It’s time yet again for the article that’s easy for me and fun for you- Fun with Netflix Viewer Reviews! The fourteenth volume of people writing really funny Netflix viewer reviews focuses on Oscar Best Picture-winning films. These are presented completely unedited. Even when you think I might have edited something in or out of the copy, I assure you that I have not.
The classic “battle of the bands” movie, in which our hero (The Kid) overcomes adversity and defeats the entrenched musical establishment by kicking butt in a triumphant orchestral finale. Oh wait, that’s Purple Rain. Um, this movie is basically a Purple Rain ripoff.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
you’ve got to be kidding me. This is movie is complete crap. If you watch this movie don’t believe any of it. You will get more out of Gomer Pyle than the Hurt Locker. Should have been called “Loosely Based on reality Locker”.
Chariots of Fire (1981)
You want to see forgettable white guys with English and Irish accents run for almost two painful hours this is your film. I saw this in the theatre in ’81 and quickly and luckily fell asleep. Sometimes, just hype will get people to flock to a movie. If it’s foreign and your not sure you really understand what’s going on, it must be good, huh? This film stole allot of “Oscars” in ’81 and deserved none of them. Some of Hugh Hudson’s visuals are spectacular, but not worthy of your butt falling asleep and your valuable queue up space. Highly overrated..if you missed this back in the day and want to see what all the fuss was about, I tried to warn you.
Editor’s Note: It’s harshly stated but I pretty much agree.
Some very good moments. Great acting. Doesnt stand up to todays standars though. I miss these pro American movies though.. seems that its mostly anit us now. oh well. ya big babies.
This wasn’t even the best Scottish rebel movie to come out that year. Rob Roy was better in every way imaginable. Better acting, better love story, better fights, better politics. And definitely better hair. Mel Gibson always has a “hair by” credit on his movies. But this time it was obvious it wasn’t really “his” hair. Horrible, matted, never moving. It was so bad it distracted from his so-called “performance.” If you are one of the few who have not seen this bloated “blockbuster” take my advice and see Rob Roy instead.
On the Waterfront (1954)
The most amazing thing about this film is that it’s a macho film without any f-words, g/d words, etc. Why do the films nowadays have to be filled with foul, vulgar language. This along with The Godfather shows definitively that great films don’t need nasty macho language. – A really great film…
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
best movie ive ever seen. swagggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
Not enough nudity…. i mean the movie is called “Driving Ms. Daisy” right!?!, the chauffer’s name is Hoke right?!?
Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
HUMANITY …. every day life love it .. Sooo Many house wives Feel Trapped and unapreciated… This one is raw and real DIGG THIS *
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
I think the generation from that period needs to give the gen xers an apology for this movie.
I’ll start with the positive: the actors could sing reasonably well. Now the negatives: the songs were terrible. Lyrics like “Oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes! They both reached for the gun! The gun! The gun! The gun! The gun! The gun! They both reached for the gun!” sound as if they were written by either a child with attention deficit disorder or a horribly afflicted stutterer. Other lyrics like “You can like the life you’re living. You can live the life you like. You can even marry Harry, and mess around with Ike” are about as well written as “See Jane run! Run Jane Run!” Was this written by Dr. Seuss?” “Cell Block Tango” is a song/scene from the movie that should have been cut. Whether you like it or didn’t like it, there’s no denying that it added nothing to the story (except of course Catherine Zeta Jones’s part). Speaking of Catherine Zeta Jones. I think she’s a fine actress but she didn’t do any acting in this movie. She sang and she danced, but she never had to act out a single genuine emotion (fear, anger, grief, longing, etc.) She simply kept the same performer’s smile on her face through one song after another. It was a completely stoic perfomance that didn’t force her to demonstrate any range as an actress at all (though I applaud her ability to sing and dance). As the war in Iraq is foremost in everyone’s minds, perhaps people don’t want their entertainment to be too serious, profound or meaningful. Maybe that’s why people like the movie. It isn’t profound, meaningful, or even noteworthy. It’s just a bunch of mindless razzle-dazzle.
Editor’s Note: I haven’t seen this movie so I have no clue the veracity of it, but the jabs at the song lyrics cracked me up.
The natural tendency of so-called Christians is to like or dislike a particular religious movie based on the perceived extent of philosophical uniformity with their own doctrinally distorted views of Jesus. They claim to be following Jesus despite rejecting the only message He ever preached: The FATHERHOOD of GOD and The BROTHERHOOD of MAN! Jesus revealed God as the Father of each human being and when once you grasp this idea of God as a true and loving Father, the ONLY concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their place. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature. Even if God were the stern and legal monarch of a universe in which justice ruled supreme, He certainly would not be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender! The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive. What a travesty upon the infinite character of God, this teaching that His fatherly heart in all its austere coldness and hardness was so untouched by the misfortunes and sorrows of His creatures that His tender mercies were not forthcoming until He saw His blameless Son bleeding and dying upon the cross of Calvary! It is an insult to God to believe or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win His favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath!