what is this crap? - Super Capers: The Origins of Ed and the Missing Bullion (2008) Discussion

[–] yourverysilly 15 years ago

I agree...the d and e listers in this movie are all actors that give me physical pain to watch appear, because you know the film has to be fo such low quality for them to be in it.
That, and it's a horrible idea for a film.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 15 years ago

Well, that's fine for me if I don't see either of you in the theatre. I will be happy to be surrounded by people watching a fun, tongue-in-cheek family film that doesn't rely on subdued or non-existent lighting, actors who take themselves FAR too seriously, a plethora of blood and guts, false scares or pointless bedroom scenes. This one is for those of us who enjoy gentle humour, family values and good clean fun.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] anonymous-V 15 years ago

More like for people who like to throw away their money and fund these poor attempts at entertainment. It's true there's a market for everyone even for trash.

Also, I doubt you'll be surrounded by people. I'm sure there will be plenty of empty chairs around you. People shell out money for movies like Dark Knight. Not low calibur garbage meant to exploit what little they can get from a popular genre.

reply

[–] angelatatum 15 years ago

What is the matter with you? You can still have good actor's, good effects, and believe it or not still classify as a family film. Get netflix.com or blockbuster.com and check it out. It is possible.

reply

[–] anonymous-V 15 years ago

it's super crappy.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 15 years ago

Ah ... a self-styled 'movie expert.'

Believe it or not, not everyone is enamoured of dark, overblown, poorly acted and top-heavy so-called blockbusters by major studios trying to wring every cent from your pocket. Lots of families enjoy good, decent, fun movies like this one. And incidentally, many movies with low budgets do very well, because they happen to strike a chord with audiences, and this one pokes gentle fun at the genre you appear to love so much.

It appears YOUR criterium for a 'good film' is one that has a huge budget and lots of expensive marketing, preferably based on a comic book, which just about explains your reading level. So, that's fine - don't go see it. No one is forcing you ... certainly not me, heaven forbid.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] anonymous-V 15 years ago

Too bad I gave no hint at my criterion for good films. You're simply inferring as a petty resort to somehow defend your odd attraction to this movie. It isn't about low-budget vs. high production. There are plenty of excellent independent films produced with low budgets, even lower than this movie's budget. This film isn't bad because of it's production value. It is cheap exploitation of a popular subject for easy money.

If you really believe this movie has any quality of being good, then you have a taste for mind-numbing entertainment and therefore aren't capable of proper criticism. There has been superhero parodies before. This movie doesn't even attempt to stand out as good. Actually, it's seems to be more of a bad superhero movie than an actual parody since it lacks intelligence. Watch the trailer again and ask yourself why you have such blind allegiance to it. If you really like this kind of idiotic entertainment, there are better ones for free on TV or youtube.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 15 years ago

Oh, tosh and nonsense. Get a grip. What I find highly amusing is your pedantic and somewhat juvenile comments about a film you have never seen, that you have no intention of seeing, and yet you have the odd urge to come on the board here and harangue and belittle this project. If you don't wish to be interested in it, then go away and find a film in which you ARE interested. Seems like a plan to me.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] anonymous-V 15 years ago

It's unfortunate you lack insight into your own hypocrisy. You're emotionally immature for rational discussion.

Perhaps you should reread you own comments and mine. Who is juvenile and pedantic? I clearly based my judgment on the trailer whereas you presume a good movie without evidence.

Look how you resort to emphatic capitalization and name-calling. Then, you tell me to go away? Again, you can't help but to assume. I don't have to be interested in seeing a movie in order to make a comment about it. In fact, I have more reason to comment in order to explain why I'm not interested.

I hope your next reply doesn't continue your childish attempt to win by commenting last even without proper thought. But, it won't be surprising considering how insecure you are about your awful movie taste.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 15 years ago

Emotionally insecure? At my age? Meh - I doubt it. I don't have the energy. Poor taste? No such thing when it comes to films. I mean, there are folks who think Uwe Boll is God - bless their poor, benighted hearts, but they like his films and that's okay with me - I don't rant and rave and get my undies in an uproar about it. I love everything from Kurosawa to Busby Berkeley, Mouse House kitch to the indie mastery of El Laberinto del Fauno ... the bitter beauty of Anthony Mann's westerns to Andy Hardy 'Putting on a show!' ... from the Coen Brothers to the Marx Brothers. Taste is relative. I also have a particular loathing of Terry Gilliam, but I would never dream of going onto his message board and putting in my two-pennorth - I know there are a lot of fans out there, and they are welcome to him. I don't need to waste my time issuing diatribes - I have better and more fun things to do.

I also like good, clean, fun entertainment. I don't need to stare at my navel and ponder the meaning of life when I see a film, and this fulfills that need nicely, thanking you kindly. I would feel very happy taking my family to see it, without concerns over content, and knowing it is good, clean harmless fun that wouldn't offend anyone's granny. In the meantime I will also await Ray Griggs' next project which is a far different kettle of fish indeed.

I just ponder your motives on spending so much time issuing bile against a film you have no intention of seeing. Odd. Very odd.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mizhelenuk 15 years ago

Deary me, such vitriol. Sigh.

Now then - if you look at ALL of my posts, I have never hidden the fact that I run Doug's official website, and that I am active on the boards of ALL of his films, including this one. AND, I also know that this is a family film, intended as harmless fun for EVERYONE, and I'm all for that. I personally get a bit tired of the deep, angsty stuff that many film fans come out with, and who sneer at anything remotely light and easily enjoyed by ALL members of a family. This film is studio-interference free, was picked up by a distributor and is enormous fun - and of COURSE I'm going to say so. But you haven't seen it, are judging it on a trailer, and yet you spend time and energy coming on the board here to spout venom? Sheesh. That's sad.

And personal attacks on Doug? Please. Get a life.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] liamesyeroc 15 years ago

I would have had that post deleted also if I were you. Please then, if you are so proud of your Doug Jones obsession, you should have no problem giving me a reasonable explanation as to how that started and how it continues. I asked you that in my last post out of curiosity, and you conveniently failed to respond.

And that still wouldn't explain why you are so avidly promoting a movie in which he plays "agent smith #1 (AGENT SMITH #1????)." I wasn't bashing the movie, I was bashing you for so blatantly plugging a movie just because an actor you have some sort of connection to made an appearance in it as an extra. Come on, you and I both know what's going on here.

Since I don't have any personal stake in the film (i'm not pointing any fingers), I came on this board to express how awful I thought the trailer looked, which is exactly what these boards were made for.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 15 years ago

Personal attacks are not very becoming, now are they? Tsk. Such bad manners. And incidentally, I don't have the power to delete posts, so go figure.

If you had bothered to research this film, you would have found out it is a fun movie poking gentle fun at the superhero comicbook genre, and Dougie happens to have done a wee cameo in it - something he is happy to do for fun in a film that is family-friendly.

But besides that, I'm happy to see movies that don't continually drop the F-bomb and are filled with either expletives or double-entendres that are often in very questionable taste, that aren't filled with gore and guts, are kiddie and granny-safe, and make you smile instead of grimace.

As for my association with Doug Jones ... apart from knowing Doug for years and admiring his talents (which are considerable), I'm a believer in indie movies (of which he does many - from short projects to magnificent films like EL LABERINTO DEL FAUNO, nominated for 6 Oscars and winning 3). They are great fun and wonderful to be involved in, and Doug, bless his heart, makes sure I AM involved. Right now he is in Paris filming another foreign language film, SERGE GAINSBOURG: VIE HEROIQUE, in which he plays - yet again - a very prominent role. He isn't called the Lon Chaney of the 21st Century for nothing. Oh, and for your information, the Silver Surfer wasn't a CG creation. Once again, do your research. But then, why bother? You're not really interested, you're just poking what you think is an easy target with a big stick. Still, it takes all sorts ...

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] liamesyeroc 15 years ago

First of all, I never said you had the power to delete posts, but clearly you were the person who clicked "report abuse," which led to my original post's removal. Second of all...

"As for my association with Doug Jones ... apart from knowing Doug for years..."

There you go, case in point. The fact of the matter is, which has been my only argument since my first post, is that you have a personal affiliation with the film. Therefore, you have no right voicing your "opinion" on these boards because they are severely biased. It is no accident that you are going on these boards and filling your posts with the term "family-friendly" over and over and over and over again, and I think that should be 100% illegal.

