Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Shannon L.

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

Val Kilmer is is my favourite Batman and Batman Forever is my favourite of all the Batman movies.

Objectively speaking, maybe it wasn't the best of them, but it was the one I enjoyed most of all.

 

I liked Kilmer's Batman too.

 

 

Agreed. Enjoyed the movie and Kilmer in it. Thought he was a good Batman.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't know if I am alone in this, but Kilmer in anything, yes, from Top Secret to Real Genius, Top Gun, Willow, Batman, The Doors, Tombstone (OMG), The Saint, At First Sight ... even the voices he has done on animated stuff.  I just like him. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really like Julia Roberts. I've never paid money to see one of her movies. I don't know what it is. I just saw August Osage County and wow, that was just depressing. Even my beloved Meryl Streep couldn't save it for me.

 

Also UO, I think I only like Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock everything else underwhelms me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

No interest whatsoever in Batman or any other comic book hero movie franchise.

 

Same here; I've never had any interest in those franchises as comics, cartoons or now films.  I'm pretty sure the last one I saw was Superman (with Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder), and that was only because a friend wanted to.

 

I understand these movies do big business and the franchises have devoted followings and thus who plays these characters is A Big Deal, but my person reaction is a resounding "Eh, whatever." 

Edited by Bastet
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Also UO, I think I only like Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock everything else underwhelms me.

 

*In very tiny voice* I don't think much of him at all. I don't dislike him, but his appeal is totally lost on me. Is there a Witness Protection Program to hide me from the Cumberbitches?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

*In very tiny voice* I don't think much of him at all. I don't dislike him, but his appeal is totally lost on me. Is there a Witness Protection Program to hide me from the Cumberbitches?

 

If you find it let me know so I can join you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I might be able to top that: I had to go look him up on IMDb, as I have no idea who he is (no wonder; I haven't seen anything listed in his credits).

Share this post


Link to post

I really like Cumberbatch as an actor, but I admit I do not find him attractive. Dude looks like Voldemort to me.

 

I also cannot get the appeal of Jennifer Aniston. She's not that pretty, not that talented, has the charisma of sand, what am I missing?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

One of my friends is obsessed with Benedict Cumberbatch and she is obsessed. I can't remember that his name isn't actually Benedict Cumberbitch half the time. Whoever remarked that he gives otter realness was speaking the truth.

My UO is this: I dislike shows that need to get dark and twisty at all times. I looked Suits in its first season and then it took a turn and I didn't care anymore. Sometimes trying to add depth to a show/characters doesn't work and shouldn't be done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I also cannot get the appeal of Jennifer Aniston.

I think the main reason--maybe the only reason--she's gotten work is that she'll always get sympathy for being the wronged wife. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

*In very tiny voice* I don't think much of him at all. I don't dislike him, but his appeal is totally lost on me. Is there a Witness Protection Program to hide me from the Cumberbitches?

 

 

If you find it let me know so I can join you.

If there's 3 of us, is it officially a club?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the main reason--maybe the only reason--she's gotten work is that she'll always get sympathy for being the wronged wife. 

I honestly believe that's the sole reason she had any kind of film career after 2005. That was the year all that happened, right? Right after Friends ended. I could see her appeal as Rachel on Friends, but to me she's never been good in any movie except The Good Girl. And I truly believe she had so much sympathy from the general public and the media after the whole scandal that she milked it into the longest possible career of one stupid movie after another.

 

Of course, on the other side of it, I also believe Angelina Jolie's career and fame skyrocketed as a direct result of that scandal too, since her taste in movies never improved either. Both of those women benefited professionally from that whole thing.

Edited by ruby24

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to join the anti-Cumberbatch club. Dude looks like a stretched out cat and I have yet to be impressed by his acting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am not a Cumberbiatch, however, he is on my phone, so I look at him many times during the day.  :;giggle::

 

My Mom asked me once, why is HE on your phone?  He isn't cute.  I was like, it's not about the physical, he has charisma.

 

And, he is a REALLY nice guy.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't find Cumberbatch attractive, but he does give a good interview. Since so many actors come across as slightly...vapid (not meant as an insult, more in a 'just not much there' way) I appreciate a guy who's witty and sharp. 

 

UO: I don't get Shailene Woodley, who Vulture and other media sites have been trying to make happen for a while now. I'm sure she's down to earth and nice and everything but her vegan/gaia/hippie shtick just makes me roll my eyes so hard. Also, I find her competent but pretty bland as an actress.

 

That said I also never got all the hoopla about Jennifer Lawrence, who is perfectly fine as an actress, even very good if the role allows it, but OMG the best young actress out there? Nah (her Mystique is pretty bad IMO, which is partly the writing but also partly that Lawrence is just utterly miscast in the role). Also, Emmanuelle Riva was robbed. That role was so much more interesting and required much more subtle acting than Tiffany, which just seemed very oscar-baity from the second she had that long diner rant.

Edited by KatWay
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to join the anti-Cumberbatch club. Dude looks like a stretched out cat and I have yet to be impressed by his acting.

LMAO!

 

I've never heard it put quite that way, but it so fits. As opposed to Penelope Cruz, who some people seem to think is so beautiful, but I think looks like someone squished her face and it stuck that way.

Share this post


Link to post

You are not alone, BizBuzz. Note the icon. I always enjoy Kilmer, especially in Tombstone.

I discovered a couple weeks ago that my love for this movie rests very heavily on Val Kilmer's performance alone...most everyone else except for Sam Elliot annoyed me

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to join the anti-Cumberbatch club. Dude looks like a stretched out cat and I have yet to be impressed by his acting.

 

This description is amazingly spot-on.  I do like his voice, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a UO, or at least one that is unpopular among fellow fans of classic cinema: I kind of, sort of like the '90s remake of Father of the Bride better than the 1950 original. And that stuns me, because the original was written by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, whom I adore (for The Thin Man and so much more). And, of course, stars Spencer Tracy, Elizabeth Taylor and Joan Bennett. Directed by Vincente Minnelli. The remake shouldn't have stood a chance, and in fact I almost didn't watch it. But there's something about it that charms me, even slightly more than the original. Maybe it's just updated enough, but with a fundamentally classic feel. I can't explain why it edges out the original, but it does, at least in terms of rewatchability -- if the original is on TCM while I'm going around the dial, I may stop and watch depending on what else is on. But if someone is airing the remake, I will stop and watch every time.

I think it's Steve Martin. He's so adorably bumbling in the movie. Spencer Tracy just doesn't have that same kind of charm.

Not that the original isn't just as good, but I do agree that I would do the same as u.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I've never thought much of the golden age of film - some movies I like, some I don't.  Very much like the present.  The one thing I can appreciate is that films of the era were targeted towards adults, which is a marked contrast to many films of today. Of course, based on when and where I grew up, going to the movies was an adult rather than a family activity.  I don't remember going to the movies before my early teens, and even then, it was with my friends, not family. 

Share this post


Link to post


I honestly believe that's the sole reason she had any kind of film career after 2005. That was the year all that happened, right? Right after Friends ended. I could see her appeal as Rachel on Friends, but to me she's never been good in any movie except The Good Girl. And I truly believe she had so much sympathy from the general public and the media after the whole scandal that she milked it into the longest possible career of one stupid movie after another.

Of course, on the other side of it, I also believe Angelina Jolie's career and fame skyrocketed as a direct result of that scandal too, since her taste in movies never improved either. Both of those women benefited professionally from that whole thing.


I agree w/u regarding Aniston. She's a terrible actress, and makes boring, low grade movies

But I respectfully disagree re Angelina Jolie. She's looking for stories . Yes, not all of them are good, but at least she diversifies. No rom-com for Angelina.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree w/u regarding Aniston. She's a terrible actress, and makes boring, low grade movies

But I respectfully disagree re Angelina Jolie. She's looking for stories . Yes, not all of them are good, but at least she diversifies. No rom-com for Angelina.

Yeah, that's because she's terrible at them. Did you ever see Life or Something Like It? One of the worst movies I ever saw in a theater, and that's because it was painful to watch her attempt to be funny. Angelina Jolie has zero sense of humor. It'd be nice if her choice of movies in other genres were any good either, but unfortunately not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure if this is an unpopular question or if this is the place for it, but I'll give it a shot.

 

Supposedly, there is going to be a live action Gargoyles movie. Yes, the one based on the Disney 'toon series from the 90s. My Unpopular opinion is this: WHY does it have to be live-action? WHY can't it be an animated movie? I don't WANT a live action version. I want an ANIMATED one, and no, no Pixar or its oomparable counterpart, thankyouverymuch.  It would be so so nice if they could get all the original voice actors to reprise their roles too.

 

But I'm not allowed to have nice things. If I were, then someone OTHER than Ben Affleck would be playing Batman, and it would be Man of Steel II coming out next.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen three Christopher Nolan movies, that is quite enough. I don't care how hard SF Interstellar is, you'd have to pay me to watch it.

 

Inception was the last straw. I couldn't even tell you what was wrong with it, only I didn't like it at all.

Edited by Joe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I suppose that it's an indicator of just how well Ben Affleck has resurrected his career that it's now deemed an unpopular opinion to dislike him. For much of the last decade or so, hating him has been one of the most popular things to do, when it comes to movie stars.

 

In my view, the Superman vs Batman movie will suck, but not because of Ben Affleck. Because Henry Cavill can't emote his way out of a paper bag and Zack Snyder is a terrible, terrible director. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Movies growing dark is one of my biggest issues as well This also translates into TV programming in which seasons work like sequels. Make it bigger. Make it darker. More explosions. More angst! Part of my exuberance for the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy is how jazzy and fun it looks. Like I'm sure the story will have brooding angst at some point, but a thread of silliness is a welcome.

 

My problem with Cumberbatch has little to do with his looks. I find him attractive and unattractive as his looks/roles change. But I don't find him the second coming in terms of acting and in fact his work for years now has come across as forced, unnatural. I feel frustrated when I try to point this out because he's always praised for his talent. To me, his Sherlock is a menagerie of ticks; I think he lost all attachment to a real character back in season 2.

 

I also don't find him to be a particularly nice guy as I think he comes across as very full of himself in interviews and has said some annoying things in the past. He's not overly atrocious or anything, and can back peddle pretty well.  I will never forget an NPR interview with Moffatt he gave back when doing press for Sherlock Season 1. There were obvious comparisons made to the RDJ movie. He effectively said that while RDJ was a fun character, he was not playing Sherlock Holmes. At the time I secretly agreed. Now I laugh at the irony, because while his character is a fun Bond-like sociopathic detective, he's *not* Sherlock Holmes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

My problem with Cumberbatch has little to do with his looks. I find him attractive and unattractive as his looks/roles change. But I don't find him the second coming in terms of acting and in fact his work for years now has come across as forced, unnatural. I feel frustrated when I try to point this out because he's always praised for his talent. To me, his Sherlock is a menagerie of ticks; I think he lost all attachment to a real character back in season 2.

 

I also don't find him to be a particularly nice guy as I think he comes across as very full of himself in interviews and has said some annoying things in the past. He's not overly atrocious or anything, and can back peddle pretty well.  I will never forget an NPR interview with Moffatt he gave back when doing press for Sherlock Season 1. There were obvious comparisons made to the RDJ movie. He effectively said that while RDJ was a fun character, he was not playing Sherlock Holmes. At the time I secretly agreed. Now I laugh at the irony, because while his character is a fun Bond-like sociopathic detective, he's *not* Sherlock Holmes.

 

In the interviews I've seen, he's come across pretty well, to the extent that I can understand why he's popular. But those were pretty light-hearted interviews, and he seemed to be having fun. As an actor, I don't see the big fuss, really. Is he any better than a dozen actors I see on television every week? Not particularly. It just seems that 'English accent' = 'masterful, classically trained actor who should be worshipped', to a lot of non-Brits.

 

Arguing over whether someone is really playing Sherlock Holmes or not is kind of redundant, given RDJ's version was about two inches shy of steampunk, and Cumberbatch's is a present day version. Neither are playing Sherlock Holmes. And neither particularly appeal to me anyway, as crime stories leave me utterly cold. Especially ones that are just vehicles to show viewers the wonderful genius of either the investigator or the criminal. Fucking boring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

In the interviews I've seen, he's come across pretty well, to the extent that I can understand why he's popular. But those were pretty light-hearted interviews, and he seemed to be having fun. As an actor, I don't see the big fuss, really. Is he any better than a dozen actors I see on television every week? Not particularly. It just seems that 'English accent' = 'masterful, classically trained actor who should be worshipped', to a lot of non-Brits.

 

I do think the Brits, in general, seem more likely to be classically trained, but that doesn't mean that everyone is talented, either.  So basically, I've thought the same regarding the bolded, especially with regard to men.  Don't get me wrong, I love a fine brogue myself, but that's separate from how I perceive acting talent.

 

As for Cumberbatch, I've not seen most of his work.  What I have seen has prompted either a "meh" or "hmmm, no."  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

My unpopular opinion is that I think Jennifer Aniston is entertaining and pretty.  I like her.

Same here. I think she's ok and I don't feel sorry for her because of her marriage history. I don't care about that stuff.  I thought she was funny in Horrible Bosses and We're the Millers. I know that movie is not everyone's cup of tea, but I loved that movie .

 

Unpopular opinion: Can't get into Hunger Games . I saw a picture of the characters in costume and thought they stepped out of The Yellow Submarine movie

Edited by AstaCharles

Share this post


Link to post

 

Quote

 

My unpopular opinion is that I think Jennifer Aniston is entertaining and pretty.  I like her.

Same here. I think she's ok and I don't feel sorry for her because of her marriage history. I don't care about that stuff.  I thought she was funny in Horrible Bosses and We're the Millers. I know that movie is not everyone's cup of tea, but I loved that movie .

I like We're the Millers, too, but I think JA was at her best in Office Space and Wanderlust.  I love those movies.

Share this post


Link to post

Tarantino is good at music. But I don't like his writing or directing or acting.

 

 

 

I do love Tarantino, though I can see how his work is troubling. I think he’s schtick-y but I love his brand of schtick. He writes more and more to his actors and is more focused on creating a vehicle for character than he is for creating theme, or even plot sometimes. Django was all character. He wrote for Leo and Christoph and gave them both character moments and the rest of the stuff was moving pieces to get to the next moment. I like the moments enough to forgive the sloppiness of the work, but its there and he needs to tighten his work up if he wants to create something really special.

I'm a Jane Austen snob too, although my favorite Austen adaptation was Clueless.

 

 

 

I’m with you on this. I really feel like Clueless is the only Austen adaptation that puts the social commentary central to her work ahead of the romance aspects. Amy Heckerling made her Emma/Cher character unlikeable, snobby and socially as awkward as needed. She went right in on issues of class and modernized that commentary while still staying true to the plot and tone of the novel.

I also saw video of Cavill, Affleck, and Gadot come on stage, and they looked incredibly awkward.  Affleck, in particular, looked worn, weary, and like he didn't want to be there (the backlash over his casting could have made him uneasy, to be fair). 

 

 

 

I know its not fair to compare them to the Avengers crew who have already done a movie together, but the Marvel team is so fun together. They seem to like each other. They’re always touching, hugging, interrupting each other’s interviews and generally play off each other well in a way that feels genuine. The DC three seemed so distant and uninterested in each other. Hopefully that will change once they’re working together but its a noticeable difference.

Edited by vibeology
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My UO is that I'm not bothered b y the fact that the producers of "Gotham" have changed the name of Poison Ivy's character.  I also wish that the people who are upset about it would get over about it, because kvetching isn't going to change it back.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I know its not fair to compare them to the Avengers crew who have already done a movie together, but the Marvel team is so fun together. They seem to like each other. They’re always touching, hugging, interrupting each other’s interviews and generally play off each other well in a way that feels genuine. The DC three seemed so distant and uninterested in each other. Hopefully that will change once they’re working together but its a noticeable difference.

 

Aren't the DC three filming? Or has that not even started yet? You could compare them to the Avengers panel in 2012 (2011?) when they were working on the movie. You could tell that they weren't quite the unit they are now yet but even with that Downey and Ruffalo have been friends for years, Johannsen and Evans have worked together tons over the years... out of everyone I'd have said that Hemsworth was the legitimate but also at that point, Downey, Hemsworth and Evans had all done their solo pieces so they were a little more comfortable in their roles than they would be normally, you know?

 

In a lot of ways, DC is doing things very differently. While Marvel's Cinematic Universe started with Iron Man and continued with him, DC has rebooted Batman and Superman a few times now. Christian Bale isn't leading the way into a shared DC Universe the way Downey did with Iron Man. Cavill is the only one so far who has a DCU movie and I honestly don't know if that's enough to build on, you know? Plus, with Marvel you have the Big Three of the Avengers (Captain America, Iron Man and Thor) who all have very different and very distinct personalities.

 

While you could always say that Superman and Batman were distinct, Man of Steel made Clark/Kal-El very much an angsty loner... which is exactly what Batman is. Except Clark is an angsty loner from a destroyed planet who grew up in Kansas and Bruce is an angsty loner who grew up in Gotham. They both lost their fathers (Clark lost two and Bruce lost both parents) and... what, exactly, differentiates them save for their powers at this point? In the MCU, Thor is the gregarious prince from a different realm who is larger than life, Tony is the irreverent billionaire/engineer and Steve is the good man out of time who struggles with what he believes to be right versus what the world is telling him. These are three very different guys, not just in power and ability and looks... just in who they are, throw in Bruce, Natasha and Clint and that adds up even more.

 

At this point, I'm worried that Diana is going to show up, parentless and angsty as well... just like Clark and Bruce except with boobs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really like War of the Worlds with Tom Cruse, but I hate Dakota Fanning's screaming through the movie.  She seemed so mature and intelligent, before they took off but as soon as they got in the car she turned into a cry-baby.


Don't know if I am alone in this, but Kilmer in anything, yes, from Top Secret to Real Genius, Top Gun, Willow, Batman, The Doors, Tombstone (OMG), The Saint, At First Sight ... even the voices he has done on animated stuff.  I just like him. 

Me too, especially RG, Doors and Willow.

Share this post


Link to post

Jennifer Aniston is not great, but agree I liked her in Office Space and We're the Millers, a movie I liked a whole lot more than I thought I would

Share this post


Link to post

Here's another UO: I've never seen any LOtR, and I don't care to. I'm not a JRR Tolkien fan.

Actually I'm not a Peter Jackson fan, either.

Edited by roamyn

Share this post


Link to post

 

*In very tiny voice* I don't think much of him at all. I don't dislike him, but his appeal is totally lost on me. Is there a Witness Protection Program to hide me from the Cumberbitches?

 

     Wow, I really love having this be verbalized because I really, really don't get the Bennedict Cumberbatch thing at all, either.

 

     I really loved Blaine and Andie ending up together in Pretty in Pink. I never thought Duckie and Andie were a viable couple.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I can't separate real life issues from enjoying a film.

For instance my Ferris Bueller's Day Off viewing days are over because I can't watch Jeffrey Jones as a principal without feeling skeevy.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I can't separate real life issues from enjoying a film.

For instance my Ferris Bueller's Day Off viewing days are over because I can't watch Jeffrey Jones as a principal without feeling skeevy.

 

 

That's perfectly fine. I absolutely refuse to watch any of Roman Polanski's films. I never, ever will. I don't care if his victim forgave him, that doesn't mean I have to. Likewise, I'll never be able to watch Triumph of the Will, because of its destructive legacy. I get angry when Leni Riefenstahl is hailed as an important feminist icon, but Mary Pickford, who was the first woman in Hollywood to become a millionaire, was one of the first women to produce films, and who helped found AMPAS, doesn't get so much as a peep.

 

For me, time is a big factor in this issue. I've read about the sickening things Errol Flynn did in his private life… but the thing is, he's been dead for 55 years. I can't make him answer for his crimes, nobody can, it's too late. He's dead. Therefore, I can still watch The Adventures of Robin Hood and Captain Blood with a (reasonably) clean conscience.

 

So 50 years from now? Maybe I'll give Polanski's films a chance… but I doubt it.

Edited by Wiendish Fitch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

For instance my Ferris Bueller's Day Off viewing days are over because I can't watch Jeffrey Jones as a principal without feeling skeevy.

 

I have a similar problem with Elia Kazan (enough about the role of conscience in Kazan pulling a Greg Allman on his friends - Allman at least has the decency to be humiliated by his episode) and Roman Polanski / Woody Allen (tired to death of hearing about redemption for child molesters who barely suffered anything worse than embarrassment). I'm pretty sure most of the actors who are tickled to pieces to be in the two living directors' movies wouldn't leave them alone with their teenagers any more than they would have shown Elia Kazan their browser history.

 

This bothers me to the point that whether someone is a prominent supporter has become a factor in whether i see their movies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I can't separate real life issues from enjoying a film.

 

Naked Gun was one of my favorite watch-it-a-million-times-and-laugh-every-time silly films, but now I can't handle O.J. Simpson as Nordberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Naked Gun was one of my favorite watch-it-a-million-times-and-laugh-every-time silly films, but now I can't handle O.J. Simpson as Nordberg.

 

 

See, now that I'll have to disagree, because I recently re-watched The Naked Gun, and I handled the O.J. scenes by pretending all the cartoonishly violent stuff happening to him was actually happening to him. Think of it as karma in advance. >:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Because Henry Cavill can't emote his way out of a paper bag

 

 

I know, but he is SO purdy!

 

And yeah, that Batman/Superman thing is going to be awful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

For me, time is a big factor in this issue. I've read about the sickening things Errol Flynn did in his private life… but the thing is, he's been dead for 55 years. I can't make him answer for his crimes, nobody can, it's too late. He's dead. Therefore, I can still watch The Adventures of Robin Hood and Captain Blood with a (reasonably) clean conscience.

 

What kinds of sick things did he get up to?

Edited by Jeebus Cripes

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size