Movie Defense Force: Wild Wild West
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is one of those MDFs where my initial reaction was, "This needed defending?"
Who are these people who hate fun movies?
Who are these people who hate fun movies?
Sorry Jim, But no..... Some films are just completely indefensible..... I was a little kid when I saw this in theaters, I was into over the top action and camp, and things not making sense ( I didn't know how things worked back then) and I still didn't like it..... I came out of a theater as a little kid disappointed with an action flick... That doesn't happen. But it did.
I am now required by law to present the video in question:Uratoh said:
I like this movie. It is stupid, yes, but come on, giant robot spider.
Haha, yes! I've always enjoyed this movie, glad to see it defended. It's fun and entertaining as hell.
Also, do you take suggestions? If so, I suggest Batman and Robin. The near-universally hated one. I think it's absolutely fantastic and would also love to see that one defended.
Also, do you take suggestions? If so, I suggest Batman and Robin. The near-universally hated one. I think it's absolutely fantastic and would also love to see that one defended.
I never understood the hate either. If forced at gunpoint to name my favorite movie, Wild Wild West would be my answer.
Well, that was news to me. I never knew this was seen as a "bad" movie. I thought it was pretty good, and so did everyone else I know who has seen it. Off topic, I still don't get the whole concept of describing a movie as "fun" though. You are just sitting there watching it. I get how it can be fun to be with friends and watch a movie, but the movie itself being "fun"? I don't get it. Entertaining seems to be a better word for it, at least in my eyes.
I think this movie gets a bit of stick because it was marketed as the next big thing when it was largely forgettable fluff. i think the main problem was making James West a former slave. That's a heavy subject that would occasionally get thrown out into a wacky, over-the-top action movie. Sort of like a sitcom set in Auschwitz. Somehow it's just not funny.
They did try to get mileage out of the racism card in WWW, didn't they? For humor mostly. Because jokes about lynching are funny.
I think if the movie could have settled on a tone and fire two thirds of its writing staff so that they wouldn't keep throwing in gags so they could brag to their family and friends about it, it might have been a lot better.
They did try to get mileage out of the racism card in WWW, didn't they? For humor mostly. Because jokes about lynching are funny.
I think if the movie could have settled on a tone and fire two thirds of its writing staff so that they wouldn't keep throwing in gags so they could brag to their family and friends about it, it might have been a lot better.
I agree with Jim,
I actually like this film. Given I was a child the last time I saw it. I always assumed it was a kind of parody on westerns and action movies. I though the steam punk veneer gave it a unique charm. Why cant a movie be considered good if its only entertaining yet not awfully bright or what is considered Oscar material. When the actors, staff and director make a film with no heart and they dont have the passion or drive to make the film then its truly a bad film. This movies is not because it was not serious or a tried old dog.
Just my two and a half cents. Every time a movie which I think is good on merit alone and everyone else disregards I just get a bit angrier.
I actually like this film. Given I was a child the last time I saw it. I always assumed it was a kind of parody on westerns and action movies. I though the steam punk veneer gave it a unique charm. Why cant a movie be considered good if its only entertaining yet not awfully bright or what is considered Oscar material. When the actors, staff and director make a film with no heart and they dont have the passion or drive to make the film then its truly a bad film. This movies is not because it was not serious or a tried old dog.
Just my two and a half cents. Every time a movie which I think is good on merit alone and everyone else disregards I just get a bit angrier.
Neh-eh-eh...
No, I'm not going to go with this one. I saw this movie twice (saw it once, then ended up with friends who wanted to see it one evening), and, well, it's got its moments, sure. But overall, what kills it is not the ridiculousness of things like the giant mechanical spider or the booby-trapped train but the fact that the main characters are, well, kind of unlikable and do stupid, arbitrary things for no reason but to get from a to b.
My favorite line in the thing is Ulysses S. Grant referring to West's style as "Shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, and when everyone's dead try asking a question or two", and a good part of the reason that's funny is because it's bloody true.
Lowlights include Loveless going on about how he could devise a mechanical means of raping Rita (Selma Hayek's character), Rita knocking herself and one of the heroes unconscious in a random moment of panic (yay, we're borrowing one of the stupider plot elements from Star Trek V...), and the out-of-nowhere announcement that the guy they've been trying to rescue is not Rita's father. Also see West setting the sawblades in motion in a fit of stupid pique, Gordon encouraging a mob to lynch West, Loveless' inventory of the injuries that crippled him (which seems, shall we say, slightly out of place with this allegedly "slapstick" tone...)
Look, I'll agree it's not an awful movie despite the laundry list above. But good is a stretch. For every amusing or fun bit, there's at least one bit that's mean, stupid, badly paced or weirdly off-tone. Even Smith himself has expressed his displeasure with the thing; how can one argue with him?
No, I'm not going to go with this one. I saw this movie twice (saw it once, then ended up with friends who wanted to see it one evening), and, well, it's got its moments, sure. But overall, what kills it is not the ridiculousness of things like the giant mechanical spider or the booby-trapped train but the fact that the main characters are, well, kind of unlikable and do stupid, arbitrary things for no reason but to get from a to b.
My favorite line in the thing is Ulysses S. Grant referring to West's style as "Shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, and when everyone's dead try asking a question or two", and a good part of the reason that's funny is because it's bloody true.
Lowlights include Loveless going on about how he could devise a mechanical means of raping Rita (Selma Hayek's character), Rita knocking herself and one of the heroes unconscious in a random moment of panic (yay, we're borrowing one of the stupider plot elements from Star Trek V...), and the out-of-nowhere announcement that the guy they've been trying to rescue is not Rita's father. Also see West setting the sawblades in motion in a fit of stupid pique, Gordon encouraging a mob to lynch West, Loveless' inventory of the injuries that crippled him (which seems, shall we say, slightly out of place with this allegedly "slapstick" tone...)
Look, I'll agree it's not an awful movie despite the laundry list above. But good is a stretch. For every amusing or fun bit, there's at least one bit that's mean, stupid, badly paced or weirdly off-tone. Even Smith himself has expressed his displeasure with the thing; how can one argue with him?
Somehow growing up in the 90s I missed the hate for this then saw it on the tele about a year ago. I had to admit it was stupid, silly fun and was sort of amazed to learn that so many people hated it. Of course Waterworld and Avatar are my top guilty pleasure movies so....yeah.
count me on the confused side. i didn't realize this movie needed defending. i agree with all your points. it's a sad reality where the general consensus is hating fun things.