This is the same chick flick we have suffered many times before, and it never gets any better.
4. Napoleon Dynamite
Is there any point to this other than making fun of nerds?
3. Anything Disney has ever created
2. The Wizard of Oz
1. Gone with the Wind
even the pencil-thin mustache of Clarke Gable is not worth the four hours of my life
From Shinigami-Sidh--
7 comments:
I haven't seen the Notebook, but I doubt it would be anything but underrated for me given my low expectations of the movie.
My take on Napoleon Dynamite is different than yours because I don't think it makes fun of nerds at all.
I like several Disney films, especially the early ones. Snow White? Come on. That's charming.
The Wizard of Oz. Dude, you are so wrong. It's....art, my friend. In every respect, it's art. Magical. Not that it's anywhere close to my favorite movie. I'm just saying it's SO out there, so weird, so freakin' strange and bizarre that, gosh, I don't know how you can say that. My opinion turned around when I did the Pink Floyd thing. That made me focus on the visuals, the cinematography, which is astoundingly good.
Gone with the Wind. I have a cool interpretation of this movie. What makes me sad is I think I ran it by you once, and apparently it didn't have traction with you.
I like that your movies are surprising pics, and you've inspired me to make a list of overrated movies.
With Gone with The Wind I think I just hate Scarlett and all she represents too much to enjoy any of it.
Disney makes perfectly gruesome fairy tales like Snow White into insipid things of song and dance. Snow White is not and should not be charming, it's about jealousy, body image, murder, deceit, nonchalance in the face of murder and jealousy, and the random cruelty toward the physically deformed that is in almost every Grimm tale.
The Wizard of Oz I didn't like that much as a book either, and it didn't get noticeably better as a movie.
With Napoleon Dynamite I always got the sense that Napoleon was being ridiculed for being original, knowing stuff that no one else did and being Ye Awkwarde Boy in Love who exists to be mocked unless he fixes himself into something more conventional, which is a movie cliche that I could really do without.
s-s:
but everything that scarlett represents makes the movie interesting. (more on which later.)
haven't read the oz book, and the movie has nothing to do with it. it's really quite insane. and wonderful. especially without the soundtrack.
did i mention that snow white is charming? because it is.
i like your take on napoleon, but i think the director likes him just fine. and i think that it is love, not convention, that will "fix" him. and i'm good with that.
let's continue this.
okay.
The Wizard of Oz strikes me as a tale smug in its own obvious morals. You have the good and beautiful people who are good and beautiful because they just are, opposing the evil and ugly people who are evil and ugly because they just are. Dorothy is the person beloved of all who has everything she needs dropped into her lap, because, well, she's just that special, and it leads to plot holes. I mean, she is conveniently cleaning for a person who is so unclean that the touch of water will melt her, yet this person wants the floors cleaned with her mortal terror by a captive who has no reason to love her?
I'll agree Disney can be charming, but can you convince me that it's good?
Run your Gone With the Wind theory by me again, I'll try not to hate Scarlett too much.
well.
i can't say we see eye to eye on the oz thing. i'm not going to defend oz as a great moral story, because that's not why i like it. but i don't find your characterization convincing. i think the pat morals, beautiful vs. ugly, and unclean categories don't do it justice.
oh, i'd never defend disney as "good." i'll stick with charming. with snow white. part of it is i just "never" care about the origin of a movie--whether it comes from a book or poem or whatever. the movie stands alone.
i'll give the g.w.t.w. theory another time.
ok, see, I have trouble looking at a movie out of context of the source (if I know it) and I've actually reached the point where if I've read the book or seen the stage version I will refuse to see the movie.
s-s:
Okay, I'm with you on the last point. Because the comparisons are inevitable. But I think each should be held to the standard of its respective medium.
Post a Comment