What is your unpopular flim opinion
I'll go first. Mine is that I can't stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It's like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds
Films where I don’t recognize a single actor among the whole crew are almost always better than ones where I’ve seen such and such actor in other movies. Just more immersive. And even if they’re not the best actors I’d much prefer that over whatever the hell Chris Prat or Tom Cruise or Leo D are up to.
I knew being faceblind must have some benefit. I often only realise I know an actor when I see their name in the credits. Then again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses, so I wouldn't entirety recommend it.
I’m not face blind, but this is the reason I never watched another Mission Impossible movie after the first one: Every single male in that movie looked identical to me, and I couldn’t follow any of the plot line(s?), as I never knew who was doing what to whom. I can only imagine how annoying it must be when that’s the norm.
Regardless how you feel about "woke Hollywood injecting forced diversity into films," it's really helped the issue of telling all the good-looking white people apart.
My experience watching The Departed while almost entirely sober felt like a face blindness simulator. I was baffled when one of the characters that had been killed came back and none of the other characters acknowledged it. Cool movie but so confusing.
So many well known actors play themselves playing the character.
Brand/name recognition + marketing.
It's part of the blockbuster model, which does everything it can to reduce risk. Before the 70s, studios would go bust when an expensive movie flopped. Studios became very risk averse, especially for the expensive stuff. So they make a sequel to a movie that's done well, or a plot similar to that of a movie that's previously done well, based on an intellectual property that sold well in another medium(comic, book, tv-show, ...), in a genre that's previously done well with audiences, starring actors people previously liked, preferably very attractive actors so that audiences like looking at them, pushed by a saturation marketing campaign that gets as many people to watch it on the opening weekend as possible, so that if it sucks they can't tell their friends not to go and see it. It's like McDonalds. It's not the best meal you'll ever eat, but you know what you're getting, so you won't have wasted two hours or your life, or shit yourself after eating it.
Also, video killed the radio star. It's rare to be incredibly beautiful. It's rare to be incredibly talented. It's incredibly rare to be both. If you have to pick one, pick the incredibly beautiful actor, who looks good on posters and in promotional material. Acting isn't that hard. Even a pretty moron can be a passable actor.
This is basically what I told people when I started to watch some of the most amazing international and documentary cinema in the early 00s. Ciudade de Deus, La Cité d'enfants Perdus, Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain, La Vita è Bella, Der Untergang, Lola Rennt, 올드 보이, Mononoke Hime, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Whale Rider. Documentaries by Adam Curtis or Errol Morris. So many people just don't know.
Especially when there are a few examples of amazing actors that you can know and still sometimes struggle to recognize them in their characters. Like Gary Oldman, and ... uh... OK well I'm not in a movie headspace, but he's not the only one!
Tons of lesser names that play great side/background characters and it's hard to tell, too, so I totally agree others need chances at lead characters.
Those are the actors I'm never tired of because their characters are almost always unique characters.
True to an extent, there are a few famous actors out there who are genuinely good at taking on different roles and immersing you in the character. A great example is Jim Carrey. Obviously I know Ace Ventura and Truman Burbanks are the same person, but it doesn't feel like that when you're watching them. They might share similar qualities, but they're clearly different characters.
Anthony Hopkins is a better example IMO. Or goddamn Gary Oldman...
Terminator is better than Terminator 2, and as cool as it is Terminator 2 should never have been made (or should have a different script).
I know the mob is raising the pitchfork, but hear me out, there are two main ways time travel can solve the grandparent paradox, these are Singular Timeline (i.e. something will prevent you from killing your grandfather) or Multiple Timeline (you kill him but in doing so you created an alternate timeline). Terminator 2 is clearly a MT model, because they delay the rise of Skynet, but Terminator is a ST movie. The way you can understand it's an ST is because the cause-consequences form a perfect cycle (which couldn't happen on an MT story), i.e. Reese goes back to save Sarah -> Reese impregnates Sarah and teaches her how to defend herself from Terminators and avoid Skynet -> Sarah gives birth to and teaches John -> John uses the knowledge to start a resistance -> The resistance is so strong that Skynet sends a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah -> Reese goes back to save Sarah...
The awesome thing about Terminator is how you only realise this at the end of the Movie, that nothing they did mattered, because that's what happened before, the timeline is fixed, humanity will suffer but they'll win eventually.
If Terminator was a MT then the cycle breaks, i.e. there needs to be a beginning, a first time around when the original timeline didn't had any time travelers. How did that timeline looked like? John couldn't exist, which means that sending a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah was not possible, Reese couldn't have gone back without the Terminator technology, which they wouldn't have unless the resistance was winning, and if they are winning without John, the Terminator must have gone back to kill someone else and when Reese went back he accidentally found Sarah, impregnated her and coincidentally made a better commander for the resistance which accidentally and created a perfect loop so that next time he would be sent back and meet Sarah because she was the target (what are the odds of that). Then why is the movie not about this? Why is the movie about the Nth loop after the timeline was changed? The reason is that Terminator was thought as a ST movie, but when they wanted to write a sequel they for some reason decided to allow changes in the timeline which broke the first movie.
I love T2 so I’m simply upvoting your passion for T1.
Ah! A fellow holder of the belief that time travel stories are better when they are internally consistent! I hate e.g. Looper for having time travel that makes no goddamn sense. It takes me out of the story when the characters are literally watching the timeline change before them as it magically radiates out from one point. And then our protagonists somehow remember the original timeline... Bah.
...So I must ask - have you seen Primer? If not, maybe you'd like it!
Of course I've seen Primer, enough times to understand it even (I hope), it's my favourite time travel movie.
Not to mention that it's fucking stupid to have all your infiltration units have the exact same face and body. The first movie even showed other terminators with different faces, so why is every T-800 Arnold?
That said, T2 is one of my favorite movies.
This tries to play on the idea that skynet is terrifyingly smart in some ways, but still deficient in others.
It doesn't really "make sense" but it's the whole reason there's a chance of an "ongoing" conflict between humans and skynet. If skynet was as smart as it should be, humans would be long gone.
My head hurts.
Never watch Primer.
You would love the episode in S4 of Miracle Workers which addresses this scenario.
Basically, the Terminators are in an endless loop killing Johns and being killed by them. It's just a boring job for them now.
Horror films are where art flourishes and it has a huge culture of being outside of Hollywood which is just a plus. Also the acting is usually way better
I'm not sure whether to update or downvote. The first sentence doesnt seem too controversial, but hoo boy you nailed it on the second lol
Screw it, upvoted.
Amazing, every word is wrong
Most horror movies have worse acting than a porno.
I think you’re right and maybe that’s why I prefer horror movies so much over literally all else. And to your point about being outside of Hollywood, I really appreciate it when I don’t recognize any of the actors. It makes it much more immersive for me. Usually much better camera work and lighting too. And Less CGI - atleast the better ones. I hate it when the whole screen is just really good animation :(
Horror is a divisive genre, because it has some of the higher highs, but also many of the lowest lows.
I like The Last Jedi.
That should be controversial enough.
I think this is more popular than you think. Most serious SW fans appreciate Rian Johnson's attempt to take the franchise somewhere it had never been before, storytelling-wise, and the shitty retcon-fest that was ROS seems to have made it better by comparison. I've seen plenty of people online say it's the best aged film out of the sequel films.
Love TFA. Love TLJ. Love parts of ROTS but it's.... rough. Not a movie I'll choose to rewatch without a really strong reason. Most of it is so disjointed. You can tell there were so many ideas that were cut from the movie and things that were put together in ways that weren't. Then there's that fucking dagger...
Weird you could replace the phantom menace with rots, dagger with "podracer" and your have another completely true sentence!
The movie was alright.
“Somehow the emperor returned” was terrible.
Okay. Rise of Skywalker is a walking pile of dog shit that has a wildly inconsistent take on everything. However. I have never had a single problem with that line and I am stunned so many people did. That was a rebel talking to other rebels. Why, exactly, would they know anything about how Palpatine returned? Dude was on a planet out in the middle of uncharted space. I literally cannot think of another way for them to tell each other that Palpatine returned without evoking vague imagery like that. They literally do not know what happened.
It's not about the line itself, but more the sentiment behind it. The fact that the Emperor is just suddenly back without any buildup or hinting in the previous two movies is the problem.
It makes sense that the rebels didn't know about it. It doesn't make sense that the first the audience hears about it is that line. It feels lazy. They could have mentioned, in an offhand way, that the remnants of the Empire is pursuing cloning tech. Not only would this tie the final trilogy to the second trilogy. (First? Episodes 1-3, anyway) But it would also make that line make way more sense.
As as much as the Thrawn trilogy feels like bad fanfic, it does tie the whole clone wars/rebellion thing together, and features someone who comes back as a clone. I think it would have made a way better trilogy than what we got.
Because it makes zero sense. What possible reason would Palpatine reveal himself. It's not just against logic, it's against character. Yes, that particular line was a rebel talking to a rebel, but it shouldn't have happened at all.
Remember when they snuck off on some escape ship to go get help for their crew in imminent danger and then decided to dick around on some horse racing casino planet? It's like they completely forgot why they were there. I thought TLJ had some neat ideas but I don't know how anyone can overlook that weird loss of urgency in the middle of the film. It's like your house is on fire and your family is trapped upstairs, so you run over to a neighbor's house to call the fire department, but you discover that they got some dog fighting thing going on in the backyard so you decide to go deal with that first, then you call the fire department but it turns out the dispatcher was in cahoots with the arsonist who started it in the first place, and then you return home with your tail between your legs and your mom didn't even know you had left. The whole second act could have been a dream sequence and it wouldn't have changed a thing.
If you rip out everyone involved in the casino planet, you have a really cool dark and surprising twist on the franchise. The only really interesting things in the whole trilogy happened in The Last Jedi
This post is so confusing. Do I upvote opinions I strongly agree with or down vote them?!
Upvote things that contribute to the post, downvote things that don't. Has nothing to do with like/dislike, or agree/disagree.
Upvote since I agree with that sentiment
For these types of threads, I usually upvote things that are actually hot takes with some justification or unique insight. People that post an extremely popular decision or just insult something that a lot of people see value in get downvoted. Mostly it's moderately common takes or unusual opinions with no elaboration, so I don't vote on those.
This is one of the things that killed the unpopular opinion subreddit, and made Reddit in general so annoying. The upvote/downvote is not an agree/disagree button, it's for promoting valuable discussion and hiding the opposite
Last year's DnD movie is the best film of the last ten or so years. It succeeded on every level, except in the box office.
My hypothesis is that Hasbro insisted on branding it "Dungeons & Dragons" to push the brand, and non-gamers figured it wasn't for them. If they'd have made the main title "Honor among Thieves", all the game nerds would have seen the DnD logo, and others wouldn't have been turned off *. As it stands, people will find it and it'll become the new "Starship Troopers" that bombed but shines forever in retrospect.
* See "Arcane".
I wouldn’t give it that high of praise, but I went into Honor Among Thieves not expecting anything and thought that it was a lot of fun. It doesn’t do anything exciting but it’s just a fun little flick. I’m not a DnD person, but I also enjoyed the references that I did get (which purely come from being a casual Magic: The Gathering player, so I knew some things from the DnD set that came out the other year).
I only watched DnD recently, mostly just accidentally at a friend's place. Also thought it was really good, well made, funny, a really pleasant surprise all around. For me, it reminded me of what I felt about some 90s movies - a movie made to be fun, not to make you feel deep feels, think deep thoughts, or shock in the shockingest way of all. Just fun. That is not a bad thing...
Tarantino is overrated. You have to watch a lot of movies to come to this realisation, because otherwise you don't realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies. Movies which did what he does better. That means that it doesn't actually matter that Tarantino is overrated for most movie goers. More generally, this is why critics' opinions don't actually matter that much. They've watched too many movies and likely know too much about movies, to tell the average audience goer if they'll enjoy a movie.
Once you've watched a few thousand movies, and especially if you've ever studied film or read a few books about it, you'll often find you enjoy interesting but shit movies more, than very well made but unoriginal movies. People who truly love film, invariably aren't snobs. They enjoy absolute trash, they enjoy arty farty stuff. If someone has a related degree or even a doctorate or works in the industry, the likelihood is high that they're also a fan of B-movies. They don't need to pretend to be knowledgeable, because they are. A film snob will bore you with the details of a Tarkovski movie. A cinephile is more likely to bang on about 80s horror movies, lesbian vampire sexploitation movies, Albert Pyun's Cyborg, or Troma's The Toxic Avenger.
I enjoy Tarantino movies. It all boils down to: are they solid fun entertainment or not, and to me the answer is yes.
