What movie do you most detest? (1 Viewer)

[Steve Y]

I detest [COLOR= rgb(178, 34, 34)]Armageddon[/COLOR] on almost purely "mechanical" grounds. Say what you will about the ridiculous plotting, two-dimensional characterizations, and so on, but its editing and high-contrast lighting make it play out like a two-hour action trailer. It's offensively exhausting. Michael Bay seems determined that you not look away for one second, not even during non-action scenes (case in point: the scenes on the porch with the stargazing husband and his angry wife). Quick editing does not always bother me (everyone remembers the brilliant last act of Goodfellas), but there is something about the aesthetic and "editing rhythm" of Bay's movie (not just its quickness) that deeply offends me. It's hard to explain. This is clearly a matter of taste, as many people are quick to mention how dumb the plot is, without mentioning the editing or lighting or camera angles.


For the record, I enjoyed The Rock, which contained a plot that was no less ridiculous, but the editing doesn't have the "overdose" vibe of [COLOR= rgb(178, 34, 34)]Armageddon[/COLOR].


The one-dimensional walking stereotypes, quasi-profound plot revelations and hysterical melodrama of [COLOR= rgb(178, 34, 34)]Crash[/COLOR] really rubbed me the wrong way when the movie was first released (I saw it theatrically). Imagine my dismay (though not surprise) when it won the Best Picture Oscar that year. Time was not kind to this one.


Films that attempt profundity too overtly tend to annoy me more than movies which fail without grand aspirations. Also, movies in which children talk like adults, or serve as mouthpieces for the hindsight-wisdom of the screenwriters, rarely make it on my bright side. So while it may offend some of you to hear it, I've always been badly rankled by [COLOR= rgb(178, 34, 34)]The Breakfast Club[/COLOR], which is the perfect storm at the center of these two obnoxious currents.


I enjoy Lars von Trier's work, especially the miniseries The Kingdom, and even a few from his "martyrdom trilogy" like Breaking the Waves and Dogville (I even enjoyed Antichrist). But for me, his anger at injustice really made [COLOR= rgb(178, 34, 34)]Dancer in the Dark[/COLOR] an pointless exercise in sadism (a joyless musical - imagine that!) with an awesome soundtrack and musical numbers, but with a plot so deliberately manipulative that it left you wondering whether you should feel ironically amused or devastated, and therefore ended up feeling nothing at all.

 

[WillG]

The one-dimensional walking stereotypes, quasi-profound plot revelations and hysterical melodrama of [COLOR= rgb(178,34,34)]Crash[/COLOR] really rubbed me the wrong way when the movie was first released (I saw it theatrically). Imagine my dismay (though not surprise) when it won the Best Picture Oscar that year. Time was not kind to this one.

I haven't even see Crash, but I'm already 99% sure that I hate it without even seeing it. Now I know I'm not supposed to judge without having seen it. But everything I've read or heard about that film suggests that it's contrived, exaggerated situations and character "types" tying to shoehorn in a "message" that racism is out there. I could be wrong, but the quoted analysis just reinforces my perceptions.

Films that attempt profundity too overtly tend to annoy me more than movies which fail without grand aspirations.

That's a good point. There are certainly many "bad" movies that are still enjoyable because we know they're "bad" movies and they don't try to be profound, pretentious or important. I imagine a movie like "Crash" just sweats "importance"

So while it may offend some of you to hear it, I've always been badly rankled by [COLOR= rgb(178,34,34)]The Breakfast Club[/COLOR], which is the perfect storm at the center of these two obnoxious currents.

