[QUOTE=Lisa]Maggers mentioned this on another thread and I thought it was worth pursuing. In her words:



Ok here my top five:

1. STEPMOM: I'll agree on this with Lisa. I resented the director trying to make me feel that that mouthy little girl daughter & her spaced out little brother were two most important things in existence.

2. NAPOLEAN DYNAMITE: What the ****??

3. CRASH (1997): Yeah - first thing I think about too after a car accident is sex.

4. BATMAN & ROBIN - 'Awe-nauld' was the real reason they boarded up the Batcave for 8 yrs.

5. ATOMIC TWISTER - <cough Ripoff! cough >

3. CRASH (1997): Yeah - first thing I think about too after a car accident is sex.

Seriously? You too? But then why should that time be any different?

"Guarding Tess" Arrghh!! I hated this movie! I still give my wife grief over picking this movie. Nicholas Cage is a great actor, but why didn't he just leave Shirly MacLaine buried alive. I'll never forgive him.
"Boys don't cry" Sorry, but this movie was boring and I never finished watching it. Never will.

"Gladiator" Over-rated. Basically a storyline ripped from a professional wrestling playbook, only with CGI and some extra blood.

"The Firm" Mail-fraud? All of that for some abuse of postage? The book was a fast, fun read, but the movie was pretty bad.

"The Pelican Brief" Couldn't stand the book, hated the movie. The whole story hinges on a needle-in-a-haystack plot convention that would never be possible.

Jimbo, I agree with you on 2001. I did read the book and thought it was a bit better. Still weird but not on the level of the movie, and more understandable.

In my view, 2001 was one of those movies that could mean anything you wanted it to mean. So, in effect, it meant nothing. (To me anyway.)

I liked the music, but Richard Strauss's, Alzo Sprach Zarathustra, I could get in any record shop.

The Matrix was so memorable that I had forgotten I had seen it. And when someone recommended it to me, I rented it, and thought, "Ghod! Not THIS crap again!" Never even bothered to see the other two.

Ken V.

Re: Ridley Scott... Looking at that list of films, I'd say his newer stuff isn't as good as his older stuff, though I've still liked most of his work. He gets a pass for Alien and Blade Runner, two of the best films ever made, for my money. I also liked Black Rain, actually. Blake

Granted those are excellent films, but both of them suffer from what I consider to be Scott's greatest weakness-his inability to create a protagonist I care about-it's just that those didn't require someone to pull for. All of his movies boast great production, but generally fail to engage me on a personal level. Am I the only one who cheered when Thelma and Louise drove off the cliff? I couldn't stand either one of them.

Reds,Terms of Endearment, The Color Purple, Remains of the Day, Scent of a Woman, As Good As It Gets, Moulin Rouge, Chicago

I agree with all of these and I whole-heartedly agree with 2001, I hated it, although it is responsible for one of the truly great parodies from History of the World.

Some more:

Superman was an incredible bore and I didn't believe a man could fly.

The Royal Tennanbaums failed to make me laugh or care about a single character.

The Shining was more of faint glimmer. Somebody wake me when Jack goes crazy.

Beetlejuice another 'supposed' comedy that failed to induce laughter.

Witches of Eastwick yet another unfunny comedy.

Thinking about this led me the realization that I don't really like very many Nicholson movies, but I consider him to be a great actor. Go figure.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

After finally seeing this based on so many rave reviews, I was expecting more of an art film but all I found was, IMO, a pseudo-typical martial-arts movie, although with some stronger female leads than usual. The fight sequences were okay, but the "flying"? C'mon. Just looked like crappy wire-work to me.

Shrek.

Was it good? At times. Was it great? Not to me. Did it deserve to win the first ever Oscar for Best Animated Feature over "Monsters, Inc."? No, no, no.

Monster's Ball.

Monster's Bore is more like it.

LOL! Like that, Sam.

Funerals celebrate the life of someone you cared for, respected or loved, otherwise why go. That's something real, something finite, something irrevocable. They are also sad; that goes without saying. But they are truly meaningful, once in a life time events.

Weddings, on the other hand, are not unique events. I'd much rather check back with the couple in say, 25 years, and see how they're doing. Throw a big party then. That I'd celebrate. But to pay so much money for what may last a year or less or a few years when it's purported to last a lifetime...well, that's just false advertising.

Call me jaded...what can I say.

Gotta agree with you on the wedding business. They are a very special day, I recognize that fact. But why do you have to have the 12' tall, 8 tier cake on a 24 karat gold platter to celebrate your love??? An engagement ring isn't enough because you have to have a wedding ring, too?? A 2nd mortgage just to buy the dress?? Etc, etc, etc. So much pressure caused by these events. Weddings are about love and unity. Not how big the limo is and a private jet to a rented island. I've been to a few lavish weddings, even gave the best man speech at one. All that money spent didn't make the marriage last any longer. I think a fairy tale wedding is wonderful but not really necessary.

Funerals?? Hate 'em. I can't stand to see people in pain. And your last image of the deceased is in that coffin, looking nothing at all like the person you knew. I have proclaimed emphatically that my funeral will be a "closed- coffin-kegger" . That may sound stupid to some but I don't want people crying over me. I want laughter, smiles, relaxed atmosphere, funny stories, anything but tears. I want their last time around me to be a happy one. Leave the crying at the door.