Which is more vile?

[freshie]

.

[Squirrelinabox]

saw charlies angels 2, enjoyed it.

Willl be seeing badboys2 soon hopefully, will probably enjoy that as well :)

[-=[Dg]=-]

Don't be dissing the company that I work for!
We produce many quality motion pictures for the enrichment and betterment of human life everywhere! :D

Besides, I dig walking around the sets and meeting the actors and Production staff (although I never got to meet Lucy Liu dammit!)

[radio667]

Wheres the " all of the above " box ;) ??

[freshie]

Originally posted by radio667
Wheres the " all of the above " box ;) ??

They are both pretty vile. The fun of it lies in deciding which is worse.

DG: I have nothing against the studios. But these could be two of the worst movies ever produced. I don't say that lightly. As a man who onced watched 15 minutes of Pearl Harbor on HBO, and some how managed to hold down a full 30 minutes of Angels 1.

And they managed to get released within 30 days of each other.

[1_LoSt_TaLiBaN]

ha Im with radio :moon:

[Squirrelinabox]

charlies angels 1 was also a good movie.

[1_LoSt_TaLiBaN]

yep its right up there with classics like

Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey

Air Bud

and that movie with the da chimp that plays baseball ;)

[freshie]

Originally posted by 1_LoSt_TaLiBaN
yep its right up there with classics like

Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey

Air Bud

and that movie with the da chimp that plays baseball ;)

You do Bill & Ted a disservice.

[1_LoSt_TaLiBaN]

not at all my friend they got me through my youngers disattached stoner years..... now that Im a older disattached stoner I find the first episode to be hours of humorous fun, joining similar classics as Encino Man and BioDome, whilst the second Bill and Ted installment left me passed out with half eatten noodles hangin outta my mouth.... or mebbe it was the weed :scratch:

but my intention was not dishonor Bill and Ted... I should have worded it better.... hmmmm replace that example with the Cuba Gooding Jr. movie with the sled dogs

[freshie]

Originally posted by 1_LoSt_TaLiBaN
but my intention was not dishonor Bill and Ted... I should have worded it better.... hmmmm replace that example with the Cuba Gooding Jr. movie with the sled dogs

You do disservice bill & ted, by comparing Angels 1 in there. Bill & Ted acknowledged it's own inanity. Angels 1 was just pure pain to watch.

[1_LoSt_TaLiBaN]

lol never bothered to finish Angels 1... I only watched up to the point where Cameron in panties said "feel free to stick it in my box anytime" or something along those lines ...... so you're right, Im wrong, you're smart, Im stupid, you're good lookin, Im ugly, people like you, people spit on me in public, and gosh darn if your breath doesnt smell better ;)

[-=[Dg]=-]

DG: I have nothing against the studios. But these could be two of the worst movies ever produced. I don't say that lightly. As a man who onced watched 15 minutes of Pearl Harbor on HBO, and some how managed to hold down a full 30 minutes of Angels 1.

And they managed to get released within 30 days of each other. [/B]
I was joking in my earlier reply.
We, like any other Studio, put out a few great films, lots of mediocre to good ones and a handful of crap in any given year.
It's just damn fun to be working in this business.

Angels 1 was just pure pain to watch.
Now I think that you're just being way to critical. CA1 was nothing but fluff and never aspired to be anything more than straight entertainment - just like B&T.

I'll bet if we take a poll and see who liked CA1, there would be a majority of people saying that they did.
Bad Boys II is the same genre. Nothing but a fun summer movie.

You can't really expect something that these films never promise.
And if your arguement is that these are technically bad films then I'd argue that point too.

I guess I don't understand you're specific gripe.
Did you see Punch Drunk Love (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0272338)? Or Adaptation (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0268126)?
Now those two are quality Sony/Columbia product! :)

[MortalPlague]

The first angels movie really really bugged me. I went there expecting a light summer movie, but what I got was something mediocre with some characters who were really irritating half the time and action that wasn't particularly enjoyable to watch in and of itself.

Then again, maybe that's just me. But seriously... why can't more summer movies be like Pirates of the Caribbean? Now that's entertainment!

[FBMachine]

All Charlies Angels has going for them is three attractive girls ( Lucy Lu being the only really attractive one imo ), and mindless action ( which I thought sucked in the first movie ). The characters were extremely stupid and didn't have a whole lot of chemistry together either. What does the sequel have? More of the same... except looking at the trailers, it actually looks worse. Cameron Diaz and especially Drew Barrymore annoy the hell out of me for some reason in these movies, their characters are just aweful.
As for Bad Boys, I have to admit I liked the first, I thought it was funny and they had decent chemistry, just a mindless buddy cop flick yeah, but I did like it so I'm going to see the sequel.
So I understand how people can enjoy Charlies Angels, we all have our guilty pleasures. :)

First I must see Pirates of the Caribbean though!
Dan

[-=[Dg]=-]

http://homepage.mac.com/drew1/.Pictures/newsflash.gif
Bad Boys II (http://ae.miami.com/entertainment/ui/miami/movie.html?id=106255&reviewId=12651) may be the worst film of the summer!

[freshie]

I'll try reign in the movie snobbery in for this rant. But here is the bone I have to pick with these movies.

When I first heard of the first Charlies Angel's movie, I didn't have such a bad opinion of it. It was only when I sat down to watch it on HBO that I found it so bad. There was so much gratuitious meandering from the plot for silly and pandering scenes. The second time Cameron Diaz started wiggling her butt in the screen, I had to turn it off.

I know it was billed as ditzy fun, but there was absolutely nothing fun about that movie. Some of the action scenes weren't bad. But I've seen a lot better. And spending any personal time with the Angels was pure pain.

The second movie looked like more of the first except times 3.

As for Bad Boys 2. Lets just start off and say that I abhor all things Bay/Bruckheimer. The don't have the pacing of McTiernan, so what the lack in talent, they make up for in excessive noise and explosions.

I can appreciate that people like Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. They aren't for me, but fair enough if you enjoy seeing them on-screen.

However, just from looking at that trailer, I could tell that the movie is so jam-packed with Bay/Bruckheimer excessiveness that Lawrence/Smith aren't ever likely to get enough screen-time to shine.

Your just posted one person's review of the movie. I've read two others that say basically the same thing. It seems as if not only is the usual self-indulgence of Bay/Bruckheimer, but they've reached a new low in the tasteless department as well.

[-=[Dg]=-]

I agree with 90% of what you say (butt wiggling aside), but, again, I think that you're expecting too much from films that can't possibly deliver.

Even though I work on and watch films for a living, I can easily close my critical eye and just enjoy a mindless film every once in a while, but maybe that's just me.

[freshie]

Originally posted by -=[Dg]=-
I agree with 90% of what you say (butt wiggling aside), but, again, I think that you're expecting too much from films that can't possibly deliver.


All I'm expecting from a movie like Charlies Angels (or any other action flick) is that it pretends to follow a plot. Once it starts side-tracking for into cutsey skits that have no baring on the plot, I start to lose interest fast.

As far as my dislike for Bruckheimer is that they all have the basest of plots with loud explosions, and over-the-top needless melodrama.

Bay/Bruckheimer productions obviously take their cue from John Mc Tiernan who changed the genre with the Die Hard flicks. The Die Hard flicks are great, every one single one of them are extremely entertaining. The action doesn't stop flowing, the melodrama is only kept in there to drive the lead characters motivation.

In all actuality, The Rock was followed the die-hard formulat pretty well. But Bruckheimer started producing turkeys like "Con Air", "Armageddon", "Gone in Sixty Seconds", "Bad Company", "Pearl Harbor". Each time, taking the bar to a new low. Looks like they've done it again.

[Squirrelinabox]

"Con Air", "Armageddon", "Gone in Sixty Seconds", "Bad Company", "Pearl Harbor"!?!?!

Those are some great movies there... well haven't seen Bad Company. Con Air, Armageddon, Gone in Sixty Seconds, and Pearl Harbor aren't just good movies, they are great IMO.

[freshie]

Originally posted by Squirrelinabox
Those are some great movies there... well haven't seen Bad Company. Con Air, Armageddon, Gone in Sixty Seconds, and Pearl Harbor aren't just good movies, they are great IMO.

I stand here flabbergasted.

Not for me dictate what movies others should or should not like. I just thought there would be more people who are abhorrant of these movies as I am.

I'll just take yuppie arse back to the basement with my Bergman and Kurosawa DVD's.

[radio667]

Originally posted by freshie
I stand here flabbergasted.

Not for me dictate what movies others should or should not like. I just thought there would be more people who are abhorrant of these movies as I am.

I'll just take yuppie arse back to the basement with my Bergman and Kurosawa DVD's. Freshie , I AGREE with You a 100 % on everything you said in your thread so far :D ...btw " RAN " is one of my all time favorite !!!!!!

[-=[Dg]=-]

Originally posted by freshie
I'll just take yuppie arse back to the basement with my Bergman and Kurosawa DVD's.
Hey! I got to work on the DVD release of Akahige (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0058888) (aka Red Beard) about a year ago.
That might be my favorite Kurosawa film - but then there's Yojimbo and Ran and Yume and Kumonosu jo. Hmmm, I'll have to think about that.
Well, it's between Throne of Blood and Red Beard....I think. Hell, they're all good.

It's always fun work on Criterion Collection titles.

[radio667]

WOW , DG :D What did you do ??!!??

[-=[Dg]=-]

I encoded the audio.
That's what I do all day - watch movies.
And they pay me to do that!

Although it was kinda rough sitting through Stuart Little 2 26 times (and in 26 different languages!).
I definitely earned my pay on that one. :D

[radio667]

DG, is now the COOLEST MAN in the known universe :rockon: God bless those EAR DRUMS ;) !!!!!!!!!!

[SoBeiT]

Some movies are meant to be watched, they're good enough and nothing really wrong with them. They use to be called "Fodder" when I hung aroung the studios. They pay the bills around there.

Others are meant to be experienced.

These movies draw you in, make you care and at the end you blink, remember it's a movie :o

It takes special people to make these movies...writers, producers, directors and don't forget the acting talent.

I do see what you are saying Freshie, you 're not alone in wanting the best and not the fodder :(

[SunnyDay]

Originally posted by freshie
In all actuality, The Rock was followed the die-hard formulat pretty well. But Bruckheimer started producing turkeys like "Con Air", "Armageddon", "Gone in Sixty Seconds", "Bad Company", "Pearl Harbor". Each time, taking the bar to a new low. Looks like they've done it again.

Those are all really bad movies in my opinion. I couldnt even get past the first half hour of Pearl Harbor, I was like "WTF kinda war movie is this?!?"

Extremely disapointed.

[freshie]

Originally posted by SoBeiT
Some movies are meant to be watched, they're good enough and nothing really wrong with them. They use to be called "Fodder" when I hung aroung the studios. They pay the bills around there.


I consider the ones I've mentioned in a 3rd category: S%*t.

[MortalPlague]

I have to say that I actually enjoyed "Armageddon" and "Gone in Sixty Seconds". Those are two movies that actually have a strong plot, some interesting characters, and are entertaining to watch. I don't see what you guys find so terrible about them. :dunno:

[RectalSweat]

I can't stand those movies either... Actually, when Bad Boys I came out, I thought the visuals were pretty cool. I enjoyed that movie because I hadn't really seen anything that big of a spectacle with all the explosions and all the focus on big action shots. But when that formula gets recycled to the nth degree, it's hard for me to be into it. Their movies have become so formulaic, that I really don't care what happens to the characters.

In general, I feel like movie standards have been lowered. (Or maybe I've just grown cynical). I used to be disappointed when a movie didn't make me think or at least feel something. But now I just want to be entertained - Bay/Brukheimer doesn't do that for me in the slightest, but I can understand that people like them.

RS

PS - Saw Pirates last night. Really felt this was a throwback to some of the old school adventure movies that I grew up watching. Johnny Depp is always awesome.

[MortalPlague]

I saw Pirates again last night myself... I really loved it, the whole thing was vastly entertaining and carries a lot of depth to it as well. I've seen it three times. :p