You’re insane. It’s a brilliant film.
If you don’t care for it, don’t let people make you watch it.
No one (sane) will go “Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!” .You don’t “have to” value any kind of art. If you don’t, you don’t. That said, it might be worth trying at least once, you never know if you find something that stays with you.
I think that most of Art needs a bit oft commitment to be consumed and understood, you cannot expect to immediately understand a piece oft Art just because you can see colour and hear sound. It boils down to education, as you need to learn most things in manageable steps. What im saying is: if someone offers to show you something they like, they are likely a good resource to guide you through the experience.
More likely than the average Joe but guiding, like teaching or storytelling, is a distinct skill. Lots of people are totally blind to their own biases and the hypothetical 4 hour opera without context would definitely make me doubt their advice.
“Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!”
So you’ve never been dragged to Swan Lake?
I personally would probably enjoy it. At least the Ballet part. And i always carry ear buds, so the terrible opera style singing can be dealt with.
Oh yeah it wasn’t bad, just long as shit for someone who isn’t into ballet.
It really depends on the viewpoint and not only regarding the story and acting.
For example Scott pilgrim Vs the world is awesome to me subjectively as a movie, but it is objectively awesome with with practical effects and moving the scenery around during scenes.
If one doesn’t know the latter it can easily be perceived as mediocre regarding this.
I tried to watch it a few months ago and stopped shortly after the wedding. It was so slow and boring. Not my type of movie at all.
deleted by creator
Casablanca can suck it from here to eternity.
OG Nosferatu (1922) was pretty good though. And the film version of To Kill a Mockingbird.
Really? Just watched Casablanca again for the 5th time. I love it.
Casablanca is unironically one of my favourite movies! It’s better than most of the chaff coming out in cinema today.
It builds tension on so many levels throughout its length, while also being funny and evocative. It puts admirable people in vulnerable places where they rely on other uncaring and self-motivated individuals, and then does it again with higher stakes. When tension is at its maximum its then deflated all with a single line callback to the start of the movie.
Birdman and the whale
Fucking hate Napoleon Dynamite so I get that. Also godfather I agree with too.
I love Napoleon Dynamite because all of the characters remind me of people and small details about people that makes it feel nostalgic in a way that makes a lot of the weird subtle humor land for me. There isn’t really a story, and the pacing is very much at the pace of small town USA, so anyone who doesn’t get it will most likely find it either boring or impossible to follow for sure.
Definitely not for everyone.
I felt this way about the book 1984. Entirely overrated.
Like yes I get that the subject matter is what makes it important, but plenty of other books (and other media) has covered it and done a better job of it. Plus, now we get to live it making the book wholly irrelevant.
That’s an issue you can run into with many classics. Either they did something so well it’s become a trope, or the artistry in it has been refined so much that the original feels like a poor imitation.
A great example in film is Citizen Cane. It used a lot of ground breaking approaches for cinematography and sound design, but those things aren’t ground breaking anymore, so watching it now doesn’t have the same “excitement”. A more modern example might be Toy Story; the animation doesn’t look too impressive by modern standards, but was ground breaking at the time.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny
It’s a kind of natural selection. The most fit pieces of art succeed so much that we see their good traits echo into the future and become the norm. But we iterate on them further and continue to improve until the ancestor would no longer be able to compete with its descendents. Audiences adapt to what was once a trailblazing stroke of genius and it just becomes the standard.
Personally, I’ve found the trend to be very true. There are very few classics that I like nearly as much as the modern popular pieces that were inspired by them. Music might be the exception.
I can see this, but at the same time there are classics that still hold up great. Frankenstein for example is still a good read. Paradise Lost can be a big hard to digest, but I really enjoyed it.
Then again I don’t really read much Bible fanfic.
Frankenstein really doesn’t hold up, unless you’re on the younger side. The moral outrage on both sides is timeless and beautiful, but “I was put on bed rest because I looked at a cat funny” sticks out a bit too much in modern day.
Ah, I’m talking about Frankenstein and 1984 as stories. Frankenstein still a fun read, 1984 is definitely not. But yeah, that’s obviously a subjective thing.
I enjoyed it a lot and honestly, while I could see the massive influence it had on other things, and even being impressed by the distopian technology that would seem really scifi at the time, but is normal today, I think there are some aspects that have been explored further, but not at the same detail.
For example, doublethink and newspeak as a concept exists in other media, but I’ve never seen it explored to such details than in the book.
yeah I had something similar with the Beatles, where literally my first memory of music is Abbey Road, so my whole life I was like, I don’t get the hype, that’s just what music sounds like. it was only recently I went and listened to the album again with context of what other music from the 60s was like, and I finally realized that they were truly doing some wild shit with songwriting and production
Funnily enough that’s exactly why I think the Beatles are just mediocre. Literally sticking out was all they needed to do, since literally nothing was good. In this day and age it’s just not good music, even if it might be a classic.
No music in the 60s was good? I think you might just have some very narrow taste.
According to my Spotify wrapped I listened to over 400 genres, and 1200 artists last year, so no, I’m pretty positive I don’t have narrow taste, even in the slightest.
Maybe it’s just in this specific case, but if you can’t find any enjoyable music from an entire decade, that’s on you. Unless you want to try and make the case that you’re the only one with good taste and the rest of us are just lowly rubes, which is obviously ridiculous (though I’d probably enjoy the attempt).
But you’re allowed to have narrow taste and it’s not an insult. No need to get offended.
Has nothing to do with narrow taste. And has nothing to do with that decade either. 70s and 50s were terrible as well. When your artist pool is only a few thousand artists that’s what happens. Like, seriously, there’s so few of them that wikipedia has an article of the majority of them.
I’m just trying to understand, do you think that with such a small number of artists that it was even slightly statistically possible that there was a artist from the 60s and 70s that is comparable to a single artist in the top thousand artists in the past 30 years? Like it just doesn’t even make statistical sense, much less any sense if you listen to a lot of music.
I’m not making an argument on taste. I’m making a statistical argument that is backed up by listening.
Especially if you consider the late 60s, which was an incedible cultural phenomenon, maybe unparalled since in innovation.
If anything, the book is even more relevant now.
I wish it had never been written. I’m convinced it and Brave New World inspired a lot of the people ruining the world today.
I don’t see how. It’s a book about a dude trying to get his dick wet, and ultimately both he and his girlfriend sell each other out when they’re tortured. The themes are “totalitarianism and torture is bad.” The characters are flat and uninteresting, as is the world.
Yes, I’ve heard people make the argument that it’s written that way to reflect the dystopian reality of it all, and that’s fine. It’s still a shit story.
Besides, given that the U.S. is now facing that same reality and pushing it onto the rest of us, I don’t think the message the book tried to convey was conveyed particularly effectively.
Worth noting is that the book doesn’t deal with the topic of “oops, you’re in an authoritarian fascist dystopia, how do you deal with it.”
The Hunger Games does, though. The solution there is to kill the fascists.
The characters position in 1984 is how real people experience horrifying dystopia.
I feel like it doesn’t hold up well specifically because we’re living it now, but I dunno if I agree on it being overrated. For me, feels like ‘out of date’ or maybe just depressing is a better word.
When that stuff was fantastical and served as a warning, it had meaning, now it just makes us sad. It’s like oh yeah, we have that now, but it’s not even the government doing it, just some random snack company and we’re all just going along with it.
Well, I think it fails from a storytelling perspective. Some argue that at the time the ideas were novel, but like… Orwell drew inspiration from Nazi Germany so it can’t have been that novel. As far as Orwell goes, I think Animal Farm was a better read.
Can you name 3 movies you actually liked?
Are you asking rhetorically?
I liked a lot of things. Would be hard to name 3
They didn’t say your favorites. Just name three. For instance, I’ll name three that I like, but aren’t necessarily my favorites:
- A Knight’s Tale
- Ready Player One
- Ron’s Gone Wrong
Ooh me too!
I really liked:
- Summer of 84
- The Cable Guy
- The Wrong Guy
Not my favorites, but I rated them all well.
Shawshank, good will hunting, the martian, and bonus: the core lol.
I enjoy all of those, except The Core, because I’ve never heard of it. 😄
Edit: Oh, and my bonus is Caveman, starring Ringo Starr, Dennis Quaid, and Shelley Long!
Watch the core. It’s great. Extra entertaining if your background is in science or engineering.
The tone of the movie is serious, but it’s basically its own parody which is great.
Sounds great! Thanks for the recommendation!
I’ve already added caveman to my list as well
I’ve tried to watch it several times but always shut it off.
It’s a movie that’s constantly aware of itself and tries to push that onto the audience through self-conscious directing—which explains all the nepotism in casting too—and hat makes for disengaging storytelling and characters. And then there’s the cinematography that tries too hard, so it’s more a technical exercise than an effective one, but was successful in its era for that uniqueness.
Not to nrglect it’s an awful portrayal of organised crime, much like The Hurt Locker is at war. And Luca Brasi, ugh. It’s just awful.
In the modern day, I’ve understood the trilogy to be a go-to for “movie buffs” that are vulnerable to ad populum.
Pretty funny that you based your entire criticism off of the repeated to ad nauseam Family Guy quote, and obviously zero actual experience or knowledge about the movie.
It is perfectly fine that you don’t like it, taste is completely subjective, but your description of it is objectively wrong.
That’s very assumptuous. Assuming things is just gambling.
In truth, I have no idea what quote you’re referring to and 0 ≠ 4/5; since this is about as far as I made it first time at film class before leaving. While the second is marginally better, it is much the same. I don’t think I’ve ever made it to the third; there’s been a few attempts and chances over a couple decades bringing my total Godfather minutes to an unfortunately but substantially above average amount—especially the front 120 mins or so.
This is quite on contrast to your “so, you…” styled assumption. It’s better to not be like that.
Exactly, it insists upon itself
It’s kind of weird, but I find that the higher a film is rated by film critics and websites, the less I tend to enjoy it.
Film critics are like friends: you need to choose a few that share your taste, and stick with them. For me it’s Moviebob, Redletter Media and Patrick H Willems. They appreciate whacky shit as much as I do.
