Unpopular Movie Opinions: Part III

[Martoto]

Oppenheimer was not an IMAX film. It was shot on IMAX. I saw it in an IMAX cinema. But the experience was akin to playing NES Tetris on a 200" projector with Dolby Atmos sound. An indulgent buzz at first. But makes you feel a bit silly and self conscious after half an hour.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Piranha II: The Spawning >>>> Avatar

Just imagine if Cameron had directed PII.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Just imagine if Cameron had directed PII.

Spielberg did a decent job.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Spielberg did a decent job.

Basically just copied Dante, shot for shot. Smart move on his part.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by moreorless

To be honest though I think we need more "he's making his film again" style directors around rather than directors jumping between blockbuster franchise scripts Hollywood wants to give credibility to which leave little room for the personal style which made them successful in the first place.

I agree and I won't argue Anderson doesn't fit in that category.

With Scorsese it's been a cumulative effect of working with the same actors over again and returning to a similar type of material periodically.

But watching the Roald Dhal adaptation on Netflix, it felt like every single character came on screen and spoke direct to the audience "Welcome to the new Wes Anderson film. It's all going to be like this."

With all good directors, you kind of like the sense that there is a layer of themselves (their style, if you like) that they've dressed the story up in. Or that layer is inherent in the story itself. With Anderson, there's a sense of the explicit acknowledgement of another layer separating the viewer AND the cast from the style before you even get to that layer.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by Martoto

I agree and I won't argue Anderson doesn't fit in that category.

With Scorsese it's been a cumulative effect of working with the same actors over again and returning to a similar type of material periodically.

But watching the Roald Dhal adaptation on Netflix, it felt like every single character came on screen and spoke direct to the audience "Welcome to the new Wes Anderson film. It's all going to be like this."

With all good directors, you kind of like the sense that there is a layer of themselves (their style, if you like) that they've dressed the story up in. Or that layer is inherent in the story itself. With Anderson, there's a sense of the explicit acknowledgement of another layer separating the viewer AND the cast from the style before you even get to that layer.

I'v not seen the Dahl adaptation and that generally does seem to be more the kind of film of his I'm less keen on but I don't think theres really anything wrong with films acknowledging there own artifice.

I felt with Anderson he was becoming a bit more repetitive in the late 00's because his drama seemed more bound up in that Allenish upper class intelligensia world. I felt with Moonrise Kingdom he actually shifted away from that rather, the settings themselves are obviously appealing to that kind of culture, heightened takes on places/times which are considered "cool" by that culture(New England countryside camps/retreats, interwar European grand hotels, etc) and are very much self aware they are doing that,

The drama though I think becomes less about that culture, I think it tends to play down that more self obsessed view with upper class characters worrying about there personal success/career and there more petty relationships and rather more universal. Most obviously I think he plays up his more morbid side in Moonrise, Budapest and Asteroid City with characters dealing with death/loss and you also have plots like Fiennes character trying to uphold his sense of honour(which itself maybe just his view of an era which never really existed) in an era of rising facism.

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

Sir, you're from Canada and have the word Hipster in your name and you don't like Scott Pilgrim vs the World??! From one Canuck to another, I'm shocked!

I liked it a decade ago. But after growing up and watching it again recently it's really awkward and hard to see why I liked it. The anime looks fine though.

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Overrated

Damien Chazelle
Michel Hazanavicius
Tom Hooper
Sam Mendes


Seriously, these guys all have Best Director Oscars that I, imho, consider not necessarily deserved. Several are just one-off, one hit wonders, too.

That's 'overrated' to me. Not lots of people trying to tear down some pretty legendary directors with lots of good/great work under their belts.

The top and bottom directors I can understand saying that. I disagree since I found their latest films to be superb and underrated.
As for Hooper and Hazanavicius they haven't put enough out there for people to put them to the top of anyone's list. I will say Cats was a treat though.

And I can see how it's tearing down classic directors and their work. But to some their entire body o work is just trash and always has been.

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

Sam Mendes is extremely mediocre.

1917 was based entirely on a gimmick, that gimmick (one continuous take) was a lie, and the movie wasn't particularly good. Admittedly I'm a bit peeved over how he took the too-rare WW1 flick and made it more of a "subvert your expectations" film that dipped into the surreal and the artsy.

Hate to break it to you but all of film is a lie. It's trickery. 24 lies per second.

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

1917 was based entirely on a gimmick, that gimmick (one continuous take) was a lie, and the movie wasn't particularly good. Admittedly I'm a bit peeved over how he took the too-rare WW1 flick and made it more of a "subvert your expectations" film that dipped into the surreal and the artsy.

I don't really see it as a gimmick and more to give the audience a feel that they are actually there with the soldiers, experiencing what they are. By doing in in a mock-continuous shot, you live every single moment with the soldiers as they are on screen.

