Unpopular Movie Opinions

[sam the d00d]

 

 

I think Hayden could have pulled it off with a better script. What a lot of people don't know is that with the original trilogy, it wasn't just all Lucas. Lucas had no legacy. So when he's had some weird idea someone would tell him to *Censored* off. The editors didn't listen to him, the producers were there to persuade him to not go certain directions, there were co-writers and rewrites. Gary Kurtz being a major player guy for the first two films that really shaped things, but people forget that Lucas only directed one original Star Wars film. Irvan Kershner directed Empire Strikes Back and Richard Marquand directed Return of the Jedi. Lucas was involved in the writing of the first one, but so were others. He wasn't involved in much of the writing of Empire. I believe he's only credited as an Executive Producer on that one along with Gary Kurtz. He wasn't on set when they were filming several scenes, including Han being put into carbonite and when Harrison and Irvan changed "I love you too," to "I know." (which was a change Lucas was reportedly furious about). He helped write Return, but he wasn't the only one.

 

So when the prequels rolled along and people gave Lucas all the credit for the last 20 years, he got a new crew full of dickriders, who never had the balls to tell him what he was doing was questionable. There was someone along the road who told Lucas that making Han a green dude with gils and C-3PO a used cars salesmen type was a bad idea. Imagine if he hired some of old crew again? Maybe we would live in a world with no Jar Jar. I've read many drafts of Star Wars and the earlier ones are always awful. The original movies had more than a dozen drafts, not getting right til the later drafts. The prequels had very few. Like three at most. There's video of production for the films where Lucas tells art department dudes he needs to start writing the film. Not even finishing a first draft two weeks before production. That's pathetic.

 

While I say Lucas deserves all the credit in the world for that initial spark, there are dozens of others that deserve credit for making Star Wars what it is today. When people wonder why the prequels are so dramatically different from the originals (unless it's playing a blatantly obvious homage), it's most likely due to this.

 

Also I think I'm one of the lesser who hate that Anakin and Obi Wan fight. It's more to do with the characters, but also the enviroment is just too much. Just a bunch of shit all over the screen, I just find it to be convoluted. I think the idea of a fight on a volcano isn't too bad, but maybe toned down a bit. I get it's the big finale, but hopping around on CGI robots in an enviroment that just looks like a video game is just...uhh. It doesn't all look right to me. It should have been more personal. And by personal I don't mean screaming shitty dialogue at eachother for a little bit.

Have you read the Star Wars trilogy? It was quite cheesy. X_x Not sure if he changed it after the movie came out or not though.

 

Yeah, the environment was over the top, but I guess it was to add suspense as well as show how Anakin became a machine.

 

I don't why I'd have any reason to read the Star Wars trilogy. Novels stemmed from the movies, not the other way around.

 

Also, if it was suppose to be suspenseful it failed in that regard. Hard to have suspense when you know the outcome. Everyone knew Obi Wan's was gonna win and Anakin at some point was going to be burnt to a crisp.

[M3J]

If I remember, Lucas wrote that the book came before the movies, but they didn't sell well until the movie/s came out.

 

But no one knew how it'd happen or what Obi-Wan would do. They didn't say what happened in the original trilogy, right?

[★CrossRhodes★]

If I remember, Lucas wrote that the book came before the movies, but they didn't sell well until the movie/s came out.

 

But no one knew how it'd happen or what Obi-Wan would do. They didn't say what happened in the original trilogy, right?

 

I don't recall them saying what exactly happened besides Anakin turning evil. We didn't know why he tuned evil or how he became Darth Vader.

[sam the d00d]

Yeah, but we all saw Vader without the helmet in Empire and Return. The audience knows something's gonna happen to him. Plus, it was known that it was due to a volcano even, ever since a Star Wars news letter released info of that being the cause back in the 80s.

 

And Lucas had didn't even write the novel. He's just credited as a writer. It was released a little bit before the movie as a marketing thing. It was written during production. Lucas had already been working on various scripts for Star Wars since the early 70s.

[Black Dahlia]

Cape Fear was an good movie.

[Lunchbox]

The Replacements is a really great sports movie.

[Mustacio]

 

 

 

The Avengers isn't very good.

 

Woah woah woah. Wait just a minute there.

 

I'm very interested as to what was so incredibly special about it, warranting a fanbase of it's stature. Loki isn't at all menacing, there's no reason at all to be invested in Hawkeye's villanous turn at the beginning (the pay-off comes before the build-up, we know *Censored*-all about him and his relation to the black widow beforehand, so why should we give a shit if he goes evil?). There's a alot of petty arguments for no really good reason.

 

HOW does Iron-Man have a direct, totally audible radio feed to everyone constantly?. His entire conversation with Captain america when he's in the ships motor-thingy makes little to no goddamn sense.

 

Suddenly there are surfing Halo/Mass Effect creatures everywhere, and Loki poses even less of a threat than he did earlier.

 

It's "Meh" at best. It was probably reallly impressive in the theater, it has some truly awe-inspiring visual effects, just incredible stuff. But it's just not that good, otherwise.

 

Everyone in the Avengers has in ear headset's i'm pretty sure for communication.

 

Anyway's... Avenger's isn't suppose to be a movie about the villain. It's suppose to be about the joining of a team and the problem's they must over come to gel together to overcome a greater evil because they can't just do it on there own. It's the exact same with Star Trek 2009. The Avengers was brilliantly directed, what the movie may lack in hard writing it easily makes up for some of the best action scenes ever, it's easily Marvel's best movie which for me overtook Spiderman. Due to Avengers having such great action scenes it's best experienced like you said in theaters or blue-ray I saw a little of the movie at a friends on normal definition and it didn't look anywhere near as good.

 

 

 

I also find the Nolan-verse batmans incredibly overrated, but that's a whole different can of worms. They're good, not great. They still set the bar for what you can do with the superheroes we have, but aren't anywhere near as good as people make them out to be.

 

Well, what are they made out be? Sure, you have the occasional "ZOMG, BEST MOVIE EVER" but in general, I really just see it being called "the best superhero movie", maybe "great action movie" and certain scenes get dubbed as brillian, sure that is always a preference thing but I haven't really seen them being overpraised to be honest.

 

I don't remember Heath Ledger being hot shit before he was The Joker. and he's good, he does it well, but he's overhyped as shit. Wanna see actual believable crazy then go watch Bronson, Tom Hardy is a better madman than Heath Ledger. The Nolanverse batmans, toted as being gritty and realistic, have a decent amount of silly shit in them. Batman having time to paint a bat with fire on a bridge while there's a nuclear bomb about to go off being one, also somehow knowing exactly where both Catwoman and Gordon are (moreso knowing Gordon will escape at that exact place), in a city the size of New York. Is he just standing there waiting for Gordon to walk out so he can toss a flare for theatrics? That shit is silly as *Censored*.

 

Also the joker singlehandedly sneaks in enough explosives to level an entire hospital, totally unbeknowst to anyone. Even weirder, Joker has the absolute best luck for his plans to work, there are so many minute things that could differ, that would fudge his stuff.

 

Mustacio it's a comic book movie. Comic book fans complain when they don't stay true to the comics, people complain when there are some unrealistic things. The movie makers can't win. If they were going to for true to the comics there would be a hella' lot more far fetched things in the Batman movies, to keep the Dark Knight movies as Batman they need them subtle shots of Batman painting a bat with fire on a bridge.

 

It seems clear you don't enjoy comic book movies so don't watch them. For what they are some are amazing, some are awful and obviously you get some in between.

 

 

I enjoy comic books movies. Avengers has some great action scenes, but action scenes are still just sizzle and no steak. Transformers has great action as well, and it's a pile of shit series.

 

Also the movie not being about the villain you say, but about a group coming together to overcome shit.. Doesn't change that what they band together to overcome, is a completely nonthreatening villian. Also, what comic book movie isn't about the villain? People are always shitting themselves to see who the villains in these movies are, cause the villains make or break the hero. Batman wouldn't be interesting if he only caught low-level goons, cause supervillains like riddler, joker and bane didn't exist.

[Chips.]

 

 

 

 

The Avengers isn't very good.

 

Woah woah woah. Wait just a minute there.

 

I'm very interested as to what was so incredibly special about it, warranting a fanbase of it's stature. Loki isn't at all menacing, there's no reason at all to be invested in Hawkeye's villanous turn at the beginning (the pay-off comes before the build-up, we know *Censored*-all about him and his relation to the black widow beforehand, so why should we give a shit if he goes evil?). There's a alot of petty arguments for no really good reason.

 

HOW does Iron-Man have a direct, totally audible radio feed to everyone constantly?. His entire conversation with Captain america when he's in the ships motor-thingy makes little to no goddamn sense.

 

Suddenly there are surfing Halo/Mass Effect creatures everywhere, and Loki poses even less of a threat than he did earlier.

 

It's "Meh" at best. It was probably reallly impressive in the theater, it has some truly awe-inspiring visual effects, just incredible stuff. But it's just not that good, otherwise.

 

Everyone in the Avengers has in ear headset's i'm pretty sure for communication.

 

Anyway's... Avenger's isn't suppose to be a movie about the villain. It's suppose to be about the joining of a team and the problem's they must over come to gel together to overcome a greater evil because they can't just do it on there own. It's the exact same with Star Trek 2009. The Avengers was brilliantly directed, what the movie may lack in hard writing it easily makes up for some of the best action scenes ever, it's easily Marvel's best movie which for me overtook Spiderman. Due to Avengers having such great action scenes it's best experienced like you said in theaters or blue-ray I saw a little of the movie at a friends on normal definition and it didn't look anywhere near as good.

 

 

 

I also find the Nolan-verse batmans incredibly overrated, but that's a whole different can of worms. They're good, not great. They still set the bar for what you can do with the superheroes we have, but aren't anywhere near as good as people make them out to be.

 

Well, what are they made out be? Sure, you have the occasional "ZOMG, BEST MOVIE EVER" but in general, I really just see it being called "the best superhero movie", maybe "great action movie" and certain scenes get dubbed as brillian, sure that is always a preference thing but I haven't really seen them being overpraised to be honest.

 

I don't remember Heath Ledger being hot shit before he was The Joker. and he's good, he does it well, but he's overhyped as shit. Wanna see actual believable crazy then go watch Bronson, Tom Hardy is a better madman than Heath Ledger. The Nolanverse batmans, toted as being gritty and realistic, have a decent amount of silly shit in them. Batman having time to paint a bat with fire on a bridge while there's a nuclear bomb about to go off being one, also somehow knowing exactly where both Catwoman and Gordon are (moreso knowing Gordon will escape at that exact place), in a city the size of New York. Is he just standing there waiting for Gordon to walk out so he can toss a flare for theatrics? That shit is silly as *Censored*.

 

Also the joker singlehandedly sneaks in enough explosives to level an entire hospital, totally unbeknowst to anyone. Even weirder, Joker has the absolute best luck for his plans to work, there are so many minute things that could differ, that would fudge his stuff.

 

Mustacio it's a comic book movie. Comic book fans complain when they don't stay true to the comics, people complain when there are some unrealistic things. The movie makers can't win. If they were going to for true to the comics there would be a hella' lot more far fetched things in the Batman movies, to keep the Dark Knight movies as Batman they need them subtle shots of Batman painting a bat with fire on a bridge.

 

It seems clear you don't enjoy comic book movies so don't watch them. For what they are some are amazing, some are awful and obviously you get some in between.

 

 

I enjoy comic books movies. Avengers has some great action scenes, but action scenes are still just sizzle and no steak. Transformers has great action as well, and it's a pile of shit series.

 

Also the movie not being about the villain you say, but about a group coming together to overcome shit.. Doesn't change that what they band together to overcome, is a completely nonthreatening villian. Also, what comic book movie isn't about the villain? People are always shitting themselves to see who the villains in these movies are, cause the villains make or break the hero. Batman wouldn't be interesting if he only caught low-level goons, cause supervillains like riddler, joker and bane didn't exist.

 

 

The villains are the best characters in the The Dark Knight trilogy though, they've pretty much stole the show in all the 3 movies, Loki wasn't the best thing about the movie but there was a bunch of other awesome shit in Avengers, Transformers action scenes are no where near dynamic as Avengers. Avengers had everything it needed, one of the most enjoyable movies in theater's for me.

[Creepia]

I really like the Transformers series.

[Scott Eastwood]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Avengers isn't very good.

Woah woah woah. Wait just a minute there.

I'm very interested as to what was so incredibly special about it, warranting a fanbase of it's stature. Loki isn't at all menacing, there's no reason at all to be invested in Hawkeye's villanous turn at the beginning (the pay-off comes before the build-up, we know *Censored*-all about him and his relation to the black widow beforehand, so why should we give a shit if he goes evil?). There's a alot of petty arguments for no really good reason.

 

HOW does Iron-Man have a direct, totally audible radio feed to everyone constantly?. His entire conversation with Captain america when he's in the ships motor-thingy makes little to no goddamn sense.

 

Suddenly there are surfing Halo/Mass Effect creatures everywhere, and Loki poses even less of a threat than he did earlier.

 

It's "Meh" at best. It was probably reallly impressive in the theater, it has some truly awe-inspiring visual effects, just incredible stuff. But it's just not that good, otherwise.

Everyone in the Avengers has in ear headset's i'm pretty sure for communication.

 

Anyway's... Avenger's isn't suppose to be a movie about the villain. It's suppose to be about the joining of a team and the problem's they must over come to gel together to overcome a greater evil because they can't just do it on there own. It's the exact same with Star Trek 2009. The Avengers was brilliantly directed, what the movie may lack in hard writing it easily makes up for some of the best action scenes ever, it's easily Marvel's best movie which for me overtook Spiderman. Due to Avengers having such great action scenes it's best experienced like you said in theaters or blue-ray I saw a little of the movie at a friends on normal definition and it didn't look anywhere near as good.

 

 

 

 

 

I also find the Nolan-verse batmans incredibly overrated, but that's a whole different can of worms. They're good, not great. They still set the bar for what you can do with the superheroes we have, but aren't anywhere near as good as people make them out to be.

Well, what are they made out be? Sure, you have the occasional "ZOMG, BEST MOVIE EVER" but in general, I really just see it being called "the best superhero movie", maybe "great action movie" and certain scenes get dubbed as brillian, sure that is always a preference thing but I haven't really seen them being overpraised to be honest.

I don't remember Heath Ledger being hot shit before he was The Joker. and he's good, he does it well, but he's overhyped as shit. Wanna see actual believable crazy then go watch Bronson, Tom Hardy is a better madman than Heath Ledger. The Nolanverse batmans, toted as being gritty and realistic, have a decent amount of silly shit in them. Batman having time to paint a bat with fire on a bridge while there's a nuclear bomb about to go off being one, also somehow knowing exactly where both Catwoman and Gordon are (moreso knowing Gordon will escape at that exact place), in a city the size of New York. Is he just standing there waiting for Gordon to walk out so he can toss a flare for theatrics? That shit is silly as *Censored*.

 

Also the joker singlehandedly sneaks in enough explosives to level an entire hospital, totally unbeknowst to anyone. Even weirder, Joker has the absolute best luck for his plans to work, there are so many minute things that could differ, that would fudge his stuff.

Mustacio it's a comic book movie. Comic book fans complain when they don't stay true to the comics, people complain when there are some unrealistic things. The movie makers can't win. If they were going to for true to the comics there would be a hella' lot more far fetched things in the Batman movies, to keep the Dark Knight movies as Batman they need them subtle shots of Batman painting a bat with fire on a bridge.

 

It seems clear you don't enjoy comic book movies so don't watch them. For what they are some are amazing, some are awful and obviously you get some in between.

I enjoy comic books movies. Avengers has some great action scenes, but action scenes are still just sizzle and no steak. Transformers has great action as well, and it's a pile of shit series.

 

Also the movie not being about the villain you say, but about a group coming together to overcome shit.. Doesn't change that what they band together to overcome, is a completely nonthreatening villian. Also, what comic book movie isn't about the villain? People are always shitting themselves to see who the villains in these movies are, cause the villains make or break the hero. Batman wouldn't be interesting if he only caught low-level goons, cause supervillains like riddler, joker and bane didn't exist.

The villains are the best characters in the The Dark Knight trilogy though, they've pretty much stole the show in all the 3 movies, Loki wasn't the best thing about the movie but there was a bunch of other awesome shit in Avengers, Transformers action scenes are no where near dynamic as Avengers. Avengers had everything it needed, one of the most enjoyable movies in theater's for me.

Chips I don't mean to be a bitch but why argue with everyone and their opinions? This is an opinion based thread, no one is right or wrong, and to be honest every time we play this little hat dance you never seem to change people's mind. Just saying

[Chips.]

Mustacio asked, I answered.

[Storm of Sand]

Definitely agreed fully with Mustachio, I don't think Avengers is as great as people make it out to be.

 

It just felt like any other generic action flick, nothing special. Sorry fanboys, no matter how much you want to defend it, it'll never be as great as you make it out to be. I personally found Dredd to be more fun and entertaining (different films I know, but they both came out in the same year).

