# Box Office Blockbuster  Films You've Grown to Dislike and Despise



## BAYLOR (Jun 27, 2021)

The films  took the box off by storm which, you may or may not have liked in the beginning . But , as a result of repeated viewings, you've grown to really dislike and despise  them to the point that  you even regret plunking  down the  money for the ticket to go  see it in the theaters in the first place.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 27, 2021)

*Titanic  *1997 James Cameron film .  Great visuals , but not  a a great film . I thought okay at that time. Now I can't even look at it .


----------



## DrStrangelove (Jun 27, 2021)

Every single superhero movie, outside maybe of X-Men: First Class. At first I treated them as social events - a new Avengers movie comes out, I do not get the hype, but I go see it so there is something to nerd over with people from the local SF club and the more casual friends. Now I can't stand even the better ones and my reaction to the whole shtick is "meh" at best. 

I did stand J.J. Abrams Star Trek for a while, watching it as just another pew-pew-in-space, then I realized this is the new, deffinite direction for the series and after 10 years I hate them with a passion.


----------



## sule (Jun 27, 2021)

Cameron's *Avatar* is a movie that, for me, I would have been just fine seeing once and then forgetting all about it. Unfortunately, this mediocre (at best) film hit cinemas at the height of the 3-D zeitgeist and became such a phenomenon for its visuals (some of which are truly spectacular) that now we have to hear about how Avatar 2 is doing a decade later even though the original film had: a terrible plot, flat characters, and cringe-worthy dialogue (among a host of other flaws). All because it looked nice in 3-D on the big screen.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 27, 2021)

sule said:


> Cameron's *Avatar* is a movie that, for me, I would have been just fine seeing once and then forgetting all about it. Unfortunately, this mediocre (at best) film hit cinemas at the height of the 3-D zeitgeist and became such a phenomenon for its visuals (some of which are truly spectacular) that now we have to hear about how Avatar 2 is doing a decade later even though the original film had: a terrible plot, flat characters, and cringe-worthy dialogue (among a host of other flaws). All because it looked nice in 3-D on the big screen.



Only Mediocre ? You're  being far too generous. I was rooting for evil corporation.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 27, 2021)

DrStrangelove said:


> Every single superhero movie, outside maybe of X-Men: First Class. At first I treated them as social events - a new Avengers movie comes out, I do not get the hype, but I go see it so there is something to nerd over with people from the local SF club and the more casual friends. Now I can't stand even the better ones and my reaction to the whole shtick is "meh" at best.
> 
> I did stand J.J. Abrams Star Trek for a while, watching it as just another pew-pew-in-space, then I realized this is the new, deffinite direction for the series and after 10 years I hate them with a passion.



I did like  the Kevin timeline,  but found Abraham Star Trek films storylines to be  somewhat  lacking . On the plus side ,the films may been a catalyst in getting the Trek franchise going again on television  so,  that at least counts in favor. I do  like the fact that Kelvin  timeline is acknowledged as  canon in *Discovery  * and one of many alternate timelines  in Trek . One the story lines Star Trek Pickard is the Destruction of the Planet Romulus via a nova which ties into the Kelvin timeline.


----------



## DrStrangelove (Jun 28, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> I did like  the Kevin timeline,  but found Abraham Star Trek films storylines to be  somewhat  lacking . On the plus side ,the films may been a catalyst in getting the Trek franchise going again on television  so,  that at least counts in favor. I do  like the fact that Kelvin  timeline is acknowledged as  canon in *Discovery  * and one of many alternate timelines  in Trek . One the story lines Star Trek Pickard is the Destruction of the Planet Romulus via a nova which ties into the Kelvin timeline.



The problem with Kelvin timeline's storytelling is that all three plots revolve around the same beat, i.e. some guy wants revenge and the Enterprise has to stop him. All of the three films also suffer from the fact that thay do not carry on the character development, and so the crew constantly suffers from the same flaws and misunderstandings from start to finish.

I do disagree with the notion that tying the Kelvin timeline to the main universe is a good thing - while it could have been a good idea on paper, the ultimate resolution is lacking a generates a ton of plotholes and problems. TNG had several story arcs that revolved around a sun going nova, always acknowlegding that it is an event milions of years in the making, with the star going through several stages of expansion and collapse. Kelvin ignores this completely - Romulus gets blown to pieces by a healthy, yellow star out of nowhere, and the consequences are even more bizzare, especially with the fact that Picard cannot decide on the scale of the cataclysm (with the Romulan Star Empire flung into a deep crysis and at the same time suffering non of it, depending on what the plot requires).


----------



## DrStrangelove (Jun 28, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Only Mediocre ? You're  being far too generous. I was rooting for evil corporation.



