http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1919073_1919196,00.html
Quote from: viper37 on September 28, 2009, 02:46:07 PM
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1919073_1919196,00.html
I thought this was gonna be a list of successful movies that made a lot of money despite being bad, not just a list of movies that bombed. It's not a blockbuster unless it makes a lot of money.
Or it physically busts a block.
The logic here is lacking. Blockbuster that don't make lots of money aren't.
I'm guessing Veep wanted to say big budget bombs.
I always hated the Blockbuster at Cleveland Circle in Brighton. They were always rude and everything I always wanted to rent was already checked out. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on September 28, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
I always hated the Blockbuster at Cleveland Circle in Brighton. They were always rude and everything I always wanted to rent was already checked out. :mad:
http://www.netflix.com
Nowadays I either just put the DVD on my Christmas list or pirate away. :cool:
Yeah, this is flops....
I didn't know Stealth was a big budget piece, odd.
Pluto Nash was weird, well advertised before it came out but it sort of never came out finally.
Waterworld didn't deserve to flop, it was pretty cool. Though stupid.
I thought Speed 2 did OK...Oh well.
Never heard of Osmosis Jones.
Catwoman...yeah. :bleeding: Even the costume sucked.
Battlefield Earth- I can't remember it ever being in the cinema, I only saw one advertising post for it then the next thing I know its years later and on TV. I like this film though, its so bad its good.
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on September 28, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
I always hated the Blockbuster at Cleveland Circle in Brighton. They were always rude and everything I always wanted to rent was already checked out. :mad:
Brighton sucks.
So do most of these non-blockbusters.
It did have Salma Hayek, in a very nice outfit. Kevin Kline was in it too, wasn't he?
I've seen half the films on the list.
AMC really jumped the shark when they started showing Catwoman. TCM FTW.
Thirded for the Wild Wild West was a decent flick.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:10:48 PM
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
Watchable. Big mistake casting Will Smith in the lead.
Data only includes US box office, some could have been profitable. Wild Wild West for example made $220 million globally and cost $170 to make, not exactly a flop and it doesn't even include dvds.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 03:17:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:10:48 PM
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
Watchable. Big mistake casting Will Smith in the lead.
I seem to remember Robert Conrad saying he wanted to punch Will Smith over his acting.
After seeing 300 I really think now that the movie is kind of lousy, mainly because of the over done fight scenes. The fighting looks great but is mostly unrealistic, mainly for tv glitz and show, and just so wrong. The movie was probably well enough otherwise in its portrayal of characters and events.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 02:47:34 PM
I thought this was gonna be a list of successful movies that made a lot of money despite being bad, not just a list of movies that bombed. It's not a blockbuster unless it makes a lot of money.
A blockbuster is a big budget action movie. It has no correlation to how much money it earns.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:10:48 PM
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
FFS
Quote from: viper37 on September 28, 2009, 03:28:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 02:47:34 PM
I thought this was gonna be a list of successful movies that made a lot of money despite being bad, not just a list of movies that bombed. It's not a blockbuster unless it makes a lot of money.
A blockbuster is a big budget action movie. It has no correlation to how much money it earns.
NONE WHATSOEVER :mad:
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 03:21:12 PM
After seeing 300 I really think now that the movie is kind of lousy, mainly because of the over done fight scenes. The fighting looks great but is mostly unrealistic, mainly for tv glitz and show, and just so wrong. The movie was probably well enough otherwise in its portrayal of characters and events.
well, I tend to think that it was a good movie because of the over done fight scenes. :)
No way it could have been a success without the cartoonish element in it, imho.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:20:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 03:17:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:10:48 PM
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
Watchable. Big mistake casting Will Smith in the lead.
I seem to remember Robert Conrad saying he wanted to punch Will Smith over his acting.
I want to see William Conrad punch Will Smith. Unlikely though. :(
Quote from: viper37 on September 28, 2009, 03:28:04 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 02:47:34 PM
I thought this was gonna be a list of successful movies that made a lot of money despite being bad, not just a list of movies that bombed. It's not a blockbuster unless it makes a lot of money.
A blockbuster is a big budget action movie. It has no correlation to how much money it earns.
Nope. The term originated to describe financially successful movies. They had costumers lined all the down the block waiting for tickets.
Quote from: viper37 on September 28, 2009, 03:28:04 PM
A blockbuster is a big budget action movie. It has no correlation to how much money it earns.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that people talk about the summer blockbuster season. But that's a reference to their potential, before they're released. No one calls an action film a blockbuster after it has tanked.
