The Lobster?

I am so confused... people actually like this movie? It was hhoorrrrribbbbllee. I spent 80% of the movie wanting to get up and leave and yet here is the critical consensus on RT: "As strange as it is thrillingly ambitious, The Lobster is definitely an acquired taste -- but for viewers with the fortitude to crack through Yorgos Lanthimos' offbeat sensibilities, it should prove a savory cinematic treat."

"Offbeat sensibilities"?? That's putting it a bit mildly, wouldn't you say RT? A very sour, very bitter, borderline demented exercise in viewer punishment for the sake of ... of what? What was the point of that movie? As far as I could tell it was some sort of absurd, silly (in a not at all amusing kind of way) social commentary on societal constructs. The movie has a 90% rating. I just.. I don't even.

At least The Road To Wellville was entertaining throughout its ridiculous romp. The Lobster was just downright unpleasant, deranged and depressing.

diferent people have diferent tastes get over it

Hellbent said:

The Lobster was just downright unpleasant, deranged and depressing.

In other words: It was a film made for critics, not for the audience. For some reason these people seem to like that stuff...

72% of the audience liked it O_o according to RT.

Sounds like it was a pretty good movie

It was a horrible movie. I implore you to not see it.

That just means you hate lobsters.

There are no lobsters in the film.

I don't trust review sites anymore. I've been to great restaurants that scored poorly on yelp, despised video games that scored well on video game review sites, not concerned with things ranted about on tumblr, etc.

Most people don't know what they want.

Hellbent said:

There are no lobsters in the film.

Colin Farrel is a total lobster if ever I saw one.


I mean just look

http://cdn-img.instyle.com/sites/default/files/styles/428xflex/public/images/2012/TRANSFORMATIONS/2002-colin-farrell-400_0.jpg?itok=tGBkGj8U

It got 4 stars in the metro paper. It was supposed to be wonky and creative, not necessarily give you a message to take home and apply to your life

Hellbent said:

There are no lobsters in the film.

You were just so enraged by the film that you had a stroke and hallucinated, clearly.

I wasn't aware there was a film named The Lobster. The world just passed me by!

40oz said:

I don't trust review sites anymore.

Here's a tip: If you really want to get a good opinion about something, do not read the positive reviews - read the negative ones!

More often than not they contain more useful information to form your own opinion, Good ones tend to lose themselves in the reviewer's bias far too often.

I'm not too sure that's sound reasoning.

Final Score: 0/10

still one of my favourite image macros

Hellbent said:

There are no lobsters in the film.

What a ripoff!

Hellbent said:

It was a horrible movie. I implore you to not see it.

Maybe you have horrible taste. I'll see it to spite you.

So, uh.. What's it about?

Kirby said:

Colin Farrel is a total lobster if ever I saw one.


I mean just look

http://cdn-img.instyle.com/sites/default/files/styles/428xflex/public/images/2012/TRANSFORMATIONS/2002-colin-farrell-400_0.jpg?itok=tGBkGj8Uhttp://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-lobster-02.jpg

The resemblance is uncanny.

Doomkid said:

So, uh.. What's it about?

Lobsters

I was gonna copy pasta the RT synopsis but the writer clearly saw a different film than me.......

What it's *really* about is a guy who recently became single and has enrolled at a retreat center where he has 45 days to find a wife or he will be turned into a lobster. The setting of the film is a dystopian world where everyone is autistic and lives in painful isolation, making occasional, awkward and uncomfortable stabs at "connecting" to another human being. This might be endearing or even just tolerable if there was even a remote shred of humanity, or even just a hint of emo, underpinning the direction and tone of the film but there is absolutely none, just sad, pathetic people living in absurd, dire circumstances in a strange "retreat" (read: fascist prison camp) center where they are treated like animals during the 45 days left that they have before being turned into the animal of their choice.

The tone of the film is very heavy, in that *every shot* is dark and oppressive; even shots that feature a sunny day have been filtered to look dystopic, dire and depressing. That RT describes this film as a "savory cinematic treat" is patently absurd. This is a dark film; a dark comedy that is too dystopic with no possibility of redemption or hope all the way up to the very last scene; painful to sit through. How anyone got anything of value or entertainment from this film is beyond me. Yes, there are a couple scenes that are humorous but in the context of the strange, deranged dreamscape the film takes place in these nuggets of humor do little/nothing to buoy the film from its dire hellscape reality. Did I mention that the film is dire?

Graf Zahl said:

Here's a tip: If you really want to get a good opinion about something, do not read the positive reviews - read the negative ones!

More often than not they contain more useful information to form your own opinion, Good ones tend to lose themselves in the reviewer's bias far too often.

I've seen many negative reviews boil down to "it isn't like this, so it sucks".

Graf Zahl said:

Here's a tip: If you really want to get a good opinion about something, do not read the positive reviews - read the negative ones!

More often than not they contain more useful information to form your own opinion, Good ones tend to lose themselves in the reviewer's bias far too often.

I actually do do this with most films I go to see but the trip to the Lobster was a bit spontaneous and I knew nothing about the film going into it.

Graf Zahl said:

Here's a tip: If you really want to get a good opinion about something, do not read the positive reviews - read the negative ones!

More often than not they contain more useful information to form your own opinion, Good ones tend to lose themselves in the reviewer's bias far too often.

There was more to that post too. >.>

Reviews aren't very useful on either side of the spectrum. Many people were very vocal about not liking the new Doom but I found it to be very enjoyable. The things they disliked were negligible to me and didn't hurt the experience for me much at all, despite how fixated they were on it. Sometimes when I read a review about a restaurant that is especially critical about the food and atmosphere, if you read into it, the heart of the problem is that they had a sucky waitress who no longer works there, and they were fluffing out their review to give it more merit. The restaurant is very good otherwise.

There's a lot of dumb people out there and you should take everything you read with a grain of salt.

Reading user reviews - negative or positive - do require you to have some ability to parse through text and see what's relevant to your needs. Whether a stranger recommends something shouldn't matter. What's important is the content. Positive reviews may tell you what's to like, but chances are you already have an interest in the item, else you wouldn't be here. At best they'll solidify your decision to purchase. But then, if you were on the fence, you really want to look for the dealbreakers, elements that would definitely ruin your experience. This is where negative reviews come into play.

I think it's better to see a video review. That way, if there's anything objectively wrong with the game like glitches or other such things, you can usually see it in the video if the reviewer actually bothers to show that as they're talking about it.

Graf Zahl said:

Here's a tip: If you really want to get a good opinion about something, do not read the positive reviews - read the negative ones!

More often than not they contain more useful information to form your own opinion, Good ones tend to lose themselves in the reviewer's bias far too often.

That's a responsible attitude to have when deciding on which car, dishwasher or software to buy. There's a good chance objective, non-negotiable flaws will be reported and you'll avoid a bad buy of something you need to work reliably.

However it's a poor advice when it comes to movies or music. First of all, de gustibus non est disputandum. One's favourite flavour is another's kryptonite. Secondly, if you're compiling a list of pros and cons before watching a movie, you'll probably hate it anyways, because you're already fixated on the flaws and let's not forget spoilers. Lastly, if you saw someone review a dishwasher the way Hellbent reacts in the OP, you'd probably think the person has brain damage, or they're putting dishes into a washing machine. It's an emotional outrage that tells us very little beyond "I hated it its buuulllllhsiiiiiiit!!!"

Tl;dr don't read negative reviews, read reviews by people you trust, because they have similar taste to yours.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/lobsters-mental-20160505108584

lol @ this thread now being about how to read reviews correctly

Hellbent, from your description, I'm honestly curious to see some footage. The plotline sounds pretty much ridiculous and not my type of film, but still, I'm curious now.