MovieChat Forums > Only God Forgives (2013) Discussion > Hollywood has problems... Biiig problems...

Hollywood has problems... Biiig problems.

posted 11 years ago by The_Show_Stoppa
56 replies | jump to latest

I'm sorry but when a mindless, forgettable, and generic action film like Red 2 gets a big push, opens to over $18 million and gets better "critic" reviews. While Only God Forgives an inventive, creative, daring, and ultimately good movie and piece of cinematic art goes right over people's heads, gets absolutely *beep* on by feeble critics and released to VOD it's really scary to think how unintelligent people are in this instant no attention span day and age.

Now more than ever when it comes to movies people don't want to be provoked, they don't want a complex plot or characters that requires you to look further than just the images on the screen. They just want the same thing they've already scene with the same recycled actors... Damn shame, no wonder everyone (now possible including Refn)is going to television.

If you're a fan of this movie/Refn go read/watch some interviews with him regarding OGF and Hollywood min general... You'll respect and like him that much more.

P.S. I can't even remember the last movie that has had me on the message boards like this.

[–] Mr_Mix_Master 11 years ago

ITT: People don't like something I do so they must be sheeple.

[–] The_Show_Stoppa 11 years ago

This one is simple, not everyone has to like something but people are straight up MISSING this movie, they actually don't understand what this movie is, just read "critic" reviews. If you can appreciate what was trying to be done but ultimately didn't enjoy the movie, and articulate that the Peter Travers did in Rolling Stone that's fine.

But these people talking about walking out, critics calling it one of the worst movies of the year or ever?! I'm sorry you're just thick and it straight up went over your head. I've seen very few who have come up with solid critique's of the movie and that's the difference.

[–] LukeGlanton 11 years ago

Completely agree. It's a mistunderstood masterpiece.

Pro wrestling fan?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] im_in 11 years ago

You can go the misunderstood route and based on the reviews there are critics that fumbled badly. But even if you did understand the story it is, however beautifully shot and stylized, dragged out to the point of breaking and then some. I don't mind a slow movie, not in the least. But even that has it's limits.

You can see what was intended but it was way overdone. The whole plot and character 'development' can be summarized in a 3-4 minute short story without losing anything.

There are many movies that have done it better (not the same plot, but the pacing) so why should i praise this one when it's flaws are so obvious.

This movie is a piece of abstract art posing as something it's not and some will be taken in by it as abstract art lovers do (give them an inch and they'll construct miles of what they want it to be), most will call it for what they see, and the third will try and be realistic and cut it down the middle --- only one group out of these will be satisfied, the first.

[–] deanpulpas 11 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more. I don't mind a director being daring or trying to do something different, but this movie felt like an hour and a half Givenchy ad. It just doesn't work: the pacing, the acting, the dialogues... nothing.

[–] gounian 11 years ago

I think I'm in a sub category of the first group. I love abstract art, but it's not because I over analyze things. I generally just like the feel and atmospheres of movies like this. It just works for me on a visceral level. I don't really care what his hands are as a metaphor or all that junk, I just care how it makes me feel on an immediate level.

[–] kjs-2 11 years ago

Slow? There is nothing slow about this film. 89 minutes with more stuff happening than in most 2.5hr films. Quiet and menacing maybe but in no way slow.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maxtheanonymousmoose 11 years ago

How about that this movie cost about 4.5 - 5 million to produce and THE LONE RANGER cost fifty times that. ($250 million - without marketing costs for that flop). It is a ridiculous business model for the film industry.

[–] Sergeant343 11 years ago

Most critics do not rate the film on the same scale, instead they judge the film based on the genre it is in. Like why rate Terminator on the same scale one would Seven Seal, it does not make much sense. So, a higher rating for red 2 does not mean red 2 is a better film.

HI F-ING YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
2013 Rankings imdb.com/list/2-zx4cThbEY/

[–] valedictatorian1 11 years ago

It was super boring

[–] Nanosecond 11 years ago

I disagree with you, OP. Didn't Red 2 flop at theaters? Didn't RIPD flop at theaters? Didn't Turbo flop at theaters? Didn't The Lone Ranger flop at theaters? There's empirical evidence that shows movie-goers want something more than just a flash in the pan. They want story. They want character development. They expect more from their films, not less, because of television. Television has stepped the game up.

There will always be mind-numbing-hero-worship-gun-touting-sex-induced-pop-songy tentpole films. They keep the business of film moving along nicely and won't be going anywhere soon.

But film fans are getting smarter as a whole. Not only b/c they want to but b/c they have to. How much does it cost to see a film nowadays? Nothing less than $10? So a family has to spend around $40-$50 just on tickets alone. That means that film better be worth driving to the theater for instead of just waiting for it to go to DVD.

Some movie-goers are going to walk out of Sandler's Jack & Jill and say "Wow! That was the best film I've seen in a long time!" We can't save those people. They're too far gone. But they are the outliers, not the average.

"It's my head!" John Malkovich, Being John Malkovich

[–] Movie-Jay 11 years ago

I think Red 2 gets more attention and better reviews because audiences are so much quicker to embrace violence as cartoonish entertainment, but not violence as a brutal act committed by someone with deep-seeded personal issues.

Same with Killer Joe. A totally throwaway entertainment that does things for the sake of shocking you, whereas OGF is doing it to reveal its characters' values.

[–] mr-scheps 9 years ago

I think you have a great point here, Movie-Jay. ;) ...not necessarily about "Killer Joe" as I haven't seen it, but about people gravitating towards entertainment action rather than looking at humanity seriously.

p.s. I just verified my account to make this comment. lol.

p.s. Me and a friend of mine just started a YouTube channel this year trying to focus on this very thing...movies that don't rely on flashy entertainment and such. It's called The Dialogue - check us out and tell us how we're doing, and how we can improve. :)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvP8SpYfiFUTLo6Ji1Cd1uA

[–] omisan771 11 years ago

Both movie are *beep*. Only difference is one of them is pretending not to be.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolguyjames_nz 11 years ago

It depends on what you want to go to the cinema for... Me personally want to be entertained. I never pay money to see a comedy or chick flick or drama. I'm there for the action, sci fi, adventure, or horror or mix of all. Thats what I want to see personally. OGF is not my type of movie, far too slow. I still appreciate it, the cinematography was outstanding, but as for character development and story, it was too subtle. Some people like it? Yeah sure, good for them. But for the majority and even intelligent film fans, Yes! Intelligent film fans/goers, this movie blows the big one. Look at the trailer, look at the what and who its trying to target, its trying to sell Gosling as a bad boy in thailand getting revenge on his brothers death. *beep* yeah lets watch that. But what we are actually giving is something more smart, more thought out, more drawn out, more false. Despite having some gripping scenes, I was really let down by this movie, because I thought it was going to be something else. Should have known from the director. I just wanted to see gosling kick someones ass for *beep* sake.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Scribblenaut 11 years ago

Actually, most of his movies before Valhalla Rising had more in common with Drive than this load of ego stroking nonsense.

Like Valhalla Rising, this movie is purposefully kept so empty and vague that nearly any theme you can think of can be projected on to it.

Drive had a classic narrative propelled by a captivating performance by Gosling. His facial expressions and amazing chemistry with Carrie Mulligan in Drive are replaced, by vacant stares into the ether and actors who seemed weren't even given a proper script in OGF