|
Post by ck100 on Jun 30, 2024 4:28:11 GMT
Has time been kind to it after 25 years or has its reputation only gotten worse? I've always felt it was OK at best and not the horrible film that many (including the cast and director) make it out to be. Not exactly sure what I'd say are the good qualities for it, but for the bad, I can easily say things like a miscast Will Smith, Kenneth Branagh giving one of his worst performances, Salma Hayek being nothing more than eye candy (though delicious eye candy), DOA jokes like playing cleavage like bongos and Will Smith disguising himself as a sexy dancer, overblown and obvious visual effects, etc. Leonard Maltin Movie Guide Review: Wild Wild West (1999) - 1.5 out of 4 stars"Rehash of the 1960s TV series finds special agents James West (Smith) and inventor Artemus Gordon (Kline) on a special mission for President Grant to capture nefarious bad guy Arliss Loveless (Branagh). Overstuffed with visual gimmickry, but leaden in every way. You can hear the banter landing with a thud every few minutes."
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jun 30, 2024 4:33:56 GMT
Rewatched it recently, then gave the blu-ray away; life's too short.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal1 on Jun 30, 2024 13:15:26 GMT
Given all the money they spent and the talent involved, it is a shame that it’s wildly mediocre. But I like the steampunk elements, including the giant mechanical spider. Love its design and absurdity. And as bad as the leads are playing off each other, it is kind of fun to watch in the sense that “wow Branagh is going for it.” or “Wow, Will Smith is so dead inside.” Or if this your first exposure to Salma Hayek, you’d think “wow she’s so hot but so bad at the same time.” I get that they wanted the movie to be a redux of Men In Black, but perhaps a different approach would have fared (slightly) better? Maybe if someone else like Richard Donner directed it instead and trimmed all this extra fluff going on in the background? At least we got a great story from Kevin Smith out of it.
|
|