Blockbusters you've never seen

[SLGreg]

(or have any desire to ever see):

E.T.
Die Hard series
Terminator series
Forrest Gump








--
- greg

[moviePig]

On 12/20/2016 1:52 PM, SLGreg wrote:
> (or have any desire to ever see):
>
> E.T.

presumably geologists haven't yet returned your heart

> Die Hard series

first was good, then the descent

> Terminator series

first was good, second was a milestone, then the descent

> Forrest Gump

entirely missable but for subsequent cultural references

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Michael OConnor]

Never saw any of the Twilight movies, or the Harry Potter or Hunger Games or Fast and Furious.

[SLGreg]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:54:42 -0800 (PST), Michael OConnor
<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:

>Never saw any of the Twilight movies, or the Harry Potter or Hunger Games or Fast and Furious.

Me neither.
--
- greg

[moviePig]

Seriously? I went to THE SOUND OF MUSIC *only* because I didn't want to
be the sole member of the American public not to.

[SLGreg]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:25:05 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>On 12/20/2016 4:09 PM, SLGreg wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:54:42 -0800 (PST), Michael OConnor
>> <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Never saw any of the Twilight movies, or the Harry Potter or Hunger Games or Fast and Furious.
>>
>> Me neither.
>
>Seriously? I went to THE SOUND OF MUSIC *only* because I didn't want to
>be the sole member of the American public not to.

Never saw LORD OF THE RINGS, either. Can you believe that was 15
years ago?!
--
- greg

[william ahearn]

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 4:37:50 PM UTC-5, SLGreg wrote:
>
> Never saw LORD OF THE RINGS, either. Can you believe that was 15
> years ago?!
> --

Never seen a single film with a Hobbit in it.

[gtr]

On 2016-12-20 21:25:05 +0000, moviePig said:

> On 12/20/2016 4:09 PM, SLGreg wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:54:42 -0800 (PST), Michael OConnor
>> <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Never saw any of the Twilight movies, or the Harry Potter or Hunger
>>> Games or Fast and Furious.
>>
>> Me neither.
>
> Seriously? I went to THE SOUND OF MUSIC *only* because I didn't want
> to be the sole member of the American public not to.

Still haven't seen The Sound of Music. Or Forrest Gump. Or Die Hard.
Or any of the others above (Twilight, Potter, Hunber, F&F). Or Lord of
the Anything.

Or any but the first Star Wars movies, and none of the Star Trek.

In fact when a movie is a Gee-Whiz O-My-Gosh blockbuster blow-out I
almost always don't see it. I assume it's eye-candy horseshit for
low-brows and I'm told I'm a overly intellectual elitist. I'm not sure
I am, but every day of my life I'm more and more fond of it.

I *would* watch those movies, once it's effortless with a remote
control on cable, except I'm too busy watching *good* movies!

[moviePig]

But only a true American who saw FORREST GUMP's movie could
appreciate/reject references to his Presidency. (By which I mean that
movies are probably still our main source of cultural touchstones.)

[TT]

21.12.2016, 3:38, gtr kirjoitti:
> On 2016-12-20 21:25:05 +0000, moviePig said:
>
>> On 12/20/2016 4:09 PM, SLGreg wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:54:42 -0800 (PST), Michael OConnor
>>> <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Never saw any of the Twilight movies, or the Harry Potter or Hunger
>>>> Games or Fast and Furious.
>>>
>>> Me neither.
>>
>> Seriously? I went to THE SOUND OF MUSIC *only* because I didn't want
>> to be the sole member of the American public not to.
>
> Still haven't seen The Sound of Music. Or Forrest Gump. Or Die Hard.
> Or any of the others above (Twilight, Potter, Hunber, F&F). Or Lord of
> the Anything.
>
> Or any but the first Star Wars movies, and none of the Star Trek.
>
> In fact when a movie is a Gee-Whiz O-My-Gosh blockbuster blow-out I
> almost always don't see it. I assume it's eye-candy horseshit for
> low-brows

Often it is when it comes to new movies.

But having good production values and popular doesn't mean a film is
bad... quite the contrary - most of the greatest classics are blockbusters.

If a movie is still considered great after a couple decades, such as
Forrest Gump, then it more likely is a very good film.

Twilight, Potter and Hunger Games are basically modern teen movies and I
wouldn't call them classics. Have seen them though just to know what
people are talking about.

E.T. and couple first Terminators are of course must see. Die Hard not
that much but still pretty good in its genre.

> and I'm told I'm a overly intellectual elitist.

Not seeing blockbusters only because they are popular is not very
intelligent imo.

> I'm not sure
> I am, but every day of my life I'm more and more fond of it.
>
> I *would* watch those movies, once it's effortless with a remote control
> on cable, except I'm too busy watching *good* movies!
>

Such as?

I watched yesterday far from mainstream and praised by the critics
"Ordet (1955)" - it was extremely boring and would have been more fit
for 19th century with its religious ideologue than 1950s...

