Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Shannon L.

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

 I did like how Winona played May.  She had the right mix of innocence and cunning.

My UO is that Winona Ryder is a better actress than people give her credit for. She's well-cast in The Age of Innocence, and she's tied with Katherine Hepburn as my favorite Jo March (nothing personal, Sairose Ronan).

Back to The Age of Innocence, I think May falls under "the antagonist, but not a villain" category. Is she particularly nice or good? Eh, not really, but I wouldn't call her evil, either. She's just a woman with cunning and self-awareness, and she knows how to play the game of society. Besides, May did offer Newland an out from their engagement, it's not her fault that he was too dumb to take it when he had the chance.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

My UO is that Winona Ryder is a better actress than people give her credit for. She's well-cast in The Age of Innocence, and she's tied with Katherine Hepburn as my favorite Jo March (nothing personal, Sairose Ronan).

Back to The Age of Innocence, I think May falls under "the antagonist, but not a villain" category. Is she particularly nice or good? Eh, not really, but I wouldn't call her evil, either. She's just a woman with cunning and self-awareness, and she knows how to play the game of society. Besides, May did offer Newland an out from their engagement, it's not her fault that he was too dumb to take it when he had the chance.

I didn't know she wasn't regarded as a good actress. I thought she totally deserved her Oscar nomination for Age of Innocence and I would have loved to see her in the Godfather 3.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I liked Winona as May too. And if we were supposed to hate her for getting in the way of the doomed love affair it failed because I didn't give two shits about Newland or Ellen.

I thought Michelle Pfeiffer was good in the role, and I liked the character, but yeah, Newland was such a wet noodle that I really didn't care about their great love affair.  Hell, both Ellen and May deserved better.  I do understand why May insisted on marrying him, though.  She wanted out from under her parents' control, and she found a man she could control instead, so good for her.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, jah1986 said:

I would have loved to see her in the Godfather 3

Man, what a different that would have made.  I mean, I have a soft spot for Godfather 3 because of how incredibly hot Andy Garcia was in it, but the thought of him actually having a really good actress to work with rather than Sofia Coppola, damn!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Setting aside the how great the set design, costumes and special effects were throughout the entire 3 hours of Titanic, when it comes to the story, my UO is that I prefer the 1st half to the 2nd (in spite of how silly it is).

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Singin' In the Rain was on TCM today.  I have problems with this movie overall but I really, really, really hate the Moses Supposes scene.  In a vacuum, it's a fun song and dance vehicle for Kelly and O'Connor.  But the scene doesn't take place in a vacuum.  All I see when I watch that scene is two assholes who interrupt some poor dialect coach's session and trash his office in the process.  My man is just trying to do his job.  I'm half joking here but at the same time I can't get over that Don and Cosmo are just rude as hell.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Setting aside the how great the set design, costumes and special effects were throughout the entire 3 hours of Titanic, when it comes to the story, my UO is that I prefer the 1st half to the 2nd (in spite of how silly it is).

I think that the first half is a perfect romantic comedy type movie.  It's wonderful.

On 2/6/2020 at 12:13 PM, Spartan Girl said:

I watched The Age of Innocence with Day-Lewis, Pfeiffer, and Ryder, and like @GHScorpiosRule's reaction to Girl with the Pearl Earring...I was left bored and unmoved.  I love period pieces and Daniel Day Lewis but this didn't work for me.

Exact same

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Singin' In the Rain was on TCM today.  I have problems with this movie overall but I really, really, really hate the Moses Supposes scene.  In a vacuum, it's a fun song and dance vehicle for Kelly and O'Connor.  But the scene doesn't take place in a vacuum.  All I see when I watch that scene is two assholes who interrupt some poor dialect coach's session and trash his office in the process.  My man is just trying to do his job.  I'm half joking here but at the same time I can't get over that Don and Cosmo are just rude as hell.  

Thank you for that! Yes, I get they were bored with having to do lessons but not only was the man merely trying to do his job to the best of his ability, he was attempting to give them skills they would need to survive if they were to be leading performers in  those newfangled SOUND movies!  And despite the fact that he was doing his best to be helpful to them and never was less than respectful to them, they belittled and mocked his speech before engaging in vandalism out of supposed puckish 'fun'! Ironic that they ended it with them holding up the sign  'Vowel A', since they SURE proved to live up to a particular term starting with said vowel!BOOO!!!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Thank you for that! Yes, I get they were bored with having to do lessons but not only was the man merely trying to do his job to the best of his ability, he was attempting to give them skills they would need to survive if they were to be leading performers in  those newfangled SOUND movies!  And despite the fact that he was doing his best to be helpful to them and never was less than respectful to them, they belittled and mocked his speech before engaging in vandalism out of supposed puckish 'fun'! Ironic that they ended it with them holding up the sign  'Vowel A', since they SURE proved to live up to a particular term starting with said vowel!BOOO!!!!

Singin' in the Rain is my favorite movie of all time... but I hate "Moses Supposes", too!! Thank God I'm not alone!

I'll take a million bloated "Broadway Melody"'s over one "Moses Supposes"!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/7/2020 at 11:31 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

My UO is that Winona Ryder is a better actress than people give her credit for. She's well-cast in The Age of Innocence, and she's tied with Katherine Hepburn as my favorite Jo March (nothing personal, Sairose Ronan).

Yeah.  I went into watching the most recent Little Women thinking, "It better be great to top the 1994 version" and...it didn't for me.  Is that an UO?  I thought the most recent version was okay, but it wasn't anything to write home about in my book.  Saoirse Ronan was good, but not as good as Winona Ryder or Katharine Hepburn.  I really preferred Trini Alvarado and Claire Danes to Emma Watson and Eliza Scanlon.  And while I liked Florence Pugh as adult Amy, I wish they'd found someone younger to play Amy as a child.  I realize you run the risk of uneven casting that the 1994 version had by casting Kirsten Dunst (who was wonderful) as the child and Samantha Mathis (who was bland) as the adult, but it was jarring to me that Pugh played Amy throughout the whole film.  Especially since the story kept jumping back and forth in time.

On 2/7/2020 at 1:34 PM, proserpina65 said:

Man, what a different that would have made.  I mean, I have a soft spot for Godfather 3 because of how incredibly hot Andy Garcia was in it, but the thought of him actually having a really good actress to work with rather than Sofia Coppola, damn!

Yeah, I've always wondered the same thing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

My Little Women UO is that keeping the same actors for Amy was the right choice. Not only because of potential casting mishaps but because it benefits the character. I don't know that Amy would have worked as well as she did if someone else was playing the younger version rather than allowing Pugh to play the whole character. Also, the only reason I can think of to have two actors playing Amy is to have a shortcut to showing how she matured as she became an adult. I'd rather see the same actor take the character from start to finish rather than rely on a shortcut. If Amy started the story at age five then multiple actors makes sense but she starts the story at twelve/thirteen so I don't see it as a big deal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, wallflower75 said:

It better be great to top the 1994 version" and...it didn't for me.  Is that an UO?

Maybe the "nothing to write home about" part but whether or not it "topped" the 1994 version, no I don't think it's unpopular if you didn't feel it did.  Especially not when LW adaptations tend to be well done. 

I don't think it has to either.  Personally, if I like a story, I might have a favorite but I love when it's retold over and over again.  I've liked every version of Emma I've seen and I'm looking forward to the new adaptation as well.

7 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

My Little Women UO is that keeping the same actors for Amy was the right choice.

I'm there with you. Did she look 13?  Nope.  But I think the only reason I know she was supposed to be 13 is because of people complaining she didn't look 13.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, thickplottens said:

UO: Daisy Ridley and Sebastian Stan are mediocre actors.

Totally agree on Daisy Ridley. Take away the Star Wars of it all, like in Murder on the Orient Express, and it’s really clear.

