What movie do you most detest? (1 Viewer)

[Adam Gregorich]

All the films listed are mere childs play compared to Sweet Movie reviewed on HTF back in 2007 by Matt Hough.


A brief excerpt from that review:

But I must be honest in saying that this film infuriated me more than any film I’ve seen in over thirty years of watching and writing about movies. I found the director’s efforts to push the envelope of what’s acceptable in cinematic terms overtly crass, obviously indulgent, and self-consciously outrageous. There is a definite emphasis on bodily functions, and the extended sequence with the Otto Muehl Therapy Commune turns out to be the most repellant sequence it’s ever been my misfortune to witness. A dinnertime feast with the catatonic Laure observing the water sports, defecation for display and purification, vomiting for human consumption, and other assorted acts of “liberating” vulgarity is a cheap, desperate ploy by a director who must reach ever lower in his bag of tricks in order to be noticed. Throw in a little pedophilia and just a taste of cannibalism and that keeps the “anything goes” philosophy chugging right along. For Sweet Movie, its pseudo-hip salaciousness is its inevitable downfall.

If we are sticking with US releases I'd say Date Movie, Epic Movie or any other movie released in the last few years with the word "Movie" in the title (not including Not Another Teen Movie).


Edit: I saw Elizabeth S.'s post on The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover and that was pretty bad. If you didn't like that than you really, really, really would hate Sweet Movie.

 

[Ruz-El]

And the problem with threads like this is... I now want to see if "Sweet Movie" really is that bad.

 

[SWFF]

Do we, as an advancing technological species, have the ability yet to "unknow" something? 'Cause I could really use it right about now.

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich

defecation for display and purification, vomiting for human consumption, and other assorted acts of “liberating” vulgarity is a cheap, desperate ploy by a director who must reach ever lower in his bag of tricks in order to be noticed. Throw in a little pedophilia and just a taste of cannibalism and that keeps the “anything goes” philosophy chugging right along.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Russell G And yes, it is that bad.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I can't remember my exact reaction to Sweet Movie, but I didn't hate it. Learning a little about the political background and motivations of the filmmaker informed my experience. Without that, it probably would have come across as an empty parade of self indulgent shock effects- but I did get the impression that the artist had a 'point'. Whether that point is interesting, profound, or infantile is a personal call.


Most people I expect will just find it self indulgent junk, but I was willing to cut it some slack because I remembered some of the outre 'art' I wanted to create at age 20, and that's the spirit in which I watched it. Thankfully, it wasn't anything like Salo, which just seemed mean-spirited and ugly.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Greg_S_H



Oh, that Jack Briggs. I thought the poster meant an actor or a director or somebody. My mind is full of film and work. I don't obsess over the membership and I never remember who the people are. You have no idea how busy the last six years have been.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by PODER

Interesting that the remake of CASINO ROYALE was listed several times.

CASINO ROYALE's reputation is sinking real fast, now that people have had time to think about it. Even the films' fanatical supporters are beginning to lighten up and listen to those of us who don't buy into it.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Originally Posted by Luisito34

I'm surprised that Superman Returns isn't well thought-of. I'm not into comic books so things like screwing with mythology and radical re-imaginings don't bother me. I was thoroughly entertained. I'd be curious to learn what exactly people didn't like about the film.

My problem wasn't with the 'dark and mopey' vision of Superman. I could accept that if it was in the service of truly interesting and exciting story.

The problem for me was that Returns massively plagiarizes the first Donner film- it steals the score, the set design, the general story, and even the emotional beats (and dialogue!) of individual set pieces and then passes it off as a 'Bryan Singer film'. Man is that some hubris.

And in the rare occasions where it doesn't merely imitate a much better and more original film, the only things it adds are supporting characters that are not only unnecessary, but unwanted in this universe (the super illegitimate son, the action orientated rival, who performs more heroically than the main character).


Great special effects- but that just makes the whole affair all the more detestable because they should have been used in the service of much better, and far more original, film.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Originally Posted by Lord Dalek

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - Boring plotless ripoff of several other "second movies", mostly Wrath of Khan. Back in 2006 when somebody said Dead Man's Chest was a great movie I wanted to punch them in the face. Now those guys want to punch other guys in the face to atone for their erroneous ways. Not so fast slick.

I don't detest it, but I thought it sucked. The first one was like the Star Wars of Pirate films. Loved it. The second one was boring and stupid. I've forgotten most of it, but I wasn't too keen on all of the fish people. I never bothered with the third one.


I can sometimes be motivated into an extended rant, but I'll just be brief. I detest Titanic. Historic figures were slimed, the Strauses were given short shrift because they didn't fit Cameron's "the rich are bad, the poor are noble" thesis, the framing story was completely unnecessary, and when you need to add gunplay into the story of the Titanic, I think you're missing the fact that the actual event was interesting enough by itself. As beloved as the story of the Strauses is the story of the band playing on, and that was dismissed with an, "Oh, great. Music to drown by!" followed by a reasonably anachronistic and ugly scene of a man's prayer being interrupted with an abrupt, "Can you walk through that valley a little faster?" Not being a big fan of the comeuppance, I was also less than thrilled with Old Rose's little smirk when she mentioned that Cal had killed himself after the stock market crash. Oh, and that awful scene where Leo dropped the keys after being handcuffed. Come on! How contrived was that? At least I only had to see this bitch once. Hated, hated it. To say something nice, I seem to remember Winslett being topless and looking good.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Interesting that the remake of CASINO ROYALE was listed several times.

