Thread: unwatchable "great" films Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025312
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
L'organist wrote on the equivalent books thread...
quote:
Anyone care to start another thread about unwatchable "classic/great" films?
Okay, first off, I have a personal policy of watching any film to the very last credit, so for the most part, this will just be a list of widely-loved films I wish I hadn't started watching, or at least would never want to watch again.
I really don't like the Coen Brothers. The supposed quirkiness of their films always seems really forced. The kind of stuff that's aimed straight at the guy who sits in the front row at the art theatre and laughs really loud, to make sure everyone knows he gets the joke. That said, I did continue to watch their films after I had decided I don't like them, and I can't guarantee I won't do so again.
I'm a huge Hitchcock fan, but something about Vertigo just doesn't leave an impression on me. I'd have a hard time saying what exactly is wrong with it, because after two screenings, I can't remember much of it. I actually like Hitchccok better when he's more gratuitously perverse and violent(Frenzy is one of my all time favorites).
I know it has a special place in a lot of peoples' hearts', but I find Harvey(seen it twice, over a period of decades) a rather frustrating film to watch. I think it's because I go into it expecting it to be more "adventurous" than it is. Like, at the beginning, Elwood leaves the house with Harvey to go downtown, so I'm expecting him to meet a lot of people and have some zany adventures. But then he meets some people who tell him about a party he should attend, so he goes back home(or to someone else's house maybe?), and we're just kinda back to where we started from.
Later, he goes into a bar, which, in a film, usually indicates that things are gonna get a little on the wild side, but he stays for one drink, and then goes somewhere else(back home again?) The whole thing ends up at a psychiatrist's office, which is kind of anti-climactic since we've already seen the office earlier in the film. Overall, I don't think the story made a successful transition from stage to screen, but I realize I'm in a minority on that.
And while I think it is a pretty good film, I just don't see what is supposed to be so scary about The Exorcist. Especially the stuff that everyone holds up as plumbing new depths of terror(eg. the vomit, the crucifix), I just think is more gross than anything else. Lots of well-executed spookiness(eg. the priest's dream), but nothing that puts me in a convulsion of horror.
I used to think that movie was scary mostly for parents, because it plays on fears of being unable to help a child who is growing progressively sicker and sicker. But I know childless people who think it's terrifying as well.
[ 09. April 2013, 20:54: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You do not like Vertigo? the firing squad will be 'round at dawn.
The only Hitchcock film one is aloud to dislike is The Birds.
difficult to be afraid when the problem could be solved with a few swings of a cricket bat.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do not like Vertigo? the firing squad will be 'round at dawn.
There's sexist as in only to be expected for the period, and then there's misogynist. And I think Vertigo crosses the line.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Stetson, you are dead wrong about Harvey. (Elwood: "In this world, you must be oh-so-smart, or oh-so-pleasant. For years I was smart. I recommend pleasant.")
But I will offend many with my own selection. Gone With The Wind. The story of a young girl who is shown to be shallow, self-centered and selfish. Her world then crumbles around her with the war; she is reduced to poverty and hunger; she sees death up close and she emerges from all of this---shallow, self-centered and selfish. Was there supposed to be a point to this movie?
Posted by AngloCatholicGirl (# 16435) on
:
I'll second you with Gone With the Wind. A friend and I sat down a few years ago for a viewing (accompanied by wine & nibbles) and at the end we looked at each other and said 'what was all the fuss about?' we really tried to get into it, but we just ended up thinking 'meh'.
I have to confess that 'The Deer Hunter' doesn't do it for me. It just takes so long for anything to happen (especially the wedding-just finish the reception already!) and I lose patience. I've yet to finish it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Two truly and deeply dreadful films IMHO - tedious and without interest, the sort of film where after 20 minutes you're longing for the credits. Although the subject matter is totally different, and nobody else will probably be able to see this, to me they are strangely similar and I dislike them for similar reasons.
1. Distant Voices, Still Lives.
2. The Piano.
I like both Harvey and Brother Where art Thou a lot. Less sure about Fargo.
[ 09. April 2013, 21:57: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
The Batman films. Increasingly. Pretentious wouldn't be in it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do not like Vertigo? the firing squad will be 'round at dawn.
There's sexist as in only to be expected for the period, and then there's misogynist. And I think Vertigo crosses the line.
The weird thing is I agree, and yet I find this film haunting.
There's only one Coen Brothers film I have seen that I haven't liked, And I had the same reaction as above to GWTW until I saw it on the big screen in a retro house. Then I saw how hard the actors were working.
But in reviewing the AFI 100 best list, I did realize there is one Great Film I have tried to watch a number of times, and I just haven't been able to get into it. Dr. Strangelove. I know, that makes me a cretin, but I just find it too buzzy-- it gives me the same feeling white noise does..
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by the Killer Bunny:
quote:
And I had the same reaction as above to GWTW until I saw it on the big screen in a retro house. Then I saw how hard the actors were working.
If you have not seen a film on a large screen, it is difficult to say you have truly seen it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Word.
Same reaction to first seeing a screening of Rear Window (The good one) I thought, "I've never really seen this film before."
(Still thinking about Vertigo) I think the whole reason I find that one haunting is that there is no question that all of the principal characters are completely fucked up, and therefore on an even playing field.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I can't stand "The Wizard of Oz" movie. The book presents Dorothy as a strong determined woman who takes control and rescues her friends, but the film makes her weak and whiny. Also by the end of it, Judy Garland's voice is like fingernails on a chalk board for me. It might be a perfect pitch thing but her voice intones the same notes over and over through the flick and by the end I've had enough.
[ 09. April 2013, 23:17: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I saw GWTW in a grand, palatial theatre with a huge screen -- and I was a teenager who loved epic romances (e.g., I was madly in love with Dr.Zvivago). I hated GWTW! Couldn't stand Rhett or Scarlett. And the stupid film seemed to go on forever and ever -- I don't think the Civil War lasted as long as that movie did.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Both GWTW and The Sound of Music.
And is Les Enfants du Paradis meant to count as a great film? Apparently the French think so.
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Both GWTW and The Sound of Music.
And is Les Enfants du Paradis meant to count as a great film? Apparently the French think so.
I haven't seen GWTW except a few bits and wasn't tempted to watch further. Sound of Music? Disgusting. I didn't stay till the end. However ex-MIL watched it every chance she had. When I lost contact with her it was around thirty times she had seen it.
Posted by basso (# 4228) on
:
I saw GWTW in a theater - not a grand one by any means, but a real theater. I was about 13, and I loved it. I've seen it maybe once since, and I don't have any interest in seeing it again.
I've seen Vertigo in big theaters twice - the first time in a freshly-remastered copy shown at the Castro in S. F. (My date and I walked back to the car past Mission Dolores.) The other time was at the Stanford in Palo Alto - another great movie house.
As a native Bay Arean, I love the film. I reinforces all the romantic images I have of the San Francisco of my childhood. <sniff>.
But that is one seriously creepy film, and I'm not sure I'm ready to go back. If it weren't for the SF connection, I might never go.
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on
:
I spent pretty much all of There Will Be Blood muttering to myself, "Is there blood yet? This movie won't end, I suppose, until there's blood. When is the blood coming? Where's the damn blood?"
Tedious. Sodding. Movie.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
"The English Patient" and "Captain Corelli's Mandolin" were two that I tried to watch thinking "Surely they'll improve and become more interesting". But no. I abandoned CCM after a while.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. Distant Voices, Still Lives.
2. The Piano.
O God, yes.
DVSL is unbelievably tedious. It seems twice as long as it actually is.
And I haven't been able to finish any Jane Campion film I've attempted to watch. Although the time spent watching (part of) Angel at My Table was well spent, because now I can amuse friends with my Jinnit Frime impersonations.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I spent pretty much all of There Will Be Blood muttering to myself, "Is there blood yet? This movie won't end, I suppose, until there's blood. When is the blood coming? Where's the damn blood?"
Tedious. Sodding. Movie.
The first time I tried to watch it I couldn't get past the first 30 minutes, which are extremely slow and in which very little that seems important happens. I still think we don't need to see Daniel Day-Lewis piddling around with a mining rig for 15 minutes right off the bat, but the film does become more watchable if you stick with it. Definitely not P.T. Anderson's best work, though.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The English Patient" and "Captain Corelli's Mandolin" were two that I tried to watch thinking "Surely they'll improve and become more interesting". But no.
I agree.
And after an hour of James Cameron's Titanic...Sink, damn you, sink!
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The English Patient" and "Captain Corelli's Mandolin" were two that I tried to watch thinking "Surely they'll improve and become more interesting". But no.
I agree.
And after an hour of James Cameron's Titanic...Sink, damn you, sink!
Hear hear! To all the above. They were all pants, the lot of them.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re not watching to the last credit:
You're missing out--some films put surprises during or after the credits. E.g., some of the Harry Potter films, "Night At The Museum", many of the Jeremy Brett TV versions of Sherlock Holmes stories. And in the movie "Young Sherlock Holmes", there's a crucial plot point AFTER the credits.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Plus the experience feels more finished when I watch 'til the end.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I have sat through Gone with the Wind once and never intend so to do again. It is Far Too Long™
Another one that I put in the Far Too Long category (and I suspect I may upset more people with this one): Forrest Gump. Especially if you watch it more than once. You realise that you've been sitting there for bloody HOURS and he still hasn't even got to the running thing yet...
[I previewed and everything and still a missing word...]
[ 10. April 2013, 08:18: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I spent pretty much all of There Will Be Blood muttering to myself, "Is there blood yet? This movie won't end, I suppose, until there's blood. When is the blood coming? Where's the damn blood?"
Tedious. Sodding. Movie.
A friend of mine theorized that the title was a joke. It promises blood, and then technically fulfills the promise in the end scene. There IS blood, albeit only a little, in Plainview's bowling alley.
My friend also speculated that TWBB was a meant as a tribute to Kubrick, which I would concur with, as far as the beginning(which looks like 2001) and the end(which takes place in a typical "Kubrick room") are concerned.
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on
:
I first watched GWTW in bed with flu. I assumed it was the illness that made the film seem endless, but a second viewing ended that illusion. I still laugh when the kid falls off her horse tho.
The two dullest films in the world at Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey. A date took me to see the directors cut of Apocalypse Now and I seriously considered feigning a fit so I could leave the cinema.
And 2001? Your mind is going, HAL? Mine too, honey, mine too.
Posted by Erik (# 11406) on
:
Yes, I agree with those who have said Titanic and The Sound of Music. The latter certainly wasn't helped by having watch it several times at school (you know- the last day of term when noone does any work) but always having it switched off before all the stuff with the Nazis.
I would like to add Magnolia to the list. I had a lot of people telling me how great it was but I hated it. Nothing happens and all the characters are arseholes.
Oh and while I am at it- Planet of the Apes. Apart from the really slow moving beginning, I really disliked Charlton Heston's character. That and it felt like a rather thinly veiled political lecture.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I really like The English Patient, and remember my friend and I snivelling in the cinema when it first came out, and I enjoyed GWTW, though I don't think I could sit through it again.
I second those who have listed The Piano, Titanic and There Will be Blood - bloody awful. But the one fairly recent film that made me want to slit my wrists was Never Let Me Go - depressing much?! Ye gods. I haven't been so depressed since seeing an Eccleston film of Jude the Obscure. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
But I would encourage people to stay until the credits end - we always do, and apart from possible extra scenes, I enjoy reading the info, eg., what music was used; where location filming took place, etc. etc. All good stuff.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I like "Gone With The Wind", but I'm a Leslie Howard fan and IMO he’s always been worth watching.
"Salmon Fishing in the Yemen" should, according to some friends, also be added to this list, though I haven't seen it myself so can't say whether I agree or not.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
But the one fairly recent film that made me want to slit my wrists was Never Let Me Go - depressing much?! Ye gods.
Oh, I saw Never Let Me Go! Depressing indeed but I was captivated by it. Must watch it again, in fact...
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I rarely go to movies, but ALWAYS stay through the credits. To leave before they were over would be like leaving a live theatre performance before the curtain calls.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Basso wrote:
quote:
As a native Bay Arean, I love the film. I reinforces all the romantic images I have of the San Francisco of my childhood. <sniff>.
If you haven't seen it yet, you might be interested in Family Plot, Hitchcock's last film, also filmed in and around San Francisco.
To quote a detractor, it does at times seem more like a Columbo episode than a feature film, but it has a few scenes shot in the interior and exterior of Grace Cathedral.
Also interesting to see Hitchcock's rather old-fashioned style trying to fit itself into a mid-1970s mileu, with young actors from the "Easy Rider" generation. Some of the sexual dialogue is kinda cornball("Honey, I'm too pooped to pop"), but I imagine woulda seemed fairly daring to people who watched his films in the 1940s and 50s.
LilBuddha wrote:
quote:
The only Hitchcock film one is aloud to dislike is The Birds.
I quite like The Birds. Granted, the special effects don't hold up at all over time, but that's a problem with almost any special effects.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
The two dullest films in the world at Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey. A date took me to see the directors cut of Apocalypse Now and I seriously considered feigning a fit so I could leave the cinema.
Sadly, I have to agree about AN. There are some great set pieces in it, but my god there's a whole pile of tedium in between them.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
The Exorcist has to be one of the most over-hyped movies ever made. It's crap, boring, not very scary at all and becomes a self parody of itself even before the credits roll.
There are a whole host of films that have been horrifically over-rated, some of which of course are just plain old bad movies (Pearl Harbour anyone?). I've never really 'got' 'O Brother Where Art Thou?', but I think 'Brazil' has got to rank as one of the worst and most pointless movies ever made. I read so much about it and so much hype and even sensible critics gushing endlessly. As the DVD went back to the menu, the disc was taken directly to the bin. I just couldn't being myself to sell it on to someone and inflict it on some unsuspecting sucker. It would have been morally wrong I tell you!
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
A Clockwork Orange.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
The Exorcist has to be one of the most over-hyped movies ever made. It's crap, boring, not very scary at all and becomes a self parody of itself even before the credits roll.
When it played at a theatre in my hometown, late 90s, the marquis read: THE SCARIEST MOVIE EVER MADE.
Which I mentally finished off with: "...featuring Lee J. Cobb". I woulda said Max Von Sydow, but The Seventh Seal gives The Exorcist a run for its money in the terror department.
But like I said at the beginning, I think there is a lot of well-done spookiness in the film. I do think, though, that some people believe the "puke and stabbing" stuff is frightening as all get-out simply because they were told it is before watching the film.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The English Patient" and "Captain Corelli's Mandolin" were two that I tried to watch thinking "Surely they'll improve and become more interesting". But no. I abandoned CCM after a while.
"The English Patient" was an absolute GIFT if, like me, you read the book and couldn't figure out what the heck was going on (a recurring problem for me with Ondaatje's novels). After I saw the movie I could figure out what the plot was meant to be, and then was able to re-read the book and make some sense out of it.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Clockwork Orange.
Care to elaborate on your reasons for not liking it? ACO is my all-time favorite film, even though I would now classify it as a bit of a juvenile enthusiasm.
Pauline Kael absolutely hated it, but wrote a review that, in my opinion, captures the whole spirit of the film perfectly. The opening paragraph alone is worth the click.
Paradoxically, I think it's Kubrick's stunted-adolescent mentality and didactic philosophizing that give the thing its artistic force.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I just thought it was over-hyped and ultimately did nothing for me. I'm not a film critic in the sense that I can analyse films like those arty-farty types. I was just unimpressed by it.
[ 10. April 2013, 14:31: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on
:
A friend wanted to watch 'O Brother Where Art Thou?' We rented the DVD, and as she watched and enjoyed, I suffered. The last three-fourths of the movie I piddled around, getting snacks, refilling drinks, going to the bathroom. Anything else was better than watching that tedious movie.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And in the movie "Young Sherlock Holmes", there's a crucial plot point AFTER the credits.
Right, they set up another generation with the myth that Moriarty was an ongoing nemesis in the Holmes stories. (That movie scared the crap out of me as a kid- didn't sleep well for a few days.)
quote:
Originally posted by Erik:
I would like to add Magnolia to the list. I had a lot of people telling me how great it was but I hated it. Nothing happens and all the characters are arseholes.
Here here. And then, after about two and a half hours (seriously, this movie is three hours of people being miserable) it rains frogs for no reason. Like they are trying to convince us that the movie is deep and arty, despite the fact that the last two and a half hours have failed to prove that point over and over again. The whole "stories of people who at first glance don't seem to be connected but in fact are because of their shared humanity" genre never did it for me.
[ 10. April 2013, 15:44: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Any of the James Bond films. Every last one of them is a waste of celluloid, watchable for about half a picosecond before sending me eating my own toenails in utter boredom.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
But the one fairly recent film that made me want to slit my wrists was Never Let Me Go - depressing much?! Ye gods.
Oh, I saw Never Let Me Go! Depressing indeed but I was captivated by it. Must watch it again, in fact...
With the book you can times all that by ten, but I, too, loved them both.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The English Patient" and "Captain Corelli's Mandolin" were two that I tried to watch thinking "Surely they'll improve and become more interesting". But no. I abandoned CCM after a while.
Thank you, and thank you.
RE: Clockwork Orange It could be one of the most relentlessly nihilistic things that I have ever seen, and too painful to watch,but for two things-
1.Classic Kubreckian cinematography-- the camera tells a story all its own, it's masterfully shot.
(film nerd moment: I particularly appreciate Malcolm McDowell's penis in this film. Let me explain. I love how , in the rehabilitation center scene, they go through all that Austin Power hide-the-dick-shot nonsense and then some tech swoops in and removes a stack of boxes, and there's Malcolm in all his glory. Perfect comedic timing. I found it -- cinematically refreshing. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
2. The Beethoven reconditioning bit got to me in a way that I still haven't gotten over. The idea that something you love can be turned against you like that. (shudder.)
[ 10. April 2013, 15:54: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Evita
Questionable storyline = So-so musical
So-so musical + Annoying star = Terrible movie.
Enigma
Lets re-write history so that the AMERICANS get their dibs on an Enigma coding machine, lets forget about the code-breakers almost entirely, ignore Bletchley Park and then get Mick Jagger to pay for the movie. An insult on every level.
any Barney the Dinosaur film
Call yourself a masochist? You haven't experiened anything until you've been shut in a cinema with 100+ over-stimulated under 3s, all screaming. Hell on earth.
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
I don't really like any films but I particularly dislike Citizen Kane. I think I don't like it precisely because everyone tells me I should love it and as I said, I don't really like any films.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Kelly wrote:
quote:
RE: Clockwork Orange It could be one of the most relentlessly nihilistic things that I have ever seen, but for two things-
1.Classic Kubreckian cinematography-- the camera tells a story all its own, it's masterfully shot.
One thing Kubrick carried over from his days as a magazine photographer was a talent for making static images look interesting. Granted, he was usually aided in this by the use of very effective musical scores.
re: the frogs in Magnolia...
My take on that was that the film was, in part, tributing those 1970s disaster movies(Earthquake, Towering Inferno), which followed the morally problematic lives of various individuals in a city(often in California), and then had them all swept away or burned up in an Old Testament-style catastrophe.
Except that Anderson gives us a catastrophe that is not just Old Testament-style, but a direct lift from the Old Testament.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
And 2001? Your mind is going, HAL? Mine too, honey, mine too.
While I cannot argue with most of the entries here there are two I don't agree with. A Clockwork Orange is not an easy film, but I enjoyed it. Definitely watchable.
2001 - again, not an easy film. Youngest son fell asleep when it was on. But, once again, I find it a great example of arty sci-fi.
Not to mention containing Hal the psychopathic computer, who is a brilliant creation.
I can accept that others do not appreciate Kubrick, and he is an acquired taste, but worth acquiring, given some of the other rubbish around.
I am often prepared to give films a chance, even if they are difficult, in the hope that they are worth the effort. Often they are, and it makes me feel justified.
The Bond films I don't mind, but do not get excited about. I don't make a point of getting to see them, and have still not seen the latest.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I've really tried with this thread, but I seem to have this ability to forget the title of every truly unwatchable movie.
But I do remember this. So appalling it became a cult movie.
Bela Lugosi died during its making and his double simply covered the bottom of his face with a cloak. Night became day in between cuts. Amongst other "delights" of a movie with production values close to minus infinity. You can get a flavour from watching the trailer.
Edward D Wood's Jr's film is truly unwatchable unless you get some fun out of a movie-maker's "trainwreck masterpiece". (I did, I'm ashamed to say). Nobody ever did it worse than Ed Wood and I reckon this was his nadir.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I saw 2001 on the big screen when it was first released (I think it was in 70mm). Yes, it was too long. The end sequence was difficult to understand. And the "Neanderthal" sequence would probably look ludicrous today.
But it still made a great impression, especially the SFX.
(Clarke's original short story "The Sentinel" is better than his expanded novel "2001" which went with the film).
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I've got a dvd of this - but I got it after seeing the brilliant Ed Wood with Johnny Depp as Ed and Martin Landau as Bela. Laugh out loud funny but truly touching as well. A lovely film... which really can't be said of Plan 9, which has its own, jawdroppingly brand of WTF??!
eta: in reply to Barnabas62, of course
[ 10. April 2013, 17:36: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yes, Ed Wood is miles better than Plan 9. I had to see the latter as part of a high school film class. Only two movies in my life that have literally put me to sleep, that is one (my teacher didn't like that) and the other was Young Einstein.
[ETA: Glen or Glenda was pretty cool, though.]
[ 10. April 2013, 18:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
re: the frogs in Magnolia...
My take on that was that the film was, in part, tributing those 1970s disaster movies(Earthquake, Towering Inferno), which followed the morally problematic lives of various individuals in a city(often in California), and then had them all swept away or burned up in an Old Testament-style catastrophe.
Except that Anderson gives us a catastrophe that is not just Old Testament-style, but a direct lift from the Old Testament.
According to Anderson himself, he'd just been reading a lot of Fort and thought it would be cool to throw a rain of frogs into a film, and have it be a turning point in the story in some way. Later people pointed out the Exodus connection, and that only made it funnier to him.
I have an affection for this movie--- I think it has to do with the pacing-- like or don't like the story, but it is told fluidly. Also, I despise Tom Cruise, but this is one of several of his performances that force me to admit his prowess whether I like him or not.
Anderson is very good at pacing; his films are like orchestra movements. I keep getting sucked into Boogie Nights over and over again for this very reason-- the flow takes me over.
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on
:
The Old Man and The Sea is one of the two most boring films I've ever seen. The other is Dances With Wolves .
I had the misfortune of watching the extended-mega-bore-you-to-death version of Dances With Wolves with a friend who was a huge fan; by the end of the film, she very nearly wasn't my friend any more.
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
The Football Factory
Absolutely repulsive shit with no redeeming features. I found nearly all the characters to be completely foul (apart from a couple of old war veterans) and I came away with a deep sense of agitation and sadness about the world.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
The Football Factory
Absolutely repulsive shit with no redeeming features. I found nearly all the characters to be completely foul (apart from a couple of old war veterans) and I came away with a deep sense of agitation and sadness about the world.
Not the best film in it's genre, I agree. I.D. was a good film though, I thought.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Pine Marten wrote:
quote:
I've got a dvd of this - but I got it after seeing the brilliant Ed Wood with Johnny Depp as Ed and Martin Landau as Bela. Laugh out loud funny but truly touching as well. A lovely film... which really can't be said of Plan 9, which has its own, jawdroppingly brand of WTF??!
I saw Glen Or Glenda and Plan 9 in high school, at the usual cult-film screening. We had a good time shouting mockery at the screen, especially during the scene in GOG where Bela Lugosi(despite being only the narraror) was, for reasons I couldn't figure out, was trying to make someone disappear.
When I finally got around to seeing the Tim Burton film, I felt slightly bad about having mocked Lugosi, since(at least according to Burton) being in those films meant a lot to him at that point in his career.
Kelly wrote:
quote:
According to Anderson himself, he'd just been reading a lot of Fort and thought it would be cool to throw a rain of frogs into a film, and have it be a turning point in the story in some way. Later people pointed out the Exodus connection, and that only made it funnier to him.
If I may ask, who or what is Fort?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
If I may ask, who or what is Fort?
Charles Fort
Inspiration for that invaluable publication Fortean Times
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Thanks.
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
The Football Factory
Absolutely repulsive shit with no redeeming features. I found nearly all the characters to be completely foul (apart from a couple of old war veterans) and I came away with a deep sense of agitation and sadness about the world.
Not the best film in it's genre, I agree. I.D. was a good film though, I thought.
I'd agree with you there I.D is much better. An aquaintance of mine was an extra in it which in no way affects my judgement of course.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Out Of Africa
I couldn't even tell you what it is that I don't like about it, because I slept through most of it.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I have developed a growing dislike for the 1959 version of Ben-Hur, with Charlton Heston. It is a combination of factors. There is Heston's one-note acting (seriously, his facial expression when he is overjoyed is identical to his facial expression when he is angry). There is the annoyance that his love interest speaks with an accent--that would be forgivable if she allegedly came from some other country, but she grew up next to him! And then there is the odd choices that the screenplay took with the source material: Near the end of the movie, Heston describes his seeing Jesus (on the way to crucifixion) and says something to the effect of "when I saw his face the sword dropped from my hand." Very moving. Except that Chuck didn't have a sword in his hand--not even metaphorically. Ever since the chariot race, he was just moping about (using a facial expression that--in other contexts--also serves to show that he is having a good time).
The line does make sense in the book and in the silent-film version. In both of those, Judah ben Hur devotes his riches to raise an army to come to the aid of Jesus, with the hopes of making Jesus an earthly king. When he sees Jesus' face on the way to the crucifixion, the sword literally AND metaphorically drops from his hand. He disbands the army.
Actually, I didn't realize just how very bad the 1959 version of the film was until I saw the silent version with Ramon Navarro & Francis X. Bushman. The silent version is excellent--certainly in my Top 20 movie list if not in the Top 10. By comparison, the 1959 version is overlong, pompous, bland and wooden.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I watch as much of The Ten Commandments as I can when they show it on TV on Easter weekend. It may have been an amazing feature when it was released, but it has not aged well; nonetheless, it is, by far, my favorite bad movie. The imposition on 1950s American concepts of freedom and 1950s Hollywood concepts of storytelling on the Bible is so bad, it's good. I've never seen Ben-Hur, but I suspect that you would have to enjoy it in the same way- just embrace the terrible campy delivery of every line. (Even I have my limits- I tried to watch Yul Brynner in "Solomon and Sheba" last weekend while I was still in the afterglow of this year's Ten Commandments viewing, and I couldn't make it past the first half hour.)
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
The Old Man and The Sea is one of the two most boring films I've ever seen.
Probably because it's based on the most boring book ever written.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...there is one Great Film I have tried to watch a number of times, and I just haven't been able to get into it. Dr. Strangelove. I know, that makes me a cretin, but I just find it too buzzy-- it gives me the same feeling white noise does..
...or How I learned to love the Bomb!
How could you not enjoy one of the great roles of the great Peter Sellers? I've seen it two or three times - likely once when it first came out! High camp! Maybe you just weren't in the mood - try getting it on DVD and drinking more aggressively next time!
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Most disappointing film ever: A Fish Called Wanda.
As a boomer who grew up with Python I approached it with great hopes, but didn't crack a smile.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Sir Kevin wrote:
quote:
How could you not enjoy one of the great roles of the great Peter Sellers? I've seen it two or three times - likely once when it first came out!
What mars that film for me is the ham-fisted script. Someone once described Terry Southern's sense of humor as "haw haw haw, did'ja get it", which seemed rather fitting. But I agree, Peter Sellers performances are terrific, as they almost always were.
quote:
High camp!
Not to be pedantic, but isn't camp supposed to be unintentionally funny? As in, it's trying to be serious, not succeeding, and ends up being funny as a result? Low-budget slasher films, for example.
[ 11. April 2013, 00:10: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
Other then the bar scene STAR WARS did not interest me. I do not remember the name of the second movie, but I liked it better.
I liked Gone with the Wind, but then I saw it when I was 16 and have not seen it again. Somethings are better in old memories then reliving them.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
How could you not enjoy one of the great roles of the great Peter Sellers? I've seen it two or three times - likely once when it first came out! High camp! Maybe you just weren't in the mood - try getting it on DVD and drinking more aggressively next time!
I keep trying it again, and I keep not getting it. Shrug) Must be a biorhythm thing.
Also I'm "in program", so aggressive drinking ain't gonna happen.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Graven Image: the bar scene
I hope you are referring to the original screening where Han Shot First?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Inspiration for that invaluable publication Fortean Times
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
(My girl!)
{ETA}
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I saw Glen Or Glenda and Plan 9 in high school, at the usual cult-film screening. We had a good time shouting mockery at the screen, especially during the scene in GOG where Bela Lugosi(despite being only the narraror) was, for reasons I couldn't figure out, was trying to make someone disappear.
Also . Sounds like a Kelly night out.
[ 11. April 2013, 01:12: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by basso (# 4228) on
:
The first Star Wars film was a hoot - the Heinlein juveniles of mmy yoot with splashy special effects.
Then, like RAH, Lucas discovered that he was making Significant Things, and the quality took a nosedive.
The fourth was almost unendurable. Not the character whose name I won't type (well, yeah, him too) but that awful race scene that seemed to take up an hour and a half of screen time. I start fidgeting at the start of almost any chase or fight scene.
But my favorite movie is probably Doctor Zhivago, so I'm the wrong one to ask.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Mine is LA DOLCE VITA: Anita Ekberg, Marcello Mastroianni, Anouk Aimee, black and white, two reels, 1960.
Posted by ChaliceGirl (# 13656) on
:
American Graffiti.
Great soundtrack, boring movie. Maybe you had to have had grown up in the 1950's to get it? It seemed like all they did in that movie was ride around in cars and talk about nothing!
Titanic.
Looked great, but storyline with Jack and Rose really LAME and corny. There were so many interesting real people on the Titanic, so why make it all about these fictional people? And the film was way too long.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Out Of Africa
I couldn't even tell you what it is that I don't like about it, because I slept through most of it.
Yup.
Pro: nice scenery
Cons: too long
boring characters
no chemistry between Redford and Streep
Did I mention loooonnnngg?
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
"Arsenic and Old Lace" is supposedly a classic and I tried to watch it because I love Cary Grant but this movie... ugh! Cary Grant must have needed the money badly because he just seems like he's forcing a performance that just isn't there. I've tried three times to get to the end of this film and I just can't do it.
I also never cared for Vertigo. It left me cold. It's incredibly dull and the leads have zero chemistry.
"The Godfather": Misogynistic crap and overlong. Marlon Brando is supposed to be so brilliant in this? Vile story. Pacino was really good but that's about the only thing the film has going for it.
I can't remember the name of this one... "Touch of Evil"? With Orson Welles and Charlton Heston... yeah, riiiiight! We're supposed to believe that Charlton Heston is a Mexican?! And, God... his "acting" ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I can't remember the name of this one... "Touch of Evil"? With Orson Welles and Charlton Heston... yeah, riiiiight! We're supposed to believe that Charlton Heston is a Mexican?! And, God... his "acting"
Maybe so, but the opening shot was amazing! (and yeah, it is "Touch of Evil.)
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
How could you not enjoy one of the great roles of the great Peter Sellers? I've seen it two or three times - likely once when it first came out! High camp! Maybe you just weren't in the mood - try getting it on DVD and drinking more aggressively next time!
quote:
Nope, sorry, Kevin. I have to agree with Kelly Alves on this one. I hate Slim Pickens anyway, and this movie didn't make me feel anymore warm and fuzzy for him. I hated Sellers in this movie. I tried and tried to find the funniness in this but gave up. I think it's highly, highly overrated just like a few of the Monty Python movies.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Count me squarely in the camp of the Strangelove fans. Sellers was brilliant. His Mandrake character had one of the best one-liners of all times: When Jack Ripper is questioning Mandrake about his time as a Japanese prisoner of war. I can't quote verbatim, but this was the gist of it:
R. Did they torture you?
M. Yes, they did, Jack. Wasn't pretty.
R. Did you talk?
M. No, no, I didn't, Jack. I don't think they wanted me to talk, really. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swine.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I fell asleep 20 minutes into "Brazil". My wife stayed awake for the whole thing and said it wasn't that bad (I was the one who insisted on renting it).
I'm a huge Altman fan, but I walked out of "Images" after half an hour. A movie should be about something other than atmosphere.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
LilBuddha wrote:
quote:
The only Hitchcock film one is aloud to dislike is The Birds.
I quite like The Birds. Granted, the special effects don't hold up at all over time, but that's a problem with almost any special effects.
I think it holds up. The actors did impressive jobs (well, Rod Taylor was kind of a dud.) The special effects never got to me as much as the simple stuff, like the ominous growth of the crow flock on the monkey bars at the school.
The amazing thing is how Hitchcock upended the towns of Bodega and Bodega Bay to get the single town he wanted--there's a great shot where Tippi Hedren is standing on the porch of the general store/ post office and the postmaster points across the road-- cut to a shot of a long road running to the bay. He was actually pointing East, toward the inland Petaluma hills. Hitchcock had to (cinematically) flip the whole store around and remove a row of rolling hills blocking the west view of the bay to get that shot.
[ 11. April 2013, 05:15: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I can't stand James Bond films as they are so plastic and predictable and I don't like the way the women in them are portrayed showing as much flesh as possible with as few brains as required. Another film I have never enjoyed is Dr Zhivago, one which most others love. I find it so long and tedious. It just goes on and on and I drop off to sleep.
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on
:
I'm embarrassed to say this as a Beatles fan, but Magical Mystery Tour was truly dreadful. It wanders all over than place and nothing really happens. The thing that annoys me most is that Ringo (dressed as a wizard) keeps sayign 'where's the bus?' but when the bus finally appears, nothing happens! Utter, utter crap that was all Paul McCartney's fault - it was his idea to do a movie without a script.
What makes it worse is that, instead of learning that this was a bad idea, he then repeated the exercise with Give My Regards to Broad Street! Will the man never learn!?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
]One thing Kubrick carried over from his days as a magazine photographer was a talent for making static images look interesting.
Ye Gods! Someone needs to teach the new generation of filmmakers this, most egregiously those from Hollywood. The camera does not continually need to move and 5 year olds with ADHD and a caffeine addiction should not be camera operators.
--------
To those of you denigrating the genius of Ed Wood: It matters not if there exists a Heaven, for you shall not achieve it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Ironically, I like handheld camera work when it is held by a steady hand.(See Lars von Trier.) IOW, I agree.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Most disappointing film ever: A Fish Called Wanda.
As a boomer who grew up with Python I approached it with great hopes, but didn't crack a smile.
There were parts I didn't enjoy the first time I saw it (in a theater), but it had more to do with where I was emotionally at the time. I always enjoy Cleese and Palin, but that was the movie where I fell in love with Kevin Kline.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
I've seen "Wanda" quite a few times on DVD and really do enjoy it now.
(And... I got to meet Kevin Kline last year and will again in June )
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
By far the best thing about A Fish called Wanda was the name of the barrister played by John Cleese -
Archibald Leach was Cary Grant's real name...
(Why I remember all this crap I don't know but...
Frances Gumm = Judy Garland; James Stewart = Stewart Grainger; John Wayne = Marion Morrison, etc, etc)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Graven Image wrote:
quote:
Other then the bar scene STAR WARS did not interest me. I do not remember the name of the second movie, but I liked it better.
That one seems to be the consensus favorite. Interestingly, it was directed by Irvin Kershner, who, prior to that point, did not have any significant experience directing hard sci-fi.
Basso wrote:
quote:
Then, like RAH, Lucas discovered that he was making Significant Things, and the quality took a nosedive.
Hey, I actually loved Return Of The Jedi, the one where Lucas' infection with Jungianitis via the dreaded Campbell virus was at its most full-blown.
But I'm slightly biased, because I got an okay mark in my Children's Literature class BSing about all this stuff. There are others who share your general disdain...
Galactic Gasbag
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
I'm embarrassed to say this as a Beatles fan, but Magical Mystery Tour was truly dreadful.
I've got a soft spot for MMT because of Ivor Cutler's cameo as Buster Bloodvessel. And anyway, it's much better than 'A Hard Day's Night'. Much better!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Chapelhead: quote:
And after an hour of James Cameron's Titanic...Sink, damn you, sink!
Add me to the list of people who hated it. I cheered when Jack drowned. Pity it took nearly three hours to happen.
Other 'classic'/critically acclaimed films that I hate:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Watched the first 20 minutes once and NOTHING EXCITING HAPPENED. It's painfully obvious to any reader of Agatha Christie who the 'mysterious' ninja is. And slow-motion fights that go on and on and on are Simply Not Interesting.
The Matrix Slow-motion fight scenes - see above. Also it had three plots stuck together and they didn't work particularly well. Maybe the producers should have done three separate films instead. Or done the fights in real time.
Shrek Getting Shrek to deliver his lines in a so-called Scottish accent that keeps appearing and disappearing like the Cheshire Cat is NOT funny. Not to anyone familiar with real Scottish accents, anyway. Also, they spend far too much time taking the Mickey out of Disney and not enough time telling their *own* story. And *they* have slow-motion fights as well (see above).
[ 11. April 2013, 13:49: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
A propos of nothing much besides the Beatles tangent, but I will say that, judging from what I have seen on You Tube, the 1978 film based on Sgt. Pepper certainly lives up to its reputation as unwatchable.
And any outraged Beatles fans should be informed that George Martin was a willing participant in this.
[ 11. April 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yes, Ed Wood is miles better than Plan 9. I had to see the latter as part of a high school film class. Only two movies in my life that have literally put me to sleep, that is one (my teacher didn't like that) and the other was Young Einstein.
[ETA: Glen or Glenda was pretty cool, though.]
I've never seen that! It will be added to the list of movies I really want to watch. Thanks, Kelly, Pine Marten.
Imagine having a DVD of "Plan Nine". I'm impressed.
I'm a believer in teaching people by saying "this is how NOT to do it" but I reckon Ed Wood had this unique instinct for spotting how not to do it and just did it because he thought it was "the way to go". Strange road to a kind of immortality ...
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
[qb]
LilBuddha wrote:
quote:
The only Hitchcock film one is aloud to dislike is The Birds.
I quite like The Birds. Granted, the special effects don't hold up at all over time, but that's a problem with almost any special effects.
I think it holds up. The actors did impressive jobs (well, Rod Taylor was kind of a dud.) The special effects never got to me as much as the simple stuff, like the ominous growth of the crow flock on the monkey bars at the school.
That's my favorite scene in the whole film. Especially with the musical accompaniment, courtesy of the children...
quote:
She combes her hair but once a year
Risselty-rossilty, now now now.
With every pull she sheds a tear.
Risselty-rossilty, hey bom-bossety
Nickety-nackety, retrical quality
Willaby-wallaby, now now now.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Watching Saving Private Ryan after school today because I missed it at the cinema a decade and a half ago and it seems that it is an important film. I'll let you know how it goes in about twelve hours. Z thinks it is too gory for her and likely will not watch it!
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
"The Godfather": Misogynistic crap and overlong. Marlon Brando is supposed to be so brilliant in this? Vile story. Pacino was really good but that's about the only thing the film has going for it.
I can't remember the name of this one... "Touch of Evil"? With Orson Welles and Charlton Heston... yeah, riiiiight! We're supposed to believe that Charlton Heston is a Mexican?! And, God... his "acting"
Wait... a movie about a bunch of Sicilian American male gangsters in the 50s was misogynistic? Never would have guessed. Yes, it is too long. And the real acting tour de force in those movies is De Niro in part two. BUT...
Like "Touch of Evil," a lot of the brilliance in the two Godfather movies (I have never seen part 3, but have been informed that it doesn't count,) is in the camera and editing work. They have their slow and bad moments, but there are also moments of artistic genius. The baptism scene at the end of the Godfather is brutally violent, but the juxtaposition of Michal renouncing the devil and his hit men killing all of his enemies is pretty fantastic, and the music is inspired. In part two, the scene where young Vito jumps from rooftop to rooftop during the religious procession on his way to take out Don Fanucci is unbelievably good.
The stories make them "guy" movies, but the camera work is why they have the high reputation that they do.
Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Another film I have never enjoyed is Dr Zhivago, one which most others love. I find it so long and tedious. It just goes on and on and I drop off to sleep.
God bless you bib, I couldn't agree more. What a bloated waste of perfectly good film. Three hours, was it?
Which Star Wars movie had Jar Jar Binks in it? That one defined "unwatchable."
Any "great" movie with more than one scene in a therapist's office. "Ordinary People" for example. Many Woody Allen productions, for another. Actually just one scene in a therapist's office will do it.
Some people think that Merchant Ivory films are great when in fact they all suck.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The Batman films. Increasingly. Pretentious wouldn't be in it.
Except for the very first, back in the 60s, which is a joy!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The stories make them "guy" movies, but the camera work is why they have the high reputation that they do.
Actually I would argue that part of the point of the movies is how grotesquely misogynistic Mafia culture is. Doesn't make it any easier to watch, though.
The camera work and direction are a really great example of "letting the camera tell the story," as you say. Scorsese doesn't give us anybody to stand outside that world and say"Oh, the Horror!"-- that's our job. The baptism scene is a perfect illustration of that. Nobody declares Michael Corleone to be a double-sided monster; the direction, the camera, and the editing simply show this happening and make us do the work.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The Batman films. Increasingly. Pretentious wouldn't be in it.
Except for the very first, back in the 60s, which is a joy!
Hee!
[ 11. April 2013, 19:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by basso (# 4228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Another film I have never enjoyed is Dr Zhivago, one which most others love. I find it so long and tedious. It just goes on and on and I drop off to sleep.
God bless you bib, I couldn't agree more. What a bloated waste of perfectly good film. Three hours, was it?
Heh. I knew when I confessed to loving Zhivago that there were people like you two out there. Takes all kinds, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon (about A Fish called Wanda)
There were parts I didn't enjoy the first time I saw it (in a theater), but it had more to do with where I was emotionally at the time.
That's a huge part of our reaction to some movies. I first saw that one when my wife was home sick with cancer, and her best friend brought over a VCR and a copy of the movie, to cheer her up. It was a noble effort, but it failed. I saw it again many years later and howled with laughter.
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
"The English Patient" was an absolute GIFT if, like me, you read the book and couldn't figure out what the heck was going on (a recurring problem for me with Ondaatje's novels). After I saw the movie I could figure out what the plot was meant to be, and then was able to re-read the book and make some sense out of it.
The English Patient had a plot?
That is the ONLY film my wife and I have ever seen, and then on the way back to the car said, "Why did we bother to sit through that whole thing?"
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
The English Patient had a plot?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
(Thank you.)
And sorry, Bas, I am on the "Don't quite get Dr Zhivago" team-- I always blamed something missing in myself for that. Again, maybe it's all about biorhythms.
[ 11. April 2013, 19:57: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Anna B: Which Star Wars movie had Jar Jar Binks in it? That one defined "unwatchable."
Don't... say... that... name...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
Which Star Wars movie had Jar Jar Binks in it? That one defined "unwatchable."
"Straight up racist," as Chuck D. would say.
Aaron McGruder once turned his strip over to Jar-Jar to let him go all Black Panther on Lucas's ass.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Kelly Alves wrote:
quote:
Scorsese doesn't give us anybody to stand outside that world and say"Oh, the Horror!"-- that's our job. The baptism scene is a perfect illustration of that. Nobody declares Michael Corleone to be a double-sided monster; the direction, the camera, and the editing simply show this happening and make us do the work.
Tt's Coppola, not Scorsese, who directed the Godfather movies. But it's easy to confuse the two.
Posted by Pure Sunshine (# 11904) on
:
I didn't really enjoy, or get, Lost in Translation. I can barely even remember what it was about, it erased itself so quickly from my memory.
Maybe other people saw something in it that I didn't see?
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pure Sunshine:
I didn't really enjoy, or get, Lost in Translation. I can barely even remember what it was about, it erased itself so quickly from my memory.
Maybe other people saw something in it that I didn't see?
Not me. Daughter-Unit warned me that I wouldn't like it. She was right. She often is!
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I liked "Lost in Translation" when I initially watched it, although I wasn't crazy about it. Isn't it about being lonely? That's one of the odd things about being lonely, sometimes you feel the most lonely when you are in the middle of a hugely populated city.
But then I watched the making of special feature, and got the sense that the film was an exercise in navel gazing on the part of Sophia Coppola. That took something away from it.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I didn't really enjoy, or get, Lost in Translation. I can barely even remember what it was about, it erased itself so quickly from my memory.
I think it was supposed to be a "two ships passing in the night" sort of thing. Minus the sex. But I wasn't impressed enough to watch it again, so I really can't say for sure.
Another film that I have not been inspired to watch again(and in fact was so uninspired during the screening that I actually broke a cardinal rule and took a bathroom break) was Brokeback Mountain.
I really didn't see what the big deal about that was. It wasn't the first Hollywood film to focus sympathetically on a gay relationship(there was Making Love in 1982, for example). I'm guessing that it was just that they were cowboys, the archetypcal American macho men, which generated all the hoopla.
But I don't really care for non-comedic romance movies, or movies that highlight beautiful scenery, so I'm probably not the best judge of that film.
[ 11. April 2013, 23:27: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by basso (# 4228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Anna B: Which Star Wars movie had Jar Jar Binks in it? That one defined "unwatchable."
Don't... say... that... name...
Right. You noticed that I didn't mention his name. The danger, of course, is that he'll appear with a bang and a cloud of smoke.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Tt's Coppola, not Scorsese, who directed the Godfather movies. But it's easy to confuse the two.
I just woke up from a long nap thinking, "It's Coppola, not Scorcese"
A Fog City Maverick, no less. What's wrong with me?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ 12. April 2013, 03:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
I didn't really enjoy, or get, Lost in Translation. I can barely even remember what it was about, it erased itself so quickly from my memory.
I think it was supposed to be a "two ships passing in the night" sort of thing. Minus the sex. But I wasn't impressed enough to watch it again, so I really can't say for sure.
I went through a phase of rewatching this one. I think it was the whole idea of a man and woman forming a strong connection that transcends sex.
I dunno, I kinda dig Sofia Coppola-- I liked "Marie Antoinette" too.
(waits for onslaught.)
And her debut short film kicked ass (It's called "Lick the Star.)
[ETA: Wow, I found it.
[ 12. April 2013, 04:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson, in re Brokeback Mountain:
really didn't see what the big deal about that was. It wasn't the first Hollywood film to focus sympathetically on a gay relationship(there was Making Love in 1982, for example). I'm guessing that it was just that they were cowboys, the archetypcal American macho men, which generated all the hoopla.
Well, and that it was an unwitting fulfillment of a prophecy uttered by Eric Cartman...
(Edited to fix code)
[ 12. April 2013, 06:19: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
I fell asleep through Brokeback Mountain (my default setting in the cinema is snooze), do they spend much time eating pudding?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
... pudding? Is that a euphemism?
(after Googling) Oh, what the hell...
[ 12. April 2013, 09:18: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I fell asleep through Brokeback Mountain (my default setting in the cinema is snooze), do they spend much time eating pudding?
Life lessons learned: Brokeback Mountain is not a second date movie.
(Well I didn't know it was going to be so bloody tragic, did I?!)
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
"The English Patient" was an absolute GIFT if, like me, you read the book and couldn't figure out what the heck was going on (a recurring problem for me with Ondaatje's novels). After I saw the movie I could figure out what the plot was meant to be, and then was able to re-read the book and make some sense out of it.
The English Patient had a plot?
That is the ONLY film my wife and I have ever seen, and then on the way back to the car said, "Why did we bother to sit through that whole thing?"
Did you read the book? Because I'm speaking comparatively here.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Good Lord, that's a frightening though.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
My wife and I walked out of Punch Drunk Love.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
Which Star Wars movie had Jar Jar Binks in it? That one defined "unwatchable."
"Straight up racist," as Chuck D. would say.
There are those who disagree.
The whole of that link is worth reading, but the specific point here boils down to
quote:
Some racists believe that all black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid, and slovenly. ... What have the politically correct thought police done here? They have taken these stereotypes, accepted them, and then used this acceptance to declare that the reverse connection is true! If black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly, then an illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly sci-fi creature must therefore be a black person!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
Which Star Wars movie had Jar Jar Binks in it? That one defined "unwatchable."
"Straight up racist," as Chuck D. would say.
There are those who disagree.
The whole of that link is worth reading, but the specific point here boils down to
quote:
Some racists believe that all black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid, and slovenly. ... What have the politically correct thought police done here? They have taken these stereotypes, accepted them, and then used this acceptance to declare that the reverse connection is true! If black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly, then an illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly sci-fi creature must therefore be a black person!
And there was me thinking it was because JJB spoke in a manner very reminiscent of BVE.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
BVE
You'll have to explain that acronym to me. Google is no help, unless you're referring to Binocular Visual Efficiency...
Posted by Miss Madrigal (# 15528) on
:
Ghost.
When I first saw it I kept drifting off. Very time I woke up Patrick Swayzee had his shirt off for some reason which rather disturbed me.
I tried again some years later and thought it a mawkish jumble of tropes stolen from other, better films.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Miss Madrigal:
Ghost.
When I first saw it I kept drifting off. Very time I woke up Patrick Swayzee had his shirt off for some reason which rather disturbed me.
Actually, those are the only bits of the movie worth staying awake for.
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
BVE
You'll have to explain that acronym to me. Google is no help, unless you're referring to Binocular Visual Efficiency...
Blessed Virgin Eminem? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
BVE
You'll have to explain that acronym to me. Google is no help, unless you're referring to Binocular Visual Efficiency...
Blessed Virgin Eminem?
I'm assuming he means what would now be more likely called AAVE: African-American Vernacular English.
Posted by Miss Madrigal (# 15528) on
:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Actually, those are the only bits of the movie worth staying awake for.
An excellent point, well made.
[ 12. April 2013, 12:39: Message edited by: Miss Madrigal ]
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yes, Ed Wood is miles better than Plan 9. I had to see the latter as part of a high school film class. Only two movies in my life that have literally put me to sleep, that is one (my teacher didn't like that) and the other was Young Einstein.
[ETA: Glen or Glenda was pretty cool, though.]
I've never seen that! It will be added to the list of movies I really want to watch. Thanks, Kelly, Pine Marten.
Imagine having a DVD of "Plan Nine". I'm impressed.
I'm a believer in teaching people by saying "this is how NOT to do it" but I reckon Ed Wood had this unique instinct for spotting how not to do it and just did it because he thought it was "the way to go". Strange road to a kind of immortality ...
Ed Wood is a lovely film - and not only for the fabulous scenes of Johnny Depp, as Ed, dressed in an angora sweater, blonde wig and high heels ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
. Martin Landau is eerily like Bela, and the film is very sympathetic to both characters.
Some other films I can't stand:
Star Wars (pretty much all of them) - maybe they are just boys' films, I just don't care;
Walkabout - I saw this in the cinema and was sickened by the all-too-frequent and unnecessary scenes of animal slaughter;
Dances with Wolves - long and b-o-r-ing (although Mr Marten likes it a lot)
Lost in Translation was mentioned upthread - the first time I saw this my eyes glazed over, but on further viewings it wasn't quite so bad. It is one of my son's favourites (he insisted I watched it the first time), but I don't think I could sit through it again.
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on
:
Don't know if it qualifies for "great film" status, but I didn't last more than 30 minutes with Black Swan. I can sit through all sorts - but not that.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
Don't know if it qualifies for "great film" status, but I didn't last more than 30 minutes with Black Swan. I can sit through all sorts - but not that.
I could sit through two hours of Natalie Portman reading the phone book ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
Has anyone mentioned "Breaking The Waves"? Oh. My. God. Horribly depressing and unwatchable. I saw this movie because Father Andrew Greeley talks about it as an example of God in the movies. He waxed rhapsodic about how the movie was sort of a sacrament of God's love. Pah! What utter rot. I wanted to kill myself halfway through the movie and the ending was supposedly some vindication of God's love? No, no, sorry, no. If this movie is supposed to be about God's love, I must be really thick-headed. Ugh! A waste of two hours,
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are those who disagree.
The whole of that link is worth reading, but the specific point here boils down to
quote:
Some racists believe that all black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid, and slovenly. ... What have the politically correct thought police done here? They have taken these stereotypes, accepted them, and then used this acceptance to declare that the reverse connection is true! If black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly, then an illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly sci-fi creature must therefore be a black person!
I think your link has it wrong. First, they compare how real Black and Asian people are versus the characterisations in Star Wars. Minstrel shows are a better comparison. They did not represent black people any more accurately, but representation was their shtick.
And not only white people sat in the theatres and thought those thoughts.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
I didn't really enjoy, or get, Lost in Translation. I can barely even remember what it was about, it erased itself so quickly from my memory.
I think it was supposed to be a "two ships passing in the night" sort of thing. Minus the sex. But I wasn't impressed enough to watch it again, so I really can't say for sure.
Another film that I have not been inspired to watch again(and in fact was so uninspired during the screening that I actually broke a cardinal rule and took a bathroom break) was Brokeback Mountain.
I really didn't see what the big deal about that was. It wasn't the first Hollywood film to focus sympathetically on a gay relationship(there was Making Love in 1982, for example). I'm guessing that it was just that they were cowboys, the archetypcal American macho men, which generated all the hoopla.
But I don't really care for non-comedic romance movies, or movies that highlight beautiful scenery, so I'm probably not the best judge of that film.
I was reading comments on "Lost in Translation," and some call it post romantic- Coppola apparently wanted to make a movie where a profound romantic connection lasts only one moment.
I don't know how that compares to Ang Lee, whose films tend to be about romantic longing. "Brokeback Mountain" was the film that turned my opinions in favor of Ang Lee (they were turned against him after I had to watch "The Ice Storm" for a High School English class; 17 year old me was not ready for that film.) In a way, it is a similar story; the two cowboys have a fleeting yet profound romantic connection, and despite their best attempts, are never able to rekindle the love they had. So I don't know if it is post romantic or not- Coppola stopped her move right after the profound moment, and Lee told the story of the years of sadness that follow. If Coppola wants to say that this one moment can be as fulfilling as a lifelong romance, Lee is around the corner to say "not so fast."
If you are ever in Denver, you can go to a store called Rockmount Ranch, which is to western shirts what Saint Laurent is to the pea coat. Inside the store, they have pictures of famous people wearing their shirts, and in a box, the two shirts that were in Heath Ledger's closet at the end of Brokeback, still intertwined. If that moment in the movie made you weepy (and unless you were asleep, it must have,) you will feel it again when you see that display.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
"Brokeback Mountain" was the film that turned my opinions in favor of Ang Lee (they were turned against him after I had to watch "The Ice Storm" for a High School English class; 17 year old me was not ready for that film.)
The Ice Storm was well-shot, as per usual with Ang Lee. But the script kinda fell short, especially in the way it tried to insert period references into the proceedings every few minutes. One minute the characters are talking about Watergate, next the movie Deep Throat(and not because of the informant's name), then they're talking about early 70s pop psychology, and of course it all winds up at a swingers' party.
It felt like I had spent two hours reading a stack of Mad magazines from the early 70s(or maybe the late 70s, since Mad was always about five years behind the times with their topical references).
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Oh, and interesting comparison between Lost In Translation and Brokeback Mountain, Og. You've almost tempted me to watch LIT again. Brokeback, I think I'd need a cash payment to sit through that another time.
Posted by Lymasa (# 11397) on
:
My least favorite movie that I actually watched all the way to the end is Legends of the Fall . I think I didn't like it because it seemed like the whole point was to see how depressed it could make the viewer. The borzoi was pretty, and some of the scenery was nice. . .
I never made it to the end of Pulp Fiction. Just do not "get it". And- tangentially- does anyone else have a spouse who, when you've gone to bed because you really weren't interested in the movie/TV show/ball game, will watch it to the end, come in, and wake you up to give you a blow-by-blow description of what you missed?
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on
:
'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' is certainly not a great movie, but was supposed to be entertaining. It is terrible! Bo-o-o-r-ing.
My folks had Daughter-Unit and I over to supper, and thought that they would treat us to that video. I love my parents. I do. They just need to let me pick the movies. (Like I do such an awesome job of that.) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
.... Dr Zhivago, one which most others love. I find it so long and tedious. It just goes on and on and I drop off to sleep.
Yes. Its impossible to watch. Its very beautiful, and the music is lovely and the actors are lovely and it just goes so
slowly. I've probably seen every scene over the years, most of them many times, but apart from the bit with the beautiful young Soviet newpersons at the hydroelectric dam at the end I'm not at all sure which order they come in.
It goes like this:
Opening credits - crash out - wake up - beautiful people riding over beautiful scenery with beautiful horses and beautiful music - crash out - wake up - Cossacks on cute horses with worryingly fanciable fur hats - crash out - wake up - interesting trams with good-looking passengers - crash out - wake up - lovely ruined houses apparently made of ice - crash out - wake up - pretty horses - crash out - wake up - surprisingly attractive rioters - crash out - wake up - alternative surprisingly attractive rioters - crash out - wake up - another set of interesting trams with good-looking passengers - crash out - wake up - different lovely ruined houses apparently made of ice - crash out - wake up - further Cossacks on cute horses with worryingly fanciable fur hats - crash out - wake up - other beautiful people riding over beautiful scenery with beautiful horses and beautiful music - crash out - wake up - prettier horses - crash out - wake up - yet more beautiful people riding over beautiful scenery with beautiful horses and beautiful music - crash out - wake up - beautiful young Soviet newpersons at the hydroelectric dam - closing credits.
And the next time you see it you fall asleep and wake up at different times so you get the same, or similar, scenes in a different order.
So you can never discover the plot. If there is one.
[ 12. April 2013, 19:42: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Another film that I have not been inspired to watch again(and in fact was so uninspired during the screening that I actually broke a cardinal rule and took a bathroom break) was Brokeback Mountain.
I really didn't see what the big deal about that was.
Me neither. This is one film that left me cold. The two of them never really seemed to say very much - it was a struggle to imagine how they'd managed to form a deep bond that lasted for years when they didn't really appear to communicate much at all. I was also unimpressed by the scene where the wife found out about their affair - she didn't really get much of a sympathetic treatment in the film, but fair enough, it wasn't about her.
YMMV. I can say I've seen it, but I haven't any interest in seeing it again.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
It felt like I had spent two hours reading a stack of Mad magazines from the early 70s(or maybe the late 70s, since Mad was always about five years behind the times with their topical references).
Good description, although I think the slightly campy feel was intentional.
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If you are ever in Denver, you can go to a store called Rockmount Ranch, which is to western shirts what Saint Laurent is to the pea coat. Inside the store, they have pictures of famous people wearing their shirts, and in a box, the two shirts that were in Heath Ledger's closet at the end of Brokeback, still intertwined. If that moment in the movie made you weepy (and unless you were asleep, it must have,) you will feel it again when you see that display.
Wow, just reading about it...
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
Has anyone mentioned "Breaking The Waves"? Oh. My. God. Horribly depressing and unwatchable. I saw this movie because Father Andrew Greeley talks about it as an example of God in the movies.
It so figures he would say that.
I agree it was sooo depressing. And somewhat misogynistic, IMO, in that "Isn't the way this woman treated a horrible thing, but isn't it fun to watch?" sort of way.I gave it a try because I like Emily Watson and LOVE Katrin Cartlidge.* But then I began to hate everyone who was mean to Emily and her for letting them be so.
*If you want a good dose of her, try The Weight of Water.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
It pains me to say it, -- 'Atonement'-- , (which I have actually watched twice) . Had all the ingredients, the mix just didn't rise somehow.
Maybe I'll try it once more .
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
Love Story. I hate it. I don't necessarily expect a film to make me feel good, but I really don't want one to make me feel this bad.
I can't warm to the female lead either (sorry, name escapes me) and that stupid, stupid quote about love meaning never having to say you're sorry drives me round the bend.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
The horror movies thread made me remember my first reaction to the "great" Blair Witch Project - if some supernatural force doesn't start slaughtering these obnoxious teenagers soon, I'm going to climb into the screen and do it myself.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Adeodatus, this is supposed to be about great films. Not utterly unwatchable, horrid pieces of poorly filmed rubbish.
The witch should have been sent after the real filmakers.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The horror movies thread made me remember my first reaction to the "great" Blair Witch Project - if some supernatural force doesn't start slaughtering these obnoxious teenagers soon, I'm going to climb into the screen and do it myself.
Lord yes. I could cheerfully have slapped the snotty girl off the screen. You remember to pack any amount of recording equipment, but no tissues? Aagh. Additionally watching it on a big screen made me seasick for several hours.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Something really cheering about this thread is the number of films people have been really rude about that I've never bothered to see in the first place. Makes me think I was right.
Here's three more though. I thought Edward Scissorhands and American Beauty were both complete kak. Couldn't see why the latter was supposed to have some significant message. If it had, I couldn't hear it. And although I liked the book, I don't know whether Death in Venice is complete kak or not. I went to a showing of it but I've never seen it. I went to sleep shortly after it started and had to be woken up when it finished.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And although I liked the book, I don't know whether Death in Venice is complete kak or not. I went to a showing of it but I've never seen it. I went to sleep shortly after it started and had to be woken up when it finished.
I have heard that was the intended effect. Could be all that Mahler.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Love Story. I hate it. I don't necessarily expect a film to make me feel good, but I really don't want one to make me feel this bad.
I can't warm to the female lead either (sorry, name escapes me) and that stupid, stupid quote about love meaning never having to say you're sorry drives me round the bend.
Great scene at the end of "What's up, Doc?" when Ryan O'Neill chases Barbara Streisand onto a plane, back when you could do that.:
Ryan: I'm sorry
Babs: (fluttering her lashes) That's OK. Love means never having to say you're sorry.
(LONG Beat)
Ryan: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Love means having to say you're sorry every five minutes.
--John Lennon
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
And this is why John Lennon was an enduring genius, and Eric Segal was not.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The horror movies thread made me remember my first reaction to the "great" Blair Witch Project - if some supernatural force doesn't start slaughtering these obnoxious teenagers soon, I'm going to climb into the screen and do it myself.
A friend of mine had a good comeback to all the hype surrounding that movie's supposedly cutting-edge techniques.
HYPE: Ya see man, the horror is all off-screen!
MY FRIEND: Uh, yeah. WAY off-screen.
re: American Beauty. I'm a generally left-leaning, liberal guy with a slightly bohemian bent. However, I also like to think that I'm savvy enough to know when a script is trying to push my buttons.
Yeah yeah, we get it. Suburbia is vacuous, pot-smokers are the coolest guys around, military men are all repressed homosexual fascists(even threw in the Nazi chinaware in case we missed the point), the gay jogging couple are so much more well-adjusted than anyone else. That film was very much in the business of flattering its target audience.
Having said that, I do find the other two films in Mendes' "marriage trilogy", Revolutionary Road and Away We Go, emotionally and morally complex explorations of the subject matter, eschewing easy answers to the dilemnas they raise. The former I actually think of as being sort of a rebuttal to American Beauty.
Posted by Khuratokh2312 (# 17634) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lymasa:
My least favorite movie that I actually watched all the way to the end is Legends of the Fall . I think I didn't like it because it seemed like the whole point was to see how depressed it could make the viewer.
Thank you, I hate it too and everyone looks at me as though I'm advocating frying puppies.
Avatar Mostly because people treat it as something truly profound. It isn't. Nor is the best SF film ever made. If you're slightly familiar with SF, you'll know it isn't.
Apart from the whole dances with wolves/pocahontas similarities, it presents the battle between humans and navi as strictly black and white.
Then there's the idea of a mightey whitey turning up, who is better than you at being you: in three months time he becomes better than the Navi most experienced warriors.
And to top it off: After spending three months with them, Sully only mentions that the Hometree will be destroyed scant five minutes before it happens!
Nor does he ever tell the Navi, what the humans want so badly!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I don't think anyone's mentioned Pedro Almodóvar yet. I used to know a lot of Almodóvar fanatics. But I find his films just ... meh. A lot of not quite convincing characters doing things that don't quite constitute plots.
Re Godfather above. This is one of my favourites but you have to watch it twice. The first viewing is totally incomprehensible. It all makes sense the second time round.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Khuratokh2312:
Avatar Mostly because people treat it as something truly profound. It isn't. Nor is the best SF film ever made. If you're slightly familiar with SF, you'll know it isn't.
It was a fairly bad film in nearly every way except visually. (The actors did decently, as well.) There is a, likely apocryphal, rumour that Cameron envisioned the story at 15. Certainly appears this way.
It is, still, the best example of a 3D film. It was beautiful, the 3D was not a gimmick. It worked and worked very well. So, from a technical achievement standpoint, it is nearly as good as Cameron's ego thinks it is.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... re: American Beauty. I'm a generally left-leaning, liberal guy with a slightly bohemian bent. However, I also like to think that I'm savvy enough to know when a script is trying to push my buttons.
Yeah yeah, we get it. Suburbia is vacuous, pot-smokers are the coolest guys around, military men are all repressed homosexual fascists(even threw in the Nazi chinaware in case we missed the point), the gay jogging couple are so much more well-adjusted than anyone else. That film was very much in the business of flattering its target audience. ...
If it was that subtle, it was very well hidden. All I picked up was a film about a collection of empty people none of whom one could identify with, or resembled anyone in one's normal world. So one didn't believe the somewhat thin plot or care what happened to them.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
I have no idea whether Gosford Park is entitled to be described as a "great" film, but I am aware that a lot of people thought very highly of it, and it reputedly led the way for the very successful Downton Abbey.
We borrowed the DVD from friends and watched it twice. Both times we both fell asleep within 15 minutes of the beginning. Not something we generally do, and I must admit I can see a use for it there...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I found The Passion of the Christ very boring. Yeah, you're hitting Him, I got the idea. Now, can we get on with it?
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on
:
Welcome to the Ship, Khuratokh2312!
Thanks for joining us here in Heaven. There is also a welcome thread in All Saints where you might like to introduce yourself.
jedijudy-
one of the welcoming Heaven hosts
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think anyone's mentioned Pedro Almodóvar yet. I used to know a lot of Almodóvar fanatics. But I find his films just ... meh. A lot of not quite convincing characters doing things that don't quite constitute plots.
Yes, exactly. Critics tend to give him compensation points for his "transgressiveness," but up until Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! he was a fairly incompetent filmmaker, at least in terms of telling a story.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
I have no idea whether Gosford Park is entitled to be described as a "great" film, but I am aware that a lot of people thought very highly of it, and it reputedly led the way for the very successful Downton Abbey.
We borrowed the DVD from friends and watched it twice. Both times we both fell asleep within 15 minutes of the beginning. Not something we generally do, and I must admit I can see a use for it there...
I'd forgotten Gosford Park. I kept on waiting and waiting for it to get to the amazing bit and then it was already finished and the amazing bit hadn't happened.
It reminded me a lot of one of those French movies were nothing much happens for a long time.
While we're on the subject of French movies, I think Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (just known as Amélie in the English speaking world, for obvious reasons) is highly overrated. I just don't see what's supposed to be so special about it, to me it just looks a fairly run of the mill depressive Parisian comedy. I suppose people who haven't seen many depressive Parisian comedies might like it for that reason, but there are plenty of much, much better French films. Huit femmes/Eight Women, for example, is a WAY better film but didn't do nearly so well outside of France for some reason.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
(just known as Amélie in the English speaking world, for obvious reasons) is highly overrated. I just don't see what's supposed to be so special about it, to me it just looks a fairly run of the mill depressive Parisian comedy. I suppose people who haven't seen many depressive Parisian comedies might like it for that reason, but there are plenty of much, much better French films. Huit femmes/Eight Women, for example, is a WAY better film but didn't do nearly so well outside of France for some reason.
Agreed. Every Damn Word, especially about Huit Femmes which is a riot and a huge mind- f***k.
(I wonder what it says about me that I thought the best part of Amélie was Dominique Pignon?)
[ 15. April 2013, 09:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on
:
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
I read a review that suggested that it would have been better to simply call it Unbearable. I agree.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Cousin/Cousine was a good film; the idiot US version was the worst sort of rubbish!
We are not snobs: we just know garbage when we see it....
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Khuratokh2312: Avatar Mostly because people treat it as something truly profound. It isn't. Nor is the best SF film ever made. If you're slightly familiar with SF, you'll know it isn't.
I think this happens a lot with SF films, especially if you have been reading much SF. Most 'innovative' concepts in SF films have been around in books for decades already. An example is The Matrix, which I found a good film by the way, but the ideas weren't new.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Right!
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Hollywood is perfectionist. If they make a great film they keep remaking it until it is horrible.
With foreign films, this can take only one pass.
Shall we Dance, which is wonderful in the Japanese original and pedestrian in the American remake is a good example.
King Kong, Let the right one in, Infernal Affairs.. the list is too depressing to continue
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Remakes are a cheapo drug for film studios without imagination. Are any of them any good?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Pine Marten: quote:
Walkabout - I saw this in the cinema and was sickened by the all-too-frequent and unnecessary scenes of animal slaughter;
I wouldn't say they were unnecessary if the director was aiming for an accurate depiction of Aboriginal walkabouts. That is how they get their food. You might even argue that it's more honest than getting someone else to kill your dinner for you - it's been years since I saw the film but ISTR the final scene had the heroine chopping up some meat in her nice shiny suburban kitchen after she got back to 'civilization'.
Enoch, I agree with you about remakes. The American horror film 'Ring' wasn't bad, but it was nowhere near as scary as the Japanese original, 'Ringu'.
[ 16. April 2013, 08:18: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Re Walkabout:
Yeah, well, if they are killing animals for food in real life that's different - if they are doing it just for the sake of some scenes in a film then I for one don't like it. Sorry and all that.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I had to turn these off after about half an hour. Any longer and I would have started peeling off my own skin!
1) Blade Runner - any cut you like.
2) U571 - Bon Jovi and Hollywood rewriting history
3) Pearl Harbour - Same as above but withou Bon Jovi.
4) Avatar - Smurfs bore me intensly, especially insufferable, self-righteous ones with a "message"
[ 16. April 2013, 11:49: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Re-release Godzilla vs. Mothra - we don't need remakes!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Pine Marten: quote:
if they are killing animals for food in real life that's different - if they are doing it just for the sake of some scenes in a film then I for one don't like it. Sorry and all that.
Oh, I see where you're coming from now. I have the same feeling about the scene with the screaming baby in Francis Ford Coppola's 'Dracula'. Children that young don't act; to get them to scream like that you have to really scare them.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The American horror film 'Ring' wasn't bad, but it was nowhere near as scary as the Japanese original, 'Ringu'.
I like this version. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... The Blair Witch Project ...
I thought that film was going to be a biopic of the wife of a British Prime Minister ...
My own list:
Dances with Wolves and Field of Dreams (too boring)
The Shawshank Redemption (too violent)
Out of Africa (pretty scenery, no plot)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
Dances with Wolves and Field of Dreams (too boring)
It can't be an accident that both those films star Kevin Costner, whose screen presence lies somewhere between acting and somnambulism...
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
The Shawshank Redemption (too violent)
First it was misogynist mobster movies, now violent prison movies? What is Hollywood coming to?
I saw the ending of that one before I watched the whole thing, which was helpful. In the darkest moments of that movie, knowing that the ending will be uplifting is essential.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Having lived in the Solomons and knowing a few people who sang for the soundtrack, if find The Thin Red Line to be as boring as all get out.
Grease--never got the point. The main actors pretending to be teenagers when they both look about 30. I don't think I understood a word of any of the songs until the advent of looking of song lyrics on Google. Still don't know how they managed to reduce "You are the One That I Want" to three syllables though.
I saw Star Wars when it came out--mind blowing for a kid. Saw its "anniversary edition" back in 97 and it looked dated and it was hard for me to see what all the clichés heaped upon each other really meant.
Oh yes, and James Cameron's Aquaman is a bit meh.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
My unwatchables:
Sound of Music- when did nuns in 1938 know how to disable an car enmgine ?
U571 totally unrealistic and credits USN with what in reality the code breaker at Bletchly Park.
The Longest Day seems to diss the contribution of UK & Canadian forces.
As for Dr. Strangelove a great laugh version of Fail Safe which a good movie but unless you are a fan of Henry Fonda &/or Larry Hagman its a snore
Titanic ? Too unrealistic and when you know that the ship sinks hartd to watch.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Death in Venice.
All the inner dialog and narrative commentary is missing, so all you have is an important man in beautiful settings making sad sheep eyes at an awesomely good-looking young kid that he obviously can't have. Sorry he missed passion when he was young enough to get some, but oh well, them's the breaks.
The Mahler music wasn't bad.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I had to turn these off after about half an hour. Any longer and I would have started peeling off my own skin!
1) Blade Runner - any cut you like.
2) U571 - Bon Jovi and Hollywood rewriting history
3) Pearl Harbour - Same as above but withou Bon Jovi.
4) Avatar - Smurfs bore me intensly, especially insufferable, self-righteous ones with a "message"
Blade Runner is slow, agreed, but I have seen it 3 times.
Neither U571 nor Pearl Harbor are considered great movies, rather the opposite.
I haven't seen Avatar but your opinion seems about right from what I have gathered.
Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on
:
I can't stand violent movies (have to turn them off or leave the room) and I dislike depressing, angst-ridden films as well. I am a simple-minded philistine who Likes A Happy Ending. (Not exclusively, though: I love Dr. Strangelove and have seen it many times.) But I didn't like E.T. at all. Everyone else in the theater was crying happy tears, but I was completely unmoved.
I found Close Encounters of the Third Kind completely unwatchable. Actually, Schindler's List is the only Spielberg picture I really like.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Re-release Godzilla vs. Mothra - we don't need remakes!
I loved the tiny twins who controlled Mothra by singing to it.
Anyone else see "Son of Godzilla"? It's from the same era. G Jr. is a cute little thing--plays jump-rope with his dad's tail, and says "ooo, ooo" a lot!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by snowgoose:
I found Close Encounters of the Third Kind completely unwatchable.
The strangest thing has been happening on this thread-- people will post something lie this, and I will realize I have an affection for certain films for the weirdest reasons.
Now, you'll probably think I am going to rave about the FX-- nope. they were amazing. It's the sound. Whoever was in charge of foley and editing worked a miracle, because the sound spectrum of that film was what convinced me that all that crazy shit-- magnetized truck cabs, spacecraft flying through tunnels-- was actually happening.
[ 18. April 2013, 05:46: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
I found Close Encounters gripping until the final long, long, dull face to face meeting with the aliens.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I bet you saw the director's cut.
Everybody bitched about the director's cut, when it came out, and now it seems like that's the only one you can see. There is a reason editors edit, Spielberg.
On that note-- the director's cut of Donnie Darko sucked big huge gumballs. Took half the enigma out of it, and that's what it was about-- enigma.
[ 18. April 2013, 06:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Anything by Woody Allen - can't stand watching people contemplating their own rear ends (and with said Mr Allen, actually inside it).
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
@Kelly
Well spotted. I watched the film in its entirety just a few months ago. How many extra minutes were added at the end? It seemed to go on for half an hour.
@EMark
I saw Vicky, Christina, Barcelona recently too and thought it was good, not navel-gazing like his 80s stuff.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
@Kelly
Well spotted. I watched the film in its entirety just a few months ago. How many extra minutes were added at the end? It seemed to go on for half an hour.
That very scene you were talking about was ridiculously padded. I remember reading the agonized Pauline Kael reviews when it was re-issued. (And I was just a kid .)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Anything by Woody Allen - can't stand watching people contemplating their own rear ends (and with said Mr Allen, actually inside it).
I once said in a film class I was taking that I tend to love Woody Allen films that don't have him in them.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Clingford wrote:
quote:
I saw Vicky, Christina, Barcelona recently too and thought it was good, not navel-gazing like his 80s stuff.
I dunno. That business about the elderly poet who had stopped speaking in protest at the world's failure to love seemed like so much overgrown teen angst.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
OK, but he was a minor role with little screen time.
But agreed that there is some navel-gazing; at least it is not Allen's that is on display, though.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
But agreed that there is some navel-gazing; at least it is not Allen's that is on display, though.
Scarlett Johansson is a master at delivering classic Woody Allen lines. And I mean that with all sincerity, not just because I would watch anything if it involved Scarlett Johansson, Penelope Cruz, and Javier Bardem in various states of undress. (That said, I love most of Allen's stuff, even when he casts himself in the movie.)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Speaking of Johannsen, anybody else besides me see Manny and Lo?)
[ 18. April 2013, 18:50: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Can't remember, though I've heard of it...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Re Godfather above. This is one of my favourites but you have to watch it twice. The first viewing is totally incomprehensible. It all makes sense the second time round.
Obviosuly the seconf film doesn't really make sense unless you've seen the first film, but the first film only makes sense after you have seen the second film. As its both a prequel and a sequel. So the only real way to get what's goingon is to watch them both back-to-back twice over.
Luckily they are so good they are worth it.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I dunno. That business about the elderly poet who had stopped speaking in protest at the world's failure to love seemed like so much overgrown teen angst.
I think that movie is the story of two young people with a romantic view of artistic Europe told through the eyes of a more worldly narrator. We are supposed to see that the artistic world they fall into is somewhat cliched, over the top, crazy, and a little silly, but at the same time totally seductive and sexy, especially for a young American trying to find herself. So it is appropriate to see that poet and not be sure if you think that he is noble or a cliche.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Re-release Godzilla vs. Mothra - we don't need remakes!
I loved the tiny twins who controlled Mothra by singing to it.
Anyone else see "Son of Godzilla"? It's from the same era. G Jr. is a cute little thing--plays jump-rope with his dad's tail, and says "ooo, ooo" a lot!
I don't remember that one!
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
I remember Godzooki... does that count?
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on
:
A bit off topic as it's a TV programme, but around here if you're highbrow you're "supposed" to find Monty Python funny. I just don't get it at all.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
A bit off topic as it's a TV programme, but around here if you're highbrow you're "supposed" to find Monty Python funny. I just don't get it at all.
I think it's a combination of thinking that anything absurdist must be extremely clever, plus they throw around a lot of deliberately archaic and obscure references. So if you laugh, it means you're smart.
And it really became obvious by the mid-70ss that they were sucking up to the whole market for vulgarity. On one of their live albums, they throw some standard obscene words into their established skits, for no reason that I could see, beyond that it titillated the audience. And Meaning Of Life was just so much pandering to the then-current vogue for gross-out humour.
That said, it's pretty hard to deny that they struck some impressive sparks in their career.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Anything by Woody Allen - can't stand watching people contemplating their own rear ends (and with said Mr Allen, actually inside it).
I once said in a film class I was taking that I tend to love Woody Allen films that don't have him in them.
But then there is A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy. Sexual revolution is so much nicer at a charming country home with quirky talented people who are part-way liberated and part-way deliciously guilty about their transgressions. 1970s swing parties are nothing to it.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
A bit off topic as it's a TV programme, but around here if you're highbrow you're "supposed" to find Monty Python funny. I just don't get it at all.
You do or you don't. I watched it every week when it was first on TV, but with some bafflement and it was never split-sides funny.
Back on topic, I really hated "The Life of Brian". It was OK and amusing until the end, but the crucifixion scene was a step too far for me. I've tried watching it since, but it still shatters any amusement and enjoyment I had had in the film up to that point.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Blasphemer!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
A bit off topic as it's a TV programme, but around here if you're highbrow you're "supposed" to find Monty Python funny. I just don't get it at all.
I think it's a combination of thinking that anything absurdist must be extremely clever, plus they throw around a lot of deliberately archaic and obscure references. So if you laugh, it means you're smart.
And it really became obvious by the mid-70ss that they were sucking up to the whole market for vulgarity. On one of their live albums, they throw some standard obscene words into their established skits, for no reason that I could see, beyond that it titillated the audience.
Say rather that they put back in the words they'd like to have used the first time around but couldn't because they'd never have got away with them on the telly
quote:
And Meaning Of Life was just so much pandering to the then-current vogue for gross-out humour.
Well yes and no; there's more to MoL than Live Organ Transplants and Mr Creosote. And I'm afraid to say I find both of those funny anyway. Especially the former; it's the "I told him not to fill in that form, but he wouldn't be told!" stuff that always makes me roll around on the floor kicking my little legs in the air.
quote:
That said, it's pretty hard to deny that they struck some impressive sparks in their career.
Albatross!
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, it's pretty hard to deny that they struck some impressive sparks in their career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albatross!
Actually, that's one of the skits they reverse bowdlerized on the Drury Lane album.
JONES: Do you get wafers with it?
CLEESE: Course you don't get [adjectival form of slang word copulation] wafers with it ya [extremely obscene insult for a male homosexual]!!
It really didn't add much to the script, beyond, as I say, making the live audience roar with laughter.
By the way, do you happen to have any idea what that skit is supposed to be referencing? I know a lot of Python alludes to undergraduate in-jokes and arcane erstwhile current events(eg. the gangster in Pirahna Brothers who claimed to have laid Stanley Baldwin was based on a real criminal who had affairs with cabinet-ministers), but I've never been able to figure out what Albatross was all about. Something to do with the Ancient Mariner, I suppose, but why is Cleese dressed as a nurse?
quote:
Well yes and no; there's more to MoL than Live Organ Transplants and Mr Creosote. And I'm afraid to say I find both of those funny anyway. Especially the former; it's the "I told him not to fill in that form, but he wouldn't be told!" stuff that always makes me roll around on the floor kicking my little legs in the air.
Yeah, I don't absolutely dislike those skits either. But still, on the whole, much of MOL strikes me as a failed attempt at doing Mel Brooks. And that's being charitable.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Blasphemer!
God, that's brilliant. The guy playing the bishop does a perfect rendition of the real bishop(can't recall his name) from the original debate.
Satire ABOUT satire is always tricky to pull off, but that skit did it perfectly. In the same vein, this old National Lampoon parody of Mad Magazine was fairly clever as well.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Never, ever, ever watch live Python. It is abysmal.
It isn't simply the non-sequitur vulgarity, their timing is bloody awful. The Hollywood Bowl performance is a perfect example. They seem to be phoning in their performance and the reason the audience laughs is they know the joke beforehand.
If that performance had been their introduction to the world, it would have also been their finale.
As for the Mel Brooks comment, I disagree and would retort that Mel Brooks is often a failed attempt at doing Mel Brooks.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Oh my gosh , I nearly forgot ..... The DaVinci Code
Unless it's up-thread somewhere .
Did manage to watch some of it between slumber . Poor old Hanksy was handed a proper turkey with that one .
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
A bit off topic as it's a TV programme, but around here if you're highbrow you're "supposed" to find Monty Python funny. I just don't get it at all.
My view has always been that Python, like Gaul, is divided into three parts. There is funny stuff, there is material that isn't funny but had merit otherwise and then there is utterly pathetic, self-indulgent guff.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
[QUOTE] By the way, do you happen to have any idea what that skit is supposed to be referencing? I know a lot of Python alludes to undergraduate in-jokes and arcane erstwhile current events(eg. the gangster in Pirahna Brothers who claimed to have laid Stanley Baldwin was based on a real criminal who had affairs with cabinet-ministers), but I've never been able to figure out what Albatross was all about. Something to do with the Ancient Mariner, I suppose, but why is Cleese dressed as a nurse?
Somehow I think you are missing the point here...
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
And I think this thread has wandered off the point somewhat.
Can I suggest a separate thread for Is Python funny?
Meanwhile, back to celluloid turkeys.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Ok, definitely not a "great" film, but I have this perverse urge to make Roger Ebert roll over in his grave:
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
What. The hell. Was he thinking?
Kel//too soon?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Ok, definitely not a "great" film, but I have this perverse urge to make Roger Ebert roll over in his grave:
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
What. The hell. Was he thinking?
Kel//too soon?
Well, factor in that it's a Russ Meyer film, so it's arguably meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
In Ebert's decidedly thumbs-down review of Caligula, he wrote, by way of exonerating himself on charges of prudery, that he has nothing against erotic movies, and mentioned as an example "the pop-comic absurdities of Russ Meyer". Which leads me to think he shares the view that Meyer's films are meant as parody.
Mildly risque link to the Ebert site
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I know it was supposed to be parody. it was still ghastly, Ye gods, that band. The squicky predatory Leonard Nimoy look alike. The Cadillac scene. Jeez I was so appalled I had to watch it four or five more times to just immerse myself in disgust.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Ye gods, that band.
Actually, one of the few things I recall from that film IS the name of the band, the Carrie Nations, which was clever, albeit in a ham-fisted, Terry Southern sort of a way.
Also, the narrator's monologue at the end, where he goes on and on bombastically about what lessons the girls all learned from their adventures. Possibly a send-up of "redeeming social value" in nudie movies.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Also, the narrator's monologue at the end, where he goes on and on bombastically about what lessons the girls all learned from their adventures. Possibly a send-up of "redeeming social value" in nudie movies.
You're right, that was priceless. And it went on for flipping ever.
May have to watch yet again just to stoke my outrage.
[ 20. April 2013, 05:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
'Revelation' would make a good horror film, what with all those Apocalyptic end-times scenarios.
Meanwhile, we just have to make do with 'The Passion' - I haven't been able to bring myself to watch that yet.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
[Keryg thread idea] "Did eschatological writings serve the same function as horror film/ lit does today, and if so, what exactly is that function?"
[ 20. April 2013, 18:44: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
'Revelation' would make a good horror film, what with all those Apocalyptic end-times scenarios.
'Revelation' would make a great bad movie! I don't think it could turn out any other way.
I suppose 'Revelation - The Musical' might fly though.
[ 20. April 2013, 18:59: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
'Revelation' would make a good horror film, what with all those Apocalyptic end-times scenarios.
Wikipedia lists at least 22 films based on Revelation. I think A Thief in the Night and Left Behind are the most well-known (not commenting on the quality of those films).
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
What we need is George Romero to tackle the subject....
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What we need is George Romero to tackle the subject....
The Romero-produced remake of Dawn Of The Dead used Johnny Cash's Revelation-esque song When The Man Comes Around for its credit sequence.
"It's Alpha and Omega's Kingdom Come..."
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
"Left Behind". I got a fit of the giggles watching that at a church away weekend a lot of years ago. I remembered a Tony Campolo one liner. "i'm so pre-millennial I don't eat post toasties for breakfast". That set me off. Had to leave the room to avoid spoiling the enjoyment of those who were into it ....
The hardest part was dealing tactfully with the expressions of concern for my health afterwards ...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Left Behind". I got a fit of the giggles watching that at a church away weekend a lot of years ago. I remembered a Tony Campolo one liner. "i'm so pre-millennial I don't eat post toasties for breakfast". That set me off. Had to leave the room to avoid spoiling the enjoyment of those who were into it ....
The hardest part was dealing tactfully with the expressions of concern for my health afterwards ...
I have to ask. Was this being shown as exotica, light relief, or on the assumption that everybody was supposed to believe in the rapture?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
New thread! make a new thread!
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
OK folks. Gentle nudge back on track away from the Book of Revelation to those unwatchable classics. Or start a new thread as Kelly suggests.
Ta.
Ariel
Heaven Host
My parents used to say "The Blue Max" was the most boring film they'd even seen. I could add the mercifully unmemorable one with Steve McQueen as a racing driver, whatever that was called, though the driving/flight/seemingly endless chase sequences in the Star Wars films could usefully be cut down, or out, IMO.
Strangely enough, though I'm a fan of Leslie Howard, and have enjoyed the other films I've seen, "The Scarlet Pimpernel", which is probably his best-known film, is one I never seem to be able to watch without breaks, and sometimes without resuming.
