MovieChat Forums > The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013) Discussion > WTF are crtics thinking

WTF are crtics thinking

posted 11 years ago by Monerz
148 replies | jump to latest

Ok I am starting to think critics are big phonies. This was one of the bet films I have seen this year and it gets a 48% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Honestly i think critics are being paid by movie companies to praise their film and then when they review other films they put it down. This movie was shot beautifully and had great acting and great directing. If films like Forrest Gump and American Hustle are are in the 90 percent range why is this not.
The secret life of walter mitty is on my best movies of 2013 list.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DJMykee 11 years ago

Product placement? What you mean Life magazine and Papa John's? Is that really a big deal to you? Because I'm not about to start eating Papa John's just because I saw it in a movie. And good for Life Magazine for getting some credit in a movie.

[–] cor315 11 years ago

LIFE, Papa John's, E-Harmony, Cinnabon, Careerbuilder. Did I miss anything? And it wasn't like they were just in the film, they actually talked about the product. It was uncomfortable.

[–] offenes_meer 11 years ago

HaHaHaHa, YES you DID miss something. LIFE magazine has not existed as such since the year 2000!!!!!

What a dumb post .... !!!!!!

Papa John was commented on as 'I had to get out of the place because of the beakers', eHarmony 'couldn't afford the 500 $ annual membership', Cinnabun 'good ... (not really)'

What the hell is Careerbuilder???? and who cares, anyway?

I do think you missed A LOT!

Books had instant replay long before televised sports. B. Williams

[–] nimstic 11 years ago

You could be one of the reasons I would still keep participating in these forums. Seriously, people just jump out any opportunity to be seen as "wise" and "cerebral"

This was a well-made movie with some very good scenes and with it's own share of issues like many others. Overall, quite enjoyable soundtracks, I liked the casting of Sean Penn and Patton Oswalt and also loved the photography, and the climax... :)

I am amused one guy above even laments about American movie viewers dwindling sense of judgment of good movies based on their liking for this movie, which to him did not hold much value. Fair enough. But if its because of product placements, I find it very lame.

I wouldn't care if they are product placements or ads. Why is everybody so particular about only fictitious brands in movies? Because they are anti-corporate? Are they all working for Greenpeace? I am sorry I find it hard to believe they are being 100% honest here.

[–] BelleCBelle 9 years ago

Offenes - it is possible to reply to someone's post with your argument without stooping to negative personal comments about another poster. That's just rude and shows your lack of maturity.

[–] IaMboRED000 9 years ago

Dude, don't be an A-hole. I'm sure you can respond back by a more mature way.

----

I ran. I ran until my muscles burned and my veins pumped battery acid. Then I ran some more.

[–] nullcreations 11 years ago

It reminded me of the Blade Trinity scene when the chick is loading up music on her ipod before a big fight. My respect for the director hit an all-time low when I saw that.

[–] bdaleypsu 11 years ago

WTF was she supposed to load music on - a rock? LOL

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

Serious question: Do you not know that there are other music players than ipods?

That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson

[–] bdaleypsu 11 years ago

Of course.

Would it somehow have been better if the music was being loaded onto a Zune, or a Sansa MP3 player, or a Samsung smartphone?

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

Honestly, I was just making sure, but toward your question...the point is that it wasn't some lesser brand, it was the brand that already dominates the market. Which is to say, it's the brand that has the dollar-power to place their product in a high-profile hollywood film.

There's nothing wrong with it, but let's try to see it for what it is.

Note: Someone here mentioned that they're not going to buy a product just because it appears in a film, implying that this sort of advertising is ineffective. Very naive.

That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson

[–] bdaleypsu 11 years ago

Of course, one way to think about it is, it's more realistic (statistically) to have a person in a film using the dominant product than a lesser-known product.

Honestly, I'd feel it was even MORE of a product placement if it had been a Zune instead of an iPod.

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

Ok, but we can agree that it in fact IS advertising, right?

