The whole movie itself was a facade. At least Armageddon was not masquerading as something it was not.

There is no way it should have beaten La Confidential, Good Will Hunting, or even As Good as It Gets and The Full Monty in 97'.

Yeah it was. It was masquerading itself as a movie.



i can't help it that the oscars are dirty. there are plenty of other years that have had the same problem.

I don't get the Hudson Hawk hate I hear all the time. It made me laugh. There's some good quotes in there. I don't think people knew it was supposed to be absurd. I like it.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Well, which am I then, a pre teen or a teenage girl (and W_Z for that matter)?

You mentioned but then dismissed the fact that the sets are extraordinary, but that's a HUGE part of the film. I don't know why people expect films to always be akin to getting an education at an Ivy League school. Film is a visual experience, and Titanic did a fantastic job of putting a vivid visual experience on screen. I don't think the story or the performances are anywhere near bad enough to ruin it. Actually it is an extremely well-crafted film.

As to your criticisms of the Rose character, recall that she was being forced into an arranged marriage, to a detestable man whom she loathed, and who physically abused her. To say she "cheated" on him is a bit of a stretch. Kate Winslet is not exactly a bad actress either, I might add. You can debate Leo DiCaprio if you want (I didn't mind him in this film), but the other performances, including the minor roles, are actually done quite well.

I'm also not sure I carry the allegory about the rich to the same extremes you do. As W_Z pointed out, the film does paint a story about how over-indulgence and hubris gets its comeuppance. But you seem to take that as some sort of morality judgement where anyone who enjoys spending a little money now and then is inherently evil. I never interpreted the film's story to that degree. I think it was a smart story backdrop that went along quite well with the rest of the picture.


W_Z, I think you and I had quite a go-around during the holidays about the Star Wars prequels, so we won't go through all that again . However, in this instance, you mention the plot... of all the criticisms I hear of the prequels (many of them valid), plot usually isn't one of them.

You've got the main character, whose pain from losing his mother and fear of losing his wife drives him on a quest for power which ultimately corrupts him, leading him to being chopped to bits by his loyal master whom he betrayed.

You have a foreboding tale (and one that rings true to life many times throughout history) of a skilled, two-faced politician who instigates a war and plays both sides of it as a means to achieve power (leading to one of the precious few memorable lines from the prequels, Padme's "so this is how liberty dies... to thunderous applause") - a plot-line that included the "good guy" stormtroopers providing an army for the Jedi, only then to betray them and exterminate them.

You have the time-honored paradox of trying so hard to protect someone and "owning" that person, only to become the cause of her destruction. You have the hubris and complacency of the Jedi (and the Senate) leading to their doom.

I don't know... of all the things to complain about, plot seems to be the least of the worries for the prequels.

Besides, similar to what I said about Titanic, the Star Wars films have always been about taking basic mythology, basic comparative religion, and simple themes about the human condition, and distilling them into two-hour films that tell their stories through fantastic visuals. And to that end, all six of the films are tremendous successes.


The thing about Titanic, Star Wars, and films like Dark Knight... In-depth character studies and thorough examinations of subject matter are best applied to books. Films are best when the visuals make the strongest impression. It doesn't mean a film should be shallow... to the contrary. But it should be more of an inspirational and subjective work, in a way that's pleasing to the eye. Otherwise, what's the point of making a film rather than a novel?

Spaulding is right. Armageddon was mindless summer fun. I was entertained. Funny moments, epic scale destruction, what else do you want?

Character development? What about when Bruce Willis was actually shooting weapons at an oil derrick trying to kill Ben Affleck but then gives him his blessing to watch over his little girl at the end? Tell me you didn't cry W_Z. You're just mad becuase you know that Armageddon is twice as good and half as long as Meteor.

Besides the world divides up into two camps - you are either an Armageddon person or a Deep Impact person.

Deep Impact should have been on the list - that made $350 million from stupid people. I'll give it $75 mil until word gets out but the other $275 mil that was spent on tickets for that snorefest was just people being stupid. That was neither fun, nor interesting.

And don't even start on Independence Day. That movie was awesome for a while. They blew up lots of stuff. It should not be on this list by a longshot.

_________________
You know me like that.

I was going to argue with W_Z about the Star Wars prequels, but you explained it here way better than I could've ever done. There were things that bothered me about about it (like the dialogue) but I still watch them to be entertained. The films just make me feel good and they remind me of being a kid.

_________________
-"God is great. Beer is good. And People are crazy!"

More editing...way too long for such a bad story...could they have fit in a 9th unforeseen problem?

Dr Ken was probably just more comfertable with Armegeddon because of the White President.

I wonder if Bruce Willis and Demi Moore ever had Michael Clarke Duncan over for dinner?

Great i'm being backed by the guy who liked "phantom menace".



i think we wound up agreeing to disagree, or something like that. it was actually a nice discourse IIRC.

i will never ever give the prequels credit, and i've already stated why. they're poorly constructed scripts and they lack a main character and a consistent narrative arc. nothing will change my mind on that.

i do realize that we all have opinions, and i've heard good arguments from people who have defended the prequels, and i've heard enough to at least accept that there can be people who liked them (tee hee). but, just as people tried to convince me that the matrix trilogy was good, it will not work.

but let's not get started on the matrix trilogy...

Yeah I think we did agree to disagree, basically because we shared most of our criticisms, I just placed them lower on my priority list. Again here, the things you point out are not wrong, especially the script, as Eaglo mentioned. I really wish George Lucas would have hired a script doctor (like he did for the original trilogy), because I think that would have improved the presentation of the films dramatically.

i read that he did hire tom stoppard to write (or doctor) at least the "love relationship" scenes between anakin and padme in Episode 3; but i think that was just "rumored". not sure if it were true, but if i were tom stoppard, i would try and debunk that rumor as fast as possible.

Yeah if that's true.. that's where the term "uncredited" comes in handy.

Armageddon absolutely should be on that list. It's awful.

As for 'Wild Hogs,' I had forgotten about that one, which is weird, because it features my two most hated actors, veritable black and white versions of each other: Martin Lawrence and Tim Allen. This gruesome duo has conspired to produce some of the most horrifying dreck of my lifetime; as if engaged in deranged competition, each "actor" starred in a long succession of shit, seemingly bent on one-upping the other as the most excrucatingly awful movie "star." And some asshole actually paid millions of dollars to team these two in one super-shitty "comedy." Fucking incredible.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

You're wrong...again.

Also, I can't leave this thread without taking a shot at "Batman and Robin." For a long time, I was certain it was the worst movie ever produced. It may still be, but my memories of it have mercifully faded somewhat. You know the movie is awful when, 5 minutes in, you're so pissed off by the ridiculousness of the movie that you hope all the main characters die. When they clicked their feet together and runners popped out, I was pissed off; but when Batman climbed his way up a fucking rocket in mid-flight? I was done with the movie at that point.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

My film teacher declared Armageddon to be the worst movie ever made. Clearly, though, he hadn't seen Pootie Tang.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

Just because your film teacher declared something doesn't make it true.

I know. Like I said, he hadn't seen Pootie Tang. Or Batman and Robin, evidently. But Armageddon is shit. In fact, pretty much all Michael Bay movies are shit, and for the same shitty reasons (not surprisingly, several of his shitty creations made the list; at least 3 that I know of). The only good thing about his movies is that they made such a fantastic target for lampooning, which Team America did flawlessly.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

matt, "team america" is probably the best american satirical movie we've had in this age.

I think it's really under-rated, because it works on so many levels. My favorite aspect is still the satire of Bay blockbusters, though; the one-dimensional characters, the ludicrous story-line, the melodramatic interactions between the characters.. it hits all the points.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

The two that I remember being most disappointed in were Planet of the Apes and Godzilla.

They started with a product that was already good and chose to do nothing with either story line.

Planet of the Apes itself would be so easy to make into a thoughtful movie with a strong and understated political commentary.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

You're definitely right about that Planet of the Apes remake. It was just brutal. I too was very disappointed, as I like Tim Burton, and liked the original.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

i don't consider planet of the apes a "burton film" since he was hired to direct it, and i think fox had control over budget, and other ideas and stuff. reading about it, burton had more liberties than i once thought, but just not a lot felt like a burton film.

it was a bad movie though, either way.

godzilla was horrendous, but i don't think i've ever seen a godzilla movie that i actually liked.