Profile of Brett Ratner in Variety

narrows101

Guest
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
0
Points
31
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117969384.html?categoryid=2631&cs=1&nid=2564

Ratner boasts box office prowess

Director's skills includes high-energy creativity, joie de vivre

By ANNE THOMPSON

It's easy not to take Brett Ratner seriously. But there's more to this gifted helmer than meets the eye.

Since his 1997 feature debut, the Chris Tucker comedy "Money Talks," the Miami-born director's seven released movies have grossed more than $1 billion worldwide. But while artistic cred has eluded him, Hollywood insiders view the 38-year-old Ratner as a talented filmmaker with visual style, an eye for comedy, serious action chops and a deft touch with difficult actors.

His movies are accessible, entertaining, fast-moving and never dull. His third "Rush Hour" action comedy, which drops bickering fish-out-of-water buddies Tucker and Jackie Chan in Paris, is no exception.

Ratner boasts canny commercial instincts, a strong work ethic, actors who adore him and the lowest-grossing of his picture, psycho-thriller "After the Sunset," nonetheless making $25 million. So what's not to like?

Well, when it comes to critics and journos, Ratner can't get no respect. His average Rotten Tomatoes rating is a rotten 39%. Ratner's neither an intellectual nor the sort of filmmaker whose movies get celebrated by critics at Sundance or Cannes

("X-Men: The Last Stand" screened outside the Competition on the Croisette). But Ratner is no studio hack either.

Fact is, Ratner is playing the big-studio moviemaking game better than most.

"He's a kid on the outside," says one of his many father-mentors, legendary Paramount mogul Robert Evans. "But underneath that kid facade is the most well-oiled machine to ever enter our town. He's an original.

Everything he's done has been successful. He made a global star out of Jackie Chan. His TV show ("Prison Break") is a big hit on Fox. Everyone in town is jealous of success. That kind of success is hard to get."

But Evans wishes Ratner would pull back on his media profile.

Ratner's recent cameo on "Entourage," filmed poolside with bikini-clad babes at his storied manse Hilhaven Lodge, did little to dispel his image as a womanizing party boy. His March Vanity Fair cover story celebrated his latenight revels with the rich and famous, including a list of model girlfriends.

"He's out there too much, too publicity-conscious," Evans says. "It hurts him. He should be more legitimately accepted and praised for his work as an artist instead of being seen as a flamboyant butterfly. He lacks mystery; directors far less capable are embraced by actors because of their mystery."

"I don't think Brett gives a ****," says Universal producer Mary Parent, who first met him at New Line Cinema, then hired him to direct the "Silence of the Lambs" prequel "Red Dragon." "He's not mean. He's a sensitive guy. When he sets out to do something, he does it. These are not easy films by any means. He has consistently delivered. It's not just luck. I'd place my money on him. He's going to cross the finish line."

For better or worse, this cheeky kid from Miami Beach boasts the perfect skill set to thrive in today's studio system. An aspiring young director could do a lot worse for a role model.

Don't take no for an answer
Ratner still dines out on the story of how NYU Film School initially rejected him at age 16 for his puny grades. But he had been making shorts since he was 8, and not only talked himself into the dean's office, but persuaded the guy to accept him into the program.

That's Ratner, Parent says: "His energy and passion are infectious, you could tell this guy was a force." He's got a determination about him. He's going to win. It's ingrained in his DNA. ... He's relentless. That's an important quality."

When he wanted to put together the first "Rush Hour" with Tucker and Chan, Ratner, who was 27 at the time, hopped a 23-hour-flight to South Africa to lure Chan, knowing the Hong Kong action star had pointedly given up on Hollywood. Ratner told Chan he had found a script that would work for the high-concept buddy comedy, but actually it was lousy. Then Ratner turned around without stopping over and flew back. Chan trusted him and agreed to star, even though he had no clue that Ratner was concocting a thriller/ comedy hybrid with Chan as the cool action straight man playing against Tucker's wild and crazy comic foil.

It took patience and friendly persuasion over five years to slowly push "Rush Hour 3" into production. "Chris is older," Ratner explains. "... He travels the world with Bono and Bill Clinton. He's changed as a person. But his character hasn't changed, although he's less shrieky than he was on '1' and '2.' "

"Rush Hour 3" was a more intimidating assignment for Ratner than even following behind the likes of Ridley Scott and Jonathan Demme on the Hannibal Lecter prequel "Red Dragon" and Bryan Singer on the last "X-Men" installment, he says. "This was the hardest one. Jackie, Chris and I put so much pressure on ourselves: 'How do we top this?' "

Some of that pressure may have come from justifying their mega-salaries: It took years of coaxing, many Jeff Nathanson rewrites and starting salaries of $25 million for Tucker, $15 million for Chan and $7.5 million for Ratner before the sequel finally started shooting on location in Paris with a whopping $140 million budget.