That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson

[–] bdaleypsu 11 years ago

Probably, but if they wanted a scene where they showed a character loading music, they had to use SOMETHING. :-)

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kpddukpoki 11 years ago

so your beef with this is the fact that they are advertising Ipods and not a lesser-brand? Either way, like you said, it will be advertising. So why bash the movie because they went with the brand that would give them the most profit? Cuz either way, the viewer would be subjected to some form of advertising no matter which route they chose. I mean it is a business after all so the most profit route sounds like a common sense choice does it not? The fact that they went with ipods vs a lesser-brand (more profit vs less for the movie-makers) does not detract any points from the movie's story at hand. I think we are all just complaining for the sake of complaining. There should be nothing wrong with product placement unless it detracts from a movie's story.

Also just step outside and you will see more advertising in the real world then any movie. I don't see anyone complaining about product placement in the city but the moment it's put in a movie people cry that it's unrealistic! Oh the irony! :)

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

I'll be honest with you, I think there's an element of prostitution in this sort of advertising--and perhaps in all advertising. Exploitation has become so commonplace in our world that we fail to recognize it any longer. When someone holds up an ipod, we see only the status that it will bring us--not cutthroat business ethics and underpaid Chinese assemblers. We glorify the very things that are holding us back as a society. That's my biggest beef.

I should have warned you not to get me on a rant. BTW, how did you know I had a complaint based on what I'd written?

I mean it is a business after all so the most profit route sounds like a common sense choice does it not?

No, it doesn't. Then again, I'm a severely failed capitalist. You, however, might be okay.

That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson

[–] CocksureBurns 11 years ago

Someone here mentioned that they're not going to buy a product just because it appears in a film, implying that this sort of advertising is ineffective. Very naive.

What DJMykee wrote was:

I'm not about to start eating Papa John's just because I saw it in a movie.

I understood this as advertising not succeeding in changing someone's mind, rather than naiveté.

For instance- I don't enjoy Papa John's drywall-flavored 'pizza', nor the greedy politics of their dickweed owner John Schnatter, so I will never consume their gut-wrenching dreck no matter how much I see it advertised.

(This is only an example, and any suggestion
that Papa John's Crap-tastic Pizza is ACTUAL
Shat-Food is purely intentional.)

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

For instance- I don't enjoy Papa John's drywall-flavored 'pizza', nor the greedy politics of their dickweed owner John Schnatter, so I will never consume their gut-wrenching dreck no matter how much I see it advertised.

Ok, but you have superseding ethical reasons to aid your resistance to advertising (or at least to Papa Johns' advertising). Someone without such conviction is likely to be sucked in--that's why they call it advertising.

Me, I'm just a cheap bastard, that's what keeps my resistance up.

That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson

[–] nimstic 11 years ago

I think its quite overconfident of yourself to call someone "naive" based on their comment about product placement being less effective.

To me, it only makes a relevant point here - that this is a futile discussion. Most people don't care about the product placement in movies. If you want to talk about its effectiveness, let's take it elsewhere (a different post, a different website if you care)

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

I really don't. I think everything we need to know about product placement can be found in The Truman Show.

That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson

[–] solarflareq 11 years ago

she definitely should have been listening to a cowon. would have made more sense then.

[–] Slug-3 11 years ago

I would have preferred a Sony Walkman Cassette player, but I think the point was that the idea of creating a playlist for fighting is dumb. Anyone who would do that would probably get their skull crushed. It's just a little "too cool" to be taken seriously.

[–] hoggercore 11 years ago

Movies are expensive to make so sometimes product placement is a necessary evil. They had a choice to a) get EHarmony to give them some money or b) take no money and create a fictional online dating site. Option A seems just fine to me. Also - I consider myself someone who can appreciate depth and the art of film making as a whole. And as a whole, I'd say that I think this movie was pretty fantastic. For some people "a feel good movie" is a bad thing. Not for me I guess. If I ever get a chance to meet Ben Stiller, I'd be happy to tell him that I think he made something he should be very proud of.

[–] rzajac 10 years ago

Tarantino has much bigger budgets, and he doesn't place products.

The reason?: He can afford to forego product placement because (duh) he makes better movies. These movies do well initially, and also stand the test of time, and so continue to make money in the long run. This is very different from a flick like Mitty.

So this puts the lie to your rather weird assertion that (sometimes) PP is a "necessary" evil. All that's actually necessary is to avoid making a movie that's so artless it verges on evil, itself. I have no idea why Stiller wasn't able to assemble the needed talent to treat the story premise with art and taste. I guess the fact that the "Hollywood system" is willing to kick even someone like Stiller to the curb (by saddling him with 2nd-rate production talent) should tell us something.

In short, some folks figure out how to game a flawed, marketing-driven Hollywood system to wring something artful out of it. Some folks mean well, but obviously fail to figure that out. Stiller (sadly) has fallen into that latter camp.

--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield

[–] jimbob122 9 years ago

They talk about McDonald's and Burger King in pulp fiction

[–] noahcanavan 11 years ago

This film was excellent, not a masterpiece by any means, why can't you stop being so hateful on the fact that non-art films can still be good. Don't get me wrong, I loved Her, 12 Years a Slave, Nebraska, and all those other more meaningful films, but Walter Mitty was a great film to relax and not do much thinking. It's one to throw on the tv while your working on something. Why does it have to be so full of depth. I feel it's rated perfectly at a 7.5. That's 3/4 stars in most critics books. Relax on hating films, and realize some films are more for your entertainment, rather then blowing your mind. This film was strictly for inspiration and feeling good. I didn't go in expecting a comedy masterpiece like Dr. Strangelove, I went in expecting a Ben Stiller film and then got more than expected. I'd love to see these type of films get good attention from the shallow minded, over Transformers and Fast and Furious. I'm sorry for the rant, but it didn't need to prove anything more than it did, I enjoyed the visuals and editing. I was quite entertained throughout.

[–] BelleCBelle 11 years ago

Excellent? I think posters throw words like excellent and best and awesome around too much.

Human Rights: Know Them, Demand Them, Defend Them

[–] Flabrezu 11 years ago

A movie showing stuff that's actually in real life? WHAT?!

[–] quetzalcoatl2012 11 years ago

You *beep* are so *beep* annoying and boring.

Fake products: people bitch everything is faked or hidden
real products: people bitch everything is advertising

THESE PRODUCTS EXIST IN REAL LIFE, TO MAKE MOVIES REALISTIC YOU'RE GOING TO GET REAL PRODUCTS.

you're an *beep*

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sydnee_man 11 years ago

You were uncomfortable because of all the free ads? Have you ever used Pandora? When you use IMDB (which btw is free) do the adds that flash on the screen make you uncomfortable?

Follow me on twitter @sydsmoviepicks

[–] jimbob122 9 years ago

Oh my God he ate a cinnabon at an airport one scene and made 1 comment about it, it must be a horrible movie

[–] Cinobite17 11 years ago

What about e-Harmony? I mean that actually had no purpose or reason to be in the film at all. Take that out and the film wouldn't have changed one bit.

--
Biomech

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cyguration 9 years ago

Um, yeah... the entire sub-plot involving him and the e-harmony rep who eventually got him out of airport jail would never have happened.

Did you not see the movie or...?

[–] drew-415 11 years ago

Product placement? Christ, I think I saw some FORD motor cars in "The Grapes of Wrath." K-Mart was mentioned in "Rain Man." Everlast apparel was apparent in "Rocky," Smith and Wesson guns in "Death Wish."

"Radio Flyer" in "Radio Flyer."

United Airlines in "Flight 93."

[–] ronnieaka 11 years ago

Don't worry about the opinion of the sheep.

It's the nitpickers' loss man. Let them not find happiness in watching this movie.

Not that I'm suggesting it be given an oscar, but YES INDEED, I got my worth of the 2 hours I spend on this movie.

Also, in my opinion, the critics watch the movies as a part of their job, rather than with fresh open minds which most of the movie goers watch them with. They're bound to find faults and sing songs about them.

What others think, should not matter. What truly should matter is, if the precious minutes of your lives we spent watching a movie were not wasted and made us happy.

Yvaine: Let's see if you can work it out for youself. What do stars do?

[–] Monerz 11 years ago

I am Australian not American and I loved this movie.

[–] VapeJuiceDude 11 years ago

I'm Irish not American and I loved this movie too.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RetroRick 11 years ago

That made me think, wouldn't it be great if there were a new zoolander!!!

[–] Dantès 11 years ago

I'm Canadian, and *beep* this movie.

[–] cemj702 11 years ago

You forgot to say sorry. HA!

[–] I_Created_U 11 years ago

I'm Swiss not American and i loved the movie too.

Much better than expected. Very touching. Deeper than one would think at first glance and unlike what other poster suggested, i think the movie is a big *beep* at the current industrial and consumerist ideologies we all live by, some kind of ode to life, freedom, idealism and anti-materialist consideration of the world. And it really worked for me.

Gave it 8/10.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] rolling-stoner 11 years ago

I'm English, not American, and I liked this film too. 3 out of 4 stars.

[–] stelladeli 11 years ago

I'm Greek not American and I really liked this movie too.

[–] imdbowley 11 years ago

I loved it TOO! it's in my top of 2013, also Australian.
I think papa Johns was put there too add more into the story it worked well.

If they were really going to add product placement they would have made the long bored a specific brand.

[–] vargil000 11 years ago

I'm Arab not American and i loved this movie.

[–] kidric3 11 years ago

I don't understand why people keep bashing movies because of "product placement" Who cares? Does it really irk people that much that real life products are in movies? I just don't get it. Unless you're so easily convinced that afterwards you have to go to a Papa Johns and sign on E-harmony and buy a subscription to LIFE magazine, then I'll understand it somewhat but come on? Someone enlighten me. You're going to thumbs down a good movie because of that? That's just stupid.

[–] The_Lost_Dragon 11 years ago

As someone who has had the pleasure of traveling and living around the world, I can tell you that liking it doesn't mean you 'need to broaden your life experiences.' It means you liked a fantastic movie. If you feel the need to insult watchers based on their liking of this film, perhaps it is you who needs to get out more?

I learned to recognise the thorough and primitive duality of man.

[–] davin92 11 years ago

Well, what to expect? This movie was being held off for a very long time because no one wants to fund it. For such a good movie, the ad placements were worth it. Anyways the focus on those ads were not as obvious as most movies.

[–] sydnee_man 11 years ago

Good point davin92. In addition to that, I also thought that the use of LIFE was such a fitting sponsor because it was all about living life and having amazing adventures - not to mention dealing with major changes in life. I even thought the bigger than life-size pictures on the walls were gorgeous.

I am also amazed that people complain about getting free stuff with a few ads thrown in here and there. Millions of people use Pandora every day and as I type this, I'm noticing a Six Flags ad at the top of my screen.

I lump these condescending complainers in with the rest of the trolls.

[–] rushmoore16 11 years ago

Just because people have different tastes than you doesn't mean they are stupid.

[–] howardjw4 11 years ago

I totally agree discordian. This is the first movie that I shut off after 30 mins of watching in a long time. Not one thought provoking concept about it. A hopeless schmuck who has the imagination of a 7 year old, who constantly is trying to escape his fears by zoning out, only to one day find the meaning of life. How original, boring, and predictable.

[–] ahsanasaad101 11 years ago

Yes this film was predictable. But most feel good movies are. This movie isn't an Oscar pretender, it is meant to reach out to the everyman inside us and harness our dreams and frustrations. It's a good old fashioned tale with some decent scriptwriting, acting, a top notch soundtrack and a message at the end.

Don't see what's so bad about the film that it made you shut it off in 30 min.

[–] KeithSaysYes 11 years ago

Thats more telling of yourself, than anything. Because thats not the point of the movie. It's not about a "hopeless schmuck who has the imagination of a 7 year old" its about a man who lived a wild and adventurous life until his father died and he had to take over all family responsibility, to the point that hes now in his 50s and a boring shell of a man wishing he could live the life he wanted, until one day he snaps all responsibility and just leaves, resulting in the adventures he goes on.

[–] ricardo78 11 years ago

then why was 85% of the former and 15% of the latter?

"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 11 years ago

I feel sad that American culture has gotten so dumbed down that people actually think this was some kind of masterpiece

I'm swedish not american and I loved this movie.
I kind of pity you actually for being so angry. It must really be bothersome to get so upset about insignificant things like product placement. Or are you afraid that it will force you to buy their products? I really don't see the big deal.

As for how it was shot, well all I can say is WOW. Stunning visuals. Amazing environments.

[–] PinkFloyd124 11 years ago

You get that that was sort of the point of the movie though right? The irony of telling someone that they need to get out more if they liked a movie whose message is "get out more" is astounding.

So you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir! ~Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder)

[–] BelleCBelle 11 years ago

Hmmmmm. Another good reason I disliked this movie. I really hate Hollywood "feel good" films because they are obviously manipulative, and yet people don't care. That is scary.

Human Rights: Know Them, Demand Them, Defend Them

[–] PinkFloyd124 11 years ago

Except that all filmmaking as a whole is manipulative. Movies are made to tell the story they aim to tell. You get the perspective the director wants you to see. It'd be ridiculous to criticize a specific kind of movie for doing this when it's clear that manipulation is synonymous with filmmaking. You're always going to get to see specific points of view. In Das Boot we see the perspective of war from German sailors during World War II as opposed to the generic evil storm troopers that have become accepted in most World War II films. Why do you usually root for the protagonist and not the antagonist? Because that is how the filmmakers have manipulated the movie.

That all said, I don't get why you think it is scary for people to enjoy a movie with positive motivational message. It's not advocating a political agenda or subverting a positive thing in a negative way. It's a message of "go forth and live the best life you can." Simple.

So you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir! ~Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder)

[–] BelleCBelle 11 years ago

First, I disagree with you regarding criticism. Criticism is subjective and therefore an individual's opinion. Anyone of course is entitled to disagree with an opinion, but to state that "it'd be ridiculous to criticize...[anything]" negates the purpose of critical thinking.

Also, I made my previous point very poorly; I was lazy. However, you corrected me, for me. What I should have written was that, in my opinion, the ubiquitous Hollywood blockbuster makers very much do everything possible to manipulate, to control, the popcorn-eating public's response so they happily cheer on the hero. Delivers big bucks at the box office. But in a truly good or great film, there are no easy pros and cons, no easy solutions, because life isn't like that.

I would say to any filmmaker, and the great ones already do these things: "If you have a message film, present your story in a simple or an elegant or an in-my-face or a puzzling or a breathtaking or an all-of-the-above fashion, but give me something to think about." Frank Capra was the master of the feel-good genre, the master of the genre "Walter Mitty" is trying to emulate. (I understand the film is based on the Thurber story, but the film falls flat in that respect as well.) No one can replace Capra. His movies are still great, and that's a point, too - we still have Frank Capra's movies. We don't need a pale imitation.

I know every turn, almost every line of each scene of a movie like this because of its predictability. There are SO MANY Hollywood actors like Ben Stiller. He will always play Ben Stiller no matter what role he is given. This movie is boring and manipulative feel-good tripe; and yes, scary because movies like this certainly don't require people to think. Films such as this one are no different than the backs of the cereal boxes people read in the morning, while they eat their morning ration of sugar and preservatives, instead of reading Shakespeare.

Our society is continually becoming less educated and watching stuff like this "feel good flick" and skipping out of the theater afterwards with a head full of fluff doesn't help. There are genuine, well-made films out there that do leave you smiling and thinking as well. How about "Nebraska" or "The Big Lebowski?" Yep, and they came out of Hollywood, somehow. Not for everyone's taste, but "Napoleon Dynamite?" Genuine happiness there. There are so many wonderful, wonderful films out there. I enjoy the thought of people thinking outside of the corporate "this week's new releases from Hollywood" box. Check out the Internet, the library, maybe there's a college not too far away if you live, as I used to, far from a large city. There is access to good and exciting cinema that will stretch your brain and make you laugh, Real happiness takes some work, which may sound like an oxymoron, but isn't, if you think about it. The problem is a lot of people aren't thinking anymore.

Human Rights: Know Them, Demand Them, Defend Them

[–] parbon84 9 years ago

You're telling me you could predict the porpoise scene?

You could predict the stretch armstrong scene?

I think you're full of it.

[–] Tsavo 9 years ago

"But in a truly good or great film, there are no easy pros and cons, no easy solutions, because life isn't like that. "

Actually, I have to disagree with you. While in some situations, life can be difficult, that is not always the case. Sometimes it is as simple as just saying "Yes" when you would have said "No" in order for something to change for the better.

[–] ralph_2ndedition 11 years ago

About the product placement bit, I gotta be honest with you...
I'd be more distracted if Walter had worked for a big important magazine I'd never heard of, or had a troubled past with a world wide fast food joint whose brand I'd never seen before, or signed on for internet dating through a huge dating site I didn't recognize the name of.
All I'd be thinking would be on the lines of "So they couldn't get permission to use the real names, and they had to go make up silly sounding fake ones".

I don't see it as product placement, it's just reality.

I remember 'Cast Away' getting slammed for all the same reasons, people bashing it because of the huge part Chuck Nolands employer played in the movie (FedEx? I can't remember now). But again, it never mattered, and why should it? He worked for a huge courier company that had their own airplanes and offices all over the world. Why couldn't it be a named company, instead of a fake one?

"Racoon, Rog?"

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ralph_2ndedition 10 years ago

Hahaha! Yeah, I see what you mean.
But there's a big difference between these two movies.
Walter Mitty is supposed to work for a huge, world wide spanning magazine - one it would seem most people should or at least would have heard of. It would be weird had it been an invented magazine nobody ever knew of.
While Pulp Fiction's one-off Hawaiian burger joint (Big Kahuna Burger) or strange off-brand cigarettes (Red Apple) - for example - doesn't really bother me. Partly just because it doesn't, but also because until I actually read somewhere that these things/places were invented for the movie I had no idea that they didn't exist in real life.
In fact, I was kind of hoping Big Kahuna Burger was a real place, as I'm a fan of pineapple in food - and it would seem logical that a Hawaiian burger joint would have pineapple in most their burgers. :)

-If made by George Lucas, this would be re-released 3 times - and by now be mostly cgi.

[–] iamripu 11 years ago

If you really think that people are dumb because they liked a movie, you are the dumbest of all. I liked many comedy movies that where the actors just tell some jokes and my IQ is quite good. So don't say things you don't have knowledge about.

[–] guvner22 11 years ago

I could not agree more with this.

[–] ShareStuff 11 years ago

Wow. People just looking for some excuse to hate on a movie.

Product placement as a pet peeve... *rolls eyes*

[–] felipelp94 11 years ago

Look around you. How many brand logos do you see? Just in front of me i see 5, why can't a movie show them? They're all around us. And companies/websites DO play a relevant role in millions of people's lives.

[–] thebigbeercan 11 years ago

With critics on this one, I had to watch this with a group otherwise I wouldn't bother nor with most of what hollywood puts out these days, 2 hour glossy loose remake crammed full of product placement (its no argument the film wouldn't have got made otherwise the makers would admit to this) with soon tedious and ditched day dreaming segments which are an excuse to inject some action and CGI to remind people they're watching an expensive hollywood production not an infomercial.

A film like Cast Away gets away with this because it had emotional depth and Hanks is a far better actor..Ben Stiller despite seeming to play the everyman affable chap in everything he does is terrible at it and far too stiff, watching him blankly stare and sigh at everyday first world problems would be insulting if it wasn't so corny.

[–] slickr12345 11 years ago

The film was great, had a lot of soul, amazing acting, very good story and decent amount of comedy as well, I like subtle comedy when its not in your face fart jokes.

I mean it could have had more comedy overall, but I feel like it had few and overall it wasn't a pure comedy which is why it was great.

[–] BelleCBelle 11 years ago

I agree. At least the version with Danny Kay was funny and sweet. I was bored within five minutes of watching this movie.

Human Rights: Know Them, Demand Them, Defend Them

[–] inefekt 11 years ago

Stand up off your chair and take a good look around you, wherever it is that the computer you're reading this is located. Count how many brand names you can see. I'll bet there's quite a few. I can count ten on my desk alone. This is the world you live in, the same world that a good percentage of films are based in. It's a world where people buy products with brand names on them. Most scenes in films have certain well known products that actors might be holding, driving or consuming. It'd look freakin stupid as well as being a waste of valuable time and money for a movie company to de-badge every product, vehicle, smart phone or whatever brand name items they have on their sets. It's not a giant conspiracy to sell you stuff, it's just the reality you find yourself in. So quit being a dumbass and stop worrying about the products you see in films, it's just a reflection of the real world.

[–] pastorjwallen 11 years ago

The product placement doesn't bother me. This was New York city, Walter worked for Life magazine, had an account on E-Harmony, and worked at a Papa John's pizzeria. If this were the year 2050, yeah, I might be a bit irked, but we're looking at present day America. It has nothing to do with intelligence, that's just silly. I don't go into a movie thinking "this movie better stick to reality 100%!", especially a movie that deals with dreams, and whimsy.

------------------------------

-= J =-

[–] andyd-1 9 years ago

that's well put - I already feel like puking at the product placements

[–] maddmaxxh5 11 years ago

I thought this movie was GREAT and it really upset me when I saw that critics hated it, I know someone who refuses to see this movie because of the critics reviews

[–] Monerz 11 years ago

Yeah I know I was going to take my Mom to see it but she did not go over what critics said. I think it is a same that critics have such a huge influence over people. See the movie if you don't like it you don't like it. I think the product placement was not to bad either.
It was a very good film and I hate that it has not go the buzz it deserves

[–] rohan-16 11 years ago

Hmmm, for an Australian (as you claim to be), "Mom" sure is an interesting spelling...
Happy Australia Day for tomorrow.

[–] BelleCBelle 9 years ago

I agree with you regarding people not going to see a film because CRITICS dislike the film. However, when a peer group, such as IMDb's large community, dislikes a particular film, I look further - hopefully there will be reviews in magazines and websites such as in the New Yorker, Variety, New York Times, etc. I also read IMDB's posts to find out what about the film the posters dislike. I may decide to see the film anyway. But because going to see a film is so expensive today, I am particular about what films I see.

http://berniesanders.com/

[–] guvenaran 11 years ago

this film started out well enough, but it failed to impress me for the rest part of it. Sean Penn was a big disappointment for me. His character not taking a photo of the tiger (or whatever) and saying "sometimes I just look at them and not take the photo" or sth made me wanna break the screen. Maybe critics are not completely fair (48% - I would have expected 60% or so)

If films like Forrest Gump and American Hustle are are in the 90 percent range why is this not

I have seen Forrest Gump for one time only like 20 years ago I thought it was perfect but I was 14 so not going to argue about that. AH though, I completely agree that it was mediocre as this was.

[–] frogca 10 years ago

>His character not taking a photo of the tiger (or whatever) and saying "sometimes I just look at them and not take the photo" or sth made me wanna break the screen.

Yes, me too. Not believable, but pretentious. Also not believable that he was primarily a photographer of people but also does wildlife photography - successfully spotting a rare animal after just a couple of days.

So as I think of all these annoying false notes, I have to conclude that the 2nd part of the movie was also only in Walter's imagination, and as far as we know he did not go out and actually live his life boldly. A much darker story, or at least left open.

That said, I actually enjoyed the movie, and the fact that it's bugging me now is a plus rather than a minus. After all, I'm a Wallis Mitty character myself.

[–] Tsavo 9 years ago

Not believable, and pretentious? You're trying a bit hard aren't you? One of the key points of the film was about breaking down the walls around us and actually experiencing things, not from our imagination, or from behind the camera lens, but by actually being there. I also do not recall the movie ever saying he was primarily a photographer of people (but I will admit I need to recheck, as now something at the back of my mind tells me there might have been a line) but the impression I was given was that he was a photographer, no more, no less.

[–] tiger86-2 11 years ago

Critics are retards. Nothing new.

---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/

[–] rzajac 11 years ago

Well, you just disagree with lots of folks who hold film to a higher standard than you happen to; don't take it too personally.

Maybe the best thing for you to do--if you really want to understand this disconnect--is scan these critical reviews for specifics: Did they pan the writing? Scenario work? Acting? Directing? And, on what grounds do they determine that the flick is found wanting on one or more of these points? After an honest look at this stuff, you may *still* find that you disagree with them. That's certainly cool.

Myself, I'm with the critics. It's not a great flick. It's an attempt to stretch the germ of Thurber's concept, plus a handful of other contrived character/plot elements, very very thin. That's not the stuff of great narrative, in general, let alone film.

[–] VapeJuiceDude 11 years ago

Hmm, I alluded to this in another thread, but I think there's a definite pattern emerging here.
Australians, New Zealanders, Swedes, Irish and the well travelled appear to love this movie...
Now I'm not American bashing, but I'd imagine that a higher percentage of citizens of each of these countries hold passports than Americans do.
I honestly think that the enjoyment of this movie is directly related to the sense of adventure the viewer possesses.
I think the higher the desire to explore other countries/cultures, the more likely the viewer is to 'get it'.

If you've ever stood alone on the side of a desolate mountain, or communicated with someone who doesn't speak your language, you'll understand.
If the closest you've been to this is watching a youtube video of someone standing alone on the side of a desolate mountain, you won't.

[–] rzajac 11 years ago

I'm American, I've traveled, have perhaps inordinately romantic notions toward landscape. I went camping at the foot of Jiujiufong, in Taiwan, because of its bizarre beauty (http://www.ronazajac.com/Dongshih/PL01/pics/jjf/jjf_18_ViewOfJJFOverOrchard.jpg).

...and this results in my having a fairly well-toned sense that beautiful landscape in a movie is no compensation for a flick failing to deliver mythic punch. That's the point. If you love landscape, don't buy a movie ticket; travel and enjoy landscape. If you love story and mythic power, buy a movie ticket: Just don't buy a ticket to this particular Ben Stiller stinker.

[–] TJenkins602 11 years ago

Yeah, I do believe it could have been better. It didn't really hit everything to me. However... I still enjoyed it.

http://ourfeaturepresentation.tumblr.com

[–] TJenkins602 11 years ago

You might be onto something. I personally loved this movie. It definitely speaks to the adventurous side of me.

BTW I Am an American. :D

And I read the Bible.

http://ourfeaturepresentation.tumblr.com

[–] tiger86-2 11 years ago

Well, you just disagree with lots of folks who hold film to a higher standard than you happen to; don't take it too personally.

Critics don't hold film to a higher standard. If they did, we wouldn't be seeing dumb comic book based movies like 'Iron Man 2' getting extremely high ratings on RT. I am guessing they saw it was directed by Ben Stiller and didn't get as hyped as 'Tropic Thunder' so they decided to pan it. I am sorry but this movie is in no way worse than 'Starsky & Hutch' - which is rated fresh.

---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/

[–] rcwells86 11 years ago

I usually tend to have the opposite opinion of critics and avoid movies they like like the plague lol. However this time I actually agree with them, as the movie was very pointless and boring.

----
John 3:16 : Eternal life through Christ only.

[–] VapeJuiceDude 11 years ago

"I usually tend to have the opposite opinion of critics and avoid movies they like like the plague lol. However this time I actually agree with them, as the movie was very pointless and boring.

----
John 3:16 : Eternal life through Christ only"

I usually tend not to care either way about what the critics think.
I tend to have the opposite opinion to people who quote the bible and use 'lol' in a post though.

[–] rcwells86 11 years ago

Looking to start some drama I see, and what was the point of your post exactly other than to troll me? And what is wrong with using lol in a post on the internet(abbreviations/emotions are very commonly used online to get our point across quickly)?

----
John 3:16 : Eternal life through Christ only.

[–] toph1980 11 years ago

Why do you care what critics are thinking? You mean those same critics that trashed The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, 2001, Blade Runner, The Thin Red Line, and so on? Enough said.

--
A picture with a smile - and perhaps, a tear.

[–] IAmLegend5 11 years ago

If films like Forrest Gump and American Hustle are are in the 90 percent range why is this not

Forest Gump was good, but I'm sorry American Hustle sucks.

[–] Green_Plant 11 years ago

This movie is maybe ok for small children, the elderly or the mildly slow...but really...I don't buy it. It's very, very twee.