Movies with a really good premise, but poor execution
Exactly what the title says.
I guess the most obvious one for me would be Alien vs. Predator. A dream scenario for pretty much any sci-fi fan, with both franchises (or at least certain entries) being absolutely exquisite. They've had two bites of the cherry now, and suffice to say, both have been failures.
Another one would be Cowboys vs. Aliens. Just look at that title! At the very worst, it should have been cheesy, lame fun. What we got though was very boring, and that's the last thing it should've been.
And finally for now, Jumper. Someone who has the ability to teleport being chased down by a secret society trying to kill him sounded like a very engaging plot, but going to see it led to one of the most anti-climactic cinema experiences, as well as one of the most dull, I've ever experienced.
What say you? What do you guys think had the potential to be great, but disappointed?
I guess the most obvious one for me would be Alien vs. Predator. A dream scenario for pretty much any sci-fi fan, with both franchises (or at least certain entries) being absolutely exquisite. They've had two bites of the cherry now, and suffice to say, both have been failures.
Another one would be Cowboys vs. Aliens. Just look at that title! At the very worst, it should have been cheesy, lame fun. What we got though was very boring, and that's the last thing it should've been.
And finally for now, Jumper. Someone who has the ability to teleport being chased down by a secret society trying to kill him sounded like a very engaging plot, but going to see it led to one of the most anti-climactic cinema experiences, as well as one of the most dull, I've ever experienced.
What say you? What do you guys think had the potential to be great, but disappointed?
0
Comments
A decent director could have turned those three films into masterpieces alongside the 77-83 trilogy but Lucas failed dismally.
Great premise, opening credits, cinematography (unusual palette, too), art direction, interesting 1970s vibe and fairly decent performances, but the script and the execution were a massive let-down.
Upside Down (2012), Limitless (2011), Prometheus (2012), Franklyn (2008), Jumper (2008), Timeline (2003), The I Inside (2004), Looper (2012), Vanishing on 7th Street (2010), Pandorum (2009), The Darkest Hour (2011), and In Time (2011)
All these have great SF concepts, but in each case, the filmmakers wasted the opportunity to make it a lot more interesting, compelling and imaginative and well-executed than it is. So annoying.
I agree, the first one was ok until they actually started the Purge (shutters down) and then it got stupid.... especially the robot bit lol.
The second one was a big improvement yet some bits felt disjointed.
I would like to see a film based on just one apartment block, a setting such as in Rec or the Raid movie.
I did enjoy the last purge movie but it was more like a Deathwish movie in some ways... which isn't bad but I didn't think it totally encaptured the premise of the Purge other than Rich people paying to kill somebody. The ending did kind of rectify that though.
I liked Daybreakers a bit but couldn't help feeling the movie didn't do premise any justice, its quite original in many regards but its very lacking in many areas. Perhaps it was a budget thing.
I don't want to add Prometheus to the list as I am praying the 2nd movie may help the original, I fully respect people who think it was a shoddy effort though.
Having Sidney heading back to Woodsboro is a great idea. Having Gail being bored out of her mind in a small town and being slightly annoyed that Sidney is kind of beating her at her own game with writing books is great as well.
The new teens suck. Well expect Kirby, though that's only because she's the female Randy. Having another member of Sidney's immediate family as a psycho killer was a big mistake.
It just could of been so much more.
Loved Scream 4! I love how it was still culturally aware and they really sold the cousin being a killer with her motivations, that is fame is a big part of our culture now.
If they had only put a bit more effort into the actual story and the questions on ethics it posed in the first half, and cut some of of the outlandish action, it may have been a storming proper sci-fi flick, not an average action film with a disappointing ending.
Welcome to a Micheal Bay film. He's such a hack, the film never stood a chance of being any good.
Yeah I have been put off his films for good now I think..!
Surely that's more an example of "Movies you don't like even though they are highly rated"?
