# The other side of film dissonance...



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 6, 2003)

Well, I got to the Raise Dead Film thread after all my favorites had already been taken, so I'm gonna start off the other side of the coin.

What films have you seen that "The Critics" and most people you've talked to liked, but you just couldn't stand?

The big one for me is Fargo. Dear lord save me. My bf and I watched that entire movie on tape saying "This has to get better. There has to be a reason this thing is nominated for an oscar. Please, make the hurting stop."

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Jun 6, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *Well, I got to the Raise Dead Film thread after all my favorites had already been taken, so I'm gonna start off the other side of the coin.
> 
> What films have you seen that "The Critics" and most people you've talked to liked, but you just couldn't stand?
> 
> The big one for me is Fargo. Dear lord save me. My bf and I watched that entire movie on tape saying "This has to get better. There has to be a reason this thing is nominated for an oscar. Please, make the hurting stop."*




One for me was _The English Patient_.  It literally put me to sleep _before the opening credits stopped rolling._  An amazingly boring, turgid, overlong movie.

I did like _Fargo_, but thought that, like _The Usual Suspects_, it wasn't as good as lots of people seemed to think.


----------



## DanMcS (Jun 6, 2003)

Mulholand Drive.  Sweet jesus.  My friends liked this movie, and it drove me insane.  Nothing happens for a long time, and then some people talk, and then nothing happens for a while longer, and then it turns out it didn't matter anyway because it was all a dream.  I want that part of my life back.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Jun 6, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> *Mulholand Drive.  Sweet jesus.  My friends liked this movie, and it drove me insane.  Nothing happens for a long time, and then some people talk, and then nothing happens for a while longer, and then it turns out it didn't matter anyway because it was all a dream.  I want that part of my life back. *




well, yeah, but it has... well, you know, in it.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 6, 2003)

Something about Mary.....everyone said how good it was and the blah blah blah....it was horrid, not the least bit funny.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 6, 2003)

Titanic: I'm not alone I know, but it does seem to be way more popular with the women while you would need to shoot me and drag my dead body to the theater before I would see it. 

Rocky Horror: I will go insane and start killing people if I am ever forced to go see this again.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 6, 2003)

The Full Monty. I heard all this great stuff about it, how it was the funniest UK comedy film, like, ever, and then I saw it and I was of the opinion "Yeah, it's OK."


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 6, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Titanic: I'm not alone I know, but it does seem to be way more popular with the women while you would need to shoot me and drag my dead body to the theater before I would see it.
> *




I take this perverse pride in never having seen Titanic (or episode one). I'm weird that way....

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Mallus (Jun 6, 2003)

Anything by Todd Solandz {Welcome to the Dollhouse, Happiness, Storytelling}.

His films are indie circuit critics' favorites.

They fill me with anger, particularly Happiness. When my friends praise him, I wonder if they are, in fact, insane.

And anything with Jim Carrey, with the exception of The Truman Show and The Mask.

And Armegeddon. I hate that film for dragging two of my favorite actors down with it; Bruce Willis {he never fails to entertain me, wait, Armegeddon} and Steve Buscemi.

Funny, though, I liked Titanic...


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 6, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> And Armegeddon. I hate that film for dragging two of my favorite actors down with it; Bruce Willis {he never fails to entertain me, wait, Armegeddon} and Steve Buscemi.
> *




Ugh, Armagedon... Wouldn't it have been easier to write "you love america and woman are soft and nice but useless when it comes down to it" on a lead pipe and beat me over the head with THAT for a few hours... I least I wouldn't remember it....

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Mallus (Jun 6, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *Wouldn't it have been easier to write "you love america and woman are soft and nice but useless when it comes down to it" on a lead pipe and beat me over the head with THAT for a few hours... *




I don't know about _easier_, but it would been a more pleasant experience.

Oh, that reminds me, any film touched by Michael Bay's clumsy spastic bear-paw of hand...

[Ah, thought of terrible films being soothed away by the dulcet?! sound of Bjork in her Sugarcubes days... Hit is a marvelous song]


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 6, 2003)

I'm one those funny buggers that actually liked Titanic, although 
it kinda goes downhill after the ship starts to sink.

Now, I can't stand Armageddon. I kinda liked it in the theatre, 
because it looked kewl and had Steve Buscemi an' Bruce Willis in 
it an' stuff. Then I saw it on TV later and felt ill.

Gladiator is movie I just cannot understand what the big deal is. 
Sure, it's a fine flick. Kinda neat. But not. That. Bloody. Good.

I can't stand Shakespear in Love and I'm one of those rare types 
of straight males that can actually sit through complete romantic 
movies without strong abominal pain. Even the large cast of 
excellent actors couldn't save it for me.

The Maltese Falcon. I like Noir movies. I like Humphrey Bogart 
movies. Yet, I found it horribly dull. Dull. Dull. Dull. 

First Knight. I know it didn't get outstanding reviews all around,
but my friends seem to like it. Why I don't understand.

And there are many, many more. I just can't remember 'em.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 6, 2003)

Titanic: Hated it...except for when people started to die. That really helped.

Armageddon: Ick...that AND Deep Impact...both I didn't like...but hey, people died again...so, redeamed somewhat.

Fargo: Just kind of...eh...wasn't as good as everyone seemed to claim.

On others...Gladiator I loved...I'm a sucker for Roman stuff, even if it isn't completely accurate. It was a fun movie...Rocky Horror Picture Show...you don't HAVE to like this. You just have to see it once in your life. Its okay to be scarred by it.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 6, 2003)

I actually liked 95% of the above movies, especially Fargo.  Bygones.

One movie I hated that others seemed to love was "The Thin Red Line."  I got the plot and everything that they were going for as for the themes but it was just a flat movie.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 6, 2003)

I too loved Fargo, but I was always surprised by the movie's 
popularity, because IMO you really need an special sense of 
humour for them.

And I just don't *get* Thin Red Line. I mean, the plot an' all,
sure, but it's just so boooooooring.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 7, 2003)

I'm also a big _Fargo_ fan, loved _There's Something About Mary_, though _Happiness_ was simply amazing, and like most of the other movies already mentioned, but...

*Gladiator was awful.* I really don't understand what anyone sees in it. Totally predictable, really lousy acting, very dull fighting, and utterly unbelievable. Yuck. Oscar winning? It is to laugh.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 7, 2003)

Ooh, I have something original for this thread!!!     

Erm, yeah.

_Minority Report_.  I don't see why everyone thought that it was a great film.  The only two parts I thought were cool were Tom Cruise and the psychic running away through the mall, and the fact that the whole ending could have been a halo dream.  Otherwise I thought the film was horrible, and I'm really glad I had a friend working at the movie theater so I could get in for free.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 7, 2003)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *Gladiator was awful. I really don't understand what anyone sees in it. Totally predictable, really lousy acting, very dull fighting, and utterly unbelievable. Yuck. Oscar winning? It is to laugh. *




B... but... they based the music off of Holst's Mars!

No, you're right, definitely not Oscar winning.  But then again, I've lost total faith in the Oscars after the last few years.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 7, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> *No, you're right, definitely not Oscar winning.  But then again, I've lost total faith in the Oscars after the last few years. *




Yeah, ever since they let, of all things, _Driving Miss Daisy_ win an Oscar. . . .  Sheesh!  Do the Oscar folks only care about moving storytelling and well-wrought drama?  What's with them?



On a lighter note, I went to review Gladiator for my highschool newspaper when it came out.  I walked out after the first little war scene, because it looked like they were just doing a documentary of a Roman war.  Just combat for its own sake.  The storytelling was too slow, and there was no point to having 15 minutes of melee at the beginning of the movie when you don't even care about the characters yet.  

I've rewatched Gladiator since then, and I still don't groove with the characters.  Russel Crowe is too subdued for me to really care for his character.  When I compare Gladiator to Braveheart (both have lots of battles, and a hero that rebels against the king after his family is killed, and who dies at the end), I find that Braveheart was just a more interesting movie.  The characters in Braveheart had flavor, and could be serious and dramatic while still being fun to watch.

However, my walking out of the theater on Gladiator did pay off a little.  I walked into another theater, playing Love and Basketball, by Spike Lee.  That movie was fun.


----------



## Villano (Jun 7, 2003)

I thought Gladiator was okay.  Certainly not the "great" film it was made out to be.

I used to feel the same way about LotR: FotR.  However, after being pretty much abused everytime I've been asked my opinion about it, I now officially *hate* the movie.

Seriously, there are people to which you can't say, "Well, it was okay, but I don't think I'll ever watch it again".  I think there are some people in the world with such self-esteem issues that they feel that they need to constantly validate their likes or dislikes.  I honestly think that they need to convince other people to like the same things they do or else that would somehow make them wrong.

