"Why are trilogies hard to pull off?" or "Why haven't we got a good movie based on a video game yet?" are interesting subjects i would love to hear one day.
because it's hard to get something fresh from the same idea more than 2 times and people cut the money and time when they want quick sequel that's subjective... I liked prince of persia a lot actually
+Qualquer gamer Yeah i can see that and I'll admit Prince of Persia was ok but it didn't left an impact. I feel video game movies are taking the same path comic book movies did back in the day. It took years to get a well made superhero movies like we have today.
When you say “so bad it’s good” what people really mean is “so bad it’s enjoyable.” So you shouldn’t try to find “so good it’s bad” but rather “so good it’s boring” which is basically most of the best drama or good Oscar bait movies
Agreed. Which is why I, Tonya the move itself didn’t get nominated for an Oscar. Yeah the actors did but the movie was too different than typical biopics to be considered Oscar worthy even though I felt it was Oscar worthy. We just need a new academy. There are too many old stuffy people on the academy. I know there’s been some changes but still.
Lina J.Walker or just get rid of the “for your consideration gifts”. Moonlight, was almost guaranteed to lose its Oscar, until they had a multi-million dollar donation for the *Bribes* to academy voters. That would have been a travesty, equal to Crash winning, on a reported $10mil budget for “gifts”.
Jubilee Gabriel Mateo YES. That sounds like Frozen, actually. Good music, good animation, and good characters, yet people played Let it Go so much that most people hate it now.
Other answer: The typical stereotype about indie movies.Some of them seem to have very good direction and acting, but in the end can see pretendious and, most important, boring.
a meal can be delicious and make you sick later. a movie can be super good but you never feel like you want to re-watch it, which is kind of bad i guess.
I watched big hero six and thought it was good but than had to re watch it in class for a substitute, and realized it was shit and has no replay value, big problem in mystery movies
I know its a sitcom, but i feel like that with friends, it was SOO great the first time i watched it, but after i watched all of the seasons it became so bland and boring it was almost unbearable. That 70's show, on the other hand...
That isn’t bad. When a movie was made to make you feel something you don’t want to feel again the movie did its job. I had that with irreversible and enter the void. I’m glad I experienced it but I do not want to see them again.
I think maybe what you're talking about here isn't "so good it's bad". It sounds more like the opposite of a 'guilty pleasure'. A guilty pleasure movie one where you know it's bad, but you like it anyway. In this case, you have movies that you know are good, but you don't like them anyway. Innocent displeasure?
+NostalgiNorden that's not really what people mean when they say the term, at least, not most of the time. Most of the time people mean that they like something that they know is actually bad, but for some reason they like it anyways.
I took a lot of Oscar bait movies are like this. They focus so much on being "good movies" to awards voters, critics, etc. that they lose what makes film engaging to regular people.
To be fair those arent really good movies, they're just pandering to a very small, very vocal demographic. Usually when a movie panders to a small demographic nobody really calls it a good or a great movie but when the people who _give_ that movie its rating are the ones being pandered to then thats when a bad movie will get a good rating. It doesnt help that alot of Oscar bait movies focus on some sort of previously discriminated minority in them, usually it's a Holocaust movie, a slavery movie, or a gay romance movie, so if anyone trashes the movie then they get labeled as a racist or a homophobe or something like that.
MC Wyman sooooo, every film must have explosions, extreme or bad CGI, action, physics defining stunts, juvenile plots and cheesy dialogues? Yeah, no thanks. I may not be a fan of Oscar bait films, but I'll rather choose them instead of such mediocre trash the general audience loves so much.
Yashaswi Katailiha I think both the Oscars and the general public get it wrong. I don’t love all those action movies with lots of special fx that are usually bland and generic and I also don’t love the Oscar bait historical movies that are also bland. But the Oscars usually at least nominate interesting films that do unique things even if they don’t give them the top award. The ones that do things differently are my favorite films
Alexander Holmes you might be one of the exceptions of the mass crowd. The type of films that make sadly showcases what the general audience wants. Hell, the audience scores in critics website is shocking. But regardless, I'm not gonna generalise that much. Btw, I do agree with you.
I thought *THE ENGLISH PATIENT* was a film like that. It had all the ingredients, but the only part of it that was compelling for me was in the present-day with the wonderful Juliette Binoche trying to piece together the mystery of Count Almásy, while simultaneously figuring-out her own life and her place in the world.
The eps of the Twilight Zone where a man dies. He ends up in a place where he wins every gamble, pulls off every bank heist perfectly, etc, etc. After a while he gets bored. He asks his concierge why there was no spice, no variety, no failure in Heaven. The concierge responds: "Who said this was Heaven?"
a lot like saitama from one punch man. a man trains so hard he looses his hair and he can defeat anything with a single punch. after a while he became bored because there is nothing that he can fight that can withstand a single punch.
This kind of reminds me of what I said about utopias. I wouldn't want to live with everything being perfect. I want small problems to make the good things more enjoyable.
Well, if everything is perfect, then there wouldn't be anything like boredom. We would all still find happiness in our peace and tranquility. Which also sounds like a boring concept, but that's just thanks to how our brains work
I like to say that there is perfection in imperfection. You may appreciate warmth more than usual right after being cold, or appreciate the beauty of a face more than usual if it has a scar on one side, because it gives you a comparison. It gives you a constant reminder why the positive things about something are positive. A slow scene in a movie right before an action scene makes that action scene feel more... actiony. So yeah... A good movie knows how to crack the gem in the right places and right amounts to let people appreciate its overall beauty even more. ...Wow, every attempt to be straightforward in this comment resulted in a metaphor... I'm bad at this.
I wouldn't say that purposefully slow scenes are imperfections. I'd consider 2001 as close to a perfect movie as it gets, but in no way is it "so good it's bad". The way symbolism is used in that movie makes it one of the best philosophical statements in movies. The slow pacing really helps build suspension, wich is greatly improved by probably the best use of sound ever. There is no relatable character in the movie and the story is far from traditional, but as that is intentional and serves a purpose I wouldn't call those imperfections either. I think the simple thing that answers this question is that not every movie relates to everyone. A brilliantly made movie may be totally disconnected from your world view and experiences and a cheesy movie may get you invested because you can relate.
+R0DisG0D Oh no, I by no means meant that slow scenes are imperfections. I meant that movies need variety, both in pacing and in quality. Slow scenes count in with the pacing thing, not necessarily with the quality thing. I was simply stating that just like you for instance need slower scenes to give the audience a break from a fast-paced scene so they won't get too used to it and get sick of it, you need a difference in quality so the viewers won't get too used to the really good stuff, but have something less good as a reminder that the good stuff really is good.
I think for me, the Godfather was one of those movies. Despite having gripping drama and very intriguing characters, I found myself uninterested in the whole thing. Strangely enough, I feel like I would've enjoyed it more if there *were* flaws to talk about.
When something is so good all you want to do is point out it's flaws Just like when some things are bad you try to point out the good. Perhaps it's some weird physiological thing where we as humans try to balance it out?
I think it's a mistake to use the words 'good' and 'bad' in this conversation. I don't think there are actually films so bad they're 'good', rather there are films so poorly-produced that they're _engaging_. And that seems to be the critical piece missing here. Movies can be well-produced but ultimately unengaging.
Good and bad are just perceived notions based on our experience and knowledge. They are good or bad in the context of our culture/society. In ways nothing is good or bad, just from what we know and learn we determine what is good and bad. So I say we might as well say whether it is good or bad.
Completely agreed, I just couldn't figure out how to work that angle into my comment. However, _that_ is why I think it is disingenuous to say movies can be "so good they're bad", as it implies that the badness stems from too high a level of goodness, when in actuality, the """level of goodness""" is nonexistent. Critic addresses directing, writing, and other elements that make up these films, and claims they are "good". Even though he did not find them enjoyable, he considers them good... perhaps because he is trying to be "objective"? Perhaps he recognizes some intrinsic value that he himself does not like, but can appreciate. In actuality, these elements merely fit into the cultural consensus of what a good movie should generally be. _We_ constructed the consensus _around_ what we valued in media, and if we find that new media molded in that consensus is no longer engaging, then the consensus need only change to reflect us. Point is, movie's aren't "so good they're bad", they were never good in the first place, but our cultural baggage tells us they _should_ be good based on our preconceived notion of what "good" is.
holybutternutsquash I see what you're saying now, that it doesn't quite make sense. If it really was that good, it couldn't be bad. Although as you say, 1 side has to be subjective and 1 objective. So shitty films are arguably objectively bad, while being subjectively good. Whereas another film can have great production but not come off as well. Although on the whole, the sentence doesn't work too well when reversed. We find enjoyment in the ridiculous, but we can't not enjoy the good
You have made some interesting points here, so I'm going to throw in another perspective. You seem to be generalizing the terms 'good' and 'bad' when it comes to movies. Getting punched in the face is an objectively bad experience, and you will most likely not not want that to happen to you; however, watching _The Room_ - which many claim is an objectively bad movie- isn't necessarily terrible to sit through. It depends on the context of what's good or bad in it, and more or less your use of the word 'engaging' pretty much sums up a lot of what makes something good or bad. The Room has terrible direction, horrendous acting (especially with Wiseau himself), and a story that's just so contrived and forced that there is no way anyone could actually take it seriously... and that's exactly why people like it. It's like watching someone constantly slipping on a sheet of ice, you just can't help but laugh at how hard they're trying to keep their balance just so they can eat shit again. Perhaps it's simply a case of schadenfreude, or the pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune. Getting a group of friends together while watching The Room can become a two hour long discussion of how wrong everything is... and isn't that what media is all about? Isn't the point of a movie, book, game, etc, simply to entertain? To make the audience forget reality for a bit and just focus on what the experience? If you can get some good laughs at The Room, then by all means it is a 'good' movie on some account, however since it completely failed to communicate the intended message, then it would be a completely 'bad' film. Hence: it was so bad, that it ended up being good. This is what makes the fine line of So Bad It's Good, for if a movie is just bad with no real extreme reason why a la The Last Airbender, then you're just there wishing the movie would end, for that movie is simply bad, and it doesn't even look like it was trying that hard to be good to begin with. To go back to the person on the ice bed: Now imagine they gave up walking on the ice and is now just sliding on their belly; that's not fun to watch... it's still just as inconvenient, but the lack of effort makes watching the event significantly less entertaining. Now for a quick thought of the So Good It's Bad concept: I kinda agree with the Critic's opinion on it all... Once more going to the guy on the ice bed: Picture the person now flawlessly sliding down the sheet with minimum effort. It's very impressive, but do you really want to keep staring at them? You can tell nothing interesting will happen beyond them reaching their destination. The same goes with a perfect movie, sure it's really good, but at the end there isn't much to discuss outside of everything that's good about it. Basically, the Critic could have summed up an *entire* review of the movie with his 30 second opinion piece, since really what else is there to say? It's a great movie and everything worked. Outside of that discussion everything else is purely subjective on if you'll like the subject matter.
You know the movies you watched once, decided they're great, but never had a desire to watch them again? Maybe that's how you know you watched "too good, it's bad" movie.
I've had a number of fandom phases where I watch something, enjoy it as I'm watching, and once it's over I seldom return to it, even if I have the means to do so
That's kind of how I see funny moments in videos and the like. When I rewatch them, it's usually not as funny as it was the first time. Maybe it only GETS funnier the times after, but yeah.
I had that feeling with Oppenheimer. Sitting in the theater I felt I was watching the greatest film of the year. Within an hour of leaving the theater, I had forgotten most of it.
Seems like a good chunk of "Oscar bait" movies leave me cold. And it really has nothing to do with quality. It's more about taking themselves waaaay too seriously on every level. No matter how dire the circumstances, no matter how high the stakes, the more I feel like a movie is telling me, "I'll MAKE you think, I'll MAKE you experience these specific emotions", the fewer fucks I'm going to give about it. No thanks, keep your Revenants and Readers, I'll just watch Dredd or Hot Fuzz again.
its the same for me as well. i dont like things being told to me. I should just watch it and let it effect me. part of the effect with these movies rely on the people from the outside.
Sorin Noctis True. Plus "topical" movies, in my personal experience, seem to go down better in the form of satire. There are exceptions - Boyz in the Hood, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - but it goes back to movies that take themselves and their message too seriously. If I feel like I'm watching tropes instead of real shit, I immediately disconnect. At least satire delivers tropes in a way that doesn't assume you're an informational recluse.
Marlon Brando and George C Scott were, as far as I know, the only actors who won a Best Actor Oscar and actually rejected it because they didn't enter their profession to win awards. Those guys had integrity, something that is very rare in Hollywood these days. It still exists but you have to look very hard for it.
@@ThaqtRamone Even there are some people who don't like the godfather. And........... It's fine. It might be you like film of some other kind or genre.
@Nicholas Salmons, True Dat! The only perfect movies are sequels because they have reachable expectations to match! Regular movies only hope they're good and nothing more. A lot of people have favorite movies of all time but even THEY have flaws!
I think Doug was just looking at it wrong. You're not really supposed to feel for the character (although you are to a certain degree, it's not really the point of the movie), it's more the spectacle of watching the whole story unfold
The Truman Show made who question your existence? Really, the Truman Show?? You couldn't just do what Truman never figured out and think of a few common sense tricks to assess your status?
I feel like a big part as to why certain people can't get invested in good movies is their initial expectations. If they walk into a movie expecting it to be great and it is...they are simply satisfied. If they walk into a great movie with no expectations, they are likely going to remember it more. And contrarily; if they walk into a bad movie expecting it to be great, they would be more mad than they would otherwise be. So if everyone is praising a particular work as a masterpiece and you walk into it expecting it to be one...really the most it can do is satisfy that expectation.
I think you're right on the money here. My brother hyped up Incredibles 2 like it was the second coming, and when I went to see it I came out fairly unphased. I love many aspects of the film but I think my subconscious was waiting for it to be good 100% of the time. And a similar thing happened with Thor: Ragnarok.
I can agree on the Thor: Ragnarok thing. My sister kept telling me that it was literally the funniest Marvel movie but when I saw it I think I laughed less than literally every other Marvel movie I've watched
I went into the theater to see the last Jedi, thinking it would be mediocre and not that interesting. What I got was one of the most beautiful movie experiences I’ve ever had in the theater.
I always enter a theater expecting nothing, I avoid trailers to avoid the hype and will tell friends to shut up if they bring up the subject. The last two Star Wars movies I saw I had seen nothing of them, so I enjoyed every single scene (Except Rose in TLJ) while diehard fans said it wasn't their star wars.
I have a friend that HATES fight club for this very reason, because everyone he knew over hyped it like crazy to him, and then it just didn't live up to the hype.
I watched "HUGO", I can't find anything wrong, but I really don't think I want to watch it ever again. There's nothing wrong, and I don't hate that movie.
It is so bland and just a push piece for Martin Scorsese's then library building. Admirable, but halfway through just a commercial. Visually dazzling, though. And admirable.
I can kinda understand that. I liked the movie a lot too, but even back then it felt like a movie you only watch once. Maybe because it isnt deep enough or complex enough. I feel like I understand everything about it so its time to movie on.
Personally, I feel that loving something or someone too much can be damaging to ones mental health. There's this great song which asks "How do you love someone without getting hurt?" and that can be the problem with falling for onscreen characters. You can grow to idolise the people who played those characters to the point where it's hard to separate the performer from the character and you want to meet them even if you've heard the warning "Don't meet your heroes". That can be a sign of something being so good that it's bad. It's not that you're not invested. It's that you're TOO invested to the point where it can take over your life.
This could actually be influenced a lot by the state you're in when you're watching the movie. Come to think about it, it's not a matter of good or bad. it's a matter of if you're engaged or not. It doesn't matter if the movie is doing its job perfectly if its job isn't that engaging to you in the first place. I can actually come up with a few that I think are perfect or near perfect, and they're right in the top for me. They're good movies (objectively) AND they engage me.
I know. I always felt that way about A Bridge Too Far. It was very boring to watch. A less extreme case of this is Dexter's Laboratory. I hear it's very good. I don't hate it, but most of the time it's not that engaging or memorable to me. It's usually annoying and boring with the stuff that happens between Dexter and Dee Dee and Mandark. Johnny Test has always been more engaging to me and I think Johnny and Dukey are an interesting and fun duo to watch and my mom also likes Susan and Mary. It might be more annoying than Dexter's Laboratory to some people, but certainly not boring. January 9, 2017, 10:32pm
Erik Billebo I agree! It depends sometimes on your state of mind while watching it, and you can easily realize that if you ever had a movie you remember not liking and watching it again made you change your mind. But I think it also has to do sometimes with the genre of the movie. Like, I totally agree with both his examples of Dracula and Truman. Dracula never really connected with me and I think it has to do with how they portrayed the character. I feel like the vampires in it are so close to humans in how they portrayed them that I don't feel the difference anymore. And throughout the whole movie I just wonder why even bring vampire into the story ro begin with, except maybe immortality. But given it has to do with the books as well.. As for Truman, as much as I love this movie, I think its too "clean" in a sense that makes you feel you are watching a movie. Big problem is, you are already watching a fake world and I think you constantly think "this movie is fake as well" on some level, but I truly believe it is mainly because the movie fails in making you connect with Truman. Because we always see him as people in the movie itself see him, we don't feel close to him on a personal level...
