CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › Movies you wish you could appreciate, but ultimately cannot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Movies you wish you could appreciate, but ultimately cannot

post #1 of 130
4/13/05 at 5:57pm
Thread Starter 
This was inspired by the FIGHT CLUB debate in the "Movies that make you angry thread." Here are a few movies that I wish I enjoyed more, but I just couldn't.

FIGHT CLUB: I know this is supposed to be the end all be all film about the disgruntled twentysomething male but I think SWINGERS was a bit more closer to reality (except the swing dancing).

BLADE RUNNER: I'm a fan of the talent involved (Ford, Hauer, Scott) but it just never won me over.

THE BIG LEBOWSKI: I might as well just put Coen Brothers' comedies in general. I always find more humor in their dramas like FARGO and MILLER'S CROSSING than when they are really going for the laughs. LEBOWSKI seems right up my alley (no pun intended) but I don't think it got more than a few chuckles out of me.

LOCK, STOCK, AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS: At a certain point I came to the realization that I didn't understand a word being said. To some that may be the film's charm, but not me. I liked SNATCH but I guess that's because it was a slightly Americanized version of LOCK (thank you Dennis Farina!).

And now the one that will have me inspecting my car before starting the engine in the morning...

THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING: I've never been into fantasy. Even as a kid the closest thing to fantasy I could get into was the animated HE-MAN. This probably explains why the first RING film was enough for me. I'm afraid to try the other 2 because I don't want to dig a bigger hole of resentment between myself and friends of mine who love the movies.
Reply
post #2 of 130
4/13/05 at 6:05pm
Anchorman, Equilibrium, and THX-1138. Maybe I'll think of some others later.
Reply
post #3 of 130
4/13/05 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCG
"Citizen Kane" I suppose it's great, I like the conceit that when someone dies, your brain misfires and you repeat whatever bullshit memory that happens to flitter across your synapses as you pass into the ether. But, this movie bores me to tears.

Hilarious.
Reply
post #4 of 130
4/13/05 at 6:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCG
"Apocalypse Now" I love Vietnam movies, but this isn't a Vietnam movie. This, to me is a director's temporary descent into a state of pretentious insanity that happens to take place in Vietnam. I hate this movie, but wish I didn't, because I seem to be the only one.
You're right. It's not a Vietnam movie.
Reply
post #5 of 130
4/13/05 at 7:29pm
"Unbreakable." Great concept. Wrong director.
Reply
post #6 of 130
4/13/05 at 7:52pm
lost in translation. loved the virgin suicides, was bored by lost. i just cant understand all the praise it has received. not to mention bill murray was twice as good in rushmore.

life aquatic. it frusterated me how mediocre this movie seemed. if it werent for a great ending, i would have flat out disliked it, and you have no idea how much it bothers me that i almost disliked a wes anderson movie. he needs to write with owen wilson again.

the village. i dont think im missing anything here, this movie flat out sucks i just wish it were better since i firgured the potential was there. shymalan is really going downhill fast.

a bunch of ozu movies. and a few fellini movies.
Reply
post #7 of 130
4/13/05 at 8:19pm
I sorry I just don't feel that way about any movie. I either like them for what ever reason or I simply don't. I don't even feel that way about the Passion of the Christ, and I a Christian. The Passion of the Christ to me simple misses the whole point of Jesus death, and it has bad direction. I not going to say since it a story about Christ, I should like it. Hollywood has yet to make a good story about Christ, and I doubt they ever will.
Reply
post #8 of 130
4/13/05 at 8:47pm
Five Easy Pieces.
Reply
post #9 of 130
4/13/05 at 8:51pm
X-Men II: Everyone seems to love this film. It's hailed as a massive success. But I can't get into it.
Reply
post #10 of 130
4/13/05 at 9:01pm
The Crow.
Everybody I talk to just seems to love that movie and I can see why; but in the end, I just see is wasted potential. So much of it *sigh*.

