Movies you LEAST want to see this year.

Delightfully Pessimistic

Simply put, what movies will you be avoiding this year.

I can name a few I'm not interested in

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (Well that was a given)
The Amazing Spider-Man (I liked the first 2 films and have no interest in seeing the origin story again)
Step Up 4 (Not my cup of tea)

Sleepy

Twilight: Breaking Dawn pt 2 I'll be dragged to alright

The Highlander re-make I'll end up seeing but dreading it already from everything I'm seeing in pre-production.

Tipsy McSwagger

Spiderman, can't beleve people will pay to see a remake of a 10 year old film. Plus the other 3 films are all rubbish.

krudler

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Spiderman, can't beleve people will pay to see a remake of a 10 year old film. Plus the other 3 films are all rubbish.

Its not a remake though, its a different origin story, its closer to the comics and well worth a watch.

Bullseye1

krudler wrote: »

Its not a remake though, its a different origin story, its closer to the comics and well worth a watch.

Agreed. I cannot understand why someone would not want to go and see this. Especially if they are SM fans.

splashthecash

In before someone says The Dark Knight Rises...."oh man, its the most overhyped film ever!"

Zzzzzz

Skerries

Skyfall - I just can't get into the latest incarnation of Bond

kumate_champ07

Sleepy wrote: »

Twilight: Breaking Dawn pt 2 I'll be dragged to alright

The Highlander re-make I'll end up seeing but dreading it already from everything I'm seeing in pre-production.

how? just say no

nyarlothothep

The Dark Knight Rises, man I do not like Christopher Nolan films at all, his style grates.

Corholio

Iron Man 3. The second one bored the hell out of me, and as good as Robert Downey Jr. is, the third one will need a really good villain for me to have any interest. The Downey factor seem to suffocate the films, at the expense of the villains.

ricero

The new bourne film. It ain't a real bourne film without Damon

Bullseye1

Corholio wrote: »

Iron Man 3. The second one bored the hell out of me, and as good as Robert Downey Jr. is, the third one will need a really good villain for me to have any interest. The Downey factor seem to suffocate the films, at the expense of the villains.

Its not out until 2013.:D

krudler

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The Dark Knight Rises, man I do not like Christopher Nolan films at all, his style grates.

what about his style grates? I like that he's one of the few directors that doesnt use lazy cgi and favours practical filmmaking over letting computers do all the work.

Bullseye1

Agreed plus he is a fan of IMAX which I would prefer over 3D any day.

krudler

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Agreed plus he is a fan of IMAX which I would prefer over 3D any day.

Same as, I'd love a true IMAX in this country, crazy we had an IMAX cinema before the format took off for feature movies like it is now. was all nature docs and stuff years ago and the odd theatrical release, now loads of movies are getting the treatment

Bullseye1

I know there are few movie makers shooting in true IMAX and digital is the future but I would still love a true IMAX theater for these movies. I was just reading that ASM is being released in over 200 IMAX screens in the US alone.

Corholio

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its not out until 2013.:D

Shows how bothered I am about it I guess :pac:

nyarlothothep

krudler wrote: »

what about his style grates? I like that he's one of the few directors that doesnt use lazy cgi and favours practical filmmaking over letting computers do all the work.

His overuse of music, his overuse montages combined with music which makes me feel like I'm watching a trailer, his repetition of the central theme of the film in the most laboured terms imaginable, despite his films being lauded as "intelligent" because of their intricate plots and 'darkness.' The fact that I have never identified with and have felt completely indifferent to every single one of his characters with the notable exception of the Ledger's Joker, and I attribute that to Ledger's performance. Inception for example, I couldn't care less about the characters, they were awful. And how many times did I hear variations on "planting a single idea in the mind of a person" replete with montage sequences and orchestral music.

I dislike his version of Batman entirely, I very much dislike this trend in Hollywood of "going back to basics," "realism" and "gritty darkness." Give me Burton's Batman any day over the travesty Nolan has unleashed that the masses are just lapping up because darkness somehow functions as a guarantee of artistic worth [not!] At least with Burton's Batman you had yes, darkness, but not laboured, humour, a better style, Prince, better actors, eg Keaton, Christopher Walken, Michelle Pfeiffer, ok the only exception is Ledger, he was amazing but everyone else is just forgettable. I hope one day, that this Nolan worship which is symptomatic of the current zeitgeist for darkness, doom mongering and medieval aesthetic sensibilities and which I have nothing to do with, will go away and that people will be more critical of his work, seeing it for what it is, darkness masquerading as worth with superficially intricate plots presenting litte substance. Someone made the point on here years ago, that his plots are complex, but his films are not as complex as say Shakespeare which have less complicated plots. Now I think that hits the proverbial nail on the head, themes, ideas, character relationships, THAT is what matters, not how many plot twists and turns you can fit into 2.30 hours with some cod philosophical message repeated every other fifteen minutes through the character mouthpieces, so that it comes across deep man when it really isn't. I am 100% correct on this.

For example I might say, you know what, Robocop is thematically deep, just as deep as Inception, but of course everyone would laugh at this assertion and that's because they're following the exact same thought processes as a high literature judging panel who will immediately dismiss a worthy sci fi novel purely because of the genre that it's in. They look at the purely superficial level of conventions, but strip away those conventions and you find that Robocop or even Total Recall are quite deep films, the former about having your identity taken away and corporatized, the nature of human consciousness, the question of the soul, is it possible to regain that etc the latter about the ontological question of reality, is Quaid really dreaming it all? which reflects the subjective nature of existential experience. And all this without ramming the idea home is the actual script for 2.30 hours, because Veerhoven followed the principle of show don't tell, don't make obvious, let the viewer find the layers of meaning within. Like Petrarch, I long for the days when a second artistic renaissance will begin, because right now we're in the dark ages.

splashthecash

nyarlothothep wrote: »

krudler wrote: »

what about his style grates? I like that he's one of the few directors that doesnt use lazy cgi and favours practical filmmaking over letting computers do all the work.

His overuse of music, his overuse montages combined with music which makes me feel like I'm watching a trailer, his repetition of the central theme of the film in the most laboured terms imaginable, despite his films being lauded as "intelligent" because of their intricate plots and 'darkness.' The fact that I have never identified with and have felt completely indifferent to every single one of his characters with the notable exception of the Ledger's Joker, and I attribute that to Ledger's performance. Inception for example, I couldn't care less about the characters, they were awful. And how many times did I hear variations on "planting a single idea in the mind of a person" replete with montage sequences and orchestral music.

I dislike his version of Batman entirely, I very much dislike this trend in Hollywood of "going back to basics," "realism" and "gritty darkness." Give me Burton's Batman any day over the travesty Nolan has unleashed that the masses are just lapping up because darkness somehow functions as a guarantee of artistic worth [not!] At least with Burton's Batman you had yes, darkness, but not laboured, humour, a better style, Prince, better actors, eg Keaton, Christopher Walken, Michelle Pfeiffer, ok the only exception is Ledger, he was amazing but everyone else is just forgettable. I hope one day, that this Nolan worship which is symptomatic of the current zeitgeist for darkness, doom mongering and medieval aesthetic sensibilities and which I have nothing to do with, will go away and that people will be more critical of his work, seeing it for what it is, darkness masquerading as worth with superficially intricate plots presenting litte substance. Someone made the point on here years ago, that his plots are complex, but his films are not as complex as say Shakespeare which have less complicated plots. Now I think that hits the proverbial nail on the head, themes, ideas, character relationships, THAT is what matters, not how many plot twists and turns you can fit into 2.30 hours with some cod philosophical message repeated every other fifteen minutes through the character mouthpieces, so that it comes across deep man when it really isn't. I am 100% correct on this.

For example I might say, you know what, Robocop is thematically deep, just as deep as Inception, but of course everyone would laugh at this assertion and that's because they're following the exact same thought processes as a high literature judging panel who will immediately dismiss a worthy sci fi novel purely because of the genre that it's in. They look at the purely superficial level of conventions, but strip away those conventions and you find that Robocop or even Total Recall are quite deep films, the former about having your identity taken away and corporatized, the nature of human consciousness, the question of the soul, is it possible to regain that etc the latter about the ontological question of reality, is Quaid really dreaming it all? which reflects the subjective nature of existential experience. And all this without ramming the idea home is the actual script for 2.30 hours, because Veerhoven followed the principle of show don't tell, don't make obvious, let the viewer find the layers of meaning within. Like Petrarch, I long for the days when a second artistic renaissance will begin, because right now we're in the dark ages.

