PDA

View Full Version : Disappointing 2002!



Godfather
6th Nov 2002, 23:35
I just went to see the new Christopher Nolan-movie "Insomnia" and, although I'm planning on giving it a second chance, I have to say that I was a little disappointed with the film. It had great actors like Al Pacino and Robin Williams (the serious version, coz (except for Mrs. Doubtfire) he's not very good as a comedy-actor), but it was the superficial story that kinda ruined it a bit.

My question to you all is:

What high-anticipated movies of 2002 have been (very) disappointing?

For me, these are the movies of the year 2002 which had to be somewhat (or in the worst cases: a lot) better if they (read: director, producer, actors, ...) paid more attention to certain things in the film and in the end: they should have done a lot more effort to eventually come to a better result.

Disappointing movies of 2002 (so far):
Austin Powers in Goldmember (the first two were very good)

Men in Black II (the first one was quite original)

Halloween: Resurrection (the worst and least original of the entire series and the ONE way to actually kill off Michael Myers :D)

Insomnia (a good movie, but with all that extra hype and Nolan's previous movie "Memento" in the back of your head, you'd be expecting this new film to be a lot better ... pity! Can't make a masterpiece every time you make a movie, I guess.) :(

The Scorpion King: (An amateurish and fairly obvious B-film after the first two Mummy-movies did a great job in entertaining their audience)

Signs (quite original, but M. Night Shyamalan has definitely lost that special touch that made him sooo untouchable during the "Sixth Sense"-days and ... to a certain degree ... in his "unbreakable"-days.

And finally: Road to perdition (great atmosphere and even better acting performances, but the script and the end of the movie could have been A LOT better ... pretty good movie in the end, but !!!!NO WHERE NEAR!!!!!!!! The Godfather ... which is something this film obviously wanted to be.)

That's all folks! Don't worry coz 2002 also had quite some good movies such as Ice Age and Gone nutty, Star Wars - episode II, The pianist, S1m0ne, One hour photo and Panic room ... with the new Martin Scorsese and the new Lord of the rings-films in sight, so ... like every year: there are great movies, good ones, weak ones, but unfortunately: also awful movies or just plain disappointing ones (such as "Insomnia: a good movie but still disappointing!) :(

C ya!

TombRaiderChik
7th Nov 2002, 00:38
damn as insomnia has been ruined for me!!! :( should i not even bother renting it???

but heres my list:

The Scoprion King definately!!! i was boring watching the whole thing. The Rock was better in the Mummy Returns when he just screamed AHHh!! and led a fight.

Life Or Something Like it. i thought this movie would a little bit better than what i expected..guess not. Definately not one of Angelina's best. but it was semi funny at times

The Tuxedo<---or so a friend says. i havent seen it and i never did but she said it basically sucked the big one.

i also have to agree w/ you on Halloween Resurrection.


well i cant think of any more at the moment but im sure i will later one.

btw godfather id have to strongly disagree w/ you on Road to Perdition...i thought that movie was brilliant and it was everything i expected and more..great movie, great actors. period.

total_inferno
7th Nov 2002, 02:50
eIGHT LEGGED FREAKS WAS VERY DISSAPOINTING.... why??? well you couldnt realt tell if it was comedy or horor ... maybe if it came out in 1996 it would've made a diffrence... but right now its way down the list

TombRaiderChik
7th Nov 2002, 03:31
i knew that movie was gonna suck the first time i saw the commercial for it. i also got confused on whether itd b a horror or comedy. that movie is definately by far one of the most terrible movies.

DaveJ
7th Nov 2002, 08:24
Robin Williams must be heartbroken to hear that some guy in Belgium has decreed that he is "not a very good comedy actor".

Might as well jack it in now, Mr. Williams....
;)



Best films I saw this year? 'Mulholland Drive', 'Amelie' and 'Brotherhood of the Wolf'. (They may not have been originally released this year, but I saw them this year. Thats multiplex corporate decision-making for you....)

Most disappointing? Probably all the summer blockbusters.

Still...theres always Bond's 20th and Tolkien's 2nd to look forward to.

DaveJ
7th Nov 2002, 09:03
Originally posted by Godfather
And finally: Road to perdition (great atmosphere and even better acting performances, but the script and the end of the movie could have been A LOT better ... pretty good movie in the end, but !!!!NO WHERE NEAR!!!!!!!! The Godfather ... which is something this film obviously wanted to be.)



No...thats what you wanted and or/expected it to be.

Others seemed happy to view it on its own merits and call it the best film in years.
Go figure.

whitemetal
7th Nov 2002, 11:55
The Time Machine.......such a great book,such a crappy movie, even the original version with Rod Taylor looked and felt much better than this waste of time.

Spiderman is the flick that sticks in my mind as worth the money so far. Roll on TTT & DAD:)

TDC
7th Nov 2002, 15:36
My only real disappointment of 2002 was that The Matrix Reloaded had been pushed off to 2003, denying me my fix for a fourth year! There's plenty of stuff that I have seen and want to see this year, but that's tops on my list by far.

Godfather
7th Nov 2002, 20:21
Originally posted by DaveJ
No...thats what you wanted and or/expected it to be.

Others seemed happy to view it on its own merits and call it the best film in years.
Go figure.

You're right. But after watching it a second time, I had the same feeling ... at first I thought it was pretty weak and the second time I had to admit it was truly a good movie, but still ... the ending is sooo lame. I mean: not the very ending but the part where Tom Hanks ... !!!!!SPOILER COMING UP!!!!!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
immediately becomes Mr. Unbreakable and shoots everyone without getting hurt or without even having to move an inch. He was still human back there, wasn't he? I mean: don't get me wrong though ... I liked the movie, but that part was quite unbelievable. It all went sooo easy and the movie had been quite realistic upto that moment and then they do something like that ... it felt as if they were rushing towards a typical Hollywood-happy ending; which eventually (and fortunately) didn't happen.

All I'm saying is that (and this is merely my personal opinion) Tom Hanks felt very much like Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Commando". And I'm also saying (and again: this is merely my personal opinion) this is a good movie, but nothing special. Many of you out there think of it as the next Goodfellas or the next Godfather ... I know this film is a little different from the above, but it's still maffia-crime, now isn't it?

But again: it's a good one and deserves a few nominations. Tom Hanks was good as always (or almost always) and Paul Newman tried his very best to prove to many out there again that he truly is a very gifted actor. I really liked when he smacked the table and said:" You would like to apologize?!" :D
I also liked Daniel Craig (I thought he was a better actor in this movie than he was in Tomb Raider; as far as you can compare those two; that is. :D) and Jude Law whom I don't always like, but he was great in this film (just as he was in Enemy at the gates!)

Again: my opinion ... and I gotta stop babbling like this! ;)

DaveJ
8th Nov 2002, 08:35
Originally posted by Godfather
Paul Newman tried his very best to prove to many out there again that he truly is a very gifted actor.

I sincerely hope this is losing something in translation.
Newman has proved himself many times over in the last 4 decades.

Its also a big mistake to assume that any film dealing with the mafia is trying to be the next 'Godfather' movie.
Pre-conceptions like that will always hamper your enjoyment and impair your judgement.
Its like saying all movies set in space are trying to be like 'Star Wars'.

rocconorth
8th Nov 2002, 09:03
Originally posted by total_inferno
eIGHT LEGGED FREAKS WAS VERY DISSAPOINTING.... why??? well you couldnt realt tell if it was comedy or horor ... maybe if it came out in 1996 it would've made a diffrence... but right now its way down the list

I have to agree with you here. I always have such high expecations for movies starring David Arquette... or as I like to call him...."The American Sir Lawerence Oliver".;)

DaveJ
8th Nov 2002, 10:10
Did anyone have the same problem with "Tremors" back in the early 90's?

Sometimes its nice when a film lets you bring your own crayons, instead of colouring it all in for you.

CatSuit&Ponytail
8th Nov 2002, 13:10
Originally posted by Godfather

Again: my opinion ... I gotta stop babbling like this! ;)

http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/icons/icon14.gif http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/icons/icon14.gif I agree wholeheartedly with this statement! :D


But so far, 2002 has been a purrrrrfectly lovely year for me. ;) And the movies were ok, too. :p

GoranAgar
8th Nov 2002, 13:39
Originally posted by DaveJ
"Tremors"
Ha, got the DVD yesterday. I love that movie.

CatSuit&Ponytail, I am glad you enjoy your time ;)

Godfather
8th Nov 2002, 21:23
Originally posted by total_inferno
eIGHT LEGGED FREAKS WAS VERY DISSAPOINTING.... why??? well you couldnt realt tell if it was comedy or horor ... maybe if it came out in 1996 it would've made a diffrence... but right now its way down the list

If you went to see "8-legged freaks" thinking that it was going to be a realistic action-horror movie, I can see why you're disappointed.

