What's the most recent movie you've seen that did/didn't live up to the hype?

[Everlong]

DID: Boyhood. Man, that movie was fantastic. I'd heard nothing but good things and was not let down at all.

DID NOT: The Fifth Element. Some of my friends have long said that this is one of their favorite sci fi movies. It was on Netflix so I gave it a shot... and it was utter shit. Honestly have no idea what people see in it.

[Hanley!]

Funny you should mention that, because I just finally watched the Godfather for the first time and it did NOT live up to the hype. It was disappointing, because I was really into the first half of the film. Then just when I thought it was wrapping up, it went on for another hour and a freaking half. 90% of Mike's character development takes place in the first half of the film and it takes forever for him to go the last 10%. There were still some cool (and justifiably iconic) scenes towards the end of the film, but there was also a lot of filler and unfortunately despite all the good material it becomes a real slog towards the end.

It still wasn't bad, I did thoroughly enjoy parts of the film. If it had ended after 2 hours I probably would have given it an 8/10. But that third hour was a killer. I doubt I'd go back and watch it again.

On the flip side, I've seen a lot of films in the cinema lately which definitely did live up to the hype. The top of that list is Birdman, which was incredible from beginning to end. One of the best and most creative movies I've ever seen. I'd recommend everyone to check it out, so you can be as happy as I am when it wins all the awards at the Oscars.

[Everlong]

^ I just saw Birdman last week and have to agree, absolutely lived up to all the good things I'd heard about it. I was sort of concerned because I know it's the sort of movie that is going to split opinion, but I thought it was absolutely brilliant.

[Matteo]

I watched Birdman last night and I have to slightly disagree with you two. From a technical viewpoint, it's clearly remarkable - Lubezki is one of the most talented cinematographers of his generation, and this work further solidifies it (although I slightly do prefer his work when he's actually working with photochemical film as opposed to digital; they're less gimmicky, better lit, and just have more of conceptual vision). Considering how many long takes there were in the film, the choreography, blocking, timing and precise, meticulous framing were simply impeccable, however. It's hard to fathom that a film of this prodigious technical ambition was only shot in thirty days.

In saying that, as much as I appreciated the 'mechanics' of the film, it's simply one that I could not emotionally be invested with. I did not care for what happened, and I found myself more engrossed with the technicalities of the film than I did the narrative. Perhaps this comes down to my (somewhat excessive) observant tendencies when it comes to photography and editing in film, but it clearly didn't have enough at its core, story-wise, to keep me engrossed. As good as Keaton was, I can not openly jump on the bandwagon by calling it the best performance of 2014 - Ralph Fiennes in The Grand Budapest Hotel, Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler and Guy Pearce in The Rover were considerably better performances, in my opinion. In fact, I don't even think he gives the best performance of the film - Edward Norton stole the show.

I think this one fits under the "a film I admire more than I love" category. It's brilliantly edited, photographed, VFX-rendered, and directed, but its story simply left me cold and ambivalent. With all that being said, it's great to see a relatively unconventional, uncommon and ambitious film get recognition by the Academy Awards. At least it brought something new to the table, and you have to appreciate that.

[Hanley!]

^^ I knew as soon as I heard about the gimmick of Birdman, that a lot of people would pull themselves out of the film by constantly looking for the cuts. Maybe that happened a little with you, given you're so interested in the film-making process. Personally, I was worried about the gimmick making the film seem too ... well, gimmicky. But once I saw the film I was 100% behind the decision.

In my opinion, every choice made in film making should be in service to the story, and that was definitely the case with the "one long take" decision. For starters, it was just really appropriate for a story that revolves around the production of a play and it helps the audience grasp just how easy it is for something to go wrong. It also makes the film feel like a stream of consciousness. Seeing fantasy mixed seamlessly with reality informs us of how deep Riggan's mental problems really run.

I actually got quite heavily emotionally invested too. I understand why not everyone would have that reaction, but I really empathized with Riggan. The movie portrays the struggle of the artist better than any film I've seen before, with Birdman representing his uber-confident and arrogant side, and Riggan representing his insecurities and his desperation for approval. I thought Keaton carried this difficult role wonderfully, and as a writer I really empathized with it.

I do think that I'd give Keaton the nod over Fiennes for Best Actor. Fiennes was great, but Keaton's performance was more layered. I might have had Gyllenhaal beat both of them, but sadly he wasn't even nominated.

[Everlong]

^Fiennes isn't nominated either, which is a travesty IMO.

[Hanley!]

^Fiennes isn't nominated either, which is a travesty IMO.

Wow, I didn't realise that.

Gotta make room for Bradley fucking Cooper again I suppose.

[Everlong]

Yeah seriously, Cooper's ok and all but whose dick has he been repeatedly sucking the last few years?

[Matteo]

@Hanley! - Yeah, admittedly, I was being very technically observant with the one take gimmick, but not to the extent of it hindering my investment with the film. I definitely tried to spot the cuts and was very attentive to its use of framing and blocking, but I don't think it was that much of a distraction. I've seen more stylistically unconventional films than Birdman that were more conspicuously gimmicky, for lack of better word, but I was still nonetheless invested with them.

It's strange, though, because it's a really thematically interesting film. The subjects and notions explored in the film, which you briefly touched upon, are one's that genuinely appeal to me. A few of my favourite films are similar both on a thematic and conceptual level, so why I didn't like it more is well beyond me. I am also a heavy proponent for the long take - in today's editorially rushed and snappy filmmaking industry, it's refreshing to see works that actually utilise the effectiveness of the long take and don't sporadically cut every 3-4 seconds. I am open for a rewatch, however, and I expect to revisit it sooner rather than later. I feel like I missed something huge.

@Everlong - AMPAS (the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences), those who actually nominate and subsequently vote for the winning films ever year, has over 5500 members. Cooper must be sucking a lot of dick. A lot. It's also very politically motivated and stylistically biased, hence the historical disregard towards horror and science fiction films in the main categories ever since its inception, among other flaws.

[flock u]

may be somewhat controversial but I'll say The Dark Knight Rises. I really liked the first two Nolan Batman flicks but the third one while I enjoyed it too it didn't blow me away like the others and felt like more of the same.

[Hanley!]

That's not really all that controversial. The third film just wasn't that good and a lot of people made similar comments about it. It didn't tell a great story and there were plot holes everywhere.

[Viazon]

Birdman. Saw all of the critical acclaim it received and hoped it would be awesome. And it was.

[Hanley!]

I saw Whiplash today and it was very good. In fact, it was exactly what I was expecting. It definitely lived up to the hype.

[Everlong]

I saw Whiplash today and it was very good. In fact, it was exactly what I was expecting. It definitely lived up to the hype.

SO good!!

[Westcoastvibes]

Lucy - the idea of what would happen if someone could use 100% of their brain intrigued me and to envision that on film would be tough for any director just because its on of those things that is open to interpretation. The cgi effects ment to aid in the storytelling were over done and distracted from the story, some story points that made no sense and IMO, a shitty ending killed the movie for me. I was invested until the final 30 mins then it just went from believable what if to Matrix WTF levels.