I have thought for some time now that with Michael Bay's "Transformers" the humanity had hit the lowest lows in stupidity when it comes to cinematography. However, never say never, and along came "The Intruder" and took the title away from the "Transformers".
Is this as low as we can go, or is there some room left for even more stupidity?
How so?
All I can think about are dudes.
A: YES.
It would be a contender for Best Movie to Sleep To but for the idiotic drum tracks that I presume were inserted to make sure you stay awake. An insufferable movie with no point whatsoever, no action, no plot, no film technique to reach subconscious emotions (think EUROPA or ERASERHEAD), little dialog, and a string of actors who cross the screen like zombies in search of a studio.
It must be nice to be able to throw away a few million on an indulgence as worthless as this sh+t.
MISS CHIEVOUS
I'm sorry, I really have a problem with people calling a film stupid just because they don't understand the process o drive behind it. This is just a different way to make films, giving you a complete story but taking out the most important plot points in order for the audience to make up they're own story. It's subjective cinema, it is indeed experimental. But it's not stupid (Not anyone could make this film work purely on emotion) and it's not self-indulgent (you just feel that way because you're threatened by it).
share[deleted]
I think any movie in which a heart transplant is used as a metaphor is stupid, by definition.
shareEvery film ever made is the "stupidest movie ever" to somebody.
What a ridiculous issue to contemplate.
I agree, a stupid, boring and superfluous movie. The worst film I've watched in 2012. It can only get better than this from here!
shareNo, but the stupidest title for a thread.