The Pink Panther. I liked Inspector Clouseau and hated the rest of the main characters with an intense loathing. I saw Charles Lytton as little better than a rapist and the inspector’s wife as being a horrible person who betrays her husband in every way possible.
I was also thrown by the change in race of the princess (between her as a child and her as an adult) but I’d still reacted the same way without it.
As I walked out I described it as “No Country for Old Men with funny bits.”
About a Boy - the idea is that the main character has a terrible meaningless life due to never having to work (a life long healthy income being ensured by the royalties from a one-hit-wonder Christmas pop-song that his father wrote).
My only thought was “Man, that would be awesome!”
I guess School Of Rock bugged me so much because its mesage, such as it was, was that it’s OK not to conform: all well and good, except it was wrapped in such a blandly formulaic little package that was the very definition of conformity. Rock as rebellion? C’mon, maybe forty years ago.
Another pet hate: Dead Man Walking. It was so smugly assured that we’d automatically be cheering for Susan Sarandon and her liberal sensibilities that it didn’t touch once upon the genuine ethical issue of whether a society is ever justified in taking a life as punishment: nope, the death penalty is wrong because Janet from The Rocky Horror Show says so. Me, I wanted to swing on the fucker’s legs.
One of my all time favorite films. And I agree that no having to work is one of my greatest fantasies.
Of course that’s only a small part of his problem. Many independently wealthy people lead fulfilling lives. Will’s problem is that in spite of his material advantages he leads a life completely devoid of meaning. He has no friends, he isn’t close to any family members, he has never had a meaningful relationship with a woman, he has never done anything in life that made any difference in any person’s life whatsoever, even his own. With his money and free time he could have devoted his life to creative or charitable pursuits, or even made attempts at finding true love. But his quest to live a life of pure leisure leaves him never having any meaningful experiences in life at all, until Marcus comes along that is.
I’ve heard a half-convincing argument that the book could be read as irony. That is that Will’s involvement with the boy makes his life difficult and that the theme of the book (and film) is that loving people will ruin one’s life. But I think the traditional interpretation is the correct reading: difficulties from human relationships are worth enduring for the benefits of human love.
There are lots of films who’s makers had the intention “We want you to like this film” but had the opposite effect.
Actually, no. While the movie was against the death penalty, it showed both sides of the issue, especially with the visit to the victim’s family. There was definitely some conflicted emotions on the part of Sr. Prejean, and an indication that it wasn’t all that cut and dried.
Jesus Camp. That movie was so unabashedly biased that I found myself offended as a free-thinking agnostic because I was being told to judge Christians so harshly. The things these kids were being taught were horrific, sure, but the way it was presented just turned me off.
Also anything by Michael Moore, for much the same reason.
Reefer Madness. 
Darren Aronofsky’s “Pi”. I guess it’s supposed to be deep and meaningful or something, but the premise is stupid, and the technical details are so badly wrong that whatever virtue the movie might’ve had as a thriller is lost among the laugh-out-loud funny stupid parts.
This was the one that I was coming in to post about.
I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Given the number of wrongful convictions that surface every year, it certainly gives one pause when endorsing capital punishment. But then again it is certainly hard to defend that the world is better by Charles Manson’s continued existence. I watched this movie, wondering if it would help to shed any light on the debate.
I found that the movie conveyed exactly the opposite message than I expected or what was intended (by the actors, at least). Sean Penn’s character was completely unrepentant until it became clear that his life would not be spared. It was only the slow inexorable march to the gallows that revealed to him the enormity of his crime, or at least allowed him to express remorse. One came away from the movie thinking that he would never have come to this realization if he had been imprisoned for life instead.
I didn’t judge them harshly, although I did feel bad for the kids. The radio host kinda hammered you over the head with the “message” though, which I didn’t really like.
Along the same lines is Hell House, which does a much better job of portraying people who believe very differently than me, but in a much less voyeuristic, much more sympathetic way.
What was biased about it? Did you know that the people who ran the camp were pleased with the movie and thought it was a fair and accurate portrayal. Where did the movie say to “judge Christians harshly?”
“Mission To Mars”. I saw a special sneak preview and early on the Crowd Began To Turn Ugly. By the end of it people were howling with rage and they all threw their special movie posters into the garbage whilst streaming out of the theatre.
Basically it’s a horrible movie in every way.
Anyhow, there’s a scene where one lead character commits suicide to prevent another from wasting her life trying to save him. It’s supposed to be this grand, touching moment. Instead people were cheering for the guy to off himself and laughing at the crappy acting. IIRC we applauded when he opened his helmet in vacuum.
Atonement. Unless, of course, I was supposed to think it would have been a lot nicer if Briony had been drown 1/3rd through the movie.
**Bridget Jones’ Diary ** [& sequel]: it didn’t occur to me at first, but after repeated viewings I now feel that Bridget should give up on both Daniel Cleaver and Mark Darcy and take up with her boss, who hired her when she was desperate for the opportunity; knows she’s ridiculously ignorant yet gently assists her with great patience; has a sweet disposition and a sense of humor; is unpretentiously down-to-earth, and is somewhat shlubby and messy in his physique and personal appearance, as is Bridget.
And I bet, extra poundage aside, that he’s also better in bed than Mark Darcy.
The Great Escape. I couldn’t help but feel the American soldiers were just too arrogant. Who the hell thinks they can keep escaping from a Nazi prison without any consequences? I felt sorry for the Nazi in charge of running that prison camp. It’s not like he was mistreating the Americans.
I was glad the Nazis finally killed a few of them at the end. I don’t think that was what the movie intended.
Right on. Good music, though.
:eek:
I think the effect your post has had may be the opposite of that which you intended.
The Piano- I hated that movie- it’s supposed to be romantic, but to me it’s about a relationship that begins as something between sexual harassment and rape (not that Holly Hunter’s character is the least bit likeable either, but nobody deserves to be raped [except perhaps a rapist]— speaking of-
SPOILER FOR AMERICAN HISTORY X-
I understand the “let’s humanize a seemingly inhuman position”, but I felt no sympathy for Edward Norton’s character up to or after the time he was imprisoned and raped. I couldn’t believe he was released from prison in the movie- it wasn’t because he shot the guys who came after him (that could be termed self-defense- though not if he’d already rendered them helpless- don’t remember whether he had both of them or not) but the way he did it (the curb stomp)- intentionally adding enormous suffering to the death of at least one after he’d rendered the guy helpless. This f&cker needs to spend a lot more time in jail. (And what was with that 5 second rape scene? The Aryan guy really needs to see a urologist.)
I feel like a broken record for trashing this movie/play so much, but RENT- *I’d be broke and uninsured and in debt and dying too if I didn’t have a job and did drugs/had sex without any thought of protection years after it was known both transmitted AIDS. Kurt Vonnegut sold Saabs and Melville was a civil servant and pretty much all other famous actors/singers/filmmakers/artists/etc. who didn’t have trust funds or families to support them worked McJobs or even “soul killing corporate jobs” to feed themselves before they were able to support themselves with their art. Get a job you lousy hippies- nobody owes you a living just because you think you’re talented (and if your music/films/etc. ever do bring in money you’re gonna blow the inner city so fast there’ll be nothing but your Corvette tire tracks left there).
HANNIBAL RISING- supposedly it was supposed to make you better understand and “like” Hannibal Lecter; in reality the only point of this book or this movie was to let Robert Harris have a comfortable retirement. In the first place he’s scarier when he’s unexplained, in the second place you’ve made him far less believable (and thus far less scary) with the silly “Lithuanian aristocracy” plotline, and then you’ve lessened his appeal by attempting to explain and just reconfirmed that he was born a monster (millions of kids in WW2/Soviet Russia/Cambodia/take your pic had nightmare childhoods of violence and starvation and the like- they didn’t turn into millions of serial killers) and you seem to be forgetting that this is the same guy who gave Graham’s home address [where his unprotected wife and young son were] to a mass murderer due to petty revenge and his own amusement- I’m not buying that he only kills people who have it coming.
To me, Dead Man Walking stands out as a film that does a great job of showing both sides of an issue. While I sense that the filmmakers were against the death penalty, they didn’t shy away from the fact that Sean Penn’s character is absolutely guilty, and guilty of a horrible crime that shattered people’s lives (in addition to the people he killed, obviously). I think it’s fair to say that if you’re in favor of the death penalty, Sean Penn’s character is exactly the kind of guy who should get it.
And ultimately, I think that’s what makes the movie’s final scenes so powerful: even though it’s easy to say, abstractly, that the guy deserves to die, once you’ve seen him as a human being, it’s hard to watch him march to his death.