Overrated movie thread

Also, why does boyhood have a 100 meta score? It's so damn boring. Good thing its slightly less overrated on imdb lately.

its bad cinema but its definitely not boring

But user it took 12 years to make.

Overrated? It took 12 years to shoot, user.

nigga it took 12 years

What do you mean it's overrated desu? It says I'm Kino on the poster.

but A.O Scott of The New York Times© said it was the most impactful film of his career

12 wasted years. That single fact just doesnt make it a 10/10 movie. Makes it worth watching at most

They had twelve years to write a story but they forgot

Overrated piece of crap

it's not boring.

you are an idiot and pleb who doesn't get true kino.

Then make a better movie that took my daughter. I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

this. i fucking love jaq phx but this movie was awful

Metacritic is literally cancerous.

La La Land
Argo

You just don't get it, OP. It took 12 years to make.

Boyhood is terribly overrated yes, but using "boring" as an argument is retarded user.
Most people find films from Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr extremely boring also, but that doesn't indicate it's actual quality whatsoever.

remind me, exactly how many years did it take to make this movie?

Is this what "film students" are taught to think nowadays? Enthralling the watcher and engrossing them in the story is 100% important to the quality of a film. Film can make mundane everyday life seem interesting by the use of detail etc., but saying it isn't important at all is probably why you work at a Starbucks and still think your useless education was worth it.

>but saying it isn't important at all
Where did I say that?

>but using "boring" as an argument is retarded user.

It's a completely valid argument in many cases and it's not any worse than using "classic" and "iconic" as arguments.

it's a masterpiece

the memes here are great because it leads to hilarious moments with a bunch of plebs thinking they're patricians while fundamentally misinterpreting a simple fact about the movie's creation

TWELVE YEARS

It really is not, "boring" is an extremely subjective term where people today call every other film today boring if it's not a supercut fast paced entertainment rollercoaster ride flick, while "iconic" and "classic" are not even used as arguments, they are objective facts if a certain film is considered as a classic. Really don't see your point here.

Whatever movies you like are oberrated you fuck

>"boring" is an extremely subjective
Yeah, personal opinions are like that. Even your opinion is subjective.

You don't seriously think there's an """objective""" metric for this, right?

...

Being bored is a mood that comes up in the person watching the movie. It isn't an element of the movie itself.

Every tarantino movie ever

NOTHING GOING ON
NOTHING GOING ON
I GOT A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING
NOTHING GOING ON

Linklater understands exactly what it's like to be in that awkward stage where you're growing up; that to be a kid is to have things be completely out of your control and be a passenger to your own life; to be a teenager is more than just angst and rebellion, it's trying to make the most of your youth when you don't know how to do it.

Because Linklater understands how the more you grow up, the more adult conversations start to make a scary amount of sense, and the more you start to have them yourself; it's a pretty heartbreaking thing to continue to grow up and see just how flawed your parents are.

Because Linklater understands that the little moments count more than anything else. Camping with dad. Small conversations you have with family and friends. That ride home you get after a good long night with friends. Lying in the grass and staring to the skies - the future is a scary prospect but that's okay.

Because Ellar Coltrane starts off as a pretty good child actor and only manages to get better as Mason gets older and emotions get more complex. Everyone in this film gives a stellar performance, especially Patricia Arquette as a mother trying to hold it all together.

Everyone who sees this film will say they saw part of themselves in the film, and also hopefully get the point because all this rambling with all these "becauses" still hasn't done anything to really get at the heart of the film and they never will.

Only subhuman Sup Forums posters hate this film.

Yeah, but did you know it took 12 years to make?

Ofcourse not, but as I said, saying a film is boring (or fun) is an extremely subjective surface-level form of argument which doesn't indicate the film quality at all, it just says how you felt while watching the film.
Yes me saying that Boyhood has overwritten dialogue and an aimless narrative with non-motivated characters and dodgy editing is also a personal opinion, but atleast it says something about the film itself (whether is it true or not), not about my general feeling throughout the film.
I find Citizen Kane quite boring, but does that really say anything about the film at all?

this movie is the ultimate pleb filter

everyone saying

>it's boring
>there was no plot
>it was life just like mine
>nothing special happened


are plebeians who didn't even knew what they were looking at.

Boyhood is all about those points you made, yes, no one is arguing about that.
The problem is the execution of those points, the way it is presented, the non impact of said "little moments" because of the poor delivery from our main character etc.

The way a film is executed is everything, a film can be about a rock on the street and given to different directors you would get widely different results. I could list the all the ambitious points Interstellar was trying to make, but that doesn't change the fact that the final execution of it was lacking, just like in Linklater's Boyhood.

and then you have people saying

>oh look there is that thing I remember from when I grew up that totally makes the movie awesome

not an argument

12 years

strawman fallacy

this turd took me 12 years to shit out so it's good haha

I have not seen the movie, what did you think of the movie?

not 1
not 2
not 3
not 4
not 5
not 6
not 7
not 8
not 9
not 10
not 11
but TWELVE YEARS

do you even understand how long it took to make?

absolute masterpiece

So, you're saying the shooting of the movie took not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8, not 9, not 10, not 11 but 12 years to make?

im simply saying the movie took one more than 11 years but one less than 13 years yes

>i didn't get the movie which is considered by critics a masterpiece
>9,2 on Tomatoes, 274 positive reviews
>i thought i was smart and with good taste about cinema
>cognitive dissonance emerges
>THEY ARE SAYING IT'S MASTERPIECE ONLY, *CHLIP CHLIP* BECAUSE IT TOOK 12 YEARS TO MAKE

is it possible to shit on a movie after it took 12 years to make? i havent seen it, but what if it sucks real bad? is everybody supposed to play dumb because shitting on 12 years of work is mean or something?

12 years dude

kek

pleb

Agree, every one of his movies were a waste of time

Blade Runner

It took 5 x 2 + 5 - 3 years to make, tho?

THIS

HOW DO PEOPLE ENJOY THAT SHIT