State your unpopular film related opinion

[JAK®]

Kill yourself.

It's almost as if his film related opinion was unpopular.

 

[ALP]

I don't think that saying that Jeunet is the greatest French film maker ever is that unpopular. I've heard it said before, mostly by people who didn't know that many French film makers. Jeunet is probably the most famous right now, thanks to how widely his films have been seen around the world.
Everybody seems to love Amelie or Delicatessen etc. I don't. Now, that's unpopular.
Anyway, to each its own and I didn't mean to criticize your opinion.

I gotcha. When I go to cinema related forums such as this one I get the same reaction. Most people prefer the New Wave but Jeunet is the one who stands out for me. I mean I wouldn't really call him the greatest filmmaker without hyperbole. In fact I never like to say someone is greater than another, just use preferences. But Jeunet is the one who turns out the films that appeal most to me. I can't say I have much interest in re-watching many films of Eric Rohmer as much as I've seen Amelie. The difference between the people you mention and myself is that I have seen numerous French films but Jeunet remains my favorite. For example, I actually feel the exact same way about American/hollywood films.

I prefer Guillermo Del Toro and Tim Burton over Christopher Nolan and Stanley Kubrick any day of the week. So you see what type of style I just like best. I imagine that opinion also belongs in this thread in a world where Nolan is god and Burton is a goth hack.

But overall, I don't think I've seen as many beautiful films as what comes from Korea, but that's one that might be quite popular.

Kill yourself.

I could kill me...or I could kill you. How about we flip for it.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Since we are (halfway) on the topic, I would like to say that BR ties with TDK as best bat-film.

 

[C. Lee]

I thought Jerry Lewis was the greatest French filmmaker of all times.

 

[JAK®]

I thought Jerry Lewis was the greatest French filmmaker of all times.

Well that would hardy be an unpopular opinion, now would it?

 

[ALP]

Since we are (halfway) on the topic, I would like to say that BR ties with TDK as best bat-film.

See this to me is the same kind of example as what I was talking about. Comparing TDK to BR is like comparing Jeunet's Fab Life of Amelie to Rohmer's Claire's Knee. On the surface level they have similar features. The former are both Batman films while those two french films are both bizzare love stories. I consider them both brilliant films but on the complete opposite spectrum.

Anyway on to BR and TDK... What I love about TDK is Nolan's ability to masterfully balance numerous characters while giving them all importance and depth. Harvey and Gordon are just as vital to the film as Batman and Joker. And the way Nolan weaves his films is brilliant, I always catch small things that I hadn't before. And TDK focuses on a very human Batman/Bruce Wayne, and features somewhat heavy themes like ultimate fall of a good man(becoming cold blooded murderer willing to kill children). Every performance is terrific, and it is the most well plotted Batman film we've ever gotten. I love how well it just flows and keeps you engaged.

On the other hand, BR is far more removed from reality. It's a love story and a gothic tragedy of sorts. Burton's world is filled with bizzare freaks and impossibilities. Burton is not big on plot at all, but his story remains strong. Nolan's TDK work on a very literal level while Burton's BR work a completely symbolic level. It's not reality at all, it's only includes things that represent our world. Burton's world always contains great amounts of visual symbolism. Such as the fact that Wayne enters an iron maiden to get to the batcave. Obviously representing a tortured soul, or how Catwoman's suit is stitched together to represent putting one's shattered self back together. Nearly every scene is filled with this sort of symbolism. Many people say Burton is style over substance but in his case, the substance is located within his style. In true expressionistic style like Murnau and Fritz Lang before him, you learn the most about Burton's characters through how they look and what they do(rather than dialogue).

Nolan's Batman is dark, gritty, and feels grounded to our own world while Burton's Batman is removed from reality, operatic, and gothic. They both are spectral masterpieces but my favorite is Burton's grand guignol.

 

[C. Lee]

Well that would hardy be an unpopular opinion, now would it?

I don't know...it was a response to the guys arguing over who the greatest French filmaker was.

 

[danoyse]

Watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom again on TV (USA has been running them all weekend), and I still think Willie is hilarious as an unwilling sidekick. Yes, she's annoying, but it's sort of the point and her reaction when she realizes Indy is going to chop the bridge in half is one of my favorite moments in the movie.

 

[JAK®]

I don't know...it was a response to the guys arguing over who the greatest French filmaker was.

I was just joining in with your joke... was it a joke or am I missing something about Jerry Lewis?

 

[Majik1387]

Jonah Hx doesn't deserve most of the hate it's getting.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I think Wes Anderson's movies are some of the finest, funniest, most touching of this generation. All of them are riddled with amusing humor that's a perfect blend of melancholy and wit, all wrapped up in unexpected and genuine poignance. People who think his films are nothing more than whimsical frivolity aren't watching them attentively. The short Hotel Chevalier serves as a great microcosm to his career. I always tell people to check that out if they're not familiar with his work.

I think his movies are very beautiful as well. And I love your avatar, that's a great scene.

 

[C. Lee]

I was just joining in with your joke... was it a joke or am I missing something about Jerry Lewis?

Half joke half real....the French have gave Jerry several outstanding filmmaker awards over the years.

 

[mclay18]

Watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom again on TV (USA has been running them all weekend), and I still think Willie is hilarious as an unwilling sidekick. Yes, she's annoying, but it's sort of the point and her reaction when she realizes Indy is going to chop the bridge in half is one of my favorite moments in the movie.

Yes, I totally agree with you. The nocturnal activities scene is one of my favorites in the film -- the playful score, Willie's reaction and Indy preening in the mirror. John Williams' score also plays a huge enjoyment factor in the film, it elevates everything.

And speaking of unpopular film related opinions, I believe Raiders of the Lost Ark is Spielberg's most overrated film. It's great fun, but it's not a truly great film for me. It has its classic moments (like the snake pit scene, Marion drinking the guy under the table, and the first 10 minutes). For me, it just can't beat something as joyously fun as The Adventures of Robin Hood (which is a true classic).

And I prefer Kingdom of the Crystal Skull over the too silly Last Crusade. I'm sorry, but while Sean Connery was a nice casting bit -- it just seemed to overgo stuff Raiders did better. For the flack Temple and Crystal Skull get, they at least try something different.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Plus I find there is too much humor in LC. I love how all the critcisms suddenly disapear from the other sequels once KOTCS comes out. Now the sequels are fine for some reason. LC is great because of Sean Connery and the character. Without him, it's not that great of a film. Has a good Mcguffin, but without the father/son angle it adds nothing new at all. But dammit, everything is done so well.

And please, I bet so many people were disapointed with TOD in 1984. It's a film that followed Raiders and had alot of hype surrounding it. People wre expecting another Raiders and it wasn't at all. Which is why it's great. Same with KOTCS.

All the sequels have their criticisms that I have heard:

TOD: Willie, Short Round, the tone, the cartoonish and offensive dinner table scene, how the Indians are portrayed.
LC: Too much humor, Brody's characterization completely different, Sallah coming out of absolutely nowhere and having no point in being there whatsoever, the tank chase is pretty much identical to the truck chase, just beefed up like a sequel would, a bland villain and love interest (in my opinion) Good God, Vogel was a much better villain than Donovan and he was the side villain.
KOTCS: Shia, the aliens, old Indy, cheesy humor (which the sequels had) the last half.

Raiders only fault is the special effects. I can't believe people complain about the CG in KOTCS. All the other effects in the movies looked fake as hell too. All effects are fake after all.

If KOTCS came out in 1992 or something it wouldn't be getting as much flack. The thing is we all grew up with the three movies for so many years. Once we grow attached to it and something new comes in, it's hard to adjust. We become accustumed to what we were seeing so many times. It's nostalgia that has alot to do with it too. KOTCS doesn't have nostalgia to shield it from pissed off fans. TOD got the same reaction as KOTCS. Disapointing. Why do you think LC is loved the second best? Because it feels more like Raiders. Which people can't let go of. Maybe I'm wrong and it's because of Sean Connery. Spielberg manages to make all of my criticisms work and I love the film, but they're still there. It's just people put those sequels on this pedastal and treat KOTCS like garbage when they have just as many flaws.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

CGI in KOTCS was some of the best I've ever seen...that scene near the end with the aliens....say what you want about lucas and his fetish for CG, but he doesn't disappoint

 

[gwynplaine]

I gotcha. When I go to cinema related forums such as this one I get the same reaction. Most people prefer the New Wave but Jeunet is the one who stands out for me. I mean I wouldn't really call him the greatest filmmaker without hyperbole. In fact I never like to say someone is greater than another, just use preferences. But Jeunet is the one who turns out the films that appeal most to me. I can't say I have much interest in re-watching many films of Eric Rohmer as much as I've seen Amelie. The difference between the people you mention and myself is that I have seen numerous French films but Jeunet remains my favorite. For example, I actually feel the exact same way about American/hollywood films.

