The Pitters' Place

Avatar - tell me how a guy in a wheelchair, goes to another planet and becomes better than the natives so much better he manages to ride the one beast that they could not... never mind they've been riding these things for generations. Also how does a spiritual race come about that their rite of passage is riding a beast or dying?

Forest Gump - I really hated that movie. The message i got was if you can't achieve any of these things it's simply because you're not doing it right.

Great topic! I liked Avatar and love Forest Gump.

For me....

2001:A Space Odyssey - Beautiful visuals and music. But don't like the movie.
Wes Anderson stuff - I've seen and didn't like The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

The Lego Movie - Too frenetic with too many jokes that it annoyed me more than anything else. By the time of the reveal, it was too little too late.

Honorable mention:
Deadpool - I actually did enjoy this movie, but not nearly as much as others. It has the same issue as the above for me.

Shawshank Redemption. It's... fine, I guess? I don't get what the big deal is, I vastly prefer The Green Mile in the niche of 'Stephen King stories adapted by Frank Darabont'.

Also The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Don't get the love. Saw it because no one would shut up about it. Have never confessed to my friends that it bored the arse off me. Maybe it was astonishingly transgressive and daring when it first came out but that train has sailed.

(I don't get the love for Forrest Gump either)

Deadpool
Forrest Gump
Shawshank Redemption
The Dark Knight
Inception
most Stanley Kubrick except 2001

in fact if I list all the movies I can think of which everyone liked which I don't I'll be here all week

Really too many to name, though I tend to find such stuff vastly overrated rather than "not enjoying" them. I'd say that describes both Avatar and Forrest Gump, eg. Both good-to-very-good films, but hardly deserving of their overinflated reputations. Another I'd throw into that list is Casablanca.

Gendo wrote:Wes Anderson stuff - I've seen and didn't like The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

Do check out Grand Budapest Hotel if you haven't. I'm not a fan of Anderson myself, but I was shocked by how much I loved GBH. It's one of the most visually inventive and well-written comedies I've ever seen.

The two I always get into trouble for not liking are The Passion of Joan of Arc and Lawrence of Arabia. I'm not fond of the Lord of the Rings trilogy either though it's been such a long time that a rewatch might change my opinion.

Raxivace wrote:The two I always get into trouble for not liking are The Passion of Joan of Arc and Lawrence of Arabia. I'm not fond of the Lord of the Rings trilogy either though it's been such a long time that a rewatch might change my opinion.

I like the passion of Joan of Arc but wouldn't say I loved it or that it was anything special, i just like the story of Jeanne D'Arc la pucelle d'Orleans. I haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia.

Raxivace wrote:The two I always get into trouble for not liking are The Passion of Joan of Arc and Lawrence of Arabia. I'm not fond of the Lord of the Rings trilogy either though it's been such a long time that a rewatch might change my opinion.

I can understand someone not loving LoA: it's long, it's dramatically/narratively dull for long stretches, and mostly relies on the scope of its visuals to make its impact. I remains a film I'm more impressed by than actually love. POJOA however just reveals what a soulless thing you are.

Islandmur wrote:I like the passion of Joan of Arc but wouldn't say I loved it or that it was anything special

Awww, not you too, Mur! POJOA is one of the handful of films that, on any given day, I could easily consider the best film ever made. I've argued before that it's really the birth of "art cinema." Did you watch it with the Voices of Light soundtrack? Though Dreyer preferred it silent, I do think VoL adds something *extra* to the experience.

Also did not like "le diner des cons" a popular french movie with very dark humour.

Gendo wrote:Great topic! I liked Avatar and love Forest Gump.

For me....

2001:A Space Odyssey - Beautiful visuals and music. But don't like the movie.
Wes Anderson stuff - I've seen and didn't like The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

I liked 2001, but i must admit the whole movie I kept thinking wow they did this movie in 1968? wow!

lol

For those mentioning 2001, I'll use this opportunity to shamelessly promote a long-ass essay I wrote on it here: http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a ... yssey.html

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

Raxivace wrote:The two I always get into trouble for not liking are The Passion of Joan of Arc and Lawrence of Arabia. I'm not fond of the Lord of the Rings trilogy either though it's been such a long time that a rewatch might change my opinion.

I can understand someone not loving LoA: it's long, it's dramatically/narratively dull for long stretches, and mostly relies on the scope of its visuals to make its impact. I remains a film I'm more impressed by than actually love. POJOA however just reveals what a soulless thing you are.

Islandmur wrote:I like the passion of Joan of Arc but wouldn't say I loved it or that it was anything special

Awww, not you too, Mur! POJOA is one of the handful of films that, on any given day, I could easily consider the best film ever made. I've argued before that it's really the birth of "art cinema." Did you watch it with the Voices of Light soundtrack? Though Dreyer preferred it silent, I do think VoL adds something *extra* to the experience.

Lol I enjoyed it like I said, but also I've seen so many versions of Joan (like I said it's one of my fave St stories along withe Bernadette and Fatima). But I don't know which Jeann D'arc film he was referring too, me I was thinking of the one in 1999. I see the one with "passion' is the 1928 version which i've not seen. (must add it to list) there is also a 1948 one.

Ah, yeah, I know there's lots of Joan of Arc adaptations out there. Have you seen Bresson's called The Trial of Joan of Arc? Bresson treats it as objectively/neutral/realistically is possible, which is an interesting contrast to Dreyer's overt subjective emotionalism.

Avatar - massively over-rated. I think people just got excited cos it looked a bit pretty in 3D, but the film itself was pretty terrible. The plot was wafer thin, the dialogue was ropey/cheesy and it just kinda sucked. Just watch Pocahontas instead.
Lord of the Rings trilogy - fuck me that was boring. And I've read (and liked) the books.

^ I'm the complete opposite with LotR - love the films to death, never got through the books because they bored me senseless.

^ I'm with aels on LotR, though I did make it through the books. I do prefer The Hobbit book to the films, though.

The Godfather trilogy sucks ass. There should be a special place in Hell for anybody who thinks these are good movies. Even Robert DuVall couldn't save them from suckitude.

FWIW I was referring to the 1928 Joan of Arc movie, the one Dreyer directed.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:^ I'm with aels on LotR, though I did make it through the books. I do prefer The Hobbit book to the films, though.

I liked the Hobbit book. As far as the movies go...I feel like I enjoyed them more when they weren't trying to ape the darker tone of the LotR trilogy. When they were just being a silly adventure I think they worked for the most part.

CashRules wrote:The Godfather trilogy sucks ass. There should be a special place in Hell for anybody who thinks these are good movies. Even Robert DuVall couldn't save them from suckitude.

What didn't you like about them?

Despicable Me
Pitch Perfect
The Fast and the Furious (and the couple of sequels I've seen/mostly seen)
Boyhood

I liked most of the movies already mentioned, except I haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, the Joan of Arc movie (never even heard of it, so not sure how popular it really is), Lawrence of Arabia, or 2001 Space Odyssey. Casablanca was pretty boring, I guess.

Raxivace wrote:

Eva Yojimbo wrote:^ I'm with aels on LotR, though I did make it through the books. I do prefer The Hobbit book to the films, though.

I liked the Hobbit book. As far as the movies go...I feel like I enjoyed them more when they weren't trying to ape the darker tone of the LotR trilogy. When they were just being a silly adventure I think they worked for the most part.

The Hobbit was Tolkien being light, witty, and whimsical; LOTR was Tolkien going full-on supersrs mythology mode. Jackson nailed the latter aspect of LOTR, but then tried to apply the same (and entirely wrong) approach to The Hobbit, and that's why I think it didn't work. The Hobbit should've been one film of 3-4hrs.

BruceSmith78 wrote:I haven't seen... the Joan of Arc movie (never even heard of it, so not sure how popular it really is).

It's one of the 4-5 most famous silent films ever made. It regularly shows up on lists of the best films ever made. It's ranked #17 on Theyshootpictures meta-list of the 1000 Greatest Films: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_100-1.htm

The thing is that I don't think Jackson is always doing serious in the Hobbit movies. Like the more comedic scenes that are just Martin Freeman fulfilling his patriotic duty as the British fish out of the chips are great. Hell I even liked that silly nonsense with the barrels on the river.

OTOH the parts where Gandalf is getting apocalyptic visions or whatever the hell just don't work at all.

