Unpopular Opinions You Hold About Movies

[GregX]

Pixar movies put me to sleep.

[Avaitor]

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.

[Foggle]

Pixar movies put me to sleep.

I think that might be an unpopular opinion about animation, not movies.

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.

[Avaitor]

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.

Hmm?

[Foggle]

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.

[Avaitor]

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.

[Foggle]

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.

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.

Agreed. He's basically the Heath Ledger of the 50's; an amazing actor who never really got much of a chance to shine.

[Avaitor]

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.

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.

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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

-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.

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.

[Foggle]

-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.

-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.

-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.

[Dr. Insomniac]

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.

[Foggle]

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.

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.

[Dr. Insomniac]

[Foggle]

Goddamn I hate rage comics.

That's fairly interesting, though.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.