Movies you liked despite their flaws

WOTW isn't necessarily a guilty pleasure, but it's definitely full of flaws. I don't want this one movie to sabotage the whole thread, but here's some of the inconsistencies off the top of my head (SPOILERS AHEAD):

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) 1. Inconsistency: After establishing that electrical devices don't work, there's a prominent scene involving a working camcorder.

2. Illogical: Ray and his kids go to his wife's house, and instead of raiding her refrigerator/pantry, he is still digging through his box of food that he brought along.

3. Bad science: How deep were these tripods buried? You can't tell me in the history of the world that not a single one has been discovered, even by accident?

4. Bad alien science: The aliens appear to be organic life forms, yet they didn't anticipate that the planet they invaded might have bacteria/viruses that could be harmful to them? What did the aliens evolve from? (Admittedly this is the novel's fault, not the movie's).

5. The movie makes it clear that Ray's son is going off to his death when he goes over the hill alone--there's a huge flaming explosion moments after he leaves them. But magically and without explanation, he is alive at the end, and unharmed, and he got there first.



Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to suspend disbelief--I like this movie, remember?--but there were a lot of these "huh?" moments throughout the movie that I consider to be flaws.

Bob, #2 on your list had me scratching my head as well every time I watched the movie

Well, given the character's relationship with his ex-wife, he might've wanted to assert as much independence from her as possible with his kids...he *was* in her house, but he'd at least try to provide the food himself.

^Precisely.

Obviously you have an ex-wife too.

3 Women

The make-up and Shelly Duval's performance leaves the real relationship between her and the other two women unclear.

West Side Story

Richard Beymer. To be fair, the character of Tony is very difficult to pull off because he's the goody-two-shoes of the street gang set. But he needed more bad-boy edge to override this inherent problem with the character.

My Fair Lady

I'm a big fan of Audrey Hepburn, but it is madening to think what COULD have been recorded for posterity if the original toast of Broadway and London in this show, Julie Andrews, had co-starred in it with Rex Harrison, also the Broadway and London original.


My only question about the flaw discussed in Psycho is what, in 1960, would we have preferred instead? No explanation at all? Wouldn't we assume, incorrectly, that this was merely a crime of sexual psychosis...or that the murders had no internal rationalization at all as we would find in low-grade hacker-slasher movies in later years?


I agree that the scene is one of the flattest, least "inspired" scenes in all of Hitchcock's work, but that in itself contributes to a thematic element, inviting us to reject a too easy analysis of what we just went through.

Oh, boy - yet another frivolous thread.


No matter how good or considered great a movie is, you can always find some kind of "flaw", or inconsistency in it. Heck, whole trivia books have been written about the subject.


As far as movies that were good until the last twenty minutes, there have been tons of those produced, ever since the late "70's. One that comes to mind is "Stripes". It's great until that last part, where they're riding around in tanks in Italy (or whatever the heck happens - it lost my interest so badly that I don't even remember it clearly). Ruins the whole film. I felt the same way about "The Witches of Eastwick". Great movie, up until that cheap, special effects-laden, copout ending, that just totally took away from the more "psychological" leanings of everything up till then. God, there are just so many movies like that I can't even begin to remember them all. It's like a whole different movie, from a different writer and director when that happens. Especially when it's very intelligently written, and then the ending seems like it could've been written by a ten year old. I get so built up, and then always walk away feeling so cheated and disappointed.


Instead, how about "Movies That I DIDN'T Like Because I Thought They Were VASTLY Overrated And Chock Full 'O' Holes And Gaps, But That Were Regarded As Excellent By A Great Majority Of Moviegoers And Critics"?


My choice for that one would be "Silence of the Lambs", hands down.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar /forum/post/0


"Lost in Space" for some reason poped in my head when I read the title of this thread. Chocked full of fatel flaws and bad elements, yet I've watched it over and over, and would really like an HD-DVD/BD version of it.

Click to expand...

