Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it PME Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 98 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 10:36:42 PM PDT
Yeah, I saw it at the cinema when it was released. Maybe I wouldn't think it was so gruesome by today's standards, but some of those scenes really repulsed me.

Boehner & Buffalo Bob...that's a good one. I can see the resemblance. ;o)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 10:39:50 PM PDT
It is, particularly the final scene, of course, the one you're referring to. But because it was done in a different manner than 'Lambs' was, it's meant to be taken as metaphor rather than literally, I guess maybe that's why it doesn't repulse me as much. Sort of hard to explain, I know!

Posted on Jun 18, 2012 10:58:42 PM PDT
Roman85 says:
"Silence of the Lambs"......never understood the popularity of this one...I hated it..

"Lord of the Rings".....the second & third put me to sleep.....& I really wanted to like these....

"The Dark Knight".....I know people were falling all over themselves with Heath's "Joker" performance.....but come on....we saw this in 1989...it just wasn't Chicago....

"Jerry MaGuire".....before people started hating Tom Cruise....they were just falling all over themselves with this one....why I do not know!!

Posted on Aug 6, 2012 8:34:29 PM PDT
E. Horner says:
Quentino Tarantino movies, especially Pulp Fiction. After having a bunch of friends repeatedly say, "You have to see it." I broke down and tried to watch it. About half hour into and I still had absolutely no interest whatsoever. I looked and saw that there was about an hour and half left, and didn't bother to watch another minute.

Feel much the same way about Stanley Kubrick films: 2001: The cure for insomnia, The Shining: Shelly Duvall Whining, etc.

And as for recent stuff, The Avengers. Maybe it got the characters right, but the characters are pretty paper thin. And the plot is pretty much non-existent: heroes fight each other then heroes fight aliens, The End.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012 8:54:15 PM PDT
I loved Black Swan, and it is one of my favorites. Seriously, just say what you do not like, you don't have to take a dump on its chest while your at it.

Posted on Aug 11, 2012 4:03:49 PM PDT
I should probably say that I have now grown to despise Tim Burton's version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 11, 2012 5:31:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 11, 2012 5:32:24 PM PDT
Hikari says:
@pastor
I despised it sight unseen. The trailer & opening credits were quite enough.

How dare they try to remake Gene Wilder's version! That's just not on.

Posted on Aug 16, 2012 8:33:59 PM PDT
BackToGood says:
Spiderman 2-laughable, over-the-top, and silly; can't believe this one is actually in the discussion for best comic book movie OF ALL TIME!

Unforgiven-I agree with the thread OP on this one. What many see as a solemn, provocative, and realistic Western, I just see a monotone, preachy, and dull movie.

Silence of the Lambs-manipulative, slow-moving, and uninvolving "horror" movie; Hollywood's version of horror, not the real thing; Saw (the first one, at least) is actually a much better horror movie and delves more into the human psyche than SOTL; 5 big-time Oscars went to this one...Wow!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 8:41:16 PM PDT
BacktoGood: ... I wasn't laughing when Hannibal Lecter ate two people.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 8:51:40 PM PDT
BackToGood says:
I wasn't laughing either, because I was bored.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 9:00:35 PM PDT
Ms.VG says:
Unforgiven? Really?

Posted on Aug 16, 2012 10:56:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 16, 2012 10:59:16 PM PDT
Bob Bykowski says:
'The English Patient'. It dragged on far too long and had many dull passages throughout.

'Reservoir Dogs'. In my opinion, the ear-slicing/cop torture sequence was gratuitous and ruined what was otherwise a pretty interesting heist flick.

'The Sound of Music'. There's lots of musicals that I love, but this one was just pure unadulterated corn. Julie Andrews was far better in 'Mary Poppins'.
'
The Birds'. Never understood the popularity of this one. Totally wooden acting from Tippi Hedren and Rod Taylor. In my opinion, Hitchcock took a nosedive after 1960's 'Psycho' until the end of his career, save for the fantastic and underrated 'Frenzy', his return to English film-making in 1972.

'The Matrix'. Overly complicated plot to the point where you just give up.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 17, 2012 11:21:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 17, 2012 11:34:47 AM PDT
Robert:

"Frenzy" would have been ideal except for one oversight. Hitchcock wanted the characters to have the British accents that he knew when he lived there, before the Second World War. The sound of the British accents had changed markedly through and after the war. When "Frenzy" was first shown in British theaters, it drew a little laughter from some of the audiences when they heard the outdated style of British speech being used.

