You just immediately made me think of Predators, because there's always this clip of this Japanese dude in the commercials and someone whispers "Yakuza...". Plus it's in the jungle.

Ultimate Cappola-crossover fanfic anyone?????

Heart of Darkness fits Vietnam very well because the jungle is the proverbial source of "savagery". The urban jungle, however, has always, for me at least, been a symbol of decay. The Brando scenes in AN are absolutely brimming with this primal vitality. In other words, the urban jungle lacks that mystical black magic element of Vietnam.

The Conversation is an excellent companion to Psycho and a wonderful film in itself, but AN is like this massive, surrealist film teetering on exploding.

Since you mention you didn't enjoy from the moment Brando was introduced, I am certain you meant the ending... Coz Brando had introductory scenes in the beginning of the film.

You liked 3/4th of the movie & didn't enjoy what has to be a part when the movie falls into place & actually begins to make sense..
I wonder how you even managed to like 3/4th of the movie.

Anyway to each his own, I have few friends who can't sit through this movie..
Regardless of anything, Apocalypse Now is Coppola's best work... Also John Milius' best work.

A quick question, Did you enjoy the ending scene with The Doors' The End.
If you liked 3/4th of the movie, you have got to love that scene.

Can't help ya. :bored:

I would consider the Brando parts to be some of the best parts of the film. AN is a masterpiece beyond compare.

Regardless of anything, Apocalypse Now is Coppola's best work...

Absolutely agree. Trumps The Godfather (I) by miles and miles.

By lightyears...

The title says it all, but just in case: which is the highest film on IMDB's Top 250 that you find to be bad? I don't mean disappointing, overrated, not-your-style, or some kind of missed opportunity, but a genuinely sub-par film.

Obviously the list fluctuates, but for these purposes it should be okay. And, since Inception is precariously high right now, and will certainly fall, it might be better/more interesting to just go straight to the second-highest if that's going to be your answer.

I'm pretty torn as to what mine would be. I know a whole bunch of you will hate this, but my first rough candidate was Apocalypse Now at #38. I liked some of the ideas behind it but found everything else insufferable, but whether or not I'd call it "bad" is debatable.

A bit further down, at #50, I find a better candidate in A Clockwork Orange, and a better one still in Full Metal Jacket, which I think is the first film (at #83) that I'm pretty much positive I would call "bad." And if I were to waiver on that, I definitely wouldn't go past Avatar at #113.

So, now that I've surely enraged all Kubrick fans: what would you choose?

... but I'm choosing #18 - Fight Club... I never have thought it was that great and it definitely should not be rated higher than films like Chinatown or To Kill a Mockingbird...

That's not the reason you're picking it though, is it Caitlyn? Because better films are above it.

That's cool. Though if we're allowed to pick films that we thought were stupid and bored the hell out of us, then I'm going to be adding a lot more films to my list. :D

Probably upset a few people by saying this but I really don't like Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks' character just annoyed me and i didn't really feel sorry for him because he just pi$$ed me off and it's like we're supposed to feel for him and pity him in some ways and I just didn't feel for him at all to be honest.

So every time a movie shows someone with some kind of disability that movie is automatically trying to make you feel sorry for that character? I don't buy it.

I agree. There is no one movie that everybody likes. But I guess that is the beauty of it all.

But anyway, I don't think there's a single movie which has pleased everyone...

This should be a thread. We should propose films that we think are universally liked and then see if anyone on here disagrees.

Pixar films, maybe. Finding Nemo would be my nominee.

Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers
Every series has a weak point and the prime example is The Two Towers.
I also disagree with the inclusion of The Big Lebowski & Kill Bill Vol. 2.
The Big Lebowski is f***ing ridiculous!

I officially hate this thread now... :(

Gotta agree with Apocalypse Now. Very weak film in every department except performance and establishing shots.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...WUT-IT.gif&t=1

Let's discuss this... :up: I think it's an amazing film personally. First for your concessions: Establishing shots and all the cinematography are some of the best I've ever seen. Not only this but the compositions themselves are really rich and some of them, heck, a lot of them, could be sold as prints that I would proudly hang on my wall. Of course the performances were spot-on. I needn't even mention names here, but even the grunts on Willard's boat were great in their half-cocky, half-scared mentalities.

Its reworking of Heart of Darkness is one of the most creatively genius decisions in a long time. It goes far beyond a critique of the Vietnam war but a horror tale about the nature of mankind itself. The film is amazingly real too. It doesn't go the route of head-on surrealism by dowsing you with impossibilities or paradoxes. The film is entirely rational. Everything about it makes sense within a real context. Nevertheless, it is one of the most disturbingly surreal films for this very reason. There is something much more disturbing about Max Ernst's pedestrian collage period surrealism than Dali's intense, utterly distorted surrealism. You can shake off Dali easily. It's just his idea of a joke, you can say. But Ernst stays with you because though nothing was really out of place, things are still somehow wrong. Here my analogy might teeter a little bit because of Ernst's birdfaces, but I really get the same feeling from the face of Kurtz. Brando isn't quite human in this film, is he? Nothing is really what it is depicted as, and yet there is no Dalian tweaking of reality, only in the specific choices Coppola makes in presenting his subjects. This is his genius, I claim. The eerie yellow cast in the Napalm scene. The hellish bridge under attack that feels like the gate to the underworld. The modern reporter who is more of a savage than any of the natives. Nothing feels as it should here, and that's how the film succeeds in communicating the horrors of war without a great deal of impressionism, though much more disturbing surreal than its counterparts--The Deer Hunter, Platoon, and Full Metal Jacket. Even the first shot works this way--the helicopter melted into the ceiling fan--for neither are what they seem. The helicopters are more like vultures and the ceiling fan is more like a helicopter. There is this horrifying reversal everywhere.

It is a visually stunning, emotionally intensive, and thematically consistent work of 20th century art and certainly among (if not at the top of) Coppola's best.

So, now that I've surely enraged all Kubrick fans: what would you choose?

Why is Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back at #5? Give me a break! Also, The Dark Knight does not belong at #11. Men and their obsession/love for Heath Ledger's The Joker is starting to annoy me. I haven't seen Toy Story 3, but #12??

I don't really get the appeal of Goodfellas -- #17.

It interests me how Psycho (1960) is #23.

The Matrix blows at #27. So does, in a way, Se7en at #28. Good film, but not #28.

I wish everyone would get over Amelie -- #47.

Hated The Departed -- #52. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a yawn fest at #60. So is Reservoir Dogs, #64.

I don't get Snatch at #132, but at least it's 132. I also don't get The Wrestler at #147. Ed Wood at #200? Monsters, Inc. at #244?

That's about all I see. Why are all of the Toy Story movies on there? *sigh*

I'm guessing you've never seen a samurai or a western?

since your argument is based around IMDB

Link?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...WUT-IT.gif&t=1

Let's discuss this... :up: I think it's an amazing film personally. First for your concessions: Establishing shots and all the cinematography are some of the best I've ever seen. Not only this but the compositions themselves are really rich and some of them, heck, a lot of them, could be sold as prints that I would proudly hang on my wall. Of course the performances were spot-on. I needn't even mention names here, but even the grunts on Willard's boat were great in their half-cocky, half-scared mentalities.

Its reworking of Heart of Darkness is one of the most creatively genius decisions in a long time. It goes far beyond a critique of the Vietnam war but a horror tale about the nature of mankind itself. The film is amazingly real too. It doesn't go the route of head-on surrealism by dowsing you with impossibilities or paradoxes. The film is entirely rational. Everything about it makes sense within a real context. Nevertheless, it is one of the most disturbingly surreal films for this very reason. There is something much more disturbing about Max Ernst's pedestrian collage period surrealism than Dali's intense, utterly distorted surrealism. You can shake off Dali easily. It's just his idea of a joke, you can say. But Ernst stays with you because though nothing was really out of place, things are still somehow wrong. Here my analogy might teeter a little bit because of Ernst's birdfaces, but I really get the same feeling from the face of Kurtz. Brando isn't quite human in this film, is he? Nothing is really what it is depicted as, and yet there is no Dalian tweaking of reality, only in the specific choices Coppola makes in presenting his subjects. This is his genius, I claim. The eerie yellow cast in the Napalm scene. The hellish bridge under attack that feels like the gate to the underworld. The modern reporter who is more of a savage than any of the natives. Nothing feels as it should here, and that's how the film succeeds in communicating the horrors of war without a great deal of impressionism, though much more disturbingly surreal than its counterparts--The Deer Hunter, Platoon, and Full Metal Jacket. Even the first shot works this way--the helicopter dissolved into the ceiling fan--for neither are what they seem. The helicopters are more like vultures and the ceiling fan is more like a helicopter. There is this horrifying reversal everywhere.

It is a visually stunning, emotionally intensive, and thematically consistent work of 20th century art and certainly among (if not at the top of) Coppola's best.

But the first film that I properly, genuinely think is a bad movie on there is Braveheart. I found this film ridiculous, self-indulgent and offensive and cannot understand its popularity at all.

hence why this scale is insanely useless

But the first film that I properly, genuinely think is a bad movie on there is Braveheart. I found this film ridiculous, self-indulgent and offensive and cannot understand its popularity at all.

You should never dislike a film if it's not historically accurate. I mentioned this elsewhere but I said earlier that History changes almost every year. I didn't mean that Marty McFly flew back in a DeLorean to change it. I meant what evidence we have about what history means changes almost every year with all the new discoveries. Obviously the history of the universe has changed a hell of a lot just since I've been born. I think from 1956 to now (54 years), the Universe has aged at least 10 billion years.

I think from 1956 to now (54 years), the Universe has aged at least 10 billion years.