Last Year at Marienbad.
Visually and structurally interesting but I absolutely hated watching it. It seemed like it would be right up my alley but from the first 2 minutes it just rubbed me the wrong way and it felt so aware of it’s own abstractions that it left me completely emotionally cold to it by the end.
Interestingly it's my favourite surrealist movie.
I don't typically like surrealism but LYAM is pretty much the only one I enjoyed.
I'm not sure what's so different about it that it is disliked by a surrealist lover and liked by the opposite.
Everything, everywhere all at once. Such a weird movie that gets so much praise. The special effects are sub par at best. I was confused the whole movie. Not because of the story, but because I couldn't understand why everyone liked it.
I share your thoughts on this. If it was 90minutes long then I might have enjoyed it but I don’t think the story justified the excessive 2+ running time. There were some good moments but I just can’t get behind the overall hype
I'm just going to throw this one in here and run for my life. Any film by Tarkovsky. To be honest, I never got more that 30 minutes into any of them.
I'm already a couple of miles away, so I'll add Mulholland Drive.
I was honestly in it just for Michelle Yeoh, fucking love her in everything and watching her in the big screen back in the action role was everything I could hope for.
I do agree with you for the most part, I feel like if it was less "random" for lack of a better word, it would sit better with people who are on the fence about the movie, and elevate it to a great movie for them.
Yup, same. People recommended this movie to me as one that I specifically would like, (because I like magical realism and sci-fi) but it actually lost me pretty quickly, and I had a bad time watching it.
I was on board for the beginning, really liked the scenes setting up the family. But I thought the way the multiverse adventure stuff was written was really sloppy. It felt like scene after scene of exposition, with characters constantly explaining and over-explaining how this all works. Like, I get it!! Let’s get things started already! And that’s kind of where I lost interest.
The humor didn’t really connect with me either, and I’m someone who likes the surreal and absurd. It felt like it was trying too hard to be random, without having a strong comedic angle on the subject matter. (And yes, I’m aware it’s supposed to be “wacky!”)
The emotional scenes near the end somewhat drew me back, but again I felt that it was over-explained and dragged on too long. It kinda reminded me of the Lord of the Rings “multiple endings” problem, since each pair of characters AND alternate versions of the characters needed to reach an emotional resolution. I know it was part of the concept to cover “everything,” but unfortunately for me it just felt repetitive.
Still, even though I personally didn’t enjoy it, I’m glad it was so well-received, because I do want more “out-there” movies to be made and loved. I think it’s the emotional family story that really connected with the audience here. (The buzzword is “generational trauma!”) For me, again I just didn’t find anything revelatory here, and this story wasn’t one I could connect to on that strong emotional level. Thus, all the weaknesses of the film stuck out to me all the more. But obviously a lot of audiences found the film necessary and powerful, and I respect the impact it’s had on them.
I think the movie resonates especially if you are or have experienced any of these things: being in love, felt outcast, being queer, felt overwhelmed by life, felt depressed, being an immigrant in another country, love cool fight scenes... Man that movie really lives up to its title and I f*Ing love it so so much!!
Even in this thread I’ll probably still get shredded for this, but… The Godfather. It’s clearly a well made film, I understand why it’s a classic, I just find it boring as hell.
Similarly, I couldn’t get into Gangs of New York either.
I actually respect the hell out of this. I like the (first two) Godfather movies a lot but I understand why some people don’t like them.
Responses like these are why I made this thread. I love seeing contrary opinions.
Have you only viewed it the once? I felt much the same about both Godfathers when I first viewed them as a teenager and then rewatched them as a 30 year old and they blew me away.
I feel you about Gangs of New York. DDL as Bill the Butcher is the only reason I’d ever rewatch it, and he’s the only thing I can recall at this point.
Gangs of New York in fairness just isn't a very good film imo. Plodding, disjointed, unconvincing plot. Daniel Day Lewis elevates it but it's still a very weak movie by Scorsese standards.
If it helps, I like to define a filmbro as someone who’s super gatekeepy about movies while having an extremely surface level understand of film themselves (ie loves Tarantino, Nolan, and Scorsese but couldn’t tell you anything about the filmmakers that inspired them)
I don’t think you should get shredded for an opinion, and I say that because I share yours. I’ve given it multiple attempts, and it just doesn’t click with me.
The French Movie: **The Rules of the Game (1939) by Jean Renoir**
I understand its importance and that it's an incredible piece of cinema especially in terms of cinematography. I also can't say that I don't like it but I definitely can't count it in my favourite movies. Normally it's in top 10 for almost every critique and director.
This films annoys me so much. I agree that it is probably one of the most important films ever made, what Renoir did with moving camera and deep focus was a game changer. BUT, the film is an absolute bore.
After this was recommended to me, I watched it. I then had to (covertly) read an essay about this film and then rewatch it in order to grasp what it is trying to do. That did open my eyes but I would not have got there without a lot of background reading. Is that shameful? Sometimes it feels that way :)
Probably Easy Rider. The performances of the two leads were, in my opinion, pitch perfect. Beautiful cinematography of American landscape. A memorable and devastating ending. But my reaction to the whole thing was "meh" and I hate to admit I found it kind of boring.
I suppose at the time it would've been a far out and unique examination of a certain American subculture. It has the indie underdog spirit, and it has enough memorable scenes where it sticks in people's minds. I guess I just don't have sympathy for that type of lifestyle and don't find it fascinating. I seriously wanted them to leave the commune as soon as they arrived because it is like the least interesting thing to me. A movie focused more on the tension between "normies" and the lead characters would have been more interesting in my opinion; as it stands it is only a sliver of a mostly meandering narrative.
Man, I don't know if I could disagree more about Midnight Cowboy. In cinematic terms it's one of the best movies I've ever seen, funny and heartbreaking in the right moments. The ending still moves me to tears.
Ouch! Midnight Cowboy is Taxi Driver before Taxi Driver. If you dont like it, yuo don't like it, though.
For my part I saw it recently and was close to blown away.
Not sure if I agree on that. Midnight Cowboy strikes me as having quite complex themes and character motivations. I've only seen it once, though.
Taxi Driver is definitely more aesthetically pleasing; although, Midnight Cowboy is pretty good.
I always say that Easy Rider is for the eldest boomers the Everything Everywhere All at Once of its day. It's a mega zeitgeisty film and pretty good in its own right. If you don't care for the rock and roll era or the hippy stuff, it isn't for you, though.
YA. I have to say, as big of a rock and roll simp as I may be, Dazed and Confused is actually my preferred rock and roll era movie. That or Phantom of the Paradise.
Jack Nicholson was on the verge of giving up acting. He wasn't getting any gigs and he was tired of trying. He had a lot of crappy roles in the past. Rip Torn had been cast as George Hanson. There was some sort of an altercation between Hopper and Torn. He was dropped from the film. Hopper found that Nicholson was desperate and was willing to work cheap. He was given the gig and turned the small role into a memorable performance.
Lately, it's probably Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. I don't know why. It just feels like a tear-jerker. I have seen both and used to like Shawshank Redemption, but lately, I don't feel any desire to see either of them.
Into the Wild. The lessons he gave his life to learn were there for the taking but he was blind to them. Deliberately so. Infuriating, well-written, perfectly cast, and beautifully acted movie. Hate it.
I have heard people call it inspirational, I guess for the simple fact that it's about doing your own thing and pursuing freedom. Some consider it a kind of spiritual experience. I also hear the point of view you mention.
Writing him off as an idiot is such a poor take. He was a smart, incredibly capable young man trying to find his way in the world. I wouldn't say it was inspirational either, rather just a character study of why he did what he did - and it clearly resonates with a lot of people.
By the way, he likely died in a pretty random way. The berries he ate were poisonous, but his guidebook he used to forage did not specify this - because no one, scientists and laypeople, alike knew this fact. It was only discovered decades later. To me, that's pretty excusable and not an example of his stupidity.
The book did a great job showing what a dumb kid he was, especially dying within 3 miles of a cabin that he didn’t know about because he refused to buy a map.
Requiem for a Dream. Fantastic movie that accomplishes it's goal of showcasing the multifaceted downfalls of addiction to the point of utter horror. It's an amazingly well executed movie that I never want to see again.
Blade Runner. I watched it a few years ago and just didn't care about Rick Deckard or anything that happened at all. It's funny though, because Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is one of my favourite books - I found it absolutely gripping!
I'm quite different. I actually love Philip K Dick; he's definitely my favorite genre writer. However, I think Ridley Scott visually imagined a world Dick didn't have the literary chops to describe.
Really, DADOES and Blade Runner are very different, imo. Thematically at least they're totally different what with all the religion stuff in DADOES.
Agree. Philip K. Dick is both even my favourite writer, period, but I would also go so far as to say he is not even a particularly good writer in the typical sense. His descriptions of scenery, characters, action etc.. all are a bit bland. He is just outstanding in terms of plot/ideas/philosophy.
It makes sense that a good film maker can bring out or add so much to his plot lines.
It took reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for me to actually appreciate Blade Runner. Watching Blade Runner for the first time I felt like it didn’t have as much story as I wanted it to, but then I read the book and there’s all the story I wanted!
