Top-10 Movie Disappointments

[rough cut 1,714]

This thread is bonkers.

 

I understand the mention of mediocre films such as The Last Jedi/The Rise Of Skywalker, or any of your average blockbuster franchise really. And I guess you can include any movie that is heavily awarded as well by. Either way, they’re bound to disappoint some people due to the hype surrounding them.

 

A conciliation is that the inclusion of some obviously great movies (some genuine classics) says more about the member than it does about the movies they pick.

[Chen G. 3,953]

4 minutes ago, rough cut said:

A conciliation is that the inclusion of some obviously great movies (some genuine classics) says more about the member than it does about the movies they pick.

 

I don't see what this means.

 

Newsflash: movies exists for the audience, not vice versa. The reality of the movie - any movie - is the reality of the individual watching it. Whether its objectivelly "great" or "classic" is entirely rhetorical when one doesn't feel one had got something out of watching it.

[rough cut 1,714]

Let’s be honest. Taste is subjective. But there’s also a point where - if you argue against consensus - the only thing that can be achieved is revealing your own ignorance.

 

Let’s compare to the world of literature just to explain. I can recommend Dostoevsky to someone, but if that person isn’t primed to read it, he will probably be very disappointed in spite of the author being one of the most celebrated writers in the history of mankind.

 

If he then says he were disappointed by Crime and Punishment doesn’t really mean anything - except that there’s something there that he didn’t grasp.

[Chen G. 3,953]

4 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Taste is subjective.

 

Yes, but its the only thing that actually matters.

 

The test of any film to any individual watching is and can only be "What did I get out of watching this?"

 

[rough cut 1,714]

 

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Yes, but its the only thing that actually matters.

 

LOL

 

We should respect each other’s opinion but this statement is incredibly naive.

[Brónach 1,302]

19 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I don't see what this means.

 

Newsflash: movies exists for the audience, not vice versa. The reality of the movie - any movie - is the reality of the individual watching it. Whether its objectivelly "great" or "classic" is entirely rhetorical when one doesn't feel one had got something out of watching it.

 

I feel this when people talk about the "genius of composers". I think either your heart likes it, your brain likes the skill, or both, or none...

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

1 hour ago, rough cut said:

This thread is bonkers.
 
I understand the mention of mediocre films such as The Last Jedi/The Rise Of Skywalker, or any of your average blockbuster franchise really. And I guess you can include any movie that is heavily awarded as well by. Either way, they’re bound to disappoint some people due to the hype surrounding them.

 

A conciliation is that the inclusion of some obviously great movies (some genuine classics) says more about the member than it does about the movies they pick.

 

Tell me you don't understand the point of the thread without telling me you don't understand the point of the thread.

 

Consensus: You don't understand the point of the thread.

[rough cut 1,714]

[Naïve Old Fart 9,556]

I can see that we have a long way to go.

If there is to be a brave new world of film appreciation, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

[Edmilson 7,474]

1 hour ago, rough cut said:

Let’s be honest. Taste is subjective. But there’s also a point where - if you argue against consensus - the only thing that can be achieved is revealing your own ignorance.

 

So what you're saying is that either I like what you like, or otherwise I'm an idiot and therefore must be called "an ignorant" and be taught by such an enlightened being like you. Isn't that an incredibly fascist way of thinking?

[rough cut 1,714]

I am talking about general public opinion. Do you even know what facism means? It’s the exact opposite…

That, maybe, if you are disappointed in what is generally considered “a classic”, maybe take a moment to review. If anything, I am encouraging to seek out opposing views and understanding them.

 

But this thread is a parody when crying about Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park.

 

Both myself - and others - have pointed out that being “disappointed” in this thread is not about quality, but rather expectations. And the absurdity of having as good as every movie in here.

 

Facism. Please. Get a dictionary and then come back when you have something of value to say.

 

23 hours ago, rough cut said:

But then again, from what I glean of the posts in this thread, disappointment is relative to expectation - not quality.

