UKH

I got my ticket to watch this Thursday night .

Apparently its got some good first appraisals. 

Described as all the best bits from terminator 1 and 2 combined into a entertaining story and fantastic action. 

I wouldn't have bothered if it had not had James Cameron producing it this time.  I didn't watch Salvation and only watched  Genisys the other night which was pants.

Just hoping it's not all hype and totally cack.

TWS

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Can't wait, I just hope it doesn't disappoint! 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Good move not watching 'Salvation' - that one really was a stinker.  I enjoyed Genisys, but I agree that it's pants - it's just that it's quite enjoyable pants as long as you're not taking it at all seriously.

Did you see any of the "Sarah Connor Chronicles" tv series?  I thought it was really rather good, though maybe it would have jumped the shark if it hadn't been abruptly cancelled at the end of the second series.  Judging by the way series 2 ended It looked like it might have been heading that way, but they'd introduced some interesting ideas and were beginning to develop them.  I was intrigued to know what Shirley Manson's character was up to.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

When did you last watch Terminator 2: Judgement Day?

In reply to deepsoup:

I never saw any of them at all.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Years ago now so maybe I'm due a watch before Thursdays viewing of the new one.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

I should also have asked when you last watched The Terminator

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Although he wasn't involved with it, Cameron publicly praised Genisys and declared it to be the true follow-up to Terminator 2: Judgement Day. 

It is possible that he didn't really feel this, and was just being lots of money to help promote it, but if that were the case then you have to question his integrity. 

I rather liked Genisys. It goes a bit wayward at times but overall I liked the concept and that "protect my Sarah" line had infinitely more pathos to it than any of the T-800 / John Connor banter in T2. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I saw Terminator over the summer after years and thought to myself how great it was even with the dated effects.

You forget so much about things you haven't seen for ages.

The mental Gestalt becomes more regular and symmetrical over time from my recollection of psychology lessons . 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

My daughter just watched 1 and 2 for the first time and is untainted by the others! We're going to see Dark Fate at the cinema when its out.

Her favourite film is T2, which is mine too (along with Predator and Aliens)

In reply to Jus:

You'd probably not be too surprised by how many people actually say that.

:-D

I think Aliens swings it for me if I had to pick one .

All brilliant though.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Last night! Stumbled across it on itv4. It holds up surprisingly well

In reply to toad:

I didn't feel the same when I saw it on the big screen a couple of months ago. Mainly because the T-1000 is a time-wasting dimwit  

In reply to Jus:

Having watched both a few times i think the first Terminator is better written and the more perfect film

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

But T2 has that beautiful scene; Sarah Connor in the desert, vest, shades, cigarette, rebuilding a machine gun, drinking tequila. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

It does have some great bits.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

A lot of Terminator 2 was leftover ideas that they could not fit into the first Terminator screenplay and retain a decent running time. Add into the mix Arnie's insistence on being a "good guy", and you get the resulting muddle (which is still a good film and truly one of the all-time tentpole summer spectaculars which has endured a lot longer than all of its peers - only Jurassic Park really holds a candle to it in terms of early 1990s "all time classic" movie spectaculars. Oh and Cliffhanger of course)

In reply to Blue Straggler:

A bit harsh to call them 'leftover ideas'. I've never been a big fan of DVD extras but one of the few I've done a bit of was T2. An interesting thing that came up was that the original story idea by Cameron (and partner) included the story time loop closure that featured in T2 which always struck me as quite elegant. The film itself, I thought a bit flawed, as you say there can be pressure brought to shoe-horn ideas in and the writing gets a bit bent out of shape.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

1) I didn't call them unused, I said "leftover" (although the meaning is the same I guess; indeed, 'unused' is probably the better term)
2) Why is it harsh? It's not a criticism, and there WERE 'leftover' or 'unused' ideas that made their way into T2.


> I've never been a big fan of DVD extras but one of the few I've done a bit of was T2. An interesting thing that came up was that the original story idea by Cameron (and partner) included the story time loop closure that featured in T2 which always struck me as quite elegant. The film itself, I thought a bit flawed, as you say there can be pressure brought to shoe-horn ideas in and the writing gets a bit bent out of shape.