But what about the big, noisy explosions? They're cool right?

krudler

nyarlothothep wrote: »

His overuse of music, his overuse montages combined with music which makes me feel like I'm watching a trailer, his repetition of the central theme of the film in the most laboured terms imaginable, despite his films being lauded as "intelligent" because of their intricate plots and 'darkness.' The fact that I have never identified with and have felt completely indifferent to every single one of his characters with the notable exception of the Ledger's Joker, and I attribute that to Ledger's performance. Inception for example, I couldn't care less about the characters, they were awful. And how many times did I hear variations on "planting a single idea in the mind of a person" replete with montage sequences and orchestral music.

I dislike his version of Batman entirely, I very much dislike this trend in Hollywood of "going back to basics," "realism" and "gritty darkness." Give me Burton's Batman any day over the travesty Nolan has unleashed that the masses are just lapping up because darkness somehow functions as a guarantee of artistic worth [not!] At least with Burton's Batman you had yes, darkness, but not laboured, humour, a better style, Prince, better actors, eg Keaton, Christopher Walken, Michelle Pfeiffer, ok the only exception is Ledger, he was amazing but everyone else is just forgettable. I hope one day, that this Nolan worship which is symptomatic of the current zeitgeist for darkness, doom mongering and medieval aesthetic sensibilities and which I have nothing to do with, will go away and that people will be more critical of his work, seeing it for what it is, darkness masquerading as worth with superficially intricate plots presenting litte substance. Someone made the point on here years ago, that his plots are complex, but his films are not as complex as say Shakespeare which have less complicated plots. Now I think that hits the proverbial nail on the head, themes, ideas, character relationships, THAT is what matters, not how many plot twists and turns you can fit into 2.30 hours with some cod philosophical message repeated every other fifteen minutes through the character mouthpieces, so that it comes across deep man when it really isn't. I am 100% correct on this.

For example I might say, you know what, Robocop is thematically deep, just as deep as Inception, but of course everyone would laugh at this assertion and that's because they're following the exact same thought processes as a high literature judging panel who will immediately dismiss a worthy sci fi novel purely because of the genre that it's in. They look at the purely superficial level of conventions, but strip away those conventions and you find that Robocop or even Total Recall are quite deep films, the former about having your identity taken away and corporatized, the nature of human consciousness, the question of the soul, is it possible to regain that etc the latter about the ontological question of reality, is Quaid really dreaming it all? which reflects the subjective nature of existential experience. And all this without ramming the idea home is the actual script for 2.30 hours, because Veerhoven followed the principle of show don't tell, don't make obvious, let the viewer find the layers of meaning within. Like Petrarch, I long for the days when a second artistic renaissance will begin, because right now we're in the dark ages.

I do agree that subtlety isnt his strong point, most of Inceptions dialogue is exposition from the characters telling us just whats going on, I never understood why people find it so hard to follow, literally everything is explained to you as the film progresses.

I do like him as a director though, nowt wrong with having a different vision of Batman, Burtons ones are great too and there's room for different interpretations.

good to see love for Robocop, I keep telling people Starship Troopers is a great political film but they dont believe me :pac:

splashthecash

krudler wrote: »

good to see love for Robocop, I keep telling people Starship Troopers is a great political film but they dont believe me :pac:

+1 for Robocop

Tipsy McSwagger

krudler wrote: »

Its not a remake though, its a different origin story, its closer to the comics and well worth a watch.

I'll download it when it's available, the trilogy was so terrible it has put me off though.

Sleepy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I dislike his version of Batman entirely, I very much dislike this trend in Hollywood of "going back to basics," "realism" and "gritty darkness."

It appeals to the part of us that agree with Kevin Smith:

[With a lifetime of training, you could be Batman. You'd need an assload of bank for the cool cave and the car, but you could do it if you were really committed.

Of course, none of us have the cash or the commitment it would take but we love the idea that it is, at least technically, possible.

krudler

Sleepy wrote: »

It appeals to the part of us that agree with Kevin Smith:

Of course, none of us have the cash or the commitment it would take but we love the idea that it is, at least technically, possible.

if Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark have shown us anything its that the greatest superpower of them all is money :pac: