State your unpopular film related opinion

[Ipodman]

What good Tony Scott movies ARE there anyway!?

[HighFivingMF]

What good Tony Scott movies ARE there anyway!?
True Romance and... Um... Did I say True Romance yet?

I wish Quentin directed that and Natural Born Killers. :csad:

[scatterax]

I like golden eye better then cassino royale and goldfinger.

[Aesop Rocks]

What good Tony Scott movies ARE there anyway!?

Unstoppable, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Man On Fire.

[gwynplaine]

Unstoppable, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Man On Fire.
That would be Andrew Dominik. Tony Scott only wished he had directed it:woot:

[Aesop Rocks]

He produced it! IMDB SAYS SO! :cmad: :oldrazz:

[gwynplaine]

He produced it! IMDB SAYS SO! :cmad: :oldrazz:
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info, now I like Tony Scott a little more:woot:

[gwynplaine]

Speaking of westerns.

I prefer Rio Bravo than The Searchers (which I also love.)
I prefer Ride the High Country than The Wild Bunch (which I also love.)
Gun fight at OK Corral is better than both Tombstone and Wyatt Earp.
A Man called Horse > Dances with Wolves.
Little Big Man also > Dances with Wolves.

[Aesop Rocks]

Watch Unstoppable. It's actually a surprisingly great film.

[gwynplaine]

I'll check it out. I like the premise, reminiscent of a film I really enjoyed "Runaway Train."

[Aesop Rocks]

Denzel is (of course) great. Chris is actually really good too.

[HighFivingMF]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
That was Andrew Domink. Ridley Scott was a Producer, don't think Tony had anything to do with it. I think.

[Aesop Rocks]

On his IMDB (in before typical stabs against IMDB) he's listed as an executive producer.

[C. Lee]

Speaking of westerns.

I prefer Rio Bravo than The Searchers (which I also love.)
I prefer Ride the High Country than The Wild Bunch (which I also love.)
Gun fight at OK Corral is better than both Tombstone and Wyatt Earp.A Man called Horse > Dances with Wolves.
Little Big Man also > Dances with Wolves.

I like Gunfight at the OK Corral as a movie....but I like that the other two are more historically accurate.

[gwynplaine]

I like Gunfight at the OK Corral as a movie....but I like that the other two are more historically accurate.
Good point.

[C. Lee]

I just happen to have a thing for history. I don't expect movies to be perfectly accurate...but like for them to get more than just the names right. That being said, GATOKC is still an entertaining movie just like MY DARLING CLEMENTINE is entertaining but not accurate.

[gwynplaine]

I just happen to have a thing for history. I don't expect movies to be perfectly accurate...but like for them to get more than just the names right. That being said, GATOKC is still an entertaining movie just like MY DARLING CLEMENTINE is entertaining but not accurate.
I agree, even though sometimes I prefer old school Hollywood magic over greater accuracy. I'll take Michael Curtiz's The Adventures of Robin Hood over Ridley Scott's Robin Hood any time of the day.

[C. Lee]

I agree, even though sometimes I prefer old school Hollywood magic over greater accuracy. I'll take Michael Curtiz's The Adventures of Robin Hood over Ridley Scott's Robin Hood any time of the day.

Oh sure I agree with that. I grew up on the old movies and love them to death. They weren't historically accurate at all but loads of fun.

[Parker Wayne]

I like golden eye better then cassino royale and goldfinger.

Me too. Its my #2 favorite Bond film behind From Russia With Love.

I agree, even though sometimes I prefer old school Hollywood magic over greater accuracy. I'll take Michael Curtiz's The Adventures of Robin Hood over Ridley Scott's Robin Hood any time of the day.

I'm going to be blunt with this. F**k Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. I hated that movie so much I was disappointed by Ridley Scott. How could he make a character such as Robin Hood be so bland?

[Majik1387]

I, as like everyone, hate Tom Cruise; But the movie Knight and Day was pretty funny and enjoyable.:up:

[El Payaso]

I, as like everyone, hate Tom Cruise; But the movie Knight and Day was pretty funny and enjoyable.:up:

I'm far from ahting him as an actor. I'd rather him than Brad Pitt. That one is bad bad bad no matter what.

[gwynplaine]

I'm going to be blunt with this. F**k Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. I hated that movie so much I was disappointed by Ridley Scott. How could he make a character such as Robin Hood be so bland?
Have you seen "Robin and Marian", Parker Wayne? With Sean Connery as an aging Robin, Audrey Hepburn as Maid Marian and the great Robert Shaw (fighting Connery for the 2nd time, years after From Russia with Love) as the Sheriff? It's probably my favorite take on the character. Kind of like Unforgiven meets Robin Hood.

I, as like everyone, hate Tom Cruise; But the movie Knight and Day was pretty funny and enjoyable.:up:
I really like Tom Cruise as an actor.

[SuperFerret]

I hate A Christmas Story.

[-Arya-]

Kickass is terrible.

[katie_girl09]

Well, thanks :up:



Well, I think there's probably a reason why the English Sonnet is synonymous with the Shakespearean Sonnet. Just sayin' :o

:cwink:
I think that reason is that the general public gets Shakespeare shoved down their throats and not other Renaissance writers. ;)

Honestly. Shakespeare: Good playwright. Average poet.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Kickass is terrible.:up:

The original Last House on the Left is a poorly acted, poorly directed, poorly scripted film that only gets a pass because it came out during the 70's. It was pretty freakin boring to boot. The remake wasn't good either but it was a good deal more enteraining than Cravens crapfest. You can tell it was some rushed cheapy.

I can't believe it's considered a horror classic. I mean, what was up with that horrible distracting music and those comedy relief cops? Yikes!

[Bunker]

Robert Downey Jr. doesn't do a lot for me.

[Tron Bonne]

I think that reason is that the general public gets Shakespeare shoved down their throats and not other Renaissance writers. ;)

Oh yeah, definitely. 'Cause he's one of the best :o

Honestly. Shakespeare: Good playwright. Average poet.

Oh well, I mean everyone is inclined to their opinion, but I think this one would be right up there with someone saying Kubrick was a good cinematographer, but only an average director :o

[Dark Victory]

I think most people liked the recent TAKING OF PELHAM 123 starring Denzel Washington and John Travolta. I finally got a chance to watch it today.....had to turn it off after about 15 minutes....just too much cursing, I'll stick to the original.

Yeah, abysmal stuff. The chaotic editing and soundtrack was even too much for my dubstep addicted friends.:oldrazz:

[Wesley Dodds]

Jackie Earle Haley really wasn't that great a Rorschach.

He was good as Kovacs but his Rorschach didn't do much for me. I know complaints like this are incredibly subjective but nevertheless, when i read Watchmen I hear Rorschach sounding more as a mixture of John Doe from Seven and HAL from Space 2001.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Jackie Earle Haley really wasn't that great a Rorschach.

He was good as Kovacs but his Rorschach didn't do much for me. I know complaints like this are incredibly subjective but nevertheless, when i read Watchmen I hear Rorschach sounding more as a mixture of John Doe from Seven and HAL from Space 2001.

A spacey Spacey voice? Yeah, I can hear something like that too when reading the book, I always gave his voice a bit of an etherealic quality, but I imagined a growl in there too. I found in the book the character had a more delicate manner, mixed with the feral, he could be more slow and precise in his movements, but then be tearing into his beans or someone's face at the drop of a hat.
That type of quality with the voice may have been a hard one to pull off, acting and sfx wise, so I guess they went with the feral side of the character more, just one of those things lost in adaptation, and I think we were supposed to hear it that way, maybe it was the blue colouring of the speech bubbles, as well as the shape, that made them have that cold and distant feel. It also may have sounded a bit too much like DrManhatten.

So, I think he was still a good 'Rorschach', the feral aspect was used very well, and probably made for him feeling more viable in live action as a guy who would survive out there on his own with that kind of life, but I do miss that spaced out quality you get in the book with him sometimes. It's kind of the same with the adaptation of 'V', they made him a lot more 'human' than the one in the book, and hence, less interesting, he always felt a bit like a ghost in the book.

[Aesop Rocks]

I wasn't too impressed with his Rorshach either, to be honest. Wasn't a fan of the character in the comic, not a fan of the character in the movie. Really the only positive aspects from Watchmen, for me at least, were Wilson's Nite Owl, and Curdup's Manhattan.

[Wesley Dodds]

A spacey Spacey voice? Yeah, I can hear something like that too when reading the book, I always gave his voice a bit of an etherealic quality, but I imagined a growl in there too. I found in the book the character had a more delicate manner, mixed with the feral, he could be more slow and precise in his movements, but then be tearing into his beans or someone's face at the drop of a hat.
That type of quality with the voice may have been a hard one to pull off, acting and sfx wise, so I guess they went with the feral side of the character more, just one of those things lost in adaptation, and I think we were supposed to hear it that way, maybe it was the blue colouring of the speech bubbles, as well as the shape, that made them have that cold and distant feel. It also may have sounded a bit too much like DrManhatten.

So, I think he was still a good 'Rorschach', the feral aspect was used very well, and probably made for him feeling more viable in live action as a guy who would survive out there on his own with that kind of life, but I do miss that spaced out quality you get in the book with him sometimes. It's kind of the same with the adaptation of 'V', they made him a lot more 'human' than the one in the book, and hence, less interesting, he always felt a bit like a ghost in the book.


Totally agree with this.

[Wesley Dodds]

I wasn't too impressed with his Rorshach either, to be honest. Wasn't a fan of the character in the comic, not a fan of the character in the movie. Really the only positive aspects from Watchmen, for me at least, were Wilson's Nite Owl, and Curdup's Manhattan.


Have you read the book?

[Aesop Rocks]

Yep.

[Wesley Dodds]

And you don't like Rorschach?! C'est Impossible!

[Aesop Rocks]

Maybe it's because I'm possibly homosexual and need to look into that more in the future.

[Wesley Dodds]

Maybe it's because I'm possibly homosexual and need to look into that more in the future.

:hehe:

[Frankenmation]

After recently watching Megamind, I don't think that Dreamworks Animation is the scourge of the universe like so many people make it out to be. Yes, their films have their fair share of flaws, and they're nowhere near in the same league as Pixar, but a fair few of their films have been pretty decent.

[Swordmaster]

Dreamworks gave me Kung Fu Panda. I can't hate them for that reason alone.

[SuperFerret]

And you don't like Rorschach?! C'est Impossible!

Rorschach isn't supposed to be likable. He exemplifies the worst type of superhero, and even though he's right in this situation, his stance on compromising is short-sighted and dangerous, much like the man himself.

[Wesley Dodds]

Rorschach isn't supposed to be likable. He exemplifies the worst type of superhero, and even though he's right in this situation, his stance on compromising is short-sighted and dangerous, much like the man himself.


Of course! Don't confuse me with those kids that were everywhere a couple of years ago, the "Wow! Rorschach is AWSOME! LOLLLLZZZ" brigade.
I don't mean likeable like I wanna get a beer with him, I mean likeable as in he's a damn good comic book character.

[SuperFerret]

Eh. That's debatable. His undeserved fandom means that his real purpose fell on deaf ears, so even as an example of "this is not a good thing to be", he ultimately failed.

[Wesley Dodds]

Eh. That's debatable. His undeserved fandom means that his real purpose fell on deaf ears, so even as an example of "this is not a good thing to be", he ultimately failed.

Some people are always going to read something the wrong way, though. It's not the source material's fault.

A Clockwork Orange is another good example. A few years ago, when it was rereleased everybody was walking around talking about The Droogs as if they were something to aspire to. Now, is that stupid? Sure. Is it A Clockwork Orange's fault? Nope.

[Doctor Jones]

Ah, well, they aren't for everyone I guess. I just always get chills at his writing.



Oh, it's been awhile so I could be wrong, but I don't think it would technically be actual, physical incest, but it's more kind of metaphorically since they are/were sister-in-law and brother-in-law, and lived as such to public perception, for so long. I believe, I don't know, I would have to go back and look at the play again to be sure.

And some argue there's incestuous undertones between Hamlet and his mother, as well as Ophelia and Laetres

Ah, I okay. The word has been one of the major words that describes the story so I guess that's why I always thought it was literal incest.

Thanks for clearing that up.

And in the movie Ophelia and Leatres kissing gave off that undertone.

[Doctor Jones]

Rorscach sounding like Spacey in Se7en and Hal? Whoa... quite imaginative I must say there.

I always imagined the original Boba Fett voice when reading the GN.

[Doctor Jones]

Anyway, I prefer Dr. No to Goldfinger. Goldfinger may be consitantly good throughout, but Dr. No had many aspects of Bond I prefer so it's above it for that.

Bond's introduction in the casino could be my favorite introduction to a character ever. Connery just oozes sexual charisma and coolness. I love the tarantula scene. It gives you the heebe jeebes. The soundtrack helps it. Especially when he kills it, when the score matches with the slams of the lamp he uses to kill it.

Plus the entire scene after Connery kicks out Taro out of her house, with him setting up the house and waiting juxtaposed with "Underneath the Mango Tree" in the background, to the scene where he kills Dent is better than anything in Goldfinger.

"That's a Smith and Wesson. And you've had your six."

I can't get over how badass that quote is.

[Blackman]

From what Ive seen of the Bond films, I don't like any of them save for Casino Royale

[scatterax]

that spider scene was kinda ruined for me because the first time i saw Dr. No it was pointed out to me that you could see the gless touching his skin and light reflecting off it. plus the fish in that 1 scene is 1 of the worst effects ever.

[scatterax]

From what Ive seen of the Bond films, I don't like any of them save for Casino Royale

Have you seen golden eye, or from russia with love?

[scatterax]

on james bond, Roger Moore is my least favorite bond. He's pretty much boring, James Boring. And he focused to much on humer and not enough on being awesome, which wouldn't be so bad if his humor was funny rather than corny/cheesy.

[Blackman]

Have you seen golden eye, or from russia with love?

Seen GoldenEye and it was beyond stupid to me. THe Bond girls were lame (but Famke Jannsen=:wow:), the chase scene was meh, the opening was really cool until the landing in the plane in mid air bit.

Its not a terrible movie, but I didnt really enjoy it

[scatterax]

well from russia with love is probably the most grounded bond film aside from casino royale, so u might like that.

[gwynplaine]

1. From Russia With Love.
2. Goldfinger.
3. Casino Royale.
4. Dr. No.
5. You Only Live Twice.
6. Live And Let Die.
7. The Spy Who Loved Me.
8. Goldeneye
9. Thunderball.

That's more or less it for me, more or less in that order.
(Still not a big fan of OHMSS, even after the resurgence in popularity it seems to have had after Nolan mentioned it as one of his favorite Bond Movies and an influence on Inception. Except of course for John Barry's great soundtrack.)
I hope Craig returns and Mendes directs the next one. (If there is a next one:cwink:)

[katie_girl09]

Oh yeah, definitely. 'Cause he's one of the best :o
One of the best? Maybe. But not the best by a long shot as far as I'm concerned.


Oh well, I mean everyone is inclined to their opinion, but I think this one would be right up there with someone saying Kubrick was a good cinematographer, but only an average director :o
:huh: You don't have to be a good poet to be a good playwright.

[Figs]

I've enjoyed a number of the Bond films I've seen but does anyone else find the pacing in most Bond films suck? I don't mind long movies but there have been Bond films that draaagged.

[C. Lee]

I've enjoyed a number of the Bond films I've seen but does anyone else find the pacing in most Bond films sucks? I don't mind long movies but there have been Bond films that draaaged.

The only ones I really had a problem with was a bunch of the Moore ones...they just got to damn corny and full of product placement.

[Figs]

The only ones I really had a problem with was a bunch of the Moore ones...they just got to damn corny and full of product placement.

It's not surprising that you mentioned Moore's films because one of the ones that made me think of how long some of those films can feel is A View To a Kill. Even though Christopher Walken was the villian, I kind of felt like I couldn't wait for it to end.

[gwynplaine]

I agree some of the Moore ones have truly been a disgrace to the Bond mythos. In particular Moonraker, For your eyes Only and From A View To A Kill. But I liked Live and Let Die, Yaphet Koto was a great Bond Villain and I also enjoyed TSWLM, Curt Jurgens was a fun villain and Jaws before he turned into a farce in the horrible Moonraker, pretty cool too. Plus I have to admit that Barbara Bach is one of my favorite Bond Girls. And the submarine Lotus Esprit was an awesome car.

Great new avy, Figs.

[C. Lee]

It's not surprising that you mentioned Moore's films because one of the ones that made me think of how long some of those films can feel is A View To a Kill. Even though Christopher Walken was the villian, I kind of felt like I couldn't wait for it to end.The fact that Tanya Robert's character didn't see a dirigable sneaking up on her didn't help the movie either.

I also enjoyed TSWLM, Curt Jurgens was a fun villain and Jaws before he turned into a farce in the horrible Moonraker, pretty cool too. Plus I have to admit that Barbara Bach is one of my favorite Bond Girls. And the submarine Lotus was a pretty cool car.
Caroline Munroe was in there too as Jurgen's henchwoman....was lucky enough to meet her a few years ago and get a pic of her fron that movie autographed. Lovely lady.

[gwynplaine]

The fact that Tanya Robert's character didn't see a dirigable sneaking up on her didn't help the movie either.


Caroline Munroe was in there too as Jurgen's henchwoman....was lucky enough to meet her a few years ago and get a pic of her fron that movie autographed. Lovely lady.
Wow, now that's pretty cool:awesome:

[Doctor Jones]

Connery's films are very well paced. They're not even two hours and it feels just right. They're not exactly fast paced nor slow paced. They just flow right. Great pacing is usually when you don't feel it.

Listening to the commentary made me appreciate the editing on Dr. No alot more. It was the first film to really cut away as much and the movement of the camera constantly moving. They wanted it to move fast. Since the films before that time didn't cut away as much and relied on alot of wide shots staying hen going to panning, etc, this was the first film to really cut away alot more and use more angles in the same scene.

Moore is my least favorite Bond as well. LALD I think was my first Bond film that I watched. Moore is okay in that but he might as well be winking at the camera in all of them.

AHMSS was alright too. Lazenby did a decent job for what he had. I wished I saw him in at least one more film to really get a good opinion of him. But I can't see why Nolan thinks it's his favorite one.

Is The Spy Who Loved Me really that good? I've heard alot of good things about it.

[gwynplaine]

Connery's films are very well paced. They're not even two hours and it feels just right. They're not exactly fast paced nor slow paced. They just flow right. Great pacing is usually when you don't feel it.

Listening to the commentary made me appreciate the editing on Dr. No alot more. It was the first film to really cut away as much and the movement of the camera constantly moving. They wanted it to move fast. Since the films before that time didn't cut away as much and relied on alot of wide shots staying hen going to panning, etc, this was the first film to really cut away alot more and use more angles in the same scene.

Moore is my least favorite Bond as well. LALD I think was my first Bond film that I watched. Moore is okay in that but he might as well be winking at the camera in all of them.

AHMSS was alright too. Lazenby did a decent job for what he had. I wished I saw him in at least one more film to really get a good opinion of him. But I can't see why Nolan thinks it's his favorite one.

Is The Spy Who Loved Me really that good? I've heard alot of good things about it.
Well, it's no FRWL and I haven't seen it in a long time and it's probably pretty dated, but I remember it being loads of fun and certainly one of the best, if not the best, Moore ones. Check it out.
As for Moore as Bond, I kinda like that he didn't try to copy the great Sean Connery and brought his own charm and humor to the character. But he certainly suffered from terrible material and played the character for too long. (Like I said I only liked him in LALD and TSWLM, which can't really compete with the great Connery ones or CR anyway.)
True story: I remember I was a little kid and Moore was interviewed on French TV for either FAVTAK or FYEO, I don't remember. They showed a clip of the movie, a terrible scene were Bond (who looks tragically old) is flirting with a young ice skater that could be his granddaughter.
They went back to Moore on the TV set. He shook his head and just said in his great self deprecating British sense of humor: "Awful.":woot:

[Tron Bonne]

:huh: You don't have to be a good poet to be a good playwright.

'Course not. How'd you get that out of what I said :huh:

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Michael Keaton was better as Beetlejuice than as Batman.

[Ipodman]

Nice avatar Tron Bonne! I love that issue!

[Tron Bonne]

Nice avatar Tron Bonne! I love that issue!

Thanks :up:

Also, guess I'll throw out a couple of unpopular opinions since I haven't in awhile:

-Though I love him as a director, I'm kind of glad Aronosky walked away from The Fighter. Even though I'm sure the story, characters and writing would have been enough to distance it from The Wrestler, the idea is still too similar. I like that he's taken very different projects with each film, and want to see him continue that trend.

-Splice is pretty underrated. The last 15-20 minutes do bring it down a notch or two, I admit, but it's still quite good for the rest of the film.

-Though I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part I, I'm really not sure if it's at the level that many people are putting it at. I put as the 7th in my Top 10 of 2010, which is a good place, but I see a lot of 10s and 9s, and just general incredible praise being leveled at it, and I don't think it was that good. I think people might be seeing it in a warmer light since the last two entries have kind of been ass :o

-Heh, I know I'll get a degree of heat for this one, since I have saying it in other threads, but here goes:

I really don't see why people did (or still do) put up such a stink about people not being all that interested in The Social Network based on not having any interest in Facebook's founding. I guess it's just because Fincher was behind the camera, which I can slightly understand since I like him as a filmmaker, but it's just kind of...natural to not be interested in a film about something you don't have interest in. I mean, I'm going to be honest, if they made a riveting drama about the cut throat invention of tin cans directed by Christopher Nolan...I could totally see someone not all that interested in checking that out. I mean, sure, I probably would, since I try to keep my mind fairly open, but I don't get the illness often brought by others in that situation.

[katie_girl09]

'Course not. How'd you get that out of what I said :huh:
I misread your post. Never mind.

[katie_girl09]

-Though I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part I, I'm really not sure if it's at the level that many people are putting it at. I put as the 7th in my Top 10 of 2010, which is a good place, but I see a lot of 10s and 9s, and just general incredible praise being leveled at it, and I don't think it was that good. I think people might be seeing it in a warmer light since the last two entries have kind of been ass :o
People seem to go nuts and overrate anything that has to do with Harry Potter.

Also, I really don't think it was necessary to make a movie for every single book in the series.

[Ipodman]

They should have combined all the books into 3 movies or something

[Parker Wayne]

Really? Because I think its a good, consistent series of films. I thought they were great, though some more than others.

[C. Lee]

People seem to go nuts and overrate anything that has to do with Harry Potter.

Also, I really don't think it was necessary to make a movie for every single book in the series.

They should have combined all the books into 3 movies or something

I personally haven't read the books yet....but I have no problem with them making a movie out of each seperate book. My wife has read all the books...and she thinks the last several deserved at least 2 movies each to get all of the books in.

[danoyse]

Also, I really don't think it was necessary to make a movie for every single book in the series.

Actually, it kinda was necessary for each book to have its own movie.

[HighFivingMF]

People seem to go nuts and overrate anything that has to do with Harry Potter.

Also, I really don't think it was necessary to make a movie for every single book in the series.
A movie for each Harry Potter book is no more necessary than any other movie. They give people work and entertain the people who like it, just like every other movie.

And there's no such thing as overrated. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not as good as the people that do think it is. This is coming from someone with absolutely 0 interest in anything Harry Potter.

[SuperFerret]

Reason? On the internet? Amazing. Perhaps we could all take a lesson from...

Wait... what am I saying?

BURN THE WITCH!

[Frankenmation]

I really don't understand why people get so agitated when people use the word "overrated", I've seen it a few times on SHH. Who the hell cares?

[Tron Bonne]

I really don't understand why people get so agitated when people use the word "overrated", I've seen it a few times on SHH. Who the hell cares?

Agreed. It seems like 'overrated' as kind of become this internet swear word on here, and all it simply means is you think something doesn't deserve the praise it's gotten from critics, audiences or both. It's literally the same thing as saying 'Well, I don't think this was as good as everyone else did...', which is something almost everyone has said in here at one point or another. Not a big deal at all. You get a Tron token, Franken.

[katie_girl09]

They should have combined all the books into 3 movies or something
Agreed. Seriously.
Really? Because I think its a good, consistent series of films. I thought they were great, though some more than others.
I didn't say they weren't good. Just overrated.
I personally haven't read the books yet....but I have no problem with them making a movie out of each seperate book. My wife has read all the books...and she thinks the last several deserved at least 2 movies each to get all of the books in.
Well, it sounds like your wife's a mega Harry Potter fan so that's understandable. :oldrazz:
Actually, it kinda was necessary for each book to have its own movie. I don't see why they couldn't have combined some storylines and made it into 3 or 4 solid movies. It would have held my interest more. Eight just seems excessive to me.

Reason? On the internet? Amazing. Perhaps we could all take a lesson from...

Wait... what am I saying?

BURN THE WITCH!
:lmao:

I really don't understand why people get so agitated when people use the word "overrated", I've seen it a few times on SHH. Who the hell cares?
I don't understand it either.
And there's no such thing as overrated. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not as good as the people that do think it is. This is coming from someone with absolutely 0 interest in anything Harry Potter.
Uh, this is the "Unpopular movie-related opinions" thread. I can say something is overrated if I want because it's an opinion. Right? Right?

Also...

...It seems like 'overrated' as kind of become this internet swear word on here, and all it simply means is you think something doesn't deserve the praise it's gotten from critics, audiences or both. It's literally the same thing as saying 'Well, I don't think this was as good as everyone else did...', which is something almost everyone has said in here at one point or another. Not a big deal at all.

[Ipodman]

I don't see what's the big fuss over The Hurt Locker. The characters and story are boring, and the directing style is over-indulgent.

[Sam Fisher]

"overrated" is overrated:o:woot:

[C. Lee]

Well, it sounds like your wife's a mega Harry Potter fan so that's understandable. :oldrazz:

Actually she isn't. She likes the books and she likes the movies. But I should have known that on the Hype just liking something that someone else doesn't makes them a MEGAFAN to make fun of.

[Chris Wallace]

I really don't understand why people get so agitated when people use the word "overrated", I've seen it a few times on SHH. Who the hell cares?

It's usually when you would dare to besmirch a movie that they think is pure gold by suggesting it's anything less than shear perfection. I never hear people wig out when you say something's under-rated.

[spider-neil]

this mirror's my opinion of TDK exactly

http://chud.com/articles/articles/15629/1/REVIEW-DARK-KNIGHT-THE-DEVIN039S-TAKE/Page1.html


REVIEW: DARK KNIGHT, THE (DEVIN'S TAKE)


By Devin Faraci (http://chud.com/articles/authors/5/Devin-Faraci)
Published 07/18/2008
Reviews (http://chud.com/articles/categories/Reviews/)



http://chud.com/articles/content_images/ONESHEETS/batfella.jpgSomeone get the Batman a lozenge.

Of all the improvements that Christopher Nolan has made from Batman Begins (and there are many), Batman himself (and his stupid, stupid raspy voice) seems to have gone unfixed. If anything, Batman has taken a step back from his center stage role in the first film and allowed much more interesting characters like The Joker, Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon to claim the spotlight. And in many ways, that's an improvement in itself.

Nolan's second Batfilm almost doesn't even feel like a sequel - it feels like a reboot. Gotham City, presented in Begins as the only major American city ever founded on a soundstage, now has an outdoors. It feels like... a real city, which makes sense, since it was all filmed in Chicago. And that realness extends beyond the exteriors; for the first time in a Batman movie I felt like I understood what being a Gothamite was like, and I felt that the city was a once glorious place in a bad time, as opposed to the almost Boschian depiction in previous films, including Nolan's first. This is Gotham City by way of The Wire.

A lot of people are talking about Heat and Martin Scorsese when it comes to this film, which is a crime epic more than a standard superhero story, but it's The Wire that is the most apt comparison. Nolan and his co-writers, brother Jonathan and David Goyer, come at their story from many slices of Gotham life. They come at it from the criminal element, they come at it from the police point of view, they come at it from the courts and they come at it from politics and the media. And of course they come at it from the fetish vigilante angle as well. But it's this angle that feels least developed and, frankly, least interesting. Nolan and company are talking about living in the modern city (just like the people behind The Wire were), and they're just using the superhero thing as a way to approach it.

It's the viability of urban life, the way that it affects and impacts us, that Nolan is interested in. The Joker is the anarchic chaos of a city given form, while Harvey Dent is the way that we're worn down and destroyed by it. Jim Gordon stands tall as the good man at the heart of the system, battered and abused but eternally decent. He's the only life-sized figure in the film, standing simply human amidst the huge freaks and archetypes, almost the audience identification character. This interest in the city as central to the Batman mythos is not new for Nolan - it's sort of the same themes that he visited in Begins, but more crystallized.

I appreciate the film's ambition, the fact that it looks to sprawl, and I like it for that. But that sprawl turns into flab very quickly, and it becomes apparent that Nolan et al, charmed by their own themes and ideas, never sat down and cut a single thing out of the script. The film gets involved in digressions that never come back around to or inform the main story or character arcs in any meaningful way. As the film begins, not long after the ending of the first one, a group of concerned citizens have taken up the mantle of the Bat (and the pads of the Goalie (http://forums.superherohype.com/#)) and begun fighting crime as faux-Batmen. There are a lot of intriguing thematic elements to this concept - Batman's main (mostly unbelievable) arc is about him coming to grips with the impact he's had on Gotham, and these guys (along with The Joker and the reactions of the city's crime bosses) personify that. But they appear at the beginning of the movie and never again; during the third act Gotham is being evacuated and I kept expecting to see these Batmen show up in some form, a bit of closure or at least follow-through on their story. Do they show up in costume to help out? Do they leave the costumes behind and just become good samaritans? Or do they look out only for themselves after Batman rebukes them? Who knows. They only add up to extra minutes tacked onto the running time.

There's the same problem with the film's foray to Hong Kong. It presents Nolan the opportunity to do a cool action scene, but that's it, and that scene ends up costing ten to fifteen extra minutes of screentime just to set up. Actually, the scene also introduces a Batgadget that seeks to rival Begins' microwave steam generating villain plan in idiocy, so there's another strike against Hong Kong. Another subplot, about a Wayne Industries employee who figures out his boss is the Batman, similarly dead ends itself with a cute resolution that would have been better served fleshed out into a real story in another movie. At any rate, just one more draft of the script could have tightened these things up, leaving The Dark Knight to be just as sprawling and epic a crime story as it wants to be, just without all the bloat.

