ITT: Movies that deserved to bomb

ITT: Movies that deserved to bomb.

This schlock was such fucking trash

...

My mom and grandma both loved this movie.

...

Did this bomb? I saw it and yeah, wasn't that good.

>grandma
She didn't find the puppet sex a little disturbing?

I thought it was pretty good

I wonder if it would have gotten the same acclaim if it were a live action film.

I wasn't a fan, personally. My friend raved about it but she also dickrides Kaufman

Actually, it didn't bomb, but perhaps it didn't quite cover the production and marketing costs.

It wasn't bad, just pointless

...

There are plenty of other movies that aren't pointless, so this makes it bad in my eyes, and of course, the pretentiousness of it.

...

Good one.

...

Pretentious? It was only pretentious in the sense that all of Kauffman's films could be considered pretentious. Do you mean the characters? Because I'd agree with that but I also think that's the point. You aren't really supposed to like Michael, I think he's supposed to be seen as kind of a self-centered piece of shit

>It was only pretentious in the sense that all of (((Kauffman)))'s films could be considered pretentious.
I haven't seen them. This movie shifted between dull, baffling, and bafflingly dull.

>Because I'd agree with that but I also think that's the point.
Then this was a poor goal, though it doesn't change whether or not it's a good movie.

>You aren't really supposed to like Michael
Was I not supposed to like the movie as well? At what point does, regardless of the intentions, I can claim the movie was bad?

I liked it a lot.

>I wonder if it would have gotten the same acclaim if it were a live action film
I wonder this too. I think ultimately it was a pretty dull story. Almost none of it needed to be animation(apart from the one bit where he removes his face which is never referenced again).

I was just giving my opinion on the movie, which is that I didn't think it was bad. You can think whatever the fuck you want man but you haven't really given any explanation as to your opinion. Why was it pretentious?

It was never supposed to be a movie in the first place. Kauffman wrote it as a radio play and then that fat faggot Hartman convinced him to make the actual film

You mean sound play :^)

Yeah it sounds like that's a much better fit for the material.

>there are people who seriously didn't understand anomalisa

it wasn't even that complicated or abstract

>Hartman
I mean Harmon

The whole movie couldn't be done without animation. How can the visual metaphor of everybody except michael and the girl having the same face and voice be put forward without the stop motion? It makes no sense otherwise

It had an immensely dull narrative, dull dialogue with nothing of value said at any time, dull characters, etc, all in the name of presenting a "slice of life" story. Anything you would find in a proper movie and fault it for not having is totally lakcing here because of its aims. It didn't even attempt that well because plenty of the dialogue is unrealistic and poor attempts at humor.

Contrary to popular belief, it's not difficult to create a movie with almost all the scenes imitating the most mundane aspects of life, which is why most indie movies are like this.

The animation was also shit. Just about any feature film with stop motion beats it in the last 20 years. Maybe it's beats Gumby: The Movie in quality of animation.

Oh, I understand it. It just sucks and it's theme of "Isn't life depressing at times" is incredibly hackneyed.

It had a 5 million dollar budget man, give them a break

Calling something "dull" isn't a real criticism. You might as well say it sucks because you didn't like it.

>How can the visual metaphor of everybody except michael and the girl having the same face and voice be put forward without the stop motion?
Kaufman's done it before, it's called Being John Malkovich?

that's not what the movie is about

pay attention next time

I don't give a shit. I'm sure people paid the same amount to go to this movie as any other, (other people, not me). I'm not going to like a movie less just because it's cheap.

The dialogue was an attempt to imitate the mundane aspects of conversation, without any of the variety that you would get in similar films that attempt this much better, like Scorsese and Tarantino. I don't see how people can rightly criticize George Lucas for having dull shots of people walking into a room and talking, sitting down and talking, etc., when this movie is actually much worse and doesn't even take place in a fantasy setting.

I could mention some drivel about trying to discover joy in people's identities and failing to connect to people, but even realizing it doesn't make the movie good. There are plenty of movies with ambiguous themes that just about everyone can appreciate because they have clear artistry and craft. Not this movie.

Also, we have great movies like Whiplash that made with even smaller budgets, so that's not an excuse.

I understand it fine and I really like the writer's other work, but I think he wasn't on his game with the dialogue. In parts it's just stupid, and the transitions between how characters are perceived wasn't as subtle as they needed to be to sell what was going on,

And Bone Tomahawk was made for 1.8 million.

Having a low budget is only impressive when you make a great movie with it.

Neither of those films are animated. He said the animation was shit that's what I was responding to. I don't agree that the animation was shit I think it was more than adequate but for 5 million dollars especially it was fine

Probably Kaufman's worst.

Well if it looks like this at five million, they probably should have increased the budget for the animation. It's a worse looking movie for animation than Whiplash was for live-action.

Fuck yes. Literally took everything that made the original good and ruined it.

>for 5 million dollars especially it was fine
Do you understand that I don't take into consideration the budget when I evaluate a movie, or even try to enjoy it? I'm not going to hate Adam Sandler films just because they look like $2 million dollar productions with budgets in the tens of millions. I would "hate" them because they look and and otherwise horrible, which just about describes this movie.

Then the focus would have been on the actor playing them. Not really the same effect imo.