State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 28

[Drizzle]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 is WAAAAAAY better than Pt. 2

I can see why you'd think that considering Part 2 is basically all climax, but I also find it hard to separate the two. To me, they're both one four hour long movie.

Batman & Robin is awful, but not an unpleasant viewing experience. It's trashy fun.

None of the Jurassic Park sequels are that bad.

I'll agree with you on those two points. The Jurassic Park sequels never came close to the first one, but they were still fun to watch. The treatment of the T-Rex in III was unforgivable, though.

 

[MadVillainy]

The Grey was a dull movie.

I'll go the other way and say that The Grey is Neeson's best movie after Schindler's List

 

[James]

I'll go the other way and say that The Grey is Neeson's best movie after Schindler's List

I think I'm in the minority. I recall getting to the end and being bored, with the feeling I never need to watch it again.

 

[MadVillainy]

Idk most people I know didn't like the Grey because [BLACKOUT]he doesnt fight the wolf[/BLACKOUT]

 

[MadVillainy]

I dont really see the appeal of making Wolverine...or even Batman or Suicide Squad rated R. I don't have a problem with it, but it's just whatever to me. I dont think making those characters R are going to make the movies necessarily better

 

[Sawyer]

Wolverine and Suicide Squad, I could see it. But I roll my eyes any time someone suggests that for Batman.

 

[Flint Marko]

Wolverine has two powers: the ability to heal from nearly any wound, and stab stab stab stab stab. An R-rated Wolverine makes sense, but I'm not sure it'd improve the movie much.

 

[MadVillainy]

Wolverine has two powers: the ability to heal from nearly any wound, and stab stab stab stab stab. An R-rated Wolverine makes sense, but I'm not sure it'd improve the movie much.

That's what Im saying.

Its not a bad thing, but I dont get why so many have been asking for it or even flipped when Wolverine 3 was confirmed(was it?) for having an R rating

Apocalypse and X2 had great Wolverine rampages and were PG13. Sure they didn't have much blood, I dont remember the X2 one having any. But they were still bad ass

 

[Victarion]

Wolverine and Suicide Squad, I could see it. But I roll my eyes any time someone suggests that for Batman.

Batman doesn't need to go beyond his BvS incarnation where violence is concerned. Narratively, it doesn't make sense in the DCEU for Batman to go back there for a good long while.

Squad I could see...depending on what kinda R you're talking. I mean, be honest in the kind of stuff gangbangers and the like would be getting into. If that would make it an R, then yeah go ahead.

 

[Doctor Jones]

That's what Im saying.

Its not a bad thing, but I dont get why so many have been asking for it or even flipped when Wolverine 3 was confirmed(was it?) for having an R rating

Apocalypse and X2 had great Wolverine rampages and were PG13. Sure they didn't have much blood, I dont remember the X2 one having any. But they were still bad ass

For characters like these at times, it'd be too easy to make them R rated. Punisher is an exception because you're dealing with a military vet who uses guns to kill people to avenge his gunned down family. I honestly don't see how more blood and more swearing will make Wolverine more intense or add to the film. I think the limitations make the storytellers more creative to get around some things and create new stuff. The impact of the mansion berserker scene would have actually been lessened with more blood. Perhaps it could work, but my point is, the PG-13 Wolverine works fine. It's worked for him in comics and in the cartoons too. He's no less badass.

I ask this out of ignorance, but how many great, memorable Wolverine comics are there that are hard R rated? I'm talking Max level stuff.

The famous Claremont/Miller Japan story sure isn't R rated.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

That's what Im saying.

Its not a bad thing, but I dont get why so many have been asking for it or even flipped when Wolverine 3 was confirmed(was it?) for having an R rating

Some comics are a bloody mess, and the Origins game tie-in helped some to decide they want an 'R' rated Wolverine movie.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Eh... The mansion berserker scene came off silly to me because of the lack of blood. When I think of say, the Hama/Silvestri run of WOLVERINE from the 90's, it's pretty damned bloody. Thinking on the character, I just feel, yeah, he swears, he drinks, he smokes, he loves a good time with the ladies and he has giant razor blades that pop out of his hands. Seeing a bloodless kill or him just cutting inanimate objects or robots feels like it's soft selling the character big time. Even as a child, when I was first exposed to Logan, I didn't imagine him as a PG-13 character. He does bloody work while he himself gets bloodied. He's a Canadian that likes his whiskey and beer and can be blunt to the point of being off putting. Does he HAVE to be in R rated movies? No. But I can't help but feel that the nature of the character and his solo stories are a better fit, and would be more entertaining when done right if he was in films that allowed for that level of adult and frank visuals and story.

