Top 11 movies that I like but everyone else seems to hate


A while back, Doug Walker posted a video detailing the ten movies he likes but everybody else hates and, naturally, it was a great video and it led to waves of similar lists coming from all corners of the internet. I’ve decided to jump on the bandwagon and present to you the top ten movies that I like, some I love and others I just think are ok but all have one thing in common. Most people I talk to about these films have the same views as many critics, they don’t like them. I can’t understand it and, like Doug, I am going to present to you my top ten, each detailing why I like them and others hate them, but also critiquing them fairly. Remember, none of these are perfect movies; in fact few of them are barely good. Obviously this is subjective, hell that’s the point, so don’t get too angry if you see a film you despise, and for some of you I can guarantee you will. Not much more to say really…probably better start.

11) Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

I love films like this that take two characters and pit them against each other and what better characters to choose than two of horrors most iconic murdering bastards, Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees. I think this is a film that delivers both good, reasonably strong action scenes and adds good back-story, developing the title characters further. The music is pretty good, I recall there being an amalgamation of both the music from Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street and it does what it’s supposed to do, add tension and fear. The film itself though…I don’t think it’s that scary. If anything I think it’s a more story based film than it is fear based and frankly…I kinda prefer it that way. I mean, I’m not that bothered if a film doesn’t scare me providing it has the story behind it to compensate which, in all honesty, this movie has.

 

The story of the bladed glove wielding, child molesting serial killer and the immortal man-child who broke his heart…

The supporting characters are alright, not exactly Hamlet but they aren’t the focus of the film. The focus of the film is what it’s supposed to be, the fight between Freddy and Jason. There is a bit of development with the lead girl and the film does well setting up these characters and fleshing tem out a bit but, lets be perfectly honest here people, the only reason why anyone goes to a slasher film is to see pretty girls get torn apart, don’t deny it, it’s primitive. We don’t need to have a developed cast; they’ll be only a couple of them left by the end of the film. I’m not saying they should be cardboard cut outs but it isn’t essential that they be developed. They don’t need to be complex, they just need to bleed. Anywho, the action is good but seriously Freddy Krueger going all Karate Kid on Voorhees’s ass? Yeah, as awesome as that is, it’s a little silly. The bet thing about this film though, is the story. I think this is a really good, intelligent set up. Freddy wants to come back but the children of Elm Street have forgotten him because the adults have erased him from all the records. Freddy appears to Jason in a dream and tells him to go to Elm Street and start killing so that people think it’s Freddy and he can use their fear to come back. Yes it has holes (Is Jason dead or alive? How can he dream?) But I still think it works. I love the way these two characters are developed a little more, the intro dwells into Freddy’s history and throughout the film we find out more about Jason, I especially love the little touch that Freddy is scared f fire and Jason is scared of water because those are the things that killed them. The supporting characters (yeah I’m back to them) also have enough story to act on their own but it does lead to a bit of a complaint. Maybe they had too much, I mean don’t get me wrong, I still like it, but as I said before the focus should be on Freddy, Jason and their conflict rather than the teenagers and to me and countless others, it always felt like the film was focussing on them when it shouldn’t have been. Nevertheless the violence, action, music and story all hold up in my opinion and I defiantly think some of you should give this film another watch.

10) The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Who wants to hear a fun fact? When I was little I used to prefer this Jurassic Park movie to the original. Yeah, I know the original is the better movie and I have changed my mind, as the vast, vast, vast hordes of you who have read my top 20 favourite movies list will attest. Nevertheless, I still think this is a good movie. Why? Well the music is still great, John Williams soundtrack is not used half as much as it should be though. The visuals are still great even if it does, at times, seem to fail to capture the same amount of awe that the original did. The characters are…meh…For the most part not too memorable, aside from some very persuasive exceptions.

Big game hunter, Roland Tembo and that palaeontologist guy with the beard. Roland Tembo (Played by the late, great, Pete Postlethwaite) is a really cool character, I’m really annoyed that they didn’t include the scenes of him beating the shit out of some South African jerks who were assaulting a waitress, a mistake that I refuse to make…Ok so I can’t actually find the scene on YouTube…It’s a real shame to because the scene makes the movie a thousand times better. Not only is it Pete Postlethwaite kicking some ass with some great lines “What do I have to do to pick a fight with you? Bring your mother into it?” but it builds on Tembo’s character and his relationship with his friend Arjay, who is killed halfway into the film, because of Arjay’s death, Tembo resolves to quit hunting because he’s seen too much death in his time. It’s a great character who is often overlooked despite the fact that he is the saving grace of this film. The other guy…I don’t even think he has a name. He’s some Palaeontologist with a ginger beard that goes with the bad guys to the island, is scared of snakes and is eaten by a T Rex. For some reason this guy sticks out in my head and it really is a shame that we don’t know more about him. How was he hired? How important was he in his field? Why was he scared of snakes? I would have loved to see more of this guy. The protagonists are either boring or unlikable, I don’t really care about them and the villains aren’t really villains, in fact the only real villain in the entire film is pretty much just a stereotype. The acting is generally good; Postlethwaite does a good job, as do most of the protagonists. Lots of people don’t like Jeff Goldblum but I think he’s an alright actor, not terrible or anything.  The finale with the T Rex in San Diego is pretty cool, but for the most part it’s nota very good movie. Don’t get me wrong, I like it and, while it has it strengths, they are few and far between. The story, visuals and two characters aren’t really a lot to go on. It was close to being good, if they hadn’t cut out that scene with Tembo in the African cafe it could have been good but I think its major flaw is the fact that it is a sequel to a great film. The original Jurassic park is so good that it just encompasses the sequel and so people think less of it. This is a film tat had a very hard act to follow, not all of its problems are integral.

9) Alien Vs Predator (2004)

This is another one of those crossover films that I love so much. Whenever I talk to people about AVP and it’s sequel I always find that they love one and hate the other and generally it’s pretty evenly split. I however, loathe the sequel, I hate it. The original is different and in many ways my reasons for liking it are similar to my reasons for liking Freddy vs. Jason. I love the way that they bring these two characters together and the relationship between he two fits well with what we know about these creatures. The story is great and I really like how the predator is supposed to hunt the xenomorph and, once again, I love the way we learn more about these characters in the course of the film, how the Predators hunt the xenomorphs as a rite of passage and how they helped build civilisation. The acting is alright, I can’t think of any major issues. The writing is also alright, not terrible, but not Shakespeare (then again does it need to be?) The sets are great; I love the arctic pyramid design and the maze esque twists and turns of the building. The real clincher though is the conflict. This is the film that fans were really looking forward to, the big one, Alien vs. Predator and it kicked ass. It gave us action and I was not disappointed by the film overall. It does, however, have its flaw. Firstly, there is not enough action by far, when it comes it is generally good but it doesn’t come enough. Secondly, unlike Freddy vs. Jason this is a film where you can’t focus that much on the main characters, the xenomorph isn’t sentient enough to have a complex personality and we don’t know enough about the Predator to focus on it. In fact, that’s another problem; this would’ve been a great opportunity to develop the predator’s culture. There are so many holes in the world and lifestyle of this character that a film like this would’ve been the perfect opportunity to expand on it. The main problem though, the one that I began with, is the fact that with this film the emphasis should be on the supporting characters, they’re the ones caught in the middle of this and so they should be the ones we focus on, and they are. But they should also be interesting and be developed enough to keep our attention when they are on the screen, instead they don’t. They are just boring characters and, when it really gets down to it, they help expose the fact that little to no effort was put into this film. The supporting characters are bland and the one chance you had to take the predator and really expand on it, you didn’t take. It isn’t as bad as critics say but it really, really, really could of and should have been done better…On the other hand at least it wasn’t the sequel…

8) Richie Rich (1994)

Of all the films on this list this is probably the one with which I can find the most fault. Macaulay Culkin as at the age where puberty was beginning to kick in and his marketability as a child actor is greatly diminished. The character of Richie is bland, the story is mediocre at best, the other characters are tokens, and he acting is poor at best. The scientist/inventor guy (played by that fat guy from Whose Line is it Anyway?) isn’t that funny, his inventions are completely retarded, the story has numerous holes in it. The list seems endless. There are, however, things that I do like about it. The parents, I found, are funny and even likable at times. I like the villain, despite the fact it’s a pretty bland character. The villain’s henchman is pretty cool though, once again, he suffers from a distinct lack of personality and memorability. The butler is awesome, Jonathan Hyde is a fantastic actor and he makes every character he plays likable, regardless of the quality of film or the strength of the writing. The finale is cool enough with the butler fighting the villain’s henchman and the laser is a nice touch. In fact, the movie does have some pretty cool moments and to be fair I think there overlooked by most viewers. So from my perspective Richie Rich is not a good film, but I do find things to enjoy in it. I’m not the biggest Culkin fan and this film did nothing to change my opinion of him, but I stand by the fact that, if you look hard enough, it does have some good points to it.

7) Van Helsing (2004)

Remember my review of The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Well this is a film that came out at around the same time and has a similar story style. Like a lot of the films on this list I first saw it when I was little and I loved it. Nowadays I still love it. I think it is one of the best premises I have ever heard, in fact it’s a little like Snakes on a Plane. The premise is awesome but he main difficulty is finding a story is explain how the premise came to be, but where Snakes on a Plane went with the incredibly stupid idea of a mobster putting said snakes on said plane in order to kill a witness, Van Helsing went with a far more sensible, realistic and awesome premise of Dracula babies. Basically Director Stephen Sommers saw a poster for the Brides of Dracula and the thought of what would one man do with three beautiful women for 500 years?

 

Scrabble?

The idea is that Dracula and his brides have thousands of children which are born dead because vampires themselves are undead (it’s he little touches like that which just make the film). Dracula hires Dr Victor Frankenstein to find a way to create life, leading him to make his infamous monster. Werewolves aren’t tied in that much other than the fact that werewolves are the only thing that can kill Dracula and he uses them as hit men. The idea is incredible but the story itself is just as good, despite a few issues that I have with the back-story, I don’t really understand the relationship between Van Helsing and Dracula, are they related? Nevertheless I still think it holds up story wise. Visually it is good film, the castles and the 193’s’40’s inspired settings and themes and done really well. The characters are great, I can’t think of a single one that doesn’t stand out. The friar is great, Van Helsing is a great Anti-hero, Anna is great (even if Kate Beckingsale’s accent isn’t), the brides are great, and Dracula is great. The acting is also pretty good, Richard Roxburgh is brilliant at hamming it up as Dracula and don’t even get me started on the brides.

Seriously girls, you want some cheese with that ham?

The action is good and it combined with the other positives more than make up for some of the plot holes and factual errors, although from memory there are very few as it is and the music is just brilliant. It’s one of those films that I honestly can’t understand why other people don’t like it; in fact it was going to be on my Top 20 favourite movies list so consider it at least number 25.

 

6) Deep Blue Sea (1999)

When I was in primary school my best friend was Matthew Hoyle. He was fat and nerdy but we had good conversation and I could forgive him his major flaws for his company…Things have not changed…Regardless, we used to have sleep over’s where we would play Pokémon and watch violent horror movies. One of the films we watched was Deep Blue Sea. Instantly I loved it and it is an opinion which has not changed. Recently I was surprised to find that several friends and critics think little of the film. I honestly have a lot of trouble finding flaws with this film. The story is great; it leads to a lot of good opportunities with the enhanced sharks (in a way it’s like a prequel to Jaws). The writing is good as is the acting (especially from Thomas Jane and, naturally, Samuel L Jackson). The characters are likable especially the cook and his parrot. Hell, they even manage to get some ethical debate in; do you know how rare and difficult that it for an animal attack movie? The setting is brilliant, an underwater, ex-submarine facility which floods, seriously you couldn’t have put the incredibly dangerous sharks in a secure tank in the middle of Arizona or something? The deaths are great, Jackson’s regularly charts on top ten movie death’s lists. The best thing about this movie though, is the music. I don’t think I have ever heard a better instrumental score in any other movie of this kind, I can’t believe other critics haven’t already picked up on this. It is simply perfect, it does everything a score of this kind is supposed to do; it builds tension and escalates fear to increase pay off. Believe me when I say it still gives me shivers. Yeah I know a lot of the music in the film is inspired by Jaws but I still think that they did a good job editing and updating it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPiUQ25DF7w

Nevertheless I would be lying if I said that the film was completely perfect because it isn’t. Saffron Burrows…Britishness…can get a little trying at times and the effects, while impressive, look very fake if you pause and really look at them. Other than that…I’m really struggling…Deep Blue sea does a really good job with what it has and, although the story isn’t completely original, the film defiantly has a lot going for it.

5) The Mummy (1999)

Ahhh Stephen Sommers, you’re back again already? Yes The Mummy, It’s a film that’s spawned 2 sequels, one was…alright I suppose but the third was terrible, never, ever watch it.  The Mummy is an interesting film as people who dislike it seem to dislike most things only a little but the one thing that they cannot stand about this film is the lead actor, Brendan Fraser. I can’t understand why. Frankly I really enjoy this film. It has very likable characters, mostly the brother and Evelyn but the supporting characters are also reasonably memorable and you can always find something to enjoy in their scenes. I especially like Jonathan Hyde, once again, as the Egyptologist and Omid Djalili as the prison warden. The acting is also pretty good. Rachel Weisz and John Hannah are great actors and they really do a very good job here. Fraser is good, maybe a little obnoxious in his approach but I don’t find him that intolerable. The action is good as is the story sort of Romeo and Juliet meets The Ten Commandments. The sets are pretty grand, especially Hamunaptra and the finale in the treasure room looks beautiful I also love the visual effects, mostly the design of Imhotep when he is in mummy form. My views on the villain? Well he’s memorable enough and a decent villain but, to be honest, he’s not brilliant. His motivation is cliché and he never really says anything of any interest or purpose. He just sort of babbles on about taking his revenge and how much he loves his Egyptian whore woman. Maybe if they made him more charismatic like Dracula he would be a better villain, I just wish he had some better lines.  So yeah, my opinion on the majority of this film is positive, but the best thing about this film, by far, is Kevin J.O’ Connor as Beni. This guy is just brilliant and Sommers loves him. Beni is such a cowardly, greedy douchebag of a character that it is difficult not to like him. Frankly, people really should watch this film again, it’s usually on ITV2 at some point every fortnight or so.

4) Batman Returns (1992)

Now, of all the films on this list this is the one that surprised me the most. For ages I thought that Batman Returns was better than it’s 1989 predassecor, but, after spending a weekend talking to many, many people on Omegle (in-between heavy bouts of naked Asian men) I found that the general consensus was otherwise. It’s strange because I always considered this film the superior one. Personally I really like it. It has the gothic, film noir style that Tim Burton just adores and does so well. The acting is great, you’ve four brilliant actors in Michael Keaton (THE best Batman), Michelle Pfeiffer (The best Catwoman), Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken. You can’t get a better four way than that…at least not outside of Thailand…The characters are great, Catwoman kicks ass, Max Shreck is a great second/third villain (really depends where you stand on Catwoman to be honest). Batman is just as complex, dark and brooding as he was in the first film ad I love the relationship he has with Catwoman. DeVito’s penguin is different from the one that most people know. Instead of the gentleman-esque criminal he’s a disgusting beast-man who devours raw fish and womanizes constantly throughout the film, and I for one freaking love that. It’s nice to see a different take on the character than the one which we are so used to in comics and the animated series; frankly I might prefer DeVito’s. The music is the same great Danny Elfman music, the cinematography and art direction is more than safe in Burton’s hands, he des what he’s good at and makes Batman dark, as it should be. The main problems that people seem to have with this movie are that it’s far too film noir and that the Penguin is too disgusting. I actually disagree when people say that Batman isn’t a series that should be this film noir-ish. Of course it should be, from what I hear the comics were very film noir, why shouldn’t the films try to copy that? Besides, Batman is sort of a detective and detective films began in the pinnacle of the film noir age. It still surprises me that people don’t like this film, seriously give it another go because it is better than the first, I guarantee it.

3) Wild Wild West (1999)

It is unbelievable how much hate this film gets, it really is. People seem to go crazy whenever this film is mentioned and I have no idea why. It’s considered one of the worst movies in recent years, almost destroying the careers of Kevin Kline and Will Smith and receiving 5 Razzies as well as 3 Razzie nominations…I kinda like it…I mean, is it really that bad? The acting is good; Kline was in a Fish called Wanda, one of my favourite films of all time so as far as I’m concerned he gets a free pass on this one. Will Smith is…Will fucking Smith, I defy you not to like that man, with his taunt, rippling muscles and his dreamy blue eyes…

 

This makes it alright though…right?

Anywho…Kenneth Branagh is delightfully hammy as Dr Loveless but the woman…I never cared much for her, she lies about her husband being her father for no reason, I don’t know her name and to be honest I don’t really care. The characters themselves are also pretty good although I will admit the main three are clichés, the young gun slinging rogue, he old fashioned professional and the psychotic, over the top villain, but lets be fair guys, these are still likable characters and even if you don’t like those three you still have Loveless’s henchwoman, Munita, Amazonia and Miss Lippenrider.

 Kenneth Branagh, flanked by Frederique Van Der Wal, Sofia Eng and Musetta Vander in Warner Brother's Wild Wild West - 1999

Miss Lippenrider is the wheelchair-bound thespian in the middle

Furthermore the story isn’t that bad, I like the idea behind it, granted it is a little silly but then again does it really matter? The art design is pretty cool, I like the steam punk theme and I think the film does it very well. From what I remember, the music is actually pretty good, very westerny and it suits the film jut as well as the actors do. The finale is pretty good, the action is engaging enough and I love the steam punk gadgets that are a reoccurring theme throughout the film. I appreciate the fact that the dialogue can b a little weak at times and that maybe the onslaught of black puns (Will Smith is a black guy in America just after the end of the Civil war it’s not exactly liberal) but I do like the hurricane of puns between Smith and Branagh, one makes a black joke the other retorts with a cripple joke (again, 1800’s America). I can’t understand why people hate it so much. I don’t even think it’s that bad of a film, I really am stumped by this. If anyone is reading and knows why please comment because God knows I have no idea.

2) The Star Wars Prequels (1999, 2002, 2005)

Yeah I bet you all have feelings about these films and don’t get me wrong, these are bad films that don’t hold a candle to the original, but that doesn’t mean I can find some things to enjoy about them. Overall the visuals are great, Lucas’s overuse of CGI actually works well in these films, and you need that sort of filmmaking if you’re going to show all these different characters and planets. Sure it doesn’t have the charm of the original but it looks great. The films expand a lot on these worlds, I like the new planets they add; Naboo, Geonosis, Coruscant, these are cool places and I enjoy seeing them. The new characters are also pretty awesome, Mace Windu (Samuel L Jackson), Darth Maul (Peter Serafinowicz/Ray Park, numerous other Jedi and, need I mention? Count Dooku (played by Christopher Lee).

 

 

Did you know Christopher Lee’s been dead for the last 4 years but the Grim Reapers too scared to tell him?

 The action is also really good, there are some great fight scenes between Jedi and Sith, especially Yoda vs. Dooku and Maul vs. Obi-Wan and Qui Gon, as well as the larger battle scenes on Geonosis which become a stable for the third movie, Lucas’s overuse of CGI becomes its most prevalent here, allowing him to capture the same sorts of battle scenes and atmosphere as the Lord of the Rings films (although not nearly as good) but with a distinct Sci-Fi feel. The acting varies. Jackson and McGregor turn in good performances as do many others, Natalie Portman can be a little cringy sometimes but I am attributing that to bad writing. Jake Lloyd…You can se wants to be a good actor but…no, he isn’t. I feel bad saying it but he’s really obnoxious in these films. The writing is pretty bad in places. I really hate that bloody pod race in the Phantom Menace that just seems to go on forever, it just seems like filler to me. There is a scene in the Revenge of the Sith, in fact there are two I wanna mention. The first is when Padme and Anakin are talking on the balcony in Coruscant, I don’t know whether it’s bad writing or bad acting but I think both played an equally large part. The second scene is when Anakin goes to kill the younglings in the Jedi Temple and that one brat says something like “Master Skywalker what are we going to do, there are too many of them” That one line is deliver with such a lack of any emotion that it rivals Jake Lloyd, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if he just walked onto set one day and they just cast him as that one kid as a call back or something. Actually that might have been a good idea, symbolic of the innocence of Anakin being destroyed by his newer, darker, corrupt side…Maybe I should just write Lucas a letter…Also I really can’t stand Anakin’s constant bitching and moaning at times. I mean he really pisses me off. Especially when he cries after he’s Darth Vader. There’s no need, it would’ve been stronger as a scene if Vader had been dark and brooding, maybe even accepting of his new fate. Lots of people hate the fact that the films talk about things like tax disputes, trade embargo’s and political manipulation. Frankly, I like it. I mean, I think it adds a bit of realism and I may be one of the few people who like the idea of the Separatists, in fact I like the Separatist leaders, they’re fun characters. Grievous is a little bit disappointing, especially that final fight scene but up until then I thought he kicked ass, the design of the robotic suit is really cool. Also, how could I talk about bad writing in the star war movies WITHOUT mentioning Jar Jar Binks? This character is just heinous. His voice is annoying, his character is annoying, and he does nothing, has to be saved twice in his first minute of screen time and dooms the entire Galaxy but electing Palpatine supreme powers. Jar Jar Binks, we hate you.

 

Behold! The face of evil

The story is where these films really suffer; in fact it is the worst aspect. I recently read an article on Cracked that proposed an alternative story for the prequels which was far better. It suggested that more emphasis be placed on the relationship between Anakin and Obi Wan and that Obi Wan should’ve had an affair with Padme. The films miss this opportunity because Lucas seems obsessed with cramming in every single minor character, sure it’s nice to see R2D2 and C3PO but seriously, did we really need to see the origins of Boba Fett? And as nice as that Grand Moff Tarkin cameo was, I think we could probably have lived without it. More time should’ve been spent with our two main characters that would’ve made the prequels into great films, the tragic story of a friendship that was torn apart by a woman. What did we get? A few throwaway lines about their relationship that did next to nothing. How are we supposed to empathize with these characters when everything goes to shit if the time hasn’t been taken to develop their relationship? We hadn’t really gotten to know and like the characters as a team, instead the film just assumed we would feel bad. Newsflash Lucas, we did not.  So yeah, the films do have a lot of problems, but I do find a lot to enjoy about them. Are they perfect? No, hell I doubt they even hit the good mark but they’re still enjoyable films but it is a tragedy that Lucas couldn’t put more effort into setting up the fall of Anakin Skywalker and developing his friendship with Obi Wan some more. That would’ve made these great films.

