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
Indiana Jones 4 is a great entry of the series. It’s just as slapstick and ridiculous fun as the rest of the series (I didn’t enjoy the 5th one as much though).
And yea that is an unpopular opinion, can’t tell you how many have disagreed with me as soon as I say that, both in real life and online.
I agree with this ranking, but I’m actually tempted to put crusade and doom above raiders. IDK why, but I feel like raiders just has a few scenes I forget about just because they’re so slow moving.
The Last Crusade über alles. Connery and Ford’s chemistry is hilarious and touching.
AND the only suspension of disbelief visually is an old knight. It holds up so much better over time because the minimization of goofy affects the other movies have for their big bad.
As much as I love Denis Villeneuve, I still love David Lynch’s Dune more. Yes, the acting is spotty, and there were more than a few questionable changes to the plot, but I can’t get that art direction out of my mind. That being said, I haven’t seen part two yet.
I respect this opinion. I just read the original Dune a few years ago. I heard there was a new film coming, so in preparation I watched the Lynch extended cut. It wasn’t bad, in fact it followed the plot better than I expected, and the Gob Jabbar scene was amazing. The shields had such a cool effect too. But I didn’t totally love it. Maybe this cut was too long and stiff. I do kinda like Lynch in general, I’ve seen Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet and all of Twin Peaks. His Dune was overall good in his unique bizarre way. I’ll probably watch it again someday.
But then, the Villeneuve film. Damn, that one nailed it. The characters, set design, the sandworms, even the ornithopters looked almost exactly like I had imagined when reading the book. I’ve never had that happen, most films look so ‘wrong’ after a book. But IMO Denis nailed it, except the Gom Jabbar that Lynch already perfected. It was otherwise so true to the source material. Well ok, Frank Herbert’s novel had an excessive use of the word presently, so honestly, good riddance to that. Anyway, I can’t wait for part 2 of the new film and beyond! Guess I better pick up the other books though.
I like both movies, but I think The Matrix has a billion times more spectacle going for it. I still think about The Thirteenth Floor regularly, but I’d rather sit down and watch The Matrix again for entertainment’s sake.
I saw them when they came out (and remember how I LOVED them) and rewatched the first one last year. It did not age as well as I thought it would have.
I liked the first one. Got super bored with the second. Never watched the third. I feel like the first one should have been the only one. It was a fine stand alone film.
People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are ‘good enough’, and they don’t value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.
On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.
It’s strange that you said that and then said you liked fury road. I thought fury road was the epitome of spectacle and production value with actual value.
I added that to sort of admit my own hypocrisy; I tried to exaggerate my opinion a bit for the sake of spurring discussion. I mostly believe what I said, but my real thoughts are much messier and less well thought out.
What would you consider a “bad movie,” because I wouldn’t consider a “tight plot” one of their shared features. Spectacle: absolutely, humor: frequently, tight plot: if only.
I wouldn’t agree that Marvel films have a competent plot, but maybe that’s because I generally struggle to follow the plot through all the other crap, and am left wondering “was that a plot hole or did I space out during all the explosions and miss a critical line of dialogue?”
I explain it like this: people assume beer is one product but most economists actually study it as two distinct products: mass production beer and craft beer. They actually behave like two separate markets. People like each for very different reasons. And consumer behavior is very different around both.
That’s how I feel about Film and Movies. We may watch them both on a screen, but other than that they are very different things. And you can like both! I love the MCU films. But I don’t go expecting intellectual expositions.
I also love Dead Poets Society, Hidden Figures, and Argo. Let people like things. Let people like different things differently. It’s OK.
Welp got a feeling I've got a doozy of an unpopular opinion, but that's why we're here. I don't like any of Tarantino's films. I find all the characters unlikeable or insufferable. I also fell asleep in the theater watching Kill Bill 2.
Well, they were trying to stay loyal to the comic, but I can understand that. But I definitely about other movies copying, its cheap and annoying. Oh, and spy kids was actually good.
One of my favorite fourth wall breaks is in Trailer Park Boys when Bubbles randomly ends up on Jimmy Kimmel and then Snoop and Tom Arnold show up, and Tom Arnold’s a fan of the show and his mind is blown that he’s actually there.
Maybe a better way to put it is that of all the 4th wall breaks I’ve seen, it sucks the least. I generally hate 4th wall breaks, but this one was kinda fun.
The season did suck though, and definitely as a result of that exact thing. No disagreement there.
One of my favourites is the episode of Supernatural where they cross some barrier and end up in “our world” where they’re just actors on a tv show, magic isn’t real, and Castiel is actually a needy beta who keeps wanting to hang out.
They knew that, by that stage of the show it was just shlock so they leaned into it.
Nobody actually enjoys watching Citizen Kane. It’s the Wuthering Heights of the movie world: you get to feel pretentious and cultured for having checked it off your bucket list, but the actual experience was a total slog and you’re probably never going to re-watch/read it ever again.
Truth. Mostly its the first movie shown to media students because there is simple concepts and camera tricks there, and its always best to start with the basics.
I'm going to watch it twice now just to be that much better than most. Also I can say things like, "I personally enjoyed my second viewing much more than my first."
This is probably true of Citizen Kane. However, this isn't true of all the arty farty, black and white, older, or foreign stuff.
Some of those aren't just 'good for their time', highly rated because they were/are innovative/interesting, or because people want to be pretentious. They're still fucking good.
Eg. I watched Tokyo Story (1953) when I was in my early twenties. Tops critics lists. Seems like it's just another pretentious movie. Black and white, boring, pondorous, gave up on it. Watched it a few years later when I had a bit more life experience. Hit me like a truck. Openly wept in the movie theatre.
Sometimes if you push through, you will be rewarded.
I completely understand why people who watch Citizen Kane would find it boring. Compared to movies made in this day and age it is very boring. However, this movie was made in 1941 and was groundbreaking in many ways.
The cinematographer Greg Toland was a master who could have worked on any film he wanted. He chose to work with 25 year old first time director Orson Welles. He was tired of the Hollywood movie studio BS and saw that this kid wanted to do something revolutionary. Over 50% of the movie contains special effects most of which had never been done before. If you watch this movie next to any other movie of that era it is amazing how much different the style, camera angles, shots, etc are comparatively.
All of the American movies at the time (and this pretty much holds true even today) had someone who started with nothing and became successful or won against all odds etc. Citizen Kane flips this and takes one of the richest men in the world who starts out as the hero and turns him into the villain who ends up sad, bitter and alone. Again this is much different than other films of this era. I would argue that it is still much different to the vast majority of films today.
Charles Foster Kane is clearly supposed to be William Randolph Hearst who was the media mogul of the time. They made a movie about one of the most powerful people of that era and make him look like a sad douchey a–hole. The writer Mankiiewicz was someone who regularly attended the parties at Hearst Castle and many details in the movie are spot on about Hearst’s real life. Rosebud (Kane’s final word and the plot device for the film) is supposedly Hearst’s nickname for his wife’s private area. Hearst did everything he could to stop this movie from playing in the theaters and was pretty successful in ensuring it lost money at the box office. It wasn’t until about 10 years later when people in Europe started watching and appreciating the film that they decide to re-release it in the US. By this time Hearst was dead and there is no campaign against the movie. This is when it really gets wide recognition as a great film.
So basically a 25 year old upstart took on the most powerful media mogul of the day with a movie that had groundbreaking special effects, style, and story line. I can’t think of any film to this day that can compare to these accomplishments. Many of the worlds greatest film makers were inspired by this movie. It is for all these reasons why it is looked at as one of the best movies ever made and shown to all film students.
This is true for most “important films”. They were the first to do something well enough that the entire industry latched onto it, but their stories and presentation don’t stand well against the test of time. 2001 and Casablanca also fall into this.
I did not like Donnie Darko until I rewatched the movie with the directors commentary. It felt like reading the Clif Notes after struggling to understand an obtuse old book in English class. I don’t think it’s a good thing per se that the movie’s plot struggles to stand on its own, but my appreciation for what was attempted really went up a lot after getting the supplemental material.
Tbh the actual cast and direction of the The Hobbit movies wasn’t that bad, but intentionally drawing out a single book that could’ve been done in 3-4 hours into 3 whole movies in a vain attempt at recapturing the LoTR trilogy’s fame is what made it weaker.
Rings of Power, however, throws out a lot of the stuff that happened in The Second Age and straight-up ignores Tolkien’s works at times. Granted, Amazon didn’t have legal rights to the Silmarillion and the LoTR appendices, but it’s still a shame we basically got a gutted version of what could have been a great show. Galadriel was also pretty boring as your generic “Marvel strong stoic action woman” kind of character.
What’s mad is they could have done a millennium long epic of Sauron’s domination Númenor. Could have made the whole thing as long or as short as they want and build from there.
They could have had political intrigue. conspiracies, betrayal, double-crossing and all sorts.
Who's claiming The Fifth Element is deep? The style and design are excellent, but it's a bog standard action flick until Chris Tucker shows up and steals the movie
The Godfather, extremely overrated and very boring. Saw it many years ago, and maybe my taste in movies have changed a bit, and I consider rewatching other movies I did not like, but not that one.
E.T. is decent at best. I wanted to watch it as a young kid, but wasn't allowed. By the time I finally watched it, I found it fell short of my expectations and I found it quite dull. Super 8 was also a middling film, but I thought it was slightly better than E.T.
Batman returns is really dumb. The movie craftsmanship (or whatever) is well done but the premise is just so stupid (to me). I feel this way about all super hero films, I just can't get past that the source is comic books for kids. I cannot take them seriously.
“Comics are for kids” is an incredibly narrow view of the comic book world. They’ve never been exclusively for kids, not even the big superhero comics. Many have diverse themes, thoughtful critiques of society, and impressively deep characters.
Completely agree and quite some of the Batman comics I have read I would not give to a child, far to much violence and quite a lot of very dark theams. Young teens are around when I would start being comfortable letting them read those and that’s still requires me to actually know them to some degree to make that judgement.
I don’t like Hereditary. I tried to watch it 3 times but I just can’t get through it. I think the beginning is great but I dunno, I just didn’t like it. I do love Midsommar however.
Add comment