15
votes
What is a highly regarded/critically acclaimed movie that you do not like/understand the appeal?
Pretty much the title.
Not trying to steer the conversation, but also not intending for answers to be cult films (they're cult classics for a reason) or superhero-movies-are-so-overdone (because they are) takes.
Looking for the popular movies that you truly loathe and why despite their seemingly universal praise.
Loathe is a pretty strong word. I don't think I've ever truly loathed any movie, but the closest I have come is with James Cameron's Avatar. The CGI is undeniably great, but the story is basically just your typical Hollywood "white savior", "corporations are evil" cliche, with cartoonish, one-dimensional villains. And that's just the surface issues I had with the film, and not getting into the deeper, even more problematic and divisive/controversial cultural appropriation, "blueface" casting, and romanticized "noble savage" depiction issues.
I don’t really know anyone who “critically acclaims” avatar for anything but the cgi. The story is famously bland
That opinion may be true of most regular viewers, especially nowadays since people have seemed to gradually turned against it more and more over time... but it's definitely not true of most opinions I heard at the time it was released, most of which was high praise. And it's certainly not true of most critics opinions of the movie at the time of release either, many of whom praised it for its story and world-building. But my point is that the story is not just bland, IMO it's offensively bad. And yet it still made almost 3 billion dollars, and has Critic scores of 89% on RT, and 83% on Metacritic.
When it comes to what the movie oppinions of regular people are, I always think to myself who regular people are.
I'm still upset that Suicide Squad 2016 made a profit.
I definitely consider both Avatar movies to be remarkable achievements in filmmaking.
You’re right, sorry; I should say, I don’t know anyone who actually likes the story in avatar. But there’s more good to it than just the cgi
Avatar was always a quite middling movie for me, but its just aged badly over time as CGI quickly developed through the 2010s. All of these movies coming out with ridiculous CGI and an actually good story made Avatar worse in hindsight. It was revolutionary at the time technically, but its comparatively a bad movie with the type of stuff we got just years after 2009 like the 2010s MCU movies. Dated CGI and a flawed story really don't hold up, and it barely did for me back then.
I don't really care about originality either so I your theory has at least one edge-case. My issues with Avatar are far deeper than just some surface level issue with the originality of the story. IMO Dances with Wolves told a similar story but told it in a much better way. Hell, even Ferngully which Avatar mirrors almost beat for beat in places was better told.
And I am not a James Cameron hater either. Aliens and Terminator 2 are two of the greatest action films ever made. The Abyss is still one of my all-time favorite movies, period. True Lies is over-the-top but hilarious and entertaining as hell. And I can even admit that Titanic was an undeniably well made and well-crafted movie, even though I didn't particularly enjoy it, since it was a bit too sappy for me.
James Cameron's contribution to the film industry also cannot be understated. He has fundamentally changed the game (for the better) several times over the course of his career!
But despite all that, IMO Avatar is still a shitty movie. An amazing achievement in terms of its CGI and innovative 3D filmmaking, but those are the least important aspects of a good movie to me. I care about well told stories. And it wasn't.
That is just about the least charitable interpretation of the Avatar criticism that I have ever heard. If that's what you think is going on here, then I have nothing more to say.
The whole point of this topic was to discuss critically acclaimed movies that we personally hated! You can disagree with my opinion on Avatar, and that's fine. You can disagree with my reasoning for disliking it, and that's fine too. And by all means, feel free to explain why you think my opinion is wrong, and/or why you think Avatar deserves more praise. I will happily read that comment. But that's not what you've done here. Instead, all you've done so far is come into a topic explicitly meant for expressing dislike for certain movies, and repeatedly maligned Avatar critics, and ascribed less than charitable interpretations of my (and others) criticisms of the film.
I understand that seeing hate everywhere for something you love can be incredibly annoying, so I get why you are likely frustrated about discussions on Avatar in general. But if you didn't want to see more of that, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that this might not be the best topic for you to read.
I don't have any issue with you or your opinion about Avatar. I think those are valid points. I'm okay with criticism. I'm just tired of the overwhelming pile of the same phrases about this movie, and the feeling that I can't really contribute in any meaningful way because of that.
