Unpopular Opinions

[die Frau]

I don't like most "war movies," particularly those set in World War II. Most of them seem to focus on battles scenes, which I find both boring and extremely unplesant to watch. Since it seems that most of these movies would rather focus on battles, the characters end up either being completely devoid of personality or walking clithes (the ones that seem the most stable and adjusted are the most likely to die.) I'm not sure how many times I've had to sit through "Saving Private Ryan," for example, and I still can't even think of most of the characters names (and no, I do not mean James Ryan), let alone anything interesting about them.

 

 

I am tired of books and movies that tell you the story from the villains' perspective so that you can learn they really are the true heroes and have just been misunderstood all this time.

I couldn't agree more! I don't want to sympathize with criminals, thank you.

[bosawks]

I don't like horror movies where evil completely triumphs over good.  I need a little hope when I walk out of the theatre.

[Danny Franks]

 

 

I couldn't agree more! I don't want to sympathize with criminals, thank you.

 

I feel that way too. Which is why I feel so at odds with so much television at the moment. Glorification of vile criminals simply isn't something I care to experience. Even if it is coloured in shades of grey, to make it 'grittier' and more 'real'.

 

I've always been of the view that I need to like characters to be invested in the story being told, no matter the quality of the writing and/or acting. If I don't like any of them, if I don't want to see any of them emerge victorious, then what's the point of watching or reading it at all? And I resent being asked to like serial killers or murderers or drug dealers, just because they're charismatic.

[ribboninthesky1]

I don't like most "war movies," particularly those set in World War II. Most of them seem to focus on battles scenes, which I find both boring and extremely unplesant to watch. Since it seems that most of these movies would rather focus on battles, the characters end up either being completely devoid of personality or walking clithes (the ones that seem the most stable and adjusted are the most likely to die.) I'm not sure how many times I've had to sit through "Saving Private Ryan," for example, and I still can't even think of most of the characters names (and no, I do not mean James Ryan), let alone anything interesting about them.

 

Same. 

 

And it's funny, if an alien were to watch most American cinema in the genre, I suspect they'd believe there were only two major historical wars - WWII being the big one, with Vietnam as the second.  Never you mind those small conflicts such as the Revolutionary War or American Civil War, or the multiple, "irrelevant" conflicts between the US and Native Americans who had the gall to fight "settlers."

 

I'm a wuss, since I can't watch most horror movies at all, not even the satirical ones. *hides face in shame*

[scarynikki12]

I actually like The Dark Knight Rises but I do think Bane was overused.  Nolan should have let the women run the show.  Focus on both the dynamic between Bruce and Selina as well as go into way more detail on the business side with Miranda.  No one who ever read a Batman comic expected Miranda to NOT reveal herself as Talia, so we should have seen more of her professional and personal relationships with Bruce (they could even bond over their lingering grief over their dead fathers), to make her betrayal more devastating for him.  That would contrast Bruce's relationship with Selina, the fact that she got the better of him more than once (which is always my favorite part of their interactions in the comics), and the fact that he's attracted to, and genuinely likes, her in spite of himself.  

 

Bane should have been the threat in the shadows.  His opening scene, the stock market manipulation, breaking Bats' back*, cutting Gotham off from the rest of the world, and his role in the final battle are fine but that should have been it.  No speeches, no participating in Crane's "trials", nothing that put him front and center as the face of the anarchy.  He shows up, causes destruction, and retreats until Talia needs him again.  Then we aren't being asked to see him as the Big Bad until time for the twist.  We'd assume that, because he was the one we were seeing cause destruction, but not in any actual leadership role.  I didn't hate the reveal that he's devoted to Talia, but I wouldn't have done that emotional scene between them when he died.  I'd have Bane get killed instantly in front of her, she gets super pissed, and flips the switch on the Exterminate Gotham bombs (which would not be nuclear by the way).  I'd give Gordon the win with this one, letting him discover and deactivate all of them while Bats and Selina were battling Bane and Talia.  

 

How any of this would work with Bruce faking his death I don't know, unless there's a simple "Here are the dead" announcement and memorial following the battle and Gordon makes sure to add his name so that he can leave.  Then Alfred could be let in on the faking but not know his whereabouts until that scene at the restaurant with Selina.

