That is based on 200 thousand ratings. On Netflix it has 3.6 out of five based 4.5 million ratings. That is a respectable number but not outstanding.
The US Box Office for the Eternal Sunshine is $34 million compared to $242 million for Jim Carrey’s Previous Movie, Bruce Almighty. The movie ranked about 80 for the year.
I found this distasteful, almost painful to watch. I liked the actors, but still!
A Walk To Remember - utter twaddle, a generic Lifetime movie, starring nobodies. I had to watch this at someone’s house after a dinner party, and the hostess actually began bawling at the end! And all I could think was, who ARE these people and why am I having to watch their amateur theatrics? Who gives a damn?
Pulp Fiction - utterly appalling. I hated everyone in it. The only good part was the story about the watch, and I laughed so hard I nearly choked.
Anything starring Robert Redford. I never drank the Redford kool-aid. Most especially, The Sting. I’ve only fallen asleep at two movies in my life, and The Sting was one of them. Hated hated hated it.
Fargo - utterly appalling. Hated hated hated it. Appalling.
Moulin Rouge. I’d heard you either loved or hated it, and I SO wanted to love it, but really, I just couldn’t get into it. I read a review that said it was like being smothered by a boxcar full of glitter dumped on you, and I loved the LOOK, but that was all.
Marry me, Lemur. I’ve explained in the other thread why I thought this movie was so loathsome (at least, the forty-five minutes or so I saw of it before I gave up and walked out of the theater), and I just can’t understand how so many people think it’s even tolerable.
And it’s refreshing to see the hate on Forrest Gump too, which was a shallow and materialistic misogynistic frat-boy farce pretending to be a heartwarming triumph of a lovable underdog. Bleah.
Grease. I can never sit through the whole thing. I don’t know if it’s the acting or the singing, I just find myself changing the channel. Maybe it’s Travolta. However, I can watch** Grease 2** and have done so multiple times.
Really?? I guess I have to disagree. Rather than it being a shallow and materialistic misogynistic frat-boy farce pretending to be a heartwarming triumph of a lovable underdog, I thought it was a smarmy, platitudinous, liberal-bashing fable with a couple of funny moments.
I want say “everybody” loved it because few people have seen it, but Synechdoche NY got almost unanimous raves from critics: Ebert gave it 4 stars and most critics put it on their best movies of the year shortlist. At one point it had about a 9.0 rating on imdb as well (now it’s down to 7.3).
It would take me 540 pages to give the abstract of how much I hated this self-indulgent masturbatory shitfest. I’d rather watch a four hour video of barnyard animals crapping set to a soundtrack of Wagner fed through Auto-Tune and played backwards. But please don’t get me wrong: I frigging HATED this film.
I hate it so much I don’t even like typing the name.
Matrix and Avatar have great action and special effects, but why the hell can’t someone write a good back story for what is happening?
In Avatar it turns out the world is a supercomputer. You don’t think a company is going to pause in what they are doing to consider the possibilities of that? No, but the company is EVIL, <que horse whinny in the background>
Of course, what you don’t see is the next year where the company comes back with a competent commander and military and squashes the natives like bugs from orbit.:rolleyes:
That was more or less my impression of the book when I read it years ago. I loved Krakauer’s Into Thin Air and thought this would be a good second read, but found the kid to be a naive fool. Krakauer did not write him as sympathetically as he was portrayed in the film, IMO.
Add me to the anti-camps of:
Forrest Gump – I’ve seen it in pieces since and found it more mildly entertaining than when I saw it when it first came out. But an Oscar winner?? WTF?
There Will Be Blood – not only was it chilled molasses slow, the lead character is completely unredeemable. Why would I want to watch three hours of an asshole evolving into a drunk, evil asshole?
Gone With the Wind – Oh dear God. I tried to watch about 15min of it once, and about lost my mind. Everyone sucked. Definitely think something was lost in the 70+ years since it was made.
Anchorman and Dodgeball – hubby loved them. I thought they both were awful…I mean, painfully, awkwardly awful. “A whale’s vagina”–how the hell is that even clever, nonetheless funny?? Steve Carrell and “I love lamp” is the only redeeming quality. As for Dodgeball…ick, it was even worse.
Now, I do like The Princess Bride, Lost in Translation, and Napoleon Dynamite. Just FTR, for the nobody that cares.
If you ever read the book, (and if you haven’t, I highly recommend it), you can understand why it was 4+ hours. It was an epic, and the book is an amazingly detailed story of the Old South and how it changed after the Civil War.
The second reason it’s so long is because there wasn’t much else to do back then. A 4 hour movie was an event, not something that dragged. People loved it, even if it’s not faithful to the book. (for instance, Scarlett has 3 children, one by her first husband Mr. Hamilton named Wade). There was no TV to get home to, no computers or internet. No cell phones or texting. No video games! What the hell else was there to do? Read a newspaper, listen to the radio, or catch a ballgame in person. Other than that, the movies were IT.
With that said, I find it boring too. it’s a tough sit movie to sit through. and Rhett Butler is the only redeeming and interesting character in the entire movie.
Crank. God, what a horrible movie, but the people I watched it with were either all rapt attention or laughing. I just wanted everyone in the damn movie to die already and put me out of my misery.
Same for Twilight, what godawful tripe. Thank heavens I saw it on cable and didn’t thump down 7 bucks for the non privilege. I’m ashamed to admit to watching it all way through, but I thought that it HAD to get better, else why would everyone lined up to see it?
Thihs is my biggest (and continuing) mistake in movie watching – watching them through imagining they will get better. That happens maybe 1% of the time – so rarely that at the moment I can’t name a movie where it did.
Plenty of them get worse though.
On the plus side, maybe 2 or 3% get SOOO much worse that they become entertaining in ways the producers never intended. That was my experience with The Wicker Man remake – I almost fainted from laughter a couple of times.
Gorgonzola? Would you mind getting out of my head, please? Because I came on this thread to say exactly the same things about exactly those two movies.
Dirty Dancing, at least, had some decent music. In fact it would have been improved if they’d dropped the whole film thing and played two hours’ worth of early '60s pop in a darkened theater.
Magnolia - If you are going to make a movie that’s just short of three hours, how about actually having something happen in it? And no, making it rain frogs for no reason whatsoever does not count
Donnie Darko - Ok, it has a couple of interesting lines in it, and a few good songs on the soundtrack, but could you at least make some sort of attempt at making sense?
I’m somewhat surprised at the number of people posting in this thread who seem to demand that the main character in a movie be a good person or have some redeeming characteristic. I rather enjoy seeing movies about complete monsters (warning: TV Tropes link; I hope you didn’t have plans for the rest of the day). I find them refreshing.
it’s a tough sit movie to sit through. and Rhett Butler is the only redeeming and interesting character in the entire movie.