 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Forgetting the movies currently in release, those less than 2 years old, and grade-Z fodder, what are some of the critically popular and/or successful movies that you just don't get or can't stand? You think they suck or can't understand why anybody thinks it's so great..........My list of ten (out of many):
1. "Silence of the Lambs" (Love Hopkins and I am in love with Jodi Foster but this thing is stupid and ugly). The sequel, Hannibal, is just as ridiculious.
2. "HEAT" (DeNiro and Pacino but that is all)
3. "The Phantom Menace" (I loved the original trilogy but this one is way too much SFX and way too little story)
4. "Batman" - Tim Burton with Keaton and Nicholson (on my list of the worst films ever made)
5. "Cleopatara" (1963) I really dislike Elizabeth Taylor when she's in her "movie star" mode. She could really act when she wanted to but this film isn't the place to see good acting. This may be the world record film for the number of excellent actors in the cast who should have loked for work elsewhere. See the 1930's C.B. DeMille version with Claudette Colbert. Tells the same story in 1/2 the time with much better acting.
6. "Natural Born Killers." How many ways can you say "This thing sucks?"
7. "The Ten Commandments." What destroys this movie for me isn't the story - it's the greatest epic story ever told - but the incredibly hammy acting by the "A" cast. DeMille at his best - and worst. See #5, above, for a good DeMille movie.
8. "Tommy Boy." Bless Chris Farley's heart. Poor kid had lots of spirit but very little actual talent. Tried to be Belushi but just didn't have the stuff.
9. "The Lost World: Jurassic Park II." The original Jurassic park was a real thrill. The sequels had no reason for being. Not scary and not worth watching. Much too predictible.
10. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." Spielberg almost ruined this series with this cliche-on-cliche claptrap. Granted, the series is all about cliche but at least the first and third installments were interesting and fun. This one is just loud and DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.Okay, flamers, get out your flamethrowers.
Follow Ups:
as well as nearly every other Oliver Stone movie.Titanic.
E.T.
Dances with Wolves
Moulin Rouge (sic)
and a lot more...
Rob
"Ain't it the truth. Ain't it the truth." Not a question - a statement.
nt
Oh man, Natural Born Killers is just one of a whole body of crappy work by a poor misguided soul that should really get a different job.Jerry Brukheimer has produced his share too.
The Hollywood studios have a real knack. They can ruin almost anyone.
Hal Hartly, beware.Later
D
Especially rolling thunder, & eyes wide.
Other than that, I'm burnt out on John Carpenter movies, and any movie that has to use explosives and silicon boob jobs in order to sell.Stuff I need to see more of?
DUAL!
Bolt
or Rolling Thunder as you call it was horrible. It was Bruckheimer at his worst. I expected more from Robert Towne but he did share writing credits with Tom Cruise.I happened to see this at a theater which had the sound up very loud and it was tiresome and painful to sit there for the duration.
Jerry Bruckheimer may not make artsy fartsy films, but he has a keen sense of knowing what the public wants and delivering it !
It sure does suck! But is it any worse than "Cocktail" or "Top Gun?" At least TG had some gret aerial photography to go along with its hoary old cliche ridden pantload of a script.
cocktail was just the worst, right along with rolling desaster! :P
m
You've just named two of my favs. Oh well, can't win them all.dan
Oh boy danj, you've openned a can of worms.1. Silence of the Lambs, great film though it's sad that our times give this an oscar. You DO know that Jodie is a doughnut bumper, right?
2. Heat. AGREED!! Michael Mann, as sympathetic as I could be, as he is from my home town is a borish hack. Can't stand his films. Ali -- don't get me started...
