This certainly leaves one open to criticism, so just list your own. Rule: Has to be above 75% on the tomatometer.
2001 - I believe in astronomy, I don't believe in bullsh!t. Also, long stretches were slow and boring.
Big Lebowski - Funny at times, but not that funny.
Dark Knight - The Joker here is the most well-organized man of chaos you'll ever find. Plus, it's obviously Chicago.
Under the Skin - Yeah, I don't know.
Just about anything by Terrence Malick, except for Badlands.
The video of your birth.
I never got with Birdman.
Shawshank Redemption
Agree with '2001, A Space Odyssey,' but 'Lolita' was great!
Terms of Endearment
All:
Star Wars
Raiders of....
Jurassic Parks...
James Bond....
Superman....
Spiderman...
Rocky... (except for the first one)
The first two Godfathers were GREAT! The third one stunk.
2001 was touched by God - possibly greatest movie ever made
Throne of Blood is one answer - way over rated.
Schindler's List, worst piece of crap ever
I'll also add all the Nolan Batmans - it's punishment to sit through those things. Seriously - it's like having someone behind you hitting in the head.
the production values are top notch but the rest is overheated insulting carp.
I'm not a fan of any of the Batman movies.
In terms of critically praised stuff, the one I really hated was "Pan's Labyrinth." Genuinely loathsome crap.
Gravity
97% on rotten tomatoes. Nothing happens the entire movie, its incredibly boring and just horrible all around
I didn't like there will be blood. I get why the critics gave it a positive review though. If I were a critic I'd probably give it a barely positive review, mostly because it is well put together. However it was a hateful movie in many other ways. Rotten tomatoes doesn't clarify if all those positive reviews were glowing or just barely positive. I think most are probably barely positive. It's a problem with their system.
not very smart wrote:
Gravity
97% on rotten tomatoes. Nothing happens the entire movie, its incredibly boring and just horrible all around
Interesting. I figured it was much lower, considering I know a lot of people who didn't like it. I did like it, but, again, I'm not criticizing anyone's choice here. I've seen what happens when someone criticizes 2001. It's like you're going around insulting people's children.
agip wrote:
I'll also add all the Nolan Batmans - it's punishment to sit through those things. Seriously - it's like having someone behind you hitting in the head.
the production values are top notch but the rest is overheated insulting carp.
I liked the first one quite a bit. I was just disappointed with the other two, especially Dark Knight. I'm not really sure why, considering the style is the same for all 3. I guess I never really bought the Joker; the acting was good but the character motivations and schemes never really worked for me. I didn't hate them, just thought them overrated.
Good choice. Pan's Labyrinth was awful and overrated.
Personally, I really disliked Forrest Gump. Definitely overrated and definitely sucky.
old guy 69 wrote:
Shawshank Redemption
Agree with '2001, A Space Odyssey,' but 'Lolita' was great!
Terms of Endearment
All:
Star Wars
Raiders of....
Jurassic Parks...
James Bond....
Superman....
Spiderman...
Rocky... (except for the first one)
I basically agree with these assessments, with the caveat that I've simply avoided many of the sequels, prequels, and retreads within film franchises like Star Wars, Rocky, and James Bond. I just don't see much value in watching a film that I know I'll hate, particularly since I'm not paid to watch and review every film that interests the general public.
"The Shawshank Redemption" remains perhaps the most mystifying case for me. It appears to be one of the most reliably beloved (or at least liked) movies ever made, and it's difficult to find even one negative review by a well-recognized film critic. But I find it sentimental and unchallenging, and the voiceover by Morgan Freeman seems remarkably ham-handed for a high-quality film. I may give it another chance at some point, but it's not a task that I look forward to.
I assume that you contrasted "Lolita" with "2001: A Space Odyssey" because they're both Kubrick films. My problem with virtually all of his films is that the characters are rarely interesting, complicated, and conflicted. (Tom Cruise's character in "Eyes Wide Shut" isn't bad, but the easy ending of the film undermines its psychological complexities.)
Someone else mentioned "There Will Be Blood." I loved Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier films -- "Hard Eight," "Boogie Nights," "Magnolia," and "Punch-Drunk Love" -- but "There Will Be Blood" was the first of several PTA disappointments for me. Anderson once said that he thought that "Magnolia" might turn out to be the best work of his entire career, and I'm starting to think that he was right (although "Boogie Nights" was also wonderfully audacious).
I really wish that I could enjoy some of these films more. I'd much rather praise a film than pan it.
A Clockwork Orange. I've never taken drugs; perhaps that explains my inability to appreciate the movie.
Pulp Fiction. All the trash Tarantino released afterwards made it plain that PF was just the same kind of trash, nothing special about it at all.
mlcollll wrote:
I never got with Birdman.
I hated that movie.
So yes over rated.
Rocky - just plain awful. Awful writing, awful acting, awful film work, awful editing. And of course, awful sequels.
It's a Wonderful Life
I find it depressing, not at all uplifting, and morally obtuse in certain important respects.
It's a good book.