Top-10 Movie Disappointments

[Richard Penna 3,679]

I liked Hugo - I don't think the 3D was a particularly notable aspect really. My brother bought me the 3D Blu-ray and when I rewatch it, it will be in 2D.

 

Agreed on Dunkirk - I rented it a few years ago and honestly couldn't have been more bored. I've historically liked most of Nolan's movies (haven't seen Tenet) so it felt like a misstep.

[Loert 2,511]

I struggle to remember 10 movies I watched ever. But I'll try. Most of these are pretty recent as I tend not to watch older movies unless I'm sure I'll love them.

 

La La Land - felt like a 2nd pressing of what it was supposed to be. Just subpar

The Shape of Water - just didn't really get it, was bored by the last quarter of the film

Bohemian Rhapsody - the Live AID sequence was pretty good but other than that felt more like a shell of a movie

Everything Everywhere All At Once - the worst movie I've seen in my life

All Quiet on the Western Front - was disappointed by the ending, felt a bit cheap

The Dark Knight - I haven't watched this in at least 10 years, so my opinion may change now, but at the time I found the self-importance of the film obnoxious. It's a problem I have with Nolan's style in general (yeah I know, another Nolan hater, how boring). I'm not sure how to describe my issue exactly. Perhaps one way to put it is that, when I watch his films, I'm aware of the emotions I'm "supposed" to feel, but don't actually feel them. I don't hate all Nolan though, I quite liked The Prestige (I'd like to see Memento, haven't yet).

Independence Day: Resurgence - I will never forget the sense of overwhelming disappointment in the audience when this finished playing in the cinema

L.A. Confidential - I watched this a while back and completely lost track of the story midway. Should watch it again at some point probably...

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - I fell asleep twice in the cinema

 

Can't think of any more at the moment

[Chen G. 3,948]

18 minutes ago, Loert said:

at the time I found the self-importance of the film obnoxious.

 

Personally, would that more movies were like this.

 

Our action movies today are much too scared of seeming "self-important" and its a crying shame.

[Nick1Ø66 4,710]

43 minutes ago, Loert said:

Everything Everywhere All At Once - the worst movie I've seen in my life

Highlander 2: The Quickening would like a word.

[Richard Penna 3,679]

17 hours ago, Loert said:

 

L.A. Confidential - I watched this a while back and completely lost track of the story midway. Should watch it again at some point probably...

 

My brother has this on DVD and I tried watching a few scenes once and couldn't latch onto what was going on. On a musical note, I cannot for the life of me understand why Goldsmith's score is so revered.

 

I very much enjoyed Everything Everywhere All At Once but I completely get that it's not for everyone.

[Chen G. 3,948]

34 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Highlander 2: The Quickening would like a word.

Supergirl would also like to pitch in.

[A24 4,331]

 

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Supergirl would also like to pitch in.

 

You think Supergirl is worse than Highlander 2? 

 

 

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Personally, would that more movies were like this.

 

Our action movies today are much too scared of seeming "self-important" and its a crying shame.

 

I know you like your movies to be very serious (drop the gags, for Pete's sake!) but I'm not sure if that is the same as 'self-importance'. Just because there aren't any comedy bits doesn't mean a director thinks his movie is very important. 

[Chen G. 3,948]

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

I know you like your movies to be very serious (drop the gags, for Pete's sake!) but I'm not sure if that is the same as 'self-importance'.

 

I've yet to see any Nolan film that's "self important." At least in the sense that it feels like it has some sort of grandstanding message for the human race or anything like that, and remember: I'm a Wagnerian! If ever you want to talk about self-importance in a work of art...

 

Its just very serious (which is not, by the way, to say its humourless), and I like it. In almost every movie of every genre. Movies in the 2010s seem to be scared to death of being serious...

[Naïve Old Fart 9,512]

3 hours ago, AC1 said:

You think Supergirl is worse than Highlander 2? 

 

Both rank very highly on The Shitometer.

[A24 4,331]

Without peeping, I'm pretty sure Highlander 2 scores much lower than Supergirl on the Tomatometer, which is the only meter that counts!

[Chen G. 3,948]

I must say, I found the original Highlander not much to write home about, so to watch a sequel...

[Nick1Ø66 4,710]

25 minutes ago, AC1 said:

Without peeping, I'm pretty sure Highlander 2 scores much lower than Supergirl on the Tomatometer

 
There should have been only one.

[Schilkeman 961]

54 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I must say, I found the original Highlander not much to write home about, so to watch a sequel...

It’s always refreshing, between this and your love of Wagner, to find another person who I disagree with on almost every point imaginable.

[Chen G. 3,948]

4 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

It’s always refreshing, between this and your love of Wagner, to find another person who I disagree with on almost every point imaginable.

 

Oh come on, who doesn't love a good spot of incest in the springtime?

[Schilkeman 961]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Oh come on, who doesn't love a good spot of incest in the springtime?

Lol. I don’t know what this is in reference to, but if it’s Wagner, my objections are purely musical. 

[Chen G. 3,948]

Its a reference to one of the most romantic lines in the whole of the Western canon: Siegmund's "Bride, then, and sister, be to thy brother. So let flourish the Volsung line!" 

 

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

if it’s Wagner, my objections are purely musical. 

 

To which work?

[Schilkeman 961]

32 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

To which work?

I’ve listened to The Ring cycle and Tristan, I believe. I had the misfortune to play some of Parsifal in my college orchestra.

 

Wagner’s use of harmony was very progressive for the day, but I find his counterpoint lacking, his melodies ponderous, and he just about ruined the sound of the orchestra with his bland orchestrations. He uses motifs as shorthand for development in a way I don’t like. Too much of his music just isn’t doing anything. Nothing to tickle the ears as it were. I have the same complaints with Bruckner, and Howard Shore.
 

Mahler, despite calling himself a disciple of Wagner, became much closer to Brahms in his contrapuntal writing as time went on, and his orchestrations were light years ahead of Wagner.

[Chen G. 3,948]

I find it very hard to talk about Wagner music in this way, because every Wagner work may well have come - at least musically - from a different composer.

 

I'd be willing to make a stiff bet that, if you gave a group of people ignorant of Wagner long excerps (even whole acts) of Tristan and Meistersingers (written consecutively) most people would insist they were the works of two different composers: they simply sound nothing alike. Same with Rienzi and Flying Dutchman (whose composition periods overlapped), same with Lohengrin and Das Rheingold, etc...

 

Contemporary "auteurs" would do well to learn from this...

[Schilkeman 961]

I’m 30 seconds into the Meistersingers and already bored lol. I’ll give it a full listen tonight at work. If I can make it. I’ve yet to get through a full Bruckner symphony.

 

Its not surprising then, that two of my favorite modern musical figures, Williams and Gardiner, are not fans. “Great moment and dreadful quarters of an hour” about sums it up.

[Chen G. 3,948]

Williams has a decent excuse: hearing the Ring (probably heavily cut) without knowing a word of German... I bet Lohengrin would be more in his wheelhouse though!

 

Meanwhile, Verdi could scarcely believe the second act of Tristan was composed by a human. Puccini said "Before it we are all but mandolinists!" Elgar called it unforgettable. Britten "Dwarfs every other creation."  Liszt: "I do not know what will be left for our opera composers to do.’ Grieg: "rises above all our epoch's art." Pederweski said (of Meistersingers) "the greatest achievement of any artist in any form of human endeavour whatsoever", which Mencken said trumps "the whole canon of Shakespeare." Roger Sessions thought Rheingold had the most astounding musical transformation in all of music.

 

Even Meyerbeer and Berlioz loved Lohengrin (as did Van Gough: "would that we could do to colour what Wagner does to harmony"), which Thomas Mann called "the epitome of the romantic in art", while Debussi adored Parsifal, a work which caused Chabrier to faint and Mahler to have a revelation. Tschaikovsky deemed The Ring "one of the most tremendous artistic projects ever conceived by the human mind."

 

....

 

I'll see myself out.

[Romão 2,274]

55 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Williams has a decent excuse: hearing the Ring (probably heavily cut) without knowing a word of German... I bet Lohengrin would be more in his wheelhouse though!

 

Meanwhile, Verdi could scarcely believe the second act of Tristan was composed by a human. Puccini said "Before it we are all but mandolinists!" Elgar called it unforgettable. Britten "Dwarfs every other creation."  Liszt: "I do not know what will be left for our opera composers to do.’ Grieg: "rises above all our epoch's art." Pederweski said (of Meistersingers) "the greatest achievement of any artist in any form of human endeavour whatsoever", which Mencken said trumps "the whole canon of Shakespeare." Roger Sessions thought Rheingold had the most astounding musical transformation in all of music.

 

Even Meyerbeer and Berlioz loved Lohengrin (as did Van Gough: "would that we could do to colour what Wagner does to harmony"), which Thomas Mann called "the epitome of the romantic in art", while Debussi adored Parsifal, a work which caused Chabrier to faint and Mahler to have a revelation. Tschaikovsky deemed The Ring "one of the most tremendous artistic projects ever conceived by the human mind."

 

....

 

I'll see myself out.

 

I must say, Chen, as a neophyte Wagnerian, I've been greatly enjoying your posts on the subject. With both this subject and the George Lucas inspirations for Star Wars, your volume of knowledge is impressive 

[Schilkeman 961]

I know Brahms had a begrudging respect for him, despite their supposed feud, but I much prefer his music, and Debussy, who called him “a poison.” Williams has had about 8 decades to seek out more Wagner, and hasn’t done so. He’s not for everyone.

[Chen G. 3,948]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

Debussy, who called him “a poison.”

 

Again, this is generalizing on a composer who completely reinvents himself with each work. Debussi hated The Ring, but he loved Tristan (he onced tried to play THE WHOLE SCORE from memory!) and Parsifal ("one of the loveliest monuments of sound ever raised"). I heard it said he was "a great Wagenerian in spite of himself."

 

1 hour ago, Romão said:

must say, Chen, as a neophyte Wagnerian, I've been greatly enjoying your posts on the subject.

 

Hurray, a convert! 

[Nick1Ø66 4,710]

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Hurray, a convert! 

 

[Chen G. 3,948]

One convert at a time, Englishman, one convert at a time.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,512]

4 hours ago, AC1 said:

Without peeping, I'm pretty sure Highlander 2 scores much lower than Supergirl on the Tomatometer, which is the only meter that counts!

Haven't you heard, Alex? There's a new meter in town: The Fartometer.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I must say, I found the original Highlander not much to write home about, so to watch a sequel...

 

WHAT.  THE. ACTUAL??!!!!!!

[Schilkeman 961]

51 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

WHAT.  THE. ACTUAL??!!!!!!

Seriously. I use Highlander as a litmus test for any new friends. If you don’t think that movie is fucking rad (not good, necessarily. Rad) Then we probably can’t hang.

 

And if you don’t tear up a bit at Who Wants to Live Forever, you are a small and sad person.

[Chen G. 3,948]

6 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

if you don’t tear up a bit at Who Wants to Live Forever,

 

Wasn't that also on the TV show? I saw that when I was younger.

[Nick1Ø66 4,710]

 

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

Seriously. I use Highlander as a litmus test for any new friends. If you don’t think that movie is fucking rad (not good, necessarily. Rad) Then we probably can’t hang.

In Chen’s brave heart, there can be only one Highlander. And he does not share power.

 

All Highlanders die, but not every Highlander truly lives forever. But who wants to?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,512]

It's too bad he won't live, but, then again, who does?

[Chen G. 3,948]

Oh wow, I checked this thing out: you didn't say it started with Gotterdamerung! For a couple of minutes there, I was sure I was looking at Jeanine Altmeyer...then it turned out to be a double...things...escalated from there...

[Sweeping Strings 2,352]

Love the first film ... it's hokum, but it knows it is. Mulcahy pulls off some terrific visual flourishes, the action is great, it's quite funny, the Kurgan is an awesome bad guy, and there's an excellent soundtrack courtesy of Queen. 

But the sequel ... sweet Lord. Starts by telling us that the immortals are actually aliens, and gets progressively more incomprehensible from there.    

[Chen G. 3,948]

5 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Mulcahy pulls off some terrific visual flourishes

 

It does sometimes look very nice, I'll give it that.

 

Also, why isn't James Cosmo in everything ever?

[Nick1Ø66 4,710]

Highlander is great. Cool concept, beautiful visuals, tight script & kick ass score by Queen. Connery & Lambert radiate charisma & charm in their performances. The Kurgan is an awesome villain. Yes, parts of it, mostly the contemporary bits with the cops are dated, but all the flashbacks are very well done and McCleod's NYC lair incredibly cool. And yes, Who Want's to Live Forever? is heartbreaking.  

 

The less said about Highlander II, however, the better. Talk about disappointing, one of the worst sequels, and movies, ever made.

[Loert 2,511]

11 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I've yet to see any Nolan film that's "self important." At least in the sense that it feels like it has some sort of grandstanding message for the human race or anything like that, and remember: I'm a Wagnerian! If ever you want to talk about self-importance in a work of art...

 

Its just very serious (which is not, by the way, to say its humourless), and I like it. In almost every movie of every genre. Movies in the 2010s seem to be scared to death of being serious...

 

It seems like my use of the term "self important" may have been a bit of a red herring, as it's a bit of an ambiguous term (to what extent does a piece of art has a "self"? certainly not in the way that humans have a self).

 

I am also a "Wagnerian" - in fact, I was just listening to Act 2 from Gotterdammerung yesterday while walking in the park (as one does). He is certainly among my top classical composers. Now, even though Wagner felt he was "above" others (he had a recurring dream of conversing with Beethoven and Shakespeare in heaven/he kept running away from his creditors/wouldn't stop pestering Minna with love letters and drag her into his sorry poor life of a German composer in 19th-century Europe), the term "self-important" has never occurred to me when listening to his music. His music is important, that's for certain. But for me, self-importance means something like "feeling you have something to say when you actually can't say much".  The OED says that to be self-important is to "have an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance" (emphasis mine). Given this definition, to say that Wagner's music or Wagner himself are "self-important" is actually absurd. Because his music is maybe the most important music to be produced in the last 200 years, at least in terms of its effects on Western culture (we all know the cliche that "film music wouldn't exist without Wagner"). But even societal effects aside, I honestly have never listened to a Wagner opera (I'm talking Rienzi onwards) and found myself thinking "Man, that's a bit of an exaggeration. He's trying too hard here". I might think that of Mahler sometimes, or Stravinsky etc. But not Wagner. I've always thought of his music as "epic", "dramatic", "daring", "visionary" in the best possible sense.

 

But with Nolan, I definitely do get the sense when watching his films that he's trying too hard. The saying "Shoot for the moon, and even if you miss, you'll end up amongst the stars" comes to mind, with Nolan being firmly amongst the stars (almost literally, in fact...). It's not because of one particular thing, it's more the overall tone of the direction. E.g. one shot that comes to mind is that of the Joker clapping in a cell in TDK. I do see how it's a good shot in theory, but the way it's framed, the tone, makes me think "Oh, I see what he's trying to do..." and that's it. Similarly for the one liners: "You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain"/"Some people just want to watch the world burn". They are good lines, but within the entire context of the film they feel so "on-the-nose" for some reason. At least for me. I do think the music actually has something to do with it, the way the films are scored do not help with the sense of "self-importance" in my eyes (ears).

 

So, to sum up, I have nothing against seriousness in art, and I even agree that there's less of it now than there used to be. But Nolan's seriousness is just not the kind of seriousness I warm to.

