Movies that everyone loves that you cannot get the love for

[Epic Reine 0]

Crash, see the "Crash=Overrated" thread.

 

Million Dollar Baby wasn't THAT good. It was ok

 

I can't get into any of the Star Wars movies except maybe Ep. 3.

 

The Blair Witch Project has to be the most boring movie ever.

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm not saying Evil Dead 1 doesn't have its tongue in cheek moments, but it's certainly more serious than either of the sequels.

 

Allow me to now trash Million Dollar Baby. I'll make no bones about it..I flat out hated that movie. It went so horribly awry during the fight scene. And the justification for the evil bitch getting away with it was the ultra lame WWE "ref didn't see it" bullshit. This is an Oscar winning movie bear in mind, and the entire plot hinged on "the ref didn't see it." There is no way in hell that would be possible in real life. That bitch would have been immediately DQed and stripped of the title, banned from boxing for life, and probably would have to do time over it. In the movie we never hear about this at all, but just have to accept that Maggie is a loser. I thought this whole fight scene and pretty much everything after it was horrible, horrible writing without any credibility and only designed to make it all the more tragic.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

All the Evil Dead movies and all those Night of the whatever zombie movies. People go ape shit over those and I hate every minute of them.

HEAVY FUCKING SPOILERS AHEAD, SO SKIP THIS ENTIRE POST IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ALL OF THESE MOVIES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll explain why horror fans go "apeshit" over the Evil Dead trilogy and Romero's work...so this may take a fucking while to read if you even care.

 

EVIL DEAD TRILOGY

The Evil Dead: Based off of a short film Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell made called The Watcher in the Woods (IIRC, the actual title may be slightly different), the film was an ultra low-budget Super-8 (meaning that it was shot entirely on a store-bought 8mm camera) horror yarn. Despite the lame special effects, oftentimes laughably bad acting (though the actress who portrayed Sheryl, Ash's sister, actually did a pretty solid job; ditto the actress who played Ash's girlfriend), and overall poor quality of the movie, there was something that shined through in it lacking in most horror movies since the era of Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney: heart. Everybody on the cast and crew believed in what they were doing and were dedicated to making as good a movie as they could, and it showed. The atmosphere created by the time the first attack (the infamous tree rape scene, which itself is a piece of classic 70's exploitation horror where the motto was "the more outlandishly graphic and gorey, the better," or at least it seemed to be) happens is remarkable. I watched this film with a few friends that were also into the series and indie horror in general and a room full of girls who had sat through every Jason flick, every Freddy flick, and every slasher film easily accessible without flinching, and they JUMPED when Ash fell down the basement steps before he and Scott even found the Necronomicon. THAT is atmosphere, my friend, and THAT is what true horror films are all about.

Let's not forget that it featured the introduction of a few newer camera techniques, most noticeably the "force cam" (I forget the actual name given to it, but when the images on screen are what the demonic force in the woods actually sees), and was as ingenius in its direction and special effects as it was low in budget. The first movie is looked at more as a landmark in making a movie on a small budget than it is an actually quality movie, but it's truly my favorite of the three for being (oddly enough) the least cheesy.

 

Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn: Many horror movies before it had added elements of comedy to themselves. Every group of teenagers in your run-of-the-mill slasher flick has that wisecracking best buddy who you just KNOW is gonna die because he's the one you like the most of the bunch. This movie didn't have that. It had cartoonish ultraviolence, actors that played their roles STRAIGHT and didn't wink at the camera or do tongue-in-cheek actions, and was made on just a marginally larger budget than the original was. The special effects, again, are so quality for the lack of funds that much of the props actually appear as though they're real. The cast, once again, BELIEVED in the film, and Sam Raimi did as well. That's why Raimi has directed two of the highest grossing summer blockbusters, both Spider-Man movies, and made them surprisingly good movies in the process: he gets behind everything he works on 100%. His love for his work shines through, and it shined through better in Evil Dead II than in any of the other two films in the series.

And something happened, too: Bruce Campbell actually became a decent actor. Whereas he was laughably bad for the majority of The Evil Dead, he was perfect in the role of the reluctant hero that's losing his mind in Evil Dead II. Of course, some of what he does is tongue-in-cheek (most notably the first 10 minutes of the movie, a summary of sorts of the first film since they couldn't obtain the rights to use its footage from the studio that distributed it), but most of it he plays straight. Ash the prettyboy pansy is dead and arises Ash the wise-cracking asskicker. To put it in wrestling terms, Ash went from Mikey Whipwreck - that loveable loser who just can't get a break - to Steve Austin - the man who had enough and decided to start kicking some ass - in this part. One of Roger Ebert's favorite horror movies ever, and if you still can't see the appeal, I'm not even going to bother explaining it anymore.

 

Army of Darkness: Okay, this one's the worst of the three. Had the highest budget, but whereas The Evil Dead was funny for its poor quality of special effects and lame acting, and Evil Dead II was funny because of how oddball the events happening to Ash were while he was acting serious, this one just threw caution to the wind and had every character comedic in some way, shape, or form. Has the lamest special effects of the three (odd, considering it had the biggest budget), but is also the most easily accessible for a number of reasons. 1) It plays like your typical action yarn. 2) Bruce Campbell's Ash is its most entertaining in this entry, as Ash becoems the 100% focal point rather than the events going on around him. 3) The Evil Dead and Evil Dead II are recapped at the beginning of the movie for those seeing Army as their entry into the series.

This one is pure b-movie fun. Plus, it had a very good original score (the "March of the Dead" is such a great song it isn't even funny) and some action scenes that would rival the best Hollywood had to offer at the time (the fight between Evil Ash and Ash towards the end, for example, was a good use of blue-screen and stop-motion animation that would be unheard of today).

 

ROMERO'S DEAD SERIES

Night of the Living Dead: Extremely violent and graphic for its time (most horror flicks didn't feature the monsters ripping entrails out of their victims like this did), Night was one of the few horror movies that wasn't a downright "psychological" horror (like Rosemary's Baby) worth watching in the 60's. It scared an entire generation of drive-in theater go'ers, and brought the new defintion of the zombie - no longer the work of a voodoo priest but rather a flesh-craving corpse that can't be stopped - to the forefront. Plus, it had a good message to it about racism (Cooper not wanting to listen to Ben because he's black, when Ben was the one being the most rational...despite Harry having been the right one in the end about the basement, that is; that and all of the redneck hunters shooting first and asking questions later) and how man's ultimate fall will not be because of some new monstrous threat from beyond but rather petty squabbles among itself.

 

Dawn of the Dead: This one just beats you over the head with its point. The longest zombie movie I can think of, its themes of consumerism and greed are abundant. The downfall of the main characters at the end - during their battle with the raiders (and the death of most of the raiders themselves) - is their greed. The zombies shuffle to the mall because it was something "important to them in life" (a satire on mass consumerism) and the humans kill each other just to obtain some small slice of the pie when the bigger threat is at hand.

Plus, at its time, it was the most graphic horror movie made. People were ripped apart on a constant basis, heads were being blown apart (both human and zombie), and chunks of flesh and miles of entrails were torn from victims without the camera leaving much to the imagination.

 

Day of the Dead: Romero's weakest of his Dead series (though this was due to the studio not giving him the budget he needed), the entire concept of the movie was, once again, man's inability to deal with the problem at hand (the living dead overrunning all recognized forms of government) due to bickering over petty differences. But the major theme of this one, despite the running theme in all of his zombie movies that I just mentioned, was the distrust of the military. I believe Romero finished the script just after the full removal of US forces from Vietnam, a war that we failed, and the public distrusted anything and everything military at the time due to how polarizing 'Nam was. The public viewed the military as grunts and savages, doing what they wanted through physical force and little else, and that is how the soldiers in the movie were depicted (quite wonderfully, might I add, especially Sgt. Steel, who is a cult icon in zombie lore). In the end, the military's overbearing attitude and the scientists' hatred of them let the undead into the secure base, causing the deaths of each military personnel as the three remaining scientists flee. Romero's nice little way of saying "military dictatorship only gets you so far when the problems aren't deal with."

 

Land of the Dead: Probably the most downright entertaining of his Dead series, mostly due to acting of Leguizamo and Hopper (both of whom, I believe, requested to have parts in it upon hearing about Romero making another zombie movie), Land takes place in the present-day (well, if the zombies started taking over in 1968 like Night showed). Mankind survives by having the poor do all of the dirty work (ie. the working class) and go out into neighboring towns by leaving their fortress-like stronghold run by a corrupt dictator (Hopper, who Romero based off of George W primarily, but also off of the wealthy elite in general) in vehicles that are little more than armored/armed versions of cars found today. When Cholo (Leguizamo) saves up enough money to leave the raiders and join the wealthy elite, Hopper's character denies it and tries to have him killed (either due to outright racism or his belief that the poor should remain poor; again, a shot at the wealthy elite). So he takes matters into his own hands, commandeers the primary line of defense for the raiders (Dead Reckoning, a tank-like vehicle with enough firepower to level a city block), and threatens to destroy Fiddler's Green (the section of the city cornered off from the living dead by fences and military guards and whatnot where the "government" is located). So Hopper's character (agh, I forget the name off the top of my head) sends out the man who trained Cholo to try to kill him, but the man who trained Cholo wanted out of the whole ordeal anyway, so it's all one big moral tale about how those in power don't want those they govern to gain any sort of ground.

And, of course, the zombies. They're evolving, getting smarter and remembering more about things they did when alive. One, Big Daddy (as his nametag says on his mechanics jumpsuit), leads the rest to Fiddler's Green to destroy those that have been massacring the living dead just to get some food. The zombies in this one represent the Middle East, actually, in that they were subhuman scum before but got smarter as civilization raided their areas for things that mankind really doesn't need (the majority of what the raiders took in were bottles of booze and wealthy little trinkets that aren't actually needed to survive). If you rent the DVD and listen to Romero's commentary it explains it much better than I can, but this one actually has the most interesting political metaphors in it due to the situations being similar to current events.

 

So yeah. Romero's movies are landmarks for not only taking horror movie gore and special effects one step further, but also for being political and social metaphors which is something horror rarely is.

[Guest Queen of Pain]

The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Loved the book since I was a kid, but the movies were pretty bloody average.

Blair Witch Project - Zzzzzzz...

[SuperJerk 0]

I'll be specific and actually say I don't get the love for "Return of the King."

[the max 0]

I think it's because it had been so long since a good "epic" fantasy type film that spanned a few hours.

 

I enjoyed the books and movies just fine (the books are better, of course. That's what everyone else says too), but I can understand why some people didn't "get" ROTK, since it was really really long. Plus the controversy with PJ's fade to black multiple endings made it feel like it ended before it officially ended. The film was over once Frodo destroyed the ring and he and Sam were rescued by the Eagles, but many felt that it still continued the story after that.

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

I REALLY enjoyed the entire LOTR series, but I can understand why people dislike ROTK. The ending that went on forever could have been done better. It felt like a failed orgasm, "oh, here it is, yeah.. fuck, it's gone. Okay, keeping going.. yes, there it is.. dammit! Keep on it, would you?!"

 

Haven't seen most of the movies commented on as of yet, so I can't comment there.

 

Was Blair Witch really a popular movie? Most of the people I've talked to about it said they couldn't stand it.. I had a terrible headache after the first half hour.

 

Oh, I can comment on Office Space.. I didn't find it remotely funny. The only redeeming qualities were Jennifer Anniston and 'the Oh face'.

[cabbageboy 0]

Well, Peter Jackson was damned if he do, damned if he don't. If he had just edited out the whole last 20 mins. or so and ended it at the Aragorn ceremony then you'd have all these LOTR fanatics crying foul since the last 1/3 of the book would be missing. Hell, people bitched enough about the Scouring of the Shire being left out...just imagine how long ROTK would have been then.

 

But yeah, I found the last 20 mins or so a bit self indulgent. It's the kind of stuff that would be fine in the extended version, but I think the theatrical could have just as well ended with the ceremony, in particular the shot of the 4 hobbits side by side (with the pan out showing the entire crowd).

