Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 1:44 PM   
 By:   Michael24   (Member)

Making Live Free or Die Hard the first PG-13 rated Die Hard film. Also the ridiculous title (even Die Hard 4.0 would've been better by leaps and bounds).

I remember thinking Die Hard 4.0, when it was first announced, was one of the laziest-sounding titles I'd ever heard. I'm glad they changed it. As for being PG-13, I felt it barely impacted the movie, which I thought was still able to hold its own against the others. Aside from lacking a barrage of F-bombs, which doesn't necessarily make a movie better, I felt it all worked out just fine.

Everything about Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan.

Perhaps, but I'll take anything from it over anything from Jason X. big grin

Rob Zombie's decision to make young Michael Myers *speak* and foolishly attempting way too much backstory into why Myers is who he is in his remake of Halloween. Also having Myers *grunt* as he kills.

I wouldn't have minded a backstory if it hadn't been so terribly cliched. I mean, does everything Rob Zombie do have to be a spotlight on white trash? At least the origin given in the original line of films, while perhaps not "great," was at least interesting in that it dealt with a family curse instead of a stereotypical "abusive broken home childhood" backstory. Though he did makes noises in the early films, such as his heavy breathing as he's strangling P.J. Soles' character.

Killing Cpl. Hicks (Michael Biehn) and Newt at the beginning of Alien 3, after audiences spent the entire previous entry caring for, rooting for, and celebrating the survival of said characters.

Agreed. Foolish mistake.

Excluding the character Firefly from the recent live-action G.I. Joe.

Well, it was only the first film, so I think it should have focused on the core characters from both sides like it did. Let the secondary characters come in to play in the sequels.

The colossally annoying character Deputy Police Chief Dwayne T. Robinson in Die Hard.

Well, that was kind of the point I felt with his character. To make him a belligerent hard-ass who thinks he knows how to handle the situation, but doesn't.

Two words: Ellen Page

Ditto.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 2:14 PM   
 By:   Membership Expired   (Member)


I remember thinking Die Hard 4.0, when it was first announced, was one of the laziest-sounding titles I'd ever heard. I'm glad they changed it. As for being PG-13, I felt it barely impacted the movie, which I thought was still able to hold its own against the others. Aside from lacking a barrage of F-bombs, which doesn't necessarily make a movie better, I felt it all worked out just fine.


As I understand it, the title Die Hard 4.0 was dreamed up only for use in the International Market, were the title Live Free or Die Hard might feel a bit weird.

I agree though that it a very good Die Hard film.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 2:21 PM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

Having the "Jupiter One" lifting stage jettisoned and revealing the nowhere-near-as-good hockey puck Jupiter Two in the LOST IN SPACE remake. The Jupiter One looked like the original ship from the TV series but much larger and more hull details...they should've stuck with the design. (imagine if they had screwed up the Enterprise like this)

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 2:37 PM   
 By:   ScottDS   (Member)

I love Alien 3 (in it's extended form) but I recognize it's conceptually-flawed and that the killing off of Hicks and Newt must've been an unforgivable "point of no return" moment for some fans. smile

Having said that...

-Making Live Free or Die Hard PG-13... it's certainly not a deal-breaker and profanity doesn't necessarily improve a film but every time I think about it, I think about all the missed opportunities... but to their credit, the filmmakers really stretch the limits of PG-13 in terms of violence and mayhem.

-Shatner's idea for Star Trek V... I think the final film has its heart in the right place (and that score!) but I have to agree with Harve Bennett when he said, "It sounds like a logline from TV Guide: 'Tonight, the crew finds God.'" And right off the bat, you know they can't/won't.

-Avatar really needed another draft... before the film was released, one scene appeared on the geek sites: the scene where Sigourney wakes up and visits the mustache-twirling, golf-practicing company man... I wrote on Facebook at the time: "If the rest of the film is as badly-acted and badly-written as this, we're in trouble!"

-Dane Cook big grin

-Letting former editor-turned-director Stuart Baird direct Star Trek: Nemesis... the man's a talented editor and his first directorial job (Executive Decision) is a huge guilty pleasure of mine... but he's strictly a technical director, not a storyteller... combine that with a subpar script (which was leaked months in advance), Rick Berman (and I'm not one of those "Berman and Braga suck!" guys), a release date sandwiched in between Bond and Lord of the Rings, and you're left with a bland film with a few memorable lines and images and the best character moments left on the cutting-room floor... not to mention the salaries of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner which no doubt meant cuts in other areas... this is 2002 and I couldn't believe I was looking at (obviously) fake translight backings at the end of the Scimitar corridors!

-Judd Apatow and Adam McKay allowing their actors to improvise and then not knowing when to: a.) reign them in or b.) when to cut! So many comedies today lack memorable dialogue, depend too much on pop culture references, and are a tad too long only because the actors babble for ten minutes about nothing (and the DVDs are usually packed with alternate line readings)... one of my improv classmates said the worst thing was seeing TV ads for The 40 Year Old Virgin and "Kelly Clarkson!!" being one of the punchlines...

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 2:49 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

Dane Cook

Oof. Good call on that one.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 3:08 PM   
 By:   Freejack   (Member)

Casting Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Yep that's one of the worst. wink


Personally, I was hoping that they would cast Christian Slater. big grin


 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 3:40 PM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)


Making Live Free or Die Hard the first PG-13 rated Die Hard film. Also the ridiculous title (even Die Hard 4.0 would've been better by leaps and bounds).



Vince Vaughn in the Psycho remake.


The 4th Die Hard is my favorite of the series, and everything about the Psycho remake is a mistake.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 4:08 PM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

I'm not talking about continuity, or bloopers, historical or physical errors or anachronistic devices or scenes etc. I am talking about a film in which a production decision was made that, in hindsight, was so wrong that it affected the quality of and respect for the film.


The decision to remake:

Psycho
The House On Haunted Hill
13 Ghosts
Planet of the Apes
House of Wax
Night of the Living Dead 3-D
Dawn of the Dead
Day the Earth Stood Still
The Haunting
I Am Legend
Halloween
The Fog

and

South Pacific (Australian version)

were fatally flawed from the get-go.

Richard

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 4:43 PM   
 By:   DeputyRiley   (Member)

I remember thinking Die Hard 4.0, when it was first announced, was one of the laziest-sounding titles I'd ever heard. I'm glad they changed it. As for being PG-13, I felt it barely impacted the movie, which I thought was still able to hold its own against the others. Aside from lacking a barrage of F-bombs, which doesn't necessarily make a movie better, I felt it all worked out just fine.

I agree that added swearing doesn't enhance a movie, but I have to say I drew the line when the PG-13 version prohibited McClane from saying his most famous catchphrase in its complete form: "Yippie Kay Yay, Motherf*****" I mean come on, that was disappointing. A pre-2000 McClane would have labeled the chief villain the correct McClane way.

My favorite Die Hard is Die Harder, no doubt. I did love the 4th Die Hard though, and really enjoyed Beltrami's score with its nods to Kamen's original works. The gunfight at the apartment and the DC helicopter chase scenes are incredible to me. I must say that I have to add Kevin Smith's appearance to "worst intentional film production mistakes" also -- that guy has no place in a Die Hard movie. It even took me awhile to warm to the comedic element introduced in Die Hard With a Vengeance's Sam Jackson also...but the attempt at "comic relief" in Die Hard 4's Kevin Smith is ridiculous. I was reminded of another insanely-conceived pairing, Michael Myers and Busta Rhymes.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 5:26 PM   
 By:   Michael Arlidge   (Member)

For me, Whitlock's big groaner was the bunker with the cartoony missile in it, and the Chinese army guy with the drawn on missiles behind him. I also don't like the background art of Earth seen behind the satellite.

It would have helped if the Chinese army guy was a better actor, I guess.razz

I do love the shot of the rocket breaking open as it leaves Earth, which is a pretty classy shot in my opinion.

No doubt helped in its classiness by John Barry's score.

I think the opening scene with Kidd and Wint by the way features a great example of that helicopter trick you mention done correctly.

It's a day-for-night shot, so the look of the explosion was different in its end result anyway. There's certainly no bright orange smudge on the screen.embarrassment

I would have thought that would have been the more expensive route rather than hire Stears to be overall supervisor of everything as he had been on the previous installments.

You're probably right. My comment was more about the fact that Stears was a Bond regular, and thus had the respect of the producers (or at least that of Cubby Broccoli; Harry Saltzman only ever gave a damn about himself). If it came to the crunch, they wouldn't have screwed Stears.

I think the rocket lowering into the volcano in You Only Live Twice is some of the worst special effects of the 1960s, and I don't think it was cheap, either.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The 'making of' documentary for the film gives away how they achieved that, so every time I watch it I can't help but laugh.

In my opinion I think Derek Meddings really elevated the reputation of production value on 007 movies.

He was a master of making miniature models look enormous. The Liparus supertanker from "The Spy Who Loved Me" was a work of genius of the highest order.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 6:49 PM   
 By:   Mr. Jack   (Member)

Michael Mann's decision to cast Colin Farrel as Sonny Crockett in MIAMI VICE. The actor has no idea who this character is. Also, the decision to shoot with digital cameras instead of 35mm. The dim, ill-defined image undermines the pictorial value and communicative ability of the movie. Also, Jan Hammer's classic theme and instrumentals were sorely missed.


Far more crippling was Mann's decision to shoot Public Enemies with the same DV cameras. An otherwise well-cast, meticulous re-creation of the 1930's was utterly RUINED by the horribly pixelated, smeary "cinematography". mad Mann needs to take notes from David Fincher of how to properly use DV cameras (i.e. Zodiac and Benjamin Button, both of which looked like actual film).

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 8:07 PM   
 By:   SBD   (Member)

Just about all production decisions for the movie The Spirit.

Excepting David Newman's fine score, perhaps. Even if I didn't think the film was an immense guilty pleasure, Newman's hiring was one of the truly intelligent decisions made by the production team.

The amped-up extreme gore in the remake of Black Christmas -- proving that in this case less is more.

Damn straight. Shame it had to be the last film scored by the wonderful Shirley Walker.

Marketing the phenomenal film The Invisible incorrectly, misleading audiences and preventing a lot of people from giving it a chance.

More of an issue (in my opinion) was the relationship between Nick and Annie. The girl beats the guy half to death and I'm supposed to buy that he'd feel anything for her that wasn't unflappable contempt? Seriously, writers of The Invisible, eat me.

- Frigo in Adventureland. The guy's main character trait was punching people in the junk. What's funny about that?

- Vanessa not being punished for what, essentially, amounted to rape in the next-to-last scene of 40 Days and 40 Nights. Again, I ask, what's funny about that?

- The moronic attempts at humor in both Transformers films. Without them, these films could've been halfway decent.

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 8:47 PM   
 By:   DeputyRiley   (Member)

More of an issue (in my opinion) was the relationship between Nick and Annie. The girl beats the guy half to death and I'm supposed to buy that he'd feel anything for her that wasn't unflappable contempt? Seriously, writers of The Invisible, eat me.


I see what you are saying. Here's my take on the Nick and Annie relationship...Nick's journey to redemption and salvation was marked by forgiveness. Sure at first he did feel unflappable contempt for Annie (which of course is why he threw her off the roof of her building). Once he discovered his mom wasn't the cold-hearted bitch he thought she was after she cracked, he forgave her and saw her in new light. I felt like the same thing happened when Nick saw Annie's home life and her relationship to her little brother, he realized she wasn't the cold-hearted bitch he thought she was and began to forgive her. Plus, he realized that she was the only one who could see him and thus held some great importance in his journey and he saw a side to her when she was alone that negated the evil deed she committed early in the film.

That's just how I saw the story. I thought their relationship was very moving by the end of the film, underlined remarkably by Marco Beltrami's soaring score (a favorite of mine).

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 9:55 PM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Michael Mann's decision to cast Colin Farrel as Sonny Crockett in MIAMI VICE. The actor has no idea who this character is. Also, the decision to shoot with digital cameras instead of 35mm. The dim, ill-defined image undermines the pictorial value and communicative ability of the movie. Also, Jan Hammer's classic theme and instrumentals were sorely missed.


Far more crippling was Mann's decision to shoot Public Enemies with the same DV cameras. An otherwise well-cast, meticulous re-creation of the 1930's was utterly RUINED by the horribly pixelated, smeary "cinematography". mad Mann needs to take notes from David Fincher of how to properly use DV cameras (i.e. Zodiac and Benjamin Button, both of which looked like actual film).


Well, let's agree the DV cameras were equally injurious to both films. I wonder if Michael Mann hasn't lost his head over all these new digital toys.

Mann likes to cast cold diffident British actors as Americans in as many roles as he can. The casting in Public Enemies strikes me as just plain nuts. Christian Bale is not believable as Melvin Purvis. I'm not saying he's a bad actor or that he gives a bad performance, no, I'm saying he's the wrong person for the part, and it shows. Likewise, pretty boy Johnny Depp is not believable as Dillinger. Compare him to Warren Oates. All Warren Oates had to do to be believable was show up for work. He had the personality and demeanor of Dillinger. He was the right person for the role. Depp is wrong. Yeah I know everybody likes them,.but that don't make it right when many appropriate actors are available. These casting decisions, like the digital media on which the film is shot, really torpedo Public Enemies so far as I'm concerned.

Any director who has Mann's resources has no excuse for screwing up.

Richard

 
 Posted:   Jul 25, 2010 - 10:01 PM   
 By:   DeputyRiley   (Member)

Any director who has Mann's resources has no excuse for screwing up.

Except for the fact that they're human, right?

 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2010 - 5:30 AM   
 By:   SBD   (Member)

Except for the fact that they're human, right?

Perhaps, but I'm with the others. I can't imagine Mann looking at the dailies on this and honestly thinking to himself: "This is just what I want this film to look like!"

If not for this (and a really nasty scene of police brutality), PUBLIC ENEMIES might've been on my best movies list of last year.

For a modern, urban thriller like COLLATERAL, this decision made some sense, but for a period gangster drama...not so much.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 26, 2010 - 8:21 AM   
 By:   ahem   (Member)

Except for the fact that they're human, right?

Perhaps, but I'm with the others. I can't imagine Mann looking at the dailies on this and honestly thinking to himself: "This is just what I want this film to look like!"
.


I disagree entirely. These films were shot with HD cameras, not DV, and Mann has said he was purposefully using them to shoot in very low light. He shot many scenes from Collateral on 35mm film but the low light, high depth shots in HD without a shutter (so it looks videoish) so he could capture a more naturalistic look for the real locations.

Mann has always been hip and with pop culture, always with the visuals and the music. I think the HD stuff is a very purposeful move towards a modern aesthetic of digital immediacy and cel phone videos, engaging again heavily with pop culture. Had all this stuff been around when he did Miami Vice I am sure he would have done the same. I don't see any difference between the consciously raw looking HD look of the 1930s period film Public Enemies and scoring The ww2 set The Keep with a 1983 synth score by Tangerine Dream.

All of the HD cameras Mann has used on all of these projects are very capable of giving a film like aesthetic and have been used so seamlessly on many movies. I don't think this is what interests Mann and not the point of the films he is trying to make. He's challenging the conventional in this regard, in my opinion, whatever you think of it (I don't like his movie for other reasons). I think if Mann wanted to he could make like Fincher and shoot very filmlike images with the same cameras, but I don't think that's what he's trying to say. Look at The Insider and Ali (with the lipstick camera shots) and you can see even there he was beginning to experiment with non filmic looking images, in my opinion.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 27, 2010 - 3:01 AM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Jar Jar Binks

'nuf said.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 27, 2010 - 3:49 AM   
 By:   groovemeister   (Member)

Allowing Michael Bay on a filmset, it's not only a mistake, it's a CRIME !

 
 Posted:   Jul 27, 2010 - 7:38 AM   
 By:   DeputyRiley   (Member)

Megan Fox

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2018 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.