Five Important Movies I Didn't Like Or Didn't Get
Submitted by melladior@ho on Sat, 02/12/2005 - 08:09
Tags:
- 2001: A Space Odyssey (What in the hell was even happening?)
- American Beauty (She was a friggin' minor. I'm glad he got waxed in the end.)
- The Ring (It was a haunted video tape, how scary can that really be?)
- Citizen Kane (BOOORING!)
- Breakfast At Tiffany's (Do I even need to elaborate?)
Author Comments:
I'm not dumb, and I'm not hard to please, I promise. But some movies just piss me off, bore me, or otherwise get stuck in my craw, and I can't accept that they are supposed to be these great cinematic masterpieces.
This a list of movies that got great press, but that I think are total two-flush turds.
I submit them humbly for your approval.
2001: A Space Odyssey explained. Of, if you'd rather, I'll be happy to indulge you with a textual explanation.
American Beauty: so, you liked how it ended. What didn't you get/like about it?
I'm with you on Breakfast at Tiffany's.
I can't explain why, but long-haired dead girls crawling out of TV sets scare the shit out of me.
Citizen Kane: have you liked any other movies from that era? I thought it was pretty fast paced and always intriguing.
I'm just not a fan of Kubrick in general. Dr. Strangelove is the shizz, but other than that, I can't really stand him. Also, Kubrick and I still aren't speaking since he butchered The Shining. Honestly, who takes a brilliant book about addiction and the destruction it causes and turns it into a haunted hotel flick?
American Beauty I hated on the grounds that adults are not allowed to try to get with minors, no matter how slutty they may act. Ever. Aside from that, though, it was pretty good.
As for movies from the Citizen Kane era that I liked, The Maltese Falcon and Grapes of Wrath come to mind. Maybe Meet Me In St. Louis, but I don't know if that was from the 1940's or 50's.
I've never read the book, but I've always figured if the movie absolutely rocks, why worry that it's not like the book. Have you seen version that more closely follow the book? They have all been bad.....
But of course, I don't know if I'm a good source for this since I haven't read. I could very well be wrong.
I'm with you that a movie doesn't need to follow a book word for word, but out of respect to the author and those who liked the book (who are usually first in line to buy a ticket), I think they should tend to have a lot in common.
Kubrick was just a poor choice to adapt that material. He's obviously a director with a strong vision, and he just strayed too far from King's vision. You know, Stephen King hated the movie, too.
I don't think it matters if Stephan King hated it or it doens't follow the book closely because the movie just rules. Jack Nicholson if out of mind and it's just freaky as hell in general. So I just think you shouldn';t have the movie ruined for you because it isn't like the book. enjoy them seperately.