Submit Your
2010s
List

Films You Hate, But Everyone Else Loves

Tools    





A system of cells interlinked
No, it's not "normal".
You are ascribing this stuff to Boyhood, though. At no point during the film were any claims made that this was some sort of study on a normal childhood. Consider for a second, that perhaps it might have been just a bit personal for the director, yeah?

For me, it was the opposite of normal; it was totally personal, as many of the events matched things that happened in my childhood. Again though, at no point did any of it come across as having some sort of agenda to normalize the events of the film into some sort of archetype for a nominal childhood.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



Probably gonna get a lot of hate for this but.....i think The Shawshank Redemption is a little too overrated. Honestly, everybody praises it as being one of the greatest movies ever and I've watched it multiple times to try to get why so many people love it and i just don't like. I've tried to like it but other than Freeman the movie has almost nothing else i like about it, the story isn't terrible but the movie itself i just didn't like, i don't know how to explain it exactly, guess it's just a matter of perception.
I love The Shawshank Redemption. IMO, it's one of the greats...

BUT I fully support your right to not like it. I won't try to convenience you it's great because: film is art and art is personal and if the film doesn't have a personal meaning for someone then that's just the way it is.

I will say this: for me The Shawshank Redemption captures the spirit of human triumph over extreme adversities.... That's what makes this film so uplifting and so special to me.



A system of cells interlinked
Blade Runner really deviated from the novel"Blade Runner; or, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" which was completely different.The movie was "fun"( sparkly-sci-fi?? hah) but the NOVEL was great. The movie romanticized it, made it turn from a great book, into romantic-humanitarian-good- ending sludge. You could barely recognize the book. Course, the author was dead, I think, so he never did like Stephen King, made his OWN t.v. production of his novel, the way he wanted.(I think King's was uh..? the huge hotel with nasty ghosts?And no Jack Nicholson?) I understand why you don't like Blade Runner.(if that's the reason.) A flashy, tin-foil version of real science fiction, a "guilty pleasure." Hollywood ain't too great at translating good science fiction, we book-addicts prefer type and ink. There are exceptions, maybe. ??? Can't think of one right off.
This is completely out to lunch.

Sparkly sci-fi? Bladerunner basically created the genre tech-noir, which is the diametric opposite of "sparkly sci-fi." It's dystopic, gritty, dark, and morose. It's raining all the time, it's never daylight...please explain how there is anything at all sparkly about the film Bladerunner. Good-ending sludge? It doesn't have a happy ending. I must ask, have you actually seen Bladerunner? I am thinking you have not. People who have seen the film would know it doesn't have a happy ending.

I am used to defending the film from detractors that say the film is too dark and depressing, so this just all seems silly to me for someone to claim it's too sparkly and has a happy ending.

The book wouldn't have made a good cinematic experience, and the script they did end up using still gets accolades today. It's David Webb Peoples, for crying out loud. The guy who wrote 12 Monkeys and Unforgiven. Phil K. Dick, most of whose books I have read btw, actually loved the portions of Bladerunner he saw, so no, I don't think he would have wanted to do a TV mini-series starring the the guy from Wings and some kid with a massive overbite.

Here is a copy of Mr. Dick's letter to Jeff Walker, of the Ladd Company, in regards to the film Blade Runner:

He clearly liked it.

"This is not escapism; it is super realism, so gritty and detailed and authentic and ****** convincing that, well, after the segment I found my normal present-day "reality" pallid by comparison. What I am saying is that all of you collectively may have created a unique new form of graphic, artistic expression, never before seen. And, I think, BLADE RUNNER is going to revolutionize our conceptions of what science fiction is and, more, can be." (Emphasis mine).

As for your last comment - if you claim film as a whole is inferior to books (apples to oranges, dude), I am curious as to why you would chose a film forum to make said claims.



This is completely out to lunch.

Sparkly sci-fi? Bladerunner basically created the genre tech-noir, which is the diametric opposite of "sparkly sci-fi." It's dystopic, gritty, dark, and morose. It's raining all the time, it's never daylight...please explain how there is anything at all sparkly about the film Bladerunner. Good-ending sludge? It doesn't have a happy ending. I must ask, have you actually seen Bladerunner? I am thinking you have not. People who have seen the film would know it doesn't have a happy ending.

