Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Post an unpopular statement about a classic movie


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 1125 posts in this discussion
Posted on Feb 13, 2010 4:18:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2010 4:24:18 PM PST
STAR WARS
Worst movie of all time--plus it sounded the death knell for the American cinema. This is the movie where the technogeeks took over; subsequently, American movies placed much too much emphasis on technological whiz-bang--character development and human interest went right out the window. Even on a story/plot level, it's lifeless and dull. *YAWN*

GHOSTBUSTERS
Not a bad movie for light entertainment, but not a classic; somewhat cute, but not funny.

THE WIZARD OF OZ
Yes, the 1939 classic. Margaret Hamilton is marvelous, but her part was cut in spots because it was too "scary" for the children (*yawn*). Judy Garland could carry a tune, but she was too old for her role by at least three years and was already betraying her dependence on pills, which only got worse as time went on. The songs--with exception of "Over the Rainbow"--are insipid and I can't STAND the Munchkins. *YUCK-O*

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2010 6:57:34 PM PST
stevign says:
Frederick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugk37TvIR8E

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2010 6:59:16 PM PST
PlanetHell says:
Well I think a lot of people imagine "The Dark Knight (Begins was better!!!)" will be a classic eventually so why just call it one already? Everyone knew "Star Wars" would be so why not? Why not an "instant classic?" It also made over a billion dollars.

Posted on Feb 13, 2010 7:49:43 PM PST
yeah, the "Star Wars" Prequels are better than "Jedi", I agree, & Irvin Kershner said he regretted not directing it, & yes Gary Kurtz was fired because he didn't see the point in having a second Death Star (neither did I) or Ewoks..

As for popular films I dislike...

The whole "Lord of the Rings trilogy, I could not believe people were comparing it to "Star Wars".... I tried to give it a fair viewing & here is what I got

The first film was o.k., but great... no way was it great

The "Two Towers" bored me to death, took everything I could to stay awake, which sucked because I like mystical films like this, "Star Wars EpII" out the same year was passed over in the visual effects category in favor of this one, I thought "you have got to be kidding me", "EpII" had far more superior visual effects, "Two Towers" almost put me to sleep

The third film "Return of the King" did put me to sleep!!!, how this one won Best Picture I will never know, Peter Jackson must have paid off the Academy members, could not finish this one, it was worse than the "Two Towers"!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 6:03:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 15, 2010 6:04:09 PM PST
Yep... agree with every word you said about LotR. After the first movie, I thought I might be able to tolerate the others. But it was just terminally boring to me. Films like this get Oscars for visual effects and they deserve them. Best Picture? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted on Feb 15, 2010 6:43:54 PM PST
DJ Deathwish says:
I'll comment about Night of the Living Dead. It's not so much that it's a classic because honestly it's a low budget movie with some shady acting that didn't quite come out as well as it could have, but I love it for no other reason than Romero helped shape the entire zombie sub genre for decades to come. For its time, it was original and a cool idea, but it does fall into all of the low budget trappings. I actually prefer the remake done by Tom Savini as it had a higher class of actors (Tony Todd owned his role), the story was much better, better FX, well, better everything. But I do believe Romero is a world class director in the horror genre for not only his other zombie movies, but most notably for his vampire film, Martin, which is brilliant in my eyes.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 7:37:46 PM PST
Joel,

This is guesswork on my part; the thing with L.O.T.R. might be that the Academy possibly felt that after three good films, and such a strong first film, plus so many things about these films being quality (cinematography, visuals, production design, scope, acting, and musical scores)... maybe they felt a need to reward the entire production by giving Jackson and crew some gold for the final film of the trilogy. Plus, there may have been pressure from fans to acknowledge a strong fantasy series. I don't know. These are just suspicions of mine.

It was impressive (and perhaps surprising to some) in February 2004 when THE RETURN OF THE KING swept all 11 categories in which it was nominated, joining history makers "Titanic" and "Ben-Hur," which also won eleven in the past.

Now personally, I believe that THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING deserved a golden statue moreso, not the third film. But this is individual taste.

But I want to be fair and throw some light on the subject: The trilogy's films are too long for my taste, and the heavy-handed digital magic gets to be too much. I do believe that you can make a brilliant film without relying so heavily on computers; if there is a good story, characters, and direction as a basis then you are way ahead of the game from the get-go.

Of course CGI is often necessary for making fantastic creatures and environments, but when it becomes such an integral part of a movie, the movie begins to feel a bit showy. Granted, L.O.T.R. is no SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW where every location was digitally rendered. But the trilogy gives me that feeling sometimes. There's a deep reliance on computer effects.

For me, the emotional impact of the story of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is what I remember from that film, and from the trilogy; the intensity of good against evil and the friendship of these people on their daunting quest-- these elements win me over far more than dazzling creatures and locations created on a laptop.

Sorry for prattling on so much tonight. I got to thinking about that first L.O.T.R. movie and the first time I watched it.

Posted on Feb 15, 2010 8:00:18 PM PST
I thought Saving Private Ryan was boring, self-important crap.

Posted on Feb 15, 2010 8:20:37 PM PST
batsblood says:
an unpopular statement about a classic movie? It needs to be updated, or remade.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 8:31:09 PM PST
stevign says:
William:

Boring? Were you on a morphine drip that was more like a pour than a drip?