Sebastian Stan was great in Kings. I’m not a fan of movies based on comics/cartoons, so I don’t think I’ve ever noticed him in anything else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/5/2020 at 3:40 PM, andromeda331 said:

I've watched a few with my dad and no matter who the actor is and some of them I've liked (I find Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig hot) I don't like James Bond.  I love spy stories, gadgets, guns and cars so I should have ended up loving the movies. But I just really hate James Bond. The only thing I ever liked was the 2012 Olympic Games with James Bond goes to Buckingham Palace to escort the Queen to the games. 

So… James Bond. My Dad collected all of them on home video, and he loved re-watching Bond movies from the Connery-Lazenby-Moore era. I really wasn't into them at all despite seeing various sections/scenes in passing. Too noisy, kind of corny and just not that interesting to me.

I finally chose to see a James Bond movie and it was A View To A Kill. Because: Duran Duran sang the theme song, and I sure was a Duranie! (Now you know me age, lads and lassies!) Despite Roger Moore being quite handsome, Christopher Walken as the villain and Grace Jones as a fantastic Bond girl/villainess, and the movie was more of the what I already saw at home. 

The second and third Bond movies I willingly saw were the unpopularly loved yet lovingly enjoyed by me, Timothy Dalton pair of The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill. This time, I was heavily crushing on Dalton and his buttery, buttery voice, especially after watching The Lion In Winter, his debut movie. (Side note: Go see this! The dialogue is just the tastiest snark.) 

I wasn't into Brosnan, so I skipped all his Bond ventures. So when Daniel Craig was announced as the new James Bond… I was all: Huwatt? That's a step down for Craig! I already was a Craig fan, and the Bond franchise sure was lucky to have him! So for me,  Casino Royale and Skyfall are the best picks of the franchise. His other two were… acceptable. 

On 2/9/2020 at 6:34 AM, wallflower75 said:

Yeah.  I went into watching the most recent Little Women thinking, "It better be great to top the 1994 version" and...it didn't for me.  Is that an UO?  I thought the most recent version was okay, but it wasn't anything to write home about in my book.  Saoirse Ronan was good, but not as good as Winona Ryder or Katharine Hepburn.  I really preferred Trini Alvarado and Claire Danes to Emma Watson and Eliza Scanlon.  And while I liked Florence Pugh as adult Amy, I wish they'd found someone younger to play Amy as a child.  I realize you run the risk of uneven casting that the 1994 version had by casting Kirsten Dunst (who was wonderful) as the child and Samantha Mathis (who was bland) as the adult, but it was jarring to me that Pugh played Amy throughout the whole film.  Especially since the story kept jumping back and forth in time.

Yeah, I've always wondered the same thing.

I love the Little Women saga, and I loved Ladybird, and with all the glorious reviews for Greta Garwig's adaptation, I was ready to be amazed. But I found this 2019 version painful. The 1994 version was just the zenith of how warm, delightful and powerful the March story can be expressed in film form. Winona Ryder was a sensational Jo – I loved how she can convey so much with just her face. She didn't monologues to push out the limitation and the potential of women in her era. Same with the Marmee character – Laura Dern got points for saying how "angry" she was every day of her life, but the anger was felt in Susan Sarandon's every gesture. Show don't tell, and that's how the 1994 version remains the best for me. Also, Gabriel Byrne was just aces as Friedrich Bhaer. He was romantic and it was a love story of equals despite many differences. 

 

 

 

Edited by pancake bacon · Reason: Spelling corrections! I hope I got all of them.
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, pancake bacon said:

I love the Little Women saga, and I loved Ladybird, and with all the glorious reviews for Greta Garwig's adaptation, I was ready to be amazed. But I found this 2019 version painful. The 1994 version was just the zenith of how warm, delightful and powerful the March story can be expressed in film form. Winona Ryder was a sensational Jo – I loved how she can convey so much with just her face. She didn't monologues to push out the limitation and the potential of women in her era. Same with the Marmee character – Laura Dern got points for saying how "angry" she was every day of her life, but the anger was felt in Susan Sarandon's every gesture. Show don't tell, and that's how the 1994 version remains the best for me. Also, Gabriel Byrne was just aces as Friedrich Bhaer. He was romantic and it was a love story of equals despite many differences.

I liked the 2019 Little Women just fine and dandy... but the 1994 one will always be #1 in my heart, followed closely by the 1933 version (seriously, I believe Katherine Hepburn was literally put on this earth to play Jo March). And hell yeah to Gabriel Byrne! The relationship between Professor Bhaer and Jo is extremely controversial among Little Women fans, but damned if Gillian Armstrong and company didn't make it work!

I will, however, jump on one particular bandwagon: Florence Pugh is the best Amy I've ever seen. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

 My unpopular opinion is I didn’t think Florence Pugh was all that great in little women. Amy is not a likeable character. A part of me always had a soft spot for her though.   I did not feel that at all with Pugh.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/15/2020 at 12:35 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

I liked the 2019 Little Women just fine and dandy... but the 1994 one will always be #1 in my heart, followed closely by the 1933 version (seriously, I believe Katherine Hepburn was literally put on this earth to play Jo March). And hell yeah to Gabriel Byrne! The relationship between Professor Bhaer and Jo is extremely controversial among Little Women fans, but damned if Gillian Armstrong and company didn't make it work!

I will, however, jump on one particular bandwagon: Florence Pugh is the best Amy I've ever seen. 

 

On 2/18/2020 at 3:25 AM, tribeca said:

 My unpopular opinion is I didn’t think Florence Pugh was all that great in little women. Amy is not a likeable character. A part of me always had a soft spot for her though.   I did not feel that at all with Pugh.  

I can't quite reconcile how I feel about Florence Pugh. She's a great actress and put in a great performance in Little Women, but she's not quite the best Amy… not entirely. Kirsten Dunst was an absolute delight as a young Amy with her comic timing and ability to make the saga of pickled limes the right amount of silly, charmed nonsense. When she burns the book, the performance feels consistent of what a indulged youngest March girl would do to an elder sister. The 1994 version also sets up the Laurie/Amy adult romance much better, but I'll direct that position in the Little Women thread. 

Florence Pugh is the best adult Amy with one good monologue on marriage? I just didn't buy Pugh as the 12-year-old (13? 14?) Amy, and found those young Amy scenes painful to watch. 

Edited by pancake bacon · Reason: Grammar mistakes; missing words
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 2/9/2020 at 6:41 AM, thickplottens said:

UO: Daisy Ridley and Sebastian Stan are mediocre actors.

I've enjoyed Sebastian Stan in things I've seen him in. At this point, however, I know the fandom too well so if I see him in something not Bucky related I can anticipate exactly what the fans are going to say about this, that or the other and it takes me right out of the movie.

Plus, some of the things I've seen him in I just flat out don't like. And some of the things he's done coming up don't interest me at all and I'm not the woman who goes 'oh, he has a lot of sex in this movie... I'm in!!' That's just not how I roll.

Also, I find myself liking the absolute dork he is in real life a lot more than some of the roles he gets. It's a very weird area.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I think Sebastian Stan is a good actor just not a real showy one. But yeah, I haven't seen everything he's in because I'm just not interested in some of it.

Daisy Ridley, idk. I've only seen her in the two Star Wars movies (haven't seen the third yet) but she seems fine. We'll see I guess.

11 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

Also, I find myself liking the absolute dork he is in real life a lot more than some of the roles he gets. It's a very weird area.

Yeah, he seems like an awkward introvert. I can relate.

Well since there's no UO in this post, here's one: I've got nothing bad to say about the new Star Wars movies. I just don't care that much. I'm entertained by them and I'm only passionate about the original three anyway. 

Oh, here's another: I'm not a Trekkie, I used to watch Next Generation sometimes and that's it really. But I loved those remake movies, I even went to the theater to see them. Also bought the Blu-rays. I really liked the cast.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, festivus said:

Well since there's no UO in this post, here's one: I've got nothing bad to say about the new Star Wars movies. I just don't care that much. I'm entertained by them and I'm only passionate about the original three anyway. 

