91 replies to this topic

[H.M.S Ark Royal]

Da Vinci Code...

[Kilroy6644]

There's not much that I actually refuse to watch. Mostly I'm just not interested in things, and so will not make any effort to watch them. If I'm at somebody's house, and they put it on, oh well, but otherwise no.

I will, however, never watch another Michael Moore film again, and if I could, I would unwatch Bowling For Columbine immediately.

[[dark]]

There are some truly bizarre choices here. Slumdog Millionaire? Defiance? Duplicity? The Da Vinci Code? Anything starring Sean Penn?

We're talking about movies you flat-out refuse to even consider thinking about maybe possibly watching! Films that you would never in a million years consider sitting down in front of!

Personally, I'd reserve that kind of unwavering aversion for low-brow "comedies" - your Epic/Disaster/Date/Crap Movies, your Norbits, your Deuce Bigalows... and so forth.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Valkyrie

[Tiin007]

Tropic Thunder. Everyone keeps telling me it's hysterical, but frankly, having seen the previews, it doesn't look like my type of humor AT ALL. And just for the record, the same thing happened with Superbad, but in the end I gave in and agreed to watch it. Did I like it? MOST OVERRATED MOVIE EVER!!!!

[Mr. Blofeld]

I refuse to sit through Titanic: The Animated Movie again; that rapping dog...

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I refuse to sit through Titanic: The Animated Movie again; that rapping dog...

Watched 10 seconds of that, and it makes me shudder....

[H.M.S Ark Royal]

There are some truly bizarre choices here.

Bizarre ? No bizarre choices here, only personnal taste, point of view, something like free will...

[Vauxhall]

Horror movies in the ilk of SAW. I really cannot see the attraction of such things.

[Safari Suit]

People "enjoy" the visceral excitement of being scared or even repulsed. I wouldn't want to watch some of the personally, but I get the general idea.

[JackWade]

Any Fast and Furious movie, Scary, Disaster, Epic movies, this past year's Oscar nominees, and any Kubrick.

Why refuse to watch Kubrick?

Edited by JackWade, 17 April 2009 - 06:36 PM.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Big one: HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL

I swear, I saw the first one, and it was soooo groan-inducing.
I don't hate musicals, but I LOATHE the HSM franchise...

[007luvchild2]

Sweet Home Alabamba
King Kong (Pete Jackson version)
Godzilla (the one with Matthew Broderick)
The Legend of Bagger Vance.

[Red Barchetta]

I'd agree with pretty much everything listed so far, except LOTR- loved all three films- but, as usual the book is better.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I refuse to sit through Titanic: The Animated Movie again; that rapping dog...

I think marijuana enhances the entertainment value of this.

[jwheels]

Any Fast and Furious movie, Scary, Disaster, Epic movies, this past year's Oscar nominees, and any Kubrick.

Why refuse to watch Kubrick?

If there is one movie I would say every movie lover needs to see (well maybe 'need' isn't the right word), it has to be 2001 Space Oddysey, I highly highly recommend it.

They are boring to me. I tried to watch 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, and could not sit through them, I had to turn them off. The only Kubrick I've seen all the way through was The Shinning. That one was ok, and only for Jack Nicholson.


I'll also add to my list any Vin Diesal movie

[tdalton]

Any Fast and Furious movie, Scary, Disaster, Epic movies, this past year's Oscar nominees, and any Kubrick.

Why refuse to watch Kubrick?

If there is one movie I would say every movie lover needs to see (well maybe 'need' isn't the right word), it has to be 2001 Space Oddysey, I highly highly recommend it.

They are boring to me. I tried to watch 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, and could not sit through them, I had to turn them off. The only Kubrick I've seen all the way through was The Shinning. That one was ok, and only for Jack Nicholson.


I'll also add to my list any Vin Diesal movie

Agreed on 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. I found that one to be quite dull, and shut it off after about 30 minutes or so. I haven't made an attempt to watch EYES WIDE SHUT, nor do I think I'll ever plan to do so either.

The only Kubrick films that I have really enjoyed have been THE SHINING (although I'm torn on that film, as I think that it's a great film, but I also wish that Kubrick had stayed more faithful to the novel) and FULL METAL JACKET. If there was any Kubrick film that is a must watch film, I would have to say that FULL METAL JACKET would be the one that best fits that bill, especially the parts of the film that feature Vincent D'Onofrio.

[jwheels]

Any Fast and Furious movie, Scary, Disaster, Epic movies, this past year's Oscar nominees, and any Kubrick.

Why refuse to watch Kubrick?

If there is one movie I would say every movie lover needs to see (well maybe 'need' isn't the right word), it has to be 2001 Space Oddysey, I highly highly recommend it.

They are boring to me. I tried to watch 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, and could not sit through them, I had to turn them off. The only Kubrick I've seen all the way through was The Shinning. That one was ok, and only for Jack Nicholson.


I'll also add to my list any Vin Diesal movie

Agreed on 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. I found that one to be quite dull, and shut it off after about 30 minutes or so. I haven't made an attempt to watch EYES WIDE SHUT, nor do I think I'll ever plan to do so either.

