MovieChat Forums > The Spectacular Now (2013) Discussion > Seriously? What an awful film

Seriously? What an awful film

posted 11 years ago by joe3710
94 replies | jump to latest

I'm not on here to troll or deride this film without reason.

I have to say once in a long while does a movie come along that truly makes you scratch your head and wonder what the heck people must be smoking when they call a movie great. I'm truly stunned by this one.

Let me explain this criticism. So:

1) You have an unlikable obnoxious and unfunny male who treats life like a joke, drinks non-stop and is completely selfish and self-centered
2) You have a supposedly 'intelligent' girl who falls for this guy for the sole reason, as far as I can tell, that she wants to date one of the cool kids. He treats her like a door mat while getting drunk around her constantly. Did they have one honest moment together when he wasn't drinking? She seems to feed him booze because I guess those are the only times he's nice to her
3) There are no authentic scenes with them together. She seems to be his second choice the entire film. The ENTIRE film he is pursuing the blonde and would be WITH THE BLONDE IF SHE LET HIM, yet we are meant to root for this halfhearted joke of a relationship because she's apparently painfully desperate and he needs what to him is little more than an obvious distraction
4) He has daddy issues. Who honestly cares? 95% of the population has parental issues. Is this supposed to make it ok for him to act like a complete scum bag for 95% of the movie?
5) She never cares that any promises he makes her are while drinking? Seriously? How naive and innocent can a person be? Why does she love him? Hes decent looking and tells jokes and has zero substance? What the f---? What in the film exists that could make anyone buy into this relationship? Oh wait they both have parental issues. That makes it work. Riggghttt. He indirectly causes her to get hit by a car (Ha!) and that makes her love him more.
6) The 'first time' sex scene was completely unbelievable. As many guys and girls know the first time for a chick can be painful. Her face looked like she was getting a back rub. Totally(not surprisingly) fluffed up
7) So at the end he figures 'hey maybe I am a total jerk off, maybe I should work on that' and the audience is supposed to say 'Aw he cried to his mom, thats so emotional, he wants to be better' and people buy this nonsense?
8) Everything from the direction to the soundtrack to the pacing to the acting was completely lackluster. Snobs call this understated I guess right?

Seriously. That isn't even it. I could go on, and on and on about this one.

Anyone who lists this movie among the top of the year is on another planet. I guess its that easy for people to 'drink the koolaid'. I can't fathom any other explanation for it. I'd welcome any counter arguments because I am lost on this one. Truly, TRULY awful film and story on so many levels. Treats its characters and audience like children.

1 out of 10. Easy.

[–] magicman205 11 years ago

You missed the entire point of this movie. Literally the ENTIRE point of it. This is one of the most emotionally devastating and honest looks at the current age of teenagers I've ever seen (I know, because I am one.) Stop being such a robot and understand that this movie delves deeper into the human subconscious than most movies would ever dare to do. Go back and watch something pandering and ridiculous like The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

[–] joe3710 11 years ago

I didnt like Perks of Being a Wallflower either.

Your opinion that this is an 'emotionally devestating and honest' anything is something I already immediately back away from. This film, for me, doesn't come close in any sense to warranting that sort of reaction.

Breaking it down, this is a movie about two stupid (some might say exceptionally stupid) kids who make a few mistakes, maybe learn a little something, and wind up at tacky happy trying-too-hard-to-be-ambiguous ending.

Sure, I could see teenage me in some of their mistakes. I'm sure a lot of people could. But so what? To me that sole little tidbit isnt enough to equate to anything reflecting actual commentary or insight.

Despite what people may lead themselves to believe, this story didn't provide anything aside from telling a bland story with bland characters and bland events and bland outcomes. It was BLAND (in case you missed it), boring, and unnecessary.

People obviously buy into the whole 'its so different and unique and insightful' thing way WAY too easily. This movie wasnt any of those things for any reason I can comprehend.

On another note I saw both Blue Jasmine and Short Term 12 this weekend and BOTH I felt were exceptional movies about real-life issues and grey characters (not black and white) doing the best with their circumstances and choices and messing up along the way. Really good movies. Not like this spectacular now nonsense.

[–] nextwooden 11 years ago

It always amazes me that someone could think that their opinion is a fact.

"I think the movie sucked so EVERYONE should think it sucks!!"

Doesn't it give you a headache asking stupid questions?
Pepe Le Moko

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

And when people think something is good, most think that EVERYONE should think it was good.

[–] nextwooden 11 years ago

Reread my post.

I didn't say anything like that.

Simple point: Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Doesn't it give you a headache asking stupid questions?
Pepe Le Moko

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

You are nothing more than human excrement.
Like, you know, there I said it, Dude.

