Why do you hate these films?

[SimonI]

I've seen many posts on these forums deriding Forrest Gump and Titanic but no one so far has actually explained why he/she hates either film. Now I wouldn't say they were great movies but I did enjoy them in a slightly mindless fashion. So - would anyone care to explain their antipathy?

[Thomasd]

Because theyre rubbish!:D

Seriously, I didnt mind Forest Gump that much, but Titanic... i cant really put a finger on why I don't like it- its just one of those films that turns a huge tragedy into a stirring romance like Pearl Habour. If it had a more eclectic cast with screen time to tell many different stories it could have been better. And I hate Celine Dionss music:D

[Robby]

I can see why a lot of people hate Titanic, i bit mushy i guess for some palates. I like it though. However i was really surprised that a lot of people loathe Forrest. I thought that was an excellent film. Coming to these forums makes me realise of the vast and different opinions out there. Same goes for the Matrix, i thought that was unanimously favoured by a lot of people until i posted asking peoples opinions. :eek: How wrong i was!!!!!.

So come one guys why do you hate Forrest Gump and Titanic so much??????.

[Tony Keats]

Never seen Titanic (by choice), but as for Forrest Gump:-

Well, what's the worst things about Hollywood films? (it's debatable) but for discerning viewers it's the unnecessary scmaltz and silly contrivances. Unfortunately, Forrest Gump goes for broke on both of these fronts and has an unrelenting air of "pass the sick-bag" throughout.

It's not a badly made film in any way shape or form, but it's a distinctly 'Hollywood' project and as such has very little concept of a world outside of America.

None of these are reasons that it's crap/rubbish of course, but they're damningly severe reasons for anyone with taste to look elsewhere (and no amount of counter-arguing can change that fact!). There is a school of thought that it's kind of satirical in some ways (and therefore purposely insulting!), but it's far too melodramatic and heavy-handed for that argument to hold-water.

If you can watch it with a forgiving eye (and be willingly tolerant of the syrup), then the film can be rewarding on a purely thoughtless level I suppose.

[Michael Brooke]

Bizarrely enough, I actually enjoyed the first half of <I>Titanic</I> rather more than the second, but that's because I was warned that the first half was crap but the second half justified sitting through it.

I did indeed think the first half was crap, but at least I got a huge amount of entertainment value out of the awful, anachronistic dialogue, ludicrous stereotyping and bizarre scenes such as the one that implied that various key works in the history of modern art ended up at the bottom of the ocean, while the second half bored me out of my skull, largely because I'd seen most of the really impressive shots in the trailer and I couldn't wait for everyone to drown.

That said, I can't praise Billy Zane's performance enough - the film's basically an overblown melodrama, but he was the only actor brave enough to go right over the top to match. I genuinely enjoyed the film when he was on screen, but sunk into torpor most of the time that he wasn't.

But if you want a decent treatment of the Titanic story, <I>A Night to Remember</I> is vastly superior on almost every level - and even the production values aren't too bad considering the infinitely lower budget.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
That said, I can't praise Billy Zane's performance enough - the film's basically an overblown melodrama, but he was the only actor brave enough to go right over the top to match. I genuinely enjoyed the film when he was on screen, but sunk into torpor most of the time that he wasn't.I have to agree with you. Whilst I hated the rest of the movie, that bit when he slapped Kate Winslet got a real cheer out of me.

Good on ya, Billy! :clap:

[Yonathan Gal]

I love forrest gump.... but hate titanic...

Cameron's script is his worst ever ... "they've got you trapped rose... that fire's gonna soon burn out" - lines don't get worst than that!! the sfx and cinematography were great, fair enough, as was the recreation of the ship and the accuracy (same carptets, cups etc etc etc!!).... but the two leads werne't the part and they can't act for anything!!Only good actor was Billy Zane and actress: Kathy Bates.... just a long, drawn-out, boring, dull and stupid mess! :) haha

[NexusSheep]

Actually, I enjoyed both these films. I found them to be highly entertaining. And no, I'm not being :rolleyes:

Despite their faults (which, like anything else, are debatable and in any case, subjective), I think they are good examples of effective film-making. They have obviously ellicited a response, so in my book, they have achieved what they set out to do.

To veer off on a tangent :eek: (humour me) and in an effort to illustrate my point, take a moment to recall some of the very best - and very worst - TV advertisements you have ever seen. Every one of those ads you just recalled are all successful, regardless of whether you actually like them or not. Every ad that falls in-between 'outstanding' and 'abysmal', is a failure because they are not memorable.

My 2p worth. :)

[tizza]

Hmm..I bet a few peole here wish they could make movies as crap as Jame$ Cameron $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Titanic.-Ok.. ish Spfx made up for the unbelievable plot, come on..that would never happen In REAL life :)
T2- Great one of the best action movies ever..some crummy spfx tho.
Terminator - absolute *****...I cant stand Michael Beihn..Hes made some lousy films and has the sort of smug face U wanna punch hard,seems to think hes a bit of a hunk too...oh yeh..he cant act for toffee...I hope hes reading this btw

Aliens- ok but see above, Michael wotshisface is this too

Pirhanas 2- ..erm.. good effects for the time... :confused:

[Cornelius]

I don't like Forest Gump because it has no real depth to it. You have a character who is present at all these great moments in American history but they don't do anything with it. They've developed the technology to place Tom Hanks in the presence real people from the past but it's all contrived, the film has nothing to say about the historic events, FG is just there and you just have to conclude 'so what'. Watch Woody allens Zelig to see how it's done.

Titanic - a film that makes you sit through 2.5 hours of 3rd rate mills and boon crap, making you wish the iceberg would turn up and sink the damn ship, killing eveyone on board can only be hated in the most extreme terms.

[martinb]

i could quite happily give gump a caning a la casino. annoying little git.

[Yonathan Gal]

tiza: before u go dissing T2 sfx, they were good for their time, and were actually ground-breaking!!! lol :) and I still think the liquid metal is spectacular... if not the round ball in which the two terminators travel in time with...

[SPB]

Forest Gump - Great film!

Titanic - A love story that happened to take place on

a boat that sinks!!!

:D D :D :D

A bit of a girlie storyline that was fairly average and unoriginal IMHO. But the effects were good!:

[nc]

T2- Great one of the best action movies ever..some crummy spfx tho.

Are u drunk? or high?
To this day they are still the most impressive effects I have seen in a film.

And Terminator is utter *******. Have u got a brain?

[tizza]

Yeh...that black sock to hide Arnies missing arm looks great..really groundbreaking!

ok then...maybe I meant effects mistakes..I dunno

[Yonathan Gal]

Terminator is better than T2!

[Cornelius]

Terminator is a great film, a classic. T2 nowhere near as good but ok for a rainy afternoons viewing.

[PaulaB]

Originally posted by SimonI
I've seen many posts on these forums deriding Forrest Gump and Titanic but no one so far has actually explained why he/she hates either film. Now I wouldn't say they were great movies but I did enjoy them in a slightly mindless fashion. So - would anyone care to explain their antipathy?

I despise Titanic to the extent that I will NEVER watch anything by that creature ever again. Why? Because of his treatment of the sinking of Titanic and its lies against the people who died on the ship. Remember that shortly after the film came out the company behind it gave £5000 to the Murdoch charity to appologise for calling him a coward, murderer and suicide. There where no gates stopping people getting from 3rd to the top of the ship In fact officers and crew went down looking for people. One of the saddest parts for the few surviving crew was the fact they COULD NOT GET PEOPLE TO GET ON THE LIFEBOATS. As fast as they put them on they got off, they couldn't believe it would go down. These were ordinary people who died in a terrible accident, due to the arrogence of the man who owned the white line boats and didn't feel that having more lifeboats or binoculars for look out was worth the money, his nationality (despite what c said) American! As for two last points. How sick can you get to imply that the lookouts didn't see the iceburg because they where looking down a womans cleavage? And what kind of creature goes to the few people alive from the incident and says oh look I turned the accident that killed you parents into a film come and watch it. I don't agree with the Mail as a rule but I do agree with its view of Titanic that it is $200 million of racist trash. does that answer your question (oh I worked with an american when it came out who believed it was total fact)

[sampath]

I guess it is fashionable in some sense for people who consider themselves to be 'film buffs' to cynically knock films that are big hits among 'joe-six-packs.' (Gross generalisation, I know, but I think it's true to an extent). It's probably not a big coincidence that the films being mentioned were mammoth hits at the box-office, alongside similarly vaunted hits like Armageddon and Independence Day.

Films like Titanic and The English Patient, and especially Forrest Gump, suffer from post-Oscar backlash as well. I expect these films would not have generated nearly as much animosity had they not been so successful.

I have to say I tend to enjoy most films I see, whereas I get the impression some people see certain films expecting to be able to slag them off at the end. And I bet some detractors haven't even seen the film in question, which is something I will never understand. :confused:

[Tony Keats]

I guess it is fashionable in some sense for people who consider themselves to be 'film buffs' to cynically knock films that are big hits among 'joe-six-packs.' (Gross generalisation, I know, but I think it's true to an extent). It's probably not a big coincidence that the films being mentioned were mammoth hits at the box-office, alongside similarly vaunted hits like Armageddon and Independence Day.

Exactly! and it's probably no coincidence that the films you mention are similarly hard to swallow. If you still enjoy those movies despite their overblown silliness (or maybe even because of it!) then good for you and I can happily 'switch-off' and enjoy blockbusters myself on occasion. The manipulative content and daft plots are very unappealing to some people though (many buffs included!) and I don't see why describing the specific elements that grate with them is "cynical" or "knocking" per se.

I didn't find any of the comments in this thread groundlessly cynical either. Independence Day on the other hand is deeply cynical on all fronts and only appeals to the shallow-end of movie-goers (it's jingoistic, dumb and superficial in the extreme). If the J6P's (as you put it) are happy with such tat, then frankly that's their look out, but those who expect more should certainly be allowed to speak up!.

I expect these films would not have generated nearly as much animosity had they not been so successful.
I have to say I tend to enjoy most films I see, whereas I get the impression some people see certain films expecting to be able to slag them off at the end.

Who on earth does that?! seriously though, who would waste 2(ish) hours watching a film and NOT hope to enjoy it?. Like everyone else here, I expect to be satisfactorily entertained by a film and if I find elements of the movie detract from my enjoyment, then obviously I'm going to comment negatively about them. If the movie is supposed to be a stinker, that's even more of an incentive to appreciate what's good about it really. If it's genuinely bad, then it deserves a slagging anyway.

I just don't agree that people can hate films purely because they're successful. It may create a sense of bewilderment of course (which in turn leads to overly-emphatic comments) but dislike is a living breathing thing IMO. As long as people have good reasons for their hatred then I'm always willing to listen (and this is a HATE thread after all!).

[SimonI]

PaulaB: does that answer your question

Errr, I think so... [cowers behind sofa]

But seriously, those are good points, although not central to the original question.

I agree with sampath - I have to say I tend to enjoy most films I see simply because

a) having paid money and time to see it, I naturally want to get something out of it and therefore may be more tolerant of weaknesses.

b) I can watch a J6P movie with some critical faculties disabled. (However, with a lot of these movies, if I see the trailer beforehand I'm quite likely to decide not to see it in the first place!).

c) I tend to be selective about what I go to see anyway.

But thanks all for the input folks - I may have to see these films again and try watching them with my critical faculties (if I have any!) engaged and see how they fair.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I think it's more a case of the films being hyped beyond belief and then being disappointed, rather than a more arrogant attitude of "oh, that's a film for the common public".

Titanic is probably the best example. The amount of money spent on it, the marketing, the special effects, and it turned out to be a pretty tedious love story with two actors who I don't believe are particularly talented. It's easy to see why it got so much attention, but I think too many people simply bought into all the hype.

[Michael Brooke]

<B>I think it's more a case of the films being hyped beyond belief and then being disappointed, rather than a more arrogant attitude of "oh, that's a film for the common public".

Titanic is probably the best example. The amount of money spent on it, the marketing, the special effects, and it turned out to be a pretty tedious love story with two actors who I don't believe are particularly talented. It's easy to see why it got so much attention, but I think too many people simply bought into all the hype.</B>

The other problem with <I>Titanic</I> was with Cameron's frequent boasts about how phenomenally "realistic" and "authentic" and (most damningly) "exhaustively researched" it was - which of course was a green light to anyone who wanted to pick holes in it. And some holes were truly hilarious!

A good analogy would be that marvellous period in 1994 when barely a week went by without a Tory politician getting caught up in a sex scandal, and the impression was that moral standards had suddenly plunged. In actual fact, the tabloids had been sitting on this stuff for years, but it wasn't until John Major's "back to basics" speech that they felt justified in unleashing it.

True, some people pick holes for the sake of it - but more often it's a legitimate response to excessive hype. We're so conditioned to believe that <I>Schindler's List, The Shawshank Redemption</I> and <I>Saving Private Ryan</I> are unqualified masterpieces that when people dare to suggest - shock! - that maybe they're not quite as perfect as some have claimed, they're treated as heretics.

(This works in reverse, too - God knows I've raised enough eyebrows by championing the likes of <I>Lisztomania</I> and <I>Showgirls</I>, two enormously entertaining films that I'm convinced are rather more intentionally knowing than their detractors suggest!)

[tizza]

Aaaw.. come on. showgirls WAS crap.

(Just like terminator btw..)

I mean if it wasnt for the nipple count I would never have watched it again on Channel four.