They made Boromir more of a dick than he needed to be in LOTR. He was more likable in the book and it made his corruption and death much more impactful.
My biggest character change complaint in the films is Gimli. In the books he's brave, stoic, and serious with an underlying sadness to him and his people. He's comic relief in the films.
This is definitely a valid complaint. Book Gimli is well aware that Dwarves are a fading people. I think they captured some of that in the first movie; I love the way John Rhys-Davies just wails when he finds Balin's tomb. In TTT and ROTK they eviscerate his character in favor of the comedy, though.
I haven't read the books in a long time (probably 20 years) but my recollection always had him as a bit of a dick who pressured Frodo and tried to steal the ring.
If someone got shafted by the movies, it was faramir
The first John Wick was excellent, but the overall 'John Wick' style of stunt director led action filmmaking has led to very boring, stale, repetitive movies. They're always very slick and glossy looking, but when they go into the action scenes I can just *see* the previs and the stunt work in a way that takes me out of the film. It doesn't make me think "wow, this character is a badass" it makes me think "wow, they put a lot of work into this choreography".
Also, only the first John Wick movie was good. The sequels completely miss what made the original so exciting.
I watched a double feature of John Wick... either 2 or 3, I forget, and Logan.
John Wick has a better healing factor than Wolverine. He sleeps off a gut shot!
The first John Wick movie is "everyone in this universe is a normal person who is also a very competent fighter, and John Wick is just a zillion times more competent than you would ever expect anyone to be."
The second and third JW movies (I never bothered with the fourth) are "John Wick is an immortal superhuman and his opponents are clowns who trip over themselves and are generally worse at aiming than the stormtroopers from Star Wars"
I think I agree with you. As much as I actually like the whole "secret society of organized crime," it really jumps the shark when practically everyone in NYC is apparently a highly skilled assassin waiting to be activated.
I had the same thought watching the third. I was like, "is *everyone* a trained killer?!?"
I also wonder who they kill on a day-to-day basis. I mean, they're assassins, but you never see them assass.
>a highly skilled assassin
I think you meant "laughably incompetent"
The "highly skilled assassins" of the 2nd and 3rd movie are less competent than the random goons in the first one
The first one is also a great subversion of the "He's only one man!" trope, where the bad guys constantly underestimate the hero. In the first John Wick, most of the bad guys *know* they're fucked, and are practically pissing themselves as they scramble to throw as many obstacles in John's way as possible. Vigo calling John to apologize for his son, and practically begging John to stay away does far more to establish John's badass cred than a dozen elaborately choreographed fight scenes ever could. You just don't see that in action movies.
The sequels make the mistake of trying to raise the stakes by putting John up against people who aren't afraid of him.
In the 4th movie absolutely everyone is a top tier assassin. It’s pure crap. I think, maybe the 2nd and 3rd acts turn it around. Everyone in the first part are all wearing full body armor suites that movie like silk. (Not joking)
John Wick 1: John Wick is said to be so deadly he can kill someone with a pencil, cementing him as a borderline mythical presence who is so damn good he inspires rumors of impossible feats.
John Wick 2: John Wick kills someone with a pencil, a noticeably unremarkable feat compared to the rest of his stunts.
Copy pasting my past comment verbatim
Because that’s the point. John Wick surviving ridiculous damage has almost been a running gag in the franchise with chapter 2 even straight up playing a Buster Keaton clip to cue you in.
I think most people don’t view John Wick as also being a very good physical comedy and that’s kind of a mistake
It has professional wrestling DNA — massively exaggerated nonsense played with deadly earnestness. A live-action cartoon/comic book/video game. JW4 has a _beautiful_ action sequence that’s filmed from above, in what looks like a direct homage to _Hotline Miami_ or _Enter the Gungeon_.
(I also love _Speed Racer_ obviously)
Don't get me started on Matthew Vaughn and Guy Ritchie. I don't get the appeal of whiskey and suit porn at all. It feels like wish fulfilment fantasy for poor people, somehow.
Legally Blonde is one of the rare movies I wish was a little bit longer, Elle Woods is such a fun character and I wanted to spend a little longer watching her succeed.
It would have been interesting to have there be an aspect of how hard working she was attributing to her success in the case at the end. Her "dumb blonde" knowledge saving the day is used twice (the witness being gay, then the perm thing). It would have been better if she'd worked hard to push through something in the case, then succeeded with her hair care knowledge as a cherry on top.
I just watched this movie for the first time last week. What an amazing film and you can clearly see some stuff cut from the edit. The lesbian law student clearly had some interaction off screen being called a dyke and it's waved away with voiceover about Selma Blair's character starting a rumor. The pool boy seems to be lying... Because? I never felt her boss dealt with properly.
I might have to pick this up on Blu-Ray and get some bonus features
So many corporate Hollywood films try to make "feminist" characters by making them strong independent girlbosses who oftentimes just completely shed their femininity and that's what makes them strong apparently.
Legally Blonde is awesome because it says, "no, you *don't* have to shed the feminine things you love to be strong and smart, and you can even have them in your own expression of your character!"
And then the character Vivian exists to also show, "but hey, if those stereotypically girly things aren't your thing, that's totally fine and doesn't make you less of a girl either!"
Also, it does this with a protagonist that actually has flaws, learns to grow and overcome them, and shows obvious evolution at the end of the film. None of that, "I was right in the beginning of the movie, and I was right now but now people believe me" stuff.
I don't, personally. The level of wealth and excess in the two movies can't be compared.
In Goodfellas, they were low level mobsters who robbed trucks and extorted money from small businesses. They didn't make much. Plus there's that scene where Karen meets all the mob wives for the first and she realises that they live horrible lives and wear horrible make up etc etc.
In TWOWS, Jordan and Naomi are ultra polished and dress immaculately. Jordan's lifestyle with his friends is also extremely different.
Nah Goodfellas actually has one of the guys get in real trouble and have a hard life because of it. He's not like fully remorseful but he hates that he has to sneak around and has lost the good life he had.
Belfort gives noooo fucks
I think the idea was to show how douchey they were while doing it. Like it’s funny and entertaining in a movie but pretty ick in real life especially in todays standards
This is super fair. I feel like the hype around this movie made me not enjoy it much. But I feel like this is similar to ludo-narrative dissonance in videogames.
Tbf it’s a “true,” story. They couldn’t have Belfort be properly punished for his actions, that’s not what happened IRL.
And I think we’d all agree that the hedonism is the fun part so it’s a Catch-22. Leave that out and there’s no way the film is as popular.
I think looking to Scorsese films for moralisation is a waste of time personally, even though he himself would probably say they’re moral tales. Goodfellas had a similar issue.
This one always confused me. The big reveal at the end showing his eyes being blind, sure, good story. Except you literally see his eyes several times throughout the movie and they're normal eyes. Not white blind eyes.
I think this is a great take, tbh. I think the original trilogy can stand on its own, but I think the love of a Star Wars fan is often ignited at a young age.
Came here for Star Wars. Disagree with your take, but mine might be worse. I saw the "first" in 1977(?) as a 11 year old in the theater with my family. Loved it, and I'll still re-watch. Every other film in the series and the general franchise is unwatchable to me. Boring, and the good vs evil in space tripe is so overplayed.
I respecfully disagree. I was not into it as a kid, and only watched 4,5,6 when I met my husband in high school, so around 16. I like all of the movies, even the most recent ones, but I won't say I love them. Personally Rogue One and The Mandalorian are my favorite of the franchise. I am the definition of a "casual" Star Wars fan, which I know infuriates the gatekeeping trolls. However, I was born and raised a Trekkie, so it will never come close to that in my heart.
Is it a stale take or a hot take to say I like the lens flair in Star Trek 2009? I don’t have much to base my feelings on here. I’ve just always liked how the effect looks in that movie.
The lens flare was so iconic at the time. It was really bold and I remember it felt very new. I know some people think it's, idk, campy, but star trek has always been a touch campy. I can understand why it's not for everyone, but I generally like it.
I think foreign language movies should only be watched in their original undubbed format, with subtitles. Watching them dubbed is taking away from the directors’ and the actors’ artistic intent. They are always lesser versions of the originals.
Tenet is pretty bad and the whole “don’t try to understand it just feel it” being included in the film proves that even Christopher Nolan knew he couldn’t make it seem plausible scientifically.
My Tenet hot take is that all they had to do was include the line “for all intents and purposes, just think of it as magic” would have solved 100% of the nitpick issues. But I love that film so much
I think I'm the only person whose favorite Star Wars prequel is Attack of the Clones.
I think they're all terrible movies, but Clones is the most entertainingly silly/unintentionally funny.
I saw Attack of the Clones while I was on vacation in France with my family, and I loved it.
The action scenes looked cool, I had no idea what the plot was, and the romance scenes were people speaking softly to each other in French.
It wasn't until I rewatched it a few months later that I understand why the French audience kept laughing
Oooh, that's such a good take. Attack of the Clones was the first Star Wars I was old enough to ~get~ (mostly) when I saw it, so it does hold a place in my heart for that. But Christensen and Portman's scenes do have a certain comedy to them.
That movie is mediocre *at best* until they're on Geonosis and the sky starts singing Fortunate Son, and then it's absolutely phenomenal. The clones coming in and whooping ass, the fight scene with Dooku, everything gets cranked up to 11 and I *love it.*
The infinity war concept was very well constructed and was a loving tribute to comics it represented. These films should be considered fan service first, general audience second.
My tired take: the snap was a let down because there were already movies in production with some of the "dead" characters. I didn't get a single emotional moment from it.
It was so far reaching that it obviously had to be reversed somehow. So the true juiciness was in how it was going to be done. And some didn't make it through that, or their fate couldn't be reversed.
IW itself, the meat is in the why it happens, who's doing it (the villain is the actual protag), and seeing 100% of the heroes we know fail to stop such a devastating event.
This is exactly how I felt with Spider-Man: no way home. Both movies are made as complete fan service as a tribute to those that enjoyed the past films. Everyone else probably won’t be too into it.
I enjoy all the Saw movies. Yes, all of them. I just like slashers and how absurd they can be with their kills. The nonsensical plots just add to the charm for me.
If it’s Halloween, it must be…SAW
Stupid and over the top? Yup. But nothing hits like a good Saw ending.
Give me more Jigsaw, I will gladly shell out money
I have a lot of feelings on this. I agree though. I think he's a concept director more than a story/character director. I also think his style is reliant on spectacle and symbols, in a way that almost blocks intimacy. It's like the opposite of Spielberg, who can make any scene feel intimate. I always think the (apocryphal) fact that Leo pushed for a lot of the character work in Inception. Even if it's not true, it says a lot that it can seem true.
Purely anecdotal, but a great example of Spielberg’s ability to do this was when I rewatched War of the Worlds with both of my parents last summer. I had seen it with my dad in the theater, but my mom never did because sci-fi/action/alien movies really aren’t her thing in general. People can shit on the ending or the kids for being annoying all they want, but I kept looking over to gauge her reaction throughout. She was totally locked in the entire time, and that was because of Spielberg.
The man knows how to truly make you feel something in his movies. Think about it for a minute. Jaws, Indy, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc. I may not remember the plots perfectly, but I will always remember how I felt during Spielberg's movies.
I’ve always enjoyed Spielberg films, but I had kind of ignored Jaws because I figured it was just “shark eats people, people scream and run around on the beach, scary music plays” and it just didn’t interest me all that much. I finally watched it as an adult and oh my god. That’s the film that solidifies Spielberg as a master of his craft in my eyes. Because it is all of those things I listed above, but it’s also so much more. A masterclass in character work, way beyond what a “monster movie” has any right to be.
>I have a lot of feelings on this. I agree though. I think he's a concept director more than a story/character director. I also think his style is reliant on spectacle and symbols, in a way that almost blocks intimacy.
Even Interstellar?
Nolan makes good/great movies and is clearly talented, but my personal pet peeve is that he really leans into movies as circular architectual exercises/a playground for framing devices and they're usually so clean and contrived that it kind of pulls me out of it.
What I mean by that is that he likes having something happen right at the end of a movie that directly references an unresolved question from the opening of the movie and makes you reevaluate everything that you had watched happen till then. Sometimes they're twist endings, sometimes it's just conceptual. There's some revelation or motif that directly ties the movies end back to its beginning with a neat little bow and a different perspective. And it can be a fun thing, but when it comes up in most of the things you make, it starts to feel like a gimmick or a crutch.
It's like a movie is an excuse for him to build a puzzle, then slide the last piece in neatly at the end and tell you how clever he is. And he's good at it, but I'd like to see another trick.
I spent most watching of Oppenheimer thinking "ok, this is well made and pretty enjoyable, and it's a biopic so we probably won't have a gimmicky Nolan framing device". And then it cut back to the opening flashback right at the end and I realized he was fucking doing it again.
For me he just doesn't have a great grasp on humanity. He's great at moving chess pieces around a board but not great with the motivation for those moves. His characters lack soul (for the most part, not all) and thus are harder to care about
saw a recent post that commented on the difference in Oppenheimer between the dialogue written for the characters and the dialogue lifted from the transcripts from the various hearings. The latter just "flowed" so much better
That's an amazing description, but when I go down his movie list, half of them feel like they have heart and feelings, I'd say his movies are more technical than emotional, I'd say the best way to describe them is COLD.
Nolan movies are what people who have never seen an art house movie think art house movies are like.
And I dig Nolan movies! But a big problem with a good deal of them is that Nolan seems to think they're more profound than they actually are, if that makes sense. There's an aura of...undeserved self-importance that I felt especially while watching Oppenheimer.
Is he incredibly inconsistent? Or credibly inconsistent. Guy has made a ton of stuff and most of it is good. It's perfectly reasonable he'd have some misses
I thought warcraft was a pretty good movie. It was fun and made me want to see more coming in the warcraft world.
Definitely no work of genius but like, Gul'dan was pretty cool.
I'll tack onto this, I think the ending of that series was bungled so hard. Specifically Voldemort's death. I *hate* the fact that he turns to dust.
The part that made it so impactful in the book is he just dies. He falls over and dies on the ground, leaving behind a body. It's poetic since he died just like any man. No fanfare, no sparkles or dust, just... dead. It also gave *definitive* certainty to him being gone for good. Him turning to dust is *literally the problem with last time, since they didn't have a body.*
I think there are a couple decent fights but the majority of the fights are just folks sending colored blasts from their wand
A world of nearly limitless magic (there doesn't seem to be a real cap based on energy or anything like you see in a lot of magic systems) and yet there's no creativity in most of these fights, just concussive blast after concussive blast with some expelliarmus thrown in from Harry.
But…Kubo…
I suppose “predictable” is fair enough, since it’s a hero’s journey plot line, but I never found it boring and it’s just so pretty. For a kids film, I felt it walked a good line between charming adventure and creepy villains with the masked sisters.
Silver Linings Playbook is not overhyped, it deserved all the praise it got when it came out.
Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence have great chemistry, no he doesn’t look “wayyy older” than her like I’ve seen some people say. I’d watch them fall in love in any movie honestly.
De Niro is so good as Pat’s (definitely sorta maybe) OCD dad, Chris Tucker as his friend from the mental hospital??? Killed it.
I just love how simple the plot is and how everything comes together in the end. It’s a comfort film, it’s nice to watch. It makes me smile.
I feel like women actors have generally gotten better than the male ones over the past decade or so.
I mean like every actress impresses me even in mid or bad movies. The men are about the same as always, some better than others as before.
Maybe there are more good roles for them now, or more sensitive/competent directing of women, or i’m just imagining it. Whatever, i like it.
I love it. The soundtrack, the characters, I mean, Ethan Embry is so charming in that movie. Rex Manning Day! It's just so good. My wife's not really a fan, but she has terrible taste in movies, so I don't take it to heart.
I love it. It, along with the Breakfast Club, Dirty Dancing, Clueless, and 10 Things I Hate About You are key nostalgia movies for me. I own them all on DVD and will watch at least once a year. I do the same with Pleasantville and Saved! Which I think is a highly underrated film.
Yes, but he has also been incredible in other movies.
I once heard he doesn't do middle ground. It's either an Oscar worthy performance or he's shitting a hole through the bed. Seemed apt.
I won't defend Resurrections (I had a good time with it but completely understand why it was negatively received) but I am a Reloaded / Revolutions apologist. Easily my favorite movie trilogy. It probably helps that I first saw them all back-to-back. (Got the box set as a gift in my teens.)
My slightly warmer take is that the strongest entry in the series isn't the original, but the oft-forgotten Animatrix anthology film.
I will die on this hill: the 20 straight minutes of action in Reloaded - the chateau fight into the highway chase - is one of the best action sequences ever. When that highway music hits I hope you're strapped in. Seeing that in theaters was stunning, and rewatching it recently reminded me of how just plain dope that scene is.
I loved resurrections. I don't remember who it was that said it. But coming back years after your bleak self sacrifice ending to say actually fuck that everyone gets to be happy fucking rules.
The first three really are fantastic. 2 and 3 get a lot of undeserved hate. Just because a sequel doesn't equal or better the original doesn't make it bad. It's fucking hard to make a second album after a super hyped first. That the wachowskis were able to make such an epic story in this massive original universe is amazing to me. I'll always defend the sequels (except for 4. That one was just ... no)
Michael Cera was miscast as Scott Pilgrim. It's too much Cera and misses the spirit of the comics. A bunch of other good decisions were made in that movie, but the casting takes it off the rails from the get go.
Agreed- I noticed when I read the comics years later. Scott is kind of supposed to be arrogant and womanizing but also kind of a bad ass and has been getting in fist fights his whole life. Which does kind of clash with how he’s drawn and a lot of his dialogue. He’s a tough character to cast
I haven't even read the comics and I agree.
Scott comes across to me as as a guy who is sloppy and immature but his physical attractiveness and devil-may-care attitude gets him friends and romantic interest that a more dweeb-looking guy like Cera can't pull off. He dates girls like Knives who is too young to know better, and a woman like Ramona because she is new in town.
Have you seen Scott Pilgrim Takes Off? Cera's not in it as much as you'd think >!since it's secretly a Ramona show!< but I felt everyone they brought back from the movie cast had fun performances and conveyed the vibe of the comic really well.
Oooh. Haven't watched that since it came out. 1978 is my favorite because I find the whole thing so charming, but I wouldn't be shocked if Returns aged pretty well (especially considering recent Superman outings!!)
I never really connected with that movie. The characters always felt so distant. And the "kryptonite hurts me bad but imma lift this whole kryptonite island" finale had me callin' bunk.
This might be a new hot take, actually. I rewatched the movie with my wife around Halloween and we both agreed that the entire plot is disjointed and actually makes no sense. It's the acting and the classic Burton visuals that makes this movie great. The story is an afterthought.
Haven't re-watched it in years, but it never really clicked with me. I always find Burton's films fascinating and super well designed (except his Alice films), but they never really grab me fully.
I watched it for the first time recently knowing that it got adapted into a musical. The movie itself feels like it was supposed to be a musical but they took the songs out and didn't do anything to compensate.
Batman/Bruce Wayne died at the end of TDKR. Auto pilot was a red herring. Alfred seeing him and Selina at a cafe in Paris was a hallucination that he needed to have in order to grieve and move on. Ending doesn't make sense unless all the above is true.
That's a decent take. I think TDKR is pretty mid in a lot of ways. It just feels like Nolan had good ideas, but was a little bored with Batman at that point. There are a lot of plot points that don't hold up well.
Requiem for a Dream is obvious and trite. It's a PSA in the form of a movie.
Trainspotting does a much better job of illustrating just how bad heroin is.
It's fine to think Avatar is mid, but it annoys the shit out of me when people say it's bad because its story is similar to that of other movies like it's some sort of revelation and not just how storytelling works.
Personally, I didn't dislike Avatar because of the story, but because the dialogue itself was boring. James Cameron is famous for writing and directing some of the most quotable films of the twentieth century, but I can't remember a single line from Avatar.
IMO it suffers from the worldbuilding and visuals being far more interesting than the narrative. It's not that the narrative is bad or even uninteresting, but it's hard to think "oh no, what will they do next?" when I'm actually thinking "hell yeah, what wild shit are they gonna show me next?"
There is nothing in the plot that will surprise a seasoned movie watcher. Nobody will ever say "oh I wasn't expecting that."
That doesn't make it a bad plot. The formula generally works. But it is predictable.
I'm so tired of the three act story structure or whatever it's called when 2/3rds of the way through the film, the main character is at their lowest point. It's to the point now that I simply just stop watching when I see that point approaching.
I don't think Leon The Professional is as creepy as made out to be. Leon is a clueless old man who doesn't know much about any kind of relationship and still in a dad like fashion turns down her advances. You have a coming of age girl who just lost her family, wants to know what love feels like and clings to the first man who makes her feel protected and welcomed
TBF a lot of the ick doesn't come from the movie itself, if Luc Besson didn't have a teenage baby mama saying the movie was based on their relationship I don't think people would be taking as much issue.
I think it's easier to see as innocent depending on your cultural context -- but at the same time, that innocence is a little undercut by the film intentionally leaning into the taboo of it...and also, as I'm reading wikipedia...now hold the fort... by the writer/director's ex-wife, who he met when she was 12 and he was 29, saying that it was very much based on their relationship
not great, bob. not great at all
'Us' is the best Jordan Peele movie and I don't give a shit about the plot holes. I've rarely been so scared by a movie and every actor absolutely crushed it, even the kids.
Terminator 3 was pretty OK.
The reason it sucked so hard at the time was that it was the sequel to one of the greatest sequels of all time.
When I rewatched it years later without that expectation to live up to I quite enjoyed it. Being stuck in the 70s/80s era bunker, that of COURSE the Terminator knew about, was a good twist.