3) Having two Terminators somehow competing, was also something they originally had in the Cameron/Hurd treatment for the first film. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I meant to say leftover and indeed corrected my piece but you obviously picked it up before I did.

You are right leftover doesn't have to imply sub-standard but I suppose I was trying to say that the two films had originally been envisaged as one complete story whether ultimately told in two films or not.

It's one of the reasons I dislike the idea of the follow on films. The original loop closed and that was that. The idea that the evil machine can just keep trying until it gets the result it wants seems a bit messy.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

What I liked about T2 and still do is that it was probably the last film to have spectacular stunts over CGI as we get nowadays. The stunt where Arnie's character goes onto the bonnet of the truck and fires through the windscreen is fantastic as are some of the motorcycle stunts. Looking forward to seeing Dark Fate over the weekend! 

In reply to JohnO1978:

Have you seen Mad Max Fury Road?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I havent as it happens...will give it a look! 

In reply to JohnO1978:

Have you seen Hardcore Henry?

In reply to JohnO1978:

Have you seen Mission: Impossible - Fallout?

You do know the T-1000 wasn't a real liquid metal robot, right?  
(and, more seriously, the motorcycle stunts did use a form of CGI in the wire-and-pole removal, although this is getting into semantics)

In reply to JohnO1978:

T2 landed at a golden age of cinema after a fashion (well for my era anyway I think).

A truly good sequel .   So few are nowadays.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

The classic film debate/challenge: Sequels that are equal or superior to their predecessor.

In reply to JohnO1978:

I think you'll find it suitably stunt-tastic! Also I believe they made an effort to do 'real stunts' to minimise reliance on CGI.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sounds like a particularly effective vacuum cleaner!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Is that the video game style 1st person perspective movie?

In reply to aln:

Yes. It's not great, as you should already expect, but it is interesting and bold (in an "insane" way). I think it's the first relatively-major-release film to be shot entirely on Go-Pro cameras. 

I can no longer find the link but there should be, somewhere on a YouTube, a REALLY good behind-the-scenes piece, around 7 minutes long, showing some of the set-ups. As daft as the film is, you have to praise the sheer vision behind some of the more outlandish stunts, and how they achieved them. 

Plus Haley Bennett is in it. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yeah I failed to see his reasoning.

He was just saying that to keep the franchise alive so he could take back over possibly.

It wasn't as bad as I envisioned but I wasn't expecting much to be fair.   it was nice to see Arnie doing his thing .

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Most "part 2" superhero films, where the first film takes more than an hour setting up the origin story. 

Superman 2, X2 (the second X-Men) and Batman Returns, are good examples. 

Iron Man 2 was, however, not good. 

I'd say Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior is better than the first film. 

As is Final Destination 2. 

Mission: Impossible III and Mission: Impossible - Fallout are the best in the 6-film Tom Cruise franchise. 

 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm going to resist the urge to mention more sequels, even the wonderful 'Addams Family Values', for fear of derailing the thread. 

But I did watch the 1978 'Superman' again on the telly not so long ago, and it really is striking how brilliantly cast Christopher Reeve was.  The films look very cheesy now, but he's never been equalled - not as Superman and certainly not as the shy and slightly awkward Clark Kent.  (That was always his disguise, never the specs.)

In reply to deepsoup:

You might as well, I think the original topic has been put to bed already. 

FWIW I finally saw Addams Family Values for the first time around 18 months ago after two decades of hearing how brilliant it was, and it sadly left me a little cold. Mind you I didn't really like the first one, or the 60s series!

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Thinking about this now and the only ones that I can think of straight off are;

Aliens 

Terminator 2

Lord of the rings sequels - Peter Jackson's

Blade runner 2049

Indiana Jones - Temple of doom 

Definitely a challenge I will have to list some for myself tomorrow.  It will be a bit of fun .

In reply to Presley Whippet:

There's a storm comin' ......

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Temple of Doom is awful (and a prequel so is it allowed?) and you can’t include the Jackson Lord of the Rings films, sorry 

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Leone’s “Dollars” trilogy got better, twice, although one was a prequel so is it allowed? 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Tremors 2?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Good one, if allowed, although they have always been viewed as separate films in my book. 

Should a 'franchise' be allowed? James Bond films, for example, have never been counted in any debate I've heard to date. 

The standard answer is Godfather part 2 then move on from there. Mad Max  2 is a clear candidate although the first one has fascinating quality to it that makes it very memorable.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

One I nearly forgot: Before Midnight also the aforementioned Fury Road which I think is the best of all (controversial?) Aliens. Once you hit the superhero series the potential becomes more likely as there were just so many.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Temple of Doom? Lacklustre and trumped by the one after but none of the followers matched the first.

The Bourne series! How could I forget the Bourne Series?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I think they run in series as to their rating they just get worse .  Last crusade was good yes but I didn't like indies dad thing .   All started going a bit soft in my mind .   

Never saw any of them .

Temple of Doom is still a brilliant follow up .  I think 

Dark yes, very dark but still full of iconic moments . It's not as good as the original but I still think it was of an era when follow ups could be good.

Oh Wrath of Khan wrath of course was a great follow up too.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Well ToD was enjoyable if not as good as the first. Also wasn't it set before the first one so actually a prequel?

You should definitely see the Bourne series unless you have a dislike for that sort of thing. I would stick to the first three and avoid the final(5th) one (although I actually enjoyed the 4th one even though it wasn't the best received)

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Sequels?  Surely they're all part of the same story so can be counted as one (very long) movie.

Perhaps LOTR can be classed as a sequel to the Hobbit?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Yes actually your right.   One of the first times I'd ever heard of the phrase when referring to films growing up.

I will definitely keep and eye out for them on Netflix .

In reply to graeme jackson:

I'm just of the opinion that the 2 towers and return of the king were very good films.  I cant really watch them now LOTR overload .

Yes let say that then if it makes it easier for people to understand my suggestion.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think the films Leone nicked the idea from qualify too - Kurosawa's Sanjuro was at least as good as Yojimbo.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Your suggestion was not difficult to understand. 

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Are we allowed foreign stuff? Apart my mention of Leone's trilogy, it's all been Hollywood fare so far, so I am not sure of the rules here. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Empire Strikes Back?

Hot Shots part deux?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Someone’s going to come and tell you that Empire was part of a pre-planned trilogy and doesn’t count. I am not that someone. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Can't see why not?

The 'Three Colours' films? Or were they just a philosophically connected  set?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

That was just me making a snobby "joke", to be honest!

I think Barefoot Gen 2 is the equal of Barefoot Gen. 

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I don't see that that is really in the spirit of the initial question. 

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Heathen! 4 (with Jeremy Renner) was best.

The best thing about the whole series was Julia Stlies anyway!

CB

In reply to cb294:

I really liked the fifth film "Jason Bourne" and gave it a strong 9/10

It has a death scene in it which was surprisingly moving, and the editing on the "slow chase" in Athens was astonishingly well done, as was the obligatory "hand to hand combat with random objects used as weapons". Admittedly let down by the physics of the Las Vegas car chase though!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

You're ignoring me then?  People often tend to assume that Leone's films are "Hollywood", I don't think anyone makes that mistake with Kurosawa.

Raises an interesting question though.  Given that we are not American, I don't think Leone's films are any more or less "foreign stuff" than "Hollywood fare" are they?  Both produced outside the UK, but in the English language.

Is it healthy that we tend to think of American film/tv as not foreign?  Their culture really isn't the same as ours, but their TV and film output is so ubiquitous that we tend to forget that.

In reply to cb294:

Whisper it quietly but I thought the first was best followed by 4 or 3 (although 3 and 2 could be viewed as on film in which case...)

In reply to cb294:

Love Julia but thought she was under used in the films

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Agree! More Julia!

CB

In reply to deepsoup:

I missed your 9:48am post when posting my 9:51am post because I had had the posting window open for a few minutes before writing anything. 

I didn't say Leone's stuff was "foreign", I said it wasn't "Hollywood fare". You've got confused within one of my posts. 

In reply to cb294:

Have you seen the film "Jason Bourne"?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

When I saw Star wars, no-one in the North East thought it was part of a trilogy anyway. I got quite a surprise when Empire came along. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

It just didn't excite me. I never really recovered from the opening premise that he would be keeping a low profile by prize fighting. Seemed against character as well as pretty dumb.

It says something that I can't remember one other thing about it. (maybe my mood was 'off' when i watched it)

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

looking at superhero movies and sequels, I watched x men Dark Phoenix last week and now I'm as confused as hell. Has the Xmen prequel universe gone down a totally different timeline to the originals?

In reply to graeme jackson:

I haven't seen it but the reviews I watched do seem to get really confused as to what has happened the timelines don't line up anymore with the originals .

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Didn't Days of Future Past change the timelines? And arguably didn't First Class change a lot of characters' ages? (and some of them fail to age in the 20 years between First Class and Apocalypse).

Honestly I can't remember, this phase of X-Men has been all over the place and really isn't that good despite some good actors being involved. Which timeline was the Logan movie on?

The poster for Apocalypse was such a turn-off, SO many characters on it (you could say the same about Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame but the MCU eased all of those characters in gradually so it worked ok for them)

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes, and I found it quite good, but 4 was still a bit better IMO.

The whole Bourne series is my favourite action series, overall much better IMO than Mission Impossible (and not only because I dislike that scientologist garden gnome) or the contemporary Bond films.

The worst series of that type is John Wick (at least if considering big budget Hollywood productions only).

CB

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I've only watched" Days of future past" and "Apocalypse" of the new cast .  

Saw X men, X2 , X3 the last stand and the wolverine though. 

Cant remember much of them so not a great appraisal 

I've not watched it 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm often confused so you may be right. 

I'm not pulling you up for referring to Leone's films as foreign though, quite the reverse - I'm commenting on how it is strange that we don't think of Hollywood films as foreign when perhaps we really should.

In reply to deepsoup:

I meant "in languages other than English", as per the AMPAS naming convention

In reply to Blue Straggler:

It's the end of the line for Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman at least, if not for Professor X and Wolverine.  (It's really hard to imagine anyone else playing Wolverine any time soon.)

Perhaps it has a timeline entirely of its own separate from all the other X-Men films, there's really no way to know.  Maybe it will become clear, the ending seems designed to leave the way open for a potential whole new series of "next generation" films.

I really liked that one, but it raises yet another question - can one film truly be considered a sequel to another when they're not really films of the same genre?  Compared to the other X-Men films, Logan is a Samuel Beckett play with mutants.

You could ask the same of Alien and Aliens - both great films, but one is a horror film and the other is a shoot-em-up action thriller.

In reply to deepsoup:

Aliens is a non-too-subtle allegory of the Vietnam war.
Alien is, as you say, a haunted-house movie.

 

In reply to cb294:

I wouldn't put John Wick in the same league as Bourne or MI

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

I don't suppose anyone saw this last night opening did they ?

Empire are giving 4/5 stars I see this morning 

Fingers crossed

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Yup: saw it last night.  Lots of fun, in a T2 kind of a way - action, adventure, large vehicles getting wrecked, more guns than you can shake a stick at.  Also, characters I actually cared about (so not like T3!) who even got in some character development, and an amusing amount of deadpan snark between the characters.  I liked it!

In reply to Niall_H:

Excellent .  

My technician at work also saw it and said the same thing just now .
 

Thanks 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

What did you think?  I ended up with a bit of time to kill this evening and went to see it too - loved it!  It may not be the best terminator film, but it's definitely in the top 3!

In reply to deepsoup:

Good morning deepsoup,

Glad you enjoyed it.  I did immensely, I'm very much of the same opinion.   Had a tonne of fun with it.

Lots of action , very much a white knuckle ride throughout.  I remember smiling all the way through the film .  

Definitely in the top 3 I agree.  

Thanks for asking . 

😃

In reply to Niall_H:

Fun fact

Natalia Reyes is older than Mackenzie Davis! 

In reply to Niall_H:

Well you’re not an augmented super-Soldier from the future 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I thought of you, and your complaint that Robert Patrick's shape-shifting terminator in T2 was not emotionless.  (I agree - he was unnecessarily cruel, he was smug, he was vain and he even fell into the old Bond-villain hubris trap of stopping to gloat before he had actually won.  All human traits, and unforgivably inefficient in a relentless killing-machine from the future.) 

Gabriel Luna was much better eh? 

Also, I've been trying to think of another example of a female action-hero being allowed to actually get old?  Male action stars get to do it all the time, the actor gets old, sometimes the character is old too, but they're still badass.  (Arnie, for example, in this film and many others.)  I can't think of another character quite like the 60-something Sarah Connor though.  Nearest I can think of is Helen Mirren in 'Red' - but that is 'ironic' in a way that Sarah Connor being gnarly as f*ck really is not.  It's quite refreshing. 

Also refreshing is the complete absence of a 'love interest' sub plot - how often do the hero and the person they're trying to save from the unstoppable assassin in a big dumb action film like this have no interest at all in at least a little romantic snog between chase sequences?  (Eg: Sarah herself and Kyle Reese in the original - though at least in their case the 'romance' was an important plot device and time-travel paradox thingamabob rather than being entirely gratuitous.)

In reply to deepsoup:

There wasn’t really a romance between John and Kate in Rise of the Machines, that was still “yet to come” iirc 

In reply to deepsoup:

Female action hero films don’t tend to do great box office so they don’t really get sequels or spawn franchises. Sigourney Weaver was still only about 47 years of age when she did Alien Resurrection and she was arguably playing younger (a clone).

There is Jamie Lee Curtis in last year’s rather good Halloween which, like Dark Fate, just denies the existence of a whole bunch of sequels.

Does Carrie Fisher in The Last Jedi count for anything ? 

In reply to deepsoup:

No spoilers but Gabriel Luna’s character didn’t fanny around nearly as much as Robert Patrick’s! 

In reply to deepsoup:

Can we have a shout-out for Zelda Rubinstein in the Poltergeist films?

In reply to deepsoup:

Going a little away from your “the person they’re trying to save” aspect, and whilst in general agreement (which is why certain exceptions stick in the memory):

Assassins

The Long Kiss Goodnight

The Peacemaker

probably quite a few Milla Jovovich films

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

For Your Eyes Only (not even a hint of romance between Bond and Melina until right at the very very end)

Quantum of Solace (the most that Bond gets out of Camille is a half-smile when they part ways)

Lisbeth Salander stuff?

there is more than you might think. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

So the received wisdom has it - it's certainly what (invariably male) producers seem to believe, but perhaps that is beginning to change.  Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel both did pretty well, and it seems likely Dark Fate will too.

Ah, I haven't seen that.  (Nor any of the other Halloween films - not really my cup of tea.)

Of course you can't talk about female action heroes without mentioning Ellen Ripley - I agree, while Sigourney Weaver was obviously older when she filmed 'Alien Resurrection' than 'Aliens', Ripley wasn't.

'Genisys' and the 'Sarah Connor Chronicles' tv series both used the same plot device of Sarah Connor 'time-travelling to the future' to move the story from the early '90s to the present without her getting any older, while both had various terminators time-travelling into the future the traditional way by just living through the intervening time.  (The tv series had one who'd accidentally been sent back a century or so too far - that one walled himself up in a big house and put himself in 'standby' mode to wait for his target to be born.)

It's easier to ignore a whole bunch of previous sequels when time-travel is part of the plot, 'alternate time lines' are already a thing.   When it was cancelled, the Terminator tv series was just beginning to develop the idea central to this new film in quite promising ways - ie: that two separate time-travellers arriving from the future do not necessarily come from the same future.  (Hopefully that's not a spoiler.)

Speaking of Ripley - we spoke above about 'Alien' and 'Aliens' being films in different genres.  I'd argue that she is an action hero in 'Aliens', but not really in 'Alien'.  Maybe the distinction is just nit-picking, but however tough and resourceful she is I don't think the 'sole-survivor' in a horror film is quite the same.

Um..  no, I don't think so.  She's undeniably badass, but she's a general not a soldier on the front line.  Like Judi Dench as 'M' in the Bond films, or in a more serious genre perhaps Helen Mirren (again) in 'Eye In The Sky'.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Ah, yes, lots of good examples there.  Also 'Captain Marvel' - I really enjoyed the "odd-couple buddy movie" relationship she has with Nick Fury, with no hint of romance.

Conversely, I found it slightly annoying how much of the 'Wonder Woman' film was actually about Steve Trevor.

In reply to deepsoup:

Agreed on both Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman. I address the Captain Marvel thing as major strong point of the film, in my lengthy review (April film thread I think)

ditto Wonder Woman, it was a Steve Trevor First World War Adventure yarn in which he happens across a suoerweapon and despite her being intellectually and physically superior to him, she basically takes orders from him. 

In reply to deepsoup:

Gender plays no difference in seeing that Elektra, Catwoman, Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, Salt, Hanna, Ghost in the Shell (2017), Atomic Blonde and the most recent Tomb Raider didn’t exactly set the box office on fire. Ok, Hanna now has some spin-off TV series and some of these films maybe made a little bit of money. Also I don’t know much about the Resident Evil and Underworld franchises. 

My point is that money has been repeatedly thrown at female-led action films in many cases with an eye on franchising, and audiences just don’t materialise. 

In reply to deepsoup:

I think “I Am Number Four” was meant to be the start of a franchise that would have involved the Theresa Palmer character who totally stole the film. In that film I don’t think there is any notion of romance. It’s crap though.

Kingsman - The Secret Service had no romance between Eggsy and Roxy even though that could have been an easy path to go down. 

And a bit obscure and not quite a lead character (and a bit young!) but the Raffey Cassidy character in Tomorrowland merely happens to be female.

I don’t think Nausicaa in Miyazaki’s Nausicaa of the Valley Of the Wind gets into any romantic entanglements 

see. Plenty 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Hm.  Besides the female leads, the other thing that strikes me about those films is that they're mostly absolutely awful.

There's no shortage of awful films with male leads that have bombed too, but this is where I think I have to concede that you have a point - lots of awful films with male leads have also done very well.  Perhaps action films with female leads have to be good in order to be successful, in a way that doesn't necessarily apply with a male lead.

In reply to deepsoup:

See earlier references to the Underworld and Resident Evil franchises, and lets throw in one I’ve actually seen - Luc Besson’s “Lucy” (made well over half a billion off a 40 million budget)

Then there’s the good ones that didn’t do well - David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and last year’s The Girl in the Spider’s Web 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

What, you mean you didn't like that?
(Ok, ok, it was rubbish.  But I actually quite enjoyed it despite the plot being complete nonsense, which is unusual for me, and the critics mostly didn't seem to mind that much either.)

I thought Kill Bill (I & II) were awful too, but I seem to be in the minority there.

Underworld is a funny one, the critics panned it but the punters loved it. (31% / 79% on rottentomatoes)

Perhaps that has something to do with the thing Jonathan Ross most liked in his tv review - Kate Beckinsale has a very shiny bottom in that film, very shiny indeed.

I was suggesting it's a necessary condition that they're good, but not a sufficient one - so bad ones that did well would be counterexamples, but good ones that bombed would not.

In reply to deepsoup:

I initially didn’t mention Kill Bill 1 & 2 as we had started on fantasy/sci-fi (and “heroes”) which doesn’t fit Kill Bill, but then it doesn’t fit Atomic Blonde or Lucy either. Or Salt or Hanna. 

But yep Lucy is a fairly bad film with a female action lead (of sorts) which did really well.

In reply to deepsoup:

I didn’t mind the plot of Lucy (the ten percent premise) being nonsense. It was more that she was never likeable even at the start and in any case we had no reason to particularly root for her as events unfolded, then she turned herself into a USB stick then it ended 

and  the car chase was a bit crap