Name your top nose dive films... - Page 2

And even that could have been something compelling even if it is completely well worn territory. But, man, was it a chore to get through the rest of that film.

Jamie Foxx blows Gerard Butler up before he exacts his masterplan and the films closes on Foxx watching his daughter at a school play. Nothing vaguely clever, nothing vaguely interesting.

RE: Greg Clark

No, I GOT it. Believe me, I get the Python humor. I know that they'd end stuff abruptly and move on to other things. It just wasn't FUNNY. It just ENDS. If Graham Chapman had suddenly appeared as the general, saying 'Stop that! Stop that! It's silly!', I would have laughed, and it would have been a nice nod to the original series. Instead, it just ends.

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN's ending is shit on toast. Too bad, because up 'til then the movie was pretty ballsy.

Collateral.

95% of it is top-tier, but I do not buy for a second that Jamie Foxx's cab driver would survive, much less win, a face to face shoot-out with Cruise's assassin. Even with the "disorienting" strobe effect, I call shenanigans. It would've been much better had Jamie Foxx been laying on the floor with the gun pointed at the door, waiting for Cruise.

Bugs the f**k outta me.

That whole movie post-car crash kind of bugs me. It never becomes a bad film, but it becomes a bit formulaic and cliche(oh no! the cell phone is dying!). Too bad, after how awesome the rest of the movie was.

It's not a nosedive for me so much as it is a leveling-out of a plane that was reaching for the stars.

I'd like to see a thread with the exact opposite criteria, films that start dull and gain momentum in the third act.

The end of Collateral is fine. It's how Mann does action. There's a conversation going on between Vincent and Max, but the conversation eventually gets too intense for words and escalates (as it must for someone to claim victory) into the realm of the physical. Argument is still the same, but the way its being presented has changed.

It must be said, Blade is all downhill after that killer opening sequence. The finale is when the plane finally crashes and there are flaming people parts scattered about.

I think Superman Returns is terrific until the shuttle sequence ends. Too bad that's in, what, the first 40 minutes of a 2 1/2 hour film?

Thing is... I see people complaining about "the ending." But I think what seems to be bugging them is the third act twist...

which is: It turns out you've been watching Death Wish meets The Shawshank Redemption.

I thought it was stupid too. But the movie didn't engross or thrill enough for me to care. I guess it does bother me a bit that Jamie Foxx's character is so unsympathetic. But, again, not enough to really care.

I've always thought the point of the whole thing is that Tom Cruise pretty much lets him win. Max has gotten to him. The whole climax of the film is about cool, professional Vincent becoming hot-headed and sloppy. In the end, he actually likes Max and doesn't want to kill him. And another part of him actually wants this to end. And so the movie ends as predicted by Vincent himself early in the film.

........

Now, my question is: How have we gone on for 2 pages without bringing up Haute Tension?

Talk about a major fuck-up! Perfect throwback midnight movie with terrific set pieces and great, old-school gore. Wonderful atmosphere. And then WHAT A TWEEEEEEEEST! Completely destroys the movie, gives the finger to the audience and almost mocks you for having wasted 90 minutes of your life.

I think Law Abiding Scotsman starts to crash and burn right after the courtroom scene, actually; I was tuned out way before we got to the "you're-not-fucking-serious" ending.

Agree about Goldeneye, and I'll toss in License to Kill. Not genius, but it had possibilities with Bond having to go off the reservation. But then Q shows up and it's back to business as usual and eventually all into the crapper. Living Daylights is one where there is less a dramatic falloff than a case of 15 decent opening minutes being long forgotten by the time the thing mercifully ends.

And for my money, Holy Grail ends just fine.

Couldn't agree with you more. I loved that movie as I watched it, but after that ending I still haven't been able to revisit it.

This. I was completely with the movie to that point. Then it seemed as if the writer was told "Okay...so...we gotta change this ending, dude. Make it so that she's punished for doing what she did." or something. It had the potential to be so much more.

"Godzilla" 1998. We spend ages building up to the killer reveal of Gojira coming to stomp Manhattan flat. He finally appears, smashes some things, humps the Empire State building, eats a helicopter and then...apparently goes into the Giant Monster Witness Protection Program until the end of Act II. Meanwhile, we get to watch a soft-sequel to "The Lost World."

The Game is another stellar example.

The Time Machine remake. I'm with it up until the Eloi show up and then it completely craps the bed. It also completely destroys the whole point of the Guy Pearce character in the end as well.

I'd have to agree with whoever said Die Hard: With A Vengeance. I've never fallen asleep so many times while trying to watch a Die Hard movie late at night.

But the sad thing is that even if you look at the alternate ending on the DVD, it's even worse than the theatrical. It's all riddles and malfunctioning RPGs and a small explosion. It's retarded. But I'd probably still take With A Vengeance over Live Free Or Die Hard to be honest. It's got the always great Sam Jackson and John McTiernan directing (before he lost his mind, apparently) so it's got value up to a point.

I agree with Law Abiding Citizen, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned No Country for Old Men. The last ten minutes of the movie ruined a great cat-and-mouse game between Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem. That has to be one of the worst endings to a good film I have ever seen. I heard that the book ended the same way, but a shitty ending is still a shitty ending.

No one's mentioned it because you're wrong wrong wrong wrong...wrong wrong wrong wrong...you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. [/drcox]

I'll chime in with the Law Abiding Citizen disappointment. That flick was badass, but the kills became increasingly ridiculous and implausible. The reveal that Butler is a trained death dealer was the breaking point for me. Of all the homes those criminals coul have broken into, they just so happened to break into the home of a highly trained, highly intelligent killer operative? By the time that Jamie Foxx somehow magically beats Butler back to the cell, I was out of the film's grasp. Damn shame.

Plus, that ending will all be explained in the sequel anyway! Stay tuned...

The last ten minutes was, in many ways, what elevated No Country For Old Men from being a masterful genre piece to a work of art.

The whole film is really about the way that Sheriff Tom Bell looks at the world. At the start of the film, he sees life in a relatively black and white manner. Good is good, bad is bad. He's the sheriff and it's his job to stop bad men. There's a sense that he believes the right thing will win out in the end.

The struggle between good and bad is personified in Llewelyn Moss and Anton Chigurh. But, as becomes abundantly clear in the film, good and bad are never what they appear to be. Llewelyn is the hero, a good man, but in what way? He is almost a complete nihilist - a man searching to only benefit himself without consideration for how it affects others.

Anton Chigurh, on the other hand, is a complete monster. Vicious, psychotic, and cunning. But he is also a man of ethics. A man who has a personal code and sticks by it. Much more a man of principle than Llewelyn is.

Llewelyn doesn't die in an elaborate shootout. It's not even on camera. Because he's not someone worth having the camera on him. He's a nobody who stole some drug money and got knocked off. He's not a hero. His death barely even matters.

That's the essential point of the movie - that the simple lines between good and evil that we as a society have ALWAYS accepted are falling apart. As our society grows more complex and linked together, the moral systems upon which man has laid it's foundation are crumbling. In this way the modern world is no country for old men, as the old man's moral systems are ones of another place. The old way is a dream that Tom Bell has woken up from.

.....but yeah, maybe it woulda been cooler if there was another bad ass shootout at the end.

I admit to enjoying some of M. Knight Rider's The Village, he created a great atmosphere, some true suspense, and then, it was either when BDH meets her brother in the woods or the twist when it just comes to a screeching halt. Hell, that Jeep screeching to a halt times up pretty well to the movie coming to a halt. It's been a while since I've revisited it, but man, I was very disappointed.

halt is a weird word.

And to take it a step further, Bell realizes that the good old days--the days he's trying to figure out where they went--were just as full as meaningless, horrible death and misery. The visit to his uncle, where he's told of the man who was shot on his front porch by friends of a man he arrested, took him a whole night to die, and his wife had to claw out a grave in the front yard, is there for a reason. That feeling that the world has grown beyond his comprehension isn't a new one. People have been feeling it forever; don't go thinking you're any different. Bell is disturbed because that dream where his father is, where things make sense, is folly, and he'll never get it back. He's woken up.

It might be one of the best endings of the decade.

A.I.

I'm a big fan of the movie - but the first half when David is at home with his "parents" is a lot stronger than the wacky cameo filled chase that occupies most of the second half.

And a lot of other people would say it nosedives when it jumps into the future - but I rather like that part.

Yep, Knowing derails badly. For all of it's gorgeousness, Lynch's Dune is a mess by the end (arguably a mess generally though). Being a Giger fan, I enjoyed the first couple of acts of Species until it degenerated into schlock. Starman was another one that kind of lost it's way for me in the third act too. Spielberg's War Of The Worlds?

Whoa... speaking of Spielberg, I'm surprised nobody's brought up War of the Worlds. You know why...

EDIT: GAH!!! TUNDRO KNOOOOOOWS!!!!!!

I'd say Wall-E comes a little unstuck - maybe not a nosedive, but it hit a big-ass airpocket and landed awkwardly damaging the undercarriage.

Yeah... Spielberg has had an ending problem for the last 15 years or so.

Right... The coffee shop ending would have been terrible. It's fine for a suspense thriller or something, but not a high-octane action film. Not to mention that it transforms McClaine into a vindictive, cold-blooded murderer. At least the theatrical ending is an action film ending. It's just very poorly staged and lazy.

You almost want ANOTHER alternate ending that ends things at that phone booth on the beach... With Simon (who is really a very likable character at the end of the day) having gotten away to challenge McClaine in a future installment. Because all that stuff on the boat is pretty solid and packs a climactic punch. Even with them strapped to a time bomb like it was an episode of Batman: The Animated Series.

I started another thread on this forum where this particular complaint might be more appropriate.

I advise you to tread carefully, however, lest you get pelted with eggs and tomatoes.

......

Well... You already did get pelted.

But try that thread out anyway.

I will add that the "flaw" you describe completely disappears if you watch the movie a second time. I complained like you, the first time. I realized I was wrong. It's a flaw based on your expectations of what the movie is. It's a flaw in the audience.

My sarcasm metre may be way off today but this is a joke right?

The 'worst movies' thread reminded me of "The Notebook". It's a guilty pleasure because I thought a lot of the Rachel McAdams/Ryan Gosling stuff was good, but I hated the old people stuff throughout and ESPECIALLY at the end. I would have preferred if it was told straight up as a story about them without the flashback framing device. Those old people parts had some of the most laughably annoying manipulative cornball shit I've ever seen. Melodrama at its worst, embarrassing for actors to have to play at their age.

Two pages without a mention of CHASING AMY? I'll take SUNSHINE's bedshitting over AMY's any day of the week.

I was actually wondering which Nightmare on Elm Street was being referenced...then realised the nosedive was me...

You think Spielberg's had last act problems? I'm not gonna disagree, but take a look at EVERY SINGLE ROLAND EMMERICH film. Quite often, a great first hour. And then, absolute bobbins. They have a great concept and a decent buildup but no real script. Then comes idiocy. They're mostly lightweight films anyway, so its not too bad normally. But The Patriot had the potential to be a solid genre film and a rare big budget Civil War movie. But Christ, the second half of that film is horrendous.

I also kind of agree with Judas about Holy Grail (just another reason why Life of Brian is the best British comedy of all time) and you could level the same criticism at Blazin' Saddles frankly.

Mamet's Heist always bothered me. They go a twist too far and feel the need to explain everything to you. You're willing him not to do it and he goes and does it anyway. That's a damn fine film, ruined by its last 20 minutes. Spartan nearly did the same thing, actually, by explaining everything in its climax, when the whole film that preceded worked so well largely because of the shorthand being used. The difference, I guess, is that Kilmer>deVito and Spartan is still great.