On a side note, anyone know the origin of the term blockbuster? Cars maybe, like it has so many horses it busts the engine block?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
Nope. The term originated to describe financially successful movies. They had costumers lined all the down the block waiting for tickets.
tee hee.
Wild Wild West wasn't terrible. But it was bad neough to mean that years could go by between viewings.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
Nope. The term originated to describe financially successful movies. They had costumers lined all the down the block waiting for tickets.
That makes some sense I guess. But how do costumer's lined up down the block bust it?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2009, 03:32:30 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:10:48 PM
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
FFS
Will you forgive me? :(
Since you have confessed your sin you will be absolved in death. Please ascend the pyre.
Per IMDB voters:
Speed Racer 6.4
Osmosis Jones 6.0
Waterworld 5.6
Stealth 4.8
Wild Wild West 4.2
Pluto Nash 3.7
Speed 2 3.3
Catwoman 3.2
Gigli/Battlefield Earth 2.3
I'm guessing most of the people who saw Speed Racer were fanboys of the cartoon; that rating is very generous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2009, 04:00:25 PM
Per IMDB voters:
Speed Racer 6.4
Osmosis Jones 6.0
Waterworld 5.6
Stealth 4.8
Wild Wild West 4.2
Pluto Nash 3.7
Speed 2 3.3
Catwoman 3.2
Gigli/Battlefield Earth 2.3
I'm guessing most of the people who saw Speed Racer were fanboys of the cartoon; that rating is very generous.
WWW, Speed 2, and Gigli deserve better ratings. Battlefield Earth does not.
Wild Wild West made up for bad script, plot, & acting with pure steampunk goodness.
The acting in Wild Wild West was superb. :huh:
Only movie on the list that I've seen is Waterworld. I kinda liked it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
Nope. The term originated to describe financially successful movies. They had costumers lined all the down the block waiting for tickets.
I'll let you debate the definition with the Time Magazine journalists ;)
I'd replace Wild Wild West with the first star wars prequel. Maybe it wasn't a financial flop in the traditional sense, but it was godawful and probably the damage to the star wars brand was more than any of the films listed lost.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:10:48 PM
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
I enjoyed it. It's good, goofy fun.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 28, 2009, 04:37:12 PM
Only movie on the list that I've seen is Waterworld. I kinda liked it.
It also ended up making money, IIRC, once overseas box office and video and DVD sales are accounted for.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2009, 05:14:58 PM
I'd replace Wild Wild West with the first star wars prequel. Maybe it wasn't a financial flop in the traditional sense, but it was godawful and probably the damage to the star wars brand was more than any of the films listed lost.
Jar-Jar... :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 05:59:20 PM
It also ended up making money, IIRC, once overseas box office and video and DVD sales are accounted for.
Isn't that true of all action movies though?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 06:01:49 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 05:59:20 PM
It also ended up making money, IIRC, once overseas box office and video and DVD sales are accounted for.
Isn't that true of all action movies though?
I don't think so. I'm having trouble locating the relevant figures, but can you see something like "Hudson Hawk" (originally marketed and made as an action movie) making money?
Guys...haven't any of you heard of Wikipedia? :huh:
Blockbuster, as applied to film or theatre, denotes a very popular and/or successful production. The entertainment industry use was originally theatrical slang referring to a particularly successful play but is now used primarily by the film industry.
he Oxford English Dictionary cites the earliest use of the term in the press when referring to WWII military bombs larger than 4000 lbs; the military did not use the term.[1]
Although some entertainment histories apparently cite it as originally referring to a play that is so successful that competing theaters on the block are "busted" and driven out of business, the OED cites a 1957 use which is simply as a term of "biggest", after the bombs.[2] Whatever its origin, the term quickly caught on as a way to describe a hit, and has subsequently been applied to productions other than plays and films, including novels and multi-million selling computer/console game titles.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 06:09:24 PM
I don't think so. I'm having trouble locating the relevant figures, but can you see something like "Hudson Hawk" (originally marketed and made as an action movie) making money?
Interestingly enough I was just on the verge of typing "since Hudson Hawk" but then I stopped myself because I wasn't sure if it was an action flick.
Well, it was an action flick when it was in the cinemas, anyway.
Quote from Wikipedia -
QuoteWhen the film came to home video the tag line "Catch The Adventure, Catch The Excitement, Catch The Hawk" was changed to "Catch The Adventure, Catch The Laughter, Catch The Hawk".
