Your LEAST favorite movies... time for a little levity I think

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2towers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What about the newish Exodus (reply to egretps)?
 
Last edited:
Hi. I mentioned it because you said that you’d seen (and walked out on) Noah. No, won’t watch either, for the same reason: if a film about an account from the Bible is to be made, then at the very least, ought it not be biblical.
 
Last edited:
It should be as close to the scripture as posibble, although I do think Cecil B. deMille made the crossing of the Red Sea spectacular! It might not have actually looked like that, but that was an artistic license that made sense.
 
Yes, I think the series got worse as it continued…I loved the Harry Potter books but I don’t’ think the movies did them justice when I see them now. The Hobbit was rather bloated to begin with…the book isn’t very long and they padded those movies with so much fluff and stuff from Tolkien’s other sources that it wasn’t just about Bilbo anymore…
 
Stephen King’s IT really drags and isn’t very scary or memorable. It has John Ritter (Jack Tripper from Three’s Company) and Richard Thomas (John Boy from The Waltons) which kind of kills the scariness, and Tim Curry is really over the top as an evil clown.
 
Last edited:
How about the sword held, as displayed on the front cover of the DVD?
 
Wolf Creek. A friend asked me to watch it and I felt obligated to see it through til the end.

The Lobster. I know it’s well rated but it really wasn’t my thing.

…and Fateful Findings 😉
 
“Terms of Endearment,” which I only watched because I had to. Two hour soaking bloody wounds in alcohol would have been preferable.
 
As much as I enjoy the J.R.R. Tolkien books, I winced at parts of Peter Jackson’s film interpretation of Lord of the Rings. And I still have not watched the third part of the Wellywood Hobbit series.

Jackson may have fallen in love with his own vision. Here’s an example called In Defense of Denethor that shows Tolkien’s skill and subtlety. I can understand if Jackson & Company did not have time to show that Denethor was actually doing a decent job of ruling his country – but I do not understand why they found the time to portray a version who was ruling downright stupidly and badly. It really changes the tenor of the books if we pay attention. Before he died, Denethor said “the enemy has found it.” Tolkien meant that Denethor looked into the palantir, saw Frodo in prison, and died. It never occurred to Denethor that Sam might have the Ring, or that the Quest would go on. In like manner, I wonder if Peter Jackson really “got” some aspects of Tolkien’s more complex characters.

Even if they had triumphed, Denethor did not want to drudge for his living in his old age, serving a king who has no experience anything except war, courtship, and poetry. Denethor probably would have had to go on running the currency, fixing the roads, and compensating for bad harvests just like he always did, but without the autonomy and authority he had before. Just because Aragorn is the legal king doesn’t mean he has a clue. That’s what he would have underlings like Denethor do for him. I would expect Denethor to leave for, say Eregion and build a nation-state of fellow complainers. A small nation, but all theirs.

And that’s just one character Jackson mis-handled. So when I saw the direction The Hobbit was taking, I just couldn’t watch it all. I like the actors and wish they had the original material.

And the direction of Narnia 3 also struck me as going the wrong way. I get it, they were talking about Temptation (in big letters, so we would see it). But I think C.S. Lewis could be subtle too, and I miss that.

BTW, John “Denethor” Noble has been cast as Sherlock Holmes’ father in the TV series Elementary. Look for him this season. And the NarniaWeb forums have details on the new Narnia movie. Douglas Gresham (stepson of C.S. Lewis) is involved with the franchise.

EDIT: I forgot, because I wanted to forget. The bunny sled! the bunny sled! 😖
 
Last edited:
The_Old_Maid said:
As much as I enjoy the J.R.R. Tolkien books, I winced at parts of Peter Jackson’s film interpretation of Lord of the Rings . And I still have not watched the third part of the Wellywood Hobbit series.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are certain issues I have with his movies as well…The Two Towers was particularly affected with problems. Wellywood…LOL! never heard that but it’s quite an accurate description!
The_Old_Maid said:
In like manner, I wonder if Peter Jackson really “got” some aspects of Tolkien’s more complex characters.
Click to expand...
I think they had to dial it down for the masses…lots of people never read the book so for them I think they needed to simplify things.
The_Old_Maid said:
So when I saw the direction The Hobbit was taking, I just couldn’t watch it all. I like the actors and wish they had the original material.
Click to expand...
The only Hobbit film that I find watchable at all is the first. For me, I really like the nostalgia of seeing Frodo and old Bilbo at the beginning.
 
pnewton said:
“Terms of Endearment,” which I only watched because I had to. Two hour soaking bloody wounds in alcohol would have been preferable.
Click to expand...
We used to call these type movies, suicide movies. Like listening to the “Best of Bread.” [the group]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top