Matt insults a classic movie (Now insulting Superman: The Movie)

[Matt]

Matt, I'll reply to your thread.

Though it has been a while since I have seen the picture, I do remember enjoying the piece. You bring up several good points of course. I agree with your critique so Simon and Garfunkle. Personally, the best thing Art Garfunkel ever did was his role as the singing moose on Arthur.

The film prospered in the area of making the audience feel uncomfortable. You feeling of disconnection from the characters was the point of the film. And Dustin Hoffman did fantastic in this regard. What 18 year old with a red Porsche would act so polite? His oddness makes you uncomfortable but you still can't look away.

Plus, the montages were fantastic. The character had a great, realistic arc and the not-necessarily happy ending is quite a unique aspect in film. Sure the film didn't get wrapped up in the end with a tidy bow but defiantly still worth watching.

And frankly my friend, two words: George Feeny.

Can I get a What!

The montages are okay, and Mr. Feeny was awesome. Okay, I'll bump it back up to 2.5 stars (out of a possible 100) and put you down for a bad movie t:

 

[Sarge 2.0]

How is the weather in Russia comrade? Being a communist working out well for you?

Cold and unforgiving, like Stalin. And yes, it's working out fine. We eat lots of potatoes mostly. And vodka is like water.

 

[Matt]

When you say potatoes, do you mean like KFC's mashed potatoes, cause if so, I'm moving to Russia.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

No. Potatoes that we pull from the ground.

And sometimes use to make vodka.

The potatoes are as cold as the desolate Siberian soil.

 

[Apollo]

i liked it, i thought it was good.

 

[Sawyer]

So, just to be clear, Matt... are you simply saying you dont like the movie, or are you saying it is the worst movie of all time?

 

[Matt]

I just didn't like it. I thought it was pretty bad. Worst movie ever? No. Batman and Robin quality? Nah. Austin Powers in Goldmember quality would probably be a better description (granted, the two are not anything alike...just an example of a bad movie).

 

[Sawyer]

I liked Goldmember...

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I agree with Matt on Goldmember. That movie was pretty crappy.

 

[Episode29]

Sometimes its hard to seperate a film from its legacy, and The Graduate is a shining example of that. Like Easy Rider, it perfectly encapsulates its time, and the attitudes, fears and hopes of its intended audience.

Unfortunately, that magical spell doesn't quite translate to modern movie-goers like other classic films do, and it makes them often tough slogs.

I'm of the opinion that the Graduate is a good film, with some amazing acting (Though Katherine Ross is really... ugh!), but it doesn't have the timeless brilliance to push it into the category of masterpiece.

 

[dude stannis]

Out of curiosity, how come this wasn't just posted here?

 

[JackBauer]

*grabs popcorn* This should be interesting...

 

[Tanin]

Out of curiosity, how come this wasn't just posted here?

Cause he can do anything he wants... t:

 

[Watson]

Matt, I'm with you. Though I get the significance of the film, I did not enjoy it. 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.

 

[Cinemaman]

I knew the day, when Matt will start making a star/brand of himself, will come

This forum starts disappointing me

 

[stargazer]

I'm going to start with The Graduate, which I recently watched. What an overrated, pretentious piece of crap. None of the characters are relatable or believable. It tries to be experimental and just comes off with many scenes that feel forced as a result. And if I hear Simon and Garfunkle one more time in the next 20 years, I'm going to shoot Mike Nichols.


To quote Jay Sherman...IT STINKS!

Make my Hoffman, Rain Man.

WORD. Though I wouldn't say it's crap, but it is so bland, kinda ridiculous, and yeah, boring, imo.

I also can't believe that it's considered one of the best movies ever..

 

[JLBats]

I actually think this is probably one of my favourite movies.

(fyi, also a favourite of Matt Groening and David Mirkin)

It emotionally resonates for me particularly strongly, and it captures the feeling of numb directionless youths so well that I can't help but love it.
I also love how so many of the scenes are in one, or just a few, shots and often with part of the screen obscured. It's something you could see Mike Nichols straining towards in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, a movie I also love, but here it's finally used to full advantage.

And hey, even if you don't like the movie, do you seriously not like that "April Come She Will" montage?
'cause holy ****. Few representations of depression and numbness have ever come close to the stinging reality of THAT.

I won't defend the second half of the movie too much, 'cause it's not as great, and it definitely drops off in quality once he starts stalking Elaine.

But that first half is beautiful.

(Please don't put me down for a "Bad movie" vote. In my opinion, it's a good movie that just happens to not be for you.)

 

[GhostPoet]

I agree...there are so many "classics" out there...that are just plain crap. I think many movies are viewed as classics simply because people remember them as being better than they really are.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I agree...there are so many "classics" out there...that are just plain crap. I think many movies are viewed as classics simply because people remember them as being better than they really are.

It doesn't work that way, champ. Just because something considered classic may not hold your attention or you "don't get it" doesn't mean that it isn't rightfully considered classic. Do you honestly believe that people who consider Charlie Chaplin's City Lights a classic only saw the film once and are basing their opinion on memory? No, they've seen it over and over again and it holds up to repeat viewings.

 

[GhostPoet]

Hm...maybe I was making a mass generalization. but I do know that memory plays a big part for a lot of people.
I remember thinking that War of the Worlds (the original) was a fantastic movie, I saw it quite a few times when I was young...then I watched it again fairly recently. and honestly...it bored me to death.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

How old are you?

I don't want to seem condescending, but I'm curious.

 

[GhostPoet]

30. Been a movie fanatic for as long as I can remember. However, when a movie becomes dated...I tend to lose interest. Not because of ADD or because I don't "get it" anymore...but simply because I found I really don't like the acting style that was used in the older days of cinema...infact, that may be what bugs me the most about older films...not so much the effects. Or in the case of certain eras...my disinterest in the directing/filming techniques.

 

[Zephyr Alexian]

I'm going to start with The Graduate, which I recently watched. What an overrated, pretentious piece of crap. None of the characters are relatable or believable. It tries to be experimental and just comes off with many scenes that feel forced as a result. And if I hear Simon and Garfunkle one more time in the next 20 years, I'm going to shoot Mike Nichols.

hahahahahahahahaha, oh man this is hilarious. What a great idea for a thread.

I cannot agree with you enough. I've seen that film on AMC not a few times, and it always makes me wonder what is so great about it? Was it for its time period or the subject matter's candid appeal to American society at that time?

To me, it's a bad effort to portray something that wasn't new then and isn't a big deal now. Your thread does hit the nail on the head: crap is crap, regardless of how many people liked it or jumped on the bandwagon when a large amount of people started to.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

hahahahahahahahaha, oh man this is hilarious. What a great idea for a thread.

I cannot agree with you enough. I've seen that film on AMC not a few times, and it always makes me wonder what is so great about it? Was it for its time period or the subject matter's candid appeal to American society at that time?

To me, it's a bad effort to portray something that wasn't new then and isn't a big deal now. Your thread does hit the nail on the head: crap is crap, regardless of how many people liked it or jumped on the bandwagon when a large amount of people started to.

You should definitely read the stuff JLBats and I posted.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

30. Been a movie fanatic for as long as I can remember. However, when a movie becomes dated...I tend to lose interest. Not because of ADD or because I don't "get it" anymore...but simply because I found I really don't like the acting style that was used in the older days of cinema...infact, that may be what bugs me the most about older films...not so much the effects. Or in the case of certain eras...my disinterest in the directing/filming techniques.

You don't see value in the "older" style of acting? That's surprising coming from someone who's thirty. Besides, there's really not much difference in the "older" style of acting, if by older you mean pre-Brando. Brando started making great movies in the fifties, but even movies prior to the rise of method actors have an acting style that I think anyone can appreciate. Good acting is good acting, regardless of time period.