MovieChat Forums > Nomadland (2021) Discussion > Worst film of all time

Worst film of all time


But I think it's likely due to the actors having no talent.

reply

Your existence has no talent

reply

Besides this film winning Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actress Oscars, it also received Academy Awards noms for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Cinematography. Had this film not been showered with some of the highest accolades in the industry, I would not be anywhere as harsh as I'm about to be. And don't get me wrong--this film's heart is in the right place--I'm all for bridging the inequality gap and solving the homeless crisis, but this film failed to make this film as compelling and provocative as it needs to be. Personally, I can't think of a single scene or instance in this film where I haven't seen it done better in a previous feature film or docudrama.

That being said, I'm baffled as to why the Academy is awarding filmmaking that isn't visionary, not revelatory, nor groundbreaking by any stretch but is instead nominating films which don't go out on a limb and appear to be playing it safe in order not to offend anyone (i.e., Amazon, proponents of corporate capitalism/income inequality), which translates to a boring film which stands for nothing while providing very little entertainment value for many moviegoers.

While McDormand is one of the best actresses working in Hollywood today, her past performances alone should not justify her winning a Best Actress Oscar for portraying a fictional character who exhibited no character arc--her character starts off and ends the movie as basically the same character--a one-note performance and not layered by any stretch. No heroes' journey here--about the only journey in this film involved driving around in her van from one dead end job to the next while meeting up with her support group comprised of other van dwellers. My idea of a role with a considerable character arc was Carey Mulligan's performance in Promising Young Woman, which was in my opinion the best actress performance of 2020 bar none in large part because of the tremendous range she exhibited in this film. Mulligan should have won the Best Actress Oscar.

I'm curious as to who taught Chole Zhao how to write a feature film screenplay as she appears to have broken every screenwriting rule in the book by not including several of the ingredients that great films have in common--thus the reason this film came off to me as more akin to a documentary than a full length feature film. Obviously, Academy Awards voters don't seem to care.

One of the first rules of screenwriting is to show not tell--and what this film predominantly seemed to do was tell not show--as in dialogue driven talking heads with little to show for. If this film was based on an original screenplay that would be one thing, but because it was adapted for the screen, one would expect the screenwriter to make an effort to let the characters reveal their emotions and thoughts through actions and images instead of via mostly dialogue, which is the lazy way of crafting an adapted script.

This story had almost no real tension and conflict to drive the storyline forward, no plot--thus it's not plot-driven, no formidable antagonist who challenged the mettle, resolve and intestinal fortitude of the protagonist (the only example I could think of was a concerned woman knocking on the side of McDormand's character's van and kindly questioning her reason for parking the van on her private property), it was very slow paced and did not build up to a satisfying climax, no believable chemistry between any of the characters, no real purpose for the main character other than to find seasonal employment (even here they could have shown how companies exploited low-paid essential workers during the pandemic) and form superficial relationships with other nomads, bland backstory, no emotional changes executed throughout the film, none of the major characters transformed their lives in a noticeable way--thus it's not character-driven either, no genuine moral premise, no witty dialogue, no do-or-die, all-is-lost point in the film where the stakes are raised forcing the main character to make extremely difficult choices, nothing I would constitute as visual art--okay I'll admit the cinematography was breathtaking when examined in it's entirely but nothing really stood out visually that would be forever burned in my cerebral cortex, nothing original which I haven't seen done better in previous films, and no true portrayal of human poverty and suffering, they could have at least capitalized on her vulnerability to make us care about her plight, a woman-against-the-world archetype to root for, which should have been the underlying theme of this film.

Can you explain why this film was even nominated for a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar, least to say, winning Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director?

reply

If you have that much to say about this movie, why are you posting under this troll's stupid comment?

reply

If you have that much to say about this movie, why are you posting under this troll's stupid comment?


Oops! I meant to reply to the OP.

That being said, are you going to add anything insightful to this topic or are you content with leaving a borderline trollish comment?

reply

How is it trollish to say that your comment is intelligent enough to not be hidden under the OP trollish comment. Way to be a jerk to attack someone who is trying to give you a frickin' compliment.

reply

Way to be a jerk to attack someone who is trying to give you a frickin' compliment.


In what way did I attack you? And in what way is the comment I responded to a compliment? There was zero positivity in your comment. ZERO. Your comment sure sounded sarcastic, negative and borderline trollish if you ask me.

By calling someone a jerk--now that's what I call an attack--having your true colors shine through.

reply

Looking at your posting history over just the past few hours reveals other trollish comments you've left on 3 separate threads:

"Just look at your comment, it shows idiocy."

"You are like a vampire parasite using MovieChat this way."

"Hey stupid what part of "🔥 ATTENTION: Do NOT Post Political Discussions Here 🔥" are you not smart enough to understand?"


Should I go back further than a few hours in your posting history to demonstrate my point?

reply

This is nowhere near the worst film of all time. There are thousands of worst films than this. Nomadland is an excellent film.

reply

OK maybe not of all time, but certainly in the last decade imo.

reply

It's not the worst film of all time but I found it a dull two hours hanging out with hippies that I wasn't interested in.

If you want a better recent film about a woman trying to deal with loss in an usual way then I'd recommend Land with Robin Wright.

reply

Perhaps the title for this thread should have been: The worst Best Picture/Best Director Academy Award winning film of all time.

reply

You have trash taste.

reply

He's exaggerating, but he's right that the film is overrated. I watched it tonight, expected something good, and ultimately found it a pretty boring affair.

reply

Why is it overrated? Simply because you did not enjoy it and others did? To say it is a bad film on that level requires an explanation. You don't just get to throw that label around and expect it to stick. Especially without substantiated claims.

reply

It's an opinion ultimately, but in my opinion, it's overrated. The principal reason is that, foremost, movies are supposed to entertain. This one is not very entertaining.

While I'm sure the characters in the film are all nice people, it ultimately felt like an hour and 45 minutes of hanging out with people who weren't that interesting, with little in the way of plot and an ambiguous ending that is not satisfying.

Probably if you're a hippy type you'll feel differently about the film, but that's how I felt about it. It's a very weak Best Picture winner and just shows how far the film industry has declined. Whereas films like Gone with the Wind, Dances with Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy, Lawrence of Arabia, and more recently, Forrest Gump and No Country for Old Men were taking the top honors, now movies like this are being held up as the best of the year.

If you liked it, I'm glad you got more from it than I did. As I said earlier in the thread, if you want a better recent film about a woman trying to deal with loss in an usual way then I'd recommend Land with Robin Wright.

reply

Entertainment can be subjective. A film like this is slow. There are many people that saw the Lighthouse and called that boring. To me I am into the craft of film making. Acting, directing, writing etc. Was this my pic to win best picture? No but to claim oh worst movie ever shows you are ignorant. That claim can't be backed up with logical reasoning. Only subjective reasoning.

Dances With Wolves a good best picture winner? Against something like Goodfellas? Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption? Crash won best picture as did Shakespeare in love over Saving Private Ryan. So to say this was the film that broke the camel's back to me is a bit silly.

reply

As I said, I think the OP's post was an exaggeration. Obviously it's not the worst film ever. It was an okay movie, nothing more or less than that.

You could certainly make the argument that Dances with Wolves is a superior film to Goodfellas, but they are in fact both excellent. I'm not going to choose one over the other. As for Gump, same thing. One thing I have to point out though is that films like Wolves, Goodfellas, Gump, Pulp Fiction and Shawshank, regardless of how you order them, are ALL much better than virtually anything Hollywood is making today. It is literally like they have forgotten how to make classic films.

Crash was a poor pick and obviously Shakespeare in Love should not have beaten SPR. At least that year had a film like Saving Private Ryan to compete though.

Looking back over the last 10 years just proves how dire things are. We are to the point where merely GOOD films can win BP. It's no longer a requirement for a film to be great. While I enjoyed The King's Speech, Argo, Birdman and Parasite, they are not on the same level of the films discussed two paragraphs up.

reply

Most people consider Goodfellas to be better than Dances With Wolves. While Wolves is considered a good film most unanimously it is agreed that Goodfellas is the superior film. It was received better by critics and the mass majority.

Films such as the Lighthouse, 1917, Judas and the Black messiah, Parasite, Whiplash and Birdman, I consider to be on the levels of the ones you listed above. I do not consider Argo, The King's Speech, or Spotlight to be great films. Those are typical Oscar bait flicks that are manufactured. Nothing about the King's Speech is pushing anything in film. Everything is good enough and pandering enough to get the Oscars attention. Lighthouse, 1917, Parasite or Birdman have either cinematography or writing that is something excellent or pushing technical limits.

reply

I think that Goodfellas has more popular appeal, but that does not mean it's a better movie. But we're arguing over works that are on the master level.

Of the films you listed, I'll agree that Whiplash is excellent. 1917 was very good, but was it Saving Private Ryan good? I don't know about that--in fact I'd say no--but it's definitely a good film and one of the best films we've seen in recent memory.

One thing that I think is important is rewatchability. I liked Birdman, but will I ever watch it again? Probably not. Same goes for Parasite. (I have not yet seen Lighthouse or Judas.) However, I have watched films like Goodfellas, Gump and Pulp Fiction over and over.

One thing I've noticed is that there is a certain STYLE of filmmaking--a crowd-pleasing, enjoyable style--that seems to have been forgotten. Maybe politics is to blame, as it's clearly to blame for so many of Hollywood's other woes. But the only film I can remember seeing in recent memory that fits this style is Ford v Ferrari.

reply

Sorry another one I forgot to list was Blade Runner 2049. For one simple fact. Making a sequel to Blade Runner seemed like a death sentence. That sequel could have gone wrong in a million ways fortunately it was not just good it was incredible. Blade Runner was a strike of lightning fortunately lightning was able to strike twice.

Rewatchability is huge but there are plenty of films I do not need to rewatch. I can watch Birdman over and over, now Parasite? I would agree I probably would not revisit this one for a while. However you got to give kudos to how fresh that movie was.

Well the big thing back in the day was epics or war films. Such as Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Dances With Wolves, Saving Private Ryan, Lord of The Rings. Now they cater more to Oscar bait like material. The King's Speech, Spotlight etc. Movies that are only enjoyed by a smaller demographic. I thought Social Network was also a better film than the King's Speech. Then again I have disagreed with the Oscars on plenty of occasions back even before modern day. Politics plays a part in everything. Rush came before Ford V Ferrari. Both these fit that crowd pleasing angle you are referring to. If Hollywood was ran by conservatives it would be just as swayed toward that angle of film making.

reply

Well on BR 2049 I'm happy to say we're in agreement. It was really good and I thought it at least deserved a nomination for Best Picture if not a win. Sadly it was completely snubbed. It also made far less at the box office than I expected. In any case, I own it now on 4K Blu-Ray.

Parasite was a good film. I watched it one time, enjoyed it, and said, "Okay, I've seen it. Cool movie." That was about it, though. It was good, for sure, but I'd have rather seen about half the slate that year win instead. 1917, Ford v Ferrari, The Irishman or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood all deserved it more in my opinion.

I'll agree with you again -- I think that The Social Network deserved the win over The King's Speech. That's a great film. I just wish that it had been able to keep up its momentum after the move to California. It loses something for me when they leave Boston.

In regard to epics, I guess I feel like the Best Picture should have a BIG feel to it. It doesn't have to be Lawrence of Arabia, but it also shouldn't be some so talky indie about a woman hanging out with hippies for two hours. That said, there have been some great non-epic films of the past that won. Take Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man, and The Silence of the Lambs, for instance. Also, The Insider was nominated in '99 and really, really should've won over American Beauty.

Lastly, regarding your comment on Hollywood being run by conservatives, at least then we'd get more films like Gladiator, Unforgiven and Rocky instead of shit like Moonlight and fish sex stories like The Shape of Water.

reply

We are agreed on Blade Runner 2049. Thing is even though it sucks scifi are not typically the Oscars cup of tea. That was the best film of 2017. It should have at least gotten a best picture nomination.

I completely disagree about Ford v Ferrari being better than Parasite. Ford v Ferrari is a good film. Thing is nothing about it is really unique. We have seen many movies like that before. It is well done but even I can list a similar movie in Rush which came before. It doesn't stop there though I could give you a long list quite similar to that movie. Parasite is a far more unique film. The writing is more inspired, while I like Ford v Ferrari it is a rather safe film. I knew how the movie would end by watching the trailer. It depends for me. If the indie film is good enough then I have no issue but I thought a film like Birdman was well deserved. If not that one my pick would go to Whiplash or Nightcrawler. All three were great. It is also why I was glad Joker didn't win the best picture award.

