frankslittlemachine Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 i dont get donny darko! i know its got a mad cult following now but i just dont get it Yeah your not the only one , just over hyped if you ask me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurenx Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I don't get films such as Epic Movie. Those kind of spoofs tend to annoy me mostly. And I have never found them that funny, although they can have their moments.. i dont get donny darko! i know its got a mad cult following now but i just dont get it I like that film, but I don't think it is as amazing as some people say. Its good though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandalfia Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The Sound of Music - awful film. Hated it as a kid. Still do! Bugsy Malone - absolutely awful film. Why is this a cult film? Chicago - wtf?!! How did this win Best Picture at the Oscars?! Okay, wait ... let me pick some that aren't musicals Um .... The Shrek films! RUBBISH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoden_of_rohan Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) Brick: The biggest pile of rubbish I've ever seen! Recent Johnny Depp/Tim Burton films: I used to love them together (Edwards Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow), but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was TERRIBLE! Gene Wilder is the only Willy Wonka in my opinion. Sweeny Todd was better, but still not as great as everyone made out. Bugsy Malone: Agreed, Tara. This is utter cack. Why would people watch this? Shrek movies: Again, agreed. I quite liked the first one, but now I'm bored. Pixar P!sses over Dreamworks animation! Happy Feet: I couldn't sit through this for any longer than about 30 minutes. Just awful...and so bloody boring! STOP MAKING RUBBISH COMPUTER ANIMATIONS! Hot Fuzz: I was still waiting to laugh as the credits began to roll. Pegg, what happened? Hostel: Yup, I agree with whoever mentioned this rubbish. This is a film for over-horny 14 year old lads to watch as they're bunking off school. What a pile of dog turd! Beowulf: Oh dear God, why did I sit through this? Ferris Bueller's Day Off: This probably isn't going to be a popular choice, but hey, shoot me! Maybe it's because I didn't see it 'til quite late on (when I was about 18, rather than in the '80s)...and it just didn't do it for me. Thought it was pretty average! POTC 3: The first one was entertaining enough (despite Depp being pretty damn annoying), the second one had some pretty impressive visuals...but by the time I'd got to the THIRD one, I just couldn't be bothered. SO bored of Jack bloody Sparrow! Ok, I have to stop otherwise I'll be here all day. Haha, love this thread Edited March 15, 2008 by theoden_of_rohan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merry Madam Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) Have to agree about Pirates of the Carribbean 3, to me it seemed like a prime example of making a film purely for the sake of raking in money, it was complete crap, and why the focus was more on Keira then Johnny is beyond me, it was Jack Sparrow who made the first one, she gets on my nerves big time, but that's another issue I guess! I don't get the hype about Lost in Translation or Donnie Darko, not a Star Wars fan either! Edited March 15, 2008 by Merry Madam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star_grrl_uk Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Brick: The biggest pile of rubbish I've ever seen! Recent Johnny Depp/Tim Burton films: I used to love them together (Edwards Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow), but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was TERRIBLE! Gene Wilder is the only Willy Wonka in my opinion. Sweeny Todd was better, but still not as great as everyone made out. For every good film that Burton makes he makes an ABSOLUTE rubbish one...Batman Returns, ace...Planet of the Apes...toss Bugsy Malone: Agreed, Tara. This is utter cack. Why would people watch this? I find Bugsy Malone quite scary, like that program that used to be on channel 4 where they used to get small children to dress up as popstars and act in a provacative manner. Ferris Bueller's Day Off: This probably isn't going to be a popular choice, but hey, shoot me! Maybe it's because I didn't see it 'til quite late on (when I was about 18, rather than in the '80s)...and it just didn't do it for me. Thought it was pretty average! I cannot STAND that film..in the 80's...yesterday..today and in the future!!! Napoleon Dynamite...all my friends went mad over that film, I just found myself going "why?" and "what?" a lot! I also agree with the Donnie Darko thing, to me, it tries to be all deep and that, but doesn't harbour much intellectual stimulation at all. MAC and me, if anyone can remember that film I will laugh...rip off of ET with a disabled child and product placement a plenty from MacDonalds and Coca Cola...and scary whistling aliens... ...final one...Withnail and I....its just not...funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovbug Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 Brick: The biggest pile of rubbish I've ever seen! Recent Johnny Depp/Tim Burton films: I used to love them together (Edwards Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow), but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was TERRIBLE! Gene Wilder is the only Willy Wonka in my opinion. Sweeny Todd was better, but still not as great as everyone made out. Bugsy Malone: Agreed, Tara. This is utter cack. Why would people watch this? Happy Feet: I couldn't sit through this for any longer than about 30 minutes. Just awful...and so bloody boring! STOP MAKING RUBBISH COMPUTER ANIMATIONS! Beowulf: Oh dear God, why did I sit through this? POTC 3: The first one was entertaining enough (despite Depp