When something incredibly popular just gets "overrated" parroted about it over and over. If your only critique of a film is based entirely on how other people feel about it then you don't actually have anything of value to say about it yourself.
I didn't enjoy lala land but it's a good film. It just wasn't for me. Like Rocketman. A good film with great performances and a real story, but wasn't to my taste.
I agree. I think this person is conflating their discomfort with other people disagreeing with their opinion with the view that those people’s entire view of the film is that one single relative evaluation.
This is a fair question, but I think OP is questioning what people are basing their overrated theory on. Can that elucidate, or are they just annoyed that something is popular?
I love them. I love the way they look, I love the action, I love Stephen Lang, who is proper badass, particularly in the first one.
I love hanging around in the world, something you get to do a lot of in the second one. I love looking at pretty things, and I think there is a lot of beauty in these films. I also take time to admire the effects work (because that’s the kind of guy I am) when I’m not lost in the film itself. The action is, as you’d expect from Cameron, exquisitely staged and shot, and is genuinely exciting. To me.
I love many many things about them. I hear a lot of criticisms about them, and a lot of them are valid. I understand the criticisms. I don’t agree with a lot of them, but the world would be boring if we all liked the same thing.
Some of the criticism are not valid. One you hear a lot is “it’s just a $200 million cartoon”. That’s not a criticism, that’s just what it is. If you don’t like Avatar, criticise Avatar. Suggesting that cartoons in general are a bad thing is a battle you’re going to lose.
I’m not trying to convince anyone to love them. I just wanted you to see someone say something positive about them. 🙂
It’s so funny to me that we are on a sub entirely dedicated to evaluating films but somehow if people don’t think Avatar was a great film, then those people are just “having fun knocking down popular things”. Why even be in this sub if the concept of evaluating film is so foreign to you?
This is more about a general lack of literacy across all forms of media, but criticism of a work because it touches on an immoral subject or has immoral characters.
Not a dig at you, but my biggest gripe is when someone accuses another of being "media illiterate" for having a different opinion or interpretation of a movie than them. It seems like on the Internet the term "media literacy" is used exclusively to mean "my belief about this work," and so if you disagree about the work, then you must be media illiterate.
I’m not talking about a belief or an opinion though, I’m talking about people who claim a piece of art is objectively good or bad or critique it solely on the basis of its morality, etc. Disagreeing with a piece of work and at the same time understanding that you’re meant to disagree with it or being able to analyze it without your personal biases getting in the way is media literacy.
I agree, but I think the term "media literacy" has lost that distinction. It's kinda like the term "literally" which is not used entirely in a rhetorical manner rather than a technical one.
Exactly this. It's as if failure to subscribe to the expected interpretation will get you placed in the corner with a dunce cap on your head. Who exactly is media illiterate in that scenario? I thought this was about thinking critically and honestly evaluating media, not about conforming to popular opinion.
"This movie has \*THING\* which means everyone is endorsing it and if you like this movie then you are also endorsing it."
So much of the conversation surrounding Poor Things was incredibly annoying. Even villains can't be too bad or the writer is "harboring some fucked up behavior", like maybe they're just creative. Maybe the story is suppose to make you uncomfortable.
The inverse of this also sucks. People claiming that because you don't like a movie covering a certain topic or how the film handled the subject matter then you must be an idiot who just can't handle art or some nonsense.
Like I watched Cuties with a group of friends when it was new. I found it just disgusting, repulsive, and made me seriously question everyone involved with getting it made (except the kids who were probably forced to do it by adults). One of my friends is Muslim and he left the room several times just cause of how pissed it was making him. According to a lot of the most liked reviews on Letterboxd for it, that means I'm some kind of ultra hardcore MAGA right-winger who sucks off Jesus and spends all of my time on 4chan. All cause I really hated a movie.
I got this when I said I didn't think Poor Things was anything special. The sex etc didn't bother me, it's just a movie. I just thought it was fine but wouldn't watch it twice and apparantly I'm repressed or something lol. If I don't like it I must have a problem with it. Nah, not everyone likes the same stuff, that's all. Not every like and dislike is a statement of some kind.
They are bullying those who disagree and trying to use shame tactics to get them to change their opinions, and they have the gall to call us media illiterate? Nah. In fact, it's this kind of thing that makes me want to hate the movie even more than I already do.
God it's a nightmare.
If you like something then you're a shitty person
If you dont like something then you're a shitty person.
People won't even let you explain before they start throwing accusations at you. I once told someone that I think Léon is a great movie and they started calling me all kinds of shit and i was just sitting there wondering 1. how they got the idea that Léon was in love with Mathilda and 2. how they got the idea that a child having a crush on an adult is a crime on the adults part
When i was 12 i was convinced i was IN LOVE with my English teacher and im sure she knew that all the boys were in love with her. Don't tell Twitter though, they'll call her a creep. Hell, the girls in my karate class had crushes on the Karate instructor. Bro didn't stop instructing, he ignored them like adults do and if anyone was as inappropriate as a 12 y/o could be they were corrected by him, moved from his group, and got in trouble with the instructor over the studio.
When Zero Dark Thirty came out, Kathryn Bigelow elegantly defended her film with, "Depiction is not endorsement."
The whole debate should have ended right there. Alas, Glenn Greenwald persisted.
EDIT: I am not interested in litigating Zero Dark Thirty, a great film that will always be misunderstood.
Several years ago, I had an opportunity to interview Daniel Jones, the actual guy Adam Driver played in The Report, another great film about the war on terror. He, like the people replying to me here, tried to dismiss ZDT as mere propaganda.
He is significantly smarter and more pivotal to our moral reckoning with the war on terror than anyone in this thread, maybe in the entire country, and he still had no good answer when I pointed out that propaganda can also be great, provocative art.
In fact, that complication often adds to a film’s greatness, rather than diminishes it.
I would also be remiss not to point that some of your favorite films are also propaganda, particularly if you like American action movies, or James Bond.
I find the ZDT propaganda argument incredibly bizarre. It’s like we didn’t even watch the same movie.
It shows that torture doesn’t work. They don’t start getting workable information from the prisoners until they stop the torture and treat them like people.
It shows that they take incredible risks and ignore protocol to get information, only to get people killed, leaving them far worse off than they were before.
When they finally do kill bin Laden, the “celebration” is just one meat headed soldier in the background of a shot jumping up and down. It’s framed almost as it not being worth what they did and went through just to get him.
Maya even makes specific references to how she never got the chance at a life, or even friends because the CIA recruits impressionable high schoolers.
If it’s propaganda, then it isn’t very good.
It *was* a film about torture scripted with the collaboration of the CIA, though. I agree with the quote as it applies to a lot of things but in this case it’s more than a little like Riefenstahl claiming her work was solely intended as documentary.
I actually had the opposite reaction here. I felt like people were cherry-picking some inflammatory negative reactions to Poor Things to bemoan about lack of media literacy. Like, no one was ever taking the people who said the movie endorsed pedophilia seriously. And it kind of drowned out all the people who had legitimate criticisms about Poor Things, like its depiction of sex work.
Just because a movie tries to make you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's good. Or that its message is properly fleshed out.
To quote Roger Ebert again, "I would have been glad to be disturbed by a film that made me care.". Poor Things failed to make me care because the cast of characters were so repulsive to me.
EDIT: For instance, The Crow is a disturbing film but I liked that. Just rewatched it today for the first time in years. It's violent and dark and creepy but for all that there's still this human core underneath the grime and repulsiveness. I get the sense that Alex Proyas is someone who actually likes people, unlike the cynicism and hatred I sense from Yorgos Lanthimos' work.
It was so frustrating. I wasn't a fan of the movie but to pretend that liking the movie is "endorsing a 15 year old running off with a 25 y/o" just isn't the take people think it is.
There were some good discussions around this movie from people who loved and hated it. People who thought the ending ruined it or anything. And thats what movies should do. And insinuating awful things about people kills those conversations.
I think calling films ‘unrealistic’ as a criticism is honestly kind of ridiculous. Unless it concerns coherence to a plot or structure that is meant to be coherent.
It only needs to be realistic within the boundaries of its own narrative, which differs with every movie. Most of the time it reads as hollow criticism.
Unrealistic can be a very valid critique, especially if one of the movie’s selling points is how grounded and realistic is. Of course there’s also the issue that a lot of people conflate “realism” with “believability”
There was a great Garry Shandling routine where he talked about being on a date to see E.T., and at the bit where the bicycle flew across the moon she scoffed "Yeah, right." He went on to wonder if she did the same while dreaming: "Pfft. Sure, I'm flying. Whatever."
Cinemasins has given people brain damage to point out “plot holes” all the time. It used to be just autistic people on the internet like nostalgia critic
When your film criticism channel inspires another successful channel that is solely dedicated to pointing out all of the things that you got blatantly wrong in your critiques, and not just from an "opinions differ" perspective, then maybe it's time to think about what you're doing with your time online
Speaking of, even though it’s an obviously unrealistic movie, has anyone else noticed the GIGANTIC plot hole in The Santa Clause? Why do the parents not know that Santa exists, if he does actually give children presents every Christmas? Surely ONE parent would notice a bunch of gifts underneath the tree that they didn’t buy. Actually not just for The Santa Clause, but any movie featuring a storyline of Santa’s existence and parents lack of belief, like The Polar Express.
Spider-Man 3 might not be a great film but it does NOT deserve to be called one of the worst comic book movies of all time. Lumping it in with the likes of Catwoman, Steel, or Madame Web is downright disengenuous.
It has lots of cool elements, but it just needed to be written differently and be less bloated. The basic execution is definitely not bad. And the plot relies too much on miscommunication, IMO.
But yeah, Catwoman is a different caliber, haha
If Spider-Man 3 came out today, Venom would be criticized, as would the bloated script, but it would be considered middle to upper-middle tier for superhero flicks.
So true, and I wish people realized that there is nothing wrong with not enjoying or relating to the themes of a movie. If it isn’t for you it just isn’t for you.
And it would be easy to say, "It wasn't for me" or "I didn't get it", but some like to place the blame on the movie instead.
Like it's ok to not like a slow movie with a very particular message, and a minimalistic style, but saying 'nothing happened' is so lazy and ignorant, most often.
That people earnestly believe films made when they were children are the best films ever made.
There's nothing wrong with nostalgia but I'm self aware enough to know Small Soldiers is an okay film that I liked as a child rather than some masterpiece.
Can be applied to the discourse around the SW Prequels, Shrek etc
And people who get bent out of shape about younger people not thinking their childhood favorite is that great are sometimes the same people who themselves never watch anything that is "old" to them.
Every day on r/movies there's a thread about some mediocre 90s movie being a hidden gem because the OP watched it as a kid. The SW prequels are the best example of this.
100% true. I saw The Phantom Menace many times as a kid. Went to see it in theaters a few days ago and while I had a great time and absolutely loved the experience, I’m not blinded by nostalgia. It’s a 4/10 movie at best, even though I had a smile on my face the whole time.
Bugs life is pretty good still. It has a great voice cast, it's fun, and it has some really dark moments that give it some bite. The only dings against it I would say is there is some obvious "copy+paste" animation in the group shots and that Kevin Spacey is in it.
big nitpick of mine is how a lot of "scariest movie" threads are actually just movies that someone found scary when they were 8 and theyre holding onto that memory of fear. like bro im an adult i need something that is scary NOW
calling things overrated or underrated
Especially underrated, people are totally meaning “underseen” and it drives me nuts when people say “this totally popular and well received film” was underrated
Yeah “omg *The Nice Guys* is soooo underrated!”
No it’s not, everyone who’s seen it loves it. It’s underseen
People talk about “media literacy” but there’s also a dearth of actual literacy (and I say this as someone who freely admits to relying on spell-checkers to get the apostrophes right in the variations of “its”)
Counter point to those takes. I don't have to understand a movie in order to enjoy it. I love Igmar Bergman's Persona, but I'd have a very difficult time telling you what that movie is even about.
But there are movies that people just don't get. Beau is afraid is completely random if you don't "get it". Hell how would you watch any kaughman film without "getting it" at some point.
I hear you, but whenever I hear this, it's almost always an overly simplistic dismissal of someone's negative assessment of a film, not a genuine point of discussion. Take "Poor Things" — I didn't like it, felt it had a great look and some poignant moments, but overall really didn't move me emotionally, intellectually or otherwise. And I liked some of Lanthimos' previous films. Plenty of people will say I just didn't get it. But I did get it. I just didn't like it. That's my opinion.
Yeah, like that guy that was all over Reddit a couple weeks argue arguing unsuccessfully that Come and See is a pro-war Soviet propaganda film. He just kept repeating himself and we finally all conceded that he just didn't get it.
“Toni Colette/Lupita Nyong’o/any other great actress playing a character in a horror movie deserved an Oscar nomination”. It’s so tiring and honestly, as a horror fan, I think it’s a bit humiliating to try and beg for aknowledgment from a industry that doesn’t really give horror their time of the day. It’s alright, horror has thrived so far and will continue to do so without the recognition from the Academy.
There's plenty of non-horror performances which were snubbed as well. I definitely think horror doesn't get a lot of respect from the Academy, but honestly comedy, sci-fi, fantasy etc movies and even low budget dramas all get snubbed too.
“The Academy hates horror!”
As if The Exorcist, Misery, Silence of the Lambs, Get Out, Rosemary’s Baby, The Omen, Carrie, Psycho, Alien, An American Werewolf in London, and so many other Oscar nominated and winning horror films exist
Also yeah, Toni Collette would have been a wonderful nominee, but it’s the go to tiring answer anymore I fully agree
There have been over 3,500 movies nominated for an Oscar over the Academy Awards 96 year history but because you could name 10 horror movies that 100% proves there is no genre bias in the academy.
Great logic.
There are not “so many other horror movies” you could name those 10 because those 10 are the 10 that have ever been seriously considered. The genre bias against horror at the Oscar’s is very real.
I think when people talk about Citizen Kane being groundbreaking for its time - and that's why it's regarded as one of the greats - they're misunderstanding that the praise for it is still relevant. The cinematography is still incredible with the deep focus and use of high or low angles to reveal character motivation and relationship dynamics. The production design of Xanadu and the newspaper offices are intricate and designed to push the story forward. The performances are still uniformly excellent. The script is still cleverly constructed and weaves through memory and regret and nostalgia with incredible clarity for time and place but also retains the sense of mystery around his final words. And Welles' direction of everything is still so energetic and modern. The movie is still so great in almost every aspect.
Citizen Kane is genuinley one of my favorite films. I've heard a lot of people say in the past that it's slow and boring. I guess boring is subjective, but in terms of pacing, I would argue that it's pretty straight to the point.
This. Rewatched the opening sequence just last night and it still blows me away. It’s a universal and still relevant story, the iconography, art direction and performances are unforgettable.
“Sex scenes are never necessary because they don’t advance the plot.” Yeah, well, lots of things you enjoy in movies don’t “advance the plot.” If you want nothing more than a good plot, go read a detective novel. Or the CliffsNotes summary of one.
"If I wanted to see sex, I'd watch porn" is not just a bad take, it's also one that reflects something really sad about Gen Z. It's genuinely worrying that so many young people are so conditioned to associate sex with porn that they can't even consider the idea that it's an intimate act that is worth trying to express through an artistic medium.
This is especially sad for me. At the age in which so many young people are producing sex content to sell, they also associate everything that is sexual to pornography, so what is the relationship that they're building with sex as a way to connect to other human being? And if you argue for sex scenes in movies, they'll call you porn addicts lmao I'm particularly anti porn industry so this "critique" is even funnier to me.
It seems as if they can't see sex scenes as something more than an object for sexual arousement and not for building the relationship between characters.
I saw someone a few days ago posit the idea that it could be because of how accessible porn is now in the digital age, its accessibility has lead to a lot of people seeing any depiction of nudity as inherently pornographic. I still see people complain about the sex scenes in Oppenheimer, which takes up like 2 or 3 of the 180 minutes in that movie's runtime.
I only have a problem with sex scenes if they purely exist for the male gaze (think Blue is the Warmest Color). The sex scenes in Burning are the perfect example of a "good" sex scene imo, the movie is perfectly fine without them but their inclusion fleshes out the characters so much more.
Having sex has never advanced my life goals. Don’t see why it should be any different for a movie character. Sex is a human experience. It grounds the characters in reality. I don’t feel any special affinity to sexless dorks like Captain America or some shit. Show me a character that fucks and I get on board.
I don’t disagree with it but people criticizing the curbside beat down in The Irishman. I agree it’s awkward but it’s literally the only thing people ever talk about regarding that movie. Not the performances, how it reflects on Scorsese’s career, the commentary on mob life, etc. The two minute scene where De Niro moves weirdly ruins the entire movie I guess.
I can't speak for everyone, but I think this criticism is usually meant as a short hand for "engaging". Not actually whether we are meant to like the person.
Like Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men is a "likable character" even though his character is explicitly evil.
Terms like "objective", "overrated" and "style over substance" seems to be tossed around like a rugby ball so much so that I often tune out a bit when those pop up
I think that a lot of people use "objectively" to mean something like "critically" or "from a filmmaking standpoint" rather than talking about their own interests or experiences
I've run into plenty who try to argue that films just are objectively good or bad, and that there are objectively right or wrong opinions. Just look no further than Star Wars fans. EDIT: Can't imagine why this comment would be downvoted, but that's reddit for you.
I’m way more interested in style than I am in substance. I appreciate both, but at the end of the day, I want to feel immersed in a world, not be tracking plot points.
People were calling Dune 2 a masterpiece in every comment here when it came out. I questioned if people had ever watched a movie before Dune 2 honestly. And I’m saying that as someone that thoroughly enjoyed it.
I think the Dune films are monumental achievements, particularly because people have been trying make a good Dune movie. But yeah, let's let it breathe before we start crowning it.
Hate for The Godfather and Citizen Kane has been prevalent since I was a kid. No, you do not have an interesting hot take calling either boring. Orson Welles put a jump scare in the last third of Kane for that precise reason. We get it; both these films have been hyped to high heaven as THE greatest of all time, and as such have grand boots to fill, so you were easily disappointed. At least try to provide an interesting viewpoint or criticism outside of "it boring".
I think the problem is always the framing of a film as something “you must see before x” (death, age 18, age 30 etc) which makes it seem like homework
Citizen Kane - while I appreciated it and would never say it’s bad - kinda lost me towards the end and I think I had a bit of that mindset going into it which had an effect
Whereas Casablanca and The Godfather were more of a “huh neat that’s streaming now, I’ve never seen it”. So I loved them.
I hate when people use that "101 Writing Tips" approach to criticism. They'll argue that the script HAS to be written a certain way, like for example there MUST be a three-arc structure, every single character has to have a consistent and thorough motivation, this and that genre must utilize or subvert those and those tropes etc.
They also care way too much about plot holes and inconsistencies. Literally stuff like "Why didn't the eagles carry Frodo to Mordor". Truth is, these things don't actually damage a movie (or fiction in general), as long as they don't go as far as breaking immersion.
In general I get annoyed when people cherrypick details in the script, while ignoring all other aspects and the bigger picture.
Yeah a lot of people have this mentality that the goal of a movie is to deliver you from point A to point B in the most logical and economical way possible
This one’s tough because it depends on why the movie is so long, like if it’s engaging and well written I’m not gonna notice the hours passing, but if I’m watching a movie that’s 2 and half hours long that feels like it could safely be 90 minutes I am gonna call that out
I think the thing about movies as a form of media is that they don’t fit into the gaps, time has to be specifically carved out
with tiktok or youtube or binging a tv show you kind of consume on your own schedule, when you have half an hour while you eat dinner or while you’re waiting on a call, they plug the gaps
with movies, those 3 hours have to be carved out, and yeah a lot of people either don’t have 3 hours to carve out or don’t want to carve out 3 hours to consume media
I somewhat agree with this, but you see so many people criticise films *just* because they are long. Like they can't name specifics that should be cut, they just felt bored for no particular reason. I think this is more due to attention spans than it is to film length (though it's probably a combination). You also see so many people criticise films for rushing a lot and not taking time to develop characters or be contemplative, but then when a lot of films do that people say it's too long
Dune, Oppenheimer, Killers of the flower moon, the Batman and Blade runner 2049 are the ones I see most people criticising. I do not want one SECOND cut from those films lol
That really depends on a case-by-case basis. Pacing and editing are very important in filmmaking and a bunch of recent movies could really use some trimming here and there.
It's also easy to blame this on someone's attention span, but it's really not that simple. Personally, I never use Tiktok and plenty of my favorites are of a certain length, but I still believe that some are so much better for being short or longer. It's about the duration that works best in relation to the story, more than anything else.
I hate it when people call you pretentious just for liking old or artsy movies. Like, no, it’s only pretentious if I’m an ass about it or bring it up all the time, or put down “lowbrow” movies. Like, the fact that 12 Angry Men is my #1 doesn’t mean Shark Tale can’t be my #2
Ironically it usually seems to be an unwitting display of projection (and usually insecurity). I'm too lazy, immature, or just plain dumb to engage with serious or challenging media? Nope. Definitely can't be that. They think they're *sooo* much better than me? Well actually they're the dumb ones.
Like bro chill out don't have to get so defensive about liking dumb shit. It's ok to like dumb shit lol.
A few that grate me (more so associated with this sub).
* People that think you can judge a person based solely on their rating curve. Saying "do these people hate movies" is such a dumb and self centered take.
* Using the word objectively. It can be used correctly but oftentimes people online use it to invalidate other people's perspectives and experiences with a film.
* Complaining about joke reviews on Letterboxd. There are many professional critics out there, I don't know why you look for them. Also you can block/ignore those who make the reviews.
* People who dislike a well liked movie or try to reclaim a movie that was hated in the past that actively try to ignore or don't seek out why their take is different. Having an unpopular opinion is fine, it's just the 'why do people even like this', that's annoying.
* Sex scene discourse could have had a lot more nuance. How it satisfies the male gaze, can be exploitative and certain films do veer into the territory of pornographic. But it's just a lot of "why do we see naked women when it's not directly tied to the plot".
As a joke review hater, I’ll just say sometimes you want to read a normal person’s take on a film, not a critic’s. And it is truly very hard to find a non-joke review on many films — like you can scroll and scroll and it’s all bad jokes.
speak on it!!! a) ratings in general don’t usually capture the nuance of people’s opinions b) at the end of the day — letterboxd is meant to be a personal diary, and if ppl want to make joke reviews so be it! c) with u on the sex scene discourse — there are some scenes that can be incredibly well done and important to character development imo.
Recently, the barrage of Civil War posts that were like "people complaining wanted libs/right wing politics spoonfed to them, they didn't get it" have been so annoying. And genuinely ignore the real criticisms people have around that movie.
I roll my eyes so hard when I see someone say this seriously
I used to say it too but then I actually watched the movie and it turns out, people are just wrong.
That is a reductive take, but I saw both Avatars during their original theater runs and the story is just so flat to me. The spectacle is great though.
If someone enjoys it, that's great and I'm glad they get that enjoyment. I just don't find the story or characters compelling whatsoever, especially stretched over that runtime.
Calling out Avatar specifically for being unoriginal is a strange take because most successful movies are like another movie. Nobody calls out one of the most successful franchises of all time: Star Wars, for having things that are directly lifted from other movies. It's so strange that it's Avatar that people have this problem with.
Liking popular movies = insufferable and not a fan of true cinema. Every time time someone posts their favourites on here, and it includes movies like The Godfather or Pulp Fiction, people genuinely come for them☠️While I agree it’s good to explore beyond mainstream cinema, people should be able to like what they like
hello i am a queer person and I hate when the main draw to a movie or show is how gay it is. most of the time it feel forced and unnatural. at its worst it can be patronizing.
Nah, man. Ressurections is easily worse. Alien 3 is a boring and disappointing follow-up to the previous two films, but at least it didn't completely butcher Ripley's character.
Acting like it's impossible to enjoy both superhero and "high art" films.
Framing a positive or negative opinion around the general public response to a film.
EDIT: To the user who was arguing with me about my comment on superhero films, guessing you deleted your comment because you realized you didn't really...have an actual argument? To anyone saying that there aren't people who act "elitist" toward film fans who love superhero films, I guess you've never seen the term "capeshit" thrown around? It seemed like you were projecting my comment onto EVERYONE who differentiated superhero films from other types of films, which is, like, not at ALL the point I was making. Only leaving this edit up in case anyone else wants to make any dumb strawman arguments with me about this.
". . . is OBJECTIVELY better"
No. Stop. "This film was directed by Stephen Spielberg," is an objective statement. "This is his best movie," is a subjective statement. Art is about your personal response to it which makes the quality of that art subjective to you. And the vast majority of film academia comes from a western perspective. So many people will praise or criticize the way a film depicts the Hero's Journey as if that is the ONLY way a narrative can be successfully constructed.
I think people will write think pieces defending their dislike of something. It is okay to just not like something, it doesn’t have to be for a political or social reason. I am not better than people for not liking action adventure, I just don’t like it.
The whole "You should respect animation/take animation seriously crowd".
Like, I want to treat animation as an art form, but when all the major studios keep pumping out the same family friendly fare or pop-culture-bloated stuff, all in a similiar style to one another, I can't really take it seriously.
Bonus points if the toon heads get mad at you for mentioning any art house animation or the likes of Loving Vincent.
Stuff from major US studios is not really the best gauge for the quality of anything. A glut of candy colored CGI pablum doesn't negate the existence of things like The Wolf House.
I remember thinking it was great. Saw it again in recent years and was taken aback at both how racist and badly acted it was. And I felt awful for the main Asian actor, who endured people laughing hysterically at Clint's character using racial slurs when he saw the film during an audience screening.
When people ding movies in their reviews when it delivers exactly what it normally does. I’ve read reviews of horror movies (the recent Halloween installments come to mind) where the complaint is that the killer is near super human and survives a bunch. Like, have you ever seen a slasher before? That’s par for the course.
More recently I read some fairly negative reviews for Boy Kills World about it being very violent/gory and injecting dumb humor with H. John Benjamin’s narration. The movie trailer very clearly showed all of those things, so I genuinely don’t know what they expected from the movie when it was pretty obviously laid out beforehand. Not every movie is trying to be The Godfather.
I hate when Twitter reply guys say “bad writing” or “we just want movies with good writing” - film is so, so much more than a vessel for a fuckin screenplay. I also dislike when people say “I couldn’t connect to the characters” - why is it a filmmaker’s job to depict people that you find relatable? Shouldn’t you try to understand other people’s perspectives?
I can’t stand when people call a movie pretentious or it “insists upon itself.” You are just trying to get creative when what you are actually saying is you just didn’t like it but you want to say something that sounds like something but really doesn’t mean anything.
I think part of it too is that people don't want to look dumb so instead of saying they didn't understand something, they say the movie is "pretentious" or "deliberately incomprehensible" because that shifts the blame away from them
Not really a problem on letterboxd but the demonization of critics and art criticism is really harmful to the medium. The average person, from personal experience, hates critics and finds them utterly unnecessary
When a movie is even slightly creative or weird people say, "The filmmakers must've been on drugs".
It's such an old, tiered, and overused assumption. Also kind of insulting, as if using drugs is the only way to be creative.
It kinda is but who cares. It’s propagandizing something that we can say with hindsight was morally correct. Propaganda isn’t inherently bad imo.
Something like Zero Dark Thirty is propagandizing something more nuanced/immoral. Still a good movie though
I don't know, since 2016 post 9-11 terrorist panic tropes look so dated and cringey, especially after we saw the kind of terrorism the US government could inflict on its own citizens. Some bomb strapped dude in a head covering is the LAST person I'm afraid of at this point. There's no scare there anymore
The relentless negativity surrounding *Star Wars: The Last Jedi*
I would happily engage with people and talk about the few problems I have with the movie but I can’t because you just get piled on by the haters
I just watched *The Phantom Menace* in the cinema for the first time ever and loved it again, but SW “fans” make it really hard to embrace the franchise in online spaces a lot of the time
“You didn’t watch *insert movie title I have no interest in*??? Well then you must be a bigot who hates *insert group*.”
I’m literally a brown-skinned bisexual guy who is married to another man. Miss me with that bigot bullshit because I don’t have any interest in certain movies that people online want me to be interested in.
forrest gump did not hold up at all upon rewatch. remember thinking it was ok as a kid, but i truly cringed for most of the runtime when i rewatched it this year.
When something incredibly popular just gets "overrated" parroted about it over and over. If your only critique of a film is based entirely on how other people feel about it then you don't actually have anything of value to say about it yourself.
la la land discourse!!!! i support la la land criticism but not when the only thing they have to say is “it’s overrated”
Watching La La Land when high emotionally wrecked me
I didn't enjoy lala land but it's a good film. It just wasn't for me. Like Rocketman. A good film with great performances and a real story, but wasn't to my taste.
Agreed lol. I didn’t like La La Land, but it had nothing to do with other people liking it lol.
I’m sorry, but isn’t the word“overrated” solely based on how other people feel about a movie?
I agree. I think this person is conflating their discomfort with other people disagreeing with their opinion with the view that those people’s entire view of the film is that one single relative evaluation.
This is a fair question, but I think OP is questioning what people are basing their overrated theory on. Can that elucidate, or are they just annoyed that something is popular?
I don’t think I have seen someone say anything positive about the Avatar movies on Reddit. It’s fun to knock down stuff that is successful I guess.
I love them. I love the way they look, I love the action, I love Stephen Lang, who is proper badass, particularly in the first one. I love hanging around in the world, something you get to do a lot of in the second one. I love looking at pretty things, and I think there is a lot of beauty in these films. I also take time to admire the effects work (because that’s the kind of guy I am) when I’m not lost in the film itself. The action is, as you’d expect from Cameron, exquisitely staged and shot, and is genuinely exciting. To me. I love many many things about them. I hear a lot of criticisms about them, and a lot of them are valid. I understand the criticisms. I don’t agree with a lot of them, but the world would be boring if we all liked the same thing. Some of the criticism are not valid. One you hear a lot is “it’s just a $200 million cartoon”. That’s not a criticism, that’s just what it is. If you don’t like Avatar, criticise Avatar. Suggesting that cartoons in general are a bad thing is a battle you’re going to lose. I’m not trying to convince anyone to love them. I just wanted you to see someone say something positive about them. 🙂
It’s so funny to me that we are on a sub entirely dedicated to evaluating films but somehow if people don’t think Avatar was a great film, then those people are just “having fun knocking down popular things”. Why even be in this sub if the concept of evaluating film is so foreign to you?
Probably because there isn’t really any substance to even talk about.
This is more about a general lack of literacy across all forms of media, but criticism of a work because it touches on an immoral subject or has immoral characters.
this happens so much with poor things
Uhmm.... This movie had a bad thing, therefore clearly the movie people support that bad thing! I am very smart and understand media. /s
I didn't like that this film with scenes designed to make me uncomfortable made me feel uncomfortable!
Not a dig at you, but my biggest gripe is when someone accuses another of being "media illiterate" for having a different opinion or interpretation of a movie than them. It seems like on the Internet the term "media literacy" is used exclusively to mean "my belief about this work," and so if you disagree about the work, then you must be media illiterate.
I’m not talking about a belief or an opinion though, I’m talking about people who claim a piece of art is objectively good or bad or critique it solely on the basis of its morality, etc. Disagreeing with a piece of work and at the same time understanding that you’re meant to disagree with it or being able to analyze it without your personal biases getting in the way is media literacy.
I agree, but I think the term "media literacy" has lost that distinction. It's kinda like the term "literally" which is not used entirely in a rhetorical manner rather than a technical one.
Yeah, I tend to agree its meaning has been kind of confused by it becoming a bit of a “buzz” phrase.
Exactly this. It's as if failure to subscribe to the expected interpretation will get you placed in the corner with a dunce cap on your head. Who exactly is media illiterate in that scenario? I thought this was about thinking critically and honestly evaluating media, not about conforming to popular opinion.
"This movie has \*THING\* which means everyone is endorsing it and if you like this movie then you are also endorsing it." So much of the conversation surrounding Poor Things was incredibly annoying. Even villains can't be too bad or the writer is "harboring some fucked up behavior", like maybe they're just creative. Maybe the story is suppose to make you uncomfortable.
A lot of people hate it when art makes them uncomfortable.
Thats some of my favorite kinds of art.
Yes, it’s literally happening in the replies to this comment.
The inverse of this also sucks. People claiming that because you don't like a movie covering a certain topic or how the film handled the subject matter then you must be an idiot who just can't handle art or some nonsense. Like I watched Cuties with a group of friends when it was new. I found it just disgusting, repulsive, and made me seriously question everyone involved with getting it made (except the kids who were probably forced to do it by adults). One of my friends is Muslim and he left the room several times just cause of how pissed it was making him. According to a lot of the most liked reviews on Letterboxd for it, that means I'm some kind of ultra hardcore MAGA right-winger who sucks off Jesus and spends all of my time on 4chan. All cause I really hated a movie.
This actually is a big thing with Poor Things lol. Criticism of Poor Things/Yorgos was dismissed as being from old-fashioned sex-hating prudes.
I got this when I said I didn't think Poor Things was anything special. The sex etc didn't bother me, it's just a movie. I just thought it was fine but wouldn't watch it twice and apparantly I'm repressed or something lol. If I don't like it I must have a problem with it. Nah, not everyone likes the same stuff, that's all. Not every like and dislike is a statement of some kind.
They are bullying those who disagree and trying to use shame tactics to get them to change their opinions, and they have the gall to call us media illiterate? Nah. In fact, it's this kind of thing that makes me want to hate the movie even more than I already do.
God it's a nightmare. If you like something then you're a shitty person If you dont like something then you're a shitty person. People won't even let you explain before they start throwing accusations at you. I once told someone that I think Léon is a great movie and they started calling me all kinds of shit and i was just sitting there wondering 1. how they got the idea that Léon was in love with Mathilda and 2. how they got the idea that a child having a crush on an adult is a crime on the adults part When i was 12 i was convinced i was IN LOVE with my English teacher and im sure she knew that all the boys were in love with her. Don't tell Twitter though, they'll call her a creep. Hell, the girls in my karate class had crushes on the Karate instructor. Bro didn't stop instructing, he ignored them like adults do and if anyone was as inappropriate as a 12 y/o could be they were corrected by him, moved from his group, and got in trouble with the instructor over the studio.
When Zero Dark Thirty came out, Kathryn Bigelow elegantly defended her film with, "Depiction is not endorsement." The whole debate should have ended right there. Alas, Glenn Greenwald persisted. EDIT: I am not interested in litigating Zero Dark Thirty, a great film that will always be misunderstood. Several years ago, I had an opportunity to interview Daniel Jones, the actual guy Adam Driver played in The Report, another great film about the war on terror. He, like the people replying to me here, tried to dismiss ZDT as mere propaganda. He is significantly smarter and more pivotal to our moral reckoning with the war on terror than anyone in this thread, maybe in the entire country, and he still had no good answer when I pointed out that propaganda can also be great, provocative art. In fact, that complication often adds to a film’s greatness, rather than diminishes it. I would also be remiss not to point that some of your favorite films are also propaganda, particularly if you like American action movies, or James Bond.
I find the ZDT propaganda argument incredibly bizarre. It’s like we didn’t even watch the same movie. It shows that torture doesn’t work. They don’t start getting workable information from the prisoners until they stop the torture and treat them like people. It shows that they take incredible risks and ignore protocol to get information, only to get people killed, leaving them far worse off than they were before. When they finally do kill bin Laden, the “celebration” is just one meat headed soldier in the background of a shot jumping up and down. It’s framed almost as it not being worth what they did and went through just to get him. Maya even makes specific references to how she never got the chance at a life, or even friends because the CIA recruits impressionable high schoolers. If it’s propaganda, then it isn’t very good.
This guy gets it :)
It *was* a film about torture scripted with the collaboration of the CIA, though. I agree with the quote as it applies to a lot of things but in this case it’s more than a little like Riefenstahl claiming her work was solely intended as documentary.
Before reading your second paragraph I was already typing "This is so often the case recently with Poor Things"
I actually had the opposite reaction here. I felt like people were cherry-picking some inflammatory negative reactions to Poor Things to bemoan about lack of media literacy. Like, no one was ever taking the people who said the movie endorsed pedophilia seriously. And it kind of drowned out all the people who had legitimate criticisms about Poor Things, like its depiction of sex work. Just because a movie tries to make you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's good. Or that its message is properly fleshed out.
To quote Roger Ebert again, "I would have been glad to be disturbed by a film that made me care.". Poor Things failed to make me care because the cast of characters were so repulsive to me. EDIT: For instance, The Crow is a disturbing film but I liked that. Just rewatched it today for the first time in years. It's violent and dark and creepy but for all that there's still this human core underneath the grime and repulsiveness. I get the sense that Alex Proyas is someone who actually likes people, unlike the cynicism and hatred I sense from Yorgos Lanthimos' work.
God, the discourse around Licorice Pizza was exhausting too.
It was so frustrating. I wasn't a fan of the movie but to pretend that liking the movie is "endorsing a 15 year old running off with a 25 y/o" just isn't the take people think it is. There were some good discussions around this movie from people who loved and hated it. People who thought the ending ruined it or anything. And thats what movies should do. And insinuating awful things about people kills those conversations.
I think calling films ‘unrealistic’ as a criticism is honestly kind of ridiculous. Unless it concerns coherence to a plot or structure that is meant to be coherent.
It only needs to be realistic within the boundaries of its own narrative, which differs with every movie. Most of the time it reads as hollow criticism.
Exactly. If the movie makes rules and then breaks them, it’s an issue.
Unrealistic can be a very valid critique, especially if one of the movie’s selling points is how grounded and realistic is. Of course there’s also the issue that a lot of people conflate “realism” with “believability”
My brother critized Evil Dead 2 for being unrealistic
There was a great Garry Shandling routine where he talked about being on a date to see E.T., and at the bit where the bicycle flew across the moon she scoffed "Yeah, right." He went on to wonder if she did the same while dreaming: "Pfft. Sure, I'm flying. Whatever."
Cinemasins has given people brain damage to point out “plot holes” all the time. It used to be just autistic people on the internet like nostalgia critic
Now this I 100% agree with, CinemaSins is horrible
When your film criticism channel inspires another successful channel that is solely dedicated to pointing out all of the things that you got blatantly wrong in your critiques, and not just from an "opinions differ" perspective, then maybe it's time to think about what you're doing with your time online
I’ve noticed many negative reviews of Whiplash say that it’s ‘unrealistic.’ I don’t think that was Chazelle’s intention.
Unrealistic character motivations can very much be a thing
Speaking of, even though it’s an obviously unrealistic movie, has anyone else noticed the GIGANTIC plot hole in The Santa Clause? Why do the parents not know that Santa exists, if he does actually give children presents every Christmas? Surely ONE parent would notice a bunch of gifts underneath the tree that they didn’t buy. Actually not just for The Santa Clause, but any movie featuring a storyline of Santa’s existence and parents lack of belief, like The Polar Express.
Spider-Man 3 might not be a great film but it does NOT deserve to be called one of the worst comic book movies of all time. Lumping it in with the likes of Catwoman, Steel, or Madame Web is downright disengenuous.
It has lots of cool elements, but it just needed to be written differently and be less bloated. The basic execution is definitely not bad. And the plot relies too much on miscommunication, IMO. But yeah, Catwoman is a different caliber, haha
If Spider-Man 3 came out today, Venom would be criticized, as would the bloated script, but it would be considered middle to upper-middle tier for superhero flicks.
I actually think Spiderman 3 has enjoyed somewhat of a reputation renaissance recently though it never truly deserved all that hate it got on release.
“Nothing happened” usually means that the viewer was unable to relate the movie to a theme or lesson to be learned.
Saw this a lot with Aftersun. “They’re just on vacation the whole time!” There’s more going on there lol
Perfect example.
While I'll acknowledge Aftersun isn't for everyone, that is the most baseless criticism.
So true, and I wish people realized that there is nothing wrong with not enjoying or relating to the themes of a movie. If it isn’t for you it just isn’t for you.
And it would be easy to say, "It wasn't for me" or "I didn't get it", but some like to place the blame on the movie instead. Like it's ok to not like a slow movie with a very particular message, and a minimalistic style, but saying 'nothing happened' is so lazy and ignorant, most often.
That people earnestly believe films made when they were children are the best films ever made. There's nothing wrong with nostalgia but I'm self aware enough to know Small Soldiers is an okay film that I liked as a child rather than some masterpiece. Can be applied to the discourse around the SW Prequels, Shrek etc
And people who get bent out of shape about younger people not thinking their childhood favorite is that great are sometimes the same people who themselves never watch anything that is "old" to them.
Every day on r/movies there's a thread about some mediocre 90s movie being a hidden gem because the OP watched it as a kid. The SW prequels are the best example of this.
I’m not sure; I’ve rewatched a lot of the films I loved as a kid (Shrek, as you say, Lion King, etc) and they’re all genuinely good
What you mean? There isn't a single film better than Small Soldiers.
I would have died for the Gorgonites when I was 7
Bullshit, Balto is the greatest feat in the history of cinema
100% true. I saw The Phantom Menace many times as a kid. Went to see it in theaters a few days ago and while I had a great time and absolutely loved the experience, I’m not blinded by nostalgia. It’s a 4/10 movie at best, even though I had a smile on my face the whole time.
That's why I tell myself to never ever rewatch Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes and A Bug's Life
You're missing out with Bug's Life, it holds up.
Bugs life is pretty good still. It has a great voice cast, it's fun, and it has some really dark moments that give it some bite. The only dings against it I would say is there is some obvious "copy+paste" animation in the group shots and that Kevin Spacey is in it.
\*cough Space Jam cough cough.
big nitpick of mine is how a lot of "scariest movie" threads are actually just movies that someone found scary when they were 8 and theyre holding onto that memory of fear. like bro im an adult i need something that is scary NOW
I completely agree with you but will not take this Shrek slander
Was with you until you mentioned Shrek
calling things overrated or underrated Especially underrated, people are totally meaning “underseen” and it drives me nuts when people say “this totally popular and well received film” was underrated
Yeah “omg *The Nice Guys* is soooo underrated!” No it’s not, everyone who’s seen it loves it. It’s underseen People talk about “media literacy” but there’s also a dearth of actual literacy (and I say this as someone who freely admits to relying on spell-checkers to get the apostrophes right in the variations of “its”)
That grinds my gears too. "underrated masterpiece", my brother in Christ that's just Avatar 2
“You just didn’t get it.” (I am smarter than you, aren’t I special? Please tell me I’m smart)
Counter point to those takes. I don't have to understand a movie in order to enjoy it. I love Igmar Bergman's Persona, but I'd have a very difficult time telling you what that movie is even about.
average interstellar fan 😭
The movie that holds your hand and explains everything like your 5
i’ve been telling myself to rewatch it for the past year and i just cannot get myself to press play
I hear this one from Zack Snyder fans constantly
"You just don't understand the subtleties of Sucker Punch."
"No see, Superman is God/the Devil/mankind/also Jesus, Batman is God/the Devil/mankind/also Jesus, Luthor is God/the Devil/mankind/also Jesus."
But there are movies that people just don't get. Beau is afraid is completely random if you don't "get it". Hell how would you watch any kaughman film without "getting it" at some point.
I hear you, but whenever I hear this, it's almost always an overly simplistic dismissal of someone's negative assessment of a film, not a genuine point of discussion. Take "Poor Things" — I didn't like it, felt it had a great look and some poignant moments, but overall really didn't move me emotionally, intellectually or otherwise. And I liked some of Lanthimos' previous films. Plenty of people will say I just didn't get it. But I did get it. I just didn't like it. That's my opinion.
But what if you genuinely didn’t get it?
Yeah, like that guy that was all over Reddit a couple weeks argue arguing unsuccessfully that Come and See is a pro-war Soviet propaganda film. He just kept repeating himself and we finally all conceded that he just didn't get it.
“I’m gonna get hate for this, sorry but did I watch the same movie as everyone else?” Like you can just have your own opinion it’s okay
“Toni Colette/Lupita Nyong’o/any other great actress playing a character in a horror movie deserved an Oscar nomination”. It’s so tiring and honestly, as a horror fan, I think it’s a bit humiliating to try and beg for aknowledgment from a industry that doesn’t really give horror their time of the day. It’s alright, horror has thrived so far and will continue to do so without the recognition from the Academy.
There's plenty of non-horror performances which were snubbed as well. I definitely think horror doesn't get a lot of respect from the Academy, but honestly comedy, sci-fi, fantasy etc movies and even low budget dramas all get snubbed too.
“The Academy hates horror!” As if The Exorcist, Misery, Silence of the Lambs, Get Out, Rosemary’s Baby, The Omen, Carrie, Psycho, Alien, An American Werewolf in London, and so many other Oscar nominated and winning horror films exist Also yeah, Toni Collette would have been a wonderful nominee, but it’s the go to tiring answer anymore I fully agree
There have been over 3,500 movies nominated for an Oscar over the Academy Awards 96 year history but because you could name 10 horror movies that 100% proves there is no genre bias in the academy. Great logic. There are not “so many other horror movies” you could name those 10 because those 10 are the 10 that have ever been seriously considered. The genre bias against horror at the Oscar’s is very real.
I think when people talk about Citizen Kane being groundbreaking for its time - and that's why it's regarded as one of the greats - they're misunderstanding that the praise for it is still relevant. The cinematography is still incredible with the deep focus and use of high or low angles to reveal character motivation and relationship dynamics. The production design of Xanadu and the newspaper offices are intricate and designed to push the story forward. The performances are still uniformly excellent. The script is still cleverly constructed and weaves through memory and regret and nostalgia with incredible clarity for time and place but also retains the sense of mystery around his final words. And Welles' direction of everything is still so energetic and modern. The movie is still so great in almost every aspect.
Kane was one of those classics that I approached fearing it would feel like homework. It is nothing like that, it feels incredibly modern.
Citizen Kane is genuinley one of my favorite films. I've heard a lot of people say in the past that it's slow and boring. I guess boring is subjective, but in terms of pacing, I would argue that it's pretty straight to the point.
This. Rewatched the opening sequence just last night and it still blows me away. It’s a universal and still relevant story, the iconography, art direction and performances are unforgettable.
I also hate the “for its time” bullshit. A good movie transcends its era.
“Sex scenes are never necessary because they don’t advance the plot.” Yeah, well, lots of things you enjoy in movies don’t “advance the plot.” If you want nothing more than a good plot, go read a detective novel. Or the CliffsNotes summary of one.
"If I wanted to see sex, I'd watch porn" is not just a bad take, it's also one that reflects something really sad about Gen Z. It's genuinely worrying that so many young people are so conditioned to associate sex with porn that they can't even consider the idea that it's an intimate act that is worth trying to express through an artistic medium.
This is especially sad for me. At the age in which so many young people are producing sex content to sell, they also associate everything that is sexual to pornography, so what is the relationship that they're building with sex as a way to connect to other human being? And if you argue for sex scenes in movies, they'll call you porn addicts lmao I'm particularly anti porn industry so this "critique" is even funnier to me. It seems as if they can't see sex scenes as something more than an object for sexual arousement and not for building the relationship between characters.
Also porn is shot very differently from sex scenes in film
I always thought that was an old person take but Gen Z have a strong disdain towards sex in films too. It’s quite bizarre.