I am used to defending the film from detractors that say the film is too dark and depressing, so this just all seems silly to me for someone to claim it's too sparkly and has a happy ending.

The book wouldn't have made a good cinematic experience,
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



Blade Runner really deviated from the novel"Blade Runner; or, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" which was completely different.The movie was "fun"( sparkly-sci-fi?? hah) but the NOVEL was great. The movie romanticized it, made it turn from a great book, into romantic-humanitarian-good- ending sludge. You could barely recognize the book. Course, the author was dead, I think, so he never did like Stephen King, made his OWN t.v. production of his novel, the way he wanted.(I think King's was uh..? the huge hotel with nasty ghosts?And no Jack Nicholson?) I understand why you don't like Blade Runner.(if that's the reason.) A flashy, tin-foil version of real science fiction, a "guilty pleasure." Hollywood ain't too great at translating good science fiction, we book-addicts prefer type and ink. There are exceptions, maybe. ??? Can't think of one right off.
I have never gotten all the fuss over Blade Runner either.



Boyhood. If you're talking about the definition of stupidly overrated movies, you'd be talking about Boyhood.

The movie is empty, plain and simple. NOTHING happens in it. Sure, maybe in the first hour or so, we have an abusive step-dad that is an alcoholic and a complete a-hole, but that's about it. That is the best part of this movie. After that they leave him, never to be seen or heard from again. Aside from that, this movie has nothing that is worth noting. Explain to me something of significance that happens after that part of the movie. Anything worth-while that is interesting, funny, sad, any memorable moment. There is not a character that goes through a hard change (certainly not the protagonist), nobody dies, nothing happens to anybody, nothing changes at all. Everyone begins the same, and ends the same. There is no arc for any of these characters, except maybe the father. I don't understand why people are so quick to just adore this movie

You might expect some sort of philosophical message, or something deeper out of a movie like this, but it doesn't have even that. Most scenes consist of the family talking, Mason being at school or at parties, some talks with his girlfriend, some pep-talks by other adults, and that's about it. I don't understand how this teaches you about life and makes you think back to when you were a kid, and how you saw things at that point of your life. I just saw a very sloppily written drama, with mostly weak acting, lacking in any noteworthy moments, and that was way, WAY too long. Three thrice damned hours is this movie's length, and it felt like a lifetime. Appropriate, I guess?

Speaking of acting, the main actor in this movie who plays Mason is absolutely bland. All he does is mumble and mumble all the time. Moreover, the part he plays has no defining characteristic, no type of character that can guide us through an odyssey of a movie like this, and all around not that likeable. The actress that plays the sister is even worse. Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette are decent in it, with the latter playing a much more interesting character than anyone else. Anyone else is just meh.

And the fact that it was shot over 12 years does nothing for me. Granted, it's a milestone on that stampoint. I will not deny the patience and constistency of the cast and crew in it. That is undoubtedly good. But aside from that, what is there to say? And of course, it's going to win Best Picture at the Oscars, while actual good movies that are of some substance like Birdman, Selma, Whiplash, Grand Budapest Hotel etc. get shoved to the side for Boyhood. Way to go Academy! Way to go... Lost trust in you ever since Gwyneth Paltrow won over Cate Blanchett, and Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan...



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Boyhood. If you're talking about the definition of stupidly overrated movies, you'd be talking about Boyhood.

The movie is empty, plain and simple. NOTHING happens in it. Sure, maybe in the first hour or so, we have an abusive step-dad that is an alcoholic and a complete a-hole, but that's about it. That is the best part of this movie. After that they leave him, never to be seen or heard from again. Aside from that, this movie has nothing that is worth noting. Explain to me something of significance that happens after that part of the movie. Anything worth-while that is interesting, funny, sad, any memorable moment. There is not a character that goes through a hard change (certainly not the protagonist), nobody dies, nothing happens to anybody, nothing changes at all. Everyone begins the same, and ends the same. There is no arc for any of these characters, except maybe the father. I don't understand why people are so quick to just adore this movie

You might expect some sort of philosophical message, or something deeper out of a movie like this, but it doesn't have even that. Most scenes consist of the family talking, Mason being at school or at parties, some talks with his girlfriend, some pep-talks by other adults, and that's about it. I don't understand how this teaches you about life and makes you think back to when you were a kid, and how you saw things at that point of your life. I just saw a very sloppily written drama, with mostly weak acting, lacking in any noteworthy moments, and that was way, WAY too long. Three thrice damned hours is this movie's length, and it felt like a lifetime. Appropriate, I guess?

