You were wise to stay home, eoe. I nearly fell asleep at times in the latest Matrix movie. Some of the effects were good, but the slow parts were v-e-r-y slow and the dialogue was occasionally laughable.
My list: Apocolypse Now
Blair Witch
Deer Hunter
Dr Zhivago
Lawrence of Arabia
Haven't seen English Patient ( Loved Elaine in Seinfeld, writhing and squirming in her seat during the movie. Finally she gets up and says: "Die. Just die already." I felt like saying the same thing while watching Bette Midler in The Rose.)
One of the few movies I walked out on was the first Superman with Christopher Reeve. When Lex Luther began acting like a refugee from the Batman tv series I couldn't take any more.
The whole Matrix trilogy is overated, IMO.
Another very "wise" and applauded movie I disliked is "Fight Club".
LW -- Re Chicago: I have a special category in my mind for movies I think have been "manufactured by committee." That is to say (more or less) that a producer and some lackeys sat down and said, "Let's make a blockbuster. What are the plot elements which sell best? Which surprise actors will have good box office next year? Which color trends do our focus groups tell us will seduce the audience?" etc. etc. I first realized this while watching "Bull Durham" when it came out.
Pearl Harbor has to be a "movie by committee" also. What tripe.
Well, most of what comes out of Hollywood, Edgar...
I suppose so. I don't watch many of the new movies.
I don't get visceral reactions to movies that are simply overhyped or overrated. I get visceral reactions to films that are flawed in insulting or dishonest ways. Or that require you to turn off your intelligence and/or reason in order to accept what's being offered.
For example, Terms of Endearment. Sentimental claptrap. There are plenty of those. But I cringed because the sentiment seems so obviously designed. It's one thing to watch a tearjerker in which the story elicits a blubbery reaction. It's another to watch a tearjerker in which the twists and turns in the plot are designed to elicit blubbery reactions. I had the sense that the movie was created so that Shirley Maclaine could be emotional. I had the same feeling about Scent of a Woman. The film was designed to get Al Pacino an Oscar.
The Big Chill. Aside from the superficiality of the characters (and that's a big aside), I'm supposed to believe that a woman would lend her husband to a friend for the purpose of creating a baby. No consequences of his paternity. Gimme a break.
Another example that made me cringe. When Harry Met Sally. I don't have to like the characters to appreciate the movie. But I do have to believe them. The fundamental dishonesty here was that the characters were not true to their characters. The behavior of the characters seemed to be dictated by what would get a laugh. It made the whole film phony and ultimately cringeworthy.
I have to add (even more than agreeing with you, JL) that one of the things which struck me when I came back to live in the US was the extent to which people depended on being told how they were expected to think, feel. Where this came from is another branch of the conversation, but wherever it came from it's extremely evident in our films. I even see it in the use of "smileys" here in A2K. "Clue: this is my intention; this is what I think your response should be." Not a whole lot of space left for individuality, originality. In films (and on TV, which I've deleted from my life), the way to deconstruct this is to turn off the sound. Only then does one really catch on to the degree to which sound -- volume of audio, kind of music used -- manipulates. In "The Hours," for example, take a look at the colors (clever, empty). In "Chicago," take a look at the pacing (average 11-year-old pace) not to mention the colors. In "Big Chill" (which I quite enjoyed in parts), look at the celebration of really juvenile stuff, charmless in sexually sophisticated adults. It says, We want to be kids forever! In what other culture is that thought to be a good thing? None that I've lived in. Cringe-ville.
Hmm, I think Tartarin saw Roberta's cat as JL (they share the avatar, think R was actually here first; other people pick it too, from time to time)
On Big Chill, I liked the original, which I considered John Sayles' Return of the Secaucus Seven to be.
Back with more.
Tart: "Chicago" never made blockbuster status and was the creation of a Broadway musical stage director, Rob Murrow, who championed the project with the studio and was given artistic control over the film (Miramax is not always known to do this). It wasn't a "committee designed movie" although films are always collaborative so that statement is rather curious. It finally made $175M on a cost of $45M, just barely a moderate box office success (even after winning the Oscar). It deserves to be seen on the big screen as that gave one a semblance of the live stage excitement. Shrunk down to a small screen with or without full 5.0 Dolby Digital and it could easily make the film lose most of its impact. I don't get the "11 year old pace" comment at all. It followed the stage version almost to the T which was a brisk, involving character study of a real life crime in
1920's Chicago (filmed twice before, once with Ginger Rodgers in a color film). Just curious if you like musicals at all and if so what musical films are your favorites?
Also -- color trends? "Bull Durham?" The director and producer thought BD was not going to be a success at all. They were astonished when it did so well with the critics and audiences and I can see why it has been named by the Baseball Hall of Fame as the best baseball movie of all time.
JL Nobody, who is usually posting in the art and political forums. I've often meant to ask him if he goes to the movies!
I suggest these should really be films one just hates, not those which ones has some qualms over aspects of the film. I also suggest that there should be some explanation and clarity about why one hates the film. One liners like "it's boring" is hardly bonefide criticism.
I'm not sure what the critics had to say about it but "Falling Down" was a movie I absolutely hated. It was so claustraphobic (as I imagine it was intended to be) that it made me queasy and uncomfortable to watch.
The critics generally like "Falling Down" (Ebert gave it ***) and the rating on IMDb is around 7 out of 10. Joel Schumacher has to be the most uneven director of all time with "Tigerland" on the top of the list and "Bad Company" on the bottom. "Falling Down" is near the bottom in my book. Michael Douglas barely keeps the ham on the bone and it comes off as a slicked up version of the hundreds of revenge films, most of them in the action genre. At least those revenge films are entertaining. This is about as entertaining as a root canal.
Pearl Harbor makes me cringe.
Titanic is another terrible film.
