So Wrong and Yet...So Wrong...

Jesus had a great idea over on his music blog. I mean, of course, right? He's the Son of God, why wouldn't he be phenomenal at blogging like everything else.

Anyway, Jesus, what he did was go over to Amazon.com and look for negative reviews for his favorite albums. Then he posted the opinions most diametrically opposed to his own. Sounds like fun, right? Well, it would rip off Jesus' idea to just go to Amazon and do the same thing for my favorite albums (not to mention that The Lamb of God and I share a few favorite albums, most notably Radiohead's OK Computer and The Pixies' Doolittle.)

So, I thought, why not go to IMDB and find the most hate-filled, wrong-headed reviews of some of my favorite films? Let's give it a try...

Pulp Fiction

Yarborough from Northridge says the following about Quentin Tarantino's much-beloved meta-crime movie.

Yet another disgrace by Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino so obviously has no ability for creating a decent story in his movies (see my "Reservoir Dogs" review) that for this one he chose to give it a title that would excuse its ridiculousness. As I said in my "Reservoir Dogs" review, the man is hopelessly plot driven, which means that he can't create a story in which events naturally happen, so he has to MAKE them happen any way he can. For instance, it's bad enough that in "The Gold Watch" he creates a pathetic excuse for Bruce Willis to have to go back to his apartment, but then how could he make it so that Willis is able to outwit John Travolta, who is waiting there for him? Have Travolta idiotically leave his machine gun on the counter while he is using the bathroom! Come on! And then in "The Bonnie Situation," how could he make the accident in the car happen? Have Travolta completely unnaturally rest the gun on the car seat over his shoulder while he talks with Marvin! And Tarantino introduces the Wolf only for him to give Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson obvious advice for how to solve their problem while he mouths off humorous comments. Anyone wonder why Tarantino has disappeared now? Because he used up all the unoriginality he had.

In all fairness to yarborough, he wrote that in 2002, well before the Kill Bill movies reminded us all how much QT rocks, and how he continually finds new ways to revisit and reimagine the films that inspired him.

This is Spinal Tap

Sigh...Humor is just totally lost on some people. Amazing. Anyone who asks, in response to the Theory of Evolution, why we don't see modern-day mutations - I present to you the Person Born With Absolutely No Sense of Humor Whatsoever, AKA Mattymatt4ever from (naturally) Jersey City, NJ:

This pseudo-documentary/pseudo-comedy starts out with a few funny gags, scattered here and there. But in the second and third acts, when the band goes downhill, the comedy becomes as soggy as a wet rag. The gags are so slight and cheap. We're stuck with bland gags, like the one about the tiny sandwiches in the dressing room. Wow, is that a classic moment or what!!! Just one bland gag after another. Even though the running time was a mere 83 minutes, I found it tedious and lagging. This is one of those comedies I have to watch with someone to actually find which moments are supposed to be funny. I probably still won't get a laugh, but at least I'll have more of an understanding. Is this film true to the world of rock and roll, and does it have a satirical bite? I don't know. Maybe. Whatever it was, it sure as hell wasn't interesting. I don't know much about rock and roll, as far the behind-the-scenes stuff goes, but I don't care what happens off-stage if it's going to be this boring. If you want to see a good film about rock and roll, see "Almost Famous." Better yet, if you want to see a much better mockumentary about the music business--see "Fear of a Black Hat." A much more scatological comedy, but a much smarter and entertaining one as well.

I mean, I like Fear of a Black Hat, but it basically just reimagines Spinal Tap for hip-hop. I'm pretty sure Rusty Cundieff would admit that if pressed. To appreciate one and not the other reflects some sort of bizarre bias. Maybe Matty doesn't like fake Europeans? Or white people? Or, you know, good stuff.

Barry Lyndon

At the store the other day, we were ranking our favorite Kubrick films. (So we've got a little bit of spare time...Wanna fight about it?) I picked Lyndon, though my choice changes from time to time. Here's mooncaine-1, hoping that contrariness alone will earn him some form of respect:

While Kubrick was undoubtedly a talented filmmaker, his work suffers from a kind of tunnel vision--he would have done better to have, instead of the sycophantic yes-men we see in drama and in business, a bluntly honest "no-man" to set some limits for him.

Every movie of his I've seen, from Lolita through The Shining, is overlong, to put it charitably. A talented editor could have improved each of his projects. Kubrick lingers too long; he is too in love with his own ideas. His movies tend to be fine, but flawed, works, worthy of respect, but unfortunately each its own worst enemy.

What does that mean? The movies are their own worst enemy? Ga-zuh? (Also, it's clear mooncaine doesn't actually understand what an editor does. He or she doesn't trim an overlong movie for length, neccessarily, but cuts together the filmed footage into...you know what, never mind.)

Aguirre: The Wrath of God

This one is kind of surprising. I kind of figured, anyone who would go to the trouble of seeing this German subtitled masterpiece by Werner Herzog in the first place must be some kind of a movie fan. It's not exactly re-run on TBS in the early evenings or anything these days. So, if only somewhat-committed movie viewers are seeing and commenting on a film, their commentary will be, on the whole, at least somewhat intelligent, right?

Here to prove my faith in humanity wrong once again, Mouserobot:

Aguire, the wrath of me trying to stay awake

The South American landscape was beautifully photographed. Klaus Kinski can be quite a formidable presence when he's on the screen. Just one glimpse of the look in his oh so crazy eyes almost made the whole thing worth it.

But his movie is just really slow and boring. I kept waiting for a plot to develop. Failing that, I was hoping that the pace would get faster than that of a pregnant sea lion.

My friend pointed out that it's probably a fairly realistic portrait of explorers stomping through the jungle. It probably was endless days of slogging through the mud without any relief in sight. But this doesn't make for an interesting movie.

Also, I felt a strange kind of cognitive dissonance in seeing these actors who looked Spanish speak German.

Getting...weaker...Overcome by...sheer ignorance of mouserobot...

Sweet Smell of Success

Speaking of a complete, and hilarious, lack of perspective, check out Los Angeles' very own maphead on one of my absolute favorite films, the 1957 Tony Curtis-Burt Lancaster morality tale, Sweet Smell of Success.

OK, this movie's main strength is supposed to be it's dialogue. The dialogue I could see working very well in a book, but they way it was performed in this movie it comes out very contrived. People don't talk like that normally, they don't intercut each other's words like that so in short it was not believeable.

...

There are better -- much better -- film noir movies. This is kind of bottom third of the barrel as noir goes.

Ah, yes, "people don't really talk like that." The last, desperate maneuever of the idiotic film reviewer.

Once Upon a Time in the West

Princy from Australia really pisses me off with this comment. I mean...to imply that the grand tradition of Italian genre filmmaking is anything less than an impressive achievement is an insult.

I can't believe that this movie has received so many great reviews. One of the five greatest westerns ever made said one article. Clearly there is something to these Italian made spaghetti westerns that I am not getting. I still am undecided as to whether or not this is supposed to have been a send-up of western movies, and if so then maybe I can understand the atrocious acting. All in all, Italians make the worst westerns and horror movies (I should have known better when I saw Dario Argento's name in the credits).

Let me help you out a bit, Princy. There is definitely something you're not getting. It's called "the whole point." Also, it's not a send-up of Westerns...It's pretty much the ideal Western.

Annie Hall

This review is awesome, because the guy bends over backwards in the opening to present himself as King Movie Knowledge, handing down his Verdict about one of the greatest American comedies ever, and then, in the very same review, he makes a dumb mistake.

This is one of the most horrible films I have ever seen. I know my films, and I cannot believe the adulation some give this unfunny, unclever mess. This movie came out at a great time for hack Woody Allen - he had 60's and 70's audiences by the throat because they, for some odd reason, loved him for the most part. Fortunately, by the mid-80's people finally started to wise up to this shyster, and that's why every movie he makes completely bombs.

It's not about "getting it" - oh how I hate it when elitists like Allen fanatics try to pull that crap on people. "It's just over your head..." "Woody is an acquired taste..." "He's for sophisticates..." BULL. He SUCKS. He's a hack.

I actually do like a few Woody Allen films. I repeat, "like." Play It Again Sam was OK. Broadway Danny Rose was OK. A few more were OK.

Oh, StevenfallonNYC, Play It Again Sam was actually directed by Herbert Ross, adapated from Allen's play! So sorry...no points this round.

And I know that might not seem like the most significant little factoid, but as additional evidence on top of your review that you're a clueless poser, I found it interesting.

One more? Okay, here we go...

The Fly (1986)

Cronenberg's horror classic is pretty much universally beloved. When the Special Edition came out earlier this year on DVD, we sold tons at Laser Blazer, even though any real hardcore horror movie fan already owned the previous version. Only a true classic gets that kind of love out of these broke bastards.

How could anyone not dig Cronenberg's gross-out masterpiece, featuring Jeff Goldblum in arguably his best performance and Rob Bottin's awe-inspiring make-up effects?

The original movie, The Fly, was a lovely little horror film. Was it great? No, but it was effective and fun to watch. Did it need to be remade? Possibly, but only if the integrity of the original story remained and it was given better special effects. BUT, NOT LIKE THIS!! Gone is the silly fun of the original. In its place is a viscerally disturbing (nauseating actually) mess with a rather mean spirit. It's simply unfun and unappealing.

You don't believe me? Well, look at the sick makeup job on Jeff Goldbloom. Accident victims are easier to look at for extended periods. And, the ultimate gross-out of having him vomit up white slime on people in order to digest them!!! What were they thinking? If they want to gross us out so much, why not go on a tour of the morgue and film that!? It would be as gross and as pointless.

I'm not going to be able to top that for comedy value.

You guys have been great! I've been your blogger, Lons! Good night!