 

[dude stannis]

I'm perfectly fine with PG-13, but I really don't see an R rated superhero film as some kind of big controversy either. I'm sure just about every long running character has probably had a storyline that's straight up R rated territory at some point.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I think I'm in the minority. I recall getting to the end and being bored, with the feeling I never need to watch it again.

Same here. I thought the movie was a waste of time and Neeson's character really turned out to be an idiot who, despite his good intentions, ends up

Spoiler

getting everyone killed.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Was that really his fault?
Wolves outnumbered them.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I know, but he still led them (or in the end himself) straight into the den. I mean, look, I doubt that they would have made it out following anyone else's advice but for a guy who was supposed to be so sure of himself and aware of his surroundings, nothing he did really helped much.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Oh well.
I like the scene of a grilled wolf for dinner.


EDIT: I just remembered the confident fisherman in Jaws, is it ok to compare the two movies?

 

[Rowsdower!]

Oh well.
I like the scene of a grilled wolf for dinner.


EDIT: I just remembered the confident fisherman in Jaws, is it ok to compare the two movies?

Certainly, as long as you acknowledge that Jaws is the superior film in every way, shape and form. That's not an opinion; it is a FACT. t:

 

[dude stannis]

I'd put Neeson's performance as John Ottway in The Grey over the main three in Jaws, even though all of them where fantastic.

Here's one: JJ Abrams has more value as a guy who is shepherding really interesting genre film makers like Matt Reeves and Dan Tratchenberg, than he does as a director in his own right.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Here's one: JJ Abrams has more value as a guy who is shepherding really interesting genre film makers like Matt Reeves and Dan Tratchenberg, than he does as a director in his own right.

Abrams is a great visual director and is a great illusionist who has an impeccable eye for casting and has a good sense of character development. His movies are great upon first viewing but then after more you see the seams. I gotta hand it to him though for creating that illusion. It takes talent to do that.

But in terms of overall story, his sensibilities are really lacking. He'd make a great television director if a great writer called the shots and Abrams would facilitate. With all honesty, his past film that holds up the most is MI3. Even though that had kind of a mystery box (a concept he doesn't succeed in) with the rabbit's foot that actually kind of worked. Though I can't help but feel they came up with it and never explained it because they didn't know what it was themselves.

Super 8 is good until the third act (where you can tell again Abrams develops the mystery first and struggles to find a resolution for all of it) Star Trek is a lot of fun even though it's made with a pretty broad and superficial understanding of Star Trek. Hits general concepts but misses out on the more subtle stuff. STID is hot garbage and is a good representation of Abrams' worst sensibilities and when you can't hide from them. TFA is safe as safe can get where it's worst mistake was being too influenced by its own franchise, but still works.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I've always felt like Abrams is great with character development but sucks at telling an original, non-derivative story. I loved TFA, but I can't deny that a lot of the film is just copying parts of the original Star Wars film. I'm willing to let it slide though because I loved the characters, whereas I hated absolutely EVERYONE in the prequels.

Star Trek is a similar thing; the characters are great, but the story is meh. And then in STID, Abrams somehow manages to rip off/remake Wrath of Khan and his own previous Star Trek movie, and the result is utter crap.

Then there's Super 8, which just felt like Abrams was more concerned with writing a love letter to Steven Spielberg than he was with making a good movie. Homages can only take you so far. Stranger Things was an example of someone doing what Abrams was trying to do, but actually pulling it off. Sure, the Spielberg and Carpenter influences were clearly there, but the show was its own thing. It didn't just rely on the audience to spend the whole time going, "Wow, this reminds me of ET. I loved that movie."

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Abrams is a weak director, personally for me. I don't think any of his films are bad, persay. They all have good action sequences, and are entertaining enough....but are lifeless and forgettable. Especially the beyond overrated Star Wars Episode IV.5....oops. In addition to that being said, that dude loves to homage more than do something on his own. Cloverfield is the american Godzilla, SW was for the OT, Super 8 was for 80s' Speilberg, etc.

 

[flickchick85]

Back before they were both big time film directors, J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon were my go-to TV guys. In comparing them though, I always believed Whedon was the better storyteller while Abrams was the better producer. Whedon's stories had more wit, personality and heart, but it always had a cheaper aesthetic and lacked a certain visual dazzle. Whereas J.J. could tell a decent story, but he'd make it look much cooler. All these years later, and I still feel like nothing's changed. Except that I've realized Bryan Fuller and Vince Gilligan are better TV guys than either of them.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Hannibal, my poor unloved show.

 

[MadVillainy]

Still don't get why that wasn't picked up anywhere

Same with Happy Endings actually