|
Post by davidbeegah on Dec 18, 2005 12:30:42 GMT -5
I have never seen Clifford. But the previews did make me very angry. Martin Shorts character looked very disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by doctorz on Dec 19, 2005 12:44:47 GMT -5
The only movie that made me truly mad was "The World according to Garp." It was hateful and a sorry waste of talent. I had to live through most of the woman's movement crap Garp went through in the movie and didn't enjoy being reminded of that particular time in America one bit.
|
|
|
Post by mrsphyllistorgo on Dec 29, 2005 17:25:41 GMT -5
Oh, so much hate.....
I hated Titanic, for its historical dishonesty (those damn paintings Rose bought? The ones where you recognize EVERY BLOODY ONE because they are FAMOUS WELL KNOWN PAINTINGS that are NOT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN???) in the service of dumbing down the entire historical period for the mouth breathing idiots in the audience. And for spawning a particularly noxious and vile phenomenon that I read about, whereupon teenage idiot girls would apparently get together and play that horrific love theme that Celine Dion caterwauled, expressly to have a big communal crying jag. I'm sure they thought this made them seem sensitive and caring, but what it really was was emotional masturbation to the God-awful deaths of 1300 people. Yeah, that' sensitive, blech.
I really hated the Star Wars prequels. Even the things George Harrison does well, big splashy set peices, he doesn't seem to trust them to stand on their own anymore, and he overdirects and cuts away from the action and gets you so dizzy that you can't follow what's going on, and instead of doing two or three big set peices per movie and letting them stand as highlights of the film, he throws a big fight or escape scene in every thirty seconds, like you're going to go find him and beat him up unless he blocks you with action sequences.
Not to mention, George Lucas cannot direct two people talking in a room to save his life. And since the entire foundation of the series is supposed to be this doomed, forbidden love that rocked a galaxy and destroyed everyone it came in contact with, this is extremely bad. I know Natalie Portman and Whats-his-name, Anakin, are both capable of good, emotional performances from other movies, but George cannot bring out this incredible, deathless bond that supposedly exists between them, or even convince me that the characters give a rat's patoot about each other. In the second film, as they are about to be hauled out to the arena and pitilessly shredded, they deliver their big "declaration of LUV" scene in voices so flat they may as well have been placing their lunch orders. When the two lovers aren't in love with each other, nothing else will work.
And now, my grand prize in the Hate Olyimpiad...
You've Got Mail.
That this piece of mysoginistic horsecrap was presented in the twentieth century just blows my mind. We are supposed to believe that Meg Ryan's character, who supposedly runs an extremely successful bookstore in Manhattan (which is a praiseworthy and difficult acheivement; ask any small business owner) is not happy, because she is worthless without a man. Yeah, she is well off and successful, but the bookstore was originally her mom's, and of course, she just keeps it up in her mom's memory, because she really just wants to be married. See, women don't want to be successful in business or make their own financial security or genuinely care about a family business, they just want to be MARRIED WIVES WHO ARE MARRIED TO A BIG STRONG MAN.
So Meg meets up with Tom Hanks, her secret online pen pal, whose family owns Fox Books, a big megabookstore like Borders or B&N (It's also a family business, but that's okay, because he's a MAN) blah blah blah, Tom runs Meg out of business by building a new branch of his store near hers and stealing all her customers, all the while dating her. He knows that she's his email pal, but SHE DOESN'T. So he basically ruins her and uses the information that she posted to her "anonymous" email buddy to help him do so. Our hero, ladies and gents! But it's okay that he did all this, 'cause he really likes her!
So Meg finally finds out that her freind and boyfreind are one and the same, he's used confidential info to close her store, put her employees out of business, and ruin her financially. Does she flip out? Scream? Tear off his face and torch all the Fox Books stores she can reach? NO! She finally lets out one incredibly mild insult to his face, for which she immediately APOLOGIZES! MULITPLE TIMES! IN THREE DIFFERENT SCENES! To the guy who totally ruined her life, but it's okay, 'cause he likes her! And she likes him too!
But we're not done! Tom feels soooo bad about trashing her livelihood and family business that he gets her a job at his company, and finally declares his love for her. So Meg Ryan, who was an independent business owner, is not only emotionally dependent on the guy who bankrupted her, she's FINANCIALLY dependent on him as well! HOORAY! LOVE FIXES EVERYTHING!
That this pile of (INCREDIBLY bad word) was written and directed by a woman, Nora Ephron, knocks me flatter than anything portrayed on screen. Promise Keepers probably shows this film at its retreats. I hate this film with the burning fury of a thousand suns. I nearly tore out the armrests of my theater seat. It's the closest I've ever come to demanding my money back. HATE!
Ahhhh, that's better. I feel...pure, somehow.
mrsphyllistorgo
After all, that's why God put women on this green earth!
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Dec 29, 2005 19:48:51 GMT -5
Ah, Mrs.PhyllisTorgo, we would get along well sitting next to each other in a theater.
And of course, when you say "You've Got Mail", that's the same film as Sleepless In Seattle, Message In A Bottle, ad nauseum and stir.
|
|
|
Post by goflyers on Dec 29, 2005 22:25:36 GMT -5
I really hated the Star Wars prequels. Even the things George Harrison does well, big splashy set peices, he doesn't seem to trust them to stand on their own anymore, and he overdirects and cuts away from the action and gets you so dizzy that you can't follow what's going on, and instead of doing two or three big set peices per movie and letting them stand as highlights of the film, he throws a big fight or escape scene in every thirty seconds, like you're going to go find him and beat him up unless he blocks you with action sequences. Not to mention, George Lucas cannot direct two people talking in a room to save his life. And since the entire foundation of the series is supposed to be this doomed, forbidden love that rocked a galaxy and destroyed everyone it came in contact with, this is extremely bad. I know Natalie Portman and Whats-his-name, Anakin, are both capable of good, emotional performances from other movies, but George cannot bring out this incredible, deathless bond that supposedly exists between them, or even convince me that the characters give a rat's patoot about each other. In the second film, as they are about to be hauled out to the arena and pitilessly shredded, they deliver their big "declaration of LUV" scene in voices so flat they may as well have been placing their lunch orders. When the two lovers aren't in love with each other, nothing else will work. Just a quick check: did you mean to say George Harrison, or was that a typo?
|
|
|
Post by mrsphyllistorgo on Dec 30, 2005 11:35:04 GMT -5
Ooopsy, yeah, that's a typo. Rage and copy editing not mix.
mrsphyllis
|
|
|
Post by Da Worm Fizzle on Dec 30, 2005 12:20:02 GMT -5
Those are excellent points mrsphillistorgo. I agree with it all.
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Jan 1, 2006 11:58:35 GMT -5
mrsphyllis, I love you to pieces. Now I can point to your words as proof that there ARE people like me! Every bit of your rant was right on the money for me.
I hate Farrelly Brothers movies. I normally don't walk out of a theater either, Nerdie, but I got up from "Dumb and Dumber" and snuck into "Generations" instead, if that tells you anything. I like a little scatological humor as much as the next person, if not more, but these are just plain awful movies with no redeeming qualities for me. "Shallow Hal" was mildly acceptable, if only for Jack Black.
Another one I don't get is "Road Trip". I have been stuck in a room with people positively howling over it and I just sit there. It's just not funny to me.
|
|
|
Post by ijon on Jan 3, 2006 18:34:10 GMT -5
A movie that actually angers me (as opposed to just being thoroughly annoying/irritating) is Starship Troopers.
Now, I am not a particular Heinlein worshiper. The ending of Niven & Pournelle's Footfall in which a thinly disguised Heinlein becomes president of the US in a coup is perhaps the scariest thing in that book.
But in that novel Heinlein really is getting at some fundamental questions of political philosophy. There's plenty to agree or disagree with, but he is emphatically NOT saying the wrong side won WWII.
According to the IMDB Verhoeven refused to even read the book beyond the first chapter. True or not, it has that feel. I don't argue with his right to form his own opinion or to proclaim it, but I don't like his doing so by setting up a straw man. It seems to me he could have done something like Bill the Galactic Hero (inserting obvious Heinlein references if he wanted to) and say the same things more honestly.
Oh, and though I've never been to Istanbul I did ride in an elevator with Heinlein once.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Jan 5, 2006 11:34:23 GMT -5
A movie that actually angers me (as opposed to just being thoroughly annoying/irritating) is Starship Troopers. Now, I am not a particular Heinlein worshiper. The ending of Niven & Pournelle's Footfall in which a thinly disguised Heinlein becomes president of the US in a coup is perhaps the scariest thing in that book. But in that novel Heinlein really is getting at some fundamental questions of political philosophy. There's plenty to agree or disagree with, but he is emphatically NOT saying the wrong side won WWII. According to the IMDB Verhoeven refused to even read the book beyond the first chapter. True or not, it has that feel. I don't argue with his right to form his own opinion or to proclaim it, but I don't like his doing so by setting up a straw man. It seems to me he could have done something like Bill the Galactic Hero (inserting obvious Heinlein references if he wanted to) and say the same things more honestly. Oh, and though I've never been to Istanbul I did ride in an elevator with Heinlein once. I personally love Heinlein, but as a man from another era. If he was writing now, he'd be a total political and stylistic throwback. But for his time...Methuselah's Children, Time Enough for Love, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Beautiful classics.
|
|
|
Post by ijon on Jan 5, 2006 18:05:42 GMT -5
You pick his best works, mummi-man. I re-read Double Star about a year ago and liked it more than I remembered. Heinlein is generally weak on his characters developing much, it's interesting to have one based completely on that idea.
What did you think of his last couple? Frankly, I was disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Jan 5, 2006 22:14:10 GMT -5
You pick his best works, mummi-man. I re-read Double Star about a year ago and liked it more than I remembered. Heinlein is generally weak on his characters developing much, it's interesting to have one based completely on that idea. What did you think of his last couple? Frankly, I was disappointed. I liked JOB, but didn't think it was all that special. The three I mentioned are the ones that I always loved. Stranger never seemed like the one he should have been famous for. It was more of a "good for the time" kinda book, but wasn't vintage Heinlein.
|
|
|
Post by Da Worm Fizzle on Jan 6, 2006 9:14:33 GMT -5
I liked JOB as well, though it seemed too preachy to me. Anyway, that's a great idea about a Bill the Galactic Hero movie. Stainless Steel Rat too.
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Jan 7, 2006 1:17:03 GMT -5
One of my teacher's gave me Stranger to read, and I have to admit I liked it quite a bit.
I'm completely on line with hating Starsh*t Bloopers. What a festering turd of a movie. Michael Ironsides should be ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by NerdGroupie on Jan 7, 2006 18:42:30 GMT -5
But now i"m intrigued by "I spit on your grave." I know what you mean! Anytime I hear that much about a movie, good or bad, I HAVE to see it to form my own opinion. Last night I went to The Family Stone (shut up). I enjoyed it well enough, but there was one scene that just enraged me to no end. It's haunting me. Any scene where the character is embarassed so badly I nearly cry, is going to piss me off. Would be a far better movie if that stupid scene was just removed!
|
|