Great films I hate (or why I shouldn’t be a Film Editor: The Sequel)

Following on from last week’s feature, 'Shit films I love', I decided to continue my public shaming. The following films have caused much contension in the Felix Office – one in particular is one of my co-Editor's favourite films. But I'm sure everyone has been there – watching a film that everyone else thinks is amazing/wonderful/life-changing (delete as appropriate), but you just can't understand what the fuss is about. It's not that I can't appreciate the intrinsic cinematic worth of some of these films, because I can, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching them. And if everyone can resist the temptation to lynch me/form an angry mob on campus I'd be very appreciative...

Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001, 2002,2003)

So. Boring. I'm going to admit right away that I struggle with fantasy – I find it hard to relate to as a genre. I also appreciate simplicity in a film - too many things to remember/too many characters or species or whatever and I get frustrated. If I'm going to have to work so hard to watch a film, it better have something special to say (and frankly these filmsdon't reap much in terms of reward.)

But, that's not to say I can't appreciate the fantastic things about this trilogy. The sheer level of effort is incredible: the effects, costuming, cinematography and scale. And the acting callibre is amazing, but none of this saves the films from essentially being long, quite same-y, action sequences. I think the truth about this trilogy is they are wonderfully executed, but based on a story that I care little for. I have the same problem with the books – there is a limit to the amount I care about a gang of tiny, jewellery-obsessed hairy men.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Where to begin? I think the main issue is that I just don't get it. I suspect I'm not alone in this – I have this suspicion that most people just pretend to get whatever the hell it is about, but, really, they haven't got a fucking clue. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a teenager haunted by hallucinations of a large rabbit, which manipulates him to go on a crime spree. Mixing sci-fi, black comedy and mental illness was always going to be tricky, and from a young, practically unknown filmmaker even more so. Nobody can fault the writer director Richard Kelly for his imagination and confidence of style (which would be impressive even in an established director), but he pollutes an interesting story with confusing imagery and too much plot layering. Donnie Darko is probably more style than substance, but even the style misses the mark. Too chaotic and too weird for me, and I still don't know what Kelly was trying to say, despite the film's dedicated cult following.

Sin City (2005)

This film disturbed me so much I can't look at Elijah Wood without imagining him limbless and smiling, being gnawed on by a wolf (maybe that's part of the reason I hate LOTR so much.) I know that the film is visually a piece of genius – the production design and cinematography is AMAZING, as is the original score. It has a great cast, but overall I think the film falls into the same 'more style than substance' category. A less than memorable story and overly extreme violence are not made up for by slick camera work and wonderful colour palette and visual shaping.

Revolutionary Road (2008)

This film saw DiCaprio and Winslet reunited for the first time since Titanic in 1997, so naturally I was curious to see how their chemisty had changed on screen over ten years on. They play a suburban couple, the Wheelers, whose loveless marriage is irrevocably disintegrating. I understand why this film is the way it is – slow and stilted – reflecting the mundane suburbia the couple find themselves in. They represent the bourgeoise of post war America, plagued by lack of purpose, hopeless consumerism and the stasis of everyday life.It has amazing production design and is beautifully shot by director Sam Mendes. But just because I can appreciate the film in an objective way, doesn't mean I enjoy it. The book, written in the 60s by Richard Yates, was full of black humour in a way that the film isn't, but also allowed for much more connection with the Wheelers. Investment in the couple is essential for the audience of this film, because the scripting is light, and the plot even more so – without it, despite its style and moving depiction of the subtleties of the human condition, the film failed to keep my attention.

Fight Club (1999)

The inclusion of this film on my list nearly caused a real fight in one of my lectures (not really, but I like to imagine people get as worked up about films as I do). This film starts really well, but it unravels in an epically pretentious fashion towards the end, becoming a victim of its own cleverness. The film is about masculinity crisis, starring Edward Norton as a twitchy 'every man' type, who, when discontented with his dead-end job, forms a fight club with Pitt, a salesman. The fight scenes are excellently constructed, and the audio post work is deliciously flinch-worthy. And the film has an interesting premise – but the twist at the end is inexpertly executed. For all the film's pretension, by the end it ceases tomake any kind of sense. I've been reliably informed that the book on which the film is based is much more coherent. Finally, one of the most annoying things in films is when the beautiful hero escapes dangerous situations unrealistically unmaimed – Pitt barely sustains more than a scratch.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

Probably my most hated, yet well executed film of all time. Widely found to be hilarious, yet I can’t seem to fathom why. Essentially nothing happens – 90 minutes of nothing. Intended to be deadpan and quirky, I would rather punch myself in the face repeatedly than watch this film again. That said, the first time full length director Jared Hess creates an excellent framework for comedy (a fact almost insulting given the cinematic results.) There is plenty of room provided for lead Jon Heder to shine, but his lack of future career success suggests that he lacked the skill to make Napoleon remotely likeable. In short, Napoleon Dynamite is a film a lot less cool than it clearly thinks it is.

Fantasia (1940)

I love Disney animation. But this film disappointed me greatly as a child – I kept waiting for the main feature to begin. I couldn't fathom a film without dialogue at that age, and the sinking feeling I felt when I realised thisis just animation set to music upsets me no less even now. The animation is great (come on, this is Disney, of course it is) but the concept of animation based on music instead of coherent storyline doesn't work for me. And I hate the music.

American Beauty (1999)

I don’t know if my co-Editor will ever talk to me again after including this, but I can’t pretend to like this film. The film has a great concept, is subversive and well executed in terms of direction, but I couldn’t relate or even connect in an objective way to any of the characters. Kevin Spacey plays a father infatuated with his daughter’s hot best friend (Mena Suvari). The film is supposed to be a tragicomedy about middle class American life, but at times the film verges on the pretentious (the iconic scene with Suvari frolicking on a bed of roses – rose petals forming a visual motive throughout – a prime example of this). I don’t hate this film, but I certainly can’t see why it is so highly regarded (clearly I am in the minority here – it won an Academy Award for Best Picture.) But for me: underwhelming and self important.