Even as it is, it's a good picture with a very fine cast and boasts some of the devices for which Hitch is famous -- especially the reverse tracking shot after Barry Foster, whom we now know is the necktie murderer, lures the girl into his apartment, whereupon the camera slowly draws back down the stairs, though the corridor and out into the noisey street to show the entire building including the second-floor window of Foster's apartment. And we know that no one is going to hear anything of what is about to happen there and we are helpless to do anything about it -- an example of Hitchcock's ability to manipulate an audience and make them feel a little guilty. A remarkable sequence. It's certainly a superior film to what Hitchcock had been turning out in that period.

In Hitchcock's first sound film, "Blackmail" (1929), a similar scene shows Cyril Ritchard luring Anny Ondra up into his apartment, the difference being that he is the one who get knocked off.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 17, 2012 1:04:00 PM PDT
Robert:

To paraphrase Leonard Maltin: Matrix sets up a premise and then proceeds to break its own rules. The only thing that is interesting is the atmosphere of the first half of the first film. The two sequels lose this aspect and are a complete waste of time. Too bad.

Blade Runner, on the other hand, creates and maintains an interesting "universe" throughout. It's a film I initially didn't like, but later reruns caused me to like it more and more. The beautiful rerelease of it on Blu-ray didn't hurt at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 2:18:51 PM PDT
Balok says:
@Bruce G. Taylor:

====
Even as it is, it's a good picture with a very fine cast and boasts some of the devices for which Hitch is famous -- especially the reverse tracking shot after Barry Foster, whom we now know is the necktie murderer, lures the girl into his apartment, whereupon the camera slowly draws back down the stairs, though the corridor and out into the noisey street to show the entire building including the second-floor window of Foster's apartment. And we know that no one is going to hear anything of what is about to happen there and we are helpless to do anything about it -- an example of Hitchcock's ability to manipulate an audience and make them feel a little guilty. A remarkable sequence. It's certainly a superior film to what Hitchcock had been turning out in that period.
====

IMO, that sequence is just about the *only* thing in _Frenzy_ that is worth watching. I thought that by and large the acting was no better than mediocre, and unlike in his greatest films, in which he films the story in such a way that the audience either sympathizes with the hero or is provided with a voyeuristic guilty pleasure, in _Frenzy_, the one murder that we see on screen is filmed so as to place the audience in the position of the murderer.

I think that Truffaut's analysis of the difficulties that Hitchcock faced after _Psycho_ holds up fairly well: Hitchcock was pressured by the studio to make or not make certain kinds of film, his reputation limited the kinds of properties that he was shown or that he could have gotten financing to film, the inroads of TV and the James Bond films limited him in other directions, and he missed stars of the caliber of Cary Grant and James Stewart.

Having said all that, I believe that if we're going to bring up "underrated late Hitchcock," then we should put _Family Plot_ at the top of the list.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 2:21:40 PM PDT
Balok says:
@Bruce G. Taylor:

> To paraphrase Leonard Maltin: Matrix sets up a premise and then proceeds to break its own rules.

Actually, to anyone who has studied even a small amount of physics, the premise is idiotic even before they get around to violating it. Actually, the premise is fairly idiotic even if you leave the physics aside, as I have discussed at length.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 2:48:25 PM PDT
Kevin Beirne says:
If you're already at that point with hating it you'll probably never give it a chance and sit all the way through it (Inception). I saw it in the theater, really liked it, in no way absorbed everything that happened. Bought the Blu-Ray and after the second viewing of that Blu-Ray (3rd in total) I picked up on everything.

I think, in a sea of complaining about originality, a movie that came up with a pretty original story (to me - I've never seen/read/heard anything like that story [apparently some book is similar - I never read it]), Inception was a really cool, interesting story - that was told in a very unique way in the film. The whole musical score I was most impressed by. The Italian (or French?) song they play to come out of the dream is the theme song of the flick. It is simply slowed down. I thought that mixed with the live rotating set made for a pretty sweet film.

WARNING - MY ATTEMPT TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN "INCEPTION" FOLLOWS

*SPOILER ALERT* Simple explanation of what happened....If you care to read further....Honestly if you think you'd give it a chance then DON'T READ FURTHER...INCEPTION *SPOILER ALERT*

Leo and his (smoking fire hot) wife found themselves in stuck in limbo. The 4th dream level world of infinite expanse of consciousness. They were there sooo long, they grew old together. They began to tire of this world despite its physics defying possibilities, and they wanted to get out of there.