[Grenade.]

Definitely agreed fully with Mustachio, I don't think Avengers is as great as people make it out to be.

 

It just felt like any other generic action flick, nothing special. Sorry fanboys, no matter how much you want to defend it, it'll never be as great as you make it out to be. I personally found Dredd to be more fun and entertaining (different films I know, but they both came out in the same year).

Dredd.....Dredd? That movie was average at best. I decently enjoyed it, but it's just not that good of a movie.

[M3J]

I agree with Grenade, and I enjoyed Dredd. Or Olivia Thirlby.

 

 

Terrence Howard should have continued playing Rhodes, as much as I like Don Cheadle. Or at the least, they shouldn't have switched the actors.

[Chips.]

 

 

Definitely agreed fully with Mustachio, I don't think Avengers is as great as people make it out to be.

 

It just felt like any other generic action flick, nothing special. Sorry fanboys, no matter how much you want to defend it, it'll never be as great as you make it out to be. I personally found Dredd to be more fun and entertaining (different films I know, but they both came out in the same year).

Dredd.....Dredd? That movie was average at best. I decently enjoyed it, but it's just not that good of a movie.

I felt the same way about Dredd, it was alright but nothing special but second time after watching it I really enjoyed it and saw why it was liked so much, there's not many comic book movies like it.

 

Terrence Howard is an awful actor, if he wasn't in the first Iron Man people wouldn't give a shit about him.

[Scorpion™]

Batman: Year One is the best comic animated movie I've seen. But I've only seen like 4 or 5.

[Kman]

^ The Dark Knight Returns was pretty damn entertaining as well as Under The Hood, I'm unsure..

[Grenade.]

The Godfather disappointed me with the lack of any sort of climax. Don't get me wrong, it was still a really good movie and the story was extremely well told, but I expected a little more out of the "Greatest Movie of All Time" according to so many.

[unknownsold13r]

The Godfather disappointed me with the lack of any sort of climax. Don't get me wrong, it was still a really good movie and the story was extremely well told, but I expected a little more out of the "Greatest Movie of All Time" according to so many.

 

That is what the sequel is for. The climax is really near the end of the Godfather Part II. It's honestly meant to be one story, one narrative, one film. But it would clock in at like 8 or 9 hours or so and you just can't have that as one film. The third film is sort of it's own thing though.

 

It's like how some trilogies are three seperate movies (like the Matrix) and some trilogies are meant to really be just one long continuous narrative (like Lord of The Rings).

 

I'm not saying you have to watch both of the first two Godfather movies back to back in one sitting. But it might help improve your view on it. People do binge watch TV shows like Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad and such. Those are long form, continuous stories broken up into episdoes too.

 

 

 

[sam the d00d]

I thought Dredd was a lot of fun. It's a movie that's better when you watch it with others though.

[Lunchbox]

Batman: Year One is the best comic animated movie I've seen. But I've only seen like 4 or 5.

Check out Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. If you have read the book you will be pleased with the movie.

[Grenade.]

Under the Red Hood is my personal favorite as you may have guessed.

[M3J]

The Godfather disappointed me with the lack of any sort of climax. Don't get me wrong, it was still a really good movie and the story was extremely well told, but I expected a little more out of the "Greatest Movie of All Time" according to so many.

There's no climax, the first movie establishes how Michael became the don, how he went from a "doe-eyed kid to a ruthless murderer." The second movie has a climax, though that really depends on your point of view now, I guess. The third one is part of the trilogy and sequel (sadly) and definitely has a climax. Though, Coppola wasn't planning on making it, I guess, so the second one could be assumed to have climax or the ending.

 

 

does Spider-Man in the comics reveal his identity to people? Or Iron Man? I dunno, but if it does then whoever wrote the movies to have the heroes' identities revealed are douches.

 

 

Harry Potter film series is one of the worst book-to-movie adaptations that doesn't deserve to be a hit.

[sam the d00d]

I thought the first four movies and the last movie were solid. I'm not too big on the others though.

[M3J]

they change too much shit that it's annoyed me so much. For example, Bellatrix attacks the Weasley house in the 6th movie. Like, what the *Censored*? She shouldn't even be able to see the protected house in the first place anyway, so that makes no sense. And my favorite - no explanation behind Sirius going after Peter/coming to Hogwarts even though that's important. Harry just trusts Sirius out of nowhere?