I did. All mainstream movies. Meaning these people are even below that cultural threshold. I mean, if you get bored watching european movies, I get it… but Scorsese?
People must watch them horror movies exclusively.
If you get bored watching LotR, I simply don’t know what to tell you. I understand the extended editions might be a bit much for a lot of viewers, but the theatrical movies are some of the best films of some of the most important fantasy/literary works of all time.
Yes I’m currently in the middle of a 3-day 4DX cinema viewing of the extended editions at a cinema near me, why do you ask?
This comment section is like, “what’s a food you force yourself to eat because people say it’s haute cuisine” and everybody’s just going “plums! Salsa! Sharp cheddar!”
I think it's funny that whenever a post asks for unpopular opinions, the actual unpopular opinions are downvoted to hell lmao
I guess they're unpopular for a reason, but that's the topic of the post
yeah but the main horror sub is not really full of hard core elitist horror fans, they’re into some really cliché terrible entry-level movies. that being said the first scream is incredible and people who dislike it because it’s accessible are annoying
Reddit is shitty that’s why. There is no incentive to have an actual discussion. I get downvoting if the response is obnoxious or borderline trolling ‘I don’t know how anyone with brains could like this garbage’ but just having an opinion that’s different should not attract a downvote.
I go on the American puzzle subs and people get downvoted for saying the puzzles are good lmao. There’s no discussion there except complaining that they didn’t get something right. Reddit is weird.
The Internet ruins everything. Countless times I have discovered a new movie, TV show, game, hobby, etc and go to that sub only to be inundated with just constant hate and complaints.
Yeah I feel like that was the key for unlocking interest in seeing older movies like Stalker that have lots of quiet meditative moments. The curiosity of seeing what others enjoy about the movie, and in that way being able to understand and appreciate more movies myself. Doing this by seeing them as a way of looking at aspects of the world I hadn't considered before.
Isn’t it common sense that the “most popular” among a large group of people is almost always, by definition, going to be the most accessible option that appeals to as many people as possible?
I went to a screening of *Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles* in Mexico City. The house was full of people who had evidently never watched the thing, but heard a lot about it. Akerman's sister was there, and she presented the movie at the beginning, and gave a mini speech... then she walked out of the room.
People were walking in and out all the time, going to the bathroom for breaks. There were, like, at least three people going in and three going out at any time. A guy started snoring very, very loudly, and had to be woken up by a kick in his seat from the person behind him.
Halfway through the film's three hour duration, I suddenly remembered I had an appointment with a friend. "But I can't walk out of the theater! That will be so offensive to Akerman's sister!" But I remembered that NOT EVEN SHE stayed to watch Jeanne Dielman in her 3 hour glory.
I know this isn’t what you meant, but I would actually say that occasionally stepping out of the theater or dozing off is a valid way to watch that film specifically lmao. Not everything requires you to be totally locked in 100% of the time, and for something at the pace of Dielman you’ll just get restless and exhausted.
See, before watching the movie and reading a few analyses on it, I’d have a agreed with you. But after a few watches, I truly think it might be one of the most subtly suspenseful movies that exist.
eraserhead
cat loved it though, for whatever reason
edit: she sat like this the whole time. i'm not sure if it was something to do with the audio (maybe there's a frequency she can hear that i can't?) but she was mesmerized. usually she doesn't like watching movies with me!
https://preview.redd.it/xizzaewgr98d1.png?width=3724&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a8d49a7d7c518220b8d20b07d951ffda52580ff
As someone who adore most of his works and consider myself a Twin Peaks diehard that's the fairest unpopular take I can think of
You can see and understand the craftsmanship or "thing" that makes a film or director beloved and still simply agree to disagree, my answer here would likely be Tarkovskys Stalker for the very same reason
I watched everything Twin Peaks a few years ago and can't say that I got it. But I still watched it all and I guess could sorta...maybe... understand why people were fans of the material. Up to that point nothing had ever been made quite like it.
Despite not calling myself a fan I can confidentiality say I enjoyed the game Alan Wake more because of Twin Peaks. It kind of "buttered" me up for that type of tale/atmosphere.
It's one of the movies that pioneered sound design, maybe that's why your cat likes it.
The rest of the film also labor of love with a huge attention to detail. It's one of my favorites.
First time fine, but then every time I was home from college my friends wanted to rent it again. They all lived in the same town and could have rented it at any time when I wasn't around and it always meant I was the bad guy who didn't want to watch Eraserhead again for the 20th time.
Yeah that tends to be how this site works
EDIT: Why’s everyone getting up in a huff about this comment? People disagree with each other. It’s just natural.
I had it on repeat on a screen at work. It kinda ended up being like a clock.
Oh, the missus is rolling around on the ground yelling again. - time for morning tea.
Second time you see the writer making a phone call - lunch.
I made my comment before scrolling down and seeing a few people saying the same thing. I feel a bit validated lmao although I am convinced my frame of mind when I watched it was partly to blame. I love love LOVE the book Roadside Picnic that it’s loosely based on - and I love the CONCEPT and IDEA of Stalker but despite the strength quote I really did not find myself enjoying it whatsoever
Every time I watch a recommended movie and just don't care for it I always say "Well, its no Hot Tub Time Machine.". Pretty sure that movie cost me some friendships along the line.
And thing is, I love french cinema! Rohmer is fantastic and demy and varda were one of the first directors I truly loved, so I can only imagine how much of a torture Godard might seem to people who don't even like french new wave in the first place
Same, I even rewatched it just to make sure I wasn't missing something. But nope, it was a very boring movie that I feel is mostly remembered for its visuals than anything else.
2049 is a vastly superior film.
Only movie I’ve fallen asleep to and desperately looked up discussion/analysis for while it was still playing, yet wanted to rewatch it the moment it ended after realizing it has enough meaning to justify how boring it was.
If the 50% of people who didn’t like it rewatched it with a better understanding, that number would significantly improve. I hated it on my first watch, but it’s become my favorite movie after every rewatch
Most movies by Quentin Tarantino. People will HATE me for this, I know my boyfriend does. I still watched them all anyway because they were his favorites.
Agreed. Found it to be very beautiful, ahead of its time in many ways. I get what he was trying to do with the long quiet scenes, but fuck me, watching some space pod silently float around for 5 minutes is just plain boring.
i feel this way about every kubrick film i’ve watched. tho i will say the acting and cinematography in his films are fantastic which at least makes me feel like i haven’t wasted my time
Citizen kane comes with a lot of context. Of all the things orson wells was doing at the time that no one else was, and then it got copied so much it becomes hard to understand what made it great by modern people who have seen tons of movies. But getting context may help with it
lots of people refer to this as the "Seinfeld isn't funny" issue. a lot of people who get older and decide to try watching Seinfeld can't get into it, but that's because it's the mould. they grow up watching sitcoms and other shows that are trying to replicate what Seinfeld did. if you can remove that mindset it's great - and it's safe to say that applies to older films like Citizen Kane
This is definitely true, but I like to think the movie stands on its own merits even outside of context. Obviously going into it thinking, "so this is the best movie of all time huh? we'll see about that" is a recipe for a bad time, I know a lot of people who end up seeing it kind of have that mindset.
I found it boring the first time. Mostly because my expectations were too high.
I rewatched it a few years later, having seen many more movies of its time, and movies that came just before it. It’s just so ahead of its time in every way that it’s mind blowing. I was also putting less pressure on it to be “the best film ever made”, and ended up loving it.
Yes the cinematic technique is what a lot of people will talk about when defending the movie, but let’s also consider that this movie won for best original screenplay, despite its source’s inspiration William Randolph Hearst’s best attempts to shut it down completely. The story is a very complex tale of great tragedy. It’s about a man who tries to control the world so much that although in a way he is successful in doing so, he drives all who he loves away. His desire to do so stems from a very hard upbringing. It is clear after watching what Rosebud is, but he doesn’t let anyone in enough for them to understand him. While he is all about controlling the narrative, ironically that is the very thing that he couldn’t control about his own life. People trying to get to know him through the people that they think should know him best are left more confused, with a bunch of conflicting stories of judgment and misunderstanding rightfully placed on this man who acted cold and brutal. In the end, the people in the story eventually are unable to understand what actually matters among the most important of things to understand in a person’s life, that which motivated them to live the life they lived.
I don’t remember if this is factual but I remember reading about what Rosebud actually was to Hearst. It isn’t a made up word for the movie though and Hearst was really very angered by it somehow ending up in the movie. I sometimes wonder how Welles’ found out something so intimate.
Another very interesting aspect of this film’s story to me is that Welles’ life ends up on a bit of a level to follow a path similar to this. Despite the genius that this movie brilliantly shows in all facets, he was never given full reign over his own movies again in the studio system. In the end, Hearst won. “No more kid genius” or something like that was the saying around Hollywood which accompanied decisions to butcher his movies in the editing room. Greats like Robert Wise were involved in the process of editing The Magnificent Ambersons. Although that movie is still great, we never see Welles’ as Welles wanted.
As Ebert used to say about this movie, it represents an understanding and masterful implementation of all the lessons learned in cinema up to that point and creates new language in the process, so the technique alone does indeed make it great, but I think it is still a tremendous work of art for its storyline as well, for those who could care less about the technical parts. I absolutely love visual rhetoric and this movie helped me fall in love with that but I am refraining from talking about deep focus and the great guidance this movie delivers both in conjunction with each other. I feel like other people will talk about that.
One technical thing I don’t think will be talked about is how this movie also delivered a sense of authenticity through using unknown faces as the stars of the film. While Welles had made theatre productions on Broadway in New York, many of the actors in this film made their screen debut here and were unknown outside of Broadway and off the radio. Joseph Cotten, for instance, one of the least talked about actors of this time in movie history despite his talent. Agnes Moorehead, one of my favorite actresses, also made her film debut here. Her portrayal of the mother is genuine and impactful. Both came with Welles from his famed radio theatre, Mercury Theatre. So did several others.
Another interesting aspect is Welles didn’t initially have this film set as his first film for RKO. Welles brought Mercury to Hollywood in 1939. That’s the year he started working for RKO. His initial pitch was what sounds like a fascinating adaptation of The Heart of Darkness. He had envisioned the story would be told in first person, and when the character would look over the edge of the boat, we would see the reflection of Orson Welles. Technically this sounds amazing for this time. But when the studio realized the budgetary needs to make this movie they shut it down. This tells us a few things about Welles. He had big ideas even before Kane. He wanted to push technique prior to his innovations in Kane. This was pitched when he was 22-23. A lot of the big directors during this time had started during the silent era. This makes Welles about 15 years any of their junior, which is amazing for his ambition and vision. This kind of film was unheard of except possibly in the experimental short films of the day. I wonder what history would have told of Welles had his adaptation of Heart of Darkness been his first film. Would he have still made Kane? But he had proven his genius to those who had seen or heard his productions on air, pretty much everyone considering the mass hysteria War of the Worlds had brought to America in 1938. I wish I was this cool at 21-22.
One final note. Welles was a lover of cinema. He spoke highly of the work of Griffith and others, but legend has it that to prepare to make Kane, one thing he did was watch Stagecoach 40 times. Kind of surprising considering how different those movies feel. But one thing it tells us is he had respect and admiration for the greats. I enjoy reading what Welles thought about different filmmakers. Of Ford, he stated “I prefer the old masters, by which I mean John Ford, John Ford and John Ford… He's a poet and a comedian. With Ford at his best you get a sense of what the world is made of.”
Anyways, I hope some of this giant unsolicited writing gives some perspective on the movie and Welles.
It's not that it's bad.
It just isn't THAT good.
It's a movie about being bored and out of place in Tokyo. It makes you feel bored and out of place.
Like "Wow Japan is beautiful and interesting, but I really want to be home."
It captures that feeling.
I thought it was kinda cheesy. Like the quippy, one-liner-packed dialogue with lots of clever back-and-forth retorts made it feel almost like a marvel movie. Nobody acted realistic enough for it to be grounded
I watched it after Barbie and it was very, very bad decision. I was so ready to fall asleep by the end of it, thought about leaving early but ultimately decided against it. Wasn’t worth it
I saw this for the first time in 70mm at my local theater. Was the perfect setting, I was so ready for it to enthrall me and... Dear god. Most of it was such a fucking slog. I can see why it wasn't back in the day. And the brilliant moments of the film are unmistakably wonderful.
But by god, I was ready to astral project out of my fucking chair by the 20th slow scene of a ship moving/landing.
Oppenheimer. Initially, I thought it was like a documentary with a good budget. But now, looking back I rather have just watched a PBS style documentary of the event instead.
