59 replies to this topic

[John Roberts]

Sam Worthington should have played John Connor. Or, at the very least, drop Connor from the story altogether and stick with Worthington's Marcus as the main focus. His character was the only interesting part of that miserable movie.

I don't know. I've never seen Sam Worthington play a role convincingly. He just seems to fall into the "serious acting" cliche to much. He's almost as bad as Christian Bale in that regard with the whispering monologues and stuff, just probably not as obvious. Either way, his acting just doesn't appear honest to me.

ARrrggghhh! You don't agree with me?!

Yeah, a few people have said similar opinions to me when the topic of Worthington comes up. I don't see it myself. I thought he carried Avatar rather well as the main character where as others (my bloody neighbour) declares him as the worst thing about that movie. I mean, really. Those stupid blue thundercats winning at the end is the worst thing about that movie.

The Room.......oh wait. It DOES suck.

Haha I watched that abomination last night. What a riot.

[Rosy]

Scott Pilgrim for sure, I've had people bugging me saying it's awesome, but I've read some of the books and I utterly despise the characters, so I wouldn't be able to sit through a movie with them.

You can't say it is overated if you didn't watch it. Watch the movie, then you can complain all you want (I thought it was awsome, I like Scott in the movie more than in the books).

Yes I can, because it is when the plot is the worst piece of $#^& I ever heard of, worse than Avatar, so I can state my opinion thank you very much. The characters and plot are straight from the books, and just seeing the trailer made my eyes roll. I can't see how such piece of garbage characters like that are epic as I've been told, the main characters they're both cheating worthless pieces of $#^&, that I was cheering for the bad guy to kill them both in the books. And that's just part of why I hate it and will never watch it. But hey people love Avatar too yet how many here say it sucks? Everyone's opinion is different what movies are overrated and which are not.

Christian Bale ruined T4 of being anything more than mediocre.His grainy forced american batman voice growling into the radio screaming incoherent orders and his out of breath whispery monologues really started to piss me off.

He's also jerk on set, which is kind of funny when you think about it. Though to be honest, nobody on the set of T4 was very professional. Stupidity begets more stupidity.

I can't stand Bale in just about any movie he's been in. To me he is just a terrible actor.

[RedAuthar]

Okay, calm down. 1) The books and Movie are not quite the same. Many MANY movies based on books are different compared to their original form. They have quite a few differences. 2) I am not saying you can not have your own opinion, I am saying don't knock it before you try it. If you haven't seen the movie, you can't say it is overrated. You can say it sucks as much as you want after you've seen it. You more then likely will. But there is still a chance that you will like it if you watch it.

"If you never tried it, then keep your mind open and your mouth shut."
-Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones (The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles Comic. Issue 11)

[RedMenace]

Personally, I enjoyed Scott Pilgrim. It's a film that isn't meant to be taken seriously at all. You're supposed to think the "hero" is full of crap. It's not one of the best movies I've seen in my life (and I have no desire to check out the comics), but I did like the manic sense of humor and some of the references. I also think it's kind of a break from the style of most current films. It's an opinion. Lower your pitchfork.

[John Roberts]

Scott Pilgram was written and directed by Edgar Wright (Spaced, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz), so that alone is why I wanna see it; I could care less about the book. Rental here I come.

[Vlad Yvhv]

Donnie Darko. I hadn't heard of it and it was recommended by my friend, so I made the mistake of checking it out when it was on the TV. I need to punch my friend in the gut for that recommendation... The movie sucked so much that it should have consumed half a galaxy by now...

[RedAuthar]

I hate when you waste time on a movie that sucks. Well it is not a waste if you like it, but if it totally sucks and you hate it, you just can't get that time back.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I thought he carried Avatar rather well as the main character where as others (my bloody neighbour) declares him as the worst thing about that movie. I mean, really. Those stupid blue thundercats winning at the end is the worst thing about that movie.

Worthington did do well in AVATAR, which surprised me because of the disorienting blue-screen rooms he must have had to have been in. Of course, I'm not sure how much CGI was involved in "enhancing" the performances, if any was used in the direction at all. I like to think it was only used as "make-up", and Cameron didn't change the performances in anyway.

That being said, most of the cast in AVATAR didn't really play a character in as much as they just played "roles". Sigourney Weaver played the role of scientist really well. She acted as if she believed in all of the crazy made-up Pandora stuff really well and seemed to know exactly what she was talking about when she spoke of the Na'Vi. But that scientist she played really didn't have too much of a character attached to her, so in the end some might say her performance fell flat. Really it wasn't the actor's fault that the characters in the movie didn't have much depth, it's Cameron's fault.

