If You Could Magically Eliminate One Movie?
The Doors (1991)
shareI remember that you have a strong dislike for this movie but c’mon Bill, that Val Kilmer performance was spot on.
share
Oh, I wouldn't. I mean, imagine you eliminate a movie from existence... and it's a movie two people might have bonded over -- 'wow, that's your favourite movie too? I've never met anyone who loved it before!' -- and they fall in love, and they have a child and that child grows up to be a scientist who single-handedly finds a cure for cancer. You're stopping cancer being cured, you monster.
... although I might take a risk to get rid of Napoleon Dynamite.
Every Disney made Star Wars movie.
shareJack and Jill (2011)
And if I could get back the time of my life I wasted on that shite, that'd be great.
In all seriousness, one believes it would be in the best interest of society if 2 films were eliminated......
"JFK"
"Frost/Nixon"
Both supposedly accurately chronicle events that occurred in American history. Neither is close to what actually happened.
I find, particularly with "JFK" - younger people tend to assume the film is the 100% truth of JFK's assassination. Well, it isn't, Stone made a good portion of it up. He later used the old "Well I took dramatic liberty" when questioned about inaccuracies.
The real Jim Garrison is so much more interesting than that piece of wood who played him... Garrison was funny/witty, flamboyant, but I think stone must be some kind of government asset (or just an ass) who takes a great subject, distorts it, so if you question the official story, they can use him as assist, "What are you, like, oliver stone?"
He made "The Doors" and "JFK' back to back 1990 and 1991. I can't stand him.
I also saw "Frost/Nixon" but only after watching the actual interview.. I don't understand why more aren't interested in the actual people, but prefer a 3rd hand account of someone who barely looks like him. At least "Secret Honor" is a one-man movie about Nixon - some truth, but definitely unique by Robert Altman.
Well, all is fine if you watch "JFK" or "Frost/Nixon" with the full understanding they are only movies. They aren't history books.
Garrison, yeah, I admire what he was trying to do. The problem is, he attracted national attention. He hit roadblock after roadblock after roadblock with his conspiracy theory (actually theories, he kept changing them as he went along). Arresting Clay Shaw was pretty much an attempt to save face. He had nothing on Shaw either as proven by Shaw's quick not guilty verdict.
Stone, he's ok, as long as you don't take him seriously. This guy has been under the influence for about 60 years now. He put out a "JFK Revisited" movie a few years back. It's all fine and dandy, if you're still in the 1970s. Stone, due to his endless use of narcotics, may in fact still think it is 1975. In 2024, it's all explainable. The single bullet theory, Oswald and Ruby alone. It makes perfect sense using today's technology.
The Phantom Menace 1998 (during production)
It wouldn't have stopped Star Wars from becoming common and lame.