Unpopular Opinions

[Shannon L.]

I liked La La Land, but think it's way over rated.  The production design was beautiful and Emma and Ryan are very charming, both together and separately, but the story was just "meh" for me, as were the songs.  I don't let hype keep me away from seeing movies, but this time I bought into it and was disappointed.

I'm not familiar with Ruth Negga's work except for SHIELD and WWZ,  but I don't think Loving was a good indication of what she's capable of (or her costar).  I was bored to death with the movie and left thinking that just because something is important (and it was), doesn't always mean that it makes for a good movie.

[slf]

I wasn't blown away by La La Land, either. In fact, I hadn't wanted to see it because the trailer it so, so, so annoying in how hard it tries. The whole movie is like that. To clarify, it's not a bad movie. You aren't going to be in pain sitting through it but yeesh. The story is weak. He wants to "make it" and she wants to "make it" and they "struggle" to "make it" and they have to make "sacrifices". Almost none of that was conveyed in a meaningful way? I mean, I hate Fame. Fame pisses me off and puts me to sleep, and when I wake up I'm still grumpy. Fame gives me hate-hangovers. But Fame at least conveys sacrifices and how chasing "the dream" can cost you, change you, and even ruin your life. Singin' in the Rain is a great musical about the frustrations and joys of making art, colliding dreams and egos, and how the industry screws you over. AND it has memorable songs and dance numbers (yeah, even that totally random one with Cyd Charisse; that's iconic, I don't care what people say). The 'struggling' in LLL - and Mia and Sebastian are only struggling if you think becoming a successful actress or musician is something that happens in just a few short years and that you'll be able to find steady and well-paid employment in the meantime - is not only light on any actual struggling but what it does have is pretty generic. This could've been a movie about two recent college grads (incompatible dates, having your car towed, etc). With Mia in particular everything felt too general, too broad. At least Sebastian had a very specific goal to work toward.

The songs were pretty mediocre, I thought. I haven't fully watched Hedwig and the Angry Inch but I can sing much of that song because it's catchy. I haven't watched Chicago since it came out and I can sing several of its songs near-perfectly. I couldn't sing a song from this movie if my life depended on it and I sat through the whole thing just recently. I felt like I was watching a musical written by someone who had watched a lot of musicals and tried to recreate, without really understanding, what he saw. The lyrics and dancing don't have the wit, charm, or heart a truly good (much less great) musical needs. I think if this was made during the 40s/50s it wouldn't have made an impact.

Stone and Gosling: the acting is better than the performing, definitely, but neither is Oscar-caliber. Emma Stone is not a great singer or even a very good one. Gosling does somewhat better but I wasn't impressed by him either. They're both so self-conscious during the dancing and Stone in particular wasn't following the movement through. 

Visually it's lovely (I expect Tumblr to gif the hell outta this) but goddamn is it a white, white movie. Is LA that white in reality? I lived in a small city in California for a few years when I was a kid and I remember a lot more diversity than that. The opening number was probably the best w/r/t to racial diversity (and song and dance-wise) but it was all downhill from there. Also, yeah, the jazz discussions are cringey. Gosling plays every mediocre white guy who thinks jazz needs to be "saved" and will (ineptly) explain that in-depth to the first black person (and woman of any race) who makes the mistake of engaging him. I would also say that the film positions his pov as the right pov by sort of culturally decontextualizing jazz and I think that's partially where the charge of the movie being racially tone deaf comes from. I'm probably not explaining this right but that was my take. There's also the issue of how their characters' journeys are portrayed as The Default, which...in 2016/2017? Okay. But take it on the chin, then. 

I give it a solid B.

[Bruinsfan]

12 hours ago, slf said:

Visually it's lovely (I expect Tumblr to gif the hell outta this) but goddamn is it a white, white movie. Is LA that white in reality? I lived in a small city in California for a few years when I was a kid and I remember a lot more diversity than that.

I went to LA on vacation back in November and the only time I was around that white a crowd was at Musso & Frank Grill, which might as well have involved time travel to the 1950s except for the prices. Everywhere else I went was a diverse mixture of skin colors.

[Wiendish Fitch]

To all fans of classic cinema, have I got a doozy:

Valley of the Dolls?

