Unpopular Opinions

[Sweet Tee]

Bill Murray I think is someone who worked better for me as a kid.  I loved watching him in Meatballs, Ghostbusters, and Space Jam (shut up!) when I was younger.  Nowadays, when I watch Ghostbusters, I find myself more drawn to Egon and Ray.  Whereas, when I was a kid, Peter was my favorite.  I do agree that Stripes has a strong supporting cast and its a movie that I don't really get tired of.

[bmoore4026]

I blame Spaghetti Westerns for the decline of the western.  Give me John Ford over Sergio Leone any day.

[Crs97]

I love Bill Murray in Tootsie, especially after learning that basically all his lines were ad-libs.  However, he is kinda hit or miss for me.  Probably more hits than misses, but his misses are bad.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I blame Spaghetti Westerns for the decline of the western.  Give me John Ford over Sergio Leone any day.

 

As a huge Sam Peckinpah fan, I disagree. Ford's style was very different, of course, more "classic", but Peckinpah's movies are much more to my taste.

[drmka9]

This might get me stoned to death but...

 

I don't think Bill Murray is that funny. I said this to my husband last night after seeing non-stop commercials for his new movie last night and he was aghast. He started listing movies and I was like, "Nope, no, hate that movie, nope." The only one that I conceded was Stripes and even that one, for me, is due in large part to the supporting cast.

 

I'm in semi-agreement. I think Murray can be funny, but he isn't inherently a funny guy. He also seems like he'd be exhausting to try to work with, which, at least for me, tends to overshadow whatever character he's playing.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I never, ever found Tony Curtis attractive or even a good actor. I always thought he looked like somebody's ugly maiden aunt. Sweet Smell of Success? I watch it for Burt Lancaster. Some Like it Hot? Jack Lemmon makes that movie. Spartacus? You think I'm going to notice Curtis when Kirk Douglas, Charles Laughton, Jean Simmons, and Laurence friggin' Olivier are onscreen?

 

The fact that Curtis was a preening, pompous, womanizing asshole in real life doesn't help my opinion, either.

[Princess Sparkle]

I liked Toby McGuire as spider man although I never saw part 3.

Yeah, I actually absolutely prefer him in the role than Andrew Garfield.  And even with Kristen Dunst (which, it was the writing for Mary Jane that was at fault, not her acting), I much, much prefer all the Tobey Maguire versions of Spiderman to the new ones.That was a film I really didn't think need to be remade. 

[DrSpaceman]

I love Bill Murray and most all his movies. A few I think are overrated, in particular Lost in Translation and Rushmore. ANd he has had some duds like Garfield.

But heck if he just did Stripes and Caddyshack alone it would be enough, two of the funniest movies of the 1980s if not all time. Throw in Wild Things (he is HILARIOUS in that one......he is like Saul Goodman more than a decade before Breaking Bad was ever made), What About Bob, Tootsie, Ghostbusters .......list goes on. And Kingpin, man he was hilarious in that in a 2nd tier role, just perfect and hilarious in a role pretty unflattering to him

Now granted he hasnt done any hilarious things in over a decade, but for 20-25 solid years he did some great work.

[bmoore4026]

As a huge Sam Peckinpah fan, I disagree. Ford's style was very different, of course, more "classic", but Peckinpah's movies are much more to my taste.

 

Peckinpah isn't Spaghetti Westerns, though.  His style is similar, though.  I find Ride the High Country and The Ballad of Cable Houge better than The Wild Bunch.  I guess it's just me being of a post-Tarentino/post-Mortal Kombat generation, but I found that movie and it's slow-mo violence rather boring.

 

Also, I was disingenuous in blaming all Spaghetti Westerns as the down fall of the western genre.  I like the ones with Terence Hill (holy shit, those eyes are piercing) and Bud Spencer (cuddly bear).  I guess I just feel like they're overrated in comparison to American produced western.

 

One unpopular movie opinion I have is that I hate Star Wars. The aliens made me sick and I find George Lucas to be a douche.  I like Han Solo, R2-D2, C3-PO, and Chewie, but Darth Vader is a blatant rip-off of Dr, Doom, the quasi-incestual subtext between Leia and Luke is off-putting, and, personally, The Jedi are stuck up.  Give me Star Trek any day.  I'm not a full blown Trekkie, but their aliens don't make me sick.

[DrSpaceman]

Peckinpah isn't Spaghetti Westerns, though.  His style is similar, though.  I find Ride the High Country and The Ballad of Cable Houge better than The Wild Bunch.  I guess it's just me being of a post-Tarentino/post-Mortal Kombat generation, but I found that movie and it's slow-mo violence rather boring.

 

Also, I was disingenuous in blaming all Spaghetti Westerns as the down fall of the western genre.  I like the ones with Terence Hill (holy shit, those eyes are piercing) and Bud Spencer (cuddly bear).  I guess I just feel like they're overrated in comparison to American produced western.

 

One unpopular movie opinion I have is that I hate Star Wars. The aliens made me sick and I find George Lucas to be a douche.  I like Han Solo, R2-D2, C3-PO, and Chewie, but Darth Vader is a blatant rip-off of Dr, Doom, the quasi-incestual subtext between Leia and Luke is off-putting, and, personally, The Jedi are stuck up.  Give me Star Trek any day.  I'm not a full blown Trekkie, but their aliens don't make me sick.

Well this is the classic Trek-Wars debate. Really what they have in common is that they are both sci fi, outside that they are very different shows that are hard to compare.

Star Wars is very black (literally with Vader), good vs. evil, action adventure, an epic battle of one group vs. another over time

Star Trek is much more shades of gray, a variety of different groups, much more realistic, in many ways, at least in terms of the social dynamics, and, while still sci fi based, more true to life, basically a future version of where they see our current society heading.

I like both for different reasons, but the problem anymore is both genre's are so broad the "like" and "dislike" of both depends much on which part of the shows you mean.

I have never followed much in Star Wars besides the movies. Cartoons, books, etc, not really interested.

In Star Trek the movies are sometimes good, but the TV series in their various forms I think dominate the genre for most of its history, except the last few years with the Abrams reboot of Spock/Kirk with no series being on the movies have taken on the dominant form of the story.

[Bruinsfan]

I thought Routh did a pretty good job as Superman/Clark. It was everything else happening in the film that irked me.

I'll give Routh props for following Reeve's version as closely as anyone could have, but I have always disliked the ineffectual nebbish act Reeve's Superman put on as Clark Kent. I'm much more a fan of the George Reeves/Dean Cain approach where Clark is portrayed as smart and confident, and Superman is basically the same guy wearing colorful longjohns so he can use his powers openly.

[ruby24]

See, to me the act makes much more sense as far as others not noticing him or overlooking his secret identity. The fact that people couldn't see that Dean Cain's Clark was Superman made them look like even bigger idiots.

 

And Christopher Reeve was just so incredible in that dual role- even the audience could believe he was two different people as we watched it. I still think his acting was masterful in that part.

[topanga]

And Christopher Reeve was just so incredible in that dual role- even the audience could believe he was two different people as we watched it. I still think his acting was masterful in that part.

 

Christopher Reeve will always be the real Superman to me. The latest blockbusters just don't have the same emotional impact.

[ribboninthesky1]

See, to me the act makes much more sense as far as others not noticing him or overlooking his secret identity. The fact that people couldn't see that Dean Cain's Clark was Superman made them look like even bigger idiots.

 

And Christopher Reeve was just so incredible in that dual role- even the audience could believe he was two different people as we watched it. I still think his acting was masterful in that part.

 

Agreed on Reeve, will always love him in the role.  But to me, the ineffectual stuff still doesn't work because Clark mysteriously disappears whenever Superman shows up.  It doesn't take a high level of intelligence to put things together.  That's why I really loved that Lois came to just that conclusion early in Superman II, though Clark temporarily succeeds in disabusing the notion.  Plus, him playing a klutz is actually what did him in, so to speak.  Lois might have been satisfied if he had not "tripped and accidentally" landed hands down in that fireplace.

 

I never watched the Dean Cain series, but I've watched most of the DCAU productions and live action films.  In the animated series, Clark Kent was shown to be a nice, smart, competent guy - not some stumblebum who can't manage to walk down the street.  I mean, if the audience is to buy the absurd notion that wearing glasses is his disguise, despite having the same build, height, facial features, etc, I never understood how playing clumsy was meant to throw people off.  Man of Steel had its issues, but I'm really grateful that they nipped the "Lois doesn't know Clark is Superman" stuff in the bud.  Definitely cuts out a lot of unnecessary angst and making Lois look dumb as hell. *Crosses fingers that they don't go "nebbish white guy" on Clark in the next film*

Edited October 20, 2014 by ribboninthesky1

[Bruinsfan]

The only big stumbling block is that Clark can't openly date Lois now that all her co-workers have seen her macking on him in the Superman outfit.

[Kel Varnsen]

I mean, if the audience is to buy the absurd notion that wearing glasses is his disguise, despite having the same build, height, facial features, etc, I never understood how playing clumsy was meant to throw people off.  

Personally I never had a problem with the glasses disguise. I mean superman wasn't really a public figure in the same way as the president or a famous actor was. He is not like he is appearing on TV trying to address the world. For the most part when people saw him it would probably be quickly from a distance, or at a very stressful time in their life. Or maybe a crappy picture in a paper while he was rescuing someone (and for most of superman's career that picture in the paper would have been in black and white).  Clark Kent is a relatively anonymous person with probably not a lot of friends. So if someone on the street saw him and said, hey you look a lot like superman a simple "thanks" or "I get that alot" would probably be enough for them. And most people are polite enough that they wouldn't make a big deal about it after that.

 

It is kind of the same reason I didn't have a problem with Bruce Wayne hanging out in Italy at the end of The Dark Knight Rises. I mean really how many people could recognize a famous, yet reclusive CEO well enough to pick him out of a lineup. I mean other than maybe Bill Gates I can't really think of two many famous billionaires I would be able to recognize. So if someone in Italy did maybe see Bruce a simple "nope he just looks like me" would probably be enough to get people off his back.

[ruby24]

I never cared about it being "realistic" or not- to me that was the whole fun of the character, and the back and forth between him and Lois, etc. And the comedy of it too. To me at least, Superman should be fun, light and funny, and I don't think he works nearly as well when you treat him as dreary and serious. Whereas Batman already exists in this dark, gothic world, so he can and should be treated that way, but Superman is the complete opposite. Or he should be.

[ribboninthesky1]

Personally I never had a problem with the glasses disguise. I mean superman wasn't really a public figure in the same way as the president or a famous actor was. He is not like he is appearing on TV trying to address the world. For the most part when people saw him it would probably be quickly from a distance, or at a very stressful time in their life. Or maybe a crappy picture in a paper while he was rescuing someone (and for most of superman's career that picture in the paper would have been in black and white).  Clark Kent is a relatively anonymous person with probably not a lot of friends. So if someone on the street saw him and said, hey you look a lot like superman a simple "thanks" or "I get that alot" would probably be enough for them. And most people are polite enough that they wouldn't make a big deal about it after that.

 

All good points.  I think what strained credulity for me is that the same people who knew Clark Kent were often in close proximity to Superman. 

 

The only big stumbling block is that Clark can't openly date Lois now that all her co-workers have seen her macking on him in the Superman outfit.

 

Hmmm, true. 

[Beezel]

Yay! So happy about this,  since I am obsessed with Unpopular Opinion threads. 

