Flawed or Just Plain Horrible Movies

[Katuko]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Somehow this movie has decent ratings. I know that it is supposed to be a semi-documentary about Jesse James' life, but it manages to be both kinda boring and kinda hilariously awkward at the same time. I blame that on having Brad Pitt play Jesse James. He has a tendency to play somewhat weird characters.I think the thing I didn't like was mostly how there is no sense of the regular drama progression in this movie. I never felt any true tension or relief from the action that happened. It was grim and realistic, perhaps, I liked that part, but it did not appeal to me as a movie. For example: At one point two people end up in a shootout, wielding old pistols at close range. With such bad guns, they get some shots off before one of them eats a bullet to the brain. Down he goes. Then they dump him in the river. I still don't remember who he was or why I should care about that character. Spoiler alert: The so-called assassination of Jesse James goes the same way. After several really awkward scenes where they talk with Brad Pitt in a quiet setting and he has this forced American laugh that implies "I will kill you and your entire family if you cross me", Ford just kinda decides to kill him. And then James makes a big show out of pointing out how a certain painting seems to hang a bit on edge, and he goes over to it, proceeding to spend a looong time adjusting it... at which point Ford shoots him from behind. Down goes Jesse James. Hardly even an assassination.Follow by too many scenes (IMHO) after the kill, wherein Ford is called out for being cowardly, how he protests the murder and says he had no choice, and I seem to recall he gets killed for it in the end. Dunno, I had lost interest at that point.Long story short: The movie presents everything in a matter-of-factly documentary way, but since it is presented and acted like a drama film it just seems to lack anything that holds interest.

[Vorahk1Panrahk2]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Somehow this movie has decent ratings. I know that it is supposed to be a semi-documentary about Jesse James' life, but it manages to be both kinda boring and kinda hilariously awkward at the same time. I blame that on having Brad Pitt play Jesse James. He has a tendency to play somewhat weird characters.I think the thing I didn't like was mostly how there is no sense of the regular drama progression in this movie. I never felt any true tension or relief from the action that happened. It was grim and realistic, perhaps, I liked that part, but it did not appeal to me as a movie. For example: At one point two people end up in a shootout, wielding old pistols at close range. With such bad guns, they get some shots off before one of them eats a bullet to the brain. Down he goes. Then they dump him in the river. I still don't remember who he was or why I should care about that character. Spoiler alert: The so-called assassination of Jesse James goes the same way. After several really awkward scenes where they talk with Brad Pitt in a quiet setting and he has this forced American laugh that implies "I will kill you and your entire family if you cross me", Ford just kinda decides to kill him. And then James makes a big show out of pointing out how a certain painting seems to hang a bit on edge, and he goes over to it, proceeding to spend a looong time adjusting it... at which point Ford shoots him from behind. Down goes Jesse James. Hardly even an assassination.Follow by too many scenes (IMHO) after the kill, wherein Ford is called out for being cowardly, how he protests the murder and says he had no choice, and I seem to recall he gets killed for it in the end. Dunno, I had lost interest at that point.Long story short: The movie presents everything in a matter-of-factly documentary way, but since it is presented and acted like a drama film it just seems to lack anything that holds interest.

 

Ouch- shame you didn't like it. I'd easily put it in my top four favorites of all time, but I guess we all have different opinions. It's certainly not a movie for everyone.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Vorahk1Panrahk2

[Katuko]

Ouch- shame you didn't like it. I'd easily put it in my top four favorites of all time, but I guess we all have different opinions. It's certainly not a movie for everyone.

