My guilty pleasures

I like the first hour, but after the second hour, it's s**t. When this film is just fun and has a lot of good songs it is very good. But the film did lose me after the two of them fell in love, and after that it went all down hill. The second half has its momments but it is no where near as good as the first half. Can you believe this was nominated for best picture?!

I liked how Peter and Mary's relationship was developing. I liked it when Harry lost his memory, I liked sandman, and I was entertained.

Pretty much if Doug walker said it in his list of films he likes that everyone else hates, I think the same thing.

Besides just being entertained I enjoyed the scenes with will and his father. I was really surprised to find out this film wasn't well received online. I knew the third one wasn't well received but I didn't think this was that bad!

It's a visual wonderland, I just eat this film up. I might even like this more than the first one. This is what Tim Burton tried doing with Alice in Wonderland, but it didn't work there because that was all CG, this was all real and that added to the atmosphere. Now if you want to hop on the band wagon like so many people on this site have done, you will probably say this movie has no plot and is about nothing and has too many crazy characters, well I do agree that the story is thin but the story works just enough for me. But with the plot being thin and there being many great visuals that makes this more of a batman experience than a batman movie.

As for it being to dark, I simply don't get it. So in 1992, Tim Burton says hell make a batman film for adults which contains the penguin biting off someone's nose, and parents go crazy. But in 2008 Christopher Nolan says hell make a batman film for adults which contains the joker torturing someone to death and no parent freaks out?! I never got that

Why isnt the first one on this list? Because in my opinion is a good movie, the sequel had many great laughs (seeing how many other bad spy parodies in 2011 there were, that did surprise me) and it actualy parodies the parody-able parts of the daniel Craig series, as apose to making fart jokes. I do find it sad that both Johnny English films didn't do well at all in America, when they are better than a majority of films that came out in the previous summer!

The effects are good and the ending scene in New York is phenomenal. But on the other side it is cheesy and stupid, but I always find myself having fun whenever I watch this movie.

So many people hate this film solely for taking place in the 70's and not the 30's, but isn't that what a remake is? A modernization of an older movie? Being modern wasn't a problem in other remakes so why this?!

My biggest problem with this movie is that Kong is *beep* creepy! In Confused Matthew's review of the 2005 kong he said that it felt like kong wanted to get into Ann's pants. That isn't the case there, but it is here! What do I mean you might say? There is a scene where Kong try's to get to second base with Dwan and it took me out of the movie completely. It comes out of nowhere and isn't mentioned again. This makes the kong scene in new York where he's trying to find Dwan that much creepier.

I was a huge fan of the series growing up and enjoyed how this was faithful to the source material. Unlike Dragonball and Airbender

The whole hunters vs gatherers idea was cool, it was darker, which is a plus, not to mention the end scene in San Diego. It does try to make the dinosaurs less like monsters, an idea brought up in the first movie but but not made a main point until this movie. And I'm not talking about the anti animal cruelty thing, that was stupid. I'm talking about making the T-rex more of a parent figure. That could have carried the movie, but it's tossed aside, but what they do with it works.

Where as the second movie had some good ideas in it, this is just non stop action, but it's good action I'll give it that. The swamp setting they had going in this film looked great, in some areas. It was filmed on a set as apose to Hawaii, but it has a nice atmosphere to it and is easier on the eyes than say the 2005 King Kong. Being 30 minutes shorter than the other 2 Jurassic Park films it does go by fast, but it adds a bit more intensity to the film I think. Something I never got was that so many people hated the part where the spinosaurus kills the T Rex, someone on an IMDB message board called that the franchise ruining scene! It's almost like the fans are saying "Oh no! That one spinosaurus killed that one T Rex out of the hundreds of T Rex on this island! BETRAYAL!! Silly isn't it? And guys, the first Jurassic Park movie is my favorite movie! You'd think I of all people should be mad at this!

I rented this film knowing that it was not completely faithful to the old show, and was even nominated for worst picture at the razzies. But I said "It can't be that bad" but then I remember that I said that for Wild Wild West. But I found myself laughing and enjoying myself and once it was over I didn't even get why it was nominated for worst picture, or half of the other nominations it got at the razzies. I dont even get why it got so much hate! The CEO of Universal said this film was inexcusable, and many other critics hated it for the bad effects. I will say that I think it should have gotten Worst sequel or remake, but stand alone it isn't terrible.

After looking back on all the hatred this movie has considerering I know only 4 other people who have seen this movie (only 1 of them besides me liking it) I realize I should explain myself more here, considering Im saying I like what many people call one of the worst movies ever made. Objectivly, this isnt very good, I'll admit that. The movie isnt painful to sit threw it just wasnt very good. But there are a few things in this movie that make me like it, mostly by comparing it to other movies of its kind. Everyone is pissed that they made this a comedy, but give them credit, there are actually jokes in this, real crafted jokes, and they are funny in my opinion. This movie was treated with the same respect as disaster movie, which didn't even try, this movie at least tried to make me laugh, and did in some cases. As a parody of the original show, it isn't very good. I haven't seen any episode of the show but I still know that they changed a lot of things in this, I'm not saying the fans can't be mad at that, it's just I'm not a fan, so I'm not. The only other movie like this I can think of is Wild Wild West, this is much better than that movie. For 2 reasons, first this movie might have sex jokes, but only to a point, unlike Wild Wild West which does anything it can with boobs and penises. Secondly, in Wild Wild West, the characters begin the movie as douchebags, go on a big adventure and in the end are still douchebags. In this movie the characters begin as douchebags, go on a less painful to sit through adventure and become more likable by the end. You might say that those scenes were forced but they're at least something! So there you go, this movie is good, but only by comparison.

