I’ll go first. Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It’s like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds
Him as Miller is so fucking good in The Expanse series. In my mind, his face was always Miller when I was reading the series. He is for sure underrated.
I’ve never read Punisher comics so I have no idea what is more comic accurate but I feel like Thomas Jane is the better “artistic” and thoughtful portrayal of Punisher while Jon Bernthal is the more action hero portrayal. Both good in their own right but for different reasons.
Not sure how I feel about Ray Stevenson or Dolph Lundgren.
I’d say 2001 Space Odyssey. The film has its interesting parts but the pace is absolutely awful. It makes it unwatchable. I watched it a while ago and couldn’t finish it. Multiple long dragged sequences showing off the ships where nothing happens. Everything is an excuse to drag the scene, even a goddamn elevator. By the time I got the HAL part I was fed up with it and couldn’t go on. It has multiple parts (starting with the music at the start) where it seemed they had a script but had to have a movie yay long. Like a class film. So they took every opportunity to stretch it.
Some people say I don’t get it because it’s not Michael Bay. That I have to appreciate the art in those long drawn out scenes. Well, excuse me, but I wanted to watch a movie, not a painting. Also, I shouldn’t be expected to be on acid while watching. A disclaimer would help.
The slowness is meant to represent the distance they are traveling, in both time and space. This was also made in 1968, the moon landing was in 1969. Compare Planet of the Apes to 2001 for a good comparison of what special effects were like in the same year.
Most of them are long winded, it was the style of the time.
If you think of the movie as 3 parts. One, pre-man discovers tools (because the monolith changes one tribe). Two, Man must overcome the tools it has created. Three, man is absorbed by the aliens tool to become next-man.
Anyways, I understand why someone might not like it but it is one of my all time favorite movies and its worth watching later in your life as you might get different impressions on it if you are young now
I too recently watched this film for the first time. I didn’t like it at all. The shock factor with HAL maybe kept people interested back then but it’s a almost common theme today. I think Kubrick is overrated.
Holy shit, thank you. My husband thinks I’m crazy for not enjoying this film. We saw it for the first time at a special event thing at a theater because he’d always wanted to see it, and I was so fucking bored.
I remember falling asleep to some dude jogging in a gigantic circle, and I woke up and was like “Omg it’s still playing.”
HAL was neat. Have no idea what was going on with the giant space fetus.
I came out saying that it was the most boring yet gorgeous film I’d ever seen. Because I mean, it WAS fucking pretty.
This, like other movies, I think comes down to novelty. Some of the shit done in that movie was truly incredible… At the time. Some bits are still really interesting.
The jogging scene, for example, was done at a time when CG wasn’t really an option. So then you ask the question… How did they do some of these shots? How is this guy seemingly running in a zero g circle but it’s actually a real camera?
Cinematic transitions are another. The bone spinning into the space station was really cool. It’s a shot that has permeated like every form of media. Now it kinda looks cheap and jarring.
HAL as an AI, an evil robot, was an extremely interesting. Now it’s something that has been done so, so many times since.
As a sci Fi I still like it, the slow pace isn’t something that bothers me. I enjoy movies that are capable of taking their time. So many movies move at breakneck speeds. The plot is really cool to me as well.
Otherwise, yes, it’s not surprising that a modern audience finds this incredibly boring for all the points above.
As a huge fan of the movie (and books) I kind of agree. I have managed to watch it in full only handful of times. I usually fall asleep mid-movie.
Having said that, I still love it. It also helps me fall asleep sometimes, so win-win. But I get what you’re saying.
One thing that’s probably worth keeping in mind is that the movie was made before the manned moon landing in 1969. So many of the scenes are super interesting just from the realism POV. Today we’re one click away from a HD video someone made at the international space station. Back then you had few grainy transmissions from space. Star Wars was almost decade later.
So yeah, seeing ship slowly floating across the screen in complete silence is boring, but it’s also realistic. Same for many other scenes. Now you can play games that will render the same scene in real time on a potato-level PC, so the novelty of seeing “how space might look like out there” is just not there.
So in many ways it’s like seeing the bullet time scene in Matrix for the first time vs seeing the bullet time scene in any random movie decade later.
Last year’s DnD movie is the best film of the last ten or so years. It succeeded on every level, except in the box office.
My hypothesis is that Hasbro insisted on branding it “Dungeons & Dragons” to push the brand, and non-gamers figured it wasn’t for them. If they’d have made the main title “Honor among Thieves”, all the game nerds would have seen the DnD logo, and others wouldn’t have been turned off *. As it stands, people will find it and it’ll become the new “Starship Troopers” that bombed but shines forever in retrospect.
I wouldn’t give it that high of praise, but I went into Honor Among Thieves not expecting anything and thought that it was a lot of fun. It doesn’t do anything exciting but it’s just a fun little flick. I’m not a DnD person, but I also enjoyed the references that I did get (which purely come from being a casual Magic: The Gathering player, so I knew some things from the DnD set that came out the other year).
This wasn’t an art film… but it had an original plot, was genuinely unpredictable throughout, awesome, imaginative action sequences, epic high fantasy, great comedy (I laughed my ass off), and real emotional tenderness (well, I cried). Often weaving these together in the same scene. I think you have to judge a movie based on what it’s meant to be, and for a fun high fantasy jaunt, this was a monumental achievement. IMHO.
I think it deserved to do better at the box office but I disagree calling it that good, primarily by counterexample (which I’ll get to). It had an entertaining cast, an entertaining plot and some good twists but it wasn’t unpredictable and the audience it was best for was the audience who recognised the constant homages to the experience of playing DnD - my primary example is the scene of the main character breaking out of prison completely unnecessarily.
The movie was made by Hasbro to sell dungeons and dragons (which, to be fair, you do mention) and I think as a fan of the ttrpg it did a great job of capturing that experience as a movie. I can’t call it the film of the year though, let alone the decade.
What makes you say it’s better than, for example, Blade Runner 2049 or Avengers Endgame, both being movies similarly sprouting from established brands? I would argue Dune is significantly better (talking about movies with a brand) also.
Outside the established brand space, you see movies like JoJo Rabbit, Marriage Story and Power of the Dog. All of my examples have been off arbitrary top 10/top 50 lists of the last 5 or last 10 years and I’m honestly curious about why you think the DnD movie beats all of them?
Edit: in saying that, upvoting because this is almost certainly an unpopular opinion
Bladerunner was pretentious film school drivel. It’s a montage of poetic, symbolic imagery that makes no sense as an actual narrative. Dune was far, far superior because the mythic reality is tied together into a classic hero story, and the whole thing is fantastical enough for Villaneuve’s whole thing to work. I can’t wait for the second one.
Avengers Endgame was just more of the same MCU formula, trotting out the usual tropes on an ever-increasing scale. Pretty good, as far as all that goes, but really devoid of any tension or depth, IMHO. Guardians 1 is a far better film.
As for those others, I haven’t seen them, though they’re all on my list. I’m open to any of them being better… of course my opinion will be limited to movies I’ve actually seen. But aside from glib hot takes, there’s not much meaning in comparing completely different films. My essential point is that DnD is an utterly superb movie, and I’ll maintain that in its freshness, surprising depth, and comedic sparkle, it’s at least the best movie of its kind in a long time.
Completely agree with your last two sentences, mostly. I can’t personally call it the best movie of its kind just because I don’t watch a lot of movies in the same vein. But you’re right that it’s hard to compare across genres, and the movie was definitely far better than I expected. I think the last couple of years have generally had some great releases.
I only watched DnD recently, mostly just accidentally at a friend’s place. Also thought it was really good, well made, funny, a really pleasant surprise all around. For me, it reminded me of what I felt about some 90s movies - a movie made to be fun, not to make you feel deep feels, think deep thoughts, or shock in the shockingest way of all. Just fun. That is not a bad thing…
I watched The Batman on IMAX on my birthday, although I was just a bit disappointed with the quality of the projector, I was mind blown by the audio!!! The audio on the chase scene especially!!!
I agree with this to a point. It depends on your set up at home, vs whether or not you get decent seats at a theater and how crowded it is. I saw “Dune” from great seats in a mostly empty theater, and I don’t think any home set up could compare. I also watched “It Follows” at home late at night on a decent TV while my family was away, and I can’t imagine a better way to experience that one.
If it weren’t for the popcorn and those cool Coke vending machines with seemingly infinite flavours, there would be zero draw at all for me. And even then, I haven’t been in years. Both of things cost about the same as a ticket, and I feel like an idiot paying 3000% markup for it in public.
I’ve ibd so going to the cinema means I’ll inevitably miss at least 5 minutes every time my bowels want to be a bitch. At least watching movies at home I can pause the damn thing and I don’t miss things.
For me it depends. Some movies benefit more from the big screen than others. For example I went to see both Avatar movies in the cinema since those specifically shine because of their effects. With many other movies I agree that a good home cinema leaves little to be desired.