"Eight legged freaks" is a fun reminder of those simplistic (read: enjoyable yet straightforward) B-movies that were made back in the '40s and the '50s when all hEll broke loose coz all insects were enlarged a thousand times and given their own movie. I think "Eight legged freaks" is surely one of the very best of 2002! Why? Because it's funny but creepy too. Just compare it to "Godzilla" and be honest with yourself: this movie is ten times better. The only problem is that it's been a very long time ever since a movie like this was made.

Tremors is a monster-movie but still quite different from "Eight legged freaks". The latter one is overdone "on purpose" whilst the first one is made to actually scare you and not to make you laugh, right?

All I'm saying is that "Eight legged freaks" is a -not so obvious- link towards amateurish B-monster movies of the '40s and the'50s. Don't ask me no titles, but insects such as ants, bees, wasps, flies, mosquitos, etc... were all enlarged, copied many times so you'd get an army of flying pests and let loose onto a small town where everything used to be very pieceful. Quite recently we got another version of this kind of film: it's was called bats!

Am I talking non- or sense here? ;)

Godfather
8th Nov 2002, 21:36
Originally posted by DaveJ
I sincerely hope this is losing something in translation.
Newman has proved himself many times over in the last 4 decades.

True. But you know a lot about movies. The only ones who respect Paul Newman for his great acting abilities are the ones who know a lot about movies and the generation that was born with Paul Newman. Just go down the streets and ask the '90s-generation about Paul Newman. You'd be surprised (at least here in Belgium) how many would say to you:" Err ... I think I've heard that name before, but I can't put a face with him." OR:" Yeah ... isn't that the guy from the French connection" OR even worse:" Who?!"

All I'm saying is that some actors have been neglected by the modern audience. Everyone is always talking about the more straightforward and -easier to remember- actors such as Nicholson, De Niro, Pacino, Harris, Connery, Hackman, Eastwood, Cruise, Hanks, Ford, ...

Paul Newman is very rarely one of the first names mentioned when someone's talking about great actors. Anyway, this weekend I'm gonna go and see "Cool Hand Luke" in the Antwerpian film museum (this month: it's Paul Newman-month, so I'm gonna do a little update on his movies, you see?)


It's also a big mistake to assume that any film dealing with the mafia is trying to be the next 'Godfather' movie.
Pre-conceptions like that will always hamper your enjoyment and impair your judgement.
Its like saying all movies set in space are trying to be like 'Star Wars'.

Maybe not in the case of "The Godfather" since that entire genre is more elaborate, but I should think that, as soon as the word stars is involved within a film's title or storyline, people automatically link it to Star Wars, no?

And you're right when you said that pre-conceptions like that always hamper my enjoyment and impair my judgement ... I'm working on that, so I won't be disappointed like that anymore in the future. For example, I went to see Insomnia thinking it would be a second Memento. :rolleyes: I mean: how stupid is that, huh? *laughing out loud with myself* :D No wonder I was disappointed a little. In the end (after having already watched it twice), I found it to be a good movie ... nothing special, but good!

Closing down now ... C ya!

DaveJ
9th Nov 2002, 09:07
So 'Star Trek:Nemesis' instantly makes you think of 'Star Wars'?

'Night of 1,000 stars', too?

'Lone Star'?


I know what you mean about Paul Newman...but he is in semi-retirement.
As people get a bit older, and stop falling for the modern crap Hollywood throws our way, hopefully they will turn to the older classics to see what all the fuss was about.

Enjoy that Paul Newman season!

Godfather
9th Nov 2002, 13:04
Originally posted by DaveJ
So 'Star Trek:Nemesis' instantly makes you think of 'Star Wars'?

'Night of 1,000 stars', too?

'Lone Star'?

Err ... I don't know any of those movies, but for example with the film Alien of 1979: it doesn't really remind me of Star Wars (unless you should think that Darth Vader looks a bit like the Alien) :rolleyes:, but it's quite obvious that this film was made or adapted due to the massive success of Star Wars.

