The 25 Most Misunderstood Movies Ever Made
The fact that the film is misinterpreted cannot always be explained to audiences: director François Truffaut famously suggested that it was almost impossible to make an anti-war film, since the director’s job was to create compelling characters and situations. this inevitably makes war exciting. You can extend this thinking to creating compelling villains and anti-heroes: Michael Douglas’s Gordon Gekko, Oliver Stone’s notorious Wall Street stockbroker, became a hero to many who took his satirical catchphrase “greed is good” literally. It’s true that sometimes filmmakers do too good a job, undermining their own point of view by making their bad guys too convincing. Darth Vader had one of the largest body counts in cinematic history and still ended up on every child’s lunchbox. Marketing can also be a challenge; trailers teach us to look for a certain type of movie, so once we’re in the theater it can be difficult to see anything else. A film that looks like a failed horror film can seem brilliant if we realize we’re in a comedy – think Evil Dead 2. We’re trained to limit our expectations, and sometimes that just requires being more open-minded.
So which films are the most misunderstood – deservedly so or not? In answering this question, I tried to keep fairly objective interpretations and avoid overly complex fan theories ( The Shining isprobably not about the moon landing ). And I’ll start with a disclaimer: no truly interesting film can be subject to one interpretation – even if the writer and director say it’s about one thing, some viewers may have a different opinion. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that there may be things you haven’t considered. (You’d be wrong if you buy this piece of The Shining /Moon Landing, however.)
Starship Troopers (1997)
Starship Troopers is a hugely entertaining adaptation that takes simple source material—in this case, Robert A. Heinlein’s 1959 novel—and satirizes it by taking it at face value. This is some pretty shocking literary criticism disguised as a sci-fi B-movie, turning the novel’s themes on their head. At the risk of oversimplifying Heinlein, the novel (with an almost identical plot) suggests that war is inevitable and that military service may be the best cure for general moral decline. Director Paul Verhoeven, who grew up in the German-occupied Netherlands, called it nonsense (while claiming he couldn’t even finish the book). Instead, he created a wildly over-the-top satire that highlights possible fascist interpretations of the novel, opening his film with a “tribute” to Leni Riefenstahl and including a series of Nazi-inspired propaganda segments. The main characters, without any remorse, treat alien “bugs” of any cruelty and medical experiments, because, after all, they are enemies. Many early reviewers called it a mindless spectacle or outright praise for fascism; they clearly didn’t get the joke.
Where to watch: Netflix, digital rental.
Skinamirink (2022)
I’m not sure what people expected when they went to see the cult film Skinamarink , or how they interpreted it afterwards, but the relatively low audience rating compared to the fairly decent reviews from critics suggests that many viewers were various shades of unimpressed and/ or dissatisfied. embarrassed. I think part of the problem was managing expectations: it’s very difficult to describe the film’s plot because there’s virtually none – we’re entering a world filled with atmosphere and atmosphere. Before this work was completed, screenwriter and director Kyle Edward Ball ran a YouTube channel where he created short videos based on user-submitted childhood nightmares. Skinamarink , filmed in Ball’s childhood home, expands the nightmare into a feature-length film and, on that level, makes perfect senseless sense, capturing the sense of disorientation and fear so common to early childhood. Apart from the work of David Lynch, I can’t think of any other film that better captures the feeling of being at sea in a world designed for adults.
Where to watch: Hulu , Shudder, AMC+, digital rental.
Fight Club (1999)
To what extent should a film be responsible for its fans? I’ll spare you a rundown of all the real-life fight clubs that have sprung up in the years since David Fincher’s 1999 film, but a quick internet search reveals that there’s probably one near you if you’re so inclined. Like the various men’s meet-up groups that sprang up in the mid-’90s, Fight Club seemed to so many viewers as a call to reconnect with a certain type of standard masculinity—take off your shirt, make some soap, and conquer the crap of other guys just to feel something . Tyler Durden became a hero. The thing is, this is not at all what writer Chuck Palahniuk intended; The book on which the film is based makes the case that replacing numbness and capitalist materialism with the bullshit of typical American tough guys is a similar exchange. The film may have failed because Durden became too seductive (his plan to eliminate credit card debt also has a certain appeal), but the film ends with Ed Norton’s narrator using a gun to free himself from Tyler Durden’s influence. This is something that many viewers seem to have missed.
Where to watch: Hulu
The Shining (1980)
Where to start “The Shining” ? It’s a film that both defies explanation and has spawned enough interpretations to inspire an entire other film (Rodney Asher’s Room 237 ) that delves deeper into pet fan theories. The biggest misunderstanding here has to do with what the film is supposed to be. Stephen King was notoriously unhappy with the adaptation of his book, a (very) largely autobiographical work about his struggle with alcoholism. The character of Jack Torrance, played in the film by Jack Nicholson, represents the central point of view of the book, struggling in the early chapters to overcome his own demons and achieving redemption in the final act.
There is no such sympathy for Jack in the film. From the outside looking in, except for the character’s internal monologue, he is just a bully and an abuser. It’s fair that Stephen King was disappointed in the portrayal of a character that so closely mirrors his own struggles, but the film doesn’t try to be the story of a man stymied by trauma and substance abuse (and possibly ghosts). ; it’s about what happens to an asshole when he’s freed from the constraints of society. It’s true that he doesn’t have many personality traits, but that’s by design: he’s a bastard. Horror is faced by those who have to live with it.
Where to watch: Shudder, AMC+, digital rental.
Barbie (2023)
Even many of Barbie’s most dedicated fans consider it to be a purely pro-feminist film – and of course it is, but the meaning is a little more complex. Margot Robbie’s Barbie embarks on a journey of self-discovery in the real world, discovering how she has been stifled and limited by the world’s expectations of a beautiful doll, while Ryan Gosling’s Ken discovers a world of male privilege and toxic masculinity. Many have embraced the anti-male message, but the film takes both characters on the same journey: both Barbie and Ken realize they are limited by cultural norms; experiment with violating these norms with mixed results; and gradually discover that their best qualities have nothing to do with what is expected of them. Without discounting the film’s feminist messages, it’s important that both characters start out and end up in very similar places – it’s all about being themselves.
Where to watch: Max , Digital rental
Artificial Intelligence Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Oh look, this is another Stanley Kubrick project. The late director was known for his attention to detail; he acquired the rights to Brian Aldiss’s 1969 story “SuperToys Last All Summer” in the early 1970s with the intention of creating a film version, which he continued to work on until his death in 1999. The director was considering the possibility of some kind of collaboration. with Steven Spielberg on a project in the early 1990s that never came to fruition, so with the full support of Kubrick’s heirs, Spielberg returned to it, writing a script based on a treatment by writer Ian Watson that Kubrick had commissioned. The result is a fascinating mixture of styles that leaves audiences and critics wondering how much of the film belonged to each director.
One thing that was discussed at the time was the fairytale ending, in which Haley Joel Osment’s robot child David would finally be able to experience one last day with his human mother Monica (Frances O’Connor) in the distant future. Some viewers thought that the mysterious creatures that made the reunion possible were aliens and therefore most likely an addition to Spielberg (the director had a known penchant for friendly aliens, especially before War of the Worlds ). But no! These are not aliens, but highly developed robots. What’s more, the seemingly happy ending is actually incredibly bleak: David barely becomes the “real boy” he wanted to be, and his affection turns out to be just programming, satisfied by a recreated, completely false version of his “mother.” “Gloomy things – and pure Kubrick, if you put him through Spielberg’s gauze.
Where to watch: Paramount+ , MGM+, digital rental.
American Psycho (2000)
I think most audiences understood this, but American Psycho received a lot of criticism early on from viewers and critics who found its ultra-masculine ultra-violence not only repulsive, but offensive. These interpretations are complicated by the fact that the film is based on a book by Bret Easton Ellis, a figure who is not entirely uncontroversial in his own right. However, the film’s satirical style is clearly exaggerated, and director and co-writer Mary Harron made it clear that her intention was to mock and bury misogyny rather than celebrate it.
Where to watch: Netflix, Tubi, digital rental.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Stockbroker and con man Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) has a great time throughout most of The Wolf of Wall Street , running around like a madman, living a luxurious and wild life at the expense of other people. Scorsese invests a lot of time and energy into making Belfort look cool, or at least like it would be fun to be him, and then blows it all up by depicting the character’s downfall, gradually incorporating violence and sexual assault, and laying out the cost. to the victims. In the finale, Belfort is released from prison and off to lecture, but it’s presented as just another con, ending with a shot of an adoring audience turning a mirror on us and asking us to consider why we ever thought this asshole was cool (or should make a movie about him).
Of course, an argument can be made that Scorsese went too far in depicting the salacious parts of Belfort’s life and not far enough in showing the value of his victims, but this vitriol makes clear that his intention was never to glorify the criminal.
Where to watch: Paramount+ , digital rental
Taxi Driver (1976)
The story eluded both Taxi Driver and Martin Scorsese. Starring Robert De Niro as Travis Bickle and Jodie Foster as the underage sex worker he “rescues”, the film includes an assassination attempt on the President by Bickle – and quite inadvertently inspired would-be real-life assassin John Hinckley Jr. to shoot the President Reagan. to impress Foster. All of this, and the string of “scared white man” vigilante films that emerged in the ’70s, influenced Taxi Driver ‘s legacy, and the controversial ending led many viewers to conclude that the violent Bickle should be seen as a hero. . Of course, Bickle is portrayed not as an outright villain, but as an aloof outsider from the Vietnam era; The media briefly praises him at the end of the film, which is meant to be ironic: if Bickle had succeeded in his murder plans, he would have been treated very differently. In subsequent years, both Scorsese and writer Paul Schrader have spoken about the ending’s perceived ambiguity.
Where to watch: The Criterion Channel, Prime Video.
Child’s Play 3 (1991)
A completely different film than Taxi Driver, but also colored by real events; in the case of Child’s Play 3, the horrific murder of a two-year-old boy by two 10-year-old children in Merseyside, England. The British press arose the idea that the children, when committing the murder, recreated a scene from the film, but investigators did not find such a connection – they established that the killers had not even seen the film. The resulting moral panic nevertheless led to laws being passed, and the film never escaped the shadow of the murders.
Where to watch: Tubi, digital rental.
Land of the Dead (2005)
As with Day of the Dead , George Romero’s earlier zombie film that grew in popularity over time, the zombies here are smarter and more interesting than the shambling hordes of yore. While critics have focused on the class issues this sequel raises (they’re right there on the surface), they’ve often missed the broader, more existential themes: zombies are shown developing their own society, and we’re encouraged to sympathize with them. them when people attack. Romero seems to suggest that humanity, as such, is essentially beyond redemption. Zombies may not be the end of everything, but a new (better?) beginning.
Where to watch: Starz, digital rental.
Serbian film (2010)
Upon its release , A Serbian Film earned a well-deserved reputation as one of the most depraved films ever made. This alone has created a cult following for him, although it is indeed difficult to sustain for various reasons. However, many reviewers missed the film’s stated subtext: Srdjan Spasojevic spoke of attempts to draw parallels with the strife in the Balkan world after the collapse of Yugoslavia and, in particular, to satirize what he considers the scourge of political correctness ruining Serbian film. The film was not censored in Serbia, which has no real film censorship laws, so the depictions of child rape and necrophilia seem to be an extreme exaggeration of its case. Subtext doesn’t necessarily make a movie good or worthwhile, but here we are. As New York Times film critic A.O. Scott : ” The Serbian film revels in its sheer inventive horror and challenges the viewer to find a deeper layer of meaning.”
Where to watch: Vudu, digital rental on Fandango at Home
Jennifer’s Body (2009)
How do you sell something like Jennifer’s Body ? This is a problem with almost any movie that mixes genres or otherwise breaks the rules, and it always hurts the box office. Like many such films, this one has become a cult classic over the years, which may or may not be any consolation to those who initially lost money on it. The film uses horror and violence to empower its female teenage characters, but was blatantly mis-marketed to focus on their sex appeal, completely ignoring the feminist themes and intentions of Diablo Cody’s script and Karyn Kusama’s direction. Its modern cult status confirms that it eventually caught on with some audiences.
Where to watch: digital rental.
(500) Days of Summer (2009)
Viewed as a deliberately traditional romantic comedy, 500 Days is quirky, if a little off-putting. The non-linear narrative hides some things, but a rewatch reveals that we’re not really meant to root for Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Tom Hansen, who projects his own fantasies and desires onto Zooey Deschanel’s Summer Finn and never really… not really interested in her point of view. . The best interpretation of his character is that he is a little delusional; at worst, he’s a jerk, giving the final line (“Autumn”) a whole new layer of chilling irony.
Where to watch: Hulu , digital rental.
