Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:04:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Films which you just cannot like, even though you think you should.

Started by wasp_f15ting, December 15, 2010, 10:13:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

wasp_f15ting

I had to mention Gaspar Noe's Enter the void

But I could not think of any way to describe my frustration over this film. It has interesting elements and quite stunning photography, but the over indulgent Gaspar went on his own mission to make this film with no restraints whatsoever. The result is an utter mess that is completely disjointed with a narrative that is so airy it feels like you need a few red bulls not to fall asleep. I keep thinking the neon lights and the gritty story should appeal to me, but my mind won't let me like it.

Another film I feel this way about is; Benjamin Button.

Again another film where the director over indulges certain relationships. Again the photography and cinematography are top notch. But the whole story is ruined by weakly written dialogue. I keep thinking I should get more out of this film than I should but it pretty much is a simple and boring film for me.

Fargo is another one to ad to the list..

Do any of you feel about films this way?

ThickAndCreamy

Blade Runner

Just feels melodramatic and cold to me, despite liking nearly every critically acclaimed dystopian sci-fi imaginable.

Unlike other critiques I have for these sort of films (lack of new ideas (Equilibrium), predictability (Idiocracy), Triviality (I, Robot) and poorly formed theories (all of those)) Blade Runner doesn't succumb to them. It's just as a film I find it mind-numbingly dull and it leaves me uninvolved and lacking any form of empathy.

vrailaine

Quote from: ThickAndCreamy on December 15, 2010, 10:32:36 AM
Blade Runner

Just feels melodramatic and cold to me, despite liking nearly every critically acclaimed dystopian sci-fi imaginable.

Unlike other critiques I have for these sort of films (lack of new ideas (Equilibrium), predictability (Idiocracy), Triviality (I, Robot) and poorly formed theories (all of those)) Blade Runner doesn't succumb to them. It's just as a film I find it mind-numbingly dull and it leaves me uninvolved and lacking any form of empathy.
Yes, absolutely agree.

All Hitchcock, basically, I understand why I don't(ie. cos so much of it has been parodied and all) but I reckon I still should like them for the overall execution, if nothing else.

Reservoir Dogs. I like quite a lot of the individual aspects when thinking about them, like Roth, Buscemi, other guy that isn't Madsen, like Tarrantino most the time, but it just bores me outta my mind.

Sweet Smell of Success, no clue, it's got pretty much everything, no clue at all.

The Princess Bride, only reason I feel I should is because everyone else seems to think it's something special. Felt like a bog-standard 80s kids movie to me, with some horrible casting choices. Cary Elwes and Robin Wright (Penn?) had about as much of a dynamic between them as me and a coat hanger. It's not a case where I can see the appeal and don't understand why it doesn't appeal to me, I can see absolutely no appeal whatsoever, so I don't know what it is I'm missing out on to miss out on balghasfasgsasgfsddsdfsf zzzzzzzzz

copylight

Quote from: wasp_f15ting on December 15, 2010, 10:13:08 AM
I had to mention Gaspar Noe's Enter the void
no restraints whatsoever.  completely disjointed with a narrative that is so airy it feels like you need a few red bulls not to fall asleep.


conversely i love it for these very reasons. its physically demanding, but an exceptional cinematic epilepsy – the spectacle – as much as 'about something'.


Benjamin Button, just cannot like, a commercial.

The Duck Man

The films of Charlie Kaufman.

Not an exact science - I've seen Being John Malkovich a couple of times and Eternal Sunshine once. I admired their concepts more than I found them enjoyable.

Oh, I saw and disliked Human Nature, but I think consensus is that that's a bit of a dud.

BlodwynPig

Donnie Darko

It just washed right over me, incredibly dull and up its own arse...but I could just be thinking about Jake Gylennhaal.

SavageHedgehog

Apocalypse Now is one I've struggled with a few times. Though I did buy it on DVD again after watching Hearts of Darkness, which made me appreciate what the film was aiming for a lot more (and it was extrememly entertaining in its own right)

Neomod

Anything by Michael Gondry[nb]oh and thanks for all those shit ads copying your style...no buts, you ARE to blame.[/nb].

The only film of his I've been able to sit through to the end is Be Kind, Rewind.

Science of Sleep - 20 minutes (purely for Charlotte Gainsbourg)

Eternal Sunshine of the ..etc - 10 minutes. Made me want to break someone.

Ignatius_S

.
Quote from: vrailaine on December 15, 2010, 10:46:56 AM
...Reservoir Dogs. I like quite a lot of the individual aspects when thinking about them, like Roth, Buscemi, other guy that isn't Madsen, like Tarrantino most the time, but it just bores me outta my mind....

If you haven't seen it, City on Fire is a fantastic film - one of the main influences on Reservoir Dogs, with a fair bit lifted from it. It's a far more interesting film - the emphasis is on the undercover cop (Chow Yun-Fat) who is burnt out but forced to to one more job and about the relationship he forges with one of the criminals (Danny Lee); he has a past history of forging too close bonds with those he has to protray.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Fight Club. A film probably designed to appeal to people like me on every possible level just brings out my contrarian side. The pop-psychology and especially the end of the film irritate me. The violence does nothing for me either. It just strikes me as an incredibly up its own arse piece of work that thinks all its little rug-pulls constitute much more than they actually do. It leaves everyone who took part looking like dickheads. I don't like these themes it explores, I don't like the way it explores them, I don't like the characters. It also has a sense of pitilessness that leaves me feeling hollowed out emotionally. I don't mind films that do that necessarily, but in some other sort of structure.

But really I'm just the sort of person who should be going around telling everyone how amazing it is.


Jemble Fred

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on December 15, 2010, 03:29:55 PM
Fight Club. A film probably designed to appeal to people like me on every possible level just brings out my contrarian side. The pop-psychology and especially the end of the film irritate me. The violence does nothing for me either. It just strikes me as an incredibly up its own arse piece of work that thinks all its little rug-pulls constitute much more than they actually do. It leaves everyone who took part looking like dickheads. I don't like these themes it explores, I don't like the way it explores them, I don't like the characters. It also has a sense of pitilessness that leaves me feeling hollowed out emotionally. I don't mind films that do that necessarily, but in some other sort of structure.

I disliked the film, but quite happily put it out of my mind. It's the way that the Fight Club brand just kept on being flogged, from Tshirts to shit videogames, that really anally penetrated my goat.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

The Dark Knight everyone says is amazing. Yet the more I watch Batman (1989) the more I realise just how superior it is. Keaton's portrayal of Wayne is a thousand times better. The tenderness of the family setup, his relationship with Alfred and his genuine wish to shout his identity from the rooftops. His sense of impotence, and the utter viciousness and hatred of the final act that is even more shocking coming from an ordinary guy like Keaton rather than Christian OH I AM SO FUCKING MANLY Bale. Likewise, Burton constructed a universe where it actually does feel beset by grime and crime, and the enemies do seem genuinely disturbing.

In contrast, Nolan's endless BOOM BOOM BOOM soundtrack as if to reinforce the drama of lots of pointless chasing about, set to this fucking characterless cityscape that has about as much attention put into it as the scenery in a 90's racing game. The hijacking of the character to make lame political commentary about torture, the almost fetishistic obsession the film has with the Joker, despite the performance being no more than okay at best, despite the fact the Joker's best suit is his insanity, not his fucking pseudo-intellectual bullshit and his D-grade sociology. Bale is close to impossible to like. And what's more, this ultra-sophisticated NEW BATMAN FOR THE 21st CENTURY ultra-realism and darkness is another trail of cat piss. His henchmen are Michael Caine and Morgan fucking Freeman who devise a scientific contraption in the second half that is verging on ridiculous. All very well if you want it to be a mindless blockbuster- but you can't have it both ways.

The Dark Knight is an overly loud, overblown piece of fucking nothing. Batman (1989) is a wonderful gothic/noir influenced comic masterpiece with an innate sense of character, of drama and of story structure.

Famous Mortimer


Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on December 15, 2010, 03:39:20 PM
The Dark Knight everyone says is amazing. Yet the more I watch Batman (1989) the more I realise just how superior it is.

See, I'm the exact opposite.  I hated Burton's Batman films because they took too much from the 60s TV series, which has been an albatross around the Batman franchise ever since it was made.  (When first asked if he wanted to do a Batman movie, Burton's reaction was "oh I loved that show!".)  They are inventive, but feel to me like a missed opportunity.

Nolan's vision achieves several things, firstly it finally manages to shed the influence of the 60s TV series and go directly to the comics for its inspiration.  Secondly it's consistent - part 2 follows on very smoothly from part 1, making me feel like they've got an overall story arc worked out.  Finally it recognises and addresses the flaws inherent in the concept of a state sanctioned vigilante.  This is the big one for me, because I have real problems with the concept of Batman.  I don't really like him as a character because he is, essentially, a rightwing psychopath[nb] Rorschach from Watchmen is essentially Alan Moore's answer to the question "what would a man be like in real life if he dressed up in a suit and fought crime?" [/nb].  In the sequel, it's quite clear that Batman himself is responsible for the emergence of The Joker.  He changed the game, and there's no going back.

