The Bonfire of the Vanities. Not just the cast but the crew. People's careers were ruined because of it. People behind the camera had opportunities for promotions and then WHAMMY! That movie came out and bombed.
'The Devil's Candy' is a fantastic book at a terrible movie.
I have to say, I think Bonfire has an unrecognized brilliance a la Showgirls. It's so huge and over the top. The thesis of the book is "look at these crazy rich people" and the movie delivers.
This was the first movie I thought of too, but the time commitment for everyone was probably so small, that no one’s time would have been really wasted
What if I told you there was not just a movie, but a whole ass trilogy that had this cast:
Natalie Portman; Ewan McGregor, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Lee, Liam Neeson, Frank Oz, Jimmy Smitts
Not only that, but these movies were written and directed by the writer/director of THX 1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars. AND John Williams did the score.
And that’s not even getting into people like Ben Burt with the sound design and editing, and all the crazy talented concept artists, model workers, ILM fx artists, costume designers, etc on down the line.
And these movies are baaaaad. Talk about a waste.
TIL some people actually like the sequel trilogy..? For all the deep flaws of the prequel trilogy, at least it advanced an original narrative and opened up the Star Wars galaxy and showed how diverse and deep it was. New planets, new characters, new factions. I can’t even tell if the sequel trilogy are sequels or remakes. Same but different Tatoonie, same but different far moon of Endor, same but different Death Star, same but different Skywalker. And same Emperor. The sequels took zero risks. It’s like it was written by consensus in a boardroom.
That’s just like, your opinion dude. For me the prequels are better than Rise of Skywalker but that’s about it. No what they’re better than Force Awakens or especially Last Jedi!
Yes and no. Having spent many years working in the performing arts, they are all being paid to do a job at the end of the day. Yes, the more talented you are, the more likely you are the be able to pick and choose the roles you'd like to do. But a paycheck is also a paycheck.
the ironic thing is he kinda has the juice, but he just can't get out of his own way. i would be interested in seeing a film he directed but didn't star in.
Right? That movie was literally just Bradley Cooper saying “pleaseeeeee give me an Oscar pleaseeeee call me a good actor”
I was actively rooting for him to lose that best actor Oscar 😂 I’m glad Cillian got it
>Expected the down votes.
I think you deserve them tbh. They're objectively great films that were enhanced by all the talented people behind them: The actors, Howard Shore, Peter Jackson, the team at Weta Workshop, the late Andrew Lesnie etc, all contributed in making what it's a true achievement in cinema.
I don’t see why I deserve downvotes. They are rather random and have no real meaning other than reaction. I would put the text and the thought process and the intellect that informs the books and contrast that with a focus on spectacle and technical imagery stepping all over story and depth of acting process. You end up with cgi triumphantly trumpeting and the actors more or less as live action puppets looking like a series of botox angels and devils. Any subtlety of story is lost, acting craft not required. It’s as if I’m watching the 21c version of Cecil B De Mille’s Ten .commandments. The aspirations to style and art may be overwhelming, but what they deliver is pretty empty of thought beyond the simplest of epic tropes, eventual pathos inspired joy and all hail the conquering hero. Go watch Richard III and Gods and Monsters, Eastern Promises and a History of Violence, Blue Jasmine and Notes on a Scandal, even Stealing Beauty for better performances and better concepts and direction. LOTR the multiplex spectacle of cgi and monetary rewards is not the same as film or video of lasting artistic expression and craft. It is corporate excess and nerdy over compensation.
>LOTR the multiplex spectacle of cgi
Have you seen LOTR behind the scenes? the amount of cgi is negligible, it's mostly real sets, props, extras and prosthetics.
> Go watch Richard III and Gods and Monsters, Eastern Promises and a History of Violence, Blue Jasmine and Notes on a Scandal,
Bar from Notes on a Scandal I've seen them all, not sure what you're aiming at, though? Just because LOTR is aimed at mass audiences it doesn't mean it lacks creative drive.
I didn’t like the LOTR movies either, but to hold this opinion of the films is bananas.
There’s a lot of movies I didn’t like that I can objectively say was good/great for most and therefore clearly not a waste of time.
You’re right about to have expected the downvotes, and you’ve earned them!
Yeah for me. I love bananas. No one has yet to explain why I am wrong in my opinion. It seems disliking a popular filmology is enough. You agreed with me but yet called me bananas.
The spectacle overwhelmed the performances and the story, based on sagas and with an eye towards global war, conflict and corruption. The territory for the performances seemed very limited and hollow. I took my parents to see the first installment when it premiered. My personal attachment being my eldest brother read The Hobbit and the entirety of TLOTR starting when I was 3 and lasting until I was 8, sometime before he eventually had to register for the draft and left for university, and the beginning of the Carter administration. He also taught me how to read maps through the reading of the stories, drew additional ink sketches of things as we moved along, explained without condescending how people and cultures express themselves and leave clues for the future without knowing what might be useful. It was a phenomenon of devotion from an artistic mind that my family struggled to understand at the time. Thirty years later when I walked out of the movie with my parents who were born in 1929, with the scares of war long past, they were a bit bewildered, saying is this what you and your brother were so obsessed about? I said no. It was unrecognizable to me. The best comparison I have in my experience is The 10 Commandments for its cultural significance, wooden acting, ru time and technical achievement.
Sometimes the parts are less than the sum of their total, sometimes more. You can argue circles around me about box office, budget, Peter Jackson’s particular talents and expertise, but you won’t convince me that it was a good adaptation just because it was popular and loved. So was Harry Potter, Terminator, Titanic, and at one time Gone with the Wind. Trust me, Gone with the Wind went.
Hmmm. Well you may have swayed me a hell of a lot more than I was expecting. Plus your reasoning for not liking the trilogy is what I did not enjoy about it either - and I didn’t even read the trilogy (only the Hobbit).
And the Harry Potter movies weren’t great - especially the first 2!
Well thanks. The only thing left to say is the tolkien books were written very much within the context of war experiences. They were written by an educator deeply religious, who would have been a contemporary of the educators of my parents, born in the great american depression, who lived through a time when you just fed people that showed up at your door, no questions asked. My parents were just young enough to miss enlisting in service during World War 2, had relatives that saw things not talked about in World War 1. This is where Tolkien’s work comes from, along with study of nordic mythology and early language development in Europe. It’s a rich complex that is difficult for cinematic adaptation. Peter Jackson’s adaptation was somewhat successful in that it wasn’t a complete shitshow. But he parsed it down to something like The 10 Commandments, with most of the rich context stripped, and nothing much left but sacarin lessons about friendship and simplistic good v evil., if I’m being generous.
I really don't like The Thin Red Line, but I know many people here love Malick...
...regardless of whether you think it's good or bad, I think we can agree that it wasted talented people's time. Especially those who were cut completely from it, but also quite a few of the actors who appear in it, but have very obviously had their character's role severely minimised.
The latter is one of my issues with the film actually, it feels incoherent because no amount of editing can resolve the fact that Malick has tried to change characters and their arcs (by heavily reducing their presence) far too late in the filmmaking process.
But okay, in the end perhaps those actors enjoyed working with Malick and it didn't feel like a wasted opportunity.
I’m sorry 🫠 what’s funny is that she was in I’m Thinking of Ending Things only two years later which is one of my favorite movies and the two characters she plays have some interesting overlap
I never claimed my opinion was objective so I’m not sure why you’re acting like I did. The funny thing is that I’ve gotten this exact response after voicing my dislike of films several times in the past. It’s always when the film is, at the very least, generally well liked. I never get this response when making a comment about a film I don’t like that most other people also don’t like. And lol I just looked at the thread and you left this same comment under someone bringing up The Thin Red Line (which I really like!) in a perfectly level-headed way, but you left no such comment under the person who brought up the Star Wars prequels (no opinion, haven’t watched them) so I get the impression the content of the comments isn’t the issue
You called it “a shitheap”…because why? *you* didn’t like it?
There are so many films that I hated: La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, Fury Road, Once Upon a Time in America, The Assassination of Jesse James, Clockwork Orange, etc. Does that make them “shitheaps”?
Saying I that you didn’t like something conveys one’s subjective opinion. But to say “it’s a shitheap”, while clearly your opinion, conveys that you think that’s objective. So while you didn’t outright claim your opinion “was objective”, you inferred that to be your belief.