Inception (2010)
This is the same top, right? Totems like the metal top let the characters in Christopher Nolan’s mind-bending modern classic know whether they’re awake or deep in their subconscious. In the final minutes, Leo DiCaprio’s Dom Cobb spins a top (if it spins and stops, it means one thing; if it spins endlessly, it means another), but chooses not to stick around to see the result – we, as viewers, don’t know the answer either. Audiences have debated the character’s fate ever since, but that binary choice is largely irrelevant: as the film suggests, and as Christopher Nolan himself has stated (more or less), reality can look different to different people, and outside observers aren’t the best suitable for judging someone’s subjective reality. So while the debate over the totem is interesting, the ending of the film does not depend on whether the top falls or not. Ultimately, the point is that it doesn’t matter.
Where to watch: digital rental.
Juno (2007)
Abortion, a safe and well-established medical procedure that has been legal in America for a very long time, has been such a pressing issue that we are often on the hook when it comes to any image. Any movie or TV show in which a character seeks abortion will of course cause controversy, but depictions of characters choosing to carry a child to term may also raise eyebrows. For example, the pro-choice Madonna was a conservative darling for a very (very) short time when her 1986 song “Papa Don’t Preach” featured the title character keeping his child. Juno raised similar questions, given that main character Juno (played by Elliot Page) considers abortion before giving up her baby for adoption. While screenwriter Diablo Cody has largely avoided debate on the topic, letting the film speak for itself, she has made it clear that she is strongly pro-choice, and that the decision was just that: a decision that Juno made and had to make. right to do.
Where to watch: Hulu
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
America’s favorite feel-good Christmas movie has surely always been the kind of dull, fuzzy experience families could put together without controversy? Not really. The film was a bomb when it was first released and did not become a big hit with audiences until it was shown on television many years later. Quite shockingly dark subtext aside (very few family classics deal with the brink of death by suicide), the film also became a problem for the feds. Although conservative Republican Frank Capra was hardly known for his left-wing views, It’s a Wonderful Life came under scrutiny for its mistreatment of poor, maligned Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore). The field agent reported the following to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover :
Regarding It’s a Wonderful Life, [the informant] essentially stated that the film was a fairly obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a “Scrooge type” to make him the most hated man in the world. image. According to these sources, this is a common ploy used by communists.
The report goes on to suggest, rather hilariously, that Mr. Potter was simply a conscientious banker simply doing his job and should have been treated as such (I’m waiting for the montage of this movie where the villain is George Bailey). So here it is: what you thought was a Christmas classic safe for the whole family is actually an insidious communist treatise. You have been warned.
Where to watch: Prime Video
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Spanning millennia, Stanley Kubrick’s classic has left audiences scratching their heads for over 50 years, and its well-deserved status as one of the true classics of American cinema means we’ll likely continue to be scratching our heads in the future. The purpose of the film in many ways is to provoke thought, as well as to evoke a special sense of awe at the course of human evolution. While it would be nearly impossible to suggest that anyone in particular misunderstood the film (there are only so many ways to get there), it’s also not the case that the basic plot of 2001 is completely incomprehensible. Stanley Kubrick himself gave a pretty good and simple overview in a 1969 interview with film journalist Joseph Gelmis. It’s not just pretty lights and weird walks in space; its reputation as an incomprehensible mess is completely undeserved.
Where to watch: Max , Digital rental
Into the Wild (2007)
In this case, the film makes its presence felt quite clearly, it’s just that the audience didn’t hear the message. This is understandable: the story of the real Christopher McCandless (aka Alexander Supertramp) finds an adventurer, disillusioned with modern American society, setting off into the desert. Who doesn’t know the desire to escape? But McCandless, never fully prepared for his journey, died out in the wild at just 24 years old. In the film, he comes to the realization too late that running away from the problems of the world has left him without any meaningful human connections that are vital to survival. However, the film inspired many viewers to follow in its footsteps , but not all of them survived.
Where to watch: digital rental.
Josie and the Pussycats (2001)
As befits any Parker Posey film, Josie has achieved cult status over the past 20 years, partly because of its wacky charm, but also because it seems more relevant than ever in its satire of the crass commercialism of mass entertainment. At the time of the film’s release (when it made zero dollars), critics and audiences alike generally lost sight of all this, and the film’s continuous product placement came under particular scrutiny. Every scene has at least one extremely visible element of brand representation – that’s the joke! And yet many did not agree with this. But it’s not a case of the film biting the hand that feeds it—according to the film’s co-director and co-writer Deborah Kaplan speaking on the DVD commentary, although the filmmakers needed to get approval from the brands featured, they didn’t pay any of them.
Where to watch: digital rental.
