# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/101 "2004-03-26T20:04:14Z")
> [@Evil Death](#): > > Is that the 1976 original, the 2003 remake, the 1995 TV movie or Krzysztof Kieslowski’s 1984 revisionist deconstructionist version? Oh my God, you’re SO SMART! ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/102 "2004-03-26T20:06:57Z")
First off, you can read deep, philosophical meaning in just about anything. Heck, you can read any kind of meaning you want out of anything. (There was a Cafe Society about song lyrics that have a creepy twist to them, but sometimes the twist was up to some rather creative interpretation.) Second, I have no problem with this. I’m all for meanings and layer of meanings. Third, I go to the movies to be entertained. If I want to think, I’ll go read a book or something. ;p But anyway, here’s my list, compiled off the top of my head… _Pi_, although I have to admit I didn’t quite get that. Sure, I understand the whole “Math Can Drive You Insane” angle, but I got lost after the whole Name of God thing got thrown in. _Cube_. My roommate and I played “Spot the Cliche” with that one and had great fun doing MST3k - type commentary. _Matrix Revelations_. This one was obviously trying too hard, especially since the first movie had a ton of plot inconsistencies already. I like David Lynch’s _Dune_, though. It had great moments in it, and the movie as a whole is enjoyable. I have to admit, though, I couldn’t follow the plot the first time I watched it–to many characters to keep track of. But personally, I thought it was better than that remake. ---
**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 26, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/103 "2004-03-26T20:40:35Z")
> [@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: > [@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. 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. Or how about: > [@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. 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…”) Or, most recently, > [@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**. Or here’s one that might sound a wee bit familiar: > [@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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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 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. _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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/104 "2004-03-26T22:33:40Z")
A few people have made passing reference to my choice but I think the most unenjoyably, pretentious film has to be **The Green Berets starring John Wayne**. Yes, the Vietcong were nasty and vicious - no argument there. But watching this film you know it was done because of John Wayne’s right-wing “my country right or wrong, flag-waving, but I never served one day in the military” mentality. He was 61 when he made this and he is obviously out of shape. It seems _ **incredibly** _ pretentious for a non-veteran to make a film like this extolling America’s involvement when John Wayne didn’t even fight in a popular war (WW2). Just read Cecil’s article on Mr Wayne: [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5\_004.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_004.html) ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/105 "2004-03-26T22:38:31Z")
> [@Fionn](#): > > From its reviews, I didn’t expect _Morvern Callar_ to be an easy two hours at the art house, but I didn’t expect it to be quite so painfully boring and pointless. Hallelujah! Say it sister! Testify! And I rented it, which means I let that piece of crap INTO MY HOUSE! That said, I loved both Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, and I liked Pi, Memento and Requiem for a Dream just fine. The weird thing about David Lynch is that when you like some of his movies and dislike others, its really hard to put your finger on what draws the line for you. I love Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive, but despised everything else he ever did that I saw, including Dune, Blue Velvet, and Elephant Man. Liked Gosford Park OK, but it didn’t really go anywhere. I’ll usually give anything with Richard E. Grant in it a chance though, even if Withnail and I was not my favorite. Cook, Thief, Wife, Lover is the only film I ever walked out on. I’ll add my own, although it’s not exactly art house: the characters is Party Monster were so amused with themselves we turned it off after 10 minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecccb3/32.png) [@Evil\_Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Death)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/106 "2004-03-26T23:03:07Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Fine. Tell me why. Because nobody understands everything. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/107 "2004-03-26T23:09:06Z")
But movies aren’t everything. They’re little digestible slices of life, and/ or mind, and/or whatever. They are, by definition, simplified and distilled. ---
**Author:** ![raizok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4491bb/32.png) [@raizok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raizok)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/108 "2004-03-26T23:53:57Z")
Hmm looks like not many people agree with my choice of Reloaded/Revolutions as unbearably pretentious (and unenjoyable). So here’s my 2nd nomination presented for your consideration. **Ang Lee’s** “_The Hulk_” This was soo bad, I wanted to walk out in the first 20 minutes. Lots of lingering closeups, somewhat “profound” yet overly-prententious dialogue and lets not forget the “art” shots like the weird transitions or the four shots at once montage thingamajig. Dreadful. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/109 "2004-03-27T01:22:14Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > 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. Who is stopping you, please? In fact, feel free to go dig right now. Take your time… remember to take the beret and your copy of The Portable Camus. (The time I spent on archaeological digs in Alabama, however, taught me that there are places where you can dig to the molten core of the Earth and not find anything but the molten core of the Earth, which you could have found as easily starting from anywhere.) (BTW: re: _titular_: I don’t think that word means what you think it means.) [/QUOTE] Titular: Existing in name only; nominal: the titular head of the family. The townspeople call themselves ‘Greasers’ (collective) first after the Father, Seaweedhead Greaser, then after his son, Lamy Homo Greaser, who keeps rising from the dead. The last time, as memory serves, Lamy Homo doesn’t rise from the dead and the people still refer to themselves as Greasers’. That’s how I was using titular. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/110 "2004-03-27T01:24:30Z")
> [@wolf\_meister](#): > > A few people have made passing reference to my choice but I think the most unenjoyably, pretentious film has to be **The Green Berets starring John Wayne**. I love that final shot of John Wayne watching the sunset. Over the South China Sea. To the East. Or the fact that a Green Beret Col. looks 65 years old and is a good 70 pounds overweight. ---
**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 27, 2004, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/111 "2004-03-27T03:15:55Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not your taste in movies that people 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. 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. 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. I think that the point is that most people don’t bother to find the layers. If you view a film intelligently and make a _conscious_ decision to reject it after analysis, that would be fine. But most people would watch _Smulstronstallet_ and say “Oh, that movie was pretentious crap. It was just about some old teacher dude who cried a lot.” That is what is so irksome about many of these threads. Many people are intelligent enough to see a movie _has_ subtext, but aren’t intelligent enough to dissect it; this is what leads to most “Oh, that movie was overpretentious and arty” type reactions. Even in my and **lissener’s** Verhoeven threads, most people show up and go “Oh, I perfectly understood all of the subtexts and inference and the director’s message, but it was unwatchable crap.” Instead of trying to discuss the film intelligently and outlining their criticisms of the film, people automatically go “OOG! PRETENSE! ARTY! SMASH SMASH!” Claiming to understand a film and then dismissing it out of hand is pointless and stupid. Dismissing a movie with depth and subtext just because you think such things are “pretentious” is ignorant and intellectually dishonest, though in perfect keeping with the long standing tradition of fearing that which we do not understand. ---
**Author:** ![Risha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5fc32e/32.png) [@Risha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Risha)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/112 "2004-03-27T05:22:31Z")
I just flashed back to a movie I saw in college, on one of the cheap nights. [Kids](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/) may be the worst movie I’ve ever seen - not the one I hated the most, because **Last Tango In Paris** takes that title - but the worst. It’s full of diliberately disgusting characters, who only exist in order for the director to try and prove that today’s children are all evil. It’s not in the least bit realistic. The movie has nothing deep, or even interesting, to say. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/113 "2004-03-27T06:31:10Z")
**Romance** certainly filled the pretentious bill. All that staring into the distance and then slowly saying … things. Stupid things mostly, as if they were profound. If it weren’t for the kinky and explicit sex, this movie would have sunk like a stone. **Six String Samurai** might well have had layers and such, but I leave it as an exercise for the beret-wearing twits to work through them. So long as there is paint drying on a wall somewhere, I have better things to watch. **Center of the World** is kinda like the description of Scarlet Diva earlier in this thread – the protagonist consistently behaves like a total idiot and never learns anything, even though he’s suppsoed to be some kind of software genius. I kept hoping for a Monty Python foot to come down and squash him, but it never happened. **Breaking the Waves**. Lars von Triers is a misogynistic jerk asshole, and seems determined to explore every bit of his jerky misognyistic assholishness through the medium of film. Go to it, Lars, I’m sure the beret-wearing twits will follow you to the bitter end. but a movie doesn’t have to be an indie film to be pretentious. Take **Any Emmanuelle movie** The formula seems to be, if the protagonist or the narrator spouts enough metaphysical-sounding gibberish every so often, then it’s not really bad softcore porn. Oh, hell yes it is! ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/114 "2004-03-27T07:15:16Z")
> [@Ilsa\_Lund](#): > > Many people are intelligent enough to see a movie _has_ subtext, but aren’t intelligent enough to dissect it; this is what leads to most “Oh, that movie was overpretentious and arty” type reactions. Subtexts are constructed, not dissected. The subtext is considered to be accurate, if the viewer is satisfied with the predictions made by that subtext with regards to the visible layers of the movie. There isn’t necessarily only one plausible subtext that must suitably fit. A viewer can hold any of such constructed subtexts in mind and genuinely claim to understand the movie. They can then find their chosen subtext, lacking in appeal. In those movies which are quite deviant or vague, there is often no compelling reason to choose among different subtexts. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/115 "2004-03-27T08:49:57Z")
OK, let me prepare myself for this one. I’ll need a flame retardant suit and probably a giant stone wall to stand behind. But here goes… **Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon** It was a great movie until the flashback. Which… was… just… drag… ged… out… for… so… long… I… for… got… about… the… main… plot… I just couldn’t get back into the movie after that exercise in tedium. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecccb3/32.png) [@Evil\_Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Death)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/116 "2004-03-27T11:53:29Z")
> [@Risha](#): > > I just flashed back to a movie I saw in college, on one of the cheap nights. [Kids](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/) may be the worst movie I’ve ever seen - not the one I hated the most, because **Last Tango In Paris** takes that title - but the worst. It’s full of diliberately disgusting characters, who only exist in order for the director to try and prove that today’s children are all evil. It’s not in the least bit realistic. Unrealistic, huh? Why don’t you come live in my part of town, where kids as young as nine have been caught vandalising cars and pelting people’s houses with mud (and occasionally rocks), and tell them how unrealistically they’re acting? ---
**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 27, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/117 "2004-03-27T16:33:57Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Subtexts are constructed, not dissected. The subtext is considered to be accurate, if the viewer is satisfied with the predictions made by that subtext with regards to the visible layers of the movie. There isn’t necessarily only one plausible subtext that must suitably fit. A viewer can hold any of such constructed subtexts in mind and genuinely claim to understand the movie. They can then find their chosen subtext, lacking in appeal. In those movies which are quite deviant or vague, there is often no compelling reason to choose among different subtexts. Dissect the _film_, not the subtexts. Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/118 "2004-03-27T18:08:59Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > OK, let me prepare myself for this one. I’ll need a flame retardant suit and probably a giant stone wall to stand behind. But here goes… > > **Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon** In my experience, it was almost entirely the people who had never seen Hong Kong cinema before who were impressed by that movie. The people who had some clue about HK films mostly thought that aside from the good cinematography, it was a poorly-executed snorefest. ---
**Author:** ![dman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f0a364/32.png) [@dman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dman)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/119 "2004-03-27T18:36:49Z")
Heh. I knew you were thinking of “Lost Highway” before I even clicked the thread. True. And thanks MaxTheVool for pointing out _enjoyably_ pretentious examples like **Charlies Angels 2** - I was doubled up with guffaws the whole way through it. Just like I was with **Mission Impossible 2** - although I realise a lot of how you read it relys on your own attitude. After 20 minutes I just figured I’d treat it as a comedy, and it was one of the most enjoyable films I’ve seen because of that. OK, there is a distinction between pretentious and tongue-in-cheek, but not all the audience notices it. Shout me down, but I thought **The Big Lebowski** was too too-too. Maybe I just didn’t get it :dubious: .dan. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/120 "2004-03-27T20:19:06Z")
What this stupid thread is missing is an awareness that _any_ halfway interesting or intelligently made film is open to being called pretentious by somebody. You take any movie that any poster in this thread thinks is brilliant, moving, and/or provocative, and there’s _someone_, probably a member of this board, who is ready to rant about how pretentious that movie is. Labeling something “pretentious” is a critical cop out. Try finding something more enlightening, less cliched, and less self-centered to say. There’s a veneer of shallow self-aggrandizement here which I find loathsome. For those of you who go to movies to be “entertained” and not “to think,” :rolleyes: then stay the fuck away from movies that might make you think! It’s usually pretty obvious which ones they are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171.md?page=7)