What is your unpopular flim opinion
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
it's actually spelled film
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.
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.
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.
Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree.
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/
When Did Deadpool First Break The Fourth Wall?
Marvel's Deadpool is known for his over-the-top violence and crude and crass humor, but perhaps his best-known character trait is his penchant for repeatedly breaking the fourth wall. Deadpool talks to the audience in comics, films and videogames - but he didn't always have this power. In fact, early Deadpool was known for being quite serious and firmly rooted in the fictional realm...so when did the Merc with a Mouth first break the fourth wall - and how did he insult editors everywhere by doing so?
Deadpool and the assassin with superhuman accuracy Bullseye teamed up in previous issues, and in Deadpool #28, the two are reunited after a long absence. "How long has it been!?" Bullseye exclaims. Deadpool simply states "Issue sixteen." It's the smallest of fourth-wall breaks (he hadn't even began speaking to the readers yet), but it shows that Deadpool is doing more than acting out - he's acting as his own editor. Considering convoluted comics continuity, it's normal for editors to occasionally place footnotes in certain panels, specifically when characters reference past events. Perhaps Kelly and Woods considered the old method, but wanted to try a new technique. Whatever their reasoning, Deadpool's fourth wall breaks became a staple of the character.
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 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.
I prefer flam over flim.
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?
Meet the Robinsons is one of Disney's best 3D movies and aged like wine
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
They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree.
The thing is, they're supposed to be that way. The comics were like that too.
I agree that it's bad that a lot of writers and directors want their film to be "Deadpool-esque".
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.
Freddie Got Fingered is a dadaist masterpiece.
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.
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.
Nature documentaries are the best
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.
The Godfather is meh at best and the acting is melodramatic and overplayed.
Horror movies are unfairly judged because most people who do not like horror movies watch them for the wrong reasons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Avengers End Game is awful. I usually really like super hero movies, but end game is unwatchable.
Donnie darko, Requiem for a dream, Mulholland drive, and every single film by Wes Anderson is a monumental waste of time. Hours of my life I will never see again.
Also Peter Jackson's best work is the q movie horrors he did in the early days also meet the feebles is amazing. Peter Jackson
I hate Deadpool because it got to use thunderstruck by ac/dc rather than the bridge scene in Thor Ragnarok where it would've been equally badass, and much better than a third iteration of Zeppelins immigrant song.
Warren Beaty and Faye Dunaway did the right thing announcing La La Land as the best picture.
Barbie & Her Sisters in a Puppy Chase is a horror movie
I am NOT going to even consider watching the new Death Stranding movie when it's out.
Just like Morbius, that movie is a "would rather ask my in-laws parenting advice than ever watch it".NGL green lantern the movie kinda slapped when I was a kid. I got really into comics partially because of it.
Merci boucoup, Pee Wee!
Scoob is delightful
I am NOT going to even consider watching the new Death Stranding movie when it's out.
Just like Morbius, that movie is a "would rather ask my in-laws parenting advice than ever watch it".Dennis Villeneuve is currently untouchable in the same way that Christoper Nolan was a few years ago. For whatever reason I meshed with Nolan's work at the time but I have been completely disenchanted by Villeneuve since Blade Runner.
I never met another person who like Eye of the Beholder, I really enjoy it. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0120662/
Marvel movies sucks. I can enjoy a superhero movie from time to time but this is getting out of control. 98% CGI movies with the SAME F*CKING STORY for the past 20 years. Good vs bad, chosen one, origins, Bla.Bla.Bla.
Most of my film opinions
The Happening was a good film.
People just see it as the dumb movie where plants make people commit suicide and has bad acting.
I see it more like the original dawn of the dead. It's a mirror to society. I personally don't believe the plants were doing anything. What happened is that the media machine latched onto anything they could put on TV, and before you knew it every other network news copied the unverified information. This happens so often in real life because every news station wants to be the first to report instead of being the truth.
Also, it's pretty terrifying that people start becoming suicidal zombies and you have no idea why or how to stop it.
Almost all Hollywood movies are inspired by Japanese anime, so just watch anime
People who don't like horror films are defective and should have been aborted.