You must log in or register to comment.
2012
Avatar. Good Lord what bad acting and visual dynamics will do for a movie.
I don’t really get the hype for Citizen Kane.
Though, I kinda think it might be because growing up, this movie was spoiled in almost every cartoon I ever saw (“Rosebud” was the punchline of so many jokes) and maybe not knowing the ending would have made it better. 🤷🏻♂️
That right there is the millennial experience.
So many culturally defining movies came out before the 1980s that by the time you’re being raised in the 90’s, they’re making children’s media that references it. I knew the plot of Star Wars long before I saw it.
My favorite example is The Mask of Zorro, which…not an old film, but it came out when I was slightly young for it. A few years go by, I’m in high school, and Shrek comes out. Then it’s sequel, with a swashbuckling orange cat voiced by Antonio Banderas. And then I eventually catch Mask of Zorro, and laugh through the entire thing because holy shit the main character sounds exactly like Puss In Boots.
Well, it was the same actor, so…
Yes, I’m aware of this. The point I was making was I got the joke backwards. You’re supposed to laugh all the way through Shrek 2 because the cat sounds exactly like Zorro.
A lot of things that were once creative experiences have been redone to death to the point that it can be difficult to understand what the whole hubbub was with the original.
So, yes, you have to think of it in the context of the era, which may require looking up what was made at the time, what had come before and what came after. It’s a bit like paintings or other pieces of art, some of them are interesting beyond what they just represent, but for what they introduced in the world as a statement when they were made (which, admittedly can sometimes be a bit obscure). There too, a little work on the public’s part is required to understand why one piece and not another is usually held in high regard (you’re then totally free to disagree, or not enjoy it, but context matters quite a bit).A lot of the hype was in the metanarrative around the movie - remember that it bombed in theaters and was only carried to far later acclaim. Newspaper journalists loved the fact that it called out one of their worst nightmares (W.R. Hearst) in very specific ways. Then the cinematographers caught all the tech that Welles used and tried to figure out how to make it all work for them. Actors loved it because it was a lot of great character work. ‘Film buffs’ started to enjoy it thereafter, in part because it had inspiration from films like Rashomon. Then you have the auteur directors who will always love Orson Welles, in spite of everything and anything against doing so. Mercury Theatre on the Air fans also liked the movie because it shared a lot of the same cast (and was only 3 years out from that show).
I’ll admit, that’s where I came at it from. My family was in papers, and was in a paper that actively fought the Hearst syndicate; one of the characters in the movie has elements of my grandfather in him, because he made sure to have people go into NYC to review Mercury Theatre productions and thus Welles cared about him as an editor. And then my experience having gotten briefly into stage and screen: The performances are amazing. Many of the sets are so perfectly evocative that they become a character unto themselves. The montages are technically inspiring to this day, and the scene transitions are pure technical excellence.
That’s just what makes Kane good as a film.
The plot is one of a death-mystery of a ‘great’ man, of trying to approach a man’s life and sum him up in just a few inches of text on a page. While Rosebud is the butt of jokes (and may well have been a nasty jab at Marion Davies), it’s more of a chilling point. The point is not about the thing itself. It’s the treatment of the thing. It’s the last thing he thought about, and the whole movie is a quest to figure out what it “means” - and no one finds out, even though they spend this whole film exploring who the man was from vignettes of his existence. In the end, if it meant anything but a fleeting final thought, it still just goes in the furnace with the rest of his identity that can’t be sold off at auction. It didn’t define him, not really - in spite of what the editor in the smoke-filled newsroom wanted to push as his narrative. One word is never enough to define a person who lived a full life. But a full life that ended up hurting a lot of people is best defined by the wreckage left behind (human and junk). A drunk ex-wife, dead children, a disgraced media empire, a half-built house full of stuff for the furnace, and most painfully, no true friends to really speak well of him.
That’s what makes Citizen Kane good as a movie.
So I’ll say this - Rosebud is meaningless. It’s a cheap parlor trick of misdirection, and like all such tricks people latched onto it. Instead, ask yourself something when you’re watching that movie. When you’re gone, what will you leave behind? And what will you do, starting right this moment, to leave behind the legacy you want?
