Ok, ok, perhaps the title was meant to bate you a little. I'm just going to make a list and point out some reasons some popular movies (to one degree or another) are far from the bee's knees.
Donnie Darko This emo pile of shit was the bane of my existence my Sophmore year of college. I don't remember how many times people would ask if I've seen it or wanted to. Guess what. Any movie that requires an explanation after the fact to THE BIGGEST THING IN THE STORY is retarded. Oh, you're supposed to watch the director's cut or dig around on their website to learn about his super powers? I came to watch a movie; not do a homework assignment on why Richard Kelly is full of shit. Make no mistake, I am not against having to think about a film to understand it. However, when all of your thinking is proven futile because the facts simply aren't there is merely an insult and waste of my time. Maybe if Gyllenhaal didn't have that stupid look on his face the whole time I wouldn't have been so induced by rage.
The Hangover How far have our expectations of comedies dropped when this thing receives good reviews and makes hundreds of millions at the box office? Oh look, it's Mike Tyson! Oh look, he got tasered! Oh look, there's a tiger in the bathroom! Oh look, there's an asian man in a trunk! Non-stop gags as opposed to actual jokes left me feeling insulted quickly as a movie goer. I wasn't expecting some masterpiece that I'd rewatch repeatedly for the laughs, but I was expecting laughs. Perhaps I was simply raised watching 80's comedies and spoiled for life by doing so... but damn.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Jesus Christ. What a fucking snoozefest. Let's take a great movie like Forrest Gump, add a gimmick to it, remove all plot and forgettable characters... and..... ACTION! I haven't fallen asleep in the theaters before but between this and Public Enemies I was damn close.
Requiem for a Dream As somebody who has done more than dabble... I'll just say that I have reason to be attentive when watching this movie. Too bad it's a tired out story I've seen before. I don't care how dark it was or how well Aronosky sets the stage for it all to occur. I will say I am probably too harsh on this movie since I do find myself quoting "Ass to ass!" whenever I'm drunk. But whatever, I didn't like it.
Scarface Rappers have taste in shitty champagne and shitty movies. I really, really dislike Al Pacino. Perhaps I'm bias on this one for that fact alone. However, if I'm going to watch an actor go overboard on screen for 2 hours I'd rather watch Daniel Day Lewis do it than Pacino. It's plagued by overall bad acting and is about 45 minutes longer than it should be. I find it's talked about like Citizen Kane (relative to its field) that people simply throw its name out at the top of the list without any actual discussion. I blame MTV.
Napoleon Dynamite Worst. Movie. Ever.
The Professional (Leon) I remember last summer I decided to dig through the IMDB top 100 to see if there were any specific movies listed which I hadn't seen before. This one popped out at me. I got around to watching it and was extremely disappointed. I think a movie that just involved Gary Oldman and Jean Reno playing backgammon and discussing movie roles would have been more entertaining. No matter what happened I simply couldn't put Portman's character out of my mind; and for the story to work you couldn't do that.
Vanilla Sky Ok, I laughed at the cum swallowing joke. Any movie with Kurt Russell deserves to be praised for a decade... he was Captain Ron, dude. Captain. fucking. Ron. That earns him a pass in my book for all time but even he couldn't save this shit pile of a movie. The whole movie just didn't work. I sat here on this paragraph for some time trying to think of why I didn't enjoy the movie and then I realized that as a whole it simply fell flat. Too long, unenjoyable experience, ultimately pointless... I wanted to call it pretentious but I feel people use that term too often when describing films they didn't like even if it does fit this particular film.
I feel like I'm forgetting some major names on my list but I could always revisit it. Noticeably lacking from my list is Titanic but I figured on a forum such as this that particular film wouldn't be as well received anyways.
I guess I agree with you on most movies, but you should reevaluate your stance on Requiem for a Dream and Scarface....not many people would agree with you, and some may say your taste in movie sucks.
Man it's so easy to just rip on everything, since nothing's perfect. I kinda used to be like that cause it makes you seem smarter, but it also makes everything boring.
I didn't like Donnie Darko either. The only good thing I got out of the movie was Mad World. And even then I already knew the song from the Gears of War trailer.
I have Benjamin Button because I've heard good things about it, but I haven't watched it yet.
Oh, and OP, could you list some movies that you DO really like? Just to compare.
I really agree with everything except for The Professional. I thought that was a great movie.
In addition, I really liked the Hangover, but I'm a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE fan of Zach Galifianakis's stand-up and such. There were a lot of funny references to his previous work so I suppose that made it funnier for me.
