Movies others go nuts over that you just don't 'get'

Muban said:
There Will Be Blood. It had all the components of a great film (great acting by Day Lewis, lovely cinematography etc) I don't know why though, it just didn't work for me at all. Something about it made it tedious and it wasn't the story or the setting.... I just can't place it.
Click to expand...

probably something to do with it feeling like it was a year long. literally. i've never wanted to gouge my eyes out so much...

i got the feeling it was going to be like that when it had 15/20 mins watching a guy go up, and down, and up, and down his ladder into his little mine, only to fall in... then crawl back out... *sigh*
 
The Shrek films.

The younger members of my family are absolutely obsessed with them (by younger I mean 20+ year olds)

I'm 26 myself and absolutely don't get them, yet my step-brother and all his friends, who normally are quite intelligent, all flocked to see the latest one (forget its name) without even a consideration that they weren't going to see it.

Also, I know this is a bashing thread, but I feel I want to defend 2001 a bit as its one of my all time favourite films :)

The story is timeless, set in a sci-fi setting, yet its the slave turned enslaver story we know from so so many other settings. It's easy to forget that it was released in 1968, but that just reflects what amazing work Kubrick and his team did. That film, using only models, a fantastic story and amazing direction, created perhaps the most eery depiction of existing in space I have ever seen. Its sets still don't look that dated even if you watch it today, its actors perform their function perfectly, and HAL is a lasting sinister character that Kubrick made using a voice and a red light. That's it, the character was so well developed and so well portrayed by Kubrick, a glowing red light was all anyone needed to form a picture in their mind.

Like many true artists, I suppose Kubricks work will always go under closer and more rigid scrutiny than other "Hollywood" directors, but 2001 is a masterpiece marred perhaps only by the very final time sequence, which although poignant does age the film somewhat.

Shrek however...
 
Avatar - yes it's expensively done, but the characters still don't move right most of the time, it's nowhere near as good as budget of this proportions should provide, artificial world is still plasticky (just good quality, soft touch plastic), plot was tacky and simple and some of the voice overs made me cringe (what'shername crying and sobbing, it was like bad manga dubbing there).

Chicago. It's not just because it's an old school musical, genre which is about as useful for modern cinema as second pair of testicles in the middle of forehead - but because it's just such a bad, bad version of it, it's almost like a comedy pastiche. It's done almost exactly like theatre version, and most of the cast cannot carry tune. So why do it at all - what new could it add to the experience? And then it gets Oscar. Are you f.. kidding me?

Just about anything by M. Night Shamalamadingdong (internet cookie, for those who remember who gave him that nick). Ok, Sixth Sense was the reintroduction of the whole "all gather around camp fire"/"and then she looked in the mirror and saw that the killer chasing her was herself" scary story telling with WTF factor. It's a one trick pony, everyone who's done it since Hitchcock knew it - you do it once, then you have to switch tables, cause everyone now anticipates the twists. Apparently M. Night Shyamalan missed the memo. "So.. and then you won't believe it - THE VILLAIN IS THE GUY WHO FOUND THE HERO" yeah, we know "No, no, you don't understand - The Village is in reservation!" Dude, we f... know, obvious from miles away. "OK, ok, check this out then - THE ALIENS ARE ALLERGIC TO WATER" Seriously, please just go away. Go, do porn flick or something (facepalm).

Clockwork Orange - my god, so much hype and it's like a bad ITV tuesday night low budget flick. It's so bad it's grotesque. I don't even know how it got banned.
 
Last edited:
manic_man said:
The story is timeless, set in a sci-fi setting, yet its the slave turned enslaver story we know from so so many other settings. It's easy to forget that it was released in 1968, but that just reflects what amazing work Kubrick and his team did. That film, using only models, a fantastic story and amazing direction, created perhaps the most eery depiction of existing in space I have ever seen. Its sets still don't look that dated even if you watch it today, its actors perform their function perfectly, and HAL is a lasting sinister character that Kubrick made using a voice and a red light. That's it, the character was so well developed and so well portrayed by Kubrick, a glowing red light was all anyone needed to form a picture in their mind.