3. Agree again. Crap on a Light Sabre
4. Have to disagree with this one. The original BATAMAN was great fun, mostly because of Jack's creativity.
5. Of course, a total bore.
6. Can't agree more. There aren't enough ways to say this thing sucks and is overrated.
7. Of course. Heston is a comedian's dream.
8. OH BOY. Here we go. Sacrilidge -- Though I would readily admit Tommy Boy was crap, I loved it. And for John Belushi, ugh! I found Chris Farley much funnier and actually always thought that Belushi was tremendously overrated. He was given too much credit at the time and don't feel his work holds up today. He's the Picasso of comedy -- an overated hack. Farley was funny, Tommy Boy a gem.
9. Of course! Greedy for bucks.
10. Spielberg is an ET worshipping shitkicker.
Hmmm. I guess art isn't your field of interest? If for no other reason than being one of the founders of a meaningful (historically, if you will grant it no other gravitas) movement, i.e. Cubism, Picasso is guaranteed immortality. And this was only his beginning. One may not like Picasso's work of a particular period, but slamming the entire oeuvre is overkill, no? With talents that span so many decades, and so many styles, it is fatuous to make sophomoric pronouncements. Like saying Shakespeare was an overrated hack, or Bach. Ah, but the power one feels in slamming the Gods, eh?Farley was no comedic giant, I agree there. The only thing he shared with John Belushi was girth.
critics are only failed artists.Chris
I took a few great art courses at Princeton, one of which was a modern art course covering such greats as Picasso. I appreciated his contributions but always felt he was given way too much credit. I never thought any of his work was outstanding and felt he was given such praise mostly for a concept. I certainly don't think I was out of line calling him an overrated hack -- that's how I see it. In a hundred years, maybe the pseudo intellectuals will see the emperors clothes for what they are.I do enjoy art. Van Gogh has always been my favorite and the Van Gogh museum in amsterdam my favorite museum.
...how often people use the phrase "pseudo intellectual" and its variations to label something they dislike. What exactly about Picasso's art is pseudo-intellectual?
Nothing. I just consider art scholars who praise him like a god to be. Like I said, I feel he was given way too much credit for a concept.Obviously, those who like his work would disagree.
> > Like I said, I feel he was given way too much credit for a concept. < <Which concept of his do you mean?
nt
I don't think I get your point. Picasso was a pioneer of cubism[among other things], but you're saying that he got too much credit for it. In what way is he over-rated exactly? Just curious.
Picasso a pioneer of cubism...Dima, as many would say it was Cezanne who started it all.
"Nature should be handled with cylinder, sphere and cone".
But regardless, asking questions is easy, why don't you tell us why you disagree with him?
I find the "pseudo-intellectual, overrated hack" bit a little, how to say it...lame. Yeah, lame is the right word.
Bringing a movie-relevant comparison - Is Bergmann a "pseudo-intellectual, overrated hack"? Some say that too. Is it true, then? I suspect[:)!] you know the answer.
Now, that's the real question, Jimmy.
That is a hard one. We have two things to go by. One is the accepted norms. They say Bergman (Picasso) is NOT pseudo-anything, but rather the titan.Another approach is the nihilistic self-reliance. *I* and only I define what is intellectual, and if I, for whatever reason do not accept this form, it must be pseudo-......
Interesting here to note, that while the first one hardly ever changes (after all, it was some VERY smart people who already went that way for us) the second one is forever moving... as we grow.
I didn't see him say "overrated hack" - if he did, that would be trying to cross the line separating the first approach from the second one. Picasso most certainly was NOW a hack.
> > Another approach is the nihilistic self-reliance. *I* and only I define what is intellectual, and if I, for whatever reason do not accept this form, it must be pseudo-...... < <Fine, if you have done a lot of intellectual[!] analysis, you may arrive at the above conclusion about, say, Picasso. This in turn negates that artists who followed the idea, the style and the philosophy, and in turn influenced other artists, who then are themselves "pseudo-intellectual"[I still want to know what he meant by that] and "hacks".
By itself this isn't anything earth-shattering or big deal and has been done all-throughout history of the arts, but I'd think labeling someone of Picasso's clout an "over-rated hack" requires a bit of lengthy and solid basis, not a series of snippy one line repartes. All I wanted was an explanation.> > Picasso most certainly was NOW a hack. < <
Sorry, V, I didn't get that.
