"Nope, still not good." - Page 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

I'm with you on about 6 of those. Hills Have Eyes 2 (1985) or the sequel to the remake? I'm pissed that Aja's version is on blu at Best Buy but bundled with its sequel.

Oh, I definitely meant the '85 one.  God only knows why I revisit it every few years.  The sequel to Aja's is certainly disappointing, but I don't mind it as background noise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

I'm pissed that Aja's version is on blu at Best Buy but bundled with its sequel.

Say what?!?!?!?!?  When did that sneak out?  I need to get my ass to Best Buy sometime soon.

Till this day I can't enjoy  King Kong 2005. My wife loves it, I just get bored with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Hills-Have-Eyes-Unrated-Collection/dp/B005CM1IKM/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1318471881&sr=1-3 

 

Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

Die Another Day? A self delusion success story. Sometimes 2 plus 2 does equal 5 because I've convinced myself that TWINE is the worst Brosnan BOND. Thanks, Denise Richards!

No, I'm with you on that one. DAD is as hilariously moronic and over the top as Bond ever got, but I'd rather watch that then something as lifeless and drab as TWINE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

 

No, I'm with you on that one. DAD is as hilariously moronic and over the top as Bond ever got, but I'd rather watch that then something as lifeless and drab as TWINE.

I'm in the same boat.  Over the past few months I've been doing an on and off re-watch of all the Bond stuff, in chronological order for the most part.  I say for the most part because it started with the Craig films and then with Die Another Day, which I was curious to see again for some reason since I was so disappointed with it originally.  DAD definitely isn't great, but it wasn't as bad I remembered either.  Hell, I still think the worst thing about it is the Madonna song.  That alone may have tainted it, for me at least. 

Anyway, my point is that I've gotten through all of them now except for TWINE.  That's the last one, and I'm sort of excited to get to it and wrap up my Bond adventure, but I remember enough to know that it was just sort of there.  It was kind of dull.  But I'm still looking forward to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith F 

Superman Returns.

It's not good. It's too long, it's virtually bereft of any real action, and even Kevin Spacey's pork and beans Luthor falls below flat.

Let me back up, I don't have any love for the Donner Supes movies, the first one was a decent diversion when I was five, but I find it a chore to sit through as an adult. Less said about the sequels, the better. Didn't have any real expectations for Singer's take on the material, in fact I really don't like his body of work anyway (I could start a no taste thread with Usual Suspects, I reckon).

It's just so wrong headed on every level. Kate Bosworth. I don't really need to type any more than that. Unless she was fourteen when Superguy fucked her in the Niagara Falls area, it just doesn't work.

And yet, whenever it pops up on cable, I give it a shot. There's a few shots that are wonderful, like the lovely image of Superman flying down into the Fortress of Solitude, but there's just not enough to justify rewatching this thing. Still, I do.

I gave this another look over the weekend. Had to watch it piecemeal because it's just such a dreary slog. I love the first two "Superman" movies and even find the third one to be a wrong-headed guilty pleasure. "Superman Returns," though, is such a counter-productive attempt at restarting a franchise. It's unusual for a movie to be so disinterested in its central character. I honestly have a difficult time believing Singer's a fan of Superman, given how unheroically he's portrayed. He's selfish, he's dumb, he's mopey. And worst of all, he's boring. That he drops out of the film for lengthy sections and I didn't even really notice speaks to how much of a void he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito 

 

I gave this another look over the weekend. Had to watch it piecemeal because it's just such a dreary slog. I love the first two "Superman" movies and even find the third one to be a wrong-headed guilty pleasure. "Superman Returns," though, is such a counter-productive attempt at restarting a franchise. It's unusual for a movie to be so disinterested in its central character. I honestly have a difficult time believing Singer's a fan of Superman, given how unheroically he's portrayed. He's selfish, he's dumb, he's mopey. And worst of all, he's boring. That he drops out of the film for lengthy sections and I didn't even really notice speaks to how much of a void he is.

