I’ll go first. Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It’s like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds
I did not like Donnie Darko until I rewatched the movie with the directors commentary. It felt like reading the Clif Notes after struggling to understand an obtuse old book in English class. I don’t think it’s a good thing per se that the movie’s plot struggles to stand on its own, but my appreciation for what was attempted really went up a lot after getting the supplemental material.
Tbh the actual cast and direction of the The Hobbit movies wasn’t that bad, but intentionally drawing out a single book that could’ve been done in 3-4 hours into 3 whole movies in a vain attempt at recapturing the LoTR trilogy’s fame is what made it weaker.
Rings of Power, however, throws out a lot of the stuff that happened in The Second Age and straight-up ignores Tolkien’s works at times. Granted, Amazon didn’t have legal rights to the Silmarillion and the LoTR appendices, but it’s still a shame we basically got a gutted version of what could have been a great show. Galadriel was also pretty boring as your generic “Marvel strong stoic action woman” kind of character.
What’s mad is they could have done a millennium long epic of Sauron’s domination Númenor. Could have made the whole thing as long or as short as they want and build from there.
They could have had political intrigue. conspiracies, betrayal, double-crossing and all sorts.
Who's claiming The Fifth Element is deep? The style and design are excellent, but it's a bog standard action flick until Chris Tucker shows up and steals the movie
Christopher Nolan hasn't made a truly good movie since The Prestige. Everything since then has been too long, too convoluted, and/or too loud (or in the case of Oppenheimer, not loud enough).
I could hate on the Dark Knight all day. The month it came out, my brother put it best, “It’s two movies. A good, short, Joker movie and a bad, long, Batman movie.”
When you watch this film and only the Joker scenes, its 10x better.
While I haven’t watched enough of his movies to have a overall opinion of them. As the only movie of a certan trilogy that I found good came out before The Prestige and the second which I VERY unpopulary don’t like came out after. I can somewhat agree with you.
Really? I found it to be extremely mid. It took at least an hour for the film to not feel like a trailer montage and find proper pacing. The writing didn’t feel organic at all, and felt like actors reading historical quotes from a page at each other. Also, when Florence Pugh’s character started riding Oppenheimer’s dick while he said his famous Bhagavad Gita line, I burst out laughing in the theater and had a really hard time taking the rest of the movie seriously.
I think this movie will be forgotten in 3 years, if not sooner.
E.T. is decent at best. I wanted to watch it as a young kid, but wasn't allowed. By the time I finally watched it, I found it fell short of my expectations and I found it quite dull. Super 8 was also a middling film, but I thought it was slightly better than E.T.
Tarantino is overrated. You have to watch a lot of movies to come to this realisation, because otherwise you don't realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies. Movies which did what he does better. That means that it doesn't actually matter that Tarantino is overrated for most movie goers. More generally, this is why critics' opinions don't actually matter that much. They've watched too many movies and likely know too much about movies, to tell the average audience goer if they'll enjoy a movie.
Once you've watched a few thousand movies, and especially if you've ever studied film or read a few books about it, you'll often find you enjoy interesting but shit movies more, than very well made but unoriginal movies. People who truly love film, invariably aren't snobs. They enjoy absolute trash, they enjoy arty farty stuff. If someone has a related degree or even a doctorate or works in the industry, the likelihood is high that they're also a fan of B-movies. They don't need to pretend to be knowledgeable, because they are. A film snob will bore you with the details of a Tarkovski movie. A cinephile is more likely to bang on about 80s horror movies, lesbian vampire sexploitation movies, Albert Pyun's Cyborg, or Troma's The Toxic Avenger.
Almost all art is influenced by other art. But Tarantino very closely copies some scenes. Think a literal collage, made up of photocopied bits of another work, rather than a painting inspired or influenced by another work. Tarantino is honest about this.
Is that a great painting? I quite like it, it's iconic, but it's not the Mona Lisa, and Warhol is not Da Vinci.
People who haven't watched a lot of movies, think Tarantino is Da Vinci. That he created an iconic scene, like Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.