Someone else did it better elsewhere? Sure, and he is very forthcoming about his influences. So if you're a fan, you'll likely find his sources and enjoy those too. Win win.
Oh, don't get me wrong. You're not wrong to enjoy them. They're still fun to watch.
It's just that IME they're less 'great' if you've watched a lot of the movies they're based on.
Also, Tarantino is an excellent stepping stone to discovering some great stuff. He's a true film nerd, so he knows his movies.
I would love to spend a night with him, sitting together at a kitchen table, him constantly ranting about movies and giving anecdotes, me pouring more wine...
I think this is the beauty of Tarantino.
This is how I've come to view anime. You can tell the age of an anime fan by whether they're enamored by the latest hit series or they sigh and go "this is just a remake of [old series from the 90s/00s]." I don't give a shit how well made a series is; if the premise is "been there done that" without an original take or twist, or a tired and worn trope gets trotted out (looking at you, every fucking series that includes a scene where a female character comments enviously on another female character's large breasts, yes Frieren that means you), then I'm insta-jaded on the series. At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who "aged out." For me, I knew it had gotten bad when I was struggling to enjoy Cyberpunk because I felt like I had heard all the voices before in previous series.
Not unique to anime, Hollywood has been remaking movies and TV shows 'for a new generation' forever. Anime is just following the same pattern.
It occurred to me why The Wiggles have been making so much money for so long: they only need to have enough material to entertain kids for a few years, and the ages that they're targeting are the ones who love repetition anyway! Most entertainers need to constantly improve and evolve, but kids entertainers just need to enthusiastically do the same thing over and over.
Isn't that the definition of filmmaking? All movies are just collages of influences, style, and form. All art is a remix on previous forms.
It's okay to not like Tarantino, I don't care much about that, but your argument doesn't really hold up for me.
Almost all art is influenced by other art. But Tarantino very closely copies some scenes. Think a literal collage, made up of photocopied bits of another work, rather than a painting inspired or influenced by another work. Tarantino is honest about this.
It's a bit like Andy Warhol's Mona Lisa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored\_Mona\_Lisa
Is that a great painting? I quite like it, it's iconic, but it's not the Mona Lisa, and Warhol is not Da Vinci.
People who haven't watched a lot of movies, think Tarantino is Da Vinci. That he created an iconic scene, like Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.
People who have watched a lot of movies, realise he's Warhol. There's an iconic scene, but it's based on an original work, like Warhol's Mona Lisa.
There's nothing wrong with Warhol. Hell, it's ok to think that Warhol is a better artist than Da Vinci, think that Warhol's Mona Lisa is a better painting than the original Mona Lisa, art is subjective after all.
But it's a mistake to think Warhol is a genius, because he painted the Mona Lisa. He didn't. That was Da Vinci. If you're going think Warhol is a genius, you should think he's a genius because he took an existing work and manipulated it in a way that is genius.
Can you recommend some of these films that his collage films consist of?
It's been a while, and he references dozens of movies, so much so that you're watching his movies and think "wait, I've seen this before" and then you're distracted by the next scene you've seen before. But off the top of my head Vanishing Point, Foxy Brown, Lady Snowblood, Bruce Lee movies, and the Dirty Dozen.
But don't watch those. I probably enjoyed Vanishing Point the most, Bruce Lee in Game of Death is also fun, but often they have a few good scenes, the ones that Tarantino copied (sometimes poorly), but the rest of the movie can be a bit meh. Instead watch Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, In the Mood for Love, Infernal Affairs, Unforgiven, and (why not) Enter the Void. Not that those are my favourite movies, but they're movies that shouldn't bore you.
Interstellar is a terrible movie that doesn't say or do anything special and I still don't understand why anyone thinks it's so amazing.
I did really like the robot guy though.
Interstellar is one of my favourite movies, yet I can definitely say it's not perfect. Hell, it's got a few massive plot holes and the ending leaves a lot to be desired. Saying that, I still enjoyed it. I love the visuals, the BTS stuff is interesting, but most of all it made me feel. That's what I value in media. Other people may value a coherent plot, historical accuracy, or a myriad of other things. We all like/dislike things for different reasons, and that's okay.
I also agree that TARS was very cool.
Absolutely man. I gush about notorious flop Ninja Assassin elsewhere in this thread. We like what we like and I mean no disrespect.
Dude I cannot understand the love that movie gets. Even the "scientifically accurate" go-to gets under my skin. I don't know what it was going for, but it bristles my skin when I see discussion about how great it is.
Would you, at least, agree that the background musical scores are amazing?
And the visuals at least. There's a lot that's very good about the movie, even if you don't enjoy the premise and story.
I really need to add this.
A friend of mine genuinely believes that it's based on a true story.
Man that dude is living a wacky life of he thinks interstellar is real, and still goes to his job every day
I thought Oppenheimer was a mess of half fleshed out ideas and characters you were not invested in...very underwhelming. And I saw it at the proper IMAX.
The original Star wars trilogy was overrated, the sequels were underrated, and I'd rate them all to be equally mediocre.
The Empire Strikes Back is the only one that I would say is a great movie.
A New Hope is solid. You can find blemishes, and they've torn new ones with the "special editions" that just cram more CGI shit on the screen for no reason, but as a classic Hero's Journey movie A New Hope works rather well. It was amazing for its time; I mean, a fun Sci-Fi movie? With special effects this good? It was a cultural phenomenon for a reason.
The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie that has been made, which is why when most people quote Star Wars they're actually quoting Empire. The characters are at their deepest, the setting feels the most magical, and the Luke/Vader saber fight is utterly gripping.
Return of the Jedi was the beginning of the "Lucas is a genius who can do no wrong, do everything he says" era. The "let's put a funny thing in the background" starts happening. We get Jabba's hedonism palace with the droid torture room, Bikini Leia, Ewoks, and lightning hands Palpatine. This would only get worse by the time the prequel trilogy is made, Lucas gets to make whatever he wants without question.
Not only that but the method of structuring a narrative that Star Wars popularized (the whole hero’s journey crap) has gone on to completely infect movie storytelling.
The Jedis in Star Wars are super boring, the battle for good and evil with the dark side is also super boring, shallow and uninteresting… the only thing that saves Star Wars are the set design and costume/alien designers who filled up the periphery of boring hero’s journey stories with a vibrant weirdness.
Every animated movie looks the same now
You're wrong, and here's just one example to prove it: Into the Spiderverse
Here's another. Puss in boots
And the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie. The sad fact is that these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
What do you mean? There are so many styles of animation, you mean like Pixar movies all look the same?
Pixar, DreamWorks, and Illumination are the largest studios that make animated movies these days and they all have such generic character designs now. Very soft, very round, large eyes, large mouths, and overall visually boring.
And they often have the same cliche actions and expressions.
The original Blade Runner movie is not nearly as good as the sequel. The sequel highlights how lesser the original's plot was. We overly praise the first one because of the Tear in the Rain Speech.
I wanted to downvote your stupid ass but op asked for unpopular opinions. So fuck you here's an upvote.
Thanks, to be clear I don't dislike the original. It does a lot of stuff good, like world building. But 2049 is actually structured with acts and has a main character who develops throughout the film.
I like them both a lot but the original is a classic I keep going back to. Maybe I'm just the right age for it.
I enjoyed Sucker Punch. I'll admit it's very male gazey, but it's still a fun movie and has a killer soundtrack (am a woman)
Honestly I think it has a good story about women taking control for themselves even in situations where it seems like they have no control.
The Mario movie was incredibly mediocre, despite its high production value. I'm talking MCU-levels of truckloads of money spent with shockingly little to show for it.
You mean the 93 movie? I loved that!
This is the only Mario film
When I first read this comment, I thought you were talking about Super Mario Bros (1993) and was about to throw hands. Because that movie is actually good, if deeply flawed. Its flaws make for a more entertaining movie altogether.
John Leguizamo is a hidden gem of cinema so the OG Mario punches way above its weight class.
Mediocre is too kind. The Mario movie was bad.
I took my kids. They kind of enjoyed it, but forgot about it almost immediately.
Huge Mario fan here, I unironically think the 90s movie is better.
I wasn’t even born when that movie came out so don’t “hur durr nostalgia” me
I finally watched it after hearing good things and wow, yep. Incredibly mediocre, cashing in on nostalgia.
I did enjoy the music, though, but probably mostly because of nostalgia and my love for NES/SNES Mario games.
Mine is- the Marvel/DC superhero movies all but entirely ruined cinema.
You didn’t like the one where there was a bad guy and they fought the bad guy and then won against the bad guy?
Was that the one where a person/thing/object was thrown into a building?
That "The Man from Earth (2007)" is the best movies there is. I recommend it to people all the time but no one seems to realise how profoundly interesting it is. And it doesn't need any scenery or special effects. It's literally just conversation and dramatic music, tuned to perfectly tell a story that touches on many philosophical questions. I just love that film.
I agree, and i think everyone i know that has seen it does so too. You should check out the one where they hop into a tent to travel through time(primer 2004) , it has a similar 'production value' vs 'delivering plot' ratio!
Primer and The Man from Earth are two of my all time favorite films. Production value is nice and all, but an interesting idea explored well wins every time for me.
I just watched it, solely from your comment.
I really enjoyed that movie! Thank you.
Ah pfew im not the only one…. The sequel (yeah theres a sequel) is shit tho.
There is no sequel in ba sing se .. wait .. different show.
Many a sequel is lost in Lake Laogai
Way too many good movies to have a single best, but that one is one of my favorites certainly. If I recommend it to someone I avoid any spoiling of the twist because it was so great when it happened. It might be obvious before that point for some, it came from left field for me.
And while I heard the sequel wasn't all that great, I felt that even if a sequel could be good it was totally unneeded. It'd be like trying to make a second Highlander movie, if one could even imagine that.
Thank you! I caught that movie on TV years ago and never knew the name.
I actually liked Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Both main actors were objectively terrible, but I still liked the movie 🤷♂️
I've given this a re-watch.
The opening credits were great.
The settings and costumes were good even if the actors weren't. If you want to see Dane DeHaan in his element, see Chronicle. Cara Delevigne ... um...
Except Clive Owen. He's a treasure. Any actor who can convincingly win a gunfight with a carrot has got the chops.
The attack over planet Mül was objectively well done and the crash scene was impressive.
It's a good bit of fun in much the same way as The Fifth Element.
Yeah that’s a good take, it’s like a modern Fifth Element.
I have seen Chronicle, but I probably need to rewatch it. Not sure if they just had bad direction or writing, but they seemed more like siblings instead of love interests.
Same director. I didn't see it, but I love The Fifth Element
Interstellar is a bad movie. The story takes too long, the supposedly smart characters are acting obviously dumb, and the whole "we solved it all along because we figured out timetravel" trope is the most lazy way to wrap up a story.
Oh and of course the small artifically built space colony near Jupiter does not care for fitting many humans, but instead is a shitty american suburb with lavish lawns. Because who needs to safe people from other cultures amirite?
Wow, I’m surprised it took me so long to find this comment. Probably THE worst space movie and THE worst time travel movie. Even the Music video of Year 3000 was more believable than Interstellar.
I hear you, but I love that move. Up until the part where he is in a tesseract in his daughters room and love saves the world or some shit?
Titanic is not a good movie.
Analyzing...
The movie is set almost entirely aboard the Titanic, barring a brief couple scenes in port, and the framing device set on a research boat in the present day.
The Titanic is realized in excellent detail. The sets, costumes, special effects are all exceptionally well done.
Most of the runtime of the film is dedicated to a teenage love story between Kate Winslet's Rose and Leonardo DeCaprio's Jack. Honestly I think it holds up. It drags a bit here and there (spitting lessons?!) but if Romeo and Juliet is a great love story, Titanic is fantastic.
The sinking sequence holds up amazingly well. The set pieces are of extremely high quality and bring the disaster to life in ways only James "puckered asshole" Cameron can. Life-size sets that actually flooded and tilted, miniatures, and a restrained use of CGI come together beautifully.
The choice to set this fictional love story into this historic disaster setting is perhaps somewhat dubious.
The soundtrack, especially Celine Dion's utter caterwaul of the title theme can be a bit much, and was severely overplayed in the years following the movie's release.
The giant blue diamond was a pointless macguffin that failed to pay off. It was given(?) to her by her fiance that she hates, she decided to have her portrait drawn in the nude wearing the diamond for some reason, retrieving the diamond from the coat the fiance had put on her was the reason why the psychotic guy was shooting at them, she only realized she had it when aboard the rescue ship, and then she throws it overboard at the end...for some reason. Audiences reacted pretty poorly to the thing, didn't stop them from merchandising it.
Overall a pretty well-crafted movie with some questionable choices, made by a canker sore of a person.