[ 21. April 2013, 07:26: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I can't remember, Enoch. It was a late evening thing and somebody must have thought it was a good idea.
I went out of curiosity, I'm afraid. Had some idea of what to expect (and what not to expect), but was "surprised by joy" (well, giggles, anyway) nevertheless.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sorry, Ariel. Cross post!
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Ben Hur: not the silent one which is great, but the epic drama from the sixties! Too bloody long!
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
A bit off topic as it's a TV programme, but around here if you're highbrow you're "supposed" to find Monty Python funny. I just don't get it at all.
I think it's a combination of thinking that anything absurdist must be extremely clever, plus they throw around a lot of deliberately archaic and obscure references. So if you laugh, it means you're smart.
Hmm yes, I find xkcd falls into this category somewhat too.
Posted by Noxious (# 17318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
I read a review that suggested that it would have been better to simply call it Unbearable. I agree.
"The Unbearable Longness Of Watching" was how I summarised it on first viewing. I can't remember a detail of the film now, thankfully...
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Noxious:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
I read a review that suggested that it would have been better to simply call it Unbearable. I agree.
"The Unbearable Longness Of Watching" was how I summarised it on first viewing. I can't remember a detail of the film now, thankfully...
I really dislike all of Philip Kaufman's erotic films, especially Quills, which made the Marquis De Sade look like an 18th Century version of a Third Wave feminist.
And Henry And June. Hedonistic expats in Paris. Just not my scene, I'm afraid.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Loving reading this thread. It's like confession. Everyone getting off their chests a dislike for things they are supposed to be enamored of.
Agree with those who nominated Dr Strangelove - it's awful.
I enjoyed 2001, but have no idea what the fuck it was meant to be about. Kind of like listening to Bob Dylan for me.
Hated The Big Lebowski, and I have no idea what the fuss is about. I do like some of the Coens other stuff though.
Prometheus may not qualify as a great film, but I mention it here because it just isn't very good.
Secrets and Lies was so dreadful I fell asleep about two thirds of the way through it. It was traumatic. Not because of any traumatic themes - just remembering that I had paid money to rent it out (that was back in the old video shop days).
Psycho and The Shining were big disappointments. They were more amusing than scary. Particularly the dreadful acting by Shelley Duvall in the latter.
Finally, I agree with whoever mentioned Walkabout, which was utterly shambolically awful. And The Piano Teacher was so bad that I just have no words. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Secrets and Lies was so dreadful I fell asleep about two thirds of the way through it. It was traumatic. Not because of any traumatic themes - just remembering that I had paid money to rent it out (that was back in the old video shop days).
I actually found this film screamingly funny, but I like Mike Leigh in general. Brenda Blethyn's character was just so dreadful.
"You don't half pick your moments!"
quote:
Psycho and The Shining were big disappointments. They were more amusing than scary. Particularly the dreadful acting by Shelley Duvall in the latter.
Scroll down to 10.
Not that I am condoning what Kubrick did-- he sounds just as jackbatty as Hitch was, TBH-- but I read elsewhere that the pivotal scene where Wendy is screamed at by Jack when she interrupts his writing was an improv requested by Nicholson, who was trying to provoke a realistic performance from her. In other words, he was pissed off at how things were going and he actively took it out on her, in a method sort of way.
[ 25. April 2013, 05:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I guess Kubrick could be a real Ku-prick at times.
I thought of some more canonical unwatchables:
- Mean Streets - WTF is so great about it?
- Someone up thread mentioned Punch-drunk love - I'm not sure I've ever been told it was a great film, but it was certainly unwatchable.
- Aguirre: The Wrath of God - blerg
- Dead Man - came out in Oz not long after the Port Arthur massacre, so it was probably a bad decision to go see it at that time. Doesn't take away from the fact that it's dreadful.
- My own private Idaho - finished watching it about two years ago, and I'm still waiting for something worthwhile in the plot to happen.
- The Breakfast Club - not unwatchable, but after all the hype I was expecting it to be SOOO much better than it was.
I'm sure there are others. I actually have films I like, too. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Scroll down to 10.
Not that I am condoning what Kubrick did-- he sounds just as jackbatty as Hitch was, TBH-- but I read elsewhere that the pivotal scene where Wendy is screamed at by Jack when she interrupts his writing was an improv requested by Nicholson, who was trying to provoke a realistic performance from her. In other words, he was pissed off at how things were going and he actively took it out on her, in a method sort of way.
Yeah, her performance is dishrag-limp, and that's irritating. Even more irritating is that the character of Wendy, who is something of a Mama Bear in the original novel, is transformed into a one-dimensional doormat in the film--most likely by Kubrick's command.
In fact, the production pretty much exudes an air of "I'm going to take this pulp material and make Real Meaningful Art out of it". Really, if the original material is so unworthy then why work with it at all?
[little code fix, since I'm here.]
[ 25. April 2013, 20:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Really, if the original material is so unworthy then why work with it at all?
Probably because it saves you the trouble of having to write a script off the top of your head.
Even if you don't think the book is a work of genius, it does give a starting point to construct your story from. And, there might be a few things in the novel that you think would go really well in your film, but which you couldn't appropriate without buying the rights.
As for Shelley Duvall, I'm a big partisan of her performance in The Shining. I think the whole point is that she's supposed to be a timid, submissive, not-particularly-intellectual person, pushed by circumstance to acts of astounding bravery.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Yeah, her performance is dishrag-limp, and that's irritating. Even more irritating is that the character of Wendy, who is something of a Mama Bear in the original novel, is transformed into a one-dimensional doormat in the film--most likely by Kubrick's command.
Both King and Nicholson really protested this shift in Wendy-- King in particular wanted Wendy to be a bubbly, centered person who was suddenly thrust into madness. Kubrick wanted a dishrag.
In her defense, though,(1.)she was only acting like the asshole Kubrick wanted her to be, (2.)both King and Nicholson later rated her on what a trooper she was for putting up with Kubrick's special brand of shit, and (3.)you gotta admit, when she stopped being the chirpy Stepford Hippie and devolved into a gibbering wreck, she began to kick a little ass.
One more thing in her defense-- Kubrick clearly hated her in a special way. Evidence: that Christ-forsaken wardrobe. Holy shit on a stick. I wouldn't dress Pol Pot in that ensemble.
A whole lot more on why Kubrick is batshit. A disturbing argument that power doesn't just corrupt, it actually fucks you up.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
tangent/
I think in the case of both Hitch and Kubrick, power and "art" merely fertilised what was always there./tangent
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
Re: The Shining. Has anyone seen the later mini series and if so, how would you compare them? It's supposed to be closer to the book. I don't find the film particularly scary (though I've only seen part of it). The mini-series has some very creepy moving snow scultures; the rest of it is a little meh.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
As for Shelley Duvall, I'm a big partisan of her performance in The Shining. I think the whole point is that she's supposed to be a timid, submissive, not-particularly-intellectual person, pushed by circumstance to acts of astounding bravery.
Yeah, but the point is she executed it badly. This was because she can't act. It would have been better if she had just spoken her lines into the camera. Well, not better. But the same.
More unwatchable 'great' films from me:
- Candyman - OK, it was scary. But it was really awful. It was scarily awful.
- Independence Day - one of the worst things I have ever paid money to see.
- Requiem for a Dream - ok, this is an odd choice, because it's actually a good film with good performances. So I'm not criticising the film. But I wish I'd never seen it, and I will never see it again. Some things you just can't unsee. That scene with Jennifer Connelly is one of them. There are far too many scenes in that film like that.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
[*]Requiem for a Dream - ok, this is an odd choice, because it's actually a good film with good performances. So I'm not criticising the film. But I wish I'd never seen it, and I will never see it again. Some things you just can't unsee. That scene with Jennifer Connelly is one of them. There are far too many scenes in that film like that.
[/list]
Oh I so know what you mean. (Although I have managed to watch that one again-- sucked in by good pacing again.)I was thinking there should be a sub-index of movies you actually thought were quite well done but just really hard to watch.
Audition. Seven. Boys Don't Cry.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Dark KNight:
quote:
Mean Streets - WTF is so great about it?
As a stand alone film it's not particularly great, but as an event on film's timeline its pretty important. It marks the moment when Marty starts to show (frighteningly early in his career) all the signs of being a formidable auteur, and (possibly more importantly) Robert De Niro positively crackles with acting style and flare* and pretty much secures his acting career from that point on......until Rocky and Bullwinkle. Oh God, the horror.
* This was the second time his ability was recognized in the same year. The other film was Bang The Drum (or something like that; can't quite remember)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
re: Requiem For A Dream.
I think I'm the opposite of people here. I found it watchable enough(I am not easily put off by "disturbing" content), but I didn't think it was a very well done film. The bleakness and despair had a rather contrived quality to them, like I was conscious of the script going out of its way to shock the audience.
This review from a trostskyite website pretty much summed it up for me.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Aronofsky said something in an interview that made me watch the film in the first place-- he said he was trying to put together story arcs for the characters (pretty much straight from Selby's book) and it was coming out all wonky. Then he decided to turn Addiction into the triumphant hero of the story, and give it its own story arch. He said everything fell into place after that. But it might explain the detached feel.
The stylistic filming-- like the tummy camera, and the sped up dialogue in places--etc was something Aranofsky more or less pioneered, but in this late hour that style feels dated and overwrought to me.
[ 26. April 2013, 18:01: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on
:
Okay, I get that it's really artiphoto, but "2001: A Space Odyssey" makes little sense to me, especially the beginning and ending.
And there are other really artiphoto films that people criticize for having a hackneyed (e.g. Avatar) or merely banal (e.g. Scott Pilgrim and the Tron films) plot; 2001's plot is merely incomprehensible in a Philip-Glass-esque way. Seems a bit pretentious to me.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Okay, I get that it's really artiphoto, but "2001: A Space Odyssey" makes little sense to me, especially the beginning and ending.
Actually, for the most part, it's fairly straightforward, once you work it out.
God(or whatever it's supposed to be) descends to Earth in the form of the monolith, and makes the apes human. Upon moving up the evolutionary ladder, the apes learn to use tools and kill one another.
Millenia later, HAL, nearing another one of God's monolithic avatars on Jupiter's moon, makes(or at least begins the process of making) the same evolutionary leap that the apes made millenia ago, even learning to kill just as they did. But the astronaut shuts him down, largely in self-defense, but with the added benefit of maintaining humankind's hegemony in the known universe.
Like you, I'm uncertain about the denoument, with the elderly astronaut being interrupted by the intrusion of the spaceship into his dining room. I think the scene(apart from being just another excuse for Kubrick to indulge his interest in filming ornate and spacious rooms) is meant to portray the astronaut's actual dwelling in the future, not just something that exists in his own mind.
Possibly the point is that man, having kicked machines back down to their rightful place on the evolutionary ladder, has now himself made the next step forward, conquering the limitations of time. Just some semi-educated speculation.
I'm guessing that Arthur C. Clarke was familiar with Samuel Butler's novel Erewhon, which satirizes various ideas of evolution. In his imaginary land, the people keep machines locked up in prison, terrified that they might attain consciousness. This was a spoof on evolutionists who tried to maintain a qualitiative difference between man and his ancestors, the joke being "Well, if non-human animals can develop consciousness, why not machines?"
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
To me, "2001" wasn't an occasion for linear thought nor analysis.
It did seem to me to come full circle, at the end.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I watched 2001 in the cinema with my sister. At the end, as I sat in awed silence, she turned to me and asked, "What happened to the monkeys?".
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Like you, I'm uncertain about the denoument
It represents Bowman becoming the next evolution of humanity through contact with the monolith, just as the apes had become the first evolution of humanity through contact with the monolith. He fast-forwards through the rest of his natural life and is reborn as the starchild.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Like you, I'm uncertain about the denoument
It represents Bowman becoming the next evolution of humanity through contact with the monolith, just as the apes had become the first evolution of humanity through contact with the monolith. He fast-forwards through the rest of his natural life and is reborn as the starchild.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at in my explication, but you've filled in a few of the blanks for me. Thanks.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The best thing about 2001 was the special effects - years ahead of their time and won an Oscar for Brit Tom Howard.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The best thing about 2001 was the special effects - years ahead of their time and won an Oscar for Brit Tom Howard.
Stunning special effects. They weren't surpassed till Star Wars. When they hand painted mattes for the ship over the stars, they did three color separated mattes by hand to avoid color fringing.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Tom H was very modest - used his Oscars as doorstops.
Was a charming chap. I've happy memories of him starting a talk to a youth club with "I'm very old and was only a backroom boy so you won't have heard of me, but your parents may have heard of some of the people I worked with." He then gestured to a display at the back with handwritten notes from people like Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Olivier, etc, etc, etc.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0