I really can't think of any . . . someone help me out here.
It's not a B movie but I've never seen THE MATRIX and I don't know if I'll ever get around to doing it.
Never seen BRIDE OF REANIMATOR either....
Any Italian cannibal flick depicting actual animal killings ranks very high on my "no-intention-to-see"-list - entertainment value does have its limits.
cheers
Markus
jmc wrote:
>
> It's not a B movie but I've never seen THE MATRIX and I don't
> know if I'll ever get around to doing it.
>
> Never seen BRIDE OF REANIMATOR either....
You don't want to see it...
I have know plan to see Cannibal Ferox or Holocaust, or anything by Fulci, Deodato or Lenzi for that matter. Nothing against Italians, but they seem to have carved out a sick little niche market there. I've also no plan to see the rest of Bloodsucking Freaks (the first couple of minutes were too much).
One film I have to admit I STILL havent seen, but will do is 'Night of the Living Dead'. Just never got round to seeing it. Love Dawn, like Day, never seen Night.
Pete
"The Rocky horror Picture Show" ------> Saw a picture of Tim Curry in lingerie on a magazine and I am still trying to erase it from my poor mind.
I can think of a hell of a lot of so-called "A" pictures I will never see....
Among the "B"s, I'll never watch any slasher/gore flicks. Just don't entertain me. (Though, Pete, I can heartily recommend Night of the Living Dead -- it's what a low-budget flick should be, and scared the hell out of me in high school, besides.)
Not big on foreign flicks, good or bad -- there's still so many American films I've never seen....
Among the "B"s, I'll never watch any slasher/gore flicks. Just don't entertain me.
Same here...I'm just not into gore
Titanic.
I have a personal staning moritorium on Speilberg. Thus I've not seen Schindler's List, Private Ryan, AI, Minority Report etc.
Funk, I can highly recommend the BOOK Schindler's List. I enjoyed (if that's the right word for so harrowing a topic) it so much I never felt any interest in seeing the movie.
Books are fine as long as they are nor written by Spielberg. In fact, that is the entire reason why I hate the f**ker. I read The Color Purple with all of it's grit and lesbian overtones and then I watched white boy berg whitewash it and remove the homo-erotic subtext and then... then he has the audacity to say he didn't feel mature enough to do Schindler until he did. So he can butcher a black woman's book any time, but he had to wait to do a movie about fellow European Jews? f**king hypocrite! Hate him! hate him, hate him, hate him!
[editorial note: this is in no way shape or form a slight against Jewish people. I have many Jewish (as well as black) friends and feel no animosity towards them as a race or a religion. I just hate Spielberg. That is all.]
Sheesh, lighten up. To have some much emotional vitriol for someone who's probably never heard of you and probably doesn't give one whit of care for your opinion of him is...not the healthiest way to live.
Books are always editied when brough to the screen. Sometimes it's for legitimate reasons in transling from one media to another, sometimes it's just that some parts don't fit the story as the way the director wants to tell it. Sometimes the studio doesn't want to include parts. Whatever. Both "Jaws" and "Schindler's List" were not the same as the book either, or for that matter neither were "Beastmaster", "Starship Troopers", or "The Fellowship of The Ring"
To hate a guy because his movie representation of a book is edited in way you personally don't like is...kinda silly
Well, first off I don't actually hate HIM personally, I just don't care for his movies or his directing style. I don't sit up nights with a voodoo doll of the man stabbing it with a pin and he's never going to end up dead in my entryway. I was being melo-dramatic.
In fact I don't actually get that worked up about things that do not effect me directly. He's done me no harm. I know that. I'm not off the deep end about it. I just think he's a really bad film maker and get's way more money and credit than he disearves. Is this just my opinion? Yes. Does anyone else including himself care? No. Am I alright with that? Of course.
If I became over exuberant in my expression it was simply for effect not out of any genuine loathing. Like hating liverworst or something. It's fun to overreact sometimes.
Plus, I've been under inordinate stress lately and it's a lot less harmful to vent on someone that will never know and it will never come to anything than venting on a friend, family member or fellow poster on favorite message board. It's safe and harmless.
