I could have been watching Paranormal Activity and gotten the same type of enjoyment. Which was being bored to death. I am beginning to believe hollywood execs are paying people to beef up ratings on here because they have been very misleading lately.
shareThis movie is not Hollywood. That is your first misunderstanding.
shareGlad you cleared that up. Now I can sleep at night.
shareIf the movie is not Hollywood, why would Hollywood executives pay people to inflate the ratings?
shareJust to irritate douchebags like you.
shareThe high ratings don't bother me. I like the movie very much, just like the critics did.
You're the one with the problem.
By the way, you are really stupid.
Momma say stupid is as stupid does...........
shareWell,according to DG douchebag, your the only one with the problem......not based on this message board, the movie kind of sucked. So five people think it sucked and "he like the movie very much" Il just let that go and go to the score card, Sucks 5
Not sucks 1.......Not sucks loses
This film was bad, what exactly did you like about it
shareSad.. you need to go back to the schoolyard..
shareI tried to make it through this movie twice . . . Horrible is right . . . and y a w n too
I could not finish this movie. Gave up after 90 minutes.
I disagree. This movie was good and not your typical Hollywood garbage. The script was a little weak but was totally redeemed by the casts' performance.
People that simply say a movie is bad because it's boring don't truly appreciate films and simply want to be entertained with explosions, car chases and manufactured scripts. Maybe you'd feel more comfortable drooling in front of your tv, watching Avengers for the millionth time.
Any movie can be boring regardless of genre, and if you think otherwise then you are the the one who hasn't a clue about movies. Next time you try to look down on people try not to sound like a clueless snob.
I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away.
I agree! A rehash of the generic gangster-tale with all it's tropes and clinches would've made an action-filled but boring film. Personally speaking, the originality of the script and story plays a big part in whether a movie is boring. A movie that simply has less action than one was expecting doesn't immediately make it boring. To me a predictable story, one that often is told in big budget summer blockbusters, makes for a boring movie, no matter the CGI, or quick editing.
shareLuckily for you, Avengers: The Age of Ultron is now out. Seems like your kind of flick.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with you completely about the movie being boring and I too get frustrated by the ratings system, but that's because, like you (I assume), a 6-7 rating is a pretty decent film, where are for most 5-6-7 is all the same, but one might give it a 7, because they are a Chastain fan. I myself gave the movie a rating of 1. Not to prove a point, but I found that there wasn't a single scene that felt cohesive and the chemistry between all the characters was painfully forced, despite Chastain and Isaac actually being good friends.
It was a small budget film, but I would not be surprised to find that marketing execs have found a way to hack create a network of reviewers who vote as they're asked. We all love giving our grade, but just a look at the Top 250 should let you know that the majority of the reviews are by kids who like things that go boom...which begs the question...why did people like this movie so much?
Because this movie is not 2 hours of things going boom. The movie demands your attention and really makes you think to understand what is happening.
shareIf this movie demanded your attention, I probably shouldn't bother. My favorite movies of this past year were about a Polish nun, an insane scientist, an exploration into self, Alan Turing and Martin Luther King Jr. There was a boom in one of them, but it played an integral part in the story. Here's a though. State why you believe this is a complex period drama, instead of telling me I'm stupid. I lived in NYC during this time and the name, the setting and the costumes did nothing to represent the title of the movie, nor did the content. I gave it one star and watched til the end. Trust me, I was paying as much attention as you can, hoping to find a drop of mediocrity to quench my thirst for anything resembling a reason for it.
shareThere is nothing wrong with people complaining about Pacing.
"What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left."
I really wanted to like this movie, the trailer looked great and interesting, but after i long day and watching this a night i fell asleep towards the end. its just a bit slow moving, not overall bad but not many exciting scenes.
shareYou gave this 1?! I'm flabbergasted.
shareI don't know if you saw, but above is some of the reasons. The others I think I posted in my first post that you reacted to. Business ethics is a common theme in movies and this didn't sell it to me. Take movies like Glengarry Glen Ross (much better as a play), Michael Clayton and even Boiler Room to some extent, those movie made you feel the character's moral dilemma, without having to name themselves "Abel Morales."
Also, please note I'm not trying to be a jerk, but to me
10 is a masterpice
8-9 are incredible movies
7 is very good
5-6 are good, but could have been better
4 is watchable, but not really good (sadly, most movies)
2-3 bad
1 - Not a chance in hell I'd ever sit through it again. So, even if I gave it a 2-3, would that have made a difference?
It would make a bit of difference.
Since 1 is the worst rating you could give it, and while I know that it's just an opinion, I'm still astonished you put this in the same pedestal as the lowest of the trash.
But here's the thing, take something that is purposely trash, like 80's B movies. They at least catered to an audience. This wasn't a mob movie, wasn't a love story, wasn't a feel good story it was simply a story. For me a good comparison would be The Drop. Not similar in story lines, but similar in that it's a simple story. I gave that a five. I don't think it's a bad movie and it has some things that I could see myself watching again or even recommending to others who I know like these kinds of movies. I don't see that in this one.
I think we get caught up in the ratings. If this was a four or five star rating scale and I gave it a 1, would you care?
Wouldn't care, but I would still find it odd, though to a lesser effect.
It's just that giving it a 1 means to me that everything is bad, from the acting, through the cinematography and sound, to the writing and direction. Everything. It just seems too extreme in a 10 stars rating.
I liked it because it really grabbed my attention from the right beginning. Isaac's role is a genuine type of a boss, a type of a leader. He was constantly putting his ideals over anyone else's interests or needs. After getting caught by this storyline, I was looking forward to every next episode. Would he brake or would he become more pragmatic and give in or would he be left by everybody and fail? Was he a genuine idealist or was he a crook playing people for his own benefit? Had flashbacks surfacing time by time of how another type of manager would deal with such a situation. Bleakness of New York in the background was another nice treat, especially in the first part of the movie.
share