State your unpopular film related opinion - Part 8

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 373373

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 368097

[Max J Power]

Crystal Skull is way better than many fans give it credit for.

[Lord]

Fans hated it more than critics, critics mostly gave it positive reviews

[Rowsdower!]

I found myself trying really hard to like Crystal Skull as I watched it, but eventually I just had to give up.

[The Morningstar]

Same here. I enjoyed it up until the part where Indy and Mutt went to South America. From then on it was just... crap.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, people talk about the "Nuke the Fridge" thing being the moment where the movie reached maximum suckage, and while I'll concede that it was lame, it didn't kill it for me. I kept going with it. But once it got to the ants and monkeys, I was done.

Also, it should be noted that John Rhys-Davies turned down a part in the movie, and that should tell you something. Look, I love JRD, but it's not like he always picks the best material. That guy will damn near do ANYTHING for a paycheck.

[BruceWanner]

The Dark Knight is not my favorite Batman movie; I like the 1989 film much more.

[CConn]

The Dark Knight is not my favorite Batman movie; I like the 1989 film much more.Me too!

[Secret Fawful]

Crystal Skull is way better than many fans give it credit for.

This. I love the monkeys scene and damn the naysayers- I just don't see the problem. I came out of the theater constantly thinking about how cool an homage that Tarzan swinging scene was, but then everyone blew up about it and I shut up forever about it. Well, no longer.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I always liked Wild Wild West.

[Max J Power]

While most of my enjoyment of Wild Wild West comes from nostalgia, I think, without bias, that it's not that bad a movie.

[gwynplaine]

The Dark Knight is not my favorite Batman movie; I like the 1989 film much more.
TDK is the only great Batman movie. But maybe that's not such an unpopular opinion, I don't know anymore:woot:

I always liked Wild Wild West.
I always liked Wild Wild West... the TV Show:cwink:

[Travesty]

I don't even think I've seen Wild Wild West.

[bullets]

I never gave it a chance but now I'm surprised to read that maybe I should.

[Homer J. Fong]

Keep in mind, though, that liking Wild Wild West is an unpopular opinion. :funny: (I personally go with the majority in thinking it's an unfunny mess.)

[Jordacar]

Strangely, I've noticed a cluster of unaffiliated reviewers tackling Wild Wild West in the last couple of weeks; The Blockbuster Chick (http://www.agonybooth.com/video341_Wild_Wild_West_1999_Will_Smith_Salma_Haye k.aspx) (from TheAgonyBooth) and both ERod (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/blockbuster-buster/blockbuster-buster/34479-wild-wild-west) and ThatSciFiGuy (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/that-scifi-guy/that-scifi-guy/34561-wild-wild-west) from TGWTG. Better to watch those guys rake the movie over the coals than slog thru it yourself.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I'M THE MASTER OF THE MECHANICAL STUFF! p

[gwynplaine]

Keep in mind, though, that liking Wild Wild West is an unpopular opinion. :funny: (I personally go with the majority in thinking it's an unfunny mess.)
Good point:woot:

[Parker Wayne]

Gwynplaine, are you glad that your mandrake the magician movie may Finally happen?

[gwynplaine]

Gwynplaine, are you glad that your mandrake the magician movie may Finally happen?
I haven't heard about. Thanks for the info:up: Do you know any more by chance. Like who's playing Mandrake, who's directing and if it's going to be a period piece or not?

[Parker Wayne]

http://www.slashfilm.com/warner-bros-plans-hypnotize-audiences-mandrake-magician/

[gwynplaine]

Cool, thanks for the link. I just hope that Criss Angel will not be playing Mandrake. I think someone like Tom Hiddleston could pull it off and I hope it's a period piece.

[DacoitONE]

Donnie Brasco is a better movie than The Departed.

The Kiss of Death remake with Nic Cage is better than the original.

[spider-neil]

I just watched 2001 and whilst I thought the movie was visually stunning, I thought the movie was utter utter rubbish. slow, nonsensical and completely self indulgent. best science fiction movie ever made? do a ****ing favour :whatever:

[El Payaso]

I just watched 2001 and whilst I thought the movie was visually stunning, I thought the movie was utter utter rubbish. slow, nonsensical and completely self indulgent. best science fiction movie ever made? do a ****ing favour :whatever:

Do yourself the best cinematic favour ever and watch it again in a few years. And then again.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your opinion. I myself thought the same the first time I saw it.

I have quoted before here when Woody Allen thought the same about 2001. Years later he saw it a couple of times more and his perception changed 180º. He said that it was the first time he had experienced how a movie was miles ahead of him.


Speaking of which, I've seen Donnie Darko once, like 10 years ago or so. And I founf it an interestingidea that took way too many twists and ended up nowhere. I think I should see it again. Who else could share his/her experience with this movie?

[gwynplaine]

No goth pale make up and charcoal eyes, no accents, a genuine sense of fun and a good self deprecating humor, Johnny Depp's cameo in 21Jump St. is his best work since a long, long time:woot:

[C. Lee]

Speaking of which, I've seen Donnie Darko once, like 10 years ago or so. And I founf it an interestingidea that took way too many twists and ended up nowhere. I think I should see it again. Who else could share his/her experience with this movie?

I saw it a couple of years ago...thought it was interesting, but not worth all the hoopla I had been hearing about it. I'm going to give it a few more years and then try it again.

[El Payaso]

I saw it a couple of years ago...thought it was interesting, but not worth all the hoopla I had been hearing about it. I'm going to give it a few more years and then try it again.

Oh, I've seen it like 4 times in my whole life and yes, it's not all what "experts" say. At least not for me. But it's maybe the only 'space movie' I've seen that really captures what the 'being in space' experience must be. No sound, space references or time notion. The HAL-9000 disconnection must be the best and creepiest thing A.I. I've ever seen in a movie.

That said, I don't see anything really confusing in it except maybe the ending, but even that makes enough sense for me.

[C. Lee]

Oh, I've seen it like 4 times in my whole life and yes, it's not all what "experts" say. At least not for me. But it's maybe the only 'space movie' I've seen that really captures what the 'being in space' experience must be. No sound, space references or time notion. The HAL-9000 disconnection must be the best and creepiest thing A.I. I've ever seen in a movie.

That said, I don't see anything really confusing in it except maybe the ending, but even that makes enough sense for me.

I was talking about Donnie Darko in that post.

I think 2001 is one of the best sci fi movies made.

[El Payaso]

I was talking about Donnie Darko in that post.

I think 2001 is one of the best sci fi movies made.

HAHAHHAHAH, okay. I'm used to my mind's tricks on me.

So, okay, thanks, I'll give it a chance.

[Travesty]

2001 blew me away the first time I saw it. Still one of my favorite movies of all time.

But as far as Donnie Darko is concerned, not really a fan of it. I've probably seen it a good 6-7 times, and I still don't like it.

[spider-neil]

Oh, I've seen it like 4 times in my whole life and yes, it's not all what "experts" say. At least not for me. But it's maybe the only 'space movie' I've seen that really captures what the 'being in space' experience must be. No sound, space references or time notion. The HAL-9000 disconnection must be the best and creepiest thing A.I. I've ever seen in a movie.

That said, I don't see anything really confusing in it except maybe the ending, but even that makes enough sense for me.

I've gone to a few sites to get an 'explanation' of 2001 so now I guess the imagery makes a lot more sense but the 'experience' of the was a bad one. I thought the movie was so sloooowww. I'm not talking about slow burn like 'rare window' I'm talking slow for slow sake like the pod taking forever to dock with the space station.

I admire the vision, I think the science effects are amazing but (for me) it's a really dull movie. in fact it's more a slide show than a movie, like it belongs in a museum rather than on the big/small screen.

also the first and 3rd act has no dialogue so the 2nd act (HAL) feels completely out of place and feels more like a conventional movie. so you watch the movie and when you reach the space station (with talking characters) it's like, 'ah, the movie is finally kicking in'.

maybe I should give this movie another try in a few years now that I have a grasp on the symbols and meanings but I can't see it as this movie couldn't end fast enought for me.

I remember when I watched blade runner for the first time and hated and then watched it again a few years later and now it's my favorite sci-fi movie ever. well the first time I watched BR I enjoyed ford so it was a good excuse to watch the movie again (with me not expecting a action movie this time around) but there was nothing I could latch onto with 2001 with the exception of maybe the HAL sequence.

hey, anyone who enjoyed 2001, more power to you just not my cup of tea.

[Secret Fawful]

I loved the book for 2001, but I couldn't enjoy the movie. I might have to watch it again now that I'm older and maybe I'll appreciate it more. I really loved Darko. It's one of the most unnerving movies I've seen. The ending kept me awake at night, what with his family members at his death scene grieving and their faces distorting and becoming horrific and nasty for a split second. It's hard to spot, but their grief contorts unnaturally. It still scares me thinking about it now. The mirror scene and the psychiatrist scenes are incredibly unnerving to me too. The entirety of the movie and the extreme dread and horror that builds left me in a state of unreality for a week, and in a state of despair I haven't felt since I watched Neon Genesis Evangelion.

[EML420]

I dont get the hate Zack Snyder gets I enjoyed 300 and Dawn of the Dead he seemed to do a good job adapting 300 and sure the remake of Dawn of the dead was never going to be has great has the orginial but its still a good movie well imo.

I havent seen Watchmen in a long time but whats peoples problem with it? I heard some people say its to loyal to the comic ive aslo heard its loyal but not in tone I have not read the Watchmen comic book and I dont plan on watching the movie again till I have but the movie from what I remember is not bad superhero movie by any means.

[Majik1387]

Snyder's hate is unwarranted, and people try saying he abuses the slow motion effect is stupid. I'd honestly say he perfected how it should be done, and despite the stupid complaints about it, he doesn't use it as much as some people may try to make it seem like.

[Travesty]

I havent seen Watchmen in a long time but whats peoples problem with it? I heard some people say its to loyal to the comic ive aslo heard its loyal but not in tone I have not read the Watchmen comic book and I dont plan on watching the movie again till I have but the movie from what I remember is not bad superhero movie by any means.The Blu Ray Directors Cut is much better, if you can watch it. It has a ton of footage that was left out of the theatrical cut, plus it implemented The Black Freighter into it.

It's great for what it is, and I like it, but the book is much better. There were just some things left out, and there were some themes and character plots that felt a bit rushed or glossed over. A prime example being the doomsday clock. In the book, you have a feeling of dread as the clock counts down, but in the movie, you barely even know that the clock is an ongoing thing. Also, it's not obvious that Rorschach is even keeping a journal, as it seems like he's just narrating. I dunno, I could go on about it, but it's still a great movie. The origin of Dr. Manhattan is stunning.