:lol:
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 03:21:12 PM
The fighting looks great but is mostly unrealistic, mainly for tv glitz and show, and just so wrong.
Well duh...that was kind of the point.
Quote from: Josephus on September 28, 2009, 06:11:03 PM
Guys...haven't any of you heard of Wikipedia? :huh:
Blockbuster, as applied to film or theatre, denotes a very popular and/or successful production. The entertainment industry use was originally theatrical slang referring to a particularly successful play but is now used primarily by the film industry.
he Oxford English Dictionary cites the earliest use of the term in the press when referring to WWII military bombs larger than 4000 lbs; the military did not use the term.[1]
Although some entertainment histories apparently cite it as originally referring to a play that is so successful that competing theaters on the block are "busted" and driven out of business, the OED cites a 1957 use which is simply as a term of "biggest", after the bombs.[2] Whatever its origin, the term quickly caught on as a way to describe a hit, and has subsequently been applied to productions other than plays and films, including novels and multi-million selling computer/console game titles.
This just demonstrates that a dictionary is a monument to a language as used in the previous century.
A blockbuster movie is a very expensive film made with the anticipation that it will make hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of them don't.
There is no way Gigli was a blockbuster. The budget was too small, and it wasn't released in "blockbuster season" (June, July, and December). That's isn't to say it wasn't a massive flop.
The Golden Compass should be on this list ($180+ mion budget, $70 million domestic gross).
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 03:21:12 PM
After seeing 300 I really think now that the movie is kind of lousy, mainly because of the over done fight scenes. The fighting looks great but is mostly unrealistic, mainly for tv glitz and show, and just so wrong. The movie was probably well enough otherwise in its portrayal of characters and events.
The problem I had was that the fighting was boring. I never finished watching the film on DVD.
Quote from: grumbler on September 28, 2009, 09:41:21 PM
The Golden Compass should be on this list ($180+ mion budget, $70 million domestic gross).
Thats another one though where you've got the big problem of just looking at the US numbers, apparently the christians rallied against that over there and really damaged its run but it was very succesful overseas. According to wikipedia it earned $370 million and that seems to be just at the cinema.
Its a shame it is though regarded as a failure, I thought it to be pretty OK.
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2009, 04:08:30 PM
Wild Wild West made up for bad script, plot, & acting with pure steampunk goodness.
It wasn't terrible escapist fare, but I think I would have liked it better if it had another title and the lead characters weren't named James West and Artemus Gordon. I liked the old TV show, and the movie really didn't have the same--what's the word I want?--spirit?
Quote from: dps on September 28, 2009, 10:54:30 PM
It wasn't terrible escapist fare, but I think I would have liked it better if it had another title and the lead characters weren't named James West and Artemus Gordon. I liked the old TV show, and the movie really didn't have the same--what's the word I want?--spirit?
I thought Kline was a decent Artie. Except for the painful tranny scene.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:54:16 PM
Thats another one though where you've got the big problem of just looking at the US numbers, apparently the christians rallied against that over there and really damaged its run but it was very succesful overseas. According to wikipedia it earned $370 million and that seems to be just at the cinema.
Its a shame it is though regarded as a failure, I thought it to be pretty OK.
Most of the movies on the list made money. The "blockbuster" measure of success, though, is domestic ticket sales.
The concept of the "blockbuster" is kind of specialized, and probably mostly meaningless. A director has to bill his movie as such, though, before he gets a budget in the high tens or even a hundred+ million dollars.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 06:42:58 AM
A director has to bill his movie as such, though, before he gets a budget in the high tens or even a hundred+ million dollars.
Source? :contract:
Quote from: Josephus on September 29, 2009, 07:02:30 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 06:42:58 AM
A director has to bill his movie as such, though, before he gets a budget in the high tens or even a hundred+ million dollars.
Source? :contract:
The Internet. :contract:
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:54:16 PM
apparently the christians rallied against that over there and really damaged its run but it was very succesful overseas.
Well it is not that simple. A big issue was the image of it being controversial and it being a kids film.
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2009, 09:40:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 03:21:12 PM
The fighting looks great but is mostly unrealistic, mainly for tv glitz and show, and just so wrong.
Well duh...that was kind of the point.
My point was that the fighting was just for a Hollywood audience, the single 1vs1 fight scenes ridiculous, kind of lame actually, and far too unrealistic, which wound up ruining the immersion into the movie for me.