AI
Reply
post #11 of 130
4/13/05 at 9:52pm
I'm running into a situation, lately and I'm wondering if others have too.

I'm watching a lot of older films (around the 50s) for school or my own interest, but I just don't find them too involving because the way these films are made and acted seems to be so different from the films I've grown up with. I'm not talking Vin Diesel movie-style MTV editing, but just the basic filmmaking in, say, a conversation.

I've noticed that a lot of the older films we've been watching are shot almost like a play would be at our school. It makes it hard for me to be drawn in to their worlds/characters when they're not shot in the way I'm used to, which has been so successful at engaging me before.

This, I think, is to my detriment because I want to get a wide scope of understand of the art in order to make whatever I come up with steeped in the best of all the sensibilities I'm exposed to.

All bullshit aside tho, anyone else experience this?
Reply
post #12 of 130
4/13/05 at 9:53pm
Stalker: It´s sooooooooo slow.And boring.
Reply
post #13 of 130
4/13/05 at 10:01pm
Before Sunset. It would be a great movie if it wasn't for Ethan Hawke. Terrible acting.
Reply
post #14 of 130
4/13/05 at 10:48pm
I wish to the Mercy of Fuck that i could get into Heat. I hated that film so much when i first saw it I almost punched the video into my roomates ass.
Everytime i mention around any film-savy types that i vomit at the near thought of sitting through that again, everyone looks at me like i just said i want to fuck Hitler.
Reply
post #15 of 130
4/13/05 at 11:13pm
"2001: A Space Odyssey" = Great filmmaking, lousy storytelling.
Reply
post #16 of 130
4/14/05 at 12:32am
Off the top of my head I can say that I appreciate Spider-Man & Hero, but I don't like either movie. I don't know how to explain it.
Reply
post #17 of 130
4/14/05 at 6:49am
One film that I've never been able to get into was Brazil. I appreciate what Gilliam had to go through to allow his version of the film to be released, but I just didn't think that it was all that good. That's not to say that they should have went with the producer's version--that was utter crap--but I just couldn't get into Gilliam's version either. The Criterion DVD kicks ass though.
Reply
post #18 of 130
4/14/05 at 8:21am
This is a very interesting topic. For me, a lot of Hitchcock's stuff is very hard for me to get. I just can't ever seem to buy into the characters. In Notorious, Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant fall in love in about two minutes of screen time. It just seems unbelievable to me. I feel like Hitchcock really wasn't that interested in the characters' relationships, but was just intent on getting to the next impressive camera set-up. I can't really suspend my disbelief through the end of Strangers on A Train. And as much as I love some of Kurosawa's films, especially Ikiru and Yojimbo, I just can't get into The Seven Samurai. I've seen it, but I had to rent it a number of times to get through the whole thing.
Reply
post #19 of 130
4/14/05 at 2:39pm
Donnie Darko. I never saw the "big deal" about it.
Reply
post #20 of 130
4/14/05 at 5:54pm
A couple of thoughs about Citizen Kane. I think the confusion around Kane is that people are confusing the amazing artistic/technical achievements of the film, which are startling and truly impressive if you watch films of the same period, and its influence on cinema worldwide, with whether they personally liked the film.
I am not saying you can't be in both camps, and while I don't connect with Kane at a gut level, I can appreciated its place in film history.

On topic: Put me in the camp of 'meh' when it comes to Peter Jackson's LOTR films. Yes, he was passionate about the material. Yes, he spent a ton of time, effort, and tears into making them. But I found all the films deeply flawed and not particulary interesting on 2nd viewings. The films fail my most basic adventure/fantasty story telling tests. I don't believe the characters are in any real danger. The villian(s) aren't interesting, charismatic or multi-dimensional in any way and some scenes drag on much too long, while the quality character moments (especially in ROTK) are consistently sacrificed for over-the-top action sequences and special effects.
Reply
post #21 of 130
4/14/05 at 6:04pm
I haven't come across a single Kubrick movie that I've even remotely liked. Same goes with Tarantino. To me they both spark the same loyal, but ultimately blind devotion by "elitists" and critics, who devour their movies just because it's the "cool" thing. Personally, I think it's all the same self-indulgent crap.

Now I prepare to be excommunicated by the fanboy population.
Reply
post #22 of 130
4/14/05 at 6:12pm
I love the concept that movies people don't like are immediately labelled as elitist movies. That's such bullshit. It's your prerogative to not like a movie, but when you go and say everyone else who likes it are blind idiots who don't really know what's good, that's really lame.
Reply
post #23 of 130
4/14/05 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fett
I love the concept that movies people don't like are immediately labelled as elitist movies. That's such bullshit. It's your prerogative to not like a movie, but when you go and say everyone else who likes it are blind idiots who don't really know what's good, that's really lame.

I only used the term 'elitist' because of the knee-jerk reaction I get everytime I say I don't like Kubrick or Tarantino. That reaction being that I'm stupid, uninformed, or have poor taste just because I don't worship everything they put to film. And I do think that people love those movies more for who made them than for their own merits.
Reply
post #24 of 130
4/14/05 at 6:37pm
MattCG - In your initial post about Citizen Kane I couldn't tell if you were serious or not. Did you actually not get the meaning of Rosebud?
Reply
post #25 of 130
4/14/05 at 8:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackinabox2
A couple of thoughs about Citizen Kane. I think the confusion around Kane is that people are confusing the amazing artistic/technical achievements of the film, which are startling and truly impressive if you watch films of the same period, and its influence on cinema worldwide, with whether they personally liked the film.
I am not saying you can't be in both camps, and while I don't connect with Kane at a gut level, I can appreciated its place in film history.

On topic: Put me in the camp of 'meh' when it comes to Peter Jackson's LOTR films. Yes, he was passionate about the material. Yes, he spent a ton of time, effort, and tears into making them. But I found all the films deeply flawed and not particulary interesting on 2nd viewings. The films fail my most basic adventure/fantasty story telling tests. I don't believe the characters are in any real danger. The villian(s) aren't interesting, charismatic or multi-dimensional in any way and some scenes drag on much too long, while the quality character moments (especially in ROTK) are consistently sacrificed for over-the-top action sequences and special effects.
Agreed. I never liked the films.
Reply
post #26 of 130
4/14/05 at 8:48pm
Threads like this are always maddening.

I especially have a hard time understanding how LOTR fails in the realm of story-telling. It simply doesn't. In fact, it takes a rather complicated narrative and condenses it into a fairly conventional cinematic form. If the story-telling of LOTR doesn't do it for you, there must be an awful lot of movies you hate.

Also, I love the obligatory Citizen Kane haters. It's generally pretty hilarious to watch them try to justify their opinions.
Reply
post #27 of 130
4/14/05 at 9:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCG
I love Kubrick's flicks (except for "2001" which I think is about as interesting to me as hairspray research) and I've never seen a Tarantino movie I didn't love. I like each film on it's own merits and how the film played to me, not who made them. For example, I found "Eyes Wide Shut" to be an incredibly lazy film. It was pretty and provacative, but upon repeat viewings, I find myself wishing more and more that Kubrick had decided on something else as his final film. It's his weakest effort.

People who look forward to movies made by certain directors aren't elitist, they're brand loyal. A director's name is like a marketing tool, same as anything else. Until he proves otherwise, I'll always get excited about a Tarantino flick because he makes movies that cater directly to me. I'm confident that he'll deliver something that entertains me, because he hasn't let me down yet.

I can't say that Kubrick has alway entertained me. Point of fact, I can't say that about any other director except for Tarantino. Until he makes a movie that I feel is sub-par, then I'll continue to be loyal to him because the product he puts out is something I like. It would be this way with anyone who consistently put out product I felt I could trust.

You can call that elitist if you want, but you don't tell your friends to buy Coke if you think Pepsi tastes better.
I only see it as elitist in the realm of my experience. Any Tarantino fan I've met has been like one of those cult members who carves their leader's name into their flesh. The minute they get wind of the fact that I don't really like his movies, they berate me for being "uncultured," or something along those lines. I really feel that people adore his movies for who he is, or maybe a more acurate statement is that they adore his movies because they are distinctly Tarantino. I'm not knocking the guy or any fan of his, I just think that they are overly loyal to the point of branding anyone with a negative view of him a "heretic." I personally don't think he's all that talented (he might have a few good scenes or shots, but he's nothing special), and I think he just hit the scene at the right time and rode it out. I think he could make a two hour movie of nothing but Goldie Hawn on the crapper after eating a wheel of cheese and people would proclaim it his greatest triumph since Pulp Fiction.
As you can see, I'm not really a fan of the guy, and I don't get what impresses people about him so much. Since that point of view often gets me attacked, I labeled them "elitists," because they think they are smarter or above me (in my experience).
Reply
post #28 of 130
4/14/05 at 10:54pm
Count me in the Fight Club is overpraised club, I understand why so many people like it, but I the level of praise some people have for this movie shows is truly scary. If you tell me its your favourite movie, I will star the discussion away from movies, because inevitably these people have never seen one single Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellinni, or for that matter any Hitch besides Psycho, or Citizen Kane. About the rest of the titles mentioned in this forum a quick glance at my dvd collection will answer it for me.
Reply
post #29 of 130
4/15/05 at 12:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LlamaRama
Threads like this are always maddening.

I especially have a hard time understanding how LOTR fails in the realm of story-telling. It simply doesn't. In fact, it takes a rather complicated narrative and condenses it into a fairly conventional cinematic form. If the story-telling of LOTR doesn't do it for you, there must be an awful lot of movies you hate.

Also, I love the obligatory Citizen Kane haters. It's generally pretty hilarious to watch them try to justify their opinions.
This is the elitist mentailtity some are complaining about. Just because someone hates LOTR, doesn't mean they have questionable taste, or must hate alot of movies. They simply don't like. I am not gonna shit in someone's mouth for not liking Fight Club. Nobody has to justify their opinions. Their opinion is no worse than yours. Nobody has to justify hating Citizen Kane, they just don't like it. They need not explain,like somehow they're doing something wrong.
Reply
post #30 of 130
4/15/05 at 4:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpel007
Count me in the Fight Club is overpraised club, I understand why so many people like it, but I the level of praise some people have for this movie shows is truly scary. If you tell me its your favourite movie, I will star the discussion away from movies, because inevitably these people have never seen one single Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellinni, or for that matter any Hitch besides Psycho, or Citizen Kane. About the rest of the titles mentioned in this forum a quick glance at my dvd collection will answer it for me.
It's my favorite movie, right above Blade Runner and Brazil. You're right, I've never seen any Fellini films, and very few Bergman films. But I own 5 Kurasawa DVDs(seen several more), and I've seen most of Hitchcock's movies. Citizen Kane bores me to tears, and meanwhile I enjoy every second of 2001. Do I prefer Fight Club to those movies? Yes. Why? I couldn't answer that, but I find more to like every time I watch it.
I've given up on trying to figure out why someone considers certain films superior to others. It's all just opinions, and no opinion is wrong. Misinformed, lame, foolish, but not wrong. Remember, somebody, somewhere, considers House of the Dead to be the greatest film EVER made. Sure, it might be Uwe Boll in this case, but still. Hehe.

But anyway, I want to like Sky Captain and Hero, I really do, but I can't get into them. They should have been right up my alley.
Ronin's another one a lot of people love. Granted, I never gave it a second chance... but other than the car scenes there wasn't anything for me to latch on to. The plot was a mess.
Reply
post #31 of 130
4/15/05 at 8:42am
Videodrome. Long live the new flesh my ass.
Reply
post #32 of 130
4/15/05 at 9:04am
Used Cars if fucking cool
Reply
post #33 of 130
4/15/05 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Lemon Pie
Donnie Darko. I never saw the "big deal" about it.
Amen, Brother.
Reply
post #34 of 130
4/15/05 at 11:48am
I'll second the Fargo vote.