We had a Polish YT channel that created a mashup of scenes with the evil general (whatever his name was), but dubbed his lines using our version of Pocahontas, along with the "Savages" song. It's hilarious.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 28, 2021)

I never quite understand the sheer level of hatred that *Avatar* attracts. It's definitely mediocre, but I don't get why it's meant to be so incredibly bad. Yes, it's derivative, but so are most blockbusters. The environmental bits are a bit banal, perhaps, but I'd rather have banality than nothing at all. It's no stupider or worse than the weaker Marvel films, and they just keep on coming endlessly. And as a technical achievement, it's quite impressive.

On the other hand, I find most Christopher Nolan films pretentious, and they get rave reviews, so what do I know?


----------



## DrStrangelove (Jun 28, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> I never quite understand the sheer level of hatred that *Avatar* attracts. It's definitely mediocre, but I don't get why it's meant to be so incredibly bad. Yes, it's derivative, but so are most blockbusters. The environmental bits are a bit banal, perhaps, but I'd rather have banality than nothing at all. It's no stupider or worse than the weaker Marvel films, and they just keep on coming endlessly. And as a technical achievement, it's quite impressive.
> 
> On the other hand, I find most Christopher Nolan films pretentious, and they get rave reviews, so what do I know?



To each his own. I myself do not rave about Nolan movies - Inception is my guilty pleasure and I love to return to it, but at the same it is one of the worst movie scripts I have ever seen, with tedious exposition and meaningless dialogue the duplicates what we already see as part of the action.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 28, 2021)

I agree with other that the Marvel movies are overrated and there is no risk. Black Panther was by far the worst offender. Every story cliché in the book was used. The acting and the script wasn't great and it was just too over the top. That said, my GF loved it and has seen it at least 3 times.

Michael Bay. His movies are just way to over the top with action and they just end up being boring. Really boring. 

I don't get the whole Fast and the Furious thing. I watched the first one and thought it was awful and haven't seen any of the others, but my impression is that they get stupider with each new sequel. That said, i really hope the next on is Fast Ten: Your Seatbelts.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jun 28, 2021)

DrStrangelove said:


> To each his own. I myself do not rave about Nolan movies - Inception is my guilty pleasure and I love to return to it, but at the same it is one of the worst movie scripts I have ever seen, with tedious exposition and meaningless dialogue the duplicates what we already see as part of the action.


Fortunately Nolan has fixed this issue in later movies by drowning out the tedious exposition with skull-shudderingly loud music.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 28, 2021)

I really liked Braveheart as an historical movie; until I found out that 90% of what is in the movie is bunkum. I enjoy it now as a movie with great villains and incredibly brutal/realistic fight scenes, but I don't have the respect for it due to the lack of integrity in it's historical accuracy.


----------



## Lawrence Twiddy (Jun 29, 2021)

You have films that are just so good they do not date; classics if you will. They are as good now as they were 20+ years ago.
But sometimes you put on a film you remember to be amazing as a teenager only to find it has not aged well.

This happened to me with Luc Besson’s *Fifth Element*. I do still love the film, it’s a great story with amazing characters which were casted very well. Just the action scenes on a recent re-watch dragged me out of the film and I struggled to enjoy it, I was gutted to say the least.

So I can’t bring myself to say I dislike the film because of the nostalgia I can still draw upon for it but it certainly isn’t the classic I thought it was. I’m not an advocate for remakes but I must admit I would love one for this film as I think the story is a lot of fun and likewise the characters. I’d be excited in the same way I am for the new ‘Dune’!! Massive fan of Timothee Calamet!


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 4, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> I really liked Braveheart as an historical movie; until I found out that 90% of what is in the movie is bunkum. I enjoy it now as a movie with great villains and incredibly brutal/realistic fight scenes, but I don't have the respect for it due to the lack of integrity in it's historical accuracy.



One the biggest was that William Wallace had an affair with Edward the II's  Wife Isobel and their child become king of England ?  There are lots of reasons why none of that is possible.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 4, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> One the biggest was that William Wallace had an affair with Edward the II's  Wife Isobel and their child become king of England ?  There are lots of reasons why none of that is possible.


Not to mention The Battle of Stirling Bridge without the bridge, which played a rather important part in the battle. I see some modern Sottish historians are daring to mutter the heresy that it was Andrew Moray that actually won the battle and that Wallace was just his assistant, In fact when Wallace did actually lead an army after Moray died he lost.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Jul 4, 2021)

I've never been able to get through *Avatar* without falling asleep. How can a movie that looks like a Roger Dean painting be so boring?

*Armageddon* is a movie I remember enjoying at the time, but on re-watches is just awful.


----------



## MartinC (Jul 4, 2021)

DrStrangelove said:


> The problem with Kelvin timeline's storytelling is that all three plots revolve around the same beat, i.e. some guy wants revenge and the Enterprise has to stop him. All of the three films also suffer from the fact that thay do not carry on the character development, and so the crew constantly suffers from the same flaws and misunderstandings from start to finish.
> 
> I do disagree with the notion that tying the Kelvin timeline to the main universe is a good thing - while it could have been a good idea on paper, the ultimate resolution is lacking a generates a ton of plotholes and problems. TNG had several story arcs that revolved around a sun going nova, always acknowlegding that it is an event milions of years in the making, with the star going through several stages of expansion and collapse. Kelvin ignores this completely - Romulus gets blown to pieces by a healthy, yellow star out of nowhere, and the consequences are even more bizzare, especially with the fact that Picard cannot decide on the scale of the cataclysm (with the Romulan Star Empire flung into a deep crysis and at the same time suffering non of it, depending on what the plot requires).


The problem I have with the Kelvin timeline is that it ignores the rules of the science of Star Trek - and yes there's always flexibility in those rules for the sake of story telling but the Kelvin Universe takes it to extremes. Want to beam to a ship while it's travelling at warp? Sure! Want to get to Qo'noS and back in a day? Go for it, turns out the Klingon home world is just around the corner - can you pick up some fresh gagh while you're there! Going to lose power when you're closer to the moon than Earth but want to crash into Earth in ten minutes? We can do that. Don't want a character to die? We have a cure for that and we'll never mention it again!

I enjoyed the films at the time - but I can't bring myself to watch 'Into Darkness' again. I weep every time Spook shouts Khan's name - and not because it's an emotional, even earned, moment. But because it's a bad rehash of the Wrath of Khan.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 4, 2021)

MartinC said:


> The problem I have with the Kelvin timeline is that it ignores the rules of the science of Star Trek - and yes there's always flexibility in those rules for the sake of story telling but the Kelvin Universe takes it to extremes. Want to beam to a ship while it's travelling at warp? Sure! Want to get to Qo'noS and back in a day? Go for it, turns out the Klingon home world is just around the corner - can you pick up some fresh gagh while you're there! Going to lose power when you're closer to the moon than Earth but want to crash into Earth in ten minutes? We can do that. Don't want a character to die? We have a cure for that and we'll never mention it again!
> 
> I enjoyed the films at the time - but I can't bring myself to watch 'Into Darkness' again. I weep every time Spook shouts Khan's name - and not because it's an emotional, even earned, moment. But because it's a bad rehash of the Wrath of Khan.




As soon as any series/movie brings time travel into the equation, nothing is off-limits for me. There are lots of things in ST, most notably said time travel and the 'universal translator', that require a suspension of disbelief. 

Tbh I much prefer the alternate timeline to introducing completely new characters in the ST universe. Star Trek is as much about characterisation and their interactions, and a crew of unknowns in a movie just wouldn't be sufficient. I thought that the way the alternate timeline was brought about was an interesting one, and I like the way that we have similar storylines with twists.

Yes there are always going to be certain scenarios that grate, but the main issue for me is that the new movies (with the possible exception of the first) , and as has been mentioned earlier, are far too similar to each other. Just look at the original ST movies; all very different in style and substance. The new ones are all too same-y and full of plot holes (which imho is a bigger cinema crime than altering the laws of physics).

And yes, I agree that the Khan timeline was poorly done. I do like Benedict Cumberbach in other roles, but he was poorly cast here.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 4, 2021)

MartinC said:


> The problem I have with the Kelvin timeline is that it ignores the rules of the science of Star Trek - and yes there's always flexibility in those rules for the sake of story telling but the Kelvin Universe takes it to extremes. Want to beam to a ship while it's travelling at warp? Sure! Want to get to Qo'noS and back in a day? Go for it, turns out the Klingon home world is just around the corner - can you pick up some fresh gagh while you're there! Going to lose power when you're closer to the moon than Earth but want to crash into Earth in ten minutes? We can do that. Don't want a character to die? We have a cure for that and we'll never mention it again!
> 
> I enjoyed the films at the time - but I can't bring myself to watch 'Into Darkness' again. I weep every time Spook shouts Khan's name - and not because it's an emotional, even earned, moment. But because it's a bad rehash of the Wrath of Khan.



I liked the Kelvin time  as a concept of  alt history and the casting of the main roles . But ,  Im not  fan of the radically redesigned Enterprise and yes,  they really did did  play fast and loose with the science of Star Trek.  *Into Darkness *is not a very good film.

I think They tried to get Benicio del Toro for role of Khan . He would have been a very good choice .


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2021)

*Goodfellas * 1990    Don't get me wrong this a great gangster  film well acted and well made . I liked it one point but after have seeming a number times . But  I can no longer stand this film .


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2021)

Vladd67 said:


> Not to mention The Battle of Stirling Bridge without the bridge, which played a rather important part in the battle. I see some modern Sottish historians are daring to mutter the heresy that it was Andrew Moray that actually won the battle and that Wallace was just his assistant, In fact when Wallace did actually lead an army after Moray died he lost.



Also, the Scots didn't wear kilts timeframe.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 6, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Also, the Scots didn't wear kilts timeframe.



Or paint their faces.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jul 6, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Or paint their faces.



or talk like Glasgow dockers.

Personally I have come to loath the Indiana Jones films.  Actually it didn't take me long.  I loved the first one when it came out and eagerly looked forward to the second - in the cinema, about halfway through, I realised what a sadistic nasty racist film it was behind all the thud and blunder.  I think I've watched the third on video but know I haven't seen the fourth.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jul 6, 2021)

I rewatched them all recently and it's definitely a mixed bag. The first is still excellent, but the second is terrible in about fifteen different ways. It's amazing one film can contain so many bad decisions. I was disappointed by the third, which had its moments but felt slightly weak, and the fourth just isn't terribly good.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> I rewatched them all recently and it's definitely a mixed bag. The first is still excellent, but the second is terrible in about fifteen different ways. It's amazing one film can contain so many bad decisions. I was disappointed by the third, which had its moments but felt slightly weak, and the fourth just isn't terribly good.



I liked the actor Amrish Puri  who played Molar Ram.  Had they use Toth Amon in the 1982 Conan film, he would have been my choice to play that part.   He was terrific actor.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 6, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Or paint their faces.



What about in the Roman Era?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 6, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> What about in the Roman Era?



Quite possibly, but definitely not 1000 years (or more) later.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 7, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Quite possibly, but definitely not 1000 years (or more) later.



The language spoken  by the Scots  in William Wallace's  time was a from of Gaelic wasn't it ?


----------



## Toby Frost (Jul 7, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> I liked the actor Amrish Puri who played Molar Ram.



He's fine, in the campy way that a villain in such a film ought to be. It's just... well, almost everything else that's bad! Even avoiding internet jargon like "white saviour narrative", most of the Indian characters are like something from a 1970s comedy routine. And then there's the replacement of Marion (or someone like her) with two sidekicks who are at best irritating, the over-reliance on bugs, snakes and cheap gross-outs, the whole bit where the father-figure tries to kill the son-character (which is just _fine_ in a kids' film), the lack of car-chases and gunfights which worked so well in Raiders, and... yeah, it's not good. The musical number's quite decent, though.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 7, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> The language spoken  by the Scots  in William Wallace's  time was a from of Gaelic wasn't it ?


Depends where you were in Scotland at that time. The country  has never had a distinct  single language. Gaelic was spoken in the West, Pictish in the northeast (until the demise of the Picts), Scandinavian in the northern isles and a mixture of Scots and English in the south and southeast. Arguments still rage on whether Scots is a language or a dialect of English. In Wallace’s time, Pictish and Scandinavian were gone but the rest remained.


----------



## KiraAnn (Jul 11, 2021)

One of my great disliked movies was *Flash Gordon (1980)*. Just too farcical. Like a 10 year old's vision of a satire. The only saving grace was music by Queen, but music by itself does not a movie make.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 11, 2021)

KiraAnn said:


> One of my great disliked movies was *Flash Gordon (1980)*. Just too farcical. Like a 10 year old's vision of a satire. The only saving grace was music by Queen, but music by itself does not a movie make.




I think judged by today's standards it may appear so, but back in the 80s this movie was a close representation of the comic books and the Saturday morning matinees on which it was inspired. We no longer have 2 dimensional superheroes, they all seem to have a back story and a darker side to their characters, which is why I think Flash Gordon looks odd in comparison.

And yes, the music by Queen was brilliant (as was their soundtrack to Highlander).


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Jul 11, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> I think judged by today's standards it may appear so, but back in the 80s this movie was a close representation of the comic books and the Saturday morning matinees on which it was inspired. We no longer have 2 dimensional superheroes, they all seem to have a back story and a darker side to their characters, which is why I think Flash Gordon looks odd in comparison.
> 
> And yes, the music by Queen was brilliant (as was their soundtrack to Highlander).



I unironically love Flash Gordon. Above all things it's just excellent fun with some amazing scenery chewing that elevates it above mere camp. It's a kind of movie that I wish they still made - bright coloured, amazing costume design, and a swashbuckling spectacle without being dumb or trying hard be too clever. Eminently quotable too:

"GORDON'S ALIVE!"

"Klytus I'm bored, what plaything can you offer me today?"

"Do you want to live forever, Hawkmen?  DIVE!"

 "What do you mean Flash Gordon approaching?!"


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 11, 2021)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> I unironically love Flash Gordon. Above all things it's just excellent fun with some amazing scenery chewing that elevates it above mere camp. It's a kind of movie that I wish they still made - bright coloured, amazing costume design, and a swashbuckling spectacle without being dumb or trying hard be too clever. Eminently quotable too:
> 
> "GORDON'S ALIVE!"
> 
> ...



Max Von Sydow steals the show as *Ming .*


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 11, 2021)

"Do you promise not to blast her into space... uhh, until such time as you grow weary of her"


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Jul 11, 2021)

"Flash! I love you, but we only have 14 hours to save the Earth!"