[gwynplaine]

After watching "Sucker Punch", I'd say Snyder hate is perfectly warranted:woot: (Actually I lie, I couldn't finish it.)
Not a terrible director of course, but not such a great one either so far.
As for Watchmen, he certainly got Dr. Manhattan right (the Mars sequence was perfect), the rest not so much. It felt like they all had superpowers, super strength, super agility etc, when it should have been more like ordinary people putting costumes on like in the comic book (besides Manhattan of course.)
Also it felt too slick, like a music video or commercial (which is Snyder's background I believe), it should have been grittier. That bad prison corridor fight comes to mind (see Oldboy to watch how it's done.)
Another example is the Vietnam war scenes, they felt too artificial, too "green screeny", I wish it had more of a realistic, "Platoon" feel with superheroes thrown in.
To be fair, I also thought he kinda got The Comedian right too though.
To summarize, it wasn't that great, but it also could have been much worse.

[DyeLorean]

About 2001: A Space Odyssey, that I saw it was mentioned up there:
(2001 is one of the deepest movies ever. I don't think there's gonna be another movie that touches all important human subjects like life, death, technology, space, humanity, evolution, and so many other things. You have to be in a special mood to truly appreciate it. Is not meant to be seen on a monday afternoon with friends, if you know what I mean. I think is one of those experiences you must have, but with yourself. Just you, your brain, and the movie. It's so big, and it poses so many questions, and for me, that's one of the greatest things about it, it can be whatever you think of it, whatever you can extract from the viewing experience. What are the monoliths? are those evolutionary checkpoints? who put them there?. I think is fascinating.
I want to read the book now.)

[gwynplaine]

Parts of 2001 are amazing, pure genius, dawn of humanity, HAL etc, but in other parts the film's also pretty boring imo (I feel the same way about Blade Runner actually, and yes I've seen them both a few times and at different stages of my life:cwink:)
Definitely not my favorite Kubrick film anyway (and for the record, he is my favorite director).
I prefer Barry Lyndon, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, Lolita, the 1st half of Full Metal Jacket and even The Killing (in that order.)

[gwynplaine]

I don't know if it's unpopular, but I liked "John Carter."

[Max J Power]

Speaking of which, I've seen Donnie Darko once, like 10 years ago or so. And I founf it an interestingidea that took way too many twists and ended up nowhere. I think I should see it again. Who else could share his/her experience with this movie?
I saw it once and thought it was good, but not something that really stuck with me or struck me as profound.

I dont get the hate Zack Snyder gets I enjoyed 300 and Dawn of the Dead he seemed to do a good job adapting 300 and sure the remake of Dawn of the dead was never going to be has great has the orginial but its still a good movie well imo.

I havent seen Watchmen in a long time but whats peoples problem with it? I heard some people say its to loyal to the comic ive aslo heard its loyal but not in tone I have not read the Watchmen comic book and I dont plan on watching the movie again till I have but the movie from what I remember is not bad superhero movie by any means.
I'd say it's loyal in tone, except for the action/fight scenes. They were well done but overly stylized and choreographed compared to the dramatic tone of the rest of the movie. Same with the sex scene (though it wasn't nearly as bad as a lot of people said).

On the whole, I really liked the Watchmen movie. It might have been great with a few changes.

[Majik1387]

I don't know if it's unpopular, but I liked "John Carter."
I've only heard good things from critics and friends, but going by the box office, I guess it is unpopular.

[EML420]

Thanks for the view points guys I was hoping to get some different thoughts on the movie I will check out the Ultimate cut when I get the comic book.

On another note I was rooting for the humans in Avatar the idea that Sam Worthingtons character would turn his back on humans made me mad lol I forget the guys name but general giving orders to Worthington was a likeable bad guy imo.

[spider-neil]

back to 2001, is there a reason that everything takes FOREVER? if the film maker decides he wants no dialogue for the movie that is fair enough but does he have to do everything so SLOWLY?

space shuttle docking - takes forever
cabin crew delivering food - takes forever
space ship landing on moon - take forever
pod opening door and docking - takes forever
man flying through star field - takes forever
man aging at different stages in his life - takes forever

it's just sooooo sloooowwwww...

imagine if wall-e (another film that has little dialogue and uses metaphore for half the movie) took forever with each scene it wanted to show you.

the bottom line for me is when I want to see art I'll go to a museum.
I go to the cinema to be taken to another place or time and 2001 certainly succeeds in that, the visuals and settings are absolutely stunning but as a movie goer I also want to be told a story with a plot a narrative and some freaking PACING. this movie wants to challenge you and drag you up to ITS level and I guess you have to admire that but it doesn't need to take forever to do that, that's just self indulgent.

[spider-neil]

for me kubrick has two hits and one miss

spartacus - hit
full metal jacket - hit
2001 - miss

I am going to watch his other famous movies (shining, clockwork orange, dr stangelove)

I'm hoping that these movies show me kubrick's genius because unlike hitchcock where I feel the praise is justified (recently watched his movies and they are brilliant) I've seen one great movie from kubrick (spartacus is a great movie).

[El Payaso]

back to 2001, is there a reason that everything takes FOREVER?

That and everything else space-related takes you to the real experience of it. There's probably a point in which you can't even tell what part of the movie you are watching, middle or next to the end like you can with every Hollywood movie where predictability and entertainment are a given. It's supposed to be slow, silent and disporientating (not knowing where is up or down), just like it must be in real space. So yes, there is a reason but you don't have to like it.

Have you ever seen "Stalker" (word is supposed to mean 'guide' not the English literal meaning) from Russian director Andrei Tarkovski? Man, if you thought 2001 was slow-paced... I saw it when I was 15 and wanted to shoot myself at the cinema. Then I found out it is conmsidred a jewel of cinema. Sadly, I have never seen it again, but I do remember that everything, a man walking througha tunnel or watching a river took longer than forever.

So not every movie goes where we are and try to entertain us, some are there and if you don't go where they are they won't do anything for you. I'll say variety is a good thing.




for me kubrick has two hits and one miss

spartacus - hit
full metal jacket - hit
2001 - miss

I am going to watch his other famous movies (shining, clockwork orange, dr stangelove)

I'm hoping that these movies show me kubrick's genius because unlike hitchcock where I feel the praise is justified (recently watched his movies and they are brilliant) I've seen one great movie from kubrick (spartacus is a great movie).

Oh, Dr. Strangelove is a comedy and a very funny one at that.

[Crockett]

the bottom line for me is when I want to see art I'll go to a museum. I go to the cinema to be taken to another place or time and 2001 certainly succeeds in that, the visuals and settings are absolutely stunning but as a movie goer I also want to be told a story with a plot a narrative and some freaking PACING. this movie wants to challenge you and drag you up to ITS level and I guess you have to admire that but it doesn't need to take forever to do that, that's just self indulgent.

'2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It challenge and requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without you wondering if there's a complex plot or detailed characterization. You see, plots and characters are good but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of films, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unrestricted by the conventions of everyday films.

And I never like the belief that films have to rely on the narrative aspect solely or else it doesn't work. It's hogwash and if a director wants show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, they are neither wrong to do so, but then it's up to the individual viewers to decide if they like it or not.

[DyeLorean]

Yes, there's a reason why almost everything in 2001 takes "forever".

[SuperFerret]

Plots and characters are the be-all, end-all, otherwise, what's the point? There's no story, hence no point to watch.

[El Payaso]

2001 does have a plot.

[Crockett]

Plots and characters are the be-all, end-all, otherwise, what's the point? There's no story, hence no point to watch.

Films like Koyaanisqatsi contain no actual plot or characters since it's just a bunch of images that visually tells a "story" but that's what I meant, not all movies have to be tied down by the needs to be plot-driven. 2001 revolutionized film structure in a way that it showed that films didn't have to rely on the narrative principles and can communicate purely by visual metaphors that connected each section together. Kubrick went the extra mile and created something more purely cinematic but even the long sequences serve a purpose.

[GENERAL RAAM582]

I liked the remakes for Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th more than the original movies.

Spider-Man 3 and Crystal Skull aren't totally terrible.

I liked all 7 Saw movies

And on topic with you guys, I didn't like 2001 a lot.

I think Synder is a great director.

[DarkSovereignty]

good god I hated Koyaanisqatsi, such indulgent tripe, and the music was almost laughably over-dramatic.

[spider-neil]

'2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It challenge and requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without you wondering if there's a complex plot or detailed characterization. You see, plots and characters are good but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of films, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unrestricted by the conventions of everyday films.

And I never like the belief that films have to rely on the narrative aspect solely or else it doesn't work. It's hogwash and if a director wants show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, they are neither wrong to do so, but then it's up to the individual viewers to decide if they like it or not.

Aristotle's Six Elements of Drama

- plot - there has to be a story that unfolds - Oedipus meets a man who challenges him- he kills him - it's his father - he takes that man's place, marries his wife - it's his mother - this crime (incest), even though committed in ignorance, must be paid for because the laws of the God's are inviolate - this involves the fates - the denouement, and the setting for it, is established -
2 character - the protagonist (and remember, all Gk drama is first and foremost, religious and part of religious ritual, ceremony, and festivity), has some tragic flaw - as above, how he and the others respond to the circumstances establishes their character - noble, base, venal etc.
3 Theme - the theme is set to demonstrate the righteousness of the god's dicta - and to show the virtues (as in Oediipus' daughter) relevant to the tale - triumph of good, inevitability of fate, etc.
4 diction - remembering that the actors are on elevated shoes (buskins), and usually in masks to indicate emotion, and in a theatre with astounding acoustics -the choice by the dramatists of language, the speaking of the parts, must enhance the drama (or comedy) - the noble character must speak nobly, the base characters must use slyness, or colloquial speech etc. And, there must be a choice of vocabulary wherein the consonants make projected speech both poetic and clear.
5. music - occurs often with the accompaniment of the lyre for the chorus which speaks the lines, and is used to enhance and create mood appropriate to the emotions
6.spectacle - visualizing the Greek theatre, truly dramatic action, such as murder, or Oedipus gouging out his eyes, takes place off stage and then is rolled on stage on platform as a tableau (nobody gets his throat cut in church) - but it is done on a broad and grand scale - when the god's intervene, they are swung in a basket from a crane on the side of the stage (deus ex machina) at the critical moment - and there must me sufficient people to populate the action of the moment.
Grand themes, require grand action.

basically spectacle is (or should be) last on the list and kubrick has it first in the list. the movie lives or dies on it's visuals and demands the viewer draw his own conclusions on what he is seeing. as I said I want to be TOLD a story not watch a documentary.

