Movies

Movies.

You watch them.

You write about them here.

Try and put the title of the movie in the subject line, so it's easier to wade through 'em.

I don't really have anything to write here at the moment, but give me until Monday. I'll come up with something.

Actually, I got it.

First off, the most awful "modern" movie I've ever seen - The Quick and the Dead. I hated this. It was absurd. Check it out:

So it's at the end. Sharon Stone is about to whoop Gene Hackman's ass. She shoots him in the chest. He looks down and - get this - there is a spot of light in his shadow! First, it's not like the light could come down, bend through him, and then continue down onto the groud! And secondly, it's not like the flesh and blood wouldn't cover at least some spot in the hole through him, thereby blocking the light. I mean, come on. We're movie-goers, not complete idiots.

But it gets WORSE! Then she shoots him in the head and HE DOES A FLIP! Yes, the force from the bullet actually makes him FLIP! From standing up to on his stomach. 270 degrees of goodness. Besides the fact that this would be physically impossible (being shot from a handgun and all), it looks absolutely ridiculous, and serves as a vivid reminder of how stupid bad movies can be. There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's treating your audience like fucking retards. Even if the movie had been good up to that part (it wasn't - it was okay in some parts and pretty awful in others), that completely ruined it. Unbelieveable.

[Whit]

     IMO the best of the Carpenter/Russel movies. It's stupid, it's supposed to be. A classic for any Bad Movie NIght gathering. I love that friggin' movie because it's cheesy and knows it. There's no pretense involved.
     Not good if you're looking for high drama, great if you're looking for fun.

[serge]

All (almost) movies played on big screens in U.S. today are controlled by Corporate Mafia. To maximize profit, they are being made for pre/teenage audiences, and also target foreign markets (read.. English dialogue bad.. action good.. understandable for non-English speakers). In general, these movies (should) insult intelligence of anyone with a (real) college degree.

Lately, for me at least, it's been very small pickings (again, talking about Big Screen.. not the few places that actually run indie stuff these days). "Waking Life" was one exception as of late.

I enjoyed Ocean's 11 while I was in Mississippi. Yes, it's a remake, but I found it to be pretty good. Certainly not bad for a remake. I'd watch it again.

Big Trouble in Little China is definitely a classic, and I don't think I'll ever outgrow that movie. I first saw it when I was a little kid, and I've liked it ever since. It's not one of the best movies I've ever seen, but it's certainly one of the most enjoyable.

I thought Monsters, Inc. was pretty great, of course. I went to see it 4 times in the theater, and was loving it every time. I just find it to be very satisfying - it leaves me with a big dumb goofy smile. That's the kind of movie I can watch over and over again.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Whit
     IMO the best of the Carpenter/Russel movies. It's stupid, it's supposed to be. A classic for any Bad Movie NIght gathering. I love that friggin' movie because it's cheesy and knows it.

Kurt Russell was hilarious in that! It was so goofy, and that's what made it funny.

I feel strangely compelled to talk about "The Matrix" here. I think it should definitely be noted, anyway.

When I first saw The Matrix, I was in awe. I thought it was great. I said that it raised new questions about what is "real" and what is not. Etc, etc.

Then, for some reason, I stopped liking it. I looked at it as just another dumb action movie. I felt that I was duped into thinking it was good.

But then I watched it again. I must say, it really is a damn fine movie. It's infinitely more complex than I even saw at first. There's a lot to it - the parallels between Neo and Christ, etc. The Wachowski brothers really are on to something - expect the second and third ones to be pretty good as well.

[vsp]

...I didn't LOATHE The Matrix, but I dislike it, and abhor the amount of hype it's received.

The basic concepts -- nothing you see or hear is real, virtual reality taken to its logical extreme, downloadable skills and knowledge, spunky heroes fighting against a tyrannical but faceless enemy -- were reasonable enough, and perfectly acceptable for a sci-fi pic. I believe that a great spy caper is waiting to be made with the "what skills shall I download NOW" concept, as long as you put a storage-space limit on it as well as a person's other inherent limitations. Sure, you can absorb the cumulative skills and knowledge of Bruce Lee, Einstein, a great mechanic or a great programmer... but what do you need to forget to make room for it?

The bullet-time special effects were neat, but nothing to build a movie around.

So what did I dislike?

* If you're going to make a high-tech sci-fi movie, make a high-tech sci-fi movie. If you're going to drift into flights of fantasy and Great Prophecies and This Has Been Foretold and such, do it. But don't spend half the movie building a solid technical story and then throw in crap about "The One" and "Love can bring the dead back to life" and the whole deus-ex-machina ending! Keanu could've been the conquering hero in the end without being portrayed as some sort of demigod foretold by a mystical oracle. Sure, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Did we really need to LITERALLY cross that line?

