Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:50 pm
It was intended to be a cheesy comic book movie and it pulled that concept off FAR better than Spiderman 3 did IMO.Jackal wrote:
I am thoroughly convinced that you like the worst movies ever created.
Page 174 of 535
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:55 pm
Ghostrider was fucking A grade dog shit.
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:04 pm
It was a movie based on a comic about stunt biker that turns into a flaming skeletal spirit of vengeance for fucks sakes. Of COURSE it was supposed to be cheesy! If anyone went in expecting otherwise they deserve to be disappointed.Don Carlos wrote:Ghostrider was fucking A grade dog shit.
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:26 pm
Nicholas Cage in an action role. 
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:33 pm
Except for Ghost Rider the comic book is anything but cheesy. It's one of the grittiest titles put out by Marvel right now.Tormentius wrote:It was a movie based on a comic about stunt biker that turns into a flaming skeletal spirit of vengeance for fucks sakes. Of COURSE it was supposed to be cheesy! If anyone went in expecting otherwise they deserve to be disappointed.Don Carlos wrote:Ghostrider was fucking A grade dog shit.
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:53 pm
Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.R00k wrote:Nicholas Cage in an action role.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:10 am
Lord of WarGONNAFISTYA wrote:Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.R00k wrote:Nicholas Cage in an action role.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:24 am
Yep, Lord of War is good. And there are some other Cage films that are ok. Don't rattle the Cage so much...
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:44 am
9mmfeedback wrote:Lord of WarGONNAFISTYA wrote:Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.R00k wrote:Nicholas Cage in an action role.
his neurotic disposition made him a good choice
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:48 am
Night at the Museum.
Cute, nothing to write to grandma about.
Cute, nothing to write to grandma about.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:44 am
I thought Lord of War was terrible (endless voiceovers stringing together random and uninteresting vignettes), but I generally like Nicholas Cage. He was good in 8mm too, but I didn't like the subject matter -- the Matrix trilogy represents the only movies I don't dislike for depicting weird S&M fetishists, because they are so peripheral.
I'm taking a film course on Stanley Kubrick right now:
Killer's Kiss: 6/10 - his first movie, pretty boring/basic/derivative
The Killing: 9/10 - my favourite caper movie, incredible dialogue and great character actors
Paths of Glory: 7.5/10 - it's a movie trying to make a point, so its intense political focus softens the entertainment value, but its still very engaging
Spartacus: 8.5/10 - epic. how could you possibly go wrong with Kirk Douglas, Charles Laughton and Laurence Olivier sharing the screen??
Lolita: 6/10 - really clever dialogue (Nabokov helped with a draft of the screenplay) but the film plods along until its 2.5 hours seem significantly longer than spartacus's 3.5 hours or whatever the number is, and extreme censorship due to the production code really fucks it up (I havent read the book and I almost missed the fact that Humbert actually diddles the bitch) so Peter Sellars and the rest of the actors are really the only reason to watch.
Dr. Strangelove: 8.5/10, "it shall not be difficult, mein fuhrer." I would give it a 9 but I feel that the pacing is really flawed, the amount of (exterior) footage of Major Kong's bomber is 10 times what's necessary and it bogs the whole film down, but otherwise pure brilliance. "Why, to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids!"
2001: 7.5/10 - again my sensibilities disagree with kubrick's pacing and his treatment of the film focuses on things that were not in the novel, which put me off a bit, but it's obviously a brilliant and innovative film, i just wish i could go back to the 70s and watch it in the theatre on acid.
a clockwork orange: 9/10 - one of my favourites. malcolm macdowell is fucking incredible, and i love the score. oh yeah and the chick who comes out on stage during the demonstration of the ludovico technique has the perfect rack.
barry lyndon: 8/10 - almost painfully boring in parts, but it's absolutely magnificent in its cinematography and very emotional despite the intentionally slow pacing, which imitates 18th century life as each shot imitates 18th century art. I liked it during the screening, but in retrospect I almost loved it, so I plan to watch it again, and expect i will like the second viewing more, knowing exactly what sort of movie it is ahead of time.
the shining: 8/10 - Stephen King didn't love the adaptation, because as always kubrick had his own things to say, but i'm a pretty big fan. Although Shelley Duvall really was not given much to do except scream and weep, which got really old. And something about the way she holds the kitchen knife through the last half hour really pissed me off. But the kid playing Danny is absolutely amazing, and jack nicholson, well, everybody knows how awesome he is.
