LEAST favorite movies!

[Pale Horse]

I almost walked out of Guarding Tess.

Now, any moive that isn't worth the price of admission becomes a "Guarding Tess."

There are less than a dozen movies I have actually felt that I should be refunded for. If I am forced to remember them, it will take many thousands of dollars in therapy, several years of coming to terms with my inability to discern good from bad, and the loss of a very powerful emotion, denial. Never under estimate it.

Sometimes $10.00 to hide the truth can be worth it.

 

[VP]

The Neverending Story.

 

[Raffey]

Charlies Angels 2. This is the only movie I rented that I didn't finish seeing. I turned it off after the opening sequence in the mountains.

I'm glad McG isn't going to ruin Superman anymore!

 

[Joe Brody]

I'll step up and defend 'Charlie's Angel's 2'. Sure it was silly but it was meant to be. There's a lot of clever dialogue, editing, and details that you don't find in any other action movie. Bond fans can gush about Connery or Lassnby (sp?) talking about the proper temperature of sake (sp?) or a certain vintage of champagne but in CA2 you get little details like the Cameron Diaz character expertly sabering open a bottle of bubbly without even a pause. There's a lot of smart little stuff packed in the film. Plus, as a father of two young girls, I would rather see girl power movies like CA2 being made by a savvy female star like Barrymore than brainless waste of film like Legally Blonde 2.

 

[Ayrun]

The Neverending Story.

That was my favorite movie when I was a kid..
A couple of years ago I bought it on tape.. 'cause I hadn't seen it since my childhood.
But I admit? I regret watching it, afterwards.
Some memories definitely belong to the past.

Drama: BORING.
Romance: BOOORING.
Horror: Never scares me...I actually laugh at them becuz it's so stupid.
Teen Flix: Not funny, just plain st00pid.
Chick Flix: HELL NAW!! 0_0
^^ These are the genres that never interests me.

Wow.. as if I said it myself.

Although I must say? to everything there is an exception.

 

[Finn]

<small>

Lassnby

<i>Lazenby.</i></small>

And now that we're done with this, I say one more thing about LotR. Ren, have you ever read the
book(s)? If you have, you've probably noticed that their structure is actually pretty bad, something a modern writer would never use. It's also very unbalancedly based, for example <i>The Council of Elrond</i> being a scene that's 30 pages long and characters do nothing but sit on their seats and talk. Can make one numb, even number than sitting through a three-hour-movie. If LotR had been made <i>exactly</i> after the book, it would be even lousier as it is now, as a movie. Besides, the idea of movies is always to be <i>adaptations</i> after the original piece of writing, not to copy them exactly.

And another thing that is good about these movies is that their length, they don't actually have a barrier... the cut into three parts is only artificial, and the greatest limitation to the way they should be watched is your mind. You can have three long movies... perhaps ten short ones... or one <i>really</i> long one, since FotR is not actually the original and TTT plus RotK its sequels, but they're simply one, forward-flowing story. (When RotK won 11 Oscars, it's easy to say they weren't given to part III, but to the whole <i>story</i>.) When the first part ends, the story does not end and the second simply start a new story with same characters, but the same story continues. For those who don't have the patience to sit one movie through on sit, can always stop the tape (not in a theater of course) e.g. to the part where Bilbo leaves Hobiton and claim that that they've seen the first part.

One thing I liked about LotR was that for a movie that long, it did not have a single out-of-the-place scene. Even the action sequences were taking the story forward. They were. Yeah, maybe it's one ten-hour-movie but sometimes stories are told that way. Ever read James Joyce's <i>Odysseus</i>? Again, it is not a bad thing that a story is told the long way, even if there is a way to tell it using the short way. It's an artificial limitation living inside our minds. Perhaps someone here should think a little out-of-the-box.

 

[Luckylighter]

Ever read James Joyce's <i>Odysseus</i>? Again, it is not a bad thing that a story is told the long way, even if there is a way to tell it using the short way.

Finn, I posted a thread on Joyce's Ulysses about month ago in the Off Topic section--I'd post a link to it but I'm in a hurry (unless you already saw the thread.

Anyway, back to LoTR. Ren, no offence--you know I love you like a brother...or a crazy uncle that I don't see often...but you kind of sound like AntiJones when it comes to LoTR fans. I've read the books and seen the movies, and I think what he was trying to do was create a new mythology by building on the old ones--I mean there are elements of King Arthur, the Saga of the Volsungs, Wagner's Ring Cycle, etc. Although I admit the first two books do drag a bit at times, RoTK is amazing, as far as action, drama, story...it has it all.

The movies reminded me a a grand opera in the Wagner tradition: big, loud, epic scale. I really enjoy watching a long movie because that is true STORYtelling. Most times when you go to a movie you don't get a story, you get a PLOT or a situation. But a story takes it's time, it has details that make the world you are watching on the sceen more believable. LoTR takes it's time with the details because that's the heart of storytelling. What's the phrase? "God is in the details." I don't think people who hate LoTR are dumb, it's just not your cup of tea. And people who appreciate it aren't dumb either.

You also have to appreciate the imagination that could come up with these entire world, to the point that there are maps, alphabets and languages that make this universe more...lived in I guess; more real. It's the details, man. I mean this whole thing came out of this guy's mind. That never ceases to amaze me, with anything: music, art, poetry, film. All expressions of imagination just blow me away. As long as it is pure and true.

By the way Ren, I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with LoTR fans.

Oh yeah, my least favorite movies are "Men at Work" with Charlie Sheen, "Titanic"--dumbest ending ever (look for my thread on THAT real soon)...you know I can't think of any other movies that I can say I hated. There are alot of movies I am indifferent towards, but not many that emotionally charge me to hate them. Go figure.

 

[Finn]

Finn, I posted a thread on Joyce's Ulysses about month ago in the Off Topic section--I'd post a link to it but I'm in a hurry (unless you already saw the thread.

I know that thread too well - I don't know if you recall, but I was one of the most active posters there.

And damn - I used the novel's international title, not the original English title.

 

[Joe Brody]

"Titanic"--dumbest ending ever (look for my thread on THAT real soon)...

I'm interesting in your thoughts on 'Titanic'. Sure the film is deeply flawed but it still has it's moments. For example, I think Winslet's hand hitting the windshield is pretty good. It's good pupulist sentimental fluff.

 

[Finn]

Heh. The funniest thing is that I don't even consider myself a fan of Tolkien or these movies - I just find LotR (the books) a masterpiece... and the flicks are very good too. Perhaps the best movie-adaptations made out of famous books I've seen.

But I'm by no means a freak over them. I just like to defend (good) art, that is.

 

[skywlkrinc]

Ugh....Titanic......there's 3 or 4 hours of my life I wish I had back. That movie was awful.

Luke

 

[Finn]

I've never seen <i>Titanic</i>, by the way.

 

[Pale Horse]

If so many people hated Titanic, who bought all those tickets?! Int'l. Box Office $1,244,246,000. That's a billion U.S. dollars, folks.

I am an incisive adult male, who watches a plethora of movies and writes screenplays. I don't know what is so bad about this film. It had it poor moments, but it isn't a bad movie. To say so really discredits James Cameron.

 

[skywlkrinc]

I didn't buy a ticket. I was forced to sit through it on a rented copy from the local Blockbuster video, and now the girl who made me watch it and I are not on speaking terms.

Luke

 

[skywlkrinc]

The sets were good, and were architecturally accurate to the actual Titanic and the breaking and sinking of Titanic was also very well done. What I had problems with was the script and the performances by the sub par actors coughDiCappriocough. Winslet wasn't that good either.

I can name several films in which he sucked, but I won't because it doesn't relate to Indy.

Luke

 

[Pale Horse]

I can name several films in which he sucked, but I won't because it doesn't relate to Indy.

Luke

That's what the film classic forum is here for, it's okay...

 

[Caitlin]

LotR- I tried to watch it 3 times...w/out falling asleep.

Yup! Me too!! Well, twice actually...I've given up on trying to see LOTR.

Some people here would like to smack me for this but.....It took 3 viewings of SW Episode 1 for me to see the entire thing! I did finally appreciate it when I did see it all the way through.

I HATE horror movies...HATE them. Thriller I can do..but you bring ghosts, aliens, or realistic gore into the picture and you can count me OUT!
I have never seen Freddy, Jason, Halloween, Chucky, or any of those other well known horror movies.

 

[Indy Benson]

Yeah, he was decent in CMIYC, and wasn't he nominated for an Academy Award for his role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape?

He must be doing something right.

 

[skywlkrinc]

He was awful in:
-Gangs of New York
-The Beach
-The Man in the Iron Mask
-Titanic (as stated before)
-Romeo + Juliet (which is probably by far the worst movie I've ever seen)
-The Quick and the Dead
-Growing Pains (the tv show starring Kirk Cameron)

I highly recommend NOT watching most of these films. The Man in the Iron Mask is a decently watchable movie, but DiCrapio sucks and he plays not one, but two roles, so you get twice the suckiness.

Luke

 

[Joe Brody]

Let's just hope that coughDiCappriocough doesn't blow in 'The Aviator.'

I agree with skywlkrinc that wooden performances brought the film down. Since we have a quorum here for Titanic, I hope Lucky gets his thread up before this gets talked out.