I don't think followers of Picasso's style are necessarily pseudo intellectuals (and after consideration, I now feel that that phrase is probably best left unused). Bashing the rabid praisers of Picasso doesn't negate the artists which follow in his style. Perhaps the artists are excellent. I just do not feel that Picasso deserved the extreme praise and reverence he got and do not consider him the great master as many do. For the type of work he did, I think he was maybe above average. That's it. If I saw just one of his works which I honestly felt was outstanding, I would change my mind. I have seen a few of his works which I consider very weak efforts. One obscure painting which was auctioned off about 10 years ago I felt was laughably bad. I wish I knew the name of the piece. I actually cut the picture out of the magazine and sent it to a Picasso praising friend of mine, who regrettfully agreed that the work was not very good.Picasso supporters will often argue that he had already demonstrated technical virtuosity in his realistic sketchings and paintings. I don't consider that point valid, as I wouldn't consider his realistic work very good.
It is pointless to argue the merits of the artist when there is just a difference of opinion. In matters of taste there is no dispute. Some of the compositions of his cubistic work are nice. I'd still consider the execution average. The composition of of much of his work strikes me as quite trite and the execution tiresome. I never felt his use of color (for example) was terribly interesting or complex. Like music that has no durability, I wouldn't care to take in much of his work for very long. The multimillion dollar price tags on many of his average works seem out of line. I find the works of many lesser acclaimed artists to be certainly equal to his work.
"Over rated hack" is most certainly not a wise phrase to use about a widely praised and respected artist, even though that is honestly how I see it. It was careless of me to bash a popular favorite when I really don't have much interest to discuss it. My viewpoint is not a popular one with art enthusiasts and certainly not likely to find any supporters around here.
I would definitely not put Picasso in the same class as Bach or Brahms as I feel his merits are not comparable and leagues below those composers. As opposed to those legitimate accomplished talents, Picasso has been given just insane amounts of praise for what has always struck me as average work. I have heard the arguments of Picasso enthusiasts before and have considered their points. It still comes down to the work, which I don't think is anything special.
Any further explanation would require me to refamiliarize myself with his body of work and all my thoughts and feelings about it. It's not a road I'd care to go down again.
Just a couple of observations.
Picasso did not originate 'cubism'. Georges Braque did.Cezanne was probably THE most influential artist of the last 2 centuries. Certainly on a very short list.
Picasso was unbelievably prolific and creative. That earns him enormous respect. He created art works of all levels of quality.
You may not like someone's art. That means exactly nothing about the quality of the art. You have to ask: why do art historians consider this guy's work great? Then see if you can discover for yourself.
There are a number of artists that garner respect that is questionable, in terms of just what they accomplished and the lasting influence on other artists. The DADA group immediately comes to mind. Even though
Duchamp created some early great works, his lasting influence is rather nihilistic and has actually set the whole art world back for the last 50+ years.But, hey everyone makes a mistake once in awhile, even the critics and historians.
But this is no art history class.
Is pseudo-intellectual an actual concept, or a political construct.Later
D
> > Picasso most certainly was NOW a hack. < <
***Sorry, V, I didn't get that.Was meant to be "Picasso most certainly was NOT a hack".
Meaning that it is hard to argue withe the contribution the man had made to art.
The discussions of the type "I don't like Brahms!" are not new. As one gets older one usually also gets cooler during those. Nihilist tends to dissipate with age... but you read Turgenev, I am sure.
Next time you're in Paris, check out the Picasso Museum. His drawings alone place him in a category quite above the considerable skills of V G. Then, take into account the complexity of Picasso's development beyond Cubism, i.e. the Blue and Pink periods. Well, V G is like the Beatles, every one likes him. He's very accessible for the masses, being one dimensional.Oh, by the way, Picasso is also generally considered one of the finest sculptors, in many mediums (clay, metal, etc). Regarding influence, he is indisputably the most important artist of the last 100 years. But, hey, some folks don't like Michelangelo...
