Unpopular Movie Opinions

[Lyriqz ✪]

 

I just saw The Shining for the first time. It's good, but I dunno if it deserves all the hype. The characters are just really kinda bland

Bland would not be a word I would use to describe Jack Torrance... Like not at all. Same with Wendy.

 

 

He kind of is, when you put in perspective to now. If you watch old movies, or even listen to old music, see old television shows, read old books etc. everything less innovative and creative. Less special. What was boundary pushing back then is standard procedure now. Look at The Beatles. Look at Hannibal Lector (Hopkins) Just two examples of performers who were incredibly innovative and talented for their day, while now, despite remaining good, are part of an occean of similarly performing artists.

 

If you're unbiased, you can still give credit to what it was back then. But it can't possibly hold up through decade upon decade in the same vein. The Shining (much like the other examples I've chosen) is still a good film, with a good villain and a great performance by Nichelson. BUT it isn't as special anymore, simply because it's more common now to see such characters.

[deadmemoriesXL]

Common has nothing to do with it. There's that old saying, often imitated, never duplicated. The Shining is an awesome cult classic type of film. To each there own, though.

[Crack.]

Didn't like Enemy too much, bored the hell out of me. But the ending made me shit my pants

[deadmemoriesXL]

I thought Killer Joe sucked.

[Lyriqz ✪]

Common has nothing to do with it. There's that old saying, often imitated, never duplicated. The Shining is an awesome cult classic type of film. To each there own, though.

 

That argument suggests you don't get my point at all.

 

Novelty and/or innovation factor is wearing off when things become more common, fact. Quality is completely irrelevant to that point.

[deadmemoriesXL]

 

Common has nothing to do with it. There's that old saying, often imitated, never duplicated. The Shining is an awesome cult classic type of film. To each there own, though.

 

That argument suggests you don't get my point at all.

 

Novelty and/or innovation factor is wearing off when things become more common, fact. Quality is completely irrelevant to that point.

 

Well then your point is flawed. Just because things are done the same way, doesn't mean it's exactly the same. How the hell do you watch any movie? What hasn't been done before, really?

[Lyriqz ✪]

 

 

Common has nothing to do with it. There's that old saying, often imitated, never duplicated. The Shining is an awesome cult classic type of film. To each there own, though.

 

That argument suggests you don't get my point at all.

 

Novelty and/or innovation factor is wearing off when things become more common, fact. Quality is completely irrelevant to that point.

 

Well then your point is flawed. Just because things are done the same way, doesn't mean it's exactly the same. How the hell do you watch any movie? What hasn't been done before, really?

 

 

My point isn't flawed, because you seem to perceive an entirely stance. It's not that hard to grasp, really. I'm not arguing that movies have become obsolete, or less enjoyable because things can hardly be fresh anymore.

 

I'm just saying that how innovative some movies were, and why they potentially don't seem as much of a breakthrough, as they did when they were released, is that things have just become more common.

 

[V to I]

I thought Killer Joe sucked.

 

I don't remember much about the film minus McConaughey's performance, which was pretty great.

[PaperThinWalls]

 

 

 

I just saw The Shining for the first time. It's good, but I dunno if it deserves all the hype. The characters are just really kinda bland

Bland would not be a word I would use to describe Jack Torrance... Like not at all. Same with Wendy.

He kind of is, when you put in perspective to now. If you watch old movies, or even listen to old music, see old television shows, read old books etc. everything less innovative and creative. Less special. What was boundary pushing back then is standard procedure now. Look at The Beatles. Look at Hannibal Lector (Hopkins) Just two examples of performers who were incredibly innovative and talented for their day, while now, despite remaining good, are part of an occean of similarly performing artists.

 

If you're unbiased, you can still give credit to what it was back then. But it can't possibly hold up through decade upon decade in the same vein. The Shining (much like the other examples I've chosen) is still a good film, with a good villain and a great performance by Nichelson. BUT it isn't as special anymore, simply because it's more common now to see such characters.

That is all well and good but the characters themselves are not bland. That would be the farthest word I would use to describe them regardless of viewing the film through a contemporary perspective, which by the way is not the best way to watch movies. You look at movies within their context.

[Lyriqz ✪]

 

 

 

I just saw The Shining for the first time. It's good, but I dunno if it deserves all the hype. The characters are just really kinda bland

Bland would not be a word I would use to describe Jack Torrance... Like not at all. Same with Wendy.

He kind of is, when you put in perspective to now. If you watch old movies, or even listen to old music, see old television shows, read old books etc. everything less innovative and creative. Less special. What was boundary pushing back then is standard procedure now. Look at The Beatles. Look at Hannibal Lector (Hopkins) Just two examples of performers who were incredibly innovative and talented for their day, while now, despite remaining good, are part of an occean of similarly performing artists.

 

If you're unbiased, you can still give credit to what it was back then. But it can't possibly hold up through decade upon decade in the same vein. The Shining (much like the other examples I've chosen) is still a good film, with a good villain and a great performance by Nichelson. BUT it isn't as special anymore, simply because it's more common now to see such characters.

That is all well and good but the characters themselves are not bland. That would be the farthest word I would use to describe them regardless of viewing the film through a contemporary perspective, which by the way is not the best way to watch movies. You look at movies within their context.

 

 

I wouldn't say they're bland either, but I understand how they may seem rather uninspired once you've seen so many similar characters.

 

[M3J]

Modern Times has one of the best transitional scenes/editing, at least in terms of symbolism. Starts out with pigs coming out of the subway underground (I think) and transitions into humans coming out.

 

 

[Lyriqz ✪]

I don't think Citizen Kane is that great. :S

[PaperThinWalls]

Modern Times has one of the best transitional scenes/editing, at least in terms of symbolism. Starts out with pigs coming out of the subway underground (I think) and transitions into humans coming out.

 

 

It's sheep being herded in a pen -- but yeah, classic example of juxtaposition. I like that opening a lot.

[deadmemoriesXL]

I really don't like Daniel Craig as James Bond. That wouldn't be unpopular a few years ago, but it seems everyone's warmed up to him. I haven't.

[M3J]

I don't think Citizen Kane is that great. :S

Same.

 

 

Modern Times has one of the best transitional scenes/editing, at least in terms of symbolism. Starts out with pigs coming out of the subway underground (I think) and transitions into humans coming out.

 

 

It's sheep being herded in a pen -- but yeah, classic example of juxtaposition. I like that opening a lot.

 

Really? I gotta look at it again. -_-

 

Charlie Chaplin was a great visionary, and Buster Keaton was a great comedian although his movies aren't as rewatchable as Chaplin's.

[PaperThinWalls]

I like them both just about the same. I enjoy Keaton's inventiveness and offbeat sense of humor. Whereas for Chaplin I like his graceful, ingenious acts of physical comedy and his ability to inject a lot of pathos into his movies. Harold Lloyd is another favorite, but I don't like him as much as the other two.

[Royal Nakamura]

I really don't like Daniel Craig as James Bond. That wouldn't be unpopular a few years ago, but it seems everyone's warmed up to him. I haven't.

Guessing you find him boring?

[M3J]

I've never seen Harold Lloyd, probably the first time I've heard of him. In terms of quality though, I don't think Charlie Chaplin can be topped.

 

I should watch more Douglas Fairbanks movies though, because his acrobatic style in Thief of Baghdad was pretty fun. Thief of Baghdad was also visually superior (at least for silent films, if not black and white) because of how it had the tint color change according to the environment.

[PaperThinWalls]

Harold Lloyd is best known for his movie Safety Last! -- or to be more specific, the image of him hanging from a large clock. I like the movie a lot but I think my favorite of his that I've seen is either The Freshman or Why Worry?.

 

Tinting is pretty common in early silent films. Films like Nosferatu, The Birth of a Nation, and Phantom of the Opera all have it. But yeah, The Thief of Bagdad has some great visuals and early special-effects.

[deadmemoriesXL]

 

I really don't like Daniel Craig as James Bond. That wouldn't be unpopular a few years ago, but it seems everyone's warmed up to him. I haven't.

Guessing you find him boring?

 

Kinda, yeah. I like his acting. He just isn't Bond to me.

[M3J]

Harold Lloyd is best known for his movie Safety Last! -- or to be more specific, the image of him hanging from a large clock. I like the movie a lot but I think my favorite of his that I've seen is either The Freshman or Why Worry?.

 

Tinting is pretty common in early silent films. Films like Nosferatu, The Birth of a Nation, and Phantom of the Opera all have it. But yeah, The Thief of Bagdad has some great visuals and early special-effects.

I felt Thief of Baghdad's tinting was more spot on with what they were showing, like red for dungeon/fire, blue (?) for night, etc. According to Wiki, The Birth of a Nation got some serious backlash, and I can't fault the critics. I found it to be an okay movie, but nothing impressive and too long.

 

Pretty annoyed that the only copy of The Kid the library has is VHS. And it seems you're half right, the pigs are walking but I don't see a pen anywhere. I'm probably wrong though.

 

 

Dunno if this is popular or not, but Matt Bomer would have made for a much better Superman than Henry Cavill or whoever was chosen.

[PaperThinWalls]

For Birth of a Nation I was just pointing out that it has tinting, that's all. But since we're on the topic... while you're right that it's a controversial film, it also holds a very important place in cinema history, so it deserves acknowledgement and is worth seeing if you're really interested in cinema.

 

The Kid is pretty easy to find on streaming services. I know it's in great quality on Hulu.

 

Re: Modern Times, it's a flock of sheep (assumingly in their pen) rushing into what I assume is a chute. Here's the clip:

 

[M3J]

For Birth of a Nation I was just pointing out that it has tinting, that's all. But since we're on the topic... while you're right that it's a controversial film, it also holds a very important place in cinema history, so it deserves acknowledgement and is worth seeing if you're really interested in cinema.

 

The Kid is pretty easy to find on streaming services. I know it's in great quality on Hulu.

 

Re: Modern Times, it's a flock of sheep (assumingly in their pen) rushing into what I assume is a chute. Here's the clip:

 

 

I know, I was going off topic. :s

 

It does. Good editing and use of camera, amongst other stuff, for its time. Although my gripe with it (on Netflix) is its length, to be honest. Although it's hard to notice given what we have nowadays, it's pretty interesting to see a more "primitive" way of editing, use of camera, and other techniques.

 

Ah, thanks. I thought it'd be hard to find online given the title.

 

Yeah, i saw the clip even on the DVD, and I didn't see any pen or chute. would make sense though. I don't know what's the best film from The Tramp, but I'd say City Lights is one of the most hilarious. From Chaplin himself though, Limelight is one of his best. I might be saying this with severe bias though.

 

[Royal Nakamura]

Wreck-it Ralph is one of the best animations of the 2010's.

[The Decline]

Wreck-it Ralph is one of the best animations of the 2010's.

 

That was a good one. As was Lego, and I think Inside Out was just incredible.