Of those movies on your list, I liked Donnie Darko, The Professional, and Requiem for a Dream. I thought Scarface was okay, but highly overrated. The Hangover got a few laughs from me, but I certainly don't see how people chalk it up as the greatest movie ever and I live in Vegas.
I agree with you 100% on Napoleon Dynamite, though. That was the most boring piece of shit I sat through. I watched it with my brother, and there was only one scene that caused either of us to laugh; the rest was just a lot of foot tapping waiting for something funny to happen.
Terrible reviews of those movies, even if most of them are artistically barren.
The fact that you negate the strength of Pacino's acting in Scarface, in a time period where acting hasn't been scrutinized like it is today, shows that you have no value of innovation relative to time period in cinematic development. We've only started expecting great performances out of our actors in the last decade or so.
I usually don't take part in movie review threads because many people (and here come the flames) simply aren't as knowledgeable on cinema as they'd like to think they are. Sorry, but this is true for nearly everyone. I'm hoping to be a film critic on the side of my career in the near future, and the depths to which I have explored film really stun most people I meet, and I take pride in that. Teamliquid, and all internet forums in general, are NOT the places to make your voice heard in film critique.
Non-stop gags as opposed to actual jokes left me feeling insulted quickly as a movie goer. .... Perhaps I was simply raised watching 80's comedies and spoiled for life by doing so... but damn.
You mean 80's comedies like Airplane, Naked Gun and Police Academy?
But on most other stuff I agree with you, maybe I wouldn't be so harsh on Scarface but certainly not a fan
On July 20 2010 01:48 fly.stat wrote: Terrible reviews of those movies, even if most of them are artistically barren.
The fact that you negate the strength of Pacino's acting in Scarface, in a time period where acting hasn't been scrutinized like it is today, shows that you have no value of innovation relative to time period in cinematic development. We've only started expecting great performances out of our actors in the last decade or so.
I usually don't take part in movie review threads because many people (and here come the flames) simply aren't as knowledgeable on cinema as they'd like to think they are. Sorry, but this is true for nearly everyone. I'm hoping to be a film critic on the side of my career in the near future, and the depths to which I have explored film really stun most people I meet, and I enjoy that. Teamliquid, and all internet forums in general, are NOT the places to make your voice heard in film critique.
pretty much this. even if you don't like the movies your critiques of them are poorly worded with childish complaints.
comparing old comedies to comedies today is sketchy. calling the scenes in The Hangover "gimmicks" isn't the correct use of the word either, and I don't really know what you're getting at by making the reference to old school comedies. its not like Rodney Dangerfield is just gonna walk out and start spitting one liners again.
Yawn your boring and think you are a hip raging nerd or something.
You never considered this - What if I dont care what you consider my taste as? It sucks ? I dont care at all , it's just a small form of entertainment in my life.
My goodness you are strange, OP.
Also agree with Nttea. Hating shit is a lame way out.
Ok so you posted this in order to accomplish what? All I see is a flame fest waiting to happen, just because you hate some movies doesn't mean you should make random blogs about it... You're just asking for people to yell at you. Some of those movies are bad but others like them so I don't openly insult them. Two movies I saw on there are some of the greatest/funniest I've ever watched and the fact that you relate Scarface to rappers just means you dislike it because you link it to rappers (who I'm assuming you hate as well). The fact that you relate The Hangover to 80's movies doesn't make sense at all... You can't compare old movies to modern day movies because the trend is always changing.
On July 20 2010 01:48 fly.stat wrote: Terrible reviews of those movies, even if most of them are artistically barren.
The fact that you negate the strength of Pacino's acting in Scarface, in a time period where acting hasn't been scrutinized like it is today, shows that you have no value of innovation relative to time period in cinematic development. We've only started expecting great performances out of our actors in the last decade or so.
I usually don't take part in movie review threads because many people (and here come the flames) simply aren't as knowledgeable on cinema as they'd like to think they are. Sorry, but this is true for nearly everyone. I'm hoping to be a film critic on the side of my career in the near future, and the depths to which I have explored film really stun most people I meet, and I take pride in that. Teamliquid, and all internet forums in general, are NOT the places to make your voice heard in film critique.
For the most part his "reviews" of the movies express opinions about his perception of your opinion on a given film. Anyone can be an expert about how they feel about your tastes.
And, I will say, most of the listed movies have a degree of pop-culture status and yes, they do in fact suck. Scarface and The Hangover both entertained me though.
Finally, God yes Napoleon Dynamite is a piece of horse shit movie. The nunchucks line was almost funny but for the rest of the 90 minute load of vomit I failed to understand when the funny part was coming.