I must say, in closing, it is outrageous to find an audiophile extoling the virtues of a gentleman who chopped off one of his hearing organs!
Restaurant in Las Vegas. No kidding. It's no doubt even more of a treat if you're a fan of his art.I'm going to San Franciso on the 24th and will most probably check out the SFMOMA. Maybe the "Torso de femme" (which looks like one of his better efforts) is more impressive in person. If I have anything positive to post, I'll make sure to do so. Otherwise, I'll keep my mouth shut which I should have done in the first place.
I AM a fan of the Jon Lovitz "Picasso" sketch on SNL.
Funny about the ear chopping.When I was in Paris, I didn't go to the Picasso museum -- I should have and will check it out next time. I have seen various periods of his and have never been impressed. Last year I viewed a few of his sketches showing at the Matisse museum in Nice (I really liked the Chagall museum as well, even though he was quite warped). I didn't make it to Paris last year (just visited Cannes, Nice and Monaco in May -- Cannes is great fun during the festival). In Paris, I only took in the museum for "the masses" -- the Louvre. By the way, I love the modern geometric entrance to the Louvre. (This is another viewpoint that would get me blasted by traditionalists, but feel the design is outstanding and appropriate).
I like many other modern and impressionist artists including Pollock, Pissarro, and many other lesser known artists in addition to standard favorites such as Manet and Monet. Still, I never get tired of Van Gogh -- especially in person -- just amazing composition, color and texture. I find some of Pollock's paintings absolutely stunning in person. Pollock would be one who is not typically for the masses and one I greatly prefer to Picasso.
They have a tremendous collection of modern work at the Albright Knox museum here, which I've enjoyed many times over the years. My family has a couple paintings from local artists who became quite well known -- Walter Pechownick and Walter Garver. For a while, growing up, I had a Walter Garver painting in my room. I feel it's one of his better works a slightly abstract depiction of a Dutch boy with his toy windmill. It's quite different from most of his offerings, and I think miles better. I prefer either of these relatively unknown artists to Picasso.
Picasso could be considered an artist for the masses, really. He's just as well known as Van Gogh. We all have different tastes. My view on Picasso is not a popular one, especially among academic types. I haven't had a Picasso discussion in well over 15 yrs and perhaps shouldn't have gotten into it. There was a time when I was well versed on it and used to like to discuss it. Even as I've aged and now like jazz rather than r&b, I don't like Picasso any more. As far as the Picasso's go, I think Paloma has done better work than Pablo.
There is a reason many people like the Beatles and Van Gogh -- they're good! I think Picasso's paintings brought more money in relation to Van Gogh's paintings 20 years ago than they do today. The Van Gogh's have been priced out of this world in recent years, which has not surprised me.
What do you mean with " warped" ?
Basically what I was talking about was his fixation with angel/Jesus/devil themes (with a side order of roosters/chickens?)and their portrayal.For example, "Abraham et les trois Anges" is an enormous canvas (all of his paintings in the gallery are enormous) of overwhelming dark red with three angels holding chickens(?) as Abraham looks on.
There was an after-world theme to many of the paintings in the gallery and some of them really struck me as funny or over the top. They reminded me of that comical painting in "Mickey Blue Eyes" where Jesus is mowing people down with a machine gun.
Not that I didn't like the paintings -- quite the opposite -- they just struck me as a little bent.
Sorry. Watching Farley's attempts at humor are almost painful. Only when he was with David Spade was there some hint of a light in there. Maybe he needed a good straight man to be funny.As for Belushi, I guess I'll never convince you and you'll never convince me. I think Belushi was incredibly funny, when he was "on." Love "The Blues Brothers" and "Animal House" and "Neighbors" and all. Farley wasn't good enough to carry his Saturday Night Samurai sword.