Okay?
Wow! I didn't think I'd stir up such rousing responses!
Anyway, my take on Spielberg is that, like him or not, he knows how to entertain people better than any other director (just look at how much money his movies have generated . . . you can't argue with the numbers).
Now, for my personal opinion, there aren't many Spielberg films that I dislike. On the other hand, there are no Spielberg films in my top 10 or probably even my top 25. Neither is he one of my 10 favorite directors (he may not even be in my top 15).
The guy goes to work and makes money. Tons of money. I wish I could be as successful at my job as he is at his.
As for books vs. movies, it is an unfair comparison. One thing I learned in film school is that the movie is NOT supposed to be like the book. They are completely different methods of storytelling. Look at THE SUM OF ALL FEARS. The book & movie have, MAYBE, 1% in common with each other. Yet they were both successful. Personally, I hated the movie because I read the book first. If I had NOT read the book first, my opinion probably would have been different.
Whew!
I have no interest in subjecting myself to "Last House on Dead End Street".
Well... you can't argue with the numbers, but numbers can be generated in many a nefarious way. You can't argue that organized crime generates "the numbers" does that make it good? Does that mean they are doing society a favor (in a sense yes, but in another sense they do society a disservice)? Same thing with CEOs. They make the big bucks, do they deserve it? The fact that he has stumbled upon a pathetic formula to film making and feeds the people tripe doesn't mean I have to admire him. Ford made a lot of money off of Pintos that exploded on rear end impact and Explorers on faulty "cost effective" tires. The fact that you make tons off of an inferior product doesn't make you admirable it makes you unscrupulous. Sucess is not it's own measure.
Okay, on the book/movie concept. If you're going to make a movie that only has 1% in common with the book, don't call it by the title of the book. Rename it and say it's "based on" like Bladerunner did. I went to Film school too I know the unique challenges to story telling in each format, but as Kubrick so ellegantly demonstrated in A Clockwork Orange you can still stay true to the book AND bring to it your own unique vision of it. If you're not going to stick to the story don't claim that it IS that story. Call it what it is, your insperation and that's it.
Well, comparing organized crime to Spielberg's movies might be a bit of a stretch . . .
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the guy. I'm just pointing out that, regardless of his talent as a director, his movies consistently make barrels of money.
Personally, I'd rather watch TAXI DRIVER, NOTORIOUS, SHANE, ERASERHEAD or DEEP RED than most Spielberg "feel good" flicks. But the fact is that all of those movies combined have not made as much money as E.T.
I didn't mean to imply that Speilberg is a gangster. Please, don't over extend the metaphor. I just meant to demonstrate that the ability to make money doesn't sanctify the method or product. Speilberg's movies don't kill people by being substandard like the Pinto did. The dramatic nature of the comparison isn't meant to artificially vilify the man so much as bring into greater focus the fact that making a lot of money is frequently done at the expense (literally and figuratively) of the people the money is made off of.
We here on this board have bemoaned the negative impact of successful business practices before specifically Blockbuster, McDonalds, etc. I see as a more direct comparison Speilberg as the McDonalds of motion picture directors. The "partner in crime" with Blockbuster. One of the knowing and known perpetrators of the degradation of quality cinema. He shouldn't be put on trial for war crimes or anything or even arrested for what he does. He just shouldn't be praised for being able to make a boat load of cash off of bad product.
Oh...I haven't seen MEN BEHIND THE SUN, and don't plan to. The animal deaths in the cannibal flicks don't really bother me, but it sounds like the ones in this film would.
Of course, those movies combined didn't have the advertising budget of ET, either...
Lair of the White Worm...
I hve no interest in watching The Hunger or Liquid Sky. I wouldn't call them famous bad movies though. For that, I'd say Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I watched it once and have no interest in seeing it again. I don't mind the sequels, but did like the original. I suppose it has something to do with having watched it AFTER I saw movies like Friday the 13th, Halloween etc.
Faces of Death, or any of its approximately 8,000,000 sequels and ripoffs.
anything with Carmen Miranda
Yeah, same here Vermin Boy. Other than that, I dunno.