I can understand your point about the Breakfast Club. I enjoy the movie still as far as entertainment. But watching now in my 30s, I realize now how much of whiny, spoiled pussies the characters are. "Uhhhhhhh, I'm 16 and don't get along with my parents" Yeah, it's called everyone at that age. The only character that legitimately had it rough was the Judd Nelson character. Maybe the Anthony Michael Hall character could be a runner up. It was suggested at the beginning that his parents pressure him regarding his grades, but there was no direct evidence that it was excessive. It seems likely that he just pressured himself. As for the rest, fuck em. The Emilio Estevez character. What's his deal? His father seemed like a nice enough guy. And am I supposed to sympathize with him because his father/coach puts pressure on him to not waste his talents and get a scholarship to college and have a shot at a successful life? Molly Ringwald with the "it's so tough to be popular"? You know who it is hard for? the people who have to show up to school each day and get tormented by people you. And the Ally Sheedy character....well we never really find out all that much about her, so she just comes off as a weirdo.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Nicholas Martin wrote (post #196):

[COLOR= rgb(165, 42, 42)]I can't even put into words just what it is but when someone breaks out into a song and dance routine, I cringe and have to either look away or turn it off. I cannot be near it.[/COLOR]

(post #200):

[COLOR= rgb(165, 42, 42)]Watching someone or a band sing on a stage in a concert performance is hardly the same as a character in a movie or show walking down the street, turning around and launching into a routine. So no I don't hate all song and dance.[/COLOR]

Matthew A wrote (post #206):

[COLOR= rgb(238, 130, 238)]. . . musical haters are the only ones who have condemned an entire genre, or more appropriately, an entire form. . . . .

Singing is a natural extension of human speech, and people singing with a backing orchestra to advance the plot or express character traits is no less absurd than there being background music on movies without a motivated audio source to begin with. . . . .

Musicals, like all fantasy and scifi, inhabit a world which sets it's own internal rules and regulations. It is therefore believable to me to hear a character sing to express his or her feelings within the context of that work. . . . . Musical theater and film was the source of a good chunk of the popular music of the first half of the 20th century.[/COLOR]

"song and dance"

Dance is a marked form of human movement, just as singing is a marked form of human vocal expression. In traditional cultures each is associated with religious practice, and not just with trivial secular entertainment, as in the modern West. The musical theater always had a limited (and self-selected?) audience---an elite(?)---didn't it (even if the capture of such performances in a mass medium like film seemed to make it seem so much larger)? It should, then, come as no surprise that they do not necessarily appeal to a wider viewing audience in that area, especially when numbers are greater and choices are vastly more plentiful.

 

[Troyrey]

Anything.....and everything M. Night Shyamalan has directed.


-Troy

 

[rajusohi1]

According me my detest movie is "Titanic" it's really very nice movies for lovers and give the massages for anyone that love is very important in life so i like that both charector are plays a vital role in this movie both are very nice person and every step play very nicely In the end the actor play critical role that I like most.


watch free movies online for free free | [COLOR= black]Watch Movies [/COLOR]

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Originally Posted by WillG

The one-dimensional walking stereotypes, quasi-profound plot revelations and hysterical melodrama of [COLOR= rgb(178,34,34)]Crash[/COLOR] really rubbed me the wrong way when the movie was first released (I saw it theatrically). Imagine my dismay (though not surprise) when it won the Best Picture Oscar that year. Time was not kind to this one.

I haven't even see Crash, but I'm already 99% sure that I hate it without even seeing it. Now I know I'm not supposed to judge without having seen it. But everything I've read or heard about that film suggests that it's contrived, exaggerated situations and character "types" tying to shoehorn in a "message" that racism is out there. I could be wrong, but the quoted analysis just reinforces my perceptions.

Films that attempt profundity too overtly tend to annoy me more than movies which fail without grand aspirations.

That's a good point. There are certainly many "bad" movies that are still enjoyable because we know they're "bad" movies and they don't try to be profound, pretentious or important. I imagine a movie like "Crash" just sweats "importance"

So while it may offend some of you to hear it, I've always been badly rankled by [COLOR= rgb(178,34,34)]The Breakfast Club[/COLOR], which is the perfect storm at the center of these two obnoxious currents.

I can understand your point about the Breakfast Club. I enjoy the movie still as far as entertainment. But watching now in my 30s, I realize now how much of whiny, spoiled pussies the characters are. "Uhhhhhhh, I'm 16 and don't get along with my parents" Yeah, it's called everyone at that age. The only character that legitimately had it rough was the Judd Nelson character. Maybe the Anthony Michael Hall character could be a runner up. It was suggested at the beginning that his parents pressure him regarding his grades, but there was no direct evidence that it was excessive. It seems likely that he just pressured himself. As for the rest, fuck em. The Emilio Estevez character. What's his deal? His father seemed like a nice enough guy. And am I supposed to sympathize with him because his father/coach puts pressure on him to not waste his talents and get a scholarship to college and have a shot at a successful life? Molly Ringwald with the "it's so tough to be popular"? You know who it is hard for? the people who have to show up to school each day and get tormented by people you. And the Ally Sheedy character....well we never really find out all that much about her, so she just comes off as a weirdo.

He got Crash about right. Very on-the-nose filmmaking. I didn't hate it, but I wasn't all that impressed. (Babel had some thematic similarities, and was vastly superior.)


As for The Breakfast Club, your description of it seems to be the opposite of what he wrote. Yes, those characters seem whiny and spoiled, but as you say -- they're not especially unrealistic depictions of teenagers.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Originally Posted by Rex Bachmann

"song and dance"


Dance is a marked form of human movement, just as singing is a marked form of human vocal expression. In traditional cultures each is associated with religious practice, and not just with trivial secular entertainment, as in the modern West. The musical theater always had a limited (and self-selected?) audience---an elite(?)---didn't it (even if the capture of such performances in a mass medium like film seemed to make it seem so much larger)? It should, then, come as no surprise that they do not necessarily appeal to a wider viewing audience in that area, especially when numbers are greater and choices are vastly more plentiful.

This is not true -- prior to the advent of things like film and recorded music, musical theater and opera were popular entertainment for the masses.

 

[WillG]

As for The Breakfast Club, your description of it seems to be the opposite of what he wrote. Yes, those characters seem whiny and spoiled, but as you say -- they're not especially unrealistic depictions of teenagers.

I wasn't necessairly trying to directly tie my analysis to what was written by Steve Y. It was more my personal gripe about the movie in my older age, that I don't have too much sympathy for most of the characters.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Aaron Silverman wrote (post #248):

(post #245)

The musical theater always had a limited (and self-selected?) audience---an elite(?)---didn't it (even if the capture of such performances in a mass medium like film seemed to make it seem so much larger)?

[COLOR= rgb(204, 204, 204)]This is not true -- prior to the advent of things like film and recorded music, musical theater and opera were popular entertainment for the masses.[/COLOR]

I seriously doubt this. It partially---but by no means totally---depends on when you're talking about, but, more importantly, on what is meant by "popular" and who those "masses" were. Before the "advent of things like film and recorded music", the great majority of the populace lived in rural or frontier areas, where opera and "musical theater" would have been rare, if nonexistent. And [COLOR= rgb(218, 165, 32)]opera[/COLOR], in particular, has never been anywhere nearly as popular as the elite would have the tax-paying public believe.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I'm sorry, but stating "I seriously doubt this" and linking to your own post (in a Star Trek thread!) does not change the fact that you are very mistaken about the history of opera and musical theater. There are lots of books on the subject if you're interested in researching it further. What does the portrayal of Star Trek aliens' opinions of classical music have to do with this, anyway?


From the late 17th to the early 20th Century in the Western world (especially in central Europe), opera was very, very popular. Big cities had multiple opera houses (and, yes, even small towns had them), and top singers and composers were big stars. For example, look up Jenny Lind's big US tour. Also, read about Verdi and the Risorgimento. Over 200,000 people showed up for his funeral procession.


Here's a piece from the New York Times:


http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F6091EF63B5D12738DDDA80B94D9405B818CF1D3


Non-Western places may vary, but most of them have their own popular musical theater traditions as well.


Sorry to veer off topic. . .like I said, if you're interested in the subject there are plenty of books out there.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Aaron Silverman wrote (post #251):

[COLOR= rgb(211, 211, 211)] What does the portrayal of Star Trek aliens' opinions of classical music have to do with this, anyway?[/COLOR]

The two points I was trying to make have nothing especially to do with "aliens" (except to point out the biasses present in the class of people who end up writing about how aliens view human culture in some of most "popular" sf-programming).
(1) It depends on whom you're talking about and where they lived when you say "the masses" loved opera and musical theater. The vast majority of people even---actually, especially---in North America were rural or frontierspeople in the era before the electronic media I was speaking about. They were way too busy trying to eke out a living off of the land to worry about the "pop culture" of their time ("pop culture" being seen as some sort of urban phenomenon, as opposed to "folk culture"). If at least 80 - 90% of the people were still agrarian at the time, I don't see how the patronage of mostly middle and upper class city- or town-dwellers makes for "popularity" in any relative sense. (Despite all those rural opera houses and musical theater houses.) Of course, one can always say, if X-number of people are attracted to a given entertainment event, it must be "popular". But here an absolute figure is meaningless without a context, which can only be shown through relative terms, in my opinion.

(2) Part of the social context for these things---again, in my opinion---must be shown in terms of the choices people had, as well. For better or for worse---and I go back and forth in which of those directions I lean to---the subject matter of public presentation in days of yore was severely limited (for religious and other reasons). The level of social control constrained what these "masses" could even expect to see presented. Today in the "West", when range of public presentation is open, rather than closed, opera and "musical theater" don't do very well with "the masses"---any masses. In fact, they do lousy, despite the massive subsidies (in the case of classical music). (Again, I didn't make that up. It's in the record.) Those masses, even those parts of them originating in the educated classes, chose something else. (The very point of the post that was linked-to.) For better or for worse---and I personally despise most of what passes for popular music today, so this is in no way an endorsement of any kind---that's a better test of "popularity" than anything one can draw from in more repressed times (with poorer demographic records, to boot).

Again, I never said opera and musical theater weren't popular at all. I said their popularity has been exaggerated, mostly by that same class of people represented by those Hollywood writers who write what I referred to in the linked-to post. It's their attitudes that are reflected through the dialog of aliens: "We like it, so it's 'great'." [Nuh-uh!]


And this is not "off-topic" at all. It goes to heart of the argument over why some people (me included) detest musicals (and most of the music that's in them).

 

[PaulDA]

Originally Posted by Rex Bachmann


And this is not "off-topic" at all. It goes to heart of the argument over why some people (me included) detest musicals (and most of the music that's in them).


You're making a false dichotomy. Context is indeed important, but not quite in the way you've chosen to apply it. You cannot simply assert that because there were fewer choices in the past, the popularity of a particular type of entertainment is unconvincing or exaggerated. Moreover, while you are correct to point out that today, opera and musical theatre are not anywhere near the top of the list of popular entertainment, their decline in popularity was not a precipitous fall overnight. Both opera and musical theatre provided a substantial portion of the output of early recorded music and live radio broadcasts. Even into the early 1960s, on commercial television, one of the most popular shows was Leonard Bernstein's programme which included a symphonic or operatic performance (as well as a discussion of the particular piece of work in question).


Also, what needs to be considered is the temporal distance from the compositions with respect to current proportions of popularity. At the height of opera's popularity, it was contemporary music. People knew songs from opera in much the same way that people today know pop tunes. The themes and stories explored in operas were familiar to the audience in ways that are similar to how people today are familiar with storylines from TV programmes.


Lastly, even with fewer options, people still had the choice to not indulge in any particular option.


It is "presentism" to assume that people in the past, who lacked the same variety of choice we have today, would make the same choices we have (collectively) in the face of such variety if it were possible to offer it. Opera today appeals to a small subset of society, for a whole host of reasons. It is not axiomatic that it would have appealed to a similarly small subset 150 years ago.

 