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 11, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> "Do you promise not to blast her into space... uhh, until such time as you grow weary of her"



That scene was psychotic .


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 11, 2021)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> "Flash! I love you, but we only have 14 hours to save the Earth!"



Yes, they just don't write such clever dialogue like that anymore.


----------



## Vince W (Jul 13, 2021)

I hated *Avatar* from the start.
I can't look at most superhero films any more. I'm out.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jul 13, 2021)

*Life is Beautiful* [1997]
People tell me that it a beautifully touching tale of how far a father will go to shelter his child from the horrors of their reality.
I saw it as trite, unbelievable [and not in a fantasy way] and funny [but not deliberately].
I felt it treated the whole situation as something light, and utterly unimportant.
At points, I was wishing the Bad Guys would kill the lead... I think it's the only film where I'm rooting for the Nazis some of the time.
It was like watching a long-running show where the lead is put in danger every week but you know there is no chance of anything bad happening [unless there is a redshirt involved].
It is right up there with Terrence Mallick's *The Thin Red Line* [1998].


----------



## Rodders (Jul 15, 2021)

I still haven't seen Life is Beautiful, but i really want to. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is on my list, too.


----------



## hitmouse (Jul 15, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> *Life is Beautiful* [1997]
> People tell me that it a beautifully touching tale of how far a father will go to shelter his child from the horrors of their reality.
> I saw it as trite, unbelievable [and not in a fantasy way] and funny [but not deliberately].
> I felt it treated the whole situation as something light, and utterly unimportant.
> ...




I went to see LIB not knowing anything about it. The beginning was charming comedy which then became absolutely heartbreaking. Pretty effective, I thought, but not the sort of film I want to see for a second time.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 18, 2021)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> I've never been able to get through *Avatar* without falling asleep. How can a movie that looks like a Roger Dean painting be so boring?
> 
> *Armageddon* is a movie I remember enjoying at the time, but on re-watches is just awful.



*Avatar*


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 18, 2021)

It think that if J J Abrams had Directed *Armageddon *Instead of Michal Bay, it would been a better movie than it was.


----------



## Vince W (Jul 18, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> It think that if J J Abrams had Directed *Armageddon *Instead of Michal Bay, it would been a better movie than it was.


How would two hours of over wrought dialogue and lens flare made it better? 

I can't bear watch any of the Marvel films any more.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Jul 18, 2021)

I wasn't a fan of Abrams trek either, tbh.



Vince W said:


> I can't bear watch any of the Marvel films any more.



I'm not a superhero guy, generally, but I enjoyed the last Spiderman film.  I couldn't watch it more than once though, and all the canon movies where you need to have watched all the other movies to understand what's going on really don't interest me. I prefer the Richard Donner era Superman movie or Burton's Batman. Dark Knight was ok, but overhyped. 

I don't understand the appeal of Snyder DC movies, though, but I enjoyed Shazam.


----------



## Vince W (Jul 18, 2021)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> I'm not a superhero guy, generally, but I enjoyed the last Spiderman film.  I couldn't watch it more than once though, and all the canon movies where you need to have watched all the other movies to understand what's going on really don't interest me. I prefer the Richard Donner era Superman movie or Burton's Batman. Dark Knight was ok, but overhyped.


I'm the same. Donner's Superman is one of my favourites. I remember complaining loudly about Michael Keaton being cast as Batman but after seeing the film I was completely won over. I still think he was the best Batman.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 18, 2021)

Vince W said:


> I'm the same. Donner's Superman is one of my favourites. I remember complaining loudly about Michael Keaton being cast as Batman but after seeing the film I was completely won over. I still think he was the best Batman.



Yes,  Donner's  Superman is  still the best,  unlike the films  that followed , his film had a heart.   Yes, I liked Keaton in the role of Batman . If Tim Burton had  had   a better script for* Batman Returns, * we would have likely been spared from the Joel  Schumacher Batman Cinema travesties travesties that came after award and,  maybe even  empty  Nolan Batman  films that came after that.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 19, 2021)

Vince W said:


> I hated *Avatar* from the start.
> I can't look at most superhero films any more. I'm out.



Avatar , yes, lots to hate in that film .  As oive seals before I was rooting for the evil corporation.

I do look forward to the nex*t Dr Strange *film*.*


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 14, 2021)

*The Sound  of Music *1965  I like it when I first saw, and now it grates on me.


----------



## Vladd67 (Aug 14, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> *The Sound  of Music *1965  I like it when I first saw, and now it grates on me.


