The Notebook pissed me off to no end. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a sweet story. The more I thought about it from her ex-fiance’s point of view, the more I realized what a whore Allie was. I mean, on the eve of her wedding she runs off to an old flame and sleeps with him? Without any regard to his feelings? How sweet.
Glitter and Crossroads come all too easily to mind.
I’ll be flamed for saying it but I’ll probably also have allies. Lost in Translation.
I am quite capable of enjoying a movie without car chases or explosions, thank you very much, but this movie, which came heavily recommended by a ton of friends (all female- I usually like “chick flicks”) not only bored the hell out of me but I couldn’t stand the main characters.
Bill Murray: He’s a washed up actor depressed over his career and his marriage. He’s still capable of pulling down more money than most people will ever see at one time for just a week’s worth of work in Japan and is treated like a king while he’s there. Lots of people have bad marriages or have careers that aren’t what they’d want, but this guy is just being a self absorbed d!ck.
Scarlett: You’re staying in a luxury hotel in one of the world’s oldest and most fascinating cultures and you’re indulging in self pity and complaining of boredom. GO OUT AND SEE THE FREAKING CITY! BUY A SWORD FROM HATORI KANZO, TAKE IN A ZEN GARDEN, GO TO A SHINTO TEMPLE, WHATEVER!
And when they met… it opened a vortex of self-pity and boredom that engulfed Godzilla.
And that whisper you never here— WHAT’D HE SAY! Yes, I know that the whole point is to fill in the blank yourself, and I don’t mind that in many cases (was it a tire iron or not in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN [I don’t think that’s enough to need a spoiler tag], did it really happen at the end of CONTACT, did Rhett return to Scarlett, whatever) but this one’s different. I don’t care enough about either character to speculate, just tell me.
Ok Glitter I understand but what do you have against Ralph Macchio?
I had no feeling one way or the other for the characters. And truth be told, if my life was this dull, well…I’d simply have to take the pipe.
…and who murdered 26 superheroes doing it. (I think; I kind of lost count of the beeps during the scene where Mr. Incredible is watching the presentation in Syndrome’s headquarters…)
What do you mean by cheated? Are you saying he ate food during that month from a source other than McD’s? Or are you saying that, while eating only McD’s, he purposely ate the fattier and worse foods to make a point in his film?
Blair Witch Project.
Now, bear with me… I liked the idea. The marketing was genius, and, for its time, it was amazingly original. But.
I like storytelling. I like GOOD storytelling. That wasn’t good storytelling. It was good half-storytelling. People lost in the woods. Creepy things. Okay. And the pay off is…
Yeah.
Only movie I’ve ever been to where, at the end, I stood up and shouted, “You’re sh*tting me! That’s IT?!”
Just to note: Anarchists traditionally operated in small organizations with a high level of discipline. They were promulgating “Anarchism” or “Anarcho-Syndicalism,” but not “Anarchy.”
I’m going to get firebombed for this, but I’ll say Forrest Gump, who’s point, as near as I can tell, is “Wouldn’t it be a better world if we were all mildly retarded?”
[QUOTE=saoirse]
I’m going to get firebombed for this, but I’ll say **Forrest Gump,**QUOTE]
You must be new here. 
Just start (or look for) a thread on “least deserving movie to win an Oscar”, and see how popular Forrest Gump is.
I’d swallow that more easily if I didn’t get the feeling he was only evil to prove a point. That his real wrong was trying to move higher than he belonged, and the whole killing people thing was to justify Brad Bird saying "Hey, do you want this talentless and evil guy in charge or this charismatic, NATURAL nuclear family? Some quote that stick out in my mind:
“Everyone’s special, Dash.”
“Which is another way of saying nobody is.”
“And when everyone’s special… mwahahahaha… NOBODY will be.”
There’s probably more that I can’t remember. Anyway, moral: only special people are allowed to be special. And the Incredible family has to stick together, because the riff-raff of the world PERSECUTE them so, just like they persecute white Anglo-Saxon Christian males. Or something.
I agree with you here. However I do applaud the movie for making the fiance’ a nice guy instead of the stereotypical asshole ala Titanic and all the rest.
Basically yes.
The main premise is what eating McD’s three times a day for 30 days will do to his body.
In the end, he ends up completely unhealthy.
Wow! What incredible insight! Fatty fast foods make you unhealthy and it’s a good idea not to eat at them exclusively. The fact that people are praising him for “exposing” anything is insulting.
I was interested in seeing it because told me the 30 Day Diet thing was only a small part of the movie. The rest raised some interesting points about fast food in America. Except it doesn’t and I ended up pissed off.
I hope we can be friends, but I do have to speak up in defense the film, which grows on me every time I watch it. 
Seriously, these guys are supposed to be jerks, but unlike the typical slapstick comedy (we’ll reference Dumb and Dumber as an egregious example of this genre), they’re not just jerks in a vacuum; they’re jerks because, well, because that is what life has made of them and what they’ve accepted of it, and themselves. Miles is a dopey, failed author becaues he’s come to see himself as only being successful in the context of being a failed author. Comparing himself (unfavorably) to other authors as not being even significant enough to commit suicide is a way of relinquishing control over any other aspect of his life; it’s all someone else’s fault. And I love the way he attempts to describe his novel to Maya; even his summary of it is a gurgled, unconstructed glurge; one can only imagine what an incomprehensible mess the novel is really like, though Masden’s character, who seems to be the most sincere in the film and has the best genuine taste, does find redeeming aspects of it, so clearly Miles has talent, just not focus or drive.
I also liked his interactions with his mother, ex-wife, and Jack; there are so many unspoken conflicts going on. He clearly feels justified on some level in stealing from his mother because of her obtuse manner and (suggested) they way she treated his father. Ditto for the passive-aggressive back-and-forth with the ex-wife; she’s manipulation personified wrapped up in sweetness, and for his part, Miles feeds into and encourages it. And then he just lets Jack ride roughshod all over him, 'cause…it’s easier to blame his own failings and lack of forthrightness on Jack. He’s an ufcked up character, to be sure, but he’s one of the most genuine neurotics to be found on celluloid; his problems aren’t the plot-driven creations of a Robert McKee graduate or the intellectually masturbatory self-therapy of Woody Allen; they’re all components of a very realistic and screwed up human being.
As for Jack…the guy reminds me almost exactly in manner and attitude of my ex-flatmate, in his belligerent, uncritical optimism in the face of reality. In some ways he’s a great friend–in his own way, he does a lot to try to help and support Miles–but he’s also an ethical basket case who leaves a train of emotional destruction in his wake. Again, a very real character.
And Maya…flawed, but compassionate, genuine in taste and affection, fun but responsible, beautiful but not gorgeous or self-flattering. What a babe for the guy who can appreciate her.
I dunno…I like the way the movie doesn’t take any false steps in penalizing Jack, or excusing Miles’ lapses of judgement and taste, and doesn’t offer any false redemption; Miles ends up getting a second chance but it’s on his head to make it work (and in my dim view of the lack of plasticity of ingrown vices and prejudices, I suspect Miles will blow it again.) And I like all of the unstated nuances, and the rampant in-jokes (note the meal Miles is eating at the diner after they escape from his mother’s house.) I like the way it parodies wine culture–Miles goes way beyond wine snob and into wine asshole–without making fun of wine or the people who produce it. It’s mocking but respectful, almost like a more subtle and narratively structured Christopher Guest film.
Miles is a jerk, but he’s a well-intentioned jerk. I guess I feel some kinship to him. And besides, if I ever grind out a 1000+ page novel–that’s assuming that I even have the kind of talent and gumption to even make the attempt–I can readily imagine myself taking an annual trip up to wine country and staggering out of the Hitching Post on my way back to the Days Inn to pass out. :eek:
Anyway, I liked it. But then, I think rain is wet, so what do I know?
Stranger
I felt like they had a loving relationship, that was just complicated by Armand’s fear of the bigots (recall the speech about the teacher) hurting his son.
Now, one could argue that he was a chauvinist who treated Albert as poorly as some men treat their wives. That interpretation makes their relationship even more interesting.
Of course, you come at the movie from a different perspective than I do so YMMV.
However, I really just responded to make an interesting hijack.
The guy who played the son in that movie wrote the screenplay for Capote and has been nominated for an Academy Award.
Forrest Gump. The idea of making a film that exalts conservative values and skewers the cultural excesses of the '60s and '70s is at least marginally defensible. But this film goes way beyond that. It is not a mere allegory about a man-child in the promised land, it is clearly intended to send a social/moral/political message: That virtue is more important than intelligence. Not on some abstract scale of values, but in terms of material success in life. That is a lie, and a damned lie too. Simple, honest, dutiful Forrest ends up rich and famous just because he’s a good guy and deserves it; besides, he takes the trouble to go to church and get God on his side. So when a hurricane hits the harbor, it sinks every shrimping boat but his, so he corners the market. Sorry, Mr. Bennett, the world doesn’t work like that. Real-life Forrest Gumps almost never prosper.
I remember reading another criticism when the film came out: The gay scene it protrays is silly and dated. No female impersonator in 1996 would use a stage-name as dumb as “Starina.” And his partner would be more likely to be an investment banker than a drag-show impresario. I don’t know enough about contemporary gay culture to judge that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s right on the mark.
But IRL, that’s true!
Fuck that shit, ddgryphon! You know a better way to handle a mid-life crisis?! Self-absorption is what a mid-life crisis is all about! And ephebophilia (as distinct from pedophilia) gets an undeservedly bad rap. And don’t even get me started on marijuana! No psychiatrist could have done the Kevin Spacey character any more good than he was doing for himself!
But IRL, that’s true!
Fuck that shit, ddgryphon! You know a better way to handle a mid-life crisis?! Self-absorption is what a mid-life crisis is all about! And ephebophilia (as distinct from pedophilia) gets an undeservedly bad rap. And don’t even get me started on marijuana! No psychiatrist could have done the Kevin Spacey character any more good than he was doing for himself!
Haven’t seen it. Who/what is Spurlock?