There's nothing worse than a movie that not only fails to live up to the hype of your friends or mass marketing, but is just plain insulting to your intelligence: 1. Pretty much anything made by Disney, especially the animated stuff, and especially the newer stuff. Isn't it odd that grown men will go to see a musical as long is it is animated and made by Disney but make fun of any other kind of film musical or one on Broadway? I'd rather watch Pokemon with with my niece. Whatever happened to movies like Old Yeller? Oh yeah..they don't make money. 2. Saving Private Ryan -- No, I certainly didn't hate it, but as war movies go, it's way over-rated, even for its time. I think Stalingrad is grittier and more realistic, and Big Red One has more soul, even if they only had 1/100th of the budget and Mark Hamil in a leading role. 2 1/2. Pearl Harbor -- an over-rated BAD war movie made by Disney? Saving Private Ryan's only real crime is being overhyped at the expense of lesser known better foreign war movies. This movie is pure doo-doo. 3. Crouching Tiger -- only irritated because so much was made of a kung-fu movie by people who had never seen one (and I mean mainly Hollywood people). When I lived in Houston, I went every week to a Chinese movie theater on Bellaire, and saw the likes of Fist of Legend and Drunken Master. Ironic that in Los Angeles I have to mail order tham on DVD. Does the success of Hong Kong film mean we get better access to the movies, or bigger better HK movies? No. We get Ruch Hour and Lethal Weapon 4. 3. Titanic -- No argument here. Although in all fairness, I saw it on TV in Tijuana in my hotel on the morning of a hangover (it was in English though--subbed in spanish). It was quite possibly the largest barrage of cliches and bad writing since: 4. Basic Instinct -- That scene where fifty-something Michael Douglas, making cool-guy faces, in a club dancing trying to impress Sharon Stone (and does?) was enough to make me walk out. and 5. Dirty Dancing -- I would gladly watch a tape of Mooche Norris dribbling for 6 hours in a YMCA over 5 minutes of this. and 5 1/2. Independence Day -- one of the most flawed movies I have ever seen. It was bad in so many ways, which was sad, because there were plenty of actors in it I liked, and I was suckered into going to the opening by the aggressive marketing. 6. Woody Allen movies -- have their funny moments, but cinematic masterpieces they ain't 7. Schwarztenagger comedies -- OK, If I'm paying money to see Arnold, it's not for the great storyline or great acting range. Somebody better start getting shot or stabbed quick....to be honest, the only really good Schwarzenagger movies are Conan the Barbarian, Total Recall and Predator. The rest were fun at the time (as a kid), but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch them again. 8. Pretty Woman -- another movie where the seat didn't even get a chance to get warm. Also, Julia Roberts looks like a muppet. 9. the Batman movies -- a bummer to anyone that's ever read a Frank Miller comic book and went out to see the first one expecting to see an adaptation of Dark Knight. It's gone downhill from there. 10. Ghost -- nothing against Patrick Swayze, I mean he's an H-town boy an all, but it's bad when your best movie is Red Dawn. It's really troubling if you consider who much dough this movie made. Was it because that was back when Whoopi was still funny. Well, she wasn't in this one. 11. Dances With Wolves -- Manipulative, cliched, predictable. Costner's best work, and it looks beautiful, but the script was really one-dimensional, and that will ruin anything but a Jackie Chan movie. 12. The Matrix -- not a bad movie, but DEFINTELY over-rated. John Wu takes license with the double-fisted shooting and the back flips. And that's fine. It's the bad imitations of John Wu that bother me. The break-in scene with the somersaults while shooting. It looked lame to me. I dunno. Too much of this movie looked like imitations of over things and it made it hard to enjoy. And the script was really flawed. And who can forget Reeves, "I know Kung Fu." line? It was OK, but it could have been so much better and wasn't worthy of the praise it got IMHO. 13. The Birdcage -- another good example of bad writing. I thought it presented a horrible cliche of both conservative politicians and gay people, having been good friends with both. Then again, when has Robin Williams made a good movie? Still, this movie was pretty popular, so I think it's fair game to attack. Don't get me wrong. I think any kind of movie can be a good movie, from Old Yeller to Citizen Kane to Friday to The Wild Bunch to 8 1/2 to Star Trek 2 to Fight Club (off the top of my head). Hell, I like Smokey and the Bandit. Even some chick movies can be well done (English Patient and Shakespeare in Love were perefectly good movies IMHO). It's just a matter of context and reasonable writing most of all (at least for me). Take Smokey and the Bandit. It's written by a retired stunt man. The plot is super-simple and and the premise is really goofy. Sally Field, Jerry Reed and Burt Reynolds aren't exactly acting up a storm, but they have screen presence and great comic timing. The rest of the movie are perfectly coordinated car chases and an improv performance by Jackie Gleason. It shouldn't have worked. It was a gamble by Burt Reynolds, but somehow he pulled it off. It's a short simple movie, it sucks you in, you laugh, and before you know it, it's over. It's still one of the top grossing movies of all-time, even by 1977 dollars. But that doesn't bother me, and I wouldn't put in this list, because it didn't let me down. I wasn't expecting Olivier's Hamlet or anything --- Deji
damn deji, great list. I almost totally agree with you. and seeing your list, I just have to add: ID4 MIB Pretty woman Dirty Dancing Ghost to my list and yeah, the disney movies, with a few exceptions, like shrek.
