Critically Acclaimed Movies we Hate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Hitman Dread:

Cousin_IT:
Where the Wild Things are.

Whiney kid ruins his sisters stuff because she wont play with him 24/7, bites his mum coz she won't wipe his arse 24/7, then runs off into fantasy land to play with his boring puppet friends for what feels like an eternity before realizing his puppet alter ego is a little shit & goes home where all is okay for some reason. I think he learned a lesson somewhere, but I'd have preferred that he should have been taught it by having some teeth punched out of his annoying, selfish skull.

That's not what happened during that film at all.
The kid tries to fix everyone's problems, he tries to involve everyone, he tries to feel the place left by his father; of course he can't because he's a kid and doesn't have a firm enough grip on reality.
He's the opposite of selfish, in fact he's so selfless that when his teacher tells him the sun is going to explode he looks up at the sun and feels depressed.

Both of the times he acts out was out of self defense in his own dysfunctional way. Like many kids in his situation, he fears being left again, and thus doesn't like having anyone replace what he feels is his position in the family.

Please. He's a little self-entitled brat who responds to his sister getting other friends & his mum seeing other men by throwing destructive tantrums because he is no longer the central atom of the nuclear family, followed by self-pitying guilt when he is faced by the consequences of his destruction. After his tedious foray into fantasy land, where he larks around with his boring anthropomorphic manifestations of varies characters in his life & aspects of his own psyche - including, if we take Carol to represent Max's current anger & fear with the changes in his life, the implication that he has Freudian style incestuous feelings towards his sister/mother (represented by K.W) - taking on the role of his now absent father (the king of the monsters), he discovers that in fact life is pretty lame & you can't just go back to the way things were, & smashing things up is not the responsible way to deal with it.

A lesson, I posit, I would have much prefer for him to have learnt by having a few teeth punched out of his annoying little head. It certainly would have saved me having to sit through such a boring film. Better yet, instead of whining about his sister not wanting to hang out with him anymore, he could instead have gone to play with some of the schoolfriends he obviously has & avoided the whole mess to begin with.

The puppet effects were pretty good, though.

LarenzoAOG:
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Ferris Buellers Day Off

This is a movie about a smug asshole teenager who thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's popular, the bad guy is a man who is just trying to do his job, a man whose main charecter "flaw" seems to be that he cares to much about kids educations to let one jackass, who will probably be a failure down the road, skip school.

Fuck you Ferris Bueller, you smug cunt.

Thumbs up, very true. I laugh out loud!

Higgs303:

LarenzoAOG:
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Ferris Buellers Day Off

This is a movie about a smug asshole teenager who thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's popular, the bad guy is a man who is just trying to do his job, a man whose main charecter "flaw" seems to be that he cares to much about kids educations to let one jackass, who will probably be a failure down the road, skip school.

Fuck you Ferris Bueller, you smug cunt.

Thumbs up, very true. I laugh out loud!

I'm glad my wisdom entertains you.

Avatar without a doubt is the movie most guilty of this. I mean all it is is pocahontas, IN SPACE! It does nothing ground breaking, it's full of cliches, the romance is forced, and the characters are just boring. Now you might disagree with me for the not being ground breaking part because of it's 3d and amazing visuals. Yes it's pretty, whoop de fucking doo. The fact is ever since Avatar has come out movie companies have been cashing in like crazy from 3d and including it with everything. So it's actually had a negative impact instead of a positive one (titanic also sucks too)

axlryder:
Seems like there's a lot of whining in this thread. Yes, some critically acclaimed movies are overrated, but to say one "hates" them for some of the reasons I'm seeing listed is just petty. Saying "Oh it wasn't SUBTLE enough" or "it was too convoluted" or "It wasn't as intelligent as everyone makes it out to be" or "I thought it was boring" are NOT good reasons to call a movie garbage when they're clearly competently executed and even exemplary in some regards without being particularly offensive. I know some people are merely stating their disappointment, but this comment is directed at those who are treating Toy story 3 and Inception like some of the most putrid shit stains to ever grace the silver screen. When compared to some truly bad movies (and even observing the films based on their own merits) I can't really see all the hatred being justified. A film's contemporary popularity or metascore should not determine how critical one is of its flaws. For me, one of the only critically acclaimed movies I would go so far as to say I "hated" in recent memory was Sin City. It felt like a thinly veiled metaphor for pervading social sentiments painted in the most needlessly brutal and sexually provocative way possible. It was almost a celebration of that which it criticized. There was not a single element of that movie that I didn't take some issue with. While I appreciate the artistic vision and execution of its visual presentation, I couldn't help but think it felt wasted on so much pointless violence and lingering shots of Jessica Alba's ass. Despite its cobbled together story line, the next Pulp Fiction it was not. I was also pretty disappointed by both Inception and Avatar.

You spend about a paragraph condemning people for hating movies that critics blew their loads over, then proceed to hate on a critically acclaimed movie . . . image

dont get back up

Avatar, my god Avatar. I wasn't even let down by hype, i didn't know it existed until the week before i saw it. Everything about it was derivitive of every modern movie trope imaginable. It also doesn't help that i've seen it about 10 times now through various circumstances.

Scarim Coral:
I guess I'm the first to say Avatar. Sure the 3D and the fantasy setting were good but the plot and the rest of it wasn't.

its to bad said fantasy setting existed long before the films release. google image roger dean and you'll know what i mean. Cameron couldn't even make his own goddamn setting.

Burn After Reading. Probably the biggest waste of 9 dollars I've ever spent. The only part I laughed at was when Brad Pitt got shot in the face, otherwise, not funny at all.

JoesshittyOs:

You nailed it on the head right there. Yes, replace the aliens with say... Somalian refugees, you would have had another movie similar to Hotel Rwanda. My point was there was really no need to have aliens in the movie. They didn't serve any ulterior purpose other than being that metaphor. Which could have easily been achieved through actually making a movie about mistreatment of refugees.

The aliens weren't an ulterior purpose, they were the focus of the film. District 9 was always an alien movie, the symbolism and metaphor is just part of the background (at least, that's what the commentary and special features say if I recall correctly). If you replaced the aliens with refugees, you'd have a political film about refugees, not an action-scifi film with political undertones (and middletones).

SurfinTaxt:

axlryder:
Seems like there's a lot of whining in this thread. Yes, some critically acclaimed movies are overrated, but to say one "hates" them for some of the reasons I'm seeing listed is just petty. Saying "Oh it wasn't SUBTLE enough" or "it was too convoluted" or "It wasn't as intelligent as everyone makes it out to be" or "I thought it was boring" are NOT good reasons to call a movie garbage when they're clearly competently executed and even exemplary in some regards without being particularly offensive. I know some people are merely stating their disappointment, but this comment is directed at those who are treating Toy story 3 and Inception like some of the most putrid shit stains to ever grace the silver screen. When compared to some truly bad movies (and even observing the films based on their own merits) I can't really see all the hatred being justified. A film's contemporary popularity or metascore should not determine how critical one is of its flaws. For me, one of the only critically acclaimed movies I would go so far as to say I "hated" in recent memory was Sin City. It felt like a thinly veiled metaphor for pervading social sentiments painted in the most needlessly brutal and sexually provocative way possible. It was almost a celebration of that which it criticized. There was not a single element of that movie that I didn't take some issue with. While I appreciate the artistic vision and execution of its visual presentation, I couldn't help but think it felt wasted on so much pointless violence and lingering shots of Jessica Alba's ass. Despite its cobbled together story line, the next Pulp Fiction it was not. I was also pretty disappointed by both Inception and Avatar.

You spend about a paragraph condemning people for hating movies that critics blew their loads over, then proceed to hate on a critically acclaimed movie . . .

dont get back up

I actually said people are overreating when they say they hate these movies for some of the reasons I'm seeing listed (which I went on to specify), and then said that I'm speaking to the people who are calling these films absolutely atrocious for said reasons, and not to the people merely expressing disappointment in them. I then justified my opinion of Sin city with a critique that actually goes beyond somewhat minor quibbles on the scale of good to bad, while never once trying to definitively say it was a bad movie (and I think most would agree it's not on the level of Pulp Fiction). More importantly, I would also think it's clear I took offense to the film's seemingly hypocritical and needless excesses, which is one of the things I implied earlier in my comment as being a justifiable reason to actually hate a film. You know, the part where I said "without being particularly offensive". I also said I was merely "disappointed" with Avatar and Inception, which is true and in no way contradicts my earlier statement. Of course, I can understand how someone who's simply looking for hypocrisy in a statement and doesn't seem to have the capacity to discriminate between varying degrees and types of criticism might get confused. It's the same sort of person who would attempt to distill a fairly long comment into a single inaccurate example of hypocrisy and then proceed to act as though they've somehow landed an irreparable blow on the position of another (even though hypocrisy in and of itself does almost nothing to negate the truth of a statement).

p.s. posting obnoxious gifs and implied threats do little to actually strengthen the rather weak criticisms your comment is based on in the eyes of an actually intelligent individual; instead, they only serves to make you look bad.

CaptainKarma:

spielberg11:
Avatar, and the first Matrix.

Admittedly, I enjoyed the first half hour before the aliens became involved in Ferngully: The Remake, and I really admire the special effects of the Matrix, making that cardboard cutout look like it was talking by itself.

Okay, we get it, Avatar is Pochahogully with Wolves. It's been two fucking years, does anybody really care? Calling out a movie for something like this is completely pointless. Avatar was never going to be a plot driven movie, it never sold itself as as anything other than a very pretty film, judge it on that.

Transformers isn't a bad film because it has a crap plot, it's an action film, it doesn't need plot. It's a bad film because it's fucking ugly to watch, and what plot it has is offensively crass.

Same with Inception, or even District 9. Don't criticise them for NOT being deep. Lots of films are NOT deep. Criticise them for dodgy characterisation, or for heavy handed exposition. "Deep" is a meaningless term.

This is my favourite post in the thread. There is way too much bandwagon riding going on here.

Also I'm pretty sure Pochahontas and Ferngully were attacked by critics for being unoriginal when THEY came out, and nobody who compares Avatar to Dances With Wolves has ever even seen that movie, so those comparisons are just redundant after this many years.

I don't even feel like defending Avatar anymore, but these people making the same complaints about it over and over like it's a serious injustice that Avatar gets attention are some of the most annoying people on the internet.

Citizen Kane
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind

Twilight franchise. No explanation necessary.

I swear millions of people seem to think it's the funniest thing ever. I just don't see anything that's funny about it.

Up and Toy Story 3. Up kind of started out as something different, but the acclaim for Toy Story 3 just baffles me. The story was something I'd expect to find in a made-for-TV movie, the jokes were bad, and the pacing was rushed. I'd also like to nominate Knocked Up. Seth Rogan annoys me to no end.

LarenzoAOG:
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Warning wall of text.

Ferris Buellers Day Off

This is a movie about a smug asshole teenager who thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's popular, the bad guy is a man who is just trying to do his job, a man whose main charecter "flaw" seems to be that he cares to much about kids educations to let one jackass, who will probably be a failure down the road, skip school.

Fuck you Ferris Bueller, you smug cunt.

Oh, I forgot about Scott Pilgrim. Had I been the one who paid for the ticket, I would have left. I felt embarrassed to be watching it.

Cousin_IT:

Hitman Dread:

Cousin_IT:
Where the Wild Things are.

Whiney kid ruins his sisters stuff because she wont play with him 24/7, bites his mum coz she won't wipe his arse 24/7, then runs off into fantasy land to play with his boring puppet friends for what feels like an eternity before realizing his puppet alter ego is a little shit & goes home where all is okay for some reason. I think he learned a lesson somewhere, but I'd have preferred that he should have been taught it by having some teeth punched out of his annoying, selfish skull.

That's not what happened during that film at all.
The kid tries to fix everyone's problems, he tries to involve everyone, he tries to feel the place left by his father; of course he can't because he's a kid and doesn't have a firm enough grip on reality.
He's the opposite of selfish, in fact he's so selfless that when his teacher tells him the sun is going to explode he looks up at the sun and feels depressed.

Both of the times he acts out was out of self defense in his own dysfunctional way. Like many kids in his situation, he fears being left again, and thus doesn't like having anyone replace what he feels is his position in the family.

Please. He's a little self-entitled brat who responds to his sister getting other friends & his mum seeing other men by throwing destructive tantrums because he is no longer the central atom of the nuclear family, followed by self-pitying guilt when he is faced by the consequences of his destruction. After his tedious foray into fantasy land, where he larks around with his boring anthropomorphic manifestations of varies characters in his life & aspects of his own psyche - including, if we take Carol to represent Max's current anger & fear with the changes in his life, the implication that he has Freudian style incestuous feelings towards his sister/mother (represented by K.W) - taking on the role of his now absent father (the king of the monsters), he discovers that in fact life is pretty lame & you can't just go back to the way things were, & smashing things up is not the responsible way to deal with it.

A lesson, I posit, I would have much prefer for him to have learnt by having a few teeth punched out of his annoying little head. It certainly would have saved me having to sit through such a boring film. Better yet, instead of whining about his sister not wanting to hang out with him anymore, he could instead have gone to play with some of the schoolfriends he obviously has & avoided the whole mess to begin with.

The puppet effects were pretty good, though.

And another one I forgot. That movie just felt empty and stupid. I don't care about the "plight" of first-world, middle-class children. The go-to "mummy and daddy got a divorce" is just a bunch of sappy tripe.

Pulp Fiction, I like Samuel L Jackson but everything else feels like it was written by an annoying smart-ass, performed by annoying smart-ass actors (Uma Thrman and John Travolta are especially guilty of this).

I liked Inception but the characters had no depth and when i thought about it, the whole concept of inception is a horrible morally repellent crime and the film didn't once stop to consider the morality of these characters' actions.

2001

and Fight Club also, I really hated the message of that film, although I feel some fanboy will tell me I didn't get the message.

The top of my list of lauded movies I can't stand is Titanic.
I know, it mostly has to do with the plot/story being just too sappy for its own good. While it is well-acted, I can't find myself caring about the characters.

Another one is E.T., so boring I actually fell asleep.

Accidental Double Post

Hmm, I guess what comes to mind is Kill Bill (The whole thing) and Avatar. Kill Bill was stylized in a way that wasn't to my liking and I pretty much disliked everyone in it, which made me wish everyone died at some point. Avatar was just a cookie-cutter storyline mixed with high budget special effects. It had no redeeming qualities other than "it looked pretty".

SurfinTaxt:
Personally, I can't stand it when the media consensus on very stupid movies is great.

To me, Inception is the biggest transgressor.
District 9 comes in at a close second.

Disclaimer; I absolutely loved Memento, and Nolan in general does right by me. Inception was just such a spicy stinking turd.

I really enjoyed most of Nolan's stuff, but I agree on Inception, and the more I looked at The Dark Knight, the more, all I could see, was a sloppy remake of HEAT, with De Niro's character being played by Ledger, and Pachino's character being played by a dinner plate.

With Inception it was just, "i can be the matrix too! Guys? Where are you going? Guys!?"

LarenzoAOG:
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Warning wall of text.

Ferris Buellers Day Off

This is a movie about a smug asshole teenager who thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's popular, the bad guy is a man who is just trying to do his job, a man whose main charecter "flaw" seems to be that he cares to much about kids educations to let one jackass, who will probably be a failure down the road, skip school.

Fuck you Ferris Bueller, you smug cunt.

Your friends think that because Scott Pilgrim IS original and deep. The entire movie is a very intricately crafted allegory with an intentionally superficial veneer. I wrote about a ten page analysis of this film. Suffice to say, it's a brilliant (though not perfect) piece of cinema and expertly captures the sentiment and troubles of our current generation. You honestly just don't "get" it if you feel suspension of disbelief has any role here. The whole point is that things do get completely unbelievable. You're right to think that Scott is something of a selfish asshole, but that's kind of the point (even at the end of the movie). I agree with your assessment of Bueller though.

Inception, Inception, Inception, Inception, Inception, INCEPTION!

Riding on the gravy train of the also lackluster (With the exception of Health Ledgers performance) Dark Knight,Inception talked a good game but delivered on none of it's promises. (To me at least.)

It promised a riveting heist movie: It didn't deliver.
It promised that the whole movie would be a maze and the audience would have to pay attention to figure it out: It didn't deliver.
It promised to be a movie about the dangers and intricacies of the human mind: It...didn't deliver.

All pretenses of depth and mystery were disregarded for a shallow action movie that hoped it's special effects could cover for the fact the plot was lackluster, the characterization on all counts except Leonardo DiCaprio was also incredibly poor (Dicaprio was more a tribute to his own acting skill rather than the writing and he was still asleep at the wheel...haha) which brings us to: the writing.

The story itself was a very basic, very generic big budget heist movie that seemed to think that because it was a "science fiction" movie about breaking into people's heads that would be enough to carry it through. The dangers of the mind and the imagination are never fully felt, especially when compared to other better movies on the same subject. We never see the characters do anything really unusual or inventive but they joke about it. "Dream a little bigger, darling." The writing, the design, never attempt at subtlety and that would be okay, except that we're supposed to believe that DiCaprio's character engages in a very dangerous job, one which has the real threat of him never "waking up from".

Even his character's journey, if a journey it can be called, is rendered pointless by the ending. Which, some people have told me, is supposed to make the audience in question wonder if it was all real, if he ever made it out, or if they are living in the "Matrix".

Which is where we get into the final problem with Inception: it's trying to be the Matrix. However you feel about the Matrix is probably irrelevant to the discourse because that's really what Inception wants. It's why we've seen everything there is to see in Inception before, it's just packaged a different way. But even compared to the Matrix, Inception is popcorn.

Dark City, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and yes, the Matrix are all better movies.

axlryder:

LarenzoAOG:
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Warning wall of text.

Ferris Buellers Day Off

This is a movie about a smug asshole teenager who thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's popular, the bad guy is a man who is just trying to do his job, a man whose main charecter "flaw" seems to be that he cares to much about kids educations to let one jackass, who will probably be a failure down the road, skip school.

Fuck you Ferris Bueller, you smug cunt.

Your friends think that because Scott Pilgrim IS original and deep. The entire movie is a very intricately crafted allegory with an intentionally superficial veneer. I wrote about a ten page analysis of this film. Suffice to say, it's a brilliant (though not perfect) piece of cinema and expertly captures the sentiment and troubles of our current generation. You honestly just don't "get" it if you feel suspension of disbelief has any role here. The whole point is that things do get completely unbelievable. You're right to think that Scott is something of a selfish asshole, but that's kind of the point (even at the end of the movie). I agree with your assessment of Bueller though.