 

• You know, I actually love Titanic and I don't see it as JACK+ROSE 4eva, but instead a successful story about Rose's coming of age/ into her own. Of course, the romance is just a part it,  but not the whole story. My only real gripe with it is the horrible song which only adds to the idea the movie is a insufferable love story.  Also, I'm still squicked out by decision to release the movie in 3-D, not just because it is useless, but because I felt the scenes with bodies falling from the ship were a particularly  disturbing to emphasize in that way in a historical drama.
• I agree that Tangled absolutely trumps Frozen. I really like Frozen, but I've only been able to watch it  a few times, whereas, I have seen Tangled countless times and still  retain my love for it (and laugh at Maximus's every move). 
• Though I've only seen it once, I was underwhelmed by Brave, which I assume is unpopular, though I could be wrong. I like Kelly MacDonald and the idea of an unconventional princess and a focus on mother/daughter relationships, but the story bored me to no end. 
• ITA with all those that have said Grease really is such a problematic movie. Basically most of the characters are unlikable, the actors are really way too old (even by Hollywood standards), and the message about changing yourself to be with someone is terrible. By no means a feel good musical.
• To the one poster that said they hated Flashdance, yesss. And I loved that movie as kid ( I have terrible parents), but  in retrospect, Alex isn't very likable, nor is her boyfriend, or really anyone else in the whole movie, save the dog. I did, however, like the music and the cheesy ending, especially the parts in the performance where it is utterly obviously its a guy doing the break dancing. 
• Honestly flaws and all, Adventures in Babysitting>>>> all the Brat Pack movies and Dirty Dancing. Though, the self-important angst of the Breakfast Club does always entertain. 

Edited November 15, 2014 by Beezel

[Julia]

This amused me - to anyone who shared my UO a few screens back about Amy Adams and Julie/Julia, someone's made an all Julia version.

[nicepebbles]

I finally saw the latest Superman and I liked it. I have no problem with it being joyless/humorless/etc as I've seen it described. It's not a perfect movie. What works for me is the "darkness" because, think about it, as far as who Clark is and how he grew up. He's different and has known this since a young age. Not just different but DIFFERENT. Then his dad is all "humans will hate you so let people die when you can save them/me" yet telling him he's destined for great things on Earth. WTF? The average human being goes through being alone, feeling lonely. He's got like ten fold. I've never seen or read any Superman story that dealt with that so I'm glad they went "dark.

I, too, am glad they didn't do he wears glasses so he is in disguise TO Lois. After a certain point, I hated that aspect of the movies. Just dumb. I also never liked Clark Kent being so dwebby. Christopher Reeves was good in the role. I just never liked that they chose to go with that characterization of Clark.

I like the latest one over the Brandon Routh one. The

movie is rather forgettable (I did enjoy it at the time) and Kate Bosworth's casting to this day absolutely baffles me. Just ugh.

Edited November 16, 2014 by nicepebbles

[CrazyDog]

I loved Adventure in Babysitting too! I will forever love Elizabeth Shue.

I don't like the Wizard of Oz. It's on now, and I just can't get into it. It's annoying, yet creepy. And I feel guilty for thinking that.

[Beezel]

I loved the Wizard of Oz as a kid and there is a part of me that will always love it for nostalgia purposes, but in watching it as an adult, I think it's so boring. The novelty has really worn off for me. Plus, Dorthy is kind of annoying. *mega guilt* 

Edited November 24, 2014 by Beezel

[Wiendish Fitch]

Popular opinion? I still adore The Wizard of Oz.

 

Unpopular opinion? The flying monkeys never, ever, ever scared me. Nope, never. And let me be clear, I was not a brave or tough kid. I was a sissy little crybaby, but I was never frightened of the flying monkeys or even the Wicked Witch. It seriously raises my hackles when today's helicopter parents won't let their kids watch The Wizard of Oz because they think the flying monkeys are too scary, but have no compunction about letting their kids watch crappy animated movies with fart/poop/homophobic humor. Ugh.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Wiendish Fitch

[FeralKatz]

This whole thread is a great read. Figured I'd throw in my 2 cents.

 

Movies/actors/actresses I DON'T like that many others do: Casablanca (horribly paced and overdramatic), Godfather Pt. II (1 was such a great character development piece. After the 3rd congressional hearing scene in Pt. 2 I was ready to throw my remote at the TV), Breakfast at Tiffany's (Hepburn is just so hateable and I was way too distracted by Rooney's super-racist Japanese character. I get it was the times, but jeez), Hugh Grant (I find him unbearable. He always plays the same character and it's always annoying and I can't figure out why women (fictional or otherwise) would see anything in him, especially after seeing Mickey Blue Eyes), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (I love a lot of british humor movies and TV and loved Meaning of Life but I just didn't find most of this one funny), Raging Bull and Network (both classics but I couldn't buy the protagonists as realistic personalities, as much as Lamota may be based on the actual boxer).

 

And now the ones I DO like: Volcano (everyone always says Dante's Peak was better and I get that it's super silly but it's a fun popcorn movie, like Armageddon), Back to the Future III (I love the entire series but III always gets pegged as the worst and I thought it was very well done and kept the tone and pace of the others), Psycho (the Gus Van Sant remake - I thought the actors were great and i think most people just disliked the idea of the shot for shot remake and did not try to gauge it on its own), Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi (I always hear "ewoks" as the biggest complaint but I thought it was a great conclusion and probably the most action-packed of all the original trilogy films, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (I know Costner had 0 accent but I think between Freeman, Rickman, and the action, this is a great, great movie),

 

Reading this it seems like I just like popcorn movies but I agree with many other faves like Shawshank, Saving Private Ryan, LOTR, Pulp Fiction, American Beauty, American History X, Forrest Gump, Goodfellas, Inception, and so forth.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Word on Return of the Jedi. I have never had a problem with the Ewoks, absolutely none, and I felt that way even before Jar Jar Binks came along (but that's a popular opinion, so I'll take that elsewhere).

