T
TorontoReign
Guest
Nope. The first Matrix still holds up visually. Just watched it. The plot is also not as predictable as you make it out to be. It was pretty unique at the time.
most overrated movies?
- Thread starter R.Graves
- Start date
ThatZenoGuy
Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism
Yeah, Matrix is a pretty good movies.
The sequels are what kinda ruined the movie IMO.
Matrix 1 was more pratical effects, while 2-3 used more CGI.
The sequels are what kinda ruined the movie IMO.
Matrix 1 was more pratical effects, while 2-3 used more CGI.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Best to forget the second and third movie exist.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Transformers (any, after the first; IE any with Micheal Bay involved).
Mad Max:Fury Road.
Mad Max:Fury Road.
ThatZenoGuy
Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism
Yeah, as an Aussie, I fucking hate Fury Road.
Its like.
"Hey, lets make a Mad Max movie, without Mel Gibson, and somehow he gets his car back after 3 showed us that MAD MAX NOW USES ANIMALS"
Its like.
"Hey, lets make a Mad Max movie, without Mel Gibson, and somehow he gets his car back after 3 showed us that MAD MAX NOW USES ANIMALS"
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I would say that the big problem with Inception is that they spent three quarter of the movie with exposition, explaining things that wouldn't even pay off later, then one remaining quarter with a long generic action scene. (and a bit of okayish Dicaprio\Cottillard subplot)
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I think that's pretty accurate. I also suspect that they lost a lot of people on the concept of physical (outside) inertia in the dream world.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
... That character is bigger than mel gibson. Besides Tom hardy did well.
One its most likely a reboot
Two his car was destroyed in road warrior and he found it in the third and its not out of the realm of possibility to think he got it back after the credits rolled
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I didn't particularly care for his results as Max.
I think Tom Jane would have been a better choice; (aside from also looking the part)... but then anyone would have had to act with the script they were given, and that seemed pretty weak IMO.
Last edited:
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
Tom jane is near 50 himself. That would defeat the whole point of reversing the character.
YeeCop
Just a Sweet Irradiated Transvestite
I think Fury Road is really cool cause of the fan theory that Tom Hardy's Max is the Feral Kid from Mad Max 2.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
They shouldn't have reversed it. The series was linear; it showed what Max was originally, and why he became the Road Warrior, and later where he ended up—after the Feral boy last saw him.
IMO they should have cast Bruce Spense as well. Tom Jane (I think) could have passed for Max in the last installment of the series... Instead of making a reboot that was not worth having its own sequel.
Last edited:
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
Well I hope to see much more from nu-max. If something can only be considered bad in comparison to its predecessor rather than on it's own merits then its not that bad imo. I wouldn't even call fury road lesser in the first place, personally.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Can you apply that to FO3?
*I think that FO3 has its own merits, but that they should not have released it as Fallout 3.
(I could say this almost verbatim for Mad Max:Fury Road)
**And with that... We're off topic. I've been trying to think of a few overrated films, but I'm drawing a blank, and the obvious ones are a little too obvious, or already mentioned.
Or else I could say Ironman 3.
Last edited:
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
No, because fallout 3 is horrible on it's own merits. Even ignoring that its a sequel, it still has no worldbuilding, bland characters, horrible story, linear quests, clunky combat, and no ending.
I mean the plot itself is inconsistent with the environment its set in. 'Nuff said.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Ah, but I meant the "only be considered bad in comparison to its predecessor " part.
FO3 was the wrong gameplay for the series—silly script aside. It was bad because it was the wrong game; not because it was a bad game. Likewise (IMO) Fury Road was bad because it was the wrong movie, not (just) because it was a bad one.
Respective tastes in games and films are subjective, but format is either correct, or it isn't.
I'm hoping there isn't a sequel to either. It's too bad FO4 already exists, but I hope FO5 doesn't happen... At least not with Bethesda at the helm.
FO3 was the wrong gameplay for the series—silly script aside. It was bad because it was the wrong game; not because it was a bad game. Likewise (IMO) Fury Road was bad because it was the wrong movie, not (just) because it was a bad one.
Respective tastes in games and films are subjective, but format is either correct, or it isn't.
I'm hoping there isn't a sequel to either. It's too bad FO4 already exists, but I hope FO5 doesn't happen... At least not with Bethesda at the helm.
Last edited:
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
...So you agree then.
(and you mean 'Yes')*(I didn't think I'd need to clarify FO3, the way I did with Fury Road. )
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
No. Because if it was just different but still good (like new vegas) then it's still good, like fury road is different (kind of) but good. New vegas is good on it's own merits outside of being a sequel fo3 is not.So you agree then.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Did I say that it was?