Pixar movies put me to sleep.
Brando sucked. The only time his acting was ever the least bit impressive was when he worked for Coppola.
I'll take James Dean or Montgomery Clift for vintage method acting any day.
Quote from: GregX on February 03, 2013, 06:15:47 PM
Pixar movies put me to sleep.
I think that might be an unpopular opinion about animation, not movies. ;)
Quote from: Avaitor on February 03, 2013, 06:44:15 PM
Brando sucked. The only time his acting was ever the least bit impressive was when he worked for Coppola.
I'll take James Dean or Montgomery Clift for vintage method acting any day.
:whuh:
Quote from: Foggle on February 03, 2013, 06:47:28 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on February 03, 2013, 06:44:15 PM
Brando sucked. The only time his acting was ever the least bit impressive was when he worked for Coppola.
I'll take James Dean or Montgomery Clift for vintage method acting any day.
:whuh:
Hmm?
Rebel Without A Cause has aged so badly that I'd consider it one of the most laughable movies I've ever seen.[/unpopularopinionofmyown] Dean was great in East Of Eden, though.
Okay, yeah, Rebel Without a Cause is kinda silly in hindsight, but I still think it holds up better than A Streetcar Named Desire, if only thanks to Nicholas Ray's direction.
I also think that Giant ends up as 3 1/2 hours of nothing, but Dean's few scenes in it showed insane promise. I'd still recommend that all three of his films should be seen, though. I think he could have been one of the greats if he lasted a little longer, but his films make for a fascinating watch, especially in order.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 03, 2013, 06:55:47 PM
Okay, yeah, Rebel Without a Cause is kinda silly in hindsight, but I still think it holds up better than A Streetcar Named Desire, if only thanks to Nicholas Ray's direction.
I can agree there, but I do think On The Waterfront is excellent, possibly even better than Eden.
QuoteI think he could have been one of the greats if he lasted a little longer, but his films make for a fascinating watch, especially in order.
Agreed. He's basically the Heath Ledger of the 50's; an amazing actor who never really got much of a chance to shine.
Quote from: Foggle on February 03, 2013, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on February 03, 2013, 06:55:47 PM
Okay, yeah, Rebel Without a Cause is kinda silly in hindsight, but I still think it holds up better than A Streetcar Named Desire, if only thanks to Nicholas Ray's direction.
I can agree there, but I do think On The Waterfront is excellent, possibly even better than Eden.
Okay, I'll concede, On the Waterfront is a well-made film, although Kazan's best film is by far A Face in the Crowd.
I think the film that turned me off to Brando was his take on Mutiny on the Bounty, though. The whole production just turned me off to his take on the method, but it's hard to describe.
Quote from: Foggle on February 03, 2013, 06:58:33 PM
QuoteI think he could have been one of the greats if he lasted a little longer, but his films make for a fascinating watch, especially in order.
Agreed. He's basically the Heath Ledger of the 50's; an amazing actor who never really got much of a chance to shine.
Yeah, Ledger is up there as well. And I'll admit, even when I don't find the films he was in to be too strong (10 Things I Hate About You, for example), his performances captivated me.
-Spider-Man 3 isn't really any more goofy or ridiculous than the other Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies. If you hated all of his SM movies in general, then it makes perfect sense to hate SM3 as well, but for people who got some fun out of his goofier take on the character (like myself), then SM3 really isn't that bad of a movie (I enjoyed it more than 2, if nothing else), yet people still insist that the first 2 movies are masterpieces and somehow the 3rd one is the only one with all of the problems.
-I like the Karate Kid remake more than the original. Neither of them are great movies, though.
-I really liked Prometheus, despite all of the negative reviews it got.
-I like The Dark Knight Rises more than Batman Begins, which I honestly found to be the weakest film of the trilogy.
-I think that Casino Royale is an OK Bond movie. I appreciate its more modern and somewhat more realistic take on the character, but there were also a lot of pretty dull parts in the film, as well (or maybe they just bored me alone).
-Captain America: The First Avenger is my favorite film in the series of Marvel movies leading up to The Avengers. From what I can tell it was the least popular among them with general audiences.
-The Hobbit: And Unexpected Journey was pretty good. I didn't mind Peter Jackson taking what is essentially a children's tale and making it a bit darker to fit the tone of The Lord of the Rings. In terms of the movie itself, I think it worked out just fine.
Quote from: GregX on February 03, 2013, 06:15:47 PM
Pixar movies put me to sleep.
I can kind of see where you're coming from. While I wouldn't say that any of them put me to sleep, there are a good number of Pixar movies that I find to be quite overrated and honestly quite dull to watch.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on February 03, 2013, 07:48:33 PM
-Spider-Man 3 isn't really any more goofy or ridiculous than the other Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies. If you hated all of his SM movies in general, then it makes perfect sense to hate SM3 as well, but for people who got some fun out of his goofier take on the character (like myself), then SM3 really isn't that bad of a movie (I enjoyed it more than 2, if nothing else), yet people still insist that the first 2 movies are masterpieces and somehow the 3rd one is the only one with all of the problems.
Actually, the original comics are probably even goofier than the Raimi movies. ;)
Quote-I like The Dark Knight Rises more than Batman Begins, which I honestly found to be the weakest film of the trilogy.
I thought most people felt that way. :SHOCK:
Quote-I think that Casino Royale is an OK Bond movie. I appreciate its more modern and somewhat more realistic take on the character, but there were also a lot of pretty dull parts in the film, as well (or maybe they just bored me alone).
That is
exactly how I feel about The Avengers. Specifically the "just bored me alone" part. ;)
Mel Brooks films never appealed to me.
Lars Von Trier is a worse director than Michael Bay.
Silent movies are the hardest movies to get into due to lack of audible dialogue and rather tedious pace, but they can be rewarding if you stick through.
Neither Salo nor Men Behind The Sun really disgusted or unnerved me. I mean, that scene where the kid gets dissected. I've seen too much medical footage to be actually shocked by that.
Seven Samurai isn't my favorite Kurosawa film. I actually liked Throne of Blood more.
I didn't hate Crystal Skull. Or Superman Returns. Or Episode III. Or Matrix Reloaded.
The best comic-to-film adaptations are not superhero movies, but Oldboy and Persepolis.
I didn't notice the blue-and-orange thing until people told me about it.
I've seen tons of actual medical footage as well, but I don't think I'll ever get desensitized to some things, fictional or not. And I don't want to be.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on February 03, 2013, 08:06:39 PM
I didn't notice the blue-and-orange thing until people told me about it.
I don't even know what you're referring to.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2.slashfilm.com%2Fslashfilm%2Fimages%2FZZ570FFE0F.jpg&hash=2db1a3babdb0f4db6395b7da6cb2fe62bd57aa25)
Goddamn I hate rage comics.
That's fairly interesting, though.
Quote from: Foggle on February 03, 2013, 07:54:10 PM
That is exactly how I feel about The Avengers. Specifically the "just bored me alone" part. ;)
But to be fair, you went into the Avengers after having only seen the Iron Man movies. There's a big difference in seeing the movie as a stand-alone film as opposed to the culmination of 5 movies worth of build-up. Its like when I saw Serenity in theaters before I had seen Firefly. I did enjoy the movie for its good parts, but there were quite a bit of slow moments where I didn't really get into what was going on because I wasn't really as invested in the characters as I was supposed to be. When I re-watched the movie the 2nd time around after having seen the series, it was automatically multiple times better when I actually understood the characters and their backgrounds. I mean, it was a good movie that I definitely liked before, but there's just no denying that the movie works so much better if you've actually seen the material leading up to it beforehand.
In that regard, I can't really imagine watching The Avengers without knowing about all of the happenings and circumstances of Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, and even The Hulk before going into it. Sure, I'd understand the basic plot and such, but the important thing about it is the characters and how they interact with one another. Had I only seen just 1 or 2 of the movies leading up to it, it undoubtedly wouldn't have the same sort of effect that its meant to have if you were invested in the characters.
As for Casino Royale, I could hold more against that movie since it was clearly meant to work as a stand-alone film. And it is a stand-alone film, but it failed to get me very invested in the characters involved in it.
That's true. I'll have to watch it again after seeing the other movies!
I had the exact same experience with Serenity, btw.
I don't get the appeal of John Hughes. At least, not his high school films, because Planes, Trains and Automobiles kicks ass, as well as the original and Christmas Vacations. But I just can't relate to The Breakfast Club or Ferris Bueller.
What are you talking about? I totally related to Molly Ringwald in Sixteen Candles, and how her problems could've been easily resolved if she just talked instead of brooded while a racist caricature lived in her house for no properly explained reason.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on February 03, 2013, 10:33:42 PM
What are you talking about? I totally related to Molly Ringwald in Sixteen Candles, and how her problems could've been easily resolved if she just talked instead of brooded while a racist caricature lived in her house for no properly explained reason.
Okay, this one I would've been more fond of if it wasn't for that guy.
Got another one
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mdtgchEwLd1qd9cvuo1_500.jpg&hash=3eb3d52be3a998d5bf83834bda9e9f59f516ac28)
This piece has earned a lot of respect from activists on tumblr, but am I the only one who finds J Law's method disrespectful to her future collaborators? Not to say that she needs to lose weight at all in practically any instance, but in the odd case when a director thinks she's tailor-made for, say, someone with an eating disorder in a film to raise self-awareness for them (and she is a talented actress, so it is possible for her to pull it off), and she refuses to look even thinner for it, that just seems like wasted potential to me.
I feel ashamed that Christian Bale won't cut off his arm in case he ever gets asked to play Captain Hook for a Peter Pan movie. If he refuses to adhere to accuracy, that just seems like wasted potential to me.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 04, 2013, 12:46:12 AM
Got another one
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mdtgchEwLd1qd9cvuo1_500.jpg&hash=3eb3d52be3a998d5bf83834bda9e9f59f516ac28)
This piece has earned a lot of respect from activists on tumblr, but am I the only one who finds J Law's method disrespectful to her future collaborators? Not to say that she needs to lose weight at all in practically any instance, but in the odd case when a director thinks she's tailor-made for, say, someone with an eating disorder in a film to raise self-awareness for them (and she is a talented actress, so it is possible for her to pull it off), and she refuses to look even thinner for it, that just seems like wasted potential to me.
What I hated about the tumblr activists is that some of them slammed Anne Hathaway for losing weight to play Fantine in Les Mis.
Quote from: Karamazova on February 04, 2013, 12:55:49 AM
Quote from: Avaitor on February 04, 2013, 12:46:12 AM
Got another one
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mdtgchEwLd1qd9cvuo1_500.jpg&hash=3eb3d52be3a998d5bf83834bda9e9f59f516ac28)
This piece has earned a lot of respect from activists on tumblr, but am I the only one who finds J Law's method disrespectful to her future collaborators? Not to say that she needs to lose weight at all in practically any instance, but in the odd case when a director thinks she's tailor-made for, say, someone with an eating disorder in a film to raise self-awareness for them (and she is a talented actress, so it is possible for her to pull it off), and she refuses to look even thinner for it, that just seems like wasted potential to me.
What I hated about the tumblr activists is that some of them slammed Anne Hathaway for losing weight to play Fantine in Les Mis.
Did they?
But yeah, if Anne Hathaway can lose weight for a role, why is such a big deal for Lawrence to? Or am I just pulling at straws here?
Quote from: GregX on February 03, 2013, 06:15:47 PM
Pixar movies put me to sleep.
Watching Cars 2, are we? :sly:
Actually though, since we're going there, I've always thought Wall-E was really overrated. I mean, it's okay, but after a couple of viewings I still don't find myself enjoying it nearly as much as the bulk of their library.
Quote from: GregX on February 03, 2013, 06:15:47 PM
Ghibli movies put me to sleep.
Fixed.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on February 03, 2013, 07:48:33 PM
-Spider-Man 3 isn't really any more goofy or ridiculous than the other Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies. If you hated all of his SM movies in general, then it makes perfect sense to hate SM3 as well, but for people who got some fun out of his goofier take on the character (like myself), then SM3 really isn't that bad of a movie (I enjoyed it more than 2, if nothing else), yet people still insist that the first 2 movies are masterpieces and somehow the 3rd one is the only one with all of the problems.
-I like The Dark Knight Rises more than Batman Begins, which I honestly found to be the weakest film of the trilogy.
-Captain America: The First Avenger is my favorite film in the series of Marvel movies leading up to The Avengers. From what I can tell it was the least popular among them with general audiences.
-The Hobbit: And Unexpected Journey was pretty good. I didn't mind Peter Jackson taking what is essentially a children's tale and making it a bit darker to fit the tone of The Lord of the Rings. In terms of the movie itself, I think it worked out just fine.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on February 03, 2013, 08:06:39 PM
I didn't hate Crystal Skull. Or Superman Returns. Or Episode III. Or Matrix Reloade
Damn, got to it first. Now I have to actually think about this
Quote from: Karamazova on February 04, 2013, 12:55:49 AM
Quote from: Avaitor on February 04, 2013, 12:46:12 AM
Got another one
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mdtgchEwLd1qd9cvuo1_500.jpg&hash=3eb3d52be3a998d5bf83834bda9e9f59f516ac28)
This piece has earned a lot of respect from activists on tumblr, but am I the only one who finds J Law's method disrespectful to her future collaborators? Not to say that she needs to lose weight at all in practically any instance, but in the odd case when a director thinks she's tailor-made for, say, someone with an eating disorder in a film to raise self-awareness for them (and she is a talented actress, so it is possible for her to pull it off), and she refuses to look even thinner for it, that just seems like wasted potential to me.
What I hated about the tumblr activists is that some of them slammed Anne Hathaway for losing weight to play Fantine in Les Mis.
Tumblr users are really starting to get on my nerves.
I tire of being the only one who feels this way: Jaws. Is. Not. A. Horror. Film. (I hope I haven't talked about this here yet.) It's a prototypical blockbuster for what would basically become the 80's adventure film. Pre-Indiana Jones only with less archeology and a few shark attacks. Take the, maybe, 2 minutes (and I'm being generous) of actual shark carnage and the opening credits out of the movie and you have a family-drama/buddy-adventure comedy-thriller. Furthermore... did anyone care about the family in this movie? The mother and the kids didn't really have that much character stuff going on in the first place. It's kinda about the dudes (in every sense of the word). But, did anyone care about them either?
Oh, yeah... and: Piranha (1978) > Jaws. A strong female character (who doesn't need to go butch like Ripley, either) and a seriously likable kid character beat sharing war stories for the sake of male bonding any day. Also, Belinda Balaski's death scene almost brings me to tears (in fact, I think it did once). Nothing even remotely like that in Spielberg's film. Also, Dick Miller > Murray Hamilton, "the piranhas are eating the guests, sir" > "I think you're gonna need a bigger boat," Barbara Steele > ...well, there's no character equivalent to her (she plays a villain) but she's the perfect blend of class and understated dynamism (by the way, that's now 4 awesome female cast members - counting Shannon Collins as Grogan's daughter - to Lorraine Gary's ehhhh 1).
Now, the Disney Princess-film Ranking Conga: Sleeping Beauty > Cinderella > Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs > Beauty and the Beast
(You all might not bat an eye, but this is hugely controversial on UD. Over there, the overwhelming opinion goes in exact reverse.)
I can't say I agree with a lot of UD's opinons. For one, the site is very biased towards the Renaissance films, the princess ones in particular.
At this point, I'm really sick of Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid.
I wouldn't really call Ripley "butch". Though it's been years since I've seen any of the Alien sequels. (Gotta' watch Aliens again before Colonial Marines comes out!)
Quote from: Avaitor on February 03, 2013, 10:28:21 PM
I don't get the appeal of John Hughes. At least, not his high school films, because Planes, Trains and Automobiles kicks ass, as well as the original and Christmas Vacations. But I just can't relate to The Breakfast Club or Ferris Bueller.
His other movies are better. Uncle Buck, Planes trains, the Great Outdoors and others he wrote. Hint: if it has John Candy in it and Hughes wrote it- it's worth watching. His teen films were never my favorites though I found a few funny.
His worst is Pretty In Pink, though. That I couldn't relate to even remotely.
Honestly, I find his other movies to suck too. Too much of the humor that would eventually culminate in Home Alone 3, Baby's Day Out, and 101 Dalmatians.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on February 04, 2013, 07:12:31 PMHonestly, I find his other movies to suck too.
Ever seen
Only the Lonely?
Quote from: No-Personality on February 08, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on February 04, 2013, 07:12:31 PMHonestly, I find his other movies to suck too.
Ever seen Only the Lonely?
No, and I'm not sure how Chris Columbus was brought into this conversation. Even if the producer is familiar.
-I can't say I find the Hangover (and I DO mean the first one, don't get me started on the almost identical-to-the-first sequel) that funny, it was OKAY, but not the outrageously 'comedy of the year' type movie that most people seemed to make it be back in 2009.
-Going back 20-something years, who remembers Problem Child? I actually liked Problem Child (1+2) better than the first two Home Alones (which were alright, but Problem Child made me laugh out loud).
-I don't really hate Michael Bay movies that much. A lot of them are bad movies....but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't entertained by quite a few of them. As for Transformers, I get it after re-watching them that they go too far with the crappy things that Michael Bay movies are known for, and for that they can really grate on people's nerves (that said, I still find the first movie to be a guilty pleasure of mine). As for Michael Bay's output before Transformers, though, while some of those other movies are also pretty bad, I find some strange entertainment value out of most of them, and at their worst they are pretty inoffensively bad. Actually, some of Bay's older movies like Bad Boys and The Rock are probably only even mediocre at worst, rather than downright bad. At any rate, for whatever the reason is, I can't bring myself to hate this guy or his movies as much as everyone else does.
