What is your unpopular flim opinion
What is your unpopular flim opinion
I'll go first. Mine is that I can't stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It's like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds
Films where I don’t recognize a single actor among the whole crew are almost always better than ones where I’ve seen such and such actor in other movies. Just more immersive. And even if they’re not the best actors I’d much prefer that over whatever the hell Chris Prat or Tom Cruise or Leo D are up to.
I knew being faceblind must have some benefit. I often only realise I know an actor when I see their name in the credits. Then again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses, so I wouldn't entirety recommend it.
en again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses
I’m not face blind, but this is the reason I never watched another Mission Impossible movie after the first one: Every single male in that movie looked identical to me, and I couldn’t follow any of the plot line(s?), as I never knew who was doing what to whom. I can only imagine how annoying it must be when that’s the norm.
My experience watching The Departed while almost entirely sober felt like a face blindness simulator. I was baffled when one of the characters that had been killed came back and none of the other characters acknowledged it. Cool movie but so confusing.
I'm somewhat faceblind but great at voices. There's no escape. It also totally ruins a lot of animated shows and movies because a very small number of voice actors get a majority of the work.
So many well known actors play themselves playing the character.
Brand/name recognition + marketing.
It's part of the blockbuster model, which does everything it can to reduce risk. Before the 70s, studios would go bust when an expensive movie flopped. Studios became very risk averse, especially for the expensive stuff. So they make a sequel to a movie that's done well, or a plot similar to that of a movie that's previously done well, based on an intellectual property that sold well in another medium(comic, book, tv-show, ...), in a genre that's previously done well with audiences, starring actors people previously liked, preferably very attractive actors so that audiences like looking at them, pushed by a saturation marketing campaign that gets as many people to watch it on the opening weekend as possible, so that if it sucks they can't tell their friends not to go and see it. It's like McDonalds. It's not the best meal you'll ever eat, but you know what you're getting, so you won't have wasted two hours or your life, or shit yourself after eating it.
Also, video killed the radio star. It's rare to be incredibly beautiful. It's rare to be incredibly talented. It's incredibly rare to be both. If you have to pick one, pick the incredibly beautiful actor, who looks good on posters and in promotional material. Acting isn't that hard. Even a pretty moron can be a passable actor.
Tom Cruise has employees rewrite movies he'll be in to make his part more, and more in his style.
He has more acting range and ability than so many other actors
Especially when there are a few examples of amazing actors that you can know and still sometimes struggle to recognize them in their characters. Like Gary Oldman, and ... uh... OK well I'm not in a movie headspace, but he's not the only one!
Tons of lesser names that play great side/background characters and it's hard to tell, too, so I totally agree others need chances at lead characters.
Those are the actors I'm never tired of because their characters are almost always unique characters.
This is basically what I told people when I started to watch some of the most amazing international and documentary cinema in the early 00s. Ciudade de Deus, La Cité d'enfants Perdus, Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain, La Vita è Bella, Der Untergang, Lola Rennt, 올드 보이, Mononoke Hime, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Whale Rider. Documentaries by Adam Curtis or Errol Morris. So many people just don't know.
True to an extent, there are a few famous actors out there who are genuinely good at taking on different roles and immersing you in the character. A great example is Jim Carrey. Obviously I know Ace Ventura and Truman Burbanks are the same person, but it doesn't feel like that when you're watching them. They might share similar qualities, but they're clearly different characters.
Anthony Hopkins is a better example IMO. Or goddamn Gary Oldman...
I don't know who Chris Pratt sold his soul to to get voice actor work, but I'm hating it and now hoping he disappears like 90% of the 2000's actors.
If it’s an actor with a mansion then I know they didn’t spend enough on the actual movie
Terminator is better than Terminator 2, and as cool as it is Terminator 2 should never have been made (or should have a different script).
I know the mob is raising the pitchfork, but hear me out, there are two main ways time travel can solve the grandparent paradox, these are Singular Timeline (i.e. something will prevent you from killing your grandfather) or Multiple Timeline (you kill him but in doing so you created an alternate timeline). Terminator 2 is clearly a MT model, because they delay the rise of Skynet, but Terminator is a ST movie. The way you can understand it's an ST is because the cause-consequences form a perfect cycle (which couldn't happen on an MT story), i.e. Reese goes back to save Sarah -> Reese impregnates Sarah and teaches her how to defend herself from Terminators and avoid Skynet -> Sarah gives birth to and teaches John -> John uses the knowledge to start a resistance -> The resistance is so strong that Skynet sends a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah -> Reese goes back to save Sarah...
The awesome thing about Terminator is how you only realise this at the end of the Movie, that nothing they did mattered, because that's what happened before, the timeline is fixed, humanity will suffer but they'll win eventually.
If Terminator was a MT then the cycle breaks, i.e. there needs to be a beginning, a first time around when the original timeline didn't had any time travelers. How did that timeline looked like? John couldn't exist, which means that sending a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah was not possible, Reese couldn't have gone back without the Terminator technology, which they wouldn't have unless the resistance was winning, and if they are winning without John, the Terminator must have gone back to kill someone else and when Reese went back he accidentally found Sarah, impregnated her and coincidentally made a better commander for the resistance which accidentally and created a perfect loop so that next time he would be sent back and meet Sarah because she was the target (what are the odds of that). Then why is the movie not about this? Why is the movie about the Nth loop after the timeline was changed? The reason is that Terminator was thought as a ST movie, but when they wanted to write a sequel they for some reason decided to allow changes in the timeline which broke the first movie.
Horror films are where art flourishes and it has a huge culture of being outside of Hollywood which is just a plus. Also the acting is usually way better
I'm not sure whether to update or downvote. The first sentence doesnt seem too controversial, but hoo boy you nailed it on the second lol
Screw it, upvoted.
