Submit Your
2010s
List

Films You Hate, But Everyone Else Loves

Tools    





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.
That's fine, if that's what you prefer, then have at it. For me, I only wanted a more engaging character than I could lean on and like. I don't see that as a cheap dramatic device, I see it as a device to tell a concrete story and develop a character. But again, to each his own.



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...
I really hate to see someone called names like 'moron' just because they gave a negative review on a popular movie, that others love.

Every time someone gets verbally attacked for criticizing a popular movie, it hurts the entire board, as it makes people think twice about posting their honest opinions in the future.

Mantarys original post and his follow up post were well written. He clearly laid out his reasons for not liking Boyhood. Debating his reasons and points....is fair, calling him names is not.



“Hell will hold no surprises for you.”
Anyone else like The Wolfman remake from 2009 with Del Toro and Hopkins? I love that movie and it doesn't seem to get much love. Not saying it is a great movie, but I like it.



Lion King and Chinatown are the movie that ranked in the top 10 in any top 100 list in this forum that I liked the least. I also did not care much for Casablanca but I think I wasn't in the right mood to watch it.



Well, I don't hate it, it's just that I don't find it anywhere near the greats of Hitchcock...but I see it ranked so highly everywhere...never found it worthy of such praises...and that is "Strangers on a Train".



Lion King and Chinatown are the movie that ranked in the top 10 in any top 100 list in this forum that I liked the least. I also did not care much for Casablanca but I think I wasn't in the right mood to watch it.
These are the sort of films that should be in this thread, i like all three though. The three that i can think of are No Country For Old Men, Rear Window and American History X.



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.
I understand you pov, but when did Linklater do that in his non-Hollywood films? I've not seen Boyhood, but it sounds exactly like a Linklater film, to me. Certainly much more like his 90's (good) stuff which, as it took 12 years to make, this is probably heavily influenced by.

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.
Movies can do that. That's not what movies are, though.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
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...
If you didn't find it, it doesn't mean it's not there!

Boyhood is not a movie for everyone. It's not an Hollywood typical movie where something has to happen and where the directors usually look at audiences as a bunch of stupid people to which everything has to be explained. Linklater does not do that... He's one of the best independent directors working now and in Boyhood he actually achieved to portray life in its purest form! Does every life must have explosions and dramatic deaths? Does everything has to be about Good vs. Evil? Boyhood is not my favourite movie of the year but I'd be happy if it wins the Oscar... It's a life experience!



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
This has to be the dumbest post I have ever read on this forum.

Go watch Transformers or something, Jesus, what a moron...
Easy MM! No need for that!



A loving heart is the truest wisdom.
If you didn't find it, it doesn't mean it's not there!

Boyhood is not a movie for everyone. It's not an Hollywood typical movie where something has to happen and where the directors usually look at audiences as a bunch of stupid people to which everything has to be explained. Linklater does not do that... He's one of the best independent directors working now and in Boyhood he actually achieved to portray life in its purest form! Does every life must have explosions and dramatic deaths? Does everything has to be about Good vs. Evil? Boyhood is not my favourite movie of the year but I'd be happy if it wins the Oscar... It's a life experience!
There are tons and tons of fantastic films that aren't simple, explosion filled, good vs. evil movies. Citizen Kane, The Shining, Princess Mononoke, A Beautiful Mind, the Madoka series, Lawrence of Arabia, It's A Wonderful Life, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Nausicaa to name just a tiny tiny tiny portion. Boyhood was probably the dullest movie I saw last year (I can't say the worst because that honor goes to Transformers 4) and Mantarys perfectly summed up why. If it wasn't for the hype caused by the decade plus production time I doubt 99% of movie watchers would even know Boyhood existed.
__________________
You will find that if you look for the light, you can often find it. But if you look for the dark, that is all you will ever see.
Iroh



Lion King and Chinatown are the movie that ranked in the top 10 in any top 100 list in this forum that I liked the least. I also did not care much for Casablanca but I think I wasn't in the right mood to watch it.
I didn't like Chinatown either. Haven't seen Lion King.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
There are tons and tons of fantastic films that aren't simple, explosion filled, good vs. evil movies. Citizen Kane, The Shining, Princess Mononoke, A Beautiful Mind, the Madoka series, Lawrence of Arabia, It's A Wonderful Life, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Nausicaa to name just a tiny tiny tiny portion. Boyhood was probably the dullest movie I saw last year (I can't say the worst because that honor goes to Transformers 4) and Mantarys perfectly summed up why. If it wasn't for the hype caused by the decade plus production time I doubt 99% of movie watchers would even know Boyhood existed.
All the movies you mentioned are masterpieces but they all are movies that have borders of its own... Boyhood is unlike all that! As I said, not for everyone! You say it's dull, I say it was one of the most beautiful experiences I ever had...



I understand you pov, but when did Linklater do that in his non-Hollywood films? I've not seen Boyhood, but it sounds exactly like a Linklater film, to me. Certainly much more like his 90's (good) stuff which, as it took 12 years to make, this is probably heavily influenced by.


Movies can do that. That's not what movies are, though.
I'll very much agree with you on that last line. Movies aren't just that. I shouldn't have easily defined a form of art as just an "escape", so I admit I made a mistake there, and I thank you for correcting me.

Back to Boyhood, I am not that familiar with Linklater's other work. Probably the only other movies I've seen by him are School Of Rock and Before Midnight, which were both decent enough. Any other movie I hear about is Dazed and Confused and Slacker which I haven't seen yet, but I plan to, only to see his other work. I won't criticize Linklater in general for not being a good filmmaker. He is good, and I applaud his patience for a gigantic project like Boyhood, and being able to pull through and make something of it, and if he wins Best Director, then he sure deserves it, but as a writer by himself (He co-wrote Before Midnight with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, and didn't write SoR), based on this movie, he is not that good in that department. I doubt any of his other films are like Boyhood, based on what I've looked up about his filmography, so I can't know for sure.

If you didn't find it, it doesn't mean it's not there!

Boyhood is not a movie for everyone. It's not an Hollywood typical movie where something has to happen and where the directors usually look at audiences as a bunch of stupid people to which everything has to be explained. Linklater does not do that... He's one of the best independent directors working now and in Boyhood he actually achieved to portray life in its purest form! Does every life must have explosions and dramatic deaths? Does everything has to be about Good vs. Evil? Boyhood is not my favourite movie of the year but I'd be happy if it wins the Oscar... It's a life experience!
I'll say it again, I was not expecting a typical Hollywood movie out of Boyhood. If tropes of a typical Hollywood movie are having well fleshed out characters and good storytelling, then I have no idea what I need to say. I wasn't expecting Linklater to just blurt out in his screenplay his "philosophy" on life and growing up, that would be too easy. If you have to do that, you're no good writer. I wasn't expecting groundbreaking, manipulative drama that tries to get audiences involved in cheap ways, I expected something smart, and more complicated. Boyhood is none of that. It doesn't seem to care about putting the audience through conflicts about life or make you think about the moments in life. Boyhood is just a chain of events that unravel through a time period. There doesn't seem to be any significance to any of these time periods where Mason grows up and the mood of the film doesn't seem to change. There is no smooth transition that eases you into the next stage in his life. You don't realize when you become a teenager, or an adult. In one minute Mason is 12 years old, and suddenly 5 minutes later he's a teenager. And the movie tries to painfully make that so obvious for some reason. So it didn't quite feel like a "life experience" to me on that regard.

I certainly wasn't expecting a "good vs. evil" shtick out of it. That would be the last thing I expected out of a movie depicting "life in this purest form". Though, even that is present here. It doesn't seem to me that Mason has any flaws as a human being, going back to my point about not showing him doing anything wrong. Sure, he is boring, and maybe he leaves his crying mother to go to college, but I'm not sure if the movie intended for us to dislike Mason for it, since immediately after that, he's seen driving to college with optimistic music playing in the background. He doesn't seem to be selfish, or immature, or maybe hot-tempered, or lazy, or anything that would make a kid a kid. He usually is made to look like the victim in every situation, even if he does do something wrong, like coming home late from a party, or his girlfriend cheating on him, while the step-dad looks to be a grade A douche himself, though I won't complain about that, as it was the only good part of the film.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I recommend watching Linklaters' "Tape" "Waking Life" and the "Before" trilogy.. Maybe this will affect how you feel about "Boyhood" - the things people like about Boyhood have already been in Linklater's pictures from before, and feel he recycled this movie, but people outside of this forum only talks about how it was filmed over a period of 12 years, which isn't a skill to me. Critics don't usually go against the box office sales.. It's just like a media member who asks the President real questions (adversarial vs. complementary), they know they'll never be called on again, and if you look at the budgets, movies aren't taking much chances anymore. Hence, "Boyhood" being called independent when I think it's anything but.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
I'll very much agree with you on that last line. Movies aren't just that. I shouldn't have easily defined a form of art as just an "escape", so I admit I made a mistake there, and I thank you for correcting me.

Back to Boyhood, I am not that familiar with Linklater's other work. Probably the only other movies I've seen by him are School Of Rock and Before Midnight, which were both decent enough. Any other movie I hear about is Dazed and Confused and Slacker which I haven't seen yet, but I plan to, only to see his other work. I won't criticize Linklater in general for not being a good filmmaker. He is good, and I applaud his patience for a gigantic project like Boyhood, and being able to pull through and make something of it, and if he wins Best Director, then he sure deserves it, but as a writer by himself (He co-wrote Before Midnight with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, and didn't write SoR), based on this movie, he is not that good in that department. I doubt any of his other films are like Boyhood, based on what I've looked up about his filmography, so I can't know for sure.



I'll say it again, I was not expecting a typical Hollywood movie out of Boyhood. If tropes of a typical Hollywood movie are having well fleshed out characters and good storytelling, then I have no idea what I need to say. I wasn't expecting Linklater to just blurt out in his screenplay his "philosophy" on life and growing up, that would be too easy. If you have to do that, you're no good writer. I wasn't expecting groundbreaking, manipulative drama that tries to get audiences involved in cheap ways, I expected something smart, and more complicated. Boyhood is none of that. It doesn't seem to care about putting the audience through conflicts about life or make you think about the moments in life. Boyhood is just a chain of events that unravel through a time period. There doesn't seem to be any significance to any of these time periods where Mason grows up and the mood of the film doesn't seem to change. There is no smooth transition that eases you into the next stage in his life. You don't realize when you become a teenager, or an adult. In one minute Mason is 12 years old, and suddenly 5 minutes later he's a teenager. And the movie tries to painfully make that so obvious for some reason. So it didn't quite feel like a "life experience" to me on that regard.

I certainly wasn't expecting a "good vs. evil" shtick out of it. That would be the last thing I expected out of a movie depicting "life in this purest form". Though, even that is present here. It doesn't seem to me that Mason has any flaws as a human being, going back to my point about not showing him doing anything wrong. Sure, he is boring, and maybe he leaves his crying mother to go to college, but I'm not sure if the movie intended for us to dislike Mason for it, since immediately after that, he's seen driving to college with optimistic music playing in the background. He doesn't seem to be selfish, or immature, or maybe hot-tempered, or lazy, or anything that would make a kid a kid. He usually is made to look like the victim in every situation, even if he does do something wrong, like coming home late from a party, or his girlfriend cheating on him, while the step-dad looks to be a grade A douche himself, though I won't complain about that, as it was the only good part of the film.
I agree that the editing is not perfect, though it's hard to make a lot better with such a long time of recording...

Nothing special is supposed to happen in the movie, only in the one who sees it. The whole idea behind Boyhood it's to create a bond between Mason and the viewer... I know I relieved my own childhood watching it, I realize how much I changed through years because I saw myself when I watched Mason grow up!



All your points are true, yet I don't get the hate part. Women do marry abusive, alcoholic men, sometimes more than once. Some Christians would give a gun with a Bible, and some fathers are fanatically left-wing and would take the chance to share that with their kids, especially if they don't see them often. It may smack as lazy shorthand but it may also be personal acting and character development. And I'm only lukewarm on Boyhood, Linklater and the films of his you claim to love. His films have always had a political leaning, so I don't see why this one should bother you more than the others. But hatred brought about by a few moments in a 165-minute film is different from lukewarm, familiar feelings. And a film receiving 100 on Metacritic needs a good kneecapping anyway. But to each his own.
The problem is, yes these themes are universal and happen in reality, but Linklater handles it all with such broad and obvious tones. There's not much dimension to these character types, like I said, they are all caricatures.

We get the abusive, alcoholic, rich husband who is an absolute controlling dick. Haven't seen that before!

Then the war vet, homophobic, heavy-drinking, and also abusive in a verbal way. Wow, haven't seen that before either. Had he made this character one that is actually not a homophobe, yet still a war vet, it would have been refreshing. But he took the easy route.

Then the conservative/republican anti-obama guy who has a Confederate Flag on his property, but Linklater could not be more subtle with that. In fact every political reference/discussion is so shoehorned into the film it becomes ridiculous.

I could go on, but Boyhood is like the film version of that person everyone knows and projects all their issues and hatred onto. And as said before, there is nothing in Boyhood that is enlightening, original, or done very well at all. And don't even get me started on Linklater's daughter. My lord...

Patricia Arquette is the one shining beacon of the entire enterprise. She deserves the Oscar. But even she got so much s*it from everyone at one point I just wanted to kill everyone and say 'I'll do the dishes for you without you asking."
__________________
Recent Viewings (rewatches noted with an *)
Barbarian- (4/5)
Nope- (4.5/5)
Jurassic Park Dominion- 0.5/5
What Josiah Saw- (4.5/5)



Not a fan of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, only thing i liked about any of them was Ledger's joker......and we all know how that ended.

Fight scenes were so badly choreographed they had to cut it to where you could barely tell what was going on...

and i'm not a big Bale fan either for that matter which is why i didn't like his Bruce Wayne.
__________________
drugstore-onlinecatalog.com