Question:
my nominations are
-scarface - i just disliked all the characters and all the bad tony montany impressions it started
-apocalipse now- too long, too dull; "the horror (of it) the horrorr (of it)
-godfather 1- impossible to watch in one sitting, two drawn out and drags too much
In 10 years time you will have changed your opinion, I bet.
LOTR - (the 1st one) I was quite disappointed by this - sat through the 3 1/2 hour directors cut 4 disk version and was left very unimpressed. :(
As Good as it Gets and Jerry McGuire are 2 films with good reps I just can't stand. Also no matter how many times I watch Citizen Kane, I admire the technique more than like the actual movie..same goes for Fritz Langs Metropolis.
agree with vsehjipal and id like to add star wars all very highly over rated IMHO
Hmm. Well I was not very impressed with Godfather Part II. I saw the whole trilogy over a day and a half for the first time when the DVD box came out and my feelings were that DeNiro 'coasted' through his role, and the contemporary plot was simply a rehash of the first movie, but not as deep...
GFIII was actually a refreshing change of pace and I was really impressed by it.
TheoGB, into this thread with you! ;)
"In 10 years time you will have changed your opinion, I bet."
-Your probably right, in fact ill probably appreciate them a lot more the next time I watch them
Originally posted by Dan Druff
TheoGB, into this thread with you! ;)
Hey. I already posted there!!
:D
Godfather III is not a crap movie. People need to understand this!! Sophia Coppola is not a bad actress and frankly I think it gets slated more for not being indentical to the other two GF movies.
It's like Temple of Doom: only bad compared to the other films by in the series and Spielberg's catalogue.
Originally posted by SILVERBACK
agree with vsehjipal and id like to add star wars all very highly over rated IMHO
Star Wars ain't a good film in the first place, though. Any normal person can see that - it's only the geeks that can't. :D
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Star Wars ain't a good film in the first place, though. Any normal person can see that - it's only the geeks that can't. :D
Depends on if good and enjoyable are the same thing...
The Deer Hunter is a movie i really can't stand, to quote Mark Kermode - "I have a problem with a film that shows a country invading another country and then complaining about how bad they were treated" - that of course is a paraphrase but it's more or less the way i feel about the film, that and it's so racist that it has to be seen to be believed.
fight club - i've only watched it once and maybe on a 2nd viewing i will like it more but i just did'nt find myself enjoying it
Originally posted by TheoGB
Godfather III is not a crap movie. People need to understand this!! Sophia Coppola is not a bad actress and frankly I think it gets slated more for not being indentical to the other two GF movies.
I don't think GF3 is a crap movie, but Sophia is absolutely terrible and the movie would be improved no end if someone else had played her role
Originally posted by rumbletum
I don't think GF3 is a crap movie, but Sophia is absolutely terrible and the movie would be improved no end if someone else had played her role
I watched the film at the weekend for the first time in years, and sadly, as much as I wanted to vindicate her somehow, Soffia Coppola is just dire. There's no getting around the fact. I listened to the commentary too, which I enjoyed, although I lost count of the amount of times Francis defended her. Even going to great lengths to tell complimentary anecdotes about her (which were nowt to do with the film).
It has other problems. This applied to the first film too (more than the second), but the playground psychology is really stretched to breaking point in Part III. Also, as much as I enjoyed his performance, Garcia's transformation from street thug to Godfather is unconvincing.
And I still think the end, with Pacino putting shades on, is unintentionally funny.
Originally posted by rumbletum
I don't think GF3 is a crap movie, but Sophia is absolutely terrible and the movie would be improved no end if someone else had played her role
You obviously haven't seen enough bad acting. :D
Of course, he makes it clear in the commentary it was less nepotism and more down to his original choice (can't remember who right now) pulling out at the last minute.
I watched the movie for the first time and really tried to see this terrible acting everyone went on about. She's below the par of the others in the film, no denying, but she's not actually bad. It's more a comparison effect.
Agreed, saw GF3 for teh first time and Sofia is awful from her voice to her mannerisms.