* Keanu Reeves... in general... irritates me.

* Sequels were filming before the first one was released. That's marketing BS in its purest form, IMHO.

jeff. Then again, I still think the Star Wars series should have stopped at one, MAYBE two films.

IIRC, and I'm pretty sure that I do, The Matrix was released widespread on April 2, 1999. Word on the streets is that the first sequel, "Matrix Reloaded", didn't begin shooting until March of 2001, with a slated release date of May 2003. I seriously doubt they're spending 4 years on a movie - 2 is definitely more likely. So I really don't think that the sequels started filming before the first one was ever released.

As for the other comments, I think that The Matrix was a very ambitious movie and, by and large, hit the mark. The only major complaint, I would say, is the atrocious flying ending. I giggle every time I see that piece of awful cinema. One can only hope they'll eventually edit it out for the Matrix Boxset, much like Depeche Mode got rid of that awful ending to "Enjoy the Silence".

[Whit]

.

Posted by vspThen again, I still think the Star Wars series should have stopped at one, MAYBE two films.

     Hey, bite me. THe Empire Strikes Back is one of my all time favorites. I saw it 36 times on it's original theatrical run and I was only 'bout eleven at the time. And all it ranks is a "maybe"??? Name one other movie where the good guy's so completely and totally get their asses handed to them. You just can't beat that.

[juju]

I watched Vanilla Sky last night. It was amazing.

Like the Matrix, it makes you question what is 'real' and what is not (only without all the science fiction and guns). It's one of those movies that makes you think throughout the entire film.

Afterwards, I went home and checked the user comments on imdb.com. Everyone else completely hated it. 99% of the users on that review board didn't get it. What's worse, they didn't know that they weren't getting it... they just thought the movie was retarded.

I was pretty amazed by this.. I guess if you're going to cater a movie to intellectual themes, you have to sacrifice some viewers.

Some, yes. But it can be done while still holding a lot of the public. Think "American Beauty".

As for Vanilla Sky... I try to stick away from Tom Cruise movies as much as possible. Not because I think he's a bad actor - he's pretty alright. The whole <a href="http://www.xenu.net">Scientology</a> thing bugs me though.

[Chewbaccus]

I. Hated. This. Movie.

This has to be the most awful thing I have ever sat down and spent my valuable time on. Luckily, I salvaged most of the 2 hours as I slept through all but 15 minutes at the beginning and 15 minutes at the end. As soon as I saw Willis get shot, I had a really bad feeling as to what was next. Willis' wife ignores him and he has trouble with the door, I was 99.999% sure what was coming. Then the kid said that the dead people sometimes don't know they're dead. That was it, Willis died when the wackjob shot him, time for a nap.

That's why I really can't understand people who say that they were shocked by the ending. That they never expected it. If you're reading this, and you can honestly sit there and tell me that you were surprised, please continue to sit there whilst I secure the electrodes to your skin.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way. I saw the movie with my brother and my father. My father got the tickets (and ultimately chose the movie, a fact I have never forgiven him for.) while my brother and I parked the car. When we filed out of the theater, my brother immediately went to the nearest ATM, withdrew some money, pulled some singles from his pocket, and presented it to my father on the pretense that no human should have to pay for another to see what we just did. After that, my brother and I made a pact to never leave my father at a movie ticket counter unattended.

I just don't get it.

~mike

Ah.

So what you mean to say is, "Based on 1/4 the movie, I dislike the entire thing, including the other 75%, which I didn't bother to watch."

Come on man, that's kinda lame. At least give the movie a chance and watch the entire thing. Try and appreciate it for the good acting it had.

Fact of the matter is, most people weren't making that corrolation when they saw it, and they were surprised. Even intelligent people. It is a pretty good movie, and the acting ain't too shabby either. Cut it a break - you can't really judge a movie by 30 minutes of it.

[BrianR]

All around bad movie with no redeeming value at all... Cool World

My favorite "bad" movie? Tremors I,II and III.

Comments?

Brian

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Come on man, that's kinda lame. At least give the movie a chance and watch the entire thing. Try and appreciate it for the good acting it had.

Fact of the matter is, most people weren't making that corrolation when they saw it, and they were surprised. Even intelligent people. It is a pretty good movie, and the acting ain't too shabby either. Cut it a break - you can't really judge a movie by 30 minutes of it.

But you're skittish of movies featuring Tom Cruise b/c of the Scientology thing?