"Nope, still not good." - Page 2

THE THIN RED LINE.

Man, I don't want to get into all my problems with this movie right now. I want to like it. It's Terrence Malick for fuck sake. I even love The New World. But can't feel anything for this one.

My god, it's longer than WWII. I don't automatically have a problem to that, but you feel it here. There are interesting passages that are quickly stymied by nonsense and interminable scenes of wonderful, interesting actors doing and saying the most boring, uninteresting things. I know there's problem a point in here somewhere, but I'm tired, and the endless parade of Every Working Male Actor of 1998 is distracting, at best. None are given time to establish anything memorable, which is odd, considering the movie is three weeks long.

I wish I could stop giving DUNE another chance, but every once in a while the dvd finds itself in my player and the whole mess crawls out of my television to choke me for my stupidity. In parts the atmosphere and tone line up to create the sort of evocative, dream-like film you expect from Lynch, only to have it come crashing down to Earth moments later.

The Thin Red Line is amazing. But hey, opinions are like assholes...

Isn't this thread supposed to be about films that we know are shit and that are universally seen as shit yet we try to convince ourselves that it could be great by watching the shit again and end up still finding it to be utter shite.

Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line is officially not shit.

Yes, I violated the spirit of the thread in a desperate attempt to prove I have no taste.

Mission Accomplished.

Still don't like it.

Don't worry, I got your back.

Be Cool - God damn it, it has the Rock in one of his best performances, Travolta as Chili (say what you will about the man but Chili Palmer was a great role for him) and based on a pretty solid book. What the hell happened? I own it. I watch it every once in a while. Then I hate myself for doing so.

Superbad.

Starz ran this every day for awhile, and I could never watch the movie all the way through. Hader and Rogen are great, all three female leads are hotties, but the movie is just dumb. If the boys were 12-15-years old, I might have bought some the stupidity, (like filling detergent bottle with beer to take to a party), but guys ready to graduate should have more sense.

Plus the whole "McLovin" bit was played out weeks before the movie ever opened.

Battle Royale II. Had SUCH a great time with the first. The 2nd one became pretentious and dull. The first movie had ridiculously one-note characters, but in a way that helped the film move along. I wanted to punch all of the kids in the 2nd one. Good thing that the only good part of the movie, Riki, did that for me.

Hate the movie. Love the randomness of Riki's final rugby triumph.

I keep telling myself that Freddy Vs. Jason is interesting and different enough to be considered an above average example of either franchise (not exactly a high goal to set), but the whole thing is so fucking ill-conceived, it doesn't work as either. And watching Freddy and Jason fight is just about the dullest thing you can imagine.

I'm really over the whole "rewatching bad movies" phase, but I used to watch National Treasure a lot, hoping I would see in it what my best friend does. Nope. It's still aggressively stupid and awful, and only Bartha is any good.

Most of the movies I haven't cared for are films like Raging Bull or 8 1/2. Films that I've gone back to find that either I love them, or get it but it doesn't speak to me on a profound level. Then there's late stage master films like Bringing out the Dead where I sift through to find what I like. "Nope still not a classic." That what I tend to revisit unsuccessfully.

HS males that are desperate for pussy will do stupid things.

Raging Bull? Really?

Rob Zombie's Halloween. I really loved Devil's Rejects and revisited this, hoping that maybe there was something there that I just didn't see. Try as I may and no matter how many of its most loyal defenders I ask, I just can't get an explanation as to how this movie works at all?

I'm still debating REPO THE GENETIC OPERA. The 'Spy Kid' just sucks, Sarah Brightman feels under-used, the photography is annoyingly fuzzy, and the music all sounds the same (very noisy), but I can't stop watching it. I like Paul Sorvino and Grave Robber ("sometimes I wonder why I need you at all"), and the lyrics are cute.

I think very few people get the intent of this thread, even though it was clarified a few posts in.

I've watched Southland Tales at least five times with various people and in various states of sobriety because it's such a fascinating failure. I know it's a terrible movie but I just keep watching it trying to figure out what the hell Kelly was thinking. It's an abomination but there are good movies that are far less interesting.

I didn't realize how funny Raging Bull was until About three years ago. Until that point it was merely one of the great technical exercises to me. But there's a number of films I respect without loving.

1941 for me. Everytime I go ona Spielberg run, I put it on hoping something finally clicks. Should love amalgam of Akroyd/Belushi, Spielberg, Zemeckis/Gale, and Milius' sensibilities. Unfortunaly, no. End up admiring more than enjoying this glorious mess.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Never read the comic book, but the idea of the movie just sounded so great. All these iconic characters thrown together into one world coupled with some Indiana Jones style adventuring. Sure we all knew Connery was far too old by this stage to do action, but I was willing to suspend my disbelief. But it all turned into a jumbled mess. I enjoy just enough of it to come back periodically thinking that perhaps I was allowing a few bad scenes to stain my view of the film...but I just can't like the movie. I guess it's a good thing I didn't read the comic as many others did, because it sounds like I would have been even more upset at how the film turned out.

