|
Post by thomasallencummins on Jul 20, 2009 18:42:35 GMT -5
Supergirl is definitely on my list. I remember going to the theater to watch it. I'll never get those couple of hours back and I really wish I could. :-( I'm Googling "suck" to see if there is another word that would descibe how I've always felt about that film. Peter O'toole...how could you? ;D Watching the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II the other day reminded me of another superstinker I had forgotten (until now!): Supergirl. I'm seriously thinking it is the equal of Superman IV for its sheer ineptitude. Sadly, I had paid (read: got suckered) to see Supergirl as well. You can't even blame the Cannon Group for Supergirl. At the time, the Salkinds were still in charge of the Superman franchise, but they sure proved they could be as shameless as Cannon. atomic, anybody, you should check out the user review of Supergirl at IMDB: www.imdb.com/title/tt0088206/ I don't know what to say...
|
|
Cad Zombie
Moderator
Psuedo-Lefty
Carl, Run!
Posts: 287
|
Post by Cad Zombie on Jul 20, 2009 21:09:24 GMT -5
"Firefly" for sure.
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jul 21, 2009 0:45:57 GMT -5
Firefly? Sorry, I'm slightly confused. Do you mean the TV series? In which case, noooooo, say it ain't so! You didn't like Firefly?
|
|
Cad Zombie
Moderator
Psuedo-Lefty
Carl, Run!
Posts: 287
|
Post by Cad Zombie on Jul 21, 2009 2:16:52 GMT -5
I meant Serenity, oops. Was just doing a check to see who was awake.
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jul 21, 2009 13:25:28 GMT -5
Well, you sure got my attention. I didn't mind Serenity, but it's a poor substitute for the Firefly series, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by thomasallencummins on Jul 22, 2009 5:34:02 GMT -5
I'm surprised to see Serenity on anyone's Worst Movie Ever list. Battlefield Earth? Yeah. Catwoman? Yeah. Beowulf starring Chris Lambert? Yeah. Serenity may not have been my favorite film or the best example of the Firefly universe but I didn't think it falls in the negative category. Then again some of my favorite films are "bad". Anyone seen the production values of "Army of Darkness"? ;D
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jul 22, 2009 13:42:22 GMT -5
I thought Serenity was all right by itself. It's just that if I had seen it before I watched Firefly, I'm not sure I would have become a fan of those characters and that universe.
When Army of Darkness came out, I went to it on a whim - this was before I learned it was part of the Evil Dead series. What can I say? Bruce Campbell sold the movie. I sort of enjoyed it in awkward way, but this "shlock-horror" genre really isn't my thing. So I won't say this was a "bad" movie, just not my kind.
|
|
|
Post by cleburne on Jul 22, 2009 15:23:42 GMT -5
I liked Serenity , but I did just see Harry Potter The Half blood prince and to me and my partner we found it bad , even though I do like potters books. Bad director in my opinion but then others seem to have enjoyed it
|
|
Cad Zombie
Moderator
Psuedo-Lefty
Carl, Run!
Posts: 287
|
Post by Cad Zombie on Jul 22, 2009 20:20:26 GMT -5
I'm surprised to see Serenity on anyone's Worst Movie Ever list. Battlefield Earth? Yeah. Catwoman? Yeah. Beowulf starring Chris Lambert? Yeah. Serenity may not have been my favorite film or the best example of the Firefly universe but I didn't think it falls in the negative category. Then again some of my favorite films are "bad". Anyone seen the production values of "Army of Darkness"? ;D I liked battlefield earth.
|
|
|
Post by dANdeLION on Jul 24, 2009 21:50:36 GMT -5
I thought Serenity was all right by itself. It's just that if I had seen it before I watched Firefly, I'm not sure I would have become a fan of those characters and that universe. I only saw one complete episode of Firefly before the cancelled it. I ended up getting the dvds, but not until after seeing Serenity. It had a different feel that the tv show had, but I definitely liked it.
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jul 26, 2009 21:55:43 GMT -5
Maybe it was a blessing and a curse that I watched Firefly before Serenity. A blessing, in that I was a convert to the Firefly universe before seeing the feature film. A curse, in that Serenity never lived up to what the tv series delivered. Serenity had plenty of action, but much of the humor and warmth of the show - the very things that made me fall in love with it - got lost in the mix. (I just realized that's the same criticism Trek fans have about ST: The Motion Picture, compared to the classic series. And I happen to love ST: TMP. Oops. Guess I'm just a maze of contradictions.) Also in Serenity, a major plot point involving the fate of one of the show's beloved characters left me shocked, and not in a particularly good way. (Trying to tiptoe around a spoiler there, which is probably unnecessary, but this forum has no spoiler tag function.) I liked Serenity , but I did just see Harry Potter The Half blood prince and to me and my partner we found it bad , even though I do like potters books. Bad director in my opinion but then others seem to have enjoyed it That reminds me, the first Harry Potter movie was, IMO, another cinematic crapfest. I did not enjoy a single minute of this empty excuse for a movie. It was nothing but a big screen cash grab meant to sucker in fans of the book. I challenge anyone to point to any scene in the movie that had genuine emotion in it. Everyone in the movie looked, and acted, like they were just going through the motions. Thanks, I needed to vent.
|
|
|
Post by dANdeLION on Jul 26, 2009 23:36:26 GMT -5
Are you talking about the fate of Wash, or Book? Wash seemed to be a bit sudden, and pointless. Then again, it made what happened after that more dramatic. The movie was definitely more serious than the tv show, but I think that was necessary for a couple of reasons, not the least of which was to resolve several plot points. Before Serenity came out, Whedon resolved the 'blue hands' situation in a 3 issue comic arc, proving (to me, at least) that he felt obligated to give the fans of Firefly as complete a story as possible.
As for Harry Potter, I see that as a movie for kids, not adults.
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jul 27, 2009 1:08:46 GMT -5
Major oops. Totally forgot about Book. (My excuse: I only watched Serenity once.) But yes, I meant Wash's fate. And another oops: I didn't read that comic arc.
Fair point about HP being for kids. If only they charged grown-ups the same price as the kids for admission (not that I want to admit I ever grew up)...
|
|
|
Post by cleburne on Jul 28, 2009 11:51:18 GMT -5
Fair point about HP being for kids. If only they charged grown-ups the same price as the kids for admission (not that I want to admit I ever grew up)... Agreed in context that Harry Potter is for kids but in the books there is a more sinister and ugly side to the characters that is better protrayed , and I suppose with books your imaganation is used more by reading than staring at a movie screen for 2 and half hours ;D. The film had action but it was to disjointed and not comfortable to watch , and the reason I said it wasn,t comfortable to watch was that my partner was really looking forward to seeing the movie as was I but as the movie progressed all I could hear was the constant shuffling in the seat beside me and every few minutes whispered into my ear " This is so slow and bad" which don,t help you enjoy a movie. I heard Rowling was looking for Mann to direct this movie but he turned her down Now he would have done a good HP film.
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jul 28, 2009 12:10:24 GMT -5
You mean Michael Mann? Really? Wow, if he had been at the helm, I would've been tempted to go see the movie. Mann is one of my favorite filmmakers. I agree, he could've done something interesting with the material.
|
|