91 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

If this is movies I refuse to watch again, well… there are lots. But I suspect the idea here is movies/genres I refuse to watch right off the bat.

So… I refuse to watch pørn. That’s about it.

If the argument is solid and the arguer compelling, I can pretty much be talked into watching anything once. Having said that, movies which, despite the strength of the argument for, set my defense level at DEFCON 1:

- Any obviously hollow films targeted at the teenage demographic (eg. that new film titled “Fighting”, Dance-Off films, effects-driven drivel, the Fast and Furiouses, etc…)
- Musicals not both starring Johnny Depp and directed by Tim Burton

After that, we ease into DEFCON 2-4. I range from very skeptical to mildly cautious about films centered about the following:

- Martin Scorsese
- Will Smith
- Nick Cage
- Remakes of Classics

[Harmsway]

- Musicals not both starring Johnny Depp and directed by Tim Burton

Ever seen CABARET, Judo (and, for that matter, have I asked you this before)? It's adapted in such a way that it's not really a musical (yes, there are musical numbers, but they're all performances at the cabaret, rather than any characters breaking into spontaneous song or such). I think quite highly of it, and find it one of the more interesting cinematic commentaries on Nazi Germany.

- Martin Scorsese

Cautious about ol' Martin, are we? Why's that? I do think Martin's remarkably overrated, but he has produced at least one or two really great flicks over his career, and there's are a number of thoroughly watchable, if not spectacular, pieces of cinema sitting alongside those.

[Safari Suit]

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.

I haven't read the novel to be honest (although I have read a couple of the sequels) but one of the things I find so captivating about 2001 is the level of verisimilitude it brings to its portrayal of space travel, and the general intelligence it brings to the scientific aspects of the film, something which I suspect was largely Clarke's contribution. Granted, it's visually that 2001 really triumphs, and that would indeed be more accurately credited to Kubrick.

[Harmsway]

I haven't read the novel to be honest (although I have read a couple of the sequels) but one of the things I find so captivating about 2001 is the level of verisimilitude it brings to its portrayal of space travel, and the general intelligence it brings to the scientific aspects of the film, something which I suspect was largely Clarke's contribution.

Your suspicion might be a bit unfounded, given what I've read about the film's production. Undoubtedly, Clarke contributed something to that aspect of 2001, but it seems that the real passion for developing an accurate depiction of space travel was Kubrick's. He and those under him spent an enormous time dedicated to research in this area (he was often obsessed with research on his films; on his never-filmed NAPOLEON project, he compiled a file cabinet detailing the events of every single day of Napoleon's life).

[00Twelve]

I haven't read the novel to be honest (although I have read a couple of the sequels) but one of the things I find so captivating about 2001 is the level of verisimilitude it brings to its portrayal of space travel, and the general intelligence it brings to the scientific aspects of the film, something which I suspect was largely Clarke's contribution.

Your suspicion might be a bit unfounded, given what I've read about the film's production. Undoubtedly, Clarke contributed something to that aspect of 2001, but it seems that the real passion for developing an accurate depiction of space travel was Kubrick's. He and those under him spent an enormous time dedicated to research in this area (he was often obsessed with research on his films; on his never-filmed NAPOLEON project, he compiled a file cabinet detailing the events of every single day of Napoleon's life).

I recall anecdotes about Kubrick being heard in his office opening books and hurling them against the wall over and over, until there was no noise for a while and his secretary found him reading THE SHINING. Also that he would call Stephen King in the middle of the night asking him odd questions, like whether he believed in God.

[Judo chop]

- Musicals not both starring Johnny Depp and directed by Tim Burton

Ever seen CABARET, Judo (and, for that matter, have I asked you this before)? It's adapted in such a way that it's not really a musical (yes, there are musical numbers, but they're all performances at the cabaret, rather than any characters breaking into spontaneous song or such). I think quite highly of it, and find it one of the more interesting cinematic commentaries on Nazi Germany.

I have not, and I don’t think you have. (Perhaps you figured you already had your work cut out for you with SWEENEY T.?) Based on how you describe it, I’m not even sure I’d consider it a Musical. I’ll look it up.