Your much more tolerant than I am, I despise that movie



Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisx /forum/post/0


Your much more tolerant than I am, I despise that movie

Click to expand...

And I completely understand that. Which is why I think it lept into my head when I saw this thread.

This is a tough thread for me. As has already been mentioned, movies have flaws. So, the trick here is to pick ones that have enough flaws to be "flawed", but not so many as to be campy favorites/closet classics (for me, Starship Troopers or Showgirls).


How about these from the 80s (at least I think they are all from then...) without explanations so I don't have to worry about spoilers:

- Heathers

- Meatballs

- My Bodyguard

- Sixteen Candles

- Rocky 3

- Top Gun

Yes, I guess I had similar misgivings concerning what was meant by "flawed."


With regard to WOTW, I accepted it as a psychological thriller, therfore whatever science may have been involved was not in the forefront anyway, but even if it had been, it seems all that is needed is a little imagination on the part of the viewer.


We are talking Alien technology here -- if one can accept lifeforms traveling along a beam of light or lightning, why not hypothesize that what appeared to be mechanical robots that arose from the earth, were possibly dormant seed particles, indistinguishable from dirt, that had been planted earlier awaiting activation to be transformed into robotic service? As to the box of food -- yes, that confused me when I saw it, but we are talking about people acting in a panic and under pressure here -- if that is the worst confusion they exhibit, they are faring far better than might I.


More later...got to get out for the morning run, but I will second LOST IN SPACE -- seen it many times. I'll add BLADE 3 -- seen that many times as well. Now that is what I call a flawed movie.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski /forum/post/0


Instead, how about "Movies That I DIDN'T Like Because I Thought They Were VASTLY Overrated And Chock Full 'O' Holes And Gaps, But That Were Regarded As Excellent By A Great Majority Of Moviegoers And Critics"?


My choice for that one would be "Silence of the Lambs", hands down.

Click to expand...

Chock full 'O' Holes and gaps......in SILENCE?

don't make me eat your liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti!




One of my all time favorite movies a true masterpiece.

OK, back to the concept of "flawed" -- to me this would be a movie that succeeded only partially in what it set out to do. Even the use of the term "flawed," is generally automatically meant to connote a favorable reception to something recognized to be not 100% successful, therefore when we speak of a flawed movie, we are already talking about one we like -- hence my confusion over this thread.


A movie which contains plot holes, is not a flawed movie per se, unless those holes make it difficult for it to succeed in its intended purpose -- say, for example, a mystery movie which fails to adequately establish the mystery and/or resolve it.


One might suggest that WOTW was flawed because it did not maintain a thriller pace throughout -- there was a notable pacing shift during the Robbins sequence which could be cited (and was), but the inexplicability of the Alien technology was intentionally left unaddressed, and to my mind does not per se constitute a flaw -- let us recall that our director was walking a tightrope of paying homage to the somewhat quaint technological preconceptions of a bygone era, as well as modernizing the presentation to render that similar threat to an audience of modern sensibilities.


I think he succeeded in that, so this does not represent a flaw. Besides, how else you gonna incorporate all that stunning LFE, if these things don't come crunching out of the earth?


BTW, kudos to the persons who asserted that Cruise hauling his own food to the ex's house was the result of years of terroristic training -- one can only imagine the post-attack ruckus she raised over the mess in her kitchen: "So I'm told you come over here unannounced when we are in the grips of mortal peril and away no less, to start hurling your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all over my kitchen, frightening your kids -- now, while I appreciate that you brought your own food, I DO NOT appreciate it ending up all over the kitchen -- that is unacceptable, mister -- now what do you have to say for yourself?"

I wouldn't have put Silience of the Lambs in this category, but that's becasue I read the book first. Maybe that's a new thread. "Movies that you had to have read the book first to really enjoy the movie."


Silence of the lambs

The Godfather (could still enjoy it but it was a lot better having read the book)

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

The Client (the movie ending was REALLY dumbed down)

Lord of the Rings (At least in my case)



Tom