State your unpopular film related opinion - Part 7

[A Necessary Evil]

I think Revenge of the Sith was probably the best out of the Prequel movies. Watching Anakin's descent into the Dark Side was a bit like watching a Greek tragedy.

I think it's the best of the series.

Followed by a new hope.

[The Morningstar]

What is wrong with Yoda or the emperor using lightsabres? they might be very powerful in the force, but they can't generate laser swords from their fingers, why not carry a lightsabre?! I have argued this before with someone, and still find it a bizarre criticism.

Because Yoda was built up as this wise, mystic Buddha esque guy in the original films. Like I said, he was all about mind over matter. Him jumping around with a lightsaber just didn't seem right to me.

I guess I wanted to see an awesome force battle between Yoda and the Emperor, basically two powerful wizards going at it. More throwing those platforms around, less flipping around like Wuxia fighters.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Because Yoda was built up as this wise, mystic Buddha esque guy in the original films. Like I said, he was all about mind over matter. Him jumping around with a lightsaber just didn't seem right to me.

C'mon, Lucas covered that in the initial rounds of his first fight with Dooku, they were both masters of the force and at a stalemate with the 'mind over matter' stuff, so they went with the lightsabres, and of course lightsabre battles are more cinematic, because if you keep going with the mind games, it would just end up like those stare out competitions on the comedy show 'Big Train'. If you are from the UK you must have seen those, haha.


I guess I wanted to see an awesome force battle between Yoda and the Emperor, basically two powerful wizards going at it. More throwing those platforms around, less flipping around like Wuxia fighters.

I liked the way it was, with both of those fighting styles going on. I thought he struck a perfect balance between the two actually.
They have to be agile warriors too, otherwise, you will be getting dressed up stare out competitions as I was saying.

[humbdrumb]

War of the Worlds is a spectacular movie up until the last 5 minutes. The scene where the tripod emerges from the ground is one of the most memorable movie moments of the last 10 years.

[SuperFerret]

I would have preferred to see a Dark Side Force Lightning vs. whatever the equivalent for the Light Side is battle.

[El Payaso]

War of the Worlds is a spectacular movie up until the last 5 minutes. The scene where the tripod emerges from the ground is one of the most memorable movie moments of the last 10 years.

Cannot agree more. The last 5 minutes completely ruined that movie.

[jerkhero]

I really didn't like Into the Wild. Sure it has some nice scenery, music and characters, but i just hated the main character. I don't know if it's appropriate to say this since the film was based on a real person, but for me the main character was more of an idiot than this inspirational hero.

[Rowsdower!]

I really didn't like Into the Wild. Sure it has some nice scenery, music and characters, but i just hated the main character. I don't know if it's appropriate to say this since the film was based on a real person, but for me the main character was more of an idiot than this inspirational hero.

Completely agree. I found that movie completely overrated.

[Max J Power]

The Hell is a Plinkett?
The website Red Letter Media has videos called "Plinkett Reviews" narrated by a character called Mr. Plinkett (the alter-ego of the company's founder), who speaks in a deadpan voice that kind of sounds like Dan Aykroyd doing Buffalo Bill and reviews movies he does not like. He did a 70-minute review of The Phantom Menace and it was a big YouTube hit. I hadn't heard of Plinkett until reading the previous page, so I checked it out.

I watched about 8 minutes of his Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review (I don't have the interest in watching a 70-minute movie review), and my reaction was mixed. I like the Plinkett persona and what I watched had some interesting facts about the movie's production. On the other hand, some of the jokes were terribly unfunny and the amount of trolling Plinkett does had limited appeal.

[Jordacar]

Didn't really care for the Crystal Skull review. He makes some good points, but I don't think he needed 45 minutes to talk about it.

But the Star Wars prequel reviews are amazing. Seriously, those should be mandatory viewing in film schools. It's not just general nitpickery like you hear from a lot of fans and detractors; he really gets into film theory and demonstrates scientifically why the prequels are inferior.

[Thebumwhowalks]

But the Star Wars prequel reviews are amazing. Seriously, those should be mandatory viewing in film schools. It's not just general nitpickery like you hear from a lot of fans and detractors; he really gets into film theory and demonstrates scientifically why the prequels are inferior.

Aye, of course I agree the prequels are not as good as the OT(although I do prefer watching RoTS to RoTJ these days), but when you bring a lot of common sense to bear on aspects of the OT, a lot of the movie's plotlines are ridiculous, and don't stand up to heavy scrutiny, much in the same way he takes apart plotlines in TPM.

I only saw some of TPM reviews a while back. The vids stopped loading in properly for me, so I should get back to watching them. It was a good watch.

[weezerspider]

I LOVED Cowyboys & Aliens. I thought it did a great job mashing the genres. I'm one of those guys who typically agrees with the critics, but I will NEVER understand the critical hate for this.

[spider-neil]

del toro for me is a really hit or miss director.
I saw devil's backbone and really didn't enjoy, at all.

so;
devil's backbone - didn't enjoy
pan's labyrinth - masterpiece
hellboy - good
hellboy 2 - brilliant
blade 2 - very good
cronos - didn't enjoy
mimic - hated

[DarkSovereignty]

I honestly don't think wonder woman is that deep of a character that she necessitates a thespian actress like people in the WW casting thread seem to think. if gina carano were cast as her, I wouldn't bat an eye lash, she's demonstrated enough screen presence to carry a movie. If Arnold can carry a franchise like the Terminator based solely on screen presence, then so can Carano imo. the only interest I have in a WW is the posability of Nicholas Winding Refn directing it, I also would love it if he did in fact cast christina hendricks. for me its either her or carano.

[Parker Wayne]

I honestly don't think wonder woman is that deep of a character that she necessitates a thespian actress like people in the WW casting thread seem to think. if gina carano were cast as her, I wouldn't bat an eye lash, she's demonstrated enough screen presence to carry a movie. If Arnold can carry a franchise like the Terminator based solely on screen presence, then so can Carano imo. the only interest I have in a WW is the posability of Nicholas Winding Refn directing it, I also would love it if he did in fact cast christina hendricks. for me its either her or carano.

I agree. You don't need an oscar winning actress for Wonder Woman. I think even an average actress can nail Wonder Woman, but at the same time I'm not as well-versed on the character as I am with Superman, Batman, etc.

[Drizzle]

I think Revenge of the Sith was probably the best out of the Prequel movies. Watching Anakin's descent into the Dark Side was a bit like watching a Greek tragedy.
That's not an unpopular opinion at all. It's a fact that ROTS was the best out of the prequels.
I think it's the best of the series.

Followed by a new hope.
This, on the other hand...

[Tron Bonne]

I honestly don't think wonder woman is that deep of a character that she necessitates a thespian actress like people in the WW casting thread seem to think. if gina carano were cast as her, I wouldn't bat an eye lash, she's demonstrated enough screen presence to carry a movie. If Arnold can carry a franchise like the Terminator based solely on screen presence, then so can Carano imo. the only interest I have in a WW is the posability of Nicholas Winding Refn directing it, I also would love it if he did in fact cast christina hendricks. for me its either her or carano.

I agree. You don't need an oscar winning actress for Wonder Woman. I think even an average actress can nail Wonder Woman, but at the same time I'm not as well-versed on the character as I am with Superman, Batman, etc.

Hmm, nah, that's pretty off. I mean, yeah, if you don't give a **** about the character, I guess I can understand that (though why you care enough to have an opinion about that either way seems kind of weird to me, in that case), but she has the same 'depth' of casting Batman or Superman, and implying otherwise is, frankly, kind of ridiculous. I really don't see how it's unreasonable, in the least, to want a good actress to play the role in the same way you would those heroes to be played by potentially good actors. I mean, I don't really like Batman that much, but I give due to the fact that I think the part deserves a competent actor, as well as a multitude of directions it can be taken.

I don't see Hendricks at all, really. Maybe Refn and his fans see something I don't, but I really don't feel that. Don't know much about this new Carano chick that everyone is talking about. I may check out Haywire to see, but I've heard her physicality is solid, but her acting leaves a lot to be desired.

I honestly think the best choice for Wonder Woman is Noomi Rapace. It seems like one of those casting choices that you knee jerking say no to, but I can't think of anyone better. She was pretty imposing, but at the same time not too bulky (and she can get very physical, too). She seems to be able to transition from aggression to humor to regal to humble really well. I've even seen some photos where she invokes the part pretty well, I thought. Kind of surprised to see so few mention her in casting talk.

[Secret Fawful]

So yeah, I think Zeppo Marx is easily as funny and great as the other three Marx brothers. Let's put it this way for those of you who don't understand Zeppo's humor. He was Cary Grant's favorite Marx brother. Now think about how Grant mixed straight man acting and humor.

And that's how I came to understand the genius of Zeppo Marx.

[Thebumwhowalks]

So yeah, I think Zeppo Marx is easily as funny and great as the other three Marx brothers. Let's put it this way for those of you who don't understand Zeppo's humor. He was Cary Grant's favorite Marx brother. Now think about how Grant mixed straight man acting and humor.

And that's how I came to understand the genius of Zeppo Marx.

Ok, now *this* is easily the most unpopular opinion I have ever read.
Could you please point me to a scene in a Marx Bros movie where you thought Zeppo was funny? I want to know what in god's name you are on about here.

[Parker Wayne]

Hmm, nah, that's pretty off. I mean, yeah, if you don't give a **** about the character, I guess I can understand that (though why you care enough to have an opinion about that either way seems kind of weird to me, in that case), but she has the same 'depth' of casting Batman or Superman, and implying otherwise is, frankly, kind of ridiculous. I really don't see how it's unreasonable, in the least, to want a good actress to play the role in the same way you would those heroes to be played by potentially good actors. I mean, I don't really like Batman that much, but I give due to the fact that I think the part deserves a competent actor, as well as a multitude of directions it can be taken.

I don't see Hendricks at all, really. Maybe Refn and his fans see something I don't, but I really don't feel that. Don't know much about this new Carano chick that everyone is talking about. I may check out Haywire to see, but I've heard her physicality is solid, but her acting leaves a lot to be desired.

I honestly think the best choice for Wonder Woman is Noomi Rapace. It seems like one of those casting choices that you knee jerking say no to, but I can't think of anyone better. She was pretty imposing, but at the same time not too bulky (and she can get very physical, too). She seems to be able to transition from aggression to humor to regal to humble really well. I've even seen some photos where she invokes the part pretty well, I thought. Kind of surprised to see so few mention her in casting talk.

Don't get me wrong, I.don't hate Wonder Woman. I just never got deep into her lore as I did other characters.

[Secret Fawful]

Ok, now *this* is easily the most unpopular opinion I have ever read.
Could you please point me to a scene in a Marx Bros movie where you thought Zeppo was funny? I want to know what in god's name you are on about here.
There's a quote that sums up something nicely about Zeppo.

‎"There is a common assumption that Zeppo = Zero, which this scene does its best to contradict. Groucho dictating a letter to anybody else would hardly be cause for rejoicing. We have to believe that someone will be there to accept all his absurdities and even respond somewhat in kind before things can progress free from conflict into this genial mishmash. Groucho clears his throat in the midst of his dictation, and Zeppo asks him if he wants that in the letter. Groucho says, 'No, put it in the envelope.' Zeppo nods. And only Zeppo could even try such a thing as taking down the heading and the salutation and leaving out the letter because it didn't sound important to him. It takes a Marx Brother to pull something like that on a Marx Brother and get away with it." - Joe Adamson

He flabbergasts Groucho, something Chico did often, but in Chico's case Groucho always had a rebuttal. Zeppo did it, he did it while playing the straight man, and he left Groucho without a rebuttal in the end. And that's funny. He plays second fiddle to Groucho and one ups him in the same scene. In Horse Feathers he plays the part of a rebellious son sleeping with the college widow. Groucho plays an indignant father, but as soon as Groucho starts to berate him, Zeppo agrees with everything he says and abides by all of his wishes without talking back. When Groucho tells him to go, he does so with no hesitation or abandon, and Groucho derides him for his dedication to his straight part. He's the only one who can remain calm around around the other brothers, like a barn that won't fall over in a hurricane. In Duck Soup, Harpo cuts his hat in half and it doesn't even phase him. And nobody but a Marx brother could have played the son of Groucho and made it work on screen. He begins singing to the leading lady and the first lyrics are "Everyone says I love you...the cop on the corner and the burglar too" and he's already making fun of her without batting an eye. He tells her he thinks she's wonderful because she's beautiful, like he's too sappy to have any other reason, and that's the character he's playing. His lyrics, like his character, are full of charm and callous insincerity, much like Cary Grant's character, whereas to contrast, Groucho has cynical lyrics, Harpo whistles, and Chico's is based on wordplay that doesn't really make sense at all.

He's a lampoon of the straight man of the era. The other three destroy the cliches of the era and he embraces them, but to the point of absurdity, with a huge insincere grin on his face. He's so quick and so good it's deadpan, and that's skill. Especially since he was never the brother's original straight man. There's a scene in Animal Crackers when the lights go out, and Zeppo stands in for Groucho in the scene, and hits the comedic notes just as easily. You can tell it's him by the shape of his face, which had a much different shape than Groucho's does. He also stood in for Groucho in the characters entirety on one run of the stage version, and played it better than Groucho did. In The Coconauts, Groucho slaps Harpos hand, Harpo slaps Groucho, and Zeppo catches him. Perfect timing from all three. Later in the scene, Harpo honks his horn, and Zeppo runs away, prompting Groucho to follow, but Zeppo never comes back into the scene. Zeppo is a straight man, but he's a straight man that doesn't fit in anywhere except with his brothers. He's too weird to be seen as a normal straight man. He comes up with the idea to sing like Maurice Chevalier in Monkey Business to exit the boat they stowed away on, but once they get up to the line he immediately sells them out. Then he sings badly and gets kicked out of the line. Groucho dictates to him how to say Hungadunga in an extremely pronounced way and Zeppo repeats it verbatim every time, following instructions so close to the letter it's absurd. Oh, and when Zeppo omits the body of the letter and says he did it because Groucho said a lot of things he didn't think were important, that's a sly dig at Groucho's style of comedy, while remaining completely in character. To whit, there's a part in that scene where you can see a smirk hit Zeppo's face for a split second. In Duck Soup Groucho starts firing a tommygun at a battlefield. Zeppo runs in and tells Groucho he's shooting his own men. Groucho takes out five dollars and tells him to keep it under his hat. Zeppo looks at it as if he hasn't a clue what's going on, and Groucho tells him he'll keep it under his hat instead. So Zeppo puts the money in Groucho's hat. Out of all the characters the Marxes deal with, Zeppo, as a Marx Brother, is the only one who complies willingly with everything, no matter how absurd, with a big stupid insincere grin on his face. At the end of Animal Crackers, Harpo knocks everyone out with gas. Zeppo doesn't even try to pretend the gas works on him, as soon as it hits his face he doesn't drop, he walks methodically to a spot on the floor empty of people, and then methodically gets on his side, and methodically rolls over.

He's like that a--hole extra in the background who says ---- it I'm gonna stand back here and do a silly dance with a big grin on my face, except he made a character out of it. He has even less purpose than his brothers. Actually, he's like someone took that meme of Leonardo Dicaprio doing that silly walk in inappropriate places and made a character out of that. And it fits. And it's funny.

'To string things together in a seemingly purposeless way,' said Mark Twain, 'and to be seemingly unaware that they are absurd, is the mark of American humor.'

Although I fully expect you to go "you're crazy" because you're spotty like that. I'm not even really sure why I typed this out, but I guess it's because I refuse to ignore anybody or consider anybody not worth replying to.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I am well aware of what the straight man role is in a comedy troupe, and if you really like what Zeppo does, that's fine, but what I am perplexed by is the fact you say that you find him *as* funny as the other three Marx Bros.

edit: Speaking for myself, I've been watching the Marx bros movies for about 25 years and don't recall ever laughing once at anything that guy did, whereas the other three are sublime comedians of the highest order who changed comedy forever.
Interestingly enough, there has always been this myth that Gummo was the funniest Marx Bros, y'know, the one who never appeared on film, so I guess that is a myth that sound slike an iinteresting thing to say, as no-one can disprove it. But, Zeppo....boy there is some evidence that he was not in their league in the comedy department, he didn't even stay on to make many films with them, and no-one minded I guess, and i might add, you never cited any moments that made *you* laugh personally, you just copied and pasted some article.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I really didn't like Into the Wild. Sure it has some nice scenery, music and characters, but i just hated the main character. I don't know if it's appropriate to say this since the film was based on a real person, but for me the main character was more of an idiot than this inspirational hero.I didn't feel one ounce of sympathy when the lead character died. I just thought that he was an cry baby idiot.

[gwynplaine]

I really wanted to like The Muppets, but I couldn't, and I've always loved the Muppets (since I was a kid to be more precise.) Jason Segel and Amy Adams trying to out cute each other just didn't work for me. I don't know, people seem to like it, maybe I need to give it another try some time.

[Secret Fawful]

I am well aware of what the straight man role is in a comedy troupe, and if you really like what Zeppo does, that's fine, but what I am perplexed by is the fact you say that you find him *as* funny as the other three Marx Bros.

edit: Speaking for myself, I've been watching the Marx bros movies for about 25 years and don't recall ever laughing once at anything that guy did, whereas the other three are sublime comedians of the highest order who changed comedy forever.
Interestingly enough, there has always been this myth that Gummo was the funniest Marx Bros, y'know, the one who never appeared on film, so I guess that is a myth that sound slike an iinteresting thing to say, as no-one can disprove it. But, Zeppo....boy there is some evidence that he was not in their league in the comedy department, he didn't even stay on to make many films with them, and no-one minded I guess, and i might add, you never cited any moments that made *you* laugh personally, you just copied and pasted some article.

But that's...what I think. See, I knew you'd say this crap.

[Thebumwhowalks]

But that's...what I think. See, I knew you'd say this crap.

Well, I prefer having a conversation with someone instead of them just copying and pasting something. I was curious as to whether you found Zeppo of that calibre from watching the films, or whether that article prompted you to re-think your opinion on his performances.
edit: not that it matters , I was just more interested in how you came to this highly unpopular conclusion.

Anyway, I don't want to drag this on, I'm gonna be talking a walk from the forum after today, I'm just wrapping up a couple of conversations.

[Secret Fawful]

Oh, it wasn't an article. It was a series of articles and books I read and own. Either way, it made me re-think my opinion of him, and I need to rewatch the movies again to examine him more closely.

[gwynplaine]

I couldn't finish Tailor Tinker Soldier Spy:o Great actors, but I was bored. And it feels like Oldman, one of my favorite actors, is so restrained in it that he isn't doing anything (and it is possible to be extremely restrained and still project something, see Anthony Hopkins in Remains of the Day and many other great understated performances.)
Also another film that I might have to give a second shot, somewhere down the line.

[A Necessary Evil]

Although I want it to have no association with Louis Sachar's holes, I'd love to see Richard Kelly's script for the movie to get made one day. It was great, just as long as it had nothing to do with the source.

[Travesty]

I couldn't finish Tailor Tinker Soldier Spy:o Great actors, but I was bored. And it feels like Oldman, one of my favorite actors, is so restrained in it that he isn't doing anything (and it is possible to be extremely restrained and still project something, see Anthony Hopkins in Remains of the Day and many other great understated performances.)
Also another film that I might have to give a second shot, somewhere down the line.I haven't watched it yet, but I keep hearing how boring of a movie it is.

[The Morningstar]

I thought it was intriguing. But i can totally understand why some would think it's boring. But I thought Oldman was great. He was restrained, I don't think he says a word until about 20 minutes in, but it's like you could see the cogs turning inside his brain.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, I totally dug Tinker Tailor. I can see why some people wouldn't like it, but it was easily one of my favorite films of the year.

[gwynplaine]

Like I said maybe I need to give it another try. I so loved Let the Right One In, maybe my expectations were too high. Still a great director to watch and I'm looking forward to his next film.

[danoyse]

I am well aware of what the straight man role is in a comedy troupe, and if you really like what Zeppo does, that's fine, but what I am perplexed by is the fact you say that you find him *as* funny as the other three Marx Bros.

edit: Speaking for myself, I've been watching the Marx bros movies for about 25 years and don't recall ever laughing once at anything that guy did, whereas the other three are sublime comedians of the highest order who changed comedy forever.
Interestingly enough, there has always been this myth that Gummo was the funniest Marx Bros, y'know, the one who never appeared on film, so I guess that is a myth that sound slike an iinteresting thing to say, as no-one can disprove it. But, Zeppo....boy there is some evidence that he was not in their league in the comedy department, he didn't even stay on to make many films with them, and no-one minded I guess, and i might add, you never cited any moments that made *you* laugh personally, you just copied and pasted some article.

Actually, in "My Life With Groucho", which was written by Groucho's son, it was mentioned that Zeppo understudied Groucho in Animal Crackers, and that Groucho thought he was so good "...that I would have let him play the part indefinitely, if they had allowed me to smoke in the audience." :funny:

I would have loved to have seen Zeppo take a turn as Captain Spaulding, unfortunately there's no way to know what he was like now.

[gwynplaine]

Actually, in "My Life With Groucho", which was written by Groucho's son, it was mentioned that Zeppo understudied Groucho in Animal Crackers, and that Groucho thought he was so good "...that I would have let him play the part indefinitely, if they had allowed me to smoke in the audience." :funny:

I would have loved to have seen Zeppo take a turn as Captain Spaulding, unfortunately there's no way to know what he was like now.
I haven't read "My Life With Groucho", but I love "Harpo speaks", Harpo's memoirs. Apparently the true unsung hero of the Marx Brothers is Minnie Marx, their mother, who really pushed them and made sure they would get on stage every night. Awesome book. I'm sure Zeppo was great too, but to me Harpo is God:awesome:

[danoyse]

I really wanted to like The Muppets, but I couldn't, and I've always loved the Muppets (since I was a kid to be more precise.) Jason Segel and Amy Adams trying to out cute each other just didn't work for me. I don't know, people seem to like it, maybe I need to give it another try some time.

And I'm the one who nearly burst into tears when they all held hands and sang "The Rainbow Connection". I loved that movie...

[moviedoors]

I haven't watched it yet, but I keep hearing how boring of a movie it is.
Don't listen. It was an enthralling, suspenseful, smart spy thriller for grown ups.

Please, take no offense, people-who-don't-agree. I mean none. I just loved the every living crap out of that movie and I'm so eager to get it on blu-ray so I can begin the at-a-minimum-annual viewings of it for the rest of my life.

[gwynplaine]

I know a lot of people are experiencing "found footage fatigue" (right, Tron Bonne:woot:?) and I can understand why, but I also believe that when it's done right it can make for some interesting movies. For example, besides the last 5 minutes, I enjoyed "The Last Exorcism", that I just saw recently. I'm also kinda looking forward to "Chronicle."

[gwynplaine]

My favorite Werner Herzog film is "Aguirre, the Wrath of God." Ok, not really unpopular so far.
While I think he's done some other good, enjoyable films, I think Aguirre is the only great movie he's ever made. Kinda like Jean-Luc Godard with "Breathless."

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I'm also kinda looking forward to "Chronicle."
Whaaaat?

[HighFivingMF]

I don't know why they changed the title from "Wire Stunts: The Movie!" to "Chronicle" though.

[Figs]

I know a lot of people are experiencing "found footage fatigue" (right, Tron Bonne:woot:?) and I can understand why, but I also believe that when it's done right it can make for some interesting movies. For example, besides the last 5 minutes, I enjoyed "The Last Exorcism", that I just saw recently. I'm also kinda looking forward to "Chronicle."

You should check out Troll Hunter. I honestly think it's the best or at least second best found footage type of film out there.

My favorite Werner Herzog film is "Aguirre, the Wrath of God." Ok, not really unpopular so far.
While I think he's done some other good, enjoyable films, I think Aguirre is the only great movie he's ever made. Kinda like Jean-Luc Godard with "Breathless."

I definitely agree with your opinion about Godard. I never cared for a lot of his other films, but thoroughly enjoyed Breathless.

[gwynplaine]

Whaaaat?
I said kinda:woot:. Ok I'll admit,maybe I don't have enough information on this film.

I don't know why they changed the title from "Wire Stunts: The Movie!" to "Chronicle" though.
Haha:woot:! Now thanks to Blitzkrieg and you I want to see it less and less lol.

You should check out Troll Hunter. I honestly think it's the best or at least second best found footage type of film out there.

I really want to watch this one. I've heard a lot of good things about it and I dig the premise. Plus those trolls look really cool. Thanks for the info, Figs:up:

[moviedoors]

Troll Hunter was a lot of fun. There's a government cover up subplot that feels kind of half-hearted, but it's a solid flick. It's clever.

[Max J Power]

My favorite Werner Herzog film is "Aguirre, the Wrath of God." Ok, not really unpopular so far.
While I think he's done some other good, enjoyable films, I think Aguirre is the only great movie he's ever made. Kinda like Jean-Luc Godard with "Breathless."
Does that include documentaries?

[The Morningstar]

You do realise Herzog made Bad LT don't you? :P

[moviedoors]

Aguire can stand toe-to-toe with BL. It's easily as mad, probably more so. That film is a document of true madness. I love both of those movies to death.

[The Morningstar]

Yea i think they are both great. Just found it strange Gwynnie said only Aguirre is great, I'm sure i've seen him praise Bad LT before.

[gwynplaine]

Does that include documentaries?
No, I also love most of his documentaries:up:

Aguire can stand toe-to-toe with BL. It's easily as mad, probably more so. That film is a document of true madness. I love both of those movies to death.
Me too.

Yea i think they are both great. Just found it strange Gwynnie said only Aguirre is great, I'm sure i've seen him praise Bad LT before.
Yeah, my bad:o. Somehow I forgot about BL which I also really loved.

[Tron Bonne]

I know a lot of people are experiencing "found footage fatigue" (right, Tron Bonne:woot:?) and I can understand why, but I also believe that when it's done right it can make for some interesting movies. For example, besides the last 5 minutes, I enjoyed "The Last Exorcism", that I just saw recently. I'm also kinda looking forward to "Chronicle."

You're damn skippy :cmad:

I don't really dislike the idea, though, per say.

[gwynplaine]

You're damn skippy :cmad:

I don't really dislike the idea, though, per say.
:woot:

[hammerhedd11]

I'm always puzzled when people speak of having certain fatigue towards a category of film, like found footage. But then when something comes out that does it well, it's a "reinvention" of the genre. No, it's just a good movie. I don't think found footage as a concept itself is what makes the movie poor, it's just the filmmaker, writing, direction etc. that make it poor. If The Devil Inside was a straightforward film, it still would've sucked. I think people just have bad movie fatigue. You don't see something like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and say "That movie was poorly done. They shouldn't make dramas for a while because of that film." No, it was a bad film regardless of the genre.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I don't know why they changed the title from "Wire Stunts: The Movie!" to "Chronicle" though.
More like Who Gives a ****?: The Movie.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I'm always puzzled when people speak of having certain fatigue towards a category of film, like found footage. But then when something comes out that does it well, it's a "reinvention" of the genre. No, it's just a good movie. I don't think found footage as a concept itself is what makes the movie poor, it's just the filmmaker, writing, direction etc. that make it poor. If The Devil Inside was a straightforward film, it still would've sucked. I think people just have bad movie fatigue. You don't see something like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and say "That movie was poorly done. They shouldn't make dramas for a while because of that film." No, it was a bad film regardless of the genre.

But it's a bit of a niche drama genre, that has the danger of being overused and abused by poor filmakers to cover up their shortcomings, because it appears to be in vogue. So, it's not the same kind of thing as getting pissed off at the amount of poor dramas in general. edit: You can see why folk might get suspicious of a found footage movie's creative intentions.
The genre should only be used when it is absolutely, positively, the best way of telling *that* story.
But what a lot of people probably do, is come up with the usual kind of story idea, but instead of developing their story into something better, they just think 'Oh, if we make it like found footage, then people will think it's much better than what it really is!' They can try to pass it off as something revolutionary 'like Blair Witch! but in a lift!/in a submarine!/in a supermarket!'.
So, you can see how folk can be put off by hearing of another found footage film, because the amount of found footage films that are made probably far outweight the stories that are thought of, that this type of filmaking benefits.

Sure, it can be a nice starting off point for a story idea, esp to the low budget filmaker, no-one would blame a skint filmaker from trying that starting off point, because it is easier to make a film that looks and feels like a bonafide drama that someone might buy, as opposed to a student film.

Anyway, I was reading the review of Chronicle on aicn, and it did say that it had the very interesting, and brand new perspective of

the characters flying their cameras around using their telekinetic powers

so there is apparently something new coming out of this sub-genre in this movie.

[Tron Bonne]

I'm always puzzled when people speak of having certain fatigue towards a category of film, like found footage. But then when something comes out that does it well, it's a "reinvention" of the genre. No, it's just a good movie. I don't think found footage as a concept itself is what makes the movie poor, it's just the filmmaker, writing, direction etc. that make it poor. If The Devil Inside was a straightforward film, it still would've sucked. I think people just have bad movie fatigue. You don't see something like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and say "That movie was poorly done. They shouldn't make dramas for a while because of that film." No, it was a bad film regardless of the genre.

I think found footage films are a little different, though, because those types of films are actually trying to convey a very specific aesthetic. Genre definitions like drama, action, comedy, etc. are very broad. Found footage is more like a niche that's been created. I'm not even sure if I'd call it a genre really, since it strikes as something that's purely dictated by technique, though that could be just be seen as semantic nitpicking.

[gwynplaine]

Strangely enough I'm still looking forward to watching the new Ghost Rider film. I just really like this character and Nic Cage in general, and I can't help but hope that they got it right this time. Even though, I have a feeling the story won't be that great again. I've always loved Ghost Rider, Dr. Strange and the Silver Surfer and I hope to see them done right some day on the big screen.

[DyeLorean]

About the found-footage genre, when Blair Witch came out, it was a big deal. Without the internet around, people thought it was the real deal. It was a great way of selling.

I like how they've managed to take as much as they could about the genre. I haven't seen Chronicle, but I think is one of the first attempts which is not focused on a completely horror film, like the Paranormal Activity movies.

The problem starts when they become standard. There's has to be a reason for it to be found footage archive, otherwise is just a gimmick. But I do admit that the way of filming is interesting, in the right hands.

[Max J Power]

Strangely enough I'm still looking forward to watching the new Ghost Rider film. I just really like this character and Nic Cage in general, and I can't help but hope that they got it right this time. Even though, I have a feeling the story won't be that great again. I've always loved Ghost Rider, Dr. Strange and the Silver Surfer and I hope to see them done right some day on the big screen.
Even if it's not good, I think Cage+The Crank directors has to at least be pretty fun.

[danoyse]

About the found-footage genre, when Blair Witch came out, it was a big deal. Without the internet around, people thought it was the real deal. It was a great way of selling.

The internet actually was around when Blair Witch came out. In fact, it was heavily promoted on the internet, starting a year before the movie came out when blairwitch.com was created as site chronicling the 'disappearance' of the three filmmakers. It had fake newspaper clippings, police photos, diary entries from Heather, and stories about the history of the Blair Witch. It was probably one of the first viral marketing campaigns.

By the time it finally opened, it already had a huge fan following - and most people knew it wasn't real. I saw it at the Angelika in NY when it first opened. They actually had props and stuff from the movie in the lobby as 'evidence', and I remember everyone just having fun with it because everyone knew it wasn't for real.

[LOBO3315a]

Blair Witch, Quarantine, Cloverfield, and Paranormal Activity were great examples of how to do the "found footage" idea right. I think making the audience suspend their disbelief by identifying with the characters really helps. It also allows the actors to break the 4th wall a bit. In all other movie genera ignoring the camera is vital. This is another way to bring the audience "into" the story.

But as was stated earlier, it's not always the best way to tell a story. Back to the Future wouldn't have worked as well telling it this way. Horror and suspense films seem to work best this way.

[gwynplaine]

Even if it's not good, I think Cage+The Crank directors has to at least be pretty fun.
Agreed:up:

[Tron Bonne]

Blair Witch, Quarantine, Cloverfield, and Paranormal Activity were great examples of how to do the "found footage" idea right. I think making the audience suspend their disbelief by identifying with the characters really helps. It also allows the actors to break the 4th wall a bit. In all other movie genera ignoring the camera is vital. This is another way to bring the audience "into" the story.

It tends to have the opposite effect on me, honestly. It tends to make me more self-aware that I'm watching fiction, because it's trying to mimic reality so much, it comes off as even more fake. Kind of an uncanny valley kind of thing I guess you'd say.

[DyeLorean]

The internet actually was around when Blair Witch came out. In fact, it was heavily promoted on the internet, starting a year before the movie came out when blairwitch.com was created as site chronicling the 'disappearance' of the three filmmakers. It had fake newspaper clippings, police photos, diary entries from Heather, and stories about the history of the Blair Witch. It was probably one of the first viral marketing campaigns.

By the time it finally opened, it already had a huge fan following - and most people knew it wasn't real. I saw it at the Angelika in NY when it first opened. They actually had props and stuff from the movie in the lobby as 'evidence', and I remember everyone just having fun with it because everyone knew it wasn't for real.

Right, I know. Maybe I should've clarified, the internet wasn't such a big place for information and 'leaked' stuff as much as it is now. That's what I meant. It was a little bit more difficult to 'discover' that the whole thing was a big marketing campaign.
Down here the movie was heavily promoted, and a lot of people thought it was for real.

[gwynplaine]

You should check out Troll Hunter. I honestly think it's the best or at least second best found footage type of film out there.
I really enjoyed Troll Hunter. Cool film:up:

[Figs]

I really enjoyed Troll Hunter. Cool film:up:

Glad you liked it!

[Parker Wayne]

This is an unpopular tv opinion, so deal with it:

I like Dragon Ball more than Dragon Ball Z.

[munchie64]

^ I kind of agree. More comedy and adventure are good things in my book. The character development also seems better to me. Still love Z though.

[LOBO3315a]

I agree about Troll Hunter. I liked it more than i thought I would. I also like the original Dragonball Anime better than "Z".

Now here comes my unpopular Film related opinion: After re-watching Batman 89, I think Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker is WAY better than Heath Ledger's.

*Runs and hides*

[munchie64]

While it's entertaining, Jack is just playing himself in my eyes.

[DarkSovereignty]

yeah, it's just crazy old jack being crazy old jack. didn't even change the name.

[DyeLorean]

Well, to be fair, both performances were heavily oriented based on the script and tone of each film. 89's Batman is a lot more comic-booky than The Dark Knight, so the portrayals of the character differs a lot. I love both Jokers.

[gwynplaine]

I don't know if it's unpopular, but Tucker and Dale vs Evil is my favorite comedy this year. Great chemistry between Labine and Tudick (not sure about the spelling) and I hope they return for more adventures. Kinda like Hillbillies Abbot and Costello for the New Millennium:woot:.

[gwynplaine]

I'll say it again, Jack Torrance was a much better Joker than Jack Napier.

[munchie64]

Here's one: I liked how the Watchmen movie used its soundtrack. Especially the very start.

[danoyse]

Right, I know. Maybe I should've clarified, the internet wasn't such a big place for information and 'leaked' stuff as much as it is now. That's what I meant. It was a little bit more difficult to 'discover' that the whole thing was a big marketing campaign.
Down here the movie was heavily promoted, and a lot of people thought it was for real.

I was taking design classes a few years after the movie came out, and half the class still could not be convinced that it wasn't a true story. Why? The Sci-Fi Channel special said it was real.

My boss's (at the time) neighbor actually knew the brother of one of the guys in Blair Witch - he appeared in that Sci-Fi Channel special, and even after explaining that out to the class (and that she'd met both of them), they were still not convinced. :doh:

[Max J Power]

Here's one: I liked how the Watchmen movie used its soundtrack. Especially the very start.
I liked the Watchmen movie in general. I probably would've thought it was great if the fighting/action scenes were done differently. They were well shot, but came off kind of b-movie-ish for a film with a serious tone.

[munchie64]

I did too, but everyone complains about how the soundtrack (the licensed songs, not the awesome score) wasn't integrated well into the film.

I kind of agree about the fights, but that prison scene was awesome.

[Parker Wayne]

^ I kind of agree. More comedy and adventure are good things in my book. The character development also seems better to me. Still love Z though.

It's not only that, but I like that most of the characters actually aren't completely useless and I love that the focus is more on martial arts technique than the overwhelming focus on power level that Z had.

I still like Z for what it is (and for giving birth to DBZ abrdiged. :woot:), but I'm glad I saw Z before the original Dragon Ball, or I would have been pissed.

Blair Witch, Quarantine, Cloverfield, and Paranormal Activity were great examples of how to do the "found footage" idea right. I think making the audience suspend their disbelief by identifying with the characters really helps. It also allows the actors to break the 4th wall a bit. In all other movie genera ignoring the camera is vital. This is another way to bring the audience "into" the story.

But as was stated earlier, it's not always the best way to tell a story. Back to the Future wouldn't have worked as well telling it this way. Horror and suspense films seem to work best this way.

I'm not a huge fan of found footage movies. It probably has to also do more with my general dislike of horror movies.

[EML420]

I dont like the found footage stuff either, scary noises in houses and what not are not scary to me. I have lived in a house that made house noises lol. I like horror movies but its hard for me to get scared.

[Parker Wayne]

My problem with Horror movies today is (warning: really nerdy film nerd talk. YOu've been warned)

That a lot of them rely too much on sound rather than image. They try to get you to jumped because of loud noises than the images actually being scaring. I jump because I have sensitive ears and the sudden sounds actually hurt at times.

And also, some people think being excessively gory is scary but the gore genre has been around ever since the beginnings of horror movie.

[EML420]

I get what your saying and a lot of movies that focus on ghost and what not have a lot of momentum going nowhere.(Well to me at least)

[The Morningstar]

Problem with modern day horror movies is that there is no genuine tension. These directors don't know how to build tension so they just thrown tons of gore at the audience.

You look at films like the original Halloween and there is barely any blood at all. But it's one of the creepiest, most tense horror movies ever.

[munchie64]

I like both kinds. Suspense and gore. My two favourite horror movies are Halloween and The Thing (probably chuck Alien in there too).

[Travesty]

I like both kinds. Suspense and gore. My two favourite horror movies are Halloween and The Thing (probably chuck Alien in there too).
Is Alien and The Thing considered horror movies? I thought they were Sci Fi thrillers?

[DyeLorean]

My problem with Horror movies today is (warning: really nerdy film nerd talk. YOu've been warned)

That a lot of them rely too much on sound rather than image. They try to get you to jumped because of loud noises than the images actually being scaring. I jump because I have sensitive ears and the sudden sounds actually hurt at times.

And also, some people think being excessively gory is scary but the gore genre has been around ever since the beginnings of horror movie.

Yeah, The Strangers is a good example of that. Just loud noises.

[The Morningstar]

Is Alien and The Thing considered horror movies? I thought they were Sci Fi thrillers?

I'd say the Thing is definitely horror. Sci fi/horror anyway.

Yeah, The Strangers is a good example of that. Just loud noises.

See I thought Strangers was pretty good. It built up the tension well and wasn't just a blood fest.

[DyeLorean]

I
It built up the tension well and wasn't just a blood fest.

I agree with what I quote, for me the problem is that the movie went nowhere. It was just basically a very well done reel of how to create suspense. And that's it.

[The Morningstar]

Fair point.

On the topic of horror movies I think the best one i've seen in a while is Funny Games. Both versions.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, Funny Games kicks the sh** out of The Strangers and most other horror films I've seen in the last 10 years.

In recent years, the only other horror films I've seen that have genuinely freaked me the hell out were Martyrs and Inside. I would also count I Saw the Devil, though that's not really a horror film, the psychopath in that movie could give anyone nightmares.

[CConn]

Here's one: I liked how the Watchmen movie used its soundtrack. Especially the very start.
I definitely agree! Watchmen has one of my favorite movie soundtracks. And the opening title sequence with These Times Are A Changin' was absolutely perfect.

Although I always felt Hallelujah was an odd choice for a sex scene. :o

[The Morningstar]

Well it's like "Hallelujah! My dick finally got hard!" :D

[munchie64]

I definitely agree! Watchmen has one of my favorite movie soundtracks. And the opening title sequence with These Times Are A Changin' was absolutely perfect.

Although I always felt Hallelujah was an odd choice for a sex scene. :o
Yeah that was the one choice I thought was rather odd, but people complained about all the choices. I honestly can't think of any examples right now, but at it's release I'm certain so many people were saying "the soundtrack doesn't fit the film" or something like that.

But that fight with Unforgettable in the background. :awesome:

[Liam_H]

People complained about the soundtrack because they just weren't expecting all these songs from the 80s. They said it should have had the more traditional epic orchestra. I enjoyed it and glad Snyder went in this direction.

[LOBO3315a]

Watchmen is the best Comic Book movie this side of Batman 89. There's an unpopular opinion....LOL.

[HighFivingMF]

Well it's like "Hallelujah! My dick finally got hard!" :D

I'm gonna not read the surrounding posts and just remember this one.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, the Hallelujah song is very polarizing. I have this film snob friend who b**ched up a storm over that. I personally thought it was hilarious.

[Secret Fawful]

You know, I watched that scene and I...didn't see the big deal. I will bit-- about the squid, though.

Oh here's an unpopular opinion. I don't really care for zombies. I find them to be a rather boring monster. I like some zombie movies, but most of them just don't grab me.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, I don't really get the fascination with zombies either. I thoroughly enjoy The Walking Dead, but that's because I really like the characters and how the series focuses so much on the psychological aspect of the scenario. The zombies themselves are kind of an afterthought.

Other than that, I'm not into zombie horror at all. I liked Sean of the Dead and 28 Days Later, but that's about it. Even Zombieland wasn't as great as everyone said it was (IMO).

[humbdrumb]

So I was watching The Phantom Menace the other day for absolutely no justifiable reason, and the pod race scene is still thrilling to this day. It really seems out of place in the movie because it's actually dynamic and well paced. It's not as good as the death star attack or Hoth battle, but it's still pretty damn good.

[Brain Damage]

So I was watching The Phantom Menace the other day for absolutely no justifiable reason, and the pod race scene is still thrilling to this day. It really seems out of place in the movie because it's actually dynamic and well paced. It's not as good as the death star attack or Hoth battle, but it's still pretty damn good.

I really like The Phantom Menace. Though I think a lot of that is due to nostalgia (it was the first Star Wars I ever saw all the way through, back when it came out in theaters and I was a young impressionable lad), but I still find a fun, light hearted movie.

I also really, really like Revenge of the Sith other than some of the facepalm awful dialogue. Palpatine is especially effective in it.

The one I really can't stomach is Attack of the Clones, there are just so little redeeming qualities about it, and honestly, if it wasn't for completion's sake, I probably would never watch it.

[humbdrumb]

It's really mediocre, but unlike episodes II and III, it actually feels like Star Wars during certain sequences. The last two are just way too sterile and joyless. I don't think it's any coincidence the movie that uses real locations and sets is the most Star Wars-y of the prequels. There's also a great bit of nostalgia with TPM being the first Star Wars movie I saw on a big screen (I'd already seen the original trilogy on VHS about 100 times :D.)

[danoyse]

I really like The Phantom Menace. Though I think a lot of that is due to nostalgia (it was the first Star Wars I ever saw all the way through, back when it came out in theaters and I was a young impressionable lad), but I still find a fun, light hearted movie.

I also really, really like Revenge of the Sith other than some of the facepalm awful dialogue. Palpatine is especially effective in it.

The one I really can't stomach is Attack of the Clones, there are just so little redeeming qualities about it, and honestly, if it wasn't for completion's sake, I probably would never watch it.

Attack of the Clones is my least favorite too, completely because of the whole love story. That fireplace scene? Ugh, as big of a Star Wars fan that I am, it's the one SW scene I simply cannot stand. :barf:

The thing about the prequels that disappointed me the most was that love story and Padme's character. This was the character you knew the least about, and she just boring. I feel like he was so obsessed with her costumes that he forgot to write a character.

And don't get me started on her dying of a broken heart. Twilight doesn't even pull that one. I wanted her to go down in a blaze of glory defying the Empire and defending her kids. She didn't even try to live for their sake.

I've been a SW fan since the beginning, and when the prequels finally happened we were all able to assume that these things mentioned in the movies were part of the story:

-that we'd see lots of space battles, since Anakin was supposed to be "the best starpilot in the galaxy, and cunning warrior," and that he and Ben were like brothers...not rather formal friends like they were in the movie. The closest we ever got to that was the first 20 minutes of ROTS, and they're some of my favorite scenes from the prequels.

-time on Dagobah, since in ESB, Luke tells R2-D2 that there was "something familiar about this place". Nope, didn't happen.

-more of their mother, since Leia still remembers her when she's talking to Luke in ROTJ. That didn't happen either.

I even liked in the ROTJ novelization that Luke's Uncle Owen turned out to really be Obi-Wan's brother. That would have given some interesting character background to Obi-Wan, which really wasn't there either.

I don't hate the prequels at all (I'm totally seeing TPM in 3D next weekend), but whenever I watch the OT and those lines come up, and I always think, "Man, I wanted to see that movie."

[Parker Wayne]

Don't we all, Danoyse.

- I want Channing Tatum to do more comedy. He looks more comfortable and has much more personality in comedy than romance/drama movies.

[gwynplaine]

For the most part, I enjoyed Raimi's first two Spider-man movies, but from what I've seen so far, it looks like Webb's entry is going to be better. Garfield is such a great actor and I really like the more serious tone of the new trailer and the fact that Spider-Man cracks jokes like in the comics, but without it feeling goofy or campy.

[Thebumwhowalks]

For the most part, I enjoyed Raimi's first two Spider-man movies, but from what I've seen so far, it looks like Webb's entry is going to be better. Garfield is such a great actor and I really like the more serious tone of the new trailer and the fact that Spider-Man cracks jokes like in the comics, but without it feeling goofy or campy.

Someone over at cbr made the point that they didn't think this reboot would have the heart that the Raimi films did, and I agree that this might end up being true. It could very well be a slick, MTV-friendly Spider-man, so of course the trailer is gonna look good, but I might not feel like I'm on his side so much, or sharing his journey, like I did with the Raimi films, and if they are trying to be hip and cool, they could iron out too many of the quirks the hero and his universe is known for, so he could end up feeling like some other superhero altogether.

edit: and after watching the trailer again last night, for the fourth time, I have to say I don't like his line deliveries, that opening joke about Gwen's doorman being intimidating, just flat and nondescript, and the rest of the lines did not really sound like PP or SM to me. Movies are full of wisecrackers, his sounded below par-average.

[LOBO3315a]

I think the biggest attraction to this movie is the web-shooters. I'll be waiting for this to come out on video to watch it, if at all.

[gwynplaine]

Good, my opinion is unpopular with at least two people:woot::cwink:

[DyeLorean]

I'm not a big fan of the whole voodoo thing in Indiana Jones Temple of Doom.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I'm not saying Hilary Swank deserved to be beaten/raped at the end of "boys dont cry" for being the sex she/he wants to be. But Her character totally misled people without being honest in an obviously prejudice area and violently unstable family. So, the character kind of brought it on him/her self for being as dumb as a rock. The character wasn't brave or anything, wasn't open about it, just hid it, got cought, then killed for being very very dumb.

[jonathancrane]

Edward Norton is to the Hulk/Banner what Michael Keaton is to Batman. I know Ruffalo's going to supply a good performance, but I am disappointed that Norton was unable to return.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Edward Norton was good but I prefer Bana. Both movies have problems.
I think Edward Norton and Tim Roth were not given the movie they deserved.

