"Must See" Movies I Refuse to See

I read the original novel The Hobbit in middle-school and in all honestly it was a pretty inept, mechanical book. Naturally, my enthusiasm for The Lord of the Rings trilogy is practically non-existent. However, I understand that Peter Jackson essentially made his reputation on the back of this now iconic series. I think it would be worth it just for Gollum and to understand all the allusions I've heard scattered throughout pop-culture the last fifteen years, but the idea of sitting through a generic-looking fantasy epic with its own version of Klingon-ese as a selling point makes me very apprehensive.

The next highest IMDb Top 250 entry that I am yet to screen, this one seems like it could potentially diminish my respect for one of my favorite artists. My personal motto when it comes to cinema is that 'if you can't say it in two hours, it can't be said, or, at very least, you can't say it.' Akira Kurosawa's classic is three and a half hours long. Then again it is Kurosawa.

The backlash against this film is pretty renown. I have the feeling the Holocaust pandering (in an age heralded by Sophie's Choice & Schindler's List, Holocaust films became a byword for Oscar bait) and Roberto Benigni's Jerry Lewis-schtick at the Oscar awards didn't help much. Regardless, a lot of people seem to loathe this film. Then again it isn't uncommon for critics to make mistakes in the name of keeping up appearances. Most reviewers at the time probably wrote off The Wizard of Oz as a trivial, escapist kids' movie, for that matter. Benigni's movie won a boatload of awards, so a lot more people had to have loved it. Is it worth the time? You tell me.

In this case 'must see' is a relative term. I have a curious urge to witness this train wreck after watching the Red Letter Media takedown (also singled out for an Academy Award and A.F.I.'s 100 greatest list, I'll take Mr. Plinkett's critique any day). Unlike Meet the Spartans or Movie 43 unfortunately, I think this bloated potboiler probably has an intermission it is so over-stretched. In all likelihood the film deserves the M.S.T.3K treatment with its cringe-inducing score and plot. I assume this production was meant to be taken seriously at the time but at least James Cameron didn't make a seven-hour b & w film about impoverished Hungarian peasants.

I've seen the mediocre third installment, parts of the silly-looking sequel, and have a working knowledge of the original. I suspect that the hype surrounding this picture and the aura of mystery in my mind will will be sadly deflated (much like Solaris or Withnail and I) if I ever viewed this icon of the Eighties Generation. My reluctance is partially out the desire to stave off complete cynical collapse.

I'm a huge fan of Gable and Leigh, but there's something about the dated Mamie caricature, soppy romance, and four-hour long run time that sours me on this classic. In the same amount of time I could watch two or three Buster Keaton flicks that are practically guaranteed to entertain me as much.

In a similar vein to The Usual Suspects where the end is basically the entire film, I fear already knowing the climax may have ruined the film for me beforehand.

My aversion to most animated films lies in the fundamentals of children's moviemaking: I don't like predictable stories, with ridiculously clear and uncomplicated themes and morals, schmaltz, silly talking characters with unfunny jokes & slapstick, and stereotypical villains and heroes. They are engineered to be easy to follow and palatable for a extremely wide audience. Granted some animated films like Frozen try to update the stock story-lines, they still don't appeal to anyone who places a high emphasis on intellect or narrative. In their very nature, they appeal to an audience that doesn't understand nuance, doesn't have critical thinking skills, or any experience or capacity to think beyond or appreciate what basic morality or politics their parents have drilled into their little minds. Part of the reason we love kids is their innocence and sincerity, part of the reason a lot of people despise kids' movies is their innocence and sincerity. I've found the label 'made for kids but good enough for adults' an oft repeated but tragic canard, try watching Nickelodeon or the Disney channel for five minutes. Then again Up was nominated for an Oscar, has an interesting play on the 'talking animal sidekick trope,' and has no princesses in it, which has got to count for something.

I know the stars, their roles within the film, the plot, the conflict, the twist, the finale, and the moral. Do I really need to see this thing?

Christopher Nolan's admirable but flailing attempt to elevate the comic-book flick is reflected in this second-generation superhero genre piece by Joss Whedon. It looks action packed and flawlessly executed, but haven't we already seen enough of this stuff? Guys like David Goyer churn out this kind of generic drivel like a sausage grinder. Unless a character dies, is corrupted, or the movie is in some way radically subversive or unusually funny, or otherwise unconventional, I don't comprehend the reason this type of movie even exists other than to make money from people who want to experience elaborate choreography and CGI explosions set to music.

I generally dislike kids' movies so I don't know whether any of the earlier films would be worth the effort. And without following the first few I don't think most people could understand the series or care as much about the characters. I might have been a decade too old to appreciate this craze having been a child of the Ninja Turtles-era.

I've seen the wacky Francis Ford Coppola re-do, appraised Frank Langella's turn as the sanguine-obsessive Romanian, and witnessed Murnau's legendary production -- and in my opinion, greatest horror film of all time -- there frankly does not appear any need to see the 'original' commissioned copy if not out of some desire to measure a base reading of the series. But when you've seen the best and (arguably) worst why bother with the bland Universal Studios version? Am I wrong here?

I suspect this Frank Capra picture could be quite tedious if his reputation is any indication. And just between the two of us, Gary Cooper didn't so much act as recite. Unless it starred Carole Lombard or was directed by Preston Sturges most of the screwball comedies of the period were devoid of lasting humor.

Its 8.1 score on this website is tantalizing but probably an aberration unless more people than I think believe Shawshank is the greatest motion picture of all time. Idiosyncrasies of IMDb voting trends aside, I've never understood the aesthetics of Anime, its predilection toward adolescent themes and imagery, nor its exaggerated voice acting. The genre seems hopelessly formulaic and cheesy based on my laymen's experience and admittedly conceited attitude toward 'adult animation.' Of the more respected Anime films I've seen Ghost in the Shell seemed indistiguishable from any Saturday morning cartoon, albeit more violent.

I know absolutely nothing about the movie but from the few articles I've read and clips I've seen it looks unrepentantly quirky, broadly comical, and 'feel good.' It won the Best Picture Oscar, features a presumably redemptive romance, features yet another meta take on the film industry, and has a cute dog as co-star.

I think I'll hate it.

Prior experience left me cold, though I can discern Ozu's directorial talents. If there is anything that makes me suspicious it's Sight and Sound's placement of the drama among some rather dour, overrated, and predictably academic critics' favorites upon their Top 50 poll. The company you keep says an awful lot, does it not?

*Update. It took me a few years, but I gave it a shot when I saw it on Hulu, and, well...Damn, I hate being right all the time.

I've read this is a masterpiece of early Soviet cinema. However that also implies that it has to necessarily be propaganda. Earth isn't just coincidentally brown-nosing but offensive in its dated and tragically stupid politics. Those familiar with the history of Ukraine's abuse by its wannabe best friend/slave-master Russia before Putin might be shocked by the rosy picture this agitprop classic paints of the joys of collectivization. Let's just say that the whole process of taking people's ancestral land & birthright by force by a foreign government didn't exactly go as smoothly as is depicted in this self-serving pseudo-docudrama. Watching this farce I'm afraid I'd either be compelled to scream in anger or collapse into a convulsion of laughter. Whereas Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi documentaries are a disturbing but somewhat accurate depiction of an advanced, prideful, resurrected juggernaut that struck fear in its enemies, and a leader who was surprising well-respected (home and abroad), Earth seems like a corny, bad joke doomed to the eternal ironies of fate.

Does it still deserve a chance even if I feel dirty afterward?

Hitchcock had an erratic track record between his obscure or understated oddities and the big dumb, prestige pictures that made him famous, especially in the Fifties. I don't know whether this will be another interesting thriller or yet another dud, but I'm inclined toward the latter judging by the stars, the poster, and trailer.

Between the fantastic reimagining that is West Side Story and the unusually entertaining Baz Luhrmann-ized update, one can easily wonder why another version of The Bard's tragic romance is even necessary to sit through when it looks hopelessly out of date and rigid. I've seldom felt more blasé in light of a 7.7 (in this case a rare high rating likely not inflated by zealous fan boys) and a New York Times' declaration announcing it one of the 1000 finest movies ever made.

I have the impression that the trailer is the entire movie: spunky, brainy, large-breasted lady stands up to big business using said anatomical components. Not to mention it's a Steven Soderbergh film, so I expect the traditional mix of progressive morality and snarky dialogue. Julia Robert's platitude-spouting, down-to-earth, supermom shtick sounds like it could get very tiresome very quickly, regardless of the consolation prize that is Albert Finney. After a baker's dozen of his films (and what feels like a hundred of hers) I can't help but have reservations for another of Soderbergh's overpraised comedy-dramas. Does he deserve another shot?

I liked the book, but was disappointed by the last effort to adapt the classic. I thought Baz Luhrman's updated Romeo + Juliet was an interesting interpretation (as stressed above), Moulin Rouge, not so much. Leo Dicaprio, honestly, a bit of a hit and miss judge of scripts and actor, and a little overrated.