State your unpopular film related opinion - Part 2

[CelticPredator]

The best parts of Thor were the psychedelic aspects of Asgard (frost giants, rainbow bridges and transports, etc.). Other than that I was pretty bored.

I saw the new trailer for Green Lantern with Thor and holy **** that movie looks horrible. They spent $150 million on that? ****ing embarrasment.

Once again, this is the unpopular opinion thread, not the wrong opinion thread.

Thor was ****ing perfect.

 

[Dark Victory]

Once again, this is the unpopular opinion thread, not the wrong opinion thread.

Thor was ****ing perfect.

Oh, I liked it, one of the better comic book adaptations to date. That's not saying much, though.

 

[CelticPredator]

One of those types a guys eh?

Those comic book movies have been some of the best action adventure films to come out in a while...

 

[Figs]

Oh, I liked it, one of the better comic book adaptations to date. That's not saying much, though.

Didn't feel like writing up a review or are you still working on it?

 

[Dark Victory]

One of those types a guys eh?

Those comic book movies have been some of the best action adventure films to come out in a while...

Yeah, total *****ebag. I wear scarfs and sunglasses everywhere, and speak in a subtle foreign accent for no reason.

Didn't feel like writing up a review or are you still working on it?

I don't know, just didn't feel like doing it. DV wasn't too into Thor....how surprising...

I collapsed during track last week and my body's been pretty exhausted since. Main reason for all of the laziness and laconic sentences, I'm sure.

 

[El Payaso]

The best parts of Thor were the psychedelic aspects of Asgard (frost giants, rainbow bridges and transports, etc.). Other than that I was pretty bored.

I wasn't bored but everything involving Portman's character and friends was terrible or just poor. All in all, "Thor" was good fun but not much else.

 

[SuperFerret]

What else should it have been?

 

[El Payaso]

What else should it have been?

A really good movie. And having a good romantic plot with a good love interest, for a change.

 

[SuperFerret]

It did. You just have poor taste.

 

[El Payaso]

It did. You just have poor taste.

No, it didn't. The romance was some average teenage flirting and infatuation for about 2 scenes and Portman's character had the charisma of a mailbox; little more than an ineffective comedic relief.

 

[SuperFerret]

The romance (if you want to call it that) was the most realistic I've seen in any movie. They just met. He's obviously enchanted with this mortal woman (who provided more than comic relief and did have charisma), and she's obviously physically attracted to this bonafide god. It's the foundation that will lead to an actual romance, but I'm not sure why I even try arguing with you, since I've never seen anything suggesting that you like anything.

 

[El Payaso]

The romance (if you want to call it that) was the most realistic I've seen in any movie. They just met.

Whoa, what a potential for a great romantic story. Can't see how did I miss such a concept for a good romance.

He's obviously enchanted with this mortal woman (who provided more than comic relief and did have charisma), and she's obviously physically attracted to this bonafide god.

Of course they are... so what? Does that make it any good? In fact, isn't that what happens in like... every romantic story: they're attracted to each other?

Again, whoa.

But no, Portman's jokes barely work and her character is just an adolescent version of herself. There's nothing interesting about her.

It's the foundation that will lead to an actual romance,

And the foundation cannot be any more cliché and average. There's nothing we can see Thor could see in her that he hasn't seen in any other woman, specially those fantastic women from Asgard.

but I'm not sure why I even try arguing with you, since I've never seen anything suggesting that you like anything.

So you missed my post in this very thread where I say that Loki was great?

 

[Sloth7d]

I agree. The earthly aspects of this movie really bring it down as a whole, and this is mainly due to the bad jokes- especially from Kat Denning's character- and bland romance. Taking place as a setting in a small town by a desert didn't help liven things up either.

 

[gwynplaine]

I agree. Loki to me has got to be the most complex supervillain I've seen in a comic book movie. To me, that has to do with Branagh's Shakespearean past. He understood that Loki is the [BLACKOUT]tragic character [/BLACKOUT]of the movie and he used Loki's [BLACKOUT]fatal flaw which is his strong desire to be king[/BLACKOUT] greatly. I'm glad Marvel used Branagh.



Yeah, gwynplaine, don't go in with that expectation. But, like Hitchcock said, a movie is as great as its villain, and Loki's a great villain.



I don't think that would be an unpopular opinion. That's just fact.

And I always felt the ending of that movie was so forced because it was the 50s and we always had a cheesy happy ending.

I'm going at 6h30. (If I can get in.)

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree. The earthly aspects of this movie really bring it down as a whole, and this is mainly due to the bad jokes- especially from Kat Denning's character- and bland romance. Taking place as a setting in a small town by a desert didn't help liven things up either.

Well, I'll say that Denning's character wasn't around much so I'm glad for that (I wish they gave Denning's more to do and more character development because that would've made her bearable).

With the romance, I feel like it worked for what it was. Both were charmed by each other. Jane was humble and down to earth, a great contrast to Thor's arrogant and boisterous personality. That's why he liked her. She helped bring out that humility in him with going overboard with the romance.

That' why the setting is a small town. It's a complete opposite of the grand area of the Gods and the perfect place for Thor earn his hammer back. In my religion class, I've learned of a concept called the sacred and the profane. The scared was the grand, beautiful area of the of the Gods, and the profane was the ordinary area of the humans. Branagh looked for Thor to gain humility by emphasizing this aspect of the sacred and the profane.

I'm really getting tired of the whole "it goes through the motions". Why is that a bad thing? With Thor, you got a great story with some great performances. All in all, you a movie that was well done and entertaining. Yet, every movie has to have a groundbreaking story to some people. It's not like Transformers 2 in which the story just falls apart before it even began (people not knowing about Transformers despite a huge battle in the middle of LA) and continues to fall apart.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah, total *****ebag. I wear scarfs and sunglasses everywhere, and speak in a subtle foreign accent for no reason.

I knew it!!! t:

 

[El Payaso]

I agree. The earthly aspects of this movie really bring it down as a whole, and this is mainly due to the bad jokes- especially from Kat Denning's character- and bland romance.

The problem with Dennings' character is that she's ONLY about bad jokes. there's nothing else to the character. A void comedic relief that is not funny. Portman's chasracter has a little more to it: romance. But then again the romantic aspect was very poor.

Well, I'll say that Denning's character wasn't around much so I'm glad for that (I wish they gave Denning's more to do and more character development because that would've made her bearable).

The first part of this makes me think that she was easily dispensable as a character. Yeah, more to do would have been good.

With the romance, I feel like it worked for what it was. Both were charmed by each other. Jane was humble and down to earth, a great contrast to Thor's arrogant and boisterous personality. That's why he liked her. She helped bring out that humility in him with going overboard with the romance.

That's what I got from the movie. But then again, how did this happen? Thor smashes a glass against the floor. She says he shouldn't do this and he... is okay with it immediately.

It's just written that way, but it's not quite convincing.

That' why the setting is a small town. It's a complete opposite of the grand area of the Gods and the perfect place for Thor earn his hammer back. In my religion class, I've learned of a concept called the sacred and the profane. The scared was the grand, beautiful area of the of the Gods, and the profane was the ordinary area of the humans. Branagh looked for Thor to gain humility by emphasizing this aspect of the sacred and the profane.

You have a point here. And a very good one.

I'm really getting tired of the whole "it goes through the motions". Why is that a bad thing? With Thor, you got a great story with some great performances. All in all, you a movie that was well done and entertaining. Yet, every movie has to have a groundbreaking story to some people. It's not like Transformers 2 in which the story just falls apart before it even began (people not knowing about Transformers despite a huge battle in the middle of LA) and continues to fall apart.

If you have to compare Thor with TF2 then something's wrong. Anything is better than TF2.

Thor was an okay movie. Didn't leave the theater hating it as I have with many other superhero movies. But its flaws hindered it from being really good.

 

[Ipodman]

Yea the romantic side of the story was weak, but I like it. Love is blind.

 

[gwynplaine]

Tom Hiddleston's Loki is a more interesting villain than Heath Ledger's Joker.

No, not really. But he was great though. Anyway, to each their own.
Just watched Thor and I enjoyed it, specially Hemswoth and Hiddleston. Really good actors and foes.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The problem with Dennings' character is that she's ONLY about bad jokes. there's nothing else to the character. A void comedic relief that is not funny. Portman's chasracter has a little more to it: romance. But then again the romantic aspect was very poor.

I thought the romantic aspect was well done. I didn't feel it was forced or anything like that. It wasn't mind blowing, but it wasn't bad to me.

The first part of this makes me think that she was easily dispensable as a character. Yeah, more to do would have been good.

I wouldn't dispensible, but I just would've given her more to do so at least her comedic scenes would be more forgiveable.

That's what I got from the movie. But then again, how did this happen? Thor smashes a glass against the floor. She says he shouldn't do this and he... is okay with it immediately.

It's just written that way, but it's not quite convincing.

He's arrogant, he's not an a*****e. It was that regalness in his personality and that royal charm that attracted her to him. While he was at times big and brutish, around her most of the time he was like a prince, and women love princes. t:

You have a point here. And a very good one.

Thanks.

If you have to compare Thor with TF2 then something's wrong. Anything is better than TF2.

Thor was an okay movie. Didn't leave the theater hating it as I have with many other superhero movies. But its flaws hindered it from being really good.

I only compared it to TF2 because I felt someone would've mentioned Transformers when it comes to a fun movie being good a and fun movie being terrible. When I think a mindless movie being a bad one, I think Transformers 2.

I felt that Thor was a pretty good movie but I'm hesitant to call it great. It's great start for a character who's has never been really in the limelight alone in other Marvel Media.

 

[Dark Victory]

. **** the ********, we need an adaptation of Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum to show what a comic book movie's capable of, some output that could sit next to Blue Velvet. Instead of half-assed, throwaway exposition that lingers on one scene of development, why not introduce...Jungian philosophy?! This will never happen, of course, but damnit, it would be nice to see something shoot for the stars instead of playing it safe. Personally, I can at least enjoy some of the worst films in recent memory (Sucker Punch, Southland Tales, etc.) just for that.


EDIT: I don't think that all comic book movies are titillating crap for the docile crowd. I admittedly come off like that here.​

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

No, not really. But he was great though. Anyway, to each their own.
Just watched Thor and I enjoyed it, specially Hemswoth and Hiddleston. Really good actors and foes.

It's been hard for me to explain it but I really liked both character for different reasons and in some ways I think Loki is better Joker. Loki is a better overall character. He has motivations, he's conflicted, and while being the villain, [BLACKOUT]and his intentions were good but mislead (I can't remember the word I'm looking for)[/BLACKOUT]

But the thing about Joker is that he's not a character. He's force of nature that bring chaos and reckoning to anyone around him except for one person: Batman. Nolan understood that and translated him to near perfection. That's why Joker is the best comic book movie villain, because he transcends what I would call a character with much success.

 

[The Morningstar]

Joker isn't a character. He's a plot device. It's just lucky that Heath Ledger gave an amazing performance. A lesser performance and the character would have fallen completely flat, for me.

I guess that could be a very unpopular opinion

 

[Bunker]

You could say the same thing about pretty much every great movie character.

 

[The Morningstar]

Not really. I just thought the Joker character was written poorly. His philosophy was interesting, yea. But people pretend he was more than just a comic book villain. He wasn't, his philosophy was an agenda, like all comic book villains have agendas. Difference is, his plots and what not came at the benefit of plot contrivances. But then people say he had a supernatural element to him or he had pretty much the entire city in his pocket? No... plot contrivances. Plot induced stupidity, call it what you will.

Again, I think he was a great villain. But that was mainly due to an amazing performance by Ledger that made the Joker an interesting character to look at and listen to, allowing me look past the plot contrivances and overwraught dialogue. The worst case was him going on about how using a knife is more personal etc. If Ledger didn't make that scene interesting I think I would have burst out laughing.

But hey, that's just me.