 

If anyone is going to be making speeches in the wake of Gotham being taken hostage, it really should have been Crane.  Murphy just has too much fun with that role and he ended up serving as judge and jury anyway, so let him go all out.  

 

*I am so in love with that scene.  That was such an epic moment in the comics and I actually cheered in the theater when it happened.

Edited June 4, 2014 by scarynikki12

[Crim]

Nolan should have let the women run the show.

That would never happen in a Nolan movie though. lol.

[Ariah]

Unpopular opinion? 

I actually liked Man of Steel.

 

I disliked the pompous boring spectacle that was Her.

 

I think Scarlett Johansson is not so great and also, I do not dig natalie Portman. The Black Swan - I don't know what critics liked about that one.

[NoWillToResist]

My favourite part about Bane/Batman? Parodies like this.

[ribboninthesky1]

Ha - I watched all of the parodies. "Batman Chooses His Voice" is my favorite.

 

I actually liked Man of Steel.

 

Didn't realize that was unpopular, especially given that it did pretty well at the box office.  In any case, I liked it too.  It has its flaws, as all comic-related films have, but not enough to take me out of the film, had me shaking my head later, or wondering what I just watched.  Unlike, say, the latest Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man film.

[VanillaBear85]

I thought Bane sounded like Mario.

 

It seems most newer movies are 2+ hours, and in most cases, that is not needed. Cut the crap down and make it no longer than 90 minutes.

[Julia]

I'm not a huge fan of Kubrick, and I've never been able to stay awake all the way through 2001.

 

The first two times I slept through it were in theaters when it was first released.

[jennifer6973]

MY UO is that I completely enjoyed the last Indiana Jones movie.

 

 

Also I don't get what people find fascinating about A Christmas Story.  We watched it once on video years ago and thought it was the stupidest thing ever.

Edited June 5, 2014 by jennifer6973

[Jeebus Cripes]

Also I don't get what people find fascinating about A Christmas Story.  We watched it once on video years ago and thought it was the stupidest thing ever.

 

In my experience, it seems like most people who enjoy that film viewed it first as a kid. Some adults that I know who've only seen it recently think it's dumb as hell. I can understand both perspectives. I liked it as a kid, but I have no patience for it now.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Jeebus Cripes

[aradia22]

 

Which brings me to another unpopular opinion - I don't keep score on female-centric vs male-centric films.  I believe in and support telling stories from the female POV, but it's not important to me to see a female counterpoint to every kind of predominantly male-centric film.  For example, I'm not chomping at the bit for a female superhero film, mostly because the characters are as much derived from male fantasy as the male superheroes.  If I'm interested, I'll watch it, and maybe even love it, but not in a "the superhero genre is a sausagefest, time for the wimmins to get some love" kind of way.

I think it's important for us to get a female superhero film/a minority superhero film simply because superhero films dominate so much of the conversation when it comes to movies nowadays and because they generate so much money. These are the movies that everyone is going to see. These are the movies that are shaping the culture and the entertainment industry on a large scale. Thus, if women play a very small role then women are less visible in the cultural landscape. Yes, I know Frozen and The Hunger Games Catching Fire were also big earners but a handful of movies aren't able to stand up to the onslaught of white male protagonist dominated films. 

 

That is part of the reason I don't mind so much if people want to go on and on about Frozen. At least a movie with prominent female characters is a part of the conversation though I still long for the day where there are so many female protagonists in films that we don't have to dissect whether they live up to every single person's ideal of feminism and good female role models, etc. 

 

This isn't exactly an opinion about a movie but I have very little interest in all the superhero movies coming out. I keep up with entertainment news so I can talk to you about all of them but as for seeing them myself...? Eh. I haven't seen a superhero movie since the third Raimi Spiderman film. *pause for gasps of horror*

Oh, and I like The Princess and the Frog more than I like Tangled. I think Tangled skewed quite young. I wish they'd let Zachary Levi sing more, and frankly do more. What up with the random vikings? No. And I really dislike Mandy Moore's speaking and singing voices. She is by far my least favorite Disney princess voice actress (and I can name all of them because I'm a freak). 

 

I enjoyed Frozen when I saw it in the theater though I haven't seen it since. I had little issues with it (weird Pocahontas-style opening chant song, not in love with all the animation, Idina Menzel's voice didn't seem right coming out of Elsa's body, FREAKING ROCK TROLLS) but I enjoyed it more than Tangled and it made me cry. Is it the most perfect feminist movie ever? Nope. But I think they did a lot of things right and I found it quite charming.

[die Frau]

 

In my experience, it seems like most people who enjoy that film viewed it first as a kid. Some adults that I know who've only seen it recently think it's dumb as hell. I can understand both perspectives. I liked it as a kid, but I have no patience for it now.

My husband fits this bill. He did not see A Christmas Story until he was an adult and absolutely hated it. Sometimes I'm surprised I like it, but I think seeing it more times than I can count has something to do with it...

 

Speaking of Christmas movies, I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate Miracle on 34th Street, but I wouldn't say I exactly love it either. I don't like the character of Susan in either movie. She is a mix of both bratty and boring. I think the ending of the first movie is bizarrely rushed and the ending of the second one is cheesy. There are things I like about both movies, but I oddly (to add to my unpopular opinion) probably prefer the version from the 1990s.

 

Another "classic Christmas movie" that I only somewhat like is White Christmas. The characters are okay (although both of the leading men just somehow come off as...I don't know...smug or smarmy or something) but the song and dance numbers are both dull and seemingly endless. Song and dance numbers in a lot of older movies seem (to me) to take away from the plot, rather than add to it.

Edited June 5, 2014 by die Frau

[NoWillToResist]

 

It seems most newer movies are 2+ hours, and in most cases, that is not needed. Cut the crap down and make it no longer than 90 minutes.

 

On the one hand, I feel like I might get more 'bang for my buck' if the movie is longer. However, sadly, most movies seem to only have have enough material for about 90 minutes and the remainder is filler or a budget-blowing waste of extra-long fight sequences. I've noticed this more and more with many of the comic movies. They muddle along well enough but once they get to the 'final' battle sequence, that shit is 45 minutes long and I either get bored or feel exhausted (and not in a good way) by the end. If I start grumping "get a fucking editor, already", you're doing something wrong.

 

I particularly hate fight sequences (real or CGI) where the action is utterly incomprehensible due to speed, shaky cam, poor editing, or shitty CGI effects. If I can't tell what the fuck is happening and to whom it's happening, you are wasting my time and your money. I've lost count of the number of times, I just completely disengage from a film and sit back in a huff because all I'm witnessing is just a cacophony of fighting noise with no emotional investment from me since I can't even tell who's fighting. Or, the scene just drags on SO. FUCKING. LONG that I no longer care who wins or loses...I just want it to end.

[aradia22]

I generally zone out during fight sequences unless there's a really good reason we (the audience) hate that guy (I find it hard to care if it's just a mook) or the fight choreography is almost like dancing. Which is why I have a higher tolerance for martial arts that just... punching. I also hate the shaky cam and poor editing (it's annoying when you get the sense that they're hiding poor fight choreography and it's annoying when you realize they're ruining a well-choreographed fight because they're just incompetent). But I generally have way more problems with action movies than I do with say... rom-coms. The sensors that are dulled by a silly romantic comedy go on high alert as I grow bored during an action movie. Why is everything so goddamn gray (or else blue and orange high contrast)? Do you really expect me to believe that stick thin starlet leveled that guy with one punch? At least choreograph the fight so I can believe that she would win. Why are the mooks lining up one at a time? WHY?

[ribboninthesky1]

I think it's important for us to get a female superhero film/a minority superhero film simply because superhero films dominate so much of the conversation when it comes to movies nowadays and because they generate so much money. These are the movies that everyone is going to see. These are the movies that are shaping the culture and the entertainment industry on a large scale. Thus, if women play a very small role then women are less visible in the cultural landscape.