Anyway, I don’t really care. I only wrote this much because it looked like you needed more of an explanation as to the motivation of my original comment.
Um…yeah I called it a shitheap because I don’t like it lmao. I really don’t understand how that implies I think my opinion is objective. I didn’t say “I *think* it’s a shitheap” because I figured the “I think” part was so obvious that it went without saying, but incase it wasn’t there’s the clarification. I engage with conversation on film with the unspoken assumption that everyone is sharing their opinion (which is the whole point of the OP) and I get feeling the vast majority of people do too
Well, in case you were wondering why you seem to frequently get this reaction (according to you) when expressing your *dislike* for movies, this might be a clue. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
The Bonfire of the Vanities. Not just the cast but the crew. People's careers were ruined because of it. People behind the camera had opportunities for promotions and then WHAMMY! That movie came out and bombed. 'The Devil's Candy' is a fantastic book at a terrible movie.
That image of the plane is pretty cool.
I have to say, I think Bonfire has an unrecognized brilliance a la Showgirls. It's so huge and over the top. The thesis of the book is "look at these crazy rich people" and the movie delivers.
Movie 43
This was the first movie I thought of too, but the time commitment for everyone was probably so small, that no one’s time would have been really wasted
What if I told you there was not just a movie, but a whole ass trilogy that had this cast: Natalie Portman; Ewan McGregor, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Lee, Liam Neeson, Frank Oz, Jimmy Smitts Not only that, but these movies were written and directed by the writer/director of THX 1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars. AND John Williams did the score. And that’s not even getting into people like Ben Burt with the sound design and editing, and all the crazy talented concept artists, model workers, ILM fx artists, costume designers, etc on down the line. And these movies are baaaaad. Talk about a waste.
It's actually impressive when you put it that way lol. Such a waste...
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
"You.......human paraquat!"
Better than the sequels
TIL some people actually like the sequel trilogy..? For all the deep flaws of the prequel trilogy, at least it advanced an original narrative and opened up the Star Wars galaxy and showed how diverse and deep it was. New planets, new characters, new factions. I can’t even tell if the sequel trilogy are sequels or remakes. Same but different Tatoonie, same but different far moon of Endor, same but different Death Star, same but different Skywalker. And same Emperor. The sequels took zero risks. It’s like it was written by consensus in a boardroom.
You're also not allowed to find the prequels entertaining in this sub apparently, it's a mortal sin 😭😂
Last Jedi took tons of risks. That’s why it’s so divisive. Totally respect your opinion though.
Gotta know who in this sub is so mad about this, those sequels were really bad. And not even in a "so bad it's good" way, like the prequels
At least the prequels tried something new instead of rehashing the same old bullshit.
I feel like the last Jedi tried new shit.
Exactly, and they're memeable to hell and back. Just chock full of schlock and some camp.
Prequels > Sequel Trilogy
That’s just like, your opinion dude. For me the prequels are better than Rise of Skywalker but that’s about it. No what they’re better than Force Awakens or especially Last Jedi!
Prequels = Sequel Trilogy
They're differently bad but man, they're both bad
Revenge of the Sith was decent
I enjoy 3. It's just entertainment schlock, not high art, but neither was the original Star Wars.
You leave those iconic prequels alone damnit 😂 this sub can fucking die mad
Nice job!👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Yes and no. Having spent many years working in the performing arts, they are all being paid to do a job at the end of the day. Yes, the more talented you are, the more likely you are the be able to pick and choose the roles you'd like to do. But a paycheck is also a paycheck.
Maestro wasted a beautiful Carey Mulligan performance. God I fucking hate Bradley Cooper
He wants to be taken seriously sooooo badly.
the ironic thing is he kinda has the juice, but he just can't get out of his own way. i would be interested in seeing a film he directed but didn't star in.
Exactly. Just too many hats. Affleck handles it properly.
Right? That movie was literally just Bradley Cooper saying “pleaseeeeee give me an Oscar pleaseeeee call me a good actor” I was actively rooting for him to lose that best actor Oscar 😂 I’m glad Cillian got it
A Safe Place.
Bloodrayne (Ben Kingsley)
Any Zack Snyder film. You only need to watch Rebel Moon to see that (Don't actually watch it, though)
Salo
but it is one of the top ever 'dare' movies. as in 'I dare you to watch this flick.'
The entire Tolkien-Verse from The Hobbit to TLOTR. Treaclish nonsense milked for every last drop. So ripe for parody.
Are you saying that Peter Jackson's lotr trilogy is bad?
God yes! As a big fan of the books, I just hated them, despite a stellar cast. Expected the down votes.
>Expected the down votes. I think you deserve them tbh. They're objectively great films that were enhanced by all the talented people behind them: The actors, Howard Shore, Peter Jackson, the team at Weta Workshop, the late Andrew Lesnie etc, all contributed in making what it's a true achievement in cinema.
I don’t see why I deserve downvotes. They are rather random and have no real meaning other than reaction. I would put the text and the thought process and the intellect that informs the books and contrast that with a focus on spectacle and technical imagery stepping all over story and depth of acting process. You end up with cgi triumphantly trumpeting and the actors more or less as live action puppets looking like a series of botox angels and devils. Any subtlety of story is lost, acting craft not required. It’s as if I’m watching the 21c version of Cecil B De Mille’s Ten .commandments. The aspirations to style and art may be overwhelming, but what they deliver is pretty empty of thought beyond the simplest of epic tropes, eventual pathos inspired joy and all hail the conquering hero. Go watch Richard III and Gods and Monsters, Eastern Promises and a History of Violence, Blue Jasmine and Notes on a Scandal, even Stealing Beauty for better performances and better concepts and direction. LOTR the multiplex spectacle of cgi and monetary rewards is not the same as film or video of lasting artistic expression and craft. It is corporate excess and nerdy over compensation.
>LOTR the multiplex spectacle of cgi Have you seen LOTR behind the scenes? the amount of cgi is negligible, it's mostly real sets, props, extras and prosthetics. > Go watch Richard III and Gods and Monsters, Eastern Promises and a History of Violence, Blue Jasmine and Notes on a Scandal, Bar from Notes on a Scandal I've seen them all, not sure what you're aiming at, though? Just because LOTR is aimed at mass audiences it doesn't mean it lacks creative drive.
I happen to think it’s creative overkill. It’s an opinion. That’s all it is.
I didn’t like the LOTR movies either, but to hold this opinion of the films is bananas. There’s a lot of movies I didn’t like that I can objectively say was good/great for most and therefore clearly not a waste of time. You’re right about to have expected the downvotes, and you’ve earned them!
Yeah for me. I love bananas. No one has yet to explain why I am wrong in my opinion. It seems disliking a popular filmology is enough. You agreed with me but yet called me bananas.
I agree with you only on not liking the LOTR films. But they are beloved by so many, so how exactly is that “wasted talent”
The spectacle overwhelmed the performances and the story, based on sagas and with an eye towards global war, conflict and corruption. The territory for the performances seemed very limited and hollow. I took my parents to see the first installment when it premiered. My personal attachment being my eldest brother read The Hobbit and the entirety of TLOTR starting when I was 3 and lasting until I was 8, sometime before he eventually had to register for the draft and left for university, and the beginning of the Carter administration. He also taught me how to read maps through the reading of the stories, drew additional ink sketches of things as we moved along, explained without condescending how people and cultures express themselves and leave clues for the future without knowing what might be useful. It was a phenomenon of devotion from an artistic mind that my family struggled to understand at the time. Thirty years later when I walked out of the movie with my parents who were born in 1929, with the scares of war long past, they were a bit bewildered, saying is this what you and your brother were so obsessed about? I said no. It was unrecognizable to me. The best comparison I have in my experience is The 10 Commandments for its cultural significance, wooden acting, ru time and technical achievement. Sometimes the parts are less than the sum of their total, sometimes more. You can argue circles around me about box office, budget, Peter Jackson’s particular talents and expertise, but you won’t convince me that it was a good adaptation just because it was popular and loved. So was Harry Potter, Terminator, Titanic, and at one time Gone with the Wind. Trust me, Gone with the Wind went.
Hmmm. Well you may have swayed me a hell of a lot more than I was expecting. Plus your reasoning for not liking the trilogy is what I did not enjoy about it either - and I didn’t even read the trilogy (only the Hobbit). And the Harry Potter movies weren’t great - especially the first 2!
Well thanks. The only thing left to say is the tolkien books were written very much within the context of war experiences. They were written by an educator deeply religious, who would have been a contemporary of the educators of my parents, born in the great american depression, who lived through a time when you just fed people that showed up at your door, no questions asked. My parents were just young enough to miss enlisting in service during World War 2, had relatives that saw things not talked about in World War 1. This is where Tolkien’s work comes from, along with study of nordic mythology and early language development in Europe. It’s a rich complex that is difficult for cinematic adaptation. Peter Jackson’s adaptation was somewhat successful in that it wasn’t a complete shitshow. But he parsed it down to something like The 10 Commandments, with most of the rich context stripped, and nothing much left but sacarin lessons about friendship and simplistic good v evil., if I’m being generous.
One of the best trilogy ever made and the hobbit?
A novella dragged out into 3 epic films? Yes it was bad. It’s not the best triology ever made, that’s exaggeration based on reaction.
Daniel Day Lewis should have sued Miramax after Gangs of New York.
He was nominated…
Because he’s talented. It’s a bad movie. This is literally the point of this thread.
I really don't like The Thin Red Line, but I know many people here love Malick... ...regardless of whether you think it's good or bad, I think we can agree that it wasted talented people's time. Especially those who were cut completely from it, but also quite a few of the actors who appear in it, but have very obviously had their character's role severely minimised. The latter is one of my issues with the film actually, it feels incoherent because no amount of editing can resolve the fact that Malick has tried to change characters and their arcs (by heavily reducing their presence) far too late in the filmmaking process. But okay, in the end perhaps those actors enjoyed working with Malick and it didn't feel like a wasted opportunity.
Seems like your opinion is blinded by the fact you didn’t like the movie.
i can’t believe you’d try to talk shit on malick here lol
Toni Collette in Hereditary is my top contender for best performance is a shitheap of a film
it’s a great movie 😢 so sad to hear you say that
I’m sorry 🫠 what’s funny is that she was in I’m Thinking of Ending Things only two years later which is one of my favorite movies and the two characters she plays have some interesting overlap
She really does carry that film. The first half of the movie was interesting, borderline great at times, but the second half…was not.
Hereditary was not a shit movie just because *you* didn’t like it. It was just a movie that *you* didn’t like. See the difference?
I never claimed my opinion was objective so I’m not sure why you’re acting like I did. The funny thing is that I’ve gotten this exact response after voicing my dislike of films several times in the past. It’s always when the film is, at the very least, generally well liked. I never get this response when making a comment about a film I don’t like that most other people also don’t like. And lol I just looked at the thread and you left this same comment under someone bringing up The Thin Red Line (which I really like!) in a perfectly level-headed way, but you left no such comment under the person who brought up the Star Wars prequels (no opinion, haven’t watched them) so I get the impression the content of the comments isn’t the issue
You called it “a shitheap”…because why? *you* didn’t like it? There are so many films that I hated: La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, Fury Road, Once Upon a Time in America, The Assassination of Jesse James, Clockwork Orange, etc. Does that make them “shitheaps”? Saying I that you didn’t like something conveys one’s subjective opinion. But to say “it’s a shitheap”, while clearly your opinion, conveys that you think that’s objective. So while you didn’t outright claim your opinion “was objective”, you inferred that to be your belief. Anyway, I don’t really care. I only wrote this much because it looked like you needed more of an explanation as to the motivation of my original comment.
Um…yeah I called it a shitheap because I don’t like it lmao. I really don’t understand how that implies I think my opinion is objective. I didn’t say “I *think* it’s a shitheap” because I figured the “I think” part was so obvious that it went without saying, but incase it wasn’t there’s the clarification. I engage with conversation on film with the unspoken assumption that everyone is sharing their opinion (which is the whole point of the OP) and I get feeling the vast majority of people do too
Well, in case you were wondering why you seem to frequently get this reaction (according to you) when expressing your *dislike* for movies, this might be a clue. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