Popular movies you never 'got'

[3LB]

I'm not talking about the vertual amusement park rides like Tranformers and other action flicks, I'm talking about movies that are nearly universally beloved by most everyone you know, except you.

I got to thinking of this when I heard people returning from seeing Where The Wild Things Are. Of everyone loved it (if I'm gonna wait in line for anything, it better be awesome), but I harked back to the days when other must-see movies came out and I dutifully went to go see it and it fell flat for me.

E.T. - I was completely unmoved. Maybe it was all the hype, but I felt that the little creature looked like a badly constructed muppet. Nothing about the movie worked for me.

Three Men & A Baby - I sat through it once. I was on a date, or I woulda left. I still find it to be one of the most unwatchable movie I know besides Grease 2. Three of my most unfavorite actors are in this movie.

Pulp Fiction - This out-of-sequence scenes principle mighta worked had it tied in with the central plot (if there was one), but like a lot of Tarentino movies, it seems like so much style over substance, where a string of unrelated things happen and the only common thread is the sudden unexpected death of people who are living on borrowed time anyway.

Napolean Dynamite - Oh wait a minute, I get it now...this was funny cuz I actually paid to see it.

[Troy]

Interesting choices, but I'm not really surprised by them. I could side with not liking any of those, except Pulp Fiction, which I personally think is one of the top 5 movies of the 90s. Your synopsis is wrong, most of the characters in the movie survive. And where you see it all as a patchwork of unrelated scenes, the fact is, it's ALL weirdly and wonderfully related! It's like you weren't paying attention, I guess.

But yeah, 3 Men and a Baby is a colossal turd. I bet it's as unwatchable and dated today as Ghost or Look Who's Talking. Add Home Alone to the same list. Why were these movies so popular?

I can't stand the Lord of the Rings movies. Hate 'em. They're as bloated and pretentious as a 2-disc Yes Album from the mid-'70s. They feel like those stiff Cecil B. MeMille bible epics from the '50s–so serious because they are about Religion, but the LOTR flicks are just a total fantasy. I'm completely mystified by their popularity. Perhaps it's because I never liked the Tolkein books or played D&D, so I can't relate. In a similar vein, I was about 18 when Where the Wild Things Are book was released and I never had kids, so I don't even have ANY idea what this thing is about and I am totally not getting why anyone should get even 1/10th this excited about a movie. It looks positively awful. A total snore.

Then there's Titanic. And Dances With Wolves. 2 of the worst movies to ever win a best picture oscar®. Watch them today without being warmed up by the all out media blitz they had on first release. They suck!

I think the Nolan Batman movies are vastly over-rated too. Eye-rollingly serious and idiotic. More movies that will NOT stand the test of time.

It's so easy to be a hater. How about movies that you LOVE that no one else liked, instead? Stuff like the Coen Brothers remake of The Ladykillers or Castaway. Nobody but me likes those movies.

[haodzuno]

thank you

[Smokey]

Good topic 3LB. Here couple that comes to mind.

Caddyshack: Except Rodney Dangerfield's scenes, the rest of movie felt like a situation comedy scenario where none of it meshes comfortably into a cohesive whole. It was first time Harold Ramis directing, and it shows.

Schindler’s List: After hearing great reviews for this movie, went to theater to see it. And was disappointed. Found the movie too dark and characters not engaging. May be if Speilberg filmed it in color.




I can't stand the Lord of the Rings movies. Hate 'em. They're as bloated and pretentious as a 2-disc Yes Album from the mid-'70s. They feel like those stiff Cecil B. MeMille bible epics from the '50s–so serious because they are about Religion, but the LOTR flicks are just a total fantasy.

I hope you are not refering to DeMille's Ten Commandments as this movie and LOTR are not in the same league :)

[Troy]

Whatever, it's just opinions.

I mean dude, how can you not love Caddyshack? But that's ok. Everybody's entitled to an opinion.

I was never enthralled with Schindler's List either. It's easy to move an audience with a concentration camp movie because the story comes with such heavy baggage. Holocaust movies are usually awful because of this, the worst being Roberto Bergnini's Life is Beautiful about the clown protecting his kid. Nauseatingly maudlin. Everybody loved that steamer too.

