Ask the Critic: Movies that don't hold up
By Joe Lozito and Lexi Feinberg
Question:
Hello BPBS;
As critics you spend a lot of time seeing movies, so if you see one a second time it must have to be pretty great. What movie has most disappointed you on repeat viewings?
Thanks,
-CJS
Lexi's Answer:
Hi CJS,
There is a certain elation that comes with seeing a wonderful movie for the first time, one that feels like magic and that you can't shake from your mind. It's enough to make you want to grab everyone (including strangers) and tell them they simply have to see it. But then some time passes, and you give the movie another go. You brace yourself to relive this masterpiece that helps define you as a movie fan.
And then reality hits: It stinks. What did you ever see in this again? Is it too late to plead temporary insanity?
I'm not going to count the films that I enjoyed as a kid (I mean, really, no adult in his or her right mind is going to think "Revenge of the Nerds" belongs on the tip-top of AFI's Greatest Movies of All Time list) but there's one example from the late '90s that shoots to mind: In all its big-boated (and bloated) glory, the James Cameron epic "Titanic." All 3 hours and 15 minutes of it.
I loved this film. Just loved it. I was 16, and felt like I had witnessed a true classic of our time. The insane box office receipts and best Oscar win confirmed that I was not the only one enamored. But this is by no means a good movie. A technically advanced one with special effects galore? Sure. An interesting, well-told story? Not on your life.
The dialogue (including such winners as "you jump, I jump!" and "I'm the king of the world!") is some of the worst ever scribbled on paper. And let's face it--Jack and Rose have no chemistry, and frankly, they look a little ridiculous together. That climactic scene in the water ("I'm cold," Rose whines atop a floatation device while Jack freezes to death because she can't scoot over) is horrifying and borders on the pathological. DiCaprio and Winslet have gone on to do such better work that they may as well pretend this blip never happened.
As time rolls on and special effects continue to progress, "Titanic" will be looked at more and more for what it is--a bad romance novel set on water. We've all been had.
-Lexi
Joe's Answer:
I know I'm going to lose more than a few points of "geek cred" with this one, but I have to say it: one of the movies that has most suffered from re-watching is none other than that oft-imitated sci-fi touchstone
"The Matrix".
Ok, everybody breathe. No one get excited - let me explain.
I'm not trying to deny anything that "The Matrix" stands for. It single-handedly raised the bar on popular science fiction and ushered that genre into the 21st century. It introduced the world to "bullet time" (a technique only previously seen in "Gap" ads) and gave a generation tired of hearing about "Star Wars" their very own franchise. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, "The Matrix" was beloved the world over.
Back in 1999, when the film stormed into theaters like the second-coming of sci-fi, I remember being skeptical. As a member of the "Star Trek/Wars" generation, I wasn't about to let these young Wachowski upstarts swoop into pop culture with their little Keanu comic book movie and usurp my childhood favorites. But there was no denying it. Seeing "The Matrix" for the first time was invigorating, eye-popping, a shot in the arm to anything we'd seen in over a decade. It was one of those cultural moments when movie mainlined itself directly into the zeitgeist. Suddenly everything was leather coats and sunglasses. Everyone wanted to be Neo or Trinity. Hacking was cool again. Sure, there were logic issues to the stuttering, elliptical plot, but who cared? "The Matrix" was the best sci-fi movie since "Blade Runner". Period.
I only saw "The Matrix" once in theaters. That's all I needed. I had it burned in my mind. It was so awesome, I remembered it verbatim. Then I bought the DVD. In fact, it was my
first DVD. And when I sat down to watch it for the second time, I felt like a spurned lover begging his ex for a second chance; I only remembered the good parts. That opening gravity-skewing sequence with Trinity and the cops, the dangling helicopter rescue, the Smith-Neo fight on the subway platform. Those were still amazing. But in between there was a lot more talking than I remembered. And talking. ...and more talking. In fact, after watching the film for the second time, I never watched it fully through again. Sure, I nearly wore out the Disc replaying those same fight scenes over and over, but if I never see visit the Oracle again it'll be too soon. And the less said about the two sequels -- which only exacerbated everything that was wrong with the first -- the better.
"The Matrix" is still everything is always was: a groundbreaking piece of sci-fi history. But as a movie -- a start-to-finish movie -- it has problems. Hey, even "Citizen Kane" is dull in spots. But that's a different article.
-Joe
Keep those cards and letters coming... if you have a question for one of our resident film critics, shoot us an e-mail to "
Ask The Critic." We'll select among these for future installments in this column. Sorry but, due to the volume of e-mail we receive, we cannot respond personally to each e-mail.
