Discussion: Movies I Don't Like (but everyone else does)
1. Pulp Fiction- Oh yeah, I can already see your comments and threats. But (sorry!) I just could not find any interesting elements in this film. Perhaps you can explain me why it's a cult movie.
2. Babe- I really can't understand why everybody likes this film so much. An American modern tale full of sentimental trash (waiting for your comments ;-) ). (Do not think now that I am emotionally cold, because there are a lot of movies I enjoyed where emotions and feelings were the central points!)
3. The Matrix- Another modern cult movie, another film I just consider as rubbish. The actors (especially Keanu Reeves) were horrible and the story is definetly not as original as most people say (or think).
P.S.: Do you agree with me? Do you disagree with me? Let me know in your comments! I hope there will come lots of comments.
ok:
I Have to Dissagree with Pulp fiction. its a good, great movie. but it all depends on how someone takes it. movies are a personal reaction thing, you like it or you hate it, an you didnt like it which is cool, but i liked it.
Matix: Totally agree, its rubbish
Agreed with Matrix, yup.
Bold choices, but since you're inviting disagreement I'll dive into the breach:
Pulp Fiction: Fantastic dialog, and a non-linear narrative that enhances the intertwining tales rather than feeling gimmicky. Interesting character arcs for Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, with appropriate finishes for both. The violence evokes laughter, horror, and horror at your own laughter. Spawned a slew of imitators, none of whom could measure up.
Babe: That would be Australian sentimental trash, thank you very much. :-) Not much to say here except that I found it heartwarming, most folks I know find it eminently watchable for the whole family (parents included), and one person's heartwarming tale is another's mawkish tripe.
The Matrix: Sure, the dialog is stiff, but it's easily one of the best action movies ever. We are moved quickly from one spectacular scene to another, and while bullet-time has been used in commercials for 5 years now, at the time it was brand-spankin' new. The sound editing is so good it's noticable, and it was this movie more than Crouching Tiger that brought Chinese/Hong Kong wire fu to the rest of the world. While it's arguable this is not a good thing, the Wachowski's also managed to craft a world where such acrobatic flights of fancy have a logical explanation. Heck, you could even take it as an explanation for how ANY wire fu movie is possible. As for its unoriginality, there is nothing new under the sun, but The Matrix was definitely a fresh take on some old ideas.
Wow, Jim, those defenses are excellent, and, "violence evokes laughter, horror, and horror at your own laughter," has to be one of your best lines yet!
Thumbs up!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
:-) Thanks!
The French'd say: Chacun a son goût.
P.S.: About Babe: It doesn't matter if it's American or Australian trash: It still remains rubbish. ;-)
N.B.: Luxemburgish, French and German critics (I mean the serious ones) would almost agree with me concerning my opinion about 'Babe'. But that's probably the difference of culture and mentality between the United States (or Australia) and Europe (at lest for Lux., Fr. and Ger.).
You invite comment and disagreement, I deliver, and then you come back with "to each his own?" Even if you do it in French, it's still rather anticlimactic. I guess I could have just written "I disagree" and left it at that. Ah well, live and learn...
No, you have misunderstood me. Of course, I wanted to hear your opinion and thoughts (optionally with an explanation) about my 'article' and I read them with great satisfaction, but I just tried to defend my own point of view and to understand yours.
It's cool. I guess I just thought your response boiled down to "I don't like Babe because of personal taste, and serious European critics will generally agree." You don't mention the other two movies at all, nor any of the positive attributes I mention. Don't get me wrong: you aren't obligated to respond in more depth, and I certainly respect your right to not like these movies (and I sympathize, as there are plenty of movies with mass appeal that I just don't get). I just thought you were fishing for discussion, but your initial response felt like a conversation-stopper. Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding!
Lots of comments, eh? Well, I'll see what I can throw together. I'll hold off on "Babe" because I haven't seen it in a while, but I'll see what I can do for #1 and #3.
Well, first of all, I think it is a misnomer to call "Pulp Fiction" and "The Matrix" cult movies. They have too much popularity from the masses to say that, though there's certainly a cult who likes each movie better than everyone else.
