Superman 2025 Movie - worst ever!

[Sal1950]

Don't really think you are movie guy if you missed these movies, there are multiple Oscar winners and nominations on my list which also feature A list actors. I'm sorry, but if you say you don't know any of them it is hard to believe you are into cinema.

Fair enough and I already stated I'm not really a big "movie guy", I only keep an eye out for films in the genre's I'm interested in..
That said, over the years I've seen many films win Oscars and other awards that you couldn't pay me to sit thru.
Much the same as with music and Grammy's etc that I would never consider playing here.
I am trying to get to the local theater to see Jurassic World, F1, and Superman, before they move out. But now those are names I'd remember and will find a way to view them on my system later on if needed.

 

[Sal1950]

BTW, I'd also like to see M3GAN 2.0.
The first one I rented from DropBox on a employees recommendation and it was quite well done.

I really hate to see the Redbox kiosks closing down.
They offered BluRays and DVD rentals as soon as they came out for only a couple bucks and when they were no longer popular they would sell them
off on the cheap. I got a bunch of the discs in my library.
But like CDs streaming is killing a lot of the best quality media sources.

 

[Koeitje]

BTW, I'd also like to see M3GAN 2.0.
The first one I rented from DropBox on a employees recommendation and it was quite well done.

That movie is so bad....standard cookie cutter basic """horror""". There so much better stuff out there.

 

[Oddball]

Well,

I hope that whoever is going to direct DCU's Batman (Brave and the Bold) will remember that Batman is not Superman, that he's no a boy scout, he's not a fun guy to hang out with either, it's a thinker, a schemer , worlds greatest detective (after Sherlock Holmes of course,
But yeah he makes contingency plans for his own teammates from the Justice League, so please, we don't need a goofy Batman, one "Batman and Robin" is quite enough thank you very much.
This Batman iteration needs at least to be on par with Christian Bale's version of the character, it doesn't have to be as dark as "The Batman", but you know, somewhere in between would be nice.

Agree that Christian Bale was the man. But then Batman character was portrayed by the likes of George Clooney (that can obviously do a good job in roles that are more suitable to him) or Robert Pattinson (did he ever pull a decent act?).

I might be dreaming but Goran Visnjic (52) could do a role even darker than CB. Had lots of stupid roles, but actors also need to survive. He definitively has the goods to deliver.

Best trilogy? Let me take 5th on that one. Too many around and lots of them did not get mentioned here. Star Wars, for example has multiple trilogies .

 

[Oddball]

Any fans of this movie? The only time the fantastic trio of Christian Bale, Matthew McConaughey and Gerald Butler was assembled. It is a niche movie, but I loved it from the very first time - and still do.

Reign of Fire (2002) ⭐ 6.2 | Action, Adventure, Fantasy

1h 41m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

 

[Sal1950]

 

[Sal1950]

That movie is so bad....standard cookie cutter basic """horror""". There so much better stuff out there.

The old one or the new one?

 

[Mart68]

there are multiple Oscar winners and nominations on my list which also feature A list actors and directors.

I don't agree that any of these things are relevant to whether a film can be considered good or great.

Direction and acting are dependant on each individual performance, they're no guarantee of future performance.

'A' list just means they are bankable stars, many great actors are not and never will be 'A' list, largely due only to physical appearance.

That the Academy Awards committee considers a film worthy of accolade has no connection to whether I think it is good or not. I'm not going to conclude a film is a stinker and then change my mind about it because it wins an Oscar.

That's not to say the films you listed are not good films. Mostly they are not the sort of films I am interested in watching (I attempted 'Three Billboards' but I could see where it was going after 20 minutes). I'm wanting to be entertained, primarily, if the film has something profound to say, then so much the better, but that should not be the principal focus.

Regrettably sight of the 'entertainment value' of a film - the original purpose of the medium - now seems to be lost entirely when the subject is at all serious.

'Educating' the audience is these days the priority. Film makers seem to think they must have some higher purpose to their work, and that what should essentially be just a pleasant diversion for the ordinary man has now to be a crusade of enlightenment.

Personally, I find that tedious in the extreme. If I want to be educated, I'll read a book.

 

[tmtomh]

Any fans of this movie? The only time the fantastic trio of Christian Bale, Matthew McConaughey and Gerald Butler was assembled. It is a niche movie, but I loved it from the very first time - and still do.

Reign of Fire (2002) ⭐ 6.2 | Action, Adventure, Fantasy

1h 41m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

Yes, not a great film by any stretch, but I understand that's not exactly what you're asking - and I agree with what you say here. It's very entertaining, a rollicking good time, and IMHO qualifies as a very good sci-fi/post-apocalyptic adventure movie that avoids the worst Michael Bay-type cliches and instead strikes a more nuanced and interesting tone.

 

[tmtomh]

I don't agree that any of these things are relevant to whether a film can be considered good or great.

Direction and acting are dependant on each individual performance, they're no guarantee of future performance.

'A' list just means they are bankable stars, many great actors are not and never will be 'A' list, largely due only to physical appearance.

That the Academy Awards committee considers a film worthy of accolade has no connection to whether I think it is good or not. I'm not going to conclude a film is a stinker and then change my mind about it because it wins an Oscar.

That's not to say the films you listed are not good films. Mostly they are not the sort of films I am interested in watching (I attempted 'Three Billboards' but I could see where it was going after 20 minutes). I'm wanting to be entertained, primarily, if the film has something profound to say, then so much the better, but that should not be the principal focus.

Regrettably sight of the 'entertainment value' of a film - the original purpose of the medium - now seems to be lost entirely when the subject is at all serious.

'Educating' the audience is these days the priority. Film makers seem to think they must have some higher purpose to their work, and that what should be essentially just a pleasant diversion for the ordinary man has now to be a crusade of enlightenment.

Personally, I find that tedious in the extreme. If I want to be educated, I'll read a book.

This is such an annoying, but typical, example of the problems with internet discussion. @Koeitje was responding to folks like @Sal1950 who was asking if the films were well-known - the idea being that if they were super-niche "art house" films, then they wouldn't necessarily count as the kind of high-quality, mass-market movies that you and others have been discussing. And you should know that, except you've now apparently become laser-focused on trying to beat Koeitje in an argument instead of responding to new developments in this discussion.

To put it more simply, Koeitje's point is not that these movies are good because they won Oscars and have A-list celebrities - he was just noting those facts to help explain to Sal and others that these are in fact major movies seen by a lot of people, just like the movies you and others love from the "good old days." The reason Koeitje thinks these movies are good is because, well, they're good! In other words, he feels they have precisely the qualities you admire in films.

You also appear to be substituting your own personal preferences for what you find entertaining with what other people might find entertaining. I found Three Billboards immensely entertaining. Was it "fun"? Not in the way Superman 1978 or, say, the Fifth Element was fun - but yes, it was a lot of fun in the sense that I enjoyed it. And to be even clearer - because I am 99% sure you need to have this explained to you - I did not enjoy Three Billboards because I was sitting there in the theater feeling self-satisfied that it had the "right" politics or that I was a good person because I was watching it. No - I actually enjoyed it in the sense that I was drawn into it, I found myself caring about the characters, absorbed by the dialogue and the direction and cinematography, and emotionally invested in the story and the outcome. It pushed different buttons than the Fifth Element did for me, but it still pushed buttons.

So if you find too many of today's movies to be unentertaining, fair enough - we all are entitled to our preferences. But that's not at all the same argument you entered this thread making.

 

[Sal1950]

'Educating' the audience is these days the priority. Film makers seem to think they must have some higher purpose to their work, and that what should essentially be just a pleasant diversion for the ordinary man has now to be a crusade of enlightenment.

And that they have a better insight for whats best for us.
Give em a ticket for an airplane, forget about a fast train.

Growing up in Chicago, ole Siskel and Ebert had a weekly spot on ABC Ch7 news.
I learned very fast, if they liked it, I avoided it like a plague.

 

[Oddball]

This is such an annoying, but typical, example of the problems with internet discussion. @Koeitje was responding to folks like @Sal1950 who was asking if the films were well-known - the idea being that if they were super-niche "art house" films, then they wouldn't necessarily count as the kind of high-quality, mass-market movies that you and others have been discussing. And you should know that, except you've now apparently become laser-focused on trying to beat Koeitje in an argument instead of responding to new developments in this discussion.

To put it more simply, Koeitje's point is not that these movies are good because they won Oscars and have A-list celebrities - he was just noting those facts to help explain to Sal and others that these are in fact major movies seen by a lot of people, just like the movies you and others love from the "good old days." The reason Koeitje thinks these movies are good is because, well, they're good! In other words, he feels they have precisely the qualities you admire in films.

You also appear to be substituting your own personal preferences for what you find entertaining with what other people might find entertaining. I found Three Billboards immensely entertaining. Was it "fun"? Not in the way Superman 1978 or, say, the Fifth Element was fun - but yes, it was a lot of fun in the sense that I enjoyed it. And to be even clearer - because I am 99% sure you need to have this explained to you - I did not enjoy Three Billboards because I was sitting there in the theater feeling self-satisfied that it had the "right" politics or that I was a good person because I was watching it. No - I actually enjoyed it in the sense that I was drawn into it, I found myself caring about the characters, absorbed by the dialogue and the direction and cinematography, and emotionally invested in the story and the outcome. It pushed different buttons than the Fifth Element did for me, but it still pushed buttons.

So if you find too many of today's movies to be unentertaining, fair enough - we all are entitled to our preferences. But that's not at all the same argument you entered this thread making.

What people consider a good movie is absolutely individual. No objective measurement to adhere to. Box office take is a poor measurement of the movie quality judged by individual standards, and shows more of what larger audiences have thought about these movies. Also entails "what they were running against" at that particular time of release.

Then there is a whole universe of the movies that have gotten lost or forgotten due to the whole industry issue of licensing etc.

Has anyone ever seen this fantastic movie - and will go all in - plain great?

Romanzo Criminale (2005) ⭐ 7.2 | Crime, Drama

2h 32m

www.imdb.com

 

[Mart68]

This is such an annoying, but typical, example of the problems with internet discussion. @Koeitje was responding to folks like @Sal1950 who was asking if the films were well-known - the idea being that if they were super-niche "art house" films, then they wouldn't necessarily count as the kind of high-quality, mass-market movies that you and others have been discussing. And you should know that, except you've now apparently become laser-focused on trying to beat Koeitje in an argument instead of responding to new developments in this discussion.

Koeitje objected to my comment about there being a lack of talent these days, although not in any coherent way. All I've done is explain my point of view. And that is all it is. There is nothing factual to debate here. That you miss that point is mildly irritating, but not annoying.

There is no 'argument' here and nothing to win.

You also appear to be substituting your own personal preferences for what you find entertaining with what other people might find entertaining.

This can only ever be a discussion about what we personally find entertaining. There is no higher authority to appeal to on that score. See my previous point.

- because I am 99% sure you need to have this explained to you

Those 1% hits are a bitch aren't they?

Glad you enjoyed that film but you seem to have confused it specifically with a wider point I was making - okay, that's partly my fault due to the structure of my post.

I don't actually think that is a preachy film and I can appreciate why others would enjoy it.

I hope that clarifies.

 

[Sal1950]

Has anyone ever seen this fantastic movie - and will go all in - plain great?

Nope LOL

 

[Oddball]

Nope LOL

Well if you have a chance grab it on some disc. It shows how epic cinema can be outside or the mainstream. And I am Mr. Mainstream .

