Unpopular Movie Opinions: Part III

[Mothravka]

Originally Posted by Optimus

It's the hyperbolic statements that set off my BS meter tbh.

Btw

Da lis si ti iz Bosne?

Your Bosnian spelling isn't good enough!

But if I'm from there? Yes. I just don't live there right now.

[Optimus]

Originally Posted by Mothravka

Your Bosnian spelling isn't good enough!

But if I'm from there? Yes. I just don't live there right now.

Oh you mean because I wrote Bosne? Haha sorry

I'm originally from Serbia myself

[Mothravka]

Originally Posted by Optimus

Oh you mean because I wrote Bosne? Haha sorry

I'm originally from Serbia myself

Oh, no. That part is correct. But the rest isn't really. For example, the "lis". But let's not go into more of that, I think that's too off topic here, heh.

But nice to see more slavic presence here!

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

I'm gonna defend the the most egregious opinions I posted.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

1. Marvel is one of the worst properties in existence and is destroying cinema

Marvel is destroying cinema because they have perfected producing low quality movies for tens years while simultaneously making a lot of money. What this has resulted in is an influx of high-budget movies making hte rounds and failing to recoup costs and/or being adored by audiences.

In a non-financial sense, the MCU appeals to the lowest common denominator cinemagoers as they flock to see works of art that offer nothing more than eye candy. There are some exceptions to me, and those would be Thor: Ragnarok and Black Panther. It's no coincidence that these movies were released after the original MCU creative team were sacked and directors were given free reign.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

3. Christopher Nolan has a solitary movie in his repertoire that's worth a damn (Interstellar)

A man whose sole existence in the medium is to produce movies laced with misogyny is incapable of creating a captivating movie... except for Interstellar. While people adore this man who continued to employ one of the worst DPs in existence (Pfister) and didn't step out of his noir homages until the aforementioned movie, I saw what people didn't. Overstuffed and poorly shot movies are not the worst offenses, but horrendous dialogue and poorly-developed characters are. When Interstellar came around, Nolan was forced to step outside of his own bubble to consult with experts to give us an invigorating science fiction epic. Ditching Pfister gave us a movie that could have been shot by Lubezki, the best working DP right now.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

5. A Quiet Place is garbage.

[Show spoiler]Morons getting pregnant in such an environment is indicative of moral bankruptcy, something the movie chose to ignore in favor of poorly formed jump scares. They are shown to be well prepared to fight the threat yet had a baby? The movie’s lack of consistent logic is its undoing. It’s well produced, though. Great performances, directing, cinematography.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

6. Blade Runner is a horrible movie while its successor is better in every single way

Blade Runner's fault is that while it has style and substance, I wanted the latter to outweigh the former. I did not buy Deckard's internal plight as he questioned his actions and motives. It seemed rushed and a few more scenes devoted to his struggle would have changed my mind completely. That being said, it's still worth watching and the score is... amazing

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

8. Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism

Ebert popularized the shallow rating system that people still use today: star ratings; thumbs up or thumbs down; and fresh or rotten. This has created a community where people do not read reviews but instead look at a rating or a headline or a percentage. And this in turn leads to ill-considered opinions that have no validity if said person cannot adequately back up their views.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by rodneyfaile

Zack Snyder has made only one good movie, Watchmen.

Says the Marvel fan.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

1. Marvel is one of the worst properties in existence and is destroying cinema

This is true.

Originally Posted by traths

I really didn't care for Scarface, I thought it was so overdone and so over-the-top.

That's what makes it good.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

I'm gonna defend the the most egregious opinions I posted.

Marvel is destroying cinema because they have perfected producing low quality movies for tens years while simultaneously making a lot of money. What this has resulted in is an influx of high-budget movies making hte rounds and failing to recoup costs and/or being adored by audiences.

This is true.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

A man whose sole existence in the medium is to produce movies laced with misogyny is incapable of creating a captivating movie... except for Interstellar.

Lol...this is not true, however. If Nolan (of all people) can be called misogynistic, then the word truly has lost all meaning.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

[Show spoiler]Morons getting pregnant in such an environment is indicative of moral bankruptcy, something the movie chose to ignore in favor of poorly formed jump scares. They are shown to be well prepared to fight the threat yet had a baby? The movie’s lack of consistent logic is its undoing. It’s well produced, though. Great performances, directing, cinematography.

[Show spoiler]Condoms might be hard to find in that situation, the pregnancy may well have been unplanned.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Ebert popularized the shallow rating system that people still use today: star ratings; thumbs up or thumbs down; and fresh or rotten. This has created a community where people do not read reviews but instead look at a rating or a headline or a percentage. And this in turn leads to ill-considered opinions that have no validity if said person cannot adequately back up their views.

True but I would note he was forced to do so, he has the same opinion as you.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Says the Marvel fan.





Lol...this is not true, however. If Nolan (of all people) can be called misogynistic, then the word truly has lost all meaning.

Rewatch his filmography. Most of the women exist solely to cause the men pain and to be the catalyst for their actions and motives.