@@Anvekeen 5 years later... Interesting take about the Truman Show. What do you feel is too clean about it? Is it that the narrative is too well-rounded, or is it the aesthetics (dialogoue, cinematography, details)? I do agree with what you're saying about Truman show, it's almost as if we're watching a play where all the strings tie together too neatly in the end. I guess they WANT it to be that way to an extent, seeing as the Truman Show (in this fictional world) IS a play, it isn't real. In the end, the meta plot also feels not real, too neat, perhaps? It's just interesting as Truman show has essentially two plots, the real one and the show one.
I mean I guess you could say Birdman, Boyhood, Whiplash, Spotlight, and Wolf of Wall Street all fit in that catagory and I really really loved all those films. Even others in recent memory Like The Martian, The Big Short, The Hateful Eight, Room, Gone Girl, Grand Budapest Hotel, and The Imitation Game and a few others I really thoroughly enjoyed. But there are a few like The Danish Girl, Dallas Buyers Club, 12 Years A Slave, Brooklyn, Still Alice that I knew were all great movies but didn't resonate with me at all besides that they were just all well made.
My problem with Interstellar is that it could never escape from it's influences. The best thing to compare it to is Moon, I think. Both are clearly products of a love of genre cinema, but Moon is the one I remember more because Moon is the one which I think really owned it's own "big idea", which is one of the most important elements of good sci-fi.
+JackIntheBoxGaming Moon fits the paradigm described in this video because it is flawed. It's a little indy film with 1.5 characters (2.5 characters?) and it messed with our expectations by having the artificial intelligence NOT be the bad guy. There were low expectations to start and seemed like it shouldn't have worked. It's the little film that could.
I love Interstellar, the main reason people DON'T like it. Is it doesn't fully commit to the 2001 school of being humanless (or in Interstellar's depend on the concept of "Love" having no bounds: I understand why people vomited while watching this). But that said, it was a great movie, because it was suspenseful with more of a human emotion that 2001. I think you kinda need that in movies, unless the arc or theme is the opposite of that.
I love these kinds of videos, no yelling, no hating, no complaining, just a question being asked and answered in the most adult and humane way possible. Thank you.
That's because you never watched it... or you watched only the first episode and then left the show. I know exactly what you're going through. That was the same for me, I bought the first season on DVD, then watched the first episode - got bored during the first half of it - regretted I ever bought that DVD box - abandoned the show for a good 3 years. But now, I'm back on track. Fortunately for me, I decided to watch the second episode a few days ago - and hell, does this show pick up the pace. It's amazing how a show can go from 'Yawn' to 'hell yeah' in a blink of an eye. You start rooting for a character, and he dies off. You find another one, and he gets king (no spoilers here). I'm now at s5 episode 2 and can't stop watching it. Always want to know what happens the next time. You should really give it a try. I'm sure you will enjoy it (if you're enjoying fantasy settings in general that is). :)
Dan Janosevic Amazingly, you're right - I got bored while watching ep 1, watched a bit of 2 (no paying attention at all) and than decided to pass on it. So, since someone else has the same experience as I have ... yeah, I should give it another chance. Thanks :)
I get this feeling from some of the Marvel movies actually. They're competently made and oftentimes well acted and crafted, but they're just... fine. They're not "great" though... so I dunno if they would count. They just seem so formulaic and paint by numbers. They're like the cinematic version "pop" music, made to appeal to the greatest number of people. And I will admit that as far as soulless corporate commissioned movies go, it's a miracle that a lot of these Marvel films are as good (subjectively) as they are.
Hm.... So bad it's good film = ridiculous film So good it's bad film = boring film Yep? P.S. This does not mean, what every high quality movie is boring . Many bad movies can also be boring, just for different reasons.
Well the first part I think you have right more or less but I'm going to use The Truman Show as an example, It's a wonderful movie and I'll watch many times and still find it interesting. It's because it's too perfect it feels maybe less relatable? but not boring just less relatable, I don't know if you can think of a better word please tell me.
I feel this way about Star Wars. Like I know they're great and amazing technologically advanced movies with great acting and a great story, I can see that and how/why people would enjoy it. But for me personally, it just never really clicked. Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely ADORE the music, hell I listen to the Cantina Band song WAAAY more than I probably should, and I played the shit out of the LEGO Star Wars video game for Wii when I was little. But I've tried watching the movies. Whether it be the originals, the prequels, or even the newest ones, they're just "meh" to me. They've never fully appealed to my love of space and aliens and shit. :/
I am a lore whore myself I like the names of palents and starsystems. I love the conflicting politics. Hell I even love the crystals in lightsabers and the way they make you interested in a clone and his son. Shit man good lore... But I don't enjoy any of the movies. I like star trek......
I like Star Wars but curiously my favorite is Return of the Jedi, which is by far the one with most "flaws". Meanwhile, Empire Strikes Back is probably the most acclaimed one and i simply can't stand it. P.S: Talking about the original trilogy
With me personally, if a movie is too perfect. . . In the sense that it's shot beautifully, acted well and the story is moving etc.etc. . . I'll enjoy it but I never feel like watching it again. . . I'll feel like it's something everyone should see, but really only once. Then you're good.
Agreed. Sometimes a movie is just too perfect where you know they’re aiming towards the Oscars that it kind of garners an eye roll. It’s like “oh you know they’re trying to get an Oscar for this” feeling.
No Country for Old Men, the movies is DANG good, and I was impressed by all the visuals and phenomenal acting, but.... I don't imagine myself ever watching it again. The movie felt so perfect, but an impression was not made on me.
I mean, everyone has their own opinion, but I would say this certainly isn't the case for many viewers. It certainly wasn't for me. I saw it over ten years ago, and I still think about it.
All these fast cuts of segments from different movies... I marvel at the sheer dedication it takes to get that documentary-feel because its so time consuming in post... how to determine where a piece of this film goes, or that film, how much of it, how little is enough, how does it relate to the narrative, etc... I heard the message of this episode loud and clear, but when I see these cuts I really applaud Doug's dedication to us.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's saying, but it sounds to me like it's not the movie that is bad, it's just simply you aren't interested in it, not because it's terribly made, but maybe you're not interested in what the movie is about or the time period, etc, depending on the movie. What I'm getting in the comments are posts like "I don't get 2001: A Space Oddessy. Everyone says it's a great film but I found it boring". Maybe it's expectations? Doug did say in his examples that people said the movies were great and well made, and while they are, maybe he expected the movies to grab him like they did everyone else but couldn't because of what everyone told him so he expected too much? Sometimes to really experience a movie, you shouldn't let someone else tell you how good (or bad) a movie is, just go into it blind and allow your own experience to make your own judgements?
not quite he thinks these movies are just ok because he loves to critique if he has nothing to critique he feels empty his favorite part of watching movies is critiquing them
No... he mentioned that some of the movies are things that he would usually like. He's seen tons of Draculas, liked many of them, but the "perfect" one fell flat. I mean... has that seriously never happened you? A movie you know you should love. It has the right genre, tone, plot, acting, even the music is great. Everything is perfect. But your sitting there bored out of your skull waiting for it to end. Then you'll watch a crappy movie in a genre you don't even like and totally be into it. I totally get it.
When you really think about it the movie industry are guilty of that too. They build up their movie(s) as the greatest film(s) you'll see this year or ever and then when you do get to see it for yourself it may not be as great as you were expecting.
I feel this way about Frozen, but I feel like that's more because of it being over-hyped. I saw the movie in theaters when it came out and genuinely liked it a lot. But now like 5 years later, it's become so commercialized and Disney is still shoving it in our faces and now I just groan everytime I see it.
Perhaps the reason these "perfect" films seem to not be that good is because we ourselves are imperfect. So, for a film to come so close to perfection, we see any few imperfections that we can try to find. Even if that imperfection is something as little as "I couldn't get into it". Perhaps it is because we as human beings desire to see Perfection that seeing something claimed as "perfect" we tend to not like it. This is a very interesting subject.
Perhaps, being so imperfect, we're incapable of recognizing perfection. Film critics are used to the idea of "perfect movies" because they study what a perfect movie is supposed to contain. Average viewers, though, can be put off by things filmmakers include that "need" to be there, but we don't know why. Every time I watch a cooking show, for example, I hear about all the spices and sauces and so forth that are supposed to bring the "perfect flavor" out of the food; but I know, if I were to eat any of the food, I would have no way to discern just how much "better" those dishes are than the food I normally eat. In that vein, if I'm watching a movie like "The Godfather", I can listen to critics tell me about how every shot, every action, every line of dialogue is so well-written, so well-conceived, so well-executed that the movie is just plain perfect; but I'll still be bored out of my mind waiting for Michael to get the gun from the bathroom to shoot the guys in the face. In short, "art for art's sake" is not always a good thing.
That begs the question, however, of whether imperfect critics can determine what is perfect themselves. Be it movie critics, art critics, food critics, or whatever else. Doesn't their very human imperfection mean their evaluation of what represents perfection in that art is potentially imperfect? This even comes into play with traditionally less subjective fields, such as science. Scientific journals are filled with hypotheses of well-credentialed, highly intelligent scientists who are recognized experts in their field....yet were wrong over and over again with one idea after another. It's a normal part of human experience that they too can be wrong...human knowledge is far from infinite in any field, and testing ideas that turn out to be wrong is as much a part of advancing knowledge as testing ideas that turn out to be right. But we sometimes give the collective opinion of such experts the status of unchallengeable fact beyond what their human imperfection warrants. So there is room for something to be hailed as great by the critics and not be great according to an ordinary person without the ordinary person being automatically wrong about it.
just what i was going to say. citizen kane is hailed the greatest of all time. but then you look at it and think. this is quite slow, and a little boring. while the story, interesting, and different from the film's of its time, the acting of the supporting characters isn't that great. diolouge isn't that original, and techniques people think are visionary has been used before. while entertaining, is very flawed. I think that the concept that it is the greatest made people forget the flaws they saw in it upon release.
I didn't really either the first time I watched it. I just sat there after it ended and thought "What the hell?" I've watched it a couple more times since, and I do get more enjoyment out of it than I initially did, especially during the HAL segment. One critically acclaimed movie that I didn't like was Blade Runner, but I'd like to watch it again sometime and see if my opinion changes.
A recent example for me would be Bohemian Rhapsody. It looked great, the acting was great, and it was nice to learn some things about a popular band.... but it was every “rise to fame, fall from grace, then rise up again” story disguised as a “based on a true story” drama. I will give it credit for attempting to put some twists in the various cliches to make it more unique - and the cliches are done very well - but I could still predict every single plot point that would happen (a disapproving family, someone snarking about how the band will never become a thing, the main character becoming a full-of-himself jackass, romance problems, some evil agent/producer/whatever that uses the protagonist as a pawn, the band breaking up, scenes symbolizing how lonely it is at the top, the protagonist getting a wake-up call, and the band coming back together for one last performance). Like I said earlier, I can see how so many people would like it, but I just couldn’t get into it.
When I was 17, Frozen happened. I went to see it with my friends, and while most people in the theater were crying by the end and shocked at Hans's reveal, I wasn't too emotionally into it, and I knew he would be the villain. It left kind of an Eh impression on me.
HAHAHAHAHA Frozen is as cliche as it gets. I didn't even want to watch it but my history teacher made us watch it 3 fucking times........i couldn't even sleep through it i had to stay awake. But i digress
I actually guess that he was a villain just because of his sideburns. The minute he was shown on screen... I was like "that the villain. He looks too perfect. Must be bad."
I feel like hype plays a big part in this. I like hurt locker and avatar for example but when hl won a oscar and avatar became the best selling movie, people seemed to start hating them cause they couldn't like it as much as others told them to. I'm really excited for war of the planet of the apes, but being the 3rd good movie in a trilogy and the marketing suddenly focusing on the great reviews, I'm worried this is going to overhype people.
I totally get hype ruining a movie. Back when Guardians of the Galaxy came out I'd heard so many good things about it. I went out and got it right before my birthday, and boy did it not do a thing for me. Technically it's a perfectly fine movie, but I couldn't make myself like or get invested in the characters at all and the villain was a total snore fest. The funny thing is that I watched the sequel on Netflix a couple weeks ago, and I loved it. Truthfully I had no real expectations for Guardians 2, so I was able to just watch it and get totally sucked into the story.
Excellent point! I think people tend to root for the underdog, so when a movie is overhyped it loses any of that “underdog” feeling. I saw “The Blair Witch Project” in the theater at the first showing, and it scared the CRAP out of me! It wasn’t full of stupid jump scares, rather the predicament was so frightening I could barely stand it. “The Blair Witch Project” was mentioned in some cinephile magazines (mostly foreign) so it got almost no mainstream hype. I was curious as to why it got so much attention at Sundance, and I soon realized why. Sadly, it’s a movie best seen in a theater, or a FANTASTIC home system, because sound is a vital part of it.
@@thetooginator153 For me, *THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT* was an overhyped piece of utterly fetid crap. If I wanted to watch college students screaming at each other for 80 minutes, I'd attend a 'debate'.
Bob Schneider - I assume you didn’t see it in a theater. I didn’t like The Blair Witch Project on a TV screen either because of what you mentioned: it sounds like three college kids complaining. But it the theater, it feels like you’re in the woods and hearing the really, REALLY terrifying sounds. IMHO, sound is the most important part of TBWP. You may have been too young to remember when TBWP came out, but only film nerds like me knew about it. I saw the first showing and only five people were in a theater that could hold 100. It got a LOT of media attention because it had almost no budget but was making a TON of money. I can safely say that the entire American independent film industry became viable due to TBWP. It spawned a lot of crap too, but it showed that it was possible to compete with studio films IF your film had something unique.
Bob Schneider - I totally agree with you about “debates” though! I think you would enjoy comparing the 1980 debate between Reagan and Bush Sr. to debates these days. To me, 1980 wasn’t that long ago, but it sure is in terms of acceptable behavior.
I watched the crucible in my english class. I liked it for the obvious reasons as a movie. Personally though, while i know it's the intention, I disliked how uncomfortable and sad it made me.
I first experienced it in my English class a few months ago. I saw it as good but I couldn’t get into it but I admired everything about it. I also kinda agreed with Siskel and Ebert’s review of it where they gave it a thumbs down because they felt it didn’t have enough drama.
same here the movie is really effective at making you feel uncomfortable and sad. actually seeing tituba get whipped is nauseating. it's a really well made film but I doubt I'd ever rewatch it, let alone in full
I wonder if you watched the one where the guy yells "BUT ITS MYYY NAAAAME" I think it was Daniel day lewis?? Best part of that movie imo lol but yeah that play really hits hard sometimes
I think OT star wars might be exempt from this example. It has just the right amount of ratio between being overall well made, with some obvious ''What the fuck was George Lucas thinking'' moments to balance it out, like Leia shoving her tongue down Luke's throat _even though they're siblings_ and then the duel on cloud city. Or having to sit through ewoks, but then also being treated to the absolutely masterfully well made confrontation between Luke, Vader and The Emperor. When i was a kid, no other scene from any movie i ever watched had me glued to the screen like the emperor's throne room. Who would have ever thought, that when Luke walked into a room with the 2 most powerful sith lords of all time, that he would be the only one to leave that room alive?
It's simple. "So bad, it's good" is a movie that has a spark of honest passion in it. It's a kind of movie the creators of which had a bad idea and lacked any talent to implement it, but fully committed to it anyway with pretty much no self-consciousness whatsoever. "So good, it's bad" movie must therefore be well thought out and executed, but ultimately soulless, cautious and overly self-conscious. It's more "so good, it's boring' I think. Can't think of any example off the top of my head. Probably any academy award winning movie that nobody remembers.
Yeah, but again. Are they perfect movies or are they "meh, I don't like them movies?". I don't like the Godfather but I recognise that it is a good movie and very well crafted at that. I just don't feel anything towards it.
Personally I don't understand why people always said that Ghostbusters was laugh out loud hilarious not to say that it wasn't funny but I don't think that it was supposed to be laugh till your out of breath I personally think that they wanted it to come off very subtle which they succeeded in doing because I loved and appreciated the subtle presence that the movie's comedy had the only joke that I laughed really hard was when venkmen called peck dickless I just don't understand why everyone and their mom was calling this hilarious.
I thought it was pretty funny but the effects didn't really thrill me and I did NOT like Venkman when I was younger, he just felt really skeezy. I've softened on him now that I'm older but he's still my least fav of the four. But the subtle touches they had really got my respect.
BoosterStudios You could be right there but for me the film hasn't held up all that well over the decades. I saw it twice back when it came out and really enjoyed it but the laughs fall flat for me these days.
If Ledger’s Joker wasn’t so damn entertaining to watch, I could definitely feel this way about The Dark Knight. The themes of control vs anarchy is so well told that it’s almost too good.
Toy Story 3. I adore animated movies (2D and 3D) and from time to time I need my "kids-movie happy ends". Toy Story 3 got a great villain, who has his own tragic story. Andy grew up, but plays for the last time with his toys, before the little girl gets them. I even liked that little girl. I loved that Andy hesitated to give her Woody. I love the feels! But I'm kind of "meh" with this movie. I love the ending. But the rest of it or when I hear the Title, in my mind only pops up "meh".
Stanley Kubrick's movies are formally perfect, but I sometimes find it hard to get into them because of how cold and detached they can feel. I like movies that are bold, energetic and take chances, movies where you can see the passion put into them, then I can love them despite mistakes.
Kenneth Siwek I can see how you think it's pretentious, but really if you truly understand that movie, you'll know that there is certainly a resolution. I found it very entertaining when I first saw it and I was like 14. Yeah, it's no Avengers or The Notebook.. but it's incredible to me. Maybe some of his other movies are more your taste. I'm sure you've seen The Shining, did you not like it?
I'd agree theres clearly passion behind his film-making with each shot and cut meticulously crafted, but they do often feel cold and uninviting. I don't believe I've ever been able to relate to one of Kubrick's characters, and whilst thats probably deliberate on his part (making statements on how you don't really know a person ect.) I don't personally enjoy it because I cant connect to it in any way.
Also, so he's doing a review of Ghostbusters, huh? I saw it the other day in cinema, and was actually pleased with how damn nothing it was. It wasn't funny ('Cept maybe Chris Hemsworth) the action kept me interested, I guess. It wasn't even really offensive. It was NOTHING. We wasted our time, people.
Magus Marquillin Maybe he hated the idea from the beginning, and the fact that it's nothing will cause it to possibly sink into obscurity. If you're a bad movie, you can be like for being one, or simply talked about because you failed so hard. If you're great, you're praised, remembered, and rewatched. If you're just meh and boring, nobody remembers you.
+Magus Marquillin It wasn't terrible enough to be a permanent stain on the famed ghostbusters legacy but it wasn't good enough to prove the fanboys wrong?
OH, Schindler's List. A tragic, artsy movie with character development, incredibly moving scenes and a film that shows you all the horrible sides of WWII. My sister made me watch it. At the end, she was crying his heart out. I was llike: "7 out of 10". The biggest problem, for me, is that the story was a bit unfocused, what with that big tragedy that happens at this place I know its name cause I'm so well cultured; the factory; Schindler's affairs, Goethe... I didn't know how things would connect, which story should I follow or what stories were subjugated to what. Right now, I don't remember much of that movie. Not a bad movie: it's probably a jaw-dropping masterpiece, but it didn't work for me.
I personally think it has nothing to do with having or not having flaws, the problem with these kind of movies is that they don't have enough personality. I mean, they are kind of predictable in the way of keeping everything as clean as possible, they won't risk it, you feel they are trying to be perfect... A good example would be: - Let's say this is the first time the world sees a tightrope walking, there is suspense because he can fall at any moment, it is amazing to see because people never witnessed such balance and bravery... So he just walks all the tightrope flawlessly and everyone is cheering and applauding. This would be that perfect movie you can't get all the way into. -Now let's do the same but instead of that guy, we put his charismatic crazy twin walking a tightrope for the first time ever. We see the same excitement for seeing something fresh and risky, etc. But this twin starts scratching his butt halfway through and making other funny gestures trying to break the ice with the audience while performing the walk, then before he finishes the rope, he does a flip and lands on the ground finishing with a bow. Now everyone goes crazy and will talk about it for the rest of the day even tho he walked on the tightrope no better than his twin, he was just more charming and showed more personality.
What I'm trying to say is, you can achieve a 10/10 by making no mistakes and perfecting every single aspect of the movie: music, script, acting, story... On the other hand, you can achieve a 10/10 without trying to, making everything right but in your own way, I mean, you are making the movie you truly want, you took risks with some scenes but they made sense and you made them fitting, and yet you happen to make everything as flawless as the other movie. Did you make a better movie? no, it is not a 11/10, did your movie have more flaws? nope... But you showed more personality with yours and people enjoyed it more, they understood you didn't try to make it perfect, you just perfected a movie that you wanted to make.
hasta la Vista , stunt shows work when you see the consequences of failure and relate with the hero enough to want to see him succeed. Discomfort is taught . Babies will stupidly stumble into harm's way (and even laugh at victims) because the sensation of such horrors and the empathy that comes with it is foreign to them .
Carly Booth I agree I didn't like it as much as I thought I would. sure the cinematography is great and I love the ending but I dunno it kinda felt like all that timeless musical mixed with modern story telling was really forced. it kinda made me feel like they couldn't make up their minds as to what kind of story they were telling
Carly Booth La La Land is so fucking boring and it felt like a middle finger to actually good musicals. It's just a bland mashup of broadway tropes that were watered down by bland, boring actors who can sing well but don't have an ounce of fucking passion in their bodies. It's a musical without any passion and it's insulting as hell.
This is an interesting idea, but I find myself disagreeing with your definition of something so good it's bad because it fundamentally conflicts with the basis of what makes something so bad it's good. As we know, a movie is so bad it's good when we find ourselves in disbelief at its elements and very existence. We wonder how human beings could've have thought that what they were making was good or natural, and we think, "I could make a movie better than this!" And in this way, it makes us feel good because it reminds us of our humanity. In my mind, a "so good it's bad" movie should be the polar opposite of this. Not a movie that goes exactly the way we thought it would, but rather a film that is so perfect, and has us so emotionally and psychologically impressed/involved, that we actually kind of resent it. We marvel at its sheer amazingness, but we also feel a little less good about ourselves because of its quality, and we think "I could never hope to make anything this good." As an example, Doug himself, in his top 20 favorite movies list, said about Spirited Away, "This movie is so good, I actually sort of hate it. I'm jealous of it." That's exactly what I'm talking about here.
For me the forgettable Pixar film was actually Monsters Inc. I *liked it*, it was good, but I keep forgetting it when I think Pixar for some bizarre reason.
I like Doug's editorials more than his reviews. His reviews can be funny and have a lot of passion, skill and creativity put into them but in editorials, he sits down and talks to us, bringing up ideas that many people may not have considered. That's what makes him such a great critic. Despite his over-the-top behaviour in his reviews, his editorials reveal that he's actually extremely intelligent and insightful.
Good suggestion. None of the Miyazaki films aside from Castle Cagliostro and Castle in the Sky Laputa had endings that felt earned. He chose the ending for each about halfway into production, so none of them were properly foreshadowed. They were just a big thing that happened after all the smaller things that happened. The animation is wonderful, the background paintings stunning, the characters are all engaging and relatable, the situations interesting and keep you riveted to the screen, but the endings are just lacking.
Atreus Yes. It always felt as it was just so high on looking great, that it forgot the story sometimes. Plus, Deckard was a Replicant in the original cut. Only androids are shown with glowing eyes, and Deckard is shown with glowing eye Twice.
That's totally understandable. Blade Runner is probably my favorite film because, it has a lot of what I like to see in a film. It's not for everyone, but it's still really good to where a lot of people like it. It's neo-noir Los Angeles shrouded in rain, containing suspense of a hunt, a villain that has more to him than just evil, the concept of love, a science fiction based world where it's covered in neon lights and the people have this vibe about them where they can be what they want, dress how the want, live how they want and no matter how strange or 'taboo' it may look, they are free to be who they are. That's why I love it.
When I watched blade runner for the first time, I didn’t enjoy it as much as I was hoping. But I convinced myself to watch it again and somehow it became one of my favorite films. I think when you watch a movie that feels long a second time, it feels shorter because you know the structure better and aren’t constantly waiting on the ending.
+cloudoverse In the end is a matter of what we like and our opinions on why it's not for us... it would be better if people wouldn't overreact "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY NOT LIKE/WATCH X SHOW? IT'S JUST THE BEST SHOW EVER MADE!" it can get really annoying.
+Rotten Pterodactyl I kind of do the same, but it still bothers me. Also, I've watched 3 episodes of GoT and I didn't find it interesting, not for me I guess.
I prefer the books. The show really annoys me sometimes trying to shoehorn "girl power" into it in a really obvious way, at times. The other writers on the show are not as good as George, and you can tell right away if a given episode had a lot of input from him or not. It's also nicer to have the book as a medium because it tells you more about what's going on inside a character's head.
+Rachael Lefler For me It's the other way around, I read the first book and thought it was really boring, so I decided to watch the show ended up watching 5 seasons in 2 weeks. Even though the show has it's flaws, I still found it more enjoyable.
I saw Batman Begins again a few days ago and it's just... boring! Everyone knows how his parents died, you have these weird time jumps back and forth and slightly less back. And than his macho personality. Maybe it's because it's a rather long movie, but I was just sitting there waiting for the end. TDK is better, because the Joker is actually a good, well played villain with a lot of aces up his sleeve (hehe). Batman Begins is just a rich white man an a journey to find himself, spending tons of money and than being a dick to everyone.
When he started talking about the Truman show, I almost went off on him. But then again, I realized it’s his opinion, and I have my own, and mine isn’t supposed to be everyone’s.
Adam N Well I personally just found it boring and uninteresting. It wasn't the worst I've ever seen, I just didn't find it very entertaining. The only thing I liked about it was the very beginning and very ending. If you like it, that's great, nothing against you. Just don't expect me to care for it anytime soon.
Lee Sounds like you prefer the comedy and action of the Goonies. ET was a drama for all intensive purposes. It didn't have alot of exciting moments. Not sure I'd place The Witches anywhere near either ET or the Goonies but I did watch The Witches and it was somewhat entertaining but forgettable.
I don't believe in "so bad it's good". The movie is either bad or good. You either like it or you don't. "So bad it's entertaining" is a completely different claim.
You are right. But I think critic was saying that there is a lot of movies that are great, but just don't fit someones cup of tea (in matter of taste, not brain).
A movie's primary goal is to provide entertainment to the viewer. A movie can have bad acting, storytelling and visual effects, but at the end of the day if the movie was entertaining, it's still a good film just not in the traditional sense.
+Capitalist Entertainment may be what YOU want in a film, but you can't claim that it makes a film objectively good. That's my whole point. You can like a bad film because it's entertaining, but you can't say simultaneously that a film is "good and bad"'. Only that it was bad, but you liked it.
NeoSoul What your saying is fair, but movies don't care if their film is objectively good, it just has to be entertaining for the audience. If it does that than the film has succeeded.
Sorry but to me you're just arguing semantics. The "so bad is good" thing is just a term that catched on and means that it's so bad it turns entertaining in an unintended way. It's about it having an appeal different from what was intended, like a drama that ends up being funny because of bad acting for example. It is indeed a subjective thing since what may be "so bad is good" to someone will be just bad to another.
I understand what you mean, some of my friends say that the movie was made for an oscar and stuff, i love the movie and the plot, every single shot of the movie, but like i said, i understand your point.
The most perfect movie in my humble opinion is Shawshank Redemption. I was wondering if anyone felt unmoved or found it blan. I am not looking to criticize but am genuinely curious.
Hairy Heartsmith I found it boring. I’m pretty sure I’ve fallen asleep trying to watch it multiple times. I think I finally got through it once and I was like “that’s it?” I unfortunately find many great films really boring (I actually can’t think of a classic film I even like) and some so uninteresting in their concepts (or I dislike the whole genre) I just refuse to watch them altogether like Rocky and The Godfather.
I'd be willing to bet that there are people out there who disliked Morgan Freeman's narration, or more specifically how much Shawshank relies on its narration. Movies are, after all, a visual medium, and the rule in a visual medium is to show rather than tell.
Titanic was such a success because of TIMING, as much as anything. Late 1997 had virtually nothing good at the cinema, aside from a mediocre James Bond movie. Titanic spent months as literally the best thing playing, even though it was really just 'good' rather than 'great'. Plus the sinking scenes *were* spectacular. (And for that matter, roughly the same thing happened with Avatar. No competition and a great gimmick.)
same idk i was told it was so amazing and id love it but i just sat there the entire time wondering when it would be over i didnt feel anything toward anyone in that movie same with avatar(not the last air bender one)
Overrated = It's so good it's bad That's me with Rick and Morty...EVERYONE loves it. EVERYONE watchtes it...I watched a few episodes, and don't really see it as an AMAZING cartoon...it's just a cleverer family guy, without the cut-a-ways.
While you are sort of right, you need to watch the second season. That's where the ideas become more complex and the humor becomes kind of genius. The show still is overrated but the quality it does have is undeniable.
I disagree, I think blade runner, get out and vertigo are highly overrated but I would also say they are badly made films. Meanwhile the dark knight, good will hunting and catch me if you can, for me at least, fit the "so good they're bad" category (even though none of those films are definitionally bad) but for some reason, I can't call them overrated, I don't know why but I just can't.
+robotpanda77 That's a ridiculous statement. Most of the time they say they don't do something because they believe they're better people for it. In any case, he made a video where he recommended other TH-camrs not to read the comments. That's the kind of behavior of someone who actually believes that's legitimate advice.
This is kind of how I feel about Steven Universe. I checked it out and as I was watching a few episodes, I thought "I should be enjoying this...but I'm not."
I feel the same about breaking bad, i watched two seasons and i can't get into it. The characters are good, the story is good but there were multiple tiny nuisances that made it unbearable to watch for me. My brother marathoned the 5 seasons in 3 days and i saw a 3 minute summary of the plot.
For me it's "We Bare Bears". Now it does have a lot of strong points going for itself,(the animation style, the voice acting cast, & the witty and humorous writing), but to me it just feels average to me.
I've been watching SU since the very beginning, and now I feel that way about the more recent episodes. The earlier ones had flaws but the flaws were what made the episodes extra special. But now, I feel the show has lost its charm.
I really enjoyed Avatar. But after finishing the movie it left me with a weird bitter taste. It happens every time I finish the movie. I don't know why.
Airbender nickelodeon series or James Cameron USB hair movie? The James cameron one tossed my immersion out the window the moment they called the planet fucking PANDORA of all things. I cannot understand how seemingly everyone thought that movie was innovative. The nickelodeon americanime about wind-boy however, THAT hit me hard, and more than once.
Reading through the comments, I actually realized that I often have to watch a movie more than once in order to fully get into it. So, if something hits someone else in the feels, it may take me a few more times for me to also feel it. Also, I'm not much of a cryer. I still really enjoy watching Steven Universe, but I can't remember one time when I ever cried while watching it.
*Every* movie has flaws. Literally all of them. I'm sorry Doug, but I'm not sold that this "perfect to a fault" thing is actually...a thing. I've yet to see a movie that I enjoy less than anyone else without being able to put the reason into words. Art is a weird, nuanced *completely subjective* field and what registers as a "flaw" to someone might not for someone else. Everything is dependent on the lens you're viewing it from and if you're trying hard enough you can pinpoint what it is about ANY movie that doesn't work when put under a particular lens.
Not quite he thinks these movies are just ok because he loves to critique if he has nothing to critique he feels empty critiquing is his favorite part of watching movies.
If that's the idea Doug is trying to get across he didn't articulate it very well. Plus, and this is just going off what I know of Doug having never met the guy, he doesn't strike me as the type of critic who enjoys picking a movie apart for its flaws more than he does just enjoying a movie he considers good. I think the issue here is simply that Doug *did* find flaws in The Truman Show, The Crucible, Dracula, etc that go beyond he vague notion that they're "too well done", and his problem is he just can't put it into words.
I think it is pretty blatantly said that he sometimes doesn't feel what he is "supposed to feel" from a movie. And he is just trying to open people up to that and not feel super ashamed about it. It's funny that he makes this video as a critic when critics are notorious for falling for Oscar bait movies. So I think it's good that he made this video to show that you don't have to feel ashamed when you don't have the same opinion as the snob critic who only likes a movie if it is on the same level as citizen Kane.
I don't agree with Doug's ideas on how this kind of thing works. In my opinion, "So good it's bad" isn't just the yin to "So bad it's good"'s yang. What I think it meant was that a movie can be done so..... consistently, have good consistent performances and a good consistent script. It hits every note it tries to, and because you feel exactly what it set out to make you feel, it almost leaves no room for your subjective mind to interpret the story in it's own way. You don't have anything to take away from the experience that's very unique. I'm no psychiatrist but I know there are popular, rewatchable movies that don't leave much up to interpretation, but still work.
@@robertyeah2259 Another way to put this is "too good to be true". If you see an illusion of perfection, part of your mind is constantly thinking "what's the catch?"
Hype with nostalgia can blind a man. I enjoyed it a lot, bought some t-shirts from the store (sales for Star Wars products, that's a boost in nerdy reputation!), but it was an alright movie, with some really obvious cliches. What Star Wars has me more engaged is the universe it created all these years, not the actual movies, and Force Awakens only brought nostalgia and same-y environment (oh, new same stormtroopers, oh, new same rebels, oh, new same Death Star, oh, new same plot with new same characters). When George Lucas said, that the stories should rime, that's when we should have known that Star Wars would have always the same structure with a little spin to it, and Abrams confirmed exactly that with Force Awakens.
Life of Pi is a great example for me. It has the best special effects I've ever seen (sorry Jurassic Park) and it was interesting to see Pi survive the way he did, but it just didn't hit me overall.
Yeah, I guess I just didn't like the "pick which story you want" thing at the end. It was basically saying to believe a nice fiction over an unpleasant truth and we can't really do that in the real world, and we should not be afraid to face the truth in all of its flaws, even if a lie might be nicer.
+Rachael Lefler ah that was not the point, the point was that what does it matter what is in between if the start and the end is still the same. That was why in the beginning they said it will make you believe in god. You are born and you die, what does it matter what context to it you put, the end is still the same. Do note I also find Life of Pi kind of meh.
it's not a movie for everyone, the reason it got so hyped was because of its relatively attractive plot summary and animation, but only a certain type of people can get attached and connect with the movie. I did. I can understand how others wouldnt.
Never could put my finger on what made your video essays stick out to me more than other video essay TH-camrs that I very much enjoy as well. And I just realized it's your style of taking the viewer on a journey with no real end except for the conclusion the viewer comes to themselves. It's like listening to a friend explain their thought process on an idea. It's very comforting and very interesting to hear your thoughts on these interesting questions you put out there.
Guardians of the Galaxy. Don't get me wrong; I liked it. It was a really fun movie to watch. But while other people walked out of the movie saying it was amazing, I wasn't that impacted by it. I think it was the humor; the jokes felt predictable to me. That being said though I'm excited for the sequel!
Yeah, I think Guardians of the Galaxy was just mediocre. The characters weren't interesting to me and the action felt a little too.....predictable I guess.
Finally!!! I guess I'm just gonna wait for the second movie to be available on the Internet instead of going to the cinema, because the first one didn't really grab me, and I'll just watch the sequel to keep up with the MCU (You know, easter eggs, after credit-scenes).
For me, the problem was that once you get past the "took 12 years to make" angle, the movie mostly presented a very average looking life. I go to the theater to see things that I don't see on a regular basis. Whether it's a fantastical epic or just a documentary on something I want to learn more about. And yeah, by the end the kid was pretty pretentious and douchey. But then again, at 18 weren't we all?
Also yeah boyhood not a good movie at all. the characters aren't likeable except for Ethan Hawkes character, by the time the kid turned 18 i hated his guts. Yeah it was either annoying or loud or both. There is alot of screaming and arguing in this movie. Not to mention like said before almost everyone is unlikeable they're either selfish or just assholes so no i don't blame you for not liking it in fact you should dislike it
deadpool is really well produced, but we accept that is no the best movie. We adore the movie because had a good cast, specially with Reynolds, but is a origin story, very common and they have some few technical problems.
There are some very fair criticisims to the deadpool movie. 1) Way too much CGI in the action scenes. My guess is that Reynolds was really uncomfortable in that suit and couldn't move the way he wanted to so they CGI'd it/randomly changed up the pacing to make it more exciting but it just didn't work 2) The humor was machine gunned. There were so many great jokes, but they don't work rapid fire. I felt like I was laughing really hard at a joke but they just fired the next one immediately after so you couldn't savor any. 3) Marvel has no idea how to make a villain. Once again, the villain is just the poor man's version of the hero. There's no suspense. I never consider the villain to be a threat and when that's the case, there's no point in the climax. There are plenty of little nitpicky things that you can point out, but that's with every movie. There were 3 major flaws in the deadpool movie that prevented it from being truly great. Guardians of the Galaxy is still the best Marvel production
I saw both Deadpool and Batman vs Superman in the cinema with the same group of friends. I found deadpool very meh and greatly enjoyed BvS. Everybody else seems to have the opposite opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well I don't think it was that good since they borrowed so much from the original franchise just to pander to fans. It worked, but it doesn't a great movie make.
That's true I hadn't thought of that! In the original, within the "goodies", Leia is annoying, Han is arrogant, obi wan is pointlessly mysterious, only Luke is "nice". They had personalities. Whereas in the new one everyone is just nice. Po, Rey, Finn. Even the xwing pilots are boring! Even Max von Sydow was boring!! And the only interesting character was that imperial commander and also Ren.
For me it's Mad Max: Fury Road. I walked in so hyped, SO ready to fall in love with it, and... eh. Nothing wrong with it, but it's just not for me, for some reason.
It is easy to not relate to the characters in the star wars universe. There are so many people and experiences in the world that it is impossible to represent all people in a single movie. There is not a single character in all of star wars that I can relate to, my personality is completely different than any character in the movie, my believes and certainty my experiences are completely different than there's. The way they express them self and make decisions are completely unlike the way that I do those things. I do not however need to relate to characters in order to enjoy a movie, I still enjoy star wars in spite of there being no characters that I could possibly relate to.
I despised that movie, actually. It was just a love story to Hollywood from Hollywood. The Re-writing of Local History was the worst part. They just totally ignored the part, where this was the time of Elvis not getting shown from the waist down, because he “danced too much like a black man” and, that Hollywood was right at the forefront of that culture.
This sound nuts, but for me ... every Christopher Nolan film. His films are beautiful works of art in the way you have described these other films (fantastic direction, cinematography, writing, editing, acting, etc.) but I've never felt moved by them emotionally, the same way other people have. I feel awkward every time someone brings him up as "one of the greatest cinematic auteurs of our time". I can't say or do anything but nod my head in agreement because I have no objective reason to say otherwise, yet I can't seem to understand what makes his films so great. Granted, some of his films I haven't seen in a long time, maybe I'll think differently about them with a 2nd viewing.
Christopher Nolan, much like Stanley Kubrick before him, thrives on making films that can have different interpretations depending on who's watching them. One of the most notable is Inception. Was Cobb reunited with his children in the real world or just in his mind? We don't know and we're not supposed to know because the ending can be interpreted either way. CinemaWins sees the entire movie as a look into Cobb's psyche, with the other characters all being part of his own mind. Other people see the other characters as separate from Cobb's mind and he just recruits them. Neither theory is right or wrong because Nolan never gave any clear answers. Even his more straightforward movies like The Dark Knight play with people's interpretations. Some think that the Joker's plan is stupid and needlessly complicated because there's no endgame, while others see it as the work of a mad genius who doesn't care about the endgame and simply keeps making up new twists and turns for his own amusement. Another notable example is the Joker's stories about his past. Which of them is true? Are any of them true? Nolan lets the audience decide. Also CinemaWins sees it as a story about Choice vs Chance. Others may just see it as good old fashioned Good vs Evil. That's why Christopher Nolan is considered a genius. Even if you don't like his films and see them as pretentious or boring or whatever, he intentionally makes sure that there are different ways of looking at them.
I’ve seen The Prestige many times and still love it. But movies like The Dark Knight and Inception are good but too long and convoluted for me to really enjoy again.
It’s the same to me with stranger things , I mean it seems amazing especially when I ask people about it but when I watched the show for the first time it just didn’t grasp me like I thought it would
Inside Out, Boyhood, Invictus, Wolf of Wall Street, Pulp Fiction, Psycho, and Labyrinth. All of these are films I admire and respect, wholeheartedly, but for some reason I just can't love them. I don't know why, but I don't find myself loving these films. Inside Out everyone still adores, but to me, it's fine. I don't know why, but it just did not strike a cord with me at all, despite it being so well done. I don't know, it just didn't feel as creative as it should have been. Boyhood I admire, but the boy's life is just so stereotypical that it's not as enjoyable for me (case of point- the boy drank more alcohol than I've seen in my entire life. Not every teenager is an underage beer chugger). I still don't know why I don't especially love Wolf of Wall Street or Invictus. Pulp Fiction and Psycho especially should be among my favorite films of all time, but for some reason, they are not. Labyrinth has great performances (especially by Bowie) and puppetry, but it's just so boring. However, I don't think any of them are bad. Not even close. Just not good enough for me to especially love them. And then there are films that are clearly bad, but a lot of people love them. The Transformer films and the Divergent/Twilight films (and the books as well) are prime examples.
I personally liked most of these films but i totally don't get why Wolf of wall street got popular. It is basically 70% drugs and nudity, i want to think that it takes more than that to make a film reach the top 150 films of all time. It is simply tiring and repulsive to watch.
No, see, that's the humor in there. Dark, socially unacceptable, funny humor. People have their tastes, and most people found Wolf of Wall Street a great movie.
^ it's really not, as mentioned before, Ghostbusters 2 is already a weaker film than the first one and a bland remake will never hurt how the first one is a damn near perfect film and one of the best representations of it's decade, we will all forget about the remake in the years down the line, the only thing anybody will remember is the shitstorm that came about because of it both from the the people who raged at it and the poor reaction the creators had in dealing with the haters
Tounushi I am already not interested in another ghostbusters film. I am like doug, nothing will ever recapture the first one , it was lightning in a bottle and nobody is ever gonna get it the way Akroyd and Ramis did , the best thing to let the franchise continue on is either another good animated series or the current comic books, or maybe another video game
The first Ghostbusters, to me, isn't amazing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it a lot and I do think it's a good film and a lot of fun, but it's incredibly stupid. In a good way. I am interested in seeing the new one, though I haven't gotten the chance to yet, I'll gladly drop $11.50 on it as someone who casually enjoys the first Ghostbusters.
It's pretty basic. Some people like it, some don't, some hate it, and some love it. Generally if you like the other work of the people who are in it, you'll probably like it.
Towards the end, Critic implies that perhaps we want to see flaws in a work, to know that it isn't perfect. I think that is a misunderstanding. It's not that perfection is bad. Perfection isn't *interesting*. -Let's say you have a short film with flawless execution of its _single_ idea. Neat. That one idea was done justice. Moving on. -Now let's say you have a 3 hour film _jam-packed_ with interesting ideas. Perhaps not as "flawless", but overall more to think about. ...If the short film is the 10/10, then a 10/10 isn't a very interesting thing. That could be why The Truman Show is on his list. (Not that it's short) it has one really good idea: A man oblivious to the fact that he's in a show. It executes that single idea perfectly over the course of its runtime, but that's about all it does. Amadeus, meanwhile, is chock-full of wildly varied and intriguing character study. It also happens to execute everything perfectly, but because there is a greater overall quantity of ideas, the work stands above The Truman Show in Critic's mind.
Very interesting video. Thank you for your work Doug. You, and the whole Channel Awesome team, are a true gem. Keep it coming :) from a Scotsman living in New Zealand.
"Why are trilogies hard to pull off?" or "Why haven't we got a good movie based on a video game yet?" are interesting subjects i would love to hear one day.
because it's hard to get something fresh from the same idea more than 2 times and people cut the money and time when they want quick sequel
that's subjective... I liked prince of persia a lot actually
I think MatPat answered the latter question pretty well.
+jcharsch matpat send me a link.
+Qualquer gamer Yeah i can see that and I'll admit Prince of Persia was ok but it didn't left an impact. I feel video game movies are taking the same path comic book movies did back in the day. It took years to get a well made superhero movies like we have today.
For me the perfect trilogy I have to say it's a better trilogy is the Captain America movies.
When you say “so bad it’s good” what people really mean is “so bad it’s enjoyable.” So you shouldn’t try to find “so good it’s bad” but rather “so good it’s boring” which is basically most of the best drama or good Oscar bait movies
Agreed. Which is why I, Tonya the move itself didn’t get nominated for an Oscar. Yeah the actors did but the movie was too different than typical biopics to be considered Oscar worthy even though I felt it was Oscar worthy. We just need a new academy. There are too many old stuffy people on the academy. I know there’s been some changes but still.
Lina J.Walker or just get rid of the “for your consideration gifts”. Moonlight, was almost guaranteed to lose its Oscar, until they had a multi-million dollar donation for the *Bribes* to academy voters.
That would have been a travesty, equal to Crash winning, on a reported $10mil budget for “gifts”.
Doctor Cthulhu where did you read this?
Jubilee Gabriel Mateo YES. That sounds like Frozen, actually. Good music, good animation, and good characters, yet people played Let it Go so much that most people hate it now.
Very well said
Answer: Oscar bait. Sometimes the push to make the movie seem like award material can just draw more attention to its own flaws.
Exactly what I was going to say.
darkest hour for me
Other answer: The typical stereotype about indie movies.Some of them seem to have very good direction and acting, but in the end can see pretendious and, most important, boring.
You know what, I don't think the answer to the question is a yes but this is certainly the closest answer
"Cough" pocahontas "cough"
a meal can be delicious and make you sick later. a movie can be super good but you never feel like you want to re-watch it, which is kind of bad i guess.
I watched big hero six and thought it was good but than had to re watch it in class for a substitute, and realized it was shit and has no replay value, big problem in mystery movies
U may not want to whatch them bc they were to good to whatch again or u don't want to see the plot again
I know its a sitcom, but i feel like that with friends, it was SOO great the first time i watched it, but after i watched all of the seasons it became so bland and boring it was almost unbearable. That 70's show, on the other hand...
That isn’t bad. When a movie was made to make you feel something you don’t want to feel again the movie did its job. I had that with irreversible and enter the void. I’m glad I experienced it but I do not want to see them again.
ryan phillips that was me with hereditary
I think maybe what you're talking about here isn't "so good it's bad". It sounds more like the opposite of a 'guilty pleasure'.
A guilty pleasure movie one where you know it's bad, but you like it anyway. In this case, you have movies that you know are good, but you don't like them anyway.
Innocent displeasure?
I was thinking it was more of a "its so good it's bland" but your idea is good too.
i guilty pleasure is when you like something but are too afraid to say so becuse of lack of self-respect.
I lile the phrase innocent displeasure. gonna use that all the time
More like "guilty displeasures".
+NostalgiNorden that's not really what people mean when they say the term, at least, not most of the time. Most of the time people mean that they like something that they know is actually bad, but for some reason they like it anyways.
I took a lot of Oscar bait movies are like this. They focus so much on being "good movies" to awards voters, critics, etc. that they lose what makes film engaging to regular people.
To be fair those arent really good movies, they're just pandering to a very small, very vocal demographic. Usually when a movie panders to a small demographic nobody really calls it a good or a great movie but when the people who _give_ that movie its rating are the ones being pandered to then thats when a bad movie will get a good rating. It doesnt help that alot of Oscar bait movies focus on some sort of previously discriminated minority in them, usually it's a Holocaust movie, a slavery movie, or a gay romance movie, so if anyone trashes the movie then they get labeled as a racist or a homophobe or something like that.
MC Wyman sooooo, every film must have explosions, extreme or bad CGI, action, physics defining stunts, juvenile plots and cheesy dialogues? Yeah, no thanks.
I may not be a fan of Oscar bait films, but I'll rather choose them instead of such mediocre trash the general audience loves so much.
Yashaswi Katailiha I think both the Oscars and the general public get it wrong. I don’t love all those action movies with lots of special fx that are usually bland and generic and I also don’t love the Oscar bait historical movies that are also bland. But the Oscars usually at least nominate interesting films that do unique things even if they don’t give them the top award. The ones that do things differently are my favorite films
Alexander Holmes you might be one of the exceptions of the mass crowd.
The type of films that make sadly showcases what the general audience wants.
Hell, the audience scores in critics website is shocking.
But regardless, I'm not gonna generalise that much.
Btw, I do agree with you.
I thought *THE ENGLISH PATIENT* was a film like that. It had all the ingredients, but the only part of it that was compelling for me was in the present-day with the wonderful Juliette Binoche trying to piece together the mystery of Count Almásy, while simultaneously figuring-out her own life and her place in the world.
The eps of the Twilight Zone where a man dies. He ends up in a place where he wins every gamble, pulls off every bank heist perfectly, etc, etc. After a while he gets bored. He asks his concierge why there was no spice, no variety, no failure in Heaven.
The concierge responds: "Who said this was Heaven?"
Omg that episode had the ultimate plot twist, Rod Serling ftw
i had compleatly forgotten that episode. it is one of the greatest.
a lot like saitama from one punch man.
a man trains so hard he looses his hair and he can defeat anything with a single punch.
after a while he became bored because there is nothing that he can fight that can withstand a single punch.
That episode is called "A Nice Place to Visit".
yeah that ep was on recently for the syfy channel:)
This kind of reminds me of what I said about utopias. I wouldn't want to live with everything being perfect. I want small problems to make the good things more enjoyable.
There is no such thing as good without bad and vise versa
Well, if everything is perfect, then there wouldn't be anything like boredom. We would all still find happiness in our peace and tranquility. Which also sounds like a boring concept, but that's just thanks to how our brains work
I don't want peace i want problems always
I like to say that there is perfection in imperfection. You may appreciate warmth more than usual right after being cold, or appreciate the beauty of a face more than usual if it has a scar on one side, because it gives you a comparison. It gives you a constant reminder why the positive things about something are positive. A slow scene in a movie right before an action scene makes that action scene feel more... actiony. So yeah... A good movie knows how to crack the gem in the right places and right amounts to let people appreciate its overall beauty even more.
...Wow, every attempt to be straightforward in this comment resulted in a metaphor... I'm bad at this.
"There is no exquisite beauty without some strangeness in the proportion."
- Edgar Allen Poe
"im a pretty girl" & "im naked in spaaaaaaaaaaace"
- pewdiepie (best song ever)
This makes me think of the phantom of the opera. (This could be a reason why it is an amazing play to begin with!)
I wouldn't say that purposefully slow scenes are imperfections. I'd consider 2001 as close to a perfect movie as it gets, but in no way is it "so good it's bad". The way symbolism is used in that movie makes it one of the best philosophical statements in movies. The slow pacing really helps build suspension, wich is greatly improved by probably the best use of sound ever.
There is no relatable character in the movie and the story is far from traditional, but as that is intentional and serves a purpose I wouldn't call those imperfections either.
I think the simple thing that answers this question is that not every movie relates to everyone. A brilliantly made movie may be totally disconnected from your world view and experiences and a cheesy movie may get you invested because you can relate.
+R0DisG0D Oh no, I by no means meant that slow scenes are imperfections. I meant that movies need variety, both in pacing and in quality. Slow scenes count in with the pacing thing, not necessarily with the quality thing. I was simply stating that just like you for instance need slower scenes to give the audience a break from a fast-paced scene so they won't get too used to it and get sick of it, you need a difference in quality so the viewers won't get too used to the really good stuff, but have something less good as a reminder that the good stuff really is good.
I think for me, the Godfather was one of those movies. Despite having gripping drama and very intriguing characters, I found myself uninterested in the whole thing. Strangely enough, I feel like I would've enjoyed it more if there *were* flaws to talk about.
Heyyyyyyyyy i knew you watched Nostalgia Critic!
Phantom Strider aaaaay
Yeah me too still cant get into that Movie
When something is so good all you want to do is point out it's flaws
Just like when some things are bad you try to point out the good.
Perhaps it's some weird physiological thing where we as humans try to balance it out?
yo phantom I love your videos your awsome
I think it's a mistake to use the words 'good' and 'bad' in this conversation. I don't think there are actually films so bad they're 'good', rather there are films so poorly-produced that they're _engaging_. And that seems to be the critical piece missing here. Movies can be well-produced but ultimately unengaging.
I agree friend.
Good and bad are just perceived notions based on our experience and knowledge.
They are good or bad in the context of our culture/society.
In ways nothing is good or bad, just from what we know and learn we determine what is good and bad.
So I say we might as well say whether it is good or bad.
Completely agreed, I just couldn't figure out how to work that angle into my comment.
However, _that_ is why I think it is disingenuous to say movies can be "so good they're bad", as it implies that the badness stems from too high a level of goodness, when in actuality, the """level of goodness""" is nonexistent.
Critic addresses directing, writing, and other elements that make up these films, and claims they are "good". Even though he did not find them enjoyable, he considers them good... perhaps because he is trying to be "objective"? Perhaps he recognizes some intrinsic value that he himself does not like, but can appreciate. In actuality, these elements merely fit into the cultural consensus of what a good movie should generally be.
_We_ constructed the consensus _around_ what we valued in media, and if we find that new media molded in that consensus is no longer engaging, then the consensus need only change to reflect us.
Point is, movie's aren't "so good they're bad", they were never good in the first place, but our cultural baggage tells us they _should_ be good based on our preconceived notion of what "good" is.
holybutternutsquash I see what you're saying now, that it doesn't quite make sense.
If it really was that good, it couldn't be bad.
Although as you say, 1 side has to be subjective and 1 objective.
So shitty films are arguably objectively bad, while being subjectively good.
Whereas another film can have great production but not come off as well.
Although on the whole, the sentence doesn't work too well when reversed.
We find enjoyment in the ridiculous, but we can't not enjoy the good
You have made some interesting points here, so I'm going to throw in another perspective.
You seem to be generalizing the terms 'good' and 'bad' when it comes to movies.
Getting punched in the face is an objectively bad experience, and you will most likely not not want that to happen to you; however, watching _The Room_ - which many claim is an objectively bad movie- isn't necessarily terrible to sit through.
It depends on the context of what's good or bad in it, and more or less your use of the word 'engaging' pretty much sums up a lot of what makes something good or bad.
The Room has terrible direction, horrendous acting (especially with Wiseau himself), and a story that's just so contrived and forced that there is no way anyone could actually take it seriously... and that's exactly why people like it.
It's like watching someone constantly slipping on a sheet of ice, you just can't help but laugh at how hard they're trying to keep their balance just so they can eat shit again.
Perhaps it's simply a case of schadenfreude, or the pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.
Getting a group of friends together while watching The Room can become a two hour long discussion of how wrong everything is... and isn't that what media is all about? Isn't the point of a movie, book, game, etc, simply to entertain? To make the audience forget reality for a bit and just focus on what the experience?
If you can get some good laughs at The Room, then by all means it is a 'good' movie on some account, however since it completely failed to communicate the intended message, then it would be a completely 'bad' film.
Hence: it was so bad, that it ended up being good.
This is what makes the fine line of So Bad It's Good, for if a movie is just bad with no real extreme reason why a la The Last Airbender, then you're just there wishing the movie would end, for that movie is simply bad, and it doesn't even look like it was trying that hard to be good to begin with.
To go back to the person on the ice bed: Now imagine they gave up walking on the ice and is now just sliding on their belly; that's not fun to watch... it's still just as inconvenient, but the lack of effort makes watching the event significantly less entertaining.
Now for a quick thought of the So Good It's Bad concept: I kinda agree with the Critic's opinion on it all...
Once more going to the guy on the ice bed: Picture the person now flawlessly sliding down the sheet with minimum effort. It's very impressive, but do you really want to keep staring at them? You can tell nothing interesting will happen beyond them reaching their destination.
The same goes with a perfect movie, sure it's really good, but at the end there isn't much to discuss outside of everything that's good about it.
Basically, the Critic could have summed up an *entire* review of the movie with his 30 second opinion piece, since really what else is there to say? It's a great movie and everything worked.
Outside of that discussion everything else is purely subjective on if you'll like the subject matter.
You know the movies you watched once, decided they're great, but never had a desire to watch them again? Maybe that's how you know you watched "too good, it's bad" movie.
It's because despite being so flawlessly made, it still failed to make an emotional connection with you as a viewer.
I've had a number of fandom phases where I watch something, enjoy it as I'm watching, and once it's over I seldom return to it, even if I have the means to do so
That's kind of how I see funny moments in videos and the like. When I rewatch them, it's usually not as funny as it was the first time. Maybe it only GETS funnier the times after, but yeah.
I had that feeling with Oppenheimer. Sitting in the theater I felt I was watching the greatest film of the year. Within an hour of leaving the theater, I had forgotten most of it.
Hereditary for me
Seems like a good chunk of "Oscar bait" movies leave me cold. And it really has nothing to do with quality. It's more about taking themselves waaaay too seriously on every level. No matter how dire the circumstances, no matter how high the stakes, the more I feel like a movie is telling me, "I'll MAKE you think, I'll MAKE you experience these specific emotions", the fewer fucks I'm going to give about it. No thanks, keep your Revenants and Readers, I'll just watch Dredd or Hot Fuzz again.
Sorry that was worded so crap. It's barely 6AM in the UK and I haven't had a drop of coffee.
its the same for me as well. i dont like things being told to me. I should just watch it and let it effect me. part of the effect with these movies rely on the people from the outside.
Sorin Noctis True. Plus "topical" movies, in my personal experience, seem to go down better in the form of satire. There are exceptions - Boyz in the Hood, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - but it goes back to movies that take themselves and their message too seriously. If I feel like I'm watching tropes instead of real shit, I immediately disconnect. At least satire delivers tropes in a way that doesn't assume you're an informational recluse.
That's what I felt watching Carol and The theory of everything.
Hot Fuzz is my shit dawg
"There is no such thing as the greatest movie ever." - Marlon Brando
Marlon Brando and George C Scott were, as far as I know, the only actors who won a Best Actor Oscar and actually rejected it because they didn't enter their profession to win awards. Those guys had integrity, something that is very rare in Hollywood these days. It still exists but you have to look very hard for it.
Said Marlon Brando, the leading character of the greatest film ever made
@@ThaqtRamone Even there are some people who don't like the godfather. And...........
It's fine. It might be you like film of some other kind or genre.
@@avanishdutta2658 It insists upon itself, Lois.
@Nicholas Salmons, True Dat! The only perfect movies are sequels because they have reachable expectations to match! Regular movies only hope they're good and nothing more. A lot of people have favorite movies of all time but even THEY have flaws!
The Truman Show made me question my existence, and made me think too much. I had an anxiety attack afterwards. lol
FxIsMyUsername I just finished the movie right now and like... same bro
Yeah, I'm guessing it was supposed to represent Plato's cave.
Question your existence? Really? For me it was unique and imaginative. I don't believe it belongs in the "So good it's bad" category.
I think Doug was just looking at it wrong. You're not really supposed to feel for the character (although you are to a certain degree, it's not really the point of the movie), it's more the spectacle of watching the whole story unfold
The Truman Show made who question your existence? Really, the Truman Show?? You couldn't just do what Truman never figured out and think of a few common sense tricks to assess your status?
"Perfection and power are overrated. I think you are wise for choosing love."
-Uncle iroh
I feel like a big part as to why certain people can't get invested in good movies is their initial expectations. If they walk into a movie expecting it to be great and it is...they are simply satisfied. If they walk into a great movie with no expectations, they are likely going to remember it more. And contrarily; if they walk into a bad movie expecting it to be great, they would be more mad than they would otherwise be. So if everyone is praising a particular work as a masterpiece and you walk into it expecting it to be one...really the most it can do is satisfy that expectation.
I think you're right on the money here. My brother hyped up Incredibles 2 like it was the second coming, and when I went to see it I came out fairly unphased. I love many aspects of the film but I think my subconscious was waiting for it to be good 100% of the time. And a similar thing happened with Thor: Ragnarok.
I can agree on the Thor: Ragnarok thing. My sister kept telling me that it was literally the funniest Marvel movie but when I saw it I think I laughed less than literally every other Marvel movie I've watched
I went into the theater to see the last Jedi, thinking it would be mediocre and not that interesting. What I got was one of the most beautiful movie experiences I’ve ever had in the theater.
I always enter a theater expecting nothing, I avoid trailers to avoid the hype and will tell friends to shut up if they bring up the subject. The last two Star Wars movies I saw I had seen nothing of them, so I enjoyed every single scene (Except Rose in TLJ) while diehard fans said it wasn't their star wars.
I have a friend that HATES fight club for this very reason, because everyone he knew over hyped it like crazy to him, and then it just didn't live up to the hype.
I watched "HUGO", I can't find anything wrong, but I really don't think I want to watch it ever again. There's nothing wrong, and I don't hate that movie.
same here. Great movie and shows Scorsese's range in directing, but no re-watchability
It is so bland and just a push piece for Martin Scorsese's then library building. Admirable, but halfway through just a commercial. Visually dazzling, though. And admirable.
it's self serving pretentious and it doesn't make any sense
I can kinda understand that. I liked the movie a lot too, but even back then it felt like a movie you only watch once. Maybe because it isnt deep enough or complex enough. I feel like I understand everything about it so its time to movie on.
The one that was about the kid and the history of film?
It wasn't exciting.
A tear rolled down my cheek when he said the Truman show
My heart broke when he said Cinema Paradiso.
Same.
same
And when was the last time you watched it?
*sniff* Yup 😢
Personally, I feel that loving something or someone too much can be damaging to ones mental health. There's this great song which asks "How do you love someone without getting hurt?" and that can be the problem with falling for onscreen characters. You can grow to idolise the people who played those characters to the point where it's hard to separate the performer from the character and you want to meet them even if you've heard the warning "Don't meet your heroes". That can be a sign of something being so good that it's bad. It's not that you're not invested. It's that you're TOO invested to the point where it can take over your life.
That's how I feel about James Cameron's Avatar
Kinda makes you empty feel empty afterwards
Mudkip971 Always found the visuals cool but story and characters boring.
Phantom PEKKA exactly
Bruh that movie is terrible
Nah. That movie is just mediocre because it’s mediocre
And Titanic
So, what films do you think hit this criteria?
Mostly oscar bait. Do a video on that!
Well i think that the
Up. Beautiful movie but it never resonated with me like it did others
Any Spielberg movie tbh.
Remember the Titans. Lots of people I know gush over that movie. I think it's saccharine and annoying.
This could actually be influenced a lot by the state you're in when you're watching the movie.
Come to think about it, it's not a matter of good or bad. it's a matter of if you're engaged or not. It doesn't matter if the movie is doing its job perfectly if its job isn't that engaging to you in the first place.
I can actually come up with a few that I think are perfect or near perfect, and they're right in the top for me. They're good movies (objectively) AND they engage me.
I know. I always felt that way about A Bridge Too Far. It was very boring to watch. A less extreme case of this is Dexter's Laboratory. I hear it's very good. I don't hate it, but most of the time it's not that engaging or memorable to me. It's usually annoying and boring with the stuff that happens between Dexter and Dee Dee and Mandark. Johnny Test has always been more engaging to me and I think Johnny and Dukey are an interesting and fun duo to watch and my mom also likes Susan and Mary. It might be more annoying than Dexter's Laboratory to some people, but certainly not boring. January 9, 2017, 10:32pm
Erik Billebo I agree! It depends sometimes on your state of mind while watching it, and you can easily realize that if you ever had a movie you remember not liking and watching it again made you change your mind.
But I think it also has to do sometimes with the genre of the movie. Like, I totally agree with both his examples of Dracula and Truman. Dracula never really connected with me and I think it has to do with how they portrayed the character. I feel like the vampires in it are so close to humans in how they portrayed them that I don't feel the difference anymore. And throughout the whole movie I just wonder why even bring vampire into the story ro begin with, except maybe immortality. But given it has to do with the books as well.. As for Truman, as much as I love this movie, I think its too "clean" in a sense that makes you feel you are watching a movie. Big problem is, you are already watching a fake world and I think you constantly think "this movie is fake as well" on some level, but I truly believe it is mainly because the movie fails in making you connect with Truman. Because we always see him as people in the movie itself see him, we don't feel close to him on a personal level...
@@Anvekeen 5 years later... Interesting take about the Truman Show. What do you feel is too clean about it? Is it that the narrative is too well-rounded, or is it the aesthetics (dialogoue, cinematography, details)?
I do agree with what you're saying about Truman show, it's almost as if we're watching a play where all the strings tie together too neatly in the end.
I guess they WANT it to be that way to an extent, seeing as the Truman Show (in this fictional world) IS a play, it isn't real.
In the end, the meta plot also feels not real, too neat, perhaps?
It's just interesting as Truman show has essentially two plots, the real one and the show one.
I think better examples would be those Oscar bait movies
Like ghosts of Mississippi
Like, Chicago
So you couldn't get SUCKED into Dracula?
Booooooo
Hahaha. Punny.
I noticed that too.
Damn it Yang
I guess he didn't get the *point*.
Wouldn't the "So Good It's Bad" idea apply to a majority of Oscar-baiting movies?
I'd say so, I can't think of any movies trying to get an Oscar that people legitimately love.
I mean I guess you could say Birdman, Boyhood, Whiplash, Spotlight, and Wolf of Wall Street all fit in that catagory and I really really loved all those films. Even others in recent memory Like The Martian, The Big Short, The Hateful Eight, Room, Gone Girl, Grand Budapest Hotel, and The Imitation Game and a few others I really thoroughly enjoyed. But there are a few like The Danish Girl, Dallas Buyers Club, 12 Years A Slave, Brooklyn, Still Alice that I knew were all great movies but didn't resonate with me at all besides that they were just all well made.
+BEYOND AWESOME FILMS Boyhood sucked
+MC-PS-PLAYA I completely disagree. I think it's one of the greatest films of the past decade
MC-PS-PLAYA I agree, Boyhood sucks and people only loved it because of how the film was made and not because of the content in it.
He is basically describing Interstellar.
My problem with Interstellar is that it could never escape from it's influences. The best thing to compare it to is Moon, I think. Both are clearly products of a love of genre cinema, but Moon is the one I remember more because Moon is the one which I think really owned it's own "big idea", which is one of the most important elements of good sci-fi.
+JackIntheBoxGaming Moon fits the paradigm described in this video because it is flawed. It's a little indy film with 1.5 characters (2.5 characters?) and it messed with our expectations by having the artificial intelligence NOT be the bad guy. There were low expectations to start and seemed like it shouldn't have worked. It's the little film that could.
Eh, I just thought that movie was flatout bad. It pretended to say a lot more than it actually was, and had incredibly weak characters and writing.
I loved that movie, my husband didn't like the while bookshelf thing. It threw him off
I love Interstellar, the main reason people DON'T like it. Is it doesn't fully commit to the 2001 school of being humanless (or in Interstellar's depend on the concept of "Love" having no bounds: I understand why people vomited while watching this). But that said, it was a great movie, because it was suspenseful with more of a human emotion that 2001. I think you kinda need that in movies, unless the arc or theme is the opposite of that.
I love these kinds of videos, no yelling, no hating, no complaining, just a question being asked and answered in the most adult and humane way possible. Thank you.
For me it's "Game of thrones" - I know I should like it, but I just don't, and I don't know why ...
That's because you never watched it... or you watched only the first episode and then left the show.
I know exactly what you're going through. That was the same for me, I bought the first season on DVD, then watched the first episode - got bored during the first half of it - regretted I ever bought that DVD box - abandoned the show for a good 3 years. But now, I'm back on track. Fortunately for me, I decided to watch the second episode a few days ago - and hell, does this show pick up the pace. It's amazing how a show can go from 'Yawn' to 'hell yeah' in a blink of an eye. You start rooting for a character, and he dies off. You find another one, and he gets king (no spoilers here). I'm now at s5 episode 2 and can't stop watching it. Always want to know what happens the next time.
You should really give it a try. I'm sure you will enjoy it (if you're enjoying fantasy settings in general that is). :)
Dan Janosevic Amazingly, you're right - I got bored while watching ep 1, watched a bit of 2 (no paying attention at all) and than decided to pass on it. So, since someone else has the same experience as I have ... yeah, I should give it another chance. Thanks :)
+Dan “Artinias” Janosevic yea I'll give it another shot but it did start of boring
Root for Jon Snow. He's always there to love you.
You're a horrible person. LOL
I get this feeling from some of the Marvel movies actually. They're competently made and oftentimes well acted and crafted, but they're just... fine. They're not "great" though... so I dunno if they would count. They just seem so formulaic and paint by numbers. They're like the cinematic version "pop" music, made to appeal to the greatest number of people. And I will admit that as far as soulless corporate commissioned movies go, it's a miracle that a lot of these Marvel films are as good (subjectively) as they are.
Lisa Zoria They AREN'T "soulless, corporate commissioned movies," though.
I'll be honest, the only film I liked from them was the first Iron Man, after that I could care less. Same with Deadpool
Hm....
So bad it's good film = ridiculous film
So good it's bad film = boring film
Yep?
P.S. This does not mean, what every high quality movie is boring . Many bad movies can also be boring, just for different reasons.
exactly
Right
yeh
Yep
Well the first part I think you have right more or less but I'm going to use The Truman Show as an example, It's a wonderful movie and I'll watch many times and still find it interesting. It's because it's too perfect it feels maybe less relatable? but not boring just less relatable, I don't know if you can think of a better word please tell me.
