StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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'd recommend you see 'Funny People'. Sandler basically plays himself in the movie and makes alot of fun of his shit movies, but really it's a deep character film disguised as a comedy. Plus it's funny as shit.

I'd also like to defend the first 'Saw' film. From what I recall there was a bit of blood and gore (maybe more than "a bit"), but the motives of the killer, excellent acting, and moral dilemmas posed by the various situations the victims find themselves in really raises this above the "torture porn" genre. Of course after that they got progressively retarded and downright disgusting to the point of anyone sitting through one is either really into special effects gore or has serious mental problems.

I'd also disagree with the 'Hostel' movies being non-artistic. The gorier parts I've seen are either a snuff film or some of the best fucking gore FX I've ever seen, but again, anyone who can sit through an entire movie like that is fucked in the head.

I'm going to go a different way and list some movies that were totally unnecessary or ruin the characters in an unforgivable way, but are not particularly bad or without artistic merit. Of course, all are sequels.

Ghostbusters 2 - They basically just hit the reset button and remade the first one with snazzier FX. It added nothing to the characters or story whatsoever. If they ever make a third one (supposedly they are, but I'll believe it when I see it) I can assure you, they will never mention anything from the second movie.

Die Hard 2: Die Harder - Again, it's basically just Die Hard with a reset button. At least they got the characters right, but on the whole it's just a remake of the first one with a different setting. In fact it's so unforgettable that in the best Die Hard (my favorite, Die Hard With a Vengeance) they completely ignore the second movie and never mention anything that happened in it.

Star Trek: Nemesis - This has been analyzed pretty well by Wong, though I take a different view on why I hate it. They basically get all the characters wrong and aside from the mention that Riker and Troy are leaving the crew, nothing of significance really happens and there is no character advancement aside from Data "dying".

All 3 Star Wars Prequels - Do I really need to say anything here? I mean we basically are shown a bunch of shit we either already know or that is never mentioned or important in the rest of the series. However, I will say that aside from the episode 2, I found them enjoyable enough and the advancements in CGI made by Lucas are astounding.

Sequels to Starship Troopers - Aside from giving Casper Van Dien and T'Pol from 'Enterprise' (an unnecessary TV show) something to do, they miss the entire point of the first movie and their mere existence is an affront to mankind. (For those who couldn't figure it out, the end of the first movie basically laid out that the entire point of the war was to fight the war.)

Fairytale movies that knowingly or unknowingly promote gender or social roles to children.

The most egregious example that comes to mind is 'The Little Mermaid', where a Princess that has everything she could ever want, with infinite possibilites, just has to throw everything away, including the relationship with her family and loved ones, to become a man's wife. Even when I liked the movie, I hated how utterly stupid and submissive Ariel is, and most fairytale movies do this in one fashion or the other, although recent movies like 'Princess and the Frog' do try to fix that.

And there's also the whitewashing of nobility (because the Princesses in the movies can only hope to marry a Prince), and the subtle indoctrination that those not of noble ancestry are supposed to serve and care for nobility ('Beauty and the Beast' comes to mind, as well as the horrid whitewashing of the Romanovs in 'Anastasia').

And before anyone claims that "it's for kids", that's why I consider it reprehensible, kids are way easier to indoctrinate, and I certainly wouldn't want my daughter growing up with the notion that her only possible goal in life is to find a man to marry her.

I remembered thinking that the ending of the movie Enough edged into this territory after I saw it. So, your husband is a bit of a psycho-stalker, abusive, cheating asshole, and the correct response is to . . . sneak into his house and provoke a fight with him so you can kill him and call it self-defense. It's like a Lifetime Movie of the Week, except in theaters.

It was a long time ago, but Radio Flyer was this type of movie, although I was too young to understand it well at the time. Roger Ebert in particular has a really scathing review* of it which pretty much sums up much of why the movie is offensive (made worse by the fact that the director has apparently said that the ending was meant to be taken straight).

*I don't agree with the entire review, but the second-to-last paragraph is one I agree with.

LordOskuro wrote:I hated how utterly stupid and submissive Ariel is

Stupid, maybe. But submissive?

I really hated [/url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467200/]The Other Boleyn Girl[/url] for the sheer fact that it shows all the sisterly in-fighting, deceit, as well as rape-by-king. The movie was terrible.

LordOskuro wrote:Even when I liked the movie, I hated how utterly stupid and submissive Ariel is, and most fairytale movies do this in one fashion or the other, although recent movies like 'Princess and the Frog' do try to fix that.

Even Princess and the Frog is imperfect. The movie's major Aesop is "what you want is not always what you need". Tiana wants to own her own restaurant, yet the movie implies that what she really needs is a man in her life. In addition, while the movie wants to be racially progressive, it almost completely whitewashes the racism prevalent in the 1920s South. Except for one character referring vaguely to Tiana's "background", racism is barely present at all. We're even supposed to believe that a black woman like Tiana could get away with marrying a "Caucasian" man like Naveen without lynchers coming after her.

