Movie everyone loved but YOU hated?

What was tedious about it?

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Thanks for clearing that up.

I third the dislike for E.T.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Which is fine, but do you have a better reason for not liking it?

"Annoying" would be the best word to describe it. Between having a handful of kids carrying the movie (which rarely works, and especially not here) and using an ugly little alien whose wacky misadventures are supposed to be interesting and amusing, the film's core is very hard to like. As a result, it makes it harder to take his symbiotic connection with Elliott and his subsequent "death" as anything other than the very unsubtle grab at people's emotions that it is, all before some horribly orchestrated finale where he makes a bike fly in front of the moon before disappearing in a UFO, and as with Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I was just left wondering, "Well, what was the point of that?" Match me, Harry.

If you don't see it, there's no point of me explaining it, especially in regards to Close Encounters. Personally it's a film from my childhood (E.T.) that I've always been a big fan of, even when I watched it again years later. Keep in mind I could also ask "Well, what was the point of that?" after watching the #1 film on your list, not that I don't like the movie.

But the main reason I asked if you had a better reason for not liking E.T. was because I thought the word 'tedious' didn't make sense when speaking of E.T. and the explanation of how it was tedious was lame. Your explanation was a lot better, even if I disagree with you.

Yeah, I guess if we wanted to simplify it, I guess I just don't get what's so great about some fugly alien and the latchkey children that befriend him that apparently makes for an excellent movie.

And on a related note, if I can be honest I think for the vast majority of the movies I watch, the question of "Well, what was the point of that?" could very easily be asked of it. (Sometimes I even wonder that same question about movie-watching as a whole.) I reckon a mark of a good movie is one that doesn't make you consciously question what the point of watching it was.

Although something tells me I may be wrong about that...

For me it was slumdog millionaire. I mean it was an ok movie, but cmon best picture of the year? i think it had just way too much hype.

__________________
Signature removed for violation of MOVIE FORUM RULES.

Iro, there are great films that are there for you to escape and don't have a specific point other than telling you a decent story (how well it's done is most important). And then there are great films that inform you, comment on something important and have you thinking long after the credits role. Each have their place in cinema. Although I still say that Close Encounters falls into the latter category. We can also look at life and ask many times over, "Well, what was the point of that?"

I didn't the The Alamo, 2004, with Billy Bob Thornton.
I guess after growing up with the John Wayne version, it was tough to beat.

__________________
"If you can't be funny be interesting."
Harold Ross

Exactly, which makes me wrong on that count, I think. Doesn't mean I have to like E.T., though.

What are the odds ? We found all three people that don't like E.T.

__________________

You've mentioned before several things which you find are "difficult to like". I find it hilarious that it's difficult for you to like the film which for many years was the highest-grossing film ever made. I guess you didn't like it because it was popular? Then, you claim that Roy Neary is unlikable although you don't ever actually explain it (unless I missed it). I know what you're going to say, but if you were in his position, what would you do? Pretend that nothing is happening to you or go out of your way to follow your muse? I'm not going to get into personal taste or aesthetic criteria which people use to discuss the movies they like and don't like, plus you have honeykid on your side when it comes to the utter awesomeness in which you regard South Park and its progeny, but I hope that somewhere in the corners of your mind that you can understand how somebody might disagree with some of your opinions. I mean, when David Lynch's filmed farts are considered more interesting than even a run-of-the-mill action movie or simple comedy, it worries me, especially when Lynch actually makes a film which isn't a fart. There are only so many ratings available above "David Lynch Fart" for some people, but for me, there are a fartload of ratings above those. HA!

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Some films you get and some you don't. Simple as that.

Well to be honest, It was like force-feeding the watcher with prepackage, sentimental Hollywood confections, and this is coming from a child of divorce.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

What does having divorced parents have to do with any of that? So do I, but that doesn't relate at all to what their talking about.

On E.T. you just got to accept it as an entertaining, happy movie. That's all it is and all it was meant to be. Don't see how it's much different from Blues Brothers or Raiders of the Lost Ark in that regard.

__________________
"Travis Bickle: Loneliness has followed me my whole life, everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man."

Well, because the subtext of the movie was the loss of a father, and Spielberg even said the movie was a way for him to deal with his parent's divorcing.

Personally, it's just not my taste. It felt as though it tried painfully hard to tug at the heart strings.

Well, Elliott is either a child of divorce or of separation. Elliott is a major loner, at least until E.T. shows up and befriends him. Even if E.T. is basically just a remake of The Cat From Outer Space, it was never made to make a lot of money or win awards. It was almost like a home movie for Spielberg to make on a much-lower budget than he'd been working with, with basically a no-name cast. You can attack it for whatever personal and aesthetic reasons there are, but being financially- or critically-successful always seems like a silly reason to attack a film. It's like saying that I'm going to allow all these other people's decisions to totally skew the way I feel about something. It almost borders on becoming possessed.

By the way, E.T. played in the theatres for ten months straight, from June 1982 to April 1983.

I'm no huge fan of E.T. nowadays, but for what it was it did capture the imagination of a generation much like Star Wars, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Lets not forget that it was essentially a children's film that also appealed to adults; first and foremost though, it was for children.

I saw E.T. in theaters as a little boy, and found it funny, uplifting, suspenseful, exciting and ultimately tear jerking (though I vehemently denied crying to my mum at the time). It was an event, all the kids at school would mention it in the same breath as Star Wars, it just worked.

Did you know that originally the script called for M&M's but they didn't want in so Reese's Pieces jumped at the idea, their sales tripled within weeks. Good call.