It was a perfectly serviceable film. But, nothing special. I cannot seem to grasp why so many folks fell in love with it and why it gets heaps and heaps of praise piled upon it. Meh, indeed.

And I do enjoy most Coen Brothers films. In fact, I have much love for The Big Lebowski and O Brother and feel they are MILES ahead of Fargo, as far as enjoyable films go.

Hell, even Intolerable Cruelty was more interesting, IMO.
Reply
post #35 of 130
4/15/05 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
BLADE RUNNER: I'm a fan of the talent involved (Ford, Hauer, Scott) but it just never won me over.
Same here. Now there are things about the film I do like...its a wonderful looking film, but something about it doesn't work for me. It probably doesn't help that I absolutely adore the source novel, though the two are not closely related.

I also can't get into Return of the King. I enjoy the first two LotR films, but "Return" just lost mommentum for me.
Reply
post #36 of 130
4/15/05 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rocka-Who?
I also can't get into Return of the King. I enjoy the first two LotR films, but "Return" just lost mommentum for me.
Ditto.
Reply
post #37 of 130
4/15/05 at 8:04pm
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I just can't get into it. Watching it is like taking a Benadryl, meaning it leaves me bored and sleepy.
Reply
post #38 of 130
4/15/05 at 8:41pm
I’d love to appreciate The Exorcist. Unfortunately my first experience involved the projectionist playing the movie backwards.

I’ve never been able to take this movie seriously since.
Reply
post #39 of 130
4/16/05 at 3:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Foster
I’d love to appreciate The Exorcist. Unfortunately my first experience involved the projectionist playing the movie backwards.

I’ve never been able to take this movie seriously since.

He did it on purpose. Some say if you play it backwards you can hear God farting on Gabriel's head.
Reply
post #40 of 130
4/16/05 at 7:55am
Pulp Fiction. Yes it was a cool film. But thats all it had going cool dialogue, cool music, and cool people. There was barely any plot. Only the Bruce Willis story had any plot and that was easily the best part of the movie. The last third of the movie was what killed it for me. The scene with Tarantino and Harvey Kietel was simply horrendous. Tarantino is a crap actor pure and simple. The whole scene was self indulgent and extremely pretentious. As was the breakfast scene between Travolta and Sam Jack.
I like most of QTs work, but I think this was his worst. Not a horrible film, it had some great moments, but many bad ones too.
Reply
post #41 of 130
4/16/05 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCG
Yes, I got the meaning of Rosebud, it was abundantly clear.

And no, it wasn't a sled, it was what the sled represented.

Ummm... Marion Davies' clitoris?
Reply
post #42 of 130
4/16/05 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty
"2001: A Space Odyssey" = Great filmmaking, lousy storytelling.
Depends what you mean by "storytelling." If you mean stories about fully-fledged human beings, then you're probably right. The main characters in 2001 are ideas, and the humans and apemen (and HAL, too) are just along for the ride. But if science fiction is a "literature of ideas," then 2001 is probably the purest cinematic specimen.

Consider this: After the primititve human throws the bone (i.e., the first tool/weapon in human history) into the air, we never see a "natural" setting again-- just spaceships and stations. The idea is that everything we see from that point on is an extension of that bone. The point Kubrick and Clarke are trying to make is that human beings can master nature with technology, but in the process they themselves may be mastered or destroyed by technology. The HAL crisis and Bowman's ingenuity in resolving it demonstrates that humans can be the masters of nature and technology, and deserve to join the larger galactic community. In a lot of ways it's probably Kubrick's most optimistic film.
Reply
post #43 of 130
4/16/05 at 7:55pm
Unbreakable- When I think about it, I think "yeah great film" but whenever I watch it, it is painfully slow
Life Aquatic-Might like it more upon rewatching it, but it just left me a little unfulfilled in terms of what I was looking for
2001- Just plain hated it. Although I guess I wish I could figure out why people like it.
Reply
post #44 of 130
4/16/05 at 8:22pm
matrix revolutions - cinematic mess to say the least.... and i really wanted to like it, i loved the first matrix, liked the second (except for the mud-rave scene, that was ridiculous) and then the third movie is just plain action without ever explaining anything straight up... and i hate the oracle's "you know why" "you know where to find it" type answers grrrr!!! plus some key characters aren't explained or developed enough like seraph and the merovingian (it's ridiculous how this character that was introduced as one of the worst programs out there is irrelevant and poses no threat whatsoever)

mary shelley's frankenstein - i love kenneth branagh and robert deniro but even with them this movie sank rock-bottom for me... this movie redefines the word overacting. the book was great as is the whole frankenstein mythos, but hey, i'm still waiting for a nice frankenstein movie (not even expecting a good one anymore)

the hours - goddamn i never finished watching this movie, and i tried 4 times, because every single person i know (who i have big respect for their opinions) said this was really great, i've always slept midway through it, is so fantastically slow and boring... i'm still willing to finish watching it before making my final judgement
Reply
post #45 of 130
4/17/05 at 8:49am
The usual suspects- I found it pretty boring and was nothing 'special', overrated!
x-men 2- Never got why every praised this so much, x-men 1 was brilliant though.
Natural Born Killers- Couldn't sit through it, so fucking awful.
Bridge on the River Kwai- Great film, tad boring in places though.
Reply
post #46 of 130
4/17/05 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skunk Ape
People who don't like LOTR should be forced to watch nothing but Cuba Gooding Jr. movies for six months and then come back and talk about "boring" and "meh." What do you people want out of films? Jesus Christ.
What a load of wank. You should never be tortured like that just for not liking a film.
Reply
post #47 of 130
4/17/05 at 5:20pm
The Man Who Wasn't There, i love the Coens, Miller's Crossing is my favorite film of all time, but i just don't appreciate this film as much as i probably should.

I recently listened to the commentary track and it barely gave me any insight into the film, except that both the Coens and Billy Bob Thornton thought the main character, Ed Crane, was hilarious and that seems to be why they made the film.
Reply
post #48 of 130
4/17/05 at 6:51pm
Thread Starter 
After seeing ads for its cable broadcasts this weekend I have to put THE FUGITIVE on my list. It's not a bad film but aside from Ford's initial escape it is such a by the numbers affair.
Reply
post #49 of 130
4/18/05 at 7:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightningLouie
Depends what you mean by "storytelling." If you mean stories about fully-fledged human beings, then you're probably right. The main characters in 2001 are ideas, and the humans and apemen (and HAL, too) are just along for the ride. But if science fiction is a "literature of ideas," then 2001 is probably the purest cinematic specimen.

Consider this: After the primititve human throws the bone (i.e., the first tool/weapon in human history) into the air, we never see a "natural" setting again-- just spaceships and stations. The idea is that everything we see from that point on is an extension of that bone. The point Kubrick and Clarke are trying to make is that human beings can master nature with technology, but in the process they themselves may be mastered or destroyed by technology. The HAL crisis and Bowman's ingenuity in resolving it demonstrates that humans can be the masters of nature and technology, and deserve to join the larger galactic community. In a lot of ways it's probably Kubrick's most optimistic film.
True, but it's a "space bomb". The idea is, the bone match cuts to become a space bomb. To be picky.

Threads like this are the absolute worst. "I'm not racist but..." "I love fillms and all but..."
Reply
post #50 of 130
4/18/05 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film
Threads like this are the absolute worst. "I'm not racist but..." "I love fillms and all but..."
That is a remarkably apt analogy.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Drafts & Lists
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › Movies you wish you could appreciate, but ultimately cannot