What's so bad about the film Wild Wild West?

Before you answer, let me explain. And let me disclaim that I haven't watched it all the way through for at least five years...

I grant that it's ponderous, overblown, and totally at odds with its alleged source material. Also, the "Air Gordon" line is perhaps the dumbest thing Kevin Kline has ever said, and I also grant that Smith's veil-dance was supernaturally unfunny. But is it truly the bottom of the cinematic barrel?

It's got a gigantic mechanical spider, for pity's sake!!!1! Isn't that worth something?!? It's got Salma Hayek, who might personally be responsible for Global Warming. Does she count for nothing?


Films that I think are objectively worse (Independence Day, Godzilla, Over The Top, The Protector, Caddyshack II, etc.) routinely rate better than WWW. Why?

The film clearly doesn't take itself at all seriously, and it seldom relies on the ham-fisted campiness that plagues other big budget "We know it sucks" kinds of movies. And it appears that the cast was having a good time during filming, at least.


Thoughts?

specifically the spider. :P

I'll try to find the video clip of Kevin Smith talking about it.

*edit* ahah, found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk

Then again, lots of movies that I like are considered stinkers by others. :shrug:

Big mechanical spider.

So many people that are normally associated with better material - Will Smith, Kenneth Branagh, Kevin Kline, Salma Hayek - that it was a much bigger letdown than a Caddyshack 2. People knew Caddyshack 2 would suck because there was no Bill Murray and no Rodney, so they had much lower expectations.

When you're expecting something to be a 7 or 8 on a scale of 1-10 and it turns out to be a 2 or 3, it's a huge letdown. But, when you expect something to be a 2 or a 3 like Caddyshack 2, and you get a 1, it's not as big a letdown.

:evilgrin:

I remember in high school when this friend of mine told me about a great new underground band he had heard called Def Leppard. Dude, they were teh awesome, and your parents would NOT approve, etc. So I listened and thought they were a decent but not great band, and listened a few times. Next year they hit huge, and I mentioned them to the same friend, and he proceeded to tell me how they were overrated pop crap from talentless hacks and no one would be caught dead listening to them. To me, they still sounded decent but not great. But to him, they had gone from the essence of wonderful to the stench of the gutter, only because others decided to listen to them. I hear that same thing around here, with bands like Nickelback or Shinedown. People hate them because they are more popular than their skill justifies, not because of any inherent quality in the bands.

Isn't that just what you are saying? It wasn't too horrible--2 or 3 is way too low, I'd give it a 6--but people act like it's worse than it is because everyone else expected it to be better than it was.

People had high expectations because of the cast and director, but then the movie was a disappointment compared to expectations.

then it can be judged for the movie instead of on the expectiations?

Kind of like Moby Dick--never sold during Melville's lifetime because people expected Melville to write other types of novels, but fifty years after he died it was discovered and is now a classic, because people read it without the baggage.

I think that's where I'm different than most people. I try to judge things on themselves, rather than the baggage around them. Maybe. Or maybe I'm just an easy lay, in entertainment terms.

but, it's also something that could be forgotten about altogether. What I always say when somebody says how the music or movies from the 50s or 60s have held up well, I respond by saying that's because everybody's long forgotten about the crappy songs and movies that were made back then.

It was an average film, with lots of trendy cliches that won't be understood in twenty years. I just mean it will be judged as an average movie rather than as a failure because the expectations will be gone, and people will just see what is there, rather than worrying about what isn't.

with your first paragraph, there.

Of course, I happen to like Nickleback, lol.

Some people only like the obscure. Few Americans know any of MY favorite bands, and aren't likely to ever pay attention.

I also liked Maverick, the movie.........

Not one for the ages, but unless you just wanted to hate it, it was fun for a couple of hours.

I enjoyed it more than Lord of the Rings... Oh, never mind, y'all are tired of hearing about it.

Makes you my favorite poster of the day. I think everything in my freezer just melted, though.

Suitable for framing.

Dr. Fate's WWW rating= 5 solid stars!!!

and although Independance Day and Men in Black aren't exactly Oscar calibur movies they were actually fun to watch even if the plot was corny as hell.

Then for some reason they thought that July 4th should be a Will Smith tradition and put that schlock out there with WWW. Two times Will got away with it but 3 times forget it.

There were numerous failed scripts for a new superman movie before the stinker that came out a few years ago.

One script by the director of WWW called for superman to fight a giant robot spider from outer space.

That deal fell through.

But the guy was so obsessed with the idea of a giant robot spider that he decided to put it in another film, this one set in the Old West.

All those steam powered machines and gadgets just came off as being rather gimmicky.

'Nuff said!

Wow- an alternate future where 19th century inventors take available technology to it's absolute limits!

It was actually AHEAD of its time.

Come on, now...

There's cheese, and then there's cheese. And then there's ID4.

The sets are super cool- the color in the film is very bright, fantastic and sorta "comic book" looking.

The weapons, vehicles etc. are a steam-punk fan's delight.

The villian is hillarious and his plot to take over the West is straight out of the old show.

Will Smith is hilarious, and the action is great fun.

This movie does not suck at all- it's very imaginative- an alternate history where secret agents and steam powered technology is part of the "Old" West.

I *have* seen it all the way through- in fact, I may be the only person in the world who OWNS this movie.

With ya- it's a really fun fantasty movie, a great rainy Sunday flick....

"ISHTAR" is bottom of the barrel. WW West isn't THAT bad. It was occasionally funny as hell.

I watched the original as a kid and loved it.

And what's wrong with ID4? It doesn't belong with those other losers.

I tend to lump them together in my mind. Both movies came out in the nineties and both were based on popular semi-comic sixties westerns.

More like a real western, though, while WWW was early steampunk SF. Still fun. Show and movie.

Mel Gibson, James Garner, Jodie Foster, James Coburn and Graham Greene...

I saw a show on the making of Maverick and they had a lot of fun.

Annabelle: Well, they're Indians. They probably just stole the ponies!
Maverick: Not everybody's like you, Mrs. Bransford.
Annabelle: What is it with you and Indians anyway?
Maverick: Oh, nothing. I try and shoot one a day, if possible, before noon. How 'bout you, Coop? I figure it's their fault for being on our land before we got here.

It was very clear the character liked the Indians.