• Zink@programming.dev
    11·
    7 days ago

    If you are a user of any mind altering substances, or have any interest in starting, it might be worth giving the movie or show another try in that state. Assuming your chosen goodies leave you coherent and able to form memories, lol.

    And it’s not just to put you in a good mood, though that certainly helps. Maybe it’s just the spicy neurons in my case, but being high can qualitatively change the experience of how I relate to characters. (not extreme like empathy on / empathy off, sometimes things might just land different)

    • ᴍᴜᴛɪʟᴀᴛɪᴏɴᴡᴀᴠᴇ @lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      5·
      6 days ago

      It’s easier to read the subtext and make connections, catch Easter eggs, etc. Although sometimes your brain is just making shit up.

      I got super stoned before I watched RoboCop 2 a few months ago, which I hadn’t seen before. Holy shit the satire is deeply baked into every scene. I was laughing more than I have in years.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    113·
    7 days ago

    You should watch 2001 A space Odyssey it is exactly like this.

    It is a historical documentary set in the early days of AI and Space Travel before SpaceX and ChatGPT, it’s kinda neet to see how far we’ve came in such a short time though.

  • trslim@pawb.social
    4·
    6 days ago

    Blade Runner for me. Great themes, great plot, great visuals and music, horrendously boring and plodding. 2049 was better imo.

    • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      14·
      6 days ago

      Wrong opinion. You can definitely enjoy 2049 more, but the better film is the first. I enjoy 2049 much more often, it is a very palatable movie that appeals to a greater, higher volume selling, family-friendlier audience than the original. It’s the lager vs a craft beer between the two, though.

    • Venat0r@lemmy.world
      2·
      4 days ago

      I think citizen Kane received a lot of praises for technical achievements such as using double exposures and being the first to do a lot of um… cinematic… cinematography. More interesting to watch someone talking about it than to watch the actual movie itself 😅

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      3·
      6 days ago

      As with everything, it all depends on what you find boring.

      There’s no action in Citizen Kane. There’s a small mystery who’s answer you may have seen in other media without knowing. Mostly it is a biography about a fictional character, complete with interviews with friends and enemies of said character (the titular Kane). You only actually get to see and know the character through flashbacks.

      It should be noted that the character is actually based partly on a real person.

      • redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 days ago

        For what it is worth, I found it thrilling as a snot nosed teen who watched it in class for some reason or another. It suffers a little from its reputation as “the greatest film ever made”, but, it remains a very good character drama. Interest in the history of film and filmmaking will also go a long way towards making the movie compelling.

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world
    3·
    6 days ago

    Harry Potter 6 for me. I could not get through this movie. I tried it about 5 times so far. Same with the book. I tried reading it at least 10 times including listening to it as an audiobook.

    It’s just insufferable.

    (And don’t worry, Rowling-haters, I of course pirated it except of the copy of the book that I got when I was a kid)

      • StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        6 days ago

        I would argue that yes, the first movie is fine art, it was literally genre defining and captured a large majority of youths minds when it was released

        Just because its technically a “kids movie” doesn’t make it not art

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 days ago

        I mean, fair, but I understood it as a “must watch” movie. Something that everyone needs to have seen kinda thing.

        And Harry Potter, I think, does fit that bill.

  • sachamato@lemmy.world
    32·
    7 days ago

    2001 a space odisey or most of Tarkovsky films (even though I love the concept and I do consider them as groundbreaking for their time)… I can’t stand them. I tried.

  • mr_noxx@lemmy.mlEnglish
    703·
    8 days ago

    It’s kind of weird, but I find that the higher a film is rated by film critics and websites, the less I tend to enjoy it.

    • Almacca@aussie.zoneEnglish
      2·
      7 days ago

      Film critics are like friends: you need to choose a few that share your taste, and stick with them. For me it’s Moviebob, Redletter Media and Patrick H Willems. They appreciate whacky shit as much as I do.

    • Broadfern@lemmy.worldEnglish
      593·
      8 days ago

      A lot of film critique industry is based upon fart-sniffing snobbery.

      It’s like a game of one-upsmanship on how much “meaning” you can invent derive from dull, self-important drudgery and the more masochistic your movie-watching experience, the more “refined” you are.

      Source: had to study media crit and industry a lot in school.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      32·
      8 days ago

      That’s why I find it important to look at both critic and user reviews. If they agree, they’re probably right. If they disagree things get interesting.

      If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring. If critics disliked it, but audiences liked it, it’s probably kinda bad but exciting.

      Both are also affected by social media, especially user scores, so if “the Internet” hates/loves something if can be unfairly inflated/deflated.

      New, but not brand new, films also usually have a more accurate score. I enjoyed The Godfather, so I would rate it positively, but if I didn’t like it I’m probably not rating it at all. I saw it X years ago and unless it was absolutely terrible or I have a vivid memory of disliking it, I’m just going to ignore it.

      • [object Object]@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 days ago

        If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring.

        Or it’s something fresh instead of the same junk that critics had seen hundreds of times (literally), whereas most of the public can’t be arsed with original but marginal concepts.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      20·
      8 days ago

      I imagine if all you do is watch films, you get tired of common stuff. You’ve seen it before. But if you only watch films sometimes, some of that is still interesting to you.