The spinning top type device was what they used as a reminder of the fact that they are dreaming, not in reality. Leo's lady, Mal, locks her top away in a safe. There's some reason she does this - can't remember. Now she is in this dream world - with no way of convincing her that it is reality. So Leo over here - wants to get her out of that mindset, and the only way he can - is to do the whole inception thing on her.

That is when he works on convincing her, that her reality, is not real - it is a dream world. And the only way to escape - is to them both kill themselves. (stuck their heads on train tracks in front of a speeding train in the dream world)...pretty brutal... Voila! They wake up from a dream, where they perceived 50 years had passed.

The thing Leo hadn't counted on though, is that idea he implanted in her head - stuck. Now that she's back to reality, she is convinced that she must die to escape this "dream world". So he did inception on her, and she flipped her lid - kills herself.

Leo is then tormenting himself by dreaming and keeping Mal "alive" by visiting her in old memories of his. That's why she keeps coming in and messing with them during the actual plot of the film. This is also why is pursued by these men in different countries of the world, as they think he killed her.

He is called upon for his skills to do the Inception thing to the son of a very rich businessman. In the process of helping the inheritor to this massive company decide to break up the company and build his own enterprise, Leo has a breakthrough with Mal and comes back to his own reality where he can see his kids again.

Very high level explanation...IMDB has explanations and frankly quite a bit of detail on what actually happened. They even go further with some of the explanations. I think it is clear in the end of the film what happens when he spins the top one last time. It clearly begins to falter indicating he is in fact in reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 2:52:38 PM PDT
Kevin Beirne says:
That is really too bad. I love his films. Apparently there are people who very much do not. If anything, I sympathize, as I draw a great deal of entertainment from them, and feel as though you are left out.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 4:08:04 PM PDT
Hikari says:
@Kevin
Thank you for your cogent explanation of an incomprehensible movie. I watched it though twice and though I dozed off at 2 different intervals, they were separate spots of the movie so technically I have seen the entire thing once and 2/3rd of it twice (give or take--not sure how many minutes in real time I was unconscious) I discovered some things through your explanation that I had missed, both times.

"Inception" is a polarizing movie, I find. Seems like those viewers who like it *really* like it. Those that don't like it really don't. Since it got so many raves at the time and seemed like an interesting premise in the trailers, I gave it two chances, which is not my normal practice. Usually when I get frustrated/bored by a movie that's failing to engage me, it gets 20 minutes. I persevered with Inception out of my respect for this cast--not Leo or Elllen so much, but for Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Michael Caine, and last but not least, the beautiful Mme. Cotillard. Imagine my disappointment to find her playing an evil character--named "Mal" in case I needed a hint. I'm sorry to say that I just found it a disappointment on every level, but I concede that since I don't play video games, I couldn't appreciate the sensibility as much.
That's what the elaborately constructed dream world reminded me of--an extended video game sequence. The production design was stunningly realized, but it's not the kind of thing I respond to. I found it very chilly and sterile, all boom, smoke and mirrors; disjointed narrative.

The premise itself reminds me a lot of some of the work of Philip K. Dick, and the idea of the hero being caught in a dream world for 50 years has its roots in many world legends, including the 400-year-old Japanese legend of Urashima Taro. I will concede that it's kind of cool that they would put Urashima Taro into such a futuristic setting, with all the attendant bells, whistles and CGI-generated magic. I think the film was a blast to work on for the CGI animators; I am less certain if the actors had as good a time. This audience member did not have a good time; I like clever movies, but I thought Inception sunk under the weight of its own cleverness. Turns out that there can be too much of a good thing.

This is, of course, only one viewer's opinion. I actually preferred Leo in "Shutter Island" for a more straightforward narrative with some of the same creepy aspects and playing around with reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 4:18:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 20, 2012 5:30:18 PM PDT
Kevin Beirne says:
Opinion is what makes it all fun. Thank you much though. I'll admit - I had to look up cogent.

Shutter Island is fantastic and I liked Leo in it very much as well. I will say this. Shutter Island has a much higher (re-watch) value than Inception. After you get Inception I'll admit I don't enjoy it as much all the way through. I really dig the hell out of Shutter Island and the way it is put together. That one I think is more entertaining to watch again and again. Especially the ending.

I remember my friend as we are leaving the theater saying to me..."Well what's with you? You're always flipping out saying how awesome and phenomenal it was and all this? How come you aren't saying any of that? I loved it!!"