My sister never saw this for years, every time it came on everyone else said not this again and turned it off.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Aug 14, 2021)

The first Superman's I liked, as new actors stepped in and the story lines got contorted, I lost interest. I liked some of the actors in other films they had done, so it wasn't the actor personally. The same was true for Alien, lost interest in that series. When I finally saw Prometheus, or rather started to watch it, it just got sillier and sillier.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2021)

Robert Zwilling said:


> The first Superman's I liked, as new actors stepped in and the story lines got contorted, I lost interest. I liked some of the actors in other films they had done, so it wasn't the actor personally. The same was true for Alien, lost interest in that series. When I finally saw Prometheus, or rather started to watch it, it just got sillier and sillier.



Prometheus and its sequel should not have been made at all.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 27, 2022)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> I've never been able to get through *Avatar* without falling asleep. How can a movie that looks like a Roger Dean painting be so boring?
> 
> *Armageddon* is a movie I remember enjoying at the time, but on re-watches is just awful.



They haven't gotten better with age.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (Mar 27, 2022)

Braveheart (absolute garbage....what were they thinking at the Oscars that year?)
Any of the Star Wars movies


----------



## BAYLOR (May 1, 2022)

Christine Wheelwright said:


> Braveheart (absolute garbage....what were they thinking at the Oscars that year?)
> Any of the Star Wars movies



I once recall seeing Braveheart on the Syfy Channel.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 1, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> I once recall seeing Braveheart on the Syfy Channel.



I saw *V* listed on a 'True Stories' channel.


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 1, 2022)

I still stand somewhat in defence of Braveheart. Yes, the historical accuracies are rampant throughout the movie ; but if you ignore that and treat it as an action adventure then it's really quite enjoyable. The baddies (McGoohan in particular) are delightfully villainous, and the battle sequences are bloody and brutal. The action, the drama, the love interest and the gentle humour that run through the film make it a much better watch than some films that re much more historically accurate but just plain dull to sit through.


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 1, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> I once recall seeing Braveheart on the Syfy Channel.


 

At least it wasn't the History Channel!


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 1, 2022)

I remember when the History Channel on Sky was a really interesting and information station. In fact it was one of the major reasons for me getting satellite tv in the first place. A quick look at the lineup at the moment is Pawn Stars, Mountain Men, American Pickers, interspersed with the odd history-related programme.

How can this be allowed to happen? There must be tons of history related programmes out there that are just as cheap and easy to put on as all of these non-history related shows. Imagine if Sky Sports suddenly started having reality tv programmes or Sky Movies had quiz shows. It's really not on.


----------



## Rodders (May 1, 2022)

We vote with our remote. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that are watching this type of show as they remain very popular. 

Bill Hicks had a skit in one of his shows on how these people ("fevered egos" he called them), were now the heroes of this generation. Where are inventors, the astronauts and musicians to inspire people? 

I think it all started when the iron curtain fell. I think we made everything about money.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 1, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> At least it wasn't the History Channel!



Its fantasy without magic but  re-imagined  historical characters  and event's .


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 1, 2022)

Rodders said:


> We vote with our remote. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that are watching this type of show as they remain very popular.
> 
> Bill Hicks had a skit in one of his shows on how these people ("fevered egos" he called them), were now the heroes of this generation. Where are inventors, the astronauts and musicians to inspire people?
> 
> I think it all started when the iron curtain fell. I think we made everything about money.




Yeah, I've no issue with people liking or watching all sorts of programmes. I've watched Pawn Stars a few times and it can be quite funny. I just think that there are more appropriate places than the History Channel.


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 1, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Its fantasy without magic but  re-imagined  historical characters  and event's .




Yeah, Braveheart is probably the most historically inaccurate Hollywood movie that there has ever been. It's a fantasy version of history, like Robin Hood; and as long as you don't treat it seriously then it's a fun movie to watch.

Another Scottish hero movie that was released around the same time - Rob Roy - is equally based in a fantasised, idealised version of a heroic Scotsman battling the evil English. Another tremendously villainous Englishman in Tim Roth, and a very enjoyable film to watch. Rob Roy feels far more historically authentic than Braveheart, but the central character is likely closer to the character Walter Scott created than to the real man himself.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 1, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> Yeah, Braveheart is probably the most historically inaccurate Hollywood movie that there has ever been. It's a fantasy version of history, like Robin Hood; and as long as you don't treat it seriously then it's a fun movie to watch.
> 
> Another Scottish hero movie that was released around the same time - Rob Roy - is equally based in a fantasised, idealised version of a heroic Scotsman battling the evil English. Another tremendously villainous Englishman in Tim Roth, and a very enjoyable film to watch. Rob Roy feels far more historically authentic than Braveheart, but the central character is likely closer to the character Walter Scott created than to the real man himself.



And it won 10 oscars including Best Picture and Mel Gibson as Best Director .


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 1, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> Yeah, Braveheart is probably the most historically inaccurate Hollywood movie that there has ever been. It's a fantasy version of history, like Robin Hood; and as long as you don't treat it seriously then it's a fun movie to watch.
> 
> Another Scottish hero movie that was released around the same time - Rob Roy - is equally based in a fantasised, idealised version of a heroic Scotsman battling the evil English. Another tremendously villainous Englishman in Tim Roth, and a very enjoyable film to watch. Rob Roy feels far more historically authentic than Braveheart, but the central character is likely closer to the character Walter Scott created than to the real man himself.




I'd vote for Rob Roy over Braveheart any time.  Apart from the fact that I don't know anyone who appeared in Rob Roy so I don't get distracted by spotting extras who live near me*. Neeson's  Rob Roy character is so much more human than Wallace.  His first reaction to realising he's pissed off the English is to run away and hide till it's over.  Not get all misty-eyed and heroic.


*One kid in my village made so much money from his stint as one of the dead kids hanged in an early sequence he bought a motorbike and used to short cut through my garden on it because he was too young to legally drive it on the road.   Rob Roy from memory - it's a long time since I saw either - had fewer shots of Forestry Commission plantations in it too.  Both films have moments where I thought "If the camera was three feet further to the left you would see historically anachronistic buildings / bridges / roads / my house."


----------



## BAYLOR (May 1, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> I'd vote for Rob Roy over Braveheart any time.  Apart from the fact that I don't know anyone who appeared in Rob Roy so I don't get distracted by spotting extras who live near me*. Neeson's  Rob Roy character is so much more human than Wallace.  His first reaction to realising he's pissed off the English is to run away and hide till it's over.  Not get all misty-eyed and heroic.
> 
> 
> *One kid in my village made so much money from his stint as one of the dead kids hanged in an early sequence he bought a motorbike and used to short cut through my garden on it because he was too young to legally drive it on the road.   Rob Roy from memory - it's a long time since I saw either - had fewer shots of Forestry Commission plantations in it too.  Both films have moments where I thought "If the camera was three feet further to the left you would see historically anachronistic buildings / bridges / roads / my house."



The interesting thing about that film that seeing Rob Roy  made me want read Sir Walter Scotts novel .


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 1, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> The interesting thing about that film that seeing Rob Roy  made me want read Sir Walter Scotts novel .




I remember watching a very good documentary (I think it was Rise of the Clans) with Neil Oliver who (from memory) said basically that he was made into a folk hero by Walter Scot, who fictionalised adventures for him in a way that made him a kind of Scottish Robin Hood, when the reality was likely quite different. People would travel to his home to see a real life living legend.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 1, 2022)

Raiders of the Lost Ark. I don't know how many times I watched it but it was played obsessively by me when it came to video. 

I cannot watch it now without some cringing. The Ark scene still impresses me but the lack of characterization and fast pacing bothers me much more. 
I was a huge fan of Indiana Jones through the 80s but I skipped the 4th movie and will do the same with the latest (unless I hear the CGI is amazing but if so, I will catch selected scenes).


----------



## BAYLOR (May 1, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> Raiders of the Lost Ark. I don't know how many times I watched it but it was played obsessively by me when it came to video.
> 
> I cannot watch it now without some cringing. The Ark scene still impresses me but the lack of characterization and fast pacing bothers me much more.
> I was a huge fan of Indiana Jones through the 80s but I skipped the 4th movie and will do the same with the latest (unless I hear the CGI is amazing but if so, I will catch selected scenes).



I can still watch and enjoy  Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of Doom  , Last  Crusade . I like  even Kingdom of the Crystal Skull too and the character Mutt . 

I do plan on seeing number 5.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 2, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> The interesting thing about that film that seeing Rob Roy  made me want read Sir Walter Scotts novel .



How did you get on?  I don't think I've ever got more than five pages into one.  Not that I've tried that often I have to admit.


----------



## Le Panda du Mal (May 2, 2022)

The Christopher Nolan batman trilogy. Enjoyed them tremendously at first. Now they strike me as rife with faux gravitas and latent authoritarianism.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (May 2, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> And it won 10 oscars including Best Picture and Mel Gibson as Best Director .



Yes, I think that's the part that annoys me.  I mean Braveheart is really just another below average historical romp.  Like a middling version of Robin Hood (but without Alan Rickman to relieve the monotony).  And yet the Oscars that year, inexplicably, treated it like high art.  I watched The English Patient the other day and was impressed by the care that went into its making.  Each scene so thoroughly thought out.  Fantastic performances by so many great actors.  Obviously a great (Canadian!) novel behind it all.  A worthy Oscar winner that makes Braveheart look like amateur dramatics night.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 2, 2022)

Le Panda du Mal said:


> The Christopher Nolan batman trilogy. Enjoyed them tremendously at first. Now they strike me as rife with faux gravitas and latent authoritarianism.



latent?!  or latex?


----------



## BAYLOR (May 2, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> How did you get on?  I don't think I've ever got more than five pages into one.  Not that I've tried that often I have to admit.



I thought it a very good  book and,  I also liked *Ivanhoe. *


----------



## Astro Pen (May 2, 2022)

*Top Gun.*
Loved it when it came out but now it just looks cliche'd, like it was written to formula. It was a recruiting tool, selling an illusion of navy life.
It worked by the way,  recruitment skyrocketed 500%


			https://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/mind-body/wellness/is-top-gun-maverick-just-a-really-expensive-navy-recruitment-ad/news-story/3388eced816889cf4ebe07983300ece0


----------



## KGeo777 (May 2, 2022)

I hated Top Gun from the start!
I saw it once on video--and thought--man this sucks.

I bet the Abbott and Costello film Buck Privates also sparked an upswing in recruitment. That was a year before WW 2--they said the recruitment was strictly for home defense (yeah I believe it)--and it presented boot camp as a great place where they have swinging parties with the Andrews sisters.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 30, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> I hated Top Gun from the start!
> I saw it once on video--and thought--man this sucks.
> 
> I bet the Abbott and Costello film Buck Privates also sparked an upswing in recruitment. That was a year before WW 2--they said the recruitment was strictly for home defense (yeah I believe it)--and it presented boot camp as a great place where they have swinging parties with the Andrews sisters.



The Sequel to Top gun seems to be dong big box office,


----------



## KGeo777 (May 30, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> The Sequel to Top gun seems to be dong big box office,


If they aren't lying.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 30, 2022)

...did someone mention big dongs?


----------



## Danny McG (Jun 6, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> The Sequel to Top gun seems to be dong big box office,


I'm going to see it this weekend  
19.30 screening Saturday


----------



## Danny McG (Jun 11, 2022)

Danny McG said:


> I'm going to see it this weekend
> 19.30 screening Saturday


9 hours and I'll be sitting with my xxxl tub of popcorn gazing at the silver screen....I'm actually looking forward to this!
Me and my wife had a rewatch of Top Gun last night just to get us up with the backstory


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 11, 2022)

300. Just bad.

As for Top Gun, I’ll watch anything that has an F14 Tomcat in it. The new movie has F18s so I’ll give it a miss.


----------



## Danny McG (Jun 12, 2022)

Foxbat said:


> 300. Just bad.
> 
> As for Top Gun, I’ll watch anything that has an F14 Tomcat in it. The new movie has F18s so I’ll give it a miss.


There's a long scene in the sequel where Maverick goes up against two modern fighter planes in an F14...he even gives it a frown at the dashboard and a "I ain't used one of these in nearly 30 years, here's hoping I still remember"


----------



## Bick (Jun 12, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> I hated Top Gun from the start!
> I saw it once on video--and thought--man this sucks.


Exactly the film I thought of when I saw the thread title. We watched it again lately because my lad wanted to see the original before he went and saw the new one with his mates. Good grief, the original was dreadful in almost every way.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 12, 2022)

Bick said:


> Exactly the film I thought of when I saw the thread title. We watched it again lately because my lad wanted to see the original before he went and saw the new one with his mates. Good grief, the original was dreadful in almost every way.



Yes *Top Gun* certainly  had a lot going for it ,  pointless action sequences , no real plot or story to speak of and unlikable main characters with  about as much depth  and dimension as a  movie poster .


----------



## Danny McG (Jun 12, 2022)

Astro Pen said:


> *Top Gun.*
> Loved it when it came out but now it just looks cliche'd, like it was written to formula. It was a recruiting tool, selling an illusion of navy life


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 12, 2022)

Danny McG said:


> View attachment 90432


It's the Citizen Kane of recruitment films.


----------



## Danny McG (Jun 12, 2022)

Foxbat said:


> 300. Just bad.
> 
> As for Top Gun, I’ll watch anything that has an F14 Tomcat in it. The new movie has F18s so I’ll give it a miss.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 13, 2022)

One thing that I hate in a movie like Top Gun is innacuracy. The baddies all flew the F5 Freedom Fighter. Seemed a bit Ironic to me given Maverick is a defender of freedom.






I believe that, this time around, they’re using the SU 57 ’Felon’, which is a but more credible


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 15, 2022)

Foxbat said:


> 300. Just bad.



It was total rubbish, and whenever I see Spartans mentioned now I always think of a rather telling article by Myke Cole.


----------



## Mr Cairo (Jun 15, 2022)

Watched Top Gun Maverick last night and loved it.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jun 15, 2022)

Mr Cairo said:


> Watched Top Gun Maverick last night and loved it.



Isn't this thread called "Box Office Blockbuster Films You've Grown to Dislike and Despise"?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 16, 2022)

Mr Cairo said:


> Watched Top Gun Maverick last night and loved it.





JunkMonkey said:


> Isn't this thread called "Box Office Blockbuster Films You've Grown to Dislike and Despise"?



And its making millions at the box office which mean that a sequel is not out the sam of possibilities.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 16, 2022)

Foxbat said:


> 300. Just bad.



A godawful piece of cinema drek.


----------

