What's the dumbest blockbuster movie you have seen that somehow received high praise?
I'm not saying the worst, otherwise I would need to include the star wars sequels or transformers movies... Just some really dumb movie that somehow got praised.
For me has to be Ready Player One. That movie message is so "uhuh" obvious that is stupid, the whole nerd that saves the world in a thing that otherwise would be useless to know in real life... The so over the top evil gaming corporation. The whole 80s and 90s movies and games references get old after half an hour... And it's so pandering towards the geeks and nerds, they really want the viewer feeling really cool for knowing that is the Shining hallway, or that is a Monty python reference... Or look a GUNDAM! YOU'RE SO COOL FOR COLLECTING THOSE GUN PLA! Look we have also overwatch and halo in the background! You're so cool modern gamer!
Also the obviously attractive "nerd" hacker girl that thinks she's ugly and deformed for having a small hard to see red tint in one side of her pretty face... Cmon man. In no universe anyone would think that actress is ugly.
And the message at the end is so hilarious: Look man, you're cool for getting these references and being a real gamer is cool, but go outside more!
Is like the creators have no self awareness.
For me, it was A Quiet Place. I found it incredibly dumb and impossible to believe that nobody on the whole of the planet ever considered that these aliens with ultra incredible hearing weren't somehow vulnerable to noise? Just dumb as fuck, especially when you consider that sonic weapons already exist and are used, and sound is routinely used in torture/incarceration scenarios.
Eh, I think of it more in the vein of It Follows. It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to be a minigame for the audience to play along with the characters. It lays out a simple set of mechanics and then uses that to build tense dilemmas, giving the audience a chance to think about what they would do in that situation, and what they definitely want to prevent from happening.
I didn't see the second one, though. Heard it wasn't great (no pun intended).
I like it but yeah, somehow high pitched noise lose to gunshot.
I actually don't mind the premises behind the Death Angels, but the reasoning is pretty weak behind them. They could be defeated easily and the cast would not survive outside of the film's sound design. The rest is just shit occurring for the point of the movie to exist, and its told pretty damn well.
And then they made a sequel. And now a prequel. This didn't need to be a franchise.
Iirc, cochlear implants don't actually produce sounds, but an electro static (?) feedback. So the aliens aren't actually vulnerable to sounds but to that.
The movie probably could have explained that better
Also the solution is guns.
I worked on the space shuttle program, and I found Armageddon almost unwatchable. I mean, those things go up with the big solid rockets and an external tank full of hydrogen and oxygen, all of which get jettisoned during launch, then they come down as a glider. But in the movie they're landing on asteroids and taking off again, smashing into things and still flying, etc. (remember how Columbia blew up because of a crack in the leading edge of one wing?). Plus the whole premise of it being easier to teach oil drillers how to be astronauts than to teach astronauts how to be oil drillers is a joke. Every astronaut I've met has been an amazing capable person - many are test pilots with multiple advanced degrees.
I always love the interview with Ben Affleck about Armageddon: "I asked Micheal why it would be easier to train drillers to be astronauts rather than vice versa, and he just responded with 'fuck you.'"
Ha! I hadn't heard that - I'm glad someone involved called him out on it. I mean, I get that the real answer - to that and all my complaints - is that the movie doesn't work otherwise, but it's so annoying.
The very first bit in this video
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The very first bit in this video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If the movie doesn't work unless you include a plot hole then the movie doesn't work.
As soon as you know too much about a certain topic, any movie or series about it turns to shit.
I'm a nurse and badly done medical stuff in movies are so rampant and it drives me crazy.
That's super true. What's worse is that it often turns out to be true of news as well. There have been a few times when I was familiar with events that made the news, and there were always inaccuracies in the articles. It's made me look at articles on events that I'm not familiar with differently; they probably have the same amount of inaccuracies.
I'm software engineering in aerospace, so a lot of computer and space stuff is ruined, which covers a lot of content.
But everyone should smack their heads about Armageddon.
Astronauts brains are too big, their soft womanly hands incapable of drilling. Wearing a spacesuit and floating around a bit is trivial. Only some yeehaw boys and one man who 'tells it like it is' can save us.
There's also the really stupid "high G burn around the moon" scene, which I would love to see Scott Manley try to replicate in KSP.
That’s why I liked Deep Impact. It went must more (potentially) realistic than Armageddon. But the latter wanted its “common man, that people can relate to, saves the day” trope.
Because it's easier to put someone in a suite than teach them years of experience of drilling. You might remember that even the experianced driller had trouble. They also send astronauts with them as well to do the astronaut things, not just the driller crew.
The smashing into things thing and still taking off...well the movie was supposed to have a happy end for the remaining crew. It would've still been a happy end to have them die, but this way you get a lovely reunion with the families.
I don't know you, but if you go by questioning plot-armor, you'll have a really hard time to find something to watch.
Agreed. All the drillers have to do is ride. OTOH, neither group would fare well learning to drill in microgravity.
I don't understand the the thinking that astronauts would be amazing drillers. Drilling is functionally a trade, the education aspect isn't the key factor, it's the experience. The movie actually does a fair job explaining why.
I would have written it so the drilling crew needed to learn to be astronauts and the astronauts needed to learn drilling and send them both up. That way, they would be each other's backups and you get another small story arc out of it.
I never said that being a driller is trivial. Do you think being an astronaut is trivial? That's a pretty intensely technical job, which is why the bar for entry is so insanely high. I would put my money on those folks leaning how to drill better than drillers leaning how to be an astronaut.
It's not trivial to be an astronaut, but most didn't need to be. Flying the ships, docking, and landing on an asteroid all require intense skills. The drilling required a similarly intense set of skills that you can't gain in a week. You can probably teach someone the bare minimum of putting on a suit and working in it.
Aquaman. the visual effects were ridiculous, the characters were one-dimensional, the soundtrack was...something, and the overall tone was that of a testosterone firehose to the face. i said the eight deadly words about halfway through, and i was thoroughly bored out of my mind despite action scene after action scene after action scene...the only reason why i didn't just get up and leave was because i was watching with a group
My god, even among DC movies, that was such a steaming pile of shit. And so what did they do? They made a sequel.
(Hey, I like DC movies. I really enjoyed The Flash, and I liked the Superman v. Batman, with Batfleck. So for me to say Aquaman was a turd in a punchbowl means something.)
What's weird is it's reportedly one of the highest grossing DC movies of all time, and a lot of people online kept hyping it up after it was released. I almost lost it when Pitbull started playing "Africa" unironically.
I prefer the real Africa.
Jason momoa is always either great or horrible in different things. its very strange
he absolutely carried Stargate Atlantis, it was weird to see him in Aquaman
I find he generally gives his best in whatever he's in, but the projects he takes... vary in quality, to be polite.
Sometimes I wish Hollywood still made lower budget movies, because this felt like it needed a lesser production value. Jason Momoa knew what kind of movie it was.
i fell asleep during that movie multiple times. something i also did when i saw morbius (sadly me sleeping caused me to miss the best scene in that movie, when that one guy starts dancing)
The Purge. They're all dumb as fuck. "No lawz fur wun day. Halps soseyetti."
Yeah no, trust in the government would break the floor and anarchy would reign instead. Not to mention businesses would probably refuse to operate here.
Don't get me stated on how fucking dumb it is that everyone everywhere just immediately turns to murder. Crime isn't something I have a problem with, so when I say I've never committed a murder it's not because the pesky laws are stopping me. I just genuinely don't see the need to kill someone. But no, everyone and their mom is going full zodiac all day all night if it went for laws!
I would say most people would just do nothing and the rest would go buy drugs
That's a plot point in the prequel one (I've only seen the first one, though) and from one of the trailers I remember seeing, during the very first Purge people were just throwing huge parties and getting all kinds of fucked up, and the people on charge were disappointed because they just wanted people to kill each other.
It was posed as some sort of secret government conspiracy to keep the population/minorities/what have you "in check."
That just sounds like a saturnalia
I would be boosting high dollar items and parking them in my yard.
Really? I'd guess the opposite would happen, and the power vacuum would be quickly filled by alternate purge-day-only governments.
I love The Purge, especially election day. They really hit that sweet spot between exploitative horror and substantive political commentary.
Which is what the best B movies do.
Seriously, it's always been the dumbest fucking premise of all time.
Chaos, not anarchy!
Are these highly praised? I thought they were at best considered fine examples of a genre that's looked down upon.
Avatar
That's a strange film. I watched it at the cinema when released and enjoyed the visuals, but it seemed like the story was purposely simplified to a wild west love yarn so that the audience would have to focus on the visuals. There's so little to distract from the "cutting edge" CGI, any depth to the plot or characters would be detrimental to the six fucking years he spent making it.
Which I can understand as it does achieve that. And I didn't hate it, mainly because it did look amazing and I wasn't distracted from that. But I've never watched it again and wouldn't want to.
Weird.
Dances With Aliens was a masterpiece, dammit!!!
Seriously, it was fine I guess. Agreed that it looked fucking amazing in theaters.
Name a main character. Not the actor, the character.
If you can, you'll be the first person who has been able to that I have asked. (Though I have never asked online.)
You've asked the wrong guy. All I know is it's Kevin Costner.
So close, if only you had said Mary McDonnell.
John Smith?
I knew them (Sam & Zoe's characters), but I watched the sequel only last year. I probably couldn't have told you had you asked me in 2022.
I don't remember any other character names from either movie.
Jake from State Farm?
Same. I liked the movies for what they are: expensive, cinematic special-effects thrill rides with pretty much the loosest stories.
The second one looked absolutely gorgeous in theaters.
I appreciate this take
The key is to watch it in 3D… on acid. The dialogue and characters are hilarious and the world is beautiful.
La La Land. Musicals are already on thin ice, but a musical about some arrogant, self obsessed people complaining about how hard it is trying to be (and ultimately succeeding in being) successful?? UGH. Shut it all down.
More importantly, >!they just gave up on their relationship because one of them was leaving the country? For what, less than a year? After all that, they just threw it all away because they didn't want to deal with FaceTime for a couple of months? Bet they felt real fucking dumb when the pandemic hit.!<
Right?! "Oh no we are so brilliant and talented and smoking hot, but the world won't just give us success on a silver platter and now that we made our dreams come true we miss being together".
It is too early to say Oppenheimer?
Agreed. Bombastic. Felt like it missed the whole point of Oppenheimer's moral dilemma
I'm biased but I thought it was pretty clear with portraying Truman as an unambiguously bad guy and Oppenheimer as decent but failing at a critical moment and then regretting it later
I've always imagined his moral dilemma was knowing that (after the Nazis were defeated) going ahead with the bomb was wrong, but wanting to do it anyway - because they had become so invested in the idea, and wanted to see if they could.
I'd been pretty eager to see it. Everyone told me how intense it was, I actually put it off for a little while because I wasn't sure I was in the mood for something really bleak and existential.
Watching it I was like oh okay this is a movie. Not bad but I wouldn't call it an intense experience.
Haven't been able to finish it, losing my attention on it. Want to join the hype but... 🤷
Meh. If you like a political bio pic it's probably very interesting but it didnt grip me as tight.
I think it was just too long, maybe at half of the length they might have thought more about what belongs in there
Gravity isn't a space movie. It's just 2 hours of Sandra Bullock crying and hallucinating. It's probably the second worst movie I've ever seen after Open Water.
And that scene where she can't pull in the non-accelerated astronaut colleague while still being in atmosphere thin enough that he wouldn't fall behind, so he just drifts away through magic
James Cameron's Titanic. It's marketed as a romantic film, but the moment you start looking at other aspects of the movie, it just seems stupid. The antagonist is so cartoonishly evil, it's a wonder they didn't give him a mustache to twirl.
And then there's the ending. Oh dear lord, the ending. Spoiler warning and all that: at the end of the movie, The Titanic s(t)inks and the passengers try to get to safety. Rose finds a floating door or something to stay afloat and finds Jack swimming in the freezing ocean. Then Jack makes the most non-sensical decision in the entire movie: he sacrifices his own life for no good reason. The plot frames it as a necessary sacrifice, but it totally IS unnecessary, because there was enough room on the stupid door for two people. And then we flash forward to the present, where Rose is old, but still has that gem she wore throughout the movie... and then she tosses it into the ocean. WHY.
Basically the plot boils down to: two young people have a fling on a boat and then the boat sinks. It absolutely did NOT deserve all those academy awards it got that year.
People are STILL bringing up the "there's enough room" arguments?
The movie LITERALLY shows you why it doesn't work. At first they both try to climb on it, but they're too heavy and the stupid thing capsizes. Only then is Jack like "You go take it, Imma good"
Also, Mythbusters tried it and got the same results. 2 people to heavy, 1 ok.
No, the Mythbusters actually proved the door could support two people. At the end James Cameron himself basically throws his hands up, concedes and makes some comment about "whatever, if the script says Jack has to die, Jack is dying." Rewatch the edpisode if ya don't believe me
Yes, after the took off their lifebelts and tied them under the door for adden buoyancy.
I think two people, already stressed to their teeth, now also suffering from hypothermia can be forgiven for not having the same presence of mind in that situation
It's been a while since I've seen the movie (and have no desire to see it again) and I don't remember the scene as clearly, so that's on me. Throwing away the gem was still colossaly stupid, though.
Black Panther.
It had so much hype in the media, i was so excited to watch it. It turned out to be rather boring and forgettable.
A nation of people so advanced that they decide their dictatorial ruler through a trial by combat.
I'm reliably informed there are people who like Michael Bay's Transformers movies. The most interesting part of the entire series to me was watching a Camaro get into a literal fist fight with a Mustang. Otherwise my memories of the movie were having eye rollingly childish catch phrases boomed down at me, or visuals that are basically just technicolor television snow.
Transformers for me was pretty much Megan Fox and nothing else.
There were other people in that movie?
The hilarious thing is that, in the script, Megan Fox's character is actually really interesting and multidimensional. And Bay films her as just some T&A.
No like is the wrong word. I love them. Don't know why thou, they are fucking stupid.
I mean its clearly an ad for the military where cars beat up cars. Buuuut Its hilariously epic and very comforting in its shallowness. Normally I am more of a weird indie movie guy. But every time optimus calls out all autobots in the end I cry.
I like them because they're stupid. I do have a problem seeing irony where there is none though.
Transformers: Dumb blockbuster movie that somehow received high praise. I think I understood the assignment.
I thought the first one was at least fun, but had some obviously annoying parts that should have been cut from any sequel.
Then the second one comes out, and the annoying parts of the first are the entire movie of the second.
The Starwars Prequels.
They were so bad, but not nearly as bad as the sequels.
I think I would agree, though I only watched the sequels once and was so bored I didn't really pay attention. But when the sequels released Starwars was already ruined and I very much expected them to be shit. So I guess they don't feel as bad because they were close to what I expected.
Also I've seen very little praise for them compared to the prequels.
I was old enough to see the original trilogy re-released with all the bad dumb filler George Lucas thought was necessary to complete his vision.
All the poopy squelchy gross-out CGI was obviously a crass moneygrab, but it seemed like such a reflection of the man himself that I boycotted the prequels when they came out. Then I found Red Letter Media. Fuck the prequels. Fuck that creepy bastard. Han shot only.
The prequels had the best light saber fights in the franchise though.
I guess they look prettier. But they are boring AF. There is no tension or stakes between the characters because they're all boring or unlikable and it's so highly choreographed it looks like dance number from a musical.
Yeah, OT lightsaber fights lacked action. But at least they had weight and meaning behind them. That makes them much, much better in my opinion.
OT lightsaber fights looked like people who practiced the idea of "less is more" combat and knew pointless flailing and twirling around was useless against a similarly skilled opponent. This MADE SENSE. Everyone in the prequels flipping around and going nuts with the lightsabers and all that -- it was laughable. Even Luke in the OT who wasn't as skilled as some of the so-called "masters" from the prequels used at least some restraint and thought when fighting.
The prequels are garbage and I'm sick of people who think they're good just because we made memes out of them.
Spot on. And don't even get me started on Yoda. Not even did they make him stupid as fuck ... no, he also had to get a little lightsaber and flip around like a character on super smash brothers. So ridiculous and basically a total character assasination.
Honestly, now that I've watched them more recently I enjoyed them a ton. At least Lucas had an idea of where he wanted to go with it, unlike the shit Disney trilogy.
Aeons ago, I came across a picture of a young woman in a "steampunk Elsa" cosplay. It was "steam punk" because she had brown leather straps with brass buckles everywhere and she was wearing a pair of goggles like a hat. It was "Elsa" because the cloth parts of her bustier was cyan.
Feels reductive, right? That a genre of fiction with themes and ideas to explore, and a main character from a major motion picture, both get boiled down to some leather straps and colored cloth.
That's what Disney did to Star Wars. It's not a story anymore, it's a cosplay aesthetic.
Oh, yes the special edition re-release ... where all the guns have been replaced by walkie-talkies and the word Wookie has been change to "hair challenged animal".
The Plinkett reviews are probably the best thing that came from the prequels! I must have watched them more often then the actual movies by now.
I kind of like them, actually. I know this is a fairly unpopular opinion, so allow me to elaborate:
I grew up with ep IV through VI, as my brother had them on VHS. I was instantly a fan, and I've lost count of how many times I've seen them.
Once I was old enough to be aware of the concept of a story not existing in a vacuum, I started wondering about how ep III ended, and other things, long before I knew they would turn the prequels into movies as well. I was curious about the world building and the star wars universe in general.
And that's what the prequels did for me: They finally answered so many of the questions I had after watching the originals. So it was pretty cool for me to finally see that aspect on the big screen as well.
However, they should've skipped JarJar Binks. And a lot of the world building seemed tacked on as a result of George Lucas realizing he could include anything he wanted thanks to CGI.
And speaking of CGI: Han shot first. I liked the remasters, but they truly fucked ip Han Solo, trying to make him a loveable loner instead of some outlaw who was after a quick buck
But it was terrible worldbuilding that often contradicts the original movies or just doesn't make any sense.
I liked the prequels when they first came out. But I was around 11. And I thought they were great because of the much better lightsaber and spaceship action. I got so many Starwars LEGO sets.
When I rewatched them in my early twenties I was baffled about how bad they were, now having learned to care about storytelling and characters from other shows and movies, the fight- and action scenes weren't really that important and when you don't focus on them, the movies are just so boring and awkward. That wasn't the case when rewatching the OT.
I want two things from star wars, lightsaber fights and mandalorians. The pre-quals are the best source of both.
I've recently come to terms with the fact that I guess I've just grown out of Star Wars. When you strip away all of the nostalgia, I don't think any of the originals (or prequels) hold up at all. And the newer ones have just been trash.
Very true. Rewatching stuff later with a new perspective certainly changes things.
That is where I disagree. THe orginals do hold up, because Starwars was about classic adventure story. The character of Luke Skywalker. The original trilogoy (and there are quality differences between the eopisodes) overall get this right. It's the sort of timless story, just with a spin on it beeing a sci-fi world.
The prequels and sequels completley missed that aspect of basic stoytelling. The OT stands out as a piece of revolutionary cinema, where the prequels are an elaborate ad to sell more Starwars toys.
I liked grievous
Guardians of the galaxy 3. Would not be surprised to learn ChatGPT wrote the dialogue.
Thor: Love and Thunder felt like it was written by a Disney executive suite after they ran metrics on what test groups laughed at in Taika's other work, then amplified the lulz by 20%, and rewrote it for the 11-16 year old market.
I had already been getting sick of superhero movies, but god damn that one was awful imo. The genre should have ended on a high note and stuck with that. It's a great time to try new, non-super hero movies.
Because the whole "casual super hero start -> personal setback -> bad guy: all your base belong to us -> super hero assembles a team to destroy NYC -> bad guy loses all bases in 40 minutes" plot is very tired.
Has this movie been praised though?
Doubtful. The whole marvel train is crashing.
Deadpool would like to disagree. That movie is going to absolutely fucking slap.
only it lol
Liked it. But I like goofy shit, and I don't like Marvel.
If they had done that with Batman I'd have pitched a fit. Like I did with Clooney Batman.
Joel Schumacher's Batmen movies, especially the Clooney one, were so awful they changed the tone of superhero movies from that point on.
I watched them both very recently during an extended Arnold Schwarzenegger movie binge, and it's absolutely worth hate-watching them again for the sheer wonkiness and absurdity of... everything. Try tallying the Dutch angles. And girl power platitudes.
I had the feeling that they tried to merge a dark drama and a slapstick comedy into one movie.
The God killer, especially the intro was quite interesting and dark. I could relate with his anger, disappointment and urge for vengeance.
I'd blocked that from my memory, thanks for reminding me
So many movies and tv shows lately feel like they were written by ai.
Man people really liked that movie and i just do not get it. I really like the first guardians movie. It's probably my favourite of all those superhero disney movies. The dialogue is horrible, everyone is trying to be a comedian. They made this pseudo sad ark for rocket, that was so damn cheap. Showing cute animals getting tortured/killed is such a lazy way to make people care. The only good thing about the movies are some of the crazy visuals and that groot wasn't a baby anymore.
crash won an oscar for best picture and it was complete and utter garbage
I can't see the name Crash and not think of the 1996 movie with James Spader. Which is weird as fuck.
Cronenberg be cronenbergin
Barbie.
I like Margot Robbie. I like Ryan Gosling. I like fun movies. But idk, it just didn't really appeal to me, and the plot felt predictable. I don't regret watching it necessarily, but I also have no interest in watching it again.
:(
:)
:(
Watch me several times now and then I'll watch you several times back
You're a great dude, Margot Robbie.
That's esteemed Academy Award nominated great dude Margot Robbie to you!
(Dude is gender neutral now)
Were you expecting a post-modern masterpiece?
No, but with all of the hype and excitement around it, I thought there was something extra-special about this movie. Like an interesting/unexpected story.
it was unexpected for a Barbie movie
I'm with halfeatenpotato here. I went into it expecting something that had spawned this whole Barbieheimer thing, and was a billion-Plus-dollar movie that excited the nation for a while.
That's not what I saw. It was hot garbage. It wasn't even fun.
You fell for the marketing
Yes I did.
I love the idea, to change the gender and show how it would look if women was the dominant sex
I don't think what they made was plausible. I know, it's barbie, but I don't find this version of "woman power" plausible without it changing the gender expressions. Like, how masculinity and being formed by masculinity being an expression of dominans, and therefore changes how men dress, behave and express themselves would change a lot Also, this is not a matriarchy, it is a patriarchy but where the women have the power. I've read several books where they flip the sexes, and I've found the concept interesting because it points out how much of our society is formed by the patriarchy, for all genders, which makes a lot of fun and interesting situations
Watch the movie “I Am Not an Easy Man.”
I thought it was fun and I get why it's been so exceedingly popular but they tried a little too hard to make the concept of Barbie and the concept of womanhood out to be the same thing. For a lot of people that really worked and I think that's made it harder to criticize.
There are some really top tier moments though which made it easier to forget and forgive all the boring bits.
I watched this one as a bit of a joke really, kind of left going what the fuck? I usually like it when a movie leaves me feeling like that, but I don't know it was a bit weird and silly. Would the world magically be better if it were only women running things? Unlikely, all humans are humans there are women on both sides of the political spectrum. Just like men you can't say that women feel a certain way. I don't know it was just a bit weird that's all.
I wanna be clear all of the weird, sexist and political responses aren't something I support. At the end of the day though is was just an ad for a doll which apparently is responsible for the achievements and ambitions of women in the latter half of the 20th Century. I'm not a woman so I don't really know
I was so confused about the message... Ken went full patriarchy, but then demonstrated that it wasn't really that bad (also, no horses). So compared to barbieland the real world is absolutely paradise. Then they flip the full-on matriarchal barbieland to complete patriarchy, find that the women don't like that, do a bit of gender war and go mostly matriarchy because reasons. And than a bitter remark that women have it hard in the real world so men will have it hard in barbieland. It's all over the place.
The weird pacing, jokes that fall flat and at one point goes all 3 stooges just left me feeling... Empty, afterwards. All that hype, all the people rooting for and against it, people complaining that it didn't win all the awards... I thought it was a vapid, low quality summer movie.
At the end of the day it was just an ad for a doll, the "feminism" stuff they did was moreso to attract the twitter blue checks, so that it would be a culture war crime to dissent on it
I think it confronted some issues that many of us have been aware of for a long time in a somewhat superficial way. I also think that it brought some conversations into the mainstream that might not have happened otherwise. So I liked it.
Crash the 2004 hit movie not the 1996 Cronenberg Cult-classic.
to elaborate, it was insincere corporate virtue signalling designed specifically to bait the academy awards by using a multi-character parallel storytelling style that is only ever celebrated amongst industry snobs.
I'm going to agree with caveats here, because some directors who are actual artists do it for the sake of the film and the challenge of it, as opposed to what I'll refer to as "industry types", who do it for the prizes. And some crazy bastards manage to pull it off. Three names come to mind - Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson and Steven Soderbergh.
I've never seen "Crash" and never wanted to, from what I've read, the bland yet heavy-handed results onscreen, plus the lazy reflexive accolades, made me view the whole thing with a cynical eye, like you.
In fact, Robert Altman had a thing or two to say about those "industry types", in his triumphant early-90s comeback film "The Player".
Also, do yourself a favor and watch Altman's "Short Cuts", to see parallel storytelling at its' best.
Thanks, I'll be sure to check those out. I was a little worried I came off too hot with my take. I won't say it can't be done well, it's just that I've never seen it done well since I first learned about the storytelling style in my intro to film studies course in college.
Short Cuts is amazing. Altman changed the game in many ways. I believe he changed the entire way we record dialogue because the way we did it before just didn't work for him.
Altman came in throwing punches with the noisy background and chaotic dialogue wafting every which way, right from the outset, on MASH and McCabe & Mrs Miller, which is why it's a good idea to watch his films with English subtitles turned on.
I don't remember the cacophony being as intense in some of his other early works, like Brewster McCloud, California Split and The Long Goodbye.
But in Nashville, it's most certainly there, front and center and in your face.
I've only ever seen Short Cuts (loved it), the Player (liked it a lot), and McCabe and Mrs Miller (ehh....). How do you think I'd feel about his other films?
My recommendations to you are as follows:
My favorite Altman film overall probably might have to be The Long Goodbye. Check out how the camera is always moving, if even slightly; there are no static shots. Midway through the movie, the great Sterling Hayden steals the show. And keep an eye out for a very, very young Ahnold Schwarzenegger in a bit role as literal and figurative muscle for the batshit insane bad guy.
Brewster McCloud is a bonkers twisted fantasy that caught me by surprise by how much I enjoyed it, it's about a kid who:
Also, there are people being killed all over town, and it might have something to do with all this.
Thanks, I've saved your comment and I'll add them to the list.
crash has like one good scene in the entire film. the rest is total garbage that me and a friend laughed at the entire time we watched it
Interstellar: just found it kind of ridiculous, outlandish, in no way believable or connected to anything even theoretically within reality. Pseudo-serious science fiction. Big budget blah.
Inception: I love Nolan but that was big swing and a miss for me. Went in excited, came out wondering where the fuss was all about.
I need to leave this thread. Interstellar is my favorite movie of all time.
Shitting on Inception and Interstellar at the same time?
My right hand curls into a fist instinctively. My left hand covers it and pats it gently.
No... I must choose peace.
I'm sorry, it just wasn't for me. A lot of people agree with you!
"My daughter Murph. I keep gettin' older. She stays the same age."
Also, I love how he had a son who just wanted to be a farmer and that meant that Matthew McConaughey's character was justified in being totally emotionally disinterested in him, compared to his genius daughter. Seriously, at a certain point I think Nolan forgot he wrote this guy with two kids. His entire character was defined by his relationship with his daughter. Why even give him a son in the first place?
I’ll outright say it. Other than The Prestige and the later Batman movies, Nolan movies have been very disappointing to me. They’re not clever, they’re pretentious. If you ever saw that Netflix movie where the woman dated Keanu Reaves, the part where Keanu asks the chef for a meal the plays with the concept of time is every Christopher Nolan movie in a nutshell. Also, the action sequences in Batman Begins were unnecessarily choppy, and the idea that it was somehow how a bat would see them is just silly.
Huh. Maybe I DON'T love Nolan.
The stories in both were somewhat disjointed and as with most sci-fi, requires some level of suspension of disbelief.
Nowadays, storytelling and plot takes a big backseat to action and explosions....😔
I liked both Interstellar and Inception. I hated Tenet - on how the story was told and the inaudible sound (eye roll).
Cloverfield. It was a monster movie where you barely saw the monster. Instead, we get the story of 4 characters with a camera trying to escape the monster but then going back to rescue their friend and may or may not have been killed by the monster. I don't know, the movie had no beginning or end and yet it managed to spawn a couple of sequels.
I spent most of that movie feeling like I needed to throw up.
Lol, we still refer to movies shot with a shakey nauseating camera as "filmed Cloverfield-style"
"Filmed on a canoe" is how I put it.
I think the mundane perspective and ordinary characters were meant to ground the movie. Most kaiju movies follow elite scientists or squads of soldiers so it's a bit easier to relate to regular people just bumbling around (and a lot cheaper to film). Found footage stuff seems to be real hit or miss for people though. I definitely understand the desire for more spectacle and a more likeable cast.
The first Harry Potter was okay, but it just got worse. I'd say the worst was Goblet of Fire. That one should top my list of worst overrated movies.
Haha yeah goblet of fire was such an odd movie. I don't even remember the books or if it was the same but that movie made no sense.
My favourite part is how they let these kids fight dangerous dragons, one only didn't drown because harry broke the rules. They kept saying how dangerous it was, but then at the end everyone was shocked that cedric died. A dead child in the child murder games? That is crazy
They were all pretty close to the books except that they cut out a lot of the pointless bickering that kept happening all the time, so I'd blame JK Rowling for those.
Funny cause apparently she had almost entire creative control
I'll go ahead and say it, the first one is a great movie even. It has a particular atmosphere of joy and hopefulness.
Then that entire vibe goes away and it just goes generic dark teenage fantasy with mediocre writing
I hope the new series being developed is better. The one scene in the entire franchise that I wanted to see was the fight between Bellatrix and Molly. It was a disappointment.
I'm probably going to get some hate for this one, but Spider-Man: Across The Spiderverse. The story wasn't as tight as the first movie, they introduced too many new characters to keep up with, and it ended with a setup for the next movie.
Why do both of the Spider-Man animated movies look like they're something like 15 frames per second? It actually made me sort of nauseous to watch them when things were moving around really fast.
I haven’t seen them but it might be a callback to early animation.
To keep costs down and speed up production, cartoons (pre digital animation) would often be animated at around 15 fps, sometimes going as slow as 10 or 12 fps. Each frame was then photographed 2 or 3 times to bring the frame rate up to 24 or 30 fps depending on the media. Robotech, Scooby-Doo, Mighty Max and the original Duck Tales come to mind as examples. Hanna Barbara cartoons were also known for being on the lower end of the spectrum.
I did not get the hype for 'Don't Look Up'.
I thought It was a pretty solid critique of mainstream American culture of the moment. What didn't you like about it?
Probably hit too close to home.
Badum bum
It's not subtle enough with its critique. Either that or it's not ridiculous enough. It's sitting in the middle zone that just doesn't work well.
The hype was for its star studded cast. The movie itself was also a chuckle but was really obvious for its critique and satire.
I still haven't finished it. So many stars are just unlikable and the pacing (of the half I saw) is just not enough to keep it entertaining enough to overcome the cringey 'just look at how awful everyone in power is' caricatures.
Don’t Look Up. It felt like a movie made by a Redditor who thinks he’s really smart.
Lucy. I know a lot of people didn't like the ending, but the whole movie was utterly shocking I thought after she took the brain drug or whatever it was
Oppenheimer
I liked it, but it could have been a 90 minute film
One of the most common criticisms levied against Oppenheimer is its blistering pace that crams in as much detail as possible, so I find it hard to believe that it could've been condensed into 90 minutes.
I have no clue how the original Mad Max made it out of Australia, let alone spawn a minor cinematic universe...
Mad Max is amazing for what it is; an apocalyptic film made on a shoestring budget that depicted something that feels prophetic now. You have to look at it and compare it to other films in the 70s; if you look at, for instance, Roger Corman films, it's Oscar-worthy in comparison. When you put it in the genre of ozploitation films, it's solid gold.
It was a product of it's time which is to say that even though it wasn't particularly good, it was representative of the schlocky action sci-fi films one might have seen just a few years earlier during the drive-in Grindhouse era.
I'm curious when you were born and where you're from?
Jurassic World. It seemed like the definition of color by numbers reboot.
The Batman 2022 with it's constant dreary atmosphere and insanely repetitive soundtrack.
The visuals are great. Is by a mile the best looking batman and probably comic book movie just behind the raimi Spiderman trilogy and I guess Sin City. But yeah the story gets annoying.
If I have to hear Ave Maria again in my life I’m going to legitimately lose my shit.
https://youtu.be/NX5xIRUcPyI?si=E7tgQH5vdAQQJL2A you're welcome Mr fappy
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/NX5xIRUcPyI?si=E7tgQH5vdAQQJL2A
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I liked that gotham actual felt like gotham. Not just chicago with a gotham sign.
The thing that i found moat annoying were these stupid clues. If i watch a dark riddler movie, i expect some good puzzles and twists, not batman just bumbeling around finding random clues.
I think the worst thing about it is batman doesn't actually solve/do much. I like that him being new/young means he isn't infallible, but I would have liked him to have a win or two.
Still love the movie though.
Anything from Marvel ever. Except maybe Guardians of the Galaxy, but it's all way too long and just boring, I don't know I always find fight scenes to be extremely boring in films, I'm more interested in the progression of the story over some dragged out fight
Frozen was 3 hours worth of movie jammed into 1 and a half hours. So much stuff happens that either didn't need to happen or needed a lot more setup and motivation. I can understand why little kids liked it, I still have no idea why all the young women liked it too.
The sequel was worse: a hackneyed "elements" magic system and a plot that would only work on a much longer time scale. Too much stuff crammed into too little movie.
american beauty. it was everywhere, and everyone seemed to LOVE it. feels like history kinda agrees though since all I hear these days is people making fun of it. guess I’m just ahead of the times.
I enjoy a lot of found footage horror, but Paranormal Activity was like watching paint dry
Dark Knight. Heath Ledger's Career defining performance can't save this tortuously paced, boring, dreary, washed out slog of a war on terror metaphor. I hate Christopher Nolan, all of his movies are like this.
The star wars prequels get a lot of hate, but honestly, all of the cracks were beginning to show in Return of the Jedi. 4 and 5 are indisputably good movies, and part of the cinematic canon. Jedi has a lot of small things wrong with it... and also Leah is Luke's sister randomly. This is a Lucasism, and as the people who were capable of standing up to Lucas fell away, and were replaced by people who grew up in star wars. Everything that makes the OT good is present in the prequels, and everything that makes the Prequels... contentious is present in Jedi. For the record, I like the prequels but I think they are flawed in really interesting ways.
Jedi is even in quality with all the prequels and sequels that came after, but has a better rep than it deserves because it stands next to the first (best) two.
return of the jedi is my least favorite, besides rise of skywalker which shit on everything that had been built up. im one of those people that actually enjoyed the last jedi a lot
Never been a fan of the Dark Knight. So damn boring and ridiculously overrated.
Most of Wes Anderson’s.
I swear his latest movie is just the "Emperor's new clothes" test. If you watch the whole thing you failed the test. I managed to stop around 30 mins ish.
Look is all yellowish, perfectly symmetrical and quirky
For me it was Blade Runner. Everyone always talks about how great the movie is, and man, it was a struggle to get through. The setting was cool and that's about it.
I get it. I love the slow pace, the beautiful cinematography, the careful dialog. But it's not for everyone.
Did you watch the one with Decker's voiceover, or without?
Apparently the common experience is watching it without voiceover first makes it harder to watch. But watching it with voiceover first makes rewatching it without, more interesting. Or something like that.
Pretty sure it was the one without the voice over. Had no idea there were different versions. Hmm, interesting.
Marvel civil war
Godzilla. The 1998-ish version.
Was that movie praised?
It was not.
It wasn’t critically praised, but it did almost triple its budget with its worldwide gross.
It also got a shit ton of attention for that stupid Puff Daddy song with Jimmy Page.
I’d say this film fits the thread perfectly, if you consider profit to be high praise.
You may have got me there. It was overhyped. So. Much. Merchandise. It drew people to the cinemas too, at least where I live. I do not remember whether it was actually praised though.
BTW: I hated the sound track. Anything with Puff Daddy or whatever he tries to call himself nowadays should not exist. Most lazy music ever.
It wasn’t critically praised, but the film did almost triple its budget with its box office gross.
I think that puts this film in the overrated hit film category.
Godzilla, pure f-in filler, keep your mind off the real killer
I think that Ready Player One was terribly ported from the book format to the movie. The book went so much more over the top than the movie did, the latter turning down on a lot of nerd aspects. Having said that, different formats need different ways for conveying the same idea. The main character would literally get a "+1 blazing sword" in the book. +1. As if it were an MMO or something.
Having said that, Dune (book and movie) were terrible. The movie felt plagued with references to stuff I didn't get. Only recently did I read the book just to find it was as uninteresting as the movie.