This from the Superman Returns post-release thread (which I believe you've probably seen, since you posted over there) went a long way towards redeeming the movie for me. It's still not the Superman movie that was needed in 2006, but as a standalone piece it's a beautiful treatise on loss, desperation, and letting go of the past. I think Singer is fascinated by Kal-El, both Clark and Superman, as a concept but doesn't know how to make him relatable as a human being. 

The movie would work so much more for me if there was an explanation for why he's gone for FIVE years. You're a screenwriter with the ability to create the context of your space travel, so why have it be five years? I think the first movie says something about Krypton having been destroyed for a thousand years, so where did they pick up five from? Why not say he got sidetracked or crashed or something, so he couldn't help but be gone five years? Honestly, I think it was a purposeful out-of-universe choice, so that Superman wouldn't have been around during 9/11 (much like Bond being captured for 15 months in Die Another Day, to avoid the silly guilt of a fictional character). 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven 
Honestly, I think it was a purposeful out-of-universe choice, so that Superman wouldn't have been around during 9/11 (much like Bond being captured for 15 months in Die Another Day, to avoid the silly guilt of a fictional character). 

These never occurred to me. Too funny.
 

Interesting theory. I figured they just didn't want the kid to be much older than five or six. And in-universe, they could just say it takes 2 1/2 years to get to Krypton.

The bizarre part is how Singer assumed that every fan ever always expected Superman to go searching for his roots, so he didn't bother to actually explore or analyze that impulse.

Superman, upon his return, finds out about 9/11.

"Fuuuuck, dude...I probably could've done something there. Turn back time? Yeahhh, the cloud guy said I can't. I know I did it that one time but that was LOIS...and a movie. This is reality, bro."

Why would they have a need to explain that since the DC Universe does not have a New York.

So if Singer's SUPES RETURNS is a continuation of Donner's SUPERMAN 2, does that make it a period piece? 1986? If that's the case, 9/11 didn't happen yet. Unless Donner's SUPES entries happen in "anytime", making 9/11 a moot point... well, to anyone keeping track. I'm a nerd...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick 

Why would they have a need to explain that since the DC Universe does not have a New York.

Pretty sure it does.  I distinctly remember Batman punching Superman in the face outside the UN headquarters in "A Death in the Family"
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven 

This from the Superman Returns post-release thread (which I believe you've probably seen, since you posted over there) went a long way towards redeeming the movie for me. It's still not the Superman movie that was needed in 2006, but as a standalone piece it's a beautiful treatise on loss, desperation, and letting go of the past. I think Singer is fascinated by Kal-El, both Clark and Superman, as a concept but doesn't know how to make him relatable as a human being. 

Yeah, that analysis convinced me to give "Superman Returns" another shot, but it only briefly acknowledges the film's flaws and focuses primarily on the themes. Problem is, Superman's a not the right character to explore topics like "loss, desperation and letting go of the past." "Spider-Man 3" goes down a similar route, and again, the results are mixed at best.

"Superman Returns" feels like a compromised work. Singer can't get out from under the long shadow that Donner's films cast, so he tries to split the difference and coast on his interpretation of another filmmaker's 30-year-old vision while trying to shoehorn in a post-9/11 melancholy. It's a director struggling with his own uncertainty. I'll grant that Singer must be fascinated with Superman, but at the very same time, not really *get* what makes the character work.

I cannot for the life of me get into Blade Runner.  That's one of those films that just went completely over my head as a youth and one I tried desperately to like as an adult...it's probably genius, but I'm at a loss to align with it.

And am I missing something with NARC?  Is there some hidden brilliance in that film?  I just saw it as a bunch of forced macho tough guy stuff with too much shaky cam.  I haven't liked a single Carnahan film.

Sleepy Hollow was my last attempt to understand anything going on in Burton's head.  After that I tuned out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I cannot for the life of me get into Blade Runner.  That's one of those films that just went completely over my head as a youth and one I tried desperately to like as an adult...it's probably genius, but I'm at a loss to align with it.

 

 

FWIW, my first reaction was underwhelming, but I chalk that up to the impossible hype (Ford just off Raiders! Scott's first film since Alien!) and the narration which may or may not work conceptually, but which, as actually written and read, is tin-eared and wooden-tongued. A second theatrical viewing helped, and you have to stand in awe of its influence, but in the years since I've still only been motivated to watch it on video once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzman 

 

Pretty sure it does.  I distinctly remember Batman punching Superman in the face outside the UN headquarters in "A Death in the Family"
 

 

Really? News to me then! thanks for the clear up.

No worries.  Kinda weirded me out at the time too, not being a big DC reader.  "So wait, there's Metropolis, Gotham, Central et al and New York, Detroit, Los Angeles etc?  How do they fit 'em all in?"  (answer of course is "It's comics. Don't worry about it")

New York does exist in the DC universe. I believe they refer to it as the "Cinderella City" since it is often overlooked because of Metropolis and Gotham City. I have no idea if a 9/11 type incident occurred there though. 

At any rate, the Donner films' Metropolis had a Statue of Liberty, a Grand Central Station, and yes a World Trade Center. Pretty sure the 'DC Universe' explanation wouldn't have taken audiences' eyes off an unchanged skyline.

I always thought Gotham = Chicago and Metropolis = New York.   I guess Star City is LA?

Quite a few Alien / Monster Invasion movies fall into this category for me.

Spielberg's War of the Worlds - those tripods are cool, the noise they make is cool, the scene where one comes out of the ground is an awesome scene, this should be an awesome movie...but it never fails to disappoint.

Cloverfield - Hand held footage of a massive monster destroying New York? This should be one amazing movie! But it's not.

Mars Attacks - Look at the cast! Look at those kitschy 50's aliens! Jack Nicholson in a double role! Why is this boring??

I like War of the Worlds but I find it impossible to take seriously.  Even more so than Cloverfield it's a late night Drive-in creature feature of a thing.  See Tom Cruise Figure Everything Out!  He's throwing around this reflection theme like it's a student film.  The time shift, while ok I guess and superficially resonant, makes no real sense;  the fighting machines are impressive but completely impractical so they have to invent a magic shield so they last any time at all.

They nailed the whole fleeing refugee sense though.  So it's a good ride.

This might cue someone to say "look, it's now one of those "I have no taste" threads", and maybe it's not had enough to time to be on topic, but I have tried so hard to find any worth in Inglorious Basterds and I can't.  It's not that it's badly made or acted on the whole;  Landa's good of course and it's got QT doing that thing long scene thing he does rather well and each one of those snippits or threads I find quite decent in itself.  But it gets near the end and the whole business just falls in a heap.  I am struck by an overwhelming feeling that this is a dull, pointless hodgepodge of stuff that has no idea what it's doing (which QT thinks is his best work).  It's clumsily trying to extract thrills where there are none and I'm not entirely sure why (I have thought it's trading heavily on an in built audience desire to kill Hitler like it's Wolfenstien 3D or something, which I don't possess, but I'm not sure).

I get the feeling that QT was so over awed by WW2 itself and the fact he was getting all meta with his meanings in a way he doesn't usually, he didn't notice there was no there there.

It's a strange sensation I wasn't expecting, but try as I might I can't avoid it.  It was really well liked by a lot of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzman 

 

This might cue someone to say "look, it's now one of those "I have no taste" threads", and maybe it's not had enough to time to be on topic, but I have tried so hard to find any worth in Inglorious Basterds and I can't.  It's not that it's badly made or acted on the whole;  Landa's good of course and it's got QT doing that thing long scene thing he does rather well and each one of those snippits or threads I find quite decent in itself.  But it gets near the end and the whole business just falls in a heap.  I am struck by an overwhelming feeling that this is a dull, pointless hodgepodge of stuff that has no idea what it's doing (which QT thinks is his best work).  It's clumsily trying to extract thrills where there are none and I'm not entirely sure why (I have thought it's trading heavily on an in built audience desire to kill Hitler like it's Wolfenstien 3D or something, which I don't possess, but I'm not sure).

I get the feeling that QT was so over awed by WW2 itself and the fact he was getting all meta with his meanings in a way he doesn't usually, he didn't notice there was no there there.

It's a strange sensation I wasn't expecting, but try as I might I can't avoid it.  It was really well liked by a lot of people.

Bless you. I have actually warmed to it so it doesn't belong in this thread for me but I was bitterly disappointed when I first saw it.

It's the little "Tarantino-isms" that just took me out of it completely. The explanation that film is flammable, Sam Jackson's booming voice over and the names scribbled over the screen. Everytime I was getting into the film something like that would yank me back out. I know plenty of people who loved those touches and that's great, but it kept me at arms length.

For me the film is half a "Tarantino" film and half a stunning WW2 film. The opening scene with Lander and Lapitite (sp?) was one of the most tense scenes I've ever seen in the cinema. 

I'm sure it's somewhere in this thread, but it's on my mind, so here we go again. Watchmen. We all say go goofy, embarrassing things and drum up poor defenses every now and again, but I still wince at some of the quasi-George Romero shit that came over chewers upon that film's release. It's not a good adaptation, it is not the best adaptation we could have gotten, no, Snyder did not genuinely understand the source material, and in fifteen years, no one will be talking about it beyond conversations about total missed opportunities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bain 


On my own "still not good" I just cannot get on with Scott Pilgrim. I've tried so hard, I admire it technically but I hate every character so very, very much that it keeps me emotionally distant the whole time. I personally wouldn't waste the steam off my piss on Ramona Flowers and Pilgrim himself is such an unredeemably self centered twat, even after 'growing up' that its just a chore for me to spend any time with them. But the love Wright has put in is so obvious that I really want to unlock it. Still no joy after 4 viewings.
EDITED (painfully) because it was typed on a cocking iPhone.

I suspect Scott Pilgrim is a film that is vastly improved if you see it in a theater full of comic/Sf Geeks. It also works much better on the big screen vs. home theater. I really liked the movie the first time I saw it (in a theater with half a dozen other people) but mostly because of Edgar Wright's direction, the music and "Knives Chau, 17 years old". But upon seeing it at home the unlikable characters, especially Ramona Flowers, really killed the movie for me. I haven't seen Winstead in other roles (that I recall) but here her line delivery is so flat, and she's lacking in any chemistry whatsoever with Cera, that the whole central plot of the film fails.

Scott Pilgrim and Watchmen both suffer from the quaint notion that a comic book film has to look like a comic book, which is sort of like saying the adaptation of a novel should look like a bunch of words on a printed page.

OK, hyperbole, but still...

SP is all over cable right now, and I leave it on now and again to catch favorite bits (and it has plenty-- Evans and Routh never fail to crack me up), but at no time does Wright seem to be rethinking the material in a filmic context (apart from the questionable change where the character of Ramona goes from intriguing half-fantasy in the comic to drippy wet noodle onscreen). It was likely doomed from the moment it was decided that all seven Evil Exes needed to be crammed into one film (it's a dense 7-volume comic series), leaving no time for anything  but amusing setpieces. Granted, there are all too few films with as many amusing setpieces as SP does have, but it's not anything resembling a fulfilling viewing experience for me. Though I'm tempted to say that if they'd found five extra minutes to squeeze Knives' dad into the movie that would have come close to swaying me.

As for Watchmen, again it began with a conceptual dead end: taking Watchmen out of its comic environment should have necessitated completely rethinking it, since so much of its strength is dependent on things that are unique to its original medium. I know that there is some sense that Snyder's trying for a similar meta-commentary on the superhero film, but not only does he never commit to the idea (since he still composes so much of it as slavish re-creation of the comic panels), it's not much of an idea in the first place: the "superhero" film is really just a subset of the giant blockbuster action movie, a topic which seems to me hardly in need of any kind of deconstruction (Michael Bay pretty much does that every time he makes a movie). Like Scott Pilgrim, there are bits of Watchmen that I can enjoy here and there, and I'm probably going to trade in a DVD at Best Buy to pick up the Blu-ray for cheap, but I can't think of it as anything but a failure. FWIW, when I first read the comics, the guy I thought could have done something with the story was William Friedkin: a New York that felt as grungy as Popeye Doyle's, with the more "fantastic" elements having the oppressive ugliness of The Exorcist.

Comic books (graphic novels, sequential fiction, whatever) may resemble movie storyboards, but they're not the same thing. I'm not surprised that Snyder didn't realize that, but I'm surprised that Wright didn't seem to, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I'm sure it's somewhere in this thread, but it's on my mind, so here we go again. Watchmen. We all say go goofy, embarrassing things and drum up poor defenses every now and again, but I still wince at some of the quasi-George Romero shit that came over chewers upon that film's release. It's not a good adaptation, it is not the best adaptation we could have gotten, no, Snyder did not genuinely understand the source material, and in fifteen years, no one will be talking about it beyond conversations about total missed opportunities.

 

Wholeheartedly second. I came out of the midnight premier disappointed, so it a second time after reading a lot of the discussion here and elsewhere and somehow managed to see it through Devin's eyes and liked it, but as time went on the stuff that bothered me the first time just started to stick out more and more, and by the time it hit HBO I was unable to sit through the entire thing.

It's not only a bad adaptation, but it also feels so small and cheap and stage-y, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeb 

Scott Pilgrim and Watchmen both suffer from the quaint notion that a comic book film has to look like a comic book, which is sort of like saying the adaptation of a novel should look like a bunch of words on a printed page.

 

Thank You.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I'm sure it's somewhere in this thread, but it's on my mind, so here we go again. Watchmen. We all say go goofy, embarrassing things and drum up poor defenses every now and again, but I still wince at some of the quasi-George Romero shit that came over chewers upon that film's release. It's not a good adaptation, it is not the best adaptation we could have gotten, no, Snyder did not genuinely understand the source material, and in fifteen years, no one will be talking about it beyond conversations about total missed opportunities.

 

Yes.  I honestly never understood the geek love this film got.  I didn't like it at all, and not because I've never read the comic...I got the gist of what it was about and what Synder was going for, and they were two completely different things.  This movie confirmed my suspicions that Snyder is nothing more than Michael Bay Jr. pretending to be Bryan Singer.  Hell, Bay is a better filmmaker.

Definitely in with the Watchmen example.  Flat and dull in every respect.  The fact that Moore uses a very visual style with a lot of movie influence does not mean sticking to it will work all the time.  It's still a comic book and reading it has a certain rhythm all its own.  Imitate it, particularly in something like Watchmen that jumps all over the place, and you'll just get a jumbled mess.  Moore's work is so dense, if you don't get most of it across somehow it's dead.

I also hate pretty much all the acting in the film.  Wilson and Earley are trying but not getting much help from the script and direction, I dare say.  Carla Gugino isn't bad.  Holis too, in spite of things. Really didn't care for everyone else.  In a film mostly made up of vignettes of characters we don't truly get to know, coming from all over time, you really want an awesome actors director to keep that together. Not one for whom speed ramping seems like what you have to use since 70s crash zooms went out of style.

And, as mentioned, it all looks so phony.

Although this isn't one where I think maybe I just don't get it and should give it one or two more goes.

You're not alone. I watched it again a few days ago and it still doesn't work. Mostly for the reasons you stated above. I just can't seem to connect with any of the characters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I'm sure it's somewhere in this thread, but it's on my mind, so here we go again. Watchmen.

Watchmen's place in history is as proof that being rigidly faithful to source material doesn't necessarily mean you 'get it' or what best to do with it, and certainly doesn't mean the result will be even close to as good as the original. Just reading about the 'ultimate extended edition' with the cartoon spliced in makes it sound like one of the most unwatchable examples of an adaptation missing the point I could even imagine.

I can say with some confidence that I will never re-watch Watchmen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Killer Klowns from Outer Space. Now with a name like that, how could you go wrong? It's such a weirdo bullshit B movie premise it has to be good, Right?