Marty McFly

Quote from: ThickAndCreamy on December 15, 2010, 10:32:36 AM
Unlike other critiques I have for these sort of films (lack of new ideas (Equilibrium), predictability (Idiocracy), Triviality (I, Robot) and poorly formed theories (all of those)) Blade Runner doesn't succumb to them. It's just as a film I find it mind-numbingly dull and it leaves me uninvolved and lacking any form of empathy.

Have you seen Gattaca? I quite enjoyed that one.

Artemis

It's A Wonderful Life
No it's fucking not. I saw this at a cinema a couple of years ago when they played it as part of some kind of 'classics' season, near Christmas. I was bored the whole angel crap, and totally unmoved by how things developed. The central character should have jumped off the bridge at the beginning.

SavageHedgehog

Quote from: Santa's Boyfriend on December 15, 2010, 05:09:37 PM
I have real problems with the concept of Batman.  I don't really like him as a character because he is, essentially, a rightwing psychopath

Well in fairness he is "redistributing his wealth" in a manor which *he thinks* is benefiting society, and is against capital punishment. He's a turbulent psychopath, fluctuating between the right and left wing

Ballad of Ballard Berkley

Quote from: Artemis on December 15, 2010, 05:16:53 PM
It's A Wonderful Life
No it's fucking not. I saw this at a cinema a couple of years ago when they played it as part of some kind of 'classics' season, near Christmas. I was bored the whole angel crap, and totally unmoved by how things developed. The central character should have jumped off the bridge at the beginning.

You unutterable, heartless sicko.

Ballad of Ballard Berkley

Quote from: SavageHedgehog on December 15, 2010, 05:29:50 PM
Well in fairness he is "redistributing his wealth" in a manor which *he thinks* is benefiting society,

That's Batman's fundamental flaw: he needs to start distributing his wealth outside his manor in order to benefit society at large.

Dead kate moss

Burton's Batman movies are terrible... the sets look just like sets, there are HUGE plot holes and wtf? moments (The Joker's big gun brings down Bat-Plane, The Joker gets chucked off the stupidly high cathedral but grabs something then pulls Batman AND Vicki Vale over the edge, many more), Batman KILLS people quite indiscriminately, much of the dialogue stinks... I could go on. The Nolan movies have a few flaws, but piss all over what came before.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

It's a great piece of what seems now like traditional cinematic story-telling that pushes all the right buttons. I can't make people realise it's better than The Dark Knight, but I wish I could.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on December 15, 2010, 05:34:07 PM
You unutterable, heartless sicko.

I agree. James Stewart is the most likeable leading man in the history of cinema and every film he stars in benefits from that hugely and would be utterly mediocre without him. Anytime something bad happens to him it feels like a dagger plunging into your well-being. However, I do think It's A Wonderful Life is more than just that, it's a classic. Another example of a film directed with an almost innate understanding of how to control the emotions of an audience.

Quote from: Dead kate moss on December 15, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
there are HUGE plot holes and wtf? moments (The Joker's big gun brings down Bat-Plane, The Joker gets chucked off the stupidly high cathedral but grabs something then pulls Batman AND Vicki Vale over the edge, many more), Batman KILLS people quite indiscriminately, much of the dialogue stinks... I could go on. The Nolan movies have a few flaws, but piss all over what came before.

Agreed. Nolan's are far more concerned with dealing with Wayne's backstory, character and ethics. Whereas Burton's is just a continuation of 'oh who's the baddie this time? Oh it's Jack Nicholson hamming it up'. I'll admit that Batman Returns dealt with the Penguin rather well and resulted in quite a fleshed out performance from DeVito, but as for the 'gothic' elements... No. It's not gritty and realistic because the streets are unnatural and 'oo gothic'. The Gotham in Nolan's Batman looks like a genuinely decrepit, crime riddled city without resorting to the traits of any well worn cinematic genre.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

QuoteThe Gotham in Nolan's Batman looks like a genuinely decrepit, crime riddled city without resorting to any sort of cinematic genre.

No, it [The Dark Knight] looks like midtown Chicago if you cleaned all the streets of dirt, newspapers and people. Shiny skyscrapers. Yeah. That's saying 'Crime ridden hellhole' to me alright.

What you're forgetting is Batman Begins tries to be a Burton-esque visage of decrepitude but looks fucking horrendous because of the cgi.

In Burton's movies the steam rises from the gutter, the dirt clings to the pavements. Yes, it's stylised but it all looks real because it is real- you could reach out and touch it. It's a fictional city that's a masterpiece of solemn aged decay. In his movies, the residents of Gotham are the living breathing heartbeat. Nolan ditched that by The Dark Knight and only decided to start giving a fuck about the fact the story is supposed to be about a vigilante helping the police fight crime when it has its not-very-clever-at-all ferry set piece.

rjd2

All Wes Anderson films except Rushmore. Granted, they do all have the upsides and are not awful but I rarely laugh when watching them instead I smile now and then, its not enough really for films which are meant to be comedies really.

The Royal Tenenbaums is very underwhelming really.

Oh and throw in the Virgin Suicides as well, once you stop wanking over Dunst who is utterly stunning in the film its really quite boring.

SavageHedgehog

Fantastic Mr. Fox underwhelmed me, and even seemed a bit unpleasant in places. I almost get the feeling it was praised for what it was not (i.e. the standard manic, blandly animated, assembly-line kids films) as much as for what it actually was, which is understandable but it didn't quite hit the mark for me.

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on December 15, 2010, 06:48:07 PM
It's a great piece of what seems now like traditional cinematic story-telling that pushes all the right buttons. I can't make people realise it's better than The Dark Knight, but I wish I could.

Not The Dark Knight, but here's a review which argues that the Tim Burton film was a much bolder, less convential/mainstream film than Batman Begins.

I liked Begins when I saw it in cinemas, and I'm not much of a fan of the Burton films these days to be honest, but I think he has a point, especially after a half decade of franchises following the same "break the characters down into a checklist of psychological cliches" path

Tiny Poster

Quote from: Santa's Boyfriend on December 15, 2010, 05:09:37 PMRorschach from Watchmen is essentially Alan Moore's answer to the question "what would a man be like in real life if he dressed up in a suit and fought crime?"

What? No he isn't, he's an answer to the question "what would a hardline Objectivist male be like if he dressed up in suit and fought crime?"

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on December 15, 2010, 06:52:35 PM
I agree. James Stewart is the most likeable leading man in the history of cinema and every film he stars in benefits from that hugely and would be utterly mediocre without him. Anytime something bad happens to him it feels like a dagger plunging into your well-being....
I really can't see that why every film Stewart starred in would have been "utterly mediocre without him". In fact something like Bell, Book and Candle would have arguably been better is it had another lead - Stewart was too old for the role and that was the main reason he didn't like it.

A film like Harvey had such a wonderful cast and script - to say that it would have been "utterly mediocre" without him, I think is an absolutely incredible statement.

Queneau

Quote from: Ignatius_S on December 15, 2010, 09:27:42 PM
A film like Harvey had such a wonderful cast and script - to say that it would have been "utterly mediocre" without him, I think is an absolutely incredible statement.

Indeed. A superb film that.

Firstly, Gondry haters can fuck right off. Admittedly some of his films can seem a little childish but that's often the appeal. His style is so playful, I have nothing but respect for him. The only thing that ruins Eternal Sunshine... is Kirsten Dunst.

Anyway, my nomination is The Shining. I'm a Kubrick fan, have lots of time and respect for his work but this film I just don't get. Or it doesn't click for me. It seems so amateur in its execution; the acting is terrible, the plot is dire. I'm not sure there is a single thing I like about it. It gets worse with every viewing.

Pedro_Bear


Fuck. I really wanted to like this film. Why do they do this? What is it with DiCaprio films and bizarrely disproportionate marriage issues these days? Ellen Page was in this film, apparently? Must have blinked when her character got to do anything. The Indian dude was a nice bit of casting, I guess? The Michael Caine footage was off-cuts from the Batman films?




eXistenZ called, they want their plot device back, especially the part about the emergency, deep-level jack-in that's really dangerous but it's the only way to proceed... When reality tore itself apart in Cronenberg's film it was making satirical observations about censorship in computer games, it didn't become one. That and the whole creeping heebie jeebies Jude Law communicated as he became increasingly disorientated with each new level of immersion, and the very smart "conclusion" which didn't attempt to s-p-e-l-l o-u-t the underlying Hindu mindfuck being invoked overall.




The Thirteenth Floor was here, spent significantly less cash being essentially a tv-movie and all, told a thematically similar and ultimately more satisfying tale, with the driving romantic sub-plot feeling more believable to boot.




Hi. You are now reading this in my voice. If you are going to lift ideas and themes and pretend they are yours, it's almost certainly a good idea to avoid films I'm in. And almost definitely a good idea to avoid films where someone almost orgasms to death abusing the technology.

TL;DR? Goddess fucking dammit. It's like they are fucking up sci-fi films that could potentially possibly be even a little bit clever on purpose. Inception had a cast to kill for but no characters, nothing to express. It didn't even have the decency to be amusing, intentionally or otherwise. The A-team was more engrossing, better plotted, had more character development, and was so much more satisfying to watch. Fuck me for sitting through Inception, like it was magically going to resolve. Yes I mad.