I prefer Guillermo Del Toro and Tim Burton over Christopher Nolan and Stanley Kubrick any day of the week. So you see what type of style I just like best. I imagine that opinion also belongs in this thread in a world where Nolan is god and Burton is a goth hack.

But overall, I don't think I've seen as many beautiful films as what comes from Korea, but that's one that might be quite popular.



I could kill me...or I could kill you. How about we flip for it.

I see what you mean, but there is a world of french movies besides the nouvelle vague and jeunet. I don't like Rohmer films at all because I find them incredibly boring and I don't care about Jeunet's movies either because to me, like most of Gilliam's or Burton's contributions, they feel more like the work of an "uber art director" than anything else. These guys can draw a cool story board and nice character designs but they sometimes seem to forget the importance of things like characterization, plot points or story. (I still like Brazil, Beetlejuice and specially Ed Wood though.)
Del Toro is one of those rare directors that gets both, specially with a movie like "Pan's labyrinth", which is beautiful and sophisticated visually, but also very well constructed and very moving.
Anyway like I said before to each its own and it's cool that you seem to be passionate about films and your favorite directors.
As for the nouvelle vague, it didn't really produce that many good films. What was interesting about the movement itself is that it brought a breath of fresh air in a very stale and old fashioned french cinema industry, stuck in ancient traditions and archaic rules. But most of the films themselves are pretty dated by now.
Unlike the films of Renoir, Bertrand Blier, Clouzot or more recently Jacques Audiard (watch "A Prophet" now if you haven't already seen it) and many others which have nothing to do with the nouvelle vague and are much more provocative, daring, timeless and innovative in general. Movies like "The Wages of Fear", "Grand Illusion" or "Get Out Your Handkerchiefs" and plenty of others haven't really aged and are really more interesting than anything by Godard, Rohmer or Chabrol. (or Jeunet IMHO.)

Half joke half real....the French have gave Jerry several outstanding filmmaker awards over the years.

I don't know about several. I think the Jerry Lewis thing is a bit of a misconception and certainly a thing of the past. Don't you know that the French hate everyone?t:

 

[scatterax]

the monkeys looked fake, but most of the cgi was pretty good from what i remember. Since i saw it in opening week end i've said that even tho it's my least favorite indy film it's still right up there with em. (raiders is my favorite movie of all time) It's nice to here people not hate on it for once. lol

 

[CrimsonMist]

Plus I find there is too much humor in LC. I love how all the critcisms suddenly disapear from the other sequels once KOTCS comes out. Now the sequels are fine for some reason. LC is great because of Sean Connery and the character. Without him, it's not that great of a film. Has a good Mcguffin, but without the father/son angle it adds nothing new at all. But dammit, everything is done so well.

And please, I bet so many people were disapointed with TOD in 1984. It's a film that followed Raiders and had alot of hype surrounding it. People wre expecting another Raiders and it wasn't at all. Which is why it's great. Same with KOTCS.

All the sequels have their criticisms that I have heard:

TOD: Willie, Short Round, the tone, the cartoonish and offensive dinner table scene, how the Indians are portrayed.
LC: Too much humor, Brody's characterization completely different, Sallah coming out of absolutely nowhere and having no point in being there whatsoever, the tank chase is pretty much identical to the truck chase, just beefed up like a sequel would, a bland villain and love interest (in my opinion) Good God, Vogel was a much better villain than Donovan and he was the side villain.
KOTCS: Shia, the aliens, old Indy, cheesy humor (which the sequels had) the last half.

Raiders only fault is the special effects. I can't believe people complain about the CG in KOTCS. All the other effects in the movies looked fake as hell too. All effects are fake after all.

If KOTCS came out in 1992 or something it wouldn't be getting as much flack. The thing is we all grew up with the three movies for so many years. Once we grow attached to it and something new comes in, it's hard to adjust. We become accustumed to what we were seeing so many times. It's nostalgia that has alot to do with it too. KOTCS doesn't have nostalgia to shield it from pissed off fans. TOD got the same reaction as KOTCS. Disapointing. Why do you think LC is loved the second best? Because it feels more like Raiders. Which people can't let go of. Maybe I'm wrong and it's because of Sean Connery. Spielberg manages to make all of my criticisms work and I love the film, but they're still there. It's just people put those sequels on this pedastal and treat KOTCS like garbage when they have just as many flaws.

