You’re insane. It’s a brilliant film.
I felt this way about the book 1984. Entirely overrated.
Like yes I get that the subject matter is what makes it important, but plenty of other books (and other media) has covered it and done a better job of it. Plus, now we get to live it making the book wholly irrelevant.
That’s an issue you can run into with many classics. Either they did something so well it’s become a trope, or the artistry in it has been refined so much that the original feels like a poor imitation.
A great example in film is Citizen Cane. It used a lot of ground breaking approaches for cinematography and sound design, but those things aren’t ground breaking anymore, so watching it now doesn’t have the same “excitement”. A more modern example might be Toy Story; the animation doesn’t look too impressive by modern standards, but was ground breaking at the time.
yeah I had something similar with the Beatles, where literally my first memory of music is Abbey Road, so my whole life I was like, I don’t get the hype, that’s just what music sounds like. it was only recently I went and listened to the album again with context of what other music from the 60s was like, and I finally realized that they were truly doing some wild shit with songwriting and production
Funnily enough that’s exactly why I think the Beatles are just mediocre. Literally sticking out was all they needed to do, since literally nothing was good. In this day and age it’s just not good music, even if it might be a classic.
No music in the 60s was good? I think you might just have some very narrow taste.
According to my Spotify wrapped I listened to over 400 genres, and 1200 artists last year, so no, I’m pretty positive I don’t have narrow taste, even in the slightest.
I was like this with 2001: A Space Odessy. I love Kubrick, I love sci-fi, I even like art that may require a change in perspective/that is more abstract and I’m an old movie buff. Yet Space Odessy wasn’t for me for some reason. It’s long, streched-out and has some scenes you wish would already end by the second minute, yet they last for 20. I liked the surreal bits a lot but for the almost 3 hours it took to watch it I really can’t say I was entertained.
I ended up watching Interstellar later and while it’s far from Space Odessy in artistic value I ended up feeling that was more like the movie I wanted Space Odessy to be. Obviously they are not very similar but it had some concepts that without watching I hoped Kubrick already figured out for some reason.
Interstellar is a very plot driven movie, it’s leads you by the hand saying “these things are happening, in this order, and it’s interesting and engaging”, and when the movie is done you get it: the journey is at an end, and the good guys conquered the big problems, emotions were felt along the way, and you’re not really left with any lingering questions afterwards. It’s a great movie, but it’s also a rather easy movie to enjoy if you’re into space stuff.
Whereas 2001, aside from being an absolute visual feast, is more abstract and theme driven, about humanity’s place in the cosmos, and it makes you ask deeper questions, but you must actually pay attention and discover those questions and explore them in your own mind to actually engage with the movie. It’s not a passive experience, and your engagement with the movie can stay with you for days. It’s certainly a much more difficult movie to enjoy.
When I was in my 20s, I hated movies like 2001 and Bladerunner, I found them so tedious, because I wanted scifi like Aliens goddammit. Later, I learned to really enjoy these more cerebral movies that took effort to engage with, because they were so rewarding when that effort paid off.
easy ≠ bad
Quoting myself:
It’s a great movie
So: ???
