Movies that should've been better

[Poseptune]

JP2 could have been a lot better if they had stuck to the second book more, like they did with the first one. They cut a lot from the first book when they made it a movie, but it was still awesome, one of the better book to movie movies I've seen. The second strayed too far from the book. Which if they did it well wouldn't have been a bad thing, but they didn't.

[SDragon]

I forgot about the barscene (was it really a gay bar? I thought just the bartender was gay), but all of that could've easily been cut out. The scene with him in bed was the three minutes I was refering to.

Still what about the scene towards the end at Papa Joe's where he brings the mobster upstairs to the bathroom?
And if we cut out that scene we wouldn't know why he was stumbling into the church making a drunken confession to the priest and rocko.

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean the entire scenes could've easily been cut out, but the homosexuality could've been completely removed from the character with no consequence. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality (especially in theatre-- kidding!), but this just seemed incredibly arbitary.

[MittenNinja]

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean the entire scenes could've easily been cut out, but the homosexuality could've been completely removed from the character with no consequence. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality (especially in theatre-- kidding!), but this just seemed incredibly arbitary.

That's like saying santa claus would lose nothing from his character if he wasn't fat and jolly.

[SDragon]

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean the entire scenes could've easily been cut out, but the homosexuality could've been completely removed from the character with no consequence. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality (especially in theatre-- kidding!), but this just seemed incredibly arbitary.

That's like saying santa claus would lose nothing from his character if he wasn't fat and jolly.

Honestly, I don't agree with this. "fat and jolly" is consistantly part of Santa's character, whereas Dafoe was only gay in a handful of scenes. Same with the brothers being fluent in multiple languages: only happened in the interview scene.

[MittenNinja]

Honestly, I don't agree with this. "fat and jolly" is consistantly part of Santa's character, whereas Dafoe was only gay in a handful of scenes. Same with the brothers being fluent in multiple languages: only happened in the interview scene.

It's not like dafoe's character isn't gay during the scenes where it's not shoved in your face. He is gay throughout the whole film and the undertones in his acting throughout the film support that.

As far as the brothers go:
There were more than one occasion where their multi-lingual abilities came into play. When the russians came to the bar they talked to the mobsters in russian and when they got the tip off the russian's pager.

My point is that just because something isn't blatantly apparent throughout a film doesn't mean it isn't important to the character. Maybe I'm just so adamant about that because I have acting experience.

[SDragon]

Honestly, I don't agree with this. "fat and jolly" is consistantly part of Santa's character, whereas Dafoe was only gay in a handful of scenes. Same with the brothers being fluent in multiple languages: only happened in the interview scene.

It's not like dafoe's character isn't gay during the scenes where it's not shoved in your face. He is gay throughout the whole film and the undertones in his acting throughout the film support that.

As far as the brothers go:
There were more than one occasion where their multi-lingual abilities came into play. When the russians came to the bar they talked to the mobsters in russian and when they got the tip off the russian's pager.

My point is that just because something isn't blatantly apparent throughout a film doesn't mean it isn't important to the character. Maybe I'm just so adamant about that because I have acting experience.

I could accept undertones, but I didn't even see those.

[MittenNinja]

Really? I didn't think they were too hard to see.

couple examples:
- playing with the pink feathered boa in the strip club
- hands on his hips and always swaying his hips
- way more touchy feely than any of the other characters

[SDragon]

Really? I didn't think they were too hard to see.

couple examples:
- playing with the pink feathered boa in the strip club
- hands on his hips and always swaying his hips
- way more touchy feely than any of the other characters

Maybe it's because I'm an average moviegoer, and not an experienced actor, but I didn't notice any of those.

[brainface]

I would have had something to say here but I'm too bothered by someone calling Boondocks Saints "little known."

Eh... wikipedia said it had a limited release and used the term "cult" at least once in the description. "Little" is a relative term, of course. And apparently everyone in this thread has seen it. (I'd never heard of the movie when we more or less stole the tape from our RA in college.)

[Jharviss]

Dafoe's character was gay to make his character more vivid.  If had hadn't been gay, he would have been stock and boring.  Every character has to have different traits to make them more interesting.  The brothers were well educated, and that was displayed by the multi-lingual scene.  No, they never needed to speak another language, but because of that scene you now know that they are well educated.

Character development is more important than plot.  Stock characters and a good plot don't make a good movie.  Boondock Saints had very interesting characters (at least the main three--the saints and Dafoe).  My other favorite movies are typically favorites because of good characters.

The movies I hate are hated because of their stock characters.

My opinions, truly.

[Stargate525]

Dafoe's character was gay to make his character more vivid.  If had hadn't been gay, he would have been stock and boring.

Which is a sign of bad writing. I've never seen the movie, but if you can remove one aspect from a character and instantly turn them into a cardboard cutout, there's a problem.

[Wensleydale]

X-Men 3, the last stand.

The things I hate about this movie have melded together into one big blob, so I will just state the two that annoyed me the most.

Angel: Poor Angel. He coulda been so awesome, but instead he was just used as a crappy plot device so that the film semi-made sense and then played no further important role.

Magneto: Awesome casting, awesome acting, awesome end. And then... Eh? Why is he suddenly regaining his powers? I though this was supposed to be the LAST STAND... not some kind of sequel-inviting mid-series movie.

Harry Potter: The books aren't too bad. The films are just awful on so many levels.

As is Daniel Radcliffe. Please. Get someone who can act.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

NEVER, EVER let George Lucas direct a film. Producer, sure, but direct? NUH-UH!

[brainface]

Which is a sign of bad writing. I've never seen the movie, but if you can remove one aspect from a character and instantly turn them into a cardboard cutout, there's a problem.

already knows[/i]. :)

[Stargate525]

As is Daniel Radcliffe. Please. Get someone who can act.

Thank you! I knew it couldn't just me me.

"I'm so happy you're alive." :-|
"I'm going to KILL YOU." :-|

These should not have the same expression!

[SDragon]

Which is a sign of bad writing. I've never seen the movie, but if you can remove one aspect from a character and instantly turn them into a cardboard cutout, there's a problem.

Right. I just feel this was an unneccessary distinguishing feature. He was a tough detective that was exceedingly good at his job, that was, ultimately, rooting for the guys he was supposed to take down. Straight or gay, that's already cool.