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
At the top of every reddit “What movie should never be remade?” thread is the LOTR trilogy. Well… I totally agree the movies are great, but not quite timeless. When I rewatched them a couple years ago for the first time in a long time I couldn’t get over the feeling that it screamed “Filmed and directed in the late 90s and early 00s!” I don’t have the film knowledge to point out exactly what it is but something about the way it is shot looks very dated to me and hasn’t aged as well, in my opinion, as everyone on the internet says it is.
I really do love the music and the art style and sets and casting too. Maybe it doesn’t need a reshoot, but a recut?
I think part of it is that movies are edited differently now. We’ve become used to much faster pacing, much denser storytelling and sweeping drone shots of everything, so older movies generally feel a bit lame now
Tbh I think it’s kind of impressive that the green screen work is the rough part of the ent scenes. Treebeard himself is still really impressive imo. I had some of the eagle scenes in mind though
The CGI is still a bit dated (although somehow The Flash topped that), but there’s far less compositing of solo actors in green rooms, due to forced perspective.
Man, hard disagree. Some of the CGI hasn’t aged especially well but those movies are technical marvels, the likes of which will never happen again because nobody will ever have the passion for the project Peter Jackson did.
CGI definitely doesn’t hold up, that troll in Mines of Moria, various Legolas shots, etc. are pretty rough. But everything else is still great.
On a side note I’ll always hate the people that decided to add all that CGI to 2011 The Thing when they had already filmed everything with practical effects. If I ever meet them IRL I will give them the most well deserved ass punch.
Side side note, still waiting for the practical effects version of 2011 The Thing to be released.
The problem is no one is ever going to put in the work and prep production effort that Jackson and his team did. It could be made better and more modern, but will it in our current environment? No, all the practical effects would be replaced by CGI, all the armor and costumes for the tons of extras would just be CGI, the extras themselves would be CGI, and it probably would be packed with meta commentary and jokes. Just look at The Hobbit compared to Lord of the Rings. It doesn’t work without all the effort and pre-production, and I don’t think we’re getting a studio to ever make that bet again. It was pure luck we got it the first time.
Most movies have always sucked. We remember the good and forget the trash, so the past seems better than it was. Social media and other forms of entertainment have changed things, but never underestimate survivorship bias and nostalgia.
I’m a huge Star Wars fan. I really liked the Sequel Trilogy. Someone can be a Star Wars nerd, and still enjoy The Last Jedi. I understand why fans hate it, but for me it’s fun to watch. I don’t like to take it too seriously. Also, I enjoyed Solo. My mantra Trust no one and you will never be betrayed is from that movie.
That all said, I love the lore! Jar Jar the Sith, Darth Plagueis, the fan films, the theory—It’s so cool.
IMO, The Last Jedi is an ok movie in a vaccum. The problem is it’s supposed to be part of a trilogy and it barely advances the plot and character development. As a stand alone film though? It’s alright.
Solo is the only Star Wars movie I have seen that I actually liked, it was honestly pretty great and it mystifies me why it was a flop. I guess because it didn’t focus on lame space wizards?
Donald Glover as Lando was absolutely hilarious and amazing.
The only reason Solo flopped is because it came on the heels of The Last Jedi, which left a very bad taste in a lot of fans mouths. TLJ nearly brought the entire franchise to its knees. If it weren’t for the success of The Mandalorian shortly after, I think a lot of fans would have abandoned Star Wars entirely. If they had waited just 1 more year to release it, Solo would have been a much bigger hit.
It is a cowboy western in space complete with a train robbery, high stakes poker game and lots of evading the law… so what if TLJ sucked I don’t see how people didn’t find it a blast especially because it made the origin story of how chewy and solo met so fun.
I am a massive Star Wars fan and cannot understand people who expect it to be high cinema. It’s a series about space wizards and WW2-style air battles. Like all fantasy/SF, it is occasionally commentary on real-world stuff, but it isn’t trying to be Star Trek. Things are allowed to just be fun
Yeah to me though it was self derivative. It’s not high cinema sure, but I watched episode 4, you don’t have to repeat it with celebrity cameos and better CGI.
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.
The Exorcist (original) is one of the most boring horror movies I’ve ever personally sat through and I have no earthly idea why it caused such a stir at the time. Whole movie is a snooze fest until the last bit, but I found it less scary and more humorous.
When so many people have done similar things but have improved and refined those things before you see the original, its very hard to have that same reaction to it.
Like people shitting on Greta Van Fleet for sounding like a Zepplin 2.0.
Have multiple generations come since the last time zepplin was on tour? Yes.
Does the world not get to enjoy people who sound like that live in concert because zepplin existed and there are unmistakable similarties? Kinda shitty if so
To understand this you have to know that at the time when “Jaws” came into cinema there were people leaving cinema during the film because they “couldn’t handle it”. There were even newspaper articles about how the movie allegedly traumatized people. The same goes for movies like “The Shining”.
When “The Exorcist” came out people were not prepared.
Dune is complete crap from the soundtrack to the script. The characters are as thick as cardboard and their interactions motivate nothing. It’s full of slow motion nonsense, flying metal dragonflies and Zimmer’s horns. These days filmmakers are convinced visuals make storytelling. They don’t. Dialogue does and here there’s not a single line I remember.
I liked lorez’s comments because he explained the reasoning and stood by his opinion. Children don’t understand a one-star review doesn’t on its own communicate anything other than the uncontrolled emotion of the viewer which has nothing to do with the film.
Not trying to convince you otherwise. But movies are audiovisual media. It’s right there in the name. So they visuals and the audio are a big thing for that medium. Radio theater had no visuals, but they used sound desing to elevate the medium. Books have no audio nor visuals, so they focus on delivering a great story with great dialogue.
Every medium has its strengths and weaknesses and every work within those mediums should focus on them. If there’s ever a movie that is 5hs long with an amazing story and superb dialogue… then it should’ve been a book.
My point is that it’s ok not to like it. But the idea that a movie should have “good dialogue” is a bit misunderstanding what movies are and what the medium is. You can have a good movie with little to no dialogue or a very very basic story.
While I totally agree that audio and visuals are very important to a motion picture, they are not their fulcrum. Motion pictures, like books and theater before em, narrate stories and there’s no better way to describe the actors of said stories than with dialogue. The things said, the tone, that’s what brings characters to life, that’s what I remember and quote. Without them I care for no story cos I relate to no one. I much prefer a well written piece to some visual effects demo reel, that nowadays is easier to make and while I utterly adore Zimmer 's music, in this case I remember no motif, nothing other than blaring horns, sign that even him was not inspired by the movie.
The Irishman - It was so highly recommended by many but I could only go through half the movie (which is 3h long) and despite having watched 90 mins I couldn’t bring myself to watch the second half or recap what happened in the first. Maybe too much flew over my head but it bored me too much and I couldn’t see the appeal at all.
Scorsese does that, and he’s done it again. He needs a better editor who could shorten the runtime without losing the flow. Irishman was no Goodfellas but it was a decent story. Agree it wasn’t worth the slow pace though. I think attention spans are typically shorter these days and people expect a bigger payoff than they tend to get, outside of Marvel and porn.
Oh, I didn’t mind the slow pace that much but I couldn’t see what the movie was getting at as it seemed like a diary entry of a mafioso. The overarching elements throughout the first half somehow didn’t appeal to me. Marvel has been going downhill for quite a while but that’s a different topic
Indeed. That’s what editing does to a film - it helps the story make sense. It’s the only thing that makes film an art form different from any other imo. Acting is art, cinematography is art, music/scoring is art. Directing is only art if it adds some new interpretation.
My joke about Marvel and porn is that their payoff is in some form of orgasm - special effects that wow audiences or literally make them ejaculate.
I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car. I put a dollar in, won a car.
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.
Can you elaborate on what specifically you didn’t like about LOTR? Peter Jackson has always had a penchant for using cutting-edge CG tech in his films, to the point that some people call them tech demos. I think WETA’s effects stand out as the best parts of the series, but the cinematography, sets, and acting are about as good as it gets in my opinion
For the CG, I was at Paris GDC (game developers conference) where naughy dog(black dog, ??? I don’t remember) explained all the fuckups they did with LOTR, like when Aragorn magic-jumps on to his horse(idea was cool, execution horrible), the dragon flying through everything …
But for me that wasn’t the bad things (I love Star Trek and Dr Who!) but the blandness, “American style”.
What would you have changed from the movies as they were?
I mean, I can’t think of that many deviations from the books off-the-top-of-my-head. Tom Bombadil got cut, but he had a very different flavor from most of the rest of the series. Legolas “shield surfing” was an addition to the movies and was kind of obnoxious, IMHO, but it wasn’t that much of an ongoing thing. There were some changes around Aragorn going through the Paths of the Dead, but nothing there really bugged me.
EDIT: I’m pretty sure that nothing in the books said that the charge of the reinforcements at Helm’s Deep was down that steep of a slope – that’s probably just not practical.
Just the beginning with the party, with dwarves in a sort of dance-cleaning party was absurd IMO.
They’re there to fight or die, only Gandalf (IIRC) managed them to even consider taking a hobbit with them. It should have been grim, but with a take making it possible, not a song and dance performance.
In all it’s too “American” (IMO) ; simplistic plot with easy to understand graphic battles. Then Win!
I also hated the painful play of Frodon and Sam, like some sort of painful master/slave idiocy. Not naming a totally overplayed Gollum.
Well well, I remember the end of the Hobbit was plaisant, and it was a long time ago I saw them so maybe I should rewatch them :-)
You seem to be confusing the two trilogies, I don’t think many LOTR fans will defend The Hobbit movies for anything but the performances. Also with regards to “it’s all too American,” the LOTR films were written and directed by a New Zealander based on a story by a Brit
For American audiences though, that’s where the money is. And who produced it too. Not saying you’re wrong, just to anyone outside the US it has the feel of it.
I didn’t say it was an American movie, just that it is “too American”. Too dumbed down. Too “bad person bad, because ugly”, “good person good looking and will win”, graphic battles etc.
I mean, if there was a single internationally-popular movie or series that you could choose to take issue with as being “too American”, this doesn’t seem like it’d be the one I’d choose.
The Frodo/Sam dynamic comes from Tolkien’s experiences in WW1. A fair example of this dynamic would be the Blackadder/Baldrick dynamic in Blackadder Goes Forth.
Apparently it was a thing where higher class soldiers had a bloke supporting him. Not sure if it was solely based on rank or social status
If you like fantasy movies now is the time. Or anytime really, they are very well done and the vast majority of people who like that kind of thing enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies.
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.
Add comment