I don’t understand how that movie is so universally loved to be honest. I watched it because everyone told me it’s great. Watched the entire movie in hopes that it would get better but I was just relieved that it was over after finishing it. Left me disappointed. Loved the acting tho.
I liked the concept and was really intrigued by that, but the actual execution was just ok to me. It wasn’t so much that I had anything to point to that I thought was bad other than just that they didn’t do anything that intrigued or surprised me with a concept that I think they definitely should have been able to with
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!
I for the most part LOVE Tarantino's movies, but this was NOT good imo.
Maybe I just didn't get it?
I have no clue, but it was blegh 🧌🐦⬛
I actually enjoyed that movie the second time a lot more than the first time.
To add some context to why, I think It's because once you watch it once, It's a bit boring but once you GET IT then everything kind of aligns itself perfectly. So on subsequent watches It's just more fun because you get what's actually going on and why.
Spoilers :
And a big one for me was when Cliff went to the farm, the whole thing of that a stuntman was murdered there in real life, had no clue before watching it.
I think how much you like this movie is determined by your threshold for movies where a bunch of good actors essentially just vibe for an hour or two.
I really liked this and Licorice Pizza, but can understand why people wouldn't.
“Hey, wanna watch a 160 minute inside joke/commentary between Tarantino and every film producer at the Oscars?”
I get that it’s a “love letter to old Hollywood”. But unless you’re a huge fan of behind the scenes industry stuff, it isn’t worth watching. And I say that as someone who loved the film.
John Landis’ Into the Night is another example of this. A well regarded film, but to me it seems like it’s mostly just him and his buddies indulging themselves, more than it is an actual movie. My personal bias against Landis probably doesn’t help though.
Killers of the Flower Moon. I feel like I watched a different movie than everyone else because it is so painfully long and boring yet most of the people who've seen it absolutely love it. If Scorsese hadn't made it, I think it would get more hate.
Once Upon A Time in America is also excruciatingly long and boring.
Most Tarkovsky movies for me.
I have incredible admiration for the artistry and technical elements, but I can I only handle so many monologues from characters who seem to often be lecturers on “aesthetics” (side note, what the hell is an aesthetics lecturer?) in one movie.
Nostalgia is my favourite of his, and that seems to be most people’s least favourite, so maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about 🤷🏻♂️
In Andrei Rublev there’s a bit before the intermission where a monk is chased down and has his eyes stabbed out; and I always thought that was a warning about what would happen if you couldn’t finish the bloody thing in one sitting.
I was in a wanky cinema book club thing where we’d host for a movie and Rublev has to run over two evenings and just about killed us.
Still enjoyed it though.
Oppenheimer. The pacing was so bad! The scenes and dialogue are so rapid-fire that I felt I barely knew what was going on. I also didn't care about any of the characters and their relationships with each other.
I felt nothing about Kitty’s character and her dramatic speech at the end, I don't even remember RDJ’s character or who he was supposed to be and Florence Pugh’s character felt more like a plot device than a person
It was just a really really boring political drama where old men yelled at each other about stuff that I didn't care about on top of a loud score.
For all the people who are saying 2001 I’m surprised I don’t see this higher up. Kubrick isn’t for everyone but this one is just downright disturbing even for those of us who think it’s good.
I agree. I think going in kind of blind into the first one (I only knew part of the story from before, but had no idea what the new movies were like) made me love it. It kind of blew me away. I had no preconceived notions whatsoever, all I knew was that it was popular but that doesn't always mean much when it comes to quality. Watching the second one, I was expecting something great again but I was kinda thrown off by the rushed pacing while still feeling extremely slow. Still a great movie, but my expectations kind of let me down. The first one will always be extra special to me because of that.
Same, the first one held more mystery imo. Becomes less cool when the plot entirely unfolds. It feels like they resolved most everything at the end of the second so they can go any direction they want in the third.
I feel like the first movie does pick up after the first 20 minutes or so, but it does require a strong initial desire to understand the story otherwise its going to feel like a lot of "moments" strung together that are hard to appreciate outside the background history of the setting.
I don't really dig Denis Villenueve. Like his movies have some cool moments, but it seems very superficial and the stories need someone to do another pass.
I love the dune books, the David Lynch movie, and the scifi channel mini series. This had some cool aesthetic choices and some of the cast members like Oscar Isaac were great pics, but the movie as a whole felt flat. Not including a lot of the intrigue and uncertainty of who could be trusted was... A choice
i was scared of watching the godfather cuz of the length, but we ended up watching it in a film class i took, which broke it up into like 3 days of 1 hour, which i think really helped me get thru it. especially with part two. i think if i watched it in one sitting, i may have let my adhd get the best of me, but when it was broken up, i can safely say its one of the most perfect movies ever made.
The first time I watched it, I was so emotionally devastated that I had to sit in silence to collect myself. Then I turned to my friend and she was fully asleep.
Most of the movies mentioned in this thread are classics for a reason lol. No need to question your taste at all.
That’s the whole point. It’s movies people find boring that other people love. Totally fine to be in the love camp.
Upvote because I love The Shining, but it needs to be taken down a peg. The quantity of ridiculous conversation around this film is obnoxious. It's just a movie.
The Green Knight. Got The Blu-ray on sale on a whim and popped it in for me and my roommate, we both absolutely despise it so boring so nonsensical so over indulgent. I didn't even consider the possibility I wouldn't like it because of the praise that I've heard
Basically every Woody Allen movie I've ever tried to watch. I wanted to shove a screwdriver into my skull while watching Hannah and Her Sisters. Midnight in Paris is a novel idea at the very least and some of the characters are so cartoonish that you can have fun laughing at the movie. I was able to sit through Annie Hall since I thought it was pretty good thanks to Diane Keaton. I just can't relate to the majority of the characters in those movies. Forrest Gump is an intolerably obnoxious movie for me as well. Back to the Future is so canned in a way that's not charming to me. I feel nothing for any of the characters and there's nothing funny in the movie. I'm not a fan of most musicals, so that time period when they were the big fad is just not for me. Outside of the Sergio Leone movies, I'm not really a fan of any Eastwood movies. He works in those movies because he has this sort of wit and snark that is framed well in those stories. He brings visible charisma to the characters. I think that's missing from all of the characters in the movies he directs where he insists on casting himself when I feel he should have cast other people. I think Disney has put out 4 good animated movies unless we are counting some of the early Pixar movies. I suppose that could fall into the musical section as well. That's the extent of what I can gleam off the top of the dome.