Congratulations on the SWEENEY TODD recommendation, by the way. A resounding victory for Harmsway. The film’s been lingering on my mind for a while now. ie) I’m starting to miss it. I may have to make the DVD purchase. I need to hear Depp growl that final growl again.

- Martin Scorsese

Cautious about ol' Martin, are we? Why's that? I do think Martin's remarkably overrated, but he has produced at least one or two really great flicks over his career, and there's are a number of thoroughly watchable, if not spectacular, pieces of cinema sitting alongside those.

There was a time when I’d have been anxiously waiting for the next Scorsese film; his classics are classics for a good reason and a couple of them are among my favorites of all time.

However, things have worsened. Severely. The mention of Scorsese now puts my mind at DEFCON 2. Following GOODFELLAS (and perhaps even starting with the final chapter of the film), he’s done nothing but bore me senseless. With DEPARTED, he did me one worse and slipped into the unimaginative and predictable. I believe the man has lost his fire and that he’s been running on reputation (and his casting darlings) alone for quite some time.

[Kilroy6644]

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

Just as well. You'd be lost if you haven't seen the original Anal Jugfest, and II really doesn't have the same impact. There's nothing to make you really care about the characters, and Peter Pumper seems like he's just phoning it in. But I would recommend the entire 'Black In Back' trilogy.

[Harmsway]

I have not, and I don’t think you have. (Perhaps you figured you already had your work cut out for you with SWEENEY T.?) Based on how you describe it, I’m not even sure I’d consider it a Musical. I’ll look it up.

You should. It's a very unusual film in its own right, and at any rate, CABARET is considered a classic, and you'll be all the more culture-saavy for having seen it, even if you despise it.

Congratulations on the SWEENEY TODD recommendation, by the way. A resounding victory for Harmsway. The film’s been lingering on my mind for a while now. ie) I’m starting to miss it. I may have to make the DVD purchase. I need to hear Depp growl that final growl again.

Well, I'm elated that you appreciated it. I absolutely love SWEENEY TODD, and with each viewing, it more firmly situates itself among my list of permanent go-to favorites.

However, things have worsened. Severely. The mention of Scorsese now puts my mind at DEFCON 2. Following GOODFELLAS (and perhaps even starting with the final chapter of the film), he’s done nothing but bore me senseless. With DEPARTED, he did me one worse and slipped into the unimaginative and predictable. I believe the man has lost his fire and that he’s been running on reputation (and his casting darlings) alone for quite some time.

Well, THE DEPARTED is wretched, and yeah, Scorcese has had a mighty slump since GOODFELLAS. But I did like THE AVIATOR well enough when I saw it, which was admittedly only once, but still.

[Loomis]

Scorsese sucks. So does Nicolas Cage. Curiously enough, though, put 'em together and you get BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, one of the few relatively watchable entries in Marty's filmography.

[Safari Suit]

I haven't read the novel to be honest (although I have read a couple of the sequels) but one of the things I find so captivating about 2001 is the level of verisimilitude it brings to its portrayal of space travel, and the general intelligence it brings to the scientific aspects of the film, something which I suspect was largely Clarke's contribution.

Your suspicion might be a bit unfounded, given what I've read about the film's production. Undoubtedly, Clarke contributed something to that aspect of 2001, but it seems that the real passion for developing an accurate depiction of space travel was Kubrick's. He and those under him spent an enormous time dedicated to research in this area (he was often obsessed with research on his films; on his never-filmed NAPOLEON project, he compiled a file cabinet detailing the events of every single day of Napoleon's life).

Perhaps, but this attenention to scientific and theoretical detail is generally consistant with Clarke's work as an author, so I do credit some of the proficiency in this area to Clarke.

After Hours is a gem from Scorsese that is normally overlooked.

[Harmsway]

Scorsese sucks.

Oh come now. I know you like GOODFELLAS and CASINO well enough, so he can't be all that bad.

[Loomis]

Oh, he is. Believe me, he is. He can't get it together without De Niro. The guy's his muse and without him he's just a slightly more high-minded Ridley Scott.

[Harmsway]

Well, I like Ridley Scott, so...

[Judo chop]

Well, THE DEPARTED is wretched, and yeah, Scorcese has had a mighty slump since GOODFELLAS. But I did like THE AVIATOR well enough when I saw it, which was admittedly only once, but still.

