|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 15, 2017 21:57:58 GMT
By Avatar, you do mean Avatar (the James Cameron picture with the blue people on the alien planet), right? Not The Last Airbender, which also went by the name Avatar? I only ask because Avatar is one of the most popular movies ever made at this point--and I find it dreadful in just about every imaginable respect, but I often feel that I'm the only person to think so. Yes, I mean that James Cameron blue people cartoony thing. Ah, good to know that I've got a kindred spirit in not liking that "blue people cartoony thing," then! I felt I was the only person who didn't like it, as most everyone I know went nuts over it.
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 16, 2017 2:44:07 GMT
I have nil sympathy for any of you people. You deserve to have wasted your time and, hopefully, money.
I only need two minutes of reading the reviews or the IMDB entry to know enough to avoid all of the movies discussed here. Hell, in many cases just the title or the names of the lead actors is a big enough hint.
If you financially supported any of these flicks by paying admission, buying the DVD or buying cornflakes with the associated plastic figures included, you deserve to be tried and convicted in the Court of Good Taste as enemies of cinematic art.
p.s. My seven-year old likes 10,000 BC. It may be total crap, but it cannot be boring crap because he has a very low boredom threshold. He even asked me to eject the disc of Bergman's Persona after only ten minutes. I was very offended having specially purchased it as his sixth birthday treat.
|
|
|
Post by JHA Durant on Mar 16, 2017 5:25:18 GMT
Yes, I mean that James Cameron blue people cartoony thing. Ah, good to know that I've got a kindred spirit in not liking that "blue people cartoony thing," then! I felt I was the only person who didn't like it, as most everyone I know went nuts over it. I too don't like that movie about "Blue Cats on another World". When it was released, I couldn't believe it was considered "the greatest movie of all time". All I could see was blue cats!
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Mar 16, 2017 11:44:07 GMT
Since I've seen a grand total of none of those, would you mind writing your comments on the categories of "bad" each falls into? I'm probably unduly interested in this kind of analysis, but--well!--so be it. Well, they pretty much all fail on every front. Some highlights : 1) The characters are all flat and boring. He plays a description game with the characters - people describe describe Han Solo as dashing, a rogue, a bad boy, a wannabe tough guy, arrogant, charming, cocksure, a thief with a heart of gold, etc. But try and describe Qui Gon Jinn. Or Padme. the people he talks to literally can't think of anything because he has no character. Nor does anybody else in the movie. 2) There is no protagonist in The Phantom Menace. Seriously, this is writing 101! Who is the protagonist? Annakin? He doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the movie! Qui Gon? Not really. Obi Wan? No. Padme? No. There isn't one! 3) Lucas does nothing to make his movies exciting. Watch how many scenes there are of people just talking to one another. The camera switches between them. One will walk to a window. Or sit on a couch. It's all done slowly, and filmed in the most boring way there is. He contrasts this to a scene in the 2009 Star Trek movie where Chekov has to beam Kirk and Sulu up as they fall. It's an exciting scene, with lots of movement and energy and characters who are obviously responding to a situation with urgency. In TPM we have scenes where people say things like "We must act fast" - and then slowly wander away. 4) The opening crawl announces that the situation arose because of "a dispute over taxation". That's the sum total of explanation that we EVER get about what's happening. We've never even told who is taxing whom, or why, or who is objecting. There is no logic whatsoever to the plot, and every single thing everybody does during the course of the film makes no sense. And so on. Watch the video, it's well worth it! The fool and the fool that follows it! I have my fair share of criticism for Phantom Menace (TPM), but these arguments are flat out silly and fallacious, dear Graham. Just a few points:
1) But try and describe Qui Gon Jinn. the people he talks to literally can't think of anything because he has no character. Nor does anybody else in the movie. So, because some people in a rant video allegedly cannot come up with a description of a characters (they gave one btw) are proof that the characters have no character? And you seriously compare a friendly rogue smuggler with a nobel warrior-monk character…? What’s next, do you compare the Teletubbies with the Godfather to prove how boring, unfunny and colorless the latter is...?
But I will give you some character descriptions for Qui Gon: compassionate but arrogant and stubborn (pisses everyone off), visionary but dogmatic and defiant (against council/queen etc), well-meaning but manipulative (mind tricks, slaves), stoic but determined, a fatherly leader but un-fatherly with his pupil (abandons Obi for Anakin).
