What a waste of a couple of hours. Pattinson is about as interesting as watching paint dry. I see this has a 5.0 score on imdb. That is mighty generous.
Thank you. I think the movie was supposed to be "satire" but didn't quite make it, obviously.
re: Pattinson is about as interesting as watching paint dry.
To some degree I think that might've been "intentional." Our "hero" was basically a void in a $9000 suit.
You're boring.
shareLove the fact that someone who makes basically a one-line post calling a film "pretentious and boring" doesn't recognize the irony in such a gesture, as if writing off a movie as "pretentious and boring" is an interesting or thought-provoking criticism and not just a reactionary complaint that anyone too small-minded to put any thought into what they're watching lobs at any film (or book, piece of music, etc.) that doesn't fit their cookie-cutter ideal of what movies should be.
shareI agree. The film may or may not work, but "pretentious" is not really a word you can "lob" at a great director who has making films for forty years. If someone makes a student film that purports to be the sequel to Bergman's "Seventh Seal", THAT would be pretentious. Cronenberg is not "pretending" to do anything, but follow his own unique vision, whether he really succeeds or not. You can say, for instance, that this or that painting is not Picasso's best, but you simply can't say a painter of his stature was ever "pretentious".
The way most people on the IMDB use the word "pretentious" is to basically the say "the film deviated too much from accepted norms and I didn't understand it". But that simply isn't what "pretentious" means.
It might be "boring", but since that opinion is largely coming from a bunch of 'Twilight" fans, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
Hey whoa easy there tiger. You're devaluing wet paint by grouping it with Robert Pattinson. I think wet paint would be mighty offended that you find Pattinson equally as interesting.
shareYeah pretty much. The film thought it was smarter than it's content deserved. It was boring, had no substance and was a chore to sit through. Things happened without purpose, without meaning and without anything other than "This sounds good, let's do this" behind it. People defending it claiming you need to think during it... no, you need to make up a meaning. You need to be willing to pretend there is more to this movie than the writer did because the writer forgot to give the movie a point. It's pure pretention without purpose. There is no satire, there is no deeper meaning, Croenenberg just forgot how to be interesting while he was doing his weird *beep* That's why people are defending this. The named Croenenberg implies that there might be some deep meaning to everything, so they go look for one that isn't there and make one up that they can make fit. They can't accept that maybe, just maybe, he made a bad film
shareIt may had aimed to be satirical but it failed.
Its that man again!!