Greatest Movie You Didn't Like
- Thread starter -Drifter-
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm gonna have to agree with 2001, because any movie that needs a book to be read to understand the movie is a failure, in my opinion. Every other aspect of the film was fine (except that chimp prologue. That went on far too long for the simple story it told.
I massively agree with Schindler's list. Aside from being way too needlessly long, two parts really killed it for me- the first was the last time you see the red coat girl. I found that the use of colour for that alone seemed to imply that I would not have recognised that it was the same kid without it, which I found an overwhelming insult to my intelligence.
The second part was when Schindler just broke down about not saving enough Jews. We'd seen him in far worse situations, and confronted with imagery of such a barbaric nature that his ability to remain composed seemed total. Then, at the end of the film, he's groping wildly at his possetions to try and save more Jews like it may still make a difference- completey distraught and borderline insane. If someone told me that really happened I suppose I'd accept it, but to me that was so out of place with the composed way in which the character played through the rest of the film. All around, I thought The Pianist was a much, much better Holocaust movie.
OK- Flame shield up:
For me it's Scarface, Inception, and, uh... well, Ghost in the Shell.
Scarface because there is absolutely nothing remarkable about it. It's just a standard rise and fall story. I have no idea why it is seen as better as any of the others. Is it the brutality of it? Other films of the time seemed to do just as much. Is it the fantasy of having a drug empire or something? Can't say I can understand the merits of that, either.
Inception, because the only truly amazing things about it are the soundtrack, and when Ellen Page first starts messing with the world. Everything else just isn't as imaginative as it thinks it is. Also they keep establishing rules, then breaking them over and over while still being alright. That really pissed me off. If they wanted to do that they should have made it a TV series so they'd have the time to make it look less BS. It also bothered me the way the snow sequence is supposedly inspired by On Her Magesty's Secret Service, but is total garbage by comparison. They did nothing with it! a few snow jeeps and a building collapses again, basically, compared to the edge of your seat ski-chas down the mountain and subsequent manhunt in town and the car chase through the blizzard in OHMSS.
As for Ghost in the Shell, well... there's nothing wrong with having a philosophical side to an action movie, or action in a philosophical movie, but if you're going to have the majority of the film about navel gazing, at least have more than half a page's worth of material to work with! Mamoru Oshii seems hellbent on taking interesting questions of life and stretching his films out as far as humanly possible -and-then-some- just to make them seem really deep. Granted, at least 'GITS' had more to say than the utter waste of time 'Sky Crawlers', but there is still waaay too much time taken up by wooden characters doing absolutely nothing whatsoever.
That's why I actually really enjoy the GITS Show- you still get your dose of philosophy and questions of robots and souls, but the show just doesn't have enough time to dwell on them for too long, so they're forced to cut it short so we can get to the actual police procedural/team banter/kick-ass action sequences that actually give the show some meat to it. Oshii may love to give us something to think about after watching his work, but he forgets that you need something to watch during the work, as well.
Then again, I though Steamboy was better than Akira, so what would I know, right?
I massively agree with Schindler's list. Aside from being way too needlessly long, two parts really killed it for me- the first was the last time you see the red coat girl. I found that the use of colour for that alone seemed to imply that I would not have recognised that it was the same kid without it, which I found an overwhelming insult to my intelligence.
The second part was when Schindler just broke down about not saving enough Jews. We'd seen him in far worse situations, and confronted with imagery of such a barbaric nature that his ability to remain composed seemed total. Then, at the end of the film, he's groping wildly at his possetions to try and save more Jews like it may still make a difference- completey distraught and borderline insane. If someone told me that really happened I suppose I'd accept it, but to me that was so out of place with the composed way in which the character played through the rest of the film. All around, I thought The Pianist was a much, much better Holocaust movie.
OK- Flame shield up:
For me it's Scarface, Inception, and, uh... well, Ghost in the Shell.
Scarface because there is absolutely nothing remarkable about it. It's just a standard rise and fall story. I have no idea why it is seen as better as any of the others. Is it the brutality of it? Other films of the time seemed to do just as much. Is it the fantasy of having a drug empire or something? Can't say I can understand the merits of that, either.
Inception, because the only truly amazing things about it are the soundtrack, and when Ellen Page first starts messing with the world. Everything else just isn't as imaginative as it thinks it is. Also they keep establishing rules, then breaking them over and over while still being alright. That really pissed me off. If they wanted to do that they should have made it a TV series so they'd have the time to make it look less BS. It also bothered me the way the snow sequence is supposedly inspired by On Her Magesty's Secret Service, but is total garbage by comparison. They did nothing with it! a few snow jeeps and a building collapses again, basically, compared to the edge of your seat ski-chas down the mountain and subsequent manhunt in town and the car chase through the blizzard in OHMSS.
As for Ghost in the Shell, well... there's nothing wrong with having a philosophical side to an action movie, or action in a philosophical movie, but if you're going to have the majority of the film about navel gazing, at least have more than half a page's worth of material to work with! Mamoru Oshii seems hellbent on taking interesting questions of life and stretching his films out as far as humanly possible -and-then-some- just to make them seem really deep. Granted, at least 'GITS' had more to say than the utter waste of time 'Sky Crawlers', but there is still waaay too much time taken up by wooden characters doing absolutely nothing whatsoever.
That's why I actually really enjoy the GITS Show- you still get your dose of philosophy and questions of robots and souls, but the show just doesn't have enough time to dwell on them for too long, so they're forced to cut it short so we can get to the actual police procedural/team banter/kick-ass action sequences that actually give the show some meat to it. Oshii may love to give us something to think about after watching his work, but he forgets that you need something to watch during the work, as well.
Then again, I though Steamboy was better than Akira, so what would I know, right?
Napoleon Dynamite. Hated the characters. Hated the jokes. Hated that stupid little dance in the middle of the story.
Holy cow, how could I forget Donnie Darko! Probably the king of overrated movies!clipse15 said:
On a less severe note- I never really got how Once Upon a Time In America got crowned best western ever. The intro was great but overall I thought The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was way better.
The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile.
The over-emotional cheese and corn in those movies is so fucking laughable. See, I don't mind cheese and corn as long as it isn't played totally straight, which both these movies do to a sickening degree.
WALL-E and Up.
These movies would've been great if they were short films of 15 to 30 minutes long. But instead they're padded with bullshit (fat people, talking dogs flying biplanes) in order to turn them into feature length films and to pander to the kiddies.
Every movie Tarantino has made after Jackie Brown. The guy is just spooging his fanboy juices in every damn movie he makes at this point, and everyone seems to love him for it and calling him a genius.
The over-emotional cheese and corn in those movies is so fucking laughable. See, I don't mind cheese and corn as long as it isn't played totally straight, which both these movies do to a sickening degree.
WALL-E and Up.
These movies would've been great if they were short films of 15 to 30 minutes long. But instead they're padded with bullshit (fat people, talking dogs flying biplanes) in order to turn them into feature length films and to pander to the kiddies.
Every movie Tarantino has made after Jackie Brown. The guy is just spooging his fanboy juices in every damn movie he makes at this point, and everyone seems to love him for it and calling him a genius.
Hey! Vault101 is back! How was the suspension?Vault101 said:
Back on topic, while I appreciate Blade Runner, I still find it a fairly boring film to sit through.
Ghost in the Shell on the other hand... If I hadn't seen this, I would probably still be dismissing anime as 'that weird Japanese shit full of tentacle rape'
though I'm not sure I can give Ghost in the Shell full points (the first movie) even going in with no prior knowlge of the source material (or the anime that came later) it feels seriously cut up and striped down (har har..unintentional pun XD) like half a movie.... perhaps it would be better watched back to back with "GITS2:inocence"The_Waspman said:
and I do prefer the more "grounded" artstyle from back then....
anyway, my first Anime film was perfect blue..and one of my favorites
The Godfather series.
Dull, drawn out, and now unfortunately cliched.
Maybe if I had seen it before I saw other mob movies it would of been better.
Dull, drawn out, and now unfortunately cliched.
Maybe if I had seen it before I saw other mob movies it would of been better.
GunsmithKitten said:
-Drifter- said:
Okay, guys. I'm only going to say this once. You're WRONG. You're all WRONG.itsthesheppy said:
You're WRONG because Natural Born Killers was NEVER a great movie. It was ALWAYS awful. Your hatred for it is perfectly SANE AND NORMAL and not newsworthy in any way. It's absurdly heavy handed, the acting is atrocious, the writing is terrible, and the direction is OMG GEE WHIZ I'M FRESH OUT OF FILM SCHOOL. About the only good thing about it was the soundtrack.
Stop making it sound like NBK was a classic film. It's hurting my braaaaaiiinnnnn...
Titanic directed by James Cameron.
I just felt that the movie was over-hyped and generally not that interesting. It was also the first long movie that I have ever seen and at the time of its release, I was an impatient little kid. For the first hour and half I was wondering, "When is the boat going to sink?" and when it finally did, I had lost all interest.
I just felt that the movie was over-hyped and generally not that interesting. It was also the first long movie that I have ever seen and at the time of its release, I was an impatient little kid. For the first hour and half I was wondering, "When is the boat going to sink?" and when it finally did, I had lost all interest.
Avatar- good special effects, lousy story.
Titanic- Um... too dull?
2001: A Space Oddysey- makes my brain hurt.
Titanic- Um... too dull?
2001: A Space Oddysey- makes my brain hurt.
All but the last two Harry Potter movies. Even then those movies were only okay. Of course i never understood why Harry Potter is so popular.
Django Unchained will be yet another exploitation movie filled with Tarantino's favourite movie/geek references. I'll be looking forward to the time when he's exhausted all the 70's sub genres, and he'll have to come up with his own original ideas again like he did back in the nineties.GunsmithKitten said:
...If by then he still can.
Actually, probably 2001. I've not liked other big movies but that was more a 'meh' I generally never want to see 2001 again. The problem is that 2001 is pretentious bullshit incarnate. From the actual project, to the directors talk about it, to the reaction of people who talk about it. As a movie, when you strip the pretentiousness, its a really boring movie where little happens and with odd direction, through the visuals can be pretty (when the camera isn't holding on a single image too long).
The Alien Franchise, people called it tense and suspenseful, I called it "I don't care if these people get killed.". And the set designs were far less imaginative than say, Prometheus. Which I thought was a better film because I liked those character slightly better and all the landscapes and technology look far better, the characters admittedly were still quite flat though.
Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. I think the gothic city design was cartoonishly grim, and impossible for me to think of as some kind of bredding ground for villainy, even compared to the actual cartoon based off the films. Michael Keaton wasn't a very believable Batman to me because he was skinner than half his enemies, his costume had a giant yellow symbol on it, and his Bat-Voice wasn't very threatening (Better than Bale's, but that's about it.). I also didn't quite like the structure of the plot either, this Batman's origins are not explained, so like above, I find it hard to care about Bruce Wayne. I also didn't like that it turned out the Joker was evil for no particular reason. ALSO, Batman kills The Joker amongst others, which was definitely against his entire character the last time I checked.
Whilst I'm at it, I didn't like the Superman films either, the only thing I can't argue with is that Christopher Reeve did indeed do very distinct performances between Clark Kent and Superman. But that's about it, the plot was very mild and hardly tested Superman's limits as a hero, the ending in particular I felt was a massive cop-out, I always assumed the ongoing plot was that Superman isn't a god, and that he can't help everybody, but the ending says "Just kidding bro, course he can fly at light speed, travel through time and disarm two nuclear missiles.", which kind of broke his attempted human side over its knee.
Also, Airplane! after a single watching, and Airplane II on the first watching. The jokes were ok the first time, but I remembered them the second time, and indeed remembered the identical jokes in the second film.
Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. I think the gothic city design was cartoonishly grim, and impossible for me to think of as some kind of bredding ground for villainy, even compared to the actual cartoon based off the films. Michael Keaton wasn't a very believable Batman to me because he was skinner than half his enemies, his costume had a giant yellow symbol on it, and his Bat-Voice wasn't very threatening (Better than Bale's, but that's about it.). I also didn't quite like the structure of the plot either, this Batman's origins are not explained, so like above, I find it hard to care about Bruce Wayne. I also didn't like that it turned out the Joker was evil for no particular reason. ALSO, Batman kills The Joker amongst others, which was definitely against his entire character the last time I checked.
Whilst I'm at it, I didn't like the Superman films either, the only thing I can't argue with is that Christopher Reeve did indeed do very distinct performances between Clark Kent and Superman. But that's about it, the plot was very mild and hardly tested Superman's limits as a hero, the ending in particular I felt was a massive cop-out, I always assumed the ongoing plot was that Superman isn't a god, and that he can't help everybody, but the ending says "Just kidding bro, course he can fly at light speed, travel through time and disarm two nuclear missiles.", which kind of broke his attempted human side over its knee.
Also, Airplane! after a single watching, and Airplane II on the first watching. The jokes were ok the first time, but I remembered them the second time, and indeed remembered the identical jokes in the second film.
