Why all the hate for this movie? - Legion (2010) Discussion

[–] starwolf 14 years ago

I did. It had me suckered. Angels, as bad guys, with guns! Sounded intriguing.

It turned out to be less so.

reply

[–] chriscc-3 14 years ago

It didn't have you suckered, you just misunderstood what it was supposed to be. This movie promised guns, explosions, Dennis Quaid, and a gun-toting angel. It delivered on all counts.

reply

[–] starwolf 14 years ago

Well, I won't argue. Certainly it's possible I entirely misunderstood what this movie was supposed to be.

I'm not sure it delivered that much on the mayhem either, but I will give you Dennis Quaid for sure.

I take it you liked the movie.

reply

[–] chriscc-3 14 years ago

I did. I don't think the movie was meant to be taken seriously at all.

reply

[–] beki666 14 years ago

It was a badly made movie. The acting was utter *beep* I didn't believe in any of the characters, in the end I wanted them all to just die. I don't care if it wasn't meant to be taken seriously or not. Whichever way I see it, it was still a crap movie that was neither intriguing nor enjoyable. There really was not much of a story, it was purely predictable. I don't mind some predictability, but I at least want it to be an enjoyable journey. Die Hard movies aren't meant to be taken seriously, yet they are still enjoyable with a good cast, decent acting, some humour and great explosions and action scenes.

Whether I misunderstood the movie or not really isn't the point if it's not even enjoyable enough for me to attempt watching it again. I respect you like it mate, I mean there are some *beep* movies that I love. Sadly this is one of the WORST films I have ever watched. I'd rather watch Twilight than this, and I despise Twilight with a passion.

reply

[–] McQueen85 14 years ago

It was a badly made movie. The acting was utter *beep* I didn't believe in any of the characters, in the end I wanted them all to just die. I don't care if it wasn't meant to be taken seriously or not. Whichever way I see it, it was still a crap movie that was neither intriguing nor enjoyable. There really was not much of a story, it was purely predictable. I don't mind some predictability, but I at least want it to be an enjoyable journey. Die Hard movies aren't meant to be taken seriously, yet they are still enjoyable with a good cast, decent acting, some humour and great explosions and action scenes.

Whether I misunderstood the movie or not really isn't the point if it's not even enjoyable enough for me to attempt watching it again. I respect you like it mate, I mean there are some *beep* movies that I love. Sadly this is one of the WORST films I have ever watched. I'd rather watch Twilight than this, and I despise Twilight with a passion.

+1

"You want to investigate my courage? Do you? Find out! Find out!" (Robert Ford)

reply

[–] illyrianX 14 years ago

It didn't have you suckered, you just misunderstood what it was supposed to be. This movie promised guns, explosions, Dennis Quaid, and a gun-toting angel. It delivered on all counts.

ROFL! Win. This comment made my day.

reply

[–] starwolf 14 years ago

The only thing it delivered to me was boredom and a feeling of being lighter in the pocket where I previously had money.

And, oh yes, it also delivered to me the feeling that I am not going to pay to see "Priest."

reply

[–] illyrianX 14 years ago

I think the movie as a whole was pretty bad but I loved the angel scenes. They should have made the entire film about them instead.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harkness78 14 years ago

One of the few films I can think of where I actually feel less intelligent after viewing it. A lot of brain cells were killed while suffering through this tripe. Doesn't work as a guilty pleasure, so anyone defending it is probably just retarted, or has zero taste, or has downs syndrome and has zero taste.

"Nobody knows anybody, not that well..." - Miller's Crossing

reply

[–] chriscc-3 14 years ago

Yes, because you didn't find it enjoyable means that anybody who does is retarded. Because the objective definition of good taste is based on your personal preferences, right? You must be God Himself!

reply

[–] Babylon652 14 years ago

no but it still sucked!! the only good part was the granny.

reply

[–] eggroll43 14 years ago

so says you. This move was awesome. One of my favorite movies. Paul Betthany is talented actor and was great as Michael. I've seen the movie 4 times. Still love it as much as the first. I don't give a damn what the critics say, the op said or anybody. This movie was *beep* great.

reply

[–] Harmon30 14 years ago

I hate this movie because it was awful and I want my $10 back. I don't care what the critics say, and I don't care about the religious implications. The movie just stunk. It wasn't enjoyable to watch in the least. Some of the special effects were kind of cool but the movie still has to be watchable.

reply

[–] magical_trumpy 14 years ago

I have heard so much bad reviews for this one, I afraid to watch it. I want to know if this one would be good to watch in a "for lulz" / "so bad it's funny" type way or is it just BAD bad. Is it entertaining?

reply

[–] chriscc-3 14 years ago

I thought it was entertaining as hell. There's a bunch of action, corny action movie heroics, and Dennis Quaid. Most of the negative reviews are from people who took it far too seriously.

reply

[–] starwolf 14 years ago

Most of the negative reviews are from people who took it far too seriously.

I can't argue with this statement, although I'm not sure how you can categorically make it.

But, I didn't expect the movie to be serious - I mean, come on. The lobby cutout had an angel standing there with automatic weapons in each hand. Who could take that seriously?

My issue was it was boring, the story wasn't even internally consistent, and in the end I just didn't care what happened to anyone as long as the movie was over and I could leave.

reply

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 13 years ago

It was nowhere THAT bad, to the poster that said he/she would rather watch Twilight over this, NOTHING happens in any of those movies, Legion may not have the BEST acting performances known to man but anyone who would want to sit through three straight movies of Kristen Stewart blinking, Taylor Lautner making angry faces and Robert Pattinson walking around like a male model over this film, I just don't know what to say.

I'm not sure why people say they feel dumb after watching it or why they say it was boring. The angel scenes were awesome. Quaid, Dutton, Bettany and the actor that played Gabriel were all good. I think people that liked Constantine will probably enjoy the film more, it reminded me at moments of that film. The people that hated it and say it was worse than Twilight, you are entitled to your opinion. It wasn't perfect by any means but it was enjoyable and very creepy.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.

reply

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

And, as you say, you are entitled to your opinion. I liked Constantine a lot. I seriously disliked this drivel. To me, there was nothing creepy about it.

I was very disappointed because I was very much looking forward to seeing it and saw it on opening weekend. I wish I had waited for the $1 DVD from Redbox.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chriscc-3 13 years ago

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT. The only reason to see this movie was a bunch of cool action scenes, and Dennis Quaid. Yes, the movie is dumb and terribly written. Why were you going to see it expecting anything more?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chriscc-3 13 years ago

You thought it tried to take itself seriously? Really? The poster showed an angel holding a machine gun. C'mon, man...

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]