Jump to content

"classic" Movies That You Piss On


Agent ONE
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(Hikuro @ Jan 3 2006, 04:26 PM)

Don't know if Agent One would agree with me on this....Total Recall.......It was interesting for a while, and then when it got closer to the end it was dissapointing and really started to piss me off.

Its certainly not my favorite Oak movie. But I am glad you consider it a classic.

Well its a classic to today's standards of his movies.

But I just remembered two others movies he was in, the ones where his english was so bad they just dubbed his voice with another actor, the cowboy movie and him as Hercules........ :huh:

Lemme see.........classic movies that pissed me off......you know so many piss me off that date back to the 50's that I can't figure out where to start........but lemme see 80's movies, How about Teen Wolf II?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah.. I just remembered.  Breakfast at Tiffany's.  That movie is not only so boring, but its portral of Asian Americans is SO offensive.

357074[/snapback]

I never thought Breakfast At Tiffany would be something that you would watch, but if you wanna see a decent Audrey Hepburn film check out Roman Holiday. It still might be a little to much of a date movie for you though. If so just skip that and watch Amelie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably just going to get me hate, but what the hell. Have you guys ever actually watched film noir or German Expressionist films?

Blade Runner was supposed to be a callback to that. That is what the narration is about. That is why it's so dark. You can complain that Harrison Ford is mediocre, but the whole point is that his character is a loser. His LIFE is mediocre. The world's poo, and so is he.

If you read interviews with Ford about the movie he had a miserable time, partly because he hated Sean Young (who played Rachael) and largely because he was "a detective who didn't detect anything", and you know, a loser. Ford's good roles are always where he gets to have fun and be a bigger than life guy who rules and everyone loves him.

No wonder he was miserable. His character was.

Anyway, I don't think he botched the narration on purpose (also apocryphal), I think he was just miserable, and he SOUNDS miserable in the narration, which is exactly what he's supposed to be. Noir and German Expressionist film can be hard to watch for a lot of people, because it's no fun. The world blows, your main characters gets poo on, and nothing is solved in the end, or everyone's dead, or the main character is ruined, et cetera. It's intentionally bleak and miserable, and Blade Runner was just echoing that.

A big point of those old films was the art direction. A central point of Expressionist art in general is that the external world reflects the internal world. Good examples: In The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, with its borderline insane characters, the world is twisted and bizarre. In M, a serial killer is murdering (and possibly raping) children and the police is too incompetent to catch him, so they just hassle the "respectable" criminals (gangsters and prostitutes, etc.). The criminals catch the murderer. The world is a horrible place, and the art direction reflects this. Everything is dirty and broken down, dark and shadowy. That's what Expressionist/noir film is like. I think you guys don't like Blade Runner because you want a sci-fi action adventure like The Matrix or something. Blade Runner has zero interest in being that kind of film.

As for the Director's Cut, bleh. I've read the original screenplay and the final shooting screenplay. Ridley Scott's unicorn scene is not in it. It sucks, too, because it removes the intentional ambiguity in the film. It's supposed to be that you're not sure if Deckard is a replicant or not. He's a loser and he's kind of inhuman. A big point of the movie is that the replicants are -still people-. Look at how tortured Roy is by his own mortality. He's a bad guy, sure, but he's still relatable. Our HERO is the empty one. More human than human, remember? Anyway, another problem is that again, Blade Runner was supposed to be noir, and a hallmark of noir is voice over narration. The movie is really slow and kind of vauge without it. Seriously, there are scenes that make no damn sense without the narration. I mean, yes, noir typically has a measured pace, but yeah, voice over narration makes it go by faster. Without it, Blade Runner is just plodding. And while I think the "happy" ending sucks, the non-ending of the Director's Cut sucks worse. What, the film just STOPS? Lame. In the screenplay isn't not like that. The original ending has Deckard and Rachael escaping together, and then he kills her so that Gaff can't do it. The final shooting screenplay isn't as bleak: it ends with Deckard and Rachael trying to escape and Gaff chasing them. That closure is nice because you know that Gaff is just playing with them, giving them time to escape to make the chase more fun. In the Director's Cut you're like, "What, Gaff just let them go? This is bullshit."

Anyway, as someone has already said, the Director's Cut isn't even really a director's cut. Some studio douchebags rushed it out the door with vauge input from Scott.

Rumor has it a new DVD set of BR will come out with the vaporware actual director's cut, original theatrical cut, and the longer original home video cut (which is like the euro cut, in that in contains more violence and swearing than either the theatrical cut or the Director's Cut we have now), but we'll see if that ever actually happens.

357120[/snapback]

Trust me I am quite familiar with German Expressionist film (you left out Nosferatu BTW), and Noir. Indeed that's why I'm agnostic about Decker's narration, instead of angry at it's inclusion, It fits with the whole detective film Noir theme the movie has going, it's just Harrison Ford does such a bad job that it takes away almost as much as it adds. My problem with Blade Runner isn't that it's dark, or it's characters it's that (in the director's cut at least) it's pacing is plodding at best. A better editing job would have done that movie wonders.

As for the ending I definitely prefer the directors cut version in that regard, it fits better with the Philip K Dick tradition of ambiguous endings better (and would work even better without the Unicorn sequence). Honestly there's only one movie based on his works that really got that ambiguity right and that was Total Recall (and it over did it a bit by hitting you over the head with Arnold's "what if I'm still dreaming?" line).

Edited by Nied
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably just going to get me hate, but what the hell. Have you guys ever actually watched film noir or German Expressionist films?

Blade Runner was supposed to be a callback to that. That is what the narration is about. That is why it's so dark. You can complain that Harrison Ford is mediocre, but the whole point is that his character is a loser. His LIFE is mediocre. The world's poo, and so is he.

Thing is, the narration wasn't ever intended until the studio execs watched the film and forced Ridley to tack it on after he'd finished filming. A writer was hired to write Deckard's narration after the fact. Blade Runner might have started out noir-esque, given its setting and themes, but it wasn't intended to be a noir homage for most of its production, if noir automatically implies narration.

I think he was just miserable, and he SOUNDS miserable in the narration, which is exactly what he's supposed to be.

No wonder he was miserable. His character was.

He doesn't sound like a miserable detective. He sounds like a miserable actor who's too miserable to bother acting. I don't think the latter is what anyone was going for. It doesn't help that the tone of the narration doesn't always fit the expression on Ford's face, and the mixing of the narration just sounds off.

I think you guys don't like Blade Runner because you want a sci-fi action adventure like The Matrix or something. Blade Runner has zero interest in being that kind of film.

That ain't it (even though I do like the film). I don't want a Matrix-like Blade Runner, although my sensibilities would have preferred something more talky in parts and more traditionally paced. Sin City was also a homage to noir, and I loved nearly all of it.

Edited by Sundown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any and all musicals, from the inception of talkies to the present...just insert your title here and I guarantee it I'll barf all over it.  I just can't stand musicals; they suck more than anything that has ever sucked in the past, anything that sucks presently, or anything that will ever suck in the future.  A story is built up, drama is established, or humor, or suspense, whatever...and then the actors break into a song and dance number that completely spoils whatever mood had been established...ugh, don't get me started. :angry:  :p

357113[/snapback]

You, sir. You... you are just awesome. You've just written what I could only scream.

Add another vote for Easy Rider and this may be obvious but Titanic. I hate everything about that damn movie. Everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me I am quite familiar with German Expressionist film (you left out Nosferatu BTW),

Eh, I didn't leave out Nosferatu, I just don't like it as much as Fritz Lang's movies and Caligari is much more out there than Nosferatu or M or Metropolis or anything. It was just a couple of examples, not every German Expressionist film ever. I could talk about Paul Leini's Waxworks, too; I wrote a paper on why Nosferatu was a better movie than Browning's Dracula starring Bela Logusi, anyway.

and Noir.  Indeed that's why I'm agnostic about Decker's narration, instead of angry at it's inclusion, It fits with the whole detective film Noir theme the movie has going, it's just Harrison Ford does such a bad job that it takes away almost as much as it adds.  My problem with Blade Runner isn't that it's dark, or it's characters it's that (in the director's cut at least) it's pacing is plodding at best.  A better editing job would have done that movie wonders.

Well, I still think his unhappy, lethagic delivery fits perfectly with the character. He's a loser and not excited about anything. That sort of world-weary, eh, feel I thought was spot on. I still think the pacing is hurt badly by the lack of the voice over. Try watching the VHS release if you can find it. Well, be careful, there's also the shorter American theatrical release on VHS, but the longer one that is like the Euro cut is the best, IMO. Voice over, it's longer, more blood and swearing, no unicorn dream, and the only real problem is the ending. I suppose you can just hit mute when that part comes on or fast forward.

Also, I think the score contributes to the feeling that it's slow moving. Granted, I don't think it could ever be a fast move (not without radical re-editing), but I don't think it was supposed to be, but I think the voice over really gives moves it along, and the film needs that.

As for the ending I definitely prefer the directors cut version in that regard, it fits better with the Philip K Dick tradition of ambiguous endings better (and would work even better without the Unicorn sequence).  Honestly there's only one movie based on his works that really got that ambiguity right and that was Total Recall (and it over did it a bit by hitting  you over the head with Arnold's "what if I'm still dreaming?" line).

Well, like I said, I think the happy ending is crap, but the Director's Cut ending isn't an ending, it just seems like it's missing a scene. I don't mind ambiguous endings. In the director's cut it just looks like Gaff lets them leave, which makes no sense, and isn't really that ambiguous. I still like the shooting script's ending with them driving away and Gaff chasing. Then again, I like Deckard shooting Rachael even better, though it's damn harsh and also not ambiguous. You could use the footage for the happy ending for THAT ending, too. Just need a gunshot sound effect. It's perfect.

Oh, BTW, if anyone believes that crap about the studio forcing the movie to have voice over narration tacked on later, it's in the screenplay, so that's obviously wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that "Macross" movie doesn't really live up to the hype either.

357134[/snapback]

BLASPHEMY!!!

357148[/snapback]

I'm actually terribly suprised there were two posts before someone responded to my quip.

:lol:

357151[/snapback]

YOU are just important to me. :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, the narration wasn't ever intended until the studio execs watched the film and forced Ridley to tack it on after he'd finished filming.  A writer was hired to write Deckard's narration after the fact.  Blade Runner might have started out noir-esque, given its setting and themes, but it wasn't intended to be a noir homage for most of its production, if noir automatically implies narration.

Like I said in another post, I don't believe that, seeing as it's in the screenplay.

He doesn't sound like a miserable detective.  He sounds like a miserable actor who's too miserable to bother acting.  I don't think the latter is what anyone was going for.  It doesn't help that the tone of the narration doesn't always fit the expression on Ford's face, and the mixing of the narration just sounds off.

Well, that definitely does not fit my recollection, but I will try to find time tonight to rewatch it and reevaluate my take on the narration.

That ain't it (even though I do like the film).  I don't want a Matrix-like Blade Runner, although my sensibilities would have preferred something more talky in parts and more traditionally paced.  Sin City was also a homage to noir, and I loved nearly all of it.

Heh, well, maybe we just want different things out of movies. I hated Sin City. I thought it really wished it was film noir buit completely failed at what film noir is. You can tell it's not going to pull film noir off in the first minutes. Come on, HE kills HER? The femme fatale is pretty damn important to what film noir is!

Film noir was never about being action movies and none of them move that quickly (well, exception for some modern neo-noir... I mean actual film noir in the 40's and 50's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2001: a space idiocy

I read the book and it was a great science fiction story.... however the movie is a POS

357156[/snapback]

I kinda like the movie, because it's the only movie I can think of where space is as boring as space really is, but it's really damn slow. Makes Blade Runner look like it's on speed. My biggest problem is the 15 minute long spacewarp scene. COME ON. That is damn near impossible to sit through, though maybe it works better when you're on drugs, like my mom keeps insisting that scene is for.

I like Kubrick a lot, but most of his movies could use some trimming by a talented editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now you're talking to me baby. That I like!"

A film thread always gets me going though I am loathe to dwell on that which I dislike. It would be so much more interesting to discuss good film. But, since we have to stay on topic...

I'm not sure what the criteria is being used to define "classic" film, but here are some "older" films I dislike that are held in high regard by powers that be:

Annie Hall (1977) Possibly the greatest example of film that is a little funny, a little interesting, a little entertaining and lacking any significant weaknesses that would take away from those little triumphs. The most praised and appreciated "kinda-good" film I've ever seen.

Chinatown (1974) This film is a enigma to me, having so little to offer my taste for film yet meaning so much to me in way of film structure and storytelling. Strange that such a properly written and contructed tale should make me feel so blase at the utter blandness of the result.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) The story is so contrived and cliche even for its time that I'm at a loss why the film was granted such praise. Maybe it was ol' blue eyes or perhaps Lansbury's acting, about the only element of the film that was exceptional.

The Seventh Seal (1957) This is probably sacrilege when said to any university film prof, but I was dissappointed with this film. Didactic and stage-like, I just couldn't get into it nor even appreciate the film within its own time.

Alexander Nevsky (1938) The russians may have invented dramatic editing, but I think they also invented the term "cinematic torture" before it became the cliche of modern film critics. Eisenstein's film really hit me hard, testing my stamina more than any other classic.

On The Waterfront (1954) I like Brando as much as the next film geek, but I honestly don't care for this picture. It had its moments, just not nearly enough for me.

The Deer Hunter (1978) As a fan of film, I often must endure the cries of people screaming "BORING" in reference to so many slow paced movies that I adore. However, I have to bite my tongue because there are a few films which evoke a similar attitude within myself. Cimino's insomniac sedative is such a film.

Das Boot (1981) Another film that could have been great, but was so terribly long. Like Deer Hunter, this film stands as one of the few reminders to me that I must go easy on other people that complain about boring films.

The Conversation (1974) I can't understand for the life of me what there is to this film that so many cherish as a great work. Coppola can (and did) far better and more praise worthy work than this film.

Edited by Mr March
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blade Runner

But that comes with a caveat (one that will probably get my film degree revoked).  For the longest time I had only ever seen the directors cut and just hated it (I felt the pacing was just awful), but a couple years ago I caught the theatrical cut on the Sci-Fi channel and really liked it, the editing was a lot tighter.  I was more agnostic about the big things people had problems with (Harrison Ford's purposefully botched narration) or just downright mad (the happily ever after ending).

::edit::

Wow looks like Sundown and I had the same idea at the same time.

357085[/snapback]

Poor Blade Runner, such a great film that often finds so little love among science fiction fans. Kinda weird for a sci-fi film :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated Sin City. I thought it really wished it was film noir buit completely failed at what film noir is. You can tell it's not going to pull film noir off in the first minutes.

357158[/snapback]

I didn't liked Sin City too but my reasons was It tried too hard to tell eveyone's story and ends up being too much work too follow whos alive and whos dead. Bad Story flow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated Sin City. I thought it really wished it was film noir buit completely failed at what film noir is. You can tell it's not going to pull film noir off in the first minutes.

357158[/snapback]

I didn't liked Sin City too but my reasons was It tried too hard to tell eveyone's story and ends up being too much work too follow whos alive and whos dead. Bad Story flow

357188[/snapback]

Ok, I liked Sin City and all.....but I think its WAY too early to be calling it a "classic," much less pissing on said classic status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm one of the few people who actually prefer Ford's naration in Blade Runner over the directors cut. I agree with Ginrai that the lethagic delivery fits perfectly.

And the ONLY good Woody Allen film ever is 'Sleeper' (1973).

It makes me laugh when I hear people talking about the slow pace of older films such as Blade Runner. Heck Blade Runner isn't even that old. IMO, it's not Blade Runner that is slow it's just that people nowadays are too used to the wham-bam, super-faced pacing of modern films for today's ADD generation, where there has to be a gunfight, explosion or car chase every 2.5 minutes to stop the kiddies today from getting bored.

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you consider Pulp Fiction or Resevoir Dogs classic, then I hate those. Well, I hate them even if you don't consider them classic. Frankly, I hate pretty much everything Tarantino's ever done, and I fail to see why he gets so much hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated Sin City. I thought it really wished it was film noir buit completely failed at what film noir is. You can tell it's not going to pull film noir off in the first minutes.

357158[/snapback]

I didn't liked Sin City too but my reasons was It tried too hard to tell eveyone's story and ends up being too much work too follow whos alive and whos dead. Bad Story flow

357188[/snapback]

Ok, I liked Sin City and all.....but I think its WAY too early to be calling it a "classic," much less pissing on said classic status.

357190[/snapback]

The movies people are considering classic now are way different to us old man... hell even in music, the status of classic is catching up. I heard INXS and U2 in a classic rock station. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you consider Pulp Fiction or Resevoir Dogs classic, then I hate those.  Well, I hate them even if you don't consider them classic.  Frankly, I hate pretty much everything Tarantino's ever done, and I fail to see why he gets so much hype.

357194[/snapback]

Whoa! I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Preach on brotha! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movies people are considering classic now are way different to us old man...  hell even in music, the status of classic is catching up.  I heard INXS and U2 in a classic rock station. :ph34r:

357197[/snapback]

Hehehe, it's funny to see bands I grew up with considered "classic rock" nowadays :)

Labelling something a classic has never been a very easy label to define. However, the best rule of thumb is to use at least 20-30 years. In almost every art medium, the establishment often takes 20-30 years to induct a work into a category for all-time recognition.

I think the reason for this is hindsight. All forms of art can produce works that have extraordinairy popularity or "value of the moment". Yet these very same works can be seen as superfluous upon reflection, sometimes even in just a few short years. To avoid this sort of thing, awards institutions often take their time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in another post, I don't believe that, seeing as it's in the screenplay.
You're right that there's narration in the shooting script, but Ridley Scott actually filmed it without. The producers insisted that narration be added and it was given a few rewrites by different writers.

Ridley himself has said that some noir films work with narration, and some don't. Blade Runner to him was one that didn't. And Ford says that he gave six readings of the narration, none of which worked well, because the film wasn't originally made to have narration. This leads me to believe that the voice over wasn't particularly embraced by the film's makers, and that it was decided that there wouldn't be any when Ridley and crew felt they were "done".

I actually looked forward to watching the original version, wanting to like the narration and hoping it would smooth the problems I had with the Directors Cut. It felt off, although I did like some of the insights to what was going on in Deckards mind beyond what was suggested by him staring at a newspaper, an old photograph, or into nothing in particular. I have to admit I haven't finished watching all of that version though.

Heh, well, maybe we just want different things out of movies. I hated Sin City. I thought it really wished it was film noir buit completely failed at what film noir is. You can tell it's not going to pull film noir off in the first minutes. Come on, HE kills HER? The femme fatale is pretty damn important to what film noir is!
That's probably it, and in the end, I sort of gauge a movie by how much I enjoy it, how much it captivates me, rather than how faithfully it fits into an established school of film and whether it hits the marks I expect of that genre. There's much to love in Blade Runner, and its depth lends repeated viewings, but it still leaves me wanting. I actually like films that some people consider a little slow, as long as the ideas, dialogue, and setups keep things interesting, but I do admit that I enjoy some sort of climactic emotional payoff, happy or bittersweet, for my viewing investment.
Ok, I liked Sin City and all.....but I think its WAY too early to be calling it a "classic," much less pissing on said classic status.
Oh, that's just us discussing the movie after I'd brought it up as an example of noir wannabe that worked for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, gotta admit, Pulp Fiction did leave me feeling rather underwhelmed... maybe I just don't "get" Tarantino, but I just sat thru the movie and couldn't begin to grasp any reason to watch the rest of it.....

EDIT: And yeah, I too would rather watch most anything else that DYRL... except the fight scenes. I watch DYRL like an old Godzilla movie.... just fastforwding to the fight scenes and skip the plot... I think I'd actually rather watch Mac2 even...

Edited by promethuem5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooooooo. I just thought of another one. Rosemary's Baby.

For years people told me it was "like the scariest thing ever," and "obviously Satan had a hand in the movie's creation," or "the movie itself is so evil you will be scared by watching it." Now I LOVE movies about the Devil, but let me tell you, if that movie showed what the Devil's worst is, I hope I go to hell as I will most certainly take over when I get there. This movie is SO boring, SO anti-climactic, and SO long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, I remember my mothing telling me that my father wanted to take her to see Rosemary's Baby when she was pregnant with me, but she was too scared to go see it.

I actually quite like the movie. IMO it had good acting, good story, lots of suspense and was quite scary without having to rely on in-your-face shocks and scary monsters.

But then again, I'm mostly into older movies from the '60s, '70s and '80s.

And I thought Mia Farrow was quite cute in the movie in a sort of waifish way (I like waifish women).

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Michael Mann's 'Heat' is way overated.

The only good part of the movie was the big gunfight when they robbed the bank. I thought the rest of the movie was terrible, with De Niro and Pacino being completely unsuitable for their roles.

I love's Mann's work on the TV shows Miami Vice & Crime Story, but to be honest have been less than impressed with his movies to date.

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short circuit for me.  Back then it features a robot tracked tank style movement has arms, talks and fire a laser beam. Now we just have a shorter version without arms, can't talk and no laser beam. dammit I want my laser beam that destroys tanks and APCs.  :)

357086[/snapback]

Short Circuit counts as a classic?

As for a supremely overrated movie, Stagecoach. Bad acting, stupid dialogue, yet is still given classic status. Go fig.

And while I don't hate it, I have to say Fight Club is a fairly overrated movie.

Edited by GobotFool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What lifts Blade Runner above alot of Sci Fi films is the ending, not the films ending but Roy Battys ending. A less interesting sci fi film would have ended the movie with a wild shootout, an inventive way for Hauer to die then a smarmy one liner by Ford to end the film. Instead Batty saves Deckards life. And in that small bit of time where Batty talks about his life, you see the look on Deckards face where he realizes hes wasted his life, hes taken it all for granted, what little time he had.

Yep, this is actually my favorite scene in the movie. Batty is pretty much the emotional highlight of the film. Without him we'd just have to endure through two hours of plodding akwardness between Ford and Young.

Deckard:  I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die."

Maybe I really oughta finish watching the original version. This voice-over probably would have made the climax more satisfying than trying to discern what Deckard's thinking, and made him ultimately more relateable by movie's end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...