (which, incidentally, I adore and collect in vast quantities) just because it failed to meet your personal expectations for a cinematic adaptation of the comic. The goals - not to mention audience - of movies differ greatly from comics, and most comics have SO MANY characters, and SO MUCH back story that it's just not possible to do a complete adaptation. I thought The Hulk was a good film - not great, but good. Bar none the most believable depiction of super strength ever shown on screen. It beat the pants off the 1978 Superman film.
I also question the validity of condemning a movie because it's 'dated'. By that standard, there were no great movies made before about 5-6 years ago! Nonsense.
I also resist condemning movies I haven't seen. After 'Mary' I avoid Farrelly Brothers films like the plague, but you won't hear me slam them.
I say judge movies by the standard they strive for; as (I think) Gene Siskel once said "You shouldn't compare Richard the 3rd (that's Shakespeare, folks) to Friday The 13th."