Amph What Single Movie Was The Greatest Collective Disappointment ?

The 98 Godzilla movie was awesome.
Half-Blood Prince for Harry Potter was disappointing. It is the weakest book but had high hopes for the movie.
I liked Napoleon Dynamite because it was so bad.

 

For me, Avatar.

I don't know if it's necessarily a "collective" disappointment, but I did note that there seemed to be a huge backlash against it a little while after it came out. Although it's still considered a generally good movie.

And I still can't believe that the same person who wrote Strange Days wrote Avatar, an utterly bland, generic, crowd-pleasing film if there ever was one. (In my opinion).

 

that's the best thing because The Departed won best picture and nobody even knows its a remake of a foreign film

 

I knew.

 

Shrugs..the guy who made THX-1138 also thinks poop jokes are funny.

I'd go by country, myself...what I've heard about how the 98 Godzilla was received in Japan makes reaction to TPM here look mild. Not every day a differing studio cranks out a movie specifically in response to another studio's film...that happened with the 98 Godzilla, which I actually like besides Matthew Broderick being completely unsuited to a monster film.

 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Green Lantern yet. What a nonsensical piece of **** that was. Did they seriously think that Parralax should look like a giant cloud of brown vomit? Mark Strong was the only salvageable thing about the movie.

 

I think at least some of the bad reaction to Avatar could be found in the hypocrisy of its DVD release-"Let's celebrate Earth day by releasing millions of plastic DVDs!" Yeah, real sustainable item there

 

The Godzilla movie was one of the stupidest movies I have ever seen. I don't understand how anybody is allowed to make a movie on such a big budget without bothering to explain how the villain is bad and must die and how the heroes are at all noble and worthy of our praise.

I just felt bad for the poor monster. Glad there were some eggs.

Avatar is similar: it goes to great lengths to promote pacifism, and then it goes out of its way to make sure the main villain is killed in the most gruesome way.

Still, the prequels rule. Globally, and throughout time. They all looked wonderful, they had some cool characters and ships, but boy did those stories suck.

 

Really? I can't say your list is entirely surprising, though there are some clunkers in there.

Iron Man, in particular. It was mostly a jaunty, loud, generic action movie, about on par with Captain America, the Norton Hulk remake, and Thor. It was a good example of a particular style of making superhero films, but had very little in the way of particular substance or content that was interesting. The plot turned almost entirely on complete improbabilities (people mistaking an armor suit for a missile? Because missiles have arms and legs? Never mind that the terrorists thought the only way to get a product from a company they were already purchasing from was to kidnap one of its executives and force him to build a single replica from scratch, using inferior components). Judging their motivations as humans rather than plot points, almost none of the characters approach plausibility. Stane feels a compelling need to kill Stark despite the fact that the latter was already an entirely disengaged CEO, and that Stane would not inherit the company if he died. So what change to the status quo would have resulted? Stark is shown to be a weapons manufacturer who at least does have some part in his company, and yet is apparently entirely unaware of his clientele. And yes, I realize the tremendous contradiction in his being so disengaged that he doesn't realize they sell weapons in active military conflicts and being so deeply involved in his company that he helps design and stage the major tests for new products. The movie did that, not me--another of its faults. As over-simplified and ham-fisted as the resulting "awakening" seems more to highlight his improbable idiocy than any sort of character growth.

The others are more complex critiques, so I'll save my breath for now.

 

Wocky, what in particular attracts you to Spiderman 2? Is it seeing someone with autism overcome their disability to become a hero?

Seriously, Maguire was horrible in the suit next to Garfield and the film suffers as a result. Lucky for you, the best single comic film ever (Superman: The Movie) is outside your 25-year window for review, but... The Dark Knight, with it's nods to The Long Halloween and Killing Joke, is vastly superior to Spiderman 2 in every way. Sorry, of course, if your criteria is "starring Alfred Molina", then yes, I grant you Spiderman 2 has the edge.

 

toby mcguire sucks yeah but i mean andrew garfield has no charisma whatsoever. he's like a inverted ****-hitler

 

He was actually pretty much perfect as the character though. Credit there. Both Maguire (who I can only assume suffered a massive stroke at some point based on how he speaks) and Kirsten Dunst are just terrible as Spidey and MJ.

 

ill take your word for it as a comic fan since im not but i guess that means spiderman is written to be a boring ****head?

 

Making an allusion to a good story is the same thing as telling a good story in one's own right? News to me.

The appeal of Dark Knight rests on two elements: the relentless stakes-raising of the plot, and Ledger's performance. But it's not the strong of a film. The former requires the Joker to be implausibly omniscient, and even then provides no rationale for why other criminals would continue to participate in his increasingly bizarre schemes. Ultimately, "chaos" as a motive was never that compelling. They telegraphed Dent's fall far too much for anything about that to be surprising or compelling. No character is ever really meaningfully challenged or explored. Ultimately, enjoyment of this film is mostly a sleight of hand. A sort of clever one, but it's not enough to render the movie the best of anything. Even Batman Begins easily rivals it.

 

Implication of mutual exclusivity where none exists? Never seen that one before!

 

The problem with The Dark Knight, to me, is that there was hardly any Batman in it, he was almost a secondary character in his own movie. But it's still a good movie.

 

Hasn't that been the case for all of the Batman movies?

 

Not really... he was definitely the central character in both Batman Begins and TDKR. In many ways, TDKR feels more like a sequel to BB than it does to TDK in several aspects.

 

Except the Dark Knight Rises (TKDR is Dark Knight Returns) wasn't actually about Batman. Just someone who looked like Batman.

 

Batman was in Dark Knight Rises for like what fifteen minutes. At best you can say it focused on Bruce Wayne, but Batman not really.

 

Well, Bruce Wayne is Batman.

TDK hardly had either.

 

Not according to trolls.

 

When people mean Batman they generally want him in costume not walking around as some creepy shut-in with a cane or as a prisoner of some weird prison.