Unpopular Movie Opinions: Part III

[JustinB13]

Out of the two San-Francisco based comic book movies of this year:


Venom > Antman and the Wasp

[spanky87]

Brad Bird - the director who’s only live-action film is Tomorrowland, a so-so film at best that didn’t fully realize it’s potential. The scenes at the actual “Tomorrowland” lacked originality, imagination and a sense of wonderment. And the director of Incredibles 2, an uninspiring sequel that simply re-did the first movie with Elastagirl and Mr Incredible switching roles, which is inexcusable given the amount of time he had to develop that film.

I think Brad Bird is best off making original animated films. That seems to be his strength. He hasn’t shown to be too impressive with live-action or with sequels.

[DanTheMan]

Ghost Protocol. And it’s an awesome sequel.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

Ghost Protocol. And it’s an awesome sequel.

I forgot he did that.

But I don’t hold that one in high regard compared to the last two. It’s basically a barrage of set-piece after set-piece at the expense of developing a compelling story and villain to hold it together. I also prefer MI3 over it as it’s the first Mission Impossible film (and only one besides the last one) to have emotional stakes, treat Ethan Hunt as an actual character and give him some development. Plus it has PSH as the villain.

[dgoswald]

Incredibles 2 is a better film across the board than The Incredibles.
Ghost Protocol is the best of the "Phase 2" MI films (I've yet to see Fallout).
Tomorrowland is sh*t.

[Star Lord]

Ghost Protocol is still the best MI movie imo.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by Star Lord

Ghost Protocol is still the best MI movie imo.

I was dead against the above idea until a few months ago when I watched GP and RN on successive nights, and I actually found GP to be much more satisfying. I still admire and enjoy RN, but GP possesses the best aspects of the first 3 MI films while forging something new that they've taken to exciting levels with RN and, I'm presuming, Fallout.

[Mothravka]

Originally Posted by Monroville

But this is the "unpopular movie opinion" thread... so apparently it's unpopular now to say that ELF and JINGLE ALL THE WAY are mind rapingly bad films?

Because they are.

I agree. But is the Arnold film even regarded as good in general? I don't think so, especially not if you go by IMDb score, RT score (both critics and audiences) and the overall reception. It has at least Arnold, who is hilariously bad at acting, so one can at least laugh at something.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Monroville

Keep everything the same but with one exception: when Starkiller base fires the ultimate weapon, when the beam reaches Coruscant/New Alderaan.. the beam deflects away.

The Hosnian system wasn't Coruscant or whatever 'New Alderaan' is, so that would be another exception.

Originally Posted by Monroville

(ie go back to the very genesis of STAR WARS itself by using ideas from Jodorowsky's DUNE).

Don't you mean Herbert's Dune? What does Jodorowsky specifically have to do with it?

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by spanky87

I forgot he did that.

But I don’t hold that one in high regard compared to the last two. It’s basically a barrage of set-piece after set-piece at the expense of developing a compelling story and villain to hold it together. I also prefer MI3 over it as it’s the first Mission Impossible film (and only one besides the last one) to have emotional stakes, treat Ethan Hunt as an actual character and give him some development. Plus it has PSH as the villain.

I completely agree about Ghost Protocol and would go even further to say that the last 3 Mission Impossible movies are all the same as you described the 4th one to be. I would also go even more further say that out of all of the Mission Impossible movies M:i-2 is the best.

[ParamountCartoons]

I skip MCU movies unless it's a big deal in the franchise (Infinity War, etc.)

I rarely watched Aladdin and I was rarely a fan of Robin Williams. "Friend Like Me" terrified me as a child.

I rarely watch MGM or United Artists films because the MGM lion terrifies me. (Most of the times I do, I mute the roar unless it's Tanner or Jackie, it Leo that makes me uneasy and Telly and Coffee are some others).

Walt Disney shouldn't haven't gotten the world record for most Oscars, and Disney is an overrated company. (I still like them, though, it's a love-hate relationship).

Blu-ray and beyond is not good for special editions due to their logo plastering (I'm looking at you, Warner Bros., MGM and Disney, with some others).

I like the old Famous Studios cartoon shorts, especially if they're rare prints with original titles and no splices.

Famous Studios isn't always formulaic, sometimes they try new stories and variations of the formulas.