2) There is no protagonist in The Phantom Menace. Seriously, this is writing 101! Who is the protagonist? Annakin? He doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the movie! Qui Gon? Not really. Obi Wan? No. Padme? No. There isn't one!
Even if that was true Graham, I did not know that movies require a protagonist? Could you name the source for this? Did Kubrick know that when he made 2001 – ASO…? And ever heard of ensemble movies Graham. No? It's a suitable approach when doing world building.
Apart from this, if you are looking for a protagonist in TPM you will find a clear cut one in Qui Gon - he is in in the movie from the first scene until he dies and is burnt at the end (uh spoilers...if you have not really seen the film) - he’s more present than Luke, Anakin or Rey in the first movies. He determines, decides and pushes the plot forward, more so than Luke, Anakin or Rey did. His fate mirrors the events to come, and the downfall of the Jedi/Republic.
3) Lucas does nothing to make his movies exciting.... Nothing to make movies exciting? Silliest criticism I heard in a long time, Graham. You seriously complain that people are “talking with each other” in an space opera movie sporting so many iconic action scenes including the famous saber fight and the pot race…? And that you find it boring how it is done…? Well then I suggest you go on watching Transformer movies, you will have a great time.
The contrasting with Star Trek 2009 is random and silly btw! I say: let’s contrast Obi Wan's furious attack at Maul after he kills Qui Gon with, say, the scene where Spoc and Kirk babble endlessly in the ice cave. Uh, they talk and the camera switches and then they look at the snow! Shows how boring Trek is. "In TPM we have scenes where people say things like "We must act fast" - and then slowly wander away."
You are lying Graham. Prove this. Btw acting fast does not per se mean walking fast.
4) The opening crawl announces that the situation arose because of "a dispute over taxation". That's the sum total of explanation that we EVER get about what's happening. We've never even told who is taxing whom, or why, or who is objecting.
It's “The taxation of trade routes is in dispute” and there is further exposition. The film of course assumes that you are educated enough to know that taxes are collected by governments/states (like Naboo/Republic) and the one to pays them is usually a (trade) organizations/individual - who usually get mad when new taxes are imposed on them. Apart from this, the details of taxation are not story relevant as this – just like in Robin Hood or in history - is just the starting point for bigger events (invasion/annexation/war).
There is no logic whatsoever to the plot, and every single thing everybody does during the course of the film makes no sense. Your fallacy is personal incredulity, dear Graham. yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity Just because you do not understand something, does not prove it does not make sense. You will learn this the hard way in life. The political backstory (modelled after historic events before and after TPM) is: 1. Trade routes are taxed by government, to protest the trade federation blocks routes so no trade and taxes can be collected. 2. But they really want more: invasion/annexation of the resourceful real estate (Naboo), and they were promised that their annexation treaty will be ratified by the corrupt elements in the senate. 3. Really, the Federation are just pawns in Palp's game, who is blocking the Chancellor/decision-making process to have a vote of no confidence against him, and Palps then uses the sympathy bonus/victim card of his world being annexed to become the new chancellor. Palps scheme works not as he intended (Queen survives, so she calls for the vote), but he finally becomes Chancellor (and his Emperor theme is played in the ceremony at the end).
"And so on. Watch the video, it's well worth it!"
Hey what are you trying to push on us, it's a dumbed down attention rant. I stopped when Plinkett ignorantly claimed that only Jar Jar has an arc in TPM. But Jar Jar has no arc: He stays the same clumsy fool to the end ("Meesa give up"), that’s the point. However, characters like Padme have arcs and development: they grow up in their roles as leaders (e.g .by first following their advisers such as Panaka, Palpatine (!) or Qui Gon, but them making their own decisions against their mentors and succeeding with it).
Btw, jeez, what’s with all the blatant misogyny in these videos…?, Nauseating! Do you enjoy and endorse that by recommendng it Graham…? Maybe you want to go home and rethink your life? At least you would start thinking for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Mar 16, 2017 11:57:53 GMT
Ah, good to know that I've got a kindred spirit in not liking that "blue people cartoony thing," then! I felt I was the only person who didn't like it, as most everyone I know went nuts over it. I too don't like that movie about "Blue Cats on another World". When it was released, I couldn't believe it was considered "the greatest movie of all time". All I could see was blue cats! I feel pity for the people who considered it the greatest movie of all time. especially if they're more than 12 y/o
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 13:46:47 GMT
The fool and the fool that follows it! I have my fair share of criticism for Phantom Menace (TPM), but these arguments are flat out silly and fallacious, dear Graham. Just a few points: 1) But try and describe Qui Gon Jinn. the people he talks to literally can't think of anything because he has no character. Nor does anybody else in the movie.
So, because some people in a rant video allegedly cannot come up with a description of a characters (they gave one btw) are proof that the characters have no character? And you seriously compare a friendly rogue smuggler with a nobel warrior-monk character…? What’s next, do you compare the Teletubbies with the Godfather to prove how boring, unfunny and colorless the latter is...?
But I will give you some character descriptions for Qui Gon: compassionate but arrogant and stubborn (pisses everyone off), visionary but dogmatic and defiant (against council/queen etc), well-meaning but manipulative (mind tricks, slaves), stoic but determined, a fatherly leader but un-fatherly with his pupil (abandons Obi for Anakin).If you see him that way then fair enough. I can't imagine anything in the movie that might have convinced you that he is any of those things. It's screenwriting 101, dude, especially for a movie like the Phantom Menace. The video review I linked points out that not every movie actually needs a protagonist, but Phantom Menace is the kind that really does. And incidentally 2001 does have a protagonist - it's humanity. Qui Gon isn't the protagonist, sorry. If you like The Phantom Menace then Transformers is probably your style. And dude, neither the saber fight nor the pod race are "iconic" scenes. Both have been largely seen for what they are - the saber fight an overly choreographed dance sequence dressed up like a fight, and the pod race a dull and boring way to pad out the run time with a big stupid action sequence. Lol, that's a good example for how bad TPM is - Obi Wan SHOULD be furious at that point. The bit where he reacts to his mentor's death is the one moment in the fight where you think "maybe this will get good!" But instead, they go straight back to overly choreographed dancing exactly as before. Contrast that with Luke's final fight with Vader in ROTJ. When Vader taunts him about Leia and Luke loses it, he really does fly into a furious rage. And as a result he just wails on Vader. There's no skill, no dancing, he just pounds on him over and over until he beats him down. That's a fight staged by somebody who knows what a fight should be about. Yes, because "fast" means "slow". The point I'm making is that the way Lucas shoots the movie means that there is never any sense of urgency to anything the characters are doing. It's the worst thing a film can be - it's BORING. But is the "Trade Federation" a government or state? "Trade" implies they're a company, but "Federation" could mean a government. If they're a company, why would they have an army and be able to blockade and invade a planetary government? In the Robin Hood story you are ALWAYS shown that the Sheriff is imposing massive taxes on the poor and Robin Hood therefore fights the Sheriff and robs the rich to give money to the poor. No Robin Hood movie ever says "it's a dispute about taxes" and leaves it at that. And in a wider sense, any given Robin Hood movie doesn't really need to explain Robin Hood, because we all already know about Robin Hood. Making a movie about an iconic figure or legend gives you some leeway to expect that audience will already know the basics of the story. Not to say that this means you can completely ignore explaining what's going on, but you have some room to maneuver there. For instance the latest iteration of Batman did not feel the need to explain in detail how and why he became Batman - they give us a few flashbacks, but leave most of that story untold because we've seen it so many times before. TPM gives us a unique and out of the ordinary situation that we don't know. When Fury opened with a situation where the US Army is fighting the Nazis, they didn't need to explain what that's about - people already know. But if I opened my movie with a situation where Microsoft's army is blockading the city of Seattle, that requires an explanation. Lucas never gives us one. And if it was just some background element, fair enough, but that conflict is the driving engine of the entire plot, and the audience is given no idea what it's about. We're also never once told what a "sith" is or what their motivations are. That I do give a pass to though, because it's pretty obvious that "sith" just means "bad guy", and in a children's movie like this, bad guys fight good guys just because, well, they're bad and that's what bad guys do. Fair enough. And if it were just me, you'd have a point. But it isn't. How do you know this? Point to any element of the movie that establishes that Naboo was trying to tax the Trade Federation. Or that they wanted to annex Naboo. Or that they were promised their invasion would be ratified by the senate? His plan is nonsensical too. Uh huh. I warned you in advance that the reviews are done by a guy who employed a weird serial-killer character for humorous effect. If that's not your idea of humour, fair enough. If you watch the whole series you actually find that his "victim" winds up turning the tables and taking him down, by the way. Obviously I hit a nerve. Much as you might love TPM - and more power to you if you do - it's generally recognised as a terrible, terrible movie. It's down in history with the likes of the Ghostbusters remake. Too bad, so sad, but the movie sucks balls. And it is certainly my nomination for the worst major Hollywood movie ever made, because if there was ever a movie that you would think could not possibly go wrong, it would have been this one.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 16, 2017 20:26:31 GMT
I too don't like that movie about "Blue Cats on another World". When it was released, I couldn't believe it was considered "the greatest movie of all time". All I could see was blue cats! I feel pity for the people who considered it the greatest movie of all time. especially if they're more than 12 y/o I don't personally know anyone who considered it "the greatest movie of all time," but I also don't know anyone besides myself (and my mother--and apparently, now, several of you!) who saw it in theaters who didn't like it. I found it dull, overblown, pretentious, loud, blatantly derivative (as has been widely documented), oddly acted, and silly both in its politics and in the unsubtle way in which those politics were presented. (Filmmakers nowadays cannot help but scream, "Message, message, message!" especially when that message is only facile. A good director, like a good writer, presents his message, if he has one at all [which is far from necessary!], far more subtly and intelligently, weighing all his sides.) It is technically well-made, and it does pause for some quiet moments (setting it apart from most blockbusters), but all in all I find it a genuinely bad movie, or at least an ineffective one, all imagery and little meaning. P.S. While I rarely agree with him, Armond White's review, linked here, is largely accurate. Unfortunately, that link has the whole review lowercased and badly punctuated, so it's difficult to read, but I can't find his original review anywhere on the Net.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 23:05:39 GMT
Everybody must have purged this one completely out of their memories. This one was absolutely awful in my book:
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Mar 18, 2017 15:13:41 GMT
After Earth Gods of Egypt Battlefield Earth Sound of Thunder
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Mar 19, 2017 0:35:22 GMT
35 million for this piece of crap.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 19, 2017 1:01:15 GMT
as what I said with the worst movie ever seen thread... NOTHING BUT TROUBLE.
you have at least 3 or more big wigs actors/actresses and it was just crap. literal crap. I felt no sorrow for anyone [except Demi Moore's character at dinner -- having to watch the heavily makeupped/false nosed Dan Aykroyd try to shove white kielbasa into his mouth. dis-freaking-gusting!
and yeah, I saw this monstrosity once decades ago. some things just haunt you.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 19, 2017 1:37:23 GMT
Batman and Robin. True, it's very bad. It's a dull, uninteresting, unfunny mess of a movie. But it's silly-bad, akin to the way one feels when watching an Ed Wood movie. One can laugh at it, in other words. I don't think, however, that that's quite the same feeling as RIPD or Son of the Mask (or, possibly, according to Roy, Pluto Nash): the feeling of unwholesomeness, of dirtiness and smuttiness for having watched it. One cannot laugh at those movies. They are not silly-bad, there is something genuinely wrong with them, conceptually and practically. I don't understand how anyone could call R.I.P.D the worst big buget Hollywood movie ever made. It certainly isn't good but it isn't THAT bad either and it certainly didn't make me feel dirty. I actually think it's mildly fun and I think the two leads are entertaining. I do not even remotely agree with you on R.I.P.D. The Last Airbender is FAR worse. It is incompitant filmmaking on most levels, the story is very boring and the performances are terrible. Even the effects aren't very good and yes, in this case I felt offended that it was made in the first place. Nobody will agree with this but my pick is 300. It is shallow on every single level, the action is completely boring and the use of slo-mo is horrible and headache inducing. The characters are all one-dimentional people with action figure bodies and the movie is even ugly to look at. The movie is like gay porn with no sex.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 19, 2017 2:38:55 GMT
True, it's very bad. It's a dull, uninteresting, unfunny mess of a movie. But it's silly-bad, akin to the way one feels when watching an Ed Wood movie. One can laugh at it, in other words. I don't think, however, that that's quite the same feeling as RIPD or Son of the Mask (or, possibly, according to Roy, Pluto Nash): the feeling of unwholesomeness, of dirtiness and smuttiness for having watched it. One cannot laugh at those movies. They are not silly-bad, there is something genuinely wrong with them, conceptually and practically. I don't understand how anyone could call R.I.P.D the worst big buget Hollywood movie ever made. It certainly isn't good but it isn't THAT bad either and it certainly didn't make me feel dirty. I actually think it's mildly fun and I think the two leads are entertaining. I've been meaning to clarify my definition of dirty for the purposes of this thread for some days now, Movieman, but I'm still trying to think of the best words to explain what I mean. A clue to what I meant, though: "There is a meanness and a mean-spiritedness to them that is not 'bad' but genuinely wrong. They are unforgettable because they have offended us at some kind of level, be that because of their cruelty and wrong-headedness or sheer stupidity and assumption that the audience will accept it." Son of the Mask is a dirty movie because of that first meaning, its cruelty and wrong-headedness. It's a nasty kind of a movie, with little warmth or human emotion and creepy material that makes you feel wrong and, indeed, dirty inside. In other words, its material is "dirty."