I disagree with Scarface strongly, this is called one of the best movies of all time for a reason you know..
However, i 500% Agree on Napoleon Dynamite, everyone i know kept talking about how awesome and badass it was, so i was like "yeah ill watch". Cut it on and i dont think ive ever met a movie that was less funny than watching paint dry. Quite honestly one of the most stupid movies ive ever wasted time watching in my life
I loved Donnie Darko. I thought Napoleon Dynamite was pretty funny the first time I watched it. The rest of the movies I really didn't get into, not as to say that they are bad films, I just didn't much care for them.
Haven't seen requiem for a dream though, should check it out when I get the chance. Alot of people say its really well done.
I swear I'm the only person that hates the Hangover out of all of my friends, and I will defend to the end and back that that movie is a complete piece of shit, and I have no idea how people find that mindless, boring, slow, wandering around Vegas doing nothing of a movie is considered comedy. I agree with you on every point, including some others. The only potentially funny character of The Hangover is Galifinakis' character, and even then he was subpar. I like his standup just fine, its not gut busting, but its good. But as a support? Our main characters are a douchey wannabe badass leader-type and a dentist crying about his tooth the entire movie. OMG HAHAHAHA WOOOW A TIGER IN THE BATHROOM WHAT DID THEY DOOO?? WOW MIKE TYSON? OMG THE ASIAN GUY IN THE TRUNK~ What the hell is supposed to be funny about the asian guy in the trunk? Like most people that I get in an argument with point to that scene as something of comedic substance. No, not really. Oh wow he did the jack-off splooge on you motion. So I paid 10 dollars for pictures at the end of a movie? I cringed through that flick and I am disgusted that the majority of America finds it funny.
/rant
oh and yeah donnie darko's a piece of shit, I think I liked it when I was 15, rewatched it like a few years later and was ashamed of myself
On July 20 2010 02:11 251 wrote: I swear I'm the only person that hates the Hangover out of all of my friends, and I will defend to the end and back that that movie is a complete piece of shit, and I have no idea how people find that mindless, boring, slow, wandering around Vegas doing nothing of a movie is considered comedy. I agree with you on every point, including some others. The only potentially funny character of The Hangover is Galifinakis' character, and even then he was subpar. I like his standup just fine, its not gut busting, but its good. But as a support? Our main characters are a douchey wannabe badass leader-type and a dentist crying about his tooth the entire movie. OMG HAHAHAHA WOOOW A TIGER IN THE BATHROOM WHAT DID THEY DOOO?? WOW MIKE TYSON? OMG THE ASIAN GUY IN THE TRUNK~ What the hell is supposed to be funny about the asian guy in the trunk? Like most people that I get in an argument with point to that scene as something of comedic substance. No, not really. Oh wow he did the jack-off splooge on you motion. So I paid 10 dollars for pictures at the end of a movie? I cringed through that flick and I am disgusted that the majority of America finds it funny.
/rant
oh and yeah donnie darko's a piece of shit, I think I liked it when I was 15, rewatched it like a few years later and was ashamed of myself
He's from the same county as me !! :D :D :D :D
But, i thought most of it wasnt funny but some of it was actually quite humorous, was another one of those, some parts are funny but others where they try hard to be funny are just stupid
On July 20 2010 01:48 fly.stat wrote: Terrible reviews of those movies, even if most of them are artistically barren.
The fact that you negate the strength of Pacino's acting in Scarface, in a time period where acting hasn't been scrutinized like it is today, shows that you have no value of innovation relative to time period in cinematic development. We've only started expecting great performances out of our actors in the last decade or so.
I usually don't take part in movie review threads because many people (and here come the flames) simply aren't as knowledgeable on cinema as they'd like to think they are. Sorry, but this is true for nearly everyone. I'm hoping to be a film critic on the side of my career in the near future, and the depths to which I have explored film really stun most people I meet, and I take pride in that. Teamliquid, and all internet forums in general, are NOT the places to make your voice heard in film critique.
For the most part his "reviews" of the movies express opinions about his perception of your opinion on a given film. Anyone can be an expert about how they feel about your tastes.
And, I will say, most of the listed movies have a degree of pop-culture status and yes, they do in fact suck. Scarface and The Hangover both entertained me though.
Finally, God yes Napoleon Dynamite is a piece of horse shit movie. The nunchucks line was almost funny but for the rest of the 90 minute load of vomit I failed to understand when the funny part was coming.
