Unpopular Opinions

[caracas1914]

I think Ronald Colman was handsomer and sexier than Cary Grant!

 

I don't think ANY Anglo saxon screen actor in the 20th century had a more beautiful speaking  voice than Ronald Colman.   His Sidney Carton famoos closing line alone...(It's a far better...)  from A Tale of Two Cities.

 

I think he was a different type than Cary, Ronald was the romantic dreamer , much more "weightier" then Cary, who tended to veer toward more light or comic stuff.  (Not to say Cary didn't do his share of dramatic roles).  The type of roles Ronald did weren't Cary's , and vice/versa.  They were both exceedingly sexy in their own way.  To me it's like comparing a Ferrari to a Mazeratti.  :)

 

But damn, "Random Harvest". it's hard to conceive any other actor who could have pulled off that role (amnesia) without looking ridiculous.

Edited January 11, 2015 by caracas1914

[caracas1914]

Sunset Boulevard

 

I know this is sacrilegious, and yes I KNOW it was planned that way to fit the character and the silent  era acting she came from , but I find the over the top, hammy way Gloria Swanson played Norma Desmond incredibly distracting.   It's like her foot was on the pedal the whole time and I found it wearying after awhile.  William Holden's modulated performance as the kept man was so much more effective.  In fact everyone in this 50's setting  seems to be in a more subdued  acting style, including the cameo with Buster Keaton. 

 

Even the famous "I'm ready for my closeup" I have to stop from full out laughing.   So does this make me Carole Burnette?   Because for once I think her parody is actually the same damn performance.

Edited January 11, 2015 by caracas1914

[Julia]

Ronald Colman was awesome. We had Prisoner of Zenda on heavy rotation around here when the kid was growing up, along with Captain Blood and Robin Hood, for all our post-Pirates of the Caribbean swashbuckling needs. 

 

caracas1914, if you want to really break your brain, watch Carol Burnett's Sunset Boulevard, and then watch any of the 7.93 million Amy's Baking Company clip videos on YouTube. 

 

Compare and contrast.

[VCRTracking]

I don't think ANY Anglo saxon screen actor in the 20th century had a more beautiful speaking  voice than Ronald Colman.   His Sidney Carton famoos closing line alone...(It's a far better...)  from A Tale of Two Cities.

 

The first time I heard of Ronald Colman without knowing it was when I was a kid watching the Ducktales episode "The Duck in the Iron Mask" where he plays  "Count Roy" the real ruler of a European country beingheld prisoner and made to wear an iron mask by his evil twin. Roy is played by Maurice LeMarche who basically does a Ronald Colman impression. LeMarche also played the "Brain" in Pinky and the Brain and did him in as Orson Welles.I love how as Count Roy he calls his old friend Scrooge McDuck "Scroo-zhay".

 

You can watch it at this link:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xteqpu_ducktales-duck-in-the-iron-mask-s01-e10-full_shortfilms

Edited January 11, 2015 by VCRTracking

[caracas1914]

caracas1914, if you want to really break your brain, watch Carol Burnett's Sunset Boulevard, and then watch any of the 7.93 million Amy's Baking Company clip videos on YouTube.

 

Compare and contrast.

 

 

Julia, I'm scarred for life...LOL

 

It's weird the movies that stay with you for life, Mine of Ronald Colman's is "Clive of India", I have no idea why since it's not a particularly memorable movie.

 

Sidenote is that he is the one silent actor where TALKIES actually enhanced his career (well Garbo was big before and after) whereas his most famous silent romantic partner, Vilma Banky fell by the wayside doomed by her accent.

Edited January 11, 2015 by caracas1914

[harrie]

I don't think ANY Anglo saxon screen actor in the 20th century had a more beautiful speaking  voice than Ronald Colman.   His Sidney Carton famoos closing line alone...(It's a far better...)  from A Tale of Two Cities.

 

I think he was a different type than Cary, Ronald was the romantic dreamer , much more "weightier" then Cary, who tended to veer toward more light or comic stuff.  (Not to say Cary didn't do his share of dramatic roles).  The type of roles Ronald did weren't Cary's , and vice/versa.  They were both exceedingly sexy in their own way.  To me it's like comparing a Ferrari to a Mazeratti.  :)

 

But damn, "Random Harvest". it's hard to conceive any other actor who could have pulled off that role (amnesia) without looking ridiculous.