This is different from what I meant about RIPD. In RIPD , the material is not dirty. It's dumb, yeah, but not dirty. There are no scenes, for example, of a dog turning into a hellish cartoon monster and trying to murder a baby, or an attack on the idea of childbirth and families by turning babies into nightmarish vampires or having them urinate all over the father because the filmmakers misguidedly think it's "funny." Then why did I use that word? My online dictionary has alternative meanings as "obscene," "disgusting," or "dishonorable." That is the feeling given off by the fact that filmmakers expect the viewer to enjoy RIPD. Why did Roger Ebert dislike North so much? Not necessarily because he thought the material was dirty but rather the execution thereof. RIPD is dirty exactly for the filmmakers' callous presumption, I would say, about their film's audience. The picture is sleazy and cynical in that way, as if the filmmakers are just trying to make a quick buck without any care for viewers, and that is the reason that I call it "dirty." Can you say that for other big-budget movies? Sure! ( Baby Geniuses seems like another example--but not Baby Geniuses 2, which is a bad, but not dirty, movie.) It's just that RIPD sprung to my mind at once as having those features about it, and it's not a quality found even in many other bad movies. It's not a quality found in Batman and Robin, Catwoman, or even the Transformers series. Rather, it seems that those movies, bad as they are, are not sleazy and cynical. For Transformers certainly, you get what you expected. Bad? Absolutely! Sleazy, cynical, and ultimately "dirty"? No. Is that clear, or at least clearer?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 19, 2017 2:58:41 GMT
I don't understand how anyone could call R.I.P.D the worst big buget Hollywood movie ever made. It certainly isn't good but it isn't THAT bad either and it certainly didn't make me feel dirty. I actually think it's mildly fun and I think the two leads are entertaining. I've been meaning to clarify my definition of dirty for the purposes of this thread for some days now, Movieman, but I'm still trying to think of the best words to explain what I mean. A clue to what I meant, though: "There is a meanness and a mean-spiritedness to them that is not 'bad' but genuinely wrong. They are unforgettable because they have offended us at some kind of level, be that because of their cruelty and wrong-headedness or sheer stupidity and assumption that the audience will accept it." Son of the Mask is a dirty movie because of that first meaning, its cruelty and wrong-headedness. It's a nasty kind of a movie, with little warmth or human emotion and creepy material that makes you feel wrong and, indeed, dirty inside. In other words, its material is "dirty."
This is different from what I meant about RIPD. In RIPD , the material is not dirty. It's dumb, yeah, but not dirty. There are no scenes, for example, of a dog turning into a hellish cartoon monster and trying to murder a baby, or an attack on the idea of childbirth and families by turning babies into nightmarish vampires or having them urinate all over the father because the filmmakers misguidedly think it's "funny." Then why did I use that word? My online dictionary has alternative meanings as "obscene," "disgusting," or "dishonorable." That is the feeling given off by the fact that filmmakers expect the viewer to enjoy RIPD. Why did Roger Ebert dislike North so much? Not necessarily because he thought the material was dirty but rather the execution thereof. RIPD is dirty exactly for the filmmakers' callous presumption, I would say, about their film's audience. The picture is sleazy and cynical in that way, as if the filmmakers are just trying to make a quick buck with any care for viewers, and that is the reason that I call it "dirty." Can you say that for other big-budget movies? Sure! ( Baby Geniuses seems like another example--but not Baby Geniuses 2, which is a bad, but not dirty, movie.) It's just that RIPD sprung to my mind at once as having those features about it, and it's not a quality found even in many other bad movies. It's not a quality found in Batman and Robin, Catwoman, or even the Transformers series. Rather, it seems that those movies, bad as they are, are not sleazy and cynical. For Transformers certainly, you get what you expected. Bad? Absolutely! Sleazy, cynical, and ultimately "dirty"? No. Is that clear, or at least clearer? I understand better what you mean now but I honestly don't see that with R.I.P.D. any more than I do with 50 other crappy Hollywood movies that are released every year. It was a below average time passer that didn't bother me on any deeper level thnt it just isn't very good. You also seemed to ignore the fact that I found it mildly enjoyable, which means the filmmakers succeeded on some levels. Catwoman and all the other movies you mention certainly DO have that quality imo. They are all lazy, unfunny, horribly made, offensively bad movies. R.I.P.D. is a movie that just exists, it is neither good or awful. Catwoman? You honestly don't see the same indifference to the audience sleazy quality with Catwoman? Catwoman is one of the biggest cases of what you are talking about imo. I am more forgiving of this than you though if I am able to find some amusing quality to the movie. R.I.P.D is a much more entertaining movie than Catwoman and it is also much better made. We can go back and forth on this forever but I don't agree with you. Ironically you are offending me in assuming that I am expected to feel the same way you do about the same movies.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 19, 2017 3:26:51 GMT
I've been meaning to clarify my definition of dirty for the purposes of this thread for some days now, Movieman, but I'm still trying to think of the best words to explain what I mean. A clue to what I meant, though: "There is a meanness and a mean-spiritedness to them that is not 'bad' but genuinely wrong. They are unforgettable because they have offended us at some kind of level, be that because of their cruelty and wrong-headedness or sheer stupidity and assumption that the audience will accept it." Son of the Mask is a dirty movie because of that first meaning, its cruelty and wrong-headedness. It's a nasty kind of a movie, with little warmth or human emotion and creepy material that makes you feel wrong and, indeed, dirty inside. In other words, its material is "dirty."
This is different from what I meant about RIPD. In RIPD , the material is not dirty. It's dumb, yeah, but not dirty. There are no scenes, for example, of a dog turning into a hellish cartoon monster and trying to murder a baby, or an attack on the idea of childbirth and families by turning babies into nightmarish vampires or having them urinate all over the father because the filmmakers misguidedly think it's "funny." Then why did I use that word? My online dictionary has alternative meanings as "obscene," "disgusting," or "dishonorable." That is the feeling given off by the fact that filmmakers expect the viewer to enjoy RIPD. Why did Roger Ebert dislike North so much? Not necessarily because he thought the material was dirty but rather the execution thereof. RIPD is dirty exactly for the filmmakers' callous presumption, I would say, about their film's audience. The picture is sleazy and cynical in that way, as if the filmmakers are just trying to make a quick buck with any care for viewers, and that is the reason that I call it "dirty." Can you say that for other big-budget movies? Sure! ( Baby Geniuses seems like another example--but not Baby Geniuses 2, which is a bad, but not dirty, movie.) It's just that RIPD sprung to my mind at once as having those features about it, and it's not a quality found even in many other bad movies. It's not a quality found in Batman and Robin, Catwoman, or even the Transformers series. Rather, it seems that those movies, bad as they are, are not sleazy and cynical. For Transformers certainly, you get what you expected. Bad? Absolutely! Sleazy, cynical, and ultimately "dirty"? No. Is that clear, or at least clearer? I understand better what you mean now but I honestly don't see that with R.I.P.D. any more than I do with 50 other crappy Hollywood movies that are released every year. It was a below average time passer that didn't bother me on any deeper level thnt it just isn't very good. You also seemed to ignore the fact that I found it mildly enjoyable, which means the filmmakers succeeded on some levels. Catwoman and all the other movies you mention certainly DO have that quality imo. They are all lazy, unfunny, horribly made, offensively bad movies. R.I.P.D. is a movie that just exists, it is neither good or awful. Catwoman? You honestly don't see the same indifference to the audience sleazy quality with Catwoman? Catwoman is one of the biggest cases of what you are talking about imo. I am more forgiving of this than you though if I am able to find some amusing quality to the movie. R.I.P.D is a much more entertaining movie than Catwoman and it is also much better made. We can go back and forth on this forever but I don't agree with you. Ironically you are offending me in assuming that I am expected to feel the same way you do about the same movies. I apologize if you found my response offensive. That was not my intention at all. I recognize that we all have different tastes in movies. What is "dirty" to one person may not be the same to another; what is a great movie to one may also not be the same. I don't like the movie Avatar; most people do. Similarly, I love the movie Congo; most people, including critics, hated it. Heck, I think even the universally-despised The Haunting ('99) and The Avengers ('98), while bad movies, have some good points that most critics are overlooking. Who's right, and who's wrong? Ultimately nobody. Hey, it's just a movie. Who's right in the long run? In the long run, as Keynes or someone said, we are all dead. (How's that for cheer? ) I can understand your finding it "mildly enjoyable." I don't mean to say that everyone who likes it has (somehow!) inferior opinions. I am saying that this is the way the movie seemed to me, as if the filmmakers are trying to con the audience, and perhaps some others here agree. If you don't think so, that's fine. You had a different reaction to it than I. I had a kind of visceral reaction that, not having seen it since my first viewing (and having little interest therein), I have since tried to analyze for this thread, in order to generate good and healthy conversation and debate. Are there subconscious biases at play? Perhaps, though I find the concept overused in lay conversation. (And I am certainly a layman regarding psychology, psychoanalysis, etc.) But what I mean is, I saw RIPD when it was first in theaters. I had no interest in seeing Catwoman in theaters when it came out and didn't see it then; I saw it afterwards because I was interested in whether or not it is "one of the worst movies of all time." (Full disclosure: it is!) Could that have something to do with it? Maybe. But, as I said (respectfully, I think), to Takeshi, I stick by my opinions. I think I have fairly presented them here, whether you agree with them or not. And that, I feel, is all that a critic, even a democratized one here on a movie forum website, can do. I did not intend this digitized "conversation" to be an argument, but I think that your remarks about Catwoman prove, if I may use the word, the points I tried to make before. That is, you agree that the "sleazy indifference to the audience" exists and counts as a form of "dirtiness." That is the whole point I was trying to make. If I have expressed myself well enough that you understand what I meant, then I think I did my "job." To be honest, I don't know about Catwoman and its ("meaning two") "dirtiness." I would have to see it again to analyze it in greater detail, and--my God!--I don't want to do that. It is a terrible movie, but I didn't see the same quality as in Son of the Mask, Baby Geniuses, or, yes, RIPD. Again, all pure opinion, but we may at least agree on the general categories if not in the movies that go into them. My thanks for your response, Movieman. I hope you understand my points and don't feel offended. Again, that was not at all my intention.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 19, 2017 3:45:04 GMT
True, it's very bad. It's a dull, uninteresting, unfunny mess of a movie. But it's silly-bad, akin to the way one feels when watching an Ed Wood movie. One can laugh at it, in other words. I don't think, however, that that's quite the same feeling as RIPD or Son of the Mask (or, possibly, according to Roy, Pluto Nash): the feeling of unwholesomeness, of dirtiness and smuttiness for having watched it. One cannot laugh at those movies. They are not silly-bad, there is something genuinely wrong with them, conceptually and practically. I don't understand how anyone could call R.I.P.D the worst big budget Hollywood movie ever made. It certainly isn't good but it isn't THAT bad either and it certainly didn't make me feel dirty. I actually think it's mildly fun and I think the two leads are entertaining. I do not even remotely agree with you on R.I.P.D. The Last Airbender is FAR worse. It is incompitant filmmaking on most levels, the story is very boring and the performances are terrible. Even the effects aren't very good and yes, in this case I felt offended that it was made in the first place. Nobody will agree with this but my pick is 300. It is shallow on every single level, the action is completely boring and the use of slo-mo is horrible and headache inducing. The characters are all one-dimentional people with action figure bodies and the movie is even ugly to look at. The movie is like gay porn with no sex. I should have responded to your other points as well. I haven't seen 300 (and have little interest in it), but I may even agree with you that The Last Airbender is worse than RIPD. Then why the title of this thread? Perhaps I should have been clearer, but, as I've tried to explain, I think that the "badness" in TLA is distinct from that in RIPD. Thus I find the latter ultimately more troubling than the former, even if TLA is, objectively speaking, the worse film. As I wrote above, you may not agree (at all!) with my opinions, and that's all fine and dandy, but I just want to be clear.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 19, 2017 4:27:31 GMT
I understand better what you mean now but I honestly don't see that with R.I.P.D. any more than I do with 50 other crappy Hollywood movies that are released every year. It was a below average time passer that didn't bother me on any deeper level thnt it just isn't very good. You also seemed to ignore the fact that I found it mildly enjoyable, which means the filmmakers succeeded on some levels. Catwoman and all the other movies you mention certainly DO have that quality imo. They are all lazy, unfunny, horribly made, offensively bad movies. R.I.P.D. is a movie that just exists, it is neither good or awful. Catwoman? You honestly don't see the same indifference to the audience sleazy quality with Catwoman? Catwoman is one of the biggest cases of what you are talking about imo. I am more forgiving of this than you though if I am able to find some amusing quality to the movie. R.I.P.D is a much more entertaining movie than Catwoman and it is also much better made. We can go back and forth on this forever but I don't agree with you. Ironically you are offending me in assuming that I am expected to feel the same way you do about the same movies. I apologize if you found my response offensive. That was not my intention at all. I recognize that we all have different tastes in movies. What is "dirty" to one person may not be the same to another; what is a great movie to one may also not be the same. I don't like the movie Avatar; most people do. Similarly, I love the movie Congo; most people, including critics, hated it. Heck, I think even the universally-despised The Haunting ('99) and The Avengers ('98), while bad movies, have some good points that most critics are overlooking. Who's right, and who's wrong? Ultimately nobody. Hey, it's just a movie. Who's right in the long run? In the long run, as Keynes or someone said, we are all dead. (How's that for cheer? ) I can understand your finding it "mildly enjoyable." I don't mean to say that everyone who likes it has (somehow!) inferior opinions. I am saying that this is the way the movie seemed to me, as if the filmmakers are trying to con the audience, and perhaps some others here agree. If you don't think so, that's fine. You had a different reaction to it than I. I had a kind of visceral reaction that, not having seen it since my first viewing (and having little interest therein), I have since tried to analyze for this thread, in order to generate good and healthy conversation and debate. Are there subconscious biases at play? Perhaps, though I find the concept overused in lay conversation. (And I am certainly a layman regarding psychology, psychoanalysis, etc.) But what I mean is, I saw RIPD when it was first in theaters. I had no interest in seeing Catwoman in theaters when it came out and didn't see it then; I saw it afterwards because I was interested in whether or not it is "one of the worst movies of all time." (Full disclosure: it is!) Could that have something to do with it? Maybe. But, as I said (respectfully, I think), to Takeshi, I stick by my opinions. I think I have fairly presented them here, whether you agree with them or not. And that, I feel, is all that a critic, even a democratized one here on a movie forum website, can do. I did not intend this digitized "conversation" to be an argument, but I think that your remarks about Catwoman prove, if I may use the word, the points I tried to make before. That is, you agree that the "sleazy indifference to the audience" exists and counts as a form of "dirtiness." That is the whole point I was trying to make. If I have expressed myself well enough that you understand what I meant, then I think I did my "job." To be honest, I don't know about Catwoman and its ("meaning two") "dirtiness." I would have to see it again to analyze it in greater detail, and--my God!--I don't want to do that. It is a terrible movie, but I didn't see the same quality as in Son of the Mask, Baby Geniuses, or, yes, RIPD. Again, all pure opinion, but we may at least agree on the general categories if not in the movies that go into them. My thanks for your response, Movieman. I hope you understand my points and don't feel offended. Again, that was not at all my intention. I appreciate your response and I respect your opinion. I think part of it is that you take this kind of thing more seriously than I do. I also enjoy Congo btw. I have never had the balls to watch Son of the Mask. It looked like one of the worst movies ever made just based on the trailers.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 19, 2017 4:32:26 GMT
I apologize if you found my response offensive. That was not my intention at all. ... I appreciate your response and I respect your opinion. I think part of it is that you take this kind of thing more seriously than I do. I also enjoy Congo btw. I have never had the balls to watch Son of the Mask. It looked like one of the worst movies ever made just based on the trailers.My God, it is. I think the damned thing is genuinely evil. Those scenes I highlighted before (dog trying to kill baby, hellish vampire babies, million babies urinating on father, terrifying cartoon faces on baby and dog) come from that movie. Uhh... I might have nightmares tonight just thinking about it.
|
|
bigwhiskey
Sophomore
@bigwhiskey
Posts: 393
Likes: 54
|
Post by bigwhiskey on Mar 19, 2017 9:50:00 GMT
I'm a huge Jeff Bridges fan. I'd pay to watch him take a dump. Okay I don't mean that literally , but you get the idea. I guess I should have pointed that out. I never listen to anything critics have to say. I make my own mind up, so there's that too. My feeling is this. You like a movie or you don't. And that's all there is to it. My opinion means nothing and shouldn't mean anything to you in terms of affecting what you choose to watch. To me my opinion is the world I'm in, and yours should mean the world to you and that's fine too. And if people happen to like the same thing, its a moment of beauty. If not, it can't be helped and I'm fine with that. That's my philosophy on movie reviewing. I would pay to watch you pay Jeff Bridges to take a dump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 10:35:02 GMT
|
|