A Masterpiece, really?

"Viewers, especially the film critics, who are afraid to call this film out for what it really is for fear of being lumped in with "people of average intelligence who can't see the forest from the trees" are the same people who pretend to see the deepness in some modern art pieces,or worse, actually believe it exists."

...and you know this how, exactly? You think people and critics are "afraid" to "call the film out" rather than genuinely enjoying it?

There are some purportedly great films out there which are, indeed, a slog to get through. The Conversation is not one of them. It is absolutely and singularly committed to its character study, and it's this commitment that makes it unique and enduring. The dialogue, to the contrary, feels entirely natural. It's *about* natural conversation and the ways we interpret it.

There's an obviousness to pretentiousness in film. The Conversation has none of that obviousness. It needs not pretend, because it has a rich story to tell and gets on with it. The greatness of the film is precisely its rather low-key, humble quality. Pretentiousness usually exists in films that shoot way, way high and clearly misstep from the very beginning. Coppola was terrified Apocalypse Now was going to be seen that way when all was said and done (and some do). I would argue some of Chris Nolan's movies fall into the "pretentious" category simply because he knows they need to be "awesome" without first being "good" (and there are is major difference there).

If you're more specific about how the film fails, that will help explain your position. Your rant is really pretty flimsy against the film, because you don't explain the "whys".

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -