QUOTE (Laura @ Aug 28 2004, 07:16 AM)
It depends on what you mean by "good".
Are we talking about "movies that looked unpromising, but turned out to be truly masterful"?
Or "movies that looked dumb, embarrassing, and unenjoyable, but turned out to deliver the laffs"?
In the first case, I'd agree about
Crouching Tiger and
Clueless (although I too was expected CT to be pretty good). In the second case, I'd agree about most of the movies that were suggested (that I've seen) (except possibly
Mystery Men, which <i>looked</i> good (it has Janeane Garofalo!) but turned out to kind of suck).
I've gotten to the point where I'm having trouble telling the difference between "good" and "fun". If I like a movie, I'm afraid I might think it's good, even if it's not "good" good. That's why
Wing Commander is right next to
Magnificent Seven on my shelf (that and they're the same color).
Well said, Laura. I share that same dilemma with this thread. Generally speaking its easier to name films that look bad and prove to be bad than it is to name films that look bad and turn out good.
As for myself, I thought the original teaser trailer for
Pirates of the Caribbean made the film look - or rather, sound - dumb, granted it was just a bunch of random shots of CGI islands and oceans. Then I saw the main trailer and I changed my mind.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - flawed, but interesting. To quote the late Sir Alec Guinness, it remains a vivid experience.
I am the Fisher King.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.