My ideal NOTLD would be the original film, but with Judith O’Dea completely removed and Patricia Tallman’s assertive Barbara from the 1990 remake inserted in her place. If I had the money to afford the hardware/software, this is a fanedit I’d jump at tackling, feasibility notwithstanding.
“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”
― Leo Tolstoy
I don’t hate it, but I don’t care much for Uncle Buck. John Candy’s performance really was the only thing that carried this film.
Ferris Bueller was also just OK.
When’s something gonna happen?
Monty Python’s the Meaning of Life. At times I found it even more unbearable than Holy Grail. The best segment of the film was by far The Crimson Permanent Assurance. But that wasn’t funny… as much as capital A AWESOME!!! I was even cheering when the business meeting was interrupted by it in the middle of the actual movie. I also felt the actual film came off as quite pretentious at some times. The only remotely funny scenes was the sex ed going too far scene as well as the sergeant scene.
And yes, I wasn’t really grossed out by the Mr. Creosote scene. The liver scene on the other hand…
Let’s just say I’d rather be forced to eat llama spit than have to go through the liver scene again.
When’s something gonna happen?
A Hard Days’ Night is honestly one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. I get it was very influential in the development of music videos, but just because something is very influential doesn’t mean it necessarily is enjoyable to most modern viewers.
Man, I love it.
There’s not even a payoff for the Mr. Potter character. When I saw it, I was like “WTF movie, aren’t you even gonna give me the pleasure to see the “evil” Mr. Potter get punishment?”
I know this is a really old comment, but I just had to reply. You’ve got to watch the SNL “lost ending” of Wonderful Life from the 80s where everybody goes to give Potter what’s coming to him. It’s hilarious.
I love the movie, I watch it every year, so I was sad to read your hate for it. But even though I love it, I felt this way about Potter too, especially when I was younger.
You’ll laugh! You’ll cry! You’ll kiss three bucks goodbye!
Mulholland Drive (2001)
Years ago I’d slogged through Eraserhead, so I knew what I was getting into, but it didn’t make the viewing experience any easier. Most of the symbolism or meaning went right over my head, and after the movie was over I went online to see if I could make heads or tails of it. I found that Lynch had given clues to unraveling and understanding the movie. Problem was, I didn’t care. I don’t think that any understanding of what the movie was about is worth sitting through it again; just can’t see any possible way that something will click and I’ll suddenly go “Wow, that totally changes my perspective on this movie; it’s a masterpiece!” I’m so glad that I will never see this movie again.
FYI, if you can’t appreciate Surrealist filmmaking, you’re not going to be able to appreciate more than a handful of Lynch’s films. A Straight Story, The Elephant Man, and Blue Velvet are his most accessible, general audience-friendly films.
While I love Lynch, Mulholland Drive has always left me cold. It started life as a pilot for a TV series until plans for the series fell through, leaving Lynch to reconfigure it into a feature film, and I think it shows, with subplots that you could imagine gradually unfolding across multiple episodes just going nowhere in the final product.
“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”
― Leo Tolstoy
The Fabelmans is a decent movie, but not great, and in my opinion, it doesn’t deserve to be called one of Spielberg’s greatest movies. I don’t hate it, but I was not too impressed. The acting was pretty good and I applaud Spielberg for essentially attempting a movie autobiography. But there were a lot of rather dry scenes in the movie that just weren’t very interesting. And by the way, the 1950s and 1960s did NOT have an overly blue and orange colour palette to make them look underwater like they do with every godforsaken movie made these days! It genuinely at times looks like it was filmed inside an aquarium with the amount of blue tint it has. It’s not pleasant to look at and it’s not how the 60s actually looked. For all the limitations, actual 60s movies had a generally faithful colour palette. But back to the movie: The ending was my favourite part of the film with John Ford (played by David Lynch!), it was a genuinely great scene, and the colour palette was better in that scene than it was with much of the film.
But for all its faults, the film still isn’t at all bad, but it’s not a film I’d watch again.
And no, “Fabelman” is not a real surname, though it is interesting how Steven came up with that surname.
When’s something gonna happen?