[gtr]

On 2016-12-21 02:47:37 +0000, moviePig said:

> But only a true American who saw FORREST GUMP's movie could
> appreciate/reject references to his Presidency. (By which I mean that
> movies are probably still our main source of cultural touchstones.)

Excellent point, about the cultural touchstones. I'll take your word
on the dumpf.

[gtr]

I did see them both and considered them two-dimensional and
nutrion-free in all respects, just like really good popcorn. I enjoyed
them, still don't pursue and actively avoid such stuff--again, only
because there are so many great obscrurities out there. Right now I'm
really engaged in movies by Naomi Kawase and have yet to meet anyone
who's ever heard of her. And, the basic nuisance of it all, they are
really hard to find.

> Die Hard not that much but still pretty good in its genre.
>
>> and I'm told I'm a overly intellectual elitist.
>
> Not seeing blockbusters only because they are popular is not very
> intelligent imo.

I agree. I don't see them because after hearing about them, knowing
the principal players, seeing the poster, et al, I can pretty well
assure myself I don't give a damn. It's not just the word
"blockbuster" that's the issue. Though I can't think of any off the
top of my head, there are probably blockbusters I would actually go to.

>> I'm not sure
>> I am, but every day of my life I'm more and more fond of it.
>>
>> I *would* watch those movies, once it's effortless with a remote control
>> on cable, except I'm too busy watching *good* movies!
>>
>
> Such as?

I mostly pursue vertically via directors. Recently these have included
Naomi Kawase, Bent Hammer, Mikio Naruse, Alf Sjoberg, Naoko Ogigami,
Hirokazu Koreeda. I'm pursuing almost anything from the 50's and 60's
from Sweden and Denmark. I've worked at finding the last few scraps of
movies I haven't seen by Marcel Carné, Roy Andersson, Ingmar Bergman.
I'm even re-watching some of this stuff after many years away. I just
saw Sjöberg's Miss Julie again: what a masterwork.

And through this kind of belabored work, it's true that I don't always
find "good movies" per se, but I get movies that educate me more about
a particular time, place, ambience, attitude and esthetic. That
usually has more value to me than most any genre movie. Not always.

> I watched yesterday far from mainstream and praised by the critics
> "Ordet (1955)" - it was extremely boring and would have been more fit
> for 19th century with its religious ideologue than 1950s...

I agree; tried it and failed. I suppose the difference is Dreyer so
highly praised I'm likely to try again. I have found almost everything
lauded by Robert Bresson tedious and almost free of compelling
momentum. I watched Pickpocket and after 40 minutes I was so leaden and
filled with ennui I couldn't turn it off. By the time I summoned the
energy to kill it, it had captured a skosh of my interest, so I
finished it. That's not the greatest review.

I guess my basic assumption is that threre is a value to knowing the
work of Bresson, I suppose. I guess I'd rather watch bad art than
excellent pig-feed.

[Obveeus]

I've traveled all over the world and seen every great site on Earth. I
skipped the silly tourist traps like The Great Wall of China, the Grand
Canyon, The Pyramids of Egypt, The Great Barrier Reef, Paris, New York
City, Venice, etc... Why waste time with that stuff when you can go
some place interesting like Casablanca or Fargo instead?

[poisoned rose]

gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> I guess my basic assumption is that threre is a value to knowing the
> work of Bresson, I suppose. I guess I'd rather watch bad art than
> excellent pig-feed.

I think he made four superb films: A Man Escaped, Pickpocket, Au Hasard
Balthazar and Mouchette. The rest drove me bananas, to varying degrees.
The last one I saw was "Four Nights of a Dreamer," which I despised so
intensely that I may not have the nerve to proceed to the last two
Bresson films I haven't seen (The Devil Probably, Les Anges du Peche).

I can't recall any "blockbusters" that were important to me in the past
15-ish years beyond the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Even the "Hobbit"
films were kinda bleh. As far as underappreciated series go, I've seen
zero Twilight films, zero X-Men films, one Fast & Furious film, zero
Divergent films, zero Purge films, zero Lethal Weapon films, one
Transformers film, two Terminator films, two Mission Impossible films,
zero Girl With Dragon Tattoo films, zero Fred & Ginger films, zero Tracy
& Hepburn films, zero Thin Man films, three John Ford films, zero Star
Trek films except two or three of the early ones with the '60s-era cast,
possibly none of the classic MGM musicals except Singin' in the Rain and
An American in Paris, very few Marvel-comics films, um....

And I still haven't seen Argo or The King's Speech.

I did see all the Harry Potter, Dark Knight and Hunger Games films,
though.

[Halmyre]

In a totally unscientific survey http://www.listchallenges.com/top-50-highest-grossing-films-of-all-time I got 13 out of 50.

[blutarsky]

Halmyre <flashgord...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:b8e50385-3f7e-43c0...@googlegroups.com:

4/50: JURASSIC PARK, LION KING, INDEPENDENCE DAY & E.T.

blutarsky

--

I swear: if I live to complete this autobiography, I will go through it
again and cross out all the 'Hi ho's.'
Hi ho.