Saying Scarface was plagued by bad acting isn't what I would call an opinion. It's more like a falsified fact.
I judge movies based on artistic innovation, not "taste". I sample everything in the restaurant every time I go. I find joy in watching a movie to see the director's hand at work. I would like to make that crystal clear. I don't hate bad movies; I love a bunch of Tom Cruise movies and silly comedies. But would I say that they are bad, in the sense that they bring nothing new to the artistic palette of cinema? Yes I would. It goes by how you define "good" and "bad", and I'm of the belief that if you think something is good merely because you enjoyed it, you're missing the bigger picture. That's not to say that enjoying a movie can't be directly related to the director's skill in making you feel that way.
My philosophy on this matter is as follows: You can enjoy any movie you'd like, but when you begin to call them good or bad, you need to be particularly careful.
I have to agree with you on some of these, and i don't think requiem should be on this list of your most hated movies since this is probably one of the reasons why you made this blog. but the logic of your complaint about Requiem is pretty retarded, "oh this story is tired out, i've seen one like it before, i'm gonna say your taste in movies suck because i've seen one like this before. not everyone has seen one type of movie once.
The Hangover definitely isn't a movie-theater movie. I had a great time watching with friends at a sleepover (watching stupid shit with other ppl makes everything funny), but it was really a terrible terrible movie.
On July 20 2010 01:17 I_Love_Bacon wrote: Ok, ok, perhaps the title was meant to bate you a little. I'm just going to make a list and point out some reasons some popular movies (to one degree or another) are far from the bee's knees.
From this blog I'm pretty sure you're in fact the one with a terrible taste in movies. I'd imagine movies along the lines of Transformers and 2012 make it into your top 5.
Donnie Darko This emo pile of shit was the bane of my existence my Sophmore year of college. I don't remember how many times people would ask if I've seen it or wanted to. Guess what. Any movie that requires an explanation after the fact to THE BIGGEST THING IN THE STORY is retarded. Oh, you're supposed to watch the director's cut or dig around on their website to learn about his super powers? I came to watch a movie; not do a homework assignment on why Richard Kelly is full of shit. Make no mistake, I am not against having to think about a film to understand it. However, when all of your thinking is proven futile because the facts simply aren't there is merely an insult and waste of my time. Maybe if Gyllenhaal didn't have that stupid look on his face the whole time I wouldn't have been so induced by rage.
Donnie Darko was brilliant. I'm sorry you had to squeeze out an ounce of brain power to follow the movie in the slightest. It had a fresh story line that hadn't been seen before. It's a great cult movie that keeps you wondering 'till the end. Also Gyllenhaal's scene with his teacher is down right awesome.
The Hangover How far have our expectations of comedies dropped when this thing receives good reviews and makes hundreds of millions at the box office? Oh look, it's Mike Tyson! Oh look, he got tasered! Oh look, there's a tiger in the bathroom! Oh look, there's an asian man in a trunk! Non-stop gags as opposed to actual jokes left me feeling insulted quickly as a movie goer. I wasn't expecting some masterpiece that I'd rewatch repeatedly for the laughs, but I was expecting laughs. Perhaps I was simply raised watching 80's comedies and spoiled for life by doing so... but damn.
The Hangover was also fantastic. Sure it's full of slap-stick humor, but that's what made it hilarious, all the random shit that happened. You may sit in front of your computer every Saturday night, but I'm sure a lot of people can relate to this movie too. Waking up in the morning like "What the fuck happened" and then calling your friends so they can regale you with last nights events as you laugh your ass off at some of the crazy shit that happened.
Zach Galifinakis is absolutely hilarious in this movie, and I'm looking forward to his new stuff coming out soon. This movie didn't have some kind of deep underlying plot, or acting that will be analyzed for years, or awesome special effects, but it delivered where it counts... a "gag" comedy.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Jesus Christ. What a fucking snoozefest. Let's take a great movie like Forrest Gump, add a gimmick to it, remove all plot and forgettable characters... and..... ACTION! I haven't fallen asleep in the theaters before but between this and Public Enemies I was damn close.
Haven't seen it, but if you say it's bad I may just have to watch it.
Requiem for a Dream As somebody who has done more than dabble... I'll just say that I have reason to be attentive when watching this movie. Too bad it's a tired out story I've seen before. I don't care how dark it was or how well Aronosky sets the stage for it all to occur. I will say I am probably too harsh on this movie since I do find myself quoting "Ass to ass!" whenever I'm drunk. But whatever, I didn't like it.
I loved Requiem for a Dream. It explores the darkness behind hard drugs instead of taking a "Scary Movie II" approach. It shows you how badly you can fuck up your life when you were sitting on cloud 9 a few weeks back. This movie is friken amazing on all levels there's not much I can say.
Scarface Rappers have taste in shitty champagne and shitty movies. I really, really dislike Al Pacino. Perhaps I'm bias on this one for that fact alone. However, if I'm going to watch an actor go overboard on screen for 2 hours I'd rather watch Daniel Day Lewis do it than Pacino. It's plagued by overall bad acting and is about 45 minutes longer than it should be. I find it's talked about like Citizen Kane (relative to its field) that people simply throw its name out at the top of the list without any actual discussion. I blame MTV.
Classic, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
Napoleon Dynamite Worst. Movie. Ever.
I actually hated Napoleon Dynamite the first time I watched it (I was around 14), but the second time I watched it (around 18) I thought it was hilarious. This was because I took it too seriously as a comedy the first time around and the second time I just visioned the director trolling everyone and loved the movie.
The Professional (Leon) I remember last summer I decided to dig through the IMDB top 100 to see if there were any specific movies listed which I hadn't seen before. This one popped out at me. I got around to watching it and was extremely disappointed. I think a movie that just involved Gary Oldman and Jean Reno playing backgammon and discussing movie roles would have been more entertaining. No matter what happened I simply couldn't put Portman's character out of my mind; and for the story to work you couldn't do that.
Good not great, it was definitely worth watching, and I'm tired of arguing with you.
Vanilla Sky Ok, I laughed at the cum swallowing joke. Any movie with Kurt Russell deserves to be praised for a decade... he was Captain Ron, dude. Captain. fucking. Ron. That earns him a pass in my book for all time but even he couldn't save this shit pile of a movie. The whole movie just didn't work. I sat here on this paragraph for some time trying to think of why I didn't enjoy the movie and then I realized that as a whole it simply fell flat. Too long, unenjoyable experience, ultimately pointless... I wanted to call it pretentious but I feel people use that term too often when describing films they didn't like even if it does fit this particular film.
I feel like I'm forgetting some major names on my list but I could always revisit it. Noticeably lacking from my list is Titanic but I figured on a forum such as this that particular film wouldn't be as well received anyways.[/QUOTE]
donnie darko's third act is an indefensible failure that cheapens the rest of the movie with pseudo-intelligent science fiction and destroys one layer of the meta-narrative. it would have been a good movie otherwise, and it's the main reason this movie is so polarizing.
requiem for a dream was a bad movie because of its poseur aesthetic and the moralization of the movie. there was only the surface layer to the movie, which was glossy, and is what fans found entertaining. by no means an indicator of bad taste if someone likes this, but i find that its most vocal fans are high school students or younger, and those that revist it tend to like it less.
scarface is a silly gangster movie. i find the amount of love it gets odd too, but i think it's more about the lifestyle than the actual movie. but gangster movies are literally the most entertaining genre, and the movie has a bunch of really cool and memorable scenes (quoted ad infinitum), even if a lot of the movie drags, even if it isn't one of the top gangster films.
napoleon dynamite was pretty funny but it's in large part responsible for the indie targeted trash films that the studios churn out now. and for that i will never forgive it.
the professional is basically another gangster movie but it's fucking awesome. to be honest that's more your taste in movies than everyone else's.
vanilla sky was basically "the idiots guide to layered filmmaking!" we get it, the second layer is the formative rock and roll experience of the 1960s/70s
The fact that you negate the strength of Pacino's acting in Scarface, in a time period where acting hasn't been scrutinized like it is today, shows that you have no value of innovation relative to time period in cinematic development. We've only started expecting great performances out of our actors in the last decade or so.
........ what are you talking about
the development of film in the last decade has been the use of the artificial 3d camera (not the 3d eyeglass effect) and the reflection of altered perception/realities through the construction of the narrative, not noticing whether the actors can act well, aha
and i mean pacino is great at rage acting but there are many other actors that are better overall, have better range or are better at subtlety, etc. in every single time period of film, before and after.
On July 20 2010 04:36 traced wrote:vanilla sky was basically "the idiots guide to layered filmmaking!" we get it, the second layer is the formative rock and roll experience of the 1960s/70s
Pretty sure it's also Cameron Crowe at his most self-indulgent. Self-pitying superficial meditations on being baby boomers by and for baby boomers.
yeah i've only seen like 45 minutes of it and it was just stupid. it's a shame because i loved almost famous too, even if it that was self-indulgent too
Napoleon Dynamite was not my type of movie. I made it thirty minutes in, and the only part I laughed was when a cow got shot as a busload of kids went by screaming :O Yet some of my friends laugh from start to finish. I feel as though I'm missing something.
On July 20 2010 04:43 traced wrote: yeah i've only seen like 45 minutes of it and it was just stupid. it's a shame because i loved almost famous too, even if it that was self-indulgent too
Almost Famous makes up for it by being a sweet brodown fantasy movie for anyone who really likes music.
The fact that you negate the strength of Pacino's acting in Scarface, in a time period where acting hasn't been scrutinized like it is today, shows that you have no value of innovation relative to time period in cinematic development. We've only started expecting great performances out of our actors in the last decade or so.
........ what are you talking about
the development of film in the last decade has been the use of the artificial 3d camera (not the 3d eyeglass effect) and the reflection of altered perception/realities through the construction of the narrative, not noticing whether the actors can act well, aha
and i mean pacino is great at rage acting but there are many other actors that are better overall, have better range or are better at subtlety, etc. in every single time period of film, before and after.
...Because I said the ONLY development was pressure on actors to perform well.
Also because all pacino did was rage in that movie, and because I said he was the greatest actor of all time.
tiny dancer scene is immortal, i get a big bro smile just thinking about it.
donnie darko had a pretty nice setup, this self-contained world with its own rules, and you're trying to figure out - is it in the kids' mind? is it real? which is pretty common i guess but..l i thought it was well done. then in the third act they go, no, actually, it's not in the kids' mind, sorry. it's science fiction.
The fact that you negate the strength of Pacino's acting in Scarface, in a time period where acting hasn't been scrutinized like it is today, shows that you have no value of innovation relative to time period in cinematic development. We've only started expecting great performances out of our actors in the last decade or so.
........ what are you talking about
the development of film in the last decade has been the use of the artificial 3d camera (not the 3d eyeglass effect) and the reflection of altered perception/realities through the construction of the narrative, not noticing whether the actors can act well, aha
and i mean pacino is great at rage acting but there are many other actors that are better overall, have better range or are better at subtlety, etc. in every single time period of film, before and after.
...Because I said the ONLY development was pressure on actors to perform well.
Also because all pacino did was rage in that movie, and because I said he was the greatest actor of all time.
Yep, I'm done with this thread.
well to be fair you didn't say anything
"We've only started expecting great performances out of our actors in the last decade or so."
is just incorrect. and pacino is a good actor, but his talent is rage. i didn't say that's all he did, but that's when he's at his best. and i didn't imply you said he was the greatest of all-time, just that it's a silly argument to hold his acting up in that movie when it wasn't anything special.
My god, what an ignorant prick, all these movies are at least Okay.
You started with donnie darko which is a great movie, so I stopped thinking you were intelligent there, plus you were saying you couldn't get the fact that he did something special without searching on the internet.... lame blog 1/5
I wish I could have a real conversation about Donnie Darko, but I only watched it once on a swell stew of chemicals. From what I remember, I'll second your opinion. The best scenes were the one that captured the suburban ennui my friends and I felt at the time - the party soundtracked with Joy Division, the anti-authoritarian/high-school attitude in the film - so when the film tried to tie the thing into blackholes/wormholes, I really lost interest.
Because I am not well-versed in film, I tend to think of films in conversation as fantasies, which may not be their intentions but it's ultimately how they succeed. For example, if Scarface is meant to be a gritty story about success, hubris, and the American dream, then it's a complete and total failure. it seems to be more of a film for males who are attracted to Tony Montana's power, who put emotional stock in his diatribes, and who find his stylized rise and downfall incredibly, attractively stylish. The cult that surrounds the film is basically this, and for anyone who doesn't find that very attractive the film is a failure. Having watched it numerous times, it just played on the screen, there, limpid. I gave my DVD to a friend for a drive to work.
I totally agree about Napoleon Dynamite...After hearing all the hype about how funny it was I finally decided to watch it on pay per view....I spent about an hour and a half waiting for somthing funny to happen....and it didnt. I wanted my 3$ and hour and a half back! Kind of agree with you about the Hangover...I watched it once and was mildly humerous, watched it a second time and was bored and kind of annoyed. Everyone kepy telling me it was better then Old School which is one of my favorite comedies...liars!
Aha I don't know why everyones raging its his opinion on a review :p. I do agree with napoleon dynamite 100% that movie was a piece of shit in my eyes (everyone in freshman year of highschool quoted the shit out of that fuckfest). I don't even know what category of humor that movie was in....dry humor?? Idenno I really disliked.
As for donnie darko..I can't say the movie sucked but I can say I have given up on the movie cause I have slept EVERY single time I get a chance to watch it :p. So there's something I'm not attracted to. Mind you I have sat through 2 lotr movies in one sitting and countless other long hour movies + sad slow movies (THE ROAD + more)
So what to you really like to see in a movie? what do you recommend ? After I see, hear or read people trashing stuff out of the fly like this and not in a calm true pensive and logical manner, i feel that they are too hot headed and they just throw negativity around.. try making a blog that has movies that you like not the ones you hate... positive mind, positive thoughts, positive life..
On July 20 2010 01:17 I_Love_Bacon wrote: Ok, ok, perhaps the title was meant to bate you a little. I'm just going to make a list and point out some reasons some popular movies (to one degree or another) are far from the bee's knees.
From this blog I'm pretty sure you're in fact the one with a terrible taste in movies. I'd imagine movies along the lines of Transformers and 2012 make it into your top 5.
You seemed to miss the point. I directly state that I'm aware most of these opinions aren't popular. I could make a gigantic list of movies I do enjoy that most people would agree without. However, agreeing with everybody doesn't provide any interesting discussion or reading. And for the record, Transformers (the first) wasn't terrible. The 2nd was one of the worst films I'd ever seen and 2012 was a CG circlejerk that made Armageddon look good.
Donnie Darko This emo pile of shit was the bane of my existence my Sophmore year of college. I don't remember how many times people would ask if I've seen it or wanted to. Guess what. Any movie that requires an explanation after the fact to THE BIGGEST THING IN THE STORY is retarded. Oh, you're supposed to watch the director's cut or dig around on their website to learn about his super powers? I came to watch a movie; not do a homework assignment on why Richard Kelly is full of shit. Make no mistake, I am not against having to think about a film to understand it. However, when all of your thinking is proven futile because the facts simply aren't there is merely an insult and waste of my time. Maybe if Gyllenhaal didn't have that stupid look on his face the whole time I wouldn't have been so induced by rage.
Donnie Darko was brilliant. I'm sorry you had to squeeze out an ounce of brain power to follow the movie in the slightest. It had a fresh story line that hadn't been seen before. It's a great cult movie that keeps you wondering 'till the end. Also Gyllenhaal's scene with his teacher is down right awesome.
No. The ultimate conclusion and question in the movie remained unanswered. How the story worked was through a series of twists and turns that kept you interested and while I found myself less than enthusiastic I was still interested. However, when it came time to put up or shut up the movie dropped the ball.
The Hangover How far have our expectations of comedies dropped when this thing receives good reviews and makes hundreds of millions at the box office? Oh look, it's Mike Tyson! Oh look, he got tasered! Oh look, there's a tiger in the bathroom! Oh look, there's an asian man in a trunk! Non-stop gags as opposed to actual jokes left me feeling insulted quickly as a movie goer. I wasn't expecting some masterpiece that I'd rewatch repeatedly for the laughs, but I was expecting laughs. Perhaps I was simply raised watching 80's comedies and spoiled for life by doing so... but damn.
The Hangover was also fantastic. Sure it's full of slap-stick humor, but that's what made it hilarious, all the random shit that happened. You may sit in front of your computer every Saturday night, but I'm sure a lot of people can relate to this movie too. Waking up in the morning like "What the fuck happened" and then calling your friends so they can regale you with last nights events as you laugh your ass off at some of the crazy shit that happened.
Zach Galifinakis is absolutely hilarious in this movie, and I'm looking forward to his new stuff coming out soon. This movie didn't have some kind of deep underlying plot, or acting that will be analyzed for years, or awesome special effects, but it delivered where it counts... a "gag" comedy.
Oooh, personal insults. Did I strike a nerve. Is Zach Galifianakis your uncle or something? Those stories which you share with your friends usually have an element of "you had to be there" which comes from an understanding of your friends personality and past acts already. This movie, however, contained nothing of the sort. The characters were empty vessels used to wander around and do cartwheels.
I don't like Pacino as an actor. I think he can get away with his over-the-top overacting style in a lot of his films and Scarface is one of those. However, I meant the rest of the cast were weak in acting. Watching Pacino yell at the screen for 2 1/2 hours isn't my cup of tea but given the # of times I've seen him do it it doesn't really bother me anymore.
Perhaps in a few days I'll put up a list of films most people didn't like but I did. Granted, a list like that is much harder to formulate and I think I'd run out of ideas very fast. I'd sooner make a list of films that people should see but probably haven't since they weren't blockbusters.