Slumdog Millionaire
Oppenheimer.
3 hrs of nausea-inducing quick cuts
I couldn’t get into any of the LOTR movies. I like fantasy, I like adventure, I like fighting, but those films are boring as hell to me.
No Country For Old Men.
I was actually really enjoying the whole cat and mouse thing until the main fucking character died off-screen.
How does nobody ever talk about how shitty that “plot twist” is? It’s not clever. It’s not entertaining. It’s just bad storytelling. They don’t even show you a good shot of him to convey what actually happened. My girlfriend and I had to rewind it twice because it was so fucking stupid and made so little sense.
That’s actually how I feel about most of the Coen Brothers’ movies. The classical narrative structure exists for a reason. It’s a good framework for telling a story that makes sense.
Sometimes there’s a good artistic reason for diverting from that and telling the story in an unconventional way. Other times it’s just pretentious auteur garbage.
This might come off as pretensions, but you should trust the writers more. The movie, and book, are very well written, and if something doesn’t make sense, you should consider that you missed something.
I’ll say this, Llewelyn Moss is not the main character. The movie doesn’t start or end on him. He doesn’t change or evolve as a character. How he died isn’t the point.
It helps to focus on what Anton Chigurh said about rules, and what the Sheriff says about what he is willing to die for.
If you want me to just spell out the theme, I can do that to, but I think you would enjoy it more if you trust the movie.
Yeah, I’ve heard that before, about how Llewelyn isn’t the main character. Not trying to be rude to you, but that sounds like bullshit. He’s the character I’m rooting for. If the main character isn’t the character I’m rooting for, then that doesn’t sound like an enjoyable movie.
If you’re saying Chigurh is the main character: he doesn’t grow either.
If you’re saying Tommy Lee Jones is the main character (which I’ve heard before), then I’m going to strain my eyes from rolling them so hard. He doesn’t at any point interact with the plot. That’s not good writing.
I get the Coens are doing it differently. They’re not following the rules for how stories should be told. But different isn’t the same as good, and the way they told the story was needlessly confusing and pretentious.
I always find it useful to use food as a metaphor to describe how I feel about movies. If No Country For Old Men were a meal, it would be expertly seasoned and cooked, with one extra ingredient that doesn’t belong there and detracts from the whole thing, like if you made a perfect steak and drenched it in liquorice sauce.
And it would be served on a scrap of driftwood, or in a fishbowl, or on literally anything other than a plate. Everyone around me would be raving about the side dishes while I’m wondering why my meat tastes like shit.
You can include themes in a movie and still tell a coherent story. Try this: remove the theme. Is the movie any good? Is the plot entertaining, and does it make sense? No, it’d be really awful, and the inclusion of a theme doesn’t excuse that.
Do you not like any movies or shows where the main character is the bad guy? The Sopranos is my all time favorite show but I’ve never rooted for Tony. Breaking bad is great too but I still never rooted for Walter White.
You really never rooted for Walt? You didn’t hope that he’d make the right decision? You didn’t find a little guilty pleasure in the satisfaction of a bad deed done well?
If not, then why did you even watch the show?
I’m fine with rooting for a bad guy. But no, I don’t enjoy stories that only have irredeemable characters that I can’t root for.
Besides, Javier Bardem won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, which doesn’t usually go to main characters.
But ok, even if Llewelyn wasn’t the main character, he’s the central character of the plot. His death resolves the main storyline in the movie, and it happens off screen. That’s not good storytelling.
Personally no i never rooted for Walt. Don’t get me wrong I still enjoyed his character and the show overall but I figured him to be a pretty bad guy from the start. Sometimes I just enjoy a show even when all the main characters are bad people. It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia is another example from a completely different genre. Most episodes end with those characters in a bad predicament based solely off of their poor actions, but that’s what makes it interesting to watch for me. I would feel like a shitty person of i rooted for them because they are incredibly shitty people. Another example i can think of is Narcos. That show was wildly popular, but there’s no way anyone can justify rooting for Pablo Escobar.
Anyway I guess that’s all beside the point of why you may not like No Country for Old Men. I haven’t seen that movie in a long time so I can’t recall many details. But I can still appreciate reading your thoughts on what makes for good storytelling. There’s really no right or wrong as far as I’m concerned, everyone has their preferences.