I responded that I was still contemplating what I had just seen. We had a discussion on our interpretation of Leo's words at the ending, and then I sort of had closure on what had happened - which I thought was pretty cool.

I had to watch it again (if you'll notice, Shutter Island is pretty much designed to be watched again) and after that I put it together after three or so viewings and I love it.

The majority of the public, (and myself) was let down a bit that he didn't find his partner on an operating table in that lighthouse receiving a lazer lobotomy against his will.... The flow of the movie almost makes you want him to not be nuts...but alas...I like the way it wrapped up even better. I'll stop there before I say too much if someone hasn't seen it. But Shutter Island was awesome....I LOVE Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lamb's part in it....

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2012 11:22:16 PM PDT
Mike Gordan says:
Kevin Beirne (and by extention, E. Horner): Both Stanley Kubrick and Quentin Tarantino are among the finest filmmakers of all time. If I were to single out bad films from both of them, Kubrick's would easily be his first film, Fear and Desire (a film that even Kubrick himself was embarrased of). Killer's Kiss wasn't anything that special, nor Paths of Glory, but I didn't hate either one. Tarantino, the only film of his that I loathe is Natural Born Killers, but to give him credit, he hated the end result of that picture as well; and really, he only wrote the initial script; Oliver Stone--a man I despise with every fiber of my being--altered Tarantino's vision far beyond recognition and into a corrupt exploitation flick bent on the glorification of violence under the supposed pretense of ''media satire.'' Got a bad case of Bonnie and Clyde.

Speaking of, I'm a bit skeptical on Lawless for this very same reason. If it winds up following suit of these aforementioned films, it's going to become a very unpleasant experience for me.

And as for Inception...decent, but not the most inventive film I've seen to tackle the dreamscape, and certainly not one of Christopher Nolan's best.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 21, 2012 6:50:57 AM PDT
Gordo: Funny, Paths of Glory is next in my Netflix queue after Goldfinger.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 22, 2012 4:29:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 22, 2012 5:06:25 AM PDT
It's funny....I can't imagine Tarantino making a message film. Certainly not an anti-violence message film. Violence is his forté. I've always thought that he resented Stone for making an anti-glorification-of-violence film out of one of his scripts. And Stone's 'Natural Born Killers' is clearly a statement about the desensitization of society to violence....and Stone AIN'T saying this desensitization is a good thing. No, he's saying it's bad, m-kay.

You say that Stone "altered Tarantino's vision far beyond recognition and into a corrupt exploitation flick bent on the glorification of violence under the supposed pretense of ''media satire.''". I ask: what was Tarantino's original vision for 'Natural Born Killers" that Stone so altered?

Posted on Aug 25, 2012 10:38:06 PM PDT
Mike says:
The French Lieutenants Woman

Out of Africa

Slumdog Millionaire

I'm sure some of you loved them. Just a matter of taste.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 25, 2012 10:57:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 25, 2012 10:58:19 PM PDT
Mike Gordan says:
Sloany: Well, considering the fact that Hell will freeze over long before Tarantino makes an anti-violence movie, it's safe to assume (as we will never know for certain what the finished project would have been had Tarantino directed it himself) that it would have been a dark comedic satire on media violence that doesn't take itself too seriously and would have been wildly entertaining (especially since Tarantino made even more violent films down the road such as Kill Bill and the Grindhouse double feature--the latter film--Death Proof--he directed). Oliver Stone's interpretation of said script came off more like the wet dream of a complete psychopath and is every bit unpleasant as it is pretentious.
[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
One Degree of Separation - Season Five 3296 49 minutes ago
Movie Game! Ten Movies Where . . . (June 2016) 231 1 hour ago
Pick One of Two Then Pose Another Pairing.... 211 2 hours ago
★ Return of the World's Worst Discussion Thread...Ever! ★ 129 3 hours ago
Who Shouldve Won The Oscar-1960s 55 3 hours ago
Happy Birthday, Olivia de Havilland! 2 4 hours ago
Even More Reviews on the Last Movie You Watched 4513 4 hours ago
Who Shouldve Won The Oscar-1940s 15 6 hours ago
Harvard tests show that homosexuality is from parental neglect--remeber that when you watch a film about gays or Harvard 123 6 hours ago
Another Mass Shooting in Orlando over 50 dead.... 240 7 hours ago
Who Shouldve Won The Oscar-1980s 2 7 hours ago
Alibi Lounge II: Cast Iron 2494 7 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