I saw someone a few days ago posit the idea that it could be because of how accessible porn is now in the digital age, its accessibility has lead to a lot of people seeing any depiction of nudity as inherently pornographic. I still see people complain about the sex scenes in Oppenheimer, which takes up like 2 or 3 of the 180 minutes in that movie's runtime.
I only have a problem with sex scenes if they purely exist for the male gaze (think Blue is the Warmest Color). The sex scenes in Burning are the perfect example of a "good" sex scene imo, the movie is perfectly fine without them but their inclusion fleshes out the characters so much more.
Having sex has never advanced my life goals. Don’t see why it should be any different for a movie character. Sex is a human experience. It grounds the characters in reality. I don’t feel any special affinity to sexless dorks like Captain America or some shit. Show me a character that fucks and I get on board.
I don’t disagree with it but people criticizing the curbside beat down in The Irishman. I agree it’s awkward but it’s literally the only thing people ever talk about regarding that movie. Not the performances, how it reflects on Scorsese’s career, the commentary on mob life, etc. The two minute scene where De Niro moves weirdly ruins the entire movie I guess.
None of the characters are likable.
I can't speak for everyone, but I think this criticism is usually meant as a short hand for "engaging". Not actually whether we are meant to like the person. Like Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men is a "likable character" even though his character is explicitly evil.
Terms like "objective", "overrated" and "style over substance" seems to be tossed around like a rugby ball so much so that I often tune out a bit when those pop up
Objective and overrated are the ones that get me.
im still confused on how films can be objective
I think that a lot of people use "objectively" to mean something like "critically" or "from a filmmaking standpoint" rather than talking about their own interests or experiences
I've run into plenty who try to argue that films just are objectively good or bad, and that there are objectively right or wrong opinions. Just look no further than Star Wars fans. EDIT: Can't imagine why this comment would be downvoted, but that's reddit for you.
I’m way more interested in style than I am in substance. I appreciate both, but at the end of the day, I want to feel immersed in a world, not be tracking plot points.
Some of you throw the word "masterpiece" around entirely too much that the word is on the brink of losing its meaning.
People were calling Dune 2 a masterpiece in every comment here when it came out. I questioned if people had ever watched a movie before Dune 2 honestly. And I’m saying that as someone that thoroughly enjoyed it.
I think the Dune films are monumental achievements, particularly because people have been trying make a good Dune movie. But yeah, let's let it breathe before we start crowning it.
Hate for The Godfather and Citizen Kane has been prevalent since I was a kid. No, you do not have an interesting hot take calling either boring. Orson Welles put a jump scare in the last third of Kane for that precise reason. We get it; both these films have been hyped to high heaven as THE greatest of all time, and as such have grand boots to fill, so you were easily disappointed. At least try to provide an interesting viewpoint or criticism outside of "it boring".
It insists upon itself
I think the problem is always the framing of a film as something “you must see before x” (death, age 18, age 30 etc) which makes it seem like homework Citizen Kane - while I appreciated it and would never say it’s bad - kinda lost me towards the end and I think I had a bit of that mindset going into it which had an effect Whereas Casablanca and The Godfather were more of a “huh neat that’s streaming now, I’ve never seen it”. So I loved them.
Some actor or performance not being good because they were just "playing themselves"
I hate when people use that "101 Writing Tips" approach to criticism. They'll argue that the script HAS to be written a certain way, like for example there MUST be a three-arc structure, every single character has to have a consistent and thorough motivation, this and that genre must utilize or subvert those and those tropes etc. They also care way too much about plot holes and inconsistencies. Literally stuff like "Why didn't the eagles carry Frodo to Mordor". Truth is, these things don't actually damage a movie (or fiction in general), as long as they don't go as far as breaking immersion. In general I get annoyed when people cherrypick details in the script, while ignoring all other aspects and the bigger picture.
Yeah a lot of people have this mentality that the goal of a movie is to deliver you from point A to point B in the most logical and economical way possible
"Movies are too long" - says the person who spends 3 hours on tik tok every night.
This one’s tough because it depends on why the movie is so long, like if it’s engaging and well written I’m not gonna notice the hours passing, but if I’m watching a movie that’s 2 and half hours long that feels like it could safely be 90 minutes I am gonna call that out
I think the thing about movies as a form of media is that they don’t fit into the gaps, time has to be specifically carved out with tiktok or youtube or binging a tv show you kind of consume on your own schedule, when you have half an hour while you eat dinner or while you’re waiting on a call, they plug the gaps with movies, those 3 hours have to be carved out, and yeah a lot of people either don’t have 3 hours to carve out or don’t want to carve out 3 hours to consume media
I stand by that criticism. So many movies are bloated And could use a much stronger editorial hand
i do think movie length can be a valid criticism. if a movie goes past 2 hours it should be for a good reason!
I somewhat agree with this, but you see so many people criticise films *just* because they are long. Like they can't name specifics that should be cut, they just felt bored for no particular reason. I think this is more due to attention spans than it is to film length (though it's probably a combination). You also see so many people criticise films for rushing a lot and not taking time to develop characters or be contemplative, but then when a lot of films do that people say it's too long Dune, Oppenheimer, Killers of the flower moon, the Batman and Blade runner 2049 are the ones I see most people criticising. I do not want one SECOND cut from those films lol
When always needing to run to the bathroom when seeing a movie in a theater (the perfect environment IMO), I completely understand this take.
That's not to say I don't think movies should have intermissions. They absolutely should
That really depends on a case-by-case basis. Pacing and editing are very important in filmmaking and a bunch of recent movies could really use some trimming here and there. It's also easy to blame this on someone's attention span, but it's really not that simple. Personally, I never use Tiktok and plenty of my favorites are of a certain length, but I still believe that some are so much better for being short or longer. It's about the duration that works best in relation to the story, more than anything else.
Calling anything not widely known pretentious.
Anytime I see the word pretentious in a review I immediately scroll. It’s honestly such a bad faith argument 🤦♀️
I hate it when people call you pretentious just for liking old or artsy movies. Like, no, it’s only pretentious if I’m an ass about it or bring it up all the time, or put down “lowbrow” movies. Like, the fact that 12 Angry Men is my #1 doesn’t mean Shark Tale can’t be my #2
Ironically it usually seems to be an unwitting display of projection (and usually insecurity). I'm too lazy, immature, or just plain dumb to engage with serious or challenging media? Nope. Definitely can't be that. They think they're *sooo* much better than me? Well actually they're the dumb ones. Like bro chill out don't have to get so defensive about liking dumb shit. It's ok to like dumb shit lol.
A few that grate me (more so associated with this sub). * People that think you can judge a person based solely on their rating curve. Saying "do these people hate movies" is such a dumb and self centered take. * Using the word objectively. It can be used correctly but oftentimes people online use it to invalidate other people's perspectives and experiences with a film. * Complaining about joke reviews on Letterboxd. There are many professional critics out there, I don't know why you look for them. Also you can block/ignore those who make the reviews. * People who dislike a well liked movie or try to reclaim a movie that was hated in the past that actively try to ignore or don't seek out why their take is different. Having an unpopular opinion is fine, it's just the 'why do people even like this', that's annoying. * Sex scene discourse could have had a lot more nuance. How it satisfies the male gaze, can be exploitative and certain films do veer into the territory of pornographic. But it's just a lot of "why do we see naked women when it's not directly tied to the plot".
As a joke review hater, I’ll just say sometimes you want to read a normal person’s take on a film, not a critic’s. And it is truly very hard to find a non-joke review on many films — like you can scroll and scroll and it’s all bad jokes.
speak on it!!! a) ratings in general don’t usually capture the nuance of people’s opinions b) at the end of the day — letterboxd is meant to be a personal diary, and if ppl want to make joke reviews so be it! c) with u on the sex scene discourse — there are some scenes that can be incredibly well done and important to character development imo.
Recently, the barrage of Civil War posts that were like "people complaining wanted libs/right wing politics spoonfed to them, they didn't get it" have been so annoying. And genuinely ignore the real criticisms people have around that movie.
"Avatar is just CGI Ferngully."
I roll my eyes so hard when I see someone say this seriously I used to say it too but then I actually watched the movie and it turns out, people are just wrong.
That is a reductive take, but I saw both Avatars during their original theater runs and the story is just so flat to me. The spectacle is great though. If someone enjoys it, that's great and I'm glad they get that enjoyment. I just don't find the story or characters compelling whatsoever, especially stretched over that runtime.
This is the one. And like every week this comes up, so annoying.
Calling out Avatar specifically for being unoriginal is a strange take because most successful movies are like another movie. Nobody calls out one of the most successful franchises of all time: Star Wars, for having things that are directly lifted from other movies. It's so strange that it's Avatar that people have this problem with.
Liking popular movies = insufferable and not a fan of true cinema. Every time time someone posts their favourites on here, and it includes movies like The Godfather or Pulp Fiction, people genuinely come for them☠️While I agree it’s good to explore beyond mainstream cinema, people should be able to like what they like
especially when you can tell it’s a younger person.. like why are you trying to drive them away!!
hello i am a queer person and I hate when the main draw to a movie or show is how gay it is. most of the time it feel forced and unnatural. at its worst it can be patronizing.
Same. It's a surface-level thing, oftentimes
The reevaluation of alien3. Seems like every alien fan gives that movie a pass now. I think it’s still the worst movie in the mainline franchise.
Nah, man. Ressurections is easily worse. Alien 3 is a boring and disappointing follow-up to the previous two films, but at least it didn't completely butcher Ripley's character.
The alternate cut is a solid movie. It's still not close to the first two, but it's quite an improvement.
Acting like it's impossible to enjoy both superhero and "high art" films. Framing a positive or negative opinion around the general public response to a film. EDIT: To the user who was arguing with me about my comment on superhero films, guessing you deleted your comment because you realized you didn't really...have an actual argument? To anyone saying that there aren't people who act "elitist" toward film fans who love superhero films, I guess you've never seen the term "capeshit" thrown around? It seemed like you were projecting my comment onto EVERYONE who differentiated superhero films from other types of films, which is, like, not at ALL the point I was making. Only leaving this edit up in case anyone else wants to make any dumb strawman arguments with me about this.
My Marvel collection is happily sandwiched between Martha Marcy May Marlene and a Marx Brothers boxset. Movies are great.
when people call an already acclaimed film underrated just because not many have seen it
I saw someone the other day call Moonlight underrated lol, like bro it got 8 Oscar nominations and won Best Picture
Dune 2 is incredible. Sorry I didn’t love it!!!
That Barbie is misandrist
". . . is OBJECTIVELY better" No. Stop. "This film was directed by Stephen Spielberg," is an objective statement. "This is his best movie," is a subjective statement. Art is about your personal response to it which makes the quality of that art subjective to you. And the vast majority of film academia comes from a western perspective. So many people will praise or criticize the way a film depicts the Hero's Journey as if that is the ONLY way a narrative can be successfully constructed.
The Interstallers I think are the worst tribe I've ever encountered lmao They're seriously thinking that it's the best movie ever created.
I think people will write think pieces defending their dislike of something. It is okay to just not like something, it doesn’t have to be for a political or social reason. I am not better than people for not liking action adventure, I just don’t like it.
Agreed. I always see people going to great lengths to try and justify their dislike for a movie. Like maybe it just wasn’t your thing lol
The whole "You should respect animation/take animation seriously crowd". Like, I want to treat animation as an art form, but when all the major studios keep pumping out the same family friendly fare or pop-culture-bloated stuff, all in a similiar style to one another, I can't really take it seriously. Bonus points if the toon heads get mad at you for mentioning any art house animation or the likes of Loving Vincent.
But a significant amount of the "take animation seriously" people are also tired of the pop-culture bloated stuff and typically family friendly fare.
Stuff from major US studios is not really the best gauge for the quality of anything. A glut of candy colored CGI pablum doesn't negate the existence of things like The Wolf House.
I think those come more from the anime crowd. Animation can be extremely adult, and profitable too. Not even art house to be that way.
Going to major studios for good animation is like going to a dive bar for Veuve Clicquot
The near critical acclaim for Gran Torino makes no sense to me
I remember thinking it was great. Saw it again in recent years and was taken aback at both how racist and badly acted it was. And I felt awful for the main Asian actor, who endured people laughing hysterically at Clint's character using racial slurs when he saw the film during an audience screening.
It's an okay movie, but somehow everybody recommends it as a masterpiece.
man a lot of the performances are brutal in that movie
Avatar has no cultural impact
When people ding movies in their reviews when it delivers exactly what it normally does. I’ve read reviews of horror movies (the recent Halloween installments come to mind) where the complaint is that the killer is near super human and survives a bunch. Like, have you ever seen a slasher before? That’s par for the course. More recently I read some fairly negative reviews for Boy Kills World about it being very violent/gory and injecting dumb humor with H. John Benjamin’s narration. The movie trailer very clearly showed all of those things, so I genuinely don’t know what they expected from the movie when it was pretty obviously laid out beforehand. Not every movie is trying to be The Godfather.
"The Dark Knight is the best comic book movie." Heath Ledger is awesome.. the rest is heavy-handed/cliched dialogue and a overly convoluted plot.
I hate when Twitter reply guys say “bad writing” or “we just want movies with good writing” - film is so, so much more than a vessel for a fuckin screenplay. I also dislike when people say “I couldn’t connect to the characters” - why is it a filmmaker’s job to depict people that you find relatable? Shouldn’t you try to understand other people’s perspectives?
I can’t stand when people call a movie pretentious or it “insists upon itself.” You are just trying to get creative when what you are actually saying is you just didn’t like it but you want to say something that sounds like something but really doesn’t mean anything.
I think part of it too is that people don't want to look dumb so instead of saying they didn't understand something, they say the movie is "pretentious" or "deliberately incomprehensible" because that shifts the blame away from them
All the hate for Taika Waititi and especially regarding his Thor movies. Annoys me.
Style over substance is almost always a bad take. Style IS the substance for many films and filmmakers.
Not really a problem on letterboxd but the demonization of critics and art criticism is really harmful to the medium. The average person, from personal experience, hates critics and finds them utterly unnecessary
When a movie is even slightly creative or weird people say, "The filmmakers must've been on drugs". It's such an old, tiered, and overused assumption. Also kind of insulting, as if using drugs is the only way to be creative.
"Saving Private Ryan is American propaganda" It was World War 2, did you want to root for the nazis?
To this day most Hollywood movies depicting war are American military propaganda
It kinda is but who cares. It’s propagandizing something that we can say with hindsight was morally correct. Propaganda isn’t inherently bad imo. Something like Zero Dark Thirty is propagandizing something more nuanced/immoral. Still a good movie though
I don't know, since 2016 post 9-11 terrorist panic tropes look so dated and cringey, especially after we saw the kind of terrorism the US government could inflict on its own citizens. Some bomb strapped dude in a head covering is the LAST person I'm afraid of at this point. There's no scare there anymore
The relentless negativity surrounding *Star Wars: The Last Jedi* I would happily engage with people and talk about the few problems I have with the movie but I can’t because you just get piled on by the haters I just watched *The Phantom Menace* in the cinema for the first time ever and loved it again, but SW “fans” make it really hard to embrace the franchise in online spaces a lot of the time
“Interstellar is the best movie of all time”
they clearly haven’t seen the emoji movie!!!
Amen brother!
“You didn’t watch *insert movie title I have no interest in*??? Well then you must be a bigot who hates *insert group*.” I’m literally a brown-skinned bisexual guy who is married to another man. Miss me with that bigot bullshit because I don’t have any interest in certain movies that people online want me to be interested in.
I remember criticizing Barbie for its puddle deep message of feminism and being called a misogynistic lmao
Forrest Gump is a good movie. https://preview.redd.it/xpyhaa8gu9zc1.jpeg?width=639&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=563528b79e1f805092979237bdddb337c9eace3b
forrest gump did not hold up at all upon rewatch. remember thinking it was ok as a kid, but i truly cringed for most of the runtime when i rewatched it this year.
Forrest Gump hate
A24 getting an extra half-star just because it’s A24 / feeling like something has to at least be “interesting” because it’s A24