CASINO ROYALE's reputation is sinking real fast, now that people have had time to think about it. Even the films' fanatical supporters are beginning to lighten up and listen to those of us who don't buy into it.

[/QUOTE]

Richard, I agree with you that Craig's Bond is not "Bond" and bears almost no relation to the Fleming character. I disagree with you on the idea that Bond on film didn't need to be deconstructed. The Austin Powers films ripped the character a new a-hole so large, it's just about impossible to soldier on in the exact same spirit with a straight face now. I firmly believe the character had to be stripped down, and slowly re-built- with the iconic elements hopefully layered on piece by piece over the course of several films- for the general concept (of a James Bond-like character) to be taken seriously again.


No, it may not be the authentic Bond- but in post Austin Powers world, it's a good alternative for a lot of us. Brosnans films may have been more in the mold of the classic conception of the character, but I'll take Craigs films for entertainment anyday over Pierce's weak-sauce pastiches.


Besides, I always found Brosnan's insufferably smug and self satisfied frat boy take on the character, and Dame Judi's dressing down of him in the early scenes of Goldeneye far more irritating and offensive, than anything so far in the Craig films.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by RobertR

I'm surprised that Superman Returns isn't well thought-of. I'm not into comic books so things like screwing with mythology and radical re-imaginings probably has something to do with it, but I was thoroughly entertained. I'd be curious to learn what exactly people didn't like about the film.

Read post #18. A lot of people don’t like a dark, dreary Superman story with a mopey, depressed, deadbeat dad “hero”. They also don’t want a bitchy, angry Lois who has no chemistry with the “hero”. I’ll add that the Luthor “evil plot” was utterly ridiculous (yeah, people are just DYING to move to a continent that’s an utterly barren wasteland), and the Super Kid was even duller, more useless and mopier than his dad.


[/QUOTE]


Well spoken, RobertR.

I'm relieved to discover that more and more people think the way I do.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott

Interesting that the remake of CASINO ROYALE was listed several times.

CASINO ROYALE's reputation is sinking real fast, now that people have had time to think about it. Even the films' fanatical supporters are beginning to lighten up and listen to those of us who don't buy into it.

[/QUOTE]

Richard, I agree with you that Craig's Bond is not "Bond" and bears almost no relation to the Fleming character. I disagree with you on the idea that Bond on film didn't need to be deconstructed. The Austin Powers films ripped the character a new a-hole so large, it's just about impossible to soldier on in the exact same spirit with a straight face now. I firmly believe the character had to be stripped down, and slowly re-built- with the iconic elements hopefully layered on piece by piece over the course of several films- for the general concept (of a James Bond-like character) to be taken seriously again.


No, it may not be the authentic Bond- but in post Austin Powers world, it's a good alternative for a lot of us. Brosnans films may have been more in the mold of the classic conception of the character, but I'll take Craigs films for entertainment anyday over Pierce's weak-sauce pastiches.


You make a valid point, but I think you are confused about what I, personally, regard as an authentic Bond. In some films the authentic Bond goes hand in hand with the iu-authentic Bond. Dr. No and From Russia With Love are my idea of the authentic Bond, together with large doses of Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and smaller doses of Goldfinger, For Your Eyes Only, and Licence to Kill. The Bond films were at their best when the character of Bond interacted on a human level in a straightforward epsionage drama that pushed the edge of surrealism [reiterate: surrealism] and snapped back again without turning into outright sc-fi. When the Bond films turn into high camp, slapstick, farce, superhero heroics, comedy, cartoonishness, and wild sexual exagerations -- as examplefied by ejector seats, rocket-firing motorcycles, jet-packs, cars that turn into submarines and airplanes, submersible missile bases, laser battles in outer space, indestructible giants like Jaws and prissy supervillians like Blofeld in YOLT and DAD -- that is the inauthentic Bond. These moments may be crowd pleasers at the moment, but they are piss-poor story-telling and not good thriller-drama-action.


Austin Powers and sequels zeroed in on the downside of the Bond films with unerring accuracy, but they do not undermine the legitimate dramatic core of the Bond concept. The legitimate part of Bond is still viable, and that's the part Broccoli and Wilson have never understood, and the part they have replaced with misandry and gender deconstruction. Getting back to Austin Powers, the 1960s imitators and the 1970s Bond films deserved the ridicule. I'm surprised EON let Mike Meyers get away with it. But it did not stop EON at first from continuing the bad habits in Die Another Day. As an exercise in deconstruction and reverse-discrimination, Casino Royale is going to date as quickly and as badly as Roger Moore's safari jackets and bell-bottom pants.


It is still possible to return to the legitimate, dramatic core of James Bond that Ian Fleming and the originating film makers provided. Just leave the bullshvt out of it. I want to respond a little differently to your remarks, but I can't do it now. Later.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Brent M



Oh, really?

You think so?


Brace yourself.

My response is coming in due course.

 

[Paul_Scott]

The Bond films were at their best when the character of Bond interacted on a human level in a straightforward epsionage drama that pushed the edge of surrealism [reiterate: surrealism] and snapped back again without turning into outright sc-fi.

Should probably dig out that recent Bond thread for further posts on the subject- but I do find this an interesting encapsulation.



I hesitated to mention this earlier because I don't know if 'detest' is too strong, but the more I think about The Dark Knight, the more I dislike it.

It's particularly galling to me that it assumes a veneer of intelligent substance, yet at the same time doesn't seem to have any coherent thoughts on the profound subjects it alludes to.

 

[Patrick H.]

My problem wasn't with the 'dark and mopey' vision of Superman. I could accept that if it was in the service of truly interesting and exciting story. The problem for me was that Returns massively plagiarizes the first Donner film- it steals the score, the set design, the general story, and even the emotional beats (and dialogue!) of individual set pieces and then passes it off as a 'Bryan Singer film'. Man is that some hubris.

Indeed, Paul...my EXACT same feelings. The way the character was portrayed was out-of synch with my preconceived notions of Superman, but then again there were elements of Bruce Wayne's development that surprised me in 'Batman Begins.' But I accepted those because Chris Nolan sold me that he was building his own version of the Batman mythos from scratch, with respect to all that had come before, and he justified these elements with his storyline. In 'Superman Returns', though, every damned thing on the screen harkened back to the movies I remembered as a kid, except the downbeat, meandering, "soul-searching" story bore absolutely no relation to the tone of those films. By the end of the movie, I was sitting there thinking "What has this asshole done to deserve flying off into the sunset to John Williams' score? Woke up from a coma?! That's how I feel after this POS...where's MY theme music?" I concluded that, basically, the filmmakers had no faith that the warm, optimistic feel of the Donner films would translate to modern audiences...but at the same time, were too lazy to actually do the work (as Nolan did with Batman) in rebuilding a compelling new version of the character. So they just hijacked the look, backstory, and chunks of plot in the hope they could then float their own "vision" on audience nostalgia. The result was this genetic freak of a movie that they then had the audacity to sell as "the 'Superman III' you never got!" Well guess what? I'd actually rather watch the original 'III' again over this abomination. And that was a DEFCON-5 shitty movie...

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by TravisR

Why Pixar would make a sequel to this, but not The Incredibles is something I'll never understand.

Cars made $461 million worldwide, sold more than 15 million copies on video and, mostly important, has moved more than a billion dollars in merchandise. I know the internet hates the movie (for reasons that I can't understand) but clearly millions of children loved it.

[/QUOTE]

The Incredibles made over 631 million dollars worldwide...

If box office said everything, then why is this thread filled with big budget movies that, while making lots of money, were still not very good? Is that just a backlash against 'hype'? The reasons why so many hate Cars have been pretty well established, it doesn't matter if a lot of children buy car toys because of it.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst
...it doesn't matter if a lot of children buy car toys because of it.

When the amount made off of toy cars is more than a billion dollars, of course it matters. You said you couldn't understand why they'd make a sequel to Cars rather than The Incredibles and I'm saying that the amount of merchandise that they'll sell is probably a real big reason why.

 

[Edwin-S]

Maybe the reason there hasn't been an Incredibles sequel is because Brad Bird hasn't decided to pursue one yet. The Incredibles was more of a Brad Bird film than a Pixar film, so if he hasn't indicated that he is ready to make a sequel, maybe the Pixar crew has enough respect for the man to not pursue a sequel until Bird is ready to do one. As for CARS, I think that film gets unfairly bashed. CARS is going to become a classic long after some of Pixar's other films are forgotten: I'm thinking of WALL-E as an example.

 

[JonZ]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun

Surprised no one has mentioned "The Happening" or "Lady in the Water" yet. Both horrific misfires by Shyamalan.

IMHO the only film of his that wasnt a misfire is Unbreakable.

 

[TonyD]

I despise any movie made by the duo of Freidberg and that other guy, Date movie, Disaster movie, and the most recent film which finally left thier names off the front of the dvd, Vampires Suck.

Those guys are true hacks.


Also Godzilla new and Alien 4.


Godzilla was barely passable and then came the end and the way they murdered the Godzilla creature was just terrible. Having him caught in the wires of that bridge just screaming and twisting to death, reprehensible.


Basically the same with Alien 4. the movie was not great but I was going with it until near then end when the "human" alien was sucked through the hole out into space.

It seemed like that scene took forever to conclude with the alien slowly and painfully getting sucked out that window, all the while scraming in severe agony. completely unnecessary.