State your unpopular film related opinion - - Part 11

[I Am Jack's...]

Same. Even before I watched it for the second time, my dislike for TDKR kept growing with every new problem I'd find. I just watched it on DVD a few days ago, and that sealed it. All the problems I had were there, but what made it worse was that even the parts that I liked initially, this time I liked them less. Like, the time in the pit. I didn't really mind it the first time I saw it, but this time it felt really, REALLY rushed and I didn't buy it. I didn't buy a lot of things in it, actually.

I really hate that I don't like TDKR. I can see that there was something good in there, and I could have liked/loved it if it was done differently, but I have so many issues with the story and characters. It's frustrating to not feel any desire to keep watching it, unlike TDK or, to a lesser extent, Begins.

 

[Travesty]

I still haven't seen Skyfall.

 

[DKDetective]

My unpopular opinion is a real doozy: I really don't get what is so great about The Avengers. Like Thor or Captain America, I found it to be a fun, but largely ordinary movie (although TA was the best of the three). Nothing really stood out for me as all that great. I don't know, maybe as a big Whedon fan, I just expected something different - more quirky, more layers.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

You don't get it or you don't like it? Because it's pretty easy to see why people like it.

 

[CConn]

My unpopular opinion is a real doozy: I really don't get what is so great about The Avengers. Like Thor or Captain America, I found it to be a fun, but largely ordinary movie (although TA was the best of the three). Nothing really stood out for me as all that great. I don't know, maybe as a big Whedon fan, I just expected something different - more quirky, more layers.

I understand that completely.

I enjoy it for its characters, their acting, and the action. Everything else about the movie is pretty resolutely mediocre.

 

[TheGuy]

Definitely. It's flat. Iron Man is still the best of the MCU. Visuals, story, etc.

 

[DKDetective]

You don't get it or you don't like it? Because it's pretty easy to see why people like it.

Both. I can understand its basic appeal - lots of ridiculous action, some witty dialogue, the excite of seeing a Superhero team-up movie for the first time and it not be a failure. Just like I can understand how people can be taken in by Avatar's 3d and effects, despite not liking it at all myself. But I don't understand why the Avengers got such rave reviews and why it did such massive numbers. I can see why people like it, but NOT why it seems so universally LOVED.

 

[TheGuy]

It's praised and loved, but not universally loved. There's a minority that hates it for being cheesy and light.

 

[Travesty]

So you can see why people like it, but you can't see why people like it?

 

[DyeLorean]

I think the strength of The Avengers lies in the achievement of making highly watchable something that could've gone terribly wrong. It was a very hard movie to make, not only because of all the big characters it had, but because it was the first time that this kind of big movie worked as some sort of sequel for 5 previously released movies.
I think that attempting something that only existed in comic books was a huge risk, and if you think in those terms, the movie is just the perfect combination of ingredients that makes it work. That's why it was so succesful. It was carefully planned and is probably the best posible version of how an Avengers movie could've worked on screen.

 

[James]

I think the strength of The Avengers lies in the achievement of making highly watchable something that could've gone terribly wrong. It was a very hard movie to make, not only because of all the big characters it had, but because it was the first time that this kind of big movie worked as some sort of sequel for 5 previously released movies.
I think that attempting something that only existed in comic books was a huge risk, and if you think in those terms, the movie is just the perfect combination of ingredients that makes it work. That's why it was so succesful. It was carefully planned and is probably the best posible version of how an Avengers movie could've worked on screen.

That's a good way of putting it. I'm not a huge fan of comparisons, but I can't help but think: Avengers managed to make a solid, watchable, fun film with 5 or so other films behind it -Meanwhile Batman only had 2 movies behind it, didn't need to bring a big cast together, and still managed to fall apart completely.

 

[MadVillainy]

I was actually just about to post about The Avengers

I like it, but the more I watch it I like it less and less because i just think the story/structure is sh**

 

[Slushy]

With the world ending in a few days, I thought I would get around to finally watching 2012. My interest in this movie was sky high because I remember the teaser trailer being cool then BAM, it had to happen. John Cusack! I forgot he was in the movie and as soon as I saw him, I literally said out loud to my friend "God damn it, fu**ing John Cusack! That just ruined this whole movie for me!"

John Cusack is one of the most overrated actors of all-time. He's always the same persona in every movie he's in. He just sucks. Tries to display emotions like stark terror and comes off looking silly. Why would they even bother putting him in this film? There were several good movies that were released in 2009. Not surprisingly, John Cusack was in NONE of them!

I really hate that I don't like TDKR. I can see that there was something good in there, and I could have liked/loved it if it was done differently, but I have so many issues with the story and characters. It's frustrating to not feel any desire to keep watching it, unlike TDK or, to a lesser extent, Begins.

Agreed. The movie suffers from sh**ty writing.

Spoiler

The pointless 8 year exile, Blake's incredibly lame reason for figuring out Bruce was Batman, the magic knee brace, the convoluted 5 month plot to use the cliche nuclear bomb, the villains having weak deaths, the rushed romance between Batman and Catwoman, and Bruce Wayne being a quitter.

There's plenty more, but those were my main gripes.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Uhh.....that last one was ripped straight out of the comics.

 

[Slushy]

Bruce Wayne would stay involved no matter what IMO.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

I couldn't disagree more about Skyfall. It had everything you expect in a Bond movie and more. The One liners were back, the humor, exotic locales, women, and Craig's Bond going back to being like Connery's Bond in the end.

All of the best Bond movies involved him getting personal. In Goldfinger, it was Jill Masterson's death after he irresponsibly dealed with GF. In The Spy Who Loved Me, it was his relationship with Anya, which got even more personal after she finds out he killed her lover. In Goldeneye, it was his relationship with 006 and his betrayal that set him off. He could have brought him back to England and had him arrested, but he was too hurt hence, the the "For me, line". And we all know about Casino Royale.

By personal I meant intimate ( hoping it is a better word), we learned about his dead familly, the familly estate, him getting emotional with M death. I didn't find that to my liking. I felt he was too "weak".
In the previous films you mentionned Bond still keep his coolness, you don't see him crying over the girls or friend he got killed.

Craig is still far from Connery's Bond ( he will always miss Connery's charm and suavity anyway ).

The cool thing was Moneypenny and the new M at the end ( Dench M was fine too, she was a change )

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Fair enough, I understand. It's funny, I remember reading an article from a critic who also criticized the characterization of Bond who criticized the humanization of Bond and felt like Bind was being turned into Bruce Wayne. It is a jarring contrast when you think about it.

I like the change, but personally him crying over M I felt was warranted. It was his boss who he did have a close relation as she (whether he liked it or not) was a mother figure to him. I think while Craig isn't Connery Bond, I don't think the point was to make him fully Connery's Bond, but to bring the character back into a familiar world. I don't think he was as weak as he was humanized. I think much more so than Casino Royale his "armor" was stripped from him and it became an simultaneously an introspective and a retrospective of the character.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It's praised and loved, but not universally loved. There's a minority that hates it for being cheesy and light.

With at logic, that goes for every popular movie. And that depends on your definition of universally loved. There's a minority that hates the Dark Knight for being heavy handed and having plot holes.

And why is it such a problem with being light? Just because its lighter than say, Batman's trilogy should not be a bad thing. I dislike the mentality that just because Marvel's movies are entertaining and lighter does not mean its weaker.

I think The Avengers was much better than TDKR. It was just much more well polished than TDKR. Though I felt TDKR's best dialogue really hit its beats, Avengers had a better structure and was more consistent with characterization and character actions than TDKR was. I also felt that the action overall was better in The Avengers too. TDKR I felt had better cinematography and a better score along with a better villain, but Avengers I felt was just more fun and entertaining to watch.

 

[TheGuy]

With at logic, that goes for every popular movie. And that depends on your definition of universally loved. There's a minority that hates the Dark Knight for being heavy handed and having plot holes.

And why is it such a problem with being light? Just because its lighter than say, Batman's trilogy should not be a bad thing. I dislike the mentality that just because Marvel's movies are entertaining and lighter does not mean its weaker.

Never said being light is a problem. My main complaint with the film is the story. I love IM and like CA.

 

[CConn]

Bruce Wayne would stay involved no matter what IMO.

Well, it's wonderful that you have an opinion, but Bruce Wayne has given up the mantle of Batman at least twice in the comics.

And probably more if you count all of the zany things that happened in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Indiana Jones 4 isn't bad because of Aliens, it's bad because it makes you realize how old, pathetic and crazy Harrison Ford is now.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Well, it's wonderful that you have an opinion, but Bruce Wayne has given up the mantle of Batman at least twice in the comics.

And probably more if you count all of the zany things that happened in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

But no matter what in the main canon the mantle of Batman always ends up going back to Bruce Wayne.

 

[James]

But no matter what in the main canon the mantle of Batman always ends up going back to Bruce Wayne.

Not to mention, there are so many different versions/canons of Batman in the comics almost everyone seems to have their own idea of who and what the character is. A gun totting killer, a goofy clown hero, a dark and brooding vigilante, a cocky grinning superhero, a loner, a family man, a psycho, a quitter, not a quitter and the list goes on.

Saying a character with as much variation in personality as Batman should be one way or another in the movies "because he did this or that in the comics at some point during his 70+ year history" is completely pointless. People are well within their rights to be disappointed if the big screen Batman doesn't meet their idea of what the character should or shouldn't be.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

It's a staple of Batman lore that even if Bruce Wayne is no longer in cape and cowl, there will always be a Batman. Jean-Paul, Terry, Dick, Damien, and now John. ****, even Superman.

 

[Enriquespy]

With at logic, that goes for every popular movie. And that depends on your definition of universally loved. There's a minority that hates the Dark Knight for being heavy handed and having plot holes.

And why is it such a problem with being light? Just because its lighter than say, Batman's trilogy should not be a bad thing. I dislike the mentality that just because Marvel's movies are entertaining and lighter does not mean its weaker.

I think The Avengers was much better than TDKR. It was just much more well polished than TDKR. Though I felt TDKR's best dialogue really hit its beats, Avengers had a better structure and was more consistent with characterization and character actions than TDKR was. I also felt that the action overall was better in The Avengers too. TDKR I felt had better cinematography and a better score along with a better villain, but Avengers I felt was just more fun and entertaining to watch.

I approve of this post.