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.
en again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses
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.
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.
I'm somewhat faceblind but great at voices. There's no escape. It also totally ruins a lot of animated shows and movies because a very small number of voice actors get a majority of the work.
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.
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
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...
I don't know who Chris Pratt sold his soul to to get voice actor work, but I'm hating it and now hoping he disappears like 90% of the 2000's actors.
If it’s an actor with a mansion then I know they didn’t spend enough on the actual movie
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.
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.
Most horror movies have worse acting than a porno.
There is no accounting for taste. Who's to say what's a better actor?!
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 :(
Ouiji was the worst offender of this. The first half of the movie, it’s got some of my favorite subtle directing in it, keeping you on your toes, then BAM. Halfway through they’re showing the creature in full view and it’s some generic black goo. Not scary at all. Would have been way better if the horror never showed its face.
Horror is a divisive genre, because it has some of the higher highs, but also many of the lowest lows.
I never really watched any horror movies until this October we binge watched almost 40 movies from that genre.
I agree, some of the absolute greatest films are from that genre, and you can find very interesting stuff from there if you dig a bit.
I'm now kind of mad at how I didn't find Evil Dead earlier in my life. Or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre...
Evil Dead 1&2, Army of Darkness are some of my favorite movies growing up. Just rewatched The Howling and it was good but not as good a American Werewolf in London. Friday the 13th and the Hellrazor series were awesome. Lost boys etc. The Gate. Pet Cemetery, Sometimes They Come Back and Cats Eye I thought were great Stephen King adaptations. I really enjoyed The Cube for its creativity and small set.
Still its the SciFi horrors get me the most. Alien series was awesome and Event Horizon were awesome. Something about having nowhere to escape to I think.
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...
The movie was alright.
“Somehow the emperor returned” was terrible.
“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.
All I could think of when he said that was, Princess Bunhead in Thumbwars: "I escaped somehow, let's go!"
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
I didnt hate it, i just thought it was too predictable.
Liking a film that 91% of critics gave a positive rating is controversial?
Best film from the 9. Has a very good story and leaves you wondering what is going on. It was exactly what it needed to be and did it in some new ways with older call backs. Seriously such a good flick.
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.
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.
At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who “aged out.”
Very good point.
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/ColoredMonaLisa
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.
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=Qdj22hHRyM
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
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?
I really think they're re-using the assets for all the characters now, with slight tweaks from movie to movie.
Disney has been doing this for the last 80 years or so.
Join the dark side. Watch anime
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.
If you like the YouTube channel "Some More News", you should check out their "movie". Yes, they made a movie and yes, it's out there at times, but the way it ties real world to the 1990s Mario Bros movie is so fragmented that when they finally connect all the dots, it's a mind blow!
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
Mediocre is too kind. The Mario movie was bad.
I took my kids. They kind of enjoyed it, but forgot about it almost immediately.
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.
Funny you mention the MCU because the audience for those movies is practically the same. For everything I've read and seen it basically sounds like a animated MCU movie
The story feels rushed and incoherent. Characters without character and chemistry. It's a film in which every aspect of its production was solely determined by the amount of money that was put into it. If Jack Black can't save a mediocre film...
I'm still mad it basically kicked the DnD movie out of theaters. If it wasn't for all the hype for Mario, I think the DnD movie would have done a lot better, but that's partly their fault for choosing a terrible time to release a movie - a week or two before the biggest video game franchise of all time releases their movie.
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!
I just watched it, solely from your comment.
I really enjoyed that movie! Thank you.
Thank you! I caught that movie on TV years ago and never knew the name.
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.
This is an incredible film! Forgot about it.
I've seen this movie many times and introduced many to it. It's one of those movies that sticks with you. I think about it a lot, I find, drawing parallels to it all the time.
A lot of commenters agreeing and recommending this, so I'll probably look it up. That said, a movie where it's just talking with music, seems pretty obvious why most people avoid it.
I've watched the film and it's nothing more than okay. It's reduced to the point of being bland. The good script can't carry everything else that is mediocre at best.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I explain it like this: people assume beer is one product but most economists actually study it as two distinct products: mass production beer and craft beer. They actually behave like two separate markets. People like each for very different reasons. And consumer behavior is very different around both.
That's how I feel about Film and Movies. We may watch them both on a screen, but other than that they are very different things. And you can like both! I love the MCU films. But I don't go expecting intellectual expositions.
I also love Dead Poets Society, Hidden Figures, and Argo. Let people like things. Let people like different things differently. It's OK.
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.
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.
100%
Agreed. I saw it many years ago so maybe should give it another shot, but someone would have to convince me it was worth it.
The Godfather, extremely overrated and very boring.
Agree. I couldn't stand them - I have a sneaking suspicion it's just the glorified toxic masculinity that appeals to a certain group of people.
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 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 way I had it explained to me by a friend who's into his comics (I'm not a comic reader) is that his regen abilities + cancer basically damaged his brain and made him insane which is why he "thinks" he's a comic book/movie hero. Not so much that he's breaking the 4th wall but that he's talking at it like a crazy person. He even has multiple personalities that I wish they'd introduced in DP2! It was hinted at when he's reunited with Vanessa in DP1 when he says "and now the moment I've all been waiting for"
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 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.
All the people saying inception was actually sht made me doubt myself and go and binge all of Christopher Nolans movies again in chronological order. Maybe Im just a sucker for his film style but I still liked Inception even after all these years. The prestige was also better than I remembered it was. I also appreciated what Tenet was trying to achieve despite that movie having pretty bad reviews for a Nolan film.
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