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
Freddie Got Fingered is a dadaist masterpiece.
Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree.
I haven’t read the comic books that they’re based on for a long time, but as I recall, they also break the fourth wall. I don’t think that that was introduced specifically for the movie.
googles
Apparently that wasn’t always there:
https://screenrant.com/deadpool-fourth-wall-break-first-time-ever/
When Did Deadpool First Break The Fourth Wall?
Marvel’s Deadpool is known for his over-the-top violence and crude and crass humor, but perhaps his best-known character trait is his penchant for repeatedly breaking the fourth wall. Deadpool talks to the audience in comics, films and videogames - but he didn’t always have this power. In fact, early Deadpool was known for being quite serious and firmly rooted in the fictional realm…so when did the Merc with a Mouth first break the fourth wall - and how did he insult editors everywhere by doing so?
Deadpool and the assassin with superhuman accuracy Bullseye teamed up in previous issues, and in Deadpool #28, the two are reunited after a long absence. “How long has it been!?” Bullseye exclaims. Deadpool simply states “Issue sixteen.” It’s the smallest of fourth-wall breaks (he hadn’t even began speaking to the readers yet), but it shows that Deadpool is doing more than acting out - he’s acting as his own editor. Considering convoluted comics continuity, it’s normal for editors to occasionally place footnotes in certain panels, specifically when characters reference past events. Perhaps Kelly and Woods considered the old method, but wanted to try a new technique. Whatever their reasoning, Deadpool’s fourth wall breaks became a staple of the character.
Looks like Deadpool #28 dates to 1997, though, so Deadpool breaking the fourth wall has been around for over a quarter of a century.
I don’t think it’s OPs point that the movie did it first, just that it was annoying in the movie. And they’re right.
The whole point of Deadpool is the self awareness though. You can find it annoying, it’s not for everyone, but it’s true to what the character has become.
The way I had it explained to me by a friend who’s into his comics (I’m not a comic reader) is that his regen abilities + cancer basically damaged his brain and made him insane which is why he “thinks” he’s a comic book/movie hero. Not so much that he’s breaking the 4th wall but that he’s talking at it like a crazy person. He even has multiple personalities that I wish they’d introduced in DP2! It was hinted at when he’s reunited with Vanessa in DP1 when he says “and now the moment I’ve all been waiting for”
Interstellar is a terrible movie that doesn’t say or do anything special and I still don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s so amazing.
I did really like the robot guy though.
People who don’t like horror films are defective and should have been aborted.
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 might just need to rewatch it because it’s been 15 years, but I didn’t care much for Citizen Kane.
Nobody actually enjoys watching Citizen Kane. It’s the Wuthering Heights of the movie world: you get to feel pretentious and cultured for having checked it off your bucket list, but the actual experience was a total slog and you’re probably never going to re-watch/read it ever again.
I’m going to watch it twice now just to be that much better than most. Also I can say things like, “I personally enjoyed my second viewing much more than my first.”
This is probably true of Citizen Kane. However, this isn’t true of all the arty farty, black and white, older, or foreign stuff.
Some of those aren’t just ‘good for their time’, highly rated because they were/are innovative/interesting, or because people want to be pretentious. They’re still fucking good.
Eg. I watched Tokyo Story (1953) when I was in my early twenties. Tops critics lists. Seems like it’s just another pretentious movie. Black and white, boring, pondorous, gave up on it. Watched it a few years later when I had a bit more life experience. Hit me like a truck. Openly wept in the movie theatre.
Sometimes if you push through, you will be rewarded.
Generally agreed, but there’s a reason why I called it the “Wuthering Heights” and not, say, the “Pride and Prejudice” of movies.
I completely understand why people who watch Citizen Kane would find it boring. Compared to movies made in this day and age it is very boring. However, this movie was made in 1941 and was groundbreaking in many ways.
The cinematographer Greg Toland was a master who could have worked on any film he wanted. He chose to work with 25 year old first time director Orson Welles. He was tired of the Hollywood movie studio BS and saw that this kid wanted to do something revolutionary. Over 50% of the movie contains special effects most of which had never been done before. If you watch this movie next to any other movie of that era it is amazing how much different the style, camera angles, shots, etc are comparatively.
All of the American movies at the time (and this pretty much holds true even today) had someone who started with nothing and became successful or won against all odds etc. Citizen Kane flips this and takes one of the richest men in the world who starts out as the hero and turns him into the villain who ends up sad, bitter and alone. Again this is much different than other films of this era. I would argue that it is still much different to the vast majority of films today.
Charles Foster Kane is clearly supposed to be William Randolph Hearst who was the media mogul of the time. They made a movie about one of the most powerful people of that era and make him look like a sad douchey a–hole. The writer Mankiiewicz was someone who regularly attended the parties at Hearst Castle and many details in the movie are spot on about Hearst’s real life. Rosebud (Kane’s final word and the plot device for the film) is supposedly Hearst’s nickname for his wife’s private area. Hearst did everything he could to stop this movie from playing in the theaters and was pretty successful in ensuring it lost money at the box office. It wasn’t until about 10 years later when people in Europe started watching and appreciating the film that they decide to re-release it in the US. By this time Hearst was dead and there is no campaign against the movie. This is when it really gets wide recognition as a great film.
So basically a 25 year old upstart took on the most powerful media mogul of the day with a movie that had groundbreaking special effects, style, and story line. I can’t think of any film to this day that can compare to these accomplishments. Many of the worlds greatest film makers were inspired by this movie. It is for all these reasons why it is looked at as one of the best movies ever made and shown to all film students.
Truth. Mostly its the first movie shown to media students because there is simple concepts and camera tricks there, and its always best to start with the basics.
This is true for most “important films”. They were the first to do something well enough that the entire industry latched onto it, but their stories and presentation don’t stand well against the test of time. 2001 and Casablanca also fall into this.
2001 is a masterpiece.
NGL green lantern the movie kinda slapped when I was a kid. I got really into comics partially because of it.
Oppenheimer SUCKED.
Off topic but TIL there’s no sort by controversial option on Lemmy. :(
Donnie darko, Requiem for a dream, Mulholland drive, and every single film by Wes Anderson is a monumental waste of time. Hours of my life I will never see again.
Also Peter Jackson’s best work is the q movie horrors he did in the early days also meet the feebles is amazing. Peter Jackson
Donnie Darko is pretentious dog shit. Fight me.
The critic rating is better than the audience rating. I’ve never seen a film with a high critic rating that didn’t have something worthwhile about it. But I’ve seen a lot of audience hits that were garbage.
Every James Bond movie with Daniel Craig is crap; even Die Another Day was better.
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.
Well, they were trying to stay loyal to the comic, but I can understand that. But I definitely about other movies copying, its cheap and annoying. Oh, and spy kids was actually good.
