Movies I Didn't Like

Submitted by Oedipus on Fri, 09/16/2005 - 09:27
Tags: 
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Technorati
  1. 555 (1988)
  2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
  3. Shane (1953)
  4. The Exorcist (1973)
  5. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
  6. New York, New York (1977)
  7. Dawn of the Dead (1978)
  8. Day of the Dead (1985)
  9. Roger & Me (1989)
  10. Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
  11. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)
  12. Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999)
  13. Ali (2001)
  14. Donnie Darko (2001)
  15. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
  16. Moulin Rouge! (2001)
  17. Shrek (2001)
  18. Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
  19. Black Mask 2: City of Masks (2002)
  20. Bowling for Columbine (2002)
  21. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
  22. Solaris (2002)
  23. Gothika (2003)
  24. Hulk (2003)
  25. Ju-on: The Grudge (2003)
  26. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
  27. The Triplets of Belleville (2003)
  28. Crash (2004)
  29. Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
  30. The Forgotten (2004)
  31. Godsend (2004)
  32. Shrek 2 (2004)
  33. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
  34. Are We There Yet? (2005)
  35. Boogeyman (2005)
  36. Cursed (2005)
  37. Elektra (2005)
  38. Grizzly Man (2005)
  39. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
  40. The Ring Two (2005)
  41. Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)
  42. War of the Worlds (2005)
Author Comments: 

...And I Still Don't.

frenzee09/19/2005

Curious as to what you didn't like about Shrek and Shrek 2... also, did you read the Hitchhiker series? I read all the books but haven't seen the movie and was wondering if that was your disappointment with that one - that maybe it didn't encompass the books well enough.

Oedipus09/19/2005

Mike Myers, I don't like anything he's in except possibly the first Waynes World movie.

If anything Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was too close to the books, except for the character Humma Kavula which was created for the movie and maybe a few smaller insignificant changes. The first book in the series was good, it was witty, fresh and original, the others in the series were not so good, it seemed like he was trying to copy the success he had with the first book and what was witty and clever and funny in the first book seemed forced in the rest. I liked the first book in the series but had to force my way through the rest. I'd rather watch a movie that's not so close to the book anyway, especially if I've read the book or planning on reading it.

Rushmore09/19/2005

Donnie Darko, please explain. that too me is a complete masterpiece, a top favourite. i respect your choice totally, just want to know why.

Also other suprise includes Bowling for Columbine

Oedipus09/20/2005

Whatever it is that's so great about Donnie Darko, I didn't see it. Everyone's always talking about how great it is but it's really just more of a bad film with some really cool ideas than a masterpiece. I've seen a lot of movies that had great ideas and storylines but the movies were just awful and Donnie Darko was one of those. But being a fan of the movie, maybe you could explain to me what's so great about it.

As for Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore just doesn't know how to make a docummentary, not a good one anyway. There's a lot of good docummentaries available, maybe he should watch a few before he makes his next one.

Penny09/20/2005

I liked Donnie Darko too, but I think it is difficult to talk about because it's trying to convey something almost beyond words--something about how time, love, the apocalypse, and maybe insanity are connected. Somehow, it's right that Frank shows up as a furry, which adds to the weirdness and gives skeptics a way out. Is he God, or a schizophrenic hallucination?

The only big problem I have with Donnie Darko is that it is one of those movies that portrays insanity with too much glibness. If anyone has ever worked with the truly mentally ill, they know that schizophrenic episodes are not funny, charming, or profound.

grandpa_chum10/11/2005

I know it's hard to defend a choice like 2001, but in the world of stanley kubrick is actually a bit of a dissapointment in my eyes, i mean i'm not gonna say i didn't like it, it's a great movie... it's just not up to snuff and a whole lot of hot air, but really well filmed hot air at that.

I am surprised that you didn't like both day and dawn of the dead... they are so different within the world of zombie movies that unless you hate zombie films altogether you have to like one or the other.

Oedipus10/12/2005

The biggest problem with 2001 is that the beginning of a film is important to set up the story and introduce the characters. in 2001, Kubrick wastes the beginning and then jumps into a future time and we don't know what the story is going to be or anything about the characters, we don't even know who the characters are.

I love Night of the Living Dead but I did not like Day of the Dead or Dawn of the Dead. I like the Dawn of the Dead remake better then the Original.

192204/01/2006

Personally, I strongly disagree on 2001, Shane, The Exorcist, New York, New York, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Roger & Me, The Fellowship of the Ring, Shrek, Bowling for Columbine, The Two Towers, The Return of the King and Crash.

Hmm, actually there is no film on which I'd really agree with you.

Edit: This was my 800th post. :D