can anyone explain the ending of Blair Witch to me? because I didn’t get it.
course, it’s been so long I won’t remember anyway, but how the heck did it end?
I really disliked Driving Miss Daisy. it isn’t that it sucked, it’s that my expectations were so high and …I found it very dull.
sorry.
Hee! I am unusual among Highlander fans in that I think the idea of Zeist has potential, and I agree, Highlander II was a disaster. Art direction, acting, music, a perfect storm of fail. I think the Highlander sequels should be taught in film school as wonderful examples of ways not to do sequels. Heck, I have no training in film or theater, and I could do a class based on them, the errors are so glaring.
The whiney girl and remaining guy end up at an old cottage in the woods and enter in search of the other missing guy. We see the girl’s terror filled trek through the house through the viewfinder of the camera and the last shot is of the second guy standing facing the wall like all the witch’s child victims were made to do while waiting to be killed. As I said before, I have no desire to watch it again but I thought that last shot made everything before it worth it in a big way.
I was tremendously disappointed in Minority Report. Worst part is, we kind of had to sit too close to the screen, so the vertiginous special effects were particularly annoying, but what a way to turn a great writer’s work into nearly meaningless garbage.
I would honestly be interested in the potential you see in Zeist. I can perhaps see some potential in it as a general concept, but in the actual Highlander “universe” none whatsoever. It basically ignored everything the first film said.
Connor would already have known he was immortal. Connor wouldn’t have had any family, or at least none that considered actual blood like they did in the first. Connor and Ramirez couldn’t have met in the first since they already knew each other, and he wouldn’t have needed a mentor. Ramirez wouldn’t have been able to marry the Japanese woman or get his Katana since he and Connor would have arrived at the same time. The whole “no fighting on holy ground” thing makes no sense, after all what does that have to do with Zeist? Why would Zeist send the rebels that are dissatisfied with living there to another better planet where the only punishment is being immortal? Why would they even consider returning to Zeist after the quickening just to have their immortality revoked and have to live under the rule they hated anyway? Heck it even ruins the very name of the movie since it means that Connor isn’t actually a Highlander!
Nothing about the concept seems to fit with anything else in the franchise in even the slightest way. Honestly I find the entire sequel to be fascinating. There were a million ways they could have made more immortals, and they went with “make them exiled aliens from another planet who become immortal when they reach earth” instead. Pretty much any other idea they could have had would make more sense than that.
Margaret was certainly overhyped by alot of cinephiles. Other than being tonally odd, I am not so sure what the hype was about. The friend of the lady who dies (the lady who helps the girl get the lawyer) was painful to listen too. Her character was too over the top.
The Thin Red Line 1998 version.
In the cinema I saw it at the audience applauded twice:
first, when the main character was killed.
and secondly when the movie ended. You know things have gone wrong when that happens.
It may not be the worst movie I’ve ever seen, but it is the most boring.
Thank you! This is what I’m talking about. She was such a stereotypical “obnoxious New Yorker” that I couldn’t decide if she was supposed to be semi-comical or what. Were we supposed to hate her or sympathize? Whether the character wasn’t well thought out or the actress was miscast, it so utterly, completely didn’t work that I just didn’t know what to make of it. I was so distracted by my annoyance with the actress, coupled with trying to figure out what the director was going for that I lost track of what some of the scenes were even about.
I usually love cranky old jewish or italian women (in real life and in film.) Some of the best people! But this lady cranked my blood pressure up a few notches.
Entrapment. 'Nuff said!
Did anyone besides me actually see Highlander 5? I had already heard how much 2 sucked so I didn’t go see it, but man, if it was worse than 5 then it must have been the worst movie ever in the history of cinema, and that includes Manos. I wanted so much to like it because it had Methos in it, but even Methos couldn’t save that turkey.
Showgirls was pretty bad too. As the spouse put it, “I never thought I’d be bored watching a movie full of naked women.”
Well…boring is in the eye of the beholder. With the exception of some random flick about an American guy experiencing culture shock when coming to France with his girlfriend, movies I found utterly boring are all highly praised or have devoted fans. Notably :
-Barton Fink, palme d’or at Cannes festival (fell asleep. Twice)
-Elephant, acclaimed by critics (didn’t notice the movie had begun, never could see the point)
-Star Wars : Attack of the clones, no need to explain (was with an enthusiastic friend hence couldn’t leave. Kept myself busy by trying to note everything that was wrong with this movie)
I also walked out of “Salo, the 120 days of Sodom”, but “boring” definitely isn’t the appropriate word for this movie.
Waking Life. Like listening to a bunch of fifteen year olds talk about life. Awful awful movie. I told my girlfriend at the time that I’d be waiting in the lobby, which wasn’t even a real movie lobby (It was Sarratt theater at Vanderbilt). Another patron joined me, we talked about how awful it was.
Fear Dot Com. Left after twenty minutes. Luckily before it talked about the hemophiliac girl that was allowed to play at the old abandoned still mill that somehow survived puberty (Yes, I know it’s not impossible, but good lord, what are the odds?).
There have been other movies I’ve walked out on, and ones I wished I had (documentary about the Shackleton Expedition), but those are easily the two worst. Terrible films. The people responsible should be jailed.
I can see your point on that. I probably would have lost interest in it if I had not started to recognise the location as where I went to High School. When I saw the south courtyard and the concrete block art where I busted my wrists, I started paying attention, just to make sure I was not seeing things. But, you know, that endless cinema verité can really drag down the watchability.
The only film I’ve ever walked out of because it was so atrocious was The Royal Tannenbaums..
The only Netflix rental I’ve sent back after only 15 minutes of precious life which I can never, ever get back was that excreble Terence Malick dreck from last year.
Is there a parody film involving a monarchy of Christmas trees, or is it possible you means “Tenenbaums”?
I didn’t care for it, but it was really a piece of entertainment for the far left and far right. The former were reassured that Bush was indeed teh Hitler, and the latter were encouraged to storm out in righteous indignation.
One movie that I was ticked off by was Eraserhead. Not because it was weird or because it was disgusting, but because it was SOOOOO BORING.
Also, the only time I’ve fallen asleep in a movie theatre was while watching Eyes Without A Face.
Are we talking bad, or just boring? Last night I was invited to watch “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes Smarter Brother”. Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman, Madelyn Kahn. It was a good looking movie, and who doesn’t like the cast? But it was written by Gene Wilder and contained one actual laugh, the rest was stupidly boring and repetitive. I only sat through it because the room had AC. And speaking of stupidly boring, today is ‘Elvis’ day on TCM. Take yer pick. I vote for “Kissin’ Cousins”, it is actually painful to sit through it.
Okay, let me defend Margaret a little bit. (Didn’t think it was great art, but it was an interesting attempt at film making.)
This is a film done with opera in mind. It’s just not that some scenes take place during an opera performance, the tone, characters, story, etc., are derived on standard opera motifs. (And the extended version has even more operatic music.)
Now, I’m not a big fan of opera, especially the forced nature of the singing. But there is a certain charm in the way opera handles story lines and character issues. OTOH, it really drags out events because you have to have a song that covers a character mourning the death of another or some such. So, yes, this film drags things out. That is by design.
It’s an opera converted into a movie. It sort of works.
I appreciate and thank you for your input, but I must say I don’t quite understand. Maybe I’m just the garden variety dumbass or maybe it’s my total lack of knowledge about opera. So, are you saying the structure, pacing, etc. mirrors that of an opera and perhaps an opera fan would get it/ enjoy it more?
If that’s the case than maybe my ire should be directed at the marketing department for totally misrepresenting it in the trailers.
<Frank Oz in Trading Places> It’s an opera <FO>