It's not that bad. 

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's not a great film by any means, but calling it one of the "worst films ever made" is a very gross exaggeration. Is it lurid and over the top? Sure it is, because it's based on a lurid and over the top novel. The acting is not stellar, but it's fine. Really, I think it suffers most from pacing problems (the boring stuff goes on too long, and we rush through the important scenes). Patty Duke is a standout (to play a premature has-been at 21 must have been difficult), and Susan Hayward manages to keep her dignity in a thankless part. 

Come to think of it, quite a few of the "worst movie" mainstays don't really deserve it.

Mommie Dearest? Flawed, but could have been much, much worse. Frankly, I worry about people laughing at the coat hanger scene. The worst thing about it Diana Scarwid as adult Christina (poor Scarwid couldn't act hot in the Sahara).

Ishtar? Not my cup of tea, but I get and admire what Elaine May was going for. 

[dusang]

Agreed on the La La Land assessments.  I might have been primed to dislike it, as I had heard the Pop Culture Happy Hour discussion where the entire panel was lukewarm in their reception. They also noted that, because Hollywood loves nothing more than praising Hollywood, it would invariably beat Moonlight at the Oscars, which is a bitter truth.

Watching the Golden Globes and hearing the various acceptance speeches praising the film as "unique" and "risky" I was more annoyed, since it is fundamentally and unapologetically a throwback to the musicals of the 40s and 50s and is doing nothing new, risky, or unique.

@slf PCHH also noted that Sebastian is fundamentally a douchey "jazz-bro," so I was both prepared for it and immediately annoyed by it.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I liked La La Land; I wanted to love it, but I didn't, and I think it's because the screenplay is so soggy and blah. Coincidentally, one of LLL's main influences, An American in Paris, suffers from the same problem. The finales in both these films are astounding, but we have to go on a somewhat unremarkable journey in order to get there. 

So, I'm on the fence: I think plenty of the praise of LLL is deserved, but so is much of the criticism. I think it's going to suffer the same fate as The Artist: the enchantment toward this cute throwback will become an avalanche of hype that pretty much smothers whatever initial charms and merits the film had to begin with, to the point where backlash is inevitable.

[Shannon L.]

14 hours ago, slf said:

The 'struggling' in LLL - and Mia and Sebastian are only struggling if you think becoming a successful actress or musician is something that happens in just a few short years and that you'll be able to find steady and well-paid employment in the meantime - is not only light on any actual struggling but what it does have is pretty generic.

This reminds me of something that bugged me:  They had pretty nice apartments for struggling artists.  Even though Emma had room mates, the three (four?) of them together probably couldn't have afforded such nice apartments one coffee shop salaries.  Or did I miss something about them having rich relatives helping them out? 

[Ohwell]

46 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

This reminds me of something that bugged me:  They had pretty nice apartments for struggling artists.  Even though Emma had room mates, the three (four?) of them together probably couldn't have afforded such nice apartments one coffee shop salaries.  Or did I miss something about them having rich relatives helping them out? 

That's pretty much a movie/TV trope that drives me crazy.  

[topanga]

48 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

This reminds me of something that bugged me:  They had pretty nice apartments for struggling artists.  Even though Emma had room mates, the three (four?) of them together probably couldn't have afforded such nice apartments one coffee shop salaries.  Or did I miss something about them having rich relatives helping them out? 

It's Friends Go to L.A.: The Musical.

[Bruinsfan]

Sebastian I can see the complaint for, as his jazz bro douchiness apparently prevented him from holding down steady gigs that would pay peanuts, but surely four baristas/shopgirls/other wage slaves together could afford a decently-sized suburban apartment?

[Shannon L.]

3 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Sebastian I can see the complaint for, as his jazz bro douchiness apparently prevented him from holding down steady gigs that would pay peanuts, but surely four baristas/shopgirls/other wage slaves together could afford a decently-sized suburban apartment?

Maybe. We lived in a 780 square foot, 2 bedroom house in Pasadena (about 40 minutes from Universal Studios) and were paying $1500 a month. That's about the norm here. Single bedroom apartments can be as high as $1200. Their apartment, clothes, accessories, furniture--it all looked too nice for struggling actors, imo. 

[Sweet Tee]

I had three roommates in a two bedroom about fifteen minutes from Universal Studios and we paid $1600 a month.  It was nice but also largely unfurnished just because we couldn't afford much.  So, the size of the apartment was off to me.  But it didn't bother me as much as her walking around LA in the middle of the night by herself and not being the least bit concerned about it.

[Shannon L.]

3 hours ago, Sweet Tee said:

But it didn't bother me as much as her walking around LA in the middle of the night by herself and not being the least bit concerned about it.

Yes!  I remember thinking that that was dangerous. 

[Bruinsfan]

I can only assume she was used to Spider-Man being there to rescue her if things went south.

[dusang]

She was driving a Prius!!

[cpcathy]

I was thrown off by the fact that it was supposed to be winter, and she wasn't wearing a coat. You don't need a huge parka here in winter, but you need to be wearing something!

[Bruinsfan]

I used to visit LA in February and it was always shorts and short sleeves weather to me. I'd imagine someone from Colorado would be at least as resistant to cold.

[Silver Raven]

2 hours ago, cpcathy said:

I was thrown off by the fact that it was supposed to be winter, and she wasn't wearing a coat. You don't need a huge parka here in winter, but you need to be wearing something!

Psh. People in LA wear shorts year round.

Hell, people up here in Sacramento wear shorts year round, and it's in the 40s today.

[Browncoat]

@Bruinsfan, Mia wasn't from Colorado.  She was from Boulder City, Nevada.

[Bruinsfan]

Ah, thanks, I missed the "City" part.

[cpcathy]

25 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

Psh. People in LA wear shorts year round.

Hell, people up here in Sacramento wear shorts year round, and it's in the 40s today.

It's about 50 here in suburbs of LA and I am freakin' COLD!

[King of Birds]

On 1/12/2017 at 0:02 PM, Shannon L. said:

This reminds me of something that bugged me:  They had pretty nice apartments for struggling artists.

You all were looking for reality in a musical? Reality in a movie taking place in LA?  You brought a knife to a gunfight.

[Shannon L.]

58 minutes ago, King of Birds said:

On 1/12/2017 at 0:02 PM, Shannon L. said:

This reminds me of something that bugged me:  They had pretty nice apartments for struggling artists.

You all were looking for reality in a musical? Reality in a movie taking place in LA?  You brought a knife to a gunfight.

Yeah, I actually thought of that myself after I posted my comments. 

[Blergh]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 0:30 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

To all fans of classic cinema, have I got a doozy:

 

Mommie Dearest? Flawed, but could have been much, much worse. Frankly, I worry about people laughing at the coat hanger scene. The worst thing about it Diana Scarwid as adult Christina (poor Scarwid couldn't act hot in the Sahara).

     I agree with you there. I also thought it was tasteless that film makers opted   to zoom in on the poor child's backside when she was being beaten. One can depict abuse without reveling in it- especially if the movie is supposed to condemn it, thank you very much!

   Somewhat along those same lines, I'd heard about Deliverance for years but didn't see it until recently. It's far more chilling than I'd imagined-

Spoiler

not only the scene of the assault itself and subsequent shooting but also the scene at the boarding house's supper table where for ,one very tense moment ,the banal convo re gardening tips gets interrupted and then everyone there looks at the protagonists to let them know they know- then immediately reverts to the garden tips.  Also, when they pass by the banjo boy and each looks sadly at each other- knowing that they can never, ever have anything more to do with each other much less be friends any more due to what happened despite the boy's evident disconnect to the assaulters. However; I worry about folks laughing about the 'squeal like a pig' line as I find the whole thing revolting not just for the sake of the human victims.

