This is from yet another Name That Film discussion. When it comes to movies, I am full of . . . opinions.
American Beauty: A re-hash of warmed-over 60s ideas. Suburbs bad! Teenagers good! Military men insane! About as deep as "Pleasant Valley Sunday".
I also hated Lost in Translation, but it could be just watching people who are miserable because they got a free trip to Japan burns my ass.
Anything by the British Art School club: Sally Potter, Peter Greenaway, Derek Jarman, and Ken Russell (except for Lair of the White Worm). These movies would be OK for 10 minutes at a time in an art gallery, but not for 2 hours. Caravaggio was just agonizing. Oh look, the Pope has a digital watch! That must symbolize something!
Betty Blue, Breaking the Waves, King of Hearts, and any other arty mental-illness-exploitation movie. If it doesn't resemble any mental illness anyone has ever seen outside of a movie, it isn't any good. This goes for terminal illnesses as well.
The Mystery of Kasper Hauser, Apocalypto, and any movie with the theme: nature good, civilization bad. If civilization is so bad, why are you making a movie about it? Shouldn't you be out in the woods whittling something?
Crappy Hollywood studio product doesn't bother me as much as critically-acclaimed arty crap. I usually know better than to see some stinky blockbuster, but bad arty movies insist on their own importance. Unfair, perhaps, but true.
Now playing: aztec camera - jump