This particular review aside, whenever movies get talked about on HN, it's a shit show. I have learned that if you're interested in art beyond what is spoon fed to you, this is the worst site to get takes, and it's not even close.
It's clear some people take a straightforward view of media they consume, and they do not want to spend their limited energy digesting something that is supposed to be for their entertainment. Which is fine. But I think a smaller subsection of HN users actively hate art, resent that it has any cultural impact, and only engage with it out of some sense of social obligation. It's another way for them to climb the ladder. When the same people comment on movies like this, they have an extremely low bar for what is considered "art for snobs." Everything must fit in a box. Entertainment must be pulp, in your face. Documentaries must be all facts. Do not play with the medium at all. Do not even jump around in time. I saw a comment on here saying the twist in Oppenheimer was that we were jumping around in time.
It's a bit baffling to read comments that say "Just read the book" about this particular movie. Even if you have no idea who Nathan Fielder is, surely you're not watching the trailer for this movie and thinking this was going to be a great film to get all the facts.
I remember seeing a comment here be like “I hope letterboxd does not get acquired by NYTimes bc the nyt will make letterboxd too woke” and I am like that’s crazy.
Like I am trying to think of a worse site than this for movie reviews and I can’t on top of my head. People here have some of the weirdest takes that I am not sure I want to read books together with them.
It's clear some people take a straightforward view of media they consume, and they do not want to spend their limited energy digesting something that is supposed to be for their entertainment. Which is fine. But I think a smaller subsection of HN users actively hate art, resent that it has any cultural impact, and only engage with it out of some sense of social obligation. It's another way for them to climb the ladder. When the same people comment on movies like this, they have an extremely low bar for what is considered "art for snobs." Everything must fit in a box. Entertainment must be pulp, in your face. Documentaries must be all facts. Do not play with the medium at all. Do not even jump around in time. I saw a comment on here saying the twist in Oppenheimer was that we were jumping around in time.
It's a bit baffling to read comments that say "Just read the book" about this particular movie. Even if you have no idea who Nathan Fielder is, surely you're not watching the trailer for this movie and thinking this was going to be a great film to get all the facts.