[hoosier80]

Just found this forum last night, after I finally watched (ok, half watched) Pearl Harbor.   I sort of watched the first part, but not very carefully.  I was like are we ever going to get to the actual attack?  The visuals on the attack were pretty good, and the soldiers trapped in the ships was heartbreaking.  The romance?  Ugh.  I was like wait, Evelyn was with Rafe, Rafe was presumed dead (for a nano second or so it seemed), so she hopped into bed with Danny??  Blech.  Then at the end, it's all forgiven?  Ugh.  And the whole thing re: casualties - huge error.  No female nurses were killed.  None.  Now one flyer did go up and brought down several Zeroes, but that is the only one I recall reading about.  It was miraculous that he survived as his plane was riddled with bullets.  Most of the Zeroes shot down were done by whatever artillery or guns were left in tact on the ground.  Too bad they had to fill up the movie with the icky romance (it wasn't even a good romantic triangle).  Maybe if they'd had small vignettes of multiple characters - but then the big stars want big roles.

Titanic was an ok movie.  Not a masterpiece, but ok.  I think the more interesting story would be how Rose got along after the ship went down.  She had zero money, except for that huge gem she found in her pocket.  I sort of get her just letting everyone think she died, as it was her ticket to freedom.  I don't think there was a deep bond between her and her mother.  Maybe later on she'd have sent a note to her mother, but if you think about it, that Rose did die when the ship went down.  She was no longer going to be part of high society.  I'd like to have seen her struggles as she did whatever - be a dancer or chorus girl on Broadway.  The thing is, she needed to steer away from her home town or not have her picture in newspapers where it could be seen by anyone who knew her.  And the thing is Jack was always so resourceful, don't tell me he wouldn't have found something to float on out in the ocean.  There was stuff all over.  But he had to die as there was no way he could've concealed himself - then Rose would have been 'outed' and taken back to her mother, etc.

Legends of the Fall.  Why in the hell didn't Susannah just go back East when her fiancee died originally?  I mean the whole place was a toxic environment.  Go back home or someplace else and try to start again.  Keep in contact with the folks via letter and move on.  She had to go through all 3 brothers?  Ick.  

Ok, with all of the talk of Hollywood's Golden Age (Debbie's passing bringing a lot of it up), I think a lot of the stars in the 40's and 50's (not the real actors) were hams.  They chewed more scenery than a family of rabid beavers.  Maybe they were used to the stage and felt they had to exaggerate their moves?  But if you watch a lot of old movies, the over emoting is there.

Loved the book GWTW.  I've read it multiple times.  The movie is ok.  Beautifully shot, but they left out a lot of the story that I think they could've kept in - like Scarlett's two other children.  But being that the book is over 1,000 pages long, I get it.  Not everything could be included.  While Leslie Howard seemed to have been a decent actor, I think he was all wrong for Ashley.  Just seemed too old to be this dashing man in Scarlett's head.  She had him as her knight in shining armor, and he just looked middle aged.  Didn't like the character anyhow, so maybe that clouded it all for me.

And here's a real UO.  Gene Kelly.  Wonderful dancer.  Really didn't think he was a great actor.  And his dances, when you watch one after the other, he goes to the same moves with each dance at some point.   And he always acted like he was this 'too cool' guy.  Seemed like the same person or same personality in every movie.  Maybe that's because of how the studio cast him, but he seemed very one note to me.  Fred Astaire seemed more versatile to me in terms of dances, but he wasn't a great actor at all.  They were both entertaining and talented, but I never saw them as great actors.  Ginger Rogers seemed more versatile - she was good in that sappy movie Kitty Foyle (horrible storyline) but she was effective.  I really liked her in the Major and the Minor.  Again a sappy story, but she sold it.

The Devil Wears Prada.  Hated Andie's friends, especially her boyfriend.  Yeah she had a shitty, demanding job.  They all had shitty jobs.  I'm sure the entry level chef job had long assed hours.  So she had to wear certain clothes and act a certain way.  Don't tell me that he didn't as well.  Chefs can't act snooty?  Please.   And Andie, who was this incredibly drive wannabe journalist, didn't know who was who in publishing or magazines?  She wouldn't have known who was in the corporation before interviewing?  And she wanted to be an investigative journalist.  The first thing they tell you is to find out about every company before you interview.  And she didn't have decent clothes for an interview?  Not even a basic black suit?  She went to Northwestern, which is basically in Chicago.   Most journalists start out at a smallish newspaper then work up to the big city.  Or find a small newspaper there or in the suburbs first.  Those that start in larger cities most likely have connections in some way.  For her being the editor at Northwestern, you'd have thought she would have connections of some sort from someone.  They were acting like Northwestern was some community college from the reactions she got.  It's far from that.  Then when Andie's boyfriend moves for his dream job in Boston - what she was supposed to be all happy (which she was).  Had the tables been turned, he would've sulked and said oh great you're moving.  He was a selfish jerk.  Just because he didn't like high fashion or the track she was taking, it wasn't his decision.  If she had found she loved it, or even when she said I'm doing this for xxx time to get some experience, he should have been supportive. 

[millennium]

I won't see any movie starring Duane The Rock Johnson.   He is to movies what bubblegum was to rock and roll, yet somebody out there is still trying to repackage him as a SERIOUS action star.    I reject the effort.  He's too bland, too boring, and he looks like a toy of some kind.

[callie lee 29]

On 1/14/2017 at 8:58 PM, hoosier80 said:

   

Ok, with all of the talk of Hollywood's Golden Age (Debbie's passing bringing a lot of it up), I think a lot of the stars in the 40's and 50's (not the real actors) were hams.  They chewed more scenery than a family of rabid beavers.  Maybe they were used to the stage and felt they had to exaggerate their moves?  But if you watch a lot of old movies, the over emoting is there.

 

So much agree!! I thought I was the only one. Someone's I wonder is subtly is just some new fangled idea.

[Amethyst]

On 1/14/2017 at 7:58 PM, hoosier80 said:

I'd like to have seen her struggles as she did whatever - be a dancer or chorus girl on Broadway.  The thing is, she needed to steer away from her home town or not have her picture in newspapers where it could be seen by anyone who knew her.  And the thing is Jack was always so resourceful, don't tell me he wouldn't have found something to float on out in the ocean.  There was stuff all over.  But he had to die as there was no way he could've concealed himself - then Rose would have been 'outed' and taken back to her mother, etc.

This is something I've always wondered about the movie; didn't Rose become an actress or some type of entertainer?  She gave the name of Rose Dawson so her mother wouldn't know she survived the Titanic sinking (which actually seemed kind of cruel, tbh) but if Rose became a public figure, wouldn't her mother have figured out that she lived, anyway?  Especially if Rose's photograph was circulating in a newspaper.

 

On 1/14/2017 at 7:58 PM, hoosier80 said:

Legends of the Fall.  Why in the hell didn't Susannah just go back East when her fiancee died originally?  I mean the whole place was a toxic environment.  Go back home or someplace else and try to start again.  Keep in contact with the folks via letter and move on.  She had to go through all 3 brothers?  Ick.  

IA about the grossness of her hooking up with all three brothers, but I do remember them saying that Susannah's parents were dead, so she had no home to return to back east.  She basically adopted her fiance's family as her own kin, and I got the impression that she had no idea how to survive on her own, believing that her husband would be the main provider.

[ribboninthesky1]

I've recently been watching the Indiana Jones films, as I was never particularly into them in my youth. Not sure how unpopular these are:

Handsome as he is, I just cannot buy Harrison Ford as an archaeologist. In the first film in particular, I thought his performance was pretty weak.  I much prefer him as Han Solo, in part because he's not carrying the films on his own. 

I couldn't stand Marian.  She's just the kind of feisty yet dumb/petulant character that supposed to be "empowering."  I remember reading someone say that Marian was great because she didn't need to be rescued and I wondered if they were going off nostalgia and not what actually happened.  Because yeah, she has to be rescued at least 3 times.  

Willie may have been more whiny and entitled, but I appreciated that she tried to avoid danger whenever possible. Yes, I preferred her to Marian. 

Words cannot express how much I hate the signature theme song of this franchise.   Which is unfortunate for me, because the films use it whenever possible. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

I thought Sebastian in La La Land was way more likable than Jerry in An American in Paris. Yeah, I said it. 

And as much as I like, even love, Gene Kelly, I'm a Fred Astaire gal to my core. 

I love Return of the Jedi. I will defend that movie to my last breath, same with The Force Awakens. Rogue One did nothing for me. I hate that they didn't give Felicity Jones enough to do.

I wanted to love Doctor Strange, but I found it blah.

I way prefer the 1994 live action The Jungle Book to the 2016 one. I'm aware of how dumb that is, but for some reason, the liberties taken in the former don't piss me off nearly as much as the ones in the latter. And, hey, young Lena Headey!

For all the crap Ed Wood and Roger Corman get as bad directors, I'm amazed Joshua Logan doesn't get the same criticisms. Holy Moses, that man's directorial style causes physical pain: interminable close-ups or long shots, uncomfortably long reaction shots where the actors aren't even really reacting, editing that's either choppy or non-existent, and musical numbers where either the actors don't move, or the camera doesn't. Criminy, how did this man continue to get work? If Hollywood must remake an old movie, why don't they remake Camelot? Get a director who knows how to block and stage a musical number, and a cinematographer who dares to use colors that aren't brown, gray, or sickly yellow?

[cynic]

On 1/14/2017 at 5:58 PM, hoosier80 said:

....

And here's a real UO.  Gene Kelly.  Wonderful dancer.  Really didn't think he was a great actor.  And his dances, when you watch one after the other, he goes to the same moves with each dance at some point.   And he always acted like he was this 'too cool' guy.  Seemed like the same person or same personality in every movie.  Maybe that's because of how the studio cast him, but he seemed very one note to me.  Fred Astaire seemed more versatile to me in terms of dances, but he wasn't a great actor at all.  They were both entertaining and talented, but I never saw them as great actors.  Ginger Rogers seemed more versatile - she was good in that sappy movie Kitty Foyle (horrible storyline) but she was effective.  I really liked her in the Major and the Minor.  Again a sappy story, but she sold it.

....

I prefer Donald O'Connor's dancing over Gene Kelly's.

[Athena]

I'm a Fred Astaire girl. I watched Kelly's movies. I do like Singin' in the Rain, but I found American in Paris very boring and long. I liked the score as I like Gershwin, but there wasn't a plot and it was really an exhibition for Kelly to dance which is fine. It just didn't move or wow me like it should have.

[kiddo82]

I find Gene Kelly extremely engaging and charismatic in short bursts but never enough to sustain an entire film.  I tend to grow bored with every movie I've seen him in including Singin' in the Rain.  

[Popples]

The Bandwagon is a much better musical than Singin' in the Rain. The plot flows better, and the musical vignettes actually have something to do with the plot. The second half of the ballet in SITR with Cyd Charisse could be cut, and nothing would be missed.

[Sweet Tee]

Quote

I couldn't stand Marian.  She's just the kind of feisty yet dumb/petulant character that supposed to be "empowering."  I remember reading someone say that Marian was great because she didn't need to be rescued and I wondered if they were going off nostalgia and not what actually happened.  Because yeah, she has to be rescued at least 3 times.  

I so agree with this.  They way everyone hates Willie but loves Marian always baffled me.  Yes, Willie screams a lot.  But, there is a good 10 minute sequence in Raiders that's just Marian shrieking "INDY!!!!" over and over and over again.  Maybe I find her voice more grating than Willie's but that alone was way more obnoxious than the entirety of Willie.  At least Willie was meant to be annoying.  They're really trying to sell Marian as a tough, independent woman and I wasn't buying it. 

[vibeology]

11 hours ago, Popples said:

The Bandwagon is a much better musical than Singin' in the Rain. The plot flows better, and the musical vignettes actually have something to do with the plot. The second half of the ballet in SITR with Cyd Charisse could be cut, and nothing would be missed.

The plot would be fine but the dancing has a value on its own. That Broadway Melody/Broadway Ballet is so beautiful. Yes, it's shoved into the movie and doesn't fit, but it gives Gene and Cyd a chance to really show off their skills. I get why it drags the plot, but I do love it.

[cpcathy]

I'm not that impressed with Singin in the Rain. Besides, I like Fred Astaire better than Gene Kelly.

[raven]

13 hours ago, Sweet Tee said:

They're really trying to sell Marian as a tough, independent woman and I wasn't buying it. 

So agree - it's possible she WAS independent (hard drinking bar owner) but as soon as Indy walks through the door, she turns into a needy, whiny, annoying woman who does need to be saved quite a few times and has an awful voice.   I really thought I was the only one who felt that way!

I liked Willie better also and though Kate Capshaw had better chemistry with Harrison Ford then Karen Allen did.

Ford had the best chemistry with Sean Connery though. 

[festivus]

On 1/14/2017 at 7:58 PM, hoosier80 said:

Ok, with all of the talk of Hollywood's Golden Age (Debbie's passing bringing a lot of it up), I think a lot of the stars in the 40's and 50's (not the real actors) were hams.  They chewed more scenery than a family of rabid beavers.  Maybe they were used to the stage and felt they had to exaggerate their moves?  But if you watch a lot of old movies, the over emoting is there.

I shall now find my courage to post this most unpopular opinion. I don't like old movies. I don't really like anything much that was made before the late 60's. I mean there are a few in there and I love The Wizard of Oz. But I just don't like old movies and the acting probably has a lot to do with it. 

[JustaPerson]

Quote

Maybe they were used to the stage and felt they had to exaggerate their moves?  But if you watch a lot of old movies, the over emoting is there.

Quote

So much agree!! I thought I was the only one. Someone's I wonder is subtly is just some new fangled idea.

 

Technically it kinda is. James Dean/Marlon Brando/Montgomery Clift really popularized the more naturalistic style on film. And that wasn't until the 1950s. Stage actors were largely used when talkies first came in (many silent actors had speech problems or accents that didn't fly anymore) but when filmmaking became less stage-like and people started to realize what they could do with the medium, stage actors were found to be too stiff and unsubtle to suit it. Over emoting still happened but it was the style I guess.

[katha]

12 hours ago, cpcathy said:

 Besides, I like Fred Astaire better than Gene Kelly.

I've always thought Astaire was the better dancer. Isn't that the consensus amongst experts now anyway? And I just prefer him stylistically. Both his lightness and elegance and also how musical and flexible he is in his reactions to the beat. With Kelly it's very straightforward on the beat, Astaire is playing around with the music in his dancing which IMO makes it more interesting to watch. Way superior at partnering as well, of course. Partnering dancers as stylistically diverse as Rogers, Hayworth, Powell, Ellen, Bremer, Garland, Caron and Charisse and making it work with every single one of them. Not to mention the various non-dancers he managed to make look half-decent.  And he was wonderful at ballroom dancing. 

Fantastic choreographer as well, and IMO really underrated in that regard. He didn't usually do directing or things outside of his own numbers, so it was smaller in scope. But as I understand it he usually did all his own dances either himself or together with Hermes Pan, and they're all brilliant work (that wasn't always indicated in the credit system that was used back then). Not only for himself either, but for his various partners as well. Brilliant, brilliant man.

[Crs97]

He may be better technically, and I enjoy watching Fred Astaire, but I love Gene Kelly.  With Astaire, I sometimes think I can see him counting the steps whereas with Kelly, I just see complete joy.  When I was little I remember asking my mother if he was just making it up as he went along and how could it be so good when it was so spontaneous?  I will take passion over technique every time, especially since I think their technique scores would be pretty close.

[kiddo82]

7 hours ago, festivus said:

I shall now find my courage to post this most unpopular opinion. I don't like old movies. I don't really like anything much that was made before the late 60's. I mean there are a few in there and I love The Wizard of Oz. But I just don't like old movies and the acting probably has a lot to do with it. 

Very recently I decided to work my way through AFI's Top 100 (both lists) and it's not that I don't like the older movies but I don't necessarily find them sacrosanct either.  I do believe it's important to recognize the historical context in which these films were produced but just because something was first doesn't mean it's still the best.   I always ask myself if I think the movie I'm watching still holds up today.  Some do.  Some don't.

[ribboninthesky1]

1 hour ago, kiddo82 said:

I do believe it's important to recognize the historical context in which these films were produced but just because something was first doesn't mean it's still the best.

This is why I don't have a fundamental issue with remakes/retellings/updated adaptations. They can still be an epic fail, but I'm not personally offended if I hear or read about some film being remade. And again, thanks to technology, almost all of the original films I have enjoyed are available for me to watch again, if I desire.  It's not like a remake renders an original obsolete. 

