Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By "not get" I mean, that I don't "get" the attraction, or I don't "get" why the majority of people think they are the best. By "didn't get them" I did not mean I didn't understand them. I can understand all of the above movies completely, but I still don't "get" why they are so widely praised.
I can understand all of the above movies completely, but I still don't "get" why they are so widely praised.
They are praised for a variety of reasons, but being influential is a big part of it. Example: The Graduate, the movie that you said had no message, was a groundbreaking satire seething with awkward moments, clever camera angles, and plenty of improvisation. The Graduate led the way for TV like Curb Your Enthusiasm, and films such as This Is Spinal Tap, Garden State as well as Rushmore. The Graduate led the way for directors such as Wes Anderson and David O Russell. I think sometimes when a movie has more tone than a specific, in-your-face message, some viewers feel like they don't get it.
I truly don't want to get into ad hominem territory, but in my opinion, if you think all Thelma and Louise is is a pair of women continuously exercising bad judgment, you really don't completely understand the film.
Think about context. Think about their opportunity framework. From the movie: "Who's gonna believe [us]? We just don't live in that kind of world."
Pretty Woman:
Quote:
She's upset when saleswomen treat her like a lowlife and Richard Gere's friend (George from Seinfeld) tries to have sex with her. But, you are a hooker, dear.
Roberts becomes upset when treated rudely because despite the fact that she is a sex worker, she is also a human being. I find Pretty Woman to be simultaneously implausible and predictable (even though I still like it). The plot probably should have been a lot darker, but then it probably would not have been as commercially successful. Gere and Roberts had chemistry, and many (perhaps most) people love a tidy, fairytale ending.
I understanding how, in their time, certain movies were "groundbreaking" because they were the first to do something, or to do something in a certain way. But being groundbreaking in your time does not mean being able to stand the test of time.
By the time I saw The Graduate for the first time, I was in my 20s and it was the 1990s. By then, there were lots of satirical movies about modern life, and lots of movies with clever camera angles, etc. So being accustomed to such things, the Graduate, to people in my generation, is just not so impressive. I would say the same for 2001: A Space odyssey.
I understand why some find those things about the movies you mention impressive, but I am just not so easily impressed, I guess.
Thelma and Louise did indeed make terrible decisions, and in this case, the movie came out during my time. But since it did take place in the present, it made no sense at all that in 1991 a woman would have the belief that no one would believe her if she reported an attempted rape. The "kind of world" they lived in was 1991 America, when a woman reporting a sexual assault was usually believed, even sometimes in cases when it wasn't true. Plus, although shooting an attempted rapist to protect oneself or one's friend would be legally justifiable in most states in 1991, from what I recall, Louise shot the guy when the danger had already passed, and she just did it impulsively. That's poor judgment, no? The most sensible thing would have been to call the police and say "I shot that man when he was in the process of trying to rape my friend." Then they go on their little "buddy journey" committing even more acts of poor judgment. Many women in my generation and others like to get into how these are just metaphors for some feminist message. But even if they are metaphors, what do those metaphors say? That women are impulsive, act on emotion, and not on intellect and sound judgment?
And with Pretty Woman, I'm sorry, but I just can't enjoy a fairy tale and forget the fact that the heroine is a wh*re. Sure a hooker is a human being, and I would certainly dive into a lake to save a drowning hooker, but if I were a salesperson in an upscale store, I would indeed treat her like trash and ask her to leave. I don't care that Roberts' character was supposedly sweet, honest, not on drugs, not committing other crimes, not infested with all the flora and fauna that any street hooker would be infested with. Aw, she's just a sweetheart who happened to fall on hard times. Please. Like I said in another thread. I'd love to see the sequel to Pretty Woman. Gere and Roberts get married, have wonderful sex, but any time any small couples argument comes up, Richard can always pull out that little trump card:
Julia: I can't believe you still haven't cleaned out the garage!
Richard: Well, yes, you're right. But weren't you a wh*re?
or
Julia: Why are you home so late? You really should have called.
Richard: Right, I should have, but hey, didn't you used to be a wh*re?
Last edited by Tracysherm; 12-28-2013 at 11:56 AM..
I understanding how, in their time, certain movies were "groundbreaking" because they were the first to do something, or to do something in a certain way. But being groundbreaking in your time does not mean being able to stand the test of time.
By the time I saw The Graduate for the first time, I was in my 20s and it was the 1990s. By then, there were lots of satirical movies about modern life, and lots of movies with clever camera angles, etc. So being accustomed to such things, the Graduate, to people in my generation, is just not so impressive. I would say the same for 2001: A Space odyssey.
I understand why some find those things about the movies you mention impressive, but I am just not so easily impressed, I guess.
Thelma and Louise did indeed make terrible decisions, and in this case, the movie came out during my time. But since it did take place in the present, it made no sense at all that in 1991 a woman would have the belief that no one would believe her if she reported an attempted rape. The "kind of world" they lived in was 1991 America, when a woman reporting a sexual assault was usually believed, even sometimes in cases when it wasn't true. Plus, although shooting an attempted rapist to protect oneself or one's friend would be legally justifiable in most states in 1991, from what I recall, Louise shot the guy when the danger had already passed, and she just did it impulsively. That's poor judgment, no? The most sensible thing would have been to call the police and say "I shot that man when he was in the process of trying to rape my friend." Then they go on their little "buddy journey" committing even more acts of poor judgment. Many women in my generation and others like to get into how these are just metaphors for some feminist message. But even if they are metaphors, what do those metaphors say? That women are impulsive, act on emotion, and not on intellect and sound judgment?
And with Pretty Woman, I'm sorry, but I just can't enjoy a fairy tale and forget the fact that the heroine is a wh*re. Sure a hooker is a human being, and I would certainly dive into a lake to save a drowning hooker, but if I were a salesperson in an upscale store, I would indeed treat her like trash and ask her to leave. I don't care that Roberts' character was supposedly sweet, honest, not on drugs, not committing other crimes, not infested with all the flora and fauna that any street hooker would be infested with. Aw, she's just a sweetheart who happened to fall on hard times. Please. Like I said in another thread. I'd love to see the sequel to Pretty Woman. Gere and Roberts get married, have wonderful sex, but any time any small couples argument comes up, Richard can always pull out that little trump card:
Julia: I can't believe you still haven't cleaned out the garage!
Richard: Well, yes, you're right. But weren't you a wh*re?
or
Julia: Why are you home so late? You really should have called.
Richard: Right, I should have, but hey, didn't you used to be a wh*re?
I also don't get that a movie is called "Pretty Woman" and the actress in the main role has Scary Clown Face Syndrome. I guess it's metaphorical or something.
By "not get" I mean, that I don't "get" the attraction, or I don't "get" why the majority of people think they are the best. By "didn't get them" I did not mean I didn't understand them. I can understand all of the above movies completely, but I still don't "get" why they are so widely praised.
i'll vouch for that. that is what is meant by "don't get" is don't get the nearly universal, very positive reaction. very few of these movies are over my head - so what you said is what is meant and is the context for this thread, not that we're too dumb to "get" what is happening in Pretty Woman.
Roberts becomes upset when treated rudely because despite the fact that she is a sex worker, she is also a human being. I find Pretty Woman to be simultaneously implausible and predictable (even though I still like it). The plot probably should have been a lot darker, but then it probably would not have been as commercially successful. Gere and Roberts had chemistry, and many (perhaps most) people love a tidy, fairytale ending.
it seems like a few people have mentioned this film in this thread. I honestly had no idea that it was that widely praised - and because of the exact flaws you mentioned.
I didn't know Thelma and Louise was both so widely loved and hated either.
It's not so much the plot that exemplifies "Halloween" as a classic of horror. You have to look at it in the context of 1978. By today's standards, "Halloween" is not very scary but that's not because the movie itself isn't scary. With the benefit of technological advances, we are able to see excessive amounts of gore in movies and you know what? It all looks real. Not only is gore a factor, but the slashers/monsters/villains of today are much more twisted and sadistic in their ways. In my opinion, we have become desensitized to horror because we go into a horror movie knowing that most of it has already been done before. We have seen so many vile, disgusting things on screen that weren't even imaginable 35 years ago in 1978. That's why you rarely see horror movies these days receive overly positive accolades. None of it stands out. Not only did "Halloween" stand out in 1978, but it reinvigorated and revitalized the slasher genre. It spawned countless imitators. No Michael Myers, no Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger or even Chucky. "Halloween" is impressive for many reasons. It was filmed in less than one months' time on a budget of $325,000 which, adjusted for inflation, amounts to roughly $1,160,000 today. How many modern movies are filmed on a budget like that and yet bring as much success in revenue as "Halloween" was able to? About half of that tiny budget was spent on panavision cameras so it could be filmed in a 2.35:1 scope. In addition, "Halloween" was an independent film. Nobody, especially director John Carpenter, thought this movie would become as big as it did. It was supposed to be nothing more than a cheesy B-horror flick, much like say, the original "Piranha" (released the same year as "Halloween").
By the way, I've tried to show "Halloween" to an 11-year old cousin of mine and you know what? He was so terrified by the theme song alone on the opening credits, he couldn't even make it to the movie itself. That theme (and frankly the entire soundtrack) is part of what makes "Halloween" so memorable. I've seen the movie dozens of times and that theme still sends chills down my spine. Try showing a pre-teen youngster "Halloween." Teens and college kids and adults know at the end of the day that "it's just a movie" and as a result, we don't scare as easily. Kids, on the other hand, will find plenty to jump at in "Halloween." Frankly, the only time I ever jump when I see a horror movie today is when I get to one of those "false alarm" scares that only makes me jump more due to the sudden loud noise versus what's actually happening on the screen.
Since you didn't get very far in the movie, watch this 58 second clip of Dr. Sam Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence). Nobody in my opinion has "sold" the image of a serial killer in a movie better than Pleasence did right here:
Michael is not after revenge, he's not love-scorn, he's not mad at the world, he's just simply evil. Think of it this way. The less you know about a serial killer, the scarier he becomes because you don't know what he's going to do next. When all you know is that this killer is evil and has no sense of life or death, right or wrong, that, to me, is much more scary than any witch or ghost or zombie or any creature or monster. It's a sense of unpredictability and knowing that, at any time, even the most likable character in the film could be killed off. That brings me to another aspect of modern horror I dislike, particularly in the slasher genre. Why do so many movies make EVERY character dislikable? It defeats the purpose of a horror movie. You WANT to see these characters get offed and thus, the horror element of it disappears. When each character comes off as pompous and annoying, you find yourself rooting for the serial killer or monster and now, rather than a horror film, it's closer to exploitation than it is to horror. Know what I mean? In "Halloween," sure, Annie and Lynda can be a bit annoying; particularly Lynda for overusing the word "totally." But in reality, these girls are no different than any other. They're high schoolers with raging hormones who hate school and are just trying to get through another day. But there is not one character in "Halloween" that I root for to die. Even worse is when I see a horror movie where the director wants its audience to "relate" to the killer in some way. I hate that! That's what director John Carpenter specifically wanted to avoid when he wrote the "Halloween" script; a killer who couldn't be related to on any level.
As to your point about the "lack of action," yes, "Halloween" does take a bit of time to get to the kills. But that's because there's more to the movie than just the kills. The film takes its time in order to build suspense and a creepy atmosphere. Give me a 90-minute film with half a dozen kills that takes its time to set up a plot and characters and build suspense over a film of that same length with 20 gory, brutal kills just to show off "how cool" the CGI special effects are. Carpenter was heavily influenced by Alfred Hitchcock and "Psycho" and it shows. If you thought "Halloween" was boring, you would loathe "Psycho" because there's even less of a body count and aside the infamous shower scene, the movie doesn't get really intense until it's almost over. It just comes down to what we as horror enthusiasts expect from horror in 2013 versus what was expected back in the day, and what we know and have seen from horror today versus then. "Halloween" doesn't "fit in" with horror movies today but for its time, it was genuinely terrifying. I just can't stand when "Halloween" is called the "scariest" movie ever for two reasons: 1. There is no single, universal definition of "scary" in terms of horror movies. What is scary to one might not be scary to another. 2. In the context of 2013, 1978's "Halloween" is very tame. It might not be the scariest horror movie ever, but it is certainly one of the BEST ever (yes, there is a difference) and one of the highest grossing independent films of all time.
None of what I said may make you think any more highly of "Halloween", but you will hopefully at least respect and appreciate what it accomplished in its time and the impact and influence it brought and still brings in the modern day.
okay...read it (pretty much). let me clear one thing up. it isn't the lack of action, or gore, or kills or whatever that I find boring. it just starts off boring and disinteresting and at no point engages my interest. maybe its that at no point do I give a **** about any of the characters. but don't mistake me. I am not someone who cant sit through a slow moving film. to the contrary. and I certainly am not obsessed with violence and gore. horror films are one of my least favorite genres because they are usually stupid - substituting story and acting with gore. here's a movie I kind of liked and found scary or disturbing which I guess not many people liked: The Blair Witch Project. little to no monsters or gore in that. other slow moving films I like are Unforgiven, Unbreakable, and There Will Be Blood.
it might just be that whatever they were trying to do in the movie, Halloween, and whatever ground they broke - i cannot look past ****-poor acting when judging a film.
also, if Michael Myers and Halloween are responsible for all those Friday the 13th, and Freddy, and Chucky, and other such slasher movies, I don't know if that's something to brag about.
Pretty Woman: Lots of women I know love this movie, and don't seem to care that she's a prostitute, an actual card-carrying prostitute. She's upset when saleswomen treat her like a lowlife and Richard Gere's friend (George from Seinfeld) tries to have sex with her. But, you are a hooker, dear.
Could not agree more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TracySam
Scarface: Every guy I ever met seems to love this movie. I just don't understand. It's definitely no Godfather. Pacino in too much bronzer and black eyeliner with a fake Cuban accent.
The Graduate: Every baby-boomer gushes about this piece of drivel. Stupid plot, mediocre acting, no actual "message." The only redeeming thing is the soundtrack.
I liked the Graduate, but by the end of the movie, I was honestly ready to hunt down and kill Simon & Garfunkel. The music in that movie was so intrusive and so ham-fisted. "The Sound of Silence" is played THREE TIMES in the movie. THREE TIMES!!! And to this day, "Scarborough Fair" can send me into fits of rage because of that movie.
The only other movie I've seen where I had a similar reaction was Juno, which I liked as a movie. But the music ... grrrrr. At first, my reaction was: Huh, this is kinda fun and quirky. About a half hour in, I was thinking: Enough already. Can a brother get some Ramones or something? An hour in and I was having to restrain from stuffing popcorn in my ears.
I hated Zombie's remake. Probably because I'm a Halloween purist, I don't know. I kept thinking while watching the remake, "No. No no no, that's not how it's supposed to be."
I certainly had issues with the movie, but when it comes to remakes, I don't want a rehash of the original. If all a director is going to do is refilm the same movie, why bother? If you're remaking a movie, put your own take into it. So the fact that it didn't adhere 100% to Carpenter's movie didn't bother me in the least.
It's certainly scary, and I liked parts of it very much. But overall it lacked any sort of theme. And I didn't understand why Zombie went to such great pains to show the nature of Michael's psychosis (which I appreciated) only to have it make no sense whatsoever for the last 40 minutes of the movie. Zombie goes to great pains to establish a motivation, then throws it all out the window.
I also don't get that a movie is called "Pretty Woman"
Years of Roy Orbison gave it instant name recognition. It has nothing to do with the movie whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
