I’ll go first. Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It’s like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds
Last year’s DnD movie is the best film of the last ten or so years. It succeeded on every level, except in the box office.
My hypothesis is that Hasbro insisted on branding it “Dungeons & Dragons” to push the brand, and non-gamers figured it wasn’t for them. If they’d have made the main title “Honor among Thieves”, all the game nerds would have seen the DnD logo, and others wouldn’t have been turned off *. As it stands, people will find it and it’ll become the new “Starship Troopers” that bombed but shines forever in retrospect.
* See “Arcane”.
This post is so confusing. Do I upvote opinions I strongly agree with or down vote them?!
The original Blade Runner movie is not nearly as good as the sequel. The sequel highlights how lesser the original’s plot was. We overly praise the first one because of the Tear in the Rain Speech.
The Mario movie was incredibly mediocre, despite its high production value. I’m talking MCU-levels of truckloads of money spent with shockingly little to show for it.
I finally watched it after hearing good things and wow, yep. Incredibly mediocre, cashing in on nostalgia.
I did enjoy the music, though, but probably mostly because of nostalgia and my love for NES/SNES Mario games.
Interstellar is a terrible movie that doesn’t say or do anything special and I still don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s so amazing.
I did really like the robot guy though.
Dude I cannot understand the love that movie gets. Even the “scientifically accurate” go-to gets under my skin. I don’t know what it was going for, but it bristles my skin when I see discussion about how great it is.
Would you, at least, agree that the background musical scores are amazing?
And the visuals at least. There’s a lot that’s very good about the movie, even if you don’t enjoy the premise and story.
It’s a movie made for space nerds, and if you aren’t a space nerd I can understand not enjoying it. Part of what made it so amazing is just the black hole simulation, no one had ever rendered one that accurately with such high fidelity.
I’m a huge space nerd. I did also appreciate the visuals and realistic portrayal of time dilation, and should have noted that (though it may have diluted my opinion a bit?). I just didn’t like the actual movie itself.
Lmao, no it isn’t. At best, it’s made for people who are lightly into space/science and also lightly into cinema, so please don’t trot out the “you need a high IQ to enjoy this movie” stuff. If it were made for space nerds, two scientists selected for deep space flight wouldn’t need to stop and explain what E=MC² is to one another.
That’s kind of always been Nolan’s schtick, though, and I guess it’s working out for him because he’s got the a huge, quite passionate fan base. I’ll never understand the hype and find his movies quite mid as cinema, but eh.
There was a physics paper published based on the simulation of the black hole because of how accurate it was. The depth is there if you look for it.
That’s not quite right. They hired a theoretical physicist to provide them equations for simulating a black hole. Then, the SFX studio used their Nolan Movie Money to generate it extremely accurately to the extent that it helped spawn further research. It’s not that the studio happened to get it right from research. They were given all the pieces they needed and were able to do something these physicists had a hard time doing likely because they never had that kind of money/equipment: make an exceptional, high-fidelity, cinematic simulation.
Interstellar is one of my favourite movies, yet I can definitely say it’s not perfect. Hell, it’s got a few massive plot holes and the ending leaves a lot to be desired. Saying that, I still enjoyed it. I love the visuals, the BTS stuff is interesting, but most of all it made me feel. That’s what I value in media. Other people may value a coherent plot, historical accuracy, or a myriad of other things. We all like/dislike things for different reasons, and that’s okay.
I also agree that TARS was very cool.
The original Star wars trilogy was overrated, the sequels were underrated, and I’d rate them all to be equally mediocre.
I like The Last Jedi.
That should be controversial enough.
Gonna try to phrase this an inflammatory way:
People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are ‘good enough’, and they don’t value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.
On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.
It’s strange that you said that and then said you liked fury road. I thought fury road was the epitome of spectacle and production value with actual value.
What would you consider a “bad movie,” because I wouldn’t consider a “tight plot” one of their shared features. Spectacle: absolutely, humor: frequently, tight plot: if only.
Terminator is better than Terminator 2, and as cool as it is Terminator 2 should never have been made (or should have a different script).
I know the mob is raising the pitchfork, but hear me out, there are two main ways time travel can solve the grandparent paradox, these are Singular Timeline (i.e. something will prevent you from killing your grandfather) or Multiple Timeline (you kill him but in doing so you created an alternate timeline). Terminator 2 is clearly a MT model, because they delay the rise of Skynet, but Terminator is a ST movie. The way you can understand it’s an ST is because the cause-consequences form a perfect cycle (which couldn’t happen on an MT story), i.e. Reese goes back to save Sarah -> Reese impregnates Sarah and teaches her how to defend herself from Terminators and avoid Skynet -> Sarah gives birth to and teaches John -> John uses the knowledge to start a resistance -> The resistance is so strong that Skynet sends a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah -> Reese goes back to save Sarah…
The awesome thing about Terminator is how you only realise this at the end of the Movie, that nothing they did mattered, because that’s what happened before, the timeline is fixed, humanity will suffer but they’ll win eventually.
If Terminator was a MT then the cycle breaks, i.e. there needs to be a beginning, a first time around when the original timeline didn’t had any time travelers. How did that timeline looked like? John couldn’t exist, which means that sending a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah was not possible, Reese couldn’t have gone back without the Terminator technology, which they wouldn’t have unless the resistance was winning, and if they are winning without John, the Terminator must have gone back to kill someone else and when Reese went back he accidentally found Sarah, impregnated her and coincidentally made a better commander for the resistance which accidentally and created a perfect loop so that next time he would be sent back and meet Sarah because she was the target (what are the odds of that). Then why is the movie not about this? Why is the movie about the Nth loop after the timeline was changed? The reason is that Terminator was thought as a ST movie, but when they wanted to write a sequel they for some reason decided to allow changes in the timeline which broke the first movie.
I love T2 so I’m simply upvoting your passion for T1.
You’ve way over analysed it. It’d be like pissing on Star Wars because the Force has no basis in science.
No, the “Single Time Line” bit is a basic feature of T1, part of what makes it great, that T2 simply throws away.
I’m so glad I saw the films as a young kid then. To me it was just a cool horror film with a murder bot and the second was Arnie the robot hero!
Ah! A fellow holder of the belief that time travel stories are better when they are internally consistent! I hate e.g. Looper for having time travel that makes no goddamn sense. It takes me out of the story when the characters are literally watching the timeline change before them as it magically radiates out from one point. And then our protagonists somehow remember the original timeline… Bah.
…So I must ask - have you seen Primer? If not, maybe you’d like it!
If you want your time travel to be internally consistent go watch “FAQ about time travel” it’s British, low budget, mostly consistent, and hilarious.
Blade runner 2049 was a boring slideshow of backdrops with the “bwaaa” music overlaying it and occasionally plot happened. What plot is that? I don’t fucking remember.
Painfully upvotes
Ill upvote you, because its an appropriatly unpopular opinion, but ill have you know I’m truly offended.
Tenet is a great movie!
Uncontroversal.
Really? A lot of people seem to hate it for some reason…
Yeah because it’s shit
Saving Private Ryan is a pro-war movie.
It’s pro war? To me it was the first depiction of the horrors of war. It made me think about my support for armed conflict and ultimately against it.
To me it was the first depiction of the horrors of war.
That doesn’t necessarily make something pro or anti war.
To me, showing me something horrible is to be against it.
All militarists know that war is horror - they relish the horror of it.
That’s why they love movies like Saving Private Ryan (which justifies the horror by ascribing justification to it) while disliking movies such as The Thin Red Line or Catch 22 (which strips any kind of justification away from it).
