The Explain Why You Like This Movie ('cause I don't understand) Thread

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I hear you. I thought that movie was pretty terrible.

I can understand not liking it but terrible? Rly?

It's a fascinating story and DiCaprio and Blanchett give their best performances IMO, what's so terrible about it?

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I shall throw this one into the mix.... I like Black & White war movies I like Peter Sellers I like satire I like the majority of Kubrick's other stuff So why do I find this such a bore fest?

It's one of my favorite movies, like my top 10. I don't know how a Sellers and Kubrick fan wouldn't like it either.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Alfred

Obvious pick, but yeah. What's so special about it, what makes it so much better than other "classic" Westerns? The Wild Bunch, The Magnificent Seven, Ride The High Country, even other John Wayne films like True Grit and The Cowboys are all far superior to it in my opinion. Maybe it's the fact that it predated all of those films, but even Bridge On The River Kwai, which came out a year later absolutely blows it away.

Edit: And the portrayal of Native Americans in this film is laughably bad, but everyone knows that.

It may not be the best western ever, but it's a great film, it's brilliantly shot and John Wayne is excellent in it, I know his character is an assh*le and that seems to be the main reason people hate it, but that's what makes him fascinating to me, he's not a romanticized hero.

It was very rare at this time for a western to have such a dark protagonist, anti heroes have been a stable for the genre ever since, I certainly think it's the most influencial western. It's also a big inspiration behind Taxi Driver, so there you go.

The Native Americans are rather ridiculous but that's nothing unique to this movie and was typical of all westerns at the time. I'm Cherokee myself and it doesn't really bother me. The lack of understanding about other cultures that movies of this era exhibited fascinate and humor me rather than offend me. I can forgive the naivety people had during this era, it's just the way people were brought up. I know people who are quite racist, but I wouldn't say they are terrible people just because of that.

I don't obsess about realism in movies, to me cinema is like an alternate universe and that's what makes it interesting.

[boo boo]

Anyway. Some of mine.



This has pretty muched turned me away from seeing any more Cassavetes films, it's not as terrible as Shadows, but still, incredibly boring, incoherent, annoying and amateurish. I don't get what's so great about the acting either, Rowlands and Falk have never been so hammy and over the top ridiculous. If I didn't feel for or understand the characters, which I don't, that would be fine as long as they were interesting, but they're not. You know what you get when you make a movie of two people doing nothing but having dinner conversations and screaming and freaking out for no explicable reason for two and a half hours?

Something that starts out mildly amusing for it's laughable badness but gets really damn boring fast, that's what.



Color Purple lost best picture to THIS? And Brazil didn't even get nominated.

Seriously. People like this movie? I want to know how and why. I forget what it's even about, all I remember is that it's the most painfully boring film I've ever watched, and I'm usually a pretty big Streep and Redford fan. It's one of those movies that has "we want oscars" written all over it but there's really nothing going on.



I like Holly Hunter but her character may very well be the most unlikable character in movie history, there's not a scene where she isn't doing something both incredibly bitchy and incredibly irrational and confusing and that might work if the filmmaker used that thing called exposition every now and then. Simply watching characters flip out isn't emotionally poignant to me, I know that these kinda filmmakers are going for objectivity and realism but f*ck that, this is storytelling, you need cause and motive goddammit.

Like, when this bitch tries to kill herself just because she can't play the f*cking piano, is that supposed to be touching? She really doesn't have anything to live for other than her piano? So terrifying the f*ck out of her kid just because she can no longer play a piano while staring at Harvey Keitel's naked ass is no big deal to her? The whole movie is her being a bitch, but we're supposed to be touched by her passion in music?

There's passion in music, and there's having a f*cking problem.



The visuals are fantastic (including Nicole Kidman's red headed hotness) and Jim Broadbent is kickass as always, but those are really the only things it has going for it. Everyone is ridiculously hammy and over the top (even by musical standards) but not in an entertaining way, more like a creepy "wtf is going on and why should I care" kinda way. The film fails to entertain whenever Broadbent isn't on screen, his cover of Like a Virgin is by far the best scene in the movie.

The film has so much going on and yet nothing that should be going on, the love story should be the focal point but it never evolves beyond a mere plot device and for a plot that takes forever to get anywhere. The original songs are quite overbearing and forgettable, and the covers and references to contemporary pop and rock songs seem like a pointless excuse to be "hip". McGregor and Kidman, usually pretty reliable actors, are incredibly annoying in this movie.

But you know what I hate most about the film? The editing. Yeah, that's right.

I have never seen so much ludicrous overuse of fast paced editing, I swear not a single shot lasts more than a second, what good are vibrant and imaginative visuals if you can never get a good look at them because the camera is cutting away so damn much? I can barely make out actor's facial expressions it's so damn fast.

I guess that's Baz Luhrmann trying to be all arty and MTV for ya.

[Scarlett O'Hara]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Anyway. Some of mine.



This has pretty muched turned me away from seeing any more Cassavetes films, it's not as terrible as Shadows, but still, incredibly boring, incoherent, annoying and amateurish. I don't get what's so great about the acting either, Rowlands and Falk have never been so hammy and over the top ridiculous. If I didn't feel for or understand the characters, which I don't, that would be fine as long as they were interesting, but they're not. You know what you get when you make a movie of two people doing nothing but having dinner conversations and screaming and freaking out for no explicable reason for two and a half hours?

Something that starts out mildly amusing for it's laughable badness but gets really damn boring fast, that's what.



Color Purple lost best picture to THIS? And Brazil didn't even get nominated.

Seriously. People like this movie? I want to know how and why. I forget what it's even about, all I remember is that it's the most painfully boring film I've ever watched, and I'm usually a pretty big Streep and Redford fan. It's one of those movies that has "we want oscars" written all over it but there's really nothing going on.



I like Holly Hunter but her character may very well be the most unlikable character in movie history, there's not a scene where she isn't doing something both incredibly bitchy and incredibly irrational and confusing and that might work if the filmmaker used that thing called exposition every now and then. Simply watching characters flip out isn't emotionally poignant to me, I know that these kinda filmmakers are going for objectivity and realism but f*ck that, this is storytelling, you need cause and motive goddammit.

Like, when this bitch tries to kill herself just because she can't play the f*cking piano, is that supposed to be touching? She really doesn't have anything to live for other than her piano? So terrifying the f*ck out of her kid just because she can no longer play a piano while staring at Harvey Keitel's naked ass is no big deal to her? The whole movie is her being a bitch, but we're supposed to be touched by her passion in music?

There's passion in music, and there's having a f*cking problem.



The visuals are fantastic (including Nicole Kidman's red headed hotness) and Jim Broadbent is kickass as always, but those are really the only things it has going for it. Everyone is ridiculously hammy and over the top (even by musical standards) but not in an entertaining way, more like a creepy "wtf is going on and why should I care" kinda way. The film fails to entertain whenever Broadbent isn't on screen, his cover of Like a Virgin is by far the best scene in the movie.

The film has so much going on and yet nothing that should be going on, the love story should be the focal point but it never evolves beyond a mere plot device and for a plot that takes forever to get anyway, and the songs are quite overbearing and forgettable.

But you know what I hate most about the film? The editing. Yeah, that's right.

I have never seen so much ludicrous overuse of fast paced editing, I swear not a single shot lasts more than a second, what good are vibrant and imaginative visuals if you can never get a good look at them because the camera is cutting away so damn much? I can barely make out actor's facial expressions it's so damn fast.

I guess that's Baz Luhrmann trying to be all arty and MTV for ya.

The songs are very memorable for me, I know them all off by heart. As a musical lover I have strong appeal to movies like this, and Kidman did a fantastic job. Whereas musicals like Mama Mia made me want to purge. I think that the Moulin Rouge had far more of a plot, of a passion and fire of bohemian life that a lot of other musical movies don't.

[boo boo]

I love musicals, Singing in the Rain, Gigi, West Side Story and Mary Poppins being personal favorites.

I appreciate that Moulin Rouge tried something different. The movie is just too "in your face" for me, there's never a time to breath, and that can make a movie boring and hard to follow, which is the case here. Just my opinion.

Chicago and Sweeny Todd though were freaking awesome.

[boo boo]

This is the last one I'm gonna do. Because it's very rare for me to not understand why a popular movie is liked.



You'd think being a fan of extreme violence, super stylish direction, Tarantino, Harrison and Oliver Stone's earlier films, I would have loved this. But I find it very repulsive.

I'd like to think I'm a pretty sick bastard with a dark and twisted imagination, but this movie surpasses even my limit. It's just an onslaught of shocking and depressing imagery hiding under the pretense of being thought provoking satire, but it doesn't really explore these issues it apparrently satirizes, it's excessive to the extreme. I like exploitation films, but this one is so pretentious.

I could excuse all that if it was entertaining, but it's not, except for Robert Downey Jr who is pretty funny as a sensational journalist. It's a devestating mess that leaves nothing in it's path but hatred and destruction. And I say that as someone who considers himself a misanthropist and pessimist, so in other words, it's just way too much. It tries to be as offensive as possible, and if that was it's primary goal then I guess I could call it a success.

The film satirizes the media for making celebrities and iconic figures out of pyscho killers, which is a great concept, but the big problem is that the film mixes the message by seemingly doing exactly what it's satirizing, and romanticizing these characters and asking us to care about them inspite of being so despicable and evil.

It would be fine if the film chose one or the other but it can't be both. Because of this it's really hard to understand what Stone was trying to say with this film, or if he even has anything to say at all, but it's too disturbing to warrant a second viewing to try and find out.

Usually anything Tarantino touches turns to gold, but Stone altered the script and made a mess out of it, so it's no surprise Tarantino disowned it.

[NSW]

Originally Posted by boo boo

I love musicals, Singing in the Rain, Gigi, West Side Story and Mary Poppins being personal favorites.

I appreciate that Moulin Rouge tried something different. The movie is just too "in your face" for me, there's never a time to breath, and that can make a movie boring and hard to follow, which is the case here. Just my opinion.

Chicago and Sweeny Todd though were freaking awesome.

Absolutely love Gigi...good call.

And I mostly agree with you on Moulin Rouge. As far as musicals go, it was underwhelming (IMO). Visually appealing yes, but not memorable past that.

[Captain Awesome]

I'm not saying people think this is the greatest movie ever, but everyone I know has at least enjoyed it. But myself on the other hand, I switched it off after about an hour. Found it extremely boring and I just really couldn't get into it at all.


@the person who dislikes goodfellas, are you crazy? LOL. Personally I'd say it's the best mobster/gangster movie of all time.

[TheCunningStunt]

Sin City is brilliant! Not the best movie ever by any stretch. But what a great movie, brilliant cinematography.

The story had me hooked and the way it linked all together towards the end was brilliant. Great movie. What's not to like?!

[Akira]

I really enjoy the Marv story line, the rest was ok the first time but lose a lot on repeat viewings.