- Posts: 4180
Slightly Brown wrote:
I really like both Four Weddings... and Notting Hill, and have seen both multiple times - so it's fair to say I'm not at all averse to that kind of film.
Love Actually, however, I just can't bear. Schmaltzy, nauseating, implausible (even in the context of the genre) and most of all downright irritating. It's just terrible.
But the only film I've ever had to actually stop watching halfway through because I physically couldn't make it through to the end is the aforementioned Very Bad Things. An abomination.
And my admission for this thread: I've seen, re-seen, and enjoyed all four of the American Pie movies. Ditto Road Trip.
I love, and stand by, eight Adam Sandler comedies.
Harry Truscott wrote:
I've seen Dear John. Twice.
That kid in Love Actually, aaaargh.
That is so nearly a good film, with some great acting.
I get the joke about gorgeous American girls fancying ugly Brits, but that was overdone.
First date with my wife: Airheadz featuring Brendan Fraser, Steve Buscemi, and Adam Sandler. We're still together, but it's become a more embarrasing first date movie to tell people as we've got older.
Worst films watched:
Waiting to Exhale (although I only saw the first bit of this)
Rango (again, haven't seen it all)
Meet the Robinsons (Disney cartoon - unwatchable)
Love Actualy for many of the reasons upthread and probably a few more
Batman & Robin (again, not seen it all the way through)
I have say I kind of enjoyed Airheads. If you think about it, it essentially has the same plot as The King of Comedy.
I thought Rango was ace. It went on a bit, but it has some wonderful surrealist touches and it looked fantastic. The John Huston-like character from Chinatown was also nicely done.
Rango (again, haven't seen it all)
Highly watchable, but I think it has trouble making its mind up which audience it appeals to. It's supposed to be a family film, but darn if I know what kind of family it's supposed to be. That said, it's a visual treat.
I've never walked out of a film showing in a multiplex, but I've seen some right old crapola on the telly mostly as a test of my resolve: if I can sit through (insert name of wanky movie here) I can sit through anything. But some movies are a test too far - if it proves too twattish and unedifying a spectacle to endure I turn over to something else.
Fred Claus is an example. It's a big pile of pony anyway, but I gave up when a scene involving lawyers and counsellors arguing over Santa Claus's business affairs turned up. In a kid's film? The tone of the whole thing was so uneven as to appear in the form of a cinematic speedbump. You could feel the hands of a committee underneath the whole thing, putting it together with all the warmth and care of a corpse.
Billy Madison Only Adam Sandler movie I've seen. Only one I ever will see. One day, I might be tempted to see Punch Drunk Love, but that day's a long way off.
Cobra and Rambo: First Blood Part 2 This must've been when I was in a phase where my lack of taste was at its most potent and, for reasons best known to myself, paid to see these chunks of crap that best exhibit Sylvester Stallone's need to indulge in the kind of cinematic ego-trip that he wishes he could fulfil in real life. Those reasons best known to myself I have now forgotten, but, rest assured, taste and discernment weren't involved. Three pints of shame juice, barman.
Cowboys and Aliens When the best Bond in years teams up with the guy who wielded the whip, went to light speed, and was dangled off the edge of a building by a replicant, and when they come up with a title that put two genre elements together and instils a supertanker worth of teasing promise before your needy senses, then you reach for the number of a professional hitman when all they can produce is a shitty, dull and stoutly humourless pile of old cock as Cowboys and Aliens. It's like getting the best orchestra in the world and then asking them to play the Crossroads theme in the style of a pissed old tramp. A waste of near hateful proportions.
The Underworld films. Let's get one thing straight: getting upon one's highest horse, I decree that to have a franchise, one must ensure that at least the characters, story and concept must be attractive and of interest enough to sustain the need to produce more than one film based upon them. That said, all the flash, bang wallop in the world couldn't protect my senses from being plonked into a state of unadulterated narcolepsy by a bunch of snarling, bloatedly boring bunch of vampires and werewolves in eternal conflict with each other. When vampires and werewolves meet in bloody combat, that'll be your insomnia worries flying out the window, because Horror Nytol is now on sale in your local alternative universe, gurning hatefully at you as it tries to make you believe that vampires and lycans battling for supremacy is an epic struggle worth being involved in. No, it ain't. It's an epic struggle to stop your upper eyelids meeting your lower eyelids in a prelude to the most guttural of sounds: snoring. I must have missed the sequence where a battalion of lycans invade an Ovaltine factory and start making cups of malt-based sleepy gloop. I've now seen all four films on telly, mainly because there's a good Saturday night movie concept in there (vampire/werewolf punch-ups), but mainly because I've been hunting for the one element that's missing in all of them that never turns up: humour. That's the drawback when the undead and the vulpine meet - they forget to bring some fucking jokes with them.
And many, many more, etc...
I, um, kind of liked Underworld, the first two anyway
I did once, watch all 3 Cube films, at the same time.
I think I nearly got the point, but I ran out of LSD.
Harry Truscott wrote:
Just enter your email address