Speaking of acting, the main actor in this movie who plays Mason is absolutely bland. All he does is mumble and mumble all the time. Moreover, the part he plays has no defining characteristic, no type of character that can guide us through an odyssey of a movie like this, and all around not that likeable. The actress that plays the sister is even worse. Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette are decent in it, with the latter playing a much more interesting character than anyone else. Anyone else is just meh.

And the fact that it was shot over 12 years does nothing for me. Granted, it's a milestone on that stampoint. I will not deny the patience and constistency of the cast and crew in it. That is undoubtedly good. But aside from that, what is there to say? And of course, it's going to win Best Picture at the Oscars, while actual good movies that are of some substance like Birdman, Selma, Whiplash, Grand Budapest Hotel etc. get shoved to the side for Boyhood. Way to go Academy! Way to go... Lost trust in you ever since Gwyneth Paltrow won over Cate Blanchett, and Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan...

I would have thought that there would be a quick reunion with the ex-step siblings... Just to enhance the novelty, but no.



That's okay. Nobody's perfect!
Contrary to most people, I genuinely hate this movie. In fact it is on my 5 worst films (A-List films only) of all time:




__________________
You have to think like a hero merely to behave like a decent human being.



Boyhood. If you're talking about the definition of stupidly overrated movies, you'd be talking about Boyhood.

The movie is empty, plain and simple. NOTHING happens in it. Sure, maybe in the first hour or so, we have an abusive step-dad that is an alcoholic and a complete a-hole, but that's about it. That is the best part of this movie. After that they leave him, never to be seen or heard from again. Aside from that, this movie has nothing that is worth noting. Explain to me something of significance that happens after that part of the movie. Anything worth-while that is interesting, funny, sad, any memorable moment. There is not a character that goes through a hard change (certainly not the protagonist), nobody dies, nothing happens to anybody, nothing changes at all. Everyone begins the same, and ends the same. There is no arc for any of these characters, except maybe the father. I don't understand why people are so quick to just adore this movie

You might expect some sort of philosophical message, or something deeper out of a movie like this, but it doesn't have even that. Most scenes consist of the family talking, Mason being at school or at parties, some talks with his girlfriend, some pep-talks by other adults, and that's about it. I don't understand how this teaches you about life and makes you think back to when you were a kid, and how you saw things at that point of your life. I just saw a very sloppily written drama, with mostly weak acting, lacking in any noteworthy moments, and that was way, WAY too long. Three thrice damned hours is this movie's length, and it felt like a lifetime. Appropriate, I guess?

Speaking of acting, the main actor in this movie who plays Mason is absolutely bland. All he does is mumble and mumble all the time. Moreover, the part he plays has no defining characteristic, no type of character that can guide us through an odyssey of a movie like this, and all around not that likeable. The actress that plays the sister is even worse. Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette are decent in it, with the latter playing a much more interesting character than anyone else. Anyone else is just meh.

And the fact that it was shot over 12 years does nothing for me. Granted, it's a milestone on that stampoint. I will not deny the patience and constistency of the cast and crew in it. That is undoubtedly good. But aside from that, what is there to say? And of course, it's going to win Best Picture at the Oscars, while actual good movies that are of some substance like Birdman, Selma, Whiplash, Grand Budapest Hotel etc. get shoved to the side for Boyhood. Way to go Academy! Way to go... Lost trust in you ever since Gwyneth Paltrow won over Cate Blanchett, and Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan...
This has to be the dumbest post I have ever read on this forum.

Go watch Transformers or something, Jesus, what a moron...



This has to be the dumbest post I have ever read on this forum.

Go watch Transformers or something, Jesus, what a moron...
Very interesting way of refuting my points, and inexplicably coming to the conclusion that I'm a moron who only enjoys Transformers... Good job, buddy.



Boyhood was great, the kid's performance was great. Mason's mumbling is something a lot of teenagers do nowadays (mostly out of a lack of self-confidence). Linklater was spot-on with that addition, in fact all of the situations were very realistic. Looking back at it, I now want to bump up Boyhood to a
.



Boyhood was great, the kid's performance was great. Mason's mumbling is something a lot of teenagers do nowadays (mostly out of a lack of self-confidence). Linklater was spot-on with that addition, in fact all of the situations were very realistic. Looking back at it, I now want to bump up Boyhood to a
.
I don't deny that teens do mumble. Trust me I was like that too, but I don't see how this makes his character good. Just because a lot of teenagers are like that doesn't mean (in my view at least) that a movie needs to be made about someone like them. If so, let's make a movie about some guy working at a McDonald's and have the movie just revolve around him and his boring co-workers working there. "It's realistic, therefore it's good". I disagree.
Even so, everything and everyone else that revolved around Mason wasn't really that interesting either. Maybe Linklater aimed to do it in a way that we'd see the events in his life happening through his POV, but I think he failed to do that.



This has to be the dumbest post I have ever read on this forum.

Go watch Transformers or something, Jesus, what a moron...
Very interesting way of refuting my points, and inexplicably coming to the conclusion that I'm a moron who only enjoys Transformers... Good job, buddy.
Well, usually I would write a long and detailed paragraph of text explaining why I think your critique of Boyhood is absolutely pathetic and full of ignorance, but exactly because of the way you wrote I quickly made the decision that you weren't a person worth using my time on.



What were you expecting? This is an average kid and their lives aren't all that interesting but Linklater's direction made it somewhat compelling (even for the people who didn't like it). This is not the story of a runaway kid turned-drugdealer-gangster-kingpin by the age of 18.



What were you expecting? This is an average kid and their lives aren't all that interesting but Linklater's direction made it somewhat compelling (even for the people who didn't like it). This is not the story of a runaway kid turned-drugdealer-gangster-kingpin by the age of 18.
I'm not saying that I was expecting something like what you described. Yes, like you said, average kids' lives are boring and monotone, but what Linklater should've done is try to make it worthy of investment. Not all kids' lives are that boring though. Some kids have rough childhood, they have family problems, they go through changes in life. Big changes. They get inspired by something big. They live through good moments and bad moments, their ups and downs. Boyhood should've put the character through some trials and tribulations. If I wanted to watch a boring kid's life, I'd just sit in my porch and keep observing boring suburbia. What I was looking for with Boyhood is something more dramatic, a kid that I want to like, see him sad, see him happy, see him become an actual adult by the end, and going through a change. I want to see him doing things wrong and learning from it. Boyhood showed me a character that all the time mumbles, has divorced parents, he gets a girlfriend, they break up, and he becomes a photographer. The end. I didn't get a inch of his personality, nor did I get worried about him, or wanted to succeed at the end. He didn't change, he didn't grow, he didn't become something more than just a "boring kid". In conclusion, movies are not supposed to show the boring and usual parts of life. If so, I'd be living my own boring life right now and not go to the theaters at all to see anything else. Movies are an escape. I don't think you'd disagree with me on that regard. They're supposed to lift you from your boring everyday life, and put you into a more engaging experience. Boyhood did nothing for me. It partially showed me real life, but it did not interest me as a story, nor as a character study. It interested you, and that's fine, to each his own, but I just wanted more things happening is all.

Well, usually I would write a long and detailed paragraph of text explaining why I think your critique of Boyhood is absolutely pathetic and full of ignorance, but exactly because of the way you wrote I quickly made the decision that you weren't a person worth using my time on.
No, please, I'd be glad to argue REASONABLY about Boyhood, instead of just blatantly throwing out an insult and concluding that I'm "not a person worth using your time on". I guess when someone's critique of a movie is "pathetic and full of ignorance" the only thing left to do is infer that that person is a moron, as you put.



But that's what makes it unique, its realism and courageousness to dodge sentimentality and cheap-dramatic devices. I personally don't like stuff thrown in for the sake of it.