To me it felt like it tried to be half documentary and half drama movie, but without the main features that makes both of them what they are.Tarantino films as well give off the same vibe to me. They are described as having "non-linear storylines" and "neo-noir" feeling, but often they just fall flat for me because I don't see what emotion they are trying to evoke in me. Like, Inglorious Basterds. The trailers made it seem like a film where overly American heroes run-n-gun their way through WW2-era Germany, with humor packed in everywhere. The actual movie starts off with a very realistic take on Jew extermination, followed by some Brad Pitt in his usual insane character roles. Then it swings back and forth between no particular focus. Sometimes it is deadly serious, before it swings right back to bizarre humor. The end comes with both at the same time; a striking and valiant effort by a lone woman to end the war by assassinating all of the enemy's top officers... before two assassins from the other group of main characters shoot Hitler in the face about 50 million times in what I can only assume was supposed to be hilariously over-the-top.Another film that couldn't decide what it wanted to be, I felt, and even if that was the point I don't think coin-flip mood is the best way to do it. I mean, you have this ultra-serious setting for most of the world, and then you drop Brad Pitt in there with an entirely unconvincing accent and out of place laughter. I know this is just how Tarantino does things, but his particular blend serious/humor did not work for me at all in this film.Assassination was not directed by Tarantino as far as I know, but I believe that half the problems I had with that film stems from Brad Pitt as Jesse too, as far as I can remember. Plus, the plot summation on Wikipedia makes it look a heck of a lot more coherent than the plot actually appeared on-screen, I would say. I also agree with some of the criticisms that the film was simply too long and drawn-out for what it was.I did like the comment made about James deliberately setting up his own death in that last scene of his. If that was the case, that the intention was that he knew he couldn't get away from sheriffs and sell-out gang members anymore, then the scene does get a little lift in my eye; but it's still long and awkward and you never get any real insight into what the Jesse James character is supposed to be thinking.

[Vorahk1Panrahk2]

I dislike Tarantino for similar reasons- I just can't figure out what I'm supposed to be taking from his films. Although I chock that up to being more of an issue with my own tastes rather than the quality of the movie. His movies certainly have their audience, I'm just not in it. It doesn't seem like you are, either, since the criticisms you mentioned are Tarantino staples. Although aside from Brad Pitt being in Assassination and Inglorious, I don't really see a connection between them, technically or stylistically. I do have to say, though, that I thought Brad Pitt gave one of his best performances in Assassination. I really don't like him much as an actor, but I think he did a great job portraying a man who, to use a cliche, just climbed too high.

 

For your primary issue (documentary versus drama), I don't really have a response to that. Yes it's a biopic and a drama at the same time, but I personally don't see how that's an issue. I suppose if the movie were intended to be a play-it-straight History Channel program, then, yes, inserting dramatic reenactments would be terrible (as History Channel tends to do). But it's a Hollywood film so, again, I don't see an issue.

 

So yeah. I guess it all comes down to personal preference, which is great. It's why we have so many unique movies in the world. As for length, well, I'm still waiting for the three hour director's cut.

[Krana Za]

Aliens vs Zombies: The Dark Lurking. It's just horrible. The CGI is not good, the plot is created by someone who did some illegal stuff with drugs and the acting is horrifying. >

[Toa Zaz]

 

Iron Man 3. Jeez, I don't think I could ever watch it again. It was the worst comic book movie since X3: The Last Stand.

 

Here are the problems:

 

- There was no Mandarin. It was that loser Killian the whole time. There is no comic book fan who has any sort of admiration or respect for Killian. But Mandarin is a freaking awesome character, and he would have become ever MORE awesome with Ben Kingsley's amazing performance. But the Mandarin turned out to be a weirdo named Trevor. And the world wept.

 

- Tony blew up all his suits. Why? Is his brain broken?

 

- Tony got the stuff from his heart removed. Which was reported as impossible by the other two movies. That means this movie effectively killed Iron Man.

 

- Why does Tony have panic attacks? It's never explained.

 

- Where's S.H.I.E.L.D. this whole time?

 

- Pepper now has super powers. Now that's just ridiculous. She should join the Avengers.

 

-I totally agree, that completely ruined the movie for me. But remember, China helped fund this movie. Therefore, a Yellow Peril Mandarin (as in, the awesome, very Chinese Mandarin) would have severely upset their funders, and therefore, they had to be creative. And that's why it sucks.

 

-Supposedly so he can focus on Pepper...except every single person in this world and arguably all the other worlds know that Tony Stark is Iron Man. Regardless of the presence or lack thereof of his suits, they will try their darndest to kill him. So yes, his brain is totally busted, thanks to a certain redhead.

 

-Yes, this is a blatant disregard for what the other movies said. However, it is the more realistic option. There's very little medicine can't do, but the universe already established that they were irremovable. What I want to know is what they did with the gaping hole in his chest. His sternum would be in two pieces, so he'd need pretty much a new ribcage, as well as several square inches of skin. But it didn't kill Iron Man. The suits are almost entirely self-powered. The early ones may have connected to his chest reactor, but all later ones are self-sustaining. That's how they operate on their own, or on someone without a reactor.

 

-It's PTSD from nearly dying in New York, that's what the flashbacks make clear. He's haunted by the events of the Avengers, and he keeps having flashbacks. He feels insecure without his armor, which is an interesting throwback to one storyline I remember, where Rhodey falls in the water in a powerless War Machine, and he almost drowns. From then on, he feels completely insecure while he's IN the armor.

 

-That's an excellent question, I can't remember them being in the movie at all. Maybe Captain America 2 will answer that for us. But it could be that terrorism isn't SHIELD's field, just like the FDA doesn't deal with cars or buildings.

 

-It's clearly a throwback to Rescue, but making Tony the damsel in distress that Pepper saves was a really poor move.

 

In the end, Iron Man 3 neutered every single awesome character, from the Mandarin to Tony, Rhodey to Pepper...I'll rewatch it on DVD, but I doubt I'll like it any more.

 

...Incidentally, Iron Man 3 is a pretty flawed movie.

 

No, a racist caricature of a Chinese man as a villain, like in the comics, would offend any sensible person, not just Chinese audiences. But, they still could have done like other Iron Man adaptations and had a politically correct incarnation of the character that resembled the supervillain version; so I agree what they did in the movie was bad.

[Klak]

Those Titanic animated films. Thankfully I've only watched Nostalgia Critic reviews of it.

 

 

[Dapper-Sama]

Sharknado. Nothing needs to be said.

[Wyrd Bid Ful Araed]

I can't think of any I've seen recently, but I remember not really liking The Artist despite it being a critical darling. There's a line where the female protagonist claims something along the lines of "silent movies are just a lot of gurning at the camera" and it did feel like thats what it was doing. No subtlety just a lot of big obvious statements. "Look", the movie says, "We're going to intersperse a montage of the male protagonist failing in an age of sound with cuts from his latest movie where he's sinking in quicksand! Do you get it! Because he's sinking in real life! We're making a point, do you get it! We're clever!"

Also, too inconsistent with its own rules of how sound was and wasn't used for dramatic effect.

 

 

And I agree with Katuko in disliking Inglorious. A schizophrenic mess that couldn't decide what it wanted to be that left me vaguely rooting for the Nazis. No film should do that. Honestly I think it would have worked so much better if it had just cut out the Basterds, stuck with that French cinema owner and her surrounding plots.

 

 

Oh and The Matrix (yes, the first one) is vastly overrated. Just throwing that out there

Edited November 25, 2013 by More Fierce Than Fire

[CHTrilogy]

I remember seeing the 2003 version of The Cat in the Hat when I was little. I didn't get many of the jokes back then, but now I'm older... I have to say, it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life! Somehow it even hypnotised my sister into thinking the SLOW was in the book somewhere!!

 

Jim Carrey's The Grinch was far better - and a lot more dignified!

Edited November 26, 2013 by CHTrilogy

[Timelady Gallade]

Sharkboy and Lavagirl. So. Darn. Cheesy. Also, the main villain. Ew. A face in the middle of its robtic torso with claw arms. O.O