 

(By the way, I preferred Batman Begins for some reason. Does that say anything about my film tastes? God knows...)

 

[Chen G. 3,948]

10 minutes ago, Loert said:

the term "self-important" has never occurred to me when listening to his music.

 

I mean, in terms that they have a "message" to mankind, and they're really treated like ritual. Even in a comedy like Meistersinger, he couldn't help but weave in that (amazing) "Wahn" monologue. Parsifal and The Ring probably take it to the absolute extreme. Around the time of Parsifal, he wrote in Kunst und Religion: "Art takes over where religion stops." And its called "a sacred play for the consecration of the festival stage" for Titurel's sake!

 

Nolan is very serious, but his films never feel like they're there to "bring the word" to mankind. They're just a very earnest kind of "entertainment" (oh, how I hate that word).

[Edmilson 7,426]

10 minutes ago, Loert said:

(By the way, I preferred Batman Begins for some reason. Does that say anything about my film tastes? God knows...)

 

I prefer Batman Begins too! I know TDK is considered the "better" movie, but I saw BB when I was 12 and I thought it was awesome, so since then it's my favorite Bat-movie (even though I like TDK).

 

TDKR, on the other hand, is an abomination. Just pure Republican propaganda and one of the worst scripts ever written for a big budget movie.

[Chen G. 3,948]

Just now, Edmilson said:

TDKR, on the other hand, is an abomination. Just pure Republican propaganda and one of the worst scripts ever written for a big budget movie.

 

I must confess I love all three very dearly.

[Loert 2,511]

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I mean, in terms that they have a "message" to mankind, and they're really treated like ritual. Even in a comedy like Meistersinger, he couldn't help but weave in that (amazing) "Wahn" monologue. Parsifal and The Ring probably take it to the absolute extreme. Around the time of Parsifal, he wrote in Kunst und Religion: "Art takes over where religion stops." And its called "a sacred play for the consecration of the festival stage" for Titurel's sake!

 

Nolan is very serious, but his films never feel like they're there to "bring the word" to mankind.

 

Wagner himself may have tried to "bring the word" to mankind, and even though it didn't really work (well, certainly not for Nietzsche), I don't really mind because I don't get that sense from the art itself. You do not have to have read "Kunst und Religion" to be deeply moved by the Prelude to Parsifal's 3rd Act. (In a way you could say that Wagner was actually aiming for the stars but landed on the moon.) So I'm not too fussed with the supra-artistic intent of the maker, rather the art itself, which I think is where the distinction lies.

[Chen G. 3,948]

18 minutes ago, Loert said:

I don't get that sense from the art itself.

 

Really? Because I do: in the best way! I remember once reading someone observing: "its strange, people go to see a Mozart or Verdi opera to be entertained. Wagnerians go to the theatre to uncover the mysteries of the cosmos." 

 

Stuff like the Verwandlungsmusik or the Verklärung or even just Brunnhilde's "Alles weiss ich" feels like its touching the sublime, at least for me.

 

And when you hear how other Wagnerians talk about it (I've supplied some examples earlier in the thread) you know its more like a cult than a fan-club.

[Loert 2,511]

20 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Really? Because I do: in the best way! I remember once reading someone observing: "its strange, people go to see a Mozart or Verdi opera to be entertained. Wagnerians go to the theatre to uncover the mysteries of the cosmos." 

 

Stuff like the Verwandlungsmusik or the Verklärung or even just Brunnhilde's "Alles weiss ich" feels like its touching the sublime, at least for me.

 

The point is not whether the music gives me sublime feelings. The point is whether the music sounds like it's trying to give me sublime feelings. Wagner is one of few composers I've listened to who have always hit the mark, at least for me (another is in the title of this website...) Nolan's films give me the weird sense that I feel like I can see the mark but he's not hitting it. All the pieces are there, just the execution is off. A very particular annoyance, but an annoyance it is.

[Nick1Ø66 4,710]

56 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Wagnerians go to the theatre to uncover the mysteries of the cosmos.

 

Funny, I found that reading the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper. Much cheaper (and tastier) than the theatre as well.

[Chen G. 3,948]

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Much cheaper (and tastier) than the theatre as well.

 

I imagine its faster, too: Parsifal typically takes four hours (that's just music, not counting intermissions) and virtually nothing happens in it. Tristan usually takes comfortable over 3.5 hours and even less happens in it. The Ring, in its 16+ hours, is not super jam-packed with incident either, nor are Lohengrin (~3.5 hour) or Meistersinger (4.5+). The closest we can get to reconstructing a complete Rienzi points towards a runtime of comfortably over 4.5 hours. I guess Dutchman, with its 2.5 hour runtime (and not a lot of plot either), is Wagner's idea of "short."

 

We do go for the long haul.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

Try Meistersinger on a standing ticket, and in the intermission you accidentally run into some friends and chat with them instead of sitting down…

 

Worth it though:

 

[Chen G. 3,948]

Ah, Attack of the Wagnerians! taking over JWFan, as of yet considered the stronghold of Puccinians and Tschaikovskians! 

 

Nick, Marian, Blondheim, Loert, Waffen und Steine! Hilf mir! Ans Tor!

 

[bruckhorn 105]

There is an old curse: may you have to watch a Wagner opera without a sandwich.

 

Or, something to that extent.

 

When I was in college multiple professors expressed their hatred of Wagner, stating that he "destroyed harmony" and apparently Western music in general.  It was really bad. 

 

Poor Bruckner got painted with, "He wrote one symphony, nine times."  Pretty tame compared to old Richie.

 

After reading analysis of Williams' Star Wars and how it was influenced by the two, I took a listen and decided I liked them.  Though both composers (especially Bruckner) are performance dependent.

 

If you don't like them, fine.  

 

Back to the disappointing movies:

 

There have been portions of movies that have disappointed me.  For instance: The Dark Knight.  I didn't see it until The Dark Knight Rises came out.  I avoided it because of all of the praise the Heath Ledger got.  From the clips I saw, I thought it was role that Paul Giamatti could have easily played.  And having seen the movie, I still think that.

 

The prequels: nobody had the strength of character to tell Lucas: this sucks.  Get a writer, get a director, and stick to the technical aspects, George.  

 

The sequels: plan the damn thing out before shooting frame one.  After The Force Awakens, I told a guy in the theater that it was an okay remake of Star Wars.  And after The Last Jedi, "Where in the hell do they go from here?"

 

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: too many characters and no reason to care about any of the new ones.

 

And Highlander II really is in the argument for worst movie ever.  Right up there with Up the Academy.

[Chen G. 3,948]

5 minutes ago, bruckhorn said:

The prequels: nobody had the strength of character to tell Lucas: this sucks.  Get a writer, get a director, and stick to the technical aspects, George.  

 

I don't buy that "excuse" for why the prequels are the way they are. Too easy.

 

6 minutes ago, bruckhorn said:

There is an old curse: may you have to watch a Wagner opera without a sandwich.

 

That's not it: the Curse is watching Rheingold (over two-and-a-half hours straight, effectivelly the opera version of a one-take movie) without going to the toilet first. 

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

29 minutes ago, bruckhorn said:

Though both composers (especially Bruckner) are performance dependent.

 

I wouldn't have said that about Wagner especially (except for his physical demands). But Bruckner, absolutely.

[Chen G. 3,948]

13 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

except for his physical demands

 

That's one BIG "except! 

 

Also, the interperative skills required of the performers, vocally and dramatically, are absolutely immense: comparable to a Shakespeare performance.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

That's one BIG "except! 

 

Also, the interperative skills required of the performers, vocally and dramatically, are absolutely immense: comparable to a Shakespeare performance.

 

Certainly. It's easy to have Wagner performed poorly, but usually he's not performed wrongly. With Bruckner I almost expect unproven conductors to do him wrongly, even when they're generally good.