ITT: Movies you thought were kino that you are willing to bet the rest of Sup Forums doesn't like

ITT: Movies you thought were kino that you are willing to bet the rest of Sup Forums doesn't like

Yeah it's immensely overrated.

The film was just bunch of terrible stage-play like improvisations edited together. There was no script, the director literally gave the actors short notes on paper to improvise certain scenes and they fucked around for two weeks like that and that's it.
That's why you have such jarring changes in tone throughout the film (people finding out there are multiple dimensions and copies of each other and then talking about love and the dinner they had last night the next minute).

Not to mention the atrocious execution of every other filmmaking element. Non existent lighting, completely flat visuals, horrendous night shot with shaky cam and digital noise so bad that you can't even see what's happening on screen, choppy editing, generic stock soundtrack, constant boring back to back camerawork etc, almost zero use of the visual medium.

I liked the concept of giving improv actors minimal information and just seeing what happens. Camera work was bad though

Coherence is a fantastic film.

I disagree with pretty much all of I thought it was exceptionally well-crafted for a micro budget piece. Probably the best micro budget SF I've seen, and that includes Primer

...

This was true kino.

People are usually very positive on it when it's mentioned.

>IT TOOK TWELVE YEARS TO MAKE

You're not the only one who thinks that.

Sup Forums is gonna eat my ass over this one, but it deserved its fucking Best Picture victory

>tfw Space Paranoids online is shut down

>tfw this is literally the only criticism people have the brainpower to make about this movie

try reno911 then, the dialog was so terrible in the first 20 minutes I nearly turned this shit off

...

Wow, what a daring choice.

So brave

>that glorious emotion when the only leg Pedohood fags have to stand on is "IT TOOK TWELVE (12) YEARS TO MAKE"

watched it with my friends, i remember loving it and them hating it then kinda appreciating it after some debate

i had no idea that most of it was improvised till just now which makes it a lot more impressive to us

...

Imo the only flavour of the month horror movie that deserved the eventual negative reaction was It Comes At Night and even then that was down to absurdly horrible marketing choices.

Ralph Bakshi's Wizards

The only remotely good thing about this movie is having the unique experience of watching the characters grow up before your eyes. Everything else, from cinematography, to dialogue, to acting, to story, is mediocre or worse, so yes, the meme response perfectly mocks the redeeming aspect of the movie.

I love this movie

What is this, user? Looks nice.

The beginning of it was horrible, I hated it at first because of the weird dialogue but after it got going it became one of the most unique movies of recent years. I loved it.

I rewatched it a week ago. It isn't a masterpiece, but it's good. Perfectly and simply good and I really really like it.

...

Define visual medium

Stylistic, flashy, and intense. Some of my favorite racing scenes in film.

visual medium is a properly basic term and can't be defined ;^)

>event horizon
>nacho libre
>they look like people
>the day after tomorrow

the congress
40 minutes until the drugs kick in, then ~hour of tripping

This movie really hit home for me

>"A visual medium is something that is viewed in order to get its intended effect."
You could just read about the plot of Coherence and get the same effect, no use of the visual narrative. Then take almost any Tarkovsky film and try to just write down the plot and for it to have the same effect, literally impossible, you have to watch it to truly experience it.

I mean the director was an amateur with no money, so it's not going to look like Blade Runner or anything. Understandable why most people wouldn't like it. It was pretty cool considering what they had to work with though.

It's one of the best coming of age films of all time

Should've released a 3D version

I saw this movie when I was a kid and years later gave it a rewatch and fell in love with it for good. Particularly good performances from Joaquin Phoenix and Nicole Kidman desu

Love literally every one of those. My niggin nigga

This movie has the typical downfall of film festival tier movies: It has a very original premise, interesting start, then starts kinda going nowhere during the 2nd act, and finally falls completely flat in the 3rd, like they couldn't think of a good way to wrap it all up.

This reeks of poorly structured screenplays, where the writer just started writing out this original idea, but eventually didn't really know what to do with it.

The thing is, this plays right into the kind of wannabe-patrician that you'd expect at film festivals. People who think they're above everyone else for watching these non-mainstream flicks. They get fascinated by the premise which is often interesting, yet they don't care at how terrible it's executed, when really the easy part is having an idea, and the hard part is executing it properly. They're like babies enthralled by bright colors, but they have no criteria on the actual substance of the film, which is the story. It's all in the premise and/or the aesthetics (only the premise in the case of Coherence), a completely superficial understanding of the film, and of the medium itself.

Just watch the Harry Potter movies instead if you want to see characters grow up. It's much better than Boyhood despite being the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Forgot the image you noob.

The Congress. It looks interesting, but it really isn't. It's overly long, it doesn't go anywhere further than the premise itself (see ), and eventually ends up making very little sense.

The animation is breddy gud tho.

My internet is bad and it says the image will download in 4 minutes.

>it's the best of the shittiest story type

The Rescuers Down Under

...

I liked it it was pretty comfy I watched it twice.

I fapped to that movie so many times as a kid. Nicole Kidman was hot as fuck.

Every fish is sexual, the heck?

Worst piece of shit I've seen all year.

The animated part is an hallucination brought on by some drugs, and in the hallucination everyone is just being hedonistic all the time, that's kinda why the fish look like genitals
if that makes sense. The whole concept is badly developed and makes little sense.

don't mind the jumping hitler, clint eastwood and elvis here, there are lots of other cameos
maybe you picked the wrong substance

This movie is pure kino when you realize everyone at the party to begin with isn't the original. Not just after the first party split. Also shes the bad guy.

Thank you for summing up perfectly why I hate this film.

Pic related is my "Sup Forums probably hates this" choice.

Sup Forums's opinion of this movie changes on any given day. I loved it though.

There's a pretty big copypasta about how the negative reaction to this movie was mainly critics overcompensating for calling it wrong with the second and third Matrix movies.

Sup Forums sucks Refn and Goose's dick. That's probably one of the most discussed movies on the board.

I can't fathom how anyone can deny that it's objectively terrible. ffs the MC has a LITERAL poker face during the whole fucking thing. How can anyone think that's good?

Other way around, Sup Forums loves that movie but when I press them for a reason none of them can explain why. Read the original script, it's much better.

...

>lazy shitposter lives in a third world country
Can't say I'm surprised.

plot twist, that just losing net neutrality
unless you meant muttland

I like it, many seem to hate it because it is just a sci fi b movie.

>plot twist
you're from reddit and need to get the fuck out

fuck man, this bring back memories i had forgoten