[ForeverAutumn]

I can't stand the Lord of the Rings movies. Hate 'em. They're as bloated and pretentious as a 2-disc Yes Album from the mid-'70s.

You crack me up sometimes.

Off the top of my head, Casino Royale. I'm not a fan of James Bond movies in general. They are just way too predictible. My co-workers were just raving, RAVING, about how Casino Royale is the best Bond movie since...whatever. I finally watched it a couple of weeks ago and hated it. It was boring and predictible and I thought, if this the best Bond movie then I'm really glad I didn't waste my time watching the previous movies.

The Golden Compass. The best thing about this movie was the ferret.

I'm sure that I'll think of a few others.

[Feanor]

...
I can't stand the Lord of the Rings movies. Hate 'em. They're as bloated and pretentious as a 2-disc Yes Album from the mid-'70s. They feel like those stiff Cecil B. MeMille bible epics from the '50s–so serious because they are about Religion, but the LOTR flicks are just a total fantasy. I'm completely mystified by their popularity. Perhaps it's because I never liked the Tolkein books or played D&D, so I can't relate. ...

Obviously I don't share your mystification, but I have discovered in over 40 years that there as simply two categories of people when it comes to Tolkien: (1) those who "get" and love his work, and (2) and those who don't. Neither group can account for the other.

But yes, of course, Tolkien is total fantasy. Do you have a bigger problem with fantasy than just Tolkien (or the Bible)?

[Feanor]

...
Off the top of my head, Casino Royale. I'm not a fan of James Bond movies in general. They are just way too predictible. My co-workers were just raving, RAVING, about how Casino Royale is the best Bond movie since...whatever. I finally watched it a couple of weeks ago and hated it. It was boring and predictible and I thought, if this the best Bond movie then I'm really glad I didn't waste my time watching the previous movies.
...

Actually I thought Casino Royale was the best James Bond movie yet, but that's not saying much. In fact it was the first Bond movie I've paid to see since Doctor No, and I wished I hadn't bother with that one. (I watched Casino Royale for $2.50 from Zip.ca; my wife liked it, but then she like Golden Compass too.)

[3LB]

And where you see it all as a patchwork of unrelated scenes, the fact is, it's ALL weirdly and wonderfully related! It's like you weren't paying attention, I guess.
They weresomewhat related, but there were no "Aha" moments for me. I kept wondering why we were being shown these events in a backwards fashion, as if any of those scenes explained what came before, and it didn't work for me. I've seen the movie three times. There are entertaining moments in it - I don't hate Tarentino, but I'll never have man crush on him the way a lot of movie critics do. And he recycles too many other movies' plot devices to be considered innovative for me. What some critics see as homage I see as cliche.

[3LB]

But yeah, 3 Men and a Baby is a colossal turd. I bet it's as unwatchable and dated today as Ghost or Look Who's Talking. Add Home Alone to the same list. Why were these movies so popular?
I think another reason I can't appreciate Pulp Fiction is that I have a hard time watching John Travolting in any movie. I hated Look Who's Talking, but I actually got drug to see LWT2 by my wife, who has the uncanny ability to find Grease on TV at any given moment. Ghost, I've lucked out and only seen that movie once...too bad about Mr Swayze though; he finally has the type of field expertise in this area that would have made this role better, but alas...

[Troy]

Ghost, I've lucked out and only seen that movie once...too bad about Mr Swayze though; he finally has the type of field expertise in this area that would have made this role better, but alas...

Ohhhhh . . . tasteful! I've been lucky to never have to sit through all of Grease. Seen enough scenes to know I don't want or need to see it.


Off the top of my head, Casino Royale. I'm not a fan of James Bond movies in general. They are just way too predictible. My co-workers were just raving, RAVING, about how Casino Royale is the best Bond movie since...whatever. I finally watched it a couple of weeks ago and hated it. It was boring and predictible and I thought, if this the best Bond movie then I'm really glad I didn't waste my time watching the previous movies.

