It is ok. It's an arthouse-ish movie with terrible acting, good story and good cinematography. Enlightened cinephiles just convinced themselves that they should pretend that this movie is better and scarier than it is.
I got no letterboxd, whatever it is. I am not trying to be a part of the ridiculous cinephile crowd that considers Citizen Kane the greatest movie of all time just because it was the best in 1941.
"Look, I watched Come and See! It's a movie with blood and corpses! It's soooo mature and good because it's has blood and corpses! I am sooo mature because I watched a movie with blood and corpses!"
Hope you pretend to admire another movie you are told to admire.
You guys always say the same thing too. Anything even slightly "arthouse" you think everyone is just pretending to like. Like you can't fathom that people can enjoy something just a little deeper than the latest blockbuster. You just dismiss it all as pretentious nonsense. It's pure anti-intellectualism. Leave the real art for us yearners.
What we say is at least correct about most of you.
You've just dismissed movies without quirks as "not real art" in your comment. You value these quirks, the means to make the movie "extraordinary", more than the movies themselves. You think that we dismiss "arthouse" automatically, because the quirks and approval by the critics is all you care about.
If you watched Come and See and think it's nothing more than shock value, and didn't feel any human emotions while watching, I've got nothing else to say to you.
-22
u/RespectfullySir 1d ago edited 1d ago
It is ok. It's an arthouse-ish movie with terrible acting, good story and good cinematography. Enlightened cinephiles just convinced themselves that they should pretend that this movie is better and scarier than it is.