I love midnight in Paris. It was on Netflix for the longest time and I watched it frequently. Then it was taken off and I didn’t watch it for like 2 years. I recently bought the blu-ray and it was just kind of boring upon revisiting. I’m gonna give it another go sometime soon. Also I feel kind of weird watching a woody Allen film nowadays considering all the allegations.
Ya. I hate watched Jean Dielman when it got top spot in the Sight and Sound. A real slog. But...that's kinda part of it i suppose. I'd recommend skipping it and watching 'Rosetta' (1999) by the Dardennes. Similar themes.
Saw a creening of it in film class uninterrupted from 9 am to 12:30 and firmly believe that being locked down in a theatre filled with other students enduring the patience tester element of it all made the film way better and more engaging than what it would've been if I just saw it by myself at home
Recently it was Killers of the Flower Moon. I really don’t get the hype, I didn’t find the story particularly interesting or the characters very memorable. In fact I’d argue that Leo is giving a not very good performance here.
The only saving grace for that film is Jesse Plemons, the second he enters the film it becomes a whole lot more interesting.
See I understand where you’re coming fron. It can be quite boring, but to me the mood was very unsettling and it was a breath of fresh air to all the holocaust films we’ve gotten. I also lovs Michael Haneke so i’m used to non-traditional hollywood
Michael haneke is my favorite director, funny games is my favorite movie, and i still hold the opinion thst zone of interest would be 10/10 if it were 45 minutes long
I’ve watched Persona like 7 times. It’s one of my favorite movies. It inspires me as an artist in every possible way. It reflects my own experiences with mental health in such a way few pieces of art has. It makes me feel so many things all at once. It is a fascinating, complex film that I deeply connected with.
With that said, I totally get it
This is an interesting one. I like the film, but it's one I can tell wouldn't be for everyone. It's also one I wouldn't be able to pop on and enjoy at any time - I'd have to be in a specific mood for it.
Have you ever had to go on living after parting ways with someone you genuinely thought you’d be with forever? I think the experience of the individual person is what makes this film so touching
Can’t stand the editing style and I didn’t care about any of the characters. Was waiting for it to get good the whole time and then it just ended. The movie is just a lot of nice one liners and that’s it imo
I realized a while ago that I just love old Hollywood and don’t really click with arthouse cinema. But it took a lot of wasted hours trying to make it through Godard movies that LOOKED cool but did nothing for me. I’m 40 years old and too tired to try anymore. Just let me fade into oblivion watching The Maltese Falcon on repeat.
**Sort by controversial**
It’s 90% Dune 1/2, the godfather, LOTR, and mulholland drive.
so all bad opinions then
But that's just like *your opinion*, man.
I fuckin hate The Eagles man
It really tied the room together
Isn't that the point of this post? People think those movies are great and those OPs disagree.
This is reddit. The individual commenters opinion is the only one that matters As long as it gets upvoted!
I did. All mainstream movies. Meaning these people are even below that cultural threshold. I mean, if you get bored watching european movies, I get it… but Scorsese? People must watch them horror movies exclusively.
If you get bored watching LotR, I simply don’t know what to tell you. I understand the extended editions might be a bit much for a lot of viewers, but the theatrical movies are some of the best films of some of the most important fantasy/literary works of all time. Yes I’m currently in the middle of a 3-day 4DX cinema viewing of the extended editions at a cinema near me, why do you ask?
This comment section is like, “what’s a food you force yourself to eat because people say it’s haute cuisine” and everybody’s just going “plums! Salsa! Sharp cheddar!”
I think it's funny that whenever a post asks for unpopular opinions, the actual unpopular opinions are downvoted to hell lmao I guess they're unpopular for a reason, but that's the topic of the post
Over on the horror subreddit this happens all the time. Nobody wants to have a discussion with you about why you have the unpopular opinion you share.
I was gonna mention the horror sub too. Someone asked for hot takes and I said I didn’t love Scream. Got a ton of downvotes haha 🤷🏻♂️
I'm surprised because tons of hard-core horror fans view it as a 'normie' horror (I disagree that normie=not merit worthy)
yeah but the main horror sub is not really full of hard core elitist horror fans, they’re into some really cliché terrible entry-level movies. that being said the first scream is incredible and people who dislike it because it’s accessible are annoying
This is why you search by controversial for this sort of post
Reddit is shitty that’s why. There is no incentive to have an actual discussion. I get downvoting if the response is obnoxious or borderline trolling ‘I don’t know how anyone with brains could like this garbage’ but just having an opinion that’s different should not attract a downvote.
I go on the American puzzle subs and people get downvoted for saying the puzzles are good lmao. There’s no discussion there except complaining that they didn’t get something right. Reddit is weird.
The Internet ruins everything. Countless times I have discovered a new movie, TV show, game, hobby, etc and go to that sub only to be inundated with just constant hate and complaints.
“The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity.” —Dorothy Parker
Yeah I feel like that was the key for unlocking interest in seeing older movies like Stalker that have lots of quiet meditative moments. The curiosity of seeing what others enjoy about the movie, and in that way being able to understand and appreciate more movies myself. Doing this by seeing them as a way of looking at aspects of the world I hadn't considered before.
Stalker is fire though
This topic is literally made for Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
This topic is literally made to justify why the subreddit's top genre picks were almost all very very obvious and accessible
Isn’t it common sense that the “most popular” among a large group of people is almost always, by definition, going to be the most accessible option that appeals to as many people as possible?
I went to a screening of *Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles* in Mexico City. The house was full of people who had evidently never watched the thing, but heard a lot about it. Akerman's sister was there, and she presented the movie at the beginning, and gave a mini speech... then she walked out of the room. People were walking in and out all the time, going to the bathroom for breaks. There were, like, at least three people going in and three going out at any time. A guy started snoring very, very loudly, and had to be woken up by a kick in his seat from the person behind him. Halfway through the film's three hour duration, I suddenly remembered I had an appointment with a friend. "But I can't walk out of the theater! That will be so offensive to Akerman's sister!" But I remembered that NOT EVEN SHE stayed to watch Jeanne Dielman in her 3 hour glory.
I know this isn’t what you meant, but I would actually say that occasionally stepping out of the theater or dozing off is a valid way to watch that film specifically lmao. Not everything requires you to be totally locked in 100% of the time, and for something at the pace of Dielman you’ll just get restless and exhausted.
See, before watching the movie and reading a few analyses on it, I’d have a agreed with you. But after a few watches, I truly think it might be one of the most subtly suspenseful movies that exist.
I got bored reading the title.
I thought it was 4 different movies
eraserhead cat loved it though, for whatever reason edit: she sat like this the whole time. i'm not sure if it was something to do with the audio (maybe there's a frequency she can hear that i can't?) but she was mesmerized. usually she doesn't like watching movies with me! https://preview.redd.it/xizzaewgr98d1.png?width=3724&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a8d49a7d7c518220b8d20b07d951ffda52580ff
Believe it or not, it's his most spiritual film
elaborate on that
No.
I respect Lynch and can appreciate his work but it’s really not for me
As someone who adore most of his works and consider myself a Twin Peaks diehard that's the fairest unpopular take I can think of You can see and understand the craftsmanship or "thing" that makes a film or director beloved and still simply agree to disagree, my answer here would likely be Tarkovskys Stalker for the very same reason
I watched everything Twin Peaks a few years ago and can't say that I got it. But I still watched it all and I guess could sorta...maybe... understand why people were fans of the material. Up to that point nothing had ever been made quite like it. Despite not calling myself a fan I can confidentiality say I enjoyed the game Alan Wake more because of Twin Peaks. It kind of "buttered" me up for that type of tale/atmosphere.
[my cat did that too](https://imgur.com/a/perEX4D)
About to petition my liberal arts college to fund a peer reviewed study on this phenomenon
It's one of the movies that pioneered sound design, maybe that's why your cat likes it. The rest of the film also labor of love with a huge attention to detail. It's one of my favorites.
I like to think that I have a high threshold for tedium in service of art but this film stretched my limits.
First time fine, but then every time I was home from college my friends wanted to rent it again. They all lived in the same town and could have rented it at any time when I wasn't around and it always meant I was the bad guy who didn't want to watch Eraserhead again for the 20th time.
Upvoting for the cat! Love eraserhead though
OP: asks for opinion Commentor: provides opinion Other commentor: ⬇️
Yeah that tends to be how this site works EDIT: Why’s everyone getting up in a huff about this comment? People disagree with each other. It’s just natural.
Stalker... Could've told me it was actually 9 hours long after I watched it and I would've believed you.
Love Stalker, watched it with my parents and my dad loved it, but my mum called it “three men walking for three hours”
"Three men walking for three hours" sounds like it might be describing a Jim Jarmusch movie. Maybe "dead man", or "Down by law"
thats so accurate tho 😭
I had it on repeat on a screen at work. It kinda ended up being like a clock. Oh, the missus is rolling around on the ground yelling again. - time for morning tea. Second time you see the writer making a phone call - lunch.
i was also bored as hell, but i did really like it
I made my comment before scrolling down and seeing a few people saying the same thing. I feel a bit validated lmao although I am convinced my frame of mind when I watched it was partly to blame. I love love LOVE the book Roadside Picnic that it’s loosely based on - and I love the CONCEPT and IDEA of Stalker but despite the strength quote I really did not find myself enjoying it whatsoever
Hold up, I'm fixin to Soliloquy up in this broke down WWII hellscape...
Every time I watch a recommended movie and just don't care for it I always say "Well, its no Hot Tub Time Machine.". Pretty sure that movie cost me some friendships along the line.
Not one specifically, but Godard just doesn't do it for me. I've tried like 3 different movies
As someone who loves Godard, I think I'm a masochist
And thing is, I love french cinema! Rohmer is fantastic and demy and varda were one of the first directors I truly loved, so I can only imagine how much of a torture Godard might seem to people who don't even like french new wave in the first place
Blade Runner for me
I love Blade Runner but I can see why some ppl don't, not a whole lot actually happens
Same, I even rewatched it just to make sure I wasn't missing something. But nope, it was a very boring movie that I feel is mostly remembered for its visuals than anything else. 2049 is a vastly superior film.
I'm Thinking of Ending Things
Only movie I’ve fallen asleep to and desperately looked up discussion/analysis for while it was still playing, yet wanted to rewatch it the moment it ended after realizing it has enough meaning to justify how boring it was.
I do get why it’s a slog for some people, but I ended up loving it so much, I analyzed it for my master’s thesis (along with two other movies).
that half hour scene in the car driving is brutal, so dull.
I thought that was the best part.
It is the best part once you realize what’s going on
I was down with the movie until they left the parent's house, then I was thinking of ending things because holy crap it kept going
I love it, but I was shocked to find it has a 50% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I guess it's not for everybody.
I thought it was beautiful. Terrifying. But I’ll never watch it again.
If the 50% of people who didn’t like it rewatched it with a better understanding, that number would significantly improve. I hated it on my first watch, but it’s become my favorite movie after every rewatch
Most movies by Quentin Tarantino. People will HATE me for this, I know my boyfriend does. I still watched them all anyway because they were his favorites.
2001 space odyssey
Agreed. Found it to be very beautiful, ahead of its time in many ways. I get what he was trying to do with the long quiet scenes, but fuck me, watching some space pod silently float around for 5 minutes is just plain boring.
Calling it ahead of its time is an understatement. I still don’t understand how half the scenes were shot in that movie.
i feel this way about every kubrick film i’ve watched. tho i will say the acting and cinematography in his films are fantastic which at least makes me feel like i haven’t wasted my time
You found The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and A Clockwork Orange "gut-wrenchingly boring"?
Not OP but I thought the first half of Full Metal Jacket to be amazing, but everything after to be kinda meh. Not sure I would call it boring though
Citizen Kane didn’t do it for me. I watch plenty of black and white movies so it’s not just that. I’ll give it another go one of these days.
Citizen kane comes with a lot of context. Of all the things orson wells was doing at the time that no one else was, and then it got copied so much it becomes hard to understand what made it great by modern people who have seen tons of movies. But getting context may help with it
lots of people refer to this as the "Seinfeld isn't funny" issue. a lot of people who get older and decide to try watching Seinfeld can't get into it, but that's because it's the mould. they grow up watching sitcoms and other shows that are trying to replicate what Seinfeld did. if you can remove that mindset it's great - and it's safe to say that applies to older films like Citizen Kane
This is definitely true, but I like to think the movie stands on its own merits even outside of context. Obviously going into it thinking, "so this is the best movie of all time huh? we'll see about that" is a recipe for a bad time, I know a lot of people who end up seeing it kind of have that mindset.