Blade runner 2049 was a boring slideshow of backdrops with the "bwaaa" music overlaying it and occasionally plot happened. What plot is that? I don't fucking remember.
Ill upvote you, because its an appropriatly unpopular opinion, but ill have you know I'm truly offended.
Napoleon Dynamite is garbage.
it's actually spelled film
Can I do a TV show?... I'm gonna do a TV show.
The Mandalorian is boring!
They should have called it "Shiny Boba Fett and Baby Yoda travel planet to planet doing stuff".
There's like 3 or 4 interesting episodes in 3 seasons...
It's part of an 'extended cinematic universe' which is apparently a thing these days. So it counts?
Anyway, I love westerns and space fantasy, and The Mandalorian kinda combined them in an episodic way that I could basically watch forever. Although it did fall apart in season 3, despite the well-intentioned efforts to tie back to the larger Clone Wars arc.
Ok, I admit it soon got outmanoeuvred by Andor, which was damn good even if you're not a Star Wars fan. But Mandalorian paved the way IMO for a good pulpy episodic series with no bloody Skywalkers or Jedi Council BS. So that's a win, right?
Gonna try to phrase this an inflammatory way:
People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are 'good enough', and they don't value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.
On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.
What would you consider a "bad movie," because I wouldn't consider a "tight plot" one of their shared features. Spectacle: absolutely, humor: frequently, tight plot: if only.
Many Marvel films, for example, are actually competently written plot wise. I also believe lots of them have basically no value.
I see you've met my wife. Transformers is the pinnacle of cinema, but 12 Angry Men is boring as fuck because all they do is talk.
Christopher Nolan hasn't made a truly good movie since The Prestige. Everything since then has been too long, too convoluted, and/or too loud (or in the case of Oppenheimer, not loud enough).
Very hot take considering
The Prestige - 2006
The Dark Knight - 2008
IMO The Dark Knight was hard-carried by Heath Ledger and without his performance that movie is about as good as DKR, which isn't great.
I could hate on the Dark Knight all day. The month it came out, my brother put it best, "It's two movies. A good, short, Joker movie and a bad, long, Batman movie."
When you watch this film and only the Joker scenes, its 10x better.
I didn't like The Dark Knight at all. It was just kind of boring and the acting didn't do anything for me.
I also think Nolan is highly overrated.
Saving Private Ryan is a pro-war movie.
Pretty much every American war film is a pro-war movie.
Well if a script uses any military equipment the Pentagon has to sign off on it. Make the military look bad and they're gonna deny your request.
It's pro war? To me it was the first depiction of the horrors of war. It made me think about my support for armed conflict and ultimately against it.
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a cyberpunk movie.
Mars is a dystopian, broken society in which cyberware is so ubiquitous that we only ever see one Martian without visible augmentation. Every character in the movie does what they do for purely selfish reasons, with the exception of the idiot Droppo, the old man Chochem who remembers society for what it was before it went to hell, and the mythological embodiment of generosity himself. When Chochem suggests that Mars needs a Santa Claus, the immediate response isn't to research and emulate St. Nick, nope. Martian society is so degenerate that the first idea is to commit a crime: to kidnap the jolly old elf. And all of Earth's governments are incapable of stopping them.
Cyberware, broken society, selfish characters, rampant crime, laughably inadequate government? What genre does that sound like?
When I pointed out that Santa Claus Conquers the Martians predates Blade Runner, the film that most people consider to be the first cyberpunk movie, by some 18 years, at a tabletop session of Cyberpunk 2020, I was less than popular with those assembled.
I decided to not press my luck by pointing out that it came out 4 years before the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
Hooray for Santy Claus.
Never even heard of this movie, but I'm convinced.
I watched The Princess Bride and couldn’t understand why it gets so much love. I found it really gruesome and unfunny, and Robin Wright’s princess was bland and unlikable.
Inconceivable 💀
Out of all the bad opinions in this thread, this one legit made my BP rise. Well done at having a terrible opinion lol
Nostalgia is an important part of it.
Off topic but TIL there's no sort by controversial option on Lemmy. :(
Pee Wee’s Big Adventure is the quintessential road movie and it’s rarely been done better.
Au revoir, Simone!
Merci boucoup, Pee Wee!
The Godfather, extremely overrated and very boring. Saw it many years ago, and maybe my taste in movies have changed a bit, and I consider rewatching other movies I did not like, but not that one.
It insists upon itself.
Shallow and pedantic.
Filming on film and showing in the theater is wildly outdated and unecessary. At the same time we have reached so much bloat in digital content that even the act of sorting what is worth watching takes a lifetime and feels disappointing. It also feels like a guantlet to find anything for a rewatch to the point I give up and just do other things like write tepid takes on lemmy.
Donnie Darko is pretentious dog shit. Fight me.
What’s your address? I’ll bring my katana
If you must, but I warn you: I have studied The Blade, myself.
You find me at Steven Seagal Dojo, Moscow.
I don't want to fight you but I'm pretty sure you don't know what pretentious means.
The Breakfast Club is overrated
A lot of cult movies are unless you have nostalgia for them
Better than 16 Candles, if I had to choose
I haven't read the comic books that they're based on for a long time, but as I recall, they also break the fourth wall. I don't think that that was introduced specifically for the movie.
googles
Apparently that wasn't always there:
https://screenrant.com/deadpool-fourth-wall-break-first-time-ever/
Looks like Deadpool #28 dates to 1997, though, so Deadpool breaking the fourth wall has been around for over a quarter of a century.
I don’t think it’s OPs point that the movie did it first, just that it was annoying in the movie. And they're right.
The whole point of Deadpool is the self awareness though. You can find it annoying, it's not for everyone, but it's true to what the character has become.
The original Star Wars movies were probably really good and genre defining in the late 70s, but they're just boring and campy now.
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug
Old things used to be good, now they're not so good if you compare them with the new things.
Tenet is a great movie!
I found Inception to be stupid AF. It looked amazing, but the story was meh. Interstellar however, is the shit.
I was like "this Lemmite gets it," until I got to the Interstellar part.
But I'm glad we have common ground on the shit show that is Inception. It felt incredibly long. I don't know if it was because I was bored, or if it's genuinely six hours long.
I don't remember the details but I hated Interstellar. The problems of physics are overcome by love, or something like that.
I love the first Dune book, and I love the goofy 80's Dune movie, which was pretty close to the book in terms of getting a lot of the internal dialog in place. But I hated the new Dune movie. I didn't like how sterile and empty they made the palace, or the weird anus mouth design of the sand worms. Or the silly use of balloons to help lift harvesters. I very much didn't like how they made Lady Jessica an emotional mess, instead of being in control of her outward emotions, as she was trained to do.
They also screwed up the personal defense shields REAL BAD. The idea that the shields react to kinetic energy, so a fast moving project from a firearm would get stopped, but a slow moving blade would pass through. The fight near the end had people being killed by fast sword strikes by hitting the shields, it was just so jarring and lazy. They also completely misrepresented who and what the Sardukar are. Based on how many people loved the movie, I have an unpopular opinion. Though I found that most people who absolutely loved the movie hadn't seen the original movie, or read the first book, so they didn't know anything to color their impression.
It bothered me that the scale was barely conveyed. For example, I don't think it becomes clear how massive the troop movement is when the Atreides take control of Arrakis. I think that would have been fairly easy to illustrate visually by doing a better wide angle shot of Arrakis in space with thousands and thousands of ships heading towards it. I mean, the scene with the ships emerging from the sea as the Atreides leave Caladan is nice, but it seems like it's just the ruling family and their court moving - not a gigantic force that can permanently occupy an entire planet. But maybe I just don't remember it correctly.
That bothered me a ton too. The movie gave the impression that JUST the Atreides and their entourage moved to Arrakis, the palace was so empty, it definitely lacked the grandiose scale the original story had.
I prefer flam over flim.
Seeing movies in the theater is overrated and they are far more enjoyable at home.
The critic rating is better than the audience rating. I’ve never seen a film with a high critic rating that didn’t have something worthwhile about it. But I’ve seen a lot of audience hits that were garbage.
Michael Bay movies need more explosions.
"The rock" is one of the great films of the 90s, if not top 10 ever made.
Wes Anderson movies are fucking terrible.
At the top of every reddit "What movie should never be remade?" thread is the LOTR trilogy. Well... I totally agree the movies are great, but not quite timeless. When I rewatched them a couple years ago for the first time in a long time I couldn't get over the feeling that it screamed "Filmed and directed in the late 90s and early 00s!" I don't have the film knowledge to point out exactly what it is but something about the way it is shot looks very dated to me and hasn't aged as well, in my opinion, as everyone on the internet says it is.
I really do love the music and the art style and sets and casting too. Maybe it doesn't need a reshoot, but a recut?
The problem is no one is ever going to put in the work and prep production effort that Jackson and his team did. It could be made better and more modern, but will it in our current environment? No, all the practical effects would be replaced by CGI, all the armor and costumes for the tons of extras would just be CGI, the extras themselves would be CGI, and it probably would be packed with meta commentary and jokes. Just look at The Hobbit compared to Lord of the Rings. It doesn't work without all the effort and pre-production, and I don't think we're getting a studio to ever make that bet again. It was pure luck we got it the first time.
It still looks better than The Hobbit though.
The CGI is still a bit dated (although somehow The Flash topped that), but there's far less compositing of solo actors in green rooms, due to forced perspective.
Some of the green screen shots could definitely use updating
Alien 3 was pretty okay. I'd watch it again
Predator 2 was a great film and a great sequel to the original Predator movie.
The Marvel universe hasn't ruined anything, it's a trend, and temporary.
The Thirteenth Floor (1999) depicts a better story about simulated reality than The Matrix (1999) does.
I like both movies, but I think The Matrix has a billion times more spectacle going for it. I still think about The Thirteenth Floor regularly, but I'd rather sit down and watch The Matrix again for entertainment's sake.
Meet the Robinsons is one of Disney's best 3D movies and aged like wine
All superhero movies are dumb af. All of em, especially the one who s wearing blue underwear over his pants
Star wars is lame & trash. Everyone who likes is either nostalgic or delusional
All of James Bonds are trash & stereotypes and not worth the electricity to run
Not a fan of saying people only like something because they're delusional. You can dislike something by your own personal criteria, but other people have their own.
Star Wars and superhero movies are often liked because people enjoy the characters, the world, or simply the action and artistry.
Not understanding that other people care about different things than you do is immature.
I hate Life of Pi. The book. My kid had to read it for school and warned me not to, I thought, well I read fast, no big deal if it's not great.
I want that two hours of my life back and can't watch the movie because I hated the book so much. So much.
As much as I love Denis Villeneuve, I still love David Lynch's Dune more. Yes, the acting is spotty, and there were more than a few questionable changes to the plot, but I can't get that art direction out of my mind. That being said, I haven't seen part two yet.
I respect this opinion. I just read the original Dune a few years ago. I heard there was a new film coming, so in preparation I watched the Lynch extended cut. It wasn't bad, in fact it followed the plot better than I expected, and the Gob Jabbar scene was amazing. The shields had such a cool effect too. But I didn't totally love it. Maybe this cut was too long and stiff. I do kinda like Lynch in general, I've seen Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet and all of Twin Peaks. His Dune was overall good in his unique bizarre way. I'll probably watch it again someday.
But then, the Villeneuve film. Damn, that one nailed it. The characters, set design, the sandworms, even the ornithopters looked almost exactly like I had imagined when reading the book. I've never had that happen, most films look so 'wrong' after a book. But IMO Denis nailed it, except the Gom Jabbar that Lynch already perfected. It was otherwise so true to the source material. Well ok, Frank Herbert's novel had an excessive use of the word presently, so honestly, good riddance to that. Anyway, I can't wait for part 2 of the new film and beyond! Guess I better pick up the other books though.
Vegas Vacation is the best of the original National Lampoon vacation movies
it has peak Eddie, great meta commentary on the series, Clark being exposed as the shitcunt he really is, and a hilarious side plot with Wayne newton.
I love Christmas vacation but we always watch Vegas every Christmas too
The Irishman - It was so highly recommended by many but I could only go through half the movie (which is 3h long) and despite having watched 90 mins I couldn't bring myself to watch the second half or recap what happened in the first. Maybe too much flew over my head but it bored me too much and I couldn't see the appeal at all.
I don't like the star wars movies, think they're not nearly as good as people claim they are
This is certainly down to me being raised in a post OT world of good sci fi, but that doesn't make them worth watching these days. The only reason they are imo is to understand extended media
Extended star wars media though? Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme
As a huge fan of Star Wars, they are not as good as people claim.
I feel like it's sort of a citizen Kane kinda thing. It's a really important movie, and considering its time and context it was a very good movie, but it isn't a particularly fun film to watch these days.
Thomas jane was an amazing punisher
The Exorcist (original) is one of the most boring horror movies I've ever personally sat through and I have no earthly idea why it caused such a stir at the time. Whole movie is a snooze fest until the last bit, but I found it less scary and more humorous.
At the time, a child fucking themselves with a crucifix was considered rather shocking.
To understand this you have to know that at the time when "Jaws" came into cinema there were people leaving cinema during the film because they "couldn't handle it". There were even newspaper articles about how the movie allegedly traumatized people. The same goes for movies like "The Shining".
When "The Exorcist" came out people were not prepared.
Agree totally. One of my neighbours said it put the fear of god in them so I had high hopes. I was bored to tears during it.
Honestly the Simpsons rip off was more entertaining.
https://xkcd.com/2184/
The Way of the Gun (2000), 46% fresh. I really, actually do like this movie. I know, Ryan Phillipe makes things complicated. Like, starting in the first scene with Sarah Silverman.
"There's always cheese at a mousetrap."
The problem that this movie faced was that there was no reward for having a long attention span. Critically panned, the Way of the Gun rewards those who get carried along in the story; those who understand the roles the characters play in each others' lives, the Shakespearean knit in the fabric.
Longbaugh and Parker are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern witnessing the collapse of the house of and unborn Hamlet, whose supposed parents are a mob underboss and his trophy wife. His actual parents are at the shootout where he was born.
This is a good movie. Watch it.
I'd say 2001 Space Odyssey. The film has its interesting parts but the pace is absolutely awful. It makes it unwatchable. I watched it a while ago and couldn't finish it. Multiple long dragged sequences showing off the ships where nothing happens. Everything is an excuse to drag the scene, even a goddamn elevator. By the time I got the HAL part I was fed up with it and couldn't go on. It has multiple parts (starting with the music at the start) where it seemed they had a script but had to have a movie yay long. Like a class film. So they took every opportunity to stretch it.
Some people say I don't get it because it's not Michael Bay. That I have to appreciate the art in those long drawn out scenes. Well, excuse me, but I wanted to watch a movie, not a painting. Also, I shouldn't be expected to be on acid while watching. A disclaimer would help.
As a huge fan of the movie (and books) I kind of agree. I have managed to watch it in full only handful of times. I usually fall asleep mid-movie.
Having said that, I still love it. It also helps me fall asleep sometimes, so win-win. But I get what you're saying.
One thing that's probably worth keeping in mind is that the movie was made before the manned moon landing in 1969. So many of the scenes are super interesting just from the realism POV. Today we're one click away from a HD video someone made at the international space station. Back then you had few grainy transmissions from space. Star Wars was almost decade later.
So yeah, seeing ship slowly floating across the screen in complete silence is boring, but it's also realistic. Same for many other scenes. Now you can play games that will render the same scene in real time on a potato-level PC, so the novelty of seeing "how space might look like out there" is just not there.
So in many ways it's like seeing the bullet time scene in Matrix for the first time vs seeing the bullet time scene in any random movie decade later.
Christopher Nolan is the most overrated director of the last 20 years.
I agree, though he is still a great director that makes great movies.
Every story needs a love interest
I liked Matrix Revolutions from the beginning.
I'll do you one better: I loved Matrix Resurrection. Great satire and the real sequel to the first one
Its amazing how many people think that the movie is a genuine attempt at a sequel.
Freddie Got Fingered is a dadaist masterpiece.
I’m a huge Star Wars fan. I really liked the Sequel Trilogy. Someone can be a Star Wars nerd, and still enjoy The Last Jedi. I understand why fans hate it, but for me it's fun to watch. I don’t like to take it too seriously. Also, I enjoyed Solo. My mantra Trust no one and you will never be betrayed is from that movie.
That all said, I love the lore! Jar Jar the Sith, Darth Plagueis, the fan films, the theory—It’s so cool.
I am a massive Star Wars fan and cannot understand people who expect it to be high cinema. It's a series about space wizards and WW2-style air battles. Like all fantasy/SF, it is occasionally commentary on real-world stuff, but it isn't trying to be Star Trek. Things are allowed to just be fun
John Carpenter > Steven Spielberg
I could get on board with this. Both were amazing at their best and pretty mediocre at their worst. I'd love to see what Carpenter could have done with some bigger budgets. Although maybe the results wouldn't have been as good. He seems like the sort of director where necessity breeds invention.
Nature documentaries are the best
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original) was a terrible film. The only reason people say it is the greatest classic horror film is because of nostalgia. The acting was horrible and it wasn't scary in the slightest (I understand it was probably for the time).
I only saw it this year and wasn’t expecting much, but the cinematography is gorgeous.
Inception is one of the worst executions of an interesting idea. My imagination can imagine anything. Hollywood's? Well I guess you imagined too hard so now there's people with guns. Oh and this applies to everyone.
In theory I agree, but in practice? The amount of people having a hard time following the timelines of inception show that you really can't make a more complex execution, the average viewer simply won't get it. You have to simplify it to make it more digestible.
For comparison Dark is an exceptionally well done series that doesn't hold back with the complexity. How many people can say they "got" Dark when watching it the first time around? I'm an attentive viewer and even I had wrap my head around it to really understand what had happened. My wife, who is not an attentive viewer, pretty much gave up after S2 because she simply lost the plot. Too many bits of information was thrown in her way and she couldn't keep track of what was happening.
Personally, I give Nolan props for even trying to execute interesting ideas because the average high profile movie is pretty barren of interesting ideas. Would I like to see more interesting ideas with complex executions? Absolutely. Do I think it can be done? Considering who the target audience is, not really.
Horror movies are unfairly judged because most people who do not like horror movies watch them for the wrong reasons.
Shrek 2 is mid as fuck and the cover of I Need a Hero was its only saving grace. I really don't get why people ham it up as one of the best films of all time.
The Dark Knight has fucking terrible editing and a lot of bad, hammy acting. The opening bank heist is just bad, with really on-the-nose dialogue delivered pretty badly...even William Fichtner seems like he's trying a little too hard, and he's an otherwise good actor.
I know the editing has been covered in some YouTube essay that made the rounds a number of years ago so maybe that's not such an unpopular opinion, but it really sticks out to me like a sore thumb.
Before anyone gets totally mad at me, I still enjoy the overall story, a lot of the action, and I think both Ledger and Bale (dumb batman voice aside) are great. Also, Morgan Freeman, Michal Caine and whatshisname who plays Harvey Dent are also very good too.
I don't like the lord of the rings series.
It's not bad bad but with that budget, actors etc it could have been so much better :-/
The hobbit: kind of the same feeling.
Upvoted for actual unpopular opinion.
Can you elaborate on what specifically you didn't like about LOTR? Peter Jackson has always had a penchant for using cutting-edge CG tech in his films, to the point that some people call them tech demos. I think WETA's effects stand out as the best parts of the series, but the cinematography, sets, and acting are about as good as it gets in my opinion
The Hobbit, however....
The Godfather is meh at best and the acting is melodramatic and overplayed.
Indiana Jones is boring.
Citizen Kane and 2001: A Space Odyssey suck now.
There are old movies that have aged much better, like The Man in the White Suit and Colossus: The Forbin Project. These should be the ones we call classics.
I just don't like Star Wars and I like sci-fi in general. But Star Wars is just one of those stories I can't make myself to like.
I remember fondly the prequels with pod racing and that red black guy with double lightsaber. I wached those movies as a child.
Later I tried watching all of them and I could not bring myself to finish even one. The dated effects (good for their time) just took me out of the story way too much.
I also tried waching the new ones, but they just felt boring so I dropped them.
I don't know what is it about Star Wars, but I just can't bring myself to like them even with nostalgia by my side.
Star wars was always more of a fantasy film than scifi, maybe that's why?
There's nothing great about Studio Ghibli movies, they have appreciable hand-drawn effort but that isn't what makes a movie.
Alright this one got me. I can't imagine some of the stories doing absolutely nothing for a viewer and them thinking they are so-so.
I mean some of them show their age a bit and ok some of them rehash ideas from preceding ones, but it's hard to think of any Miyazaki movie that did nothing for me at all.
I don't know...I watched princess mononoke and was pretty impressed by the movie. Only other anime I've watched is ghost in the shell which I thought was alright. I'm not really an anime fan but I'm super glad I watched princess mononoke!
All of them? No. But there are so many great things in them you can't just bury them away like Spirited away, your neighbour Totoro...
You don't like them? I understand that totally, but they are masterpieces.
Like I just hate the Bolero and think Mosart is 'meh' I guess (toccata&fugue in D minor by Bach, now that rocks!).
Right, outside, lets fight!
Those movies are amazing, maybe what you're missing is that the age of the main character is the age of the target audience.
If Pulp Fiction is on, unless it's been a few years I'll probably switch the channel, if Django Unchained is on though...I'm grabbing a snack and watching it everytime. This isn't to say Pulp Fiction sucks, just think Django's more entertaining.
Ryan Reynolds finest role in film was Van Wilder. Deadpool is basically Van Wilder in a costume.
6 Underground was a good movie. Michael Bay is just making fun of himself, and I thought it was hilarious
Silence of the Lambs is not a scary film.
The Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy, started out great with it's first movie and then it plumed straight down with the two next ones.
Wow, you're the first person I've seen to notice that Batman Begins is the strongest of the 3.
Like, Heath delivered an incredible performance, but everything else surrounding it was not as cohesively put together as the first film.
Crash? More like Trash.
Also, Avatar fucking blows.
Most films are boring. 🤷♂️
Dune is complete crap from the soundtrack to the script. The characters are as thick as cardboard and their interactions motivate nothing. It's full of slow motion nonsense, flying metal dragonflies and Zimmer's horns. These days filmmakers are convinced visuals make storytelling. They don't. Dialogue does and here there's not a single line I remember.
Not trying to convince you otherwise. But movies are audiovisual media. It's right there in the name. So they visuals and the audio are a big thing for that medium. Radio theater had no visuals, but they used sound desing to elevate the medium. Books have no audio nor visuals, so they focus on delivering a great story with great dialogue.
Every medium has its strengths and weaknesses and every work within those mediums should focus on them. If there's ever a movie that is 5hs long with an amazing story and superb dialogue.... then it should've been a book.
My point is that it's ok not to like it. But the idea that a movie should have "good dialogue" is a bit misunderstanding what movies are and what the medium is. You can have a good movie with little to no dialogue or a very very basic story.
OP asked for unpopular opinions and you've delivered.
Upvoted you because of that and not because I agree with you (I strongly disagree as a matter of fact).
E.T. is decent at best. I wanted to watch it as a young kid, but wasn't allowed. By the time I finally watched it, I found it fell short of my expectations and I found it quite dull. Super 8 was also a middling film, but I thought it was slightly better than E.T.
I'm not sure if this will be unpopular, but if the emperor somehow returned, surely he could somehow go away again like it never happened and we get the thrawn trilogy and katana fleet.
The ending of se7en makes no sense. All the previous victims were murdered because they suffered from one of the seven deadly sins (gluttony, sloth, greed, lust, pride). But the final two victims - that supposedly would complete the list - did not suffer from these sins, but instead the perpetrators murdered them out of envy and wrath. Gwyneth did not suffer from envy, and Brad did not get murdered for his wrath.
Such a shame because the rest of the movie is great.
Tho it's a show and watched only the first season, but Star Trek: Lower Decks is kinda ruining the whole Star Trek world to me.
It's an OK cartoon, not bad at all. but so not Star Trek to me, at least the first season wasn't. I get it, it's the "Go" of the series, the cool and hip genz implementation, you either like it or not, and honestly, I kinda like it, but not as Star Trek.
Tarantino is trash and Ruins movies that should be good with weird edginess. Django unchained would be 10/10 with someone else as director. I never saw a good movie from him. I DK how death proof scores as high as it did. I gave that a 2/20. what a waste or kurt Russell and other good actors.
James Cameran's avatar are good movies, both of them.
The box office agrees with you.
Cloud Atlas was good if you paid attention, didn't notice the face cgi in theaters.
Every James Bond movie with Daniel Craig is crap; even Die Another Day was better.
My favorite Mad Max film is Thunderdome.
That is definitely an unpopular opinion, mad respect though
Batman Begins and Dark Knight Rises were boring. Batman & Robin was better than those two.
Boondock Saints is trash.
Can't think of another movie I remember loving as a teen, and liking less as a grownup than this movie. Directing, plot, premise, are just as contrived as a film could be. One out of seven rating (and the one is only because of the rice).
I couldn't sit through Pulp Fiction. By the milkshake scene I was done with these characters.