Underrated? - Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997) Discussion

[–] norrico 16 years ago

No

Give me fuel, give me fire, give me that which I desire...

reply

[–] PrincessNemi 16 years ago

lol alright straight to the point. I love the games but When I watched this I nearly wet myself laughing so I'd give it at least a four out of ten just because how much I enjoyed watching it.

___________________________________
We point, we laugh, we ridicule. It's human nature to do so.

reply

[–] tlwilliams 16 years ago

I agree that its underrated. I mean both MK's are terrible movies, but that being said I still manage to enjoy them somewhat. I really do not see that much of a difference from 1 to 2. 2 is worse but it's still corny and ridiculous as 1 was.

Well... That's just like my opinion, man.

reply

[–] MrOrange88 16 years ago

both mk's terrible movies....are u kidding

MK1 was great

the acting was ok, the story was simple but stayed true to how the first game was, it developed characters, had good special effects without overusing them, and told a complete story that seemed good enough for a video game based movie

MK2 should not even compare to the first movie, too many characters, no character development, cheesy special effects and costumes, the replacement of actors in key roles, rushed script, everything u could possibly do wrong, the movie did....

reply

[–] eviljay666 16 years ago

HOLY S*** NO!!

...and I love awful movies!

reply

[–] coalman1-239-483144 10 years ago

These films would be 'hilariocities' according to Chris Stuckmann :P

Films so bad that they are hilarious.

reply

[–] sponix 14 years ago

No, the movie sucks and they couldn't keep the actors for a second time must prove something.

reply

[–] wolverine_rahul2005 16 years ago

i totally agree .. damn underrated along wid the first part!!
i gave it 8 stars!!!

reply

[–] pnayballer10 16 years ago

How can the first one be underrated when it was highly successful.

reply

[–] americanadian25 15 years ago

I don't know if I would say the first movie was "highly" successful. It took in a good deal of money but critical reception was for the most part pretty negative. Fans of the games were generally satisfied with the original but overall the reception was fairly cold with critics and moviegoers. I personally don't consider either film underrated, but I can understand if somebody would. The first MK was decent, the second sucked!

http://www.youtube.com/user/americanadian/

reply

[–] wallacesawyer 15 years ago

A little underrated. Maybe 6/10 in my personal opinion. I also like James Remar as Rayden.

For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

[–] Joe-the-Drifter 15 years ago

5/10

As You Can See, I'm A Lot Happier- Joker 89

reply

[–] Vote_One 15 years ago

Gave this trash its most appropriate rating: 1/10.

reply

[–] SkySpiral 15 years ago

coming from someone who enjoyed "the power rangers movie"(the first, if not only, im not sure) i would lump both of these movies into the category of "rainy day movies i would watch on television, and MAYBE buy at a used price... a very cheap used price"

call me cheesy, call me a fruit.... me no care

reply

[–] SkySpiral 15 years ago

i did miss christopher lambert as raiden(how it should be spelled), but i figured he wouldnt have done a sequel

reply

[–] JamiesFanGirl 14 years ago

I enjoy watching this simply because I enjoyed the games.

Yes, it's cheesy; yes, it has little substance compared to the first movie...and yes, I do watch it again and again because I'm madly in love with James Remar.

Fangirl bias aside, I'm one who prefers Remar over Lambert. Rayden is supposed to like mortals and want to help them, not laugh like a hyena every time they screw up! Lambert acts like he's playing Loki or another trickster god--kudos to Remar for approaching the role with the proper amount of reverence!

-----
The next time you intend to blow up my route into town, give me a heads-up first!

reply

[–] m-slovak79 14 years ago

well the movie is pretty cheesy which is probably why it's blasted as much as it is.

overall though i think a 5/10 sounds about right for it because at least it's not boring ;)

so i would say it's underrated if you consider the average rating on this site to be a 3.1/10 right now.

EDIT: i just finished seeing it again a few moments ago. it is fairly bad and cheesy so i can see why it has a pretty low rating as the first MK was definitely better but i still give it a 5/10 but it's a weak 5/10. but at least i was not bored with it.

---
My Vote History ... http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11026826
---

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MaximumMadness 14 years ago

I'd say it's underrated simply because it's so much fun to watch- because it's so awful.

If I was to give it a serious rating, comparing it to other "serious" movies, it'd probably only get a 3 out of 10, if not lower.

For sheer entertainment value (cheesy one-liners, stereotypical characters, awful special effects, bad direction, cheap costumes, cringe-worthy character development, etc.), it'd easilly get a 9 out of 10 for all of the laughs it provides, albeit unintentionally.

I loved the first movie as a kid, and still watch it occasionally for thrills... but oddly enough, I find myself watching this movie more and more, generally paired with other unintentional comedy classics (like Batman & Robin) in marathons with friends. Great way to pass a slow day- some bad movies, some beer and some great laughs.

"Give Me Immortality, Or Give Me Death"

reply

[–] manram24 10 years ago

I agree, I don't think it's THAT bad. It's no more silly than the original. There's better fight scenes in this one, more Sonya fight scenes, and this one can actually fight. I enjoy this one, perhaps more than the other one.

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

reply