Unless I find a treasure (like I did with Into The Spider-Verse) most CG animated films are garbage. I'd have to be really hyped to see it all year long (like I did with Wallace and Gromit Curse of the Were-Rabbit and The Peanuts Movie)

Today's live-action comedies are unfunny.


There's been too many historical dramas, and also centered around race and politics, and so many biopics and stories feel like Forrest Gump complete with cliche soundtrack like 60s songs and Motown.


Movie spoilers shouldn't be woven into pop culture.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by CinemologyR

Gravity is a spectacle movie that needs to be watched in 3D and on the biggest screen possible. If you're not then there's really no point watching it as that's what the director intended.

Fortunately i have a pretty decent setup and when watching it again recently at home on my 65" 3D OLED, it still held up

You sort of proved my point. If you need all that "window dressing" just to make a movie enjoyable, then at its core it's not really a good movie to begin with.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

You sort of proved my point. If you need all that "window dressing" just to make a movie enjoyable, then at its core it's not really a good movie to begin with.

Oh come on. You know what he means.

I saw Blade Runner 2049 in an awesome Dolby Cinema theater with a great screen and fantastic sound system. Actually, saw it there twice. Incredible.

But also, The Devil Wears Prada and Mean Girls are both favorites of mine that I've seen ... well, lots. As much as I like both and still laugh out loud at both, I really don't think Mean Girls would benefit from IMAX.

Different films benefit from different environments. Heck, decades ago I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in a beautiful theater. I've seen Gone With the Wind multiple times in the theater. Both were just stunning. But again, I'm totally fine curled up on the couch with a drink watching The Devil Wears Prada.

[Rodney-2187]

Try Lawrence of Arabia in 4:3

Screens matter, especially in the hands of artists.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

If you need all that "window dressing" just to make a movie enjoyable

Except you don't. It's bad@$$ even without all that!

[Rodney-2187]

3D doesn't have to be a fad or a gimmick. One day, someone could utilize it the way Hitchcock used color in Vertigo.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by rodneyfaile

3D doesn't have to be a fad or a gimmick. One day, someone could utilize it the way Hitchcock used color in Vertigo.

But I'll never be able to see it, since 3D gives me a headache and makes me slightly nauseous. And that sucks, since everything I read seems to indicate that the technology is really improving.

Oh well.

[Rodney-2187]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

But I'll never be able to see it, since 3D gives me a headache and makes me slightly nauseous. And that sucks, since everything I read seems to indicate that the technology is really improving.

Oh well.

As the technology improves, your headaches may go away. Besides, soon there will be holodecks like in Star Trek TNG and after that they'll just put it straight in your brain like Total Recall. No glasses for those.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Oh come on. You know what he means.

I saw Blade Runner 2049 in an awesome Dolby Cinema theater with a great screen and fantastic sound system. Actually, saw it there twice. Incredible.

But also, The Devil Wears Prada and Mean Girls are both favorites of mine that I've seen ... well, lots. As much as I like both and still laugh out loud at both, I really don't think Mean Girls would benefit from IMAX.

Different films benefit from different environments. Heck, decades ago I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in a beautiful theater. I've seen Gone With the Wind multiple times in the theater. Both were just stunning. But again, I'm totally fine curled up on the couch with a drink watching The Devil Wears Prada.

No I’m totally serious. The movies you mentioned like 2001, Gone With The Wind, The Devil Wears Prada, etc are fantastic films whether you watched them in IMAX or on your phone. The FORMAT in which you watch any of those films doesn’t change how great they are. Gravity is an anticlimactic borefest and the tech that’s used to display that movie doesn’t change that.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

No I’m totally serious. The movies you mentioned like 2001, Gone With The Wind, The Devil Wears Prada, etc are fantastic films whether you watched them in IMAX or on your phone. The FORMAT in which you watch any of those films doesn’t change how great they are. Gravity is an anticlimactic borefest and the tech that’s used to display that movie doesn’t change that.

Ehhhh....if the only way I could ever watch 2001 was on a phone or a small screen I’d prolly never watch it again. Content is king but presentation helps a helluva lot. I mean, the whole point of larger TVs, surround sound, 4K, etc is to enhance the presentation of our favorite films. Right?