State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 32

[Kahran Ramsus]

Ben Mendelsohn is a terrible ham and apart from maybe King George VI in Darkest Hour where he actually did something a little different, I've yet to be impressed with his snarling overacting. It gets old seeing him play the villain in every movie ever lately, especially considering he plays them all like the same character.

Spoiler

He's currently not a villain in the biggest movie in the world.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

The auteur theory is flawed and incomplete, because it not recognize individual contributions within a particular framework. Would JAWS be the same movie without John Williams score, for example? Would Citizen Kane make as much of an impact without Toland's cinematography?

I feel like it's pushed by film scholars and enthusiasts simply because the effect it had over the French New Wave. But I don't think it's a detailed deconstruction of film, but rather a champion of recognized artistic vision. I think it's a waffly theory that allows casual film thinkers to be lazy and "right" at the same time.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Who was ultimately responsible for Williams scoring the film or the choice of the cinematography though? Film is a collaborative effort but someone is entrusted with the lion's share of decision making. Someone makes the call on set and during post as to what's in and what's out. Somebody works with the actor to shape the performance on location and then with the editor to even further refine it.

The entire crew of a Hitchcock film doesn't out of nowhere create a Hitchcock movie, Hitchcock does as the person on top directing. It's a reasonable conclusion, because the implication otherwise is that you could just bring talent together with no strategic aim and so long as there are quality people involved a coherent and engaging film experience will organically manifest itself.

There is a reason the studios, no strangers to looking askance at "artistry" in favor of the cold hard calculus of the economics of making movies still go through pains to find the right directors for the projects best suited to them or go through the negotiation process of wooing directorial talent. If an executive producer could feel confident that a movie could simply be made via a democratic committee of professionals they would or simply tell a team to handle their end of the film and produce what they want with no single coordinating presence outside of a dictate to ""make a good movie" they would. But that's not been how movies have been made and the bad ones usually do suffer from a "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome.

That last name on the opening credits matters and it's there for a reason.

 

[Batmannerism]

Who was ultimately responsible for Williams scoring the film or the choice of the cinematography though? Film is a collaborative effort but someone is entrusted with the lion's share of decision making. Someone makes the call on set and during post as to what's in and what's out. Somebody works with the actor to shape the performance on location and then with the editor to even further refine it.

The entire crew of a Hitchcock film doesn't out of nowhere create a Hitchcock movie, Hitchcock does as the person on top directing. It's a reasonable conclusion, because the implication otherwise is that you could just bring talent together with no strategic aim and so long as there are quality people involved a coherent and engaging film experience will organically manifest itself.

There is a reason the studios, no strangers to looking askance at "artistry" in favor of the cold hard calculus of the economics of making movies still go through pains to find the right directors for the projects best suited to them or go through the negotiation process of wooing directorial talent. If an executive producer could feel confident that a movie could simply be made via a democratic committee of professionals they would or simply tell a team to handle their end of the film and produce what they want with no single coordinating presence outside of a dictate to ""make a good movie" they would. But that's not been how movies have been made and the bad ones usually do suffer from a "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome.

That last name on the opening credits matters and it's there for a reason.

Agree with that. Watch a couple of films by Christopher Nolan ( e.g. the Prestige and Inception, I've heard he did quite good one a while back I think it had Batman in it) and it becomes evident - although he usually surrounds himself with a cast and crew ( Pfister, Papsidera, King, Corbould, Smith,Zimmer) who he trusts to execute a particular vision.

 

[Drizzle]

As much as I love him as the character, I miss seeing Robert Downey Jr. in movies where he isn't playing Tony Stark.

 

[jolldan]

I find Blade Runner an incredibly pretentious overrated piece of science fiction.

 

[Web-Head]

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is completely overrated

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is completely overrated

There is for sure some good to really great stuff in the film... But I came away hating literally every single character in the film from beginning to end. It was like being at a party where everybody is an off putting poser *****ebag. Some laughs, but you never really understood these characters or their motivations until at the end it's literally spelled out for you and even then with Scott as the POV character you would in real life ask yourself, "Why am I friends with any of these people who do noting but treat me like crap?", and yeah, I know that it's all about Scott learning self respect or whatever empowering nonsense it wants to be about but it's just not believable on a character level. And that does matter. Crazy fight scenes or outlandish premise you still have to believe in the characters and it's obvious the story wants to make some kind of relatable statement in regards to relationships and self worth but you don't believe in these characters at all and what's worse you kinda want to take a baseball bat to the heads of the majority of them. But biggest of them all... You just didn't buy BECAUSE of everyone's too cool for school bull**** posing that there was any kind of real romantic spark between Scott and Ramona. There is ZERO chemistry. Just an awkward guy and a sad sack hipster who seems to REVEL in being a sad sack hipster. There's no real humanity in either.

Which is a shame because there are lots of moments in the film that are fun and funny but as a whole it just leaves you empty, indifferent and makes you hate almost the majority of the cast.

 

[Batmannerism]

There is for sure some good to really great stuff in the film... But I came away hating literally every single character in the film from beginning to end. It was like being at a party where everybody is an off putting poser *****ebag. Some laughs, but you never really understood these characters or their motivations until at the end it's literally spelled out for you and even then with Scott as the POV character you would in real life ask yourself, "Why am I friends with any of these people who do noting but treat me like crap?", and yeah, I know that it's all about Scott learning self respect or whatever empowering nonsense it wants to be about but it's just not believable on a character level. And that does matter. Crazy fight scenes or outlandish premise you still have to believe in the characters and it's obvious the story wants to make some kind of relatable statement in regards to relationships and self worth but you don't believe in these characters at all and what's worse you kinda want to take a baseball bat to the heads of the majority of them. But biggest of them all... You just didn't buy BECAUSE of everyone's too cool for school bull**** posing that there was any kind of real romantic spark between Scott and Ramona. There is ZERO chemistry. Just an awkward guy and a sad sack hipster who seems to REVEL in being a sad sack hipster. There's no real humanity in either.

Which is a shame because there are lots of moments in the film that are fun and funny but as a whole it just leaves you empty, indifferent and makes you hate almost the majority of the cast.

Sadly I agree with you.

Okay. I grew up in Toronto, specifically Brampton - same town as Michael Cera/Scott Pilgrim. I haven't been back to Canada for a visit nearly 10 years, haven't lived there in about 23. I really wanted to like that film because it had some nostalgia value for me......and while it's mildly entertaining Cera has all the charisma of a wet sponge in it, while The rest of the cast are mildly annoying. The only character who had some charm was Knives, and I just felt sorry for her to hook up with such a spineless jerk.
I did like the evil Scott twist, that was a nice subversion of expectations.

 

[Batmannerism]

I find Blade Runner an incredibly pretentious overrated piece of science fiction.

You know, once in a while I watch that film just to see if it really is overrated and pretentious.......but every time I end up loving it.

On that note here's an unpopular opinion: The Blade Runner version with the Harrison Ford voiceover is the best because it gives us more insight into the main character and his world, and leaves us with a small shred of hope at the end, for a more satisfying cinematic experience.

( ducks in anticipation of flying rocks )

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Sadly I agree with you.

Okay. I grew up in Toronto, specifically Brampton - same town as Michael Cera/Scott Pilgrim. I haven't been back to Canada for a visit nearly 10 years, haven't lived there in about 23. I really wanted to like that film because it had some nostalgia value for me......and while it's mildly entertaining Cera has all the charisma of a wet sponge in it, while The rest of the cast are mildly annoying. The only character who had some charm was Knives, and I just felt sorry for her to hook up with such a spineless jerk.
I did like the evil Scott twist, that was a nice subversion of expectations.

Was he called like Nega-Scott or something? I admit, that's one of the bits that landed for me.
Sometimes I do think that maybe I was just to old for any of that film to resonate with me. It's about very young folk and, well... Between the ages of 14 and maybe 24 we're all mostly still barely functioning idiots, so... Maybe that was what the film reflected? I don't know... I wanted to like the film, but I came away pretty disappointed.

 

[Web-Head]

Was he called like Nega-Scott or something? I admit, that's one of the bits that landed for me.
Sometimes I do think that maybe I was just to old for any of that film to resonate with me. It's about very young folk and, well... Between the ages of 14 and maybe 24 we're all mostly still barely functioning idiots, so... Maybe that was what the film reflected? I don't know... I wanted to like the film, but I came away pretty disappointed.

I kept hearing great things about it, so I watched it years ago and didn't like it. Thought I'd give it another try about a month ago and still didn't care for it.

 

[DyeLorean]

I like Edgar Wright's films but I don't think he is a master or even on the same league as some of the truly great ones like many people say he is.
He has some left field ideas for his movies and I'm always looking forward to what he does, but I don't think he is that good.

 

[2kt09]

He's better than most modern comedy directors.
Really not into this era of "waiting around for the joke"

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I find Blade Runner an incredibly pretentious overrated piece of science fiction.

It's a movie I find watchable, and got easier to watch after I endured the terrible sequel.

 

[Schlosser85]

I feel the same way about Blade Runner 2049 as I do about the original Blade Runner.

 

[OutOfBoose]

As a detective story, Blade Runner is an utter failure. With a GIANT plot hole, zero intrigue and a lead actor, who doesn't want to be in the film. This is what I seriously dislike about it. On the other hand, aesthetic and music are amazing. Replicants' struggle is emotional and poetic, inspiring and relatable. I see nothing pretentious about it.

2049 has a legit great core story with K, Joy + Rachel and Deckard kid. But it's dragging like hell plus all those useless plot threads about replicants uprising, Leto... Rachel and Deckard are absolutely useless in it... I wish they focused on K and discarded at least Deckard and Rachel.

 

[Schlosser85]

I love the production design and aesthetics, that dystopian sci-fi was hugely influential.

But the plot just drags interminably.

I feel the same way about both of them.

 

[2kt09]

2049 has a legit great core story with K, Joy + Rachel and Deckard kid. But it's dragging like hell plus all those useless plot threads about replicants uprising, Leto... Rachel and Deckard are absolutely useless in it... I wish they focused on K and discarded at least Deckard and Rachel.

OG drags like hell. Villenevue does what James Wan did with a neat shot (Furious 7) - repeat it. So, you have these "zoom, stop, focus" scenes and I'd still rather sit through those than spend Ridley Scott's feature length runtime on a half hour story.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I don’t know; I prefer 2049 to the original and pretty much everything in it works for me, though the slow pace makes the movie drag a bit on repeat viewings. Still, I like all the plot threads with the replicant uprising, K trying to find the lost child, etc. I think (maybe) they were planning for a third film that would have actually featured the war between replicants and humans. But perhaps they should have included some of that in 2049 because you never know when something will be a success (and sadly, it didn’t do well at the box office).

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

You know, once in a while I watch that film just to see if it really is overrated and pretentious.......but every time I end up loving it.

On that note here's an unpopular opinion: The Blade Runner version with the Harrison Ford voiceover is the best because it gives us more insight into the main character and his world, and leaves us with a small shred of hope at the end, for a more satisfying cinematic experience.

( ducks in anticipation of flying rocks )

You know, once in a while I watch that film just to see if it really is overrated and pretentious.......but every time I end up loving it.

On that note here's an unpopular opinion: The Blade Runner version with the Harrison Ford voiceover is the best because it gives us more insight into the main character and his world, and leaves us with a small shred of hope at the end, for a more satisfying cinematic experience.

( ducks in anticipation of flying rocks )

I grew up with the theatrical version and... I don't care that both Scott and Ford hated it's inclusion. I don't care that they recorded it in a bathroom. I don't care there are people out there that swear they can hear Ford's disgust in the VO.

I agree with all your points. The VO gives the film a vibe. It makes it work as a techno futuristic noir. And Ford's performance is evocative of the world weary hard boiled P.I. the film is so obviously trying to draw parallels with.

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

It's a movie I find watchable, and got easier to watch after I endured the terrible sequel.

I find 2049 a masterpiece, one of the best movies I've seen in my life.
Blade Runner 1982 is a pretentious piece of trash, though.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I find 2049 a masterpiece, one of the best movies I've seen in my life.
Blade Runner 1982 is a pretentious piece of trash, though.

As someone who really liked three of Villeneuve's films I really wanted to enjoy BR2049, but it made less sense than Quantum of Solace, without the fun action.

 

[DyeLorean]

It gets all the hate, but I really like Speed 2.

 

[gwynplaine]

I didn't really care very much for Shazam.