Not a bad director tho, Virgin Suicides is excellent
Originally posted by vsehijpal
my nominations are
-scarface - i just disliked all the characters and all the bad tony montany impressions it started
-apocalipse now- too long, too dull; "the horror (of it) the horrorr (of it)
-godfather 1- impossible to watch in one sitting, two drawn out and drags too much
- What?
- Oh c'mon!
- Ok, that's it, someone get a gurney, this one is going down. :mad: :p
Further proof that everything is just an opinion, a movie can't be "really" good or "really" bad, it just is, and whatever you make of it.
The Untouchables
I'm with Trainspotting's Sickboy on this one - I don't rate it at all. All of the good stuff was Mamet's doing. But then we have the barf inducing home life of Costner and family (I think we all wanted his family DEAD, his house burned to the GROUND), the daft Charles Martin Smith shootout scene, the 'Cripes, Hitch never made an Elliot Ness movie, what can I do? I'll rip off someone else' Eisenstein moment. And, worst of all, the cringeworthy moment when Capone's lawyer says 'I'd like to withdraw our plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty'. Oh my god, but your entire family will be killed for such an outrage, is it worth it, just for a moment of daft DePalma drama? Apparently so.
Originally posted by Lenny Nero
- What?
- Oh c'mon!
- Ok, that's it, someone get a gurney, this one is going down. :mad: :p
Further proof that everything is just an opinion, a movie can't be "really" good or "really" bad, it just is, and whatever you make of it.
-Scarface, Tony Montana's character, for me, had no really likeable aspects, the other characters just seemed to be a little dull.
-Godfather 1, Simply that I have seen it twice and on both occasions found it too heavy to watch in one go
-Ok the version of Apocalipse Now i saw was the extended version, maybe thats whyi thought it was overlong.
And as you said of course its what you make of it, i mean if you think a movie is bad/ good because you are told to then we'll all be sheep followling the crowds, or Sun readers
Originally posted by TheoGB
You obviously haven't seen enough bad acting. :D
I dunno, my girlfriend regularly makes me watch Eastenders... COme to think of it maybe Sofias not that bad :)
Originally posted by TheoGB
Of course, he makes it clear in the commentary it was less nepotism and more down to his original choice (can't remember who right now) pulling out at the last minute.
Winona Ryder IIRC :dork:
<b>The Untouchables</b> is, of course, one of the finest action movies ever made, and you can blame Mamet as much as De Palma for the wooden sequences with Ness's family. When one considers the good things about the film - the brilliant intercutting between events, the astonishing verve of the Eisenstein 'rip-off' (although if someone could show me the bits in "Potiemkin" where Eisenstein stages a shootout on the Odessa Steps then I might be more convinced by the ludicrous argument), the sense of pace and tension which isn't remotely spoiled by the extraneous family scenes, the epic scale of the border raid sequence, the humour and affection with which the characters are treated and so on - then this seems a very minor fault.
Mind you, if dislike of a certain director (or one of his fans) makes one blind to his abilities then there's nothing at all that's really worth saying. I've just contributed a lengthy De Palma article (which, I hope, blows the "Dressed To Kill is a rip-off of Psycho nonsense out of the water) to the February edition of "The Third Alternative", available Feb 1st from all good bookshops, which contains most of what I have to say on the subject. But I have yet to see a single convincing argument against De Palma's abilities as a filmmaker, on these forums or elsewhere.
Come to think of it, the only indisputable evidence for the "De Palma copies Hitchcock" argument is "Obsession", which was written by Paul Schrader - the similarities between "Obession" and "Vertigo" were in fact, <i>lessened</i> by De Palma in his revision of the screenplay.
Here's a list of direct similarities between "Dressed To Kill" and "Psycho":
- They both feature shower scenes
- The killer is a cross-dresser (for different reasons)
- Er, that's it.
As I've said many times, the difference between De Palma and Hitchcock in terms of visual style and tone is enormous. Hitchcock avoids eroticism and abstracts lust and sexual obsession while De Palma revels in all these things. De Palma is also warmer and funnier in his treatment of character, while lacking Hitchcock's piercing insight into the darker side of human nature. They are both great directors and that's the only conclusion which makes any sense. We don't say Meredith is a bad writer because he was heavily influenced by Dickens, or Isherwood is a rip off merchant because he shares stylistic similarities with Huxley. Making up silly names for De Palma is a lazy way of saying that one cannot engage in the argument. It would be like me using the name "Milos Boreman" to refer to the director of "Valmont".
Originally posted by Mike
[BHere's a list of direct similarities between "Dressed To Kill" and "Psycho":
- They both feature shower scenes
- The killer is a cross-dresser (for different reasons)
- Er, that's it. [/B]
- Er, they both feature knife attacks on women
- Er, the villain has a bit of a split-personality problem
- Er, the female lead is unexpectedly killed off early on
Anyway, didn't Mr Boreman direct Exorcist II?
Both females are sexually promiscious - the taxi scene is just as shocking to an audience in those days as seeing Marion Crane in her bra and philandering with a married man.
- The relative and a stranger try to solve the mystery together.
While it may not be a shot for shot remake of Psycho it was heavily influenced by it.
The Odessa steps sequence is almost identical in Untouchables and Battleship Potempkin - Both do feature shootouts (one is more a massacre) both also have (and this is the big giveaway) the pram with the baby in it falling down the steps while chaos reigns around them.
Originally posted by Mike
<b>The Untouchables</b> is, of course, one of the finest action movies ever made, and you can blame Mamet as much as De Palma for the wooden sequences with Ness's family. When one considers the good things about the film - the brilliant intercutting between events, the astonishing verve of the Eisenstein 'rip-off' (although if someone could show me the bits in "Potiemkin" where Eisenstein stages a shootout on the Odessa Steps then I might be more convinced by the ludicrous argument), the sense of pace and tension which isn't remotely spoiled by the extraneous family scenes, the epic scale of the border raid sequence, the humour and affection with which the characters are treated and so on - then this seems a very minor fault.
Do you mean it's not even a homage or are you just saying it's not a 'rip-off' per-se? I can't believe it's a coincidental similarity at the end.
The Untouchables has some great lines, great pace and is a thoroughly enjoyable movie.
However, it has some really cheesy moments and Connery doesn't actually attempt to act through most of the film. One of the worst bits is Connery and Costner's first meeting...
Schindler's List
Worst "good" movie ever.
The only good thing about it was the Seinfeld episode where they made fun about all the fake emotions people are supposed to have while watching it.
Godfather 1-3 too long and drawn out not enough action
Hitman - crap effects crap acting
Traffic - boring too much talking
2001 A Space Odyssey - Absolute rubbish
The Royal Tenenbaums - Again, pure rubbish
The Blair Witch Project - Come again?
Death Watch - Boring
Stigmata - Again, boring
Turned the Matrix off after about 15 minutes, so cheesy and geeky, swordfish i thought was pants, gone in 60 seconds also, I think Nicholas Cage is a strange actor, very over active (i liked him in "leaving Las vegas"). "The Rock" i thought was boring and predictive (although im not a fan of the two stars of the film anyway )..:) I think "Speed" would have been better if not for pussyboy keanu and Sandra ********, also "devils advocate" was well spoiled by pussyboy keanu ( I just think he looks,acts and talks like a right little pussy)..
Originally posted by hammie
fight club - i've only watched it once and maybe on a 2nd viewing i will like it more but i just did'nt find myself enjoying it
I hated it the first time as well, but now i love this movie.
Everybody should own this DVD.
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
The Odessa steps sequence is almost identical in Untouchables and Battleship Potempkin - Both do feature shootouts (one is more a massacre)...
As you can't hear the shootout in Potempkin it don't count. Them's the rules!
It has to be 'Citizen Kane' the critic's 'darling' leading to obligatory inclusions into any and all top film lists. Its dull, dated and boring! One of those films rated soley on its reputation rather than its content, or lack thereof.
Originally posted by father_christmas
Turned the Matrix off after about 15 minutes, so cheesy and geeky, swordfish i thought was pants, gone in 60 seconds also
Yeah, but none of those are generally held to be good films.
Most overrated films of the recent past: Without doubt the two Lord of the Rings installments. Not so much bad as just deeply mediocre movies.
-scarface - i just disliked all the characters and all the bad tony montany impressions it started
-apocalipse now- too long, too dull; "the horror (of it) the horrorr (of it)
-godfather 1- impossible to watch in one sitting, two drawn out and drags too much
Answers:
In 10 years time you will have changed your opinion, I bet.
Answers:
LOTR - (the 1st one) I was quite disappointed by this - sat through the 3 1/2 hour directors cut 4 disk version and was left very unimpressed. :(
Answers:
As Good as it Gets and Jerry McGuire are 2 films with good reps I just can't stand. Also no matter how many times I watch Citizen Kane, I admire the technique more than like the actual movie..same goes for Fritz Langs Metropolis.
Answers:
agree with vsehjipal and id like to add star wars all very highly over rated IMHO
Answers:
Hmm. Well I was not very impressed with Godfather Part II. I saw the whole trilogy over a day and a half for the first time when the DVD box came out and my feelings were that DeNiro 'coasted' through his role, and the contemporary plot was simply a rehash of the first movie, but not as deep...
GFIII was actually a refreshing change of pace and I was really impressed by it.
Answers:
TheoGB, into this thread with you! ;)
Answers:
"In 10 years time you will have changed your opinion, I bet."
-Your probably right, in fact ill probably appreciate them a lot more the next time I watch them
Answers:
Originally posted by Dan Druff
TheoGB, into this thread with you! ;)
Hey. I already posted there!!
:D
Godfather III is not a crap movie. People need to understand this!! Sophia Coppola is not a bad actress and frankly I think it gets slated more for not being indentical to the other two GF movies.
It's like Temple of Doom: only bad compared to the other films by in the series and Spielberg's catalogue.
Answers:
Originally posted by SILVERBACK
agree with vsehjipal and id like to add star wars all very highly over rated IMHO
Star Wars ain't a good film in the first place, though. Any normal person can see that - it's only the geeks that can't. :D
Answers:
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Star Wars ain't a good film in the first place, though. Any normal person can see that - it's only the geeks that can't. :D
Depends on if good and enjoyable are the same thing...
Answers:
The Deer Hunter is a movie i really can't stand, to quote Mark Kermode - "I have a problem with a film that shows a country invading another country and then complaining about how bad they were treated" - that of course is a paraphrase but it's more or less the way i feel about the film, that and it's so racist that it has to be seen to be believed.
Answers:
fight club - i've only watched it once and maybe on a 2nd viewing i will like it more but i just did'nt find myself enjoying it
Answers:
Originally posted by TheoGB
Godfather III is not a crap movie. People need to understand this!! Sophia Coppola is not a bad actress and frankly I think it gets slated more for not being indentical to the other two GF movies.
I don't think GF3 is a crap movie, but Sophia is absolutely terrible and the movie would be improved no end if someone else had played her role
Answers:
Originally posted by rumbletum
I don't think GF3 is a crap movie, but Sophia is absolutely terrible and the movie would be improved no end if someone else had played her role
I watched the film at the weekend for the first time in years, and sadly, as much as I wanted to vindicate her somehow, Soffia Coppola is just dire. There's no getting around the fact. I listened to the commentary too, which I enjoyed, although I lost count of the amount of times Francis defended her. Even going to great lengths to tell complimentary anecdotes about her (which were nowt to do with the film).
It has other problems. This applied to the first film too (more than the second), but the playground psychology is really stretched to breaking point in Part III. Also, as much as I enjoyed his performance, Garcia's transformation from street thug to Godfather is unconvincing.
And I still think the end, with Pacino putting shades on, is unintentionally funny.
Answers:
Originally posted by rumbletum
I don't think GF3 is a crap movie, but Sophia is absolutely terrible and the movie would be improved no end if someone else had played her role
You obviously haven't seen enough bad acting. :D
Of course, he makes it clear in the commentary it was less nepotism and more down to his original choice (can't remember who right now) pulling out at the last minute.
I watched the movie for the first time and really tried to see this terrible acting everyone went on about. She's below the par of the others in the film, no denying, but she's not actually bad. It's more a comparison effect.
Answers:
Agreed, saw GF3 for teh first time and Sofia is awful from her voice to her mannerisms.
Not a bad director tho, Virgin Suicides is excellent
Answers:
Originally posted by vsehijpal
my nominations are
-scarface - i just disliked all the characters and all the bad tony montany impressions it started
-apocalipse now- too long, too dull; "the horror (of it) the horrorr (of it)
-godfather 1- impossible to watch in one sitting, two drawn out and drags too much
- What?
- Oh c'mon!
- Ok, that's it, someone get a gurney, this one is going down. :mad: :p
Further proof that everything is just an opinion, a movie can't be "really" good or "really" bad, it just is, and whatever you make of it.
Answers:
The Untouchables
I'm with Trainspotting's Sickboy on this one - I don't rate it at all. All of the good stuff was Mamet's doing. But then we have the barf inducing home life of Costner and family (I think we all wanted his family DEAD, his house burned to the GROUND), the daft Charles Martin Smith shootout scene, the 'Cripes, Hitch never made an Elliot Ness movie, what can I do? I'll rip off someone else' Eisenstein moment. And, worst of all, the cringeworthy moment when Capone's lawyer says 'I'd like to withdraw our plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty'. Oh my god, but your entire family will be killed for such an outrage, is it worth it, just for a moment of daft DePalma drama? Apparently so.
Answers:
Originally posted by Lenny Nero
- What?
- Oh c'mon!
- Ok, that's it, someone get a gurney, this one is going down. :mad: :p
Further proof that everything is just an opinion, a movie can't be "really" good or "really" bad, it just is, and whatever you make of it.
-Scarface, Tony Montana's character, for me, had no really likeable aspects, the other characters just seemed to be a little dull.
-Godfather 1, Simply that I have seen it twice and on both occasions found it too heavy to watch in one go
-Ok the version of Apocalipse Now i saw was the extended version, maybe thats whyi thought it was overlong.
And as you said of course its what you make of it, i mean if you think a movie is bad/ good because you are told to then we'll all be sheep followling the crowds, or Sun readers
Answers:
Originally posted by TheoGB
You obviously haven't seen enough bad acting. :D
I dunno, my girlfriend regularly makes me watch Eastenders... COme to think of it maybe Sofias not that bad :)
Originally posted by TheoGB
Of course, he makes it clear in the commentary it was less nepotism and more down to his original choice (can't remember who right now) pulling out at the last minute.
Winona Ryder IIRC :dork:
Answers:
<b>The Untouchables</b> is, of course, one of the finest action movies ever made, and you can blame Mamet as much as De Palma for the wooden sequences with Ness's family. When one considers the good things about the film - the brilliant intercutting between events, the astonishing verve of the Eisenstein 'rip-off' (although if someone could show me the bits in "Potiemkin" where Eisenstein stages a shootout on the Odessa Steps then I might be more convinced by the ludicrous argument), the sense of pace and tension which isn't remotely spoiled by the extraneous family scenes, the epic scale of the border raid sequence, the humour and affection with which the characters are treated and so on - then this seems a very minor fault.
Mind you, if dislike of a certain director (or one of his fans) makes one blind to his abilities then there's nothing at all that's really worth saying. I've just contributed a lengthy De Palma article (which, I hope, blows the "Dressed To Kill is a rip-off of Psycho nonsense out of the water) to the February edition of "The Third Alternative", available Feb 1st from all good bookshops, which contains most of what I have to say on the subject. But I have yet to see a single convincing argument against De Palma's abilities as a filmmaker, on these forums or elsewhere.
Come to think of it, the only indisputable evidence for the "De Palma copies Hitchcock" argument is "Obsession", which was written by Paul Schrader - the similarities between "Obession" and "Vertigo" were in fact, <i>lessened</i> by De Palma in his revision of the screenplay.
Here's a list of direct similarities between "Dressed To Kill" and "Psycho":
- They both feature shower scenes
- The killer is a cross-dresser (for different reasons)
- Er, that's it.
As I've said many times, the difference between De Palma and Hitchcock in terms of visual style and tone is enormous. Hitchcock avoids eroticism and abstracts lust and sexual obsession while De Palma revels in all these things. De Palma is also warmer and funnier in his treatment of character, while lacking Hitchcock's piercing insight into the darker side of human nature. They are both great directors and that's the only conclusion which makes any sense. We don't say Meredith is a bad writer because he was heavily influenced by Dickens, or Isherwood is a rip off merchant because he shares stylistic similarities with Huxley. Making up silly names for De Palma is a lazy way of saying that one cannot engage in the argument. It would be like me using the name "Milos Boreman" to refer to the director of "Valmont".
Answers:
Originally posted by Mike
[BHere's a list of direct similarities between "Dressed To Kill" and "Psycho":
- They both feature shower scenes
- The killer is a cross-dresser (for different reasons)
- Er, that's it. [/B]
- Er, they both feature knife attacks on women
- Er, the villain has a bit of a split-personality problem
- Er, the female lead is unexpectedly killed off early on
Anyway, didn't Mr Boreman direct Exorcist II?
Answers:
Both females are sexually promiscious - the taxi scene is just as shocking to an audience in those days as seeing Marion Crane in her bra and philandering with a married man.
- The relative and a stranger try to solve the mystery together.
While it may not be a shot for shot remake of Psycho it was heavily influenced by it.
The Odessa steps sequence is almost identical in Untouchables and Battleship Potempkin - Both do feature shootouts (one is more a massacre) both also have (and this is the big giveaway) the pram with the baby in it falling down the steps while chaos reigns around them.
Answers:
Originally posted by Mike
<b>The Untouchables</b> is, of course, one of the finest action movies ever made, and you can blame Mamet as much as De Palma for the wooden sequences with Ness's family. When one considers the good things about the film - the brilliant intercutting between events, the astonishing verve of the Eisenstein 'rip-off' (although if someone could show me the bits in "Potiemkin" where Eisenstein stages a shootout on the Odessa Steps then I might be more convinced by the ludicrous argument), the sense of pace and tension which isn't remotely spoiled by the extraneous family scenes, the epic scale of the border raid sequence, the humour and affection with which the characters are treated and so on - then this seems a very minor fault.
Do you mean it's not even a homage or are you just saying it's not a 'rip-off' per-se? I can't believe it's a coincidental similarity at the end.
The Untouchables has some great lines, great pace and is a thoroughly enjoyable movie.
However, it has some really cheesy moments and Connery doesn't actually attempt to act through most of the film. One of the worst bits is Connery and Costner's first meeting...
Answers:
Schindler's List
Worst "good" movie ever.
The only good thing about it was the Seinfeld episode where they made fun about all the fake emotions people are supposed to have while watching it.
Answers:
Godfather 1-3 too long and drawn out not enough action
Hitman - crap effects crap acting
Traffic - boring too much talking
Answers:
2001 A Space Odyssey - Absolute rubbish
The Royal Tenenbaums - Again, pure rubbish
The Blair Witch Project - Come again?
Death Watch - Boring
Stigmata - Again, boring
Answers:
Turned the Matrix off after about 15 minutes, so cheesy and geeky, swordfish i thought was pants, gone in 60 seconds also, I think Nicholas Cage is a strange actor, very over active (i liked him in "leaving Las vegas"). "The Rock" i thought was boring and predictive (although im not a fan of the two stars of the film anyway )..:) I think "Speed" would have been better if not for pussyboy keanu and Sandra ********, also "devils advocate" was well spoiled by pussyboy keanu ( I just think he looks,acts and talks like a right little pussy)..
Answers:
Originally posted by hammie
fight club - i've only watched it once and maybe on a 2nd viewing i will like it more but i just did'nt find myself enjoying it
I hated it the first time as well, but now i love this movie.
Everybody should own this DVD.
Answers:
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
The Odessa steps sequence is almost identical in Untouchables and Battleship Potempkin - Both do feature shootouts (one is more a massacre)...
As you can't hear the shootout in Potempkin it don't count. Them's the rules!
Answers:
It has to be 'Citizen Kane' the critic's 'darling' leading to obligatory inclusions into any and all top film lists. Its dull, dated and boring! One of those films rated soley on its reputation rather than its content, or lack thereof.
Answers:
Originally posted by father_christmas
Turned the Matrix off after about 15 minutes, so cheesy and geeky, swordfish i thought was pants, gone in 60 seconds also
Yeah, but none of those are generally held to be good films.
Most overrated films of the recent past: Without doubt the two Lord of the Rings installments. Not so much bad as just deeply mediocre movies.
1 2