Unpopular Movie Opinions: Part III

[Batman1980]

There are people on this very forum who wouldn't fall under the definition of a film critic who have good taste.

[Mikezilla3k]

Originally Posted by Darthvaderrocks

I thought it was mediocre, boring, overstuffed, characters were not as accurate as the comics, Hela was an one-dimensional villain and i really did not like how Hulk was portrayed.

As one who thinks Ragnarok is overrated, I actually thought Hulk was one of the best parts of the film.

Way better than whatever the hell was in Endgame.

[Mikezilla3k]

Originally Posted by kylor

I actually agree with that. 2003's Daredevil is a solid film, and also underrated!

5.3/10 IMDb
44% Rotten Tomatoes
42% Metacritic

Man, critics just can't get their crap together.

Well, to be fair, they only saw the crappy theatrical cut.

[Mothravka]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Yes, I like Demons, too.

You are thinking about the wrong film, we are talking about Demons (1971) by Matsumoto.

[Darthvaderrocks]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Some people feel that way.



I don't think about Batman that much.



Only critics have good taste.

https://visionaryorhack.com/hacks/wh...a-hack-a-hack/

That really doesn't explain, how you managed to like something like 300 (I'd avoid not going into details) which is totally not accurate, or something as poorly written and filmed as BvS. Probably because Nolan's name was attached to Inception, Dunkirk or Prestige.

Because there's no way, someone unbiased would prefer the first two over these three films.

Nope, and i wouldn't say they are right 100% but one thing is sure: most of them are impartial.

Originally Posted by Mikezilla3k

As one who thinks Ragnarok is overrated, I actually thought Hulk was one of the best parts of the film.

Way better than whatever the hell was in Endgame.

Hulk 03, and Incredible Hulk are the ones which i consider good portrayals.

I prefer the darker skin, or more serious version than the joking ones.

[Gizz]

I watched the 50s version of The War of the World's and for me it is still better then the Steven Spielberg 2005 version.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Darthvaderrocks

That really doesn't explain, how you managed to like something like 300

It doesn't need an explanation.

(I'd avoid not going into details)

???

which is totally not accurate

What's not accurate?

or something as poorly written and filmed as BvS.

It's just a superhero film. I'm not expecting high art.

Probably because Nolan's name was attached to Inception, Dunkirk or Prestige.

They bored me.

Because there's no way, someone unbiased would prefer the first two over these three films.

It's just a difference of taste. There's no right or wrong.

Nope, and i wouldn't say they are right 100% but one thing is sure: most of them are impartial.

Impartial like Gene Siskel? A man that hated horror films so much he actually gave out the home address of an actor that starred in one.

All critics are people, and all people have biases.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Gizz

I watched the 50s version of The War of the World's and for me it is still better then the Steven Spielberg 2005 version.

Way better.

[Darthvaderrocks]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

It doesn't need an explanation.



???



What's not accurate?



It's just a superhero film. I'm not expecting high art.



They bored me.



It's just a difference of taste. There's no right or wrong.



Impartial like Gene Siskel? A man that hated horror films so much he actually gave out the home address of an actor that starred in one.

All critics are people, and all people have biases.

Yeah, because there's no one....

300 is an abomination and it's pretty much wrong in the political side.

The good guys are one of the most racist and warmongering peoples in history. Making the Spartans pass for the good, just to celebrate the warrior myth of this polis is, as I say, fascist and conservative.

If we want to talk about quality then it is worse. Unwanted overrides, fast shoots that don't make you understand anything, wrong slow motion scenes because speeding up the action but slowing down the effect while in the cinema to have an effect you would have to slow down the action and enhance the effect, or quite the opposite, all computer graphics and you can see, without any narrative contextualization, it believes to be a serious film and instead it is edgy and the edgy works when it is wanted and not involuntary, the plot does not exist, the photography is glossy and cleaned up as in a low quality videogame, all saturated red with no structure that seems to be on mars instead of greece, acting neither natural cinematic nor over the top theatrical but totally useless, direction chosen at random during editing but must I continue?

Ok, tastes, however, you don't even need to have films like a lot of people to understand certain wrong and unwanted things. Then let's add the wrong social and historical messages that are there for me and we complete the story, this film has no merit except that it made me laugh out loud and even more than studies let me understand how you don't make a film.

Ah and I haven't talked about the dialogues !!!! I don't pronounce myself because I write war and peace on the dialogue, in comparison Bay looks like Eastwood..

Battle of Thermopylae didn't play out that way. In historical reality, if I'm not mistaken, they weren't any cripples: so that is precisely Miller's sack flour.

After all in the film the idea is given that Leonidas and his people went there to defeat the enemies and in fact it seems that they succeed, but the story is totally different (and modestly more epic): Leonidas and co went there only to hold back the most possible the enemies, perfectly aware from the first day that they would die.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....h-masterpiece/

Full of plot holes, lazy character motivations, bad directing etc.

Better screenplay, directing, technical aspects, soundtrack. There's a reason why they are interesting films filled with depth, texture and iconic scenes. Preconceived notions strikes again

There is a difference between even a Snyder film and a film directed by Edgar Wright and it's very noticeable.

He's impartial. For sure he studied this stuff and knows what he's talking about, he might have made an exception sometime but for sure I trust Ebert's words..

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Darthvaderrocks

Yeah, because there isn't one...

Then why ask?

300 is an abomination and it's pretty much wrong in the political side.

[Show spoiler]The good guys are one of the most racist and warmongering peoples in history. Making the Spartans pass for the good, just to celebrate the warrior myth of this polis is, as I say, fascist and conservative.

If we want to talk about quality then it is worse. Unwanted overrides, fast shoots that don't make you understand anything, wrong slow motion scenes because speeding up the action but slowing down the effect while in the cinema to have an effect you would have to slow down the action and enhance the effect, or quite the opposite, all computer graphics and you can see, without any narrative contextualization, it believes to be a serious film and instead it is edgy and the edgy works when it is wanted and not involuntary, the plot does not exist, the photography is glossy and cleaned up as in a low quality videogame, all saturated red with no structure that seems to be on mars instead of greece, acting neither natural cinematic nor over the top theatrical but totally useless, direction chosen at random during editing but must I continue?

Ok, tastes, however, you don't even need to have films like a lot of people to understand certain wrong and unwanted things. Then let's add the wrong social and historical messages that are there for me and we complete the story, this film has no merit except that it made me laugh out loud and even more than studies let me understand how you don't make a film.

Ah and I haven't talked about the dialogues !!!! I don't pronounce myself because I write war and peace on the dialogue, in comparison Bay looks like Eastwood..

Battle of Thermopylae didn't play out that way. In historical reality, if I'm not mistaken, they weren't any cripples: so that is precisely Miller's sack flour.

After all in the film the idea is given that Leonidas and his people went there to defeat the enemies and in fact it seems that they succeed, but the story is totally different (and modestly more epic): Leonidas and co went there only to hold back the most possible the enemies, perfectly aware from the first day that they would die.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....h-masterpiece/

Full of plot holes, lazy character motivations, bad directing etc.

Better screenplay, directing, technical aspects, soundtrack. There's a reason why they are interesting films filled with depth, texture and iconic scenes. Preconceived notions strikes again

There is a difference between even a Snyder film and a film directed by Edgar Wright and it's very noticeable.

When did I say I was a big fan of 300? I watched it once back in 2007.

He's impartial.

Did you know the man?

For sure he studied this stuff and knows what he's talking about, he might have made an exception sometime but for sure I trust Ebert's words..

They both loved Speed 2. They're just people.

[Foggy]

Imagine getting bent out of shape at both a) something that happened over 2000 years ago and b) someone about a film they haven’t even talked about or even particularly rate in either direction.

[Darthvaderrocks]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Then why ask?




When did I say I was a big fan of 300? I watched it once back in 2007.



Did you know the man?



They both loved Speed 2. They're just people.

I mean, preconceived notions based on the fact you loved the 5 Batman films and hated TDKR, BB, TDK. It's fine.

When did i try to change your or someone opinion? Never. All I said are the evident flaws and themes of Snyder's films. I really don't see how some people can't see his heavy handled (and political) "messages".

I'm just questioning how someone can find Snyder's films to be well directed (there is a difference between a good film and a fun film, I think predator 2 isn’t well directed but its fun and I like it)

No. But his reputation speak for himself

They did give a reason why they liked it, and still that doesn’t undermine years of competence, years of publications and reviews under their belt.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Imagine getting bent out of shape at both a) something that happened over 2000 years ago and b) someone about a film they haven’t even talked about or even particularly rate in either direction.

Check this;

https://fakegeekboy.wordpress.com/20...fascist-filth/

It is my fault that the film is bad and i despised it?

[Foggy]

Fakegeekboy.wordpress...yikes.

[Darthvaderrocks]

https://www.theguardian.com/film/fil...erouspieceoffa

Is a review from the guardian (official critics) more reliable to you?

What matters is the content, keep in mind that many observations have been made on the content of 300.

Also, I never knew you were a Zack Snyder fan.

[Foggy]

I’m not. I just don’t really understand wasting time on things you don’t like.

[Darthvaderrocks]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I’m not. I just don’t really understand wasting time on things I don’t like.

Atleast, I give a proper motivation why i heavily dislike that film (or his films in general).

What I asked is how someone could consider him a competent director or 300 an accurate film. Personal preferences and tastes are sacred, so I just asked how...

[Foggy]

300 isn’t an accurate film, it literally has a dude with a goat head in it.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Darthvaderrocks

I mean, preconceived notions based on the fact you loved the 5 Batman films and hated TDKR, BB, TDK. It's fine.

Hate is a strong word. I'm pretty indifferent to them.

When did i try to change your or someone opinion? Never. All I said are the evident flaws and themes of Snyder's films. I really don't see how some people can't see his heavy handled (and political) "messages".

Who says we don't see it?

I'm just questioning how someone can find Snyder's films to be well directed (there is a difference between a good film and a fun film

Why do I like Lynch and you don't? Why do you like Nolan and I don't?

It's just differences in taste.

No. But his reputation speaks for himself

It sure does.

They did give a reason why they liked it, and still that doesn’t undermine years of competence, years of publications and reviews under their belt.

Critic reviews are just another form of entertainment. They can be fun to read/watch, but it doesn't really mean much to me.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Fakegeekboy.wordpress...yikes.

Sounds legit.

[Blu Lemmy]

Originally Posted by Darthvaderrocks

To all ones who like Zack Snyder: WHY???

What can you like about a director who totally misunderstands comic book characters, and can't direct or edit well his films?

I'm interested in knowing what you guys find interesting about the hack films.

Even Micheal Bay is far superior to him.

The Rock and Transformers are better than anything the latter has ever done.

So your opinions are fine, but you NEED everyone else to justify why they like a film or director.

Why cant you just do one and leave the adults to talk?