"classic" Movies That You Piss On

[Agent ONE]

The only movie I can think of off hand that I absolutely hate, but is considered a classic by most is Monty Python's Holy Grail.  It's not funny.  At all.

357605[/snapback]

BLASPHEMER!!!! I was raised on Python and love it all, though some parts of MoL were dumb I admit. Man as an engineer you practically have to be able to quote half of Holy Grail to graduate, especially the witch/duck speach.

357702[/snapback]

Actually, you just named another big reason I hate this film. People who insist on quoting it ad nauseam.

357737[/snapback]

Hell yeah man, I hate that. And they do it in some lame ass fake Limie accent. They sound so lame I'd like to eat their souls.

[Sundown]

You know, I was watching it again last night, and I do have to agree that it totally fails to get the ironic smirk that noir voice-over usually has. But the reason I think it works is because it makes Deckard look more like a depressed prick, which is pretty much how I picture him.

At least some of the feelings I have about it is pretty much on having seen the director's cut first. To me, the narration just felt out of character, given Ford's somber and spacy expression most of the time, and much of it didn't seem like something the brooding-in-silence Deckard of the director's cut would say. It just feels... different. I think wry and ironic still could have worked, especially since I live wry and ironic... but there was just something screwy with the delivery that makes Deckard sound lame rather than a cool sort of ass. I really should watch the whole thing through though.

[Ginrai]

At least some of the feelings I have about it is pretty much on having seen the director's cut first.  To me, the narration just felt out of character, given Ford's somber and spacy expression most of the time, and much of it didn't seem like something the brooding-in-silence Deckard of the director's cut would say.  It just feels... different.  I think wry and ironic still could have worked, especially since I live wry and ironic... but there was just something screwy with the delivery that makes Deckard sound lame rather than a cool sort of ass.  I really should watch the whole thing through though.

357786[/snapback]

Another thing that may be going on here is I've also read the book, so that may be coloring my perceptions, too. But I did see it with narration first, and I've always pictured Deckard as kind of a jerk. I really don't know how else to take him, especially in the scenes with Rachael.

[mikeszekely]

Johnny Depp for example, guy is a fukin commie, and should die for his beliefs, however I like him on screen.

Yeah, like 99% of Hollywood is liberal, communist, or religious nut. And the really irritating ones are the one who think that their fame automatically makes them an expert who's life mission is to dictate their beliefs at everyone else.

Doesn't mean that they can't act, though. I'll even admit to liking some of Tom Cruise's recent works, like the Last Samurai and War of the Worlds, despite the fact that he's a freaking nutjob.

Similarly, being a great human being doesn't equate to great acting skills. Ronald Reagan's one of my personal heroes, but you don't see me rushing out to pick up any of the Gipper's old flicks.

[Spatula]

Citizen Kane  

357069[/snapback]

Quoted for truth. Wayyyy....baccckkk when I was stilll in HS...this is like 5-6 years now, so we did this film study for our English class and we had to do a "disection" of a 30 second part of a film. So we all did ours, and finally the teacher at that time raved all about this Citizen Kane movie. Thank god she only showed the first five minutes.

What's funny is this exact movie was what I wanted to put down the first moment I saw the thread title.

[Spatula]

2001: a space idiocy

I read the book and it was a great science fiction story.... however the movie is a POS

357156[/snapback]

Nah, I found this was one of the few Kubrick films I could actually enjoy (for the first bit). Yes it seemed slow as hell, 15 minutes just for a docking shot, and like 30 minutes or so of apes running around prior to. I liked it up to the point where I think one of the astronauts gets back onto the Oydessy or whatever that ship is called to take out Hal. WHAT ARE YOU DOING! DON'T TOUCH MA MOTHER...board....let me sing you a song...lalalalalaal.

After that I found it just ...egh.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Spatula

[trueblueeyes]

I don't care what anyone says, not even the car wrecks can save the steaming pile of poo that was the original Gone In 60 Seconds

Another most-hated: Duel. I wanted to kill Dennis Weaver's character myself. That was one of those late night TNT movie repeats that I watched and then felt disgusted for sitting through it.