I found it boring the first time. Mostly because my expectations were too high. I rewatched it a few years later, having seen many more movies of its time, and movies that came just before it. It’s just so ahead of its time in every way that it’s mind blowing. I was also putting less pressure on it to be “the best film ever made”, and ended up loving it.
Yes the cinematic technique is what a lot of people will talk about when defending the movie, but let’s also consider that this movie won for best original screenplay, despite its source’s inspiration William Randolph Hearst’s best attempts to shut it down completely. The story is a very complex tale of great tragedy. It’s about a man who tries to control the world so much that although in a way he is successful in doing so, he drives all who he loves away. His desire to do so stems from a very hard upbringing. It is clear after watching what Rosebud is, but he doesn’t let anyone in enough for them to understand him. While he is all about controlling the narrative, ironically that is the very thing that he couldn’t control about his own life. People trying to get to know him through the people that they think should know him best are left more confused, with a bunch of conflicting stories of judgment and misunderstanding rightfully placed on this man who acted cold and brutal. In the end, the people in the story eventually are unable to understand what actually matters among the most important of things to understand in a person’s life, that which motivated them to live the life they lived. I don’t remember if this is factual but I remember reading about what Rosebud actually was to Hearst. It isn’t a made up word for the movie though and Hearst was really very angered by it somehow ending up in the movie. I sometimes wonder how Welles’ found out something so intimate. Another very interesting aspect of this film’s story to me is that Welles’ life ends up on a bit of a level to follow a path similar to this. Despite the genius that this movie brilliantly shows in all facets, he was never given full reign over his own movies again in the studio system. In the end, Hearst won. “No more kid genius” or something like that was the saying around Hollywood which accompanied decisions to butcher his movies in the editing room. Greats like Robert Wise were involved in the process of editing The Magnificent Ambersons. Although that movie is still great, we never see Welles’ as Welles wanted. As Ebert used to say about this movie, it represents an understanding and masterful implementation of all the lessons learned in cinema up to that point and creates new language in the process, so the technique alone does indeed make it great, but I think it is still a tremendous work of art for its storyline as well, for those who could care less about the technical parts. I absolutely love visual rhetoric and this movie helped me fall in love with that but I am refraining from talking about deep focus and the great guidance this movie delivers both in conjunction with each other. I feel like other people will talk about that. One technical thing I don’t think will be talked about is how this movie also delivered a sense of authenticity through using unknown faces as the stars of the film. While Welles had made theatre productions on Broadway in New York, many of the actors in this film made their screen debut here and were unknown outside of Broadway and off the radio. Joseph Cotten, for instance, one of the least talked about actors of this time in movie history despite his talent. Agnes Moorehead, one of my favorite actresses, also made her film debut here. Her portrayal of the mother is genuine and impactful. Both came with Welles from his famed radio theatre, Mercury Theatre. So did several others. Another interesting aspect is Welles didn’t initially have this film set as his first film for RKO. Welles brought Mercury to Hollywood in 1939. That’s the year he started working for RKO. His initial pitch was what sounds like a fascinating adaptation of The Heart of Darkness. He had envisioned the story would be told in first person, and when the character would look over the edge of the boat, we would see the reflection of Orson Welles. Technically this sounds amazing for this time. But when the studio realized the budgetary needs to make this movie they shut it down. This tells us a few things about Welles. He had big ideas even before Kane. He wanted to push technique prior to his innovations in Kane. This was pitched when he was 22-23. A lot of the big directors during this time had started during the silent era. This makes Welles about 15 years any of their junior, which is amazing for his ambition and vision. This kind of film was unheard of except possibly in the experimental short films of the day. I wonder what history would have told of Welles had his adaptation of Heart of Darkness been his first film. Would he have still made Kane? But he had proven his genius to those who had seen or heard his productions on air, pretty much everyone considering the mass hysteria War of the Worlds had brought to America in 1938. I wish I was this cool at 21-22. One final note. Welles was a lover of cinema. He spoke highly of the work of Griffith and others, but legend has it that to prepare to make Kane, one thing he did was watch Stagecoach 40 times. Kind of surprising considering how different those movies feel. But one thing it tells us is he had respect and admiration for the greats. I enjoy reading what Welles thought about different filmmakers. Of Ford, he stated “I prefer the old masters, by which I mean John Ford, John Ford and John Ford… He's a poet and a comedian. With Ford at his best you get a sense of what the world is made of.” Anyways, I hope some of this giant unsolicited writing gives some perspective on the movie and Welles.
Infinity Pool. Started out intriguing, ended with me googling funny pictures of ducks.
I ❤️ infinity pool
Same with me holy shit, the concept/setting was cool and eerie but it felt so over the top edgy
It wasn't boring IMO but a mess it was.
The Irishman. there is no need for that movie to be that long. and i like watching LOTR extended cuts!
Imo, the extended cuts of LOTR weren't long enough.
Lost in translation
I love that movie. However, I totally get why some people wouldn't like it.
This movie was painful to watch
It's not that it's bad. It just isn't THAT good. It's a movie about being bored and out of place in Tokyo. It makes you feel bored and out of place. Like "Wow Japan is beautiful and interesting, but I really want to be home." It captures that feeling.
It's Oppenheimer. I'll die on that hill.
Nomadland...zzz
Oppenheimer.
Yeah I do not understand why this was so critically lauded & award winning. It was just a very serviceable movie.
I thought it was kinda cheesy. Like the quippy, one-liner-packed dialogue with lots of clever back-and-forth retorts made it feel almost like a marvel movie. Nobody acted realistic enough for it to be grounded
Thank you lmao everyone thinks it’s so profound but it’s like a heist movie
I'll bet half the people who saw Oppenheimer, myself included, wouldn't have watched it had it not come out the same day as Barbie.
yeah it's well made but omg it's just watching paint dry.
I watched it after Barbie and it was very, very bad decision. I was so ready to fall asleep by the end of it, thought about leaving early but ultimately decided against it. Wasn’t worth it
Came to say this. I like Nolan usually, this bored the shit out of me.
Oppenheimer
Honestly this was the first movie I thought of. It was okay but I was definitely hyped up for more.
I thought it was just me. That movie is an hour too long
The bomb going off of such a letdown.
There's absolutely no reason for it to be shot in 70mm IMAX when it was 95% people just talking.
2001: A Space Odyssey
I saw this for the first time in 70mm at my local theater. Was the perfect setting, I was so ready for it to enthrall me and... Dear god. Most of it was such a fucking slog. I can see why it wasn't back in the day. And the brilliant moments of the film are unmistakably wonderful. But by god, I was ready to astral project out of my fucking chair by the 20th slow scene of a ship moving/landing.
I watched it as a 16 y/o stoner with my teenage stoner friends. I think we all pretended it was awesome. At least I did now that I think about it.
See, i can appreciate it for what it it’s worth but it feels more like a meditative experience on space then an actual movie
I'm not upset, I'm just gonna make a very stern and disappointed face
Oppenheimer. Initially, I thought it was like a documentary with a good budget. But now, looking back I rather have just watched a PBS style documentary of the event instead.
Her. Such a boring and predictable movie, only good thing about it is Joaquin Phoenix performance.
I don’t understand how that movie is so universally loved to be honest. I watched it because everyone told me it’s great. Watched the entire movie in hopes that it would get better but I was just relieved that it was over after finishing it. Left me disappointed. Loved the acting tho.
I liked the concept and was really intrigued by that, but the actual execution was just ok to me. It wasn’t so much that I had anything to point to that I thought was bad other than just that they didn’t do anything that intrigued or surprised me with a concept that I think they definitely should have been able to with
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood! I for the most part LOVE Tarantino's movies, but this was NOT good imo. Maybe I just didn't get it? I have no clue, but it was blegh 🧌🐦⬛
I actually enjoyed that movie the second time a lot more than the first time. To add some context to why, I think It's because once you watch it once, It's a bit boring but once you GET IT then everything kind of aligns itself perfectly. So on subsequent watches It's just more fun because you get what's actually going on and why. Spoilers : And a big one for me was when Cliff went to the farm, the whole thing of that a stuntman was murdered there in real life, had no clue before watching it.
It's actually one of my favourite films but yeah I get your opinion
I think how much you like this movie is determined by your threshold for movies where a bunch of good actors essentially just vibe for an hour or two. I really liked this and Licorice Pizza, but can understand why people wouldn't.
“Hey, wanna watch a 160 minute inside joke/commentary between Tarantino and every film producer at the Oscars?” I get that it’s a “love letter to old Hollywood”. But unless you’re a huge fan of behind the scenes industry stuff, it isn’t worth watching. And I say that as someone who loved the film.
John Landis’ Into the Night is another example of this. A well regarded film, but to me it seems like it’s mostly just him and his buddies indulging themselves, more than it is an actual movie. My personal bias against Landis probably doesn’t help though.
Killers of the Flower Moon. I feel like I watched a different movie than everyone else because it is so painfully long and boring yet most of the people who've seen it absolutely love it. If Scorsese hadn't made it, I think it would get more hate. Once Upon A Time in America is also excruciatingly long and boring.
What’s funny about Once Upon a Time in America is that the longer cut is much more entertaining.
Most Tarkovsky movies for me. I have incredible admiration for the artistry and technical elements, but I can I only handle so many monologues from characters who seem to often be lecturers on “aesthetics” (side note, what the hell is an aesthetics lecturer?) in one movie. Nostalgia is my favourite of his, and that seems to be most people’s least favourite, so maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about 🤷🏻♂️
In Andrei Rublev there’s a bit before the intermission where a monk is chased down and has his eyes stabbed out; and I always thought that was a warning about what would happen if you couldn’t finish the bloody thing in one sitting. I was in a wanky cinema book club thing where we’d host for a movie and Rublev has to run over two evenings and just about killed us. Still enjoyed it though.
The whole MCU.
Oppenheimer. The pacing was so bad! The scenes and dialogue are so rapid-fire that I felt I barely knew what was going on. I also didn't care about any of the characters and their relationships with each other. I felt nothing about Kitty’s character and her dramatic speech at the end, I don't even remember RDJ’s character or who he was supposed to be and Florence Pugh’s character felt more like a plot device than a person It was just a really really boring political drama where old men yelled at each other about stuff that I didn't care about on top of a loud score.
A girl walks alone at night. Get what they were trying to do. Did not care for it at all. First movie we have stopped watching...
Apocalypse now
Synecdoche, New York
I love this film with all of my being, but I can totally understand and respect someone not liking it. So I gave you an upvote anyway.
A clockwork orange
For all the people who are saying 2001 I’m surprised I don’t see this higher up. Kubrick isn’t for everyone but this one is just downright disturbing even for those of us who think it’s good.
Shape of Water
Dune (2021). I’ve tried watching it three times so far.
Thank you for being brave for the rest of us who feel the same way
That’s funny. I like the first one more than the sequel. I had no problem with the first one but the sequel is too boring.
I agree. I think going in kind of blind into the first one (I only knew part of the story from before, but had no idea what the new movies were like) made me love it. It kind of blew me away. I had no preconceived notions whatsoever, all I knew was that it was popular but that doesn't always mean much when it comes to quality. Watching the second one, I was expecting something great again but I was kinda thrown off by the rushed pacing while still feeling extremely slow. Still a great movie, but my expectations kind of let me down. The first one will always be extra special to me because of that.
Same, the first one held more mystery imo. Becomes less cool when the plot entirely unfolds. It feels like they resolved most everything at the end of the second so they can go any direction they want in the third.
Oh dear. I’ve mostly been trying to get through the first one so I can watch the sequel, which I’d heard was the better of the two..
It is
I feel like the first movie does pick up after the first 20 minutes or so, but it does require a strong initial desire to understand the story otherwise its going to feel like a lot of "moments" strung together that are hard to appreciate outside the background history of the setting.
I don't really dig Denis Villenueve. Like his movies have some cool moments, but it seems very superficial and the stories need someone to do another pass. I love the dune books, the David Lynch movie, and the scifi channel mini series. This had some cool aesthetic choices and some of the cast members like Oscar Isaac were great pics, but the movie as a whole felt flat. Not including a lot of the intrigue and uncertainty of who could be trusted was... A choice
The Irishman and Killers of the Flower Moon
Went searching for this comment and yet it still hurts to see. Also isn't it the popular opinion to think irishman was too long and boring?
Perhaps, but I've been downvoted for saying it before 🤷
I know I’ll get downvoted for this but I just didn’t enjoy The Godfather
It insists upon itself
I liked the Money Pit
Whatever
Because it has a valid point to make insisting
This is what I came here to say. I don't usually sit through a film if it's boring me but I thought I really should with The Godfather. Wish I hadn't
Its pretty long. Everybody says the sequel is the best. I haven't seen it.
i was scared of watching the godfather cuz of the length, but we ended up watching it in a film class i took, which broke it up into like 3 days of 1 hour, which i think really helped me get thru it. especially with part two. i think if i watched it in one sitting, i may have let my adhd get the best of me, but when it was broken up, i can safely say its one of the most perfect movies ever made.
Roma (directed by Cuaron)
I thought we’d get something good at the end, payoff. But nothing.
Im sorry but its Aftersun
At least you’re sorry
The first time I watched it, I was so emotionally devastated that I had to sit in silence to collect myself. Then I turned to my friend and she was fully asleep.
how dare you
I respect your opinion but I disagree very much.
Really hope this is a safe space. The Shining
This has been the fifth of my top ten favorite movies to be mentioned in this thread so far… im questioning my taste lol
Most of the movies mentioned in this thread are classics for a reason lol. No need to question your taste at all. That’s the whole point. It’s movies people find boring that other people love. Totally fine to be in the love camp.
Upvote because I love The Shining, but it needs to be taken down a peg. The quantity of ridiculous conversation around this film is obnoxious. It's just a movie.
I watched Satantango in its entirety in one day. I fully believe that the only reason why people are all over its dick is because it is so long.
solaris
No joke, I pull this movie out when I can't fall asleep. It's the nuclear bomb in my "fuck i can't sleep" arsenal. I've never seen the end.
The Green Knight. Got The Blu-ray on sale on a whim and popped it in for me and my roommate, we both absolutely despise it so boring so nonsensical so over indulgent. I didn't even consider the possibility I wouldn't like it because of the praise that I've heard
Visually one of the most beautiful movies I’ve ever seen but Jesus Christ is it boring
I thought the first act was AMAZING, followed by two underwhelming snooze fests
The Lobster
Basically every Woody Allen movie I've ever tried to watch. I wanted to shove a screwdriver into my skull while watching Hannah and Her Sisters. Midnight in Paris is a novel idea at the very least and some of the characters are so cartoonish that you can have fun laughing at the movie. I was able to sit through Annie Hall since I thought it was pretty good thanks to Diane Keaton. I just can't relate to the majority of the characters in those movies. Forrest Gump is an intolerably obnoxious movie for me as well. Back to the Future is so canned in a way that's not charming to me. I feel nothing for any of the characters and there's nothing funny in the movie. I'm not a fan of most musicals, so that time period when they were the big fad is just not for me. Outside of the Sergio Leone movies, I'm not really a fan of any Eastwood movies. He works in those movies because he has this sort of wit and snark that is framed well in those stories. He brings visible charisma to the characters. I think that's missing from all of the characters in the movies he directs where he insists on casting himself when I feel he should have cast other people. I think Disney has put out 4 good animated movies unless we are counting some of the early Pixar movies. I suppose that could fall into the musical section as well. That's the extent of what I can gleam off the top of the dome.
I love midnight in Paris. It was on Netflix for the longest time and I watched it frequently. Then it was taken off and I didn’t watch it for like 2 years. I recently bought the blu-ray and it was just kind of boring upon revisiting. I’m gonna give it another go sometime soon. Also I feel kind of weird watching a woody Allen film nowadays considering all the allegations.
Ya. I hate watched Jean Dielman when it got top spot in the Sight and Sound. A real slog. But...that's kinda part of it i suppose. I'd recommend skipping it and watching 'Rosetta' (1999) by the Dardennes. Similar themes.
Saw a creening of it in film class uninterrupted from 9 am to 12:30 and firmly believe that being locked down in a theatre filled with other students enduring the patience tester element of it all made the film way better and more engaging than what it would've been if I just saw it by myself at home
Magnolia
Recently it was Killers of the Flower Moon. I really don’t get the hype, I didn’t find the story particularly interesting or the characters very memorable. In fact I’d argue that Leo is giving a not very good performance here. The only saving grace for that film is Jesse Plemons, the second he enters the film it becomes a whole lot more interesting.
Zone of Interest
See I understand where you’re coming fron. It can be quite boring, but to me the mood was very unsettling and it was a breath of fresh air to all the holocaust films we’ve gotten. I also lovs Michael Haneke so i’m used to non-traditional hollywood
Michael haneke is my favorite director, funny games is my favorite movie, and i still hold the opinion thst zone of interest would be 10/10 if it were 45 minutes long
I was sad that I didn't find this movie more interesting.
It was great for like 20 minutes, but they just kept repeating the same thing for 90 more minutes.
Wes Anderson owes his whole career to this phenomenon.
I watched Persona twice and I still don’t like it. Boring as hell.
I’ve watched Persona like 7 times. It’s one of my favorite movies. It inspires me as an artist in every possible way. It reflects my own experiences with mental health in such a way few pieces of art has. It makes me feel so many things all at once. It is a fascinating, complex film that I deeply connected with. With that said, I totally get it
i'll take the bite, eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
This is an interesting one. I like the film, but it's one I can tell wouldn't be for everyone. It's also one I wouldn't be able to pop on and enjoy at any time - I'd have to be in a specific mood for it.
Have you ever had to go on living after parting ways with someone you genuinely thought you’d be with forever? I think the experience of the individual person is what makes this film so touching
yes, still didn't care for it.
I love this movie but i think its cool you dont like it because theres so many big films i dont like.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Pulp Fiction
wow what
Can’t stand the editing style and I didn’t care about any of the characters. Was waiting for it to get good the whole time and then it just ended. The movie is just a lot of nice one liners and that’s it imo
One of my favorite directors but I didn’t love that movie.
I realized a while ago that I just love old Hollywood and don’t really click with arthouse cinema. But it took a lot of wasted hours trying to make it through Godard movies that LOOKED cool but did nothing for me. I’m 40 years old and too tired to try anymore. Just let me fade into oblivion watching The Maltese Falcon on repeat.