Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:52 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through 
Author Message
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7380
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
ed_metal_head wrote:
I know yours wasn't a blanket statement that was meant to apply to everyone. However, I still feel compelled to point out that quite a few of us liked or kind-of liked the first one.


And the rest of us feel sorry for you. :) But, that said, I'm on record as liking such critically-despised films as Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (13% on RottenTomatoes) and Max Payne (17%) so perhaps I shouldn't get so haughty.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:59 pm
Profile
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
JamesKunz wrote:
I despise this mentality, and can't understand how people can feel this way. Raiders of the Lost Ark had a plot. Avatar had a plot. Jaws had a plot. Hell even The Island had a plot. It's not as if once your budget gets over X amount of dollars you have to abandon the idea of storytelling. Movies are far more interesting when they wed images to a storyline. That's not just a high-falutin' theory that critics espouse: it's true. Star Wars would never have generated the cult around it that it did had it not told an engaging (albeit simple) story.
Plot and story aren't interchangeable. Story is fairly important. Plot, not so much.


Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:06 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7380
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
Ken wrote:
Plot and story aren't interchangeable. Story is fairly important. Plot, not so much.


Well I disagree completely, which is why we're fighting over 2001 in another thread. Plot is very important. Movies with well-composed plots rarely go on too long, don't know what to cut, etc. Movies that think pretty images are enough often bore one to tears.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:57 pm
Profile
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
Well before this turns into another drawn-out argument i'm going to bring up another film that makes me cringe in disgust whenever anybody praises it-I Heart Huckabees, and mind you I came in willing to give it a chance, especially since Russell had shown plenty of talent behind the camera with Three Kings. Unfortunately for me, it was bad in a way that I never could've anticipated, I couldn't believe how far Russell had fallen, it may not be the worst film i've seen(though it's pretty damn close) but it's definitely the most unfunny. I can't think of a single film that made me laugh less then that one, and I never so much as cracked a smile during Hauckabees, and all that existential garbage got on my nerves as well, bascially I hated pretty much EVERYTHING about that film. What truly amazed me was just how bad Russell managed to make the entire cast look, especially Hoffman, I have no idea what the hell possessed him to star in this film. But since the characters were so badly witten and unlikeable anyways, no amount of strong acting would've made any difference whatsoever. How James found this godawful funny in any way, I will never know. I'd rather see every single poorly reviewed comedy ever made then to EVER sit through that horrible film again, even Freddy Got Fingered, no matter how many badly that film is viewed I have a VERY hard believing that it's as much of chore to sit through as Huckabees was. Anyone else hate that film as much I do?


Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:25 pm
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
The Happening was like getting dental work done. I have never looked at my watch and shifted in my seat so much in my life


Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:42 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7380
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
Whereas I found The Happening totally engrossing in its own insipid way.

As for me, Vincent Price's take on Matheson's I Am Legend, The Last Man on Earth had me checking the running time with less than 5 minutes to go in an 80 minute movie.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:35 am
Profile
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets

I absolutely fucking hated this movie. There are people who like a first movie but hate its sequel, for some its the Transformers movies (well, maybe not in this forum), but for me its the National Treasure movies. The first movie was fun, but this... this was painful. The jokes slapped themselves across the audiences faces with a dull thud, getting stupider, more insipid and unfunny as the films overlong running length slugged along. I felt sorry for Helen Mirren, less so for Nicholas Cage since he's been pandering this crap for a while (same year he set forth Ghost Rider on us, I think he's becoming desperate). I also found it sad that a Disney movie needed to have Dianne Kruger (great in Inglourious Basterds, what the hell was going on here?) pushing out her tits to catch a guys attention, its a friggin' Disney movie! It's PG, unless you're gonna do it right don't put it in there at all!! :evil:


Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:44 pm
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
JJoshay wrote:
National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets

I absolutely fucking hated this movie. There are people who like a first movie but hate its sequel, for some its the Transformers movies (well, maybe not in this forum), but for me its the National Treasure movies. The first movie was fun, but this... this was painful. The jokes slapped themselves across the audiences faces with a dull thud, getting stupider, more insipid and unfunny as the films overlong running length slugged along. I felt sorry for Helen Mirren, less so for Nicholas Cage since he's been pandering this crap for a while (same year he set forth Ghost Rider on us, I think he's becoming desperate). I also found it sad that a Disney movie needed to have Dianne Kruger (great in Inglourious Basterds, what the hell was going on here?) pushing out her tits to catch a guys attention, its a friggin' Disney movie! It's PG, unless you're gonna do it right don't put it in there at all!! :evil:


I found both to be entertaining nothing special. The first one was better in my opinion but the second one was still good, that is until that ending occurred.


Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:00 pm
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
JamesKunz wrote:
Ken wrote:
Plot and story aren't interchangeable. Story is fairly important. Plot, not so much.


Well I disagree completely, which is why we're fighting over 2001 in another thread. Plot is very important. Movies with well-composed plots rarely go on too long, don't know what to cut, etc. Movies that think pretty images are enough often bore one to tears.
In some movies, there tends to be a very strong emphasis on plot, and that is almost invariably a bad thing. If a movie is mainly concerned with hitting all the predetermined bases, it tends to resort to obvious contrivances to get to where it needs to go.

Plot is but a fragment of story. When you have your characters, your situation, and your themes well prepared, plot pretty much generates itself. It's a byproduct of having well-rounded knowledge of what's happening in the moment and where it's going next. (Assuming the screenwriter has done his homework going in, that is.) The storyteller doesn't impose the order in which the events play out, so much as he figures it out by being honest about the characters and their motives. The biggest concerns over plotting are ensuring that none of those events are dwelt upon for too long or rearranged in an illogical order.

As for the 2001 thing, let's synthesize the two arguments across threads.

JamesKunz wrote:
Ken wrote:
And the end is far from nonsensical. It may require you to do some careful reading, but difficult is not nonsensical.


To quote Arthur C. Clarke, author of the screenplay: "If you understand '2001' completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."

That sounds pretty close to nonsensical to me.
I could very well be wrong, but I'm inclined to think that Arthur C. Clarke was talking about thoughtful questions related to the themes and the subject matter, rather than confusion about the plot. I'm also inclined to think that you're well aware of that.

It's also worth mentioning that while the plot of 2001 is atypical, it's also fairly obvious. The movie wears its own structure on its sleeve.


Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:50 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1276
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
It seems when it comes to movies (and TV as well), most Americans have been conditioned to be total slaves to plot, which will definitely hinder their potential enjoyment of such films as "2001," "L'Avventura," and "The Thin Red Line," which focus more on other aspects such as character, tone, atmosphere, emotion, setting, etc. :ugeek:


Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:36 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7380
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
H.I. McDonough wrote:
It seems when it comes to movies (and TV as well), most Americans have been conditioned to be total slaves to plot, which will definitely hinder their potential enjoyment of such films as "2001," "L'Avventura," and "The Thin Red Line," which focus more on other aspects such as character, tone, atmosphere, emotion, setting, etc.


Oh us stupid Americans!

But why do the two have to exist separately? Take something like A Simple Plan, which has a cracking thriller plot but also features interesting character action, good use of setting, atmosphere, etc. I don't like when people look down on plot as if the very nature of having one means you don't do anything else worthy of merit

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:35 pm
Profile
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
JamesKunz wrote:
H.I. McDonough wrote:
It seems when it comes to movies (and TV as well), most Americans have been conditioned to be total slaves to plot, which will definitely hinder their potential enjoyment of such films as "2001," "L'Avventura," and "The Thin Red Line," which focus more on other aspects such as character, tone, atmosphere, emotion, setting, etc.


Oh us stupid Americans!

But why do the two have to exist separately? Take something like A Simple Plan, which has a cracking thriller plot but also features interesting character action, good use of setting, atmosphere, etc. I don't like when people look down on plot as if the very nature of having one means you don't do anything else worthy of merit


Yeah AMERICA RULES. Though I guess now that I think about it you have a point concerning some Americans, such as myself. But guess what that type of movie goer can be found anywhere in the world so I think your just stereotyping unfairly. Also i liked The Thin Red Line and many other Terrance Malick movies for that matter. And Kunz is right why can't they coexist? AMERICA RULES.


Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:00 am
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
ShrunkenHead wrote:
eXterminus wrote:
(I did manage to fall asleep during two different Harry Potter films. Does that count?)


Were they the first two? ;)


Chamber of secerts (cant even rember the opening credits)

Prisnor of Azkaban (They were in a bar? then suddenly he was escaping on a flying horse)


Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 am
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
Meatloaf wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
H.I. McDonough wrote:
It seems when it comes to movies (and TV as well), most Americans have been conditioned to be total slaves to plot, which will definitely hinder their potential enjoyment of such films as "2001," "L'Avventura," and "The Thin Red Line," which focus more on other aspects such as character, tone, atmosphere, emotion, setting, etc.


Oh us stupid Americans!

But why do the two have to exist separately? Take something like A Simple Plan, which has a cracking thriller plot but also features interesting character action, good use of setting, atmosphere, etc. I don't like when people look down on plot as if the very nature of having one means you don't do anything else worthy of merit


Yeah AMERICA RULES. Though I guess now that I think about it you have a point concerning some Americans, such as myself. But guess what that type of movie goer can be found anywhere in the world so I think your just stereotyping unfairly. Also i liked The Thin Red Line and many other Terrance Malick movies for that matter. And Kunz is right why can't they coexist? AMERICA RULES.



First: America doesn't rule. Wait... does obesity count? I'm no jingoist (or patriot, for that matter) but I'm not so anti-American as to disagree with the claim that other countries follow in our frequently stupid footsteps. Maybe it's not even our footsteps (although, you know, with obesity being what it is...) but general anthropological trends/technology/so on. Either way, other countries do idiocy just as swell as America does. I still think America is #1 at many shameful things but... well, let me get on topic.

Two GREAT examples were used: L'Avventura and 2001. They, whomever they may be, don't make movies like that any more. Slow, meditative, completely devoted to tone and images first and character/story second.

A Simple Plan, on the other hand, is just a terrible film. Just terrible. It doesn't belong in the same sentence as L'Avventura. A Simple Plan, a hysterically far-fetched machine that's completely reliant on using the audience's emotional strings to generate whatever interest it can manage to generate. It may have had the atmosphere, action, and the characters but you're totally wrong if you think the movie doesn't have more in common with a Lifetime Channel craziness-spiraling-out-of-control emotional madhouse than it does genuinely good cinema.


Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:46 am
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7380
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
majoraphasia wrote:
A Simple Plan, on the other hand, is just a terrible film. Just terrible. It doesn't belong in the same sentence as L'Avventura. A Simple Plan, a hysterically far-fetched machine that's completely reliant on using the audience's emotional strings to generate whatever interest it can manage to generate. It may have had the atmosphere, action, and the characters but you're totally wrong if you think the movie doesn't have more in common with a Lifetime Channel craziness-spiraling-out-of-control emotional madhouse than it does genuinely good cinema.


Well I actually think it's a near great film, but clearly we're at odds there so I'll pick a different film. How about The Silence of the Lambs? We learn a great deal about Clarice Starling while she's trying to solve a murder. Or to go outside of thrillers, why not Dr. Strangelove? Plot is a good thing, or at the very least, not something to turn one's nose up at

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:54 am
Profile
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
Here's a film i'm sure will eanr me some weird looks-Miracle, now if there's one type of film that I REALLY don't like for the most part, it's inspirational sports films, especially the ones based on a true story(or so they say)and Miracle was by far the agonizing and unbearable one i've sat through thus far, were I not forced to watch it in school, rest assured I NEVER would've gotten anywhere NEAR that horrible film. I dind't give a damn about anyone or anytihng in that film, I just wanted it to end, the only "miracle" about that film was the fact that I managed to get through without falling into a coma! :evil:


Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:10 pm
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
I liked Miracle. But I have a weakness for inspirational sports movies. I'm not sure why, since I don't even follow sports. It must be because I'm a big sap and most sports movies end with the underdogs triumphing and lots of manhugs and people crying. :roll:

The most agonizing film I've ever sat through was The Rules of Attraction. Ugh. I was the only person in the theater, too, which had the strange effect of making me feel like I was the only person in the world who had seen the movie, like it was a special brand of torture created just for me. Just the most hopeless, depressing, disgusting, unengaging pile of poo I've ever paid money to watch.


Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:50 pm
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2056
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
I once saw a "found film" that was made up of clips of silent shorts that had partially survived. Someone sliced them together to make a "movie" that proved how dunderheaded a thing this was to do. It was excruciating to watch.

For actual films, Eyes Wide Shut is right up there. If you've ever had one of those nights that you were so tired you were totally unable to sleep and just lay in bed staring at the ceiling for eight hours while your head ached, and you want to repeat the agony, all you have to do is watch this movie. It's not eight hours long but it sure seems like it.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:14 pm
Profile
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
1. City of God (I had to watch it in half-hour chunks over the course of 4 days. You know something is wrong when the first 30 minutes of the film feel like the first 60 minutes.)
2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
3. Public Enemies (mainly due to the cinematography)
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey (I had given up after 40 minutes of the film. I recently finished watching it entirely for the first time, I'm still indifferent toward it and I will not be watching it again.)


Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:07 am
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7380
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Most dull, uninvolving, agonizing film you ever sat through
The Shining Wizard wrote:
1. City of God (I had to watch it in half-hour chunks over the course of 4 days. You know something is wrong when the first 30 minutes of the film feel like the first 60 minutes.)


Wow. I've probably only met one or two people in my life who find that film less than great, and even they wouldn't call it "dull." Strange, strange thing to say as far as I'm concerned

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:02 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr