It Started Out Great, But . . .
Tom Sutpen
dyed-in-the-wool cineaste is to watch a movie that starts out well . . . even
brilliantly, in some instances . . . only to watch it fall apart as it
progresses.
I can think of one example offhand (only because I saw it for the second
time yesterday):
"My Own Private Idaho" -- If the last 90 minutes had been as good as the first
20, the movie would have been a masterpiece. As it stands, the balance of the
film is sub-Shakespearean burlesque and almost totally incoherent.
I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
Tom Sutpen
"The Cinema is an Invention Without a Future" -- Louis Lumiere
"Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
Mpoconnor7
keep up the intensity of the D Day sequence and pales in comparison.
Full Metal Jacket - I lose interest in the movie once Joker gets to Nam. IMO
it would have been a much more interesting film if Kubrick could somehow have
stretched the boot camp sequence out into an entire movie.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct
proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
James Mason from the movie "Heaven Can Wait".
The Avocado Avenger
>
> I don't know about you, but one of the more frustrating experiences for a
> dyed-in-the-wool cineaste is to watch a movie that starts out well . . . even
> brilliantly, in some instances . . . only to watch it fall apart as it
> progresses.
"A Dangerous Woman" - a tacky, cop-out ending that makes me want to
punch something or someone
"LA Confidential" - nice premise, but by the time I was halfway through
I was so tired of the gimmick; it was as though the movie was nothing
more than a checklist of film noir cliches, modified in a sad effort to
make them "new"
Stacia
Kingo Gondo
already mentioned.
Casino would be another.
Vince
akir...@aol.communism (Tom Sutpen) writes:
>
> I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
>
For me its "Get Shorty"
Vince
Take out words goodguy to e-mail
Check out our new E-Bay ITEMS under BOOKMAGS
Jim S.
> Saving Private Ryan - While the rest of the movie was well done, it couldn't
> keep up the intensity of the D Day sequence and pales in comparison.
Disagree here. As good as the Omaha Beach scene was (and it was terrific), I
think it is matched by the battle for the bridge at the end. And there were some
effective scenes in between, such as the death of the medic.
> Full Metal Jacket - I lose interest in the movie once Joker gets to Nam. IMO
> it would have been a much more interesting film if Kubrick could somehow have
> stretched the boot camp sequence out into an entire movie.
You are definitely in the majority here, but I really dig the whole movie.
--
Jim S.
Hitman of Las Vegas
wrote:
> I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
I always thought that if all of Temple of Doom was as good as it's
first 10 minutes, it would have been better than Raiders, Instead,
it's the worst Indy Jones movie by a comfy margin.
The first Austin Powers movie had a very funny and engaging first 15
minutes or so, and degenerated so quickly that I though the franchise
was killed by the end of the 3rd reel. Somehow, they managed to make
2 more movies with the Austin Powers character, and who knows, they
may even make more.
cousin_it
"Tom Sutpen" <akir...@aol.communism>
news:20040210232436...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
>
And I saw The Gift yesterday: starts genuinly creepy but quite soon turns
into a stencil thriller. And after the final twist you wait for Jonathan
Frakes to pop up.
Geir Friestad
|
| I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
ALIEN 3. The opening title sequence is superb, but then it all
just goes downhill. Fast.
--
Geir Friestad || ge...@portman.org || www.portman.org
"My readers are intelligent: I don't write for stupid people."
- Philip Pullman
Joe Gillis
> I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
Las Vegas Hillbillys
=================================================
"I don't mind lying, but I HATE inaccuracy." -- Samuel Butler
fishfry
akir...@aol.communism (Tom Sutpen) wrote:
> I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
>
>
Videodrome. Terrific first half, then plot goes all to pieces.
Stephen Cooke
The Wizard of Oz...it starts out as this heartwrenching musical version of
The Grapes of Wrath, and then it turns out that professor with the freaky
caravan put LSD in the well.
Birth of a Nation...at the end it gets kooky, korny and kontrived.
swac
artyw
> I don't know about you, but one of the more frustrating experiences for a
> dyed-in-the-wool cineaste is to watch a movie that starts out well . . . even
> brilliantly, in some instances . . . only to watch it fall apart as it
> progresses.
>
> I can think of one example offhand (only because I saw it for the second
> time yesterday):
>
> "My Own Private Idaho" -- If the last 90 minutes had been as good as the first
> 20, the movie would have been a masterpiece. As it stands, the balance of the
> film is sub-Shakespearean burlesque and almost totally incoherent.
>
> I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
I liked the start of Total Recall, especially when you were never sure
whether it was "real" or not. But then it just turned into "let's blow
stuff and people up."
Nick Macpherson
>Full Metal Jacket - I lose interest in the movie once Joker gets to Nam. IMO
>it would have been a much more interesting film if Kubrick could somehow have
>stretched the boot camp sequence out into an entire movie.
Or if Kubrick had filmed the last third of Gustav Hasford's novel, but for a
filmmaker with a reptuation for a dreamy lack of realism, he never did
surrealism, so maybe the entirety of The Short-Timers was beyond him.
Some of Sam Fuller's movies start out great but . . . The Naked Kiss goes from
a great opening sequence to being a merely good movie with great trash pulp
dialogue. Fuller said the beginning of a movie shoud be be so good it gives you
an erection but Fuller's problem is he has a hard time maintaining that level
of virility all the way through a film.
Bill McClain
> I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
I thought the first 15 minutes of Roeg's EUREKA (1986) was good. The film
turns pretty dismal when it leaves the Yukon.
-Bill
--
Sattre Press The King in Yellow
http://sattre-press.com/ by Robert W. Chambers
in...@sattre-press.com http://sattre-press.com/kiy.html
Paula J. Vitaris
Ann Hui's Ah Kam (a.k.a. The Stuntwoman) (1996). Starts out as a
fascinating, behind the scenes look on the set of a Hong Kong action film,
with Sammo Hung basically playing himself as an action director and
Michelle Yeoh as a female stuntwoman struggling for a measure of respect
in a man's world and succeeding... but then turns drippy when she goes
off with a guy you know is a loser, and by the end dissolves into a dumb
and typical actioner with an over the top villain completely at odds with
the naturalistic tone of the first act and a tired killing/revenge
scenario.
But the first third of this movie was really good. :)
-- Paula
cr carr
> > I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
Backdraft's first 1/2 was good, it set up very interesting characters but
the ending was pretty bland. I always felt that Ron Howard could of done
more if he he expanded Donald Sutherland's character, dropped the love stuff
with the Baldwin kid.
Event Horizon, the ending totally kills this movie. I won't spoil it but
when you find out what the "true evil" is you are let down and forget that
most of the movie is pretty good.
Jeff Duncanson
> "LA Confidential" - nice premise, but by the time I was halfway through
> I was so tired of the gimmick; it was as though the movie was nothing
> more than a checklist of film noir cliches, modified in a sad effort to
> make them "new"
> Stacia
****spoilers*****
Totally agree on this one. I loved the fact that they killed off Kevin
Spacey's character. I loved the fact that the 2 main characters were
both less than admirable. I hated the big fucking shootout. All I
could think while it was going on was "These guys are all cops and
they have likely known each other for years and now they're shooting
each other????"
Of a more recent vintage - "Signs" - I loved the fact that they
never really give you a good look at the aliens. I thought it was a
masterful job of creating atmosphere. But.....I know it's been
mentioned hundreds of times, but you're going to have to believe me
when I say that when I was walking out of the theatre , I also thought
"So why did they land on a plant that is more than 2/3 water???"
Of course , "Red River"....The harping female at the end just spoiled
it for me.
Jim S.
> On 11 Feb 2004 04:24:36 GMT, akir...@aol.communism (Tom Sutpen)
> wrote:
>
> > I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
>
> I always thought that if all of Temple of Doom was as good as it's
> first 10 minutes, it would have been better than Raiders, Instead,
> it's the worst Indy Jones movie by a comfy margin.
Boy, you hit the nail on the head with that one!
--
Jim S.
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:Event Horizon, the ending totally kills this movie. I won't spoil it but
:when you find out what the "true evil" is you are let down and forget that
:most of the movie is pretty good.
Apparently they reshot the ending. I'd like to see the original.
Tranquility Base
wrote:
> I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
"They Live"
"Them!"
Shouse
Vince
writes:
>
>Popeye
>
>
IMO the film started badly, was bad, ended badly!
James Allen
(with future stars John Spencer and Michael Madsen) and then goes into the
interesting premise of a kid hacking his way into a government computer, but by
the last half hour it degenerates into a lot of stilted moralizing.
madkevin
shitifying the first, but the first two acts of "The Matrix" are pretty damn
wicked: great action, Lawrence Fishburn acting all weird, some nifty
near-Cronenberg-esque body horror elements, and some hints that this might be
the first big budget Hollywood movie to really understand Phil Dick, all mixed
in with a generous helping manga/anime flava.
Then, Neo find out he's a wet, bald, human battery and the whole thing goes
straight to the toilet.
Kevin "Que Sera Sera" Cogliano
Steven Litvintchouk
Tom Sutpen wrote:
> I don't know about you, but one of the more frustrating experiences for a
> dyed-in-the-wool cineaste is to watch a movie that starts out well . . . even
> brilliantly, in some instances . . . only to watch it fall apart as it
> progresses.
"Twilight Zone: The Movie"
The opening prologue scene with Dan Ackroyd had a neat shock surprise.
But then the first sequence with Vic Morrow was melodramatic and boring.
And the movie stayed boring pretty much all the way thru (except for
near the end).
-- Steven L.
Steven Litvintchouk
artyw wrote:
Another sci-fi movie that started out decently and then fell apart was
"Star Trek: Generations." The opening sequences with Kirk as the
elderly wiser mentor in a crisis facing a newbie captain were damned
good. But after Kirk meets his fate, we switch to the Next Generation
crew and from then on the movie was so boring I literally fell asleep
and missed the rest of the movie. Even though I've been a Star Trek fan
since 1966.
-- Steven L.
Calvin Rice
movie. Then, about the time you would expect all the threads to start coming
together, it all explodes into an unfathomable mess. I'm aware that some say
that if the movie is seen again it will start to make sense, and eventually
become understandable. Maybe so, but one needs to feel that it will be
worth the effort, and so far I haven't had the urge to rent it again.
-cr
David Matthews
"Calvin Rice" <os...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:22680de.04021...@posting.google.com...
I wouldn't bank on it ever making sense, although some people seem to
have fun in finding hidden meanings in it I think many of their
conclusions would surprise and probably amuse Lynch. With Lynch you
take it as it comes, you either enjoy his imagery and his set pieces
or you don't.
Dave in Toronto
madkevin
I had no problem whatsoever understanding it the first time I watched it. Each
subsequent viewing has only made me appreciate Lynch's surprising subtlety and
playfulness. When I found out about the origins of the film, I became even more
amazed; "Mulholland Dr." is the cinematic equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of
a hat.
What makes "Mulholland Dr." even more incredible to me was how blithely I had
written off Lynch after "Lost Highway", which in retrospect seems like a dry run
for the themes more successfully explored within "Mulholland Dr.". "Eraserhead"
is a technical piece of virtuoso film-making, but there's something very cold
and unlikable about it that prevents me from watching it again. "The Elephant
Man" and "Blue Velvet" are tremendous, as is the first season of "Twin Peaks",
but his other works - the exerable "Dune", "Wild At Heart" and "Fire Walk With
Me" - seem to be all surface and no substance - weird for weird's sake.
With "The Straight Story", Lynch showed us a very human side not seen since "The
Elephant Man", stripped of his usual gimmicks, and created a purposefully small
but wonderful movie, held together by some really amazing performances.
"Mulholland Dr." combines the best of both of Lynch's sides as an artist -
dazzling visuals at the service of a psychologically penetrating drama. (The
nods to film noir seem like icing on the cake.)
Like De Palma's "Femme Fatale", "Mulholland Dr." is a true cinephile's wet
dream, and one of the best examples of why movies are like dreaming with your
eyes (to crib a phrase from Kubrick) wide open.
Kevin "Cliff Notes" Cogliano
Richard
Geir Friestad wrote:
> Tom Sutpen <akir...@aol.communism> wrote:
> |
> | I know there are others. Let's hear 'em!
>
> ALIEN 3. The opening title sequence is superb, but then it all
> just goes downhill. Fast.
I actually enjoyed "Alien 3" for the first hour or so.
However, I got bored pretty quickly once the bloodletting
began and the movie became like a broken record.
My own nominee for this category is the original
version of the "Thomas Crown Affair". Pretty
entertaining for the first 2/3's or so, but then
it really overstays its welcome and ultimately
falls apart in the end.
Richard