Unpopular Opinions

[IWantCandy71]

1 hour ago, kiddo82 said:

Not trying to be a jerk but I don't really see how that's inherently a bad thing.  

Who said it was a bad thing?  Entertainment is usually not a bad thing. But I think audiences have a disconnect. I think that if they have a good time at the movies, and enjoy the movie, that automatically translates into the movie itself being "good". Which is not always accurate.  I couldn't care less who enjoys them. I  myself have enjoyed many movies over the years that made me laugh, cry, and forget my troubles for a few hours. But after the hype over some of them died down, I realized afterwards that in terms of quality, they weren't really well made.

Many movies made during the entire decade from 1980-1990 fall smack dab in that category for me, as a matter of fact.

I dislike the pretense that  some people try to project, that movies built around spectacle are well written, complex, great movies. Getting wowed by a great fight or great CGI or even a few great moments, does not make a movie great.

So no I don't have a problem at all with people being entertained by spectacle, as long as it's not used as justification of the quality of the movie.

Edited May 7, 2019 by IWantCandy71

[Anduin]

18 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

What I take issue with, is the idea that most of these movies are "good" movies. In my experience, they are not.  I couldn't care less who enjoys them. I dislike the pretense that  some people try to project, that these are well written, well made pieces of cinema. 

Most of the time, they are not, though there are some exceptions.

By the standards of both comic movies and action movies, the MCU is pretty good. I've seen a lot worse in both categories.

[kiddo82]

11 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

I dislike the pretense that  some people try to project, that movies built around spectacle are well written, complex, great movies. Getting wowed by a great fight or great CGI or even a few great moments, does not make a movie great.

So no I don't have a problem at all with people being entertained by spectacle, as long as it's not used as justification of the quality of the movie.

I don't disagree but if that was a blanket case then folks would be lined up left and right defending a movie like The Phantom Menace because that pod race was awesome.  It's possible that a movie can be both known for a spectacle and be of good quality. (Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  Ben-Hur.  Singing in the Rain. Network) Or be one or the other.  Or be neither.  

Edited May 7, 2019 by kiddo82

[IWantCandy71]

13 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I don't disagree but if that was a blanket case then folks would be lined up left and right defending a movie like The Phantom Menace because that pod race was awesome.  It's possible that a movie can be both known for a spectacle and be of good quality. (Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  Ben-Hur.  Singing in the Rain. Network) Or be one or the other.  Or be neither.  

Oh, I never said it was a blanket case. I think it's the majority of the case for Marvel movies, though from my own personal experience reading comments online when one comes out.

[Dancingjaneway]

I wish people would stop making movies about serial killers (Ted Bundy, zodiac killer etc). I find it disgusting that people take no issue with using their victims to create slasher porn. I also have an issue with the films that make them out to be mysterious, intriguing, & sometimes misunderstood. We do enough glorifying of monsters everyday why do we have to continue it in our entertainment. 

[Blergh]

4 hours ago, Dancingjaneway said:

I wish people would stop making movies about serial killers (Ted Bundy, zodiac killer etc). I find it disgusting that people take no issue with using their victims to create slasher porn. I also have an issue with the films that make them out to be mysterious, intriguing, & sometimes misunderstood. We do enough glorifying of monsters everyday why do we have to continue it in our entertainment. 

A very hearty AMEN to you, Miss Janeway!

 And folks wonder why so many teens think violence and criminality is 'cool'. I think media depictions that glorify the above could be a huge contributing factor!  And while I'm no fan of censorship, I think the time has come for folks who produce this stuff to truly think about their parts in this and consider using their gifts for good and to try to uplift our corner of the world instead of helping to degrade it! 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Blergh

[Wiendish Fitch]

6 hours ago, Dancingjaneway said:

I wish people would stop making movies about serial killers (Ted Bundy, zodiac killer etc). I find it disgusting that people take no issue with using their victims to create slasher porn. I also have an issue with the films that make them out to be mysterious, intriguing, & sometimes misunderstood. We do enough glorifying of monsters everyday why do we have to continue it in our entertainment. 

2 movies are coming out this year that focus on Charles Manson and/or the Manson Murders... when the hell are we going to get a biopic that focuses on Sharon Tate (I don't believe for a second the upcoming Tarantino flick is going to treat her as anything but a cypher)? The second season of American Crime Story was better than I'm comfortable admitting, but can't we balance the scales with a Gianni Versace biopic or documentary? And dear God, enough about Ted Bundy! He was an evil, disgusting man who left I don't know how many destroyed lives in his wake, the world is better for him being dead!

And I steadfastly refuse to see films like Monster (I don't care if it was directed by Wonder Woman's Patty Jenkins), or I Want to Live! (I have trouble believing Barbara Graham was innocent).

Edited May 9, 2019 by Wiendish Fitch

[kiddo82]

I know its fiction but Room (the book and the movie) does a great job of giving us nothing about Old Nick other than his role in Ma/Jack's lives.  We never even learn his real name.  It's not his story.

I like Tarantino but I have no desire to see his take on Sharon Tate's murder.  

I go back and fourth on whether or not I like Goodfellas.  I want to like it more than I do but then I think of everyone who romanticizes Henry Hill (whether that was the movie's intent or not) and I'm like "Nope."

Edited May 9, 2019 by kiddo82

[festivus]

56 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I go back and fourth on whether or not I like Goodfellas.  I want to like it more than I do but then I think of everyone who romanticizes Henry Hill (whether that was the movie's intent or not) and I'm like "Nope."

I don't romanticize Henry Hill but I love that movie. Maybe because I read the book first. It's also just one of the best made movies.

This leads into my UO that despite my love for Goodfellas, I do not like movies or TV shows about the mob.  I've never seen The Godfather and I don't know if I ever will. Just not interested.

[andromeda331]

8 minutes ago, festivus said:

I don't romanticize Henry Hill but I love that movie. Maybe because I read the book first. It's also just one of the best made movies.

This leads into my UO that despite my love for Goodfellas, I do not like movies or TV shows about the mob.  I've never seen The Godfather and I don't know if I ever will. Just not interested.

I saw the Godfather and didn't like it.  Yeah, there's a lot of great quotes but I didn't like it.  Even my own family gave me a weird look and thought I was crazy when I admitted I didn't like it.  I don't really like mob shows either I didn't like Casino or Goodfellas. I kind of liked Donnie Brasco I liked the investigating, and undercover part although I liked the interview or documentary on the real Donnie Brasco/Joe Pistone better he didn't ever sugar coat how dangerous and horrible the mobsters were.   

[festivus]

20 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I kind of liked Donnie Brasco I liked the investigating, and undercover part although I liked the interview or documentary on the real Donnie Brasco/Joe Pistone better he didn't ever sugar coat how dangerous and horrible the mobsters were.   

I did see that movie, I remember now. Sounds like the documentary is more interesting. 

[proserpina65]

On ‎05‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 9:25 PM, IWantCandy71 said:

I dislike the pretense that  some people try to project, that movies built around spectacle are well written, complex, great movies.

They can be.  It's not a guarantee that they aren't well written or complex.

[IWantCandy71]

10 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

They can be.  It's not a guarantee that they aren't well written or complex.

No, it's not a guarantee, and I never said it was. It's been my experience though, that most of them are not. You aren't normally going to require a $300 million plus budget if you're writing Shakespeare. 

[Blergh]

10 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

No, it's not a guarantee, and I never said it was. It's been my experience though, that most of them are not. You aren't normally going to require a $300 million plus budget if you're writing Shakespeare. 

Unless one wants to put in endless CGI to keep works like The Tempest and Midsummer Night's Dream from appearing 'stagey'! 

[PepSinger]

12 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

You aren't normally going to require a $300 million plus budget if you're writing Shakespeare. 

You're comparing apples to oranges. It's a false equivalence, IMO. You are automatically saying that Shakespeare is better than any of these movies with "spectacle," since Shakespeare doesn't need a "$300 million budget" and as a theatre student, I don't even believe that's true. Shakespeare isn't the be all, end all of quality. The reason Marvel/DC movies require a large budget is because of the special effects. That doesn't mean the movie makers are making up for something lacking in the script. It just means that they need the special effects to add to their storytelling.

Edited May 11, 2019 by PepSinger

[IWantCandy71]

53 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

You're comparing apples to oranges. It's a false equivalence, IMO. You are automatically saying that Shakespeare is better than any of these movies with "spectacle," since Shakespeare doesn't need a "$300 million budget" and as a theatre student, I don't even believe that's true. Shakespeare isn't the be all, end all of quality. The reason Marvel/DC movies require a large budget is because of the special effects. That doesn't mean the movie makers are making up for something lacking in the script. It just means that they need the special effects to add to their storytelling.

 The subject is the quality of the story.  I used Shakespeare as an example, because Shakespeare can be performed not only without CGI, but without any props at all. Shakespeare, or any stage play, is generally as bare bones story telling as you can possibly get. That's why I used it, because CGI laden movies, are the polar opposite by the sheer nature of what they are. But the obvious difference, should *only* be the CGI, if the stories are told well. 

Imagine most of these movies as stage plays, with all the battles off stage. Do most of them have enough meat to carry a story without the CGI ? In my experience, the answer is no. If you think otherwise, fine. But it's not an "apples to oranges" thing. It can't be said that these types of movies tell great stories, but then balk at the idea when they are compared to a type of medium that has to tell the story without the benefit of the extra stuff. I personally think it's a perfect example. Especially since some of these movies absolutely do have enough emotional meat to carry a story without CGI. The first Star Wars could have done it. The first Thor could have done it. The early Christopher Reeve Superman stories could have done it. I'm sure others here can think of many examples that could work as a play.

ETA Nolan's Batman trilogy. Great example that could have been set to stage and made only a marginal difference in terms of story. Because the core of those movies were about Bruce's internal journey, not the physical battles.

But most of the ones in the last five years that I have seen ? I have to say no to those. Or rather, yes they could  be staged, but with the battles or any CGI parts offstage, some of them would be over in about a half hour to forty five minutes.

I never said Shakespeare is always better in terms of entertainment, by the way. Some of Shakespeare's plays bore me. But in terms of being able to just get to the root of something and tell it, without needing visual enhancements, a stage play is the perfect example to make my point that in order to just tell a story, you do not need the CGI or other stuff.

Edited May 11, 2019 by IWantCandy71

[kiddo82]

But I feel like that discredits how visual a medium film is and how tricks that aren't even CGI can be integral in telling a story. You could definitely have a version of Raging Bull for the stage but something would get lost in translation without Scorsese's shots.  His direction, the editing, the blood on ropes is what makes the movie.  It paints more of a picture than anything else in the film.

Edited May 11, 2019 by kiddo82

[IWantCandy71]

16 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

But I feel like that discredits how visual a medium film is and how tricks that aren't even CGI can be integral in telling a story. You could definitely have a version of Raging Bull for the stage but something would get lost in translation without Scorsese's shots.  His direction is what makes the movie.  Good storytelling isn't just words.

I don't disagree with you. But one of my comments a while back was that these movies (especially Marvel's most recent ones) rely far too heavily on CGI instead of story. Even with people who like the movies, that is the bulk of what I see them  talk about. The costumes, the battles, the fights. 

It was said that the two are not mutually exclusive. I agree, they're not. You can have a CGI movie that tells a great story. But the point also stands that if the story is truly great, you can tell it without the CGI. Or without most of it, anyway. I don't disagree also that seeing the battle can sometimes add excitement to the story. But bottom line, these movies either rely on CGI, or they don't. One of my comments was that the most recent ones DO rely too heavily on it, and I stand by that. Just tell the story. If you have to "amp it up" every single time, then again, it goes back to the film maker relying on spectacle rather than emotion and story.

To put it more in perspective-one of the film studies classes I took in college-my professor, who has since passed away, once said that sci fi movies like Star Wars, are just westerns set in space. He compared them in such a beautiful way. And yes westerns have some chase scenes and gun battles, etc. But they are bare bones stories, for the most part. They are about human emotion and relationships, at their core. I'm not saying CGI movies don't have those. I'm saying that many times, the relationships take a back seat to the other stuff. At least, for some of the most recent ones I've seen, that has been the case. I think again, GOTG and Shazam are two exceptions. It's why I loved the first Thor and even TDW(though it's  lesser quality than the first Thor). Because even though there are high stakes, those two movies were never about the physical fights. They are about family and emotions and forgiveness. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by IWantCandy71

[PepSinger]

13 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

 The subject is the quality of the story.  I used Shakespeare as an example, because Shakespeare can be performed not only without CGI, but without any props at all. Shakespeare, or any stage play, is generally as bare bones story telling as you can possibly get. That's why I used it, because CGI laden movies, are the polar opposite by the sheer nature of what they are. But the obvious difference, should *only* be the CGI, if the stories are told well. 

Imagine most of these movies as stage plays, with all the battles off stage. Do most of them have enough meat to carry a story without the CGI ? In my experience, the answer is no. If you think otherwise, fine. But it's not an "apples to oranges" thing. It can't be said that these types of movies tell great stories, but then balk at the idea when they are compared to a type of medium that has to tell the story without the benefit of the extra stuff. I personally think it's a perfect example. Especially since some of these movies absolutely do have enough emotional meat to carry a story without CGI. The first Star Wars could have done it. The first Thor could have done it. The early Christopher Reeve Superman stories could have done it. I'm sure others here can think of many examples that could work as a play.

ETA Nolan's Batman trilogy. Great example that could have been set to stage and made only a marginal difference in terms of story. Because the core of those movies were about Bruce's internal journey, not the physical battles.

But most of the ones in the last five years that I have seen ? I have to say no to those. Or rather, yes they could  be staged, but with the battles or any CGI parts offstage, some of them would be over in about a half hour to forty five minutes.

I never said Shakespeare is always better in terms of entertainment, by the way. Some of Shakespeare's plays bore me. But in terms of being able to just get to the root of something and tell it, without needing visual enhancements, a stage play is the perfect example to make my point that in order to just tell a story, you do not need the CGI or other stuff.

I think my issue is that you are asking some thing (a film) to be something that it isn't. A film has every right take advantage of the medium it is without being subjected to the scrutiny of what can be set on stage. I think you are saying that if something cannot be told without any special effects, then the script isn't that good. IMO, you are asking film to be stage, and that's not fair. Why should someone who has developed something for film be subjected to theatre scrutiny? IMO, that doesn't make sense. You are asking film to not take advantage of all it capabilities, and I disagree with that because there are certain things that are just meant to be on film. If CGI is important to tell the story to its fullest capacity, then the story should be on film.

Also, I disagree on the Nolan trilogy on stage, but that's just me. Honestly, I just don't have any interest in seeing comic book stories on the stage. Maybe one day I'll change my mind.

Finally, and I hope this isn't taking the discussion too off the rails here, but I have seen theatre fully take advantage of having huge budgets. Film isn't the only medium that can have "special effects." I have seen plenty of theatre shows where you can *clearly* see the money on the stage, as a good friend of mine said, and it can enhance or distract from the story. I like it when film embraces being film and stage embraces being stage; that has a lot of range.

Edited May 12, 2019 by PepSinger

[Kel Varnsen]

20 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

 The subject is the quality of the story.  I used Shakespeare as an example, because Shakespeare can be performed not only without CGI, but without any props at all. Shakespeare, or any stage play, is generally as bare bones story telling as you can possibly get. That's why I used it, because CGI laden movies, are the polar opposite by the sheer nature of what they are. But the obvious difference, should *only* be the CGI, if the stories are told well. 

The cost of something like a Marvel movie isn't just the CGI. Paying the cast is also pretty big. The stars get paid a ton. RDJ got something like 75 million or Infinity War, so a significant portion of the budget. On top of that, these movies have a ton of secondary characters and extras. Sure none of them are making 75 million but it is still an expense that a little indie movie wouldn't have. Not to mention something like a marvel movie will usually have multiple filming locations, sometimes on multiple continents. That isn't cheap either.

[IWantCandy71]

8 hours ago, PepSinger said:

I think my issue is that you are asking some thing (a film) to be something that it isn't. 

And with  your comments from the other day, you are almost contradicting yourself:

22 hours ago, PepSinger said:

The reason Marvel/DC movies require a large budget is because of the special effects. That doesn't mean the movie makers are making up for something lacking in the script. It just means that they need the special effects to add to their storytelling.

You are saying the films require a large budget because of the special effects-but that the film makers are not making up for something lacking in the script. Those two statement are almost against each other. 

Typically-if a filmmaker doesn't feel a script is lacking, they don't go adding a bunch of stuff to pump up the script. Because they don't need to. If we agree these movies, by the nature of them, do need "something extra", then again...we roll back around to the point that the script is NOT enough for these types of movies. We also roll back around to the point that the special effects ARE a big part of why people watch them.

And...a $300 million plus budget is NOT needed. Not for any film, in any genre. Sci Fi movies-GOOD ONES-get made every day with half that or less. To say that size budget is needed to tell a good story of any genre is just not true.

And...we are obviously not going to agree.

So, agree to disagree.

*waves flag*

Edited May 12, 2019 by IWantCandy71

[IWantCandy71]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The cost of something like a Marvel movie isn't just the CGI. Paying the cast is also pretty big. The stars get paid a ton. RDJ got something like 75 million or Infinity War, so a significant portion of the budget. On top of that, these movies have a ton of secondary characters and extras. Sure none of them are making 75 million but it is still an expense that a little indie movie wouldn't have. Not to mention something like a marvel movie will usually have multiple filming locations, sometimes on multiple continents. That isn't cheap either.

I knew a portion of the budget had to be to pay some of the salaries, but I had no idea RDJ made that kind of money for Infinity War. That doesn't leave a good taste in mouth, and I'll leave it there. I was thinking along the lines of $25 million for him. If he got that much, how much are they paying people like Chris Hemsworth, who isn't even anywhere close to RDJ's talent ?

Okay then. 

[PepSinger]

37 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

You are saying the films require a large budget because of the special effects-but that the film makers are not making up for something lacking in the script. Those two statement are almost against each other. 

No, they are not. If you need CGI to help tell your story, there’s nothing wrong with that. By no means am I anywhere near contradicting myself. You are asking superhero films to minimize themselves because they dare to use the special effects available to them; IMO, that’s wrong and unfair.

for the record, I don’t think CGI is “extra” when it comes to these movies. I believe it’s necessary.

Edited May 12, 2019 by PepSinger

[PepSinger]

35 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

I knew a portion of the budget had to be to pay some of the salaries, but I had no idea RDJ made that kind of money for Infinity War. That doesn't leave a good taste in mouth, and I'll leave it there. I was thinking along the lines of $25 million for him. If he got that much, how much are they paying people like Chris Hemsworth, who isn't even anywhere close to RDJ's talent ?

Okay then. 

To clarify, I believe the majority of that $75 million came on the back end, meaning that it wasn’t a part of the production budget.

Edited May 12, 2019 by PepSinger

[Mabinogia]

53 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

9 hours ago, PepSinger said:

I think my issue is that you are asking some thing (a film) to be something that it isn't. 

And with  your comments from the other day, you are almost contradicting yourself:

23 hours ago, PepSinger said:

The reason Marvel/DC movies require a large budget is because of the special effects. That doesn't mean the movie makers are making up for something lacking in the script. It just means that they need the special effects to add to their storytelling.

You are saying the films require a large budget because of the special effects-but that the film makers are not making up for something lacking in the script. Those two statement are almost against each other. 

Typically-if a filmmaker doesn't feel a script is lacking, they don't go adding a bunch of stuff to pump up the script. Because they don't need to. If we agree these movies, by the nature of them, do need "something extra", then again...we roll back around to the point that the script is NOT enough for these types of movies. We also roll back around to the point that the special effects ARE a big part of why people watch them.

Comic book movies are based on comics, not plays. Comics are graphic novels, meaning they are mostly visual. So it makes sense that a comic book movie would have a big special effects budget. That doesn't mean it doesn't also have a solid storyline. The special effects in a comic book based movie aren't "bumping up" anything, they are a way of depicting what is in the source material, which is over the top action that can't be done by normal means. These stories are about people that can fly through the air, that can punch a speeding train. That requires special effects. 

There is nothing contradictory in saying that a movie has a huge SFX budget and a good storyline.  If you choose to focus on the special effects you are missing out on the story but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means it's not your kind of movie. 

For the record, I love about half the Marvel movies, not all because I don't care for some of them. I get bored by the fight scenes but enjoy the writing, the humor, the storylines and the actors. If Marvel had a smaller SFX budget I'd still enjoy them because they tell great stories about compelling characters. 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Mabinogia

[Wiendish Fitch]

Until my final breath, I will maintain that Marisa Tomei 100% earned her Oscar for My Cousin Vinny. Not only is she funny as hell, not only does she fully give an entertaining, uninhibited performance, but Mona Lisa Vito feels like a preemptive subversion of the typical "supportive wife/girlfriend" roles that are easy Oscar bait. Oh, Lisa is absolutely supportive of Vinny, but she refuses to passively take a backseat, and she never once hesitates to call him on his bullshit (there's a difference between being supportive and being an enabler). She's a strong, well-written character in her own right, and it's refreshing that she never once wrings her hands or gives some weepy, mopey speech that drags down the narrative. 

And you know what I love? Tomei's win proves that Oscar-caliber performances can actually be fun. Lisa isn't tortured, battered, or worn down by life; she's a just a normal, hilarious gal who can take care of herself with or without her man.

 Can we please have more Oscar wins for comedies? Pretty please?!

[PepSinger]

Now, this is based off a comment I saw in the Marvel thread re: The Dark Knight and The Winter Soldier.

My unpopular opinion is that while I love these movies, I hate it that when they are praised, one of the things said is that “it isn’t too comic booky.” For me, it’s odd to praise something for not being what it is. I’ve just never really understood that.

[Jazzy24]

17 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Now, this is based off a comment I saw in the Marvel thread re: The Dark Knight and The Winter Soldier.

My unpopular opinion is that while I love these movies, I hate it that when they are praised, one of the things said is that “it isn’t too comic booky.” For me, it’s odd to praise something for not being what it is. I’ve just never really understood that.

Speaking of these two movies I maintain that The Dark Knight is only memorable because of Heath’s captivating performance as the Joker. Without the Joker the Dark Knight is a boring, cliche Batman flick that offers nothing. The Dark Knight is a comic book movie. 

The Winter Soldier is the better movie because it is a spy type thriller movie that has great performances from the whole cast. It’s also the better written one also. But to each their own. 

[Athena]

Take a break from the Marvel or comic book movies unpopular opinions. If you've said your piece, move on. Any more debates on the topic will be hidden for awhile.

[Crs97]

When La La Land was announced as the winner I thought the true winner was Marisa Tomei, who finally was vindicated from the rumors.  I love your description of her character; she was a refreshing strong female woman and Marisa sold it!

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Until my final breath, I will maintain that Marisa Tomei 100% earned her Oscar for My Cousin Vinny. Not only is she funny as hell, not only does she fully give an entertaining, uninhibited performance, but Mona Lisa Vito feels like a preemptive subversion of the typical "supportive wife/girlfriend" roles that are easy Oscar bait. Oh, Lisa is absolutely supportive of Vinny, but she refuses to passively take a backseat, and she never once hesitates to call him on his bullshit (there's a difference between being supportive and being an enabler). She's a strong, well-written character in her own right, and it's refreshing that she never once wrings her hands or gives some weepy, mopey speech that drags down the narrative. 

And you know what I love? Tomei's win proves that Oscar-caliber performances can actually be fun. Lisa isn't tortured, battered, or worn down by life; she's a just a normal, hilarious gal who can take care of herself with or without her man.

 Can we please have more Oscar wins for comedies? Pretty please?!

I love that movie! Everyone in it was just so great. But Marisa knocked it out of the park. Lisa was just so cool. She dressed cool, she supported Vinny while also not afraid to call him out on his crap when he needs to be. Vinny at one point gets annoyed wanting her to 'stand by her man' and Lisa immediately switches to saying stuff like that completely full of sarcasm "the way you handled that judge". Her best of course was her testimony. It was so awesome. I love her answer when the Trotter asks what she did in her "daddy's garage" he was so wasn't expecting her to give him a long list of mechanic jobs. Vinny wouldn't have figured out the wrong car without her picture of the tire marks. Once she looked at the picture she realized immediately why and knew immediately they were to a different car. My only regret is we didn't get to see her playing pool for the two hundred dollars she won. That had to be awesome.

I love Trotter explaining to Vinny why he left the law firm where he was making good money because his conscience was getting to him. 

[kiddo82]

7 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Until my final breath, I will maintain that Marisa Tomei 100% earned her Oscar for My Cousin Vinny. Not only is she funny as hell, not only does she fully give an entertaining, uninhibited performance, but Mona Lisa Vito feels like a preemptive subversion of the typical "supportive wife/girlfriend" roles that are easy Oscar bait. Oh, Lisa is absolutely supportive of Vinny, but she refuses to passively take a backseat, and she never once hesitates to call him on his bullshit (there's a difference between being supportive and being an enabler). She's a strong, well-written character in her own right, and it's refreshing that she never once wrings her hands or gives some weepy, mopey speech that drags down the narrative. 

If that's the hill you're dying on then I'm dying right there with you.  I'll actually see your  Marisa Tomei and raise you Whoopie Goldberg for Ghost.  There's a WatchMojo list that was the Top 10 Underwhelming Oscar wins and Whoopie and Marisa both made the list because their roles weren't considered weighty enough or something,  That's utter BS.  Giving a great comedic performance is in no way inferior to a great dramatic one.

[HunterHunted]

5 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I love that movie! Everyone in it was just so great. But Marisa knocked it out of the park. Lisa was just so cool. She dressed cool, she supported Vinny while also not afraid to call him out on his crap when he needs to be. Vinny at one point gets annoyed wanting her to 'stand by her man' and Lisa immediately switches to saying stuff like that completely full of sarcasm "the way you handled that judge". Her best of course was her testimony. It was so awesome. I love her answer when the Trotter asks what she did in her "daddy's garage" he was so wasn't expecting her to give him a long list of mechanic jobs. Vinny wouldn't have figured out the wrong car without her picture of the tire marks. Once she looked at the picture she realized immediately why and knew immediately they were to a different car. My only regret is we didn't get to see her playing pool for the two hundred dollars she won. That had to be awesome.

I love Trotter explaining to Vinny why he left the law firm where he was making good money because his conscience was getting to him. 

I don't know if you've ever watched Legal Eagle's videos where he reviews how legally accurate films and tv shows are. My Cousin Vinny is really really legally accurate.  So not only is it a funny movie with great performances, it gets most aspects of the law correct.

8 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

Speaking of these two movies I maintain that The Dark Knight is only memorable because of Heath’s captivating performance as the Joker. Without the Joker the Dark Knight is a boring, cliche Batman flick that offers nothing. The Dark Knight is a comic book movie. 

On the subject of the Dark Knight, that movie doesn't know what to do with Harvey Dent. The film doesn't spend enough time with Harvey Dent to make his becoming Two-Face and then his death mean anything to the audience let alone like a tragedy. "Nooooooooooo! Not that guy...I mean...Harvey...ummmmm...Dent. He truly was the best of us?????"

11 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

For the record, I love about half the Marvel movies, not all because I don't care for some of them. I get bored by the fight scenes but enjoy the writing, the humor, the storylines and the actors. If Marvel had a smaller SFX budget I'd still enjoy them because they tell great stories about compelling characters. 

Not to restart this whole CGI debate, but after watching a ton of those One Marvelous Scene videos, it's become really clear to me that these are really talky movies, you could probably strip them down and not much would change, and while people talk about the big battles, it's the dialogue that truly moves audiences. For example, there's so much character work in the dialogue in the big Civil War airport battle. We get a reiteration of the conflict between Steve and Tony. We get beats about Peter trying to impress Tony, Sam and Bucky's antipathy towards each other, Nat and Clint's seasoned cynical view of the schism, and Vision's growing feelings for Wanda. When you look through those lists of best MCU moments, there's a lot of dialogue and character moments in those lists. There's some CGI in these moments, but there's also many moments that don't rely on it too.

I will say that I stopped caring about CGI use when I saw the reel for some fx house and they had shots for shows you'd never think of having a ton fx shots. They have a ton of inserts for tv and computer screens, adding crowds, adding backgrounds, completely changing the color of clothing, fixing a shot because an actress' sternum looks too bony, and creating smoke because a character has burned the roast. Ugly Betty is the one that killed me. Disney spent a ton of money moving the show from LA to NY so they could actually film on NYC streets and then they cgi'ed the shit out of the backgrounds. I kind of gave up caring after that.

Edited May 13, 2019 by HunterHunted

[andromeda331]

10 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

I don't know if you've ever watched Legal Eagle's videos where he reviews how legally accurate films and tv shows are. My Cousin Vinny is really really legally accurate.  So not only is it a funny movie with great performances, it gets most aspects of the law correct.

I saw that video. It was really good. My Cousin Vinny is one of the few law movies that is pretty accurate. 

[topanga]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

I saw that video. It was really good. My Cousin Vinny is one of the few law movies that is pretty accurate. 

One of my faves. And yes, Marisa earned that Oscar. I will forever love the contradictions of the judge who doesn’t know what ‘two youts’ are and Vinny who’s never had a ‘grit’ before. 

15 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I'll actually see your  Marisa Tomei and raise you Whoopie Goldberg for Ghost.  There's a WatchMojo list that was the Top 10 Underwhelming Oscar wins and Whoopie and Marisa both made the list because their roles weren't considered weighty enough or something,  That's utter BS.  Giving a great comedic performance is in no way inferior to a great dramatic one.

For much of the black community, the Whoopi Oscar win was bittersweet. I loved her performance and thought it was great, but until very recently, black actors were rewarded by the public (and the film industry) for playing certain types of roles: the comedic buffoon (e.g. Whoopi in Ghost, Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire), or the angry anti-hero (e.g. Louis Gossett, Jr. in An Officer and a Gentleman or Denzel Washington in Glory and Training Day). And there was the occasional subservient or over-sexualized character (Hattie McDaniel and Halle Berry).  What made it more difficult was that black actors weren't being rewarded for compelling dramatic roles the way your Daniel Day Lewises and Meryl Streeps were. In the opinion of many (not just the black community), Angela Bassett was robbed of the Oscar for her portrayal of Tina Turner, and one of Denzel's Oscars should've been for his portrayal of Malcolm X.  

Jamie Foxx's Oscar for portraying Ray Charles was probably the beginning of a positive -- though slow and inconsistent -- change in the way actors of color are rewarded by the film industry.  

[Dandesun]

On 5/12/2019 at 11:46 AM, Jazzy24 said:

Speaking of these two movies I maintain that The Dark Knight is only memorable because of Heath’s captivating performance as the Joker. Without the Joker the Dark Knight is a boring, cliche Batman flick that offers nothing. The Dark Knight is a comic book movie. 

The Winter Soldier is the better movie because it is a spy type thriller movie that has great performances from the whole cast. It’s also the better written one also. But to each their own. 

I loved both of these movies. The distinction, however, is that I have never felt the need to watch The Dark Knight ever again. I thought it was excellent. It hit all the beats I wanted it to (even if I did feel like Harvey was sort of shoe-horned in rather weirdly) but whenever I see it on TV now I actively remember how much I enjoyed it in the theater but I never feel like I want to watch it again.

The Winter Soldier, however, I can watch whenever. I own it and yet if it's on TV I'll check it out to see where it is. (I mean, the elevator scene. I'll always watch the elevator scene. Or Cap vs the Winter Soldier at the end.) And this was LONG before I became full on Stucky trash.

There is definitely a darkness to both but I think the absolute darkness of Nolan's Batman movies just don't inspire me to revisit them that doesn't affect the Winter Soldier the same way.

But, really, it comes down to a personal preference.

[KatWay]

3 hours ago, Dandesun said:

I loved both of these movies. The distinction, however, is that I have never felt the need to watch The Dark Knight ever again. I thought it was excellent. It hit all the beats I wanted it to (even if I did feel like Harvey was sort of shoe-horned in rather weirdly) but whenever I see it on TV now I actively remember how much I enjoyed it in the theater but I never feel like I want to watch it again.

The Winter Soldier, however, I can watch whenever. I own it and yet if it's on TV I'll check it out to see where it is. (I mean, the elevator scene. I'll always watch the elevator scene. Or Cap vs the Winter Soldier at the end.) And this was LONG before I became full on Stucky trash.

There is definitely a darkness to both but I think the absolute darkness of Nolan's Batman movies just don't inspire me to revisit them that doesn't affect the Winter Soldier the same way.

But, really, it comes down to a personal preference.

it is personal preference, cause I'm the opposite, for example. I have watched the Dark Knight a bunch of times (although it's not a film I can just watch whenever) while I thought Winter Soldier was boring the first time and I've never made it through a rewatching. I also don't care about Bucky in the slightest, so maybe that's part of it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

13 hours ago, Dandesun said:

I loved both of these movies. The distinction, however, is that I have never felt the need to watch The Dark Knight ever again. I thought it was excellent. It hit all the beats I wanted it to (even if I did feel like Harvey was sort of shoe-horned in rather weirdly) but whenever I see it on TV now I actively remember how much I enjoyed it in the theater but I never feel like I want to watch it again.

The Winter Soldier, however, I can watch whenever. I own it and yet if it's on TV I'll check it out to see where it is. (I mean, the elevator scene. I'll always watch the elevator scene. Or Cap vs the Winter Soldier at the end.) And this was LONG before I became full on Stucky trash.

There is definitely a darkness to both but I think the absolute darkness of Nolan's Batman movies just don't inspire me to revisit them that doesn't affect the Winter Soldier the same way.

But, really, it comes down to a personal preference.

9 hours ago, KatWay said:

it is personal preference, cause I'm the opposite, for example. I have watched the Dark Knight a bunch of times (although it's not a film I can just watch whenever) while I thought Winter Soldier was boring the first time and I've never made it through a rewatching. I also don't care about Bucky in the slightest, so maybe that's part of it.

And I'm in the middle--I love BOTH; watched The Dark Knight in the theater FIVE times. Can watch it and The Winter Soldier, repeatedly. But then I'm one who thinks Nolan got BATMAN RIGHT. And Christian Bale is downright amazing. Just below Kevin Conroy's Batman.

[WritinMan]

Face/Off is one of the dumbest movies ever made.

[kiddo82]

To a degree, I don't care how historically accurate biopics or "based on true events" movies are.  I think you go into it knowing there is going to be some license taken, at the very least, to service a story first and foremost.  It's not like these movies market themselves as documentaries.  If a movie is well done, pointing out its timeline alterations or even complete fabrications doesn't necessarily make me like it any less.  I'm not saying there aren't exceptions like the literal or figurative whitewashing of people/events, but I don't care that like, William Wallace never had an affair with Isabella.    

[Simon Boccanegra]

I agree for the most part, kiddo82. The only time I mind 'license-taking" with a biographical film is when it gets so distant from the facts that I think, "They really should have just changed the names and presented this as a fictional story that has parallels with [whatever]," as the Coens did with Inside Llewyn Davis.  

An example is the Billie Holiday biopic Lady Sings the Blues, with Diana Ross, which I hope no one takes for anything except cinematic escapism. The more you know about her actual life, the more you're apt to squirm.  

One issue is that her husband was a credited "technical advisor," and he gets the most flattering portrayal imaginable (by Billy Dee Williams) as a long-time knight in shining armor who tries to keep poor self-destructive Billie away from drugs. In actuality he came into her short life very late and was, like many of the men in her life, an abusive thug. They weren't even together at the time of her death. But he was her legal heir, and so he reaped the benefits of the association for the rest of his life.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[DarkRaichu]

All of the time travel related plot holes in Endgame are the main reasons why I think Inifnity War is a superior movie compared to Endgame

[IWantCandy71]

So, I've watched all four movies based on Miklos Laszlo's play "The Parfumerie". That would be "The Shop Around the Corner", "The Good Old Summertime", "You've Got Mail", and I've seen the taped Broadway version "She Loves Me",  with Zachary Levi and Laura Benanti. 

I think it might be an unpopular opinion to say I liked them in the following order:

"She Loves Me"

"You've Got Mail"

"The Shop Around the Corner"

And lastly...."The Good Old Summertime".

It's a big deal for me, because "She Loves Me" is a musical, and I normally dislike musicals unless the story is cute, the acting is on point, and there is enough story to make up for the absurdity of random people  breaking into song. That was true with "SLM", and to be honest...I really fell in love with it. I've tried finding the original play online for free and can't, but I'd love to compare to see how Hollywood and Broadway changed it. 

I liked "Summertime" the least, because it was the kind of musical that I find annoying. I felt it was just a vehicle for Judy Garland to sing in, and she had a lovely voice...but she didn't have enough charm in this to hold it together by herself. I didn't feel JG and VJ had any chemistry.

A truly unpopular opinion maybe, but I didn't feel Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were all that sparkly together either, in "The Shop Around the Corner". I love Jimmy Stewart because he's Jimmy Stewart, but.....(another UO)...I think he's either typecast, or miscast, here...I'm honestly not sure which ? I just didn't connect with him in this. And since I didn't connect with him, I didn't connect with them as a couple, either...which is the whole point, really. It kind of ruins the movie if you can't  ardently root for them to be together.

"You've Got Mail". Hmm. I will say that there are parts I'd cut out. I think the story should stay "timeless", in a sense, and "YGM" was a little too modern for me here. I think TH and MR are charming though, and they have such a sweet chemistry that you can't help but root for them. Again, that's the point, isn't it ? 

Still though, I feel ZL and LB had the best chemistry, and something about "SLM" is just so touching and sweet. Not just the romance, but the fact that every character has a voice. It is really the only one of the four versions where the side characters have a real POV and vital scenes where the two main leads are not even present. 

All this,  just to say...UO that the 2016 "SLM" Broadway production is better than the three versions before it(although it was written and performed technically, for  the first time, before "YGM"). I think if you like that kind of story, search out the Broadway version on Broadway HD if you have to, and decide for yourself.  IMO it beats them all in terms of chemistry and charm and sweetness.

ETA that "SLM" has Peter Bartlett as the waiter in the restaurant in the pivotal scene where Georg sees Amalia waiting for him. That scene is one of the funniest bits I've ever seen in my life, and while everyone involved was awesome in it, PB puts it right over the top into classic territory (and I'm pretty sure at one point ZL actually had to stop himself from laughing at him).

"Don't call him, he'll come back".  So much FUN.
 

Edited June 11, 2019 by IWantCandy71

[andromeda331]

This is probably a weird one I do love Apollo 13, but does anyone notice that Fred's wife Mary has no lines after take off and she talks to the reporters? She's shown through the rest of the movie worried about her husband, with her family but she has no lines. 

[Spartan Girl]

I don't like the Judy Garland version of A Star Is Born. Judy was great and everything, but the movie itself was too long and could have cut an hour or so. And while I love musicals, I really feel the sequence of her debut movie -- which basically inserted a mini musical within the bigger musical -- was just too much.

[kiddo82]

While I think Judy Garland is charming as hell I get bored with a lot of her movies because the structure of a lot of the musicals of the 30s and 40s was very diegetic.  "Hey!  We're vaudeville stars so let's sing a song" or "Hey, there's a band leader!  Why don't you sing something for us?"  For as great as some of those numbers can be, it usually makes the pace of the film come to a screeching halt instead of enhancing or advancing the plot.  And that's not to say Judy's not terrific.  Get Happy, Easter Parade, Mack the Black, and Johnny One Note are all personal favorites.  However, I'd much rather watch those clips on YouTube as opposed to watching the actual films.  (Actually, I do like Easter Parade as dumb as it is.  Garland, Astaire, Miller, and Lawford all have charisma for days so I just go with it.)  And yeah, with the exception of the Gaynor A Star is Born which is just about 2 hours in length, every single one of the iterations could have benefited from a stubborn editor.  In fact the Garland one was edited and has since been restored to best of the studio's ability.  

And speaking of Garland, has anyone actually seen Meet Me in St. Louis?  (I only just saw the whole film a few years ago) It is weeeeeird.  It takes this bizarre tonal left turn in the middle and you're like, "What the hell am I watching?"  and then it's laughed off and we're back to the original tone.  It's odd and I can only imagine what the reviews would be like if it came out today.

Quote

And while I love musicals, I really feel the sequence of her debut movie -- which basically inserted a mini musical within the bigger musical -- was just too much.

Since I'm at it, I don't care for either of the ballet sequences in An American in Paris or Singing in the Rain.  Unnecessary, self indulgent, and talk about screeching the movie to a halt.  I actually hated an American in Paris.  I'm not a big Gene Kelly fan in general.  He's absolutely sublime in small doses but a little of him goes a long way.

Edited July 7, 2019 by kiddo82

[Wiendish Fitch]

8 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

And speaking of Garland, has anyone actually seen Meet Me in St. Louis?  (I only just saw the whole film a few years ago) It is weeeeeird.  It takes this bizarre tonal left turn in the middle and you're like, "What the hell am I watching?"  and then it's laughed off and we're back to the original tone.  It's odd and I can only imagine what the reviews would be like if it came out today.

I have, and, sorry, Garland fans, but I hate it. It's long, meandering, and Tootie is one of the most evil children in cinema history and we're meant to find her cute and endearing. Uh, no. She's about as cute and endearing as Macaulay Culkin in The Good Son (a terrible movie, but at least it had the decency to frame its evil child protagonist as evil).

[Crs97]

Meet Me in St. Louis - I love the trolley sequence, but otherwise turn off the movie.

I have to treat all those ballet sequences as separate from the movies themselves. To be honest, I have never watched An American in Paris in full.  I love the dance section and only seem to watch it.  When I watch Oklahoma, on the other hand, the ballet section is a great time for a restroom/snack break.

[Wiendish Fitch]

12 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

Meet Me in St. Louis - I love the trolley sequence, but otherwise turn off the movie.

I have to treat all those ballet sequences as separate from the movies themselves. To be honest, I have never watched An American in Paris in full.  I love the dance section and only seem to watch it.  When I watch Oklahoma, on the other hand, the ballet section is a great time for a restroom/snack break.

Is it unpopular that I think the film version of Oklahama! (an already deeply flawed story) is an utter mess? From making Jud seem way too sympathetic (Rod Steiger is the best part of the movie) to Gloria Graham's horrific performance as Ado Annie (awful singer, and for someone who claims to not be "prissy and quaint", she sure comes off as prissy and quaint).

[GaT]

I don't know if this is a UO or not, but I am sick to death of all the fawning over Beyonce being in ""The Lion King". I'm watching E!News, & they are at the premiere & everybody is (including the other actors in the movie) "oh! I'm breathing Beyonce's air!" She was also the only actor who didn't give any interviews. She brought along Jay & Blue Ivy, & of course Blue Ivy couldn't be dressed like a regular little girl, she had to be coordinating with mommy.