Animation Source Forums

Are there any movies that didn't turn out as you expected? Better? Worse?

Here are mine:
Brother Bear 2
Madagascar 2
I hoped for some interesting story continuations, not random plot twists based on memories appearing out of nowhere. Alex is suddenly having a mark on his paw and Kenai is suddenly having a very important memory of a friend that was never meditioned before. Total un-needed crap.


Megamind
Tangled
I loved those movies, but I was very skeptical about them, like for any new 3D animated movie, because many of them are fail adult-humor Shrek wannabes. I was pleasantly suprised by those two.


Clash of the Titans(2010)
I didn't have big hopes for this move, but I expected it to be more like original 81's one. I didn't expect this would be THAT crappy.


Let The Right One In(2008, Sweden)
I really though this would be a good, interesting movie, especially that it had good rating on many websites. Nope. It was pretty dumb and boring as hell...


Brave
I hoped it would be more like classic animated movie. Something in Mulan style maybe, but it turned out to have completely different plot that I expected and it kinda let me down.


The Hobbit
When I heard that there are going to be 3 movies, I expected it to be an exact adaptation of the book. Lolnope. Peter Jackson, you failed.

1.Clash of The Titans(2010)
Sir Laurence Olivier is meant to be Zeus,although Liam Neeson did a fair job as Zeus.

2.Wrath of The Titans(2012)

How To Train Your Dragon

When I saw the trailers for it, I thought it was going to be another lame kids movie because of the oddly shaped characters and all the slapstick jokes that were being made. But when I saw it at a friend's house, I was pleasantly surprised. Turned out to be WAY better than I had thought!

Gettysburg
Gods and Generals

I'm a huge American Civil War buff so these really seemed like awesome movies. However, both movies seemed to favor the Confederate side more because about 60 - 70% was filmed from the South's perspective. Plus, the combat scenes in Gettysburg weren't all the great. It was basically someone shoots, someone falls. No blood. Also, Gods and Generals was more focused towards "Stonewall" Jackson's personal life rather than the battle plans and movements of the war. And both movies really seemed to glorify the war and make it seem more romantic than what it really was.

Eragon
Percy Jackson and The Olympians-The Lightining Thief
Seeing how much I liked the books of these two sagas (especially Eragon) I was hoping for something awesome, like Hunger Games turned to be. But nope. I don't know which one sucked more but I think the Percy Jackson movie. The only things that make me like the Eragon movie a little more than the PJ one were Jeremy Irons and Saphira (her voice too). Eragon's plotline was pretty much faithful to the book but they left out too many things and they didn't portray well the majority of the characters and places. Percy Jackson too, I mean, Annabeth Chase in the book has curly blond hair with grey eyes, in the movie she was with red straight hair and what, green eyes? Lol WTH? The plot was totally modified I mean, there were no signs of Ares, Kronos and Hade, they shows Hade's wife to play his role when in the book it's nothing like that and they even made them fight a Hydra? Where the heck in the book did you find that?! xD
I was very disappointed from both movies. A LOT. Luckily I have the books. *sighs* if only all the movies were made like the HG one.

Percy Jackson and The Olympians-The Lightining Thief
Pretty much what Saske said T.T I watched this the other day and was..well, rather annoyed. I think the only thing I liked about it was Logan Lerman as Percy. It might have been better if he'd been younger, but he does look similar to how I imagine Percy.

Megamind and HTTYD
Because of Megamind's terrible trailer and the advertising for both, I just thought they were going to be bad. I was wrong, very wrong xD They're now two of my favourite films.

Madagascar 3
Because of the basically terrible second one, I thought the third would be the same. It wasn't at all, I actually thought it was fantastic c:

These.
Rise Of The Guardians
Found the plot to be weak, though I have to admit the animation was great.