It's criticism like the things you listed that always make my scratch my head. The character is pure pulp. Always has been, always will be. It boggles my mind how often people forget that, especially if you consider yourself a die-hard fan. The films use pulp fiction logic and act accordingly. Are indians really like that? Nope. Just like the chinese aren't evil opium peddlers with death traps in their basements as seen in The Shadow novels.

The Indy films have always been consistent in tone, to me. TOD is a little darker, but so what? It's still pulp and it's something you could see Doc Savage going up against. KOTCS I really enjoyed. Pulp novels still existed into the 50s, but were dying out. The era consisted of Communist scares, aliens and giant bugs(we didn't get these unfortunately, but it would have been cool). The commies and aliens were the next logical step, especially at this point in time, for the character. My only issue with the film was the fact that it had this glossy or polished look to it. I can't really explain it, but it didn't have that grittier look to it like the past three films had, and even then, I can get past that.

 

[ALP]

I see what you mean, but there is a world of french movies besides the nouvelle vague and jeunet. I don't like Rohmer films at all because I find them incredibly boring and I don't care about Jeunet's movies either because to me, like most of Gilliam's or Burton's contributions, they feel more like the work of an "uber art director" than anything else. These guys can draw a cool story board and nice character designs but they don't seem to get how important things like characterization, plot points or story really is (for me at least). (I still like Brazil, Beetlejuice and specially Ed Wood though.)
Del Toro is one of those rare directors that gets both, specially with a movie like "Pan's labyrinth", which is beautiful and sophisticated visually, but also very well constructed and very moving.
Anyway like I said before to each its own and it's cool that you seem to be passionate about films and your favorite directors.
As for the nouvelle vague, it didn't really produce that many good films. What was interesting about the movement itself is that it brought a breath of fresh air in a very stale and old fashioned french cinema industry, stuck in ancient traditions and archaic rules. But most of the films themselves are pretty dated by now.
Unlike the films of Renoir, Bertrand Blier, Clouzot or more recently Jacques Audiard (watch "A Prophet" now if you haven't already seen it) and many others which have nothing to do with the nouvelle vague and are much more provocative, daring, timeless and innovative in general. Movies like "The Wages of Fear", "Grand Illusion" or "Get Out Your Handkerchiefs" and plenty of others haven't really aged and are really more interesting than anything by Godard, Rohmer or Chabrol. (or Jeunet IMHO.)

Greatly appreciate the reply. I admit most of my knowledge of French cinema extends to the New Wave as that's what seems to be the most reachable. And a few others like Jeunet, Caro, and Pierre Schoendoeffer(sp?), etc, the latter having created one of the only war films I've seen that I've loved hehe. Just read a bit about it and I'll be sure to check out The Prophet, thanks.

I was actually getting ready to mention Gilliam but the thing is that I consider him to be the most bi-polar filmmaker I've ever heard of. Some of his films are masterful while others are so dire I could drown myself while watching them. With most directors it's a case of like or don't like. But Gilliam's filmography is so skewed it's head spinning.

Btw, what do you think of David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky? On one hand I do like Lynch but I know my opinion on him is also unpopular. I like Jodorowsky, his films fall somewhere right between being 'art films' and narrative type films. Just the most bizzare combination

 

[Doctor Jones]

It was a different time period so the look is going to feel different. Plus you have a different cinematographer. But he did a great job at being consistant with Dougie Slocombe. But this is still a new Indy film. 1981 looks different from 1989 as does 2008. They always used changing technology. It's crazy that people actually wanted them to go back to the same stuff they used in the 80's. Pfft. Talk about nostalgia going way too far.

And believe it or not, there's critcisms on Indy being dirty in the movies. Apparantly, he wasn't dirty enough in LC. Oh, and while we're at it, he wore a tie alot in the movie and didn't have his shirt a quater unbuttoned!

I just use those criticisms that I've heard to put perspective on things. I disregard those flaws and just enjoy the damn things. I just had to use them because apparantly KOTCS is a damnable film and is the only one with flaws.

 

[ALP]

I liked insane cheesy quality of Temple of Doom, and how it was approached compared to the original reminds me of Batman Returns.

Anyone here also don't like Pixar's Up? The first 30 minutes are wonderful but after that it completely falls apart. It goes into saturday morning fluff with no meaning whatsoever. Just an old man, a boy, and a talking dog on some stupid cliche quest in the jungle.

I prefer The Departed to Goodfellas, or at least I could watch Departed much more. I just don't have a thing for the lives of brutal gangsters and the world's greatest drug pushers, at least The Departed had a very strong plot to go along with.

And I thought The Hurt Locker was especially uninteresting, the opposite of compelling, no story to speak of, and nothing stood out. How that movie won best picture, director, writer, etc is just beyond me. That was the only reason I really watched it and now I know I'm just done with the oscars.

Boy oh boy are my film related opinions unpopular

 

[HighFivingMF]

Boy oh boy are my film related opinions unpopular

Just like you!

 

[CrimsonMist]

It was a different time period so the look is going to feel different. Plus you have a different cinematographer. But he did a great job at being consistant with Dougie Slocombe. But this is still a new Indy film. 1981 looks different from 1989 as does 2008. They always used changing technology. It's crazy that people actually wanted them to go back to the same stuff they used in the 80's. Pfft. Talk about nostalgia going way too far.

Well, in terms of cinematography, I thought it was incredibly consistent. There was just this...polish to it. I really can't describe it, but it wasn't something I pick up in most new films. In fact, I could have sworn it was filmed digitally, and initially attributed it to that, until I went home and researched it after I saw it to find it was shot on film(I'm an Indy fan, but I didn't follow the production or anything on the film. I just knew it was coming and would wait).

You mean like miniatures and stuff? To be fair, I think it would have been something visually interesting to revisit. Alot of lower-budget indie films make excellent use of miniatures and super-impositions. The Mutant Chronicles is the first that comes to mind. A great portion of the film was in miniature and super-imposition. And it looked damn good. With a bigger budget, to perhaps better blend everything, it could have been ass-kicking. Coppola's Dracula also used miniatures and practical effects in areas as well.

I wouldn't call the idea of fans wanting a return to that kind of stuff silly, but it, unfortunately, is a pipe dream, given George Lucas and his thing for CGI.

And believe it or not, there's critcisms on Indy being dirty in the movies. Apparantly, he wasn't dirty enough in LC. Oh, and while we're at it, he wore a tie alot in the movie and didn't have his shirt a quater unbuttoned!

I just use those criticisms that I've heard to put perspective on things. I disregard those flaws and just enjoy the damn things. I just had to use them because apparantly KOTCS is a damnable film and is the only one with flaws.

Now, that thing about not being dirty enough or the shirt unbuttoned is ******ed, through and through. Really?! People complain about that? Jesus.

 

[gwynplaine]

Greatly appreciate the reply. I admit most of my knowledge of French cinema extends to the New Wave as that's what seems to be the most reachable. And a few others like Jeunet, Caro, and Pierre Schoendoeffer(sp?), etc, the latter having created one of the only war films I've seen that I've loved hehe. Just read a bit about it and I'll be sure to check out The Prophet, thanks.

I was actually getting ready to mention Gilliam but the thing is that I consider him to be the most bi-polar filmmaker I've ever heard of. Some of his films are masterful while others are so dire I could drown myself while watching them. With most directors it's a case of like or don't like. But Gilliam's filmography is so skewed it's head spinning.

Btw, what do you think of David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky? On one hand I do like Lynch but I know my opinion on him is also unpopular. I like Jodorowsky, his films fall somewhere right between being 'art films' and narrative type films. Just the most bizzare combination

I really like Schoendorffer's films as well. As for Lynch I love some of his films and some others leave me cold. Same goes for Jodorowski (even though I generally prefer his work in graphic novels like "L'Incal Noir" or "L'incal Lumiere")but what I can say about both of them is that they are true iconoclasts who march to the beat of their own twisted drum and I like that.
Oh and I agree Korean films are awesome.

 

[spider-neil]

Anyone here also don't like Pixar's Up? The first 30 minutes are wonderful but after that it completely falls apart. It goes into saturday morning fluff with no meaning whatsoever. Just an old man, a boy, and a talking dog on some stupid cliche quest in the jungle.


And I thought The Hurt Locker was especially uninteresting, the opposite of compelling, no story to speak of, and nothing stood out. How that movie won best picture, director, writer, etc is just beyond me. That was the only reason I really watched it and now I know I'm just done with the oscars.