Memento: Wife dies

Batman Begins: Rachel causes him distress

Insomnia: Not his movie given he remade it. No complaints here.

Prestige: Woman dies, woman kills herself

The Dark Knight: Rachel woes and she ultimately dies

Inception: This is the most egregious. Woman is named "mal," which means any variant of "wrong." She kills herself. Cobb is in distress. Ariadne exists only to be a mouthpiece to the audience and to explain everything to Cobb

Interstellar: You can argue this point but the protagonist goes out to help the entirety of mankind, not only his daughter.

Dunkirk: No women here, which is the movie's only saving grace because he can't ruin their characterizations with misogyny.

[WestMan]

Don't mistake plot points with a persons true personality.

Both Christopher & Jonathan Nolan married highly intelligent females who are equals to them in their careers. You don't marry women like Lisa Joy & Emma Thomas if you are a misogynist.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Rewatch his filmography. Most of the women exist solely to cause the men pain and to be the catalyst for their actions and motives.

Memento: Wife dies

Batman Begins: Rachel causes him distress

Insomnia: Not his movie given he remade it. No complaints here.

Prestige: Woman dies, woman kills herself

The Dark Knight: Rachel woes and she ultimately dies

Inception: This is the most egregious. Woman is named "mal," which means any variant of "wrong." She kills herself. Cobb is in distress. Ariadne exists only to be a mouthpiece to the audience and to explain everything to Cobb

Interstellar: You can argue this point but the protagonist goes out to help the entirety of mankind, not only his daughter.

Dunkirk: No women here, which is the movie's only saving grace because he can't ruin their characterizations with misogyny.

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Congrats!

[Brown]

Someone may have stated this already...

I prefer Morgan over Ex Machina, especially after second viewing of both.

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Congrats!

Seriously lmao

[TajSamKojiJesam]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Ebert popularized the shallow rating system that people still use today: star ratings; thumbs up or thumbs down; and fresh or rotten. This has created a community where people do not read reviews but instead look at a rating or a headline or a percentage. And this in turn leads to ill-considered opinions that have no validity if said person cannot adequately back up their views.

Regarding Roger Ebert, I think the negative influence people talk about is the rise of overly cynical and nitpicky movie reviewers inspired by him. People like Nostalgia Critic or YMS (who even got his name from Ebert's book), and many other irritating "negative" reviewers. Ebert's reviews were sometimes just snarky for their own sake, and often quite empty. When I talked about Ebert in the previous "Unpopular Opinions" thread, I linked his review of The Limits of Control (2009), which is one of the laziest and most unprofessional reviews I've read. When it comes to annoying snarkiness, Pauline Kael is an even worse offender, but Ebert is of course a lot more popular and influential.

I don't agree with you about rating systems and what not; Ebert was a populist reviewer, his job was to describe the movie and offer his opinion on whether it's worth watching.

What often annoyed me about his reviews was his moralizing. The way he and Siskel treated slasher films and such as horrendous cultural abominations, I think it's really a bunch of moral-pillar nonsense.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by TajSamKojiJesam

What often annoyed me about his reviews was his moralizing. The way he and Siskel treated slasher films and such as horrendous cultural abominations, I think it's really a bunch of moral-pillar nonsense.

His review of The Human Centipede is hilarious.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by TajSamKojiJesam

Regarding Roger Ebert, I think the negative influence people talk about is the rise of overly cynical and nitpicky movie reviewers inspired by him. People like Nostalgia Critic or YMS (who even got his name from Ebert's book), and many other irritating "negative" reviewers. Ebert's reviews were sometimes just snarky for their own sake, and often quite empty. When I talked about Ebert in the previous "Unpopular Opinions" thread, I linked his review of The Limits of Control (2009), which is one of the laziest and most unprofessional reviews I've read. When it comes to annoying snarkiness, Pauline Kael is an even worse offender, but Ebert is of course a lot more popular and influential.

I don't agree with you about rating systems and what not; Ebert was a populist reviewer, his job was to describe the movie and offer his opinion on whether it's worth watching.

What often annoyed me about his reviews was his moralizing. The way he and Siskel treated slasher films and such as horrendous cultural abominations, I think it's really a bunch of moral-pillar nonsense.

While I'm a big Roger Ebert fan, I definitely agree that he was snarky at times along with just for the sake of it. I also agree how him and Siskel (who I was never that big of a fan of) unfairly treated the horror genre for the most part. Siskel was pretty much impossible to please with everything 85% of the time excluding documentaries. Not even sure why he was a film critic to be honest.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

While I'm a big Roger Ebert fan, I definitely agree that he was snarky at times along with just for the sake of it. I also agree how him and Siskel (who I was never that big of a fan of) unfairly treated the horror genre for the most part. Siskel was pretty much impossible to please with everything 85% of the time excluding documentaries. Not even sure why he was a film critic to be honest.

?? I thought they both tended to hand out an equal number of thumbs ups and down. Maybe you are stuck on a couple of your personal favorites that Siskel didn't like. I'll bet that Siskel handed more thumbs up in his lifetime than thumbs down.

Anyway, I guess the big knock on them for me is they rarely had anything incisive to say about film form. When I watch their videos, it's simply to enjoy 2 prickly grown men squawk and banter after a trip to the movies. It's really no different than a sitcom: you tune in to enjoy certain set dynamics with characters. Ditto with the rest of the At the mOvies incarnations, but obviously the following two incarnations got progressively worse.

Even if you try to pump your program full of technical talk, it still comes across as a sitcom due to the form. I've seen informative video essays, but rarely have I seen informative At the Movies style vids.

Originally Posted by TajSamKojiJesam

I don't agree with you about rating systems and what not; Ebert was a populist reviewer, his job was to describe the movie and offer his opinion on whether it's worth watching.

What often annoyed me about his reviews was his moralizing. The way he and Siskel treated slasher films and such as horrendous cultural abominations, I think it's really a bunch of moral-pillar nonsense.

Exactly. Ebert's ratings always functioned as an "accessibility" barometer for me (with a few exceptions of course).

I like Ebert okay, but it's kind of like Nirvana: those that took after them totally derailed mainstream rock music. 90% or more of post-grunge is (because it apparently still persists) hot garbage.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

?? I thought they both tended to hand out an equal number of thumbs ups and down. Maybe you are stuck on a couple of your personal favorites that Siskel didn't like. I'll bet that Siskel handed more thumbs up in his lifetime than thumbs down.

Anyway, I guess the big knock on them for me is they rarely had anything incisive to say about film form. When I watch their videos, it's simply to enjoy 2 prickly grown men squawk and banter after a trip to the movies. It's really no different than a sitcom: you tune in to enjoy certain set dynamics with characters. Ditto with the rest of the At the mOvies incarnations, but obviously the following two incarnations got progressively worse.

Even if you try to pump your program full of technical talk, it still comes across as a sitcom due to the form. I've seen informative video essays, but rarely have I seen informative At the Movies style vids.

I disagree about them equally giving thumbs up and thumbs down reviews. For me, Ebert was much more open minded with films which often would lead to their bickering with eachother. Even Ebert would comment quite a bit about how Siskel could never be pleased. Siskel came off as grumpy a lot of the time.

I loved their show but I would be shocked whenever Siskel actually enjoyed a movie.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

I disagree about them equally giving thumbs up and thumbs down reviews. For me, Ebert was much more open minded with films which often would lead to their bickering with eachother. Even Ebert would comment quite a bit about how Siskel could never be pleased. Siskel came off as grumpy a lot of the time.

I loved their show but I would be shocked whenever Siskel actually enjoyed a movie.

It's closer than you think. Just did some random googling and found this fan created stat:
Of the 2346 films, I have 1524 ratings. Here are some of the statistics.

Gene Siskel

Thumbs Up: 748
Thumbs Down: 776

Roger Ebert

Thumbs Up: 859
Thumbs Down: 665

Two Thumbs Up: 601
Two Thumbs Down: 518
Split Vote: 405 (Gene 147 Up, Roger 258 Up)

So basically 56% of the time Ebert liked something, whereas Siskel only liked something 49% of the time. 7% difference isn't a whole lot. One's perception may be skewed because Siskel tended to like more of the smaller, foreign fare, also more genre stuff, so it may not make a mark on you if you haven't seen or don't care for the film.

Go back and look at their best of the year lists, there's a ton of overlap, you could tell they had a bunch of influence on each other. I actually think Siskel's were more on point, though.

[Dr. Pavel]

whether or not a film/filmmaker is racist, misogynistic etc. it doesn't matter at all. if you want from your films to reaffirm your favorite ideology, views and stuff like that, you're an insecure commoner, an idiot, if i may say so. it's sad and destructive that 90% of audiences and at least 70% of critics can't even critique films without getting political. not a single peep on photography, scope, writing, acting... everything is some blog-tier word salad about ideologies.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pavel

whether or not a film/filmmaker is racist, misogynistic etc. it doesn't matter at all. if you want from your films to reaffirm your favorite ideology, views and stuff like that, you're an insecure commoner, an idiot, if i may say so. it's sad and destructive that 90% of audiences and at least 70% of critics can't even critique films without getting political. not a single peep on photography, scope, writing, acting... everything is some blog-tier word salad about ideologies.

Politics has seeped into far too many areas of life now. I've had to stop listening to a few podcasts because the commentators couldn't get off the politics topic. And they were not political podcasts.

Even high school kids these days are becoming far too politicized at a a younger age.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Congrats!

I don't think it's wrong to say that Nolan is incapable of writing interesting, fleshed-out female characters. That doesn't necessarily make him a misogynist, but it does suggest that he doesn't get women.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Rewatch his filmography. Most of the women exist solely to cause the men pain and to be the catalyst for their actions and motives.

No, in Memento his mental illness causes him pain. In Prestige, his obsession causes the pain. The women are innocent bystanders of the mental illness/obsession, not causes.