There's a tie for the two worst movies I ever saw. "Joe Vs. the Volcano" and "Lust in the Dust". Everyone who appeared in either of those should be ashamed for being tricked into having such a degrading mark on their filmographies. Of course, the maker of Lust in the Dust, deliberately tried for it to be the worst movie of all time and was hugely successful. How sad that the other one apparently was intended to have some redeeming qualities.

Steve McDonald

Here's my list of movies that most people like, but I really didn't find impressive at all:

- Goodfellas (another mob movie.... what else is new?)
- Lawrence of Arabia (loved the first half, but I wanted to kill myself as it dragged on and on)
- Resevoir Dogs (flat and dull... I'm really not a Tarantino fan)
- Donnie Darko (Although in this community I'm probably not alone)

and I'm really gonna get it for this one, but....

- Citizen Kane

I thought it was boring to be honest. Yes it was monumental in reshaping the art of cinema, and it has tons of redeeming qualities, but I seriously fell asleep the first time I saw it. I just wasn't very impressed considering it's the #1 movie on AFI's 100 best list.

I'm sure there are others but this is all I can think of for now. For some reason, people absolutely love these movies and I just didn't find them very enjoyable to be honest. I won't bother mentioning the B-movies I don't like because it's pretty obvious that most people don't like them.

This thread reminds me. All you folks should go to Ray Carneys' site and read his thoughts on American Cinema, how most movie critics are clueless dilletantes and what he feels good independent cinema is.

While he is p#ssing you off, remember..
He isn't trying to get you to agree with him. He is trying to get you to think for yourself and be honest.

He also understands how difficult it is to think outside the limited universe that commercial film making has been shoving down our collective throats.

One of the reasons I like him is because he is so strongly against ideoligcal films. They are nothing more than propaganda. Advertising for the self rightious set(pick one, left or right). He (like me) believes extremist ideologies destroy real art. (whether it's political, or religious).


btw, if all you want to do is make low budget versions of Hollywood movies, I wouldn't recomend reading his stuff.

He is also the foremost authority on John Cassavetes.

Believe it or not, many of you have similar sentiments to his.
It's nice to see that.

http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/

Carney makes some decent points about breaking the rules of storytelling to tell new stories, but he also makes the classic iconclast mistake that good art must be complex art. What the hell is wrong with a good story well told anyway? He also makes the classic mistake of labeling Hollywood films mass produced art when they're not. They're art produced by masses.


As to films I like but no one else does:

I don't know. I really, really like the Star Wars prequels. A lot.

I don't know what else. Of stuff I've seen on this list - I love Shawshank, I love Joe Vs. The Volcano I think it's Hanks best movie. I'm more or less indifferent to the Matrix sequels - they're fun to watch if you don't think about them too much. Love The Godfather. Love Deer Hunter, though it is certainly not my favorite Vietnam movie. And I haven't yet seen a Tarantino movie I didn't like. Same with Lynch.

And I may be alone on this, but I did really like Donnie Darko.

The worst movie I've seen in the last decade or so was Batman & Robin. I was with some other people so I couldn't leave, but I did get up and stroll around the theater a bit, and didn't care what I'd missed.

Felt about the same for Godzilla and The Postman. I didn't hate Titantic, but I was awful bored by it, the dialog and the acting were so bad. The same with Braveheart. Between that and The Passion, Mel Gibson has used up his lifetime's share of slow motion, the over crank should be permanently removed from his camera. I know there's stuff I've seen that I thought was overrated, but I can't think of it right now. Didn't care for About Schmidt too much. It was just so obvious and condescending.

I have strong disagreements with some of his conclusions also. He is sometimes given over to outrageous statements intended to upset more than educate. His dismisive attitude about movies dealing with the Holocaust is unforgivable.
He tends to reject the influence of outside forces and the impact they have on our lives. For him, it's the inward journey, the ever growing minutae of the inner self. blah. Most people really aren't that deep. Most people lie to everyone and about everything many times during their lives. Most people already know that and they don't want to pay 10 bucks to be reminded of it on the screen.

Even the philosiphers know there is difference between self discovery and selg absortion.


But I agree with his assesment that hollywood films talk down to their audiences telling them when to laugh, cry, jump,scream, be sad, be glad....Hollywood doesn't trust the public to figure things out for themselves, and over the years the public has bought into it.
Hollywood rarely produces art. They are in the entertainment business. Nothing wrong with that.

Art isn't about being beautiful or even complex. It's about redefining the boundries of what is normal. many times it's starts out rather ugly and confusing until enough people start to get it. And art shouldn't be for the elite or the snob, it should be for everyone, even though not everyone will understand it.

I think it is entirely possible to add depth , discovery and meaning to a genre film if done right.

Which is why I laugh when clueless dillitants criticize Kubriks' 2001 or movies like BladeRunner or
Get upset over Cassevetes 'Woman Under the Influence' because the characters are flawed and very real and like most people, sometimes very unlikeable.
Those people want movies to be their rah rah affirmation about theire own shallow lives.

I mean reading one post where someone 'grew' out of Kubrik tells me they never got him in the first place.

We haven't even begun to list all the bad movies.

re: quentin's best.
i think kill bill (the whole thing) is his magnum opus (thus far). i didn't like all 3 of his other works as much as kb cause kb had heart (literally) between uma the mother and the child. i think it's quentin growing up. i didn't get res dogs, pulp hoopla, jackie brown was extremely slow.

Chris,
oh i absolutely agree with you chris, the problem with modern film+stage is that everything is so anti-everything, so negative. for a REALLY good musical check out Silk Stocking (50s). it not only had good musical numbers but excellent dialogue/story. you+thewife will luv it i garauntee it... but it can be rented in places like netflix not your local video store.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : The wife and I absolutely loathed Chicago.*snip*-->>>

Rob, people who luv the matrix trilogy (all 3) falls into a SMALL minority of people. you're the first person on the internet i know who liked all 3, CONGRATS! you should pick up some of the books they have on the matrix. very interesting, especially baudrillard. i still believe (which is a theme driven home by oracle @end of revolution) that the matrix trilogy is the most "philosophical" films ever made.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : I actually liked the whole Matrix trilogy, especalliy since I started
reading more into all kinds of stuff. I didn't like all of it, but mostly-->>>

i think it's quentin growing up. i didn't get res dogs, pulp hoopla,

Pulp Fiction is about Grace. That's all you need to know.

The Blair Witch Project.

Stupidest F(&%n movie I have ever seen. Great Marketing. Horrible Movie. I can't believe they sold millions of tickets. How the hell do you get lost in the woods in a couple of hours in broad daylight. Then that 5 minute scene where we look up that crying b!$%es snot hole for five minutes. Actually that part was one of the most horrifying things I have ever seen.

Just for the record, you are all allowed to bash my movies when I get around to them. That would at least imply that you watched them. How about another thread about movies that are cool.

I think the Matrix sequels failed because they spent too much time with unimaginative cliche characters in the "real world" and thus lost the narrative drive of the story focused on The One. I think if you took the Matrix sequels and edited out 90% of what didn't involve Neo, you could end up with a well conceived film. The theme of peace and spiritual enlightenment at the end is inspired, if not exceptionally well acheived.

I loathe the Kubrick films - most recently saw Dr. Strangelove, and thought "Gee, this movie would be supremely funny if they didn't keep going to these drawn out-still shots that eliminate any sense of comedic pacing." The material was still funny beyond that, but there's no excuse for poor editing.

Sam Fuller's "Big Red One"
 

There was a cinephile hoo haw about the issuing of the 'director's cut' of Sam Fuller's "Big Red One" at the local cinematheque. One of the people I trust who is a big cineaste said it was on his best of list this year.

Well, I remember seeing it as a kid and I loved war movies but I think I gave it a fair grade then and I give I was pretty disappointed.

This was everything I hated about war movies growing up.

Not enough realism (blood and guts, proper heavy equipment, tactics), cliche characters and drawling narration.

It dragged on and on. There were some funny scenes but it was a big snore mostly. I liked the bare bones structure of it with the parallel German sergeant character but it wasn't tightly integrated.

People who have seen the appearance of authenticity in "Saving Private Ryan" would probably be appalled at this, even given "SPR's" story problems.

Star Wars Movies: any of them, do a diservice to Sci-fi and are impossible for me to sit through. Yeah, the first one was groundbreaking, blah, blah, blah. Metropolis was ground breaking.

The Passion: plotless, self important dud. If I wasn't sitting through it for free I would've turned it off as soon as the slow-mo fight scene started. Just idiotic.

Club Dredd: I loved Super Troopers but Broken Lizard really dropped the ball with Club Dredd. Brittany Daniel running around in a bikini the whole time does always make me pause on it while flipping through the channels.

Note on Natural Born Killers: one of favorites of all time, definetely Stone's best work. Tarantino bitched because he gave the movie substance and meaning instead of sticking to Tarantino's script which actually celebrated ruthless killing with absolutely no social commentary. Also, note that he did have his name put back on after the movie became popular. Tarantino is the most over-rated director out there. He does nothing original or moving. Just homage's to other people's work. I could sit through Kill Bill because the fight scenes were great. Kill Bill 2 was the biggest pointless borefest loaded with characters that were so cardboard it was impossible to actually give a shit about thier useless musings.

But Ian, how do you really feel about those films?

"Tarantino bitched because he gave the movie substance and meaning instead of sticking to Tarantino's script which actually celebrated ruthless killing with absolutely no social commentary"

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed Natural Born Killers, but am I the only one that thought the script was nothing more than a retelling of 'Badlands.'?

No one ever seems to mention that, but if you watch both those films back to back, you'll see they are much too similar to be coincidence (in my opinion).

;) Definetely influenced by Badlands. In fact I'd call a '90's remake of Badlands but the fact that it had such a nineties feel, more over-the top, more MTV morose, more violent, that it was timely.

Also, this does support my "Tarantino does nothing original" sentiment.

It was Stone that made Tarantino's script more than a rehash.

Hey Ian,

Tarantino isn't as original as everyone says he is..but, he is a very talented writer and director. Pulp Fiction is definately excellent work. You can't tell me the scene where Bruce Willis is being chased and ends up in that little store where he almost gets raped by those guys isn't TOTALLY original?? It came out of nowhere and definately stands out.

I'm not saying he's the best or anything. But, you can't dismiss someone's work because you don't like it. The fact is every single film ever made that was actually completed and shown in a theater is a success. If you don't believe that - well, that's like saying you are a failure for not having a theatrical release of a feature film. You aren't a failure. I would say Tarantino is a huge success and talent for doing all those movies.

I didn't like Kill Bill 1&2 much, but those movies killed the box office.

"The fact is every single film ever made that was actually completed and shown in a theater is a success."

This discussion seems to be more geared towards the subjective reaction to movies as "art," not just commercial success.

If you only use commercial success as a standard, then we should all be heralding the merits of "White Chicks" as well.
:)

Chris,
He's undoubtably successfull and I don't hate his work entirely, Pulp fiction being his best, but Pulp fiction was a conglomoration of a bunch of shorter stories that he had mulling around anyway. While the movie is entertaining (and I'm all for entertainment for entertainment's sake at times) it was really only original in its structuring. Really it had no point. I'm guess I'm saying I agree totally that he is talented but I don't think he's ever going to be in the league of Ozu or Fellini or Visconti or De Sica or Renoir or Kurasawa or contemporaries like Aronofski (the jury could still be out but his first two films blow the doors off of Tarantino's work), Solonez, Anderson, Clark, The Coens, Sophia Coppola, Lynch...
I guess you see my tastes...

Anyhow, he's good, I just think he's overrated, especially by himself :0

And I'm no film-snob either. House of 100 Corpses was one my favorite movies in along time. I can't wait for the Devil's Rejects.

I hear you, Luis.

House of 1000 corpses wasn't well recieved anywhere but I thought it was great example of arthouse splatterfilm. All-time classic, no, but fun.

I'm gonna throw Sin City out as one my biggest film disappointments before it has even come out. It cannot live up to comic or my expectations. Not to mention, Frank Miller behind the camera. Anyone remember Robocop 3. Eeeeeeeeeeesh. Just gettin' that out there.

ian, you haven't even seen sin city yet!

as for tarantino, i think his magnum opus is KB. so full of vitality/emotion it was. i think it's his "grown up" film.

Yi, I know I haven't seen it. That's the point. I fear seeing it because I've been a fan of the comic for so long. It looks great, I'll give it that. Who knows. Of course, I'm hoping for the best.

As for KB, my problem is this, and I'll bring up H1000C again because I think their comparable (I know I'll hear it for that) because they are both homage's to certain genre films. Zombie revelled in making a tribute to the horror films of the seventies, Tarantino seems to think he's actaully adding something to the genre (or mish-mash of genres in KB's case), furthering it, as though his touch makes it more than just a hack and slash flick with fight scenes that don't even touch the beauty and skilled choreography of Crouching Tiger (for instance). I guess I'm saying Tarantino's like a genre/story blender but what comes out isn't anything new, its just the same old frappe, just with different ingredients.

I'm really sorry about that pun...

re: Crouching Tiger, HIdden Dragon.

for people of the Far East (of which i am a member) CT, HD wasn't that great of representation of the wuxia genre. there are plenty better. even hero/house of flying dragon is not the greatest but i think these wuxia films are geared towards the West. if the West saw a more authentic wuxia film, they'll think it's too melodramatic/silly.

I think that was the point of Crouching Tiger - not to be representative of wuxia films, but to mix wuxia with a western sentament and come up with something a bit new and different.

As far as Sin City - I saw it yesterday. It's pretty good, not great - like my much beloved Star Wars films, a lot of Miller's dialogue is fine to read, but impossible to actually say. Still, it's super atmospheric and does good service to the source material, as well as the genre that Sin City came from in the first place.

That was my fear of Sin City. Alot of Miller's dialog works great in comic form but if it's stuck to to the letter when said I'd imagine it can come out pretty melodramatic.

Ah, well, I'll still see it anyway.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ian Poirier : That was my fear of Sin City. Alot of Miller's dialog works great in comic form but if it's stuck to to the letter when said I'd imagine it can come out pretty melodramatic.

Ah, well, I'll still see it anyway. -->>>

Don't worry. It works more often than it doesn't.

Reviews thusfar of Sin City have been good:

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=19663
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=19683

Yeah a review on killer movies said it was great too. I have high hopes now.

I don't trust any review on Aint-it-Cool News. That place is a den of slobbering fanboys.

Yeah, Killer Movies is kinda similar. Still I hope.

Boy, we kinda hijacked this thread, huh? So abou those movies that we have seen and didn't like...

7
The Ring
Lord of the Rings 1&2

And Just about anything M. Night did (except for 6th Sense.)

Totally on board with M Night. One trick wonder movies.

I adore LOTR though. Super geek-fanboy since I was eight, can't help it. My only complaints would where they deviated from the actual books, but I'll digress.

Gladiator: ridiculously over lauded.

Highlander 2. Only flick I ever walked out on.. Also, how can you not like "Donnie Darko"? I agree with all the discussions on the matrix though, I saw the third film in the theatre, with my old man, (he is still waiting for "roadhouse 2 to come out)we felt at that time that the jury was still out whether we liked it or not. Sure enough, six months later, I borrowed it on DVD from a friend... Needless to say, after watching it a second time I just felt dumber. What a loss....

Funny thing about the Matrix - the third one is the only one that Theresa will sit through. She finds the rest of them boring. Go figure.


On Highlander 2 - did you ever see the Renegade cut where the director got some more money ten years later, finished shooting the scenes he'd meant to shoot when the plug was pulled, and re-edited the film to what it had been written to be? It's still not a great film, but it is much, much, much more comprehensible than that thing the money men put into theaters way back when (what was that, 1990?)

Recently walked out of "Alexander" and I left some wake turbulence in the theatre. What a waste!
Others I have walked out of:
The World according to Garp (anything with Robin Williams is hard to sit through),
Meet Joe Black
Cape Fear
Mulholland Drive (I should have, but didn't)

The first Cape Fear or the remake? ;)

Wow, Mullholland Drive, huh? That's one of my all time favs. I find it to be absolute brilliance and Lynch's best work (with Blue Velvet and excruciatingly close second).

Training Day: that was one huge, completely improbable, contrived disappointment that critics seemed to like for some reason.

Mulholland Drive is one "polemic" movie: there are various boards with 100 or more posts about the subject. People love the film or hate it.
I didn't walk out (it's not that kind of film) and it has great stuff, but in the end I didn't think Lynch had any idea what he was doing, apart from simply confuse the viewer by throwing in random elements, hoping people would consider it Art. Irritatingly arrogant and vain.
But as I said before: some great scenes (and acting).

I like films that don't answer every question they raise. I loved the commentaries on identity and personally viewed reality. I think if you ever knew what if any element was not a dream or what version of each person was "real" the movie would have failed. Each of are constantly creating identities that other people don't see based on fantasies and what if's. Every person carries a their own reality in their mind. Sorry, waxing philisophical and diverting the thread a bit here. The movie is absolutely gorgeous from a cinematography viewpoint. That much I think anyone would agree on. Like you said, this discussion has been had too many times before.

So, back to flaming movies we don't like!