As for "Pulp Fiction" specifically, Jim said it best. I'd just say, just listen to the dialogue! This is style created through what the characters say and how they say it. Listen to what Uma Thurman says on the date, what Jackson and Travolta say to each other all the time, what Quentin Tarantino says to Jackson (if you can ignore Tarantino's bad acting). They're hilarious off-the-cuff Seinfeld-esque conversations about life, and a lot of it rings true.
As for "The Matrix", yeah, the special effects and action are great, but I think the story is very good too. It's a concrete development of this post-modernist notion: what if you woke up tomorrow and found that everything you know about life is a lie, if your conception of reality turned out to be pure rubbish? Would you want to know the truth, or would you prefer to remain ignorant (hence the Joe Pantoliano story)? The film follow's Reeves's journey of exploration and eventually turns into a Christian allegory. Ignore the last two movies. This first one is pretty great. And yeah, it's almost a cliché now to say that Keanu Reeves is a terrible actor, but I found his wooden persona much more effective here than in some of the chick flicks he's done.
I'd like to avoid cliche and say that Keanu Reeves is not a bad actor. He is a piece of art, not an artist; he is the unProteus. I think that Keanu is quite talented or, to give him less credit, is quite a talent. Keanu reflects back to the audience whatever they choose to see in him, to expect anything more is an invitation to disappointment.
We do not expect Dustin Hoffman to be an action hero; that would be insanity. Likewise the Ahnuld will never be the master of the screwball comedy, Meryl Streep could never be the femme fatale and Dame Sharon Stone would be an unjust jape. All of those expectations are absolute rubbish. Nobody can expect Keanu to be Gielgud (or, merely good.) So why are we so disappointed with Keanu's oeuvre? And why is he to be cherished?
The disappointment usually comes from what are perceived as poor, flat, inept, emotionless performances. I disagree. I think that for a majority of his roles his performance is… for lack of a better word, appropriate.
I do not want Al Pacino to be chewing up the scenery when a hysterical Sandra Bullock is in the driver’s seat of a bus. I wouldn’t believe a vibrant, emotionally connected FBI agent who infiltrates a gang of surfing bank-robbers. A touching, tender performance as a teen time-traveling in a phone booth just wouldn’t work for me. Any worldly music teacher would be banging Mlle de Volanges and wouldn’t be manipulated. A real boyfriend would be more than a stand-in for an absent father. An emotionally complex hacker would distract from the characters/effects around him. Soulful lawyers do not work for the Devil himself.
Can I go on? Probably.
Keanu Reeves is tabula rasa . A screen, if you will, upon which a film is projected. Plot, character, dialogue all flow over and around him like a clear stream; he does nothing to disturb the surface or muddy the view. That is his brilliance. I’m not sure that he is brilliant, but it is brilliant. Far from bringing nothing to his roles I think that he brings everything to his roles. Keanu’s limitations shouldn’t obscure his effectiveness; he is a perfect blank slate for a director, actors, special effects and a plot to write upon. It is because of this that I’m looking forward to “A Scanner Darkly” (there is some dread, there always is.) Anyone else would not be up to that challenge. Rock on Keanu!
Yes, I did use "Keanu" and "oeuvre" in the same sentence. I'm sorry.
This is a similar position to one I have heard about the actors in Robert Bresson's "Pickpocket." I think it is stretching a bit to use it to apply to Keanu, or if not, I certainly doubt Keanu realizes he's doing this. Still, an interesting position to take.
To tell you the truth, Keanu is passable in the movies you reference, but he has taken a few roles that are definitely wrong for him.
I agree with you. I think it is almost certain that Keanu Reeves doesn't realize exactly what he is doing. I suspect that he has absolutely no idea as to how he is doing it either. But absence of intent or affect does not lessen effect or effectiveness. I hope the fact that you could recognize over a half-dozen films (that I rattled off of the top of my head) from only the briefest of oblique character sketches testifies to the impact that Keanu can have. Even if you think that he is the worst thing in every one of those movies... especially if you think that he is the worst thing in every one of those movies it is his performance that snares us into entering the movie itself.