No. No it doesn't

Sorry. It does exactly what it sets out to do.

Been revisiting the ALIEN series lately since the PROMETHEUS trailer debuted. I know we had this discussion in that Pre-Release thread (and we disagree), but for me, AVP:R is much much worse. Just re-watched it while folding laundry. Or listened to it. Since you can't really see anything. As boneheaded as PWSA's flick is, I like the "Chariot of the Gods" premise, I like the "Mountains of Madness" locale, I like the monster mashup, I like the inclusion of Lance H, and God help me, I like some of the cheesy comic booky badass moments thrown in there to "look cool". It at least "attempts" to put together a group of characters and a lead to follow. It ultimately fails. I just watched it last weekend and can't remember the rock-climbing girl's name, but I know who the protagonist is.

AVP:R fails from the word go. It's premise is atrocious (small town slasher flick), it's cast of characters and actors plugged in those roles are even MORE forgettable than AVP, and it's so underlit you can't make out a darn bit of the R-rated gore. Thank goodness the alien and predator blood glows so you can see it against the black. It tries so hard to homage the franchise's key elements, but it can't save the flick from being a steaming pile. Hired the director of photog from TEXAS CHAINSAW just because Ridley saw that flick before making ALIEN. Should have hired someone who has an eye for contrast and composition like Ridley does.

Rewatched it on my newer tv, in hopes of appreciating it after the initial disappointment (DVD release), but it still shits the bed. Even the new stuff I can get behind (Predalien) looks miles better in the behind the scenes creature featurette. Maybe I should just revisit that tidbit in the future instead of the whole movie. R-rated! Gore! New creature! Tons of callbacks to the originals! Creatures behave more like they're supposed to! Wish all that stuff was in a much better film. I imagine I'll have that same opinion when I revisit RR's PREDATORS. But at least in that one, you can make out some images with the sound.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Quote:

Sorry. It does exactly what it sets out to do.

Make a shitty movie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Quote:

Sorry. It does exactly what it sets out to do.

Been revisiting the ALIEN series lately since the PROMETHEUS trailer debuted. I know we had this discussion in that Pre-Release thread (and we disagree), but for me, AVP:R is much much worse. Just re-watched it while folding laundry. Or listened to it. Since you can't really see anything. As boneheaded as PWSA's flick is, I like the "Chariot of the Gods" premise, I like the "Mountains of Madness" locale, I like the monster mashup, I like the inclusion of Lance H, and God help me, I like some of the cheesy comic booky badass moments thrown in there to "look cool". It at least "attempts" to put together a group of characters and a lead to follow. It ultimately fails. I just watched it last weekend and can't remember the rock-climbing girl's name, but I know who the protagonist is.

I'll certainly concede that storywise it aims FAR higher than Requiem.  I just wish someone else besides Anderson wrote the script.  I don't hate Anderson as a director, but he is a TERRIBLE writer.

Help me out here:

Just watched Shoot Em Up for the first time since theatrical. Given the cast, I figured I must have just been in a bad mood or something when I first saw it...

But goddam... for all the imaginative stunts and OTT action, it just leaves me cold over and over again.

Is the silliness too dark? The darkness too silly?

One thing I can absolutely point to is the dialog, that is always just a degree or two short of the memorably quippy-- every line of Giamatti's is clearly supposed to be a zinger, and almost none of them are.

I can't say I regret the re-view, since every time I was tempted to quit, Bellucci showed up again to take my breath away for a few moments. But after that it was back to Clive and Paul racing around and going nowhere.

But a lot of those criticisms apply equally well to films I've enjoyed (the bulk of Jason Statham's career, for instance)-- what's up with this one?

I was fully prepared to love Shoot Em Up.  I really didn't like it and forgot I saw it the next day.  For something trying so desperately hard to be outrageous and end up leaving no mark is quite a feat.  And this was when I would've been more open to such audacious action sequences. 

It's really quite awful.  You can just feel it trying so hard to please you. 

The Crank movies are much more enjoyable.

