Some Nolan stuff.
Inception: I understand it, it's just extremely convoluted and dumb.
Oppenheimer: It's a movie with 95% dialogue, and he decided to put loud droning music under every conversation so you can barely hear the people talking.
The dark knight trilogy: I just can't take batman seriously in it. The voice is so silly, and the pointy ears just look really out of place in this very serious take.
Anyway, I do like some of Nolans movies, these are my pet peeves.

Forest Gump. The 1994 Best Picture nominees were some of the most highly competitive the Academy has ever had, and they went with the one that was just a straight-up terrible fucking movie. It has no value except as nostalgia bait for Americans and propaganda for those who want to believe in the myth of American individual exceptionalism.

Its musical score is also probably the worst thing I've ever had the misfortune of performing in an orchestra. Dull and repetitive.

And its most famous line is straight-up bullshit. I've heard the book does it differently, but the movie puts "something that kinda sounds deep to a 14 year old" over a level of rationality that stands up to 20 seconds of thought from an average person. A box of chocolates tells you precisely what you're going to be getting.

Lucifer. My sis loved it and I hated it with a passion. I don't think Ellis is any good in it and they're just relying on him (and the other actors) being hot instead of actually telling a decent story or making enjoyable characters.

Mortal Engines. I have not read the source materials.

Amazing concept, fantastic visuals, weak story, weak characters. Apparently just accidentally spliced in the end of Return of the Jedi instead of finishing the movie.

Napoleon dynamite was fucking garbage and don't think it should have ever existed. No humor and barley anything. Honestly feel like the movie rubber was better

Borat.

Supposedly it's a comedy, but it's completely devoid of humor.

Oppenheimer.

It's probably an interesting movie, but holy shit each shot is less than 3 seconds long and it just cuts around to different camera angles every 3 seconds for 2 hours...

Not only was this making me feel physically sick and disoriented, but this erodes tension in the film and is completely unnecessary. You don't need 14 shots of someone walking down a damn hallway or having a think, you need one (1).

Take all that shit out and you're probably left with a story worth actually telling.

Elf.

Once you’ve seen the first 3 minutes and get the premise, then the entire rest of the film is so predictable in its jokes and situations that I derived absolutely zero pleasure from watching it and it just grated the entire way through.

Films can be funny because the initial premise leads to really entertaining, unexpected or clever situations… or a film can super straight up and shallow in its humour.

I really don’t get why Elf is so incredibly popular.

Saving Private Ryan

I like Spielberg, but compared to others in the war drama genre like Band of Brothers or Full Metal Jacket, SPR is laughably bad.

The tone of the movie, trying to be more inspirational than realistic, was awkward at best. Acting was pretty mediocre, probably because the script and characters were 1 dimensional.

It completely disregards the historical context of the war. You could watch this movie and learn absolutely nothing about the history of WWII.

Now Band of Brothers. That was some amazing retelling of true war stories. It wasn't trying to be inspirational. It was just honest about the chaos and brutality of war. That made it harrowing heartbreaking, infuriating, and inspirational all at once.

The English Patient. Sex in a tub? That doesn't work!

Oh I have another one. Thor Ragnarok. People loved it because they liked the Thor character and found his earlier films too dull or something, but I loved that they were unapologetically serious about themselves, using comedy in ways that felt very authentic to the characters.

But Ragnarok? It came out later the same year as this excellent essay about bathos, and it was dripping in it. I was hyper tuned to the problem with bathos, and it leaned even harder into that took than nearly any other MCU film did.

What sucks so much is that it had the bones of a really good dramatic story. The Bruce Banner/Hulk storyline had built up over multiple previous films, and come the climax of this film it's established that he's in Bruce form now and has enough control to stay that way, but if he transforms into Hulk it'll be a big deal and he may never be able to be himself again. So they arrive in Asgard at the climax of the film and it's pretty urgent. In a dramatic moment you can see him steel himself to make the sacrifice; he jumps out of their aircraft onto the rainbow bridge, clearly intending to transform into Hulk to fight Fenris.

…and he splats. Faceplants on the bridge. Still in human form. It's played for laughs. The ultimate conclusion of Hulk's story in this movie and probably the most important moment of his arc over the entire MCU to this point, and it's undercut by a joke. Not even a very funny one. A slapstick joke that would make Charlie Chaplin cringe.

And it means nothing, because the very next shit, he's transformed anyway and throwing Fenris around like a doll.

Not to mention it undermines the verisimilitude of the movie. I can suspend my disbelief in these movies pretty hard, but Bruce Banner, in human form, is meant to be painfully average, physically speaking. He should have died from that fall, given he didn't transform. That's certainly not the worst thing about the moment, but it is was the sprinkling of salt on top of the wound that just made it that little bit worse.

That moment was the worst bit, but the film as a whole was full of lazy humour and bathos, and it was really just the worst example of what was wrong with a lot of MCU movies at the time. I was shocked to hear so few people came away disliking it in the same way I did.