[furrykef]

Really it wasn't the actor's fault that the characters in the movie didn't have much depth, it's Cameron's fault.

I think more than anything it's the fault of the kind of movie it is. I don't think Cameron ever intended to give the movie that kind of depth, so, unsurprisingly, he didn't achieve it.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

That may be true. The trouble is that the movie felt so long that it almost needed some depth to keep the viewer interested beyond the glowing trees. It still surprises me that a few movie viewers were so distracted by the visuals that they couldn't understand the film's plot.

[Bakuda]

That may be true. The trouble is that the movie felt so long that it almost needed some depth to keep the viewer interested beyond the glowing trees. It still surprises me that a few movie viewers were so distracted by the visuals that they couldn't understand the film's plot.

Wow...that's pretty sad. For me, a movie can have the best acting, music, scenery/graphics, and everything...but if it's got a bad plot I'm outa there.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

That may be true. The trouble is that the movie felt so long that it almost needed some depth to keep the viewer interested beyond the glowing trees. It still surprises me that a few movie viewers were so distracted by the visuals that they couldn't understand the film's plot.

Wow...that's pretty sad. For me, a movie can have the best acting, music, scenery/graphics, and everything...but if it's got a bad plot I'm outa there.

Well, it's odd because the plot for AVATAR is really, really simple. It's basically the story of invasion of North American tribes being pillaged for gold retold with blue people, space ships, "unobtanium", and 3-D glasses. Really simple to understand. But some folks were just too distracted by the visuals to pay attention to the plot, I guess.

[furrykef]

The visuals kept me from understanding the movie for the opposite reason: the 3D glasses were a huge distraction. I was so disoriented that I couldn't keep track of characters' names or anything. So I was hindered not because I was wowed by the visuals, but because for me the visuals were crap!

Of course I always had a general idea of what was going on, and the general plot was always obvious (I mean, it had all the subtlety of a hammer). It was all the details that kept slipping me.

[randomizer]

Knowing.

Wait, that wasn't overrated, that just sucked.

[RedAuthar]

Thelma and Louise (I think that is how it is spelled).

It is supposed to have some moral to it but all I got were 2 girls who thought it would be better to run from the law then turn themselves in for SELF DEFENCE, steal money after someone takes theirs, steal guns, blow up a truck because the guy was a *incert dirty insult here* (he deserved it), and then commit suicide so they don't get caught.

Maybe it is just me but I don't see how being dead is better then being alive and NOT going to jail because it was SELF DEFENCE anyways.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

The visuals kept me from understanding the movie for the opposite reason: the 3D glasses were a huge distraction. I was so disoriented that I couldn't keep track of characters' names or anything. So I was hindered not because I was wowed by the visuals, but because for me the visuals were crap!

Haha! See, it was how "Jake Sully" was pronounced as all one word that kept me from forgetting his name. Any time I had trouble remembering I just remember one of the Na'Vi saying "Jakesully" and it all came back to me. Though to be honest, the rest of the characters' names escape me too. But that's probably because I only saw it once.

As for the 3-D, there was only once scene that used it really well. I think it was the scene with the dragon things. The rest of the movie was just weird or bland in 3-D.

[randomizer]

Hey, at least it wasn't red/blue 3D. I don't know how I ever managed to watch movies with that. It was just so... wrong.

[RedMenace]

Hey, at least it wasn't red/blue 3D. I don't know how I ever managed to watch movies with that. It was just so... wrong.

I know, seriously! Thankfully, there's even better 3-D tech than today's, in the works. Here's the beta version:

[furrykef]

I actually like the Virtual Boy. Sure as hell wouldn't watch a movie with one, though...

[GreatCthulhu]

Is this discussion still open? If so:

The. Fucking. Blair. Witch. Project. The film has a couple of creepy moments, but most of it is basically the characters being scared shitless of rocks outside their tent. Speaking of the characters, they all came off as obnoxious rather than pitiable. If there's one thing that cements the movie as a disapointment, it's the ending: we don't even get to see a glimpse of whatever's chasing them or anything. It's just a "use your imagination!" cop-out. For all we know, the main character could've killed herself through a concussion. The film's metaphor of how quickly things can go from orderly to disastrous is passable, however. I liked Paranormal Activity much better because it generally avoided these problems.

Also: Rango. I heard it was really creative and stuff, but in actuality it was just a mess. Though it does properly pay homage to the genre it's examining, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be a "finding yourself" movie, a "Bluth-esque edgy" movie, a crass movie or a parable. It just seemed like an akward mix of these things that fell flat on its face. The jokes aren't funny and are usually crass: at one point, a character talks about crapping out a human spine. What the hell is that? That doesn't belong in a family movie! That doesn't even belong on South Park!