Just what it says on the tin.
A thread for movies that you consider 'appropriately rated', not slept on / hidden gems / overhyped / shilled.

MAD GAD, my favorite film

99% of movies

What a shit thread

I would say pretty much every Terry Gilliam film outside of Fear and Loathing kek

so movies that people have no strong feelings about one way or the other?

>>212587883
Not OP, but this really is not what this means at all.

>>212587883
Op here, yes

>>212587858
Based and true
>>212587883
No, movies that aren't over or underhyped. That is entirely distinct from how good the movie is itself.
>Waterworld, for example, is a kinda shitty movie that's nonetheless super underrated, because hating it is a meme in and of itself
>Eraserhead is a great movie that's overrated, even though it's great, because every film school faggot on earth tries to make it better than it is
Pic related, meanwhile, has about the right reputation that it deserves.

>>212588057
Thank you.
>>212588057
You sonuvabitch I'll kill you you're not me

>>212588181
you're autistic as fuck, at worst. at best you're basically just trying to find another way to make a "tell me what to watch" thread, you want people to tell you about movies that are good that you haven't heard of because they weren't super popular or super reviled.

>>212587799 (OP)
Mad God is overrated Jewish tripe.

>>212588277
heh.

>>212588107
Sorry meant this for my evil clone >>212588107

>>212588283
God forbid we try to discuss movies on /tv/. Clearly we need another dozen superman threads.
>>212588316
No one even likes Mad God how is it overrated?

>>212588318
Happy accident lmao

>>212588355
>if you don't like my cancer you like other cancer

"tell me what to watch" isn't discussion

>>212588477
I didn't ask for recommendations you joyless sod. The point of the thread is that people only engage with "this is trash and bad, actually" or "this is kino, actually" so we end up going on and on about the same fucking movies ad infinitum.
It turns out it's actually really fun to discuss the movies the screeching retards aren't talking about, like how pic related was an entirely enjoyable Guy Ritchie film that made me realize how much I missed popcorn movies like it.
But, again, God forbid we discuss these things on /tv/. Surely we need more slop posts about capeshit and movies we already agree we all hate.

>>212589042
>going on and on about the same fucking movies ad infinitum.

you're proving his point

It's an artsy passion project, and I really enjoyed it on a technical level. Someone not enjoying it cause its gross or confusing is perfectly reasonable.
>>212588477
why?

>>212589108
I totally agree, and that's what I find interesting about it. I've run into people more than once who wax on and on about how much of a masterpiece Mad God is, when in reality it's a really pretty hack job. I'm glad it exists, but it's not Birth of a Nation.
Why can't Mad God just be a neat art film? Some people are so desperate to make it some secret treasure that everyone needs to like or else they're a pseud.

So a thread about “mid” movies?

Fuck sake guys

This movie received an appropriate amount of praise.

This movie excelled at its low ambitions.

Warriors of virtue filled the gap left by the abandoned ninja turtles franchise.

>>212589407
There is no hope for basic reading comprehension. This is for:
>Good Movies considered good (not overrated)
>Bad Movies considered bad (not underrated)
>Mid Movies considered mid (not 'hidden gems' or whatever)
The point of discussion is any film that hasn't been subjected to 'heckin' engagement strategy' but rather is just generally appreciated for what it is.
>>212589465
Great example. Fun martial arts movie, lots of neat elements, is NEVER discussed because it's just agreed to be what it is.
>>212589498
I think that there's value in that. Especially as I get older. So many fun little movies are out there that aren't really going to be remembered and that blows.

>Not overly ambitious, but tried their best
>fun premise, nicely executed
>stupid bullshit where it would be fun
>Antje Trau is hot as fuck
This has become one of my go-to movies for people who aren't 'film people'. It keeps everyone's attention, it's got plenty of good design and camera work, and the narrative is easy to follow while still getting peoples' minds going on what details they missed or theorizing about one topic or another.
That's often just as much fun to me as the movie itself, sitting around with your friends and talking about what everyone thought.

>>212589692
you're the one failing at comprehension. you want movies no one felt strongly enough about to "overrate" or "underrate." movies for which no one sung praises or shat on. you want movies that just kinda exist.

>>212590714
NTA first post. You are plain wrong with your interpretation. You can feel strongly about a movie and rate it lowly or highly without over/under rating it if your rating is deserved and appropriate.

>>212590812
I would like to add, if anything, the highly under or over rated movies are the mid movies, since that implies the extreme ratings are not appropriate or justified.

>>212590812
>not him but i'm saying the exact same thing that ultimately means the same thing and is massively autistic

the point you miss is people don't really think about movies that just exist long term.

here's a test, once upon a time in the west. it is properly rated. agree/disagree?

>>212590865
since you're clearly an autistic person let me help you with a bit of neurotypical psychology that you clearly don't understand, but are afflicted by.

expectations play a huge part in how you'll feel about a movie. huge amount of positive ratings will lead you expecting to be fingered by God. huge amount of negative ratings will lead you to be expecting to be subjected to diarrhea bukkake (unintended pun considering the amount of shit in mad god). since nothing will live up to either expectation, the resulting experience is "mid."

>>212590869
>the point you miss is people don't really think about movies that just exist long term.
Well it's a good thing then that OP's thread includes movies that are rated highly and lowly as well as movies that "just exist".
>once upon a time in the west
I'd say by objective standards it's a good movie and fairly rated, though a little high for my tastes, I've always preferred American westerns.

>>212591155
you have failed the test and proven my point.

>>212589498
The end is a little fucky but the movie overall is pretty great and had a nothing budget. Including the Red Elvises was inspired