This is the attitude that I have a problem with. Unwatchable crap? Get the fuck over yourself. You don’t like it. It isn’t unwatchable crap. This guy is quite fond of him. Read his other reviews, and you will find he is an intelligent guy.
Gosford Park is not only a competent remake of La Regle Du Jeu, it is an interesting commentary on filmmaking.
I’ll go with Magnolia here, which enthralled me. My fiance hated it, even though Tom Cruise was in it.
I didn’t care for Being John Malkovic (another movie we both watched), although I’m glad I experienced it. I’d rather watch that again than Sweet November.
From its reviews, I didn’t expect Morvern Callar to be an easy two hours at the art house, but I didn’t expect it to be quite so painfully boring and pointless.
Sure, you can say you liked them. But do you think you can say you liked them without insulting everyone in the thread? Actually, based on your posting history, I seriously doubt you can. You’re the Collounsbury of movies: a wealth of priceless information that no one wants to hear because of your incredibly condescending and arrogant attitude. You really gotta learn that “movies lissener likes” doesn’t mean “movies that only idiots could fail to appreciate.” I’m sure I’m not the only person who has to stop before opening one of your CS threads to think about wether panning through all the sneering, elitist bullshit to get to the useful ideas is worth the effort or not.
Oh, c’mon lissener, indie films can be as terribly made and executed as Hollywood films and I don’t see you disagreeing with that.
This thread is about terrible pretentious arthouse films. They exist. We are listing them according to our tastes. If you have any, please list them. To jump in without reading the OP and to assume that because I dislike Happiness or Gummo, I adore Little Nicky is careless, ridiculous and insulting.
Ugh…
I have never heard of the Cremaster cycle before but I went to the website and watched the trailer. I was very intrigued…
Is it that bad?!
Doesn’t mean it’s pretentious either, though, and no matter what Sampiro thinks there are films he doesn’t like because he hasn’t understood them.
A good example of this is Pi, which has been a cause of contention in this thread. Firstly, the film was not made in black and white for artistic reasons, but because Aronofsky had no money - his budget was $60,000, mostly borrowed from friends and family. The official Pi website was coded by the star of the movie, for Christ’s sake. Secondly, there is no gratuitous sex scene in the movie. The closest you get to any kind of sex scene is when Max hears Devi screwing her boyfriend through the wall and can’t get the noise out of his head; it’s another step towards his going insane.
As to the rest, I note that nobody has really listed their concerns, preferring to say “God, that sucked” without ever bothering to explain why. John Mace said it was pure torture, which is about right - it’s about a man sliding into obession and insanity, it’s not meant to be any more pleasant to watch than Requiem For A Dream is - but he didn’t understand the film or he would have understood that. So go ahead - say what you found unlikeable about it, and I’ll knock down what I can.
(coughcoughKoyaanisqatsi)
I liked a few of the movies mentioned in this thread. Pi and Talk to Her are the ones that come to mind. But I’m not sure I “got” Pi - I just liked it because it proves (to me) my “Math is Evil” theory.
I remember liking The Cook, The Theif, etc when I saw it all those years ago, but I’ve been very underwhelmed by anything of Greenaway’s I’ve seen after that (The Pillow Book, anyone?)
As for my list:
Mulholland Dr.
Forrest Gump (does that count as a “pretenious” movie? Whatever, I hated it)
I didn’t hate Adaptation, but when I finally got around to seeing it, I didn’t get why it got all that hype.
A specific accusation? Sure. You think anyone who deigns to harshly criticize a “deep” movie that you liked is a knuckledragging, mouthbreathing moron who can’t or won’t appreciate anything more nuanced than a Bruckheimer explosionfest. Evidence? Your first few posts in this thread. Does “not every movie can be Princess Bride or Little Nicky” ring a bell?
In short, you’re a fanboy. Granted, an erudite fanboy with eclectic objects of your fanboy wanking, but a fanboy nonetheless. You’re one of those real-life people that make this Onion article eerily realistic.
Legends of the Fall. Was dragged into theatre by Brad Pitt-lovin’ friend.
This was supposed to be some kind of Great American Epic, but I was squirming in my seat under the weight of all the cliched characters doing cliche things in cliche plot twists.
I had major problems with Legends of the Fall too. Just because it’s scenic doesn’t make it any good.
I also really hated In the Cut, especially the crap about To the Lighthouse being both the book that Meg Ryan’s character taught to her class and being part of the plot, with the bad guy even telling her he was taking her “To the lighthouse.” :rolleyes:
I sincerely doubt it.
Actually, I’d compare him to all the Matrix defenders shrieking “You just didn’t GET IT!” when people said the last two movies sucked. Because it’s impossible to get it and think it sucks, you see. You can’t possibly “get it” just fine and still think it sucks.
Because neither were playing at the theater when I went to the movies and I usually enjoy war movies.
No, it’s certainly possible. However, 900 lingering shots of vegetation have a place in very few movies, except of course, The Trees of Iwo Jima. 900 lingering shots of vegetation when there’s a far-more-exciting war on, though, I hafta question. Woo, we get that nature’s an idyllic paradise and man’s a killing machine and he’s exploring the relationship between the two…now, get on with it. Apocalypse Now did a much better job of working nature into the film without bogging down the pace, although Kurtz the outsider has twisted the natives, whereas the dudes at the beginning of Thin Red Line were living among them. Apocalypse succeeds where Thin Red Line fails because you can drink cheap beer and watch it as a kickass war movie or you can put on a beret, drink a fine wine, and rattle on about the psychological subtext of the movie.
I don’t buy into the “Films must be difficult to be great” line, like the greatness of a movie can be measured by how painful it is to watch.
You know, if you weren’t such a condescending asshat, you’d actually be kinda enjoyable to talk to.
I personally think that the Cremaster cycle is amazing, but opinions vary widely. These movies are essentially the Platonic ideal of the concept of “art film”. I would highly recommend reading the plot summaries before watching any of them.
ObAnecdote: When the Cremaster series came through my town, I watched the entirety of Cremaster 3 in a state of slack-jawed amazement (the visuals are just fantastic). But during the showing of Cremaster 5, the film stuck in the projector and caught fire–and the audience just kept watching, because they figured the weird images on the screen were just part of the show.
In my defense, I didn’t move because I thought there was a projectionist monitoring things, but I then realized that things were going wrong and ran down to notify somebody.
Gotta agree about The Cook, the Thief, his Wife, her Lover, some Dogshit, and some Fake Chicken. Is it even possible to care about any of the characters?
Gotta disagree about Pi. But it is a movie about people who have been there or know someone who has been there. Besides, just Billy Crystal as a sort of Jewish Nikola Tesla is worth it.
Gotta disagree about most of David Lynch’s stuff. Eraserhead was great.
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned Mother Night. Good performances by Nick Nolte and wossname, the guy who played Roseanne’s husband. To me, though, the whole movie was offensive in the depth of its vapidity and the superficiality of its point.
Just out of movies that came out in the past year or two, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed:
-Lost in Translation
-American Splendor
-Capturing the Friedmans
-Shattered Glass
-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
and
-The Triplets of Belleville
(I’m probably forgetting a few)
I also enjoyed:
-American Wedding
-Charlie’s Angels 2 (I didn’t take it even remotely seriously, but it was fun)
-Freaky Friday
and
-Bring It On Again, the direct-to-video sequel to Bring It On
My point is not that I’m right and you’re wrong about any particular movie, it’s that your first post in this thread was INCREDIBLY rude. Seriously. That’s why everyone is so pissed off. Go back and reread it.
Anyhow, my nomination for overly pretentious crappy movie:
-The Governess
[QUOTE=Wintermute]
See I really loved Adaptation. I think it was just wacky enough (and I loved the characters!) whereas BJM cleared the wacky wall and kept running and I hated the characters completely.
I’d also like to add my name to the Mulholland Drive haters list and thank GMRyujin for mentioning Apocalypse Now. As soon as Kurtz shows up I can’t take it anymore. Fantastic beginning though.
And Gadfly, good call on Jacob’s Ladder. I felt cheated by the “twist” ending. The plot they were building with the drugs and Tim Robbins losing his mind was much more interesting.
Having grown up in New Guinea, The Thin Red Line just looked like a bunch of guys playing soldier in my back yard. I fell asleep halfway through. Also, the bit at the beginning where they’re in a native village and all the women are wearing nice clean tops over their breasts kinda dropped my suspension of realism.
I totally understand that. Kurtz very nearly shakes me outta the movie. And I love the movie. But taking a seemingly 800lb. walrus Marlon Brando seriously strains the hell outta my suspension of disbelief. I just keep in mind that he-sa gon’ DIE!.
Or maybe I just think it’s cool cause the first time I saw it, I was up at like 4am and watched it half-nuts from lack of sleep, so it fit perfectly with my mood.
I haven’t seen the Redux version, anyone know how that is?
If you believe that, you’re a fool. If Sampiro believes it, he’s an even bigger fool.
Is that the 1976 original, the 2003 remake, the 1995 TV movie or Krzysztof Kieslowski’s 1984 revisionist deconstructionist version?