Amazing, every word is wrong
Most horror movies have worse acting than a porno.
There is no accounting for taste. Who's to say what's a better actor?!
I think you’re right and maybe that’s why I prefer horror movies so much over literally all else. And to your point about being outside of Hollywood, I really appreciate it when I don’t recognize any of the actors. It makes it much more immersive for me. Usually much better camera work and lighting too. And Less CGI - atleast the better ones. I hate it when the whole screen is just really good animation :(
Ouiji was the worst offender of this. The first half of the movie, it’s got some of my favorite subtle directing in it, keeping you on your toes, then BAM. Halfway through they’re showing the creature in full view and it’s some generic black goo. Not scary at all. Would have been way better if the horror never showed its face.
Horror is a divisive genre, because it has some of the higher highs, but also many of the lowest lows.
I never really watched any horror movies until this October we binge watched almost 40 movies from that genre.
I agree, some of the absolute greatest films are from that genre, and you can find very interesting stuff from there if you dig a bit.
I'm now kind of mad at how I didn't find Evil Dead earlier in my life. Or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre...
Evil Dead 1&2, Army of Darkness are some of my favorite movies growing up. Just rewatched The Howling and it was good but not as good a American Werewolf in London. Friday the 13th and the Hellrazor series were awesome. Lost boys etc. The Gate. Pet Cemetery, Sometimes They Come Back and Cats Eye I thought were great Stephen King adaptations. I really enjoyed The Cube for its creativity and small set.
Still its the SciFi horrors get me the most. Alien series was awesome and Event Horizon were awesome. Something about having nowhere to escape to I think.
I like The Last Jedi.
That should be controversial enough.
I think this is more popular than you think. Most serious SW fans appreciate Rian Johnson's attempt to take the franchise somewhere it had never been before, storytelling-wise, and the shitty retcon-fest that was ROS seems to have made it better by comparison. I've seen plenty of people online say it's the best aged film out of the sequel films.
Love TFA. Love TLJ. Love parts of ROTS but it's.... rough. Not a movie I'll choose to rewatch without a really strong reason. Most of it is so disjointed. You can tell there were so many ideas that were cut from the movie and things that were put together in ways that weren't. Then there's that fucking dagger...
The movie was alright.
“Somehow the emperor returned” was terrible.
“Somehow the emperor returned” was terrible.
Okay. Rise of Skywalker is a walking pile of dog shit that has a wildly inconsistent take on everything. However. I have never had a single problem with that line and I am stunned so many people did. That was a rebel talking to other rebels. Why, exactly, would they know anything about how Palpatine returned? Dude was on a planet out in the middle of uncharted space. I literally cannot think of another way for them to tell each other that Palpatine returned without evoking vague imagery like that. They literally do not know what happened.
All I could think of when he said that was, Princess Bunhead in Thumbwars: "I escaped somehow, let's go!"
Remember when they snuck off on some escape ship to go get help for their crew in imminent danger and then decided to dick around on some horse racing casino planet? It's like they completely forgot why they were there. I thought TLJ had some neat ideas but I don't know how anyone can overlook that weird loss of urgency in the middle of the film. It's like your house is on fire and your family is trapped upstairs, so you run over to a neighbor's house to call the fire department, but you discover that they got some dog fighting thing going on in the backyard so you decide to go deal with that first, then you call the fire department but it turns out the dispatcher was in cahoots with the arsonist who started it in the first place, and then you return home with your tail between your legs and your mom didn't even know you had left. The whole second act could have been a dream sequence and it wouldn't have changed a thing.
If you rip out everyone involved in the casino planet, you have a really cool dark and surprising twist on the franchise. The only really interesting things in the whole trilogy happened in The Last Jedi
I didnt hate it, i just thought it was too predictable.
Liking a film that 91% of critics gave a positive rating is controversial?
Best film from the 9. Has a very good story and leaves you wondering what is going on. It was exactly what it needed to be and did it in some new ways with older call backs. Seriously such a good flick.
Last year's DnD movie is the best film of the last ten or so years. It succeeded on every level, except in the box office.
My hypothesis is that Hasbro insisted on branding it "Dungeons & Dragons" to push the brand, and non-gamers figured it wasn't for them. If they'd have made the main title "Honor among Thieves", all the game nerds would have seen the DnD logo, and others wouldn't have been turned off *. As it stands, people will find it and it'll become the new "Starship Troopers" that bombed but shines forever in retrospect.
* See "Arcane".
Tarantino is overrated. You have to watch a lot of movies to come to this realisation, because otherwise you don't realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies. Movies which did what he does better. That means that it doesn't actually matter that Tarantino is overrated for most movie goers. More generally, this is why critics' opinions don't actually matter that much. They've watched too many movies and likely know too much about movies, to tell the average audience goer if they'll enjoy a movie.
Once you've watched a few thousand movies, and especially if you've ever studied film or read a few books about it, you'll often find you enjoy interesting but shit movies more, than very well made but unoriginal movies. People who truly love film, invariably aren't snobs. They enjoy absolute trash, they enjoy arty farty stuff. If someone has a related degree or even a doctorate or works in the industry, the likelihood is high that they're also a fan of B-movies. They don't need to pretend to be knowledgeable, because they are. A film snob will bore you with the details of a Tarkovski movie. A cinephile is more likely to bang on about 80s horror movies, lesbian vampire sexploitation movies, Albert Pyun's Cyborg, or Troma's The Toxic Avenger.
I enjoy Tarantino movies. It all boils down to: are they solid fun entertainment or not, and to me the answer is yes.
Someone else did it better elsewhere? Sure, and he is very forthcoming about his influences. So if you're a fan, you'll likely find his sources and enjoy those too. Win win.
Oh, don't get me wrong. You're not wrong to enjoy them. They're still fun to watch.
It's just that IME they're less 'great' if you've watched a lot of the movies they're based on.
Also, Tarantino is an excellent stepping stone to discovering some great stuff. He's a true film nerd, so he knows his movies.
I would love to spend a night with him, sitting together at a kitchen table, him constantly ranting about movies and giving anecdotes, me pouring more wine...
I think this is the beauty of Tarantino.
This is how I've come to view anime. You can tell the age of an anime fan by whether they're enamored by the latest hit series or they sigh and go "this is just a remake of [old series from the 90s/00s]." I don't give a shit how well made a series is; if the premise is "been there done that" without an original take or twist, or a tired and worn trope gets trotted out (looking at you, every fucking series that includes a scene where a female character comments enviously on another female character's large breasts, yes Frieren that means you), then I'm insta-jaded on the series. At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who "aged out." For me, I knew it had gotten bad when I was struggling to enjoy Cyberpunk because I felt like I had heard all the voices before in previous series.
At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who “aged out.”
Very good point.
Can you recommend some of these films that his collage films consist of?
It's been a while, and he references dozens of movies, so much so that you're watching his movies and think "wait, I've seen this before" and then you're distracted by the next scene you've seen before. But off the top of my head Vanishing Point, Foxy Brown, Lady Snowblood, Bruce Lee movies, and the Dirty Dozen.
But don't watch those. I probably enjoyed Vanishing Point the most, Bruce Lee in Game of Death is also fun, but often they have a few good scenes, the ones that Tarantino copied (sometimes poorly), but the rest of the movie can be a bit meh. Instead watch Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, In the Mood for Love, Infernal Affairs, Unforgiven, and (why not) Enter the Void. Not that those are my favourite movies, but they're movies that shouldn't bore you.
otherwise you don't realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies.
Isn't that the definition of filmmaking? All movies are just collages of influences, style, and form. All art is a remix on previous forms.
It's okay to not like Tarantino, I don't care much about that, but your argument doesn't really hold up for me.
Almost all art is influenced by other art. But Tarantino very closely copies some scenes. Think a literal collage, made up of photocopied bits of another work, rather than a painting inspired or influenced by another work. Tarantino is honest about this.
It's a bit like Andy Warhol's Mona Lisa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Mona_Lisa
Is that a great painting? I quite like it, it's iconic, but it's not the Mona Lisa, and Warhol is not Da Vinci.
People who haven't watched a lot of movies, think Tarantino is Da Vinci. That he created an iconic scene, like Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.
People who have watched a lot of movies, realise he's Warhol. There's an iconic scene, but it's based on an original work, like Warhol's Mona Lisa.
There's nothing wrong with Warhol. Hell, it's ok to think that Warhol is a better artist than Da Vinci, think that Warhol's Mona Lisa is a better painting than the original Mona Lisa, art is subjective after all.
But it's a mistake to think Warhol is a genius, because he painted the Mona Lisa. He didn't. That was Da Vinci. If you're going think Warhol is a genius, you should think he's a genius because he took an existing work and manipulated it in a way that is genius.
I'm not sure I get your point, but I agree with your premise. Tarantino has made some ok movies but more often than not I find them boring, with poor acting and absurdly uninteresting story lines.
Every animated movie looks the same now
What do you mean? There are so many styles of animation, you mean like Pixar movies all look the same?
I really think they're re-using the assets for all the characters now, with slight tweaks from movie to movie.
Disney has been doing this for the last 80 years or so.
Join the dark side. Watch anime
The Mario movie was incredibly mediocre, despite its high production value. I'm talking MCU-levels of truckloads of money spent with shockingly little to show for it.
You mean the 93 movie? I loved that!
This is the only Mario film
When I first read this comment, I thought you were talking about Super Mario Bros (1993) and was about to throw hands. Because that movie is actually good, if deeply flawed. Its flaws make for a more entertaining movie altogether.
John Leguizamo is a hidden gem of cinema so the OG Mario punches way above its weight class.
If you like the YouTube channel "Some More News", you should check out their "movie". Yes, they made a movie and yes, it's out there at times, but the way it ties real world to the 1990s Mario Bros movie is so fragmented that when they finally connect all the dots, it's a mind blow!
Huge Mario fan here, I unironically think the 90s movie is better.
I wasn’t even born when that movie came out so don’t “hur durr nostalgia” me
Mediocre is too kind. The Mario movie was bad.
I took my kids. They kind of enjoyed it, but forgot about it almost immediately.
I finally watched it after hearing good things and wow, yep. Incredibly mediocre, cashing in on nostalgia.
I did enjoy the music, though, but probably mostly because of nostalgia and my love for NES/SNES Mario games.
Funny you mention the MCU because the audience for those movies is practically the same. For everything I've read and seen it basically sounds like a animated MCU movie
I'm still mad it basically kicked the DnD movie out of theaters. If it wasn't for all the hype for Mario, I think the DnD movie would have done a lot better, but that's partly their fault for choosing a terrible time to release a movie - a week or two before the biggest video game franchise of all time releases their movie.
The story feels rushed and incoherent. Characters without character and chemistry. It's a film in which every aspect of its production was solely determined by the amount of money that was put into it. If Jack Black can't save a mediocre film...
That "The Man from Earth (2007)" is the best movies there is. I recommend it to people all the time but no one seems to realise how profoundly interesting it is. And it doesn't need any scenery or special effects. It's literally just conversation and dramatic music, tuned to perfectly tell a story that touches on many philosophical questions. I just love that film.
