Truck Month Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Jessy Lanza Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Luxury Beauty The Baby Store Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Outdoor Recreation
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Movies that got great reviews that you hated! (and state why)

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-98 of 98 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2012 3:20:09 AM PDT
D. Duarte says:
Ms.VG says:
Unforgiven? Really?

Yes, Ms. VG, really. Look, all movies are emotionally manipulative, that's what we pay for, but jeez, have a little subtlety about it, you know?

Eastwood formula: over-the-top cartoonish bad guys (clearly designed to be easy to hate) picking on poor hapless but lovable victims, then gritty (or grumpy) guy with a heart of gold comes to the rescue. Really? Oy vey!

Posted on Aug 26, 2012 3:32:25 AM PDT
I thought the line between good guy and bad guy was a little blurry in 'Unforgiven'. In fact, I thought it one of the films strengths.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2012 3:39:37 AM PDT
D. Duarte says:
No, Eastwood was the good guy...and some bully (or bullies?) were the bad guys.

I'm a little blurry on the film in general as I don't tend to remember really boring, transparent and predictable movies too well. But wasn't there the cliche'd hooker with a heart of gold who was preggers that Eastwood protects, or avenges, or something like that?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2012 3:44:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 26, 2012 4:22:18 AM PDT
"Oliver Stone's interpretation of said script came off more like the wet dream of a complete psychopath..."

I don't see that. Stone shows empathy* for the killers, even reasons why they are so damaged, because he is trying to say that society (parents, neighbours, teachers, peers, etc) plays a part. You seem to be implying that Stone himself is a psychopath who's film is designed to inspire violence. To me, this couldn't be further from the truth. I'd agree that the film is unpleasant. I'd say Stone meant it to be. Making the point that we, through media of all types, have become desensitized to violence, isn't easy to do without being confronting, at times disturbing, and certainly unpleasant. Not to say it would be or is impossible, just to say it would be difficult.

*Empathy and Psychotic aren't two words that generally sit together. By showing an interest in curbing violence and empathy to society in general, Stone shows that he isn't psychotic.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2012 3:45:22 AM PDT
Yeah, whatever.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2012 10:43:52 AM PDT
BackToGood says:
Unforgiven definitely hit the viewer over the head with it's message. Most of the characters were expository and too similar. I thought Gene Hackman and Richard Harris stood out, though.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 22, 2012 11:33:02 PM PST
D. Duarte says:
Clint Eastwood is cliche'd and non-stop predictable.

When he directed "Bird" there was a far superior movie released that same year, covering the same territory, called "'Round Midnight."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 10:48:36 AM PST
D. Duarte:

Well, not quite. "Bird" was about Charlie Parker and "'Round Midnight" was supposedly about Lester Young. "'Round Midnight" was, indeed, a very fine picture. It was one of the very few dramatic movies I can think of in which musicians were actually performing before the camera.

In the remake of Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" I noted that Bernard Herrmann was conducting and the orchestra and singers in the Albert Hall were actually performing the piece being heard. But then there is a cut to the percussion section and we see that the tympanist's mallets are not touching the instrument while he is "playing." Also, very few actors can realistically fake playing a violin.

The award for worst example of faking playing a piano goes to Dooley Wilson in "Casablanca."

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 10:53:34 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2012 7:14:59 AM PST
"The Greatest Show On Earth" that got the Oscar for Best Picture of 1952 was the greatest travesty on Earth for that year. The film runs just over 2 1/2 hours and is a crashing bore.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 1:05:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 1:07:22 PM PST
Bob Bykowski says:
'The English Patient'. Slow-paced, too lengthy, depressing as hell, the actors seemed bored and too graphic showing the body burns.

'Precious'. The only point of interest was that it outdid 'Scarface' for using the f-word the most times.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 1:07:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 1:09:41 PM PST
alexwilbury says:
Inception. The entire movie is spent explaining itself. It gets so bad that they should have called it "Exposition" instead. This is a problem with several of Nolan's movies, really. The characters just sort of spell out the point of the movie to everyone. Another problem with Inception is that none of the characters are likable or possible to relate to. They're all really boring and bland, and that's never a good thing when you've got such a bizarre story as Inception that you're trying to tell. It could have been a good movie if Nolan would have handed his story off to a better writer.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 1:09:51 PM PST
Cavaradossi says:
The English Patient is one example of a film where the trailer turned me off and I've never seen the movie as a result. It's curious how full my life has been even with never having seen that movie.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 1:24:35 PM PST
Bob Bykowski says:

Believe didn't miss ANYTHING by not seeing it !

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 3:19:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 3:20:59 PM PST
nysnowbird92 says:
no, the negative votes are in reply to your attitude.. people gave you negative votes because they like the movie and don't appreciate you accusing them of being racists because of it.. liking the movie for the good acting doesn't mean the person is a racist because the white lady was supposedly a racist.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 5:16:52 PM PST
D. Duarte says:

You missed the point and drank the Kool-Aid as well. There is no "great acting," but there are great performances coached out by a director, with perhaps an aid from the DP for framing and presenting it well, along with a well written script to convey a message.

I once saw Anthony Hopkins and Isabella Rossellini in a b-movie where their acting was on a par with every other movie they'd been in, but you couldn't tell, because the movie was so poorly written, directed, and shot, that it was unnoticeable.

As far as "Driving Miss Daisy" goes, you pretty much have to be a backwards thinking racist to find that message poignant in this day and age. How about a movie suggesting that we shouldn't beat up people in wheelchairs? Huh? Just because they're in wheelchairs, they're real people too, who put on their pants... well, maybe someone else puts on their paints for them get the idea. Would that be a movie you'd love to see?

Probably not. And not because you're against the message, it's just that it's so obvious as to be a bit beneath you, with regards to where you are in life in needing to "learn" this message.

This is my attitude towards "Daisy." How lovely for the old bitty that she got a bit of humanity before she "kicked the bucket," with pun intended.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 6:53:30 PM PST
Cavaradossi says:
Robert Bykowski

Re The English Patient

Isn't it strange that it won the Best Picture Oscar for its year? When I've been in discussions with other film fans over the years about Oscar winners of the past, no one ever mentions The English Patient. I'm left with the impression the movie may be many things, possibly even important, but memorable isn't among them.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 6:58:15 PM PST
D. Duarte says:

When will it dawn on people that one man's trash is another's memorable movie? :-)

There of course have been a lot of crap Best Pictures, "Unforgiven," "...Miss Daisy," and "Crash," come to mind.

Posted on Dec 24, 2012 7:25:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2012 7:40:24 AM PST
"Rocky" that won Best Picture Oscar of 1976 beating out "All the President's Men" and "Network." That's something for which I will never forgive the Academy.

And, of course, "Crash" beating "Brokeback Mountain" in 1975, but we all know what was behind that.

Posted on Dec 24, 2012 8:02:06 AM PST
Larry Kelley says:
"Terms of Endearment" Major soap opera with a fat Jack Nicholson. Kept thinking why doesn't she just DIE! about the Debra Winger character.
"The Way We Weren't" Major soap opera. No "chemistry" between Redford/Streisand. Harlequin Romance soap opera.
"The Wild One" Stupid Movie. One good line in the whole movie. Even Lee Marvin sucked.
"Apocalypse Now" Totally uneven. Mostly BS.
"Platoon". First 15-20 minutes were good, rest was cowboys and Indians with BS at the end
"Easy Rider" mostly a stupid movie. Boring. Snore. Watching someone do drugs? I rather be waterboarded.

Posted on Dec 24, 2012 8:18:46 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2012 8:21:42 AM PST
Cavaradossi says:
Larry Kelley

I don't know your age, but Easy Rider was best experienced when it was new. Even though I wasn't part of the hippie culture, I did understand Easy Rider's significance in movie history and the culture of the nation in the late sixties. It was quite an experience to see it at that time, but it may have been an experience hard to replicate in later years. I remember that when I saw it on video back in the eighties, it remained an interesting film, but without its initial impact.

I suspect that Easy Rider's main interest for audiences of the home theater era lies in watching Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson for the first time on screen.

Posted on Dec 24, 2012 9:16:55 AM PST
Larry Kelley says:
CAV: I saw it when it came out, age then about 25. At the time I could not see what others saw in Nicholson--didn't care for "Five Easy Pieces" either. I was very anti-hippie at the time, anti-drug. I was also not real happy with the South, having gone to Tech school in Biloxi, MS, and was about as welcome there as a pork chop at a Jewish wedding. (I am a white boy, non-Jewish). The only part of the movie that I could relate to is Fonda/Hopper getting blown off their bikes by drive by southern boys. I could see that that might happen. To me this was a movie take-off of the TV series "Route 66" with a couple of scummy drug dealers. I really do not have a clear memory of the entire film, but I am pretty sure I still wouldn't care much for it. The movie had no hero, no decent people in it, no message worth hearing, the production values were bad, editing not so good, etc. It might have been, in some way, a step up from the movies that Fonda and/or Hopper were making at the time, "The Trip" and "Glory Stompers", but not by much in my estimation.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 9:34:48 AM PST
LK: Glad to see someone else agree about Easy Rider.

However, the only one on your list I object to is Apocalypse Now. It may be a tad uneven, but Coppola is such a strong visual director, and the choices made here make it the most satisfying Vietnam epic, and one of the greatest of all war films.

Posted on Dec 24, 2012 10:57:29 AM PST
Larry Kelley says:
POM: I will grant you visual imagery and the occasional vignette that is powerful and quite possibly accurate. But the entire thing with Brando/Kurtz/Sheen has little to do with anything other than Coppola's imagination--and that entire portion of the movie, other than the trip up river with the AK's popping from the shoreline, was all a fairy-tale told incoherently. As far as satisfying VNW movies, there aren't going to be any. We didn't win, and there are so many stories, true and false, that came out of that fiasco, that making a coherent movie that is also believable is going to extremely difficult. Simply getting the language right, the way that the guys in the bush talked, the slang they used, the phrases they used, is apparently not something that the movie makers have tried much to do with the movies I have seen--and I think I watched most of them. Think about it, can you tell the story of "Apocalypse Now" without watching it again, almost scene by scene and taking notes. Even if you did, you wouldn't be able to explain it. I apologize, I start to lecture and I shouldn't. I actually liked some of the movie, not because of it's accuracy, just because of the action.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Movie forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Movie Game! Ten Movies Where . . . (March 2015) 9736 6 minutes ago
101 Movie Cliches 1545 17 minutes ago
Even More Reviews on the Last Movie You Watched 3982 1 hour ago
Round 2: What's the LAST movie that comes to mind when you see these words? 5 2 hours ago
Who's the hottest babe, which she herself, makes a movie worth watching? 952 2 hours ago
Pick One of Two Then Pose Another Pairing.... 90 3 hours ago
Movies For Preppers/Survivalists? 18 4 hours ago
William Shatner's Newest Movie 0 4 hours ago
The movie review thread for people who don't write movie reviews so well 335 5 hours ago
One Degree of Separation - Season Five 2464 5 hours ago
Round 40: What's the first movie that comes to mind when you see these words? 7 6 hours ago
Describe the last movie(s) you saw in three words 180 6 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  30
Total posts:  98
Initial post:  Jun 13, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions