Posts by Keith Kelly3

Ghost Rider is a total disaster—Cage just lacks the charisma, and he honestly looks ridiculous trying to play a superhero... Personally, I thought Iron Man was even worse, easily one of the most boring movies I’ve ever sat through, though I get why people dig it—I guess it's all subjective... Anyway, it just hit me that Constantine (based on Hellblazer) would have been such a perfect blueprint—just a wasted movie with a few decent scenes here and there.

How the hell are these posts even being displayed here? 😕

Watchmen and Batman Returns—no contest. Because of those noir elements, Watchmen is truly something else (especially the graphic novel), and Batman Returns just nails the atmosphere. Honestly, Sin City is probably the best comic book adaptation out there, but you don't have any actual superheroes in that one. 😛

David Price5 said:My issue with those old horror flicks is the overacting. I suppose modern method actors have spoiled my tastes. If you can find it, try looking up a documentary on how they filmed Van Helsing. There are some great bloopers...

I know exactly what you mean—I think our generation just isn't used to that style of acting, so it looks ridiculous to us now. Apparently, though, it was terrifying back then.

Pretty sure I saw that documentary on a DVD extra once. Liked it—the movie itself has some pretty cool touches too.

David Price5 said:Did the camera bother you at the end as well?

Look, Van Helsing is a terrible movie, but I honestly had a blast watching that glorious trash.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it trash. Are we going to label the old classics by Lugosi or Karloff as trash too? Van Helsing was simply a modern tribute to those monster movies from the 40s and 50s. The special effects have evolved, but the core essence remains exactly the same.

I partially agree. It’s totally wrong for people to assume everything from Hollywood's Golden Age is some kind of masterpiece—there were plenty of bad movies back then, too. For me, the Dracula from Van Helsing doesn't even touch the '31 version, and the same goes for the werewolf and Frankenstein stuff. At the very least, the acting is better. I will give you this: Van Helsing has a certain undeniable charm when you're watching it...

OT—everyone was hyping up the ending of Van Helsing like it was some massive twist, but after Kate Beckinsale died, I just didn't care. Though, she was 😍

Yeah, I get that—but I thought this thread was about great movies with crappy endings. I mean, Ninth Gate... seriously. But whatever, everyone’s entitled to their own take... Look, Van Helsing is a terrible movie, but honestly? I had a blast watching that trash. 😁

Mark Fowler4 said:Definitely NINE DOORS... easily one of the stupider parts of the whole thing...

in this case, the whole movie is just a train wreck... ☕

Richard Wilson4 said:Ever sat through an awesome movie—one you’re actually vibing with—only to have the ending totally kill the mood? Like, those last ten minutes just fall flat against everything else?

For me, the ending of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King was a real letdown...

It dragged on way too long, felt super melodramatic, and they completely skipped over all that stuff happening in the Midwest after the hobbits get back. That part was easily my favorite bit of the book, even if it was quick...

The movie itself is a masterpiece, though. It sucks they messed up the finish like that.

I wouldn't go along with that—it used to bug me just as much as Saruman’s altered fate—but "cleaning up the Midwest" would have just been action for the sake of action. It would've totally ruined that calm, steady tone one of those powerhouse directors brings to the film... 😁
Plus, you’ve got that example of how it all looks in Galadriel’s Mirror...

Filming is underway—it’s hitting theaters in 2012. Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom aren't coming back for this one, but we'll at least get Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush reprising their roles.

It doesn't look half bad, though for me, nothing beats the 1938 version.

Jonathan Collins43 said:Just heard some absolutely massive news!!!!!!!!!!!! There’s a new Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie in the works!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too bad there’s no Sarah Michelle Gellar involved—not even a single person from the original show. 😢 😢 I'm really hoping Joss Whedon at least has something to do with it. Otherwise, who knows what kind of mess this is going to be!

No Whedon either!

It didn't even get much hype—it basically flew under the radar here in the States, which doesn't surprise me given the kind of movies people usually flock to. It actually did better over in Europe. Honestly? It was a pleasant surprise... I wish we had more films like this.

briskhound2 said:Well, not exactly... It feels a bit too plastic, but I guess that’s just the way it goes with most older films—it isn't necessarily a dealbreaker, but there's definitely room for improvement. Then again, if they go the animated route, I suppose none of that even matters...

ok, I'm just gonna 😲

but seriously, I read that they're filming two Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde remakes soon—and 50 Cent is starring in one of them! That is absolutely terrifying... stuff like that is exactly what gets under my skin.

briskhound2 said:For me, that whole feeling just died the second they messed with the role of that blonde woman—you know, the one who ends up being a ghost (whatever)—but everything else stays pretty close to the original. I haven't actually heard anything about that Wizard of Oz remake before. Maybe it offers some slightly better acting, but I'm not holding my breath thinking it'll ever touch the level of the original...

Wait, so you aren't exactly a fan of the acting in the original then? 😲
Yeah, it's a remake, but I heard a rumor it might be animated.

I wouldn't say the new " fog" was a total disaster, but it definitely lost that specific vibe from the original. Honestly, look at John Boorman's take on the Wizard of Oz—and he's actually a solid director—but how could that ever work? It just can't turn out right because they ditch the core elements of the original, and I have no clue what they're even trying to bring to the table differently...

Why even bother remaking a movie that’s actually good?🤷 From what I can tell, they seem way more obsessed with remaking hits than fixing flops—when honestly, it should be the exact opposite...
Sometimes a remake actually lands—maybe it updates the theme for today's audience and I'm fine with that—but most of the time? It just can't touch the original.

Maria James94 said:Then he wasn't much different from the politicians we deal with today (but that’s a whole other conversation).

This could be pretty interesting. I'm not sure if that rumor is still floating around about them telling the story in a completely new way.

What do you mean, a different way? Like that movie with the different version of King Arthur?

So, word is the story’s gonna spin it so Robin Hood comes off as the villain—while the Sheriff gets some actual sympathy... people have been talking about this nonstop.

King Arthur — what a total disaster...

Maria James94 said:The last decent Robin Hood flick I saw was the one starring Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman.

Costner was a total disaster in that one!

This could actually be interesting—not sure if that claim about it being a completely fresh take is still being pushed...

Cruella de Vil... yeah, whatever!

Sequels should really be for movies that were actually planned as franchises from the jump—otherwise, you just end up with total shit