A Most Violent Year : Never trusting imdb ratings again

First Foxcatcher and now this, i only watched both because of the imdb rating and i just cannot believe its rated so high, i guess if a movie has good acting it must be AWESOME because thats all this movie had, literally NOTHING happens, just like foxcatcher aka a whole lot of nothin. I could not beleive the whole movie was about buying a piece of property, 2 hours of trying to buying a piece of propery and the movie gets a 7.5? please someone explain what was so good about this movie

a violent year and i think i saw 2 maybe 3 "violent" scenes if u even wanna call getting punched in the face violent.

The movie sucked, but critics and pretentious cinephiles love to praise boring cinema. If a film is slow and hard to understand, then there must be something there that only a very discerning eye can catch. It's BS. I call it the "'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome.

"Cinephiles" don't love this movie. I think the praise 'A Most Violent Year' and 'Foxcatcher' are receiving is for the acting not for the overall film. This happens every awards season.

'A Most Violent Year' and 'Foxcatcher' both lack any real drama or tension. The challenges the lead characters must overcome aren't very interesting or uncommon. Theses stories did not need to be told.

---

I think the praise 'A Most Violent Year' and 'Foxcatcher' are receiving is for the acting not for the overall film.

---

I agree with this, although I didn't particularly think the performances in this film were that strong. They were decent, sure, but they weren't noteworthy. Having seen Foxcatcher too, I would say Steve Carell is just about the only thing worth seeing that film for.

I found this film very neat and tidy but, as you say, there was no real drama or tension.

This thread perfectly shows how people's film expectations have become influenced by today's prevalence of CGI, outlandish action sequences, and contrived melodrama.

When a movie comes out that actually conveys real life struggles, with an air-tight script and beautiful acting, they dismiss it as boring. Sad.

This thread perfectly shows how people's film expectations have become influenced by today's prevalence of CGI, outlandish action sequences, and contrived melodrama.

When a movie comes out that actually conveys real life struggles, with an air-tight script and beautiful acting, they dismiss it as boring. Sad.

this post proves that you like to categorize people to make it simple for yourself..
and it proves my point that there is a big crisis in the movie industry today where a movie just by good acting and directing get praised into the sky,
watch more movies and classics is my advice to you

Oh I watch plenty of classics. Too many, actually.

But agree to disagree.

I just simply think there's a huge difference between "boring" and "engaging." To each their own.

---

This thread perfectly shows how people's film expectations have become influenced by today's prevalence of CGI, outlandish action sequences, and contrived melodrama.

When a movie comes out that actually conveys real life struggles, with an air-tight script and beautiful acting, they dismiss it as boring. Sad

---

.

Sadly, you are correct. Go look at the messageboard for MOST WANTED MAN as well as FOXCATCHER and MOST VIOLENT YEAR. Three of the better movies this year, and they are trashed on imdb by folks who think TAKEN PART 9 is what a crime movie is all about. Unfortunately, that's what you get with a generation brought up on hyper action and special effects overkill.

This not the case. For my self, I admire drama that respect viewers. For instance, I enjoy watching Ingmar Bergman philosophical themes, love Kurosawa's original deep ideas (e.g Stray Dog), love Stanley Kubrick thoughtful works. But this movie does not give me that impression, neither reflect the level of even a convincing cinematic work. Besides, one can feel that someone bribed imdb to label it as an action movie just to attract as many viewers as they can.
But hear me everybody loudly: This not an ACTION movie. NO WAY!
If it's good and special piece of work, then why describe it as action at all! It seems like fraud, and who did that does not have the confidence of the making of this film.
In addition, I really did not feel the acting was touching or even fortunate. Oscar Isaac was not bad, but nothing so special in his performance. Jessica Chastain was bad and made some mistakes. Albert Brooks was below bad in a way I thought he was just reading the lines. Although the story could be somewhat interesting, but the director killed any chance to make the work more appealing. If this is the new genre of "reality", then we better wait the apocalypse soon. Cinema is an artistic entertainment, so it is a combination of art and entertainment, no one should stray away of this course.
In normal cases, I would give this movie 5 or 6 marks, but as long as treachery of "Action" is there I give it 1. If the "Action" genre is removed, I would give my 5 normal mark.

So why exactly are you judging a movie based on how an outside, independent source chose to categorize it? How exactly does IMDB's decision to classify it as "action" affect the actual quality of the movie?

It does not. He's just pissed.

How facile to immediately categorize anyone who doesn't love this film as part of a generation only interested in CGI and "hyper action". Talk about a sweeping generalization!

I'm a film buff-I started watching independent films in small theaters in NYC in the 1970's and watch TCM religiously. Isn't it enough for you to simply state why you enjoyed this film without putting down people who did not? I find your reaction pretentious and childish - In essence you're sayingbecause we did not enjoy the same film as you, we lack a certain taste level and further, we all must be part of a generation, "only interested in CGI". This has become the go-to on IMDB-rather then providing a short critique of why you enjoyed the film, put down people who did not. Yawn.

Please get over yourself.

Icy,

The fact is that many critics of this film do present indications of preferring the CGI loaded kind of film. You may think that does not apply to you, but it is a common enough situation that it is fair to remark upon.

I disagree.

I agree.

Agreed.

---

* I killed god! Well me and the internet did.

---

I was responding specifically to the OP's hyperbolic complaint that "nothing happens" in the movie, which is as big of a mischaracterization as anything else posted in this discussion.

But it's cute that the mere mention of CGI got you all riled up.

People's standards for what constitutes a compelling drama has clearly changed over time. That's the only point I was trying to make, which clearly went over your head.

You get over yourself, buddy.

I figured this would be a movie in the genre of the movies I grew up with: Goodfellas, the godfather movies, once upon a time in America etc


Compared to those movies, yes, barely anything happens, this movie looked at those movies, decided to copy the style and setting, but then leave out everything that made those movies exciting to watch.

THe fact that people get riled up when you mention CGI is because that has become the go to argument that people use when they want to portray themselves as more sophisticated and when they want to belittle other peoples opinions on movies.

And this movie my friend, is boring!

---

conveys real life struggles

---

I remember my acting teacher once telling uspeople don't come to the theatre to see "real life struggles." They come because they want to see drama. Without drama, without motivation a story falls apart. This is exactly what happened here.

A Most Boring Year has no drama, no tension. Yes, there are moments when you believe something is about to happen, but thennothing. This is especially disappointing when you consider the director (competent), and the actors (remarkably talented).

Film wise it's a dud, so performance wise you'd hope that the actors could make up for it and make it worthy viewing. I will say this film didn't leave me angry like after I wasted my time watching Big Eyes and Cake, but it still left something to be desired. I found myself highly disappointed in how Jessica Chastain was completely wasted in this. The awards buzz for her performance is highly confusing.

---

Yes, there are moments when you believe something is about to happen, but thennothing. This is especially disappointing when you consider the director (competent), and the actors (remarkably talented).

---

Thats why its a missed oppurtunity
case closed

I totally agree with you. There are no dramatic moments at all in this "drama", LOL. This is a well acted and well photographed movie. Oscar Isaac's performance especially is extremely engaging. The storyline is based on good premise, but the fault is with the director and the script writer in putting the movie together so the final product looks tepid and flat. What a pity.

---

A Most Boring Year has no drama, no tension.

---

I disagree completely. This film took something as boring and lifeless as the local oil business of NYC and turned it into a race against the clock with deception and just enough action to feel believable. I felt transported to that most violent year of 1981 as I watched, I was truly immersed in something that in real life, I'd give very few *beep* about.

A film is another dimension of portraying reality. Even good films of the fantasy genre have real human emotions at their core. This escapism thing is an excuse to trash good films and maybe prefer bad flashy films (action and melodrama). Pop culture has spoilt people with making films that have too much happening, with most of them hardly making sense and turning them into AD action/drama craving ones.

By your post, I guess you'd find it hard to like Italian Neo-realist and Minimalist films at all, there's very less happening in those films superficially, but have the ability to be profound.

YES to this. A fine, thoughtful film. If you missed the tension - you might be a little numb.

I hated it. I complained/explained my reasons on these message boards about it.

I find it hilarious that the people that enjoyed it are the ones offended by my opinion of the film. "oh no, he just wants action and explosions.. his opinion shouldn't count!" lol please. I won't even go there.

Am I upset that some people enjoyed it? Lord no. In fact, I'm glad someone walked away with the feeling of enjoyment from this film. I personally thought it was boring as hell.

You people will just have to find a way to live with that, won't you?

You hit the nail on the head. Well played sir/ms.

An air-tight script? About as air-tight as swiss cheese, perhaps
Why would a couple of guys try to hijack a truck in a rush hour traffic jam on a bridge when in real life trucks get hijacked on lonely streets, with the cooperation of the driver.
When the sales kid gets beat up, he just disappears. Who attacked him? Why didn't the cops visit the house where it happened?
Where was Julian hiding in the winter, and why did he know to show up at the terminal?
Anna got five minutes from the DA before the search; how did all those boxes of papers get onto the deck? Are the cops so stupid that they wouldn't look there? Or wonder where Abel had got to?
Why didn't the guy just dump the stolen oil before the cops showed up? How long would it have taken the DA to get a search warrant anyway, assuming he had just believed Abel.
And so on
The movie made gestures at real-life problems, but it came off like something on Lifetime: bad writing, no visual imagination, no rythm. Imagine what Cassavetes, the Dardennes, or Martin Scorcese would have done with it.

ONE X,youre right and thats the main reason this movie flopped big time,because of the lousy script

The director wants us to watch the police as the week side in the whole story, so that's way its "a most violent year". Oh, it's boring presentation.

So if you were looking for those scenes you must really need everything explained and fleshed out for you, am I right?

Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.dendelionblu.me

Agreed!

You're making huge assumptions about the type of people who didn't like this movie.

It has nothing to do with this movie conveying "real life", or a lack of CGI. The story, frankly, was just dull. Movies like this need ample tension, or they just fall flat, like this movie did. The stakes simply didn't feel high enough.

---

When a movie comes out that actually conveys real life struggles, with an air-tight script and beautiful acting, they dismiss it as boring. Sad.

---

Not to mention, gorgeous, shaky cam-free cinematography.

And agreed.

You know what I found boring? Guardians of the Galaxy.

Originality needs a reboot.

Good post. The moving away from what Film should be,with depth,acting,directing, scripting,lighting,and art,to simple-minded created moments of loud noise and imaginative visuals.

Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley

It isn't boring when you pay attention to the movie. Great movies flow by dialogue, and this is about as good as it gets, besides the ending which I admit, could have been stronger. I understand that people find movies like this and Killing Them Softly boring, but they flow so well, and the stories are amazing. People don't rate these movies well because they're pretentious, they rate them well because they are fantastic films, unlike films such as X-Men or The Gambler remake. I assure you, it isn't BS.

Also, the film is not hard to understand at all if you listen. You can easily build inferences off the explanations in the movie.

I saw the ending as the strongest part it showed how both of them were really trying to do the thing that is "most right" but are also totally corrupt.

coulda been told in 11 minutesliked the look at not much else


~I see a little silhouette of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango.

LouisSnow likes to bash the pretentious critics, but he's on the pretentious message boardthus, being pretentious.


Shutting theup, would be the way for you to go.

---

The movie sucked, but critics and pretentious cinephiles love to praise boring cinema. If a film is slow and hard to understand, then there must be something there that only a very discerning eye can catch. It's BS. I call it the "'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome.

---

Isn't it interesting that the posts criticising others for pretentiousness always seem so arse-numbingly pretentious themselves

The Adventures of The Man With No Penis: http://tinyurl.com/8ezrkh

Totally, maybe.
Anyways my update. I didnt watch the movie yet, but the scenes I skipped through looked really boring, lol. Need to be in a totally chilled mood to watch that, movie`s probably slow as *beep* tho, lolz.

this just shows how big the crisis is in the movie industry today,
when the acting is good it get praised into the sky

Guys this conversation is really stupid. Acting is 50% of the film. Cinematography, art direction and script is the other 50% one might argue. If the acting is terrible then the movie fails. There is no saving it, regardless of star power for SFX trickery. However, if the acting is strong and rooted in realism and the screenplay isn't swiss cheese, then the film at least has a chance to shine given the other necessary conditions are in place.

Good film, not full of the BS shoot-em up car chases people seem to find entertaining. Realistic and a good period piece, gave you a taste of early 80's NYC.

Nothing in this film gave a taste of early 80's New York. Absolutely nothing.

You suck.

Quite possible the strangest critique of a movie i've ever read. You have convinced me I need to see this. When a person that doesn't like a film indicates the acting is good, I that says alot. For me writing and acting are the components that define a great film. Thanks for giving me a reason to watch it. I don't need super heroes, vampires or special effects to thoroughly enjoy a film. Sure things like good pacing, editing, score and camera work are very important, but i'll take good acting over the big budget summer popcorn movies any day of the week.

Just because the acting wasn't terrible, does not mean it was fantastic either. The story told in this movie is extremely boring. And the ending is what put a nail in it's coffin for me, personally.

I have yet to figure out WHY this story needed to be told. It really seems like a pointless film in my opinion. And the way some people seem to defend it with the "oh it doesn't have CGI/hyper-action = GOOD FILM!" please. Just stop.

The decent-ish acting performances from the cast do not carry this film or it's story. And the plot of it is misleading as you get. This film was aimed and marketed at people who like mob flicks. During a time in New York when the mob was at it's best (so to speak) and it turns out to have nearly NOTHING to do with them.

I'm glad some people enjoyed it. But I too understand the movie just fine, what it was trying to convey to the audience and I can honestly say it was a massive failure with the exception of the cast's performance which was just okay - not great, by any stretch of the imagination.

Gave it a 5/10