Iconic Movies that Disappoint.

[Sam Gamgee]

Several cult movies have left me feeling underwhelmed to disappointed. I think my third John Wayne movie and on. Why do they bother giving his characters names or costumes? Every single solitary John Wayne movie I've ever seen has been John Wayne. He acts like John Wayne, lines delivered like John Wayne, everything. Pull his character from any movie and drop him into any other of his movies and I bet my next 4 paychecks you wouldn't be able to tell.

The Big Lebowski is a cult classic with my generation. I've seen it a few times, and each time I finished feeling my time had been wasted. Not even John Goodmans performance could save it.

It's early and I'm on my first pipe and cup. Let me wake up and think about it, I'll probably have more soon.

I agree about John Wayne. I feel the same about Tommy Lee Jones. If you want to see TLJ, watch him in any movie and it's the same set up. He's very good at what he does, but it's all he does.

 

[SBC]

I recently saw a YouTube clip of Sean Connery singing "The Son of God Goes Forth to War" (a favorite hymn text of mine) to a tune not listed in any of the major hymnals -- what turned out to be a traditional Irish tune: "The Minstrel Boy." It was so much more fitting than any of the tunes offered in the hymnals -- and the clip appeared to be so noble (it seemed to depict a valiant martyrdom) -- that I had to see the film that it was from: "The Man Who Would Be King," based on the Kipling story. I was vaguely aware that it had a minor cult following, but had never viewed it, and never read the story.

What a disappointment. Sean Connery and Michael Caine play endearing ne'er-do-wells that would have been the antagonists had the story been told from a different perspective. Connery's character dies for nothing noble -- only his increasingly unhinged, selfish ambition.

 

[tracerbullet]

I've tried to watch Casablanca several times, I just can't do it. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a Bogart movie. (maybe the African Queen)

Interesting. Bogey is probably my favorite, for film noir

 

[PA Piper Mike]

I agree about John Wayne. I feel the same about Tommy Lee Jones. If you want to see TLJ, watch him in any movie and it's the same set up. He's very good at what he does, but it's all he does.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

I've heard this about The Stand, I actually had a friend of mine FINALLY make it all the way through it after numerous attempts. I'm pretty sure I remember him saying he liked it, but it dragged on a LOT.

The only Stephen King book I've read was 11/22/63 and I thought that was really interesting. But definitely not enough to make me attempt The Stand, or any other of his books.

I really enjoyed 11/22/63 and read it three times (I think). The alternate endings/possibilities he presents at the close of the story (if the main character had done this or that - time-travel involved and I don't want to give the story away) are a good example of King's imagination at its best IMO. He's a flat-out insanely good writer when he is doing that.

I particularly enjoyed how he fully placed me into 1958 during the first few time-travel bits. He really captured that era. It's easy to see his nostalgia for the America of his boyhood since he has many stories where he takes you there. I also liked the fact that he leaves out all the really foul stuff in 11/22/63 that's included in many of his horror stories. Example: a man being raped with a handgun in THE STAND was so over-the-top and pointless that it almost made me give up the story at that point.

I find a lot of his novels very forgettable. I've read several that I've never thought of again after finishing them. He has a very faithful and forgiving audience. It seems to me that much of what he has written should've never been published, but he's a cash-cow for his publishers for sure.

His book ON WRITING is also very good - part memoir and part how-to for would-be writers. I think I've read it thrice as well.

On a personal level, I find his ranting and raving on social and political issues to be very much a turn-off, even when I might agree with them. I mean, really, who asked Stephen King to straighten everyone and everything out? Somewhere along the way he seems to have turned into one of those celebrities that knows better than the masses and feels the need to talk down to us from his pulpit. I wish he'd stick to the typewriter.

 

[scloyd]

I agree about John Wayne. I feel the same about Tommy Lee Jones. If you want to see TLJ, watch him in any movie and it's the same set up. He's very good at what he does, but it's all he does.

I feel the same about Liam Neeson. Every movie seems to be the same.

 

[sablebrush52]

Cold Mountain and The English Patient were empty waste for me. No depth whatsoever.

But, it’s not uncommon for me to be scratching my head over the “Best Picture” winner.

Also not a huge fan of GWTW. I respect it, but don’t like it.

 

[El Capitán]

Citizen Kane was one I could not get into.

 

[PA Piper Mike]

I really enjoyed 11/22/63 and read it three times (I think). The alternate endings/possibilities he presents at the close of the story (if the main character had done this or that - time-travel involved and I don't want to give the story away) are a good example of King's imagination at its best IMO. He's a flat-out insanely good writer when he is doing that.

I particularly enjoyed how he fully placed me into 1958 during the first few time-travel bits. He really captured that era. It's easy to see his nostalgia for the America of his boyhood since he has many stories where he takes you there. I also liked the fact that he leaves out all the really foul stuff in 11/22/63 that's included in many of his horror stories. Example: a man being raped with a handgun in THE STAND was so over-the-top and pointless that it almost made me give up the story at that point.

After I read the book, I REALLY wanted to see this adapted to film. Have you seen the James Franco mini-series? Is it worth watching?

 

[SBC]

I really enjoyed 11/22/63 and read it three times (I think). The alternate endings/possibilities he presents at the close of the story (if the main character had done this or that - time-travel involved and I don't want to give the story away) are a good example of King's imagination at its best IMO. He's a flat-out insanely good writer when he is doing that.

I particularly enjoyed how he fully placed me into 1958 during the first few time-travel bits. He really captured that era. It's easy to see his nostalgia for the America of his boyhood since he has many stories where he takes you there. I also liked the fact that he leaves out all the really foul stuff in 11/22/63 that's included in many of his horror stories. Example: a man being raped with a handgun in THE STAND was so over-the-top and pointless that it almost made me give up the story at that point.

I find a lot of his novels very forgettable. I've read several that I've never thought of again after finishing them. He has a very faithful and forgiving audience. It seems to me that much of what he has written should've never been published, but he's a cash-cow for his publishers for sure.

His book ON WRITING is also very good - part memoir and part how-to for would-be writers. I think I've read it thrice as well.

On a personal level, I find his ranting and raving on social and political issues to be very much a turn-off, even when I might agree with them. I mean, really, who asked Stephen King to straighten everyone and everything out? Somewhere along the way he seems to have turned into one of those celebrities that knows better than the masses and feels the need to talk down to us from his pulpit. I wish he'd stick to the typewriter.

Of the several King novels I've read, 11/22/63 was the only one that afterwards seemed worthwhile.

 

[Alejo R.]

Have you ever watched cult-status movies and been left wondered what all the fuss was about?

Last night I watched The Shining for the first time. How I've managed to miss this film all these years I've no idea, but it was on terrestrial TV and bigged up in the reviews as you'd expect so I settled down and gave it a go and I'm afraid to say I found the whole thing distinctly meh..

It's a pretty conventional isolation movie where the characters are trapped in a situation they can't escape and begin to turn on each other. But I found it completely devoid of dramatic tension. The scenario is more or less spelled out right at the beginning when the black guy who is the hotel chef explains to the kid what the "Shining" means and relates the tale of a previous caretaker who went mad at the hotel and massacred his family. That same character then vanishes from the narrative, only to reappear at the end to get murdered. You can see the story unfolding a mile off with no twists or surprises and the viewer feels no particular empathy with any one character, except possibly the poor wife, but she isn't driving the narrative.

There were lots of threads that were picked up and then dropped again. The chef who seems to know what is likely to happen but does nothing about it except to tell the kid a creepy story. The ghostly twins who keep popping up for no real purpose. The woman in the bath in room 237. The repeated maze scene. Jack's book consisting of a single endlessly repeating sentence the reason for which and his growing antipathy towards his family goes unexplored.

There were lots of arty motifs, like the repeated following shot of the kid driving round empty corridors in his pedal car, which added nothing to the story except to remind us that the place is deserted. I didn't find it in the least creepy or particularly atmospheric, just predictable.

The only tension came from Jack Nicholson's performance with his seamless slow-motion portrayal of developing madness.

Did I miss something here?
Anyone else similarly underwhelmed by a cult movie?

I have never understood the arrogance of directors and screenwriters to want to film a pre-existing story and then change it in fundamental aspects. The only plausible explanation was when Andy Muschietti explained that he didn't include the destruction of Derry at the end of IT, because that would have made the film just another disaster movie.
In the case of The Shinning, beyond the photography and staging which is magnificent, there is not much left. The script is poor and flat. What should be a portrait of the protagonist's descent into madness and simply the story of a madman from the beginning.
Another film that if you take away the staging and the customs, there is no great script left is The Godfather.

 

[Alejo R.]

I think for "The Shining", it helps to have read the book. It's fun to unravel the continuity issues Kubrick dropped in.
The oddities are covered in the documentary "Room 237"

Room 237 (2012)

Stanley Kubrick's classic film The Shining gets a riveting and in-depth exploration of its hidden meanings, dazzling puzzles and conspiracy theories.

tubitv.com

If to understand a movie you must read the book, then that movie is a failure.

 

[Alejo R.]

I think for "The Shining", it helps to have read the book. It's fun to unravel the continuity issues Kubrick dropped in.
The oddities are covered in the documentary "Room 237"

Room 237 (2012)

Stanley Kubrick's classic film The Shining gets a riveting and in-depth exploration of its hidden meanings, dazzling puzzles and conspiracy theories.

tubitv.com

But all the tricks of continuity and architectural impossibilities that Kubrick introduces to generate the feeling of discomfort in the viewer's brain is, at the very least, a very intelligent attempt.

 

[Servant King]

Gone With The Wind, hands down.

 

[Alejo R.]

Should you have to read the book first? Where a film interprets a book, surely you shouldn't need the original text first as a guide. The film should stand alone.

There are many better examples of books transposed to film. In this genre, the isolation scenario where characters are trapped and besieged by malevolent forces, Peckinpah's Straw Dogs is far better. The back stories of the characters and their complex psychologies are fully explored and the film was better directed, straining with tension.

Another of Nicholson's great movies I haven't seen is One flew Over the Cuckoo's nest, and I've avoided it deliberately precisely because I have read Ken Kesey's original book and it was such a fine piece of writing that I can't imagine a film bettering it.

I had similar reservations about No Country for Old Men. But being a massive Cormac McCarthy fan I just had to. And the Coen brothers nailed it IMO. The film was near word perfect faithful to McCarthy's original. BUT, McCarthy wrote that book as a screen play - presumably to make some money. McCarthy was a literary genius who bears comparison with James Joyce and Mark twain. If you had to employ him as a screen writer you probably couldn't afford him, yet with NCFOM he had already written a screen play and done the hard work and it showed. I think it's the screen writing that's lacking in The Shining.

You are right.
Blade Runner holds up perfectly even when the vast majority doesn't even know that it is based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".

 

[Alejo R.]

O man, I loved this book.
The scene in which the protagonist dances with his past love at her retirement party is one of the ones I remember most.

Of the several King novels I've read, 11/22/63 was the only one that afterwards seemed worthwhile.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Interesting. Bogey is probably my favorite, for film noir

Bogie, film noir? What movies are such that he's in? Or how do you define "film noir"?

 

[Gimlet]

If to understand a movie you must read the book, then that movie is a failure.

I completely agree. And Kubrick has form in that regard. 2001 a Space Odyssey was the same. Admittedly Clarke's original book was full of enigmas and unanswered questions as well but Kubrick liked to try and be too clever for his own good. And he wrote the screen play for 2001, as he did with the Shining. As mentioned earlier, I prefer Peckinpah. He wrote a lot of his own screen plays too and I think he was better at it.

 

[Gimlet]

Several cult movies have left me feeling underwhelmed to disappointed. I think my third John Wayne movie and on. Why do they bother giving his characters names or costumes? Every single solitary John Wayne movie I've ever seen has been John Wayne. He acts like John Wayne, lines delivered like John Wayne, everything. Pull his character from any movie and drop him into any other of his movies and I bet my next 4 paychecks you wouldn't be able to tell.

No I can't cope with Wayne either. Completely wooden with only one screen persona which he recycled endlessly. More ego than talent IMO. But he was the product of an age of screen prima donnas.

 

[Alejo R.]

Last weekend we saw Tommy from The Who. Oh God.