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-matrix
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix/
I don't think it fits in a thread like this with AvP and the Star Wars prequels...
[The Matrix sequels, on the other hand...]
What was wrong with the martial arts?
The thread title makes no reference to how highly the movies are regarded. I think premise of The Matrix was good (an old premise) but the execution was poor - regardless of how highly rated it is.
I have over 25 years martial arts experience (TaeKwonDo). The actors' level of skills was at beginners level. That in itself isn't a terrible thing, what does make it laughable is that within the context of the movie they were meant to have the skills of experts.
It was the long awaited sequel to Halloween H20 & it decided to take the franchise in a slightly different direction.Since Halloween II apart from H3 the running theme is Michael trying to kill a family member throughout the film.HR decided to have this format within the first 15mins of the film.For the rest of the film Michael is just killing people because they are in the house he grew up in.
The film served no real purpose & many Halloween fans will say this film killed the original franchise.
Laughable to you perhaps, but who else in the audience gives a hoot?
The Matrix did have an excellent and timely premise. What they couldn't do is forge a decent narrative out of it. The first 45 mins or so are excellent, but then it gets bogged down in exposition - telling us all about 'the matrix' but not doing much with it. I know the film has a repution for being nothing like as clever as it thinks it is, and perhaps here's why.
Again, the thread is not about audience perception, it's about (poor) execution. The point was that the characters were meant to have expert skills, yet the execution of that aspect was poor because the actors skills were anything but expert. That fact remains, regardless if it was enjoyed by the audience or not.
To be fair though, Yuen Woo-Ping's choreography in The Matrix is fantasy based, not based on the reality of any martial arts style. I don't know of any style where the practitioners can leap 30ft through the air in slow motion or punch in a blur of fists. I thought the actors managed to execute their moves well enough to carry the story. The "Chateau" fight scene in The Matrix Reloaded with all the weapons is one of my favourite scenes.
I was talking in particular about The Matrix. It didn't have to be based on any particular martial art. Both LF and KR's movements were stiff and rigid. They only had a few months to learn, and it shows. It's the level you'd expect to see from anyone who had only been training a few months, regardless of which martial art it was.
There is massive difference between what we got in the fist movie and what we got in Reloaded, Collin Chou in particular was excellent. That's the level of skill that we should have seen in Morpneus and Neo in the first movie. It's the level of skill the plot demanded. But clearly the actors weren't up to that demand, due to their limited training.
Does it really matter if a vast majority of the audience are unaware? You may know they're anything but expert, but should it be of any concern to them? It's only a movie, as they say, and a fantasy one at that.
No it doesn't matter, I've been saying that all along. However it doesn't take away from the fact this aspect was poorly executed.
I found Up was the first to be like this. It didn't know whether it wanted to be one of the more 'mature' Pixar films or whether it wanted to play up to slapstick. You had the really moving prologue for the film, and then we move on to squeaky voiced dog villains - it wasn't just that it was totally random, it was that the style of comedy seemed a bit cheap for Pixar's usual standard of wit.
I felt Brave was the other one that was poorly executed, but then it did have a lot of behind-the-scenes changes that probably explain it all away. It started out as The Bear and the Bow, and the witch was meant to be a much more major villain than she turned out to be. Ultimately so much got changed in the transitions behind the scenes that the film suffered from the "random" issue. The plot twist regarding the mother half way through just seemed very at odds with everything else the film had been doing, and took the film in a peculiar direction that didn't quite seem to work.
Suppose you need a bit of lightheartedness for the kids in amongst the peril.
Oh definitely, and it's not a bad movie by any stretch. I just found that for Pixar it was the poorest balance of peril/drama and comedy/laughs, as the two were so at odds with each other in tone. I loved the big bird thing, but thought the talking dogs were just...too far? Up and Brave are the two Pixar films I'd probably choose to not watch again I think.
Scream 4 is a sequel, a re-make, and a satire on rubbish re-makes all at the same time. How clevers that.