I believe my uncharitable interpretation is correct, but I must stress that it was not directed at you or anyone in particular. I would never attack someone in that manner, and I understand that this post was not the right avenue for that.
The exaggerated emotional takes on this movie are something I have been observing for a very long time, and expressions of contempt and ridicule are integral to these reactions. I believe this is highly unique since movies with similar budgets and of similar quality don't seem to attract such intense responses. That cannot be explained by a mere formal analysis of this movie and is something that I believe must be studied given the context of its reception.
I will delete those messages because it is very clear that I created a situation that is entirely not what I intended.
I apologize for the trouble.
No worries. As I said, I totally understand your feelings and even your reaction here. Ironically, I feel the same way about most Marvel movie comments. I still enjoy their movies, but others don't for various reasons (plenty of them justified). All that is fine, but I'm really tired of reading such comments. And it especially frustrates me when those negative comments appear in trailer discussions, and in other Marvel related subjects where people who actually still enjoy them would likely be discussing them more openly if not for all the negative comments discouraging that.
I'm not offering this as a cult film hot take because it is regarded as one of the most important movies ever made: Bladerunner, whatever the latest cut is. I think it was just so hyped that by the time I saw it I was underwhelmed. Aesthetically it's got the weird 80s neon noir thing going on, but the highlight, Rutger Hauer, is in it for a short time, and not in a good way like Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. It doesn't even seem to suffer from common issues of its era, either. To me it was boring, flat, and drowning in its own aesthetic, and generally an unpleasant film that was not sufficiently stimulating to make up for the unpleasantness. I think that, especially given its history of bad edits, it only deserves a fraction of the praise it gets.
OK so I can go on all day, but yeah - feel free to rip into me over my takes :)
I actually had similar feelings at that age, and that scene resonate with me. Hell, I have similar feelings now. And I didn't even have a happy childhood (maybe I'm nostalgic precisely because of that...). So yeah, YMMV.
My mom recently sold her home, my childhood home, and sprung the question of what I would be doing with my old toys and stuffed animals. I was able to shed most things (I am keeping the legos of course), but it was tough with he stuffed animals. I kept a few of the most cherished ones, but that left a pretty extensive collection. Much like in Toy Story, they now sit in my attic as I try to find new homes. My cunning plan is to recycle the nice, unblemished ones onto the growing number of children my fiends are having. So far they have been a smash hit (as no one knows they were actually mine) and a number have become the "favorites" of the new kiddos. I'm pretty excited that the stuffed animals I cared about as a child are getting new lives, so I also fully empathize with Andy.
The building where I lived with my family for my young adulthood is going to be demolished. Cleaning it up was so hard, I cried many times. Alone. In my old room, surrounded by objects of my childhood and teenage years. It was incredibly hard. That was the last home where my family was together.
I'm just sad that they're not gonna bomb it, it would be so awesome and cathartic seeing it go to pieces all at once. They're just gonna slowly tear it down in the upcoming months. So sad.
Oof, I get it. Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm still pretty salty about it. The family that bought the house has slowly been "sterilizing" the house. The two olive trees that I planted out front, that I used to pick and brine, have been cut down to reduce the mess. The grape vine I planted out back has been culled. The Azalea's were ripped out. They even chopped down an 80 year magnolia tree.They added what I can only describe as patches of fake daisies. The yellow walls are now a dull beige. Like you say, it would be easier for it to be a crater than watch the life be sucked out of it.
This is heartbreaking :(
Yeah... I loved that tree.
I don't think I've ever actually watched it, but the majority of the discussion about it I see is people including it in discussions about Christmas movies semi-jokingly, a bit of back and forth on if it's a Christmas movie, and then someone doing a big breakdown about how it taking place during Christmas is important to the plot.
The discussions feel to me like it's not necessarily that they think it's an amazing movie, but that it's funny to have it discussed alongside "traditional" Christmas movies that make sure that you're aware at all times that it's a Christmas movie, but don't really have anything to do with Christmas other than it being a plot reason for a dysfunctional family gathering.
There's this Toy Story 3 prank video you might enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phFISjORzQs
Holy shit I'm crying 🤣🤣🤣
I totally understand not liking The Hateful Eight, but the things that people find boring about it are the things that I love about it. It's the only movie I've seen that can make a compelling movie about people largely just sitting down and delivering monologues.
I feel the same as you for Toy Story 3, though. I feel that it's a movie made for a very specific audience of people who grew up with Toy Story and it's sequel and bought the products and watched the spin-off TV show. I saw Toy Story when I was a kid when it came out, but I didn't see the sequel, didn't care for the TV show, and never had money to buy the merch (with the exception of Toy Story for the Sega Genesis). So I'm not one of the people who was crying during that particular scene. Granted, I'm also a little too jaded to think that a numbered sequel would ever kill off the main character, so that probably affected my feelings a bit.
I'll see your Dark Knight Rises and raise you not only the Nolan trilogy, but Batman movies in general. I honestly feel like we've never gotten a good live action Batman (but then, I will freely admit to not seeing the most recent batch.)
It was cool when it was released, but now not so much. Nowadays, people may talk about Die Hard, but their sentiments take the sequels into account. At the time, Bruce Willis was a popular comedic actor and that was the beginning of his career as an action star.
Similar to Die Hard, it was cool back then but didn't age well. It was also the beginning of Will Smith's movie stardom and he was very popular at the time.
It's amusing and entertaining, but not exactly funny.
I agree.
The Dark Knight was a tough act to follow, and Nolan decided to go big. Nolan's Batman didn't bode well on that scale, and, even in the comics, something like that could not be handled by that kind of Batman without the help of the Justice League. And walking in daylight dressed like a Bat is just silly. Ultimately, it was not a terrible premise (and it's not a terrible movie), but it was not a good fit.
Not so sure when their coolness factor expired, but I remember watching these like a decade ago and even then they didn't appeal to me.
A decade ago Die Hard was 25 years old.
I... wow
Eh... that movie had more plot holes than swiss cheese. The scene where the police make their way out of the tunnel to come across the hoard of henchmen, only for the henchmen to throw down their guns and engage in a mass fist fight. Or the nuke with the timed detonator that was ticking down to the final seconds as Batman clumsily flew it out of the city... and was then suddenly miles and miles out to sea. I didn't mind the spectacle of it, but the outcomes of the movie should have made some sense.
I really enjoyed this. It came during a deluge of everything-is-CGI type movies and it just felt refreshing to watch a "normal" (well, for QT standards) movie with real locations and nice cinematography.
I’ll just get it out of the way because I’ve talked about it too much. EEAAO is not a movie I hate but every time I see people talk about it and remember that it swept the Oscar’s I just go “man fuck that movie.”
In terms of traditionally acclaimed films. The Rules of the Game is often considered one of the best films of all time. I thought it was wildly boring and unengaging. Same goes for La Dolce Vita.
Children of Men is a sappy, poor, apelative melodrama with on-the-nose Messianic themes.
The original Star Wars is incredibly dated and both the editing and the screenplay leaves a lot to be desired even when compared to movies of the period.
Casablanca is great but I don't think it's really noir.
Chinatown could be a little shorter.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind is the best thing Spielberg ever made, and yes E.T. is overrated.
Blade Runner is an okay movie with sublime worldbuilding, and Blade Runner 2049 is the better of the two.
The Batman must be one of the most overrated movies in the history of the medium. The screenplay is deeply flawed and does a terrible job at "show don't tell", it's like a radio drama. Super long too. The story could fit in an episode of Batman the Animated Series.
I agree. I love Alfonso Cuaron's other works, and the actual filmmaking behind it is superb (It's almost worth watching just for the cinematography), but the story is... uninspired, to put things lightly.
It's most definitely not, but do people actually think it is? Genuinely asking.
Yes, a lot of people consider Casablanca noir. My guess is that for a lot of people anything with Humphrey Bogart must be noir, and Casablanca is not enough of a negation of noir to overcome that. Also: hats and black and white :P
When you put it like that, I'm surprised that I was surprised! :-)
The only movie I can think of that I loathed would be the original Avatar movie. Sure the story and characters are generic as fuck, but thats not that uncommon and can be fine. Its the feeling that James Cameroon is personally talking down to me and preening about how enlightened he is. And James Cameroon is a terrible billionare who has almost killed a not small number of people. That and I hate the main character with a passion; he's terrible at everything and an asshole, but somehow everyone thinks he's the bestest.