The other reason why I sometimes like the cinema experience is because it forces me to pay more attention and not get distracted. That might be a self-discipline issue, but this way i don’t randomly pick up my phone or similar. itespecially helps me appreciate longer slow movies more. For example something like “drive my car” (almost 3h long) that I glad I caught in the cinema when it came out
I found a few movies that I genuinely enjoy that make the (or made at the time this was written and I tried it) bottom quartile. Malibu’s most wanted and “the crew” are movies I don’t skip by (but also never see any more :( ) basically ‘organized crime by the inept’ movies tickle me the right way
I actively like Star Trek Generations (48 on RT). I think it’s accessible if you’re not a Trek fan, and delightful if you are. A bit campy at times, sure. But it’s a human plot dealing with age, death, and change.
I like Generations way more than say, First Contact.
Generations, for all its flaws, was a science fiction story passing the torch from TOS to TNG, and saying something about the characters and world of Star Trek.
First Contact was a generic action-adventure movie wearing a Star Trek uniform.
Honestly, I consider Generations to be the only interesting TNG movie.
The Way of the Gun (2000), 46% fresh. I really, actually do like this movie. I know, Ryan Phillipe makes things complicated. Like, starting in the first scene with Sarah Silverman.
“There’s always cheese at a mousetrap.”
The problem that this movie faced was that there was no reward for having a long attention span. Critically panned, the Way of the Gun rewards those who get carried along in the story; those who understand the roles the characters play in each others’ lives, the Shakespearean knit in the fabric.
Longbaugh and Parker are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern witnessing the collapse of the house of and unborn Hamlet, whose supposed parents are a mob underboss and his trophy wife. His actual parents are at the shootout where he was born.
I watched The Princess Bride and couldn’t understand why it gets so much love. I found it really gruesome and unfunny, and Robin Wright’s princess was bland and unlikable.
All militarists know that war is horror - they relish the horror of it.
That’s why they love movies like Saving Private Ryan (which justifies the horror by ascribing justification to it) while disliking movies such as The Thin Red Line or Catch 22 (which strips any kind of justification away from it).
Ah, I see your point. I didn’t relish the horror. I didn’t even understand the horror. When I was growing up, I was taught in a way that minimized or disregarded suffering. SPR did not do that. It showcased it and in a horrendous way. While some may relish in that, I didn’t and it made me reconsider my childhood support of any armed conflict as justified. I didn’t understand the costs involved. While I’m sure the movie didn’t capture everything, what it showed was horrendous.
Idk about your point of justification. It’s been a while and I don’t remember that.
Weaponized masculinity portrays the horrors of war as some kind of “test” of masculinity - you’ll see this in a lot of fascist propaganda. It’s literally what fascists mean when they spew their “blood and soil” bullcrap. It’s pretty sick - I grew up in Apartheid-era South Africa, and they brainwashed us like that.
While I’m sure the movie didn’t capture everything, what it showed was horrendous.
The problem I have with movies like Saving Private Ryan is that they don’t address the central conceit of the vast majority of “war media” - ie, that war is an activity primarily waged by armed combatants against other armed combatants. This is absolutely not the truth - wars are primarily waged by armed combatants against unarmed non-combatants. This is especially true when we discuss colonialist warfare - it is being literally demonstrated right now in Gaza.
Idk about your point of justification
You remember Tom Hank’s little line about “earning it?” The more you think about it, the sillier it becomes.
I personally refuse to watch the film again. Not because was bad which it is not, but because it depicts war so graphically I’m opposing war even more since I saw the opening scene.
I just don’t like Star Wars and I like sci-fi in general. But Star Wars is just one of those stories I can’t make myself to like.
I remember fondly the prequels with pod racing and that red black guy with double lightsaber. I wached those movies as a child.
Later I tried watching all of them and I could not bring myself to finish even one. The dated effects (good for their time) just took me out of the story way too much.
I also tried waching the new ones, but they just felt boring so I dropped them.
I don’t know what is it about Star Wars, but I just can’t bring myself to like them even with nostalgia by my side.
Because it’s the only really good Star Wars film. All the rest have either cringe-inducing acting, nonsensical plotting, or are inundated with inane family friendly elements like Ewoks, Anikin and Jarjar.
Maybe because Star Wars, at least the original 3 movies, aren’t really sci-fi. It’s a fairy tale with some SF veneer. There’s an evil emperor, a princess, knights, magic and a hero who saves the princess and eventually overthrows the evil emperor.
I think I like fantasy even more than sci-fi. Lord of the rings was awesome, both books and movies. I really liked The witcher books. I wouldn’t really say I have a strong preference to genre as long as the story is good. And execution of the story is even more important.
The movie is set almost entirely aboard the Titanic, barring a brief couple scenes in port, and the framing device set on a research boat in the present day.
The Titanic is realized in excellent detail. The sets, costumes, special effects are all exceptionally well done.
Most of the runtime of the film is dedicated to a teenage love story between Kate Winslet’s Rose and Leonardo DeCaprio’s Jack. Honestly I think it holds up. It drags a bit here and there (spitting lessons?!) but if Romeo and Juliet is a great love story, Titanic is fantastic.
The sinking sequence holds up amazingly well. The set pieces are of extremely high quality and bring the disaster to life in ways only James “puckered asshole” Cameron can. Life-size sets that actually flooded and tilted, miniatures, and a restrained use of CGI come together beautifully.
The choice to set this fictional love story into this historic disaster setting is perhaps somewhat dubious.
The soundtrack, especially Celine Dion’s utter caterwaul of the title theme can be a bit much, and was severely overplayed in the years following the movie’s release.
The giant blue diamond was a pointless macguffin that failed to pay off. It was given(?) to her by her fiance that she hates, she decided to have her portrait drawn in the nude wearing the diamond for some reason, retrieving the diamond from the coat the fiance had put on her was the reason why the psychotic guy was shooting at them, she only realized she had it when aboard the rescue ship, and then she throws it overboard at the end…for some reason. Audiences reacted pretty poorly to the thing, didn’t stop them from merchandising it.
Overall a pretty well-crafted movie with some questionable choices, made by a canker sore of a person.
I actually really disagree about the whole diamond thing…
In addition to it being the primary plot device to get rose to actually tell her story, it plays a pivotal role in the story aboard the ship & is a key element in one of the main themes of the movie (money doesnt buy happiness).
Regarding the 1st part (wearing it for the drawing)… the drawing was intended to be malicious… effectively a way to tell cal “we’re over”… hence the note that accompanied it saying “darling, now you can keep both locked in your safe”. It was effectively a vulgar display to cal showing that she cant be “bought” (essentially what her arranged marriage was… selling her as effectively a slave so that her mother would remain wealthy).
Regarding the shooting scene, id argue it wasnt about the diamond at all, but about what happened just moments before… jack and cal were both trying to get rose on the lifeboat. It was super macho aggressive where they were both kind-of attempting to one-up eachother to win her affection (hence cal removing jack’s blanket and giving her the coat). This is also when cal gave his “i always win, one way or another” remark. Rose jumps back onto the ship and right into jacks arms (passionately kissing in front of cal). Enraged by this, cal chases them with the gun… id argue, this is cal’s last ditch attempt of “winning” (attempting to force them apart through murder). I think the comment about the diamond was just more of an afterthought once the adrenaline wore off.
Regarding throwing it overboard, what was she supposed to do? Give it generously to bill paxton? Rose’s entire presence on the modern ship & all of her actions are purely malicious. Bill paxton getting the diamond is literally the worst case scenario.
Think of how rose got involved… Bill paxton was showing off the drawing on tv to essentially say “see, we arent grave robbing, we are simply preserving history”. Rose saw right through that though due to her knowledge of where the drawing was (in the safe). Her phone call to bill paxton saying “have you found the heart of the ocean?” Wasnt a sincere question, but more of a “i know exactly what youre doing” threat. She is there to stop them, not reward them… her excessive luggage & wasting a whole day of their time to ramble about old grandma stories prove that. (on a ship like that, schedule is everything and wasting a day to listen to old grandma stories is most certainly a worst case scenario that will cost them millions).
Sure in theory, she could sell it, but doing so would create 3 issues…
1- the sale of such a priceless artifact would garner tons of attention. Everyone with even the slightest potential stake in it would likely come after her with an armies of lawyers (think insurance companies, cal’s heirs, the UK government/royal family, bill paxton’s company, etc)… Sure, enough time has passed that different statutes would limit their effectiveness in achieving success, but she (and her family) would be put in a precarious position of spending years entangled in legal battles while simultaneously being both “rich” and “not rich” (cant exactly buy a lawyer with a diamond that may or may not be yours after the fierce legal battles)… its really being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
2- it would go deeply against her moral compass. Her entire life story was essentially being enslaved by wealth & escaping/ living an amazing life it by essentially faking her death to become poor.
3- The diamond is really the only tangible item associated with her past life, jack’s entire existence, and an event that played such a pivotal role in completely changing every aspect of her life. likely not a single day goes by where titanic isnt in her mind… Considering this, id argue the sentimental value of such an item likely holds more value to her than all the money in the world.
Personally, I always saw her throwing such an item in the ocean being similar to putting a cherished possession in the casket of a deceased loved one… frankly, i think it is the single most profound scene in the movie. Ive watched the movie literally hundreds of times & that scene is without fail when i start crying. The solitude nature of the act coupled with the look of relief on rose’s face just get to me. Its like shes been holding her breath for the last 84 years & that moment was the first time she was able to finally breathe.
I don’t like the star wars movies, think they’re not nearly as good as people claim they are
This is certainly down to me being raised in a post OT world of good sci fi, but that doesn’t make them worth watching these days. The only reason they are imo is to understand extended media
Extended star wars media though? Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme
I feel like it’s sort of a citizen Kane kinda thing. It’s a really important movie, and considering its time and context it was a very good movie, but it isn’t a particularly fun film to watch these days.
Tarantino is trash and Ruins movies that should be good with weird edginess. Django unchained would be 10/10 with someone else as director. I never saw a good movie from him. I DK how death proof scores as high as it did. I gave that a 2/20. what a waste or kurt Russell and other good actors.
This is basically exactly what I say any time someone asks me this question. I just don’t get the love for Tarantino. I feel like the previews for his work always disguise how uncomfortable the film is actually going to be to watch when I get there.
Films where I don’t recognize a single actor among the whole crew are almost always better than ones where I’ve seen such and such actor in other movies. Just more immersive. And even if they’re not the best actors I’d much prefer that over whatever the hell Chris Prat or Tom Cruise or Leo D are up to.
It's part of the blockbuster model, which does everything it can to reduce risk. Before the 70s, studios would go bust when an expensive movie flopped. Studios became very risk averse, especially for the expensive stuff. So they make a sequel to a movie that's done well, or a plot similar to that of a movie that's previously done well, based on an intellectual property that sold well in another medium(comic, book, tv-show, ...), in a genre that's previously done well with audiences, starring actors people previously liked, preferably very attractive actors so that audiences like looking at them, pushed by a saturation marketing campaign that gets as many people to watch it on the opening weekend as possible, so that if it sucks they can't tell their friends not to go and see it. It's like McDonalds. It's not the best meal you'll ever eat, but you know what you're getting, so you won't have wasted two hours or your life, or shit yourself after eating it.
Also, video killed the radio star. It's rare to be incredibly beautiful. It's rare to be incredibly talented. It's incredibly rare to be both. If you have to pick one, pick the incredibly beautiful actor, who looks good on posters and in promotional material. Acting isn't that hard. Even a pretty moron can be a passable actor.
This is basically what I told people when I started to watch some of the most amazing international and documentary cinema in the early 00s. Ciudade de Deus, La Cité d’enfants Perdus, Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain, La Vita è Bella, Der Untergang, Lola Rennt, 올드 보이, Mononoke Hime, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Whale Rider. Documentaries by Adam Curtis or Errol Morris. So many people just don’t know.
True to an extent, there are a few famous actors out there who are genuinely good at taking on different roles and immersing you in the character. A great example is Jim Carrey. Obviously I know Ace Ventura and Truman Burbanks are the same person, but it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching them. They might share similar qualities, but they’re clearly different characters.
I knew being faceblind must have some benefit. I often only realise I know an actor when I see their name in the credits. Then again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses, so I wouldn’t entirety recommend it.
My experience watching The Departed while almost entirely sober felt like a face blindness simulator. I was baffled when one of the characters that had been killed came back and none of the other characters acknowledged it. Cool movie but so confusing.
I'm somewhat faceblind but great at voices. There's no escape. It also totally ruins a lot of animated shows and movies because a very small number of voice actors get a majority of the work.
en again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses
I’m not face blind, but this is the reason I never watched another Mission Impossible movie after the first one: Every single male in that movie looked identical to me, and I couldn’t follow any of the plot line(s?), as I never knew who was doing what to whom. I can only imagine how annoying it must be when that’s the norm.
Regardless how you feel about “woke Hollywood injecting forced diversity into films,” it’s really helped the issue of telling all the good-looking white people apart.
Especially when there are a few examples of amazing actors that you can know and still sometimes struggle to recognize them in their characters. Like Gary Oldman, and … uh… OK well I’m not in a movie headspace, but he’s not the only one!
Tons of lesser names that play great side/background characters and it’s hard to tell, too, so I totally agree others need chances at lead characters.
Those are the actors I’m never tired of because their characters are almost always unique characters.
Add comment