"Smart" movies you think are dumb

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,931
2,295
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I recently watched "Snowpiercer" which currently has a metacritic score of 84, and most critical reviews of it (including those of our resident Escapist movie critics) call it "smart," "provocative," and "intellectual" but when I saw it all I could think about was how stupid the movie was. The movie didn't engage me and I therefore couldn't get past all the more nonsensical elements of it.

Spoilers for "Snowpiercer" are inbound:

The movie doesn't make sense on a fundamental level. Multiple times during the movie we're shown shots of the train from above. You can see almost exactly how long the train is and there clearly isn't enough room in it for 10,000 people and all the food necessary to feed them indefinitely. There's some cool ideas that the movie tries to use to get around the food problem, like the fact that the protein bars that the lower class passengers eat are made out of insects, one of the more interesting "twists" of the movie. It's also one of the few twists that makes sense. Insects breed quickly and it would be fairly easy to stock enough of them to feed a population, but then you have the problem that the train doesn't have a "bug car" where they would be housed. Same with the rest of the meat, where exactly are all the cows and chickens that the upper class eat? We see a meat locker car, but we never see a farm car and they'd have to store live animals somewhere if the train has been running for years.

Then there's the design of the train that also doesn't make sense. Just think about it, the train was supposed to have been built as luxury transportation, but the order of all the train cars makes absolutely no sense. The aquarium where they serve sushi is near the back of the train and is preceded by a freezer full of meat. Are you telling me that the ultra rich elite who live in first class are expected to walk through a meat locker full of animal carcasses in order to eat sushi? How about the positioning of the sauna right next to the nightclub. In order to get into the nightclub from the first class residential quarters requires you to go through a sauna. We see how the people in first class obsess about their appearance, their hair, their make up and you're telling me they're willing to walk through a sauna and ruin their clothing, hair, and make up on their way to the nightclub?

Then there's just the movie's general writing that bothered me. So much if it just doesn't work. Many of the characters' motivations are either entirely unexplained or just plain stupid. What exactly is the motivation of the characters to leave the train and go outside? Outside of the train is death. A guy's arm froze solid after being outside the train for only 7 minutes, and these people expect to somehow survive that? It's hard to survive in the snow, and it's even harder to survive in the snow when you have no access to food and no survival skills because you've lived your whole life on a train and don't know how to scavenge food in the wild. The last shot of the movie is two children climbing out of the wrecked train into the snow and seeing a polar bear walking around. This scene is meant to show that everything will be ok and that life always finds a way, but if you really think about it the last scene of the movie is two young children stuck in a frozen wasteland with a giant predator. After the screen went black and the credits rolled those kids got eaten.

Now a lot of these criticisms are going to fall on deaf ears because "Dirty Hipsters, it's just an action movie, and action movies are supposed to be dumb, but this action movie has a message and that makes it smart." No, bullshit. Even the action in this action movie is dumb. The gunfight in the middle of the movie, the one you see in all the trailers and the one being praised by everyone is one of the worst parts of the entire movie.

We get a weird completely uncharacterized antagonist who seems to be working as part of the train's security force, and he's so hell bent on finding and killing the main characters that he shoots up the train himself, shoots all his own men on purpose, and shoots a bunch of first class passengers. And for what? What was his plan? What was his motivation? What was his end game? Nothing about him is ever explained so he just comes off like a giant moron. It's like the director felt that the movie was dragging its legs a little and decided to drop The Terminator in there just for the hell of it. This is not what smart movies do. Smart movies don't just drop in random characters with no characterization whatsoever and expect us to care.

Then there's the biggest action setpiece of the whole movie, the ending. The drug addict wants to use all the explosives that he's collected to blow open the door of the train and escape to freedom. He explodes the door, the explosion causes and avalanche, and the entire train is destroyed. My thoughts on this: why did he need all those explosives to blow up the steel door when he could have used a smaller amount and exploded a window instead? There are train cars that have huge top to bottom windows which would shatter from a much smaller explosive charge and which where in the middle of the train and not the front. Why not blow those up instead? Well because that guy isn't a character, he's a plot device, he's just there to open doors for the protagonist.

The biggest problem with this movie is that for all the drama in it, none of the characters are there for anything but to serve the purposes of the movie. It's like each character doesn't exist for any purpose other than pushing the plot forward, they aren't people, they aren't characters, they're plot elements. That's why this movie is dumb. It's so involved with it's message about class warfare and revolutions that it forgets to create believable characters and without believable characters nothing else about the movie is believable. Some of the criticisms might be considered "nitpicks" but I wouldn't have noticed them and they wouldn't have bothered me as much as they did if the movie had been better.

Spoilers for Snowpiercer end here.

So what about the rest of you? What movies make you gag whenever someone describes them as "smart?"
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
I'd have to say 2001. Good cinematography, great effects and an amazing score seems to be all you need to be an instant classic in the minds of many even when the first act of the movie is a waste of time that is unneeded and inconsequential to the plot, and the third act is 20 minutes too long for what it is supposed to be. I could edit out 90% of the first act and 90% of the third act and it would generally improve the quality of the piece. It was not Kubrick's best work, nor was it the best the sci-fi genre had to offer.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,533
3,055
118
Zontar said:
I'd have to say 2001. Good cinematography, great effects and an amazing score seems to be all you need to be an instant classic in the minds of many even when the first act of the movie is a waste of time that is unneeded and inconsequential to the plot, and the third act is 20 minutes too long for what it is supposed to be. I could edit out 90% of the first act and 90% of the third act and it would generally improve the quality of the piece. It was not Kubrick's best work, nor was it the best the sci-fi genre had to offer.
2001: A Space Odyssey is about mankind, and its "unneedded, inconsequential" first act works as an introduction to mankind. It establishes several running motifs in the movie and provides a foil to mankind's second encounter with the monolith as well. Feel free to not like it but every minute of that movie is there for a reason.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Zontar said:
I'd have to say 2001. Good cinematography, great effects and an amazing score seems to be all you need to be an instant classic in the minds of many even when the first act of the movie is a waste of time that is unneeded and inconsequential to the plot, and the third act is 20 minutes too long for what it is supposed to be. I could edit out 90% of the first act and 90% of the third act and it would generally improve the quality of the piece. It was not Kubrick's best work, nor was it the best the sci-fi genre had to offer.
2001: A Space Odyssey is about mankind, and its "unneedded, inconsequential" first act works as an introduction to mankind. It establishes several running motifs in the movie and provides a foil to mankind's second encounter with the monolith as well. Feel free to not like it but every minute of that movie is there for a reason.
If that's the case why was 17 minutes cut from the premier release and the wider theatrical release? I'm not saying everything from the first act could be cut, but the majority of it, especially a large part of the opening shots and the transitional scenes, could be removed with absolutely no negative effect on the movie (and we know this because a large part of it was removed with no noticeable effect on it).

There are ways of establishing things, wasting the audience's time is not one of them.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
I fucking hate Donnie Darko, the movie is so pretentious and people fell for it. And the films (Southland Tales and The Box) made by the director, Richard Kelly, after Donnie Darko only go to prove my stance on Donnie Darko correct.

Dirty Hipsters said:
Yeah, Snowpiercer is really overrated. I thought it was "fine" but nothing nearly that great. It has some cool scenes and I think it does pull off some of the commentary on class but not the overall film. The gunfight across train cars was just fucking stupid as shit. I read in a review or two that the scenes that don't make sense, don't make sense on purpose just for the purpose of social commentary. That's some bullshit because the gunfight has nothing to do with social commentary and is completely illogical. I felt the exact same about The Host has well, enjoyable but not much more than that.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Gundam GP01 said:
Zontar said:
If that's the case why was 17 minutes cut from the premier release and the wider theatrical release?
Maybe because those minutes had little reason to be there?
The point I was making is that large parts of the first and third act can be removed from the movie without lowering the quality since most of what makes the film is in the second act and most of the first act is landscape and spacescape visuals that don't tell a story or really do anything other then look pretty.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Gundam GP01 said:
Zontar said:
Gundam GP01 said:
Zontar said:
If that's the case why was 17 minutes cut from the premier release and the wider theatrical release?
Maybe because those minutes had little reason to be there?
The point I was making is that large parts of the first and third act can be removed from the movie without lowering the quality since most of what makes the film is in the second act and most of the first act is landscape and spacescape visuals that don't tell a story or really do anything other then look pretty.
Yeah, and that still doesnt change that Kubrick still decided to edit out those 17 minutes, and not any other for a reason.
Keep in mind that wasn't all he edited out, that 17 minutes was just what he edited out between the world premier in LA and the wider theatrical release. The fact remains he only removed it from what he already felt was a finished product. Given how much of the first act can be removed, he should have kept going when he returned to the cutting room floor. I can understand wanting to keep a scene which doesn't accomplish anything plot wise but shows off something about the technology of the world like the scenes inside the shuttles, but the long, unnecessary landscape shots in space and on the moon should be cut. The meeting takes half an hour to get too, yet it should easily have been reached within 5 minutes after the obelisk because of how little of substance is shown between those two points. We don't need to see the ship travelling from Earth to the moon followed by a long stretch of sequence that is the ship landing.

The second act is the only place the movie really shines, which is probably the reason why it's 98% of what people remember or talk about (with the last 2% being the opening of the second obelisk). One thing I like about 2010 is that unlike 2001 it actually uses its runtime. If there's a 5 minute stretch of movie, there's either character development, world building, demonstration of technology or touching a classic sci-fo concept, usually two or three of those at once. For 2001? Outside of act two most of it is showing off Kubrick's ability to take a good shot.
 

Dark Knifer

New member
May 12, 2009
4,468
0
0
Zontar said:
The first act i agree could have been shorter without eliminating any of the key scenes but for me the ending bit worked for me. I found it disturbing and it worked well for that but I definitely understand why some people wouldn't have that same feeling.

I don't think the ending is meant to resonate with a critical mind focused on the plot, more harking back to the intro and resonating with your base human feelings of fear and confusion. But its impossible to guarantee everyone will have that reaction and there's nothing wrong with anyone who feel one way or another about it.

OT: I can't think of any off the top of my head, which goes to show how pretentious I am. The closest I have would be frozen, which I've heard some people say is a lot smarter then most Disney movies but I don't agree with that at all.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,645
4,448
118
I didn't even know Snowpiercer was deemed smart. It wasn't even really that good of an action movie. And as soon as the line "I know babies taste best" gets uttered as some sort of shocking revelation, this movie's credibility just sank like a stone. I was seriously laughing my ass off at that part.
 

[Kira Must Die]

Incubator
Sep 30, 2009
2,537
0
0
I really didn't like the movie Martyrs.

When that movie ended, I felt like nothing was accomplished, and my time was wasted.

I loved Snowpiercer, though.
 

darkcalling

New member
Sep 29, 2011
550
0
0
When I watched Rubber it seemed to think that it had a point to make. I couldn't tell you what that poit WAS. Though I think it was supposed to be a parody of arthouse movies so maybe that was the point.
 

Pete Oddly

New member
Nov 19, 2009
224
0
0
darkcalling said:
When I watched Rubber it seemed to think that it had a point to make. I couldn't tell you what that poit WAS. Though I think it was supposed to be a parody of arthouse movies so maybe that was the point.
The point of Rubber was revealed in the first five minutes: The whole movie happened for no reason. That's it. The point was there was no point. It's kind of like nearly every David Lynch movie ever made.

Oh, and on topic: Every David Lynch movie ever made. I'm not saying his movies are bad, because they are very good at being unsettling, skin-crawling creep fests, but smart? Not by a long shot.
 

Methodia Chicken

New member
Sep 9, 2014
136
0
0
I want to shove Primer up it's own needlessly convoluted colon and twist until some semblance of a story comes out.
it distracts by intentionally obscuring what would otherwise be an acceptably complex futurama time travel storyline so that the audience spends most of the movie in a "what is going on" state of mind, instead of actually explaining things (even after the "reveal" at the end which just ties knots in things so people remain in the dark just a teensy bit longer).
God forbid the audience actually understand and enjoy the cool science going on instead of staring at it in perplexed awe (because complex must equal confusing, apparently).
and of course all the time dedicated to this roundabout delivery of the main element means that the characters are basically robotic husks who barely exist more than their names, so there's not much reason to want to know what happens/happened/is-happening/is-paradoxically-not-happening to them.

the worst part is that there is a rather clever portrayal of time travel being constantly shoved in a dark corner so that the movie can try to act even more smart.

and now I am racked with guilt for spewing bile at this passion project of a smart director on a tiny budget.
... I should have picked a big budget something like shutter island.
 

pearcinator

New member
Apr 8, 2009
1,212
0
0
Inception!

I could rant about this movie all day at how nonsensical it is. It is a stupid movie. I don't have the time to break it down here but there are many things about the movie that is poorly done. This movie is #14 on IMDB for God's sake!

Other movies that fulfil this criteria...
Donnie Darko
Fight Club
Interstellar

There's probably a few more but that's all I can think of atm.
 

Avalanche91

New member
Jan 8, 2009
604
0
0
Fight Club, though I love it, kinda falls apart in the final fight scene between Tyler Durden and the Narrator.

Black Swan really seems to think its psychological horror but it really isn't either of those things.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
I recently watched "Snowpiercer" which currently has a metacritic score of 84, and most critical reviews of it (including those of our resident Escapist movie critics) call it "smart," "provocative," and "intellectual" but when I saw it all I could think about was how stupid the movie was. The movie didn't engage me and I therefore couldn't get past all the more nonsensical elements of it.

