Mania's Top 10 Films of 2009 Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 31 - 40 of 63
<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  >>  
karas1 12/16/2009 1:32:30 PM

Why is it that there are just people who can't accept that some of us hated Star Trek?  They ask us why and we tell them.  We make long lists of things in the film that offended us or didn't ring true.  We point out that the science was rediculious and the characters acted in ways that they never would have before in order to move the plot along.

Producer - "We have to get Kirk together with old Spock somehow.  How do we do that?"

Abrams - "We'll have young Spock put Kirk in a life pod and shoot him at the Ice Planet."

Producer - "Why would Spock do that?  Even if he made it to the Ice Planet in one piece, he doesn't have any supplies or gear.  The chances that Kirk would survive are slim."

Abrams - "Uhhhhh, because I said so!"

But these people simply can't accept that we don't like it.  They have to call us haters and say that we are stupid and old fashioned and don't "get" it. 

Well, guess what guys?  We got it.  We understood it perfectly.  We just didn't much like what we got.  Abrams took a half baked, badly written script and threw a lot of money at it.  He hired a bunch of fairly good actors and gave them stupid lines to say and stupid things to do.  And he wrapped it up in flashy FX and hoped we wouldn't notice.

Some of us did notice.  And we said so.  But the Star Trek apologists can't stand that.  They have to keep trying to convince us it was a good film and it ain't gonna work.

The Emperor is standing up there and he ain't wearing no clothes.  He's buck nekkid.  Laughing at us for saying so isn't going keep him from catching a cold.

Kara S

keithdaniel 12/16/2009 2:03:53 PM

Kara,you and the relative few who don't like Abrams version of Star Trek are entitled to do so and that's fine. I also believe that you should be allowed to do so without being verbally attacked on this or any other forum. I have yet to see the newest Trek myself so I cannot say whether it's good or not. Perhaps some who do like the new Trek just don't like or agree with your reasons! One reason that I may not agree with is that you've stated more or less that you thought a few scenes of the movie was too far fetched to believe. Well,Kara,I hate to break it to you but the genre is called SCIENCE-FICTION for a reason! At least to an extent,you have to suspend some disbelief do you not? Feel free to keep disliking or even border line hating the film all you like,but you're in the minority on that one and there may be a reason for that! Perhaps you may have expected too much! One last thing,your opinions regarding the criticisms you've stated are just that...opinions because most either don't see it that way or don't care and perhaps they're enjoying other aspects of the film!   

SONYMANswallows 12/16/2009 2:41:13 PM

ZOMBIELAND

ZOMBIELAND

ZOMBIELAND

ZOMBIELAND

Star Trek is the best film that ripped off earlier films of the same  name -VGER looked great as Nero's ship and JJ was smart enough to use parts of Star Wars films so he wasn't just ripping off other Star Trek writers or I mean real Star Trek films. The North and Clybourn L train station is bein bouht by Apple so it will be in Star Trek 12: The Revamp of Khan. Khan leads neo-nazi conservatives against  the genesis project because it aborts dead planets.

 

Wolverweiner was the worst film of the year. It was the Twilight or Left Behind of genre films.

karas1 12/16/2009 2:52:52 PM

keithdaniel, there is suspension of disbelief and then there is outright stupidity.  I feel that the movie crossed the line past which my suspension of disbelief snaps like an old rubber band.

I agree that there are things about the film to enjoy.  The acting was pretty good.  I admired the actors, especially Zachary Quinto.  They did a great job with the acting.  I just thought the lines they were required to say were tripe.

The FX were stellar.  The movie LOOKED fantastic (well, except for the ship design which is a seperate issue).

If all you were looking for was a popcorn crunching action flick then it was a movie that was sure to please.  The script was about the same quality as GI Joe and Transformers 2.  I enjoyed both those films, but I wasn't looking for deep meaning in them.  Unfortunately, I was looking for something a little deeper in Star Trek.

Kara S

thorin02 12/16/2009 3:24:51 PM

I will say it again.  Star Trek was good action adventure movie.  And that's all it was.  Check your brain at the door and  enjoy the ride.  i will also say, I enjoyed the ride for what it was. 

But to call it the 'best' movie of the year (especially in a year that gave us Up)) makes no sense to me.  At it's best Star Trek made you think (City on the Edge of Forever even Wrath of Khan).  The new Star Trek was basically a mindless action movie.  A GOOD mindless action movie.  But still just a mindless action flick. 

I realize after several fairly lame movies and the ever declining TV series just about anything would seem like Shakespeare by comparison.  Plus expectations were already pretty low given the Star Trek 90210 reboot to the academy days plot.  The fact that the movie actually managed to be entertaining was something of a minor miracle.  But that does not make up for the ridiculous plot points, the horid (even by Star Trek standards) science and generally weak script.

LiquorUpFront 12/16/2009 3:37:48 PM

 Whoa, bros...This crew could suck the fun outta someone wrapping the cure for AIDS in a thousand dollar bill and giving it to you for nothing.

"The cure for AIDS is laughable compared to a cure for cancer. This thousand dollar bill just proves that it's a shallow and pointless endeavor wrapped with too much money. I don't understand how anyone could possibly get any enjoyment from this."

PokerInTheRear 12/16/2009 3:39:25 PM

 Bro, this is totals vibe killer right here.

DaForce1 12/16/2009 6:21:21 PM

I liken JJ Abram's version of Star Trek to someone remaking Star Wars and making Chewbacca an Ewok, having Han Solo be the captain of a garbage scow, and having Luke and Leia being stepbrother and sister (different moms) and then hooking up.

Again, so much was wrong with the just the timeline alone (Kirk and Chekov being the same age, as one example) that it showed Abram's total disregard for the fans of the original series and movies.

SONYMANswallows 12/16/2009 7:15:09 PM

Drag Me to Hell is the horror movie of the year, unless you are from District 9. 

Drag Me To Hell has already been remade or ripped off as Kristen Bell's When In  Rome due 1/29/10. Be afraid be very afraid.

Kristen Bell and Napoleon Dynamite with cameos by Don Johnson and Anjelica Huston. Paychecks are needed as are scripts in Hollywood.

 

djphillips25 12/16/2009 8:32:30 PM

In no particular order -

1. Star Trek - Surprise of the year.

2. District 9 - Just a great movie. Period.

3. Inglorious Basterds - Quentin Tarantino WW2 = A great movie.

4. Watchmen - An absolutely perfect adaptation of the greatest graphic novel ever written.

5. Halloween II - Gritty and brutal. Just the way horror should be.

6. Transformers 2 - Popcorn flick of the year.

7. Drag Me To Hell - Sam Raimi's long awaited return to horror didn't disappoint.

8. Paranormal Activity - The first movie to give me insomnia since I was a kid.

9. Terminator: Salvation - Neither Arnold nor Cameron were missed during the entire flick. And the flick that first put Sam Worthington on the map.

10. Zombieland, one of the greatest zombie flicks out there. Bill Murray's cameo alone puts it on the list.

Haven't seen Avatar yet, but it will take more than just impressive visuals to make it on the list. If it entertains, and it makes me forget that the aliens are just blue-skinned Native Americans in a sci-fi remake of Dances With Wolves, then it could possibly make it on the list. I do still have faith in Cameron. At least he finally kicked his Titanic obsession.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

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