?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Castaway.
Most over rated movie of the last five years? (excluding anything by Kevin Costner or George Lucas because we've come to EXPECT their movies to be horrible)

Very well could be...
What wildly popular movies do YOU hate?

Comments

( 16 comments — Leave a comment )
absolutcalm
Jul. 4th, 2002 11:37 am (UTC)
2001, a space odessy. It isn't as great as everyone makes out, as far as I'm concerned. Great, underrated films? Dune. It was badly produced, yes, but still one great film.

I liked Cast Away, though. Wilson!!!!
maddening
Jul. 4th, 2002 12:01 pm (UTC)
I've heard nothing but praise about 2001 (partially because certain Kubrick lovers will love ALL his movies regrardless of their actual merit aaaaaaaaand because I know a lot of stoners) *and* Dune. I don't think I've heard a bad thing about either becuase people are either in love with the story or the director or both. And because I know a hell of a lot of geeks.



jonfmorse
Jul. 4th, 2002 04:26 pm (UTC)
You have to take 2001 in time context, though. It's not a great film in the traditional "great film" sense, but it was groundbreaking; one of the first sci-fi films which didn't look cheesy.

Of course, the fact that it makes no fucking sense until you've read/seen 2010 is a point against it...
frobisher
Jul. 4th, 2002 09:09 pm (UTC)
I've heard it argued, not unreasonably, that it is a great film, in the "traditional 'great film' sense", based on the fact that it relies so heavily on visuals rather than dialogue, thereby being much closer to "true" cinema.

Personally, although the arguer was an actual film teacher and a friend, I don't quite buy that. Although that may be an argument for it being an important film, much in the way that Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin is.
maddening
Jul. 4th, 2002 09:51 pm (UTC)
I look with much much scepticism at anything that I'm told is "Important" in an arena of entertainment.
I was told that Finnegan's Wake is an *important* book. It's crap.
I was told that Don DeLillo was an *importatn* author to read. He's nearly unreadable and perhaps he was important 20 years ago, but he's thoroughly lost his relevance.

Seems to me if something is *important* in a sense that isn't merely academic then it would be obvious on its face and I wouldn't have to be told.
frobisher
Jul. 4th, 2002 11:02 pm (UTC)
I suppose it may depend on whether you think a sense of historical perspective is important or not. Potemkin and 2001 are milestones. Eisenstein's theories of film, as best known from Potemkin form a lot of the basis for cinema as we know it, so I can recognize its importance in the development of the form. I still think it's, overall, not a particularly enjoyable film.

This kind of relates to how I feel about the issue of what Orson Welles' "best" film is. I think Citizen Kane, although quite excellent, is extremely studied, as though it was done from a textbook (which, to an extent, it was) by an admittedly brilliant student. Touch of Evil, on the other hand, is more... well, the term that comes to mind is "organic", which I'm sure isn't the best way to put it, but that's what I got at the moment.

Of course, I'm also sometimes of the opinon that the correct response to These Kids Today(tm) who say things like "Oh, the Lord of the Rings is so cliched..." is to say "Tolkein invented the damn cliche you moron!" and beat them about the face and neck with a broken bottle. But, then again, I'm bitter.

In the final analysis, "important" or, for that matter, "good", is basically not a universal concept (in particulars). I think that knowing where stuff comes from is interesting. Hence stuff like Potemkin and 2001 (and, for a somewhat more extreme example, The Great Train Robbery) is, IMO, "important". I am, however, cursed with a large streak of academia. *shrug* YMMV.
maddening
Jul. 4th, 2002 11:37 pm (UTC)
I suppose it may depend on whether you think a sense of historical perspective is important or not. Potemkin and 2001 are milestones. Eisenstein's theories of film, as best known from Potemkin form a lot of the basis for cinema as we know it, so I can recognize its importance in the development of the form. I still think it's, overall, not a particularly enjoyable film.

Then, as I said, it would be "important" for purely academic reasons. I find the idea of a movie (a piece of entertainment... at its root, that's all a movie or 'film' is, entertainment) being deemed important, yet not enjoyable to actually watch preposterous.
I find that directly analagous to the over inflated windbags who tell me in all seriousness that, though Joyce is basically unreadable, difficult to decipher, a chore to read, and thoroughly something you'd never actually *enjoy* reading, you should definitely read it.
WHY?
Basically ideas like that are bandied about so that one group of people can feel superior to another group because group A has seen the "right" films, read the "right" books, and knows all the "right" buzz words and bon mots from all the "right" critics and reviewers.
If that's the only reason you're watching and reading (and for people like that, it certainly seems to be the case) you should save yourself some time and just memorize every new edition of the New Yorker and be done with it.


In the final analysis, "important" or, for that matter, "good", is basically not a universal concept (in particulars). I think that knowing where stuff comes from is interesting. Hence stuff like Potemkin and 2001 (and, for a somewhat more extreme example, The Great Train Robbery) is, IMO, "important".

That's fine if you're interested in the historical and blankly textbook portions of a segment of popular culture. I'm sure there are people who find much joy in tracing the histories of the english punk movement of the 70s. And I'm sure those people also have their favorite bands and so forth.
But I would scoff at them (like I'm scoffing at you) if they suggested that I should listen to music from a band that was basically not all that great, not enjoyable to listen to, but that did something tecnically good that influenced a bunch of other bands... And ya know.. THEY DO THAT.
And ya know.. I SCOFF.

But to say it's good (as you originally started off saying) just because it has some influence within a genre is absurd unless you're ONLY looking at it from an academic, removed standpoint. And if that's the case, your opinion on "good" really doesn't make much of a dent.



I am, however, cursed with a large streak of academia. *shrug*

So I've noticed.
And I think "cursed" is definitely the word for it.

YMMV.