I feel this way about Star Wars. Like I know they're great and amazing technologically advanced movies with great acting and a great story, I can see that and how/why people would enjoy it. But for me personally, it just never really clicked. Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely ADORE the music, hell I listen to the Cantina Band song WAAAY more than I probably should, and I played the shit out of the LEGO Star Wars video game for Wii when I was little. But I've tried watching the movies. Whether it be the originals, the prequels, or even the newest ones, they're just "meh" to me. They've never fully appealed to my love of space and aliens and shit. :/
Yeah I’ve never cared for anything that has to do with Star Wars.
That's pretty much what I feel about Star Wars...and also Doctor Strange
i've always kinda preferred harry potter tbh
I am a lore whore myself I like the names of palents and starsystems. I love the conflicting politics. Hell I even love the crystals in lightsabers and the way they make you interested in a clone and his son. Shit man good lore... But I don't enjoy any of the movies. I like star trek......
I like Star Wars but curiously my favorite is Return of the Jedi, which is by far the one with most "flaws".
Meanwhile, Empire Strikes Back is probably the most acclaimed one and i simply can't stand it.
P.S: Talking about the original trilogy
Avatar: the highest grossing film of all time.
Quote it. Quote one line.
im blue
they say "I see you" ALOT in that.
Can you paint with all the colours of the wind
Dabadee dabadaa...
"I didn't sign up for this" - Girl in the helicopter thing when she was going to die or something
With me personally, if a movie is too perfect. . . In the sense that it's shot beautifully, acted well and the story is moving etc.etc. . . I'll enjoy it but I never feel like watching it again. . . I'll feel like it's something everyone should see, but really only once. Then you're good.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Moriah N. Glitterwasp that’s how I feel about the shape of water!
Good Will Hunting for me
Agreed. Sometimes a movie is just too perfect where you know they’re aiming towards the Oscars that it kind of garners an eye roll. It’s like “oh you know they’re trying to get an Oscar for this” feeling.
No Country for Old Men, the movies is DANG good, and I was impressed by all the visuals and phenomenal acting, but.... I don't imagine myself ever watching it again. The movie felt so perfect, but an impression was not made on me.
I had a similar experience, but i think the genius of the film is in the philosophy and unusual story behind it.
Cameron A damn really? i’ve seen it like 10 times
I break that thing out at least once a year. At least.
I mean, everyone has their own opinion, but I would say this certainly isn't the case for many viewers. It certainly wasn't for me. I saw it over ten years ago, and I still think about it.
I’m gonna disagree . I rewatch it a bunch
I just realized the intro is starting to get nostalgic...
Maybe they should do a review on the nostalgia critic?
HA! That would be great! Coming in 2054, a review of Nostalgia Critic, with all the flaws and memes you want!
I think Honest Trailers already did that on Planet of the Apes (2001) - Nostalgia Critic, in the intro. Not gonna lie, though, that was cool, too!
All these fast cuts of segments from different movies... I marvel at the sheer dedication it takes to get that documentary-feel because its so time consuming in post... how to determine where a piece of this film goes, or that film, how much of it, how little is enough, how does it relate to the narrative, etc... I heard the message of this episode loud and clear, but when I see these cuts I really applaud Doug's dedication to us.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's saying, but it sounds to me like it's not the movie that is bad, it's just simply you aren't interested in it, not because it's terribly made, but maybe you're not interested in what the movie is about or the time period, etc, depending on the movie. What I'm getting in the comments are posts like "I don't get 2001: A Space Oddessy. Everyone says it's a great film but I found it boring". Maybe it's expectations? Doug did say in his examples that people said the movies were great and well made, and while they are, maybe he expected the movies to grab him like they did everyone else but couldn't because of what everyone told him so he expected too much? Sometimes to really experience a movie, you shouldn't let someone else tell you how good (or bad) a movie is, just go into it blind and allow your own experience to make your own judgements?
I personally feel if anything is executed properly, it can transcend things like personal taste for genres, time periods, etc.
not quite he thinks these movies are just ok because he loves to critique if he has nothing to critique he feels empty his favorite part of watching movies is critiquing them
No... he mentioned that some of the movies are things that he would usually like. He's seen tons of Draculas, liked many of them, but the "perfect" one fell flat. I mean... has that seriously never happened you?
A movie you know you should love. It has the right genre, tone, plot, acting, even the music is great. Everything is perfect. But your sitting there bored out of your skull waiting for it to end. Then you'll watch a crappy movie in a genre you don't even like and totally be into it. I totally get it.
When you really think about it the movie industry are guilty of that too. They build up their movie(s) as the greatest film(s) you'll see this year or ever and then when you do get to see it for yourself it may not be as great as you were expecting.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
People have been pointing out how forgettable James Cameron's Avatar was in retrospect.
I know right, I personally liked the movie, but I completely understand why others wouldn't.
I still have never seen Avatar to this day and still don't care to.
I enjoyed the movie but yeah, like you said I can see why many don't like it. To me, I guess it is kind of a guilty pleasure.
same here bro
I never got why people loved it
I feel this way about Frozen, but I feel like that's more because of it being over-hyped. I saw the movie in theaters when it came out and genuinely liked it a lot. But now like 5 years later, it's become so commercialized and Disney is still shoving it in our faces and now I just groan everytime I see it.
TabbyKat agreed. I’ve seen bits and pieces but I have no desire to see it entirely because people talk about it way too much.
Perhaps the reason these "perfect" films seem to not be that good is because we ourselves are imperfect. So, for a film to come so close to perfection, we see any few imperfections that we can try to find. Even if that imperfection is something as little as "I couldn't get into it". Perhaps it is because we as human beings desire to see Perfection that seeing something claimed as "perfect" we tend to not like it. This is a very interesting subject.
Great observation mate!
Perhaps, being so imperfect, we're incapable of recognizing perfection. Film critics are used to the idea of "perfect movies" because they study what a perfect movie is supposed to contain. Average viewers, though, can be put off by things filmmakers include that "need" to be there, but we don't know why.
Every time I watch a cooking show, for example, I hear about all the spices and sauces and so forth that are supposed to bring the "perfect flavor" out of the food; but I know, if I were to eat any of the food, I would have no way to discern just how much "better" those dishes are than the food I normally eat. In that vein, if I'm watching a movie like "The Godfather", I can listen to critics tell me about how every shot, every action, every line of dialogue is so well-written, so well-conceived, so well-executed that the movie is just plain perfect; but I'll still be bored out of my mind waiting for Michael to get the gun from the bathroom to shoot the guys in the face.
In short, "art for art's sake" is not always a good thing.
I don't think "perfect" films exist though...if we are intrinsically imperfect as people then we can't really make something perfect, can we?
That begs the question, however, of whether imperfect critics can determine what is perfect themselves. Be it movie critics, art critics, food critics, or whatever else. Doesn't their very human imperfection mean their evaluation of what represents perfection in that art is potentially imperfect? This even comes into play with traditionally less subjective fields, such as science. Scientific journals are filled with hypotheses of well-credentialed, highly intelligent scientists who are recognized experts in their field....yet were wrong over and over again with one idea after another. It's a normal part of human experience that they too can be wrong...human knowledge is far from infinite in any field, and testing ideas that turn out to be wrong is as much a part of advancing knowledge as testing ideas that turn out to be right. But we sometimes give the collective opinion of such experts the status of unchallengeable fact beyond what their human imperfection warrants. So there is room for something to be hailed as great by the critics and not be great according to an ordinary person without the ordinary person being automatically wrong about it.
Yeah, or the internet is just filled to the brim with contrarian assholes.
For me it's Citizen Kane. Looks like I can never be a critic.
The same here hahah
lol
Not me I love being a critic ps my favorite movie is pulp fiction
just what i was going to say. citizen kane is hailed the greatest of all time. but then you look at it and think. this is quite slow, and a little boring. while the story, interesting, and different from the film's of its time, the acting of the supporting characters isn't that great. diolouge isn't that original, and techniques people think are visionary has been used before. while entertaining, is very flawed. I think that the concept that it is the greatest made people forget the flaws they saw in it upon release.
I'm on that same boat
I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this...I didn't care for 2001: A Space Odyssey
I love the film, but I understand how people wouldn't enjoy it as much. Different strokes for different folks.
I 100% agree with you dude, could never get into it
+Liam Kirkpatrick holy shit, civil people on the internet?
That movie could be like 30 minutes long. There was way to much stuff that didn't really need to be in the movie.
I didn't really either the first time I watched it. I just sat there after it ended and thought "What the hell?" I've watched it a couple more times since, and I do get more enjoyment out of it than I initially did, especially during the HAL segment. One critically acclaimed movie that I didn't like was Blade Runner, but I'd like to watch it again sometime and see if my opinion changes.
A recent example for me would be Bohemian Rhapsody. It looked great, the acting was great, and it was nice to learn some things about a popular band.... but it was every “rise to fame, fall from grace, then rise up again” story disguised as a “based on a true story” drama. I will give it credit for attempting to put some twists in the various cliches to make it more unique - and the cliches are done very well - but I could still predict every single plot point that would happen (a disapproving family, someone snarking about how the band will never become a thing, the main character becoming a full-of-himself jackass, romance problems, some evil agent/producer/whatever that uses the protagonist as a pawn, the band breaking up, scenes symbolizing how lonely it is at the top, the protagonist getting a wake-up call, and the band coming back together for one last performance). Like I said earlier, I can see how so many people would like it, but I just couldn’t get into it.
When I was 17, Frozen happened. I went to see it with my friends, and while most people in the theater were crying by the end and shocked at Hans's reveal, I wasn't too emotionally into it, and I knew he would be the villain. It left kind of an Eh impression on me.
HAHAHAHAHA Frozen is as cliche as it gets. I didn't even want to watch it but my history teacher made us watch it 3 fucking times........i couldn't even sleep through it i had to stay awake. But i digress
I did find the Hans twist surprising, but the film is overrated, all though watchable.
There was no doubt in my mind that there wasn't going to be a happy ending.
I actually guess that he was a villain just because of his sideburns. The minute he was shown on screen... I was like "that the villain. He looks too perfect. Must be bad."
Almost everybody who wasn't a kid didn't really like it
I feel like hype plays a big part in this. I like hurt locker and avatar for example but when hl won a oscar and avatar became the best selling movie, people seemed to start hating them cause they couldn't like it as much as others told them to. I'm really excited for war of the planet of the apes, but being the 3rd good movie in a trilogy and the marketing suddenly focusing on the great reviews, I'm worried this is going to overhype people.
I totally get hype ruining a movie. Back when Guardians of the Galaxy came out I'd heard so many good things about it. I went out and got it right before my birthday, and boy did it not do a thing for me. Technically it's a perfectly fine movie, but I couldn't make myself like or get invested in the characters at all and the villain was a total snore fest. The funny thing is that I watched the sequel on Netflix a couple weeks ago, and I loved it. Truthfully I had no real expectations for Guardians 2, so I was able to just watch it and get totally sucked into the story.
Excellent point! I think people tend to root for the underdog, so when a movie is overhyped it loses any of that “underdog” feeling.
I saw “The Blair Witch Project” in the theater at the first showing, and it scared the CRAP out of me! It wasn’t full of stupid jump scares, rather the predicament was so frightening I could barely stand it. “The Blair Witch Project” was mentioned in some cinephile magazines (mostly foreign) so it got almost no mainstream hype. I was curious as to why it got so much attention at Sundance, and I soon realized why. Sadly, it’s a movie best seen in a theater, or a FANTASTIC home system, because sound is a vital part of it.
@@thetooginator153 For me, *THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT* was an overhyped piece of utterly fetid crap. If I wanted to watch college students screaming at each other for 80 minutes, I'd attend a 'debate'.
Bob Schneider - I assume you didn’t see it in a theater. I didn’t like The Blair Witch Project on a TV screen either because of what you mentioned: it sounds like three college kids complaining. But it the theater, it feels like you’re in the woods and hearing the really, REALLY terrifying sounds. IMHO, sound is the most important part of TBWP.
You may have been too young to remember when TBWP came out, but only film nerds like me knew about it. I saw the first showing and only five people were in a theater that could hold 100. It got a LOT of media attention because it had almost no budget but was making a TON of money.
I can safely say that the entire American independent film industry became viable due to TBWP. It spawned a lot of crap too, but it showed that it was possible to compete with studio films IF your film had something unique.
Bob Schneider - I totally agree with you about “debates” though! I think you would enjoy comparing the 1980 debate between Reagan and Bush Sr. to debates these days. To me, 1980 wasn’t that long ago, but it sure is in terms of acceptable behavior.
So you're saying great movies are perfectly balanced, as all things should be 🤔
22 likes
I watched the crucible in my english class. I liked it for the obvious reasons as a movie. Personally though, while i know it's the intention, I disliked how uncomfortable and sad it made me.
Weeaboo Jones that was my experience exactly too
I first experienced it in my English class a few months ago. I saw it as good but I couldn’t get into it but I admired everything about it. I also kinda agreed with Siskel and Ebert’s review of it where they gave it a thumbs down because they felt it didn’t have enough drama.
same here the movie is really effective at making you feel uncomfortable and sad. actually seeing tituba get whipped is nauseating. it's a really well made film but I doubt I'd ever rewatch it, let alone in full
That's why I stopped watching dramas that seemed to have no breaks between the misery. And the ones they did have were either cheesy or generic
I wonder if you watched the one where the guy yells "BUT ITS MYYY NAAAAME" I think it was Daniel day lewis?? Best part of that movie imo lol but yeah that play really hits hard sometimes
star wars. the original trilogy is fine, and i can’t find anything wrong with it, but i just can’t get into it.
I think OT star wars might be exempt from this example. It has just the right amount of ratio between being overall well made, with some obvious ''What the fuck was George Lucas thinking'' moments to balance it out, like Leia shoving her tongue down Luke's throat _even though they're siblings_ and then the duel on cloud city.
Or having to sit through ewoks, but then also being treated to the absolutely masterfully well made confrontation between Luke, Vader and The Emperor. When i was a kid, no other scene from any movie i ever watched had me glued to the screen like the emperor's throne room. Who would have ever thought, that when Luke walked into a room with the 2 most powerful sith lords of all time, that he would be the only one to leave that room alive?
It's simple. "So bad, it's good" is a movie that has a spark of honest passion in it. It's a kind of movie the creators of which had a bad idea and lacked any talent to implement it, but fully committed to it anyway with pretty much no self-consciousness whatsoever. "So good, it's bad" movie must therefore be well thought out and executed, but ultimately soulless, cautious and overly self-conscious. It's more "so good, it's boring' I think. Can't think of any example off the top of my head. Probably any academy award winning movie that nobody remembers.
"Soulless, cautious, and overly self-conscious."
Sounds like the average Disney or Oscar-bait movie in a nutshell. :P
Well, none of the movies Doug listed were any of those things.
interstellar
a few of the marvel movies
avatar
Crash
Yeah, but again. Are they perfect movies or are they "meh, I don't like them movies?". I don't like the Godfather but I recognise that it is a good movie and very well crafted at that. I just don't feel anything towards it.
Personally I don't understand why people always said that Ghostbusters was laugh out loud hilarious not to say that it wasn't funny but I don't think that it was supposed to be laugh till your out of breath I personally think that they wanted it to come off very subtle which they succeeded in doing because I loved and appreciated the subtle presence that the movie's comedy had the only joke that I laughed really hard was when venkmen called peck dickless I just don't understand why everyone and their mom was calling this hilarious.
You make a good point here. Now, I think Ghostbusters was essentially a dumb story that was brilliantly acted and directed.
+Shadowman4710 in some ways that's sort of why it was great.
I thought it was pretty funny but the effects didn't really thrill me and I did NOT like Venkman when I was younger, he just felt really skeezy. I've softened on him now that I'm older but he's still my least fav of the four. But the subtle touches they had really got my respect.
I personally thought they were just funny, simple as that, nothing spectacular.
BoosterStudios You could be right there but for me the film hasn't held up all that well over the decades. I saw it twice back when it came out and really enjoyed it but the laughs fall flat for me these days.
If Ledger’s Joker wasn’t so damn entertaining to watch, I could definitely feel this way about The Dark Knight. The themes of control vs anarchy is so well told that it’s almost too good.
I always loved the movie but every time I see the movie not much after the previous time I can't really enjoy it as much
Batman begins is decent, Dark Knight is GREAT but Dark Knight Rises brings the whole trilogy down.
@@greatomeister675 wtf are you talking about. Dark Knight rises is great too. So your saying its a bad movie.
@@144chosen
Calm down now
@@greatomeister675 I'm am calmed down, on its own dark Knight rises is great but compared to the two other movies it brings the trilogy Dow
Toy Story 3.
I adore animated movies (2D and 3D) and from time to time I need my "kids-movie happy ends".
Toy Story 3 got a great villain, who has his own tragic story. Andy grew up, but plays for the last time with his toys, before the little girl gets them. I even liked that little girl. I loved that Andy hesitated to give her Woody. I love the feels!
But I'm kind of "meh" with this movie. I love the ending. But the rest of it or when I hear the Title, in my mind only pops up "meh".
Exactly, everything about it was great but I wouldn't watch it the same amount of times I've seen Toy Story 2 or Monsters Inc
I agree
Stanley Kubrick's movies are formally perfect, but I sometimes find it hard to get into them because of how cold and detached they can feel. I like movies that are bold, energetic and take chances, movies where you can see the passion put into them, then I can love them despite mistakes.
Agreed
if you can't see the passion in kubrick's movies, you're not looking dude.
+sensory place Passion? How about entertaining? How about having a resolution? 2001 is pretentious at best.
Kenneth Siwek I can see how you think it's pretentious, but really if you truly understand that movie, you'll know that there is certainly a resolution. I found it very entertaining when I first saw it and I was like 14. Yeah, it's no Avengers or The Notebook.. but it's incredible to me. Maybe some of his other movies are more your taste. I'm sure you've seen The Shining, did you not like it?
I'd agree theres clearly passion behind his film-making with each shot and cut meticulously crafted, but they do often feel cold and uninviting. I don't believe I've ever been able to relate to one of Kubrick's characters, and whilst thats probably deliberate on his part (making statements on how you don't really know a person ect.) I don't personally enjoy it because I cant connect to it in any way.
Also, so he's doing a review of Ghostbusters, huh? I saw it the other day in cinema, and was actually pleased with how damn nothing it was. It wasn't funny ('Cept maybe Chris Hemsworth) the action kept me interested, I guess. It wasn't even really offensive. It was NOTHING. We wasted our time, people.
Why did that please you?
Magus Marquillin Maybe he hated the idea from the beginning, and the fact that it's nothing will cause it to possibly sink into obscurity. If you're a bad movie, you can be like for being one, or simply talked about because you failed so hard. If you're great, you're praised, remembered, and rewatched. If you're just meh and boring, nobody remembers you.
+Magus Marquillin It wasn't terrible enough to be a permanent stain on the famed ghostbusters legacy but it wasn't good enough to prove the fanboys wrong?
shut up. stop fishing for likes.
+Twisted Gambit he's not fishing for likes ._.
*I think when we know how an entire film will be just does make u feel a bit “meh”. Or sometimes certain themes in movies just aren’t ur thing*
I had this feeling with Goodfellas and Schindler's List. It's really annoying because I know they're great movies.
Oh, and Alien 1 & 2.
Domzo D. I had it with alien
OH, Schindler's List. A tragic, artsy movie with character development, incredibly moving scenes and a film that shows you all the horrible sides of WWII.
My sister made me watch it. At the end, she was crying his heart out. I was llike: "7 out of 10". The biggest problem, for me, is that the story was a bit unfocused, what with that big tragedy that happens at this place I know its name cause I'm so well cultured; the factory; Schindler's affairs, Goethe... I didn't know how things would connect, which story should I follow or what stories were subjugated to what. Right now, I don't remember much of that movie.
Not a bad movie: it's probably a jaw-dropping masterpiece, but it didn't work for me.
Yup. It's the List for me too. Also Fargo and Taxi Driver. Dunno what is it about those movies that just make me go 'eh'...
Ivo Samuel Giosa Domínguez
schindler lista is almost perfecto in everyway
I personally think it has nothing to do with having or not having flaws, the problem with these kind of movies is that they don't have enough personality. I mean, they are kind of predictable in the way of keeping everything as clean as possible, they won't risk it, you feel they are trying to be perfect... A good example would be:
- Let's say this is the first time the world sees a tightrope walking, there is suspense because he can fall at any moment, it is amazing to see because people never witnessed such balance and bravery... So he just walks all the tightrope flawlessly and everyone is cheering and applauding. This would be that perfect movie you can't get all the way into.
-Now let's do the same but instead of that guy, we put his charismatic crazy twin walking a tightrope for the first time ever. We see the same excitement for seeing something fresh and risky, etc. But this twin starts scratching his butt halfway through and making other funny gestures trying to break the ice with the audience while performing the walk, then before he finishes the rope, he does a flip and lands on the ground finishing with a bow. Now everyone goes crazy and will talk about it for the rest of the day even tho he walked on the tightrope no better than his twin, he was just more charming and showed more personality.
What I'm trying to say is, you can achieve a 10/10 by making no mistakes and perfecting every single aspect of the movie: music, script, acting, story...
On the other hand, you can achieve a 10/10 without trying to, making everything right but in your own way, I mean, you are making the movie you truly want, you took risks with some scenes but they made sense and you made them fitting, and yet you happen to make everything as flawless as the other movie.
Did you make a better movie? no, it is not a 11/10, did your movie have more flaws? nope... But you showed more personality with yours and people enjoyed it more, they understood you didn't try to make it perfect, you just perfected a movie that you wanted to make.
That's very interesting.
hasta la Vista , stunt shows work when you see the consequences of failure and relate with the hero enough to want to see him succeed. Discomfort is taught . Babies will stupidly stumble into harm's way (and even laugh at victims) because the sensation of such horrors and the empathy that comes with it is foreign to them .
I'm gonna get so much shit for this, but.... La La Land. It was cute, but it's NOT the second coming of Christ like everyone says it is.
Carly Booth I agree I didn't like it as much as I thought I would. sure the cinematography is great and I love the ending but I dunno it kinda felt like all that timeless musical mixed with modern story telling was really forced. it kinda made me feel like they couldn't make up their minds as to what kind of story they were telling
Carly Booth La La Land is so fucking boring and it felt like a middle finger to actually good musicals. It's just a bland mashup of broadway tropes that were watered down by bland, boring actors who can sing well but don't have an ounce of fucking passion in their bodies. It's a musical without any passion and it's insulting as hell.
I didn't even bother watching La La Land its just a hollywood handjob.
Exactly.....i can't stand oscar bait just give me a movie thats good and entertaining
The film is visualy appealing and I like the songs. But I was like, where is the plot?
This is an interesting idea, but I find myself disagreeing with your definition of something so good it's bad because it fundamentally conflicts with the basis of what makes something so bad it's good.
As we know, a movie is so bad it's good when we find ourselves in disbelief at its elements and very existence. We wonder how human beings could've have thought that what they were making was good or natural, and we think, "I could make a movie better than this!" And in this way, it makes us feel good because it reminds us of our humanity.
In my mind, a "so good it's bad" movie should be the polar opposite of this. Not a movie that goes exactly the way we thought it would, but rather a film that is so perfect, and has us so emotionally and psychologically impressed/involved, that we actually kind of resent it. We marvel at its sheer amazingness, but we also feel a little less good about ourselves because of its quality, and we think "I could never hope to make anything this good."
As an example, Doug himself, in his top 20 favorite movies list, said about Spirited Away, "This movie is so good, I actually sort of hate it. I'm jealous of it." That's exactly what I'm talking about here.
I'm a big Pixar fan, but I think A Bug's Life is the most forgettable out of all of them
For me the forgettable Pixar film was actually Monsters Inc. I *liked it*, it was good, but I keep forgetting it when I think Pixar for some bizarre reason.
denzal689 same
denzal689 The Good Dinosaur is so a Sony Movie...
I like cars 2 more than a bugs life and ratattouille..
denzal689 agreed.
Videos like this are my favorites. They're thought provoking and I like hearing commentary on different subjects. Keep it up Doug
I like Doug's editorials more than his reviews. His reviews can be funny and have a lot of passion, skill and creativity put into them but in editorials, he sits down and talks to us, bringing up ideas that many people may not have considered. That's what makes him such a great critic. Despite his over-the-top behaviour in his reviews, his editorials reveal that he's actually extremely intelligent and insightful.
My Neighbor Totoro was that movie to me.
i can understand that
spirited away too. maybe I had too high of expectations from it but I did enjoy it but I was still like...'meh' after it ended
Weird, i thought everyone likes that
Good suggestion. None of the Miyazaki films aside from Castle Cagliostro and Castle in the Sky Laputa had endings that felt earned. He chose the ending for each about halfway into production, so none of them were properly foreshadowed. They were just a big thing that happened after all the smaller things that happened.
The animation is wonderful, the background paintings stunning, the characters are all engaging and relatable, the situations interesting and keep you riveted to the screen, but the endings are just lacking.
wind rises and laputa for me
A movie that is perfect, but I dont like is...
2001 (I am Sorry)
2001: A Space Odyssey? It's not even close to perfect. Academic elitists gush over the cold emotionless plot. Frankly, the movie is over-hyped.
Finally , people who don't blindly praise that boring ass film! ( Still love kubrick's other movies tho)
2001 is my favourite movie of all time but I still respect people who dislike it
I never watched it but how the plot sounds to me it is slow but that what adds to the atmosphere
I love that movie
For me it's Blade Runner. I WANT to love it so badly, but I just can't get on board with it for some reason...
Atreus Yes. It always felt as it was just so high on looking great, that it forgot the story sometimes.
Plus, Deckard was a Replicant in the original cut. Only androids are shown with glowing eyes, and Deckard is shown with glowing eye Twice.
Just saying...take a look on the book. The story is more interesting and also more depressing
That's totally understandable. Blade Runner is probably my favorite film because, it has a lot of what I like to see in a film. It's not for everyone, but it's still really good to where a lot of people like it.
It's neo-noir Los Angeles shrouded in rain, containing suspense of a hunt, a villain that has more to him than just evil, the concept of love, a science fiction based world where it's covered in neon lights and the people have this vibe about them where they can be what they want, dress how the want, live how they want and no matter how strange or 'taboo' it may look, they are free to be who they are. That's why I love it.
@@GoatPopsicle Deckard being replicant is the most bullshit theory ever. Sucks that they made it canon now
When I watched blade runner for the first time, I didn’t enjoy it as much as I was hoping. But I convinced myself to watch it again and somehow it became one of my favorite films. I think when you watch a movie that feels long a second time, it feels shorter because you know the structure better and aren’t constantly waiting on the ending.
This is exactly how I feel about Game of Thrones
+cloudoverse In the end is a matter of what we like and our opinions on why it's not for us... it would be better if people wouldn't overreact "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY NOT LIKE/WATCH X SHOW? IT'S JUST THE BEST SHOW EVER MADE!" it can get really annoying.
+Rotten Pterodactyl I kind of do the same, but it still bothers me. Also, I've watched 3 episodes of GoT and I didn't find it interesting, not for me I guess.
Maybe you should try the books. My sister also doesn't like the show but really enjoys the books.
I prefer the books. The show really annoys me sometimes trying to shoehorn "girl power" into it in a really obvious way, at times. The other writers on the show are not as good as George, and you can tell right away if a given episode had a lot of input from him or not. It's also nicer to have the book as a medium because it tells you more about what's going on inside a character's head.
+Rachael Lefler For me It's the other way around, I read the first book and thought it was really boring, so I decided to watch the show ended up watching 5 seasons in 2 weeks.
Even though the show has it's flaws, I still found it more enjoyable.
One film I think not only fits into the category with me, but with a lot of people I've come across.
Batman Begins.
I like that movie but get what you mean. If TDK had been the first movie in the series you would not think that something was missing.
I think it happens with a lot of Nolan movies.
I agree, I don't like a single one of the dark knight movies, except for a few parts, even though I am a huge batman fan.
The Dark Knight Rises was so boring. I don't think it met the criteria of a good Bat Man movie.
I saw Batman Begins again a few days ago and it's just... boring! Everyone knows how his parents died, you have these weird time jumps back and forth and slightly less back. And than his macho personality. Maybe it's because it's a rather long movie, but I was just sitting there waiting for the end. TDK is better, because the Joker is actually a good, well played villain with a lot of aces up his sleeve (hehe). Batman Begins is just a rich white man an a journey to find himself, spending tons of money and than being a dick to everyone.
When he started talking about the Truman show, I almost went off on him.
But then again, I realized it’s his opinion, and I have my own, and mine isn’t supposed to be everyone’s.
Somthing some *cough* fanbases could learn from
We need more people like you. Nowadays, people put evey single swear word and nick name they know in 1 comment when somebody doesn't think like them.
You’re right. Yours is supposed to be superior 😎
Thanks for making us remember that simple, yet important lesson
Yeah, I never liked ET.....now to wait for the hate comments.
do u know what about it didn't grab you? Was it boring, childish, poorly written, poorly acted? I am curious.
Adam N Well I personally just found it boring and uninteresting. It wasn't the worst I've ever seen, I just didn't find it very entertaining. The only thing I liked about it was the very beginning and very ending. If you like it, that's great, nothing against you. Just don't expect me to care for it anytime soon.
I'm agreement. Even as an 80's child, I just didn't connect with it like with others such as The Goonies or The Witches. Maybe it was the bants...
Lee Sounds like you prefer the comedy and action of the Goonies. ET was a drama for all intensive purposes. It didn't have alot of exciting moments. Not sure I'd place The Witches anywhere near either ET or the Goonies but I did watch The Witches and it was somewhat entertaining but forgettable.
Adam N Actually, you're wrong. I love any genre for any movie as long as it's done well...this movie did not do it well for me.
I don't believe in "so bad it's good". The movie is either bad or good. You either like it or you don't. "So bad it's entertaining" is a completely different claim.
You are right. But I think critic was saying that there is a lot of movies that are great, but just don't fit someones cup of tea (in matter of taste, not brain).
A movie's primary goal is to provide entertainment to the viewer. A movie can have bad acting, storytelling and visual effects, but at the end of the day if the movie was entertaining, it's still a good film just not in the traditional sense.
+Capitalist Entertainment may be what YOU want in a film, but you can't claim that it makes a film objectively good.
That's my whole point. You can like a bad film because it's entertaining, but you can't say simultaneously that a film is "good and bad"'. Only that it was bad, but you liked it.
NeoSoul What your saying is fair, but movies don't care if their film is objectively good, it just has to be entertaining for the audience. If it does that than the film has succeeded.
Sorry but to me you're just arguing semantics. The "so bad is good" thing is just a term that catched on and means that it's so bad it turns entertaining in an unintended way. It's about it having an appeal different from what was intended, like a drama that ends up being funny because of bad acting for example. It is indeed a subjective thing since what may be "so bad is good" to someone will be just bad to another.
I am going to get so much hate for this, but Birdman. It just didn't work for me.
Movies to me is like histeory, there will be great events but some of them won't be interesting.
Agreed. It felt pretty artificial and airless to me.
and pretentious
I understand what you mean, some of my friends say that the movie was made for an oscar and stuff, i love the movie and the plot, every single shot of the movie, but like i said, i understand your point.
It's too artsy. I liked it but wouldn't watch again.
The most perfect movie in my humble opinion is Shawshank Redemption. I was wondering if anyone felt unmoved or found it blan. I am not looking to criticize but am genuinely curious.
Hairy Heartsmith I found it boring. I’m pretty sure I’ve fallen asleep trying to watch it multiple times. I think I finally got through it once and I was like “that’s it?”
I unfortunately find many great films really boring (I actually can’t think of a classic film I even like) and some so uninteresting in their concepts (or I dislike the whole genre) I just refuse to watch them altogether like Rocky and The Godfather.
I certainly enjoyed Shawshank, but preferred the Green Mile.
I'd be willing to bet that there are people out there who disliked Morgan Freeman's narration, or more specifically how much Shawshank relies on its narration. Movies are, after all, a visual medium, and the rule in a visual medium is to show rather than tell.
I love Shawshank Redemption!! It’s amazing
Titanic 1997 - the only thing i liked about that movie was sinking scenes , thats it
my favorite actor was the iceberg
Titanic was such a success because of TIMING, as much as anything. Late 1997 had virtually nothing good at the cinema, aside from a mediocre James Bond movie. Titanic spent months as literally the best thing playing, even though it was really just 'good' rather than 'great'. Plus the sinking scenes *were* spectacular.
(And for that matter, roughly the same thing happened with Avatar. No competition and a great gimmick.)
Titanic is the most brilliant and perfectly-made mediocre movie ever.
same idk i was told it was so amazing and id love it but i just sat there the entire time wondering when it would be over i didnt feel anything toward anyone in that movie same with avatar(not the last air bender one)
Me too!! I just can't get through that 3 hour slug fest!! The sinking is truly the best part!
My heart broke a little when he said Cinema Paradiso.
Overrated = It's so good it's bad
That's me with Rick and Morty...EVERYONE loves it. EVERYONE watchtes it...I watched a few episodes, and don't really see it as an AMAZING cartoon...it's just a cleverer family guy, without the cut-a-ways.
While you are sort of right, you need to watch the second season. That's where the ideas become more complex and the humor becomes kind of genius. The show still is overrated but the quality it does have is undeniable.
I disagree, I think blade runner, get out and vertigo are highly overrated but I would also say they are badly made films. Meanwhile the dark knight, good will hunting and catch me if you can, for me at least, fit the "so good they're bad" category (even though none of those films are definitionally bad) but for some reason, I can't call them overrated, I don't know why but I just can't.
That’s not what overrated means
Finaly someone that do not like it. I started to belive I was the only one.
but pickle hi iq dub dub
Slight imperfection is not perfection. It's slight imperfection. The false assumption is that perfect is better.
Wise words. Perfection is intimidating because it doesn't exist but there are people who can create the ILLUSION that it does.
@@tomnorton4277 Like AJR.
"Tell me in the comments..."
Funny he asks that when we all know he doesn't read the comments.
How do you know he doesn't?
Felipe • Because he's said so himself.
When someone goes out of their way to tell you they don't do something, that usually means they do.
+robotpanda77 That's a ridiculous statement. Most of the time they say they don't do something because they believe they're better people for it.
In any case, he made a video where he recommended other TH-camrs not to read the comments. That's the kind of behavior of someone who actually believes that's legitimate advice.
What video is that?
This is kind of how I feel about Steven Universe. I checked it out and as I was watching a few episodes, I thought "I should be enjoying this...but I'm not."
Same:) it's brilliant but I'm not interested.
I feel the same about breaking bad, i watched two seasons and i can't get into it. The characters are good, the story is good but there were multiple tiny nuisances that made it unbearable to watch for me.
My brother marathoned the 5 seasons in 3 days and i saw a 3 minute summary of the plot.
+Magwitch oh gosh same!! I tried but just couldn't invest
For me it's "We Bare Bears". Now it does have a lot of strong points going for itself,(the animation style, the voice acting cast, & the witty and humorous writing), but to me it just feels average to me.
I've been watching SU since the very beginning, and now I feel that way about the more recent episodes. The earlier ones had flaws but the flaws were what made the episodes extra special. But now, I feel the show has lost its charm.
Avatar. I know I know, hang me.
I'm with you. I didn't care for Avatar. It left a lot to be desired.
+Jerry Lazzara It's beautiful to look at, and had a lot of symbolism, but I could not connect with the character, at all.
Yeah, the story didn't pull me in.
I really enjoyed Avatar. But after finishing the movie it left me with a weird bitter taste. It happens every time I finish the movie. I don't know why.
Airbender nickelodeon series or James Cameron USB hair movie? The James cameron one tossed my immersion out the window the moment they called the planet fucking PANDORA of all things. I cannot understand how seemingly everyone thought that movie was innovative.
The nickelodeon americanime about wind-boy however, THAT hit me hard, and more than once.
Reading through the comments, I actually realized that I often have to watch a movie more than once in order to fully get into it. So, if something hits someone else in the feels, it may take me a few more times for me to also feel it. Also, I'm not much of a cryer. I still really enjoy watching Steven Universe, but I can't remember one time when I ever cried while watching it.
*Every* movie has flaws. Literally all of them. I'm sorry Doug, but I'm not sold that this "perfect to a fault" thing is actually...a thing. I've yet to see a movie that I enjoy less than anyone else without being able to put the reason into words. Art is a weird, nuanced *completely subjective* field and what registers as a "flaw" to someone might not for someone else. Everything is dependent on the lens you're viewing it from and if you're trying hard enough you can pinpoint what it is about ANY movie that doesn't work when put under a particular lens.
Not quite he thinks these movies are just ok because he loves to critique if he has nothing to critique he feels empty critiquing is his favorite part of watching movies.
If that's the idea Doug is trying to get across he didn't articulate it very well. Plus, and this is just going off what I know of Doug having never met the guy, he doesn't strike me as the type of critic who enjoys picking a movie apart for its flaws more than he does just enjoying a movie he considers good. I think the issue here is simply that Doug *did* find flaws in The Truman Show, The Crucible, Dracula, etc that go beyond he vague notion that they're "too well done", and his problem is he just can't put it into words.
I think it is pretty blatantly said that he sometimes doesn't feel what he is "supposed to feel" from a movie. And he is just trying to open people up to that and not feel super ashamed about it. It's funny that he makes this video as a critic when critics are notorious for falling for Oscar bait movies. So I think it's good that he made this video to show that you don't have to feel ashamed when you don't have the same opinion as the snob critic who only likes a movie if it is on the same level as citizen Kane.
I don't agree with Doug's ideas on how this kind of thing works. In my opinion, "So good it's bad" isn't just the yin to "So bad it's good"'s yang.
What I think it meant was that a movie can be done so..... consistently, have good consistent performances and a good consistent script. It hits every note it tries to, and because you feel exactly what it set out to make you feel, it almost leaves no room for your subjective mind to interpret the story in it's own way. You don't have anything to take away from the experience that's very unique.
I'm no psychiatrist but I know there are popular, rewatchable movies that don't leave much up to interpretation, but still work.
@@robertyeah2259 Another way to put this is "too good to be true". If you see an illusion of perfection, part of your mind is constantly thinking "what's the catch?"
I love Force Awakens, but it bothered me when JeremyJahns, Chris Stuckmann, Schmoes Know, AND Flick Pick put it #1 on Top 10 movies of 2015
Hype with nostalgia can blind a man. I enjoyed it a lot, bought some t-shirts from the store (sales for Star Wars products, that's a boost in nerdy reputation!), but it was an alright movie, with some really obvious cliches. What Star Wars has me more engaged is the universe it created all these years, not the actual movies, and Force Awakens only brought nostalgia and same-y environment (oh, new same stormtroopers, oh, new same rebels, oh, new same Death Star, oh, new same plot with new same characters). When George Lucas said, that the stories should rime, that's when we should have known that Star Wars would have always the same structure with a little spin to it, and Abrams confirmed exactly that with Force Awakens.
Keres1995 Or maybe the guy just saw something in the movie that you didn't?
TVBnine they see films one way & you see them one way. There you go.
Life of Pi is a great example for me. It has the best special effects I've ever seen (sorry Jurassic Park) and it was interesting to see Pi survive the way he did, but it just didn't hit me overall.
Yeah, I guess I just didn't like the "pick which story you want" thing at the end. It was basically saying to believe a nice fiction over an unpleasant truth and we can't really do that in the real world, and we should not be afraid to face the truth in all of its flaws, even if a lie might be nicer.
While that's one of my favourite movies in existence. I see where you're coming from.
+Rachael Lefler ah that was not the point, the point was that what does it matter what is in between if the start and the end is still the same.
That was why in the beginning they said it will make you believe in god.
You are born and you die, what does it matter what context to it you put, the end is still the same.
Do note I also find Life of Pi kind of meh.
it's not a movie for everyone, the reason it got so hyped was because of its relatively attractive plot summary and animation, but only a certain type of people can get attached and connect with the movie. I did. I can understand how others wouldnt.
+Tralalalalalala like it was similar to how I felt when I watched Her, despite watching tons and tons of movies, it's what made me cry the most.
Never could put my finger on what made your video essays stick out to me more than other video essay TH-camrs that I very much enjoy as well. And I just realized it's your style of taking the viewer on a journey with no real end except for the conclusion the viewer comes to themselves. It's like listening to a friend explain their thought process on an idea. It's very comforting and very interesting to hear your thoughts on these interesting questions you put out there.
Guardians of the Galaxy. Don't get me wrong; I liked it. It was a really fun movie to watch. But while other people walked out of the movie saying it was amazing, I wasn't that impacted by it. I think it was the humor; the jokes felt predictable to me. That being said though I'm excited for the sequel!
OMG! God! I've been searching forever for someone who felt the same way! It felt too safe, it felt too much like many of Marvel's formulas.
duuuude me too! Nice to know I'm not alone in the world xD
Yeah, I think Guardians of the Galaxy was just mediocre. The characters weren't interesting to me and the action felt a little too.....predictable I guess.
Finally!!! I guess I'm just gonna wait for the second movie to be available on the Internet instead of going to the cinema, because the first one didn't really grab me, and I'll just watch the sequel to keep up with the MCU (You know, easter eggs, after credit-scenes).
+The Sponge What does a movie you just generally didn't like have to do with this video?
Boyhood, I just didn't get much when I watched it
Ditto. January 9, 2017, 10:33pm
For me, the problem was that once you get past the "took 12 years to make" angle, the movie mostly presented a very average looking life. I go to the theater to see things that I don't see on a regular basis. Whether it's a fantastical epic or just a documentary on something I want to learn more about. And yeah, by the end the kid was pretty pretentious and douchey. But then again, at 18 weren't we all?
No i was more angry and felt like i had a chip on my shoulders. I was bullied in high school
Also yeah boyhood not a good movie at all. the characters aren't likeable except for Ethan Hawkes character, by the time the kid turned 18 i hated his guts. Yeah it was either annoying or loud or both. There is alot of screaming and arguing in this movie. Not to mention like said before almost everyone is unlikeable they're either selfish or just assholes so no i don't blame you for not liking it in fact you should dislike it
That's easy. Boyhood was a gimmick. The only thing interesting about it is seeing kids grow up while the story and acting were bland.
It's Deadpool for me. I wonder how many people wants me dead right now.
i dont see anyone but for me i dont even like DeadPool
Nah it fucking sucked. But so does the character, so no surprises there.
deadpool is really well produced, but we accept that is no the best movie. We adore the movie because had a good cast, specially with Reynolds, but is a origin story, very common and they have some few technical problems.
There are some very fair criticisims to the deadpool movie. 1) Way too much CGI in the action scenes. My guess is that Reynolds was really uncomfortable in that suit and couldn't move the way he wanted to so they CGI'd it/randomly changed up the pacing to make it more exciting but it just didn't work
2) The humor was machine gunned. There were so many great jokes, but they don't work rapid fire. I felt like I was laughing really hard at a joke but they just fired the next one immediately after so you couldn't savor any.
3) Marvel has no idea how to make a villain. Once again, the villain is just the poor man's version of the hero. There's no suspense. I never consider the villain to be a threat and when that's the case, there's no point in the climax.
There are plenty of little nitpicky things that you can point out, but that's with every movie. There were 3 major flaws in the deadpool movie that prevented it from being truly great. Guardians of the Galaxy is still the best Marvel production
I saw both Deadpool and Batman vs Superman in the cinema with the same group of friends. I found deadpool very meh and greatly enjoyed BvS. Everybody else seems to have the opposite opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes! Yes! YES! Maybe tha'ts what was wrong with Unfriended!
Star Wars 7. The story was just too familiar for me and the Characters too perfect to be likable.
It's the same damn movie as Episode IV, no wonder it feels familiar.
It's not :)
Well I don't think it was that good since they borrowed so much from the original franchise just to pander to fans. It worked, but it doesn't a great movie make.
I thought it was a fun film but rubbish as a star wars film. Like they re-made the original but with boring characters and a bland universe.
That's true I hadn't thought of that! In the original, within the "goodies", Leia is annoying, Han is arrogant, obi wan is pointlessly mysterious, only Luke is "nice". They had personalities.
Whereas in the new one everyone is just nice. Po, Rey, Finn. Even the xwing pilots are boring! Even Max von Sydow was boring!!
And the only interesting character was that imperial commander and also Ren.
For me it's Mad Max: Fury Road. I walked in so hyped, SO ready to fall in love with it, and... eh. Nothing wrong with it, but it's just not for me, for some reason.
For me unfortunately it's Star Wars the Force Awakens
I kind of feel the same way. I didn't hate it objectively. But it just didn't make me feel anything.
It was probably the missing elements of a relatable character in the film.
+AriesX how could you not relate to any of the charactors!?
It is easy to not relate to the characters in the star wars universe. There are so many people and experiences in the world that it is impossible to represent all people in a single movie. There is not a single character in all of star wars that I can relate to, my personality is completely different than any character in the movie, my believes and certainty my experiences are completely different than there's. The way they express them self and make decisions are completely unlike the way that I do those things.
I do not however need to relate to characters in order to enjoy a movie, I still enjoy star wars in spite of there being no characters that I could possibly relate to.
copy paste of the original and Rey was a Mary Sue
Man, revisiting the editorials makes me miss them. On that note, I like to add a TV show that just came out to the So good it’s bad list, Andor.
I know everybody loves La La Land, but I just couldn't get into it.
V Cabrera i couldn’t either. the only thing i love about it is “city of stars”.
Yeah didn’t like it either.
I despised that movie, actually. It was just a love story to Hollywood from Hollywood. The Re-writing of Local History was the worst part. They just totally ignored the part, where this was the time of Elvis not getting shown from the waist down, because he “danced too much like a black man” and, that Hollywood was right at the forefront of that culture.
fuck that movie
I thought it was just fine. I really didn't get what was supposed to be great about it. Same with 2018's A Star Is Born.
This sound nuts, but for me ... every Christopher Nolan film.
His films are beautiful works of art in the way you have described these other films (fantastic direction, cinematography, writing, editing, acting, etc.) but I've never felt moved by them emotionally, the same way other people have. I feel awkward every time someone brings him up as "one of the greatest cinematic auteurs of our time". I can't say or do anything but nod my head in agreement because I have no objective reason to say otherwise, yet I can't seem to understand what makes his films so great. Granted, some of his films I haven't seen in a long time, maybe I'll think differently about them with a 2nd viewing.
Christopher Nolan, much like Stanley Kubrick before him, thrives on making films that can have different interpretations depending on who's watching them. One of the most notable is Inception. Was Cobb reunited with his children in the real world or just in his mind? We don't know and we're not supposed to know because the ending can be interpreted either way. CinemaWins sees the entire movie as a look into Cobb's psyche, with the other characters all being part of his own mind. Other people see the other characters as separate from Cobb's mind and he just recruits them. Neither theory is right or wrong because Nolan never gave any clear answers.
Even his more straightforward movies like The Dark Knight play with people's interpretations. Some think that the Joker's plan is stupid and needlessly complicated because there's no endgame, while others see it as the work of a mad genius who doesn't care about the endgame and simply keeps making up new twists and turns for his own amusement. Another notable example is the Joker's stories about his past. Which of them is true? Are any of them true? Nolan lets the audience decide. Also CinemaWins sees it as a story about Choice vs Chance. Others may just see it as good old fashioned Good vs Evil.
That's why Christopher Nolan is considered a genius. Even if you don't like his films and see them as pretentious or boring or whatever, he intentionally makes sure that there are different ways of looking at them.
Even Dark Knight?? @flyingace
Dunkirk definitely
I’ve seen The Prestige many times and still love it. But movies like The Dark Knight and Inception are good but too long and convoluted for me to really enjoy again.
So Good It's Bad: Star Wars
Come at me bro!
Go away
And and you reversed the saying
Lol
But is it tho?
+bean boy And and that's the topic of the video.
Come at me stronger bro!
It’s the same to me with stranger things , I mean it seems amazing especially when I ask people about it but when I watched the show for the first time it just didn’t grasp me like I thought it would
Inside Out, Boyhood, Invictus, Wolf of Wall Street, Pulp Fiction, Psycho, and Labyrinth. All of these are films I admire and respect, wholeheartedly, but for some reason I just can't love them. I don't know why, but I don't find myself loving these films.
Inside Out everyone still adores, but to me, it's fine. I don't know why, but it just did not strike a cord with me at all, despite it being so well done. I don't know, it just didn't feel as creative as it should have been. Boyhood I admire, but the boy's life is just so stereotypical that it's not as enjoyable for me (case of point- the boy drank more alcohol than I've seen in my entire life. Not every teenager is an underage beer chugger). I still don't know why I don't especially love Wolf of Wall Street or Invictus. Pulp Fiction and Psycho especially should be among my favorite films of all time, but for some reason, they are not. Labyrinth has great performances (especially by Bowie) and puppetry, but it's just so boring. However, I don't think any of them are bad. Not even close. Just not good enough for me to especially love them.
And then there are films that are clearly bad, but a lot of people love them. The Transformer films and the Divergent/Twilight films (and the books as well) are prime examples.
Wolf of Wall Street was a bad movie
I totally understand psycho
I personally liked most of these films but i totally don't get why Wolf of wall street got popular.
It is basically 70% drugs and nudity, i want to think that it takes more than that to make a film reach the top 150 films of all time.
It is simply tiring and repulsive to watch.
I don't think Labyrinth would fit the criteria that the Nostalgia Critic has in mind.
No, see, that's the humor in there. Dark, socially unacceptable, funny humor. People have their tastes, and most people found Wolf of Wall Street a great movie.
a Ghostbusters review coming from Nostalgia Critic? ahhhh... I already see the Dislike bar 8)
^ it's really not, as mentioned before, Ghostbusters 2 is already a weaker film than the first one and a bland remake will never hurt how the first one is a damn near perfect film and one of the best representations of it's decade, we will all forget about the remake in the years down the line, the only thing anybody will remember is the shitstorm that came about because of it both from the the people who raged at it and the poor reaction the creators had in dealing with the haters
Tounushi I am already not interested in another ghostbusters film. I am like doug, nothing will ever recapture the first one , it was lightning in a bottle and nobody is ever gonna get it the way Akroyd and Ramis did , the best thing to let the franchise continue on is either another good animated series or the current comic books, or maybe another video game
The first Ghostbusters, to me, isn't amazing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it a lot and I do think it's a good film and a lot of fun, but it's incredibly stupid. In a good way. I am interested in seeing the new one, though I haven't gotten the chance to yet, I'll gladly drop $11.50 on it as someone who casually enjoys the first Ghostbusters.
Matt Babineau your profile picture (in full size) perfectly shows me what kind of person you are. *I just feel bad for you dude...*
It's pretty basic. Some people like it, some don't, some hate it, and some love it. Generally if you like the other work of the people who are in it, you'll probably like it.
Towards the end, Critic implies that perhaps we want to see flaws in a work, to know that it isn't perfect. I think that is a misunderstanding. It's not that perfection is bad. Perfection isn't *interesting*.
-Let's say you have a short film with flawless execution of its _single_ idea. Neat. That one idea was done justice. Moving on.
-Now let's say you have a 3 hour film _jam-packed_ with interesting ideas. Perhaps not as "flawless", but overall more to think about.
...If the short film is the 10/10, then a 10/10 isn't a very interesting thing.
That could be why The Truman Show is on his list. (Not that it's short) it has one really good idea: A man oblivious to the fact that he's in a show. It executes that single idea perfectly over the course of its runtime, but that's about all it does.
Amadeus, meanwhile, is chock-full of wildly varied and intriguing character study. It also happens to execute everything perfectly, but because there is a greater overall quantity of ideas, the work stands above The Truman Show in Critic's mind.
Very interesting video. Thank you for your work Doug. You, and the whole Channel Awesome team, are a true gem. Keep it coming :) from a Scotsman living in New Zealand.