this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
1065 points (97.8% liked)
People Twitter
5283 readers
351 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My wife and I went into The Northman blind, and we honestly loved the experience. I don't give a shit whether or not it's realistic or historical accurate on any front. It was like John Wick with Norse mythology. Just an intense and barbaric ride from start to finish. I was genuinely surprised to learn how universally disliked it was. But people are out there buying tickets to 9 Fast 9 Furious 9, so I don't exactly value the reviews of opinions of strangers.
I know people who swear The Prestige is the worst movie they've ever seen, one person said they turned it off half an hour in because "nothing made any sense"
But you better believe they praise every MCU movie like it's Shawshank Redemption.
There are plenty of movies I love but will readily admit they're garbage. Like Evolution. Hot garbage but I love every second of its shiny, flake-free existence.
I feel very strongly about hating the Prestige, but only because of the ending. I spent the whole final act thinking "oh, he's not actually cloning himself, he's just making it look like he is so that he can get back at his rival." That's what the message throughout the movie seemed to be, that you can make normal things look like magic. Kept waiting for that final twist, only to find that actually yes, Jackman's character was using real magic. It felt like a cheap shot that a movie about rival stage magicians had to resort to fantasy magic in the end.
spoiler
Purely from a plot perspective, Jackman's character using fantasy magic is very deus ex machina (no pun intended), but it really works from a symbolism POV. The whole point is that Jackman's character was so driven to best his rival(s) that he was willing to literally (metaphorically) kill himself, just like Bale's character is willing to die to keep his secret.The whole movie is a story about being consumed by competitiveness or dedication to art to the point of self-destruction, and to that point, I think it's very successful
I get the symbolism, it just fell flat to me because of how much it felt like a cop-out. To each their own, though.
I don't necessarily disagree with you; I'm just saying that it seemed to me that it was an intentional choice by the writers and director rather than a cop-out. A little bit of magical realism about how his drive manifested the technology he "needed" creating a monkey's paw situation.
Then again, I don't think I've seen the movie more than once since I saw it theaters, so I might just be reading too much into it and remembering it with rose-colored glasses.
I love the Prestige. And MCU movies for the most part. Shawshank redemption was fine
Don't get me wrong, I was SO HYPED for The first half of the Endgame series. It kind of petered out and I didn't even end up watching endgame until over a year and a half after it left theaters. But knowing I wanted to see it I avoided most spoilers. I think we know which one I LITERALLY COULDN'T avoid.
I don't have much interest in the ones that came after endgame, they could be better than the originals for all I know, I've just lost my taste for them for now.
My wife and I did watch all of them in Chronological order though two years ago, since she had never seen most of them.
People have different tastes in movies, and that's okay. I won't hold shawshank against you lol my own wife didn't care for it, though for my sake she claims it was great.
I guess my very lazy point is that your taste in movies can be whatever you want, but we can't pretend basic action movies are cinematic masterpieces, or that being a proclaimed "cinematic masterpiece" means you'll like the movie. (I'd argue a movie can be a master class of cinema while still being an objectively bad movie)
And this is why I only really care what critics think. Maybe that makes me pretentious or a movie snob, but fuck it. I like paying attention and analyzing movies (along with books, music, video games, etc.), and IMO, the average viewer can't handle being asked to think about anything with more depth than a bird bath. On the other hand, 90% of the people that are paid to put a little critical thought into their media consumption reviewed The Northman positively, and I agree with them. It was fucking great, and I don't care what the unwashed masses think.
When critics and audiences agree, I generally know I'm in for an enjoyable experience, but probably nothing too great. But when critics love it and audiences don't, I get excited.
Reviews are only useful insofar as you vibe with the reviewer. If you've got really specific taste, mass appeal isn't a helpful data point.
This is definitely true. Seeing who liked or disliked a film is particularly helpful (to my mind, even more so when talking about music). On average, I tend to prefer the taste of critics and other people who dedicate their energy and thought to analyzing a particular media form, but beyond a simple RT/Metacritic score, I prefer to see who wrote what.
The Northman is an excellent film experience. A very unique film and an interesting take on the original tale that Hamlet is based on.