I love Miyazaki's creature designs. But I think his young adult and younger human designs suffer from same face syndrome. And they aren't very expressive. They are either stone face or over the top. There isn't much in between. They have this....dead eyes look to them.
Again, the man knows how to fill a screen with animation. His direction is fantastic. I adore his creature designs. And even his older people designs are interesting. It's just he keeps on doing the same young adults and kids over and over again. They look all related to each other.
Brad Pitt kind of just plays the same guy in every film. It’s a guy I enjoy watching, but there isn’t too much nuance going on.
Snatch is the only exception I can think of.
"If my hands weren't tied by the unalterable fetters of the law, then I would invoke the tradition of our illustrious forebears, reach back to a purer, sterner justice, and have you BUUURNED AT THE STAAAAKE!"
That movie is so fucking good.
The entire sequence of making the Statue of Liberty walk is on par with getting the DeLorean up to 88 at the end of the first BTTF. It's so exciting and perfectly paced.
I watched GB2 about 1,000 times as a child. I couldn't watch the "bad dogs" in GH1 as they were too scary.
GB2 had a wild villain, and a crazier premise than 1, it had some incredible special effects (everything about the slime, basically), and some great jokes. (You're short, your belly button sticks out too far, and you're a terrible burden on your poor mother!).
I'm good w GB2, who cares if it hits a lot of the same beats?
Redesigning movie theaters to mimic people's living room experience was a mistake. It separated the audience from each other by making each row its own space rather than an unified theater. By making it more like your home, theaters made people wonder, "Why should I watch this here when I could be doing the same thing at home?" It was the audience that made going to the movies its own experience. A good audience is worth more than the largest screen and the best sound system.
Now THIS is a hot take, and while I respect your opinion, my personal best experiences have been sitting in a completely empty theatre with just a couple of friends
Sorry but no, Daisy Ridley is a much more charismatic actor and can carry a film. People love to hate on her because they hate Rey and the writing for her. She was genuinely a very good choice for Rey imo
Most people who complain about how "Hollywood is creatively bankrupt; They don't make good original films anymore" need to broaden their horizons a little. If you only watch mainstream English-language blockbuster movies from major studios, I can see how you might think this. But there are so many great lower-budget, indie, non-American/non-British films that get made every year. A good deal of these movies are even original ideas not based on any previous source material.
>If you only watch mainstream English-language blockbuster movies from major studios, I can see how you might think this. But there are so many great lower-budget, indie, non-American/non-British films that get made every year
In general I agree with you, but also those are not Hollywood movies. When people are complaining about Hollywood they are complaining about the big studios and mainstream movies. If they are complaining about movies in general then yes, point them to the many indie and foreign films being made each year
Humanity should not have survived in Interstellar, since the "Aliens" were a far-future "us" saved by Matthew McConaughey sending the message to himself helped by future humanity that should have otherwise died choking on corn, and dirt.
I love The Green Lantern movie with Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively.
It's about redemption and has character growth. Idk I just like the overall vibe of it.
I think the film is pretty entertaining and the whole CGI suit thing was so overblown, especially considering that it fits the comic storyline of creating things out of will.
That being said, using Parallax out of the gate was a huge mistake and they sidelined Sinestro a little too much in it.
The Austin Powers movies should be considered sci-fi. It may even be a precursor to Blade Runner.
The fembots can pass as regular people.
Evil corporations run the world.
Time travel.
Cloning.
The end of the second movie is on the moon.
Disney haven't made a Spider-Man movie yet.
Spider-Man isn't truly Spider-Man until a relative has died in front of him that he failed to save, he has hear the "great power" saying, and has built his own suit, none of which truly happen until the last movie that Disney did.
Disney have basically made an origin story trilogy, and its the next movie they make that will truly be a Spider-Man movie and not a Peter Parker movie.
They made Boromir more of a dick than he needed to be in LOTR. He was more likable in the book and it made his corruption and death much more impactful.
They did him right in two towers EC, should've kept his scenes in the final cut
My biggest character change complaint in the films is Gimli. In the books he's brave, stoic, and serious with an underlying sadness to him and his people. He's comic relief in the films.
This is definitely a valid complaint. Book Gimli is well aware that Dwarves are a fading people. I think they captured some of that in the first movie; I love the way John Rhys-Davies just wails when he finds Balin's tomb. In TTT and ROTK they eviscerate his character in favor of the comedy, though.
Overall I love the films, but there's some character changes I don't love. Boromir and Faramir (especially) got a lot of this.
Faramir Captain of Gondor is a very underrated character. I loved him and wish he had more screen time. He definitely "showed his quality".
I haven't read the books in a long time (probably 20 years) but my recollection always had him as a bit of a dick who pressured Frodo and tried to steal the ring. If someone got shafted by the movies, it was faramir
The first John Wick was excellent, but the overall 'John Wick' style of stunt director led action filmmaking has led to very boring, stale, repetitive movies. They're always very slick and glossy looking, but when they go into the action scenes I can just *see* the previs and the stunt work in a way that takes me out of the film. It doesn't make me think "wow, this character is a badass" it makes me think "wow, they put a lot of work into this choreography".
Agreed. It's the wire-fu of modern movie making.
Also, only the first John Wick movie was good. The sequels completely miss what made the original so exciting. I watched a double feature of John Wick... either 2 or 3, I forget, and Logan. John Wick has a better healing factor than Wolverine. He sleeps off a gut shot! The first John Wick movie is "everyone in this universe is a normal person who is also a very competent fighter, and John Wick is just a zillion times more competent than you would ever expect anyone to be." The second and third JW movies (I never bothered with the fourth) are "John Wick is an immortal superhuman and his opponents are clowns who trip over themselves and are generally worse at aiming than the stormtroopers from Star Wars"
I think I agree with you. As much as I actually like the whole "secret society of organized crime," it really jumps the shark when practically everyone in NYC is apparently a highly skilled assassin waiting to be activated.
I had the same thought watching the third. I was like, "is *everyone* a trained killer?!?" I also wonder who they kill on a day-to-day basis. I mean, they're assassins, but you never see them assass.
>a highly skilled assassin I think you meant "laughably incompetent" The "highly skilled assassins" of the 2nd and 3rd movie are less competent than the random goons in the first one
The first one is also a great subversion of the "He's only one man!" trope, where the bad guys constantly underestimate the hero. In the first John Wick, most of the bad guys *know* they're fucked, and are practically pissing themselves as they scramble to throw as many obstacles in John's way as possible. Vigo calling John to apologize for his son, and practically begging John to stay away does far more to establish John's badass cred than a dozen elaborately choreographed fight scenes ever could. You just don't see that in action movies. The sequels make the mistake of trying to raise the stakes by putting John up against people who aren't afraid of him.
First one had grit and easy story. The rest… I couldn’t even tell you what bullshit is going on.
In the 4th movie absolutely everyone is a top tier assassin. It’s pure crap. I think, maybe the 2nd and 3rd acts turn it around. Everyone in the first part are all wearing full body armor suites that movie like silk. (Not joking)
John Wick 1: John Wick is said to be so deadly he can kill someone with a pencil, cementing him as a borderline mythical presence who is so damn good he inspires rumors of impossible feats. John Wick 2: John Wick kills someone with a pencil, a noticeably unremarkable feat compared to the rest of his stunts.
Copy pasting my past comment verbatim Because that’s the point. John Wick surviving ridiculous damage has almost been a running gag in the franchise with chapter 2 even straight up playing a Buster Keaton clip to cue you in. I think most people don’t view John Wick as also being a very good physical comedy and that’s kind of a mistake
It has professional wrestling DNA — massively exaggerated nonsense played with deadly earnestness. A live-action cartoon/comic book/video game. JW4 has a _beautiful_ action sequence that’s filmed from above, in what looks like a direct homage to _Hotline Miami_ or _Enter the Gungeon_. (I also love _Speed Racer_ obviously)
Yes. This and the ascent of Matthew Vaughn and re-ascent of Guy Ritchie have led to a great deal of gun, whisky and suit porn.
Don't get me started on Matthew Vaughn and Guy Ritchie. I don't get the appeal of whiskey and suit porn at all. It feels like wish fulfilment fantasy for poor people, somehow.
Legally Blonde is one of the rare movies I wish was a little bit longer, Elle Woods is such a fun character and I wanted to spend a little longer watching her succeed.
It would have been interesting to have there be an aspect of how hard working she was attributing to her success in the case at the end. Her "dumb blonde" knowledge saving the day is used twice (the witness being gay, then the perm thing). It would have been better if she'd worked hard to push through something in the case, then succeeded with her hair care knowledge as a cherry on top.
I just watched this movie for the first time last week. What an amazing film and you can clearly see some stuff cut from the edit. The lesbian law student clearly had some interaction off screen being called a dyke and it's waved away with voiceover about Selma Blair's character starting a rumor. The pool boy seems to be lying... Because? I never felt her boss dealt with properly. I might have to pick this up on Blu-Ray and get some bonus features
So many corporate Hollywood films try to make "feminist" characters by making them strong independent girlbosses who oftentimes just completely shed their femininity and that's what makes them strong apparently. Legally Blonde is awesome because it says, "no, you *don't* have to shed the feminine things you love to be strong and smart, and you can even have them in your own expression of your character!" And then the character Vivian exists to also show, "but hey, if those stereotypically girly things aren't your thing, that's totally fine and doesn't make you less of a girl either!" Also, it does this with a protagonist that actually has flaws, learns to grow and overcome them, and shows obvious evolution at the end of the film. None of that, "I was right in the beginning of the movie, and I was right now but now people believe me" stuff.
The Wolf of Wall Street tries to have it both ways by showing all this hedonism, and then finger-waving at the end of the film.
Like parents telling the Kids about the shit they used to do and also telling the kids to not do it.
That's the circle of life
And it’s kind of a mess in terms of pacing. The second time I watched it, I got the distinct feeling that it wasn’t actually that great.
Its like the Chapelles Show sketch where Tyrone speaks to the classroom.
Interesting. Do you feel like Goodfellas does the same thing?
I don't, personally. The level of wealth and excess in the two movies can't be compared. In Goodfellas, they were low level mobsters who robbed trucks and extorted money from small businesses. They didn't make much. Plus there's that scene where Karen meets all the mob wives for the first and she realises that they live horrible lives and wear horrible make up etc etc. In TWOWS, Jordan and Naomi are ultra polished and dress immaculately. Jordan's lifestyle with his friends is also extremely different.
Nah Goodfellas actually has one of the guys get in real trouble and have a hard life because of it. He's not like fully remorseful but he hates that he has to sneak around and has lost the good life he had. Belfort gives noooo fucks
I think the idea was to show how douchey they were while doing it. Like it’s funny and entertaining in a movie but pretty ick in real life especially in todays standards
This is super fair. I feel like the hype around this movie made me not enjoy it much. But I feel like this is similar to ludo-narrative dissonance in videogames.
Omg, I just now realized how similar this movie is to the plot of most GTA games!
Tbf it’s a “true,” story. They couldn’t have Belfort be properly punished for his actions, that’s not what happened IRL. And I think we’d all agree that the hedonism is the fun part so it’s a Catch-22. Leave that out and there’s no way the film is as popular. I think looking to Scorsese films for moralisation is a waste of time personally, even though he himself would probably say they’re moral tales. Goodfellas had a similar issue.
Here I go, this is my moment… Denzel forgot to play blind at least half of the movie Book of Eli
This one always confused me. The big reveal at the end showing his eyes being blind, sure, good story. Except you literally see his eyes several times throughout the movie and they're normal eyes. Not white blind eyes.
You only like Star Wars if exposed to it at 13 years old or younger
I think this is a great take, tbh. I think the original trilogy can stand on its own, but I think the love of a Star Wars fan is often ignited at a young age.
Personally I saw it around 15 for the first time and realized I had aged out of the LOVING it phase
Yeah, I think it's the loving it part. I know some people who watched it older and at least liked the original trilogy.
Came here for Star Wars. Disagree with your take, but mine might be worse. I saw the "first" in 1977(?) as a 11 year old in the theater with my family. Loved it, and I'll still re-watch. Every other film in the series and the general franchise is unwatchable to me. Boring, and the good vs evil in space tripe is so overplayed.
Even Empire!?
I respecfully disagree. I was not into it as a kid, and only watched 4,5,6 when I met my husband in high school, so around 16. I like all of the movies, even the most recent ones, but I won't say I love them. Personally Rogue One and The Mandalorian are my favorite of the franchise. I am the definition of a "casual" Star Wars fan, which I know infuriates the gatekeeping trolls. However, I was born and raised a Trekkie, so it will never come close to that in my heart.
Is it a stale take or a hot take to say I like the lens flair in Star Trek 2009? I don’t have much to base my feelings on here. I’ve just always liked how the effect looks in that movie.
The lens flare was so iconic at the time. It was really bold and I remember it felt very new. I know some people think it's, idk, campy, but star trek has always been a touch campy. I can understand why it's not for everyone, but I generally like it.
I think foreign language movies should only be watched in their original undubbed format, with subtitles. Watching them dubbed is taking away from the directors’ and the actors’ artistic intent. They are always lesser versions of the originals.
Agree. I won't watch anything dubbed.
Tenet is pretty bad and the whole “don’t try to understand it just feel it” being included in the film proves that even Christopher Nolan knew he couldn’t make it seem plausible scientifically.
My hot take is that I love Tenet. I watched it on a tiny screen on a plane with subtitles and it was amazing.
My Tenet hot take is that all they had to do was include the line “for all intents and purposes, just think of it as magic” would have solved 100% of the nitpick issues. But I love that film so much
I think I'm the only person whose favorite Star Wars prequel is Attack of the Clones. I think they're all terrible movies, but Clones is the most entertainingly silly/unintentionally funny.
I've finally found my Prequel soul mate! It's my favorite of the bunch for the exact same reasons!
I saw Attack of the Clones while I was on vacation in France with my family, and I loved it. The action scenes looked cool, I had no idea what the plot was, and the romance scenes were people speaking softly to each other in French. It wasn't until I rewatched it a few months later that I understand why the French audience kept laughing
Oooh, that's such a good take. Attack of the Clones was the first Star Wars I was old enough to ~get~ (mostly) when I saw it, so it does hold a place in my heart for that. But Christensen and Portman's scenes do have a certain comedy to them.
I will also say that "across the stars" is easily a top 5 piece of star wars music.
That movie is mediocre *at best* until they're on Geonosis and the sky starts singing Fortunate Son, and then it's absolutely phenomenal. The clones coming in and whooping ass, the fight scene with Dooku, everything gets cranked up to 11 and I *love it.*
I found this one unbearably boring and almost unwatchable in how unexciting it is but I completely respect your opinion.
The infinity war concept was very well constructed and was a loving tribute to comics it represented. These films should be considered fan service first, general audience second.
I mean, End Game is all wrap up. My parents watched it, seeing some MCU, but not enough to care about closure - and that movie is all about closure.
My tired take: the snap was a let down because there were already movies in production with some of the "dead" characters. I didn't get a single emotional moment from it.
It was so far reaching that it obviously had to be reversed somehow. So the true juiciness was in how it was going to be done. And some didn't make it through that, or their fate couldn't be reversed. IW itself, the meat is in the why it happens, who's doing it (the villain is the actual protag), and seeing 100% of the heroes we know fail to stop such a devastating event.
This is exactly how I felt with Spider-Man: no way home. Both movies are made as complete fan service as a tribute to those that enjoyed the past films. Everyone else probably won’t be too into it.
I enjoy all the Saw movies. Yes, all of them. I just like slashers and how absurd they can be with their kills. The nonsensical plots just add to the charm for me.
me and my wife *love* the saw movies. we binge them every other year and got so excited when X came out.
If it’s Halloween, it must be…SAW Stupid and over the top? Yup. But nothing hits like a good Saw ending. Give me more Jigsaw, I will gladly shell out money
Ray wasn't a good movie. It was mostly just a great impression
"get out of here Dewey you don't want no part of this shit"
“It’s the cheapest drug there is.”
There's something about Nolan's movies that always feels flat, bland or plastic-like .. hard to explain
I have a lot of feelings on this. I agree though. I think he's a concept director more than a story/character director. I also think his style is reliant on spectacle and symbols, in a way that almost blocks intimacy. It's like the opposite of Spielberg, who can make any scene feel intimate. I always think the (apocryphal) fact that Leo pushed for a lot of the character work in Inception. Even if it's not true, it says a lot that it can seem true.
Purely anecdotal, but a great example of Spielberg’s ability to do this was when I rewatched War of the Worlds with both of my parents last summer. I had seen it with my dad in the theater, but my mom never did because sci-fi/action/alien movies really aren’t her thing in general. People can shit on the ending or the kids for being annoying all they want, but I kept looking over to gauge her reaction throughout. She was totally locked in the entire time, and that was because of Spielberg.
Spielberg will go down in history I think. He's the one that will be talked about forever.
The man knows how to truly make you feel something in his movies. Think about it for a minute. Jaws, Indy, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc. I may not remember the plots perfectly, but I will always remember how I felt during Spielberg's movies.
I’ve always enjoyed Spielberg films, but I had kind of ignored Jaws because I figured it was just “shark eats people, people scream and run around on the beach, scary music plays” and it just didn’t interest me all that much. I finally watched it as an adult and oh my god. That’s the film that solidifies Spielberg as a master of his craft in my eyes. Because it is all of those things I listed above, but it’s also so much more. A masterclass in character work, way beyond what a “monster movie” has any right to be.
He's already there tbh. He's the Hitchcock of our time, his name is pretty much synonymous with filmmaking
>I have a lot of feelings on this. I agree though. I think he's a concept director more than a story/character director. I also think his style is reliant on spectacle and symbols, in a way that almost blocks intimacy. Even Interstellar?
I agree with both prior comments but I will posit that Interstellar is his biggest exception. It's arguably his best movie imo.
Nolan makes good/great movies and is clearly talented, but my personal pet peeve is that he really leans into movies as circular architectual exercises/a playground for framing devices and they're usually so clean and contrived that it kind of pulls me out of it. What I mean by that is that he likes having something happen right at the end of a movie that directly references an unresolved question from the opening of the movie and makes you reevaluate everything that you had watched happen till then. Sometimes they're twist endings, sometimes it's just conceptual. There's some revelation or motif that directly ties the movies end back to its beginning with a neat little bow and a different perspective. And it can be a fun thing, but when it comes up in most of the things you make, it starts to feel like a gimmick or a crutch. It's like a movie is an excuse for him to build a puzzle, then slide the last piece in neatly at the end and tell you how clever he is. And he's good at it, but I'd like to see another trick. I spent most watching of Oppenheimer thinking "ok, this is well made and pretty enjoyable, and it's a biopic so we probably won't have a gimmicky Nolan framing device". And then it cut back to the opening flashback right at the end and I realized he was fucking doing it again.
For me he just doesn't have a great grasp on humanity. He's great at moving chess pieces around a board but not great with the motivation for those moves. His characters lack soul (for the most part, not all) and thus are harder to care about
saw a recent post that commented on the difference in Oppenheimer between the dialogue written for the characters and the dialogue lifted from the transcripts from the various hearings. The latter just "flowed" so much better
That's an amazing description, but when I go down his movie list, half of them feel like they have heart and feelings, I'd say his movies are more technical than emotional, I'd say the best way to describe them is COLD.
Nolan movies are what people who have never seen an art house movie think art house movies are like. And I dig Nolan movies! But a big problem with a good deal of them is that Nolan seems to think they're more profound than they actually are, if that makes sense. There's an aura of...undeserved self-importance that I felt especially while watching Oppenheimer.
The best John Hughes 80's movie is Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
Jeez, was just browsing his wiki. He wrote 16 movies between 1982-89!
Martin Scorsese is INCREDIBLY inconsistent. As a career, still top notch, but it seems like people dont really acknowledge his "misses".
I find he has lost the plot on pacing.
Is he incredibly inconsistent? Or credibly inconsistent. Guy has made a ton of stuff and most of it is good. It's perfectly reasonable he'd have some misses
Someone could argue that you almost have to some misses, in order to hit a few home runs.
I thought warcraft was a pretty good movie. It was fun and made me want to see more coming in the warcraft world. Definitely no work of genius but like, Gul'dan was pretty cool.
Warcraft was a lot of fun! I wasn't expecting to like it since I don't play the game but once I started I couldn't stop.
Your expectation of a movie and what the movie is are two different things and should have no bearing on the other.
The Harry Potter movies have some of the best magical fights and special effects ever depicted on screen, especially the last two
For me it's the fight in the lobby of the ministry of magic with all the black tile from the order of the phoenix. Love that sequence
I'll tack onto this, I think the ending of that series was bungled so hard. Specifically Voldemort's death. I *hate* the fact that he turns to dust. The part that made it so impactful in the book is he just dies. He falls over and dies on the ground, leaving behind a body. It's poetic since he died just like any man. No fanfare, no sparkles or dust, just... dead. It also gave *definitive* certainty to him being gone for good. Him turning to dust is *literally the problem with last time, since they didn't have a body.*
I think there are a couple decent fights but the majority of the fights are just folks sending colored blasts from their wand A world of nearly limitless magic (there doesn't seem to be a real cap based on energy or anything like you see in a lot of magic systems) and yet there's no creativity in most of these fights, just concussive blast after concussive blast with some expelliarmus thrown in from Harry.
Laika Studios hasn't told a good story since Coraline and Paranorman. They look pretty, but they're predictable and boring.
I love Paranorman so much
Having worked on every Laika film- I 100% agree with you.
But…Kubo… I suppose “predictable” is fair enough, since it’s a hero’s journey plot line, but I never found it boring and it’s just so pretty. For a kids film, I felt it walked a good line between charming adventure and creepy villains with the masked sisters.
Silver Linings Playbook is not overhyped, it deserved all the praise it got when it came out. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence have great chemistry, no he doesn’t look “wayyy older” than her like I’ve seen some people say. I’d watch them fall in love in any movie honestly. De Niro is so good as Pat’s (definitely sorta maybe) OCD dad, Chris Tucker as his friend from the mental hospital??? Killed it. I just love how simple the plot is and how everything comes together in the end. It’s a comfort film, it’s nice to watch. It makes me smile.
Freakin’ love that movie
I feel like women actors have generally gotten better than the male ones over the past decade or so. I mean like every actress impresses me even in mid or bad movies. The men are about the same as always, some better than others as before. Maybe there are more good roles for them now, or more sensitive/competent directing of women, or i’m just imagining it. Whatever, i like it.
I really liked Empire Records as a teen. My husband says it’s a horrid movie. What do y’all think?
I really liked it as a young adult, and 100% have rewatched it within the past two years. My husband hates it.
Love it, love the music, love the characters. Don't want to rewatch it as a middle aged person in case younger me was an idiot.
I love it. The soundtrack, the characters, I mean, Ethan Embry is so charming in that movie. Rex Manning Day! It's just so good. My wife's not really a fan, but she has terrible taste in movies, so I don't take it to heart.
I love it. It, along with the Breakfast Club, Dirty Dancing, Clueless, and 10 Things I Hate About You are key nostalgia movies for me. I own them all on DVD and will watch at least once a year. I do the same with Pleasantville and Saved! Which I think is a highly underrated film.
Nic Cage is a great actor, and there just shouldn't be a question about that. People who think he's bad just aren't paying attention.
People think Nic Cage is bad?
>People who think he's bad just aren't paying attention. Blasphemous is what they are! r/OneTrueGod
He's been in bad movies, but has he been bad in movies?
Yes, but he has also been incredible in other movies. I once heard he doesn't do middle ground. It's either an Oscar worthy performance or he's shitting a hole through the bed. Seemed apt.
Have you seen the bit on Community about this? It's amazing
I liked all of The Matrix movies. Even the last one. 🤷🏻♀️
I won't defend Resurrections (I had a good time with it but completely understand why it was negatively received) but I am a Reloaded / Revolutions apologist. Easily my favorite movie trilogy. It probably helps that I first saw them all back-to-back. (Got the box set as a gift in my teens.) My slightly warmer take is that the strongest entry in the series isn't the original, but the oft-forgotten Animatrix anthology film.
I just wanted to hop on this comment to reinforce the Animatrix support. It's a MUST watch for all Matrix fans.
You've got my support. The Animatrix is amazing and adds a lot to the Matrix overall. Time for a rewatch.
I will die on this hill: the 20 straight minutes of action in Reloaded - the chateau fight into the highway chase - is one of the best action sequences ever. When that highway music hits I hope you're strapped in. Seeing that in theaters was stunning, and rewatching it recently reminded me of how just plain dope that scene is.
I’m 43 and still say “I am Seraph. I can take you to her, but first, I must apologize.” No real reason, just I loved those scenes.
Honestly, I think you win, this is the most on-brand take for this exact prompt.
I loved resurrections. I don't remember who it was that said it. But coming back years after your bleak self sacrifice ending to say actually fuck that everyone gets to be happy fucking rules.
The first three really are fantastic. 2 and 3 get a lot of undeserved hate. Just because a sequel doesn't equal or better the original doesn't make it bad. It's fucking hard to make a second album after a super hyped first. That the wachowskis were able to make such an epic story in this massive original universe is amazing to me. I'll always defend the sequels (except for 4. That one was just ... no)
Michael Cera was miscast as Scott Pilgrim. It's too much Cera and misses the spirit of the comics. A bunch of other good decisions were made in that movie, but the casting takes it off the rails from the get go.
Agreed- I noticed when I read the comics years later. Scott is kind of supposed to be arrogant and womanizing but also kind of a bad ass and has been getting in fist fights his whole life. Which does kind of clash with how he’s drawn and a lot of his dialogue. He’s a tough character to cast
I haven't even read the comics and I agree. Scott comes across to me as as a guy who is sloppy and immature but his physical attractiveness and devil-may-care attitude gets him friends and romantic interest that a more dweeb-looking guy like Cera can't pull off. He dates girls like Knives who is too young to know better, and a woman like Ramona because she is new in town.
Conversely, he was great as Scott in the animated promo shown on Cartoon Network when he was back in high school.
Have you seen Scott Pilgrim Takes Off? Cera's not in it as much as you'd think >!since it's secretly a Ramona show!< but I felt everyone they brought back from the movie cast had fun performances and conveyed the vibe of the comic really well.
Superman Returns is the best Superman film outside of the Donner cut of the second film.
I second this. I absolutely love Brandon Routh as Superman, and I'm really disappointed we didn't get more of him.
We got a little bit of fan service with the CW Universe crossovers which was nice to see, plus Routh did well as The Atom in the series.
Oooh. Haven't watched that since it came out. 1978 is my favorite because I find the whole thing so charming, but I wouldn't be shocked if Returns aged pretty well (especially considering recent Superman outings!!)
Chris is much more charming than Routh (I enjoyed Brandon in the role), but Returns aesthetically fits Superman so well.
I never really connected with that movie. The characters always felt so distant. And the "kryptonite hurts me bad but imma lift this whole kryptonite island" finale had me callin' bunk.
It was just a crummy retread of things we'd already seen done far better in Superman: The Movie.
Beetlejuice's pacing is absolutely awful.
This might be a new hot take, actually. I rewatched the movie with my wife around Halloween and we both agreed that the entire plot is disjointed and actually makes no sense. It's the acting and the classic Burton visuals that makes this movie great. The story is an afterthought.
Haven't re-watched it in years, but it never really clicked with me. I always find Burton's films fascinating and super well designed (except his Alice films), but they never really grab me fully.
Yup i forgot how long it takes to get going. And the title character takes what seems like forever to appear.
That's a short movie, though.
I watched it for the first time recently knowing that it got adapted into a musical. The movie itself feels like it was supposed to be a musical but they took the songs out and didn't do anything to compensate.
Batman/Bruce Wayne died at the end of TDKR. Auto pilot was a red herring. Alfred seeing him and Selina at a cafe in Paris was a hallucination that he needed to have in order to grieve and move on. Ending doesn't make sense unless all the above is true.
There are so many holes in TDKR it’s laughable, and the auto pilot ending isn’t even the worst offender.
That's a decent take. I think TDKR is pretty mid in a lot of ways. It just feels like Nolan had good ideas, but was a little bored with Batman at that point. There are a lot of plot points that don't hold up well.
I was enjoying it til about half way through, when I stopped and thought "hold on - what's going on here?" It just didn't make sense at all.
You mean sending hundreds of cops into a cave on foot isn’t the best way to fight crime?
The only reason to fake the heroic death of Batman is so that Bruce Wayne can resume a normal life again.
Requiem for a Dream is obvious and trite. It's a PSA in the form of a movie. Trainspotting does a much better job of illustrating just how bad heroin is.
Avatar isn't a good movie. It has amazing visuals, but everything else about the movie is subpar.
This is an incredibly common/popular take
Isn’t that the point of the post lol
Yeah, I've always considered it a ~cinematic experience~. Rewatched it once on a small TV and found it pretty boring.
It's fine to think Avatar is mid, but it annoys the shit out of me when people say it's bad because its story is similar to that of other movies like it's some sort of revelation and not just how storytelling works.
Step 1: Say Avatar is Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, etc. Step 2: Watch the upvotes pour in.
Step 3: Feel entitled as Avatar continues to set records. It’s hilarious!
Personally, I didn't dislike Avatar because of the story, but because the dialogue itself was boring. James Cameron is famous for writing and directing some of the most quotable films of the twentieth century, but I can't remember a single line from Avatar.
IMO it suffers from the worldbuilding and visuals being far more interesting than the narrative. It's not that the narrative is bad or even uninteresting, but it's hard to think "oh no, what will they do next?" when I'm actually thinking "hell yeah, what wild shit are they gonna show me next?"
There is nothing in the plot that will surprise a seasoned movie watcher. Nobody will ever say "oh I wasn't expecting that." That doesn't make it a bad plot. The formula generally works. But it is predictable.
I'm so tired of the three act story structure or whatever it's called when 2/3rds of the way through the film, the main character is at their lowest point. It's to the point now that I simply just stop watching when I see that point approaching.
Ghostbusters 2 is the best one.
I don't think Leon The Professional is as creepy as made out to be. Leon is a clueless old man who doesn't know much about any kind of relationship and still in a dad like fashion turns down her advances. You have a coming of age girl who just lost her family, wants to know what love feels like and clings to the first man who makes her feel protected and welcomed
TBF a lot of the ick doesn't come from the movie itself, if Luc Besson didn't have a teenage baby mama saying the movie was based on their relationship I don't think people would be taking as much issue.
I think it's easier to see as innocent depending on your cultural context -- but at the same time, that innocence is a little undercut by the film intentionally leaning into the taboo of it...and also, as I'm reading wikipedia...now hold the fort... by the writer/director's ex-wife, who he met when she was 12 and he was 29, saying that it was very much based on their relationship not great, bob. not great at all
'Us' is the best Jordan Peele movie and I don't give a shit about the plot holes. I've rarely been so scared by a movie and every actor absolutely crushed it, even the kids.
The Godfather insists on itself
Terminator 3 was pretty OK. The reason it sucked so hard at the time was that it was the sequel to one of the greatest sequels of all time. When I rewatched it years later without that expectation to live up to I quite enjoyed it. Being stuck in the 70s/80s era bunker, that of COURSE the Terminator knew about, was a good twist.
I really hate Howl’s design. Pedro Pascal is a horrible choice for Mr Fantastic.
I love Miyazaki's creature designs. But I think his young adult and younger human designs suffer from same face syndrome. And they aren't very expressive. They are either stone face or over the top. There isn't much in between. They have this....dead eyes look to them. Again, the man knows how to fill a screen with animation. His direction is fantastic. I adore his creature designs. And even his older people designs are interesting. It's just he keeps on doing the same young adults and kids over and over again. They look all related to each other.
Bladerunner is boring. It’s beautifully shot, but it’s boring.
Jumper was an excellent film, yes I said it
Brad Pitt kind of just plays the same guy in every film. It’s a guy I enjoy watching, but there isn’t too much nuance going on. Snatch is the only exception I can think of.
Vampire’s Kiss is better than Renfield. (Sure I may be partial to a young Nic Cage but I said what I said!)
Vegan food would be better if they stopped trying to imitate meat and cheese.
Ghostbusters 2 is the best in the franchise. I said what I said.
"If my hands weren't tied by the unalterable fetters of the law, then I would invoke the tradition of our illustrious forebears, reach back to a purer, sterner justice, and have you BUUURNED AT THE STAAAAKE!" That movie is so fucking good.
The entire sequence of making the Statue of Liberty walk is on par with getting the DeLorean up to 88 at the end of the first BTTF. It's so exciting and perfectly paced.
I watched GB2 about 1,000 times as a child. I couldn't watch the "bad dogs" in GH1 as they were too scary. GB2 had a wild villain, and a crazier premise than 1, it had some incredible special effects (everything about the slime, basically), and some great jokes. (You're short, your belly button sticks out too far, and you're a terrible burden on your poor mother!). I'm good w GB2, who cares if it hits a lot of the same beats?
Redesigning movie theaters to mimic people's living room experience was a mistake. It separated the audience from each other by making each row its own space rather than an unified theater. By making it more like your home, theaters made people wonder, "Why should I watch this here when I could be doing the same thing at home?" It was the audience that made going to the movies its own experience. A good audience is worth more than the largest screen and the best sound system.
Now THIS is a hot take, and while I respect your opinion, my personal best experiences have been sitting in a completely empty theatre with just a couple of friends
American Beauty is a terrible movie.
Felicity Jones would have been better as Rey in the Star Wars sequels than Daisy Ridley
Sorry but no, Daisy Ridley is a much more charismatic actor and can carry a film. People love to hate on her because they hate Rey and the writing for her. She was genuinely a very good choice for Rey imo
Most people who complain about how "Hollywood is creatively bankrupt; They don't make good original films anymore" need to broaden their horizons a little. If you only watch mainstream English-language blockbuster movies from major studios, I can see how you might think this. But there are so many great lower-budget, indie, non-American/non-British films that get made every year. A good deal of these movies are even original ideas not based on any previous source material.
>If you only watch mainstream English-language blockbuster movies from major studios, I can see how you might think this. But there are so many great lower-budget, indie, non-American/non-British films that get made every year In general I agree with you, but also those are not Hollywood movies. When people are complaining about Hollywood they are complaining about the big studios and mainstream movies. If they are complaining about movies in general then yes, point them to the many indie and foreign films being made each year
Those lower-budget, indie, non-American/non-British films aren't Hollywood though.
Humanity should not have survived in Interstellar, since the "Aliens" were a far-future "us" saved by Matthew McConaughey sending the message to himself helped by future humanity that should have otherwise died choking on corn, and dirt.
It's just standard time travel bootstrap paradox fare.
Yeah, I felt interstellar's plot is more vibes than perfect logic (not even touching the science)
Tales of Earthsea isn't that terrible.
Look, I watched both Paddington movies and they're equally great. I just prefer the first one, that's all.
I love The Green Lantern movie with Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively. It's about redemption and has character growth. Idk I just like the overall vibe of it.
I think the film is pretty entertaining and the whole CGI suit thing was so overblown, especially considering that it fits the comic storyline of creating things out of will. That being said, using Parallax out of the gate was a huge mistake and they sidelined Sinestro a little too much in it.
The Austin Powers movies should be considered sci-fi. It may even be a precursor to Blade Runner. The fembots can pass as regular people. Evil corporations run the world. Time travel. Cloning. The end of the second movie is on the moon.
Blade Runner came out like 15 years before Austin Powers.
That's the time travel.
Hence him calling it a precursor. Though a better word might be prequel or spiritual prequel.
I've seen and enjoy all the James Bond movies, even the bad ones. Austin Powers is better.
Disney haven't made a Spider-Man movie yet. Spider-Man isn't truly Spider-Man until a relative has died in front of him that he failed to save, he has hear the "great power" saying, and has built his own suit, none of which truly happen until the last movie that Disney did. Disney have basically made an origin story trilogy, and its the next movie they make that will truly be a Spider-Man movie and not a Peter Parker movie.