[–] jtilak 11 years ago

You think the film is bad because the characters are flawed and human? You are criticizing the film because the characters make mistakes and are not perfect? You dont approve of their decisions therefore the film is bad? really?

[–] joe3710 11 years ago

Not. At. All.

Having flaws in characters is nothing unique. Almost any creative work you can name be it film or literature or what have you will depict characters with flaws or challenges to overcome. This is the freakin nature of story telling. Overcoming issues, obstacles, circumstances that can be both internal and external. Come on! Man, seriously.

So, no. That is not the problem I had with the film. it's totally great that these characters are 'flawed and human' but AGAIN this doesn't equate to effective storytelling, characters worth caring about, insight, commentary, unique perspective, etc. etc. etc.

THAT is the problem with the film. It posses none of those thing yet people treat it like it does simply because the leads are stupid characters that make bad choices, which is enough for people jump to silly conclusions in regards to a bad film. And, again, what I mentioned previously, they couldn't even stick to the whole hopeless youth thing the whole way through. The ending wasn't ambiguous. It was a joke.

Get it?

I think I summed up everything else in previous posts.

And, OBVIOUSLY, this is my opinion. Do people really need to explicitly state that something written as an intended critique is opinion? Ugh.

[–] munns30 11 years ago

Well, I have to say that I embarked upon this film with no preconceptions of either director or actors; and have to say that I was more then pleasantly surprised!

I thought the characters were a beautifully portrayed study of humanity at it's most fragile. Old enough to take responsibility for your own actions, and yet still young and naïve enough to not fully comprehend the repercussions they may have.

I thought the male lead handled a difficult subject with great sensitivity, and although flawed - as we all are by nature - still fundamentally likeable. The fact that Aimee was not necessarily his first choice of girlfriend added to the authenticity of the piece. Who, really, has been ever lucky enough to fall head over in heals in love with someone and have it reciprocated? Most love comes from sharing life; it's struggles and adversity as well as the good times. This film reflected that brilliantly. Love blossoming. Rather that love just being, as it is with so many films.

I thought the character of Aimee was again, beautifully played. With regard to above comments on the actress obviously being attractive, agreed, but beauty does not always translate to sociability and likability. Clearly a shy character, it is more than conceivable that she would fly under the radar of teenage boys.

All I can say is what a joy to watch a subtle, interesting and provoking comment on young adulthood, apposed to the nonsense we are usually bombarded with.

[–] timeformime 11 years ago

joe - I wouldn't agree that this is the definition of good storytelling - you say characters have things to overcome, but I say it's just as poignant, if not more so, when characters can't beat in one go whatever they're trying to face. They just are who they are.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character (can't remember his name) from 500 Days of Summer isn't going to overcome his overwhelming romanticism and idealizing of women, and that's the bittersweet beauty of that movie. It's no coincidence that these two movies share a screenwriter who seems to be attracted to similar main characters, because at the end of this movie, Aimee and Sutter were more or less the same as a few months ago when they met.

Hell, Mad Men and the Sopranos each got 6+ seasons out of main characters falling into the same cycles of behavior over and over. That's why they happen to be two of my favorite shows. It's cool if you don't like this kind of storytelling, because it's not always warm and fuzzy. I'm not even sure why I prefer these types of stories. It may be because they seem more like a great book that sticks with you, with people who feel real, where no question has an easy answer.

[–] jtilak 11 years ago

Go back and read your post. You say the film is awful in the subject then you list the characters traits and decisions as reasons.

[–] anthropo 11 years ago

1 out of 10 is harsh. That's saying there is no value in the film whatsoever.

[–] zolazona 11 years ago

2) You have a supposedly 'intelligent' girl who falls for this guy for the sole reason, as far as I can tell, that she wants to date one of the cool kids. He treats her like a door mat while getting drunk around her constantly. Did they have one honest moment together when he wasn't drinking? She seems to feed him booze because I guess those are the only times he's nice to her

Well it happens all the time. This girl had her own issues with her dad dying and having a difficult relationship with her mom. What troubled me is that there are many girls/women like this who see their only role is to be a caretaker, and with her steady drinking, it seemed like she might develop some drinking problems of her own. I don't think Amiee saw herself as a doormat. She felt cared for. It was limited care to us, but enough for her. And she thought she could rescue him.

6) The 'first time' sex scene was completely unbelievable. As many guys and girls know the first time for a chick can be painful. Her face looked like she was getting a back rub. Totally(not surprisingly) fluffed up.

Actually, I thought that was one of the more believable exchanges I have seen in a movie. It was cuddly, awkward and she felt something

7) So at the end he figures 'hey maybe I am a total jerk off, maybe I should work on that' and the audience is supposed to say 'Aw he cried to his mom, thats so emotional, he wants to be better' and people buy this nonsense?

