Disappointing Movies With Good Reviews (Iron Man 3)

[redknightalex]

Also the first Star Trek movie.

Now hang on, do you mean the first Star Trek movie, or the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie? Two very different things, and The Motion Picture is actually generally regarded pretty poorly among fans and critics (though I like it myself - I also like The Next Generation films, which apparently makes me some sort of heretic or something).

My apologies, I meant the new J.J. Abrams films. I can't stand them but will put myself in a theater with friends just to say I've seen it...and then be mad at it. I also loved the TNG movies as well (minus Insurrection) so there's that. The new Abrams movies just don't feel Star Trek to me; I don't mind internal/external conflict but we're talking all out war and death and destruction with fancy lens flares. That's not what ST is about to me, nor what I grew up with. Haters can hate me for it for all I care.

I'll have to add my hat to the tally for The Avengers, though. It was a fun action movie and all, but the amount of love that got lavished all over it as some sort of "genre changer" and "bringing comic-book continuity to the big screen" just really puts me off. I've said it before and I'll say it again, comic-book continuity is one of the biggest reasons I don't read comics. If they bring that into superhero movies, I'm going to stop watching them.

Completely with you on this (at least regarding the movies). Considering that the actors who play the characters can't stay in their respective roles forever (just look at the Hulk), we're more the likely going to run into the same continuity issues as the books do. But it's a lucrative business right now for Marvel so I doubt we'll see the end of the movies before we see continuity issues.

 

[The Feast]

I know there's a sentence that said "It's the movie it deserved but not what it needed right now", which I'm referring to TDR, but it just feel so unsatisfied from the moment they show how Bruce Wayne acted like a loser in the beginning until the end. I don't even start to recall him as Batman in the third movie because of how there's no sense of smart role that's been given to him when compared to TDK, it's just beating people and shooting with new flying vehicle. I want the batmobile.

Christopher Nolan really done well with his other movies such as Inception and The Prestige but I feel like it's better if I directed The Dark Knight Rises and improve the movie to be much better. I never feel like that in any other movies.

To be honest, I don't think the reviewers really gave TDR a solid recommendation even if there's an exception like the YouTubers, Jeremy Jahns(which I kinda like his review). It received a positive review because it is the end of the best Batman trilogy, that's all.

 

[shrekfan246]

Also the first Star Trek movie.

Now hang on, do you mean the first Star Trek movie, or the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie? Two very different things, and The Motion Picture is actually generally regarded pretty poorly among fans and critics (though I like it myself - I also like The Next Generation films, which apparently makes me some sort of heretic or something).

My apologies, I meant the new J.J. Abrams films. I can't stand them but will put myself in a theater with friends just to say I've seen it...and then be mad at it. I also loved the TNG movies as well (minus Insurrection) so there's that. The new Abrams movies just don't feel Star Trek to me; I don't mind internal/external conflict but we're talking all out war and death and destruction with fancy lens flares. That's not what ST is about to me, nor what I grew up with. Haters can hate me for it for all I care.

Yeah, I thought Abrams' Star Trek was... a decent if stupid action film, but not really Star Trek. Sure, all of the films have their share of stupidity (Space whales, anyone?), but they tended to stick to more philosophical themes and less explosions.

I'll have to add my hat to the tally for The Avengers, though. It was a fun action movie and all, but the amount of love that got lavished all over it as some sort of "genre changer" and "bringing comic-book continuity to the big screen" just really puts me off. I've said it before and I'll say it again, comic-book continuity is one of the biggest reasons I don't read comics. If they bring that into superhero movies, I'm going to stop watching them.

Completely with you on this (at least regarding the movies). Considering that the actors who play the characters can't stay in their respective roles forever (just look at the Hulk), we're more the likely going to run into the same continuity issues as the books do. But it's a lucrative business right now for Marvel so I doubt we'll see the end of the movies before we see continuity issues.

I'd love to see Marvel/Disney get their hands on the Spider-Man license again and try adding him to the Avengersverse, just to see them squirm their way into explaining that whole mess.

 

[Ace Morologist]

I was underwhelmed by The Avengers. All the Mark Ruffalo/Hulk scenes were fun to watch, and Robert Downey Jr. is always fun to watch when you let him do his thing, but the rest of the movie was pretty weak. Part of that stems from disappointed expectations, though. I really wanted Captain America to be awesome and inspiring and Hawkeye to be hilarious and cool. Hawkeye spends 2/3s of the movie as a no-personality brainwashed bad guy, though, and nobody could figure out much that was truly inspiring or awesome for Captain America to do. So maybe my under... whelmed-ment (?) is on me and not the filmmakers.

And no force on earth is going to convince me that The Dark Knight Rises was a good movie. Or that Batman Begins was.

--Morology!

 

[4RM3D]

Well, reviews are just opinions and critics are just people who watch movies a lot when you boil it all down. There's no reason why a critic's opinion should be more important the your own; in fact, it's yours that matters most to you.

It has to do with consistency. I know most game reviews are skewed. So the game scores (like meta critic) don't mean a thing to me. I'll make up my own mind. However that is not entirely the case with Hollywood movies. Because I know most critics actually just speak their mind and have no problem giving a negative review. As such movies have a far lower average and a more accurate score than games.

Basically this means that if I want to see a movie, nothing is stopping me from seeing it. Even if the movie is getting poor reviews, I am still going to see it. But if I am expecting a dumb action-flick and suddenly the critics goes wild with a +90% score, I am kinda curious as to why that movie is getting such high ratings. Meaning I will also see that movie.

Yes, my opinion matters most to me. But I am still using critics to get an expectation of the movie I am about to see.

Yeah, I thought Abrams' Star Trek was... a decent if stupid action film, but not really Star Trek. Sure, all of the films have their share of stupidity (Space whales, anyone?), but they tended to stick to more philosophical themes and less explosions.

The new Star Trek movie (and most blockbusters in general) require a fair amount of action and explosion to keep the audience busy. Not many people want a movie with 2 hours of techno-babble (talk). I was never a huge fan of Star Trek. I did watch it, but the techno-babble tends to get silly. However there are also other aspects, like the powerplay Captain Picard is playing in some episodes. Those were awesome. Anyhow, the new Star Trek movie was amusing and even fresh. But it wasn't really Star Trek. Not that I was expecting it to be.

Skyfall was excellent because it was the first Bond movie that actually addressed the cultural relevance of Bond, and succesfully managed to bring him into the twenty-first century. It dealt with serious issues of age and whether or not an organization like MI6 is compltely fucking antiqauted

True, that was handled pretty well. It was also something that set the movie apart from other Bond movies.

BECAUSE. OPINIONS. I mean, is that concept just so shocking to people?

The concept of opinions? No... The actual opinion, in this case? Yes. The Hunger Games is so damn flawed, it's almost a fact and no longer an opinion. I was disappointed in the critics for not spotting the obvious. Read my first paragraph in this reply/post about what I think of (movie) critics.

Like what? And don't give me crap like: "why didn't Bond stop that assassin before he killed that art-buyer?"

I am trying my best to forget the movie, so my memory is getting a little foggy. A few things I do remember:
- The specialty bullet that only 3 person on the planet use that happens to be known by the agency = lame.
- The hacking scene is stupid; it doesn't work like that.
- The whole Island arc doesn't work.
There were a few other things, but I can't recall them exactly.

 

[NavyJames]

The bad guy could have been fleshed out more. I didn't see his motivation. Also, the plot is over-the-top and nonsensical at some points (more than normal).

Thank you, OP. I was extremely disappointed with Iron Man 3, for a lot of reasons. But whereas with other disappointing films, like The Amazing Spider Man, I had low or no expectations going in, with Iron Man 3, I was really stoked. The trailers had me excited to see the end result. By the time the film ended, I kind of ended up feeling cheated. Certainly I annoyed the hell out of my girlfriend and all my friends (who all loved it) with my complaining, but the feeling of being let down was quite visceral and I couldn't help it.

Certainly, I realise I'm in the minority on this (it currently has an 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes), so I'm basically just keeping my opinions to myself now around my friends, but I certainly won't watch that film again.

 

[Gecko clown]

I've not seen Iron Man 3 but I can speak on the other ones.

Skyfall was a good film, It felt like if a Connery era Bond film got the production values of a modern blockbuster this is what it would be. Also pointing out plot holes in a Bond film at this point is like asking why Batman villains don't just shoot Batman.

DKR was pretty good, not on par with the other two but decent. The plot was nonsensical and the villain was dull but it wasn't bad. There was enough Batman for me to get through it.

Now the Hunger Games is a different story. I despise that film, most likely because I wanted to like it so much. A slightly post apocalyptic, sci-fi film with an emphasis on character that spends half of its running time taking the piss of reality TV with a big ol' action sequence at the end? Count me in.

Too bad the characters were boring, large elements of the film were left unexplained, the 'satire' was comparable to Harry Hill's TV Burp and the message was all over the place.

"OK," I thought to myself, "At least the actual Hunger Games will be cool." But shaky-cam came and dashed my hopes upon the ground once again. There was no violence, I don't even want blood, I just want evidence that these guys are fighting and not just playing tig. And don't give me that bullshit about trying to maintain a 12a rating. Lord of the Rings is a twelve and people get their heads cut off in that film.

 

[Gecko clown]

I actually saw quite a few negative reviews for The Hunger Games, but yeah the positive reviews outweighed the (accurate) negative reviews.

I found Looper to be a terrible movie. The plot was so completely nonsensical and filled with holes that it completely ruined the movie for me. Worst part is that many of the reviewers honestly didn't notice how nonsensical it was and said things to the effect of "It's completely free of plot holes and wraps everything up perfectly!". NO.

Could you point out these plot holes cus I have watched this film 10 times looking for plot holes that people keep referring to and have not found one. I do kind of find it entertaining that people who watch the film once think they have a better grasp of the script than the writer/director who spent 12 years gathering ideas for, and writing the script.

 

[4RM3D]

Could you point out these plot holes cus I have watched this film 10 times looking for plot holes that people keep referring to and have not found one. I do kind of find it entertaining that people who watch the film once think they have a better grasp of the script than the writer/director who spent 12 years gathering ideas for, and writing the script.

Time travel is a tricky thing because it's easy to get out of hand and get lost in, well, in time. I generally dislike time travel movies because all those movies seem to use time travel as an excuse; an easy plot device without actually exploring the possibilities. However Looper has an interesting take on things. And within the confines of the movie it works, because it isn't really about time travel. Instead it's about meeting your future self and the consequences it brings. The movie handled that pretty well.

Alright, having said that, back to time travel. Basically if you could time travel, you would have near unlimited possibilities and can (ab)use the shit out of it. It can be as simple as a lottery ticket (I like Back to the Future). But no, lets send people to the past to be disposed of. That is a great use for time travel.

snip

Did it ever occur to you that the "dumb action movie" is getting rave reviews because a) it's not dumb, and b) it's excellently made? It doesn't matter that Die Hard had nothing insightful to say, it was brilliant regardless.

Die Hard 1 is not a dumb action flick. Movies can set themselves apart by doing something special. It could be the story, the style, the characters. Even if a movie is easy to understand, that doesn't mean it's a dumb movie. Just to clarify things.

Lets not talk about The Hunger Games again... No, I'll pick Batman 3 this time. The movie is just window dressing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_dressing]. It looks 'shiny', it feels expensive, but at its core it is just hollow.

I also didn't like The Hunger Games, I thought it was a thoroughly okay film, but it's not a travesty on the level of The Room or Birdemic, so please stop treating it as such. You didn't like it? Fine. But don't act your opinion is "obvious." That's so arrogant it's obscene.

I didn't say my opinion is obvious. I said The Hunger Games is so faulty it's almost a fact. I was talking about a very specific situation. Of course in reality it can never be a fact. Still, the arguments can be based on facts. But it's all semantics. Saying an action scene is boring is difficult to put down as fact. Saying an action scene is cheap(looking) is easier to prove. You just need a point of reference. And that is the problem. Because the point of reference is an opinion.

And none of the examples you offered are plot-holes. There's nothing wrong with the special bullet, you can't expect a film series like 007 to adhere to reality so don't get your panties in a twist about the hacking bit,and simply saying the island arc doesn't work isn't good enough I'm afraid.

Yeah, I can't have a meaningful discussion about this, when I only remember half of it.

 

[Shocksplicer]

I actually saw quite a few negative reviews for The Hunger Games, but yeah the positive reviews outweighed the (accurate) negative reviews.

I found Looper to be a terrible movie. The plot was so completely nonsensical and filled with holes that it completely ruined the movie for me. Worst part is that many of the reviewers honestly didn't notice how nonsensical it was and said things to the effect of "It's completely free of plot holes and wraps everything up perfectly!". NO.

Could you point out these plot holes cus I have watched this film 10 times looking for plot holes that people keep referring to and have not found one. I do kind of find it entertaining that people who watch the film once think they have a better grasp of the script than the writer/director who spent 12 years gathering ideas for, and writing the script.

There's no need to be an arsehole...

Spoiler

If Cid becomes The Rainmaker because Future Joe killed his Mum, how exactly does The Rainmaker exist in Future Joe's timeline, in which a Future Joe never came back in time and killed his Mum?

There you go. I am yet to hear a single explanation for this that wasn't nonsensical or based entirely on assumptions and stupid leaps in logic.