I'm gonna throw in my own post within the topic framework, but first I wanted to address this:



Actually, Wolf, having actually participated in the filming of the movie Gettysburg (I was an American Civil War living historian/re-enactor at the time, so guys like me were usually encouraged to participate in these productions...it saved the production companies time in training know-nothing extras, and money in that we already were trained and brought our own equipment, uniforms, etc.), I can tell you that, as opposed to Gods and Generals, it does most definitely give pretty much equal time to the Union perspective. If you follow the movie carefully, as in the case of the book it is drawn from ("The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara http://www.amazon.com/Killer-Angels-Novel-Modern-Library/dp/0679643249/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358183742&sr=1-1&keywords=the+killer+angels+by+michael+shaara), you will see that pretty clearly. But regardless of notions of "balance", the director, the screen writer and the producers still had to follow the book more or less.


Now I cannot argue that Gods & Generals (another production I took part in) has a southern slant. Or, more accurately, focuses on Confederate officers and civilians. But again, that's the book (in this case, the book of the same name, written by the son of the first book's author, Jeff Shaara http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Generals-Jeff-Shaara/dp/0345422473/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358183979&sr=1-1&keywords=Gods+%26+Generals). The book focuses on the life and experiences of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, arguably the Confederacy's greatest military strategist and one of its most aggressive fighters (and one of its more colorful, eccentric and controversial figures...who has been practically deified in the post-war southern U.S., but was not universally-loved by the men under his command, or other officers with whom he served, during the time). It is therefore only natural that the movie was going to have to follow the same basic course.


These are not historical documentaries, after all. Both movies are based upon historical fiction. Covering certain subjects from the Civil War. No movie could encompass that bitter four-year conflict anyway. Hell, even Gods & Generals, with its tedious four-hour theatrical length, had to glance over a lot of key elements of the war in order to focus on Jackson and his life.


(A few pics, as proof of my involvement in the production of the Gettysburg movie back in September of 1992. A few of several that I have. Heh. The spoilers below each contain descriptions of what you're looking at in each case. Click the spoiler window to see.)





Hidden text : click to show





Hidden text : click to show





Hidden text : click to show

Well, I had hoped that someone would have posted by now, so it didn't appear as though I was double-posting. But this topic seems to have fallen off. So I shall post my on-topic response now...


Year One - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045778/--If there were ever a complete waste of the price of admission to a theater, I have yet to see it top this one for a complete waste of effort! I went in blind on this one, trusting the trailers and advanced promos of what I expected was going to be a hilarious movie (mostly because I like Jack Black that much). Yes, I know it wasn't going to be sophisticated, high-brow humor. But I certainly expected FAR more than what I got. This thing sucked. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 14% on their "tomatometer" (a general rating, based upon user comments, of how bad a movie is; the lower the percentage number, the worse it is...regardless of what percentage of people "liked it"), but trust me, it deserved a lower percentage by far. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/year_one/


Pearl Harbor - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213149/--What a train wreck of a movie! Being a history buff, I went in hoping that this one could finally best the epic Tora! Tora! Tora! docu-drama movie of the 1970s (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/) for quality. Boy, was I ever wrong. But what else could one expect from a director like Michael Bay, who always thinks special effects are the only things that matter in a movie. And even despite that, this lousy piece of garbage seems to spend more time on a sappy, melodramatic love story than it does about the horrid surprise attack on Pearl Harbor itself (which shows how much Michael Bay thinks about story, scripting and acting). And when the movie finally DOES roll around to the attack, which seems tagged onto the end of the movie as an after-thought, it ends up as a confusing, chaotic morass of tripe that does a tremendous disservice to history, and to all the men (and the civilians) who died or were horribly wounded in that attack. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 25%. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1108389-pearl_harbor/ Like Year One, however, it deserved a MUCH lower percentage.


The Pirates! Band of Misfits - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430626/--Having so thoroughly enjoyed Chicken Run (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120630/), I was really expecting much of the same zany, snarky comedy from Peter Lord (the same guy who brought everyone Wallace and Gromit http://wallaceandgromit.com/ and Flushed Away http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424095/). But while it wasn't BAD, it certainly wasn't the laugh-out-loud, zany and snarky adventure which Chicken Run definitely was. I was left wanting. Seriously wanting. And sighing...out loud. I purchased it blind, trusting in Peter Lord and his past material, and the trailers and previews, that much. Didn't see it in the theater. Eh. Mercifully, for this movie, Rotten Tomatoes was kinder: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_pirates_band_of_misfits/.


The Dark Knight Rises - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/--I am going to totally disagree with Rotten Tomatoes on this one (well, they can't be right ALL of the time ). Rather than repost WHY I disliked this thing (conditionally), I will link a post I put in this board in a topic about the Batman trilogy, which should wrap up my thoughts quite nicely (and for which I received supportive postings): /board/post1454956.html#p1454956. Rotten Tomatoes really goofed up on this one, by crackie: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/


The Three Stooges - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383010/--Being a long-time fan of the original Three Stooges (including Moe and Curly's real-life brother Shemp...the only other truly very funny third Stooge), I had very high hopes for this movie, and anxiously anticipated its release in theaters. I went opening night. And...left somewhat disappointed. Granted, a hardcore fan is going to be a nitpicking perfectionist. And I admit that I was with this movie. But the slapstick felt a bit goofier than necessary in most cases...the scripting was blah, and the acting generally very poor. Except for Chris Diamantopoulos, who played Moe Howard. He NAILED that part, and did true credit to the original Moe. He was channeling him all through the movie, and had his voice, expressions and mannerisms down to the quintessential "T"! He saved this movie for me. None of the others did (though, to be fair, Will Sasso, who played Curly, came in a moderate second on that...though he seemed perhaps a bit "tired" and slow to me in recreating Curly, who was originally a very high-energy, zany character). Rotten Tomatoes gave this sucker a 51%, which is about as good as it deserves. I hope any sequels can do better. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1205530-three_stooges/


The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/--Here's another one of the most anxiously-anticipated movies I could ever have hoped for, and which I made sure to see opening night. Again, long-time Tolkien fan, and avid reader, and after seeing how well Peter Jackson and his production crew, and all the actors, generally did in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I guess my expectations were a little high and unforgiving. And while I didn't actually DISLIKE it, I felt there were plenty of things lacking about it. I wrote a rather long and wordy review on my Facebook page, but I shall not link it here. Since I am surrounded by the "tl/dr" generation on this site, I suspect most of you would never get through it anyway. But there were several things that bugged me - lack of character development in the dwarves; the way that Radagast was tossed into this movie so haphazardly and randomly; the way that Ian McKellen seemed a bit slow in settling back into his role in the early scenes of the movie; the way Ian Holm and Elijah Wood seemed TOTALLY detached and bored with their roles (as opposed to the excellent jobs each actor did with their roles in the LoTR trilogy); and the way the scripting so deviated from at least the story flow of the book. Granted, it's full of great action, and Martin Freeman was fantastic as younger Bilbo. He made the role his own, and deserves great credit for his acting job in it. But I wanted more. I got less. IMHO. Rotten Tomatoes, again, was merciful: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/. Yeah, I will purchase it on Blu-Ray (now that I have a great Blu-Ray player) when the extended version comes out in stores, but it wasn't what I expected.


Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120915/--Again, high hopes, being a Star Wars fan (though not a hardcore geek by far). But combined with the sappy, cookie-cutter acting from MOST of the actors in this entire trilogy (episodes 1-3), as opposed to the excellent acting jobs in episodes 4-6, except for maybe Ewan McGregor, who did a great job as younger Obi-Wan Kenobi (and Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn), and but for the great light saber battle at the climax of the movie (which was incredible!), this movie blew chunks. Besides...all I really need to say is three words. Just three little words, that resound as much with the hardcore Star Wars fans as anyone else: Jar Jar Binks. EEEK! Once again, Rotten Tomatoes was merciful: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_i_the_phantom_menace/


Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121765/--I don't know why anyone thinks Hayden Christensen is a great actor. He isn't. And in this, watching the sappy love story with Natalie Portman as well as him whining and carrying on like a baby (even though it was scripted that way) was just nausea-inducing. At least Yoda was done a little better in this one, than that clunky CGI job they did with him in the first one (episode 1). And Ewan McGregor's great acting again helped. As did an increasingly-plucky little R2-D2. And another good light saber battle in there at the climax (Yoda and Count Dooku). And the Kamino scenes (and the space battle between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett...pretty cool stuff). Otherwise, blah. Again, Rotten Tomatoes gave the movie generous pass (though why it only links to a review of the 3D version is beyond me): http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_ii_attack_of_the_clones_3d/


Star Wars: Episode 3 - Revenge of the Sith - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/--Again, lousy, cardboard, cookie-cutter dialogue and acting, and blah action for the most part. Props once again to Ewan McGregor and R2-D2, and to the amazing couple of light saber battles at the climax, and being able to see Anakin finally become Darth Vader (in personality and later in suit), and for seeing the Wookie homeworld. lol Ooooootherwise? Meh. Again, Rotten Tomatoes with the good rating, but strangely again, only the 3D version: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_iii_revenge_of_the_sith_3d/

I went to see Warm Bodies with a friend and I was highly disappointed by it, since I've read the book.
(I write my reasons under a spoiler, since I don't know how many people watched the movie/read the book.)

Hidden text : click to show

I was hoping this movie would be good but both me and my friend (who read the book as well) were really disappointed :C *sighs* another movie to add to the "PJ/Eragon-movie-like" list...

Eragon- A big fan of the Inheritance cycle, had high hopes for this movie, from the trailer's it looked to be the next LOTR. Boy was I wrong. It had Eragon's cousin have 2 lines, despite him being a main character of the next book, completely did away with the werecat's and the history of Murtagh (haven't read the books in a while, might have misspelled his name). Instead of having Saphira slowly mature, she flies into the sky after just hatching and in a big blue explosion is suddenly grown up and knows what a dragon rider is. WTH?!

The whole Star Wars prequel trilogy- All of it pretty much sucked. Expect for the end of Revenge of the Sith. That was ok, I guess.

Green Lantern- Quite frankly I'm glad it blew at the box office. Whole movie was crappy.

Just thought of another...

Rio
I know a lot of people like this film...but I just don't see why. I found the storyline and characters to be mediocre and predictable and just found it a bit boring. I was disappointed really after reading so many good reviews for it :/

Hotel transylvania:
I thought it was going to be horrible. I then watch it and I'm still laughing about it...

Brave:
I never expected the storyline to turn out like that. The film looks different in the trailers. I like this film, anyway.

I'll second that. Though I didn't expect it to be horrible per say, I did not expect to love it as much as I did.

And I can't really think of any other movies oddly enough... I'm easy to please and have a fair sense for what looks like it'll be a good watch or not.

I forget to mention those before, but I have to agree about Star Wars eps 1-3. Episode 2 was probably one of the most boring movies I've ever seen.


Frozen - My decision to see this movie was a bit random. There was just nothing better when I wanted to go to the theaters. I didn't have any bad predictions but I didn't have any great hopes neither. And surely I didn't expect it to be THAT amazing xD

The Hobbit: Desolation Of Smaug - After so many people stated it was better than the first movie - I actually hoped it would be better, even despite those random filler characters. However, I had those weird moments between laughing, crying and facepalming though the whole movie. I would NOT recommend this movie to anyone, unless you don't know the book want to see a light action movie with overload of (too) epic scenes. I HATED IT

Man of Steel - Nostalgia Critic's review for this says everything I have to say on it (he seriously pointed out every nit pick I found watching it and then some). 8|
Granted with today's writers I wasn't expecting miracles, but I still expected Superman to at least have common sense around civilians. >.<