 

I agree 100%   -- love them both.

Ronald Colman was awesome. We had Prisoner of Zenda on heavy rotation around here when the kid was growing up, along with Captain Blood and Robin Hood, for all our post-Pirates of the Caribbean swashbuckling needs. 

 

caracas1914, if you want to really break your brain, watch Carol Burnett's Sunset Boulevard, and then watch any of the 7.93 million Amy's Baking Company clip videos on YouTube. 

 

Compare and contrast.

 

Oh, now that is cruel and unusual punishment.  

Edited January 11, 2015 by harrie

[harrie]

The first time I heard of Ronald Colman without knowing it was when I was a kid watching the Ducktales episode "The Duck in the Iron Mask" where he plays  "Count Roy" the real ruler of a European country beingheld prisoner and made to wear an iron mask by his evil twin. Roy is played by Maurice LeMarche who basically does a Ronald Colman impression. LeMarche also played the "Brain" in Pinky and the Brain and did him in as Orson Welles.I love how as Count Roy he calls his old friend Scrooge McDuck "Scroo-zhay".

 

You can watch it at this link:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xteqpu_ducktales-duck-in-the-iron-mask-s01-e10-full_shortfilms

 

VCRTracking, I saw/heard Don Adams do Ronald Colman in a Prisoner of Zenda-like episode of Get Smart before I ever saw the real Ronald Colman, so  when I watched my first Ronald Colman picture, I finally got the joke.  Love him and his voice - Claude Rains will always be my #1 voice love, but Colman is up there. 

[caracas1914]

Claude Rains will always be my #1 voice love, but Colman is up there.

 

Thank you for bringing up Claude Rains! 

 

Unpopular opinion but I felt he quietly dominated most of the scenes he had with Bette Davis in their Warner movies , not to downgrade Bette, but he had such understated power and elegance in his acting.

[cincivic]

Here is another of my UO:

I didn't get all the hype, and I still don't, over Heath Ledger's performance in the Batman movie. Definitely not Oscar worthy. He was fine but I didn't see anything outstanding.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Here is another of my UO:

I didn't get all the hype, and I still don't, over Heath Ledger's performance in the Batman movie. Definitely not Oscar worthy. He was fine but I didn't see anything outstanding.

Heath was entertaining, but the high praise got annoying after a while.

Which resulted in Aaron Eckhart getting pretty much ignored.

Damn shame.

[ribboninthesky1]

Agreed on all counts.  My position has always been that you HAVE to be over the top - it's the Joker.  He did fine, but I think it was a combination of low expectations and posthumous praise.  Ditto on Eckhart being ignored.

[harrie]

Thank you for bringing up Claude Rains! 

 

Unpopular opinion but I felt he quietly dominated most of the scenes he had with Bette Davis in their Warner movies , not to downgrade Bette, but he had such understated power and elegance in his acting.

 

I agree with your unpopular opinion;  I read somewhere that Bette Davis named Rains as her favorite leading man, so she may also have agreed with you.  Rains could completely change direction with just a minor inflection of his speech or a raised eyebrow - possibly my favorite actor ever.  Even up against Errol Flynn in tights. 

[kelnic86]

I got one.

 

I don't care for Thor and Jane. I just don't feel them at all. 

[Bruinsfan]

Even the famous "I'm ready for my closeup" I have to stop from full out laughing.   So does this make me Carole Burnette?   Because for once I think her parody is actually the same damn performance.

Once something reaches a certain level of over-the-topness it's pretty hard to parody it. Kind of like how In Living Color's spoof version of that Sir Mix-a-Lot video "Baby Got Back" wasn't really any funnier or more ridiculous than the original.

[nicepebbles]

kelnic86, my people! As I'm watching both Thors, the whole time I'm thinking, "I don't get it." They don't have negative chemistry and both are easy on the eyes, yet I don't get them falling for each other. They have very little chemistry to me.  If they had more, I could perhaps forgive this pairing.  Even the movie doesn't even really get it.  It's more like we're supposed to believe they are destined rather the movie actually showing us.  Hell, it doesn't even tell us really.  I think all the pining is more, "Hey, I like this person and we haven't had a chance to date" not that they actually have something to miss about each other.  It's 'falling in love under weird circumstances.'  If they actually spent some time together, they would probably breakup after a while. This is probably just me, but the height difference just makes it more of "I don't get it."

[Wiendish Fitch]

I got one.

 

I don't care for Thor and Jane. I just don't feel them at all. 

 

The Thor movies are fun and all (Chris Hemsworth is always a treat, as is Tom Hiddleston), but I agree on Thor and Jane. I'm biased, though, because of my deep-seated loathing of Natalie Portman. I wish they could have someone tougher and more womanly as Jane. In other words, I wish they'd cast Jaimie Alexander or Kat Dennings (but they're stuck as Sif and Darcy respectively, so there you are).

 

I mean, Thor is a god, he's not going to fall in love with just anyone!

[wanderingstar]

I wish they'd cast Jaimie Alexander or Kat Dennings (but they're stuck as Sif and Darcy respectively, so there you are).

 

 

I have zero familiarity with the source material, but based on seeing the movies, I always mildly shipped Thor and Sif.

[ribboninthesky1]

I don't read the comic, but I thought I read that Thor and Sif are or were a couple.  So it's not like it would have been some egregious tangent from canon if they went there in the film.  The scenes on Earth would have worked just as well if Jane was a friend.  I never understood how that relationship was supposed to work anyway, and when Jane petulantly slapped him in the second film, it sealed my dislike for the pairing. 

 

Besides, Hemsworth and Portman reinforce my belief that two beautiful people do not automatically equal chemistry. Neither of them sold it.  At best, I got a mutual respect vibe for each other, which is great, but not romantic.    

[Joe]

In the mythology, they're married with three children. Their daughter is named Thrud, which always amuses me. In the comics they've been sort of on and off for decades.

[herbaltease]

Interesting how the UO thread has drifted onto this topic, re: Marvel couples.  I assume it's because of the new A2 trailer, which is the reason Marvel is on my mind, anyway.  In regards to Thor and Jane: there's a lot to admire about an astrophysicist who discovers a bridge between worlds using her wit, intelligence, and sheer perverseness.  Admittedly, she stumbles into the first incident, but still... she figures out how to help save the universe at least twice, I think.  I can understand why Thor might be attracted to that.  Jane is probably different from any woman he'd find on Asgard.  However, I'd have to agree with an earlier assessment that Portman's interpretation grates.  Her Jane is so shrill, IMO, at least in the first movie.  In the sequel, it seemed to me that some of the actors just showed up for the check, and Portman's no exception.  Plus, she kind of bullies her only pal Darcy around from time to time, which I found sort of off-putting.

 

I also find Tony/Ironman and Pepper to be a bit of a stretch, though I know it's comic canon.  Pepper can do much, much, MUCH better than alcoholic p-hound Tony, but at least he's aware of it.

 

Sadly, the couple that never was is probably the most plausible to me: Steve and Peggy.  I feel as if he would have treated her like a goddess.  

 

Finally, I have to give Spike TV due credit for allowing me a way to catch up on all the A1 prequels & some sequels for free.    

 

Besides, Hemsworth and Portman reinforce my belief that two beautiful people do not automatically equal chemistry. Neither of them sold it.  At best, I got a mutual respect vibe for each other, which is great, but not romantic.

 

 

I agree with this.

Edited January 13, 2015 by 80srockher

[Julia]

Sadly, the couple that never was is probably the most plausible to me: Steve and Peggy.  I feel as if he would have treated her like a goddess

This, especially since they both totally sold me on her starting to be interested when he was tiny and asthmatic and him really admiring the way she threw a punch.

[Kel Varnsen]

Interesting how the UO thread has drifted onto this topic, re: Marvel couples.  I assume it's because of the new A2 trailer, which is the reason Marvel is on my mind, anyway.  In regards to Thor and Jane: there's a lot to admire about an astrophysicist who discovers a bridge between worlds using her wit, intelligence, and sheer perverseness.  Admittedly, she stumbles into the first incident, but still... she figures out how to help save the universe at least twice, I think.  I can understand why Thor might be attracted to that.  Jane is probably different from any woman he'd find on Asgard.  H

I think if they played it as the fact these people totally changed each other on a huge level and the only way their brains could comprehend that is to fall in love with each other (or something like that, ie it broke their brains) I think it could have worked (at least for Jane). Because if you are a theoretical astrophysicist and then all of the sudden you discover an inter-dimensional bridge to other worlds, that is probably going to be hard to comprehend. Then all of the sudden an attractive, strong and charming guy (with super powers) comes out. I can see that the only way her brain could process that is to think "I am in love with him". Unfortunately the actors and the writing didn't really show that.

[ToxicUnicorn]

Here's a UO from the Batman trilogy: the only part I liked in the whole trilogy was the few minutes that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was onscreen.  Batman himself bored me silly.  The only reason I spent money was because my kids wanted to see them, and going to the theater was a big treat; otherwise, I think it was a total waste..  

[caracas1914]

In the comic books Thor has a lot more time (decades) with Sif as a romantic lead than Jane Foster, whose "only" a nurse. However I can see the need to pair him with Jane, to make the Earth connection better. However Natalie Portman is so basic in the role.

Edited January 15, 2015 by caracas1914

[Shannon L.]

[small voice] I didn't make it through The Lego Movie.  Meh.

 

And since it's that time of year:  We now have to wade through comments about how ridiculous and shallow Hollywood is and what a bunch of self congratulatory egomaniacs they are.  Well, I'm fine with it all.  Should we give our service men and women, our fire fighters and cops, teachers, doctors, nurses, etc. more credit?  Of course!  Are movies too expensive with the actors being obscenely paid?  Sure.  But, they work so much harder than most people know.  It's exhausting work--sometimes emotionally, sometimes physically, sometimes both-- and it doesn't end with the end of the movie.  When it's time for it's release, they're out around the world doing interviews, press conferences, red carpets.  Oh sure, that parts sweet--kind of like a party--but as someone who doesn't deal with time zone changes and crowds of people very well (and some actors are shy), it looks very taxing to me.  Do I "boo-hoo" over how tough they have it?  No, but it is harder than most people realize, so if they want to throw parties at the end of the year with their friends, so be it. I'll be in front of the tv watching every bit of it. 

 

I just wish they'd acknowledge the crew more--their work is even more physically exhausting. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by Shannon L.

[Wiendish Fitch]

[small voice] I didn't make it through The Lego Movie.  Meh.

 

 

 

Darn it, Shannon L., you beat me to the punch!

 

The Lego Movie was…. okay at best, and  I don't think it was "snubbed" in any way. I thought it was occasionally amusing but nothing special, and I was bothered by its feeble attempt at a moral (is everyone special or not? Make up your damn minds!), and I didn't like the archaic, sexist undertones of the ending

(for the millionth time, girls play with Legos, too).

 

Really, all The Lego Movie did was remind me how much I adore The Incredibles.

[ribboninthesky1]

I don't care about award shows - don't care who was nominated, who wasn't, who was snubbed, who has run a better "campaign," who is best dressed, worst dressed, more deserving, etc.  I don't begrudge the indulgence, I just don't watch it.  I saw a Huffington Post article that referenced how bored Amal Alamuddin supposedly looked during the Golden Globes.  If she was, I can't say I blame her.  All of the high drama and image projection of it all would just make me wish I could go home and read a book.  I don't know how the hard-core introverts get through the season, though I guess they don't go unless they have to, heh.  

[Brandi Maxxxx]

I liked The Lego Movie but I think it's definitely overrated. And in regards to the spoiler-tagged part of Wiendish Fitch's post: 

To me the joke seemed to be about younger siblings being annoying and not about girls ruining boy stuff. It still goes against everything the movie told us about there being no right way to play with Lego ("Lego" is a mass noun by the way, you're not supposed to pluralize it) but the irony seemed deliberate.

 

And since you brought up The Incredibles: I love several Pixar movies but never cared for The Incredibles.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Brandi Maxxxx

[Joe]

I didn't even like the trailer for the Lego movie. Even after I heard it was a great movie, I couldn't stand it.

[Jeebus Cripes]

The Nightmare Before Christmas

 

The artist in me adores the animation and crafting involved, but this is a boring movie. The songs are... no. Just, no. I've tried so many times to get into it, and it's just so boring to me. I'm always fighting the urge to change the channel.

[Kel Varnsen]

  But, they work so much harder than most people know.  It's exhausting work--sometimes emotionally, sometimes physically, sometimes both-- and it doesn't end with the end of the movie.  When it's time for it's release, they're out around the world doing interviews, press conferences, red carpets.  Oh sure, that parts sweet--kind of like a party--but as someone who doesn't deal with time zone changes and crowds of people very well (and some actors are shy), it looks very taxing to me.  Do I "boo-hoo" over how tough they have it?  No, but it is harder than most people realize, so if they want to throw parties at the end of the year with their friends, so be it. I'll be in front of the tv watching every bit of it. 

 

I have the exact opposite, probably also unpopular opinion. Anytime I hear an actor on TV or movies talk about how it was a difficult shoot or they had to work long hours it makes me cringe and makes me feel like actors are super out of touch. I mean ok sure you had to work a 14 hour day on set, but lots of people work 14 hour days and for them, none of that time is spent in a trailer with their feet up while things are getting set up, or at the craft services area or with a personal assistant who will cater to your every need. 

[Schweedie]

[small voice] I didn't make it through The Lego Movie.  Meh.

Oh my gosh, I thought I was the only one! Yeah, there's an unpopular opinion for you - I don't feel like it was snubbed at the Oscars. It didn't do anything for me at all, no matter how much I wanted to love it.

[caracas1914]

2001: A Space Odyssey is highly overrated as far as a cinematic triumph.  I admit it's clinically impressive in a sterile kind of way, but I think the storyline is fundamentally stupid and fairly incoherent and I couldn't get past that.  On several occasions.   Just like the visuals of "Titanic" didn't overcome the tinny dialogue, the visuals of 2001 couldn't compensate for the dialogue/storyline.

[Bruinsfan]

Tons of my friends loved The Lego Movie and praised it to the high heavens, but Will Arnett AND Will Ferrell in one movie makes me more reluctant to see it than a graphic ethnic cleansing documentary.

[Julia]

2001: A Space Odyssey is highly overrated as far as a cinematic triumph.  I admit it's clinically impressive in a sterile kind of way, but I think the storyline is fundamentally stupid and fairly incoherent and I couldn't get past that.  On several occasions.   Just like the visuals of "Titanic" didn't overcome the tinny dialogue, the visuals of 2001 couldn't compensate for the dialogue/storyline.

 

I've never managed to stay awake through more than the first half hour of 2001 (or really, any Kubrick movie after he failed to steal an Oscar™ for writing Dalton Trumbo's Spartacus script and became an auteur). I once fell asleep before the neanderthal threw the bone. In a theater. That scene is pretty loud, in a theater.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Julia

[JustaPerson]

 

 

 

Sadly, the couple that never was is probably the most plausible to me: Steve and Peggy.  I feel as if he would have treated her like a goddess

This, especially since they both totally sold me on her starting to be interested when he was tiny and asthmatic and him really admiring the way she threw a punch

 

Totally agree, they're my favorite of the couples, and they're the ones who never got together! I mean, Steve is like the comic book equivalent of a former fat kid who is now hot, which pretty much guarantees he would have treated her like a goddess.

[Janet Snakehole]

Yay, someone else who didn't like The Incredibles! I love Pixar movies, but that movie is my least favorite out of all of them.

Except for Cars 2, never saw it.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Janet Snakehole

[xls]

2001: A Space Odyssey is highly overrated as far as a cinematic triumph.  I admit it's clinically impressive in a sterile kind of way, but I think the storyline is fundamentally stupid and fairly incoherent and I couldn't get past that.  On several occasions.   Just like the visuals of "Titanic" didn't overcome the tinny dialogue, the visuals of 2001 couldn't compensate for the dialogue/storyline.

Amen! All "style". Stanley Kubrick is the most overrated director in history IMO. Eyes Wide Shut sucked big time too. Who the hell would give a shit about a secret sex club, enough to murder people? No one cares! The Christmas lighting throughout the movie was pretty-that all could find to like about it.

[herbaltease]

Seeing all of these commercials for 'Black and White' reminds me of how unimpressed I've always been with Kevin Costner.  I remember wanting to fall asleep during 'Dances with Wolves' when I first saw it in middle school history class, and I chalk that up to Costner's general staleness.  I caught a few minutes of 'Wyatt Earp' on TV not too long ago and still felt the same way.  He's the same person in every role he plays, IMO.  

[ruby24]

Yeah, he's always been a little stiff, but that must have been part of his appeal (obviously there was a time when people liked him). I remember some used to compare him to Gary Cooper, who, if you've ever seen him in anything, was also kind of this stiff, wooden performer, but seen as an All American kind of guy who played baseball players, cowboys and soldiers a lot.

[Julia]

I liked him in Bull Durham. His rigidity kind of worked for me for a character who's trying to hold on to the only thing he's ever cared about by helping someone he can't respect take the place he couldn't hold.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Never was a huge Costner fan.

But I loved him as a serial killer in Mr. Brooks.

He will forever have place in my heart, for smacking Dane Cook with a shovel.

Edited January 23, 2015 by MrsRafaelBarba

[proserpina65]

I liked him in Bull Durham. His rigidity kind of worked for me for a character who's trying to hold on to the only thing he's ever cared about by helping someone he can't respect take the place he couldn't hold.

That rigidity also suited his character in The Untouchables.  And personally, I really liked him in Tin Cup, where he - gasps - plays someone who's not rigid at all.  Yeah, really.

[briochetwist]

I thought Kostner was amazing in 'The Upside of Anger'.

[Dandesun]

I liked him in Bull Durham. His rigidity kind of worked for me for a character who's trying to hold on to the only thing he's ever cared about by helping someone he can't respect take the place he couldn't hold.

Love Bull Durham. Actually, that rigid quality works for 'Dances with Wolves' as he's playing an army officer. And I think it works in Wyatt Earp as well. Hell, a lot of his roles seem to fit that rigid quality. It's just that he went through this period where all of his movies were these epic-length affairs... I thought I was going to get hypothermia during JFK that theatre was so cold and the movie was so long.

As for Wyatt Earp... I'd just rather watch Tombstone. (Although Dennis Quiad is great as Doc in Costners version.)

The only thing worth watching in Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is Alan Rickman.

[harrie]

I find that Julia Roberts is not particularly talented and always seem to play Julia Roberts, even in her Oscar-TM winning portrayal of Erin Brockovich. She also walks like a truck driver, but that's beside the point (and no offense intended to truck drivers).  Is this an unpopular opinion?  

Love Bull Durham. Actually, that rigid quality works for 'Dances with Wolves' as he's playing an army officer. And I think it works in Wyatt Earp as well. Hell, a lot of his roles seem to fit that rigid quality. It's just that he went through this period where all of his movies were these epic-length affairs... I thought I was going to get hypothermia during JFK that theatre was so cold and the movie was so long.

As for Wyatt Earp... I'd just rather watch Tombstone. (Although Dennis Quiad is great as Doc in Costners version.)

The only thing worth watching in Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is Alan Rickman.

 

Rickman is worth watching in just about anything. Love him.

[Julia]

I think Julia Roberts got caught in the Meg Ryan I am superhumanly adorable and all will love me and despair trap (which also yawns for Anne Hathaway). I think that tends not to work out well, career-wise. The roles for antic cuteness between, say, forty and Helen Hayes or Ruth Gordon are vanishingly rare and generally painful to watch.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Julia

[UYI]

All this talk about Kevin Costner and no love for Field of Dreams?

 

UO or not, I loved him in that movie. 

[bosawks]

He should be married to Amy Madigan in all his movies.

[Rick Kitchen]

I find that Julia Roberts is not particularly talented and always seem to play Julia Roberts, even in her Oscar-TM winning portrayal of Erin Brockovich. She also walks like a truck driver, but that's beside the point (and no offense intended to truck drivers).  Is this an unpopular opinion?  

 

Rickman is worth watching in just about anything. Love him.

 

Truly, Madly Deeply is an awesome movie.

 

 

All this talk about Kevin Costner and no love for Field of Dreams?

 

UO or not, I loved him in that movie. 

 

My favorite movie of all time.