Speaking of Spielberg (and framing devices), what about "Saving Private Ryan". That stuff with old man Ryan was lame and totally unnecessary. "Tell me I've been a good man?" Cah mahn.

While I agree about Life Of Brian, Holy Grail is playing with the filmmaking conventions and reality/artifice right from the opening credits, through the coconuts, characters' awareness of their taking part in the story, the musical number, etc., so whether or not the ending "works" for a given viewer, to me it feels more earned in that respect than does the end of Blazing Saddles.

And I've always thought that the Coens took a perverse pleasure in crafting their scrupulous adaptation of No Country For Old Men, deliberately leaving out the opening section of the book, which makes the ending in the book seem more inevitable than it probably does to filmgoers who didn't know the original. Still a great ending, but I can easily imagine it playing as a "WTF-- that's it??"

I basically agree with you and add that the basic problem, really, is the bloat. But neither Universal Soldier nor Stargate really have that problem. It's probably why they're his best work.

Some might complain that Stargate's third act is a cop out given the set-up. But they'd be wrong in my opinion.

It's actually: "Have I been a good man?"

But your version is more indicative of what the old bastard is actually saying. And is, therefore, a clear demonstration of what exactly is wrong with that framing device.

SPR wasn't that bad, ending-wise. And fuck anyone who dares say Munich.

WoTW is still awful, but it started becoming shit when Tim Robbins entered the picture.

Ryan's bookends may be clunky (I don't agree they are, but that's neither here nor there), but they certainly don't come close to sinking the film.

I think you mean the Revolutionary War. Or Emmerich really fucked up his American history.

Not remotely. That's like four minutes about of a 160 minute movie.

Of course, I still turn off the DVD as soon as Hanks says "Earn this."

Yep, all true. I don't really care for the ending, but you're right, its not really out of place with what they were doing.
Universal Soldier I forgot about. I'll give you that one. Stargate, not so much. Great setup, weak final act.
You are, of course, correct. Sorry y'all - red box for me.

That's a common complaint. My father, for instance loved the first 45 minutes of the movie because they promised Close Encounters... And the movie delivered a cross between Star Wars and The Wizard of Oz.

He was: "This is amazing... But then it just becomes a silly action movie with the evil aliens and the shooting just like everything else."

Valid.

But, at the time, I was thrilled. I loved how they had tapped into this old-school feel and not been shy about ripping off both Indy and SW as affectionately as possible.

Ironically, Stargate is actually a better, more satisfying movie than any of the prequels. And - even though I'm one of Indy 4's few supporters around here - it's better than that too.

I was a big fan of Emmerich at this time... Then ID4 came out and, although I enjoyed it okay, it was an awful omen that proved all too prescient and unfortunate.

It's pretty bad when Stargate is known as your comparatively "cerebral" movie.

Then fuck me, because Munich badly needed a No Country for Old Men or The Sopranos ending. The rest of the movie is so matter-of-fact and then there's the stylistic confusion of the sex scene and the talky scene with Geoffrey Rush. It's Schindler's List all over again (the badge scene not the memorial service thing). Literally breaking a leg right at the finish line after an amazing performance on the track.

The sex scene at the end of Munich, in and of itself, is not a bad idea. It's an interesting, and even evocative, way to dramatize how this event has so deeply scarred this man. The idea of such horror intruding upon what is supposed to be your most intimate, special moment is actually heartbreaking... And real.

It's the way Spielberg chose to stage it. With Bana's ridiculous O face, Ayelet Zuhrer's emotionless stare up at her thrashing husband, and the specifically overwrought music underlining it all... You end up with one of the funniest screen moments of the last 10 years.

But I don't really have any problems with the dialog between Bana and Geoffrey Rush. I think it's a good button for the end of the film and there is a lot of power in the moment where Bana invites Rush over for dinner and he quietly responds: "No."

It worked like gangbusters for me.