[Tron Bonne]

I'm not saying Hilary Swank deserved to be beaten/raped at the end of "boys dont cry" for being the sex she/he wants to be. But Her character totally misled people without being honest in an obviously prejudice area and violently unstable family. So, the character kind of brought it on him/her self for being as dumb as a rock. The character wasn't brave or anything, wasn't open about it, just hid it, got cought, then killed for being very very dumb.

I'm trying to find a pic or gif that emphasizes how ridiculous this sounds, but I'm coming up pretty blank. I think that speaks more so than anything I could potentially find on how ridiculous this **** sounds.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I'm trying to find a pic or gif that emphasizes how ridiculous this sounds, but I'm coming up pretty blank. I think that speaks more so than anything I could potentially find on how ridiculous this **** sounds.

Rather than attempting to badly ridicule with no arguement, tell me, whats ridiculous about it? Have you watched it even or are you just disagreeing with me because you don't like what i'm saying?

To be clear, once again, I'm not saying the character deserves what happens because of what she is or wants to be. Hilary Swank's character does bring it on his/her self. A character in the movie even gives her advice outright says "they hang *derogatory word* down there".

So, you are hanging around with what are, obviously violent bigots verging on point of being psychotic in an area in which it is deemed socially unacceptable to the point of physical danger. Lying to them and going as far as to having a relationship and sex with one of them without explaining what you are about?

Gee, what will happen? Oh, look what happend. What-a-surprise.


The character Hilary Swank plays is not heroic in any shape or form. She doesn't come out with it, or stand against adversity or anything like that. In fact, the character she plays like practically every other character in this movie, is deplorable. Stealing cars, jumping bail. Lying to everyone. Picking fights with people in bars. Stealing from shops. Endangering people putting a roof over his/her head. Hilary Swanks character is wreckless, totally self-serving and dim as a brick. It might be more "realistic" but that doesn't make it a better movie. In fact, the movie has no freaking message. It's just a nasty peice of crap as far as i'm concerned. And like I said , without the need for a gif, the character brought it upon his and/or her self. It happend out of her own construction. And it has bugger all to do with facing up to adversity.

It's worth noting here as well, when the phyco she hangs around with (who prevously said he would kill her if she went to the police) comes to shoot her up, it's in a home with the person who is putting a roof over her head (because shes a absolute scrounger and earlyer in the movie endangers someone else who was putting a roof over her head), the nice lady looking after her gets shot in the belly in front of her something month old daughter in the same room. Well done you. With your self imposed ignorance and a diminished sense of responsibly, only giving two craps about your own needs. Repulsive character.



.

[Ipodman]

As far as 2011 animated films go, Cars 2 is better than Kung Fu Panda 2. (But Rango is even better.)

[Tron Bonne]

Rather than attempting to badly ridicule with no arguement, tell me, whats ridiculous about it? Have you watched it even or are you just disagreeing with me because you don't like what i'm saying?

To be clear, once again, I'm not saying the character deserves what happens because of what she is or wants to be. But because Hilary Swank's character does bring it on his/her self. A character in the movie even gives her advice outright says "they hang *derogatory word* down there".

So, you are hanging around with what are, obviously violent bigots verging on point of being psychotic in an area in which it is deemed socially unacceptable to the point of physical danger. Lying to them and going as far as to having a relationship and sex with one of them without explaining what you are about?

Gee, what will happen? Oh, look what happend. What-a-surprise.


The character Hilary Swank plays is not heroic in any shape or form. She doesn't come out with it, or stand against adversity or anything like that. In fact, the character she plays like practically every other character in this movie, is deplorable. Stealing cars, jumping bail. Lying to everyone. Picking fights with people in bars. Stealing from shops. Endangering people putting a roof over his/her head. Hilary Swanks character is wreckless, totally self-serving and dim as a brick. It might be more "realistic" but that doesn't make it a better movie. In fact, the movie has no freaking message. It's just a nasty peice of crap as far as i'm concerned. And like I said , without the need for a gif, the character brought it upon his and/or her self. It happend out of her own construction. And it has bugger all to do with facing up to adversity.

It's worth noting here as well, when the phyco she hangs around with (who prevously said he would kill her if she went to the police) comes to shoot her up, it's in a home with the person who is putting a roof over her head (because shes a absolute scrounger and earlyer in the movie endangers someone else who was putting a roof over her head), the nice lady looking after her gets shot in the belly in front of her something month old daughter in the same room. Well done you. With your self imposed ignorance and a diminished sense of responsibly, only giving two craps about your own needs. Repulsive character.

I honestly don't see the need to argue with it, because it argues pretty well with itself in it's own self-imploding nonsensical logic. All you have to do is pick out 'bring it on his/her self', and boom, you already show you not only completely missed the point, but have a pretty repulsive mindset about the whole thing.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I honestly don't see the need to argue with it, because it argues pretty well with itself in it's own self-imploding nonsensical logic. All you have to do is pick out 'bring it on his/her self', and boom, you already show you not only completely missed the point, but have a pretty repulsive mindset about the whole thing.

Again, you haven't argued whats "repulsive" (thanks for the other insult btw) and "nonsensical logic".

If someone walked around Afghanistan in taliban held territory wearing a press sign saying "America owns" would the person (after getting whatever horrible fate happend) have brought it on themselfs for being naive and stupid? Obviously. Would it make the event of whatever terrible thing happend to them acceptable? No. Of course not. And yes, I stole that from Die Hard 3.

" 'bring it on his/her self' How exactly am I wrong here? To be clear, for a third time I am not saying the character she plays deserves it because of her sexual orientation nor does the term "bnng it on his/her self" means what happens to her is excusable in any shape of form. However, she is almost entirely responsible for shaping the events that lead up to what happens to her, through her own self centered and deliberately ignorant attitude (read my original post). She is also arguably responsible for ruining the family as well partly responsible for the murder than takes place, as well as endangering a child.


And because I knew you would reply most likely lording it up with PC brigade attitude I actually check back on the DVD.

What I said here


It's worth noting here as well, when the phyco she hangs around with (who prevously said he would kill her if she went to the police) comes to shoot her up, it's in a home with the person who is putting a roof over her head (because shes a absolute scrounger and earlyer in the movie endangers someone else who was putting a roof over her head), the nice lady looking after her gets shot in the belly in front of her something month old daughter in the same room. Well done you. With your self imposed ignorance and a diminished sense of responsibly, only giving two craps about your own needs. Repulsive characte.

Was wrong.

What actually happens, is that Hilary Swanks isn't in the house, she appears to be relegated to a shed outside. When the phycotic bro's shes been hanging around with do come to shoot her up with her girl-freind shouting warning that they have a gun on (again to reiterate, she had prior warning they would try to kill her) what she actually does, is run into the home of the young lady with the child, without warning them or telling them to get out of the house. Who then stumbles into the situation with a her not even one year old child in the same room as the bloody shooting and stabbing.

So, upon re-watching this scene, the character appears to be even more self-serving completely disregarding the value and in fact, not even taking into account the lifes of others, including children.

Oh but i'm sho bad! I do mexican waves to rape and murder!

Missing the point? You know, if the character somehow faced up to adversity, or had at least some redeeming qualities (like caring for other human beings, thats generally a decent starting point) then I may have got it. At this point though, I don't have the incentive to care. This isn't a good movie imo. It's a bad movie, with good performances. It gets alot of extra attention (undeserved) from the Mathew Shepard murder.

If you are reading my very important post (possibly the most important) gay rights activists, or, whatever group is holding this movie high on a pedestal, please, use another movie.

Try "the Naked Civil Servant" this is an excellent movie with a character that isn't a slimeball and actually does attempt to stand up to adversity. It also has a fine performance by John Hurt. Arguably his best, in fact. This is a wonderful movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073438/

[DyeLorean]

I really don't care who the aliens are in The Avengers.

[A Necessary Evil]

Jake Lloyd wasnt bad in TPM. he had a few cringeworthy scenes, but to be fair, some dialouge was kinda ehhh; so I cant really fault him for that.

[gwynplaine]

Didn't like Safe House. I usually enjoy Denzel's work, but it feels like he is not trying really hard these days.

[Tron Bonne]

Again, you haven't argued whats "repulsive" (thanks for the other insult btw) and "nonsensical logic".

Yeah, and like I said before, I'm not really going to bother with arguing about it either, because it's just a waste of time. Your posts argue against themselves well enough.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Yeah, and like I said before, I'm not really going to bother with arguing about it either, because it's just a waste of time.


Yet your replying now for the third time as well as using multiple edits on your posts. So clearly it is worth your time as well as personal effort. I'v been very civil about the matter and requested multiple times for something beyond a knee jerk anti-response. Apparently you have no interest in that and would rather lower the discussion to fairly substanceless knee jerks. If you have nothing constructive to input, then don't waste your time, or mine for that matter.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Yet your replying now for the third time as well as using multiple edits on your posts. So clearly it is worth your time as well as personal effort. I'v been very civil about the matter and requested multiple times for something beyond a knee jerk anti-response. Apparently you have no interest in that and would rather lower the discussion to fairly substanceless knee jerks. If you have nothing constructive to input, then don't waste your time, or mine for that matter.

The fact you are saying the person brought it on themselves, is no different from saying that the woman in 'the Accused' brought it on herself.
The bar patrons thought of her as promiscuous, so what did it matter if they gang raped her, part of the point of that story is that no matter what she did in her social life, it wasn't her fault she got raped.
Same goes here.
It doesn't matter whether you think she's selfish, stupid or careless in the way she lived her life, it's not her fault she got raped.
Plenty of young people live their lives while making stupid mistakes, but she was trying to live her live, trying to live with someone she loved, who happened to live in an area that was populated with prejudiced people.
It's not like that example you posted, of someone walking down the street with a sign round their neck, looking to get shot. That's not someone trying to live their life.

[Tron Bonne]

Yet your replying now for the third time as well as using multiple edits on your posts. So clearly it is worth your time as well as personal effort. I'v been very civil about the matter and requested multiple times for something beyond a knee jerk anti-response. Apparently you have no interest in that and would rather lower the discussion to fairly substanceless knee jerks. If you have nothing constructive to input, then don't waste your time, or mine for that matter.

Hm, I'm pretty sure I didn't even edit that post you're quoting :/ And, you know, calling out a substanceless with a 'I must have the last word' post that just adds to what you're criticizing is pretty counter-productive, don't ya think?

I mean, yeah, I could rebut all your points and all, but honestly, I just don't find it worth the effort, because 1) you may just be saying something controversial just to troll or 2) anyone subscribing to your looping logic probably can't be convinced otherwise, so it would, indeed, be a waste of both our time, and 3) I'm being kinda serious about your points arguing against themselves. I mainly pointed it out as ridiculous, because it is ridiculous. If that's such an issue for you, I guess you should probably either not reply again and let your tirade die, or put me on your ignore list.

[Rowsdower!]

I'm not sure how this ranks on the "unpopular opinion" scale but I don't find The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo all that shocking; the film or the movie. Of course, there are brutal and horrifying things that happen in there but I think I've just been desensitized by graphic violence in movies and books that it's gotten to the point where it takes a lot to really shock me. What happens in there is like a Disney cartoon compared to a book like American Psycho or a movie like I Saw the Devil. I don't know, what do you guys think?

The reason I bring this up is because whenever I talk to anyone about that book or film, they seem to act like it's the most shocking, horrifying thing ever created and I'm like, "Really?" It's still an excellent book and a good movie but I think that the people who found it absolutely horrifying would have a heart attack if they watched something like Martyrs.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I mean, yeah, I could rebut all your points and all, but honestly, I just don't find it worth the effort, because 1) you may just be saying something controversial just to troll or list.


While I appreciate you taking the effort to make a lengthy rebuttel fully explaining your position on the matter. I do think you seem to have missed the point of the thread.

The title of the thread is "state your unpopular film related opinion". And by all intent and purposes, this is the purpose of the thread. If you were expecting anything other than that, then you are probably in the wrong thread. My opinion and the thread serves it's purpose. Unpopular opinions, alot of the time, tend to be controversial. This tends to lead to heated discussions, which is fine. For the most part, they tend to be more interesting because of it, which is why I feel this is a very good thread. Alot of valid points are brought up that challange me own point of view.

I feel though, you didn't come here from that, you seem to have a self importance to the point that you somehow think you are above it. Yet, here you are, partaking in it. Aside from being pretentious, it's hypocritical and by your own admission, a waste of time. So I will ask you again, please don't waste my time. If this is well below you, no one is forcing you to post.


The fact you are saying the person brought it on themselves, is no different from saying that the woman in 'the Accused' brought it on herself.

Have you watched the movie recently or are you disagreeing with me on some politically correct principle?

To re-explain the situation again.

1. It is established the people she is hanging around with have been in prison for a violent crime. They are macho dude-bro biggots, this is established right at the beginning of the movie.

2. It is explained to her by her cuisin that the attitude they have is to "hang *derogotry word down their*

3. It is explained by one of the people who has been in prison that the main character who eventually kills and rapes her is psychotic with no impulsive control.

4. She herself breaks lies for an extended period of time to everyone involved. She is almost caught out several time. i.e. she is speeding and almost goes off a cliff when caught by the police (with the people who will eventually murder her) she lies to the police officer about who exactly she is. By fluke (or bad plot twist more likely) the police officers computer used for ID'ing people, does not work. Later (because of her own self centered attitude of avoiding the court) she is caught out.

5. Even after being caught out (again, she hides what she is, nothing heroic about the character) she attempts to sneak into the home. This is after being threatend with murder.

Now hypothetically lets say me or you was a (not yet like the movie) transsexual. A man born in a womans body. If we hang around with these people for months, lying to them about a subject they would obviously and more than likely take offense too in a violent manner (and take into account, we are perfectly aware of this, we have been warned multiple times and it is obvious from the characters behaviour ) are we in any way shape or form to be held accountable for the eventual outside? The answer here is to me seems to be, absolutely. If the character has common sense or any form of responsbility for others, this wouldn't have happened.

The distinction here which appears to be wholly ignored is that your arguement seems to be that I personally think it is justifiable, which I can assure you, is not the case. What happens to her is terrible and the people involved deserve jail. Her character though, could have prevented this, so in my opinion, she does brings what happens upon herself, she also is arguably the reason someone else gets murdered.



It doesn't matter whether you think she's selfish, stupid or careless

Wait, yea, it does matter, otherwise I wouldn't have cared in the first place. This isn't a sporadic or unforeseen event that couldn't have been avoided or prevented specifically through common sense. It wasn't short notice. The fact is, if she had put any cognitive thought, common sense even children are lectured on when crossing roads, the horrible messy outcome, would not have happend.




Plenty of young people live their lives while making stupid mistakes

Yea, and they usually end up in jail, dead or getting other people into trouble exactly like her character. I don't see how this is an excuse. Perhaps if she was medically handicapped in some way I may change my opinion of the character but she seems perfectly well in knowing what she was doing. For example specifically sets out and targets the drunk ( and vulnerable) girl at an early point in the movie. That shows a level for pre-planned forsight.

who happened to live in an area that was populated with prejudiced people.

She didn't live in that specific area though, she moved down to the area (which is what her cuisin warned her about). If I recall correctly, it was 70 miles away.

but she was trying to live her live

Again, this is not a get out of jail pass. Her motives for what she does in this movie, are self-serving with a complete disregard for other people.

I'm going to say something controversial here (you reading this Bonn) but if a family, any family really, not just these people in particular, found out that the boyfreind or freind they have been hanging around with for months was actually a woman dressing up as a boy, it most likely would not be a politically correct "hmm ok" responce but shouting and screaming with angry emotions for being mislead. With the symptoms listed above, it's pretty clear something in some shape or form, terrible will happen.


It's not like that example you posted, of someone walking down the street with a sign round their neck, looking to get shot. That's not someone trying to live their life.

I don't see how this is an excause for being stupid and irresponsible. The thing about "living her life". It's not just "her life" she is influencing It's everyone else, which she is completely disregarding.

I mean, lets say for example, when she reveals (eventually) that she is a girl. What if Cloe Sevingny's character rejected her and was so distraught and ashamed that she had personal and sexual relations she done something harmfull, maybe even suicide? Would this deceitful self-serving attitude be "just living her life"? Hell no. Thats a scumbag move.

Indeed if I personally found out my girlfriend was a man (and indeed most people) thats exactly how I would feel. Angry and ashamed to have been mislead in such a manner.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I'll read your post later, I don't have time to read and reply to such a lengthy post right now.

[Max J Power]

I'm not sure how this ranks on the "unpopular opinion" scale but I don't find The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo all that shocking; the film or the movie. Of course, there are brutal and horrifying things that happen in there but I think I've just been desensitized by graphic violence in movies and books that it's gotten to the point where it takes a lot to really shock me. What happens in there is like a Disney cartoon compared to a book like American Psycho or a movie like I Saw the Devil. I don't know, what do you guys think?

The reason I bring this up is because whenever I talk to anyone about that book or film, they seem to act like it's the most shocking, horrifying thing ever created and I'm like, "Really?" It's still an excellent book and a good movie but I think that the people who found it absolutely horrifying would have a heart attack if they watched something like Martyrs.
I wasn't appalled by the book either (I haven't seen the movie versions yet). It's graphic, but I knew what I was getting into. And if I hadn't known the book had a lot of rape (its reputation was well established by the time I read it), I think it would have been a case where the book wasn't what I was expecting than something that profoundly disturbed me.

I did find myself wondering if there was really that much rape in such a small area (the town where the story took place, not Sweden as a whole), though.

[gwynplaine]

I thought the first 2 Hostel movies were pretty well written. I can see how some people could be turned off by the "Grand Guignol" aspect, but they were decent films imo. I still remember the scene where the 2 businessmen are jogging in the second one. Really good scene, very creepy without a single drop of blood or any shock value.

[munchie64]

I'm not sure how this ranks on the "unpopular opinion" scale but I don't find The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo all that shocking; the film or the movie. Of course, there are brutal and horrifying things that happen in there but I think I've just been desensitized by graphic violence in movies and books that it's gotten to the point where it takes a lot to really shock me. What happens in there is like a Disney cartoon compared to a book like American Psycho or a movie like I Saw the Devil. I don't know, what do you guys think?

The reason I bring this up is because whenever I talk to anyone about that book or film, they seem to act like it's the most shocking, horrifying thing ever created and I'm like, "Really?" It's still an excellent book and a good movie but I think that the people who found it absolutely horrifying would have a heart attack if they watched something like Martyrs.
Yeah, once you've seen A Serbian Film, those things don't effect you any more :o.

TGWTDT is awesome though.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, I've heard that A Serbian Film is as disturbing as you can get. I need to move that up on my Netflix queue.

[Tron Bonne]

I appreciate you taking the effort to make a lengthy rebuttel fully explaining your position on the matter.

Thanks

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I thought the first 2 Hostel movies were pretty well written. I can see how some people could be turned off by the "Grand Guignol" aspect, but they were decent films imo. I still remember the scene where the 2 businessmen are jogging in the second one. Really good scene, very creepy without a single drop of blood or any shock value.

The original kinda get labled at "torture porn" but it does a fairly decent job of building up to that point than just jumping to it into schlocky.
This also holds some reality with it (albeit after the release). The Dnepopetrovsk manics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs) allegedly made snuff videos because they were going to get paid by welthy foreigners for providing the material.

The prosecution did not establish a specific motive behind the killings. Local media reported that the killers had a plan to get rich from the murder videos that they recorded. One of the suspects' girlfriends reported that they were planning to make forty videos of separate murders. This was corroborated by the suspects' former classmate, who claimed that he often heard Suprunyuck was in contact with an unknown "rich foreign website operator" who ordered forty snuff videos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film), and would pay a large sum of money once they were made


Given how many shock sites their are on the internet and how popular they are, this wouldn't be surprising. The videos themselfs did end up leaked on the internet and on several shock sites becoming (god help humanity) popular with youtube videos of "3 guys 1 hammer" reaction videos like it was some sort of fun meme. Thats even more messed up than the concept of the movie imo.

[EML420]

I kind of wonder if movies like Hostel and Saw reflect in a way how desensitized a generation is. I can watch movies like that and im not really bothered.

Im kinda jumping into a topic ive wanted to talk about and this seems the place to do it. But can movies these days do any thing edgy or controversial? If you look back movies like Dirty Harry Straw dogs and many others were a hot topic and it seems that now nothing is really able to push boundries.

[Majik1387]

So I know I'm like 3-4 years late, but Bandslam was a decently good movie. I remember the trailers at the time trying to make it look like some big teen musical, but it actually was more like School of Rock.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I kind of wonder if movies like Hostel and Saw reflect in a way how desensitized a generation is. I can watch movies like that and im not really bothered.

Im kinda jumping into a topic ive wanted to talk about and this seems the place to do it. But can movies these days do any thing edgy or controversial? If you look back movies like Dirty Harry Straw dogs and many others were a hot topic and it seems that now nothing is really able to push boundries.

I think thats absolutely the case. At this point, if you want to see grizzly death, or some weird sick crap, it takes about 30 seconds on google. This wasn't the case 20-30 years ago. Nowadays with things like 4chan and what not, it's become hip to be nihilistic and apathetic. In some ways it could be good though, forcing peoiple to be more creative with horrors and what not.

[LOBO3315a]

The first Saw movie was a masterpiece. The majority of the movie is 2 guys trying to figure out why they they are there and how to get free, with their captor obviously dead on the floor between them. The rest of them are just gore-fests, with little story and no character development. The only reason I have Saw III is because I found it it a box of stuff someone threw out.

[CConn]

I'm not sure how this ranks on the "unpopular opinion" scale but I don't find The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo all that shocking; the film or the movie. Of course, there are brutal and horrifying things that happen in there but I think I've just been desensitized by graphic violence in movies and books that it's gotten to the point where it takes a lot to really shock me. What happens in there is like a Disney cartoon compared to a book like American Psycho or a movie like I Saw the Devil. I don't know, what do you guys think?

The reason I bring this up is because whenever I talk to anyone about that book or film, they seem to act like it's the most shocking, horrifying thing ever created and I'm like, "Really?" It's still an excellent book and a good movie but I think that the people who found it absolutely horrifying would have a heart attack if they watched something like Martyrs.No, I agree.

I'm not even one to watch a lot of violent movies or anything, and the only thing that I could say was even a little unsettling, was the female on male ass rape.

I really think it was the deeper context of the film that shocked American viewers; I don't recall many movies dealing with rape and the abuse of women in quite that same way. It was powerful. And had a very real, visceral emotion to it. It wasn't just hack and slash violence like a lot of people are used to.

[Randal Graves]

The rest of them are just gore-fests, with little story and no character development.
No. They'd be a cat and mouse flicks if you took out the gore.

[Ipodman]

So I know I'm like 3-4 years late, but Bandslam was a decently good movie. I remember the trailers at the time trying to make it look like some big teen musical, but it actually was more like School of Rock.


Yeah it's 80% on RT...

[Vengeance of Bane]

This isn't movie related, but actor related. Robert Downey Jr. I used to be a huge fan of his, but in recent years it appears to me that he has basically played the same character in every movie he's in. I no he's done a lot of sequels and you have to play the same character, but the movies which are original works, he basically does the same thing again. Am I alone in my frustration?

[The Morningstar]

Not that there is anything wrong with having a constant style or persona as an actor, but yea he doesn't show as much range as he used to.

That said, I think his Holmes is totally different to his Stark, barring superficial similarities. Personally I think his Holmes is a better character than his Stark. Both awesome though.

[Vengeance of Bane]

Not that there is anything wrong with having a constant style or persona as an actor, but yea he doesn't show as much range as he used to.

That said, I think his Holmes is totally different to his Stark, barring superficial similarities. Personally I think his Holmes is a better character than his Stark. Both awesome though.

Range, that was the word I was looking for. I hope he does more challenging roles in the future.

[munchie64]

This isn't movie related, but actor related. Robert Downey Jr. I used to be a huge fan of his, but in recent years it appears to me that he has basically played the same character in every movie he's in. I no he's done a lot of sequels and you have to play the same character, but the movies which are original works, he basically does the same thing again. Am I alone in my frustration?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qzd9HIsRWeA/SZ-1JHJjaMI/AAAAAAAAU2o/sNHYDef2Rh0/s400/Robert+Downey+Jr.+in+Tropic+Thunder.jpg
:oldrazz:

[Thebumwhowalks]

Have you watched the movie recently or are you disagreeing with me on some politically correct principle?

To re-explain the situation again.

1. It is established the people she is hanging around with have been in prison for a violent crime. They are macho dude-bro biggots, this is established right at the beginning of the movie.

2. It is explained to her by her cuisin that the attitude they have is to "hang *derogotry word down their*

3. It is explained by one of the people who has been in prison that the main character who eventually kills and rapes her is psychotic with no impulsive control.

4. She herself breaks lies for an extended period of time to everyone involved. She is almost caught out several time. i.e. she is speeding and almost goes off a cliff when caught by the police (with the people who will eventually murder her) she lies to the police officer about who exactly she is. By fluke (or bad plot twist more likely) the police officers computer used for ID'ing people, does not work. Later (because of her own self centered attitude of avoiding the court) she is caught out.

5. Even after being caught out (again, she hides what she is, nothing heroic about the character) she attempts to sneak into the home. This is after being threatend with murder.

Now hypothetically lets say me or you was a (not yet like the movie) transsexual. A man born in a womans body. If we hang around with these people for months, lying to them about a subject they would obviously and more than likely take offense too in a violent manner (and take into account, we are perfectly aware of this, we have been warned multiple times and it is obvious from the characters behaviour ) are we in any way shape or form to be held accountable for the eventual outside? The answer here is to me seems to be, absolutely. If the character has common sense or any form of responsbility for others, this wouldn't have happened.

The distinction here which appears to be wholly ignored is that your arguement seems to be that I personally think it is justifiable, which I can assure you, is not the case. What happens to her is terrible and the people involved deserve jail. Her character though, could have prevented this, so in my opinion, she does brings what happens upon herself, she also is arguably the reason someone else gets murdered.





Wait, yea, it does matter, otherwise I wouldn't have cared in the first place. This isn't a sporadic or unforeseen event that couldn't have been avoided or prevented specifically through common sense. It wasn't short notice. The fact is, if she had put any cognitive thought, common sense even children are lectured on when crossing roads, the horrible messy outcome, would not have happend.






Yea, and they usually end up in jail, dead or getting other people into trouble exactly like her character. I don't see how this is an excuse. Perhaps if she was medically handicapped in some way I may change my opinion of the character but she seems perfectly well in knowing what she was doing. For example specifically sets out and targets the drunk ( and vulnerable) girl at an early point in the movie. That shows a level for pre-planned forsight.



She didn't live in that specific area though, she moved down to the area (which is what her cuisin warned her about). If I recall correctly, it was 70 miles away.



Again, this is not a get out of jail pass. Her motives for what she does in this movie, are self-serving with a complete disregard for other people.

I'm going to say something controversial here (you reading this Bonn) but if a family, any family really, not just these people in particular, found out that the boyfreind or freind they have been hanging around with for months was actually a woman dressing up as a boy, it most likely would not be a politically correct "hmm ok" responce but shouting and screaming with angry emotions for being mislead. With the symptoms listed above, it's pretty clear something in some shape or form, terrible will happen.




I don't see how this is an excause for being stupid and irresponsible. The thing about "living her life". It's not just "her life" she is influencing It's everyone else, which she is completely disregarding.

I mean, lets say for example, when she reveals (eventually) that she is a girl. What if Cloe Sevingny's character rejected her and was so distraught and ashamed that she had personal and sexual relations she done something harmfull, maybe even suicide? Would this deceitful self-serving attitude be "just living her life"? Hell no. Thats a scumbag move.

Indeed if I personally found out my girlfriend was a man (and indeed most people) thats exactly how I would feel. Angry and ashamed to have been mislead in such a manner.

Aye, I have not seen the movie in a few years, and I only saw it the once, so in order to debate properly, I should view it again.
But...I can speak about the basics of the matter as I see them, while taking into account your points.

Ok, we have to remember this is a young, probably uneducated, naive person, who is living with a condition that is probably not well understood by herself, or anyone around her.
She is living in the way that feels normal to her, probably the only way that she feels comfortable in her own skin, and hasn't grown up in a large cosmopolitan area, in fact, precisely the opposite.

When someone is in that mind-set, they are still gonna have the same reactions and desires as other people, when she sees a woman she fancies, sure, she is not gonna be confident, she is not gonna feel like she can approach in the normal way, so due to her unique position, she is gonna be tempted to make a move when the woman is drunk. And it's not like she's gonna have full on sex with her, she's looking for that emotional connection.
I'm not saying it's alright, I'm saying I sympathise.

and when she makes that connection, finds that emotional bond, after probably feeling completely out of touch with that aspect of life, she is gonna be tempted to hang onto it, probably with some vain hope of it all panning out.
even when that means having to come into contact with crazy folk who live around her, who she could be at risk from.
I can also sympathise with that.

It's not as cut and dried as you make it all out to be, people put themselves into crazy positions in life that do not make sense on paper to other people, esp when it comes to love and relationships.

That is what I mean by her trying to live her life, she starts out from a difficult position, and puts herself into increasingly difficult positions because she wants to hang onto that, and is not yet at a point where she is emotionally or intellectually able to deal with the reality of her situation.

I'm not saying the way she goes about things is right, I'm saying that I can sympathise with that.

But aye, maybe if I saw the film again, I would see some aspects I could counter argue your specific points with, but even with what you have presented, I can still sympathise with the character.
Does she 'bring it on herself'? I think there is an issue of diminished responsibility here, of a person caught in a very specific and unusual set of circumstances, lacking the education and environment to deal with her particular condition, and just wanting to feel normal and have something nice in her life like other people, so , lacking any way to deal upfront with her problem, she puts it on the backburner, not knowing how to deal with it, blundering through her life trying to find some kind of emotional connection, because she didn't have the means to see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

[gwynplaine]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qzd9HIsRWeA/SZ-1JHJjaMI/AAAAAAAAU2o/sNHYDef2Rh0/s400/Robert+Downey+Jr.+in+Tropic+Thunder.jpg
:oldrazz:
Great, underrated performance. Downey Jr. deserved an Oscar for that one. And I'm not kidding.

[DarkSovereignty]

he really became the dude playing the dude disguised as another dude.

[gwynplaine]

Haha:woot: Yeah, he did.

[humbdrumb]

Range, that was the word I was looking for. I hope he does more challenging roles in the future.

He's brilliant in Zodiac and Tropic Thunder. Go watch those plz.

[Mario_Galaxy]

This isn't movie related, but actor related. Robert Downey Jr. I used to be a huge fan of his, but in recent years it appears to me that he has basically played the same character in every movie he's in. I no he's done a lot of sequels and you have to play the same character, but the movies which are original works, he basically does the same thing again. Am I alone in my frustration?

I feel this way about Ryan Reynolds,actually. I used to really like him but now it feels more of the same. I think he needs to cool it with the comic book films too. Films like Buried seem to give him a more proper challenge

[The Morningstar]

Reynolds is a decent actor. He just picks some really awful roles and doesn't seem to challenge himself that much. His performances in Chaos Theory, Fireflies in the Garden, The Nines, Adventureland and Buried are great for him showing some range though.

But I do prefer some of his comedic roles where he keeps the same persona. Pretty crap movies but he's enjoyable in Van Wilder and Waiting... His cameo as Wade Wilson in the Wolverine film was good too. Completely stole the show when he was on screen. Proves he should have chose Deadpool over GL.

[Rowsdower!]

Great, underrated performance. Downey Jr. deserved an Oscar for that one. And I'm not kidding.

Over Ledger though? Because that's who he would have beaten out.

[Majik1387]

He deserved it over Ledger. Ledger didn't deserve his Joker win, but that's how posthumous awards tend to be.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, okay dude. Whatever. I won't deny that Ledger's death played a role in getting some votes, but his performance was better than Downey's.

[HighFivingMF]

Ledger didn't deserve his Joker win

Yes he did. That's why he got an Oscar and every other dead actor didn't besides Peter Finch.

[Rowsdower!]

Yes he did. That's why he got an Oscar and every other dead actor didn't besides Peter Finch.

Thank you.

[Majik1387]

I'm sorry, I thought this was the unpopular film opinion thread, not the Nolanite Cult boards.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I'm sorry, I thought this was the unpopular film opinion thread, not the Nolanite Cult boards.

eh, you said that 'this is how it goes with posthumous awards', and then hfmf cited the fact that only one other posthumous acting oscar has ever been awarded.
I knew pf had won one, but i didn't realise that he and ledger were the only ones, I guess that's both of us educated to that fact now.

[HighFivingMF]

I'm sorry, I thought this was the unpopular film opinion thread, not the Nolanite Cult boards.

It is the unpopular film opinion thread. Not the "State Something As A Fact Then Resort To Name-Calling When I'm Proven Wrong" thread.

[Majik1387]

eh, you said that 'this is how it goes with posthumous awards', and then hfmf cited the fact that only one other posthumous acting oscar has ever been awarded.
I knew pf had won one, but i didn't realise that he and ledger were the only ones, I guess that's both of us educated to that fact now.
Notice I said awards, and didn't specify only Oscars. Or how I didn't just specify actors.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Notice I said awards, and didn't specify only Oscars. Or how I didn't just specify actors.

Aye, I know, but it's still funny that it has been that rare in this field, and it was someone winning in this field you just happened to be talking about.

[El Payaso]

He deserved it over Ledger. Ledger didn't deserve his Joker win, but that's how posthumous awards tend to be.

That's how about every Oscar tends to be.

[Thebumwhowalks]

We can all argue all day about what movie should have won over which one at the oscars all day, and you will get many different opinions, but I do think it is incredibly unfair to attribute Ledger's win to his death. The guy put a lot of work into the role, and it pretty much ingrained itself into popular culture as soon as it hit the screens. That was due to the guy's work, no work of art gets that much kudos from the critics and general public by way of an emperor's new clothes.

and funnily enough, i have no idea who was up against Ledger in the category that year, yet I have heard this posthumous cry many times on these boards, usually dissenters cite the work of art that they think should have won instead.

and we all know the famous ones of course...forrest gump over pulp fiction....dances with wolves over pulp fiction...woody allen thinking blue velvet should have won over his own film hannah and her sisters...but I have yet to hear someone saying precisely who they think should have won over Ledger that year.

[Majik1387]

It should have been Josh Brolin honestly, then RDJ, then Ledger.

[Travesty]

He's brilliant in Zodiac and Tropic Thunder. Go watch those plz.
I thought he was really good in The Soloist, too.

I think he still has a TON of range. I don't see how you can think that, unless you're only judging his IM and Sherlock sequels.

[The Morningstar]

We can all argue all day about what movie should have won over which one at the oscars all day, and you will get many different opinions, but I do think it is incredibly unfair to attribute Ledger's win to his death. The guy put a lot of work into the role, and it pretty much ingrained itself into popular culture as soon as it hit the screens. That was due to the guy's work, no work of art gets that much kudos from the critics and general public by way of an emperor's new clothes.

and funnily enough, i have no idea who was up against Ledger in the category that year, yet I have heard this posthumous cry many times on these boards, usually dissenters cite the work of art that they think should have won instead.

and we all know the famous ones of course...forrest gump over pulp fiction....dances with wolves over pulp fiction...woody allen thinking blue velvet should have won over his own film hannah and her sisters...but I have yet to hear someone saying precisely who they think should have won over Ledger that year.

Not that i disagree about Ledger deserving to win, but the bolded... he was playing the Joker. That helps.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Not that i disagree about Ledger deserving to win, but the bolded... he was playing the Joker. That helps.

Aye, but look at the phenomenon that Batman was in 89, I didn't catch any cultural whiff of folk worshipping Jack's performance, that is, until I joined these boards.
In the broader sense, I really don't think the Joker was *that* big a deal to the general public until TDK, sure, a lot of them knew the name and image, knowing he was Batman's arch villan, but the Joker was not a big deal really until that performance, after TDK you had non-comicbook/superhero fans dressing up as him, t-shirts, the catchphrase being used in gags etc...

[Rowsdower!]

(sigh)

It's annoying how you literally can't defend anything Nolan-related on these boards anymore without being called a "Nolan cultist" or whatever. I can understand the reasoning behind it since we have a lot of people here that act as though everything Nolan has ever done is 1,000 times better than anything else, but just because someone appreciates one aspect of his movies or a particular performance, it doesn't make them a nutbar.

[Thebumwhowalks]

It should have been Josh Brolin honestly, then RDJ, then Ledger.

Actually, I forgot you said at the top of the page you thought RDJ should have won over him, haha, but y'know, that was because gwynplaine had brought him up, generally I've never heard folk say such and such should have won over him when presenting the posthumous argument.
I guess that was for ncfom, I saw the movie once, but would have to see it again to give an opinion on it. I doubt I'd agree, having seen it and not really being blown away so much that he registered in my memory particularly.
I haven't seen Tropic Thunder.

[The Morningstar]

I disagree. Batman vs Joker is a pop culture event. An event popularised by the 89 movie. Joker was a pop culture icon long before Ledger and Nolan came along. I don't see how anyone can dispute this.

I mean Ledger's Joker had a massive following before the film was even released. There was a, almost cult like quality to the fans. Some of which were pretty ****ing creepy.

There will always be that level of interest in a character like Joker, from comic book fans and non comic book fans.

A rematch of Batman vs Joker on the big screen in a big mid summer blockbuster was always, always going to be a big thing. No matter who was playing Joker.

[Travesty]

Aye, but look at the phenomenon that Batman was in 89, I didn't catch any cultural whiff of folk worshipping Jack's performance, that is, until I joined these boards.
In the broader sense, I really don't think the Joker was *that* big a deal to the general public until TDK, sure, a lot of them knew the name and image, knowing he was Batman's arch villan, but the Joker was not a big deal really until that performance, after TDK you had non-comicbook/superhero fans dressing up as him, t-shirts, the catchphrase being used in gags etc...Were you old enough in 1989? The Joker was HUGE, along with the entire Batman phenomenon. To this day, I still hear people quoting Jack's lines: "wait'll they get a load of me". There were plenty of Joker shirts, hats, belts, buttons, stickers, shoes, catch phrases, toys, comics, etc etc.

Ledger didn't make The Joker popular, The Joker made The Joker popular.

[Rowsdower!]

I agree that the Joker is probably the most popular supervillain out there and TDK would have been a hit no matter what, BUT Ledger's performance really put it over the top. I've met people who thought the rest of the movie was crap but loved his performance. Now, I personally don't agree with that assessment, but the point is, it was a very well-crafted character and a lot of the credit for that must go to the actor. He could have just as easily done a Joker that was similar in characterization to Nicholson (who I also liked in the role) but it wouldn't have been as memorable.

[Thebumwhowalks]

okokok, haha, maybe you guys are right, I just never really heard folk go on about Jack's joker that much at the time, I mean, is it even held to be one of Nicolson's best performances? Surely if it was held in such high regard he would have got a best supporting actor nod? and this is not a cue for someone to come in and say 'sure he would've if he had died!!', haha, he was obviously an actor on the radar of *all* the members of the academy, yet got no nomination.

and I know about all the 89 merchandise, of course there was some Joker merchandise.
there was craploads of Batman89 merch sold in my city at the time, and all i could see was Batman stuff, whereas in 2008, all i could see was Joker stuff, and I'm talking in terms of people wearing t-shirts and caps.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I agree that the Joker is probably the most popular supervillain out there and TDK would have been a hit no matter what, BUT Ledger's performance really put it over the top. I've met people who thought the rest of the movie was crap but loved his performance. Now, I personally don't agree with that assessment, but the point is, it was a very well-crafted character and a lot of the credit for that must go to the actor. He could have just as easily done a Joker that was similar in characterization to Nicholson (who I also liked in the role) but it wouldn't have been as memorable.

and i think we have to remember that outside of fandoms such as this, the general public don't have a favourite super-villan, they might have a fav superhero, who is usually one of the most famous ones, but not a fav super-villan...that is, until a performance such as Ledger's hits the screens, that is what I am getting at.

[Majik1387]

No, a lot of the general audience will still say Darth Vader and other non-comic movie antagonists as their favorite villains.

[Travesty]

and i think we have to remember that outside of fandoms such as this, the general public don't have a favourite super-villan, they might have a fav superhero, who is usually one of the most famous ones, but not a fav super-villan...that is, until a performance such as Ledger's hits the screens, that is what I am getting at.Many members of the GA can fall in love with the villain. A LOT of non-bat nerds I know have always talked about how much they loved Nicholson's Joker. Even before the TDK came out, all I heard was, "well, can he top Nicholson's great performance".

It's almost like you're saying that nobody could really like Darth Vader, cause he wasn't the hero. People will always root for the bad guy if it's done correctly, and The Joker in B89 was of no exception. It was a great performance, and people of the time loved it, and people love it to this day.

[Travesty]

No, a lot of the general audience will still say Darth Vader and other non-comic movie antagonists as their favorite villains.Damn it, I was late on the Vader comparison. :argh::oldrazz:

[The Morningstar]

Joker was definitely peoples favourite comic book super villain. Probably because Joker is the only comic book super villain they've heard of. Joker is one of those villains that is just as big as the hero.

[Parker Wayne]

^ This. I figure this is the list of the most popular supervillains (I'm not saying it's the best in movies, just the most popular supervillains of all of pop culture)

Joker
Lex Luthor
Venom
Magneto
Some other Batman villain (Two-Face or Riddler?)

[The Morningstar]

Yea Lex Luthor is right up there with Joker. I'd throw Dr Doom into the mix too maybe.

[Parker Wayne]

I was thinking that, but I was wondering how relevant Dr. Doom is to pop culture because I think know The Fantastic Four is, but while I'm not saying Dr. Doom isn't that popular, I have my doubts.

[Majik1387]

Venom's not that popular outside of the comic world either.

[HighFivingMF]

I'm gonna say Joker, Lex, and Catwoman.

[Parker Wayne]

Venom's not that popular outside of the comic world either.

Eh... I'd say he's the most popular Spider-man villain outside of the comic world. Not saying he's the best, but he was huge in the 90s and early 2000s.

[The Morningstar]

Catwoman is a good shout.

I think Dr Doom is probably well known by his name alone. I mean, someone might not recognise him or know anything about him. But the name, Dr Doom? Yea, i'd reckon so.

[Parker Wayne]

I forgot about Catwoman. I guess it's because she's more an anti-hero than complete villain these days. Yeah, she's definitely up there.

[Travesty]

But the GA still views her as a villain, and really, she still is sometimes. It's just Batman gives her more of a break when she's doing her more "villainous" activities.

[Parker Wayne]

I'm definitely not disagreeing with that. :yay:

I just didn't think of her instantly because I view her as an antihero, but she definitely counts as a villain also.

[El Payaso]

Not that i disagree about Ledger deserving to win, but the bolded... he was playing the Joker. That helps.

And he died a young talented actor. That helped a freeking lot too.


and i think we have to remember that outside of fandoms such as this, the general public don't have a favourite super-villan, they might have a fav superhero, who is usually one of the most famous ones, but not a fav super-villan...that is, until a performance such as Ledger's hits the screens, that is what I am getting at.

General audiences don't care too much about comics. But when a young talented actor/singer dies tragically they turn him into a legend automatically.

[Thebumwhowalks]

General audiences don't care too much about comics. But when a young talented actor/singer dies tragically they turn him into a legend automatically.

Aye, this is true of course, but I do think that this was one of those times where there was an iconic performance there for them to focus on as well, it wasn't just a great onscreen villan, it was one of the all time greats, it was a legendary acting performance, he didn't need the added cache of dying before his time to earn that kind of reputation for that bit of work.

Many members of the GA can fall in love with the villain. A LOT of non-bat nerds I know have always talked about how much they loved Nicholson's Joker. Even before the TDK came out, all I heard was, "well, can he top Nicholson's great performance".

It's almost like you're saying that nobody could really like Darth Vader, cause he wasn't the hero. People will always root for the bad guy if it's done correctly, and The Joker in B89 was of no exception. It was a great performance, and people of the time loved it, and people love it to this day.

Ok, fair enough, I never heard anything like that outside of these boards, and even then I was surprised.
What I think was the difference in general perception was that people may have enjoyed Jack's Joker, but anyone who has seen him go all out in roles in similar ways like Cuckoo's Nest and the Shining, well, they would go away from Batman89 with the knowledge that they'd seen a great Jack Nicolson performance. This is perhaps unfair to JN, as he did a v good faithful Joker, but the point remains, they had seen something like it before in his previous movies.
Whereas, with Ledger, people went away thinking 'Holy Crap, the Joker is a great villan!', because they'd never seen anything like that before onscreen, and felt like they'd seen the Joker, and only afterwards, did they think about the fact it was Heath Ledger.
sure, in literal terms, they went there with his death in mind, fully concious it was Ledger, but, they did not see him onscreen once they sat down to the film, they saw a whole other guy, a villan they'd never seen before. So, they did not go away as HL fans particularly, but as Joker fans, because in their minds, as opposed to with Nicolson, that was who they had been watching, and that was why Ledger was so lauded.

[gwynplaine]

Over Ledger though? Because that's who he would have beaten out.
Good point:up: I can't believe I forgot about that one:o (Thanks for reminding me.)
Ledger's Joker was the best performance that year (and one of the most impressive cinematic performances ever for that matter). He won fair and square and I couldn't agree less with people who say he got it because he died.

[DarkSovereignty]

Good point:up: I can't believe I forgot about that one:o (Thanks for reminding me.)
Ledger's Joker was the best performance that year (and one of the most impressive cinematic performances ever for that matter). He won fair and square and I couldn't agree less with people who say he got it because he died.
I wouldn't go that far, but he certainly did deserve recognition. and as somebody who thought the dark knight was awesome, and still does to an extent, the fans have some what killed that movie for me. people make it out to be the greatest movie ever made, but if it weren't for ledgers joker it wouldn't have gotten nearly as much praise as it got.

[gwynplaine]

I love movie villains and to me Ledger's performance is right up there with Perkins's Norman Bates, McDowell's Alex DeLarge, Mitchum's Reverend Powell or Hopkins' Hannibal, which are some of my favorite performances ever. Regardless of how awesome the movie around him is or is not or how deluded the fans are, the guy poured his soul into my favorite character and for me it was like seeing a young Brando or a young Nicholson (emphasis on young in Nicholson's case:cwink:).
Yes, he was that good:woot::csad:

[DarkSovereignty]

oh no doubt, he's what made that movie.

[El Payaso]

Aye, this is true of course, but I do think that this was one of those times where there was an iconic performance there for them to focus on as well, it wasn't just a great onscreen villan, it was one of the all time greats, it was a legendary acting performance, he didn't need the added cache of dying before his time to earn that kind of reputation for that bit of work.

Man, with the Joker, there's NO way at all that it can't be iconic. And for "legendary" I have to say I'm listening the fan here. As I said - and you agreed with that - a talent that dies young becomes a legend automatically. Ledger didn't need to die to become a great actor, but his death was all over the audience's minds long before they went and actually saw the movie.

[Parker Wayne]

I wouldn't go that far, but he certainly did deserve recognition. and as somebody who thought the dark knight was awesome, and still does to an extent, the fans have some what killed that movie for me. people make it out to be the greatest movie ever made, but if it weren't for ledgers joker it wouldn't have gotten nearly as much praise as it got.

That's like saying "Oh, Psycho wouldn't have been that good without Perkin's Bates," or Silence of the Lambs without Lecter . :funny:

[El Payaso]

oh no doubt, he's what made that movie.

No. It was Nolan, a bunch of actors and a lot of other people. fact.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Man, with the Joker, there's NO way at all that it can't be iconic. And for "legendary" I have to say I'm listening the fan here. As I said - and you agreed with that - a talent that dies young becomes a legend automatically. Ledger didn't need to die to become a great actor, but his death was all over the audience's minds long before they went and actually saw the movie.

Ok, but there are different degrees of 'legendary' status attributed to genuinely talented actors when they die young, it's a matter of the right role at the right time.
Like, James Dean was and is still huge because of his role in RWAC, it was a movie that caught the attention of the youth of the day at just that moment when the next generation were looking for ways to break loose of the conservative trappings they had grown up in. So, he became a figurehead through that movie, and then a martyr through his death.

River Phoenix did a helluva lot more movies than him, but he never had a role or a movie that was caught in the sails of a youth movement, about the closest he got to a career defining role was My own private idaho, which was more of a niche indie movie.
Same with Brandon Lee, he died making a superhero/comicbook movie, but it was an unknown character, and he was always in the shadow of his father, so he was never attributted that top level of legendary either.

Whereas, his father did ttain that level, he brought martial arts to the west in a way it never had before, his onscreen performances had such an impact on culture that it meant his early death was top tier legendary.

and you could say the same for Heath Ledger's Joker and TDK, that role and movie went into the top tier of film history. They arn't gonna erect any statues of him, he didn't bring an ancient culture to the west like Bruce Lee did, that cultural impact went beyond film, but TDK was more of an event than Enter the Dragon. TDK did catch something in the air when it was released, it wasn't just his death that got the queues round the block, people knew there was something about this movie, and that performance was the acknowledged hook.
But, on a deeper level, people knew there was something else about that film, they *had* to see it, sure, his death played a part in getting some of them there, but I think it would have been the same type of deal with TDK even if Ledger had managed to survive his accident.
Call it the 'audience going to see the eternal battle between good and evil', everyone caught up in the ongoing wars between governments and 'terrorists', this movie distilling what was going on around them in the world, hell, look at the movie poster, Batman standing in front of a burning building, what is that gonna remind people of? People made a pilgramage to the film, it was a religious experinece, just as 'Rebel without a cause' was to the youth of America back in the 50s, people went to see themselves in Rebel, whereas with TDK, people went to see the forces beyond their control in the world, that could impact their lives forever.
So, because he died right before this epochal movie was released, and his work was art of the highest quality, that put him in the top tier of legends when it comes to this kind of thing.
But, if his art of acting had not been of the highest quality in the film, all the cultural cache of the film and his death would not have meant sh** to his legendary status, he would not be sitting at the top tier level, but in one of the lower leagues, along with the River Phoenix's and Brandon Lee's.

[DarkSovereignty]

That's like saying "Oh, Psycho wouldn't have been that good without Perkin's Bates," or Silence of the Lambs without Lecter . :funny:
actually, no, it's not, because psycho and silence of the lambs were brilliant films and among the greatest ever made. the dark knight, while it certainly raised the bar for superhero movies, isn't, I'm not saying that it was bad, but it wasn't a milestone of cinema like some people like to pretend it was.

[moviedoors]

actually, no, it's not, because psycho and silence of the lambs were brilliant films and among the greatest ever made. the dark knight, while it certainly raised the bar for superhero movies, isn't, I'm not saying that it was bad, but it wasn't a milestone of cinema like some people like to pretend it was.

Pretend? Get off it. That's how plenty of people genuinely feel. I don't mind someone not agreeing, but it riles my feathers when someone suggests they're just pretending or lying to themselves about how they feel about a movie.

[Max J Power]

It should have been Josh Brolin honestly, then RDJ, then Ledger.
Milk is a great movie and Brolin's performance was wonderfully subdued. Sean Penn's performance was Oscar-worthy as well, although it would have been far more meaningful for Mickey Rourke to win Best Actor.

I love movie villains and to me Ledger's performance is right up there with Perkins's Norman Bates, McDowell's Alex DeLarge, Mitchum's Reverend Powell or Hopkins' Hannibal, which are some of my favorite performances ever. Regardless of how awesome the movie around him is or is not or how deluded the fans are, the guy poured his soul into my favorite character and for me it was like seeing a young Brando or a young Nicholson (emphasis on young in Nicholson's case:cwink:).
Yes, he was that good:woot::csad:
Related Unpopular Opinion: McDowell's performance in A Clockwork Orange didn't blow me away. He was quite good, but it wasn't one of those performances where he owned the role so much that I just can't see anyone else playing it. The Oscars made the right choice picking Gene Hackman in The French Connection for Best Actor that year.

[Sloth7d]

On that note, I should mention I didn't really care for Silence of the Lambs, and while I like Psycho enough, it's not that big a deal to me.

[A Necessary Evil]

Here's mine :

Although still the worst of the saga, I find AOTC to be a good (although if edited a bit, better) movie.

[KingMob]

Scott Pilgrim is a fantastic movie....is that unpopular? It didn't do well and I don't really know anyone besides myself that have seen it.

The Kill Bill movies were meh.

[A Necessary Evil]

I love scott pilgrim!

[moviedoors]

Related Unpopular Opinion: McDowell's performance in A Clockwork Orange didn't blow me away. He was quite good, but it wasn't one of those performances where he owned the role so much that I just can't see anyone else playing it. The Oscars made the right choice picking Gene Hackman in The French Connection for Best Actor that year.

I agree with that. While I immensely admire the craftsmanship in A Clockwork Orange, I have never been able to figure out just what Kubrick was trying to say with it. For me it ranges between being muddled and playing with a stacked deck. It's certainly not a bad film, but I think it's far away from being Kubrick's masterpiece. It's got nothing on 2001 or Dr. Strangelove. I put it on equal footing with Full Metal Jacket, another Kubrick flick I have some issues with. Hell, I get more out of Eyes Wide Shut than I do A Clockwork Orange, but then again I think Eyes Wide Shut is under-appreciated. So yeah, I don't think McDowell's Alex compares to Ledger's Joker or Perkin's Norman. Those are performances so transcendentally good that long after the mechanizations of the plot are no longer enthralling in and of themselves (because I've seen them so many freakin' times) those performances are endlessly watchable. I can watch Psycho or The Dark Knight and just marvel at the depths to be plumbed in those characters, and I can't say that about Alex. I just never got it.

And The French Connection is a flat out great movie. I feel like since I discovered it like 15 years ago, it's started to fall off the map, relatively speaking. I don't hear people talking about it as much as I'd like them to be, and it's classic enough to deserve that, 40+ years later. I'd program it in an obsession-fest alongside Zodiac and The Vanishing, were I in charge of such things.

[The Navigator]

It's got nothing on 2001 or Dr. Strangelove. I put it on equal footing with Full Metal Jacket, another Kubrick flick I have some issues with.

My unpopular opinion--I have no idea why people crap all over the second half of FMJ (except for not having R Lee Ermey in it, but that wasn't gonna happen anyway). It's messy and unstructured, but i'm pretty sure that was the point.

FMJ > Platoon.

[The Morningstar]

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with the second half of FMJ.

But I still prefer Platoon, if only for Berenger's Barnes, one of the most underrated movie villains ever.

[moviedoors]

Yeah, I'm in the "don't much care for the second half" camp on Full Metal Jacket. It just doesn't move me in anyway other than just being kinda dull.

I do think it would have hit me harder had I not seen Platoon first. After Apocalypse Now, that's THE 'Nam movie. While Apocalypse Now is a perfect portrait of madness, Platoon is a full on tragedy. Its focus on the human cost of war levels me. When I was in my early teens, I was obsessed with Platoon. Full Metal Jacket doesn't even approach the madness or the tragedy of those two movies. The first half has something very powerful to say about dehumanizing a person, but the second half falls flat.

I must have watched Platoon 20-some-odd-times times when I was 14. When I watch it now it turns me into a sobbing idiot. The worst antics of Charlie Sheen have done nothing to diminish how hard that movie hits me.

[The Morningstar]

Oh i love Platoon. My experience with it seems similar to yours. I went through a period where i watched it like, at least once a week.

Unpopular opinion to go along with that: Berenger's Barnes is a better villain than Ledger's Joker. And the performance of Berenger was just as good. Talk about disappearing into a role? There wasn't anything left of Berenger in that performance. Nothing. He was Barnes. And the character was great, sorta like a little devil on Taylor's shoulder, pushing him towards the dark, trying to corrupt him. He succeeded in the end, where the Joker failed.

"Death? What y'all know bout death?"

[moviedoors]

I think Willem Defoe deserves just as much praise as Berenger. Elias has seen so much death and violence, but he has a moral compass that is still believable. That character isn't a reach. Without Elias, Barnes wouldn't be the great character that he is. They're Ying and Yang.

[The Morningstar]

Very true. Both amazing performances and characters. But I found Berenger's Barnes more... magnetic?

I mean the part after he frags Elias and Taylor and King and co are in the bunker talking about killing him, then he just strolls in, pissed as a fart and talks to them like they are a bunch of children is just amazing.

I also loved the part where he tells McGinley's character, who seems to be the closest thing he has to a friend, that "everybody gotta die sometime".

[moviedoors]

I understand that, it's just never been quite my own experience with it. I guess I always saw Barnes as a man that's been completely corrupted by the war, so corrupted that he's beyond redemption. When he fires the gun into that forehead, he's gone too far (the build in that scene is genius. It makes you empathize with the frustration that leads to a massacre, and then it pushes everything too far. As a film, it crosses the line in such a thematically resonant way). I suppose I've always found the more magnetic character the one who stared into that abyss and didn't completely lose his soul.

And to bring it back FMJ, after those two great characters that exit after the first half, there is not one character I care about even a little bit. Not one. Nothing hurts. Platoon hurts. I cared about that whole company.

[Thebumwhowalks]

actually, no, it's not, because psycho and silence of the lambs were brilliant films and among the greatest ever made. the dark knight, while it certainly raised the bar for superhero movies, isn't, I'm not saying that it was bad, but it wasn't a milestone of cinema like some people like to pretend it was.

If you are referring to my post at all, I was talking in terms of it being a cultural phenomenon.
edit: Film history doesn't just encompass the best, it is also marked by those 'once in a decade' films that grabbed the public's imaginations in such a way as it became one of the top grossing films of all time, with a performance that will be referred to for as long as films are around. Yes, what it did do, artwise, was elevate it's genre, which is still in it's fledgling stages.

edit: It's one of my fav movies to watch, but I am well aware a lot of that is to do with the heightened sense that Batman's universe brings to the film, I am well aware of problems the film has in tieing it's story together, esp in the last act, which I have went on about before.

edit: But, if that final act was as well put together as the preceding, my taking into account the fact it's the BM universe would be irrelevant, I *would* consider it one of the best films ever made.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

And to bring it back FMJ, after those two great characters that exit after the first half, there is not one character I care about even a little bit. Not one. Nothing hurts. Platoon hurts. I cared about that whole company.

Thats the the point though. The start tof the movie is conditioning them to become a tool of war. Thats the entire reason Gomer flips out because he is unable (and too weak) to adjust to it. It isn't until the very end of the movie with the lady begging to be killed that you get the human element. To me that is one of the best scenes in any war movie.

[The Morningstar]

And then it offsets that with them chanting M.I.C.K.E.Y M.O.U.S.E MICKEY MOUSE!

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

And then it offsets that with them chanting M.I.C.K.E.Y M.O.U.S.E MICKEY MOUSE!

I don't see how that offsets it at all. The mentality is to show complete apathy and joy in the destruction on the enemys. They are singing that while walking to a backround of what looks like hell on earth. It's an excellent ending scene.

[The Morningstar]

Well that's what i meant. It's a twisted irony that they are singing the frickin Mickey Mouse Club song. The genius of Kubrick.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Oh, ok.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Thats the the point though. The start tof the movie is conditioning them to become a tool of war. Thats the entire reason Gomer flips out because he is unable (and too weak) to adjust to it.

If a soldier was suffering from a form of physical brain damage, the strongest would be fine with the actual tests and tasks, but there is those members of the team who go too far, and take advantage of a wounded soldier, and try to break his mind for personal reasons.
Then other innocent people get caught in the crossfire, and the members who go too far know this will happen, but feel they can then blame the wounded brain damaged soldier.

[DarkSovereignty]

If you are referring to my post at all, I was talking in terms of it being a cultural phenomenon.
edit: Film history doesn't just encompass the best, it is also marked by those 'once in a decade' films that grabbed the public's imaginations in such a way as it became one of the top grossing films of all time, with a performance that will be referred to for as long as films are around. Yes, what it did do, artwise, was elevate it's genre, which is still in it's fledgling stages.

edit: It's one of my fav movies to watch, but I am well aware a lot of that is to do with the heightened sense that Batman's universe brings to the film, I am well aware of problems the film has in tieing it's story together, esp in the last act, which I have went on about before.

edit: But, if that final act was as well put together as the preceding, my taking into account the fact it's the BM universe would be irrelevant, I *would* consider it one of the best films ever made.

it wasn't directed at you, just a general statement. also, I'll amend what I said and recant the notion that people like to "pretend" that TDK is a milestone of cinema, I simply disagree with that.

[Travesty]

it wasn't directed at you, just a general statement. also, I'll amend what I said and recant the notion that people like to "pretend" that TDK is a milestone of cinema, I simply disagree with that.They also act like it's a milestone in comicbook movies, and I disagree with that, too.

[DarkSovereignty]

yeah, I much prefer Iron Man or the richard donner cut of Superman II.

[Thebumwhowalks]

They also act like it's a milestone in comicbook movies, and I disagree with that, too.

Well, I would say it elevated the genre by primarily dealing with the psychology of the people involved, just as a straight, serious dramatic movie would. It doesn't just throw all that away at any point in the film, just so's they can have a big special effects laden punch and laser festival, like just about every sh movie I can think of does.
The movie starts off with that premise and sticks with it until the end.

It also doesn't sacrifice any of the thrills of a comic-book superhero movie in doing so.

[DarkSovereignty]

aang lee's hulk did the same thing pretty much, as well as tim burton's batman returns. and spiderman 2. But I'm not going to continue arguing because I did actually like TDK and don't feel like ripping it apart today.

[Blue Sugar]

I think all of the Matrix films are mediocre and the one I got the most amount of enjoyment out of was not the first one but the second. A very overrated franchise as a whole, even with the fact that two thirds of it are not that popular.

[DarkSovereignty]

I haven't actually seen any of the matrix movies all the way through, I've only seen bits and pieces and tbh, I found it kind of silly. But I'll probably see them eventually on AMC or something.

[Travesty]

Well, I would say it elevated the genre by primarily dealing with the psychology of the people involved, just as a straight, serious dramatic movie would. It doesn't just throw all that away at any point in the film, just so's they can have a big special effects laden punch and laser festival, like just about every sh movie I can think of does.
The movie starts off with that premise and sticks with it until the end.

It also doesn't sacrifice any of the thrills of a comic-book superhero movie in doing so.
Movies like The Crow, Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, have all done this way before TDK came out.

Hell, even B89 and Returns did it before TDK. TDK hasn't elevated anything. Comic book movies have been taken "serious" for years, while also delving into the psychology of these characters. The only difference now, is that more of the GA is taking notice.

[Thebumwhowalks]

aang lee's hulk did the same thing pretty much, as well as tim burton's batman returns. and spiderman 2. But I'm not going to continue arguing because I did actually like TDK and don't feel like ripping it apart today.


I would say that Ang Lee's Hulk sacrificed the thrill of a comic-book superhero movie though, and by that I don't just mean the action, I mean the thrill of watching someone dealing with being a 'superhero' in the drama, and all that entails. The movie got bogged down in trying to bring a heavy dramatic weight to the genre, and the comic book aspect could not bear the weight.
It flipped from one extreme to the other and did not work as a result, ie went from heavy psychodrama to a big green man doing his smashing escapades, which are very fun to watch, but the drama has to make more of a natural transition to that. It was like watching a mix up of a Dogma film and a Roadrunner cartoon. Audiences did not respond to that, the general consensus was that it did not work as a whole piece.

Spider-man 2? Eh, it dealt with emotional issues, but it was not that serious in the end, the romance at the centre of that film was not dealt with in a way you could call a mature drama.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Movies like The Crow, Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, have all done this way before TDK came out.

Hell, even B89 and Returns did it before TDK. TDK hasn't elevated anything. Comic book movies have been taken "serious" for years, while also delving into the psychology of these characters. The only difference now, is that more of the GA is taking notice.

I'm talking about the superhero genre, not comic-book adaptations across the board.
Ok, we can call the Crow a sh movie though, but all the bad guys in that film are just bad guys who are bad guys because they like doing bad stuff, there is no interesting psychology at work there to watch, and the lead is just another guy out to kill them all. I haven't seen the film in about 3 years, but i don't recall any challenging drama when it came to the Crow's psychology, he was just an invincible guy picking off his enemies one by one afair.

[DarkSovereignty]

I would say that Ang Lee's Hulk sacrificed the thrill of a comic-book superhero movie though, and by that I don't just mean the action, I mean the thrill of watching someone dealing with being a 'superhero' in the drama, and all that entails. The movie got bogged down in trying to bring a heavy dramatic weight to the genre, and the comic book aspect could not bear the weight.
It flipped from one extreme to the other and did not work as a result, ie went from heavy psychodrama to a big green man doing his smashing escapades, which are very fun to watch, but the drama has to make more of a natural transition to that. It was like watching a mix up of a Dogma film and a Roadrunner cartoon. Audiences did not respond to that, the general consensus was that it did not work as a whole piece.

Spider-man 2? Eh, it dealt with emotional issues, but it was not that serious in the end, the romance at the centre of that film was not dealt with in a way you could call a mature drama.
I would disagree based on MJ's facial expression at the very end. added a bitter sweet element that even behind the glamour or being the amazing spiderman (ie. the 'final swing' from the last movie) there's still the repercussions in his personal life, MJ made the choice to be with him after he made the choice to let her go, and now she has to deal constantly worrying about him. may not be a statement about post 9/11 war on terrorism or whatever, but I'd say it's a pretty potent character/ story development captured in one facial expression.

[Travesty]

I'm talking about the superhero genre, not comic-book adaptations across the board.
Ok, we can call the Crow a sh movie though, but all the bad guys in that film are just bad guys who are bad guys because they like doing bad stuff, there is no interesting psychology at work there to watch, and the lead is just another guy out to kill them all. I haven't seen the film in about 3 years, but i don't recall any challenging drama when it came to the Crow's psychology, he was just an invincible guy picking off his enemies one by one afair.Dude, all those movies delve into the psychology of the characters. Just because it doesn't have some "oh so cool" metaphor about terrorism, doesn't mean there is no psychology in there. And how are you missing the psychology/motives in The Crow?

And the whole "they're just bad guys cause they like doing bad stuff" is just silly. TDK-Joker is the exact same way. Are you telling me you needed Nolan's spoon fed dialogue that The Joker likes creating chaos for you to finally realize that? Oh, thank you, Nolan, for letting me know that this deranged, psychopathic clown is an agent of chaos, and likes to tease Batman. I was having a hard time understanding that for all these years. I can take him "seriously", now that I understand his motives.

Like I already said: Many comic book movies have taken the characters seriously, and they have delved into their psychology. The only difference, is that most of them aren't full of post 9/11 metaphorical exposition at every turn. Is that what you need to finally have respect for these characters? That's almost an insult to the genre.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I would disagree based on MJ's facial expression at the very end. added a bitter sweet element that even behind the glamour or being the amazing spiderman (ie. the 'final swing' from the last movie) there's still the repercussions in his personal life, MJ made the choice to be with him after he made the choice to let her go, and now she has to deal constantly worrying about him. may not be a statement about post 9/11 war on terrorism or whatever, but I'd say it's a pretty potent character/ story development captured in one facial expression.

He didn't really choose to let her go did he? He felt he had no choice, if he felt he had the choice, he would have chosen to be with her.

Anyway, yes, that is a great moment, befitting of a mature drama, but the rest of it is not, it's not trying to be, it's a lightweight romantic drama.

[random_havoc]

My unpopular opinion: Iron Man is the greatest superhero movie to date. Both because it is a great movie on its own merits, and because it is more true to capturing the character of the source material than other superhero movies. (And yes, I think it's even better than the Dark Knight).

[Thebumwhowalks]

Dude, all those movies delve into the psychology of the characters. Just because it doesn't have some "oh so cool" metaphor about terrorism, doesn't mean there is no psychology in there. And how are you missing the psychology/motives in The Crow?

And the whole "they're just bad guys cause they like doing bad stuff" is just silly. TDK-Joker is the exact same way. Are you telling me you needed Nolan's spoon fed dialogue that The Joker likes creating chaos for you to finally realize that? Oh, thank you, Nolan, for letting me know that this deranged, psychopathic clown is an agent of chaos, and likes to tease Batman. I was having a hard time understanding that for all these years. I can take him "seriously", now that I understand his motives.

Like I already said: Many comic book movies have taken the characters seriously, and they have delved into their psychology. The only difference, is that most of them aren't full of post 9/11 metaphorical exposition at every turn. Is that what you need to finally have respect for these characters? That's almost an insult to the genre.


Eh, well, you have not explained to me what I am missing from the Crow in terms of it's character psychology, so how can I feel my opinion is wrong at all?

the bad guys in the Crow were just thugs who wanted to indulge in the same kind of criminal behaviour that any run of the mill crook finds fun, and the boss was just after the power and making a name for himself...the Joker was about more than that, and more than teasing Batman, he was about making people confront their own belief systems, and pushing them to a point where their beliefs would not sustain them, thereby, breaking down their sacred codes of honour, and exposing them to the hopeless, meaningless, random chaos of people and life, ie his belief system.

and no, I respect a lot of superhero tales that are not so heavy, I like all kinds of stories, it's just that I respect someone taking such a genre and making such a heavy story work, without it falling apart or feeling ridiculous.
That's why I'm talking about elevating the superhero genre, not comic-book adaptations, because superheroes are intrinsically silly at first glance, it takes a high level of skill to take that genre and have an audience sitting there taking it all as seriously as they would a straight, serious heavy drama. These tales are easier to tell if they rely on action or are camped up as light breezy romps that don't demand much.

The Alan Moore and Frank Miller comic-books already showed us that superheroes could bear such a weight if executed skillfully enough, it's only now with TDK, that we got a film that did the same kind of thing, and worked as a complete piece.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I really don't like Tim Burtons "Charlie And the Chocalate Factory". I think it's pretty much irrelevant it's closer to the source materiel, it lacks the fun and joy of the original movie and Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka is really pap compared to Gene Wilders.

These Johnny Depp collaborations with Tim Burton in general are getting increasingly worse. I'm sick of seeing him look like an aids victim.

[Travesty]

Eh, well, you have not explained to me what I am missing from the Crow in terms of it's character psychology, so how can I feel my opinion is wrong at all?
You need me to explain the motives/thought process around Eric Draven throughout the entire movie? You don't know why he sought revenge towards the men who raped and murdered his fiancee?

[DarkSovereignty]

I really don't like Tim Burtons "Charlie And the Chocalate Factory". I think it's pretty much irrelevant it's closer to the source materiel, it lacks the fun and joy of the original movie and Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka is really pap compared to Gene Wilders.

These Johnny Depp collaborations with Tim Burton in general are getting increasingly worse. I'm sick of seeing him look like an aids victim.
I don't think that's a really unpopular but I agree.

[Thebumwhowalks]

You need me to explain the motives/thought process around Eric Draven throughout the entire movie? You don't know why he sought revenge towards the men who raped and murdered his fiancee?

I meant beyond what I already typed up about the character, which was exactly that, a guy out for revenge and to kill the bad guys. How is that basic psychology elevating the genre?
What I am talking about is presenting a character's psychology in a way that challenges the audience's expectations and will make them think a little beyond the usual superhero tropes.

edit: actually, i meant to type that up about the Draven, i think i did and then edited it, but forgot to to re type it up. Y'know, I haven't seen it in over 3 yrs, but i don't recall anything about him beyond that usual character trope.

edit: oh no, i did , it was just in an earlier reply to you.

[Travesty]

I meant beyond what I already typed up about the character, which was exactly that, a guy out for revenge and to kill the bad guys. How is that basic psychology elevating the genre?
What I am talking about is presenting a character's psychology in a way that challenges the audience's expectations and will make them think a little beyond the usual superhero tropes.
So by "psychology", you mean challenging expectations?

And again, I don't think anything in TDK "challenged expectations" towards any of the characters. The Joker hasn't done anything that hasn't been seen before. You gave an example of "the Joker was about more than that, and more than teasing Batman, he was about making people confront their own belief systems, and pushing them to a point where their beliefs would not sustain them, thereby, breaking down their sacred codes of honour, and exposing them to the hopeless, meaningless, random chaos of people and life". This is no different than what we saw in Spider Man, when Green Goblin gave Spider-Man a choice to save Mary Jane or a crowd of people. The same can be said about Riddler in Forever, when he gave Batman a 50/50 ultimatum. It challenges the hero and their belief system, to see which one they choose. The only difference, is that this was a crowd of people, and in all cases within 50/50 ultimatums, the villain looses. Who would've known? If Batman didn't get to The Joker in time, the crowd would've died. If Spider-Man didn't get to the people in time, they would have died. It's no different, it's just the settings have changed. Instead of being dangled by rope, they have detonators on some ferries.

"Elevating the genre" shouldn't be about doing the same death trap scenarios that's been used many times before. All of them have the same lingering question: what's the outcome going to be? Is the obvious going to survive(Mary Jane/normal citizens of Gotham), or is the not so obvious going to survive(The random people/criminals)?

The only thing I felt that TDK "elevated" within the genre, is that the love interest died. Other than that, it's the same kind of superhero experience one would expect, with just minor tweeks to the situations, in order to fit the story.

[Thebumwhowalks]

So by "psychology", you mean challenging expectations?

And again, I don't think anything in TDK "challenged expectations" towards any of the characters. The Joker hasn't done anything that hasn't been seen before. You gave an example of "the Joker was about more than that, and more than teasing Batman, he was about making people confront their own belief systems, and pushing them to a point where their beliefs would not sustain them, thereby, breaking down their sacred codes of honour, and exposing them to the hopeless, meaningless, random chaos of people and life". This is no different than what we saw in Spider Man, when Green Goblin gave Spider-Man a choice to save Mary Jane or a crowd of people. The same can be said about Riddler in Forever, when he gave Batman a 50/50 ultimatum. It challenges the hero and their belief system, to see which one they choose. The only difference, is that this was a crowd of people, and in all cases within 50/50 ultimatums, the villain looses. Who would've known? If Batman didn't get to The Joker in time, the crowd would've died. If Spider-Man didn't get to the people in time, they would have died. It's no different, it's just the settings have changed. Instead of being dangled by rope, they have detonators on some ferries.

"Elevating the genre" shouldn't be about doing the same death trap scenarios that's been used many times before. All of them have the same lingering question: what's the outcome going to be? Is the obvious going to survive(Mary Jane/normal citizens of Gotham), or is the not so obvious going to survive(The random people/criminals)?

The only thing I felt that TDK "elevated" within the genre, is that the love interest died. Other than that, it's the same kind of superhero experience one would expect, with just minor tweeks to the situations, in order to fit the story.


Aye, sorry, my initial comment should have been a little more indepth, I guess I only use the a word like psychology when it gets a little more involved than the usual type of thing. I should've said psychology beyond the usual type of thing presented in these types of films.

Well, the Joker's method was smarter than those other death traps, and gave more food for thought, I felt, as it was , in essence, about whether the human race was worth anything, and I'm talking about the choice Batman was presented with, between saving Rachel and Harvey from those 'death traps'.
with the Spider-man and Batman examples you posed, well, one was choosing your friend over your romantic partner, and the other was about choosing to save innocent kids over the woman you loved. and there was no food for thought afterwards, they saved both of them in those movies because they were really quick, because they are superheroes!
edit: So, it was different even when just looking at the choices presented, the one in Spider-man did pose the question of the hero going for the personal love over strangers, but the one in TDK went a bit further with that trope, as one of the choices could save many more lives in the long run.


with the Joker's 'death trap', he put the choice between the 'saviour of mankind', and the woman BM loved, because Harvey was, in Bm's eyes, the people's hope.
and they put a better dramatic twist in there by having the Joker lie about who was where, so there was a deeper message contained within. Where if Batman made the choice for the greater good, that would probably save more lives in the long run, then he would get to save the person he really wanted to, the woman he loved, but he didn't, he chose her, he was, in the joker's eyes, being selfish, and so she died.
So, right there, not only do you have the love interest dying, as you say, something a bit new, but you actually have the Joker f*** with BM's head by way of twisting the choice.
So, little by little, he is making BM feel the way he does, that folk are just out for themselves, and he punishes Batman for only thinking of himself.
That's not just elevated by the killing of the love interest, it's by the drama being better written with that twist put on the choice, because it teaches BM and the audience something, if you only go all out for yourself, then you will not be rewarded, and that is why the human race fails(in the Joker's eyes).

The examples you posed, they teach you nothing, they just say, 'If you are quick enough, no-one dies, and that is what a superhero movie is, not challenging, nothing disturbing happening here, hope you had a good jolly time.'

You can call that a little 'tweak' if you want, but sometimes it's those little differences that elevate one piece of art over the other.

[random_havoc]

I haven't actually seen any of the matrix movies all the way through, I've only seen bits and pieces and tbh, I found it kind of silly. But I'll probably see them eventually on AMC or something.

The first one is my favorite movie and is all kinds of cinematic greatness. Includes aspects of 2 definite religions, a great in-depth plot, broke ground on new special effects, and great action.
The second one has awesome action and special effects, but story-wise is kinda sad (the first one is far better on its own without the sequels)
The third one is just all around terrible.

If you don't watch the first one you're really missing something.

[random_havoc]

You'll have to tell me if this one's unpopular: Hackers is a fantastic, must-see movie.

[Figs]

You'll have to tell me if this one's unpopular: Hackers is a fantastic, must-see movie.

Yes, that is indeed an unpopular opinion.

I enjoyed the movie when it came out when I was in middle school, but I don't think it aged well.

[Lord]

The Tree of Life was extremelly overrated, i don't think it deserves a nom for the oscars, it tried too much to be like 2001, it was the first time i saw people leving a film in the middle, maybe for the director every image meant something, but i think that as a movie it fails, it may have great images but i'm sincerelly tired of hearing people call it a masterpiece.

I don't find it a masterpiece, i find it kind of pretentious

[El Payaso]

The Tree of Life was extremelly overrated, i don't think it deserves a nom for the oscars, it tried too much to be like 2001, it was the first time i saw people leving a film in the middle, maybe for the director every image meant something, but i think that as a movie it fails, it may have great images but i'm sincerelly tired of hearing people call it a masterpiece.

I don't find it a masterpiece, i find it kind of pretentious

Perfect Oscar material.

[Parker Wayne]

Tree of Life is a very divisive movie at film school here. There are people who both love and hate it extremely.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Death Race (the re-make) is a better modernized B-movie than anything Tarantino or Rodriguez has done.
Tarantino hasn't done anything great in years, fanboys just cling onto him for past deeds.

[Figs]

Death Race (the re-make) is a better modernized B-movie than anything Tarantino or Rodriguez has done.
Tarantino hasn't done anything great in years, fanboys just cling onto him for past deeds.

Um, no. Some of us actually really liked Inglorious Basterds.

[Lord]

Inglourious Basterds was great

[Max J Power]

My unpopular opinion: Iron Man is the greatest superhero movie to date. Both because it is a great movie on its own merits, and because it is more true to capturing the character of the source material than other superhero movies. (And yes, I think it's even better than the Dark Knight).
I'm not sure I'd put Iron Man ahead of the first Reeve Superman movie, but otherwise I agree with everything you said.

Tree of Life is a very divisive movie at film school here. There are people who both love and hate it extremely.
The Tree of Life is probably the best film I've seen from 2011, but I think it could have been a bit shorter (closer to 2 hours, maybe). Some of the extended sequences of images that set the frame for the story but didn't advance the main plot or character development could have been pared down. I didn't get bored, though, so it's not too big a deal.