[JessePinkman]

As a gay black man I have zero interest in seeing Moonlight (and I feel guilty about it). I've heard nothing but good things about it but my god am I sick of the struggling with your sexuality narrative. I read the synopsis of the movie on wikipedia (which I know does not compare to the watching the movie) and it told me nothing new or interesting about the black gay male experience. 

I'm tired tortured gay people. Of course it's important to show how your sexuality impacts your life, especially in the divisive times we live in but I just want something that isn't "I'm gay and I hate myself", soft-core gay porn or some dumb sex comedy about gay people. 

[katha]

I've watched and enjoyed the Fantastic Beasts movie, but I think the problems with it that were already noted in most of the press reviews could easily escalate the longer the series continues. The protagonists are a bit thinly drawn and not that compelling. And IMO the problems with world building, plotting and characterization that were also prominent in the Harry Potter books are also cropping up here again.

JKR is an inventive and talented writer, but editors etc. probably haven't had any influence on her for a long time. The script for Beasts is basically one giant plothole. What's happening to magical children born to non-magical parents in the US? Are they ever found? And do they need to shun their parents because of the no-interaction laws? How incompetent is the US wizarding government if they didn't notice that a genocidal maniac was impersonating their head of police? And why is some random, anti-social, creature obsessed Brit able to tell that he's evil and wearing a false face when the people who've supposedly known the real police chief for years don't? Why is Newt's creature hoarding depicted as cute when he's shown to be super irresponsible and causing loads of hurt and destruction with it (seriously, his damn suitcase can't even be closed properly!)? I'm sure the following installments will only add more confusion and questions of that sort.

Edited January 19, 2017 by katha

[Constantinople]

I don't hate Javier Bardem, so I'm not posting this in the actors you can't stand thread, but I think he's overrated.

I found his performance rather dull in No Country for Old Men.  Part of that was the script, but I didn't find him any more interesting in Skyfall or Vicky Cristina Barcelona.

On 1/18/2017 at 7:12 AM, kiddo82 said:

Very recently I decided to work my way through AFI's Top 100 (both lists) and it's not that I don't like the older movies but I don't necessarily find them sacrosanct either.  I do believe it's important to recognize the historical context in which these films were produced but just because something was first doesn't mean it's still the best.   I always ask myself if I think the movie I'm watching still holds up today.  Some do.  Some don't.

With that in mind, it's been decades, and perhaps I would change my mind if I could bear to watch it again, but Citizen Kane was a bit underwhelming after all of the hype I had heard about it.

[BigBeagle]

18 hours ago, Constantinople said:

With that in mind, it's been decades, and perhaps I would change my mind if I could bear to watch it again, but Citizen Kane was a bit underwhelming after all of the hype I had heard about it.

It had to be underwhelming, considering everybody considered it the greatest movie in the history of forever. Anything with that kind of label can't help but be a bit disappointing to a first-time viewer. Having said that, I didn't think it was that great, either.

[GreekGeek]

On 1/17/2017 at 11:29 PM, festivus said:

I shall now find my courage to post this most unpopular opinion. I don't like old movies. I don't really like anything much that was made before the late 60's. I mean there are a few in there and I love The Wizard of Oz. But I just don't like old movies and the acting probably has a lot to do with it. 

I like old movies, but I find the dramas hold up much better than the comedies. I can admire the physical agility of Chaplin and Keaton, but they don't make me laugh much. When it comes to silent clowns, I like Harold Lloyd best. Screwball comedy leaves me cold except for some Preston Sturges. The only old time comics I really enjoy are the Marx Brothers. Bob Hope, Jack Benny, Milton Berle, et al barely get a chuckle out of me. 

[kiddo82]

On January 20, 2017 at 3:09 PM, BigBeagle said:

It had to be underwhelming, considering everybody considered it the greatest movie in the history of forever. Anything with that kind of label can't help but be a bit disappointing to a first-time viewer. Having said that, I didn't think it was that great, either.

I just wish I wasn't spoiled when I saw it.  The film's been parodied so much it's nearly impossible to reach a certain age and not know the answer to the central mystery.  I think the ending would have been more impactful had I not known it was coming.