People who have watched a lot of movies, realise he's Warhol. There's an iconic scene, but it's based on an original work, like Warhol's Mona Lisa.
There's nothing wrong with Warhol. Hell, it's ok to think that Warhol is a better artist than Da Vinci, think that Warhol's Mona Lisa is a better painting than the original Mona Lisa, art is subjective after all.
But it's a mistake to think Warhol is a genius, because he painted the Mona Lisa. He didn't. That was Da Vinci. If you're going think Warhol is a genius, you should think he's a genius because he took an existing work and manipulated it in a way that is genius.
It's been a while, and he references dozens of movies, so much so that you're watching his movies and think "wait, I've seen this before" and then you're distracted by the next scene you've seen before. But off the top of my head Vanishing Point, Foxy Brown, Lady Snowblood, Bruce Lee movies, and the Dirty Dozen.
But don't watch those. I probably enjoyed Vanishing Point the most, Bruce Lee in Game of Death is also fun, but often they have a few good scenes, the ones that Tarantino copied (sometimes poorly), but the rest of the movie can be a bit meh. Instead watch Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, In the Mood for Love, Infernal Affairs, Unforgiven, and (why not) Enter the Void. Not that those are my favourite movies, but they're movies that shouldn't bore you.
This is how I’ve come to view anime. You can tell the age of an anime fan by whether they’re enamored by the latest hit series or they sigh and go “this is just a remake of [old series from the 90s/00s].” I don’t give a shit how well made a series is; if the premise is “been there done that” without an original take or twist, or a tired and worn trope gets trotted out (looking at you, every fucking series that includes a scene where a female character comments enviously on another female character’s large breasts, yes Frieren that means you), then I’m insta-jaded on the series. At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who “aged out.” For me, I knew it had gotten bad when I was struggling to enjoy Cyberpunk because I felt like I had heard all the voices before in previous series.
It occurred to me why The Wiggles have been making so much money for so long: they only need to have enough material to entertain kids for a few years, and the ages that they’re targeting are the ones who love repetition anyway! Most entertainers need to constantly improve and evolve, but kids entertainers just need to enthusiastically do the same thing over and over.
I think one of the differences (at least when I watched anime way back in the early 00s) is that anime relies on a whole different set of tropes from Western movies and cartoons, and those tropes are unfamiliar (or were, anyway) to Western audiences.
When I started watching anime, it was hugely refreshing to be caught by surprise by plot twists and dialogue, and to see characters & themes that felt totally original.
But then you watch more anime, and realize…oh, they weren’t unique, they were totally stereotypical. You just didn’t know the stereotypes they were based on.
And before long you can see plot twists a mile away, the characters are predictable, and you can describe a new series as “basically X, but with some Y and monsters instead of robots”.
It’s the false promise of that initial discovery that makes the eventual realization that much more disappointing.
Agreed, the novelty of anime was a huge draw for me as well (especially since at the time there weren’t any anime-influenced Western cartoons). There are of course still standouts in anime that were revolutionary at the time and have since aged well (such as NGE and Cowboy Bebop, both of which are now over two decades old). There are also a few series that maybe weren’t masterpieces but still feel unique, as well as a handful that are cultural behemoths in and of themselves (like Gundam). But as with all media, the more you consume the more patterns emerge until the whole medium starts to feel tired.
I enjoy Tarantino movies. It all boils down to: are they solid fun entertainment or not, and to me the answer is yes.
Someone else did it better elsewhere? Sure, and he is very forthcoming about his influences. So if you’re a fan, you’ll likely find his sources and enjoy those too. Win win.
I would love to spend a night with him, sitting together at a kitchen table, him constantly ranting about movies and giving anecdotes, me pouring more wine…
I’m not sure I get your point, but I agree with your premise. Tarantino has made some ok movies but more often than not I find them boring, with poor acting and absurdly uninteresting story lines.
The easiest route to learning about movies, is to watch a lot of movies, and reading about the movie you've just watched. Wikipedia, a more in depth review, interviews with people who made the movie (not just the actors).
Google a top 100 list. Work your way through a few of them. Eg.
Yes, he has a PhD and is a member of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the UK equivalent of the Academy of Motion Pictures. No, he's not a snob. Texas Chainsaw Massacre's in the top 10. So are some older classics, which are still good.
Wow, thank you so much for all the recommendations! I sometimes feel like I don’t know how to watch certain kinds of movies (e.g., older movies, or more artsy movies). I hope reading up a bit will help me appreciate them more
Welp got a feeling I've got a doozy of an unpopular opinion, but that's why we're here. I don't like any of Tarantino's films. I find all the characters unlikeable or insufferable. I also fell asleep in the theater watching Kill Bill 2.
One of the most recent ones I watched was Whisper of the Heart. It can be summed up as “girl meets a cute guy, girl wants to be an author, writes about a cat in a parallel universe, finds an antique shop, random proposal at the end”, it was like watching a clipshow. I remember reading reviews for Totoro and them trying really hard to beat around the bush with “ah it doesn’t have a cohesive plot, buuuut…” and then the rest of the review, almost like they didn’t care because it was Studio Ghibli. I’ve seen movies panned for that (e.g. Alita Battle Angel or Spiderman 2).
Studio Ghibli today is a pale shadow of what it was in the 80s and 90s.
Most of the new stuff they did has been repeated over and over again to the point that they are no longer ‘new’ to a modern audience. Half of modern Japanese pop-culture, and a significant share of modern Chinese and Western pop culture borrow from their three early films (Cagliostro, Nausicaa and Laputa). Nausicaa is probably the single most influential animated movie in history.
To fully appreciate Totoro, you have to watch Grave of the Fireflies first.
I mean some of them show their age a bit and ok some of them rehash ideas from preceding ones, but it’s hard to think of any Miyazaki movie that did nothing for me at all.
If you ever want to ruin Princess Mononoke, just think "what exactly does the main character guy do to advance the plot?" The answer: almost nothing haha
I don’t think that ruins it for me, rather the opposite. Ashitaka is a member of a tribe far away from the places in the movie. When he gets there he is just an observer to the war between industry and nature and wants to form his own opinion. He gets sucked into it and even if he did nothing the story would have continued almost the same, bar the ending where he then has made up his mind. I’d have to watch it again and spare more than a few minutes before sleepy time to write a better response, but those are my two cents
I mean in general, not really all of them (for example, Spirited Away gets honorable mention on every list). I remember reviewers for Totoro trying their hardest to not spotlight the fact it has such a jumbled plot when movies have been panned for that before. A masterpiece is supposed to impart something onto someone, but except for Spirited Away and arguably Marnie, my main reaction was little more than “well now I can say I saw it”.
Grave of the fireflies left a deep impression with me. I recently saw a bunch of them with my girlfriend and I’ve come to the conclusion that most are nice looking long TV show episodes. Which is fine for what the are.
Being all their ages didn’t change a lot for me (not sure how normal that is amongst those age groups). Except for Totoro which I watched when I was four if I remember correctly, I was roughly a preteen to teen when I watched all of them (or all the ones I watched, which is all but three) up to The Boy and the Heron (which just came out, I’m an adult now) which would only put me out of range with Ponyo and Porco Rosso when I watched those. Most people have a good sense of feeling for a story that adds up. I was little when I watched Totoro and little me had to stop myself from getting distracted from the movie itself.
I don't know...I watched princess mononoke and was pretty impressed by the movie. Only other anime I've watched is ghost in the shell which I thought was alright. I'm not really an anime fan but I'm super glad I watched princess mononoke!
I think Mononoke was easily the weakest of Miyazaki’s movies but it’s the one everyone raves about because it was the first one to see a widespread and non-butchered release in the West on DVD.
The earlier Totoro, Kiki, and to a lesser extent Laputa are all better movies, in my opinion. The former two shine exceptionally by being charming slice-of-life vignettes from a time before that sort of thing was the mega genre it is today, managing to be captivating stories that somehow don’t need or contain any kind of villain, quest, or cliché call to adventure whatsoever.
Laputa does – in spades – but it’s still great. It’s got so many villains that it’s got two sets of bad guys, but one set of bad guys turn out not to be bad guys and basically the entire damn movie is a flying scene of some type or another and it’s fantastic. Castle of Cagliostro is also awesome, and it was arguably one of those pivotal Citzen Kane style moments for the medium that turned out to be surprisingly influential to subsequent works, both animated and not. (And also introduced an entire generation to the only version of Lupin who is not an huge asshole, much to the surprise of everyone who watched this movie first and went on to check out… any… other Lupin III works.) Cagliostro was so influential that Japan’s (former) Princess Sayako based her real life wedding dress off of Clarise’s dress from the movie, and said so.
People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are ‘good enough’, and they don’t value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.
On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.
It’s strange that you said that and then said you liked fury road. I thought fury road was the epitome of spectacle and production value with actual value.
I added that to sort of admit my own hypocrisy; I tried to exaggerate my opinion a bit for the sake of spurring discussion. I mostly believe what I said, but my real thoughts are much messier and less well thought out.
What would you consider a “bad movie,” because I wouldn’t consider a “tight plot” one of their shared features. Spectacle: absolutely, humor: frequently, tight plot: if only.
I wouldn’t agree that Marvel films have a competent plot, but maybe that’s because I generally struggle to follow the plot through all the other crap, and am left wondering “was that a plot hole or did I space out during all the explosions and miss a critical line of dialogue?”
I explain it like this: people assume beer is one product but most economists actually study it as two distinct products: mass production beer and craft beer. They actually behave like two separate markets. People like each for very different reasons. And consumer behavior is very different around both.
That’s how I feel about Film and Movies. We may watch them both on a screen, but other than that they are very different things. And you can like both! I love the MCU films. But I don’t go expecting intellectual expositions.
I also love Dead Poets Society, Hidden Figures, and Argo. Let people like things. Let people like different things differently. It’s OK.
I don’t like Hereditary. I tried to watch it 3 times but I just can’t get through it. I think the beginning is great but I dunno, I just didn’t like it. I do love Midsommar however.
Batman returns is really dumb. The movie craftsmanship (or whatever) is well done but the premise is just so stupid (to me). I feel this way about all super hero films, I just can't get past that the source is comic books for kids. I cannot take them seriously.
“Comics are for kids” is an incredibly narrow view of the comic book world. They’ve never been exclusively for kids, not even the big superhero comics. Many have diverse themes, thoughtful critiques of society, and impressively deep characters.
Completely agree and quite some of the Batman comics I have read I would not give to a child, far to much violence and quite a lot of very dark theams. Young teens are around when I would start being comfortable letting them read those and that’s still requires me to actually know them to some degree to make that judgement.
The Godfather, extremely overrated and very boring. Saw it many years ago, and maybe my taste in movies have changed a bit, and I consider rewatching other movies I did not like, but not that one.
I was like “this Lemmite gets it,” until I got to the Interstellar part.
But I’m glad we have common ground on the shit show that is Inception. It felt incredibly long. I don’t know if it was because I was bored, or if it’s genuinely six hours long.
All the people saying inception was actually sht made me doubt myself and go and binge all of Christopher Nolans movies again in chronological order. Maybe Im just a sucker for his film style but I still liked Inception even after all these years. The prestige was also better than I remembered it was. I also appreciated what Tenet was trying to achieve despite that movie having pretty bad reviews for a Nolan film.
I really liked Tenet’s “half of everything is moving backwards” action scenes, which I guess was the main achievement. They must’ve used a bunch of cool tricks while filming it.
I think it was also challenging to write a story that can work both forwards and backwards. I don’t think they succeeded in doing so but I’m impressed that they tried.
I am NOT going to even consider watching the new Death Stranding movie when it's out.
Just like Morbius, that movie is a "would rather ask my in-laws parenting advice than ever watch it".
Add comment