Everyone loves/hates it but you

[Menard]

Movies I like others may not:


REVENGE OF THE DEAD/ZEDER: A lot of people do not like this movie. Of course this is understandable as the movie was distributed in the U.S. as a zombie movie with poster art to match. When gorehounds went to see this, rather than a plotless gory story, they found a brilliant mystery of ressurection that was not gory; this was alien to them. It did not help matters that any of them who saw the Creature Features VHS/DVD did not realize that ten minutes of the movie is missing, including important scenes.

MAZES & MONSTERS: It is interesting that the majority of people I know who hate this movie have never seen it. There is an interesting hypocrisy there since all of them are roleplayers who whine about others making uninformed judgements about them, yet they readily do the same thing to somebody or something else. I say this as a roleplayer myself who cannot stand a lot of them.

THE DORM THAT DRIPPED BLOOD/PRANKS: I just enjoyed this flick. It's not great, but I found it to be entertaining, with a particularly nasty ending. I saw this at the drive-in when it was released so I have the advantage of having seen it before other slasher films that came later which others claimed this copied. That is truly a talent to copy something before it is made.



Movies I don't like others may like.


DAY OF THE DEAD: My first reaction to this was, "What the hell was Romero thinking?". Unlike the socially conscious movies that are a trademark of Romero, we get this formulaic story filled with stereotyped military versus scientists characters. The overacting in this movie is off the scale. I know a zombie movie is bad when my favorite character is a zombie.

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2: I loved the first movie which is one of the best, raw horror movies ever made. This follow-up takes a different direction by pumping up the gore to make up for what is lacking in the script.

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (THE REMAKE): A.K.A. Leatherface meets MTV. This movie starts with the year 1973 posted on the screen while the song 'Sweet Home Alabama' is playing; the song was released in 1974. The art direction goes downhill from there as they apparently felt the 70's in general was close enough, and they failed at that too. The family lacks any development (they are just on the screen), and the Leatherface character is completely ridiculous (with an ending scene taken from TCM3). I never once while watching this could find myself believing that this was taking place in 1973 or in Texas.

[Andrew]

The one I love and nobody else seems to enjoy is Radioactive Dreams.  I realized years ago that, for some reason, this movie is great entertainment - while everyone else thinks it is the equivalent of filming a pile of dog poo.

[ulthar]

Mr. Hockstatter wrote:

>
> Another TV show I like is Star Trek Enterprise.  I think it's
> the best thing since The Original Series.  All the Trekkies on
> the net detest it for some reason.

I liked Enterprise, also; unfortunately, it got moved to a new timeslot here and I lost track of it.  Lost it about the time things were getting good with the Xindi.

I don't know that all the trekkies on the net detest it; if most do, I'd say it is because they had unbelievably high expectations.  It's just a tv show, fcol, but some folks seemed to think it was going to reform all of society or something.

This whole thread in general, but this about Enterprise in particular, got me thinking: how much of what we 'like' or 'dislike' about a particular movie/tv show is based on our expectation of what we thought the director Should Have Done?

Seems that part of the negative buzz about Enterprise is that it does not fulfill what the Fans Wanted a prequel to be. The Star Wars prequels are other examples.  You gotta believe G. Lucas made the movies he wanted to make for the target audience he sought.  Instead of respecting his artistic license to develop the stories HE WROTE the way he wanted, "we" cry like a bunch of whiney children that it is not what we would have done.

So, to a lot of the complainers about prequels with high expections on them, I say, raise the money, buy the rights and make your own movie.  If you ain't willing to do that, well, let the production crew do what they want and either choose to watch it or not.

{rant off}

(All that said, I could not stand Ep. 1, but I did not pay money to see it, either.  Never saw Ep. 2; also, there was a lot about Enterprise I did not like, as you could tell B&B's influence, but hey...it was a tv show, not a life influencing experience).

[blkrider]

I've never liked DAY OF THE DEAD much either.  Too long, not enough zombie action, too much arguing, heavyhanded social commentary....it's the one Dead film I have no interest in owning...a rental was enough.

As far as newer films, 28 DAYS LATER didn't do it for me at all--its second half had many of the same problems as DAY OF THE DEAD.  I don't mind movies that are derivative--but this movie just tried to do too much at once, and it seemed like the filmmakers were torn about what kind of film they really wanted to make.  Just a really bad idea to have the infected be absent from most of the latter half of the film.

And although I didn't dislike the TCM remake as much as a lot of people, I agree it was a big mistake attempting to give it the same setting as the original.  In the making-of documentary Michael Bay said that he set it in 1973 because he didn't want the characters calling for help on their cell phones.  They very easily could have done a scene where they attempt to do so only to find that there's no service.
Happens to me every time I visit my parents out in the sticks.  The 70s setting just seemed forced and unbelieveable.  

And...I've never cared for BLACK CHRISTMAS.  Some scary parts, historically important, but not as good as later films which delivered more.....SPOILER ALERT:



The killer is hidden away in an attic for most of the film, and we watch other people hunt for him.  Not that interesting.

[Menard]

blkrider wrote:
.
>
> And although I didn't dislike the TCM remake as much as a lot
> of people, I agree it was a big mistake attempting to give it
> the same setting as the original.  In the making-of documentary
> Michael Bay said that he set it in 1973 because he didn't want
> the characters calling for help on their cell phones.  They
> very easily could have done a scene where they attempt to do so
> only to find that there's no service.
> Happens to me every time I visit my parents out in the sticks.
> The 70s setting just seemed forced and unbelieveable.  
>

I've heard that before about Bay wanting to take away the question of "Why didn't they just call for help on their cellphones?". Seems like a poor excuse for bad art direction. In the state I live, if you go to certain Eastern parts of the state you could have an 80 mile stretch where you have no cell phone access and pagers are questionable. I agree with you that a scene of them trying to use a cell phone and being out of range would have been a lot better than what they did. I guess that Bay has never been out of the city.

[ulthar]

Or why not just have characters without cell phones?  Not EVERONE has a cell phone, fcol.

If no one on screen ever mentioned a cell phone, I doubt anyone in the audience would have said "gee, why did they not use their cell phone."  You tend to go with what is presented.

[trekgeezer]

I think a lot what people hate is based exactly on their expectations.  We want to see it the way we imagined it. This is especially true of remakes, sequels,  and anything based on other media such as books or comics.

I like the new direction Enterprise has gone in this season with the new showrunner Manny Coto. They are trying to tie everything to the other series and show the forming of the Federation. It's pretty cool with them showing all the old aliens like the Andorians, the Tellarites, and the Tholians.  They are even going to explain why the TOS Klingons don't have bumpy foreheads.

I liked  the Star Wars prequels, although they don't convey the same magic as the originals because we are so jaded by all the effects movies that have come since along since then.  I am looking forward to the third one.

[Menard]

You ever seen a group of five young people where at least one of them did not have a cellphone? And I don't mean Amish.

[ulthar]

Yeah, actually, I have. I've been involved in youth activities with over 20 teens, and not one had a cell phone.  With them, at least (they may have had one at home, I don't know about that).

And this more than once.  Oh, and cell phones were not forbidden or anything like that.  And these were ALL city kids, not country bumkins like me.

[Menard]

Please note that in the movie they were not teenagers. I would find it improbable that within a group of twenty-somethings taking a road trip today, that not at least one of them would have a cellphone with them. Personally, I do not own nor do I intend to own a cellphone. I cannot make an assumption about the probability of someone owning a cellphone based on age as the majority of people I know my age (ahem...just slightly above twenty something...ahem) and older have cellphones. With that in mind, it may even be less likely for a group of forty-somethings not to be traveling with a cellphone. But I still refuse to get one (:

[blkrider]

Still, it's doubtful that many people in the audience would have asked themselves, "What about their cell phones?"   And even if that were not the case, a scene where they try and fail to use said phone would add to the suspense in my opinion.  Just think it's a pretty lame excuse for the 70s setting.

[Menard]

Considering how much we all (on this board) tear films apart, do you think many of us would not have picked up on that if it were set in the present day and none of them had a cellphone? I was watching a movie recently where the guy was in the sticks in Alaska and uses his cellphone. Perhaps it is my critical nature, but I had to wonder about the availability of service in his situation. I think Bay's poor excuse for his time frame is belittled by constant references to Skynard songs that were released after the date of the events in the movie. I'll not even mention other failures of the art direction such as the TV set that the ladies were watching among others. Perhaps, since he appeared to have been making it for a younger audience, he felt that his audience would be more likely to pick up on the cellphone issue than on the art direction.

[Ozzymandias]

Most everything I ever liked, other people hate. I grew up and live in southwest Missouri where people are not easily amused. People here complain if they are forced to take a vacation. If I went through a list of everything I like that other people hate, it would blow the max web space.

I’ll narrow things down to just a few of the biggies.

Things I like that others hate:
Breakfast of Champions (both the movie and book)
Ally McBeal (I sorry, I think Calista Flockhart is cute)
Late Night with Conan O’Brian
Late Show with David Letterman
MST3K
Batman the 60's TV show
Dark Shadows
Matinee
Apocalypse Now
K.C. Royals
SMS Lady Bears and Drury Lady Panthers basketball  
 Joe Meek produced records
Bob Dylan, Nirvana, bubble gum, glam, punk and heavy metal.

Things I hate that others love:
St. Louis Cardinal baseball on radio (first, the listeners ought to have to run the board on one of these suckers, second, Jack Buck and Mike Shannon are the most over rated announcers and third, Cardinals fans are like Trekkies, only without the class and social skills )
The Waltons
Little House on the Prairie
Red Dawn
the Bodyguard (And Iiiiiiii-ee-yiiiiiii wwwwiiiiiillllll aaallllllwaaayyys love you-ewe.)
Talk radio (sports or news)
Fox News (I can only take CNN in small amounts but Fox is like CNN with the mean popular kids from school as host and a sound effect every few seconds)
House and Garden Network (why does everyone on those shows think you should “hide� the home entertainment equipment)

[JohnL]

I've never really cared for Dario Argento's films. He seems to throw in bizarre plot ponts for no apparent reason. "Yeah, we have someone going around killing people, let's make him the half-brother of the heroine, but he was born in a lab, using a cow as surrogate parent and his mother was artificially impregnated using the sperm of a world famous xylophone player, which causes him to go into a murderous rage whenever he hears the music from an ice cream truck".

Oh, I also can't stand rap "music".

[ulthar]

JohnL wrote:

> He seems to
> throw in bizarre plot ponts for no apparent reason. "Yeah, we
> have someone going around killing people, let's make him the
> half-brother of the heroine, but he was born in a lab, using a
> cow as surrogate parent and his mother was artificially
> impregnated using the sperm of a world famous xylophone player,
> which causes him to go into a murderous rage whenever he hears
> the music from an ice cream truck".
>

You know, this kinda reminded me of the whole Darth Vader-Luke-Princess Leia thing.