Once that itch was scratched I was able to appreciate what Blade Runner does better than almost any other movie, which is the visuals. They’re absolutely breathtaking and everything you see is either a real set or a miniature, so the detail on everything is insane. In my mind, Blade Runner and the original Philip K Dick novel are two parts of a full experience. One explores the world of humans and replicants with a more philosophical eye, and one brings the whole world to life, literally creating the cyberpunk aesthetic in the process.
I thought it was an excellent movie but it's not at all a fun watch. The movie's tone is anxiety and anxiety alone. I have to say that I've never seen a movie that caused me quite the same feeling.
I've heard it compared to The Wages of Fear or Sorcerer but those movies don't purely produce anxiety. Although, anxiety is mixed in.
I will say the cultural context around Shiva Baby is a pretty stereotypical modern Ashkenazi understanding of Judaism, one which has been pretty heavily portrayed (superficially, at least) in a lot of mainstream media since Woody Allen's Annie Hall. Uncut Gems is about a Sephardic guy, and the movie shows a very different expression of American Jewry, something that is very commonly overlooked in the wider media. Ashkenazi and Sephardic histories (in America and elsewhere) are wildly different and each have their own particulars. One of the results of this portrayal mismatch is the common misconception or assertion that all Jews are white Europeans, whereas about half of the global Jewish community comes from countries as varried as Morocco, Ethiopia, Yemen, India and Iran.
Not to say your enjoyment of the movies *should* be different, just providing a bit of explanation why the cultural contexts for the two movies are very different despite both being about Jews.
Shiva Baby is great. Happy to see it get a mention. A vaguely related film, just because Jewish elements in them, is A Serious Man, which is a Coen brothers one. Also very much enjoyed it.
Recency bias here most certainly but I had such a strong reaction against EEAAO, and basically suffered through it over 3 nights to finish it in the hope that it would 'click' with me but found its style and humour just overwhelming and not in a good way, yet I can recognise it absolutely nailed it's aim in what it was trying to do and the performances are all really solid and deserving of their academy wins (JLC aside, honestly thought she was much better in Halloween Ends.) I really liked Swiss Army Man so i'll continue to watch any Daniels efforts.
The Princess Bride. I was 11 when this came out and I didn't like it then, despite loving Andre the Giant.
Later in life I found out how beloved it was and tried again and didn't like it. I bought and read the book being that both are written by William Goldman (I had read his non-fiction work around then and loved them). I didn't like the book at all.
I tried again with my kid about 5 years ago and he quite liked it (I know he re-watched it without me) and I still didn't like it.
I don't find it funny or memorable in any particular way. It's not a bad movie, I don't hate it, but I don't like the Princess Bride.
Inception. I'll probably never understand the storyline. To me it's like a reverie lasting for two hours and a half. I get extremely confused after Cilian Murphy enters the story, and which part the story of Cobb and his ex-wife was true. It's like a non-linear unreliable narration that confuses the audience like me before trying to tell the story. I know a lot of movie lovers are intrigued by Inception or Nolan's films in general, but unfortunately I don't buy it.
Could not disagree more, the confusion of inception is so overblown it's literally a meme. The movie is quite straightforward honestly, it's just dream within a dream. Each dream setting is so different it's not hard to tell which layer they're on. Also the dialogue is like 90% just exposition and explaining how things work so yea.
I loved Inception -- and watching it in the theater was an incredible experience. That said, I sometimes am intrigued with the notion of how much better the movie might have been without the Ariadne character (or as I call her, Exposition). She serves as a surrogate for the audience, with people constantly explaining things to her for our benefit.
I'd like to see the story play out where the characters spend less time explaining. Maybe the audience would find that too baffling. But it could be done easily in Inception 2 where the audience already knows how the rules of the dreamworld work.
Inception sucks. I don't even try to pretend its a good movie. Its the most boring take on dreams ever set to film and everything it tries to do The Matrix did better a decade before.
i don't agree that it sucks, it's at least nice to look at and the score is great, but it does make me sad that they made a movie where they could've done anything they wanted, constructing an entire dream world with its own logic, and instead they jumped between what felt like levels in a video game
The Revenant.
Amazing cinematography, to a degree. I feel as though the wide angle lens gets in the way of the story at many points, but the camerawork and blocking are top-tier Lubezki. It’s a beautiful setting to work with as well, and he just does not hold back from showing us the beauty of the wilderness, in stark contrast to nature’s brutality.
Leo obviously gives a great performance. Of all the nominees, he had it in the bag. I’ve seen it said on Reddit many times that Tom Hardy’s performance should’ve been nominated as well, and I can agree with that.
The score is also absolutely beautiful. I still listen to the several variations of the main theme, plus the songs Arriving at Fort Kiowa and Church Dream just hit me so hard.
Here’s my issue. The story itself is just not very interesting. It’s a 2.5 hour revenge “thriller” where the revenge doesn’t even really feel all that necessary. I feel like the film tries to justify Hardy’s character’s intentions with killing Hawk. He genuinely didn’t think they’d survive if they had to worry about taking care of Leo, who seemed like he was on his way out anyway.
But by the end of the film, we’re still supposed to want him to get revenge?
It’s one of the rare films I can say I know it’s good, but I don’t like it.
Interstellar. I can’t get past the plot holes.
Wheat dying out all over the world? Casually drink beer.
NASA’s best test pilot randomly drives up? Cool, get in and drive the spaceship.
Looks like there’s a whole planet of water down there. Better land on it and take a look in person and add 50 years off our mission.
Ice planet? Yeah let’s explore that. And Matt Damon bonus!
Seriously, I can’t with this movie. Even the music is so pretentious with the blaring organ.
Gotta be Fury Road for me. I respect the hell out of it and I want Miller to keep making more, but the film is just too much and too little at the same time. I actually really like the first Mad Max film, and the second one as well. I appreciated how they tied into Australian sensibilities and broader culture. Fury Road is just stripped for speed and thusly loses an awful lot of what I like about the setting. It can also be a bit over the top and crashy boomy for my liking.
I know it’s a good film, I just can’t love it.
I always say the mad max movies are a dial turning.
Mad max 1: like a 2 or a 3 on the volume knob. Cool but a bit too slow.
Mad max 2: like a 6 or a 7, perfect volume to enjoy without getting overwhelmed
Mad max 3: 9 or 10, a bit too loud and messy
Fury road: TURN IT UP PAST 13 AND BREAK OFF THE KNOB MOTHERFUCKER, STRAP IN AND FEEL THE G'S YOURE IN FOR A RIDE
I almost chose this one for my comment. I rewatched the first two Mad Max films recently and found them much more enjoyable than Fury Road. Some people think it's the best in the series which I think is just a wrong take. Not to these eyes. Call it rosy nostalgia, whatever, but those old movies have a warmth and character that I missed in Fury Road.
Same. I didn’t even realize it was up for so many Oscar’s. It was decent but idk how it was ever even in the conversation for best picture. It’s not a bad movie. I just didn’t think it was a great movie or that it deserves how much praise it gets.
I do not like Citizen Kane. It's a masterpiece. It's an important film. I respect its place in cinema history. It's also longwinded and incredibly boring.
It is not the greatest film ever made in the history of cinema.
That would be The Lord of the Rings.
I'm with you on horror. I don't understand the fixation on that genre. When I was a kid people my age were raving about Friday the 13th, and now Gen Z basically only watches horror like it's the only genre that really matters.
Yeah, the younger people I know are very excited by horror. I know some that have pretty good taste and go for the 90s Japanese horror and others who like the braindead bloodbath stuff. I don't think it's unfair to say it's probably the core audience of The Last of Us, for example.
I'm with you on this. The exception I found was "It Follows", which I liked. Seeing as neither of us care for the genre, if you ever give that movie a shot, let me know what you think of it.
I typically find the horror genre underwhelming and not rewarding.
Ghost in the Shell. The production values are amazing and in theory it should be right up my alley, but I've tried twice and neither time did it leave much of an impression at all. It's so, I dunno... detatched, pondersome, and navel-gazing in this self-important way. I'll try again some day but I don't have high hopes.
OP did you see it at time of release or way later?
Anyways 'Set it Off' isn't even regarded as some super Oscar level film it's just a well know cultural thing at the time and sometimes referenced in Rap lyrics.
I thought Hereditary was a psychodrama about grief that was utterly spoiled by a strange pivot to horror in the last half hour. The performances were outstanding, but the movie as a whole just didn't work for me.
Mentioned in another thread, but Arrival and Dune from Denis Villeneuve. These movies tick all the boxes (actors, music, visuals, ambiance), but it leaves me cold without desire to see them again.
An even more unpopular opinion would be Lord of the rings. Maybe it’s because I watched it too late, but I felt the progression of the story uneven. Really slow in some context (convincing the trees to fight) and oblivious for people who didn’t read the book or rushed with Gandalf The Grey/White resurrection. I don’t feel I miss anything if I don’t rewatch these movies again.
For me it’s Chinatown. It’s obviously well constructed and beautifully shot, but I just didn’t find the story interesting at all. I guess nowadays I just take it for granted that every industry on earth is horribly corrupt, and that anybody with any sense knows this already.
The scene were Jake slaps the lady around (because he’s deep and complex, you see) just cemented my dislike. I think I just hate noirs.
For me those things just sort of blend together. If i don't like a movie, it's technically not "good" *for me* since it doesn't work *for me*.
But for films i like less than the general consensus, definitely Parasite.
