The Wizard of Oz.

I'm serious.

Beloved by film makers, Broadway patrons, old and young, everyone... except me.

I just don't get the big deal about the film. It feels very hackneyed, the songs feel forced, and frankly the film comes off as cliche, as does the acting, songs, sets, choreography, costumes, everything.

And I know what many of the Oz fans answer to this- "That was just the period! It'd be like if you said Shakespeare was a poor writer because folks don't talk like that in our time!"

And my answer is... yes, that was the period- but they went WAY too far, and made it WAY too dated, and frankly even within the context of its time, I just don't see it as being well done. An example of a film that DOES hold up? I'd say "Duck Soup," but technically that was a weak-to-so-so release (though now its a classic, Top 10 Best Comedies material) so I'll just say the Marx Brothers films in general. 4/5 of the humor still holds up to today (5/5 if you know the context the topical humor was written in and can get the joke on that account), and the acting is not AT ALL cliched or hackneyed. Groucho. Harpo. Chico. Zeppo. All hold up today (especially Groucho and, as a non-speaking performer, Harpo) performance-wise, and all still shine as great comedic acting. The people who ARE cliche, notably Margaret Dumont's characters, are that way by DESIGN, that's what makes them funny- they're so cliche and stock, the stereotypical snooty, upper-class woman, that it is a THRILL to see Groucho come in and just crash their world, the world of the Victorians, with sexual inuendos and sleight of speech.

Now take "Oz."

I can't say the same- Dorothy gasps or gets sad or worried at exactly the same time and with the exact words that the audience expects her to use. That would seem on the surface to be a good thing, but it isn't; there's a BIG difference between connecting with an audience emotionally and them just knowing what you'll say and do before you do it and being connected in THAT way.

With the Marxes, you NEVER know what they'll say or do next.

The songs- bland, very much stuck in the period. The Marxes are that way, too, except they carry over a bit better, for the simple reason they are just performed more engagingly. The Scarecrow will go on for a few minutes on the simple idea about a brain, Tin Man a heart... Groucho'll sing and the song will be on a topic, but at least with sly asides and inuendos that extend the reach of the song a bit into the modern day... and, again, its Groucho, so the energy level is FAR higher than the performers in "Oz."

Effects I won't knock, as that's not fair to do.

Everything is so bright and colorful, it actually at times seems LESS colorful than a Marx Brothers black-and-white, or a Stooges, or something like "Casablanca," a GREAT black-and-white that's set in period and carries through to today. The thing is, while "Oz" is colorful... its so colorful that it just cancels itself out. The Yellow Brick Road is Yellow, really, really yellow... the scenes are bright, really, really bright... the Emerald City is green, really, really green... it's like if I start drinking Mountain Dew and don't stop. The first can- good, if not tooth-rotting and a jolt to the senses (why ELSE do you drink Dew?) ;) The second- same. The third-0 still good, but the sugary taste is creeping in. Foruth- really sugary, the taste is becoming secondary. Six in- its just pure sugar and you're on a sugar-high and the great jolt the first can gave is lost, dulled... by the end of the 12-pack, you're just out cold from the sugar... or dead. :p

So that's how I feel about it, and my pick.

Sorry, most people (including all my friends) but I don not care for "The Wizard of Oz."

And WHY, abgemacht?

I gave a reason (many, actually) that I'm sure will be disputed, but I at least explained...

I think it partly has to do with how over quoted it is. I honestly just don't find the movies that funny (for whatever reason) and then to have forced on me constantly because everyone loves them so much, really makes me hate them.

I guess I can understand the annoyance of fans (like me) over-quoting...

But, obviously, as a fan, I can't see the films not being funny. The show- it's a classic, but I suppose if the Python's humor isn't your thing... you're humorless? ;) Just kidding, I suppose it is technically, purely hypothetically possible for folks not to like any of the Pythonian humor at all.

