MovieChat Forums > ReelReviews14 > Replies
ReelReviews14's Replies
I haven't seen either film, and have no desire to.
But if you put a gun to my head and make me pick one, then Happy Feet. I'm sure a cute kids film about talking penguins is less irritating than sitting thru two hours of a fake Mad Max movie where "Max" only shows up for a 5 second, non-speaking background cameo.
>> Why is it so hard for you to believe that people have different tastes in movies? <<
Again, because you don't see this type of artificial "buzz" for other box office failures all over social media, weeks AFTER the movie ALREADY crashed and burned in theaters since its first very day.
The comparison I used in my OP was the 2020 film Dolittle. As I noted, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I thought it was the ONLY faithful version to the original source material (the 90s versions with Eddie Murphy had nothing to do with the books aside from the same basic premise, and the 1967 Rex Harrison musical followed the "story" extremely loosely)
The fact it failed financially (IMO, a big reason it failed is it ended up in theaters during the traditional "dump months" of Jan-Feb. when box office is low, and it came out right before Covid) didn't change the fact it nevertheless had very POSITIVE reception from audiences. Those of us who DID go see the movie, LIKED it. It has 4 out of 5 star rating from viewers, and is Certified Fresh with VERIFIED audiences on Rotten Tomatoes, earning a 76% score. Flopiosa had similar levels of heavily positive "audience" score from viewers, and similarly poor numbers of tickets sold and people who ACTUALLY watched it on the big screen.
The difference is Dolittle didn't have some kind of bizarre "movement" on social media weeks AFTERWARDS, trying in vain to convince the general public how awesome it was. You didn't see oodles of posts gushing over the film several weeks later with comments like "Just got back from seeing 'Dolittle' last night. My take': **** out of ****!!!! One of Robert Downey Jr.'s BEST films!!! Tom Holland was hilarious in this!!!! If you see ONE film this year, see Dolittle! Don't believe the naysayers, you OWE it to yourself to get out there and watch this masterpiece in HD on the biggest screen possible! YOU'RE GONNA LOVE IT!!!!"
Hmmm. Interesting. You make a good point that Hemsworth has starred in a bunch of "installments" that have ruined iconic franchises lately.
I don't think any of those bad films were Hemsworth "fault", though. Actors have to work with the material they're given, so the only blame I can assign him is agreeing to those putrid scripts in the first place.
MiB:International was similar to Flopiosa, marketed as "another installment" of a beloved franchise, but it was really pointless spinoff with none of the original cast. The UK setting was particularly jarring since neither of two major actors that are supposedly secret agents at the "UK branch" had a British accent, including Hemsworth. Still, I don't think it was as bad as MiB2, which DID star the original cast.
Ghostbusters 2016 idiotically gender swapped all the original roles for its "reboot", and had Hemsworth in the role of a "Janine" type character. That premise was DOA before anyone saw a second of the film.
Flopisa cast Hemsworth as the bad guy in some post-apocalyptic world. Nothing wrong with that, its actually GOOD casting and Hemsworth can pull it off nicely. The only disadvantage he had there was the villians of the previous Mad Max films were so iconic that its difficult to top them.
I don't think I can really point the finger to any of the film's cast members for Flopiosa sucking so badly.
The one thing I would disagree with my fellow Flopiosa critics on is them bashing Anya Taylor-Joy for looking nothing like Chalize Theron and the original actor not being asked back. As I noted, the exact SAME thing was true in the LAST Mad Max movie, and they were fine and dandy with Tom Hardy replacing Mel Gibson despite looking, sounding, and acting absolutely nothing like the character that Mel had established. The Johnny-come-lately attitude of whining about recasting in the Mad Max franchise NOW just amounts to rank hypocrisy.
I've seen Anya Taylor-Joy in other stuff. It would be one thing if she's a "bad" actress, but she's usually pretty solid and I doubt this film is an exception. Even though, she's apparently not even IN the movie for the first 40 minutes, so the whole first act of this film is carried by an even younger actress playing CHILD Furiosa, and by all accounts she does an excellent job "selling" the character.
Same thing with Chris Hemsworth. He's got the charm, looks, and attitude to pull off most action roles, I doubt this is an exception. More likely, he put in a good performance in a crappy movie, like how The Phantom Menace is filled with stupid Jar Jar Binks slapstick and idiotic plot points about "midiclorians", but there's nothing wrong with Liam Neeson's acting. He put in a solid performance despite the film around him being overhyped, overstuffed, overbudgeted CGI schlock.
