First Ghostbusters gets trolled
-
z_thomas — 9 years ago(August 20, 2016 07:51 PM)
Jeez people. It's such a cliche of IMDB that if some supposedly excellent film gets bagged someone says "if it's not a superhero movie"
I would give this film a 6/10 because many aspects of it are excellent but the film bored me like few films do. The filmmakers overreached and thought they were David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick. This movie had so many ingredients to make it great except the one that matters most: an excellent script.
I hate superhero films but that doesn't mean I have to like a film that reaches for the stars but ends up in the gutter.
If people beep on British films it's probably because they often aren't that great. I'm Australian and I know that most Australian films are beep Yes British films are in general better than Australian films but they are in general not as good as American ones (I'm not talking about "Hollywood" style films but interesting and independent ones).
Rant over. -
z_thomas — 9 years ago(August 20, 2016 07:54 PM)
Also Kill List was only average and nothing like what was needed for a film like this. Haven't seen sightseers but it also has a crap IMDB rating (doesn't always mean that much but given he now has three films all with ratings around 6)
-
Don_Cheech — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 03:00 PM)
I agree 100%. It seems like Wheatley wants to be Kubrick / Lynch but he doesn't have the writing chops. I really appreciate his approach and all- kill list and sightseers were pretty good- but now it's sort of a pattern. His films are little too vague for me - and the plots from what I've seen so far have close to no development or tension. It's like he tries to be so abstract he loses focus of the audience. He sort of cinematically rambles. As others have stated - I thought the acting and cinematography were on point - great score - even the casting was solid. It's just the writing. I kept convincing myself it was similar to Lord of the Flies, but 2/3 into the film it sort of lost me. His endings are also always a huge question mark. I feel like High Rise's plot can be described in a paragraph - (basically is what is on Wikipedia)- and for me- there needs to be a good amount of plot/ character development before I start diving into complex symbolism.
-
ChardeeMacDennis86 — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 04:25 PM)
A great movie like this?? It was poor. I rated it a 5 and that's generous, almost went for a 4.
Oh and by the way Mr I'veFiguredOutTheWorld, I don't like superhero movies and I don't like most of what Hollywood produces, this was simply just a really bad film that deserves its beep rating. -
Balthazar Bee — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 11:05 AM)
I thought I was imagining it, but it really does seem like average scores for (at the very least) competently made, even slightly unconventional films has been in decline.
Midnight Special
at 6.7 was a real eye-opener not because I loved it and other didn't; because its critical reception was rapturous, it's a very easy film to enjoy, and it has a modicum of intelligence.
Gradually, over the past fifteen years or so, the people who initially flocked to IMDb to discuss film have fled and small wonder. This used to be
the place
to discuss films; now it's the place to write inane crap, superficial observations, screeds about Hollywood "libtards", and the obligatory "overrated" threads. For a while, there was safe haven at the A.V. Club's boards, but even that has become a bit distasteful to wade through. And the Dissolve has shut down, of course.