Movies generally considered "bad" that you like. — Page 8

I said such poor reception, as in, compared to having better reception. And yeah, I thought that Roger Ebert’s score for it was good to see.

This is the first time I’ve heard about it since it came out, so I guess I’m not surprised by its reviews given that it has been forgotten by almost everyone.

moviefreakedmind said:

…it has been forgotten by almost everyone.

It’s so sad…

I’m pretty sure it was a huge box office bomb also, only making back about 20% of its budget.

You leave us alone, you piece of worthless crap.

This is getting dangerously close to FlukeSkywalzter.

Ghibili said:

Were did you learn those insults kindergarden?

No. I learned them from a description yourself.

Ghibili said:

Oh, my good you really are retarded aren’t you?

Also can anybody tell me who FlukeSkywalzter is/was?

Oh, my good will this guy get banned already.

youre just a troublemaker and a bandwagoner.you just started crap with me.it not liek i did anything to you.you just a troublemaker.it

Dek Rollins said:
youre just a troublemaker and a bandwagoner.you just started crap with me.it not liek i did anything to you.you just a troublemaker.it

i literally said not one word to you.

TV’s Frink said:

Neglify said:

Are talking about Bad/Good movies, like “The Room” or “Showgirls”? Or are we just talking about shitty movies that we’re too blind to realize are garbage, like the “Godzilla” reboot or “Signs”?

I liked Signs too. One man’s trash is another man’s decent sci-fi character flick despite some flaws.

If we are talking about Bad/Good movies, there’s already a thread for that.
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-So-Bad-Its-Good-Thread-Unintentional-and-Intentional-Comedy-Both-Allowed/id/12659

The evangelism of Signs is perhaps a little much, and the plot holes are big, but I like the film stylistically: emphatically slow, operatic but small.

Mike O said:

The evangelism of Signs is perhaps a little much, and the plot holes are big, but I like the film stylistically: emphatically slow, operatic but small.

I liked Signs quite a bit. The evangelism didn’t bother me, except for the moment with the prophetic mother, which was just too nonsensical. I didn’t even mind the part with the water at the end; I thought it seemed believable enough. It’s not like the aliens were there to settle Earth, they were just an unknown threat present only for a brief time.

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I didn’t even mind the part with the water at the end; I thought it seemed believable enough. It’s not like the aliens were there to settle Earth, they were just an unknown threat present only for a brief time.

Let’s turn the tables around. If a group of humans were to visit a world – a world covered 71% with sulfuric acid, where it rains sulfuric acid, and where the native inhabitants have sulfuric acid on tap – and go down to the surface completely buck-naked with absolutely no protection from the elements whatsoever, would that be believable in the slightest?

That depends on what we needed there. We already go to the moon, with only a suit to protect us, what if it tore, or malfunctioned!?

I can find it believable enough that the aliens needed something from Earth that was worth the risk, or, maybe they had had no exposure to water before/didn’t know it would damage them. I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to these things.

MalàStrana said:

The Matrix Revolutions

Perfect ending, impressive action scenes, wagnerian music, intelligent symbolism. Even better than the first one. Only Reloaded is kinda mediocre (the narrative is great but it takes too long to get to the Architect, the most important scene of the trilogy).

But…but…how?

TV’s Frink said:

Ahh haaahahahahahahah.

Revolutions is by far the worst of the three. Anyone who thinks it’s better than the first is on drugs. Really bad drugs.

The Matrix A
Reloaded B
Revolutions C-/D+

Reloaded is alright, but Neo became completely un-relatable, which really hurts the film.