Arbitrary Reasons for Not Liking a Movie

[El Lancito]

I was at a comic book store the other day, and I overheard a conversation about The Lord of the Rings movies. The owner of the store, like myself, really enjoys the movies. The guy he was talking to didn't. The thing was though, the biggest gripe the guy could make was the "evolutionarily impossibility" of the Hobbits' big, hairy feet.

That's right. He didn't like it because he thought that the Hobbits' feet were stupid.

Now, I know there are a lot of folks here who don't like the LotR movies, and my point isn't whether the movies are good or bad. My point is, isn't that a pretty stupid reason to not like them?

Do any of you find yourselves in conversations with people who don't like a movie for completely random and arbitrary reasons like that? I teach high school students, and whenever I show a film, they always find the most random things to critique. Most recently, many of them had a difficult time accepting that Romeo (in Zefferelli's version of Romeo and Juliet) was able to force open the tomb of the Capulets with a large rock.

I can deal with this when it's teenagers, but the guy in the store was an adult. Anybody else have any similar stories of people who obviously have no business watching movies in the first place?

[aintnosin]

I wonder if some people would choose not to like "Hamlet" because they don't believe in ghosts? Or

I've known people who dislike the BBC TV version of "Hitchhiker's Guide" because they made Trillian a dipsy blonde and everyone knows she's really an exotic brunette.

There's one movie "critic" locally who's made it his mission to hate everything Robin Williams every did. I can't remember the exact details but I know he's jumped through some huge logical hoops to justify his dislike.

Of course, to me, the most abitrary reason not to like a movie is because it's old or just black and white.

[jdurg]

For me I can not like a movie if there's something horribly wrong with something in it. For instance, I'm a HUGE James Bond fan but I can't stand watching 'The World Is Not Enough'. This is because throughout the whole movie they treat radioactive substances like they're candy. I mean, at one point Renard is holding a couple pounds of plutonium in his hands and is saying 'It's safe'. A COUPLE POUNDS OF PLUTONIUM WOULD BE SO HOT IT WOULD SEVERELY BURN YOUR HANDS, AND THE RADIATION WOULD KILL YOU ALMOST INSTANTLY!!! Then, you have the final scene in the movie where they fight INSIDE a nuclear reactor. Now I can ignore some science in the name of a James Bond movie, but this one really took it way too far. I couldn't just disregard that they were handling plutonium like it was ice cream and that the stuff they were trying to do could never, ever, ever be possible.

[KSC2-303]

I don't like a lot of movies based on the theory it's idiot fodder. Some I've seen, most I haven't and simply formed a pretty reasonable assumption I'm probably right.

For example, American Wedding. I've seen this movie and think it honestly does nothing but lower the collective IQ of the entire nation, which is already pretty fucking low. OMG STIFFLER ATE DOG POOP LOLOOLLLLLLLLL LETS GO GET DRUNK DOODZ

But I haven't seen "The Fast and the Furious", which I'm sure has the same effect. OMG DOOD THAT CIVIC IZ SO PYMP IF I WUN THE LOTERY I WULD PYMP MY SHITTT TO REALLY PHAT

While it's not as bad as saying "Fast and the Furious had too many red cars, and I hate red cars, thus I hate FatF", some people take exception to my passing of judgments before really hearing the defendant.

[SilentBob]

I love how SFX are over used in movies and people will not like the movie because they aren't amazing looking. Some are in a rough animation form but its sometimes for the movie. I was reading a review for Life Aquatic and the guy didn't like the sea creatures because they weren't realistic but artsy wise different. (mix CGI and stop motion type animation. From the guy who brought us Nightmare Before XMas) He then went on to say that the movie's for Anderson are too artsy in general and thus provide no story.

I forget the site but he somehow made it on RottenTomatoes.com reviews from a simple geocities.com kind of site.

[plissken99]

I know one person who didn't like Interview With a Vampire because they thought it was gory, and walked out in Loui's transformation in the cemetary... as vampire movies go, this one is pretty light on the gore.

And yes the people who make it a point to dislike anything with more than 5 CGI shots drive me nuts. And with others, if the CGI isn't completely perfect, they hate it. Christ the original Star Wars trilogies visual effects were't perfect, never stopped them from liking those.

That Lord of the Rings story is the most idiotic case I've heard though. I mean, we're dealing with demons of the ancient world, wizards, giant fiery eyeballs, walking talking trees... and this guy gets hung up on the feet of an imaginary species?

[videoworx]

well, i have a true hatred for anything involving Adam Sandler...and I make judgements on his films before I've seen them (which is very unlike me). Except my theory does work - all his movies suck...and he is the anti-christ...and spanglish causes cancer...

[El Lancito]

Originally Posted by plissken99

That Lord of the Rings story is the most idiotic case I've heard though. I mean, we're dealing with demons of the ancient world, wizards, giant fiery eyeballs, walking talking trees... and this guy gets hung up on the feet of an imaginary species?

The thing is, this actually happened a while ago, and when I started typing it I actually questioned myself (for a split-second) whether I actually heard it! It truly was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my life. As if Tolkien was saying to himself, "How can I come up with the most plausible and realistic story possible?"

[Maximum Jonah]

Mine is always the director, scriptwriter, producer, etc. including a cute child, adorable animal, loving alien, etc. in a story that doesn't require it.

Cases in point:

1. Any futuristic space movie

2. Any horror movie of late

3. Any adventure movie

4. Any romantic movie

Do the filmmakers really need to throw in this cliche just to fill more seats?

For me, it always "dumbs down" the story and slows down the pace. I'm not talking about movies where the aforementioned additions are integral to the plot, I'm talking about adding in the "ahhh" factor.

Ruins the movie for me every time.

[Notoriousaurus]

Julia Roberts.

[biglyle]

I cant stand watching an over actor, like Al Pacino, or Nicolas Cage in any of his serious roles. Ruins the whole movie for me.

[I 8 Piglet]

I dont know, sometimes I get hung up on little details and it really detracts from the film.

Using LOTR RoTK for example. Before I saw the film I found out that to get the scenes to like right in which Gandolf and a hobbit were talking to each other, the hobbit was actually just standing on his knees. So when I actually saw the scene I was distracted by that fact. Just about every scene in which Gandolf coresponded with a hobbit was ruined for me because I spent it looking for that effect.

[Stryf3]

I have a problem with movies that involve time travel, but have huge holes in the logic. The first one that comes tom mind is Butterfly Effect. The stuff in that movie didn't really make sense, and it irritated me the whole way through.

Julia Roberts also gets on my last nerve (Ocean's Eleven being a notable exception).

I also hate it when one character explains the plot to another character for the sake of the audience. It always makes me feel like the film makers think I'm stupid and require an explanation of what I've already seen.

[redshifter]

i lent someone a copy of john carpenter's "the thing" and he didn't like it because the radioman couldn't reach anyone on the radio. he thought that was unbelievable (but the alien creatures exploding out of men was...).

[DVDAddict20]

I have a friend who didn't like the Legally Blonde movies because Reese Witherspoon wasn't "blonde enough". How exactly can someone be "blonde enough"?

[El Lancito]

Originally Posted by DVDAddict20

I have a friend who didn't like the Legally Blonde movies because Reese Witherspoon wasn't "blonde enough". How exactly can someone be "blonde enough"?

This is more along the lines of what I was talking about. Most of the problems that people are pointing out here (huge holes in logic, explaining the plot, etc.) seem to be pretty legitamate gripes, in my opinion.

[rtcpenguin]

I can't say I don't like "Rear Window" because of that bit with Stewart's camera flash at the end, but it certainly made the movie worse.

A friend of mine can't stand Minority Report because of that crazy glove Tom Cruise uses to interact with the computer. He says its too annoying.

[manicsounds]

I absolutely hate it when people say "I didnt like it since it had blood!"

I showed Shaun Of The Dead in one of my English school classes yesterday,
and a fair number liked it a lot! Enough for a second viewing after class was finished.
But ONE student said she HATED it, since there was so much Blood!

I told her she probably hated it since she kept covering her eyes and missing half the movie.....

bah....

[theta]

My personal favorite is when respected critics go off on a movie for "logical implausibilities" that, frankly, if you've suspended your disbelief for the larger conceits of the movie, you're just going to accept without question.

Case in point, "Hellboy", some critic was, seriously, bitching about details like "how did they get a set of stocks that would fit his gigantic stone hand?"

In a movie that involves a gigantic kitten and pancake loving red guy with a massive tail, who has a merman for his best friend and a pyrokinetic for his would-be girlfriend, who works for the government in a top secret organization, whose job is to beat up demons all day...you're focusing on the stocks.

This is why I go to see horror, SF, and fantasy movies cold and don't bother with the reviews, 90% of critics just don't get it. Janet Maslin loathes LOTR for absolutely no discernible reason whatsoever, aside from the fact that she clearly thinks fantasy is for five-year-olds.

[Damian]

I hate anything Tom Green does other then Road Trip. His part in that movie was so insignificant it didn't pain me to watch it.

[LynnL999]

Harm to domestic animals... I hate that. In addition to being disturbing, I always immediately want to go home and hug my own pets, so it's distracting. (ST: Generations kind of redeemed itself for me by showing Spot at the end.

Also, I hate courtroom movies that are supposed be realistic with ridiculous legal objections or other things that would just never happen. Nobody would write a movie about brain surgery without consulting a doctor... but 99% of courtroom movies clearly either never consulted a lawyer about what they were doing, or totally ignored their advice. (TV shows, with a few exceptions, are even worse.)

[incubus0]

When they kill animals for none food related reasons. Like in Resident Evil when the Doberman's were attacking our heroine and she shoots and kills a few of them, but doesn't have the decency to use their meat for sustenance. Sure it would have been completely against the rules laid out by the storyline, but what kind of message is that for our children? At least feed them to the other zombie's, something.

Or when bad things happen to babies, like in Trainspotting. There was no need for such a disturbing visual to be used at that point in the film. What were they thinking?

And old people. Why did grandma have to die? The wolf was scary enough already. And shouldn't she have noticed earlier?



<---kidding



I've never actually heard any as arbitrary as Hobbit foot size, but I would like to roll one up and discuss it for a while.

[storm117]

Originally Posted by Notoriousaurus

Julia Roberts.

Same goes for her brother, Eric Roberts.

When J. Roberts won an Oscar for her role in Erin Brockovich, I was extremely disappointed by the Academy's appraisal of her acting abilities. I thought for sure Ellen Burstyn would win that year for Requiem for a Dream.

[El Lancito]

Originally Posted by theta

Case in point, "Hellboy", some critic was, seriously, bitching about details like "how did they get a set of stocks that would fit his gigantic stone hand?"

Okay, maybe I'm a bit too much of a Mignola/Del Toro nerd here, but isn't it obvious that they'd have those stocks prepared since capturing and shackling Hellboy was part of their plan all along? Why is it so hard to believe that they had them made? Clearly that critic is an idiot.

[Chunkblower]

Originally Posted by manicsounds

I absolutely hate it when people say "I didnt like it since it had blood!"

Some people are just squeamish about blood, so it makes sense that they wouldn't enjoy overly bloody movies. You can't really fault them for that.

Originally Posted by theta

Case in point, "Hellboy", some critic was, seriously, bitching about details like "how did they get a set of stocks that would fit his gigantic stone hand?"

Exactly! What she really should have been bitching about is the fact that Guillermo Del Toro is a horribly over rated hack!

[theta]

Originally Posted by Chunkblower

Some people are just squeamish about blood, so it makes sense that they wouldn't enjoy overly bloody movies. You can't really fault them for that.


Exactly! What she really should have been bitching about is the fact that Guillermo Del Toro is a horribly over rated hack!

Actually, you can fault people for that, depending on their attitude. One of the reasons I loathe Leonard Maltin is that he gave "Taxi Driver" two stars solely on the basis of the gore. Put some steel in your spine, for God's sake.

As far as Del Toro goes, I think "hack" is the wrong word. The guy is undeniably talented, and has made some damn good movies ("Cronos" and "The Devil's Backbone" spring instantly to mind.) The problem is that he seems more often than not to let the visuals overwhelm the story, like the sheer stupidity that was "Blade II." "Hellboy" was pretty good, but he did cave to studio pressures in the end; it started out very much like the comic and slowly became a conventional Hollywood action flick.

[Dr. Shrinker]

I'll never forget watching The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie with my college roommate (yes, there may have been substances involved)...as I was laughing at a particularly inspired Roadrunner/Coyote moment, he said, in all seriousness: "That's so fake."

About a cartoon.

The ironic thing is, this yutz now works for Silicon Graphics and makes a buttload more money than I ever will...

[Griggi]

--The Cohen Brothers. (Miller's Crossing is exempt)
--Darren Aronofsky.
--Warren Beatty after 1970
--Slapped-together sequels with few or none of the original cast.
--Black and White after 1980 (major studio releases)
--Pretentiousness masking as indie chic

[Monterey Jack]

My older brother's wife hates any movie that realistically depicts drug use. Halfway through Pulp Fiction, she huffed "This is just about a bunch of druggies!" and stormed out (around the time that Bruce Willis had to go back to his apartment to get his watch). She probably wouldn't last five minutes into Trainspotting.

[papibear]

There are several movies I didn't like simply because my ass itched when I tried to see it. I shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap. I think movie theater owners deliberately put things in the seats to make your butt itch so you'll come back and see the movie again in the hopes your butt won't itch a second time. Well, buddy, they may think they've fooled ME, but uh-uh, not ol' Papibear. No sirree Bob. I'm scratchin' my ass at HOME from now on.

[Chunkblower]

Originally Posted by theta

Actually, you can fault people for that, depending on their attitude. One of the reasons I loathe Leonard Maltin is that he gave "Taxi Driver" two stars solely on the basis of the gore. Put some steel in your spine, for God's sake.

I agree with you on that point, but I was thinking more along the lines of people who are disturbed or offended by graphic violence. A friend of mine, for instance, has seen too much real violence in her life to really stomache on screen violence. She may appreciate the artistry of something like the Passion or Pvt. Ryan, but she is not able to "like" those movies.

Originally Posted by theta

As far as Del Toro goes, I think "hack" is the wrong word. The guy is undeniably talented, and has made some damn good movies ("Cronos" and "The Devil's Backbone" spring instantly to mind.) The problem is that he seems more often than not to let the visuals overwhelm the story, like the sheer stupidity that was "Blade II." "Hellboy" was pretty good, but he did cave to studio pressures in the end; it started out very much like the comic and slowly became a conventional Hollywood action flick.

I was semi-kidding about Del Toror being a hack. It just seems he's "gone hollywood" in a big way and nothing he's directed in the english language has really amounted to much. Devil's Backbone was great, tho.