It is obvious that the themes of the movie were lost on you, and that is ok. It takes time to understand a movie, then you might not get it completely. I had to watch the film 3 times before I got it. You are far to confident in your judgement. If you did understand the film, you wouldn’t be say the Sheriff was disconnected from the plot. Everything in the movie was done with intent, and you didn’t pick up on that, which, again is ok. Just please DO NOT say that it wasn’t without purpose. You just failed to get it, and that happens all the time, especially to me. I hate to think about all the times I complain about a book or movie only for friends and colleagues to point out the obvious details I missed.
Not trying to be rude to you, but that sounds like bullshit.
In film, you can tell who the driving character is by seeing which character believes a lie and how they are forced change because of it. The Sheriff is the only character with an arc.
He’s the character I’m rooting for
I believe that this movie’s theme attacks you personally, and is having the intended effect. Once he dies, that should tip you off to the movie was about something else, and give you more context to the events of the film.
He doesn’t at any point interact with the plot
The Sheriff is the only character who changes.
They’re not following the rules for how stories should be told.
They DO follow the standard story structure.
and the way they told the story was needlessly confusing and pretentious.
It was confusing, because they challenge your assumptions and established predictable cliche. They do follow a normal story structure, just not normal cliche.
You can include themes in a movie and still tell a coherent story. Try this: remove the theme. Is the movie any good? Is the plot entertaining, and does it make sense? No, it’d be really awful, and the inclusion of a theme doesn’t excuse that.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but theme is the most important element.
In short, you should be more open minded. You didn’t get the movie, that’s ok. I don’t think most video essays on youtube or reviewers get it either. But frankly, it’s extremely well written, and it would be a measure of bad judgement if you dismissed it as senseless. I’ll be clear, you didn’t get it. The movie is amazing, and it will take thought to understand it, and not everyone is in a position in their life to get it. But some day, I hope you will, and the first step is to believe it is possible that you didn’t get it, and to have trust in other people.
So often I hate mainstream movies, but this isn’t it. This movie doesn’t waste a single shot.
If it follows a standard story structure, then what was the climax?
I think I’m very open-minded about movies. For example in the mid-aughts I dragged my girlfriend to like five different Coen Brothers movies before I decided that I really just don’t like them. For another example, I even like mainstream movies.
Isn’t it possible I do understand it, and I just don’t like it? I’ve put enough thought into it. I see the themes. I don’t think those things outweigh the poor plot structure.
You can say No Country has a coherent plot, but it doesn’t in the sense I’m talking about.
Skimming through the movie, I would say about 1 hour 39 minutes into the movie is the climax. The Sheriff enters the hotel Llewelyn was murdered in, not knowing if Anton is there. In the previous scene the local cop told him that Anton showed up two nights in a row to the scene of the crime, and the Sheriff went in knowing this. Every choice comes with risk. He took his final chance and survived, but not in tact.
When the movie starts, the Sheriff talks admirably of old cop stories, before saying; “I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job, but I don’t want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don’t understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, ok. I’ll be part of this world.”
By the end, everyone told him times have changed, except Uncle Ellis who says it has always been this way. People die, the world is chaos. Everyone is one coin flip away from death, even Anton who suffers a car accident no fault of his own. People frequently mischaracterize Anton as the manifestation of death, but he’s not; he manifestation of chance. I picked up on this on a rewatched when he missed a shot on a still bird.
The Sheriff tells of the dream he had of his father going ahead, to prepare a fire for when he got there, before then waking up. To me, he has awoken to the truth; there is no justice, no happy endings, every has their time, and it’s a fools work to worry about it, but he’s now a lost man.
Rewatch the movie with this in mind, and I think you’ll enjoy it far more.
That’s the worst climax ever.
A climax is supposed to be the turning point of the story, where the conflict is resolved.
You’re saying the actual story is this old man who’s barely in the movie realizing that life sucks. And this point in the story, where literally nothing happens on screen, is the resolution of the conflict of him not exactly realizing that life sucks.
Ugh. That’s not complex or deep. It’s oblique and pretentious.
The definition of a climax is “the most intense, exciting, or important point of something; a culmination or apex.”
That scene is obviously not intense or exciting. It’s only the most important part of this hidden plotline that’s even more off-screen than Llewelyn’s death since it only takes place in the mind of a character who’s barely in the movie, who has no agency and no part of the actual events shown on screen.
It’s insufferable. The things you’re saying (which I was already aware of, to be clear) make the movie worse, not better.
Even if I was super into this extremely boring theme, it doesn’t preclude the rest of the movie from containing a well-told story. And even if I went into the movie convinced that the Coens are geniuses and ready to forgive every other thing, voiceover exposition talking about symbolism-laden dreams is always going to be lazy writing.
I won’t watch it again. I’m not trying to reevaluate it. I didn’t miss anything. I just don’t think it’s any good.
You still don’t get it lol. In 5 years you’re going to feel silly about this whole thing when it clicks.
the most intense, exciting, or important point of something; a culmination or apex."
All scenes built up to that moment. You didn’t notice it.
extremely boring theme
All themes are boring if you write them down. Movies justify themes.
it doesn’t preclude the rest of the movie from containing a well-told story
I rewatched the movie last night, and every scene is critical. It is an very focused script. Each scene creates the next.
where literally nothing happens on screen
If you started watching that scene without the context of the rest of the film, you would say nothing happens.
I didn’t miss anything
I went water skiing with some friends a few months ago. One of their sons couldn’t figure it out. He blamed the waves to the speed of the boat or the skis. He wouldn’t admit he was wrong and would get angry at us for trying to help.
My impression is that you continue to not understand the movie. If you did understand it, even if you disliked it, you would still appreciate how tight the script is, or how realistic the action is at least, or to understand how a character with less screen time could be the focus of the story. I meant it when I said in 5 years something will click and you’ll get it.
If the main character isn’t the character I’m rooting for, then that doesn’t sound like an enjoyable movie.
Main character as the bad guy is very common and many great stories are told this way. If you can’t find a way to enjoy any of them then idk what to tell you, restrict your viewing habits to marvel movies I guess
The Dude isn’t the main character in the Big Lebowski either
Did you read the book? I haven’t seen the movie or read the book, but I just read mcarthys the road and it was excellent, no country is next on my list. Hopefully the book can redeem it for you, but if it’s all a sour taste just read the road. It made me realize the point wasn’t an explanation about what did happen or what would happen, he was exploring the relationship of father and son through what was happening.
That’s probably a good point, but yeah, I don’t need to read a book to try to salvage a movie I didn’t like. There’s just no time for that.
Good Lord some of the answers in this thread. I first thought this was like an unpopular opinion community. Is this all just Edge Lords trying to say the most popular and well regarded movies they can?
Yeah it’s pretty funny. Most of these are just “it’s overrated” complaints, which is not the same as a film being iredeemably bad. Feels like a lot of these people just hate being exposed to opinions that differ from their own, so over time these overrated films have morphed into a 1/10 atrocity in their head despite none of their issues with them actually reflecting that level of hatred. You could definitely make a compelling argument for many of these films being good, and the only reason these people wouldn’t be convinced is because of their aforementioned personality flaw.
Gravity.
Literally the only movie I’ve ever turned off part way through. Youd think that the producers would have, i don’t know, accurately depicted the force the movie is named after.
Mind to elaborate?
Sure thing!
The scene where George Clooney dies is just stupid wrong. https://youtu.be/9La4T6GBsLA?si=3TaChBLOqGRSzX5n
Once Sandra catches his broken teather he comes to a complete stop. The line is taught, so effectively they’re both moving in roughly the same orbit as the station they’re attached to. That means they’re also moving at the same speed as the station. The net forces at that point for Clooney’s character are effectively zero (not exactly zero as there is still a bit of atmosphere causing drag at iss heights).
In real life, he’s “safe” in that scenario. In the movie, some magical force continues to be applied to him which ends up overpowering his grip, which was totally fine seconds before, and he falls to his death.
I dont know if the science gets better after that, never watched past it.
I see where you are coming from.
I would interpret that as still some residual force being there but dampened by the parachute lines (meaning a ruler would still see movement relative to the station) and thr amount of screen time couldnt show them drifting away from the station. This would be confirmed by the taut line and the “recoil” after Clooney let loose.
But the force for the amount of time shown is still too much to be logical.
Did you think The Martian was similarly problematic?
Mad Max: Fury Road. I thought that was dumbest, most caveman pleasing trash that has ever received that much acclaim. Truly, the entire movie is designed to make a caveman go, “OOhhhH!.. WwAaHh!.. FFIIRE!.. DwWoOah!.. HaHhh!.. OOhhhH! LaDy!!..HhaHh!.. MAD!!..WoOoHhh!”
I enjoyed it. Great cinematography and practical effects. My wife? Not so much. She broke it down as… “oh look! They drove away! Then the drove back! The end! That was the whole movie!”
Wasn’t there some water at one point? apart from that, fair summary.
I thought that when it was my first mad max film. Going back to the first one I thought it was amazing.
Thank you. I saw it, and it was one of the most boring movies I’d seen in spite of all the effects being thrown at me. Mind you, I went into it having watched Mad Max & Road Warrior hours before, and having skipped Thunderdome (and Waterworld). In all honesty, Fury Road is just “what if we actually made Waterworld the Mad Max sequel it was obviously supposed to be?”
UNGA BUUUNGA!!! >:O
deleted by creator
Lol, I know you deleted this comment (fair), but it still showed up in my inbox. But I get it. Everyone loves that film, so I’m in a very fringe minority here. It’s weird, too, because I love the post-apocalyptic genre, but I don’t know, man. I just really disliked Fury Road.
Conversely, I really enjoyed The Northman in the same way everyone else does Fury Road. I thought it was a really fun, over-the-top Viking rampage revenge film, with cool cinematography. But everyone hated it.
I loved the northman, the meathorse scene was great.
I was going for feigned outrage for humor, but I ended up deciding I didn’t think it was worded well enough
The Big Lebowsky
That’s a rough one. Everyone ever loves it… I completely do not get it.
It had to grow on me, kinda like a fungus. I didn’t like it the first time. For some reason I was convinced to watch it twice more. Now it’s solidly alright for me.
IT (2017).
I’m rereading the book right now and just watched the movie. While I agree it’s… not good and certainly not faithful to the source material, I think the kids were all fantastic. They acted their little hearts out and - in my opinion - really nailed the characters.
True, I have no problem with the actors
Do you like the one from 1990?
I tried watching that one a few years ago. It aged poorly
Accept no substitute
any of the new MCU movies post-endgame. they were so generic, and it was clear some of the movies ran out of money on cgi or animation.
Guardians 3 was still good, I see it as the post credits scene of the MCU
The rest is boring to awful
introducing new content helps, rather than just promoting the next characther movie or show.
Even Shang-Chi?
The way I feel about the MCU is like an old relationship where there’s not much love left and you can’t seem to break it off. Some days you have vain hopes, other days you hate yourself for being too coward to leave.
That’s where the comparison ends, because in a relationship you can talk things over together and try to work things out.
Jupiter Ascending
That was a pretty roundly panned movie.
And yet… I know someone who loved it, sadly
Probably the same people up there that prefer Lynch’s Dune to Villeneuve’s.
Damn you’re carrying that over from the other thread? I don’t even necessarily disagree but that’s petty af
Hey i thought Jupiter Ascending was raw ass, but Lynch’s Dune was rad - despite being objectively bad
Have they watched it more than once? I actually thought it was okay after watching it the first time, despite the confusing plot and a bunch of minor characters I just couldn’t keep straight. So I decided it was worth another watch so I could pick up more of the story, but instead the second viewing was just painful as I ended up realizing how terrible and nonsensical the movie was.
I know they did and still liked it. I wasn’t able to finish it on the second round. Some moments are amusing and some are interesting, but it just wasn’t enough to keep me hooked.
The Godfather. The characters are empty and hard to attach to, the sound is terrible, there’s so much filler in the editting it becomes a chore as I watch yet another seemingly pointlessly extended shot or micro-scenes—Why?! What was the point?!—And yet I’m meant to feel something when this character I hardly know since about 10 mins ago gets killed?
If a film had an inflated ego…
Thank you, absolutely. So slow and boring.
