ITT: Garbage movie "criticisms". I'll start

>it was confusing

>the mc is unlikable/unrelatable

Watch The Last Thing He Wanted

That wasn't confusing. It was outright nonsense. Call it nonsense. Calling any movie confusing just makes you look dumb

Those are all valid criticism, though. Here are some real examples:

>the movie is formulaic
>the villain is a racist/sexist/xphobe
>the movie is a male power fantasy
>there are no [extreme minority] characters represented

Avatar is ferngully in space

Yes sure it was incomprehensible. Maybe if someone thinks the film is too clever for him, he calls it confusing, not being aware of the fact that the film is just incomprehensible.

The first two are garbage because it should be
> Avatar is a shitty and bastardized version of Pocahontas in space
> the force awaken is a shitty and bastardized remake of a new hope

GARBAGE MOVIE 'CRICITISM' AND WHAT IT MEANS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

- FROM CRITICS

>"Deeply misogynistic"
Some of the male characters are alive at the end.

>"Unsettling fascistic undertones"
Normal people will enjoy this. (Examples: Dirty Harry, Conan the Barbarian, anything at all with John Wayne)

-

- FROM NORMIES

>"Boring"
Not capeshit.

>"Pretentious"
The target audience might not be 100-IQ 12-year-olds with a four-second attention span.

>"Too much talking"
Many words and no explosions make Homer's brain say ow.

>"Boomer shit"
Movie came out before 2010.

>"Art-house shit"
Movie is in B&W / has subtitles / lacks CGI.

-

- FROM R*DD*T PSEUDS

>"Derivative"
Means nothing (all art is derivative). The speaker is using this to signal that he has seen many old/obscure/foreign movies and is therefore an intellectual.

>"The book was better"
This often happens to be true but that's coincidental. The speaker is simply signalling that he has read the book (or can bluff that he has) and is therefore an intellectual.

It means the movie is predictable/follows well established trends and tropes/adheres too strictly to theories of story structure. One of those.

-FROM ANONS

>"Feminist propaganda"
The movie features women

>"SJW Trash"
The movie features non-white actors

>it insists upon itself

Yeah, also from anons:

>"Jewish psyop"
Movie is not Birth of a Nation or The Passion of the Christ.

>it fails to transcend its own formula

Attached: Disgusted.jpg (250x241, 9.21K)

>"White genocide kike garbage"
The movie features a white woman and black male couple.

samefag

Incorrect. I wrote the original post - this one:
and also this one:
but that's all.

sorry my man

Attached: Unbenannt.png (427x118, 4.35K)

Whenever someone focuses first and foremost on logical fallacies or inconsistencies in a film, I know they're on the spectrum.

>bloated
>humorless
>self-indulgent
>tone-deaf
>convoluted
>no characters to root for

>Dishonest film-making

Attached: 1476212174453.jpg (550x535, 40.76K)

Sonic is just E.T with a coat of SEGA paint.

Why does Pepe not simply eat the fly?

Tell me how Avatar isnt just Pocahontas in space

"nothing happened" is a valid point, like El Camino

What does that even mean

I once had a woman tell me she thought Kubrick's Spartacus was bad because all the actors were too old.

The protagonist grows through an arc like the classic Hero's Journey instead of the modern Expectation Subversion.

All movie criticisms are valid concepts. The only time a criticism isn't valid is when it's objectively untrue ("this made no sense!", "well it was actually pretty clearly explained 2 scenes earlier..."), or when the criticism is of superficial details that don't impact the film ("yeah but the director made a twitter post where he spelt 'superficial' wrong so the film's shit!").
Calling a film boring means that the film failed to garner interest from the audience. It might be the most valid criticism.

People call a film pretentious when what they mean is that it was tryhard artsy shit that felt incredibly forced and used superficial arty techniques to make up for its complete lack of depth.

THING LACKS DIVERSITY
THING IS TOO WHITE
THING IS TRANSPHOBIC
THING IS SEXIST

>film is bad because I don't like the director for personal reasons

There are no blue people in Pocahontas. Checkmate

God imagine being this dumb

>Calling a film boring means that the film failed to garner interest from the audience
or maybe the person has zero attention span

Avatar is much closer to Dances with Wolves than Pocahantas

>obvious trope in movie
>pull this face at the stranger sitting next to me for the remainder of the movie

Attached: 1583486763291.png (736x616, 27.69K)

>OP is a capeshitter
Imagine my shock.

Those are all valid criticism, though. Here are some real examples:

>Avatar is just Pocahontas in space
>The Force Awakens is just a remake of A New Hope
>Joker is a Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy ripoff

Anyone who says a movie is "dated" or "hasn't aged well" needs to be sodomized with a rusty pike

My brother in law didn't want to watch Event Horizon because he said there was no way they could have done a good spaceship movie back in 97.

Lots happen in El Camino, though.

Well since cheap CGI became such a staple of bid budget movies I fell like this criticism actually became valid. Blockbusters from 2011 look like dogshit now because the CGI gets outdated so ridiculously fast.

That it feels it was written by using a formula or a step by step recipe. Like copying the Hero's journey 1:1.

Not really. Also films don't have to be deep, whatever that means. The Tree of Life gets called pretentious very often yet when you engage in the dialogue with given person you find out that they simply did not get the film at any level whatsoever. It's really embarrassing.

HOW TO SPOT A BRAINLET PLEB 101

>only able to discuss literal plot points and the logical order of the narrative of a film
>every film has a singular universal "deep meaning" which you have to "get" to understand it
>"The writing is the most important filmmaking element!"
>thinks that empty pretty pictures means "good cinematography"
>"I don't find this part of the narrative plausible or realistic, therefore the movie is SHIT!"
>treating a film like a puzzle which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to get it
>"Who cares about editing, framing and composition sound and whatnot if the 'story' isn't great."
>a film is either utter dogshit or a masterpiece, there is no inbetween
>"the acting in this film is not naturalistic, so the acting is SHIT"
>considers heavy use of direct symbolism as a positive factor
>using "boring" and "nothing happens" as arguments ever

Attached: 1489085877822.jpg (638x479, 91.88K)

Well I was referring more to pre-CGI films, where faggots see the classical acting styles and non-ADHD editing/pacing and complain about it

any reviewer that uses the word "problematic" deserves a slow and painful death

...

>powerful
>topical
>the movie we need in the Trump era

best garbage movie

Attached: 220px-Men_at_work_ver2.jpg (220x332, 23.76K)

Nothing wrong with that as long as it tells a good story.

formulaic is bullshit, it means I know the secret formula, I am smart, don't have to tell you, I am cosmopolitan look at me suck my dick
Every movie ever made can be called formulaic.

This word should be reserved for oncologists. Anyone else who uses it just sounds like a child trying to use grownup words.

>>only able to discuss literal plot points and the logical order of the narrative of a film
Yep
>>every film has a singular universal "deep meaning" which you have to "get" to understand it
Yep
>>"The writing is the most important filmmaking element!"
The writing is objectively a very important part. Bad writing hurts a film much more than bad bad cinematography or a bad soundtrack. Though good acting/directing can sometimes compensate for this.
>>thinks that empty pretty pictures means "good cinematography"
Aesthetic pictures are good photography. There are other ways the photography can be good, but if the film looks 'pretty' throughout then yes, it has good cinematography.
>>"I don't find this part of the narrative plausible or realistic, therefore the movie is SHIT!"
Yep. (Having said that, legit plot holes and ass-pulls can ruin an otherwise good movie)
>>treating a film like a puzzle which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to get it
Yep
>>"Who cares about editing, framing and composition sound and whatnot if the 'story' isn't great."
Again, like with writing, a bad story can ruin the film. Just like a masterpiece like There Will Be Blood (inb4 contrarian shitting on TWBB) would be shit if DDL was replaced with a down-syndrome kid even if everything else stayed the same, so too would the film be ruined if aliens were introduced in the last act and they started shitting on cows to prove their superiority.
[cont]

[cont]
>>a film is either utter dogshit or a masterpiece, there is no inbetween
Yep
>>"the acting in this film is not naturalistic, so the acting is SHIT"
Yep
>>considers heavy use of direct symbolism as a positive factor
Can be. Symbolism resonates a lot with humanity. Especially when you consider that films are just symbols in the first place. So the definition of 'symbolism' really just depends on who's watching. What one person might view as 'direct symbolism' may just be an obvious plot point to another person. And it can add a whole extra level of depth in other situations where it's used more subtly without being necessary to understand/enjoy the film.
>>using "boring" and "nothing happens" as arguments ever
These are legit criticisms that need to be fleshed out. Films are meant to emotionally resonate. If I film someone walking through town and then buying some groceries and then going home, jerking off, eating pasta and then going to sleep, and the whole thing is 4 hours long - then it doesn't matter how amazing the cinematography or acting is; it's boring shit. And that's a valid reason to not enjoy a film.

>candid

Attached: 1546830262487s.jpg (228x250, 6.27K)

>best garbage movie
That's an oxymoron. There you go, it's not a criticism, but I hate the expression "guilty pleasure" or "so bad it's good". Just admit you enjoyed the fucking film and stop pretending that it's beneath you to like some things.
It's the precursor to this whole post-ironic movement where things are only liked in a sarcastic sense

>there was no character development

Literally a meme critique that doesn't mean anything.

You have the opinions of a novice and I'd be surprised if you've celebrated your 18th birthday yet.

Yeah but generally when a movie is written like a paint by numbers color book it means the writer is probably an hack so you can't really expect a paritcularly good story. Of course there are exceptions.

its literally about 2 dudes who work on a garbage truck
>garbage movie

>NOO YOU CAN'T JUST POST DIFFERENT OPINIONS TO ME THAT YOU'VE BACKED UP AND EXPLAINED
>REEEE STOP IT
Grow the fuck up.