Films you can't stand...

[Myasishchev]

Doesn't he remind anyone else of one of the kids from The Garbage Pail Kids Movie?

Okay, this is hilarious, even if I liked Superbad a lot (my only major criticism is the testicular failure they experienced the Michael Cera character's arc, which was predictable and cliche, because the protagonist wouldn't have sex with a drunk girl who's gagging for it, right? less realistic than any scene with McLovin).

Regarding films I can't stand:

Batman Begins and to a lesser degree, The Dark Knight--gorgeously shot, masterfully acted, and plotted by a Goddamn third grader. Also, most of the changes they made to Ra's al-Ghul from the comics were bad ideas. TDK made an excellent rifftrack, however.

Every Star Trek TNG film is terrible in its own, special way. Trek XI is a terrible plot mess, but at least, as a film, it was actually made. First Contact, the most successful, is nearly the worst (Insurrection barely manages to surpass its suck).

Wall-E. The robot stuff is fluff, and although the genderization of the robots is senseless, it's understandable; yet in other respects this is one of the most disturbing films ever made, in its celebration of dictatorship and thoughtless attack on technology. Also, completely unoriginal, down to its art design. If it turns out that fatasses in motorized carts is a protectable concept, Wally Wood's estate has a cause.

Metropolis. This shit is boring. Even a Queen soundtrack couldn't save this turkey.

Solaris (Tarkovsky). Like Metropolis, but with the occasional sound. I've been told I need to finish this, and maybe one day I shall, if it's part of some alternative sentencing arrangement. But for now, Soderbergh's awesome remake exists. So why bother?

Return of the King. You know, I'm not really into the LotR thing, but these movies were okay, if overlong and overwrought. But a director who doesn't realize that fading to black for five seconds at the end of an arc suggests the end of the movie is just failing at his craft, and fuck a director who does this as many times as Peter Jackson did. The movie's not even bad, but this is so frustrating and annoying that I've boycotted ever seeing this again.

Twilight. Because this is not even a movie. It's an oil painting or a haiku read over the course of an hour and a half or something. Manos has more plot than this, and nearly better acting. I mainly include it because I want to point out that its sequel is actually a movie... an ultrasoftcore porn movie, but nevertheless a movie. Redeeming factor: Ashley Greene in that haircut.

 

[Gaith]

Equating - or indeed, in any meaningful way comparing - the Westminster Parliament building to the Bastille is a perfect example of what a lame joke that movie's climax is, imho.

The building was not a parliament anymore and it didn't serve its original purpose. It had become a symbol of Suttler's dictatorship and that was the main reason for its destruction.

I honestly don't recall any substantiation of that assertion by the movie.

The New Yorker:

It turns out that the government once released a deadly plague on the British citizenry in order to pose as its savior. But this kind of comic-book paranoia doesn’t seem as playful or innocent as it used to.... Yet even if one enjoys the craft of “Vendetta,” and, viewing it as an extravagant pop myth, cuts it as much slack as possible, there’s no getting around the fact that this allegedly antifascist work lusts after fire and death. At the end, V directs Evey to send a subway train filled with explosives toward Parliament, even though Sutler’s headquarters are elsewhere. V wants a big bang, with lots of fireworks and the “1812” Overture...

It’s true that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, but, by sticking to the blowing-up-Parliament template, the Wachowskis have stumbled into celebrating an attack against an icon of liberal democracy.... Only the West could have made a movie in which blowing up civic temples is a “provocative” media statement....

The country “doesn’t need a building,” V says. “It needs an idea.” Yes, but “Vendetta” doesn’t have any ideas, except for a misbegotten belief in cleansing acts of violence. How strangely doth pop make its murderous way, as V might say. The quarter-century-old disgruntled fantasies of two English comic-book artists, amplified by a powerful movie company, and ambushed by history, wind up yielding a disastrous muddle.

He destroyed the former parliament to sparkle the inevitable revolution against a brutal totalitarian regime.

Suppose the populace does rise up, independently, being materially exactly no better off at the end of the film than at the start. Leaving aside the rather obvious point that the state apparatus would surely defend itself, making the chance of success rather slim, suppose the disorganized freedom fighters succeed in overthrowing the dictatorship. Wouldn't they then want to form a Parliament, perhaps even linking it to the historical Parliament to imbue it with historical legitimacy? In such a case, wouldn't it be convenient to actually have a bloody Parliament building?!


