"Smart" movies you think are dumb
- Thread starter Dirty Hipsters
- Start date
Not sure why Fight Club is being brought up here. It's a pretty straightforward film.
American Hustle and The Wolf of Wallstreet are movies that are basically made for the actors to show off their skills with the story being left on the backburner till it becomes relevant. They have good scenes but are so padded that you begin to lose interest.
However, I will give Hustle more credit because it did not have an absurd amount of sex and drug scenes.
Kid is angry at his parents for reasons. Decides to go off into the wild for ...reasons, and then die because he was unprepared. BRILLIANT.
American Hustle and The Wolf of Wallstreet are movies that are basically made for the actors to show off their skills with the story being left on the backburner till it becomes relevant. They have good scenes but are so padded that you begin to lose interest.
However, I will give Hustle more credit because it did not have an absurd amount of sex and drug scenes.
This.Here Comes Tomorrow said:
Kid is angry at his parents for reasons. Decides to go off into the wild for ...reasons, and then die because he was unprepared. BRILLIANT.
Why bother criticizing movies if you're not going to back up your criticism with anything at all, especially when you're making a position that is very counter to the majority consensus?pearcinator said:
I'll at least criticize Donnie Darko a little bit for you. The whole movie is filled with ideas that seem deep and intellectual, but feel completely disjointed and incohesive and never really add up to anything substantial. Individually a movie about a boy who discovers time travel, or who sees a man in a rabbit costume that may or may not be real, or who rebels against his school and burns down a teachers house could be good. But all these separate threads fight for our attention in the movie and ultimately add up to less than the sum of their parts. It's an incoherent mess without a central idea that people confuse for a complex riddle with many ideas because it references various philosophical ideas and has the general structure of an artsy film.
I think a great example of this is the repeated reference of "cellar door" in the film. Early on Donnie's teacher writes it on the chalkboard and says it's been considered by some linguists to be the most beautiful sounding word in the English language. Later in the film Donnie encounters an actual cellar door that serves as a significant plot element and even says "cellar door" out loud to remind us that it's been previously mentioned. What's the significance of this? There is none. The fact that the words "cellar door" sound beautiful has nothing to do with the actual physical object they correspond to, nor is there any other discernable connection between these two events in the story. The re-occurance makes it SEEM like "cellar door" must symbolize something, but that doesn't automatically mean it does, and by all accounts it doesn't.
Ultimately Donnie Darko is a film that does a good job of appealing to a certain pretentious teenage angst, but that's about all it does. The fact that it was the directors first movie meant many critics were willing to give it the benefit of the doubt I think, but since then he's only made 2 increasingly mediocre films with the same problems of Darko only more transparent.
Huh, I'm surprised that Donnie Darko gets such hate. And no attempts to even back that criticism up, just "It's not good". Now that is a very boring path to take, though I guess that's what many Escapist members do, myself probably included. I found it to be a pretty enjoyable and intriguing dive into a troubled mind's last minutes before death.
I just feel like I have written and talked about it to death already. Here are some summarised points.Olas said:
1. Pretentious Dialogue
"Pure Creation"
"Raw, infinite subconscious"
These lines are nonsensical, sound intellectual but really make no sense. 'Pure Creation' for example is actually NOT what she is doing. Pure means that there is no external materials to 'tarnish' it's purity. What she is doing is creating things from memory and experiences, basically building a city with pieces from here and there.
Raw, infinite subconscious. WTF does that even mean?
There's probably other lines that would stick out if I watched it again (it's been a couple of years). Those are the ones I remember the most because they sounded so dumb.
2. Scenes are poorly written.
Ok, so let's split the movie into three acts (as how I see it)
Act 1. The opening scenes, 'dream within a dream' concept, Most main characters are introduced. Nothing really wrong here.
Act 2. The exposition. Explaining the fiction, the plan and the plot, develop the characters that are going to be involved in the 'planting'. Totems (which don't make sense either) etc.
Act 3. Planting the idea. This is where the movie should be all action and everything from Acts 1 and 2 come together. While this does have some great action scenes, it is also where 'Limbo' is introduced (during a scene where everyone is in a hurry no less) and Dicaprio is explaining everything when there are guys outside shooting at them and all manner of shit going on. I was fully on board at this point until it all came to a screeching halt with this new, extremely important concept comes out of nowhere.
They explain this as 'nobody would agree to come into the dream if they knew they would drop into Limbo' which is horseshit.
Some other questions;
Why is it not a 'kick' when the van rolls? That would definitely give you a feeling of weightlessness.
So Joseph Gordon Levitt has a 'couple of minutes' before the kick and does all that shit in zero-gravity in the space of 2 minutes?
Totems don't make sense. Especially Ellen Page's totem. It also seems under-developed and should have been either scrapped or intertwined with (and introducing) Limbo back in Act 2.
It's like nobody else read through the script to see if it made any sense.
3. The trollface.jpg ending.
So we know it's not a dream and if it is, then who in their right mind thought 'it was all a dream' is a good twist? Pulling that shit in Year 7 was criticized harshly, this guy is paid millions of dollars to make a movie where the twist is that it was all a dream? Nope. Therefore, it's NOT a dream and is in fact real. So why have the top spinning and cut before it topples (I groaned when I first saw the ending), just further reinforces the fact that totems make no sense.
Now, you can go ahead and pick apart my arguments and answer all my questions but frankly, I will still think the movie is poorly written. I believe I could edit the script to make more sense with better pacing. These are only a few major points, if I go back and watch the movie again I could be far more nit-picky.
In all fairness even the director of donnie darko didn't know what the movie was actually about.
Yeah, Inception. I thought it was an okay movie, but very overrated.pearcinator said:
Also Jurassic Park.
Now, I love the movie, but it did not handle its themes about the responsibility of science or whatever well at all. Which is why I always enjoyed the second one more because it felt more like a self-indulgent fantasy about a dinosaur island and evil people being evil.
Ninja'd me on that one. I found the plot frankly silly and rediculous. A hyper intelligent species guides humanity into the next stage of evolution? Why? What do they stand to gain? That would be like us guiding the evolution of a cockroach. The difference in intelligence is too vast, they'd be indifferent at best. All we've done is trade one god for another. Maybe it's innately human to want to believe in something like that, but when you look past the cinematography and music, you realize the premise is fundamentally upsurd. I've also heard theories about the "deeper meanings," and none of them were impressive. A companies logo flashed on a characters face? Very clever Kubrick. The monolith could possibly be a symbol for a television screen? Interesting. But not really. Just because something isn't immediately understood, doesn't mean it's actually deep. Just look at donnie darko. The truth is, none of it matters, and none of it means anything actually important.Zontar said:
In fact, lets carry this further and look at another Kubrick film, the shining. This encapsulates many of the issues I have with him. Despite its positive reputation, the film is incredibly simplistic, and Kubrick really dumbed down the characters for reason beyond my understanding. In the book the father is a sympathetic character struggling with alcoholism while trying to take care of a family he genuinely loves. In the film he's hateful and abusive from the start, and it's established that he's already harmed his family in the past. He then goes ax crazy on a whim, and attempts to kill his family. He's a static, two demensional character with no arc. None of the characters really grow. And that's the entire problem. Kubrick doesn't understand people. He doesn't understand how they think, feel, or act. The cinematography is just a tool that allows us to tell more human stories. Orson Wells understood this when making Citizen Kaine. If you can't tell a more human story, then great cinematography, and even symbolism, is completely pointless. I can't fault Stephen king for being unhappy with it. I could nitpick every film he's made, but I don't have time. Most of this is true for his whole career.
Otherwise, the original ghost in the shell. The actual story was very simple, and a lot of it has been done before. It's also rather dry, which isn't necessarily bad, but I'd like something more thoughtful. I also don't understand why the hyper advanced spy woman needs to be naked all the time. The poor thief didn't have to be naked to turn invisible. Why did she?
I actually quite liked Into the Wild and didn't see the message as "act like a selfish prick", rather "acting like a selfish prick will get you in big trouble". I mean, he died in the end because of his ineptitude and hubris. It's a real-life instance of the legend of Icarus.Here Comes Tomorrow said:
Not to mention it was based on a real person and real life doesn't really have a "message". He was a dumb kid that met his demise because he was cocky.
---
ANYWAY, my opinions.
Interstellar and Inception. Don't get me wrong, I love those films but... they're just not that clever. Inception has inconsistencies in its logic (why are dreams bound so hard to real-world physics UNTIL it becomes convenient for the plot?)
Interstellar has amazing visuals, sound (yes, flame me) and acting for the most part but its story doesn't have very solid foundations. The ending seemed extremely contrived and the "love transcends time and space" thing almost made me vomit.
I love Christopher Nolan's films, The Dark Knight and Batman Begins (and even The Dark Knight Rises) are excellent and (mostly) clever. He wants to become the next Kubrick but I don't think his stories are stable enough to withstand such fantastical elements like wormholes, trans-dimensionality and dream machines.
In terms of "smart movies" I am quite fond of low budget sci-fi films like Moon and Primer (though Primer is really demanding of the audience's patience).
Additional note: Did anyone else find Interstellar disturbingly similar to The Core (which I think is an awful film)?
It's been a while since I've seen Inception, so I might have a few details messed up here. I also want to say that I fully agree that Inception was highly overrated and hardly as confusing (and by extension "smart") as people made it appear. However, I'd still say that it was a great film that did a fantastic job at handling so many elements.
Jokes aside, it is sort of hard to follow how long it really took him since all the scenes are broken up, and I'm not sure that anyone has actually taken the time to time it. But still, in a movie where people can go inside your dreams to change behavior in the real life, I'm surprise this is what stood out to you. Never mind the fact that, as far as plot holes go, this would do nothing to take away from what people actually praised the film for.
From what I remember of the scene, "pure" seemed like an apt word. The girl (Ariadne?) was looking for a word to describe her excitement and intrigue at being able to create things to her heart's content (seemingly-infinite canvas, fewer physical limitations, etc.). If you were an architect trying to describe being able to create without all the boundaries that you normally are forced to work within, then "pure" would be a very good word. It is your vision, untarnished by the limitations of our world.pearcinator said:
From what I understand, this was referring to Limbo. In which case, it goes on infinitely, being filled by the deepest (raw) elements of various people's subconscious (as opposed to just one person's). Either way, just put the three words together, understand that they are describing Limbo, and it should be clear enough. "Raw" is probably the only word that might seem even mildly confusing, but I'm just being nice by giving you that.
What doesn't make sense about them? They were items that clearly portrayed physical laws in our world that could be broken inside of a dream. Considering dreams can feel real (something I'm sure we've all experienced), the difference in their nature between the real world and dream world would help make the distinction the mind couldn't make on its own.
From what I remember, Limbo was touched on plenty prior to Cobb's full explanation. If it took until all the firefights started to realize that the concept existed, then that's entirely on you.
Wasn't that due to lacking synchronization across the kicks from people at lower levels?
Because movie.
Jokes aside, it is sort of hard to follow how long it really took him since all the scenes are broken up, and I'm not sure that anyone has actually taken the time to time it. But still, in a movie where people can go inside your dreams to change behavior in the real life, I'm surprise this is what stood out to you. Never mind the fact that, as far as plot holes go, this would do nothing to take away from what people actually praised the film for.
As far as ambiguous endings go, Inception actually did a very good job. It got people thinking, kept them searching the movie and credits for hints, and ultimately kept the movie at the forefront of people's minds for a long time. Maybe you don't like ambiguous endings, but it is really hard to argue that the ending wasn't very effective at getting people to think more deeply about the film than if it clearly took one path over the other.
I share about the same sentiment as the posters above on this movie, though I'll give it a little more credit. Yet, I just want to get this off my chest, since I have some very strong resentment towards this movie as well. My problem wasn't that the kid was just selfish but that the film makers seemed to want to show this man as a Christ figure. Not even just symbolically either, everyone he encountered seemed to be effected positively by him. The only point in which the character was punished was during the very end of the film when he realizes that life is better shared and died. Yet even then he died in such a way were it wasn't presented as painful but like a spiritual transcendence. It also didn't help that the sister, who was narrating his actions though most of the film, also seemed to idolize him.DizzyChuggernaut said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that the director, Sean Penn, saw this person as someone to follow. He really shouldn't be.
OT:
A side from Into the Wild? I'm not sure, Prometheus I guess. Then again I suppose that's low hanging fruit.
Honestly, I wasn't impressed by inception. It felt like a cheesy cash-in on a clever idea, rather than an actual interesting way to explore that idea.
Does "Wall-E" count as a smart movie? Given that is a kids movie, I might be setting the bar too low, but Pixar has always been reputed for breaking the mold of the "kids movie" label...
However, I feel Wall-E was rather pretentious and "in your face" with the environmental message, which that was not handled well by any stretch...
However, I feel Wall-E was rather pretentious and "in your face" with the environmental message, which that was not handled well by any stretch...
Zontar said:
Visuals that don't tell a story? The slow pacing in the establishing shots is part of what it is being established - what life was like for the early men you are seeing, before the intervention of the monolith. The long space shots are similarly establishing the oppressively silent darkness of never-ending space, and I don't feel like this would have been accomplished nearly as well at a fast pace.
I'm certainly not going to tell you to enjoy something that you don't, and I even understand why you feel it's boring; but saying "most of what makes the film is in the second act" and that you could just edit out large chunks (90% of the first act?) without impacting it's story-telling is just missing what the film is about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_UsmvtyxEI#t=76
It's not for you maybe, but your hypothetical editing would destroy a masterpiece.
Wait, the one with Anthony Hopkins? David Lynch directed that? Well then, I guess there's an exception.Stasisesque said:
Rebuild of Evangelion 3.0
Nothing made any sense in that movie. First they have a pointless timeskip. I call it pointless because most of the characters look the same except for Toji's sister and she's only in the movie for like 10 minutes and never seen again.
They say the reason Asuka and Mari still look like 14 year old's is because of the curse of the EVA. Piloting EVA's make you look immortal now? Why and how did this happen? It just comes out of nowhere.
Apparently world is almost completely ruined yet they still managed to find the resources to make a completely new EVA and a super powerful space ship made out of EVA 01.
Speaking of the new EVA, Mari literally has no purpose. In Evangelion 2.0 it was hinted she had some hidden agenda, but in this movie she's just an extra fighter who throws out one liners and has no real purpose other then be Asuka's side kick.
EVERYBODY in this movie acts completely irrational. Misato and her crew act hostile and mean to Shinji and don't explain the situation at all to him for some reason. Apparently Misato is mad that he nearly destroyed the world, even though she was freaking cheering him on during the last movie when he was going all berserk.
Asuka hates him for some reason. Which really isn't new for Asuka, but the last movie made it seem like Asuka was going to become less bitchy. Guess that was a lie.
They introduce a new Rei because the old one is still trapped in the EVA (maybe, they say she isn't but who the hell knows) and try and give her some sort of development. The thing is though why should we care? We got attached to the first Rei why the hell should we care about her clone?
The entire plot was crazy. They strap a bomb collar on Shinji's neck to stop him from ever using an EVA again. Yet Kaworu is able to simply take it off as if it's nothing. Then Kaworu PUTS THE COLLAR ON HIS OWN NECK! Why the hell would he do that? It makes no sense at all. Why not just throw the damn collar in the trash or something? Also clone Rei brings Shinji back to the old headquarters of Nerve because they need to pilot some special type of EVA that requires two pilots so it can use these double spears to become a god and start 4th impact. Kaworu doesn't know that thinking the two spears are different from one another when their actually clones of each other..or something. The sheer lack of explanation as to what's going on is baffling. It's just meaningless symbolism and talking about the plot...without explaining the plot.
God I could go on and on about the problems in this movie. Evangelion 2.0 was awesome and seemed like to building up to something unique and amazing, but 3.0 was just a complete let down. It feels like Anno thought he had to make the rebuild series even MORE confusing then the original, otherwise people wouldn't respect it or something.
Nothing made any sense in that movie. First they have a pointless timeskip. I call it pointless because most of the characters look the same except for Toji's sister and she's only in the movie for like 10 minutes and never seen again.
They say the reason Asuka and Mari still look like 14 year old's is because of the curse of the EVA. Piloting EVA's make you look immortal now? Why and how did this happen? It just comes out of nowhere.
Apparently world is almost completely ruined yet they still managed to find the resources to make a completely new EVA and a super powerful space ship made out of EVA 01.
Speaking of the new EVA, Mari literally has no purpose. In Evangelion 2.0 it was hinted she had some hidden agenda, but in this movie she's just an extra fighter who throws out one liners and has no real purpose other then be Asuka's side kick.
EVERYBODY in this movie acts completely irrational. Misato and her crew act hostile and mean to Shinji and don't explain the situation at all to him for some reason. Apparently Misato is mad that he nearly destroyed the world, even though she was freaking cheering him on during the last movie when he was going all berserk.
Asuka hates him for some reason. Which really isn't new for Asuka, but the last movie made it seem like Asuka was going to become less bitchy. Guess that was a lie.
They introduce a new Rei because the old one is still trapped in the EVA (maybe, they say she isn't but who the hell knows) and try and give her some sort of development. The thing is though why should we care? We got attached to the first Rei why the hell should we care about her clone?
The entire plot was crazy. They strap a bomb collar on Shinji's neck to stop him from ever using an EVA again. Yet Kaworu is able to simply take it off as if it's nothing. Then Kaworu PUTS THE COLLAR ON HIS OWN NECK! Why the hell would he do that? It makes no sense at all. Why not just throw the damn collar in the trash or something? Also clone Rei brings Shinji back to the old headquarters of Nerve because they need to pilot some special type of EVA that requires two pilots so it can use these double spears to become a god and start 4th impact. Kaworu doesn't know that thinking the two spears are different from one another when their actually clones of each other..or something. The sheer lack of explanation as to what's going on is baffling. It's just meaningless symbolism and talking about the plot...without explaining the plot.
God I could go on and on about the problems in this movie. Evangelion 2.0 was awesome and seemed like to building up to something unique and amazing, but 3.0 was just a complete let down. It feels like Anno thought he had to make the rebuild series even MORE confusing then the original, otherwise people wouldn't respect it or something.