Honestly, in reading your post, all I could think of was this video. If by "captures the sentiment and troubles of our current generation," you mean the distillation by mainstream media of anything popular outside of traditional media into an easily digestible, mass produced, AstroTurf attempt, then sure. But, the film is a highly engineered attempt by mainstream media to generate a cult classic.

Now, for some people, yourself included, this obviously took. But most people looked at Scott Pilgrim and responded with "more dreck" and moved on.

In a non-sequitor I found it hilarious that Bob flipped out at The Expendables as what was wrong with mainstream Hollywood, when it's box office numbers crushed his little indy favorite Scott Pilgrim. The hilarious part is Pilgrim was a studio funded film with a massive budget, while Expendables was privately funded, that is to say, an actual independent film.

axlryder:

LarenzoAOG:
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Warning wall of text.

Ferris Buellers Day Off

This is a movie about a smug asshole teenager who thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's popular, the bad guy is a man who is just trying to do his job, a man whose main charecter "flaw" seems to be that he cares to much about kids educations to let one jackass, who will probably be a failure down the road, skip school.

Fuck you Ferris Bueller, you smug cunt.

Your friends think that because Scott Pilgrim IS original and deep. The entire movie is a very intricately crafted allegory with an intentionally superficial veneer. I wrote about a ten page analysis of this film. Suffice to say, it's a brilliant (though not perfect) piece of cinema and expertly captures the sentiment and troubles of our current generation. You honestly just don't "get" it if you feel suspension of disbelief has any role here. The whole point is that things do get completely unbelievable. You're right to think that Scott is something of a selfish asshole, but that's kind of the point (even at the end of the movie). I agree with your assessment of Bueller though.

Regardless of wether I "got" the point of the movie or not what it boiled down to was a celebration of "Geek Culture" which in my opinion fucking sucks. I sincerely dislike retro games, I hate people who think Super Mario Bothers is the pinnacle of artistic expression, I loathe nostalgia-blind men in their 30's going "LOL, that was a Mario reference! Remember when we didn't have jobs and responsibilities?" I sincerely want to punch all the teenage girls out their giggling "ZOMG! Let's go to Hot Topic and buy knit caps with cat ears!" And it's not their fault, that's just the way I am, I wasn't part of the target audience, the fact that it was IMO a bad movie doesn't change the fact that I just hate the whole theme of the movie.

However, I am glad that at least three people besides myself saw Ferris Bueller for what it was.

Starke:

axlryder:

LarenzoAOG:
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Warning wall of text.

Ferris Buellers Day Off

This is a movie about a smug asshole teenager who thinks he can do whatever he wants because he's popular, the bad guy is a man who is just trying to do his job, a man whose main charecter "flaw" seems to be that he cares to much about kids educations to let one jackass, who will probably be a failure down the road, skip school.

Fuck you Ferris Bueller, you smug cunt.

Your friends think that because Scott Pilgrim IS original and deep. The entire movie is a very intricately crafted allegory with an intentionally superficial veneer. I wrote about a ten page analysis of this film. Suffice to say, it's a brilliant (though not perfect) piece of cinema and expertly captures the sentiment and troubles of our current generation. You honestly just don't "get" it if you feel suspension of disbelief has any role here. The whole point is that things do get completely unbelievable. You're right to think that Scott is something of a selfish asshole, but that's kind of the point (even at the end of the movie). I agree with your assessment of Bueller though.

Honestly, in reading your post, all I could think of was this video. If by "captures the sentiment and troubles of our current generation," you mean the distillation by mainstream media of anything popular outside of traditional media into an easily digestible, mass produced, AstroTurf attempt, then sure. But, the film is a highly engineered attempt by mainstream media to generate a cult classic.

Now, for some people, yourself included, this obviously took. But most people looked at Scott Pilgrim and responded with "more dreck" and moved on.

In a non-sequitor I found it hilarious that Bob flipped out at The Expendables as what was wrong with mainstream Hollywood, when it's box office numbers crushed his little indy favorite Scott Pilgrim. The hilarious part is Pilgrim was a studio funded film with a massive budget, while Expendables was privately funded, that is to say, an actual independent film.

No, I'm talking about the hollow and escapist nature of our current generation. The passive-aggressive attitudes. The selfish idealism. The narcissism. Note that the film is told from Scott's perspective. Much of it is in Scott's mind.

The use of in-jokes were fine but that's not at all what I appreciated about the movie. If anything, the movie is a brutal critique of a lot of gaming and hipster culture. The entire flashy presentation was meant to seem like superfluous wish fulfillment, because that was what it was for Scott. That's the point. The editing, pacing and everything else was supposed to make the movie feel like a fever dream even before the beginning of the "ex-fights". Sadly, some people seem too focused on "ewww, blatant gaming in-jokes" to realize that the movie is saying a lot more than that. The ending is actually pretty sad, because we know that Scott is still chasing an ideal and is still a narcissist with low self esteem, Ramona is still insecure, and the two are doomed for failure. That's what I love about this movie, you can watch it and take everything at face value, or watch the whole movie reading the subtext and see a very different picture painted. There is a lot of poignant and insightful social commentary in this film, though I'd have to go back and watch it again to really pick it all out for a second time.

What's more, the visual presentation IS excellent and the jokes (for the most part) are actually funny. And no, I'm not talking about the pop culture references, just the actual jokes.

Also, the guy making that video seems like an unfunny and ill-informed jerk. 17 is legal in Canada, smart guy. Also, I don't care if you joined the army, you clearly missed the point of the film

axlryder:
No, I'm talking about the hollow and escapist nature of our current generation. The passive-aggressive attitudes. The selfish idealism. The narcissism. Note that the film is told from Scott's perspective. Much of it is in Scott's mind.

The use of in-jokes were fine but that's not at all what I appreciated about the movie. If anything, the movie is a brutal critique of a lot of gaming and hipster culture. The entire flashy presentation was meant to seem like superfluous wish fulfillment, because that was what it was for Scott. That's the point. The editing, pacing and everything else was supposed to make the movie feel like a fever dream even before the beginning of the "ex-fights". Sadly, some people seem too focused on "ewww, blatant gaming in-jokes" to realize that the movie is saying a lot more than that. The ending is actually pretty sad, because we know that Scott is still chasing an ideal and is still a narcissist with low self esteem, Ramona is still insecure, and the two are doomed for failure. That's what I love about this movie, you can watch it and take everything at face value, or watch the whole movie reading the subtext and see a very different picture painted. There is a lot of poignant and insightful social commentary in this film, though I'd have to go back and watch it again to really pick it all out for a second time.

Then I'd applaud you for finding a subversive read of the film. No sarcasm intended. But, to expect others to find and recognize that is probably more than a little unrealistic. Most films are going to be evaluated at face value.

For instance, I could turn around, and say Inception is a vicious criticism of the creative bankruptcy we're seeing from Hollywood today, but that isn't the intent.

I think you're actually making a legitimate critique of the film however, it is a film about shallow, narcissistic, escapism. But it gets there, not through an attempt to criticize, but by attempting to appeal to the gamer hipster demographic.

I suspect if you were correct, and that was the actual intent, Scott would end the film (and the comic series), having followed his narcissistic impulses, only to be completely abandoned, lose out on the girl, and be kicked to the gutter.

...and that's it. The movie ends, the credits roll, and you've criticized the culture, you've built them up and trashed them in one fell swoop. For it to be a criticism something has to be, actually criticized. Now, I'm not saying this is the only possible route, but the wish fulfillment power fantasies that do saturate the film run completely counter to your subversive read.

Now, that is how you want to perceive it, and that's fine, but as I said earlier, expecting others to take your position, especially when there's evidence that undermines that reading.

axlryder:

Also, the guy making that video seems like an unfunny and ill-informed jerk. 17 is legal in Canada, smart guy. Also, I don't care if you joined the army, you clearly missed the point of the film

Honestly? The age of consent in some states is sixteen. A fact he's probably aware of. The fact remains, an adult going after a 17 year old is considered pretty damn sleazy in the US.

Is he a jerk? Yeah, that's part of his schtick. Is he funny? Yeah, some of the time, very. Ill informed? For something he really doesn't like? Well, honestly, how much time do you spend learning about things you don't like?

Avatar. I never expected it to be good and I was still disappointed. Such a bore. But there's one worse

Hangover!! God. Why is it so popular? It's like the most average comedy ever conjured. Nothing about it is really bad but nothing is funny either. It simply exists. I have no clue why it's so popular. It evokes no emotion by itself but all the clamoring over it makes me hate it.

Ninjat_126:

JoesshittyOs:

You nailed it on the head right there. Yes, replace the aliens with say... Somalian refugees, you would have had another movie similar to Hotel Rwanda. My point was there was really no need to have aliens in the movie. They didn't serve any ulterior purpose other than being that metaphor. Which could have easily been achieved through actually making a movie about mistreatment of refugees.

The aliens weren't an ulterior purpose, they were the focus of the film. District 9 was always an alien movie, the symbolism and metaphor is just part of the background (at least, that's what the commentary and special features say if I recall correctly). If you replaced the aliens with refugees, you'd have a political film about refugees, not an action-scifi film with political undertones (and middletones).

Plus its totally realistic imo of what would happen if aliens came here and werent able to take care of themselves, stick them in a camp where the conditions are horrible. Just because the refugees are from space doesnt make them any less refugees and they probably wouldnt be treated much different once we got over the 'OMG ALIENS!' phase.

Wereduck:

MaximumCrux:

Wereduck:
Honorable mention to Kane - it was a breakthrough in its time but so was the Model T Ford and nobody would consider driving one for practical purposes today. Watching Kane for entertainment today makes equally little sense.

Your analogy is somewhat suspect, would you care to explain exactly what you mean by this?

Sorry, I was in a rush before (lunch break) but I'll try to clarify:

I mean that Citizen Kane was innovative when it was made and changed the game for what came later, but everything it does well has been done vastly better since. Only a fool would drive a Model T today for any reason other than historical curiosity; judged by modern standards it's a death trap despite having laughable performance. In much the same way, Kane is dry and glacially slow even compared to the Star Wars prequels and accordingly, it should only be watched by people to appreciate it's role in the development of the medium. Regarded purely as a narrative it's awful and as a movie viewer (rather than a scholar) I wish I could get back the hours of my life I spent watching it.

Upon reflection, I suppose I'm being quite generous to Kane by comparing it to the Model T since there are other movies made around the same time which still work as entertainment in 2011 - I doubt it would even be legal to sell any of the Model T's contemporaries as a new car today.

Ah, so you have no actual facts, just misguided opinions. As I initially suspected.

Carry on good sir.

SckizoBoy:
Gladiator - if you know your classic swords 'n sandals movies, you'll know it was a knock-off of The Fall of the Roman Empire (chronological setting), Spartacus (gladiators, d'uh), and Ben Hur (revenge). Oh, how I despise Spielberg & Scott for that...

Enemy at the Gates - (excuse me) RRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGEEEEEEEEE...

Enemy at the Gates Russian soldier: "I say! Those German rotters are attempting to take our fair city of Stalingrad-lets have at them chaps! Tally-ho!"

Blade Runner was a bunch of meaningless garbage-you can go on about symbolism until your secretly android face melts but a man running around in his underwear shrieking like a lunatic is not cutting edge film-making, its grounds for being sectioned (and reflects poorly on the android company)!

Poor district 9 and inception :( I rather enjoyed them.

What I watched and just sat there going "What the fuck?" was the hurt locker it literally made no sense to me what so ever. I tend to not be to hard on films for not being realistic etc, but parts of the hurt locker were total bullshit imo. Bomb disposal experts suddenly becoming proficient with a sniper rifle, or jeremy renner walking down a road throwing smoke grenades, because he can? I mean wtf??? Why did he do that?

Starke:

axlryder:
No, I'm talking about the hollow and escapist nature of our current generation. The passive-aggressive attitudes. The selfish idealism. The narcissism. Note that the film is told from Scott's perspective. Much of it is in Scott's mind.

The use of in-jokes were fine but that's not at all what I appreciated about the movie. If anything, the movie is a brutal critique of a lot of gaming and hipster culture. The entire flashy presentation was meant to seem like superfluous wish fulfillment, because that was what it was for Scott. That's the point. The editing, pacing and everything else was supposed to make the movie feel like a fever dream even before the beginning of the "ex-fights". Sadly, some people seem too focused on "ewww, blatant gaming in-jokes" to realize that the movie is saying a lot more than that. The ending is actually pretty sad, because we know that Scott is still chasing an ideal and is still a narcissist with low self esteem, Ramona is still insecure, and the two are doomed for failure. That's what I love about this movie, you can watch it and take everything at face value, or watch the whole movie reading the subtext and see a very different picture painted. There is a lot of poignant and insightful social commentary in this film, though I'd have to go back and watch it again to really pick it all out for a second time.

Then I'd applaud you for finding a subversive read of the film. No sarcasm intended. But, to expect others to find and recognize that is probably more than a little unrealistic. Most films are going to be evaluated at face value.

For instance, I could turn around, and say Inception is a vicious criticism of the creative bankruptcy we're seeing from Hollywood today, but that isn't the intent.

I think you're actually making a legitimate critique of the film however, it is a film about shallow, narcissistic, escapism. But it gets there, not through an attempt to criticize, but by attempting to appeal to the gamer hipster demographic.

I suspect if you were correct, and that was the actual intent, Scott would end the film (and the comic series), having followed his narcissistic impulses, only to be completely abandoned, lose out on the girl, and be kicked to the gutter.

...and that's it. The movie ends, the credits roll, and you've criticized the culture, you've built them up and trashed them in one fell swoop. For it to be a criticism something has to be, actually criticized. Now, I'm not saying this is the only possible route, but the wish fulfillment power fantasies that do saturate the film run completely counter to your subversive read.

Now, that is how you want to perceive it, and that's fine, but as I said earlier, expecting others to take your position, especially when there's evidence that undermines that reading.

axlryder:

Also, the guy making that video seems like an unfunny and ill-informed jerk. 17 is legal in Canada, smart guy. Also, I don't care if you joined the army, you clearly missed the point of the film

Honestly? The age of consent in some states is sixteen. A fact he's probably aware of. The fact remains, an adult going after a 17 year old is considered pretty damn sleazy in the US.

Is he a jerk? Yeah, that's part of his schtick. Is he funny? Yeah, some of the time, very. Ill informed? For something he really doesn't like? Well, honestly, how much time do you spend learning about things you don't like?

well I don't really think the power fantasies run counter to my interpretation. Nor do I feel it's unrealistic to expect the audience to take away that interpretation (pretty much everyone I know who saw it felt it had a similar message). The use of the "dishonest protagonist" has been around since, what, Vladimir Nabokov did it? Of course the film partially exists because it's flashy and fun to watch and visually creative, but that doesn't mean that it's legitimately supposed to be taken at face value, to me it would actually be pretty difficult to do so (a point which everyone I talked to about it seemed to agree with). If you look at this movie as being told through "Scott-o-vision", you can see that the fight scenes are a point when Scott can no longer rationally deal with the situation at hand, so he fantasizes to cope. I do feel that the fight scenes actually did get a little redundant and lacked the same readable subtext the rest of the the film had, their mere existence alone attesting to Scott's delusional attitude, but, like I said earlier, it's not a perfect film in my mind. As to your feelings of how the movie should have ended, well of course that wouldn't necessarily be the presumed progression in a world where there's people just as broken as Scott who would naturally support his dysfunction via indulging their own dysfunction. Why else would millions of partners stay with their abusive spouses? We can clearly see throughout the entire film that Ramona, when not acting like a cipher for Scott to project all his idealism on to, was seriously damaged goods with a history of dating guys/girls with obvious problems (kind of the theme of the movie). She's trying to do what's right for herself, but in the end She gets wrapped back up into it, perhaps hoping this time that things will actually be different. Remember, also, that Scott is still young. I also like to think that Scott DID grow by the end up of the film, though not as much as he himself was lead to believe. That whole nega scott bit wasn't a throw away joke (even though it was funny). He had to fight his own demons, but instead either reconciled with them or perhaps gave in to them, Or maybe lack of a big flashy battle could have meant Scott was growing and learning to deal with his issues rationally (like an adult). However, him choosing Ramona leads me to believe he merely gave in. I mean, really though, to criticize something does NOT mean you have to blatantly spell out the negative aspects of it like some kind of sunday school class. That's boringly heavy handed, intellectually insulting and wouldn't do you any favors with the audience who didn't actually pick up on the subtler messages. Like I said, that's what I like about this movie, you can watch it with two different mind sets and practically see two different films. Sadly, the marketing campaign was awful, which is what really killed it at the box office. When I first saw the trailer I thought this looked like pandering shit too.

Also, clearly that's his shtick (as highly derivative as it is), but I mean, out of all the internet personalities I've seen, he just strikes me as an actual obnoxious jerk. I would also beg to differ that he is the least bit funny, but humor is subjective so I won't argue that point. The guy really just did it for me with his "serious question". Of course we relate to Scott not because we've all actually perceived ourselves as having super powers to cope or are projecting our fantasies on to Scott, but because in some point in our life wished we had super powers in order to escape as well. Many of us have seen the world through a lens of that which we love, sometimes even to a detrimental extent. We've all, to some extent or another, painted a picture a certain way in our head in order to make it easier to swallow or seem more in our favor. And many of us have been extremely egotistical as a defense mechanism to compensate for our insecurity. Just look at some people on this very website. Also, I'll admit I don't spend a lot of time on things I don't like; However, generally I also don't try to made reviews of said things. Also, if I did, I'd consider doing a bit more research before kicking a hornets nest of fans. I suspect he was merely trollin'.

MaximumCrux:

Wereduck:

MaximumCrux:

Your analogy is somewhat suspect, would you care to explain exactly what you mean by this?

Sorry, I was in a rush before (lunch break) but I'll try to clarify:

I mean that Citizen Kane was innovative when it was made and changed the game for what came later, but everything it does well has been done vastly better since. Only a fool would drive a Model T today for any reason other than historical curiosity; judged by modern standards it's a death trap despite having laughable performance. In much the same way, Kane is dry and glacially slow even compared to the Star Wars prequels and accordingly, it should only be watched by people to appreciate it's role in the development of the medium. Regarded purely as a narrative it's awful and as a movie viewer (rather than a scholar) I wish I could get back the hours of my life I spent watching it.

Upon reflection, I suppose I'm being quite generous to Kane by comparing it to the Model T since there are other movies made around the same time which still work as entertainment in 2011 - I doubt it would even be legal to sell any of the Model T's contemporaries as a new car today.

Ah, so you have no actual facts, just misguided opinions. As I initially suspected.

Carry on good sir.

"Actual facts" regarding a matter of personal opinion? So you are just trolling, as I initally suspected.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked