StarDestroyer.Net BBS

General Zod wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

General Zod wrote:Pretty much anything with Adam Sandler in it.

That's a good addition but a bit over-broad. Some of his films, like "Happy Gilmour" and "Big Daddy", try to make heroes out of complete douchebags, without ever really making them see what was so wrong with their behaviour. "School of Rock" with Jack Black is very similar in that way. I can't stand it because the guy is such a fucking asshole, and nothing he does later in the film redeems him.

However, Sandler does have other films which don't follow that mould. "The Wedding Singer" and "50 First Dates" both include a character who seems like a basically decent guy, rather than celebrating extreme selfishness as some of his other films do. There's also "Bedtime Stories", which is a kind of a lukewarm family film but which I certainly wouldn't call "reprehensible" in a moral sense.

I haven't generally bothered to watch most of his films because I can't stand him. The few that I've seen bits and pieces of pretty much turned me off to wanting to see anything else with him in it.

Maybe you didn't bother reading the fucking OP. This is about films you actually find genuinely offensive, not just your opportunity to grandstand about actors you don't like. If you didn't bother watching most of them, you can't say you find all of them offensive, can you?

Darth Wong wrote: Maybe you didn't bother reading the fucking OP. This is about films you actually find genuinely offensive, not just your opportunity to grandstand about actors you don't like. If you didn't bother watching most of them, you can't say you find all of them offensive, can you?

I suppose not, but movies like Waterboy did leave a rather bad taste in my mouth for their portrayal of the mentally handicapped.

Saw is pretty much the only film i´ve ever seen that i found honestly reprehensible. It´s been a while but i remember walking out and thinking that the makers just sat together, got drunk and thought up bizarr ways to kill people. After that they made a stupid story around it and sold it to whomever wanted to see that crap.

I think that was one of the first torture porn movies that went mainstream. Never saw another torture porn afterwards. That´s just fucked up and at the same time pretty boring crap.

I personally hate any movie whose only goal is to shock me. Not to tell a story, not to advance a character, not even to make a political or social point - just to see if they can shock me or upset me emotionally. There are dozens of these movies - everyone dies crying and screaming and in pain, the bad guy gets away with it and probably goes on to torture some other innocent young family to death, the end. What the fuck did you want me to get out of that?

Pretty much every torture porn movie.

Darth Wong wrote:That's a good addition but a bit over-broad. Some of his films, like "Happy Gilmour" and "Big Daddy", try to make heroes out of complete douchebags, without ever really making them see what was so wrong with their behaviour. "School of Rock" with Jack Black is very similar in that way. I can't stand it because the guy is such a fucking asshole, and nothing he does later in the film redeems him.

However, Sandler does have other films which don't follow that mould. "The Wedding Singer" and "50 First Dates" both include a character who seems like a basically decent guy, rather than celebrating extreme selfishness as some of his other films do. There's also "Bedtime Stories", which is a kind of a lukewarm family film but which I certainly wouldn't call "reprehensible" in a moral sense.

Jack Black's character in School Of Rock is sort of redeemed in that he actually starts to care about his students, and he sort of gets a job. And did you like Scary Movie, because apparently the guy who directed it actually is black (he has a cameo in the Amistad 2 trailer).

Also, films that are only possible because the heroes are morons. Case in point Haloween. The police are more focused on teen vandals then an escaped serial killer, they neglect to inform the sister of the killer. End result: 3 horny teenagers are dead, including the sheriffs daughter. And Jamie Lee drops the knife EVEN WHEN SHE'S SEEN MICHAEL MYERS GET UP FROM IMPOSSIBLE INJURIES TWICE!!!!! The villian is also an idiot. "Ohh, I'll wait until she's in her car, where she can bang her horn and attract attention." And he misses Jamie Lee at close range twice AND TRIES TO THROTTLE HER WHEN HE HAS THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE!!!!!!!! God I don't know why that film is cited as a classic. The film Shredder's honestly better.

Darth Yan wrote:Also, films that are only possible because the heroes are morons.

This is a thread about reprehensible movies, not reprehensibly bad ones. Rants about dumb genre contrivances should go elsewhere.

Darth Yan wrote:Beverly Hills Cop. It seemed to be saying "It's a ok to break the rules" Funny as hell but the message left a bad taste in my mouth.

You know that's a comedy, right? And while he probably did violate some due process along the way, it's certainly no worse than a "message" sent by pretty much any action movie where the lead cop 'doesn't play by the rules' and leaves a higher bodycount than the entire LAPD combined on a bad year, and gets away with it. Because apparently those movies are saying that taking personal vengeance and leaving a trail of bodies behind you is OK?

fair enough.

Simplicius wrote:This is a thread about reprehensible movies, not reprehensibly bad ones. Rants about dumb genre contrivances should go elsewhere.

Yeah, to be clear, I want to see discussion of movies that are offensive in some way, such as the decidedly inappropriate movie that was ostensibly marketed to children I talked about at the start. I haven't seen any sort of Saw-esque or other torture porn-type films, but they seem like the sort of thing that apply. Similarly, Rye was recently talking about Martys and that also seems to fit (though I haven't seen it and certainly don't plan to).

Talk about movies you've seen, not just heard about. Discuss specifically what it is in the movie that bothers you, if you care to share.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned it yet: The Twilight series, for a number of self-evident reasons.

There's also been a few parts of the Harry Potter series that have bothered me. Pretty much the implied assumption that it's a-okay to consistently put children in very dangerous situations, and for the 'bad' teachers to display blatant favouritism and the 'good' teachers to play fair, which inevitably results in a pointless net loss for the students who aren't complete douches. In the end, neither issue is addressed, so I can only assume that the movie is trying to tell us these sorts of things are perfectly fine.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:I'm surprised no one's mentioned it yet: The Twilight series, for a number of self-evident reasons.

It's also too easy, really.

Kids
Gummo

and similar movies about shitty kids doing shitty things to themselves and other people. Supposedly these films have meaning, but I don't see it.

General Zod wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Maybe you didn't bother reading the fucking OP. This is about films you actually find genuinely offensive, not just your opportunity to grandstand about actors you don't like. If you didn't bother watching most of them, you can't say you find all of them offensive, can you?

I suppose not, but movies like Waterboy did leave a rather bad taste in my mouth for their portrayal of the mentally handicapped.

Was we mentally handicapped? I believe he was of normal intellegence but overly sheltered. The movie also ends with him choosing to finnish college rather then enter the NFL.

General Zod wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Maybe you didn't bother reading the fucking OP. This is about films you actually find genuinely offensive, not just your opportunity to grandstand about actors you don't like. If you didn't bother watching most of them, you can't say you find all of them offensive, can you?

I suppose not, but movies like Waterboy did leave a rather bad taste in my mouth for their portrayal of the mentally handicapped.

Really? Of all the Adam Sandler movies out there, this one always seemed to be one of the better ones in my view. The closed-minded, overprotective mother learns to open up and let her kid go. The sheltered (possibly retarded) kid learns to stick up for himself and even open up a little sexually. The burnout coach recovers the talent and ingenuity he had before his fall. The closed-minded small town learns a little tolerance, and in the end, the kid chooses education over sports.

spaceviking wrote: Was we mentally handicapped? I believe he was of normal intellegence but overly sheltered.

The way it looked to me is he had some sort of handicap going on. The whole movie just rubbed me the wrong way either way.

I doubt anyone else will agree with this, but I was actually vaguely offended by a scene in Iron Man. There's a scene where Iron Man flies in to some impoverished Middle Eastern village where warlords are exterminating the local villagers. Prior to Iron Man's arrival, the whole ambience of the scene, and the way it was filmed, was so realistic that it had almost a documentary-like feel to it. Innocent people in the Middle East have been slaughtered in very similar circumstances over the years due to various tribal conflicts. So when Iron Man arrived, the inclusion of a silly comic-book element amidst this all-too-realistic tragedy was jarring, and gave me the sense that the movie had exploited a very real situation for the sake of a silly, Hollywood super-hero gimmick. In real life, there was never any Iron-Man to save any of these people.

However, I didn't find the overall movie reprehensible. It was an enjoyable movie, but that scene bothered me.

Given the scene was about Tony Stark deciding to man up and deal with a mess his company was helping to make (due to his corrupt "mentor" Obadiah Stane), I'm not sure I follow the logic of real life horror being "exploited" by Hollywood.

Seriously, why get upset because a superhero movie shows a superhero character intervening in a situation that would, normally, have ended far more tragically?.

Another thing I like about that scene. Most Super Heroes spend their time and effort protecting Western countries that already have relatively working law and order. They could save far more lives working in those 3rd world countries.

Channel72 wrote:I doubt anyone else will agree with this, but I was actually vaguely offended by a scene in Iron Man. There's a scene where Iron Man flies in to some impoverished Middle Eastern village where warlords are exterminating the local villagers. Prior to Iron Man's arrival, the whole ambience of the scene, and the way it was filmed, was so realistic that it had almost a documentary-like feel to it. Innocent people in the Middle East have been slaughtered in very similar circumstances over the years due to various tribal conflicts. So when Iron Man arrived, the inclusion of a silly comic-book element amidst this all-too-realistic tragedy was jarring, and gave me the sense that the movie had exploited a very real situation for the sake of a silly, Hollywood super-hero gimmick. In real life, there was never any Iron-Man to save any of these people.

I think it would be more objectionable if Stark had been quipping the whole time, cracking jokes as he effortlessly tossed the gunmen around. Stark is a playboy and a thrill-seeker, but when he was doing battle, he wasn't was getting his jollies from it. I didn't see that scene as silly at all. It was portrayed as a grim, serious incident and not done for kicks, clearly. Surely you remember his reaction as he was watching the news reports before that scene. The bloodshed really pissed him off.

Darth Wong wrote:"Gods and Generals". Wow, I had no idea that the South was so fucking morally superior in the Civil War.

The fact that neo-Confederates were able to get away with a major movie glorifying the Confederacy as recently as 2003 shocks and appalls me. Do neo-Confederates still have that much influence?

As for movies I find problematic from a moral perspective, I have to nominate The Lion King. It's got great music and animation, but I don't like the blatant anti-hyena bias.

Vastatosaurus Rex wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:"Gods and Generals". Wow, I had no idea that the South was so fucking morally superior in the Civil War.

The fact that neo-Confederates were able to get away with a major movie glorifying the Confederacy as recently as 2003 shocks and appalls me. Do neo-Confederates still have that much influence?

They do among the right wing. They always did; I don't even know if you can call it neo-Confederacy; the pro-Confederate movement never really went away in the first place.

As for movies I find problematic from a moral perspective, I have to nominate The Lion King. It's got great music and animation, but I don't like the blatant anti-hyena bias.

Surely you can find more compelling victims of negative stereotyping in movies than hyenas.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:There's also been a few parts of the Harry Potter series that have bothered me.

The Harry Potter series has some truely nasty aspects to it if you look. Widespread use of memory editing and love potions put a whole new perspective on where the "muggle-born" actually come from.

General Zod wrote:

spaceviking wrote: Was we mentally handicapped? I believe he was of normal intellegence but overly sheltered.

The way it looked to me is he had some sort of handicap going on. The whole movie just rubbed me the wrong way either way.

In the water boy, he's just slow/shy. I've known plenty of people like that, they're just on the down side of the bell curve.