Self-important crap? How so and who are you talking about?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 9:00:37 PM PST
It wasn't Savannah that burned, it was Atlanta. I know this because I live in Georgia.

I agree with your opinion of GONE WITH THE WIND, though. It glorifies the social parasites who seized power after Reconstruction, rigged elections to keep themselves in office, and kept the state poor and ignorant for nearly a century. Think of Scarlett "I'll never be poor again" in charge of the state treasury and you'll understand what I mean.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 9:09:49 PM PST
I always laugh when people say that some popular or interesting movie is "boring". Different people like different things. I get bored by fight scenes, but I don't say so in a review because I know other people like them. And then, some people just have short attention spans.

I despise Scarlett O'Hara and the rest of her family, but I've already explained why in another post tonight and I won't go into it again.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 9:14:03 PM PST
"E.T. sucks"?
That sentence does not convey any information unless you explain why you think it sucks.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 9:30:53 PM PST
Charles,

For the most part this thread is interesting conversation but once in a while you get a pithy little burp like "E.T. sucks" or "Gone With the Wind stinks", without anything to express reasons for the deduction. Leaves me scratching my head. That doesn't make for engaging chat at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 10:00:59 PM PST
Ü says:
There was no indication that elaboration was required. Simply "Post and unpopular statement about a classic movie."

Posted on Feb 15, 2010 10:18:58 PM PST
stevign says:
I find chase scenes.......yes, "boring". In almost every action movie there's the obligatory chase scene and over the years it's just become tedious. Thank god for my remote.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 11:13:54 PM PST
PlanetHell says:
In my opinion, every kind of movie with any kind of scene should be engaging. Yes, some chase scenes are very boring. The one In London in G.I. Joe was snooze-worthy. Some scenes with much dialoque are also boring. I for one don't think anything should be boring. If they are doing a good job at an action scene, a fight scene, a chase scene, a "revealing" scene, a dialoque-driven scene, it should'nt be boring. If it is, then it must be pretty bad on some level for me to not at least pay attention on Round 1 for at least 1 hour.

Posted on Feb 15, 2010 11:39:29 PM PST
Star Wars = The Hidden Fortress (1958 Akira Kurosawa film)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2010 11:50:17 PM PST
Ahmad says:
What really spoils the mood is when I am watching a "supposedly" classic movie, such as Wayne's The Searchers, or film noirs from the 1930's and 1940's, is the orchestral music, mostly borrowed from classical work. This music does not fit in, and has nothing to do with what is happening. The first couple of scenes in The Searchers is a good example.
I wonder if the new technology can do something in this regard, as more and more living directors are visiting their older movies and enhancing them with digital technology.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2010 12:08:44 AM PST
stevign says:
Ahmad:

That idea scares the hell out of me. I can just see The Searchers with a Hip-Hop soundtrack. LOLOL.....

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2010 7:42:08 AM PST
re: There was no indication that elaboration was required. Simply "Post and (sic) unpopular statement about a classic movie."

We are aware of the title and idea of this thread. But too many people just post "(Movie title) sucks", and then vanish. That's lame and way too easy.

I am not saying they need to write a thesis. Just a brief REASON for their view. It's easy to simply throw a post on without any thought besides "I hated it".
Even a post that says "Titanic reeks because it has nothing original in it" would be more than satisfactory. See, I'm not asking for the moon.

These are *discussions*, no? Maybe you enjoy reading post after post of two words, but I prefer some kind of conversation and sharing of ideas.

I'm not going to bring this up again because this is the second time it's come up, and I shouldn't even *have* to defend the idea of saying more than two words.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2010 7:51:51 AM PST
Ahmad said:

"What really spoils the mood is when I am watching a 'supposedly' classic movie, such as Wayne's The Searchers, or film noirs from the 1930's and 1940's, is the orchestral music, mostly borrowed from classical work. This music does not fit in, and has nothing to do with what is happening. The first couple of scenes in The Searchers is a good example.
I wonder if the new technology can do something in this regard, as more and more living directors are visiting their older movies and enhancing them with digital technology."

At first I thought this post above was a colossal joke.

First of all . . . "supposedly"? Those two are excellent examples of classic film.

The scores from "The Searchers" and "The Maltese Falcon" don't fit the films? The filmmakers didn't just pick some random popular classical music. Max Steiner and Adolph Deutsch worked carefully on those scores to enhance the stories, conflict, and images within each film.

Wanting new technology to erase or replace classic film scores? Frightening thought.

Posted on Feb 16, 2010 7:53:59 AM PST
Oh, by the way: John Huston died in 1987, and John Ford died in 1973.
So much for "living directors", lol.

Posted on Feb 16, 2010 8:21:58 AM PST
Wow, I really feel I have found family here! I thought I was the only person who hated Gone With the Wind and Blade Runner, but I see some reasonable people feel the same! Y'all come over for a beer any time.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2010 10:05:15 AM PST
stevign says:
Sardy"

re: "I shouldn't even *have* to defend the idea of saying more than two words."

Beware of what you ask for, you just might get it.
[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

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  198
Total posts:  1125
Initial post:  Feb 9, 2010
Latest post:  1 hour ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions