John Waters' "Pink Flamingoes". I've only seen bits of it but they were weird, dumb, amateurish and gross. His films got better and remarkably more coherent over time, but "Pink Flamingoes" really set the bar very low.
Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" was another stinker.
I generally agree. I liked Fury Road and it did have an epic kind of feel to it. I think it was because most of it was real effects instead of CG. But the story was definitely lacking. Not much understanding of character motivation or understanding of why people are good or bad. It was entertaining though, and was no where near walking out (or taking a nap). It was not up to the hype, but most major movies aren't.
A friend went on and on about how great it was, and I was in college with Mad Max/Road Warrior, so I was very interested - but instead it just left me confuzzled. Maybe (definitely) I'm getting old, but the hyperkineticism made it impossible to track. The argument was that the backstory existed, but wasn't handed to us explicitly and so I had to understand it by inference. You know, I'm damned good at that (I knew about Willis in the middle of 6th Sense, but didn't spoil it for the wife). But if I can't follow it, I suspect a good portion of the audience can't - which is bad storytelling.
It was pretty, and the effects were probably very good. But it was ultimately unsatisfying. My friends say they watch it repeatedly, but I was relieved when it stopped.
Thanks, I had a lot of time to think about the first two movies while I watched this thing. This isn't as big a come-down as "Crystal Skull" was from the first couple of Indiana Jones movies, but I was surprised at how much I failed to like it considering the fact that critics and other viewers everywhere raved about it. I feel like I missed out on a joke, as if the whole world decided "let's pretend the new Transformers movie is the second coming of Citizen Kane, and see what happens."
Best part of the screening: There's a scene where two soldiers face each other down, foreheads almost touching, sort of an alpha-male stare-down. My 17-year-old stepson, on the verge of leaving the room for a more-amusing evening of homework, shouted "KISS already!" Somewhere, I swear I could feel the director muttering "That's not what I.... Dammit."
By contrast, I started to Netflix some spy thriller with Pierce Brosnan in it that nobody's ever heard of, and I found most of the characters really compelling and I want to see how that story ends.
This feels too negative. I don't normally enjoy slagging on the efforts of people who do a thing I cannot do. I'm going to go look at that "movies you should see" thread instead.
I generally agree. I liked Fury Road and it did have an epic kind of feel to it. I think it was because most of it was real effects instead of CG. But the story was definitely lacking. Not much understanding of character motivation or understanding of why people are good or bad. It was entertaining though, and was no where near walking out (or taking a nap). It was not up to the hype, but most major movies aren't.
On the topic, we tried to see bridge of spies on Saturday, but it was sold out. Found a great burger out and when we got home I was talked into watching the Lego movie. Don't make the same mistake I did.
I don't even remember the first two that well; so that was a good refresher ;-)
Thanks, I had a lot of time to think about the first two movies while I watched this thing. This isn't as big a come-down as "Crystal Skull" was from the first couple of Indiana Jones movies, but I was surprised at how much I failed to like it considering the fact that critics and other viewers everywhere raved about it. I feel like I missed out on a joke, as if the whole world decided "let's pretend the new Transformers movie is the second coming of Citizen Kane, and see what happens."
Best part of the screening: There's a scene where two soldiers face each other down, foreheads almost touching, sort of an alpha-male stare-down. My 17-year-old stepson, on the verge of leaving the room for a more-amusing evening of homework, shouted "KISS already!" Somewhere, I swear I could feel the director muttering "That's not what I.... Dammit."
By contrast, I started to Netflix some spy thriller with Pierce Brosnan in it that nobody's ever heard of, and I found most of the characters really compelling and I want to see how that story ends.
This feels too negative. I don't normally enjoy slagging on the efforts of people who do a thing I cannot do. I'm going to go look at that "movies you should see" thread instead.
I saw the original "Mad Max" and liked it a lot. I gather a lot of the reverence for the new one is that it was the same director. "You saw how awesome he was directing the first one, with some charismatic unknown actors and a budget of nine bucks. Now see what he can do with all this!"
I liked "Thunderdome" but in a completely different way. Bartertown was its own world in the exact way the Citadel in Fury Road wasn't.
To its credit, I thought this movie at least made sense in its chase scenes. (Example to the contrary: anything in the Transformers series; Michael Bay must look at MC Escher drawings and think "so? what's wrong with that?") When someone throws a flaming exploding harpoon at a target off to the left side of their vehicle, and both of them are going the same direction, of course the target vehicle gets hit in its right side. (Pay attention here, Bay!) And when a motorcycle hits a giant truck, of course it hardly affects the truck's course at all. The heavy things behaved like heavy things (mostly) in Fury Road, and getting hit seemed to have physical consequences.
But nothing in this movie had the gravity of a guy chained to a wrecked overturned gasoline-leaking vehicle, left with a hacksaw and the knowledge that he could saw through his ankle a lot faster than the chain, possibly even before time runs out and the whole thing explodes. Nothing in this movie had the gravity of "Two men enter, one man leaves!"
Actually, that would almost make a better title for this movie. "Anti-Gravity" would work better for a Michael Bay extravaganza (although it would be way too subtle; may I suggest "KaBOOM!!!1!" instead? That works for all of his since "The Rock") but this thing strikes me more and more as "Maximum Overdrive II."
I don't even remember the first two that well; so that was a good refresher ;-)
Not arguing, just curious (I haven't seen it) but did either of you see/like the originals?
I saw the original "Mad Max" and liked it a lot. I gather a lot of the reverence for the new one is that it was the same director. "You saw how awesome he was directing the first one, with some charismatic unknown actors and a budget of nine bucks. Now see what he can do with all this!"
I liked "Thunderdome" but in a completely different way. Bartertown was its own world in the exact way the Citadel in Fury Road wasn't.
To its credit, I thought this movie at least made sense in its chase scenes. (Example to the contrary: anything in the Transformers series; Michael Bay must look at MC Escher drawings and think "so? what's wrong with that?") When someone throws a flaming exploding harpoon at a target off to the left side of their vehicle, and both of them are going the same direction, of course the target vehicle gets hit in its right side. (Pay attention here, Bay!) And when a motorcycle hits a giant truck, of course it hardly affects the truck's course at all. The heavy things behaved like heavy things (mostly) in Fury Road, and getting hit seemed to have physical consequences.
But nothing in this movie had the gravity of a guy chained to a wrecked overturned gasoline-leaking vehicle, left with a hacksaw and the knowledge that he could saw through his ankle a lot faster than the chain, possibly even before time runs out and the whole thing explodes. Nothing in this movie had the gravity of "Two men enter, one man leaves!"
Actually, that would almost make a better title for this movie. "Anti-Gravity" would work better for a Michael Bay extravaganza (although it would be way too subtle; may I suggest "KaBOOM!!!1!" instead? That works for all of his since "The Rock") but this thing strikes me more and more as "Maximum Overdrive II."
Not arguing, just curious (I haven't seen it) but did either of you see/like the originals?
I thought the first two movies in the series ("Mad Max" and "The Road Warrior") were great. There were some impressive set pieces in the latest one, but I found the action scenes to be chaotic and a bit confusing to follow, and there was nothing in the story to pull me in. Maybe I should give it another chance, though - I watched it on a Friday night after I had a couple beers and I was tired.
It got great reviews - *consistently* great reviews. Seriously, if you had a body temperature in Fahrenheit that was as high as this movie's Rotten Tomatoes score, you could legitimately call in sick at work and watch a movie instead. (I would recommend a different movie.) So maybe this isn't a "movie to avoid" so much as "a movie Bill just didn't care for."
But I really didn't care for it - I was bored out of my mind. It was one big long car-chase/fight-scene, and after a while those become just white noise to me. And I'm a car-chase guy, usually. Hell, I'll watch auto racing, and that's basically just a car chase. (NASCAR frequently includes a fight scene.)
I enjoy the 1812 Overture. I know it's not a transcendent piece of music, it's not going to take you to a different time and place like "Four Seasons" or make you weep like Barber's "Adagio For Strings," but it's kind of amusing to listen to. I think it's fun, the way it tells a story and leads up to a finale with feints and false-starts before you get the canon fusillade payoff. I enjoy the lead-up and the feints and false-starts as much as the payoff, but without the first part, there's no "payoff," there's just "a loud noise." "Mad Max Fury Road" is the 1812 Overture rewritten to be 2 minutes of lead-in and 14 minutes of canon fusillade. I would be asleep in ten minutes.
My wife found redeeming value in the beautiful way it was filmed. And all the critics seemed to foam at the mouth because there were strong female characters. I totally concur, this movie was filmed well and it passes the Bechdel test. But I didn't care for the movie at all because I thought it lacked heart.
Two hours of "strong woman character" and "cool scenery" and "fast driving" and "flaming wrecks" isn't a great movie, it's the part of family vacation before we clear Atlanta's traffic.
Yup, you captured my feelings about the movie. I actually stopped watching after about a half hour.
It got great reviews - *consistently* great reviews. Seriously, if you had a body temperature in Fahrenheit that was as high as this movie's Rotten Tomatoes score, you could legitimately call in sick at work and watch a movie instead. (I would recommend a different movie.) So maybe this isn't a "movie to avoid" so much as "a movie Bill just didn't care for."
But I really didn't care for it - I was bored out of my mind. It was one big long car-chase/fight-scene, and after a while those become just white noise to me. And I'm a car-chase guy, usually. Hell, I'll watch auto racing, and that's basically just a car chase. (NASCAR frequently includes a fight scene.)
I enjoy the 1812 Overture. I know it's not a transcendent piece of music, it's not going to take you to a different time and place like "Four Seasons" or make you weep like Barber's "Adagio For Strings," but it's kind of amusing to listen to. I think it's fun, the way it tells a story and leads up to a finale with feints and false-starts before you get the canon fusillade payoff. I enjoy the lead-up and the feints and false-starts as much as the payoff, but without the first part, there's no "payoff," there's just "a loud noise." "Mad Max Fury Road" is the 1812 Overture rewritten to be 2 minutes of lead-in and 14 minutes of canon fusillade. I would be asleep in ten minutes.
My wife found redeeming value in the beautiful way it was filmed. And all the critics seemed to foam at the mouth because there were strong female characters. I totally concur, this movie was filmed well and it passes the Bechdel test. But I didn't care for the movie at all because I thought it lacked heart.
Two hours of "strong woman character" and "cool scenery" and "fast driving" and "flaming wrecks" isn't a great movie, it's the part of family vacation before we clear Atlanta's traffic.
I don't even remember the first two that well; so that was a good refresher ;-)
