# Most unenjoyably Pretentious Movies **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 24, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171 "2004-03-24T19:16:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/201 "2004-03-30T16:03:45Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > It is faulty, I’ll own to that, but I was trying to craft a dynamic similar to one opening a thread on a messageboard titled ‘John Woo discussion’ … when one means for it to apply to his directorial vision, and getting posters who drop by to say ‘Yeah! Face/Off Rocks!’ … modelling messageboard behavior with real social situations is … difficult. Speaking strictly personally, that wouldn’t bug me so much. On the other hand, people coming in and going, “John Woo sucks! You’re a bunch of pretentious assholes for even discussing him!” would likely get a reaction from me. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/202 "2004-03-30T16:06:29Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Speaking strictly personally, that wouldn’t bug me so much. On the other hand, people coming in and going, “John Woo sucks! You’re a bunch of pretentious assholes for even discussing him!” would likely get a reaction from me. Pretty much _de rigeur_ in Verhoeven threads. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/203 "2004-03-30T16:06:57Z")
Here’s my list Magnolia-I enjoyed most of it, but the rain of frogs with the little peeing boy saying “this is what happens” knocked me right out of the story. I spent the rest of the movie angry. Orlando-Hey, lets cram another example of symbolism into this movie. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/204 "2004-03-30T16:33:07Z")
Number one on my ‘movies which always send me to sleep’ list STAR WARS [any episode] … everyone tells me how great they are, but I can’t stay awake more than 10 minutes … I’ve tried seeing them again, but the same thing always happens. Maybe theres some sort of lighting effect in them which trips my ‘Go straight to sleep’ button. Next would be PEARL HARBOUR - even with all that gunfire, I slept through most of it. Musta been snoring, too, as everyone except the kid I took to see it had moved away from our seat when she woke me at the start of the credits :o THE TRUMAN SHOW too, and I agree about FORREST GUMP and MAGNOLIA. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/205 "2004-03-30T16:45:08Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Speaking strictly personally, that wouldn’t bug me so much. On the other hand, people coming in and going, “John Woo sucks! You’re a bunch of pretentious assholes for even discussing him!” would likely get a reaction from me. Well, it wouldn’t bug you, but would you interact withthe person at all? Or passively let him say his piece and vanish? And as for your counter example… yeah, a direct, unprovoked personal attack should cause a reaction… ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/206 "2004-03-30T17:27:25Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Well, it wouldn’t bug you, but would you interact withthe person at all? Or passively let him say his piece and vanish?.. Am I obliged to engage? people pop into these discussions all the time; some of them have something substantial to add, some of them less so. My engagement would vary accordingly. Not sure where you’re going with this . . . If I were participating in a very specific discussion about a very specific aspect of a very specific John Woo movie, and someone drove by shouting, “Woo ROCKS!”, it probably wouldn’t register; I’d assume they weren’t expecting a specific response. Does that answer your question? > [@](#): > > And as for your counter example… yeah, a direct, unprovoked personal attack should cause a reaction… AGain, with varying degrees of directness, that’s usually what I feel like I’m reacting against, when I exhibit a negative reaction. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/207 "2004-03-30T22:16:33Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Miller, you continue to refuse to hear anything I say, and instead do nothing but mine my responses for hooks to hang your hostility on. Can we bring it down a notch, please? Frankly I’m surprised that the viciousness and personal nature of your posts in thread have gone unchallenged by a moderator, but then I probably wouldn’t make a very good moderator. This almost precisely describes my own thoughts about your posts in this thread. > [@](#): > > The single most important point I want to make—I’ve attempted several times, without any acknowledgment whatsoever—is that the word “pretentious” is an accusation of dishonesty. “Bad” does not hold the same connotation. “I don’t like this movie” does NOT of course mean “I don’t like you,” but “This movie is pretentious” means that it only PRETENDS to be of value when really it has none, so anyone who CLAIMS to see value in it is stupid or dishonest. Which is absolutely fucking absurd, but at least goes some distance towards explaining your attitude in this thread. Look, if I describe a movie as pretentious, it is in no way a comment on people who like the movie. I thought _Saving Private Ryan_ was pretentious. It was supposed to be the WWII movie to end all WWII movies, but all it was, was just a lump of sentimental glurge and poorly-executed war movie cliches. I’d call that movie pretentious. A lot of people disagree with me on that, because they looked at the same elements I did, and found them to be more worthy. They didn’t find the emotional content to be cloying, they didn’t think the action was unoriginal, etc. For them, the movie was not pretentious: it fulfilled the promised expectations. Now, maybe you can explain why all the other negative stuff I said about that movie isn’t a reflection on people who liked it, but somehow, “pretentious” is. For fuck’s sake, what movie ever made didn’t claim to have some sort of value? If you say a movie is good, and I say a movie is bad, am I accusing you of dishonesty? Then in what possible way am I accusing you of _anything_ if I say a movie was pretentious, and you say it wasn’t? > [@](#): > > For me to dig into a movie that doesn’t interest you, and to have found a nugget of value in it, doesn’t mean I’m smarter, only that I took a different approach to it. For you to be uninterested in digging for the nugget in question does not mean that I am pretentious for having found it. Boy, talk about not listening to other people. Once again, why are you assuming you’re the only person here who is interested in digging into these movies? How do you know that everyone else hasn’t invested _exactly as much effort_ as you have, and found nothing of merit? The fact that you looked at a movie and found a valuable or interesting subtext doesn’t mean that every other person who looks at it will find the same subtext, or will find it equally meritorious. > [@](#): > > I have a habit writing with a sarcastic tone. Sometimes that habit gets in the way of saying what I mean. _Sometimes?_ > [@](#): > > I have never, ever “looked down” on people who’s approach to movies differs from my own. Never. I have bristled, though, at being labeled pretentious for liking old Japanese movies or for finding layers of meaning in Showgirls. I still don’t get where the one follows the other, except to take the literal meaning of the word, and take it as an accusation that I’m LYING about my fondness for old Japanese films, and I’m LYING about the layers I find in Showgirls, and I’m making it all up just to seem superior to you. No one here has called you pretentious for liking _Showgirls_, or old Japanese films, or anything else. No one has called you pretentious because of _what_ movies you like. No one. For the umpty-umpteenth time, it’s not _which_ movies you like, it’s _how you treat people who don’t like the movies you like._ > [@](#): > > (And for the record, as ill-advised and as sarcastically stated as it was, my “You poor, poor people” was meant only to express a sadness that none of you would ever experience the joy of appreciating the movies you’d all listed as pretentious; that you were, from my perspective, cutting off your nose to spite your face. I meant roughly, “It’s your funeral.”) Yes, I know. That is precisely the meaning I am reacting against. You really don’t see why that attitude is offensive, arrogant, and massively condescending? Remarkable. > [@](#): > > Speaking strictly personally, that wouldn’t bug me so much. On the other hand, people coming in and going, “John Woo sucks! You’re a bunch of pretentious assholes for even discussing him!” would likely get a reaction from me. Do you understand that that is precisely what you did in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/2bfe46/32.png) [@Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xavier)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/208 "2004-03-30T23:01:02Z")
The _Matrix_ trilogy was shit. _The English Patient_ was deadly, poisonous shit. _The Last Supper_ I actually liked. Thought it was rather clever. I nominate, _The Godfather_ (all of 'em). Remind me never to learn anything more about Italian gangsters. A complete waste of nine and a half hours of Francis Ford Coppola’s, “Don’t you wanna know more about this mystic horseshit? That’s right… pay me more money!!!” ---
**Author:** ![Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/2bfe46/32.png) [@Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xavier)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/209 "2004-03-30T23:05:59Z")
Am I sure though that they were not Sicilians? Oh who cares, it was still nine and a half hours of pure unadulterated horseshit. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/210 "2004-03-30T23:13:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This almost precisely describes my own thoughts about your posts in this thread. > > . . . > > Do you understand that that is precisely what you did in this thread? No, I don’t. You keep saying this, but you won’t quote where I’ve done so. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/211 "2004-03-30T23:13:48Z")
There was mysticism in the Godfather Trilogy? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/212 "2004-03-30T23:36:02Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > No, I don’t. You keep saying this, but you won’t quote where I’ve done so. Nice how you replaced 90% of my last post with an ellipsis. Who’s ignoring who, here? I’ve responded to everything you’ve directed to me in this thread in its entirety, and have posted specific examples of what I objected to in your posts, and why I objected to them. I can’t imagine how you can claim to have not seen them, since you’ve quoted portions of those posts back at me. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/213 "2004-03-30T23:41:16Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Nice how you replaced 90% of my last post with an ellipsis. Who’s ignoring who, here? I’ve responded to everything you’ve directed to me in this thread in its entirety, and have posted specific examples of what I objected to in your posts, and why I objected to them. I can’t imagine how you can claim to have not seen them, since you’ve quoted portions of those posts back at me. I ellipsed the rest of your post because I had no argument with it. And you have yet to post a specific example. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/214 "2004-03-30T23:43:46Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I ellipsed the rest of your post because I had no argument with it. > > And you have yet to post a specific example. Go back and re-read post #103 in this thread. Nuthin’ but specific examples. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/215 "2004-03-31T00:29:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally Posted by lissener_I’d be interested in any quotes you can pull that show me being elitist and sneering in a CS thread. Seriously. I tend to defend myself against the knee-jerk anti-intellectual crowd, but I’m not personally aware of having taken it any further than that. Please start a pit thread with such quotes if you’re interested. > > Have you actually read anything you’ve posted in this thread? Allow me to jog your memory: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally Posted by lissener_ > > Man, you poor poor people. > > > > 97% of the movies mentioned above are good movies worth the effort. > > > > Not every movie can be Princess Bride or Little Nicky. Addressed. > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > People who don’t like movie you like are pitiable, and only disagree with you because they’re too lazy to understand what the movie was really about. Not my words; your words. > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > Or how about\_: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally Posted by lissener_ > > I hate it when I make a new friend and then discover I can’t share some of my favorite movies with them because they’re one of these people who are insulted by a movie that requires participation. … It really is a personal decision, and not a conspiracy of elitist filmmakers. This always strikes me as self-defeating–self-sabotaging–paranoia that I just don’t get. Talking about a decision not take part in something that I wish I could share with them; not sure where that’s pitworthy. I have a friend who wishes I could go rockclimbing with him, but I choose not to go rockclimbing. > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > Not just lazy, but agressively lazy. And, for a real WTF moment, paranoid. (“Can’t sleep, Cremaster will get me. Can’t sleep, Cremaster will get me…”) Again, your words, not mine. (The “paranoid”was a reference to reactions like yours, Miller; when you read elitism where there is none.) > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > Or, most recently, > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally Posted by lissener_ > > Just because a work of art exists on more than one level doesn’t make it “pretentious.” You choose not to dig; if the surface layer doesn’t entertain you on the first pass, it’s not your cup of tea. Fine. But some of us LIKE to dig. The artist doesn’t have to explain his art to me; at least not in the example above. So he’d have to explain it to you; so what? So watch something else instead of taking it personally. > > It’s good that you explained that, because I’m sure that Sampiro has never heard of the concept of “subtext” before. Way to fight that ignorance, lissener. Not sure of your reaction: some people choose to dig, some don’t; some find one thing, some another. Where’s the elitism in that? > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > Or here’s one that might sound a wee bit familiar: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally Posted by lissener_ > > I’d be interested in any quotes you can pull that show me being elitist and sneering in a CS thread. Seriously. I tend to defend myself against the knee-jerk anti-intellectual crowd, but I’m not personally aware of having taken it any further than that. Please start a pit thread with such quotes if you’re interested. > > Because, see, you’re an intellectual, so anyone who disagrees with you must be an anti-intellectual. Of course. Your words, not mine. I didn’t define “anti-intellectual” as anyone who doesn’t agree with me. I was talking about a very specific response, which I described as “knee-jerk anti-intellectual.” Surely you’ll agree that there are such people out in the world? Those are the people I was very explicitly talking about; not all who disagree with me. Your projection. > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > That’s without even having to use the search function. I could dig up on of your Verhoeven threads and spend the next two days posting excerpts from there. And yet you don’t. > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > > > [@](#): > > > > Just because we have different tastes in movies doesn’t make me an elitist, Miller. I certainly don’t feel like an elitist. I think of myself as a generalist: I like just as many movies that might be called “low art” as “high art” (although I didn’t much like _High Art_.) > > It’s not your taste in movies that people– [speak for yourself; this is cheap] > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > –are taking exception to, it’s your attitude that if someone doesn’t like a movie you liked, it’s simply they’re too ignorant, lazy, or stupid to have put the effort into understanding the movie that you did. Your words, not mine. > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > That is what makes you an elitist: your insistance that anyone who doesn’t agree with you can only be doing so because they’re not as smart as you. Your words, not mine; never suggested any such thing–let alone insisted. > [@](#): > > _Originally Posted by Miller_ > See, people can watch a movie, find all the layers that you find, and still not like the movie. Just because a movie has subtext doesn’t automatically make it a good movie. Agreed. I’ve only ever reacted (your cites to the contrary; will apologize if you can find one; I’m not aware of one, because I always try to say what I mean, and that’s not what I mean)j—I’ve only ever reacted to people who say “The layers you claim to find aren’t there,” not “I agree that those layers are there, but I still dislike the movie for the following reasons.” ---
**Author:** ![capelcleggs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@capelcleggs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capelcleggs)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/216 "2004-03-31T00:43:08Z")
I tend to define a “pretentious” movie as one that “pretends” to profundity and depth while actually being transparently shallow. The kind of movie that tries to have layers of meaning but where every meaning is transparently hackneyed, or where you analyze the subtext and find it’s even more cliche’d than the text. I’d put a lot of Woody Allen movies (Interiors, Crimes and Misdemeanors, September, large sections of Hannah and Her Sisters) in this category; they’re out to deal with Big Themes but the Big Themes are little more than fortune-cookie bromides. For movies that are incomprehensible, it’s a bit different… some movies are incomprehensible because they’re badly made, some are incomprehensible until you catch on to what they’re trying to do. Sometimes it’s a combination of both. The most “pretentious” movies, though, are the ones that have a surface layer of hard-to-understand artiness but turn out, underneath that surface, to be simple tracts on dull old themes (mostly how much better a person the director is than the bourgeoisie/the government/the post office/his parents). I do think that calling a movie pretentious is, in fact, to say that it pretends to be a serious work when in fact it isn’t, or pretends to have something interesting to say when in fact it doesn’t. Some films really are serious works, but suck. That’s a different category altogether. Sometimes, really, the amount of “work” you have to do to understand an arty film is less than the amount of work you have to do to decipher a seemingly simple, easy-to-understand film… the self-consciously “difficult” film practically begs you to try to decipher it, whereas a great “straightforward” film might be so simple on the surface that you can overlook what’s going on underneath. (Example, because I just saw it again: I’ve always felt that one of the great political movies is Billy Wilder’s One, Two, Three, which has as much to say about politics and the moral ambiguity thereof and the world being a dangerous place as any “highbrow” political film – and the fact that it’s presented as a light comedy just makes it more interesting, because the audience has to _work_ to get the serious content, instead of being told in advance that this movie will have Something To Say.) ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/217 "2004-03-31T01:08:08Z")
> [@capelcleggs](#): > > I tend to define a “pretentious” movie as one that “pretends” to profundity and depth while actually being transparently shallow. The kind of movie that tries to have layers of meaning but where every meaning is transparently hackneyed, or where you analyze the subtext and find it’s even more cliche’d than the text. I’d put a lot of Woody Allen movies (Interiors, Crimes and Misdemeanors, September, large sections of Hannah and Her Sisters) in this category; they’re out to deal with Big Themes but the Big Themes are little more than fortune-cookie bromides. . . Thank you. I find Woody Allen extremely pretentious, and I DO mean that as an insult. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/218 "2004-03-31T01:12:18Z")
> [@capelcleggs](#): > > . . . Sometimes, really, the amount of “work” you have to do to understand an arty film is less than the amount of work you have to do to decipher a seemingly simple, easy-to-understand film… the self-consciously “difficult” film practically begs you to try to decipher it, whereas a great “straightforward” film might be so simple on the surface that you can overlook what’s going on underneath. (Example, because I just saw it again: I’ve always felt that one of the great political movies is Billy Wilder’s One, Two, Three, which has as much to say about politics and the moral ambiguity thereof and the world being a dangerous place as any “highbrow” political film – and the fact that it’s presented as a light comedy just makes it more interesting, because the audience has to _work_ to get the serious content, instead of being told in advance that this movie will have Something To Say.) yes, and an excellent example. I recently bought the DVD of _One, Two, Three_. That may be why some of my favorite films are dark comedies: with a successful dark comedy, you’re starting out with a minimum of two layers. And the tension between the darkness and the comedy can hold a lot of subtext: Showgirls; The Birds; Written on the Wind; Dancer in the Dark–all of these movies have a subtext that’s almost completely at odds with its surface, which is something I get a kick out of in movies. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/219 "2004-03-31T01:49:30Z")
Well, I’ll just cut out all the “Did nots!” and cut to the chase: > [@lissener](#): > > because I always try to say what I mean, and that’s not what I mean If that’s the case, then you are extremely bad at it. I stand by my interpretation of what you’ve written, but I’ll accept that it wasn’t what you _meant_ to write. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/220 "2004-03-31T02:06:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, I’ll just cut out all the “Did nots!” and cut to the chase:_meant_ to write. Seriously Miller, this is cheap and unfair. You want to respond to the points I made about where you conflated your impressions with my words? Or not. I’m OK either way. Your examples of my wrongdoing have made it extremely clear to me that, in your case at least, the offense is in the eye of the beholder. I apologize for including enough “tone” to set you off, but seriously and honestly, you haven’t pointed out one thing that I said that meant what you twisted it to mean. I have never set myself above people who get something different out of a movie than I do; I have only reacted when called names. Your hunt and cite reinforces that for me. You want to make your impression of take the place of objective reality. Again, I’m sorry for pissing you off, but that doesn’t change what I have or haven’t said. As far as impressions go, I will honestly tell you that, in these threads, my impression of you is that there is something bugging you WAY beyond anything I’ve said, that you’ve irrationally hung my words on and run with: there’s such a vast disconnect between what you say and what is “real” that I honestly question your sanity on this particular subject. Honestly not meant to be insulting: it’s just a meditation on impressions and the likelihood that they’re not necessarily accurate: from reading you on other subjects, I know that you’re not insane. But if this were my only exposure to you, I’d be so flabbergasted at your frothing irrationality that I would, indeed, question that. AGain; impressions are impressions, and each of us should be open to communication on our respective impressions. Unfortunately, I can’ see that you’ve read anything I’ve written, ever, with any kind of an open mind. So I’ll agree to avoid you in movie threads, K? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171.md?page=12)