Films I hate, but everyone else loves

I will be the first to admit that I have the strangest taste in cinema. At times, my views on certain movies are inconsistent, as I love aspects of certain films but when those are in any other film they suddenly don’t work. As such, there are many films I cannot stand, but others adore. 

Some of these films still escape me to this day, while others just don’t resonate with me. Regardless, these are the films that I have tried desperately to enjoy and find as lovely as others have yet, for one reason or another, make me angry. 

Before that, let me clarify this by admitting that I am not at all saying any of these are bad movies. These are just the explanations why these films don’t leave an impact on me. If you like or love any of these, that is wonderful and I mean that. I may disagree with you, but there is nothing wrong with that. Just a difference of opinion. 

“Casablanca” (1942)

Let’s start with the most obvious one. When I started my journey through cinema, critics put the most praise on three particular films, “Citizen Kane,” “The Godfather” and “Casablanca.” I respect the filmmakers of both “The Godfather” and “Citizen Kane” and will freely admit both films are wonderful works of art. 

Not so much with “Casablanca.”

To my recollection, I have tried to watch this one three times in my life and each time it put me to sleep. To me, there is no substance to this film. No bite or drive to keep me interested. 

I believe the reason this film fails to leave an impact on me is the same reason “In A Lonely Place” or “The African Queen” didn’t do much for me either: Humphrey Bogart is not a romance man. Don’t get me wrong, Bogart is a wonderful actor, just not when you put him next to a beautiful woman and tell him to love her. 

Maybe its because Bogart appears so much older than his female counterpart, thus making the romance uncomfortable. Or perhaps it is Bogart’s gruff and sometimes emotionless face that makes it hard to understand how he feels. 

One thing I will admit I’m terrible at is reading body language. Perhaps Bogart is using his lack of emotions to signify his removal from reality, or that a little eyebrow twitch is supposed to mean something. I wouldn’t know because it is all the same to me. 

Nevertheless, I don’t buy into the romance between Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman and thus the rest of the film falls apart. It has some wonderful dialogue, but that’s about it. Not enough to keep me interested. 

“Blade Runner” (1982)

This is a matter of style against substance. 

To me, “Blade Runner” is nothing but style and very little substance. It is slow, takes its sweet time with telling us the plot and chooses to me more philosophical about the differences between humans and robots, if there is any difference. 

If you like that kind of style, great. I prefer my films to leave an impact on me, not just put me into a state of mind. All I got out of “Blade Runner” was many wonderful futuristic visuals and not much else. 

In a similar film, like “2001: A Space Odyssey” which is also mostly style over substance, there is still enough to think about as there is to admire. Much is left up to the imagination, but that is the joy of art. There is so much open to interpretation that everyone can walk away from “2001” with a different experience. 

With “Blade Runner” there isn’t much ambiguity, except for whether Decker is a Replicant or not. 

This is another one that puts me to sleep. Visuals alone can only keep my interest for so long, especially when the film moves so slow. 

“Persona” (1966)

Originally, this slot was going to be every Ingmar Bergman film, but seeing how I’ve only seen a few Bergman films (mostly because “Persona” turned me off from his other work) and I like “Wild Strawberries” I felt that was unfair.

Instead, let’s go with a film that continually pissed me off with its inactivity and pacing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film move as slow as “Persona.” There is literally a point where they show the same scene twice, just with a slightly different camera angle. 

I don’t care if there is supposed to be a metaphor or meaning behind that. If you have to resort to doing “Mystery Science Theater 3000” style riffing of the film to stop you from turning it off, there is something wrong with the movie.

To me, the worst thing a movie can do is have incredibly slow pacing and combine it with nothing interesting going on. I can’t recall anything noteworthy in the story of “Persona” and it moves like a snail. I even hesitate to call “Persona” a film. It is more like a test of patience. 

“Eraserhead” (1977) & “Mulholland Drive” (2001)

If there’s anything to take away from the last two films on this list, it should be that I do not care for surreal films. 

Do not take this to mean that I hate David Lynch. I enjoy his work, especially “Blue Velvet” and “The Elephant Man.” I like those ones because they have an understandable plot and do not leave me with so many unanswered questions.

When I finished both of these films, I was left in a cloudy haze, unsure of what I had just experienced. I don’t necessarily hate them, as much as I don’t get them. If that was their point, that’s fine. By doing so, the film refuses to answer two basic questions that any movie should, “How?” and “Why?”

Films like these are better understood upon multiple viewings. Yet, to get me to rewatch something it had to get my interest the first time I watched it. “Eraserhead” and “Mulholland Drive” failed to do that. 

“Drive” (2012)

One of my personal favorite episodes of “Mystery Science Theater 3000” is “The Touch Of Satan.” In that film, any time the two main characters have any sort of discussion, there is a ridiculously long pause between their lines. Like both of them are just getting out of bed or have massive brain damage and it takes them minutes to come up with simple thoughts. 

“Drive” is exactly like that. Any time Ryan Gosling is in a conversation, its like his mind is somewhere else and he just suddenly remembered the other people he was talking to. All I could think about during “Drive” were the riffs made in “The Touch Of Satan,” like saying a train could pass by during the pause or that everyone drank a quart of Robitussin before shooting the scene. 

As such, it ruins any scene with dialogue, which is most of the film. It feels unnatural, needlessly slow and boring.

Annie Hall (1977)

I’ve said this in the past, but I feel that Woody Allen is a tedious filmmaker. At times, he gives us some wonderful and poignant movies, like “Crimes And Misdemeanors” and “Midnight In Paris.” Other times, it is chore to sit through his films. “Annie Hall” is one such film. 

This one is rooted deeply in Woody Allen’s personality and the belief that his narcissistic attitude is funny. That him complaining about his overbearing mother or overpriced coffee is hilarious. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it falls flat. 

“Annie Hall” is like most comedies. If it makes you laugh, then it will stick with you and you’ll think its great. If it doesn’t, then you continually look at the clock and ask yourself when it will end. 

If you like Woody Allen’s behavior and style of comedy of picking on little and unimportant matters, then you’ll like “Annie Hall.” If you find that repetitive and uninteresting like me, then it won’t hold any water. 

“Aguirre, The Wrath Of God” (1972)

When I first watched this film, I was told I would enjoy it because it was similar to “Apocalypse Now” as I had just watched that film and feel in love with it. Boy, did I get a huge surprise when I found it was nothing like “Apocalypse Now.”

My problem with “Aguirre, The Wrath Of God” is the pacing, like most films on this list. Its another example of combining a really slow pace with nothing particularly interesting happening. The film takes its time to show our characters rafting down the river and everything they had accumulated during their journeys, except we don’t get to see much of their adventures. Just the aftermath and the effect it is having on the characters. 

It is one thing to build up an atmosphere and tone, but another to pad out the film with characters just staring blankly at their surroundings while saying nothing and hoping that passes for entertainment. For crying out loud, do something!

Those are just some of the films that I cannot stand yet others love. Again, these are merely my own opinions and not judgments against those who like these movies. If you disagree with me or feel that I am being unfair to any of these films, please let me know. I would love to hear what you guys think of these films. 

Top Ten "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" episodes

“My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” is not only an excellent childrens program, but also a respectable show. I have stated this in the past, but it bears repeating. 

I was initially hesitant to watch a show about brightly colored ponies and their adventures in friendship, especially since that is something aimed for little girls. One thing that got my attention quickly was how the creators of the show treated their audience with respect and kindness. Never once does the show attempt to talk down to its audience or force its messages and morals down the audiences throat. 

That aspect caught my curiosity, but what caught my attention was how well-crafted the show was. Each episode had stellar voice-acting, animation that is unlike anything I’ve ever seen, writing that made the stories compelling and worth watching and morals that can be used in real life and aren’t rehashed from other television shows. 

I believe that “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” is a perfect children show that can be enjoyed by people of all ages. While the show knows who the target audience is, that doesn’t stop it from aiming jokes, stories and even entire characters at a more mature audience. 

With 83 episodes to watch at this time, there is a fair share of impressive episodes. Which is why I’ve decided to do a top ten of the best episodes of “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic.” These are the episodes that I feel best represent the show and what it is capable of. Whether they are making you laugh, making you think or making you smile, these are just a sample of what the show is capable of. 

Ten: “Power Ponies” (Season 4, Episode 6)

One of MLP’s favorite things to do is to put in little references, but never draw attention to them. Just letting the fans figure them out on their own. 

For example, one of the reoccurring characters is a pony with an hourglass cutie mark (the little tramp stamps on all the ponies) and has appeared different times in the show as a Pegasus (winged horse) and a regular earth pony. His name is Doctor Whooves. Another is at the end of an episode that will be featured on this list, that is quite similar to the medal ceremony at the end of the first “Star Wars.” Even simple references, like “Chocolate Rain.”

Well, this episode is full of those kinds of references, without even needing to know them to enjoy the episode. Our main characters get sucked into a comic book and become the title characters, the Power Ponies, each with their own unique super power that in turn is a reference to another superhero. 

Rarity gets the power of creating energy constructs with her mind (a reference to Green Lanturn) but mostly uses them for fashion and glamor purposes. Pinkie Pie can run at super sonic speeds (hey there Flash, nice to see ya) but she uses them to dash down the street to cupcake store before anyone even notices. 

However, the best one of all is Fluttershy, the quiet and kind one who would never hurt a fly...getting the powers of the Hulk. When she gets angry, she turns into a gigantic rage monster. Of course, it takes her a while to finally get mad but when she does it is hilarious. This episode makes the list almost solely on Fluttershy hulking out and being the funniest moment in any episode. To watch her meek and happy spirit disappear and to see the anger set in is wonderful to watch.

Nine: “Dragonshy” (Season 1, Episode 7)

One of the most common questions amongst fans of the show is who the best pony is. For the most part, it seems to be split equally between all six main characters, with each one having a good argument for why they are better than the others. 

My pick for the best would be Fluttershy, not because she is the funniest or most dedicated, but because she only wishes to help others. She represents the spirit of kindness. Forgiving, respectful, courteous, selfless, understanding and would do anything to make her friends feel better. She sees all life as equal, from the tiniest insects to the massive dragons. 

The moment I realized this was an admirable trait was in this particular episode, where a dragon has decided to rest near the town of our main characters, Ponyville, and threatens to cover all of their land in a dark cloud of smoke and smog. It is up to our heroes to climb the mountain and get the dragon to leave, by whatever means necessary. 

Most of the episode is the journey up the mountain, with Fluttershy not wanting to tag along because of her fear of dragons and constantly slowing down the group. Since this is early in the shows run, the group isn’t fully developed yet and characters like Rainbow Dash and Rarity don’t believe in Fluttershy and wish she wasn’t coming along.

Once they finally get to the dragon and attempt to get him to leave, their plans fall apart and they are nearly demolished by this beast. It isn’t until Fluttershy steps up and asserts herself against the dragon for hurting her friends. In the process, she makes the dragon cry. 

“Dragonshy” is exciting, well-paced, gives us a greater sense of this world and is a wonderful piece at building up the character of Fluttershy. That beyond her shy exterior lies someone who will do whatever it takes to protect what she loves. 

Eight: “Too Many Pinkie Pies” (Season 3, Episode 3)

Ah, Pinkie Pie. Always willing to do anything for a laugh or to brighten someone’s day, even if that means breaking the fourth wall. She only has one setting: Over the top craziness. 

Which is why one Pinkie Pie is enough. When she discovers a magical mirror pool that creates copies of herself, suddenly the town is overrun with an army of fun-loving destroyers. 

This one makes the list because of how consistently funny it is, whether casting spells that turn frogs into oranges, a newly copied Pinkie Pie learning how to pronounce her friends names or the final sequence where every copy is forced to watch paint dry to find out who the real one is. 

It is also a nice change of pace for Pinkie Pie, as having multiple copies surrounding her causes a crisis within her and makes her think what exactly makes her stand out. That she isn’t just the loud, crazy and happy-obsessed pony but the thoughtful and caring one who only wishes to make others lives a little bit brighter. 

Seven: “Lesson Zero” (Season 2, Episode 3)

I find that the main character of the show, Twilight Sparkle, is often at her funniest when she embraces the madness. She is the most restrained and calm-minded of the characters, always with everything in order and has a plan for all occasions. To her, life is one giant test that you must be prepared for or else you will fail. 

