It insists upon itself.
Mulholland Drive is terribly boring if you quit before two thirds of the movie.
Blade Runner for me. Great themes, great plot, great visuals and music, horrendously boring and plodding. 2049 was better imo.
Wrong opinion. You can definitely enjoy 2049 more, but the better film is the first. I enjoy 2049 much more often, it is a very palatable movie that appeals to a greater, higher volume selling, family-friendlier audience than the original. It’s the lager vs a craft beer between the two, though.
He said “for me”. How could his opinion be wrong?
It just is. I cant let people be thinking it’s valid. I’m on a mission from god to defend blade runner.
I’ve always been curious about Citizen Kane. I haven’t seen it. Is it boring too?
As with everything, it all depends on what you find boring.
There’s no action in Citizen Kane. There’s a small mystery who’s answer you may have seen in other media without knowing. Mostly it is a biography about a fictional character, complete with interviews with friends and enemies of said character (the titular Kane). You only actually get to see and know the character through flashbacks.
It should be noted that the character is actually based partly on a real person.
For what it is worth, I found it thrilling as a snot nosed teen who watched it in class for some reason or another. It suffers a little from its reputation as “the greatest film ever made”, but, it remains a very good character drama. Interest in the history of film and filmmaking will also go a long way towards making the movie compelling.
Pulp Fiction is unironically worse than a Neil Breen movie
Harry Potter 6 for me. I could not get through this movie. I tried it about 5 times so far. Same with the book. I tried reading it at least 10 times including listening to it as an audiobook.
It’s just insufferable.
(And don’t worry, Rowling-haters, I of course pirated it except of the copy of the book that I got when I was a kid)
I mean, is anything Harry Potter considered fine art? That’s what the meme meant by cinema
I would argue that yes, the first movie is fine art, it was literally genre defining and captured a large majority of youths minds when it was released
Just because its technically a “kids movie” doesn’t make it not art
I mean, fair, but I understood it as a “must watch” movie. Something that everyone needs to have seen kinda thing.
And Harry Potter, I think, does fit that bill.
You should watch 2001 A space Odyssey it is exactly like this.
It is a historical documentary set in the early days of AI and Space Travel before SpaceX and ChatGPT, it’s kinda neet to see how far we’ve came in such a short time though.
In 2006 I fell asleep watching that movie. Highly recommend falling asleep watching that movie. The background noise is artistically stunning and sleep-promoting soothing.
It’s art. I love the movie. I appreciate the aesthetics, the cinematography, and the practical effects.
Oh man. I fell asleep 5 times before I could finally finish this.
If you are a user of any mind altering substances, or have any interest in starting, it might be worth giving the movie or show another try in that state. Assuming your chosen goodies leave you coherent and able to form memories, lol.
And it’s not just to put you in a good mood, though that certainly helps. Maybe it’s just the spicy neurons in my case, but being high can qualitatively change the experience of how I relate to characters. (not extreme like empathy on / empathy off, sometimes things might just land different)
It’s easier to read the subtext and make connections, catch Easter eggs, etc. Although sometimes your brain is just making shit up.
I got super stoned before I watched RoboCop 2 a few months ago, which I hadn’t seen before. Holy shit the satire is deeply baked into every scene. I was laughing more than I have in years.
I feel like a lot of these films are important because they did something first. The problem is that it doesn’t mean that film did it best.
And then there’s movies like Dr Strangelove, where I had no idea that old movies could be that entertaining still. Though it has been at least a decade since I watched it, I bet it still stands, even if it invented the iconic “ride a nuke like a cowboy” image.
Also the whole Soviets built a doomsday device but didn’t tell the world about it, which reality copied (eventually they told the world).
I mean it isn’t an automated doomsday device, just some generals in a bunker who could send the command if moscow vanishes, the same way the US president can via the Nuclear Football.
As I recall, it was a combo of automated and manual and they went public with the info because they lost knowledge of how it all worked.
I’ve always talked about The Rolling Stones like this. I respect what they did, but I was born when rock had really gone beyond it. The Beatles too for the most part. Even a lot of '80s punk. I wanted faster, heavier, more technical. All the old stuff just felt basic to me, but I know it’s a matter of perspective.
The Stones could write one hell of a catchy, riff, hook, and chorus tho. Their sloppy musicianship (im being generous) is part of their charm.
Im sure they invented a sound as much as any of the other groups that get credited with that nonsense.
The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, these guys were inventing the sound of rock. I think they’re fantastic musicians. But Rush and Pink Floyd stand out more to me as timeless art.
Those artists arrived much later than the invention of rock. It was invented by Chuck Berry and other black artists in the US during the 50s.
I didn’t think my point needed a “history of music” lesson attached. The rock bands of the 60s were taking the experiments of swing and blues musicians from the decade prior and refining them into the aggressive, over-driven and distorted arrangements. Not “rock & roll”.
I believe there’s a copypasta/good comment floating around out there from the reddit days that details everything that has been referenced about the godfather films, and so, if you watch many movies that are popular or considered good, you’ve already seen almost everything that stands out in the godfather films. Throw in the great many improvements in cameras, acting methods/filming techniques, and the ‘drift’ that means one generation prefers certain tropes/themes/scenes/actions over others, and of course an older film is going to be less entertaining for us.
Also known as “the Seinfeld effect”.
It’s also written for a different time. Shakespeare is the classic example for this problem, where his plots are timeless and his plays are so Elizabethan that they famously bore teenagers forced to read them, yet simultaneously will be adapted into very popular media somewhat regularly.
I’ve been saying since I was in highschool that Shakespeare should probably be an elective in college, except for maybe Julius Caesar in AP Literature classes. It’s just so far out of date and the teachers aren’t allowed to explain what any of the slang means so it’s just… soulless. If they were able to explain how filthy it is, the kids would probably enjoy it more.
My senior year high school English teacher was allowed to explain the dirty jokes and we loved it. I think it’s a disservice not to do just that. Yes, it can be boring as hell at times, especially when read, but he’s the most foundational author in the English language, and understanding that and why should be part of a high school education. It’s just that you actually have to do it right.
My teacher began the year telling us that we were 17 or 18 years old and he was going to speak to us like adults and expected us to behave as adults in turn. From there when literature touched on adult subjects like sex and drugs we actually addressed it, including the poem Kublai Kahn which was one of the first poems I actually really liked as a young person. These topics are major parts of literature and culture and I’m frustrated that people seem to think 17 year olds should be shielded from them even if that means that people who only engage in free education don’t get that literature education.
Yeah, My kids/teens don’t have the patience for anything old.
We were used to watching the storyteller unfold the tablecloth, neatly set out the plates, polish all the silverware, light the candles, place the napkins, and even the chairs in anticipation, then clap while they covered the whole meal. We were thrilled to notice how that fork being slightly off snowballed into a murder scene. Nothing exciting happened in the first half of anything while they setup the story.
You have about 5-10 minutes these days to cast the first hook or they’ll be asking to watch some short form videos.
I’m fairly sure that just boils down to taste. I’m not here to watch an hour of foreplay through subtle clues, red herrings, and artistic masturbation. Give me some plot and get on with it.
If you don’t care for it, don’t let people make you watch it.
No one (sane) will go “Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!” .You don’t “have to” value any kind of art. If you don’t, you don’t. That said, it might be worth trying at least once, you never know if you find something that stays with you.
“Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!”
So you’ve never been dragged to Swan Lake?
I personally would probably enjoy it. At least the Ballet part. And i always carry ear buds, so the terrible opera style singing can be dealt with.
Oh yeah it wasn’t bad, just long as shit for someone who isn’t into ballet.
I think that most of Art needs a bit oft commitment to be consumed and understood, you cannot expect to immediately understand a piece oft Art just because you can see colour and hear sound. It boils down to education, as you need to learn most things in manageable steps. What im saying is: if someone offers to show you something they like, they are likely a good resource to guide you through the experience.
More likely than the average Joe but guiding, like teaching or storytelling, is a distinct skill. Lots of people are totally blind to their own biases and the hypothetical 4 hour opera without context would definitely make me doubt their advice.
Anybody ever read the Godfather book? It’s… kinda weird. Every time a new character is introduced, it’s goes into their sexual history. Like, do we really need to know Rocko is an attentive lover with a string of girlfriends that he has no trouble keeping satisfied before he goes and kills some dude?
And then there’s a part of the book that is about… How do I put this…
a woman getting a pussy tightening surgery.
It’s the bridesmaid that Sonny fucks in the closet at his sister’s wedding. She sought out Sonny, as did all the other women “with big mouths and wide hips” because he had a legendarily big cock and it was her only hope to get any pleasure, on account of her gigantic pussy and all.
After he dies, she tried to commit suicide. Not because she cared for him, she just figures she’ll always be alone because no one else in the world will have a cock that will be adequate to work with her ginormous pussy.
But much later in the book, she’s living at the family casino in Nevada, and her doctor boyfriend finally talks her into having sex and discovers her pussy is huge and convinces her that he knows a great plastic surgeon that can fix it. It walks through the consultation and surgery and everything. Not in explicit detail, but, like, it’s so weird.
And there’s weird comments like (not a quote) “Don’t worry, doll. I do great work. I’ll fix you up so nice he’ll be calling me every day to thank me.” Shit like that.
And it worked. After she has the surgery and they have sex, her doctor boyfriend immediately proposes to her.
So, anyway, yeah… I don’t know why they left the great pussy tightening subplot out of the movies.
do we really need to know Rocko is an attentive lover with a string of girlfriends that he has no trouble keeping satisfied
How else are we supposed to relate to that character?
Please, dont ever read Stephen kings IT.
Its…deeply fucked up. It includes a child group sex act that happens right before they confront IT directly, which empowers them to defeat it.
Like most his books back then, the byline should have said “Cocaine, with Stephen king.”
It is a good book that is well written. Just because you cannot handle it, don’t lie to people
Pretty sure it’s after they fight It (the first time), but it’s not really important.
They fight It, end up in the sewer, realize if they lose their innocence It will lose interest in them, run the train, flashforward.
At least that’s what I remember from when I read the book without knowledge of that scene.
Explains the island allegations
What
That reminds me there was one of his books I read for an elementary school book report just because I had heard he was a famous author and it had something about an underage girl being raped and detailing what injuries it caused or something, it’s been a long fucking time so specifics may be off. I feel like there may have been some significance in a wheat field… I do remember also recalling it again in high school when we were made to read oryx and crake, and the other students were grossed out about the narrating character’s recollections of watching csam material together withh crake, of a girl that may or may not have been oryx in the past.
I was thinking back then something like Atwood couldn’t hurt me after Stephen king scarred me but pigoons, chicky knobs, and most of all the narrators other obsession of Alex the parrot’s final video somehow really got to me and still bother me to this day.
So, anyway, yeah… I don’t know why they left the great pussy tightening subplot out of the movies.
well you know, I’m beginning to think this Coppola fellow simply didn’t know true art when he saw it, after reading all that. That could’ve been a wonderfully surreal addition to spice up the trilogy.
Time for a reboot!!
This time focusing exclusively on this character and her pussy struggles. Everything else should be mentioned in the background in passing. It should be four and a half hours, third of which is black and white for no reason.
From Here to Eternity is like that. The book is truly a great piece of literature, but the movie (made in the 1950s) excises pretty much everything worthwhile in the book. Just as one example, the book has a character who can’t get any contact with women in pre-war Hawaii so he starts getting blowjobs from gay men in parks. Eventually he builds up so much guilt from this that he shoots himself in the head in the barracks. I can’t remember whether the character was even in the movie but obviously no hint of those activities show up. There’s also the main character taking up with a prostitute who is magically not a prostitute at all in the movie.
The book has so much stuff like this in it that I can’t understand why they even tried to make a movie out of it in 1953.
Yeah it’s been a long time since I read it but I remember the giant pussy storyline. Seems weird now that you point it out.
Now that they point it out?
Idk, I was like 14 or 15 when I read it, I was probably hornier than Mario Puzo lol
Ugh, lord of the rings. I tried watching it alone, with friends, with a girlfriend… Nope, just boring
My experience of the movies is so far, so removed, from your experience, that I can hardly believe we belong to the same species, that we share a common mother somewhere in the last dozen, hundred, thousands of generations.
You poor son of a bitch
I know. They tried to watch it so many times, that must have been hell. I could not get through it and would never subject myself to that crap again.
Grandalf is very disappointed with you, he’s trying to help you.
Put meat back on your menu.
The Godfather is far from being a difficult movie to watch. It has a rich story, plenty of action, great scenes,… You want serious stuff? Try Nouvelle Vague French movies from Eric Rhomer or Jean-Luc Godard, German or Finnish movies where absolutely nothing happens and it’s just people eating soup. Try Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger than Paradise. It’s great, it’s a classic, but you’re going die out of boredom if The Godfather is already too much for you.
Yeah, some of these criticisms are bad just on their face. Godfather is too slow for you? Come on. Is Rambo to slow for you as well? What about Speed?
Some of this just feels like kids who just graduated from watching Paw Patrol deciding they should veto what anyone else puts on the TV.
If you want to throw a fit because everything isn’t Marvel, I guess that’s fine for you. But don’t be shocked when you’re not invited back to College Movie Night.
But I can’t watch the Godfather and doomscroll at the same time, so it’s objectively bad.
Try Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger than Paradise. It’s great, it’s a classic, but you’re going die out of boredom if The Godfather is already too much for you.
And if you survive that you can move right on to Eraserhead.
And then, sometimes, you watch it years or decades later and it clicks. And other times you are just convinced everyone who likes it are saying so because critics like it.
It’s kind of weird, but I find that the higher a film is rated by film critics and websites, the less I tend to enjoy it.
Film critics are like friends: you need to choose a few that share your taste, and stick with them. For me it’s Moviebob, Redletter Media and Patrick H Willems. They appreciate whacky shit as much as I do.
A lot of film critique industry is based upon fart-sniffing snobbery.
It’s like a game of one-upsmanship on how much “meaning” you can
inventderive from dull, self-important drudgery and the more masochistic your movie-watching experience, the more “refined” you are.Source: had to study media crit and industry a lot in school.
It’s like the
modern art
money laundering
Industry…but at 25 frames per second!
(Or some arbitrary frame rate to stir further controversy)
I prefer art to run at 60 FPS.
you can really taste the extra perseconds
you can’t just say perseconds
Pretty sure they just did.
That’s the stuff, 144 if I can get away with it! 😜
Maybe not for films tho hahaha
I can’t remember the name of the film but there is one film released relatively recently that’s just a series of photographs. Set to music.
It’s literally slower than one frame per second.
Is it a Terrence Malick film?
Respectfully of course, that sounds quite literally like it’s a really long slideshow? 🤔
but what if i like the way quentin tarantinos ass fart? what therefore then?
foot
you make an adulterously valid point
That’s why I find it important to look at both critic and user reviews. If they agree, they’re probably right. If they disagree things get interesting.
If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring. If critics disliked it, but audiences liked it, it’s probably kinda bad but exciting.
Both are also affected by social media, especially user scores, so if “the Internet” hates/loves something if can be unfairly inflated/deflated.
New, but not brand new, films also usually have a more accurate score. I enjoyed The Godfather, so I would rate it positively, but if I didn’t like it I’m probably not rating it at all. I saw it X years ago and unless it was absolutely terrible or I have a vivid memory of disliking it, I’m just going to ignore it.
If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring.
Or it’s something fresh instead of the same junk that critics had seen hundreds of times (literally), whereas most of the public can’t be arsed with original but marginal concepts.
I imagine if all you do is watch films, you get tired of common stuff. You’ve seen it before. But if you only watch films sometimes, some of that is still interesting to you.
Kind of like how some video game nerds will be only “only double soj 2x blan Blah is viable” but like other builds do fine for everything except some optional mega bosses
Full time critics must be weird to talk with for any length of time. I know my own work bleeds into my perceptions and interests, and can’t help but think that critics have their judging hats on for routine, everyday affairs. Imagine your partner sitting in the passenger seat, idly commenting on the lighting of a city park as you drive past (I don’t have to imagine, lol, because my partner does amateur film work as a side gig and he loves to talk about his cameras).
There’s a reason McDonald’s is popular.
For me, I do enjoy a movie that’s deep or well written or has great cinematography, even if it’s a bit boring. I also like movies that have entertainment value. Both can exist.
Only gripe I have is shitty popular movies prevent smaller indie movies from being shown at my small town theater.
That’s called being a contrarian
The inverse of Rotten Tomatoes is a good measurement of how I’d enjoy a movie.