 

I guess it is as they say:

 

 

3 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Disappointment is not necessarily a measure for a film's quality. It just means, you had higher expectations that were not fulfilled by the movie. So, it can be that a bad film does not disappoint you because you knew it in advance and expected nothing from it and another good film that you expected to be fantastic and lift you off your seat didn't meet your expecatations, so you were disappointed.

 

 

2 hours ago, Indianagirl said:

Most disappointed??? The last ten to fifteen years of cinema going? 

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

16 hours ago, rough cut said:

Let’s compare to the world of literature just to explain. I can recommend Dostoevsky to someone, but if that person isn’t primed to read it, he will probably be very disappointed in spite of the author being one of the most celebrated writers in the history of mankind.

 

If he then says he were disappointed by Crime and Punishment doesn’t really mean anything - except that there’s something there that he didn’t grasp.

 

LOL. Given that you didn’t even read this thread (or if you did read it, didn’t understand it), something tells me you haven’t actually read Dostoevsky.

 

BTW, Tolstoy, another Russian writer, hated Shakespeare. Consensus is, old Billy Shakes was a pretty good writer himself. So what is it that you think Leo didn’t “grasp” about the Upstart Crow? Rumour has it Tolkien wasn't the biggest fan either. Apparently he was disappointed with Mackers (something about trees).

 

No one needs you to "explain" to them. You're embarrassing yourself...I'd quit while you're behind. Either way, stop derailing what was a pretty nice thread.

[Chen G. 3,953]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Tolstoy, another Russian writer you haven’t read, hated Shakespeare.

 

My god, is art history full of this! Berlioz hated Tristan (but loved Lohengrin). TS Elliot said Titus Andronicus (which, to be fair, is an outlier in the Shakespeare canon) was "idiotic." Ebert was so-so and Siskel was vociferously negative on Silence of the Lambs. Scorsese liked Exorcist II better than the original. etc...

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

Yeah...the idea that being against consensus somehow invalidates an opinion on art is pretty soporific. De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Edmilson 7,474]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

My god, is art history full of this! Berlioz hated Tristan (but loved Lohengrin). TS Elliot said Titus Andronicus (which, to be fair, is an outlier in the Shakespeare canon was "idiotic." Ebert was so-so and Siskel was vociferously negative on Silence of the Lambs. Scorsese liked Exorcist II better than the original. etc...

That's without even mentioning Pauline Kael, who wrote negative reviews to some of the biggest classics ever produced.

 

21 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Facism. Please. Get a dictionary and then come back when you have something of value to say.

 

I think it's you who should get a dictionary since you don't even know how to write fascism correctly. 

[rough cut 1,714]

 

19 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

LOL. Given that you didn’t even read this thread (or if you did read it, didn’t understand it), something tells me you haven’t actually read Dostoevsky.

 

BTW, Tolstoy, another Russian writer you haven’t read, hated Shakespeare. Consensus is, old Billy Shakes was a pretty good writer. So what is it that you think Leo didn’t “grasp” about the Upstart Crow?

 

You're embarassing yourself. I'd quite while you're behind.

What a sad response. Again with the very weird arguments. FYI - I’ve actually read those authors. Not that it matters, my point is valid nonetheless.

So sad that a few people here on JWfan when met with intelligent conversation - instead of engaging - resorts to crying “fascism” and belittling comments.

 

You want me to stop because I hit a nerve? Does it hurt?

 

Note: Regarding spelling, I was autocorrected to my native language in my previous post. As if that makes any of what I’ve said less true. What a weird way to respond.

 

Has either of you really nothing better to say?

 

OK then, I’ll let you two geniuses go watch something that consensus says genuinely good, say The Godfather, so you can come back here later and cry about how disappointing it was.

[Chen G. 3,953]

On 28/05/2023 at 5:04 PM, rough cut said:

I’ll let you two geniuses go watch something that consensus says genuinely good, say The Godfather, so you can come back here later and cry about how disappointing it was.

 

Yeah, little Jewish boy here: I don't like either of The Godfather sequels. Actually, with the exception of the original The Godfather, which I'm by no means going to vax lyrical about either, I don't like crime dramas in general. Goodfellas? Once Upon a Time in America? The Sopranos? The Irishman? Nope. No thank you, sir. Not for this guy. Does nothing for me: Not. A. Thing. At. All. In fact, I spend most of the time counting the minutes until these main characters get a bullet through their noggin'. Totally antiseptic.