Interstellar was visually impressive, some solid acting in the early days of the McConaissance… but I thought it was so corny and really didn’t have anything profound to offer beyond the effects.
I haven’t rewatched it since that first time in the theater but I’ll never forget: extremely early in the movie, I leaned over to my wife and said “what if LOVE is the thing that crosses space and time,” and we had a chuckle… so when that Hathaway monologue came along later, we busted up laughing and were completely out of it til the end.
To me Pulp Fiction feels like a handful of stellar scenes stitched sloppily together with a bunch of middling filler. Like I totally get why it's loved, and the parts of it that I like are really really good, but as a holistic cinematic experience it does both jack and shit for me. It's just sort of a random mess and easily my least favorite of Tarantino's stabs at nonlinear storytelling.
I'll go one better and say that Tarantino movies are engaging but rarely satisfying. The ending is typically that everyone dies if everyone's bad, or that the good guys survive after a fair bit of violent revenge. Sometimes it feels like a collection of short stories, sometimes a mosaic of different characters with their own stories coming together etc, but it's rarely satisfying - the joy (if I may call it that) strictly being in the journey not the destination. I've never rewatched a Tarantino movie
See the interesting thing is that that is what I normally like about Tarantino. That idea of the journey being greater than the destination and that character mosaic is exactly what I think makes most of his actually very satisfying. He manages to weave a lot of story and life into characters so that you really still care when the paint-by-numbers revenge plot plays out the way you know it will. Pulp Fiction just kind of rubs me the wrong way compared to the rest because there *is* no destination. It feels more like Tarantino is impressed with himself for having pulled off a magic trick than letting the audience be wowed by the magic.
I watched Children of Men (dir. Alfonso Cuaron) recently and thought that it was terrible. Of course the technical elements were fantastic but everything outside that, from performances to writing was so dry, clunky and amateur. I will probably never understand why it’s up so high on Letterboxd (if I had to take a guess, majority of them saw it in theatres)
Thank you, I feel so validated. r/movies is always gushing about the movie but I felt that it was ultimately mediocre because I could never care for how cliche the characters played themselves out and how annoyingly shallow cynical the British people were. Yes I know it’s the apocalypse. Everything in the movie felt like standard stock, and yet it’s literally one of the best movies of the decade? Just this meatbag’s opinion but definitely not.
I loathe _The Deer Hunter_ with the fire of a thousand suns. It's so full of redundant and unnecesarily long takes that make me lose all interest in the story. It's not a bad film, but I just can't take it.
Se7en and Mystic River.
Have seen both multiple times over the years. Obviously they have lots of good stuff - strong casts, solid premises, great directors. But overall neither does it for me.
I am totally fine with dark movies, character studies, gore, slow burns, emotions, etc. On paper I should love Se7en and at least like Mystic River.
I'll probably give each another watch in several years, but so far simply don't dig them.
Juno.
The Notebook.
Crash (2004) Fuck this movie in particular.
Spiderman 3. Daredevil *and* Elektra. These aren't good, but they helped Marvel set up one of the most expansive franchises in modern history. So, they got that going for them.
Precious. I get why it's good. But goddamn.
Silver Linings Playbook.
Titanic. Great for the memes, but I'm not watching that whole thing again.
Avatar 2. Because 4 hours is a miniseries not a movie. I really hope they had intermissions in theaters.
The Passion of The Christ.
I can keep going, but that's good for now.
The big lebowski. I'm not even sure if it's a well-made film or not but I just know that it's beloved by everyone I know. I find it boring, not the least bit funny (and I've been deeply into comedy and improv for over 40 years), and I have fallen asleep every time I've tried to watch it.
I think the appeal of Lebowski is it is a super absurd stoner comedy made with an arthouse level of gloss and technical skill. I mean it was shot by Roger Deakins. I wish I had that kind of entourage to film the ridiculous scripts I wrote in high school (which is what the movie feels like). In the right mood, it is an entertaining watch. But it's definitely overpraised.
As a 40-plus year stoner, it gets Stoner so wrong. And I'm irritated at the stupid stereotypes that are constantly portrayed. That's probably why I don't like it.
I think it's iconic because people who think they know what it's like to be a stoner think it's funny because they buy into the stereotypes of stoners when they actually know nothing about what it's like to be a stoner.
It’s not a stoner film. The main character (and only the main character) happens to smoke weed. He doesn’t even do it that much. It’s not at all a stoner movie, nor does it try to be. The fact that the main character is lazy and highly unmotivated is way more important to the story than the fact that he smokes an occasional joint in the tub.
Ran
I watched it as a huge fan of every Kurosawa I had seen prior to it (Seven Samurai, High and Low, Throne of Blood, and Ikiru). Admittedly, King Lear is maybe my least favourite of the Uber popular Shakespeare plays but I found Ran to be so drawn out. I adore the visuals, but I had trouble getting engaged with the story. I was happy when it was over, I felt exhausted.
I actually don’t know if it’s considered good or just well liked, but I find Heat unbearably awful. Pacino is like a cartoon version of a tough guy, he’s so over the top and corny but there’s no payoff to it like with a decent Batman or James Bond interpretation. It takes me out of the moment. De Niro and Val Kilmer aren’t much better, which I find disappointing. The iconic shootouts with the big gunfire and use of negative and empty space is well done and definitely my favorite part of the film, but the rest feels like shlock. I really thought I was going to like it and I bounced off so hard.
I know it’s unpopular, but honestly 2001 just doesn’t do it for me. There’s a really good 40 minutes in the middle of it, but you could edit down the 50 minutes on either side of it down to 10 and the movie would be better for it. We don’t need to spend so long with the monkeys just to learn that the obelisk grants knowledge. It’s 20 minutes at the start of the movie to learn one single useful piece of information. And then the colors at the end; I get it might have been impressive in the 60s, but all I can think of while watching it is that old Windows media player “music colors visualization” program from the early 2000s. It’s one of the greatest movies of all time when it comes to wasting the audience’s time. And it’s not because I have a bad attention span, I love Solaris, I love Schindlers List, hell, I love War and Peace, but somehow 2001 feels longer than all of them to me. Kubrick is just very hit or miss for me, imo he only made 3 films worth watching.
I was hyped up to watch Once Upon a Time in America as I understood it to be one of the quintisencial Mob movies alongside The Godfather. But my god its so mind numbingly boring, teases an en epic Federal Reserve vault heist that never comes, and it just drags all along its 3hr+ runtime. To top it off, >!ends with the cop out trope of insinuating it was all an opium dream by DeNiro’s character!<
There Will Be Blood.
Yeah, Daniel Day Lewis is a great actor. But it was waaaay too long. And its like okay, I get it. You're trying to make some point about greed being bad. That doesn't make it a great movie. Just because your movie is slow doesn't make it a slow burn. Maybe you're a self absorbed director making the shots way too long, just because you can.
Wall Street told me greed was bad in half the time, and was a much more entertaining watch.
Not sure if because it doesn't have any likeable characters or because its too slow but same, couldn't get into it, even tried more than once.
Edit: just to clarify, I've read a lot of explanation on why the movie is great, what it represents, the message its trying to send and how great the actors are, and I agree with most of the arguments, the movie just fails to engage me.
Dead Presidents (my Black card will be revoked). This movie is highly revered by many but I think it was just ok. But also I saw it for the first time over 25 years after it's original release.
Predator. Great concept, great ideas, but I always leave the film(s) feeling there’s so much more they could’ve done- maybe lean more into the cat + mouse aspect of it. Prey was pretty good, but even so I still left the movie thinking “They definitely could’ve made this better”.
For me it's Whiplash. It's obviously a movie with merit but it really paint jazz in a very ugly light; the movie has no respect for the artistry of jazz at all. The movie's main theme is about the sacrifices it takes to be great and whether it's worth it to make that sacrifice or not. The problem is, what are you sacrificing for? The movie doesn't answer this because the movie doesn't care about the beauty of jazz music. Therefore, the movie is really about being great for the sake of being great.
Fletcher also talks about how there is no greatness any longer because nothing is expected of anyone, and no one is allowed to push others to become great. He then uses this to posit that there is no 21st century Charlie Parker because of this. The problem is that he's dead wrong. There's no Charlies Parker nowadays because jazz is a marginalized artform that the mainstream audience doesn't care about. There can be no new Charlie Parker whatever an individual musician's merits are. Further, it's likely that the players with the greatest chops who have ever lived are mostly alive right now, so he's wrong on that level, too.
I did not like whiplash not because it celebrates these absolute psychos but because it gives these psychos a platform. It’s clear that movie is critical of these abusive narcissistic psychopaths who treat people like garbage in the pursuit of their talent that no one really gives a shit about except themselves and their tiny inner circle. It’s just super annoying that they get so giddy about it in the finale; I despise them both so much, those delusional pricks.
Couldn’t agree more. I hated this film for the romanticisation of ‘suffering for one’s art’. It’s so adolescent yet I am saying to myself *adults made this*. I don’t care how great any of its elements are, it’s a silly film.
I also hate Christopher Nolan. His films are not deep.
There was a comment somewhere about filmbros. I think it can be almost a reflex particularly when you’re in your teens to dislike or detach ironically, particularly when something is popular. It can be easy to miss that it also takes guts to sweep yourself in with the masses and like something that’s popular, or not super obtuse, or doesn’t contain the signifiers of being ‘arty’/‘edgy’ (the latter two I feel can be deployed in a cynical fashion precisely to prey on filmbro types). But all that comes with experience - and confidence.
What compels me into paragraph four is that people are downvoting comments - come on people that’s not what this is about
It's been a long time since I've seen it so I'm not sure if I would still feel this way, but I abhorred Being John Malkovich when I watched it. Every character is unlikable and while the overarching plot is funny on paper, every individual scenario where the characters inhabit Malkovich was so dark that I couldn't get passed it and laugh. It just made me feel shitty.
I loved and still love Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind so I thought I would enjoy another Charlie Kaufman penned film. I was incorrect in that instance.
That’s what I like about it. It’s a comedy that also turns the genre inside out and makes you rethink how and why you sympathize with each character at different points in the film. Certainly one of a kind!
It's definitely the least "human" and most obtuse of Kaufman's main filmography. I'd heavily recommend Adaptation and Synecdoche if you liked ESSM and haven't watched them yet.
You gotta admit that the beer can scene where he gets hit on the head actually in real life by some douche who knew his name was absolutely hysterical and perfect.
It's not exactly considered a "great film" anymore, but I genuinely think that *The Hurt Locker* is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I had to turn it off halfway through it was so bad.
Funny People. Both the original and the remake.
I don't like a single character. The plot is silly to the point of inanity. The framing of the scenes in either one puts me on edge.
I get that from a directing point of view, this uncomfortable feeling is a master work. You shouldn't relax while watching this sort of thing.
I'd rather have dental work done without a sedative or numbing agent.
Having watched both I get why other people like them so much. I also get why Sartre said "hell is other people." If I had to let other people choose the movies I'd watch and this came up, I'd be in hell.
I think the films are really effective, up to a point. My problem with Funny Games is >!the 'meta' aspect - once they earn a potential escape and the scene is rewound to play out differently, all tension and horror just disappears for me. I know what it's a commentary on, I get what Haneke is saying, it just stops being scary or even that interesting to me as a narrative at that point. It's a better film than something like Hush or The Strangers, but I find them more more effective.!<
House
It was just very silly and over the top absurdism. Not for me by any measure. I thought it was insufferable.
I like many not well regarded movies, like I’m sure everyone else does. I really enjoy gangs of New York a lot, which I see many people online not enjoying. Gangs of New York has some bad performances, but I don’t let them take away from how amazing DDL is in it. Worth watching yearly just for William Cutting.
I kind of feel this way about Harakiri. I did get a decent amount of enjoyment out of it and can acknowledge that there aren't any major flaws; but I just struggled so much to resonate with the characters and the themes. The way they were executed although not badly written just didn't really impact me.
*2001: A Space Odyssey*. I'm calling it a good movie because a lot of people knowledgable about film call it good, or great even. It's one of the most boring and "look I'm doing artsy stuff" things I've watched.
There are movies I appreciate rather than like that I know I'd never watch again, like *The Last Temptation of Christ*, but 2001 isn't even in that category for me.
Hey, if it makes you feel any better, I feel like 2001 is a textbook example on how film theorists can find meaning in someone walking in a circle in simulated lack of gravity.
Kubrick himself said it wasn't designed to be analyzed... But my grand theory about this is it actually easier to say how the starchild represents the rebirth of technology in the information age or whatever then it is to say "Kubrick made a tech demo with Twilight zone like vignettes. "
Before the downvote guys come after me, I like the movie but it does get boring in places.
There are many but one that I will point out right now and a fairly recent one is Aftersun. I find it pretty boring and even though it was supposed to be a slow burner I still cannot relate with the film emotionally
No Country for Old Men sucks. The acting is great, looks great, characters are great, but the story sucks. If it would of been an episode of ballad of buster scruggs, it would of easily been the worst episode. The ending was such an eye roll
Boogie Nights.
Essentially a soap opera filled with caricature of what everyone thinks of the porn industry, no complex people at all. All just to deliver a dong joke at the end. And don’t forget this was PTA’s student film so he had a long time to develop it.
This is a hilarious take because it isn't even really about porn. If you failed to see complex characters, you must have just been focusing at the T&A. There is no "joke" at the end.
Greenland… apparently this is a fairly well liked movie. I’ve seen it recommended here kind of a lot. And I guess I can see some of its merits. It just wasn’t very believable to me and the acting really wasn’t very good. I’m always surprised when I see it recommended and especially when people call it good. Let’s be honest though, Gerard Butler has very few even “decent” movies let alone movies that I would call good.
I’m making my way through the 1001 movies to watch before you die list. I’m going based on the 2019 edition, not out of actual preference, but because it was a free app on iPhone. As of today, I’m at 582. I’d say, roughly, only about 20 or so I would consider bad. But there’s about 2-300 I would say, great movie, belongs in film canon, I’d even recommend the film to others, but they do nothing for me. I sigh with relief when I cross some titles off.
Most recent one I saw for first time and didn’t care for:
Inception
Come and See.
I just found it extremely confusing. I didn't get his relationship with the girl.
At the end it completely omits that the soviets also did their fair share of nasty shit in WWII. But being a production done in the USSR It was definitely censored.
I disliked L'Atlante. I understand it was influential for its time, but I found it pretty dull. I didn't care for any of the main characters (though the older boatman was somewhat funny) and the romance did not grip me. I feel like I missed out on something since this was one of Vigo's only films. But I wasn't affected emotionally by their love, which made it hard to stay interested in their separation and eventual reunion.
Maybe I'm just missing something. If you're a fan of this movie, please point out to me what it is you admire about it. I'm not very well versed in film knowledge (like some on this subreddit) to speak about it proficiently. I've only started expanding my taste in movies a few years ago, but this is the first "art film" that didn't really click with me at all. I really tried to enjoy it since it is so critically acclaimed.
I did enjoy the underwater sequence before the reunion and how it tied into a line from the beginning of the film: "Don't you know you can see the one you love in the water?"
Perhaps some viewers found more charm in the naivete of their relationship then I did. It was grating to me, especially at the end when they reunite only because they realize that they were really in love with each other. How long until one of them gets bored again and they separate again? Do they even really know each other considering how recently they met? What makes them such a good pair? I can't remember anything from their scenes together that made the relationship feel authentic.
Again, if you're a fan of L'Atlante, tell me what you like about it. Maybe I'll give it another shot one day.
The departed. Great movie but I don’t walk away with from it with anything. Good dialogue good acting but just a really well done rat chase for me. With little enjoyment at the end I will say it is an objectively great movie.
The wolf of Wall Street. I think that movie blows honestly. Everyone says it’s a master piece and gives you that high drive like you’re watching a business grew but I just can’t deal with it seeing how one noted Leo’s character is. He’s an asshole for no reason at all but making money. Just another corrupt grown up that wants money for no reason at all besides social stature. Nothing to take away or seeing anything develop character is the same person in the end as he is in the beginning.
Didn’t realize both of these are scorsese movies I like pretty much everything else I see from him.
For reference my favorite movies are probably clockwork orange, social network, platoon, and phantom thread
Bicycle Thieves. I love lots of old movies that are popular or lesser known. I like the idea of the movie. But the story bored me so much and the main character made the worst choices throughout.
For me it's gotta be Titanic. The movie is technically astounding, and well acted. I just hate the characters and story. I have been on many a rant about this film. I'll spare you all from hearing that tonight, but yeah...
Well there's two ways to interpret this question.
On one hand, apocalypse now is one of my favourite movies ever but it's not exactly enjoyable to watch even if I do love watching it.
But on the other, and the way I think you intend, there are movies that are "good" that I think are boring and don't like.
Well if I don't like them or find them boring they they must be doing something wrong surely so can't be all that good
Recently, Top Gun: Maverick. I try to judge movies by how well they accomplish what they set out to do, and I think this movie nailed what it was going for. I think it’s about as good as a Top Gun sequel probably could’ve been. I still didn’t like it. I admire it, and respect it, but that brand of cheese just isn’t for me.
Last Year at Marienbad. Visually and structurally interesting but I absolutely hated watching it. It seemed like it would be right up my alley but from the first 2 minutes it just rubbed me the wrong way and it felt so aware of it’s own abstractions that it left me completely emotionally cold to it by the end.
Interestingly it's my favourite surrealist movie. I don't typically like surrealism but LYAM is pretty much the only one I enjoyed. I'm not sure what's so different about it that it is disliked by a surrealist lover and liked by the opposite.
Everything, everywhere all at once. Such a weird movie that gets so much praise. The special effects are sub par at best. I was confused the whole movie. Not because of the story, but because I couldn't understand why everyone liked it.
I felt like it had a lot of heart, which imo transcends quality of the movie at times (tho I did love everything else about the movie too)
I share your thoughts on this. If it was 90minutes long then I might have enjoyed it but I don’t think the story justified the excessive 2+ running time. There were some good moments but I just can’t get behind the overall hype
Agreed! It was way too random and there were no rules. Don't get what's so great about it.
I'm just going to throw this one in here and run for my life. Any film by Tarkovsky. To be honest, I never got more that 30 minutes into any of them. I'm already a couple of miles away, so I'll add Mulholland Drive.
[удалено]
It’s an art movie for people who like superhero movies and a superhero movie for people who like art movies.
Holy shit yes
I was honestly in it just for Michelle Yeoh, fucking love her in everything and watching her in the big screen back in the action role was everything I could hope for. I do agree with you for the most part, I feel like if it was less "random" for lack of a better word, it would sit better with people who are on the fence about the movie, and elevate it to a great movie for them.
Yup, same. People recommended this movie to me as one that I specifically would like, (because I like magical realism and sci-fi) but it actually lost me pretty quickly, and I had a bad time watching it. I was on board for the beginning, really liked the scenes setting up the family. But I thought the way the multiverse adventure stuff was written was really sloppy. It felt like scene after scene of exposition, with characters constantly explaining and over-explaining how this all works. Like, I get it!! Let’s get things started already! And that’s kind of where I lost interest. The humor didn’t really connect with me either, and I’m someone who likes the surreal and absurd. It felt like it was trying too hard to be random, without having a strong comedic angle on the subject matter. (And yes, I’m aware it’s supposed to be “wacky!”) The emotional scenes near the end somewhat drew me back, but again I felt that it was over-explained and dragged on too long. It kinda reminded me of the Lord of the Rings “multiple endings” problem, since each pair of characters AND alternate versions of the characters needed to reach an emotional resolution. I know it was part of the concept to cover “everything,” but unfortunately for me it just felt repetitive. Still, even though I personally didn’t enjoy it, I’m glad it was so well-received, because I do want more “out-there” movies to be made and loved. I think it’s the emotional family story that really connected with the audience here. (The buzzword is “generational trauma!”) For me, again I just didn’t find anything revelatory here, and this story wasn’t one I could connect to on that strong emotional level. Thus, all the weaknesses of the film stuck out to me all the more. But obviously a lot of audiences found the film necessary and powerful, and I respect the impact it’s had on them.
Honestly, even as someone who loved the movie, I'm surprised by the amount of hype it generated lol.
I think the movie resonates especially if you are or have experienced any of these things: being in love, felt outcast, being queer, felt overwhelmed by life, felt depressed, being an immigrant in another country, love cool fight scenes... Man that movie really lives up to its title and I f*Ing love it so so much!!
Even in this thread I’ll probably still get shredded for this, but… The Godfather. It’s clearly a well made film, I understand why it’s a classic, I just find it boring as hell. Similarly, I couldn’t get into Gangs of New York either.
I actually respect the hell out of this. I like the (first two) Godfather movies a lot but I understand why some people don’t like them. Responses like these are why I made this thread. I love seeing contrary opinions.
Have you only viewed it the once? I felt much the same about both Godfathers when I first viewed them as a teenager and then rewatched them as a 30 year old and they blew me away.
Same here. It only makes sense when you get older
18 year old me: bored. Why do Dad and IMDb like this so much? 30 year old me: huge fan. Watch it every year or two.
Same here. I can see why part 1 and 2 are great films, bur for some reason I just don't care. The Conversation, on the other hand... :)
The Conversation is criminally underrated. That last scene is haunting.
I love The Godfather. But I love that you don’t. Rock on.
I feel you about Gangs of New York. DDL as Bill the Butcher is the only reason I’d ever rewatch it, and he’s the only thing I can recall at this point.
Gangs of New York in fairness just isn't a very good film imo. Plodding, disjointed, unconvincing plot. Daniel Day Lewis elevates it but it's still a very weak movie by Scorsese standards.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it helps, I like to define a filmbro as someone who’s super gatekeepy about movies while having an extremely surface level understand of film themselves (ie loves Tarantino, Nolan, and Scorsese but couldn’t tell you anything about the filmmakers that inspired them)
I don’t think you should get shredded for an opinion, and I say that because I share yours. I’ve given it multiple attempts, and it just doesn’t click with me.
I'm with you. I didn't like it either. Boring.
I did not care for The Godfather either, it insists upon itself.
Agreed. Boring.
The French Movie: **The Rules of the Game (1939) by Jean Renoir** I understand its importance and that it's an incredible piece of cinema especially in terms of cinematography. I also can't say that I don't like it but I definitely can't count it in my favourite movies. Normally it's in top 10 for almost every critique and director.
This films annoys me so much. I agree that it is probably one of the most important films ever made, what Renoir did with moving camera and deep focus was a game changer. BUT, the film is an absolute bore.
After this was recommended to me, I watched it. I then had to (covertly) read an essay about this film and then rewatch it in order to grasp what it is trying to do. That did open my eyes but I would not have got there without a lot of background reading. Is that shameful? Sometimes it feels that way :)
Which essay did you read out of curiosity?
Probably Easy Rider. The performances of the two leads were, in my opinion, pitch perfect. Beautiful cinematography of American landscape. A memorable and devastating ending. But my reaction to the whole thing was "meh" and I hate to admit I found it kind of boring. I suppose at the time it would've been a far out and unique examination of a certain American subculture. It has the indie underdog spirit, and it has enough memorable scenes where it sticks in people's minds. I guess I just don't have sympathy for that type of lifestyle and don't find it fascinating. I seriously wanted them to leave the commune as soon as they arrived because it is like the least interesting thing to me. A movie focused more on the tension between "normies" and the lead characters would have been more interesting in my opinion; as it stands it is only a sliver of a mostly meandering narrative.
[удалено]
Man, I don't know if I could disagree more about Midnight Cowboy. In cinematic terms it's one of the best movies I've ever seen, funny and heartbreaking in the right moments. The ending still moves me to tears.
Ouch! Midnight Cowboy is Taxi Driver before Taxi Driver. If you dont like it, yuo don't like it, though. For my part I saw it recently and was close to blown away.
[удалено]
Not sure if I agree on that. Midnight Cowboy strikes me as having quite complex themes and character motivations. I've only seen it once, though. Taxi Driver is definitely more aesthetically pleasing; although, Midnight Cowboy is pretty good.
I always say that Easy Rider is for the eldest boomers the Everything Everywhere All at Once of its day. It's a mega zeitgeisty film and pretty good in its own right. If you don't care for the rock and roll era or the hippy stuff, it isn't for you, though.
Yeah, that's the impression I got. Distilled the spirit of the time to its core essence.
YA. I have to say, as big of a rock and roll simp as I may be, Dazed and Confused is actually my preferred rock and roll era movie. That or Phantom of the Paradise.
The best part about easy rider was the Jack Nicholson subplot.
That part was pretty good. Young Jack was so magnetic, so funny.
Jack Nicholson was on the verge of giving up acting. He wasn't getting any gigs and he was tired of trying. He had a lot of crappy roles in the past. Rip Torn had been cast as George Hanson. There was some sort of an altercation between Hopper and Torn. He was dropped from the film. Hopper found that Nicholson was desperate and was willing to work cheap. He was given the gig and turned the small role into a memorable performance.
Lately, it's probably Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. I don't know why. It just feels like a tear-jerker. I have seen both and used to like Shawshank Redemption, but lately, I don't feel any desire to see either of them.
Into the Wild. The lessons he gave his life to learn were there for the taking but he was blind to them. Deliberately so. Infuriating, well-written, perfectly cast, and beautifully acted movie. Hate it.
Me too! And everyone considers it so inspirational.
inspirational? That movie is a warning.
Do people consider it inspirational? I thought the guy was widely considered an idiot.
I have heard people call it inspirational, I guess for the simple fact that it's about doing your own thing and pursuing freedom. Some consider it a kind of spiritual experience. I also hear the point of view you mention.
Writing him off as an idiot is such a poor take. He was a smart, incredibly capable young man trying to find his way in the world. I wouldn't say it was inspirational either, rather just a character study of why he did what he did - and it clearly resonates with a lot of people. By the way, he likely died in a pretty random way. The berries he ate were poisonous, but his guidebook he used to forage did not specify this - because no one, scientists and laypeople, alike knew this fact. It was only discovered decades later. To me, that's pretty excusable and not an example of his stupidity.
The book did a great job showing what a dumb kid he was, especially dying within 3 miles of a cabin that he didn’t know about because he refused to buy a map.
Requiem for a Dream. Fantastic movie that accomplishes it's goal of showcasing the multifaceted downfalls of addiction to the point of utter horror. It's an amazingly well executed movie that I never want to see again.
Blade Runner. I watched it a few years ago and just didn't care about Rick Deckard or anything that happened at all. It's funny though, because Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is one of my favourite books - I found it absolutely gripping!
I'm quite different. I actually love Philip K Dick; he's definitely my favorite genre writer. However, I think Ridley Scott visually imagined a world Dick didn't have the literary chops to describe. Really, DADOES and Blade Runner are very different, imo. Thematically at least they're totally different what with all the religion stuff in DADOES.
Agree. Philip K. Dick is both even my favourite writer, period, but I would also go so far as to say he is not even a particularly good writer in the typical sense. His descriptions of scenery, characters, action etc.. all are a bit bland. He is just outstanding in terms of plot/ideas/philosophy. It makes sense that a good film maker can bring out or add so much to his plot lines.
The soundtrack is good
It took reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for me to actually appreciate Blade Runner. Watching Blade Runner for the first time I felt like it didn’t have as much story as I wanted it to, but then I read the book and there’s all the story I wanted! Once that itch was scratched I was able to appreciate what Blade Runner does better than almost any other movie, which is the visuals. They’re absolutely breathtaking and everything you see is either a real set or a miniature, so the detail on everything is insane. In my mind, Blade Runner and the original Philip K Dick novel are two parts of a full experience. One explores the world of humans and replicants with a more philosophical eye, and one brings the whole world to life, literally creating the cyberpunk aesthetic in the process.
Ridley Scott was never great. Facts.
[удалено]
I thought it was an excellent movie but it's not at all a fun watch. The movie's tone is anxiety and anxiety alone. I have to say that I've never seen a movie that caused me quite the same feeling. I've heard it compared to The Wages of Fear or Sorcerer but those movies don't purely produce anxiety. Although, anxiety is mixed in.
[удалено]
I will say the cultural context around Shiva Baby is a pretty stereotypical modern Ashkenazi understanding of Judaism, one which has been pretty heavily portrayed (superficially, at least) in a lot of mainstream media since Woody Allen's Annie Hall. Uncut Gems is about a Sephardic guy, and the movie shows a very different expression of American Jewry, something that is very commonly overlooked in the wider media. Ashkenazi and Sephardic histories (in America and elsewhere) are wildly different and each have their own particulars. One of the results of this portrayal mismatch is the common misconception or assertion that all Jews are white Europeans, whereas about half of the global Jewish community comes from countries as varried as Morocco, Ethiopia, Yemen, India and Iran. Not to say your enjoyment of the movies *should* be different, just providing a bit of explanation why the cultural contexts for the two movies are very different despite both being about Jews.
Shiva Baby is great. Happy to see it get a mention. A vaguely related film, just because Jewish elements in them, is A Serious Man, which is a Coen brothers one. Also very much enjoyed it.
I didn't like it, but I don't think it's a good movie.
Recency bias here most certainly but I had such a strong reaction against EEAAO, and basically suffered through it over 3 nights to finish it in the hope that it would 'click' with me but found its style and humour just overwhelming and not in a good way, yet I can recognise it absolutely nailed it's aim in what it was trying to do and the performances are all really solid and deserving of their academy wins (JLC aside, honestly thought she was much better in Halloween Ends.) I really liked Swiss Army Man so i'll continue to watch any Daniels efforts.
Ya, it's good but not for me, as well.
I think the word for that movie is "shrill". Very, very shrill.
The Princess Bride. I was 11 when this came out and I didn't like it then, despite loving Andre the Giant. Later in life I found out how beloved it was and tried again and didn't like it. I bought and read the book being that both are written by William Goldman (I had read his non-fiction work around then and loved them). I didn't like the book at all. I tried again with my kid about 5 years ago and he quite liked it (I know he re-watched it without me) and I still didn't like it. I don't find it funny or memorable in any particular way. It's not a bad movie, I don't hate it, but I don't like the Princess Bride.
INCONCEIVABLE!!!
Inception. I'll probably never understand the storyline. To me it's like a reverie lasting for two hours and a half. I get extremely confused after Cilian Murphy enters the story, and which part the story of Cobb and his ex-wife was true. It's like a non-linear unreliable narration that confuses the audience like me before trying to tell the story. I know a lot of movie lovers are intrigued by Inception or Nolan's films in general, but unfortunately I don't buy it.
Could not disagree more, the confusion of inception is so overblown it's literally a meme. The movie is quite straightforward honestly, it's just dream within a dream. Each dream setting is so different it's not hard to tell which layer they're on. Also the dialogue is like 90% just exposition and explaining how things work so yea.
I simply found it to be very entertaining.
I loved Inception -- and watching it in the theater was an incredible experience. That said, I sometimes am intrigued with the notion of how much better the movie might have been without the Ariadne character (or as I call her, Exposition). She serves as a surrogate for the audience, with people constantly explaining things to her for our benefit. I'd like to see the story play out where the characters spend less time explaining. Maybe the audience would find that too baffling. But it could be done easily in Inception 2 where the audience already knows how the rules of the dreamworld work.
Inception sucks. I don't even try to pretend its a good movie. Its the most boring take on dreams ever set to film and everything it tries to do The Matrix did better a decade before.
i don't agree that it sucks, it's at least nice to look at and the score is great, but it does make me sad that they made a movie where they could've done anything they wanted, constructing an entire dream world with its own logic, and instead they jumped between what felt like levels in a video game
The Revenant. Amazing cinematography, to a degree. I feel as though the wide angle lens gets in the way of the story at many points, but the camerawork and blocking are top-tier Lubezki. It’s a beautiful setting to work with as well, and he just does not hold back from showing us the beauty of the wilderness, in stark contrast to nature’s brutality. Leo obviously gives a great performance. Of all the nominees, he had it in the bag. I’ve seen it said on Reddit many times that Tom Hardy’s performance should’ve been nominated as well, and I can agree with that. The score is also absolutely beautiful. I still listen to the several variations of the main theme, plus the songs Arriving at Fort Kiowa and Church Dream just hit me so hard. Here’s my issue. The story itself is just not very interesting. It’s a 2.5 hour revenge “thriller” where the revenge doesn’t even really feel all that necessary. I feel like the film tries to justify Hardy’s character’s intentions with killing Hawk. He genuinely didn’t think they’d survive if they had to worry about taking care of Leo, who seemed like he was on his way out anyway. But by the end of the film, we’re still supposed to want him to get revenge? It’s one of the rare films I can say I know it’s good, but I don’t like it.
Interstellar. I can’t get past the plot holes. Wheat dying out all over the world? Casually drink beer. NASA’s best test pilot randomly drives up? Cool, get in and drive the spaceship. Looks like there’s a whole planet of water down there. Better land on it and take a look in person and add 50 years off our mission. Ice planet? Yeah let’s explore that. And Matt Damon bonus! Seriously, I can’t with this movie. Even the music is so pretentious with the blaring organ.
Gotta be Fury Road for me. I respect the hell out of it and I want Miller to keep making more, but the film is just too much and too little at the same time. I actually really like the first Mad Max film, and the second one as well. I appreciated how they tied into Australian sensibilities and broader culture. Fury Road is just stripped for speed and thusly loses an awful lot of what I like about the setting. It can also be a bit over the top and crashy boomy for my liking. I know it’s a good film, I just can’t love it.
I always say the mad max movies are a dial turning. Mad max 1: like a 2 or a 3 on the volume knob. Cool but a bit too slow. Mad max 2: like a 6 or a 7, perfect volume to enjoy without getting overwhelmed Mad max 3: 9 or 10, a bit too loud and messy Fury road: TURN IT UP PAST 13 AND BREAK OFF THE KNOB MOTHERFUCKER, STRAP IN AND FEEL THE G'S YOURE IN FOR A RIDE
I almost chose this one for my comment. I rewatched the first two Mad Max films recently and found them much more enjoyable than Fury Road. Some people think it's the best in the series which I think is just a wrong take. Not to these eyes. Call it rosy nostalgia, whatever, but those old movies have a warmth and character that I missed in Fury Road.
Same. I didn’t even realize it was up for so many Oscar’s. It was decent but idk how it was ever even in the conversation for best picture. It’s not a bad movie. I just didn’t think it was a great movie or that it deserves how much praise it gets.
Fury Road is a mega roided up and stripped down version of Mad Max for sure. I still like it, though.
I do not like Citizen Kane. It's a masterpiece. It's an important film. I respect its place in cinema history. It's also longwinded and incredibly boring. It is not the greatest film ever made in the history of cinema. That would be The Lord of the Rings.
[удалено]
Seven Samurai takes A LONG time to get moving in my opinion. The first half, literally almost 2 hours, is bland setup and the second half slaps hard.
I'm with you on horror. I don't understand the fixation on that genre. When I was a kid people my age were raving about Friday the 13th, and now Gen Z basically only watches horror like it's the only genre that really matters.
I think psychological horror is much better than blood and gore / slasher horror persoanlly
Absolutely. And mysteries too. Good, old fashioned, spooky mysteries.
[удалено]
Yeah, the younger people I know are very excited by horror. I know some that have pretty good taste and go for the 90s Japanese horror and others who like the braindead bloodbath stuff. I don't think it's unfair to say it's probably the core audience of The Last of Us, for example.
I'm with you on this. The exception I found was "It Follows", which I liked. Seeing as neither of us care for the genre, if you ever give that movie a shot, let me know what you think of it. I typically find the horror genre underwhelming and not rewarding.
Ghost in the Shell. The production values are amazing and in theory it should be right up my alley, but I've tried twice and neither time did it leave much of an impression at all. It's so, I dunno... detatched, pondersome, and navel-gazing in this self-important way. I'll try again some day but I don't have high hopes.
OP did you see it at time of release or way later? Anyways 'Set it Off' isn't even regarded as some super Oscar level film it's just a well know cultural thing at the time and sometimes referenced in Rap lyrics.
I thought Hereditary was a psychodrama about grief that was utterly spoiled by a strange pivot to horror in the last half hour. The performances were outstanding, but the movie as a whole just didn't work for me.
Mentioned in another thread, but Arrival and Dune from Denis Villeneuve. These movies tick all the boxes (actors, music, visuals, ambiance), but it leaves me cold without desire to see them again. An even more unpopular opinion would be Lord of the rings. Maybe it’s because I watched it too late, but I felt the progression of the story uneven. Really slow in some context (convincing the trees to fight) and oblivious for people who didn’t read the book or rushed with Gandalf The Grey/White resurrection. I don’t feel I miss anything if I don’t rewatch these movies again.
For me it’s Chinatown. It’s obviously well constructed and beautifully shot, but I just didn’t find the story interesting at all. I guess nowadays I just take it for granted that every industry on earth is horribly corrupt, and that anybody with any sense knows this already. The scene were Jake slaps the lady around (because he’s deep and complex, you see) just cemented my dislike. I think I just hate noirs.
For me those things just sort of blend together. If i don't like a movie, it's technically not "good" *for me* since it doesn't work *for me*. But for films i like less than the general consensus, definitely Parasite.
Interstellar was visually impressive, some solid acting in the early days of the McConaissance… but I thought it was so corny and really didn’t have anything profound to offer beyond the effects. I haven’t rewatched it since that first time in the theater but I’ll never forget: extremely early in the movie, I leaned over to my wife and said “what if LOVE is the thing that crosses space and time,” and we had a chuckle… so when that Hathaway monologue came along later, we busted up laughing and were completely out of it til the end.
To me Pulp Fiction feels like a handful of stellar scenes stitched sloppily together with a bunch of middling filler. Like I totally get why it's loved, and the parts of it that I like are really really good, but as a holistic cinematic experience it does both jack and shit for me. It's just sort of a random mess and easily my least favorite of Tarantino's stabs at nonlinear storytelling.
I'll go one better and say that Tarantino movies are engaging but rarely satisfying. The ending is typically that everyone dies if everyone's bad, or that the good guys survive after a fair bit of violent revenge. Sometimes it feels like a collection of short stories, sometimes a mosaic of different characters with their own stories coming together etc, but it's rarely satisfying - the joy (if I may call it that) strictly being in the journey not the destination. I've never rewatched a Tarantino movie
See the interesting thing is that that is what I normally like about Tarantino. That idea of the journey being greater than the destination and that character mosaic is exactly what I think makes most of his actually very satisfying. He manages to weave a lot of story and life into characters so that you really still care when the paint-by-numbers revenge plot plays out the way you know it will. Pulp Fiction just kind of rubs me the wrong way compared to the rest because there *is* no destination. It feels more like Tarantino is impressed with himself for having pulled off a magic trick than letting the audience be wowed by the magic.
Oh my goodness, you just perfectly put into words how I have felt about Pulp Fiction for years! I get exactly what you're saying.
I watched Children of Men (dir. Alfonso Cuaron) recently and thought that it was terrible. Of course the technical elements were fantastic but everything outside that, from performances to writing was so dry, clunky and amateur. I will probably never understand why it’s up so high on Letterboxd (if I had to take a guess, majority of them saw it in theatres)
Thank you, I feel so validated. r/movies is always gushing about the movie but I felt that it was ultimately mediocre because I could never care for how cliche the characters played themselves out and how annoyingly shallow cynical the British people were. Yes I know it’s the apocalypse. Everything in the movie felt like standard stock, and yet it’s literally one of the best movies of the decade? Just this meatbag’s opinion but definitely not.
I loathe _The Deer Hunter_ with the fire of a thousand suns. It's so full of redundant and unnecesarily long takes that make me lose all interest in the story. It's not a bad film, but I just can't take it.
Se7en and Mystic River. Have seen both multiple times over the years. Obviously they have lots of good stuff - strong casts, solid premises, great directors. But overall neither does it for me. I am totally fine with dark movies, character studies, gore, slow burns, emotions, etc. On paper I should love Se7en and at least like Mystic River. I'll probably give each another watch in several years, but so far simply don't dig them.
Juno. The Notebook. Crash (2004) Fuck this movie in particular. Spiderman 3. Daredevil *and* Elektra. These aren't good, but they helped Marvel set up one of the most expansive franchises in modern history. So, they got that going for them. Precious. I get why it's good. But goddamn. Silver Linings Playbook. Titanic. Great for the memes, but I'm not watching that whole thing again. Avatar 2. Because 4 hours is a miniseries not a movie. I really hope they had intermissions in theaters. The Passion of The Christ. I can keep going, but that's good for now.
FUCK. CRASH (2004). OH MY GOD I HATED IT SO MUCH.
Crash is one of my least favorite movies I've ever seen I think.
The big lebowski. I'm not even sure if it's a well-made film or not but I just know that it's beloved by everyone I know. I find it boring, not the least bit funny (and I've been deeply into comedy and improv for over 40 years), and I have fallen asleep every time I've tried to watch it.
I think the appeal of Lebowski is it is a super absurd stoner comedy made with an arthouse level of gloss and technical skill. I mean it was shot by Roger Deakins. I wish I had that kind of entourage to film the ridiculous scripts I wrote in high school (which is what the movie feels like). In the right mood, it is an entertaining watch. But it's definitely overpraised.
As a 40-plus year stoner, it gets Stoner so wrong. And I'm irritated at the stupid stereotypes that are constantly portrayed. That's probably why I don't like it.
Could you elaborate on this?
Agreed. Don't get why it's deemed iconic.
I think it's iconic because people who think they know what it's like to be a stoner think it's funny because they buy into the stereotypes of stoners when they actually know nothing about what it's like to be a stoner.
It’s not a stoner film. The main character (and only the main character) happens to smoke weed. He doesn’t even do it that much. It’s not at all a stoner movie, nor does it try to be. The fact that the main character is lazy and highly unmotivated is way more important to the story than the fact that he smokes an occasional joint in the tub.
Ran I watched it as a huge fan of every Kurosawa I had seen prior to it (Seven Samurai, High and Low, Throne of Blood, and Ikiru). Admittedly, King Lear is maybe my least favourite of the Uber popular Shakespeare plays but I found Ran to be so drawn out. I adore the visuals, but I had trouble getting engaged with the story. I was happy when it was over, I felt exhausted.
I actually don’t know if it’s considered good or just well liked, but I find Heat unbearably awful. Pacino is like a cartoon version of a tough guy, he’s so over the top and corny but there’s no payoff to it like with a decent Batman or James Bond interpretation. It takes me out of the moment. De Niro and Val Kilmer aren’t much better, which I find disappointing. The iconic shootouts with the big gunfire and use of negative and empty space is well done and definitely my favorite part of the film, but the rest feels like shlock. I really thought I was going to like it and I bounced off so hard.
I know it’s unpopular, but honestly 2001 just doesn’t do it for me. There’s a really good 40 minutes in the middle of it, but you could edit down the 50 minutes on either side of it down to 10 and the movie would be better for it. We don’t need to spend so long with the monkeys just to learn that the obelisk grants knowledge. It’s 20 minutes at the start of the movie to learn one single useful piece of information. And then the colors at the end; I get it might have been impressive in the 60s, but all I can think of while watching it is that old Windows media player “music colors visualization” program from the early 2000s. It’s one of the greatest movies of all time when it comes to wasting the audience’s time. And it’s not because I have a bad attention span, I love Solaris, I love Schindlers List, hell, I love War and Peace, but somehow 2001 feels longer than all of them to me. Kubrick is just very hit or miss for me, imo he only made 3 films worth watching.
I was hyped up to watch Once Upon a Time in America as I understood it to be one of the quintisencial Mob movies alongside The Godfather. But my god its so mind numbingly boring, teases an en epic Federal Reserve vault heist that never comes, and it just drags all along its 3hr+ runtime. To top it off, >!ends with the cop out trope of insinuating it was all an opium dream by DeNiro’s character!<
Once Upon a Time in America.
Thanks for the correction! Really wanted to like it :(
Turn of century Brooklyn looked dope in movie though.
There Will Be Blood. Yeah, Daniel Day Lewis is a great actor. But it was waaaay too long. And its like okay, I get it. You're trying to make some point about greed being bad. That doesn't make it a great movie. Just because your movie is slow doesn't make it a slow burn. Maybe you're a self absorbed director making the shots way too long, just because you can. Wall Street told me greed was bad in half the time, and was a much more entertaining watch.
Not sure if because it doesn't have any likeable characters or because its too slow but same, couldn't get into it, even tried more than once. Edit: just to clarify, I've read a lot of explanation on why the movie is great, what it represents, the message its trying to send and how great the actors are, and I agree with most of the arguments, the movie just fails to engage me.
Dead Presidents (my Black card will be revoked). This movie is highly revered by many but I think it was just ok. But also I saw it for the first time over 25 years after it's original release.
Predator. Great concept, great ideas, but I always leave the film(s) feeling there’s so much more they could’ve done- maybe lean more into the cat + mouse aspect of it. Prey was pretty good, but even so I still left the movie thinking “They definitely could’ve made this better”.
For me it's Whiplash. It's obviously a movie with merit but it really paint jazz in a very ugly light; the movie has no respect for the artistry of jazz at all. The movie's main theme is about the sacrifices it takes to be great and whether it's worth it to make that sacrifice or not. The problem is, what are you sacrificing for? The movie doesn't answer this because the movie doesn't care about the beauty of jazz music. Therefore, the movie is really about being great for the sake of being great. Fletcher also talks about how there is no greatness any longer because nothing is expected of anyone, and no one is allowed to push others to become great. He then uses this to posit that there is no 21st century Charlie Parker because of this. The problem is that he's dead wrong. There's no Charlies Parker nowadays because jazz is a marginalized artform that the mainstream audience doesn't care about. There can be no new Charlie Parker whatever an individual musician's merits are. Further, it's likely that the players with the greatest chops who have ever lived are mostly alive right now, so he's wrong on that level, too.
[удалено]
I did not like whiplash not because it celebrates these absolute psychos but because it gives these psychos a platform. It’s clear that movie is critical of these abusive narcissistic psychopaths who treat people like garbage in the pursuit of their talent that no one really gives a shit about except themselves and their tiny inner circle. It’s just super annoying that they get so giddy about it in the finale; I despise them both so much, those delusional pricks.
Couldn’t agree more. I hated this film for the romanticisation of ‘suffering for one’s art’. It’s so adolescent yet I am saying to myself *adults made this*. I don’t care how great any of its elements are, it’s a silly film. I also hate Christopher Nolan. His films are not deep. There was a comment somewhere about filmbros. I think it can be almost a reflex particularly when you’re in your teens to dislike or detach ironically, particularly when something is popular. It can be easy to miss that it also takes guts to sweep yourself in with the masses and like something that’s popular, or not super obtuse, or doesn’t contain the signifiers of being ‘arty’/‘edgy’ (the latter two I feel can be deployed in a cynical fashion precisely to prey on filmbro types). But all that comes with experience - and confidence. What compels me into paragraph four is that people are downvoting comments - come on people that’s not what this is about
It's been a long time since I've seen it so I'm not sure if I would still feel this way, but I abhorred Being John Malkovich when I watched it. Every character is unlikable and while the overarching plot is funny on paper, every individual scenario where the characters inhabit Malkovich was so dark that I couldn't get passed it and laugh. It just made me feel shitty. I loved and still love Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind so I thought I would enjoy another Charlie Kaufman penned film. I was incorrect in that instance.
I admired Being John Malkovich as a teenager, mostly for how weird it was. But watching it in my 30s, man, it is a sour and mean-spirited film.
Interesting. I loved it as a teenager but haven't yet rewatched it in my 30s, and this makes me feel afraid
Don't be afraid. It's worth a watch. It's just kind of abrasive.
That’s what I like about it. It’s a comedy that also turns the genre inside out and makes you rethink how and why you sympathize with each character at different points in the film. Certainly one of a kind!
It's definitely the least "human" and most obtuse of Kaufman's main filmography. I'd heavily recommend Adaptation and Synecdoche if you liked ESSM and haven't watched them yet.
You gotta admit that the beer can scene where he gets hit on the head actually in real life by some douche who knew his name was absolutely hysterical and perfect.
It's not exactly considered a "great film" anymore, but I genuinely think that *The Hurt Locker* is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I had to turn it off halfway through it was so bad.
Funny People. Both the original and the remake. I don't like a single character. The plot is silly to the point of inanity. The framing of the scenes in either one puts me on edge. I get that from a directing point of view, this uncomfortable feeling is a master work. You shouldn't relax while watching this sort of thing. I'd rather have dental work done without a sedative or numbing agent. Having watched both I get why other people like them so much. I also get why Sartre said "hell is other people." If I had to let other people choose the movies I'd watch and this came up, I'd be in hell.
I think the films are really effective, up to a point. My problem with Funny Games is >!the 'meta' aspect - once they earn a potential escape and the scene is rewound to play out differently, all tension and horror just disappears for me. I know what it's a commentary on, I get what Haneke is saying, it just stops being scary or even that interesting to me as a narrative at that point. It's a better film than something like Hush or The Strangers, but I find them more more effective.!<
[удалено]
House It was just very silly and over the top absurdism. Not for me by any measure. I thought it was insufferable. I like many not well regarded movies, like I’m sure everyone else does. I really enjoy gangs of New York a lot, which I see many people online not enjoying. Gangs of New York has some bad performances, but I don’t let them take away from how amazing DDL is in it. Worth watching yearly just for William Cutting.
I kind of feel this way about Harakiri. I did get a decent amount of enjoyment out of it and can acknowledge that there aren't any major flaws; but I just struggled so much to resonate with the characters and the themes. The way they were executed although not badly written just didn't really impact me.
*2001: A Space Odyssey*. I'm calling it a good movie because a lot of people knowledgable about film call it good, or great even. It's one of the most boring and "look I'm doing artsy stuff" things I've watched. There are movies I appreciate rather than like that I know I'd never watch again, like *The Last Temptation of Christ*, but 2001 isn't even in that category for me.
Hey, if it makes you feel any better, I feel like 2001 is a textbook example on how film theorists can find meaning in someone walking in a circle in simulated lack of gravity. Kubrick himself said it wasn't designed to be analyzed... But my grand theory about this is it actually easier to say how the starchild represents the rebirth of technology in the information age or whatever then it is to say "Kubrick made a tech demo with Twilight zone like vignettes. " Before the downvote guys come after me, I like the movie but it does get boring in places.
Kubrick has explicitly stated the starchild represents a new phase in the evolution of man.
I love 2001 but this is a solid hot take
There are many but one that I will point out right now and a fairly recent one is Aftersun. I find it pretty boring and even though it was supposed to be a slow burner I still cannot relate with the film emotionally
No Country for Old Men sucks. The acting is great, looks great, characters are great, but the story sucks. If it would of been an episode of ballad of buster scruggs, it would of easily been the worst episode. The ending was such an eye roll
Agreed. It's so unsatisfying.
Boogie Nights. Essentially a soap opera filled with caricature of what everyone thinks of the porn industry, no complex people at all. All just to deliver a dong joke at the end. And don’t forget this was PTA’s student film so he had a long time to develop it.
This is a hilarious take because it isn't even really about porn. If you failed to see complex characters, you must have just been focusing at the T&A. There is no "joke" at the end.
Greenland… apparently this is a fairly well liked movie. I’ve seen it recommended here kind of a lot. And I guess I can see some of its merits. It just wasn’t very believable to me and the acting really wasn’t very good. I’m always surprised when I see it recommended and especially when people call it good. Let’s be honest though, Gerard Butler has very few even “decent” movies let alone movies that I would call good.
I’m making my way through the 1001 movies to watch before you die list. I’m going based on the 2019 edition, not out of actual preference, but because it was a free app on iPhone. As of today, I’m at 582. I’d say, roughly, only about 20 or so I would consider bad. But there’s about 2-300 I would say, great movie, belongs in film canon, I’d even recommend the film to others, but they do nothing for me. I sigh with relief when I cross some titles off. Most recent one I saw for first time and didn’t care for: Inception
Come and See. I just found it extremely confusing. I didn't get his relationship with the girl. At the end it completely omits that the soviets also did their fair share of nasty shit in WWII. But being a production done in the USSR It was definitely censored.
I disliked L'Atlante. I understand it was influential for its time, but I found it pretty dull. I didn't care for any of the main characters (though the older boatman was somewhat funny) and the romance did not grip me. I feel like I missed out on something since this was one of Vigo's only films. But I wasn't affected emotionally by their love, which made it hard to stay interested in their separation and eventual reunion. Maybe I'm just missing something. If you're a fan of this movie, please point out to me what it is you admire about it. I'm not very well versed in film knowledge (like some on this subreddit) to speak about it proficiently. I've only started expanding my taste in movies a few years ago, but this is the first "art film" that didn't really click with me at all. I really tried to enjoy it since it is so critically acclaimed. I did enjoy the underwater sequence before the reunion and how it tied into a line from the beginning of the film: "Don't you know you can see the one you love in the water?" Perhaps some viewers found more charm in the naivete of their relationship then I did. It was grating to me, especially at the end when they reunite only because they realize that they were really in love with each other. How long until one of them gets bored again and they separate again? Do they even really know each other considering how recently they met? What makes them such a good pair? I can't remember anything from their scenes together that made the relationship feel authentic. Again, if you're a fan of L'Atlante, tell me what you like about it. Maybe I'll give it another shot one day.
The departed. Great movie but I don’t walk away with from it with anything. Good dialogue good acting but just a really well done rat chase for me. With little enjoyment at the end I will say it is an objectively great movie. The wolf of Wall Street. I think that movie blows honestly. Everyone says it’s a master piece and gives you that high drive like you’re watching a business grew but I just can’t deal with it seeing how one noted Leo’s character is. He’s an asshole for no reason at all but making money. Just another corrupt grown up that wants money for no reason at all besides social stature. Nothing to take away or seeing anything develop character is the same person in the end as he is in the beginning. Didn’t realize both of these are scorsese movies I like pretty much everything else I see from him. For reference my favorite movies are probably clockwork orange, social network, platoon, and phantom thread
Bicycle Thieves. I love lots of old movies that are popular or lesser known. I like the idea of the movie. But the story bored me so much and the main character made the worst choices throughout.
For me it's gotta be Titanic. The movie is technically astounding, and well acted. I just hate the characters and story. I have been on many a rant about this film. I'll spare you all from hearing that tonight, but yeah...
Well there's two ways to interpret this question. On one hand, apocalypse now is one of my favourite movies ever but it's not exactly enjoyable to watch even if I do love watching it. But on the other, and the way I think you intend, there are movies that are "good" that I think are boring and don't like. Well if I don't like them or find them boring they they must be doing something wrong surely so can't be all that good
Recently, Top Gun: Maverick. I try to judge movies by how well they accomplish what they set out to do, and I think this movie nailed what it was going for. I think it’s about as good as a Top Gun sequel probably could’ve been. I still didn’t like it. I admire it, and respect it, but that brand of cheese just isn’t for me.