Movies you just didn't "get".

[Rich-n-Texas]

Donnie Darko.........WTF?

Nacho Libre.......... Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?

Not me. Not in the slightest.

[ForeverAutumn]

Donnie Darko.........WTF?

Nacho Libre.......... Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?

Both of these are movies that I started to watch and didn't get through the first half hour.

I don't "get" Jack Black. He's not funny. I liked School of Rock, but not because of him. I can name a dozen actors who would have been good in that role.

You know who else I don't get? Vince Vaughn. How is he famous? He's not much of an actor and he's not even good looking.

[3-LockBox]

Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?

He was moderately funny in a few early films as a supporting character, but as a main character, he's more aggrevating to watch than Adam Sandler. But everyone wants to elevate him because he reminds them of Chris-John-Candy-Belushi-Farley.

Quick, someone hand Jack a copy of The Confederacy Of Dunces script!

[canuckle]

1. There Will Be Blood. Didn't get it. Rich guy. Kid goes deaf. Life goes to ****. Movie ends?

I agree entirely with There Will Be Blood being on the list. There was nothing being struggled against, just the same character making no progress and achieving nothing, then credits. For two hours I was bored stupid, then one hour of wishing I would just die to make it end, then they went for the dramatic climax and everyone in the theatre broke out in laughter at how stupid and pointless the whole thing was. I did not get a thing about that movie... especially its critical praise.

I'd add Brazil to the list. Another critical favourite that's hailed as genius but left me wondering what on Earth any of it meant.

[Worf101]

1. There Will Be Blood. Didn't get it. Rich guy. Kid goes deaf. Life goes to ****. Movie ends?

2. No Country for Old Men. People die. Guy flips coin to make hard choices. Kills at end. Sheriff retires. The end?

3. History of Violence. Man stops robbery. Is he really just a small town father? Movie turns dark. Writers crib dialoug from crappy Mafia play. Son is a mental midget, with even worse lines. Rough sex. Terrible "special" effects. Are we done yet?

Those are my 3 worst movies that I didn't get.

Seen all three. LOVED one and two, enjoyed number 3 till the fake accents in the end.

Da Worfster

[Feanor]

...

Fargo - it was OK, but I never got why it was supposed to be a great movie.

...

I've seen Fargo once and haven't had the heart or stomach to watch it again. Maybe if it were a "great" film, I'd have done so. In any case what it's about is clear enough: the greed, gratuitous violence -- and above all -- stupidity of criminals.

[Groundbeef]

I've seen Fargo once and haven't had the heart or stomach to watch it again. Maybe if it were a "great" film, I'd have done so. In any case what it's about is clear enough: the greed, gratuitous violence -- and above all -- stupidity of criminals.

I liked Fargo. I think that it was partly based on real events. At least it had a plot unlike There Will be Blood.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Fargo certainly had it's moments. Especially the wood chipper scene.

[nightflier]

From the polarized opinions of Fargo and Napoleon Dynamite, I'm going to guess that there are equally polarized views on humor. I thought both where very funny, in the same way that Pulp Fiction was funny - although we did get some stares from people walking out of the theater on that one (this is Orange County, after all).

I also thought Donny Darko was very good, although I agree that Jack Black fares better in dramas than comedies. What was that one where he invented some kind of spray to vaporize dog poop and became a millionaire? That was two hours of my life I'd like to get back.

Speaking of dramas, NCFOM and There will be Blood where very good films. Those wheren't so much about the storyline or the action scenes, but about the character development. Daniel Lewis is an excellent actor, IMO.

[Auricauricle]

I thought that Fargo and NCFOM were certainly unconventional, but considering thier source cleared up quite a few questions I had about development of plot and the niceties of climax development, etc. I like to see the works of the Coens as slices of life which depict all the various ways man is capable of falling from grace and, hopefully, redeeming himself. The Coens are equally adept at portaying both the humorous and the horriffic. In contrast their work to horrors portrayed by Tarantino, whose forays sometimes stray far and into places that are quite disturbing, the Coens' sensibility is tempered by deft timing and restraint.

I also liked There Will be Blood, which I thought a masterpiece depiction of a man consumed by avarice, obsession and drive; all culminating in the development of Daniel Day Lewis' character. This man is a true monster, devoid of any shred of sorrow nor remourse. The violence in the movie was horrible, but it was a visceral and cerebral sort that left me feeling sticky. Contrast that to films like Saw or parts of Kill Bill that were grotesquly pornographic or simply gratuitous.

[Woochifer]

Pretty much everything I've seen from Mike Leigh (Naked, Life Is Sweet). A lot of cinephiles slobber all over themselves explaining how "great" and "uncompromising" Leigh is. But, I found his movies to be pretentious BS. It's not that I "don't get it." Problem I have with his movies is that I get them all too well.

I liked Fargo. I think that it was partly based on real events. At least it had a plot unlike There Will be Blood.

Hate to burst the bubble, but in the commentary track for Fargo, they pointed out that the whole "real events" angle was a ruse. They said that the "real events" tagline got inserted into the credits to make the audience reaction more intense.

I'd add Brazil to the list. Another critical favourite that's hailed as genius but left me wondering what on Earth any of it meant.

Actually, that's one of my all-time favorites. Bizarre alternative reality. It took more than one sitting for me to sort out the whole reality vs dream aspect, but I thought the movie as a whole was great. A nightmarish Orwellian fantasy with Monty Pythonesque comedic flourishes thrown in for good measure. The juxtaposition of horror and comedy elements is not typical of American movies, but very typical of movies from Hong Kong, which is probably why I like this.

You know who else I don't get? Vince Vaughn. How is he famous? He's not much of an actor and he's not even good looking.

He was perfect for his starmaking role in Swingers. Subsequent roles have been less than stellar, I agree.

Nacho Libre.......... Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?

Loved his role in High Fidelity.

[RoadRunner6]

2001: A Space Odyssey ..... I did't get it either, but what a marvelous movie. I have heard many times that you had to read the book to understand the ending. The movie script tried to get too cute without making the ending clear enough.

Fargo ..... Rather cute dry comedy/drama. Frances McDormand and William H. Macy were both great in this movie.

Brazil ..... Wow! I want to watch that movie again, or maybe several times. Filled with some strange brilliance.

Bambi Meets Godzilla ..... (my wife is Japanese and hates this movie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAVYY...eature=related

Deep Throat ..... My ex-wife didn't get it.

RR6

[Luvin Da Blues]

Deep Throat ..... My ex-wife didn't get it.RR6

I'm guessing neither did you??

[Rich-n-Texas]

...Deep Throat ..... My ex-wife didn't get it.

RR6

That's because she only had 2 inches to work with.





AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

[Smokey]

[Feanor]

2001: A Space Odyssey ..... I did't get it either, but what a marvelous movie. I have heard many times that you had to read the book to understand the ending. The movie script tried to get too cute without making the ending clear enough.
...
Brazil ..... Wow! I want to watch that movie again, or maybe several times. Filled with some strange brilliance.
...
RR6

Brazil goes onto my Zip List for reviewing. I must admit it's brilliance eluded me on my first and only viewing, but I'll give it another shot.

2001, yeah, I missed what it is about until it was explained to me ... a few times.

[Auricauricle]

I like Brazil very much. If you take the Terry Gilliam twists in stride and the satire in step, it's a lot more comprehensible....I reckon. Um...

[Woochifer]

Brazil goes onto my Zip List for reviewing. I must admit it's brilliance eluded me on my first and only viewing, but I'll give it another shot.

I'll add that there are two distinctly different versions of Brazil that got out. If you saw the movie on broadcast TV, then you likely got the "love conquers all" version, which is the butchered edit that Universal put together after Terry Gilliam got fired towards the end of post production. It completely dispenses with the dream sequences and makes the whole thing more literal with a happy ending. Basically, it sucks.

Fortunately, on DVD the only way to see the "love conquers all" edit is to buy the three-disc Criterion set, which packages together the theatrical cuts, the "love conquers all" version, and a documentary that goes over the behind-the-scenes battle between Gilliam and the studio bosses at Universal over which version of the movie would get released. Literally, Gilliam had to sneak his working print of the movie off the studio lot, and stage a secret screening for the L.A. film critics who promptly anointed it as their Best Picture for that year. This forced Universal to release Gilliam's cut in theaters, but they also kept the "love conquers all" version for broadcast TV.

2001, yeah, I missed what it is about until it was explained to me ... a few times.

I always heard that during 2001's initial release, people would come to the theater stoned, and just wait around for the big light show at the end and move to the front of the theater. I've seen 2001 numerous times in 70mm, and it's funny because when that "Infinity" sequence starts, I still see the big procession to the front row. This movie is about as abstract as a mainstream film can get, yet it has an odd accessibility about it. This too ranks among my favorites, even if I can't really explain much of what it's about.

[audio amateur]

I always heard that during 2001's initial release, people would come to the theater stoned, and just wait around for the big light show at the end and move to the front of the theater. I've seen 2001 numerous times in 70mm, and it's funny because when that "Infinity" sequence starts, I still see the big procession to the front row. This movie is about as abstract as a mainstream film can get, yet it has an odd accessibility about it. This too ranks among my favorites, even if I can't really explain much of what it's about.

Just watched that one tonight. Very slow going movie overall but interesting. I had a look at its FAQs on IMDB because frankly it's quite necessary. Apparently you understand more if you read the book, which I haven't.

[Auricauricle]

There was a time that the movie and book, 2001 were very interesting to me. I think I have read the book about five times, and have seen the movie maybe a dozen times. So fanatical was I that I would sit in the living room as a kid, mentally "tripping" over the soundtrack. To this day, I still own a special edition soundtrack for old times' sake....

In the context of the time of its release, 2001 was a fairly influential movie that really set a new standard for sci-fi fare. In my blog, I wrote about the influence of the movie Alien, which I thought was seminal in introducing audiences to a realistic depiction of the "could be". It was released concurrently with the movie Apocalypse Now, which gave audiences a very brutal picture of man's descent into the Darkness. 2001 is much more cerebral and mysterious, which fits the era in which it was made.

Incidentally, there was a time, in the incipient phases of 2001, that Roger Waters and The PInk Floyd approached Kubrick about scoring the soundtrack. Can you imagine what that would have been like? Check out Zabriske Point, Obscured by Clouds and More....

[Jack in Wilmington]

Both of these are movies that I started to watch and didn't get through the first half hour.

I don't "get" Jack Black. He's not funny. I liked School of Rock, but not because of him. I can name a dozen actors who would have been good in that role.

You know who else I don't get? Vince Vaughn. How is he famous? He's not much of an actor and he's not even good looking.

C'mon FA, I thought Vince was the only thing that held Wedding Crashers together. Look what else he was up against Owen Wilson and Will Ferrell talk about two guys stealing money in Hollywood. You got more chance of Lindsey Lohan wearing underwear than Will Ferrell making a good movie.

[audio amateur]

There was a time that the movie and book, 2001 were very interesting to me. I think I have read the book about five times, and have seen the movie maybe a dozen times. So fanatical was I that I would sit in the living room as a kid, mentally "tripping" over the soundtrack. To this day, I still own a special edition soundtrack for old times' sake....

I'm not sure I could watch that movie over and over again.. I tend to be a patient guy but this film was almost overboard, and honestly, there's not much of a soundtrack to speak of. It's mostly blazing silences. Add to that a 3 minute video 'silence' in the middle of the film. I thought there was something wrong with my copy of the film
That aside, whatever soundtrack was there I enjoyed.

In the context of the time of its release, 2001 was a fairly influential movie that really set a new standard for sci-fi fare. In my blog, I wrote about the influence of the movie Alien, which I thought was seminal in introducing audiences to a realistic depiction of the "could be". It was released concurrently with the movie Apocalypse Now, which gave audiences a very brutal picture of man's descent into the Darkness. 2001 is much more cerebral and mysterious, which fits the era in which it was made.

Alien, now we're talking. Definitely in my top 10 films.

[Auricauricle]

Like I said, I was pretty crazy about 2001... I still am, although maybe not with the same zeal, but certainly consider it one of the most important sci-fi films ever made and a real favorite.

I think films can be apreciated the way that Freud suggested that dreams can be interpreted: by their manifest or their latent content. In applying a manifest interpretation, the film (dream) is interpreted literally. Metaphors or other literary devices are laid aside for unadorned depiction; what you see is what you get. On the other hand, a latent interpretation uses metaphors and other devices to allude to a truth that lies beneath the action.

