Thank you. I do know most of these, but I haven’t seen Patton or Tora! Tora! Tora! The latter might make for an interesting double feature with Letters from Iwo Jima.
I’d like to know too. I liked it!
Both are quite good.
And what was Pirates of the Caribbean?
I too. And I am probably alone hereabouts in loving Signs.
Similarly, one does not hear much backlash against “Gladiator” though it is, in many ways, Braveheart In Rome, and IMHO isn’t half the move “Forrest Gump” is. But it didn’t beat out anything as good as “Pulp Fiction.”
It was about 20% too cheap. It’s a decent enough movie but they just didn’t put quite as much thought or effort into it as they could have.
Did you notice everyone shot in the movie was shot in the head? Even Ron Perlman’s character, who was facing away form the man who shot him? Why? Why did they use that effect over and over and over?
Thank you for posting this. I saw Gandhi in the cinema when I was 12, and saw it again for the second time just last month. Though it didn’t have the same emotional impact on me as it did back then, I still found it to be an excellent film, and this time I noticed/understood many things which I didn’t the first time.
Others have mentioned Fight Club - that’s one I’ve had the opposite experience with. I was blown away by it in '99, and even bought the DVD (unwatched), but when I caught it on TV last week, I was left wondering what I ever liked about that movie. The whole time I was re-watching it, I just kept thinking, “Grow the hell up, will ya?”
I found the ending horribly anticlimactic (historical accuracy aside), with the antagonist doing just about the dumbest thing imaginable.
Not so, good sir, I loved it and went back to see it again.
I happen to think that Avatar was pretty good. Avatar in 3D was amazing! All because of the world of Pandora. Movies are a hell of a lot cheaper and more accessible than Disney rides. Since I have neither the money nor the proximity to go to Disneyland or Disney World, Avatar & the world of Pandora in 3D was, yes, a cool Disney ride for me. Not that I paid for the 3D, except once at the IMAX, but I was paying for the IMAX, not extra for the 3D. As I just mentioned in the 3D thread, I refuse to pay extra for 3D.
Or, guys just aren’t into a love triangle between a sulking sparkly vampire, a werewolf who always manages to lose his shirt and a moody high school girl.
People actually watch movies without fantasizing that they are in them.
There certainly is some appeal to the romantacized portrayal of the Mafia gangster. Hanging out with your buddies all day drinking and carousing. Pulling off some heist whenever you need cash. Sending anyone who looks at you cockeyed to “sleep with the fishes”. All with no consequences!
Of course everyone always assume they are Michael, not Fredo.
As I watched it, I kept thinking what jerks these guys are. 
However, at no time was I pulled out of the movie by the acting. These actors did very well playing the Hollywood image of gangsters (since I don’t hang out with gangsters in real life, I can’t speak to actual authenticity…), which is a rather stylized image.
I wouldn’t have anything against recognising the acting with an Oscar, but the story did nothin’ for me.
What did he do wrong, again? Snipers should “scoot”, and not remain in place?
I think you could see the wires on the flying monkies in the Wizard of Oz, yet it deserves an Oscar… doesn’t it? 
Avatar is what I call a “special-effects movie.” The whole point of the movie is to sit back and look at the cutting-edge CGI graphics. The story is actually sub-par; it’s Fern Gully, with the fairies replaced by the DePaul Blue Devil and his kin.
As for Twilight, do I really need to explain? It’s goth porn. Plus, the recent trend of trying to re-invent vampires as good guys is one that many people find wierd and off-putting. They’re literally blood-sucking parisites, after all.
There’s no “backlash” against Twilight, as it was never a well-loved/respected film to begin with. It’s been made fun of since before it was even a movie.
All I know is that whenever I hear about Crash I first think of that fucked up Cronenberg movie of the same title. I was very confused when I was hearing all the Oscar talk about Crash; I was like, “Really? That bizarre movie with James Spader and Rosanna Arquette? And wasn’t that like 10 years ago?!”
Some of the backlash against the 2004 “Crash” comes from the fact that there was already a film with that title made in 1996, which was based on a novel from 1974. The thing is, the Crash story created by J.G. Ballard was extremely surreal, bizarre, transgressive, some would say groundbreaking. The one created by Paul Haggis is very melodramatic and trite. The opposite of groundbreaking. “Racism is bad” is about the least unique thing you can say nowadays.
That’s why the 2004 “Crash” feels so idiotic to people who are fans of the real Crash. It feels like it swiped the title from a great story and applied it to really lame one.
ETA: great simul-post.
Unbreakable grossed $248 million on a $75 million budget – which ain’t as good as the $408 million Signs later grossed on a $72 million budget, but sure ain’t a bomb.
Oh, they should scoot alright, but not walk out in the middle of the open in broad daylight, just because they seemed to have killed their rival and wanted to confirm it. Among other things, someone else could then take a potshot at him (this wasn’t a Wild West duel, they were in the middle of one of the bloodiest battles on the face of this planet).
gah! I forgot that part! Yup. I agree.