Still, the films... the idea of Medevial peasants arguing with King Arthur about class differences and lobbying for a government a thousand years ahead of their time, to pure slapstick killings and pratfalls, to running gags, to musical comedies...

A group of men on crucifixes singing about looking on the bright side of life, and telling us life's a piece of shit and just screw it and enjoy it... no giggles?

Oh well, I guess if I don't like "Over the Rainbow" some folks then don't like "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life."

I hated Avatar.

I think that some people just don't have the dry senses of humor required to really enjoy Python. Like, my brother just can't stand it. I don't know why, but he just doesn't think it's funny. I on the other hand, think it is absolutely hilarious and am on the floor every time I watch any of them.

As far as movies *I* hated, lets see.

First of all, Transformers 1 & 2. HORRIBLE MOVIES. ALL effects and NO plot. Plus there is no character continuity between the two (in the first one Prime can't even beat Megatron in a fight, and in the second he rips apart 3 or 4 deceptacons before they kill him). Horrible movies, 0/5 stars. hate their guts (along with Micheal Bay's). (This opinion is also influenced by the fact that I love the original 1989 cartoons).

Avatar was another movie I disliked, but didn't hate as much as the Transformers ones. Why did I dislike it? The exact same reasons as Transformers; all effects and no character developement/strong and complex plot. So Avatar gets a 2/5.

Titanic. Needs more nudity and to get to the fucking iceberg already. Way too long and way too much love story crap.

In Transformer's defense, it stayed very true to the cartoon.

As someone who didn't grow up following transformers, I really liked the first film, but the second was "dodgy" at best.
Disliked Lovely Bones (over cut) and lots of action films where they don't deal with the twist properly, leading to contradictions

Avatar would have been good without any dialogue.

I just saw the new Robin Hood and it blew. Apparently Robin Hood's dad wrote the Magna Carta but it wasn't the actual Magna Carta and the guy isn't even actually Robin Hood till the last five minutes of the movie. I didn't go to that movie to see butchered medieval history and four different bad guys. I went to see cool arrow tricks, a little slapstick, and a simple but powerful story about social justice. Apart from Friar Tuck every character was done wrong and I still have no idea why they did it that way.

When Kevin Costner can deliver on an idea better than you you should know something's gone horribly wrong.

Transformers? True to the cartoon? No. No, no, no, no. Also, wtf is up with the love story? Give me some giant damn robots from outer space fighting. I can get Megan Fox from teh interwebz.

@Invictus:

I'm not seeing "Robin Hood," after seeing hollywood bastardize my favorite literary legend, the King Athur saga, time after time, and just botch "The Iliad,: I'm not seeing any more of those sorts of films, at least not for a VERY long time...

@figlesquidge:

Really? What'd they do, make the story all happy and CGI-happy-heaveny (it looked that way from the trailer- the books was alright, had its moments, a good beginning, weak ending, and a middle that had its moments, so it was alright, but the one part I REALLY loved was its new take on the Afterlife concept, no Christian heaven, it actually turned out to be a sort of existential world, and at times even an agonizing sort of "heaven," so... did they ruin that? If so FORGET it...)

My list of such movies includes Finding Nemo and The Little Mermaid, but don't tell my wife and kids.

@Obiwanobiwan - I'm with you. The Wizard of Oz totally blows.

I have never seen such a tiresome dissertation as "Tthe Wizard of Oz and it's contrasts with the Marx Brothers." At first it made me want to vomit. Then, as I forced myself to read on, I found I wanted to hang myself. I finally had to stop somewhere near the end and gouge my eyes out with a red-hot poker.

This movie quote sums it up: "Mr. Obiwanobiwan, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Well, now, Denigo...

How do you really feel? ;) (Really, though, if you disagree with me, that's fine- no need to insult. Though if you're going to try and rpovoke something, can you defend your position better than just saying, to sum your critique of mine up quickly, "obiwan sucks, I hate it, hate him, insert witty metaphor for hating it." Or at least be original in insulting... nothing's WORSE than a trite insult... hell, I don't mind at ALL being insulted usually so long as it's a good stinger...)

The Pianist... Two and a half hours of watching one of the most miserable and obnoxious wretches ever portrayed in film fluke his way to survival in the ghetto with the help and at the often great expense of better men.

Awful, awful film.

I wasn't intending to insult you although I guess I did. I was attempting comedy at your expense. I suppose that is a good definition of 'insult', now that I think about it. (But I did think it was a pretty good 'stinger'). I suppose I should have been more specific in what made me want to hang myself.... it was the droning on about the contrast - which to me, comparing Marx Brothers comedy to a musical interpretation of a literary classic was like saying "Indy Formula Race Cars are far superior to strawberry shortcake with whipped cream... and therefore strawberry shortcake sucks." There is no sane comparison.

I really dislike Harry Potter movies, though not guiltily. The most important and valid reason is that they never ever follow the books. Like Eragon. That one wasn't even close. Dreadful

Transformers really sucked - way too long and not enough plot.
Not sure if anyone will be shocked to hear Twilight was terrible.
I saw Avatar o/s which I still liked even though the blue guys speech had no english subtitles - my friend translated for me :P

Your friend WHAT?! How did your friend know the Na'vi language? Or was your friend a computer...?

O/S means overseas. The subtitles of the blue guys speaking were probably in the language of the country in question.

ah. I see. That makes much more sense

Having it translated personally must be quite cool, wouldn't that make it *more* realistic?

The Hangover. I didn't laugh once. Not once. It just was not funny.
Mind you, I could say that about 92.3% of what passes for 'comedy' these days, at least from Hollywood.

Avatar looked cool (even on a 6 inch in flight screen), but that's it - it is the ultimate triumph of style of substance. Poor plot, flabby, terrible acting, awful writing.

Growing up in Scotland - 'Braveheart'. Hate it. The Battle of Stirling Bridge - in a field !!!! A princess who never reached England before you died. Wallace was huge, not Mel sized.

And Transformers 2 has officially become my answer for 'Worst Film Ever', and I have watched some terrible films (White Chicks, Body Of Evidence)

Sorry yeah o/s = overseas, Na'vi to Thai to English :P
I didn't think about it till we got in there, cause it was in english with thai subtitles.
I there is a learn navi website somewhere too - but i'm not that nerdy.

By the way, as I'm even right now having a heated debate with this with my theatre friends, I'll throw this one out there:

I ABSOLUTELY LOATHE "RENT."

The mere MENTION of it... I absolutely LOVE Giacomo Puccini's works, and his opera "La Boheme," on which "Rent" is "based," is one of the central masterpieces of opera, and has even been called "The Romeo and Juliet of Opera."

So its VERY significant and VERY deep... the songs convey that, with some of the most memorable and thematic music in the history of opera and, arguably, all of Western music. This is right up there with "Carmen" on a lot of lists for the title of "Best Romance Opera Ever," not to mention "Best Opera Ever."

And "Rent" takes all that, and... kills it, and makes you think IT is the masterpiece. The story? It manages to somehow pull of BOTH cardinal sins of adaptations: it on the one hand takes so much from "La Boheme" it is in many ways a direct ripoff, and on the othjer hand, hard as it is to believe, it STILL manages to change what it changes so radically that it bastardizes the story, this classic and beloved story, to the point that it just becomes utterly disconnected with the original tale.

It'd be like if someone adapted "Romeo and Juliet," and, instead of having the Romeo and Juliet characters die or at the VERY LEAST suffer a tragic seperation at the very end... they just up and went to the roller disco. It is THAT out of line with the rest of the tale.

And the SONGS! They are stitlted, not at all the style of music I enjoy, but even in THAT style, it doesn't WORK because it is pleading, it is insisting, and, worst of all, it is so utterly cliche and so terribly constructed that the music doesn't serve the action, but the action serves the music, and when the music's structure ITSELF is subject to criticism...