TRON: LEGACY

I had a childhood love affair with the original movie, and it probably influenced my career.  I can still watch the original and enjoy it immensely for what it is: a groundbreaking fusion of live action & CGI in in its infancy, held together with a plot just thick enough to link its scenes together.  With very charming actors.  And lots of heart.  Tons of heart.

Then, 20-odd years later, the teaser comes out of nowhere.  Nerds go crazy.  Then the trailers.  And it looks pretty damn cool.

And the hype.  Original cast members?  Goodness.  And Daft Punk doing the score?  Awesome.  Disney pulling out the marketing stops?  Good omens.

Then the movie is released.  IMAX 2-D viewing.  Well, and I'm sad to use it, meh.  It's got some cool parts, but is this the sequel the childhood me has been waiting 20-odd years for?  No, not quite.  It seems...  kinda lacking.  Kinda hollow.  It's trying, got some really cool bits, but seems... surface only.  Doesn't hit it for me.

I keep revisiting it to see if it may lead to some great things, but, the movie by itself seems pandering.  Doesn't quite stand up on its own.

Is it just me and my place in the childhood 80's nostalgia, or does this movie disappoint the general moviegoing audience?  Is the overall opinion of this movie good, bad, or just 'okay'?

EDIT:  the score is still pretty damn awesome

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somewhere 

TRON: LEGACY

 

Is it just me and my place in the childhood 80's nostalgia, or does this movie disappoint the general moviegoing audience?  Is the overall opinion of this movie good, bad, or just 'okay'?

I hate the movie for the same reasons you did, but I saw it with some non-geek friends who weren't expecting anything but dumb show to begin with. They enjoyed themselves, and for the life of me I couldn't communicate to them how and why I was critical that there wasn't more to it. So I would say that mainstream audiences saw a movie that was exactly as stupid as they thought it would be, and were therefore not disappointed. The film certainly disappointed Disney.

As someone who saw Tron when he was little, but never attached to it the way many (most?) geeks did, I have no problems with Tron Legacy and find it to be a solid sequel to the first.  I think that has A LOT to do with not having nostalgic eyes for the original, which.........while a lot of fun..........honestly isn't that great a movie.

I haven't seen Tron 2 (and now that I missed it on the big screen, I doubt I will), but the Daft Punk score is goddamn incredible.  It deserves a great movie, though by all accounts it didn't get one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

As someone who saw Tron when he was little, but never attached to it the way many (most?) geeks did, I have no problems with Tron Legacy and find it to be a solid sequel to the first.  I think that has A LOT to do with not having nostalgic eyes for the original, which.........while a lot of fun..........honestly isn't that great a movie.

I found Legacy to be a shaky and inconsistent sequel to a film that didn't need a follow-up at all-- like Superman Returns, it tries to pick up a decades-old plotline as if we'd been getting story updates all along.

Even as eye candy (arguably the original's best suit) it doesn't compare-- don't underestimate the value of 'being a lot of fun'. As for the score, it works better as a dance album than as an complement to the onscreen action; I felt like every scene got a driving beat whether it needed one or not, and the sameness of that treatment threatened to put me to sleep.

ETA: regarding many (most?) geeks. TRON appreciation has always been a minority opinion. The people who didn't understand why I liked the movie 30 years ago still don't understand why I like it now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

I hate the movie for the same reasons you did, but I saw it with some non-geek friends who weren't expecting anything but dumb show to begin with. They enjoyed themselves, and for the life of me I couldn't communicate to them how and why I was critical that there wasn't more to it. So I would say that mainstream audiences saw a movie that was exactly as stupid as they thought it would be, and were therefore not disappointed.

Yep, this was me. Ive seen the original, and respect why it got a cult following, but it's aged like fine shit. Legacy is inconsistent as hell, and lipservices ideas that would've made for a far better, deeper film, but I still ended up enjoying it as just a sweet little slice of sci-fi action and nothing more.

And it can't be repeated enough: That goddamn score.

Well, I liked it. Quite a bit, actually.

Maybe that's why it worked so well with me. ZERO expectations. ZERO nostalgic baggage.