all 73 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 32 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Unfortunately for too long now: “A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away”

Directed by:

  • Uwe Boll
  • Michael Bay

If you see this logo:

The company is the king of what used to be called Direct To Video. Now it is all Direct to Streaming.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Oversaturated marketing campaign and overly bloated cast are the two big red flags for me.

    Both are indicative that the budget for the movie was not put towards the actual content of the film but about trying to pull in the largest demographics of people.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Two character immediately infordumping to each other as if that’s how humans normally communicate.

    “Are you ready? This is going to be a hard job. As you know, they’ve tightened security but we got a man on the inside. As long as does his job then it’s smooth sailing.”

    “I was born ready. Eveeything will be fine as long as the shipment is on time. As you know, we put a tracker on the lead car and I can watch exactly where it is from this device in real-time.”

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Compare this to the bank robbery opening in Dark Knight haha.

    I've never seen Heat, but I've also never seen any newer movies top that scene since.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Heat is as good as people have been telling you.

    There's also a novel, Heat 2, written by the movie's director that serves as a prequel and sequel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    And I hear soon there is Heat 2 the movie

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I hope they use younger actors. 'Space Cowboys' had younger actors lip synching Eastwood and Jones for the early scenes. Either that or do it an an animation, the way they brought back Adam West to do a final Batman movie.

    I hate deaging.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    Directed by JJ Abrams

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Wow first one to say Jared Leto.

    Unless I've missed morbin time suddenly becoming popular?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Bladerunner 2049 is great. In that, he plays a self-absorbed sadistic rich asshole. Phenomenal casting if you ask me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Meh, of course this is all subjective but I wish Jared Leto’s character wasn’t there in Bladerunner 2049. The first Bladerunner worked so well precisely because there was no real baddie. Everyone had reasons, a story, anguish, frustrations, internal turmoil. Jared Leto was standard issue evil mastermind creep.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    If it's a comedy: the first joke.

    But there's always exceptions to any rule. I recently watched Spaceballs (yes, first time) and it would normally fall under "suck", but it got increasingly better as it went along.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago
    • Camera cuts

    It sucks for me because once they start with the unnecessary cuts it pulls me right out and I'll probably stop watching.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    these logo's:

    Though i will say the production value on the latest daily wire show was really high, probably the absolute fuck-tonne of money they spent on it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    What the hell is Angel. I am seeing that company logo all over. Are they a distribution house or are they some sort of religious shit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    Definitely the latter, but also MAGA, the whole shebang. They recently made full proper movie versions of Q-Anon "documentaries". One of my favorite podcasters grudgingly had to admit that the production is more than just OK.

    They popped up on fascist grifters podcasts, but are going more mainstream now.
    They are clearly benefiting from the current political currents in the USA.

    Also, Jim Caviezel 🤮

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I think they are kind of like a production house with an additional kickstarter backing thing, or small individual investors of some other kind, i'm not sure.

    Here is the wiki

    Their programming is pretty faithy, have a look at the lineup and you'll see from the titles.

    I don't care much for that genre, but i don't see it as that much different than any other genre, it's just not for me.

    What i will say is that their productions are the faith based equivalent of straight to vhs action movies.

    It's generic dross with meh writing and some reasonable production values.

    but that's just my opinion, perhaps it's worth a shot if you're into that kind of genre.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    When the trailer is just a highlights reel of the entire plot. If the movie was worth watching they would let it speak for itself.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Pacing that feels more like an Instagram reel than a feature film.

    Excessive use of poor effects or artificial camera shake.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    A lot of directors and actors/actresses are massive red flags based on the projects that they take on. If they are also working with a star studded cast then it is going to suck so much. The Rock and Chris Pratt have earned their current association with bland movies that suck for example. I still like some older Rock movies from before he became bland action hero who can't show weakness for any reason. Pratt is fun as Starlord, but his other roles are mediocre.