It is good but it's super derivative of Scorsese's style. It is Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. Phoenix was undeniably great but aside from him the movie lacks originality. I feel Nightcrawler not only has a great performance to anchor it but a more original premise to compliment the performance. Which is why I think Nightcrawler is a better film. Of course they didn't run against each other just using it as an example. If both films are well executed I believe originality can push it over the other. Which is why I take parasite over ford v Ferrari. Parasite isn't just relatively original it is exceptionally made as well.

See and your bias is showing. We would get more preachy films also. Don't act like they are exempt from stupidity as well. Also what's bad about Moonlight? Not like the message? The themes? Just because you may not like the message, politics or themes that doesn't change the artistic craft it took to make the film. I don't care for End of Watch's overall politics or themes but it was a competent film despite that. Again what's the issue with Shape of Water? Woman falling in Love with creature is a trope in cinema done way before that. King Kong, Creature from the black lagoon, pea body and the mermaid, beauty and the beast etc.

reply

I think that innovation is important, but I think you put more value on it than I do. I actually would like to see an era of de-innovation. You knock Ford v Ferrari for nothing about it being unique. That's part of what I liked about it, it felt like a throwback to an earlier, more interesting, more competent era of filmmaking. It feels at this point like filmmakers have forgotten how to even make movies like they used to--you know, high-level classic-style filmmaking--and so I am heartened to see that there are still filmmakers around who can turn out a movie like that. I wish we would see more of them.

Regarding Parasite, it was good, but is it really so unique when compared to other Korean films, or even Bong Joon-ho's other work? They have different filmmaking sensibilities over there. I would only think that the film would feel especially novel to someone who had spent little time watching Korean cinema.

In any case, as I said previously, I think that film's foremost job is to entertain, and I would say I found Parasite more interesting than I did entertaining. It was certainly an interesting film. I don't regret watching it. But if I were picking the Best Picture winner from the nominees that year, I would put Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Ford v Ferrari, The Irishman and 1917 ahead of it.

As for my biases, I won't pretend I don't have any. Subject matter is important. A filmmaker can bring an enormous level of craft to the table, but if I don't appreciate the story then I'm not going to think much of the film. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that the filmmakers have talent, but at the same time it would be a front to pretend that I like a movie when I don't. I think this is true for most people.

reply

Part of the reason I gave Ford V Ferrari a positive review is I do enjoy that it is a throwback to more classic films. Thing is though I always felt Rush did that before it did and never got the recognition. Both are quite solid but in the end when you are going over old grounds it makes it harder to leave your own impact on something. An example is look at a film like Avatar. Technically it is a very strong achievement in effects editing etc. Thing is the characters and story and are so derivative there is a disconnect. Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas and Fern Fully all did these themes before. The only thing Avatar has to offer is the visuals. See I think the perfect opposite or example of a film that does this thing better is Mad Max Fury Road. It is a visual film with a streamlined plot. Difference is you actually remember the characters because they are much more compelling.

It was unique for Hollywood which is why I can't knock them for giving it the best picture nomination. Similar to how the Matrix was rather groundbreaking technically for Hollywood. Yes films like Hard Boiled and Japanese anime did a lot of the themes or action style Matrix did before it. However it was new to Hollywood and it was done very well. Unfortunately the sequels were not that good but yeah. I agree on Parasite being more interesting than entertaining but this leads me to another point. What is a more entertaining film Godfather or Star Wars a new Hope? I find the Godfather films extremely well made and respect their place in cinema. Would I consider them as entertaining as Star Wars, Aliens, or Raiders of the Lost Ark etc? No I would not. Films like Godfather and Parasite are more so admired than they are enjoyed for entertainment.

See but that is just it. Yes you are correct if someone does not like the themes, politics or story being conveyed they most likely will not like it. However you should do your best to remove those biases and critique the film with logical reasoning.

reply

Rush was a great film. In fact, it's one of the few films that I went to the theater twice to see, and I've watched at least one more time since it hit home video. It's a very good movie, enjoyable, and well-made. I wouldn't say it has the same feel of Ford v Ferrari though, which I think has a quality that I'd almost call . . . I don't know if Spielbergian is the right word, but it feels like a crowd-pleaser that would've come out in the 90s. I don't know that I feel that way about Rush.