[Princess Sparkle]

Hugh Grant (I find him unbearable. He always plays the same character and it's always annoying and I can't figure out why women (fictional or otherwise) would see anything in him, especially after seeing Mickey Blue Eyes), 

Hugh Grant is one of those people that is so much better when he plays against type.  I love him in About a Boy (first movie where I ever thought he could act) and Bridget Jones' Diary, just because those are the two movies where he's not this bumbling nice guy, and is actually kind of a dick.  

Edited November 24, 2014 by Princess Sparkle

[ruby24]

What's funny is that's actually much closer to his real life personality, so his earlier, "bumbling nice" roles were the ones where he was doing more actual "acting."

[Julia]

Hugh Grant is one of those people that is so much better when he plays against type.  I love him in About a Boy (first movie where I ever thought he could act) and Bridget Jones' Diary, just because those are the two movies where he's not this bumbling nice guy, and is actually kind of a dick.  

 

If you want to see both Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman playing against type (with an amazing supporting cast), look for An Awfully Big Adventure. 

 

Fair warning: if you're anything like me, you're going to want to scrub your frontal lobes with brill-o™ by the time it's over. 

[Shannon L.]

I love Love Actually and think the following video is a little bit misleading, but I find it funny none-the-less.   For those of you who hated the movie:

 

Honest Trailers: Love Actually

[paramitch]

Beezel, I love Adventures in Babysitting. Loved Titanic (I know). Was disappointed by Brave (Merida wasn't). I thought Frozen was okay but the story was a mess and nothing lived up to "Let It Go" (which wimped out visually -- instead of bringing to life a girl unleashing her inner power and chaos, she minced a few steps in the snow and built a magic Barbie castle. Whuh?).

 

Gillian Rosh, me too! I liked Russell Crowe's singing in Les Miz -- although it's lower than his comfort zone (Javert's a rich baritone), I thought Crowe had a sweet vibrato and a nice husky timbre that was pretty and unique. The person whose voice bothered me more (and I normally LOVE his singing) was Hugh Jackman, who simply wasn't the right voice type for Valjean (a tenor). Jackman's a baritone and while he can reach all the notes, he sounds thin and strained to me through much of the score. Worst, instead of singing "Bring Him Home" in a quiet older-man's head voice, he then totally belts it, ruining the pathos of  the song and moment for me. Yet without those two men in those two roles, the movie probably wouldn't've have been made.

Also, Mindy McIndy, I love Manhunter and think it remains one of Michael Mann's best-ever films. It's gorgeous and nuanced -- everything Red Dragon (the film) was not. And it's just as superb today -- it ages well.

 

Okay, so here are my own unpopular opinions:

 

• Harry and Sally had no chemistry and wouldn't have lasted 5 years. Even more points off for the worst, unsexiest screen kiss in movie history. They're just robotically chewing each other's faces like zombies.
   
• Jerry Maguire's final big moment sucks, as the film's entire subtext is that 
  he cannot be alone

  . For him to suddenly realize he's got to run to his true love makes my teeth itch.And 

  I actually kept wishing the movie had been brave enough to pair him with the cool, strong and funny sister's character (Bonnie Hunt).
   
• I dislike Dirty Dancing and its Idiot Plot (tm Roger Ebert) in which characters must make ludicrous assumptions in order for the plot to move  forward. I like Swayze and Grey but in spite of the terrible story (and don't get me started on the horrible 80s song at the end of a 60s movie). (Princess Sparkle, I did love Swayze in To Wong Foo also)
   
• Four Weddings and a Funeral was terrible. The main couple has few actual conversations and makes horrible (and inexplicable) romantic choices just because "the writer said so," to keep the pairing off the table 'til the end.
   
• I hate Duckie in Pretty in Pink. Hate. hate. haaaaate. I do think this is in part due to absolutely horrific casting -- Jon Cryer plays the part like a petulant, pantswetting, jealous 5-year-old deviant. Matthew Broderick (for whom it was written) would have made him cute, quirky and charming and a legitimate bid for Andie's heart. But Cryer sucked.
   
• I hate Love, Actually for the misogynistic insulting mess that it is. All these men (right down to the little boy) are wordlessly in lust with these dreamy (primarily subservient)  women they barely know and do not talk to but it's all treated like twue wuv. It's cringeworthy. And 
  Laura Linney

  's resolution is so ludicrously tragic yet unnecessary it's laughable.

  AGHGHGH. Just seeing the trailer for it gives me actual hives.
   
• I loathe Alien3 and pretend that it doesn't exist. (Watching it was like getting to the end of "The Wizard of Oz" only to find out they were all taken out and shot afterward.) Weirdly, I like Alien4. Don't judge me.
   
• I hate Albert Brooks's smug, nasty character in Broadcast News and think he ruins the whole idea of the film as a 'romantic triangle' (IMO, it's not; we never see any sign that Jane is even remotely interested).
   
• I love The Chronicles of Riddick and thought it was visually beautiful, interesting, well-acted, and incredibly underrated. I know. I'm alone. But for me it was a poignant follow-up to the wonderful Pitch Black.
   
• I loved Mary Reilly and for me it's one of the best movies about child abuse survival that I've ever seen, all wrapped up as a Victorian gothic. And I think it's Julia Roberts's best performances (and no, the accent didn't bother me)
   
• I adored Cloud Atlas and thought it improved upon the book and that (yes, even with the occasional weird makeup job) it was one of last year's most risky, challenging and beautiful films.
   

 

• Joe Versus the Volcano is one of the unsung great movies ever and nobody gets it. Tom Hanks's speech when he quits his job is one of the all-time great movie moments for me.
   
• Oh, and I liked Jersey Girl and Gigli too Ribboninthesky1. Two scenes that stayed with me: JL's character's monologue during yoga (wonderful) and a scene involving a fishtank (horrific). Both memorable. The movie wasn't bad at all. Meanwhile: (Speaking of romcoms -- DiamondDoll, finally someone else who appreciates the sparkle and adorableness of Wimbledon!)

 

Last but not least, The Hobbit films -- I love 'em. Here's why:

 

1. I love that The Hobbit was extended to three films (hey, HBO gives us one volume of "Game of Thrones" in 12 hours). I especially love the exploration of the White Council (Gandalf) subplot, straight out of the LOTR "Tale of Years."
    
2. Although I am a diehard Tolkien nerd, I adore the the elf Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), who is kickass and beautiful and brave, and as a little girl I would have papered my room with posters of her. I also totally loved her subplot with Kili and it didn't bother me at all -- to me it expands upon the equally gorgeous film moment in Two Towers when the Lothlorien archers showed up at Helm's Deep (an equally non-book event and I loved every minute of it).
    
3. The films actually give us the time to get to know the dwarves. In the book (while I love it), we barely get to know Thorin and Balin, but in the third film, I'll totally care about the fates of so many I've come to love and recognize.

 

Thank you for letting me unburden myself. I feel so much better. :-) Also: because it will make some of you laugh, my adorable and wonderful mother was a firm part of the Jennifer Aniston Wronged Woman support movement. After Brad left her for Angelina (both of whom I actually like, mind you), my mother quietly went on to systematically purchase all (ALL) of JA's  movies on DVD for the rest of her life until she passed away last year. The best part: She never watched ANY of them.

Edited November 27, 2014 by paramitch

[bmoore4026]

Here's another one of mine:  Why is MGM's The Wizard of Oz such a sacred cow?  Yes, it established the iconic Witch of the West, but it followed only the bare bones of the book it's supposed to be based on and, quite frankly, The Wiz had better music.

 

I mean, I remember loving this movie as a kid and I miss that they don't play it on CBS before Thanksgiving (damn you, Ted Turner!), but as an adult, I feel like it's kind of "meh".

 

Also, there are, like, twenty other Oz books that could be adapted, but, when someone does try adapting one or two (such as Return to Oz, combines characters and plot from the two books following The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), it will invariably be compared to the 1939 movie and be seen as inferior, for some reason.

 

Recently, though, there has been a trend in combining elements from the books and the 1939 film (Wicked, Oz the Great and Powerful) and they do become successful (I do believe the latter made back it's budget and then some and former has been going strong for eleven years), but, again, the such attempts get mixed reviews due to the 1939 movie's sacred cow status.

 

You can whatever the hell you want with Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.  6 billion adaptations served and no one gives two flying figs.  I hate that I compared Lewis Carroll's work to McDonalds because The Annotated Alice is practically my Bible.

Edited November 27, 2014 by bmoore4026

[paramitch]

Here's another one of mine:  Why is MGM's The Wizard of Oz such a sacred cow?  Yes, it established the iconic Witch of the West, but it followed only the bare bones of the book it's supposed to be based on and, quite frankly, The Wiz had better music.

 

I mean, I remember loving this movie as a kid and I miss that they don't play it on CBS before Thanksgiving (damn you, Ted Turner!), but as an adult, I feel like it's kind of "meh".

 

Also, there are, like, twenty other Oz books that could be adapted, but, when someone does try adapting one or two (such as Return to Oz, combines characters and plot from the two books following The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), it will invariably be compared to the 1939 movie and be seen as inferior, for some reason.

 

Recently, though, there has been a trend in combining elements from the books and the 1939 film (Wicked, Oz the Great and Powerful) and they do become successful (I do believe the latter made back it's budget and then some and former has been going strong for eleven years), but, again, the such attempts get mixed reviews due to the 1939 movie's sacred cow status.

 

You can whatever the hell you want with Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.  6 billion adaptations served and no one gives two flying figs.  I hate that I compared Lewis Carroll's work to McDonalds because The Annotated Alice is practically my Bible.

 

This is an interesting point -- I actually do love both the book and film of The (Wonderful) Wizard of Oz, but I do think the movie could have done more that would have been a bit less sparkly and bright, and that would have added a dash of groundedness -- I always wish the movie had let Oz appear to each one of them separately, as he does in the book (and in a way deliberately intended to scare/impact each in a different way).

 

I also do think Maguire hit upon something when he came up with Wicked in that, in the book, the Wizard far more baldly tells Dorothy that she must kill the Wicked Witch (whereas the movie softened this into "bring me her broomstick," which was a coy disambiguation. The witch's attacks are also pretty fearsome in the book and are three or four separate serious waves and each fellowship member saves the group in a different way.

 

I do love the film's ruby slippers, which are so much prettier than the silver ones probably would've been onscreen. When I was a little girl, I practically sighed every time they showed the closeups of the slippers. 

 

In terms of the other wonderful Oz books, my favorite has always been Ozma of Oz, and I do think it would have been a gorgeous albeit very different fantasy film for children of all ages. Elements of that one have appeared in several different film adaptations, and it's one of the rare Oz books that I still enjoy rereading occasionally even as an adult.

Edited November 27, 2014 by paramitch

[roamyn]

I don't know if this is an Unpopular Opinion here, but most of today's younger generation hate GWTW, due to the racial undertones.

But...unfortunately you need them in order to tell the story right. Slavery & carpetbagging & prejudice WERE a part of the culture before, during & after the Civil War.

And honestly? The book is soooo much more racist.

It frustrates me to no end sefending the movie to people who won't even watch it. How can u say something is horrible, if you won't watch to understand the context.

Now Hattie McDaniel being unable to attend the world premiere WAS racist & prejudicial.

Edited November 27, 2014 by roamyn

[bmoore4026]

I do love the film's ruby slippers, which are so much prettier than the silver ones probably would've been onscreen. When I was a little girl, I practically sighed every time they showed the closeups of the slippers. 

 

That's one of the changes that the movie made that was inspired.  Silver clashed so badly with Dorothy's ensemble - rubies made it so much better.  Plus, rubies are more valuable than silver, aren't they?

[NoWillToResist]

And I don't recall the specifics, but I think she commanded Kristoff to assist her with finding Elsa.  And I thought, "Um, you're the idiot who decided to go after Elsa in snow and ice without proper equipment." 

 

I may be misremembering, but I think Anna ordering Kristoff was a facade. She gives him the order but when she turns away to leave, she lets out a deep breath of relief and I got the impression that she put on that 'strong' front thinking it would get results, not that she thought he was beneath her.

 

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!

 

In Lelaina's defense, if one can only choose between Ethan Hawke and Ben Stiller, I wouldn't even need a millisecond to skip over Ben Stiller. ;)  I don't even need to know who the other option is.

 

I haven't seen many of her movies, not even Gia, but I took my 12 year old daughter to see Maleficent and thought she was really good in it.  In fact, I was dreading taking her because I thought that, aside from what was sure to be gorgeous visuals, it was going to bore me to death and I actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would. 

 

I had absolutely no interest in seeing that movie but I ended up catching it in a double bill and really, really enjoyed it. I was amazed. The date rape parallels were a surprise, but I thought the movie was very well done.

 

I don't understand celebrity hate.  We don't know these people personally and we most likely never will.  I can and do only judge them on their acting abilities.  They're just people, no better or worse than any other person on the steeet.

 

I judge them as I judge all people I don't personally know: on what they present to the world (their behaviour and what they say). Sadly, in the case of most celebrities, that's enough to damn them in my eyes. Also, I cannot stand 'fame-whores'. Don't care if they have all the Oscars in the world, if they're all "ME ME ME! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!", they can just fuck right off.

 

Third. My daughter loves Benedict Cumberbatch, and I don't understand it. I've never seen him be more than moderately good in anything, and I always think he looks like a stick insect.

 

I don't have much of an opinion of the man either way, but your description of him friggin' killed me! :)

Edited November 27, 2014 by NoWillToResist

[Amethyst]

• I hate Love, Actually for the misogynistic insulting mess that it is. All these men (right down to the little boy) are wordlessly in lust with these dreamy (primarily subservient)  women they barely know and do not talk to but it's all treated like twue wuv. It's cringeworthy. And 
  Laura Linney

's resolution is so ludicrously tragic yet unnecessary it's laughable. AGHGHGH. Just seeing the trailer for it gives me actual hives.

 

Co-sign on what happened to Linney's character.  I hated that so much. I got the message they were trying to make (that family can be more important than a romance), but it didn't have to be that way for Sarah (Linney).  Her brother called so she was like "Ok, see ya, Karl."  I could see her choosing her brother if Karl had gotten pissed when her brother was calling, but he was basically "Life is complicated.  No big deal."  So he seemed open to understanding her situation, which made Sarah's choice even more absurd.  She ended the relationship before it had a chance to begin, and the only future feelings I could see from her were resentment and regret.

 

I thought the same thing about the true wuv aspect.  I don't mind LA as a typical overstuffed Christmas film, but most of the romantic pairings are flimsy because they're all based on love at first sight, and the movie goes overboard with it.  Sarah and Karl, Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia, The prime minister and Natalie...the list goes on.  That's why I liked John and Judy, the nude body doubles, because you could believe they actually knew each other, since they had nothing else to do in their downtime but talk.

 

But what really pissed me off was the fat shaming in the movie, particularly with Natalie's character.  From her parents, and her coworkers.  Plus a few "subtle" jokes thrown at Aurelia's sister (she's alone 'cuz she's fat, haha!)  Ugh.  Not a good look.

[wanderingstar]

But what really pissed me off was the fat shaming in the movie, particularly with Natalie's character.  From her parents, and her coworkers.  Plus a few "subtle" jokes thrown at Aurelia's sister (she's alone 'cuz she's fat, haha!)  Ugh.  Not a good look.

 

 

I find Love Actually to be a trite trifle, but this aspect of it has always irked me.

[Jeebus Cripes]

I loved Mary Reilly and for me it's one of the best movies about child abuse survival that I've ever seen, all wrapped up as a Victorian gothic. And I think it's Julia Roberts's best performances (and no, the accent didn't bother me)

 

Wow, someone else who loves this film! I very much thought I was the only one. There's a weird/creepy chemistry going on between Roberts and Malkovich that sparks on screen. Her accent doesn't much bother me, either.

[paramitch]

Co-sign on what happened to Linney's character.  I hated that so much. I got the message they were trying to make (that family can be more important than a romance), but it didn't have to be that way for Sarah (Linney).  Her brother called so she was like "Ok, see ya, Karl."  I could see her choosing her brother if Karl had gotten pissed when her brother was calling, but he was basically "Life is complicated.  No big deal."  So he seemed open to understanding her situation, which made Sarah's choice even more absurd.  She ended the relationship before it had a chance to begin, and the only future feelings I could see from her were resentment and regret.

 

I thought the same thing about the true wuv aspect.  I don't mind LA as a typical overstuffed Christmas film, but most of the romantic pairings are flimsy because they're all based on love at first sight, and the movie goes overboard with it.  Sarah and Karl, Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia, The prime minister and Natalie...the list goes on.  That's why I liked John and Judy, the nude body doubles, because you could believe they actually knew each other, since they had nothing else to do in their downtime but talk.

 

But what really pissed me off was the fat shaming in the movie, particularly with Natalie's character.  From her parents, and her coworkers.  Plus a few "subtle" jokes thrown at Aurelia's sister (she's alone 'cuz she's fat, haha!)  Ugh.  Not a good look.

 

But also, KARL is the one who leaves. She answers the phone to her brother, and yes, she's definitely taking a minute or two to herself. Yet within minutes as she's dealing with this obvious sad family emergency, he seriously just like, starts getting dressed in this hangdog "dammit, this could have been something" way and LEAVES. Like, what the what? Oookay. The woman has a few minutes of personal time yet somehow he senses his Love Is Not To Be, leaves, and then treats her ever after like she is the problem? Seriously? It grossed me out.

 

Meanwhile: Oh, THANK YOU. I totally agree on the fat shaming and for me it's the nail in the Love, Actually coffin. The startlingly rude, mean, unkind and constant fat shaming and fat jokes start with the ridiculously beautiful Martine McCutcheon (about whom the Prime Minister's staff feel free enough to gossip openly about her "abnormally large arse," like, COME ON), and edge into even crueler humor with the maid's sister, whose father evidently never shuts up about her ugliness or size -- it's so ugly. Evidently love conquers all in a beautiful and blind way for Richard Curtis, except if you're chubby and female. (GAH.)

 

Wow, someone else who loves this film! I very much thought I was the only one. There's a weird/creepy chemistry going on between Roberts and Malkovich that sparks on screen. Her accent doesn't much bother me, either.

 

Jeebus! I adore Mary Reilly and wrote the world's largest wall of text about its nuances and subtext at IMDb. Seriously, it's one of my favorite films and I think it's absolutely brilliant -- Mary is the product of her own abuses yet rises above them in ways Jekyll is unable to do. Yet her attractions to both Jekyll and Hyde are rooted in the same (if opposing) impulses. It's a gorgeous movie, and Christopher Hampton's screenplay is lovely, as are the performances. The movie's symbolism is also really well done right from the opening scene.

 

Also, roamyn, you make some good points about Gone with the Wind. I disliked the movie because it felt much less grayscale than the novel, but LOVED the book as a teen (mainly for the Rhett/Scarlett stuff) then reread it recently. While I was honestly really upset at the book's obvious racism in ways I hadn't caught before (too many scenes to count), I did think it offered a valuable snapshot in time, a kind of "don't be like these idiots" POV.

 

I think Mitchell's worldview is best viewed as its own character, as irretrievably skewed. The irony is that at heart there's some really interesting character painting and evolution (mostly Rhett -- Scarlett only evolves in literally the last 5 pages or so).

Edited December 2, 2014 by paramitch

[ribboninthesky1]

I never noticed the lens flare thing in JJ Abrams' films until I read it on TWOP.  Even with said knowledge, I still don't notice them, so they've never been distracting to me.

[Amethyst]

But also, KARL is the one who leaves. She answers the phone to her brother, and yes, she's definitely taking a minute or two to herself. Yet within minutes as she's dealing with this obvious sad family emergency, he seriously just like, starts getting dressed in this hangdog "dammit, this could have been something" way and LEAVES. Like, what the what? Oookay. The woman has a few minutes of personal time yet somehow he senses his Love Is Not To Be, leaves, and then treats her ever after like she is the problem? Seriously? It grossed me out.

 

I don't remember them showing Karl leaving.  It was just them sitting there.

 

After the first call, he told her that he understood that she had family issues.  When she took the second call, Karl asked her if taking the call would make any difference to her brother, and Sarah said no.  I took the "no" to mean "No, it won't help him, but I'm still taking the call."  She also told her brother that she wasn't doing anything important while Karl was still sitting there.  Hard to interpret that in any other way.  She made no attempt to tell Karl later on that she wanted to be with him, so the relationship just fell apart.

[GreekGeek]

The irony is that at heart there's some really interesting character painting and evolution (mostly Rhett -- Scarlett only evolves in literally the last 5 pages or so).

 

I always thought Rhett didn't so much evolve as change to meet whatever the needs of the plot were at the moment. He knows from the beginning that the war is a lost cause, then enlists belatedly for what, to me, are unconvincing reasons: i.e. he acts like an anti-romantic for 300 pages (or whatever the screen time equivalent is) and then he says he has the romantic's love for lost causes. He's an ahead-of-his-time male feminist one minute and the oinkiest of male chauvinists the next. He spends years trying to make Scarlett love him, only to run out of patience just when she realizes he, and not Ashley, is her One True Love.

[partofme]

I hate Love, Actually.  I've only seen it once so I can't go into details about why but I know I found it very off-putting and have no interest in ever watching it again.

 

I also have always hated The Wizard of Oz.  As a child this movie scared me terribly.

[paramitch]

I always thought Rhett didn't so much evolve as change to meet whatever the needs of the plot were at the moment. He knows from the beginning that the war is a lost cause, then enlists belatedly for what, to me, are unconvincing reasons: i.e. he acts like an anti-romantic for 300 pages (or whatever the screen time equivalent is) and then he says he has the romantic's love for lost causes. He's an ahead-of-his-time male feminist one minute and the oinkiest of male chauvinists the next. He spends years trying to make Scarlett love him, only to run out of patience just when she realizes he, and not Ashley, is her One True Love.

 

I definitely see what you mean, but I don't find the two opposing sides to Rhett necessarily unbelievable. He's a product of his time, so he's going to be a total oinker in some ways, but what I think is fun is the way Rhett appears to be so much worse than he is, while actually attempting to do the thing that will empower or support Scarlett. It's just interesting to me -- he's in one of the worst possible scenarios for a more potentially modern man when it comes to women, yet he does consistently support Scarlett's independence in ways that I find really interesting and cool.

 

I also think that Rhett genuinely begins as this conflicted black sheep-semi-douchebag type to some degree, but that he's interested in watching the ways in which Scarlett is trapped in the hypocrisy of their time, and for good or ill, he reaches out and attempts to help her with that, and I do buy the character growth that comes with it. It's really interesting to me from a literary standpoint, because Scarlett was for so many years seen as a heroine, and I've just never seen that. She's a spoiled, horrible little sociopath whose only redeeming quality is her strength, and yet since that's what Rhett loves most about her, I can buy that he would go through as much as he does. 

I also do think that (1) his increased interactions with Scarlett's friends/family and the other Atlanta society, Melanie, etc., give him an unwilling appreciation for the better aspects of their wartime lives (however skewed the cause they're fighting for), and that (2) he begins to overidentify Scarlett as the sort of personification of the best and worst of the Confederacy, so looking at it this way, I buy that he joins up. He's just watched their town be totally annihilated, and the girl he loves basically says, "I'm so glad you're a coward, not a hero like those other guys." So I buy that he would head off in that romantic kind of way.

 

(NOTE: There's a whole other discussion in the Rhett/Scarlett sexual relationship (especially in the key scene in which she does not give consent), but I'll just say that I think MM was going for the gothic there, while also conforming to certain outdated assumptions of her time like "rape isn't possible in marriage" etc. (and then safeguarding herself and ultimately making it okay because Scarlett -- as we see -- does eventually consent inwardly, etc.). Not that any of that is okay. But there are some complex things happening there, as I do think Scarlett is playing upon his feelings and absolutely assuming that he's a mouse she can toy with, when some people cannot be manipulated or toyed with to that extent.)

 

Meanwhile: What I felt was brilliant about Mitchell's book despite so much racial offensiveness (that I actually wish modern editors would simply remove) was the primary relationship between Rhett and Scarlett, and how we think we're reading a book about this one woman's evolution when it is (to me) a subtle but very clear look at how Rhett evolves and then eventually frees himself from both Scarlett and that world's hypocrisies and expectations.

 

I really like the ending, though, because of realistic way for me in which one event leads both to vastly different conclusions.

Melanie dies

, and Rhett has simply had enough. He's done. While for Scarlett, that one event opens up her heart and helps her to realize what she'd missed. The absolute brutal disparity between the two is pretty awesome to me -- Scarlett is simply too late.

[Shannon L.]

I came across In and Out on tv the other night and watched it for a while.  The scene that always makes me smile is when the old lady admits that she hated The Bridges of Madison County.  The first time I saw it, I silently cheered because so did I, ma'am, so did I.

[Julia]

I particularly loved that the ladies were telling their most scandalous secrets to make Debbie Reynolds feel better about her son coming out and cancelling his wedding (which she seemed to care about a lot more than she did about his fiancee or his orientation), and she looked genuinely shocked by that one.

[paramitch]

I don't remember them showing Karl leaving.  It was just them sitting there.

 

After the first call, he told her that he understood that she had family issues.  When she took the second call, Karl asked her if taking the call would make any difference to her brother, and Sarah said no.  I took the "no" to mean "No, it won't help him, but I'm still taking the call."  She also told her brother that she wasn't doing anything important while Karl was still sitting there.  Hard to interpret that in any other way.  She made no attempt to tell Karl later on that she wanted to be with him, so the relationship just fell apart.

 

It's been awhile since I saw it, and I could be totally wrong, but my memory of the scene is that she takes the call, and after a few moments it becomes apparent that this is going to be something for which everything stops, at least for the moment, as her brother's having an episode. Then after a minute or two of her talking to her brother, she sits down to keep talking to him, and then Karl leaves silently as she is still on the phone.

 

Then a few scenes later she's at work late, and Karl passes her and looks at her with what could be either regret or shame, and just keeps walking on out, with the implication that she ruined her chance at happiness. Which I don't get. If he's a nice guy, and truly into her (and the film sets all this up that they've been working together for a long time and carried a mutual torch), all it would take is a little patience for the two of them to be together.

 

Anyway. I just always found the resolution to Linney's story just really jarring, kind of illogical, and kind of forced so it was just super-tragic (ending on the scene of her brother being violent toward her, and showing that he's so mentally ill that he isn't always aware of her presence or what it takes for her to visit/care for him, etc.). There are all kinds of ways this woman could still have a relationship even if she is a caregiver, so the story just doesn't work for me. Plus, at that point, almost all of the major female characters in the movie have been squashed like bugs in some way, so I admit my tolerance is also low.

[die Frau]

I remember seeing "Singin' in the Rain" (which people generally seem to love) when I was younger and liking it okay.  I tried watching it again not that long ago, and it was hard to finish. The title song is by far the best part. I realize the problem is that I absolutely hated Don Lockwood, and I could tell I was not "supposed" to. To be honest, I missed the first part the second time around, so I could not remember if Lina Lamont did anything to show her poor character in that time, or if the problem they all had with her is that she could not act and had a grating voice (and while the actress did a good job with it, it was sort of annoying to have to put up with.) From the way that acted about how horrible it was that they had to work with her, you would have thought she had threatened their lives. Yes, she "acts out" later, but I couldn't blame her at that point after all of the scheming they did behind her back. Why I hated Don is that he was the driving force and did not seem overly talented or charismatic even though he was "supposed" to be. People were laughing at him as well in the test screening, and the fact that their film was just stupid. Speaking of, I despised the "Broadway Melody" song and if I would ever watch "Singin# in the Rain" again, that song will always be skipped. I'm not sure what's worse: that it is a part of their movie-within-a-movie, which looked like it is supposed to be a period piece (i.e. taking place well before Broadway was around), or that the entire time the song was going on (which felt like an eternity) Don was supposed to be describing what was happening ("so then he knocks on an imaginary door and bellows 'gotta dance, gotta dance,' as the person who answers the door stares at him speechlessly"). Also: while I "respect" Gene Kelly's dancing and all, his giant grin while he was dancing ...bugged me.

Edited December 5, 2014 by die Frau

[Ubiquitous]

I hate Grease, always have. Sandy didn't have to change. At all. It pisses me off she became a spandex-clad bar wench just to nab some guy she'll probably break up with by August.  I wish the film instead had ended with her telling Danny, Rizzo and Kenickie where to get off.

I found the ending depressing. So, Sandy conforms and becomes a slut for Danny, who doesn't change at all.