I'll buy that. The second Daniel Craig Bond flick, Quantum of Solace is another perfect movie for this list. I was quite entertained by Casino Royale (with cheese), but I've asked people who say they loved QOS to explain the plot to me and no one can! Incomprehensible junk.


Do you have a bigger problem with fantasy than just Tolkien (or the Bible)?

I've chewed on that for a while . . . No, I like fantasy, and can sustain my suspension of disbelief for some pretty ridiculous things, but the term 'fantasy' covers a pretty wide category. By definition, Inglourious Basterds is a fantasy, even though it doesn't have any elves in it. I loved Pixar's Up, and Harvey, and Wizard of Oz, for example, but think the Harry Potter movies suck. Maybe it's about how seriously these movies take themselves.

[3LB]

Ohhhhh . . . tasteful!

innit?

;)

[3LB]

By definition, Inglourious Basterds is a fantasy, even though it doesn't have any elves in it. how'd Tarentino miss that one?

I keed I keed


I loved Pixar's Up, and Harvey, and Wizard of Oz, for example, but think the Harry Potter movies suck. Maybe it's about how seriously these movies take themselves.or the fans. I remember seing an interview with the kid who wound up playing Harry Potter, before the first movie premiered,and one of the questions he was asked was how he felt about the heavy responsibility playing Potter...responsibility? exqueese me? I've never seen any of these movies in their entirety. Its a fancy retelling of Bewitched with british accents.

[ForeverAutumn]

I was going to bring up the Harry Potter movies, but I didn't know if my dislike of them had anything to do with me not reading the books. Alas, my husband is a fan and I've been dragged to each movie. So far I've managed to elude the latest one...but I know it's only a matter of time.

Perhaps I'd enjoy them more if I read the books. But when hubby has to fill in the blanks after I've seen the movie, in order for certain scenes to make sense...it just doesn't work for me.

[Troy]

or the fans.

No question, there's a lot of truth in that.


I've never seen any of these movies in their entirety. Its a fancy retelling of Bewitched with british accents.

This is another terrible analogy. It's more of a witchcraft-star wars story. The old "kids with special powers save the universe" schtick. There's no "hiding your powers" angle like in Bewitched (which I like a lot more than HP- the best witch movie is Bell Book and Candle). The tone is just totally different, one's a silly comedy, the other, an action drama with comic relief. Hey, I don't like the HP movies, but at least I've seen a few and know what they're about (what are there, like 12 of these flicks now? Hermoine is going thru menopause in the next one, right?) You need to see these movies before you slag them like this.

[recoveryone]

As usually with music and movies, we will be lucky to get 3 to agree. But in some of the comments above I think some have let their preference of movie styles cause a unfair category of a film. I can only speak for myself and this is from my own background. I was raised in a military family, so war movies are always good viewing for me, along those same line spy flicks peak my interest. Being a involved in sports and my own career choices, Law enforcement and Construction lends to my taste in what films I would enjoy.

QOS was literally part 2 of Casino Royale if you followed the plot, so on its own it would fall flat and plot seemed lost. If QOS was flat you could say the same for Bourne series if you never saw the first one.

I never read the Hobbit books, but I do like fantasy. I didn't go see the first one in theaters, but I do have all 3 on DVD, just as I have all 6 Star Wars (Fantasy/ScFi) Harry Potter to throw in the mix. Not all of the films on their own were good, but it continues the story line.

From what I have notice over the last 20 years of film making. Movies are longer (avg 2 hrs) and studios are looking at long term value by looking at screenplays/books that will play over a 2-3 picture series. Most of your biggest money maker films now days are sequels franchises, Matrix, X-men, Spider man, Star Wars, Toy Story to name a few. And the real reason is when you have a 2-3 (5-6 HP/SW series) picture, its like reading the book and we all know how our society hates to read.

Whew, with that said, I can agree with not liking certain directors styles, which was talked briefly above and I think that is more of a issue than the film content.

[ForeverAutumn]

...studios are looking at long term value by looking at screenplays/books that will play over a 2-3 picture series.