And all that MIGHT be overlooked, and the show might be at least passable... if it wasn't so blatantly a "La Boheme" ripoff.

Knowing that there is a version of this, the version on which this was "based," a version that has a plot that is considered classic, melodies that change and eb and flow with such grace and fluidity, songs and pieces that both serve the story perfectly while adding another layer to it and all the while existing as a masterpiece in its own right...

Liking "Rent" becomes akin to choosing to eat a lollipop when right beside it there is a ful gourmet dinner, complete with dessert, or reading the High School Musical version of "Romeo and Juliet" where everyone is happy and singing, ignoring the original, immortal tale completely.

"Rent"- if you've never seen it, DON'T. See, listen to "La Boheme."

"The Romeo and Juliet of Opera." - am I the only one who thinks Romeo & Juliet is rather overrated?

Twillight : I can't see why this film is so popular.

Never dared watch it, looks terrible

I watched it. It was okay, but nothing to write home about.

My wife and I watched it at the movies and walked out discussing the plot and analyzing the characters (as we usually do with most moves), and a teen to twenty year old conrnered her in the bathroom to tell her that we old people should just not even go to that movie because we just don't get it. Between us we've three college degrees and fifteen years of happy marriage, but these things are just beyond us I guess ;-)

chamois: if you're past grade 10, you need to find people with better taste. The people I know who are older than 16 are not shocked that I don't like it.

Now to tell you about the kind of people I hang out with, I just don't like Doctor Who, not even the new one. Many people I know find that shocking.

obiwan: TOTALLY with you on Rent.

@obiwan - spot on with Rent. The only modern dapation of the starcrossed lovers story that I think is good is West Side Story, and even that is now over 50 years old (the original musical) with the movie being almost 50 years old (1961).

I can handle modernizing Shakespeare (Romeo + Juliet with Claire Danes and Leo DiCaprio was actually quite good) and outstanding period pieces set in slightly different times (Branagh's Hamlet, best Hamlet ever IMHO). But there have been few adaptions of Shakespeare since the days of opera that stand up and Rent *isn't* one of them.

I lot of these movies are easy targets, chick flicks- titanic, twilight, kids movies- Oz or CGI only fests-transformers. Im trying to think of a movie that others actually liked and I thought was annoying and crap...hmmm....... ah, the new newer Batman movies, for me they just kinda dragged on a bit too long, im sick of the joker as well.

thanks for the heads up on Robin hood invictus, will avoid
still recovering from when Hollywood made King Arthur a Scythian cavalry mercenary captain

+1million to obiwan on RENT,

I first saw RENT five years ago and thought that some of the music was ok at best, while the rest of it served absolutely no purpose to the story. I'm a fan of musicals (Hello Dolly, Music Man, Anything Sondheim...) but I felt uneasy about RENT. All of the music in most other musicals is lyric, dramatic, or narrative music that helps to heighten the plot of move it along, but when I heard most of the music, it's just a lame excuse to put in a rock song that has little to nothing to do with the plot.

Two years later I saw the opera 'La Boheme' and I thought that Puccini was executing an artistic rip-off of RENT.

On the subject of terrible musical's I'll get on track with the original subject. Even though they're not films, I really REALLY hate most modern musicals, especially Next to Normal and Spring Awakening. If you're not familiar with them, save yourself and don't go look them up. Everybody who claims they're a musical geek like me says they love them, but I consider them to be like the Jonas Brothers of musicals (needless to say, I don't think highly of them).

They’re a fad and they’re terrible, for a number of reasons. All of the music sounds the same and there is no variety beside the ‘scream until you ruin your voice by the third show’ kind of song. Also, I don’t care if the show is about a dysfunctional family or teenagers discovering sex, you’re not pioneering a new topic for the stage, you’re just writing about banal subjects, when there are far more interesting things to write about.

Ok, that’s my two cents worth.

OK, I must give props to one modern musical I found moderately enjoyable even though I expected to hate it. The wife dragged me out to see Mama Mia when it was in the theaters and, while James Bond ...er... Pierce Brosnan shouldn't sing, Meryl Streep has quite the voice and their muscial selections were appropriate to the moment in the plot and helped move it along, to paraphrase KaiserWilly.

I have little to no interest in Napoleon Dynamite and Anchorman (excluding the awesome cameo fight scene). The humor was too dull for me, not that Will Ferrel isn't good in some of his other movies.

can we pause for a moment and reflect on SpeakerToAliens hating on Finding Nemo?!?!?! is it just me, or has someone committed pure blasphemy?! i understand this is the entire point of this thread, but really? finding nemo? nobody hates that movie.

and my take on all that has gone on thus far...
monty python is amazing, but it does take a specific sense of humor to like
never saw avatar
both transformers were terrible (except for meghan fox, but that had nothing to do with anything she said)
wizard of oz is ok
refuse to watch rent
new robin hood never looked good
and anyone who actually liked twilight should seriously reconsider their life

Responses to above:
Monty Python - annoys me, but that's because I'm British and I know the wrong people who just keep quoting it at you. The films themselves are very good.
Avatar - Great graphics, dodgy storyline. Was good, but people expected too much
Transformers - 1 liked, 2 terrible. Dislike Megan fox because I wanted a good film.
Wiz of Oz - Its ok, but not my type of thing. at all. ever.
As above refused to watch rent.
robin hood looks very very like King Arthur, which wasn't too bad, just don't compare it to what it could/should have been!
Twilight - Unacceptable unless you're a 13-16yo girl, or a 13-17yo guy pretending to like it to get said girl.

Transporter 3: The first is one of my favourite films. It was clearly done on a [comparatively] low budget, but it uses this to build the adrenalin and spontaneity. It doesn't feel as if everything is meticulously planned [although clearly stuntwork is]. Moreover, whilst it doesn't have many characters to confuse you, it has enough that you understand his frame of mind and that whilst he's a criminal driver, he has morals.
The second was a good film, but not in the same league. Suddenly they decided that having a man who can drive fast and is a martial arts expert wasn't extreme enough, so decided to invent a new super virus and sex crazed assassin. I'm sure that teen boys were the target audience, but please? Some of us do want a real film you now. Still, was a nice little thrill ride. And that's not to mention the affair semi-side story.
Now, the third - what happened? Basically it got hit by the Hollywood factor. Now there are a number of little things that get me with this thing, but that's the big one. Where before it had a close grimy feel, this one is smooth and clean. Indeed, the shots of him driving down the autobahn look like they've come straight out of a car advert.

@Obiwan aaages ago re Lovely Bones - Just overcut. When he was being brought up, someone taught Peter Jackson how to make brilliant trilogies. So, when they gave him Lord of the Rings, he arguably did it justice. Every fan will have something they wish wasn't cut out (Tom Bomberdill anyone?) but when it comes to it, they were very good films and managed to span the different demographics very successfully. Forward a few years, King Kong. Like Avatar now, there's some beautiful graphic work in there [I haven't rewatched it in the last year or so, it might now look dated, but was great], but this time they only let him release one film. So, he took his three films worth of footage and put them in a row, making it sooooo long. Lovely bones he had a similar problem: the story he was filming was,even after being converted to screenplay, longer than he had time to show. The result? It starts really well, and I was really glad my family persuaded me to go. However, come the last section and suddenly it starts to feel rushed, and indeed there are a number of storylines that don't get dealt with properly.
Disclaimer: The author accepts he might have slight inaccuracies in Peter Jacksons filmmaking technique.

I know: Slumdog Millionaire. One massive cliche after another. Not terrible, but not some kind of masterpiece.

The new Robin Hood looks crap.
Slumdog Millionaire does look cliched (though I haven't seen it), and the dance scene at the end (the part I have seen) was pointless.
And, am I the only person in this world who doesn't like How I Met Your Mother?
P.S. Avatar was crap. *cough* furries, yiff*cough* ;)