Is it time for a new special genre: "realistic modern movies"?

silentridge3 said:Exactly.

I caught the trailer for Atomic Blonde (2017) and—honestly—my head started spinning from all that forced "coolness"—the impossible physics, the endless cycle of getting punched and punching back, those hundred-foot leaps and whatnot. And that was just the teaser. God forbid someone actually forces me to sit through the full thing. I can already hear the defenders claiming it’s "masterfully shot."

Does this even count as a "superhero" flick, or does what happens there fall under the umbrella of "normal"? Do teenagers seriously think people actually move like that in everyday life?

That movie basically sells 80s pop culture the same way the 90s used to sell off the 70s. It’s essentially a stylized, pop-culture version of nostalgia.
It should be a blast... I have to say, hearing the Eurythmics track "Sweet Dreams" blasting through the massive speakers at AMC Theatres sounded pretty great.

Still, there is some serious spy stuff out there. We recently had Bridge of Spies starring Tom Hanks, and since 2000, there have been at least four different adaptations of Le Carré.

If I’m reading the room right, the whole point of the intro post was to slap a label on these actual movies—kind of like adding a PG-13 rating or something—just so they aren't a pain to track down.

Honestly, it feels a bit extra to me, but hey, I'm not going to be the one to stop it.
One more tag here or there isn't gonna kill us.

silentsurfer3 said:If I’ve grasped the opening post correctly—the goal was to add a label for those realistic films, maybe something like a PG-13 tag just to make them easier to track down?

I don't think it's necessary—but I'm not against it.
Just one mark more or less—does it really matter?

I'm not talking about the PG-13 rating—I mean the genre itself. Thriller, action, drama, that sort of thing.
I like the idea.

Look, Guggenheim—you go buy some cheap hot dogs at Walmart or Kroger, then come crying because they give you heartburn. Do a little research before heading to the theater. Nolan just made a shallow, pseudo-intellectual picture book that might have a few marginally interesting moments—good morning. Has film quality globally tanked since the 70s? Yes. Spielberg and Lucas ruined it with their infantile nonsense that sells incredibly well. The target demographic shifted about 15 years ago. Thirty years ago, "Dunkirk" would have targeted an audience with your cognitive abilities. Now, it’s all about Nolan's crowd. But be careful what you wish for when you ask for a "serious adult film." They're everywhere in Europe, and they're even worse there.

It's not like the situation is completely hopeless, though. You have the new Twin Peaks—an auteur's commentary on absolutely everything, from the culture the creator helped build to the current state of the world and media, right down to levels of human consciousness. And it’s told in a way that rejects both Nolan fans and Spielberg fans right out of the gate. Lynch is still fighting, and that struggle will undoubtedly produce a handful of new warriors.

That’s why you have to pay attention. You can't just drop in from Mars and ask, "What happened to movies?" Sure, superhero films are strictly templated junk, but even in the new Spider-Man (which I don't like, nor was it made to please me), there's a very subtly woven idea of racial equality—something that isn't irrelevant when trying to sensitize the intended audience. So, even in the most consumerist trash, you can occasionally spot socially relevant subtext.

I wouldn't call anything in that new Spider-Man subtle, especially not the whole racial equality angle.

Joshua Smith5 said:I can't agree—nothing in that new Spider-Man is subtle, especially not the whole racial equality theme.

I was referring to the "target audience."

A vast majority of American films tend to fall squarely into the category of *contemporary realism*.😁

northerncrane4 said:I mean, look, silentridge3, you’re the one heading over to Walmart or Kroger to pick up some cheap hot dogs, so I guess it’s kind of on you when they end up giving you terrible heartburn, isn't it?

Look, I’m not actually here to whine about bologna—though, honestly, some days it feels like that's all there is—but rather about how we label things, like calling bologna "bologna" instead of just slapping a generic "ham" sticker on it. Is it really too much to ask to know what's actually inside the package before I buy it? Like, can I please just have a heads-up if I'm grabbing a pack of bologna versus actual ham? I mean, why is it such a massive struggle to just categorize a genre or at least put a label on it? Is it because if we started labeling stuff properly, those "superhero" movies would stop being treated as this big, mainstream, "everything" category and finally be recognized as just one specific genre? And why on earth would that be an issue? I guess I'm wondering if it would somehow ruin the fundamental human right of a teenager who loves *Interstellar* and *Spider-Man* to feel cool. You know, if their favorite flicks stopped being seen as the "normal, mainstream" standard and were suddenly labeled as just "superhero," "supernatural," or "fantasy" movies, they might feel like they've lost that sense of being part of the cultural center. It's a bit absurd when you think about it, I suppose.

Since we're already drifting into tangents, I might as well just get this off my chest. It honestly bugs me how you can barely find any decent ham at places like Kroger or Walmart anymore; if I want anything remotely high-quality, I have to trek out to some obscure, specialized deli in the middle of nowhere. And then there’s the constant, subtle pressure from every other shopper and clerk at Kroger and Walmart, acting as if those processed bologna sticks are perfectly normal, almost as if they're collectively trying to force me to just accept it as the new standard.

northerncrane4 said:I guess if you really step back and look at the big picture, it feels like the whole center of gravity regarding consumer demand shifted about fifteen years ago, though I suppose that’s just my way of looking at it. Everything felt different then, maybe because we weren't constantly being nudged by algorithms every single second, but it seems like the entire focus of what people actually want moved somewhere else quite a while back.

You really have to pay attention once in a while, I guess. You can't just wander in here like you fell straight from Mars and act all surprised by asking, "Wait, what is even happening today?"

I guess I can.

Look, I’m just some guy on here. I’m definitely not some kind of film critic or a scholar, and honestly, I don't really care for all that deep-dive research into cinema history or whatever. I guess what I actually care about is just... watching movies, you know? Like, the actual experience of sitting down and watching them in a way that actually feels meaningful.

northerncrane4 said:Sure, superhero movies are basically just highly formulaic, shiny pieces of junk, but I guess if you look closely at the new Spider-Man—which, for the record, isn't really my cup of tea, nor was it ever actually designed to be—there’s this incredibly subtle thread of racial equality woven through the whole thing, which feels like a pretty significant move given how much studios today feel the need to sensitize their target audience. It’s almost funny, I suppose, how you can stumble upon actual, socially relevant subtext even when you're wading through the absolute height of consumerist trash.

Sure thing.

Back when I was younger, we used to look at *Police Academy* and just dismiss it as total garbage, you know? It was basically seen as mindless trash meant for the absolute bottom tier of viewers who didn't want to think too hard. But looking back now, I guess you can actually find all sorts of weird subtext tucked away in there if you look closely enough. When you hold it up against what passes for "normal" mainstream movies today—which, let's face it, are often pretty formulaic—*Police Academy* almost feels like a decent series; I mean, hell, it's almost as if someone actually sat down and put some effort into writing a script or something.

It’s honestly just pathetic when you reach that point where you have to force yourself to get used to such widespread mediocrity, you know? It’s like you find yourself digging through every single piece of garbage—even something like Spider-Man—trying to scrape together some kind of hidden subtext just so you can tell yourself that maybe, just maybe, things aren't entirely hopeless. But I guess the truly sad part, the really depressing realization, is when you stop searching for those layers altogether and start actually projecting them onto the movie yourself, just to make it bearable.

Look, you can find ham at both Kroger and Walmart—you just have to actually read the word HAM on the package and buy it without any issues. What you’re really looking for is for the label to explicitly state "HAM THAT IS NOT LUNCH MEAT"—essentially, you want every single detail spoon-fed to you as a consumer.

You’re the kind of consumer who walks right into something being aggressively marketed to them—which is how the film industry has always functioned, by the way, it's nothing new—and then acts shocked when the result isn't exactly what you expected. I mean, seriously, which superhero movie today could possibly surprise you by actually featuring a superhero in it!? Besides, they even have specific branding; posters and promotional materials always make sure to highlight Marvel or DC prominently.

If you consider yourself a critical viewer, seeing maybe two or three quality films a year is about as much as you can realistically expect—that's been the case since movies were invented. But this notion of yours—that you, as a consumer, have a right to be completely ignorant of a film's premise or the people responsible for making it—is, in my opinion, a much bigger issue than the standard whining about how movies are bad these days.

And for the record, I enjoyed "Police Academy" when I was a kid too, and it didn't permanently ruin my standards for quality.

northerncrane4 said:But I honestly think your whole idea—that you, as a viewer, have this fundamental right to go into a movie totally blind without knowing anything about the crew or the production—is actually a much deeper issue than just your typical whining about how everything made nowadays is garbage.

No, I don't think it's an issue at all.

I mean, I actually *want* to know things; I want to be able to know ahead of time if a movie is going to be "supernatural-free," for instance. Am I asking for too much? Maybe. But I guess your theory just doesn't really hold water for me.

Anyway, I'm generally not much of a cinema person. I just care about watching movies.

If I want to sit down and watch something every few days without not losing my mind and not turning it off halfway through, does that mean I'm supposed to:

- Scour twenty different "online trailers" (which are basically just glorified, word-for-word copies of the actual commercials)?
- Sift through five so-called "serious media reviews" (with all the inherent biases of those "professional critics" who seem to suffer from this weird syndrome where they feel the need to find "something" good in a total dud just so they don't look like they're being too harsh)?
- Dig through 2,000 amateur reviews on IMDb, including the ones written by people with massive conflicts of interest, and the "reviews" left by complete idiots, semi-idiots, and various shades of morons?
- Put my "faith" in some "average rating" on IMDb, even though that thing has failed me a hundred times already?
- Learn so much about the plot beforehand that I end up spoiling the entire experience for myself?

So, please, explain to me how that's supposed to work.

silentridge3 said:If I want to watch a movie every third day without not getting irritated and not quitting mid-way, does that mean for every single film I have to:

- Read 20 "online trailers"—which are just recycled advertisements word-for-word
- Read 5 so-called "serious media reviews" (complete with all the biases of those "serious critics" who suffer from the syndrome of trying to find "something" in an idiot movie just so they don't look totally wrong)
- Scour 2,000 amateur reviews on IMDb, including "reviews" written by people with conflicts of interest, plus the "takes" from idiots, semi-idiots, and total morons?
- "Rely" on the average rating on IMDb—even though it’s failed me a hundred times already?
- Learn so much about the plot beforehand that I essentially spoil the movie for myself?

Explain how.

First off, you can't watch a movie every three days without feeling disillusioned. You can—if you only watch the same old reliable stuff where you already know the quality.

Second, there is no way. Over the years, you build your own criteria and start relying on intuition. How often that hits depends entirely on your gut. You can curate a circle of directors you trust, but even that's debatable.

I’ve almost given up on watching movies in my spare time. That doesn't mean a good one won't pop up occasionally. It’s just that I refuse to waste two hours on something only to realize thirty minutes in that I've been bored to death. After the whole Batman saga, then Inception, then Interstellar, there is zero chance I’ll ever voluntarily watch another Nolan film. Memento was great; The Prestige was very good.

Anyway, you aren't going to solve anything with some new genre-based categorization. Just because you feel like watching a "realistic" film doesn't mean it'll be any good simply because of its "genre." On the flip side, while there aren't many great films out there, there are more genius superhero comics than 99% of the literature produced in the 20th century.

silentridge3, based on all those threads we’ve had over on television, it feels like you’re just wishing the world was exactly how it was when you were a kid and nothing ever changed.
That’s not how it works—the world evolves, some things get better, others get worse.

silentridge3 said:I just want to know going in if it's a "no supernatural stuff" kind of movie. Am I asking too much? Maybe. But your theory doesn't hold water.

Just check the genre tags on IMDb and steer clear of sci-fi or fantasy.
If a certain director or writer bugs you because they always throw in something paranormal, just skip them.

silentridge3 said:If I want to watch a movie every few days without not getting pissed off and not turning it off, does that mean I have to:

- read 20 "online trailers" (which are basically just rehashed ads)
- slog through 5 so-called "serious media reviews" (filled with the biases of "prestigious critics" who suffer from that syndrome where they try to find "something" in a garbage movie just so they don't look totally wrong)
- wade through 2,000 amateur reviews on IMDb, including conflict-of-interest junk and "reviews" written by idiots, semi-idiots, and total morons?
- "trust" an IMDb average rating, even though it's failed me a hundred times already..?
- learn so much about the plot beforehand that I end up spoiling the movie for myself?

Look, you did this exact same thing in another thread.
Whenever you don't get something or understand it, you just blame everything around you and insist that life needs to be complicated—that you need to read endless walls of text and research at a psychotic level. Most likely, you just misjudged whether you'd actually like the movie.

Here’s some actual advice: make an IMDb profile and rate stuff; their algorithm will suggest movies similar to what you liked.
Or, you can just start a thread here about a director or a film you enjoyed, explain why it worked for you, and ask for recommendations.

Honestly, why bother scrolling through endless lists when you can just hit up Wikipedia and call it a day? I mean, what’s the point of obsessing over twenty or even two thousand different reviews... it's just overkill. You go there, grab the summary, and boom—you've got everything that actually matters: the genre, if it's based on a book, the director, the cast, all of it. You skip the plot obviously, because let's face it, you aren't reading a synopsis just to avoid spoilers, you're looking for a vibe. If you're actually trying to be smart about it and don't want to walk blindly into a movie you'll hate, you just linger for a second on the Critical response section... that’s where the real juice is, since they usually pull out the most striking bits of feedback anyway. Besides, once you reach adulthood, you develop this internal compass for what you'll actually enjoy... no amount of internet hype or random predictions can really override that gut feeling...
Oh, please... as if we aren't all supposed to just play along, acting a little bit ridiculous and endlessly mourning the absolute state of the world these days...

silentsurfer2 said:silentridge3, based on all those different threads we’ve been chewing over on television, I get the feeling you just want the world to stay exactly how it was when you were a kid, where nothing ever changes.
But that's just not how it works—the world shifts, some things get better, others go downhill.

...and here I am, being the guy who actually insists on saying it out loud (that the world is changing, and in this specific instance, moving toward the worse), while most of you seem to want to avoid the conversation entirely. 😉

Susan Taylor72 said:Once you're an adult, you've already developed a built-in radar for what you might enjoy; no amount of preemptive descriptions can really help you.
But no, apparently I should just act clueless and whine about how terrible everything has become.

Susan Taylor72, is that really you? You, who couldn't spot the ideology and the heavy-handed pathos in Dunkirk that felt straight out of some old propaganda flick? I saw it, mostly because I’m an adult, I guess. My issue is that none of you, not even the big-shot media critics, bothered to mention it. So, what am I supposed to do? Should I watch every single movie first, write my own little critique, and then only after reading my own thoughts decide if the film is worth my time?

Don't you feel some sort of personal responsibility for spreading this false image, for failing to let the readers of this forum know that the film is basically just ideological melodrama?

northerncrane4 said:First off, you can't exactly watch a movie every third day without feeling totally drained. Well, you can, if you only stick to the same old stuff that you already know is good.

And second, there isn't really a way around it. You can build up your own criteria over the years and eventually trust your gut. How much that intuition works depends, I suppose, on how often you happen to be right. You might find a small circle of directors you actually trust, though even that is debatable.

Honestly, I've almost given up on watching movies in my spare time. It doesn't mean a decent film won't pop up every now and then, but I just don't have the energy to commit two hours to something only to realize thirty minutes in that I've been bored to tears.

It's a pretty bleak outlook, though I guess I agree with it. It's basically what silentsurfer2 was getting at in that last post, that "the world is changing" (which is really just code for: watching movies is becoming pointless because they're turning into mindless, scriptless video games for teenagers).

I remember reading Polimčev's review of The Girl on the Train the other day. The whole thing was just one long lamentation for the days when people actually made movies worth watching, and he barely even talked about the actual film he was reviewing, aside from a tiny little jab at the end. He spent so much time trying to "keep up with the times," trying to adapt to the trends by injecting all this subtext into Spider-Man or the Twilight saga... probably just so writing film criticism would still feel relevant. But even that seems to be losing its point now; it feels kind of hollow to even bother mentioning "sound, visuals, effects, and score" in a "film review" anymore...

silentridge3 said:Do you feel any personal responsibility for spreading this fake narrative—for failing to tell the readers on this forum that the movie is biased, ideological, and just plain pathetic?

give me a break...😁 your whole take on modern filmmaking regarding this topic is just as ideological and fake as anything else. You’re stuck thinking movies only happen in Hollywood or in English, completely ignoring the rest of the world. Hollywood and the English language haven't been a guarantee of quality for ages—that should be obvious by now—so this entire thread is totally redundant. That's why you got called out for being behind the times, just like anyone who limits their movies, music, or books to a single language or one specific country. Luckily, while some film industries are tanking, others are rising up or popping up for the first time, which should be exciting for anyone who actually loves cinema.

What you should actually be ranting about is American theaters where you can't even find a decent movie unless it's from Europe or the US. Try stepping out of that colonial mindset you're pushing here.

silentridge3 said:Susan Taylor72, is that you... the one who couldn't quite spot the ideology and the heavy-handed pathos worthy of an old American propaganda epic in Dunkirk? I actually caught it, mostly because I've grown up a bit... My issue is that none of you, or even the mainstream media critics, bothered to mention it. So, what am I supposed to do now? Should I watch every single movie first, write my own little critique, and then decide if it's worth watching based on my own notes?

Do you feel some kind of personal burden for spreading a false image, for failing to tell the readers of this forum that the movie is ideological and overly sentimental?

ha, wow, look, everyone has their own reasons for wasting time on a forum... I wrote my review in a few minutes right after finishing the film and gave it a pretty moderate rating. Generally speaking, I don't use this place to dive into deep philosophical debates or try to enlighten the masses, which doesn't mean I don't recognize ideology in real life or in cultural productions... It’s just that it’s my choice how much time I want to spend writing about it here, and you really shouldn't come for me over it. I love movies and I enjoy them, even when they're completely compromised by ideology... Look, we have other people like you who shift the focus to those things, and honestly, I'm fine with that, I actually like reading it. I don't feel any personal responsibility for spreading a false narrative, because a ten-line review isn't a doctoral dissertation... the forum is open to everyone and dozens of posts deal with that specific aspect, so I personally don't have a strong motive to jump in... I highlighted the acting because I generally appreciate that side of visual arts and it hadn't been mentioned yet, which doesn't mean I think that's the beginning and end of the film itself. And I did touch on patriotism and ideology, so I don't think I "failed to provide information" (just go back and read my comment about the Frenchman)

okay, now let's move away from me and this useless ad hominem argument, because what were you actually trying to say? Are you still pushing for the label "realistic film," because otherwise, a viewer would supposedly have to read 200 reviews, most of which are just impressionistic snippets like my ten lines? Is my idea of using Wikipedia as a consolidated source of info bad because... because it's mine? You can do better than that.

I’ve always felt that movies categorized as "realistic" don't actually require a specific label to signal their grounded nature. To my mind, simply seeing the genre listed as drama provides all the context one needs to understand what to expect.

brighteagle39 said:I mean, I honestly feel like movies that are supposed to be "realistic" don't really need some special label slapped onto them just to tell us they're grounded in reality. It seems kind of redundant, if you think about it, because if you see a film categorized simply as a drama, then everything is already pretty much understood, isn't it? You see that genre tag and you just sort of assume the characters aren't flying around in spandex or fighting aliens, so I guess labeling them as "realistic" feels like a bit of an unnecessary extra step that doesn't actually add much value.

I don't think that's quite right, honestly. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking modern cinema is nothing but a endless stream of heavy-handed dramas, but I guess that's just a bit of a simplification, isn't it? If you actually look at what's playing in theaters these days, real movies aren't just relegated to those tear-jerkers; they also include...

I guess you could call it a comedy, if you’re looking at it through a certain kind of lens, I suppose, though calling it that feels like a bit of an overstatement when things are actually this absurdly messy. It’s one of those situations where everything goes so spectacularly wrong that you can't help but laugh, even if the laughter feels a little hollow or forced after a while, maybe because the reality of it all is just too much to take seriously.
I mean, I guess you could call it a political film, if you really wanted to get technical about it, though I’m never quite sure if that label actually captures the messy, complicated reality of what we were watching. It’s one of those movies where the politics feel less like a structured argument and more like this heavy, suffocating fog that just hangs over everything, which I suppose is kind of the point, isn't it? Maybe it was trying to say something profound about the state of things here in America, but I found myself wandering off into these long, rambling thoughts about how much easier life would be if movies just stuck to being simple stories instead of trying to lecture us on the systemic failures of our own institutions. It’s all very heavy, and honestly, after a while, it just feels a bit exhausting, like staring at a flickering neon sign in a rainy alleyway in Chicago—you know that feeling? Just a constant, low-level sense of disillusionment that stays with you long after the credits roll.
I guess you could call it a courtroom drama, though that feels a bit too simplistic for what we’re actually looking at here, if you think about it for more than a second. It’s one of those legal thrillers where everything feels heavy and inevitable, much like watching a slow-motion car crash on a rainy highway in Seattle. I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical, but there's something about the way these stories unfold that makes you feel like the outcome was decided before the first witness even took the stand. It's all very dramatic, perhaps a bit too much for my taste, but I suppose that's just how the genre works.
I guess you could call it a crime, or maybe just one of those messy, inevitable things that happens when everything falls apart, though I suppose calling it a crime feels a bit too definitive for my taste. It’s all quite complicated, really, if you take the time to look at the layers, which most people won't, because they're too busy rushing through life, but there's a certain weight to it that lingers, much like a bad feeling you get right before a storm hits the coast.
I guess you could call it a family movie, if you're feeling generous about it, though I'm not entirely sure that label really captures the whole vibe of it all.
I was sitting there thinking about war movies, you know, just those heavy, soul-crushing war films that seem to haunt you long after the credits roll, and I guess I can't help but wonder why we're so obsessed with watching them over and over again. It’s a strange thing, really, how we find ourselves drawn to the grit and the tragedy of it all, maybe because it makes our own little everyday struggles feel almost trivial by comparison, though I suppose that's a pretty cynical way to look at it. There's something about that specific kind of cinematic devastation—the kind where you aren't just watching a story, but feeling the weight of every single lost life—that stays with you, and I mean, it really sticks to your ribs in a way most modern blockbusters just don't quite manage to do.
I guess you could call it an erotic film, if you really wanted to get technical about it, though I’m never quite sure if that label actually captures the vibe or if it’s just something people toss around when they aren't quite sure how to describe what they're watching. It’s one of those things where the genre feels almost secondary to the mood, maybe, or perhaps it's just a way to categorize something that leans heavily into that sort of tension, which, honestly, feels like it's always shifting depending on who you ask.
...

I mean, if you look at what’s actually playing in theaters today—assuming there isn't some supernatural gimmick involved, of course—even those low-budget action flicks and those so-called "romantic comedies" seem to be part of the mainstream reality now. And let's be honest, most of those rom-coms aren't even remotely funny; they don't quite reach the level of a proper drama either, they just kind of exist in this weird, hollow middle ground, I guess.

The thing is, you really have to consider that someone actually has to sit down and write a script for all these different genres, I guess. You can't just take a video game, let it play itself out, and then suddenly pretend it’s a cinematic masterpiece or some kind of feature film, maybe. It just doesn't work like that.

I can't help but wonder why it feels like decent comedies have just completely vanished from the face of the earth lately. I mean, does anyone actually feel like there are any left that are even remotely watchable? It seems like everything being churned out these days is just... I don't know, hollow? Maybe it's just me getting older and more cynical, but it feels like we've moved away from actual wit and toward this repetitive, loud, mindless stuff that doesn't really land. I guess I’m just searching for something with a bit of soul, but maybe that's asking too much of modern Hollywood. Does anyone else feel this way, or am I just shouting into the void here?

Susan Taylor72 said:I don't really feel like I carry any personal responsibility for letting a false narrative take root here, because, honestly, a ten-line critique isn't exactly some groundbreaking doctoral dissertation or anything, and since this forum is open to just about anyone and there are dozens of other posts already diving into this exact same angle, I guess I don't really have a burning motivation to jump in and fix it all myself.

I mean, look, you aren't really significant as an individual, I guess; you’re more like just one of those thousand different voices shouting into the void of the internet about some movie. If I actually want to get informed about a film beforehand, I first have to waste a massive amount of my life scrolling through all that noise, and then, after wading through that entire cacophony of opinions, I still don't feel even a millimeter closer to actually knowing anything about the movie itself. It’s all just exhausting, really.

If not one single person out of the thousand internet commenters talking about Dunkirk—and I mean everyone, including those supposedly high-brow critics—has bothered to mention a word about the underlying ideology or the sheer sentimentality baked into the film, then I suppose I’ll just go into it totally blind, completely unprepared for whatever mess is waiting for me on the screen. It’s actually more frustrating when you consider the total silence, this weird sort of omertà surrounding the feminist angles in most modern movies; I can never tell ahead of time if I’m going to end up sitting there getting irritated by some blatant, unrealistic ideological agenda being pushed through the plot. And don't even get me started on the ratings; you look at IMDb and see one person giving it a perfect 10 while someone else drags it down to a 1, which makes me wonder if there's any actual logic to that kind of Gaussian distribution at all. Is it just Wikipedia? Some amateurish, half-baked PR stunt? What I'm trying to get at is that trying to "stay informed" by digging through a thousand different sources to understand the layers and subtext of a movie doesn't seem to offer much value, especially when it demands so much of your time. Honestly, I think I'd much rather just have some short, official guidelines to follow.

I suppose this is the response to the following question:

Susan Taylor72 said:Alright, let's move past me and this whole useless cycle of *ad hominem* attacks, because honestly, what were you actually trying to get at there? I guess you're still digging your heels in about the need for a "realistic film" label, as if without that little tag, a viewer would be forced to slog through two hundred different reviews—most of which are just impressionistic ramblings, much like my own ten lines here. And apparently, my suggestion of using Wikipedia as a sort of aggregated information hub isn't a good idea, huh? Is it just because the idea was mine? I mean, maybe you could come up with something a bit more substantial than that, if you really wanted to.

Looking at the last 30 movies discussed on this forum, northerncrane4 mentioned that maybe only 6 or 7 of them are actually "realistic." So, if you think about it, that means over 75% of the stuff being talked about here—the movies people are watching, obsessing over, and seeing in theaters—is just pure fantasy. We're talking superheroes, sci-fi, animation, people with weird powers, all that stuff.

Now, I guess just because a movie is "realistic" doesn't mean it’s actually any good, obviously. But, I don't know, I sometimes wish I had a way to filter things better, like if someone could just point out which 25% of today's movies are grounded in reality. Then maybe I could spend my time digging through just that small slice to find something worthwhile.

Dennis Martin6 said:you're basically forcing yourself to only look at Hollywood productions and English-language films while completely ignoring everything else happening globally. Honestly, Hollywood and the English language haven't been a guarantee of quality for a long time now, which should be obvious to everyone, so this whole argument feels pretty redundant. That’s probably why you got told you’re stuck in the past, much like anyone else who limits their movies, music, or books to just one language or one specific country. Luckily, while some film industries are sliding downhill, others are rising up or emerging for the first time, which should be pretty exciting for anyone who truly loves cinema.

But how do you explain the fact that out of the 30 movies we've discussed on this forum lately, northerncrane4 claims only 6 or 7 are realistic? It implies that more than 75% of what you guys are discussing, watching, and treating as popular culture consists of unrealistic premises—superheroes, sci-fi, cartoons, people with superpowers, and so on.

Am I really the one who's "stuck in the past" if YOU are the ones constantly bringing these topics up? I mean, where are all the deep dives into those other powerful, high-quality, realistic films from around the world? How many decent comedies from 2017 have actually been discussed on this forum, or even given their own dedicated threads?

silentridge3 said:If not one single person out of a thousand internet commenters reviewing Dunkirk—and I mean even the high-brow critics who think they’re so enlightened—has bothered to mention the blatant ideology or the sheer, unadulterated pathos baked into the film, then fine, I guess I’ll just go into it totally blind and see what kind of emotional ambush is waiting for me... It’s actually more frustrating when you consider the total omertà surrounding the feminist lens being shoved into almost every modern movie these days. There’s this complete silence about it, which means I can never truly know if I’m going to sit there getting increasingly irritated by unrealistic portrayals or forced agendas... And don't even get me started on the absolute chaos over on IMDb, where you'll see one guy giving it a perfect 10 while someone else is dragging it with a 1. Does that kind of Gaussian distribution even make sense? Is Wikipedia just an amateurized half-advertisement at this point? What I'm trying to say is that "doing your research" by digging through a thousand different sources to find the actual layers and substance of a film feels like a massive waste of time that doesn't even yield much value... Honestly, I’d much rather just have some short, official guidelines and be done with it...

Like I was saying before... there’s actually a way to get a quick rundown of what a movie is all about without having to waste half your afternoon digging through reviews or watching endless trailers...
When it comes to the underlying ideology of the film, you’re definitely right that the mainstream critics don't really bother digging that deep, but it's not like there aren't people out there who actually care... and since it clearly matters to you, I figured I'd mention that there are plenty of commentators who offer a much more thorough and intellectually honest perspective for those interested. For instance, the World Socialist Web Site puts out these incredibly detailed film critiques that I always find pretty fascinating to dive into, even if I don't necessarily agree with every single point they make... anyway, here you go... Take a look at how they tore apart Dunkirk... honestly, their take on that movie was something else...Unlike you, I actually find plenty of blogs dedicated specifically to feminist or queer criticism, which can be pretty interesting if that's your thing... Since you aren't exactly a feminist—and I'm guessing you aren't much of a socialist either, though you might want to give the World Socialist Web Site a look sometime—this stuff probably isn't your cup of tea. But my point is, you could probably track down a critic or a specific site that actually aligns with your own political or ideological leanings. You know, someone whose takes you can actually respect, even if you take them with a grain of salt, so you can just stick to their recommendations and call it a day. It doesn't even have to be a perfect match; you just need someone who, like you, has zero patience for the "unrealistic bullshit" they shove into movies these days. Honestly, it would save you a lot of aggravation, because life is way too short to get worked up over something that's supposed to be entertainment... This particular forum isn't exactly the best fit for you anyway, since it’s mostly full of teenagers and people who don't really think things through, which explains why the "most commented" movie lists end up being so frustrating for someone like you...

Susan Taylor72 said:Like I mentioned before, there’s actually a way to get a quick rundown of a movie's vibe without wasting half your afternoon on it.
Regarding the ideological stuff in movies—I mean, you're totally right that the big-name mainstream critics don't really bother digging into that much—but it’s not like there aren't people out there providing deep, intellectually honest takes for those who actually care about it, which clearly includes you. For instance, I always find reading Jacobin's film reviews pretty interesting, even if I don't agree with everything they say. And if you're looking for things like feminist or queer theory critiques, unlike what you're after, there are tons of blogs dedicated to dissecting those specific angles. I'm guessing you aren't a feminist, and probably not a socialist either, so maybe that's not your scene (though you could give Jacobin a shot), but my point is that you might want to track down a critic or a site that aligns better with your own political or ideological lens—someone whose judgment you can actually trust, even if you take it with a grain of salt—so you can just follow their recommendations. It doesn't even have to be the exact same political stripe; it just needs to be someone who, like you, isn't willing to swallow "unrealistic bullshit" in cinema. That way, you won't end up getting so annoyed, and honestly, it's a shame to get worked up over something that's supposed to be enjoyable. This subforum probably isn't the best fit for you anyway, since it's mostly filled with younger crowds and people who don't really think deeply, which explains why the most popular movie lists here just end up frustrating you.

Fair enough. 👍