Like many true artists, I suppose Kubricks work will always go under closer and more rigid scrutiny than other "Hollywood" directors, but 2001 is a masterpiece marred perhaps only by the very final time sequence, which although poignant does age the film somewhat.

Shrek however...
Click to expand...


HAL wasn't evil they simply confused him by giving him conflicting orders, so he did the only thing he could :(
 
v0n said:
Chicago. It's not just because it's an old school musical, genre which is about as useful for modern cinema as second pair of testicles in the middle of forehead - but because it's just such a bad, bad version of it, it's almost like a comedy pastiche. It's done almost exactly like theatre version, and most of the cast cannot carry tune. So why do it at all - what new could it add to the experience? And then it gets Oscar. Are you f.. kidding me?
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you here. I still can't understand how it won the Oscar for best picture when it was up against Gangs of New York which is a far better film.

Bladerunner didn't really do it for me either I just found it too hard to properly get into it. Although I can understand why people do like it, just wasn't for me.
 
Rear Window. Enjoyed it, but overrated I thought.

Also District 9 was another overrated one. Once I got past the apartheid contrast I found it mostly dull (with a few good bits here and there).
 
KNiVES said:
Inception has to be the most incredibly overrated film, to phenomenal levels. I have several movie buff friends who proclaim it as the best film ever made, but I think it's no better than your average Hollywood special effectathon.

I was actually quite annoyed, because it hit me that everyone's standards are declining rapidly. Inception is nowhere near deserving of the praise it's getting. Just because it's got a big-name cast, an overly pretentious story and a ton of special effects to back it up doesn't mean it's actually watchable or enjoyable.
Click to expand...

i agree with you. i mean compare this film to the usual suspects...
 
JBod said:
For me it is Watchmen, ok I've not read the comic but I found the movie simply awful. Poor acting, big blue wang and a terribly predictable storyline.

Second up is Bladerunner, i found it enjoyable but not amazing. This could be because I didn't see it in its prime and the effects were quite common by the time I did. I tried the ne release recently but couldn't get going on it.
Click to expand...

Can't agree with you on Bladerunner but I definitely agree on the Watchmen, I got bored halfway through and with it being such a long movie (felt long anyway) the second half was like torture.
 
v0n said:
Just about anything by M. Night Shamalamadingdong (internet cookie, for those who remember who gave him that nick).
Click to expand...

I remember a spoof sketch in either Family Guy or the Simpsons where something very weird happened and they had mini-credits saying 'Direct by M Knight Sha...'...was it from a cartoon?

Been furiously Googling it but can't find it, and now I need to know!
 
KNiVES said:
Inception has to be the most incredibly overrated film, to phenomenal levels. I have several movie buff friends who proclaim it as the best film ever made, but I think it's no better than your average Hollywood special effectathon.

I was actually quite annoyed, because it hit me that everyone's standards are declining rapidly. Inception is nowhere near deserving of the praise it's getting. Just because it's got a big-name cast, an overly pretentious story and a ton of special effects to back it up doesn't mean it's actually watchable or enjoyable.
Click to expand...

Inception was brilliant, but it's not the big psychological thriller it's been mysteriously billed as. It's an excellent heist film with the simple but well executed dream thing.

To be honest, most of the criticism actually makes me think that audiences are getting silly with their constant demand for inane plot twists.
 
Simi said:
Can't agree with you on Bladerunner but I definitely agree on the Watchmen, I got bored halfway through and with it being such a long movie (felt long anyway) the second half was like torture.
Click to expand...

It should never have been made into a film. The entire purpose of the book was to show that you can do things in comics that don't work in films.

Then some genius decides to make it into a film. Why would you do that?
 
Most of Quentin Tarantinos films.

I don't understand why they've been hailed as greatest movies of all time and he's this and he that. They're by no means spectacular films what so ever.
 
LeJosh said:
Most of Quentin Tarantinos films.

I don't understand why they've been hailed as greatest movies of all time and he's this and he that. They're by no means spectacular films what so ever.
Click to expand...

Pulp Fiction is brilliant, Reservoir Dogs is very good... The rest I could take or leave, I'm really not bothered.
 
Inglorious - utter tripe and just Tarantino trying to be different. Infact I don't like any of his films.

Only good thing he's done IMO is a bit of script work on The Rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom