We all love to rag on bad movies, but I also believe that many of us have seen films with a mixed or negative consensus that we personally really liked despite some problems. To be clear, I'm not talking about guilty pleasures, either. Those are movies that you agree are bad, but still enjoy anyways despite that, like how I enjoy the first two Mummy movies from the reboot series as guilty pleasures. This thread, however, is where you can talk about any movies that you really did personally enjoy as a good movie, despite everyone else seemingly hating it. Here are a few of my own choices:
Spider-Man 3: It's no secret that I like this movie. I can understand why people might not like the Raimi SM movies in general, but it always baffled me how so many people could call the first two films masterpieces and then hate the third one for being "too silly." That's like hating Toy Story 3 for being a lot like the first two movies in tone. It's just a bit hypocritical. Speaking of which, while I do agree about two criticisms (Venom in this movie sucks, and that dancing scene is atrocious), everything else just feels like either nitpicking or being way too harsh on the movie for not being close to its source material. As for the complaint about the movie being too cluttered, the only real casualty was Venom. Peter, MJ, Harry, and Sandman all had fully fleshed out character arcs. I just feel like people took the butchering of one character and applied it to the whole movie. Ironically, Iron Man 2 did a far worse job of balancing multiple characters and sub-plots, but got a free pass because people really loved RDJ, I guess. But at least S3 was entertaining, whereas IM2 was outright boring.
Superman Returns: Honestly, I haven't seen this one in a while, so maybe my opinion could change, but this felt like a proper third part to the classic series, as opposed to the one that we originally got. The movie had good action for the time and a decent script with a lot of heart to it. I'm mot saying that it didn't have issues, but I genuinely enjoyed it. I just never got the hate for this one.
Prometheus: Yes, this movie had some seriously stupid bits of writing in it, but not nearly as much as people made out. And really, it wasn't those scenes that everyone lingered on complaining about. The real reason that people hate this movie is because it's not what they expected. People expected a prequel to Alien that answered a lot of questions. Instead we got a very loosely tied-in story that in many ways was a modern take on the atmosphere and suspense from the original Ridley Scott Alien, but that only raised more questions of its own. Personally, I loved that about the movie. It's the only other film besides the original Alien that had that sense of mystery and tension to its atmosphere, but which also had me completely engrossed to learn about what was going on, and really prompted me to thoroughly analyze the movie on re-watches. Any film that can make me think to that extent is worth a lot more credit than what people give this movie, IMO.
Those are just a few of my own choices, but I have a lot more that I can talk about later. In the meantime, hopefully someone else can 'fess up about their own personal tastes.
Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom.
Yes it's very over the top and goofy and not much like Raiders at all, but I don't care. I drink this movie in whole with whatever flaws it might have. I think Crystal Skull might have given people more appreciation for it, but it's a really fun action movie that isn't anything like the other movies. Which is just as well since the only movies in the series anything alike are Raiders and The Last Crusade.
I think Ghost In The Shell 2: Innocence is far superior to the original. It's beautifully made, better paced, and has an extremely interesting story.
I personally like the Mortal Kombat movie, even if it is dated. I hated the sequel, though.
The first Mortal Kombat movie has gained a bit of a cult following over the years, I believe. But yeah, most critics hated it when it came out. Interestingly enough, Gene Siskel of all people gave it a positive review at the time.
He also gave Blade a positive review, which reminds me that I really do enjoy the first two Blade movies. I was struggling between whether I consider them to be guilty pleasures or not, but when I think about it, neither film set out to be technical masterpieces. They were meant to be stylish, violent, and entertaining vampire-slaying action movies, and IMO they really succeeded at that, so despite their mixed reviews, I think that they are good movies for what they are.
I found myself liking what I saw of Blade 3 a few months ago. I have trouble hating superhero movies.
I think X-Men The Last Stand is a legitimately good movie. It definitely does a lot of stupid things though but it's entertaining.
I don't love the 2003 Daredevil, but despite the show blowing it out of the water, I find the movie kind of fun. It's really not the worst thing ever.
Elektra kind of is, though. Of course, I'd also argue that Jennifer Gardner's portrayal of the character in both movies is far more of a problem than Ben Affleck though, who isn't great but is hardly awful. I still love Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin, though.