As for "Batman." Liked Nicholson, hated the movie when he wasn't on screen. High camp without the humor that would have made it so much better. Course, it was better than the sequels.
"Ten Commandments" problem isn't just Heston. Yul Brynner, Anne Baxter, and Yvonne DeCarlo - all fine actors - are even hammier than Heston. The scene where Ramases confronts Neferteri after Moses' return from exile is screamingly funny because it is so horribly acted and directed. No parody can do it justice as it is its own parody.
I gotta tread softly in my house on that subject as my wife's two favorite movies are 1. The Ten Commandments and 2. Topgun. Both make me hurl. I'd rather have inflammed 'roids than have to sit through Topgun and rather have an enraged rhino stomp a mudhole in my cranium than have to watch Ten Commandments. - it's certainly a "better" movie than, say, "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but no easier to sit through.
And I have no idea what a "donut bumper is." So I guess I didn't know about Jodie Foster being one.
Most probably true about the Ten commandments -- haven't seen it in many, many years.I was a little harsh on Spielberg -- I liked Jaws and Schindler's.
I actually liked Belushi in Neighbors and thought he was ok elsewhere. I know it's sacriledge, but I actually found Farley funnier.
The rumor has been that Jodie is strictly a ladies gal. Too bad -- I've always liked her too. She one of my favorite actresses and I thought she did a bright directing job with Little Man Tate as well.
I'm a straight guy but I could never figure out why some people get so upset over who a person they don't even know chooses to sleep with. If Ms. Foster is gay, that's her business and not mine.
You're right. I shouldn't have mentioned it, but was compelled because you said you were in love with her.
She's a favorite actress of mine, though I found "Panic Room" disappointing.As Norm said on "Cheers,"
"It should be WHAT you do, not WHO you do."
In love with her as in I love her as an actress and a personality - not as a person whom I have never met.
It seems that Excess and Over The Top Humor is considered funny these days. Why do comedians...even the stand-up variety...feel they have to exert themselves verbally and physically to make a point ?What's up with that ?
"It seems that Excess and Over The Top Humor is considered funny these days. Why do comedians...even the stand-up variety...feel they have to exert themselves verbally and physically to make a point ?"Ummm, when WASN'T Excess and Over The Top Humor considered funny? Physical exertion - it's called slapstick and it's as old as comedy itself.
Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, Abbott and Costello, the Marx Brothers, etc., etc. . .
Hardly an accurate comparison of comedic styles to Farley's. There is a subtext to the examples that you give here...good try though.To me, Farley et al, seem to feel that excessive assaulting ones senses with manic gesturing, coupled with loud vulgar references for their forced humor. I think it's the vulgar references that get me. There is nothing underneath the noises. In other words, is this important to the performance or is the heightened efx, just trying wring out the most something that isnt there ?
a tough act to follow. In addition to these more "animated delivery systems" there is the ever-decreasing IQ of the audiences. It's like clubbing a mule to get its attention.
... than flame! ;^)FTR, I found "The Lost World" to have elements that I consider superior to the first in the series. I loved that tongue 'n cheek series of scenes toward the end of the picture where the T-Rex is loose and rampaging through suburban California! As for tension, that scene with the research RV over the cliff with it's cracking glass sequence is an all time classic, IMHO. Also, the scene where the raptors are moving through the tall grass and picking off members of the corporate sponsored safari is very effective! So, to make a short story longer, from my perspective "The Lost World" had fewer continuity errors, more suspense, better overall effects and flashes of wit which were missing in either of the other entries.
Nevertheless, just so you don't get the idea that my critique is intended to singe that flame suit of yours, I pretty much agree with your opinion of almost everything else on the list.
Audiophilander
The last 1/2 of JP II reminded me of a Godzilla flick. Yeah, it had some good scenes but the whole was less than the sum of its parts.
(nt)
and it has definitely not aged well the 2nd time around. Spielberg's target; collective middle-Class American sentimentality; one not in the least hard to miss!
Eric
Tokyo*
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