Another animated movie I think is reprehensible is The Prince of Egypt, because I think the Exodus story is reprehensible. We're supposed to root for a brutal god who makes the Pharaoh stubborn and kills thousands of people. Also, "there can be miracles when you believe" is a bullshit message.

Ah yes, Prince of Egypt is a good example of pure religious propaganda. You might as well watch Veggie Tales.

Steven King's 'The Stand'. I can only really tolerate watching the first two thirds of that movie/miniseries. A lot of his books have this theme, but this is the most glaring example I can think of in movie format: God's a mass murderer, but you should implicitly trust him anyways because... something.

Really, everything's fine up until the point that God enters the story. I loved Desperation up until that point. I loved The Stand up until that point. Then the preaching starts and my eye begins twitching. The really annoying part is that most of the stories, the characters admit that this God is all powerful, yet letting all this crap happen anyways, and they they still jump to the conclusion that it must be a good god while giving no fucking reasons for it.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Steven King's 'The Stand'. I can only really tolerate watching the first two thirds of that movie/miniseries. A lot of his books have this theme, but this is the most glaring example I can think of in movie format: God's a mass murderer, but you should implicitly trust him anyways because... something.

Really, everything's fine up until the point that God enters the story. I loved Desperation up until that point. I loved The Stand up until that point. Then the preaching starts and my eye begins twitching. The really annoying part is that most of the stories, the characters admit that this God is all powerful, yet letting all this crap happen anyways, and they they still jump to the conclusion that it must be a good god while giving no fucking reasons for it.

Sounds like he just adapts the Book of Job into horror movie form. The Cohen brothers did the same thing recently with "A Serious Man": an utterly shittastic movie which is apparently wonderful if you think the Book of Job is a profound moral meditation, but which struck me as a steaming pile of shit because I have no such reverence for the Book of Job or its fucked-up moral message.

In all fairness to the Prince of Egypt, there version of Moses is far less of a douchebag then in the old testament, and Ramses is actually sort of sympathetic. Both sides really don't want to be fighting. they took liberties, and made moses genuinely likable. In the film, he really doesn't want to be doing it. If the old testament had been written like that it MAY HAVE been less horendous.

And another decent Adam Sandler Film is the longest yard. when he starts out, he's a douchebag, but as time passes he genuinely starts to care about his fellow inmates, and he ultimately refuses to betray them, even though it will screw him over big time. In short, he realizes that being a selfish bastard is wrong.

as for little mermaid. To quote the nostalgia chick. "I'm going to sell my soul for a vagina and a man I don't know." Truer words were never spoken.

But how the hell does beauty and the beast spread the elitism? I get anastasia, but the entire reason the beast becomes the beast is because he was a cruel douchebag, and he had to genuinely get someone to like him for his character. In short, his egotism and cruelty were not portrayed as a good thing. Plus Bell did it to save her father And in the original, he's obscenely nice to Bell, freeing her to see her daddy even though it will literaly kill him. Also, the way they make Gaston (a man who resembles Prince Charming) the villian was a refreshing change.

Darth Yan wrote:In all fairness to the Prince of Egypt, there version of Moses is far less of a douchebag then in the old testament, and Ramses is actually sort of sympathetic. Both sides really don't want to be fighting. they took liberties, and made moses genuinely likable. In the film, he really doesn't want to be doing it. If the old testament had been written like that it MAY HAVE been less horendous.

Yes, but none of this gets Yah-Yah himself off the hook. He's the one who's using terrorism against children as a tactic. Moses is merely his messenger. And no one questions that Yah-Yah is good.

But how the hell does beauty and the beast spread the elitism? I get anastasia, but the entire reason the beast becomes the beast is because he was a cruel douchebag, and he had to genuinely get someone to like him for his character. In short, his egotism and cruelty were not portrayed as a good thing. Plus Bell did it to save her father And in the original, he's obscenely nice to Bell, freeing her to see her daddy even though it will literaly kill him. Also, the way they make Gaston (a man who resembles Prince Charming) the villian was a refreshing change.

I agree. I thought Beauty and the Beast actually had plenty of good messages.

Sounds like he just adapts the Book of Job into horror movie form. The Cohen brothers did the same thing recently with "A Serious Man": an utterly shittastic movie which is apparently wonderful if you think the Book of Job is a profound moral meditation, but which struck me as a steaming pile of shit because I have no such reverence for the Book of Job or its fucked-up moral message.

Wait, that movie actually makes more sense if you read the Book of Job? I heard about it, and watched some of it, thinking it was some artsy movie about some jew professor's everyday trials.

EDIT: note, that I stopped watching the movie halfway. I got bored with it.

Vastatosaurus Rex wrote:Another animated movie I think is reprehensible is The Prince of Egypt, because I think the Exodus story is reprehensible. We're supposed to root for a brutal god who makes the Pharaoh stubborn and kills thousands of people. Also, "there can be miracles when you believe" is a bullshit message.

After Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments and the Prince of Egypt, it would be nice if somebody would make an Exodus movie which is actually true to the source, and not white-washed with modern moral sensibilities. This way, audiences might see how psychotic the story actually is. Forget the 10 plagues, in the actual Exodus Story, after the famous Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32), Moses actually orders his priests to go around the camp and randomly kill 3,000 people as punishment.

Exodus 32:27-28 wrote:Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.

It would be hilarious if the Prince of Egypt included an animated scene depicting a bunch of priests, on Moses's command, running around the camp stabbing people in their tents, while "There Can Be Miracles When You Believe" plays in the background.

On the topic of Adam Sandler: Now that I think about it, Happy Gilmoure isn't exactly a 'reprehensible' movie either. He starts off the movie as a self-centered asshole with a hair-trigger temper, but by the end he's learned to even the temper out, respect a game he had nothing but disdain for previously, funnel his aggressive tendencies into something productive and generally turn into a halfway decent guy. There's a lot of things you can pin on Sandler movies, typecast, retarded, etc., but reprehensible isn't exactly one of them.

As for Beauty and the Beast, wasn't Belle a commoner? Wouldn't a commoner marrying aristocracy defy conventions rather than perpetrate them?

Darth Wong wrote:Sounds like he just adapts the Book of Job into horror movie form.

When you put it like that, that's exactly what it is. God kills off ninety percent of the planet's population with a disease to... test the remaining ten percent by putting them through absolute hell. So I guess the other ninety percent deserved to die from a horrible, painful sickness then.

Darth Yan wrote:But how the hell does beauty and the beast spread the elitism? I get anastasia, but the entire reason the beast becomes the beast is because he was a cruel douchebag, and he had to genuinely get someone to like him for his character. In short, his egotism and cruelty were not portrayed as a good thing. Plus Bell did it to save her father And in the original, he's obscenely nice to Bell, freeing her to see her daddy even though it will literaly kill him. Also, the way they make Gaston (a man who resembles Prince Charming) the villian was a refreshing change.

I think it has something to do with the castle's servants being punished for their master's offence and not only having no indication that this shouldn't be, but having the servants act as if they can't possibly imagine doing anything other than waiting on their noble-blooded master for their entire lives.

I'm not the one who initially raised this objection, though, so maybe Oskuro meant something else.

Nobody's mentioned Hilghlander 2: the Sickening?

The first Highlander was cool - lots of sword-fighting, consistent story, and "there can be only one."

So how the fuck do they make a sequel after there's only one left?

Apparently, the Immortals are all alien political refugees (from a planet with a name as weird as "Zeist," of all things), and the guy who exiled them comes to Earth to kill the one who won the Prize.

And that's the good parts of the plot.

Fuck you all for making me remember that movie.

Rahvin wrote:Nobody's mentioned Hilghlander 2: the Sickening?

The first Highlander was cool - lots of sword-fighting, consistent story, and "there can be only one."

So how the fuck do they make a sequel after there's only one left?

I'm not sure you're using the same definition of "reprehensible" as everyone else in this thread.

Indeed. Some people seem to have a real problem grasping the idea that this thread is for movies you find offensive, not just movies you didn't like.

I have seen a documentary which purported to be about some guy (involved in the execution business) talk about his experiences and engineering, but quickly segued not nearly an hour of outright Holocaust denial. That was offensive no simply for content, but the dishonest way it was presented.

the luechter report. Stuart ripped his arguements a new one.

Uh, I'm talking about a movie (which I'm fairly certain involved some variation of 'Doctor Death' in the title), not a book. And nobody needs Stuart's 'help' debunking the terrible arguments presented in that documentary.

Luechter is the douchebag who used his alleged prison experience. I think his work was turned into a movie. I could be wrong

I'd like to nominate What the Bleep do We Know? in this category. This purports to be a documentary about quantum physics, but has many factual errors and was produced by an (alleged) cult known as the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. Not that they mention this anywhere in the film, of course, or that the movie is touting the RSE's version of spirituality. I could only watch half an hour of it before I gave up due to an oncoming headache caused by overexposure to its rampant idiocy.

You can read a couple of scientists' reviews here

I'd like to nominate What the Bleep do We Know?

Man, my parents watched that in theaters. Its the only movie they say that they not only walked out of in disgust, but actually asked the theater for their money back. You like woo woo New Age spirituality bullshit, its got it all in one package.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Steven King's 'The Stand'. I can only really tolerate watching the first two thirds of that movie/miniseries. A lot of his books have this theme, but this is the most glaring example I can think of in movie format: God's a mass murderer, but you should implicitly trust him anyways because... something.

The alternative was much, much worse. That said, the book actually does touch on this at some point (Fran brings it up).

Really, everything's fine up until the point that God enters the story. I loved Desperation up until that point. I loved The Stand up until that point. Then the preaching starts and my eye begins twitching. The really annoying part is that most of the stories, the characters admit that this God is all powerful, yet letting all this crap happen anyways, and they they still jump to the conclusion that it must be a good god while giving no fucking reasons for it.

Desperation was just irritatingly religious, although I'd hesitate to call it "reprehensible".