Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Gone are the days where I really thought I could be a jedi or someone would invent a lightsaber in my lifetime, and sadly I even reacehed the stage where I realised that star wars isn't the-best-film-in-the-world-ever, it's not even top 50.


Yep, I'd actually settle for watchable whilst the sounds wash me in a nostalgic haze.

I've been watching all the Star Wars films again recently with the kids. They are absolutely loving them - all of them - whereas I am largely relying on nostalgia for the old ones, and am frankly embarrassed by most of the acting and plotting in the later ones. If I were brutally honest, they don't even get into the top 50 films-I-have watched-with-my-kids.

Intersting question.

I'd go with "Up" for a film that pleases both equally.


I've watched edited highlights of Star Wars with my (just) 3 year old.


He likes Spaceships and robots, we skipped over neck crushes, he seemed indifferent to lightsabers, most scared of the wookie and was quite taken by the princess, weren't we all! I wouldn't say his eyes lit up with the magic, Ben & Holly still wins hands down on that, but it has been requested again, the robot bits.

CNBC lists the following as most profitable:


15. Lord of the Rings 1008% return

14. Mrs Doubtfire 1160% return

13. Something about Mary 1194%

12. The Hangover

11. Jaws

10. Ghost

9. Home Alone

8. The Passion of Christ

7. American Beauty

6. Star Wars

5. Grease (good shout Piers - a whopping 1975% return on its $20million (adjusted) budget)

4. Pretty Woman

3. Slumdog Millionaire

2. E.T.

1. My Big Fat Greek Wedding!?


What? Really?! It cost just $6million to make and yet reaped a huge $369million at the box office. That's a return of 6150% fact fans. As I was typing that list out I was thinking it was pretty good actually (bar Passion of Christ) and I'd happily watch all of those. But that number one just ruined it. Gah.

Maybe Bob, though it was poorer for not having many neighbours actors in it.


I'm not sure We Were Soldiers did. It did a bit of 'oooh they have photos of families too' stuff as a nod to a modern motif that we maybe ought to care about the enemy, but for the most part it did the usual yellow peril stuff.

It was really a tedious celebration of the US infantryman as doomed warrior hero surely.


IT was better than My Big Fat Greek Wedding though!

I think the general rule of thumb seems to be: the more Gibbo has to do with a film, the more chance it has of being unpleasant at the core. The Passion.. unpleasant. Apocalypto.. unpleasant.


I think you'd have to say Braveheart is well done and a jolly good wheeze, despite its preposterousness (same for Titanic - sorry!) There's a few I haven't seen for a while but thought were ok at the time: The Bounty, Year of Living Dangerously. Hamlet even. None of them exactly great, but ok. And not unpleasant.

ok, had a look at imdb


Dislike most of his films.

I loved Lethal Weapon when I was 14, but apart from having dated visually it has aged very poorly, the sequels followed the quality trajectory of most trilogies.


From the (non sequel) films i've seen post mad max 2


As Actor

The Good:

The Bounty

Bird on a Wire (when I say good we're not talking oscars quality here, enjoyable pap is perfectly acceptable)

Chicken Run


The Indifferent:

Lethal Weapon

The River

Mad Max 3

Air America

Forever Young

Payback

What Women Want

We Were Soldiers


The Bad:

Braveheart (i hate it i hate it i hate it)

Ransom

Conspiracy Theory

The Patriot

Signs

The Singing Detective

Edge Of Darkness


--------------------------


As Director:

Only Bad:

Braveheart

The Passion of Christ

Apocalypto


From this I conclude that although patchy, he made worse choices as an actor as he got older, but he's just loathsome when it comes to his own projects

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Lordship Lane has two dry cleaners, three pizza places and an Italian selling pizza, two burger places, three bakeries, two hardware (ish, I'm thinking AJ Farmer here), God knows how many coffee and charity shops, two Italians, three nail salons, five wine shops... Where was the abject outrage when Dynamic Vines opened up literally next door to Cave de Bruno? But I don't see his customers decamped next door - no, those stalwarts are still out in force every night.  In Roman times all businesses were clustered by product. It's what kept prices down. Same in any market you go to abroad, they're all selling the same things next to each other.  Why is everyone being so hard on this new place? It's called healthy competition - you can't curtail the expansion of your business on the basis you that might hurt someone else's. 
    • I have a new fixation so any available, please let me know.  Thanks.
    • In restaurant terms I would say a chain manifests when the motivation is no longer “we are a couple/small group who have an idea and love food” who open a restaurant, them another and then a few more BUT THEN PIVOT to “we need capital to rollout out new restaurants so we have leveraged the help of the following investors”  that is the moment it stops being about the chef/food on the plate and becomes about the spreadsheet  so it is POSSIBLE  for a restaurant to have 50 branches and not be a chain - but I can’t think of any  I don’t know chango - by based on the number of outlets they appear to have just crossed/or are about to cross that line 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...