The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsName some movies you think are underrated, or unfairly maligned...
...OK. I'll begin. I don't care what anyone says, I like "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves". *Deep sigh*. There. I'm out of the closet. It looks beautiful, has a gorgeous score, is a good piece of storytelling with a smooth rhythm to the action, and has an over-the-top, almost Pythonesque performance by Alan Rickman that stands out from the rest of the film, but in a way that is cool and not annoying. And I don't give a damn about Costner's American accent. The actual people of the 12th century didn't sound any more like modern Englishmen and women than they did like Americans. The film has been over-edited--I'd like to have seen more of the Geraldine McEwan character, whose role was drastically cut. But while it isn't as good--obviously--as the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, it's still a worthy film.
OK--what are your guilty pleasures?
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Great Pacino, Sean Penn hilarious as Davey Kleinfeld, the coked-up lawyer, a cheesy love story that you root for anyway, young John Leguizamo, good action-driven plot and lots of great New York atmosphere.
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,446 posts)there are actually eight versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(disambiguation)
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)luvMIdog
(2,533 posts)I love this movie. It has very few spoken words. I'm also not usually a fan of movies about animals, but this is my favorite movie.
from wikipedia:
The Bear (known as L'Ours in its original release) is a 1988 French family film directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud and released by TriStar Pictures. Adapted from the novel The Grizzly King (1916) by American author James Oliver Curwood, the screenplay was written by Gérard Brach. Set in late 19th-century British Columbia, Canada, the film tells the story of an orphaned bear cub who befriends an adult male grizzly as hunters pursue them through the wild. Several of the themes explored in the story include orphanhood, peril and protection, and mercy toward and on the behalf of a reformed hunter.
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)It was a flop for the Coens, but I loved it.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,190 posts)"You know, for kids!"
Paladin
(28,257 posts)neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)Paladin
(28,257 posts)Including me---hell, I want to see it again. Thanks for posting.
Upthevibe
(8,051 posts)I'll seek it out! Some of their movies are my favorites of all time!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It was interesting, I was a bit star struck!
cos dem
(903 posts)Not sure why people don't like it. Granted, it's not Big Lebowski or Fargo, but it's pretty funny in the dark humorous way that Coen's are famous for. Seeing Brad Pitt playing a dumb guy always brings a smile.
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)raging moderate
(4,305 posts)Judy Holliday.
Upthevibe
(8,051 posts)Bette Davis in All About Eve and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Blvd.! Wow....Judy Holliday was great in a great movie...
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)I thought it was great. Others didn't.
flying rabbit
(4,634 posts)... guilty pleasure.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)TlalocW
(15,382 posts)Part of what turned critics off was that modern music played throughout the movie so you would have a medieval crowd stomping and clapping along to Queen's, "Another One Bites the Dust," or nobles dancing to David Bowie. But there were some good performances put in by Alan Tudyk (who makes me laugh in a lot of his movies), Paul Bettany as Chaucer, and Laura Fraser as Kate, a blacksmith that has trouble finding business because she's female (developed a crush on her).
TlalocW
sarge43
(28,941 posts)What music would have been appropriate? We know a lot about medieval church music, very little about the "pop" music. As writer/director Helgeland pointed out, Queen, Bowie, AC/DC would be the kind of music Will, Roland and Wat would have listened to. They were street kids using a competitive sport to get out from under.
TlalocW
(15,382 posts)The point of using modern music was to show that people back then got into their music as much as we do now.
Not sure that came across, but what the heck.
TlalocW
cos dem
(903 posts)It's meant to be fun. I didn't see the rock and roll soundtrack any more out of place than in Guardians of the Galaxy.
Initech
(100,075 posts)Tom Cruise as a hit man and Jamie Foxx as his unwitting cab driver. Amazing action sequences and may be one of Tom Cruise's best performances.
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)SharonAnn
(13,773 posts)From IMDB - "Comedy subtly dealing with moral issues such as racial bigotry, corporate greed, American belief of societal superiority and hypocrisy. "
It's a guilty pleasure of mine. There's just something(s) about it that I love.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Unmatched in 'fantasy adventure' quality until 'Lord of the Rings' started!
It has a cult following, though!
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)Coventina
(27,120 posts)The fight and chase scenes are way too long and don't advance the plot enough to warrant their length.
However, overall I think it's a really interesting psychological study of the two characters and how they view their missions as heroes.
It is a very dark and scary movie, so I think DC made a mistake in marketing it as a "summer blockbuster". It's really not that kind of movie at all.
And, I LIKE Ben Affleck as Batman/Bruce Wayne. He is a much more warm and engaging presence than Christian Bale was. Maybe the Bale performance is more true to the character, but Affleck is much more my idea of Bruce Wayne.
Plus, the introduction of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman!!!!
Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)The problem is that it got chopped and edited into a complete mess, which made some of the key scenes (including the big event at the end), seem unearned. Plus, Snyder's obsession with dark, colorless scenes, with tons of brooding staring, got old for me in a hurry.
But, yes, I do agree that there was a good movie somewhere in it.
Floyd R. Turbo
(26,546 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,340 posts)On the way home, I drove VERY CAREFULLY! Don't hit a pothole!
Floyd R. Turbo
(26,546 posts)skypilot
(8,854 posts)I don't want to give anything away for anyone who hasn't seen it but there is a certain scene where a lot of people think the movie should have ended. I loved the "third act" which some think ruined the movie. I loved the movie overall.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)there is a way for us to evolve and survive "everything"!
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Right from the get-go, the premise is just awful. The idea of bringing an android 8-year-old into a home is just too horrible to contemplate. I realize the situation in the movie was engineered to bring the android into the home, but activating it? For anyone who can think a week into the future, why in the world would you?
A year from now, that android is going to be an 8-year-old boy. Ten years from now, hell be . . . 8 years old. Twenty years from now? Same thing. Hell never age, hell never hit puberty, he wont mature and graduate high school, learn to drive, go to college, get married, or anything a normal kid would grow into. Why would you invite this monster into your home?
When youre 62 years old and you stub your toe on the coffee table, youll be hopping toward the medicine chest when that android proudly tries to show you entry number 82,768 in a never-ending series of childish drawings of Mommy and Me and get out of my way, you little shit!
AI: No. Just no.
skypilot
(8,854 posts)...of using androids of any age to fill some personal need was part of what the movie was about. Yes, the child android would never age but in the society being depicted he was also considered disposable even though he was imbued with (or programmed to have) human emotions.
Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)I agree with many of the arguments against it, particularly the convoluted plot, but people forget that the point of the movie was to introduce a looming conflict in an otherwise peaceful galaxy.
I always said that the key movie was the second prequel, so when Attack of the Clones wound up being pure garbage, I stopped defending Phantom Menace.
byronius
(7,394 posts)But I read the book. So maybe that's why.
I think it's an important film.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)One of the big knocks on Ishtar was how much it cost, something close to $50 million in an era when that was a hell of a lot of money for a studio to sink into a project. I saw it second run and enjoyed it, then I saw a review that thought Ishtar was okay, and basically said, "Does Ishtar have $50 million worth of laughs? No, but what do you care, it's not your money."
Kleveland
(1,257 posts)H.G. Wells
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028358/
I am a fan of older timeless movies like this.
A great commentary on human nature, and society at large.
And of course, there is also Citizen Kane.
Both are relevant in this day and age.
Sorry, black and white if you can handle it!
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)Bayard
(22,072 posts)Johnny Depp does amazing Charlie Chaplin routines.
jpak
(41,758 posts)series
egduj
(805 posts)Aristus
(66,366 posts)Too often, I see it criticized as 'mediocre sci-fi'. I think it is vastly underrated, although it's reputation has benefited from the disastrously awful early 2000's remake.
Even without the bad and unnecessary re-make, the original Rollerball is an excellent film. I won't go into all of its merits here. Suffice it to say that it is definitely unfairly maligned.