Films you've turned on

[DotheBartman]

Sorta simple. Everyone's probably had some movies that they initially thought were good, perhaps great, and then eventually turned on for whatever reason. And your choices can have whatever reasoning, though it would be especcially interesting to see some examples having to do with handling or general accuracy of some topic (perhaps a historical topic) and coming to like the movie less after learning something more concrete about it.

So, any examples? What films did you think were really good, and eventually came to not care for or even despise?

[Jolly Bengali]

Excellent thread.

Donnie Darko I turned on because I saw it three times in two weeks, and right around when I bunch of people I hated started hyping it. Can't see past the flaws anymore.

For historical inaccuracies, that ruined JFK, Platoon, Gandhi, and many others that I initially liked but turned on once I thought about it practically or researched. Apocalypse Now even got hurt as a bystander in the Vietnam War film accuracy problems.

I'm in a slow, gradual turn on Return of the Jedi, since I still find it so littered with problems, and Revenge of the Sith, which will eventually be my least favorite movie due to the dialogue but is still staying strong with the visual amazingness.

Really turned on Spider-Man, can't stand it anymore.

I'll think of more later.

[pat]

napoleon dynamite
napoleon dynamite
napoleon dynamite

liked it the first time i saw it... but i seriously can't see how anyone can watch it more than three times and not get tired of it.

[billi vanilli]

the eleventh pokemon movie.
ernest goes to the proctologist.
dry paint: the movie!
tony danza's paintball x-travaganza!!
necromancer does dallas
jeb bush: a life in pictures.
want some candy little boy?: an introduction to the wonderful world of nambla

etc etc etc

[mickg2928]

napoleon dynamite. yeah i thought the movie would actually have a point... it was horible. few funny parts like when the uncle guy said "i bet u that i can flick this over the mountains" lol

[DotheBartman]

Excellent thread.

For historical inaccuracies, that ruined JFK, Platoon, Gandhi, and many others that I initially liked but turned on once I thought about it practically or researched. Apocalypse Now even got hurt as a bystander in the Vietnam War film accuracy problems.



I knew you'd post, since you had posted about that topic before...I'd be interested in some elaboration on the Vietnam films, incidentally.

In the meantime, I'll post my pick: RAIN MAN.
I can certainly elaborate further....but suffice to say that when you basically spend several months of your life researching Autism in depth, writing papers on it and doing presentations, meeting actual autistic people, etc etc.....there's basically no way that this film isn't going to drop a lot in one's esteem of it, especcially when it becomes clear that the film's impact has in many ways been significantly less than positive. And the lesson learned is to pretty much never trust any hollywood film about a mental disorder, because I'm sure Rain Man is hardly the only problematic example.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

man, this thread is horrible for me...i usually don't change my mind on most movies. either it sits well with me the first time around, or it doesn't. then, it tends to stay that way. i guess the best example i can think of is punch-drunk love. can't stand it anymore.

[Son of Bomber]

I haven't exactly 'turned' on the films of Quentin Tarantino, they still kick ass, but I find them less appealing as I get older. I mean, I though the man was god when I first witnessed Pulp Fiction. And I used to quote it ad nauseum...I guess it's more of a need to forget how retarded I must've sounded. My Sam Jackson impression isn't exactly top notch...

[Jolly Bengali]

I knew you'd post, since you had posted about that topic before...I'd be interested in some elaboration on the Vietnam films, incidentally.


Here goes...

I basically decided to write a very long thesis paper on Vietnam War films and their effect on people's perceptions of the war... and I found that, authenticity or realism-wise, all the Vietnam War films are bullshit. Almost entirely down the line - Coming Home, the Green Berets, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, The Deer Hunter, Born on the Fourth of July, etc., etc. - they all have huge inaccuracies. And since it's the best source most people have for learning about the Vietnam War or getting impressions of it, they've turned untruths into conventional wisdom.

To just point out the 3 most important Vietnam films - The Deer Hunter came from a Life Magazine article on Russian roulette, and the creators were so obsessed with making it a "romantic" film that they didn't even film the Appalachian mountains for the shots of the Appalachian mountains - they weren't viewed as picture-esque enough. It collapses events to a ridiculous extent; also interesting to note that there has been no real reports of Russian roulette from the entire Vietnam War. Platoon has its great little last-stand Alamo, but that's completely unrealistic - the U.S. army was very conscious of how casulaties made them look, they would have moved all the troops out. Also, it contributed to the stereotype of every soldier out to frag their C.O., when actual intra-company kill rates were on par with World War II. Apocalypse Now gets the least credit off because it's so obviously not supposed to be tethered to the real world, but its iconography has become synonymous with the war in a lot of people's minds, and yet everything about it regarding the war is speculative nonsense from Coppola about what he thought the war meant, devised while he was in the middle of a nervous breakdown.

The films have no resemblance to the actual conflict, and they have a lot of important things to say about human nature and a lot of accomplished artistic moments, but at the end of the day they're exploiting the Vietnam War in order to draw the viewer in and then presenting a story that bears little resemblance to the actual conduct of the war. Never say "Vietnam" or put a year on the story and these would be excellent films; as they are, they're a disservice to popular historical understanding, and they coast on the "Vietnam" angle.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

but then, to be fair to the otherside, how many of the directors were out to make their films as historically accurate as possible? to a certain degree, shouldn't you blame the viewer of the film for accepting the story itself as a truth to the war? the vietnam war, from a historical research perspective, is one of the most easily accesible and well documented events of the last century, or ever. if a common movie-goer is just going to walk into it and accept the film as a fair historical representation of the war, the director can't be (entirely) faulted for that. it's at least as (and in my view, far more) socially irresponsible to take a piece of hollywood work as your source for historical information. that said, yes, directors probably should do a better job of addressing such inaccuracies, but he can't be held accountable for the willful ignorance of his audience either.

unrelated: i've heard that, although suicide rates were higher immediately following the war, that the average vietnam veteran did not have terrible difficulty being reintroduced into civilian life or high rates of suicide in the long run. does your research show anything one way or the other on that?

[Tomacco]

I know I've done this before, but am having trouble remembering for what...

Oh yeah, I somewhat enjoy Wedding Crashers when I saw it, but the more the whole world talked about how it was the funniest thing ever, and started reciting scenes back and forth, the more I started to get really sick of it. Extreme praise that's given to certain things sometimes blows my mind.

[Jolly Bengali]

but then, to be fair to the otherside, how many of the directors were out to make their films as historically accurate as possible? to a certain degree, shouldn't you blame the viewer of the film for accepting the story itself as a truth to the war? the vietnam war, from a historical research perspective, is one of the most easily accesible and well documented events of the last century, or ever. if a common movie-goer is just going to walk into it and accept the film as a fair historical representation of the war, the director can't be (entirely) faulted for that. it's at least as (and in my view, far more) socially irresponsible to take a piece of hollywood work as your source for historical information. that said, yes, directors probably should do a better job of addressing such inaccuracies, but he can't be held accountable for the willful ignorance of his audience either.

unrelated: i've heard that, although suicide rates were higher immediately following the war, that the average vietnam veteran did not have terrible difficulty being reintroduced into civilian life or high rates of suicide in the long run. does your research show anything one way or the other on that?

There is that, but the directors are also in complete denial. Coppola claimed his was film "was Vietnam". Cimino got in heated arguments about how his film was about larger truths and brushed off any criticism of the factual inaccuracies/racism. Stone is Stone, and would never admit that he did anything wrong. So I don't think they even realized what they were doing; they had a story to tell and they chose to use Vietnam to tell it, and they lost sight of the realities of what they were dealing with to a large extent. The viewer has a responsibility, yes, but a lot of this was easy stuff to get right that they got wrong, being presented by the directors as pure truth and billed by the media as "realistic."

I wasn't focusing on that last bit, but what I did see seemed to indicate that the "reintroduction" films were just as inaccurate as the war films, so I'd assume they over-exaggerated the difficulties and veterans had a better time of it than might be expected. "Working-Class War" by Christian Appy (if I'm remembering his name right) would have more information on that.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

all fair enough.

however, it begs the fairly legitimate, yet almost argumentative question: why can't a level-headed, normal human being make a vietnam movie?

[Son of Bomber]

There are plenty of balanced and accurate documentaries including Peter Davis' much lauded Hearts and Minds about 'nam. If I'm watching a fictional story set in reality I'll assume they've taken some liberties and explored the extent of their artistic license in depicting an actual event. They're being assholes though when they say things like 'It was Vietnam.'

[George]

Spiderman, along with most comicbook to film movies.
Taylor of Panama
6th Sense
5th Element
and many, many more from my earlier childhood.

[gravymaster]

napoleon dynamite
napoleon dynamite
napoleon dynamite

liked it the first time i saw it... but i seriously can't see how anyone can watch it more than three times and not get tired of it.
Boooooo! I think it gets better each time I watch it. I find new things that make me laugh about it.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

There are plenty of balanced and accurate documentaries including Peter Davis' much lauded Hearts and Minds about 'nam. If I'm watching a fictional story set in reality I'll assume they've taken some liberties and explored the extent of their artistic license in depicting an actual event. They're being assholes though when they say things like 'It was Vietnam.'i should have been more specific, then. i meant fictional movies based in vietnam. i've seen a ton of great documentaries on the film, but never a film that was both good AND accurate from a non-objective director. perhaps my life goal will now be to make such a film, with research input from JB, who needs to get to work on this immediately.

edit: napoelon dynamite has been the same everytime i've seen it...horrible.

[gravymaster]

Vote for President Logan.

[Adamm R)))]

Scary Movie 2. I can't see how I liked that at first. Dodgeball and Shawn of the Dead are the other way around for me.

[StrideR]

Mortal Kombat. Throw in Street Fighter for good measure.

I hope no explanation is necessary.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

explanation necessary: how did you ever like them to begin with?

[Wonderboy]

Batman Begins
X2: X-Men United
Spider-Man 2
Napoleon Dynamite: I didn't feel any hateness or likeness towards the movie after I saw it, but, then it became increasingly annoying as it got more popular. Yes, sadly, popularity does tend to have that effect on me.

[Moose of Doom!]

Hook.

I watched it for the first time in 9 years last week and it was like stabbing a part of my childhood.

[Talking Pie]

Hook.

I watched it for the first time in 9 years last week and it was like stabbing a part of my childhood.

I used to like that movie and even taped it when it made it's exclusive pay tv premiere on Showtime when I was in 6th grade.

any Ernest movie
There's Something About Mary
Austin Powers
Ace Ventura

Were it not for a certain actress in the movie, I would agree with Tomacco on Wedding Crashers. The jokes get kind of old after a few viewings.

[mr. broom]

explanation necessary: how did you ever like them to begin with?
Weren't you ever twelve? This is why I make it a point not to revisit films I really liked as a kid, particularly action-oriented ones or comedies. The coefficient of disillusionment is huge.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

yeah, i was a kid once, and i liked bad movies, i'm sure. but i was still capable of at least recognizing THOSE films as godawful beyond redemption. my friends loved them, and i hated them for some reason.

i also make the point not to see childhood movies again, but i'd have to think for a bit to come up with some titles worth mentioning.

[My Little Needle]

wild wild west used to be my favorite movie. no joke.

today i hang my head in shame.

[kuumuus]

http://www.osobnosti.cz/images/popisky/18.jpg

more like an avalanche of shit

[skittlebrau]

http://online.swank.com/publicity/synopsis/images/forrestgump.jpg

Still a decent film, but it wears thin as you get older. Plus, viewing The Shawshank Redemption later in life gives you a hatred toward this movie for beating out Shawshank for Best Picture.

[America: Fuck Yea!]

I basically decided to write a very long thesis paper on Vietnam War films and their effect on people's perceptions of the war...

This is VERY Very different. People's perceptions are very hard to understand and little can be blamed on art. It sounds like you are transferring a chip.

and I found that, authenticity or realism-wise, all the Vietnam War films are bullshit. Almost entirely down the line - Coming Home, the Green Berets, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, The Deer Hunter, Born on the Fourth of July, etc., etc. - they all have huge inaccuracies.

Are you talking about the fact that some films might have a guy holding a M16 instead or an M40? What kind of inaccuracies? For example, nothing in my research indicates that anything in the Deer Hunter happened and that Russian Roulette in Vietnam was a farce. Does that make the emotional accuracy and the portrayal of the destruction of a small working class community in Penna any less valuable? Not at all.

And since it's the best source most people have for learning about the Vietnam War or getting impressions of it, they've turned untruths into conventional wisdom.

First of all, Film made 20 years after-the-fact is not the best way to learn about the war. I would suggest visiting you local library. And if people are taking half-truths away, that is there own problem. You seem to be laying basic human stupidity at the door of director's who just want to make a film.

To just point out the 3 most important Vietnam films - The Deer Hunter came from a Life Magazine article on Russian roulette, and the creators were so obsessed with making it a "romantic" film that they didn't even film the Appalachian mountains for the shots of the Appalachian mountains

What does the second part of this sentence have to do with the first part?

:Redherring

- they weren't viewed as picture-esque enough.

How does this impact the film differently? Especially since you are focusing on people to lazy to do research anyway?

It collapses events to a ridiculous extent; also interesting to note that there has been no real reports of Russian roulette from the entire Vietnam War.

Agreed. Welcome to film. I would love to hear your take on the Western now. and Sci-fi.

Platoon has its great little last-stand Alamo, but that's completely unrealistic - the U.S. army was very conscious of how casulaties made them look, they would have moved all the troops out. Also, it contributed to the stereotype of every soldier out to frag their C.O., when actual intra-company kill rates were on par with World War II.

Wow... I don't know how to approach this one.

You seem to be taking one example and applying it universally. Where I might watch this movie and take it as a singular event, you do the reaching for the audience and complain about it. And while I won't agree about you civilian point, there is plenty of evidence explaining the contrary as well. This was the first war with the media directly involved. It was a learning period for the media and military. The generals didn't take the casuality level in as much regard as you might think. it was a messy war, and to not understand both sides is ignorant.
and you mention Inter-company disputes and try to shrug off the problem with the logical fallacy of two-wrongs-making-a-right... sorry, it doesn't work. No one is claiming that WWII was a rainbows and unicorns struggle or that Vietnam was the only evil war. One doesn't justify the other. Both wars had this problem and I don't see your point. it just seems that you are afraid of the audience making assumptions which isn't anyone's problem.

Apocalypse Now gets the least credit off because it's so obviously not supposed to be tethered to the real world, but its iconography has become synonymous with the war in a lot of people's minds, and yet everything about it regarding the war is speculative nonsense from Coppola about what he thought the war meant, devised while he was in the middle of a nervous breakdown.


1. Apocalypse Now gets the least credit off because it's so obviously not supposed to be tethered to the real world.

Correct. It is a surrealistic film based on an event and rooted in the themes written 100 years ago by Conrad. The themes don't change from war to war. The themes ARE the war and Coppola was making that point. War is hell and hell is war. The themes deal with humanity which have been around for thousands of years.

2. but its iconography has become synonymous with the war in a lot of people's minds

I need a source for people pointing to AN as how war is in realistic terms.

3. and yet everything about it regarding the war is speculative nonsense from Coppola about what he thought the war meant.

The actual plot is bullshit. You are right. Nothing like that happened in the war. Where did Coppola say it was a true story. His theory of film was convey an emotion and I think he did a great job. You are blurring lines: speculative nonsense in the dynamics of war, or what guns people were using and the formations that used?

4. devised while he was in the middle of a nervous breakdown.

He actually had this during the latter half of filming 5 years after he conceived the idea for the film.


The films have no resemblance to the actual conflict,

Agreed... Only a dumbass would think so.

and they have a lot of important things to say about human nature and a lot of accomplished artistic moments,

Now you might be getting it.

but at the end of the day they're exploiting the Vietnam War in order to draw the viewer in

ahhh... this argument. I would love for you to point out any 3 war films not exploiting a specific war. In fact, point out any three films that don't exploit anything.

and then presenting a story that bears little resemblance to the actual conduct of the war. Never say "Vietnam" or put a year on the story and these would be excellent films; as they are, they're a disservice to popular historical understanding, and they coast on the "Vietnam" angle.

It is a way to connect to people personally without insulting their intelligence. People connect to Vietnam (b/c 1/2 their friends came home in a box) and it is easy to show a point using that war and create a better understanding of humanity.

How many people connected with Troy? it isn't easy, people are idiots (which I believe may be your point), so directors have to use what is afforded to them.

There is that, but the directors are also in complete denial. Coppola claimed his was film "was Vietnam".

then you are simply missing the point. He doesn't mean that the film was an Accurate portrayal of the war, He never meant that, he means that the emotional level of conscience that the film displayed WAS the war to most people (and it was). That movie could have been about a Roman Legion or the 2nd Gulf War and it wouldn't have changed a thing. You seem to be more about proving the inaccuracies of "after-the-fact" to discredit the original intent.

AN is about emotion, not explosions or dates.

Cimino got in heated arguments about how his film was about larger truths and brushed off any criticism of the factual inaccuracies/racism. Stone is Stone, and would never admit that he did anything wrong. So I don't think they even realized what they were doing; they had a story to tell and they chose to use Vietnam to tell it, and they lost sight of the realities of what they were dealing with to a large extent.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant...

The viewer has a responsibility, yes, but a lot of this was easy stuff to get right that they got wrong, being presented by the directors as pure truth and billed by the media as "realistic."

Please link to sources where director's make this claim. and then define "realistic"... Then cite 3 war films that are realistic. Just to use Coppola, he never said that his film was an accurate portrayal of the Vietnam war, his film was the "mood" of the war (which my own relatives have said it was spot-on).


JB, I respect you and I love hearing what you have to say, but this seems really concocted...You have a right to your opinion, but I don't know why you are holding certain movies to higher standards than other movies.

but I digress.

[Oldie Hawn]

Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead:

I loved that movie the first few times I watched it. Then it just got boring. The romantic subplot between Andy Garcia and Gabrielle Anwar was so unnecessary (the gangster stuff was good enough). I wish they'd spent more time on the stuff Jimmy the Saint did prior to becoming a wuss.

Zoolander:

I remember that when I saw it in the theatre, I laughed so much. But second time, I didn't like it at all. And after that, I just kept hating it

Cable Guy:

I hated it the first time. I loved it every time after that....I think the first time, it was just so frustrating because all these bad things kept happening to Matt Broderick. Then, after just loosening up a bit, it's a funny movie.

[brockman1988]

-Back to the Future sequels
-Star Wars prequels

[Sideshow Joe]

the three new Star Wars

[Ihaveblink]

Spider-Man

[kevin]

Still a decent film, but it wears thin as you get older. Plus, viewing The Shawshank Redemption later in life gives you a hatred toward this movie for beating out Shawshank for Best Picture.

agreed, but substitute pulp fiction/ed wood for shawshank

[The mayor of Albuquerque]

Reservoir Dogs. I just don't care for macho guy with gun vs macho guy with gun movies anymore.

[gravymaster]

Lawnboyjoe with the longest rebuttal EVER.

[moonwalker69]

Napoleon Dynamite

Just gets worse and worse everytime I see it.

Centre Stage

Although I'm a dancer, a huge fan of all dance (including ballet) and own this DVD...I can't help but feel like it's wearing thin on me. Still good, just hasn't got the same impact.

Shrek

Probably just the over-hype and popularity, yet the movie just doesn't deliver anymore or gives us any reason to go back.

[Toli]

Team America was fucking hilarious when I first saw it then became unfunny on repeated viewings. I swear when I first saw it I was laughing for about 20 minutes after exiting the cinema.

[StrideR]

yeah, i was a kid once, and i liked bad movies, i'm sure. but i was still capable of at least recognizing THOSE films as godawful beyond redemption. my friends loved them, and i hated them for some reason.

i also make the point not to see childhood movies again, but i'd have to think for a bit to come up with some titles worth mentioning.

Cut me some slack... given the slate of movies I had access to at the time, MK and Street Fighter weren't so bad.

[Dead Nigga Storage]

you get a free pass if we ignore the fact that 11-year-old-me liked "volcano"

[Jamie]

Most if not all of Kevin Smith's output

[Veryjammy]

Sixth Sense, mainly because it makes absolutely no sense on repeated viewings. Any time I've tried to watch the film again I've just sat there picking apart the whole thing.

[Gatorgod]

Pirates of the Caribbean, liked it at first. Probably cause i was with a group of my goofing', laff'n, fidgeting friends. ...Now that I try and watch it by myself at home, I'm to busy Fidgeting, Laughing, & goofing on everything on the toy shelf to pay attention to the tube. ...I should invite the folks to watch with me. They force me to pay attention :boggled:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/gatorgod/GatorLaffen.gif
But StarShip Troopers!? ...For some reason I can sit transfixed and watch that DVD from start to Finish. Not sure why?

[Samuel L Bronkowitz]

there's probably alot of "better" choices I could pick if I think about it for awhile, but the first movie that sprung to mind was Back To School.......LOVED it when I was younger, but not so much after a recent viewing.