1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Why can't it be both? Too many people think that nuanced movies can't be fun. It's even dumber when they think a movie must not be nuanced just because it is fun. (Like anyone who talks about super hero movies like the entire genre is one bad movie.)
Context is key. Depends on what the movie is trying to be
I still think the best ones are the ones that aim for one side of the scale, but end up on the other while still being good movies.
thats horrifying, how do i get them out?
I'm the first when watching an american political movie, i'm the second when watching a dumb horror movie.
It's all about intent.
If a film is trying to be a pseudo-intellectual fuck-fest and fails to do so it should be called out on it. Shutter Island I think tries it and fails. It's like Scorsese saw Memento, thought "I can do that", but he couldn't.
If a film is just dumb fun like M3GAN, then that's OK. More than fine. The worst thing you can do there is be boring. Michael Bay made robots fighting boring. Colin Trevorrow made dinosaurs boring. If you're going to be dumb then at least be fun.
Hell, even Tron Ares is OK if you go into it expecting a two hour long music video. If you go into it expecting good acting, a script, a story, or anything other than Trent Reznor assaulting your eardrums to a light show, you're going to be disappointed.
Yes thank you, that's what I have tried to explain to so many people. It's all about intent.
I love your use of Shutter Island as an exemple of a movie that tried too hard to be smart and mindbinding (even though I am usually a Scorsese fanboy). I felt a similar way about Inception. In comparison, Coherence surpassed both those movies in that regard with a budget of only 50k$.
However, in a completely different line, I loved John Wick because it was just about a guy going all berzerk at people that killed his dog. It was not trying to do anything else than being about people shooting at each other, but it was directed so well that I was hooked from the get-go.
You know what film failed to challenge even a second grade understanding of anything? Blues Brothers. You know what film really nails being two solid hours of entertainment? Blues Brothers.
At no point in either movie do you ever wonder what is going to happen to the protagonist, how they're going to get out of a predicament, or think about the world we live in. Even if you wanted to, you wouldn't, because you're jamming out to Aretha Franklin absolutely killing it.
I love dark introspective movies with layers of nuance that make me stare in to infinity for a while had thinking about what I saw. I also love dumb fun entertainment. There's a wide gap between those two extremes where quality just falls in to a mediocre valley of boring. And right at the middle there's another peak where truly rare films manage to strike a balance between stupid fun and introspective. It's like horseshoes, close counts because you almost never hit the peg. Mandy comes to mind. So does the first Iron Man.
Incorporating both is the better perspective. Don’t let examining media critically stop you from liking what you like.
The same goes the other way around: don't let your enjoyment of something stop you from examining it critically, or, worse, (try to) stop others from doing so - which happens quite often, unfortunately.
The number of times I have expressed criticism at movies and people were lashing out at me for pointing out those shortcomings. I never said I did not like the movie, just that it was not a masterpiece. For some people a movie is either good or bad, and if you point out some criticism, then you did not like it and you are wrong for it.
Being critical of a film is actually just having a critical opinion about it.
Sharing that opinion with others is something else: a way of deriving personal enjoyment or satisfaction from one's critical position through sharing it with others.
As with everything else that requires multiple people, somebody deriving their enjoyment of something through others is absolutelly fine if said others are also doing so or at least if don't really care either way, but not fine if one is negativelly affecting the enjoyment of others to get some enjoyment oneself.
So if you're critical of something whilst somebody else is not and indulge your need to "share it with them right then and there" in a way that impedes their own enjoyment, then you're being selfish and if you have even the slightest shred of consideration for others you should at the very least shut up until after they are done with their own enjoyment.
(That said, an after-film discussion between two people with opposite opinions about good it was can be thoroughly enjoyable for both. Ultimatelly it depends on the people involved)
Had a friend say this exact thing recently, completely baffled me. I didn't like the movie we watched and was pointing things out, he was agreeing with most of it until he said something like: "yeah but overall I enjoyed the movie so I shouldn't complain about it."
I used to be a huge turd for years thinking "these plebians liking will Farrell movies are so dumb, it's a horrible movie with no plot".
Turns out you can enjoy two different things completely fine in life. I was just being an arrogant fuckwit
Edit: I confused Farrell with Ferrell, sorry. In Bruges is one of my all time favs, lol.
Original: I still find all the roles he plays completely insufferable. If I stumble upon a movie and find out he is in it, he probably has non-negligible screen time, and that's almost a no for the movie.
It's perfectly possible to enjoy chewing gum for the brain even though one gets no nutritional value from it.
you sound like a menace to polite Christian society, sir.
Your gum chewing shall corrupt the children and women, and lead weak men astray.
I apply both of these to all movies in tandem. A movie can be both "enjoyable to watch" and "having artistic merit" to varying degrees.
I really dislike when critics and audiences are unable to separate them. There are real, professional critics who seem to only judge movies by how much they enjoyed them, and I think that's fucked because they laud a lot of "bad" movies. Then there's others who seem to care exclusively about the perceived level of artistry - and usually they only like movies with a narrow range of themes and tones.
I love all the movies
I sit there with my Film & TV degree in my hand and smile and go "Oh my gosh, good job! Making movies is hard, don't I know, but you did so well! And making mistakes is ok too!"
EDIT: Gotta admit, I do hate a poorly scripted $200-million superhero movie though, cause those are just soulless cash grabs. Anything else is great though. As long as it's from the heart, I love it.
I recently watched a movie that was absolutely excellent, a masterclass in telling a story without having an overt plot and use of symbolism and behavioral patterns and changes to depict a deeply human situation. Did I have fun? No, it was uncomfortable as hell as it's the story of a relationship in which both parties are bad for each other with one pushing for more and more and the other increasingly pulling back and not into it. It reminded me of many of my worst insecurities and my worst relationships, especially those with people with bpd that wasn't under control.
Movie is the Duke of Burgundy if anyone is interested, cw bugs and bdsm.
And I think it's worth comparing it to another movie recently shown to me by the same friend: Tokyo Godfathers. It's a fun and artistically valuable movie, and while it's often uncomfortable, it has points to its discomfort whether in the form of social commentary or to enable the characters to grow. I don't think I've ever seen a better depiction of the type of homeless people who are neither transiently homeless nor severely mentally ill. It's also an interesting insight into Christianity and Christian symbolism in Japanese culture. It's ultimately about how even fuck ups who've crashed out of society have goodness in them. And it manages to be fun and exciting the entire time. I highly recommend it
is your friend single and hot?
Idk how she manages the time and energy for the number of partners she already has
oh, so she's poly?
I'm gonna need you to take about 20% off there squirrely dan
Depends what the movie was trying to accomplish.
Gourmet vs Gourmand
Life's better when you can enjoy complex things for their complexity and simple things for their simplicity =)
Bingo. I always try to think "What is it trying to be and can I take enjoyment from that?"
I'll even enjoy a "bad" movie if it seems like everyone involved was having a blast making it. I just shift my perspective to "What if this were my friends from highschool showing me a movie they made?" and I end up being a lot less judgy.
Life's too short to be too picky to be entertained.
All the positive reviews have a suspiciously similar, gushing writing style.
Hmm.
I mean, not a single other current movie/show on their front page has 99% audience score.
Even if Melanoma was secretly good and "the critics were trying to bury it" they would be suspicious.
It'll be a shit load of bots, and then the same reactionary people that make everything politically partisan and mass review bomb anything "woke"
People that didn't see it and don't care about "how well it does" won't review it at all, so there's no counter votes because... Literally no one seeing it.
Russian and Israeli bots
It depends entirely on the movie.
Like one of my all time favourite movies is Pacific Rim, because it's goal is simply to be a bad ass and fun movie where robots fight giant monsters and it succeeds at that incredible.
It doesn't pretend there's some big important ehtic dilemma or it's characters are particularly deep or go through big arcs, but it doesn't ignore any of that either, it gives just another character to make the film work and be good without distracting from the robots.
But then on the other hand a film like good will hunting has no giant monsters but has a great character arc that is the driving force of the movie and is also good.
As I said of Pacific Rim in another comment:
A giant robot hits a giant monster with a boat, it doesn't get better than that!
But then another personal favorite of mine is 12 Angry Men. Black & white, most of the movie takes place in a single room, but still fantastic
Totally agree but I don't find stupid movies 'fun'.
There are movies that are purposefully wacky, nonsensical, not scientific or just silly and I can't enjoy them. Snowpiercer is a great example. This movie made 0 sense but it wasn't trying to be a proper sci-fi. I was about the message and it was nicely delivered.
Then you have movies that are trying to be smart and failing badly like for example Interstellar. It's a "smart" movie for not so smart people. I hate those.
And then you have purely stupid movies like all the Marverls, fast and furious and so on. Nothing makes sense but everyone pretends it does. If you are able to turn off thinking for couple hours and enjoy it - good for you. I can't.
Honestly, I like Interstellar for its depictions of the failings of humans, more than for its depictions of scientific ideas.
But maybe that's because I am already more science-minded and expect mainstream movie science to be garbage.
Neither perspective is good if they are to be applied generalized. There are flawed movies I enjoy, there are supposedly perfect movies I don't enjoy. There are movies I enjoy because they challenge me and movies I don't enjoy because they don't. There are a lot of movies that I've already seen even on a first watch (looking at you, Marvel after Phase III) and dislike because of that and there are movies I watch because I've seen them before.
Often (not always, remember we try not to generalize) it comes down to what is expected, what is delivered and when there is something delivered you didn't expect, how well was the twist executed.
Having craftsmanship be a factor in one's rating of a movie is equally valid as how much you enjoyed it, as may be individual factors like historical plausibility, scientific accuracy or fidelity to the source material, if those things apply.
That's why I prefer to talk about movies instead of assign numerical ratings.
One thought I'd like to add is, not all art is meant to be "enjoyed", and there's value in art that invokes unpleasant, even painful experiences.
In a way, it's the opposite of the meme, something that can be worthwhile yet painful if it "lands", and boring/tedious and bland otherwise. Though I also know some songs that cover bleak topics that hit me personally, but are also absolute bangers, so those aren't mutually exclusive either.
I think people should rate things consistently, and both of those criteria in the post are fairly subjective. Like, they could both vary based on your mood.
Here's my 3-star rating system, which is less subjective:
*** I would happily watch this movie again, or I have already enjoyed it multiple times.
** It wasn't bad, but I don't see myself watching it again.
* I would refuse to watch this again, or I turned it off because I couldn't watch it once.
Of course, it's not perfect. Movies like Dear Zachary would be forced to be 2 stars. But for the most part, since star reviews are to help people decide what to watch, if the criteria is whether or not people would want to watch it a lot, I think the intentions line up with the implementation better.
i think a film's quality is multidimensional and shouldn't be reduced to a single number.
so i literally don't rate films unless all aspects of it are consistently good or bad.
I'm going to be honest, the number one way to get a good rating from me is to put a giant monster in your movie and have it fight other giant monsters OR a giant robot.
My number one complaint about movies with kaiju and/or mecha, which can prevent them from getting five stars, is that there are usually too many scenes with people talking and advancing the plot, and not enough scenes of wanton destruction where the kaiju/mecha are brawling.
These are unironically my two simultaneous reactions to Marty Supreme