[spider-neil]

2001 does have a plot.

every movie has a plot the question is whether the plot is engaging.

[darkseid26]

good god I hated Koyaanisqatsi, such indulgent tripe, and the music was almost laughably over-dramatic.

:argh: Koyaanisqatsi is amazing :o

[C. Lee]

every movie has a plot the question is whether the plot is engaging.

Every plot is not necessarily engaging to everyone who sees it.

[Schlosser85]

(just my opinion)

2001 is interminably boring.

Blade Runner is depressing and boring.

And no, I don't hate Ridley Scott or have ADD (I love Alien, which is slow-paced too). Blade Runner is just very cold and detached to me, and hard for me to get into. I've tried a couple times.

[gwynplaine]

(just my opinion)

2001 is interminably boring.

Blade Runner is depressing and boring.

And no, I don't hate Ridley Scott or have ADD (I love Alien, which is slow-paced too). Blade Runner is just very cold and detached to me, and hard for me to get into. I've tried a couple times.
I agree. (Like I've said before.)

[DyeLorean]

I love 2001, but I don't like Blade Runner. I did enjoy the atmosphere and the overall design of it, thought. But not the movie itself.

[gwynplaine]

I love 2001, but I don't like Blade Runner. I did enjoy the atmosphere and the overall design of it, thought. But not the movie itself.
Same here. I love Alien though.
Ridley Scott's great films are Alien and The Duelists. And I have very high hopes for Prometheus which looks to be awesome as well. (Actually, I also enjoyed Gladiator, maybe not great but really good.)

[Crockett]

basically spectacle is (or should be) last on the list and kubrick has it first in the list. the movie lives or dies on it's visuals and demands the viewer draw his own conclusions on what he is seeing. as I said I want to be TOLD a story not watch a documentary.

When we boil down to it, art at its most powerful, is a subjective and individual experience. 2001 is a film revolved around subjectivity. Kubrick created an intensely subjective experience that reach the viewer at an inner level of consciousness and every frame in 2001, even to the slowest ones holds information you need in order to process the whole story so one shouldn’t treat anything in this film as purely “scenic,” just there to be pretty to the eye. It's free for the viewers to speculate as they wish about the philosophical and metaphorical meaning of the film and that’s an indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level. So there's a story in it, it's just that it's told to the viewers not by the way of your conventional everyday films.

[darkseid26]

Just my two cents...

I for one, as you can tell from my avy, love 2001. From the first time I saw it I was mesmerized. I've seen it at least ten times since then. It was one of the first films that made me realize film was more than just big summer movies.

[Schlosser85]

Gladiator is one of my all-time favorite movies.

I also rate Alien very highly and think it's one of the best sci-fi thrillers and one of the most truly scary movies ever made.

I appreciate the "look" and set design of Blade Runner, and I "get" that there are existential and moral ideas that Ridley is conveying. I just find the movie lacks a pulse.

I can "appreciate" things about it from a detached perspective, but I just can't enjoy it as a movie. I find it very, very dreary, frankly.

[Schlosser85]

I love the music of Koyaanisqatsi, it's in my iTunes.

[Schlosser85]

Overall, I consider Ridley Scott one of the directors I hold in high regard.

I love Gladiator and Alien, and I respect Blade Runner even if I don't really like it.

I think Kingdom of Heaven is a muddled, disappointing mess though.

I'm interested in Prometheus. I'll probably see it in the theater.

[The Morningstar]

Blade Runner is supposed to be cold and lack a pulse though. I mean, the so called "good guy" is a cold and unemotional *******. Notice the scene when Rachel comes to his apartment, and he just casually tells her she isn't human, without thinking about what that would do to her.

Compare him to Roy, the so called "bad guy". Who shows sadness when he finds out Leon is dead. Clearly loves Priss. Shows anger when he confronts Tyrell.

Who is more human? And this isn't even figuring in the fact that Deckard himself might be a Replicant.

I understand not liking the movie, but it I think it being cold and distant was intentional, when the story was with Deckard anyway.

[Schlosser85]

I get and agree with what you say. I do like the way it's ambiguous about how heroic and how villainous Deckard and Roy are, and that Roy is a tragic figure.

I remember the scene where Deckard chases the other woman Replicant down in the street and guns her down like a dog.

[The Morningstar]

Glad we agree :up: And yea, that scene was pretty intense.

[Wesley Dodds]

I just realised that all this time I've been sitting on what I imagine would be a pretty hugely unpopular film-related opinion:

All of Scorcese's DiCaprio films have left me frustrated and unsatisfied.
(And before I'm labelled a hater or ADD sufferer, I'll say that I was I really looking forward to every one of them, VERY much, before they came out.)

[The Morningstar]

I really liked DiCaprio in Shutter Island. But in The Departed it was clearly Wahlberg and Baldwin who stole the show. The Aviator is just... there.

[Wesley Dodds]

Shutter Island suffered from bad pacing, a meandering, aimless middle act and a TERRIBLE ending.

The Departed is probably the best of the DiCaprio films but it still felt a little bit flat. (Disagree about Wahlberg, HATE his character)

Gangs Of New York was stodgy, overblown and tried Waaaaaay too hard. If it wasnt for Day-Lewis' performance I think I'd actually hate that movie. (SUPERB opening 20 minutes, though)

I couldn't agree more about The Aviator. That movie was the cinematic equivalent of a fart in the wind.

[The Morningstar]

How can you hate Dignum? Man he was awesome.

And what didn't you like about Shutter Island's ending? I thought it was great. How it's ambiguous whether he consciously reverted back into his "role" so he could get himself lobotomised or he did actually remain insane and they couldn't snap him out of it.

[Rowsdower!]

Wahlberg in The Departed = most overrated performance of all time.

He just played the same arrogant smartass he plays in 90% of his other films. I seriously don't see what he did in that movie that was so great. The only times Wahlberg has ever really impressed me as an actor has been when he has stepped out of his comfort zone (and doesn't fail horribly like in The Happening) and played a more reserved character that exudes strength without cussing someone out every five minutes.

[The Morningstar]

It might not have been a great acting performance, but the character was just awesome. He was the most likeable ******* i've ever seen. His exchanges with Baldwin and Damon were great.

[Wesley Dodds]

Wahlberg's character is only in that film to give the audience a nice happy, "Justice has been served" ending that wasnt there in Infernal Affairs.
So western audiences could go home bloodthirstily satisfied that Damon's character got his just desserts.
I mean, what else did he REALLY do in the film? They didnt even try to really disguise this by making Dignum an actual, relatable person. Until the ending, all he basically did was sleepwalk through his scenes looking angry and telling people to **** off.

Shutter Island's Ending:

Movies were it turns out "It was the main character alllllllll a-lonnnnnnnggg" really, really annoy me. It's like the most uninspired, overused way to end a film out there.
The fact that professional screenwriters STILL think this is a unique, novel way to wrap up a film mystifies me.

[The Morningstar]

I don't think Dignum needed to be relatable. I liked him because he suspected Sullivan from the get go, and didn't try to hide it. And I liked how he treated Costigan like ****, but really, he knew he was on the level. I saw the ending more as his personal revenge, rather than justice served for Sullivan. I mean he goes in there as a hitman, not a cop.

And the thing with Shutter Island, I don't really see it as a twist. The signs are right there in front of us the whole time. The real ending though is when DiCaprio goes back into character after it's all over, I thought it was well done with how ambiguous it was. Also, I don't see how that type of thing is overused. Only other movie i can think of that does that is the Sixth Sense.

[Travesty]

And the thing with Shutter Island, I don't really see it as a twist. The signs are right there in front of us the whole time. The real ending though is when DiCaprio goes back into character after it's all over, I thought it was well done with how ambiguous it was. Also, I don't see how that type of thing is overused. Only other movie i can think of that does that is the Sixth Sense.Fight Club

[The Morningstar]

Ahhhhh yea. That too. Man how could i forget that?! :D

[Wesley Dodds]

I don't think Dignum needed to be relatable. I liked him because he suspected Sullivan from the get go, and didn't try to hide it. And I liked how he treated Costigan like ****, but really, he knew he was on the level. I saw the ending more as his personal revenge, rather than justice served for Sullivan. I mean he goes in there as a hitman, not a cop.

And the thing with Shutter Island, I don't really see it as a twist. The signs are right there in front of us the whole time. The real ending though is when DiCaprio goes back into character after it's all over, I thought it was well done with how ambiguous it was. Also, I don't see how that type of thing is overused. Only other movie i can think of that does that is the Sixth Sense.


Whether his revenge was personal or not, it doesn't matter because the only reason he ACTUALLY did it was for real-world audience gratification. That's the whole reason Dignum exists. Why he was written in to begin with. They may as well have called him Detective Plot McDevice.

If you dont think the end of Shutter Island was a twist, that's cool but I dont see how you can say that. The whole final scen with Kingsley in his office was your classic "Scales fall from the heroe's eyes" moment.
So weird watching that bit. It felt like Scorcese wanted the audience to have their minds blown but all I could think was "Oh, for ****s sake! not that old chestnut! Not that!" Hehe!

Other movies with similar endings/revelations to Shutter Island (This is just off the toppa my head)

Fight Club
Secret Window
Jacobs ladder
The Machinist
Identity
Sisters

[EML420]

I agree that Wahlberg is the same guy most of the time but in that movie the character he played, it made sense for him to be the way he was imo. It was a role that played to what he already does.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, it's not that he was bad... he did what he does and that's fine. I just got annoyed by the Oscar nom and the way they snubbed Leo and Matt, who I thought were vastly superior to him. To be fair, Leo did get the nom for Blood Diamond that year, and I go back and forth between which performance I thought was better. But nominating him for that film and nominating The Departed for multiple other categories was still kind of a snub. He was the heart and soul of that movie and if a lesser actor had played the role, the end wouldn't have had such a brutal impact.

[DawnWarrior]

Fight Club
Secret Window
Jacobs ladder
The Machinist
Identity
Sisters
Add 'Hide and Seek' to that list.
And 'High Tension'.
And 'Perfect Stranger'.
And 'The Number 23'.