1) The Stepford Wives (2004)

The original Stepford Wives (1975) was a film about the monotony and repressive state of suburban America and the stereotypical gender roles of the period as well as focusing on the issue of the American dream, sexual identity and sexism in the household roles and idealism in marriage. The remake had Matthew Broderick, dozens of plot holes and inconsistencies and lost $40 million at Box office. Critics generally panned it and the stars don’t talk about it. Director Frank Oz calls it one big fuck up. I like it…Yeah ok so it does suffer from major problems but there are loads of good things about it. Firstly, the characters are great. I love Bette Midler’s slobbish, feminist writer, I love the gay republican and his husband, I love Glenn Close and Christopher Walken, Nicola Kidman’s bitchy television executive is great and Matthew Broderick’s husband character is also pretty good. The acting suffers a little bit, everybody but Matthew Broderick is exceptional, Glenn Close is sensational as is Kidman, but Broderick comes across as bland, as he so often does. It’s a shame because he seems like a great guy; I just wish he had some emotion in his performances. The art design is great, I love the look of the homes in Stepford, it’s very New Englandy/Desperate Housewives. The music is just as brilliant, David Arnold is a very talented composer and his work here is testament to that. The writing is also pretty good, I especially like the fact that the main characters do actually develop. Nicole Kidman goes from being this vile, vile woman to being a reasonably likable woman and the relationship with Matthew Broderick is done really well (except from the part where he quits his job for her, I never got that, wouldn’t his salary be enough to live on?). I love the twist with Glenn Close at the end, and her performance makes what I presume is meant to be a funny moment into a really very touching scene.

The story is another thing where things really being to fall down, in fact it is the films biggest flaw. The main premise is that the Stepford wives are being turned into robots/having microchips implanted into their brains. It’s never really made clear which it is. In some scenes it looks like the women are all robots. We see one ‘break’ and sparks shoot from her neck. In another scene a woman is used as an ATM and a bunch of$20 dollar bills come out of her mouth like a cash machine, but then at the end it says that all the women have had microchips planted in their brains. That doesn’t add up. Furthermore, Close’s character is supposed to be a leading brain surgeon, so how would she have the computing knowledge to develop a chip of that sort? Or make it possible for a woman to be used as a cash machine? Its plot holes like that which really damage the film and it is the biggest argument used by people who don’t like the film. In t movie’s defence though, production was really, really messy. Bette Midler was stressed throughout because o other work commitments and Frank Oz argued with just about every actor on set, especially Walken.

 

Then again, if you had that uncomfortable hunk of metal stuck up your ass for two years I’m sure you’d be a little temperamental too…

The ending is far different from the original which has all the women converted and ends with them shopping monotonously. In the remake, the men are forced to live in Stepford and do all the women’s tasks as a punishment. This could be seen as dropping the main message of the film but I don’t think so, instead I think it’s supposed to represent househusbands. I think that’s a great way of updating the film’s message.

So yeah, from what I’ve written you may be wondering just why the Stepford Wives remake ranks at number one, well the answer is simple.

This is possibly the funniest film I have ever seen.

I’m not even kidding; this film is fucking hilarious in places. Roger, the gay republican guy has the best lines “I feel like Nancy Drew” and some of Bette Midler’s lines are just…God the writing on this is really good, like this exchange:

“What was that book you wrote? About your relationship with your mother?”

“I love you but please die”

That is freaking hilarious. The best scenes involve the Stepford wives in general ad how much they contrast with the gay guy, Bette Midler and Kidman. You get some great scenes where their book cub meetings involve flicking through the latest issue of good housekeeping. The best scene though? That has to be, washing machine aerobics. I mean it, this is freaking hilarious.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEaSAJgaLtQ&feature=relmfu 

So yeah, I have no qualms about saying this is a movie that has received too hard a rap, granted the plot holes and Broderick are problems, no doubt about it, but the humour, music and cinematograpy as well as the acting more than makes up for it.

Benny4700

One thought on “Top 11 movies that I like but everyone else seems to hate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.