ID4 was great for what it was: <B>eye candy</B>. That's all those kind of films are intended for. If you go to see Jurassic Park or Aliens, don't expect <I>Citizen Kane</I>.
haha. yea, I get ripped alot for not liking this movie. I found it boring and slow. I even seen it twice just to give it another chance. but, didnt laugh much like the first time I saw it. I actually do have a job, work at a law firm in downtown Austin.
Caught in a blatant generalization! I hate when that happens. I agree with every syllable. RM95, I think you and I probably agree on more than either of us realize. I was slightly annoyed by being labeled arrogant for a view that you percieved as looking down on those whose opinions differed from my own. This after you stated that you had lost respect for many on this board for their openly stating opinions that differed from your own. I realize your were probably kidding with that comment, thus my confusion when I was suddenly put on the defensive. All of this is neither here nor there. I've followed your posts for quite a while and generally agree with the majority of what you write, particularly when it comes to the area of film. That's why a stated clarification was so important to me. I hope you understand. I would like a clarification of your last statement, as I'm not entirely sure what it is you're proposing, nor the intention behind the proposal. I know you're not seriously suggesting that I write a screenplay similar to that particular screenplay, but I would like a clarification on the point you're intending to make. I'll respond as best I can.
Gascon, That's why I hate those smilies...when you don't put one in, people don't realize that you were kidding. I was hoping my comment about every losing their respect for me would've been enough, but apparantly not! Yeah, you seem like you'd be a great guy for me to watch movies with. I will watch just about anything, and I like just about anything. Like you, I go into an "indie" movie with a different attitude than I do when I go see <I>Ocean's Eleven</I>. That's also why I can rate said movie and a movie like <I>The Man Who Wasn't There</I> the same way...an A. However, I do understand that many people don't, that's fine, and that's why I normally don't invite them to go see the latter type of movies with me. As for the script comment, I was just pointing out that neither you or I could write a script accepted by Hollywood whether it was on the level of <I>Memento</I> or <I>Gone in 60 Seconds</I>.
That would be Unbreakable. I haven't seen it so I cannot comment. I did like Pulp Fiction for the most part I also thought Am. Beauty was ok. I felt the same way Jeff did about Godafather until a few years ago. I had seen bits and pieces of 1 and 2 but a friend of mine loaned me his copies of them and I watched them all in one weekend. THat kinda made them more interesting. Once i got into the story it was nice to be able to see it play out rather than watch a little here and a little there. I hated Titanic my wife dragged me to this one at the theatre and I had the best nap I have ever had after about 30 miutes of watching it. I guess the two movies that i think was fairly popular(though probably not on this board) that i really hate are Grease and Steel Magnolias. Both of these movies bore me to tears. CK
<b>Man, I've lost respect for a lot of people on this board.</b> <b>I agree with nearly everything you said Gascon, I just don't like it when people criticize what other people like.</b> RM95: How exactly do these two statements go together? Shouldn't the "I just don't like it when people criticize what other people like" statement apply to what others <i>dislike</i> as well? Sorry, couldn't resist the irony there. One to add for me...Something About Mary. Comedies that are mostly about embarrassing things make me cringe, not laugh. Meet the Parents was similar but I could handle it better than Mary. I'm neutral on why we do or should like a film. But, one thing that I think is important to note is that I can appreciate a film for what it is even if I don't really like it. I appreciate great films but I don't always like them. It works the same for music. I appreciate a lot of music that I don't really want to listen to more than once. I know it is great. I just don't care for it.
well, my day is just getting started. . . and I'm bitter that I'm only now weighing in on a movie thread, BUT. . . the best thing that's happened to me today was reading how many people trashed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I can't tell you all how bitter I was a year ago at this time. best picture nominee my bungholio! also, mrpaige, if you read this, tell me what your beef is with Almost Famous.
LOL! Yeah, I know. That's why I said I couldn't resist! <font size=1>this has been a smilie-free message</font>
Just didn't care for it. No overwhelming reason I didn't like it. I just found myself bored by the whole thing.
fair enough. it's one of my very most favorite films of all time. . . . . . but then again, I was a high school newspaper writer for 4 years before becoming a wannabe rock star for the next 9 and counting, so there was no shortage of stuff for me to identify with in it. are you involved in film somehow, mrpaige? your sig makes it look that way. if so, how?
I, for the most part, am hard to disappoint at the theater. But unlike some of you hypercritical yahoo's that more often than not miss the director's intention (come the F*#@ on! There were flaws in ID4? Are you $hitting me?I thought it was an onscreen portrayal of a potential future??) Most directors make movies for two reasons: 1. To make money. 2. To entertain. If it accomplishes these things and there happens to be an extra benefit like delivering a good message (Shrek! - accept people for who they are and don't judge a book by it s cover), rehashing a known fact (Harry Potter - In the battle of good vs. evil, good usually wins), then that's just great. What I hate, and I mean HATE HATE HHAATTEE, is when movies try to be all artsy fartsy and the number one purpose is to 'deliver a message' or 'capture an emotion'. I mean I hate that. Here's mine. 1. Batman. All of them. Those films were artsy fartsy and they sucked eggs. 2. Crouching Tiger Hidden Snooze Button. That movie was a big steaming piece of crap. 3. Pulp Fiction. Story was great but I don't want an artistic interpretation. Crap. 4. Clockwork orange. Utter crap. 5. The English Patient. Piece of wet crap. And to everyone that thought Pearl Harbor sucked I want you to know that I disagree. You just bought the hype instead of accepting the film for what it was - An attempt to 1. Make money and 2. entertain. Both of which, I might add, it ultimately did.
Chance, you think that the people who hate the movies they listed were "entertained" by them? and maybe Pearl harbor is "entertaining" for you, but it sure isn't for me. and if pearl harbor isn't trying to "capture an emotion", then I don't know what movie is.
That's why you're in the lowest common denominator. There's nothing wrong with that, really, if all you look for in a movie is the same recycled thrill time after time. You want entertainment for your buck, and that's fine. Your definition of entertainment is just a little more narrow than mine, that's all. Hollywood knows exactly who they're aiming for, and it sounds like you're it. Good for you. You'll never be at a loss for something to entertain you at the movies.
Everyone, meet Middle Ground! Say hi Middle Ground! Just like there is the Lowest Common Denominator, there is the Holier Than Thou crowd. There are people who don't like a movie unless there is sh*t blowing up, and others who trash a movie because they feel the undying need to flex their bitterness muscle on anything that gains big popularity, just to create some sort of identity for themselves. ID4 is seriously flawed. But if you didn't realize that the filmmakers weren't going for a logical plot about 10 minutes in, you should have your head examined. At that point I just wanted to sit back and go full steam ahead and have fun. Those of you who can't seem to just relax and enjoy a summer hype flick for what its worth, I feel for you. At the same time, if you actually use the term 'artsy-fartsy' to describe your opinion of a film, might as well slap the LCD on your forehead now. C'mon people, expand your horizons. Not everything is mean to be like what you saw before it. Sometimes a filmmaker wants you to think. Just because you don't 'get' it, doesn't mean its bad. Just try and enjoy a movie for what it is. When it's a popcorn flick, they aren't trying to insult you - just entertain you. And when they are trying to get you to think, don't insult their intelligence just because they want you to use yours.
Rokkit: On ID4, sure it's just escapist cornball fun. But it wasn't fun for me. It was painful to watch. That's why I threw Smokey and The Bandit out there as a better example of successful low-octane entertainment (at least for me). On the other hand, I remember Forrest Gump was churnned out with the same amount of fanfare as ID4 (also a summer movie -- same summer if I'm not mistaken) and it was great. I saw the first showing, and really didn't know exactly what the movie was about (the previews were just teasers). Yet, I don't know anyone that didn't like it (and like my pilgrimage to see ID4, was beguiled like everyone else by the siren songs of trailers and TV ads). It, unlike ID4, lived up to it's lofty hoopla, IMHO. Forrest Gump may not be the stereotypical summer blockbuster action movie, but it's a hardly a profound life-changing experience, either . And I'm sure Ron Howard would take great offence if anyone tried to call him "artsey-fartsy." Any kind of movie can be done well, but so many just don't live up to the critical acclaim, popular hype, or the perception of either from box office returns. Maybe your comments weren't directed at my post, but I can assure you I'm capable of enjoying a movie for what it is as long as it's well executed in the context of what it is. --Deji