Quote from: grumbler on September 28, 2009, 09:41:21 PM
The Golden Compass should be on this list ($180+ mion budget, $70 million domestic gross).
What an awful movie that was. Never, never, never listen to a girl when she tells you to rent a good movie.
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 08:54:32 AM
My point was that the fighting was just for a Hollywood audience, the single 1vs1 fight scenes ridiculous, kind of lame actually, and far too unrealistic, which wound up ruining the immersion into the movie for me.
IIRC, they simply translated the 'graphic novel' to the theater, and replicated what was in it.
Of course it was unrealistic, just like the war rhino, but it's still among my favorite movies, just for that: it doesn't pretend to be realistic.
The only one I saw from the list was Battlefield Earth; which was so bad that it was enthralling. :)
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 08:54:32 AM
My point was that the fighting was just for a Hollywood audience, the single 1vs1 fight scenes ridiculous, kind of lame actually, and far too unrealistic, which wound up ruining the immersion into the movie for me.
Again, that
was seemed to be the point. It was sort of like a more masculine-oriented Marie Antoinette as styled by Ms. Coppola. Visual splendor in all its ridiculousness.
Quote from: viper37 on September 28, 2009, 04:39:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
Nope. The term originated to describe financially successful movies. They had costumers lined all the down the block waiting for tickets.
I'll let you debate the definition with the Time Magazine journalists ;)
Because It takes a genius to write for Time. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Savonarola on September 29, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The only one I saw from the list was Battlefield Earth; which was so bad that it was enthralling. :)
So bad that it put me to sleep...fast... :)
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 08:54:32 AM
My point was that the fighting was just for a Hollywood audience, the single 1vs1 fight scenes ridiculous, kind of lame actually, and far too unrealistic, which wound up ruining the immersion into the movie for me.
Immersion? You're talking about 300, right? :huh:
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 29, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The only one I saw from the list was Battlefield Earth; which was so bad that it was enthralling. :)
So bad that it put me to sleep...fast... :)
You missed out; John Travolta and Forest Whitaker acting alone was amazing. It was like the Futurama aliens from Omicron Persei 8 come to life.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 29, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 29, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The only one I saw from the list was Battlefield Earth; which was so bad that it was enthralling. :)
So bad that it put me to sleep...fast... :)
You missed out; John Travolta and Forest Whitaker acting alone was amazing. It was like the Futurama aliens from Omicron Persei 8 come to life.
I actually liked the original book (I couldn't abide anything else by that author, but I read this book when I was ten, so I still possess a soft spot for it.) So the thought of "John Travolta = Terl" made me shudder.
And then the film actually started...and I was asleep.
Just like that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 12:08:57 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 08:54:32 AM
My point was that the fighting was just for a Hollywood audience, the single 1vs1 fight scenes ridiculous, kind of lame actually, and far too unrealistic, which wound up ruining the immersion into the movie for me.
Immersion? You're talking about 300, right? :huh:
The movie did pretty well starting out showing how the kids were trained, and about Spartan life. So yeah, some kind of immersion, or "getting into" the movie, is always good. Rather than watch it all get tossed away in dumb ass fight scenes, like a hyped up Rambo movie.
But I guess I was expecting/hoping for a deeper story than what it was made to be.
Didn't you read about the ninja rhinos etc on Languish before you saw it?
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:59:40 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 29, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 29, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The only one I saw from the list was Battlefield Earth; which was so bad that it was enthralling. :)
So bad that it put me to sleep...fast... :)
You missed out; John Travolta and Forest Whitaker acting alone was amazing. It was like the Futurama aliens from Omicron Persei 8 come to life.
I actually liked the original book (I couldn't abide anything else by that author, but I read this book when I was ten, so I still possess a soft spot for it.) So the thought of "John Travolta = Terl" made me shudder.
And then the film actually started...and I was asleep.
Just like that.
Chunks of the book were OK. Most of the first half could have been edited down considerably. Things improved with the second section and the interplanetary politics.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 29, 2009, 02:01:21 PM
Chunks of the book were OK. Most of the first half could have been edited down considerably. Things improved with the second section and the interplanetary politics.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 29, 2009, 02:01:21 PM
Chunks of the book were OK. Most of the first half could have been edited down considerably. Things improved with the second section and the interplanetary politics.
:bleeding:
Well I didn't say they improved a lot!