Spoilers for "Snowpiercer" are inbound:

The movie doesn't make sense on a fundamental level. Multiple times during the movie we're shown shots of the train from above. You can see almost exactly how long the train is and there clearly isn't enough room in it for 10,000 people and all the food necessary to feed them indefinitely. There's some cool ideas that the movie tries to use to get around the food problem, like the fact that the protein bars that the lower class passengers eat are made out of insects, one of the more interesting "twists" of the movie. It's also one of the few twists that makes sense. Insects breed quickly and it would be fairly easy to stock enough of them to feed a population, but then you have the problem that the train doesn't have a "bug car" where they would be housed. Same with the rest of the meat, where exactly are all the cows and chickens that the upper class eat? We see a meat locker car, but we never see a farm car and they'd have to store live animals somewhere if the train has been running for years.

Then there's the design of the train that also doesn't make sense. Just think about it, the train was supposed to have been built as luxury transportation, but the order of all the train cars makes absolutely no sense. The aquarium where they serve sushi is near the back of the train and is preceded by a freezer full of meat. Are you telling me that the ultra rich elite who live in first class are expected to walk through a meat locker full of animal carcasses in order to eat sushi? How about the positioning of the sauna right next to the nightclub. In order to get into the nightclub from the first class residential quarters requires you to go through a sauna. We see how the people in first class obsess about their appearance, their hair, their make up and you're telling me they're willing to walk through a sauna and ruin their clothing, hair, and make up on their way to the nightclub?

Then there's just the movie's general writing that bothered me. So much if it just doesn't work. Many of the characters' motivations are either entirely unexplained or just plain stupid. What exactly is the motivation of the characters to leave the train and go outside? Outside of the train is death. A guy's arm froze solid after being outside the train for only 7 minutes, and these people expect to somehow survive that? It's hard to survive in the snow, and it's even harder to survive in the snow when you have no access to food and no survival skills because you've lived your whole life on a train and don't know how to scavenge food in the wild. The last shot of the movie is two children climbing out of the wrecked train into the snow and seeing a polar bear walking around. This scene is meant to show that everything will be ok and that life always finds a way, but if you really think about it the last scene of the movie is two young children stuck in a frozen wasteland with a giant predator. After the screen went black and the credits rolled those kids got eaten.
I just watched Snowpiercer yesterday and I agree 100% with every point you made here. However, you haven't even mentioned the central biggest issue I had with it, which is that there's no reason for the story's central conflict. Why would the people running and managing the train enforce a rigid class divide? Usually class systems occur naturally as a result economic forces of the free market, but there's no free market on the train. There's no trade, no competition, no money at all by appearances. it's a single communal society working together to survive with everyone filling a designed role. It's practically a Marxist utopia. So what reason is there to treat some people better than others? Ya, maybe some people paid for luxury seats like 20 years ago, but who cares anymore? What have they done lately? There doesn't appear to be anything special about the people in the front of the train to make them worthy or give them leverage over the people who decide how to distribute goods. Why not just treat everyone essentially equally? That seems easier AND fairer than trying so hard to uphold a pointless class divide.

And don't say that it's to cause people to riot for population control, that makes no sense. It's obvious from how lavish the people in the front have it that the train is not having resource problems. And even if it was, have the writers never heard of birth control? I don't care how much you might be against abortion, there's no way it isn't preferable to having chaotic bloodbaths every couple of years.

The thing is, I think the premise of a closed zero-sum ecosystem could have been used to explore the horrific ethical decisions people have to make when managing resources to ensure longterm survival of a population. But instead the movie chooses a conflict that makes zero sense under it's own set up. In fact, almost any other conceivable post apocalyptic dystopia scenario would make more sense to tell a story about class warfare than this one.

You also didn't mention the single dumbest thing in the whole movie IMO:

Replacing failed mechanical parts with children? What? Seriously? I don't even know where to begin because it's so stupid. At best this would be a radical short term solution to the problem until you're able to create a more stable fix.

And the stranger thing is, if it was actually remotely plausible, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I mean we're talking about keeping the ship necessary to sustain all life running. If a few kids have to suffer or even die to accomplish that then it's worth it because they'd all just die anyway when the train failed.

So this completely ludicrous reveal doesn't even serve the presumed purpose of making Wilford seem more cruel and evil because his decision to do this is completely justified.
 

Here Comes Tomorrow

New member
Jan 7, 2009
645
0
0
Into The Wild.

Good god I hate that film SO. MUCH.

Words cannot describe how hateful I find the main character. The message apparently is "act like a selfish prick and die like an idiot and we'll make a whimsical movie celebrating your stupidity later".