When he first arrived in Hollywood, Ratner turned down an entry-level job as producer Brian Grazer's assistant, protesting: "I'm a director!" Seven years ago, Ratner sent a '70s-era Playboy pinball machine to Grazer to alert him that he desperately wanted to direct his Hugh Hefner biopic. This year, having watched many writers and directors come and go, Ratner finally landed the gig. While Johnny Depp is a real possibility to play the Playboy founder, Paris Hilton will not be in it. "That's rumors on the Internet!!!" he cautions in a text message. "Please don't believe what you read!!! I also heard she is running for president!!!"

Suck up to your mentors
When Ratner solicited finishing funds for his NYU student short "Whatever Happened to Mason Reese" from 40 directors, he got one check in the mail: from Steven Spielberg. Years later when he met the director, they had something to discuss. Ratner started directing hip-hop musicvideos after he befriended Russell Simmons, co-founder of the Def Jam label. Ratner went on to direct some 100 musicvideos with artists such as Mary J. Blige, the Wu-Tang Clan, Lionel Richie and Madonna, whose award-winning "Beautiful Stranger" from "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me" grabbed Hollywood's attention.

Ratner admits to having a father fixation, partly because he barely knew his own. Ratner is unfazed by celebrities but fawns over movie directors. "I was envious that Paul Thomas Anderson was friends with Jonathan Demme and was hanging out on the set with Stanley Kubrick," Ratner confesses. "After 'Rush Hour,' I heard from Demme, Warren Beatty and Roman Polanski."

He instantly booked a flight to Paris to meet Polanski, bought up all the directors' posters he could find, and asked him to sign them at their lunch. At a later rendezvous while Ratner was scouting Paris locations for "Rush Hour 3," he impulsively offered Polanski a part in the movie. When he evinced interest, Ratner quickly called screenwriter Nathanson to write a role for Polanski to play. He came up with a sadistic French cop. "Can you see me running lines with Roman Polanski who I'm about to direct in a scene tomorrow?" he recalls. "I was freaking out."

Evans allowed Ratner to spend two years sleeping on his couch while Hilhaven Lodge was being renovated. For years, Ratner tried to convince Beatty to star in his remake of John Cassavetes' "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie." Ratner also talks frequently to Robert Towne, Quincy Jones and James Toback.

New Line Cinema chairman Robert Shaye first met Ratner in 1996 when the younger man switched airline seats to sit next to the mogul. Now Ratner flies on Shaye's jet to Cannes. New Line has backed five of Ratner's films.
Ratner likes the nonbureaucratic simplicity of getting a yes or no answer from the boss. "New Line is my home, they're like family," he says. "Bob is good to me, supportive. He's always written the checks. Then he *****es about it."

Learn your genres
Thirsty for knowledge, Ratner knows what he doesn't know. He has managed to gain experience in a wide range of genres.

Few know that Ratner first developed "Ocean's Eleven" with writer Ted Griffin; George Clooney tried to talk him out of making it. Ratner withdrew to shoot "Rush Hour 2," and Steven Soderbergh eventually asked him to remove his "Ocean's" credit. Instead, Ratner eventually took on the heist caper "After the Sunset," which failed to grab much attention.

When Ratner and screenwriter J.J. Abrams' script for "Superman" did not come together, Warner Bros. went with Bryan Singer instead. So Ratner, wanting a comicbook franchise, took Singer's place at the helm of "X-Men 3," probably his least satisfying film to date. But the pixel-packed pic was a blockbuster, and Ratner gained valuable experience with big-budget f/x action. Next time an action franchise comes up, Ratner will have more juice. (His name has been linked with "Spider-Man 4.")

But Ratner's franchise is the one he created himself. "Rush Hour" was inspired by hip-hop and kung fu movies. "When I first put (Tucker and Chan) together, they acted like they understood," he says. "But they didn't understand a word. We used that."

Defer to movie stars
Tucker recommended Ratner for "Money Talks" after he couldn't get along with the first director; Ratner had plucked him from a comedy club to star in a musicvideo for $500.