I totally can understand not liking the film itself, but the "gimmick" is the soul of the film.

[wonderer99]

1917 is a great film and can at least be applauded from a technical standpoint at least. The only issue I had with it was that we went from day to night and back to day again all in an hour and a half "one take" It was a little bit bizarre.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

1917 is a great film and can at least be applauded from a technical standpoint at least. The only issue I had with it was that we went from day to night and back to day again all in an hour and a half "one take" It was a little bit bizarre.

Schofield got knocked unconscious at one point, skipping over most of the night and giving him a nice little nap until just before dawn.

[levcore]

That whole bit about getting knocked out felt like such a cheat to the one take concept.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by Martoto

The Omen is not a supernatural story. They're a bunch of freak occurrences coinciding with, or perhaps sometimes initiated by, the conspiracy to conceal the real thorn child's death and replacement with the child some satanist lunatics convinced themselves was the son of the devil.

The sequels effed this up with the wolf DNA and shit. II should have been about Damien fighting the conspiracy that tries to convince him he is what they think he is. And the third, after Damien (President Thorn) has chosen to believe it, is where the church actually starts to believe it. The Catholic Church trying to assassinate the US Prez*. Now that's a story! Not the quasi second coming, light shines through the window, the end, crap that we got.

*I know that's more or less what the plot of The Final Conflict is. But the decision is already made to take out Thorn in the opening credits. No discussion. No tension. No intrigue.

The second coming music by Goldsmith is gorgeously epic though. Around the 4:50 mark.

The Final Conflict Soundtrack Track 15 "The Final Conflict" Jerry Goldsmith - YouTube

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by levcore

That whole bit about getting knocked out felt like such a cheat to the one take concept.

Yet it allows for that wonderful camera movement where it exits the building and Schofield walks out as flares go off.

No one is like Deakins.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

Yet it allows for that wonderful camera movement where it exits the building and Schofield walks out as flares go off.

No one is like Deakins.

Yeah exactly, they only put it in there so they could have some night/ dark scenes.

[Martoto]

That's the same reason that practically all movies set over the course of one day and night aren't in real time. Why should 1917 be arbitrarily held to some different standard? Because the perspective of the movie is singular but fluid, it cannot also condense time? Experience and recollection of time can be just as subjective as visual perspective.

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Martoto

That's the same reason that practically all movies set over the course of one day and night aren't in real time. Why should 1917 be arbitrarily held to some different standard? Because the perspective of the movie is singular but fluid, it cannot also condense time? Experience and recollection of time can be just as subjective as visual perspective.

Nobody is excusing other movies it's just we are discussing 1917 specifically.

The time jump was jarring for me because it felt like it existed just to have a great looking night scene. Then when he is holed up for a while it's daytime again 5 minutes later and then by the time he arrives at the push its later.

If the whole movie had taken place over a longer time period like a few days it would have been seen as artistic playfulness. But a singular time jump after nearly an hour of real time felt like a cheat to me.

But like I say it's a great film amd it's little more than a nitpick for me.

[Martoto]

"Cheat" implies a rule that's been broken or standard that's not been met. And that you are jarred at the sense that a movie is not following certain arbitrary rules. What is the movie cheating at, exactly?

I think you're just used to a conventionally edited film condensing time between daytime and night-time that you accept it without calling a gap of several hours in the action a "cheat".

I wouldn't call condensing time when the movie is supposed to be from on point of view an easy thing to pull off either. Would have been a lot easier if this wasn't a continuous perspective movie.

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

The time jump was jarring for me because it felt like it existed just to have a great looking night scene. Then when he is holed up for a while it's daytime again 5 minutes later and then by the time he arrives at the push its later.

I think one can say "that's exactly how you would feel if it happened to you"

If you were in battle and got knocked out, you'd be jarred and disoriented. The good thing is, if that's one of your only nitpicks, that means it's a damn fine film.

[BudBaxter]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Oppenheimer was not an IMAX film. It was shot on IMAX. I saw it in an IMAX cinema. But the experience was akin to playing NES Tetris on a 200" projector with Dolby Atmos sound. An indulgent buzz at first. But makes you feel a bit silly and self conscious after half an hour.

Haven't seen it, but what is an IMAX film if not one that was shot in IMAX & shown in an IMAX cinema?

[dvining]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

Nobody is excusing other movies it's just we are discussing 1917 specifically.

The time jump was jarring for me because it felt like it existed just to have a great looking night scene. Then when he is holed up for a while it's daytime again 5 minutes later and then by the time he arrives at the push its later.

If the whole movie had taken place over a longer time period like a few days it would have been seen as artistic playfulness. But a singular time jump after nearly an hour of real time felt like a cheat to me.

But like I say it's a great film amd it's little more than a nitpick for me.

Dawn is a surprisingly short time when you actually go through it.