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985)
Long considered the bastard son of The Nightmare series, Freddy’s Revenge largely avoids connections to the larger Freddy-verse and shows little respect for the rules laid down in the original. In many ways, this is a transitional film, connecting the earlier, more existentially terrifying Freddy with the wisecracking trickster of the later films; here, Mr. Krueger makes his way from dreamland to reality through hormonal teenager Jesse (Mark Patton). This allows for some impressive body horror, but also ties into the film’s strange subtext. Often sweaty, often shirtless, Jesse runs from his girlfriend into the arms of his best friend Ron. He meets his trainer at a gay bar; later this coach was essentially spanked to death by Freddie in the shower. It was all supposed to be unintentional camp, but the stars (Patton and Robert Englund) as well as writer David Chaskin have since made it clear that they at least knew exactly what they were doing, and the weird subtext was definitely there essence. The then-reclusive Patton wasn’t always happy about it, and he explores his experience in the documentary Shout, Queen!
Where to watch: digital rental.
Spencer (2021)
Although the film received mostly positive reviews and earned Kristin Stewart her first Oscar nomination for her role as Princess Diana, Spencer did not do particularly well, perhaps in part because no one knew how to market it. It was marketed as a simple biopic, but paying audiences were treated to something more surreal and impressionistic, a film that takes on undertones of horror as it attempts to convey the protagonist’s state of mind. One scene in particular that left some viewers confused involves Diana and a giant string of pearls, which Diana destroys and then eats. Many viewers took to Google to question whether the moment reflected a literal event (which, of course, it did not), although it may have been inspired by Cleopatra’s legendary pearl-eating sequence . No pearls were harmed in the making of the film; Stuart was eating chocolate .
Where to watch: Hulu , digital rental.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)
Truman Capote was disappointed with the film version of his 1958 novella, starting with the role of Audrey Hepburn (he imagined Marilyn Monroe). The story is mostly remembered as the frothiest of all the classic romantic comedies, but it’s easy to forget that while it tones down some of the novella’s more risqué elements, they still linger in the background, albeit less overtly portrayed. If not a sex worker, Holly Golightly is still a woman who is generously paid by the men she befriends; she’s also still a former child bride who was a stepmother to four children as a teenager. The film’s pop culture reputation glosses over a lot of this, but there’s a lot more darkness and complexity on screen than Audrey Hepburn’s famous poster suggests. (Of course, the less said about Mickey Rooney’s Mr. Yunioshi, the better.)
Where to watch: Paramount+ , MGM+, Prime Video.
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Place this character in the category of toxic Wolf of Wall Street characters redeemed by a charismatic performance: Alec Baldwin’s Blake, known for his “coffee for those closest to him”, is an overly intense and rather cruel motivator for four real estate salesmen: Following with a torrent of verbal abuse, he informs our hosts that only two of them will survive the month. Blake, whose role was greatly expanded in the film version (an adaptation of David Mamet’s play), is seen by some as the film’s protagonist: an energetic and forceful presence among the bumbling salesmen. However, it’s complicated here: David Mamet has switched political affiliations quite dramatically since writing the play, going from a self-proclaimed liberal to a die-hard MAGA voter , a big fan of unchecked capitalism, and a hater of abortion and homosexuals ( all pedophiles , you know). So while it appears that this film and Blake’s character have been misinterpreted, it’s likely that a modern-day David Mamet will agree with you if you tend to see him as a hero.
Where to watch: Netflix, Peacock , digital rental
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
After several years in the Hollywood wilderness, during which she was called “box office poison” (along with several other once-popular actresses who weren’t as profitable as they once were), The Philadelphia Story was Katharine Hepburn’s big comeback. , teaming her with Cary Grant and James Stewart. There’s no doubt she’s at the center of the film’s love triangle, but the script also confounds her: the actress whose power made her popular in the early ’30s failed to connect with more conservative audiences of later times. decade, and so in The Philadelphia Story, her character Tracy Lord doubts herself and comes to the realization that her perfection and strength threaten men and do her no good. It’s all perfectly timed to enhance Hepburn’s appeal without sacrificing the sass and power that made her a star in the first place – and it was all very much by design. The original play was written for Hepburn, who provided financial backing to get the play off the ground. When the show became a success, she acquired the rights and sold them to MGM, giving her veto power over almost every major aspect of the production. It was a hit, and also a bit of sleight of hand: the film that ultimately softened Hepburn’s image was actually one of the biggest power moves in Hollywood history.
Where to watch: MGM+, digital rental.