re: Critically Acclaimed Movies That You Hate

quote:

---

What do you mean? Michael was supposed to be evil. That's the point of the final scene in Godfather 2. We are shown what Michael was before he was defiled by his chosen lifestyle.

"Michael Corleone. Will you be baptized"
"I will"

is one of the most devilishly ironic and crushing moments in movie history. It's such a complete apostacy. I love it.

---

We just read it differently. He doesn't "want" to do those things, he does them strictly out of necessity. He does know right from wrong, unlike some of his family, but he willfully does things anyone to keep their family business moving along. Is it evil? That's honestly debatable. Is he doing something he wants to do? No. There's always a sadness in Micheal, a regret, and although that would make him interesting in a general story, it doesn't for the fall.

quote:

---

What? Even if you despise the character, you can't really believe that. Michael's fall from grace is the central theme of both films, and the character development that leads to this is subtle and progressive, exactly what was needed.

---

Weak-willed, which makes him a weak character He would be interesting in another story (Godfather 2 is slightly better).

quote:

---

It's supposed to be. Are you a bible thumper or something?

---

No, but I've already admitted I'm old fashioned when it comes to art. Art that is made to be so revered has a certain responsibility, imo, to be morally sound. It has nothing to do with religion and more to do with the responsibility of the artist to the emotions he is trying to perceive.

If you don't care about that then you probably are ok with a lump of shite being art, honestly. (There's always the Socratic take that art for bad emotions is a good thing, I don't fall in that camp either)

quote:

---

The "glorification" of evil people. Again, I don't think your interpretation of the film is the prevailing opinion. To me, it's damning of the mob world. It illustrates how their actions are contrary to their own stated, most sacred values. "The family." Michael kills his own brother in the end of the 2nd one and the last we see of him, his eyes are black and his soul is completely corrupted.

---

I'm going to assume you haven't read the book? There's a big reason why the film is seen as the greatest thing of all-time, and the book is only referenced because of the movie. The book does the same thing, but....

The movie works because it makes a spectacle out of the idea it is trying to present. It's visually interesting because it is glamorizes that violence. It doesn't make it look damning at all. So by removing the necessity for someone to actually ponder a death, we get the "sad" death of Sonny set to classic music, as if we should lament him.

quote:

---

Like I said, I think you "dislike" it for the sake of disliking it.

---

And like I said, that's ridiculous, because that assumes that no one can dislike this film. So I SHOULD like it? I have no choice but to like it?

quote:

---

"Morality?" I've seen you post here for years, and I've never seen you give a shite about a film's "morality."

---

I have plenty of times, but...

If you want to start talking about Hostel or something, I'm all for it. For a movie that gets talked about a lot, it's the only one that is discussed at length, often, and wins all awards and is morally bankrupt from inception to release to interpretation. You should go back in time and read my write-up on The Godfather from the first MWADS, you'd get a better idea of my position, because I still don't think you understand.

(I think the artist WANTED to glorify mob life, so there's that. If you read the book, you'll know which one.)

quote:

---

That sounds like the excuse of a guy who can't come up with a plausible reason to say he dislikes a film (just for the frick of it), so he grasps for a straw that cannot be refuted.

---

As humans, and as taking a subjective stance on art, SOMETIMES it is difficult for us to articulate why we do or do not, like something. We've talked all this time about me not liking the film, while you've been exempt from explaining your side, so that's problem number one. Problem number 2, is that even if you CAN explain something, it will always be laced with your own experiences, it isn't fact (your assumption that I must like Godfather no matter what).

My opinion comes from two things after watching the film the first time:

1. The Godfather is a technically well made film with good performances
2. I thoroughly disliked (and was bored and troubled) while watching it

For me, and I've admitted, I try to approach films first with the artist's intentions in mind, second with the quality of how he or she hits that mark. Those are the two most important things for a film to do first (third would be how well it represents its form of art).

Those are facts, it isn't disliking to dislike. Seriously, that's a WEAK assessment of someone else's opinion.

So then what do I do? I try to figure out WHY. I go back to the characters I didn't care about, the visuals of the violence, the way I just got bored because it was impossible to care about the story., look at how the film situates itself in culture, etc. and find that these probably were (but may not be) the exact reasons why I disliked it.