You almost don't mind all that bloat. Nolan manages his pacing in such a way that you don't even realize that he's getting caught up in digression after digression. And he's populated his meandering story with characters that engage, played by actors who are performing at the top of their game. This movie belongs to Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger; Christian Bale is a guest star in their show. Every time the movie would go back to Batman and his immediate family (http://forums.superherohype.com/#) of butlers and wise black men, I would wish that we could get back to these other three, the characters who drive the story along.

Oldman has the trickiest role - after playing so many over the top, scenery chewing characters here he's relegated to the most normal guy, the calm center of all the madness. The movie almost goes over the edge with him in a long sequence in the middle (spoilers ahead: if anyone can tell me why Gordon fakes his death, I'd appreciate it. Why is his family so much more at risk than the families (http://forums.superherohype.com/#) of everyone else in the police force?), but after teetering on that cliff Oldman manages to return Gordon to his modest humanity. In Begins Gordon was almost extraneous, an exposition machine, but here he's not only a plot motivator, he's a real character.

Working with (sort of) Gordon is Harvey Dent. The film's title isn't really about Batman's nickname, it's about Batman's relationship with Dent - over and over again Dent is called Gotham's White Knight. He's the city's Obama, newly elected as DA and cleaning (http://forums.superherohype.com/#) things up from the inside in a way that Bruce Wayne could only dream about. Eckhart, all jaw and blonde good looks, plays (http://forums.superherohype.com/#) Dent as the kind of good guy we haven't seen in movies in decades. Honest and ethical yet funny and sexual, he's a hero with almost no darkness, no repression, no hesitation. He's straight but not square; Dent accepts that the city needs Batman. He understands that some rules have to be bent for the greater good. This is a superhero movie, but the superhero seems to be the DA.

It's not Eckhart's fault, but I found Dent's turn to evil in the third act to be unconvincing. Forgiving the impossibility of Dent getting those wounds and running around being a bad guy, his change into that bad guy feels rushed. And what's worse, the very nature of Two Face is once again misused; in Schumacher's take on the character he was just a lunatic all the time, and here he's just using his scarred coin to decide whether or not to kill people. There's no feeling that he's torn about it, and at one point when the coin doesn't allow him to kill someone, he flips again to get a chance to kill another character in an attempt to kill that first person after all. I wanted to see this Two Face be torn, to be a slave to that coin. Instead he feels like a villain with a gimmick.

There's not a single complaint I can raise about Heath Ledger's Joker*. This is the most iconic presentation of the character I have ever seen; eschewing the theatrics of almost every other iteration, Ledger finds terrifying humor in quiet moments. This is a Joker who wouldn't be interested in acid squirting flowers or electric hand buzzers. His humor is ironic, subtle and always cynical and bitter. What Ledger understands is that the Joker isn't scary when he's a cackling madman, but rather when his irrationality slowly peeks out from behind what appears to be a veneer of sanity. This isn't just the best Joker seen yet, it's one of the all-time best screen villains.

Weirdly, he feels more like a villain for Harvey Dent than for Batman. The film tries to bring Batman and The Joker into eternal pas de deux, but the clown is really the opposite of Dent, who stands for justice and order while The Joker is chaos personified. In fact, since Batman is an agent for chaos in this story - his actions have riled up the hornet's nest of Gotham's criminal elite - The Joker sees Batman as more of an accomplice than anything else.

Which brings us back to Batman. I'm on the record as finding the character among the least compelling superheroes in the world, and The Dark Knight does nothing to convince me otherwise. It plays like a movie where Nolan came around to my way of thinking, in fact. The movie needs to give Batman some kind of arc (a nicety the comics long since dispensed with), so Nolan makes Batman want to give up the cowl right from the start. I think this is standard second superhero movie ******** at this point, and it really doesn't fit here. At one point Bruce Wayne fantasizes that Dent in office will be what's needed to allow him to retire, and I couldn't help but wonder whose vision of Batman this was. It takes a certain megalomania to put on a rubber suit and beat up criminals, and one dude getting elected doesn't seem like it could cure that megalomania.

But that's just there to give Batman a story - otherwise he's simply a catalyst for the plot's beginning, and the star of the many incoherent action scenes (Nolan continues to be an uncompromisingly bad action director. The first time Batman fights a dog (he fights three or four in the film!) I only knew he fought the dog because someone putting a yelping sound effect over the blurry, quickly cut image). Presenting Dent and The Joker as opposing figures for order and chaos is great, but since Batman never feels like he's actually in the middle of them, the hero becomes redundant.

One of my biggest problems with Batman Begins was the fact that Batman essentially breaks his no killing rule while saying he doesn't kill anybody. I hoped that this sequel would pick up on the moral aspects of that scene, but it doesn't. In fact, it continues to give Batman bizarrely free range when it comes to morality. This goes back to that immensely stupid Batgadget from Hong Kong: Batman has a device that can act as a sonar or some ****, allowing him to somehow see through walls. Using the technology of Final Draft, Batman turns every cell phone in Gotham into a sonar transmitter, and while trying to thwart The Joker's plan (which requires impossible levels of planning - there's no way an entire hospital could be rigged to implode without SOMEONE noticing. The Joker has an almost supernatural ability to rig **** to blow up under the radar) he uses that ability to spy on every citizen of Gotham. Or something, it's sort of dumb and vague. It's an obvious allusion to the whole wiretapping thing now going on this country, and Morgan Freeman's character, being wise and black, takes offense at it all. This seems like it's shaping up to a good moral conundrum for the Batman, and to be exploring his fairly fascist side, something no movie ever wants to do. But the movie demurs, having Batman self-destruct the system after using it just the once when he really, really, really had to. Morgan Freeman smiles, and you almost expect him to say, 'Oh Batman, you scamp!' before freeze framing and having the sitcom credits roll.

What a wasted opportunity. Again and again the movie comes back to the question of Batman's relationship with Gotham and its people and how he impacts the world around him, yet Nolan refuses to explore the darker aspects of that. I wanted to see a legitimate debate about what tactics are allowable in what situations. I wanted to see Batman maybe crossing the line a little bit and being presented as a possible threat to the people he's supposed to protect. At the very least, I wanted to see repercussions of his actions. What's worse is that this dumb sci-fi concept never even gets used in any meaningful way; when Batman does use the sonar in an incoherent fight scene he uses it in a way that it could have been replaced with heat sensing goggles or something.

There's this condescending notion that The Dark Knight transcends the superhero genre, as if it needed to be transcended. I don't think that film transcends that genre as much as it seeks to not be in it; Nolan's made a crime movie that has a guy in a stupid suit smack in the middle of it. Of course that's the beauty of superhero stories, much like westerns or science fiction stories - you can meld them with other genres. A cowboy can investigate a murder just as two people can fall in love on a space ship. There's an even more condescending notion that The Dark Knight takes itself more seriously than other superhero movies - as if this is an inherently good thing. I do think that the film takes itself more seriously than, say, Spider-Man 2 (although much less seriously than its turgid forebearer), but I don't think it's any more of a serious movie than Spider-Man 2. The tones are all that are different to me - both films take their characters and their worlds very seriously. It isn't like the superhero genre has been, to date, a series of parodies or something. On top of that, judging a movie based on how it 'transcends' its genre defeats the purpose of transcending that genre, as you're just lumping it back in with the others in the end. 'This is much better than a superhero movie should be,' isn't judging the movie as just a movie. As just a movie, The Dark Knight is very good, but not great and certainly not a masterpiece. As a superhero movie... well, it's no Spider-Man 2.

* except maybe to mention that for a guy who is all about anarchy and disorder, The Joker is really good at long term planning and organization building.

8.5 out of 10

[gwynplaine]

this mirror's my opinion of TDK exactly

I basically only agree with this part:

"There's not a single complaint I can raise about Heath Ledger's Joker*. This is the most iconic presentation of the character I have ever seen; eschewing the theatrics of almost every other iteration, Ledger finds terrifying humor in quiet moments. This is a Joker who wouldn't be interested in acid squirting flowers or electric hand buzzers. His humor is ironic, subtle and always cynical and bitter. What Ledger understands is that the Joker isn't scary when he's a cackling madman, but rather when his irrationality slowly peeks out from behind what appears to be a veneer of sanity. This isn't just the best Joker seen yet, it's one of the all-time best screen villains."

He nailed it there.

[danoyse]

Well, it sounds like your wife's a mega Harry Potter fan so that's understandable. :oldrazz:

How does reading all of the books in a 7-part book series make one a "megafan"? I suspect anyone with an interest in the series would want to reach each part of the story...it doesn't mean they're drawing lightning bolt scars on their foreheads and dressing up in Hogwarts robes.

I don't see why they couldn't have combined some storylines and made it into 3 or 4 solid movies. It would have held my interest more. Eight just seems excessive to me.

Because they're really big books that tell a lot of story. And they already cut a ton out of the movies they have. They've held my interest since the first movie.

[Figs]

I don't see what's the big fuss over The Hurt Locker. The characters and story are boring, and the directing style is over-indulgent.

When people say this exact quote it doesn't make sense to me. How can a directing style be in excess? Wouldn't that mean for each film a director does, throughout it he has to constantly change up his directing style so it's not consistant for the entire film? Over-indulgent means to use or take in excess, maybe it's just me but that one always throws me off.

[Blackman]

Combining all 7 300+ page Harry Potter books into 3 or 4 films is a terrible idea. Beyond terrible. From a quality point and a business point it's stupid

[Parker Wayne]

Combining all 7 300+ page Harry Potter books into 3 or 4 films is a terrible idea. Beyond terrible. From a quality point and a business point it's stupid

This. All of this. Plus could you imagine how pissed JK Rowling would be if they did that? She'd probably be like Alan Moore after that.

Some people are saying that each film after Goblet of fire should be two films and other saying they should combine the series into 3 or 4 films. The series is fine as is and there are few things I would change about it, and this is coming from someone who never read the books. From a pure film point of view I think the series is very good and evolved greatly over time, growing up with the audience. I was 9 when the first film was released and I'll be 19 when the last film is released. As Harry became a man I am too.



And people who keep complaining that this is the unpopular opinions and they're opinions are undebatable: get over it. People are gonna want others to explain your opinion. Its still a discussion board, right? I don't agree with Tron Bonne all the time but at least he explains his opinions in a way that I understand why he thinks that.

[Blackman]

I mean even from a business stand point: you have 7 potential films that already have a very large set audience. you would lose so much money by making only 3 or 4 films

and then the quality would just be alot worse then each book having an individual film
If I was a big studio head and someone said that I'd probably fire them. Why would making only 3 or 4 movies be a good Idea?
-----------------------------------------------
-The Wrestler isnt that good
-I Love You, Man wasnt that good
-Green Hornet looks awesome
-Honestly Im looking forward to GH more than GL. Not really because I think GH will be better, but because it at least seems a bit less generic.
-Im getting a little tired of hearing about RDJ for so many roles. I think he's great and I'll see almost anything he is, but I feel that every other week he'e being rumored or suggested for a new role
-I dont get what's complicated about Inception

[HighFivingMF]

I mean even from a business stand point: you have 7 potential films that already have a very large set audience. you would lose so much money by making only 3 or 4 films

and then the quality would just be alot worse then each book having an individual film
If I was a big studio head and someone said that I'd probably fire them. Why would making only 3 or 4 movies be a good Idea?
They can just wait for the inevitable 19-hour Ultimate Edition Fan-Edit. :dry: Still one movie. :oldrazz:

[Frankenmation]

Agreed. It seems like 'overrated' as kind of become this internet swear word on here, and all it simply means is you think something doesn't deserve the praise it's gotten from critics, audiences or both. It's literally the same thing as saying 'Well, I don't think this was as good as everyone else did...', which is something almost everyone has said in here at one point or another. Not a big deal at all. You get a Tron token, Franken.

You summed up my opinion on it perfectly. And thanks for the token, Tron dear, it means a lot coming from you! :hrt: :fhm: :awesome:

[Doctor Jones]

Well, it's no FRWL and I haven't seen it in a long time and it's probably pretty dated, but I remember it being loads of fun and certainly one of the best, if not the best, Moore ones. Check it out.
As for Moore as Bond, I kinda like that he didn't try to copy the great Sean Connery and brought his own charm and humor to the character. But he certainly suffered from terrible material and played the character for too long. (Like I said I only liked him in LALD and TSWLM, which can't really compete with the great Connery ones or CR anyway.)
True story: I remember I was a little kid and Moore was interviewed on French TV for either FAVTAK or FYEO, I don't remember. They showed a clip of the movie, a terrible scene were Bond (who looks tragically old) is flirting with a young ice skater that could be his granddaughter.
They went back to Moore on the TV set. He shook his head and just said in his great self deprecating British sense of humor: "Awful.":woot:

I'll check it out then. And come to think of it, people complained Craig having blonde hair when he was cast (I mean who honestly notices now) but Moore had light brown hair. What the hell gives?

And Moore played Bond for far too long. You could have gotten a few more movies with Dalton in before Moore became too old.

I'm still fantasizing of a Connery OHMSS and CR.

[Parker Wayne]

I'm dreamingof those two too, but I'm really curious to how Brosnan would've been in Casino Royale. Casino Royale was the Bond film Brosnan always wanted to make. He wanted to be in a serious, gritty Bond film but EON never gave that to him. Sucks for Brosnan that once he left, they went that direction.

[Doctor Jones]

Goldeneye to me had that great balance of serioussness and fun to me. Maybe it depends on the actor playing Bond himself? I always liked Brosnan, He's my third favorite actually. He should have been in better Bond films after Goldeneye. He deserved it.

[Parker Wayne]

They had these no name, mediocre directors after Goldeneye. That move screwed the franchise over and nearly killed it. After that, EON started going after more known and big name directors. They went back to Martin Campbell, then Marc forster, and now Sam Mendes.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Once Upon A Time In The West is far, far too long.
The relationship between the characters aren't particularly well done in comparison to A Few Dollars More or The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.

[Parker Wayne]

Once Upon A Time In The West is far, far too long.
The relationship between the characters aren't particularly well done in comparison to A Few Dollars More or The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.

Blasphemy! :cmad:

:oldrazz:

Seriously, but in terms of Bronson/Fonda, I disagree. All of the other points I agree on. It did seem like Leone left the camera rolling at times, but he did have length and pacing trouble with this film. So much so he had to get help from other screenwriters with this one. His original script was much, much longer.

It's still my favorite Leone film because some of the standoff moments was just so awesome and Fonda (with all apologies to Lee Van Cleef) was the best Leone villain.

[Dark Victory]

Thanks :up:

-Though I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part I, I'm really not sure if it's at the level that many people are putting it at. I put as the 7th in my Top 10 of 2010, which is a good place, but I see a lot of 10s and 9s, and just general incredible praise being leveled at it, and I don't think it was that good. I think people might be seeing it in a warmer light since the last two entries have kind of been ass :o




I love you.


- All of Wes Anderson's films aren't just great, but ****ing classics.
- As revered as 2001 is, I doubt most people even get what Kubrick was going for. Hell, I don't even think I do, and it's always been a close favorite.
- Black Swan shouldn't have had any climactic, hallucinatory sequences, not counting the last confrontation between Nina and Lilly. Would've been much better if it completely adhered to the slow brooding of Dead Ringers, Cat People, Repulsion and even Cronenberg's Fly, not cat-and-mouse and pop-up scares, which completely undermined its hermetic universe. I didn't care for Mansell's score during these sequences either, it felt so overbearing. I would've preferred something more destructive and loose. Also, I admire Aronofsky's predilection that some key sequences can be taken with either a laugh or shriek, but I'm not too sure how well it worked.

[Watchman]

I love you.


- All of Wes Anderson's films aren't just great, but ****ing classics.

:up:

**** yes. One of the best filmmakers of the decade. I've been in love with everything the man has done.

[Bunker]

The Royal Tenenbaums is the only Anderson movie I can watch more than once. :o

[-Arya-]

I
- As revered as 2001 is, I doubt most people even get what Kubrick was going for. Hell, I don't even think I do, and it's always been a close favorite.

Eh, while I love 2001, it isn't really one of my favorites.

[Blackman]

Terry Crews's AA-12 scene in The Expendables is the greatest moment for a black man in film. Ever.

[Bunker]

Eh, while I love 2001, it isn't really one of my favorites.

Yeah, it's one of those films that you admire more than you enjoy. At least it's that way for me.

[-Arya-]

Yeah, it's one of those films that you admire more than you enjoy. At least it's that way for me.
Right; it's more or less the same way I view Barry Lyndon. Admirable but not all that stimulating.

[Doctor Jones]

2001 was more stimulating than Lyndon. For one thing, my eyes didn't feel dead after I watched 2001.

2001 isn't a film I can watch alot, but it was the first film to show me that film is truly an art form. Kubrick's images are like moving portraits to me. He showed space travel as a luxary and large.

[gwynplaine]

I prefer Barry Lyndon than 2001. Actually, it might be my favorite Kubrick's movie. At least up there for me, with A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Dr Strangelove and Paths of Glory.

[Parker Wayne]

I always wanted to check out Barry Lyndon but no one talks about it. How is Barry Lyndon and what should I expect from it?

[El Payaso]

I always wanted to check out Barry Lyndon but no one talks about it. How is Barry Lyndon and what should I expect from it?

Man, it's Kubrick. It's so goddamn perfect. I really lack of the words.

[Ipodman]

The first time I watched 2001ASO was on Blu-ray, which I bought so excitedly because I thought I was getting some kind of epic Star Wars-esque space movie. Turn out... nope!

I did like the second part and the third part.. especially the third part... but everything from the "light travel" (or whetever you want to call it) onwards lost me. Too bizzare.

I havent read the book.

[gwynplaine]

Man, it's Kubrick. It's so goddamn perfect. I really lack of the words.
This.

Also the greatest period piece ever. Like paintings coming to life and a good indication, I think, of what Kubrick's Napoleon might have looked like.
(It's the Blu Ray release I am most looking forward to, since the invention of the blu ray.)
Watch it Parker Wayne, like Payaso said it's so perfect, words can't really describe Barry Lyndon.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I think the Godfather 2 is a much better film than the Godfather.
Better intro, better ending, better story, better acting, better set pieces e.t.c...

[Doctor Jones]

I always wanted to check out Barry Lyndon but no one talks about it. How is Barry Lyndon and what should I expect from it?

Watch it in two sittings for the love of God. Once the first part ends, I suggest getting up, take a break for a while, and then finish the rest. Hell, watch the first part in the morning, and the second that night. If you don't, your eyes will no longer function for the day.

But I really wish we saw his Napolean film. :csad: I started reading his script and it was so goddamn great. And Jack Nicholson was said to have been his choice for the role.

[gwynplaine]

Watch it in two sittings for the love of God. Once the first part ends, I suggest getting up, take a break for a while, and then finish the rest. Hell, watch the first part in the morning, and the second that night. If you don't, your eyes will no longer function for the day.

But I really wish we saw his Napolean film. :csad: I started reading his script and it was so goddamn great. And Jack Nicholson was said to have been his choice for the role.
From too much beauty and awesomeness:awesome::cwink:
Anyway, it's a good recommendation and how Kubrick intended it to be seen in the first place, since it played with an intermission in the middle when it came out in the theater.
Once again, just watch it Parker Wayne.

[-Arya-]

Also the greatest period piece ever. Like paintings coming to life..
More or less this. It does have some of the best art direction I've ever seen. As if we're actually in 17th-18th century England.

[Parker Wayne]

Man, it's Kubrick. It's so goddamn perfect. I really lack of the words.
This.

Also the greatest period piece ever. Like paintings coming to life and a good indication, I think, of what Kubrick's Napoleon might have looked like.
(It's the Blu Ray release I am most looking forward to, since the invention of the blu ray.)
Watch it Parker Wayne, like Payaso said it's so perfect, words can't really describe Barry Lyndon.
From too much beauty and awesomeness:awesome::cwink:
Anyway, it's a good recommendation and how Kubrick intended it to be seen in the first place, since it played with an intermission in the middle when it came out in the theater.
Once again, just watch it Parker Wayne.
More or less this. It does have some of the best art direction I've ever seen. As if we're actually in 17th-18th century England.

Alright, thanks guys. :up: Its sounds awesome. I'll give it a watch either this weekend or sometime during the one month break from SU.

[Parker Wayne]

I think the Godfather 2 is a much better film than the Godfather.
Better intro, better ending, better story, better acting, better set pieces e.t.c...

I don't think any is unpopular. It's pretty even.

If anything, saying Godfather 1 is better than 2 is unpopular.

[HighFivingMF]

Kevin Smith hasn't made anything remotely close to terrible yet.

[Parker Wayne]

Cop-Out

[SuperFerret]

Clerks.

[C. Lee]

With all the talk about Barry Lyndon, I feel the need to dig it out and watch again. I have it on VHS tape somewhere, been about 10 years since I saw it.

[Majik1387]

The Lion King was the one Disney Renaissance movie I never liked and don't quite understand the love for it compared to other Disney classics.:csad:

[Parker Wayne]

The Lion King was the one Disney Renaissance movie I never liked and don't quite understand the love for it compared to other Disney classics.:csad:

I can understand not liking it, but how could you not understand the love for it? And please don't say because it ripped off Kimba The White Lion. That's getting tired.

[Majik1387]

I can understand not liking it, but how could you not understand the love for it? And please don't say because it ripped off Kimba The White Lion. That's getting tired.
No, I learned of the Kimba rip-off years later, and while I agree with it being a rip-off, it just added to my distaste of the movie. I did enjoy a couple of the songs, but story wise it just didn't appeal to me, and I never been a fan of anthropomorphic heavy shows/movies.

[LOBO3315a]

No, I learned of the Kimba rip-off years later, and while I agree with it being a rip-off, it just added to my distaste of the movie. I did enjoy a couple of the songs, but story wise it just didn't appeal to me, and I never been a fan of anthropomorphic heavy shows/movies.

Yeah, I'm kind of the same way. It tends to distort children's views of the worls when they see a baboon and a lion getting along in a cartoon. The harsh reality is that baboons will kill a lion cub if they can get hold of it, and a lion will eat a baboon not fast enough to climb a tree.

My son's views of the world were a bit distorted by that cartoon. I don't have an issue with fantasy stories like Alladin, Beauty and the Beast, or even The Little Mermaid, since they don't really exist, and the main characters in the story are either fantastical creatures, or humans.

[C. Lee]

Seen any singing mice wearing red pants out and about with thier stuttering sailor duck pals lately?

[Tron Bonne]

Yeah, I'm kind of the same way. It tends to distort children's views of the worls when they see a baboon and a lion getting along in a cartoon. The harsh reality is that baboons will kill a lion cub if they can get hold of it, and a lion will eat a baboon not fast enough to climb a tree.

My son's views of the world were a bit distorted by that cartoon. I don't have an issue with fantasy stories like Alladin, Beauty and the Beast, or even The Little Mermaid, since theydon't really exist, and the main characters in the story are either fantastical creatures, or humans.

Not to sound like I'm getting personal here, but this has to be one of the single most ridiculous things I've ever read.

[Watchman]

And how were the able to pull off those great song and dance numbers? I never see them on Discovery. It must be when no one is looking.

[C. Lee]

Those movies that make kids think that some people can fly and shoot lasers from thier eyes need to be stopped too....it warps thier little minds.

[danoyse]

Yeah, I'm kind of the same way. It tends to distort children's views of the worls when they see a baboon and a lion getting along in a cartoon. The harsh reality is that baboons will kill a lion cub if they can get hold of it, and a lion will eat a baboon not fast enough to climb a tree.

My son's views of the world were a bit distorted by that cartoon. I don't have an issue with fantasy stories like Alladin, Beauty and the Beast, or even The Little Mermaid, since they don't really exist, and the main characters in the story are either fantastical creatures, or humans.

I certainly hope he's never seen The Muppet Show. :wow:

[gwynplaine]

Edit

[El Payaso]

I can understand not liking it, but how could you not understand the love for it? And please don't say because it ripped off Kimba The White Lion. That's getting tired.

And yet it's still true. Plagiarisms don't stop being that because of the time.

[HighFivingMF]

I can understand not liking it, but how could you not understand the love for it? And please don't say because it ripped off Kimba The White Lion. That's getting tired.
Huh? "Your reason for disliking something is getting old. Now watch it again and find a different reason!"

[LOBO3315a]

Not to sound like I'm getting personal here, but this has to be one of the single most ridiculous things I've ever read.

LOL, so my opinion is unpopular? Then that is fitting to the thread, then....:word:
I'm kind of talking when he was 5-7 years old. Kids have a difficult time at that age determining what is real, and what is fantasy. Heck, some adults have that issue.

Those movies that make kids think that some people can fly and shoot lasers from thier eyes need to be stopped too....it warps thier little minds.
Oh, the whole 'tie a bedsheet around your neck like a cape and jump off the roof' syndrome?

I certainly hope he's never seen The Muppet Show. :wow:

No he hasn't. It's sad that they don't play the re-runs. He's 15 now, and would probably get a kick out of that show. I remember I did.

[SuperFerret]

Yeah, I'm kind of the same way. It tends to distort children's views of the worls when they see a baboon and a lion getting along in a cartoon. The harsh reality is that baboons will kill a lion cub if they can get hold of it, and a lion will eat a baboon not fast enough to climb a tree.

My son's views of the world were a bit distorted by that cartoon. I don't have an issue with fantasy stories like Alladin, Beauty and the Beast, or even The Little Mermaid, since they don't really exist, and the main characters in the story are either fantastical creatures, or humans.

I mean this in the most respectful way possible (which essentially means that I'm going to offend you now), but if your son came away from The Lion King with a distorted view of the world (which inherently doesn't matter much, unless you live on the Serengeti anyway) that's your fault for not teaching him the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Also, you'll have to actively stunt his intellectual growth if you expect him to continue to believe that baboons and lions get along. When I first saw The Lion King, I may not have been aware of the realities of the African savannah, but the movie (along with constant exposure to animals of all kinds via different mediums) encouraged my love of animals to continue throughout my life until now, when I'm actively studying and working with animals for a living.

Unless you really underestimate your son, he'll learn the basics of it eventually, if he doesn't already realize the truth.


Also, Kimba the White Lion is from Japan. Therefore it doesn't count.

[Gunga Diner]

I really don't like Tyler Bates. I don't know how he keeps getting work. I'm sure he's a nice guy in person. But I can't stand his scores.

[Doctor Jones]

More or less this. It does have some of the best art direction I've ever seen. As if we're actually in 17th-18th century England.

Yeah, the art direction was fantastic. I felt transported to that time. It feels so damn accurate.

Kubrick keeps being an innovator of cinematography too. The natural lighting man....

[Majik1387]

I really don't like Tyler Bates. I don't know how he keeps getting work. I'm sure he's a nice guy in person. But I can't stand his scores.
What can't you stand about them?
I had to look him up and honestly, I just don't find hem memorable, other than the Sucker Punch trailers, bu hat's possibly because of how recent they are.

[Ipodman]

Lion King rips off Kimba... so what??? Lion King better!!! (Aaah I cant make a judgement because I havent seen Kimba, but Lion King was a great part my childhood)

Star Wars is a rip off of something else too.

[Parker Wayne]

No, I learned of the Kimba rip-off years later, and while I agree with it being a rip-off, it just added to my distaste of the movie. I did enjoy a couple of the songs, but story wise it just didn't appeal to me, and I never been a fan of anthropomorphic heavy shows/movies.

That makes sense.

Yeah, I'm kind of the same way. It tends to distort children's views of the worls when they see a baboon and a lion getting along in a cartoon. The harsh reality is that baboons will kill a lion cub if they can get hold of it, and a lion will eat a baboon not fast enough to climb a tree.

My son's views of the world were a bit distorted by that cartoon. I don't have an issue with fantasy stories like Alladin, Beauty and the Beast, or even The Little Mermaid, since they don't really exist, and the main characters in the story are either fantastical creatures, or humans.

This doesn't.

Huh? "Your reason for disliking something is getting old. Now watch it again and find a different reason!"

Exactly. :o

But seriously, films get remade. The only different between this and an actual remake is that Kimba didn't get acknowledgeent, which is messed on Disney's part, but it doesn't distort my view of the film.

Lion King rips off Kimba... so what??? Lion King better!!! (Aaah I cant make a judgement because I havent seen Kimba, but Lion King was a great part my childhood)

Star Wars is a rip off of something else too.

Star Wars had numerous inspirations ranging from Greek Mythology to 30s serials, to 50s sci-fi, but it was mostly a remake of The Hidden Fortress.

[spider-neil]

Star Wars is a rip off of something else too.


hero with a thousand faces

[Doctor Jones]

And Kurosawa, and Flash Gordon, and some other types of mythology.

[Tron Bonne]

hero with a thousand faces

That's a non-fiction book examining myths and all that stuff. Can't really rip it off in that sense.

I mean, near everything of that nature takes a little bit from mythology and yadda yadda, but if there is one place to point and say, 'Lucas ripped that', yeah, it would be Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. I wouldn't say ripped, but it's not hard to see that Lucas was pretty..., I don't know how to say,taken by that film.

[Dark Victory]

Eh, while I love 2001, it isn't really one of my favorites.

Yeah, it's one of those films that you admire more than you enjoy. At least it's that way for me.

2001 was more stimulating than Lyndon. For one thing, my eyes didn't feel dead after I watched 2001.

2001 isn't a film I can watch alot, but it was the first film to show me that film is truly an art form. Kubrick's images are like moving portraits to me. He showed space travel as a luxary and large.


I hope I didn't come off as an elitist or something along those lines when I said that. I just think that what Kubrick was going for is still pretty polarizing. Still love it, though. I'd say it's my favorite of his with Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut.

[El Payaso]

Also, Kimba the White Lion is from Japan. Therefore it doesn't count.

It is from japan, which makes it automatically better.

Star Wars is a rip off of something else too.

And, same as Lion King, it sucks for entirely different reasons than just plagirarism.

[LOBO3315a]

I mean this in the most respectful way possible (which essentially means that I'm going to offend you now), but if your son came away from The Lion King with a distorted view of the world (which inherently doesn't matter much, unless you live on the Serengeti anyway) that's your fault for not teaching him the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Also, you'll have to actively stunt his intellectual growth if you expect him to continue to believe that baboons and lions get along. When I first saw The Lion King, I may not have been aware of the realities of the African savannah, but the movie (along with constant exposure to animals of all kinds via different mediums) encouraged my love of animals to continue throughout my life until now, when I'm actively studying and working with animals for a living.

Unless you really underestimate your son, he'll learn the basics of it eventually, if he doesn't already realize the truth.


If you were trying to offend me, you failed :P He's 15 years old, so he knows the reality about animals. I was speaking back when he was 5-7 years old. I had to constantly explain to him that Timone and Pumbaa would have been a meal for Simba, not friends.

[scatterax]

If you were trying to offend me, you failed :P He's 15 years old, so he knows the reality about animals. I was speaking back when he was 5-7 years old. I had to constantly explain to him that Timone and Pumbaa would have been a meal for Simba, not friends.

were you the parent that told your kids that santa and the tooth fairy was a lie?

[LOBO3315a]

No, my X-wife did that when my son was 11 and after we were divorced.

The subject came up because of a National Geographic regarding lions and babboons. My son started asking questions after seeing a baboon kill a lion cub, and a lion chasing the baboon away from the carcass.

[SuperFerret]

That's cool. Though it did originally sound like you told him that unprovoked.

[Doctor Jones]

I hope I didn't come off as an elitist or something along those lines when I said that. I just think that what Kubrick was going for is still pretty polarizing. Still love it, though. I'd say it's my favorite of his with Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut.

Course not dude. All of his films were pretty polarizing upon their releases.

[Doctor Jones]

Raiders of the Lost Ark is about the only Indy film that is near perfect. The sequels are all a notch below it in some way in their own forms. They all have equal flaws. People seem to put the other two on this pedastal. We grew up with the first three films so when suddenly a fourth film comes out 19 years later the nostalgia and feelings of our childhood and the building of that for so many years isn't there. I'm looking forward to see how KOTCS will be seen in 10 years or so.

[Ipodman]

Raiders was kinda boring at points... I like Raiders and Last Crusade the best... Temple of doom was fine, but the stuff in the temple still bugs me.

[Tron Bonne]

If you were trying to offend me, you failed :P He's 15 years old, so he knows the reality about animals. I was speaking back when he was 5-7 years old. I had to constantly explain to him that Timone and Pumbaa would have been a meal for Simba, not friends.

The subject came up because of a National Geographic regarding lions and babboons. My son started asking questions after seeing a baboon kill a lion cub, and a lion chasing the baboon away from the carcass.

So, did he not have any real exposure to animals before seeing these movies? Because I saw them roughly around that age, and I still understood it was fantasy, because I knew what real animals were like, and well, even by that young age I had a formed an understanding about fantasy and movies and stories. I mean, did he get similarly confused and think their were actually superheroes, mermaids, stuff like that based on films? It just...seems very strange to me that this would be an issue.

[Blackman]

Raiders of the Lost Ark is about the only Indy film that is near perfect. The sequels are all a notch below it in some way in their own forms. They all have equal flaws. People seem to put the other two on this pedastal. We grew up with the first three films so when suddenly a fourth film comes out 19 years later the nostalgia and feelings of our childhood and the building of that for so many years isn't there. I'm looking forward to see how KOTCS will be seen in 10 years or so.

Huh I think the complete opposite. I think the other 2 especially The Last Crusade are better than Raiders

[Doctor Jones]

That's indeed interesting. And definitely an unpopular film opinion so there ya go.

[-Arya-]

Inception, while very well crafted and entertaining, is not my favorite from Nolan.

[danoyse]

I hope I didn't come off as an elitist or something along those lines when I said that. I just think that what Kubrick was going for is still pretty polarizing. Still love it, though. I'd say it's my favorite of his with Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut.

I hated Eyes Wide Shut. Does that count as an unpopular opinion?

[Doctor Jones]

I hated Eyes Wide Shut. Does that count as an unpopular opinion?

Yes! :cmad:

:woot:

But Dark, I thought you said 2001 was your favorite film? Wouldn't that obviously be your favorite Kubrick film as well?

[danoyse]

I saw it in the movie theater on opening night...and it was a true film snob crowd. Yet plenty of people were laughing at it.

My best friend was the one who wanted to go. Halfway through the movie she asked me to shoot her. :funny:

[El Payaso]

I hated Eyes Wide Shut. Does that count as an unpopular opinion?

Absolutely. This is your thread. :up: :yay:

[Doctor Jones]

I saw it in the movie theater on opening night...and it was a true film snob crowd. Yet plenty of people were laughing at it.

My best friend was the one who wanted to go. Halfway through the movie she asked me to shoot her. :funny:

Aww man. :csad:

It's one of my favorite Kubrick films too.

[JAK®]

I don't particularly like Christian Bale's performance as Batman. I thought Keaton was better despite having flaws of his own.

[Dark Victory]

Yes! :cmad:

:woot:

But Dark, I thought you said 2001 was your favorite film? Wouldn't that obviously be your favorite Kubrick film as well?


Eh, to be honest, I'm not sure I have a favorite film now. I love 2001 and it's definitely my favorite from Kubrick. I can definitely understand how a lot of people admire it more than they like it, though. That's pretty much my take on Akira.

[hammerhedd11]

I feel that Steve Zissou and Darjeeling Limited are very underrated especially by critics. I really don't see how you can love Royal Tenenbaums and hate his later films.

[Dark Victory]

The Royal Tenenbaums is the only Anderson movie I can watch more than once. :o

I hated Eyes Wide Shut. Does that count as an unpopular opinion?

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/bakbak5/tumblr_l96b01l36p1qdhmifo1_500.jpg

I feel that Steve Zissou and Darjeeling Limited are very underrated especially by critics. I really don't see how you can love Royal Tenenbaums and hate his later films.


I think Wes Anderson's movies are some of the finest, funniest, most touching of this generation. All of them are riddled with amusing humor that's a perfect blend of melancholy and wit, all wrapped up in unexpected and genuine poignance. People who think his films are nothing more than whimsical frivolity aren't watching them attentively. The short Hotel Chevalier serves as a great microcosm to his career. I always tell people to check that out if they're not familiar with his work.

[El Payaso]

I don't particularly like Christian Bale's performance as Batman. I thought Keaton was better despite having flaws of his own.

Same here. Nothing wrong with Bale (except his bat-voice), he was good and all but Keaton made an exceptional work.

[Doctor Jones]

Bale and Keaton both are great as Batman in their own ways for me. And is it just me or did Kilmer's Batman remind anyone of the Neal Adams Batman?

And for what Kilmer had to work with, I thought he did a pretty good job as Batman. He even had a good Batman voice at some points. If only they had the right script and director, like Clooney, they could have been so much more. Clooney flat out sucked, but he could have been great too.

"I'm Bruce Wayne and Batman not because I have to be. But because I choose to be."

That's a great line. BF was such a wasted opportunity.

[ALP]

I like Bale, I think he's good and also liked Val Kilmer. but I do prefer Keaton. Overall Burton's take on Batman is my favorite of the three. His expressionistic world, brooding atmosphere, and amazing fantasy driven characterization for the villains is what grips me.

And I'm willing to bet a million bucks I'm the only person on this forum who also likes Michael Gough more than Michael Caine. I can hardly explain it but I loved Gough's grandfather-ness whereas Caine is just the cheeky old man.

Inception was great but not something I'd have multiple viewings of. Don't get me wrong, Nolan is a brilliant filmmaker but once he's done with Batman I doubt I'll be watching his career and filmography closely like I do Aronofsky or Del Toro. I'll just be a casual viewer of his work.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is my favorite animated film in years. Royal Tenenbaums is the best live action Anderson film(strike that one, it's rather popular I think).

I have not seen one Kevin Smith film I liked. Although Jay & Silent Bob has some really funny scenes, it falls apart halfway.

Temple of Doom is my favorite Indiana Jones movie, without a seconds hesitation.

I love Zack Snyder and Robert Rodriguez. They are more b-movie guys but I watch those guys careers like a buzzard over freshly dead flesh. I'm #1 in line for whatever they make.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the greatest filmmaker in France and my favorite director. The men of the New Wave can't compare to some of his fantastical masterpieces.

[HighFivingMF]

I didn't like Keaton. I like Michael Keaton, a lot, but I didn't like his Batman. The only things I liked about Burton's movies were Jack, Danny, and the tone. The stories and other characters, not so much. Make mine Nolan. I genuinely hated Batman Returns solely for Selina/Catwoman.

[ALP]

Around here I think that is actually the general consensus. Most people especially seem to not like BR. I thought Burton's Catwoman was better than most comic interpretations. The burglar angle is just rather boring to me. But I do understand how some may not like BR and don't like the "dark camp" Burton went for.

On the Bat-boards it's pretty much all "Burton sucked, Keaton too small and skinny, way too cartoony, Nolan is god."

[gwynplaine]

Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the greatest filmmaker France has ever known and my favorite director. The men of the New Wave can't compare to some of his fantastical masterpieces.
Jean Renoir, Marcel Carne, Rene Clair, Julien Duvivier, Bertrand Blier, Francis Veber, Jean Cocteau, Maurice Tourneur, Jean Pierre Melville, Jacque Audiard, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Francois Truffaut, Maurice Pialat etc, etc...
Jeunet only wishes he was in the same league as these guys.

Speaking of French directors, besides Breathless I don't like Godard's movies at all.

[HighFivingMF]

Around here I think that is actually the general consensus. Most people especially seem to not like BR. I thought Burton's Catwoman was better than most comic interpretations. The burglar angle is just rather boring to me.
I don't mind her not being a burglar, I don't mind her motivations or crimes being changed. I don't think the ideas were bad, just the execution. Especially the cat puns, maybe if they used a different actress. I don't know. I liked the Penguin, not as an adaptation of the comic character (don't really care for the comic character), but as it's own being, I liked it.

[ALP]

Jean Renoir, Marcel Carne, Rene Clair, Julien Duvivier, Bertrand Blier, Francis Veber, Jean Cocteau, Maurice Tourneur, Jean Pierre Melville, Jacque Audiard, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Francois Truffaut, Maurice Pialat etc, etc...
Jean Pierre Jeunet only wishes he was in the same league as these guys.

Speaking of French directors, besides Breathless I don't like Godard's movies at all.

What is the point of you posting any of this? That is the general consensus not the unpopular opinion...which is why I posted my thought in this thread.:dry:

For example this is not the thread for people to go on about loving Bale's Batman because most people do. This is the thread for those of us who may prefer Keaton or Kilmer.

But anyway I've seen a number of nw films. I like a number of those filmmakers such as Renoir, Truffaut, and Melville... all great but none have the emotion, depth, and beauty of Jean-Pierre. Thus my unpopular film opinion.

I don't mind her not being a burglar, I don't mind her motivations or crimes being changed. I don't think the ideas were bad, just the execution. Especially the cat puns, maybe if they used a different actress. I don't know. I liked the Penguin, not as an adaptation of the comic character (don't really care for the comic character), but as it's own being, I liked it.

Oh yeah. Like i said, I notice that most people who don't like BR is most likely because they don't care for Burton's sort of gothic campiness. It's not quite Schumacher level but Batman Returns especially had a great deal of cheesiness(but I thought it fit perfectly as its my favorite of the batch). Not that B'89 was more believable but it just had a bit less camp I suppose.

[gwynplaine]

I don't think that saying that Jeunet is the greatest French film maker ever is that unpopular. I've heard it said before, mostly by people who didn't know that many French film makers.
Jeunet is probably the most famous right now, thanks to how widely his films have been distributed around the world.
Everybody seems to love Amelie or Delicatessen etc. I don't. Now, that's unpopular.
Anyway, to each its own and I didn't mean to criticize your opinion.

[Doctor Jones]

I didn't like Keaton. I like Michael Keaton, a lot, but I didn't like his Batman. The only things I liked about Burton's movies were Jack, Danny, and the tone. The stories and other characters, not so much. Make mine Nolan. I genuinely hated Batman Returns solely for Selina/Catwoman.

But Pfeiffer's performance was pretty damn great. She still the best female character in a comic book film thus far, Pepper Potts being behind her.

[Dark Victory]

Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the greatest filmmaker France has ever known and my favorite director. The men of the New Wave can't compare to some of his fantastical masterpieces.


Kill yourself.

[JAK®]

Kill yourself.
It's almost as if his film related opinion was unpopular.

[ALP]

I don't think that saying that Jeunet is the greatest French film maker ever is that unpopular. I've heard it said before, mostly by people who didn't know that many French film makers. Jeunet is probably the most famous right now, thanks to how widely his films have been seen around the world.
Everybody seems to love Amelie or Delicatessen etc. I don't. Now, that's unpopular.
Anyway, to each its own and I didn't mean to criticize your opinion.

I gotcha. When I go to cinema related forums such as this one I get the same reaction. Most people prefer the New Wave but Jeunet is the one who stands out for me. I mean I wouldn't really call him the greatest filmmaker without hyperbole. In fact I never like to say someone is greater than another, just use preferences. But Jeunet is the one who turns out the films that appeal most to me. I can't say I have much interest in re-watching many films of Eric Rohmer as much as I've seen Amelie. The difference between the people you mention and myself is that I have seen numerous French films but Jeunet remains my favorite. For example, I actually feel the exact same way about American/hollywood films.

I prefer Guillermo Del Toro and Tim Burton over Christopher Nolan and Stanley Kubrick any day of the week. So you see what type of style I just like best. I imagine that opinion also belongs in this thread in a world where Nolan is god and Burton is a goth hack.

But overall, I don't think I've seen as many beautiful films as what comes from Korea, but that's one that might be quite popular.

Kill yourself.

I could kill me...or I could kill you. How about we flip for it. :2face:

[A Necessary Evil]

Since we are (halfway) on the topic, I would like to say that BR ties with TDK as best bat-film.

[C. Lee]

I thought Jerry Lewis was the greatest French filmmaker of all times.

[JAK®]

I thought Jerry Lewis was the greatest French filmmaker of all times.
Well that would hardy be an unpopular opinion, now would it?

[ALP]

Since we are (halfway) on the topic, I would like to say that BR ties with TDK as best bat-film.


See this to me is the same kind of example as what I was talking about. Comparing TDK to BR is like comparing Jeunet's Fab Life of Amelie to Rohmer's Claire's Knee. On the surface level they have similar features. The former are both Batman films while those two french films are both bizzare love stories. I consider them both brilliant films but on the complete opposite spectrum.

Anyway on to BR and TDK... What I love about TDK is Nolan's ability to masterfully balance numerous characters while giving them all importance and depth. Harvey and Gordon are just as vital to the film as Batman and Joker. And the way Nolan weaves his films is brilliant, I always catch small things that I hadn't before. And TDK focuses on a very human Batman/Bruce Wayne, and features somewhat heavy themes like ultimate fall of a good man(becoming cold blooded murderer willing to kill children). Every performance is terrific, and it is the most well plotted Batman film we've ever gotten. I love how well it just flows and keeps you engaged.

On the other hand, BR is far more removed from reality. It's a love story and a gothic tragedy of sorts. Burton's world is filled with bizzare freaks and impossibilities. Burton is not big on plot at all, but his story remains strong. Nolan's TDK work on a very literal level while Burton's BR work a completely symbolic level. It's not reality at all, it's only includes things that represent our world. Burton's world always contains great amounts of visual symbolism. Such as the fact that Wayne enters an iron maiden to get to the batcave. Obviously representing a tortured soul, or how Catwoman's suit is stitched together to represent putting one's shattered self back together. Nearly every scene is filled with this sort of symbolism. Many people say Burton is style over substance but in his case, the substance is located within his style. In true expressionistic style like Murnau and Fritz Lang before him, you learn the most about Burton's characters through how they look and what they do(rather than dialogue).

Nolan's Batman is dark, gritty, and feels grounded to our own world while Burton's Batman is removed from reality, operatic, and gothic. They both are spectral masterpieces but my favorite is Burton's grand guignol.

[C. Lee]

Well that would hardy be an unpopular opinion, now would it?

I don't know...it was a response to the guys arguing over who the greatest French filmaker was.

[danoyse]

Watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom again on TV (USA has been running them all weekend), and I still think Willie is hilarious as an unwilling sidekick. Yes, she's annoying, but it's sort of the point and her reaction when she realizes Indy is going to chop the bridge in half is one of my favorite moments in the movie.

[JAK®]

I don't know...it was a response to the guys arguing over who the greatest French filmaker was.
I was just joining in with your joke... was it a joke or am I missing something about Jerry Lewis?

[Majik1387]

Jonah Hx doesn't deserve most of the hate it's getting.

[hammerhedd11]

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/bakbak5/tumblr_l96b01l36p1qdhmifo1_500.jpg




I think Wes Anderson's movies are some of the finest, funniest, most touching of this generation. All of them are riddled with amusing humor that's a perfect blend of melancholy and wit, all wrapped up in unexpected and genuine poignance. People who think his films are nothing more than whimsical frivolity aren't watching them attentively. The short Hotel Chevalier serves as a great microcosm to his career. I always tell people to check that out if they're not familiar with his work.

I think his movies are very beautiful as well. And I love your avatar, that's a great scene.

[C. Lee]

I was just joining in with your joke... was it a joke or am I missing something about Jerry Lewis?

Half joke half real....the French have gave Jerry several outstanding filmmaker awards over the years.

[mclay18]

Watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom again on TV (USA has been running them all weekend), and I still think Willie is hilarious as an unwilling sidekick. Yes, she's annoying, but it's sort of the point and her reaction when she realizes Indy is going to chop the bridge in half is one of my favorite moments in the movie.

Yes, I totally agree with you. The nocturnal activities scene is one of my favorites in the film -- the playful score, Willie's reaction and Indy preening in the mirror. John Williams' score also plays a huge enjoyment factor in the film, it elevates everything.

And speaking of unpopular film related opinions, I believe Raiders of the Lost Ark is Spielberg's most overrated film. It's great fun, but it's not a truly great film for me. It has its classic moments (like the snake pit scene, Marion drinking the guy under the table, and the first 10 minutes). For me, it just can't beat something as joyously fun as The Adventures of Robin Hood (which is a true classic).

And I prefer Kingdom of the Crystal Skull over the too silly Last Crusade. I'm sorry, but while Sean Connery was a nice casting bit -- it just seemed to overgo stuff Raiders did better. For the flack Temple and Crystal Skull get, they at least try something different.

[Doctor Jones]

Plus I find there is too much humor in LC. I love how all the critcisms suddenly disapear from the other sequels once KOTCS comes out. Now the sequels are fine for some reason. LC is great because of Sean Connery and the character. Without him, it's not that great of a film. Has a good Mcguffin, but without the father/son angle it adds nothing new at all. But dammit, everything is done so well.

And please, I bet so many people were disapointed with TOD in 1984. It's a film that followed Raiders and had alot of hype surrounding it. People wre expecting another Raiders and it wasn't at all. Which is why it's great. Same with KOTCS.

All the sequels have their criticisms that I have heard:

TOD: Willie, Short Round, the tone, the cartoonish and offensive dinner table scene, how the Indians are portrayed.
LC: Too much humor, Brody's characterization completely different, Sallah coming out of absolutely nowhere and having no point in being there whatsoever, the tank chase is pretty much identical to the truck chase, just beefed up like a sequel would, a bland villain and love interest (in my opinion) Good God, Vogel was a much better villain than Donovan and he was the side villain.
KOTCS: Shia, the aliens, old Indy, cheesy humor (which the sequels had) the last half.

Raiders only fault is the special effects. I can't believe people complain about the CG in KOTCS. All the other effects in the movies looked fake as hell too. All effects are fake after all.

If KOTCS came out in 1992 or something it wouldn't be getting as much flack. The thing is we all grew up with the three movies for so many years. Once we grow attached to it and something new comes in, it's hard to adjust. We become accustumed to what we were seeing so many times. It's nostalgia that has alot to do with it too. KOTCS doesn't have nostalgia to shield it from pissed off fans. TOD got the same reaction as KOTCS. Disapointing. Why do you think LC is loved the second best? Because it feels more like Raiders. Which people can't let go of. Maybe I'm wrong and it's because of Sean Connery. Spielberg manages to make all of my criticisms work and I love the film, but they're still there. It's just people put those sequels on this pedastal and treat KOTCS like garbage when they have just as many flaws.

[A Necessary Evil]

CGI in KOTCS was some of the best I've ever seen...that scene near the end with the aliens....say what you want about lucas and his fetish for CG, but he doesn't disappoint

:up:

[gwynplaine]

I gotcha. When I go to cinema related forums such as this one I get the same reaction. Most people prefer the New Wave but Jeunet is the one who stands out for me. I mean I wouldn't really call him the greatest filmmaker without hyperbole. In fact I never like to say someone is greater than another, just use preferences. But Jeunet is the one who turns out the films that appeal most to me. I can't say I have much interest in re-watching many films of Eric Rohmer as much as I've seen Amelie. The difference between the people you mention and myself is that I have seen numerous French films but Jeunet remains my favorite. For example, I actually feel the exact same way about American/hollywood films.

I prefer Guillermo Del Toro and Tim Burton over Christopher Nolan and Stanley Kubrick any day of the week. So you see what type of style I just like best. I imagine that opinion also belongs in this thread in a world where Nolan is god and Burton is a goth hack.

But overall, I don't think I've seen as many beautiful films as what comes from Korea, but that's one that might be quite popular.



I could kill me...or I could kill you. How about we flip for it. :2face:
I see what you mean, but there is a world of french movies besides the nouvelle vague and jeunet. I don't like Rohmer films at all because I find them incredibly boring and I don't care about Jeunet's movies either because to me, like most of Gilliam's or Burton's contributions, they feel more like the work of an "uber art director" than anything else. These guys can draw a cool story board and nice character designs but they sometimes seem to forget the importance of things like characterization, plot points or story. (I still like Brazil, Beetlejuice and specially Ed Wood though.)
Del Toro is one of those rare directors that gets both, specially with a movie like "Pan's labyrinth", which is beautiful and sophisticated visually, but also very well constructed and very moving.
Anyway like I said before to each its own and it's cool that you seem to be passionate about films and your favorite directors:up:.
As for the nouvelle vague, it didn't really produce that many good films. What was interesting about the movement itself is that it brought a breath of fresh air in a very stale and old fashioned french cinema industry, stuck in ancient traditions and archaic rules. But most of the films themselves are pretty dated by now.
Unlike the films of Renoir, Bertrand Blier, Clouzot or more recently Jacques Audiard (watch "A Prophet" now if you haven't already seen it) and many others which have nothing to do with the nouvelle vague and are much more provocative, daring, timeless and innovative in general. Movies like "The Wages of Fear", "Grand Illusion" or "Get Out Your Handkerchiefs" and plenty of others haven't really aged and are really more interesting than anything by Godard, Rohmer or Chabrol. (or Jeunet IMHO.)

Half joke half real....the French have gave Jerry several outstanding filmmaker awards over the years.
I don't know about several. I think the Jerry Lewis thing is a bit of a misconception and certainly a thing of the past. Don't you know that the French hate everyone?:woot::cwink:

[scatterax]

the monkeys looked fake, but most of the cgi was pretty good from what i remember. Since i saw it in opening week end i've said that even tho it's my least favorite indy film it's still right up there with em. (raiders is my favorite movie of all time) It's nice to here people not hate on it for once. lol

[CrimsonMist]

Plus I find there is too much humor in LC. I love how all the critcisms suddenly disapear from the other sequels once KOTCS comes out. Now the sequels are fine for some reason. LC is great because of Sean Connery and the character. Without him, it's not that great of a film. Has a good Mcguffin, but without the father/son angle it adds nothing new at all. But dammit, everything is done so well.

And please, I bet so many people were disapointed with TOD in 1984. It's a film that followed Raiders and had alot of hype surrounding it. People wre expecting another Raiders and it wasn't at all. Which is why it's great. Same with KOTCS.

All the sequels have their criticisms that I have heard:

TOD: Willie, Short Round, the tone, the cartoonish and offensive dinner table scene, how the Indians are portrayed.
LC: Too much humor, Brody's characterization completely different, Sallah coming out of absolutely nowhere and having no point in being there whatsoever, the tank chase is pretty much identical to the truck chase, just beefed up like a sequel would, a bland villain and love interest (in my opinion) Good God, Vogel was a much better villain than Donovan and he was the side villain.
KOTCS: Shia, the aliens, old Indy, cheesy humor (which the sequels had) the last half.

Raiders only fault is the special effects. I can't believe people complain about the CG in KOTCS. All the other effects in the movies looked fake as hell too. All effects are fake after all.

If KOTCS came out in 1992 or something it wouldn't be getting as much flack. The thing is we all grew up with the three movies for so many years. Once we grow attached to it and something new comes in, it's hard to adjust. We become accustumed to what we were seeing so many times. It's nostalgia that has alot to do with it too. KOTCS doesn't have nostalgia to shield it from pissed off fans. TOD got the same reaction as KOTCS. Disapointing. Why do you think LC is loved the second best? Because it feels more like Raiders. Which people can't let go of. Maybe I'm wrong and it's because of Sean Connery. Spielberg manages to make all of my criticisms work and I love the film, but they're still there. It's just people put those sequels on this pedastal and treat KOTCS like garbage when they have just as many flaws.

It's criticism like the things you listed that always make my scratch my head. The character is pure pulp. Always has been, always will be. It boggles my mind how often people forget that, especially if you consider yourself a die-hard fan. The films use pulp fiction logic and act accordingly. Are indians really like that? Nope. Just like the chinese aren't evil opium peddlers with death traps in their basements as seen in The Shadow novels.

The Indy films have always been consistent in tone, to me. TOD is a little darker, but so what? It's still pulp and it's something you could see Doc Savage going up against. KOTCS I really enjoyed. Pulp novels still existed into the 50s, but were dying out. The era consisted of Communist scares, aliens and giant bugs(we didn't get these unfortunately, but it would have been cool). The commies and aliens were the next logical step, especially at this point in time, for the character. My only issue with the film was the fact that it had this glossy or polished look to it. I can't really explain it, but it didn't have that grittier look to it like the past three films had, and even then, I can get past that.

[ALP]

I see what you mean, but there is a world of french movies besides the nouvelle vague and jeunet. I don't like Rohmer films at all because I find them incredibly boring and I don't care about Jeunet's movies either because to me, like most of Gilliam's or Burton's contributions, they feel more like the work of an "uber art director" than anything else. These guys can draw a cool story board and nice character designs but they don't seem to get how important things like characterization, plot points or story really is (for me at least). (I still like Brazil, Beetlejuice and specially Ed Wood though.)
Del Toro is one of those rare directors that gets both, specially with a movie like "Pan's labyrinth", which is beautiful and sophisticated visually, but also very well constructed and very moving.
Anyway like I said before to each its own and it's cool that you seem to be passionate about films and your favorite directors:up:.
As for the nouvelle vague, it didn't really produce that many good films. What was interesting about the movement itself is that it brought a breath of fresh air in a very stale and old fashioned french cinema industry, stuck in ancient traditions and archaic rules. But most of the films themselves are pretty dated by now.
Unlike the films of Renoir, Bertrand Blier, Clouzot or more recently Jacques Audiard (watch "A Prophet" now if you haven't already seen it) and many others which have nothing to do with the nouvelle vague and are much more provocative, daring, timeless and innovative in general. Movies like "The Wages of Fear", "Grand Illusion" or "Get Out Your Handkerchiefs" and plenty of others haven't really aged and are really more interesting than anything by Godard, Rohmer or Chabrol. (or Jeunet IMHO.)

Greatly appreciate the reply. I admit most of my knowledge of French cinema extends to the New Wave as that's what seems to be the most reachable. And a few others like Jeunet, Caro, and Pierre Schoendoeffer(sp?), etc, the latter having created one of the only war films I've seen that I've loved hehe. Just read a bit about it and I'll be sure to check out The Prophet, thanks. :up:

I was actually getting ready to mention Gilliam but the thing is that I consider him to be the most bi-polar filmmaker I've ever heard of. Some of his films are masterful while others are so dire I could drown myself while watching them. With most directors it's a case of like or don't like. But Gilliam's filmography is so skewed it's head spinning.

Btw, what do you think of David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky? On one hand I do like Lynch but I know my opinion on him is also unpopular. I like Jodorowsky, his films fall somewhere right between being 'art films' and narrative type films. Just the most bizzare combination:o

[Doctor Jones]

It was a different time period so the look is going to feel different. Plus you have a different cinematographer. But he did a great job at being consistant with Dougie Slocombe. But this is still a new Indy film. 1981 looks different from 1989 as does 2008. They always used changing technology. It's crazy that people actually wanted them to go back to the same stuff they used in the 80's. Pfft. Talk about nostalgia going way too far.

And believe it or not, there's critcisms on Indy being dirty in the movies. Apparantly, he wasn't dirty enough in LC. Oh, and while we're at it, he wore a tie alot in the movie and didn't have his shirt a quater unbuttoned!

I just use those criticisms that I've heard to put perspective on things. I disregard those flaws and just enjoy the damn things. I just had to use them because apparantly KOTCS is a damnable film and is the only one with flaws.

[ALP]

I liked insane cheesy quality of Temple of Doom, and how it was approached compared to the original reminds me of Batman Returns.

Anyone here also don't like Pixar's Up? The first 30 minutes are wonderful but after that it completely falls apart. It goes into saturday morning fluff with no meaning whatsoever. Just an old man, a boy, and a talking dog on some stupid cliche quest in the jungle.

I prefer The Departed to Goodfellas, or at least I could watch Departed much more. I just don't have a thing for the lives of brutal gangsters and the world's greatest drug pushers, at least The Departed had a very strong plot to go along with.

And I thought The Hurt Locker was especially uninteresting, the opposite of compelling, no story to speak of, and nothing stood out. How that movie won best picture, director, writer, etc is just beyond me. That was the only reason I really watched it and now I know I'm just done with the oscars.

Boy oh boy are my film related opinions unpopular :o

[HighFivingMF]

Boy oh boy are my film related opinions unpopular :o
Just like you! :cmad:



:oldrazz:

[CrimsonMist]

It was a different time period so the look is going to feel different. Plus you have a different cinematographer. But he did a great job at being consistant with Dougie Slocombe. But this is still a new Indy film. 1981 looks different from 1989 as does 2008. They always used changing technology. It's crazy that people actually wanted them to go back to the same stuff they used in the 80's. Pfft. Talk about nostalgia going way too far.

Well, in terms of cinematography, I thought it was incredibly consistent. There was just this...polish to it. I really can't describe it, but it wasn't something I pick up in most new films. In fact, I could have sworn it was filmed digitally, and initially attributed it to that, until I went home and researched it after I saw it to find it was shot on film(I'm an Indy fan, but I didn't follow the production or anything on the film. I just knew it was coming and would wait).

You mean like miniatures and stuff? To be fair, I think it would have been something visually interesting to revisit. Alot of lower-budget indie films make excellent use of miniatures and super-impositions. The Mutant Chronicles is the first that comes to mind. A great portion of the film was in miniature and super-imposition. And it looked damn good. With a bigger budget, to perhaps better blend everything, it could have been ass-kicking. Coppola's Dracula also used miniatures and practical effects in areas as well.

I wouldn't call the idea of fans wanting a return to that kind of stuff silly, but it, unfortunately, is a pipe dream, given George Lucas and his thing for CGI.

And believe it or not, there's critcisms on Indy being dirty in the movies. Apparantly, he wasn't dirty enough in LC. Oh, and while we're at it, he wore a tie alot in the movie and didn't have his shirt a quater unbuttoned!

I just use those criticisms that I've heard to put perspective on things. I disregard those flaws and just enjoy the damn things. I just had to use them because apparantly KOTCS is a damnable film and is the only one with flaws.


Now, that thing about not being dirty enough or the shirt unbuttoned is retarded, through and through. Really?! People complain about that? Jesus.

[gwynplaine]

Greatly appreciate the reply. I admit most of my knowledge of French cinema extends to the New Wave as that's what seems to be the most reachable. And a few others like Jeunet, Caro, and Pierre Schoendoeffer(sp?), etc, the latter having created one of the only war films I've seen that I've loved hehe. Just read a bit about it and I'll be sure to check out The Prophet, thanks. :up:

I was actually getting ready to mention Gilliam but the thing is that I consider him to be the most bi-polar filmmaker I've ever heard of. Some of his films are masterful while others are so dire I could drown myself while watching them. With most directors it's a case of like or don't like. But Gilliam's filmography is so skewed it's head spinning.

Btw, what do you think of David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky? On one hand I do like Lynch but I know my opinion on him is also unpopular. I like Jodorowsky, his films fall somewhere right between being 'art films' and narrative type films. Just the most bizzare combination:o
I really like Schoendorffer's films as well. As for Lynch I love some of his films and some others leave me cold. Same goes for Jodorowski (even though I generally prefer his work in graphic novels like "L'Incal Noir" or "L'incal Lumiere")but what I can say about both of them is that they are true iconoclasts who march to the beat of their own twisted drum and I like that.
Oh and I agree Korean films are awesome.

[spider-neil]

Anyone here also don't like Pixar's Up? The first 30 minutes are wonderful but after that it completely falls apart. It goes into saturday morning fluff with no meaning whatsoever. Just an old man, a boy, and a talking dog on some stupid cliche quest in the jungle.


And I thought The Hurt Locker was especially uninteresting, the opposite of compelling, no story to speak of, and nothing stood out. How that movie won best picture, director, writer, etc is just beyond me. That was the only reason I really watched it and now I know I'm just done with the oscars.


:up:

[Tron Bonne]

Anyone here also don't like Pixar's Up? The first 30 minutes are wonderful but after that it completely falls apart. It goes into saturday morning fluff with no meaning whatsoever. Just an old man, a boy, and a talking dog on some stupid cliche quest in the jungle.

Wouldn't go that far, but I was underwhelmed by it. That first bit, with the montage and stuff, was pretty amazing, though. I wish that would have been the movie.

[gwynplaine]

Anyone here also don't like Pixar's Up? The first 30 minutes are wonderful but after that it completely falls apart. It goes into saturday morning fluff with no meaning whatsoever. Just an old man, a boy, and a talking dog on some stupid cliche quest in the jungle.
I kinda agree.

Wouldn't go that far, but I was underwhelmed by it. That first bit, with the montage and stuff, was pretty amazing, though. I wish that would have been the movie.
:up:

[ALP]

Fully agreed. An animated film about someone's entire life, ups and downs, death of his wife, etc- incredible. It would have been like an animated Forrest Gump. That would have been a masterpiece and certainly groundbreaking in what Disney has done. Instead we're stuck with him, a boyscout, and a goofy talking dog running amok through the jungles looking for a giant bird for an hour.

[danoyse]

I love Up, I think it's one of their best films. The scene towards the end where he's looking at the scrapbook realizes Ellie finished it with their adventure kills me every time. It reminds me of It's a Wonderful Life, which is one of my favorite films, and it was just so beautifully captured by Pixar.

[scatterax]

Keep in mind the movie, altho a family movie, was made mostly for the kids. tha's why they needed to add all that talking dog stuff, air fights, that creature, etc. most 5 year olds i know would get bored to tears by the time he was grown up. but, keeping all this in mind, I would still love a prequil entitled down about one of the adventures they have. lol. it could be them as a young maried couple in the beginning and end looking at an old scrapbook.

[A Necessary Evil]

See this to me is the same kind of example as what I was talking about. Comparing TDK to BR is like comparing Jeunet's Fab Life of Amelie to Rohmer's Claire's Knee. On the surface level they have similar features. The former are both Batman films while those two french films are both bizzare love stories. I consider them both brilliant films but on the complete opposite spectrum.

Anyway on to BR and TDK... What I love about TDK is Nolan's ability to masterfully balance numerous characters while giving them all importance and depth. Harvey and Gordon are just as vital to the film as Batman and Joker. And the way Nolan weaves his films is brilliant, I always catch small things that I hadn't before. And TDK focuses on a very human Batman/Bruce Wayne, and features somewhat heavy themes like ultimate fall of a good man(becoming cold blooded murderer willing to kill children). Every performance is terrific, and it is the most well plotted Batman film we've ever gotten. I love how well it just flows and keeps you engaged.

On the other hand, BR is far more removed from reality. It's a love story and a gothic tragedy of sorts. Burton's world is filled with bizzare freaks and impossibilities. Burton is not big on plot at all, but his story remains strong. Nolan's TDK work on a very literal level while Burton's BR work a completely symbolic level. It's not reality at all, it's only includes things that represent our world. Burton's world always contains great amounts of visual symbolism. Such as the fact that Wayne enters an iron maiden to get to the batcave. Obviously representing a tortured soul, or how Catwoman's suit is stitched together to represent putting one's shattered self back together. Nearly every scene is filled with this sort of symbolism. Many people say Burton is style over substance but in his case, the substance is located within his style. In true expressionistic style like Murnau and Fritz Lang before him, you learn the most about Burton's characters through how they look and what they do(rather than dialogue).

Nolan's Batman is dark, gritty, and feels grounded to our own world while Burton's Batman is removed from reality, operatic, and gothic. They both are spectral masterpieces but my favorite is Burton's grand guignol.

:up: to all of this.

[danoyse]

It was a different time period so the look is going to feel different. Plus you have a different cinematographer. But he did a great job at being consistant with Dougie Slocombe. But this is still a new Indy film. 1981 looks different from 1989 as does 2008. They always used changing technology. It's crazy that people actually wanted them to go back to the same stuff they used in the 80's. Pfft. Talk about nostalgia going way too far.

And believe it or not, there's critcisms on Indy being dirty in the movies. Apparantly, he wasn't dirty enough in LC. Oh, and while we're at it, he wore a tie alot in the movie and didn't have his shirt a quater unbuttoned!

I just use those criticisms that I've heard to put perspective on things. I disregard those flaws and just enjoy the damn things. I just had to use them because apparantly KOTCS is a damnable film and is the only one with flaws.

I remember seeing Last Crusade in the theater and the audience was more worried about Indy's hat flying off before he went over the cliff in the tank than Indy possibly being killed. We all knew he'd be fine...the hat, we weren't so sure. :funny:

Those movies came out when I was a kid - I don't remember the level of complaints being tossed at the original 3 like they were for KOTCS. But then again, I was 7, 10, and 15 the years the movies came out and we had no internet back then...and for that, I am eternally grateful that I never had to deal with the internet mob mentality that goes on with movies today. :cwink:

Temple of Doom was a big deal because it was super-scary compared to the first one. PG-13 was created because of it, and I wasn't allowed to see it...in fact, only one kid in my class was allowed to see it. I remember people not liking it as much because it was darker than the first film, but I don't remember anyone outright not liking it.

But I do recall a lot of people loving Last Crusade because it wasn't as dark and it was a lot more like the first movie, and everyone loved Sean Connery as Indy's dad. I love LC, I don't have a problem with it being funny because the humor is part of all the movies...and it being about Indy and his dad, it worked so incredibly well. I watched it last night, and it's still great fun.

I like KOTCS (I'm watching it on USA now, actually), I don't think it's as good as the original three, but I loved seeing Indy again, having Marion back, and the addition of Mutt as his son. It's a fun movie, they all were.

[Tron Bonne]

Keep in mind the movie, altho a family movie, was made mostly for the kids. tha's why they needed to add all that talking dog stuff, air fights, that creature, etc. most 5 year olds i know would get bored to tears by the time he was grown up. but, keeping all this in mind, I would still love a prequil entitled down about one of the adventures they have. lol. it could be them as a young maried couple in the beginning and end looking at an old scrapbook.

True, if they went that route it would have been more centered to an adult audience, but you know, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. Of course, this route is more marketable, obviously, so it's a lost thought.

[ALP]

Keep in mind the movie, altho a family movie, was made mostly for the kids. tha's why they needed to add all that talking dog stuff, air fights, that creature, etc. most 5 year olds i know would get bored to tears by the time he was grown up. but, keeping all this in mind, I would still love a prequil entitled down about one of the adventures they have. lol. it could be them as a young maried couple in the beginning and end looking at an old scrapbook.

This is very true. I shouldn't be too critical, I admit:cwink:

But I will ALWAYS be bitter that Fantastic Mr. Fox did not win best animated feature. This is why I hold a grudge against Up.

[danoyse]

Keep in mind the movie, altho a family movie, was made mostly for the kids. tha's why they needed to add all that talking dog stuff, air fights, that creature, etc. most 5 year olds i know would get bored to tears by the time he was grown up. but, keeping all this in mind, I would still love a prequil entitled down about one of the adventures they have. lol. it could be them as a young maried couple in the beginning and end looking at an old scrapbook.

Exactly. My 3-year-old nephew loves Up. He hasn't figured out the title, though. He calls it "Balloons!" :oldrazz:

And I love that dog. The kid is great too...I have 8- and 6-year old nephews, and that's exactly what they're like.

The whole point was that Carl thought they'd never had the adventure they promised to have as kids because they never went to Paradise Falls, and that everything she meant to put in that book was always going to stay blank. But as she showed him in the book, he gave her the best adventure she ever wanted. He just never realized it until he saw the pictures she put in there.

It's like It's a Wonderful Life, where George thinks he didn't matter to anyone or anything because he never left Bedford Falls...then he got to see how things would have been without him and realized that he mattered to everyone and everything, even though it wasn't the way he planned.

[scatterax]

This is very true. I shouldn't be too critical, I admit:cwink:

But I will ALWAYS be bitter that Fantastic Mr. Fox did not win best animated feature. This is why I hold a grudge against Up.

I LOVE that movie. I saw it on demand just a couple days ago infact. but I have to admit up is a bit more entertaning, and a little more dramatic at parts, which as prolly why it won, (for the latter more than the former. the oscars have a drama fetish) but, as far as art/style/presentation fox gets it all the way. it's unique on so many levels, what with it's color pallet, it's stop-motion-ness and what not. So while it deserved to at least win those type oscars (did it?) and would def be my runner up, I can still see why up won.

[scatterax]

Exactly. My 3-year-old nephew loves Up. He hasn't figured out the title, though. He calls it "Balloons!" :oldrazz:

And I love that dog. The kid is great too...I have 8- and 6-year old nephews, and that's exactly what they're like.

The whole point was that Carl thought they'd never had the adventure they promised to have as kids because they never went to Paradise Falls, and that everything she meant to put in that book was always going to stay blank. But as she showed him in the book, he gave her the best adventure she ever wanted. He just never realized it until he saw the pictures she put in there.

It's like It's a Wonderful Life, where George thinks he didn't matter to anyone or anything because he never left Bedford Falls...then he got to see how things would have been without him and realized that he mattered to everyone and everything, even though it wasn't the way he planned.

that's the thing about pixar, even tho they make "kids" movies, they have everybody in mind. they have cute characters for the kids, action for kids and teens, humor for kids and adults alike, and dramatic moments for the adults with a quality story to tie it all together.

[Tron Bonne]

that's the thing about pixar, even tho they make "kids" movies in mind, they have everybody in mind. they have cute characters for the kids, action for kids and teens, humor for kids and adults alike, and dramatic moments for the adults with a quality story to tie it all together.

Right, and that's cool, but I wouldn't mind for them to try something a little different both in formula in sensibility. Even Miyazaki did Princess Mononoke and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind

[scatterax]

The thing is there animated films. if they do something exclusively for adults they'd confuse the kids. (kids think if it's computer animated it's automaticly for them) and they'd risk alienating them and losing fans. same for the adults if they did 1 strictly for the kids. so, from a financial stand point, they want to keep pleasing everybody, which is a good place to be.

but as far as changing up the formula, the do this a lil in each franshise, i think. but it's more like diet coke and cherry coke type changes, as apposed to New coke changes. :)

[Tron Bonne]

The thing is there animated films. if they do something exclusively for adults they'd confuse the kids. (kids think if it's computer animated it's automaticly for them) and they'd risk alienating them and losing fans. same for the adults if they did 1 strictly for the kids. so, from a financial stand point, they want to keep pleasing everybody, which is a good place to be.

Well, yeah, this is what I was saying with this:

True, if they went that route it would have been more centered to an adult audience, but you know, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. Of course, this route is more marketable, obviously, so it's a lost thought.

I'm not necessarily talking about just a kids, or all-ages, movie, but I know that's a lost thought, because animated movies are only marketable as all ages affairs in these parts.

but as far as changing up the formula, the do this a lil in each franshise, i think. but it's more like diet coke and cherry coke type changes, as apposed to New coke changes. :)I would probably call it more like Caffine Free Coke to just regular Coke. Probably their biggest shakeup was Wall-E. I mean, there's nothing wrong with formula either, most of the Disney films are formulaic, but I don't know, guess I just want to see an one of their films that really shakes up something in the tone area, or does derail the formula a bit. Might be the fact that I'm not really in love with Pixar or 3D animation as much as everyone else, so maybe there's an unpopular opinion in its own right.

[danoyse]

But I don't think it was a detriment to Up that it appealed to kids too. It still their most adult-themed film.

[Tron Bonne]

I guess. Didn't care much for it myself, like some of the others said. I was pretty in love with it for that first little while, with the montage, but after that I didn't care a whole for it. If they would have made the whole movie that montage, it probably would have been my favorite film of theirs

[danoyse]

I should also mention that I saw Up at a later show with an audience full of adults and I almost couldn't hear parts of those "kid" scenes because they were laughing so much.

[Tron Bonne]

I laughed at it (I don't think anyone was saying it didn't have any comedic value, anyway) but I don't know, just didn't do much for me in the end. After that montage, the bar was set for something better than the film. Would have loved to see them do something different right there and just made the film about them growing old together. Could've still had a lot of fun and comedy, though it probably wouldn't have appealed so much to younger audiences and families wouldn't go for their kids, etc., so not as marketable.

My favorite of their films is probably Wall-E, though it dipped some once they got to the spaceship, it was still pretty good.

[Parker Wayne]

This is very true. I shouldn't be too critical, I admit:cwink:

But I will ALWAYS be bitter that Fantastic Mr. Fox did not win best animated feature. This is why I hold a grudge against Up.

I don't know why you hold a judge. Both were amazing films. It could've been either.

Up had this:

GroDErHIM_0

This pretty much won them the oscar. What better way of setting a story than this montage? It was pretty great.

[HighFivingMF]

People think Fantastic Mr. Fox deserved the Best Animated Feature oscar? I didn't even think it deserved to be released... I never cared for Wes Anderson, but Christ. That movie had me wrinkling my face in confusion the entire time. If I never heard anyone mention it I'd entirely forget it ever existed.

[Tron Bonne]

This pretty much won them the oscar. What better way of setting a story than this montage? It was pretty great.

Heh, that montage actually kind of killed it for me :p

That story was what hooked me and what came after wasn't as compelling. It was a fun little adventure and stuff, but that was a glimpse of what could've been. Kind of like the first half hour of Kick-Ass showed promise for something fairly potent, but then just kind of devolved into a fun pseudo-superhero film.

That is a wonderful scene, though. I almost wish someone would rip that and just make a film purely of that relationship.

[scatterax]

Well, yeah, this is what I was saying with this:



I'm not necessarily talking about just a kids, or all-ages, movie, but I know that's a lost thought, because animated movies are only marketable as all ages affairs in these parts.

I would probably call it more like Caffine Free Coke to just regular Coke. Probably their biggest shakeup was Wall-E. I mean, there's nothing wrong with formula either, most of the Disney films are formulaic, but I don't know, guess I just want to see an one of their films that really shakes up something in the tone area, or does derail the formula a bit. Might be the fact that I'm not really in love with Pixar or 3D animation as much as everyone else, so maybe there's an unpopular opinion in its own right.

well they change genre every film, so that's why i said cherry coke. lol

[danoyse]

I laughed at it (I don't think anyone was saying it didn't have any comedic value, anyway) but I don't know, just didn't do much for me in the end. After that montage, the bar was set for something better than the film. Would have loved to see them do something different right there and just made the film about them growing old together. Could've still had a lot of fun and comedy, though it probably wouldn't have appealed so much to younger audiences and families wouldn't go for their kids, etc., so not as marketable.

Just pointing out that the "fluff" (as it was called in an earlier post that was interpreted as being intended for the kids had just as much appeal for the adults too, at least that was the case when I saw it.

Making it just about them growing old together wasn't the point. It was about the adventure, and him realizing that even though they didn't live the lives they planned, what they had was an adventure all the same. And even though she was gone...he realized that still had a life to live by befriending Russell, saving the bird, and adopting Dug that he still had adventures ahead of him, and with Ellie's blessing to go for it.

[Tron Bonne]

well they change genre every film, so that's why i said cherry coke. lol

Heh, okay, good point :p

[ALP]

I don't know why you hold a judge. Both were amazing films. It could've been either.

Up had this:

GroDErHIM_0

This pretty much won them the oscar. What better way of setting a story than this montage? It was pretty great.

See this is my entire problem with the film...

One amazing incredible sequence. A beautiful opening and 70 minutes of follow-up that couldn't come close and didn't even compare.

Basically had the whole movie just been a short of the first 20 minutes I'd have called it a masterpiece.

People think Fantastic Mr. Fox deserved the Best Animated Feature oscar? I didn't even think it deserved to be released... I never cared for Wes Anderson, but Christ. That movie had me wrinkling my face in confusion the entire time. If I never heard anyone mention it I'd entirely forget it ever existed.

If it was too confusing for you I understand. Guess you were expecting some nice glossy fluff about a magical princess and some rainbows and unicorns.:cwink:

And you do realize it got nominated and won a number of best animated film awards? Pretty much all the wons that Up didn't win.

[Tron Bonne]

Making it just about them growing old together wasn't the point. It was about the adventure, and him realizing that even though they didn't live the lives they planned, what they had was an adventure all the same. And even though she was gone...he realized that still had a life to live by befriending Russell, saving the bird, and adopting Dug that he still had adventures ahead of him, and with Ellie's blessing to go for it.

Yeah, I got that. I'm saying I wanted it to be about the adventure they actually had, the one we saw in that montage PW posted. Just thought it was more compelling; I was pretty enamored with that whole little story, and would have been a pretty big shift for them to try something like that to boot.

I'm not saying that it was bad or anything. I had fun, I got the story they were telling, but I just felt it presented so much more, then just kind of left me hanging.

[HighFivingMF]

If it was too confusing for you I understand. Guess you were expecting some nice glossy fluff about a magical princess and some rainbows and unicorns.:cwink:

And you do realize it got nominated and won a number of best animated film awards? Pretty much all the wons that Up didn't win.
I wasn't confused by the story, I was confused by the fact that someone actually gave this movie a greenlight and that it got released and that my girlfriend at the time enjoyed it enough to buy it.

Yeah, I'm aware it won awards, all the more reason I was confused. Just not my cup of tea I suppose.

[danoyse]

Yeah, I got that. I'm saying I wanted it to be about the adventure they actually had, the one we say in that montage PW posted. Just thought it was more compelling; I was pretty enamored with that whole little story, and would have been a pretty big shift for them to try something like that to boot.

I'm not saying that it was bad or anything. I had fun, I got the story they were telling, but I just felt it presented so much more, then just kind of left me hanging.

Eh, the montage was one of the best things Pixar has ever done, but it's only part of the story.

[Tron Bonne]

Eh, the montage was one of the best things Pixar has ever done, but it's only part of the story.

Well, sure, but they could've made it the whole story, shown the adventure he didn't understand, and his revelation what it was in another way. Could've worked, what I would have preferred to see, even though this film was still fairly fun and all. Obviously, pretty unpopular since it made a bajillion dollars and the majority of people seemed to love it, but that's what I'm here for. That's my gift, my curse.

[Parker Wayne]

See this is my entire problem with the film...

One amazing incredible sequence. A beautiful opening and 70 minutes of follow-up that couldn't come close and didn't even compare.

Basically had the whole movie just been a short of the first 20 minutes I'd have called it a masterpiece.


The 70 minutes of follow-up was for fun and entertainment. Pixar doesn't aim to win awards and I wouldn't change anything about the film. I'd say a lot of the emotion for the rest of the film was based on that montage and there's no problem with that.

Like I said, it set up the rest of the story beautifully. They didn't wanna alienate kids by making something more serious, but they kept the underlying themes there for teens and adults to understand.


And Tron Bonne, didn't you see the trailer, commercials, or any previews for Up? If you did I'm wondering what you were expecting from the film other than an adventure that strengthens the bond between a old man and a boy (Not trying to be an ass).

What we got was much deeper than what was advertised.

[Parker Wayne]

Well, sure, but they could've made it the whole story, shown the adventure he didn't understand, and his revelation what it was in another way. Could've worked, what I would have preferred to see, even though this film was still fairly fun and all. Obviously, pretty unpopular since it made a bajillion dollars and the majority of people seemed to love it, but that's what I'm here for. That's my gift, my curse.

Poor TB :csad:

[scatterax]

Eh, the beginning was my favorite part, but i liked the rest of the movie allot too. I know that's not what yer saying, and i wanted the movie to be more like the beginning when i first saw it, but now i'm thinking to make it film length they would've needed to add allot of the "fluff" (for lack of a better word) that they added in the actual movie. so maybe the fact that the part is only as long as it is is what makes it such a masterpeice. (fyi, i think it was most of the critics fav part too.)

[Tron Bonne]

And Tron Bonne, didn't you see the trailer, commercials, or any previews for Up? If you did I'm wondering what you were expecting from the film other than an adventure that strengthens the bond between a old man and a boy (Not trying to be an ass).

I knew the general synopsis was something about a floating house with balloons and vaguely remember seeing a trailer or two with the two main character. I wasn't really surprised per say by what we got, but I still felt like it presented us with something with that montage totally unexpected, artful, and, I don't know, profound, so I was still disappointed that we didn't get that.

And, you know, like I said, I did enjoy the movie. It was some good fun, good laughs, good little adventure-esque stuff going on, but it nagged me the whole film. And when it was done, the first thing that popped into my head was, 'My God, why wasn't the montage the movie!' followed by 'Pretty good film'

Poor TB :csad:

It's like Jubilee, she can only have large breasts if she loses her sparkling powers :csad:

[Parker Wayne]

I knew the general synopsis was something about a floating house with balloons and vaguely remember seeing a trailer or two with the two main character. I wasn't really surprised per say by what we got, but I still felt like it presented us with something with that montage totally unexpected, artful, and, I don't know, profound, so I was still disappointed that we didn't get that.

And, you know, like I said, I did enjoy the movie. It was some good fun, good laughs, good little adventure-esque stuff going on, but it nagged me the whole film. And when it was done, the first thing that popped into my head was, 'My God, why wasn't the montage the movie!' followed by 'Pretty good film'



It's like Jubilee, she can only have large breasts if she loses her sparkling powers :csad:

I understand where people are coming from with the Montage. The beginning of the film is supposed to set up of the film. You should never start a film with your best scene.

I compare Up to another film that year, Star Trek. Both had a memorable opening that set the stage for the remainder of the film. These were the moments that the rest of film would hinge on and I liked the payoff.

And its okay TB. Some people were born to be unpopular :o

[Tron Bonne]

I understand where people are coming from with the Montage. The beginning of the film is supposed to set up of the film. You should never start a film with your best scene.

Yeah, but it's not even necessarily that as much as it's you shouldn't start a movie with a short that's better than your actual movie..or something like that.

I compare Up to another film that year, Star Trek. Both had a memorable opening that set the stage for the remainder of the film. These were the moments that the rest of film would hinge on and I liked the payoff.Yeah, I guess the car chase was kind of neat. I'm not as fond of that as others for entirely different reasons, though :o

And its okay TB. Some people were born to be unpopular :oI know, only a few of use can be born so ahead of the curve :(

[ALP]

I wasn't confused by the story, I was confused by the fact that someone actually gave this movie a greenlight and that it got released and that my girlfriend at the time enjoyed it enough to buy it.

Yeah, I'm aware it won awards, all the more reason I was confused. Just not my cup of tea I suppose.

I was only joking with ya, hence the smiley:cwink:

Well, sure, but they could've made it the whole story, shown the adventure he didn't understand, and his revelation what it was in another way. Could've worked, what I would have preferred to see, even though this film was still fairly fun and all. Obviously, pretty unpopular since it made a bajillion dollars and the majority of people seemed to love it, but that's what I'm here for. That's my gift, my curse.

I feel completely the same TB. If I shared all of my unpopular film related opinions, this board would probably explode. In fact I'm the one who started this convo... not to brag but this thread had only two replies today until I showed up. Then my bloody awful opinions ballooned us through several pages. So feel free guys, thank me:o:up:

[mclay18]

Since i saw it in opening week end i've said that even tho it's my least favorite indy film it's still right up there with em. (raiders is my favorite movie of all time) It's nice to here people not hate on it for once. lol

I really think KOTCS is the victim of inflated expectations. I think it's a nice bookend to the series but honestly, people should've kept their expectations in check when Paramount and Lucasfilm started pre-production in 2007. Add in the return of Marion Ravenwood (who hasn't been seen in the franchise since Raiders), people expected something equal to the first film.

The only thing KOTCS did wrong was casting Shia LaBoeuf as Indy's son. Spielberg, I know you love Shia to death, but there are some roles that are not written with him in mind. An unknown actor would've been better than Sam Witwicky playing second fiddle to Indiana Jones. It stuck out like a sore thumb.

Everything else I was fine with. Indy not being dirty enough, the CGI, the aliens, et al I was fine with. (Especially the new characters like Oxley and Cate Blanchett's villain.)

[scatterax]

Yeah, but it's not even necessarily that as much as it's you shouldn't start a movie with a short that's better than your actual movie..or something like that.

Yeah, I guess the car chase was kind of neat. I'm not as fond of that as others for entirely different reasons, though :o

I know, only a few of use can be born so ahead of the curve :(

Um, i think he's talking about the ship battle where kirks dad dies.

and on up, i'm not sure how good the montage would be if it was expanded to movie length, but I sure as heck wouldn't've minded more of that in the film, through say, flashbacks? just picture how good the film would be if he related key moments to adventures he had w/ his wife when they were younger?!

[A Necessary Evil]

Here's one.


The actors / actresses of twilight do not suck. I think the product itself sucks, and I did actually try reading the books, I did. But alas, no go.


My point still stands. Flame away.

[ALP]

Robert Pattinson was overall quite good in the film Little Ashes, I enjoyed it. Certainly his best performance of what I've seen.

Taylor Lautner's most notable performance remains Sharkboy.

Never seen Kristen Stewart in any other film. But I think in the Twilight films they're all pretty stiff.

[scatterax]

Here's one.


The actors / actresses of twilight do not suck. I think the product itself sucks, and I did actually try reading the books, I did. But alas, no go.


My point still stands. Flame away.

No, I actually agree. For instance, I don't think bella going psycho for a year after edward leaves, and jumping off a cliff was due to k-stews interpretation. nor edward sparkiling due to Rob's performance.

[A Necessary Evil]

Awesome :up: It isn't their fault the script asks them to do those things. :o


Pattinson Is quite good, and seems a bro.

Never had interest, so I never saw him as Sharkboy :p

Kristen kicks ass in speak. Its a hard to find dvd, but if you do, I recommend it. Also adventureland.

[Parker Wayne]

I love Kristen Steward and I don't think Robert Pattinson sucks though Pattinson himself realizes that he screwed himself over with the Twilight films.

Actually, I still think he looks more like a man in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire than he did in any of the Twilight films. His screen presence was much better in addition to his performance being better. He wasn't bad in Remember Me either.

[A Necessary Evil]

Exactly. I'd go as far to say Kristen is quite attractive.


Agreed on potter, and like I said. If the script gave them charisma, they would have it. It didn't, so they didn't.

Yet, they get screwed over by association.

[ALP]

In real life, he reminds me of Johnny Depp. The reluctant lady killer/heartthrob. Even dresses similar to Depp. Still not sure if it's poseur of not.

[A Necessary Evil]

Meh, maybe. Least we know that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery :oldrazz:

[Randal Graves]

I didn't think Toy Story 3 was that great. It was good, but not the great movie people make it out to be.

[scatterax]

I can sorta see that. it's my fav, but i think it's geared more towards long time fans of the 1st 2 then every1 else.

[Tron Bonne]

Um, i think he's talking about the ship battle where kirks dad dies.

Oh, okay. I had forgotten all about that part.

and on up, i'm not sure how good the montage would be if it was expanded to movie length, but I sure as heck wouldn't've minded more of that in the film, through say, flashbacks? just picture how good the film would be if he related key moments to adventures he had w/ his wife when they were younger?!

Oh, it would have been absolutely amazing done correctly. I honestly don't doubt that in the least.

I feel completely the same TB. If I shared all of my unpopular film related opinions, this board would probably explode. In fact I'm the one who started this convo... not to brag but this thread had only two replies today until I showed up. Then my bloody awful opinions ballooned us through several pages. So feel free guys, thank me:o:up:

It happens, sometimes the world is not ready :o