I'm not up on my "usenet acronym of the week" list... what's that one mean?


frobisher
Jul. 5th, 2002 10:18 pm (UTC)
Your Mileage May Vary. Which clearly it does.

I can't agree that entertainment is all a film is. That may be all it is for you, and that's fine. I reserve the right to differ. Really, by what you're claiming, films can't have anything important to say. And I don't buy that. I'll read Stranger In A Strange Land yet again over Joyce any day - but, to me, that's a very special book, not "just" entertainment. But again, that's me. I'm sure some people are getting something out of reading Joyce - maybe even entertainment.

I think that there's an unspoken part to being told one "should" do something. There's little that is universally needed to be done. On the other hand, if you want a grounding in the study of modern literatrure, you probably should read Joyce. If, however, you read purely for entertainment, read whatever the hell you want.

More to the topic at hand, if you are studying, for instance, the work of Howard Hawks (really, any director who lends himself reasonably to an auteurist reading will do here), examining his failures is tremendously instructive in understanding his work as a whole. A Song is Born is an extremely poor and misguided remake of Ball of Fire. But, for the film student, it can be interesting to compare the two and see why one works and the other doesn't.

Maybe I'm missing something, but your scoffing seems to boil down to "you care about stuff I think is completely unimportant, so I scoff at you". Me, I usually prefer to just agree to disagree when I hit a point that doesn't have any inherent solution. Like pure opinion. But hey, what the fuck do I know. *shrug*

And, quite frankly, as curses go, this one's pretty easy to live with. The real curse is caring about stuff. That one's problematic, as I learn more and more as time goes on.
maddening
Jul. 5th, 2002 10:48 pm (UTC)
Really, by what you're claiming, films can't have anything important to say.

No, what I'm claiming is that they're entertainment. Maybe they're artistic, maybe they make bold statements, maybe they're heartbreaking and moving and touching.
But at the end of the day, they're entertainment.

If, however, you read purely for entertainment, read whatever the hell you want.

Again, this comes down to the difference between academic interest and interest just because you *like* something.
Which is basically what you just said.
The point where I got really rude in this was where it became clear that you were talking about movies from a film school perspective when us silly proles were talking about it on an entertainment level.


Maybe I'm missing something, but your scoffing seems to boil down to "you care about stuff I think is completely unimportant, so I scoff at you".

Yes, you're missing something.
As I said before I scoff at the idea that you can LEARN an opinion.
We've had this conversation in person, dave, and if memory serves I was just as blunt and opinionated about it then.


Me, I usually prefer to just agree to disagree when I hit a point that doesn't have any inherent solution. Like pure opinion. But hey, what the fuck do I know. *shrug*

I'm glad to know that you're so enlightened.

And, quite frankly, as curses go, this one's pretty easy to live with. The real curse is caring about stuff. That one's problematic, as I learn more and more as time goes on.

Dave, don't go all guilt trippy on me over this. It's not going to win you any points or make me feel bad for being a bitch. If your film school outpouring had been in a community journal, I wouldn't have even touched it. I'd have kept my opinions to myself and gone along my merry way. However, it was in *my* journal.
And since it's in my own lil corner of LJ land, and since we've basically had this conversation before, I had no problem being very straightforward with my opinion on it, however not nice it may be.
Wrapping up your reply here with this line, however, shows me that I sure as hell should have kept my mouth shut and just let you rabbit on.
More's the pity that I express and defend my own opinions in my journal.


mjfgates
Jul. 5th, 2002 07:57 pm (UTC)
Okay, that does it, you get tossed off the spaceship right now. 2001 was damned cool, except for that way way way way way too fucking long bit with the swirly colors when he fell into the monolith.
saintsteven
Jul. 4th, 2002 01:56 pm (UTC)
I don't know if they qualify as WILDLY POPULAR in the Star Wars sense, but there's a few movies everyone else seems to love and I can't understand why.
I thought Swordfish was simply retarded. Hallie Berry's(sp?) hoo-ha's do not a good movie make.. neither does Jon Travolta with a rediculous goatee.
Big Daddy was a big dissapointment for me, but that's probably because I was expecting something like "Billy Madison" or "Happy Gilmore", which are both retarded- but in a good way.

"Gone in 60 Seconds" is on my shit list, too.. mainly because that's the only movie one of my group of friends ever watch. I enjoyed it in the theater, but seriously, it's not *that* good, let the DVD cool off.
frobisher
Jul. 4th, 2002 09:12 pm (UTC)
Personal pet peeve in this area: Although Eastwood got all the attention for Unforgiven, which really isn't so great (unless maybe you've not seen any other westerns made in the last 30 or 40 years...), he made a much better film the following year and got NO attention for it.

A Perfect World is really good. It certainly was one of the best looking films for several years, despite not even being nominated for cinematography. Hell, Clint even managed to get Kevin Costner to actin it, for fuck's sake.

No, really.
maddening
Jul. 4th, 2002 09:47 pm (UTC)
I've seen A Perfect World, and it *was* a good movie that got almost no attention.
I've heard you talk about this before.
frobisher
Jul. 4th, 2002 11:03 pm (UTC)
Probably. Since no one else seems to, I feel obligated. :grin:
i_am_your_clock
Jul. 5th, 2002 06:11 am (UTC)
The Unforiven kills a perefct world. If only for this this:

Hackman: "you just killed an unarmed man!"
Clint: "Well he should have armed himself if he was going to decorate his saloon with my friend."

frobisher
Jul. 5th, 2002 10:21 pm (UTC)
Really, the only answer to that is "no. no it doesn't", or possibly "Um... are you completely out of your mind?".

As usual, that's just my opinion, so it must be wrong.

But I'm not going to go and hide because then holly would yell at me.

so there. I think.
( 16 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

NewYorkNewYork
maddening
A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow