WWTBAM Bored

Yesterday, I watched what I thought was going to be an entertaining suspense mystery movie. As it turns out, it was one of the most boring snoozefests I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot of them). Let's see if you can figure out the movie from my brief synopsis. I will identify the movie in a spoiler at the end.

It starts out with a group of people arriving at a house. They were invited by the host to go on a hunting trip. For the next hour or so, all that happens is talk, talk and more talk. Then, they go pheasant hunting which, IMO, turns out to be the most exciting part of the film. Then they go back to the house and talk some more. Then, the host (at least I think it was the host, gets killed). And, for the next hour, an inspector shows up (would have better if it was Inspector Clousseau) there is some milling around and talking until the denouement which turns out to be another big yawn. Can you guess the movie? Did anybody like this film? It had a star-studded cast but I didn't get it (the entertainment portion of this film, at least).

Spoiler

Gosford Park

I'd rather watch "Clue" any day of the week.

I never understood the good reviews this film got. I went to see it after it was nominated for an Oscar, and I almost fell asleep in the theater.

Somebody get the camera. This may be the first time that SirG, Daniel, and I have agreed on something.

Figured it out from your description and fully agree. Wait a minute. I don't think I got as much out of it as you did.
Love,

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Somebody get the camera. This may be the first time that SirG, Daniel, and I have agreed on something.

So in 2012 we don't need the Moratorium Lounge just 24/7 showings of GP?

I kind of liked it. But I'm easily swayed. It's one of those movies that I thought I was supposed to like, so I did.

I liked it, though not as much as I expected to. But, yes, you don't watch it for the plot. You watch it for the overall picture it paints. And the delight of seeing so many good actors at work.

I remember liking it.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Somebody get the camera. This may be the first time that SirG, Daniel, and I have agreed on something.

<LOL> I'm a fairly easy-going kinda guy. But, some things just ruffle my feathers, you know (to quote Caroline Kennedy). Don't worry, though. I'm not going to go into a political rant.

Unbelievably, the movie's script actually won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. Apparently, plot wasn't a big criteria that year.

franktangredi wrote:I liked it, though not as much as I expected to. But, yes, you don't watch it for the plot. You watch it for the overall picture it paints. And the delight of seeing so many good actors at work.

And I agree with that's how most of the critics probably saw the film. But, for my money, I would have rather seen those actors in movies that I felt was worth my $10. I watch a movie for it's entertainment value - not art value. AFAIC, this one had no entertainment value at all. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I'd rather watch "Clue" any day of the week.

Well, who wouldn't?

starfish1113 wrote:I kind of liked it. But I'm easily swayed. It's one of those movies that I thought I was supposed to like, so I did.

You mean like when you met me?

franktangredi wrote:I liked it, though not as much as I expected to. But, yes, you don't watch it for the plot. You watch it for the overall picture it paints. And the delight of seeing so many good actors at work.

But it helps if the actors actually have a worthwhile story to work with. If I want to see a big ensemble cast, I'll go to my DVD shelf and grab It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I'd rather watch "Clue" any day of the week.

I would watch Clue just to watch Tim Curry.

danielh41 wrote:

franktangredi wrote:I liked it, though not as much as I expected to. But, yes, you don't watch it for the plot. You watch it for the overall picture it paints. And the delight of seeing so many good actors at work.

But it helps if the actors actually have a worthwhile story to work with. If I want to see a big ensemble cast, I'll go to my DVD shelf and grab It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The most boring movie I've ever seen was called Gerry, directed by Gus van Sant. It starred Matt Damon and Casey Affleck as a couple of guys who decide to go see some natural rock formation in a state park in the desert. They get off the trail very quickly and get hopelessly lost and spend two hours walking around and sweating a lot. That's it. There's very little dialogue; they're not very interesting people to begin with; they don't do anything except walk around and eventually get tired and weak. One scene is a ten-minute or so tracking shot that follows them in close-up as they walk down a path. Their heads bob up and down like the plastic bird that dips its head in a glass of water. And they keep walking. And they keep walking. And they keep walking.

There have been fascinating films about people lost in the desert and trying to figure out ways to survive or to come to terms with their lives or what's happened to them. This isn't one of them. The guys are dumb (they went off with no food or water thinking they'd just be going on a 10-15 minute walk). They never say anything interesting. They never do anything interesting to try to save themselves. Nothing very interesting happens to them (no snakes or scorpions or mirages).

What is really amazing is that over half the critics who reviewed the film found it fascinating (the others found it ridiculously pretentious boring crap). Mrs. SSS and I still joke about it when we see a boring film.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

franktangredi wrote:I liked it, though not as much as I expected to. But, yes, you don't watch it for the plot. You watch it for the overall picture it paints. And the delight of seeing so many good actors at work.

And I agree with that's how most of the critics probably saw the film. But, for my money, I would have rather seen those actors in movies that I felt was worth my $10. I watch a movie for it's entertainment value - not art value. AFAIC, this one had no entertainment value at all. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Actually, I did find the dialogue to be very clever and very entertaining.

But that's me. I get bored by 'action' movies.

peacock2121 wrote:

starfish1113 wrote:I kind of liked it. But I'm easily swayed. It's one of those movies that I thought I was supposed to like, so I did.

You mean like when you met me?

Nahh, you were the opposite. I liked you DESPITE what I heard!!

Now I'm wracking my brain to remember the first time we met. Was it in Bethesda in the lobby of that hotel where we all met? I know that's the first time I met Bix and Sprots, but I don't remember if that was the first time I met you.

silverscreenselect wrote:
There have been fascinating films about people lost in the desert and trying to figure out ways to survive or to come to terms with their lives or what's happened to them. This isn't one of them. The guys are dumb (they went off with no food or water thinking they'd just be going on a 10-15 minute walk). They never say anything interesting. They never do anything interesting to try to save themselves. Nothing very interesting happens to them (no snakes or scorpions or mirages).

I just watch Survivorman or Man vs. Wild to get my fill of this genre.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Yesterday, I watched what I thought was going to be an entertaining suspense mystery movie. As it turns out, it was one of the most boring snoozefests I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot of them). Let's see if you can figure out the movie from my brief synopsis. I will identify the movie in a spoiler at the end.

It starts out with a group of people arriving at a house. They were invited by the host to go on a hunting trip. For the next hour or so, all that happens is talk, talk and more talk. Then, they go pheasant hunting which, IMO, turns out to be the most exciting part of the film. Then they go back to the house and talk some more. Then, the host (at least I think it was the host, gets killed). And, for the next hour, an inspector shows up (would have better if it was Inspector Clousseau) there is some milling around and talking until the denouement which turns out to be another big yawn. Can you guess the movie? Did anybody like this film? It had a star-studded cast but I didn't get it (the entertainment portion of this film, at least).

Spoiler

Gosford Park

Spoiler

I'm gonna guess Gosford Park.

franktangredi wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:

franktangredi wrote:I liked it, though not as much as I expected to. But, yes, you don't watch it for the plot. You watch it for the overall picture it paints. And the delight of seeing so many good actors at work.

And I agree with that's how most of the critics probably saw the film. But, for my money, I would have rather seen those actors in movies that I felt was worth my $10. I watch a movie for it's entertainment value - not art value. AFAIC, this one had no entertainment value at all. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Actually, I did find the dialogue to be very clever and very entertaining.

But that's me. I get bored by 'action' movies.

But, you're a writer, Frank, so, I would think, you would tend to view a movie with the dialogue in mind. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But, I'm a watcher and I want to be entertained. I also get bored by movies that put too much gratuitous action, car crashes and violence in a movie. I am more interested to see how a writer / director interweaves these facets with the plot and dialogue.

I liked it very much. It was like reading an Agatha Christie novel.

I don't need to see it again, Clue either.

For me?

Spoiler

Forest Gump

And I really, really like T.H.