... And yes, Batman Begins was rubbish.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Wall-E. The robot stuff is fluff, and although the genderization of the robots is senseless, it's understandable; yet in other respects this is one of the most disturbing films ever made, in its celebration of dictatorship and thoughtless attack on technology. Also, completely unoriginal, down to its art design. If it turns out that fatasses in motorized carts is a protectable concept, Wally Wood's estate has a cause.

This movie pissed me off too, but for different and simpler reasons. I thought the scenes on earth that bookended the movie were nice, but the shit in space was terrible. All the robots, fat humans, and the low rent HAL computer were horribly written, acted, and designed.

What a schizophrenic movie this is. The scenes on earth play like a romantic silent movie. Then the scenes in space are like worst loud, shrill, childish, over-the-top immature Disney kiddie bullshit I've ever seen from Pixar. The studio's losing streak that started with "Finding Nemo" (in terms of quality, not finance) continued with this flick (I haven't seen "Up" yet).

And your comments about "Star Trek: First Contact" and "Metropolis" leave me shocked and appalled. I like "Star Trek" 2009 a lot. The opening sequence almost made me cry. I thought it was tremendously entertaining overall. Nonetheless, "Star Trek: First Contact" is ten times the movie it is.

"Star Trek" started beautifully, but about halfway through, the plot jumped the rails and I was disappointed from that point forward. The acting, writing, and substance are monumentally superior in "Star Trek: First Contact". It just completely works from the beginning and never falters or missteps. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just nitpicking. "Metropolis" is also captivating from start to finish. Obviously you and I have very different definitions of classic sci-fi.

 

[Truth_Seeker]

Wouldn't they then want to form a Parliament, perhaps even linking it to the historical Parliament to imbue it with historical legitimacy? In such a case, wouldn't it be convenient to actually have a bloody Parliament building?!

It would also have been convinient for the French people to have a working prison in Paris after the Revolution, but they chose to destroy it and build a new one!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Wall-E. The robot stuff is fluff, and although the genderization of the robots is senseless, it's understandable; yet in other respects this is one of the most disturbing films ever made, in its celebration of dictatorship

Celebration of what?

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Ice Pirates

Independence Day

Ghost World (Seeing Thora Birch & Scarlett Johansson barefoot is the only saving grace of this movie)

Welcome To The Dollhouse

Juno

Moonraker

Octopussy

A View To A Kill

Most independent films shown at Sundance that the critics love, but that I know I'll hate.

Gone With The Wind

Get On The Bus (I hate Louis Farrakhan and the Million Man March, and the fact that many of my fellow black brothers wasted their precious time on this bullshit instead of joining the anti-G8 summit protests)

 

[Lookingglassman]

Tim Burtons Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was horrible. Hell I'm glad I dont have any kids to take to that, it would give them nightmares. Willy Wonka was far superior to this piece of crap.

Space Cowboys - nuff said

No Country for Old Men - What the heck was this about? Who was the freak assassin? The idiot with the money could have gotten away if he had the guts to do what was right - ambush the assassin.

 

[Gaith]

Ooh, Juno, good one. Sucked!

 

[startrekrcks]

Star Trek is brilliant at least to me guess I will never change my opinion on it.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Aliens. The original was a masterpiece, one of my all-time favorite movies. The atmosphere was thick but off-hand (something Scott long forgot how to do, starting with Blade Runner) and the alien aspects of the movie--from the space jockey through all aspects of the beast's life cycle, including the transparent, pulsating egg--were truly awe-inspiring in how completely unlike anything we'd seen before. Cameron's infinitely inferior sequel, feels like a bad Marvel comic book crossed with Platoon, a simple-minded allegory every inch as naive as Avatar's but far more offensive. Plus, he modeled the life cycle of the Alien on fucking termites.

Vastly overrated piece of nonsense, even the pretentious mess that was Alien 3 is better.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

"Star Trek"[/I] started beautifully, but about halfway through, the plot jumped the rails and I was disappointed from that point forward. The acting, writing, and substance are monumentally superior in "Star Trek: First Contact". It just completely works from the beginning and never falters or missteps. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just nitpicking.

I love First Contact, but I have to say claiming it never falters or missteps is a bit much. It's a little bit like two movies fused together in a nuclear accident. The tone and stylistics of the planet-side sequences (light humor driven by the oldest of cliches - the funny drunken loser) and the ship-board sequences (tense, almost apocalyptic - at least for the microcosm that is the ship - atmosphere, and psychological drama), these two things clash mightily with some of the most jarring scene cuts I've ever seen. I forgive it that because it's a fun and satisfying flick, but it's far from a perfect movie.

 

[Trent Roman]

Both the nice (though greedy) girl and guy die, and the killer gets away. As a result, the sheriff, a symbolic shepherd of men, loses his faith in the basic goodness of humanity. In what sense is this not a conclusive ending?

We never see what the outcome of his encounter with the wife is. The killer gets into a car accident that has nothing to do with the story, and just when one thinks--"Okay, so now he's going to get caught, and the irony lies in the randomness of the event"--he limps away and we never see what happens to him either; not just immediately, but given the powerful foes he's crossed over the course of the movie. And who gives a fuck about the sheriff who does nothing all film long, or his yabbering with old coots who have nothing to do with the story, or his bloody dreams? The film not only refuses to show the final confrontation between the killer and the thief, dispatching what is essentially the main character off-camera, it also fails to bring about a confrontation between the sheriff and the killer, despite this being clearly set-up. Everything about this plot fizzles into airy nothing, and terribly unsatisfying as a story.

BTW, Eyes Wide Shut has a similarly tidy resolution.

I really don't think I should need a philosophy degree to make sense of a film. Eyes Wide Shut was a movie about a man who stumbles into a conspiracy... then does nothing about it. I don't care about Cruise or Kidman and their monogamist sexual hangups. I wanted to know who the masked revellers were, what their society was about, what happened to the pianist, whether the prostitute was murdered for what she knew... but the film refuses to answer the questions it has raised, fixated on the petty concerns of a couple instead of the potentially deadly scenario it has set-up, creating another plot that goes nowhere, and leaves me at the end of the film feeling like I've wasted my time on some self-involved piece of postmodernist masturbation.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Myasishchev]

I liked Eyes Wide Shut, particularly for its visual aspects. But the inactive characters aren't a problem for me--I mean, if most people ran into a conspiracy capable of murdering without apparent repercussion, and which spared them once, they might not try to do anything about it either...

It's also a decent if unfocused meditation on infidelity, but I suppose if you didn't like the characters, you can't be expected to care. But I rather liked 'em, particularly Cruise's doctor (Kidman's character is admittedly underdeveloped).

And your comments about "Star Trek: First Contact" and "Metropolis" leave me shocked and appalled. I like "Star Trek" 2009 a lot. The opening sequence almost made me cry. I thought it was tremendously entertaining overall. Nonetheless, "Star Trek: First Contact" is ten times the movie it is.

Well, Trek XI is a huge mess, that I can hardly believe got made given the state its script was in--that is, with such terrible plotting. I grant that it's extremely fun with good dialogue and characterization for everyone but Kirk, whose arc is flatter than just about any other hero's journey I've ever seen; yet a few rewrites could have given some much needed prenatal care to the near-abortion of the actual plot.

First Contact, on the other hand, is a mess in every regard except its actors' performances. It's not only not fun, it's not even interesting (with the one exception of Picard's breakdown)--it's a bad zombie movie in space. At least in a zombie movie, the zombies don't let you walk around if they "don't perceive you as a threat." And that highlights the problem, it's dumb... without capitalizing on the freedom idiocy can grant.

Which is indeed what Abrams did with Trek 11, turning stupidity to its best advantage.

 

[startrekrcks]

That's harsh guess we will have to agree to disagree because you know what I feel about Abrams Star Trek ah well guess films are not to everybody's taste. Nu Kirk's journey he took was enjoyable he may be a pain in the ass to you but I think that's what makes it interesting guess the writers wanted to make him a rebel and cocky and outspoken.

 

[Harvey]

We never see what the outcome of his encounter with the wife is.

He checks his boots for blood when he leaves. It stands to reason that she's dead.

 

[Trent Roman]

That's the implication, but like the husband's death it's offscreen (and unlike the husband, unconfirmed), and given the argument they had been having--the one time the killer's worldview seems to be brought into question (for him)--another in a string of anti-climaxes.

But the inactive characters aren't a problem for me--I mean, if most people ran into a conspiracy capable of murdering without apparent repercussion, and which spared them once, they might not try to do anything about it either...

Absolutely. But fiction isn't reality. If you're going to tell a story about someone encountering a conspiracy, it should have consequences--either trying to take down the conspiracy, or getting one's come-uppance for trying to ignore it. Some risible epiphany about marriage is disproportionately small to the actual occurences.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Myasishchev]

That's harsh guess we will have to agree to disagree because you know what I feel about Abrams Star Trek ah well guess films are not to everybody's taste. Nu Kirk's journey he took was enjoyable he may be a pain in the ass to you but I think that's what makes it interesting guess the writers wanted to make him a rebel and cocky and outspoken.

I get that's what they were going for, and, in the tradition of Roger Ebert, I can appreciate that they succeeded. But it's still a very flat arc--essentially, there is no internal conflict for Kirk to overcome, only the external ones. He earns respect and defeats the Romulans, but overcomes no inner limitation, nor makes an important personal choice. It's possible you could characterize the development of his relationship with Spock in this manner, but not really--he never has to admit being wrong to Spock (hell, he never even apologizes), so the relationship is essentially one of Kirk simply overcoming Spock's will through persistence and happening to be right.

Compare Kirk to Luke Skywalker, who has to overcome his inner hatred to triumph, or Han Solo, who overcomes his self-isolation and apathy to become a hero of the Rebel Alliance and bang Leia. Even compare nuKirk to Kirk in The Undiscovered Country, or in The Search for Spock, or The Wrath of Khan, where an important personal sacrifice must be made, or Kirk must admit, explicitly or implicitly, to being wrong, or both. In Trek 11, Kirk never overcomes his inner doucheness, and indeed it assists him in winning command and leading his crew to victory. And he sacrifices nothing, winning everything (except, thankfully, Uhura).

A narrative without an internal conflict is inherently less interesting than one that manages it. Trek 11 does manage that--indeed, if you squint, the main character, indeed only fully realized character, of Trek 11 is Spock, who does have an arc.

 

[startrekrcks]

I don't let it bug me his story arc his transformation from zero to hero was great and remember this Kirk is young.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

We never see what the outcome of his encounter with the wife is.

He checks his boots for blood when he leaves. It stands to reason that she's dead.

Exactly. It's subtle but not too subtle. And unbelievably chilling.

 

[Myasishchev]

But the inactive characters aren't a problem for me--I mean, if most people ran into a conspiracy capable of murdering without apparent repercussion, and which spared them once, they might not try to do anything about it either...

Absolutely. But fiction isn't reality. If you're going to tell a story about someone encountering a conspiracy, it should have consequences--either trying to take down the conspiracy, or getting one's come-uppance for trying to ignore it. Some risible epiphany about marriage is disproportionately small to the actual occurences.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Well, non-traditional narrative isn't for everyone, and even people who can accept the concept may find it unsatisfying in execution on occasion. As far as these things go, Eyes Wide Shut isn't going to be up everyone's lovingly shot alley with minimalist tinkling in the background.

And yeah, it probably appears inconsistent that in the collateral conversation, I'm bashing nuKirk for his non-traditional heroic arc or lack thereof, yet laud Dr. Harford's character, when he chooses not to be a hero at all. But Harford does have an arc--is presented with an important moral choice. He makes an immoral, or at best amoral, decision, to be sure, but a choice all the same. Indeed, I can't really see EWS going any other way. Where would the film have gone if Harford had resolved to expose the Hellfire Club and their anti-Jean Grey activities? Would it have become an action movie, three-quarters of the way in? A political thriller? Yuck.

I see EWS as something similar to Heart of Darkness or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in tone, if not in timbre--it's a travelogue of sorts, providing a glimpse into this (albeit imaginary or symbolic) horror world that exists outside the mainstream bourgeois lifestyle, and how someone like Harford (or us) aren't capable of dealing with the monsters that live there without giving up the values of the lifestyle he knew.