Supposedly terrific movies that just didn't do it for you... and why. (1 Viewer)

[Mick Wright]

Apocalypse Now - what's with the surfing?

It was written by a surfer. I admit it does seem out of place though.

A couple more (possibly already mentioned):

Suspiria. It looks great visually but I never could resolve a coherent plot. The english dub track didn't help.

28 Days Later. I've always scoffed at videophiles who brand certain titles unwatchable - until I saw this. This disc looked really bad on my FP and the story fizzled out. At least Blair Witch had a clever reason for looking so awful.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Apocalypse Now - what's with the surfing?

I think it's there for a couple of reasons. For one, it highlights the general absurdity of the war, also noted in the circus-like bridge sequence at the end. In addition, the surfing points out the obliviousness of the American soldiers - with all that mayhem around them, they just want to surf. (Well, the Duvall character does, at least.)

Basically it's a way to demonstrate how inappropriate the American presence was...

 

[Jeffrey P]

Diary Of A Chambermaid

This didn't do much for me either; I much prefer the Phantom of Liberty and the Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.

 

[JoeMKal]

the movies that come immediately to mind are

Lost In Translation, there are a bunch of clever funny moments, but nothing else really happens, plus the bill scarlett relationship really creeped me out

The Station Agent, I didn't really care about any of the characters and they don't really change, plus the movie didn't have a satisfying conclusion imo

Seabisquit, all the depression stuff injected into the movie annoyed me, and seemed unnecessary

 

[Jason_Els]

A friend brought over X2 last night and it left me flat. No charachter development, not much plot development, a vewry thin story line and I found the charachters very 2 dimensional.

I loved X2, thought it better than the original but that's because I know the history of the characters and the overall plot. These people mean something to me and seeing them on-screen is just a joy. Each time a new character comes on screen I'm just elated to see him or her there. The mansion attack scene had me wishing a gruesome death on the attackers. And Jean, well, she was one of my first loves (and doomed like the rest of them).

I think as with LOTR you just had to know something before going in to really appreciate the depth of everything.

Same deal with Titanic. What moves me is the fate of the ship itself and of the real, living or dead people portrayed in the film itself. This was a historical re-enactment with a fictional romance thrown-in for good measure. I was very sad at the end and got all choked-up as appropriate but most of it was from knowing that out there in the ocean is Titanic herself with all those lost souls, rich or poor, young or old at rest in their lightless ice water tomb.

That is what made those movies great for me though I can understand how someone who doesn't connect to the stories the way I do doesn't feel the same thing.

 

[Darrin W-G]

1) Terminator 3 *Shakes head and pretends it's part of the trilogy*
2) Spiderman and The Hulk *They have could have been faithfull to the comic book, as it does have pictures and dialogue*
) SW TPM & SW AOTC SW ROTJ *Misery*
4) Harry Potter 2 *Doesn't look good*
5) Superman 2 & 3 *It wasn't kryptonite in bringing these 2 down to their knees*
6) Indiana Jones & the temple of doom and the Last Crusade* Both are living in the shadow of the Raiders of the lost Arc*
7) Die Another Day *Bond has lost the midas touch*
8) The Mummy Returns *Their gonna need more than bandages*
9)Jurassic Park 2 & 3 *They should been left in the museum*
10) Star Trek Nemisis *Jean Luc Picard isn't James T Kirk*

"These aren't movies, these are blooper reels and can be only used to test home theatre set-ups."

 

[Seth Paxton]

This whole thread gets a big

Well, I might feel the same way except that the point of the thread was to vent about critically popular films free from flaming.

I will admit that I pretty much don't agree with a single opinion in the thread, which only makes the thread a little depressing for me. To think that so many film fans dislike all these films I really like. That's the one bummer about film to me, so many people can really hate a film you love or just don't interact with a film the same way you do.

Of course the film remains for you to enjoy so f**k them, but then it still sucks when you don't have other people to discuss a film you love in a positive way. I guess that's what makes it most upsetting to hear negative opinions of films we like. It happens to every one of us though.


So far the only really wrong thing in the thread are the few poorly reviewed films (and box office duds) that have creeped in, as mentioned by smarter people a few pages back who noted that such divergence is par for course in these threads.


Right now I can't think of a "good" film that I really disliked but I suppose there are a few. Some, like Gladiator, I simply thought were only good as popcorn films rather than being true Best Picture types, but generally the really well-received films leave me at least partially satisfied.

 

[Steve_Tk]

Seth, all that really matters is how much you enjoy the film, who cares what these other people do. Your enjoyment of your chosen movies in your HT is the only thing that matters. And I too usually enjoy well received films. Some people on here will turn their nose up at that because they think they are better than that, and their list of tops are the limited release style movies that are just so damn good that they only get released in 5 theaters. I could care less that they don't enjoy my movies, just like they could care less I don't enjoy theirs. We can all have different opinions on movies and still enjoy HT as a community.

With this type of thread though every single popular movie will be on the list. Someone notices their favorite film, so they throw on one they hate to get them back. I'm been doing this with Spiderman for 2 years.

And I agree Gladiator is a popcorn movie, and I love every minute of it. I'd rather watch it then those films that push an agenda and just bask in their perfection, but usually boring as hell. But that's just me.

 

[Michael Reuben]

With this type of thread though every single popular movie will be on the list. Someone notices their favorite film, so they throw on one they hate to get them back. I'm been doing this with Spiderman for 2 years.

Steve, that's a very good summary of the dynamic I've often witnessed in threads like these. I call them "get even" threads, and IMO they're a massive waste of time. But to each their own.

M.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I totally agree, but can't say that I'm not guilty of it also. I'm surprised this is still open.

