What Movie Do You Wish To Destroy????
Everybody's seen something that made them wish that they could get that hour and a half back. But if you could wipe a movie from existence, what could it be? What film do you hate that much?
posted by Mike at 3:26 PM
16 Comments:
The easiest targets here, of course, are vapid romantic comedies. But I can't in good faith choose any of those when movies like Saw, Saw II, Saw III, and Saw IV exist. Not to go all Number Three here, but it's one thing for a movie to be artistically vacuous, and quite another for a movie to be morally vacuous. I only half-watched the first Saw (when my then-roommate Particle Man ill-advisedly checked it out), but even that half viewing was enough for me to consider it morally and artistically bankrupt.
And if I did destroy this movie franchise, I wouldn't have to stay up nights worrying about the fact that there were enough Americans who liked these movies that they made four of them.
Hm.
I don't hate films, in general. I mean, even the ones that are particularly bad often have a comedic value to them that makes the experience better than a root canal. But if I had to choose one that stands out it would be Adaptation. I know that DW will probably challenge me on this one, but from beginning to end, Adaptation was really a long line of things that I just don't want to see. It may be genius or meaningful or whatever, but the experience of seeing it wasn't worth it. Not by a long shot.
And I agree about the Saw movies.
Ms Wicked, it takes a lot of effort for me to mildly say that we have a bit of a disagreement on Adaptation. I would be interested in further details there as to the why, but perhaps some other day. Did you like Being John Malkovich?
Anyway, as for the movies I would delete, I can think of many truly bad films. Of recent crops we have Pirates that should have silently stayed in the Caribbean 3 and Eragon.
However, as far as infinite infamy factors go, that ultimate prize would fall on Phantom Menace. It's not that it's that bad, it's just that it's a big shame. True, the deterioration of Star Wars has started with the introduction of the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi, but Phantom took the puke factor to new heights.
P.S. My wife and I would warmly agree with the Doctor: the entire horror genre should be put down.
More seriously, though, I've read many reviews about the Hostel franchise being more of a sadistic porn film in disguise. Having not seen the film I don't really have an official opinion, but if that is the case then you have more stuff to destroy.
well, darn it, DW, you stole my thunder. i was going to write a blistering diatribe against the Saw franchise, but that ground's been covered, so let me pick a different target: black-sploitation comedies.
the basic problem is that films like The Nutty Professor, White Chicks, Norbit, Friday and Little Man present a very skewed and colored (pardon the unintentional pun) view of African-Americans. now, i don't and haven't known very many black people, but the ones i have met aren't ANYTHING like the ones in those movies. these movies tend to use crude (read as unoriginal) humor in copious amounts, a literal flood of profanity, and lots of men getting hit in the balls (which WLC has already demonstrated is not that funny). but the greatest sin of these movies is presenting a wildly inaccurate picture of how black people behave to a white world which is generally unfamiliar with them. on the other side of this coin are films like Do the Right Thing, Boyz 'n the Hood, and Dead Presidents, which present an honest if brutal picture of life as many inner-city African-Americans see it. but even THAT doesn't speak to the experience of some black people, especially upper-crust ones.
i realize i'm one of those white boys without much experience of the black world, but when i hear of a film like Norbit, it just seems so disingenuous to black people as a whole, and it makes me sad.
Now THIS kind of discussion is more like it.
Compared to Hostel, Saw (at least the first one) is not that bad. At least the first one was a solid locked-room mystery, and the series does have Tobin Bell going for it, who is a really compelling actor. But, I can understand perfectly why most people would loath it.
I'm curious Moshe....you hated Pirates 3 that much? You found it so execrable that you would wipe it
from existence? Not that it's on any top ten lists of mine, but I did find it at least entertaining. And The Phantom Menace is NOWHERE near as bad as Attack of the Clones.
The first time I wrote this it disappeared into oblivion, so here goes some more sleep time:
My problem with episodes 1-3 is not that they're bad (they are, but there are much worse offenders) but rather the blasphemy effect of ruining a good thing with the average. I feel the same about Indiana Jones 3 and I know most of you disagree, probably because I grew up on these films and for you they were just there.
As for Pirates 3, I think it loses all proper movie framework. It has no coherent plot, no character development of its own, and it just doesn't make sense. I felt tortured for 3 hours after which I was unable to recount what I've just seen.
Moshe, you're blindly assuming that the Indiana Jones films were "just there" for me...and quite possibly others on thsi board. Raiders of the Lost Ark was the first film I remember seeing. I was 4, and I vividly remember the "bad dates, " Toht sieg heiling with his burnt hand, Indy boxing the German mechanic, and I had to hide under the seats when the ghosts came out of the ark and melted the Nazis. It was one of the formative cultural moments of my young life, and to be frank, I wonder why you would assume that you have some connection that we don't have, for whatever reason.
Simply because I find it hard to figure out why certain people (Spielberg included) find Indiana Jones 3 better than its predecessors...
I never said it was better than Raiders, but I guess that just says I'm not a "certain person". :)
I had to go back to PM's review of Last Crusade to find you're right. Guess I was so traumatized by the notion it became a collective perception thing.
Anyway, talk about films you wish they'd never make, what do you make of Indy 4? How will a geriatric Jones fare?
I'm a little afraid to see how the 4th one will end up...seeing Harrison Ford now isn't very comforting either. I mean, he's looking pretty old.
I think that some of the worst films in existence are probably those of the Mystery Science Theatre group, e.g. Hellcats and Red Zone Cuba. I mean, they're just awful. I can't imagine watching them without the humorous side comments...
good point, WLC, but MST3K films like Red Zone Cuba, The Creeping Terror, and Manos: Hands of Fate are in a different echelon than the films that have been most talked about in this thread. for one thing, most if not all of them are pretty low budget. secondly, very few people have heard of them outside their MST3K context. personally, i wouldn't want to wipe them from existence, because if nothing else, they provide cannon fodder for the MST3K machine.
movies like Saw and Hostel qualify as sadistic and unconscionable, and Pirates 3 and the Star Wars prequels have astronomical budgets, but they're bad anyway. at least the MST3K movies have good intentions in mind. these others are motivated by either money, self-congratulation, or an apparent desire to make the world a worse place.
On Indy 4, I'm conflicted. It's definitely intriguing, in that it could be either awesome or a train wreck. But--as I was expressing to SP the other day--I spent the summer deliberately avoiding the sequel onslaught (ok, yes, I did see Mr. Bean's Holiday) because I wanted to cast a no-more-unnecessary sequels vote with my dollar.
So on that note, I can't be too excited about Indy 4. And when you consider that this could have a similar effect as the more recent Star Warses--namely, degrading the purity of the originals--and I find it hard to be optimistic.
I should add a coda here, which also picks up on PM's last post: I'm not against a movie wanting to make money. I understand that the film industry is, indeed, a business. My issue with the sequels is that it feels like either pandering or insulting the audience's intelligence. Either the execs are saying, "You liked Pirates of the Caribbean? Great, we'll make three!" Or they're saying, "Audiences will fork over the money on any crap that we put the "Spiderman" label on. Order 4 more!" In either case, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the rationale.
Call me old-fashioned, but I guess I just want my movies to be made because a filmmaker wanted to tell a story.
I'm "cautiously optimistic" (I find myself using that phrase a lot more) for Indy 4. Has anybody seen the trailer? Ford maybe be old, but there isn't an ounce of fat on his body. I'm sure that it will be better than Pirates 3 anyway.
i have seen the trailer, and i was surprised to find Indy in generally the same visual state he was in at the end of Indy 3. i know Harrison Ford is in his 60s, but you can't really tell. i'm really sick of the assembly line sequels, but when one comes out of a series i've loved since childhood, i simply have to see it.
Post a Comment
<< Home