Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on November 04, 2005, 03:01:01 PM
-
Read it here: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1192
-
I cant help but feel that this movie would have been better if Robert Rodriguez had directed it.
-
i wasn't too thrilled with the first one, i am probably going to miss this one too.
-
I cant help but feel that this movie would have been better if Robert Rodriguez had directed it.
I think Robert Rodriguez very possibly could have made the film substantially worse than it was, and that is saying something. I don't get why people like him so much. It doesn't impress me in the least that he made "El Mariachi" for $7,000 when it looks like he made it for $700, and "From Dusk 'Till Dawn" is a travesty. I'll admit that "Sin City" had some impressive visuals, but in general I think very little of him as a director.
-
Your entitled to your opinion of Dusk Till Dawn... I liked it though.
Spy Kids was certainly fun. In fact Spy Kids 2 was actually fun.
And Sin City was awesome.
so
but the first Zorro blew chunks, so I hold no gripping desire to see a second one.
Bow down to my unreasoning demands!!!!
And the director of the new Zorro certainly hasnt done anything that I would consider good... unless you count his episode of Reily Ace of Spys
-
"The Mask of Zorro" was what it was - the essence of classic "Zorro." It sounds to me like you didn't want something that was true to the feel of Zorro.
I like "Mask of Zorro" and "GoldenEye," though they do both drag in places. "GoldenEye" certainly isn't a great film, but no Bond movie ever was.
Frankly, "Sin City" and "From Dusk 'Til Dawn" are two of the only movies I have ever walked out on in my life. "Sin City" was very well done, but it was too graphic for my personal taste (again, I think it was an impressive peice of filmmaking) and "Dusk" was stupid BEFORE they started turning into vampires. As soon as that happened, I refused to watch the rest of it.
Again, all of this opinion, and everyone has their own.
-
I liked the first Zorro. I would like to see this one, but I've been kind of feeling like it was one to wait to hit the Dollar Theater, and after reading this review I think I'll do that.
-
"The Mask of Zorro" was what it was - the essence of classic "Zorro." It sounds to me like you didn't want something that was true to the feel of Zorro.
No
It wasnt the essence of classic Zorro. Im a classic Zorro fan, back to the black and white TV days.
The Mask of Zorro bothered me because of the boring and phoned in performances by everyone in the cast including Anthony Hopkins. Most people were distracted by the acting of Zeta Jones heaving bosum which gave the best performance of the movie, that or Banderas's pectorals. The effects were boring, and the story a real snoozer.
-
I liked the first Zorro movie, it was a fun popcorn flick. I'm not a Zorro Expert so I'll take Jeffe's word at they're different.
-
Having seen quite a lot of zorro, ranging from the Disney show to Zorro: The Gay Blade, I have to vociferously disagree with Jeffe. I wasn't the biggest fan of the movie, but I can't think of any errors or significant problems with it. It was, over all, a good flick, and pretty true to the feel of Zorro across the board.
Dusk Till Dawn, though, ew. I mean, I've really only seen the vampire part, which was pretty ridiculous and stupid. I'm told that leading up to the vampire part is the good bit, but if that's the case, why am I watching a vampire flick if the only good bits are those without vampires?
-
I guess we can agree to disagree on Zorro. Although I thought cultured Don Diego in the Disney Series was a lot more compelling than the ex convict Don Diego in the movie. Its like if batman had been a Street Punk instead of a Billionaire (Robin). Maybe its just that I think the Fairbanks version is the best. But Im pretty sure I wont be watching the new one.
Dusk till Dawn wasnt any worse than the Creepshow series of movies, which were pretty entertaining... The best part about it was that they werent below making Vampires cheezy, and chewing up all the stupid cliches that make Vampire movies kind of dumb. And they did it a lot better than Mel Brook's Dracula parody.
-
well, to be fair, it's more like Bruce Wayne got arrested and spend a very long time in jail, then broke out and taught a street punk to replace him as Batman.
THe Don Diego at the beginning of MoZ IS the cultured Don Diego. His identity is revealed, and he spends a couple decades in jail, finally breaking out. So he can't exactly return to his money.
-
the real Zorro would have never been captured.
-
weak.
-
I object to the notion that Anthony Hopkins was hopelessly miscast in the first Zorro. He was excellent and played each emotion and scene perfectly.
-
His nationality was wrong, but no worse than Banderas's--in fact, given Mexico's hatred for Spain, it was probably better. But I've come to forgive that in movies, provided teh character was done well. And Hopkins does almost everything well (the lone exception being Bad Company, but honestly--could anyone have done that well?).
-
I agree. I really like Anthony Hopkins as an actor.
-
His nationality was wrong, but no worse than Banderas's--in fact, given Mexico's hatred for Spain, it was probably better. But I've come to forgive that in movies, provided teh character was done well. And Hopkins does almost everything well (the lone exception being Bad Company, but honestly--could anyone have done that well?).
The other exception being "The Silence of The Lambs," one of the most overrated movies and silliest performances of all time.
Otherwise, I like Hopkins, particularly in "Amistad," and "The Remains of the Day."
-
If you don't like Silence of the Lambs, then we have no common ground on which to speak. That's one of my all-time favorite movies.
-
If you don't like Silence of the Lambs, then we have no common ground on which to speak. That's one of my all-time favorite movies.
I feel the need to clairfy that, while we stand by the statement that Hopkins was miscast as Don Diego, we loved him in the part. He was too Britishm, and way too old for the openning sequence, but he sold it, because he's a terrific actor, and he was badly missed in the second film (not as badly as writers Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, though.).
Miscasting does not automatically indicate a bad performance - some actors rise above it so brilliantly that they make you forget what a strange choice it was. Sean Connery never should have been cast as Marko Ramius in "Red October," but I would have it any other way. Interestingly enough, the part of Don Diego in "mask of Zorro" was written for Connery - idefintely think Hopkins made a great as an Indiana Jones style hero in "Robin Hood," he just was completely out of place as an Englishman.
As for "Lambs" - we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm gonig to stop discussing that movie with people. It's kind of like Skar and "Pearl Harbor" or other war films - it hits too close to home (I won't elaborate how.). I have a big problem with serial killer movies, because they either scare the hell out of me (as did Buffalo Bob) or offend me with their cartoonish campiness (as did Hannibal Lecter.). But film appreciation is subjective, and to each his own.
-
Fair enough. But I will reserve the right to cast you quizzical glances in the hallway, should I ever chance to pass by you while walking down one.