Yeah, the ending was flat. HOW did he arrive at enlightenment? He had a long time drinking problem (from childhood?) and it seemed as though he struggled with depression as well. (the chicken or the egg?) Did his mother finally see the light and get him help with rehab?

I don''t think we are called on to like the characters in a movie or a book or to approve of their actions. I think we should only observe them within the context of the story and see if that character is true to the story. I liked many parts of this movie but the Amiee's accident leaped out and then faded away without any meaningful dialog thereafter. It was a pivotal scene and the script let the characters down.

[–] trfruin 11 years ago

To me the after accident was like a different movie. I was expecting Sutter to wake up from a dream as Aimee had no visible bruises on her.
The teacher said he would not graduate, but did he?
Aimee drinking too all through the movie was'n't explained either

[–] nbulous 11 years ago

I'm up to the part where they take the walk in the woods at the party, and I'm starting to form an unfavorable opinion of this movie. While watching I wanted to know the actress' name, so I logged onto imdb, and while I was here decided to look for others' opinions on the movie, so here I am....

The more I watch the harder it is to figure out what the hell she sees in him to be so attracted to him. Her attraction to him is getting less and less believable by the minute. Very little in this movie rings true so far. Too much in the movie seems like it was written for the convenience of the narrative, making it feel fake and forced.

I'm gonna try to finish the movie anyway...

Excuse me, where are you taking us? Mexico
What's in Mexico? Mexicans

[–] Jack1191 11 years ago

I completely agree with you. 100%. I absolutely LOVE these kinds of movies and I was really excited to watch two flawed characters in a coming-of-age story. That's what people say it is and I guess technically it might be true, but it failed in pretty much every aspect of film for me.

The biggest problem for me was Sutter. Everything about the character (and maybe more importantly, the actor) was a complete turn-off for me. I could rattle off a long list of adjectives that perfectly describe him, but I doubt that's necessary. Even people who love this film know what they are. Listing his positive attributes is much more difficult. This is mainly the fault of the actor. I think we were supposed to believe he's charming, attractive, funny and overall a likeable guy despite his flaws. But the guy has absolutely no charisma and is hardly a looker by any stretch of the imagination. If anything this movie was depressing because it showed an attractive, bookish young girl get taken out of her shell and then have it crushed by an alcoholic douchebag.

It's not enough to be "real." First you have to start with the truth, and then you build characters and a story around it. Then you flesh them out. Then you organize it and structure it so it makes sense and is believable. Then you try to find the actors who can best convey all of this to the world. They hit the mark with Shailene Woodley and horribly, horribly missed with whatshisname. Easily one of the most unappealing leading men I can ever remember seeing on the big screen.

It all comes down to taste and perception. I'm reminded of that scene in Forgetting Sarah Marshall where Peter (I think his name was Peter, at least) says something along these lines to Aldous Snow: "*beep*, you're cool. I know I'm supposed to hate you and everything, but *beep*."

That's what they needed to get across in this movie. Maybe not "cool" necessarily, but we had to like Sutter in spite of his myriad flaws. I did not. Neither did Joe. The movie collapses if you can't stand the sight or sound of the person we're supposed to identify with. I'm sure the people who love this movie love it because they identify with the main characters in some way. Personally, that guy was everything I hate about guys my age. Look, there are kids with much more difficult problems who do a much better job of coping and try MUCH harder to be good people. There's only so much douchebaggery I'll tolerate as a viewer before I want to see some redeeming qualities. And he doesn't display any. Not at the beginning and certainly not at the end.

The guy was a loser, plain and simple. And one that I wanted to lose, which is why the movie completely failed for me. I agree. 1/10.

[–] hakmer_thefake 11 years ago

I don't think you have to like Sutter, what for? I certainly didn't like him but I like the movie because people in real life do stuffs like that. What's wrong with people these days, they're watching movies like this and overthink as if it's sci-fi and that it has to be logical or something. Think about movies like Ocean's 13 or any movie where the lead is a bad guy/person. You might like them but they are criminals. This guy isn't really a criminal yet people mind just because he's a loser so much that the movie is bad?

I don't get if people are getting to personal with the main character (maybe they're like that or have a friend like that or a girlfriend who used to date a kid like sutter?) but it says more about the people than the movie now.

Where do you draw the line between being judgemental on a movie character and being fair about judging a movie?

So many bad person as lead characters in many movies, one mentioned in one of the post above is Blue Jasmine, well that girl is not only a loser but could be an accomplice to crime. I dislike her more than I dislike sutter but still, I find that the depiction of the character have some truth to it and that's what counts. If oyu personally dislike the character and judge the whole movie based on that, and couldnt even see through what the movie is about then wow, you must have missed so many great movies just because you think a movie has to be the way you guys want it.

[–] k_l_c55-777-242630 11 years ago

i think the only Awful thing is U