I've heard that the directors cut of the 2003 Daredevil contains over 40-minutes of additional footage and a ton of differences from the theatrical version which makes it a completely different (and much better) film. I may check it out some day if I can, since from what I've heard, this is a movie that was really sabotaged by the studio when it was being made.
I think I heard about that. I also heard something similar about the Thomas Jane Punisher movie. I legitimately liked (..pretty much loved) Daredevil back in the day but I did eventually grow tired of it.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 19, 2015, 10:57:21 AM
I've heard that the directors cut of the 2003 Daredevil contains over 40-minutes of additional footage and a ton of differences from the theatrical version which makes it a completely different (and much better) film. I may check it out some day if I can, since from what I've heard, this is a movie that was really sabotaged by the studio when it was being made.
Yeah, the director's cut version is better, but I'll still admit that it isn't a great movie.
But I'd personally take Daredevil over any Spider-Man movie any day, but that's just me...
Quote from: Avaitor on May 19, 2015, 05:02:02 PM
But I'd personally take Daredevil over any Spider-Man movie any day, but that's just me...
:shit:
I still consider the Raimi Spider-Man movies to be really entertaining if you take them for what they are (Sam Raimi movies featuring Spider-Man) rather than what you want out of a more faithfully adapted Spider-Man movie.
I've always enjoyed them. I do think 3 got, and still gets, way too much hate, though.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 19, 2015, 05:30:00 PM
I've always enjoyed them. I do think 3 got, and still gets, way too much hate, though.
Yep. There's a reason why I chose that as the first movie to talk about on this thread. That's when I realized that sometimes I just don't get people and how they choose to react to things.
The criticisms were like a strange mirror.
Me: "Man, Emo Peter was hysterical."
Them: "Emo Peter was so badly done, it was almost like a comedy!"
Me: "Considering Marvel's notes, Raimi did a really good job fitting everything in. Venom was a bit tacked on though."
Them: "What a mess of a story! And what was the deal with Sandman? It should have been all about Venom!"
Me: "I like how everything came full circle and all the plotlines were sealed off. Raimi did a good job with his trilogy. They all gel together really well."
Them: "Well, at least the first two movies were super-serious and good. Shame Raimi ruined the tone in 3 by going goofy and silly with the melodrama, though."
Me: "I hope Spider-Man 4 at least brings back Venom and gives him real focus."
Them: "DUMP RAIMI DUMP RAIMI DUMP RAIMI. UNSALVAGABLE!"
And of course we got a reboot because of them. But it was like they were willingly blinding themselves to the movie they were actually seeing. I don't get it. The other movies have the same elements that 3 does. I just wonder if the reaction was because they wanted something other than what they got, but can't articulate what they wanted instead.
It's a lot like what we said about Gamers and Nintendo in the E3 thread.
I still say that 2 is the weakest of Raimi's trilogy.
Spider-Man 2 is one of my favorite superhero movies. :P
But 3 is certainly hated far more than necessary. It's not bad. I don't even consider it just "decent". It's legitimately good. The only big problem I have with it is Venom which, I mean, wasn't even intended to be in the movie. I'd take it over the reboot from a few years ago any day.
I agree with Avaitor, actually. I like 2, but I will never understand how so many people seem to consider it a masterpiece. It was just as silly in tone as the other movies, but had some of the most contrived and cliche writing of the entire trilogy. It also had less heart than the first movie, and the action wasn't nearly as exciting as in the third movie. It had great moments, like Peter's confession to Aunt May and Doc Oc sacrificing himself as a form of redemption in the end, but it also had some really boring parts that kind of dragged.
I also think that 3 has some of the most legitimately funny (and very Raimi-style) lines and moments in any superhero movie. A lot of people seem to overlook that.
The only thing the director's cut adds to Daredevil is Coolio. It doesn't enhance the plot or smooth out Matt's life. It only adds Coolio. Trust me, because I sat through that director's cut and had to watch scene after scene of Matt Murdock trying to acquit Coolio of something.
From what I hear, that subplot is very important as to how Matt gets Kingpin arrested. In the theatrical version he just leaves him there, which doesn't make any sense, but I've heard that the subplot basically does what the Netflix series did, in which Matt finds evidence about his money-laundering from the guy who does his finances and uses that to get him convicted. If that's true, then that IS certainly a pretty big departure from the theatrical version. That said, the film had a lot more problems than just not having the plot make any sense, from what I remember.
