"Smart" movies you think are dumb

[Ihateregistering1]

Agree with a lot of the stuff already put on here (Donnie Darko, Snowpiercer, 2001), I'll add another one that basically no one has seen

The Contender:
For whatever reason, this movie got rave reviews and everyone acted like it was this incredibly nuanced and smart political thriller, but holy Christ was it moronic. It was bad enough that the director falls somewhere to the left of Moviebob, so all the Republican characters practically had horns and spit venom and all the Democrats basically had halos. The plotline was insanely stupid and was so beyond anything you'd actually see in US politics that it just made me laugh when the 'big reveal' was shown.

I don't think people necessarily consider this to be a "smart" movie, but The Hurt Locker. It's probably because I'm an Iraq veteran, but I could not understand people's love for this movie. Everyone acted like it was incredibly suspenseful, but I guessed every death in the movie long before it happened. For some reason it made EOD folks out to be Delta Force Commandos, which they aren't by a long shot. I did like Jeremy Renner though.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

If that's the case why was 17 minutes cut from the premier release and the wider theatrical release?

Maybe because those minutes had little reason to be there?

The point I was making is that large parts of the first and third act can be removed from the movie without lowering the quality since most of what makes the film is in the second act and most of the first act is landscape and spacescape visuals that don't tell a story or really do anything other then look pretty.

Visuals that don't tell a story? The slow pacing in the establishing shots is part of what it is being established - what life was like for the early men you are seeing, before the intervention of the monolith. The long space shots are similarly establishing the oppressively silent darkness of never-ending space, and I don't feel like this would have been accomplished nearly as well at a fast pace.

I'm certainly not going to tell you to enjoy something that you don't, and I even understand why you feel it's boring; but saying "most of what makes the film is in the second act" and that you could just edit out large chunks (90% of the first act?) without impacting it's story-telling is just missing what the film is about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_UsmvtyxEI#t=76
It's not for you maybe, but your hypothetical editing would destroy a masterpiece.

Long/slow shots are actually a rather old filming technique that wasn't used as often then but are meant convey time, space and scale.

Rebuild of Evangelion 3.0

The EVA series as a whole stopped being smart halfway through the first series and reached an apex by the End of Evangelion.

Life of Pi if thought though visually stimulating was incredibly dumb.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Inception is billed as a "smart movie"
I have no idea why. It's the most intellectually insulting early 50's Pulp Sci fi Schlock I've seen since... Well Pulp Sci fi in the early 50's

It's a movie that treats it's audience like lab mice being forced to play a game of Simon.
There's not a single line of exposition that Isn't repeated 3 times per scene it's in and there's not a scene that's not also repeated.

It's like Christopher Nolan made a movie with the intent of torturing everyone who has an attention span longer than 2 seconds. You could easily cut Inception down to a quarter of its length without losing anything important.

 

[Pseudonym]

The matrix trilogy. I cannot take it seriously at all. All of the charactars try way too hard to be cool, wearing sunglasses inside, twitching their head towars the camera melodramatically, making speeches apparently intended to be cool or something. When a charactar is introduced the first 5 minutes of their screentime is ussually devoted to showing off how cool they are. Most charactars seem to already know everything, if their demeanor is anything to go by. There also seems to be a rather limited color pallet both inside and outside the matrix. Green and black is where it's at apparently making the aforementioned sunglasses even sillier. The fightscenes throughout part two are meaningless. All the involved charactars are invulnerable anyway so why bother having me look for several minutes at Neo fighting an army of clones of the same virus guy. The plotline itself is, as far as I can tell, strung together from ad hoc nonsense. Apparently you can get superpowers inside the matrix and possibly outside it by realising you are in the matrix and also by being the chosen one or something. What? The premise of computers using human bodies as a source of energy while deluding them from which the humans can escape by taking a pill within the delusion is absurd to such a degree that just mentioning it feels like an insult to the movies. If they'd cut the entire second movie, the last 50% of the first one and the first 50% of the third one it might be a decent action movie. If it's supposed to be philosophical somehow I don't really see it. People keep telling me it is but I can't get them to discuss the philosophical themes in it in any dept so I have my doubts there. You might feebly argue that the notion that we are being tricked by the matrix is comparable to descartes' deamon but that goes out of the window when the main charactar just starts walking around in the real world and gains super powers. The matrix and the world are two worlds so any philosopher that has any kind of distinction between multiple worlds (Kant, Plato) might be invoked. Perhaps the real world is plato's world of ideas in the analogy? Perhaps you could appeal to more present day philosophers and the idea of mass deception but ussually philosophers don't actually defend that we are being mass manipulated by having our actual senses manipulated. The thing is, the movie is so vague about it's supposed philosophical content that it might be anything or nothing as far as I can tell.

 

[Vigormortis]

Wasn't that due to lacking synchronization across the kicks from people at lower levels?

Partly, but that wasn't the reason in this case.

A kick was shown to be the body experiencing the transition from weightiness to weightlessness, or vice versa. When the van rolled, they wouldn't experience weightlessness. Rather, they'd feel centripetal/centrifugal force. They would feel a sense of being pulled towards the outside of the van.

This is why the dream world had it's gravity shifting directions.

As far as ambiguous endings go, Inception actually did a very good job. It got people thinking, kept them searching the movie and credits for hints, and ultimately kept the movie at the forefront of people's minds for a long time. Maybe you don't like ambiguous endings, but it is really hard to argue that the ending wasn't very effective at getting people to think more deeply about the film than if it clearly took one path over the other.

I partly agree, but I also freely admit there are plenty of reasons to dislike the ending. I've had extensive discussions on the film with friends and associates and some of them have levied some decent criticisms against the ending.

Though, if we gauge the ending's 'worth' by how much discussion it spurs up, then I suppose we can consider it quite worthy.

snip

While I agree on Donnie Darko and Fight Club[footnote]Though, personally, I love Fight Club.[/footnote], and have discussed at length just about every criticism there is for Inception, I'm genuinely curious which criticisms you want to levy against Interstellar.

And I know you said you've no time to discuss them at length, but could I possibly persuade you to change your mind? Perhaps discussing it via private messages?

If not, that's fine. I don't want you to go out of your way if you don't want to. I'm just genuinely curious.

 

[Scarim Coral]

To me that would be The Tree of Life-
Am I suppose to give a danm that mother son had died?
Why are we watching Walking with Dinosaur and the universe being born?
Ok so we're watching that family since childhood, what a bored.
Oh great so they are abusing animals now.
Why arethey important to the whole universe crap?

I guess the film is the new "Forrest Grump" for me (I didn't liked it when I first watched but then liked it some years older when I mature abit).

 

[visiblenoise]

Does Lucy count? Because it seemed like it wanted so badly to be about something, but it wasn't, and the whole thing came off as just plain silly.

I feel like this may be one of the only legitimately-warranted answers here, but I'm not sure if it counts.

 

[the December King]

When I watched Rubber it seemed to think that it had a point to make. I couldn't tell you what that poit WAS. Though I think it was supposed to be a parody of arthouse movies so maybe that was the point.

The point of Rubber was revealed in the first five minutes: The whole movie happened for no reason. That's it. The point was there was no point. It's kind of like nearly every David Lynch movie ever made.

Oh, and on topic: Every David Lynch movie ever made. I'm not saying his movies are bad, because they are very good at being unsettling, skin-crawling creep fests, but smart? Not by a long shot.

I agree with the David Lynch. Watched Lost Highway while drinking with friends one night in college... was stunned. Couldn't understand what had just happened, so watched it again, right away, even as the booze dried up.

I didn't lose 2 hours, I lost 4...and only have myself to blame.

Aaaaand I'm still looking forward to more Twin Peaks!

EDIT: I also liked Dune, and as someone mentioned, The Elephant Man. But both movies don't exhibit what I consider a 'Lynchian' concept of space/time.

As for Rubber, I loved it! Probably because I reckoned early on that it would be largely pointless, but really funny.

Hmmm... I reckon Inception was up itself a bit. So to speak.

...

Oh, others have already mentioned it. Cool.

 

[Silk_Sk]

Inception. I don't necessarily think Inception is dumb. I think it's clever and entertaining. More so than most other films in fact. But holy crap, it is not half as smart a movie as most people claim it is. It was just convoluted enough to maybe necessitate a second viewing, but it was neither revolutionary or mentally challenging. It was merely memorable.

Shutter Island is the movie that should be getting all the praise Inception does.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

Inception. I don't necessarily think Inception is dumb. I think it's clever and entertaining. More so than most other films in fact. But holy crap, it is not half as smart a movie as most people claim it is. It was just convoluted enough to maybe necessitate a second viewing, but it was neither revolutionary or mentally challenging. It was merely memorable.

Shutter Island is the movie that should be getting all the praise Inception does.

Really Shutter Island? I called the twist halfway through the film. It's a good movie for sure, but smart and clever? Not really.

OT: Probably Donnie Darko for the aforementioned reasons stated above. Even as an angsty teenager I never bought into the movie.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

Melancholia

The movie is about rich people who are so rich they no longer feel the need to talk to each other and as all feel alienated/disgruntled/not satisfied with pretty much anything, and with the focus on the illusion of something deeper doesn't even come to the conclusion that these people are all just causing their own issues via their own self interest, its just life is hard when you've got everything you could want combined with no principles and terribly out of whack priorities.

Any other deeper meaning/artistry/etc is a smoke-screen to make it seem more complex than it is. Pretty sure that it has the high-minded positive reviews because the smoke screen confused people, they knew they didn't get it, and so made stuff up to seem like they actually got it. It is the worst movie I have ever watched. I will never watch another movie by Lars von Trier nor trust the movie advice of anyone who liked that overly long pointless piece of crap.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

American Beauty.

My mom thinks it is one of the best movies ever made. All I see is a pretentious movie with little point. And that fucking bag scene... I can only take so much navel gazing at once.

 

[Duster]

2001: A Space Odyssey is about mankind, and its "unneedded, inconsequential" first act works as an introduction to mankind. It establishes several running motifs in the movie and provides a foil to mankind's second encounter with the monolith as well. Feel free to not like it but every minute of that movie is there for a reason.

If I recall the director came out and said that the last act of the movie had no real purpose and was just to appear deep, which is one of the worst things you could possibly admit.

 

[Aramis Night]

The Fountain. Even understanding some of the Mayan/Aztec mythology they were attempting to base a lot of the movie around, it was just such boring twaddle.

 

[Fox12]

Huh, I'm surprised that Donnie Darko gets such hate. And no attempts to even back that criticism up, just "It's not good". Now that is a very boring path to take, though I guess that's what many Escapist members do, myself probably included. I found it to be a pretty enjoyable and intriguing dive into a troubled mind's last minutes before death.

The thing is, Donnie Darko is actually MUCH worse then people give it credit for. Once you understand what the story is about, you behind to actually understand how bad it is. It's really a masterpiece of bad film making. For anyone who wants to understand the secrets of Donnie Darko, here they are.

Donnie Darko has been chosen by god to save the world. Due to a mistake (by god) there are now to seperate universes in existance that diverged at a single moment. Apparently this happens every once in a while. Soon the parallel dimensions will destroy one another. In order to stop this from happening, Donnie is given psychic powers. Hence is ability to manipulate the plane at the end. Essentially he has to destroy one dimension in order to save the other. Certain guides are sent to convince him to sacrifice himself in order to save the world. One is the bunny. So, basically, Donnie is a superhero or something.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Where did he get that from? None of that was even referenced in the film." And you're completely right. The director/writer revealed what the actual film was about, and released supplementary material to explain what happened, including that mysterious book that guided Donnie. That means you actually have to do OUTSIDE RESEARCH to understand what the actual plot is. Even bad films at least communicate their narratives effectively. Donnie Darko is such a mess that the audience doesn't even know what the plot is, because they aren't given vital information. If it was just about a mentally insane person or a supernatural event, it could have been great. But it wasn't. It was a total mess.

 

[coheedswicked]

Into The Wild.

Good god I hate that film SO. MUCH.

Words cannot describe how hateful I find the main character. The message apparently is "act like a selfish prick and die like an idiot and we'll make a whimsical movie celebrating your stupidity later".

Couldn't agree more. This one gets my vote too.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Honestly, a lot of people think too hard about most movies. If you actually go looking, you can rip apart most plots and question why plenty of things were said or happened. I've noticed that a lot of people go into movies with the mindset of looking for holes rather than trying to enjoy it for what it is. Movies aren't about being realistic IMO, they're about entertaining you and giving you the opportunity to let go of the real world. Yes, some movies do go for a real world kind of tone, but I think most just try to craft an engaging experience, logic be damned. I realize that it's a lot harder for some people to turn this off, one of my friends can't stand watching most movies because he gets so caught up in things like "oh, he totally should have died there" or "that's not how the science behind that actually works!"

Some of it I feel has to do with people's personal pride. If they are knowledgable about a certain subject, they feel the need to show everyone that they know better than the movie when it comes to it. I dunno, I'd rather just sit back and enjoy, but I guess that just comes more easily to me.

Now, if you find yourself thinking about these things mid-movie, it's possible that the director didn't do a good enough job keeping you engaged. Again, most movies will have moments that are completely illogical or downright stupid if you bother to reflect on them.

Anyway, since we're really intent on doing this, I'll say The Avengers. A lot of people claim that the movie is smarter than the average superhero movie and that's why it is of such high quality. I completely disagree. Nuking New York when the Avengers were easily handling the issue, and Loki's entire plan were both huge plot points and completely idiotic. What made the movie great to me was the spectacle and the well above average dialogue. Now, I didn't think about the stupid things while I was watching because I can sit back and enjoy. However, upon reflection, ya, it's dumb. So are a lot of movies. In most cases, that's not the point of them. It's about creating an enjoyable experience, not about showing how smart the director/writer is.

 

[Maze1125]

2001 the film really is shit.

2001 the book, on the other hand, is absolutely fantastic and just shows up what the film could have been.

 

[Black Reaper]

I don't know if if counts as a smart movie, since i've never heard anyone talk about it apart from the people who i saw it with, but it seems like the movie thinks it's smart

Everyone has someone but me(Todos tienen a alguien menos yo), a Mexican film about a lesbian who goes around banging a ludicrous amount of girls and being really pretentious

The film is in black and white, and it does a bunch of things to make itself seem smart, like talking about Plato's cave allegory, and criticizing today's youth

I haven't seen it in a long time(and i don't ever plan to see it again), but i remember the characters were so unlikeable, i thought it was a homophobic movie despite starring some lesbians, and that the other people i saw it with(which happened to be a lesbian couple) thought it was a very bad, and very pretentious movie

Its only saving grace is that it has some funny moments

 

[DefunctTheory]

Inception. I don't necessarily think Inception is dumb. I think it's clever and entertaining. More so than most other films in fact. But holy crap, it is not half as smart a movie as most people claim it is. It was just convoluted enough to maybe necessitate a second viewing, but it was neither revolutionary or mentally challenging. It was merely memorable.

Shutter Island is the movie that should be getting all the praise Inception does.

Really Shutter Island? I called the twist halfway through the film. It's a good movie for sure, but smart and clever? Not really.

OT: Probably Donnie Darko for the aforementioned reasons stated above. Even as an angsty teenager I never bought into the movie.

I called the twist half way through the trailer.

Shutter Island was formulaic, dumb, and predictable. I haven't the slightest idea why anyone viewed the film as anything other then a way to spend time. Perhaps it was Dicaprio's fantastic performance.

snip

While I agree on Donnie Darko and Fight Club[footnote]Though, personally, I love Fight Club.[/footnote], and have discussed at length just about every criticism there is for Inception, I'm genuinely curious which criticisms you want to levy against Interstellar.

And I know you said you've no time to discuss them at length, but could I possibly persuade you to change your mind? Perhaps discussing it via private messages?

If not, that's fine. I don't want you to go out of your way if you don't want to. I'm just genuinely curious.

Spoiler: Interstellar Spoilers

While I can't speak for pearcinator's reason, I can give my own. Interstellar's problem was based entirely on the love aspect of it - that somehow love is a 4th dimensional, measurable force that can be used to focus a consciousness in a 5th dimensional existence. Which is just stupid, and is dealt with in the movie in the most ham fisted way imaginable. And it does not fit with the rest of the pretty hard science in the movie. I liked Interstellar for the most part (Largely because TARS and CASE are amazing), but with the following changes, I think the movie could have been infinitely better one.

1. Have NASA find Cooper, cutting out all the Ghost crap
2. Bring up Brand's conflict of interest (Her wanting to see her old BF), but cut the 8 minute exposition about how love is a force of nature and should be followed.
3. Make Mann's portion of the story a bit less convoluted, while still keeping the same theme. Also, perhaps don't name the selfish crazy jerk 'Mann.'
4. Instead of TARS and Cooper transmitting through gravity, time, and love, have TARS sacrifice himself getting data from our side of the event horizon, being able to transmit to Brand and Cooper. Then have Cooper disconnect and fling himself through the wormhole with pure momentum, allowing him to get through and transmit the data, but not have enough fuel to get home. Brand goes to the world to seed it, and Murphy still gets the data needed to punch gravity in the dick.
5. Explain the gravity events as being from future humans entirely, and not partly due to some girls Ghost Dad who somehow survives entry into a black hole and a wormhole because 'fuck you, that's why.'

Basically, the smart/stupid bit is the shoehorned love story, and how the power of love transcends reason.