The fact of the matter is, after viewing the trailer, in my completely UNBIASED opinion, this film looks like a Friedberg/Seltzer picture for little kids. It looks poorly acted, low budget, corny, and horrendously stupid, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is rated PG and doesn't have cursing, violence, or sex jokes. But I don't care about any of that because I will never, ever see it. The reason why I posted on this board was to put a stop to you, and I hope that anyone who reads our little conversation will realize that anything you have to say about this piece of trash should be completely disregarded.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 15 years ago

Gosh - calling something 'family-friendly' should be illegal???? Sheesh. So, you came on this board to ... what??? Be obnoxious? Be crass?Be insulting? So? Like anyone who likes something, I'm all for it - EVERYONE on these boards is biased. You are. So what? You have a right to your opinion, as have I. And if I think this little movie has some points in its favour, I'll say so, irrelevant of whether Doug is in it or not. DOOM, for example, was a dire piece of tripe, and I'm happy to say that.

Oh, and as for deleting your post ... I was beginning to quite enjoy watching you get more and more het up and abusive, which on the board of a PG 'family film' (OOPS!!!! I said it AGAIN! Somebody wash my mouth out with soap!) is hardly apt. And I doubt your vitriolic attacks will endear your opinion to ANYONE. Meh. Such is life. Have fun, and go watch something you DO like - it keeps the blood pressure down and you don't have to consider anger management classes. Poor thing. Sounds like you need some calming herbal teas and a dose of ipecac. You have my sympathy, dear heart.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] TGuySeven-1 15 years ago

For the love of god you two, stop it.

I love a nice argument more then anyone, especially one filled with ignorance and crazy assumptions, but both of you seem like rational people who are taking what each other are saying so out of context.

antros, it is an easy assumption that because you haven't seen this film... you might not know much about how it truly is. I mean the watchmen clips looked terrible, but the movie itself flowed quite alright.

mizhelenuk, stop assuming he's insulting family values. He is trying to point out based on the materials he was given (trailers, tv spots, pictures, ect) that this film isn't looking promising at all so far.

Both of you need to conclude one way. Mizhelenuk thinks this will be a fun family romp to bring kids to. Antros thinks that this film will be hell in cellophane for everyone besides children and the adults who grew to love these "wholesome films".

Oh and in my opinion i thought this was a parody! It looked like it had the tiniest production value ever! This is probably a ripple effect from watchmen and the dark knight, both violent and scary superhero films that their parents would oviously not let them see. So along comes super capers to show them something friendly with superheroes of their own to love...

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 15 years ago

Of COURSE it's a fun parody! I was just tickled at the sheer animosity of the posts here, which astonishes me. It's a FILM, fer cryin' out loud! Of COURSE it doesn't have a big budget - it's an indie film, and a bit of fun! Some people take things far too seriously - it's entertainment, that's all. I was just having fun watching him/her get their undies in an uproar about a film they didn't want to see, had no intention of ever seeing, who was trying his/her utmost to prevent anyone else from seeing it and getting more and more insulting in the course of that 'argument.' A sad case, to be sure. But never mind - such is life.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] TGuySeven-1 15 years ago

bah, we love films. So if we want to get in a roar about how we dislike films that exploit genres and steal our money then we probably will. If your a casual moviegoer please don't question why we insult and why we take things too seriously. This is not your passion (and if it is i'm sorry for the misjudgement) so don't assume were crazy because we like to rant and rave about it.

Overall I still think this movie looks far too cliche'd and it has the production values of my home movies.

reply

[–] anonymous-V 13 years ago

LOL looks like you have fun being an idiot. I was 100% right about everything, and you were just a dolt defending a piece of trash. It's obtuse people like you that holds society back - such is life. GFY

reply

[–] dvdfanatic77 15 years ago

Who the *beep* is Doug Jones anyway? And no, it doesnt look good that the only person defending this film is the person who runs his website lmao!!!!

reply

[–] Darthfrodo58 10 years ago

It's better than the movie Gravity. That REALLY sucked.

"Inconceivable!"

reply

[–] wendylady13 15 years ago

omg are they serious with this garbage? and by the way in case nobody knows this, here's a little tid bit of info.... Ed Gruberman is a name that's already been used in something else. anyone remember the Dr. Dimento show? well, there was a clip played on there called Boot To The Head, a short audio story about meditation class learning about "Ti Kwan Leep". Ed Gruberman was one of the students in that class. these people are so unoriginal. and the movie looks like it sucks anyway..... not gonna see it!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chrismahon2005 15 years ago

Dark knight was a good film, but *beep* me we all know if heath had not kicked the bucket it would have not got half the praise it did, and if you dont agree think on this, when ever you hear someone praise DK how many times do they praise the FILM or HEATH ?, seems to me it 90 % of praise of heath ledger who did indeed did do well, but it was also way ott.

And also how can you knock a film like this which is a satire on comic books but seeminly forget DK is based on a damn comic book haha, some people go on about DK as if its all real, get a grip, its fine to like both of these films, for me personaly i will not knock or praise it till i see it first, see how that works ?, normaly its best to watch something to get your own opinion.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chrismahon2005 15 years ago

No nearly every review goes overboard on heath, bale and the rest hardly get a mention

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mjolnirgod 15 years ago

Heath Ledger ruined the Dark Knight for me. I hated his performance, and I think the movie would have flowed much better if they cut his role out completely. I would have been perfectly satisfied with a Batman/Harvey Dent vs. Gangsters-that-turns-into-Batman vs. Two Face/gangsters movie. I think it would have fit its role in society much better. If you want a good Joker, look no further then Mark Hamill.

Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum. Our drill seargent made us repeat it like a prayer.

reply

[–] chrismahon2005 15 years ago

Um yes they do, there was a huge outpouring of people grieving when he died, and thus the film done even better then ever, it was a good film, but i really did not get the hype it recieved, and if you took away heath the rest of the cast were ok to good, but without his over the top turn it would have been another superhero film, any way pointless to argue, i liked it but was very suprised at how well it did.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chrismahon2005 15 years ago

Did you even bother to read most of the reviews?, if not go do so, see how much they mention heath over any one else combined, and yes his young fan base went and watched the last big film he did more then once, is that hard to believe?, yes he was very good, but if he had lived, i dont personaly think the film would be looked on nearly as it is, it was good, but i dont see how its much better then the first batman with bale

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jigsaw737 15 years ago

what is this crap?

My thoughts exactly, when I just saw the trailer. Well, not *exactly*. I was constantly saying "What the fvck??" to myself.

Who greenlights bullcrap like this? Who signs up for it? Who watches it and who the hell voted and average of 5.6 for it???

ARE YOU INSANE!!!???

--------------------------------------------------------
~No matter where you go, there you are~

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rcguru-1 15 years ago

Back on topic, those that said this movie has any chance of being good are real sacks of s**t because this has absolutely 0% at RT.

reply

[–] unlucky777 15 years ago

omg 0 really??? Good call! Oh btw, theres also 0 reviews for the movie and RT defaults unreviewed movies to 0%. GJ getting over excited and posting without verifying your source.

Also, to the guy who said "So you’re saying in one of our worst economy moments in world history that people went to re-watch the dark knight multiply times just because an actor died in real life? That is insane and totally unrealistic."

If you didn't know that the movie was a blockbuster almost half a year before sh*t hit the fan at wall street, your probably one of the people who shouldn't be worrying about the "failing economy"... and even if one were to pinch pennies, $10 to rewatch a movie they like is nothing as long as they're not getting paid minimum wage.
-----------------------------------

Back to topic... I don't see this movie winning a bunch of awards, but it looks like something worth watching on a weekend. Also, keep in mind this movie is marketed to kids/teens(PG)... and I'm sure most people here are +16. According to imdb's rating poll, almost everyone rating the movie is +18. So yea... unless your 5~16 years old, don't complain about the movie cause it wasn't meant for you to begin with.

reply

[–] opioidic 15 years ago

Yes, you're right. The MPAA needs an upper age limit rating system. Now, that would be a rating system i'd pay attention to.
This is actually the first time i blame myself for not watching the trailer. I would have avoided this movie. I'll give it a 2/10 because I chuckled once and because i don't like rating movies with 1/10

------------
I hate it when people don't clearly mark their sigs. This one serves as a reminder.

reply

[–] dvdfanatic77 15 years ago

LMAO, the funny thing is, this thread which no longer has ANYTHING to do with this film, is the most action and publicity this movie will ever get. I love Danielle Harris, shes a great actress and a sweatheart (i met her in person) but i cried when i saw she was in this. This movie is a turd, a waste of perfectly good film, a deuce some producer dropped while in the mens room at some board meeting that got hashed out in about 25 min on a budget of well under a million bucks. Ill sit and watch cheesy family films and ive seen some real crappy ones, but this movie being released in theaters is a slap in the face, this should have gone straight to dvd or ABC family.

reply