propnoob74
Well-Known Member
Lord, don't dare to talk about Jaws I got chew up cause I watched it again and didn't fell like I did before....
Movies you hate that everyone else likes
- Thread starter Michael Bergeron
- Start date
Lord, don't dare to talk about Jaws I got chew up cause I watched it again and didn't fell like I did before....
propnoob74
Well-Known Member
For me, I gotta say it's "What About Bob," with Bill Murray and Richard Dreyfuss.
And I've seen it four times. Each time, I was stuck at wherever I was - I rode with someone else, staying with a girl, or whatever. I wanted to go play in traffic while running with scissors on the second, third, and fourth occasions.
Funny thread, fresh idea - interesting to hear different perspectives.
And I've seen it four times. Each time, I was stuck at wherever I was - I rode with someone else, staying with a girl, or whatever. I wanted to go play in traffic while running with scissors on the second, third, and fourth occasions.
Funny thread, fresh idea - interesting to hear different perspectives.
:lol This is the safe thread for that talk! (Mostly)
There's definitely a lot of love for Jaws here.
propnoob74
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it got to the point other people were being rude to each other, and then called me inmature...but at least I like your opinion without offending me or others, you good in my book Orange_Blend
Qrest Fourstar
Sr Member
And I was going to aslap you for what you said about john carter, and you say that.
Must agree with that statement.
propnoob74
Well-Known Member
28 days later; can't stand it...
Some other I find not interesting at all:
Diaries of the dead
Land of the dead- Can't stand John Leguizamo on that one
And talking about him, how about his movie the pest?
Some other I find not interesting at all:
Diaries of the dead
Land of the dead- Can't stand John Leguizamo on that one
And talking about him, how about his movie the pest?
SqueekinOrka
Well-Known Member
Only one that comes to mind is Harry Potter. I've only seen 3 of them my cousins dragging to watch the first one and then going to see the final 2 with my husband.
I found them boring and just not my type of movie.
I found them boring and just not my type of movie.
Lutso
Sr Member
I like Tarantino's style, but I definitely don't deny that he's just an average guy with some interesting ideas.
Nolan on the other hand I really don't get at all...he's got nothing going for him except stories that he doesn't write. While pretty entertaining I've never actually been impressed with a Nolan film, and I don't understand his reputation at all...
Either way, amen to your statement. I took a film class in college a few years ago and...yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Except that you forgot about James Cameron. He's a god too, apparently.
dbalschi
Sr Member
Huh? Stories he didn't write? He wrote the screenplay for memento, screen play for batman begins, screenplay and story for The Dark Knight, he wrote Inception, the screen play and story for The Dark Knight rises, and the story for Man of Steel. How does he not write anything?
Werstrooper
Well-Known Member
CB2001
Master Member
crabra comander
Master Member
:lol
Ya...Sure. Tell that to the box office...and to the critical thinkers.
There were some crap movies from Tarantino for sure, but for the most part, they're excellent. Especially since they can't even be placed in any specific genre. They're a mish mash of awesome.
I hated Godfather 3, thought Moon was meh:unsure
ringa
Well-Known Member
Movie that everyone seems to like, but I did not: The Avengers. I think audiences today are so bedazzled by a frenzy of visual effects that story goes by the wayside. Avengers is a prime example with what is wrong with movies today.
CGI is out of hand, especially in adventure movies. It IS the story, while the plots are usually weak. I mean, watching Avengers reminded me of when I was a kid when we played with our toy guns, "We're the good guys, you're the bad guys. OK, let's fight!" Avengers' plot was not much deeper than that.
Even the coolest thing in the film––the flying aircraft carrier––was not something I hadn't seen before... anyone remember Sky Captain? If you haven't seen it, it is a helluva better movie than Avengers, and made for a fraction of the cost. That film had depth of characters, an interesting plot, and it was extremely creative and entertaining.
The best example of a good story and a balance of CG and traditional VFX is Jurassic Park. I think it is the best example because being one of the first CG effects films, it was forced to use them sparingly, mixing them with live action animatronics. Since we as an audience were not used to seeing CG, the blend from CG to live action was undetectable, thus selling the 'living dinosaur' effects in the most successful way. JP having had that advantage, it is now something that cannot happen again because we are accustomed to the technology.
Now, it seems, that CG is so over used in a way that it screams to us in every scene. Your mind knows to suspend reality because a CG character just made an appearance. Even with their photo-realistic renderings, it is easy to spot them. They are the ones who defy the laws of physics as they move...the ones that despite their huge size have no mass...the ones that are designed ridiculously with a cartoon character shape (unless that is called for like in a Pixar film)...or the ones that try to look like something in real life, but are larger than life just enough to make them uninteresting.
Look at the Indiana Jones films. In the first one, there were tarantulas and snakes, the second film had large bugs, the third had rats. In every case, when I saw these in theaters, people screamed, gasped and squirmed. Why? Because everyone knew those critters were there on set with (and on) the actors. Enter Indy 4... large, man-eating ants... the audience was completely quiet and unphased. Why? Because everyone knew they were CG and not really there with the actors.
George Lucas in the documentary From Star Wars to Jedi said that special effects are just a tool to help tell a story, that people often confuse them for being the story. He said that special effects without a story is a boring thing. He was SO right, and yet, it seems, that even HE abandoned this very important principle in his later works.
Movies used to be about telling good stories back when VFX were limited. Now that they are limitless, they have been abused and misused by modern film makers, they have become the story, and like George once believed, movies have become a pretty boring thing.
And that's why I didn't like The Avengers.
CGI is out of hand, especially in adventure movies. It IS the story, while the plots are usually weak. I mean, watching Avengers reminded me of when I was a kid when we played with our toy guns, "We're the good guys, you're the bad guys. OK, let's fight!" Avengers' plot was not much deeper than that.
Even the coolest thing in the film––the flying aircraft carrier––was not something I hadn't seen before... anyone remember Sky Captain? If you haven't seen it, it is a helluva better movie than Avengers, and made for a fraction of the cost. That film had depth of characters, an interesting plot, and it was extremely creative and entertaining.
The best example of a good story and a balance of CG and traditional VFX is Jurassic Park. I think it is the best example because being one of the first CG effects films, it was forced to use them sparingly, mixing them with live action animatronics. Since we as an audience were not used to seeing CG, the blend from CG to live action was undetectable, thus selling the 'living dinosaur' effects in the most successful way. JP having had that advantage, it is now something that cannot happen again because we are accustomed to the technology.
Now, it seems, that CG is so over used in a way that it screams to us in every scene. Your mind knows to suspend reality because a CG character just made an appearance. Even with their photo-realistic renderings, it is easy to spot them. They are the ones who defy the laws of physics as they move...the ones that despite their huge size have no mass...the ones that are designed ridiculously with a cartoon character shape (unless that is called for like in a Pixar film)...or the ones that try to look like something in real life, but are larger than life just enough to make them uninteresting.
Look at the Indiana Jones films. In the first one, there were tarantulas and snakes, the second film had large bugs, the third had rats. In every case, when I saw these in theaters, people screamed, gasped and squirmed. Why? Because everyone knew those critters were there on set with (and on) the actors. Enter Indy 4... large, man-eating ants... the audience was completely quiet and unphased. Why? Because everyone knew they were CG and not really there with the actors.
George Lucas in the documentary From Star Wars to Jedi said that special effects are just a tool to help tell a story, that people often confuse them for being the story. He said that special effects without a story is a boring thing. He was SO right, and yet, it seems, that even HE abandoned this very important principle in his later works.
Movies used to be about telling good stories back when VFX were limited. Now that they are limitless, they have been abused and misused by modern film makers, they have become the story, and like George once believed, movies have become a pretty boring thing.
And that's why I didn't like The Avengers.
WarEagle
Well-Known Member
Haggis
CB2001
Master Member
Okay. Good to clear up. I don't see why people would dislike Cronenberg's film, unless they got the two mixed up at the video store and accidentally rented Cronenberg's while intending to watch Haggis' film.
jlee562
Sr Member
I actually though the Avengers told a pretty good story considering the backstories that were already explored in the individual films.
As far as Indy, I would tend to think that audiences were more put off by the ridiculous monkey swinging from a few minutes earlier rather than CG ants.
THANK YOU. A kindred spirit! :lol
Although I won't go so far as to day I didn't like it I was very underwhelmed. I didn't see most of the films leading up to it and I shouldn't have to. Movies like this should be able to stand on their own and on it's own merits I thought it was pretty regular.
Similar threads
