Unpopular Opinions

[scarynikki12]

4 hours ago, festivus said:

True, but I actually did like JGL but that's just because I love him in general. I'm still hoping he shows up in the MCU someday.

That's why I was hoping they'd go with Nicholas Hoult for the reboot because I think he could pull that off. I don't know if this is a UO but I think they're rebooting Batman too soon after Batfleck. Should just let it rest for a while. This opinion is probably helped by me watching 5 seasons of Gotham, which I mostly loved.

Hoult would be a great Bats, and I hope he shows up in a DC movie at some point, but my UO is that I’m looking forward to what Patz does with the role. My dream is for them to let David Mazouz do it (I also love Gotham) but I don’t see that happening any time soon so I think Patz will do well. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/7/2019 at 8:13 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Jesus Christ, I can't even.....

The only people that would seriously consider Syndrome as the hero of The Incredibles are probably whiny petulant asshole toxic fanboys just like him. 

Well...

I would say it's an even bet, since as was mentioned elsewhere there's a good portion of fandom who seriously want to see Rey save Kylo Ren with her love. One of the things that struck me so funny about all the hate for The Last Jedi was that it was divided about evenly between the fanboys who loathed Rey being front and center and the fangirls who were pissed because she shut the door of the Millennium Falcon in his metaphorical face. I'm not really disagreeing with you, I just think it's a little more equal than that.

[janie jones]

On 9/14/2019 at 9:18 AM, kitmerlot1213 said:

The early Oscar buzz was all about A Star is Born and how wonderful Gaga and Cooper were but once better movies started being released and the closer we got to the Oscars, Gaga stopped being considered a front runner and rightly so--she was mediocre at best, especially in comparison to the other women nominated.

My newest unpopular opinion?  I think Once Upon a Time in Hollywood could have cut out all of the endless driving scenes, and the endless Western movie scenes and just focused on the Spahn Ranch/Manson Family scenes and the movie would have been much better and more entertaining.

I haven't seen Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (yet), but I feel that basically the same thing can be said about stuff in most, if not all Tarantino movies.  (And I like Tarantino movies.)

23 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

[Nolan's] Batman was thuggish and one-note, not remotely "the world's greatest detective".

I haven't seen any of the Affleck Batman movies, but I wished the movies in general would focus more on Batman's intelligence over fights and explosions.  That's a re-imagining I'd like to see.  I liked the Burton Batman movies the best because they were quiet.

[Wiendish Fitch]

1 hour ago, janie jones said:

I haven't seen any of the Affleck Batman movies, but I wished the movies in general would focus more on Batman's intelligence over fights and explosions.  That's a re-imagining I'd like to see.  I liked the Burton Batman movies the best because they were quiet.

I also want Batman to act like the hero he's supposed to be, not the antisocial, xenophobic, paranoid, destructive moral hypocrite he's been in the last few movies. 

If I've said it once, I've said it millions of times: they need to excise the whole "Batman doesn't trust anyone" portrayal, because it's stupid and goes against the character's history. Batman/Bruce Wayne used to have a huge support network: Alfred, Robin, Commissioner Gordon, Barbara Gordon/Batgirl, Detective Bullock (to a small extent, anyway), Leslie Tompkins, Lucius Fox, and-brace yourselves-Superman and pretty much all of the friggin' Justice League!

Batman is many things; idiotic, grimdark lone wolf isn't one of them!

[scarynikki12]

22 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

If I've said it once, I've said it millions of times: they need to excise the whole "Batman doesn't trust anyone" portrayal, because it's stupid and goes against the character's history. Batman/Bruce Wayne used to have a huge support network: Alfred, Robin, Commissioner Gordon, Barbara Gordon/Batgirl, Detective Bullock (to a small extent, anyway), Leslie Tompkins, Lucius Fox, and-brace yourselves-Superman and pretty much all of the friggin' Justice League!

Batman is many things; idiotic, grimdark lone wolf isn't one of them!

Warner Bros really should consider doing a Gotham verse. Seeing Bats solving some wild crime alongside his Bat Family (Alfred, Fox, Batwoman, Batgirl, Nightwing, Red Robin, Red Hood, that little shit Damian, Spoiler, Orphan, Batwing), his Gotham allies (Gordon, Bullock, Montoya), and Friendly Rogues (Catwoman, Clayface, Two-Face if he’s in a good mood) would be truly epic. Think outside the current formula of: Batman fights one or two Rogues with some help from Alfred and Gordon. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

17 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

 Think outside the current formula of: Batman fights one or two Rogues with some help from Alfred and Gordon. 

Grudging help from Alfred and Gordon, the way they show it. Seriously, it's like they barely tolerate each other.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Wiendish Fitch

[Dandesun]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Batman is many things; idiotic, grimdark lone wolf isn't one of them!

I bring up Lego properties too many times I feel but they get a lot of it right and one of my favorite bits in one of the Lego Batman shorts (I believe it's the one where everyone is trying to get him to join the Justice League and he's all 'I'm Batman, I'm a loner') where he's going on about how solitary he is while, in the background, Alfred is handing out smoothies to Nightwing, Batgirl and Robin.

And then Batman has to be all 'ALONE!!' at them and they walk off dejectedly.

(This also has a better two minute interaction between Bats and Supes than the entirety of Justice League.)

I would actually be interested in an expanded Bat-universe. It's so weird.

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, janie jones said:

I wished the movies in general would focus more on Batman's intelligence over fights and explosions.  That's a re-imagining I'd like to see.  I liked the Burton Batman movies the best because they were quiet.

I think you've just explained one of the reasons I liked the Burton films, too. 

[Athena]

We actually have a whole thread dedicated to Batman movies.

[Crs97]

I need Tom Hanks to stop doing press for his new movie because every time he says things like he didn’t “get” Mr. Rogers  or thought the puppets without mouths were “creepy” or didn’t understand Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood till he remembered he wasn’t the target audience, my reaction to Tom Hanks would leave Mr. Rogers very disappointed in me.

[Dandesun]

On 9/21/2019 at 7:44 AM, Crs97 said:

I need Tom Hanks to stop doing press for his new movie because every time he says things like he didn’t “get” Mr. Rogers  or thought the puppets without mouths were “creepy” or didn’t understand Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood till he remembered he wasn’t the target audience, my reaction to Tom Hanks would leave Mr. Rogers very disappointed in me.

I'm glad I haven't seen any of this... despite the fact that the puppets are kind of creepy. It's not something I noticed when I was 4 and watching Mr. Rogers with rapt attention. Daniel Striped Tiger was extremely important to me as a child. (I love that he lives on in his own animated show that my young nieces watch.) I couldn't even tell you why, exactly. He was just extremely important to me.

[Crs97]

I say without any hesitation or embarrassment that Mr. Rogers and Bob Ross got me through my first year of law school.  Anyone who wants to disparage either of them in front of me does so at their peril.

[methodwriter85]

I don't think I get Jessica Chastain's appeal, although I do think it's cool to see a woman hit movie star status AFTER her 30th birthday. That's pretty rare, especially for leads and not character actresses like Melissa Leo.

[IWantCandy71]

On 9/21/2019 at 9:44 AM, Crs97 said:

I need Tom Hanks to stop doing press for his new movie because every time he says things like he didn’t “get” Mr. Rogers  or thought the puppets without mouths were “creepy” or didn’t understand Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood till he remembered he wasn’t the target audience, my reaction to Tom Hanks would leave Mr. Rogers very disappointed in me.

Honestly, what I don't "get" is the casting of TH as Mr. Rogers  It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. An unknown should have been chosen.

Mr. Rogers was wholesome. True enough, Tom Hanks isn't a public "bad boy", and I like his wife Rita. They seem to have a solid marriage, and that's no small accomplishment (especially after what, 30 years together ?)  I think there is supposed to be some sort of parallel between the two men that the studio was trying to hint at.  I just don't see that at all, even before reading his comments.  I don't see any similarities in terms of personality,  not a bit. I don't think  both of them being public "nice guys" counts as a comparison.

Edited September 26, 2019 by IWantCandy71

[Shannon L.]

I honestly do not understand the love for Jurassic Park.  It was....ok.....I guess.  Is it just because the dinosaurs were really cool?  Is that it?

[Wiendish Fitch]

*Deep breath*

I really like, even love, Martin Scorcese... but I find Casino overlong, overrated, and just exhausting.

[Lugal]

2 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Is it just because the dinosaurs were really cool?  Is that it?

Pretty much, yeah.  There were exceptions, but before Jurassic Park, most movie dinosaurs were stop motion rubber lizards.  JP really brought what was then current scientific knowledge to movie dinosaurs (but unfortunately, not pterosaurs).  But science has moved on. 

I guess my UO is that I prefer full-feathered dinosaurs to how they are usually depicted.