being pretty damn annoying), the second one had some pretty impressive visuals...but by the time I'd got to the THIRD one, I just couldn't be bothered. SO bored of Jack bloody Sparrow! Brick: rubbish, so dull I dont really like johnny depp films. I loved batman returns and edward scissorhands when i was younger. But i watched both of them recently, and they werent what i remember them to be. However looking forward to sweeny todd Bugsy Malone is so bad its good. I have this on dvd and after sitting her through it many many times she finally came over from the dark side and loves it now. happy feet: i found this film so upsetting, i basicly sat through the whole film crying. No way near as good as cars or monsters inc or toy story. NO-WAY NEAR !!!! POTC3: Totally agree. And yet i know some people who think its the best one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) MAC and me, if anyone can remember that film I will laugh...rip off of ET with a disabled child and product placement a plenty from MacDonalds and Coca Cola...and scary whistling aliens... I seen that and remember the poster and I'm pretty sure I saw it in the cinema in about 1987. Even to me, a 11 yr old it was pretty pants. I think it was actually sponsored or part funded by McDonalds hence the name and product placement though I was too young to understand the concect of that so it went by me till you just mentioned it was in the film. Edited March 20, 2008 by nicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurricanebtvs Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Hide and Seek, god awful film. No idea why it got such strong recomendation. Also The Simpsons Movie, HATED IT. but lots of people loved it, even if it was a baseborn cad child of the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaztx Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 attack of the killer tomatoes is a worst film and just strange, bit of a harsh moment in there. one of the militry officers knocks a painting of USA N Arizona and it falls in a fish tank... didnt ubnderstand why any 1 would think that being thrown in a film tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurricanebtvs Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 attack of the killer tomatoes is a worst film and just strange, bit of a harsh moment in there. one of the militry officers knocks a painting of USA N Arizona and it falls in a fish tank... didnt ubnderstand why any 1 would think that being thrown in a film tbh That was kind of the point of those films. I mean if you have seen The return of the killer tomatos, the whole product placement scenes were so weird and out place but so hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaztx Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 attack of the killer tomatoes is a worst film and just strange, bit of a harsh moment in there. one of the militry officers knocks a painting of USA N Arizona and it falls in a fish tank... didnt ubnderstand why any 1 would think that being thrown in a film tbh That was kind of the point of those films. I mean if you have seen The return of the killer tomatos, the whole product placement scenes were so weird and out place but so hilarious. na i didnt honestly like it at all i mean wasnt even funny just well, crap lol . a load of my ms say they dont understand terminator... ok a lil dim but its awsome how can u not understand whats going on. woot terminators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star_grrl_uk Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 attack of the killer tomatoes is a worst film and just strange, bit of a harsh moment in there. one of the militry officers knocks a painting of USA N Arizona and it falls in a fish tank... didnt ubnderstand why any 1 would think that being thrown in a film tbh Apparently they are remaking Killer Toms...Bruce Campbell has been linked to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider-Man Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I know some people are fans here and I don't wish to upset anyone but I really didn't get or enjoy Donnie Darko. I've seen it a couple of times now and I'm still huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowsparkle Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I don't get remakes where the entire concept of the movie is changed - Stepford Wives being remade as a comedy for example. I just didn't get it. Movie adaptations of novels where either the ending or pretty much the whole movie is completely different from the original canon, like certain Harry Potter movies and that awful Flowers In The Attic movie, and to some extent The Colour of Magic. I just think "why bother?" Why bother going to all the trouble of adapting a novel and spending millions on filming it, only to make it almost unrecognisable from the story it's supposed to be. They even did it in places with "The Passion" on TV before Easter - some glaring errors there and it was an adaptation of the Bible, for goodness sake! Maybe I just shouldn't watch movies of books that I've read and enjoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Powers Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I don't get remakes where the entire concept of the movie is changed I feel the same way....like with the remake of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory. Now I know the story wasn't changed much, but the entire persona of Wonka was.....Gene Wilder got it absolutely perfect coz he made him eccentric and a little bit mad, whereas Depp made him just plain weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 (edited) Movie adaptations of novels - Why bother going to all the trouble of adapting a novel and spending millions on filming it, only to make it almost unrecognisable from the story it's supposed to be. Cos sometimes how it's written in the book won't translate so well onto film or with film audiences. Eg. Sly Stallone was supposed to die in First Blood (1982) as he does in the novel and that ending was filmed but producers changed their mind so he lived in the end. This was likely cos they wanted to make it sequelable or cos they didnt want to give the audience such a downer ending - after all they had been rooting for Stallone all the way thru the film. With Hannibal (2001) they just had to change Thomas Harris's ending from the novel as it was just ridiculous to believe that Clarice would run away with him. It might have worked on paper but on filmm it's just different and doesnt always work. With I Am Legend (2007) I guess they wanted it to be more acessible to popcorn audiences and the ending less "deep" like in the novel. Edited April 17, 2008 by nicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducky J Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I don't get remakes where the entire concept of the movie is changed I feel the same way....like with the remake of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory. Now I know the story wasn't changed much, but the entire persona of Wonka was.....Gene Wilder got it absolutely perfect coz he made him eccentric and a little bit mad, whereas Depp made him just plain weird. I personally liked JD as WW. GW will always be WW to me, but JD was fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyT Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 They even did it in places with "The Passion" on TV before Easter - some glaring errors there and it was an adaptation of the Bible, for goodness sake! There are of course differences between the gospels, and that's just between the four that are accepted as canonical New Testament; throw in things like the gospels of Peter and Thomas and you get all sorts of variety. Indeed, the whole story of what was and what wasn't accepted into the NT, and how it evolved over time is an interesting bit of history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Pants Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Chicago. How the hell did that win the Best Picture Academy Award??!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowsparkle Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Movie adaptations of novels - Why bother going to all the trouble of adapting a novel and spending millions on filming it, only to make it almost unrecognisable from the story it's supposed to be. Cos sometimes how it's written in the book won't translate so well onto film or with film audiences. Eg. Sly Stallone was supposed to die in First Blood (1982) as he does in the novel and that ending was filmed but producers changed their mind so he lived in the end. This was likely cos they wanted to make it sequelable or cos they didnt want to give the audience such a downer ending - after all they had been rooting for Stallone all the way thru the film. With Hannibal (2001) they just had to change Thomas Harris's ending from the novel as it was just ridiculous to believe that Clarice would run away with him. It might have worked on paper but on filmm it's just different and doesnt always work. With I Am Legend (2007) I guess they wanted it to be more acessible to popcorn audiences and the ending less "deep" like in the novel. I see your point but my own pov is - if the original story needs changing to make the movie work, then don't make the movie! Harsh, I know, but 'tis how i feel They even did it in places with "The Passion" on TV before Easter - some glaring errors there and it was an adaptation of the Bible, for goodness sake! There are of course differences between the gospels, and that's just between the four that are accepted as canonical New Testament; throw in things like the gospels of Peter and Thomas and you get all sorts of variety. Indeed, the whole story of what was and what wasn't accepted into the NT, and how it evolved over time is an interesting bit of history... I see what you mean. I suppose I noticed the errors because they were errors relating to my own personal knowledge of the Bible. The main one I was thinking about was when Pilate sentenced Jesus, when I'm pretty sure that Pilate quite famously refused to do so and handed Jesus over to Herod (?) for sentencing...Might not be important to some but infuriated me lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loulou Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I really don't get Mulholland Drive. Watched it twice and still don't get it. Then again, I don't think I've ever really 'got' any David Lynch films, but something continues to draw me to them. If anyone can shed some light on this one for me, please do so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOTR Fan Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 2001: A Space Odyssey. Cube 2 Evil Aliens. I don't get why they made the film... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma_Adams Posted April 19, 2008 Share Posted April 19, 2008 I HATE the shrek films, they are total rubbish. Give me lion king or aristorcats any day :) and forest gump...just no cloverfield looked a bit pants, but i didnt see it though- the adverts were making me sick just watching those XD i wouldnt have been able to get through the whole film with out getting motion sickness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators DavidB Posted April 19, 2008 Moderators Share Posted April 19, 2008 I really don't get Mulholland Drive. Watched it twice and still don't get it. Then again, I don't think I've ever really 'got' any David Lynch films, but something continues to draw me to them. If anyone can shed some light on this one for me, please do so! I always thought that was kinda the point most of the time with Lynch movies anyway lol I think they're far more fascinating if there's no finite explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now