 

I get this perspective, but I also believe women in film are visible, quite so, in the cultural landscape.  Superhero films are a genre, and a popular one at the moment - who knows what will happen in the future. But then, I also disagree with equating women and minorities in the cultural film landscape - they're never been equivalent to me.

 

Also I don't get what people find fascinating about A Christmas Story.  We watched it once on video years ago and thought it was the stupidest thing ever.

 

I watched it as a child, and didn't like it then, either.  Thought it was boring as hell, and still do.  But I think it's very common for "classic" films to be valued primarily due to nostalgia.  Speaking of, though I like both the original and remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, I thought Pierce Brosnan made a much better Thomas Crown than Steve McQueen.  But then, I've never been impressed with McQueen in the films I've seen.  I think Faye Dunaway and Rene Russo each brought their own unique qualities to their respective characters, and one isn't better than the other.    

 

I particularly hate fight sequences (real or CGI) where the action is utterly incomprehensible due to speed, shaky cam, poor editing, or shitty CGI effects.

 

But, but, but...it's realistic, don't cha know? Seriously, it's one of the reasons the much-loved Bourne trilogy doesn't hold up for me - the damn action sequences.  The other reason - being meh over Matt Damon. I thought Jeremy Renner did a better job in his relatively ignored Bourne film.

 

[FozzyBear]

We're going to kick it old school folks.

I find the conclusion of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore completely depressing and awful. I basically felt like she sold out her dreams ( and her dreams for her son) AGAIN just to hang around another dead end town because the man in her life said so. I've never been sure of the feminist message I'm supposed to get from that.

I thought Kids was about as realistic and scary as Refer Madness. Ohhhh! The kids today! They all have so much sex! And the AIDS! They all have the AIDS!

I was labeled un-romantic as a teenager because I didn't understand the appeal of Troy in Reality Bites. He's unemployed, uneducated, selfish, lazy, and mean? Sign me up!

I dismissed As Good As It Gets as an average Lifetime movie until it was nominated for every award under the sun. That one still flabbergasts me.

Knocked Up was ok, I guess? Sort of. In a smug, Silverlake-centric, wacky episode of Parenthood kind of way. Ehh, or just really overrated.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I was labeled un-romantic as a teenager because I didn't understand the appeal of Troy in Reality Bites. He's unemployed, uneducated, selfish, lazy, and mean? Sign me up!

 

 

Me, too. In fact, I highly recommend the Nostalgia Chick's review of Reality Bites. It is friggin' priceless.

 

I don't like Woman Under the Influence, because it never addresses that Peter Falk, not Gena Rowlands, is the one with mental problems. Rowlands is awesome, though, can't deny that.

[Mrs. P.]

I dismissed As Good As It Gets as an average Lifetime movie until it was nominated for every award under the sun. That one still flabbergasts me.

Not just nominated - Helen Hunt and Jack Nichoson actually won the leading actor Oscars. I was floored.

[Julia]

I don't like Woman Under the Influence, because it never addresses that Peter Falk, not Gena Rowlands, is the one with mental problems. Rowlands is awesome, though, can't deny that.

 

Wiendish Fitch, Roger Ebert had the same reaction you did.

 

While Mabel is offstage, we see Nick’s own madness, masked by macho self-assurance. Consider the scene where he arrives at his children’s school in a city truck, yanks the kids out of classes and takes them to the beach, where they are instructed to run up and down and have a good time. On the way home, he even lets them sip from his six-pack. Nothing Mabel has done is as crazy as this.

 

So did I. I was really surprised when I googled it just now and found out how many reviewers thought that Falk's character was the stoic, supportive, stable husband.

[Athena]

Like others in this thread, I hated The Dark Knight Rises. It's probably the movie I've disliked the most that I've seen in recent years because I am generally known as a person who likes things, but it bugged me. It even gave me a headache because it was so long, boring and full of plot holes. I didn't really mind the first two movies, but in retrospect, I didn't think it was a good trilogy. I loved Batman growing up so I felt Nolan ruined a lot of the characters. I like Michael Caine, but I didn't think Alfread would ever give up on Bruce like that or Bruce would ever become such a prick. On a positive note, I liked JGL and Gary Oldman in it.

 

I really liked Meet Joe Black. I was just thinking the other week that I should rewatch it. Also, I love Sliding Doors but I didn't know that was unpopular opinion. I rewatch it every year. It's the only Paltrow movie I like because I can't stand her acting wise or whatever antics she has going on personally.

 

I still like Forrest Gump. I think it was the first time I really saw Tom Hanks, and I still adore him! 

[spaceytraci1208]

My favorite musical number in Chicago was "Mr. Cellophane"...John C. Reilly was wonderful in that part and he has a beautiful voice

 

[Amethyst]

I was labeled un-romantic as a teenager because I didn't understand the appeal of Troy in Reality Bites. He's unemployed, uneducated, selfish, lazy, and mean? Sign me up!

 

IMO, Reality Bites is the perfect example of a movie that doesn't hold up well over time.  You have a lazy, broke ass slob like Troy who happily plays mind games with Lelaina, while Michael is vilified because he actually has a job (he's a "corporate sellout" naturally) and screws up Lelaina's documentary.  Although I hesitate to call it a documentary, rather just Lelaina playing with a camera.

 

I hated these critical darlings:  

 

No Country for Old Men (so boring)

Stranger than Fiction (awful characters)

Being John Malkovich (boring and awful characters)

[ramble]

Totally agree about No Country for Old Men. It bored me to pieces.

Mel Gibson's Apocalypto caused me to quit dating a guy. Spoken in Mayan with subtitles it was brutal & uninteresting to me. It was a little more than 2 hours long, but it felt like it was 20. The guy raved about the movie & the first time I went over to hang out at his place he couldn't wait to have me watch it. I think I dozed off a time or two. After it was over he wanted to discuss it in detail & when it was obvious I was falling down in the detail department he suggested we watch it again. Right then. Pass & pass on you too dude. He was clueless about how it was possible when I tried to explain that it didn't appeal to me. In a nice way of bringing it fill circle he loved No Country for Old Men & texted to suggest I see it even if I didn't want to watch it with him.

[aradia22]

 

Stranger than Fiction (awful characters)

Was it a critical darling? I think I caught it once on HBO. It seemed like this fine quirky little movie but nothing special. There's something a little sterile and cold about it and I never got into the characters because they were a big bag of tropes but I think that was the point. 

[Jeebus Cripes]

I particularly hate fight sequences (real or CGI) where the action is utterly incomprehensible due to speed, shaky cam, poor editing, or shitty CGI effects. If I can't tell what the fuck is happening and to whom it's happening, you are wasting my time and your money. I've lost count of the number of times, I just completely disengage from a film and sit back in a huff because all I'm witnessing is just a cacophony of fighting noise with no emotional investment from me since I can't even tell who's fighting. Or, the scene just drags on SO. FUCKING. LONG that I no longer care who wins or loses...I just want it to end.

 

Testify! For the life of me, I can't understand why this has become a trend in cinema. It's the fucking worst. 

 

Totally agree about No Country for Old Men. It bored me to pieces.

 

I had the hardest time watching that movie. I found not one character engaging or entertaining at all, and I kept waiting for it to get good. Waste of time.

[Shannon L.]

Wow, lot's of posts over the past few days.  I've been in Hawaii on vacation for the past week, so I have some catching up to do.

 

 

Totally agree about No Country for Old Men. It bored me to pieces.

I'll go a step farther:  The only Cohen brothers' film I've enjoyed was True Grit and that was a remake.  I couldn't make it through enough of the movies that I tried to watch, that I no longer even try.  I don't get what's so great about them.  At. All. Some cute moments, sure, but their movies as a whole?  Yawn. 

 

Same goes for Woody Allen movies.  No, I haven't seen Annie Hall and I probably will never see it.  The only two movies of his that I liked were Purple Rose of Cairo and Midnight in Paris--and he wasn't in either one of them.  Hrmm....maybe there's something to that.  I should check out other movies by Woody that he's not in.....

[Pickles Aplenty]

I love Titanic.  Yes, I know the true stories were sadder Than the Ballad of Jack and Rose, but Leo and Kate worked so well together I can look past the cheesy romance and enjoy it for what it is.  Also, the clothes and sets are spectacular, and it has Kathy Bates.  A flawed movie, but a highly entertaining one.

 

I don't give a dusty fuck about superhero movies; to me, they are all repetitive and boring and completely lifeless.  The last one I enjoyed was the first Tim Burton Batman movie.  Oh, that reminds me- I think Jack Nicholson's Joker is superior to Heath Ledger's.  Ledger did a great job, but you can tell Nicholson had a blast with that part, and it's so much fun to watch him.  Ledger's performance just makes me want to take a shower.

 

I don't think Andie from Pretty In Pink is likable; in fact, I think she is a straight-up asshole.  Telling Duckie she "secretly loves it" when he acts all gaga for her and then shunning him in public is super shitty, and she doesn't feel the least bit conflicted about it.  Oh, and cutting up her friend's prom dress without permission to make some shapeless sack is shitty, too.  What a terrible, self-centered character.

[galax-arena]

I also believe women in film are visible, quite so, in the cultural landscape.

Considering how many films tend to fail the Bechdel Test, I'm not convinced that this is true.

 

Obligatory disclaimer: No, the Bechdel Test is not and has never been meant as the ultimate arbiter on whether a specific individual film is feminist or not. It's meant to track general trends and patterns: When so many films fail what on the surface sounds like a pretty easy test to pass, that says something. Especially when you think about how many movies would pass the reverse Bechdel Test quite easily.

[ribboninthesky1]

I'll check myself on this as well, making sure I don't do this moving forward - I hope this thread doesn't turn into a "I don't like X because of Y" vs "I don't like Y because of X" thread. I imagine it can be tough to gauge what's truly unpopular at times, but I hope this remains a relatively good space to voice unpopular opinions.  My opinions regarding women in film (particularly as a woman) are unpopular, and I own that, but to be clear: I'm clueless of feminism, the history of women in film, and I've never stated that there is a utopia regarding women in film.  In any case, I'll not derail further.

 

Same goes for Woody Allen movies.  No, I haven't seen Annie Hall and I probably will never see it.  The only two movies of his that I liked were Purple Rose of Cairo and Midnight in Paris--and he wasn't in either one of them.  Hrmm....maybe there's something to that.  I should check out other movies by Woody that he's not in.....

 

Not a Woody Allen fan, either. I liked Match Point well enough, but that's about it.

[Amethyst]

Was it a critical darling? I think I caught it once on HBO. It seemed like this fine quirky little movie but nothing special. There's something a little sterile and cold about it and I never got into the characters because they were a big bag of tropes but I think that was the point.

 

I thought it was because it got a lot of positive reviews, especially for Will Ferrell, since this was his first dramatic role.  Most people I know loved it.  But I found the characters to be self-righteous and annoying, especially Maggie Gyllenhaal's.

[Ohwell]

I have never liked the venerable Tom Hanks.

 

I have never thought that George Clooney was all that handsome; he's just ok.

[FozzyBear]

I have never liked the venerable Tom Hanks.

I have never thought that George Clooney was all that handsome; he's just ok.

I love me some Clooney, but I never get the appeal of Jude Law. I actually think he's sort of fugly, plus I never got over the hyper skeevey vibe he and Sienna Miller put out there.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

TO THIS DAY, the end of Thelma and Louise sends me into rage mode.

[Bastet]

Thelma & Louise is one of my favorite films, and I know it verbatim, but every time I watch it the end puts me into such a mood.  Two men would not have had to end that way.

[BizBuzz]

I have pretty much stayed out of this thread, well, because I usually don't really care if my opinion is unpopular or not.

 

::giggle::

 

But someone upthread mentioned Woody Allen, and I guess I pretty much do have an unpopular opinion.

 

I have loved anything Woody Allen has ever done (writing or acting), and sometimes that bothers me a little.  :)

 

I have loved him better honestly if he writes something rather than writing/starring in it, because I don't normally like him as an actor.  But as a writer, I am always thrilled with him.

 

It also seems to me that some actors/actresses (Owen Wilson, Diane Keaton, Dianne Wiest) seem to really FIT into his way of writing, and I enjoy watching.  Even his more dark stuff (omg, anyone see Interiors?) leaves one to wonder where his writing chops come from some times.

 

Also, someone upthread mentioned George Clooney? I never understood the draw.  But I have to admit, the older he gets, the more I am drawn to him.  This man is aging very nicely.  ::giggle::

[Jeebus Cripes]

I don't think Andie from Pretty In Pink is likable; in fact, I think she is a straight-up asshole.  Telling Duckie she "secretly loves it" when he acts all gaga for her and then shunning him in public is super shitty, and she doesn't feel the least bit conflicted about it.  Oh, and cutting up her friend's prom dress without permission to make some shapeless sack is shitty, too.  What a terrible, self-centered character.

 

When does she tell Duckie she "secretly loves" his obsessing over her? I don't remember that scene. I don't really hate the Andie character, but I don't like Blane. He's bland and unappealing as a character. I would never have gone out with him more than once. It kind of surprises me that the majority of fans pushed for that ending.

[GreekGeek]

My favorite musical number in Chicago was "Mr. Cellophane"...John C. Reilly was wonderful in that part and he has a beautiful voice

 

I agree! Making him into a baggy-pants clown for that number was a stroke of genius.

Regarding that same movie--To me, its big flaw was that I just couldn't buy Renee Zellwegger (sp.?) as an ingenue who has the whole town of Chicago at her feet. Zellwegger, to me, is OK when she's not supposed to be particularly hot--as in Bridget Jones's Diary or the love interest in Jerry Maguire. (I haven't seen Cold Mountain, but she looked downright frumpy and sexless in the snippets and photos I've seen.) But when she's supposed to be devastatingly sexy--nope.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I have never, ever, ever understood the appeal of Jennifer Aniston. She's not particularly talented, has the charisma of a popsicle stick, and I see better looking women working at the mall. Normally I'm thrilled when women over the age of 40 continue to get work in Hollywood… but why Aniston instead of someone else?

 

I've never found George Clooney attractive. Smugness is a big turnoff for me.

[Danny Franks]

I have never, ever, ever understood the appeal of Jennifer Aniston. She's not particularly talented, has the charisma of a popsicle stick, and I see better looking women working at the mall. Normally I'm thrilled when women over the age of 40 continue to get work in Hollywood… but why Aniston instead of someone else?

 

 

It's weird. Rachel was always my favourite of the Friends girls, and I thought Jennifer Aniston was very funny, but I've never, ever felt inclined to watch any movie that she's been in. Not because they're mostly romcoms, but because I just see her name in the cast list and think, 'meh'.

 

Zellwegger, to me, is OK when she's not supposed to be particularly hot--as in Bridget Jones's Diary or the love interest in Jerry Maguire. (I haven't seen Cold Mountain, but she looked downright frumpy and sexless in the snippets and photos I've seen.) But when she's supposed to be devastatingly sexy--nope.

 

 

She was very sexy in Empire Records, I think. More in a trashy sort of way, but it worked for me. She's another one who, like Jennifer Aniston, never rouses my interest when I see she's appearing in a new movie. I've actually decided not to bother watching some movies that intrigued me, because she was one of the leads.

 

They're the absolute opposite of women like Emily Blunt and Emma Stone, who have brought me to movies I'd never otherwise watch, just because they're in them. I find it curious how decisions are made in Hollywood to make some people stars and some people not. Granted, Blunt and Stone are becoming stars, and have oodles of charisma and charm to go with their looks, but there are so many women who I just find utterly bland and dreary, yet they're presented as potential America's Sweethearts.

[Athena]

It's weird. Rachel was always my favourite of the Friends girls, and I thought Jennifer Aniston was very funny, but I've never, ever felt inclined to watch any movie that she's been in. Not because they're mostly romcoms, but because I just see her name in the cast list and think, 'meh'.

 

 

She was very sexy in Empire Records, I think. More in a trashy sort of way, but it worked for me. She's another one who, like Jennifer Aniston, never rouses my interest when I see she's appearing in a new movie. I've actually decided not to bother watching some movies that intrigued me, because she was one of the leads.