    Bland marketing is often a bad sign, where it is hard to tell the thing is different than a bunch of other similar movies. Bland action movies are a great example of this, if they can't pull of a unique impression from the trailers it is most likely going to suck.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    This is a very lazy observation, but for a US production, if it’s released in the US first it’s often a sign they’re trying to get the opening weekend without many reviews available to dissuade attendance.

    If it’s actually a good film, it’ll open in a foreign region a week or two before the US so they can use those reviews in promotion.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Typically things I look for are a movie that's pushed like its a big budget film but doesn't have any actors I've ever heard of.

    Too much expositional dialogue at the beginning of the movie especially when its so foreign to the way people talk in real life.

    In the new Star Wars movie, the "can you hear me now?" "joke" in the first 5 minutes.

    Unnecessary sequels to a completed story.

    I'm sure there are others but my break is over and this is all I could think of.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    More than five 'executive producers.'

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Promoted in media, then suddenly disappears and not heard of again for 4-8 months.

    It went horribly with test audiences, then got sent for a focus-group-based reworking. Always trash.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Movies funded by Germany.

    It's always the same type of movie. Either we get some boomer vs. youth plot, a family (+child) with relationship problems or something about the second world war. It's the most boring slop for our aging population you can imagine.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    exposition in the form of character monologue at a length longer than 30 seconds that is required for the rest of the movie to make sense.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Two come to mind here, neither are bad.

    Dune and The Lord of the Rings.

    I suspect these two to be exceptions to the rule of thumb you're proposing though, but I can't actually think of any that does this poorly.

    Got any examples?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I'd say any bad exposition, no matter how short. I was marginally interested in watching Shang-Chi after watching Wonder Man since I heard Trevor was in it too.

    Right after the intro sequence, they jump to the present to introduce him and his friend and she immediately says something like "we've been friends for 10 years" and it was just so forced that I turned it off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago
    [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    For comedies, none of the jokes in the trailer are that funny or make you laugh.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    When you can't escape the ads for it.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Detailed CGI in sci fi that's been lense or motioned blurred into oblivion.

    Doesn't even matter if the CGI was subpar because now the whole thing looks like RGB vommit.

    It's especially painful coming from gaming where you get to see crisp visual quality at every angle even on games as old as Halo CE.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    If it's desperate to give me the whole plot in the trailer to try to hook me into watching it.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (3 children)
    • Netflix lighting
    • Generic, Zimmer-stolen OST
    • Franchises
    • Standard blocking
    • Overexposition
    • Whedonisms
    • More broadly, anything that's been big budget Hollywood for the last 30 years or so.
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Whedonisms

    What the heck is that? I liked buffy and firefly, so use those as an example if you could.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Starring Mark Wahlberg.

    The only exception is The Other Guys.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Typically the impression I get from the trailer. I have seen so many trailers and so many movies I usually can't even tell you why anymore.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Directed by: Uwe Boll

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It opens with a talking head news reporter monologuing a voiceover of some bullshit

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Fucking news reports playing straight to screen without any characters reacting to them are a pox on storytelling. You can spot the exact moment where Sam Raimi mentally checks out of Spider-man 3 when this happens - the bit the studio made him do because they wanted Venom in the movie (not the Emo Parker bits, which are intentionally cringe and awesome).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    The first three minutes is a mish-mash string of production company logos, and half of them you've never heard of before.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    budget blown in the first 5 minutes followed by 85 minutes of people in random uniforms in blank rooms with crappy laptops

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    In a world...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Anything where the poster/promo has a man and woman apart but kinda the same each other (grumpy or lustfully). Relationship waffle made into movies is the most boring looking crap. It usually has a 3-5 word little like ‘you said forever’ or ‘beneath the elderflower moon’

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Trailer blitzes

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If it's a movie about a woman and it's written and directed by a man

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Every minute over 90 minutes adds to how much a movie sucks exponentially.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    There's a mysterious person/killer, that only the protagonist can see.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    If the only thing promoting the movie is it's politics, or controversy over its politics, that means the rest of the movie isn't very interesting, otherwise that's what people would be talking about.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    If you have a character singing and dancing in the first 5 minutes and it is not produced by Disney, or a musical.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    Adam Driver.

  • source