We haven't gotten to Full Metal Jacket or Eyes Wide Shut yet -- we are watching all Kubrick's films in chronological order. I saw FMJ once, years ago, and I know I like it, but I'm going to reserve a rating for when it's fresh in my mind; and EWS I've never seen, so I'm looking forward to that.
Bottom line, Kubrick was pretty fucking awesome. I've never seen Artificial Intelligence either, and while everyone seems to think it was atrocious, I'm curious to know what Spielberg would do with a Kubrick concept, so I will have to get ahold of it.
I'm taking a film course on Stanley Kubrick right now:
Killer's Kiss: 6/10 - his first movie, pretty boring/basic/derivative
The Killing: 9/10 - my favourite caper movie, incredible dialogue and great character actors
Paths of Glory: 7.5/10 - it's a movie trying to make a point, so its intense political focus softens the entertainment value, but its still very engaging
Spartacus: 8.5/10 - epic. how could you possibly go wrong with Kirk Douglas, Charles Laughton and Laurence Olivier sharing the screen??
Lolita: 6/10 - really clever dialogue (Nabokov helped with a draft of the screenplay) but the film plods along until its 2.5 hours seem significantly longer than spartacus's 3.5 hours or whatever the number is, and extreme censorship due to the production code really fucks it up (I havent read the book and I almost missed the fact that Humbert actually diddles the bitch) so Peter Sellars and the rest of the actors are really the only reason to watch.
Dr. Strangelove: 8.5/10, "it shall not be difficult, mein fuhrer." I would give it a 9 but I feel that the pacing is really flawed, the amount of (exterior) footage of Major Kong's bomber is 10 times what's necessary and it bogs the whole film down, but otherwise pure brilliance. "Why, to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids!"
2001: 7.5/10 - again my sensibilities disagree with kubrick's pacing and his treatment of the film focuses on things that were not in the novel, which put me off a bit, but it's obviously a brilliant and innovative film, i just wish i could go back to the 70s and watch it in the theatre on acid.
a clockwork orange: 9/10 - one of my favourites. malcolm macdowell is fucking incredible, and i love the score. oh yeah and the chick who comes out on stage during the demonstration of the ludovico technique has the perfect rack.
barry lyndon: 8/10 - almost painfully boring in parts, but it's absolutely magnificent in its cinematography and very emotional despite the intentionally slow pacing, which imitates 18th century life as each shot imitates 18th century art. I liked it during the screening, but in retrospect I almost loved it, so I plan to watch it again, and expect i will like the second viewing more, knowing exactly what sort of movie it is ahead of time.
the shining: 8/10 - Stephen King didn't love the adaptation, because as always kubrick had his own things to say, but i'm a pretty big fan. Although Shelley Duvall really was not given much to do except scream and weep, which got really old. And something about the way she holds the kitchen knife through the last half hour really pissed me off. But the kid playing Danny is absolutely amazing, and jack nicholson, well, everybody knows how awesome he is.
We haven't gotten to Full Metal Jacket or Eyes Wide Shut yet -- we are watching all Kubrick's films in chronological order. I saw FMJ once, years ago, and I know I like it, but I'm going to reserve a rating for when it's fresh in my mind; and EWS I've never seen, so I'm looking forward to that.
Bottom line, Kubrick was pretty fucking awesome. I've never seen Artificial Intelligence either, and while everyone seems to think it was atrocious, I'm curious to know what Spielberg would do with a Kubrick concept, so I will have to get ahold of it.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:19 am
Brand Upon the Brain!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443455/
probably not for everyone but very engaging visually and symbolically although it lost it's potency near the end imo.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443455/
probably not for everyone but very engaging visually and symbolically although it lost it's potency near the end imo.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:49 am
It was a fucking shit movie based on a comic about stunt biker that turns into a flaming skeletal spirit of vengeance.Tormentius wrote:It was a movie based on a comic about stunt biker that turns into a flaming skeletal spirit of vengeance for fucks sakes. Of COURSE it was supposed to be cheesy! If anyone went in expecting otherwise they deserve to be disappointed.Don Carlos wrote:Ghostrider was fucking A grade dog shit.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:49 am
Matchstick MenGONNAFISTYA wrote:Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.R00k wrote:Nicholas Cage in an action role.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:32 am
and then there was National TreasureMKJ wrote:Matchstick MenGONNAFISTYA wrote:Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.R00k wrote:Nicholas Cage in an action role.
++Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:37 am
Let's not forget the steaming turd known as Gone In 60 Seconds
Despite Jolie's best efforts to save it
Despite Jolie's best efforts to save it
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:26 am
I loved that film, thought it was some good popcorn shit.seremtan wrote:and then there was National TreasureMKJ wrote:Matchstick MenGONNAFISTYA wrote: Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:27 am
This came up in conversation last night between myself and the gf. I was thinking someone was likely to sing its praises in this thread soon. I swear to god I have ESP.sliver wrote: 2001: 7.5/10 - again my sensibilities disagree with kubrick's pacing and his treatment of the film focuses on things that were not in the novel, which put me off a bit, but it's obviously a brilliant and innovative film, i just wish i could go back to the 70s and watch it in the theatre on acid.
Still, I can't let a review of this movie go by without opining just a little about how terrible I thought it was. Quite possibly the most overrated movie I've ever seen, IMO. :icon13:
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:23 pm
GONNAFISTYA wrote:Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.R00k wrote:Nicholas Cage in an action role.
Uh...did you forget about WILD AT HEART. :icon14: :icon14:
(One of my favorite David Lyunch Films.)
Did I ever tell you this jacket is a symbol of my personality and belief in personal freedom...?
and William Defoe sets the standard for nucking futcase's every where as Bobby Peru. :icon14:
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:33 pm
Has anyone seen hard candy? It's an Indies flick but... yeah well. It's fucked up.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:39 pm
whoa forgot about that7zark7 wrote:GONNAFISTYA wrote:Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.R00k wrote:Nicholas Cage in an action role.
Uh...did you forget about WILD AT HEART. :icon14: :icon14:
(One of my favorite David Lyunch Films.)
Did I ever tell you this jacket is a symbol of my personality and belief in personal freedom...?
and William Defoe sets the standard for nucking futcase's every where as Bobby Peru. :icon14:
n1
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:40 pm
Yeah, it's shit.vileliquid1026 wrote:Has anyone seen hard candy? It's an Indies flick but... yeah well. It's fucked up.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:51 pm
I dunno... If I had balls I wouldnt want them thrown in a garbage disposal
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:19 pm
Lord of War was simply a good movie, with a good story and compelling plot. It wasn't a great movie because of Cage's neurotic ramblings.feedback wrote:Lord of WarGONNAFISTYA wrote: Nicholas Cage in any role is a waste of screen space.
seremtan wrote: and then there was National Treasure
Again. It it had an interesting story and compelling plot...Cage's "wide arm action pose" did nothing but make the movie that much less respectable.Is that the one with Cage and the woman from Jurassic Park and all they did was fuck and whenever he wasn't fucking Cage walked around wide-eyed trying his best to look crazy? Please.7zark7 wrote: Uh...did you forget about WILD AT HEART. :icon14: :icon14:
(One of my favorite David Lyunch Films.)
Absolutely none of you have given a valid example of good work from Cage...the movies you've listed would have rocked just as hard with someone else cast. The only time I enjoyed Cage's work was in "Raising Arizona"....because (like Keanu Reeves) he's good at playing a dope.
Oh....lemme guess...he did great work in Face Off?
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:28 pm
Truth. The man is worthless. In all those examples, the movie was good dispite Cage, not because of him.