On July 20 2010 06:56 I_Love_Bacon wrote: ooh, personal insults. Did I strike a nerve. Is Zach Galifianakis your uncle or something? Those stories which you share with your friends usually have an element of "you had to be there" which comes from an understanding of your friends personality and past acts already. This movie, however, contained nothing of the sort. The characters were empty vessels used to wander around and do cartwheels.
oooh personal insults ????? Do you realise how stupid that sounds, look at your thread title, and try thinking next time.
On July 20 2010 06:56 I_Love_Bacon wrote: The 2nd was one of the worst films I'd ever seen and 2012 was a CG circlejerk that made Armageddon look good.
i dont care about all your other bad opinions but plz dont insult armageddon, that's not right.
Vanilla Sky is just a bad remake of the great spanish movie "Abre los ojos".
As a huge David Fincher fan, I had high expectations for Benjamin Button and was very disappointed. I enjoyed the chain reaction scene which eventually leads to the car accident.
On July 20 2010 01:25 Liquid`Tyler wrote: I like when I don't like something everyone else likes because it reminds me that I'm different.
im usually against just posting a smiley so my explanation of it will make it more than just that, but after reading the op then reading this post i was all
Napoleon Dynamite is a love or hate type of film, and I don't care for those who hate it without appreciating it's brilliance. The reason that you guys dislike it so much is the reason it's so great.
On July 20 2010 13:26 Zurles wrote: Napoleon Dynamite is a love or hate type of film, and I don't care for those who hate it without appreciating it's brilliance. The reason that you guys dislike it so much is the reason it's so great.
Whats brilliant about it? All i saw was a bunch of stupid shit that would make 1st graders laugh. I mean "freakin idiot" everyone at school thought that was hilarious, when quite frankly i thought it was pretty stupid.. I ask you to describe it's "brilliance" though..
I kinda agree with the exception of Leon (it was pretty entertaining, yes it is overrated, but whatever) and Benjamin Button (I am a Brad Pitt fanboy...but aside from that it was well directed and acted)
EDIT: Oh, man, you didnt just say Scarface was lame... and Requiem was bad...
Scarface is just a fun movie. The speech about being the bad guy is fucking great man, undeniably entertaining. It seems like you might hate it because people think it is serious art. On that note, Martin Scorcese is an overrated piece of shit.
I agree with you that all these movies are overrated, but Requiem for a Dream was faily good.. the rest are basically absolute trash in one way or another.
Also, LOL jalstar, fight club is an amazing film... great storytelling, an intelligent and provoking plot, it was an instant classic back when it was released and still remains so true and relevant for society today.
On July 21 2010 14:50 jalstar wrote: one obvious twist plus teenage angst (corporations are like, bad) plus heavy use of voice over is bad film-making, sorry but it is.
it's relevant to society in that whiny teenagers still believe those things
I'm sorry but if that's all the film was to you then you seriously missed out on a lot of the subtext, issues, themes and dialogue. I can't take your criticism seriously when you address the plot in such an oversimplified manner.
I liked the soap scene where they make soap from human fat. That was easily the deepest part of the movie, selling mankind (which Durden looks at with scorn) their excesses and waste back to them. The rest of the movie was variations on "corporations r bad lolol"
On July 21 2010 14:58 jalstar wrote: I liked the soap scene where they make soap from human fat. That was easily the deepest part of the movie, selling mankind (which Durden looks at with scorn) their excesses and waste back to them. The rest of the movie was variations on "corporations r bad lolol"
The movie wasn't even about "corporations r bad", it was about humanity, human nature, consumerism, psychology and capitalism. The ending premise of sending financial records back to 0 was about giving man a fresh start, not about corporations. The plot had jungian ideas and explored so much about human nature and consumerism/capitalism, corruption and primitive behaviour.
You have a very limited grasp about the plot, maybe you just didn't understand it. I had to study it extensively for my Behavioural Studies course, there is an awful lot more there than what you are giving it credit for.
The movie is terribly easy to understand, and while there were other themes, the capitalism/consumerism theme ("we buy too much stuff from evil corporations") took up around 90% of the movie. Seriously, most of the movie is the kind of stuff my friends ranted about when they were 14. It's childish.
The "fresh start" is a fresh start from corporations, the idea being that corporations have too much control over our lives and some sort of anarchy would be better. It's the same philosophy espoused by teenagers in black jackets with punk rock band patches.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i30.tinypic.com/2uhldso.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://filmstripcomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/The-Wizard.jpg)
and then 