Like Saw VI. :smilewinkgrin:

[Worf101]

I was going to bring up the Harry Potter movies, but I didn't know if my dislike of them had anything to do with me not reading the books. Alas, my husband is a fan and I've been dragged to each movie. So far I've managed to elude the latest one...but I know it's only a matter of time.

Perhaps I'd enjoy them more if I read the books. But when hubby has to fill in the blanks after I've seen the movie, in order for certain scenes to make sense...it just doesn't work for me.
Couldn't of said it any better myself. People fawn and eat up this crap and perhaps I'm just too old to connect to it, but H.P. has never, ever done one blessed thing for me.

Da Worfster

[3LB]

This is another terrible analogy...You need to see these movies before you slag them like this.you took that way too seriously...of all the people I thought I'd bait with that line...never thought it'd be you :lol:

:ciappa:

[3LB]

Caddyshack: Except Rodney Dangerfield's scenes, the rest of movie felt like a situation comedy scenario where none of it meshes comfortably into a cohesive whole. It was first time Harold Ramis directing, and it shows.
I'll admit that Caddyshack wasn't much more than a collection of bits and skits with a vaguely coherent plot, but it worked. It was at least pure in its intent. It was wildly influencial also - not saying it's influence was for the better though. Caddyshack not only spawned one horrible sequel, but an entire genre really. It was a movie whose premise was simply to show us some funny stuff, with nearly each scene being a comedy short (set-up and punchline) unto itself.

Speaking of Ramis, Ghostbusters was a movie that had its moments, but I never need to see it again. I thought it was just poorly written and acted (Ramis should never have acted in his own movies). Yet I knew guys who'd piss their pants laughing at most of it.

While I'm slagging '80s movies, I can't think of a movie which stars Dan Akroyd that I can stand.

[Feanor]

....
Speaking of Ramis, Ghostbusters was a movie that had its moments, but I never need to see it again. I thought it was just poorly written and acted (Ramis should never have acted in his own movies). Yet I knew guys who'd piss their pants laughing at most of it.
...

Nope, I gotta say I loved and love Ghostbusters. A favorite rewatcher of mine. Ramis was great as 'Dr Egon Spengler'. :ciappa:

[Feanor]

I think another reason I can't appreciate Pulp Fiction is that I have a hard time watching John Travolting in any movie. ...
Yeah, but I like the part where Bruce Willis riddled him with bullets. :cornut:

[Jack in Wilmington]

I was going to bring up the Harry Potter movies, but I didn't know if my dislike of them had anything to do with me not reading the books. Alas, my husband is a fan and I've been dragged to each movie. So far I've managed to elude the latest one...but I know it's only a matter of time.

Perhaps I'd enjoy them more if I read the books. But when hubby has to fill in the blanks after I've seen the movie, in order for certain scenes to make sense...it just doesn't work for me.

FA, do yourself and your hubby a favor and read them. You'll have a whole new perspective for these movies. The only people I know that don't like them, haven't read the books. This woman is the No. 1 author in the world. You owe it to all womankind to read them.

And I can't believe that you're not a James Bond fan. Especially the Sean Connery movies.

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, do yourself and your hubby a favor and read them. You'll have a whole new perspective for these movies. The only people I know that don't like them, haven't read the books. This woman is the No. 1 author in the world. You owe it to all womankind to read them.

And I can't believe that you're not a James Bond fan. Especially the Sean Connery movies.

I read the first book and enjoyed it. But I just never really had the urge to read any more of them. Just like music, there are too many books and too little time. I have to pick and choose and HP has just never made the cut.

As for the HP movies, a good movie should stand on its own two feet and not be reliant on having read the book to 'get' it. I have no problem with movies leaving out parts of the story for the sake of time or ease of storytelling. But the HP movies have huge gaping holes in them where things just don't make sense without the filler. This, in my opinion, makes them bad movies.

As for James Bond...if I want to watch a spy movie, I'd much rather watch Austin Powers. YEAH BABY! :)

[Geoffcin]

Rocky Horror Picture Show. I could never get why people were so mad about it. I mean some people went to see it hundreds of times! They brought rice to throw at the wedding, dressed up in character even when it wasn't Halloween. Could someone please "splain it to me Lucy"

[atomicAdam]

Donny Darko,

I don't get it. I mean, I get it, but I don't get it.

[atomicAdam]

Rocky Horror Picture Show. I could never get why people were so mad about it. I mean some people went to see it hundreds of times! They brought rice to throw at the wedding, dressed up in character even when it wasn't Halloween. Could someone please "splain it to me Lucy"

It is because they have no other reason in life for living. ... No, seriously. It is really cause they like it a lot, went a few times, met friends, had some fun, came back some more to see more friends, and there was probably some alcohol invoked, along with sex, drugs, and generally ugly people.

Get it?

[atomicAdam]

I'm not talking about the vertual amusement park rides like Tranformers and other action flicks, I'm talking about movies that are nearly universally beloved by most everyone you know, except you.

I got to thinking of this when I heard people returning from seeing Where The Wild Things Are. Of everyone loved it (if I'm gonna wait in line for anything, it better be awesome), but I harked back to the days when other must-see movies came out and I dutifully went to go see it and it fell flat for me.

E.T. - I was completely unmoved. Maybe it was all the hype, but I felt that the little creature looked like a badly constructed muppet. Nothing about the movie worked for me.

Three Men & A Baby - I sat through it once. I was on a date, or I woulda left. I still find it to be one of the most unwatchable movie I know besides Grease 2. Three of my most unfavorite actors are in this movie.

Pulp Fiction - This out-of-sequence scenes principle mighta worked had it tied in with the central plot (if there was one), but like a lot of Tarentino movies, it seems like so much style over substance, where a string of unrelated things happen and the only common thread is the sudden unexpected death of people who are living on borrowed time anyway.

Napolean Dynamite - Oh wait a minute, I get it now...this was funny cuz I actually paid to see it.


Get it, got it, good. Wait 3 Men.... what, no. No not that one. Brazil?

[canuckle]

Rocky Horror Picture Show. I could never get why people were so mad about it. I mean some people went to see it hundreds of times! They brought rice to throw at the wedding, dressed up in character even when it wasn't Halloween. Could someone please "splain it to me Lucy"
I think you really need to see the Rocky Horror Show on stage before you can appreciate RHPS. I didn't like the movie the first time I saw it and was generally baffled. Then I caught it on stage with a drunk and rowdy university crowd and it was so much fun. I went back to the movie again and it's now one of my top-3 films ever.

[Geoffcin]

It is because they have no other reason in life for living. ... No, seriously. It is really cause they like it a lot, went a few times, met friends, had some fun, came back some more to see more friends, and there was probably some alcohol invoked, along with sex, drugs, and generally ugly people.

Get it?

OK, I get it now. Sex, drugs, rock & roll, only with ugly people. Echh!

[Feanor]

Get it, got it, good. Wait 3 Men.... what, no. No not that one. Brazil?

OK ... I intend to watch Brazil again someday. I have to admit after my first and only viewing, I can't understand what the fuss is about.

[Jack in Wilmington]

I read the first book and enjoyed it. But I just never really had the urge to read any more of them. Just like music, there are too many books and too little time. I have to pick and choose and HP has just never made the cut.

As for the HP movies, a good movie should stand on its own two feet and not be reliant on having read the book to 'get' it. I have no problem with movies leaving out parts of the story for the sake of time or ease of storytelling. But the HP movies have huge gaping holes in them where things just don't make sense without the filler. This, in my opinion, makes them bad movies.

As for James Bond...if I want to watch a spy movie, I'd much rather watch Austin Powers. YEAH BABY! :)

How can you even say spy movie and Austin Powers in the same sentence. Ian Flemming must be turning over in his grave.

We all complain about the HP movies and what gets left out. If they put it all in, the movies would be mini series.

[atomicAdam]

OK ... I intend to watch Brazil again someday. I have to admit after my first and only viewing, I can't understand what the fuss is about.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Could just be one of those that will always be better in book form.