Avatar, in my opinion, more or less sucks and is boring. As you say, the story is derivative to the point of dullness. I don't really feel that way about Ford v Ferrari. I mean, other than drawing broad parallels with other underdog stories, what film exactly would you say FvF is like?

Don't forget that Hollywood did not make Parasite. It's a Korean film through and through. It just happened to get some attention at Cannes and ending up getting a US theatrical release.

For what's it worth, a friend of mine watched Parasite after hearing all the hype and thought it was a little disappointing. I probably was expecting a bit more as well. Again, it's an interesting film, but I wasn't riveted to my seat. It's not a movie where I never stopped to check my watch. And I think that more than anything, that's the quality that I look for in a movie: Does it engage me? I remember when I went to watch Walk the Line in the theater. When the film was over I was literally angry that the credits were rolling because I was SO into the movie that I was not prepared for it to end. This is extremely rare, but when I think Best Picture, I'm looking for a film that at least provides an approximation of that experience.

reply

It's actually been a VERY long time since I first saw The Godfather, but I do remember it really engaging me when I saw it. It had that page-turner quality: I wanted to find out what happens next.

You made an interesting comment about a film being "more so admired than being enjoyed for entertainment." I do think there's something to that. But at the same time, I think that making such a statement about a film is code for being bored, and that's not a good look for a movie.

Lastly, in regard to throwing off all biases, I get what you're saying, yet at the same I feel like this: If a movie is morally repugnant to me, it doesn't matter how solid the craft is behind it, I just am not going to get behind that movie. I can't be like, "This film goes against everything I believe, but the direction is very good, and so I think it's the best movie of the year." This doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge where craft exists. But the story is important to. I need a good story.

reply

I like the Godfather a lot I am just saying I enjoy revisiting Raiders, Star Wars, or something like Aliens more. Godfather is great but after I have seen it I do not need to see it again for a while. I have to be in the mood to watch it. Where as with Raiders, Star Wars or Aliens I can watch at anytime.

Films such as Godfather, Citizen Kane, 2001 a Space Odyssey fit the mold to me of more so being admired than enjoyed. Could some disagree yeah but in the end films like Raiders, Star Wars or Aliens are why people go to the movies. Even though they are accessible to a wide audience they still have artistic value to them, with visuals themes character moments etc.

I am not saying you need to lie to yourself and say you like it when you don't. My problem is if someone does not like the messages, politics or themes to a story they will completely dismiss any artistic value it has and claim it to be the worst film ever. I see that happen constantly. What makes Moonlight so terrible? Is it because it is a woke film? Why is Shape of Water bad? Other than disliking the themes, politics or message break down why it fails at film making. Do people get mad certain things get praised therefore they rate it on a curve? Like for instance I saw Black Panther. I think it is competent and good. Do I think it is some masterpiece of film making? Absolutely not. Thing is even though I think it is rated a tad too high I do not let that influence my rating of the film. If something I may not love gets high rating and I can see why I am not going to downvote it just because of the high rating.

reply

I feel you. The Godfather is not a movie I'm going to watch over and over. Indy on the other hand is a totally different story. In my experience, by and large, the films that have the biggest replay value tend to have one thing in common: They're fun. They're not depressing, they're not slow-paced and they're not trying to make some big social statement. They're fun, well-made adventures that provide the escapist element that people often turn to movies for. They allow you to get away from real life for a little while and live vicariously through the stories' heroes.

I agree that sometimes people fail entirely to appreciate the artistic merit to a film when it doesn't align with their values.

Moonlight I can tell you is not a story for me. "Black gay coming-of-age drama" is not a genre that I would willfully seek out. I will agree that the film was well-made and I found it somewhat interesting simply from a human interest perspective, but my appreciation of a film like that can only go so far because of the subject matter.

The Shape of Water, for me, failed on two levels: First, while I can somewhat appreciate the allegorical value of the story, when she literally fucks the fish-man I was like, okay, that's enough. I have to draw the line at inter-species copulation. It's actually disgusting. Second, the former detail aside, I found the film boring. Even from the beginning, its story failed to grip me and pull me in. I just didn't think it was that interesting. Maybe it's partly because of what you said earlier -- we've seen stories much like this before. It didn't feel new. Where I will give it credit though is the production design. They built some nice sets for that film and it is overall a nice-looking movie.

reply

Yes exactly. The Godfather is undeniably a great piece of art and deserves it's place in cinema. However the last thing I would call it would be fun. For a movie for me to rewatch all the time it has to be fun. Okay lets look at both ends of the spectrum. A movie such as Fast and the Furious, John Wick or most Jackie Chan martial arts films. They are mindless fun. Are they works of art that have artistic value? Nope but they are mindless fun. Films such as Godfather, Citizen Kane, There Will Be Blood are all great works of art. Super intelligent and superbly crafted. None of those are fun. However the perfect middle ground here in my book is Raiders, Star Wars, Aliens, or Lord of the Rings. Lord of the rings is loads of fun but it has more to offer than just mindless fun. It is a technical achievement with deep themes it conveys through great characters. It is why I feel LOTR is such a great trilogy.

I don't believe in dismissing something simply because you do not like it's politics, themes or messages.

I do not connect to Boys Don't Cry but in the end I can recognize how well done the film is. I get it but in the end I like variety.

I guess I just do not see it that way. To me it is simply a movie. Disney films such as Beauty and the Beast or even Little Mermaid have actually toxic messages when you examine what message someone can take away from it. Thing is that does not make me say that the films are bad simply because the message is off. Stuff like it had been done before but it had been a while since movies like this had been done. I admit I love creature from the black lagoon so I appreciated the throwback. I get your point though. At least you can give it some credit despite not liking it. Most people can't do that.

reply

I've never heard it put quite that way but I would agree with your assessment: Yes, there is a middle path where popular escapist storytelling fuses with high artistic values and you get films like the ones you mentioned.

LOTR is indeed a great trilogy, though I think that Fellowship stands out even among its trilogy-mates as an especially amazing film. I still remember going to see that one in the theater and I was, like, on a high for a few hours after getting out of the movie. It was just THAT damn good.

When it comes to the relationship of politics, themes and messages to evaluating a film, I can evaluate a movie's craftsmanship dispassionately but in order to rate a film highly I have to also enjoy the movie. I just can't hate a movie and get no enjoyment from it and also consider it a great film.

But, full disclosure, I hold an evangelical Christian perspective. This doesn't mean every film has to agree with that perspective, or that I can't enjoy films that have challenging elements in them, but there are certain lines where if a film crosses that line I'm no longer going to be interested in whether or not the lighting is good or it is well-paced.

The recent trend of films to get super-political, even in movies that should have nothing at all to do with politics (like Marvel movies), is especially obnoxious and over time that does wear on a person like myself.

reply

Yep and to me LOTR fits my description perfectly.

Yes Fellowship was super impressive and an amazing film. What was super impressive was that was an ambitious film for the time it was made. It was also amazing because most of the time whenever you are dealing with a big budget film producers do not allow you that much creative freedom. My example of this is most Marvel films. The directors are basically directors for hire and you can tell they are given specific guidelines that they can not deviate from. LOTR feels like a genuine piece of art where the director got the final say in his vision, not some out of touch producer pulling the strings behind the scenes. There are some good Marvel movies but most of them feel like they are manufactured and made on a conveyor belt. I like it when a film feels more genuine and personal rather than pumped out by a machine.

I understand that completely. I guess my point is you can't just go I dislike the themes, politics or message 0/10 for this film. I get that on a subjective level but if you are doing your best to be fair it is ignorant to do that. I would say the same if you were to give something a 10/10 simply because you agree with the themes, politics or message.

See I think I am in the middle. If a film is ham-fisted whether it be overly religious or overly anti-religion I lose interest. If you can deliver the message in an honest way without it feeling shoved down my throat I am fine. In short do not feel extra preachy one way or the other.

Which Marvel movies you talking about specifically? I have not seen Wandavision or Captain Falcon tv show. Everything else I have seen.

reply

Yeah, LOTR was definitely the vision of Peter Jackson. It's hard to say exactly how much input the studio had, or Tolkien's estate for that matter, but it's obvious to anyone who has researched the production of that series that Peter Jackson was very much at the helm.

It's a great trilogy and it was just recently released on 4K Blu-Ray. Weirdly though, there are no special features in the set. I'm assuming they're going to wait a little while and put out a second edition with a ton of extra content. At least I hope they will, though with the way physical media is struggling today you never know what's going to happen. I fear the day when studios stop publishing their films on disc entirely.