      Kind of like how some video game nerds will be only “only double soj 2x blan Blah is viable” but like other builds do fine for everything except some optional mega bosses

      • NannerBanner@literature.cafe
        2·
        8 days ago

        Full time critics must be weird to talk with for any length of time. I know my own work bleeds into my perceptions and interests, and can’t help but think that critics have their judging hats on for routine, everyday affairs. Imagine your partner sitting in the passenger seat, idly commenting on the lighting of a city park as you drive past (I don’t have to imagine, lol, because my partner does amateur film work as a side gig and he loves to talk about his cameras).

    • RaoulDuke25@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      5·
      8 days ago

      There’s a reason McDonald’s is popular.

      For me, I do enjoy a movie that’s deep or well written or has great cinematography, even if it’s a bit boring. I also like movies that have entertainment value. Both can exist.

      Only gripe I have is shitty popular movies prevent smaller indie movies from being shown at my small town theater.

  • RattlerSix@lemmy.worldEnglish
    44·
    8 days ago

    Anybody ever read the Godfather book? It’s… kinda weird. Every time a new character is introduced, it’s goes into their sexual history. Like, do we really need to know Rocko is an attentive lover with a string of girlfriends that he has no trouble keeping satisfied before he goes and kills some dude?

    And then there’s a part of the book that is about… How do I put this…

    a woman getting a pussy tightening surgery.

    It’s the bridesmaid that Sonny fucks in the closet at his sister’s wedding. She sought out Sonny, as did all the other women “with big mouths and wide hips” because he had a legendarily big cock and it was her only hope to get any pleasure, on account of her gigantic pussy and all.

    After he dies, she tried to commit suicide. Not because she cared for him, she just figures she’ll always be alone because no one else in the world will have a cock that will be adequate to work with her ginormous pussy.

    But much later in the book, she’s living at the family casino in Nevada, and her doctor boyfriend finally talks her into having sex and discovers her pussy is huge and convinces her that he knows a great plastic surgeon that can fix it. It walks through the consultation and surgery and everything. Not in explicit detail, but, like, it’s so weird.

    And there’s weird comments like (not a quote) “Don’t worry, doll. I do great work. I’ll fix you up so nice he’ll be calling me every day to thank me.” Shit like that.

    And it worked. After she has the surgery and they have sex, her doctor boyfriend immediately proposes to her.

    So, anyway, yeah… I don’t know why they left the great pussy tightening subplot out of the movies.

    • Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      21·
      8 days ago

      do we really need to know Rocko is an attentive lover with a string of girlfriends that he has no trouble keeping satisfied

      How else are we supposed to relate to that character?

    • archonet@lemy.lolEnglish
      13·
      8 days ago

      So, anyway, yeah… I don’t know why they left the great pussy tightening subplot out of the movies.

      well you know, I’m beginning to think this Coppola fellow simply didn’t know true art when he saw it, after reading all that. That could’ve been a wonderfully surreal addition to spice up the trilogy.

        • Nalivai@lemmy.world
          3·
          8 days ago

          This time focusing exclusively on this character and her pussy struggles. Everything else should be mentioned in the background in passing. It should be four and a half hours, third of which is black and white for no reason.

    • rainwall@piefed.socialEnglish
      122·
      8 days ago

      Please, dont ever read Stephen kings IT.

      Its…deeply fucked up. It includes a child group sex act that happens right before they confront IT directly, which empowers them to defeat it.

      The context is more complicated than the above and is partly about a girl addressing being sexually abused by her father and partly about leaving adolesence for adulthood, but it is…a lot.

      Like most his books back then, the byline should have said “Cocaine, with Stephen king.”

        • Yeather@lemmy.ca
          1·
          7 days ago

          They fight It, end up in the sewer, realize if they lose their innocence It will lose interest in them, run the train, flashforward.

          At least that’s what I remember from when I read the book without knowledge of that scene.

      • Grass@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        8 days ago

        That reminds me there was one of his books I read for an elementary school book report just because I had heard he was a famous author and it had something about an underage girl being raped and detailing what injuries it caused or something, it’s been a long fucking time so specifics may be off. I feel like there may have been some significance in a wheat field… I do remember also recalling it again in high school when we were made to read oryx and crake, and the other students were grossed out about the narrating character’s recollections of watching csam material together withh crake, of a girl that may or may not have been oryx in the past.

        I was thinking back then something like Atwood couldn’t hurt me after Stephen king scarred me but pigoons, chicky knobs, and most of all the narrators other obsession of Alex the parrot’s final video somehow really got to me and still bother me to this day.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      3·
      8 days ago

      Yeah it’s been a long time since I read it but I remember the giant pussy storyline. Seems weird now that you point it out.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      7 days ago

      From Here to Eternity is like that. The book is truly a great piece of literature, but the movie (made in the 1950s) excises pretty much everything worthwhile in the book. Just as one example, the book has a character who can’t get any contact with women in pre-war Hawaii so he starts getting blowjobs from gay men in parks. Eventually he builds up so much guilt from this that he shoots himself in the head in the barracks. I can’t remember whether the character was even in the movie but obviously no hint of those activities show up. There’s also the main character taking up with a prostitute who is magically not a prostitute at all in the movie.

      The book has so much stuff like this in it that I can’t understand why they even tried to make a movie out of it in 1953.