 

They're the absolute opposite of women like Emily Blunt and Emma Stone, who have brought me to movies I'd never otherwise watch, just because they're in them. I find it curious how decisions are made in Hollywood to make some people stars and some people not. Granted, Blunt and Stone are becoming stars, and have oodles of charisma and charm to go with their looks, but there are so many women who I just find utterly bland and dreary, yet they're presented as potential America's Sweethearts.

 

Aniston garnered a lot of favour off "Friends". It was the biggest sitcom of its time, and she has done the best out of any female TV sitcom star transitioning to movies. Her rise is exceptional and not the norm. Most of her movies do not do super well, but a lot of them haven't tanked either. I think Aniston stayed relevant due to the Pitt-Jolie affair and for a long time she was the maligned woman. That with her Rachel status gave her a lot of sympathy and fans who in turn, support her at the box office.

 

I find her very bland at the worse of times and choose not to watch her films. I do admit she can be funny and she had a decent dramatic turn in The Good Girl.

[aradia22]

 

Regarding that same movie--To me, its big flaw was that I just couldn't buy Renee Zellwegger (sp.?) as an ingenue who has the whole town of Chicago at her feet.

Admittedly when I first saw the movie I thought she was one of the weakest parts. Although the original cast didn't have the best singers, I'm told (not being old enough to have seen them) that they were great dancers. However, I buy her in the role. The fantasy sequences are fine because they're just in her head. And as for the reality, I don't think she needed to be gorgeous. The story is more about celebrity. I'll bet there were tons of passably pretty girls getting attention like that. She didn't need to be beautiful. She just needed to be a pretty girl playing up a story that captured the public's interest. There are plenty of women today, both victims and criminals, who capture the public's attention in a similar fashion.

[Pickles Aplenty]

 

When does she tell Duckie she "secretly loves" his obsessing over her? I don't remember that scene.

It's the scene where they're studying in her room, and she presses her forehead against his.  She says, "Even if I sometimes get angry, you know that I secretly love it."  Ugh.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Billina

[Lazlo]

I think I'm the only straight guy who doesn't find Jennifer Aniston sexy and never did - I always thought Courtney Cox was far sexier on "Friends".  Nor do I find her particularly charismatic.

[FozzyBear]

I have never, ever, ever understood the appeal of Jennifer Aniston. She's not particularly talented, has the charisma of a popsicle stick, and I see better looking women working at the mall. Normally I'm thrilled when women over the age of 40 continue to get work in Hollywood… but why Aniston instead of someone else?

I've never found George Clooney attractive. Smugness is a big turnoff for me.

I don't get it either. I mean, it's not like Kristen Stewart level where I snickered every time someone referred to her as the fairest in Snow White and the Huntsmen, but I still don't get it. She's really average to me, bordering on plain. Nothing wrong with how she looks, but outside of being in really good shape I don't know if I'd even notice her walking down the street.

[Bastet]

Oh, you'd notice her if her body looks remotely like it did during Friends, because that "really good shape" on screen is positively skeletal-looking in real life.  I used to see the cast frequently because of where I worked at the time, and Jennifer Aniston and Courteney Cox were freakishly skinny, even in Hollywood. 

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Kristen Stewart looked stoned to me, most of the time.

 

Aniston is over 40 , still getting roles in big budget comedies mostly due to a tv character.

 

She stopped playing a decade ago.

 

Never loved or hated her, nor can I knock her hustle.

[Ohwell]

I liked most of Woody Allen's movies, especially those without him in it.  Match Point is one of my favorites.  His personal life is none of my "bidness," as Letterman would say.   

 

I never saw the appeal of Jennifer Aniston; she always gave off a vibe of coldness to me.  She might be sweet, warm, and loveable for all know, but that's how she comes off in public.  I agree she was good in The Good Girl though, probably the best thing she's done.  Related to her (heh) I like Brad and Angelina.  Now, I don't know if Angie "broke up" the marriage and I don't care.  All I know is that I got sick of Aniston getting the "maligned woman" treatment.  I just wish Angelina would eat a few cheeseburgers, but I guess Brad likes 'em slim.