[Ockeghem]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]"It goes to heart of the argument over why some people (me included) detest musicals (and most of the music that's in them)."[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]Rex,[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]If you detest most of the music that is in musicals, might I suggest you consider training yourself to listen for any number of elements that may increase your appreciation of the music (if not the genre itself)? The contrapuntal / polyphonic fabric alone -- to say nothing of the instrumentation, key relationships and over-arching tonal organization, orchestration, and setting of the text -- in a number of tunes written by some of the composers I've mentioned above is well worth the time to evaluate, analyze, and study. I have found over the years that understanding what is actually occurring in the music greatly enhances one's appreciation and understanding of the scores (and of various compositional processes) of composers of musicals and related genres.[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]BTW, for additional reading, some might enjoy the work of various musicians and music critics of ages past. A few that come to mind are E. Hanslick, E. T. A. Hoffman, G. B. Shaw, or Jean Paul.[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]One book that I have enjoyed reading over the years (and which addresse the 'popular' aspect of the masses and musical arts to some extent) is:[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]Hanslick, E. Vienna's Golden Years of Music 1850-1900. Translated and edited by Henry Plesants III. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950.[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]These are a collection of reviews and essays of Eduard Hanslick, the renowned nineteenth century music critic. Concerned chiefly with music and music criticism in and around Austria, Hanslick provides the reader with contemporaneous anecdotes, criticism, and intellectually engaging (though often times sardonic) writing. It is a fascinating read.[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]Jean Paul is another interesting writer. He asserts that "Romanticism is beauty without any bounds; i.e., it knows no limits. Additionally, all poetry will eventually be "romantic" in nature, with the void between classical antiquity and romanticism eventually widening, having achieved freedom from rules, or becoming richer for them." {Interestingly, it sounds as though he would have been on the same page as Stravinsky in this regard.}[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 12px]For my own part, and while this doesn't necessarily prove which Jean Paul prefers -- classsical (Apollonian) or romantic (Dionysian) -- it would appear that he is stating the inevitable, and that perhaps romanticism has quite a lot going for it due to its non-restrictive properties. It is difficult to know for certain whether or not Paul prefers one over the other (which would not be the case with a Hoffmann or a Shaw). If asked to hazard an educated guess, I would venture to say that Jean Paul is an incurable romantic.[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 12px]Addendum: [/SIZE][SIZE= 12px]To some, the music in musicals is experienced as an interruption, or as an implausible occurance in the drama. It is an ancient form, and many people enjoy it. They have all the opportunity in the world not to be in the audience, if they prefer. [/SIZE]

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Rex, your original assertion that musical theater has always had a "self-selected," "elite" audience is simply not true. The fact that most working people in rural areas probably didn't have a lot of free time for entertainments is not relevant to the statement -- indeed, your own comments about context render them so. If large numbers of people didn't partake of the musical theater because they didn't have time, that says nothing about whether musical theater productions were intended for a general audience or were rejected for any reasons other than time constraints. And the dichotomy you set between rural "masses" and "middle- and upper-class" city-dwellers is a false one -- there were plenty of wealthy landowners and urban underclasses.


If you don't dig musicals, you don't dig musicals, but the idea that it shouldn't surprise anyone because they were supposedly always intended for consumption by a limited, "elite" audience doesn't make sense, because that isn't the case. You can speculate about it all you like, but the historical record says differently.

 

[Troyrey]

The Hangover! That film just.....wasted so much of my time. I just don't see where people thought it was funny.

 

[Brent M]

Originally Posted by Troyrey

The Hangover! That film just.....wasted so much of my time. I just don't see where people thought it was funny.

Um, because it was. To each their own.

 

[Brett_B]

Originally Posted by Brent M

The Hangover! That film just.....wasted so much of my time. I just don't see where people thought it was funny.

Um, because it was. To each their own.

[/QUOTE]


Well, Brent, to me it wasn't funny. As you would say, "To each their own." Comedy is definitely subjective. I will say that there were funny "moments" in "The Hangover" just not enough to keep me amused.


Another so called comedy that I absolutely despised was "Napolean Dynamite". I swear that I was the only one in the theater that was not laughing, and the sad part is is that I could not figure out what was comical about a particular situation to warrant the laughter. After an hour of this I just had to get up and leave.

 

[CraigH]

ST. Elmo's Fire.



Hated it.

 

[Everett S.]

Most anything made for SYFY channel.

 

[Mark Collins]

I have been doing my Memoral Day Weekend Marathon of War movies. I started out with Private Ryan. I then put in an episode of the Pacfic. Last night Sink the Bismark and today Pearl Harbor and Bridge on the River Kwai with more Pacfic episodes to wrap up and i wanted From Here To Eternity.


I cannot stand Peral Harbor!! I just fast forward to the CGI. Ben Affleck I cannot stand anyting he is in. He has no acting talent. Why they put him in Ryan i do not know. He is on the screen with his good buddie Matt Damon. He at one point even smiles during a scene from Ryan at Damon.