Personally, I don't give a crap if someone dislikes a movie I like or vice versa.  Their opinions don't take away my enjoyment of it.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 7, 2003)

Gangs of New York - After the semi-interesting beginning (and not in a good way) the movie turns into something so awful it's not even funny.

The Patriot - Three Oscar nominations? What?

La Vita è bella - So I had see it. Couldn't watch all the way to the end, but I did try.

Sling Blade - Ugh.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 7, 2003)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *
> However, my walking out of the theater on Gladiator did pay off a little.  I walked into another theater, playing Love and Basketball, by Spike Lee.  That movie was fun.   *




Love and Basketball was directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood, and Spike Lee produced the film.  You might be thinking of He Got Game, a basketball-themed film which Lee did direct, but I think Love and Basketball came out the same year Gladiator did.

If the women in the movie you saw were not awful wenches, sex objects, or complete ditzes, it was probably Love and Basketball.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 7, 2003)

Let me add Eyes Wide Shut.  Unwatchable, and I LOVE Kubrick.  I've never seen a real-life husband/wife acting combo who looked less convincing playing a husband and wife.  And it was just . . . painful, is the best adjective I can muster.  This is not how I want to remember a great visionary such as Stanley Kubrick.

Ugh, now I have to go watch Dr. Strangelove to wash away the bad taste in my mouth.

BTW, did anyone see Vanilla Sky?  Is it just me, or was Tom Cruise's chemistry with Penelope Cruz, like, 100 times more believable than his on-screen chemistry with Nicole Kidman?


----------



## Wayside (Jun 7, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *And anything with Jim Carrey, with the exception of The Truman Show and The Mask.
> *




I liked The Majestic, but maybe only because of the ragtime.



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> *I used to feel the same way about LotR: FotR.  However, after being pretty much abused everytime I've been asked my opinion about it, I now officially hate the movie.*




Villano, I got your back.  I'm not a fan of either LotR movie, which doesn't entirely surprise me since I was not a fan of the books.  I can, however, stand them.  I got through them, after all.



			
				Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *Let me add Eyes Wide Shut.  Unwatchable, and I LOVE Kubrick.  I've never seen a real-life husband/wife acting combo who looked less convincing playing a husband and wife.  And it was just . . . painful, is the best adjective I can muster.*




I have a strange infatuation with the Kundera-esque relationships in that movie.  The acting fits them well, I think.  The rest.. feh.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 7, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *One movie I hated that others seemed to love was "The Thin Red Line."  I got the plot and everything that they were going for as for the themes but it was just a flat movie. *




Amen to that.  If I may quote Maxim magazine's thoughts on _The Thin Red Line_:   I walked into this movie expecting a World War II action movie, but instead found myself at a candy-ass poetry reading.

But, IIRC, not many critics liked the movie either.

Let's see... some other movies that people seemed to like but I can't stand...

*A.I.:*  What the hell?  Why do so many people like this movie?  I had high hopes for this movie after hearing the critics drool over it, but aferwards I was thuroughly underwhelmed.

*The English Patient:*  Yawn.  Assenpfeffer hit the nail on the head with his thoughts of the movie.

*Moulan Rouge:*  You know, there's a reason that musicals stopped being popular 30 years ago.

Sorry John, but I've just got to mention one more that probably won't make you happy...

*Chasing Amy:*  To this day, I _still_ don't understand why this is considered Kevin Smith's best movie.  I rented it and watched it with my friend because we were expecting to be entertained like we were with _Clerks_, but when it was over I actually apologized to my friend for subjecting him to it.  It had some genuinely funny moments in it, but the film on a whole left a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 7, 2003)

You may all kill me now....

 I don't know what critics thought of it but gamers sure as hell like it.

 Monty Python and the Holy Grail-  I have been forced to watch this crap more times than I care to admit.  I can't stand it.  I bought the DVD in hopes I grow to like it, never did.  Whats worse at cons theres that guy who has to freakin quote that movie every 10 seconds.  I wanna tap him on the shoulder when he turns yell NI!!!!!!!!!!!! in his face and kick him in the family jewels, and then gloat over his fallen body and say "Is it only flesh wound @#$#$%^%&^!!"

 The Lion King-  I don't why, but I saw this movie once and didn't care for it.  Maybe its because I am uncaring bastard.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 7, 2003)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *Whats worse at cons theres that guy who has to freakin quote that movie every 10 seconds.  I wanna tap him on the shoulder when he turns yell NI!!!!!!!!!!!! in his face and kick him in the family jewels, and then gloat over his fallen body and say "Is it only flesh wound @#$#$%^%&^!!"*




Well, I think I just woke my family up laughing so hard...  



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Moulan Rouge: You know, there's a reason that musicals stopped being popular 30 years ago.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




I'll go with both of those.  Moulin Rouge was just cheesy to the max.  Admittedly I'm not a huge fan of musicals, but if they're good I can appreciate them.  Moulin Rouge definitely fell short of good.

I'm not sure why Chasing Amy is considered KS's best movie either.  I'd have to definitely go with Dogma being his best movie - a movie that's actually satirical and makes you think at the same time.  I don't think any of the other three compare to it, and I'm not expecting Jersey Girl to either.

Right, so this isn't a movie, but the musical *Rent* is one that all sorts of people seem to like.  I found it horribly contrived and unimaginative - as if someone decided to take every social issue from the 90s on and shove it into a musical.  Sorry, but including lots of social issues does not make a good musical, movie, or any other media production.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 7, 2003)

AI I thought was pretty good...right up till the last section, when Spielberg went mad and tacked a stupid ending on the, um, end. I mean, just leave him staring at the Blue Fairy underwater, that's poetic and interesting. What actually happens ruined the rest of the film...

I will leap to the defence of Moulin Rouge, even though no-one wants me to. But then, I'm a sucker for big flashy musicals.


----------



## Someone (Jun 7, 2003)

There´s lots of movies that people like and I don´t, but the one I feel the most isolated is with The Two Towers.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 7, 2003)

The Patriot. Gladiator was an allright movie which was overrated, 
but The Patriot was just bad. Painfully bad. It was tanked by critics
over here and I never expected to see any Oscar nominations. 

The Godfather Trilogy. I mean, I'm not saying that the movies 
weren't good. Just that they weren't _that_ good. I expect they 
were just children of their time, but I was very much underwhelmed.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 7, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Amen to that.  If I may quote Maxim magazine's thoughts on The Thin Red Line:   I walked into this movie expecting a World War II action movie, but instead found myself at a candy-ass poetry reading.*



Exactly.  It was too "deep" for it's own good.  Just ended up making little sense and was wholy unentertaining.  I would have been happier taking a nap.  With all those stars it should have at least had moments of brilliance.


			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *A.I.:  What the hell?  Why do so many people like this movie?  I had high hopes for this movie after hearing the critics drool over it, but aferwards I was thuroughly underwhelmed.*



There were some fantastic scenes in this movie but it left me cold.  Not a great flick and it deserves to be on an overrated list for sure.


			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Moulan Rouge:  You know, there's a reason that musicals stopped being popular 30 years ago.*



I loved this flick so I shan't comment.  


			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Sorry John, but I've just got to mention one more that probably won't make you happy...
> 
> Chasing Amy:  To this day, I still don't understand why this is considered Kevin Smith's best movie.  I rented it and watched it with my friend because we were expecting to be entertained like we were with Clerks, but when it was over I actually apologized to my friend for subjecting him to it.  It had some genuinely funny moments in it, but the film on a whole left a bad taste in my mouth. *



Doesn't bug me at all.  His films aren't exactly mainstream.  I have a special place in my heart for that film but I don't expect everyone to love it.  My ex-GF hated it, too.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 7, 2003)

I've never heard of anyone saying that Chasing Amy was KS's 
best flick. I have heard several people saying that it was his most
mature film, which is IMO true. I guess for some people (critics 
especially), mature = quality.

I liked it for what it was, but it's not the best Askewniverse film IMO.


----------



## Sixchan (Jun 7, 2003)

_Akira_.  I honestly don't get what everybody seems to see in it.  The plot was mediocre (though original), the dialogue only average, and the ending made NO FRICKIN' SENSE!  It's an OK movie, sure, but IMO it just can't stand up to the likes of _Ghost in the Shell_ or _Perfect Blue_

_Fellowship of the Ring_ vs. _The Two Towers_.  I thought TTT was WAY cooler than the first one, and I gave the first one 10 out of 10. FotR wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it just didn't have the...the...death, destruction and giant battles of the second.  And I'm that shallow.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 7, 2003)

Didn't care for Two Towers (loved Fellowship, love the books)
American Beauty: Man I hated that movie, was it supposed to make sense?
Cast Away: Was hoping he'd die on the island.
The Patriot: Well I never finished it so it could of got better, but I doubt it.
A.I.: That's the most polished turd I have ever seen. What a wonderful looking piece of crap.
Armageddon: Rooting for the astroid to win. The Earth's destruction was preferable to seeing the cast live.
Trainspotting: Was I supposed to feel sympathy for the drug addicts?
Babe 2: Talking pigs do not always equal fun.
Crimson Tide: give him the key already, blow up Russia and let me go home.

The big winner is;
The Nightmare Before Christmas: my hatred knows no bounds.


----------



## Zeddan (Jun 7, 2003)

Traffic, What an awful waste of my time.  It was drivel.
Three Kings was pretty poor as well.
Titanic and Chicago are firmly place in the please stop gagging me category.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 8, 2003)

Good lists so far, I agree with most of them.   Armageddon, Patriot, Titanic and Gladiator were all films that I'd categorize as mediocre at best.   And while I enjoy both Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Rocky Horror Picture Show, I have close friends who can't stand them, and will admit they are an acquired taste. 

Here are my three for the list.

*Silence of the Lambs* - I didn't see anything more in this film more than the standard tv movie of the week.   Anthony Hopkins's mindgames were somewhat entertaining, but even that was very predictable.   

*The Sixth Sense* - Okay, I won't give away the surprise in case there is anyone reading this who hasn't seen it, but I figured it out less than halfway through, and was bored by the film from that point on.  

*Natural Born Killers* - The most unwatchable film I have ever sat through.  I don't know what Oliver Stone was thinking.


----------



## Villano (Jun 8, 2003)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> *The Sixth Sense - Okay, I won't give away the surprise in case there is anyone reading this who hasn't seen it, but I figured it out less than halfway through, and was bored by the film from that point on.*




I've never seen this movie.  As soon as I heard that there was a "surprise" ending, I knew exactly what it was.

Another film to add to my dislike list is Zu, Warriors Of Magic Mountain (I think that's the full title).  Lots of flying and quick cuts.  I've tried watching a few others of Hark's films, and I haven't liked any of them.  Not a Tsui Hark fan.

Then again, I'm not a fan of wire-fu movies in general.  I prefer my kung-fu old school. 

I'm also not that big a fan of Jackie Chan.  Most of his films are the same, especially his most recent non-American ones:  he plays someone named "Jackie", doesn't do much actual fighting, and the climax involves some kind of machinery or stunt, but not a fight (It's a kung-fu movie!  You're supposed to fight!).

Plus, I once spoke to someone who worked on one of his US films.  She talked about how she saw him on a talk show describing how scared he was doing a big stunt in the movie.  According to her "it was scary for the stuntman".  Jackie just filmed the set up and ending while someone else actually did the stunt.       

Now, I know he's getting up there in years, so I don't fault him for using stuntmen.  But, if he uses one, he shouldn't take credit for their work.  

Speaking of honesty, put me down against Bowling For Columbine.  This "documentary" is the darling of most critics, even though virtually everything in it has been discredited or proven to have been staged by it's director, Michael Moore.  Fortunately, there's a documentary being produced called Michael Moore Hates America which disects Bowling, showing exactly what he faked and how.

Hopefully, it will win best documentary at the Oscars.  Just for the sake of irony. 

Sorry, but honesty is my biggest fault.  It's better to have someone be honest and say they don't like you than have a weasel for a friend.  

And don't ever ask for my opinion because I'll give it to you.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 8, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> Speaking of honesty, put me down against Bowling For Columbine.  This "documentary" is the darling of most critics, even though virtually everything in it has been discredited or proven to have been staged by it's director, Michael Moore.  Fortunately, there's a documentary being produced called Michael Moore Hates America which disects Bowling, showing exactly what he faked and how.
> 
> Hopefully, it will win best documentary at the Oscars.  Just for the sake of irony.
> ...




So, you don't like Bowling because it was bad, or because you don't like the fact that he didn't hew 100% to the documentary format?  Because Winged Migration, another Oscar nominee, faked a bunch of stuff too in a way that sounds even worse than what I've heard about Bowling for Columbine, and I don't see anyone attacking that movie.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Jun 8, 2003)

Natural born killers, ug. I was expecting to find my brains leaking out of my ears.

Moulin Rouge, what a horrid movie that was.

Thin red line, made me want to create one on my wrists.

Never got why Akira was so popular, i thought it was fare at best.

Didn't make it though the first five minutes of Traffic.


----------



## Villano (Jun 8, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So, you don't like Bowling because it was bad, or because you don't like the fact that he didn't hew 100% to the documentary format?  Because Winged Migration, another Oscar nominee, faked a bunch of stuff too in a way that sounds even worse than what I've heard about Bowling for Columbine, and I don't see anyone attacking that movie. *





Well, when you fake pretty much everything, that's a bit more than not hewing "100% to the documentary format".  Lying or staging events that you claim occurred due to other reasons takes it well out of the documentary format and into propaganda.

And a documentary that isn't a documentary would be a bad movie by it's very nature since it isn't what it claims to be.  A musical without singing or even music would be bad as well.

I'll admit that I haven't heard anything about Winged Migration faking its footage, but the reason for that is probably because it naturally won't get as much press due to the fact that it lost.  However, the "someone else did something bad and didn't get caught so why are you picking on me?" excuse doesn't hold much water.  If both faked things, they should both be taken to task for it.

And I don't think you've heard everything about Bowling since I can't imagine a film faking more things than it did.

Even the title isn't true since the boys never went bowling that morning as Moore claims.  And that's been known since the time of the shooting.  I mean, if you can't trust the facts of _the title_ of a film that purports to tell the truth...

Heck, Michael Moore recently claimed that both it and Roger & Me have been made into required viewing in French schools.  Needless to say, the French are saying that this is just ridiculous and untrue.  

And that's just *one* of the things he's saying.  You can fill a website with these things...and people have. 

Truthfully, I think Moore has some sort of psychological problem.  I can't believe he sees the world the same way everyone else does or else he wouldn't sight written sources for his claims that say nothing even remotely close to what he says.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 8, 2003)

This is getting a little too close to political.  I honestly wasn't trying to steer it in that direction, and I hope you weren't either, Villano.  Maybe we should quit while we're ahead.  Agreed?


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 8, 2003)

I just read an article about how many documentarians are bemoaning the fact that many docs cited by the Academy are becoming more and more "cinematized", punched up for the public.  This is blurring the line between truth and fiction, and seems to not be a problem invented by Michael Moore.  Not that this excuses any alleged liberties he's taken in making his films, but it does point out how vigilant we as consumers of media need to be.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 8, 2003)

This is one hella-odd thread.  Most of the movies that have been mentioned have been truly great in my eyes and I have watched them over and over again with much delight (with the obvious exceptions of the ones I talked about in my post).  It's just really interesting to see what other folks don't like in movies.  Ususally, when I don't like a film I try to figure out why that is.  Unless it was totally unwatchable, of course.  

Which leads me to Matrix: Reloaded.

I really wanted to like that movie but I didn't.  I want to see it again just to see why but I just can't bring myself to.  After much thought, it just didn't do anything for me.  Sure there were things going on that were kinda neat and there was lots of action and special effects and the like.  And I'm also pretty sure I "got" it as well.  Oh well.  Just add it to my list right next to AI:  Moments of brillance but overall a flat film.

Note:  I will be buying it on DVD and watching it again to see if I can find a reason to like it.  Don't ask me why as I don't really know...


----------



## Celtavian (Jun 8, 2003)

*Re*

_Titanic_ is the only movie people liked that I have actually seen and didn't care much for. It is a definitely a chick flick.

Most of the movies listed here I enjoyed or never seen. I thought _Fargo_ was pretty entertaining.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jun 8, 2003)

"My Big Fat Greek Wedding." I had heard so much about it, about how good it was, and funny, and had read how the critics liked it, and audiences liked it.

I was unimpressed. Some of it was humorous, but I've seen so many movies that were funnier.


----------



## Bismark (Jun 8, 2003)

*Sleepy Hollow* -- I found it unoriginal, predictable, full of things that were added only for shock value, and just kinda lame. Don't get me wrong, it was a great, decent budget 'B' Horror Film, but people talk about how great a movie it was, and I just can't see it.

I will note that *The Thin Red Line* is the only movie I've ever walked out of the theater because. I leaned over, asked my friends if we should leave, and we all turned and looked at the screen. The next line was "One man looks into the fire, and seens an unanswered pain", and we got up and left.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Jun 8, 2003)

Personally I did not enjoy Signs.  I know lots of people who think it was an absolutly wonderful movie, but for me it did nothing.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jun 8, 2003)

Another movie which the critics all hated which I liked was "Heaven's Gate." I think most of the bad reviews were because of the movie's cost (at the time, the most expensive movie ever made) and not because of what was up on the screen.


----------



## Robbert Raets (Jun 8, 2003)

Somehow, I got dragged into watching Scary Movie and American Pie. And their sequels. Need I say more?!


----------



## Sixchan (Jun 8, 2003)

Psychotic Dreamer said:
			
		

> *Personally I did not enjoy Signs.  I know lots of people who think it was an absolutly wonderful movie, but for me it did nothing. *




I consider the first half of Signs to be the Father Ted Movie. The last bit of signs sucked, starting with the actual invasion.  The rest of it was quite possibly the best comedy film I've seen.


----------



## Villano (Jun 8, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *This is getting a little too close to political.  I honestly wasn't trying to steer it in that direction, and I hope you weren't either, Villano.  Maybe we should quit while we're ahead.  Agreed? *





Yeah, I left it off my original list because I was worried that it would be considered "political", but, like I said, politics has nothing to do with my annoyance with it.

We can drop it, though, to keep the thread safe.




> I just read an article about how many documentarians are bemoaning the fact that many docs cited by the Academy are becoming more and more "cinematized", punched up for the public. This is blurring the line between truth and fiction, and seems to not be a problem invented by Michael Moore. Not that this excuses any alleged liberties he's taken in making his films, but it does point out how vigilant we as consumers of media need to be.





Exactly.  I have the same proble with biopics.  Granted, you can expect some streamlining of someone's life in order to fit in a movie's running time, but sometimes they go overboard.  I remember reading a review of a film (I can't recall which one) in which it was pointed out that they producers strangely altered the name of one person.  Nothing else was altered, just his name.  And I believe it was set in the distant past, so it isn't like the person was going to sue.

This reminds me of an article in which the author said that if a big studio were to film the battle of Gettysburg today, it would end with Lee and Grant in a swordfight to the death amid the burning ruins of Atlanta.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 8, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> This reminds me of an article in which the author said that if a big studio were to film the battle of Gettysburg today, it would end with Lee and Grant in a swordfight to the death amid the burning ruins of Atlanta.  *




Duh.  Everyone knows it ended when George Washington dropped the first atomic bomb on the Crimea.

-Tarrasque Wrangler, proud product of the California public school system.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 8, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Duh.  Everyone knows it ended when George Washington dropped the first atomic bomb on the Crimea.
> 
> -Tarrasque Wrangler, proud product of the California public school system. *




Noooo, it was Rip Van Winkle disguised as the evil maniac George Washington who dropped the atomic bomb from his spacecraft on the mon.

-Ankh-Morpok Guard, proud product of the Georgia public school system. Who's got the worst education in the nation? We do! Huzzah!


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 8, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *Noooo, it was Rip Van Winkle disguised as the evil maniac George Washington who dropped the atomic bomb from his spacecraft on the mon.
> 
> -Ankh-Morpok Guard, proud product of the Georgia public school system. Who's got the worst education in the nation? We do! Huzzah!  *



Who's this Washington fellow?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 8, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Who's this Washington fellow? *




Well, our history books say he was a Northern Communist that saved the world from the evil aliens in "that cool movie. You know....that...one...with the creeepy woman!"


----------



## Pants (Jun 8, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Who's this Washington fellow? *



A supermodel, right?


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 8, 2003)

Gah! I'm with you, Sr. Crichton: some of the films mentioned are on my top 10 list, and others on my top 50.

_Moulin Rouge_ was genius. _American Beauty_ was brilliant, and made perfect sense. _Traffic_ was very good, especially towards the end. _Three Kings_ was fantastic in its political statement, while being an enjoyable film to boot. _The Sixth Sense_ was awesome.

Yes, I think _Dogma_ is Smith's best film. Micheal Moore is the left's Rush Limbaugh: both are extreme to the point of being misleading or lying, but both have something at the core of their message that they think is important. And _AI_ definitely should have ended with him looking wistfully at the Blue Fairy underwater -- heck, I even thought that _was_ the end of the film and started gathering my stuff up.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 8, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> *A supermodel, right? *



I thought it was a robot...


----------



## Villano (Jun 8, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Noooo, it was Rip Van Winkle disguised as the evil maniac George Washington who dropped the atomic bomb from his spacecraft on the mon.
> 
> -Ankh-Morpok Guard, proud product of the Georgia public school system. Who's got the worst education in the nation? We do! Huzzah!  *





I was going to argue that my school was worse than your's, but then I saw you misspelled "moon".

You win!


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 8, 2003)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *Gah! I'm with you, Sr. Crichton: some of the films mentioned are on my top 10 list, and others on my top 50.
> 
> Moulin Rouge was genius. American Beauty was brilliant, and made perfect sense. Traffic was very good, especially towards the end. Three Kings was fantastic in its political statement, while being an enjoyable film to boot. The Sixth Sense was awesome.*



Yeah, I enjoyed every one of those films.  Even 6th Sense where the ending was told to me before I saw it.  Was still entertaining, the "twist" just was just gravy.  Moulin Rouge blew me away.  American Beauty was a given because I have loved every movie Kevin Spacy has ever been in.  Three Kings shocked me because I didn't expect it to be that good.  I enjoyed Traffic as well for not being preachy yet still getting a powerful message across.

I do have a question for everyone:  The one movie I have ever encountered that ever single person has loved was Shawshank Redemption.  Anyone not like that flick or met anyone who didn't.  Just curious...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 8, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> I was going to argue that my school was worse than your's, but then I saw you misspelled "moon".
> ...




HA! Victory is mine!  

And to stay almost on topic....I love Akira...probably because its so freaky. Never been able to get into the American Pie movies...or many comedies these days. Something seems to be lost in too much pointless sexual humor. *shrugs*


----------



## KChagga (Jun 8, 2003)

I humbly submit the movie know as K-PAX. Blech. Critics thought it was good, but I thought it was boring and at the end of the movie whether he was really an alien or not made absolutely no difference.  Nothing really happens. At all. In the whole film.

John Chrichton did you like this Kevin Spacey film?  Don't get me wrong I didn't hate it.  I just don't know why I bothered to watch it when it was over.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 8, 2003)

KChagga said:
			
		

> *John Chrichton did you like this Kevin Spacey film?  Don't get me wrong I didn't hate it.  I just don't know why I bothered to watch it when it was over. *



Not yet I have to say.  It looked pretty good and a friend who has a similar taste dug it but I really can't say.  Maybe when it shows up on HBO (Starz, etc) I'll catch it.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 8, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *Speaking of honesty, put me down against Bowling For Columbine.  This "documentary" is the darling of most critics, even though virtually everything in it has been discredited or proven to have been staged by it's director, Michael Moore.  Fortunately, there's a documentary being produced called Michael Moore Hates America which disects Bowling, showing exactly what he faked and how.*




Put me down for hating Bowling for Columbine as well.  When filming this crockumentry, Michael Moore dreamed up his own "facts", fabricated events, and doctored footage to create interviews that never actually happened.  Even the Toronto Star and the Wall Street Journal have published articles pointing out the _numerous_ factual errors and flat-out lies in Bowling for Columbine.

I also agree with you that Michael Moore must have some kind of psychological problem, because some of the stuff he comes up with just dosen't sound like it would come from someone entirely sane.


----------



## Pants (Jun 8, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *I thought it was a robot... *



I did too, but then I edumacated myself


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 8, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> *I did too, but then I edumacated myself  *



Same.  Man it was such a relief to find out that it was a place.  Actually it is 2 places.  I lookeded it up.  *thumbs up*


----------



## jdavis (Jun 9, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Yeah, I enjoyed every one of those films.  Even 6th Sense where the ending was told to me before I saw it.  Was still entertaining, the "twist" just was just gravy.  Moulin Rouge blew me away.  American Beauty was a given because I have loved every movie Kevin Spacy has ever been in.  Three Kings shocked me because I didn't expect it to be that good.  I enjoyed Traffic as well for not being preachy yet still getting a powerful message across.
> 
> I do have a question for everyone:  The one movie I have ever encountered that ever single person has loved was Shawshank Redemption.  Anyone not like that flick or met anyone who didn't.  Just curious... *



 A lot of like and dislike of movies runs to personal taste in themes. A lot of the movies people have listed I just skipped, I can't say if they were good or not because they didn't appeal to me enough to even give them a chance, ones like American Beauty I was drug into by my better half (twice), it had the fact that I really didn't want to be there going against it right from the start. I also have a tendancy to dislike Tom Hanks movies because I have a tendancy to dislike Tom Hanks, they have a big hurdle to cross for me from the get go. 

Shawshank Redemption was good but I would of never watched it if I hadn't of been forced to. I'm sure I miss a lot of good movies but I tend to gravitate away from overly serious and "feel good" movies.

As far as Akira goes I have the video, still in the shrink wrap. It was a gift that I never cared to open. I have seen it a couple of times but it really never did anything for me. Looked good, ended stupid.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 9, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> * A lot of like and dislike of movies runs to personal taste in themes. A lot of the movies people have listed I just skipped, I can't say if they were good or not because they didn't appeal to me enough to even give them a chance, ones like American Beauty I was drug into by my better half (twice), it had the fact that I really didn't want to be there going against it right from the start. I also have a tendancy to dislike Tom Hanks movies because I have a tendancy to dislike Tom Hanks, they have a big hurdle to cross for me from the get go. *



This is true for some folks.  I look at movies the same way I look at all other forms of entertainment like music or TV:  If it's good I'll give it a chance.  Good is good.  Entertaining is entertaining.  I didn't really want to see American Beauty either but I'm glad that I did because it was a very enjoyable film.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 9, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *This is true for some folks.  I look at movies the same way I look at all other forms of entertainment like music or TV:  If it's good I'll give it a chance.  Good is good.  Entertaining is entertaining.  I didn't really want to see American Beauty either but I'm glad that I did because it was a very enjoyable film.   *




This is something I harp on a lot.  Some people tell me that everything is subjective; you can't say a movie is bad because someone might like it, so you'd be wrong.  My problem with this is that it undermines the whole point of criticism.  One should be able to hold up anything, be it movie, album, book, or whatever, and objectively determine whether it's good or not.  There has to be some kind of objective way to tell that The Godfather is a better film than Jury Duty, a formula that you can apply.  An understanding of music theory can do this with music criticism, but it's a little harder with films.  Still, one can look at an obviously bad film and know why this is so.  Bad script, bad editing, bad acting, bad directing, you can pick a movie apart and tell WHY it failed.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 9, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *This is something I harp on a lot.  Some people tell me that everything is subjective; you can't say a movie is bad because someone might like it, so you'd be wrong.  My problem with this is that it undermines the whole point of criticism.  One should be able to hold up anything, be it movie, album, book, or whatever, and objectively determine whether it's good or not.  There has to be some kind of objective way to tell that The Godfather is a better film than Jury Duty, a formula that you can apply.  An understanding of music theory can do this with music criticism, but it's a little harder with films.  Still, one can look at an obviously bad film and know why this is so.  Bad script, bad editing, bad acting, bad directing, you can pick a movie apart and tell WHY it failed. *



Agreed.  There are always personal tastes involved when judging entertainment (and art for the that matter as they intersect) but there are benchmarks in place, even for the uninformed.  Actually, my thoughts on "The Thin Red Line" are that it actually was a good film but I didn't like it at all.  A movie like UHF is below average but I loved it.  Taste does come into play, but objectivity is important to keep if you truly want to enjoy a particular medium.  I'm not trying to tell anyone how to watch a movie or listen to a song but it helps before labeling something as crap.  Personally, I think that most folks just don't get many of the films they don't like nor do they admit that the film is any good.  I'm guilty of it for sure.


----------



## Villano (Jun 9, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *There has to be some kind of objective way to tell that The Godfather is a better film than Jury Duty*





And how many weeks was Kangaroo Jack the #1 movie in America?   

On the other hand, sometimes people surprise you.  Madonna's last movie made $54.23.  I think the only people who went to see it were people she paid to. 

But, seriously, it's art.  It's kind of hard to determine what's "good" with such things.  Critics hate a movie the public loves and vice versa.  

It's all a rich tapestry. 

Then again, I liked Dude, Where's My Car?, so what do I know?



> This is something I harp on a lot.  Some people tell me that everything is subjective; you can't say a movie is bad because someone might like it, so you'd be wrong.  My problem with this is that it undermines the whole point of criticism.  One should be able to hold up anything, be it movie, album, book, or whatever, and objectively determine whether it's good or not.





The problem is that, well, anyone can be a critic, especially in this day and age of the internet.  So, if anyone can be a critic, what weight does criticism carry?

Honestly, I've read some things written by so-called critics that were mindnumbing.  I once read a review of Bride Of Frankenstein that took a detour into the bizarre.  The character of Dr. Pretorius has often been accused of being gay due to the fact that the actor who protrayed him was.  Well, this writer claimed that he wasn't gay...but was a necrophiliac serial killer!

No joke!  It all stems from a line in the film in which Pretorius says he was kicked out of the university for "knowing too much".  The writer claimed that "knowing" mean knowing in the biblical sense (sex), so that obviously means he had sex with dead bodies.  

And people thought the guy who thought X-Men was all about homosexuality was a weirdo.

Anyway, would you trust those two critics to judge what makes a movie good?  Personally, I wouldn't trust them to use a toilet properly.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 9, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *Anyway, would you trust those two critics to judge what makes a movie good?  Personally, I wouldn't trust them to use a toilet properly. *



Nope.  Those two folks hardly qualify.  Good, solid, objective critics are hard to find.  They are out there but the problem is you have to look for them.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 9, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Nope.  Those two folks hardly qualify.  Good, solid, objective critics are hard to find.  They are out there but the problem is you have to look for them.   *




I usually just look at the general consensus at RottenTomatoes.com when I'm not sure if I want to see a movie or not.  I don't really listen much to individual critics because they often pan movies I thought were great, and praise movies I thought were bad.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 9, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I usually just look at the general consensus at RottenTomatoes.com when I'm not sure if I want to see a movie or not.  I don't really listen much to individual critics because they often pan movies I thought were great, and praise movies I thought were bad.  *



Honestly, that is not a bad way to go.  I've never used that site as a gauge for a movie but it's not a bad last-resort for a general view of quality.  The problem is that they'll have just about anyone counted.  Many of those critics are completely clueless.  And even worse is that a chunk of those reviews are only a few paragraphs long which is just sad.  We all write more informed, thought-provoking posts on these very forums.

I'm lucky that I've found a few reviewers that I tend to side with on various entertainment outlets (movies, TV and videogames to be specific).  I don't depend on them but I do use them in a pinch if I am on the fence.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 9, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Which leads me to Matrix: Reloaded.[SIZE] *



I agree.  The first one was an instant classic.  The second just missed the mark in too many areas, which is all the more bewildering considering how great "The Animatrix" is.  WHY ON EARTH didn't the Wachowski Brothers open Matrix Reloaded with a live action version of Final Flight of the Osiris????

Awesomely sets the tone right out and would have given much more tension to the finale when the squiddies bear down on Neo and the others.  And the recap of the final battle against the machines from "Second Rennaisance" would have made a perfect prologue, LOTR style, which they could have included in place of some of the more ludicrous scenes from later in the film (the rave, exploding cake nonsense)....oh well.  Hopefully Revolutions will pick up the ball.

I don't know why so many people are mentioning Moulin Rouge.  That film was hardly universally praised.  It polarized critics and moviegoers right down the middle.  For the record, its one of my favorite films of all time.

To answer the original question, I'd say American Beauty.  Fully expected this to be a great film, it turned out to be one of the few films I've seen in a theater that literally offended me.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 9, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> And how many weeks was Kangaroo Jack the #1 movie in America?
> *




Remember, just about every movie is somebodies favorite movie. And there is no accounting for the taste of the masses. 

I'd never think a movie was bad in general just because I didn't like it, but some movies are obviously poorly made or of limited quality. (like many of the movies being discussed in the Druids thread).


----------



## Wayside (Jun 9, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> HA! Victory is mine!
> 
> And to stay almost on topic....I love Akira...probably because its so freaky. Never been able to get into the American Pie movies...or many comedies these days. Something seems to be lost in too much pointless sexual humor. *shrugs* *




I like the American Pie flicks, but probably only because I've been to band camp


----------



## Wayside (Jun 9, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is something I harp on a lot.  Some people tell me that everything is subjective; you can't say a movie is bad because someone might like it, so you'd be wrong.  My problem with this is that it undermines the whole point of criticism.  One should be able to hold up anything, be it movie, album, book, or whatever, and objectively determine whether it's good or not.  There has to be some kind of objective way to tell that The Godfather is a better film than Jury Duty, a formula that you can apply.  An understanding of music theory can do this with music criticism, but it's a little harder with films.  Still, one can look at an obviously bad film and know why this is so.  Bad script, bad editing, bad acting, bad directing, you can pick a movie apart and tell WHY it failed. *




The theory is there, same as for Literature in general, although from what I know film schools have taken (maybe still do take) a position for some reason centered on Lacan.

That, and I suppose the nature of Hollywood, has led to a decided vacany in film criticism of figures like Harold Bloom, Judith Butler, Helen Vendler (however much I dislike them).

In general though, criticism is a response to great works.  When movies have a Homer, movie critics will have an Aristotle.  Maybe one person will be both, a T. S. Eliot of film.  That would at least speed things up.

Most people however are content to lump quality with preference.  But, as I'm fond of saying, most of the movies I like and the music I listen to are crap.


----------



## Robbert Raets (Jun 9, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *To answer the original question, I'd say American Beauty.  Fully expected this to be a great film, it turned out to be one of the few films I've seen in a theater that literally offended me. *




What offended you, if I may ask?




			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> *I like the American Pie flicks, but probably only because I've been to band camp  *




.....I'm not touching this.....


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 9, 2003)

grr. Double post.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 9, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> * My problem with this is that it undermines the whole point of criticism.  One should be able to hold up anything, be it movie, album, book, or whatever, and objectively determine whether it's good or not.*




I can both agree and disagree. I think there are some films, as with most things, that you can point at and say 'this is a good thing' for the same reason that you can look at a well-balanced meal prepared by a five-star chef and say 'this is better' than McDonald's.

I doubt there is a set of objective tools anyone could agree on to do this job in film, or any other art work. Any form of art is subjective; that's the _point_ of art. 

Look at many of the films that we today regard as classics, such as _The Wizard of Oz_ or _It's a Wonderful Life_. These and a number of others were poorly received when first released. (I don't know how much box office they took in at the time, though; that tends to be a better - though not the only - indicator in my book. People go to see films that others tell them were good.) Standards were different, tastes were different. Forty years from now, people will probably be shaking their heads and calling us deluded fools for not seeing the comic genius of Ernest.

American Beauty

Can't imagine what was offensive in it. It was pretty darn funny, ironic, etc.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 9, 2003)

I already see the comic genius of Ernest.

Well, the earlier movies at least.


----------



## dravot (Jun 9, 2003)

I'm reminded of an interview that Terry Gross had once with a movie critic who quit to become a screenwriter and is now once again a movie critic.

Once he started to pay for his own movies, he found that he liked them (or most of them) much more than he did as a critic.  When you're investing your personal time and money into a movie experience, you're more likely to enjoy a film.

I find that most people can't separate the concept of enjoying a film vs. calling a film good.  You can enjoy a bad film, or a mediocre film, but that doesn't mean it was a good film.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 9, 2003)

What movies come to mind.

Boondock Saints - My brother loved this movie and said everyone he knew who saw it loved it. I watched it and all I can say about this piece of film filth is that I personally felt dirty after watching it.

Eyes Wide Shut - Hire a married couple to play as a married couple and they fail. Huh?

Guess no others really come to mind. As a general rule when the critics absolutely love a movie I dont go and see it.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jun 9, 2003)

What movies come to mind.

Boondock Saints - My brother loved this movie and said everyone he knew who saw it loved it. I watched it and all I can say about this piece of film filth is that I personally felt dirty after watching it.

Eyes Wide Shut - Hire a married couple to play as a married couple and they fail. Huh?

Guess no others really come to mind. As a general rule when the critics absolutely love a movie I dont go and see it.


----------



## Delgar (Jun 9, 2003)

Hmm Movies that were critically acclaimed that I disliked:

Matrix Reloaded - I really, really wanted my money and time back after this one. It was slow, felt pointless, ended poorly, left way too many things unanswered and well the action sequences really seemed dry and lacked any sort of emotion. Sure there were a few scenes that were neat, but the movie was 2 and a half hours it better have a few neat scenes in that time period!

AI - Was this highly regarded? It was so bad I've forgotten everything about it. Except for the bear.

Signs - Ick, horrible, horrible, horrible. Slow, made no sense and the whole ending just annoyed me.

Eyes wide shut - HORRIBLE <Shudder>

I'm sure there are plenty more I just can't think of them off the top of my head. There are a lot of movies that critics thought were bad that I thought were bad.

The Avengers
Armageddon
Deep Impact
Red Planet
Mission to Mars 

Actually forget that the list could go on forever!

Delgar


----------



## Delgar (Jun 9, 2003)

> Eyes Wide Shut - Hire a married couple to play as a married couple and they fail. Huh?




Of course their marriage failed as well. So you'd think they could play a married couple whose having difficulties no problem right? <bleech>

Most likely due to the fact that Tom Cruise is well, you know.... 

Delgar


----------



## Mallus (Jun 9, 2003)

*Some unneccessary comments...*

*Fast Learner* re: Happiness... I'll admit that there were some pretty amazing individual scenes in the film {like several w/the child-molesting psychologist}. But overall wasn't the film just the setting up and knocking down of obvious caricatures {fat, lonely programmer, dumb aimless folksinger, untrustworthy Russian emmigrant... too easy}? Without enough psychological realism to be honest, nor enough panache and over-the-top wit to be thrilling trash. The director's complete lack of empathy for the characters prevented them from being truly chilling. It was a soap opera about RL monsters...

*jdavis* re: Trainspotting... were you supposed to sympathize/empathize w/the films junky mates? Absolutely. I always thought the film was less concerned with drugs and more concerned with friendship {its a pretty dishonest drug film}. I'll bet you could replace the drugs in the film w/Playstation {another listless-youth rite of passage} and it would work about the same {except for the baby and the withdrawl hallucinations}.

*all who dislike Akira*... are you crazy?  I recently saw the remastered version on the big screen. Its beautiful. And for those of you who found the ending obtuse and annoying, forget about it, and try watching the film as a collection of anxieties that the Japanese have about their whole society coming unravelled in the 21st century. Akira is all about fear, modernity, reconcilliation w/the past/cultural heritage, just like the giant monster films, only less stupid.

*all who disliked Chasing Amy but like Kevin Smith*... the thing about Chasing Amy is that its Smith's most well-rounded work; humor, well-drawn characters, a bit J&SB, even some nice psychological insight in jealousy, desire, and friendship.

end unsolicited remarks...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Some unneccessary comments...*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *all who dislike Akira... are you crazy?  I recently saw the remastered version on the big screen. Its beautiful. And for those of you who found the ending obtuse and annoying, forget about it, and try watching the film as a collection of anxieties that the Japanese have about their whole society coming unravelled in the 21st century. Akira is all about fear, modernity, reconcilliation w/the past/cultural heritage, just like the giant monster films, only less stupid.*




Akira is easy to dislike because the ending IS confusing and kind of 'ehhh??'...but that's because its just the movie version. The original manga version of Akira makes a LOT more sense, and is definatly a good read...expensive, but a good read.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Some unneccessary comments...*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *all who dislike Akira... are you crazy?*




No. I saw it a long time ago and the only impression I have left is how boring I found it.

Gladiator is the one movie I would add to this list. I found the fight scenes unimpressive and the movie as a whole unimpressive.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 9, 2003)

*Another addition to the list.*

*Ladyhawke:*  Okay, I don't _hate_ this film, but I don't see what's so special about it either.  A lot of people talk about Ladyhawke like it's the pinnacle of fantasy films, but I only found it mildly entertaining.  Oh well.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Some unneccessary comments...*



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Akira is easy to dislike because the ending IS confusing and kind of 'ehhh??'...but that's because its just the movie version. The original manga version of Akira makes a LOT more sense, and is definatly a good read...expensive, but a good read.  *




That's because they were making the movie before the manga series had been completed. The movie's ending was based on a general outline of what would happen in the mangas, not on the finished specifics.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Some unneccessary comments...*



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *The original manga version of Akira makes a LOT more sense, and is definatly a good read...expensive, but a good read.  *




I think I have the first trade paperback from when Marvel/Epic released them... Another in a long list of "one-of-these-days" purchases...


----------



## Mark (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Another addition to the list.*



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Ladyhawke:  Okay, I don't hate this film, but I don't see what's so special about it either.  A lot of people talk about Ladyhawke like it's the pinnacle of fantasy films, but I only found it mildly entertaining.  Oh well. *




Good story, not bad acting, but the soundtrack was very distracting, IMO.  But if I had to pick one film to add to this thread...

I have never been more happy that a film was so misnamed as _The Neverending Story_.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Another addition to the list.*



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> *I have never been more happy that a film was so misnamed as The Neverending Story. *




I absolutly love the first one...but the others...ugh..NO.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 10, 2003)

Robbert Raets said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What offended you [re: American Beauty], if I may ask?*



Nudity of underage characters, even if the actresses were 18 or over.  I bought into them as being 15 or 16 year old high school girls, and was absolutely sickened that the film showed them topless.

Being asked to relate/identify with a man on the verge of statutory rape.  A number of other things, but I was so irritated with the film I haven't watched it since it was released and have for the most part put it out of my mind.


----------



## Robbert Raets (Jun 10, 2003)

I think I see your point, but in my opinion, this was a case of functional nudity.

I once saw a part of a movie about a whorehouse in the Old West with a very young and very nude Brooke Shields in it. That had me dumbfounded for a few minutes, I must say.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Some unneccessary comments...*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *Fast Learner re: Happiness... I'll admit that there were some pretty amazing individual scenes in the film {like several w/the child-molesting psychologist}. But overall wasn't the film just the setting up and knocking down of obvious caricatures {fat, lonely programmer, dumb aimless folksinger, untrustworthy Russian emmigrant... too easy}? Without enough psychological realism to be honest, nor enough panache and over-the-top wit to be thrilling trash. The director's complete lack of empathy for the characters prevented them from being truly chilling. It was a soap opera about RL monsters...
> 
> jdavis re: Trainspotting... were you supposed to sympathize/empathize w/the films junky mates? Absolutely. I always thought the film was less concerned with drugs and more concerned with friendship {its a pretty dishonest drug film}. I'll bet you could replace the drugs in the film w/Playstation {another listless-youth rite of passage} and it would work about the same {except for the baby and the withdrawl hallucinations}.
> 
> ...



Never saw Chasing Amy or Fast Leaner.

Trainspotting, yes it felt fake, of course whether it's accurate or not it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for the druggies, I mean it's a sad thing, but......... Well anyway to the movie, it just didn't do anything for me.

Akira: Yea I'm sure it had a lot of deep meaning. Of course a lot of movies have a deep meaning, doesn't make them good, and it doesn't make giant flesh blobs any more interesting. The first 3/4ths of it were good, but even then it wasn't all that.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 10, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> *
> Look at many of the films that we today regard as classics, such as The Wizard of Oz or It's a Wonderful Life. These and a number of others were poorly received when first released. (I don't know how much box office they took in at the time, though; that tends to be a better - though not the only - indicator in my book. People go to see films that others tell them were good.) Standards were different, tastes were different. Forty years from now, people will probably be shaking their heads and calling us deluded fools for not seeing the comic genius of Ernest.
> *



I rather live a Earnest movie than watch Wizard of Oz again. When I was little my mother turned it on every time it was on TV. I cannot stomach anything about that movie anymore.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 10, 2003)

Has anyone seen Spike Lee's Bamboozled?  I have never been angrier with a film than this one.  I don't know what emotional reaction Lee was trying to provoke in me, but if making me want to smash my TV in with a drywall hammer was what he was going for, I guess he succeeded.

He's made a couple of movies I thought were OK; Malcolm X was good, if a little long, and I actually really liked Summer of Sam.  Apart from these though, I would nominate Lee as Most Overrated Director working today.  I love how he whines constantly about how they'll never give him an Oscar.  Try making a good movie that doesn't outrage the people you're trying to connect with.


----------



## Villano (Jun 10, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *Has anyone seen Spike Lee's Bamboozled?  I have never been angrier with a film than this one.  I don't know what emotional reaction Lee was trying to provoke in me, but if making me want to smash my TV in with a drywall hammer was what he was going for, I guess he succeeded.
> 
> He's made a couple of movies I thought were OK; Malcolm X was good, if a little long, and I actually really liked Summer of Sam.  Apart from these though, I would nominate Lee as Most Overrated Director working today.  I love how he whines constantly about how they'll never give him an Oscar.  Try making a good movie that doesn't outrage the people you're trying to connect with. *





Yeah, I don't really care for Lee at all.  He seems to just be a jerk in real life.  He goes to basketball games and screams, yells, and tries to pick fights with the players.  Have you ever been to any kind of sporting event and had one of these idiots sitting near you?  They don't shut up.  Ever.

And here's a good one for you, TNN (The National Network, formerly The Nashville Network) is officially changing its name to Spike TV.  Lee just filed a lawsuit against them for "unauthorized" use of the word "Spike".  No joke.

I wonder if he sued the producers of Buffy?


----------



## jdavis (Jun 10, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't really care for Lee at all.  He seems to just be a jerk in real life.  He goes to basketball games and screams, yells, and tries to pick fights with the players.  Have you ever been to any kind of sporting event and had one of these idiots sitting near you?  They don't shut up.  Ever.
> ...



 Never seen a Spike Lee movie, ok I take that back I saw half of Malcom X (it wasn't bad, just long). His claim against Spike TV is just plain silly (not that the whole idea of calling a channel Spike TV isn't idiotic to start with.)


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 10, 2003)

They are calling it the "First Network for men."  I guess Spike fits.  Maybe they just didn't want to call it Pig TV (tm).  

They do get props for bringing back Ren and Stimpy however...


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 10, 2003)

I am going to hijack just a moment. Why doesn't TNN or whatever they are calling themselves right now, sue Spike Lee for taking the name. and considering Spike is not even his real first name. this from the IMDB

 Spike Lee was born Shelton Lee in 1957, in Atlanta Georgia


 And bring this thread back on topic

 So of the movies mentioned I liked, Some I hate


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 10, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *I rather live a Earnest movie than watch Wizard of Oz again. When I was little my mother turned it on every time it was on TV. I cannot stomach anything about that movie anymore. *



I hear you.

I've never liked the Wizard of Oz movie. I mean, a musical? 
I've always preferred the creppy not-really-sequal Return to Oz.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 10, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *They are calling it the "First Network for men." *




uhhh.... as opposed to the playboy channel, espn 1, 2 and whatever they're up to, the history (war) channel...

maybe they mean like First Lady or something - an honorific rather than description, but it just sounds silly.

"Wow, a cable station with programming geared towards MEN! What a concept!"  

Kahuna Burger


----------



## jdavis (Jun 10, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> uhhh.... as opposed to the playboy channel, espn 1, 2 and whatever they're up to, the history (war) channel...
> 
> ...



 The magazine Maxim was supposed to be working on a channel (The Maxim channel?) this was supposed to beat them to the punch. So this is supposed to be the channel for hip male stereotypes I guess. What's funny is that they are planning no major programming changes (they are adding some adult style cartoons late night but that's about it). It's all about car shows and Star Trek and Bond movies and Pro Wrestling.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 10, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *Being asked to relate/identify with a man on the verge of statutory rape. *



A man who recognizes that if he follows through on his lust for beautiful young things he would be damaging them. Absolutely something to relate to, something that far too many men never even consider.

But I know I won't have any effect on your view of the film. I just didn't want that portion of the film inaccurately portrayed, as your description of the film ignores the most important think in the entire scene.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Some unneccessary comments...*



			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> *Never saw Chasing Amy or Fast Learner.*



The latter is me, and he was referring to _Happiness_.

The film is no where as... let's say "moral" as I would like, helping us understand and yet disapprove, and it doesn't provide sufficient resolution. I didn't feel that kept if from being very powerful, though.

It's not one of my favorite films by any means, but it's still powerful (though not moving).


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 11, 2003)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *
> A man who recognizes that if he follows through on his lust for beautiful young things he would be damaging them. Absolutely something to relate to, something that far too many men never even consider.*



So let's give all the 40 year old sickos contemplating whether or not to follow through with their lust for underage females a nice vehicle with which to charge up that lust then offer a caveat that its only wrong "if she's a virgin".

I realize that the message you state was the intention of the director.  Horrible, horrible execution.  The suggestive flower petal scenes were more than enough to bring us into Spacey's mind on the matter.  They didn't need to show Suvari's breasts, or worse, have him wonderfully enlightened with a euphoric grin through the rest of the film upon his epiphany from _violating an underage virgin._  Did he follow through?  And rape her?  No.

Violate her?  Unquestionably.  Cause her lifelong psychological damage?  If that were a real life incident, possibly.  Since when is exposing a young girl on your path to self discovery "not far enough"?  It was too far.  Way too far.  Sex would have been far worse, but what he did was still very, very bad.  Yeah you go Spacey, and everyone who relates to your character's journey.  Sickening.

EDIT:  Since this movie brings up subject matter I really don't look for on an RPG message board, here's where I check out of this discussion.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jun 11, 2003)

Robbert Raets said:
			
		

> *I think I see your point, but in my opinion, this was a case of functional nudity.
> 
> I once saw a part of a movie about a whorehouse in the Old West with a very young and very nude Brooke Shields in it. That had me dumbfounded for a few minutes, I must say. *



That would be *Pretty Baby*, starring Brooke Shields, Susan Sarandon, and Keith Carradine; directed by Louis Malle.  But Brooke's nude scenes were not actually her--they were shots of her older sister.  The plot concerns a mother (Sarandon) who is a prostitute, and who begins "selling" her daughter when the girl is 12.

I have never seen the film, but my connection to it is thus:  It was filmed at The Columns hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana, where my brother had his (first) wedding reception.

Now, for "critically acclaimed" and/or popular films that I despise:

*Risky Business*
*Trading Places*
*Sophie's Choice*
*Men in Black*
*Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom*


----------



## S'mon (Jun 11, 2003)

Delgar said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Of course their marriage failed as well. So you'd think they could play a married couple whose having difficulties no problem right? <bleech>
> 
> Most likely due to the fact that Tom Cruise is well, you know.... *




Litigious?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 11, 2003)

Popular films I paid money to see and hated include Men in Black and Mission Impossible.  Independence Day was silly, but enough of a spectacle I didn't dislike it too much.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 11, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *I realize that the message you state was the intention of the director.  Horrible, horrible execution.  The suggestive flower petal scenes were more than enough to bring us into Spacey's mind on the matter.  They didn't need to show Suvari's breasts, or worse, have him wonderfully enlightened with a euphoric grin through the rest of the film upon his epiphany from violating an underage virgin.  Did he follow through?  And rape her?  No.*



Suffice it to say that I completely disagree with that characterization of the scene, the film, and most of all your reasoning behind his euphoric grin, a grin that had absolutely nothing to do with Suvari's character or the situation.


----------



## G.A. Donis (Jun 11, 2003)

If I live to be 150yrs I'll never understand the appeal of E.T.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 11, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *Being asked to relate/identify with a man on the verge of statutory rape.  A number of other things, but I was so irritated with the film I haven't watched it since it was released and have for the most part put it out of my mind. *




You weren't being asked to identify with or relate to this character. If you think you were, then you weren't paying attention.

Kevin Spacey, like just about every other character in the movie, spends most of the movie on the wrong path, seeking hapiness where it will never be found. Virtually every character in the film is making the _wrong_ choices, and only he finally figures this out, but not until _after_ the scene which apparently offended you. You are intended to realize that he is making the wrong choice at that time, not identify with his choice.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 11, 2003)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> *Now, for "critically acclaimed" and/or popular films that I despise:
> 
> Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom *




That ones routinely considered the worst of three and a blight on the franchise. Now if you didn't like the other two they would belong here.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 11, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Some unneccessary comments...*



			
				Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *
> The latter is me, and he was referring to Happiness.
> 
> The film is no where as... let's say "moral" as I would like, helping us understand and yet disapprove, and it doesn't provide sufficient resolution. I didn't feel that kept if from being very powerful, though.
> ...



 Oh well that makes a lot more sense then.

On the American Beauty thing, they did walk a real thin line with the underage thing. Yea I didn't like the movie but I did end up watching it twice, and the arguement that he didn't realize he was a complete idiot until the end of the movie doesn't take away fromt he fact that the relationship in question was a focal point of the movie and that several scenes were very suggestive and could be easily be viewed either way (having young daughters myself I really didn't care for any of that part of the movie regardless of the point they were getting across). My main problem with the movie was that many of the bad choices that people were making were just silly, they didn't look like people making bad choices they looked like they were mentally ill. The movie just didn't click for me at all.

Oh yea I hate ET (I recognize it for what it is but I don't care for it at all). and prefer Temple of Doom over the third Indiana Jones movie, the third one was just too silly.


----------



## Delgar (Jun 11, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Litigious?  *




Right, right, that's what I was hinting at.  

Delgar


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jun 12, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *That ones routinely considered the worst of three and a blight on the franchise. Now if you didn't like the other two they would belong here. *



My bad.  I think of *IJatToD* in the "popular" camp (since it made a bajillion dollars), certainly not in the critically-acclaimed camp, though I don't remember it getting particularly harsh reviews when it came out.  Any sequel to *Raiders* was bound to disappoint, but *Temple of Doom*--yikes!


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 12, 2003)

G.A. Donis said:
			
		

> *If I live to be 150yrs I'll never understand the appeal of E.T. *



What about the scene in it where they are playing D&D?  That was probably the largest media exposure that our game has ever received.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 13, 2003)

What?  The Dungeons and Dragons movie wasn't enough exposure for you?


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 13, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *What?  The Dungeons and Dragons movie wasn't enough exposure for you? *



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a few more people went to see E.T.

And back to the subject of films that critics raved about and I just said "Huh?', I nominate "Chariots of Fire".


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 13, 2003)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> *
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a few more people went to see E.T.
> *




Pfft, maybe in your neck of the woods.  Around here, you can't swing a cat around without hitting some guy making a Snails reference.

I would lump almost all of Spielberg's films in this category.  Steve peaked with Jaws and Close Encounters.  The only other film he's made in the last 20 years that I can really say I LOVED unconditionally was Schindler's List.  I felt like a better person after seeing that.  As for Private Ryan, I'll admit that the action scenes were amazing, but something just doesn't quite come together for me.  Maybe it was the cheesy bookend scenes with Old Ryan at the memorial.  "Honey, tell me I was a good man."  I just wanted to cringe.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 13, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *
> Maybe it was the cheesy bookend scenes with Old Ryan at the memorial.  "Honey, tell me I was a good man."  I just wanted to cringe. *




I did cringe... The only scene in that movie that touched me was the "dog tag poker" and one scene isn't enough to make a movie.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 13, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *Pfft, maybe in your neck of the woods.  Around here, you can't swing a cat around without hitting some guy making a Snails reference.*



Well, if we are talking pure numbers ET has the D&D movie hammered.  


			
				Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *I would lump almost all of Spielberg's films in this category.  Steve peaked with Jaws and Close Encounters.  The only other film he's made in the last 20 years that I can really say I LOVED unconditionally was Schindler's List.  I felt like a better person after seeing that.  As for Private Ryan, I'll admit that the action scenes were amazing, but something just doesn't quite come together for me.  Maybe it was the cheesy bookend scenes with Old Ryan at the memorial.  "Honey, tell me I was a good man."  I just wanted to cringe. *



How about Indy 3 and Jurassic Park?  I know the book rocked the movie but it was still a cool flick...


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 13, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Well, if we are talking pure numbers ET has the D&D movie hammered.
> *




Yes, but if we adjust for inflation, uh, in Year 2525 A.D. dollars, then D&D will have made more space-dollars than Titanic.  If man is still alive and woman survives, of course.

Anyone heard of a Kevin Spacey movie called Hurlyburly?  That was just excruciating.  To the cat who thought Spacey was hard to empathize with in American Beauty, see this.  Everyone in this film is utterly reprehensible, and it's all delivered as this kind of Hollywood-insider-hipster crap that people in Middle America point to as the end of western civilization.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 13, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *How about Indy 3 and Jurassic Park?  I know the book rocked the movie but it was still a cool flick...   *




I'm going to go on record as saying that I think Last Crusade was worse than Temple of Doom.  And I love Connery.  Last Crusade just didn't work for me.  And the Hitler thing was just dumb.

Jurassic Park?  OK, the dinos were as cool as anything I had imagined from reading the book.  Everything else about the movie was just wrong though.  The only part I felt they improved on was Ian Malcolm, the chaos theory guru.  They made him a good comic voice, as opposed to a know-it-all killjoy like in the book.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 13, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *Yes, but if we adjust for inflation, uh, in Year 2525 A.D. dollars, then D&D will have made more space-dollars than Titanic.  If man is still alive and woman survives, of course.*



That doesn't really jive as Titanic's space-moolah would increase at an equal rate making it still the highest grossing movie for its time.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 13, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *I'm going to go on record as saying that I think Last Crusade was worse than Temple of Doom.  And I love Connery.  Last Crusade just didn't work for me.  And the Hitler thing was just dumb.*



Wow, that kinda surprises me.  I loved all three and am biased beyond arguement so it's best that I stop there.  


			
				Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *Jurassic Park?  OK, the dinos were as cool as anything I had imagined from reading the book.  Everything else about the movie was just wrong though.  The only part I felt they improved on was Ian Malcolm, the chaos theory guru.  They made him a good comic voice, as opposed to a know-it-all killjoy like in the book. *



I was fortunate to not read the book before seeing the movie.  Had I, the movie would have been total crap to me.  I did read the Lost World before seeing the movie and it totally ruined the experience as the movie never stood a chance.  I guess I lucked out by loving the movie then having it blown away by the novel, a trend I try to keep to.  Books 99.9% trump their movie counterparts in my eyes.  But we already knew that.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 13, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *Jurassic Park?  OK, the dinos were as cool as anything I had imagined from reading the book.  Everything else about the movie was just wrong though.*




I did get the book and read it before I saw the movie. An interesting adaptation, yes. I still liked both. I suppose for the movie they had to switch the personalities of the kids, since otherwise the critics might have roasted it  Still didn't like the 'anti-tech' stance of either.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 13, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I did get the book and read it before I saw the movie. An interesting adaptation, yes. I still liked both. I suppose for the movie they had to switch the personalities of the kids, since otherwise the critics might have roasted it  Still didn't like the 'anti-tech' stance of either. *




well, it helped that the girl HAD a personality in the movie... It wasn't really a switch, the boy was spunky and cool in his own way, as opposed to the girl in the book...

I have to admit, MC does NOTHING for me. I mean, he takes a decent premise, but ruins it in the execution. His characters are mostly unlikable, and by the end of one of his books, I just don't care what happens to them. I will speak the ultimate blasphemy - Congo, yes EVEN THAT MOVIE was better than his book. And I'm not just saying that cause it had bruce campbell in it.    The movie actually gave me some tiny reason to care if they lived or died. The book really didn't...

Kahuna Burger


----------