I've never graded any film a 0/10 or a 10/10 at all. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever given any film lower than a 4/10 or higher than a 9.5/10. It would seem to me that scores lower than that would be reserved for completely amateurish productions that would never see a wide viewership and wouldn't come from an actual film studio, and I don't think anything in this world is perfect so I find it impossible to hand out a 10/10.

Regarding politics in movies, admittedly I am always down for a good flag-waving, pro-America film. I'm sure that's one reason why I love the action movies from the 80s as much as I do -- many of them were overtly patriotic. But I can understand your perspective, especially if the film is not actually a well-made movie or if it feels overly preachy and manipulative.

Really, I think that if a filmmaker wants to make a "message movie" with a left-wing slant then they have every right to do so, but I hate that it's starting to feel like 80% of the movies coming out of Hollywood have either overt or covert Leftist messaging. And if it's not that, it's pandering to China (though considering the Left's affinity for communism, maybe China-pandering is just another push for Leftist ideology).

reply

Regarding Marvel movies, I think the films we've gotten up to this point have been relatively politics-free, but we are starting to see a clear shift there. Thor: Ragnarok had some woke vibes with its bumbling male hero set against competent, strong female heroines and villains. But it's most clearly seen in Captain Marvel -- the Mary Sue of a character who has no vulnerabilities and is offset almost entirely by either incompetent or evil men, or both.

Perhaps the worst offender though is Falcon and Winter Soldier. If you haven't seen it, there's really no need to. Instead just watch this 10-minute video and it will lay it out for you and also explain how Leftist politics so thoroughly dominates that show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e0B_7es0_g

reply

In all honesty I kind of am suffering from superhero fatigue. Especially in Marvel's case. A problem with them for me was it felt they were made on a factory line. Were there a few standouts? Yes but in the end most of them were serviceable in the end. Most of the time after I see them I go meh it was okay. Honestly the last bit of interest I had died with Endgame. Captain Marvel sucked! You can have a wish fulfillment fantasy character like James Bond but they need to have a flaw, or weakness. Captain Marvel is just powerful and is talented with no weakness. It is like having the invincibility cheat code on in a videogame, it is fun for like 4 minutes...

I have not seen that show and honestly have no interest so I can not speak on it. I thought Daredevil was a fantastic show. I do not need to watch Critical Drinker. To be honest I can't stand him or his reviews. People constantly cite him like he is gospel truth. His reviews for Midsommar as well as the way he gushes over Joker made me not enjoy his content. I get it he has a fanbase but for me I am not a fan.

reply

Agreed on superhero movies. I am not at all interested in what Marvel has coming up for the post-Endgame MCU. I think the movies are going to become even more political and, that notwithstanding, I'm just kind of over it. Even the movies that we've seen so far, while fun, haven't varied a lot in quality. Only a few are movies I'd ever go out of my way to watch again.

We'll see what happens on the DC side. While the DC movies over the last handful of years have been problematic, I actually own DC movies on Blu-Ray (BvS and Aquaman) but zero Marvel movies.

Critical Drinker is fun but sometimes he can be overly negative. More often than not I find myself agreeing with him though. He puts up a humorous facade, but I find that he has a legitimately excellent understanding of the art of storytelling.

reply

Superhero movies are just tired. I like ones that try to break the formula and bring something new to the table. It is why Logan and X-men Days of Future Past are my favorite superhero films since The Dark Knight. I like ones that also do not feel like they made by a machine. The ones I love are Superman The Movie, Superman 2, Spider-man, Spider-man 2, Sin City, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Avengers, Iron Man Winter Soldier, Infinity War X-men Days of Future Past and Logan.

Oh man I can not stand BVS Dawn of Justice! I literally hate that film with a fiery passion! I personally consider it to be one of the worst comic book films ever made. Personally I think it is worse than Batman & Robin. Yes you heard me right. Batman & Robin is bad but at least it is so bad it is hilarious. BVS thinks it is a smart, deep dark comic book film. When really it is a stupid vs movie. Aquaman while kind of dumb is at least dumb fun. Entertaining at least.