When things do go wrong, Twilight goes absolutely insane. Even if the tiniest thing is out of place and there is a chance she could look bad because of it, she will lose. This episode is the best example of that, as Twilight must always send a weekly report to her mentor, the ruler of this land, Princess Celestia. When she finds out that a week has gone by and she has not learned anything new, she goes crazy and tries to force others to learn anything. 

This includes going to see all her friends and making conflicts happen, as well as forcing everyone in town to love her stuffed animal by means of a spell.

In a way, Twilight’s logic makes sense. She believes if she does not do everything Celestia tells her to do, then it will make both of them look bad, and Celestia could use her godlike powers to do anything to Twilight as punishment, including sending her back to the lowest level of schooling. Failure is never an option with her, so to she her attempt this is what makes this episode so powerful. 

Six: “The Ticket Master” (Season 1, Episode 3)

If I were to get someone interested in this show three episodes to start on, it would be the initial two-parter that opens up the show and this episode. The first two episodes are great at establishing the world of Equestria and how it operates and sets the ground work for how the show will progress. 

The following episode, “The Ticket Master,” is wonderful at telling us how each of our main characters will work, their differences, strengths, weaknesses and why we should care about them. 

Celestia sends Twilight two invitations to the biggest pony event of the year, the Grand Galloping Gala. The problem is each of Twilight’s five friends has a good reason for why they want to go, and Twilight only has two tickets. 

This episode could easily become formulaic but never becomes cliche or predictable. The reasons for why each one wants to go is admirable and true to their character, and Twilight never shows any signs of picking favorites. She sees them all as equals and would love to give them all the tickets, but can’t. 

There is of course attempts from the other characters at bribing Twilight, but each attempt feels genuine in helping out Twilight, not just some attempt to win the ticket. They may care about going to the Gala, but they care about Twilight more. 

A great introduction to the show and one of the most well-written episodes of the shows run.

Five: “The Return Of Harmony” (Season 2, Episodes 1 & 2)

One of the biggest pieces of lore with MLP, is that each of the six main characters is a piece of an unbelievable source of power, known as the Elements Of Harmony. Each character represents a different admirable virtue, such as loyalty, generosity, kindness and honesty.

In the two-parter to open up the second season, these virtues are tested when a thousand-year old threat returns, Discord, the spirit of disharmony and unhappiness. An omnipotent creature whose only wish in life is to create chaos and corrupt the innocent. He is the most effective villain in the shows run for a couple reasons, one is that instead of just using his powers to do whatever he wants, he instead gets the head of his victims and makes them think terrible thoughts. He makes them realize their weaknesses and lets them draw their own conclusions. 

The other reason is who voices Discord, John de Lancie. You may not recognize the name, but you will remember his voice and personality. De Lancie played Q on “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” an omnipotent creature who is supposed to watch over the universe but had grown bored and decided to just start messing with whoever he encounters. 

Sound familiar? 

According to the shows creator, Lauren Faust (who also created “Powerpuff Girls” and “Foster’s Home For Imaginary Friends”), Discord is one gigantic reference to Q, topped off with the actor who played Q now voicing the spirit of chaos. Beyond that, he is the perfect rival to our main characters. He loves what he does, even if that means corrupting others and making the elements of generosity, honesty and kindness into elements of greed, lying and cruelness. He could use his powers to do whatever he wants, but what would be the fun in making sense?

Four: “Bats!” (Season 4, Episode 7)

I believe this is the most well-written episode of the show thus far. Every character is at their best here, where a horde of vampire fruit bats have attacked Applejack’s home and threaten to suck all of her apples dry. She and the other main characters see them as nothing but monsters who need to be dealt with, except for Fluttershy who feels they are simply misunderstood and that this can be dealt with peacefully. 

The conflict is not forced by any means and comes naturally from within the characters. Something I wish the show did a bit more often was make the conflicts of certain episodes revolve around different viewpoints of our main characters. That way it feels akin to a family feud, with each one having a valid point but too stubborn to see the other side. 

This is also one of the most atmospheric episodes. It takes its time, especially at night when our heroes are hunting down whatever it is that continues to eat the apples, even after they’ve dealt with the bats. It all leads up to one of the coolest designs for a character in the show and something that I hope returns someday. 

This is everything that I love about the show all in one package. Excellent writing, beautiful animation, comedy that hits all the right notes and a conflict that never gets old. 

Three: “Magic Duel” (Season 3, Episode 5)

Twilight’s character took an interesting course in season three that saw many shades and development. We saw her look beyond her view that life is a test and that self sacrifice is sometimes the only way, that there is room for change in every creature and her ultimate change that leads her to become an important figure in Equestria. 

Before that, she had to face the challenges of her past. An old foe, “The Great and Powerful” Trixie, whom Twilight forced out of town in a previous episode, has returned with one of the most powerful magical amulets in the world and challenges Twilight to a magic duel, with the loser leaving Ponyville forever. 

If this episode shows anything it is Twilight’s role in Ponyville and why she earned it. The moment Trixie shows up, the others call on Twilight. She is the only one they trust when the situation looks grim. You’d think this would go to her head, but she embraces it and does her best to stop the threat. She is quick thinking and resourceful, but also willing to admit her mistakes, especially with Trixie. 

Outside of that, this is one that either had me laughing or impressed by just how much magic can accomplish in this world. It can take many forms and have different meanings, but the fantasy elements are some of the more awe-inspiring parts of the show. 

Two: “The Cutie-Mark Chronicles” (Season 1, Episode 23)

One of my favorite elements of the show is how cutie marks are used. In this world, a cutie mark will appear on a pony when they have found what they wish to do with their lives. Their mark is a representation of their dreams and goals in life. It is a sign of growing up and realizing what exactly is in important to that particular pony. 

This episode is fairly straight forward: It explains how each of the six main characters got their cutie marks. It also has an interesting vehicle, as each of these stories is being told to the other three main characters, the Cutie-Mark Crusaders, little fillies who don’t have their marks yet and go on adventures in an attempt to find their calling. They feel that if they can learn from their elders, it will better prepare them for future adventures. 

The real drive of the episode is the back story for each of the main characters. Each one is unique and stays true to their roots. The most interesting one is Pinkie Pie’s, as she grew up on a rock farm where she wasn’t allowed to smile or play. After she saw a giant rainbow that made her light up, she realized that she wanted to share this happiness with everyone else so that they don’t experience the same sadness she had to endure. 

This one is fun from start to finish. Great pacing, touching and still finds a way to have a good moral even if it is mostly back story. 

One: “Sonic Rainboom” (Season 1, Episode 16)

This is the episode where I fell in love with this show. Every character gets a chance to shine here, whether through comedy, drama or just being themselves. There is never a dull moment and every scene lasts just long enough to get the point across without overstaying its welcome. 

The episode follows Rainbow Dash as she competes in a flying competition in an attempt to impress her idols, the Wonderbolts, the best flyers in Equestria. Naturally, she is nervous about competing and wants her friends to be there for her. Unfortunately, this is happening in the Pegasus City of Clousdale and only Pegasus can stand on clouds. Thanks to some spells by Twilight, Rarity magically grows butterfly wings and becomes so enamored by their beauty that she competes as well. 

Like “Bats!” this one is incredibly well-written, with the conflict arising naturally from within the characters flaws, without changing elements and values just to suit the plot. You could also make a case that this is just as much about Rarity as it is Rainbow Dash, with both changing as characters and having genuine moments where they realize their flaws. 

Also, this is the most exciting episode to watch, especially once it gets to the competition. There is always a sense that Rarity’s wings would disappear at any moment, and the more she becomes absorbed into them, the worse her downfall will be. This leads to one of my favorite moments in the show where Rainbow Dash has to save Rarity and prove to herself that she is tougher than she thought. 

“Sonic Rainboom” is, like “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” in general, a brilliant example of creativity and imagination. It does not just want to get kids attention, but wants to entertain them and give them stories that aren’t too far off from other more adult shows. It is respectful and does a great job at covering a full range of emotions. 

Found Footage Films: Good Or Bad?

In the last few years, a new genre of films has begun to emerge: The found footage genre. 

Typically used as a subgenre of horror, it began with “The Blair Witch Project” for its unique way of story presentation, offering a tale about a group of people usually encounter something beyond their control and power and decide to film the whole incident so that others would believe them.

This has led to the creation of many well-received films or box-office hits, such as the “Paranormal Activity” franchise, “Cloverfield,” “Apollo 17” and “The Trollhunter.” 

This genre gives me mixed reactions. I don’t want to call it a good way to make a film, but there are upsides. 

For one, found footage films, more than any other type of movie, offers up a unique perspective of an event, where the camera is playing an active part in the story. This makes the audience feel like they are apart of the action and gives a greater sense of immersion. When the cameraman is running away from a giant troll, only to look back and see it coming at full force, the fact that are apart of this really begins to sink in.

On top of that, the idea that this a story of doomed souls gives the events just the right amount of dread and excitement. You know something bad will happen to all of these characters, but you don’t know when or how they will meet their demise. 

Such is the strength of “The Trollhunter” as a group of teenagers hunt down trolls but have no experience doing so, only slowly learning from their mentor. Because they are inexperienced, death lurks around every corner, and their next breath could be their last. They don’t dwell on death though and continue to film in memory of those that they lost, to finish what they started. This makes the characters more than just a body count and makes them relatable characters. 

There is a flaw within the system of found footage films. I will admit, outside of “The Trollhunter,” of the films I’ve previously mentioned, I hate them all. 

This is not because they are found footage, but within simple problems of storytelling. The characters in films like “Paranormal Activity” and “Cloverfield” are so unlikable, so unrelatable and so dickish that there is no reason to care about them when they die. Because most of them are assholes to one another, you almost want to see them die just so that you don’t have to deal with them anymore.

In “Cloverfield,” the characters do nothing but moan, whine and complain about their petty problems, like not getting their girlfriend to come to a party or that they are on the verge of breaking up. Complaining about your problems is not a character trait, it is merely annoying and a weak distraction from the plot. 

The first rule about making dramatic actions, like a monster attack, carry some weight and mean something is to make the audience care about it. To make it more than just flashy effects and eye candy. The best way to do this is to put your cast of characters in the middle of the action and make the audience care about their struggle. 

If the audience does not connect with the characters or does not care about them, then any action scenes will mean nothing. You could have the monster rip the head off the Statue Of Liberty, but if the main character is an idiot who can’t see the obvious then that action will fail to impress. 

I feel this is the biggest problem with most found footage films. Their inability to create characters who we want to see survive. Not just serve as another body or gross death, but as our guide through this haunting tale. Most of these films do not seem to understand that, which is why I hate them. 

However, there is plenty of potential in the found footage genre. In 2012, “Chronicle” told a slightly found footage story about a group of teens who happened across a meteorite that gave them telekinetic abilities. The rest of the film is about how each of them uses their powers and how one, thanks to a terrible upbringing, intends to use is powers for his own selfish needs. This is heightened by the teens slowly learning about their powers and the magnificent flying sequences as the camera flies through the clouds. This is one of the few sequences in cinema that made me feel like I was flying, like someone strapped a Go-Pro to Superman. 

With a combination of visual effects that made you feel apart of this world and characters who face struggles that could happen to anyone, “Chronicle” became one of my favorite films of that year. Not only that, but it gave me hope that the found footage genre had potential to become something incredible and unique to cinema. 

Quentin Tarantino & His Dialogue

One of the biggest reasons for Quentin Tarantino’s success and acclaim is his use of dialogue throughout his many films. His dialogue is, for lack of a better term, unique. 

It is often blunt and to the point, but will also take its sweet time to let the audience immerse themselves in the dialogue. Scenes from “Inglorious Basterds” seem to exist solely for the sake of dialogue, including one involving Mike Myers as a British military officer or a group of Nazis playing games and having some beers. While in other films, like “Kill Bill Vol. 2” the dialogue serves to punctuate dramatic moments and heighten the tension of the final showdown between the bride and Bill. 

Often times, the dialogue acts as its own character of the story. It adds an air of grandiose and majesty to everything the characters do. Even the simple act of telling an anecdote, like in “Reservoir Dogs” seems more detailed and awe-inspiring with the dialogue that is used. 

However, Tarantino’s use of dialogue might be his greatest strength, but it is also his greatest weakness. 

It comes across like Tarantino puts so much focus on the lines and discussion in his films that he is blinded by it. Going back to “Inglorious Basterds” that scene with the Nazis goes on for what feels like twenty minutes. We watch these soldiers play their games and shot the breeze, but it ultimately does not add anything to the film. The majority of that scene could have been edited out of the film, and it would not have affected anything. 

