Shitty Movies - So bad, they're bad

[Frozen Beach]

I saw "Blue Velvet" the day it came out in theaters and I hated it, too, still do. So sue me.

You're missing my point.... You at least most likely have a legitimate reason for disliking it. He had a BIASED reason for it. Even his friend Isabella, who played Dorothy, thought it was a stupid reason. He let a personal reason get in the way of his judging of the film, which is unprofessional. And he never gave that film a fair critique. Any time he ever talked about it, he'd whine about how he thought it was cruel his friend had to go through scenes that she willing went through. He'd never actually talk about the film itself.

You can kiss Ebert's ass all you want, but while he may have been a notorious film critic, he had some flawed opinions, which even HE admitted.

[Jinsai]

that doesn't make him any less of a FILM CRITIC LEGEND

No, of course, and these are all just subjective opinions... but when you give Junior a higher score than The Godfather Part II... that's about as close to objectively wrong that an opinion can get.

[allegro]

No, of course, and these are all just subjective opinions... but when you give Junior a higher score than The Godfather Part II... that's about as close to objectively wrong that an opinion can get.

Look, to be fair, he wasn't even doing the same scoring system in 1972. And he just didn't like Part II relative to the original so he was making a deliberate point relative to the original. And Junior got ONE-HALF STAR MORE.

I didn't like Blue Velvet FOR PERSONAL REASONS and it doesn't matter that Rosellini gave Lynch a pass. It was gratuitous, not artistic. And Ebert had every right to base his review on "personal" reasons. It's his review. This is the same guy who loved Russ Meyer flicks. But he hated the original Brown Bunny, until Gallo reworked it so that Sevigny wasn't just blowjob whore.

We ALL have "flawed" opinions, but at least his were far more educated than ours. I didn't agree with all of his reviews. But I certainly respected them.

[allegro]

Except they make a major point of showing the mother addicted to everyday things that no one calls drugs -- television, food, etc. The film is about so much more than heroin being a bad thing, it's about the nature of extreme addiction, about what drives individuals to addiction, about the grip it takes on someone and the things that we can form addictions around. It asks the question of what counts as an addictive substance in the first place, it argues that we can develop dependencies on almost anything that creates dopamine in our heads.

And really, Reefer Madness? Reefer Madness was blatant fear-mongering about marijuana, a substance that is largely agreed on as relatively harmless. Requiem for a Dream's central drug is heroin. Heroin. I don't understand, are you implying that heroin is just as safe as marijuana? Are you saying it's not really that bad, that it doesn't harm addicts, that it has no real negative effects and that people haven't had their lives spiral out of control because of it?

And beyond just that, from a film-making technique it's above and beyond a lot of mainstream films. Clint Mansell's score is astonishing in every way (although I still would argue his Fountain score is more powerful), the cinematography is stellar and the jump-cut style used when characters ingest drugs is fantastic (as is the editing in general), the pacing is great, the way it uses colors and shifts from bright and warm tones to the harsh, stark shades towards the end, from the sets to the wardrobe to the makeup actresses wear.

Also, Ellen's performance in that film is just amazing. In general it's got some wonderful performances, but hers is heart-breakingly good. Few actresses have made me feel for them as much as she did, there was such a deep sympathy and sadness to her portrayal that it's undeniable.

If you want to argue that it's a little heavy handed or not as subtle as you'd like, fine, sure, whatever, but to devalue literally every good thing about it and in turn manage to act like saying heroin is harmful is the same as saying weed is, well, that's really ridiculous. To list it in a thread along the likes of Snakes On a Plane is just out there.

Sorry, not buying it, particularly Burstyn's electroshock therapy shit. As someone who's lived among actual addicts for many years, including heroin, and as somebody who's personally ingested a boatload of illicit drugs, that movie is a War on Drugs ad (ala Reefer Madness) with some other "morality lessons." If the score was done by Danny Elfman and the flick was directed by Spike Jonez, you guys would never be fapping over yourselves. It's a crappy book adaptation. By the end of it, I wanted to shoot my television. Heavy-handed is an understatement.

Oddly enough, Ebert loved it, lol.

(Roeper hated it.)

[WorzelG]

The reviews of the Wicker Man remake are so bad it makes me want to watch it

[implanted_microchip]

The reviews of the Wicker Man remake are so bad it makes me want to watch it

That's in the so bad it's good category. Here are some highlights:



If you like things like The Room, Troll 2, Birdemic, etc. I'd definitely recommend it.

[WorzelG]

That's in the so bad it's good category. Here are some highlights:



If you like things like The Room, Troll 2, Birdemic, etc. I'd definitely recommend it.

Oh my God this has gone up to a must watch, I was laughing all through that

[Jinsai]

The Wicker Man remake is such a bizarre thing.

The ending of the original still authentically disturbs me every time I watch it though.

[eversonpoe]

The reviews of the Wicker Man remake are so bad it makes me want to watch it

also, if you're into it, watch it with rifftrax. it really just enhances the experience. and most of the riffs are A+.

[aggroculture]

I also dislike Requiem for a Dream for the same reason I dislike Trainspotting. Except Trainspotting is a much better movie.
I remember when I first saw Trainspotting: my reaction was "I want to try heroin." (I was a teenager, and I didn't)
Yeah everyone always says "but the baby scene makes it clear the film is anti-drugs." Sorry, no.
Both films glamorize and glorify hard drugs as having the time of your life: so what if it's not a happy ending. I don't think just because bad things happen this negates the overall romanticization of drugs going on here.

I think Trainspotting is a good movie: doesn't make it one I am morally comfortable with - the same goes for pretty much all serial killer movies too. I think they are morally reprehensible.

Requiem for a Dream however is crap, and Aronofsky is totally overrated. Black Swan was a cliched pile of shit.
The only movie I like by him is The Fountain. (have not see The Wrestler or Noah; though I would check out The Wrestler).

[Swykk]

I loved Trainspotting and Black Swan, which I felt was a love letter to Dario Argento when he was great.

[Swykk]

You just made my point for me and contradicted that silly troll accusation. We do all have opinions. I'm not accusing you of anything because you hate Blue Velvet even if I don't understand. I was in no way disrespectful of Roger Ebert.

[Swykk]

I might be setting myself up for more damage here, but I didn't care for Bridesmaids and don't get the appeal of Melissa McCarthy at all. I find her annoying and unfunny. I laughed two times during Bridesmaids. It's a shame because Paul Feig did Freaks And Geeks as well as Undeclared, both classic TV shows canceled prematurely. The Heat was just bad. I have zero desire to see Tammy or that movie she did with Jason Bateman.

[allegro]

I might be setting myself up for more damage here, but I didn't care for Bridesmaids and don't get the appeal of Melissa McCarthy at all. I find her annoying and unfunny. I laughed two times during Bridesmaids. It's a shame because Paul Feig did Freaks And Geeks as well as Undeclared, both classic TV shows canceled prematurely. The Heat was just bad. I have zero desire to see Tammy or that movie she did with Jason Bateman.

I totally agree, I thought Bridesmaids was crap and McCarthy is a one-note comedian.

(p.s. troll came from trying to include all Spielberg flicks in the Shit Film thread, which would ultimately derail this thread and it would become the Spielberg Thread. The Ebert troll was sarcasm.)

[Khrz]

I might be setting myself up for more damage here, but I didn't care for Bridesmaids and don't get the appeal of Melissa McCarthy at all.

I actually very seldom like american comedy films... Just not my kind of humor, it's all constructed around awkwardness exclusively, which I quickly find tiring... Which is weird, because american comedic series are pretty much the same, but I love many of those... Guess the format makes it a lot more bearable ? I didn't care for huge successes like Superbad, The Hangover, Bridesmaids or 40 Year Old Virgin...

[WorzelG]

I also dislike Requiem for a Dream for the same reason I dislike Trainspotting. Except Trainspotting is a much better movie.
I remember when I first saw Trainspotting: my reaction was "I want to try heroin." (I was a teenager, and I didn't)
Yeah everyone always says "but the baby scene makes it clear the film is anti-drugs." Sorry, no.
Both films glamorize and glorify hard drugs as having the time of your life: so what if it's not a happy ending. I don't think just because bad things happen this negates the overall romanticization of drugs going on here.

I think Trainspotting is a good movie: doesn't make it one I am morally comfortable with - the same goes for pretty much all serial killer movies too. I think they are morally reprehensible. .

I have a pharmacist friend who worked in a big high street shop and had to dole out methodone to junkies before the shops opened, they used to leave their syringes in the toilets. She HATED trainspotting for that very reason and would go on about how fucked up the junkies were, and they weren't making witty soliloquies the whole time

[Khrz]

I have a pharmacist friend who worked in a big high street shop and had to dole out methodone to junkies before the shops opened, they used to leave their syringes in the toilets. She HATED trainspotting for that very reason and would go on about how fucked up the junkies were, and they weren't making witty soliloquies the whole time

Well, neither do cops nor did gangsters... Accuracy isn't what fiction is about, I understand how frustrating it is for the people in the field actually dealing with the real shit, but if people wanted documentaries, Michael Bay would be filming antelopes.

[henryeatscereal]

Requiem for a Dream however is crap, and Aronofsky is totally overrated. Black Swan was a cliched pile of shit.
The only movie I like by him is The Fountain. (have not see The Wrestler or Noah; though I would check out The Wrestler).

I agree: "Requiem" is a very overrated movie, still Aronofsky is a good director, i love The Wrestler, Black Swan (agree with @Swykk on the "Argento love letter") and The Fountain. Even "Pi" is a very interesting piece, frankly it bores me at moments but i think it's worth seeing at least once.
I understand if people don't like him but i would call his movies EVERYTHING but shitty (maybe overrated is a better term...)

[Jinsai]

I like Requiem for a Dream. It's more about addiction than drugs, and unlike Reefer Madness, it's not entirely wrong and intentionally misleading.

You could say it's melodramatic, and I might agree. But the movie is incredibly effective.

And Jennifer Connelly.

[allegro]

I like Requiem for a Dream. It's more about addiction than drugs, and unlike Reefer Madness, it's not entirely wrong and intentionally misleading.

Oh yeah? How many junkies do you know whose arms have been amputated (who aren't dead first from ODing)? How many old ladies on Medicare (or anybody, for that matter) on speed do you know who've been committed, let alone forced to experience electroshock therapy? (If he'd made her addicted to Valium, it'd be more realistic.) Why did those guys drive all the way to Florida to buy heroin? Isn't there a LOT of heroin in NYC? Do you realize how cheap heroin is? Jennifer Connelly, yeah, butt to butt was so important to obtaining cheap drugs (or drawing people to the movie). It's all a Ridiculously Stylized Cautionary Tale of Bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...reamhunter.htm

[Frozen Beach]

I didn't like Blue Velvet FOR PERSONAL REASONS and it doesn't matter that Rosellini gave Lynch a pass. It was gratuitous, not artistic. And Ebert had every right to base his review on "personal" reasons. It's his review. This is the same guy who loved Russ Meyer flicks. But he hated the original Brown Bunny, until Gallo reworked it so that Sevigny wasn't just blowjob whore.

Thank you for responding to me, yet not actually quoting my post so I'd know you were responding to me.

and it doesn't matter that Rosellini gave Lynch a pass.

It fucking does matter. Who the fuck is Roger Ebert to tell Rossellini who she's suppose to star as? He's not her fucking manager. And of course the film has scenes that would seem gratuitous, it's about a god damn psychopath and how small towns aren't always so innocent. It's about the underbelly where a kid who's practically a voyeur looks into a fucked up situation only to realize it's more fucked up than he originally thought. If anything, the disturbing content, which you said was gratuitous, is there to make the audience relate to the character in disgust.

And Ebert had every right to base his review on "personal" reasons. It's his review.

His job is to review a film. He didn't review the film, he reviewed the production of the film, which is him not doing his job.

[allegro]

First, I mostly respond using Tapatalk on a tiny phone so quoting multi-part quotes is too hard for me.

Second, I wasn't only responding to you, you weren't the only one who commented about this. Look, go dig up Roger Ebert and discuss it with him so we don't derail this thread so that it becomes the Roger Ebert Blue Velvet thread.

Discuss this with him: http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews...th-blue-velvet

[Frozen Beach]

I wasn't only responding to you, you weren't the only one who commented about this.

This part here:

I didn't like Blue Velvet FOR PERSONAL REASONS and it doesn't matter that Rosellini gave Lynch a pass. It was gratuitous, not artistic. And Ebert had every right to base his review on "personal" reasons. It's his review. This is the same guy who loved Russ Meyer flicks. But he hated the original Brown Bunny, until Gallo reworked it so that Sevigny wasn't just blowjob whore.

was clearly a response to my post because it responded to statements I made. You could have easily copy and pasted a quote of my post in your post.

Look, go dig up Roger Ebert and discuss it with him so we don't derail this thread so that it becomes the Roger Ebert Blue Velvet thread.

Discuss this with him: http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews...th-blue-velvet

Wow, how "cute" of you.

[allegro]

Why are you being so mean and angry about this? You can't see his point at all? As a female, I can. I think that's a brilliantly-written, thoughtful piece.

Also, it doesn't matter if I quote you, you still read it. No, I can't always quote, I can't always see to quote. If you start poking fun of my vision, now, then we're done.

[Frozen Beach]

Why are you being so mean and angry about this?

I'm not necessarily angry. However, I am admittedly frustrated because some of the things you say are just beyond my comprehension. Usually, I'm able to put myself in somebody elses place and see their perspective, but on this, I can't. Your arguments just literally don't make sense to me.

You can't see his point at all? As a female, I can. I think that's a brilliantly-written, thoughtful piece.

No, not really.

Also, it doesn't matter if I quote you, you still read it.

It does matter. When you quote someone, it notifies them that someone responded to your post. I glanced over your comment a few times because I assumed it had nothing to do with me. The only reason why I read it is because my computer froze on it. If it wasn't for that, chances are I would have never known you responded to me.

[allegro]

Again, as much as you wanted me to only respond to you, I was really only talking to Jinsai. Because I always only respond to Jinsai. I read ALL the posts, but I only respond to Jinsai. And to Digital Chaos.

[Frozen Beach]

Again, as much as you wanted me to only respond to you, I was really only talking to Jinsai.

Funny, because you were referring to things that Jinsai never even mentioned about Blue Velvet. I was the one who brought up the Isabella Rossellini thing. I was the one who said he had a personal bias against the film. You clearly responded to these things, but now you're denying that you were responding to me? And I never said you had to respond to just me. You do realize can quote multiple people in a post, right?

[allegro]

I've been here since Jan. of 2004. Yup.

[WorzelG]

Discuss this with him: http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews...th-blue-velvet

I want to pat him on the shoulder and say 'there there it's just pretend'

[thevoid99]

Ebert was notorious for not liking some great movies but when it did come to bad movies, he was pretty much a master when it came to trashing a film: