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
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
Totally agree with you!
Downvoted, since it doesn’t add anything to the answers. Just like my reply right here.
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.
I like this criteria. I’m using it.
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
Upvote things you agree with, upvote well articulated but controversial opinions.
If everyone upvote things they agree with well just end up with popular opinions D:
You upvote because you agree that it’s an unpopular opinion not because xou necessarily agree with the opinion
Downvote 'em all!
Chaotic evil?
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”.
The original Star wars trilogy was overrated, the sequels were underrated, and I’d rate them all to be equally mediocre.
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.
It’s definitely a classic, it just seems like the parts with Ford in the middle of the film doesn’t really achieve much to me. I think a version of the film around Deckard chasing just Roy Batty (and not the others) might have been better. Hauer did fantastic work every time he was on screen he should have got more.
But maybe it was an artistic choice to include Deckard hunting the other replicants as a commentary on meaningless violence.
I loved the original, when I had only seen the TV cut which doesn’t include the protagonist committing rape. I’ve seen the full version all of once and that just broke it for me.
I have the sequel on my to-watch list, but will be starting it off in a guarded manner.
I have tried to watch the original like three times and I fall asleep every time.
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.
I think the problem with Sucker Punch was no one really knew what it was about before watching it and ended up being like “this is fucking weird”. If you look at everything as though it’s from inside the mind of someone who was just lobotomized then it’s pretty good, imo.
Yeah I love the story and the layers of inception, but I think most people missed those details. I call it Alice in Wonderland with machine guns
The musical sequence with love is the drug with Oscar Isaac is amazing, the soundtrack is so much fun.
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?
Ohhhhh, yes, but I think you’re thinking of the other one. It’s the one with a few casual one liners.
Ahh yes. The one where the villain weaponized a glaring plot-hole and everyone was doomed until they figured out that they’d already covered this in a previous movie.
Found Scorcese’s Lemmy account
Where I wrote of MCU was Wonder Woman. I liked the movie and acting, but the story was so dumb. I called out the antagonist from the first time I saw him. The story was the same as all the MCU movies, I realized, after it:
Here’s this unstoppable bad guy, here’s the main characters getting their ass beat by the bad guy, here’s defeatist attitudes that they can never beat the bad guy, main protagonist suddenly “believes” they can beat the bad guy, beats bad guy, and roll credits. Splash of some sort of callback end-credits gush scene, and end.
But Wonder Woman isn’t MCU…
Does it really matter? They’re so interchangeable she may as well be.
Agreed. Studios used to make loads of fun cheap films, now everything has to be a blockbuster CGI-fest.
I saw another comment saying it was a trend and temporary; that may be true but it has definitely ruined cinema for too long already.
The first Iron Man is good. For me it went downhill from there.
Superhero movies are utter shit, and I cannot understand why people like them.
My only exception is The Dark Knight. And Iron Man 2, because I saw it at a tech conference pre-release and won a computer at the event.
I gave up after Tobey McSpiderman 2.
At least the first two Tobey McSpiderman movies were legitimately good, the problem was some studio exec went “LET’S MAKE NOTHING BUT SUPERHERO MOVIES FOR THE NEXT TWENTY-FIVE YEARS!” Sometime after the second one, I lost track of how many The Incredible Hulk movies they made, and then stopped paying attention. A very few have risen to the top since, including The Dark Knight and Deadpool, both legitimately good movies.
The last movie I saw at the theatre was Inglourious Basterds. Over the years, I’ve looked at what’s playing with dates and such, and…there’s nothing I want to see.
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.
Yeah that’s a good take, it’s like a modern Fifth Element.
Same director. I didn’t see it, but I love The Fifth Element
YMMV.
Without Chris Tucker, the Fifth Element would not be the same. There’s no Chris Tucker here. There’s no innocent/badass Milla Jovovich either. There’s Rihanna, but that scene was forced as well. The quick wit action hero is almost done well.
Really, carrying the movie, there’s just two smart-ass surly 20-somethings that need to bone and get it over with. That trope is LONG dead.
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?
Titanic is not a good movie.
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.
Napoleon Dynamite is garbage.
it’s actually spelled film
Every animated movie looks the same now
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.
Okay, so not every movie, just some recent popular movies from the same year from two of the largest studios with personnel and historical ties, and I guess illumination is also 3d animation if a different character style.
I understand the gripe, but that’s a very small section of animation.
I think it’s weird to put illumination with the other two because while it’s technically a financially successful studio, everything they put out is borderline bootleg quality compared to the other two.
Join the dark side. Watch anime
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?
Andor is so good.
It’s literally a modern western, not a lot happening in each episode is pretty much the western model. There is and should be an overarching plot and goal each season and mandalorian does do that, slowly, like a western should
I wholeheartedly disagree. It’s one of the best things to come out of the universe. Maybe it’s because my son and I watch it together. But there are some great actors in there putting in some stellar performances.
The worst thing it did was introduce baby yoda. Stupid piece of shit, I want to punt that little twat. Minions-for-millennials-ass-bitch
I quit watching after season 2.
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.
otherwise you don’t realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies.
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.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure I get your point, but I agree with your premise. Tarantino has made some ok movies but more often than not I find them boring, with poor acting and absurdly uninteresting story lines.
Do you have a recommendation for a book that’ll turn me into a cinephile?
Oh, wow. Old comment.
The easiest route to learning about movies, is to watch a lot of movies, and reading about the movie you’ve just watched. Wikipedia, a more in depth review, interviews with people who made the movie (not just the actors).
Google a top 100 list. Work your way through a few of them. Eg.
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
They also have cool features. For example, Michael Mann’s made a load of really cool action movies. Here’s a feature on his movies they made:
https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/where-begin-with-michael-mann
Or here’s famous critic Mark Kermode’s top 10 of horror movies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdj_22hHRyM
Yes, he has a PhD and is a member of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the UK equivalent of the Academy of Motion Pictures. No, he’s not a snob. Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s in the top 10. So are some older classics, which are still good.
But if you want to read something, you could try:
Bordwell and Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction.
David A. Cook. A History of Narrative Cinema
Wow, thank you so much for all the recommendations! I sometimes feel like I don’t know how to watch certain kinds of movies (e.g., older movies, or more artsy movies). I hope reading up a bit will help me appreciate them more