And I think even most fans of JP admit it's been diminishing returns since 1993.

[Annber03]

It's been ages since I've seen Jurassic Park-I remember our science class in middle school watching it once. I was into dinosaurs as a kid, but I don't really remember what my thoughts on the movie itself were one way or another. Would be interesting to see it again as an adult. 

[Crs97]

On 9/25/2019 at 11:49 PM, IWantCandy71 said:

Honestly, what I don't "get" is the casting of TH as Mr. Rogers  It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. An unknown should have been chosen.

I keep hearing Forest Gump in his delivery, which is annoying me no end.  I am trying to keep an open mind, but right now I just keep thinking that Mr. Rogers deserves better than someone who doesn’t “get” him and is doing a lazy dialect recycle.

[shireenbamfatheon]

On 9/26/2019 at 3:03 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I don't think I get Jessica Chastain's appeal, although I do think it's cool to see a woman hit movie star status AFTER her 30th birthday. That's pretty rare, especially for leads and not character actresses like Melissa Leo.

A few years ago she was my favorite actress, but her recent filmography has me convinced that she doesn't have much range. She's very good at playing a specific type of character e.g. cold, commanding, detached etc., but when she diverges from that type of characterization, it's hard to buy into her acting. The Help is the only exception I can think of. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

21 hours ago, Annber03 said:

It's been ages since I've seen Jurassic Park-I remember our science class in middle school watching it once. I was into dinosaurs as a kid, but I don't really remember what my thoughts on the movie itself were one way or another. Would be interesting to see it again as an adult. 

Queenie was, and still IS, SCARY AS FUCK. I'll always root for her against the stoopid hoomans.

[Lugal]

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I'll always root for her against the stoopid hoomans.

Not sure that's really an unpopular opinion.  There are several characters in the sequels that I was wondering if it would be possible for the dinosaurs to kill several times over.

[Bastet]

My latest UO: I enjoyed Otherhood.  I don't think it's great, I agree with most of the criticisms of it, and the material isn't worthy of the actors, but I still straight-up enjoyed it.

It's about women, and middle-aged women at that, the happy ending is about themselves and their friendship more than their relationships with their sons, and their husbands are only a small part of the story.  Angela Bassett, Patricia Arquette, and Felicity Huffman have good chemistry together, and their talents mean they elevate the banal and nail the good.  The scenes between the three of them make the whole thing worthwhile.

I like that the film acknowledges the flaws in the mothers as well as the sons - but I agree with critics that it downplays their intrusion and interference more often than it gives the "kids" their due - and the letter Carol's son wrote to her made me tear up.

I don't care about the criticism that the friendship between the "kids" is underdeveloped, because it's not about them.  Their childhood friendship spawned their mothers' friendship, and their current relationship doesn't need to be believable for the women's to be, because it long ago quit being about the sons -- it started because of the boys and developed into family friends (the husbands becoming friends, too), yes, but the women long ago developed a relationship that was fundamentally about the three of them, which is why it wasn't diminished when husbands and sons were gone.

The one thing that does bother me is the "one-year later" ending making the resolution of their big fight feel rushed (and that the "here's everything that's wrong with you that I've been holding in for years" fight in a public place is so cliché to begin with, but, again, the acting goes a long way).  Okay, and that Carol chucking her dead husband's stuff into the pool is such a pale imitation of Bassett's legendary stuff-burning scene in Waiting to Exhale I wish they'd left out the homage all together.

But it was a pleasant way to spend two hours parked in front of Netflix and I felt happy at the end of it. 

[methodwriter85]

On 10/1/2019 at 12:50 AM, shireenbamfatheon said:

A few years ago she was my favorite actress, but her recent filmography has me convinced that she doesn't have much range. She's very good at playing a specific type of character e.g. cold, commanding, detached etc., but when she diverges from that type of characterization, it's hard to buy into her acting. The Help is the only exception I can think of. 

Yeah, I didn't buy her characterization as Adult Beverly in It 2. Teen Beverly had charisma and coolness in spades and Adult Beverly just doesn't. I get that this was a woman recovering from an abusive relationship but I still thought there should be some of that charm there.

I kept thinking about how much I wished Amy Adams had played this instead.

[IWantCandy71]

On 9/30/2019 at 7:08 PM, Crs97 said:

Mr. Rogers deserves better than someone who doesn’t “get” him and is doing a lazy dialect recycle.