 

There are lots of characters in literature and drama that make terrible, decidedly amoral choices: We spoke earlier about Lawrence who ends-up commanding a huge massacre, for example. William Wallace in Braveheart executes people on the spot left and right. And what about Othello? Or Wotan? Or Willard in Apocalypse Now, for that matter? But in all those cases they do so under much greater duress and are placed in much more profound dilemmata than any character in any crime drama I've ever seen, which is exactly what serves to involve the audience where - to my mind - crime dramas serve to keep the audience at an arm's length, merely watching the plot mechanics unfold.

 

There.

[rough cut 1,714]

Listen, I’ve never said that criticism is or should be forbidden.

 

Nor have I said that there should be works of art that should be exempt of criticism.

 

Nor that everyone has to like the same thing.

 

Just pointing out the absurdity that there are a lot of classics on these pages and putting an argument behind it.

[Chen G. 3,953]

2 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Just pointing out the absurdity that there are a lot of classics on these pages and putting an argument behind it.

 

I really want to see you even start making the argument that somebody actually enjoyed a film that they said they didn't... or didn't enjoy a film that they say they did...

[Schilkeman 964]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Yes, but its the only thing that actually matters.

 

The test of any film to any individual watching is and can only be "What did I get out of watching this?"

This is some death of the author nonsense I cannot abide. Relatability is an act of empathy. To say, "only my viewpoint matters," is to ignore the cultural, historical, and personal life experience of any artist who has taken time out of their life to share a part of themselves with you. Taste is a learned skill.

 

If, after doing the work to understand something, it still isn't to your liking, that's a different story. But to dismiss something out of hand because it doesn't immediately speak to you is adolescent bosh.

[Chen G. 3,953]

2 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

This is some death of the author nonsense I cannot abide.

 

That's not "death of the author" at all.

 

Its a simple fact: you can't even begin to make the argument to someone that they liked a movie that they say they didn't, or vice versa. And ultimately, the film exists for the audience's enjoyment, the audiences doesn't exist to appraise the film.

 

That's not to say one's tastes in film can't evolve, or to nullify the importance of people of different tastes discussing and exchanging opinions about art. But ultimately, it all comes down to taste because its ultimately you who has to sit down and watch the film.

[rough cut 1,714]

 

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 I really want to see you even start making the argument that somebody actually enjoyed a film that they said they didn't... or didn't enjoy a film that they say they did...

 

I’m not trying to make that statement. That isn’t the point I’m trying to make.

 

And I get your perspective that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.

 

But there is also an objective perspective.

 

For example, if you look up “top ten architectural masterpieces”, and then come across a conversation where those same buildings are described as disappointments, you’d have a think. Of course, opinions matter, but it all has to be in perspective.

[Chen G. 3,953]

7 minutes ago, rough cut said:

But there is also an objective perspective.

 

I'm not necessarily arguing that there isn't.* What I'm saying is that ultimately, the film is to every individual what that individual makes of it; and that, to that individual, their own enjoyment (or lack thereof) is what ultimately matters, rather than paying respect to some "objective" point of view, which is outside themselves.

 

Or look at it another way: if you argue with someone who doesn't like a film that its actually very good. You may construe all sorts of reason why they're "wrong." And they may indeed be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't like it.

 

* I do have a caveat regarding "objective" discussions of merit in cinema, which is that because we can't always agree on a list of objective "criteria" it often reduces film criticism to "is the film internally consistent?" which to my mind is an incredibly reductive way to appreciate art.

[Schilkeman 964]

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

you can't even begin to make the argument to someone that they liked a movie that they say they didn't

Understand is not the same as like. And what you said before is the textbook definition of death of author.

 

"the primacy of each individual reader's interpretation of the work over any "definitive" meaning intended by the author." 

 

It treats art as a one-way street, and it is as tiresome to argue with as it is insidious to the world of criticism. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,556]

Come back Mattris, all is forgiven 

[Chen G. 3,953]

10 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

"the primacy of each individual reader's interpretation of the work over any "definitive" meaning intended by the author." 

 

That's to do with interpertation moreso than enjoyment,* I would say. Surely, nobody - including (actually, ESPECIALLY) the author - can't tell you how much you're "supposed" to like or dislike a work of art!?

 

* Enjoyment isn't exactly the right word here because it connotates "fun." You'd be hard-pressed to call Oedipus Rex "enjoyable", as such. The best way to phrase it is that the lithmus test of any work of art is the in answering: "What did I get out of watching this?"

[rough cut 1,714]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I'm not necessarily arguing that there isn't.* What I'm saying is that ultimately, the film is to every individual what that individual makes of it.

 

* I do have a caveat regarding "objective" discussions of merit in cinema, which is that because we can't always agree on a list of objective "criteria" it often reduces film criticism to "is the film internally consistent?" which to my mind is an incredibly reductive way to appreciate art.

 

Yes, I get that. We agree.

 

But at the same time, I can watch Sex In The City with my wife and - even though it’s not meant for me and I’m sometimes bored out of my mind - understand that it’s a fantastic TV-show. Different strokes for different folkes.

 

But I still have some kind of understanding of the “consensus”.

[Chen G. 3,953]

12 minutes ago, rough cut said:

I can watch Sex In The City with my wife and - even though it’s not meant for me and I’m sometimes bored out of my mind - understand that it’s a fantastic TV-show.

 

If you're bored out of your mind, surely that's all that matters? I mean, you're literally not enjoying it! You're sitting down for it for other reasons, and that's okay, but you've just admitted you don't enjoy it onto itself.

 

Obviously, most of the time is a little bit more complicated than that, because we can like parts of a work of art and not like other parts of the same work. But ultimately we all make some sort of verdict for ourselves.

[rough cut 1,714]

The point is - even though I am bored at times watching the show, do I still see that the plot/characters/drama are masterpieces within their genre?

 

Yes!

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

@Naïve Old Fart's thread is supposed to be about films that disappoint us, no matter the critical consensus.  An opinion isn't invalid because it's not popular.
 

[HunterTech 994]

3 hours ago, Indianagirl said:

Most disappointed??? The last ten to fifteen years of cinema going? 

 

It might just be the gen Z in me, but I figure someone must be doing something right if I was able to make a top 10 list on the films that I enjoyed the previous year (let alone watched at all). That is more than I can say for much of the latter half of the 2010s.

 

Are the blockbusters of today that deprived in humanity to make us think filmmaking as a whole has suffered lately?

[rough cut 1,714]

@Nick1Ø66 It’s funny, because nowhere, in any of my posts, do I “declare some of those opinions invalid because they're not popular”.

 

Sad you weren’t able to be more eloquent before. I seen the have had a good conversation with @Chen G. at least, even if we don’t agree with each other 100 %.

 

So stop pretending as if you’ve no part in taking “a crap” in this thread.

 

15 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

I figure someone must be doing something right if I was able to make a top 10 list on the films that I enjoyed the previous year

 

Yup.

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

23 minutes ago, rough cut said:

It’s funny, because nowhere, in any of my posts, do I “declare some of those opinions invalid because they're not popular”.

 

Ahem...

 

3 hours ago, rough cut said:

if you argue against consensus - the only thing that can be achieved is revealing your own ignorance.

 

2 hours ago, rough cut said:

 

I am talking about general public opinion.

 

 

Is it still funny?

 

 

[Edmilson 7,474]

15 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

It might just be the gen Z in me, but I figure someone must be doing something right if I was able to make a top 10 list on the films that I enjoyed the previous year (let alone watched at all). That is more than I can say for much of the latter half of the 2010s.

 

I couldn't disagree more. From 2012 or 13 until about 2019 there were several movies that were worth the trip to the movie theater, while in 2021/22/23 I find less and less reasons to go watch something. I'm really not a fan of most post-pandemic Hollywood movies.

 

From this year I really enjoyed John Wick 4 at the theaters and I'm more or less excited for Spiderverse 2, The Flash (what can I say, I'm a huge DC Comics fan) and maybe Indy (despite the less than glowing reviews). I hope they're good because I used to enjoy going to the theaters almost every week before the pandemic.

 

Still, I won't call you an ignorant for having a different opinion than mine 

[HunterTech 994]

It's probably important to clarify that admittedly my travel options were much more limited in the previous years, so that perception of mine comes from me actually being able to go to the theater fairly regularly these days. Bus travel simply rocks .

 

Adding onto that is that I do ultimately watch more classics when I go than I do new releases, since being in LA makes it very easy to catch those sorts of screenings regularly. So really, I don't think I actually have much authority to speak on the matter if I end up being this selective to begin with :P.

[mstrox 6,651]

I think, if anything, going into a movie that is widely considered “a classic” is just begging to create disappointment, even if you like the movie pretty well.

[HunterTech 994]

You would think, yet I think it says a lot if my only real disappointment out of the ones I had no real familiarity with was a movie I still had plenty of fun with.

 

Then again, I'm sure Return of the Jedi wouldn't have appealed to me as much as it did if it didn't have the reputation of being a touch below its predecessors .

[rough cut 1,714]

On 28/05/2023 at 6:39 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Is it still funny?

Actually yes, since you choose not to quote my entire statement.

 

On 28/05/2023 at 3:14 PM, rough cut said:

Taste is subjective. But there’s also a point where - if you argue against consensus - the only thing that can be achieved is revealing your own ignorance.

 

Is this really such an abstract concept?

 

Yes, your opinion is your own, but that doesn’t make it right.
 

But instead of actually answering - or reasoning - you resort to calling names, misquoting and making cheap jokes.

 

To me, that’s signs that you have run out of valid arguments.

 

Have a conversation next time, or just be quiet, please.

[HunterTech 994]

It's ignorant to go against the grain? That feels like an easy statement to abuse without much context. Especially on the topic of movies, since I would think JWFan has fostered a robust enough environment for anything to go as far as our perceptions of media is concerned.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

8 hours ago, rough cut said:

Yes, your opinion is your own, but that doesn’t make it right.

That’s what you don’t get. There are no "right" or "wrong" opinions. There are just opinions.

 

No need to reply.

[rough cut 1,714]

And I’m trying to say that the two concepts - individual opinion and consensus - aren’t mutually exclusive.

 

Agreed, nothing more to say, not a minute too soon.

[Bellosh 3,419]

ok but we can all agree that The Thin Red Line has too many actors right?

[Corellian2019 386]

48 minutes ago, Bellosh said:

ok but we can all agree that The Thin Red Line has too many actors right?

 

And too much voiceover

[Edmilson 7,474]

Wonderful Zimmer score though. One of his finest works. 

[Bellosh 3,419]

Ya his score is wonderful for it I will say

[A24 4,347]

6 hours ago, mstrox said:

I think, if anything, going into a movie that is widely considered “a classic” is just begging to create disappointment, even if you like the movie pretty well.

 

Masterpiece, sure, but a classic? Roaming the internet it seems that every movie older than 10 years is a classic. The word has become meaningless to me.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

6 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Wonderful Zimmer score though. One of his finest works. 

Too many notes.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,556]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Too many notes.

With Zimmer, it's usually the other way around.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Dunkirk

I was so enthralled with my experience with Interstellar, that I went in with high expectations and found it all quite dull and boring.

 

The Northman

Similar situation due to my experience with The Lighthouse. I still enjoyed this one quite a bit, but it just wasn’t very memorable.

 

To The Wonder

Malick could do no wrong before this one. Though I still kinda feel that way, this one clearly isn’t of the same caliber as the rest of his filmography. It even put me off of seeing Knight Of Cups and Song To Song. 

Hugo / The Wolf Of Wall Street

Hugo was such a giant misstep for Scorsese, in my opinion. 3D was taking off because of Avatar and it seemed like every director wanted to jump on the bandwagon. I thought his follow-up would be a return to form, but I find it extremely overrated. 
 

The Book Of Eli

The trailer looked really cool. I loved the cinematography and the premise. Gary Oldman as a villain. Tom Waits. Turned out to be a Jesus propaganda film.