That said, I actually didn't mind Ben Affleck as Daredevil. He wasn't given much to work with in terms of decent dialogue, but he himself did a pretty good job of playing the character, IMO. The writing really killed the movie more than anything else, though.
Didn't Sam Raimi specifically set out to make a "bad" movie with Spider-Man 3 because he hates Venom? I think I read that somewhere. You can kind of tell throughout the film that he was trying to parody the first two movies and the Spider-Man mythos in general. It's hilarious now that I'm older, but you have to remember that a lot of us saw this film when we were kids. Kids don't generally understand this kind of humor as well as adults do, and if they love the character, they're not going to respond well to it. I mean, I adored the 60's Batman show and Batman Returns as a kid... because I thought they were legitimately great and accurate. Nowadays I appreciate them for what they really are, and SM3 as well, but I just don't think the latter can be unironically loved by children like those can.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 19, 2015, 05:44:53 PM
It's a lot like what we said about Gamers and Nintendo in the E3 thread.
Also, in reference to this analogy... yes, I am saying that most of the people who complain about Nintendo are children. Or at least manchildren. ;)
No, he wanted to do a different take on "Angsty" since the symbiote changes you to reveal your darker side. So instead of Generic Angry Peter, he went all out with Jerkwad Peter. Sure it was funny, but it had the same end result whether he was pure evil or sleazy liar. The latter was just a more fun and original take.
You can tell he wanted it to be in line with the other movies, I mean everything with the Sandman and Harry was in line with the first two movies. But since he was mandated to use Venom he wanted to do something fun with it instead and I think it worked great. People just didn't want Emo Peter to act that way instead of the generic obvious way that has been done to death. They'd also apparently not paid attention to any Raimi film before.
But as someone who grew up with Darkman and Army of Darkness nothing about the movie felt off or made me flinch. It was Spider-Man 3. More of the same.
Yes, but Jerkwad Peter is inherently stupid and funny. It's impossible to take at all seriously if you want to enjoy the film. I'm pretty sure it's a pisstake on how lame he thinks the Venom storyline is.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 19, 2015, 09:20:50 PM
They'd also apparently not paid attention to any Raimi film before.
But I don't think people who were kids at the time of SM3's release would be at all familiar with Sam Raimi's previous work outside of the Spider-Man films. The film is extremely cringe-worthy at times if you can't laugh at it.
I wasn't referring to kids, actually. I meant adults. At the time it was well known what kind of director Sam Raimi was since he was very active at the time even making his own superhero movie a few years before.
Quote from: Foggle on May 19, 2015, 09:32:42 PM
Yes, but Jerkwad Peter is inherently stupid and funny. It's impossible to take at all seriously if you want to enjoy the film. I'm pretty sure it's a pisstake on how lame he thinks the Venom storyline is.
If he played the Venom storyline seriously, it would have been the most depressing superhero movie ever. Just look at the rest of the film. His choice was the best one to make.
Oh, okay. I agree with you then. :joy:
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 19, 2015, 09:44:19 PM
If he played the Venom storyline seriously, it would have been the most depressing superhero movie ever. Just look at the rest of the film. His choice was the best one to make.
Absolutely. Sony made a huge mistake by trying to force an edgy character and storyline onto one of the least edgy writers/directors around.
Speaking of other movies that I legitimately like, let's bring up Michael Bay. From Armageddon and onward, he has directed terrible movies consecutively. I agree with this, and even though Transformers used to be a guilty pleasure for me, the horrid sequels have turned me off from even giving it that much credit. Having said that, people apply it to every movie that he has ever made. Personally, I still hold the opinion that his first two movies, Bad Boys and The Rock, were genuinely entertaining 90's action movies. They weren't as good as something like T2 or Speed, obviously, but they were well-done and surprisingly well-acted action thrillers that were still very fun films, especially for their time. And for what it's worth, both movies were initially well-liked by critics and audiences alike at the time, before Michael Bay became the most hated director in Hollywood. No matter how many more bad movies he makes, I will still hold true to the opinion that those two movies are solid entertainment.
I also hear that Pain & Gain is quite good!
As for the Venom and Symbiote story-line, it can and has been done well....in TSSM. That show easily has the best and most definitive version of that story-line that can possibly be done. Sam Raimi's version was just a fun spin on the dark and depressing comic book version of that arc.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 19, 2015, 09:55:47 PM
As for the Venom and Symbiote story-line, it can and has been done well....in TSSM. That show easily has the best and most definitive version of that story-line that can possibly be done. Sam Raimi's version was just a fun spin on the dark and depressing comic book version of that arc.