The story, pacing and characters of a Tarantino film often take a backseat to the dialogue. This is repeatedly becomes distracting and causes the film to fall apart after multiple viewings, especially with works such as “Jackie Brown” and “Kill Bill Vol. 2.”

Another problem is something that has been addressed by many other people, but is still a valid point: Do you know anyone who talks like a character in a Quentin Tarantino film? Because I don’t. 

The dialogue in his films is sometimes unnatural and removed from reality. For example, most of the conversations between Jules and Vincent from “Pulp Fiction” don’t flow like real conversations. Their discussions might be funny and quirky, but they usually just exist for their own sake. 

This would get even worse in later Tarantino films, when discussions would stop being relevant to the plot and just serve as a distraction from the rest of the film, with the key example being “Inglorious Basterds” and its many scenes of characters taking their time to get to any important details and plot points.

Dialogue should be there to support the story, foremost. Tarantino will use his lines and conversations as a distraction from the story. For this reason, it comes across like Tarantino’s dialogue is pretentious. Trying to be deep and thoughtful, when in reality it is superficial and distracting. 

However, that does not mean his dialogue is not something to be admired. There are many times where his conversations hit just the right note, without going over the top or being underplayed. Many examples come from both “Reservoir Dogs” and “Django Unchained,” where there is a level of menace and danger to the story and the dialogue draws it out further, adding to the suspense. 

I feel those two films are the best example of Tarantino as a filmmaker, as opposed to “Pulp Fiction” being a great example of him as a writer. In “Django Unchained” the story and characters are complimented by the dialogue and help to build a better sense of how this world works and who these people are. The discussions don’t drag on any longer than they need to and are relevant to story. 

So, what does that say about Quentin Tarantino and his work? Does that mean his dialogue is bad or that his movies don’t hold up? Not at all. 

While the way Tarantino’s characters talk may not be like anyone we know, that does not make it bad. Films are otherworldly and no one understand that better than Tarantino. His films are always removed from reality and so his is dialogue. It never attempts to be how we perceive ourselves, but how we wished we could talk. 

There is something to be admired in work that is able to stand up thanks to its dialogue alone, made even more impressive when this type of dialogue changed the way we structure scenes. Many other filmmakers attempted to create the next “Pulp Fiction” or “Reservoir Dogs” but were never able to find a balance between quirky dialogue and sensible stories. 

So while Tarantino’s dialogue may have its flaws, it is still wholly unique. When it is used properly, it can be both quirky and give a better sense of character. If used improperly, it can be distracting and bring other bigger problems to light. It is all about finding the right balance between the two, and Tarantino does that better than most filmmakers. 

"Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?" vs. "Misery"

Sometimes I don’t understand why certain films get the amount of praise they get. 

In some cases, like with “Vertigo” the praise is understood but often overblown when you look at Alfred Hitchcock’s body of work. While others, like “Casablanca” complete escape me as that film always manages to put me to sleep.

One film that has found a middle ground between these two cases is “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?” Many people say that it serves as a capstone to both Joan Crawford and Bette Davis’ careers and offers up a nice parallel to their acting rivalry. The two had always butted heads, ever since the beginning of their careers in the early 1930s when they fought for the same roles. 

That is fair enough, since both Crawford and Davis had long careers that spanned decades and gave us some of the darkest and bitter performances in cinematic history, especially from Davis.

However, an element like that can only take the movie so far. That is something you look at after the fact, but does not do you much good as you watch the film. If the film fails to entertain you or keep your attention as it is happening, then no amount of hind sight is going to make it into a good experience. 

When I look at any film, the main aspects I focus on are the story and the characters. To me, those points of “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?” do not hold up. The story is repetitive and cliche, and the characters are so irritating that it makes me want to yell at the screen. 

This is intriguing since, around the same time I watched “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?” I also watched a similar film, “Misery.”

When I say these two movies are similar, I am talking about the story: A person, usually bound by a wheelchair, is being held captive against their will by someone who does not want them to leave. 

In the case of “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?” it is the crazy sister who doesn’t want her famous sibling to leave their house so that she’ll have another chance at stardom. With “Misery” it is an obsessed fan of a novel writer who wants this man to rewrite his most recent book so that her favorite character is reborn. 

Over the course of both films, these captives make attempts to escape from their prison or contact the outside world but usually fail due to their plans falling apart, bad timing, or their captor finding out. 

Which film is the stronger piece? Which one holds up and which is the more intense to watch?

Considering their stories are fairly similar, let’s look at the characters. 

In “Misery,” Paul Sheldon (James Caan) is the novelist who broke his leg after a car accident and is slowly being nursed back to health by Anne Wilks (Kathy Bates). Once he realizes that he is a prisoner, he makes every sort of attempt to get out of there. He forces Anne to go into town to buy paper when he secretly uses that time to use a bobby-pin to sneak around the area. He collects the medicine from the pills Anne forces him to take and then puts it all in her wine when she isn’t looking. 

Paul actively tries to escape and comes up with cunning plans while gathering more information about his captor, in an attempt to woe her over so that she could legitimately let him go. He is smart, quick on his feet, courageous and quick to the point. 

With “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?” on the other hand, Blanche Hudson (Joan Crawford) has been forced to live in a wheelchair for years now and spends most of her time in her mansion, which she shares with her sister, “Baby” Jane Hudson (Bette Davis). Jane resents Blanche for ruining her one chance at becoming a star and now wishes to do the same to her by keeping Blanche locked up in her own house. Blanche gets opportunities to escape, but is often scared or confused by what might happen or what could become of her sister if she found a way out. Therefore, she lets opportunities pass her by and essentially becomes a prisoner of her device. 

Blanche is infuriating to watch. It is not like she comes with elaborate ways to escape and those plans fall apart. It’s more like she is petrified to do any sort of action that she ends up doing nothing. She is dimwitted, cowardly and wouldn’t know a good escape if it was handed to her.

Put yourself in the position of both Paul and Blanche and ask yourself what you would be more likely to do. Would you actively try to escape or talk your way out by making your captor see your way? Or would you just sit there, letting opportunities to escape pass you by and hope that another moment will come along?

Not only is Paul the more logical and active one against is captor, but is also the more suspenseful to watch. He can match the intelligence of Anne and even though he at a disadvantage by having his legs broken and being tied up to a bed, he can still find ways to thwart Anne. 

Blanche, on the other hand, is far too forgiving of her wicked sister and never really tries to appeal to her humanity, other than telling Jane, “Please stop. This has gone too far.”

As for the antagonists of both pieces, they are both crazy and obsessed but for different things. 

Jane wants what she feels rightfully belongs to her, stardom. She believes that Blanche is nothing compared to her and that she is the better actress. This has haunted her since the day Blanche became an actress and has made Jane want to one-up her at every opportunity. 

Anne, on the other hand, offers up a calm and pleasant demeanor at first. Someone who is willing to nurse someone back to health after an accident. It isn’t until she find out that the man she is helping is her favorite novelist that things change. She becomes obsessed with him, as well as how she perceives these novels and their characters. So much so that she is willing to keep Paul around indefinitely until she gets what she wants. She believes this for everyone who has ever read one of Paul’s novels, but deep down she knows it is all for her. 

While I don’t have as much of a problem with Jane as I do with Blanche, I believe that Anne is the better character. There is only one side to Jane: Obsession with the past. Everything she does is to go back to her wonderful days when she was Baby Jane, and nothing else. 

Anne, however, has multiple sides to her. It is her ability to snap between the kindhearted nurse and the psychotic fangirl that makes a far more interesting character. To go from one side to the other gives her a bit of unpredictability, as well as sympathy. 

I have no reason to relate to Jane, because of the terrible things she does to her sister. With Anne, her heart is in the right place when she takes Paul in. She does everything that she can to help him back to full health and to produce the best novel he has created. 

I will give “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?” enough credit to say that Bette Davis’ performance as Jane is terrifying yet sometimes funny to watch, the cinematography is eerie and off-putting and it does serve as a fascinating end to the rivalry between Davis and Crawford. 

However, I believe that “Misery” is a superior film for its relatable and intense story, sympathetic and brave characters, genuine moments of suspense and tension and an atmosphere and setting that matches that tension of isolation and solitude. 

While these two films are not exactly the same, they do have their share of similarities. Which is why I feel this comparison is fair, especially when one had me excited to see what would happen next and the other had me screaming about how the protagonist was a coward.