 

[SteveGon]

Another vote for the English Patient Ugh. What a bad movie. I love that Episode of Seinfeld so much!

I'm still waiting to hear WHY so many people here dislike this film. All I ever hear is "it sucked," or "I hated it." Why? (I happen to think it's one of the more deserving Best Picture winners of the last decade.)

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I'm still waiting to hear WHY so many people here dislike this film. All I ever hear is "it sucked," or "I hated it."

I love the film, but I can see that the length and amount of time where *nothing* happens (except dialogue) puts some people off. It's just a quiet, intelligent, character driven, tragic love story which doesn't shout everything in your face. Of course, some call it boring, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm still waiting to hear WHY so many people here dislike this film. All I ever hear is "it sucked," or "I hated it." Why?

Cut and pasted from my original review:

For one, it's just too damned long and too damned boring! Every once in a while something happens, but for the most part everyone just sits around and gabs about their dull problems. I found the characters to be wholly uncompelling, so why would I want to listen to uninteresting people for more than two and a half hours?

I never truly bought into the whole premise of the film. Here you have Ralph Fiennes as Almacy, a generally bitter, pragmatic, and unlikeable chap, who has his life and world-view turned upside-down by the lovely Katharine (Kristin Scott Thomas), apparently the greatest siren ever to enter the desert. Almacy immediately falls for her and becomes happy and cheerful. By the end of the film, both he and her husband have essentially killed themselves because they can't have her.

Unfortunately, the film never provides us with any coherent reason why these guys are so nuts about Katharine. She's pretty, and she seems reasonably intelligent and articulate, but that's about it. Almacy betrays friends and allies because of his love for her, but I never found it plausible that he would do so.

The film may have had more time to explore the rationale behind Almacy's emotions if the completely extraneous and uninteresting subplot that involves nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche) and her life been omitted. Essentially, Hana is an expository character; her presence is required to give the events that lead Almacy to tell his boring stories about the desert a reason to occur. Why? Why couldn't the story simply focus on Almacy and leave out her contrived romance and other personal affairs? As little interest Almacy's affairs held for me, I cared less about Hana; I found no reason for the scenes that included her to exist.

I also strongly objected to the hypocrisy of this and other films that address marital infidelity. At the risk of sounding sexist, I propose this: ask any woman who liked The English Patient why they liked it, and invariably the answer comes back, "It was soooo romantic!!!" (That's what my fiancee' said.) Let me see if I have this straight: woman cheats on devoted mate - Katharine's husband is always portrayed as a good guy - which immediately results in despair for all involved and ultimately ends with the death of all three!! That's romantic?

What I find hypocritical here and with other films in which a wife cheats on a husband - The Bridges of Madison County springs to mind - is how gloriously these affairs are portrayed. When the woman cheats, it's always some fantastically romantic dalliance that makes the women in the audience swoon. When the man cheats, however, he's invariably a superficial cad who has to pay (First Wives Club, anyone?) Yes, I'm sure that there are some exceptions to this rule, but I believe it's largely on the money, and I find it to be extremely distasteful.

I also thought that The English Patient manipulated the audience's emotions as calculatedly as any cheesy horror film. This tendency was most evident in the scenes that featured Hana. Here we have a woman who loses her fiancee' and her best friend within the first minutes of the film; both of them got blowed-up! As the film progresses, she finds a new love: a guy whose job it is to disarm bombs! Good choice, baby! Needless to say, this romance sets up many scenes in which the filmmakers threaten to explode the new boyfriend (who never does go "boom"). Friday the 13th was more subtle than this!

 

[Dave_Brown]

One other film that I tried to enjoy but just couldn't was Pearl Harbor . The effects were great and the historical re-creations were pretty good but they just seemed to want to focus on the love story above everything else.

And for the folks who still can't believe this thread is open, I wish you wouldn't take open critics of films so personally. I'm happy that this post has remained so civil after 5 pages. And it was created for the purpose of negative comments, which should be just as welcome here as praise is for the movies you really enjoy in those "Best movie of all times" threads.

Not to mention I think it is better to discuss these things here then to try and go into a seperate post about the movie itself where you might as well just paint a big ol' target on your back.

 

[JerryLA]

My most recent dissapointment was Pirates of the Caribbean. It came highly recommended but left me feeling... "What's the big deal". It's not that I found it to be a bad film, just fell way short of all the hype I've read about it. Maybe a second viewing is necessary to see what everyone is talking about.

 

[Andy_G]

I would have listed Pearl Harbor, but I wasn't aware that it was "supposedly terrific."

 

[Ed Moroughan]

Scream - Uh, I saw this once before...it was called...Halloween. Trying to be a parody but done serious. So which is it. Syd was never in trouble...she's the tough virginal girl!!! DUH!

 

[Tony-B]

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (It's alright, but definitely not terrific)
Moulin Rouge

 

[Walter Kittel]

Re: The English Patient and Colin's review at post 173.

1) Since when was rational behaviour a part of love? When did this happen? No explanation for the attraction between Katherine Clifton and Almasy is required.

2) Many of the plot points you criticize were adapted from Michael Ondaatje's prize winning novel.

The relationship between Kip and Hana was used as a means of exploring a different type of love affair and stood in contrast to the relationship between Katherine and Almasy. Consider the giving nature of a nurse and a demolition expert who are both attempting to help others vs. the selfish nature of the film's other lovers ( K & Almasy. )

I probably couldn't disagree more with the review as it completely misses the aesthetic sensibilities of the film, but to each their own as always.

- Walter.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

and that, colin jacobson, is why I hated the English Patient.


It's a little distrubing how many women consider adultry to be "romantic."