Unpopular Opinions You Hold About Movies

[Spark Of Spirit]

I think they could be longer, personally.

what

[talonmalon333]

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.

[No-Personality]

Not 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).

[Avaitor]

Not 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.

[No-Personality]

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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.

[LumRanmaYasha]

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.

[No-Personality]

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).

[talonmalon333]

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.

[Angus]

It's fun to look up your favorite movie on RT and see it has a rating of like 31%. 

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.

[No-Personality]

The 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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Based 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.

[Spark Of Spirit]

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.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

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.

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 ). 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.