SSM really did that storyline justice, and even included elements from the Raimi film in it! I also liked the way Venom was done in the Ultimate Spider-Man comic book (which seemingly was also used as an inspiration for SSM's version of the events).
It could have been done well played straight by Raimi, but he already had the rest of the film set up before Marvel forced that on him. Can you imagine the whole descent into madness and paranoia of Eddie Brock paired off next to the Sandman's story and his quest for redemption, Harry's letting go of the past and his father's legacy, and Peter dealing with the repercussions of the suit ruining his personal life? There is no way to fit that all in without it being more depressing than Batman Returns.
Thankfully Marvel seems to have learned a lot since then, but I still think Raimi pulled out a pretty good film despite what he was working up against with and managed to finish his story the way he wanted to.
Quote from: Foggle on May 19, 2015, 09:54:51 PM
I also hear that Pain & Gain is quite good!
Didn't that movie kill Mark Wahlberg's already very dead acting career? You know, after Max Payne and The Happening already sealed it in a coffin. Then Transformers 4 came along and buried it six feet underground.
The guy is still a successful producer, though.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 19, 2015, 10:00:45 PM
Quote from: Foggle on May 19, 2015, 09:54:51 PM
I also hear that Pain & Gain is quite good!
Didn't that movie kill Mark Wahlberg's already very dead acting career? You know, after Max Payne and The Happening already sealed it in a coffin. Then Transformers 4 came along and buried it six feet underground.
The guy is still a successful producer, though.
I haven't seen a movie by the guy I wanted to see in quite a while now. No idea how he chooses his projects but I don't think he chooses well enough.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 19, 2015, 10:00:40 PM
There is no way to fit that all in without it being more depressing than Batman Returns.
But Batman Returns is hilarious! :o
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 19, 2015, 10:00:45 PM
Didn't that movie kill Mark Wahlberg's already very dead acting career? You know, after Max Payne and The Happening already sealed it in a coffin. Then Transformers 4 came along and buried it six feet underground.
I guess Marky Mark wasn't so funky after all...
I thought that The Fighter was a pretty good movie, but that one is really more about Christian Bale's character than Mark's. I also liked Mark Wahlberg in The Italian Job remake from about a decade ago, which I found to be a rather underrated movie, personally.
The Rock seems to be Michael Bay's Unbreakable- his kinda secret good movie.
I haven't seen either though, so I can't really comment.
Bad Boys and The Rock are to Michael Bay what The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are to M. Night Shyamalan and what Stargate and Independence Day are to Roland Emmerich. Many people consider the first two movies of each of these directors to be solid films despite how badly they each fucked up after that point.
I liked Signs. As flawed is it may be, it was the last time M. Night felt like he knew what he was doing.
Quote from: Foggle on May 19, 2015, 05:09:47 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on May 19, 2015, 05:02:02 PM
But I'd personally take Daredevil over any Spider-Man movie any day, but that's just me...
:shit:
I think I used to think that. I am afraid to watch Daredevil again though.
Quote from: Foggle on May 19, 2015, 10:04:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 19, 2015, 10:00:45 PM
Didn't that movie kill Mark Wahlberg's already very dead acting career? You know, after Max Payne and The Happening already sealed it in a coffin. Then Transformers 4 came along and buried it six feet underground.
I guess Marky Mark wasn't so funky after all...
:D
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 19, 2015, 10:06:36 PM
I thought that The Fighter was a pretty good movie, but that one is really more about Christian Bale's character than Mark's. I also liked Mark Wahlberg in The Italian Job remake from about a decade ago, which I found to be a rather underrated movie, personally.
Walhberg's character is a billion times better than Bale's. Bale was just a jittery idiot in his brother's shadow. Wahlberg was also decent in The Departed...but then again this reminds me of how that movie's dialogue seems like it was written by a 15 year old attempting noir at times.
That's the whole point of his character and arc, GSF. The story is clearly more about Bale's character's disgrace of the family, struggle with narcotic abuse, and battle for redemption. Mark Wahlberg's rise to being a champion is secondary to that, as evidenced by how he needs his brother to come through and train him in order to win his final battle.
You're not supposed to like Bale's character until the end. When I called him the real star of that movie, I was talking about his performance as an actor, which was brilliant, and went as far as to win him an Oscar for it.
Wahlberg's character is the likable guy that people cheer for. Bale's character is more interesting to follow, though, because people can identify more with personal struggle, especially that of a fallen person. Without that character and performance, the film would be nothing more than a cheap rip-off of Rocky.
I see what you mean now. I personally didn't care for Bale's performance in that movie though. :D
And I also liked him in Four Brothers. I think Walhberg would have been a decent Max Payne...if that movie didn't suck. I don't blame him for taking the role at all.
Quote from: gunswordfist on May 20, 2015, 11:39:13 AM
I see what you mean now. I personally didn't care for Bale's performance in that movie though. :D
How exactly could he or anyone have played it better, though? I don't think that I've ever seen anyone play an addict and bum nearly as well as that in any other movie that I've seen.
I don't know. I'm not an actor anymore.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 19, 2015, 08:21:47 PM
I agree with Avaitor, actually. I like 2, but I will never understand how so many people seem to consider it a masterpiece. It was just as silly in tone as the other movies, but had some of the most contrived and cliche writing of the entire trilogy. It also had less heart than the first movie, and the action wasn't nearly as exciting as in the third movie. It had great moments, like Peter's confession to Aunt May and Doc Oc sacrificing himself as a form of redemption in the end, but it also had some really boring parts that kind of dragged.
I also think that 3 has some of the most legitimately funny (and very Raimi-style) lines and moments in any superhero movie. A lot of people seem to overlook that.
"Less heart" is kind of a vague subjective point, isn't it? :P
I liked 2 a lot because I think it had the strongest story and villain, and the second best special effects and action. It also moves at a smooth pace and has a solid ending. As for heart, I think that's something all three movies excelled at.
I still stand by my opinion that, despite being somewhat bloated, the first two Hobbit movies are a lot of fun. The third one, however, just felt like overkill. It essentially took less than an hour's worth of story and turned it into a near 3-hour movie.
I liked the first Hobbit movie quite a bit, but I'm not big on the second one, and I hated the third one.
I found TDOS to be better than AUJ, personally.
I don't hate the third one, exactly. It had some genuinely great moments. But I also have no desire to re-watch it ever again, unless someone makes a fan-cut version of these movies and edits/cuts/splices them together into two films, as they were originally meant to be.
If someone ever makes a single movie cut that cuts off all the fat of those three movies, I'll consider rewatching them. They had diminishing returns to me simply because all the extra stuff got so tiring to keep up with.
I also think the action sequences got lamer and more unfitting with each installment. Legolas playing Uncharted in the final battle sequence was pretty much it for me.
I thought that the action scenes were generally well done in the first two movies, but I don't know what they were thinking with the third one. Some of those scenes were just beyond idiotic in how cartoony they seemed.
I'm going to be honest and admit that the river barrels scene was my favorite part of TDOS.
Quote from: Foggle on May 21, 2015, 08:22:51 PM
I'm going to be honest and admit that the river barrels scene was my favorite part of TDOS.
Mine too! :thumbup:
That was awesome. :happytime:
Top 10 Generally Hated Movies That I Personally Like:
10. Back to the Future Part III- It's nowhere near as tight as the first two, but I've warmed up to this movie over the years, especially since it's a great tribute to classic Westerns.
9. The Mummy (1999)- This is a bit more of a guilty pleasure, but as Roger Ebert said in his review, it's the kind of fun movie that you're ashamed to admit that you like, but still enjoy all the same.
8. Superman Returns- I might just be biased because I like Bryan Singer, but I always appreciated how much heart this movie had, and how it was more of a character movie than a straight-up action setpiece like MOS was.
7. Prometheus- It has a certified fresh rating on RT, yet I mostly only see people complaining about it. Personally, it reminded me a lot if the original Alien, and I actually love the fact that it doesn't try to answer everything for us. Immediately after finishing this movie, I wanted to watch it again to catch any details that I missed. Any movie that intrigues me enough for a second viewing isn't a bad one by any stretch, in my view.
6. Live Free or Die Hard- Is it a great Die Hard movie compared to the original and the third film. No. But it's an incredibly fun, above average action movie, and is certainly more entertaining than other fans of the original trilogy (who give the mediocre 2 a free-pass) give it credit for.
5. Batman Returns- I've already talked about this one before, but it's a really unique and interesting superhero film that kind of stands out in its own over-the-top, creative way.
4. Lethal Weapon 4- This film was hurt by its rushed production schedule, and pales in comparison to the first two, but I honestly liked it more than the third movie, and I just felt like it did still have a lot of heart to it, and gave us an actual intetesting villain with Jet Li, while also ending the entire series in a good spot.
3. Spider-Man 3- I've talked about this way too much already. Venom sucks. I agree witg that much. But the rest of the movie really works for me. I mean, yeah, it gets silly in a very Sam Raimi-esque way, but do the people complaining about that really not notice the fact that the first two movies were just as silly and campy....and on purpose?
2. Last Action Hero- I'll never understand the hate for this one. The concept is genius, and the execution is legitimately fun and hilarious at times. A kid who's a fan of action movies actually finds his way into one, and the movie then proceeds to parody and satirize the lovable action cliches of 80's and 90's cinema? And, it's also directed by a guy who KNOWS how to make great action films (see Predator and Die Hard)? Sounds like my kind of movie, and it is.
1. Ghostbusters II- This one just makes no sense. This movie is great. It has just as much wit and charm as the original, the humor is on-point, the special effects are extremely creative, Vigo is a memorable villain, and there's a dancing toaster somewhere in there as well. It loses some points for lack of originality, but in a modern movie climate where people praise sequels, reboots, and remakes all of the time, it seems rather hypocritical to hold that against this film when it's still so much fun for what it is.
I was also thinking about putting Gremlins 2 on the list, but it turns out that it has gained a pretty solid cult status over the years, so it isn't really all that hated.
I wouldn't call Ghostbuster II great myself but it isn't too far from the quality of the original. Except for Stay Puft Marshmellow Man, Vigo is easily the best villain in the movies and his subordinate is right behind him, imo. Honestly, Vigo was more memorable for me as a kid than Stay Puft due to how genuinely fucking creepy he looks.
I didn't even know hating BttF III was a thing. I got into those movies late. :sweat:
I like The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. I think I went to the theaters to see both. Both are good family fun.
I actually thought everyone liked Lethal Weapon 4. Well I guess that explains why there hasn't been any sequels. 4 helps the franchise stand up as one of the best quadrilogies in movie history.
I haven't seen Live Free Or Die Hard, Prometheus or Superman Returns, I still hate Spider-Man 3 and I haven't watched Batman Returns since I was a little kid (I think it creeped me out).
I forgot if I named 300 yet. I'm sure a rewatch would have it in my top 5 favorite comic book movies.
I have constantly seen people tear Live Free apart, but give 2 a pass. I never understood it and I've never gotten anyone to articulate what makes it the worse movie of the two. It isn't a pale rewrite of the original, it has better set pieces, a better villain, and it actually has a place in McClane's character arc (let's face it, 2 is summed up as "Here we go again!" and nothing else) which established the tone for the second Die Hard trilogy of John coming full circle with his family. It's a legitimately good action movie whereas 2 is really not.
Lethal Weapon 4 makes up for 3, in my opinion. It's not quite up there (they never brought Shane Black back after 2, unfortunately) with the first two, but it is a great action movie that really gives the original cast a much better send off than the third movie. This one has a villain that's legitimately threatening (I know Jet Li fans hated that he played a villain, but I thought he was great), actual stakes that are a lot bigger than they first appear, and great action scenes that the series is known for. It has pretty much everything you want out of a Lethal Weapon movie. Never knew why people liked it less than 3 which was basically a standard cop movie.
I'm also going to say that A Good Day to Die Hard wasn't awful. It was just a standard action movie that had too much shaky cam in the chase sequence near the beginning. It isn't as good as 1, 3, or 4, but it is STILL way better than 2. It just wasn't a typical Die Hard movie. I hope the last one is up to par with the better movies. They should get someone like Brad Bird to make sure it is.
Funny enough, Lethal Weapon 4 is probably Jet Li's only good American movie. I do need to rewatch Romeo Must Die.
I remember liking Romeo Must Die when I was younger, but it may have not aged well. I need to give it a re-watch at some point in time.
I've heard that Unleashed is pretty good, though.
Yeah, we talked about Romeo Must Die not too long ago. :D
Unleashed/Danny The Dog is actually a French movie, from what I hear (from the same people that made The Transporter, I believe). And yes, it's good. Go watch it. :)