The appeal of Jersey Shore, Real Housewives, The Hills, et al.
I can forgive most competition-based reality shows (even though many are very bad) because there’s at least some semblance of an over-arching point. But any show that is nothing more than hateful people acting badly isn’t my idea of entertainment.
Star Wars: The first one was entertaining, and “I am your Father” was a great line, but overall they kinda suck. Why are spaceships banking to make turns? Why do they have wings? Why make a movie set in space if you are going to ignore the things that make space interesting? Also, the dialog is awful and the delivery is wooden. Finally, the prequels may have been the greatest waste of talent ever.
Why single out Star Wars? Almost all SF movies royally screw up physics and ignore physical realities in favor of making thing familiar (banking turns, sound in space) and spectacular (people blowing up in vacuum). The ones that don’t ignore physical reality (2001, 2010 (although they fudged), etc.) are in the minority.
Star Wars, in fact, gets a break because it’s supposed to be nostalgic for the old serials and is demonstrably a kid’s-eye view of things.
The craft have wings because they also operate in atmosphere, as shown. You can’t fault them for that.
You can complain about the dialogue, though. That’s Lucas’ fault, and is still makers me cringe. The actors certainly complained about it, and generally did the best they could with it. I think “wooden” is undeserved.
It’s not a Whoosh. It needed to be said.
I’m not a huge Kubrick fan, but I have to take issue with “interminably slow” and “pretentious.” Films like Lolita and Dr. Strangelove are among the most deft and entertaining (and least pretentious) of their time. As for anyone else attempting to make a movie like him - again, not a huge fan of this one, but There Will Be Blood strikes me as a fairly Kubrickian film, and Paul Thomas Anderson certainly wasn’t laughed out of Hollywood for that one.
Plenty. But Taylor Swift is the current poster child for me.
Sluggy Freelance.
I’ll spoiler this, just in case.
[spoiler]It’s been a while but I think this is right.
Chigurh meets the drug dealers at the site where Moss found the money. He’s supposed to help them investigate but instead he shoots them both in the head and takes their black Dodge Ramcharger (incidentally, a Dodge Ramcharger is an SUV, not a car. I didn’t know that when I first read the book and thought it was just another name or maybe variant of the the Dodge Charger).
Later on there’s a mention of a couple guys in a black Plymouth Barracuda, they’re more of the drug dealer’s men, the ones who killed Moss and the hitchhiker girl in the hotel.[/spoiler]
Well, de gustibus non disputandum est notwithstanding, a lot of what he composed and/or performed was quite brilliant, and hardly atonal at all.
The vampire craze and all the crazies with prosthetic teeth.
The resurgence of 3D movies, which seems to indicate a desperate remedy for a lack of ideas and talent.
Harry Potter.
The $5,000 hamburger (although without the accompanying bottle of wine, it’s “only” $80).
<head explodes>
I don’t get how Jaegermeister turned from an after dinner digestive into a woo hoo do shots party drink. It was probably perpetrated by the same people who think that anyone in their right mind would drink an entire class of Disaronno on anything other than a bet.
Ok. Substitute black Plymouth Barracuda for my black Dodge Charger. I apologize for the mistaken vehicle identity, but I no longer have the book and I honestly couldn’t remember. But I was referring to the Plymouth Barracuda.
Now, if what you say is true, I still don’t get it. I think you may have it right, but what tells you that the two guys in the Barracuda are going to the hotel to kill Moss and the girl?
Maybe there is a connection that I missed. Maybe there is a spanish exchange that I missed that would tell me.
But until someone comes by to refute this, I’ll go with it. Thanks Terraplane!
Burn After Reading.
It was billed to me as a comedy. My girlfriend and I didn’t laugh once in the whole film. It was just a bunch of unlikeable characters doing unlikeable things. The only two nice people, the gym owner and Brad Pitt, got dumped on from a great height.
I don’t have an issue with swearing, but John Malkovich’s dialogue was just too much. It’s like they saw the profanity of Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It, thought, “Hey, that guy swearing is funny,” and then removed what actually made it funny.
The whole film seemed like a way for the Coen Brothers to waste 96 minutes of my time, and the last scene seemed to say as much. After O Brother, Where Art Thou, it was a massive letdown.
What don’t you get about it? That it exists? How it exists, given how violent the movie actually is? Could you elaborate?
I believe “Hollywood” in this instance is being used to indicate the moving picture industry rather than a geographical location.
Well said and totally agree. I can watch a game, I can even enjoy an exciting game, but I don’t follow sports and don’t care how my college team is doing this year and didn’t care when I was in college.
But once you decide that that is the proper way to wear pants, it’s only natural to wear skinny jeans that way, too. 
I think this is a combination of improved 3D technology and an attempt to make movie theaters relevant again. With the quality of TV’s becoming widescreen, BluRay quality discs, and inhome surround sound, combined with increased ticket prices, and movies are losing market share. They’re trying to find something that home theaters just can’t provide. Which is lame, because 3D TVs are actually starting to come out, which renders the whole point moot. 3D TV access is going to outpace the movie theaters actually getting their 3D crafting in place.
iPhones, crackBerries, and the annoying people who use them constantly.
Incessant texting.
Standing in line at 0200 during Christmas shopping season in order to buy something that will be in the landfill in a year.
Dancing with the Stars.
What a horrible cheesy show. Like a cross between Lawrence Welk and Battle of the Network Stars.
Who watches this garbage? People who miss Lawrence Welk and Battle of the Network Stars?
I agree, for the most part. Everything I had seen of this (only commercials and trailers) led to me to believe this was a more in the Raising Arizona or O Brother, Where Art Thou mode of Coen. But what it really was was an inverted Fargo. All the humor was mean, and all the sympathetic characters were punished while the least sympathetic either got away with their misdeeds or got rewarded for it. I probably would have enjoyed the movie more if I had known the tone of the piece ahead of time. It was just such a jarring difference between the ads and the film itself.
Why Grease is so beloved. I mean, I liked some of it, I can see the appeal, I just don’t see why it’s so damn popular.
I am a cinephile who cant stand pretentious movies (Darren Aronofsky, anyone?), and I just have to chime in and say that you are ignorant. Saying 2001 is “interminably slow” is like saying “shakespeare is boring”; it’s only true if you are uneducated or attention deficient. But, heh, what got me to jump in and reply was only because I happened to click on that link… for the love of God, man, really? It was insultingly bad. I plead with you not to judge 2001 based on that stupid link.
iamnotbatman – it’s okay to disagree with what someone says, but please refrain from insulting the person. “Ignorant,” “uneducated,” and “attention deficit” are not acceptable in Cafe Society.
Please don’t do this again.
No warning issued.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator