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
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
Most horror movies have worse acting than a porno.
There is no accounting for taste. Who’s to say what’s a better actor?!
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.
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.
Tom Cruise has employees rewrite movies he’ll be in to make his part more, and more in his style.
He has more acting range and ability than so many other actors
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.
It’s strange that you said that and then said you liked fury road. I thought fury road was the epitome of spectacle and production value with actual value.
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.
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.
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.
I could never enjoy Django. It’s not a bad movie, but the way I watch a Tarantino movie you get desensitized by the violence and it becomes part of the humor and charm. I couldn’t do that in Django. The theme was too serious for me. Curiously I didn’t feel the same way in Inglorious Basterds.
Oh, and let’s get this out of the way. I fucking LOVED the Hateful Eight. It’s pure Tarantino.
Tenet is a great movie!
Uncontroversal.
Cloud Atlas was good if you paid attention, didn’t notice the face cgi in theaters.
I was under the impression that this thread was for unpopular opinions… 😐
I thought people thought it was a philosophical masterpiece. And I thought it was garbage. I understood fuckall. And I was watching it at my peak time during the day on the appropriate amount of caffeine to stimulate my brain. Nothing.
I may be dumb. Maybe. But I didn’t understand shit, that’s for sure.
There’s a fan recut that takes all the time skip scenes and puts them in chronological order that’s much more straightforward. Personally I can’t imagine watching it that way, but I also refuse to acknowledge The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya except in broadcast order. There’s definitely a large contingent that prefer both these media in chronological order though, so you’re not alone.
I think you’ve replied to the wrong comment, mate.
Funnily enough, I have spoken about Haruhi quite a bit 😂.
My comment was referring to Cloud Atlas while comparing it to Haruhi as another piece of media with dramatic (and controversial) time skips.
Donnie darko and the fifth element are terribly overrated. Films made to make teenagers think they’re deeper than they are.
The Hobbit films (and the rings of power) aren’t the worst thing to happen to the Lord of the rings.
Tbh the actual cast and direction of the The Hobbit movies wasn’t that bad, but intentionally drawing out a single book that could’ve been done in 3-4 hours into 3 whole movies in a vain attempt at recapturing the LoTR trilogy’s fame is what made it weaker.
Rings of Power, however, throws out a lot of the stuff that happened in The Second Age and straight-up ignores Tolkien’s works at times. Granted, Amazon didn’t have legal rights to the Silmarillion and the LoTR appendices, but it’s still a shame we basically got a gutted version of what could have been a great show. Galadriel was also pretty boring as your generic “Marvel strong stoic action woman” kind of character.
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.
My head hurts.
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 think it deserved to do better at the box office but I disagree calling it that good, primarily by counterexample (which I’ll get to). It had an entertaining cast, an entertaining plot and some good twists but it wasn’t unpredictable and the audience it was best for was the audience who recognised the constant homages to the experience of playing DnD - my primary example is the scene of the main character breaking out of prison completely unnecessarily.
The movie was made by Hasbro to sell dungeons and dragons (which, to be fair, you do mention) and I think as a fan of the ttrpg it did a great job of capturing that experience as a movie. I can’t call it the film of the year though, let alone the decade.
What makes you say it’s better than, for example, Blade Runner 2049 or Avengers Endgame, both being movies similarly sprouting from established brands? I would argue Dune is significantly better (talking about movies with a brand) also.
Outside the established brand space, you see movies like JoJo Rabbit, Marriage Story and Power of the Dog. All of my examples have been off arbitrary top 10/top 50 lists of the last 5 or last 10 years and I’m honestly curious about why you think the DnD movie beats all of them?
Edit: in saying that, upvoting because this is almost certainly an unpopular opinion
Bladerunner was pretentious film school drivel. It’s a montage of poetic, symbolic imagery that makes no sense as an actual narrative. Dune was far, far superior because the mythic reality is tied together into a classic hero story, and the whole thing is fantastical enough for Villaneuve’s whole thing to work. I can’t wait for the second one.
Avengers Endgame was just more of the same MCU formula, trotting out the usual tropes on an ever-increasing scale. Pretty good, as far as all that goes, but really devoid of any tension or depth, IMHO. Guardians 1 is a far better film.
As for those others, I haven’t seen them, though they’re all on my list. I’m open to any of them being better… of course my opinion will be limited to movies I’ve actually seen. But aside from glib hot takes, there’s not much meaning in comparing completely different films. My essential point is that DnD is an utterly superb movie, and I’ll maintain that in its freshness, surprising depth, and comedic sparkle, it’s at least the best movie of its kind in a long time.
Napoleon Dynamite is garbage.
This thread is for opinions backed with some sort of justification. Your opinion as stated belongs as a one-star review on IMDb.
Silence of the Lambs is not a scary film.
I would call it a suspense thriller, not a horror film.