Now Tucker is so spoiled from working with Ratner that he won't do any other movies.

"I want him to go work for someone else," Ratner says, "so he appreciates me a little more."

Ratner insisted that the superstitious Chan cut his hair and dressed him in chic black suits. "Everyone else treated him like a goofy foreigner," Ratner says. "His dream was to be an American star. I'm happy I did the mitzvah and helped Jackie's dream come true."

Ratner keeps his stars on track, take after take. "I'm the keeper of the story. I'm making sure the plot is progressing. Because it's a thriller, not a broad comedy, you have to hold them in. But you don't stifle them. Because Jackie could easily design a $20 million fight sequence. If I put a camera on Chris, he could talk for 20 hours without stopping."

Cut to the chase
"He seems to know and is able to find the nerve of scenes," says Grazer. "And he follows the narrative line as well as any filmmaker today. He's able to satisfy the expectations not only of the mainstream audience but people with taste, because he has a unique understanding of the epicenter of a film."

"I try to tell a story in the simplest way possible," says Ratner. "I don't overcomplicate it, it's about how to use the lens, camera, dolly and frame to tell the story in the simplest way possible."

Have a heart
The "Rush Hour" movies rise above screeching cacophony because the mismatched cops adore each other. "He brings a level of humanity so that you become emotionally invested in the characters," Parent says.

Have fun
Ratner knows how to enjoy himself. He travels, likes to talk to strangers, sends out playful holiday cards of himself dressed as Superman. He collects such movie memorabilia as the silver gloves on a key chain given to the "Raging Bull" crew in 1979 by Martin Scorsese and Robert DeNiro. He shoots musicvideos as well as ad campaigns for the likes of Jimmy Choo and Jordache. Evans started him on this sideline by introducing him to photographer Helmut Newton in 2004.

Ratner produced an HBO documentary with Newton's wife, "Helmut by June." He shot Edward Norton for French Vogue and composer Gustavo Santaolalla for Vanity Fair.

Just say no
While Ratner loves to throw parties at Hilhaven Lodge, once owned by Ingrid Bergman and Alan Carr (who built a small orange-mirrored disco in the basement), truth is he doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs. He does like to hang with gorgeous women. "Sex is healthy, there's nothing wrong with that," Evans says.

"My big weakness is dessert," Ratner says. "I drink milk and water, and I don't sleep a lot. I watch a movie every night before I go to sleep. It inspires me."
 
Since I know this is bound to happen in this thread, I'd just like to give my 2 cents:

I don't think Brett Ratner is a bad director. I've seen the first 2 Rush Hour films, and thought they were rather good. I say Money Talks back in high school, and liked it. And I think the job he did with X-Men: The Last Stand was fine.

People give him **** because, quite frankly, on the internet, people are elitist pricks. That's not a shot at people -here-. I have seen it on many different message boards. People hate whatever is "mainstream", because they want to seem as though they are "outside the box". It's a mentality that leads to a belief that anything big budge Hollywood is bad, and anything independant is inherently good. So people bash Ratner because he's big budget and Hollywood.

But seriously, there is nothing wrong with films like Rush Hour or Money Talks. I think people take life too seriously. They think comedy is a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with laughing. And quite frankly, I thought the Rush Hour films were pretty high quality for comedy action buddy cop flicks.

As far as X-Men: The Last Stand goes... I don't think the direction was bad. I think the script had some bad material in places. I think that Ratner did a good job with the script and the movie, it was the script that needed some work and that came from the writers.

I've no problem with Brett Ratner, and I think the elitist attitude against him for his comedy movies is rather lame. I'd happily watch a movie that I knew was directed by Brett Ratner.
 
The line about X3 being 'his least satisfying' is rather ambiguous. Least satisfying to whom? To Ratner himself, to the writer of that piece, to the critics, to the mainstream?
 
I think it's rather revealing that certain people say "Those who don't like Ratner or his kind of movies are elitist pricks." Ever heard of difference of opinion? Most people have acknowledged that Rush Hour and Money talks are your usual typical dumb action films. It would be unwise of a person to go in expecting a deep action film.

On the other hand, when it comes to X-Men: The Last Stand. Fans, like myself for instance, were expecting a film that would I guess surpass the first two and would rival that of Return of the King for instance. It didn't happen for me and I can only speak for myself in that department.

Believe it or not a lot of people don't bash films, music, or games because "it's cool to do". If anything it's an excuse for people to feel better about liking it themselves. There is nothing wrong with comedy, but sometimes too much comedy ruins a film. Adding corny dialogue and awkward moments in X3 ruined the serious epic nature of the film itself.

It's one of the main issues that I have with Transformers. Transformers was a great fun action movie for me, but the corny dialogue, the lack of character development, the focusing on the humans, and the stupid comedic moments really took away from the story itself. It's never been about "taking life too seriously, people don't want to laugh anymore." Bottom line is when comedy is forced it's most likely not funny to the extent on which they hope for it to be.

Just for the record, 48 Hours is one of my favorite films and I enjoyed the duo of Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte. Now to me that's a great buddy cop action movie that is fun, funny, and action packed at the same time.

@X-Maniac-I think when they say "least satisfying film" they're speaking about when it came to the reception from critics and fans. For Ratner it made a ****load of money so I can't see it being a bad experience for him.
 
I think it's rather revealing that certain people say "Those who don't like Ratner or his kind of movies are elitist pricks." Ever heard of difference of opinion? Most people have acknowledged that Rush Hour and Money talks are your usual typical dumb action films. It would be unwise of a person to go in expecting a deep action film.

On the other hand, when it comes to X-Men: The Last Stand. Fans, like myself for instance, were expecting a film that would I guess surpass the first two and would rival that of Return of the King for instance. It didn't happen for me and I can only speak for myself in that department.

Believe it or not a lot of people don't bash films, music, or games because "it's cool to do". If anything it's an excuse for people to feel better about liking it themselves. There is nothing wrong with comedy, but sometimes too much comedy ruins a film. Adding corny dialogue and awkward moments in X3 ruined the serious epic nature of the film itself.

It's one of the main issues that I have with Transformers. Transformers was a great fun action movie for me, but the corny dialogue, the lack of character development, the focusing on the humans, and the stupid comedic moments really took away from the story itself. It's never been about "taking life too seriously, people don't want to laugh anymore." Bottom line is when comedy is forced it's most likely not funny to the extent on which they hope for it to be.

Just for the record, 48 Hours is one of my favorite films and I enjoyed the duo of Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte. Now to me that's a great buddy cop action movie that is fun, funny, and action packed at the same time.

@X-Maniac-I think when they say "least satisfying film" they're speaking about when it came to the reception from critics and fans. For Ratner it made a ****load of money so I can't see it being a bad experience for him.

I think it's rather telling that you take everything I say so personally.

Never once did I say that anyone who doesn't like his films is an elitist prick. I said that mentality seems very prevelant on internet message boards. And -that- is the truth. I have seen it here. I have seen it on other boards. That doesn't mean everyone who doesn't like these films are elitist pricks.

But the ones who go around, proclaiming their dislike for said films, and putting down those who do, or implying they have "lower standards" (*coughsoundfamiliarcough*) for liking such movies, -are- elitist pricks.
 
Oh god. Did I just see Ratner and Spider-Man 4 in the same paragraph?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[/Darth Vader]
 
I think it's rather telling that you take everything I say so personally.

Never once did I say that anyone who doesn't like his films is an elitist prick. I said that mentality seems very prevelant on internet message boards. And -that- is the truth. I have seen it here. I have seen it on other boards. That doesn't mean everyone who doesn't like these films are elitist pricks.

But the ones who go around, proclaiming their dislike for said films, and putting down those who do, or implying they have "lower standards" (*coughsoundfamiliarcough*) for liking such movies, -are- elitist pricks.

Let me get this straight. You wonder why Lastsunrise took what you said personally and then suggest that he is one of these so-called elitist pricks?

I would really like to know who all these elitist pricks are who post on these internet message boards. Could you actually name some of these people because I certaintly don't know who you're talking about. I know I'm not one of them because I have never called anyone an idiot for liking X3 or having a difference of opinion. On the other hand I can name many people who've been controntational with me, have tried to shut me up, and have called me an idiot for my dislike of X3.
 
Oh god. Did I just see Ratner and Spider-Man 4 in the same paragraph?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[/Darth Vader]

At first I was suprised but, considering Avi Arad's reputation I'm not suprised anymore.

In 2003 Avi Arad said Daredevil was going to be an amazing movie.

In 2005 Avi Arad said Elektra was going to be a great movie.

Avi Arad said Man-thing was going to be a good movie.

Avi Arad called fanboys idiots for being concerned about Ratner being hired for X3.