I agree, and i think everyone i know that has seen it does so too. You should check out the one where they hop into a tent to travel through time(primer 2004) , it has a similar 'production value' vs 'delivering plot' ratio!
I just watched it, solely from your comment.
I really enjoyed that movie! Thank you.
Way too many good movies to have a single best, but that one is one of my favorites certainly. If I recommend it to someone I avoid any spoiling of the twist because it was so great when it happened. It might be obvious before that point for some, it came from left field for me.
And while I heard the sequel wasn't all that great, I felt that even if a sequel could be good it was totally unneeded. It'd be like trying to make a second Highlander movie, if one could even imagine that.
Thank you! I caught that movie on TV years ago and never knew the name.
I've seen this movie many times and introduced many to it. It's one of those movies that sticks with you. I think about it a lot, I find, drawing parallels to it all the time.
This is an incredible film! Forgot about it.
A lot of commenters agreeing and recommending this, so I'll probably look it up. That said, a movie where it's just talking with music, seems pretty obvious why most people avoid it.
I've watched the film and it's nothing more than okay. It's reduced to the point of being bland. The good script can't carry everything else that is mediocre at best.
Interstellar is a bad movie. The story takes too long, the supposedly smart characters are acting obviously dumb, and the whole "we solved it all along because we figured out timetravel" trope is the most lazy way to wrap up a story.
Oh and of course the small artifically built space colony near Jupiter does not care for fitting many humans, but instead is a shitty american suburb with lavish lawns. Because who needs to safe people from other cultures amirite?
it's actually spelled film
Gonna try to phrase this an inflammatory way:
People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are 'good enough', and they don't value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.
On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.
What would you consider a "bad movie," because I wouldn't consider a "tight plot" one of their shared features. Spectacle: absolutely, humor: frequently, tight plot: if only.
I see you've met my wife. Transformers is the pinnacle of cinema, but 12 Angry Men is boring as fuck because all they do is talk.
It's strange that you said that and then said you liked fury road. I thought fury road was the epitome of spectacle and production value with actual value.
I explain it like this: people assume beer is one product but most economists actually study it as two distinct products: mass production beer and craft beer. They actually behave like two separate markets. People like each for very different reasons. And consumer behavior is very different around both.
That's how I feel about Film and Movies. We may watch them both on a screen, but other than that they are very different things. And you can like both! I love the MCU films. But I don't go expecting intellectual expositions.
I also love Dead Poets Society, Hidden Figures, and Argo. Let people like things. Let people like different things differently. It's OK.
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a cyberpunk movie.
Mars is a dystopian, broken society in which cyberware is so ubiquitous that we only ever see one Martian without visible augmentation. Every character in the movie does what they do for purely selfish reasons, with the exception of the idiot Droppo, the old man Chochem who remembers society for what it was before it went to hell, and the mythological embodiment of generosity himself. When Chochem suggests that Mars needs a Santa Claus, the immediate response isn't to research and emulate St. Nick, nope. Martian society is so degenerate that the first idea is to commit a crime: to kidnap the jolly old elf. And all of Earth's governments are incapable of stopping them.
Cyberware, broken society, selfish characters, rampant crime, laughably inadequate government? What genre does that sound like?
When I pointed out that Santa Claus Conquers the Martians predates Blade Runner, the film that most people consider to be the first cyberpunk movie, by some 18 years, at a tabletop session of Cyberpunk 2020, I was less than popular with those assembled.
I decided to not press my luck by pointing out that it came out 4 years before the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
Hooray for Santy Claus.
The Godfather, extremely overrated and very boring. Saw it many years ago, and maybe my taste in movies have changed a bit, and I consider rewatching other movies I did not like, but not that one.
It insists upon itself.
Shallow and pedantic.
Agreed. I saw it many years ago so maybe should give it another shot, but someone would have to convince me it was worth it.
100%
The Godfather, extremely overrated and very boring.
Agree. I couldn't stand them - I have a sneaking suspicion it's just the glorified toxic masculinity that appeals to a certain group of people.
Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree.
I haven't read the comic books that they're based on for a long time, but as I recall, they also break the fourth wall. I don't think that that was introduced specifically for the movie.
googles
Apparently that wasn't always there:
https://screenrant.com/deadpool-fourth-wall-break-first-time-ever/
When Did Deadpool First Break The Fourth Wall?
Marvel's Deadpool is known for his over-the-top violence and crude and crass humor, but perhaps his best-known character trait is his penchant for repeatedly breaking the fourth wall. Deadpool talks to the audience in comics, films and videogames - but he didn't always have this power. In fact, early Deadpool was known for being quite serious and firmly rooted in the fictional realm...so when did the Merc with a Mouth first break the fourth wall - and how did he insult editors everywhere by doing so?
Deadpool and the assassin with superhuman accuracy Bullseye teamed up in previous issues, and in Deadpool #28, the two are reunited after a long absence. "How long has it been!?" Bullseye exclaims. Deadpool simply states "Issue sixteen." It's the smallest of fourth-wall breaks (he hadn't even began speaking to the readers yet), but it shows that Deadpool is doing more than acting out - he's acting as his own editor. Considering convoluted comics continuity, it's normal for editors to occasionally place footnotes in certain panels, specifically when characters reference past events. Perhaps Kelly and Woods considered the old method, but wanted to try a new technique. Whatever their reasoning, Deadpool's fourth wall breaks became a staple of the character.
Looks like Deadpool #28 dates to 1997, though, so Deadpool breaking the fourth wall has been around for over a quarter of a century.
I don’t think it’s OPs point that the movie did it first, just that it was annoying in the movie. And they're right.
The whole point of Deadpool is the self awareness though. You can find it annoying, it's not for everyone, but it's true to what the character has become.
The way I had it explained to me by a friend who's into his comics (I'm not a comic reader) is that his regen abilities + cancer basically damaged his brain and made him insane which is why he "thinks" he's a comic book/movie hero. Not so much that he's breaking the 4th wall but that he's talking at it like a crazy person. He even has multiple personalities that I wish they'd introduced in DP2! It was hinted at when he's reunited with Vanessa in DP1 when he says "and now the moment I've all been waiting for"
Filming on film and showing in the theater is wildly outdated and unecessary. At the same time we have reached so much bloat in digital content that even the act of sorting what is worth watching takes a lifetime and feels disappointing. It also feels like a guantlet to find anything for a rewatch to the point I give up and just do other things like write tepid takes on lemmy.
I love the first Dune book, and I love the goofy 80's Dune movie, which was pretty close to the book in terms of getting a lot of the internal dialog in place. But I hated the new Dune movie. I didn't like how sterile and empty they made the palace, or the weird anus mouth design of the sand worms. Or the silly use of balloons to help lift harvesters. I very much didn't like how they made Lady Jessica an emotional mess, instead of being in control of her outward emotions, as she was trained to do.
They also screwed up the personal defense shields REAL BAD. The idea that the shields react to kinetic energy, so a fast moving project from a firearm would get stopped, but a slow moving blade would pass through. The fight near the end had people being killed by fast sword strikes by hitting the shields, it was just so jarring and lazy. They also completely misrepresented who and what the Sardukar are. Based on how many people loved the movie, I have an unpopular opinion. Though I found that most people who absolutely loved the movie hadn't seen the original movie, or read the first book, so they didn't know anything to color their impression.
I prefer flam over flim.
I found Inception to be stupid AF. It looked amazing, but the story was meh. Interstellar however, is the shit.
I was like "this Lemmite gets it," until I got to the Interstellar part.
But I'm glad we have common ground on the shit show that is Inception. It felt incredibly long. I don't know if it was because I was bored, or if it's genuinely six hours long.
I don't remember the details but I hated Interstellar. The problems of physics are overcome by love, or something like that.
All the people saying inception was actually sht made me doubt myself and go and binge all of Christopher Nolans movies again in chronological order. Maybe Im just a sucker for his film style but I still liked Inception even after all these years. The prestige was also better than I remembered it was. I also appreciated what Tenet was trying to achieve despite that movie having pretty bad reviews for a Nolan film.
At the top of every reddit "What movie should never be remade?" thread is the LOTR trilogy. Well... I totally agree the movies are great, but not quite timeless. When I rewatched them a couple years ago for the first time in a long time I couldn't get over the feeling that it screamed "Filmed and directed in the late 90s and early 00s!" I don't have the film knowledge to point out exactly what it is but something about the way it is shot looks very dated to me and hasn't aged as well, in my opinion, as everyone on the internet says it is.
I really do love the music and the art style and sets and casting too. Maybe it doesn't need a reshoot, but a recut?
Meet the Robinsons is one of Disney's best 3D movies and aged like wine
I don't like the star wars movies, think they're not nearly as good as people claim they are
This is certainly down to me being raised in a post OT world of good sci fi, but that doesn't make them worth watching these days. The only reason they are imo is to understand extended media
Extended star wars media though? Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme
The Irishman - It was so highly recommended by many but I could only go through half the movie (which is 3h long) and despite having watched 90 mins I couldn't bring myself to watch the second half or recap what happened in the first. Maybe too much flew over my head but it bored me too much and I couldn't see the appeal at all.
I'd say 2001 Space Odyssey. The film has its interesting parts but the pace is absolutely awful. It makes it unwatchable. I watched it a while ago and couldn't finish it. Multiple long dragged sequences showing off the ships where nothing happens. Everything is an excuse to drag the scene, even a goddamn elevator. By the time I got the HAL part I was fed up with it and couldn't go on. It has multiple parts (starting with the music at the start) where it seemed they had a script but had to have a movie yay long. Like a class film. So they took every opportunity to stretch it.
Some people say I don't get it because it's not Michael Bay. That I have to appreciate the art in those long drawn out scenes. Well, excuse me, but I wanted to watch a movie, not a painting. Also, I shouldn't be expected to be on acid while watching. A disclaimer would help.
Freddie Got Fingered is a dadaist masterpiece.
I liked Matrix Revolutions from the beginning.
If you take the middle 15 minutes (return home to rave) scene out of the second matrix movie, I'm convinced it makes the entire trilogy 10x better.
Nature documentaries are the best
I’m a huge Star Wars fan. I really liked the Sequel Trilogy. Someone can be a Star Wars nerd, and still enjoy The Last Jedi. I understand why fans hate it, but for me it's fun to watch. I don’t like to take it too seriously. Also, I enjoyed Solo. My mantra Trust no one and you will never be betrayed is from that movie.
That all said, I love the lore! Jar Jar the Sith, Darth Plagueis, the fan films, the theory—It’s so cool.
The Dark Knight has fucking terrible editing and a lot of bad, hammy acting. The opening bank heist is just bad, with really on-the-nose dialogue delivered pretty badly...even William Fichtner seems like he's trying a little too hard, and he's an otherwise good actor.
I know the editing has been covered in some YouTube essay that made the rounds a number of years ago so maybe that's not such an unpopular opinion, but it really sticks out to me like a sore thumb.
Before anyone gets totally mad at me, I still enjoy the overall story, a lot of the action, and I think both Ledger and Bale (dumb batman voice aside) are great. Also, Morgan Freeman, Michal Caine and whatshisname who plays Harvey Dent are also very good too.
Shrek 2 is mid as fuck and the cover of I Need a Hero was its only saving grace. I really don't get why people ham it up as one of the best films of all time.
I don't like the lord of the rings series.
It's not bad bad but with that budget, actors etc it could have been so much better :-/
The hobbit: kind of the same feeling.
Can you elaborate on what specifically you didn't like about LOTR? Peter Jackson has always had a penchant for using cutting-edge CG tech in his films, to the point that some people call them tech demos. I think WETA's effects stand out as the best parts of the series, but the cinematography, sets, and acting are about as good as it gets in my opinion
The Hobbit, however....
I answered just below, or above :-)
For the CG, I was at Paris GDC (game developers conference) where naughy dog(black dog, ??? I don't remember) explained all the fuckups they did with LOTR, like when Aragorn magic-jumps on to his horse(idea was cool, execution horrible), the dragon flying through everything ...
But for me that wasn't the bad things (I love Star Trek and Dr Who!) but the blandness, "American style".
Upvoted for actual unpopular opinion.
What would you have changed from the movies as they were?
I mean, I can't think of that many deviations from the books off-the-top-of-my-head. Tom Bombadil got cut, but he had a very different flavor from most of the rest of the series. Legolas "shield surfing" was an addition to the movies and was kind of obnoxious, IMHO, but it wasn't that much of an ongoing thing. There were some changes around Aragorn going through the Paths of the Dead, but nothing there really bugged me.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure that nothing in the books said that the charge of the reinforcements at Helm's Deep was down that steep of a slope -- that's probably just not practical.
Just the beginning with the party, with dwarves in a sort of dance-cleaning party was absurd IMO.
They're there to fight or die, only Gandalf (IIRC) managed them to even consider taking a hobbit with them. It should have been grim, but with a take making it possible, not a song and dance performance.
In all it's too "American" (IMO) ; simplistic plot with easy to understand graphic battles. Then Win!
I also hated the painful play of Frodon and Sam, like some sort of painful master/slave idiocy. Not naming a totally overplayed Gollum.
Well well, I remember the end of the Hobbit was plaisant, and it was a long time ago I saw them so maybe I should rewatch them :-)
I'm a proper geek for the books and I agree.
Swear down on me nan he has a boner for Orlando Bloom.
So this isn't a good time to see them for the first time?
If you like fantasy movies now is the time. Or anytime really, they are very well done and the vast majority of people who like that kind of thing enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies.
The Hobbit movies less so.
Yup. I just found it to be meh
The Godfather is meh at best and the acting is melodramatic and overplayed.
Horror movies are unfairly judged because most people who do not like horror movies watch them for the wrong reasons.
Citizen Kane and 2001: A Space Odyssey suck now.
There are old movies that have aged much better, like The Man in the White Suit and Colossus: The Forbin Project. These should be the ones we call classics.
There's nothing great about Studio Ghibli movies, they have appreciable hand-drawn effort but that isn't what makes a movie.
Alright this one got me. I can't imagine some of the stories doing absolutely nothing for a viewer and them thinking they are so-so.
I mean some of them show their age a bit and ok some of them rehash ideas from preceding ones, but it's hard to think of any Miyazaki movie that did nothing for me at all.
One of the most recent ones I watched was Whisper of the Heart. It can be summed up as "girl meets a cute guy, girl wants to be an author, writes about a cat in a parallel universe, finds an antique shop, random proposal at the end", it was like watching a clipshow. I remember reading reviews for Totoro and them trying really hard to beat around the bush with "ah it doesn't have a cohesive plot, buuuut..." and then the rest of the review, almost like they didn't care because it was Studio Ghibli. I've seen movies panned for that (e.g. Alita Battle Angel or Spiderman 2).
I don't know...I watched princess mononoke and was pretty impressed by the movie. Only other anime I've watched is ghost in the shell which I thought was alright. I'm not really an anime fan but I'm super glad I watched princess mononoke!
I think Mononoke was easily the weakest of Miyazaki's movies but it's the one everyone raves about because it was the first one to see a widespread and non-butchered release in the West on DVD.
The earlier Totoro, Kiki, and to a lesser extent Laputa are all better movies, in my opinion. The former two shine exceptionally by being charming slice-of-life vignettes from a time before that sort of thing was the mega genre it is today, managing to be captivating stories that somehow don't need or contain any kind of villain, quest, or cliché call to adventure whatsoever.
Laputa does -- in spades -- but it's still great. It's got so many villains that it's got two sets of bad guys, but one set of bad guys turn out not to be bad guys and basically the entire damn movie is a flying scene of some type or another and it's fantastic. Castle of Cagliostro is also awesome, and it was arguably one of those pivotal Citzen Kane style moments for the medium that turned out to be surprisingly influential to subsequent works, both animated and not. (And also introduced an entire generation to the only version of Lupin who is not an huge asshole, much to the surprise of everyone who watched this movie first and went on to check out... any... other Lupin III works.) Cagliostro was so influential that Japan's (former) Princess Sayako based her real life wedding dress off of Clarise's dress from the movie, and said so.
Have you ever watched Alita: Battle Angel?
All of them? No. But there are so many great things in them you can't just bury them away like Spirited away, your neighbour Totoro...
You don't like them? I understand that totally, but they are masterpieces.
Like I just hate the Bolero and think Mosart is 'meh' I guess (toccata&fugue in D minor by Bach, now that rocks!).
I mean in general, not really all of them (for example, Spirited Away gets honorable mention on every list). I remember reviewers for Totoro trying their hardest to not spotlight the fact it has such a jumbled plot when movies have been panned for that before. A masterpiece is supposed to impart something onto someone, but except for Spirited Away and arguably Marnie, my main reaction was little more than "well now I can say I saw it".
Right, outside, lets fight!
Those movies are amazing, maybe what you're missing is that the age of the main character is the age of the target audience.
Being all their ages didn't change a lot for me (not sure how normal that is amongst those age groups). Except for Totoro which I watched when I was four if I remember correctly, I was roughly a preteen to teen when I watched all of them (or all the ones I watched, which is all but three) up to The Boy and the Heron (which just came out, I'm an adult now) which would only put me out of range with Ponyo and Porco Rosso when I watched those. Most people have a good sense of feeling for a story that adds up. I was little when I watched Totoro and little me had to stop myself from getting distracted from the movie itself.
I loved Spirited Away but everything else Ghibli did just grates.
If you ever want to ruin Princess Mononoke, just think "what exactly does the main character guy do to advance the plot?" The answer: almost nothing haha
I don't think that ruins it for me, rather the opposite. Ashitaka is a member of a tribe far away from the places in the movie. When he gets there he is just an observer to the war between industry and nature and wants to form his own opinion. He gets sucked into it and even if he did nothing the story would have continued almost the same, bar the ending where he then has made up his mind. I'd have to watch it again and spare more than a few minutes before sleepy time to write a better response, but those are my two cents
By this logic, Raiders of the Lost Arc, is pointless. Still a great movie, but Indy does nothing that changes the outcome.
Indiana Jones is boring.
I'll add, the events would likely be the same with his absence.
You're referring specifically to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Jones did things in Temple of Doom and Last Crusade.
I just don't like Star Wars and I like sci-fi in general. But Star Wars is just one of those stories I can't make myself to like.
I remember fondly the prequels with pod racing and that red black guy with double lightsaber. I wached those movies as a child.
Later I tried watching all of them and I could not bring myself to finish even one. The dated effects (good for their time) just took me out of the story way too much.
I also tried waching the new ones, but they just felt boring so I dropped them.
I don't know what is it about Star Wars, but I just can't bring myself to like them even with nostalgia by my side.
Dune is complete crap from the soundtrack to the script. The characters are as thick as cardboard and their interactions motivate nothing. It's full of slow motion nonsense, flying metal dragonflies and Zimmer's horns. These days filmmakers are convinced visuals make storytelling. They don't. Dialogue does and here there's not a single line I remember.
I'm not sure if this will be unpopular, but if the emperor somehow returned, surely he could somehow go away again like it never happened and we get the thrawn trilogy and katana fleet.
The ending of se7en makes no sense. All the previous victims were murdered because they suffered from one of the seven deadly sins (gluttony, sloth, greed, lust, pride). But the final two victims - that supposedly would complete the list - did not suffer from these sins, but instead the perpetrators murdered them out of envy and wrath. Gwyneth did not suffer from envy, and Brad did not get murdered for his wrath.
Such a shame because the rest of the movie is great.
Tho it's a show and watched only the first season, but Star Trek: Lower Decks is kinda ruining the whole Star Trek world to me.
It's an OK cartoon, not bad at all. but so not Star Trek to me, at least the first season wasn't. I get it, it's the "Go" of the series, the cool and hip genz implementation, you either like it or not, and honestly, I kinda like it, but not as Star Trek.
Avengers End Game is awful. I usually really like super hero movies, but end game is unwatchable.
Welp got a feeling I've got a doozy of an unpopular opinion, but that's why we're here. I don't like any of Tarantino's films. I find all the characters unlikeable or insufferable. I also fell asleep in the theater watching Kill Bill 2.
I also fell asleep in the theater watching Kill Bill 2.
I think the actors fell asleep filming it, too.
It was a buzzkill after the first one
Even Inglourious Basterds?
That's honestly his weakest one. After the opening scene there really isn't anything worth watching.
When I was younger I liked it a bit, now not so much. I've changed a lot with everything that's happened over the last 14 years.
Omg there are others! I’ll 2nd this, I simply can’t understand his popularity.
They're bad. Every one of them.
Warren Beaty and Faye Dunaway did the right thing announcing La La Land as the best picture.
I hate Deadpool because it got to use thunderstruck by ac/dc rather than the bridge scene in Thor Ragnarok where it would've been equally badass, and much better than a third iteration of Zeppelins immigrant song.
Barbie & Her Sisters in a Puppy Chase is a horror movie
I might just need to rewatch it because it's been 15 years, but I didn't care much for Citizen Kane.
Nobody actually enjoys watching Citizen Kane. It's the Wuthering Heights of the movie world: you get to feel pretentious and cultured for having checked it off your bucket list, but the actual experience was a total slog and you're probably never going to re-watch/read it ever again.
I completely understand why people who watch Citizen Kane would find it boring. Compared to movies made in this day and age it is very boring. However, this movie was made in 1941 and was groundbreaking in many ways.
The cinematographer Greg Toland was a master who could have worked on any film he wanted. He chose to work with 25 year old first time director Orson Welles. He was tired of the Hollywood movie studio BS and saw that this kid wanted to do something revolutionary. Over 50% of the movie contains special effects most of which had never been done before. If you watch this movie next to any other movie of that era it is amazing how much different the style, camera angles, shots, etc are comparatively.
All of the American movies at the time (and this pretty much holds true even today) had someone who started with nothing and became successful or won against all odds etc. Citizen Kane flips this and takes one of the richest men in the world who starts out as the hero and turns him into the villain who ends up sad, bitter and alone. Again this is much different than other films of this era. I would argue that it is still much different to the vast majority of films today.
Charles Foster Kane is clearly supposed to be William Randolph Hearst who was the media mogul of the time. They made a movie about one of the most powerful people of that era and make him look like a sad douchey a--hole. The writer Mankiiewicz was someone who regularly attended the parties at Hearst Castle and many details in the movie are spot on about Hearst's real life. Rosebud (Kane's final word and the plot device for the film) is supposedly Hearst's nickname for his wife's private area. Hearst did everything he could to stop this movie from playing in the theaters and was pretty successful in ensuring it lost money at the box office. It wasn't until about 10 years later when people in Europe started watching and appreciating the film that they decide to re-release it in the US. By this time Hearst was dead and there is no campaign against the movie. This is when it really gets wide recognition as a great film.
So basically a 25 year old upstart took on the most powerful media mogul of the day with a movie that had groundbreaking special effects, style, and story line. I can't think of any film to this day that can compare to these accomplishments. Many of the worlds greatest film makers were inspired by this movie. It is for all these reasons why it is looked at as one of the best movies ever made and shown to all film students.
This is probably true of Citizen Kane. However, this isn't true of all the arty farty, black and white, older, or foreign stuff.
Some of those aren't just 'good for their time', highly rated because they were/are innovative/interesting, or because people want to be pretentious. They're still fucking good.
Eg. I watched Tokyo Story (1953) when I was in my early twenties. Tops critics lists. Seems like it's just another pretentious movie. Black and white, boring, pondorous, gave up on it. Watched it a few years later when I had a bit more life experience. Hit me like a truck. Openly wept in the movie theatre.
Sometimes if you push through, you will be rewarded.
I'm going to watch it twice now just to be that much better than most. Also I can say things like, "I personally enjoyed my second viewing much more than my first."
Truth. Mostly its the first movie shown to media students because there is simple concepts and camera tricks there, and its always best to start with the basics.
This is true for most "important films". They were the first to do something well enough that the entire industry latched onto it, but their stories and presentation don't stand well against the test of time. 2001 and Casablanca also fall into this.
2001 is a masterpiece.
Donnie darko, Requiem for a dream, Mulholland drive, and every single film by Wes Anderson is a monumental waste of time. Hours of my life I will never see again.
Also Peter Jackson's best work is the q movie horrors he did in the early days also meet the feebles is amazing. Peter Jackson
I am NOT going to even consider watching the new Death Stranding movie when it's out.
Just like Morbius, that movie is a "would rather ask my in-laws parenting advice than ever watch it".NGL green lantern the movie kinda slapped when I was a kid. I got really into comics partially because of it.
The Shining isn't good. There are certainly parts that are good, and its an interesting movie, but theres way too much reliance on corny cliches, and cheap shock for the sake of it.
Though, I wonder how much of it felt like "corny cliches" and "cheap shock" 43 years ago when it came out.
This guy probably saw Nosferatu and thought "wow this is just every vampire movie, how unoriginal"
I mean, The Shining came after Halloween, The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw, Alien, and a lot of the classic horror movies that I do like. The problem isn't that its a haunted hotel or anything like that, its things like the racist ghosts (this one admittedly probably wasn't so shocking in the 80s), the nude woman, the overuse of sound effects for things that don't deserve it (such as Tuesdays), and the murder written backwards thing. It just felt like it was trying way too hard while not achieving anything 90% of the time. Most of the peaks were good - all the famous scenes - but all the rest of the movie drags it back down.
Except that movie is where those cliches began!
By "corny cliche", I'm not talking about things like the creepy twins, the isolated hotel, or the typewritter scene. Those were all high-points. I'm talking about things like the overuse of dramatic sound effects, and "murder" written backwards. Stuff that was cliche and corny even at the time.
I never met another person who like Eye of the Beholder, I really enjoy it. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0120662/
Scoob is delightful
I don't like Hereditary. I tried to watch it 3 times but I just can't get through it. I think the beginning is great but I dunno, I just didn't like it. I do love Midsommar however.
I watched it, I didn't liked it, there's literally one scene that's shocking, the rest is just boring.
I agree with both of you. I don't understand the love for that movie. Another one I truly don't understand the love for is The VVitch.
Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman was good. I geniunely don't understand it's hated so much, like for real
Dennis Villeneuve is currently untouchable in the same way that Christoper Nolan was a few years ago. For whatever reason I meshed with Nolan's work at the time but I have been completely disenchanted by Villeneuve since Blade Runner.
Marvel movies sucks. I can enjoy a superhero movie from time to time but this is getting out of control. 98% CGI movies with the SAME F*CKING STORY for the past 20 years. Good vs bad, chosen one, origins, Bla.Bla.Bla.
Most of my film opinions
The Happening was a good film.
People just see it as the dumb movie where plants make people commit suicide and has bad acting.
I see it more like the original dawn of the dead. It's a mirror to society. I personally don't believe the plants were doing anything. What happened is that the media machine latched onto anything they could put on TV, and before you knew it every other network news copied the unverified information. This happens so often in real life because every news station wants to be the first to report instead of being the truth.
Also, it's pretty terrifying that people start becoming suicidal zombies and you have no idea why or how to stop it.
Batman returns is really dumb. The movie craftsmanship (or whatever) is well done but the premise is just so stupid (to me). I feel this way about all super hero films, I just can't get past that the source is comic books for kids. I cannot take them seriously.
"Comics are for kids" is an incredibly narrow view of the comic book world. They've never been exclusively for kids, not even the big superhero comics. Many have diverse themes, thoughtful critiques of society, and impressively deep characters.
Completely agree and quite some of the Batman comics I have read I would not give to a child, far to much violence and quite a lot of very dark theams. Young teens are around when I would start being comfortable letting them read those and that's still requires me to actually know them to some degree to make that judgement.
That's almost as bad as the "animation is for kids" take that a lot of people have.
Sure, it's great for kids movies, but you're missing a lot of what makes animation great for complex themes and storytelling.
People who don't like horror films are defective and should have been aborted.