Original message (6384 Views )
| Replies: |
Just a Person 928th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member++
| "Re(1):the VanDamme StreetFighter was THAT bad" , posted Tue 3 Jul 21:30
quote: I really hate everyone knocking the original SF movie when talking about this proposed new one, as if Van Damme's Street Fighter raped and murdered a flock of puppies in front of a group of drowning orphans while "Chun-Li based SF movie" is the second coming of Christ that will save SF from being really shitty lately.
the VanDamme SF is campy fun, if you can get over your geek-rage long enough to accept maybe Ryu and Ken would be street hustlers and Sagat is an arms dealer or whatever (and it does take a lot of effort) it's a pretty silly fun movie, and I'm sure a lot of the silliness is intentional (and seriously doubt someone wrote it thinking it was a hardboiled war epic and not a goofy 'cartoon adaptation' which would explain the 'stealth boat')... it's not worth OWNING or RENTING sure, but if its on basic cable and you're bored it's not a bad use of 2 hours.
Seriously?? Because I think the SF Van Damme movie is really bad. And I don't mean it's just a bad adaptation; if you get someone who has no idea about what's Street Fighter and shows him/her this movie as just a regular martial arts movie, s/he will most likely consider it an awful movie as well. Raul Julia and Ming-Na had some decent acting (decent, not good), and that's all the good points about the movie. Van Damme was just ridiculous, the story was non-existant, and the special effects... really bad.
About Chun-Li's movie, yeah, its script doesn't look very promising, either. Maybe it can be a decent movie (maybe even a good movie, although it is VERY unlikely), but the adaptation of the game story is just as bad. And the idea of Jessica Biel as Chun-Li is just as bad, even though she's really hot and is not a bad actress (but not really good, as well).
But I'm waiting for the first REAL information about the movie and footage of it before making a final judgement.
I can be any person in the world ... maybe I'm this person right in front of you ... or maybe I'm not !!
|
dr baghead 3674th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(2):the VanDamme StreetFighter was THAT bad" , posted Wed 4 Jul 08:52
quote: Seriously?? Because I think the SF Van Damme movie is really bad. And I don't mean it's just a bad adaptation; if you get someone who has no idea about what's Street Fighter and shows him/her this movie as just a regular martial arts movie, s/he will most likely consider it an awful movie as well. Raul Julia and Ming-Na had some decent acting (decent, not good), and that's all the good points about the movie. Van Damme was just ridiculous, the story was non-existant, and the special effects... really bad.
I can't convince you it's not terrible, but seriously I think it's funny.
It's a "bad movie" to be sure, but it's not "painfully bad" it's "funny bad"... it's obvious it was supposed to be funny (the Stealth boat, Bison's dialog and room decore, Guile's speach and the lone cook sitting their afterwards, the 'Sumo torture' scene... none of these would exist if it wasn't intentially funny)
Maybe if it had not been SF and a more obvious GI Joe parody (which I kinda see it as, I bet Hasbro had a hand in the direction the movie took to promote their SF Joes at the time) like called "Jean Claude VanDamme in 'G.I. OH-NOS!!!'" or something it'd be accepted as a campy classic, miscalculated on many levels but not a utter unwatchable failure, instead of being ignored by it's target fans because "It's not about Ryu, Blanka is not Charlie, and there's no kung-fu or fireballs!!!"
Blanka and Dan make for a most excellent tag image (yeah still not funny) my silly little drawin's
|
Black_Hayato 194th Post
Regular Customer
| "Re(3):The Best Kind of Bad" , posted Wed 4 Jul 16:13
quote: Seriously?? Because I think the SF Van Damme movie is really bad. And I don't mean it's just a bad adaptation; if you get someone who has no idea about what's Street Fighter and shows him/her this movie as just a regular martial arts movie, s/he will most likely consider it an awful movie as well. Raul Julia and Ming-Na had some decent acting (decent, not good), and that's all the good points about the movie. Van Damme was just ridiculous, the story was non-existant, and the special effects... really bad.
I can't convince you it's not terrible, but seriously I think it's funny.
It's a "bad movie" to be sure, but it's not "painfully bad" it's "funny bad"... it's obvious it was supposed to be funny (the Stealth boat, Bison's dialog and room decore, Guile's speach and the lone cook sitting their afterwards, the 'Sumo torture' scene... none of these would exist if it wasn't intentially funny)
Maybe if it had not been SF and a more obvious GI Joe parody (which I kinda see it as, I bet Hasbro had a hand in the direction the movie took to promote their SF Joes at the time) like called "Jean Claude VanDamme in 'G.I. OH-NOS!!!'" or something it'd be accepted as a campy classic, miscalculated on many levels but not a utter unwatchable failure, instead of being ignored by it's target fans because "It's not about Ryu, Blanka is not Charlie, and there's no kung-fu or fireballs!!!"
I kind of feel the same way. The movie was clearly 100% camp. VanDamn, Julia, & Ming needed a paycheck, took it for what it was and had fun with it. Hamming all the way like kids playing dress up at a con. They're good actors that can act (even VanDamn), but this movie didn't really call for "acting". In a perfect world we'd have a concept as well realized as the Spiderman films are.
I remember a long time ago in an interview Julia did, he mentioned how much fun he had playing extravogant nut job Bison. Before SF & Addams he did mostly serious stuff or was always bad guy drug dealer.
|
Just a Person 933th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member++
| "Re(4):The Best Kind of Bad" , posted Wed 4 Jul 21:01
quote: I can't convince you it's not terrible, but seriously I think it's funny.
Well, it is funny, actually. Not sure if it was INTENTIONALLY funny, though.
quote: Maybe if it had not been SF and a more obvious GI Joe parody (which I kinda see it as, I bet Hasbro had a hand in the direction the movie took to promote their SF Joes at the time) like called "Jean Claude VanDamme in 'G.I. OH-NOS!!!'" or something it'd be accepted as a campy classic, miscalculated on many levels but not a utter unwatchable failure, instead of being ignored by it's target fans because "It's not about Ryu, Blanka is not Charlie, and there's no kung-fu or fireballs!!!"
Well, SF The Movie wasn't ignored just by the SF fans, but by the general audience as well. IMO, the lack of fireballs is a good thing (it would be too unrealistic), Ryu doesn't have to be the main character just because it's a SF movie, and about the Blanka/Nash confusion, Nash wasn't established as a different character back then, was he?
The main problem, IMO, is that none of the characters has anything to do with their game counterparts. Well, that and the fact that the script is garbage. I mean, even that SF scene in Jackie Chan's "City Hunter" was a better adaptation...
quote: I kind of feel the same way. The movie was clearly 100% camp. VanDamn, Julia, & Ming needed a paycheck, took it for what it was and had fun with it. Hamming all the way like kids playing dress up at a con. They're good actors that can act (even VanDamn), but this movie didn't really call for "acting". In a perfect world we'd have a concept as well realized as the Spiderman films are.
I remember a long time ago in an interview Julia did, he mentioned how much fun he had playing extravogant nut job Bison. Before SF & Addams he did mostly serious stuff or was always bad guy drug dealer.
Well, Raul Julia was a great actor, and Ming-Na has some good actings in her career. But Van Damme?? I don't think so...
And... didn't Raul Julia die even before the movie was released??
I can be any person in the world ... maybe I'm this person right in front of you ... or maybe I'm not !!
|
dr baghead 3703th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(1):Simpsons movie thoughts" , posted Sun 29 Jul 18:13
quote: I got to see the Alvin and the Chipmunks trailer as well and it looked kind of promising until the scat scene.
I'm gonna agree with that... it doesn't look like it'll be *that* horrible a movie. Probably not worth a viewing but doesn't look like it's gonna rape any childhood memories either (well, except for the shit eatting, but that might excuse able if they act like Chipmunks the whole movie and aren't going to human school and what not)
... I will however not agree with your Simpson's review that if it had been about Bart it'd have been more interesting.
Homer's just a more logical main character when you consider the Simpson's target demographic (adults who grew up with the show: ones who should act like mature adults but still have a little too much kid in them like Homer.) It's easier for this demo to relate to Homer then Bart, Homer's stories present a moral the audience can use today (love your family more then yourself, they respect you so need to respect them. The world's no longer all about you, you have to serve the comunial good now) then stories about Bart where the lessons are ones they've out grown (do good in school and behave and you can succeed! Do bad and you'll only have yourself to blame when you're held back)... out of curiosity, what makes you think a Bart centeric story would have been better? Like do you have an idea for an exact story or just the notion 'Camp Krusty' or 'Lord of the Flies type episode I forgot the title of' would have been interesting in film form?
I do agree the movie doesn't offer anything new aside from fancy pants animation (which looks super slick) and really it seem with 3 small cuts
Spoiler (Highlight to view) - Bart's unessessary wiener exposure, Homer's double birdflipping, and Marge putting the "God" before the "Damn"
End of Spoiler
It could have been a 3 part TV episode... but it's MUCH funnier then recent episodes have been, it feels like a middle of the road Oakley-Weinstein era episode (family centeric view point of the early seasons that dominated the early episodes, but a little illogical wackiness that has come to ruin the show these days) which is all good in my book.
Although, having seen it I think watching it on DVD would have been just as good... plus that's gonna have a crap ton of deleted extras.
Blanka and Dan make for a most excellent tag image (yeah still not funny) my silly little drawin's
|
|
|