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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tarantino is overrated. You have to watch a lot of movies to come to this realisation, because otherwise you don’t realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies. Movies which did what he does better. That means that it doesn’t actually matter that Tarantino is overrated for most movie goers. More generally, this is why critics’ opinions don’t actually matter that much. They’ve watched too many movies and likely know too much about movies, to tell the average audience goer if they’ll enjoy a movie.
Once you’ve watched a few thousand movies, and especially if you’ve ever studied film or read a few books about it, you’ll often find you enjoy interesting but shit movies more, than very well made but unoriginal movies. People who truly love film, invariably aren’t snobs. They enjoy absolute trash, they enjoy arty farty stuff. If someone has a related degree or even a doctorate or works in the industry, the likelihood is high that they’re also a fan of B-movies. They don’t need to pretend to be knowledgeable, because they are. A film snob will bore you with the details of a Tarkovski movie. A cinephile is more likely to bang on about 80s horror movies, lesbian vampire sexploitation movies, Albert Pyun’s Cyborg, or Troma’s The Toxic Avenger.
Do you have a recommendation for a book that’ll turn me into a cinephile?
Oh, wow. Old comment.
The easiest route to learning about movies, is to watch a lot of movies, and reading about the movie you’ve just watched. Wikipedia, a more in depth review, interviews with people who made the movie (not just the actors).
Google a top 100 list. Work your way through a few of them. Eg.
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
They also have cool features. For example, Michael Mann’s made a load of really cool action movies. Here’s a feature on his movies they made:
https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/where-begin-with-michael-mann
Or here’s famous critic Mark Kermode’s top 10 of horror movies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdj_22hHRyM
Yes, he has a PhD and is a member of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the UK equivalent of the Academy of Motion Pictures. No, he’s not a snob. Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s in the top 10. So are some older classics, which are still good.
But if you want to read something, you could try:
Bordwell and Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction.
David A. Cook. A History of Narrative Cinema
Wow, thank you so much for all the recommendations! I sometimes feel like I don’t know how to watch certain kinds of movies (e.g., older movies, or more artsy movies). I hope reading up a bit will help me appreciate them more
This is how I’ve come to view anime. You can tell the age of an anime fan by whether they’re enamored by the latest hit series or they sigh and go “this is just a remake of [old series from the 90s/00s].” I don’t give a shit how well made a series is; if the premise is “been there done that” without an original take or twist, or a tired and worn trope gets trotted out (looking at you, every fucking series that includes a scene where a female character comments enviously on another female character’s large breasts, yes Frieren that means you), then I’m insta-jaded on the series. At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who “aged out.” For me, I knew it had gotten bad when I was struggling to enjoy Cyberpunk because I felt like I had heard all the voices before in previous series.
I enjoy Tarantino movies. It all boils down to: are they solid fun entertainment or not, and to me the answer is yes.
Someone else did it better elsewhere? Sure, and he is very forthcoming about his influences. So if you’re a fan, you’ll likely find his sources and enjoy those too. Win win.
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.
I watched The Princess Bride and couldn’t understand why it gets so much love. I found it really gruesome and unfunny, and Robin Wright’s princess was bland and unlikable.
Out of all the bad opinions in this thread, this one legit made my BP rise. Well done at having a terrible opinion lol
Inconceivable 💀
This post is so confusing. Do I upvote opinions I strongly agree with or down vote them?!
Upvote things that contribute to the post, downvote things that don’t. Has nothing to do with like/dislike, or agree/disagree.
Upvote since I agree with that sentiment
The original Star wars trilogy was overrated, the sequels were underrated, and I’d rate them all to be equally mediocre.
The best thing about Star wars is the world building. The expanded universe with the books, comics, and cartoons contain much better stories than any of the movies.
The sequels were rated quite well by critics, except for the final one. The Last Jedi even got a better rating than Return of the Jedi from the originals.
I agree that overall the original Star Wars films are overrated.
The Empire Strikes Back is the only one that I would say is a great movie.
A New Hope is solid. You can find blemishes, and they’ve torn new ones with the “special editions” that just cram more CGI shit on the screen for no reason, but as a classic Hero’s Journey movie A New Hope works rather well. It was amazing for its time; I mean, a fun Sci-Fi movie? With special effects this good? It was a cultural phenomenon for a reason.
The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie that has been made, which is why when most people quote Star Wars they’re actually quoting Empire. The characters are at their deepest, the setting feels the most magical, and the Luke/Vader saber fight is utterly gripping.
Return of the Jedi was the beginning of the “Lucas is a genius who can do no wrong, do everything he says” era. The “let’s put a funny thing in the background” starts happening. We get Jabba’s hedonism palace with the droid torture room, Bikini Leia, Ewoks, and lightning hands Palpatine. This would only get worse by the time the prequel trilogy is made, Lucas gets to make whatever he wants without question.
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.
Not to mention that it’s fucking stupid to have all your infiltration units have the exact same face and body. The first movie even showed other terminators with different faces, so why is every T-800 Arnold?
That said, T2 is one of my favorite movies.
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.
I love T2 so I’m simply upvoting your passion for T1.
Also Eddie furlong is fucking insufferable
You’ve way over analysed it. It’d be like pissing on Star Wars because the Force has no basis in science.
As someone who enjoys the magic systems of Brandon Sanderson, I do piss on Star Wars for not having a logical basis for The Force.
Actually it’s not that bad. Harry Potter is much worse.
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!
No, the problem is internal consistency, in Star Wars the force works the same way in all films. But imagine if on one movie someone was shown using the force to move objects, and on the next movie the same character was shown trying to reach for something important and failing and not using the force and when asked he replies “it’s not possible to move objects with the force”. That’s the problem here, internal consistency, on one movie it’s said it works one way, on the other it’s said it works differently. I love both movies, I just think T2 shitted on one of the main things from T1.
Except the prequels establish force powers that we never see again and so do the sequels. Like force super speed in the phantom menace.
My head hurts.
Never watch Primer.
The critic rating is better than the audience rating. I’ve never seen a film with a high critic rating that didn’t have something worthwhile about it. But I’ve seen a lot of audience hits that were garbage.
Films where I don’t recognize a single actor among the whole crew are almost always better than ones where I’ve seen such and such actor in other movies. Just more immersive. And even if they’re not the best actors I’d much prefer that over whatever the hell Chris Prat or Tom Cruise or Leo D are up to.
I knew being faceblind must have some benefit. I often only realise I know an actor when I see their name in the credits. Then again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses, so I wouldn’t entirety recommend it.
My experience watching The Departed while almost entirely sober felt like a face blindness simulator. I was baffled when one of the characters that had been killed came back and none of the other characters acknowledged it. Cool movie but so confusing.
So many well known actors play themselves playing the character.
Tom Cruise has employees rewrite movies he’ll be in to make his part more, and more in his style.
He has more acting range and ability than so many other actors
Horror films are where art flourishes and it has a huge culture of being outside of Hollywood which is just a plus. Also the acting is usually way better
Most horror movies have worse acting than a porno.
There is no accounting for taste. Who’s to say what’s a better actor?!
Removed by mod
I actually liked Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Both main actors were objectively terrible, but I still liked the movie 🤷♂️
Napoleon Dynamite is garbage.
This thread is for opinions backed with some sort of justification. Your opinion as stated belongs as a one-star review on IMDb.
Seeing movies in the theater is overrated and they are far more enjoyable at home.
it’s actually spelled film
The Godfather, extremely overrated and very boring. Saw it many years ago, and maybe my taste in movies have changed a bit, and I consider rewatching other movies I did not like, but not that one.