The only Kubrick films that I have really enjoyed have been THE SHINING (although I'm torn on that film, as I think that it's a great film, but I also wish that Kubrick had stayed more faithful to the novel) and FULL METAL JACKET. If there was any Kubrick film that is a must watch film, I would have to say that FULL METAL JACKET would be the one that best fits that bill, especially the parts of the film that feature Vincent D'Onofrio.

With my track record for Kubrick, I just been able to bring myself to see Full Metal Jacket yet. I've heard good things about it, but then I've heard good things about his other movies. I might force myself to see it someday, but not anytime soon

[tdalton]

Any Fast and Furious movie, Scary, Disaster, Epic movies, this past year's Oscar nominees, and any Kubrick.

Why refuse to watch Kubrick?

If there is one movie I would say every movie lover needs to see (well maybe 'need' isn't the right word), it has to be 2001 Space Oddysey, I highly highly recommend it.

They are boring to me. I tried to watch 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, and could not sit through them, I had to turn them off. The only Kubrick I've seen all the way through was The Shinning. That one was ok, and only for Jack Nicholson.


I'll also add to my list any Vin Diesal movie

Agreed on 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. I found that one to be quite dull, and shut it off after about 30 minutes or so. I haven't made an attempt to watch EYES WIDE SHUT, nor do I think I'll ever plan to do so either.

The only Kubrick films that I have really enjoyed have been THE SHINING (although I'm torn on that film, as I think that it's a great film, but I also wish that Kubrick had stayed more faithful to the novel) and FULL METAL JACKET. If there was any Kubrick film that is a must watch film, I would have to say that FULL METAL JACKET would be the one that best fits that bill, especially the parts of the film that feature Vincent D'Onofrio.

With my track record for Kubrick, I just been able to bring myself to see Full Metal Jacket yet. I've heard good things about it, but then I've heard good things about his other movies. I might force myself to see it someday, but not anytime soon

Fair enough. I would say, however, that the first half of FULL METAL JACKET is by far the best, and I've often found it to be a rather uneven film, as the first half is much more interesting than anything that follows in the second half. If you're not a fan of Kubrick, however, I doubt that FULL METAL JACKET would do much to change your mind.

[Harmsway]

Kubrick's my favorite director, though I certainly acknowledge that his style is not going to appeal to everyone. His style tends to be somewhat stark, and he often paces his films with a deliberate slowness (particularly in the case of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and BARRY LYNDON) that some, I imagine, just don't really like.

But as far as I'm concerned, Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is absolutely the greatest film of all time, and perhaps the cinematic ideal. No other film has successfully taken advantage of what the medium offers in the creation of a truly experiential and profound piece of art.

Now, of course, 2001 remains undeniably challenging. It rejects a very traditional form of storytelling and seeks to work on a different plane (Kubrick categorized it as a "mythological documentary"), communicating ideas primarily through visual means. 2001 is also, for that matter, very intentionally slow, forcing the viewer to sit back and relax in a way that goes directly against what most expect the rhythms of a film to be.

But 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY isn't the only great film Kubrick made. Heck, practically every one of Kubrick's films is at least "good," and a great many of them spill over into true greatness, including the notable A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and DR. STRANGELOVE.

As far as THE SHINING is concerned, I like it. It's certainly one of the great horror films, largely because it understands that mystery is more terrifying than explanation. At any rate, it's far more interesting the rather dull novel it was based on.

[Safari Suit]

The movie was good but I wouldn't describe the novel as dull particularly.

[tdalton]

The movie was good but I wouldn't describe the novel as dull particularly.

Completely agreed. While I don't find either particularly dull, I find King's novel to be far more engaging than Kubrick's film.

I also can't believe that I forgot to mention DR. STRANGELOVE in one of my previous posts. That actually is one of my favorite films of all-time, and probably stands alongside the first half of FULL METAL JACKET as essential Kubrick viewing.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is, however, one of the most dull movie "experiences" I've ever had.

[Kilroy6644]

Also Schindlers List, I have seen enough clips and know enough about it and having studied the Nuremberg Trials I know enough to conclude that I will not find this movie entertaining. There are certain images and ideas I just don't want in my head.

It's not quite as bad as you think. For your purposes I think it's probably bad enough, but it doesn't really delve into the horrors of the Holocaust as much as other films I've seen.

I'll also add to my list any Vin Diesal movie

I'm assuming you mean any movie that features him in a starring role. He was good in Saving Private Ryan.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

I thought Saving Private Ryan was one of the most overrated war movies IMO.

I refuse to see that new "17" movie that just came out

[Harmsway]

The movie was good but I wouldn't describe the novel as dull particularly.

Well, I would. King's story is a rather straight-forward ghost story, with a lot of obvious plot mechanics. That's often King's weakness as a horror writer - he's by and large too concerned with plot, when plot is often the least effective mechanism for horror. Horror's strength is in mystery, abstraction, and surreality, and the scariest stories are generally the ones that allow for those qualities to take prominence.

Kubrick improves on King's THE SHINING by taking the straight-forward away. All of the rather uninteresting "plot" that bogged down King's novel is wonderfully taken out or abstracted in favor of making the story a trip through psychic terror. That's why Kubrick's film is both more compelling and scarier than King's novel. Rather than being "a ghost story," Kubrick's film is a journey into the dark, unexplained corners of the mind.

[tdalton]

The movie was good but I wouldn't describe the novel as dull particularly.

Well, I would. King's story is a rather straight-forward ghost story, with a lot of obvious plot mechanics. That's often King's weakness as a horror writer - he's by and large too concerned with plot, when plot is often the least effective mechanism for horror. Horror's strength is in mystery, abstraction, and surreality, and the scariest stories are generally the ones that allow for those qualities to take prominence.

Kubrick improves on King's THE SHINING by taking the straight-forward away. All of the rather uninteresting "plot" that bogged down King's novel is wonderfully taken out or abstracted in favor of making the story a trip through psychic terror. That's why Kubrick's film is both more compelling and scarier than King's novel. Rather than being "a ghost story," Kubrick's film is a journey into the dark, unexplained corners of the mind.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. I was actually more "terrified" (at least as much as I can be by fiction) by King's novel than Kubrick's film. Don't get me wrong, Kubrick's film is very good, but I've always found King's novel to be far more effective and far more scary. I remember many years ago reading it alone, in the dark (save for a small lamp) and being quite scared by it, a feeling that I've never really gotten from Kubrick's film.

[stromberg]

Reminds me of a party a few weeks ago, when a friend told a story how he once had a VCR with a 2001 tape stuck in it. He couldn't afford a new recorder for some time, so the only video he watched for several months was 2001. He had enjoyed the situation and said "It couldn't have happened with any better movie, it was really great." After most of the people at the party had agreed and were done with laughing and cheering, another friend broke the brief silence with the words "What a horrible situation. That's the most boring movie I've ever seen." Upon which I replied "Oh God, I always thought I was the only one." I do see why people think this is a great movie, but it's just not my cup of tea.

Movies I refuse to watch?

Titanic. Never have, never will.

Mostly anything that involves Nicolas Cage or Oliver Stone.

Most Superhero/Comic movies (except Batman)

Most "60s/70s TV series turned into movies 30years later" stuff

[Safari Suit]

The movie was good but I wouldn't describe the novel as dull particularly.

Well, I would. King's story is a rather straight-forward ghost story, with a lot of obvious plot mechanics. That's often King's weakness as a horror writer - he's by and large too concerned with plot, when plot is often the least effective mechanism for horror. Horror's strength is in mystery, abstraction, and surreality, and the scariest stories are generally the ones that allow for those qualities to take prominence.

Kubrick improves on King's THE SHINING by taking the straight-forward away. All of the rather uninteresting "plot" that bogged down King's novel is wonderfully taken out or abstracted in favor of making the story a trip through psychic terror. That's why Kubrick's film is both more compelling and scarier than King's novel. Rather than being "a ghost story," Kubrick's film is a journey into the dark, unexplained corners of the mind.

Well, I think a horror novel and a horror film work in different ways. The "plot" of the novel, as well as some of the character development, may have been too much for the film, but as far as I'm concerned it worked for the novel.

And I'm sorry but I find the concept "Kubrick's genius was in making a film with no plot" very funny Not because it's wrong, it's just a funny idea.

At any rate, why do people have to have a strong alligence to one or the other. I don't see any reason why both can't just co-exist.

I love 2001 BTW, although I give Clarke almost as much credit for that as Kubrick.

[Harmsway]

At any rate, why do people have to have a strong alligence to one or the other. I don't see any reason why both can't just co-exist.

They can absolutely co-exist. I just personally have a particular allegiance to one rather than the other. I don't think much of Stephen King's THE SHINING (or Stephen King in general, when you get down to it, even though he's had a few works that I very much enjoyed).

I love 2001 BTW, although I give Clarke almost as much credit for that as Kubrick.

Clarke was undoubtedly very, very important in shaping 2001. But almost as much credit as Kubrick? I'm not sure about that. Admittedly 2001's story owes a great deal to Clarke (moreso than Kubrick), so we cannot discount Clarke's contribution on that level. He was arguably more significant in shaping the path of its narrative than Stanley Kubrick was.

But what I find most astonishing about 2001 is not its narrative, necessarily, but rather how that narrative is told. The things that make 2001 astonishing - like the use of music and visual iconography - really fall to Kubrick and his grasp on the film medium.

I actually find Clarke's novel something of a bore in comparison - it has most of the narrative and ideas (albeit with an intentionally narrower range of meaning than Kubrick's film had), but lacks the poetry Kubrick was able to find in the material.

[Jim]

Anal Jugfest II. The plot doesn't sound like the sort of thing I would be interested in.

The Empire Strikes Back. Although that's largely because lots of people seem determined to recommend it to me. The day I watch it is the day I've watched Anal Jugfest II first.