It's as funny as Goodfellas.

And when you realize Scorsese/Shrader weren't really exaggerating Lamotta's portrayal, it becomes even funnier.

Sin City

Its such a mess of a film, and I only really like The Hard Goodbye, mainly because of Rourke and the other actors in it who actually seem to know they're in a hyped up version of a Mickey Spillane story. The Big Fat Kill is terrible, with Clive badly cast as Dwight, and That Yellow Bastard has Stahl going for it. Elijah Wood is good, and Willis is decent, but the movie just doesn't work and I really want it to because it almost does.

Cool World

For some reason I can't resist revisiting this one, despite knowing that Ralph Bakshi at his best only really delivered interesting failures, and this one couldn't even muster that.

It always seemed like there was so much potential to me with this concept that something interesting had to come out of it, and aside from the great soundtrack (love all the Thrill Kill Kult) and the random, completely out-of-nowhere animated weirdness interspersed throughout some scenes, it just fails. So dull and flat, from its weak main storyline (which it focuses way too much on; this thing would've been so better served by being more free-form) to empty performances (Brad Pitt spends most of the thing seemingly wondering what the hell he's supposed to be doing), ugh.

Yet give it enough time and I'll see it show up on a friend's DVD shelf and I'll think "Yeah, that had some good stuff in it, didn't it?" No, not really.

Godfather III wins this thread for me. After watching the first two installments, you can't not watch number 3 even though the first two tells a complete story. You have to pop it in. There are so many things that work in the movie (like Andy Garcia) but they are outweighed by the single worst bit of casting I've seen in a prestige movie with Sophia Coppola. One can only imagine what kind of movie it would have been with Winona Ryder in the role of Michael Corleone's daughter.

Another movie that I always hope to love is Matrix: Reloaded and every time I revisit it, I'm left with the same let down feeling. Great last 15 minutes but you have to watch the preceding hour fourty five to get there.

Blade Runner, I love the first 10 minutes of the film and I love to look at it, but when I pay attention it gets so boring. I couldn't wait for the re release DVD I watched the first 10 minutes and lost interest.

Way to go, Phil!

You lose this thread

You know? It's so easy to just blame it all on Sofia. I used to do that too. Oh... if only Winona Ryder had been cast - and so on.

But the fact is the movie is just a mess and Sofia Coppola is one of many problems. The only thing it really has going for it is that it looks slick and there are some nice locations used. But that's it.

This may belong in a separate thread, but fuck it...

Let's play: List The Flaws.

1. The story is terrible. It's about the redemption of an irredeemable man. Plus, it's an uncredited adaptation of David Yallop's brilliant book about the murder of John Paul I - In God's Name. (They should have just made that movie... Instead of making it and sticking the Corleone family in the middle of the mix). So, there's that and the fact that the whole redundant point was already made at the end of II. We already know Michael is doomed to die alone and here we watch it happen. It's stupid.

2. Pacino sucks. From the ridiculous buzzcut on... He overacts like there's no tomorrow and it plays like a parody of his great performances in the first two films. He transforms this compelling, dangerous, fascinating character into an uninteresting wimp who ultimately entrusts his empire onto the hands of a hothead bastard. The Michael Corleone of I and II would not do that... He killed his own brother. He's gonna give a fuck about his other brother's son from the bridesmaid he banged in the bathroom? It doesn't make any sense. But, aside from the fact that the character is badly written, Pacino's heart just isn't in it this time and it's pathetic. All you have to do is say 1, 2, 3 and it will be timed perfectly for Pacino to RAISE HIS VOICE. And don't get me started on that silent scream, which is one of the funniest moments in 90s cinema.

3. There's too much over-the-top shit. Joe Mantegna's entire performance. Fun to watch, but it doesn't belong here. The "confrontation" with Garcia in Michael's office is a particularly stupid scene. In true 90s fashion, the mobsters are massacred in a SPECTACULAR ACTION SCENE where a helicopter shoots into a skyscraper. A man gets stabbed in the neck with a pair of glasses. The film literally climaxes during an OPERA... (subtle, Frankie, subtle) wherein Eli Wallach gets to act up a storm while eating a cannoli and one of the villains gets thrown spectacularly to his death. And all we can do is remember how Coppola did the exact same thing much more effectively 20 years earlier.

4. There's no resonance. When the big quotable thing is that corny "Just when I thought I was out, THEY PULLED ME BACK IN." And you have to weigh it against the innumerable such moments in the first two, something is tragically wrong.

4. Robert Duvall is replaced by George Hamilton. Period.

I could go on. But I think that's more than enough.

I've always felt that Sofia is the Jar-Jar of Godfather III. It makes you not realize how not very good Andy Garcia is in the film. As per Sofia, it is one of the most fascinating performances I've ever seen as she never is comfortable or natural on camera. Ever.

You're becoming quite the master of starting threads that are honey-traps for those with bad taste really aint ya Philinator?

Come on mate be honest... that's you aint it.

We're all friends here.

As soon as Blade Runner was mentioned this thread died. I get that people don't like the film but as per the rules of the thread, it's well made therefor doesn't count.

I am just amazed that people watch movies like Congo and League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen multiple times and then are surprised when they turn out, every time, to be not good. Lunacy.

I never said that they didn't get the thread.

I'm not sure I have one of those films. I tend to not revisit bad films once I have deemed them bad.

Yeah, Freddy vs. Jason is another one of mine... (and another horror pick, interestingly.)

I've actually had a few successful experiences revisiting some of the movies you guys have said still didn't work. Though I was dealing with some severely lowered expectations the second time around (expectations, granted, that I should have gone in with in the first place).

A few people have mentioned Van Helsing. Certainly it's not badass and it's bloated and absurd. And watching Dracula can be quite a chore. But did you see the werewolf transformation? He crawls up a wall and RIPS HIS HUMAN SKIN OFF! Everyone in that movie seems to be crawling up walls for some reason. Also, I really love when one of the vampire women accidentally grabs a cow instead of Van Helsing and tosses it into a building.

I understand hating movies like Van Helsing. It is really frustrating to think about how much money is getting thrown at silly shit like that. But, a few years after the fact I'm able to stop worrying about whatever movie some auteur didn't get made that year. Also, you need to have a fondness for badly aging CGI. Which I do for some reason.

Also, for those that want to revisit Rob Zombie's Halloween. If it's on pay cable, just watch it until he stops being a little kid. That way you can bask in the outrageousness of Michael Meyers' step-dad yelling about skullfucking, and get the joy of saying to yourself, "Holy shit. That's Richard Lynch playing the belligerent principal." And then you should turn that movie the fuck off.

Oh I watched Superbad all the way through on DVD. I just couldn't set through it all the way again. The end with Seth and Evan going seperate ways with their girls is actually pretty great.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Return of the Jedi.

Nostalgia is so strong for both that I'm periodically tempted to revise my initial impressions of these. Still noisy, over-produced, badly written with lazy performances and weirdly muddy color.

Bakshi's Lord of the fucking Rings

I am no Tolkien purist. I still enjoy those old Rankin and Bass Last Unicorn derived retellings from the 70s/80s. But Bakshi just took a big shit with this one, didn't he? Cool World may edge it out as his worst (I never saw that live action, Showtime 50s thing) but this could have been sooooo much better. The rotoscoping technique looks like a 5 year old fingerpainted most of this (Fire and Ice sucks balls in the plot department but redeems a tad from its "animation"). The voice acting is painful (Where the FUCK is Brother Theodore as Golem? You can have Andy Serkis. I'll keep my bitter German, thank you.) Nothing about this movie works.


But I went back to it after reading Unfiltered. I thought I could find some technical element, a sly wink from Bakshi, SOMETHING. But no, just a turd strewn desert of suck.

The one that immediately comes to mind for me is Beyond Thunderdome. I loved Mad Max and the Road Warrior, but I just could not get into this one. I even went to the theater to see it, but about the time Max reached the titular place, I started growing impatient, and was just waiting for it to end. I still try to watch it when it's on TV, and have even rented it a few times, but it just doesn't maintain my interest.

i dunno. Those kids everyone complains about always seemed to me to be an extension of the Ferral Kid narrator from Road Warrior. No, the film doesn't have the same "feel" of Mad Max or Road Warrior. But that always seemed the point. Technically a well made film at least.

This makes you a wrong, misguided soul. I'm so sorry for you.

Watchmen is the most recent example of this. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a mediocre super hero flick. Then I came on CHUD and saw the near orgasmic reactions to this movie and decided to revisit it hoping the next time would be different. Nope. Still average at best.

Another movie I always go in hoping that this time it'll be good is Spielberg's "Lost World". There are things that work really well in that movie but overall, it's a big miss. Ditto for the godawful "Hook".

Obviously, you don't have to like it, but even the most erudite of non-fans will have a hard time evidencing a claim like that; Watchmen is far from "average at best" in its composition.