Probably because of the ending
People are weak af and prefer happy endings and shyt
Yeah i thought it was a great movie. Not something I would watch again, but I can see the message and the ending was a part of it.ending was depressing as fukk. Like gotdamn....it’s a wrap? I can see people not liking that.
overall good movie and I was cracking up. Good performances all around and the shyt was on point. We e lost our way as a society.
I think peoples reactions to satire is similar to how hip hop fans react to diss songs.
Some people like the subtle, subliminal shots where you think you know who the dude is talking about it but you could be wrong. But it makes you think and it’s fun to debate or break down the lyrics
Then you have the blatant Hit Em Up type shyt where you know exactly who the dude is talking about. Doesn’t hit you with riddles, just smacks you in the face with its message. Some people find this way too simplistic and lacking in creativity, others love the bluntness.
I think this movie was much smarter than some of the critics thought because it had a meta commentary going on. Leo’s character was told to be subtle with his message, not be crystal clear with it. He went along with it until the point where he snapped and blatantly told the public what the fukk was going on. And I think the movie’s tone mirrored his character
I get why people wanted something less on the nose but sometimes subtlety isn’t needed and you need to yell it out loud and clear. I had similar thoughts about Bamboozled which I remember got similar criticisms for its lack of subtlety. Subtlety is great but there’s also value in movies that say exactly what they want to say in a way that’s impossible to misinterpret. Big reason why I’m a fan of Spike and Oliver Stone
You missed my point.No prob, still curious why you think this a great movie. You never actually made any points in support of it. People just saying “you’re wrong
, so there.” Doesn’t really move the needle in either direction.
@Ed MOTHEREFFING G did counter with “Meryl Strepe is a great actress, therefore this is a great movie.”
I suppose thats one way to look at it.
My guess is that Meryl Streep doesn’t have a tramp stamp brehThat was a stand in, right?
Right?
I mean, if it's not...
nope. shyt was just boring and kinda corny.(to me) I ain’t mad at people liking this, it’s not a bad movie, just did t appeal to me.I enjoyed the movie. I think some of the people saying that Idiocracy was better might be uncomfortable with the reality of the movie and missing that the 2 movies were doing different things.
If someone doesn’t get that then they are a true eedyotSo we all know this is a parable about climate change right?
You like anything brother?
Fair Enough.You missed my point.
The statement I was responding to was that the movie like others tries to "trick people into thinking this is a good movie by having Oscar winners" (paraphrase). My response was "those Oscar winners are good actors...do you think they did a poor job?"
My point was you are welcome to blame the bad movie on actors if you think they did a bad job. But pointing out that it's star studded is irrelevant if the movies faults are outside of their performances.