I'll never forget those opera singers singing right to my ears when a ship would land... Now that's a way to startle a person.
On the bright side, reading the book has allowed me not see the second part of the movie.
I never got the dune hype either, book or movie. The latest was fun to watch on the big screen, and the 80's make is awesomely 80's in all its 80's terribleness. But over all it gets a meh from me. And I'm a huge SF nerd.
Logan
The whole premise was that they're in danger and need to get to Canada to be safe (the bad guys don't have passports I guess 🤷), but have to wait just before they cross the border for everyone to show up seemingly for no reason.
They were trying to get to North Dakota initially because that’s where “Eden” is, later Logan is going there to prove to Laura that there is no Eden. Turns out bunch of escaped kids were there and they were planning on going to Canada the next day. Logan gave the impression that Canada won’t really save them (I think I might be remembering this detail wrong).
One of the best superhero movies by far. You take that back sir, and have at thee.
(I can't find a gauntlet so I'm throwing down a dishwashing glove)
I think my favorite "recent" superhero movie is the first Guardians of the Galaxy. The whole thing just developed organically and nothing at all felt like filler.
It's probably my most entertaining series by far.
GOTG is a really good movie. But hardly recent being 10 years ago...
Ready player one and also Scott pilgrim or whatever its called. That whole "needs are cool, buy funko pops" craze is super cringe.
V for Vendetta. For a movie with both Padme and Palpatine as actors, the movie is just an edgy construct. I'm sure V isn't totally without reason, but bro, you sabotaged a train just because you wanted real butter on toast.
You got my vote fo unpopular opinion. I love that movie :)
There Will Be Blood. Wooden acting, almost nothing happens, the soundtrack is earsplitting noise, but everyone loves it because of the "milkshake" meme at the end.
Fuck that movie. Walked out on it halfway through, read about what "happened" afterwards later (spoiler: fucking nothing) and regret nothing.
An alternative way of saying you don't enjoy subtext.
What did you think of No Country (same year, similarly dark, more action and different theming)
Is that a blockbuster though? PTA movies are more on the art house side in my opinion
Sure seemed like one from the amount of fucking goddamn hype it got.
It was a big hit when it came out, I remember that (I'm not sure why it made such a big splash). I also remember walking out and feeling underwhelmed because it was so hyped up (I was also 10 years younger). I've since become more familiar with Paul Thomas Anderson's work and have a better understanding now. I can tell you, There Will Be Blood is a masterclass in production and storytelling. But I also understand it's not very appealing narrative and may turn many off.
Doctor WhoEdit: Gdi I meant Doctor Strange.
Which movie are you talking about? Peter Cushing or Paul McGann? I don't know that I'd call either one a blockbuster.
Dune.
Shower me with downvotes, I don't care.
New one or the 80's one?
New one.
3 hours of soulless cash grab capitalyzing on the fact that we had been starved of cinema for 2 years and everyone was so hyped to come back no one wanted to admit the movie was a boring mess of everyone involved sucking his own dick instead of working together for a good product.
I don't want to see the twentieth 4 minutes desert panoramic: it's a fucking desert, we get it can we move on? Or the stupidly intense stares between Chalamet and Rebecca Ferguson in random situations: you two are stranded in the desert drinking your own sweat and piss, why are you looking at each other like you're going to fuck?
They were working on it long before the pandemic, so that's invalid. But you read the book and believe that? Or did you not know what it was about beforehand?
No, never read the books, never read the comics, haven't seen the one from Jodorowsky.
And I don't really know anything about the production process: I judge it solely on what I saw, as any entertainment product should be.
There aren't comics afaik and, thankfully, the Jodorowsky monstrosity didn't get made.
I mean, sure, but it's half of a story. So much of the criticism I saw totally left out that it was part 1 of 2. I ask because it'd be like watching The Fellowship of the Ring and being upset that it was just a story about some midgets going on a hike - it's a take you could only have if you weren't at all familiar with the source material or even generally what it's about. It's not an invalid take, necessarily, but it is one that ignores that it's only one part of a larger story. Dune Pt 1 was also a slower burn, and it's totally valid to dislike that sort of movie.
I hope you watch the second one and can appreciate the first one as part of that context. Dune (the book, not just the movies) is very good for a lot of reasons and was incredibly influential on sci-fi as a whole. It's obviously fine not to like it, of course, but as a lifelong fan, I just want everyone to give it a chance.
Edit: there are comics actually. Huh.
I don't know why this was down voted, but you're right. It's not sold as an accompaniment to the books, so should stand on its own.
Having read the books though, I really enjoyed the movies. I do understand though that a lot of that enjoyment came from the background knowledge I got from the books.
As a fan of Dune 2 I appreciate your review. I think it's a fair criticism
Felt more like prep work for movie 2 (which I have yet to see)
To me Dune is too big for movies. It should have been a series. We've had two long films and they've cut the book down so far they still barely make sense. The end of Dune two should have been the end of a first season of 8-10 hour long episodes.
"Now with even more desert panoramics, elegantly scored with Hans Zimmern uninterruptedly farting in an empty can of beans"
I'd prefer an empty can of beets.
Everything everywhere all at once. The hype made this a let down, it wasn't even that good and I love weird thought provoking sci fi. This was just a goofy movie that is forgetable
Oh, I'm so glad you were not a fan. I thought I was the only one. The hype from friends was overwhelming, and I was excited to see it. BUT my wife and I couldn't finish the movie. The idea that she was THE worst version of herself was interesting, but everything else was just absurd.
bro wants to throw hands