You do the exact opposite, so while you find new ways and intricacies to enjoy the film, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T MEANT TO BE ENJOYABLE OR GREAT, I find other little things that I don't like or flat out despise. You may not be right, I may or may not be right, but that assessment is driven by our own personal view of the film itself and how we orient that with our beliefs about film. (How we assess those things is up to you, I start with the intent of the artist, I don't know where you do).

Yes, I think about these things. Coco will probably say it gets in the way of my enjoyment sometimes, maybe so.

I would assume, part of the reason we are all on this board is to talk through those things as a group in some instances (I'm not the only one disliking the Godfather anyway), that is he entire dialog around film, we are ever forming and reassessing the ways we come to our opinions or express our feelings about film. We also are better armed with rationalizations of others, and sometimes things make more sense.

The whole point, gain a better understanding of film.

quote:

---

I cannot debate your own personal "morality," ergo your position is inarguable.

It's thin and weak, and transparent.

---

And you're being a giant hypocrite, if my position is inarguable, then so is your view. Because you immediately assess me as "contrarian to be contrarian," and my position is "thin, weak, and transparent," then I also can't break out of that either, because I HAVE to like the film.

If I am contrarian to be contrarian then every word is laced with a lie, how can I argue that. Your assessment is that I'm a liar, no matter what, it doesn't even matter that I've admitted the film is well made. I didn't enjoy the experience, therefore I'm a liar. How can I argue against that?

And because of THAT approach to my OPINION (the question was "dislike, not is something a bad film) we've spent all this time talking about my opinion, and not even the film itself. Which could be read a number of ways (that you have no idea why the film is great, it just is, therefore people who don't like it are liars or stupid).

There's so much to discuss in this thread relative to the OP, but your Godfather discussion clearly attracts the most attention.

First of all, it is perfectly reasonable to criticize the film or even consider it a failure. As you say, one's appreciation of specific art is subjective.

My criticism of The Godfather is that, while visually stunning and technically well crafted, the film really consists of a series of discreet "set pieces" taken from the book. "Here's the scene where Michael gets hit in the face at the hospital", "Here's the scene where Sonny get's shot at the toll booth". I would have preferred a more flowing narrative that employed significant scenes from the book. And really, it is not wholly believable or realistic when it comes to the Mafia. It does tend to smooth over some pretty rough edges.

That said, I do enjoy the movie. It is a story of America and the family (with some fine performances). I view Michael's character differently, perhaps. Yes, in a sense he's forced into certain actions, but, rather than being weak, I think thats he takes action because of who he really is in spite of his initial denial of it. He's a ruthless Corleone who happens to be better educated and a war hero.

While I appreciate your point of view on a film having at least some positive moral point of view, it's simply not as critical to me that it do so in an obvious sense. I sort of enjoy moral ambiguity left up to the viewer.

quote:

---

And while I think there is a place for morally questionable films...like Requiem for a Dream, there's a point to the moral depravity, and it doesn't glamorize anything. In fact, it's a very obvious warning.

---

Agreed.

Films I do find disturbing, and this should be obvious to people . . . I hope . . ., are the gratuitously violent (with absolutely no redeeming qualities) recent vintage of horror films. Hostel, Saw and a host of others. Nothing but gore and torture with no point at all and a plots and motivations for the bad guy(s) that are just absurd if they exist at all.

quote:

---

all this talk in here, and no MWADS yet?

---

I am trying to do a large recount, which is taking lots of time.

No one talk about Godfather or Spielberg, then I can work.

Never mind. That was too much.

quote:

---

Regardless of how many poor, innocent little alphabetic characters sacrificed their lives in furtherance of your ridiculous opinions, you can no more command me not to like The Godfather than I can command you to like it.

---

No where in my own posts am I trying to get you to like the film. I'm more concerned with the opinion that anyone who doesn't like it is a liar or irrelevant or any of the other insults.

quote:

---

Fortunately, will power has nothing to do with character complexity.

---

But it has everything to do with character motivation.

quote:

---

No it doesn't. I hate this argument. This is the mentality that killed the Simpsons movie. Some frick (Al Gore) or group of fricks convince the artist that he/she has the "responsibility" to use their popularity to enlighten and inform, which, in the Simpsons case, had the effect of turning one of the richest tapestries of characters in TV history into a platform for their bullshite political propaganda. (hi VOR)

---

There's a difference between a moral responsibility and a political statement.

quote:

---

No, I disliked Prometheus. I've said so many times.

---

quote:

---

And don't pull rank on me. No. I did not read the book, but it's largely irrelevant. The book was created by one man, Mario Puzo. The film was created by a small army of individuals, admittedly working toward a common goal but each contributing their own personal flair and interpretation, on different levels. That's why their "adaptations" and not "transcripts."

---

Not trying to pull rank. Puzo was involved with the film as well.

quote:

---

No. I know WHAT your bizarre standards are. I'm just trying to figure out WHY they are, because they don't seem to have anything to do with the actual craft of film.

---

The technical craft of the film is perfectly fine. Great even, I won't argue there.

It's the narrative that is the problem.

quote:

---

I WASN'T AWARE THAT YOU WERE THE ORACLE FOR WHAT IS "MEANT TO BE ENJOYED" IN A FILM. By the way, that statement contradicts your assertion from 30 seconds ago that I've given no reasons why I like the film.

---

I'm not trying to be the authority, read that again. I'm saying that your continued intention to find good in the film will often lead you to gloss over the flaws. Just like my intention, because I didn't like the experience, will probably lead me to be over critical. We're human that's all I meant.

All we can do is take experience and try to get meaning out of it. The Godfather lacked any meaning to me, and it just wasn't any good in terms of moral choices, narrative, characters, etc. That's all. Everything else is fine.

quote:

---

No. It's that your reasons for not liking it seem contrived. But like I said, I can't make you like the film, and if you're reasons for not doing so are what you say they are, I suppose I have to take your word for it. It's not that I think you're standards aren't valid. I think that the interpretations that led to your opinion were wrong. I disagree about Michael, and I really disagree that Kay is the "closest thing" to a redeeming character. She kills the only "innocent" person in either film - her own child (and no, I'm not a pro-lifer). Your opinion (or at least, what I'm inferring) that "it's a good film but I disliked it and you don't understand the distinction" is flat wrong, and typically condescending of you.

---

quote:

---

It's because trolling is the official pastime of TD.com. I suppose that, technically, you're right when you suggest that I'm "calling you a liar," but I promise you, no such deep insult was ever intended.

---

So I'm being condescending? And deep insult was never intended, yet:

quote:

---

Perhaps this perceived shortcoming irritates your tediously particular, clinchy little butthole, but I've never heard it cited as a standard of character quality.

---

quote:

---

that you're being a contrarian a-hole with this statement, because the alternative is that your taste in film just sucks and is obscure just for the sake of being obscure. But pick your fight. I shall destroy you.

---

quote:

---

That's about the most pathetic reason I've ever heard (at least from a man) for not liking a movie

---

quote:

---

And yes, I take your disdain for the movie as contrarian for the sake of it.

---

I mean come on, this is a thread about, "disliking film." Not a thread about bad films. And you weren't being condescending?

quote:

---

No. It's that your reasons for not liking it seem contrived.

---

But your reasons for like the film aren't from my perspective?

Again the assumption then is that your opinion is 100% right and mine is wrong. That's what it seems like, I'm not supposed ti dislike the film? Right?

quote:

---

I didn't say that. I said that I doubted YOUR opinion was genuine because this site is filled with trolls. My mistake, but I still think your reasons for disliking it are illogical and strange.

Honestly, I really did think you were jerking me off and that your "reasons" were just random concepts that you pulled out of your arse.

---

Hence the whole thing about how we look at film. Grandiose maybe, but there was a point.

quote:

---

Sometimes, not always. Anyway, I disagree that he is "weak-willed." I think that Michael's will is the #1 driving force of both films.

---

I'd go the exact opposite. It is his lack of will driving the film. To each his own though.

quote:

---

It makes me care less about them, but to be honest, I dn't think these films have any flaws. Sorry if that makes me a mindless Godfather fanboy.

---

Fair enough. But that does frame your approach to someone else.

quote:

---

Please teach me about the complexities and mysteries of this big and scary world, oh wise sage.

---

Yeah more than a little grandiose. I apologize. But I really like that discussion...for another day.

quote:

---

But yeah, I wasn't behaving very well either.

---

The Lion King