CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › "Nope, still not good."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Nope, still not good." - Page 3

post #101 of 498
5/24/09 at 2:51pm
I was going to post about Watchmen in this thread but realized it did not fall within the criteria. For its many faults, there IS a strong vision going on there. Not a BAD movie. Just not what I hoped for. Well, the ending is pretty terrible. That fight scene was hard to watch and Ozymandias's Fortress of Solitude was just goofy.
Reply
post #102 of 498
5/24/09 at 4:38pm
I don't think it has to be a bad movie to qualify. It just has to be disappointing. King Kong had a lot of things that kept it from being great but I consider it an okay movie to watch. Certainly not a bad movie. I have no problem calling Watchmen average because the director was obviously intimidated by the source material and it shows in the final product. I can respect the effort that went into bringing the book to screen and the visual flourish Snyder brought to the table but none of those things elevate the movie itself. Quality-wise it was on par with The Incredible Hulk. Entertaining but ultimately disposable.
Reply
post #103 of 498
5/24/09 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
Quality-wise it was on par with The Incredible Hulk. Entertaining but ultimately disposable.
I would place it more with Ang Lee's Hulk since it had such aspirations. Many have referred to Watchmen as this era's Blade Runner, while I think it can better be compared to Lynch's Dune. Beautiful, epic and kind of disappointing. However, I still believe it does not quite belong in this thread. There is too much that works for it to be considered "not good." It IS good. Just not great.
Reply
post #104 of 498
5/25/09 at 4:33pm
I think the ideal candidates for this list are movies that remain in the public consciousness for years (let's say ten) because something about them strikes a nerve, regardless of whether they're actually well-made. So you go back to see if there's maybe something you missed and yup, The Goonies is still a terrible film.
Reply
post #105 of 498
5/25/09 at 4:56pm
'Yellowbeard'.

As a Monty Python fan, I own this film in order to 'complete' my collection. Every once in a while, I throw it in to see if it is STILL an unfunny and unfocused mess.

Yep.
Reply
post #106 of 498
5/27/09 at 12:29am
Much like the earlier posts about re-watching and trying (yet failing) to redeem Romero's recent films... I find myself re-visiting Argento's 'Mother Of Tears' with alarming frequency...despite it being a leaking sack of runny tramp shit.

A moment of well executed gore will pop in to me head (spear thing through lesbian's vag and out her gob...usually) and I'm tempted. Or perhaps a 'did I miss the playful genius of that ending?' type thing will loom, almost a 'was it my fault that it seemed so utterly inept?'... I will even get online and sift through reviews until I find a positive one to justify another viewing. Then I watch it and I am back at the screening I went to and Argento was there...and the audience were laughing at it...and it was shit; still is.

When it is over I put it back in it's box and place it back on the shelf...and I feel my 3 disc L.E. dvd boxest of 'Suspiria' is wondering what the fuck is wrong with me.
Reply
post #107 of 498
5/28/09 at 6:11pm
Don't watch his Phantom of the Opera. For the love of God.

Mother of Tears is bad but fun. I don't hate it or love it. I just wish he made it back in the day. Feels more like a part of his Demons movies to me. Just my opinion.

I love the idea of your DVD sets having sentience. It's like Where do the Toys Come From 20 years later.
Reply
post #108 of 498
5/28/09 at 6:37pm
A Life Less Ordinary

I love Danny Boyle, one of my favorite directors, and everytime it's on, I leave it on for a bit, but after about 10 minutes I start to wonder what he was thinking making it, and why I am watching it.

Cameron Diaz is alternately cute and terrible, Stanley Tucci is woefully miscast, and how many endings does this movie have? It was on this weekend and it was at the point where Ewan McGregor was about to get buried in the forest. Having not seen it in awhile, I thought it was the end, but it went on for like another half hour. I was like how come I don't remember this...I've seen it at least 5 times... I kept watching and now I know why... it sucks!!!
Reply
post #109 of 498
5/28/09 at 8:58pm
Matrix Revolution for me. I loved the first one, liked the second well enough, but I cannot ignore, and stand, the overly faux-religious subtext all over that movie. Every now and then I think "Hey, it has lots of action, have a look again, it cant be THAT bad, you probably just were in a shitty mood the last time you watched it", and then it sucks again
Reply
post #110 of 498
7/26/09 at 9:45am
It's been mentioned before. But Rob Zombie's Halloween takes the cake for me.

I watched it a second time around hoping it would be better. That I missed something during my first viewing.

Nope. It still sucked.
Reply
post #111 of 498
8/3/09 at 10:59am
Once again, an oft-mentioned film: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I watched it again this weekend, after not seeing it since the release. I still hold the first 30 minutes are solid. I liked the Area 51 stuff, the bomb, and the interrogation after / story set-up. After that, it's like watching someone trip and fall over. And not get up.

Even on the documentary on the disc, Spielberg says he didn't want to do aliens again. Begs Lucas not to do aliens again. Yet, they do aliens. Hurt's character is almost pointless - and I think I read it was supposed to be Abner Ravenwood - and for the last 1/3 of the movie, Mutt is just a tag-a-long character. Marion doesn't contribute too much either for that part.

It could have worked - well, almost worked. But to see it just sit there and fall apart. Sadly frustrating. It IS a movie I want to grab, smack around, and say, "work, dammit, work!"
Reply
post #112 of 498
8/3/09 at 11:17am
Great post, Black VW. Couldn't agree more.
Reply
post #113 of 498
8/3/09 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix natalya View Post
It's been mentioned before. But Rob Zombie's Halloween takes the cake for me.

I watched it a second time around hoping it would be better. That I missed something during my first viewing.

Nope. It still sucked.
I was planning to do this. Guess I won't. HALLOWEEN was so epically terrible for me the first time around that I had considered revisiting it before I drag my pathetic ass to the theater to see the sequel.
Reply
post #114 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:24pm
Gotta say, given what I study, I love this thread and want to talk to each and everyone of you about your experiences with these movies!

But, academic geek aside, I'm gonna throw in three curveballs.

Fargo, Burn After Reading and No Country for Old Men.

1. Fargo -- I'm from Wisconsin, and yes I know the bloody thing is set not in Dairyland, but still those accents irk me because everyone outside of Wisconsin thinks we are like that. That and I just don't find it funny. I tried watching it more than once -- no thank you again, unless drunk, high, glowing from sex, or some combination thereof.

2. Burn After Reading -- I sat there the entire time not even smiling...I mean, what the hell is the point of that movie?

3. No Country -- I actually fell asleep. My delightful sweet and sour chicken put me in a coma because that movie couldn't keep me awake, The same happened with Curse of the Golden Flower. I have no idea how either movie ended, and I really don't care to find out.
Reply
post #115 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:37pm
So, we should pretty much write you off as far as taste in movies is concerned, huh?
Reply
post #116 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
So, we should pretty much write you off as far as taste in movies is concerned, huh?
Dude, I liked Oh Brother, Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona and Hudsucker.

I just ain't a OMG EVERYTHING THE COEN BROTHERS DO IS SHIT AS GOLD person.
Reply
post #117 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:41pm


"This is gonna be good."
Reply
post #118 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
The same happened with Curse of the Golden Flower. I have no idea how either movie ended, and I really don't care to find out.
Wha... I mean... Di... How... ::sighs and shakes head::
Reply
post #119 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:41pm
You admitted that you didn't even finish NCFOM. That kinda invalidates your opinion on the film, no?
Reply
post #120 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:43pm
I don't know how it is possible to fall asleep in NCFM.
Reply
post #121 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lima Oscar Lima View Post
Wha... I mean... Di... How... ::sighs and shakes head::
Lima, I wanted to like the movie, and I thought it was beautiful to behold.

But holy gods in hell above, I don't recall what happened in it.

