Unpopular Opinions You Hold About Movies

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.

[Avaitor]

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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

He doesn't even have anything on R2-D2, IMO.

[Foggle]

Guardians of the Galaxy > Star Trek Beyond > The Force Awakens IMO, and I really liked TFA.

[Dr. Insomniac]

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.

[Peanutbutter]

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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.

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.

[Dr. Insomniac]

I remember finding out that the actual annual output of superhero films was much lower than many people thought, 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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Looking at that list, I just realized that the mere inclusion of one of those films is a major spoiler in and of itself.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.

[Avaitor]

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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.

[Dr. Insomniac]

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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.

[Avaitor]

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.