State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 30

[Spider-Aziz]

I felt that way about him and Clint Eastwood for a long long time too.

Spoiler

 

[Batmannerism]

The voice over version of Blade Runner is the best, because the voice over actually makes the movie a better film. Knowing the character's thoughts and motivations humanizes him and makes him more relatable - and it provides a terrific counter-view to the tears in the rain scene, which makes it more meaningful, because we know that Deckard appreciates the moment.

Most importantly, it lets the film end on a hopeful note, which is what we need after 2 hours of being subtly terrified by Scott's vision of a not-so-unlikely future. I feel that the reassurance makes the film a more complete experience.

 

[squeekness]

The voice over version of Blade Runner is the best, because the voice over actually makes the movie a better film. Knowing the character's thoughts and motivations humanizes him and makes him more relatable - and it provides a terrific counter-view to the tears in the rain scene, which makes it more meaningful, because we know that Deckard appreciates the moment.

Most importantly, it lets the film end on a hopeful note, which is what we need after 2 hours of being subtly terrified by Scott's vision of a not-so-unlikely future. I feel that the reassurance makes the film a more complete experience.

You're right about the voice over. I was bummed that the director's cut I bought ages ago had that taken out.

 

[LaughterLives]

Eastwood was only good in 3 movies in my opinion but still far from great. I also think he's one hell of a mediocre director for the most part.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

The voice over version of Blade Runner is the best, because the voice over actually makes the movie a better film. Knowing the character's thoughts and motivations humanizes him and makes him more relatable - and it provides a terrific counter-view to the tears in the rain scene, which makes it more meaningful, because we know that Deckard appreciates the moment.

Most importantly, it lets the film end on a hopeful note, which is what we need after 2 hours of being subtly terrified by Scott's vision of a not-so-unlikely future. I feel that the reassurance makes the film a more complete experience.

The voice over could have worked had Harrison Ford not intentionally ****ed it up so they wouldn't use it, but they chose to use it anyway. There are enough context clues and environmental storytelling to tell you everything you need to know about Deckard. It really wasn't necessary. Also **** the original ending. The story was never supposed to end well. Saying Blade Runner needed a happy ending is like saying Se7en needs a happy ending.

 

[shauner111]

The voice over version of Blade Runner is the best, because the voice over actually makes the movie a better film. Knowing the character's thoughts and motivations humanizes him and makes him more relatable - and it provides a terrific counter-view to the tears in the rain scene, which makes it more meaningful, because we know that Deckard appreciates the moment.

Most importantly, it lets the film end on a hopeful note, which is what we need after 2 hours of being subtly terrified by Scott's vision of a not-so-unlikely future. I feel that the reassurance makes the film a more complete experience.

Completely disagree. The voiceover is poorly done, it's unnecessary because I don't need my hand held. Don't need that voiceover for it to feel like a complete experience at all. The problem is that it humanizes him too much. I don't want that. I want some ambiguity.

The final cut is the only cut as far as I'm concerned. It's a masterpiece. It also ends at the perfect time.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think Dragonheart is a decent film. Not the best, but I consider it to be a refreshingly "earnest" piece of entertainment. The CGI is dated but strangely effective, and the music is better than it has any right to be. Also, Sean Connery

 

[Batmannerism]

You're right about the voice over. I was bummed that the director's cut I bought ages ago had that taken out.

Totally agree...I remember seeing it for the first time that way in 1982.

Also, nice to see the purists jumping in with the old "I don't need a happy ending" and "I don't need no explanation" totally expected that. Enjoy your bleak ambiguous movies, you strange souls, but as for me I like my movies with a bit of hope at the end.

I actually think the Tears in the Rain scene is much better with the voice over !
Ha ! I said it, let the scorn fall !

 

[squeekness]

Totally agree...I remember seeing it for the first time that way in 1982.

Also, nice to see the purists jumping in with the old "I don't need a happy ending" and "I don't need no explanation" totally expected that. Enjoy your bleak ambiguous movies, you strange souls, but as for me I like my movies with a bit of hope at the end.

I actually think the Tears in the Rain scene is much better with the voice over !
Ha ! I said it, let the scorn fall !

LOLs.

 

[Herofan]

A Beautiful Mind was, despite the distortions from the true story, a great film and deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar (even though I find most other Ron Howard films average to bad).

 

[squeekness]

It's one of my favorites.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

A Beautiful Mind was, despite the distortions from the true story, a great film and deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar (even though I find most other Ron Howard films average to bad).

I don't think that's a particularly unpopular opinion

 

[MadderMaximus]

I think Batman & Robin is the most under-appreciated comedy of the 90's.

 

[squeekness]

I think Batman & Robin is the most under-appreciated comedy of the 90's.

Lol, you certainly couldn't take it seriously.

 

[MadderMaximus]

Lol, you certainly couldn't take it seriously.

Right? The filmmakers didn't, why should we?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

MCU officially made the worst Spider-Man on film. [blackout]A lot of the damage that happens in the movie is his fault, and he doesn't take responsibility or learn from it. He also steals stuff, and his task in the movie is to stop a guy from stealing.[/blackout]

 

[squeekness]

MCU officially made the worst Spider-Man on film. [blackout]A lot of the damage that happens in the movie is his fault, and he doesn't take responsibility or learn from it. He also steals stuff, and his task in the movie is to stop a guy from stealing.[/blackout]

Couldn't be any worse than the third film with Tobey McGuire. Not much gets worse than that.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Amazing Spider-Man 2 would like to have a word with you.

Shame, because it has the best Spider-Man suit in all the movies.

 

[squeekness]

^ Amazing Spider-Man 2 would like to have a word with you.

Shame, because it has the best Spider-Man suit in all the movies.

Ah, I did myself a favor and skipped it entirely. Good thing, I guess.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Couldn't be any worse than the third film with Tobey McGuire. Not much gets worse than that.

That movie is pretty good actually, it has some obvious issues, but it's not something I wish never happened.

^ Amazing Spider-Man 2 would like to have a word with you.

Shame, because it has the best Spider-Man suit in all the movies.

I like that one, I think it's rather underrated. Sure it has bigger issues than Spider-Man 3, but I think it's halfway decent.


Anyway, I was not tackling the quality of the films, I was tackling the quality of the protagonist instead.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Ah, I did myself a favor and skipped it entirely. Good thing, I guess.

When that thing was over it was a borderline religious experience.

Like..I didn't think superhero movies could be that bad-and I saw the second Fantastic Four movie in theaters.

 

[squeekness]

When that thing was over it was a borderline religious experience.

Like..I didn't think superhero movies could be that bad-and I saw the second Fantastic Four movie in theaters.

Lol, the Silver Surfer FF movie was the only one I liked.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

MCU officially made the worst Spider-Man on film. [blackout]A lot of the damage that happens in the movie is his fault, and he doesn't take responsibility or learn from it. He also steals stuff, and his task in the movie is to stop a guy from stealing.[/blackout]

this is precisely why I loved it. He was a stupid naive teenager and Holland played the part beautifully. It wasn't Spider-Man saves the world, it was Spider-Man tries to stop an arms dealer and doesn't do a particularly good job at it. It was refreshing to me.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

this is precisely why I loved it. He was a stupid naive teenager and Holland played the part beautifully. It wasn't Spider-Man saves the world, it was Spider-Man tries to stop an arms dealer and doesn't do a particularly good job at it. It was refreshing to me.

I appreciate that they lowered the scope the way they did, I appreciate that they've shown him prone to making rookie mistakes, but most of his mistakes stem from him being a fool in the worst way I can think of, and I don't like this take on the character.

 

[Batmannerism]

MCU officially made the worst Spider-Man on film. [blackout]A lot of the damage that happens in the movie is his fault, and he doesn't take responsibility or learn from it. He also steals stuff, and his task in the movie is to stop a guy from stealing.[/blackout]

Well, I'd say he does learn.....a little.....maybe ?

But yeah, the new Spider-Man is a real screw up in comparison - I mean, remember the end of Spider Man when Tobey/Peter is getting his ass kicked by GG, and then the Goblin shoots his mouth off about MJ and Peter unleashes a case of whoop-ass !? Well, Tom Holland ain't there yet. Hell, even Andrew Garfield was much more competent in his first outing.

Have to say though, I kind of liked that - because it highlighted that despite his genius intellect, this version of Spider-Man still thought like a kid, and let's face it, he is just a kid.

this is precisely why I loved it. He was a stupid naive teenager and Holland played the part beautifully. It wasn't Spider-Man saves the world, it was Spider-Man tries to stop an arms dealer and doesn't do a particularly good job at it. It was refreshing to me.

Yeah, I was pretty much on the same page. But I get why folks who are huge fans of the character may not have liked it - in the same way some Superman fans didn't like that Man of Steel involved enormous collateral damage and Superman stopped the villain by breaking his neck.