You know, the critically acclaimed movie starring Michael Keaton.
I … uh …
I didn’t “get it.” I mean, I feel like I understood the movie but it just wasn’t that good. I enjoyed some of the performances but overall I just found it to be the kind of movie that critics like much more than regular moviegoers do.
Convince me otherwise! 
If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it.
Why would you ask to be talked into liking something?
I loved it. I thought it was the best movie of the year by far. You didn’t like it, why should I convince you to like something you didn’t?
Movie reviewers see hundreds of films a year and movies which follow a formula aren’t very interesting to them since they’ve seen so many that are just re-skins of one another. Of course, formulas are developed to create something that most people like.
Of course I was being facetious since there’s no way you could convince me to watch it again, but I am interested in other opinions as to why it deserved the praise.
Part of the praise is in the technical achievement for both the film-maker and the actors, especially Keaton. Each scene was presented as one long unedited take, rather than a series of shots spliced together in the editing.
That is damn hard to pull off.
Keaton’s performance was stupendous in creating “reality” during the long sustained scenes, often with the camera shoved about a foot away from his face.
I will also suggest that you may have seen this on your home TV, rather than in a theater on a large screen - that impacts the experience significantly.
I had the same opinion. As soon as I saw it, with the long take style I was hooked. The eccentric and quick moving plot and hilarious story line grabbed me from the instant Michael Keaton’s character was hovering in his underwear in the first scene. I ordered the Blu-ray the second after I saw it (I watched as an online rental).
We have a long thread on this movie. You either buy into the premise and the rhythms and the feeling or you don’t.
It’s exactly the kind of movie that critics should like. What’s the point of criticism for action movies and rom-coms?
I didn’t care for/like any of the characters. So therefor none of the “brilliant” aspects of the film/filming really impacted me that much. It’s one of those films that probably works better if you watch it with the sound muted, visually impressive but no real story to get invested in.
It’s been a couple of months since I saw it in the theaters but I thought the film was shot and edited to suggest one long take over the entire film, not just each scene.
I unfortunately went to the theatre to see this when it was released after hearing all the great reviews. It wasn’t for me. I should have realized I wasn’t the target demographic.
It was like I was watching some drama class doing experimental theatre. I half expected Jon Lovitz to jump out several times to exclaim “Acting!”
When I realized the actors were having more fun than I was and I didn’t really care how it ended I walked out.
I just did not give a shit about any of those characters. None of their conflicts were interesting. It was a very well made, well acted movie about a bunch of tedious narcissists .
What I enjoyed about the film is simply that it was something new and different.
As I watch more movies and TV shows I’m finding myself preferring that the people who make the show simply TRY something. Don’t put a new skin on it, as Sage Rat so well puts it. Just see if you can do something cool. Make an effort to be able tosay “well, nobody’s quite done that before.” That could be just pushing the envelope of technical possibility, such as “Gravity” (or, 21 years before it, Jurassic Park, or whatever.) Or it could be something wild and crazy, like “Moulin Rouge!”, which was one of the first times someone tried the “story sung through popular pop music” thing that’s now so commonplace. Or it could be just trying something experimental, like “Birdman,” or for that matter “Boyhood.”
We’re trying to get through Season 1 of “Homeland” right now and frankly I don’t know if we’ll make it because I’ve seen this dumb shit before. It’s just a re-skin of a thousand other shows. But previously we were riveted by “True Detective” and “Fargo” because, to be honest, those shows tried to be different.
I appreciated the effort at something unconventional, but it didn’t gel for me.
Just to comment on the idea of being talked into liking something:
When I finished watching No Country For Old Men, I was angry. There was so, so much of the film that was superb, so realistic, so brilliant - but I felt the central plot was just a loose mess, that there really wasn’t a “plot” to speak of. I was mad at the story and mad at the ending.
The next day I read some civilian comments on the movie. Several people noted that
Chigurh was a force of nature, not so much a man; it was a commentary on violence in society, particularly the seeming randomness of so much of it
and then, just like that, I “got” it, or at least got enough of it to appreciate the story.
Really enjoyed it – a great effort at trying something new and different, and it was well-executed. And great performances by the actors.