Upon exiting a Keanu Reeves movie the main topic of discussion is usually the weakness of the performance of the man himself. But, in my experience, the derision is expressed from the point of view of the characters themselves. Plot points are debated and there is usually a lengthy and wide-ranging discussion of which actor would have been better suited for the part. And there it is. Everyone is so emotionally invested in his role that they are willing to nominate aspects of themselves, in the form of "better" choices, which would better serve the movie. In this way Keanu allows the audience to truly inhabit a movie.
Traditional "great acting performances" alienate in some ways. Either your jaw drops at the tour de force you are witnessing or the actor truly vanishes into their role and becomes what they are playing. In both cases the audience acts as observer. Not so with Keanu, his "poor" performance draws in an audience that places itself in his shoes, his mighty small shoes. Or in the various footwear of those characters around him. [This analysis explains why I think that Meryl Streep is our greatest actor... ever. Her performances are always so authentic that you are at once transfixed and transformed by them. They exist on both level simultaneously, as art and reality.]
But back to the K-man. I had to do flash research on Bresson as I've never seen any of his films… or actually ever heard of him. He sounds fascinating and Keanu might very well have been the only actor who could have "modeled" effortlessly in more than one of his movies. But, from what little I understand, the external actions of actors without apparent motivation are a director's technique to engage the audience in the significance of what happens in the movie. Keanu has no such aspirations, he simply engages the audience and they enter the movie. I may use "Keanu" and "oeuvre" in conjunction but I will not put "Keanu" and "auteur" in the same sentence.
whoops
O wily Greek one, I sure do dig your posts. When you going to kick in some lists? No pressure, of course.
Whoa, I never noticed that 0dysseus hasn't put up any lists yet. Which just goes to show how prolific 0dysseus is in the forums...
Dana Stevens has chalked up a piece for Slate with some insight on Keanu and the narrow variety of roles he has played throughout the years.
It's all subtitled "On the Enlightened Fuzziness of Keanu Reeves" and correctly refers to Point Break as "surely the greatest thriller ever about surfing detectives." There's even a sampling of ultra-Keanu film moments... including one from Little Buddha where he somehow manages to outact himself.One Keanu doesn't look exactly like the other. That was odd. I think Keanu's problem is he never changes the timbre of his voice. His voice is too breathy and phone-sexy and borderline girly.
I actually agree about Pulp Fiction! Loved Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill... really didn't get Pulp Fiction... i found it to be all style and no substance... visually it is really great, but the dialogue just didn't grab me... and i found the plot and characters uninteresting... (And boy have I heard it from my friends over that opinion!)
I am so glad that I have finally found someone who agrees with me on 'Pulp Fiction'!!! ;-)
Ok, I liked Pulp fiction. Babe, I could care less about, and the Matrix, I could go either way.
The reason I came here is because I want to say I absolutly hate two movies that are on top 10 best lists all over the place.
1. 2001: A space Odyssey
2. Being John Malchovich (or however you spell it)
These two movies honestly make me mad just talking about them, and when I saw Ebert put Being John M as his top movie of 1999 I nearly punched the computer screen. And 2001 is even worse.
Generally if you said you liked these movies I would get in an arguement with you, but not this time. I really want someone to try to explain to me why these movies are so highly rated. Why such crap, excuse me. Why such interesting films like 2001 can be placed about Godfather part 2 on the AFI top 100 movies list, or Being John M. can be placed on top comedy movie polls next to greats like Montey Python and Dr. Strangelove.
Between Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction you thought the latter was all style and no substance? I'm surprised, since I thought Kill Bill was in many ways the ultimate triumph of style over substance.
At least with Kill Bill I could understand the characters somewhat, their motivations and their thought processes... and Kill Bill had some momentum in the story... The dialogue in Pulp Fiction seems pointless, theres nothing behind it... It sounds nice, but it seems disconnected somehow... I don't know, maybe I'm completely missing the meaning... I just didn't get it...