Amph Underappreciated Films

As a Trekkie, it's my understanding that Undiscovered Country is actually one of the most highly regarded movies in its franchise. As far as any connections to the reboot movies, or the reboot movies themselves, I have no comment, on the grounds of not saying anything if I can't think of anything nice to say. (Although I personally think that Abrams took most of his inspiration from Star Wars, actually, and considering how well he worked in that sandbox, it makes sense he would draw from it.)

 

Regarding Spider-Man 3, people seem to hold a grudge against the cringe they felt in the theater when dark Peter was acting "cool". But what people don't realise is that it's supposed to be cringe inducing. This is the classic version of Peter, he's a dweeb. He has no idea what cool is. He couldn't approximate it if his life depended on it. All those cringy things he does is him thinking that he's cool, but actually being everything but. You can also see from the reactions he gets from people that people think he's silly and they're smiling because they're laughing inside, but Peter thinks that they're smiling because he's hot or something. It's a classic dork moment and is done very consciously by the filmmaker. The dancing sequence also falls in line with the generally exaggerated reality of Spider-Man 1 and 2, where for example Mary Jane slips and Peter manages to catch her, her tray and all the falling objects in sequence like a cartoon.

 

Matewan and Eight Men Out. Two of my favorites from John Sayles.

The Monster Squad. Neighborhood kids take on the Universal Studios monsters. What kid wouldn't want to do that?

 

Actually, as I understand it (from the audio commentary on the original DVD release of Spider-Man 1), the stunt where Peter catches the food on the tray was for real.

As far as other movies I liked that others didn't, I think the Jurassic Park sequels deserve some reevaluation. I never had any complaints with The Lost World (except I kind of wish that they had used the Kelly Curtis and "Arby" Benton characters from the book instead of the Kelly Malcolm character the movie came up with). While number three was weak, I did like the world building it had (showing how the existence of real dinosaurs was affecting paleontology) and the story arc they tried for Alan Grant (how life had kind of passed him by and not gone the way he wanted, and how he reclaims it).

 

Over the Edge: This 1979 film that was the film debut of Matt Dillon about bored delinquent teenagers causing trouble in their small community. But when the youth rec center gets closed down and a kid all the others looked up to is killed by a cop after engaging in a crime, they lash out in a climax you have to see to believe.

It's a film that doesn't really vilify either the parents (who just want what is best for their kids, but don't know to go about it), or the kids, who do the things they do because they're bored and there isn't anything for people their age).

 

I'm a Jurassic Park III defender. It's stripped way down, like ninety minutes and it's essentially just one long chase scene. It's super fast paced and enjoyable, I think.

 

^Yeah, I don't think it's a great movie, and of course it's not as good as the original, but it doesn't deserve the level of hate it gets. I saw it in the cinema and thought it was fine for what it was.

 

I would have to say Cowboys And Aliens I thought it was really good, Harrison and Daniel Craig were great In It and pairing a Western and a Sci-fi was genius!

 

It's serviceable in isolation, but I find it to be very underwhelming compared to the previous two. It's the odd one out in the series in terms of novelty and spectacle.

 

Well after the second one went all out and tried to wow everybody with super spectacle and a cast of dozens and basically failed, in my opinion, I was ready for a more stripped down, leaner and meaner take on the premise. I mean, after that T. Rex pulled a Godzilla it was the right decision to scale back and tell a shorter, sharper story.

 

That's not stripped down. It's stupid.

The original Jurassic Park was not a "chase" movie. It was a man-versus-nature story. For the majority of the film, the animals are reliably animals, almost oblivious to the human presence. For instance, the T Rex rips happily at a Ford Explorer without seeming to consistently grasp there were supposed to be humans there. Stampeding animals don't even look in the direction of humans they almost run over. A Brontosaurus is as happy to be fed as it is to amble along and keep eating on its own. Capturing that uncertain relationship with the natural world, at once beautiful and malevolent, was really masterful. It made the film worth watching, and the hero's triumphs meaningful.

The third movie was painfully contrived, non-sensical, and and stripped of everything that made the series remotely watchable. It ends with some guy using a plastic mold of vocal cords to negotiate a peace treaty with a pack of wild animals. It's like something out of the MCU. Are you being serious right now?

 

Yes, I know the first movie isn't a "chase" movie. I didn't say the third movie is a masterpiece for all time. It's nothing like the first movie and has no real underlying themes or anything like that. That doesn't make it a stupid movie; it just makes it a fun, action romp and after the ponderous second film that's kind of what I wanted. The "peace treaty" is stupid and it's lame that the new "cool" dinosaur kills the T. Rex at the end, but I stand by the film as a fun, high-energy action movie. It's also not mean-spirited (another refreshing change from the second movie). If you go into the movie expecting a film on the level of the first movie, sure, it'll be a huge disappointment; but I basically went in hoping to God that it wouldn't be as dreadfully bad as the second movie, so it was a pleasant surprise. Sometimes you just want to see a talented cast run from realistic looking dinosaurs in the jungle. This is that movie.

 

Huh, yeah I forgot about the raptor whistle. That was stupid, wasn't it?

 

Was it a talented cast? I seem to remember a bunch of painful attempts at "humor." Implausible character motivations. I would talk more about the actors themselves but mostly I have tried to avoid seeing any further films with those individuals. Because it was a deeply unpleasant experience. In general, I feel like "high energy" and "fun" are just synonyms for "stupid."

 

William H. Macy? Um, yes, he's talented. Little bit.

 

Did I just pick a bad day, then? Is this like the equivalent of Judy Dench being in Chronicles of Riddick?

This can't be a direct parallel because this movie was stupider than Chronicles of Rididck, but I'm hoping you all still take my point.

 

Stupider than Chronicles of Riddick? That is a bold statement. Chronicles of Riddick is a very, very stupid movie.

 

I thought a human being outrunning the sun was the stupidest conceit I would ever see, but then I saw a giant dinosaur have a vendetta against a cellphone that magically moved around an island whenever there was a lull in the "action." By the end I was set on destroying the thing, too.

 

The Spinosaur didn't have a vendetta against the phone; it ate the phone since it ate the person using it and then left it when nature took its course.

It did seem to have a vendetta against the humans for no specific reason (unlike the raptors, which wanted the eggs back). However, since we're never really shown the exact path the humans took and how much ground they covered and the Spino abandoned the dead T. Rex (which would've been a good meal) to chase them into the woods, my preferred interpretation is the Spino was very territorial and the humans kept wandering in and out of its territory.

 

No, what are you saying? Every time the ringtone played, the thing would show back up and roar a few times.

 

The ringtone thing only happened twice. The first time, the Spino still had it in its stomach. It had found the humans already and the only thing the ringtone did was alert the humans that the Spino was there.

The second time, the phone was in the dino you-know-what, which allowed the humans to find it (and lead to the greatest Barney the Dinosaur gag ever invented). When the Spino found the humans on the boat, the phone's ringtone had nothing to do with it.

 

Burke and Hare (2010) starring Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis. Directed by John Landis. It isn't stellar but it was entertaining and there's a great (anachronistic) reference to Greyfriar's Bobby in it.

 

John Carter

 

Spiderman 3 did have some seeds of a genuinely good film. The expanding disaffection between Peter and his wife was a great topic. It fits with the same sort of quotidian struggles and complications of "success/talent" that made the first two films engaging. Similarly, Mary Jane's grappling with professional failing might have fleshed out her character more. It certainly helped highlight some of Peter's short-comings and insensitivities.

Instead, though, these interesting elements were buried beneath an over-stuffed panel of villains. Most had no motivation independently, let alone reason to work beside one another. Conflict resolution felt really flat and tone deaf. Whereas Spiderman II's climax was the keystone in that film's thematic exploration about the need for sacrifice, the ending of Spiderman III just echoed how pointless the preceding two hours had been. One was a realization about the greater good, the other was some guy randomly walking away down the street. A perfect epitome of the respective tales.

 

I just want to jump in here and say that, while I enjoy the discussion of the various aspects of the films here, such as Jurassic Park III and Spiderman III, I just want to gently remind that this thread is about the appreciation of certain films, not to denigrate or blast what we do not like about them. There's literally everywhere else for the latter on the internet dedicated to that. This one, I feel, should be dedicated to seeing the roses in the field, and perhaps seeing who else likes those same roses, and celebrating what's great about them -- not saying which roses are better or worse than others, or saying how we actually really don't like said roses. Instead, this celebratory approach in turn will allow others to perhaps see or enjoy these films in a renewed fashion. So I just wanted to post that little reminder for the purpose of this thread.