Avi Arad thought hiring MSJ for Ghost Rider was a good idea after he ruined DD.:oldrazz:

Avi Arad told fans that Galactus would not be a storm cloud in FF2.

Avi Arad told fans that FF2 would be at least 11 minutes longer than the rumored 90 minute run time.


Is there any reason why we should be suprised by any decisions this guy makes?
 
I think it's rather telling that you take everything I say so personally.

Never once did I say that anyone who doesn't like his films is an elitist prick. I said that mentality seems very prevelant on internet message boards. And -that- is the truth. I have seen it here. I have seen it on other boards. That doesn't mean everyone who doesn't like these films are elitist pricks.

But the ones who go around, proclaiming their dislike for said films, and putting down those who do, or implying they have "lower standards" (*coughsoundfamiliarcough*) for liking such movies, -are- elitist pricks.

I admit that I did act like a prick in the past. I would be lying to myself and to everyone if I said I was mature about my dislike for this film. However, no one has been innocent when it comes to particular attitudes. You have acted the same way towards anyone and act confrontational when the situation isn't needed.

With that said, we're all entitled to our own opinions. This film isn't a product that is critically acclaimed by the public, fans, or critics in such a fashion that SOMEONE has to bash it in order to look cool or feel normal. This film isn't Return of the King, Godfather, Braveheart, Gladiator, Jurassic Park, Batman Begins, Spider-Man, or even Terminator 2. Bottom line is that this film is a disappointment, much like Transformers, Spider-Man 3, and Superman Returns. All of said films failed to live up to their expectations but in the end made a lot of money.

As I said, no one is innocent when it comes to bad attitudes on the forum.
 
Oh god. Did I just see Ratner and Spider-Man 4 in the same paragraph?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[/Darth Vader]

You can rest soundly, no way Sony would allow Brett anywhere near a Spider-Man film.
 
You can rest soundly, no way Sony would allow Brett anywhere near a Spider-Man film.

For moment I thought about this then I remembered that Avi Arad convinced Sony that Mark Steven Johnson was the right guy for Ghost Rider.:dry:
 
And he was a big big big factor in Venom even being in Spidey 3 and we all know how Venom went because of him.
 
For moment I thought about this then I remembered that Avi Arad convinced Sony that Mark Steven Johnson was the right guy for Ghost Rider.:dry:

Ghost Rider isn't a billion dollar franchise. :cwink:

Sony isn't stupid. They know in order to maintain the success of Spider-Man they'll need good/great actors, great writers, and a great director. It's true they did let Mark Steven Johnson direct Ghost Rider, but I truly doubt they'd let Ratner or Mark Steven Johnson anywhere near a Spider-Man film.
 
At first I was suprised but, considering Avi Arad's reputation I'm not suprised anymore.

In 2003 Avi Arad said Daredevil was going to be an amazing movie.

In 2005 Avi Arad said Elektra was going to be a great movie.

Avi Arad said Man-thing was going to be a good movie.

Even so, loads of producers, directors, actors say that about their recent movies

"We've done our best", "Best movie I've done so far", "It's gonna be a great movie and everyone will love it"

In Disney, for example, they repeat it constantly.
 
Sir Ian Mckellen said X3 had the best script of the trilogy. So did Hugh Jackman. Anna Paquin and Halle Berry, if I'm not mistaken, said the actors didn't even have access to the full script, and so said Mr. Ratner. :confused:

:oldrazz:
 
Sir Ian Mckellen said X3 had the best script of the trilogy. So did Hugh Jackman. Anna Paquin and Halle Berry, if I'm not mistaken, said the actors didn't even have access to the full script, and so said Mr. Ratner. :confused:

:oldrazz:

I thought the original X3 script was arguably the most dynamic one of the 3 films. Then after Vaughn left the script was changed by Ratner and it became a complete mess.

After comparing the two original scripts of Transformers and X-Men 3 I'm amazed that the one I hated with a passion ended up being used to create a good movie. The one I liked ended up being partially responsible for the most dissapointing movie of my life.
 
I thought the original X3 script was arguably the most dynamic one of the 3 films. Then after Vaughn left the script was changed by Ratner and it became a complete mess.

After comparing the two original scripts of Transformers and X-Men 3 I'm amazed that the one I hated with a passion ended up being used to create a good movie. The one I liked ended up being partially responsible for the most dissapointing movie of my life.

What do you mean the original X3 script was "arguably the most dynamic"?

The original X3 script is pretty much what we got:

-Cyclops being killed by Jean Grey, and going out like a "fart in the wind"
-Magneto's abandoning of a cured Mystique
-Jean Grey killing Xavier
-Magneto using the Golden Gate Bridge to get to Alcatraz

etc...

I'm not saying that all these things are -bad-, but the original X3 script was not very well liked, and is pretty much the same thing we got in the film, which you hate so passionatley.

So what exactly about the original X3 script made it so "dynamic"?
 
Let me get this straight. You wonder why Lastsunrise took what you said personally and then suggest that he is one of these so-called elitist pricks?

I would really like to know who all these elitist pricks are who post on these internet message boards. Could you actually name some of these people because I certaintly don't know who you're talking about. I know I'm not one of them because I have never called anyone an idiot for liking X3 or having a difference of opinion. On the other hand I can name many people who've been controntational with me, have tried to shut me up, and have called me an idiot for my dislike of X3.

Not calling him an elitist prick, but his methods have been questionable in the past in the ways he went about expressing his opinion.

Most of the people on -this- forum who actually insult others aren't really here anymore. But, I have spent the last 7 years on another message board, which started off as a Bone Thugs-N-Harmony forum (my favorite music group), and eventually turned into a bunch of music and movie snobs who only listen to or watch "indie" movies, and bash everyone who likes anything and everything "mainstream", be it mainstream music or movies.

On here, the "elitism" is a bit different. But it's still there.

I.E.: I think that Ghost Rider, Daredevil and both Fantastic 4 movies are good. As well as X-Men: The Last Stand. I also think that Batman Begins and 300 are insanely over-rated, and nowhere near the "comic book holy grails" that people make them out to be.

You personally might not have much negative to say about that, but do you really think that opinion will be accepted around here? Or do you think it will be flamed non-stop? If I went to the community forum here or something, and proclaimed that X-Men: The Last Stand, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Fantastic 4, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and The Punisher were all better movies than Batman Begins, Spiderman 3, and 300, what exactly do you think the response to all of that would be?

After my time spent here, going on about 2 years now probably, I have learned to pretty much just -ignore- the comic book fanboy point of view. For one, most of them have absolutley no clue as to how to make a good movie. And second of all, their standards are so ridiculously high, and -good movies- are constantly bashed for one reason or another. Because they aren't deep or philisophical or something? Okay, sorry, I love me some comic books. I don't LOVE the X-Men for nothing. I don't love comic book films for nothing. Comic books are very enjoyable. But let's not lose perspective here. They are still -comic books-.
 
Not calling him an elitist prick, but his methods have been questionable in the past in the ways he went about expressing his opinion.

Most of the people on -this- forum who actually insult others aren't really here anymore. But, I have spent the last 7 years on another message board, which started off as a Bone Thugs-N-Harmony forum (my favorite music group), and eventually turned into a bunch of music and movie snobs who only listen to or watch "indie" movies, and bash everyone who likes anything and everything "mainstream", be it mainstream music or movies.

On here, the "elitism" is a bit different. But it's still there.

I.E.: I think that Ghost Rider, Daredevil and both Fantastic 4 movies are good. As well as X-Men: The Last Stand. I also think that Batman Begins and 300 are insanely over-rated, and nowhere near the "comic book holy grails" that people make them out to be.

You personally might not have much negative to say about that, but do you really think that opinion will be accepted around here? Or do you think it will be flamed non-stop? If I went to the community forum here or something, and proclaimed that X-Men: The Last Stand, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Fantastic 4, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and The Punisher were all better movies than Batman Begins, Spiderman 3, and 300, what exactly do you think the response to all of that would be?

After my time spent here, going on about 2 years now probably, I have learned to pretty much just -ignore- the comic book fanboy point of view. For one, most of them have absolutley no clue as to how to make a good movie. And second of all, their standards are so ridiculously high, and -good movies- are constantly bashed for one reason or another. Because they aren't deep or philisophical or something? Okay, sorry, I love me some comic books. I don't LOVE the X-Men for nothing. I don't love comic book films for nothing. Comic books are very enjoyable. But let's not lose perspective here. They are still -comic books-.

It depends on how you directed your statement. From what I've read Spider-Man 3 is and has received mixed responses. Sure, some people to like it, some love it, but I've seen quite a few people who absolutely loathe the film and would probably agree with you.

Batman Begins? You might get some bad responses. I don't feel it's overrated in the slightest as it's a great Batman film with character development and great performances. My only complaint about the film itself was the way the fighting was filmed.

300? I thought it was a really, really good movie. I think the reason why people love it so much is the visuals. The visuals are very beautiful and in a sense remind me of the ancient greek/spartan times. If they were to make a Death Dealer or a new Conan film I'd love for both of them to look like 300 did.
 
I must admit I did have a good giggle to myself over the line that Brett is in the running for Spider-Man 4. If only for the apoplectic responses of some people to that idea.

I really don't know if Brett could do a good job on that. I suspect Michael Bay is the man of the moment for big sweeping cityscape action, and even then, he had Spielberg's expertise behind him too.
 
It depends on how you directed your statement. From what I've read Spider-Man 3 is and has received mixed responses. Sure, some people to like it, some love it, but I've seen quite a few people who absolutely loathe the film and would probably agree with you.

Batman Begins? You might get some bad responses. I don't feel it's overrated in the slightest as it's a great Batman film with character development and great performances. My only complaint about the film itself was the way the fighting was filmed.

300? I thought it was a really, really good movie. I think the reason why people love it so much is the visuals. The visuals are very beautiful and in a sense remind me of the ancient greek/spartan times. If they were to make a Death Dealer or a new Conan film I'd love for both of them to look like 300 did.

Okay, since Spiderman 3 got mixed responses, it's okay for me to not like it?

I don't care WHAT the reception is for Batman Begins and 300, I think they are very over-rated, and really, not that good.

300 is praised for it's visuals? That's exactly why I find it to be such an over-rated movie. Because there is absolutley zero substance. It's just a bunch of visual eye candy and blood. There's absolutley no heart, or character, or depth to it.

But if I went on the 300 forums and attacked it the way you or thewheepeople attack X-Men: The Last Stand, I'd probably be run out of the forums for being a troll...

But for some reason that kind of behavior is accepted here...
 
Okay, since Spiderman 3 got mixed responses, it's okay for me to not like it?

I don't care WHAT the reception is for Batman Begins and 300, I think they are very over-rated, and really, not that good.

300 is praised for it's visuals? That's exactly why I find it to be such an over-rated movie. Because there is absolutley zero substance. It's just a bunch of visual eye candy and blood. There's absolutley no heart, or character, or depth to it.

But if I went on the 300 forums and attacked it the way you or thewheepeople attack X-Men: The Last Stand, I'd probably be run out of the forums for being a troll...

But for some reason that kind of behavior is accepted here...

Nell, you come off very confrontational and you may not care what reception Batman Begins or 300 received, but there are some who do and if you went to those forums with the kind of attitude you're displaying now then yes you would be attacked.

I'm sure if you went to the Batman Begins or 300 forum and proposed and intelligent debate in a calm and civil manner they'd respect your views. I attack X3 because for me it's a bad film, for me it doesn't live up to the greatness of X1 or X2. I've seen GoddessReicho(?) come here and say the same thing about all three X-Men films. She hates all of them and feels they were all mishandled, and as you know, the majority of posters here really loved X1 and X2. Just as I'm sure the majority of them enjoy X3 as well.

The problem is Nell, and this is just my opinion, it seems you want people to like the film and if they don't like it then there's something wrong with them in your eyes. I admit I have acted very immature towards you, Logan babe, Storm22, Danoyse, and even X-Maniac. I admit that, I won't hide the fact that I've been a prick about it towards my fellow posters. The difference is Nell I'm man enough to admit it and not hide what I've said or done.

You word it in such a fashion to where you come off as a victim. No one feels sorry for you at all, just like no one feels sorry for me when I got rightfully banned twice for insulting those who enjoyed X3.

You happen to like Daredevil, The Punisher, Ghost Rider, and X-Men 3? Well that's good. I happen to love the directors cut version of Daredevil and I enjoyed the Punisher when it was getting bashed to no end. But you have every right to enjoy the films you like and dislike the films you do. I'm not angry at you nor do I fault you for it.

But please stop playing the victim and stop coming off as if you're an innocent party here. You've done and said several rude things to people who proposed their views intelligently.
 
Nell, you come off very confrontational and you may not care what reception Batman Begins or 300 received, but there are some who do and if you went to those forums with the kind of attitude you're displaying now then yes you would be attacked.

I'm sure if you went to the Batman Begins or 300 forum and proposed and intelligent debate in a calm and civil manner they'd respect your views. I attack X3 because for me it's a bad film, for me it doesn't live up to the greatness of X1 or X2. I've seen GoddessReicho(?) come here and say the same thing about all three X-Men films. She hates all of them and feels they were all mishandled, and as you know, the majority of posters here really loved X1 and X2. Just as I'm sure the majority of them enjoy X3 as well.

The problem is Nell, and this is just my opinion, it seems you want people to like the film and if they don't like it then there's something wrong with them in your eyes. I admit I have acted very immature towards you, Logan babe, Storm22, Danoyse, and even X-Maniac. I admit that, I won't hide the fact that I've been a prick about it towards my fellow posters. The difference is Nell I'm man enough to admit it and not hide what I've said or done.

You word it in such a fashion to where you come off as a victim. No one feels sorry for you at all, just like no one feels sorry for me when I got rightfully banned twice for insulting those who enjoyed X3.

You happen to like Daredevil, The Punisher, Ghost Rider, and X-Men 3? Well that's good. I happen to love the directors cut version of Daredevil and I enjoyed the Punisher when it was getting bashed to no end. But you have every right to enjoy the films you like and dislike the films you do. I'm not angry at you nor do I fault you for it.

But please stop playing the victim and stop coming off as if you're an innocent party here. You've done and said several rude things to people who proposed their views intelligently.

You were a horror at some points in the past... and it's sad that it took the demise of a wrestling icon to shake you out of it and give you a bit of spirituality. Suddenly, it wasn't all about you, there was a bigger world with bigger events going on.

Of course people have their own tastes...although there are some who argue snobbishly about what makes a good movie. Several movies do not adhere to 'correct' dramatic structure. Those that DO, tend to stand out as classics (like Star Wars, for instance).

I can see why people might dislike the different presentation and approach of X3. But many people should have been prepared for something a little different, given the director and his previous projects. Given the chaotic production story, I think Brett did the best he could with the time, budget and circumstances. Maybe they shouldn't have added in Beast, Angel, Juggernaut, Quill, Multiple Man and others... in which case you couldn't have a mutant 'war' if the number of characters was reduced...unless it was Magneto and nameless mutants freed from prison. Would people want dozens of nameless mutants? Wouldn't they want some of them to be familiar, some of them to have a little more screentime? Isn't that what we got anyway?

As for 300, I found it a visual feast but an emotional famine (my words, not ripped off from anywhere). They added in the great scene of the Queen stabbing the traitor, which was very satisfying dramatically, and one of the best scenes, and shows how emotionally flat the source material was if scenes like that were invented for the movie. The endless chest-beating and yelling of war slogans and slow-motion weapons tended to be overused and very hollow after a while. But a lot of wow for the budget.

Ghost Rider -- I found it hard to see past the miscasting of the lead role and the silly addition of things like him sipping jellybeans in a martini glass. The effects were good, but considering the movie was delayed by months and months for the FX to be polished, I expected that.

Daredevil --- not bad at all, except the playground playfight with Elektra. Much better as a Director's Cut.

Batman Begins --- very good, but not a summer blockbuster, and not keen on the blurred fighting!

With so many superhero/comicbook movies coming out, there are going to the great and the not-so-great, they won't all be identikit Xerox versions of each other.

Sure, X3 (or insert name of any other film) wasn't as good as it could have been. With Singer leaving, Vaughn arriving and leaving, Philip Rousselot arriving and leaving, and Marsden, Paquin and Romijn having other projects on the go, it was a wonder it happened at all. Cyclops' death feels like the only obviously political aspect that is obvious in the movie, the lack of a Phoenix firebird and of the firebird effect nuking SFranciso is the only obvious absence due to budgetary constraints (and possibly some creative decision too), the absence of a uniformed Angel is the only real absence that may be because of lack of time, and the absence of a Washington showdown is a Ratner alteration. The absences/flaws are a shame. I don't know if the Washington showdown would have been better, but the other three things are regrettable.
 
But if I went on the 300 forums and attacked it the way you or thewheepeople attack X-Men: The Last Stand, I'd probably be run out of the forums for being a troll...

But for some reason that kind of behavior is accepted here...

What are you talking about Nell? I've stated many times that I don't care about the opinions of people who hate films that I like. These opinions don't interest me and are irrelevant. That's why you almost never see me in the threads of films that I like. Go ahead and bash 300/Batman Begins for all I care. You won't here a thing from me
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"