I blame Mark Pi's. They make insanely good sweet and sour chicken and crab rangoons. And a girl loves her crab rangoons!
Reply
post #122 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
Dude, I liked Oh Brother, Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona and Hudsucker.

I just ain't a OMG EVERYTHING THE COEN BROTHERS DO IS SHIT AS GOLD person.
Thing is, Fargo and No Country are probably their superior work. And who gives a shit about their accent, really? But feel free to add food review along your movie criticism.
Reply
post #123 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
Lima, I wanted to like the movie, and I thought it was beautiful to behold.

But holy gods in hell above, I don't recall what happened in it.

I blame Mark Pi's. They make insanely good sweet and sour chicken and crab rangoons. And a girl loves her crab rangoons!
Ok... I'll put that one down to food coma.

Give it another shot. The last 30 minutes is amazing.
Reply
post #124 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:45pm
Well this discussion can go no where if that's all you can offer to defend your position.
Reply
post #125 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tieman View Post
You admitted that you didn't even finish NCFOM. That kinda invalidates your opinion on the film, no?
The fact that the film itself was not able to keep me awake pretty much solidifies my opinion about it.
Reply
post #126 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:46pm
Which you blamed on the food you were eating.
Reply
post #127 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
Thing is, Fargo and No Country are probably their superior work. And who gives a shit about their accent, really? But feel free to add food review along your movie criticism.
Obviously you did not grow up feeling ashamed of where you came from because the only people you saw in the media representing you came off as unsophisticated yokels.
Reply
post #128 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tieman View Post
Which you blamed on the food you were eating.
I have watched plenty of other movies under the same eating conditions and they were able to hold my attention. Those two movies did not because I found them very slow paced and thus boring.

Go ahead and make jokes about me not being smart enough to get the slow paced ones, and I'll wave my PhD in your face.
Reply
post #129 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:49pm
How come no one is taking offense at my not liking Burn After Reading?
Reply
post #130 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post

Go ahead and make jokes about me not being smart enough to get the slow paced ones, and I'll wave my PhD in your face.

Sorry, but that statement is retarded. So because you have a PhD you are more qualified to assess the quality or the cleverness of movies than other people?
Reply
post #131 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
Obviously you did not grow up feeling ashamed of where you came from because the only people you saw in the media representing you came off as unsophisticated yokels.
Minnesotan here. Yeah, we took our fair share of shit for it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a superior movie in almost every way, shape, and form.
Reply
post #132 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
Obviously you did not grow up feeling ashamed of where you came from because the only people you saw in the media representing you came off as unsophisticated yokels.
You have absolutely no clue what the fuck you're talking about. No. Clue. At. All.
Reply
post #133 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:52pm
I smell a troll...
Reply
post #134 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:53pm
Not a troll...just someone with very, VERY strong opinions. Seriously, I can vouch for her.
Reply
post #135 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:53pm
Yeah, listen to the dumb Canadian!!!

Just kidding, Savage, you know I'm crazy aboot ya.
Reply
post #136 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
Go ahead and make jokes about me not being smart enough to get the slow paced ones, and I'll wave my PhD in your face.
Academia ain't a sign of intelligence by the way. But feel free to weave your PhD all you want, you still have a shitty taste in movies.

Care to try the gossip forum?
Reply
post #137 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
Sorry, but that statement is retarded. So because you have a PhD you are more qualified to assess the quality or the cleverness of movies than other people?
That is very much not what I meant. What I meant is that I cannot be considered stupid if I have a PhD. Thus the idea that because I do not like these movies because I found them too slow paced, thereby possibly reducing me falsely to someone who only likes blockbusters and Bayisms, cannot be possible.
Reply
post #138 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:54pm
EDIT: Oh, screw this. Off to Ignoreville . . .
Reply
post #139 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
Minnesotan here. Yeah, we took our fair share of shit for it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a superior movie in almost every way, shape, and form.
I'm not saying it's not -- I know a lot of people who like it, including the Academy.

I was expressing my personal dislike for it, and how I just cannot find it funny.
Reply
post #140 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
You have absolutely no clue what the fuck you're talking about. No. Clue. At. All.
What I am talking about is my personal feelings and experiences -- how can I not know that?
Reply
post #141 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tieman View Post
I smell a troll...
Perhaps you need to change your underarm deodorant than.

Kidding! Love you! Big hugs!
Reply
post #142 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:56pm
It's not meant to be a comedy, though. Sure, it's funny, but if you're looking at it as ONLY a comedy you're missing the point.
Reply
post #143 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
Academia ain't a sign of intelligence by the way. But feel free to weave your PhD all you want, you still have a shitty taste in movies.

Care to try the gossip forum?
Academia is a sign of intelligence for those intelligent enough to notice it.

As other things are also signs of intelligence.

And you are assuming that because of these three all my tastes in movie is shit.

That sounds like a tremendously idiotic fallacy to make.
Reply
post #144 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:59pm
*quietly backs away, looks around, and runs out of thread*
Reply
post #145 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
That is very much not what I meant. What I meant is that I cannot be considered stupid if I have a PhD. Thus the idea that because I do not like these movies because I found them too slow paced, thereby possibly reducing me falsely to someone who only likes blockbusters and Bayisms, cannot be possible.
I doubt anyone was trying to say you were stupid for not finding NCFOM engaging, it's not about being stupid. You can not get something and be brilliant. For example, many brilliant people don't get how people relate = A nerd won't get how to conquer girls, even if he's the most brilliant man on campus.

You are trying to hard to defend yourself when no one was attacking you that much. Having an attitude is great, being driven by one is pretty lame.
Reply
post #146 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
It's not meant to be a comedy, though. Sure, it's funny, but if you're looking at it as ONLY a comedy you're missing the point.
I wasn't looking at it in any particular way. All I can say is that the movie does nothing to me because of my personal feelings towards it.
Reply
post #147 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
What I meant is that I cannot be considered stupid if I have a PhD.
Yes. Yes you can. So are many doctors by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post

And you are assuming that because of these three all my tastes in movie is shit.

That sounds like a tremendously idiotic fallacy to make.
I called you out because you never gave one intelligent argument why these movies suck. That's it.
Reply
post #148 of 498
8/4/09 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
That is very much not what I meant. What I meant is that I cannot be considered stupid if I have a PhD. Thus the idea that because I do not like these movies because I found them too slow paced, thereby possibly reducing me falsely to someone who only likes blockbusters and Bayisms, cannot be possible.
The thing is: you're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to not follow the herd and, therefore, dislike certain classic movies. But when you seem to dislike numerous classic movies, I'm entitled to have the opinion that you have terrible taste.

Lastly,
Quote:
Academia is a sign of intelligence for those intelligent enough to notice it.
That's really kind of pretentious.

And since I hate dog piles on the site, I'm done here.
*dusts hands off*
Reply
post #149 of 498
8/4/09 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaOracle View Post
Obviously you did not grow up feeling ashamed of where you came from because the only people you saw in the media representing you came off as unsophisticated yokels.
This really sounds like your problem, not the movie's. I know that sometimes people on these boards can be antagonistic but maybe it's not the best idea to start out so aggressively. You make yourself look like a troll or ignorant.
Or come out with some heavy ammo as to why you think some of the best films in recent memory aren't good. Which you haven't done at all so far.
Reply
post #150 of 498
8/4/09 at 5:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
I doubt anyone was trying to say you were stupid for not finding NCFOM engaging, it's not about being stupid. You can not get something and be brilliant. For example, many brilliant people don't get how people relate = A nerd won't get how to conquer girls, even if he's the most brilliant man on campus.

You are trying to hard to defend yourself when no one was attacking you that much. Having an attitude is great, being driven by one is pretty lame.
Tati, my apologies -- I know I can get defensive, but when Mattioli comes out with "So, we should pretty much write you off as far as taste in movies is concerned, huh?" how else should I respond? Take it as a joke?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › "Nope, still not good."