MovieChat Forums > Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles (2001) Discussion > Ok, this was NOT as bad as it's made out...

Ok, this was NOT as bad as it's made out to be


How jaded ARE viewers and critics now? They maintained the same style, the same feel, the same sort of fish out of water humor in this that made the first two so enjoyable to so many people, and they're BERATED for it?

Wow people really need to retract the proverbial sticks from their @sses, and learn to ENJOY movies the way they USED to be made. So it was an 80's style movie in the 2000's, SO WHAT? That's kind of the POINT- the character himself is an analogue guy in a digital age, and the film reflects that idea. God, every movie since the 90's has HAD to have some explosions or some CRAAAAZY plot twist for people to admit that they were enjoyable.

Jeeze, I mean, have you SEEN other movies? This is far from deserving a what, 4.7? That's what movies that go straight to DVD and feature all the acting talent of the porn world get. Terminator Salvation, widely credited as one of the worst films (by most people) to come out in YEARS, has a much higher score.

You know what? Whatever. People have clearly lost all ability to just have a good time watching a movie and forget all the pre-conditioned expectations they've been jam packed with since the early 90's. I was too little to even remember the first one when it came out, but even I can appreciate what they were trying to do here. Go watch some Uwe Boll movies and come back to this, you'll swear it should have gotten an Oscar. I hate people so much sometimes. So jaded. So brain dead. No explosions and boobs and stupid needless Shamalan plot twists and they claim it's the worst film ever. A little confused- you see, THIS is what it looks like when people come together, have a good time, and make a movie for the FANS. I know it's rare, but now you know.



(signature)Any Paul Hogan fans, please sign my Crocodile Dundee IV petition on his imdb page!

reply

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I refused to watch this movie back in 2001 due to the bad press.

I've just watched it, and found it surpisingly entertaining. Actually I've enjoyed it more than part two. I can see the second part was a better done movie on its own (in general filmmaking sense), but this third one had a strong "back to the roots"-feeling. Some says it's just a rehash, but I disagree. The jokes in this (which the movie heavily relied on) were still felt fresh.

reply

How jaded ARE viewers and critics now? They maintained the same style, the same feel, the same sort of fish out of water humor in this that made the first two so enjoyable to so many people, and they're BERATED for it?


Maybe because if you're going to do exactly the same thing, then people are asking 'why repeat yourself, if not for cash alone'?! At least the first sequel was a twist on the original because it goes back to Mick's natural environment; this however was exactly the same theme as the first time round, when the two American cities they've used aren't different enough from one another to make a proper distinction... So what?!






Love United. Hate Glazers.

reply

[deleted]

Ya gotta love guys who talk so tough on anonymous message boards.

reply

I remember having the same feeling when I saw the poorly made trailers back in 2001.

I didn't actually pick it up until I saw it in the bargain bin for 5/$20.

Watching it, reminded me a lot of my fondness for the 80's comedies, and how great Dundee was.

reply