A bad choice or two within a good film is a slip.

A bad film or two is a slump.

However, in sixteen years, Scorsese has created: CAPE FEAR, CASINO, GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE AVIATOR and DEPARTED.

It’s not only that the average level of interest and quality has declined, but look at the trend. He’s getting progressively worse! I don’t know the cause, but the fire’s gone. Somewhere Marion is screaming, “MARTY! THE TORCH IS GOING OUUUUUUT…!!!”

(THE AVIATOR may have been the dullest of them all. An utterly pointless film, IMO. I hereby cast it down as a film I refuse to watch again.)

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Three words: M. Night Shyamalan...
The Sixth Sense was fine, but not afterwards...

[Harmsway]

However, in sixteen years, Scorsese has created: CAPE FEAR, CASINO, GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE AVIATOR and DEPARTED.

CASINO ain't that bad (ain't that good, but ain't that bad), GANGS OF NEW YORK is at least interesting, and - while you and I are at odds on this - I enjoyed THE AVIATOR. So while he's no longer turning out anything resembling TAXI DRIVER, I don't think he's utterly worthless. Though just thinking about THE DEPARTED makes me reconsider that evaluation.

(THE AVIATOR may have been the dullest of them all. An utterly pointless film, IMO. I hereby cast it down as a film I refuse to watch again.)

Really? Well, I won't stand up for THE AVIATOR too much. My memory's too foggy to attempt anything resembling a real firm evaluation, and I have no intention of making a real effort to revisit it. I did like the performances well enough to find it entertaining, though. It was the first time I warmed to Leo after scorning him in the wake of TITANIC, and the first time I really took notice of Cate Blanchett.

[Loomis]

THE AVIATOR's nothing special. Although it's CITIZEN KANE next to the abysmal GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE DEPARTED. The man's just a dingbat with a strange Rolling Stones fixation.

AFTER HOURS, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, CAPE FEAR, CASINO, GOODFELLAS, KUNDUN, RAGING BULL and TAXI DRIVER are about the only Scorsese flicks worth watching.

Well, I like Ridley Scott, so...

He's a rich man's Lee Tamahori.

[Judo chop]

However, in sixteen years, Scorsese has created: CAPE FEAR, CASINO, GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE AVIATOR and DEPARTED.

CASINO ain't that bad (ain't that good, but ain't that bad), GANGS OF NEW YORK is at least interesting, and - while you and I are at odds on this - I enjoyed THE AVIATOR. So while he's no longer turning out anything resembling TAXI DRIVER, I don't think he's utterly worthless.

CASINO ain’t that bad, but lots of directors make ‘ain’t that bad’ films. I won’t say GANGS is interesting though. It’s only different. DDL seems to summon the powers of the Otherworld™ to put together his Butcher, and the concept behind the story screams ‘Intriguing!’, (and LeoDiCap was great as well), but Scorsese’s use of the concept and his remarkable cast, is uninteresting. IMO. Despite having so much going for it, the film bores me to death. I have to blame Scorsese.

My point is not that he is utterly worthless, but rather that he is proven to now be a mediocre director, apparently hemorrhaging his sense of vision and rapidly approaching a level of utter worthlessness. Thus my hesitation with anything Scorsese. If I thought it was really a ‘slump’ and that there was a TAXI DRIVER still in him, I’d be less wary.

I did like the performances well enough to find it entertaining, though. It was the first time I warmed to Leo after scorning him in the wake of TITANIC, and the first time I really took notice of Cate Blanchett.

I will not deny that with Scorsese usually comes an immensely talented crew. My theory is that that is exactly what keeps his esteem afloat. Show me a Scorsese film staffed with unknowns and we’ll see what the man is really made of.

[Judo chop]

he's just a slightly more high-minded Ridley Scott.

Well, I like Ridley Scott, so...

He's a rich man's Lee Tamahori.

Loomis mathematics:

Scorsese = Ridley Scott + IQ
and
Ridley Scott = Tamahori + $

Therefore:

Tamahori = Scorsese – IQ - $.

ie. “Tamahori is just a low-minded, poor man’s Scorsese.”

I’ll have to watch DAD again and look for that.

[Harmsway]

AFTER HOURS, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, CAPE FEAR, CASINO, GOODFELLAS, KUNDUN, RAGING BULL and TAXI DRIVER are about the only Scorsese flicks worth watching.

Not that I agree with your picks, but eight watchable flicks isn't the worst career output in the world. So why all the venom?

Well, I like Ridley Scott, so...

He's a rich man's Lee Tamahori.

If we're talking the pre-DIE ANOTHER DAY Tamahori, I would agree. Scott's always been something of a pompous journeyman, with a particular flair for some really stylish visuals who's knocked it out of the park once or twice. But I hardly think that's such a terrible thing to be.

Despite having so much going for it, the film bores me to death. I have to blame Scorsese.

Fair enough. The buck stops with Scorsese however you slice it, but I do like the flick more than many people out there. But much like THE AVIATOR, I have no interest in revisiting it, so that should testify to my level of investment in the flick.

If I thought it was really a ‘slump’ and that there was a TAXI DRIVER still in him, I’d be less wary.

Well, I don't think he'll ever get back there. His best days are clearly well behind him.

Loomis mathematics:

Scorsese = Ridley Scott + IQ
and
Ridley Scott = Tamahori + $

Therefore:

Tamahori = Scorsese – IQ - $.

ie. “Tamahori is just a low-minded, poor man’s Scorsese.”

I’ll have to watch DAD again and look for that.

[Loomis]

AFTER HOURS, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, CAPE FEAR, CASINO, GOODFELLAS, KUNDUN, RAGING BULL and TAXI DRIVER are about the only Scorsese flicks worth watching.

Not that I agree with your picks, but eight watchable flicks isn't the worst career output in the world. So why all the venom?

Because he's widely (and wrongly) considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, that's why the venom.

Heck, I'd rather watch xXx: STATE OF THE UNION for some good-old fashioned poor man's Scorsese.

[Harmsway]

Because he's widely (and wrongly) considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, that's why the venom.

Maybe so, but does his overrated-ness really merit "Scorcese sucks" hyperbole?

Anyway, I find the man himself so intelligent and likable that I can't help but be fond of him, even if his cinematic contributions are horrendously overstated by the general population. I'd love to have a meal with the guy.

Heck, I'd rather watch xXx: STATE OF THE UNION for some good-old fashioned poor man's Scorsese.

If I recall, weren't you unable to make it through that flick?

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

Three words: M. Night Shyamalan...
The Sixth Sense was fine, but not afterwards...

Here, here! He hit the nadir last year with "The Happening" or whatever the name of that film was with Mark wahlberg.

Sorry to interrupt the interesting back and forth talk with Loomis and Harmsway, I'm sure there will be a conclusion at some point with Scorcese.

[Safari Suit]

The Happening, for all its risibility, was still better than Lady in the Water which I came to with an open mind but still found genuinely unwatchable/

AFTER HOURS, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, CAPE FEAR, CASINO, GOODFELLAS, KUNDUN, RAGING BULL and TAXI DRIVER are about the only Scorsese flicks worth watching.

Not that I agree with your picks, but eight watchable flicks isn't the worst career output in the world. So why all the venom?

I agree, especially as three of those films are considered to be bonafide masterpieces.

And what about The King of Comedy?

[Loomis]

Because he's widely (and wrongly) considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, that's why the venom.

Maybe so, but does his overrated-ness really merit "Scorcese sucks" hyperbole?

Anyway, I find the man himself so intelligent and likable that I can't help but be fond of him, even if his cinematic contributions are horrendously overstated by the general population. I'd love to have a meal with the guy.

Oh, same here - if he's buying. But, heck, Michael Winner would be a great dining companion (dunno whether you know this, Harms, but for the past several years he's worked mainly as a restaurant critic, which is probably the greatest contribution to cinema he's ever made), but it don't mean I'm gonna give him a pass for poor flicks.

Heck, I'd rather watch xXx: STATE OF THE UNION for some good-old fashioned poor man's Scorsese.

If I recall, weren't you unable to make it through that flick?

I was. It's awful. But it's arguably less offensive than much of Marty's pompous, po-faced, chest-beating output.

[Harmsway]

But it's arguably less offensive than much of Marty's pompous, po-faced, chest-beating output.

Not from where I'm standing. I'd much rather have a failure that had high ambitions than a failure that didn't try at all. In the end, they're still both failures, but I can at least respect one - the other is worthy of nothing but scorn.

And anyway, I'm still confused as to why a guy with 8 decent flicks to his name, as you've suggested, deserves to be slung through the mud the way you're doing it. Does he deserve to be named overrated? Almost certainly. But by no means should he be particularly vilified.

[Santa]

I generally avoid comic book/fantasy/sci-fi/superhero fare like the plague, with a couple of exceptions (I loved THE DARK KNIGHT and WATCHMEN). I'm happy to say that I've seen just one of the HARRY POTTERs and none of the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEANs.

I have also successfully boycotted IRON MAN and SPIDER-MAN 3, and am currently gearing up to boycott TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN and X MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE. A good rule of thumb, I find, is to refuse to watch anything with a : in the title.

I also tend not to watch musicals, period dramas, romantic comedies, teen comedies, torture pørn (I thought the first HOSTEL a pretty good little flick, though - however, the second is dire, and you can keep this SAW nonsense), war films and westerns.

Finally, I'm very suspicious of the following people and have a policy of avoiding most of their work: George Clooney, the Coens and Ridley Scott.

Apart from Stallone (of course), what does that leave you with?

I make sure to avoid anything Clint Eastwood, Jim Carrey, Hilary Swank, and these days anything with Pierce Brosnan. Also any child/teen movies - I know everyone says Wall-E is great, I just can't face it, any of it.

[Kilroy6644]

I make sure to avoid anything Clint Eastwood

No Clint?

[Loomis]

I generally avoid comic book/fantasy/sci-fi/superhero fare like the plague, with a couple of exceptions (I loved THE DARK KNIGHT and WATCHMEN). I'm happy to say that I've seen just one of the HARRY POTTERs and none of the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEANs.

I have also successfully boycotted IRON MAN and SPIDER-MAN 3, and am currently gearing up to boycott TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN and X MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE. A good rule of thumb, I find, is to refuse to watch anything with a : in the title.

I also tend not to watch musicals, period dramas, romantic comedies, teen comedies, torture pørn (I thought the first HOSTEL a pretty good little flick, though - however, the second is dire, and you can keep this SAW nonsense), war films and westerns.

Finally, I'm very suspicious of the following people and have a policy of avoiding most of their work: George Clooney, the Coens and Ridley Scott.

Apart from Stallone (of course), what does that leave you with?

Well, Bond, obviously. Bourne. And then there's always The Odd Thing Here and There™.

Anyway, my boycott of WOLVERINE is going well. I know it sucks because:

- It's an X-MEN sequel.

- Not only that, but it's also an X-MEN prequel. Run!

- Still here? Okay, it stars Hugh Jackman.

- Liev Schreiber's also in it.

- And he's playing Jackman's bro. Films in which Schreiber plays someone's brother usually suck (see also - or rather, don't - DEFIANCE).

I shall also be boycotting STAR TREK. "This isn't your father's STAR TREK", indeed! Well, it isn't mine, either!

Will I boycott TERMINATOR 4? Well, let's just say that if I were in Christian Bale's shoes I certainly wouldn't count on the Loomis squids.

[tdalton]

I'm with you on all of that Loomis. Neither X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE nor TERMINATOR: SALVATION will be getting a viewing from me this summer (X-MEN will never get a viewing from me, TERMINATOR might get one on DVD, although given the proposed plotline for the fifth film, I might just avoid the new trilogy and choose to view TERMINATOR 3 as the end of the franchise).

I'd probably go so far as to say that I'm going to boycott the entire summer this year. There's only one film on the docket for this summer that I have even the faintest desire to see (HALLOWEEN 2), but other than that, this looks to be the worst summer of movies that I've ever seen (or that I remember, anyway). I might take the summer as an opportunity to get caught up on some TV programming in time for the fall 2009 season and begin using that as my main form of entertainment, as a lot of TV shows recently, I've found, are better than nearly every single movie I've seen in the past few years.

Edited by tdalton, 07 May 2009 - 07:31 AM.