2001 is very metaphorical and uses lots of symbolism that has left many scholars still shaking their heads in disbelief and exasperated befuddlement. As an example, think about the end of the movie, when Bowman (the archer, the arrow, the penetrating object) sits at a table eating a meal. As he eats, his glass of wine falls and breaks. He looks up, and there's the Monolith. He stares. What is going on, here?

Although I cannot begin to fathom this silence, let me suggest that the breaking of the glass was representational of a break from the past, a break with familarity, and a beginning of a new life. In Jewish weddings, the a glass is broken by the (husband?), symbolizing a break from the old, a break from the former family, and an entrance into the new. This makes the entrance of the star-child, the embryo that floats high above the Earth at the end of the movie, more comprehensible: it is confirmation of Mankind's new beginning.

So, 2001 is a movie that takes some figuring. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot in the film that I find quite abstruse and will likely never get. On the other hand, I think a lot of people who are po'd with the film because it's "just weird", are probably using their own way of looking at the world to do so....

[audio amateur]

Like I said, I was pretty crazy about 2001... I still am, although maybe not with the same zeal, but certainly consider it one of the most important sci-fi films ever made and a real favorite.

I think films can be apreciated the way that Freud suggested that dreams can be interpreted: by their manifest or their latent content. In applying a manifest interpretation, the film (dream) is interpreted literally. Metaphors or other literary devices are laid aside for unadorned depiction; what you see is what you get. On the other hand, a latent interpretation uses metaphors and other devices to allude to a truth that lies beneath the action.

2001 is very metaphorical and uses lots of symbolism that has left many scholars still shaking their heads in disbelief and exasperated befuddlement. As an example, think about the end of the movie, when Bowman (the archer, the arrow, the penetrating object) sits at a table eating a meal. As he eats, his glass of wine falls and breaks. He looks up, and there's the Monolith. He stares. What is going on, here?

Although I cannot begin to fathom this silence, let me suggest that the breaking of the glass was representational of a break from the past, a break with familarity, and a beginning of a new life. In Jewish weddings, the a glass is broken by the (husband?), symbolizing a break from the old, a break from the former family, and an entrance into the new. This makes the entrance of the star-child, the embryo that floats high above the Earth at the end of the movie, more comprehensible: it is confirmation of Mankind's new beginning.

So, 2001 is a movie that takes some figuring. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot in the film that I find quite abstruse and will likely never get. On the other hand, I think a lot of people who are po'd with the film because it's "just weird", are probably using their own way of looking at the world to do so....

Don't worry, as i mentionned earlier, I did some research on the symbolism and various metaphores of the film just after I watched it. I think it's good to have elements left to interpretation but this goes a little far for the simple minded or even those who haven't any previous contact with the material in order to understand a lot of what is going on.

Avoid this if you haven't seen the film
During the light show towards the end I thought he was seeing a supernova.
Generally, the different clues overall were too subtle to link the different pieces together in order to 'understand' the drift of what is going on, especially at the end (interpretation is largely open, as you probably know).
BTW, I didn't fully get what the problem was with the communication dish and the deal with the computer. Perhaps you can enlighten me

[Auricauricle]

The communication dish in 2001 was Discovery's (the space ship) link to Earth. Hal, the computer, was responsible for ensuring that the dish was focused upon Earth, for even a slight deviation of a degree or two could translate in complete loss of contact with Earth, mission control, etc. Remember, Discovery was deployed to seek out the target of the Monolith's shriek, when Floyd visited the excavation of it when he went to Clavius (Moon) which was focused on Jupiter's moon, Europa (I think).

In replacing the tracking module in the dish, Poole and Bowman were following the instructions of Hal, who told them the unit was in imminent threat of failure. Replacing the unit was arduous and very dangerous, and when Poole and Bowman conducted a diagnostic on the unit and found it sound, they concluded that Hal was in error.

The repercussions of Hal's mistake were serious, for if Hal was capable of erring in this case, Hal may act erroneously elsewhere. Hal was in charge of not only keeping the dish focused, but over nearly every other functional aspect of operating Discovery, including the crew's life-support.

At this point, Poole and Bowman decided that, for the safety of the crew and to ensure the mission's success, Hal must be disconnected....Not something Hal was counting on and certainly a prospect that disturbed the old mainframe very badly....

Question: Was Hal in error or was Hal an unwitting participant in a larger scheme?