Topic Question
Added 2023-04-27 03:05:07 +0000 UTCName a movie you love, that everyone else seems to hate, and why.
Comments
Forrest Gump. I’m aware of the criticism leveled against it: that it’s a treacly, empty-headed, soft-pedaled Boomer fantasia that depicts 1960s America with all the depth and texture of a commercial, that it’s about nothing but its own sentimentality. It also doesn’t help that it beat Pulp Fiction out for Best Picture at the Oscars, a “crime” for which it has never been forgiven by film buffs. But it must be understood that Forrest Gump is, essentially, a $55 million Hollywood-produced fable, a simple, straightforward rags-to-riches story ironically told amidst a complex and turbulent era. For that reason, it’s not really meant to be about the 1960s so much as have it serve as a tapestry woven around the events of the characters, a counterpoint to the simple impassivity of Forrest himself. You could plug the movie into any era and still have it be the same, but it works best with this one. And because it’s a fable by design, it’s meant to be a lot like the man himself: not a lot on its mind, but with a certain sweetness in its outlook on things that can be found to be endearing. With that, I don’t think a film should necessarily be faulted for having no grand ideas or themes, especially if it’s meant to have none. After all, doesn’t Pulp Fiction, as immaculately made as it is, have nothing more on its mind than its own clever, low-down coolness? And I ask that question as a fan. My defense of Forrest Gump as a skin-deep fable wouldn’t matter however if I didn’t find it to be a skillfully made, thoroughly entertaining skin-deep fable. Credit should go to Eric Roth for marshaling a streamlined, cohesive story out of what had to be a cluttered novel. And Zemeckis, who clearly paid attention to the pacing and editing rhythms of Scorsese’s Goodfellas, ably takes us through the movie with more of a lightness of touch than usual; you don’t feel he’s laboring so hard to give the audience a good time as in previous films. But the film’s success belongs most of all to Tom Hanks, who walks a careful tightrope in his portrayal of Forrest. The film could have been a disaster of Simple Jack proportions if he hadn’t gotten it right. But Hanks musters all the skill and judgment he has, as well as his appeal as a movie star, to play Forrest with just the right touch. He manages to convey Forrest’s mental disability, and his sweetness, without it becoming too garish or cloying. It may be a one-note performance, and certainly not deserving of an Oscar, but it’s an endearing one. I should stress that I don’t find Forrest Gump to be the best picture of 1994, or any year for that matter. And I certainly understand why the film is so polarizing. Some people don’t like watching the 1960s be reduced to a storybook yarn told by a man on a park bench. Others don’t take to its whimsical sentimentality. You either go with the film or you don’t. There isn’t much in-between. At 8 years old, I might’ve seen the film at the right time for me to become fond of it. But I can also appreciate it as a film of its kind done right. If you want an example of one done wrong, look no further than David Fincher’s beautiful but lifeless The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. That film has all the enjoyment of staring at a glossy catalogue for nearly three hours. In contrast, I hope you can see the accomplishments of Forrest Gump. It’s better than its reputation suggests.
Bennett Oliver
2023-04-30 00:12:42 +0000 UTCShowgirls. While it’s definitely gained a cult following over the years, I think people tend to enjoy it in a purely campy way. While the film is campy, I think that “camp” describes the style as hyperbolic, but still containing a certain truth about the subject matter. I find that there’s an incredibly sincere and profound satire of show-business, Vegas, sex as a transaction, and the American Dream as a whole. It wears this satire on its sleeve just as much as it does the campy style, and I don’t understand why people dismiss the film’s arguments purely because of the over the top nature of everything.
Jackson Littlewood
2023-04-28 05:57:05 +0000 UTCConan the Barbarian. I get grief from friends that just hate fantasy films for no reason. They say Arnold didn’t even speak English very well. It goes on and on. Then one night I’m watching it and my film student daughter comes in from the other room and says something like “what are you watching? They just played a straight 7 minutes of amazing orchestral kick ass music. I want to see this film.” I love it for the unapologetic testosterone drivenJohn Milius directed fury. Oh and the Basil P music (also did scores for lonesome dove, hunt for red October, etc…)
Paul Robinson
2023-04-27 16:30:12 +0000 UTCSkinamarink was tough turned it off after 25 minutes it used a repeating grain pattern on the film, not sure why and it was distracting me from a visually boring film However, Enys Men was a more engaging watch. The film used, is such a mood, real grain, bright blues and reds. Worth a look. Forget skinamarink, Enys Men
Simon
2023-04-27 15:59:56 +0000 UTCNope have not got one of them, the nearest I could get is 2010, because of the context and the company, it was one of my favourite, movie watching experiences, I was young, and topped of with sativia, it was quite an experience, most people don't linger on 2010 becuase of, well, 2001. I have gone back to watch 2010 a few times. And hey the cold war background is relevant again now.
Simon
2023-04-27 15:19:11 +0000 UTCThe latest Hellraiser movie. In seems like for most in the horror community are either ambivalent to it or outright dislike it. It definitely takes a different twist on the Hellraiser mythology but to me, it was the most emotionally engaging and just exciting. It has a great sense of scope and just looks incredible too. Admittedly I'm a casual Hellraiser fan but I thought it was one of the best horror movies of last year in a year full of really great horror.
Tyler Shobe
2023-04-27 14:37:41 +0000 UTCDeath to Smoochy. I watched it, and found it to be a really sharp satire on the world of television. The idea of making it children’s entertainment was a nice creative move. It opened the door to a lot of comedic opportunities. It shows corruption behind the scenes, and satirizes it in many unique ways. I was shocked to see Ebert give it 1/2 a star.
Ken
2023-04-27 11:40:55 +0000 UTCProbably the same type of people that would hate on skyler or carmela
kron
2023-04-27 04:48:57 +0000 UTCI’ve knew some people in college that HATED Toni Erdmann and then I watched it with some friends and they didn’t like it either! I can understand that the humor isn’t for everyone though. It does have some laugh out loud moments so I wouldn’t say it’s too far away from an American comedy. I loved the movie a ton
kron
2023-04-27 04:46:10 +0000 UTCWhen I was in college, everybody I knew hated Gone With the Wind because they couldn't stand Scarlett O'Hara for being an unlikable character without trying to understand what makes her tick. I hate when people make that criticism as a way to put down an all time classic without trying to study it.
Wolfman Brandon
2023-04-27 03:22:28 +0000 UTC