[El Payaso]

Sixth Sense

Every M. Night Shyamalan movie, lol.

[Eddie Dean]

Denis Leary turned down the role of Dignum before Marky Mark signed on. If there ever was character perfect for Leary, that was it.

[bullets]

I don't know if it's unpopular, but I liked "John Carter."


I loved it. I didn't expect it to bomb as bad as it did , really disappointing.



Wahlberg in The Departed = most overrated performance of all time.

He just played the same arrogant smartass he plays in 90% of his other films. I seriously don't see what he did in that movie that was so great. The only times Wahlberg has ever really impressed me as an actor has been when he has stepped out of his comfort zone (and doesn't fail horribly like in The Happening) and played a more reserved character that exudes strength without cussing someone out every five minutes.


There was a little bait and switch to his character. He might seem like an a**hole but he speaks the truth. I would like to know what other Wahlberg performance mirrors it. I've seen all Wahlberg's films and can't think of one where he's playing Dignam.

Also I think Leo should of been nominated and won for the Departed. Wahlberg's nomination did comes as a surprise to me though. I enjoyed his performance but didn't find it to be Oscar worthy.

[The Morningstar]

DiCaprio should have won for Blood Diamond. For me that's his best performance. His accent was spot on.

"Score us a loose eh bru?" hahaha

[lordofthenerds]

I liked Leprechaun in the Hood. I kid you not.

[gwynplaine]

I think Parker Wayne called it first, but after watching 21 Jump St., I believe Channing Tatum should do more comedies because he is really great in that film.
"F%$k you, science!":woot:

[humbdrumb]

DiCaprio should have won for Blood Diamond. For me that's his best performance. His accent was spot on.

"Score us a loose eh bru?" hahaha

That performance was such a revelation. It was like, "The pretty boy from Titanic can play a badass mercenary convincingly? Is this real life?"

[Majik1387]

Too bad he couldn't. Honestly, if he even showed half the talent some of his fanboys says he has, I'd probably like him as an actor.

[Parker Wayne]

I think Parker Wayne called it first, but after watching 21 Jump St., I believe Channing Tatum should do more comedies because he is really great in that film.
"F%$k you, science!":woot:

I still need to watch 21 Jump Street, but he just seems to have not only more personality, it also comes off as more natural, as if he actually wants to be there unlike those bland drama and romance movies.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Jimmy Conway is underrated as a character and performance by De Niro.

[gwynplaine]

I don't know if it's underrated, but it's definitely one of De Niro's best performance. And also Scorsese's best film.

[DarkSovereignty]

i really wish steve norrington would make a comeback as a director. despite not being faithful to the second coming of jesus that was Alan Moores comic, LXG was still pretty damn cool imo. especially the beginning, that beginning text crawl and just the overal atmosphere was very well handled. plus, he made blade awesome.

[EML420]

I like Mission Impossible 2 maybe a little to much but say what you will about the movie the action is amazing the motorcycle scenes were gold.

[DyeLorean]

I like Mission Impossible 2 maybe a little to much but say what you will about the movie the action is amazing the motorcycle scenes were gold.

I like what they did with the masks in M:I 2. I still think they did some pretty good things with those.

[bullets]

Too bad he couldn't. Honestly, if he even showed half the talent some of his fanboys says he has, I'd probably like him as an actor.


It's too bad you can't see it.

[The Morningstar]

DiCaprio has plenty of talent, if you can't see it then well yea, can't really say anything other than it's your problem and you're in a very, very small minority, considering all the roles he gets in films by prestigious directors like Scorcese, Scott, Spielberg, Nolan.

Blood Diamond he was fantastic. The accent was spot on and he was convincing with a great character arc. I also think he was really good in Body of Lies, which is shamefully underrated.

[gwynplaine]

Di Caprio is a fantastic actor. Besides all the movies named previously, I thought he was also great in Titanic and of course Gilbert Grape.

[The Morningstar]

I put the likes of Dicaprio, Pitt and Clooney in the same brackett. They're character actors trapped in leading mens bodies. Their actual talents get overlooked and people find it harder to forgot the actor and see only the character they are playing because they are so famous.

I mean, people always go on about Daniel Day Lewis disappearing into roles. This is true, and he's a fantastic actor. But would people be saying the same things about him if he was on TV all the time, or doing interviews in glossy magazines. If he was a high profile mega star? I have my doubts. It's easier for people to see him "disappear" into a role because we never ****ing see him outside of the films! lol

[ALP]

Clooney is so meh to me. Sometimes he's great, other times he's mediocre. My major problem with him is that he's always playing the same role/character. Same tonality, same mannerisms. The world around him may be crashing but he's the cool old man who's always got everything under control. Sometimes that fits perfectly, other times it doesn't.

I'm not that big on Scorsese's gangster pics or murder movies. My favorites of his are Shutter Island, Hugo, and Raging Bull.

[El Payaso]

I put the likes of Dicaprio, Pitt and Clooney in the same brackett. They're character actors trapped in leading mens bodies. Their actual talents get overlooked and people find it harder to forgot the actor and see only the character they are playing because they are so famous.

I mean, people always go on about Daniel Day Lewis disappearing into roles. This is true, and he's a fantastic actor. But would people be saying the same things about him if he was on TV all the time, or doing interviews in glossy magazines. If he was a high profile mega star? I have my doubts. It's easier for people to see him "disappear" into a role because we never ****ing see him outside of the films! lol

While I agree with this, I'd say that the difference is that DiCaprio and Clooney have showed some actual talent.

Now, Day-Lewis is another entirely different beast.

[Tron Bonne]

Too bad he couldn't. Honestly, if he even showed half the talent some of his fanboys says he has, I'd probably like him as an actor.

Since you also think Daniel Day-Lewis isn't that great of an actor, it doesn't surprise me that you can't see it.

[Majik1387]

Di Caprio is a fantastic actor. Besides all the movies named previously, I thought he was also great in Titanic and of course Gilbert Grape.
This is still the only role of his I entirely agree with all the praise he gets.
Since you also think Daniel Day-Lewis isn't that great of an actor, it doesn't surprise me that you can't see it.
Eh, I feel people are more impressed with his method of acting than his actual acting. I liked him in Nine.

[The Morningstar]

While I agree with this, I'd say that the difference is that DiCaprio and Clooney have showed some actual talent.

Now, Day-Lewis is another entirely different beast.

I wouldn't put Pitt on the same level as those two. But to say he doesn't have talent, that's flat out wrong.

As for DDL, he's obviously fantastic, but i think he's somewhat overrated. Let's see him "disappear" into those roles as a world famous mega star who everyone recognises.

[HighFivingMF]

While I agree with this, I'd say that the difference is that DiCaprio and Clooney have showed some actual talent.


That Pitt hack only has 3 Oscar nominations for his acting. :o

[Majik1387]

I guess this is an unpopular opinion:

I hate people who try to brush the Oscars off as if they mean nothing. I'm not saying that the Oscars are the end all be all show of true talent, but I hate how everyone just says they're just popularity contests.

[The Morningstar]

My opinion on the Oscars is that most, if not all nominations are deserved. But actual winners? That's where the politics and the rest of it come in. Obviously not always.

[ALP]

I definitely hold the oscars to high calibur. But on a related note, I don't ever watch. I didn't see this year's telecast and won't see next year's either. And it's not just the oscars show, I simply don't like watching award shows.

I personally wish Hugo had won best pic... I thought it was incredible. Yet another reason I didn't watch this year, it was 10000% obvious to anyone with a brain that The Artist would win just like it was just as obvious that King's Speech would win last year. That's what happens when 95% of the voters are white male senior citizens. Hugo was amazing, inventive, at the cutting edge of cinematic technology that also served as an ode to the past but instead best pic goes to a film that looks as if it were restored from 1930.

The oscars didn't even create a best visual effect award until around the early 80s. They're as far away from being cutting edge and innovative as it gets.

[The Morningstar]

Yea i can't be bothered with award shows unless there is someone funny hosting. They should have Sacha Baron Cohen host em.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

George Clooney's Batman would definitely be identified as Bruce Wayne in the real world. All Mr. Freeze would have to say is, "Hey! You're Bruce Wayne! Yes you are, you bobble-head ****!" :o

[humbdrumb]

I hated Attack the Block, which is weird because British humor usually works for me. This just didn't. Annoying characters and soundtrack.

[gwynplaine]

Clooney is so meh to me. Sometimes he's great, other times he's mediocre. My major problem with him is that he's always playing the same role/character. Same tonality, same mannerisms. The world around him may be crashing but he's the cool old man who's always got everything under control. Sometimes that fits perfectly, other times it doesn't.

I'm not that big on Scorsese's gangster pics or murder movies. My favorites of his are Shutter Island, Hugo, and Raging Bull.
I used to kinda think that too, until I saw The Descendants where I thought Clooney showed more range than usual. Great performance.

I hated Attack the Block, which is weird because British humor usually works for me. This just didn't. Annoying characters and soundtrack.
I also disliked it which is weird for me too for the same reason as you. I really thought I was going to enjoy it, but it certainly was no "Shaun of the Dead" unfortunately.

[Figs]

I also disliked it which is weird for me too for the same reason as you. I really thought I was going to enjoy it, but it certainly was no "Shaun of the Dead" unfortunately.

My problem with it was that I couldn't get behind some ghetto ass criminal types. I was hoping for them to all die by the end.

[gwynplaine]

My problem with it was that I couldn't get behind some ghetto ass criminal types. I was hoping for them to all die by the end.
Yeah, I had that problem too.

[ALP]

Speaking of that genre, I thought Spielberg's War of the Worlds was the definition of mediocre. Far from one of his best. I loved A.I. though.

[gwynplaine]

I love the first half of A.I. up until Mom drives Pinocchio, uh I mean the little boy robot to the forest. And then for me it's all downhill from there. I also loved Teddy, a great character. As much as I loved Woola, I think that's its name, the "Martian Dog Monster" from John Carter, another great character.

[ALP]

Overall, did you like John Carter?

I thought it was a fun movie, just really late to the game. It's like Star Wars had already taken its place- thus preventing it from being the mega hyped film it could have been.

[gwynplaine]

Overall, did you like John Carter?

I thought it was a fun movie, just really late to the game. It's like Star Wars had already taken its place- thus preventing it from being the mega hyped film it could have been.
True, but overall I really liked John Carter. I wasn't very familiar with the book, but I could tell that Stanton had a lot of love and respect for the original material. I also liked that they tried to do something original and I can't say that I was bored. And like I said before I really liked the dog:woot:
I had no problem with Kitsch either, but I thought they could have cast the Princess better though. She didn't feel like royalty or otherworldly enough imo.

[Figs]

True, but overall I really liked John Carter. I wasn't very familiar with the book, but I could tell that Stanton had a lot of love and respect for the original material. I also liked that they tried to do something original and I can't say that I was bored. And like I said before I really liked the dog:woot:
I had no problem with Kitsch either, but I thought they could have cast the Princess better though. She didn't feel like royalty or otherworldly enough imo.

Hahaha! Those are definitely unpopular opinions.

[gwynplaine]

Hahaha! Those are definitely unpopular opinions.
Haha. Good:woot:
Well, let's put it this way, he was no young Clint Eastwood but I still think he was a pretty decent hero. As for the Princess, she just didn't work for me I guess.
Still a really good film though.

[El Payaso]

I wouldn't put Pitt on the same level as those two. But to say he doesn't have talent, that's flat out wrong.

That's right. He might have talent for making pancakes.

As for DDL, he's obviously fantastic, but i think he's somewhat overrated. Let's see him "disappear" into those roles as a world famous mega star who everyone recognises.

I want to know where the f*** did this stupid idea of "disappearing" as synonymous of talent come from. If you're a celebrity you're not going to "dissapear" unless you have tons of make up on, which is not the actor's talent by the way.



That Pitt hack only has 3 Oscar nominations for his acting. :o

Yes. But I think that's evidence enough of its hackness. Hack awards noms for a hack actor.

[The Morningstar]

You're talking out of your arse. The term "hack" doesn't apply to Brad Pitt, whether you like him as an actor or not.

[El Payaso]

You're talking out of your arse. The term "hack" doesn't apply to Brad Pitt, whether you like him as an actor or not.

Ok, he's just a so-so actor.

[gwynplaine]

Ok, so The Hunger Games was alright but I really preferred the book. One can only dream about what the film could have been in the hands of a more talented film maker, say a David Fincher for example.
But it could have been much worse too, so kudos to Gary Ross anyway.

[Wesley Dodds]

I dont think I've ever been less interested in a big mainstream movie than I am with The Hunger Games.
There's just absolutely, positively nothing about that film that looks in any way special to me. The fact that it made so much money over the weekend kind of blows my mind, I mean I know it has a ready-made fanbase but it cant be THAT large!

[The Morningstar]

I think a lot of what contributed to it's huge opening was curiosity more than pure interest really. People who are seeing it all over TV and in magazines probably wanted to see what all the fuss is about. It'll probably have pretty big drops.

[Wesley Dodds]

Yeah, you're probably right, MS. The fact it doesn't have a lot of strong competition is probably a factor too, I suppose.

[Tron Bonne]

I dont think I've ever been less interested in a big mainstream movie than I am with The Hunger Games.
There's just absolutely, positively nothing about that film that looks in any way special to me. The fact that it made so much money over the weekend kind of blows my mind, I mean I know it has a ready-made fanbase but it cant be THAT large!

The lead actress is probably the best up-and-coming young actress in the industry right now, so that's kind of special.

[The Morningstar]

Yea it is good to see a young American actress/actor who is getting roles and fame based on talent, instead of being good looking and getting a push from the Hollywood machine for no other reason than being good looking *coughTaylorKitschcough*

[Wesley Dodds]

The lead actress is probably the best up-and-coming young actress in the industry right now, so that's kind of special.

Well, I can only speak for myself but I've only seen Lawrence in First Class and I didn't see anything particularly interesting in her.
I keep reading about how sexy she is too and I can't say she does it for me in that department either.

Emperor's new clothes, maybe? I dunno, time'll tell I suppose...

[Tron Bonne]

She was pretty good in First Class, but it wasn't exactly a huge, or particularly great, role. She was pretty fantastic in Winter's Bone, though, almost carried the entire movie all by her lonesome. Definitely not Emperor's new clothes, she has some legit talent. Looks-wise, I don't know if I'd say she's sexy per say, but I think she looks good in a more realistic 'this is what an actual attractive person looks like' as opposed to Hollywood glam.

[Wesley Dodds]

Oh yeah, you're right about that. In no way did I mean to suggest she's unattractive, you'd need to be mad to say that, she's cute but "sexy"? Naaah, not for me, anyway.
You've just reminded me I stiill need to see Winter's Bone. I think if anything she's done so far is gonna win me over to her, that'll probably be it.

[The Morningstar]

It's weird, in First Class and Hunger Games her face looks kinda, puffy and weird. But i see some shots of her on the red carpet for the premiere and she looked stunning.

[Lord]

Lovely Bones was a grat film, i'm tired of that "It couldn't decide what type of film it wanted to be" argument, what's the problem in trying to be both, it's those part where they go from a gruesome moment to a sweet one that make the movie what it is.

[SuperFerret]

It was pretty good, but the ending was terrible.

And I hope I never get murdered and have to spend the afterlife with other people my killer had killed.

[Wesley Dodds]

That movie was so disappointing it actually physically hurt.

Saoirse Ronan did a fantastic job, the music was lovely and a few scenes were devastatingly effective but on the whole, I'm sorry, but that movie was absolutlely all over the place. And I agree with SF about the ending; terrible.

[A Necessary Evil]

I think JP3 is a better movie than the lost world, but that stems from how awful of an adaptation it was, and how you could have made two movies out of it.

[Homer J. Fong]

I think JP3 is a better movie than the lost world, but that stems from how awful of an adaptation it was, and how you could have made two movies out of it.

I do too, but for me it stems from thinking The Lost World is overlong and kind of boring, whereas Jurassic Park III is more honest and to-the-point.

[AnneFan]

I don't have any time for JP3. It feels half hearted and not apart of the series proper somehow. It's not the best movie in the world but The Lost World at least had some atmosphere. The individual moments are better for me. The trailer going over the edge. The long grass. A hunter going along for the ride to claim the ultimate trophy. The rex's shadow on the tent. It did feel like a sequel IMO. Seeing Hammond, Goldblum and the kids again, getting some background information on how they moved the dinosaurs from Sorna to Nublar. I think it would've been better if the boardroom deleted scene remained in, where the new CEO names the dead from the first film - Muldoon, Arnold etc and how much they paid their families. And the scene that establishes the awesome Peter Postlethwaite, where he beats up some rude guy.

[The Morningstar]

Yea, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I really liked Postlewaite's character.

[Art_of_Crime]

Here is an unpopular opinion.

I think that taking Tom Bombadil out of the fellowship of the ring was a good idea.


Flame shields up..

[El Payaso]

Lovely Bones was a grat film, i'm tired of that "It couldn't decide what type of film it wanted to be" argument, what's the problem in trying to be both, it's those part where they go from a gruesome moment to a sweet one that make the movie what it is.

The problem, obviously, is not trying to be both but failing at being both. Introducing a character and an issue with it, such as with Sarandon's character, and then abandon both the character and everything it had forever just because. Not to mention how much of a cartoony cliche that pedophile was, thick glasses, combover and all.


And speaking of Peter Jackson... I prefer Emmerich's "Godzilla" over Jackson's "King Kong."

[Art_of_Crime]

:oldrazz: I'm still waiting for Michael Bay's Gammera.

[El Payaso]

Lol

[A Necessary Evil]

I do too, but for me it stems from thinking The Lost World is overlong and kind of boring, whereas Jurassic Park III is more honest and to-the-point.

Oh, it's not only just because of how bad it was adapted, because I honestly feel you could have ended TLW with them getting off the island, with a set-up for part 3 being about the dinosaurs getting off the island.

I do agree about JP3, and a much better cut of the movie exists, they just don't release the deleted scenes to make it so.

[Drizzle]

Here is an unpopular opinion.

I think that taking Tom Bombadil out of the fellowship of the ring was a good idea.


Flame shields up..
Any sane person would agree with you. Tom Bombadil is a pointless distraction from the main story.

[Art_of_Crime]

Any sane person would agree with you. Tom Bombadil is a pointless distraction from the main story.

The first half of The Fellowship drives me crazy. Its just hobbits walking around talking about other hobbits and singing songs that have nothing to do with much of anything. The book gets good as soon as they meet Aragorn.

[Drizzle]

The first half of The Fellowship drives me crazy. Its just hobbits walking around talking about other hobbits and singing songs that have nothing to do with much of anything. The book gets good as soon as they meet Aragorn.
Oh yeah. That first half is a chore to read. Tolkien just went into too much unnecessary detail.

[Art_of_Crime]

glad its not just me then.

[Doctor Jones]

Oh yeah. That first half is a chore to read. Tolkien just went into too much unnecessary detail.

And Gandalf gone at the beginning for 17 ****ing years. :funny:

I mean Jesus, even for a book, that's not good for tension. It's things like that that make it obvious that Tolkien just dove into writing without any planning. Hence the constant rewrites.

[SuperFerret]

Tolkien wasn't a writer, he was a linguist. His love of words shows in the book, and aside from his goal of creating a very British mythology, the languages he created were a large part of the depth of the books. The Hobbit in particular is the easiest read, and that's because it was written for children (and it still stands head and shoulders above most of the "young adult" books of today).

Opinion - The Hobbit shouldn't have been split into two movies, and it's as obvious and despicable a money grab as the last Harry Potter films were.

[Homer J. Fong]

Opinion - The Hobbit shouldn't have been split into two movies, and it's as obvious and despicable a money grab as the last Harry Potter films were.

Oh, I agree ('though not so much with the "despicable" part). I didn't like the idea with Deathly Hallows either, I wanted to see one longer-than-usual movie. I ended up being relatively happy with the split because they gave the story some time to breathe that they might not have otherwsie. Meanwhile, The Hobbit isn't enough material for a two-parter, but still, I'm optimistic.

[gwynplaine]

How about a real unpopular opinion:
I don't really care for any of the Lord of the Rings movies:o
They are very well crafted and kudos to Jackson who obviously has a lot of respect and love for the original material, but I never read the books and I don't really care for elves, hobbits and wizards in general:woot:

[The Question]

Opinion - The Hobbit shouldn't have been split into two movies, and it's as obvious and despicable a money grab as the last Harry Potter films were.

1: I disagree that it was despicable in the case of Harry Potter. That last book was really long and splitting it in two made them able to fit as much stuff in as possible. I, personally, think it would have been a much weaker piece as one film.