[Sundown]

Another thing that may be going on here is I've also read the book, so that may be coloring my perceptions, too. But I did see it with narration first, and I've always pictured Deckard as kind of a jerk. I really don't know how else to take him, especially in the scenes with Rachael.

357796[/snapback]

To me, he seems pretty much tired of the world, so ends up just saying whatever he thinks, which has him being tactless in that moment with Rachael. I didn't see him as being insincere when he said he was kidding about her being a replicant, and it came off more like he was lamely trying to cover up when she started crying, but I could have read him wrong.

I actually liked the interaction between him, the noodle guy, and Gaff, and was hoping for more of that... and I think the tone of the narration matches better the personality portrayed in those beginning scenes, but in the director's cut, Deckard just ends up heading down spacey sombersville from there, having no one he can really play his thoughts off of, and he becomes more and more inscrutable. So the director's cut ends up being a lonely sort of movie, but loneliness is only interesting if you can get inside someone's head. It's almost more unbearable to have to watch it.

[Apollo Leader]

Easy Rider is a flat out horrid movie.

Citizen Kane is what it is because it changed the way movies looked forever. What Orson Welles did with shots and angles has influenced every director that has come since. No single other movie in the history of film has had the influence that Citizen Kane has.

Personally, I adore Breakfast at Tiffany's, and Jimmy Stewart is one of my favorite actors.

357100[/snapback]

YOU like Jimmy Stewart!??? Next you are going to tell me you like the Mets.

357103[/snapback]

You should give Jimmy Stewart some major respect. The guy walked away from a lucrative hollywood career when WWII started and flew B29 bombers in combat, only returning to film when the war ended. Show me any actor you worship today that would do that. Van Damme or Arnold? ha

357579[/snapback]

Yup, and he stayed in the Air Force, eventually retiring as a Brigadier General. You don't get good old fashioned patriotic movie stars like that anymore. These days, they're mostly a bunch of whining left wing chumps who pick some obscure cause and put their name on it so it looks like they care about the little people.

357647[/snapback]

Jimmy Stewart also flew several B-52 missions in Vietnam. As for World War II, I thought he flew missions in Europe so I think he was on either B-17's, B-24's, or maybe both (guess I should look it up). Strategic Air Command is an almost rough autobography of himself. When he's flying B-36 Peacemakers and B-47 Stratojets in that movie, he truly deserved to fill in the shoes of that character.

Hey, when is Strategic Air Command coming out on DVD anyway????

Though Jimmy Stewart may not be the greatest actor ever, but one thing is for sure is Jimmy Stewart represents a Hollywood of a long gone era... one that represents and was in touch with the real America.

[kanata67]

The only movie I can think of off hand that I absolutely hate, but is considered a classic by most is Monty Python's Holy Grail.  It's not funny.  At all.

357605[/snapback]

BLASPHEMER!!!! I was raised on Python and love it all, though some parts of MoL were dumb I admit. Man as an engineer you practically have to be able to quote half of Holy Grail to graduate, especially the witch/duck speach.

357702[/snapback]

Actually, you just named another big reason I hate this film. People who insist on quoting it ad nauseam.

357737[/snapback]

Hell yeah man, I hate that. And they do it in some lame ass fake Limie accent. They sound so lame I'd like to eat their souls.

357779[/snapback]

better off eating their still beating hearts as anybody who still quotes MP in a fake limey accent has no soul. Thats not against MP but rather against dumbasses in general who quote movies ad nauseam. God the number of really bad movie quotes I've had to hear over and over again...

"dude, where's my car?"

"warriors... come out and play-a"

"what... behind the rabbit?"

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

"I'll be back"

"schwing" [god do I hate wayne's world!]

"it's not a tumor" [i actually don't mind that one to much ]

"that's not a knife, this is a knife" [granted I have said that... but knives really were involved... or swords in my case anyways ]

now I want to pay somebody to follow agent-one around for a day clapping coconut halves together

and come on... the "How not to be seen" skit was friggin hilarious

[Dobber]

Citizen Kane  

357069[/snapback]

Wayyyy....baccckkk when I was stilll in HS...this is like 5-6 years now,

357839[/snapback]

Chris

[Knight26]

2001: a space idiocy

I read the book and it was a great science fiction story.... however the movie is a POS

357156[/snapback]

Nah, I found this was one of the few Kubrick films I could actually enjoy (for the first bit). Yes it seemed slow as hell, 15 minutes just for a docking shot, and like 30 minutes or so of apes running around prior to. I liked it up to the point where I think one of the astronauts gets back onto the Oydessy or whatever that ship is called to take out Hal. WHAT ARE YOU DOING! DON'T TOUCH MA MOTHER...board....let me sing you a song...lalalalalaal.

After that I found it just ...egh.

357842[/snapback]

The biggest problem with the movie 2001 was that Kubrick and Asimov were both writing the movie and book versions seperately. The first half of the movie is almost straight off the book and the short stories from which it was originally derived. The big split comes towards the end, I used to have a web page bookmarked that showed the various differences and explained them.

[Knight26]

I don't care what anyone says, not even the car wrecks can save the steaming pile of poo that was the original Gone In 60 Seconds

YOu are talking the remake right? The original is funny, car chasing and crashing campy gold. I used to watch the original all the time with my dad, though what they do that poor Shelby mustang is a crime. Funny thing is that car still runs.

[reddsun1]

I don't care what anyone says, not even the car wrecks can save the steaming pile of poo that was the original Gone In 60 Seconds

YOu are talking the remake right? The original is funny, car chasing and crashing campy gold. I used to watch the original all the time with my dad, though what they do that poor Shelby mustang is a crime. Funny thing is that car still runs.

357984[/snapback]

I suppose it depends on the individual's definition of "classic." In the case of GI60S, no one would [or should] argue that the original is not a b-movie lover's cheese-fest--the plot, the acting, etc--yeah, we know it's pretty "bad" going in...but the chase! Whoa Nelly! That's what's considered classic, I think. It could arguably be considered one of the forerunner's of the current trend in movies for over-the-top-blow-you-through-the back-of-your-seat action scenes. Hell, the first time I saw that chase scene, I felt like I needed a cigarette afterwards...and I don't smoke. Shelby? In the original? What Shelby? That's a Mach I, power courtesy of a 351W.

Holy crap! I thought you guys were just b/s'ing earlier--James Stewart really did fly missions in WWII? Whoa, that's fuggin' cool, and quite deserving of respect. Certainly an understated hero--while he had some gritty "world-weary" roles, he never seemed to play any tough guys, who wore it on their sleeves, so to speak.

Edited January 6, 2006 by reddsun1

[Agent ONE]

I don't care what anyone says, not even the car wrecks can save the steaming pile of poo that was the original Gone In 60 Seconds

YOu are talking the remake right? The original is funny, car chasing and crashing campy gold. I used to watch the original all the time with my dad, though what they do that poor Shelby mustang is a crime. Funny thing is that car still runs.

357984[/snapback]

I didn't think much of the original. boring.

[Ginrai]

The biggest problem with the movie 2001 was that Kubrick and Asimov were both writing the movie and book versions seperately.

357982[/snapback]

Uh, Asimov didn't write 2001. Arthur C. Clarke did.

[areaseven]

You are talking the remake right?  The original is funny, car chasing and crashing campy gold.  I used to watch the original all the time with my dad, though what they do that poor Shelby mustang is a crime.  Funny thing is that car still runs.

357984[/snapback]

The original movie used a 1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1, not a Shelby. The 2000 remake used a 1967 Ford Mustang Shelby GT 500.

[Spatula]

Citizen Kane  

357069[/snapback]

Wayyyy....baccckkk when I was stilll in HS...this is like 5-6 years now,

357839[/snapback]

Chris

357910[/snapback]

Trust me, even though I'm only 21 makes me feel like I'm in the fourties already. Somethings just don't seem.... the same.

Ya young whippersnappers....

[Nightbat]

The original movie used a 1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1, not a Shelby. The 2000 remake used a 1967 Ford Mustang Shelby GT 500.

357996[/snapback]

"a" Mustang? ....more like 12

while rumour has it the original Gi60s was done with one and the same car

[areaseven]

"a" Mustang? ....more like 12

while rumour has it the original Gi60s was done with one and the same car

358015[/snapback]

Bruckheimer & Co. had around a dozen or so Shelbys for his version of the movie (if you count the CG render used for the bridge jump).

And yes, only one car was used for the stunts in the original Gone in 60 Seconds. The late H.B. "Toby" Halicki had the Mach 1 reinforced with a NASCAR-grade rollcage. He did all the driving, including one stunt gone wrong when he spun on the freeway and knocked over a telephone pole.

[trueblueeyes]

I don't care what anyone says, not even the car wrecks can save the steaming pile of poo that was the original Gone In 60 Seconds

YOu are talking the remake right? The original is funny, car chasing and crashing campy gold. I used to watch the original all the time with my dad, though what they do that poor Shelby mustang is a crime. Funny thing is that car still runs.

357984[/snapback]

No, I assure you that I am talking about the original. Although I have to admit the remake is even worse, since the original at least had a great chase with spectacular crashes. But plot and dialogue....if I ever watch it again, it will be on mute. And BTW, the original was a Mach 1, not a Shelby.

.......................

Was it ever revealed who owns the trashed Mach 1 from the original? I remember reading in a magazine that the current owner refused to restore it and was keeping it in "post movie" condition.

[trueblueeyes]

The 2000 remake used a 1967 Ford Mustang Shelby GT 500.

Not really. Although the engine sounds were taken from a real '67 Shelby sporting a 428 cubic inch engine making about 500 horsepower, most of the 11 cars actually used in filming were dressed up regular '67 Mustangs with 289 engines and automatic transmissions (a couple of the ones used for crashes didn't even have engines).

[EXO]

The only movie I can think of off hand that I absolutely hate, but is considered a classic by most is Monty Python's Holy Grail.  It's not funny.  At all.

357605[/snapback]

BLASPHEMER!!!! I was raised on Python and love it all, though some parts of MoL were dumb I admit. Man as an engineer you practically have to be able to quote half of Holy Grail to graduate, especially the witch/duck speach.

357702[/snapback]

Actually, you just named another big reason I hate this film. People who insist on quoting it ad nauseam.

357737[/snapback]

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Blade runner will always be a sci fi classic to me personally. I loved those giant bilboard ads and the floating cars (so many futures have them floating like Fifth Element for eg. Everyone wants a george jetson antigravity car) and generaly the dark moody atmosphere.

The whole reason it is dark where you can't see poo is because thats how lots of sci fi was back then. The future was meant to be depressing. Look at terminator for example. Man you had to put the brightnes up on that thing to even see the background. It took place at night mainly because they wanted to frighten you so that being killed was showed in a way that looked like the shadows themselves were what attacks you. Somehting out of nowhere. Nowadays the future is bright and clean.

I also liked the idea that there was this one specialist cop who hunts the machines down (ie megaman style) but is pummeled by them. Of course the machines are murderers and very dangerous to humans now that they are loose, but we realise they are just slaves who want to experience something better, thus not bad people at all.

In many ways thier "limited lifespan" forced upon them due to the danger of them becoming too knowledgeable and self aware is similar to the humans who in biblical stories had once lived up to 900 years. If allowed to live longer the amount of knowledge a single being could accumulate might get dangerous. We are like candles that can only burn for a certain time - only allowed to experience just enough and then flicker out and die lest we become too smart for our own good.

Could the androids themselves by feared because the brighter they get, the less needed the humans are so they are given crappy conditions to "keep them down"? If the machines were allowed to become immortal what then? They will create a revolution using thier intelligence? The "man keeping the robots down" theme runs in so many sci fi nowadays. (ie matrix, gits, AI, Robocop etc) It is no wonder machines like agent smith almost seem like the good guy and do the same back to the humans. For so long in many shows humans have shown predjudice to them and treated them as slaves. (even in space battleship yamato that little robot was treated like crap poor little guy)

It's like there are two ways you could look at androids:

a) they are dangerous and went 'crazy' and 'out of control' so must be stopped. Humans are justified in it.

b) they are normal people, who just want to experience life like human, but are being unfairly treated. Victims because they are automatically thought of as souless beings because we created them as a tool. Not realising that they unlike humans which die around max 120 years could accumulate too much information if allowed to stay alive for longer than humans. (maybe become geniuses due to all the experience they collect and learn?)