-I like Ghostbuster II. I actually REALLY like Ghostbusters II. I had a lot of fun with that movie. Its definitely not as good as the first movie, but I never really got why so many people seemed to dislike it. I thought it was a really entertaining sequel, myself.
-I think that E.T. is kind of....boring. I respect the movie and all, but no matter how many times I watch it, I honestly can't find it that interesting. At best I've been mildly entertained by it, but its certainly not one of my favorite Spielberg films.
-I'm not a fan of Quentin Tarantino. I'll give the guy a lot of respect for his provocative film-making and putting out so many classics (even if I don't consider any of his films to be classics), but for whatever reason I've never found any of his films to really click with me, with the surprising exception being his last 2 films, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. And, even then, I wouldn't say that I loved either of those movies, but I did actually enjoy them thoroughly throughout their runs. As for stuff like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, etc., I just wasn't able to get into any of those movies. Now, to be fair, I DO plan to give Pulp Fiction yet a 3rd try to see if something about it works for me this time around (the last time I watched it was about 4 years ago, and my views on good film-making are constantly changing, so you never know what I might dislike one day and enjoy the next), but as it stands, it never really appealed to me that much on my first 2 viewings. I do know that it is one of Avaitor's favorite films, though, so its not like I don't acknowledge that its great, but I just really haven't been able to connect to it on any level, myself, as of yet.
Quote from: Cyberville Outcast on February 08, 2013, 09:29:11 PM-Going back 20-something years, who remembers Problem Child? I actually liked Problem Child (1+2) better than the first two Home Alones (which were alright, but Problem Child made me laugh out loud).
I rewatched the first
Problem Child about a year ago and... the first hour of the movie is literally the kind of awful that defines "awful." It was actual "the kid was evil from birth" but it hurts when people don't understand him. Which is odd because he
is evil. And a brat. And he pissed on people who were nice to him, for nothing more than the sake of a joke (and I mean he urinated on them). And the movie then, after proving that they don't need to- they'll torture any kind of person, invented characters to be nasty to the kid to give him a reason to do something horrible to them. This motivation wasn't necessary when his baby bonnet-thing was being passed from door to door. Sure, every single home he went to had mean people living there. Sure. And every nun at the orphanage was a bitch. Yeah. And the only one who understood him was John Ritter. That's why he drove a freaking van through Ritter's father's store and got him fired / dis-inherited (until the sequel, that is). The movie couldn't be more hypocritical. In fact, why the hell did they bother to keep having the "touching" scenes where Ritter gives the kid another chance? It was... like...
some kind of a joke. But it didn't make any sense. Like: family values are for suckers and touching family films are for suckers. Okay. That's a decent set-up for a movie. But the jokes weren't a form satire, much less biting. They were unearned, unironic anarchy with no target. No meaning. No value. Therefore, no humor. Hell, it's been a million years since I've seen either of these movies but I'm willing to believe either
Mikey (1992, also about an adopted kid who terrorizes people... then murders them) or
The Paperboy (actually, I think this is about a kid who kills people too - but the style is much closer to
Problem Child- or the
Child's Play sequels, which the PC's are indebted to) were closer to actually being about something kids could relate to. The first two
Home Alone movies were definitely better. At least real kids could almost relate to Kevin. His family was actually nasty and obnoxious without him doing anything to deserve it. And it didn't feel forced (well, that forced) for the sake of bad comedy. The slapstick-a-thon (which was definitely a lot more fun than in the PC's) came after we got a lot of character stuff that certainly isn't award-worthy but it tried.
Oh, man: to hell with people who don't at least think
Ghostbusters 2 is okay. I adore it too. It doesn't have to be as good as the first movie, it just has to be good. Because the first movie is great. And, it was good. Very good.
How come every time I think of something EK posts it first?
The retreading of the first Ghostbusters in the sequel annoys me a little more each time I watch it, but I still get a kick out of II. I mean, it's still Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Hudson.
Although I do prefer The Real Ghostbusters cast personally.
Quote from: No-Personality on February 09, 2013, 12:53:00 AM
The first two Home Alone movies were definitely better. At least real kids could almost relate to Kevin. His family was actually nasty and obnoxious without him doing anything to deserve it.
You make a good point, I'm actually going to slightly retract what I said because of this statement alone (as it also sparked more memories inside of me). Although the Problem Child movies, in my opinion, were/still are a lot of fun for me to watch, the overall premise in Home Alone was better set up. Although I haven't watched the film in a year or two, I do remember always feeling sorry for Kevin more than Junior from Problem Child (the latter having his moments of sympathy, mainly in the first PC movie, but our sympathies for him shatter within minutes for obvious reasons). If a kid like Junior existed in real life, I bet his parents would have immediately sent him away to be locked up like Hannibal Lecter :D. Despite that, I still get a lot of laughs watching the Problem Child movies (and I just thought of this now, but maybe part of what draws me into Problem Child more is that it's one of those movies that's so unrealistic, it's funny. Like you said, after all that happened to Ritter because of Junior, why/how, before he found Junior's nice drawing of him, does he have the sanity to give him another chance?)
Some unpopular opinions of mine.
-I think Avatar had a good storyline. I mean sure, it wasn't Godfather quality. But the story and characters really work in this world and it definitely sucks you in.
-I believe Moulin Rouge is a fine film. Many say it's really style over substance. But really, a huge part of the appeal of musicals is being engulfed by the spectacle and the music. And this one did that. And the song "Come What May" holds some nostalgia value for me, in addition to being a great song anyway.
-I love the second half of WALL-E. Many say it goes downhill at that point. And I think I can agree that the first half is the best part, but it's not like it actually goes downhill. And I really love the imagery in the end, of earth being an uninhabitable wasteland, with the remaining bits of humanity floating as mere blobs in their ships with their whole Buy n Large lifestyle.
And... I had a few more. But for some reason I'm drawing a blank. I'll list more when I remember.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on February 09, 2013, 12:42:40 PM-I think Avatar had a good storyline. I mean sure, it wasn't Godfather quality. But the story and characters really work in this world and it definitely sucks you in.
My problem with Avatar isn't the story-line itself. Its that I feel that other movies have done that same story-line much better, like Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai. And they also did it without having top-quality special effects to boast about (though, to be fair, both of those films were high-budget movies back when they were made, as well).
Quote-I believe Moulin Rouge is a fine film. Many say it's really style over substance. But really, a huge part of the appeal of musicals is being engulfed by the spectacle and the music. And this one did that. And the song "Come What May" holds some nostalgia value for me, in addition to being a great song anyway.
That's really not an unpopular opinion, as the movie got a ton of praise from critics when it came out and did fairly well with general audiences as well. Its just that Doug Walker has raised a bit more hate towards the movie when he lashed out at it with his opinions. On the whole, though, he's the one who's still in the minority opinion, as far as I can tell.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on February 09, 2013, 02:23:08 PM
My problem with Avatar isn't the story-line itself. Its that I feel that other movies have done that same story-line much better, like Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai. And they also did it without having top-quality special effects to boast about (though, to be fair, both of those films were high-budget movies back when they were made, as well).
You've got me there. Dances with Wolves crushes Avatar (didn't see Last Samurai). :thumbup:
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on February 09, 2013, 02:23:08 PM
That's really not an unpopular opinion, as the movie got a ton of praise from critics when it came out and did fairly well with general audiences as well. Its just that Doug Walker has raised a bit more hate towards the movie when he lashed out at it with his opinions. On the whole, though, he's the one who's still in the minority opinion, as far as I can tell.
I take that part back, then. I knew how popular it was, but Doug gave me the impression that it gets its share of hate. :P
Well, Doug DID put it as his top choice on his list of the top 10 films that he hates but that everyone else LOVES, so I think its safe to assume that even he acknowledges that its an unpopular opinion to hate the film, on his part. ;)
As for me, I've never even seen the movie, so I really have no opinion on it.
I don't understand why Jean-Luc Godard is such a prick when it comes to modern movies. The guy hasn't been relevant since the 60's, and was far from the most exciting new wave director, but he acts like he's Jesus compared to people like Spielberg or Cameron.
Speaking of James Cameron, I'm not sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but I think Aliens is a better movie than Alien. I LOVE both films, but I find Aliens to be a better sci-fi action movie than Alien is a sci-fi horror film. Also, if you guys know me at all, you know where Aliens stands on the list of my favorite movies of all time. ;)
And while we're at it, I prefer the first Terminator to T2.
I prefer Terminator 2, myself, though I'm also a fan of both movies.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 09, 2013, 04:30:41 PM
And while we're at it, I prefer the first Terminator to T2.
Something about it just makes it all that more eerie, but I also think I prefer it to the sequel, though the sequel was good.
I wonder if any cinema professors have used both films to discuss the changes in special effects from older films to today. You'd think that showing both in succession would make for the perfect counterbalance for such a lesson.
One thing I do like better about the late 70s and 80s in regards to film is the style of film they use. Unsolved Mysteries used the same film and it makes everything seem a bit more realistic yet warm at the same time. It can be quite disarming.
Lately, I've been thinking that if I really like a book, then the chances of me wanting to see its adaptation are pretty slim. At least with particular series. There are some things that I want to keep in my mind the way I read them, and that's it.
So basically, I refuse to ever watch Jackson's LOTR movies, Game of Thrones, or either versions of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
I can sort of understand where you're coming from, though in the case of LOTR, while I enjoyed the books, I hardly found any of them to be perfect, (and if I'm to be honest, nothing else that Tolkien wrote outside of LOTR and The Hobbit could manage to hold my interest) which is why I was fine with seeing a film adaptation of it. If its something I really love, though, then yeah, I can't help but feel that I'd rather enjoy the book for what it is and skip out on the movie, as in that case its pointless to me if I know that it can't measure up to being as good as the book (from my perspective).
Quote from: Avaitor on March 27, 2013, 04:16:20 PM
So basically, I refuse to ever watch Jackson's LOTR movies, Game of Thrones, or either versions of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m3n4w3AuMm1r15hkao3_500.gif&hash=5b34bd2a9322d4771ecc261e43278e4431c7c998)
y'no, I'm actually very attracted to Emilia Clarke, so I might have to change that around.
I'm actually in the camp that thinks the LotR movies are better than the books.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 27, 2013, 04:49:20 PM
y'no, I'm actually very attracted to Emilia Clarke, so I might have to change that around.
Now to mention how GRRM's written a few episodes and has been mostly hands-on for the show's run.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on March 27, 2013, 04:54:48 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on March 27, 2013, 04:49:20 PM
y'no, I'm actually very attracted to Emilia Clarke, so I might have to change that around.
Now to mention how GRRM's written a few episodes and has been mostly hands-on for the show's run.
Well yeah, I know that, and I know that he has went out of his way to make sure that the show takes some liberties with its adaptations of the books, but I dunno.
I'll probably get into it at same point, but I'm also not crazy on watching such heavy stuff on my computer. I get too distracted easily.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on February 03, 2013, 07:48:33 PM
-Spider-Man 3 isn't really any more goofy or ridiculous than the other Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies. If you hated all of his SM movies in general, then it makes perfect sense to hate SM3 as well, but for people who got some fun out of his goofier take on the character (like myself), then SM3 really isn't that bad of a movie (I enjoyed it more than 2, if nothing else), yet people still insist that the first 2 movies are masterpieces and somehow the 3rd one is the only one with all of the problems.
I don't think the first two movies are masterpieces and Spider-Man 3 is undefendable shit.
Quote from: gunswordfist on April 19, 2013, 02:12:55 PM
I don't think the first two movies are masterpieces and Spider-Man 3 is undefendable shit.
Way to respond to a post that I made months ago, dumb-shit.
Also, read the title of this thread, and then consider what little sense there is for your response in the first place. But then again, it'd probably be asking too much of you to use just a little bit of common sense, wouldn't it? :>
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on April 19, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on April 19, 2013, 02:12:55 PM
I don't think the first two movies are masterpieces and Spider-Man 3 is undefendable shit.
Way to respond to a post that I made months ago, dumb-shit.
Also, read the title of this thread, and then consider what little sense there is for your response in the first place. But then again, it'd probably be asking too much of you to use just a little bit of common sense, wouldn't it? :>
That's our GunSwordFist. *plays cheesy music* :awesome:
Forrest Gump is a great movie and deserved its Oscar.
Quote from: Peanutbutter on April 19, 2013, 09:43:42 PM
Forrest Gump is a great movie and deserved its Oscar.
Agreed.
Wow, gunswordfist. That was one of your worst moments ever.
I suddenly have this thing that you humans refer to as "empathy".
Also, how is praising Forrest Gump an unpopular opinion? That movie has an 8.7 on IMDB and gets lauded as Tom Hanks' best role of all time. Yeah, people are a little frustrated that it beat Pulp and Shawshank, but as 18 years of film history have passed, all three of these movies have been equally referred to as classics.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on April 20, 2013, 12:58:46 AM
Also, how is praising Forrest Gump an unpopular opinion? That movie has an 8.7 on IMDB and gets lauded as Tom Hanks' best role of all time. Yeah, people are a little frustrated that it beat Pulp and Shawshank, but as 18 years of film history have passed, all three of these movies have been equally referred to as classics.
From my perspective there are still a lot of film buffs out there who love to put Forrest Gump down with severe disdain being that "it didn't deserve to beat out Pulp Fiction." That's all a matter of personal opinions, of course, but I've seen enough people say that it didn't deserve the Oscar that I can kind of see how that mind-set has become the popular opinion whereas it has become less popular to say that it was as good as it was made out to be. Either way, though, its one of my favorite movies ever, so I'm fine with it having won the Oscar. That said, I should point out that I largely don't agree with the Academy Awards and find them to be incredibly biased as far as many of their Best Picture selections go, so even if Forrest Gump didn't win, I wouldn't really care what they picked in its place. As it stands, though, Forrest Gump was a lot more of a "conventional" good movie compared to Pulp Fiction, so of course it won the Oscar over a Tarantino film. The Academy Awards have made it clear that they prefer more traditional film-making over something more unique.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on April 19, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on April 19, 2013, 02:12:55 PM
I don't think the first two movies are masterpieces and Spider-Man 3 is undefendable shit.
Way to respond to a post that I made months ago, dumb-shit.
Also, read the title of this thread, and then consider what little sense there is for your response in the first place. But then again, it'd probably be asking too much of you to use just a little bit of common sense, wouldn't it? :>
I couldn't resist, asshat. :bleh:
Ok, I think Raging Bull is an extremely overrated cartoonish movie and any Rocky except 5 is superior to it. Between all of Deniro and Pesci back and forth bickering and the fights that look even more ridiculous than Rocky's (well at least how they are shot), I couldn't take the movie seriously at all.
The Shining is a boring horror movie that isn't scary at all.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on April 20, 2013, 12:47:29 AM
Wow, gunswordfist. That was one of your worst moments ever.
Oh crap, I thought Daxdiv was you. Well you are dumbfuck enough to comment on something twice so I had to recheck that. ;)
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on April 20, 2013, 02:05:38 AM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on April 20, 2013, 12:58:46 AM
Also, how is praising Forrest Gump an unpopular opinion? That movie has an 8.7 on IMDB and gets lauded as Tom Hanks' best role of all time. Yeah, people are a little frustrated that it beat Pulp and Shawshank, but as 18 years of film history have passed, all three of these movies have been equally referred to as classics.
From my perspective there are still a lot of film buffs out there who love to put Forrest Gump down with severe disdain being that "it didn't deserve to beat out Pulp Fiction."
*Raises hand*
;)
When all is considered, the Oscars are nothing more but Hollywood giving itself a pat on the back. It makes plenty of sense that Pulp Fiction didn't win, back when independent films were still a new, exclusive thing, while Forrest Gump was winning hearts and breaking records. It has BP written all over it.
We're more open to independent films winning now, if you even count the Weinsteins as indie at this point, and occasionally the Academy will throw a bone to the British industry or something, but the awards are still and will always be about pleasing Hollywood.
Sometimes I feel like the Palme d'Or is a more important award than an Oscar.
What was that? You're interrupting me in the middle of my production of an Anne Frank biopic starring Dakota Fanning that has already won several Golden Globes in advance.
Not Chloe Grace Moretz?
And you better make sure that Justin Bieber did the soundtrack. After all, she probably would've been a Belieber.
I hope you're calling it Anne Frank: I Want To Belieb.
I also can't wait for the film adaptation of Night, starring Chris Colfer as Elie Wiesel. With Akiva Goldsman writing, and Soulja Boy playing his sidekick named Rapler.
Quote from: GregX on April 21, 2013, 06:00:44 PM
*Raises hand*
;)
I can perfectly understand that, but I just feel that its not really Forrest Gump's fault that Pulp Fiction didn't win. Its the Academy's fault for going with the more conventional movie like they always do. ;)
Tarantino on the whole just doesn't do much for me.
For what its worth, I liked his last 2 movies, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, which is a big surprise to me. I still need to give Pulp Fiction another shot. As it stands, its a film that I can certainly respect a lot (I have come to respect Tarantino a lot as a director, even if I'm not a fan of most of his work), but I have never actually been able to get into it, yet. I do love that infamous scene around the beginning of the movie, with Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, though.
I think all of his movies are fantastic except Death Proof. They're not for everyone, though.
Back to the Oscars, I think in recent years, BP winners have been more consistently appealing, with the last real dud that I can think of being Crash, but the winners from 40+ years on have far more home runs in their field.
I have a feeling this might be an obvious answer. If so, consider me out of the loop. :P
Which Star Wars movie is more liked by the general public, between Episode VI, and Episode III. Even though III is part of the hated prequel trilogy, it seems to be almost unanimously considered the best of them, whereas Episode VI is typically seen as the worst of the originals. In addition, I've seen things such as reviews call Episode III the best since the first two films.
In general, people tend to like ANY part of the original trilogy better than ANY part of the prequel trilogy, so even the worst movie from the original trilogy is seen to be complete gold by most people when compared to even the best movie from the prequels, which incidentally isn't saying much (though its a guilty pleasure of mine for the very few things that it does get right).
Then I suppose it's nowhere near an unpopular opinion to say I like Episode VI more. :P
Though I guess I could instead say, as an unpopular opinion, that I think Episode VI was an awesome movie, even despite the parts that drag. It has some of my favorite moments in any film (namely the scenes involving Luke with the Emperor and Darth Vader).
Yeah, I always considered VI a pretty solid movie despite it's hiccups.
Quote from: Nel_Annette on April 21, 2013, 06:32:32 PM
Tarantino on the whole just doesn't do much for me.
^Also This
I don't like any of the Star Wars movies. NONE of them.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a bad movie.
Avatar was boring and predictable, and only was popular because of it's incredible and ground-breaking special effects.
Quote from: Cartoon X on May 13, 2013, 07:57:11 PM
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a bad movie.
I actually don't think that's an unpopular opinion.
Some would say it's weaker than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Granted, I've still only seen Raiders, so I don't really have an opinion.
Quote from: Cartoon X on May 13, 2013, 07:57:11 PM
Avatar was boring and predictable, and only was popular because of it's incredible and ground-breaking special effects.
I'm going to add onto that and say another unpopular opinion about Avatar: For how much they were hyped up, the special effects weren't even THAT great. I mean, yeah, they look like the best CG out yet....but that's just it, everything still looks like CG. None of it eve came off as even remotely real to me. I could tell what was CG and what wasn't.
Also, the entire film is essentially a high-budget remake of Dances with Wolves, but it has less than half the charm of that movie.
I mentioned this before elsewhere, but I saw a clip of Avatar on my TV a little while ago, and it just doesn't look that impressive anymore. Actually, some of the CG looks pretty shitty.
The movie isn't even half a decade old, and its age is already present. And I don't think that many people liked it for the story to begin with.
Honestly, I think that many of James Cameron's older movies look better than Avatar, and by that, I mean more visually pleasing. Its funny, because the world of Avatar is made to look all shiny, glossy, and beautiful, but in the process it also looks way too sterile and so obviously artificial. Compare that to something like Aliens or The Terminator 2: Judgement Day, and those movies perfectly combine CG with practical effects to make far more convincing looking environments (for the most part).
Raiders of the Lost Ark was the only good Indy movie. I don't think Kingdom is as terrible as most people say it is, but it's still not that good, and I personally don't care for Temple or Last Crusade.
The Avatar arguments that still persist today are funny, because I only made it like thirty minutes into the 3D showing I went to in January 2010 before I decided how god-damned boring the movie was, and how I was never likely to watch it or take it seriously ever again. But then again, I did the same thing with Lord of the Rings back in 2002; so far I've never seen the other two movies and don't plan to.
It's kind of overshadowed by all the other star wars related movies and shows out there, but I personally find Ewoks to be the greatest thing to come out of anything Star Wars related, great show, very high production value and extremely well written..!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5cuUyOzDwk
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on May 13, 2013, 08:07:06 PM
Quote from: Cartoon X on May 13, 2013, 07:57:11 PM
Avatar was boring and predictable, and only was popular because of it's incredible and ground-breaking special effects.
I'm going to add onto that and say another unpopular opinion about Avatar: For how much they were hyped up, the special effects weren't even THAT great. I mean, yeah, they look like the best CG out yet....but that's just it, everything still looks like CG. None of it eve came off as even remotely real to me. I could tell what was CG and what wasn't.
Also, the entire film is essentially a high-budget remake of Dances with Wolves, but it has less than half the charm of that movie.
But it gets a pass because it "looks pretty". I wonder what we'll say about this another 5 years from now.
Quote from: Foggle on May 13, 2013, 08:01:02 PM
Quote from: Cartoon X on May 13, 2013, 07:57:11 PM
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a bad movie.
I actually don't think that's an unpopular opinion.
Temple Of Doom is an awesome B-movie. I never got the hate. Never will.
I liked the story of Avatar, even if it was by the numbers. Something noteworthy when a movie makes you root against your own kind.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on May 13, 2013, 09:58:47 PM
I liked the story of Avatar, even if it was by the numbers. Something noteworthy when a movie makes you root against your own kind.
It's not that it was by the numbers, it was that the exact plot was done before, and much better, way before it came out.
Story should matter more than special effects, in my opinion.
It's still
1. Evil Dead
2. Evil Dead 2
3. Army Of Darkness
for me.
-I actually like the first 2 Mummy movies (the remake and the sequel). To me they were self-aware that they were ridiculous movies with mostly mediocre to bad actors and they just had fun with themselves, and I had fun too. I also enjoyed them more than 2 particular Indiana Jones movies, if nothing else (take a guess as to which 2 those are).
-Ed Wood is brilliant, but my favorite Tim Burton movie is actually Big Fish. Go figure.
-As far as the Marvel Movie-verse goes, Captain America is my favorite Avenger simply because he's the most likable and barely has an ego, yet at the same time isn't portrayed as perfect and actually has his own interesting character arc.
I hope Rogers is still a bit naive/awkward in Captain America 2. He wasn't quite the Capt. we all kn ow from the comics yet.
I like the first two Mummies as well. They're like at the bottom of my favorite movies list. ;D
Quote from: Nel_Annette on April 21, 2013, 06:32:32 PMTarantino on the whole just doesn't do much for me.
Jackie Brown is one of my favorite movies of all-time.
All-time.
So, the whole "let's judge him as though all his movies are kinda the same" doesn't do much for
me.
Quote from: No-Personality on June 01, 2013, 11:34:44 PM
Quote from: Nel_Annette on April 21, 2013, 06:32:32 PMTarantino on the whole just doesn't do much for me.
Jackie Brown is one of my favorite movies of all-time.
All-time.
So, the whole "let's judge him as though all his movies are kinda the same" doesn't do much for me.
I agree with your entire post.
Quote from: No-Personality on June 01, 2013, 11:34:44 PM
Quote from: Nel_Annette on April 21, 2013, 06:32:32 PMTarantino on the whole just doesn't do much for me.
Jackie Brown is one of my favorite movies of all-time.
All-time.
So, the whole "let's judge him as though all his movies are kinda the same" doesn't do much for me.
Um...what exactly are you saying?
What do most people prefer between Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight Rises?
If it's not TDKR, I question the sanity of the film community at large.
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on June 02, 2013, 11:45:58 AM
Um...what exactly are you saying?
I believe he's saying that claims of Tarantino just making the same movie over and over again are erroneous and one cannot say they dislike his entire body of work without actually watching all of his films.
The only film of his that I haven't at least tried watching yet is Death Proof. For the most part, I'm not really a fan of his stuff except for, oddly enough, his last 2 movies, which I don't love by any means, but those were probably the most appealing films he's made as far as what I like goes.
That said, its perfectly possible that there are people who don't like any of his works. I agree that they can't all be labeled as the same, but they also each have a signature directing style that can be associated with Tarantino that might just not appeal to people. There's nothing ridiculous about not liking any of his work at all.
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 01:40:30 PM
If it's not TDKR, I question the sanity of the film community at large.
I like Batman Begins just as much as Dark Knight Rises.
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 01:42:31 PM
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on June 02, 2013, 11:45:58 AM
Um...what exactly are you saying?
I believe he's saying that claims of Tarantino just making the same movie over and over again are erroneous and one cannot say they dislike his entire body of work without actually watching all of his films.
That makes sense, but if Nel_Annette has seen some of his movies (I don't know if he has or not), then there's no need to make a such a comment directed at him.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 02, 2013, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 01:40:30 PM
If it's not TDKR, I question the sanity of the film community at large.
I like Batman Begins just as much as Dark Knight Rises.
I like TDKR more. I think the only reason that people don't go hard on the problems with BB is because it was the first Batman movie in the trilogy and it had come after a long period of no Batman films, not to mention how notoriously bad the last Batman film was before it. Then TDK came out and blew it out of the water in terms of quality, IMO, and most people considered it a superior sequel in general. However, that left TDKR coming hot of the heels of what many considered to be the best Batman movie ever, which caused many people to have their expectations set way too high and they were thus way more critical of the film than they ever were with BB back when that came out.
To me, though, I never thought BB was a great movie to begin with. I thought it was a very good, solid Batman movie, but it never impressed me quite as much as everyone else. I was actually not even that interested in seeing the sequel, and the trailers didn't do anything to convince me. I only casually went with a friend of mine and my dad to see the film just because there was nothing else to do that day, and I was taken by surprise at just how great it really was. That said, I never really expected TDKR to top it, even though I do think its still possible to top a film like TDK, so I kept my expectations in check, and overall I thought TDKR was still a damn good conclusion to the trilogy. I found it to be more interesting than BB, and on the whole a good movie in its own right, though like BB I personally wouldn't call it great.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 02, 2013, 02:45:35 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 02, 2013, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 01:40:30 PM
If it's not TDKR, I question the sanity of the film community at large.
I like Batman Begins just as much as Dark Knight Rises.
I like TDKR more. I think the only reason that people don't go hard on the problems with BB is because it was the first Batman movie in the trilogy and it had come after a long period of no Batman films, not to mention how notoriously bad the last Batman film was before it. Then TDK came out and blew it out of the water in terms of quality, IMO, and most people considered it a superior sequel in general. However, that left TDKR coming hot of the heels of what many considered to be the best Batman movie ever, which caused many people to have their expectations set way too high and they were thus way more critical of the film than they ever were with BB back when that came out.
To me, though, I never thought BB was a great movie to begin with. I thought it was a very good, solid Batman movie, but it never impressed me quite as much as everyone else. I was actually not even that interested in seeing the sequel, and the trailers didn't do anything to convince me. I only casually went with a friend of mine and my dad to see the film just because there was nothing else to do that day, and I was taken by surprise at just how great it really was. That said, I never really expected TDKR to top it, even though I do think its still possible to top a film like TDK, so I kept my expectations in check, and overall I thought TDKR was still a damn good conclusion to the trilogy. I found it to be more interesting than BB, and on the whole a good movie in its own right, though like BB I personally wouldn't call it great.
I'm not too harsh on TDKR, either. I think people are too nitpicky about the little things here and there, and end up forgetting that the movie has it where it counts. That said, I'm also a big fan of Batman Begins, and am probably its biggest fan on this site. I just really like both. But overall, TDK is definitely the best of the trilogy.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 02, 2013, 01:52:07 PM
The only film of his that I haven't at least tried watching yet is Death Proof. For the most part, I'm not really a fan of his stuff except for, oddly enough, his last 2 movies, which I don't love by any means, but those were probably the most appealing films he's made as far as what I like goes.
That said, its perfectly possible that there are people who don't like any of his works. I agree that they can't all be labeled as the same, but they also each have a signature directing style that can be associated with Tarantino that might just not appeal to people. There's nothing ridiculous about not liking any of his work at all.
Death Proof is shit, don't even bother.
Don't get me wrong, I can easily see why someone would hate all of QT's movies (even though I love 'em), I just think No-Personality was saying that you can't judge them all based on two or three samples like some people do.
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on June 02, 2013, 02:17:04 PM
That makes sense, but if Nel_Annette has seen some of his movies (I don't know if he has or not), then there's no need to make a such a comment directed at him.
Good point.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 02, 2013, 02:06:02 PM
I like Batman Begins just as much as Dark Knight Rises.
Well, I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with liking BB more than TDKR or even TDK, I just don't agree with that opinion. ;)
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
Well, I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with liking BB more than TDKR or even TDK, I just don't agree with that opinion. ;)
But it means you question my sanity. :thinkin:
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 02, 2013, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
Well, I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with liking BB more than TDKR or even TDK, I just don't agree with that opinion. ;)
But it means you question my sanity. :thinkin:
You have sanity?
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 02, 2013, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
Well, I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with liking BB more than TDKR or even TDK, I just don't agree with that opinion. ;)
But it means you question my sanity. :thinkin:
Tom Hardy's Bane alone is better than Batman Begins in its entirety. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
NP's comment towards me did kind of irk me, because I didn't even mean to make a blanket statement about Tarantino's quality, but whatever. I've seen Death Proof, Kill Bill (both volumes), Inglorious Basterds, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and I think that's it. Maybe Jackie Brown's amazing, I haven't seen it.
The guy's clearly talented, and I get why people like his work, but based on the 6 movies of his I've seen, his stuff just doesn't do much for me personally. If it floats your boat, more power to you.
And I made that comment in April. Don't attack me over it now. :lol:
Quote from: Nel_Annette on June 02, 2013, 04:46:31 PM
And I made that comment in April. Don't attack me over it now. :lol:
This is the internet. Everything you say can and will be used against you.
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 04:34:39 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 02, 2013, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
Well, I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with liking BB more than TDKR or even TDK, I just don't agree with that opinion. ;)
But it means you question my sanity. :thinkin:
Tom Hardy's Bane alone is better than Batman Begins in its entirety. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
This one speaks the truth.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on June 02, 2013, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 02, 2013, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
Well, I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with liking BB more than TDKR or even TDK, I just don't agree with that opinion. ;)
But it means you question my sanity. :thinkin:
You have sanity?
Aren't you the guy who made a thread claiming to be Jesus Christ? >_<
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 04:34:39 PM
Tom Hardy's Bane alone is better than Batman Begins in its entirety. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
And if they didn't suddenly swap him out for some hot chick that got no screentime or characterization, maybe he couldn't been an effective leading threat. :happytime:
Yeah, I've got to admit, Bane in TDKR was awesome!....Until a certain plot-point kind of fucked it all up. Up until then, I honestly liked him as a villain as much as Heath Ledger's Joker. I shit you not.
I still don't see how that plot twist made him less cool.
It made him less intimidating, I think. It's just a better idea for Bane to be the one in charge, and the one who put into effect this scheme. Practically would make him the ultimate foe for Batman because he's got the smarts, but can still whup you if you challenge him directly. His character just seemed softer and less badass after that twist.
Most of TDKR's little flaws don't really bother me much at all. But that twist was just irksome.
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 05:16:09 PM
I still don't see how that plot twist made him less cool.
Spoiler
It basically made it so that he was Talia's bitch. All of the stuff the stuff that he did to take control of Gotham wasn't on his wit and intellect, but under Talia's order, with him only using his power of intimidation. And when he Talia revealed herself, he acted like a loyal obedient servant who couldn't act without her command, which was just off-putting to everything I had seem him do and how he was built-up throughout the entire movie. Being her protector is one thing, and I don't mind that, but being that it was revealed that all of the expert planning and other bad stuff that went down wasn't really all his own doing made his threat level drop greatly for me. It basically means that without Talia, Bane couldn't have made it half as far as he did. That, and the way he got taken out was a joke. Catwoman shoots him with the guns from Batman's bike and blows him away in a total Deus Ex Machina move, and he becomes the victim of just being blasted off-screen never to be seen again, and his death is followed by a forgettable one-liner from Catwoman. Personally I thought he deserved a better death than that.
Spoiler
Does it ever really state that the whole thing was Talia's plan, though? I mean, Bane was clearly extremely intelligent, so they were probably working side by side the whole time. He wasn't really her bitch, he just loved her as if she was family.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 02, 2013, 05:22:35 PM
Quote from: Foggle on June 02, 2013, 05:16:09 PM
I still don't see how that plot twist made him less cool.
Spoiler
It basically made it so that he was Talia's bitch. All of the stuff the stuff that he did to take control of Gotham wasn't on his wit and intellect, but under Talia's order, with him only using his power of intimidation. And when he Talia revealed herself, he acted like a loyal obedient servant who couldn't act without her command, which was just off-putting to everything I had seem him do and how he was built-up throughout the entire movie. Being her protector is one thing, and I don't mind that, but being that it was revealed that all of the expert planning and other bad stuff that went down wasn't really all his own doing made his threat level drop greatly for me. It basically means that without Talia, Bane couldn't have made it half as far as he did. That, and the way he got taken out was a joke. Catwoman shoots him with the guns from Batman's bike and blows him away in a total Deus Ex Machina move, and he becomes the victim of just being blasted off-screen never to be seen again, and his death is followed by a forgettable one-liner from Catwoman. Personally I thought he deserved a better death than that.
Spoiler
I hated his death scene. It might've been the worst part of the Talia twist to me. When I was first watching the movie, I didn't even know that killed him. I was sure he'd come back for another appearance. But then it's like... nope, he's dead.
But yeah, everything Bane did up till then just made him seem so evil. I could've lived with Bane being the son of Ra's al Ghul, despite it being a massive change from the comic books.
I still say that Aaron Eckhart was better than Ledger, personally.
Ledger was my favorite villain in the trilogy. But I think Michael Caine gave the best performance in the entire trilogy, particularly in TDKR.