2: I initially thought that the reason they were splitting the Hobbit was to make sure they didn't have to cut out anything, but I recently heard rumors that they're actually padding out the run time by combining the original story of The Hobbit with a story from the Sillmarillion that takes place at the same time.

[gwynplaine]

I don't really like Midnight Run, so I don't care if Brett Ratner f$%ks it up with a sequel.
Speaking of Ratner, even though it's not that great, I prefer "Red Dragon" than "Manhunter."
Speaking of Michael Mann, the only film of his I really like is "The Insider."

[gwynplaine]

"The Hunger Games" is not a very good movie.

[Max J Power]

1: I disagree that it was despicable in the case of Harry Potter. That last book was really long and splitting it in two made them able to fit as much stuff in as possible. I, personally, think it would have been a much weaker piece as one film.

I haven't read the books, but many fans of them I know always wanted more details from the books in the movies. In that respect it seems like splitting the last book into two movies gave fans what they wanted (or something closer to what they wanted).

I didn't feel like either Deathly Hallows movie was padded.

[gwynplaine]

I haven't read the books, but many fans of them I know always wanted more details from the books in the movies. In that respect it seems like splitting the last book into two movies gave fans what they wanted (or something closer to what they wanted).

I didn't feel like either Deathly Hallows movie was padded.
I haven't read the books either, but I agree.

[Art_of_Crime]

"The Hunger Games" is not a very good movie.
Kind of have to agree. Not just a technical issue either. Though the shaky camera is a trend well on the way out. Its not a well thought out, well paced or well acted movie.

Aside from that it still bothers me that lots of kids are going to a movie and watching other kids killing each other and cracking jokes afterward.

[DyeLorean]

What shocked me about Hunger Games is how close the second half is to Battle Royale and, to some degree, The Truman Show.

[Art_of_Crime]

What shocked me so much was how quickly this supplanted Twilight as the go to tweener movie.
Also made me look at "reality" tv and the growing apathy towards violence kids are showing. What the hell is our young generation turning into?

[gwynplaine]

I don't mind that Robert Rodriguez doesn't seem to be doing movies anymore.

[Homer J. Fong]

I don't mind that Robert Rodriguez doesn't seem to be doing movies anymore.

He doesn't? Did I miss something? What about Machete in 2010, Spy Kids: All the Time in the World last year, and the Sin City and Machete sequels he's working on? (Of course, on Sin City 2, I'll believe it when I see it.) Or do you mean that he's just slowed down?

[The Morningstar]

Robert Rodriguez is awesome. He's a one man film making machine. He shoots, edits, scores all himself, and most of the time he executes what he's going for perfectly.

He's like the modern day John Carpenter. But he hasn't made films as good as Halloween, Escape from New York or The Thing. But then, I consider Halloween and The Thing right up there in terms of best horror movies ever made.

[Art_of_Crime]

Rodriguez is great when he does his own thing and forgets to be "The Mexican Tarentino".

[gwynplaine]

He doesn't? Did I miss something? What about Machete in 2010, Spy Kids: All the Time in the World last year, and the Sin City and Machete sequels he's working on? (Of course, on Sin City 2, I'll believe it when I see it.) Or do you mean that he's just slowed down?
Sorry, I meant he seems to have slowed down.

Robert Rodriguez is awesome. He's a one man film making machine. He shoots, edits, scores all himself, and most of the time he executes what he's going for perfectly.
I agree. Actually that I like about him (I also like that he helped put Danny Trejo on the map.) It's his movies that I don't really care about, well most of them at least.

He's like the modern day John Carpenter. But he hasn't made films as good as Halloween, Escape from New York or The Thing. But then, I consider Halloween and The Thing right up there in terms of best horror movies ever made.
I don't agree at all.

[Art_of_Crime]

Sorry, I meant he seems to have slowed down.


I agree. Actually that I like about him (I also like that he helped put Danny Trejo on the map.) It's his movies that I don't really care about, well most of them at least.


I don't agree at all.
:up:
He is pretty awesome.

[Sloth7d]

1: I disagree that it was despicable in the case of Harry Potter. That last book was really long and splitting it in two made them able to fit as much stuff in as possible. I, personally, think it would have been a much weaker piece as one film.


If that's the case, every film after PoA should have been split. If they really needed to shorten the film, they would have trimmed away from the beginning of the book (most of the camping in the wilderness), which most fans hated about the DH book anyway, like they did in the other movies.

I haven't read the books, but many fans of them I know always wanted more details from the books in the movies. In that respect it seems like splitting the last book into two movies gave fans what they wanted (or something closer to what they wanted).

I didn't feel like either Deathly Hallows movie was padded.


But they still left stuff out. Like the whole subplot of Dumbledore's darker past? It was a pretty big recurring thing in the book since Harry was finding out the DD wasn't all that great a guy. They also cut out what was pretty much the biggest scene with the Dursleys out of all the books.

[hammerhedd11]

Edit- whoops, wrong thread

[jaymes_e06]

I actually liked the Tomb Raider films as well as the Rocketeer.

[Homer J. Fong]

The Raid: Redemption

What about it?

[CConn]

In regards to Harry Potter, I'll agree with this:

The first Deathly Hallows seemed very decompressed. I mean, they spent SO much time on that camping trip...that really could have to shaved down to a small handful of scenes, and not 45% of the entire movie.

That said, Part 2 definitely had a ton of **** in it, and I really couldn't imagine how they could've integrated the two without the running time being like 4-5 hours.

[Art_of_Crime]

I actually liked the Tomb Raider films as well as the Rocketeer.

Rocketeer was a fun movie. It was subtle and understated at times, but it worked for me. I wish they had made a sequel or two.

[DarkSovereignty]

The Raid: Redemption
monkey bone

...

we're naming random movies right?

[Drizzle]

(Of course, on Sin City 2, I'll believe it when I see it.)
I don't understand what's taking so long. We should have had two Sin City sequels by now.

[DarkSovereignty]

but you see, he didn't have time to make sin city two or three, because he had a calling, no, an obligation to bring sharkboy & lava girl, Shorts and spy kids 4 to the world. the world needed these films, don'tcha know?

[HighFivingMF]

but you see, he didn't have time to make sin city two or three, because he had a calling, no, an obligation to bring sharkboy & lava girl, Shorts and spy kids 4 to the world. the world needed these films, don'tcha know?

Well, those movies are for his kids and they won't always be kids. So, yeah...

[Majik1387]

Rodriguez clearly stated he made those kiddy films for his kids. He wanted them to be able to watch a movie he's made. It doesn't take away from his work on other films, it just sometimes delays them, and I don't see the problem with that.

[Homer J. Fong]

I don't understand what's taking so long. We should have had two Sin City sequels by now.

Yeah, I don't know. There are countless reasons a project can fall through.

[DarkSovereignty]

I have no problem with him making a film his kids can watch. I loved the first spy kids movie, hell, I even enjoy the second one. the third one I can take or leave. and just because you're making something for kids to watch doesn't mean you have to make sh**.

[Majik1387]

I haven't seen Spy Kids 4, Shorts, or Sharkboy and Lavagirl, but his kid movies were well received, some better than others, so obviously he's doing something right. We're not his target audience for those movies. For all we know he may be getting the ideas from his kids for the movie; Remember, this is a man who made the movie Planet Terror, one version with the kid not shooting himself, but he chose the one with the kid killing himself because he found it more scary.

Machete Kills Again..In Space is on it's way, he's gotten farther in development with Sin City 2; just be patient.

[The Morningstar]

I really do love Rodriguez. He's got such a cool visual style. And for the most part, his characterisation and plots are pretty sharp.

KJI8TYE7DtE&

That shot at around 1.15 where El is spinning the gun in front of that light is amazing cinematography. Love it.

[jaymes_e06]

I will always perferred Quentin T. over Rober R. For example I feel like Death Proof was the better of the two Grindhouse films dispite it's more limited budget. Both are geniuses though.

[The Morningstar]

Oh i definitely prefer Tarantino. Rodriguez hasn't made films that approach Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown imo.

I prefer Planet Terror though.

[El Payaso]

Well, those movies are for his kids and they won't always be kids. So, yeah...

Oh his kids. So basically I was right when I knew about those movies and thought 'who the hell cares for these movies, like 2 people in the world."

[The Morningstar]

Can't begrudge a man for making a film his kids would like. And obviously a lot of other people like them, the first 2 at least. Surely you can see the appeal of spy movies for kids? What else have they got? Those ****ing Cody Banks pieces of crap? lol

Me personally? Never bothered to watch them.

[DyeLorean]

I think Rodriguez is not a good director. That's my unpopular opinion. There's no way he could be compared to the great Tarantino.

[gwynplaine]

^ Yeah, they are not at all in the same league.
But even though I love quite a few Tarantino films, I disliked Death Proof probably just as much as Planet Terror. That whole Grindhouse experiment was a failure imo. Except maybe for the trailers, some of them were kinda fun.

[gwynplaine]

I have no desire to see "Dark Shadows." I'm tired of Burton and Depp's association.
On the other hand, I kinda of want to watch 'The Lone Ranger", if only because I'm a big Western Fan and we don't get enough of those.

[HighFivingMF]

For all we know he may be getting the ideas from his kids for the movie;

If I remember right one of his kids made up the Sharkboy and Lava Girl characters.

[Homer J. Fong]

I have no desire to see "Dark Shadows." I'm tired of Burton and Depp's association.

This isn't just to you, so don't get me wrong; I just need to vent this.

There's no accounting for taste, so for you and other people who're rubbed the wrong way by Burton/Depp working together, I can't convince you not to be. I just don't understand why so many people are put off by it. The criticism that they keep doing the same thing over and over again doesn't make sense to me: Edward Scissorhands ('90), Ed Wood ('94), Sleepy Hollow ('99), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ('05) Corpse Bride ('05), Sweeney Todd ('07), Alice in Wonderland ('10), and presumably Dark Shadows ('12) are all different kinds of movies; there are certain stylistic and/or thematic similarities between some of them, but of course there are - Burton's not the kind of director, like Steven Soderbergh, where just about everything he does is totally different from everything he's doe before. Edward in Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood in Ed Wood, Ichabod Crane in Sleepy Hollow, Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Victor Van Dort in Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd in Sweeney Todd, The Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland are all different kinds of characters; they're all "quirky," but "quirky" is like "dark" or "normal," it's a word that doesn't mean much of anything because it's not specific. So I don't buy into the idea that Burton & Depp keep repeating themselves, and I don't see why their collaboration is any more worthy of loathing and bashing than any other frequent collaboration between director and star in film ever.

[gwynplaine]

This isn't just to you, so don't get me wrong; I just need to vent this.

There's no accounting for taste, so for you and other people who're rubbed the wrong way by Burton/Depp working together, I can't convince you not to be. I just don't understand why so many people are put off by it. The criticism that they keep doing the same thing over and over again doesn't make sense to me: Edward Scissorhands ('90), Ed Wood ('94), Sleepy Hollow ('99), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ('05) Corpse Bride ('05), Sweeney Todd ('07), Alice in Wonderland ('10), and presumably Dark Shadows ('12) are all different kinds of movies; there are certain stylistic and/or thematic similarities between some of them, but of course there are - Burton's not the kind of director, like Steven Soderbergh, where just about everything he does is totally different from everything he's doe before. Edward in Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood in Ed Wood, Ichabod Crane in Sleepy Hollow, Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Victor Van Dort in Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd in Sweeney Todd, The Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland are all different kinds of characters; they're all "quirky," but "quirky" is like "dark" or "normal," it's a word that doesn't mean much of anything because it's not specific. So I don't buy into the idea that Burton & Depp keep repeating themselves, and I don't see why their collaboration is any more worthy of loathing and bashing than any other frequent collaboration between director and star in film ever.
I see your point and I agree. I should have worded my post better. I actually really like some of Burton's movies, and they usually involve Depp, like Edward Scissorhands or Ed Wood, two of my favorites of his, and you're right they are very different films and characters, and I also really like when a director seems to have found his "muse."
I just think that sometimes Burton is a great visual director but not such a great story teller, but to each its own and I believe it's the people who like something who are right anyway.
One thing I really love about his films for instance is that you can always tell it's a Burton film which is not the case with a lot of directors with much less "personality." And I'll probably watch "Dark Shadows" in the theater anyway, because I like Eva Green and films set in the 70's in general:woot::cwink:

[Homer J. Fong]

I just think that sometimes Burton is a great visual director but not such a great story teller, but to each its own

Yeah, I mean, I think he's a better visual storyteller than people give him credit for being, but I'm not going to pretend that all of his fire on all cylinders that way.

I too prefer a director who's readily identifiable in their work, over a "journeyman" who doesn't bring any personality to what they do. It doesn't mean I'll always love the given film, but still.

[El Payaso]

This isn't just to you, so don't get me wrong; I just need to vent this.

There's no accounting for taste, so for you and other people who're rubbed the wrong way by Burton/Depp working together, I can't convince you not to be. I just don't understand why so many people are put off by it. The criticism that they keep doing the same thing over and over again doesn't make sense to me: Edward Scissorhands ('90), Ed Wood ('94), Sleepy Hollow ('99), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ('05) Corpse Bride ('05), Sweeney Todd ('07), Alice in Wonderland ('10), and presumably Dark Shadows ('12) are all different kinds of movies; there are certain stylistic and/or thematic similarities between some of them, but of course there are - Burton's not the kind of director, like Steven Soderbergh, where just about everything he does is totally different from everything he's doe before. Edward in Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood in Ed Wood, Ichabod Crane in Sleepy Hollow, Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Victor Van Dort in Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd in Sweeney Todd, The Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland are all different kinds of characters; they're all "quirky," but "quirky" is like "dark" or "normal," it's a word that doesn't mean much of anything because it's not specific. So I don't buy into the idea that Burton & Depp keep repeating themselves, and I don't see why their collaboration is any more worthy of loathing and bashing than any other frequent collaboration between director and star in film ever.

I think Burton is extraordinary. The movies he made in the 90's excelled for me. And his association with Depp has given great performances, such as in Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Sweeney Todd or Sleepy Hollow.

But my problem is that they like each other too much and that, artistically speaking, can be counter-productive. I feel that in many moivies (Charlie and the CF, Alice in Wonderland, they didn't demand too much from each other. They were, okay Tim, you just do your thing, Okay, Johnnie, play the role as you want. Sometimes that's incredibly healthy, but when you have such a distinct style as Burton and Depp you tend to repeat yourself. And that happens with them a lot. Depp limits himself to do the first thing he thinks of, and so does Burton.

Think of Danny Elfman and Burton. At one point Elfman was being less and less creative with Tim. But when Elfman worked with Ang Lee for Hulk, Lee didn't allow Elfman to do "his thing." It's well documented that the director was constantly rejecting Elfman's music for being "too Elfman." And the result was remarkable. And it broadened Elfman's musical limits. It was good for him.

But with Burton and Depp, I'm very afraid when I know they're working together yet again.

Plus, I hated the comedic tone of the Dark Shadows trailer. I know little about the original TV series but this feels too much like the average Hollywood "parodic remake of the old TV series."

[gwynplaine]

Yeah, I mean, I think he's a better visual storyteller than people give him credit for being, but I'm not going to pretend that all of his fire on all cylinders that way.

I too prefer a director who's readily identifiable in their work, over a "journeyman" who doesn't bring any personality to what they do. It doesn't mean I'll always love the given film, but still.
:up:

[The Morningstar]

On that note, here's a really unpopular opinion... Chris Nolan has no personality as a film maker. He has no distinct style of his own. The thing he did have going for him was the whole non-linear, flashback within a flashback way of story telling, which he now seems to have abandoned. He's left being a mix of Michael Mann and Ridley Scott, but not as good as either of them. He hasn't got the precision and geographical knowledge when shooting action scenes or the slick editing style like Mann. He hasn't got the visual flair or the skill and attention to detail to create fully engrossing worlds, or ability to get emotion out of cerebral themes like Ridley Scott. The Prestige and Memento are far and away his best films imo exactly because they are uniquely Chris Nolan. They are very distinct and individual. I also really like Inception, but the idea that dreams, the subconscious, has a structure and set of rules is baffling to me. The dream world he creates is more like a structured computer program, rather than a surreal subconsciousness.

How do you like them apples! :D

Also another one. I like 500 Days of Summer. But Zooey Deschanal's character turns out to be an utter ****. I can't be the only one to think that right?

[Oberon sexton]

Deschanal was totally ****ing with JGL's head haha

[Drizzle]

The Adventures of Tintin is Spielberg's best adventure film since Jurassic Park. Not really sure how unpopular of an opinion that is, since most of the films he's done in that genre over the past 20 years haven't been met with the best praise (The Lost World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).

[jonathancrane]

-In light of the extremely negative responses towards the announcement of Platinum Dunes' involvement with a Halloween film, I will confess: I loved every frame of their NOES and Friday reboots.
-The 2004 Salem's Lot Minsieries > The Original Television Film. But, by a small margin, as I enjoy them equally.

[TomServo]

-In light of the extremely negative responses towards the announcement of Platinum Dunes' involvement with a Halloween film, I will confess: I loved every frame of their NOES and Friday reboots.
-The 2004 Salem's Lot Minsieries > The Original Television Film. But, by a small margin, as I enjoy them equally.

I didn't see the new NOES, but I really liked the new Friday 13th. It was mindless fun, but enjoyable I thought.

[Majik1387]

I liked the all the remakes of the classics(Texas Chainsaw Massacre, TCM: The Beginning, Halloween, H2, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street).

Were they as good as the originals? Well I personally thought TCM and Ft13 was better than all its predecessors; but other than that one, no, they weren't better than the originals, but I didn't think they were the **** that some posters here try to make them out to be.

[HighFivingMF]

I absolutely love Zombie's Halloween movies, they're my favorites in the series besides the original. But I wasn't a fan of the Nightmare remake and thought the Friday the 13th remake was pretty much just the same movie over again. Friday the 13th 6 is the only one that really stands out to me. So, yep, not too excited about Platinum Dunes getting the rights to the next Halloween.

[Secret Fawful]

The Adventures of Tintin is Spielberg's best adventure film since Jurassic Park. Not really sure how unpopular of an opinion that is, since most of the films he's done in that genre over the past 20 years haven't been met with the best praise (The Lost World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).

I agree except that most people seem to think Tintin isn't that great either. I loved it though.

[El Payaso]

The Adventures of Tintin is Spielberg's best adventure film since Jurassic Park. Not really sure how unpopular of an opinion that is, since most of the films he's done in that genre over the past 20 years haven't been met with the best praise (The Lost World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).

I liked Tintin. Now, Jurassic Park... the action is good, the dinosaurs. But there are so many annoying characters I can barely watch it.

[Art_of_Crime]

I liked Tintin. Now, Jurassic Park... the action is good, the dinosaurs. But there are so many annoying characters I can barely watch it.
Thats how I feel about JP3

[SuperFerret]

I've never been truly annoyed by a character in a movie, and I'm kind of hoping most of what I hear in regards to that is hyperbole.

[Art_of_Crime]

I've never been truly annoyed by a character in a movie, and I'm kind of hoping most of what I hear in regards to that is hyperbole.

really? In all of the movies you have seen you have never been annoyed by a single character?

[SuperFerret]

Not really annoyed where I can't watch anything with the character. Annoyed in the way I was able to say "so-and-so is an annoying character" in an in-universe context, but never was I really annoyed.

[El Payaso]

Thats how I feel about JP3

Ah well, that's how I feel about JP1, 2 and 3 actually.

[Drizzle]

I liked Tintin. Now, Jurassic Park... the action is good, the dinosaurs. But there are so many annoying characters I can barely watch it.
iBxgAmdPQWg

[DarkSovereignty]

eh, I loved goldblum in JP.

[Rowsdower!]

I've never been a fan of the Jurassic Park movies, really. The first one was okay at best... the dinosaurs looked good but I really hated how much they dumbed the story down from the books and changed the characters. Ian Malcolm was an uptight nerd in the book, and they cast an actor whose specialty is playing uptight nerds and then they turn him into... a wisecracking douchebag? WTF was the point of that?

The changes to Alan Grant weren't quite as drastic, but they were still there. Mainly because Sam Neill can't seem to play anything without coming off at least moderately creepy.

The changes to the story were also irritating... half the characters that died in the book lived in the move, and vice versa.

The Lost World was an even worse adaptation, but I didn't really care because the book sucked too. And JP3 was flat-out one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I can't believe they are still considering doing JP4.

[The Question]

The Adventures of Tintin is Spielberg's best adventure film since Jurassic Park. Not really sure how unpopular of an opinion that is, since most of the films he's done in that genre over the past 20 years haven't been met with the best praise (The Lost World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).

I liked it a lot, and it's certainly better than The Lost World or Crystal Skull, but I don't think it's quite as good as Jurassic Park or the original three Indiana Jones films.

[El Payaso]

iBxgAmdPQWg

Dear God. I never thought that Spieberg could make adult characters even worse than he portrays children in his movies. But Goldblum takes the biscuit. Oh, I'm stuttering because geniuses sttuter you see. And I defend nature saying cliche crap like "life will find its way, it always does," yes, in spite of having dozens of species that are extinct, oh and I explain the very well-known chaos theory to other scientists because they have apparently never heard of it before.

[SuperFerret]

Scientifically speaking, life does find a way, and the extinction of any species is no big deal.

And he has to explain chaos theory because the audience wouldn't have any idea what it is.

[gwynplaine]

I liked Tintin. Now, Jurassic Park... the action is good, the dinosaurs. But there are so many annoying characters I can barely watch it.
I agree. I love the dinosaurs but I find the characters poorly written and very annoying too.

Dear God. I never thought that Spieberg could make adult characters even worse than he portrays children in his movies. But Goldblum takes the biscuit. Oh, I'm stuttering because geniuses sttuter you see. And I defend nature saying cliche crap like "life will find its way, it always does," yes, in spite of having dozens of species that are extinct, oh and I explain the very well-known chaos theory to other scientists because they have apparently never heard of it before.
Once again I agree, I find Goldblum's performance very fake and annoying. Granted like I said before that his character is not very well written and that also I'm not a big Goldblum fan in general, except in "The Fly."

[roach]

I liked Watchmen...the first and third Transformers movies, Avatar, Warhorse, John Carter

ok movies: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the Prequels, Superman Returns, Suckerpunch

disliked: Nolan Batfilms, Inception, Hunger Games

[gwynplaine]

I liked Watchmen...the first and third Transformers movies, Memento and the Prestige, Warhorse, John Carter, 21 Jump Street

ok movies: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the Prequels, Superman Returns, Suckerpunch

disliked: Nolan Batfilms, Inception, Hunger Games
Not sure these are very unpopular.
Personally, and I've said it before in this thread so sorry for repeating myself, the only Nolan Films that I really think are great are Memento and The Dark Knight. (Specially TDK.)
And I also didn't care that much for Inception or The Hunger Games.

[roach]

i edited my post

[Max J Power]

Not sure these are very unpopular.
Personally, and I've said it before in this thread so sorry for repeating myself, the only Nolan Films that I really think are great are Memento and The Dark Knight. (Specially TDK.)
And I also didn't care that much for Inception or The Hunger Games.
Eh, this thread's been going for a couple years. I'm sure everyone's repeated themselves at some point in it.

Here's one I've probably repeated: Though I like all of Nolan's films, Inception is the only one I really love because it's the only one where I felt emotionally invested in the characters.

And one that's partially new: The 2004 Punisher movie is pretty good (I know I've said that before), and I prefer it to War Zone (though War Zone is one of the more enjoyable bad movies I've seen in awhile).

[TomServo]

Don't know if how unpopular this is and apologies if it's been stated before, but I think The Incredibles might be the best superhero movie ever. I feel like it's often overlooked because it's animated and geared primarily towards kids, but it really is a great film.

[El Payaso]

Scientifically speaking, life does find a way, and the extinction of any species is no big deal.

And if life does find a way, species wouldn't become extinct.

And he has to explain chaos theory because the audience wouldn't have any idea what it is.

So it's possible that if he had explained it to, let's say, the children, that scene could have had a tad of plausibility.





I agree. I love the dinosaurs but I find the characters poorly written and very annoying too.

My worst dissapointment was when that annoying brat got electrocuted and then we find out he actually wasn't. The whole movie could have been saved if only they had killed that little piece of ****.

Once again I agree, I find Goldblum's performance very fake and annoying. Granted like I said before that his character is not very well written and that also I'm not a big Goldblum fan in general, except in "The Fly."

He was great in The Fly, I agree.

[SuperFerret]

And if life does find a way, species wouldn't become extinct.

Ummm... no. "Life" refers to all life, and since the beginning of life, it has "found a way". Individuals don't matter, individual species don't matter, the greater whole of life is what matters, and it is extremely adaptable.

So it's possible that if he had explained it to, let's say, the children, that scene could have had a tad of plausibility.

He explains it to the adults in the book as well, and it's explained that due to chaos theory's relative newness and obscurity, that even though they may have heard of it, they didn't know the details, which puts the characters a step above nearly everyone in the audience as, even today, chaos theory is only known due to Jurassic Park.

[El Payaso]

Ummm... no. "Life" refers to all life, and since the beginning of life, it has "found a way". Individuals don't matter, individual species don't matter, the greater whole of life is what matters, and it is extremely adaptable.

Ah, I see. It was even below the Goldblum's cliche expectations. It's ALL life. So unless universe explodes, what he says is true. He's a real hack. Having all that fuzz and scientific stuttering just to state what's beyond obvious.

He explains it to the adults in the book as well, and it's explained that due to chaos theory's relative newness and obscurity, that even though they may have heard of it, they didn't know the details, which puts the characters a step above nearly everyone in the audience as, even today, chaos theory is only known due to Jurassic Park.

Yeah, chaos theory's early explanationms started in the 1880's, then the 1960's and then late 1970's. And yet scientists had barely heard of it by 1993. I've heard people didn't know what dinosaurs were untill Spielberg explained to them.

[SuperFerret]

Please, like you knew what Chaos Theory was before Jurassic Park.

[El Payaso]

Please, like you knew what Chaos Theory was before Jurassic Park.

Yeah, because by then I was already a scientist. :cwink:

[A Necessary Evil]

My worst dissapointment was when that annoying brat got electrocuted and then we find out he actually wasn't. The whole movie could have been saved if only they had killed that little piece of ****.


:dry::dry::dry:

[Figs]

:dry::dry::dry:

Although I really like the first JP, I have to agree with El Payaso about the little brat.

[A Necessary Evil]

I honestly have never been annoyed by tim...or really any of the kids in the JP movies. Maybe that's because I like kids (well some of them), or not, I'm not sure. But i've never really been bothered by them.

[Drizzle]

Out of all the kids in the Jurassic Park movies, Tim was probably the least annoying. His sister was the worst.

[bullets]

I never found the kids annoying in the first Jurassic Park. The kid surviving on his own before his parents arrive in JP3 almost kills the entire film for me though.



I liked the all the remakes of the classics(Texas Chainsaw Massacre, TCM: The Beginning, Halloween, H2, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street).

Were they as good as the originals? Well I personally thought TCM and Ft13 was better than all its predecessors; but other than that one, no, they weren't better than the originals, but I didn't think they were the **** that some posters here try to make them out to be.



I think they get way too much hate. The originals don't hold up that well either. I thought the whole purpose was to restart the franchise so they could cash in on sequels again. It's kind of surprising that hasn't happened.

[El Payaso]

Although I really like the first JP, I have to agree with El Payaso about the little brat.

:up:

[The Morningstar]

Tim and Lex was it? They were supposed to be annoying. It was part of Grant's character arc.

[Figs]

Tim and Lex was it? They were supposed to be annoying. It was part of Grant's character arc.

They didn't have to be annoying for Grant's character arc. He just didn't like kids in general, not only annoying ones.

[El Payaso]

Grant was portrayed as a children allergic character. The kids were supposed to convince him of the opposite and all they did was give him all the reasons in the world to be children allergic.

Plus, let's be honest, Spielberg loves to portray kids as annoying in every movie (there might be exceptions). He sort of thinks that "annying" equials "adorable."

[The Morningstar]

I don't think he does. I think Spielberg is one of the only directors out there who can get good performances from kids.

[El Payaso]

I don't think he does. I think Spielberg is one of the only directors out there who can get good performances from kids.

That's another matter entirely.

[Drizzle]

Boba Fett is the most overrated character in anything...ever. He didn't do anything in any of the films he was in. He mostly just stands around. In Attack of the Clones, he was just a kid. In The Empire Strikes Back, all he did was follow Han Solo. As far as capturing him, Vader did all the work there. In Return of the Jedi, he just stands around until hell breaks loose above the sarlacc pit, then he jetpacks in and ties Luke up (which turns out to be futile) before getting taken out of the game by a blind guy with a stick. Despite all this, fanboys treat him as if he's a god. The only reason why he's popular is because he looks cool. Okay, fair enough, but you have to do some badass stuff to back that up (example: Vader). And this is coming from a Star Wars fan.

[Homer J. Fong]

Boba Fett is the most overrated character in anything...ever. He didn't do anything in any of the films he was in. He mostly just stands around. In Attack of the Clones, he was just a kid. In The Empire Strikes Back, all he did was follow Han Solo. As far as capturing him, Vader did all the work there. In Return of the Jedi, he just stands around until hell breaks loose above the sarlacc pit, then he jetpacks in and ties Luke up (which turns out to be futile) before getting taken out of the game by a blind guy with a stick. Despite all this, fanboys treat him as if he's a god. The only reason why he's popular is because he looks cool. Okay, fair enough, but you have to do some badass stuff to back that up (example: Vader). And this is coming from a Star Wars fan.

Here here. He has a great character design, a great look, and one that indicates the potential to be a great movie badass. But that potential was never fulfilled (at least not in the films).

[Art_of_Crime]

Here here. He has a great character design, a great look, and one that indicates the potential to be a great movie badass. But that potential was never fulfilled (at least not in the films).

Lucas is a pro at doing that. Just look at Darth Maul.

[Homer J. Fong]

Lucas is a pro at doing that. Just look at Darth Maul.

Actually, I prefer Darth Maul. I don't know if that's unpopular, but in his brief screentime, he's much more visually striking and threatening.

[The Morningstar]

Darth Maul actually did stuff though. He whipped both Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan's asses.

[Art_of_Crime]

He had just about as many lines as Fett too. In the end I was pissed that he was killed off after the first movie( I don't count the TV show). His scenes were some of the only watchable parts of that movie, and I wished he had survived to kick ass in the second one. It needed all the help it could get.

[The Morningstar]

Yea i don't understand why Lucas didn't use Maul as the Vader of the prequel trilogy. Automatically would have made them so much better.

[Drizzle]

At least Maul was able to kill someone. All Fett did was shoot and miss, which makes him no different from the countless other bad guys in the Star Wars universe besides the Sith.

[Majik1387]

I liked the Jurassic Park kids. Boba Fett and Maul are equally lame.

[Art_of_Crime]

I liked the Jurassic Park kids. Boba Fett and Maul are equally lame.
and now we have come full circle.