Movies you thought you would like but didn't.

[KubrickFan]

Avatar. The technical 'revolutions' looked great, but if you don't have an interesting story it doesn't really matter. What made it worse were the completely predictable characters.

Alice in Wonderland. I'm a real Tim Burton fan, even liking the Planet of the Apes remake and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake, but it almost seemed like this movie was done by someone who was impersonating him. By trying to make it into the standard blockbuster it was utterly ruined, while it could've had so much potential. The cinematography was amazing, though, as was Danny Elfman's music. Hopefully Burton gets some real inspiration for his next features, otherwise it's not looking too good for him.

[dvdjunkie]

Why anyone would list Inception as a bad movie, probably isn't old enough to understand what it was telling us. That movie is going to sweep Academy Awards and maybe even earn Lenny DeCrapio another Academy Award nomination for Best Actor.

"Inception" is like "Memento", it has to be seen more than once and seen with an open mind and with no prejudged prejudices. I will go on record that "Inception" makes more money than most of the other films released this summer.

[Coolmanio]

Why anyone would list Inception as a bad movie, probably isn't old enough to understand what it was telling us. That movie is going to sweep Academy Awards and maybe even earn Lenny DeCrapio another Academy Award nomination for Best Actor.

"Inception" is like "Memento", it has to be seen more than once and seen with an open mind and with no prejudged prejudices. I will go on record that "Inception" makes more money than most of the other films released this summer.

I didn't say the movie is bad, I just said I didn't like it. The visuals were outstanding, I'll give you that, but the plot was too literal, and the message was just in your face the whole time, which turned me off from it. I understand why so many people like it, and why it will do well at the Academy Awards, it just does not appeal to me. I will also not like a movie just because other do.

And by the way, I am 18. I understood the movie. I just didn't like it. Don't make assumptions about me, because I sure won't make any about you.

[jpanimation]

"Inception" is like "Memento", it has to be seen more than once and seen with an open mind and with no prejudged prejudices.

IDK, I got all I needed out of Memento on the first watch as it's really not hard to follow (everything just runs backwards, so it's not like it's randomly all over the place). Actually, it worked to a great effect as it kept you guessing on what was going on so you could empathize with the Guy Pierce character's situation. Black Hawk Down was actually pretty hard for me to follow. I kept getting all the soldiers confused and they really nailed the whole 'controlled chaos' aspect of war. That's one I think requires a second viewing.

[slave2moonlight]

Avatar. The technical 'revolutions' looked great, but if you don't have an interesting story it doesn't really matter. What made it worse were the completely predictable characters.

Alice in Wonderland. I'm a real Tim Burton fan, even liking the Planet of the Apes remake and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake, but it almost seemed like this movie was done by someone who was impersonating him. By trying to make it into the standard blockbuster it was utterly ruined, while it could've had so much potential. The cinematography was amazing, though, as was Danny Elfman's music. Hopefully Burton gets some real inspiration for his next features, otherwise it's not looking too good for him.

I was not impressed with anything about Avatar. Didn't hate it. It was just okay, but nothing special to me in anyway. Then again, that's how I thought it would be. I never figured out why everyone thought it looked so good and so special. And, when they would tell me, I still couldn't see it.

I wonder how I'll feel about Scott Pilgrim. Cinema Snob hated it. I have been eager to see it. Though, I have never read the comic or anything.

As for Alice, I loved it about as much as I hoped I would, and I certainly don't think things are looking bad for Burton (certainly professionally they are not, considering Alice's popularity, though I do know what you meant by that). I did find myself wishing though, that they'd made the regular Alice story first. The flashbacks looked like the Alice live-action film I've long waited to see. Not that I have a problem with making due with Disney's version, but still... And I liked Burton's Ape film too. I was very disappointed in his Charlie film though. That'd be a good one for this thread for me. I was greatly anticipating it, but it was in some ways very disappointing. Despite all the effects, I didn't find Wonka's factory anywhere near as fascinating as the one in the old film (granted, the old one's chocolate river looked like water, but the new one was too real. Turns out a real chocolate river is even grosser looking. But, more importantly, in general I find the original so much better, more magical. All the characters are more real and appealing, and Wonka isn't turned into a big puss with daddy issues. In the original, he's a true mad genius, and everything, to me, is much more bizarre. Amazing when such an old picture is more bizarre than a Burton film. But, I don't HATE Burton's film, it just pale's in comparison to the old one, in my opinion. And while I LOVE his Sleepy Hollow, I think I have come to like the Hallmark (more traditional) version better. Both have gorgeous Katrinas though, and I have to lean towards Burton's. Ricci in that particular film was soooo my type.

[Lazario]

I was very disappointed in his Charlie film. That'd be a good one for this thread for me. I was greatly anticipating it, but it was in some ways very disappointing. Despite all the effects, I didn't find Wonka's factory anywhere near as fascinating as the one in the old film (granted, the old one's chocolate river looked like water, but the new one was too real. Turns out a real chocolate river is even grosser looking. But, more importantly, in general I find the original so much better, more magical. All the characters are more real and appealing, and Wonka isn't turned into a big puss with daddy issues. In the original, he's a true mad genius, and everything, to me, is much more bizarre. Amazing when such an old picture is more bizarre than a Burton film. But, I don't HATE Burton's film, it just pale's in comparison to the old one, in my opinion.

I completely agree. Naturally. Also the new Charlie, by the way, was too robotic. Or too filled with knowledge or whatever. You know what I mean? Every time someone looked at him, he'd get some kind of closeup, and way too much would be implied that he was thinking or trying to say with a look. He did not seem like a real kid to me. The original Charlie looked a little dopey at times or when he'd look sad, sometimes you wanted to laugh instead. But at least he convinced me that he was real. He was more impulsive. Likely to react like a kid and not like a way-too-calm version of a kid. I'll add this movie to my list as well. I was really looking forward to it... Turns out no remake can be better than the original after all.

[slave2moonlight]

Yeah, I agree about Charlie. I know that actor is particularly good at that "little adult" routine, but it was more wooden and out of place than ever in Charlie. I like some remakes, but Wonka is one film I doubt they'll ever top.

[dvdjunkie]

Next Friday, August 27th, is the limited release of the Special Edition of Avatar with never-before-seen 12 minutes of extra footage. It is a limited engagement and ONLY in IMAX or 3-D. One of my most favorite movies in the past year (until "Inception").

Even those who didn't particularly care for "Avatar" should go see this 'new' version of the film.

I also think that this is the BEST 3-D film made, to date.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Avatar

I heard that the movie was "awesome," but I only got through the first hour and was incredibly bored. Sure, the effects were outstanding, but it was very boring and I just couldn't sit through the rest of it.

[Avaitor]

Next Friday, August 27th, is the limited release of the Special Edition of Avatar with never-before-seen 12 minutes of extra footage. It is a limited engagement and ONLY in IMAX or 3-D. One of my most favorite movies in the past year (until "Inception").

Even those who didn't particularly care for "Avatar" should go see this 'new' version of the film.

I also think that this is the BEST 3-D film made, to date.

And sit through another 12 minutes of that long-ass movie? No thanks, and I didn't hate Avatar.

[Animalia]

Once Upon a Time (1944): I never thought I would dislike a movie that Cary Grant starred in, I was wrong! It could have been a fun movie, but instead they made everyone extremely obsessed with a caterpillar?

[Just Myself]

I will go on record that "Inception" makes more money than most of the other films released this summer.

Unfortunately, not as much as Twilight.

Anyone avoiding Scott Pilgrim becuase they're afraid it will be too devoted to visuals and lack a plot like Avatar, I sympathize for you because you are missing a great movie. It is by far the funniest live action film of the summer, and one of the most heartfelt. Yes, it's silly and chock full of references to NES and SEGA games of old, that might turn some off, but I beg you to at least give it a chance.

Getting back on topic: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I couldn't finish it the first time, it was too bleak, unengaging and disturbing. Maybe I can have the heart to get past the first hour next time, but right now.... yuck.

Cheers,
JM

[Lazario]

I want to see Marie Antoinette and I haven't seen Lost in Translation yet, so the only film I've seen from the critically lauded Sophia Coppola is The Virgin Suicides- and I strongly dislike that film. It's pretentious, it's crude, and... I resent that I actually have to say American Beauty is better than it. You really want to appreciate a movie that tells you it's about female sexual repression. What it's really about is male obsession (the sisters' fanclub, though the movie romanticizes the boys' lust, is just as responsible for their deaths as the parents) and group gangbang fantasies (since none of the young boys can talk about these girls in private). It's basically a movie about communal sexuality and the wonders of voyeurism (sorry, I grew up in the Sliver era and was taught that when you peek at people, you're supposed to feel guilty about it)... Probably the only good thing about it is it proves how naturally open pre-teens are about sex, even though the world thinks kids are all angelic dolls with no naughty parts. But even then, the movie just feels skanky.

This next film I just don't get. I mean, too many people say it's a really great comedy for this to just be a case of them all being wrong. Maybe there's something to it that I don't see. But, fundamentally, I feel like I'm being conned with Zoolander. Other than the fact that the gags and jokes are so obvious and blunt, which works for a slapstick movie but this is character-oriented comedy not Saturday Night Live; conceptually- this movie is a joke for the wrong reasons. I like movies that come along and satirize something that people take too seriously. But, seriously... male modeling? Who on Earth thinks that is sacred? We all got the point years before this movie- just because you look good doesn't mean what you say is important. And taking off your clothes may get you attention but it doesn't make you a humanitarian. At least, I hope we didn't need this movie to tell us that. The Daria episode "This Year's Model" already savaged the behind-the-scenes workings of the urge to model and killed 2 birds with one stone. Other episodes of Daria also tackled issues of vanity and did it with far funnier jokes than anything in this movie. Zoolander is like a really overlong, undercooked skit on Ben Stiller's skit show and Paramount's big budget Hollywood glossy look is meant to make us forget that there's nothing with any bite here. Thank this though, being a Vh1-coproduction, for helping to create their Celebreality line of shows. Without which, we'd never have Flavor of Love (which, though I enjoyed several moments of the first season, I think the world could have lived without).

Speaking of vapid Hollywood films, expensive on the outside and cheap inside, I never saw too many people going after Legally Blonde's pretty-nauseating-in pink, easy and fast-gotten gains. With its' childlike morality, one-dimensional non-sense reality, and fluffy confrontation scenes... Why bother making a movie at all? Why not just give this tart her boatload of prizes at the start, as she just stands there like some braindead Vanna White clone, smiling and posing like she just won Miss America? Since she barely ever worked to get any of it. It's the story of how someone with everything suddenly feels unfilfilled (poor baby) and needs something more in her life and... she gets it. Oh Happy Day! What an underdog she was. She has no character. She's just Barbie with a conscience. But strangely, her eyes are just as dead- and yet, the lids are open so wide that she looks like she could go psycho at any minute. Who roots for someone like this? In a slasher movie, we wait for that glorious moment when the rich blonde gets an ax in the face! Basically, Elle is a pop culture hero because... she's nice. And that excuses the entire movie for being stupid. But I actually really wanted to see it- I was hoping like I'm sure many children of the 90's were that this would be a Clueless for the Bush-millennium.

[Goliath]

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

See my review in the 'What movie did you last watch' thread. The movie is too awful to waste any more time on.