 

[Titurel]

Of course I am, just not the schlock that was made in every decade. It seems you forgot about the garbage that was made back then. Go watch The Bellboy and the Playgirls and tell me with a straight face that it really shows the standards they had back then.

You are just recycling the same argument that I hear when people tell me today's music sucks. Its just old man yells at cloud nonsense.

Want some suggestions? Here's some:

• Gisaengchung
• The Sound of Metal
• Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
• Whiplash
• A Separation
• Moonlight
• The Father
• Incendies
• Gone Girl
• The Florida Project
• The Lighthouse
• The Banshees of Inisherin
• Portrait of a Lady on Fire

An interesting list. I be looking into some of them, as I'm definitely a fan of "Three Billboards..." But they all fall into the indie/small film category, which I agree seem to be getting easier to produce. But I believe what is being bemoaned here is the shortage of stories (and writing) worthy of a trip to the local picture palace. That is, does the project need (or merit) the big screen, shared with a community treatment?

I'd even argue that today more good movies are made than ever before simply because it is much cheaper to produce a movie.

Edit: I'd argue that the Lord of The Rings Trilogy is the best trilogy of all time. No three films come close.

The great accomplishment of LOTR was convincing someone to fund it. That said, The Godfather Trilogy is far superior, especially if you don't break the shrink-wrap on Godfather III. (Godfather II is, after all 2 stories for the price of one.) I'd also put the Millenium Trilogy ahead of LOTR, which is too bloody earnest, too bloody long, and it doesn't even mention Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. I know 3 is supposed to be a magic number, but John Wick 1-4 are more fun than LOTR and probably shorter - and no one ever says "My Precious." My, how precious.

 

[Oddball]

An interesting list. I be looking into some of them, as I'm definitely a fan of "Three Billboards..." But they all fall into the indie/small film category, which I agree seem to be getting easier to produce. But I believe what is being bemoaned here is the shortage of stories (and writing) worthy of a trip to the local picture palace. That is, does the project need (or merit) the big screen, shared with a community treatment?



The great accomplishment of LOTR was convincing someone to fund it. That said, The Godfather Trilogy is far superior, especially if you don't break the shrink-wrap on Godfather III. (Godfather II is, after all 2 stories for the price of one.) I'd also put the Millenium Trilogy ahead of LOTR, which is too bloody earnest, too bloody long, and it doesn't even mention Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. I know 3 is supposed to be a magic number, but John Wick 1-4 are more fun than LOTR and probably shorter - and no one ever says "My Precious." My, how precious.

John Wick? Oh dear, that is something entirely different.

Does anyone watch any good shows nowadays as movies tend to get meh?

 

[Sal1950]

Well if you have a chance grab it on some disc. It shows how epic cinema can be outside or the mainstream.

My Italian sucks.

 

[Sal1950]

Does anyone watch any good shows nowadays as movies tend to get meh?

There's been a bunch of good stuff on Paramount + lately.
Since you brought up a gangland movie try
Mobland, a UK Corleone family LOL
Sly Stalones Tulsa King is a smash, can't wait for season 3 to start.
Billy Bob Thorton's Landman was great. Demi Moore looks 3 times as good as she should for 63, Season 2 coming up T&A +++

 

[Titurel]

John Wick? Oh dear, that is something entirely different.

Does anyone watch any good shows nowadays as movies tend to get meh?

We watched "Singin' in the Rain" and "Kagemusha" this week and just finished a nostalgic rip through "Crossing Jordan" (breakfast entertainment). Our evening features presently include "Detective Montalbano," "Imma Tartaranni," and "Welcome to Samdalri," (all good shows) except for Fridays when we usually need something violent, thus "John Wick" et al. which we think of as Keystone Cops with live ammo. Here's a list of a few of our favorites, in no particular order:

The Red Shoes
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
Casablanca
I Know Where I'm Going
High Society
North by Northwest
Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi
One From the Heart
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day
Lawrence of Arabia