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 29, 2009, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:59:40 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 29, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 29, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The only one I saw from the list was Battlefield Earth; which was so bad that it was enthralling. :)
So bad that it put me to sleep...fast... :)
You missed out; John Travolta and Forest Whitaker acting alone was amazing. It was like the Futurama aliens from Omicron Persei 8 come to life.
I actually liked the original book (I couldn't abide anything else by that author, but I read this book when I was ten, so I still possess a soft spot for it.) So the thought of "John Travolta = Terl" made me shudder.
And then the film actually started...and I was asleep.
Just like that.
Chunks of the book were OK. Most of the first half could have been edited down considerably. Things improved with the second section and the interplanetary politics.
I would agree with you - the first 400 pages could be reduced to 150 without materially affecting the book.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:10:48 PM
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
Me too. :hug:
Am I the only one here who liked Waterworld? :blush:
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 30, 2009, 12:19:59 AM
Am I the only one here who liked Waterworld? :blush:
It was watchable. Not great, but it certainly wasn't a modern 'Plan 9 from Outer Space'. Sometimes one wonders if film critics have secret yearly meetings in which they decide who's going to be unfairly massacred and who's going to be undeservedly praised to heaven and beyond during the next 12 months.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 30, 2009, 12:19:59 AM
Am I the only one here who liked Waterworld? :blush:
My cousin loves Waterworld. We all give him shit.
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2009, 03:34:41 PM
I want to see William Conrad punch Will Smith. Unlikely though. :(
That or or being strafed by Pappy Boyington in its Corsair.
Waterworld wasn't that bad since it was one the last big budget Mad Max-like production without obtrusive CGI crap. Most critics have not seen it of course.
Neil would also love the post-apocalyptic
Lingua Franca in this movie too :)
300 was a terrible movie. What is it whith you guys all having a giant boner for it?
Fags.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 30, 2009, 02:23:47 AM
300 was a terrible movie. What is it whith you guys all having a giant boner for it?
Fags.
If you change that bolded letter to an "a" then you wouldn't have needed to ask the question. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 28, 2009, 03:10:48 PM
I've got a confession:
I sorta liked Wild Wild West. :Embarrass:
yeah me to...I also liked Pluto Nash :Embarrass:
Osmosis Jones was hillarious
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 30, 2009, 12:19:59 AM
Am I the only one here who liked Waterworld? :blush:
I think Ide liked it too. :)
It seems we Languishites have bad taste in movies. :blush:
Quote from: Korea on September 30, 2009, 11:19:46 AM
It seems we Languishites have bad taste in movies. :blush:
Well since we clearly have bad taste in websites it goes to figure...
Quote from: grumbler on September 28, 2009, 09:41:21 PM
and it wasn't released in "blockbuster season" (June, July, and December).
I'd say that the start of blockbuster season coincides with the start of what the industry considers to be 'summer', which is the month of May.
And December has always seemed less blockbustery and more Oscarbaity to me.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 30, 2009, 02:23:47 AM
300 was a terrible movie. What is it whith you guys all having a giant boner for it?
Fags.
'cause some of us like Frank Miller comic books. it's a great adaptation of that.
what's even more exceptional about 300 is that most comic book adaptations suck.
Another terrible movie not on the list was "the mailman." Worse than waterworld, imo.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 30, 2009, 01:15:55 PM
Another terrible movie not on the list was "the mailman." Worse than waterworld, imo.
Postman, not mailman.
80 million production budget, 17 million domestic box office
Quote from: ulmont on September 30, 2009, 03:17:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 30, 2009, 01:15:55 PM
Another terrible movie not on the list was "the mailman." Worse than waterworld, imo.
Postman, not mailman.
Either way, it didn't deliver.
:blush:
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 30, 2009, 12:19:59 AM
Am I the only one here who liked Waterworld? :blush:
No. I was prepared to hate it as I am not overly fond of Kevin Costner's acting and the reviews were shit.
But it is actually quite a good film. It is a tad overegged and the total flooding of the world scenario is scientifically implausible, but the overall story and "feel" of the film make it very watchable.
The Postman is shit, however. I agree with Alfred there.
Has anyone here seen Waterworld more than once? I bet not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
Has anyone here seen Waterworld more than once? I bet not.
I saw it once and a half.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
Has anyone here seen Waterworld more than once? I bet not.
You'd lose.
I recorded the original UK TV broadcast, and, including TV repeats, have now watched it four times, I think.
This is, I agree, not something to be overly proud of. I defend myself by saying that on at least one occasion it was as background while I got on with more important things on the internet.