I think BR takes all those themes I like in a scifi movie and puts that into 1 movie. Was the detective himself just being used like a tool by humans? His innocence is what makes him stand out in the dark non-innocent world that he lives in.

I think one of the reasons it is considered classic is more that there is a lot of discussion about its meaning and that discussion is partly why it stands out in science fiction so much. You have to be anal to understand it but it is like letting the audience try and unravel the mystery themself to make them think (very much like matrix) rather than have all the answers put right in front of them. There is an FAQ about the movie here:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/bladerunner-faq/

It may be boring to some, but to me it had all the ingrediants that I like in a movie. People's impressions about things change over time. Maybe like a fine wine it gets better and thier tastes become different as they get sick of seeing the same formula over and over again? That might be another reason why others regard it classic. Maybe it wasn't popular for its time on first impression when released, but people "started to like it more later" kind-of-thing = turns into automatic classic when looking back at its influence.

It also is a movie that is relevent to our times what with AI and all. In the real world you can fake digital 'life' through "artificial life" programs: there is a pc game called Creatures whose behaviour is not dependant purely on hard code. You do not have to be geek to be tech savvy and to know that in the future machines can learn the more they try and try and like a baby learn from mistakes and finally get "smart". They have demonstrated how robots can learn to chase each other with simple experiment and no programmer have lines that control the "HOW" of doing the simple task. It learns through trial and error.

Also I agree with the other guy about wanting to explore the world more. It's an interesting dark sci-fi world. I hate the clean futures like Minority Report and AI. I prefer the "depressing dark underbelly of society" type setting which takes place at night and there is danger from all kinds of things. (like that game ShadowRun - cyber hackers, gangs, people involved in a corporate conspiracy to rule the world taking over government with thier own private army and arming them with the highest tech etc)

I think a lot of old people may not like the edgy movie like pulp fiction because it breaks molds. And so what you have is this war between the old farts (I typed "farts", this was not censored ) and the daring who are aware of formulas and sick of that from watching so many movies. The old farts are right, but "so are we. Change can be good". I'm no film student but when I go to see a movie if it is entertaining and/or it tries to show me something I haven't seen before, (remember when Aliens came out, they tried hard to not repeat the same thing and even add to the alien mythos with queens and nests) then I take especialy more notice of it. Like yamato toys of the vf1, too much milking of the mold happens, and turns people away if they think they have seen something done before the same way and/or done better.

Edited January 9, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[yellowlightman]

LowViz Lurker, your midterm essay gets an F because it was not properly double spaced or proof read. Please proof read, reformat it and turn it in during my office hours.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

At least there are no spelling mistakes or typos. Doesn't that count?

hehe yeah it does look like an essay. Or just a really long apreciation comment.

I think there needs to be balance though. Oftentimes you get crowds that are like "it's cool to hate" because once the mainstream recognises something they don't want to go with the grain. (ie no longer cool to like something because so many other people like it now.) I remember when matrix first came out, I liked it and wasn't afriad to say I liked it. Then what happened was it got hyped and hyped and people wouldn't stop shutting up about it, and now would be afraid to say it was a good movie lest I end up being thought of as mindless drone or fanboy.

But once they released sequels and made animes, and made games, and made all kinds of merchandise to transform the movie into a franchise....that is when the after effect of "now it's much easier to hate matrix in general" started to come around. The movie was good for reasons like good fx, characters that go back to the 80s cyberpunk style of "trencoat and guns and dark sunglasses", having action scenes that were dramatic and interesting etc ...But daamn, did they try to milk it later. When you saw other movies copy what they did and clone it, (charlies angels) you could then blame it for the overuse of cg and wire stunts and the fascination with leather and PVC in other movies, and blame it when hollywood wanted to cash in on its influence from fans of that movie.

