Movies You Changed Your Mind About (1 Viewer)

[Ejanss]

Makes you wonder if there any young'ns who would be surprised by the ending of "To Serve Man".

Well, leaving aside a few hundred Simpsons jokes, which also makes it hard to preserve secrets about Citizen Kane's "Rosebud" and/or smashed snow globes...

The one Hughes film that doesn't quite hold up for me is The Breakfast Club. There's just something glib and smarmy about it that leaves a bad aftertaste.

There's a good movie to be made about the reality of teens fostering their own symbolic self-xenophobic cliques just to understand their world, and then projecting their fears of their own lack of identity by forcing their own friends and strangers into those prisons, and the 90's have probably made one already.
Hughes, OTOH, was 43 when he wrote it, so the movie begins with a David Bowie quote about the freedom of youth, which explodes! on screen, giving way to a movie where our heroes discover that they've trapped themselves into prejudicial stereotypes because..."the GROWNUPS did it to us!"

(Even at an age where this was supposed to be meaningful, my reaction was "....Oh, good lord. " )

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Me and a friend always say how great it would be to be able to erase a movie you love from your brain so you could watch it for the 'first' time again.

Before anyone asks, you'd just leave a note to tell yourself to watch it.

Maybe try them... if they're back in business, especially if they've developed advances for remote treatment. Some of us could probably just hop on the LIRR...



_Man_

 

[TJPC]

Before we had children and the Zombie Apocalypse happened, we used to fly to New York and see 6 musicals (Wednesday to Sunday).

We just returned from one of these trips, and decided to go to the movies and see “All That Jazz”. We absolutely hated it. The musical numbers etc. seemed poorly staged and the characters repulsive.

Unfortunately, we had forgotten that we had promised to take my wife’s mother to see it, so we were forced to see it again a week later. We both absolutely loved it, and it became one of our at home favourites. Were we just “musicaled out” the first time?

 

[WillG]

Well, leaving aside a few hundred Simpsons jokes, which also makes it hard to preserve secrets about Citizen Kane's "Rosebud" and/or smashed snow globes...



There's a good movie to be made about the reality of teens fostering their own symbolic self-xenophobic cliques just to understand their world, and then projecting their fears of their own lack of identity by forcing their own friends and strangers into those prisons, and the 90's have probably made one already.
Hughes, OTOH, was 43 when he wrote it, so the movie begins with a David Bowie quote about the freedom of youth, which explodes! on screen, giving way to a movie where our heroes discover that they've trapped themselves into prejudicial stereotypes because..."the GROWNUPS did it to us!"

(Even at an age where this was supposed to be meaningful, my reaction was "....Oh, good lord. " )

i still enjoy TBC. However it becomes harder for me to sympathize with some of the characters.

 

[Thomas T]

i still enjoy TBC. However it becomes harder for me to sympathize with some of the characters.

Especially Judd Nelson's character. He just comes across as a jerk today. Not that he didn't back then but I think we were more tolerant of him in 1985.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Interestingly, my older kids -- both of whom reached drinking age not long ago -- do seem to like some of these Hughes flicks to varying degrees, perhaps especially Breakfast Club in their first viewing last year(?).

IIRC, it was Pitch Perfect that catalyzed our eventual interest there. I had never actually watched Breakfast Club either before then. Actually never watched most Hughes flicks in their entirety before, including Pretty in Pink, which we finally watched earlier this year. I guess they mostly came along when I wasn't that interested in that sort yet... and then, there were always plenty other seemingly more interesting, critically better and/or simply more entertaining movies to dive into since then...

_Man_

 

[TravisR]

Especially Judd Nelson's character. He just comes across as a jerk today. Not that he didn't back then but I think we were more tolerant of him in 1985.

Not that Nelson's character doesn't have his bad points but I think he's one of the least hypocritical of the characters. As they say in the movie, he wouldn't care what his friends had to say if they saw him hanging out with Anthony Michael Hall's character while Molly Ringwald and Emilio Estevez's characters definitely would. He also 'sacrifices' himself when they're running around the school so the rest of the kids don't get caught.

 

[WillG]

Especially Judd Nelson's character. He just comes across as a jerk today. Not that he didn't back then but I think we were more tolerant of him in 1985.

i actually sympathize with Nelson’s character the most. He’s a jerk, but at least he sort of has an excuse to be one as he clearly comes from the most broken home and is evidently abused physically and verbally.

AMH‘s character is somewhat sympathetic as its clear his parents put unfair amounts of pressure on him and as a “dork” he likely gets picked on.

Estevez’s character, yeah screw him. My dad rides me to not squander my abilities so I might be able to get a college scholarship. Yeah maybe in a way his story isn’t much different than AMH but Estevez seems able to take it better than the weaker AMH. He’s also popular, and seems on track for a successful life.

Ringwald, yeah she’s the child of an apparently loveless marriage, but she doesn’t want for anything and her main trauma seems to be that there’s so much pressure in being popular. Not exactly tugging on my heart strings.

Sheedy, well, we never really learn all that much about her. So who knows.

 

[Robin9]

Another film I've changed my mind about is The Naked City. I still think it's a good movie but I now feel that Mark Hellinger's commentary adds nothing of value. I find it irritating and wish I could watch the film without it!

 

[Ejanss]

Ringwald, yeah she’s the child of an apparently loveless marriage, but she doesn’t want for anything and her main trauma seems to be that there’s so much pressure in being popular. Not exactly tugging on my heart strings.

"I hate my mom...She's so much prettier than me." (Oh, wait, that was something else.)

 

[ChrisOC]

I don't think it was an issue up until around Marnie. The effects in Hitchcock's older films are are on par or better than other films of their era. But he became stuck in that mindset, and by the mid-60s, other movies started using new techniques while Hitchcock remained set in his ways.

Frenzy doesn't have any special effects that I can recall, and it doesn't need them. It's actually rather small in physical scope, and it's very effective. His use of black humor is almost cringe-worthy, but it works to the story's advantage.

 

[ChrisOC]

Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is definitely another I found waaay too slow and completely boring and pointless when I first saw it in my late teens in college I think.

I didn't see 2001 until about 25 years ago, and I found it downright tedious. The effects are good for the movie's time, but they detract from the story. I think the section with HAL would have made an excellent short film despite its story hole*, but on the whole, I can think of better things to do with 2.5 hours.

*The story hole is the notion that the Bowman and Poole wouldn't have considered HAL's ability to read their lips while they sat perfectly still behind a window HAL's direct line of sight.

 

[David_B_K]

I didn't see 2001 until about 25 years ago, and I found it downright tedious. The effects are good for the movie's time, but they detract from the story. I think the section with HAL would have made an excellent short film despite its story hole*, but on the whole, I can think of better things to do with 2.5 hours.

*The story hole is the notion that the Bowman and Poole wouldn't have considered HAL's ability to read their lips while they sat perfectly still behind a window HAL's direct line of sight.

I wish that were the story hole. No, to me the story hole in 2001 is that the story isn't really the story. The real story is "man making evolutionary leaps". I love the effects which still look great to my eye. But I find the fetus floating in space to the stirring sounds of Richard Strauss' Thus Spake Zarathustra a pretty ridiculous ending. I agree that the film is tedious, but I enjoy it up to the point where the story Dave shuts down HAL.

 

[TJPC]

I saw 2001 at the Cinerama theatre in Detroit, when it was in first run and basically thought it was complete crap -- visually stunning but incomprehensible. What the fuck was going on? Two things intrigued me however, the soundtrack and the plot. I purchased the LPs and basically wore out a copy playing it as loud as possible on my parents stereo. I also bought a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's original novel. This gave me a complete overview of the actual story. It is almost as if Kubrick only filmed the scenes that intrigued him and left out every other one. With that background it made sense. It is as if you should read a few chapters, play 1/2 hour of the movie, read some more, etc. Since then the movie is one of my favourites.

 

[David_B_K]

Two things intrigued me however, the soundtrack and the plot. I purchased the LPs and basically wore out a copy playing it as loud as possible on my parents stereo. I also bought a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's original novel. This gave me a complete overview of the actual story. It is almost as if Kubrick only filmed the scenes that intrigued him and left out every other one. With that background it made sense. It is as if you should read a few chapters, play 1/2 hour of the movie, read some more, etc. Since then the movie is one of my favourites.

I also played the soundtrack quite a bit. Film soundtracks in general were instrumental in developing my interest in classical music. But 2001 featured actual classical music. I also had the soundtrack to the film The Music Lovers, which was made up of Tchaikovsky excerpts. So, one day, I went to the Foley's department store and bought 3 LP's - Beethoven's 5th, Tchaikovsky's Romeo & Juliet/Nutcracker Suite and a collection of Strauss waltzes. The thrill of hearing The Blue Danube in 2001 started it all.

 

[BobO'Link]

I saw 2001 at the Cinerama theatre in Detroit, when it was in first run and basically thought it was complete crap -- visually stunning but incomprehensible. What the fuck was going on? Two things intrigued me however, the soundtrack and the plot. I purchased the LPs and basically wore out a copy playing it as loud as possible on my parents stereo. I also bought a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's original novel. This gave me a complete overview of the actual story. It is almost as if Kubrick only filmed the scenes that intrigued him and left out every other one. With that background it made sense. It is as if you should read a few chapters, play 1/2 hour of the movie, read some more, etc. Since then the movie is one of my favourites.

Clarke and Kubrick cowrote the screenplay and was inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel." The novel was mostly written concurrently by Clarke and was released after the movie's premiere.

While I very much enjoy the movie I've always felt it would have been much better if the script had more closely resembled the novel. As it is, there are sections that I've always felt are quite ponderous (the famous trip through the light vortex being the main one). I almost always tell new viewers to read the book first or at least be willing to read it after seeing the movie so they better know what they've seen.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I wish that were the story hole. No, to me the story hole in 2001 is that the story isn't really the story. The real story is "man making evolutionary leaps". I love the effects which still look great to my eye. But I find the fetus floating in space to the stirring sounds of Richard Strauss' Thus Spake Zarathustra a pretty ridiculous ending. I agree that the film is tedious, but I enjoy it up to the point where the story Dave shuts down HAL.

Hmmm... wonder if my warming up to 2001 parallels my warning up to Mahler (as I said in the hirez music thread), haha...

BTW, thanks much for your Mahlerian insights and recommendations (over there)! Quite a bit to digest...



_Man_

 

[Thomas T]

As it is, there are sections that I've always felt are quite ponderous (the famous trip through the light vortex being the main one).

And of course, that scene was probably what made the film a hit in urban cities. It was a "trip" and the scent of grass often wafted through the theater. On the giant screen with 4 track stereophonic sound and stoned, it was awesome. Sober and on your home screen, not so much.

 

[BobO'Link]

And of course, that scene was probably what made the film a hit in urban cities. It was a "trip" and the scent of grass often wafted through the theater. On the giant screen with 4 track stereophonic sound and stoned, it was awesome. Sober and on your home screen, not so much.

Yep - exactly, though even in my stoner years I didn't get the attraction as it tended to put me to sleep no matter what state of mind I was in (I managed to see it once on the big screen in the "proper" state of mind - I nodded off during that part).

It came out shortly before my 13th birthday and I first saw it with my dad as a birthday present - that segment bored me even then and I'd read all the magazine articles and was quite pumped to see the movie. I'm a bit more tolerant of it these days but have been known to just ff through that segment.

 

[Worth]

In its original review of 2001, the New York Times said it was "somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring." I think that's a pretty fair assessment, and I love the film.