I think he has a certain understanding but I do feel his critiquing is rather flat and shallow. If you took away his Mary Sue and SJW points I do not feel he would go very far. I hate when people say oh I hate pretentious films! Pretentious always means bad! No actually I can name you some classic films that are very pretentious. What matters is if the film is well crafted or not. Judging a movie on complete subjectivity means there is no logic behind critiquing to which I disagree with.

reply

I have BvS: Ultimate Edition on 4K Blu-Ray and just watched it a few weeks ago to prepare for the Justice League Snyder Cut (I had previously only seen the theatrical version). I think it's a good film. Underrated. I can get why people might want something different from the movie--I think that I myself wanted something different when I went to see BvS in the theater--but after pushing aside my expectations I have found the Ultimate Edition to be a genuinely good movie.

What is it exactly that you do not like about it? I mean, to say it's worse than Batman and Robin . . . that's a bold statement.

Maybe give Critical Drinker another look. Perhaps you should watch some of his videos on movies that he actually likes. Did you ever see The Rocketeer? He talks about that one here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOTxAuzygEM

reply

First I found Man of Steel to be a wannabe Batman Begins. It was reactionary to The Dark Knight trilogy. Stupid producers went oh man gritty, realistic and dark worked for Batman so it will work for Superman right? Well the difference is Batman is a dark character who is just a human with money. Therefore taking away his fantasy aspect will not destroy the character. Superman is lighthearted and inspiring therefore that will taint his character doing that. One size does not fit all. Okay then once BVS came out WB saw the money the Avengers made and they went screw all the work that went into it lets make our Avengers basically.

So right off the bat it is not coming from a genuine creative space it is reactionary which makes it feel not genuine. Okay though putting that aside here is another issue. Since you made Superman dark, gloomy and brooding like Batman now there is no contrast between the two of them. Therefore seeing them interact is not compelling or interesting because they are too similar. The reason seeing Captain America and Iron Man go at it is interesting is because they are different people with different ideologies. Same with Daredevil and Punisher. Batman killing people so nonchalant and willingly. I have never been a fan of this but here is screws the narrative completely. Okay if he is so willing to kill random thugs why in the end does he let Lex Luthor live? See you avoid this problem if Batman has a no killing rule or as at least conflicted. You basically turned him into the punisher.

How does Lex's blood equate to making Zod Doomsday? Did he know this would work? How did he know this was his backup plan to beat Superman and Batman? Seems a bit messy. Doomsday looks like a gigantic cgi monstrosity and generic. Superman sacrifices himself and no one cared! Cramming in references to comic books expecting them to do the heavy lifting of making your story for you is lazy.

reply

See to me watch Captain America Civil War. I am not the biggest fan of this film but compare the two. BVS Dawn of Justice and Captain America Civil War are basically the same film. One is just done well and the other is done terribly. Think of similarities. Outside foreigner who is wise with an accent from an island who is ethnic. Black Panther, Wonder Woman. Heroes with conflicting ideologies Captain America and Iron Man. Villain makes heroes fight among themselves to destroy each other. Zemo and Lex. Heroes parents play a role in stopping the conflict Martha!!! Tony Stark sees Bucky kill his parents.

The other thing I can't stand is how bad Lois Lane is done in these films. Her and Cavill have no chemistry and another thing what was that nightmare sequence with Batman about? How is that relevant to the film? If you say oh well watch the sequel. If there is something that makes no sense at all in the film that has to be explained away in a sequel it is a sign of bad storytelling. Easter eggs are fine but what purpose did that serve to the narrative? It was not just a two second Easter egg of like oh hey cool hat is a setup for this. It literally is like a short story in the film and it accomplishes nothing.

reply

I don't feel prepared to go through and answer each objection so I'll simply say this: I agree that BvS is an imperfect film, but I still find it interesting. I also agree that Superman has been mishandled, though I think that is probably less a choice of the producers and more part of Snyder's vision, who I think was allowed to do just about whatever he wanted with the story.

Man of Steel is lame and I don't care for it, but I think that BvS is a lot more interesting. Have you seen the Ultimate Edition? If not, you might want to check it out. The extra 30 minutes of footage does a lot for the story.

I only saw Civil War once and I haven't felt compelled to watch it again since I was disappointed the first time. I remember thinking Winter Soldier was significantly more entertaining.

reply

[deleted]

I can say whatever I want, what's it to you?

reply

Like in Zhao’s previous films Songs My Brothers Taught Me and The Rider, the director cast non-professional actors, in this case real-life nomads, to play versions of themselves.

https://time.com/5938982/nomadland-true-story/

reply

Mediocre boring trolling at best.

reply