[blutarsky]

blutarsky <e...@joes.com> wrote in
news:M7mdnfnjHMEwP8bF...@giganews.com:

> Halmyre <flashgord...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:b8e50385-3f7e-43c0...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 6:52:00 PM UTC, SLGreg wrote:
>>> (or have any desire to ever see):
>>>
>>> E.T.
>>> Die Hard series
>>> Terminator series
>>> Forrest Gump
>>>
>>> --
>>> - greg
>>
>> In a totally unscientific survey
>> http://www.listchallenges.com/top-50-highest-grossing-films-of-all-
tim
>> e I got 13 out of 50.
>>
>
> 4/50: JURASSIC PARK, LION KING, INDEPENDENCE DAY & E.T.
>
> blutarsky
>

oh, and STAR WARS (1977). so, 5/50.

[TT]

22.12.2016, 3:31, gtr kirjoitti:
> I guess I'd rather watch bad art than excellent pig-feed.

heheh

[Michael OConnor]

> Never saw any of the Twilight movies, or the Harry Potter or Hunger Games or Fast and Furious.

Also, never saw any of the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings movies. The only Peter Jackson movie I ever saw was his King Kong movie. Never saw any of the Pirates of the Caribbean or any of the Divergent/Detergent movies or any of those young adult films about post-apocalyptic worlds and teenagers rebel against the old fogeys. Also, I was not a fan of horror films, so I never saw any of the Saw movies, or any of the Friday the 13th films or Scream movies.

The films series I have seen is a much smaller list than the ones I have not watched.

[SLGreg]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:56:24 -0800 (PST), Michael OConnor
<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>> Never saw any of the Twilight movies, or the Harry Potter or Hunger Games or Fast and Furious.
>
>Also, never saw any of the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings movies. The only Peter Jackson movie I ever saw was his King Kong movie.

I highly recommend Jackson's "Heavenly Creatures" from 1994.
--
- greg

[Michael OConnor]

> In a totally unscientific survey http://www.listchallenges.com/top-50-highest-grossing-films-of-all-time I got 13 out of 50.

I saw 22 of the 50, as I did see all the Star Wars films, and all the Superhero movies. I couldn't believe 2012 was on the top 50 list. I saw 2012, which was quite possibly the worst big budget film I had seen since the Wild Wild West movie, although I think the recent San Andreas movie may be just as bad as 2012.

[TT]

I've seen 36/50 (bottom 40%)

Missing some Potters, all Shreks, all except first Pirates of the
Caribbean, Alice in Wonderland (2010) (of course seen the wonderful old
Disney animation), Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009), The Chronicles
of Narnia (2005).

I don't like this list at all since the focus is on contemporary
children's movies and seeing a bunch from series that one might abandon
after seeing the first film... rather than actual most earned titles
ever adjusted for inflation...

[gtr]

Say, how are things in North Korea? Is it really as bad as people say?

[william ahearn]

Not if you watch the films from there . . .

[TT]

All people are happy and well-fed. Thanks to our Dear Leader who is the
son of the shining star of Paektu mountain and a perfect incarnation of
the appearance that a leader should have.

Gotta go now, I'm fortunate to rehearse for a parade in his honour.

[gtr]

That's a comfort. Do you get NetFlix there yet?

[moviePig]

In N. Korea, Neflix gets you.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM UTC-5, SLGreg wrote:
> (or have any desire to ever see):
>
> E.T.

Back when E.T. was rereleased in the theaters (1984), my girlfriend bargained with me to take her to see it. No, nothing like that -- the deal was that if I took her to see E.T., she'd agree to watch Amadeus with me.

I ended up preferring E.T. and she ended up preferring Amadeus.

> Die Hard series
> Terminator series

> Forrest Gump

I saw this in the theater with my wife. Wasn't expecting too much, but was pleasantly surprised.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 4:25:08 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/20/2016 4:09 PM, SLGreg wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:54:42 -0800 (PST), Michael OConnor
> > <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Never saw any of the Twilight movies, or the Harry Potter or Hunger Games or Fast and Furious.
> >
> > Me neither.
>
> Seriously? I went to THE SOUND OF MUSIC *only* because I didn't want to
> be the sole member of the American public not to.
>

It took me a long time to get around to seeing that as well. I used to say it was the only really big movie from the 1960s and earlier that I hadn't seen. I ended up liking it very much.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

I watched the first LOTR film in the movie theater, and thought it just fell short of living up to the novel. My only complaint was that it felt like they concentrated solely on the action and left out much of the personal (can one say that?) interaction between the characters. I later heart that they'd cut about 45 minutes of the film and that these would only be available on a special director's cut of the DVD. I was so royally p.o.'d that I decided I wouldn't watch parts 2 or 3 until the director's cut versions turned up for free on the internet.

I'm still waiting.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

I prefer to think of it as "slow-moving." It's not as captivating as Dreyer's masterpieces (Vampyr and Passion of Joan of Arc), but it's definitely worth a watch.

[michaelmalef...@gmail.com]

Seconded (also highly).

[TT]

Yes, and your family too. All away for nice holiday camp.

--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"

[gtr]

Good one!