All I'm saying is that sci-fi/fantasy-films have been adapted and influenced a little by Star Wars; that's all.
It's a bit like with Scream, for example. It doesn't sincerely remind me of Halloween (which blew new life into the thriller/horror-genre back in 1978), but it was definitely influenced by it. I just think that sci-fi/fantasy movies made before Star Wars were a lot different ... (not that I have seen any, except for the -even more influencing- 2001: A space Odyssey)



Enjoy that Paul Newman season!

Thank you. Except for his western-movies, I will. Are there any particular titles you want me to pay special attention to? I have only seen him in three movies so far ... Road to perdition, The sting and The Towering inferno.

DaveJ
9th Nov 2002, 13:54
Cool Hand Luke, The Hustler and Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid.
Can't go wrong.
;)

As Alien was made by Fox...who already had the Star Wars films in the folder, and bears no similarities thematically or by design to the Star wars films, I think the coincidence is just that....a coincidence.
It was in development before Mr. Lucas' opus hit theatres.

Alien is a lot more akin to O' Bannon's previous offering "Dark Star" (which pre-dates Star Wars by 2-3 years).

And it was more influenced by the 50's B-movies than the kiddie fantasy movies like Star Wars.

If it really only went into production to cash in on the success of Star Wars, it would have been a PG rated film with lots of gunfights and spin-off toys for the kiddies.
;)

Godfather
9th Nov 2002, 15:16
Originally posted by DaveJ
If Alien really only went into production to cash in on the success of Star Wars, it would have been a PG rated film with lots of gunfights and spin-off toys for the kiddies.
;)

Hmmm, true. Alien is much more a mature movie than Star Wars ... and better too actually. :D

btw: would you scream out loud and come to kill me if I told you that I thought Alien is a better than The Lord of the Rings?

DaveJ
9th Nov 2002, 15:43
How do you begin to compare the two?

LOTR is a better Hobbit - based film than Alien...but Alien has the edge in the monsters-on-spaceships feature.

Chalk and cheese.

Both are superbly made films, and great examples of how to use FX to enhance a film...and not rule it.

Godfather
9th Nov 2002, 16:07
I just hope that the second and the third LOTR-movie will be at least as good as the first one ... imagine that they would be disappointing. Gosh, the entire idea of "The Lord of the Rings" as one of the greatest trilogies of all time vaporized ... that would be bad, huh?

But it seems that the second one (from the trailer which I have already seen too much, so next time I'm gonna close my eyes then. :D) is a very good one too, no?

btw: what did you think of Insomnia again? (not the Swedish one, coz I only saw the one with Al and Robin and the very beautiful Hillary ... my God! She's got sex appeal written all over her face!)

DaveJ
9th Nov 2002, 17:40
The guys working on the LOTR movies say they were taken aback by the praise FOTR received.
They were thinking "Blimey...if you thought that one was impressive.....!"

Insomnia hasn't opened here yet.

Godfather
9th Nov 2002, 18:16
Originally posted by DaveJ
The guys working on the LOTR movies say they were taken aback by the praise FOTR received.
They were thinking "Blimey...if you thought that one was impressive.....!" :D


Insomnia hasn't opened here yet.

What do you mean? I thought American movies always first came out in the United Kingdom and then in the rest of Europe ... which is why England always speaks of Europe; almost as if they're not a part of it. ;) No offence ...

DaveJ
9th Nov 2002, 19:05
I tell a fib...apparently it has been and gone.
Can't have made much of an impression... it only lasted a couple of weeks.

Not had much time for cinema-going of late...all that wil change a week next Friday....

Godfather
10th Nov 2002, 15:31
Originally posted by DaveJ
I tell a fib...apparently it has been and gone.
Can't have made much of an impression... it only lasted a couple of weeks.

Well, you didn't miss much. It was a good movie, but you could easily rent in on video or DVD. Al Pacino re-played his character from "Heat" again; only more tired now due to the fact that the sun always shines ... night and day. :D
Robin Williams was good and he re-played his character of "One hour photo" again; only a bit sweeter and less creepy.
And Hillary Swank (as I said before) is a very zweet girl. My God, she's got a very beautiful face and ... what an actrice. I mean: surely any actrice who can still stand tall when playing with Al Pacino and Robin Williams simply has to be good, right?

And I sincerely hope that Christopher Nolan is going to make stuff of his own again rather than remaking old things. He's too good for using old ideas.

Did you see "One hour photo", DaveJ (or anybody else, but since DaveJ and I are the only talking in this thread ... i'm asking the question directly to him. :D)? A good picture with a very best Robin Williams ... gotta C that one! :p