There ARE box office bombs where the actors ARE part of the problem (including people trying to convince us of the reverse, and claim its not Gal Gadot's fault that Wonder Woman 2 flopped, when in reality her 'acting' in that movie was terrible), but I don't think it's the case for Flopiosa. I blame George Miller for losing touch with what made the franchise successful in the FIRST place.
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes was a hit, unlike Flopiosa. The numbers don't lie.
Kingdom cost $160 million and grossed $340 million, so it earned back over TWICE its budget.
Flopiosa cost $168 million and grossed $110 million, so that crapfest hasn't even broken even yet at the box office.
It also speaks volumes that Kingdom has been in theaters far longer, but its pulling in the same level of audiences that new kid on the block Flopiosa is getting, in spite of the non-stop propaganda from Flopiosa fans telling everyone how awesome the movie is and how we MUST see it for ourselves on the big screen. People just ain't drinking that kool-aid and would rather see the latest film in the Apes saga. Probably because it is actually about Apes and doesn't give them a 5 second non-speaking background cameo!
>> I lost interest after 1968. <<
That's odd. Planet of the Apes in 1968 was a landmark film and a smashing success, so its not surprising it immediately spawned a sequel. Despite the second movie (Beneath the Planet of the Apes) being one of the worst ones, excitement was HUGE for the second film and it also was a box office hit. People were curious what would happen to Taylor next, and they used Charlton Heston's glorified cameo to get butts in the movie theater seats, and that gimmick worked.
I could see losing interest in the franchise in the early 70s, it was clear they were out of ideas by the fifth film.
I was also convinced the 2001 remake had effectively killed the franchise forever. I was shocked when they resurrected it a decade later, and in a way that I would have never anticipated.
>> I imagine he'd be furiosaus! <<
đđđ
If it wasn't falsely marketed as part of the Mad Max "saga", it MIGHT be watchable on its OWN if it were some generic "stand alone" summer action movie.
But, of course, it IS part of the Mad Max "saga" and it doesn't have Max in it, so its doomed to failure. The best case scenario for this film is it becomes a "cult classic" someday the way Halloween III: Season of the Witch did after it failed at the box office because it a "sequel" in name only to the first two Halloween films. However, I suspect that won't happen because Season of the Witch was far more original and interesting. I doubt this movie is anywhere near as "amazing" as the people trying to salvage its pathetic box office claim it is.
It's more likely to go down in history the way Men In Black: International did (and honestly, I didn't think that film was nearly AS BAD as people claimed it was. I'd rank Men in Black 2 below it)
I saw Kingdom of the Planets of the Apes on the big screen, AND I would gladly see it again! It delivered on what it promised and was the FIRST Planet of the Apes movie since 1970 to have a premise where the Apes actually DO rule the world, and humans are mute, feral animals enslaved by them.
>> SEE Fury Road - itâs unbelievable <<
Yeah, its unbelievable George Miller expected audiences to buy that Tom Hardy was the "same character" that Mel Gibson played in the first three films. Even the most hardcore Fury Road apologists don't buy that, which is why they created the "grown up Feral Kid calls himself Max" fan theory trying to fit that crapfest into Mad Max canon.
Worst recasting since we were supposed to buy Jai Courtney as the "same character" Michael Biehn played in Terminator 1.
See Terminator Genisys - it's unbelievable they had the same casting talent George Miller had on Fury Road!
Interesting. I'll have to check out those films. Definitely would be cool if the have a vibe like the first two movies.
It's like how there have been six Terminator movies now, but only the first two count as legitimate parts of the franchise, despite James Cameron being "involved" in Terminator 5 and 6 and swearing up and down how "good" they were. Really, the only post-Terminator 2 project that successfully matched the vibe of the first two movies was the TV series Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. (unless you count the Terminator 2: 3D-Journey Across Time theme park ride)
Maybe we'll get a Mad Max TV series someday that successfully captures the tone of the Mel Gibson era films.
You're sort of right, except you meant to say Mad Max 4 with Tom Hardy as Faux Max.
Surely you can't mean Beyond Thunderdome, that film is iconic. Two men enter, one man leaves!
1) The Road Warrior
2) Mad Max
3) Beyond Thunderdome
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a wet paper bag
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99) Faux Mad: Furiosa Road
100) Flopiosa: A Faux Max Saga
I'm proud to say I have never seen either Faux Max movie with 'Furiosa', and I never will.
And before you start sneering a "you CAN'T judge it unless you've actually SEEN it!" talking point, I will also point out I have never seen Home Alone 3,4,5 or 6 either, only the first two with MacCauley Culkin. I doubt people will argue I need to "see it for myself" to determine if those movies suck.
>> Jurassic world Dominion and dial of destiny pull this trick and one heard nothing but awful things for both films <<
Au contrair, the exact opposite is true. BOTH films got an overwhelmingly POSITIVE response from "the fans" of those franchises. Jurassic World Dominion currently enjoys a 77% POSITIVE SCORE from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny has an 88% POSITIVE SCORE from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. The "consensus opinion" from "the fans" of those respective franchises is the latest entry in the saga NAILED it and was a GREAT film. Dial of Destiny also has an overwhelmingly glowing score from professional critics as well, so its just a tad bit hypocritical of Flopiosa apologists to defend the film with "YOU may dislike it, but YOU don't speak for most people, the vast majority of reviews said its AWESOME!", while at the same time scoffing at similar feedback from Jurassic Park 6 and Indiana Jones 5.
And in case you and conflate MY own opinion with the "consensus" view on Indy 5 and Jurassic 6, I will point out for the record that my opinion on the Indiana Jones franchise is very similar to the Mad Max franchise. The TRILOGY was great in the 1980s, the series is OVER, Hollywood should LEAVE IT ALONE and STOP trying to squeeze more money out of the franchise by forcing new unnecessary "sequels" out in the 21st century. That being said, I did watch the opening scene of Indy 5, and I will have to say they did a fantastic job -- they managed to win me over despite the fact it was a nearly impossible bar since I considered the film non-canon to BEGIN with, and was against its very EXISTENCE. Overall I would say Indy 5 and Jurassic 6 are clearly superior to Flopiosa, if for no other reason they deliver what they promise and are a PROPER "installment" of the franchise. We didn't get "MAMMOTHS: A Jurassic Park Saga" film about cloned ice age animals and NO dinosaurs, starring Jack Black as "Dr. Alan Grant", for example.
>> Be more original. You couldn't be any lamer if you tried. <<
Interesting. Those comments would be better advise to give to George Miller these days....
I heard Garfield overtook Flopiosa now.
Pathetic. That's like a new Harry Potter movie losing to a CGI Family Circus movie.
Tom Hardy ? WTF ???
I love Tom just the perfect healthy amount, he was perfectly cast as Eddie Brock in Venom. But Mel is Max. Period. Beyond Thunderdome didn't come out so long ago that Mel needed to be recast. If Mel was asking for too much money, they needed to find somebody else.
They thought people were going to come out and believe some ugly British dude with fat lips is the "same character" that Mel Gibson played? C'mon now ?
The reverse is also true. Flopiosaâs predecessor (Faux Max: Furiosa Road) DID make a profit at the theater and plenty of people DID go see it IN THEATERS, but that does NOT prove that Tom Hardyâs Faux Max is âgoodâ and Flopiosa is not. Quite the opposite, AND I have been arguing so on this board. I have been saying REPEATEDLY that Faux Max: Furiosa Road is trash and I have zero interest in watching Tom Hardy play Faux Max. In fact, I think the previous Mad Max movies from the 1980s that made LESS money than Faux Max are WAY BETTER. So your delusional claim that âalways attribute quality to box office successâ is baseless. It would be like me attacking you and claiming your threads âalways cite Tom Hardy as the best actor in Hollywoodâ, when you made no such claim whatsoever.
Flopiosa is trash and a âMad Max Sagaâ in name only. That fact would remain true whether it was a big financial success, OR NOT. However, I canât deny that the movie bombing horribly IS a nice bonus prize awarded to this turkey. Itâs like the icing on the cake!
>> I could go on but the way you attempt to always attribute quality to box office success is ignorant and lame. You do you though. <<
EXCUSE ME? You seem to be setting up a straw man argument and attempting to âdebateâ me over a position I NEVER took. My thread was simply pointing out the FACT that Furiosa apologists claiming the movie failed because âpeople donât go to theaters anymoreâ is wrong, and that PLENTY of films DID make a huge profit FROM theatrical box office sales in recent years. I took NO position on whether those films that earned tons of $$$ were actually âgoodâ or not, I simply observed that people DID go see the films, and did NOT go to see Flopiosa.
It is a simple FACT that oodles of people went to see Barbie last year, probably 20X the number that went to see Flopiosa. Does that mean Barbie is âgoodâ? I donât think so. I never cared for the movie and I had issues with the fact Ryan Gosling was horribly miscast as âKenâ and way too old for the part. However, I donât speak for the general public, and there is no denying that WAY more people wanted to see a live action movie about âBarbieâ than people who wanted to see a âMad Maxâ movie without Mad Max. As for it, I have no interest in seeing EITHER, but those are my own personal tastes.