| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ragingfluff 
"Currently lost in Canada"
|
 Posted - 07/31/2007 : 17:11:40
|
Okay, children, calm down.
You were all doing very well, as young Mr Grace might have said, and then you lost the thread (again)...
"Oh, you came here for an argument? I'm sorry, this is 'Abuse'"
Your personal feelings about Duke Ellingon, Mel Gibson, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Jews, Jazz, statutory rape, zombies, Tom Cruise...and fellow fourum members...while interesting in another context are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I dislike The Godfather for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact I think it romanticizes crime, but that does not mean I am interested in a long discussion about the socio-economic impact of organised crime on society (not on this thread, at least).
Please, can we keep our discussion in this thread to our subjective opinions about the relative merits of the films, and little else (I will delete my Charles Laughton anecdote if requested)
And just for the record, I don't like Mel Gibson...he insists upon himself.
|
 |
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 17:26:31
|
Yeah the Godfather, what a pile of crap, it did for the Mafia what The January man did for serial killers. |
|
|
|
ragingfluff
"Currently lost in Canada"
|
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 18:54:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Yeah the Godfather, what a pile of crap, it did for the Mafia what The January man did for serial killers.
Funnily enough, buried somewhere in the stinking pile of turd that was The January Man was a potentially good flick. Perhaps we need a new discussion fourum for movies like this, where an interesting premise gets warped, or where a cool concept gets overdone...either by too many script doctors tweaking at the story, or the studio execs demanding cuts and/or reshoots, or stars get too much of their own way and demand rewrites...let's call it "When Good Films Go Bad". In the case of The January Man, I always thought the problem with the film was it didn't know what it wanted to be. The tone shifted from dark thriller to light romantic comedy and back, and they wanted the characters to have interesting quirks..and, oh, well...it just didn't quite gel for me.
If I remember, Kevin Kline had this recurring thing about wanting a really good espresso or cappucino...it was supposed to be funny, I guess, and Kline can be the most charming of actors, and I think the idea was he was supposed to have this casual, offhand William-Powell-in-The-Thin-Man-thing going for him...but it was a character and a performance that belonged in a diffeent film.
I don't recall any chemistry between Kevin Kline and Mary Elizabeth whatserface, and I remember feeling especially sorry for Harvey Keitel, who looked as if he'd just wandered in from a different film and desperately wanted to get back to it.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 19:50:09
|
quote:
not the least of which is the fact I think it romanticizes crime,
"I think it romantizes crime"?? Of course it romanticizes crime! If you consider having much of your family killed and your soul turned hard and cold "romanticizing," which I do. Lots of people romanticize crime, dating back to what, Robin Hood? Don't shut yourself off from the joys of being a criminal, ragingfluff! You cut yourself off from so many great movies! Leave morality to the real world! |
|
|
|
ragingfluff
"Currently lost in Canada"
|
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 21:58:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
not the least of which is the fact I think it romanticizes crime,
"I think it romantizes crime"?? Of course it romanticizes crime! If you consider having much of your family killed and your soul turned hard and cold "romanticizing," which I do. Lots of people romanticize crime, dating back to what, Robin Hood? Don't shut yourself off from the joys of being a criminal, ragingfluff! You cut yourself off from so many great movies! Leave morality to the real world!
I probably should have qualified my rather bald generalisation. I dislike the fact that in The Godfather one set of criminals is presented as heroic while another, no more or less venal, is shown as evil.
The Corleone Family is presented, in my opinion, to be a mob family with "honour"; they act as "honourable" men, convince themselves they are doing right even as they wage a street war...and the movie wants the audience to go along with it. The rival gangs are portayed as thuggish, brutal, mercenary, colluding with corrupt cops...but Don Corleone is this nice old man who plays with his grandkids and doesn't like to sell drugs near schools. Sonny isn't a vicious thug; he's "hotheaded"..
I think it's that element of "romanticizing' that I dislike. I don't dislike crime dramas or gangster films. I quite enjoy heist movies. Films about planning and committing of crimes are generally appealing to me...I like Ocean's 11, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction... Ocean's 11 glamourises crime, but Ocean's 11 knows it's little more than a diverting piece of entertainment; it knows its place in cinematic history; it doesn't beg to be considered the Best film of All time..dare i say it?.."Ocean's 11" doesn't insist upon itself....
Listen, you could make the argument that "Die Hard" promotes police brutality, but it's irrelevant because "Die Hard" is nothing more than a popcorn movie...I haven't seen "300", but I know there was an extensive discussion on FWFR about its alleged racism and parallels with the war in Iraq...but from what I've heard, that argument is bollix, and the movie is based on a comic book.
I'm just not interested in the overblown self-righteousness that goes on in The Godfather....In any event, I said there were many reasons I disliked the film; it's too long for starters...I thought the music was annoying...the scene where Jimmy Caan beats up his brother in law...you can see he misses him by a mile (I'm serious; watch that scene again).
I should say also that while I don't care for the Godfather, I loved the Godfather II, and I think it's because it sets up a very interesting tension between the rise of the young Don Corleone and the fall of Michael Corleone.
Anyway, I'm in the minority in not liking The Godfather..and it's a very small minority, but that's okay.
|
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 23:06:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
not the least of which is the fact I think it romanticizes crime,
"I think it romantizes crime"?? Of course it romanticizes crime! If you consider having much of your family killed and your soul turned hard and cold "romanticizing," which I do. Lots of people romanticize crime, dating back to what, Robin Hood? Don't shut yourself off from the joys of being a criminal, ragingfluff! You cut yourself off from so many great movies! Leave morality to the real world!
The Corleone Family is presented, in my opinion, to be a mob family with "honour"; they act as "honourable" men, convince themselves they are doing right even as they wage a street war
That's what's great about the movie, it's the way the real Mob sees themselves to be. They are right, the others are wrong. They are normal people outside of the Mob world, they have family and grandchildren and children to play with. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 00:58:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
not the least of which is the fact I think it romanticizes crime,
"I think it romantizes crime"?? Of course it romanticizes crime! If you consider having much of your family killed and your soul turned hard and cold "romanticizing," which I do. Lots of people romanticize crime, dating back to what, Robin Hood? Don't shut yourself off from the joys of being a criminal, ragingfluff! You cut yourself off from so many great movies! Leave morality to the real world!
The Corleone Family is presented, in my opinion, to be a mob family with "honour"; they act as "honourable" men, convince themselves they are doing right even as they wage a street war
That's what's great about the movie, it's the way the real Mob sees themselves to be. They are right, the others are wrong. They are normal people outside of the Mob world, they have family and grandchildren and children to play with.
Is that what your father and uncles and brothers told you? 
Neeiigghhhh!!!
 |
|
|
|
ragingfluff
"Currently lost in Canada"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 13:20:01
|
This is an argument that will go around and around with nbody satisfied. I am sure I am not the only person on the entire planet who doesn't enjoy The Godfather. It's one of the few films that scores 100% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, so I assume that means practically every critic of note at the time liked it. Even my beloved Pauline Kael liked it. Roger Ebert loves it, and could possibly only love it more if it had been directed by Martin Scorcese.
Mind you, Variety, in an otherwise fairly positive review which praises the acting, the photography and the mood of the film, said this: "But it is also overlong at about 175 minutes (played without intermission), and occasionally confusing. While never so placid as to be boring, it is never so gripping as to be superior screen drama."
Still, liking or disliking art is not scientific. The film leaves me cold. I think it's too long for the rather thin story it tells. While some of the casting is terrific, some of it is awful. Talia Shire just isn't a very good actress...
When I was younger I quite liked it...so perhaps it's my fault, perhaps something has changed in me, and it isn't the film's fault at all (this may be a discussion I should be having with my analyst, not you lot).
Anyway, thank you all for getting back into the original spirit of the thread. I promise I'll never use the phrase "it insists upon itself" again. I'm still interested in what people have to say about films they dislike.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 16:09:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
I'm still interested in what people have to say about films they dislike.
I've concluded if there's one trait that plunks a film into my Hate It list, it's pretension. If a film is honest about what it's trying to achieve -- whether it's a genre piece or an auteur's take on the world -- then I'll judge it in its own terms when it comes to acting, directing, photog, music, etc
But if -- and it's usually though not always, for money reasons -- the film has thrown a spanner in the works with no sense of irony or even of trying to push cinema boundaries, but simply because to do so gives the films airs it oughtn't to have -- then, I label it pretentious and will judge it harshly.
Some illustrations to point up the contrasts:
People dismissed Godard's "alienating camera work" in such films as Vivre Sa Vie, and okay, maybe he wasn't the first to use techniques such as the camera encircling the speaker, presenting "all sides" or focusing on the back of the heads of the actors as they discuss whatever ... but he helped popularize these moves and associated them with the dialogue -- he created a fusion of image and idea. That shot of Tarantino's in Reservoir Dogs would never have been possible without Godard. He wasn't being pretentious, but exploring how better to tell complex stories - both personal and political - using the simple, known, but underexploited tools of the trade.
Kubrick - a director most of whose work I greatly admire - lost it for me with Barry Lyndon, which conversely seemed to pour style over substance like syrup over waffles. There are far worse examples but I cite this one because I'd never expected it from Kubrick.
As you know, I found Die Hard 4.0 pretentious because the script lays claim to something 'higher' or 'other' than a good hard-boiled action thriller in the mould of its prequels. It didn't quite ruin the film for me, but I had no respect for it in the morning. 
|
|
|
|
ragingfluff
"Currently lost in Canada"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 18:01:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
I'm still interested in what people have to say about films they dislike.
Kubrick - a director most of whose work I greatly admire - lost it for me with Barry Lyndon, which conversely seemed to pour style over substance like syrup over waffles. There are far worse examples but I cite this one because I'd never expected it from Kubrick.
Style Over Substance: ah yes, that old chestnut. Sometimes I love it because some stories are so ridiculous trying to give them substance would be a waste of time (and probably pretentious). Michael Bay is probably the leading example of Style Over Substance...McG also comes to mind. They're just the latest in MTV ADD editing storytellers...and they are both pilloried by critics for it (read Ebert's review of Bay's "Armageddon" for an example of a film critic frothing at the mouth in disgust at a movie).
But as much as I don't enjoy the frantic directing/editing style of both of these directors (I'm old and like films that pace themselves: see The French Connection, for example. Besides the famous chase scene which pins you to your seat in excitement, the rest of the film moves rather slowly, adding small details bit by bit, which is perfect for the story it is telling - most police work is dull stakeouts, paperwork, boredom - that's probably why the chase scene is so brilliant), at least Bay and McG aren't that pretentious in their material. There will be no film-studies courses entitled "The Deconstruction of the Feminine in Charlie's Angels" (okay, maybe there will be, but that says more about academia than anything else). Michael Bay and McG have both made films that are moronic, trite, high-concept to the extreme, forgettable pieces of junk aimed at sugared-up, horny 14 year old boys...and they'd probably both be the first to admit it.
For me the real sinners in terms of style over substance were making films when McG was still in short trousers. I'm thinking of that bevy of English commercial directors that took over the flash mantle in Hollywood in the 80s: Adrian Lyne, Alan Parker, Tony Scott..and of course the Godfather ( ) of Flash: Ridley Scott. All have made great films, but all have made junk that epitomises style over substance with a dash of pretentiousness and "high art" for good measure. Gladiator was discussed earlier in this thread. Top Gun is reprehensible, but even worse is Man on Fire with its weird camera angles and odd subtitling. Flashdance, 9 and a Half Weeks...and in spite of a very interesting story, great acting from de Niro and some genuine thrills, Angel Heart still strikes me as a very adolescent view of good and evil, with very simplistic images (fans equal death?)
Anyway, that's my rant. Signing off.
Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life, son
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 18:27:08
|
Pretension I don't mind, style over substance I don't mind. In doses, those are good things. I think Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are more stylish than substantial and I love them for it. Pretension is good too, can't make a movie without it.
Now, laziness and hypocrisy, those bring my piss to a boil. Like how I blasted Dead Poets Society and The Day the Earth Stood Still way back at page one. Hypocritical films, the both of them. For an example of lazy, let's use, oh, Night at the Museum. We've got all these fantastic ideas floating around, and the most use the film has for them is to show a monkey pissing on Ben Stiller. All these fucking things come to life, how do they interact? Do they have their own civilization? How does Caesar feel coming face to face with a Tyrannosaurus? What's it like to be one of those Civil War soldiers, coming to life every day to fight the same long-resolved war? There was potential for a whole Toy Story-esque micro-universe here, and instead we got diddly jack squat from that movie.
Here's another one that pisses me off: Seriousness. Not that serious movies are bad, but if they're going to be interesting, they have to have a subject that's important enough to justify. Anyone have to suffer through the yawnfest The Good Shepherd? Boring to the extreme, because the character never does anything to inspire the heavy tone. He's one of the least interesting characters I've ever seen, with a close second coming to everyone else in the movie. |
|
|
|
Rovark 
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 20:40:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life, son
As I read this, I've just finished off a bottle of Pinot Grigio with my dinner, I'm mildly overweight and am, lets face it, not exactly gifted.
Damn you sir, it's a perfectly good way of going through life 
|
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 23:30:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by duh
There is, however, no denying (Woody) Allen's genius.
I deny it. The highest score I've given any of his films is 6/10, i.e, only just scrapes through with a pass. Every movie of his I've seen I've forgotten about half way through the credits, (I've seen all of what are supposedly his 'best' movies).
I'm aware I'm the odd one out here, people rave about Woody's brilliance but I simply don't get it. I've never been interested in anything that any of his characters have said in any of his movies, ever. I've got other things to do (I mean better movies to watch ) than listen to the philosophising of a pretentious narcissist.
He's not funny either. Just boring. 
I'm with you on this one. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 23:51:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
... it wasn't a snuff film because the "violence" was a dramatization using makeup, actors, special effects, etc. A snuff film, as I understand the term, is composed of documentary footage of an actual violent death.
alright, true. not a snuff film per se. how 'bout "historical snuff drama?" "biblical torture porn?"
It made me feel sick. This film depicts the violence perpetrated by humans against each other. I could not switch off and see it as 'fiction'. It was utterly, totally gruesome - and I have several friends who, not really taking note of the rating, started to watch this with their children. This is not like watching a shoot-em-up or a horror film. Of course, because of Gibson's own religious leanings, his aim was to shock - in the same way that war films in later years, such as Black Hawk Down, Born on the Fourth of July and The Thin Red Line aim to shock people into the reality of war by depicting the horrible human destruction caused (not only limited to these films of course, they were just what came into my head).
Since my work is all about minority languages, I was originally drawn in by the Aramaic. Same would go for the Mayan language in his latest offering - but I have heard that Apocolypto is even more gruesome.
So anyway, to bring it back to the theme of the thread, I would list this as a 'worst film' for me for the sick-inducing reason - not Gibson being a pompous arse |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 00:09:42
|
| Do you include Black Hawk Down, Born on the Fourth of July and The Thin Red Line on your worst list for similar reasons? Actually, those films aren't very brutal at all; Saving Private Ryan would work better, but do you? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
WORST FILMS EVER