[Ravenbomb 0]

was that the "you bow to no man" or whatever scene? Yeah, that would've been a good non-extended-version ending

[SuperJerk 0]

Since I'm the only one who singled out "Return of the King," I'd appreciate it if people would quit presuming to tell me the reason I didn't like it was because of its length. And its not that I didn't "get" the movie, I didn't "get the love" for it. And my not getting what was so great about it had nothing to do with its length. It had to do with my liking "the Two Towers" a lot more and being disappointed that "Return of the King" wasn't as good, in my opinion.

[Guest Queen of Pain]

The length of the movies has little to do with my disliking of them. Even examined independently of the book (which will always be better, yes), the films just don't stand up in my opinion. Production-wise they are sensational, and Peter Jackson did a good job bringing the world of Middle-Earth to life, but overall I just find the whole series to be rather blah.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I'm with Y2Jerk in saying that ROTK felt more like a chore to watch after how good The Two Towers was. I'm not a LOTR fan by any means (just ask Slayer: I hate that fantasy bullshit), but I loved how well the characters were evolved in Two Towers. In ROTK...it's almost as if they were just there as two-dimensional beings with a common purpose. Boring.

[cabbageboy 0]

The Two Towers is certainly the LOTR movie for those who want to see a bunch of shit get fucked up. It could be said that I originally didn't care much for the FOTR theatrical version when I first saw it. Just thought FOTR was too incoherent for someone who had never read the book...all sorts of names, places, characters tossed out and it gets totally confusing for a newbie. I spent far too much time thinking "Who are these other midgets with Frodo? Why did they tag along? Where did the dwarf and elf guys come from? What is this Gondor place and who is Boromir? If Strider/Aragorn is supposed to be the king of the place, why is he screwing off in the forest? Who the hell is this creepy little dude that is following them?"

 

See, Two Towers simplifies things greatly and yet expands on the characters and concepts...it's quite remarkable really. It splits everyone up so we get more focus on the Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas stuff, more depth with Frodo and Sam, and even some Merry/Pippin scenes. And of course Gollum shows up early on and just grabs the viewer by the balls.

 

ROTK is actually way better than I thought it might be going in. I was seriously worried that the movie would be horribly anticlimactic since the ostensible main villain (Sauron) is not even IN the movie. I can see Tolkien's reasoning behind the Scouring of the Shire in the book, since it gives you that payoff of seeing a tangible villain (Saruman) get his.

 

But what the hell...seeing ROTK at the midnight showing when it first came out is one of the greatest theater experiences I've ever had. It helps to see it with people who really, really care about it. People were marking out for everything.

[FroGG_NeaL 0]

The Two Towers is to LOTR as The Empire Strikes Back is to Star Wars,

And Episode 3 for the new Star Wars movies.

It's Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn to the Star Trek Movies.

 

It's the one you would screen for someone that normally wouldn't like that type of shit.

[Damaramu 0]

Laz that's great and all but I don't like the movies and don't enjoy watching them therefore I don't get the love. Basically that's what this whole thread has been about.

But whereas I can't stand Evil Dead I or II I do like Army of Darkness.

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

Since I'm the only one who singled out "Return of the King," I'd appreciate it if people would quit presuming to tell me the reason I didn't like it was because of its length. And its not that I didn't "get" the movie, I didn't "get the love" for it. And my not getting what was so great about it had nothing to do with its length. It had to do with my liking "the Two Towers" a lot more and being disappointed that "Return of the King" wasn't as good, in my opinion.

 

No one was presuming a thing about you. Those of us who 'defended' ROTK made very broad statements (people, some people).

[cabbageboy 0]

I actually do know what Dama means on the Evil Dead movies. While I quite enjoy the Evil Dead movies I have seen others who flat out cannot stand 1 minute of either of the first two. Perhaps those are too bizarre, over the top, graphic, I dunno.

 

Same thing goes for the Romero movies. Though quite honestly Land of the Dead isn't in a league with the first two of the series (I do prefer it to Day though). There are some people who just do not like to see flesh eating zombies.

[Jingus 0]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the first Evil Dead while I love the others. I most liked the comedic aspect of the series, and that one was less funny and more gross. Plus, the tree rape scene was just unnecessary and gratuitous.

 

One friend of mine who doesn't like zombie movies explained it like this: "I'm not afraid of zombies. They're slow, they're dumb, and you can get away from them by just walking quick. It doesn't matter how many of them there are, either. I'm not afraid of one retard, I'm not gonna be afraid of a hundred of them." I don't agree with him, but I see his point.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I really need to see at least the original "Night of the Living Dead."

[cabbageboy 0]

That's ultimately what is terrifying about zombies though. Sure, you can beat the shit out of a bunch of them, but eventually you make that ONE mistake and they just keep coming.

 

I have to say that I like the first Evil Dead the least as well. Mainly because I don't think Ash had really become that central character. That one dude Scott is just as important for much of the film. Ash doesn't really stand out for most of it.

[Jingus 0]

They just keep coming only because most zombie flicks force their heroes to confront dozens if not hundreds of the damn things one way or another. If you can manage to secure the top floor of a building and then block the stairs, you'd be safe. The only way that individual zombies could be a threat to a competent person are if they're Smart Zombies (LotD), Fast Zombies (28 Days Later, DotD remake), or Specialty Non-Rules-Following Zombies (RotLD series, Evil Dead). The standard slow dumb stumbling kind can't really hurt you unless you make a bigass mistake or there's just a hundred of them.

[Guest CWMwasmurdered]

And I share the Kingdom of Heaven dislike. Not sure if it's 'loved' by many, but it was just a mess. Jeremy Irons was wasted in his role.

That movie was apparently completely ruined by the studio cut. The directors cut is supposedly great.

 

In order to be great, it'd have to cut out all of the fucking "Muslims were the REAL noble, humble freedom fighters!" bullshit that infected that fucking film.

What the fuck? Did you even see that movie? The climax was them laying waste to Jerusalem and slaughtering everybody over petty disagreements. No 'Noble freedom fighter' bullshit. The theme was that the people in charge of both sides were dumbasses who kept fighting over a pretty worthless piece of land over and over again.

 

Bullfuckingshit. Yes, I saw the movie, and the Muslims weren't portrayed nearly as poorly as you're stating here. Saladin was portrayed as a wise, noble leader / warrior, who treated his enemies with respect, when in reality Saladin was a brutal warlord known for slaughtering Christians even after they peacefully surrendered to him. His right-hand man, Nasir, was portrayed as a good man at heart who always treated Balian kindly and with justice. Overall, the Muslims were presented as, essentially, freedom fighters, rising up against the oppression of the Templars / Christians.

 

Who were presented as the real villains of the film? The Christians. Guy and Reynald - both Christians - were portrayed as evil to the core, eagerly willing to slaughter innocent women, as they did with Saladin's sister. They disrespected the Jews, they oppressed the Muslims, they were presented as little more than civilized savages.

 

The real Reynald of Chatillon;

 

"In 1156 Raynald claimed that the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus had reneged on his promise to pay Raynald a sum of money, and vowed to attack the island of Cyprus in revenge. When the Latin Patriarch of Antioch refused to finance this expedition, Raynald had the Patriarch seized, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left to suffer in the burning sun. When the Patriarch was released, he collapsed in exhaustion and agreed to finance Raynald's expedition against Cyprus. Raynald's forces attacked Cyprus, ravaging the island, and raping and pillaging the inhabitants."

 

He was also (infamous) for his "wanton cruelty at Kerak, often having his enemies and hostages flung from the walls of castle to be dashed to pieces on the rocks below."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynald_of_Chatillon

[iggymcfly 0]

Allow me to now trash Million Dollar Baby. I'll make no bones about it..I flat out hated that movie. It went so horribly awry during the fight scene. And the justification for the evil bitch getting away with it was the ultra lame WWE "ref didn't see it" bullshit. This is an Oscar winning movie bear in mind, and the entire plot hinged on "the ref didn't see it." There is no way in hell that would be possible in real life. That bitch would have been immediately DQed and stripped of the title, banned from boxing for life, and probably would have to do time over it. In the movie we never hear about this at all, but just have to accept that Maggie is a loser. I thought this whole fight scene and pretty much everything after it was horrible, horrible writing without any credibility and only designed to make it all the more tragic.

 

I can't believe I missed this one when I made my initial list. When Skip Bayless can rip your plot to shreds, you know you have a pretty weak movie.

 

The dual mistakes of: 1) starting the movie with her winning a match on the undercard of a title fight, even though she apparently has no idea how to box and 2) having her lose the fight where a late blow knocks her into a stool would be bothersome in a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie, let alone an Oscar winner.

 

Also, Hillary Swank couldn't have done that great a job of acting because I never really connected with her character. When they had the hospital scenes, you got the "gross" feeling you'd get watching CSI or something, but I never really felt sad for her character.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

The beauty of slow zombies is that they, themselves, are not scary. Not at all. 1, 2, 4, etc. Not even 30. You could drive by them quickly, hop on your BMX and ride away to safety, whatever. The horror of them is man's complete inability to properly deal with them due to his own ego. In Night, the people in the house could have survived the night if they detached all emotion and did what needed to be done. Cooper should have shot his daughter. Ben and Cooper shouldn't have fought. Judy-Rose and...Bobby, IIRC...shouldn't have tried to UNLOCK THE FUCKING GAS PUMP WITH A SHOTGUN BLAST.

 

Romero zombies are wonderful in that way. It's a problem man could easily - and quickly - do away with, but we can't because of our own flawed emotions and, of course, the whole "seven deadly sins" thing (greed, sloth, gluttony, wrath, pride, lust, envy) that leads to the downfall of anybody.

[Special K 0]

I <3 Laz. He's got it so right.

[Jingus 0]

Damn. I never thought of it that way, but you're right. I'll mention that to him next time and see what he says.

 

(BTW, it's him that hates zombie flicks, not me, the original NOTLD is one of my all-time favorite pieces of cinema.)

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Van Wilder is a very funny film. Wedding Crashers and the 40 Year Old Virgin are both highly overrated.

The first part of this statement inadvertantly endorses the other two films mentioned. Wedding Crashers suffers from poor pacing, but 4YOV gets better with each viewing. After seeing it in theaters, I thought it was humorous, but also suffering from the pacing issues that plagued Crashers. Subsequent viewings prove this to be incorrect. The main ensemble may be one of the most well-developed, interesting set of characters portrayed in a comedy we've seen in years.

 

Van Wilder just has Ryan Reynolds doing the same schtick he's always done with lots of toilet "humor" thrown in there. Sorry, poop and dog semen seem like pretty weak stabs at humor.

 

Scarface is the biggest offender here, though. Ridiculously dated, bloated and unfairly praised. The biggest tragedy is most of its loyal followers probably wouldn't even watch the (superior) original because it's in OMG BLACK AND WHITE!

[Vyce 0]

I <3 Laz. He's got it so right.

 

I, for one, am absolutely unrepentant in my belief that the original Dawn of the Dead was an overlong and boring - Yes! BORING! - film. I found the remake, for all of Romero's bitching about "lack of characterization" - to be much more entertaining, suspenseful and thrilling. It was more of an actual horror film.

 

Oh, and fast zombies are so much scarier than slow zombies any day of the week.

 

You know, shit, now that I think about it, even though I love the original NOTLD, I have to say I probably enjoy all of Fulci's zombie flicks more than Romero's.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

1. Vyce, LOVE the Izzard joke in the avatar. "Hey, look...a creeping kid! I could use him in my new movie...The Creeping Kid!"

 

2. An army of fast zombies like in Dawn '04 are scarier than your average slow zombie, but it doesn't allow the depth that the slower zombie does. Like I said, the best zombie movies are about man's inability to deal with the problem around him due to his own ego, not because the problem around him is too bad to deal with (as was the case with Dawn '04).

 

And, ironically, I too would prefer to watch the Dawn remake over the original. I have to REALLY be in the mood to watch the original, but I can pop in the remake and have fun watching it whenever.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Pirates of the Caribbean