10 Memorable Characters In Forgettable Movies Comments - Mania.com


Showing items 31 - 39 of 39
<<  <  1 2 3 4 
Hobbs 5/19/2010 1:37:43 PM

Why do you keep coming back here gnolam?  If you feel its such a torture then leave unless you are you a masakist and find some guilty pleasure from it.

People never stop amazing me.  Some guy who who doesn't like a site finds time to register to get a screen name then blogs about how bad it is and rips the site for being what it is, a geek site.  M'kay

ponyboy76 5/19/2010 4:01:20 PM

Hobbs, its simple. He's a big douche.

This article is actually pretty "forgettable" if you ask me. I enjoyed pretty all these movies for one reason or another.

And I thought Darth Maul was badass! The Mythos of Star Wars maybe very deep and existential, but almost none of the characters ever are, at least in the movies.
Darth Maul was a Sith. He was brought up and trained by his master as a Sith. Sith hate Jedi. Its pretty simple. Not rocket science. Don't know why there were barriers. Lucas probably needed a way to break the fight up  because the audience wouldn't have thought it was fait because if it was 2 on 1 the whole time.

Reign of Fire was cool flick up until Van Zan idiotically jumps into the dragons mouth. he's supposed to be some badass professional dragon slayer and he thinks jumping into its mouth with an axe, is going to do something? LAME. Horrible writing!

zalder 5/19/2010 10:37:18 PM

sigh...sorry gues empty action spectacle are not what movies are about.  Which is why I have to disagree with your inclusion on contact.  That was a movie with head and heart and an overall very good movie.  The book is even better.  The rest of the movies, yeah most of them I didn't even go see.  Phantom Menace I wish I hadn't gone to see...

krathwardroid 5/20/2010 6:34:12 AM

Reign of Fire was not a forgettable film. I like it a lot and is one of the better dragon tales I have seen.

I do agree with the section on Superman III. The fight in the junkyard was the one redeeming quality of the film. They should have made the evil Superman a primary villain, not a fill-in. It would have made the movie so much better.

And Darth Maul was an excellent villain in The Phantom Menace. He had the right amount of gravity for his character. He wasn't supposed to be like Darth Vader. Maul didn't need to be killed off. Blame George Lucas for that. Christopher Lee was good as Count Dooku, but Darth Maul should have been allowed to continue on throughout the trilogy. I'd especially prefer Maul over that stupid General Grievous contraption that we got in the third movie.

karas1: Darth Maul was supposed to be a bit mysterious. He added to the whole "phantom menace" idea behind the story. And yes, he spoke in the movie; on Coruscant when he was informing Palpatine about investigating Tatooine and then later on on Naboo after Palpatine told him not to underestimate the two Jedi. Maul at least had more screen time in one movie than Count Dooku did in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith combined.

krathwardroid 5/20/2010 6:43:53 AM

SarcasticCaveman: It was partially established in the film that the Sith hated the Jedi for destroying them 1,000 years ago. But as we found out later on, it was actually Darth Bane (who was first mentioned in the Episode I novel) who destroyed the Sith Order to begin the Sith's vengeance against the Jedi. The Jedi just took credit for the destruction. And Maul had no real reason for being a villain, unlike Darth Vader. Maul was raised from a child in the ways of the Sith, so he really didn't know anything else. He was just there doing the only job he'd ever known. Did General Grievous have a reason for being a jackass villain in Episode III? No, he was merely a fear tool used by the Sith.

lracors 5/20/2010 6:57:29 AM

Episode's 1-3 suck with 3 being the only one with somewhat redeeming qualities.  Episode 4-6 are the best with 6 being destoryed by frakin muppets.

calhob 5/20/2010 4:20:08 PM

Prince of Thieves rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mainly because of Christan Slater!!!!! And Rickman too.

SarcasticCaveman 5/22/2010 1:16:12 AM

krathwardroid, thanks for the info, really...I've always wondered about that...but where exactly in the movies was it "partially established"?  I honestly don't remember, and I've seen the movie enough times that I think I would remember.  I don't recall Darth Bane being mentioned in the movie at all.  I'm not questioning your Star Wars knowledge, just trying to illustrate that George Lucas didn't clue in the average movie goer in via the movie itself.  I like to consider myself above average movie goer, but I'm also not enough of a Star Wars fan to read books and pick this stuff up.  Just saying, something so intregral to the story, he MIGHT have found five minutes for a LITTLE bit of back story, you know?

vvtempo 5/22/2010 5:32:58 AM

Wow, what a trip down memory lane that was. Amazing





<<  <  1 2 3 4 


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.