THE PHANTOM MENACE didn't just disappoint those of us who saw the original movies when they debuted in the late seventies and early 80s. It will disappoint children for decades to come. It will make them think, this came first since it's chronologically first.How could the team that put this mess together go so wrong?
What movie disappointed you as much?
26 comments:
The first one to come to mind is Dudley Moore's Arthur. Overblown, pointless, unfunny.
Yeah, that one would certainly make my top 10. Off the top of my head I'd add AMERICAN BEAUTY (which I hated beyond all reason) and DEAD AGAIN (which I thought was incredibly overrated by critics) and Mel Brooks's pointless (and, to me, laughless) SILENT MOVIE. (Mel has had a few other turkeys since but I've stopped expecting anything good.)
I expected good trashy fun from MARS ATTACKS! but got zilch.
Jeff M.
PS - Good to have you back, Patti.
I've always hated E.T., and I really wanted to like it.
The Matrix sequels were about as bad as The Phantom Menace.
Although the remake of Arthur looked even worse.
I agree with all of those, Jeff. We rewatched DEAD AGAIN recently because someone persuaded me it was a real gem. Not for me. And thanks.
Matrix Two was watchable if not nearly as good but Three was a real horror.
E.T doesn't seem nearly as good without a kid on your lap.
How about that last Indiana Jones movie(can't even say the name). An awfully long time to wait for such a piece of dreck.
As for the Matrix films, I flipped the third one midway through and skipped the third altogether.
That's flipped off(not in the finger senese, but I could have)the sceond film.
My mind doesn't seem to be on spelling this morning.
Since I am still on Dublin time, I didn't notice. I am getting up at four and going to bed and nine right now.
This goes way back, but having read and loved the novels, I waS thoroughly disappointed by RAINTREE COUNTY and the Paul Newman movie made of Ken Kesey's SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. I think it was called something pretty stupid like NEVER GIVE AN INCH.
Although not many people saw it (for good reason!) the movie version of THE AVENGERS (1998) starring Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman lacked every the TV series had: style, wit, and sophisticated action. Most of the people (six) in the showing I attended left before the movie was over. I stayed until the bitter end...and regretted it.
Love the book RAINTREE COUNTY too. His only book I think.
I think the title of the movie was the same, Ron, but not one of Newman's bests.
I missed that one, George.
Ron is right - at some point (maybe the first television showing?) they did release SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION as NEVER GIVE AN INCH before returning to the original title. Maybe they wanted to confuse people?
Jeff M.
I gotta go with George on the 1998 THE AVENGERS. One of the few movies I've actually walked out mid-film.
The two Darren Aronovsky movies I've seen--Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan--received good reviews, but I found them both dreadful. Requiem was full of anachronisms (I could never figure out in what era the movie took place); as for Black Swan, I haven't seen a dance movie that kitschy since Stallone directed Travolta in Staying Alive.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (2005). Was always going to be difficult converting the book to both TV and movie, but the movie in particular just didn't work for me.
His movies are fairly surreal (Aronovsky. Sometimes it works for you (or me) and sometimes it does not. I sort of like most of them although I don't always understand them. Pi just went right over my head.
With that great cast, Rob, it was still a difficult transition. People just loved the book, which always makes it harder.
SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION has the dubious distinction of being the first film to be shown by HBO.
Another truly awful flick was THE SAINT. Val Kilmer smirked through the entire flick with his patented "look at me -- I'm acting!" face. The movie was not disappointing, though, because I never expect much from Kilmer.
Jerry makes a good point: You can't be disappointed by a movie unless you had high expectations for it in the first place. Movies with name directors, all-star casts, and/or based on popular books always generate a lot of buzz. Those have the power to disappoint. Also, movies that seem to come out of nowhere and get lots of critical praise (I'm looking at you, Blair Witch Project) but fail to live up to the hype--they will also disappoint. But I'm hardly likely to be disappointed by, say, an Adam Sandler movie since I'm very unlikely to have any expectations that it will be any good.
Titanic. Slow and pompous.
Yes! Although I have a soft spot for A NIGHT TO REMEMBER.
Well, I find myself agreeing that almost all of these I've seen are pretty dire...my major disagreement would be with the notion that STAR WARS or THE MATRIX were actually good. And, yes, I saw SW at age 13, and it was a pretty bore, with extremely annoying robots.
I had heard all good about DIE HARD, and found it annoying, as well. And SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION was indeed initially released as NEVER GIVE AN INCH...
Most disappointing first view of late: THE PARALLAX VIEW
Most disappointing revisit from childhood: VANISHING POINT
Never did get THE PARALLAX VIEW. And DIE HARD was a bore for me. Not my favorite sort of movie.
PARALLAX was incoherent paranoia. Not the best combo. (Not that earnest linear naive paranoia such as TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING nor smarmy linear naive paranoia as WAG THE DOG is much better.)
I'm not inherently against explosion movies, but I still know people who want to insist that DIE HARD revolutionized the form, because Willis's character was only practically invincible, if in pain at times, rather than actually invincible. But RAMBO wasn't any good, either, while THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT was.
Post a Comment