Films you generally avoid...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Kegg said:
For a moment I had forgotten that Griffith was able to make sound films before his career totally imploded. They look pretty bad, too.
As for DeMille, the only sound film that I've seen involving him is Sunset Blvd., which is terrific, although he only has a cameo as himself there.
Don't like:
Most rom-coms
Most gross-out humor movies
Almost all slasher movies
James Bond
Harry Potter
Twilight
Transformers
Pirates of the Caribbean
Smurfs
Most DC-superheroes movies (would have gone for Green Lantern except I guess it sucked)
Skeptical of Marvel-superhero movies unless Marvel is in charge
Star Wars, except when Lucas has adult supervision
Most rom-coms
Most gross-out humor movies
Almost all slasher movies
James Bond
Harry Potter
Twilight
Transformers
Pirates of the Caribbean
Smurfs
Most DC-superheroes movies (would have gone for Green Lantern except I guess it sucked)
Skeptical of Marvel-superhero movies unless Marvel is in charge
Star Wars, except when Lucas has adult supervision
I know exactly what he means. It could be applied to Twilight or Star Wars or any big-name franchise.
Very little, actually. The behavior of the Indians is easy enough to understand, but for the most part they're seen through the eyes of the white characters and their actions discussed almost exclusively by whites. The whites are bigots - and Wayne does play an unsympathetically and explicitly racist character, which was a departure for him.
That's good, because I wouldn't recommend going by anything he says.
Ebert is a douche who increasingly represents nothing more than an expression of the majority viewpoint. His opinions are formulated by reading other critics' reviews and those of blog commenters.
Sounds to me like
The Studio: "Here, lap up this steaming pile, I know it smells ugly, but, it's got Harry Potter in it's name, you'll love it"
The Movie Goer: "Oh, yum, I do love it, that Harry Potter in the title really did make a difference".
I generally watch almost all genres of film, but there are a few categories I tend to avoid:
Sports movies (There are some exceptions, mostly about boxing for some reason - Rocky, Raging Bull)
Dance movies (I like musicals, though)
Spoofs in the vein of "Epic Movie" and "Vampires Suck"
Talking-animal comedies (Alvin & the Chipmunks, Marmaduke, etc.)
Comedies with Kevin James, Rob Schneider or Adam Sandler. (Although Sandler has been in a few good movies, like Punch-Drunk Love, and Funny People)
Nicholas Sparks-like melodramatic romances. (The Notebook, etc.)
Sports movies (There are some exceptions, mostly about boxing for some reason - Rocky, Raging Bull)
Dance movies (I like musicals, though)
Spoofs in the vein of "Epic Movie" and "Vampires Suck"
Talking-animal comedies (Alvin & the Chipmunks, Marmaduke, etc.)
Comedies with Kevin James, Rob Schneider or Adam Sandler. (Although Sandler has been in a few good movies, like Punch-Drunk Love, and Funny People)
Nicholas Sparks-like melodramatic romances. (The Notebook, etc.)
Well, the majority viewpoint is generally helpful. Besides, added to Ebert, the film was directed by the guy who did Thank You For Smoking, which I loved, and also recieved generally high plaudits across the critical spectrum and a nod for best picture (back when nods for best picture were, ah, a little more competitive).
I understand through pop culture osmosis there's been a backlash against Juno in the years since - mostly over the screenwriter, or so I hear - but at the time it had enough credibility for me to hypothetically go see it... and I avoided it all the same.
I don't think much of the spoof movie genre either.
All of this is patently untrue, and as fabrications go isn't even observant.
Ebert is an astute reviewer with an absolute passion for movies, a wealth of experience and understanding of film history and technique and virtually no interest in pleasing any constituency with his opinions other than himself. He's also possessed of considerable personal courage in other respects.
That he treats popular hobbyhorses so dismissively or occasionally with such deserved disdain that it leaves some amongst the fanboise nursing grudges is hardly a fault on his part.
As guesswork goes, the above misses the mark. None of what I said was fabricated; in fact, most of it was admitted in his review of The Fountain ( except for the part about his being a douche
).So sayeth the legend. But the truth is that he's merely a typical product of his insecure generation, with a cult following comprised of those who let him do their thinking for them instead of coming up with their own judgment of a film. Since he's doing the same thing himself, it's a classic case of the blind leading the blind. So-called film critics these days are like a bunch of school kids cheating off of one another's papers because they know there's no consequences for getting caught. If they wanted me to respect their opinions they'd come up with them independently of outside input. I'd give Ebert whistleblower points for admitting the situation, but those points are outweighed by disgust.
Well, he did give two of the three Star Wars prequels good reviews. So, clearly, that proves your "he says what the majority says" point wrong (though, it does give some credence to your "don't go by what he says" point).
Ebert is an astute reviewer with an absolute passion for movies, a wealth of experience and understanding of film history and technique and virtually no interest in pleasing any constituency with his opinions other than himself. He's also possessed of considerable personal courage in other respects.
That he treats popular hobbyhorses so dismissively or occasionally with such deserved disdain that it leaves some amongst the fanboise nursing grudges is hardly a fault on his part.
True. While I do think, occasionally, he lets his personal thoughts on minor matters influence his view on the complete package of a film, the guy knows what he's doing. He isn't copying what others are saying just to push his review. If that were the case, he wouldn't have been in journalism for over 40 years.
Utter nonsense.
That's how I feel. The Sopranos is especially daunting because it's a long TV series.
As for what films don't interest me... I'd say the Harry Potter films, fantasy like Lord of the Rings, and animated movies. Those Pixar and Disney films don't interest me, but I did see The Incredibles and Kung Fu Panda, and want to see Up.
Kung Fu Panda is neither Pixar nor Disney. It's from DreamWorks.
^ Thought so, but I was too lazy to check my post. It's still an animated movie though, something I generally avoid, but I liked the subject matter, so I made an exception and ended up enjoying the movie.
I thoroughly enjoyed Kung Fu Panda. I thought it was going to go for cheap and crude laughs, but I was wrong.
Yes. Complaining about the racism in the Searchers is a little like complaining about the racism in Huckleberry Finn. In neither case is the depiction of racism intended as an endorsement of it.
Ah, but, unfortunately, there are some idiots apparently putting out a revised Huck Finn book, that cleans up the Racism
nevermind that defeats the whole point of the book 
Sports movies, yea, generally don't think much of Sports Movies either
A
Amaris
Guest
I generally avoid horror movies. I'm just not a fan of the more modern horror genre. I can enjoy campy sci-fi and horror classics in the vein of "The Wolf Man" and "The Thing From Another World", but not the newer stuff. Though I did watch Skyline last night, and I actually liked it.
Similar threads