That’s called being a contrarian
There’s a reason McDonald’s is popular.
For me, I do enjoy a movie that’s deep or well written or has great cinematography, even if it’s a bit boring. I also like movies that have entertainment value. Both can exist.
Only gripe I have is shitty popular movies prevent smaller indie movies from being shown at my small town theater.
The inverse of Rotten Tomatoes is a good measurement of how I’d enjoy a movie.
A lot of film critique industry is based upon fart-sniffing snobbery.
It’s like a game of one-upsmanship on how much “meaning” you can
inventderive from dull, self-important drudgery and the more masochistic your movie-watching experience, the more “refined” you are.Source: had to study media crit and industry a lot in school.
It’s like the
modern art
money laundering
Industry…but at 25 frames per second!
(Or some arbitrary frame rate to stir further controversy)
I can’t remember the name of the film but there is one film released relatively recently that’s just a series of photographs. Set to music.
It’s literally slower than one frame per second.
deleted by creator
Respectfully of course, that sounds quite literally like it’s a really long slideshow? 🤔
I prefer art to run at 60 FPS.
That’s the stuff, 144 if I can get away with it! 😜
Maybe not for films tho hahaha
you can really taste the extra perseconds
you can’t just say perseconds
Pretty sure they just did.
but what if i like the way quentin tarantinos ass fart? what therefore then?
foot
you make an adulterously valid point
I imagine if all you do is watch films, you get tired of common stuff. You’ve seen it before. But if you only watch films sometimes, some of that is still interesting to you.
Kind of like how some video game nerds will be only “only double soj 2x blan Blah is viable” but like other builds do fine for everything except some optional mega bosses
Full time critics must be weird to talk with for any length of time. I know my own work bleeds into my perceptions and interests, and can’t help but think that critics have their judging hats on for routine, everyday affairs. Imagine your partner sitting in the passenger seat, idly commenting on the lighting of a city park as you drive past (I don’t have to imagine, lol, because my partner does amateur film work as a side gig and he loves to talk about his cameras).
That’s why I find it important to look at both critic and user reviews. If they agree, they’re probably right. If they disagree things get interesting.
If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring. If critics disliked it, but audiences liked it, it’s probably kinda bad but exciting.
Both are also affected by social media, especially user scores, so if “the Internet” hates/loves something if can be unfairly inflated/deflated.
New, but not brand new, films also usually have a more accurate score. I enjoyed The Godfather, so I would rate it positively, but if I didn’t like it I’m probably not rating it at all. I saw it X years ago and unless it was absolutely terrible or I have a vivid memory of disliking it, I’m just going to ignore it.
If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring.
Or it’s something fresh instead of the same junk that critics had seen hundreds of times (literally), whereas most of the public can’t be arsed with original but marginal concepts.
There will be blood… fuuuuuck outta here. Dont get me wrong, screaming out “Look what yav done to ma boy!!!” Is fun and all, but that shit was boring as hell. For 20something year old me anyway.
Just noticed this one has only downvotes, I thank yall for agreeing with the original post.
I did this with Citizen Kane. it’s shit.
Unpopular opinion: Clockwork Orange isnt a controversial masterpiece, it’s just crap propped up by snobby film classes and preached as being good so people feel a need to say they liked it.
A Clockwork Orange is all over the place, sometimes incoherent, and needs context of cultural topics to really understand. It is also energetic and visually exciting which makes up for not necessarily understanding everything that is going on. All of those positives can be negatives for other people of course, because it can be hard to follow characters who behave like cartoons and spout gibberish slang while drinking milk, but it wouldn’t have stuck around in the cultural consciousness for so long if it wasn’t engaging for a large number of people other than film snobs.
Kubrick seems to fork most viewers down two paths. Especially Clockwork Orange.
For one group he’s pretty singular at evoking certain emotions or feelings that are distinct to Kubrick. Clockwork Orange has its own unique discomfort or the Shining having a very particular flavor of dread.
Others, those Kubrick theatrics take them right out of the moment. The twins in the hallway make you zig instead of zagging, and now you have this very serious movie trying to make you scared while taking the most obtuse route to that emotion.
Both parties are equally wrong. Kubrick encoded the architecture of the overlying conspiracy at large into his films to open the general populace to the lie we all live this week on the Joe Rogan podcast.
I hope everything is okay, I saw your response and poof your account was deleted. It apparently wasn’t an account created just for this comment either. Apparently Napoleon Dynamite was the straw that broke the camels back. Wish you luck out there… hope all your endeavors go well…
I’m not sure why I’m actually responding now, but there was just something sad about finding out you being gone
Poof, I’m back!
Yayyyy! Guessing you had just set your name to [deleted] and I wasn’t think about it lol
Setting a custom display name is fun times.
It doesn’t have an ending
Agree. I tried to watch that too, a long time ago. It’s also a shit film.
It insists upon itself.
Precisely
The first one is… Fine. The other two are a fuckin slog.
I’d say the 1st and 3rd are blehh, and the second is okay
Does that one show a bunch of Italy? I didn’t mind that.
