• strypey@lemmy.nz
    1·
    15 hours ago

    Can’t believe nobody has mentioned Wag the Dog (1997), The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009), or Sorry to Bother You (2018).

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      267·
      10 days ago

      Idiocracy is a funny movie that I enjoy. However I’m disturbed by the number of people who say it’s a documentary, or a warning. That’s because the central premise of the movie (that humans breed wrong and if nothing is done, we’ll devolve and society will collapse) also happens to be the central premise of Eugenics.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        222·
        10 days ago

        Hey, at least in Idiocracy, once they determined the guy to be smarter than everyone else, at least they put him in charge of things…

      • SavvyWolf@pawb.socialEnglish
        146·
        10 days ago

        Honestly, I’m kind of put off watching the movie due to those weird eugenicsy undertones… Feels like one of those “i am very smart” Reddit people looking down on the “lesser masses” and saying they shouldn’t reproduce.

        • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.eeEnglish
          201·
          10 days ago

          I don’t think the movie in any way calls for eugenics.

          If anything it called out how toxic ignorance and stupidity can be in the presence of someone who just wants to do the right thing. It shows how corporate greed and capitalism encourages stupidity to further it’s goals of creating basic labor for the corporate machines owned by billionaires to exploit.

          But hey, that’s just like, my opinion man.

      • GlenRambo@jlai.luEnglish
        71·
        10 days ago

        My spouses family is dysfunctional with many many kids and more on the way.

        She’s the only functional one and its unlikely we will have kods of our own.

        The premise tracks.

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          6·
          9 days ago

          Not at all how I see it. It’s not eugenics its education, well the lack there of, that made the world in idiocracy.

          • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.oneEnglish
            32·
            9 days ago

            The movie maybe. But that intro was basically divorced from the rest of the movie.

            The intro suggested that stupid people having kids was the reason humanity started evolving backward. It invoked natural selection and “survival of the fittest.”

            The intro even labeled the low birth rate couple and high birthrate couple with IQ scores to illustrate this point.

            You argue that that the movie attributes the stupidity of its world to societal shifts. It does. It does a great job laying out a progression from late stage capitalism to idiocracy.

            But that just further highlights how unnecessary that intro was. The intro attributed the stupidity to something entirely different.

            • Jarix@lemmy.world
              6·
              9 days ago

              Just watched the intro. I’m not really on board with the eugenics angle even after watching it. It’s more social darwinism than eugenics.

              Eugenicists as ive always thought of it is an intended or active pursuit of creating “better” humans(or whatever species).

              One factor I see being a difference between natural selection and unnatural selection. Unnatural selection being eugenics, and natural selection being what a result of an environment having an effect on the evolution of a species.

              The intro Primarily sets a path of one group having more children than the other group and i will concede it the intelligent couple having problems having kids misrepresents the rest of the movie while still giving the audience a vehicle to how the future they wanted to craft could happen. And it also is meant to be entertainment not just exposition.

              Would be very interested in an in depth response from Mike Judge and the rest of the filmakers. Would be an interesting use of AI/Deepfake to redo the intro if it actually wasnt intended to invoke a eugenic view of the future

  • Sequentialsilence@lemmy.world
    553·
    10 days ago

    I always say everyone should see requiem for a dream, but no one should watch it. That film does more for stopping drug abuse than any government program ever did.

  • kubok@fedia.io
    532·
    10 days ago

    I find it inconceivable that no one has mentioned ‘The Princess Bride’ yet.

    • TipRing@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      10 days ago

      Main-lining high grade depression. It’s my go-to threat when someone tells me they think anime is ‘too silly’ to watch.

    • DaleGribble88@programming.devEnglish
      5·
      10 days ago

      Great film - I think the world would benefit from more people watching it. But it is so depressing, I don’t think it is a film everyone should watch.

  • rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio
    34·
    10 days ago

    “12 Angry Men” (1957) is a personal favorite that I recommend to pretty much everyone. Great messages about questioning assumptions, challenging biases, understanding the limitations of evidence, acknowledging imperfections in the justice system, and the consequences thereof.

    The movie is also cinematically interesting to me because it feels “small”. The entire movie just about takes place in one room, and the events of the film transpire over the course of one afternoon.

    • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      9 days ago

      In the beginning of 12 Angry Men everything is shot from above eye-level with wide-angle lenses, giving everything the feel of more space, but as the film progresses it transitions to tighter shots with telephoto lenses from lower angles. The film gives the viewer more and more of a subconscious sense of tension and claustrophobia as the story progresses.

      At least one stage adaptation of the story gave a similar effect over the course of the show by slowly tightening the lighting and having the walls of the set physically move inward, too slow for the audience to take notice but enough to subtly affect the entire atmosphere and really drive that feeling home.

      • rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio
        3·
        9 days ago

        That’s so neat; I’d never noticed that before. And the walls closing in on the stage adaptation is really clever

    • Eleyson@lemmy.world
      3·
      9 days ago

      I’ve seen this movie 3 times, each viewing several years apart. Each viewing solidified this movie as my personal favorite, I would go in thinking I’ve already seen this, it can’t have the same wow factor. Nope, I would end up loving it even more. Can’t recommend this enough!

  • all-knight-party@fedia.io
    32·
    10 days ago

    Top Secret, by the same guys who did Naked Gun. I think it’s somehow actually funnier on average than Naked Gun, even though that one’s great, too.

    Basically, I don’t know if a human could watch it and not find it fucking amazingly funny. So dense with jokes, so creative with the execution, so many funny practical effects, you’re constantly astounded that they created props and sets for such absurd humor, and it really works.

    • hactar42@lemmy.world
      5·
      10 days ago

      I’m not the type that can watch the same movie or show over and over. This movie is one of the rare exceptions. I watch it at least 2-3 times a year.

      It masterfully blends music, jokes, and action without a dull moment. It’s amazing how they can make you laugh your ass off with dry humor while Aretha Franklin is belting out a Respect. Not to mention having Ray Charles, John Lee Hooker, James Brown, and Cab Callaway all perform. And of course the car chases. Oh man, nothing can top those car chases.

      • Quazatron@lemmy.world
        4·
        9 days ago

        The way they casually throw in a bazooka wielding character with zero introduction is just hilarious.