For many people who just went to see it as a normal movie interested in the dark vision of future, we would just praise it on things we liked and moved on. It did show interesting fights, it had attitude and style, the main villain was cool, it ripped the ideas we liked form other things we saw, but now it is easy to hate due to the overhype. Maybe in future people will call it classic, but to me I think it did enough interesting things (like making us all think of our existence from a "computer prgram with lines of code governing natures laws" perspective) that it deserves the credit it got before the hype train came.

Edited January 9, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[cschell]

A "classic" that I can't stand is Apocalypse Now. I remember this one especially because my cousin always ranted about how terrible it was, despite the fact that it was generally well regarded.

So I finally watch it, and in the beginning it seems pretty good and I'm wondering what my cousin's problem was with it. Then it gets to the part with Brando, and the whole movie dies a horrible death. How exactly was this guy supposed to be a great actor?

[KingNor]

If you consider Pulp Fiction or Resevoir Dogs classic, then I hate those.  Well, I hate them even if you don't consider them classic.  Frankly, I hate pretty much everything Tarantino's ever done, and I fail to see why he gets so much hype.

357194[/snapback]

Whoa! I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Preach on brotha!

357201[/snapback]

add me to this.

the guy is annoying. the guy writes lame crap that appeals to highschool kids with its phoney sophistication.

terrible. arg. hate.

[KingNor]

A "classic" that I can't stand is Apocalypse Now.  I remember this one especially because my cousin always ranted about how terrible it was, despite the fact that it was generally well regarded.

So I finally watch it, and in the beginning it seems pretty good and I'm wondering what my cousin's problem was with it.  Then it gets to the part with Brando, and the whole movie dies a horrible death.    How exactly was this guy supposed to be a great actor?

358579[/snapback]

yes, ride of the valkyries is good, some of the boat stuff is good, but about 2/3rds of the way in it starts getting weird and.. really drugged.

imho it starts to feel sloppy, the first half of the movie feels tight like its going someplace. the second half seems like the entire crew doesn't give a poo and is stoned.

[yellowlightman]

add me to this.

the guy is annoying.  the guy writes lame crap that appeals to highschool kids with its phoney sophistication.

terrible.  arg.  hate.

358581[/snapback]

The only thing sophisticated in a Tarantino thread is the editing, really. He doesn't tend to deal with too many complex ideas.

Not to mention, anyone who claims to like action movies and dislikes Kill Bill part 1 is certifiably insane.

[promethuem5]

the guy is annoying. the guy writes lame crap that appeals to highschool kids with its phoney sophistication.

Woah woah woah woah.... not all of us! I hate Tarentino soooo much... and like real sophistication! Yeah! Teen-power!

[macplus]

Blade runner is not bad, the plot is a bit weak maybe, but the scenario is great, however as for crappy classic sci-fi that movie "Tron" is one of the more overated POS ever, it's like that movie called "War Games" or something like that with Mathew Broderic, bleh!

[yellowlightman]

I just watched the original cut of Blade Runner on TV, and man, that narration is garbage. The "happy" ending with The Shining footage is garbage too.

Director's Cut is waaaaaay better.

[Agent ONE]

LowViz Lurker, your midterm essay gets an F because it was not properly double spaced or proof read. Please proof read, reformat it and turn it in during my office hours.

358565[/snapback]

I don't read a single post that guy makes... Its too much work, and at the end you realize that you have just wasted the last few min reading incorherent crap.

[Agent ONE]

...

the guy is annoying.  the guy writes lame crap that appeals to highschool kids with its phoney sophistication.

terrible.  arg.  hate.

358581[/snapback]

Just because highschool kids with phony sophistication like him doesn't mean he sucks... Often famous people aren't happy with their fan following. You think Lucy Lawliss is happy about being a lezbo icon? Should we hold it against her? You think Patrick Stewart and his classic theatre training is happy with armies of dorks asking him if he asked Riker to shave his beard?