DVDizzy Forum

It's been about three months since Vol. 1 was locked. I was told to wait at least the week before starting up again and as you can tell this has been much longer than that so let's dive right back into the subject I was so intrigued by. To quote myself

Here is were you can post Unpopular opinions about films you have seen. Go ahead and tell Citizen Kane to kiss your Rose-butt, or say that Catwoman is the purr-fect evening entertainment it's all relative. Now mass public opinion, Internet option and reviewer opinion can differ so if not 100% obvious which you are talking about please state in what situation is your view an unpopular one.

Begin!

-Skyler

I enjoyed Titanic, Scream, Avatar and most Spielberg films.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I enjoyed Titanic, Scream, Avatar and most Spielberg films.

I think in the majority opinion, Spielberg is an untouchable filmmaker. So saying you enjoy most of his movies wouldn't be an unpopular opinion.

<center></center>
However, Scream and Titanic remain divisive films. If you would believe Eric Henderson's review, Titanic is perhaps misunderstood - http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/titanic/1794 (WARNING: there is nudity in the film screencap. I know I shouldn't even be sending UD'ers to a film article like this but it's a REALLY good review. Even I had to question my position on the movie after reading it.) Personally, I say Scream is misunderstood. People think it's self-referential just to make the audience think they're clever. That it's a wankjob. But it's actually a savagely intelligent criticism of the condemnation horror films and the people who watch them get from the media and the culture who believe if you watch violent movies, you become violent. As a matter of fact, this makes Sidney Prescott a voice for the detractors of horror films. Which makes you the viewer have to wonder if she is really meant to be a protagonist or just a character we're following around. Because you know damn well Craven doesn't agree with her. Her "criticisms" of horror films were clearly dismissive and highly ignorant. But people think the writer actually agrees with Sidney. Meanwhile, he also makes sure to include scenes like the one in the girls' bathroom with the cheerleader who rips her to shreds.

Anyway..., time for mine:


<center></center>
Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan is easily the best Friday the 13th film. The movies were getting progressively more mean spirited and cold but they all had their light sides and the murders were still treated like they were meant to be fun. They were quick and painless for the victims in most cases (hell- if they even screamed in most of these movies, it was offscreen). Actually, Part IV: The Final Chapter is sadistic (which would make it the most mean spirited) but it's also far too perverted and makes outrageous claims about killer Jason Voorhees (the screenwriter even mentions on the audio commentary that Jason was supposed to GROPE the Trish character at one point). Since I have the most problems with that film (in the original Paramount franchise), I tend to write it off from being a real progression for the series. It's a true lowpoint. But anyway, Friday the 13th is one of the main reasons John McNaughton made Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, one of the best critically reviewed horror films of the 80's. He wanted to send a wake-up message to slasher films about the nature of portraying death. And, apparently, so did Rob Hedden because Jason Takes Manhattan treats the deaths as hard, cold, drawn out, and very painful. Which of course is a very smart way to show death in a horror film, Wes Craven took that to heart when he made The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, two of the most groundbreaking and influential horror films of the 70's. Even A Nightmare on Elm Street doesn't shy away from anything. The victims in Manhattan really run in prolonged terror, fight back on occasion, and even plead for their lives in a way none of the other films would allow.

<center></center>
In the first film, the closest thing you came to this was the Annie character but if you look at her, she just appears to be confused. She may spend a lot of time looking into the killer's eyes but she still doesn't do anything to try to save herself after the killer is standing right in front of her. Which has led some people to critique Friday the 13th as some kind of doomsday commentary on the groovy, laidback, good time seeking teens / 20-somethings of the 70's. The fact that all the victims seem pretty stoned and unafraid of the dark or being alone or taking rides from strangers, etc. Anyway, the film does switch gears once the characters get to New York but it's still a fun movie by that if you've managed to find a way to enjoy the dreary tone. Which I love. I think the main reason the movie gets so much flack is that it just isn't a party movie like Part VI: Jason Lives was. People wanted more sequels like that. Instead, the movies got more sad, reflective, dramatic, and frosty. Which is kind of the point of Jason Voorhees as a character. He is the Terminator of horror. He ran out of motivation 12 minutes into the 2nd film. The first thing he did when he got on his feet was "take revenge" for the death of his mother. The first person he killed was the only one he needed to kill. After that, every victim was clearly recreational. People don't seem to grasp just how hollow and nonsensical that is. Therefore, there are no real rules to the formula. In fact, Manhattan makes for the most logical ending to the franchise because it closes the door Lives opened. Jason was the Candyman of the 80's: as long as someone in the movie believed he existed based on things like Megan's "what if the legend is true?" speech as well as Paul and Ginny's speeches in Part II, he could keep killing. Even though, again, his motivation was gone.




The Big Lebowski was a mishmash of things The Coen's found amusing and nothing more. It's a marathon of private jokes that hipsters think they're in on.


All French horror films are pretentious.


Cat o' Nine Tails is the weakest film in Argento's animal trilogy. There's a little tension but nothing really shocking, the murders are dull as hell, the "mystery" is crude, the protagonist is a jerk, the gay characters are not as well rounded as the straight ones (Four Flies on Grey Velvet fixed this), and except for the main theme, most of the music score isn't as good as Flies or Bird with the Crystal Plumage. The best thing about it is the little girl and Argento didn't have the guts to kill her off, even though the moment when the killer lies and says he did kill her is the scariest moment in the movie.


Gremlins 2: The New Batch is a slightly superior sequel. While the first film really stabbed at something which had greater cultural relevance, it also was rougher around the edges in terms of acting and maybe even pacing. While the violence hinted at becoming even more graphic (the chainsaw scene), it became a less intense and scary film (although that last jump scare really works on kids). Gremlins 2, on the other hand, starts out a lot more leisurely and progressively becomes not only nail-biting to a degree courting overkill (which you just have to appreciate again considering these films were marketed to children), it continues to unfold itself, proving that it has actual layers of intelligence. Charlie Haas's sequel screenplay is just sharper than Chris Columbus's for the first film. And this is not even taking into account what a master Joe Dante is with chaos. The film reaches multiple peaks of chaos so inspiring and jawdropping that the visual gags rain faster than Airplane! on SPEED with audio commentary from various sources on topics ranging from the stock market to... oh, yes: Susan Sontag. My favorite is the ultra-serene "This Building is On Fire" pre-recorded intercom message. "Enact the age-old drama of self-preservation." How this film got to be made and distributed by a major Hollywood studio is one of the greatest mysteries since the dawn of cinema. Warner Bros literally gave Dante and company Complete Creative Freedom. And, BOY, did they ever exercise it!!


Bride of Chucky is the best film in the Child's Play franchise. I admit it starts out looking like a pale imitation of Scream and Urban Legend. Then it becomes what I can only describe as a Rob Zombie film done well. RZ has been trying to make a clever white trash slasher / killer film for a decade now, all the while ripping off Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Last House on the Left, and just thief-casting from Halloween, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Spider Baby, etc. He forgot that when characters talk, they should actually be saying something. This film merely uses the Scream-isms as a running start. Once it gets going, you realize Tiffany actually has a brain (even though she worships false idols: the equally psychopathic Martha Stewart) as well as a heart. She also gets a character arc as she comes to see Chucky for what he really is: a dead end. Leading her to make a moral decision to stop trying to use and manipulate the Jesse and Jade characters and instead try to kill Chucky. In my opinion, no prior film in the franchise was this ambitious with characterization. And to see what it was worth, just compare and contrast Tiffany with Rob Zombie's Baby Firefly from The Devil's Rejects. She's just a chick with a gun and a ripped dress. Courtney Love portrayed more compelling characters than that.


Mario Bava's Bay of Blood / Twitch of the Death Nerve is still celebrated all over the world as the grandfather of the modern slasher film. What it is instead is an Italian episode of Tales from the Crypt. It starts out well enough, without explanation. But after the Friday the 13th horny teens / 20-somethings are killed, it turns into a soap opera / mystery with everyone killing each other for money, flashbacks, ironic twists, and heavy handed dialogue about how cold-blooded it is to kill everyone who stands in your way. Bava really should have let the movie keep its' secrets. Because it kills all the suspense- cutting away to show us the person watching every victim who jumps at a strange noise. As the very formula that would become Black Christmas, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, and Friday the 13th is being created- he's pouring water over the fire to dull the flames. The guy made a few classic, successful horror films in his lifetime. Why did he up and decide to change the genre 35-40% of the way in? Anyway- I think it was a mistake. He could have told a story like this without giving so much away.


Black Christmas is one of the slowest horror films of the 1970's and that's what makes it so scary. In fact, its' reputation is only improving with time. Unfortunately, it's slow about everything. Including the cops. Which slows the movie down to the point where it practically dies. The film might be a masterpiece if the characters were slightly better written (the acting is phenomenal on this budget, though, so director Bob Clark sure knew what he was doing there) and it tightened up all the stuff with the cops. Especially the completely worthess black haired detective who does nothing but laugh at the Nash character. He spends entire scenes laughing in the background. Will someone PLEASE shoot this guy so the movie can continue? Yet, I've discussed this with other horror fans and it doesn't bother them. Well- it sure as hell bothers me.


Squirm is a good movie, dammit! I have literally had knock down, drag out fights with people who like to regard this as the Troll 2 of the 70's. Even UD's slave2moonlight agrees with them. However, mercifully, Squirm remains a movie that many people actually agree is an excellent spookshow movie. The atmosphere is incredible even if the acting is pretty bad. The writing takes a very mundane group of characters and puts them in a plot that twists and turns like nothing I have ever seen before. And as someone who's probably seen over 1,000 horror movies- that's saying something. Very few horror movies are this interesting. The budget is practically non-existent, so of course casting and props are limited. Yes, there is one scene where a character throws a piece of flubbery wooden siding at another, knocking him out. This is completely illogical but in the screenplay- the board was supposed to be A LOT bigger and heavier. I doubt, however, that there was a way to risk the actor getting hit in the head with something like that on camera and be safe (I guess something made out of heavy foam would have been the magical answer). But anyway, for a movie about killer worms- the plot is downright fascinating. Not only is the movie scary but it's tense and beautifully dreary too. Scenes like the tree crashing in on the house are shot so amazingly. And, of course, the ever changing subplot about the Geri character's stalker, Roger, made my jaw hit the floor. The movie literally turns him into a monster. Again, how did a movie about killer worms suddenly become Swamp Thing? It might bother some people but visually, it's something to behold! And instead of being a psycho rapist or something like these characters usually turn out (John McNaughton's The Borrower comes to mind), his monster rebirth implies things like he's found a way to control the worms. That's fascinating for a sci-fi horror flick. Something people expect to just be the ordinary run-for-your-life flick and nothing more.


Re-Animator is boring. Seriously, I really don't get what's so great about this movie. When I put it in the Contemporary Horror Digest thread (which I of course did because it's one of the most beloved and critically respected cult horror films ever made- seriously, every major critic considers this a near-masterpiece), I hadn't seen it all the way through. Then I bought the DVD and... the movie is supposed to actually be funny and sophisticated. It sometimes is the latter, but it's never scary or funny. At all. The music score is terrible. The characters, with the exception of the dueling mad scientists, are dopey schmucks. And the sexual content makes a point but I don't really care for it. It borders on pointless cautionary tale. Not about bringing the dead back to life but actually (and I think this points to potential flaws in the source material and writer H.P. Lovecraft who was rumored to have hated women and been a social conservative) - this also comes back in Stuart Gordon's follow-up, From Beyond - about using science rather than nature (or, perhap, God) to cure illness. This may sound a bit like a crackpot theory but there's actually a deleted scene where Meg pleads with Dan to stop working with Herbert West because she "doesn't feel right" about the experiments. That isn't where it ends either. When Dan argues that West's re-agent can maybe advance medicine or save lives, Meg actually says they should have a baby instead. At the very least, you have to admit that comes outta nowhere and is pretty shocking.


Day of the Dead, to me, does not feel like a realistic movie about the breakdown of civilization. For one- the acting is terrible. And bad accents run wild. But to add to that, I think Romero made all the wrong choices (even though I love the music score to death). His lead heroine doesn't come off tough, just butch and unsexual. Her man doesn't come off as shellshocked, it feels like he's in the closet and can't tell her- which does nothing for the movie, no matter how gay he seems (trust me: this guy's gay). The movie's "cutting edge" scientist doesn't come off as brilliant, just completely batshit insane. All of this spits in the face of what Romero is trying to do. Fans have even introduced the idea that, as the woman scientist and black helicopter pilot raise the ire of madman Rhodes, that Dr. Logan had a strange kind of immunity all along. Which of course means he's risking their lives for what the movie shows us was a waste of time. And we're meant to agree with him just because he managed to find the humanity in 1 zombie. The movie is nothing but contradictions. Yet, it had more fans now than it ever did.


I think Mick Garris is an underrated director. Well, slightly. I know he's never made and never will make a real masterpiece. But from the late 80's until Quicksilver Highway (which I hear is pretty abysmal), he never failed to turn in an entertaining horror film. His mini-series adaptations of Stephen King's The Stand and The Shining got a fair share of critical praise but I say Sleepwalkers is his tour-de-force. I sat through Peter Jackson's abominably shitty The Frighteners and walked away with only one thing that kept me from shutting it off: the normally elegant Dee Wallace going apeshit, whipping out a shotgun, and just really getting physical with the part of, as Urban Legend so perfectly put it, a "loony psycho bitch." Sleepwalkers is a 90-minute extention of Wallace's galvanizing turn from meek to stark raving mad. Only with the much scarier Alice Krige at the helm. To say you can't take your eyes off her is an understatement. The movie is so satisfying for me that it not only made up for how bad Frighteners was but it also did the impossible task of finding something worthwhile in Shocker's formula and perfecting that as well. Garris has a way with this kind of thing. Previously, he had mainly worked contributing to franchses. And, if you ask me, his Critters 2 was better than the first film, while Psycho IV: The Beginning actually found some pretty good psychology left in the progressively sleazy Psycho-sequel format.

For me, it has to be "The Social Network." Every character is portrayed as being a Grade-A douchebag, which may be accurate, but it makes it difficult to care about any of them.

I wasn't here at the time but it's a shame the original thread was closed. So, I'm going to bring some of the more constructive arguments back and reply to them.

JiminyCrick91 wrote:Black Swan: It's simply not my cup of tea. I know what they were going for but as everyone I saw this with went 'Woha! That was the best movie ever! Such a mind----!' I simply muttered to myself 'Meh, I wanted to see the cowboys' referring to True Grit (a true great film). I know people who did not like it because of the sexuality of it or violence or sheer foreboding creepiness of it but I can't place wear it went off for me. Perhaps I should see it again (which is something I often say if I dislike the film the first time).

The first time I saw the ads for Black Swan, first thing that popped into my mind was: Suspiria. I've still yet to see it but I've heard people "ooh" and "ahh" more over the chick-on-chick aspects of the movie than I have any of the artistic aspirations some (for example- it was a big hit at the New York Critic Film Circle Awards) have claimed it had. I think new filmmakers who seek to make waves with easy trends get too much praise too fast compared to the 1970's when filmmakers like Argento, Cronenberg, Romero, etc(.) weren't given such immediate praise outside of their home cities/towns.

JiminyCrick91 wrote:Batman Forever: Joel Schumacher gets a bad wrap considering the films he did before and after his Bat films. As a kid I liked all the Batman films (the 3 out at the time) to some extent but this was my favorite. I don't think it's nostalgia vision that has clouded that as this while more obviously camp than the other two, you're kidding yourself if you think Burton's weren't campy to an extent, this felt more Batman to me.

Agreed to an extent. I never looked at Burton's films, or any other adaptations, to be faithful to the comic book. And, I remember seriously disliking Forever right out of the box while the critics seemed to like it. If I'm remember correctly. The film has only dropped in visible critical measure over the years of DVD cinephilia and, of course, Batman & Robin's infamous tanking and subsequent years of internet mockery. Again, if I'm remembering correctly. Batman is usually campy and if trying to de-camp it is the only reason for Nolan deciding to take a stab at re-adapting / re-booting the franchise- give me no Batman at all. Oh, wait- we're talking Schumacher? I don't hate what he did either. I just haven't spent much time with it. I was hot to watch Forever and it let me down big time after Burton's films. However, I don't remember the majority of audiences agreeing that it was such a disappointment. Otherwise, I doubt & Robin would have been made.

pap64 wrote:I also hate West Side Story with a passion.

So do I. But mostly because I'm not a big fan of movies which try to be realistic. They usually fail big time, for one reason or another. And this movie... what a joke! I mean, I know the fans don't care about its' alleged street cred because they just like the magical experience of watching it. But I thought it was so silly and a bad joke.

As for what you said after what I quoted, about the movie being outrageously stereotypical (etc.), I know how you feel. I've seen movies I used to like take that turn since I've grown as a viewer.

jpanimation wrote:I enjoy Christopher Nolan movies but not as much as others, who seem to feel like intellectuals after each viewing.

PixarFan2006 wrote:This might not count, but The Blair Witch Project is probably one of the stupidest horror movies ever made. Nothing but a group of people going around the woods with a camera for an hour and a half. I remember my mom hated the movie so much, that she bought a used copy of the VHS at a video store and hammered it to pieces .

Couldn't agree more. And I wish I could have smashed the VHS I saw it on. (I would have if I'd owned it.)

I've heard some people argue that it's just really scary if you turn up the volume, watch it at night and alone. (But, honestly- what other horror movies require you to BE THERE to actually be scared by them?) While others say it's some kind of existential commentary on people who are obsessed with documentaries / filming everything in sight - blah, blah, blah. Either way, what a joke.

Disney's Divinity wrote:That reminds me: I hated The Matrix films.

I only made it about 55% through the first movie and I turned it off, I was so angry. It felt like Twister (which I also didn't like) with people in a futuristic setting wearing black coats. Or Men in Black (which I also HATE) but with pills. Way too much of the movie was a bunch of guys showing off. At least, that's what I remember. Regardless of what they were doing, I got so tired of the characters that I just couldn't take anymore. Physically, I couldn't sit through another second.

dvdjunkie wrote:As a whole, I really don't like any of the Judd Apatow movies - Superbad, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Drillbit Taylor, Pineapple Express, etc.

Same here. As well as all the films they've inspired. Though I haven't seen them all, I just find myself shaking my head until the point where I fear it will crack and start to break off. Realistic, unrealistic- whatever. I just find it hard to care for these kinds of people or, in some cases, not to want to strangle them to death. 9 times out of 10, I hate comedic sidekicks. And in Apatow's films, the majority of guys get this role. Even the leads are comedic sidekicks. And they talk too much in slang. Now, I have defended this in the past (Gregg Araki comes to mind). But Apatow is truly not that much of a visionary.

Super Aurora wrote:

pap64 wrote: Ah yes, now that you mentioned it, I am a sucker for family comedies where the big, tough guy is reduced to being a baby sitter of sorts, like in "Kindergarten Cop", "Stop or my mom will shoot", "The Game Plan" and of course, "The Pacifier".

Then you probably love Hulk Hogan as a nanny too.

I liked that movie as a kid. But, yeah, it's pretty atrocious.

However, I still believe Kindergarten Cop is better than it gets credit for.

pap64 wrote:Where the wild things are

A lot of critics raved about it, saying how deeply mature it was and how it talked about the virtues of being a kid and growing up and BLAH BLAH BLAH.

No offense, but I found the movie to be extremely overrated.

I will give Spike Jonze credit for trying to be deeper than the typical children's story adaptation, but there are times in which the movie reeks of "Oscar gold", which is when a movie feels like it is trying hard to earn an Oscar nomination. The whole thing at the beginning where the adults were talking about harsh realities is LAUGHABLE. I mean talk about being pretentious!

Oh, I HATED Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are. And, furthermore, I hate all the trends that gave us this adaptation of the movie. However, your reasons begin to veer off into the film being too cold and lacking warmth. I completely disagree. I don't think it was nearly dark or cold hearted enough. I know it could be considered cold in the same way, let's say, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was stone serious at times. In the way an action-adventure film would be. But I wanted something that felt like the book made me feel as a kid. Like the creatures themselves, all of them, were scary and devious and had malicious plans for the boy. I wanted a scary movie. Something unlike the trends. This movie was about hitting every one of those trends like someone playing a Whack-a-Mole game.



MORE JUST MINE:

I am just fed up with the whole action-adventure genre right now. As I told Super Aurora and several people when I blasted Disney for Hunchback and most of the films they made afterward, I pretty much lost interest in the genre after 1995. Everyone else wants more; they can't get enough. But I am having a really tough time seeing all these movies as having separate stories, characters, sound designs, etc. From car movies to superhero movies to travel adventures to franchise revivals to "magical" kids adventures to ... it is all annoyingly repetitive and strikes me as all being the same. Much like nearly every comedy to come out in the last decade, once you sort them out by demographic, and - of course - horror. Just so SA never forgets I recognize how much Same Disease has infected almost every genre since the late 90's.

I'm planning on re-watching it this month- which might work since I haven't seen it all the way through in well over a decade, but... I have never liked Back to the Future. (That's how much, apparently, I hate sci-fi.) Or the sequels, but I've heard people say that's not so shocking.

Fight Club was too damn long. It literally felt like they were trying to film the book. Which I can respect when I feel like every single detail they're showing us is important. But I didn't get that impression while watching this movie. I'm glad so many people liked it but I feel like that's why this movie was so endless- they wanted to bang everyone for their buck. Good for them but this, for me, needed to be a lot tighter.

I don't think Ryan Reynolds is that cool. Even on Scrubs, they had to cast him in the "I'm the Coolest Guy You Ever Met" role and... if we had gone to school together, I would not have worshipped him or thought he had that much going on. He usually portrays guys who are nice at the core. But he always has to play too impossibly hip.

I absolutely hate Jaws. And it's not a horror film. Everyone else told me it was a riveting horror film. Maybe 5-10 minutes, max, of this movie have ever done anything for me. The movie is pure Spielberg, the guy cannot make a horror film. He loves his sci-fi and his adventure trappings too damn much to make a film that is all about the tension and terror of a situation. He has got to get the human warmth and the family-appealing cuteness in there every few minutes to make sure the audience isn't mad at him for suggesting someone might be killed. Where were the scenes of kids playing face-through-fingers hide-and-seek with their daddies in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Or Suspiria? Halloween? The Evil Dead? Carrie? Phantasm? Trust me, Jaws ain't no horror film. Not by true 70's standards.

I'm also not much for Jurassic Park. I "enjoy" it more than Jaws. But, I just don't really like it very much.

I, to this day, refuse to watch or give in to Scarface(1982). I just do not get what the appeal of it is (all these parodies and t-shirts of the freaking poster found just about everywhere). I am aware of it's infamous ending scene (as well the line "say hello to my little friend", which can take on different meanings), but I just do not care to sit through 3 hours of swearing and drug consumption (I am sure there's more to it than that).

Like a couple other members, I could not make it through The Matrix(1999) on my first viewing either. The story was so confusing, I just could not follow what was going on. I don't know whether to bother giving it a second chance or not. Avoiding the sequels is a no-brainer.

I agree with Lazario about Gremlins 2 being slightly better than the first. It was way more goofy than the original, true, but that's what I think made it enjoyable. The Leonard Maltin Cameo (who disliked the first film) is one of the highlights.

Much like Scarface, I have no interest in seeing any of the Godfather movies. They might not be as violent as Scarface, but I feel they get enough praise. You can argue with me all you want on this, but you will not change my opinion. I rarely can make it through a movie that is over 3 hours.

PixarFan2006 wrote:Much like Scarface, I have no interest in seeing any of the Godfather movies. They might not be as violent as Scarface, but I feel they get enough praise. You can argue with me all you want on this, but you will not change my opinion. I rarely can make it through a movie that is over 3 hours.

I won't agrue with you on your opinion on the Godfather movies... because you don't have one. You don't HAVE an opinion on those movies, because you haven't SEEN them.

PixarFan2006 wrote:I, to this day, refuse to watch or give in to Scarface(1982). I just do not get what the appeal of it is (all these parodies and t-shirts of the freaking poster found just about everywhere). I am aware of it's infamous ending scene (as well the line "say hello to my little friend", which can take on different meanings), but I just do not care to sit through 3 hours of swearing and drug consumption (I am sure there's more to it than that).

I agree with Lazario about Gremlins 2 being slightly better than the first. It was way more goofy than the original, true, but that's what I think made it enjoyable. The Leonard Maltin Cameo (who disliked the first film) is one of the highlights.

Much like Scarface, I have no interest in seeing any of the Godfather movies. They might not be as violent as Scarface, but I feel they get enough praise. You can argue with me all you want on this, but you will not change my opinion. I rarely can make it through a movie that is over 3 hours.

Agreed on everything you said above. That cameo was class. I really appreciated him for it and I shudder to think his dialogue might have actually been his argument against the original film in 1984. It would have made him look as strange as Siskel & Ebert when they tried to claim The Boogeyman (1980) was misogynistic because of a 5-second sequence in the trailer. I guess that's why the woman in that scene not only returned for a sequel but co-wrote it as well.



I also have zero interest in the gangster movie phenomenon. Way too glamorized. There's barely any difference between those films' worship and the James Bond franchise getting the same treatment. (Although, to be fair, it did provide fuel for a few great jokes on Roseanne.)

disneyboy20022 wrote:Twilight - The whole mess of it - Very Overrated which is probably the understatement of the century....

Yeah, there's a serious split in the culture right now. I'd say about half of the people out there think these movies are stupid and absurd. As for myself? I just ignore them. It's surprisingly easy. I'm also going to recommend The Blockbuster Buster's review of the first Twilight. I'm not sure it's on Thatguywiththeglasses yet but it's definitely on YouTube.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The Shawshank Redemption-An overlong, melodramatic and predictable film with a great performance from Morgan Freeman, but a bad one from Tim Robbins.

Agreed. I was always suspicious about this movie while even my school was singing its' praises. We watched the movie in school because there wasn't any graphic nudity. Slant Magazine's Ed Gonzalez wrote an excellent review focusing a lot on its' popularity and perfectly summed it up, I think. He mentioned that this is the perfect "sensitive guy's guy" movie made for guys whose idea of being sensitive with each other is making jokes about bowel movements and being afraid to sit next to each other in movie theaters. Strangely, though, my childhood wasn't like that. I had a lot of intimacy with male friends (sitting next to each other, talking about our problems, making jokes without having to mock ourselves, we didn't have any problems hugging)- none of whom were gay.

David S. wrote:Don't be in such a hurry to "grow up" - it's overrated!

Agreed, if what you mean is that we feel we have to take everything seriously. But, I think we grow up in parts. Parts of ourselves mature and parts of us don't.

Peterpanfan wrote:I hate Moulin Rouge!

I only caught one scene of it on TV and immediately went Happy Feet on the movie (covered ears, yelling back at the screen, etc). I refuse to watch it because of that one musical number.



More of Mine:

Everyone knows what I think of Beauty and the Beast. Technically, animation and music (etc) wise, it's a decent movie. But the story and characters are awful. And I just can't stand how much this movie started the big Broadway Theatrical Musical Numbers trend with Disney. WAY over the top. Infected every major animated movie to follow. I didn't even care for this when they did it in Tangled. Disney used to have a whole other way of doing musical numbers and they didn't involve characters dancing and all singing in harmony for the sake of choreography! In all the previous movies (except for one scene in The Great Mouse Detective and "Under the Sea" in The Little Mermaid - which you'll note: the conformity of all the sea creatures dancing together was to make a point about how Ariel stood out from them, she didn't want the status quo anymore), the musical numbers were more about the atmosphere of the scene. There was always more going on with the setting. We weren't meant to be dazzled over how well their movements syncronized with each other.

I don't like The Nightmare Before Christmas. I actually expected the culture would start to shift with me on this but the movie's popularity hasn't waned in the slightest. I mean... I guess I can appreciate that it's a morbid or grotesque version of the musical formula. But then, so was Little Shop of Horrors- which I consider to be a far greater film. And there they were also making a point about conformity and how people lose idenity when they copy each other (among other things). In Nightmare... well, they start out doing the same thing. How hollow Jack feels. But, did anyone notice how quick the movie was to not only make Jack compromise on his vision but also how hot he was to get back into his old routine when his plan for a Halloween-Christmas holiday failed? I had trouble following the character, putting myself in his shoes even though his first motivation was very relatable. As for the rest of the movie, it's a parade. Of: look at this, look at these characters. But, except for Sally, I didn't care about anyone. Nor was I ever that impressed with the visuals. They're very good but I've really outgrown the movie. I feel like this movie was made for outcasts but it's too celebrated by the masses.

Another movie enjoying more popularity than ever- I can't stand Night of the Creeps. Even studly mustacher Tom Atkins couldn't save this one for me. But the vast majority of horror fans love this one. I was close to getting into it at first but I don't like any of the characters nor are the actors doing a very good job. Furthermore, the movie has no idea what tone it wants. It switches from silly and goofy to downright TRAGICALLY sad and serious like it has pms. I think movies are better when they give you some hint that this is coming up. Not to mention, this one is very forced about it all. Also- I wasn't impressed with the gore or the creatures, the director name-dropping was just obnoxious and all-at-once, and didn't do nearly enough with Killer Klowns from Outer Space's Suzanne Snyder or Mama's Family's wickedly hunky Allan Kayser.

I mentioned this in the Director's Report Card thread, but, I think Wolf (1994) is underrated. People treat it like it was just horrible but I was very drawn into the story, the characters, and the tone. I've seen it at least 3 times and every time have found it (while dragging, especially midway) to be a rewarding watch. The cast is just incredible!! Michelle Pfeiffer was interesting and smart, Jack Nicholson actually came off vulernable and not over-the-top like he was in the 80's (although, again, that worked for Batman), and James Spader was terrifying. And sexy at the same time.

I see several people mentioning Mean Girls here. I never caught it. I saw the ads and it seemed like they wanted to make Jawbreaker (which wasn't dark enough) even brighter. The ads made it look like it was going to be another Legally Blonde, about a girl who people mocked rising above them all by looking fabulous and using her money or family connections to win her battles. Are you guys saying the movie actually had a dark side? Maybe I'll check it out (though it'll have to be on YouTube- Netflix had it for the longest time but I was too damn lazy to watch it in time).

I don't know if I've mentioned this on UD or not, but I think Michael Bay missed his true calling: stripper. (I've seen pictures of him shirtless and he has a fantastic body.) Usually, people can find one of his movies that they tolerate. Forget that mess. I'll take Paul W.S. Anderson over Bay anyday of the week. (Of course, that's also because I think Bay is probably the worst director in cinema history. Sure, other directors have made less technically adequate movies - Uwe Boll, whoever's responsible for Swamp Zombies - but have any of them done damage that affected major trends?)

Laz, I would strongly recommend watching Mean Girls. Not exactly dark, bur VERY mean-spirited in tone.

Since Lazario hates sci-fi (no wonder he and I have such drastic and opposite taste- even bigger than the one between me and Disney Divinity. LOL), He probably would hate my personal sci-fi series I'm creating and working on drawing.



I dunno why people would hate Jaws and Jurassic Park. It got fucking giant sharks and dinosaurs trying eat the fuck out of you. Can't get classically simpler than that. Only thing that would make those movies, or another movie in having sharks and dinosaurs, would be having them with cyborg parts and shooting giant lasers and missiles. Then it would be supper awesome as you have badass sharks and dinosaurs fighting humankind with lasers, rockets and missles mounted on them. FUCK YEAH!

Anastasia by 20th century fox. The ending sucked. They should have never put her in such a gorgeous gown and sparkling crown only to wreck it all and have the main characters running away like cowards. They should have done that last dance and kiss at the ball. The writers were too afraid to wreck history even more then they already had.

PeterPanfan wrote:Laz, I would strongly recommend watching Mean Girls. Not exactly dark, bur VERY mean-spirited in tone.

I'll search YouTube tomorrow.

Super Aurora wrote:Since Lazario hates sci-fi (no wonder he and I have such drastic and opposite taste- even bigger than the one between me and Disney Divinity. LOL), He probably would hate my personal sci-fi series I'm creating and working on drawing.

Actually, I have no experience reading sci-fi comics or looking at art with those themes. I just don't like adaptations of them. Star Trek, Star Wars, all those movies and the shows too... I've never been to church, but I know what that feels like for a lot of people. That's what those things feel like to me. I feel like: you have to get dressed up, sit down, pipe down, and just be bored for hours on end. And... maybe I'm a little jealous that that genre gets more respect than horror does. That one would take a shrink to suss out. But it's possible. If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of horror and sci-fi are similar: to deal with real life issues masked behind a supernatual or fantasy situation. So- even though you see a spaceship or robots or whatever, what they're really talking about is war, intolerance, politics- etc. But unlike horror, which you can walk in on and usually all you need is your own brain, for sci-fi, it's like you need to know another language to figure out all the dialogue. If horror dips into commentary on war, they make it relatable to everyone's life- wars that we all fight. Sci-fi loves to upscale their commentaries, upmarket their stakes. Make it as complicated as they can. They'll go crazy inventing their own gadgets, vehicles, people, planets, etc. Fun for people who don't want to just escape reality- they want to enter an entirely new one and kinda live there. But it's too heavy for me. Too involved. Too boring. I'd rather watch the odd sci-fi themed Looney Tunes short or Disney cartoon, etc. One or two scenes in the Witch Mountain movies. That's as sci-fi as I like to get.

Super Aurora wrote:I dunno why people would hate Jaws and Jurassic Park. It got fucking giant sharks and dinosaurs trying eat the fuck out of you. Can't get classically simpler than that. Only thing that would make those movies, or another movie in having sharks and dinosaurs, would be having them with cyborg parts and shooting giant lasers and missiles. Then it would be supper awesome as you have badass sharks and dinosaurs fighting humankind with lasers, rockets and missles mounted on them. FUCK YEAH!

Too hi-tech.

One of the reasons I don't like Jaws is that it's too drawn out. Everything takes too long. I'm sitting there waiting for a killer shark payoff and sitting through so many scenes I don't care about. I think because the movie's supposed to be a nature themed slasher (in the minds of everyone who thinks it's a horror movie), the characters are treated very simplistically. And... yet... everything they do... TAKES TOO LONG. It's one of the most boring movies I have ever seen 4 times. Not to mention the movie doesn't have any horror atmosphere to speak of. It's a drama. And I have problems with what directors do to pad dramas. Like the Quint character. "I'm a crotchety, crusty old guy but you'll like me once you get to know me... 45 minutes later." 45 minutes of character development later and 65-75 minutes later, he gets eaten. Seems like 30 minutes is long enough to wait for that payoff, but Spielberg says "No... let's double it!"


True horror classics from the 70's onward know better than to waste time like that. They focus on the fear factor, Jaws just wants to excite people and toss a little popcorn. A jump here or there; "Oooh, that was fun. Wasn't it?" With plenty of heart-warming stuff and a teeny bit of commercial criticism to pad it out. Kiddie horror for adults. But, better still, like Star Wars. It's an adventure. To be fair though, maybe this stuff is a lot more entertaining in theaters. But I don't remember the last time Universal and Fox did for Jaws, Park, and Wars what Disney does for Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, etc. Nor would I really want to plonk down $10 bucks for an adventure movie.

Semaj wrote:The Peanuts Movies: Most people seem to remember the last two movies (Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown, Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (and Don't Come Back!)) more fondly than the first two (A Boy Named Charlie Brown, Snoopy Come Home).

I don't think that's really true. I have the most fondness for Bon Voyage, I admit. But most people I know have either never seen Race or don't remember anything about it. Then, you have the fact that those 2 latter movies haven't been released on DVD. So it's impossible for people to compare the qualities of the films. Unless watching whole movies on YouTube becomes a bigger trend than it is now. That said, I did a re-watch recently of both A Boy and Come Home and I don't believe either have held up very well. A Boy, likely, remains the best film but the songs are really not very good. And Snoopy Come Home is truly riddled with flaws.

Super Aurora wrote:Since Lazario hates sci-fi (no wonder he and I have such drastic and opposite taste- even bigger than the one between me and Disney Divinity. LOL), He probably would hate my personal sci-fi series I'm creating and working on drawing.



I dunno why people would hate Jaws and Jurassic Park. It got fucking giant sharks and dinosaurs trying eat the fuck out of you. Can't get classically simpler than that. Only thing that would make those movies, or another movie in having sharks and dinosaurs, would be having them with cyborg parts and shooting giant lasers and missiles. Then it would be supper awesome as you have badass sharks and dinosaurs fighting humankind with lasers, rockets and missles mounted on them. FUCK YEAH!

Since no one else seemed to appreciate this post, I just wanted to say, I do.

I've never seen Jaws, but I think Jurassic Park is great. It doesn't aspire to be anything intellectual. It's just fun.

Lately, I think The Fox and the Hound is Disney's best DAC, or at least in the top 5. I guess that's an unpopular opinion.

I think Bolt is like a Pixar movie sans creativity, if that makes any sense.

I thought Oklahoma! was boring and hard to care about. Plus, that ballet sequence seemed out of place.

I think Hello, Dolly! is one of the best musical movies ever made.

I don't know if I mentioned it here or where, but, if Bambi did one thing right, storywise, it was trying to show what animals who are hunted go through. The terror. The devastation. Etc.

Which makes anyone liking Fox and the Hound a little puzzling, considering it has a montage of scenes that use hunting and the death of animals as a MALE BONDING exercise. With upbeat music and a happy, smiley attitude.

Um... am I alone in finding that... perhaps the most shocking thing anyone at Disney has ever done, creatively? I mean, forget the dopey characters and lame songs and how boring it is. What about the movie's hypocrisy? Todd and Vixey are sacred - because we know they're a couple - but all the other animals we see shot and skinned... that's okay?!

Laz has pretty much summed up why I didn't care too much for Jaws. While it does have a giant shark eating people, it has too many prolonged moments without said shark, with boring people instead. People who are boring, not becuase they are not the shark, but becuase there development doesn't work for me. A 75 minute movie about a stranded crew out at sea who has to constantly fear the shark, would have been more interesting.

As for your point about Fox and the Hound, it's a good one, but one I haven't given too much thought about, because I don't often watch that movie.

Out of all the Back to the Future films, my least favorite is part III. Sure, maybe the scenery and gadgets of the futuristic Hill Valley in Part II may look silly looking back on it, but Part III is just repetitive, using the same gags as the first two films, adding in cowboy stereotypes, and a bland annoying love interest for Doc (who looks about half his age!) and a cameo from ZZ Top. What's even worse is that Doc is now a hypocrite, going back on what he said about the consequences of time travel in Part II (building a flying train at the end of the film).

Spider-Man 3 is a mess. There, I said it. I cannot deny it anymore that this conclusion to an otherwise fun comic book film series is filled with problems. I thought the Stan Lee cameo at the beginning was pretty decent (actually giving him some dialogue this time) as well as the scene with J.K Simmons as Jonah Jameson at the Daily Bugle, but the rest of the movie is just b-o-r-i-n-g. Peter Parker acting whiny and walking down the street Saturday Night Fever style was just stupid and out of place (I still remember seeing that at the theater and thinking wtf?). Adding more than one villain (Sandman and Venom) is also problematic, since they are mainly what make the movies enjoyable.

^Those aren't very unpopular opinions at all.

Avaitor wrote:^Those aren't very unpopular opinions at all.

Agreed.

However, it's possible that those films are heavily redeemed with hardcore fans. For instance, am I wrong or is BttF III preferred by most fans over II? Or am I way off?

Lazario wrote: For instance, am I wrong or is BttF III preferred by most fans over II? Or am I way off?

Some do prefer part III to II (Scaps even considers it his favorite of the trilogy, albeit mostly for nostalgic reasons), but as a whole, I think more people prefer II, at least from what I notice. I do as well, but I love all three films myself.

I am just saying I find the first sequel more enjoyable than the second. The story is just more enjoyable in my opinion. Maybe not a good choice for an unpopular opinion.