Agreed. Fred Rogers deserved to at least be portrayed by an actor who does more than just coast on his name and past successes. I haven't seen Tom Hanks try hard in well over a decade.

[IWantCandy71]

On 9/25/2019 at 8:03 PM, methodwriter85 said:

I don't think I get Jessica Chastain's appeal, although I do think it's cool to see a woman hit movie star status AFTER her 30th birthday. That's pretty rare, especially for leads and not character actresses like Melissa Leo.

I don't either. I think ever since "The Help", she tries too hard. I would even go so far as to say most of her performances overall since then have been painful to watch.  I think the generic phrase is "over the top", and it fits well enough, so I'll go with that. 

Perhaps another UO? I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a far better actress from "The Help", and deserves the attention JC has gotten. I know most people would see it as her riding her father's coat tails, but I think she's a decent enough actress.

Another UO(maybe?) I liked Martin Scorsese's comment about Marvel movies. I know what he meant (and I think most people who aren't fanatics on either side of the fence also realize what he meant). And...he's not wrong. They are movies, but they are not "cinema"(meaning they aren't deep, and they aren't "art"). But then, much of Hollywood is not "cinema" by those standards, and hasn't been in a long time. 

I  think the new Judy Garland biopic may be "cinema", I am looking forward to seeing it.

Edited October 5, 2019 by IWantCandy71

[topanga]

On 9/30/2019 at 3:56 PM, Shannon L. said:

I honestly do not understand the love for Jurassic Park.  It was....ok.....I guess.  Is it just because the dinosaurs were really cool?  Is that it?

I liked the original trilogy because there were characters and stories that held my interest. 

And it is an unpopular opinion to like the 2nd one--Lost World. I loved it even though it was universally panned. 

I find the recent Jurassic World movies, OTOH, to be very forgettable. I just don't latch on to any of the characters the way I do the originals. 

[Danny Franks]

4 minutes ago, topanga said:

I liked the original trilogy because there were characters and stories that held my interest. 

And it is an unpopular opinion to like the 2nd one--Lost World. I loved it even though it was universally panned. 

I find the recent Jurassic World movies, OTOH, to be very forgettable. I just don't latch on to any of the characters the way I do the originals. 

I will forever say that Jurassic Park was a great movie. It had so much going for it - revolutionary technology, thrills, great directing and a tight script, memorable acting performances and frikkin' dinosaurs.

But I think very Jurassic Park movie since then has been pretty dreadful. I only saw The Lost World once, and remember nothing except that I hated it,

[Shannon L.]

I guess it was just one of the rare instances where I was pissed at how they chose to change the story from the book.  I'm typically understanding of that sort of thing, but in Jurassic Park, the changes made no sense to me (even though Stephen explained some of them in an article).  It was one of my favorite books--I couldn't put it down--but the movie left me so disappointed.  The dinosaurs were cool, though, and I did like the scene over dinner where Malcolm was explaining why what the did was wrong. 

[methodwriter85]

On 10/4/2019 at 8:15 PM, IWantCandy71 said:

Perhaps another UO? I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a far better actress from "The Help", and deserves the attention JC has gotten. I know most people would see it as her riding her father's coat tails, but I think she's a decent enough actress.

I think BDH can be really good if she's in the right role, like her Black Mirror episode. I also enjoyed her turns in 50/50 and Rocketman. She does ice cold bitch trying to hide behind a fake charming personality really well.

I think Bryce is decent enough and I think her current fame level feels appropriate, although Jurassic World really isn't making good use of her. (Or anyone, really.)

Honestly, I could have seen her playing Beverly Marsh, too.

[IWantCandy71]

9 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I think BDH can be really good if she's in the right role, like her Black Mirror episode. I also enjoyed her turns in 50/50 and Rocketman. She does ice cold bitch trying to hide behind a fake charming personality really well.

I think Bryce is decent enough and I think her current fame level feels appropriate, although Jurassic World really isn't making good use of her. (Or anyone, really.)

Honestly, I could have seen her playing Beverly Marsh, too.

I liked Bryce in Lady in the Water. I think that role, her Black Mirror role (which may be my favorite) and her role in The Help are all very different people. That shows me she has some range, which TBH, I can't say so readily about Jessica. I see Jessica in interviews and she seems so funny and lighthearted. I don't think she's had a role yet, that really uses that. It's a shame. So many of her roles are so serious and she's chewing the scenery and I get turned off. She needs a good comedy, where being OTT is more accepted if you are making people laugh.

[kiddo82]

I do not have the warm and fuzzies for Hocus Pocus.  I'm in the perfect age range to love this movie and get all nostalgic every Halloween for it (I was probably 11ish when I first saw it) but I feel like I liked it well enough as a child and have since moved on from it.   I think it's cool that it has had this renaissance of late but I couldn't tell you the last time I had a desire to rewatch it as an adult.

Edited October 13, 2019 by kiddo82

[Annber03]

I've never even seen Hocus Pocus. Which is odd, 'cause I'm in the age range of kids who grew up with that movie. But somehow I've missed out on it. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Yay, other people who don't get the hype over Hocus Pocus! I did see it as a kid (I was 11 when it came out, caught in on old-school VHS!), and I thought it was... okay? Shrill, over long, deeply unpleasant and disturbing, but...fine, I guess? Over the years, though, the nostalgic buzz around it has caused me to retroactively dislike it.

This also brings me to another UO: I am definitely a feminist, I want more movies with primarily female casts to be made, but I am not going to like a movie based solely on those merits. If a story doesn't appeal to me personally, then I'm not going to like it, regardless of how many women are in the cast. I'm entitled to have standards, and I'm not going to just be grateful for whatever crumbs are offered to me. I don't like Hocus Pocus and A League of Their Own. I do, however, love 9 to 5, The Trouble With Angels, and The Women (however flawed it is).

[kiddo82]

I agree.  Just thinking about the past year I thought Booksmart and Brittany Runs a Marathon were pretty forgettable but I enjoyed Hustlers and Ready or Not.  And the most progressive take I've heard about Captain Marvel from a panel of reviewers was that it wasn't the worst or the best Marvel offering and how that's okay.  Women are allowed to star in mediocre movies too.  Can't agree about A League of Their Own though because that's an all time fave of mine but being able to disagree about that is a good thing. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

1 hour ago, kiddo82 said:

Can't agree about A League of Their Own though because that's an all time fave of mine but being able to disagree about that is a good thing. 

Totally agree about agreeing to disagree! 😀 

[Blergh]

My Hocus Pocus UO: I think it had enough funny and clever material for a single SNL Short Subject but NOT an entire movie (as evinced by them being needlessly revived to drag out the barebones plot). Also, somehow the sight gag of seeing the Misses Midler, Najimy and Parker appearing together in quasi-17th century witch get-ups and hamming it up as 'sisters' was cute for about five minutes but was a drag and bore thereafter and IMO they didn't have enough sincere chemistry for it to have been entertaining for any longer than that. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I love British history. Scots history. HELL, any history from eons and centuries ago. Even if the movies made are inaccurate as all get out, if the actors are compelling and good enough (Cate Blanchette, I'm looking at you! John Rhys Myers, you too!) then I can accept the inaccuracies. But, by God, when the actors can't sell it, and the inaccuracies are so far apart as to be insulting to my intelligence, then I'll turn into a purist, goddammitall.

First it was watching Mary, Queen of Scots on HBO yesterday. Only got in about 30-45 minutes, before I shut it off. I won't repeat myself here, but stated my opinions about it.

Then I checked out Outlaw/King, because my best friend told me it was soooo good. I didn't recognize Chris Pine at first. Nor did I recognize Stannis, er, I mean Stephen Dillane. But the voice was familiar. BUT. It was BORING AS FUCK. It made me want to go back and just rewatch Braveheart, for Angus MacFadyen's Robert. The ending of that was as cheesy as any Harlequin or Silhouette romance novel. And I'm saying that as someone who still loves to read romance, but JEEBUS, not in this.

If it can't be accurate and entertaining, all I ask for is to be entertained, at least. Or find it interesting.

Edited October 14, 2019 by GHScorpiosRule

[proserpina65]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 2:53 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I love British history. Scots history. HELL, any history from eons and centuries ago. Even if the movies made are inaccurate as all get out, if the actors are compelling and good enough (Cate Blanchette, I'm looking at you! John Rhys Myers, you too!) then I can accept the inaccuracies. But, by God, when the actors can't sell it, and the inaccuracies are so far apart as to be insulting to my intelligence, then I'll turn into a purist, goddammitall.

First it was watching Mary, Queen of Scots on HBO yesterday. Only got in about 30-45 minutes, before I shut it off. I won't repeat myself here, but stated my opinions about it.

Then I checked out Outlaw/King, because my best friend told me it was soooo good. I didn't recognize Chris Pine at first. Nor did I recognize Stannis, er, I mean Stephen Dillane. But the voice was familiar. BUT. It was BORING AS FUCK. It made me want to go back and just rewatch Braveheart, for Angus MacFadyen's Robert. The ending of that was as cheesy as any Harlequin or Silhouette romance novel. And I'm saying that as someone who still loves to read romance, but JEEBUS, not in this.

If it can't be accurate and entertaining, all I ask for is to be entertained, at least. Or find it interesting.

Chris Pine is a mediocre actor doing a terrible Scottish accent in a poorly written, cheesy, boring-ass show.  Which is a shame, because it could've been good.  (And I'll second the vote for Angus MacFadyen's Robert - he was the best thing in that movie.)

[proserpina65]

Don't know if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but the first Maleficent was a boring movie with one good part at the end (the battle scene) and it in no way justified a sequel.  I don't need redemption movies for my villains, thank you very much.

[kiddo82]

17 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Don't know if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but the first Maleficent was a boring movie with one good part at the end (the battle scene) and it in no way justified a sequel.  I don't need redemption movies for my villains, thank you very much.

I tried to watch Maleficent when it was on TNT and I couldn't make it through the first twenty minutes.

[proserpina65]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 8:17 AM, kiddo82 said:

I tried to watch Maleficent when it was on TNT and I couldn't make it through the first twenty minutes.

And it only got worse from there.  Count yourself lucky.

[Blergh]

OK, this may seem a bit broad but IMUO, with very few exceptions, any time a villain who has died (especially after the protagonist had killed said villain in self-defense and/or to defend the lives of others) gets 'revived', 'reincarnated' or just keeps popping up for no good reason, this is not only a sign of the writers' lack of imagination (as if only THAT character could be a villain and/or they can't imagine a scenario for their characters without said villain) but also a sign of perp if not torture porn.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Blergh

[bmoore4026]

The Shawshank Redemption is a big pile of shit and Citizen Kane is vastly overrated.

The Favourite should have won the Best Picture Oscar.

Edited October 24, 2019 by bmoore4026

[Wiendish Fitch]

5 minutes ago, bmoore4026 said:

The Shawshank Redemption is a big pile of shit and Citizen Kane is vastly overrated.

The Favourite should have won the Best Picture Oscar.

Yay! I'm not the only one who doesn't get the affection for The Shawshank Redemption!! Plus, my favorite Orson Welles flick is Touch of Evil. 

[bmoore4026]

33 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Yay! I'm not the only one who doesn't get the affection for The Shawshank Redemption!! Plus, my favorite Orson Welles flick is Touch of Evil. 

Oh, I could go on and on about the IMDB rating system, but we'd practically need a separate sub-forum for that.

Edited October 24, 2019 by bmoore4026
Forgot the "I"

[Blergh]

I hated the Cider House Rules for its attempt to make incest  seem like something inevitable and a matter of course for struggling poor folks and/or African-Americans in a folksy, condescending  manner ! Seriously, this should have made ALL African-Americans and descendants of poor laborers of all backgrounds furious!

[Wiendish Fitch]

15 minutes ago, Blergh said:

I hated the Cider House Rules for its attempt to make incest  seem like something inevitable and a matter of course for struggling poor folks and/or African-Americans in a folksy, condescending  manner ! Seriously, this should have made ALL African-Americans and descendants of poor laborers of all backgrounds furious!

Damn, I'm glad I never had any interest in seeing Cider House Rules. That is some messed up shit right there.

[WritinMan]

An unpopular opinion for the Halloween season: Kubrick's The Shining sucks.

People may like at as a movie on it's own merits, but don't try to tell me it's a good adaptation, because it isn't remotely. The mini-series is better.

Edited October 27, 2019 by WritinMan
Typo!

[Ohiopirate02]

12 minutes ago, WritinMan said:

An unpopular opinion for the Halloween season: Kubrick's The Shining sucks.

People may like at as a movie on it's own merits, but don't try to tell me a good adaptation, because it isn't remotely. The mini-series is better.

I agree.  Nicholson's Jack Torrence is obviously unhinged from the first scene so you lose his slow descent into insanity.   I get why book Wendy and miniseries Wendy are willing to take Danny with him to the Overlook, but not movie Wendy.  

I also hate the set design of Kubrick.  It screams 1970s and lacks the Robber Baron Colonial Revival glamour that the hotel is supposed to have.