It's not so much about Jackson always being serious, and I do agree there are more moments of levity in the Hobbit films; it's more about his making it into another LOTR epic in terms of length and scope. He tried to turn it into a LOTR-esque epic and it just... isn't. Brevity is the soul of wit, and that's really what The Hobbit films needed.

As we all know, Shakespeare was known for his brevity. :P

I do agree there shouldn't have been three movies. Hell before it was even announced as a trilogy I remember complaining that two films was overkill.

I've never heard of they make movies dot com.

Also, I've never watched a silent film. I don't think I could sit through it.

BruceSmith78 wrote:I've never heard of they make movies dot com.

It's Theyshootpictures (it's a parody on the film title "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"). It's a "meta-list," which basically means it's been compiled of thousands of "best films" lists made by critics, academics, and filmmakers.

BruceSmith78 wrote:Also, I've never watched a silent film. I don't think I could sit through it.

Try it, you might be surprised. Especially if you watch it with the Voices of Light soundtrack (available on the Criterion version) I think you could make it through just fine. It's one of the most intensely dramatic and moving films ever made, IMO. As Pauline Kael said, once you've seen Maria Falconetti's (who plays Joan) face, you'll never forget it.

One of my goddaugthers once told me (she was 11 at the time) she would never watch a black and white movie... I made her watch the bad seed.... she spent the next several years searching my collection for old movies to watch... she is now an avid fan of old movies. My job is done.

Ok, so I just finished watching Avatar for the first time since I saw it in theaters.

So I'm going to put it firmly in the camp of "unpopular movies that I enjoy". That is to say, I hear SO many people say exactly what Mur did, that she didn't like it and doesn't understand why it's so popular.... so if that's the case... where's the popularity? All I ever hear is about how people don't like it even though it's popular.

I thought it was really great. I remember liking it a lot when I saw it in theaters, and it totally held up. Both in my personal enjoyment of it, and in terms of holding up after 8 years. The effects were still amazing. The whole thing was beautiful and creative. The score by James Horner was amazing like all James Horner scores.

And the story... was fine, why do people complain about the story? Ok, so it wasn't some groundbreaking new thing that no one had ever dared make a movie about before. So what, neither is the story being told be the vast majority of films, even good ones. The action was great, the acting was great (especially Zoe Saldana). The characters were thin stereotypes, true. So anyway, I think it's great, and I think most people don't think so.

Gendo wrote:Ok, so I just finished watching Avatar for the first time since I saw it in theaters.

So I'm going to put it firmly in the camp of "unpopular movies that I enjoy". That is to say, I hear SO many people say exactly what Mur did, that she didn't like it and doesn't understand why it's so popular.... so if that's the case... where's the popularity? All I ever hear is about how people don't like it even though it's popular.

I thought it was really great. I remember liking it a lot when I saw it in theaters, and it totally held up. Both in my personal enjoyment of it, and in terms of holding up after 8 years. The effects were still amazing. The whole thing was beautiful and creative. The score by James Horner was amazing like all James Horner scores.

And the story... was fine, why do people complain about the story? Ok, so it wasn't some groundbreaking new thing that no one had ever dared make a movie about before. So what, neither is the story being told be the vast majority of films, even good ones. The action was great, the acting was great (especially Zoe Saldana). The characters were thin stereotypes, true. So anyway, I think it's great, and I think most people don't think so.

Let's see what's Avatar's rating on IMDB?

Offline I'm the ONLY person in my circle that does not like Avatar.

I know why Avatar is popular, you just stated it, the imageray, the special effects.. etc.

Why do people complain about the story? From you Gendo? No the story isn't groundbreaking, yes it's a story that has been told countless time before... the white dude comes and saves the poor natives from certain death. Hooray for the white dude. And this time to sink the point home it's not just a white dude with muscles nooo it's a paralyzed white dude. Because even even a paralyze white dude is more physically able then a native of a land and everyone knows that natives need white leadership to succeed. Come on... You can't see why certain class of people would complain about that storyline even if it's as old as time and BECAUSE it is as old as time?

Eva Yojimbo wrote:It's not so much about Jackson always being serious, and I do agree there are more moments of levity in the Hobbit films; it's more about his making it into another LOTR epic in terms of length and scope. He tried to turn it into a LOTR-esque epic and it just... isn't. Brevity is the soul of wit, and that's really what The Hobbit films needed.

Raxivace wrote:As we all know, Shakespeare was known for his brevity.

Polonius:
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . .

Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 86-92

https://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quot ... y-soul-wit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Context is important. That line about brevity is from one of Shakespeare's longest plays, which is filled with many lengthy soliloquies that most certainly do not go for the briefest way of expressing ideas. Even that link talks about how Polonious is unwitty and long-winded, whereas other characters who go on just as long as he can, sometimes for even longer, are able to do so much more poetically.

Islandmur wrote: Let's see what's Avatar's rating on IMDB?

It's pretty good; but it's not like it's in the top 250 or anything. It does have a pretty good RT score as well. I guess it's just my circle (which is mostly internet people when it comes to discussing movies); it doesn't seem popular there.

Why do people complain about the story? From you Gendo? No the story isn't groundbreaking, yes it's a story that has been told countless time before... the white dude comes and saves the poor natives from certain death. Hooray for the white dude. And this time to sink the point home it's not just a white dude with muscles nooo it's a paralyzed white dude. Because even even a paralyze white dude is more physically able then a native of a land and everyone knows that natives need white leadership to succeed. Come on... You can't see why certain class of people would complain about that storyline even if it's as old as time and BECAUSE it is as old as time?

I have to admit privilege-blindness on this one . I should have seen those things, as now that they've been pointed out ; it's clear.

Islandmur wrote:Because even even a paralyze white dude is more physically able then a native of a land and everyone knows that natives need white leadership to succeed. Come on... You can't see why certain class of people would complain about that storyline even if it's as old as time and BECAUSE it is as old as time?

All true and fair, but in Cameron's defense, he did a great job of using the attention Avatar was getting to point out that Avatar is happening on Earth right now. Very similar things are being done to native peoples all around the world (particularly in Central and South America) by European mining companies. I seem to remember Democracy Now having him on for most of a full hour going over various cases Cameron had researched for the movie.

Islandmur wrote:One of my goddaugthers once told me (she was 11 at the time) she would never watch a black and white movie... I made her watch the bad seed.... she spent the next several years searching my collection for old movies to watch... she is now an avid fan of old movies. My job is done.

I think I got over any and all of my possible cinematic hangups when I saw Seven Samurai around the age of 12. It was long, it was old, it was B&W, it was foreign... and I loved it more than any film I'd ever seen. So, yeah, that took care of any reservations I ever had about seeing any kinds of film.

Raxivace wrote:Context is important. That line about brevity is from one of Shakespeare's longest plays, which is filled with many lengthy soliloquies that most certainly do not go for the briefest way of expressing ideas. Even that link talks about how Polonious is unwitty and long-winded, whereas other characters who go on just as long as he can, sometimes for even longer, are able to do so much more poetically.

Funnily enough I've made this exact argument before: http://forum.evageeks.org/post/393312/A ... ji/#393312 I'm not sure whether or not Shakespeare actually believed it, but I do think there is a general correlation between the two. How many long, slow, epic films do we generally call witty? The wittiest ones tend to be short, fast, and pretty concise--think of any of Wilder's or Hawks's comedies.

Faustus5 wrote:

Islandmur wrote:Because even even a paralyze white dude is more physically able then a native of a land and everyone knows that natives need white leadership to succeed. Come on... You can't see why certain class of people would complain about that storyline even if it's as old as time and BECAUSE it is as old as time?

All true and fair, but in Cameron's defense, he did a great job of using the attention Avatar was getting to point out that Avatar is happening on Earth right now. Very similar things are being done to native peoples all around the world (particularly in Central and South America) by European mining companies. I seem to remember Democracy Now having him on for most of a full hour going over various cases Cameron had researched for the movie.

I know the parallells between the story and actual events, what I mind is that an outsider needs to lead natives to solve the problem. Why could not have the Naavii won by themselve, why couldn't the guy (don't recall his name) just been an ally.. why did he have to be a better native than the natives? He could ride the unridable beast, he could make the tree do whatever it did... whereas none of the natives could. I HATED that movie because it was made in this day and age with this director, he knew better.