Tom Cruise gave this film his all and I thought he did good. It isn't entertaining in the sense of action, but more in the sense of Tom cruise trying to get through this whole event with his family still alive. Everything in this film with the small exception of the last act was done right, just like how everything in the happening was done wrong.

I don't get why so many people hate this film, to be honest, it is in my top 5 of favorite bond films. It is entertaining, stays on point and doesn't feel like and insult like other bond movies.

If you were disappointed by this film not being as entertaining and action packed as Armageddon, I do understand. If you dont like this film because it isn't action packed, I don't understand.

Just like Ang Lee's Hulk the only problem a lot of people have with this film is that it's just a lot of talking. But none of them are actually listening to the dialouge going on! This is a very realistic film about what people would do if an asteroid were to hit earth. It's got people risking their lives for the ones they love, people bonding due to the circumstance and people having hope even when hope is lost. Now some people might complain that this film is trying to educate or preach to us when they promised a disaster movie, like knowing or 2012. But here is the difference between this film and those: Knowing and 2012 while they were trying to basically preach to us were throwing action scenes at us at the same time, making the preaching feel very out of place and almost insulting. This film doesn't show the asteroid hit until the last few minutes of the movie. And it actually makes the action scenes feel out of place. I like this film because it shows what the people would do in these places, not what the disaster would do in these places.

I'm not going to defend this movie saying that it's a masterpiece but I did like it to my surprise. But I feel that the mainstream is taking too far. More on that later. Now about the movie, its one of the most entertaining films I've seen in years. And unlike other films that were trying to make a franchise but due to failing miserably at the box office never got sequels, I feel that this film did everything in in this world that it could. That and I'm not sure what they could have done in a sequel. Everything is basically wrapped up in the end. But the one thing I can't stand is how Disney reacted to this. Disney has fired people because of this movie and even said making this movie was a mistake. Guys! This movie wasn't the problem, the advertising was! Even Andrew Stanton says he lost hope on this movie and because of this is now working on finding nemo 2. But again, he did nothing wrong here! He had a great movie here! And the mainstream is blowing it out of proportions. I was relieved to find out that Doug Walker, Brad Jones and Red Letter Media while realizing the movies problems still liked the movie. As I am writing this, this movie is number 4 in the voting for which movies will get a worst picture nomination at the razzies. It's barely higher than That's My Boy and is lower than the oogie loves. I'll be pissed if this gets a worst picture nomination, because it will show that me defending this will be completely pointless! The only problem I had with the movie is the end battle felt all over the place and hard to follow. But besides that, everything else is fine.

I honestly don't even get why so many people hate this film. I can get the aliens in Indy 4, I get the velociraptor bull s**t in Jirassic Park III, but I never got why so many people hate the western setting in this film! It tries something different in every way, the role reversals were perfect and the stakes are just as if not greater than the original. It isn't better than the original don't think I'm saying that, but it's almost as good. But what I always hated about the back to the future sequels is just how many scenes they took from the original. I would compare this to the regressing story line and jokes from men in black II, but even that film didn't copy as much as these 2 films did. But I still really like part II and III more than men in black II, by a lot.

I notice that if a movie bombs, it has a low rating on this site, there are a few with high ratings but for most of them they have a 6 and below.

And with this movie, I don't understand why exactly. Yes it is the second biggest flop in history but does that effect the movie? The movie does almost everything right, showing how Davy Crokket didn't do everything the folk lore's say he did, and how that reputation follows him everywhere he goes. How they show how horrific the battle actually was, and bringing up that texas did win. My only problem with the movie is there are a few characters that don't go anywhere, I know they were real people in real life but simply not having them in the movie would have made the movie more on focus with the story it's telling. Overall I thought it was a very good movie.

I honestly can't comprehend the fact that I like this movie enough to have it be considered a guilty pleasure. Nothing happens in it, there are no characters, it has that whole "were so good" ego, which is when it acts like it has the balls to say or do something, but instead of working it falls flat on its face. Also if you thought Moulin Rouge was pretentious you will hate this movie. It's all about slamming the united states for being evil in ways that in reality make the characters just bitch about stuff. If it's trying to showcase teenagers living during the Vietnam war it fails because it's all about the psycadelic stuff involving the Beatles.

But after all that how does this avoid being one of the worst movies I've ever seen? After thinking about it, it's all because of the songs. Yes I could just listen to the original songs as about 1/2 of the songs in this movie aren't as good as the original, and some retroactively make the originals worse. But it's those few that have that catchy 60's vibe to it that makes it almost a different song entirely. And that makes those moments the only redeemable part of this movie.

Read what I had to say about Across the Universe.

But to add, there are more good songs in this than there were in Across the universe. And while it does have that "ego" it isn't as painful to watch. It isn't all about "taking down the establishment" as much as it is "rock is awesome" which isn't very compelling but it isn't as annoying as hating on the establishment. Also Tom Cruise was fantastic, in the 6 minutes he was in the movie.