Most boring movie I ever saw

So if they made a movie about paint drying, as long as the visuals were stunning and perfect you would be ok with that since movies are a visual medium?

Hmm, ok, to each his own.




"Destiny is a fickle b!tch"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

5 years later and it's still the same nonsense. We have the group of people who call this "Boring", "Dull" and "Horrible." Those unable to find subtext in a film, nor do they have the patience to even try.

People (different people) pop in, say they did not enjoy the film, and leave. There is no reason to doubt them. Nor do they have any particular duty to try harder to like it.

Another thing has not changed: They who claim to like the film have little coherent to say about the FILM. Instead, they praise themselves for the allegedly superior qualities that allow them to enjoy it, & put down non-fans for their supposed inferior qualities.

Us non-fans might be more impressed if the fans forgot their egos and their put-downs long enough to have a fascinating discussion among themselves about the actual FILM: its "subtext"; or whatever other fine but hard-to-see qualities they think it possesses.

They're stuck on the BBC Mini-series and the Source Material...

Most nonfans who find this dull and confusing have no familiarity with prior versions.

As for Book and BBC fans: If they were truly stuck on the novel, they would be unable to enjoy the BBC version. And if they were truly stuck on the BBC version, they would be unable to enjoy the novel.

But book+BBC fans are not completely lost. Therefore, they are less likely to be intimidated by film-fans who say: "If you weren't so dumb and lazy you would love this film as much as us superior sophisticated smarties. Go back to watching Bond movies."

Just like Stephen King fans who can't accept that Kubrick's 'The Shining' is a Masterpiece because he "Didn't follow the Novel!"

I loved both the novel and the Kubrick version of THE SHINING. But that's a whole different subject.

Film is a Visual medium of course, but don't say that to the Trolls on this board ...

Film is indeed a visual medium. It is possible to believe, nonetheless, that some films are bad films.

The Cinematography is PERFECT. Hoyte Van Hoytema used a Impeccable Color Scheme to bring the Bleak Tone that was needed to create the perfect atmosphere for Alfredson's story.

I'll be sure to hire him for the cinematography, when I make a film about a lonely hermit dying of ennui in northern Siberia.

One wacko who says he hates the film while secretly loving every minute of it comes on and destroys any sense of rational discussion amongst fans.

Ah, I see. So it's my fault the fans have so little to say about this super-sophisticated film. If only I would go away, then the rational discussion would start. I guess you got that angle covered.

He obviously watches it 5 times a week on Netflix, studying and looking for ways to misinterpret scenes just for the sake of argument...

Well, at least you agree I know my stuff. But seriously, it does not take that level of effort. All that is necessary is to see it twice, and then check one's facts before one posts, by popping the used copy into the DVD player, and skipping to the scene at issue. One may also, to save time, check accurate text-file of the dialogeu, which is readily available online. It also helps (sometimes) to be familiar with the other versions, of which I am a huge fan.

Didn't you imply that non-fans who did NOT put in the extra effort were lazy? Guess it's damned if we do, damned if we don't.

reply share

add reply

formatting help