There are a few pieces of media where I can't continue because there simply isn't enough to make me interested in any of the characters. And when it comes to movies there are two in particular that apply that people find inconcevable: The Usual Suspects and The Godfather. I'm a believer in giving movies a chance, and there are a lot of movies that start off boring but then something happens that make them incredible. But in these two movies I think the characters are just kind of unlikable and that makes me not want to identify with them.
I also find most action and fight scenes to be terribly boring. The major exceptions are Wuxia/"Kung Fu" movies where the fights tend to be a little bit more meaningful and are generally more dance-like than most western fight scenes, where I find that there are many fight scenes that serve little to no purpose to the plot and are drawn out. This might be a selection bias, though, since the eastern movies that get translated and sold to the west tend to be the better ones. I might think the same if I was living in Southeast Asia.
But that's the main reason why I'm not interested in the John Wick movies. The first movie felt like it was just a filmmaker who said "what if I made a movie that was only fight scenes?" And while they were well done, for sure, it still bored me to tears because there was so little plot. People talk about the sequels and they have some interesting ideas and concepts in them, but I don't have enough faith that those movies won't bore me with excessive action.
It is difficult to think of a classic movie character as lovable as Don Corleone, and the whole family is the same for most people. They're portrayed as immigrants trying to support their families within a rich, fascinating culture, rather than criminals and sociopaths. They view themselves as protectors of their communities in search of the American dream. From the start, their dream is going legit.
Corleone's reluctance to enter the drug business is their downfall. As a black dude, I could probably object to his overt racism in that scene, but he's a product of the time and what would you expect from a 1940s mobster?
So yeah, I find them very likable and easy to root for. They're the good among the bad.
At least in the first movie, that is. Michael eventually becomes a coldhearted psychopath in the sequel.
However, when it comes to classics such as Godfather, people can be really insufferable, and feeling that I'm obligated to love a movie is terrible to my appreciation. It's best to accept that some people won't love some of the things I'm passionate about, and give them the freedom to discover those movies at their own pace, if ever.
A lot of 80's and 90's movies that people my age really love and are nostalgic about just don't do much, if anything, for me. The Back to the Future and Indiana Jones series are what come to mind.
Star Wars and Harry Potter have already been mentioned, so I'll just second it I guess. While I really love the Star Wars universe, the majority of their movies and series are, in my opinion, very bad. Rogue One is by far my favorite Star Wars content, followed by Andor or maybe The Force Awakens.
Harry Potter (as a whole) Even before we found out who JK Rowling really was, I was never a fan of the Potterverse.
Lord of the Rings (as a whole) Is it a good story? Yes, absolutely. But I never found it to be a terribly engaging story to me, which is strange as I like fantasy as a whole.
Star Wars (as a whole) It all boils down to one maxim that I increasingly find to be true: the more important The Force is to a Star Wars work, the less I enjoy it. And all too frequently, the Jedi/Sith are the most important thing in a story.
Dr Strangelove It goes beyond dark comedy, beyond farce and becomes, IMO, somewhat childish. I remember watching it and thinking "This is highly regarded, it's going to get better. It's going to get better. It's... closing credits?!"
Game of Thrones Okay, this isn't a movie, but it's treated like a movie series by many fans, so I'm putting it here as honorable mention. This isn't about the finale, as I didn't make it that far. But on the whole, I found the show to be misery porn and a celebration of the worst elements of the genre, as if someone decided to make edgelord fantasy TTRG characters the stars of a show.
I constantly forget about Dr. Strangelove, but I feel the same way. I'm constantly registering that there are jokes going on, but they just simply aren't funny to me.
But the thing about comedy is that it's subjective, and part of that subjectivity is also time-based; that movie was made for people who lived through fear of atomic war destroying the planet. Don't forget the movie's alternate title: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb. To people who lived through that era, they might have seen the movie as something of a breath of fresh air.
While I'm not as old as the movie, I grew up during the 80s... annihilation was always lurking in the background. But I wasn't a post-war kid, that's for sure.
Give Andor a shot, if you haven't yet. Not a single force power used the entire season, nor Jedi/Sith in sight.
Did, and loved it. I may not "get" Star Wars in general, but some of the works stand out to me. I was a huge fan of Solo, for instance.
Oh, this is my kind of question!
I'm sure I can think of more. I had some other half baked hot takes but I didn't write them because if I was asked about them I wasn't sure I'd be able to defend my position. I watch a lot of films and rarely watch something twice, so it can be hard to have strongly held opinions on stuff I can hardly remember.
I'm sorry if I wasn't completely faithful to the question. I hope that's OK.
That is surprising but not really. Persona is definitely up there in terms of Bergman's writing. It has a more enduring quality and its themes are relatable to current audiences. It is a psychological horror without the horror element if that makes any sense. Contrary to popular belief, it's one of his few openly psychoanalytical works. Bergman is usually more about theology than it is about psychology or existentialism.
A lot of times Bergman deals with issues that people nowadays will find hard to relate to. Bergman was the son of a preacher and troubles with faith are at the very core of his artistic impulse. And it's not even faith as we understand it today, but something rather medieval, solemn, and contrite even for contemporary Catholics. He's essentially working through demons that are not as powerful anymore.
Both his directing and writing style are heavily influenced by traditional Swedish theater, which makes it even harder to digest.
Although I do agree that Autumn Sonata is somewhat overestimated, Bergman's filmography is full of masterpieces beyond Persona, such as Cries and Whispers, The Virgin Spring, and the painful autobiography Fanny and Alexander.
That's very well put, but I'm not sure I completely agree with this:
I think what makes Bergman hard to get into is not the subjects that he tackled, but rather the way he tackled them. That's what fell out of fashion for him, assuming we accept that as fact.
His work is obviously open to interpretation, in so far as how you widely or narrowly you describe his main subjects like faith and existentialism, but I think they're still and I reckon always will be relevant. The way they're understood certainly don't stand still, that I agree with, but I think his work is ambiguous enough to keep being relevant today.
I certainly agree that Bergman remains relevant, but I too am quite an antiquated fella :P
What people seem to have trouble with, including the comment to which I answered, is Bergman's dedication to the performers. It is easy to mistake his style as overly simplistic when it is nothing of the sort.
Some of his movies do have more evidently sophisticated cinematography and Sven Nykvist is nothing short of a genius, but Begman's not going out of his way to highlight that. Like Tarkovski, Bergman was distrustful of virtuosity, and with good reason. It's a distraction. For his project to work, the staging, the writing, and the phenomenal work of his performers must be at the forefront, and this is not something you often see in mainstream contemporary cinema.
I was the person you were replying to from before, and I do agree with your points. I guess the term overrated can be equated with bad in meaning, which may have put both of my comments in contrast with each other. Just by the virtue of Bergman making one of my favorite films, Persona, I can't claim him to be bad. I just think people overestimate his filmography.
You brought up Tarkovsky, he's another filmmaker I don't particularly care for, but there's no denying his craftsmanship. I don't particularly well regard their complete filmographies for the same thing I think you implied -- they're directors that try to create certain mood for their work and that just doesn't work for me.
I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. I have something else on my mind and I can barely think anything else. Perhaps a terrible analogy could be better. I think of Bergman, Tarkovsky, or some other filmmaker whose work I respect but do not like as artichoke. I do not like the taste of it, especially considering the amount you have to put into it to make it edible, but there's no denying that it's healthy to eat! :-)
I don't even think you have to say it's healthy! You feel a natural attraction for whatever speaks to you, those are natural inclinations and you should not apologize for that just because a movie or a director is considered prestigious or obligatory.
Even I know those films are hard, that's not the kind of thing I'll casually watch eating popcorn with my wife. They did bring a sense of restlessness and meditations that are essential to who I came to be. Those are formative works. As such, they require a certain availability, a state of mind that not everyone is willing to endure. If I hadn't watched those movies at an early, impressionable age, I don't think I would ever do it as an older adult. They are immensely valuable, but I might not be able to recognize such value in other times or circumstances.
About Tarkovski, I'll say this: I don't think his work can be fully enjoyed or understood without an appreciation or deep respect for spiritual metaphysics, be it religion, spirituality, theology, platonism, or anything of the sort. Bergman is an atheist working through his Christian guilt, Tarkovski is an exoteric Christian in search of transcendence.
Also, I can't really say much about Turkey, but I hope things go well for you and those you love ;)
edit: did you know that Tarkovski and Bergman greatly admired each other's work, to the point that Tarkovski even employed Sven Nykvist in one of his films?
Absolutely. They're not making films that are easily penetrable. Like an artichoke, you have to shed their thorns to get to the edible part but I don't personally think their work is worth the effort to get there.
For me, it's not about attention or being attuned to the type of films they make. Most of my favorite directors have filmographies that'd make Bergman look like a director of action films. It's just that I'm simply not on the same wavelength as him, most of the time. Some people would look at a Pollock and see the work of a genius and some would disregard it as a colorful mess. But that doesn't mean those who hold the latter opinion disregard or even dislike abstract paintings. It just means they don't like Pollock.
Completely agree about Tarkovsky. That's why I don't particularly care for him. The way he tackles similar subjects to Bergman feels a lot more limiting and narrow to me, and I don't find that appealing as an atheist despite having favorite films that are based on faith. (Scorsese is a master of this, in my opinion.) In this regard, Tarkovsky feels very much a byproduct of his habitus.
Regarding Nykvist's work with Tarkovsky, yep, I do know that. I actually like The Sacrifice, for its formalism alone. I wish they had worked together more, but under better circumstances.
Thanks for the kind wishes! <3
That's quite a take. If I may ask, why do you feel that way about the film? Are you aware of Spielberg's intentions for making it, or some of the projects he established during filming?
I hope it's clear that I didn't mean to come across as attacking Spielberg himself. I doubt he had bad intentions. As to what was his exact intentions, I can't possibly know that. I can only judge what he put on the screen.
I'm of the firm opinion that filmmakers should be aware of the weight of their influence when tackling events like the Holocaust. It's an immense responsibility and it should be treated as such. Even then, though, there are things that should not be depicted. The scene I mentioned was shot in a way to create faux suspense to manipulate an already empathetic viewer into believing they're about to see a group of innocent people being gassed to death, with the knowledge that millions have died as such. It builds itself on a widely held fact about the Holocaust and turns into cheap entertainment both in form and context.
On this very subject, Jacques Rivette has an incredibly thoughtful article about a film called KAPO, which is also about the Holocaust and has a somewhat similar scene. I highly suggest you read it. It helped me formulate my thoughts on why that particular scene bothered me so much.
If the goal of art is to induce emotions in the audience and the measure of how good art is based on how strong the emotions are, I can't agree on Schindler's List. If the goal is to have an enjoyable experience, I'm going to agree on Schindler's List.
My experience with it was traumatic (in the clinical sense) and I suspect that was the goal of the movie. We watched it in 10th grade history over the course of a week in 40ish min chunks. After watching it, I didn't sleep for about a month and didn't sleep soundly for another month or two after that. Whether it's better to blame the event on the movie, the teacher, or the Nazis is unclear to me. Given that the Holocaust happened, the movie being made makes perfect sense to me and given that the movie existed, I completely understand why it was shown in the context it was. BUT, I desperately wish that I hadn't suffered through the movie.
The list of movies that I didn't enjoy has some entries on it, but Schindler's List is special because it isn't one that I think I'm ever going to be able to forget.
I might be misinterpreting your first paragraph, but if I didn't, you completely missed my point. I elaborated my opinion on Schindler's List here, if you're curious.
In addition to my elaboration on that link, I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing against the emotional power of the film. It's there. It's palpable. My reaction to it is strong precisely because it's so emotional. My problem with it is how it evokes those emotions in the audience, making specific formal choices in how it depicts a real tragedy of history.
I can't deny you your experience and more power to you if the film holds a special place in your heart. When I watched it, it affected me too. It's not my place to criticize the audience. I'm merely criticizing the art itself and find it worthy of contempt, despite its undoubtedly best intentions.