MovieChat Forums > SisterSuzy101
SisterSuzy101 (362)
Posts
Did this really deserve to win Razzie for Worst Picture?
Realistically speaking, are Kevin's family really responsible for him ending up in NY?
A misfire from Nolan?
Even if they'd gone with the original ending...
The Definitive, if Unsurprising, Ranking of the Jaws Movies
On my most recent rewatch, I noticed something...
Transformers (2007) was better
Why does this movie get flak for the CGI?
WTF Janis!?
The desk clerk...
View all posts >
Replies
I mentioned this on another thread a while back:
<blockquote> I feel this movie falls into the trap that many other live-action adaptations of cartoons do - be over-reliant on the live-action transition as a gimmick, rather than focus on good storytelling, characters, and humor.
One major difference though, is that while other adaptations of this type tend to cater only to children (and real little children at that) and pander to them with scatological humor, cheap slapstick, and other forms of stupidity (Scooby Doo, Inspector Gadget etc.), The Flintstones goes into the complete opposite direction, focusses a bit too much on the adult-orientated themes that it's nearly inaccessible to children and families.
I mean, do kids really care that much about office politics, extramarital affairs, financial problems, mother-in-law dramas, or embezzlement? Not really. Sure, one could argue that the sets, costumes, and puppets may be entertaining, but they serve only as gimmicks (see above) which eventually wear off.
I feel like The Flintstones movie could've been a good adventure story, maybe with some coming-of-age elements and/or conflict resolutions, like Toy Story or A Goofy Movie (both 1995). I mean, in a fantasy prehistoric setting, the possibilities are beyond numerous. But no, instead the writers chose the most dullest route imaginable.</blockquote>
Misguided and delusional?
Yeah, might wanna take a good look at yourself there.
And you’re clearly stalking, made so by your lack of other contribution to this particular board other than to come slam me without a proper rebuttal.
Attention seeking, are we?
As previously said, find yourself a hobby!
And be careful on that high horse, yeah? It’s a long way down…
Yeah, I stopped responding because that pathetic debate was going round in circles, and in end proved to be nothing but a string of straw men arguments from you.
I’ve got better things to do with my time.
And then what, you start stalking me on these boards? And even PM’d me about me not responding to your last post?
I thought your name looked familiar.
Get a hobby, man!
On the contrary, I know EXACTLY what I’m talking about.
You don’t have any counter arguments, so you have to resort to lazy, butthurt put downs!
To this day, I still don’t get why so many fans complain about Joyce’s death.
Yes, she was innocent and her death was tragic, but isn’t that the point? It’s symbolic of Bobby’s deception and incompetence - once shrouded by his hero façade and now revealed.
And come on!! Let’s not make out that Jigsaw’s games, whether constructed by John, Hoffman or Amanda, were all about fairness until this point!
Saw 3D had many problems, but this wasn’t one of them as I’m concerned.
The general consensus is that the first Saw is the best but I chalk that down to the whole “first is always the best” doctrine that way too many people will just blindly accept without question.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s BY FAR the most overrated!!!
OK, I somewhat respect it for being the introduction to such an iconic horror franchise, but that’s as far as it really goes.
Simply put, the pacing is tedious, the premise is dull and is not as original and many proclaim it to be (basically a Se7en rip-off), and the main characters and performances aren’t anything special (sorry Adam and Dr. Gordon fans).
Then there are the so-called “amazing twists” that are actually really stupid:
Like, why would the mastermind behind the whole thing pretend to be a corpse in the bathroom? John gains literally nothing from it at all that he wouldn't get from just watching the security camera. Why would he need to be there in the room with them pretending to be a corpse? And also, wouldn't it be incredibly easy for them to tell that he's not dead? Even if he took some muscle relaxant (like Saw III retconned in), he'd still need to, you know... breath.
And believe it or not, you move slightly when you breathe. No way two people in very close proximity to him, one of which is literally an experienced doctor, wouldn't be able to tell he's not dead.
And then there’s the whole twist with Zep which was f’ing stupid too.
Like, he's clearly showing sadistic pleasure when terrorising Gordon's family and watching the game through the monitors, yet we're expected to believe that he's simply following the rules for his survival?
On top of that, Zep’s just an all-round lame villain - he’s not interesting nor intimidating, just flat-out annoying!
Now, I’m a fan of the Saw series as a whole, with Saw II being the film that solidified my liking for said series.
Saw II had a better premise, better pacing, better introduction to the iconic villain, John Kramer (AKA Jigsaw), and a much better twist - one that at least makes sense within the context of the narrative and is sufficiently foreshadowed while still being a surprise.
I take it you haven't seen any of the other movies I mentioned then? They literally make ROTF look Oscar-worthy in comparison.
The best example being X-Men Origins: Wolverine, giving that it's also a big-budget action blockbuster from a bankable franchise.
Trite, boring origin story with sloppily filmed action sequences and hideous special effects (at least ROTF didn't have bad CGI) - and all for a budget of 150 million? It was so bad that it fell well below expectations at the box office, dismissed by fans, and all future X-Men movies ignored it entirely.
If anything, that movie should've swept most of the Razzies that year.
Honestly, the traps in this movie are less slapstick and more outright dangerous, with Kevin seemingly out to maim the sticky bandits rather than fend them off.
The old west setting in Part III, while not 100% accurate/realistic, still felt much more 'organic' than the tacky and gimmicky depiction of the "future" in Part II.
Honestly, the first act of Part II felt way too parody-esque, which I could forgive if that was intentional but am not convinced given that the rest of the film goes down the hyper-serious route.
Griff is supposed to be a more threatening version of Biff, but just comes off as OTT and annoying with obvious overacting on Tom Wilson's part (Buford was a much better antagonist). All the costumes and makeup added to 'age' the characters look hideous in retrospect - and don't even get me started on MJ playing his future daughter! SMH.
<blockquote>Utterly absurd defence of what you know is a gaping plot hole in the first film.</blockquote>
Not absurd at all. You know there's a difference between a plot point that directly contradicts another (i.e. a plot hole) and something simply isn't elaborately explained, right?
Seriously, this:
<blockquote>like why aren’t George and Lorraine gobsmacked that their son Marty looks and sounds identical to that amazing, mysterious guy who appeared to them in 1955 called ‘Marty’??</blockquote>
Cannot be compared to this:
<blockquote>The scene where Doc tells Marty that travelling into the future from the altered present to stop Biff stealing the time machine would be impossible, even though previously Biff was able to return to the seemingly unaltered future after completing his mission.</blockquote>
<blockquote>the extremes of light and dark in II are clearly less extreme than BTTF’s blend of sweet romantic comedy with mother-son incest, incestuous sexual molestation</blockquote>
No, they are not. Part II bounces from a campy parody-esque first act to hyper-dark and largely charmless second-third act that takes itself too seriously, as if it doesn't know what it really wants to be. And it's made worse with the obvious narrative inconsistencies (already mentioned).
And I'm sorry, but you lost me when you argued that Part I included mother-son incest. Young and naïve Lorraine was merely attracted to Marty whom she didn't know was her future son, which not only made him uncomfortable but also added a barrier to her falling for George and therefore putting his existence at steak.
View all replies >