Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:07:29 AM
713326 Posts in 53056 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  I spit on your acclaimed movies... « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: I spit on your acclaimed movies...  (Read 3256 times)
Chadzilla
Guest
« on: July 25, 2001, 05:07:20 PM »

Interesting list with some pretty compelling logic to back them up.  It's not mine, I just copied it from the MSN home page link.  What do y'alls think of this?  Of them all 2, 3, and especially 6 and 8 (6 is a movie I found as shallow and repugnant as Tom Cruise and 8 was a one slimer, a bad movie that was painful but I would still watch again).  My wife adores #9 (I liked it but found some of the humor too broad for my taste, if Benigni isn't careful he will become the Italian Jerry Lewis, ew) and I adore #5.

Here is the list:

1. Natural Born Killers (1994) Disguised as media satire, this hyperbolically overedited bloodbath from Oliver Stone offers serial killers as enlightened existential heroes.

2. Mississippi Burning (1988) The first big-studio feature about the Civil Rights movement is a vigilante movie that actually ends up undermining the nonviolent legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., and other American heroes, black and white.

3. Amadeus (1984) Forget that it lies about Mozart and exploits his greatest music just to put a lump in your throat: The real crime of Milos Forman's film is its notion that artistry and personality are unrelated--that masterpieces are just gifts from God and not the product of hard work, soul-searching, and intelligence.

4. The Patriot (2000) An atrocity as history, politics, and art, the movie features a veteran slaughterer of Native Americans who dresses up like one so he can righteously bash in English heads with a tomahawk--not for reasons that have anything to do with patriotism, but because they blew away his little son.

5. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) Some people think this monotonous procession of poker-faced neck breakings adds up to a serious movie, but when it's over you might find yourself regarding the humans around you as so many pieces of meat.

6. Rain Man (1988) Many Oscars for this slick, shallow road movie, which manages to make mental illness seem like a great way to win big in Las Vegas.

7. Deconstructing Harry (1997) Woody Allen has directed some great films (not all of them comic), but this self-serving fantasy makes the case that a man like Allen has the right to be an amoral baboon because he litters the world with artistic jewels.

8. Outbreak (1995) A coarse, monumentally insensitive medical thriller that combines human suffering and death with dumb, Saturday-matinee-style cliffhangers.

9. Life is Beautiful (1998) Roberto Benigni's cheap hash of farce and tragedy is a paean to his own beautiful martyrdom.

10. The Bostonians (1984) It has a transcendent performance by Vanessa Redgrave, but otherwise it's hard to figure out why critics fell all over themselves praising this Merchant-Ivory botch of one of Henry James's most suggestive masterpieces.
Logged
Ringneck
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2001, 05:45:43 PM »

Chadzilla.    

          I half way liked teh Patriot.  However it was just to big budgeted for me.  It was basically Jerimiah Johnson set earlier and spoiled by grand scenrey(which really has no place in a revenge flick, they seem to work best focusing on the individual actors).  

          Gibsons character was very, very, loosely based on "The Swamp Fox", and the movie would have been better having focused exclusivley on him, rather than a fake personality.  And what was wit hteh ninja tomahawk stuff too?  hte techincal errors and use of weaponry wasso attrocious it burned me out.   Teh Tavington characacter was based, again loosley, on Tarlington, who didnt allow surrender either.  

       What I liked.......

Even if they werent aloowed to be called slavea in the movie the plantations blacks werent shown as being beaten all the time, and plotting escape.  Slavery blew but was an accepted part of society back then, even by blacks.  

The bad guy was bad, I was afraid the movie would show our fight for independance as a gray area morality wise.  

It was only 3hours long.........................

No Tea Leoni
Logged
Flangepart
Guest
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2001, 06:16:43 PM »

Amadeus and Rain Man. Since i've seen those......Rain Man: was an effective film for me,but i found myself watching the performers perform more then i should have. I appreciated the skill involved, but on reflection, i can see why it left you cold.     Amadeus: I loved the music, and thought, agine, the performers did well. I've even coined the phraise "Saliari Syndrome" for those who can only lust after a skill level they think they will never acheve. I haden't thought about the idea that the film was atributing Amadeus abilites to God. I'm not so sure, as i believe while all talents are on lone from God (Dittos!), that dosen't mean you don't deserve credit for the effort you put into develouping them.God may give you the paint and brushes, but its up you to decide the picture.
Logged
Apostic
Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2001, 06:51:11 PM »

"The real crime of Milos Forman's film is its notion that artistry and personality are unrelated--that masterpieces are just gifts from God and not the product of hard work, soul-searching, and intelligence." - Per source material

"I've even coined the phraise 'Saliari Syndrome' for those who can only lust after a skill level they think they will never acheve." - Flangepart

I think Flangepart is closer to the truth of the movie.  We the audience see events in the movie through the eyes of Antonio Salieri, so his complaint on the distribution of divine talent is based on how he sees things.  

(Irony.  Salieri didn't get the distinction complained by the list author, and the list author complains that that the movie didn't get it.  Cf. the complaints on Henry.)

regards,

Apostic
Logged
Mofo Rising
Guest
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2001, 07:41:42 PM »

Sounds like sour grapes to me.  I can't stand people like this.  Failed artists mostly.  Interesting comparison with the Saliari character.  I also think he missed the point of several of the movies.

NATURAL BORN KILLERS - The movie isn't a serial killer story disguised as media satire, it's media satire disguised as a mass murderer story.  (A technical distinction made by one of the main characters.)  More to the point, the point of the movie was to trash the media.  Whether it's successful or not I'll leave up to you.

THE PATRIOT - I really didn't like this movie.  It's not necessary to brutally kill off main characters in order to gain audience sympathy.  Unfortunately, that was the movie's main trick.  Fine for a revenge fantasy, but this was supposed to be about patriotism.

I also like AMADEUS and RAIN MAN.  OUTBREAK was boring.  Didn't see the rest.
Logged
Chris K.
Guest
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2001, 12:05:38 AM »

I will not go into a "way over the top detail" about THE PATRIOT, but I will say it was a stinker for a "criticaly acclaimed" movie. I was originally expecting a nice solid movie, not a big budget "corny" action film. What was worse was the film posters. The posters show Mel Gibson's big bloated head with the title underneath and nothing else. What! No bloody battlefields? No memorable taglines? Just Gibson's big head! As for the other films on Chadzilla's list, their okay but not THAT great.

As for the historical accuracy of THE PATRIOT, don't count on much. It just uses the same old "Americanized" history of king-is-taxing-country-and-we-have-to-fight bull and other stuff that is very inconsistant towards the historical documents. What the history books don't really tell you is that the colonists went to war with England due to three reasons:

1.) The British wanted to sign treaty's with the Indians declairing that their land will not be taken.

2.) The British wanted to stop slave trading that was going on at the time slavery was being introduced into "The New World".

3.) The British wanted to practice the rule of not bearing arms.


After the colonists won, this is what happened:

1.) The colonists stole all of the Indians land.

2.) The colonists practiced slavery which lead up to the Civil War and continued until slavery was banned.

3.) The colonists began practicing the bearing of arms (which I might add that today it is considered by some states, such as California, that the right to owing a gun is not in The Constitution-and I know my Constitution and that IT IS IN THERE)

So, it really makes you wonder who were the good guys? I'm aiming towards the British after finding this pice of information that is HEAVILY omitted from the American history books. But I believe that war is just a survival, not a fight between good guy and bad guy.  But this is just a small tidbit of historical information that is not in THE PATRIOT. Believe me, their is more...

As for the expression of "patriotism", it is really blind patriotism that is expressed in THE PATRIOT. But then again, that's just me talking. I'll say one thing, I knew a girl in one of my classes whot told me that my opinion about THE PATRIOT is wrong and that it is a film about "the releationship between father and son". That may be, but I know I am right when I say "THE PATRIOT blows!" After all, THE PATRIOT was made by the same guy behind INDEPENDECE DAY and the 1998 remake of GODZILLA. So you know that you are in for a crapfest when you watch THE PATRIOT.
Logged
Al B.
Guest
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2001, 04:19:10 AM »

I am not going to discount your claim about Britain starting plans to abolish slavery, but if this is true I am curious as to why the Southern Colonies (except Virginia) were set against independence in the Continental Congress.
Logged
Ringneck
Guest
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2001, 04:44:01 AM »

AI B

       The Brits werent so much against ending slavery as ending the shipping of slaves from Africa.  Blacks wernt to popular back then and fear of revolts made alot of people edgey about importing them.  Its this reason that prior to the end of the Civil War many northern states banned slavery, not for moral reasons but out of predjudice.   In fact, several states (Indiana and Oregon) banned free blacks from living in thier borders.  

        Interesting fact is that most poor whites who reside in the South are decendants of the many white slaves (indentured servants)the British deported over here.  Prior to 1700 most slave labor in this country was white.  Mostly Irish and Scotish the Brits were forcibly deporting to get thier land.  The word "kidknap" is cockney derived from "Kid Knab" a practice used to fill out empty spots in the ships.  My Belgian ancestors came over this way after somehow ending up desitute in England in the late 1600's.  Africans became very sought after commodities, while the Europeans were a dime a dozen and seldom ever lived thier 7 years where they were supposed to be set free.  

         England was basically afraid of slave revolts amongst a black slave population, and also the money the slave trade made Portugal and other countries who largley controlled the East African coast, then called the "Slave Coast".  Brittan's African holdings made little money off slaves, and didnt like her enemies filling its treasuries with money to build armies with in the event of a future war.  Had England controlled East Africa, it would have been the rest of Western Europe opposed to slaving.
Logged
Flangepart
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2001, 11:57:42 AM »

Intresting. Well, here goes....... 1: Why was England thinking this way? Did they decide not to expand the Colonies land area anymore, and if so, why?  I'd not heard about this.    2: Ringneck covered this one pretty well. The Average Englishman may have had some reservations about Slavery, but the power brokers, as always, had more "Practical" concirns. "Realpolitic" so to speak. 3: Actualy, i think the idea, by the power brokers agine, that THEY have the arms, and the SUBJECTS be unarmed. And if you don't believe that, look at Washington D.C.    Anyhoo, Its intresting to imagin what would have happened had England made other decisions along each of those lines. Alternate history, anyone?
Logged
Steve.
Guest
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2001, 02:14:18 PM »

1. Overwrought drivel
2. A travesty
3. Not seen
4. Gibson makes the same ludicrous load of bollocks as he did with Braveheart
5. This is the best on the list. If it doesn't get you thinking about the nature and horror of totally random murder, especially when they settle down to view their handiwork - then you might as well watch NBK for evermore.
6. Absolutely awful - Cruise must be cruisin' for a bruisin' soon.
7. Not seen. I gave up on Allen after Hannah And Her Sisters.
8. Yup this should have been a Saturday morning cereal, er...serial (killer).
9. Not seen yet.
10. See above.
Logged
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  I spit on your acclaimed movies... « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.