Quote from: Avaitor on June 02, 2013, 05:35:40 PM
I still say that Aaron Eckhart was better than Ledger, personally.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv157%2FKyorca%2Fjokerfrown.jpg&hash=3ab9cbb1168f2f9bbf86b3c5fd8bed92149ba83e)
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 02, 2013, 05:37:54 PM
Ledger was my favorite villain in the trilogy. But I think Michael Caine gave the best performance in the entire trilogy, particularly in TDKR.
Yeah, he was great there, can't argue with that.
Quote from: Avaitor on June 02, 2013, 05:35:40 PM
I still say that Aaron Eckhart was better than Ledger, personally.
This I 50% agree with. I know that sounds strange as hell, but I can't really explain it any better.
I suppose I could say that I found Eckhart to have a better stage presence than Ledger, in that I think his scenes were generally more impactful, but at the same time he was really pushed to the side as Two-Face and really didn't get nearly enough screen-time to show off his vilainous side, IMO, so in that regard I still found The Joker to be the more effective villain of the movie, but I can certainly see where you're coming from in preferring Two-Face.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 02, 2013, 05:52:14 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on June 02, 2013, 05:35:40 PM
I still say that Aaron Eckhart was better than Ledger, personally.
This I 50% agree with. I know that sounds strange as hell, but I can't really explain it any better.
I suppose I could say that I found Eckhart to have a better stage presence than Ledger, in that I think his scenes were generally more impactful, but at the same time he was really pushed to the side as Two-Face and really didn't get nearly enough screen-time to show off his vilainous side, IMO, so in that regard I still found The Joker to be the more effective villain of the movie, but I can certainly see where you're coming from in preferring Two-Face.
Pretty legit. I actually think I agree with you.
Quote from: Avaitor on June 02, 2013, 05:35:40 PM
I still say that Aaron Eckhart was better than Ledger, personally.
And you also said TDK Two-Face was better than BTAS Two-Face. Go play in traffic.
Choke is fucking awful, only worth seeing to see that Community chick topless.
Huh, didn't know that Coulson made movies.
How popular/unpopular an opinion would it be for me to say I actually liked the LotR movies more than the books?
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
How popular/unpopular an opinion would it be for me to say I actually liked the LotR movies more than the books?
Why do you always have to ask stuff like this?
Quote from: Avaitor on June 03, 2013, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
How popular/unpopular an opinion would it be for me to say I actually liked the LotR movies more than the books?
Why do you always have to ask stuff like this?
So I can know when to call it one of my popular or unpopular opinions. >_<
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 12:13:39 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on June 03, 2013, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
How popular/unpopular an opinion would it be for me to say I actually liked the LotR movies more than the books?
Why do you always have to ask stuff like this?
So I can know when to call it one of my popular or unpopular opinions. >_<
Well, I don't think it's THAT much of an unpopular opinion, at least not on here at least, since I know that a few people agree with you.
Except for Chalmey. He just doesn't like LOTR. :P
I like the books more than the movies, myself, but I think the movies are also probably the best possible adaptation you can make of the books to begin with. If it played things far too close to the source material, a lot of it wouldn't translate well into film, so the adaptation was made perfectly in terms of fitting an epic story into 3 sizable length films, without making the pacing feel too fast or too slow, and that's pretty much all I ever could have hoped for to begin with.
Quote from: Avaitor on June 03, 2013, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 12:13:39 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on June 03, 2013, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
How popular/unpopular an opinion would it be for me to say I actually liked the LotR movies more than the books?
Why do you always have to ask stuff like this?
So I can know when to call it one of my popular or unpopular opinions. >_<
Well, I don't think it's THAT much of an unpopular opinion, at least not on here at least, since I know that a few people agree with you.
Except for Chalmey. He just doesn't like LOTR. :P
Didn't you previously state that you don't plan on seeing the trilogy?
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on June 03, 2013, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 12:13:39 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on June 03, 2013, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 03, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
How popular/unpopular an opinion would it be for me to say I actually liked the LotR movies more than the books?
Why do you always have to ask stuff like this?
So I can know when to call it one of my popular or unpopular opinions. >_<
Well, I don't think it's THAT much of an unpopular opinion, at least not on here at least, since I know that a few people agree with you.
Except for Chalmey. He just doesn't like LOTR. :P
Didn't you previously state that you don't plan on seeing the trilogy?
Yep. As far as I'm concerned, the books are enough of an experience for me.
Chinese Connection is better than Enter The Dragon. I love ETD but you can't beat Bruce Lee killing samurais.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 02, 2013, 02:45:35 PMI think the only reason that people don't go hard on the problems with BB is because it was the first Batman movie in the trilogy and it had come after a long period of no Batman films, not to mention how notoriously bad the last Batman film was before it.
Batman & Robin was no worse than
Forever. The Schumacher films are married in awfulness.
Quote from: No-Personality on June 07, 2013, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 02, 2013, 02:45:35 PMI think the only reason that people don't go hard on the problems with BB is because it was the first Batman movie in the trilogy and it had come after a long period of no Batman films, not to mention how notoriously bad the last Batman film was before it.
Batman & Robin was no worse than Forever. The Schumacher films are married in awfulness.
I don't see how Forever is bad at all. I mean it's a sellout, silly, and overall really bland. But I just don't think anything about it screams "awful". Truthfully, it's probably one of Schumacher's better movies, not like that's saying much though.
As for Batman Begins, I still think it was much better than any Batman movie before it.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 01:54:41 AM
Quote from: No-Personality on June 07, 2013, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 02, 2013, 02:45:35 PMI think the only reason that people don't go hard on the problems with BB is because it was the first Batman movie in the trilogy and it had come after a long period of no Batman films, not to mention how notoriously bad the last Batman film was before it.
Batman & Robin was no worse than Forever. The Schumacher films are married in awfulness.
I don't see how Forever is bad at all. I mean it's a sellout, silly, and overall really bland. But I just don't think anything about it screams "awful". Truthfully, it's probably one of Schumacher's better movies, not like that's saying much though.
As for Batman Begins, I still think it was much better than any Batman movie before it.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Fbfa15afbac755889a148361574391603%2Ftumblr_mfkboeauJn1rusqvpo1_400.jpg&hash=929f10465a287a8f11950ea6622d9f6ebd051f1a)
What part is that in response to?
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 01:59:12 AM
What part is that in response to?
QuoteI still think it was much better than any Batman movie before it.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on June 08, 2013, 02:01:43 AM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 01:59:12 AM
What part is that in response to?
QuoteI still think it was much better than any Batman movie before it.
I don't think they were that great. I mean Burton's Joker, Penguin, and Catwoman were fun villains. But just I don't think those movies had particularly great stories, action, or supporting characters.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 02:09:09 AM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on June 08, 2013, 02:01:43 AM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 01:59:12 AM
What part is that in response to?
QuoteI still think it was much better than any Batman movie before it.
I don't think they were that great. I mean Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, and Michelle Pfeiffer played fun villains. But just I don't think those movies had particularly great stories, action, or supporting characters.
>>Missing that I posted a screencap of Mask of the Phantasm.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on June 08, 2013, 02:09:58 AM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 02:09:09 AM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on June 08, 2013, 02:01:43 AM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 01:59:12 AM
What part is that in response to?
QuoteI still think it was much better than any Batman movie before it.
I don't think they were that great. I mean Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, and Michelle Pfeiffer played fun villains. But just I don't think those movies had particularly great stories, action, or supporting characters.
>>Missing that I posted a screencap of Mask of the Phantasm.
Oops. Sorry, I forgot animated Batman movies. :sweat:
But yeah, Mask of the Phantasm was really awesome.
I like Burton's Batman more than Batman Begins. Also, Michael Keaton is a better Batman than Christian Bale.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 08, 2013, 02:19:50 AM
I like Burton's Batman more than Batman Begins. Also, Michael Keaton is a better Batman than Christian Bale.
I think Bale does a better Bruce Wayne, but Keaton does a better Batman.
Of course, they both pale in comparison to the greatness of Adam West... :sly:
Quote from: Foggle on June 08, 2013, 02:22:09 AM
I think Bale does a better Bruce Wayne, but Keaton does a better Batman.
Of course, they both pale in comparison to the greatness of Adam West... :sly:
I agree with that assessment, actually. I have no problem with Bale's Wayne. Its just way too hard to take him seriously as Batman. Meanwhile Keaton makes a convincing Batman but doesn't quite fit in character with the Bruce Wayne that I've come to know. And Adam West is just flat-out more entertaining to watch as Batman. With the other Batman films, I always felt that the villains and supporting characters were more interesting than Batman himself.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 08, 2013, 02:35:32 AM
Quote from: Foggle on June 08, 2013, 02:22:09 AM
I think Bale does a better Bruce Wayne, but Keaton does a better Batman.
Of course, they both pale in comparison to the greatness of Adam West... :sly:
I agree with that assessment, actually. I have no problem with Bale's Wayne. Its just way too hard to take him seriously as Batman. Meanwhile Keaton makes a convincing Batman but doesn't quite fit in character with the Bruce Wayne that I've come to know. And Adam West is just flat-out more entertaining to watch as Batman. With the other Batman films, I always felt that the villains and supporting characters were more interesting than Batman himself.
Probably one of the most accurate of assessments I've ever heard about Batman on film.
Been watching the old Adam West Batman series lately. Damn, as campy as it is, it certainly is fun to watch. The set designs can be somewhat goofy-looking, but they really did put some thought into it. Even for the 60's, this show was never meant to be taken 100% seriously and should be treated as such.
While Bale's Batman voice is, obviously, pretty questionable, I was very interested in the Batman character in that movie. I know some people weren't, but I was a fan of the movie going into his character and backstory. In the old Batman movies, he always felt like he was just "kinda there" to me, and those movies mostly just had fun with their villains. Christopher Nolan did a pretty good job at making Bruce Wayne a character and not just Batman's alter ego.
The Adam West Batman show is one of the funniest and most inventive sitcoms of all time. And as a kid, I thought it was completely serious. Good memories made even better as I age!
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 11:48:03 AM
While Bale's Batman voice is, obviously, pretty questionable, I was very interested in the Batman character in that movie. I know some people weren't, but I was a fan of the movie going into his character and backstory. In the old Batman movies, he always felt like he was just "kinda there" to me, and those movies mostly just had fun with their villains. Christopher Nolan did a pretty good job at making Bruce Wayne a character and not just Batman's alter ego.
I was also interested in Batman in the Nolan films, but I think that's only because I was already a big fan of the character. Though I thought Bale did a pretty excellent job in TDKR.
Quote from: Foggle on June 08, 2013, 11:52:37 AM
The Adam West Batman show is one of the funniest and most inventive sitcoms of all time. And as a kid, I thought it was completely serious. Good memories made even better as I age!
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 11:48:03 AM
While Bale's Batman voice is, obviously, pretty questionable, I was very interested in the Batman character in that movie. I know some people weren't, but I was a fan of the movie going into his character and backstory. In the old Batman movies, he always felt like he was just "kinda there" to me, and those movies mostly just had fun with their villains. Christopher Nolan did a pretty good job at making Bruce Wayne a character and not just Batman's alter ego.
I was also interested in Batman in the Nolan films, but I think that's only because I was already a big fan of the character. Though I thought Bale did a pretty excellent job in TDKR.
That's possible. But to be fair, I feel like Batman is such a massively established icon that it's hard to say how much you would or wouldn't care, if you weren't already a fan. :P
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 08, 2013, 11:48:03 AM
While Bale's Batman voice is, obviously, pretty questionable, I was very interested in the Batman character in that movie. I know some people weren't, but I was a fan of the movie going into his character and backstory. In the old Batman movies, he always felt like he was just "kinda there" to me, and those movies mostly just had fun with their villains. Christopher Nolan did a pretty good job at making Bruce Wayne a character and not just Batman's alter ego.
In Batman Begins Bruce's back-story/childhood just felt so by the numbers compared to what I had already seen in the Burton movies and the animated series. The only new twist that Nolan added was going more into his training, which was cool to see, but it didn't help make that version of Bruce/Batman a more interesting character for me. I found that Bale generally got better wit his portrayal of Bruce Wayne in the sequels, but even so, I just don't see what made him so interesting. To me, his persona as Batman in pretty much all of those films pretty much defines "just being there," as I was always more engrossed in the villains and what supporting characters were up to. Batman in those movies, to me, was just a force to resolve the conflict. His actual "character-arc" was pretty predictable and on the whole something I had already seen done before in the animated series (and better at that, I might add).
In Burton's first Batman film, the character wasn't that interesting, either. But the difference is that I could actually feel that Batman was an important presence in the film and whenever he was in a scene, I felt my attention gravitate towards him rather than just wanting to see how the villain reacts and tries to overcome him. With Bale's portrayal of Batman....I guess I just really couldn't bring myself to care what happened to him.
I like how Bruce's chiroptophobia was shown during the opening and builds its way into his doning of the character, personally. That's a little different than most takes on the origin.
I liked Joe Chill not being the Joker.
Quote from: Foggle on June 08, 2013, 11:52:37 AM
The Adam West Batman show is one of the funniest and most inventive sitcoms of all time. And as a kid, I thought it was completely serious. Good memories made even better as I age!
PLEASE watch The Brave & The Bold! Seriously!
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on June 09, 2013, 01:37:16 PM
PLEASE watch The Brave & The Bold! Seriously!
Alright, I will. ;) I've seen a few episodes of it and loved them. Also, I can't wait for the Batman '66 comic this summer!
Quote from: Foggle on June 09, 2013, 01:46:42 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on June 09, 2013, 01:37:16 PM
PLEASE watch The Brave & The Bold! Seriously!
Alright, I will. ;) I've seen a few episodes of it and loved them. Also, I can't wait for the Batman '66 comic this summer!
Yes!
TB&TB is just everything I enjoy about superheroes mixed with everything great about Batman. I really have trouble seeing Batman or superhero fans disliking it unless they are prejudging it.
At this point I've watched all of TB&TB except for the final episode of season 3, but on the whole I think it may just be my favorite Batman show, now. I know I might draw a lot of heat for having that opinion, and believe me, I love BTAS (I wouldn't own the entire series on DVD if I didn't), but I just think that this series nailed what it set out to do and on the whole had the most consistent run of good episodes of any superhero show that I have ever seen.
::EDIT::
Except for The Specatular Spider-Man, which had just as consistent of a run of good episodes, though to be fair that was a much shorter series than TB&TB, so on that front TB&TB's quality is quite impressive.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on June 09, 2013, 02:51:05 PM
At this point I've watched all of TB&TB except for the final episode of season 3, but on the whole I think I may just be my favorite Batman show, now. I know I might draw a lot of heat for having that opinion, and believe me, I love BTAS (I wouldn't own the entire series on DVD if I didn't), but I just think that this series nailed what it set out to do and on the whole had the most consistent run of good episodes of any superhero show that I have ever seen.
:happytime:
I'm glad to find myself a fellow super-fan! It recently took up the mantle of my favorite superhero show. It simply has it all.
I'll third the opinion of Batman: The Brave and the Bold being my favorite Batman/Superhero show, and I love a lot of superhero shows, but Brave and the Bold is the only one I would consider a really top, top favorite for me personally. I honestly don't think there was a single episode I didn't like or one I wouldn't want to watch again, which is quite the fear in itself and speaks to the series' overall quality. After I go through Batman Beyond again I'll probably give the show another rewatch.
Well, in terms of being my FAVORITE superhero show, TSSM still takes that spot for me, but T&TB is easily a close-second.
Nolan / Bale Batman = Cookie Monster voice. Impossible to take character seriously.
Superman = been awhile since I watched those films (I'd love to revisit but Netflix streaming is holding out last I checked and my roommates only have the first movie on DVD) but easily the most compelling thing about the various versions of Superman on film is the fact that the character wears his underwear on the outside.
How's that for an unpopular opinion? ;)
(Historical Factoid: Wes Craven was considered to direct Superman IV and only turned down by Christopher Reeve, who was incensed by the idea.)
Quote from: No-Personality on June 20, 2013, 02:50:25 AM
How's that for an unpopular opinion? ;)
Not really unpopular. Very few people have had a good thing to say about the new Super-suit.
Here's a bit of an unpopular opinion.
I think that Troll 2 is an overrated (underrated?) "bad movie".
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 23, 2013, 08:44:57 PM
Here's a bit of an unpopular opinion.
I think that Troll 2 is an overrated (underrated?) "bad movie".
How so?
I'm more of a Room man myself, but you can't piss on hospitality. I WON'T ALLOW IT.
Quote from: Avaitor on June 23, 2013, 08:55:08 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 23, 2013, 08:44:57 PM
Here's a bit of an unpopular opinion.
I think that Troll 2 is an overrated (underrated?) "bad movie".
How so?
I'm more of a Room man myself, but you can't piss on hospitality. I WON'T ALLOW IT.
I like it. I just think there are more entertaining "so bad it's good" movies out there, even though Troll 2 seems to be looked at as the best of them. Maybe I've just had a little too much of the "They're eating her, and then they're gonna eat me" moment.
I haven't even seen Room. But just from what I saw of it in the Nostalgia Critic's video (which, from what I hear, doesn't even do the movie justice), it easily looks more fun.
I'm a Kazaam fan, myself. :P
Well, I actually view Troll 2 as more of a sincere, sickly surreal masterpiece. Rather than a comedy. People keep viewing it as a comedy, and that's why they're let down. (Your view is becoming increasingly more popular.)
Upon a re-watch, and being fully aware of the films numerous flaws and problems....I still honestly like Prometheus. Now, if you compare it to Alien, of course it doesn't hold a single fucking candle to that film. Its not so much a character thing, because honestly aside from Ridley the other characters in Alien hardly had any depth to them either. Its more that Alien had a much better structure and interesting conflict than in Prometheus. On the other hand, though, maybe I've had my standards lowered by so many sci-fi blockbuster movies and bad horror films in the past decade or so, but I found Prometheus to be a "refreshing" experience, if I were to sum it up in one word. Now, as for the plot-holes, there have already been numerous instances in which many of them have been explained, so I won't go into detail there, but the film is as plot-hole heavy as some people make it out to be (though it does still have them). I think what really bugs people about the film is that it doesn't really give anyone a lot of answers. Personally....that's what I kind of like about it. I like that the film doesn't feel like it should be explaining everything away. To me, the most interesting thing about Alien is how much you were left just flat-out not knowing at the end of the film, and its what kept me thinking about in the most. On that end, I really like how I only ever had a vague idea of what really went down with the aliens in Prometheus, but I find that the interesting thing about this film is that each time I re-watch it, I discover new things that I hadn't noticed before, which is something that I love to see in a film.
On the whole, I wouldn't deny that Prometheus has a lot of problems, and if someone called it a bad film I wouldn't try to argue with them about it, but for me it holds enough merits and is just interesting enough for me that I enjoy the movie as a stand-alone piece each time that I watch it.
I think Lethal Weapon 3 and 4 are kind of underrated. They're not quite as great as the first two, but as far as cop movies go they're pretty good and a lot of fun.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 02, 2013, 04:09:15 PM
I think Lethal Weapon 3 and 4 are kind of underrated. They're not quite as great as the first two, but as far as cop movies go they're pretty good and a lot of fun.
Lethsl Weapon 3 was generic but from what I remember, 4 is on par with the first two imo. It also remains Jet Li's only good Hollywood movie ;D
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 02, 2013, 07:57:56 PM
Lethal Weapon 3 was generic but from what I remember, 4 is on par with the first two imo. It also remains Jet Li's only good Hollywood movie ;D
I actually liked Romeo Must Die, myself, but I haven't seen it in ages either, so maybe its really horse-piss that I only liked as a kid. That said, yeah, most of his American movies are monkey-balls.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 02, 2013, 08:06:55 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 02, 2013, 07:57:56 PM
Lethal Weapon 3 was generic but from what I remember, 4 is on par with the first two imo. It also remains Jet Li's only good Hollywood movie ;D
I actually liked Romeo Must Die, myself, but I haven't seen it in ages either, so maybe its really horse-piss that I only liked as a kid. That said, yeah, most of his American movies are monkey-balls.
I liked Romero Must Die as a kid (and love Aaliyah) but I doubt it holds out.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 02, 2013, 08:33:04 PM
liked Romeo Must Die as a kid (and love Aaliyah) but I doubt it holds out.
Fixed. :)
Also, I don't think the action scenes really compare to what Jet Li has done in his actual marital arts films, but as an American action film I found RMD to be a pretty decent flick. I still need to watch it again, though.
I thought he was great as the bad guy in LW4. I know he usually played good guys before then but what's wrong with playing against type? He was pretty brutal in that one.
Yeah, Li is good at the whole serial killer mood thing. It's a shame that he barely does villain roles. The One is a shitty movie but Jet being evil and a hero in that was a lot of fun
I understand other criticism about Star Wars, but I never had a problem with Greedo shooting first, and still think this point of contention is garbage.
Quote from: Peanutbutter on August 15, 2013, 07:35:27 PM
I understand other criticism about Star Wars, but I never had a problem with Greedo shooting first, and still think this point of contention is garbage.
The idea of making Han look like a good role model is hilarious.
I think the walkie talkies were the worst change he made because it's very insulting to his audience's intelligence.
I was also very ashamed when he decided to remove that one wrinkle from Sebastian Shaw's face in Return of the Jedi. To see such a drastic edit absolutely made me cross, I swear on me mum.
Let's talk about the good changes instead. This is the best one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RVJJfny4I&hd=1
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 16, 2013, 12:14:54 PM
Let's talk about the good changes instead. This is the best one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RVJJfny4I&hd=1
Die.
Quote from: Foggle on August 16, 2013, 12:24:01 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 16, 2013, 12:14:54 PM
Let's talk about the good changes instead. This is the best one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RVJJfny4I&hd=1
Die.
No kidding, that video is one of those things that goes past the point of "so bad it's funny" and straight down to "it's so bad it can't be funny" (at least that's how it is now, when I first saw it I nearly died laughing I must admit), because it could potentially destroy an awesome moment of the series for anyone. Luckily I generally forget that it even exists. I think I forced myself to. :P
I had no idea where to post this, but one opinion I can never get behind is when people say Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is better than Temple of Doom. Don't get me wrong, I liked Crystal Skull, but I feel like many make this claim as if to just say "Oh let's not pretend Temple of Doom was perfect either". And I'm not saying Temple of Doom was a great movie, either. Raiders and Last Crusade stand together on their own level.
I still like Temple Of Doom. It's a really silly, but really fun, movie.
I like Temple of Doom better than Crystal Skull, myself. I thought it was a fun movie.
A lot of people use the argument against it that it's racist and insensitive;because, you know, it's not like Indiana Jones movies EVER stereotyped any other cultures before or after this.[/sarcasm]
For the record, I'm Indian, and I've never had a problem with Temple of Doom for anything regarding racism. It's just silly stereotypes for the sake of being silly and fun, which is what the movie was going for. It trusted that it's audience was smart enough to tell the difference, but I guess they apparently weren't. For what it is, while I don't love the movie by any means, I thought it was a great adventure movie in it's own right. It's nowhere near as well-constructed or as fun as Raiders and Crusade were, but it's still a worthy addition to the Indiana Jones film-series, IMO.
As for Crystal Skull, I don't like it, but not for the same reasons as everyone else bitches and moans about. Just like how I didn't have a problem with Temple of Doom's silliness, I also didn't have anything against aliens being in an Indiana Jones movie. The way it was handled was done in a way in which it felt like it fit in with the general lore of the series. My problem with Crystal Skull was always that....it was boring. I could forgive Temple of Doom since it was still fun-spirited, and ultimately entertaining 80's cheese. As for Crystal Skull, though, it just didn't do it for me. It was neither well constructed enough nor silly enough to hold my attention. It was just a mediocre adventure story, which is why it's my least favorite Indiana Jones movie, personally. I don't hate it with a burning passion or anything like so many other people seem to (it takes A LOT for me to downright hate a film on that level, and Crystal Skull doesn't even come close to that), but I do generally agree with people that it's the weakest Indiana Jones film by far, even if it's for different reasons.
Many people seem to find it boring for that same reason, minus the fact that you don't mind the aliens.
While I like the movie, I do think it's pretty average.
I need to rewatch the fourth one sometime, haven't had the inkling to rent it.
Not Another Teen Movie>every movie it parodies
Quote from: Avaitor on September 25, 2013, 03:26:12 PM
Not Another Teen Movie>every movie it parodies
Quote
10 Things I Hate About You
Almost Famous
American Beauty
American Pie
Better Off Dead
The Breakfast Club
Bring It On
Can't Hardly Wait
Cruel Intentions
Dazed and Confused
Election
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Grease
The Karate Kid
Lucas
Never Been Kissed
Pretty in Pink
Risky Business
Road Trip
Rudy
Save the Last Dance
She's All That
Sixteen Candles
Varsity Blues
Summer Catch
Can't agree.
Yeah man, Not Another Teen Movie is great, but several of those movies are better. Dazed and Confused alone is one of my favorite movies ever, but also Fast Times, the John Hughes movies, The Karate Kid, Road Trip...
I also find Lucas quite underrated.
I think you guys are forgetting what the title of this thread is. :sly:
The thing is, I think Almost Famous is one of his favorite movies so I'm confused.
I don't even remember any Almost Famous references in the movie. ???
But I have to admit, I was off, and forgot about some great movies they touched, like yes, Dazed and Confused. But I definitely do prefer it to most anything John Hughes did for teens or a lot of the films that came out around that time (but clearly not all).
I'm still waiting for the really unpopular opinions like "Triumph of the Will was more inspiring and moving than Schindler's List could ever be." or "Godfather Part III is better than the other two."
The Lord Of The Rings movies are boring awful bullshit.
To counter the previous post, I felt that The Hobbit, Part 1 was excellent and will gladly watch the extended cut once it is released.
The Commitments was both a better book and movie to High Fidelity in relating life to music and much funnier too.
Quote from: Comeau on September 26, 2013, 04:33:19 PM
The Lord Of The Rings movies are boring awful bullshit.
:worship:
You know what though, maybe they're due for a rewatch. I was pretty young the last time I seen them, and my attention span was practically nonexistent at that point.
I literally just finished watching the extended cut of Fellowship for the first time, and I didn't find it boring at all. Haven't seen the theatricals since they were released.
I haven't seen them since the theater, either. The extended editions are the only way I watch them nowadays.
To be fair I was just taking Insomniac's challenge. Although it is true I'm not a fan of the movies.
Honestly, are they worth a rewatch if I didn't care for them initially?
Keep in mind I was like 10 at the time.
I don't even know how kids like these movies, personally. I first saw it in high school and thought they were awesome.
Not sure how I would have reacted if I saw them as a kid.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 26, 2013, 05:01:41 PM
I don't even know how kids like these movies, personally. I first saw it in high school and thought they were awesome.
Not sure how I would have reacted if I saw them as a kid.
My friends and I loved the battle scenes. We rented the video games from Blockbuster so many times...
Don't think many of us cared about or even understood the plot, though.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 26, 2013, 05:01:41 PM
I don't even know how kids like these movies, personally. I first saw it in high school and thought they were awesome.
Not sure how I would have reacted if I saw them as a kid.
That's what's funny though, is that I was one of the only kids in my class that didn't like them. I thought it was just me.
I guess that settles it then, time to look into this.
I was in high school too when they came out, still wasn't really a fan of them.
I agree with Foggle 100% about The Hobbit. That shouldn't be an unpopular opinion, but unfortunately it is.
As for The Lord of the Rings films, I first saw them when I was a kid (between 12-14, anyways, as they were released in theaters), and at the time I liked them for the battle scenes and awesome looking locations, but didn't understand jack shit about the story or characters. It wasn't until a year later when I actually sat down and read all of the books (including The Hobbit) that I truly started to gain an appreciation for the depth of the plot and characterization. The movie trilogy has its flaws as an adaptation, but seeing as how I consider it downright impossible to top the novels, I think that Peter Jackson basically made as great of an adaptation as you possibly could given the source material (which itself wasn't that well-suited to film, to begin with). He made something that shouldn't have worked turn out pretty damn well, IMO.
Having said that, these movies aren't for everyone. It's amazing that they became as popular and critically well-received as they did, but I can certainly see how some would find it boring. Personally, though, I consider it to be one of my favorite movie trilogies ever.
Quote from: Comeau on September 26, 2013, 04:33:19 PM
The Lord Of The Rings movies are boring awful bullshit.
AGREE. I can appreciate the mythos of the franchise but holy fuck do those movies drag on, and the only character I really liked was Gandalf. And this is coming from someone who involuntarily watches the whole trilogy at least every two years.
I think they could be longer, personally.
I think all three movies are masterpieces. Even Fellowship has perfect pacing as far as I'm concerned. I can't remember how old I was when I saw Fellowship in theaters (9 or 10 years old probably, I forget when it came out) but when Two Towers hit theaters, it and retroactively Fellowship become some of my favorite movies. I remember watching them practically every single day (and I'm not exaggerating) in the days building up to seeing Return of the King.
As for The Hobbit, I think it was good. Just not necessarily great. The main thing I liked was returning to Middle Earth after all those years since the last movie. But it was enough to get me looking forward to the next one.
Quote from: Avaitor on September 25, 2013, 03:26:12 PMNot Another Teen Movie>every movie it parodies
I wish I
could agree. But, at least we can all agree it's a better spoof than any of
Scary Movie's or similar clones (including their 80's ancestors:
Saturday the 14th, Student Bodies, Transylvania Twist, Beverly Hills Vamp, Repossessed, Full Moon High).
Quote from: No-Personality on September 28, 2013, 03:12:03 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on September 25, 2013, 03:26:12 PMNot Another Teen Movie>every movie it parodies
I wish I could agree. But, at least we can all agree it's a better spoof than any of Scary Movie's or similar clones (including their 80's ancestors: Saturday the 14th, Student Bodies, Transylvania Twist, Beverly Hills Vamp, Repossessed, Full Moon High).
Oh, yeah, I hope most can agree that it's better than all of the other parodies movies in its vein. Based on NATM's subject material, it's a film that actually needed some potty humor, while it cuts into a lot of the films it references, although so obviously more than others.
I actually laughed at the bodily humor jokes.
That is extremely rare, for info's sake. It takes an extra special pee, dildo, or poop joke to make me laugh. This movie got me to laugh at them.
I think Rotten Tomatoesnis kind of bullshit. I mean, even I use it occasionally to gauge the general reception on a film, but lately I've been finding that just because a marginal percentage of critics don't like a film doesn't really mean it will apply to my enjoyment of it. I've seen som films get overall rotten ratings and have still come out enjoying the more than some highly rated films. Conversely, I've seen some films get massively overrated on that site (I found Source Code to be incredibly mediocre at best, yet it got a 92% rating on that site).
It's not like I'm against the site itself, but I have come to hate how so many people on the Internet seem to rely on that site to base their opinions off of films. I've had people tell me my opinions were wrong about a movie that I liked by saying that it had a rotten percentage on RT, which I just find to be an idiotic way to argue something. Maybe I'm the only one who's had experiences like that, though.
I only refer to Rotten Tomatoes as a way of helping me decide which movies may be the most worthwhile to see in theaters, because I don't want to waste 15 bucks seeing a potentially bad movie.
I haven't jetted over there for research on this point but, I'll just freakin' bet that Rob Zombie's Halloween has a "fresh" rating and his Halloween II the stank, rotten, pooMato rating- whatever they use for the smelly ones. Now, how about Michael Bay anything? Zack Synder anything? Alexandre Aja? Etc... Some filmmakers make the same movie over and over again. But you just know the 'mato stick isn't catching that consistency. Choosing instead to try and gauge how much enthusiasm the public's able to cough up (critics are in the same boat, let's not kid ourselves: fuckin' Ted, fuckin' Cabin in the Woods, both of which deserve about 10 out of 100- my opinion, of course).
Quote from: No-Personality on October 17, 2013, 07:53:47 AM
I haven't jetted over there for research on this point but, I'll just freakin' bet that Rob Zombie's Halloween has a "fresh" rating and his Halloween II the stank, rotten, pooMato rating- whatever they use for the smelly ones.
Just checked. Rob Zombie's Halloween has a 25%, and the sequel has a 21%.
But it also has H20 rated nearly twice as high as the original Halloween II. :whuh:
It's fun to look up your favorite movie on RT and see it has a rating of like 31%. :pedro_nooo:
The Untouchables deserves a much higher rating than just 80%, IMO.
I also think that the 65% (or somewhere around there) rating for The Last Samurai is just way too low.
Meanwhile, fucking Cabin in the Woods gets a 92% rating on RT. I mean, honestly, it's not that smart of a movie. If you actually read the reviews below, a lot of these critics seemed genuinely surprised that it had the twist that it did, which I find hilarious because if you watched even one little commercial for it, or hell, even the beginning of the fucking movie, it was kind of obvious where it was going. I never even watched a full trailer for it, but even seeing just 1 TV spot about it got me to realize that it would have some dudes behind the scenes pulling all of the horror movie tropes, and that this movie would obviously satire it. And it's not like parodying the "teens getting gruesomely killed off" genre while still technically being a horror film in its own right is a new concept at all. Scream did the same thing well over a decade ago, and I'm not saying that I like Scream, but at least when those first 3 movies came out, that formula was actually a standard thing at the time. Cabin in the Woods parodied the same general formula, which was already long dead since the end of the 90's, so on top of being incredibly obvious and easy satire, it's not even relevant to the currents state of horror movies.
After all that I've said, I don't actually hate the movie. Hell, I thought it was OK for what it was, but seriously, the amount of praise that the movie gets just pisses me off. It really doesn't deserve it.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 17, 2013, 07:31:58 PMThe Untouchables deserves a much higher rating than just 80%, IMO.
Based on my first and only viewing of the movie (back in like 2001- my opinions have been known to radically change since), I'd agree with you.
But I've actually found some people who love De Palma and flat-out hate it.
Quote from: No-Personality on October 17, 2013, 07:36:41 PMBased on my first and only viewing of the movie, I'd agree with you.
But I've actually found some people who love De Palma and flat-out hate it.
Yeah, the movie has always had some mixed opinions, which is why I understand why it has the RT rating that it does, but I just never got those people, I guess. Yes, it's a very stylistic film and not the gritty, realistic sort of crime-noir that people might expect from going into a film like this, but it's not supposed to be, and really I don't find it to be out of the ordinary of De Palma's style of film-making. He usually tends to really romanticize characters and make his movies feel grander than they should be, and personally I'm OK with that as long as those movies have top-notch writing and good characterization to back it up. I'm not actually a huge De Palma fan, myself, but personally I think that both The Untouchables and Scarface do have plenty of substance behind all of their extravagance.
At least Untouchables hasn't suffered from overexposure like Scarface has. Now there's a movie that pop culture wouldn't leave alone for a long time.
But yeah, they are really good films. I was always surprised to learn there were people who disliked them so intensely.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on October 17, 2013, 07:50:45 PMAt least Untouchables hasn't suffered from overexposure like Scarface has. Now there's a movie that pop culture wouldn't leave alone for a long time.
To be fair, I think the movie deserved its time in the spotlight; which wasn't even for that long of a time; it only got a lot of buzz for about a year or so after the DVD was released. The movie initially got panned by critics because of its violence and because it wasn't being like every other gangster movie out there at the time. I mean, it was still romanticized for sure, but it was also much more believable in the way it handled its characters, even if it lead to things being more unapologetic-ally foul-mouthed. I think when a lot of people came back to that movie (or watched it for the first time) once the DVD was released, people were generally more accepting of it, and could see that beyond the controversial (at the time) aspects of it, it actually had some really good characterization and story-telling (though even this movie wasn't exempt from the stereotypical 80's montage scene :P ). As for pop culture, it was only famous and iconic scenes from the movie that weren't left alone and constantly referenced or parodied. Stuff that didn't even accurately represent what the movie was really about, to begin with.
Machete Kills is way better than 30%.
I don't know what its reception on here is (if anyone here has seen it), but I tried to watch Much Ado About Nothing by Joss Whedon. I wanted to see it from the preview, and I remember liking what I saw of the 90s adaptation. I wanted to like it, I really did. But I couldn't. The setting killed the dialogue for me, and the line delivery to me was terrible. I could tell this was made while Whedon was throwing a block party at his house. None of the performances sounded sincere. I had to turn it off after forty minutes.
I'll just watch the other 90s movie, since I didn't get to watch all of it anyway.
Quote from: Peanutbutter on October 22, 2013, 08:32:30 PM
I don't know what its reception on here is (if anyone here has seen it), but I tried to watch Much Ado About Nothing by Joss Whedon. I wanted to see it from the preview, and I remember liking what I saw of the 90s adaptation. I wanted to like it, I really did. But I couldn't. The setting killed the dialogue for me, and the line delivery to me was terrible. I could tell this was made while Whedon was throwing a block party at his house. None of the performances sounded sincere. I had to turn it off after forty minutes.
I'll just watch the other 90s movie, since I didn't get to watch all of it anyway.
I actually think it was the best movie of the year.
Sometimes I think that you can tell the most about a person's taste if you can see when their opinions radically differ from the mass majority of people on any particular thing, whether you like it or hate it. So, to rip off an old idea from Doug Walker, I want to do my top 10 list of movies that I like to some degree that everyone else seems to hate. In this case, these are NOT to be confused with guilty pleasures, which are things that you completely acknowledge as bad but still find enjoyment in for the wrong reasons. These are movies that you genuinely like but admit have plenty of flaws that may merit their negative criticism. For me, those are:
10. The Dark Knight Rises- Alright, this one got more mixed opinions than anything else, which is why I have it dead last on the list since it might not count, but I have noticed that over the time since its release, more people have gradually been coming to the consensus that it sucks, no thanks in small part to some highly influential opinions from Doug Walker and other popular Internet Reviewers. While I can understand and agree with many of the criticisms, none of the flaws bother me nearly as much as it does some other people, and I still think the movie has a lot of strong points to it, which I have gone into in earlier discussions. I also still stand by my opinion that Batman Begins is overrated, and I still like this movie better than that one.
09. Home Alone 2: Lost In New York- Admittedly this one has a lot to do with nostalgia, and it really pushes on the border of being a guilty pleasure, but as a kids movie I can't really say that its any worse than the first film, which for some reason everyone else seems to regard as a classic kids Holiday flick.
08. Ghostbusters II- Well, I've heard people call it more mediocre than bad, but honestly, I like it almost as much as the original. I especially find the villain to be rather memorable at least in terms of design (he actually looks intimidating), and the humor is just as spot-on as ever.
07. Back to the Future Part III- Admittedly I was one of the very people who didn't care for this movie, not that long ago, but after seeing James Rolfe defend it a little bit, I gave it another shot from a different point of view, and to my surprise I actually enjoyed it more than I ever had before. As a conclusion to the trilogy, it is kind of disappointing, but looked at as a stand-alone movie, it's pretty entertaining.
06. Prometheus- Everyone went into this movie expecting it to be a direct prequel to Alien and expecting a lot of answers. It was in fact not a true prequel and did not deliver any answers, so people hated it. Honestly, though, I didn't go in with expectations of that stuff, so I rather enjoyed the film. As for the other complaints about the characters being really stupid, some of the criticism I agree with, but there are a lot of instances where if you pay close attention to the film, some things that people complained about can actually be made clear sense of. It's one of those films that I can keep discovering new things about each time that I watch it. Personally I found it to be an interesting watch.
05. The Mummy (1999)/The Mummy Returns (2001)- A lot of people hate it because they are not actually remakes of the classic Universal Studios Mummy movies like the title implies. Other people hate them just because they use the same name as those films. And other people hate them for being cheap Indiana Jones knock-offs. Well, I can't deny any of those things, but what makes the movies work for me is that they are self-aware of their shortcomings and are clearly not taking themselves that seriously. I just find them to be silly and fun adventure flicks, myself.
04. Last Action Hero- You know, I had seen this once long ago and quite liked it. Then the Nostalgia Critic tore it apart and it became more popular than ever to hate on it, and at the time of that review I hadn't seen the movie in so long that I pretty much agreed with him. Then, not that long ago, I happened to catch the film randomly playing on some movie channel, and I gave it another shot, and for what it is, I found it to be rather entertaining. It seemed to be really self-aware of itself and clearly wasn't taking itself seriously at all, but the NC treated it like it was in his review. It's just a fun satire of classic 80's action movies, nothing more or less than that.
03. National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets- I swear, I think I'm the only person in the entire world who actually likes this movie. No, it wasn't as good as the first movie (which itself only got a modest following), but honestly it was still a really fun adventure flick in the same tone as that film. I don't quite know what everyone else was expecting, but I got just what I expected, and I was fairly satisfied with it.
02. I, Robot- I will concede this: as an adaptation, it sucks hard, and really has almost nothing to do with its source material. As a stand-alone action-scifi summer blockbuster, I think it does its job fine, and I can think of so many worse examples. Honestly I watched this movie a few times and genuinely enjoyed it each time I saw it.
01. Spider-Man 3- This should be no surprise to anyone who knows me. I get why people who didn't care for any of Raimi's Spider-Man movies hate this one. What I don't get is why people who claimed that Spider-Man 2 is one of the greatest superhero movies ever (you know, the movie that has Peter marching to "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head") suddenly turned around and claimed that this one was too silly and ridiculous. Have those guys even payed attention to the first 2 movies at all? In terms of general tone, SM3 is really no different from the first 2 movies. The only real big criticism that I find myself agreeing with is that the movie tried to tackle too many villains at once, but aside from Venom, I thought Harry and Sandman each got some pretty decent characterization. And I especially find it ridiculous that people complain about this movie having too much going on, yet I've seen plenty of those same people give Iron Man 2 (the movie with about a thousand sub-plots going on at once) a free pass just because they like Robert Downey Jr.'s performance in it. This is one case where I have to mimick James Rolfe and question whether people fell asleep during all of the really good parts, such as the action scenes and even some of the really emotional moments, which to me at least were some of the most effective in the entire Raimi trilogy. I suppose I can get it if people were disappointed after expecting this to be a darker take on the Spider-Man mythos and instead getting something a bit more light-hearted than that (in that regard, the 2012 reboot was better), but as it stands I think it's a genuinely good superhero movie that is a lot better than what most people give it credit for.
So that's my list. There are other movies I could have mentioned, but I had to make the cut-off at 10 films. You're all free to say what you want about my opinions, but at least I had the balls to admit where I disagree with the norm. :sly:
BTW, The rankings aren't based on quality. They are instead based on how much people seem to hate these movies.
Even if I don't agree with what you have to say, I just love reading through your posts like this.
Not that I really disagree with much of what you said, though. Although I do tend to side with the majority who feel that Ghostbusters 2 is a bit of a retread of the first, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy plenty of it.
Hmm. I actually totally agree with you on The Dark Knight Rises (though it's still the "weakest" of the three movies for me), Back to the Future 3 (and I'm not even a big fan of the franchise), National Treasure 2, The Mummy/The Mummy Returns (I didn't know people hated these), and I, Robot myself. I can't think of any other movies I like that most people hate, so I can't really make a list myself, though I could probably do one with movies with mixed reception.
Quote from: Avaitor on December 14, 2013, 09:24:06 PMEven if I don't agree with what you have to say, I just love reading through your posts like this.
Not that I really disagree with much of what you said, though. Although I do tend to side with the majority who feel that Ghostbusters 2 is a bit of a retread of the first, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy plenty of it.
Well, if you and others agreed with what I had to say in the first place, then that post of mine would have no point to it. ;)
Part of what I like about having opinions is that sometimes my opinions are really different from most other people, so rather than trying to convince other people to change their opinions (which is impossible), I instead state why I feel the way that I do about something. If you enjoyed reading it, then that's great, and basically the point why I even wrote that post in the first place. :thumbup:
Great list, E-K! I especially like seeing Spider-Man 3 at #1. I do happen to be one of those people who loves Spider-Man 2, but I don't get how people hate 3. Whenever people list the worst superhero movies and include Spider-Man 3, it just sticks out like a sore thumb to me. I too would agree with James Rolfe when it comes to this movie. I also got connected to the whole Peter Parker and Mary Jane thing. Alongside Superman and Lois Lane from the two Superman films staring Reeves, it might be my favorite pairing in any superhero film franchise.
But I actually would've expected to see you list the first Hobbit film over The Dark Knight Rises, as that seems to have gotten a more negative response.
I didn't even know Back To The Future Part III and Home Alone 2 were hated. I've only seen BTTFPIII once a few years ago and liked it and I LOVE Home Alone 2. I was just thinking about that movie. It was either that or the first one (I believe I watched both there) in high school that I was laughing at it like an idiot and the girls sitting next to me gave me a funny look. :D Those are my favorite live action family movies. So I am especially surprised at people not loving HA2.
Just like a day or two ago, i was thinking about how the writer at kungfucinema randomly called Last Action Hero trash (someone had a poster of the movie on their wall in an article). That movie will always be too fun.
The Mummy movies are still my "least favorite" favorite movies. I like them and I believe I saw both at the theaters (with my family of course, I was a kid).
Spider-Man 3 is still trash. Dark Peter Parker is awful and stupid, his relationship with Mary becomes more grating than ever, making Sand Man the bad guy we are supposed to feel sorry for was laughing and badly written, Topher grace puts on a terrible performance as Venom and the only thing I liked about the movie is the Hobgoblin.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on December 15, 2013, 12:08:31 PMBut I actually would've expected to see you list the first Hobbit film over The Dark Knight Rises, as that seems to have gotten a more negative response.
I could've gone with either one for that spot, but I've seen more mixed opinions on The Hobbit than downright negative ones. Meanwhile, I've seen more people turn on The Dark Knight Rises over time.
I don't even like Last Action Hero, but I do agree that it gets hated on a surprising amount. Though, the fans who claim it's a "classic" that people "didn't get" annoy me more.
I also like Spider-Man 3, BTTF3, and Ghostbusters 2 among the others, and don't quite understand why they're considered trash.
I'll also go out on a limb that I find Temple Of Doom is an awesome B-movie. It's always been popular to hate on it, but being that it was never intended to be like ROTLA, I can't bring myself to hate it as much as them. It's silly and brainless, and I think it succeeds at that.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on December 16, 2013, 06:46:01 PMI don't even like Last Action Hero, but I do agree that it gets hated on a surprising amount. Though, the fans who claim it's a "classic" that people "didn't get" annoy me more.
I didn't even know that this movie had fans. :huh:
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on December 16, 2013, 07:01:53 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on December 16, 2013, 06:46:01 PMI don't even like Last Action Hero, but I do agree that it gets hated on a surprising amount. Though, the fans who claim it's a "classic" that people "didn't get" annoy me more.
I didn't even know that this movie had fans. :huh:
They really came out of the woodwork after the Nostalgia Critic reviewed it.
I get
liking it, but a classic? Really?
I definitely wouldn't call it a classic, but I'll never really understand the hate that it gets, either.
So I've begun to develop an unpopular opinion on the ending of The Dark Knight Rises.
Spoiler
I no longer hate the Talia twist at the end. Okay, so it's not a good twist. I guess I would call it a bad twist. A much better "true villain" twist is Professor Quirrell being the villain over Snape. But at the same time... they don't actually make Bane out to be her pet. He's her protector and lover. She's the big boss, but I don't doubt for a moment that Bane wasn't just a genius and a plotter. I'd say they were in it together.
Yeah, it's not executed well, and I think the movie would've maybe been better off without it. But for me, it's become less of a major issue and more of a minor issue, borderline something that I am simply indifferent to... Course, it does result in a terrible death for Bane, which is the worst part of the twist.
I considered making my own list of movies I like that others don't, but I couldn't decide on a top 10, and some of my picks would be the same as E-K's. So I'm just going to take this moment to say that I think Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is a legitimately good movie. It's not just like Attack of the Clones where its entertainment comes out of shallow action. I actually like the story in it. I'd say that's because it has the Emperor being the Emperor (who completely steals the show), and it leads into the original trilogy, having the most to do with it. Of course it's far from great, and if you analyze the story, you see that it probably doesn't quite add up. But I just think it was entertaining especially in how dark it gets which, like most good things in the movie, can be attributed back to the Emperor.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on December 23, 2013, 06:47:44 PM
So I'm just going to take this moment to say that I think Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is a legitimately good movie. It's not just like Attack of the Clones where its entertainment comes out of shallow action. I actually like the story in it. I'd say that's because it has the Emperor being the Emperor (who completely steals the show), and it leads into the original trilogy, having the most to do with it. Of course it's far from great, and if you analyze the story, you see that it probably doesn't quite add up. But I just think it was entertaining especially in how dark it gets which, like most good things in the movie, can be attributed back to the Emperor.
I kind of agree with this. I've always thought RotS is the least terriable of the prequal trilogy. It also happens to be the only part of said trilogy I own.
Quote from: The Shadow Gentleman on December 23, 2013, 08:52:43 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on December 23, 2013, 06:47:44 PM
So I'm just going to take this moment to say that I think Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is a legitimately good movie. It's not just like Attack of the Clones where its entertainment comes out of shallow action. I actually like the story in it. I'd say that's because it has the Emperor being the Emperor (who completely steals the show), and it leads into the original trilogy, having the most to do with it. Of course it's far from great, and if you analyze the story, you see that it probably doesn't quite add up. But I just think it was entertaining especially in how dark it gets which, like most good things in the movie, can be attributed back to the Emperor.
I kind of agree with this. I've always thought RotS is the least terriable of the prequal trilogy. It also happens to be the only part of said trilogy I own.
I also think that Christenseen (whatever his name is, the kid who plays Anakin). Isn't a
terrible actor, not the way most believe. I mean, he's definitely awkward. But I suspect the main problem is that he just has nothing to go off of due to Lucas' bad directions. If the prequels had the director of Empire Strikes Back, I think the kid could've evolved. In footage of them preparing, that's just the feeling I get. It seems like Lucas is talking
at him, but isn't making any sense. I know for sure that Natalie Portman is a very good actress, but she's simply not at her best here, even though Padme is honestly one of the better characters in the prequels... If there's one thing I can give to Lucas, it's that. He's good at writing his leading ladies (Leia, Marion, etc.). Apparently, in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, he was originally wanted Indiana Jones to have a daughter instead of a son. Makes sense for Lucas.
Is it an unpopular opinion to say that Sling Blade is a better movie than Forrest Gump?
Because it is.
I thought Sling Blade was boring as sin, personally.
It's actually quite popular to hate on TH these days, and a good amount of that hate comes from the Oscars snubbing Puip Fiction that year. Personally, I think Pulp Fiction is overrated, so I can't say that I can identify with that sentiment.
Yes, yes, we all know your opinion on the Best Picture race of 1994. :P
I don't think Forrest Gump is a bad movie, but I also think it's far from the perfect film you do. Sling Blade isn't perfect either, but Billy Bob Thornton's performance is way stronger and less offensive than Tom Hanks' is, personally.
I don't think that any film is perfect, for the record. As for the performances, I don't find Tom Hanks to be offensive. I get that it's not a realistic portrayal of people with mental retardation, but neither was Thornton's. And for what it's worth, I also liked the acting in Sling Blade just fine. Like I said, though, watching the movie itself just felt like a chore to me, personally.
That's fair, I'm just really opinionated tonight.
Like how I still think that Mads Mikkelsen is a better Hannibal than Anthony Hopkins.
I need a drink.
I haven't seen a new Tom Hanks movie in a very long time. Which... after awhile, does turn into Old Tom Hanks' movies- doesn't it? I was pretty much done with him after You've Got Mail. That is, if the combination of Philadelphia and Gump didn't do that first.
Pulp Fiction isn't perfect. But I think it's pretty clear to most discerning film lovers that it's easily superior to the film which won Best Picture. Though, not sure how anyone could be angry about the snub. This was So not the movie that was taking home the BP Oscar that year.
I still say Serial Mom should have won. Or have been nominated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQwWaWFjd0Y
(That guy just has to be the lead in 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag.)
Yeah, Pulp Fiction wasn't a very likely BP winner, since the Academy wasn't ready for an independent movie to take the big one home yet. Nowadays that isn't as much of an issue, but Oscar's MO has always been to give Hollywood a pat on the back.
