Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Back to the Future 1,2 and 3
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Amelie
Paddington 1 and 2

I am precluded from going into details by the rules, but there is lots and lots and lots and lots to dislike about the BttF franchise.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
well, to divert us from that dangerous line of thinking (cough eugenics cough)...

I propose.. Moana. my little girl loves it and I have to say I enjoy it too. the songs are catchy and theres lots of bright colours. I have a bunch of tattoos so she calls me Maui and I have to call her Moana. it brightens my day.

That's cute. I know a lot of new parents who unfortunately had their love of some of the recent disney movies kind of taken away from them by the fact that their children demanded them continuously played 24/7 for several years.

Never got around to seeing moana myself, but I have heard it's pretty good. I figure I've got plenty of years to go see every major kids' flick ahead of me, so I'll have time to catch up.

Haha yeah, I'm getting a little sick of Frozen, but between those 2, postman pat, wallace and gromit and (the one I actually hate, peppa pig) theres at least some variety in what my daughter likes to watch.

Moana is quite a fun watch, Dwayne Johnson brings his usual charisma as Maui, and the story based on Polynesian folklore is easy to watch and quite interesting.

I watched Moana by myself on netflix, i loved it. Thought the crab part was weird, but whatever.

One movie I saw in this thread and agree with.

monty python-and the holy grail

Rewatching it every several years and the depth of jokes just keeps getting better as I gain a better understanding of the world. In my opinion its immune to dislike.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back to the Future 1,2 and 3
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Amelie
Paddington 1 and 2

The Back to the Future films are vastly overrated. The first one is kind of okay but not brilliant, the second is likewise okay but has flaws, and I stopped the third after about half an hour as it was awful. I dont understand why people rate them so highly. (enjoying them is completely different, that's entirely personal preference, but I just don't think they're particularly good fims)

Excellent Adventure is very fun, but once you watch it more than once the major flaws really jump out at you (i.e. terrible acting, script, plot)

I've not seen the others so can't comment.

I don't believe that movies immune to actuall dislike actually exist. I am a very prolific film viewer and there are very very few films that I think people would not find some fault with or simply not enjoy.

The closest I can think of is maybe 12 Angry Men, On the Waterfront, or Duck Soup.

Duck Soup in particular is one of the funniest films ever made.

Funny, I'd call the first one deeply flawed but vaguely passable cliches, the second recycled gak and the third just pure gak.

Bill and Ted is still why I laugh whenever anyone refers to Keanu as 'an actor'

The Back to the Future trilogy is beloved by everyone I know. In the 30+ years of chatting with others about the three films, I've never heard a bad thing until recently when its become fashionable to rag on films for the slightest flaw.

Love all three as one running story but the third film is definitely my favourite. Clint Eastwood for the win!


Paddington was a blast!

SamusDrake wrote:
The Back to the Future trilogy is beloved by everyone I know. In the 30+ years of chatting with others about the three films, I've never heard a bad thing until recently when its become fashionable to rag on films for the slightest flaw.

Love all three as one running story but the third film is definitely my favourite. Clint Eastwood for the win!


Paddington was a blast!

I enjoyed the first BttF.
The second one felt like a bridge. It was there to connect the first and 3rd, but could not stand decently on it’s own.
Third I recall thinking was OK, but not as good as the first.

It’s been decades since I’ve seen them, and only saw 2/3 once each. First a few times.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
One movie I saw in this thread and agree with.

monty python-and the holy grail

Rewatching it every several years and the depth of jokes just keeps getting better as I gain a better understanding of the world. In my opinion its immune to dislike.

I prefer Jabywocky and Life of Brian as I think Holy Grail's endng is not great.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I watched Moana by myself on netflix, i loved it. Thought the crab part was weird, but whatever.

Yeah. I thought it would be part of the folklore but aparantly not. Some of the bits there seem quite scary for a kids film. The weird 6 armed masked monster that gets geysered into the sea from the monster realm, and te ka herself. But it doesn't seem to bother my daughter any.

Disney movies have always had scary parts. It's supposed to be part of the fun... Walt said back when Snow White was first released that he wanted kids to wet themselves in cinemas. I'm assuming that comment was meant to be at least slightly hyperbolic, but the underlying design has stuck, over the years...

Don't forget most of us made it through childhood with series like Animals of Farthingwood, Plague Dogs, Watership Down and suchlike.

I still haven't seen any of those. I really don't think I want to.

Because cute fluffy animal movies were never really my thing (when I was a kid, we'd see maybe one movie at the cinemas per year) - we didn't have a tv until I was 8 but it was usually only on for the news, or sportsball.

Watership Down is most definitely not a 'cute fluffy animal movie'...

I mean, it's about rabbits, sure. But it's awful.

Yeah, that one hurt my brain a little. I can't draw a line between 'cute animal movie' and Watership Down.

Disney movies have always had scary parts

Disney movies have some real horrors going on. Part of that is the source material, of course (fairy tales aren't cute. They're medieval 'scared straight' stories. 'Don't go into the woods at night, or you're going to be brutally murdered or worse.'), but while Disney movies gloss over a lot of the nasty stuff, they still keep it in.

Almost all Disney characters have dead relatives, a significant number of the 'relationships' are sketchy and smarmy (at best- Beauty and the Beast is arguably worse, and the Jafar/Jasmine creepiness mostly but not completely happens off screen), and any number of horrible things happen to children.

To be fair, I'm fairly sure Watership Down was never intended to be a children's story. I suspect that the people who marketed it had never actually seen it, or read the book, and just assumed 'it has bunnies! Kids will love it!'

true. to be fair I think kids are scared of different things than adults anyway. probably to do with the different conception of things maybe?

 chromedog wrote:
I still haven't seen any of those. I really don't think I want to.

Because cute fluffy animal movies were never really my thing (when I was a kid, we'd see maybe one movie at the cinemas per year) - we didn't have a tv until I was 8 but it was usually only on for the news, or sportsball.

Farthing wood is the closest to fluffy animals and in the first episode several characters die. It's the least bloody of the three, but has the highest death count (by the end of the whole series most of the original cast is dead).

As for animals being marketed at kids, I think its mostly because animation went through a phase where it was only marketed toward children so anything animated was auto assumed to be for kids by many. This is not and never has been true, but its a false belief many hold. Even way back in the 80s and 90s and before there were adult cartoons - though the wave of stuff from Japan (anime) hadn't really hit the UK in a big way (and when some of it did I think it got hived off to bad channel/time slots so it didn't really get seen as much). USA got a lot more Anime (indeed there's a huge US to UK Block on that even now - there's loads of DVD series that never get encoded for UK systems)

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I’d have to rewatch it to check, but I thought he touched on it. trying to sum up his thoughts here (or my recollection of them)

If you are manufacturing, you are limited to what you can make in your factories. Pretty linear growth, and presumably requires infrastructure.

Self-producing replicants are exponential. You have an engineered working (slave) class that can spread as fast as humanity across the stars.

By giving humanity an unlimited, self-producing, obedient and expendable labor force, you give them the stars.

Yeah he said that but each biologically produced replicant also takes the sme time as a human to mature into a useful product? So unless to takes 16 years or more to make a replicant then its slower and also limited to succesful sexual reproduction - human sexual congress does not result in a child every time but again I suppose he can artifcailly inseminate but then your worker is not working as effectively for some period.

Hmmm Maybe he hoped to speed up the maturity process. You think he would look into creating just wombs that can produce them.

You're reading pretty close on a film that I think it's pretty evident from watching it is intended to be heavily metaphorical.

A whole lot of details of the bad guys' actual "plan" doesn't make literal sense, no. but I'd think that the movie had enough surrealist elements in it that you wouldn't worry about why guy had to go to place and get thing. There's plenty of high-budget fully realized perfectly literal sci-fi flicks, let us just have one wibbly wobbly multimillion dollar art film that bombs but still comes out on dvd so we can own and rewatch the pretty pictures

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I’d have to rewatch it to check, but I thought he touched on it. trying to sum up his thoughts here (or my recollection of them)

If you are manufacturing, you are limited to what you can make in your factories. Pretty linear growth, and presumably requires infrastructure.

Self-producing replicants are exponential. You have an engineered working (slave) class that can spread as fast as humanity across the stars.

By giving humanity an unlimited, self-producing, obedient and expendable labor force, you give them the stars.

Yeah he said that but each biologically produced replicant also takes the sme time as a human to mature into a useful product? So unless to takes 16 years or more to make a replicant then its slower and also limited to succesful sexual reproduction - human sexual congress does not result in a child every time but again I suppose he can artifcailly inseminate but then your worker is not working as effectively for some period.

Hmmm Maybe he hoped to speed up the maturity process. You think he would look into creating just wombs that can produce them.

You're reading pretty close on a film that I think it's pretty evident from watching it is intended to be heavily metaphorical.

A whole lot of details of the bad guys' actual "plan" doesn't make literal sense, no. but I'd think that the movie had enough surrealist elements in it that you wouldn't worry about why guy had to go to place and get thing. There's plenty of high-budget fully realized perfectly literal sci-fi flicks, let us just have one wibbly wobbly multimillion dollar art film that bombs but still comes out on dvd so we can own and rewatch the pretty pictures

I enjoyed the visuals and several of the characters but found it overely long (as apparently did Ridely Scott)

If you bother spelling out the bad guys motivations why make them make no sense - why not just make him mysterious and he wants the baby but he does not need to say why - if he was just wierd billionare dispatching minons cos he is wierd I would have been fine but the half assed attempt to give him a motivation was off putting when he was in it.

But thats just me.

 Mr Morden wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I’d have to rewatch it to check, but I thought he touched on it. trying to sum up his thoughts here (or my recollection of them)

If you are manufacturing, you are limited to what you can make in your factories. Pretty linear growth, and presumably requires infrastructure.

Self-producing replicants are exponential. You have an engineered working (slave) class that can spread as fast as humanity across the stars.

By giving humanity an unlimited, self-producing, obedient and expendable labor force, you give them the stars.

Yeah he said that but each biologically produced replicant also takes the sme time as a human to mature into a useful product? So unless to takes 16 years or more to make a replicant then its slower and also limited to succesful sexual reproduction - human sexual congress does not result in a child every time but again I suppose he can artifcailly inseminate but then your worker is not working as effectively for some period.

Hmmm Maybe he hoped to speed up the maturity process. You think he would look into creating just wombs that can produce them.

You're reading pretty close on a film that I think it's pretty evident from watching it is intended to be heavily metaphorical.

A whole lot of details of the bad guys' actual "plan" doesn't make literal sense, no. but I'd think that the movie had enough surrealist elements in it that you wouldn't worry about why guy had to go to place and get thing. There's plenty of high-budget fully realized perfectly literal sci-fi flicks, let us just have one wibbly wobbly multimillion dollar art film that bombs but still comes out on dvd so we can own and rewatch the pretty pictures

I enjoyed the visuals and several of the characters but found it overely long (as apparently did Ridely Scott)

If you bother spelling out the bad guys motivations why make them make no sense - why not just make him mysterious and he wants the baby but he does not need to say why - if he was just wierd billionare dispatching minons cos he is wierd I would have been fine but the half assed attempt to give him a motivation was off putting when he was in it.

But thats just me.

I agree with that. I would have preferred much more be left unsaid, personally. But you don't get a budget that large without making some concessions to the suits and focus groups, so I can live with it for the visual beauty that comes from having that much money behind the project.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
One movie I saw in this thread and agree with.

monty python-and the holy grail

Rewatching it every several years and the depth of jokes just keeps getting better as I gain a better understanding of the world. In my opinion its immune to dislike.

As discussed a few pages back, I think the thing that brings out the "dislike" in those movies are those few who incessantly dredge up quotes from the movie where they do not fit, nor are needed. . . there is a time and place for injecting a python quote into everyday conversation, that time is not "all the time" tho



Another two contenders, maybe? :

Russell Crowe's "Gladiator"

and

"The Count of Monte Cristo", the one with Guy Pierce

What I've personally seen: basically everyone likes/loves/accepts these movies. . . Sure, they may dislike a scene or two, or dislike one element or another of the film, but on the whole everyone seems to be positive about them. Thoughts?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
One movie I saw in this thread and agree with.

monty python-and the holy grail

Rewatching it every several years and the depth of jokes just keeps getting better as I gain a better understanding of the world. In my opinion its immune to dislike.

As discussed a few pages back, I think the thing that brings out the "dislike" in those movies are those few who incessantly dredge up quotes from the movie where they do not fit, nor are needed. . . there is a time and place for injecting a python quote into everyday conversation, that time is not "all the time" tho



Another two contenders, maybe? :

Russell Crowe's "Gladiator"

and

"The Count of Monte Cristo", the one with Guy Pierce

What I've personally seen: basically everyone likes/loves/accepts these movies. . . Sure, they may dislike a scene or two, or dislike one element or another of the film, but on the whole everyone seems to be positive about them. Thoughts?

Hated Monte Cristo

 insaniak wrote:
To be fair, I'm fairly sure Watership Down was never intended to be a children's story. I suspect that the people who marketed it had never actually seen it, or read the book, and just assumed 'it has bunnies! Kids will love it!'

Watership down is heroic fiction that happens to be about rabbits. Think Beowulf or the Odyssey. But with rabbits. It’s very hard to describe in a way that sounds appealing, but it’s one of my favourite books and has a wonderful, rich mythology and an incredibly realised world. The film has some of those elements (and is definitely not for little kids!), but still doesn’t do it justice.

I highly recommend it to anyone looking for something different to read.

 Scrabb wrote:
The Shawshank Redemption.

I would also toss in The Green Mile in the same sentence if we speak drama alongside A Beautiful Mind.

If we jump categorys, i think only thouse who dislike the action category would be the persons who dont like Die Hard 1, Lethal Weapon 1 and my alltime personal favorite action movie as of this date; Mad Max: Fury Road.

Same could be said about the sci-fi movies; Matrix 1, 5th element, Clouse encounter of 3rd kind and ET.

The Gladiator is allso a move that moust likely is only disliked by humans who dont like the roman era or Russel Crowe, same can be said about Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

I'd add any movie made with the combined creative talents of Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood. Or Charles Bronson. Or James Coburn.

Ok, maybe just Sergio Leone westerns.

I like the Dollars trilogy, didn't care much for Once Upon A Time In The West. Well shot, just bits of the story annoyed me.

 Jadenim wrote:
Watership down is heroic fiction that happens to be about rabbits. Think Beowulf or the Odyssey. But with rabbits. It’s very hard to describe in a way that sounds appealing, but it’s one of my favourite books and has a wonderful, rich mythology and an incredibly realised world. The film has some of those elements (and is definitely not for little kids!), but still doesn’t do it justice.

I highly recommend it to anyone looking for something different to read.

There's a quote about The Hobbit, not long after it's publication I think, that I can't find right now; but something along the lines of "it starts as a jolly fairy story, but transforms into a heroic epic, where characters start talking like Sigurd". Watership Down isn't quite that extreme, but in the same kind of category. The fact that it's about bunnies kind of wrongfoots you.

Since this topic has gone into 'cute cartoon animal movies that aren't" I'll just toss in a reference to "The rats of Nimh" here.

I have literally never heard someone say they dislike The 5th Element.
It's weird. It's campy. It's over-the-top. It doesn't take itself seriously. But somehow, it just works. I think we have a winner for the thread.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
One movie I saw in this thread and agree with.

monty python-and the holy grail

Rewatching it every several years and the depth of jokes just keeps getting better as I gain a better understanding of the world. In my opinion its immune to dislike.

As discussed a few pages back, I think the thing that brings out the "dislike" in those movies are those few who incessantly dredge up quotes from the movie where they do not fit, nor are needed. . . there is a time and place for injecting a python quote into everyday conversation, that time is not "all the time" tho



Another two contenders, maybe? :

Russell Crowe's "Gladiator"

and

"The Count of Monte Cristo", the one with Guy Pierce

What I've personally seen: basically everyone likes/loves/accepts these movies. . . Sure, they may dislike a scene or two, or dislike one element or another of the film, but on the whole everyone seems to be positive about them. Thoughts?

No. Gladiator is super creepy murder porn. One of the few movies I saw in the theater where I was very tempted to just walk out.
I felt like I was watching a terrible snuff film in very weak Roman cosplay.

That the movie opens with fething stirrups on the horses just shows how pathetic the historical research was.


As for that version of Count... I honestly can't think of anything that lets me distinguish it from several other movies set in the same period made in the 90s/00s.

Bran Dawri wrote:
I have literally never heard someone say they dislike The 5th Element.
It's weird. It's campy. It's over-the-top. It doesn't take itself seriously. But somehow, it just works. I think we have a winner for the thread.

Eh. I personally like it, but have gotten several 'what the heck are you watching' faces from friends and family- and I totally understood why. It doesn't even come close to winning.