What are some popular movies from well known directors you can't get into?

Submitted by mranimal2 t3_z1tqo5 in movies

Y'know, despite Woody Allen's personal life, I'll still admit to liking some of his movies-Annie Hall, Zelig, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Bullets Over Broadway, Midnight in Paris, and Blue Jasmine are all great movies!

Broadway Danny Rose and Radio Days were pretty good and I actually don't think Stardust Memories is that bad.

However I don't get the appeal of Hannah and Her Sisters. It's well acted but it just comes off as all Allen's style without much of the substance that usually makes his movies really good. I will say it's well acted, has some funny lines, and I did like Allen and Wiest's characters plots but I just couldn't get that interested in Caine's plot or Farrow's plot.

If it had focused entirely on Wiest and Allen, their characters, and their romance I might've enjoyed it. But I feel like it's "white, upper middle class people problems" theme was just something I overall couldn't relate to or get interested in.

17

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bluejester12 t1_ixctc3n wrote

Couldn't get into The Irishman

33

Radiant-Discipline71 t1_ixcz6kw wrote

I’ve heard this a lot, but it’s in my top three Scorsese. I watch it every Thanksgiving lol. Such a great mediation on a life lived, consequence and time. One of my favorites

9

mootm t1_ixekv5b wrote

I feel the same. It was also pretty easy for me to just ignore the de-aging effects.

5

RyanMc t1_ixiqxnh wrote

Same it's a beautiful movie. Great portrait of America through the lens of Scorsesian themes. I also watch every Thanksgiving haha.

3

primitiverootweiner t1_ixdc9hs wrote

I couldn't get over the DeNiro de-aging. It looked terrible and he looked nothing like he did in Godfather 2. Young Robert DeNiro was a very good looking dude and had a certain unique presence. They had so many sources to pull from but they just couldn't get it right.

The fact they didn't spend enough money to get that right just kind of says it all.

7

Turok1134 t1_ixjx43y wrote

They weren't trying to make a young DeNiro, they were trying to make old DeNiro look like a young-ish Frank Sheeran.

1

LopsidedIdeal t1_ixcxn43 wrote

Same

Loved every other gangster film before it but I just can't see Robert De Niro as a gangster anymore at such an age having to be digitally deconstructed into a younger version and still flailing about as a pensioner.

It felt like a huge distraction and part of his charm was his boyishness back in the day and now while he's still a good actor, I think it's time to find a younger movie star.

Maybe I should give it another go, I mean I got so near the end and just didn't bother to finish it.

4

cheap-thrills2022 t1_ixg62zt wrote

They should have had a younger actor for earlier scenes. The last 2 hours (from when they have the ceremony in Frank’s honour), keep De Niro (that’s where the shades of legendary De Niro get to shine).

I personally didn’t mind the deaging and loved the movie, but it has proven to be a big point of contention, especially on De Niro who has the most time period changes in the story. Get a younger dude for the earlier era (hell, give it to Bobby Cannavale and get another dude for Cannavale role) and then let De Niro enter for the last 90+ minutes.

0

OfficalNotMySalad t1_ixddz6m wrote

I like that they let him have the run time he wanted but ffs, I bet even he knows it dragged on way too long for it’s own good.

−1

deathmouse t1_ixgpqsx wrote

Some people don't think twice about binging a ten hour miniseries in a single sitting. But a three hour movie? That's too much.

2

OfficalNotMySalad t1_ixh5icl wrote

It’s closer to 4 hours. Movies are a different media to tv, they’re made completely differently and they’re supposed to be. Saying that, it’s not like I didn’t like the movie but it undeniably dragged

0

Diligent_Dharma_1086 t1_ixioz0q wrote

you are 100% correct, there was way too much fat in the film, I kept thinking "get on with it already"; they fat really culminated in the scene were De Niro is flying to Detroit (I believe) and Scorsese held on the plane leaving for what seemed to be forever. Personally, I felt the entire movie was self-indulgent and could have been much better if he reigned in his excess.

0

Alphal66 t1_ixcw9ae wrote

Anything from Guillermo Del Toro. The sceneries are really nice, the settings are beautiful and his figures and fictive characters look dope but man the plots just bore me out. I had high hopes for his netflix show but it was really lame to me besides one or two okayish episodes

16

kieroda t1_ixdpd4v wrote

Doesn't matter for your point, but the individual episodes of Cabinet of Curiosities aren't really made by Del Toro. He picked out directors he liked and gave each one an episode.

6

Radiant-Discipline71 t1_ixczase wrote

Same-I appreciate his visuals and passion, but his stuff just completely falls flat for me

5

Scharobaba t1_ixd75on wrote

Same. I've seen all his movies and they are fine.

4

Rangomango89 t1_ixgs5w1 wrote

His comic book efforts Blade 2 and Hellboy were solid.

3

deathmouse t1_ixgptaf wrote

Haven't been able to finish his newest movie, and that's cause I consider myself a big fan of his. It bores me to tears. Works better than sleeping pills.

1

then00bgm t1_ixf19r9 wrote

Scott Pilgrim vs The World. The vibrant colors and quick cuts are more grating than fun, and Scott comes across as more of a creepy misogynistic twat than likable or funny or whatever he’s supposed to be. I just feel bad for his ex (I think her name is Knives) since she’s way too young to have been dating a grown man and he didn’t even have the decency to cut things off with her before going after Ramona.

13

DublaneCooper t1_ixh8afp wrote

Same here. I can’t understand why anyone likes this movie.

1

Mrcollaborator t1_ixildd9 wrote

It’s well made. It’s funny. It has a great cast. It has original fight scenes and great visual effects. He’s supposed to be an ass. You’re not supposed to like him.

2

cheeserips t1_ixjlh3r wrote

Exactly, he’s not a good person really but that’s ok, not every character has to be perfect person

1

MeasurementNo0 t1_ixdj25f wrote

Tenet. The gimmick had very little to do with the story. I appreciate the complexity, I just don't think it makes a good film. I think it squandered some good acting and action scenes for the sake of being smart.

11

primitiverootweiner t1_ixf49ac wrote

The gimmick was kind of goofy. I wish they had a better way of showing it instead of running backwards shots. There are interesting aspects to it and I get a lot of directors are fascinated with playing with time and space as it pertains to film (Tarkovsky) but Nolan made this look silly. This is a far cry from Inception.

3

Looper007 t1_ixes1qz wrote

I think it's a good film but nowhere near the level of quality you'd expect from Christopher Nolan and maybe a little too smart for it's own good. The first time I watched a Nolan film that I didn't go back to the cinema to watch again. I thought John David Washington was miscast too, would have loved Robert Pattinson in the lead role and moved Aaron Taylor Johnson (completely wasted in this film by the way) into the Pattinson role.

But every great director has one or two missteps.

2

MeasurementNo0 t1_ixf0wwq wrote

I think this would have been an awesome movie with the time aspect of the plot. He had a killer cast to work with. The plot was simple, the gimmick was complex and ate up way too much time.

He is obviously a great director but not everything needs to be a science fair.

3

thedelinquents t1_ixg6w81 wrote

Whilst I did really enjoy tenet, I wish they scaled it back slightly. Trimmed it back to under 2 hours, not have the big war scene at the end ect. The best scenes are incredible in my eyes.

1

raysofdavies t1_ixh3x5q wrote

Tenet is like if Steven Moffat on Doctor Who was legally bound to be dull and to only submit first drafts. Horrible execution of a great premise, characters who just exist, a complete by the numbers ending. Nolan’s first by far, ugh.

1

reverseswang t1_ixdeazt wrote

The Social Network. It's annoying because it's often cited as one of the best and most important films of the new millennium, and I generally enjoy David Fincher's films. But I found Aaron Sorkin's script loathsome and didn't enjoy the film at all on first impression or rewatch.

10

k0rnbr34d t1_ixgs3gc wrote

I constantly see this on letterboxd's "popular this week" list. My friend who is completely out of the loop and offline saw it and said, "Popular this week... The Social Network? Didn't that come out like ten years ago??" I couldn't agree more.

3

Mrcollaborator t1_ixilge6 wrote

I could watch that movie daily. So well written. So sharp and funny.

1

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_ixjjhe3 wrote

For me it felt like a big budget HBO movie. It was really good and the craftsmanship is stellar but I feel no need to watch it a second time.

1

ucancallmevicky t1_ixczqb9 wrote

Big Lebowski. Love the Cohen's other works just can't get what anyone sees in this movie. When it did a theater run 4-5 years ago for whatever anniversary that was I tried again. Don't get it

7

Flynn74 t1_ixd1nys wrote

I love it because it's weird and hilarious. I rewatch it every couple of years.

The humour is not for everyone but there's a reason why it's a cult classic. Easily in my top 20 movies of all time.

I like most Coen Brothers movies but can't get into O Brother Where Art Thou?

Different strokes and all that...

6

blacksheep998 t1_ixd8eym wrote

I love O Brother Where Art Thou but damn if that movie doesn't have some weird pacing and scene changes.

I think it's because, before the film had released, the Coen Brothers said it was based on The Odyssey. Then afterwards they admitted that they hadn't actually read The Odyssey.

It kind of feels like they got a cliffnotes of the main plot points and tried to cram as many of them in as they could.

7

arcangeltx t1_ixd76k1 wrote

yeah isnt really funny to me or a that great of a movie imo ut the cukt following is so strong

0

Typical_Humanoid t1_ixcqp6i wrote

> If it had focused entirely on Wiest and Allen

See it's the fact that Allen lays his ego to rest with Hannah that it's one of the only ones I can tolerate and actually enjoy. Even some of the later ones he's not in, he may as well have just starred in them anyway, the characters feel like true stand-ins. But H&HS feels like he temporarily learned what we all know, that the world is full of people who don't think like Woody Allen. And I can respect that when normally his films are some of the ones I get the acclaim of the very least.

A big one for me is I think the Coen bros would do well to focus much more on comedy than their dramas. They don't feel very signature, but I can't really think of anybody else with their sense of humor and it is a great one and desperately needed with the lack of truly side-splitting comedies we have now.

6

mranimal2 OP t1_ixcr0ek wrote

Fair. What if it only focused on Wiest's character though? I could actually relate to her struggle of wanting to find her place as an artist and feeling like her time is up. However I just couldn't get invested in Michael Caine wanting to cheat on Mia Farrow with Barbara Hershey.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ixcrceo wrote

Hmm that'd be grand, I can get behind that one. She was my favorite and I just adore her as an actress.

2

AmericanJelly t1_ixdb8dm wrote

You're right, even disregarding the allegations against him, Woody Allen's point of view on the world is so repugnant it makes it impossible for me to enjoy his films. I just see his distasteful selfishness in all of it, and despite my efforts, I just can't separate the art from that artist. I liked that part of H &HS when it came out too (dating myself), I think because Michael Caine is so great. But I watched it again recently and just couldn't couldn't ignore the reality that the Caine character is cheating on Mia Farrow, Woody Allen's actual wife at the time. Art imitating life, I guess. Maybe can still watch Bullets Over Broadway, which as a straight comedy seems to have much less of Woody's take on relationships.

2

Tea_Reckz t1_ixcz8tj wrote

-Love most of James Camerons stuff

-Alien is tied for favorite horror movie

-Could not at all get in to Aliens

6

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_ixjk4kx wrote

>-Love most of James Camerons stuff -Could not at all get in to Aliens

But... how can... I don't...

2

Tea_Reckz t1_ixjkodg wrote

I know, I know.

To be fair, I’ve been putting off watching it for damn near 10 years since I hadn’t watched OG Alien yet and unfortunately wasn’t in any rush either.

So I ended up watching Aliens at 24 vs the 10-14 or so age range when I watched most of his others. I’m sure I would have loved it if I watched it then, just doesn’t do anything for me as an adult.

I’ve also only seen it once and it will definitely have a re-appraisal at some point to hopefully fix this issue

2

[deleted] t1_ixczxzz wrote

This literally makes zero sense.

−10

Tea_Reckz t1_ixd06hg wrote

If you mean the formatting, sorry reddit mobile sucks.

Otherwise yes, it unfortunately makes 0 sense

11

kingofFPS t1_ixd0i33 wrote

What's confusing? He is a huge fan of James Cameron's other movies, and likes the first Alien film. However he doesn't enjoy Aliens despite it being a sequel to his favourite movie and directed by James Cameron.

4

sgmctabnxjs t1_ixds5hx wrote

Have you tried Crimes and Misdemeanours? I think it's one of Allen's best.

6

mranimal2 OP t1_ixdv048 wrote

I haven't seen that, Bananas, Manhattan, Alice, Deconstructing Harry, Match Point, or Vicky Christina Barcelona

There's also a lot more I haven't seen but those are the biggest ones I still haven't sat down and watched

2

sgmctabnxjs t1_ixe6g6a wrote

I'm not so bothered by his more recent films. I did like Blue Jasmine a lot though. I love Sally Hawkins in everything I've seen her in.

1

Diligent_Dharma_1086 t1_ixiq5dj wrote

Match Point is outstanding and perhaps my favorite Woody film; I think it's the best performance Scarlett Johannson has given to date, her follow up Woody film Scoop was just plain awful. Sweet and Lowdown is another outstanding Allen film starring Sean Penn and Samantha Morton who gives a heartbreaking nonspeaking performance as his mute girlfriend (both received Oscar nominations for the film).

0

LAROACHA_420 t1_ixfmtbe wrote

Wolf of Wallstreet, I just thought it was absolutely terrible!

6

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_ixjiubv wrote

Holy shit, I thought I was the only person and I've been afraid to say it out loud.

2

LAROACHA_420 t1_ixjj44x wrote

Oh I'll die on this hill! I have never one time seen anything in that movie that I enjoyed! It was just about some asshole who did a lot of drugs and stuff. At least that what it seemed like to me. Probably the only Leo or Scorsese I don't like tbh

2

Thedrunner2 t1_ixcr320 wrote

Avatar. Never saw the first one and have no interest in the subsequent films.

4

KingRobertBeratheon t1_ixcs9mm wrote

I saw the first one, but never saw what the big deal was... I didn't care for it - basically giant Smurfs in space.

9

bronchoped1 t1_ixcsi64 wrote

Pocahontas/fern gully in space. Boring

4

[deleted] t1_ixczvtn wrote

What an idiotic reduction of what is easily one of the greatest movie going experiences of all time.

You probably haven't even seen Pocahontas...just parroting the same dumb argument.

−4

SpecificAstronaut69 t1_ixd6xtx wrote

Yeah, it's about a group of men who enter a natural, unspoiled wilderness in order to pillage it for its natural resources and the efforts of that wilderness' inhabitants to defend their land.

That's what Fern Gully is about!

1

[deleted] t1_ixd76fz wrote

LOL

Funny how you don't mention aliens, interstellar travel, downloading human consciousness, mechs, riding flying animals, etc.

Yep...practically the same!

What an idiot.

1

SpecificAstronaut69 t1_ixd7ei5 wrote

> Funny how you don't mention aliens, interstellar travel, downloading human consciousness, mechs, riding flying animals, etc.

Because those parts are boring and shit.

You only like it because it's cliche and predictable, and thus makes you feel safe. New things scare you.

2

Balimuz t1_ixd9erq wrote

Agreed I’ve tried watching the first one a couple times. Just can’t get into it. Also, have no interest in the upcoming sequel

6

prblydumass t1_ixdsl7z wrote

You should watch the first one, but just because of the spectacle of it, if you're into that sort of thing. The effects are amazing, way better than a lot of movies that have come out in recent years (looking at you 'Cats'). The plot is pretty lame, the same thing we've all seen a dozen times in Saturday morning cartoons alone (Smoggies, The Raccoons, Captain Planet, etc.). For anyone who will argue, "The Company" as it's referred to in the movie, is after is called 'Unobtainium'(to me, absolute comic gold, but certainly not the filmmakers' intent). What I do is turn it on, shut my brain off, and just stare at the screen and let my magpie brain look at the pretty pictures.

2

claytonianphysics t1_ixeb6zv wrote

I’m the same way with Toy Story. I couldn’t get into it and have no interest in seeing it.

1

Toffee_Wheels t1_ixdb27u wrote

With the exception of Inglorious, there aren't any Tarantino films I particularly enjoy.

4

ShaunTrek t1_ixcuxd3 wrote

  1. Literally have never been able to watch it without falling asleep.
3

MeasurementNo0 t1_ixdj7mo wrote

It is rough. I can't do it. I saw it in the theater when I was too young to appreciate it and now I can't get through it.

1

k0rnbr34d t1_ixgs8lu wrote

I'm curious what movies you really love if this is one you can't seem to get into. I'm always blown away by 2001 no matter how many times I see it. Constantly shocked by how solid its craft is.

1

ShaunTrek t1_ixh8nyw wrote

From Kubrick alone - Barry Lyndon, Strangelove, Shining.

I appreciate the technical aspects of 2001, I just find it incredibly boring.

1

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_ixjkebu wrote

I used to think I would find Barry Lyndon boring but it turned out to be one of my favorite Kubrick films. It make me sad we never got to see his Napoleon, but at least his screenplay for it is available.

2

[deleted] t1_ixd8h0w wrote

I still think Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is 2 and a half hours of garbage with a good ending

3

Walmartmaster t1_ixdzpxt wrote

I liked it a lot. One of my favorite tarentino films. I’m still a teenager and it gave me another perspective of the golden age of Hollywood. Gave me a connection where I could talk to my movie loving grandparents about how Hollywood was like back then. Sure it’s slow paced and nothing crazy happens. But I kinda liked that. It was kinda similar to a fast times or dazed and confused type plot layout but yet I thought it was done well. Also loved the Al Pacino cameo

2

[deleted] t1_ixe0ocd wrote

Do you like it more than Hateful 8? They're both about 3 hours. Not much happens in either until the end. But I was a lot more invested in the characters in Hateful 8. Even tho it took place essentially in one cabin the entire time and not flashy retro Hollywood. Neither are very rewatchable for me but if I had to choose one or the other I'd go Hateful 8

2

Walmartmaster t1_ixe164v wrote

Personally I did like it more than hateful eight. I actually wasn’t a major fan of it. I thought it was good but not great. It’s just very long with little payoff. I love westerns but I feel that sometimes westerns are too similar to each other unless they do something unique. This is why I love butch cassidy and the Sundance kid. Clint eastwoods original trilogy. And both the 60s and 2010s django. Idk after once upon a time in Hollywood I felt more satisfied and educated if that makes sense?

2

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_ixjlabx wrote

>Gave me a connection where I could talk to my movie loving grandparents about how Hollywood was like back then.
>
>Idk after once upon a time in Hollywood I felt more satisfied and educated if that makes sense?

So, I did not enjoy OUATIH at all. But what you've said about your relationship to the film has given me a new appreciation, not for the movie, but for other people's enjoyment of it. I often find myself saying, I don't know what people see in this or that movie. Well, you've helped answer that question about this movie.

If you like westerns, check out Silverado!

1

Walmartmaster t1_ixk0a8y wrote

Appreciate telling you looking into my reasoning! And I will totally check out Silverado!

2

primitiverootweiner t1_ixdp9yy wrote

What? It had fantastic moments. The Bruce Lee stuff was the worst part of the movie but everything else about it was great. Tarantino really built up the environment and layered it with nuance. Also it was extremely entertaining watching DiCaprio and Brad Pitt play off each other.

1

[deleted] t1_ixdzgbf wrote

I guess that's my complaint. It felt like 2 plus hours of just 2 buddies doing things. Then they shoehorned the Manson plot in there to get a movie out of it. But after hearing how QT writes his movies that actually might be exactly how he does it. He says he thinks of one scene and builds the whole movie around that first scene he thinks of. It was entertaining and looked amazing for sure. It was just soo long and honestly boring most of it

4

primitiverootweiner t1_ixdbjuj wrote

Roman Polanski. I don't understand the appeal of his movies at all.

The Ninth Gate. An oK horror/thriller but pretty mediocre overall.

The Pianist. The whole movie plodding and had very forced emotional beats to it. Adrien Brody gave a good performance. However, this film did absolutely nothing that Schindler's list didn't do better.

Rosemary's baby. Maybe his best film..but even then it leaves me cold maybe because it's pretty dated now.

Also Roman Polanski as a person gives me the creeps. The fact that Hollywood celebrities worship him and safeguard his reputation says all you need to know about how creepy the entertainment business really is and the type of people that are common place there.

3

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_ixjlygz wrote

I love Chinatown and that's it. Huge fan of Jack. The script is amazing. Polanski did a great job crafting the movie. Everyone behind the scenes was top of their craft. I haven't enjoyed anything else of his. And he's a total piece of shit.

2

Rangomango89 t1_ixgsepq wrote

Dare I say it but Christopher Nolan.

Batman trilogy was amazing.

But since Inception (which I liked) everything he does is just a long and drawn out brain fuck, I don't go to the cinema to come out wondering what the Hell went on during the last 180 minutes.

3

StupidFatPenguin t1_ixcxexp wrote

Scorcese's "The Age of Innocence". Two hours into this movie and still no one got whacked or told to go fuck their mother.

2

Rozo1209 t1_ixfqt0n wrote

This one finally clicked for me and I enjoyed it. That was a few months ago. Before that, it was one or two failed viewings. I think I didn’t understand Michelle Phfieffer’s backstory the first time and just didn’t care about any of the relationships. But that last viewing, I did. And I appreciated the performance of Winona Ryder more. Everything in that movie is in the subtext. Everyone knows what’s going on but everyone has to keep a superficial appearance because of the norms.

1

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_ixjllj0 wrote

I tried to watch this. I forced myself to keep watching long after I wanted to shut it off but eventually I had to. Life is too short.

1

nolanptafan t1_ixd6uz9 wrote

No Country For Old Men. While I am a big Coen Brothers fan, that movie just doesn't do much for me and I have it ranked at the bottom of their filmography.

2

Alexios_Makaris t1_ixd9wtf wrote

I feel the same way, albeit not at first. I'm a big fan of Cormac McCarthy's works, and had previously read No Country and anticipated the film. I saw the film in theaters and thought it was great, but then did not see it again for a number of years. On rewatch, my opinion of it changed--while I think the story is great for a book, and the acting and directing is amazing (which is probably what wowed me in the theater)...the film as an overall work almost feels like it isn't actually a functional movie if that makes sense. It feels like a set of quasi-related scenes, masterfully shot, but not comprising a coherent whole, it's off putting in cinematic form despite being done mechanically and stylistically very well.

1

SloppyMcNuggets t1_ixdekep wrote

I feel the exact same way, I have tried to understand the hype for it but I just don’t get it, the performances and shots are amazing but it just does nothing for me

2

k0rnbr34d t1_ixgsigl wrote

I was really disappointed with it after hearing so much about it. Found it much less interesting than their other films. I didn't buy their attempt at southern dialect either. Felt really hit and miss to me, unlike their work in other areas of the US. Maybe I am biased since I am from the south.

1

Looper007 t1_ixesnlb wrote

It's top tier Coen Brothers for me but should never have beaten out There will Be Blood for best Director or Best film. That film is on another level.

0

TomTheClipper t1_ixdb466 wrote

My most controversial opinion: Apocalypse Now.

2

spinyfur t1_ixe5m11 wrote

Can you elaborate on why you didn’t enjoy it? There’s little to discuss, otherwise.

2

ilovelucygal t1_ixep7pz wrote

  • I can't sit through an Ingmar Bergman movie, I've tried and tried but just can't do it.
  • I love Hitchcock but never cared for Vertigo and Rope.
  • Billy Wilder is great, but not Imra la Douce.
2

k0rnbr34d t1_ixgrye8 wrote

I don't get the appeal of Jordan Peele's stuff. I guess it's refreshing to see someone care when most movies are made so cynically (Marvel et al), but I think they're undeserving of the acclaim they receive. Us was particularly irksome to me and I turned Nope off about thirty minutes in. Get Out was fine, but still not as deep as many claim. He loves his twists, which can be annoying and I find the dialogue grating. Everything is placed a little too carefully which them more like thought experiments than explorations of emotion. I also don't care too much for Hitchcock for the same reason. It's a little clinical and some (again, Us in particular) seem internally inconsistent and too far reaching for their own good.

1

MurielHorseflesh t1_ixcz3nv wrote

Aside from Sicario, I haven’t seen a Denis Villeneuve movie that I liked.

Arrival was ok but I didn’t get the hype. Just felt like a Close Encounters redo to me. Haven’t seen Prisoners. Enemy is quite possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Blade Runner 2049 was boring and I love the first one. Dune did nothing for me either.

I get that he’s clearly a talented and popular film maker but not much of his work has done anything for me. I’ll still watch everything he does in hopes something grabs me.

0

UNHskuh t1_ixd7jy3 wrote

Give prisoners a try then. It's the most like Sicario and is a great story. It's my favorite of the bunch!

8

Looper007 t1_ixeshr8 wrote

Really that's a shame. Prisoners, Incendies, Blade Runner, Dune and Enemy are all for me fantastic. Do think Sicario is his best film. Arrival is the only one that I just can't get into for some reason. But Denis Villeneuve is one of those few director's who's name alone will make me go to a cinema for one of his films on the first day of release.

1

cheeserips t1_ixjltrv wrote

Definitely watch prisoners. By far my favorite movie he’s directed

1

fruitporridge t1_ixd5mbr wrote

Pulp fiction.

0

mattchamp98 t1_ixdft1z wrote

Same, couldnt get into it and turned it off after 10 mins.

1

bli_b t1_ixel7mi wrote

Didn't get it at all when I watched it younger. Thought I'd try it again when I was older, and I do like the structure and dialogue, but to me it's still one of Tarantino's weaker movies

1

EmperorBoston t1_ixhcckj wrote

Agreed. The dialogue is really good, but otherwise i just didn't really enjoy it that much. It does live up to the name of being "Pulp Fiction", but it just wasn't for me

1

jumping21vip t1_ixd60p1 wrote

I also fell asleep during 2001. Punch-Drunk Love is another one. Matrix reloaded, sense8... If I come across more I'll add it.

0

Jade_GL t1_ixddacy wrote

Tree of Life - Terrence Malick

I really liked The Thin Red Line. I appreciated The New World, but didn't like it as much. I pretty much was bored to tears by Tree of Life.

I can see what he is trying to do, but it doesn't connect with me. Except, like I said, The Thin Red Line, which I really did enjoy quite a bit.

0

Earlvx129 t1_ixdqvcz wrote

I thought Tree Of Life was great, as was Malick's previous films...but since then, I've become frustrated with his rambling, stream-of-consciousness voice overs and shots of people wandering around in fields and looking at skies. That's all he has left in his tank, and stuff like To The Wonder, Knight Of Cups, and Song To Song are just gorgeous looking empty packages.

I 'd still kill to see a full cut of Thin Red Line though!

1

jonhnotincluded t1_ixg6v42 wrote

Pulp Fiction

I couldn’t find anything redeeming about this film, nor anything else I’ve seen from Quentin Tarantino.

0

KingRobertBeratheon t1_ixct056 wrote

I just couldn't get into Fargo, and I count most of the Coen brothers' other movies among my favorites. I am old enough that I was already grown when it came out, and it was all anyone could talk about at the time.

Another one is Lost in Translation... I'm a big Bill Murray fan, and I generally enjoy Scarlett Johanasson's work, but I just couldn't get into that one either

−1

ViolentAmbassador t1_ixd81fd wrote

It's funny, I feel like everyone has one of these for the Coen brothers, even their biggest fans. Just in the first 25 comments in this thread we have The Big Lebowski, Fargo, and O Brother Where Art Thou (O Brother would be the one for me).

EDIT: And now there's a No Country for Old Men mention. That's almost a quarter of their filmography in this thread.

3

KingRobertBeratheon t1_ixdabpx wrote

And see I absolutely love O Brother, so I get that some people will like things that others don't... but that's why they make both chocolate and vanilla, 'cause everyone has their own taste

3

ViolentAmbassador t1_ixdcjq6 wrote

Exactly, and I think that's what is so great about the Coens. I'd rather they make these idiosyncratic movies that I sometimes love but sometimes don't vibe with than make blander stuff that's always okay but never great.

2

thedelinquents t1_ixg7cf7 wrote

I found miller's crossing to be abit of a drag to get through, just found it abit boring

1

k0rnbr34d t1_ixgse3n wrote

I agree with Lost in Translation, but Fargo? It's so good! To each their own. I have to admit, I didn't love No Country for Old Men, but many people swear by it.

3

KingRobertBeratheon t1_ixh6ldh wrote

Admittedly, I have not seen Fargo since back when it first came out, so it may deserve a rewatch see if my opinion has changed, but at the time it just did not do anything for me.

3

mranimal2 OP t1_ixct74r wrote

I like Lost in Translation but I'll admit I saw Fargo at a party and we all thought it was just alright

0

Thetimmybaby t1_ixctoi1 wrote

The Sixth Sense. I found it predictable and boring.

−1

KingRobertBeratheon t1_ixcutyw wrote

My (now-ex) wife usually couldn't see the most obvious and predictable things coming in movies, and she had this one figured out almost immediately. I enjoyed it well enough one time, but it doesn't have any re-watch appeal to me

2

JoseUnderTheRedHood t1_ixd980w wrote

Love Wes Anderson but The Grand Budapest Hotel could never hold my interest or attention

−1

Walmartmaster t1_ixdzufe wrote

Literally so overrated IMO. Visually it was gorgeous dont get me wrong. But the story was so boring I couldn’t get into it whatsoever. Glad I’m not alone

0

Looper007 t1_ixet6rz wrote

I think it's his best film and everything that followed hasn't reached the same heights.

0