But I think /I'll take the chance to say here that Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction would have both been more deserving winners than Shawshank Redemption. I just... don't like that movie.
I did like Shawshank, but I just never felt like it was the cinematic masterpiece that people claim it to be.
And as for The Oscars, it's a well-known fact that they have long been biased toward Hollywood, and at that they are very conservative with their nominations and awards. Hell, the only reason we got stuff like awards for sound-mixing and editing were so that they could give people the illusion that they were being fair and impartial by having these other categories that movies that didn't fit their typical MO could be nominated for.
It's not so much about what films are the best, anymore. It's about what best fits their image of a good film. But, I take it all with a grain of salt. I haven't taken The Academy Awards that seriously in quite a while.
I still scratch my head over Shakespeare In Love.
By all accounts it's average, and yet... it wins best picture. I just don't see it.
If an American film doesn't win BP, it usually goes to a British film. I think The Artist is the first French film to win Best Picture, but even that has its very few lines of dialogue in English.
But yeah, we'll never see a foreign language film win the big one.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 30, 2014, 01:04:33 PMYeah, Pulp Fiction wasn't a very likely BP winner, since the Academy wasn't ready for an independent movie to take the big one home yet. Nowadays that isn't as much of an issue, but Oscar's MO has always been to give Hollywood a pat on the back.
But I think /I'll take the chance to say here that Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction would have both been more deserving winners than Shawshank Redemption. I just... don't like that movie.
Goddamn it, I forgot about
Shawshank. A love letter to being in prison... how could that ever go wrong? ::)
I'm telling you- if you've never seen
Serial Mom, do. Rent, buy, you'll thank me someday. See it and tell me it's not better than
Pulp Fiction. I dare ya. Especially if you didn't like
Scream. (They're both black comedy cultural satires with a focus on popular attitudes of what causes violence, etc., in people who consume media and the whole serial killer fame obsession of the 90's.)
I saw it once in film class. It's not better than Pulp Fiction. Even the professor was apologetic about showing it.
Hey, I love Pulp Fiction. It's very entertaining. And this is coming from someone who has to object on some level to the entire subplot of Bruce Willis's near 50% of the film where he has to go back for the watch to then pick up a great motorcycle. It doesn't have to be particularly offensive to be somewhat unnecessary and/or wrong on some fundamental level.
But Serial Mom actually is exactly what it should be. I think Pulp isolates quite a few people from loving it, and from different backgrounds for different reasons. Serial Mom tests people for being uptight, yet actually has A Wealth of deeper meaning. On some level, it's not a Philosophy Bro Wankfest. Which isn't even the ultimate qualification for Pulp being great but it is why it is held up as such an Unimpeachable Classic. I know a lot of the fans claim it's about something deeper... it isn't. John Waters spent 2 decades making underground subversive films only to break through to the mainstream... then gut it like a fish. (Damn you, Scream- when will you cease to be brilliant?)
And, the ultimate reason Serial Mom is better than Pulp Fiction is because Jackie Brown is probably Tarantino's best film anyway. You just can't compare the spectatorship of the former to the passionate empathy of the latter. A lot of people were critical of Tarantino as a person, claiming he was immature, gimmicky, etc. Jackie is proof positive just how smart he is and how much he cares about film. In fact, it's probably a better film than every last thing it takes influence from. Which I wouldn't be willing to say about Pulp. Just that it's a dynamic film which was marginally better at setting the tone for what the 90's was than Clerks, and a lot better (at doing the same) than Slacker. Anyone else think that one's overrated? I personally think Gregg Araki's The Living End is better than Pulp Fiction (because life and death are much more immediate throughout) but it Is better than Slacker.
Some people might not get Serial Mom but you get what it's about. You can't deny it really hit a goldmine of social commentary. And it approaches it from the perspective of the audience. Again, being consistent media consumers. The characters in the film with loud mouths are not just horror fans. And everyone can relate to every kind of person we see in the film. For perspective on that, I remember the early 90's quite well. It doesn't talk down to teenagers. It doesn't have the same agenda as Natural Born Killers but it's so perfect. Hell, even if it's just a pot Waters threw things into, it's still a sharp and clever take on the American Family of the 90's vs. Society. And it was hilarious.
I guess I'm the only one here who likes Shawshank. But I do. It's not an easy watch, but I do like it even if its been referenced way too many times to count.
I said I liked it. Just don't think it's a masterpiece is all.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 30, 2014, 06:26:24 PMI guess I'm the only one here who likes Shawshank. But I do. It's not an easy watch, but I do like it even if its been referenced way too many times to count.
I need to see it again. For some reason, the last time I did, my brain was apparently doing that Homer thing, where he sings instead of pays attention, while Every Last Implication of rape was being made. But, the Very first scene really sticks in my craw. Again, I don't remember the details but I definitely remember that there were a lot of details that were problematic in Tim Robbins' whole court case. Unless, again, I missed something- like: was their corruption involved? Evidence planted? That sort of thing. That's the only way to explain the holes in that scene.
Well Serial Mom is on my queue.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 30, 2014, 09:15:11 PM
Well Serial Mom is on my queue.
It sucks though. My professor literally stopped the class for a few minutes to apologize for showing that movie, calling it a turd in John Waters' career and assuring us that none of the movies in the semester will be like that.
Your Professor is a moron.
I saw a little bit of serial mom a few years ago and i liked what i saw.
dawn of the dead remake's group of survivors is way better than the walking dead tv. of course the walking dead comics' group blows them both out of the water though.
I know that this is certainly an unpopular opinion, which is why I'm posting it here.
I love both Avengers movies. Neither are perfect, but they are both super fun if you don't spend your time nit-picking the hell out of them. That said, I still feel that X2 and DOFP are superior ensemble superhero team films, personally.
Of course, Avengers has them beat in the action department, and they are on equal ground when it comes to their casts/acting, but I feel that those two X-Men films have stronger stories and character development, personally.
As for the original X-Men and First Class, they are a step below, but still great, IMO. And yes, GOTG is at least on par with if not a bit superior to the Avengers films, IMO. And once again, I say this as someone who genuinely loved both of the Avengers movies.
Days of Future Past was great, but I have to be honest and say that I can't remember a single thing about its Quicksilver.
That's all I really have to add, though.
To be fair he only had two scenes in that entire film and was not at all central to the main plot. I do think that the way that they showed how his powers work was superior to AoU's portrayal, but other than that we never got to learn much about his character as opposed to AoU where he was a major character throughout the film, so that comparison is a bit unfair, IMO.
I only bring it up since I'm seeing people consider DOFP's Quicksilver superior, but it's all a blur to me. Evan Peters just doesn't really do it for me as an actor though, which is a big part of why I dropped American Horror Story.
Well my unpopular opinion is that I prefer X2 to DOFP. Probably since I prefer its source material, and I don't care too much about Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. They're both easily the best X-Men films, though.
I still don't think that it's quite fair to judge his ability to play Quicksilver in just one or two scenes. If he has a bigger role in the next film, then that would be much more material to go on. Otherwise, he was fun in DOFP for whatever little screen time that he had to work with.
Anyways, I love both films, but I slightly prefer DOFP due to better pacing and a lack of a crappy romance sub-plot (probably my only gripe with X2).
This thread still reminds me that I'm somehow still pretty behind on superhero movies. I'm going to watch The Wolverine today to catch up a bit on X-Men movies.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 03, 2015, 04:55:31 PM
Anyways, I love both films, but I slightly prefer DOFP due to better pacing and a lack of a crappy romance sub-plot (probably my only gripe with X2).
In hindsight, yeah, that was kind of annoying.
And The Wolverine was pretty good, GSF. It almost felt like a return to comic book movies from a decade ago, but a little more fun and with slightly better writing. If nothing else, it was way better than Origins.
I actually liked Origins so I should really like this. :sweat: Thank you.
Origins wasn't the worst thing I've ever seen. I did like the little bit of Gambit and Ryan Reynolds trying to be Deadpool that we got. But giving it 2 1/2 stars out of 5 would be generous.
I guess I'm very generous.
Origins was bad, but in the same self-contained way that Alien Resurrection sucks. It has some fun moments, but basically misses what was great about previous X-Men movies. Meanwhile, X3 feels worse to me and more disappointing since it's the conclusion to two excellent movies that preceded it. And also it butchers the Dark Phoenix Saga. That too.
I'm honestly really "meh" on The Wolverine, myself. It just didn't do much for me. Though it's worth mentioning that Rila Fukushima is pretty good as Yukio. She also does a great portrayal of Katana on Arrow. Also, I was surprised to see her appear briefly as a Red Priestess on last week's episode of Game of Thrones.
Yeah, The Last Stand is undoubtedly the worst in the franchise.
I'd say that everyone else has been a slight rise since, but I do think First Class is better than The Wolverine, even if I consider FC to mostly be a primer for DOFP.
I actually remember liking 3 more than Origins. I think most feel that way.
Most people just hate them both, actually.
True but I meant that Origins is most hated.
This is still the greatest scene in superhero film history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtx18tPNda4
Quote from: Foggle on May 03, 2015, 09:22:02 PM
This is still the greatest scene in superhero film history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtx18tPNda4
Dude shut up. Spider-Man 3 is one of the worst movies of all time. Didn't you see the way they handled Venom? Why did we need fifty villains? And the movie was so silly. I prefer Spider-Man movies to be played totally straight.
No one asked for your trash opinion.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kappit.com%2Fimg%2Fpics%2F26544779aideh.jpg&hash=979bc50b439c5d69081da39e5476cc7f1f8fdf47)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2l1Ijuehss
Well, I didn't see that movie, so I'm afraid I can't go on an unnecessarily mad rant there. :srs:
I know that Doug Walker actually likes The Last Stand, but doesn't like Origins at all. That would be a little annoying, if more people knew who he was.
The Joker dancing to Prince easily trumps that Peter Parker scene.
Also, this is the true greatest scene in all of comic book movies: http://youtu.be/spiVBQisujo
The version of that scene in the Halle Berry Catwoman is better. CGI cats are the way to go.
I've completely forgotten that The Wolverine even existed. I still want to see the post-Last Stand movies, but that one was so horrid it burned me out. I've seen enough of the first Wolverine movie to know that I don't want to see it in full.
So, let me get this straight: Out of all of the post Last Stand movies, you only decided to watch the two solo Wolverine films and not the far better received First Class or DOFP? :whuh:
Quote from: Foggle on May 03, 2015, 09:22:02 PM
This is still the greatest scene in superhero film history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtx18tPNda4
Lemme guess, Linkin Peter Parker.
Quote from: Foggle on May 03, 2015, 09:22:02 PM
This is still the greatest scene in superhero film history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtx18tPNda4
Yep. *punches Foggle*
I thought the greatest scene in superhero film history was this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x38AM_SxIz0)
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 03, 2015, 10:32:53 PM
So, let me get this straight: Out of all of the post last-stand movies, you only decided to watch the two solo Wolverine films and not the far better received First Class or DOFP? :whuh:
What? No. I've seen the first three X-Men movies, bits and pieces of Wolverine: Origins on FX airings. I just meant that I completely forgot that The Wolverine was even something that came out; I've never seen it. I just tend to think of First Class and DOFP whenever I think of X-Men movies I haven't watched.
This conversation has me excited for the next (and possibly last?) X-Men movie from Bryan Singer. DOFP was easily one of the best superhero movies ever and my favorite X-Men movie.
I do hope they can bring Nightcrawler and Gambit into it, though. They were the only X-Men I really missed from DOFP.
I will be particularly interested to see Sansa Stark as Jean Grey.
I'm not an Apocalypse fan, but Bryan Singer has done more right than wrong with the characters, so I'm down.
I'm excited to hear that they are finally using the character. About damn time.
The question I'm more interested in is who they're going to use for his Four Horsemen.
There are a lot of good potential choices, and good ways to include various X-Men characters that haven't really had a chance to have a role yet.
So, I recently re-watched both Gremlins movies. While the original is a classic, I have to admit that it hasn't aged as perfectly as some other 80's classics. The human characters aren't really interesting, and while I enjoy the Gremlins themselves, a lot of the comedy falls a bit flat for me due to being a bit too predictable. I still really enjoy the movie despite that, but just don't love it as much as when I was younger.
Meanwhile, the sequel is one of the most underrated movies that I've ever seen. It's incredibly creative and hilarious, has even better social commentary/satire than the original movie, and is completely unconventional in execution. It doesn't cheaply rehash the first film, but instead goes balls-to-the-walls over the top in the best ways possible.
It actually even did fairly well with critics. It's the common movie-going audience that just didn't seem to get it. Personally, I think that it's a superior sequel, and consider it quite sad that the movie flopped despite how good it was.
Gremlins 2 was like live action Looney Tunes and a parody of the original movie at the same time. It always floored me that it wasn't as loved as the first one since I think it's easily as good.
The movie even opens with a Looney Tunes skit! It perfectly sets up the tone for the whole film.
To be fair, I've noticed that this movie has gone on to become a cult classic in recent years, so at least it's getting deserved recognition, even if its years after its initial release.
But man, that Brain Gremlin was priceless, and the fucking Lightning Gremlin was ingenious.
See, I didn't watch them as a kid. I missed out on them. Then my friend brought both movies over and we watched them. I was floored when he said the second movie didn't do as well as the first. It was, like, the best way to do a sequel. Really, what more could anyone want from a movie about evil magical Gremlins who want to destroy everything?
The funny thing is that Joe Dante himself prefers the sequel (I read that in an interview somewhere), and believes that it wasn't successful because they waited too long after the original film came out to make it.
Talks for a sequel had happened right away, but both Joe Dante and Steven Spielberg kept turning down every pitch that they got for a second film because they were nothing more than rehashes of the original. Finally WB said that if Joe Dante made a sequel, they would give him complete creative control to do whatever he wanted, so he agreed, and the movie that we got was absolutely amazing, IMO.
This video does a really good job of explaining just how much love and craft went into this underrated gem: https://youtu.be/33PSQjs3lrk
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on July 16, 2015, 02:03:14 PMthey were nothing more than rehashes of the original
I wouldn't be surprised if something like that would've been more well received by the public, sadly.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if that Gremlins reboot that we may or may not be getting turns out to be just that: feeding off of nostalgia rather than being its own creative piece of fun. I hope not, though.
On another note, if that supposed Richard Donner Goonies sequel ever really comes to fruition, I'll be really disappointed of it doesn't reference Gremlins like the first movie did (which also cleverly hinted that both movies took place within the same fictional Universe).
I hope we never get a reboot, because we don't need one. Just have a new kid get Gizmo. There, easy new movie.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 16, 2015, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on July 16, 2015, 02:03:14 PMthey were nothing more than rehashes of the original
I wouldn't be surprised if something like that would've been more well received by the public, sadly.
I'm not so sure. Rehash sequels in the '80s didn't do very well. Die Hard 2, for example, is still thought of as the weakest link in the original trilogy.
Not to mention that despite all the reboots and remakes, most still fail at the box office. People want original material. I just think the New Batch waited too long to come out. If it came out a year or two after the original it would have been better received.
It actually did get a decent response from critics. However, much like a great 80's John Carpenter movie, the general movie-going audience simply didn't get it at the time. Movies being so meta was a fairly new concept back then. I think that Wayne's World was one of the first movies to have a healthy dose of meta humor and still be financially successful (though that was a fairly low-budget film, I believe), and then there were those 90's Kevin Smith movies, and then Scream threw in a ton of meta humor despite being a horror movie.
Eventually that type of humor found its audience, but even putting that aside, it was still a bit too zany for the average person, but the positive reception that The New Batch gets today leads me to believe that it was way ahead of its time.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 16, 2015, 03:13:08 PMJust have a new kid get Gizmo. There, easy new movie.
Only if they bring back Howie Mandel to do the voice. :D
A lot of films in the 80s really took off on video and TV. I guess it comes from different expectations at the time. John Carpenter's stuff got huge from those sources. Especially Starman and Big Trouble.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on July 16, 2015, 03:33:58 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 16, 2015, 03:13:08 PMJust have a new kid get Gizmo. There, easy new movie.
Only if they bring back Howie Mandel to do the voice. :D
This is almost certain.
The Thing found its audience from the video rental crowd since the extreme levels of gore turned off way too many people back in the 80's.
And They Live didn't truly find itself a suitable audience until the DVD era.
I feel bad for John Carpenter, though. Almost all of his films from that decade are now considered classics, yet they were so ahead of their time that he could never manage to find an audience for them back when they needed that kind of support the most.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 16, 2015, 03:13:08 PM
I hope we never get a reboot, because we don't need one.
Not to mention that despite all the reboots and remakes, most still fail at the box office. People want original material. I just think the New Batch waited too long to come out. If it came out a year or two after the original it would have been better received.
Well, I'm pretty sure the reboots of horror movies like Halloween are among the highest grossing films in their franchises. Of course, not all are like that. But I think some movie makers these days take those as the example that it can be easy money to reboot, remake, sequel, or even prequel a franchise that's already a money maker.
Not my own unpopular opinion, but I found an article that claims Iron Man is anti-Muslim War on Terror propaganda. (http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/solid-dick/)
As much as I liked Rocky Balboa and will probably see Creed, and even though I think the Expendables is a decent (not great) action franchise . . . I kind of wish Stallone was making Last Blood like he promised he was working on.
Like Balboa, a movie that comes full circle with the original film is something the franchise and its fans deserve. Sure the other films aren't much like the original (though the fourth at least focuses on the horrors that got him where he was in First Blood) but after so many years on the battlefield, it would be interesting to see John Rambo coming home and having to finally face the world he kept running away from. I'm not sure how many Rambo fans would want that, but it is precisely what I hope for from Stallone's last Rambo movie.
That would be interesting. I expected a sequel to the new Rambo years ago.
I'd like to see a new First Blood that's closer to the book and then (obviously) no sequels after that.
As the title implies, it would be the last Rambo movie. If that's the case then it needs to have ties to the original movie. It's pretty integral to the character that it ends back where he started.
It's sort of what I'm hoping for the final Die Hard movie for it to tie in to the original (and 3, probably) before bringing it to a close.
I love First Blood (check my top 50 films of all time list), have a bit of a soft spot for the first sequel, and don't particularly care for the other two.
And as much as I'd love to see Last Blood, those Creed trailers look surprisingly great, and the film is being directed by the same guy who did Fruitsvale Station, so we may just be in for something special. Based on that, I can wait a bit for that (hopefully) final Rambo movie.
I definitely want to see what they'll do with Creed, but I sincerely hope Last Blood is his next project. A bookend to First Blood is really exciting to imagine.
I thought you hated Rambo, ek? I actually like the first two movies equally. I don't care for III and I thought 4 was alright.
I need to pay more attention to Creed...starting with actually watching a trailer. I didn't know Michael B. Jordan would be Creed's son in the movie. That and the fact that I liked Rocky Balboa, has me interested in the movie.
Where have I ever stated that I hated Rambo?
First Blood is one of my all-time favorite action movies. The second movie is a guilty pleasure.
I'm not a fan of III, or the fourth film which is actually called Rambo, but I don't recall saying that I outright hated them, either.
I just said I thought you said you hated the 2nd movie.
I don't remember saying that. I did just call it a guilty pleasure, though, so I certainly don't think that it's good, as much as I just enjoy it for nostalgia-reasons.
I'm not the biggest fan of Tarantino, but I kept hearing the rumor that he was planning to direct films of Len Deighton's "Game, Set, Match" trilogy and I would be all for that.
Though I'm sure everyone else would prefer him to keep making originals, I would want to see him do this.
Technically, Django Unchained isn't an original. It's clearly a gritty modern update of the original film from the 60's, though at the same time doesn't quite fall under the category of a remake or reboot. Even so, since it shares the same namesake, it's technically "a" Django movie, instead of being "the" Django movie.
Also, a lot of Tarantino's films essentially rip-off a ton of elements from classic films (mostly foreign) which he loves, so it's not like he's the most wildly original director out there. Thus, I don't see why he should have a problem adapting source material if it's something that he himself has some admiration for and would be interested in making into a film.
A lot of people consider Jackie Brown his weakest for the simple reason that he adapted it from a book.
Seriously. That's why.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on February 12, 2016, 11:08:29 PM
Technically, Django Unchained isn't an original. It's clearly a gritty modern update of the original film from the 60's, though at the same time doesn't quite fall under the category of a remake or reboot. Even so, since it shares the same namesake, it's technically "a" Django movie, instead of being "the" Django movie.
Also, a lot of Tarantino's films essentially rip-off a ton of elements from classic films (mostly foreign) which he loves, so it's not like he's the most wildly original director out there. Thus, I don't see why he should have a problem adapting source material if it's something that he himself has some admiration for and would be interested in making into a film.
Which reminds me,I still need to see City Of Fire.
Relevant: https://youtu.be/lVCpXYBFvuo
Another unpopular opinion that I have:
As far as remakes of classic Westerns go, 3:10 To Yuma is a superior film to the Coen Brothers' True Grit. Everyone talks about the latter because of who made it, but most people I know didn't even bother to see the former. Now, even putting my personal distaste for the Coen Brothers' films aside (I don't hate them by any means, but I'm just not a fan), and acknowledging that True Grit is probably one of their more accessible movies even for non-fans, I still find it to be kind of a mixed bag at best. The performances are great, as is the cinematography, but the pacing is way too slow and several portions of the film honestly kind of bore me. It has its moments, but as far as darker Westerns with a more somber tone go, Unforgiven does that style much better, IMO. Meanwhile, 3:10 To Yuma also has great acting and cinematography, but also boasts terrific pacing, memorable dialogue (I'd put it on par with Django Unchained, myself), a really intense final shoot-out scene (on top of generally having great action), and a much more engaging protagonist (not to mention an awesome set of villains with characters like Ben Wade and Charlie Prince).
But, since that movie doesn't have the Coen Brothers' name attached to it (or Tarantino, for that matter), nobody seems to give a shit.
I saw 3:10 to Yuma in theaters. It was pretty great. I saw True Grit on DVD. It was okay.
Might be because Coen films are just so sluggish. Not just with action or drama, but when waiting for the story to finally start moving.
I also saw it in theaters. It was a pleasant surprise for my dad and I, as we went in with fairly low expectations and came out really impressed.
True Grit had a great set-up, but ultimately felt way too slow for its own good. Like I said, I don't mind a slow Western when it's kept interesting like in Unforgiven, Bone Tomahawk, or the last two-thirds of The Hateful Eight, but True Grit honestly had my interest waver quite a bit over the course of the movie.
Zack Snyder managed to prove himself to be worse than Michael Bay. It's amazing. It's tremendous. There are not enough adjectives in the world. Allow me to explain: Michael Bay is a juvenile sleaze that has no idea how to construct a story, flesh out characters, or direct action sequences that cohere. Michael Bay's audience consists of angry, young, horny white teenage boys looking for something to masturbate to. That's Bay's audience. Bay admits it. Bay wears it on his sleeve. Bay doesn't care. Zack Snyder, on the other hand, makes his movies for the exact same audience, but insists he is some artistic genius. Zack Snyder is a pretentious asshole, he's Michael Bay if Bay deluded himself into thinking he's Stanley Kubrick. But he's not. He's just some schmo. A deeply stupid schmo.
So yeah, Snyder makes Bay look like Scorsese. That's my unpopular opinion, and you know how much I hate Bay.
I'm not sure what the consensus on this is, but as A New Hope knock-off, Guardians of the Galaxy>The Force Awakens
Quote from: Avaitor on December 24, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
I'm not sure what the consensus on this is, but as A New Hope knock-off, Guardians of the Galaxy>The Force Awakens
I agree. I don't hate The Force Awakens by any means. It's a well-made film, to be sure. But I just never got the huge praise that it received upon release, and my opinion of it has only soured over the past year. Mainly, I'm just not that invested in these new characters yet. Hopefully Episode VIII changes my opinion on that.
Guardians was just a really fun movie from start to finish, but also managed to have a strong emotional core at its center that really came into full play during the movie's few but resonant emotional scenes.
Force Awakens succeeded at making the new characters likable, but there's nothing really original or daring in it. Which makes sense, since Abrams is best at copying other artist's style, but as a movie, it's not earth-shattering IMO.
Also, BB-8 has nothing on Groot, either.
He doesn't even have anything on R2-D2, IMO.
Guardians of the Galaxy > Star Trek Beyond > The Force Awakens IMO, and I really liked TFA.
I never gelled with the idea that Star Wars became a soulless corporate hack after Disney bought it, because it became corporate the moment A New Hope came out and Lucas realized he could make a fortune by selling toys. The focus-testing, the characters solely there for merchandise, they were all there in the Original Trilogy. Why point at Disney as this evil capitalist menace that ruined Star Wars, when the original creator did it decades ago? If anything, Disney meddles less with the franchise than Lucas did by letting other directors like Rian Johnson give a go at Star Wars.
Not an unpopular opinion here, but since Star Wars was brought up I'll say anyway that Rey was NOT a Mary Sue.
And I want the term Mary Sue to DIE already.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on May 16, 2017, 01:02:17 AMI never gelled with the idea that Star Wars became a soulless corporate hack after Disney bought it, because it became corporate the moment A New Hope came out and Lucas realized he could make a fortune by selling toys. The focus-testing, the characters solely there for merchandise, they were all there in the Original Trilogy. Why point at Disney as this evil capitalist menace that ruined Star Wars, when the original creator did it decades ago? If anything, Disney meddles less with the franchise than Lucas did by letting other directors like Rian Johnson give a go at Star Wars.
While I can understand the criticism to an extent, my only real issue with Disney's approach to Star Wars is in trying to get a film out every year. I think that it makes Star Wars feel a bit less special than it used to when the movies were spaced further apart and it felt like a huge deal to see a new one come out (yes, even the prequels always had a lot of buzz about them at release time). When The Force Awakens was announced the hype was insane. Then Rogue One followed and it just felt like any other big movie. Same with The Last Jedi. I mean, people are excited, but no more so than any other blockbuster franchise film that comes out these days.
I think that's kind of similar to how some people get franchise fatigue with the Marvel movies. To be clear, I'm absolutely not one of those people who think that the MCU is over-processed corporate junk. Sure, I wish creators could have gotten a bit more freedom to make the movies that they wanted to make in some cases, like with Joss Whedon maybe not being forced to follow such a strict guideline for Age of Ultron, or Edgar Wright actually getting to make his version of Ant-Man. That said, Kevin Feige and other head members of Marvel wanting to adhere to their grand vision and occasionally having to intervene in order to stick to their plan doesn't automatically make MCU films some soulless money-making machine. For every negative incident people seem to forget how much stuff Marvel Studios has gotten right, like with The Russo Brothers' Captain America movies or James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy, and most recently Spider-Man: Homecoming which is easily one of the top five MCU films so far.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm tired of the constant bitching from naysayers. Some people just want to complain for the sake of it. The more that I think about it, the more irritating and hypocritical many of these grievances seem.
But relating it back to Star Wars, I DO feel as though Marvel increasing their output to three movies a year does feel rather overwhelming. That said, in the MCU's case, I do think that you could at least make the argument that the constant releases are meant to emulate how comic books are a consistent factor in many people's lives with relatively frequent releases. In that regard it's sort of like the movie equivalent of keeping up with a series of comic books or like how I read a good chunk of Weekly Shonen Jump manga and while a single chapter isn't individually that special, it still feels like a big deal in the long run in how I constantly look forward to the next chapter of my favorite ongoing serializations.
I remember finding out that the actual annual output of superhero films was much lower than many people thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_superhero_films), it's usually either 5 to 8 films per year out of a yearly schedule that consists of at least 700 films overall. So that's just around 1% of the movie schedule getting overtaken with capes, far from what I would consider an oversaturation. The advent of the MCU didn't even add to that number much, as 1994 had over 7 films with superheroes.
But I am worried about the Star Wars output though, like when I heard about Lord & Miller getting fired in the middle of filming, and Lucasfilm hiring an acting coach for Han's actor. Doesn't sound like they have any idea what they're doing for this film. Not even sure why a Han Solo movie was one of their first options for a spinoff. All the Star Wars fansites I've seen aren't hyped for a Han Solo film at all, instead wanting a KOTOR film or Ewan McGregor to come back for an Obi-Wan thing.
Looking at that list, I just realized that the mere inclusion of one of those films is a major spoiler in and of itself. ;)
So, I just watched Jackie Brown for the first time last night, and honestly it wasn't really my cup of tea. However, it does basically confirm a rather minority opinion I have that Quentin Tarantino's later work is mostly superior to his older stuff. While I do understand the love and reverence that most people have for his 90's stuff, I just kind of admire the craft while not really being that into the stories that he's telling. Like, Reservoir Dogs is OK, but at the end of the day just feels like his imitation of City on Fire. It feels less like this movie and more like him trying to model his style after other movies that inspired him, which makes sense for his earlier full-length debut film, but it also hurts the overall quality of the picture, for me. Then comes Pulp Fiction which, fun fact is a movie that I used to hate. Over time I have warmed up to it just enough to appreciate it's best scenes and admire how he handles dialogue and non-linear story-telling, but I'd be lying if I said that it was something that I'd really want to go back to again after already having spend three watches of it trying to appreciate it as much as I could in the first place. Jackie Brown pretty much falls into a similar camp as Pulp Fiction, in that I respect the craft, but really wasn't into the whole experience enough to want to revisit it.
After that comes Kill Bill (Volumes 1 and 2 both count as a single movie according to Tarantino himself), which is a step up for me, but still not quite my jam. I think I do really like the style and tone of this movie, though I do feel that it staggers a bit in some of its later chapters, though on that note I will say that I fall into the camp that finds the final chapter to actually be pretty damn brilliant as far as climaxes go. Death Proof is....well, yeah, even the most diehard Tarantino fans have trouble sticking up for that one. It was an interesting experiment, if nothing else, I suppose. Then comes Inglorious Basterds, which is easily my favorite of his films. I think it shows a mastery of his craft, but in this case on top of having top-notch writing, acting, and production values, I really think that he managed to perfect his story-telling in a way that really had a way of grabbing my attention and never letting go throughout the entire film. That said, this movie owes a lot to Christoph Waltz's insanely good performance as Hans Landa. In fact, you could arguably say the same thing about his next movie, Django Unchained, in that Waltz absolutely steals the show again. In fact, I'd personally make the argument that the climax feels a bit weaker than it could've been without him around, as there is definitely a void left after his exit from the movie. Of course, putting that aside it is still a good Western, and if anything it's probably the least self-indulgent of any of Tarantino's movies, so it gets a lot of bonus points for that in my book. Most recently was The Hateful Eight. When I first saw this movie in theaters in 70 mm I had mixed feelings about it. I don't absolutely love the movie, but after a second viewing I do appreciate it a lot more, now that I knew what to expect, whereas my first viewing kind of caught me by surprise since I was expecting a somewhat different kind of movie than what I got. While this one can be a bit too slow for its own good, there is enough memorable dialogue here combined with some excellent performances that make it worth a watch every now and then.
So, yeah, on the whole I have at least enjoyed the last three movies that Tarantino has made and would gladly watch the next one out of curiosity, but I suppose I was just never as big on the guy as most people are, and while most people fell in love with his earlier material (and as I said, I can totally understand and respect that), most of it just doesn't really do anything for me, personally.
My unpopular Tarantino opinion is that Kill Bill is his weakest work. There's some really cool action sequences, but I think the story is flat and the Bride is among the least developed and interesting female action protagonists this side of Katniss Everdeen.
I can understand why Death Proof takes that position for most, but that has a lot more going on for it IMO. I definitely agree with James Rolfe that it's a different movie each time I watch it.
I've always been pretty mixed on Kill Bill myself, as I already discussed in my last post. While there are parts of it that are genuinely brilliant, and while I'm a sucker for movies heavily influenced by Asian cinema including martial arts, Samurai flicks, and anime, Kill Bill as a movie just doesn't add up the some of its parts to what I would personally expect from it. It's alright for what it is, but I'd argue that John Wick of all things is a far better example of a good revenge movie influenced by Asian action films than Kill Bill, personally.
I'm biased toward Kill Bill because of the fight scenes with Gogo and the Crazy 88. Tarantino's yet to make a fight scene as fun to watch as either of those.
So, with Blade Runner 2049 coming out next month, I figured that I'd give the original a re-watch and dug out my older brother's Blu-Ray of it. As before, my thoughts on it remain to be....kind of middling. I mean, I never disliked the movie, and I do find value in its core themes and how it chooses to explore them, but to me Blade Runner is to film what something like Fullmetal Alchemist is to manga or anime. It's fine, but I just don't get the massive love that people have for it beyond its base appeal.
I should probably mention that I do really like the novel that inspired it, though admittedly it's not for everyone and really is so different that it doesn't even make much sense to bother comparing the two other than how they choose to tackle the same general theme. That said, I just never developed much of a connection with the film. I can admire it from a technical standpoint as well as how brilliantly organic its soundtrack is in fitting in line with its visuals and feeling like a natural part of the film's world, but other than that it's not really a movie that ever truly captivated me beyond enjoying it on a base level.
That said, I am fairly interested in the sequel if only because of the director who's attached to it.
Yeah, I was really underwhelmed by the film when I rewatched it for a class last year. It's nowhere near as pretty as it's made out to be- I find the production design and visuals to be flat, and the story is serviceable at best. Not to mention that Deckard's a rapist.
I did pick up the novel a while ago, however. I do plan to get to it soon.
Quote from: Avaitor on September 23, 2017, 11:43:23 PM
Not to mention that Deckard's a rapist.
whoa, I don't remember this, what
I'm predisposed to like anything cyberpunk and I think Blade Runner is cool but I've also never thought of it as an absolute masterpiece like some do (don't think I've seen The Final Cut, though). I have no hope for the sequel but I'm open to the idea of being surprised by it. Can't be worse than live action Ghost in the Shell at least.
My interest in the sequel is mainly because Denis Villeneuve is directing it. Obviously that in and of itself doesn't guarantee if it will be any good or not, but I absolutely loved Prisoners and Sicario, and while I need to give Arrival a re-watch to properly assess my thoughts on it, the film is definitely interesting and showcases that he can handle weird-ish Science Fiction. I still haven't seen Enemy, yet, but I've heard good things about that as well.
As for the rape thing, I can't remember if it was in the original or just Final Cut, but of you re-watch the scene just before the the final confrontation, Deckard totally forces himself on Rachael, so yeah, Android or not, it's fair to call that rape.
I'm fascinated by the amount of cuts Blade Runner has. How many other movies have over half a dozen recuts?
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 24, 2017, 12:52:00 AM
I'm fascinated by the amount of cuts Blade Runner has. How many other movies have over half a dozen recuts?
Suicide Squad?