Now that was a let down!

Alicia Witt is in the cast, and she's only on screen for 5 minutes, tops! What a waste.

Thought it was alright. Mind you not the biggest tom cruise fan only like Interview witha a vampire an minority report for his other films

Agree with you though about se7en. Watched it the other day and it did drag abit and was a bit boring

Judge Dredd. Worst let down ever. The greatest comic book character of all time, and the first thing they do is take off his helmet. Then of course there's Rob Schneider....

I laughed out loud through several parts of that film.

You have the most dangerous human on the planet (apparantly) and you have him in a cage guarded by two unnarmed pensioners (who actually go into the cage to give him his dinner?) while the 50 man SWAT team are 10 floors below. Now if the SWAT team had all been in the same room as the cage....

Totally overrated nonsense.

I thought it was dire, partly because I think Brad Pitt's only even half decent acting performance was in Oceans 11 and only then because all he had to do was wear sunglasses and eat a sandwich in most of his scenes. And it was a big let down since it was the sequel to Lock Stock.




3 was better, but still not quality. Whoever picked that whiney, skinny, annoying pathetic excuse for an actor Hayden whatshisface to play Darth Vader needs shooting for making a mockery of the Star Wars films.


Never went to watch it fortunately!

The Ring. Dull as dish water.

A contender for the worst film ever.

Snakes on a Plane

>>LOCK IT<<

There's a few but tother night in my hotel room I wartched the grudge. Talk about a pile of nonsensical sh[iite[/i where nowt really happens.

Did you watch this before or after viewing one of the films which appear on the bill as 'room service'

?

The Avengers with Uma Thurman - Unwatchable

The Live Action Thunderbirds movie - Massive 'own goal'

Sgt Bilko with Steve Martin, the man who hasn't made a decent film in 20 years.

Anything with Eddie Murphy over the last 15 years and additionally, 'Best Defense' with him and Dudley Moore.

Remakes are almost invariably bad.

Can anyone think of a decent re-make?

It's tough, but one that comes to mind is Dracula (the Hammer version) is better than the original by some way.

Nosferatu?

Never seen it.

Its similar with books and films - I struggle to think of (m)any where the book is beaten by the film.

I agree mate many have tried and failed although i think the lotr trilogy did ok.

Yes and no in my opinion.

It left out those god awful songs and was a very enjoyable trilogy but it also changed or left out other bits that I'd enjoyed.

You enjoy the film more if you watch it before reading the book. It's what I did with LOTR and Harry Potter, and I was able to enjoy both.

Decent, yes. Better than the original, no.

For decent, try:

Desperado - Remake of El Mariachi
A Fistful of Dollars - Yojimbo
Magnificent Seven - Seven Samurai
12 Monkeys - La Jetee
Red Dragon - Manhunter
Casino Royale (Though this one might actually be better than the original!

)


Most disapointing films for me would be:
The Haunting - The original was so good and the remake was so bad!
Get Carter - The original is the best ever British gangster film, whilst the remake is the worst movie Stallone has ever done. In fact its so bad it makes Judge Dredd look like Star Wars!

Nosferatu isn't bad. It's just dated a bit . (Well, being a silent movie from 1922 its not that surprising!)

As for films that are as good as the books they came from, I'd say that following were as good:

Naked Lunch
To Have And Have Not
Paperhouse
The Maltese Falcon
Brighton Rock
Candyman

whilst The Big Sleep and any Mike Hammer movie are better.
(Admittedly, the only reason I include a carte blanche on any Mike Hammer movie is that Mickey Spillanes writing was so lousy!

)

Brighton Rock is the only one where I've read the book



A very credible effort but for mine the book still edges it but I do start from the position of favouring the books anyway - though Mahone's point about the order of viewing/reading is very valid.

i far prefer reading the book to watching the film.
war of the worlds is a classic, far better than the lame offering with tom cruise, a guy who isn't fit to be labelled an actor

Generally I would agree with you. However, there are oddities out there (Like Naked Lunch) which, whilst being good, are not particularly pleasant to read.

Having never read the book, am I allowed to say I enjoyed the film?

What about the laughable remake of 'The Wicker Man' ?

Nothing could ever beat the original, especially [ithat[/i scene with Britt Ekland