Skeptical entertainment. Bring your own popcorn.

[onager]

OK, more just plain "contrarian" than skeptical, I guess.

But whenever I go to IMDB to check movie reviews, invariably I find myself clicking on the "Hated It" selection first.

Tonight I was wasting time over there reading reviews of horror movies.

Just for fun, I decided to Hate-Select some of the best-loved 'Murican movies of all time. I chose 4 movies at random from IMDB's Top 100/250/Whatever list, and selected some of the...choicer comments by viewers.

Surely nobody could hate these solid-gold cinematic achievements, could they? Well, I hate some of 'em, but I'm weird. And before I was big enough to defend myself, being raised in the South, I was repeatedly dragged to Gone With The Wind. That overstuffed turkey came around my area every few years, sort of like a Biblical plague. (BTW, Butterfly McQueen, who was stuck with the thankless and annoying role of Prissy, was an atheist who spent much of her life doing charity work.)

So without further ado...The Critics Rave, Classics Edition. Feel free to add your own choices to this thread, since insanity loves company...

Sound of Music

When I was young, I used to picture the audience for this film as slightly deaf old women in surgical stockings and bad hats, and my attitude still holds.

This movie is dull enough to put amphetamine freaks to sleep!

"The Sound of Music" is not one of those films that is so bad it's good. It's one of the ones that's so bad it makes me want to burn the theater to the ground. If anything, it's the most offensively numb portrayal of World War II ever made. Here we see World War II as a swirling, candy-colored vortex of happiness. Instead of death and terror, the Nazis bring sunshine and lollipops to the world of Maria and the Von Trapp kids. Even in the middle of being chased by Nazi tanks, the Von Trapp clan have time to stop and sing an ode to their beloved hills. Apparently, Hitler had a soft-spot for musical numbers.

Lawrence of Arabia

If it wasn't for the music everyone would hate this film. No women in the film at all, plenty of camels but no camel toe.

Whats so great about this film? For four hours you see this goofy looking blue eyed fruit walking and talking in the desert with Arabs. And for what reason is beyond me. He takes this job because hes sick of painting maps?? what kind of plot is that??

The only good part in the movie was when they whipped him. I wish they would have whipped me for watching it.

Unless you are a World War I enthusiast, an admirer of widescreen photography, or Paul Wolfowitz, you can safely give Lawrence of Arabia a wide berth.

Citizen Kane

The only people who still champion this film are college film teachers, and the idiots that listen to them.

Slightly less boring than a hair-grooming 'how-to-video.' Quite simply, the most over-rated film in history.

I was forced against my will to watch this for a college History of Film class...Citizen Kane is like one of those dull, pounding headaches accompanied by dry heaves at 3 in the morning, please, Lord, let me leave this life, sort of miserable suffering. Half an hour into this movie, I was ready to reveal government secrets and abandon my family and religion...

Casablanca

I went to comatose over 10 times. Rewatched it by hanging myself upside down with my pet bat and still couldn't feel anything for the movie...

Casablah.

...a glorified chick-flick which will hopefully fall away into nostalgic obscurity...

I tried so hard to like this movie. I understand - it's a classic, and anyone who loves movies should swear by this film because it's this and that and the other and it can cure warts and remove cellulite and fix your car...An hour into it, my date and I were so lost that we turned it off.

Gone With The Wind

More ham than a Danish abattoir.

One of the ways I knew I really did love my wife was that I was able to sit with her all the way through this monstrous tripe.

...one of those 'emperor's new clothes' movies ("Citizen Kane" being another prime example) which has created its own myth and which it seems to have become almost blasphemous to criticise. Call me a Philistine if you like, but to call this load of old toffee the greatest movie of all time - or even one of the greatest - is just plain rubbish. It may have been okay in its day, but now it's just so dated. Clark Gable is nothing more than a kind of proto-Timothy Dalton, and the much lauded Vivien Leigh is positively hammy all the way through. In parts she's quite nauseating. And those hideous frocks - oh dear me. Big thumbs down I'm afraid.

Instead of one terrible movie, this would have been better split into 3 very bad movies.

[WoodrowFan]

1. GWTW

There is no movie I HATE more than "Gone With The Wind." I think I'm the only one cheering for the Union soldier to kill Scarlett and end our suffering!

[jberryhill]

2. Sound of Music

Ah, yes.

Have you ever stopped to consider the following:

(a) In which branch of the service was Georg Von Trapp an officer?

and

(b) Where is Austria located?

[salvorhardin]

3. Well, let's be fair now

Georg Von Trapp was in the Austro-Hungarian Navy, the K.u.K. Kriegsmarine. Remember, up until 1918 when it was dissolved, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a force to be reckoned with.

[realisticphish]

4. I hate "untouchable" movies

any movie that is apparently beyond criticism annoys me.

All those old classics, especially. Now, there are classic movies that i really like, like North By Northwest, 12 Angry Men. Hell, even The Battleship Potemkin is interesting from a historical point of view.

But NO movie, however beloved, is above criticism. E(including GWTW, glorifying the south at a time when, imho, it was not very glamorous)

[beam me up scottie]

5. ...

[Warpy]

6. The only good part of "Casablanca" is Claude Rains

He steals every scene he's in and when he's off the screen, the film descends into sappy melodrama with both Bogart and Bergman chewing the scenery while Henried swishes around behind them, unsure of what he's supposed to be doing on the set.

Now aren't y'all glad I don't write movie reviews for a living?

FWIW, I agree with all the reviews above.

[moggie]

8. But were you confused by Casablanca?

Personally, I like Casablanca, but I don't have any problem with people who disagree. It's just a matter of taste, and having lousy taste doesn't make you a bad person (I kid, I kid). But the above reviewer wrote:

An hour into it, my date and I were so lost that we turned it off.

Come on! If they'd called it dull or sentimental, I could understand that, but if you can't follow Casablanca's plot, you must have the attention span of a two-year-old with a sugar rush. Geez, you'd better not rent Primer.

A good antidote to Casablanca is Woody Allen's Play It Again, Sam.

[Warpy]

9. The actors were certainly confused

because they didn't know what the ending was going to be until it ended, which is probably the main reason the performances were less than prime.

Again, Claude Rains made that movie. Without him, it would have been a total botch and ended up gathering dust in some vault, consigned to a well deserved oblivion that even TCM wouldn't dare disturb.

[PVnRT]

7. This is fun

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

I still can't see what everyone else is raving about when it comes to this movie. Yeah, the colors are beautiful, but so are a lot of the Saturday morning cartoons and I wouldn't get up to watch those either. It's almost like you are considered politically incorrect if you don't like this movie. They had to have had the best press agents in the World. It's another badly acted Kung Fu movie with people flying through the air and walking on trees.

...

Why do they need horses if they can fly? What are they fighting for, if nobody wins? So what they died for? That's the point! Thank God they died so the film could come to an end, for absence of characters. And, like those flying idiots, this video could finally fly back to the shelf from where it should never have left.

Pulp Fiction

I will never understand why Pulp Fiction is hailed by so many as one of the greatest films ever made. Quentin Tarintino's first film Reservoir Dogs was amazing. It had excellent performances, some good action scenes, an impressive structure and fantastic sound track. When Pulp Fiction came out in my country in October 1994, i could not wait to see it. Empire Magazine gave it 5 stars. I remember when i went up to Glasgow to see it with an anticipation i had not felt since i had went to see some thing like Star Wars or Indiana Jones.

Oh boy, twenty minutes in and i was already sick to death of Samuel Jackson's character. He just talked and talked and talked and....talked. John Travolta's Vince Vega was a guy i wanted to decimate, oh Travolta you looked ridiculous with those hair extensions and then you talked and talked and talked with Uma Thurman in a silly black wig. There was so much talking in this film that it made me want to walk out. I have only ever done this once in my life and it was with that utter garbage Jack Nicholson flick Wolf. Tosh.

So i kept hoping that something good would happen...Christopher Walken as an army bloke talking and talking about a gold watch up his ass...NOT GOOD...a male rape scene with talk...NOT GOOD...Quentin Tarintino turning up in a cameo that should have got him shot (in real life) talk talk about disposing of bodies...oh, this film was the pits, i must have been the only one in the audience that hated this film, because everyone was whooping and hollering like they were watching a Naked Gun comedy. Oh yes, they loved it.

Quiet frankly my admiration of Tarintino was gone forever, he got his head together with the brilliant Jackie Brown then lost the plot again with the silly Kill Bill volumes. Pulp Fiction is one of the worst movies I've ever had to endure, its a long boring ride to a sore head.

Vertigo

I watched this so-called masterpiece for a class assignment (and I was actually looking forward to it, so I can't be held to expectations of poor quality), and I can only think of one word to explain my feelings on this movie:

WHY?

Why is this considered one of the best movies of all time? Why do people continually bow down to something just because it's "the definitive classic?" Why did they leave the unnecessary 30-45 minutes in there? Why was this film so horrendously acted, directed, filmed, and edited?

Where to go on... Ah yes. The plot:

The plot was a wonderful concept. A nice couple of twists, the story set up well and ready to hand off for a touchdown, but somewhere along the way, the runningback decided he should run a few laps around the field, in randomly alternating directions, before finally meandering in and taking a knee at the one-yard line and settle for a field goal.

The acting: Stiff, over-done, "no-sir-audience-i'm-not-reading-my-lines-from-cue-cards" crap. James Stewart was quite possibly the worst choice. He only has one speed: "Merry Christmas Bell Tower!" Every movie I've seen him in he's been the same idiotic dimwit. His intended affable, lovable goofy exterior only irritates, frustrates and makes you want to set fire to the videotape or DVD it sullies. Kim Novak was hardly any better. Her cookie cutter character, "I-dare-you-not-to-love-me-NOWAIT-I'm-untouchable-NOWAIT-help-me-NOWAIT-i'm -insane" would have been served up more convincingly by James Stewart himself in a dress. At least he has a whopping two modes to his emoting.

Editing and Directing: Why did Midge exist? She provided no conflict save for that weird thing she did with the painting. She provided no resolution. She didn't even serve as a voice of any particular sway (i.e. the viewer, the voice of reason, the voice of emotion etc). An amazingly sexist viewpoint (I know, surprise, it was the 50's) pervades. The women are stupid, naive, weak-willed and two-dimensional. There were so many unnecessary camera shots, such as nearly all the various scenes during the "I'm-following-Madeline-with-my-intense-stare-of-concern-and-intrigue" car sequences.

Quite frankly, I'm so disgusted with this movie, I can't really go on with any intelligent critiquing. I wish I could say that we've grown as an industry and learned our lesson about contrived, pointless plots with big names displaying less than tolerable acting capabilities, but only a fool would ignore Pearl Harbor.

Maybe we can salvage the concept. Do a remake. Anything today would vastly improve upon this sorry waste of my time.

My score: .08/10 for the potentially breakthrough but saddeningly mundane plot.

[onager]

10. More fun!

Late Edit: this started with a simple, brief rant and it got away from me. That seems to happen to me a lot...

IAJSR: I checked out the "Hated" Tarantinos too. It WAS fun!

Along with the other stuff, there's a big reason I hate Pulp Fiction--it relaunched the happily stagnant career of John Travolta. There was Travolta, safely boxed into the occasional talking-baby flick, where he couldn't stink up too many movies adults might want to see.

Then Tarantino goes and puts him in that damn over-rated movie. And suddenly Travolta is popping up in everything. Though I have to admit, one of those was the hilarious sci-fi spoof Battlefield Earth. I never thought Travolta capable of such subtle comedy! (For any lurking $cientologists--that was sarcasm.)

Long as I'm here, Travolta should be forcibly restrained from EVER again doing anything with a Southern accent. He cannot pull it off, and he's tried more than enough times. He doesn't sound like a Southerner, just a slow-talking mental deficient. Which is...nah, I won't say that's not much of a stretch for him. That would be a really cheap shot.

More Tarantino gripes: WTF was up with Death Proof? Tarantino had a decent premise, fast cars, and Kurt Russell, for Crom's sake. Also plentiful references to great motorhead movies like Vanishing Point and Gone In 60 Seconds (the Sacred Original, as the movie points out, not that Blasphemous Abortion of a re-make with Nicolas Cage and Collagen-Face).

So what did he do?

He made a movie that should have been called Four Women Talking In A Car and a Bar. Since that describes the bore-fest that eats up most of the running time.

Finally, a movie that came highly recommended to me by critics, friends, and everybody...

August Rush. Hereafter known, to me anyway, as August Flush.

Marketed as "heartwarming fantasy," which is good, since there was not one believable shred of any damn thing in the entire movie. From the plot to the characters to the setting in that fab-u-lous version of New York City apparently visited only by rich movie folks, it was more contrived than kabuki yet as predictable as a church Xmas play.

Note to Robin Williams--PLEASE give up your hopeless Oscar quest of playing these "lovable, colorful eccentric" types. In this movie, you are just a creepy guy who exploits street children. Even if you do house the kids in your abandoned theater (can you say "tacky obvious symbolism," boys and girls? I knew you could!). This condemned theater is mysteriously equipped with electricity. And since those street kids are suspiciously clean and well-fed, it may also be equipped with hot showers, a gourmet chef and a concierge. That would be as believable as anything else in this giant mushy turd.

But wait, there's more! To quote Howard Beale (or Paddy Chayefsky) in Network: "When all the other bullshit fails, they drag out the God bullshit."

Amen, brother! So for the 4,597th time in a Major Motion Picture, we get the hymn-singing African-American family running the po' li'l Cinematically Non-Denominational church in Harlem. Though later on, when a Big Plot Point requires a pipe organ, the family seems to be running a church about the size of St. Patrick's Cathedral.

To me, this is just as sterotypical as Gone With The Wind's happy slaves singing away in the cotton fields. I was raised as a racist redneck in the Bible-thumping Deep South. But even I know black atheists and skeptics exist, because I've met them. So why don't we ever see them in movies? (Not to mention the many famous black non-believers of the past, though I bet Oprah would deny that. Has no one in Hollywood ever read Langston Hughes' "Goodbye Christ" or "Christ In Alabama?")

Look, there's an African-American atheist now! http://friendlyatheist.com/1675/interview-with-mike-estes/

One of the many unintentionally funny moments: a character says, "The New York Philharmoic wants you to play. Your invitation came in the mail today."

Now I know less than nothing about the working world of classical musicians. But somehow, I really don't think the New York Philharmonic mails out invitations like Publisher's Clearing House.

This thing really needs the MST3K treatment. I would love to gather a bunch of the DU skeptics in a room to give it the slaughtering it so desperately deserves.

[SheilaT]

11. I always get into trouble when

I pan 2001, A Space Odyssey, but it really is hilariously bad. It starts with the men in ape suits, shows you exactly why Pan Am went bankrupt -- the abysmally low load factors, and ends up with a totally incoherent plot-less segment somewhere out there in space with a psychotic computer.

That movie is a real sacred cow.

Oh, and I have seen Casablanca once and only once. I knew nothing about the film (obviously I'd been living under a rock for thirty years at that point) and found it fascinating and managed to be totally surprised by the ending. But I can't imagine watching it over and over.

[realisticphish]

13. i'm a big kubrick fan

but 2001 def has its problems.

One thing, though, the ending was not supposed to be that way. They ran out of money, and had to force that ending in (though even the foced ending makes more sense if you read the book, and the sequels) . I feel that the middle section, with HAL, etc, is brilliant, especially the space scenes. but the beginning is definitely weak.

[SheilaT]

15. What you need to read is the original

short story, "The Sentinel" by Arthur C. Clarke. THAT'S brilliant and thought-provoking, and the portion of the movie which is actually taken from the story bears only a passing resemblance to it. Such a shame. I've been saying for many years now that the problem with most science-fiction movies is that the people making them know how to make movies, but they know very little, and seem to care even less, about science-fiction.

I still tend to laugh out loud when people, especially readers of science fiction, start getting all rhapsodic and starry-eyed over that silly movie.

[SheilaT]

12. deleted. double posted

n/t

[LeftishBrit]

14. I totally agree about 'Gone With the Wind'!

Can't stand the characters; and it's glamorizing a most un-glamorous part of history.

I have always had severe reservations about the 1939 film of 'Wuthering Heights' - indeed about almost any film of 'Wuthering Heights'. Yes, it's well-produced and well-acted but it turns a dark, savage story, reminiscent of the fiercer old myths and legends, into a beautiful if tragic romance. I am always amazed at the people who think of Heathcliff as some sort of romantic hero!

Not a film, but I was never all that enthused about the 1995 Andrew Davies TV serialization of 'Pride and Prejudice', which most people think is great. The scenery, costumes, etc. are very well-done and obviously based on careful research - but the characters are unconvincing IMO. Most glaringly, Colin Firth is *not* Darcy. He comes across as some sort of smouldering Byronic character, closer perhaps to Mr. Rochester; whereas Darcy is *supposed* to be a cold fish - but a hero in spite of it. Also, Elizabeth looks prettier than Jane, which she shouldn't; Mrs. Bennett is horribly over-acted; and Wickham is too *obviously* a villain: he needs to be shown as someone capable of fooling not only Lydia, who could doubtless be fooled by anything in trousers, but the much more intelligent Elizabeth.

By contrast, I have always been VERY impressed by the TV serializations of Mrs. Gaskell's books; in particular, I strongly recommend the latest one of Cranford to anyone who can get hold of it.

And to get back to classic films: I'm afraid most of Woody Allen leaves me cold, and I only really liked 'Sleeper'.

[onager]

16. Glad someone else feels that way about Woody Allen.

...I strongly recommend the latest one of Cranford to anyone who can get hold of it.

It is...ummm...available around the internets. I could be more specific, but that would be wrong, as Richard Nixon always liked to say. I'll get to him in a minute.

I consider Woody Allen another very talented person in one area (comedy) who let his ego run away with him. Especially when he decided to become Ingmar Bergman Junior.

Of course, I'm so weird that one of my favorite Allen movies only featured him as an actor: The Front. Its subject was the right-wing blacklisting of American entertainers in the early 1950's. With great intentional irony, the movie featured formerly blacklisted Americans on both sides of the camera, from director Martin Ritt to the great actor Zero Mostel.

That irony is established at the very beginning, with Frank Sinatra crooning "Young At Heart" over footage of the Korean War, Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon ranting about Commies hiding under our beds, and demonstrators demanding the immediate execution of the Rosenbergs.

You've probably guessed this is not exactly a happy Friday night date movie (or DVD), and it absolutely flopped at the box office. Allen is well utilized providing comic relief in an otherwise grim and downbeat story. I will not be a SPOILER. But the last line in the movie, as Allen is dragged before the House Un-American Activities Committee, is just hilarious.

Another possible reason it flopped: the studio apparently didn't provide much marketing support. The Hollywood blacklist was still a touchy subject in the USA when this movie was made (1976). Only one year before, the Redford-Streisand blockbuster The Way We Were had material about the blacklist edited out before its release.