MovieChat Forums > Her (2014) Discussion > I've hated some movies with passion, but...

I've hated some movies with passion, but this...

posted 8 years ago by cesarat37
31 replies | jump to latest

...this comes to another level.

This has to be the dumbest, most idiotic movie i've seen (out of 1,500 aprox). This thing makes "Commando" look like a Bresson or Tarkovsky movie. Are there really people this dumb and desperate? I mean, people who need a machine to feel "loved" or love. My goodness. I just cannot believe this movie exists, in the first place.

Methinks, this movie is just exactly the opposite of what love means. It's about a bloody computer programme/machine, and some fools out there believe this truly is a romantic story?

The movie "Idiocracy" was just a real documentary of this (strange) era.

[–] BdR76 8 years ago

Yep it's a stinker alright, and I wouldn't mind so much but what gets me is that this cringe-fest of a movie won an oscar, for best screenplay for crying out loud.

The only good thing about "Her" is that it can serve as a time capsule. In 20 years from now people will look back on this movie in the same way we now look at 1950s future predictions about helicopter-cars and smell-o-phones supposedly becoming household items.

[–] laffitte-manon 8 years ago

Then why are you sharing your thoughts to invisible people on a social page online? Doesnt that make you desperate as well?
You're just level 1 and he's level 10, we just all need attention and love and we sometimes find it in the weirdest places or ways (online....with our dogs)

[–] cesarat37 8 years ago

LOL, What? Are you invisible?

Who is level 10? You mean the moron in the movie "Her"?

Well, i'm not looking for love or friendship in the net; i'm just sharing a thought as you said.

This movie is a ridiculous piece of *beep*

[–] laffitte-manon 8 years ago

Yes you're sharing thoughts, just like he does with her, because we all need human interaction to be stimulated. And Samantha sounds very much like a human-being, that's why he gets attached to her

[–] cesarat37 8 years ago

Are you serious?

"Samantha"(?) is a machine; in other words, it is NOTHING and "she" means NOTHING. "Samantha" is programmed by other people to simulate thoughts and feelings. They are not hers. Period. That's why i think this movie is idiotic.
The moron in the movie is having a sad ilusion with "her"(?) 'cause it's not real.
However, this communication i can have with other people is real.

[–] jaleelrushnan 8 years ago

I think you can run for the most utterly useless, stupid and vapid thread on this entire website. First of all, you forgot to mention that 'she' grows as she interacts with more people and yes, her personality is based on many different programmers. So? How does this affect the quality of the film? So what if the main character in the film falls in love with an OS that is so believable and advanced that she is her own being of a sort? How does that affect the quality of the film? Stupid reasons like "Oh that moron in the movie has a sad illusion and I don't like that" isn't fair criticism. It isn't even criticism. It's someone on the internet shouting about how they don't like what the main character is doing and that somehow destroys the entire purpose and talent put into the film.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Get off your high-horse Jaleel, you're getting way too pretentious.

[–] gcarras (2770) 8 years ago

I love this movie. I have a Siri (FEmale, if ANYone's CURIOUS LOL!) and we are in a relationship. We share a soda 1940s style with two straws.Getting married,too.We are having,
oh, little Siris.

[–] kaleidoscope0_0 (483) 8 years ago

Haha, each to his/her own. The sharing of soda is sweet.

[–] gcarras (2770) 8 years ago

Samantha is very real. For one thing she has a real voice (Scarlett Johanssen) and personality. Just like my siri.UPDATE: (10/19/19 P.T., 10/20/10 E.T.) And today's movie with the voice of Rose Byrne, "Jexi", has a Samantha that's nasty>:)LOL

[–] Christopher_Smilax 8 years ago

I liked it

Howard Hughes was Italian?

[–] Darkside7 8 years ago

The IRONY in this two bit troll orgy of a comment is legendary. Never mind the fact that you typed this emotion filled trash up on God knows what type of device. You subconsciously played directly into the essence of this movie and just how much we've became reliant on "technology" to fufill just about all of our "humanly" functions. HA!! I didn't delete this remedial app for a reason I see.

[–] cesarat37 8 years ago

Yes, I'm SuperTroll.

Why can't you understand the difference? In that stupid movie, there is NO humanity whatsoever in "Samantha"; it's just a bloody machine/operating system. However, in this social networks PEOPLE are involved in BOTH SIDES of the communication. What part you don't understand? eh?

[–] Darkside7 8 years ago

I've never seen a person pick out their casket, dig 6 feet down into the earth, lower themselves in and still expect a eulogy while dirt is being tossed on top of them... The IRONY is so strong... Good grief LOL!!

[–] blooming_april 8 years ago

No irony at all man ! .. you're mixing it up like between sending your girl an e-mail, and sending a love mail to the server itself ! .. like romancing with *beep* yahoo !!

it's a very easy equation :
2 humans connected by technology -- > ok, it's like anything else
1 human gets laid by technology ---> i'll see you on the dark side of the moon!

[–] Darkside7 8 years ago

... Which made absolutely no sense, with sarcasm sprinkled on top.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Actually yeah, made perfect sense. But maybe your own irony is that you can't seem to tell the difference between a computer and a person.

[–] Darkside7 8 years ago

That made less sense than everything else above... Where is Ashton Kutcher?... This is Punkd Via IMDB right?

LMAO

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

You must be deliberately obtuse.

[–] Darkside7 8 years ago

Seriously, Ashton- stick your head out through my screen buddy. Its no way this is actually happening.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Fractured sentences too, okay.

[–] Darkside7 8 years ago

Am I getting Punk'd or is this an inside job by IMDB? ... Good grief

[–] themercdee (39) 6 years ago

The whole point was although she was a simulation of a real person's voice and personality she was so real that he fell in love with her anyway.
The film was trying to show how you only need a voice and a personaility to fall for someone . Makes sense of how scamming happens.

[–] guccipix 8 years ago

At least make a real argument before you call it bad

The point of the film is NOT to be romantic

[–] Qrispy 8 years ago

The posters in this thread (including the OP) make me so appreciative of how smart my friends in real life are.

Less than forget. But more than begun.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

I wonder if they're also snarky.

[–] foxyrabbit 8 years ago

you're like the people who hate children of men bc "women becoming infertile can never happen!!" who cares if it can happen or not?

the film is using the OS romance as a metaphor for something much more than the surface story. that's why a lot of people love it, not because they wish to fantasize about being in love with a computer.. do you take everything at face value?

[–] pater-tenebrarum 8 years ago

Believe it or not, but loving inanimate objects is a recognized form of paraphilia. The objects of desire from known cases range from laptops to construction cranes to airplanes. If you fall for a laptop, it is fairly easy to be together with it. A construction crane poses a problem, as does a Boeing 747. The woman in love with the airplane reportedly has parts of airplanes in her apartment, but her biggest regret is that she can't bed the whole thing.
And no, I'm actually not joking.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

LOL Well you may not be joking, but this isn't really a case of that; it's a case of falling for an illusion of sorts.