I'm right there with you, right down to being passionate about the original three. I never saw the middle three and have zero interest and I don't follow the ten million other media versions of Star Wars out there so all the complaints about continuity and whatnot are lost on me. Honestly, though I've seen the first of this trio twice and the middle once, by the time the third came around I had forgotten enough that I didn't see any continuity issues here either. For me they are just movies and if they entertain me, I'm good. The 7 Star Wars movies I've seen have highly entertained me. (I also saw Rogue One). 

My UO is that, no matter how much of a fan I am of any film, if someone tries to argue with me about it I can't be bothered. Don't like Clue? Okay. I think it's the greatest comedy of all time but I'm not going to try to convince someone of that. It's just a movie. They are all just movies. I just don't understand why some people are so intensely defensive about a movie, unless they were in it/produced it/directed it or something. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, pancake bacon said:

Florence Pugh is the best adult Amy with one good monologue on marriage? I just didn't buy Pugh as the 12-year-old (13? 14?) Amy, and found those young Amy scenes painful to watch. 

I think the problem with that is that any 24 year old actress wont pull off a 12 year old no matter how great an actress she is.  It was a huge mistake not to double cast the part.  If we learned anything from two Oscar contenders this year (Little Womem and The Irishman) it's double cast your younger/older roles because if not the result is kind of ridiculous 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Dandesun said:

I've enjoyed Sebastian Stan in things I've seen him in.

I thought he was terrible as the Mad Hatter on Once Upon A Time, but okay (if not much better than that) in The Martian.  Not sure what else I might've seen him in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I thought he was terrible as the Mad Hatter on Once Upon A Time, but okay (if not much better than that) in The Martian.  Not sure what else I might've seen him in.

I liked him well enough as the Mad Hatter but he wasn't a major player so he was also kind of forgettable. And I can actually say the same for his role in The Martian which wasn't very big... I mean, I guess he had more lines than he did in Winter Soldier? Maybe? Meanwhile, The Covenant is a TERRIBLE movie and no one is what I would call 'good' in it but it's so bad it's hilarious and I'll watch it every single time I come across it (also I think Taylor Kitsch is hot as fuck in it.)

'The Bronze' for example is a movie I really didn't like AT ALL but I think he did a damn good job with his character who was pretty awful but so was the main character. I tried to give that movie another go 'round after the first time and just couldn't. I mean, I barely got through it the first time. I just flat out didn't like it even though the performances were well done. Basically, what I'm saying is that I've never been repelled by a performance even if I don't like the actual movie or whatever. He's never been what's wrong with something I haven't liked.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Sebastian Stan was really good in I, Tanya.  Other than that and the Marvel movies, I haven't seen him in anything else. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Sebastian Stan was terrible in OUaT! I forgot I watched the first season of that show. I hated the show too but that's a UO for another thread.

I love The Covenant and The Apparition, which are a couple of bad movies he did. What can I say, bad horror is my jam.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll see your Sebastian Stan (who I think is fine in everything, if not spectacular) and raise you Timothee Chalamet.  He was good in Call Me By Your Name, very good, but I haven't seen anything else of his that makes me think he's the second coming as of yet.  Maybe because he hasn't grown out of that brooding boy type yet?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Sebastian Stan appreciation rabbit hole. I liked him as Captain/Prince Jack Benjamin (the biblical Jonathan) in Kings

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I mentioned Kings upthread. A very undervalued show done wrong by an insipid male lead. 

And on the king front, Chalamet was terrible in The King. Ugh. He’s such a little boy. He needs to outgrow that.

My very unpopular opinion, Jon Hamm is a gross skeeze and there is not one thing about him that is attractive.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Raja said:

Sebastian Stan appreciation rabbit hole. I liked him as Captain/Prince Jack Benjamin (the biblical Jonathan) in Kings

I've never seen that one.

My UO about horror is that the worse it is the more I like it. I do enjoy a well done horror movie, I think Shaun of the Dead was brilliant, but I prefer the cheese. Especially crapola from the 80s. I hated that movie Hereditary and I am baffled as to how it ended up on so many best lists. Sooo boring. Toni Collete was great though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 12/3/2019 at 2:40 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Christmas movies I loathe: most of Christmas Vacation, A Christmas Carol.    

Christmas vacation, I like when he turns on the lights, and the electric company has to turn on more power, and when the lights blast the neighbors across the street.  

On a similar note, I cannot stand movies with Chevy Chase, even the ones I used to like. Was he always this asshole mugging for the camera?

On 1/1/2020 at 10:44 PM, Blergh said:

IOW, it was somewhat a late 20th century, Latin solo trope that the mid 20th century Sound of Music somewhat epitomized, IMO.

The latter movie evolved/devolved from an already sanitized, saccharine bio by Maria Von Trapp who made it seem as though she was the sole savior of the late Baron and his children by his first union . The movie depicted it as though that they all LOVED singing from Day One and were eager to become singers solely out of wanting to share their talents with the world. In truth, she was a novice nun who'd been sent to help care for one of the Baron's semi-invalid daughters then married the Baron despite admitting that she only did it due to her Mother Superior's command and only learned to love him after she had learned to love the children. Moreover, the double-whammy of the loss of the Austrian Empire (with the Republic of Austria no longer having any seaports or coastline) resulting in the end of the Baron's naval career  AND the Depression wiping out virtually all of their funds, Maria had her stepchildren sing for their supper rather than just out of the love of singing. Oh, and they were married in 1927 but the NAZIs didn't take over Austria until 1938 (when they had had two children of their own) but not only were the Von Trapps depicted as having to flee after their honeymoon but their own elder two children  having been born was omitted.. It would have been a more interesting movie had they been depicted adding children to an already large family with dwindling resources then  having to make their career due to losing their monies and then becoming refugees in the US while touring the world singing Austrian folk songs- with Maria ruling them with an iron hand but that's not what we got.

      IMO, the best part of the movie was the opening flight through the Austrian Alps & countryside . Moreover, hearing those Alpine winds blowing & bird songs was more satisfying than virtually all the songs thereafter (though I do like the title opening song, "Something Good" and "Edelweiss"). 

I did not know that!

One thing I learned during my trip to Germany is that at the end of SoM, the family is fleeing Austria in the wrong direct. I think the tour guide said they were heading towards Adolph Hitler's castle! 😀

On 2/3/2020 at 11:40 AM, BlackberryJam said:

I've never seen a Daniel Craig Bond movie. I stopped being interested in them during the Pierce Brosnan years.

TBH, I lost all interest in 007 movies once the Cold War ended.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I loathe the Sound of Music for a lot of reasons.   First, the dramatic escape wasn't that dramatic in real life.   They went for a hike, and crossed the border.    The entire love story wasn't really that in real life.     I've never liked musicals either, so this is never going to be on my list of movies to watch. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I loathe the Sound of Music for a lot of reasons.   First, the dramatic escape wasn't that dramatic in real life.   They went for a hike, and crossed the border.    The entire love story wasn't really that in real life.     I've never liked musicals either, so this is never going to be on my list of movies to watch. 

I like the Sound of Music, but I treat it more like it's completely made-up fiction because it travels so far afield from the true story.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I like the Sound of Music, but I treat it more like it's completely made-up fiction because it travels so far afield from the true story.

Same here. I liked the movie. It was real good. Julie Andrews was great and so was Christopher Plummer. The kids were cute. But its so not what happened by a long shot. It cracks me up that they went the wrong way in trying to escape. I'd definitely watch it if anyone ever decided to make a movie on what really happened. That was a great story too. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

UO:  I don't mind spoilers.  In fact, I've been known to seek them out because I'm not a huge fan of suspense, and I enjoy such movies more if I know that everything comes out okay in the end.  Or doesn't.  I prefer being relaxed to being tense when I go to the show.

I sought out spoilers for Parasite, even though everybody said to go in knowing as little as possible.  Not me!  Speaking very very generally, violence in Korean movies is too rough for me, so I'm not going to see one without thorough vetting.  For most other movies, I don't necessarily seek out spoilers, but I don't get suicidal if I run across them.

I miss the IMDb message boards because it was possible to ask for spoilers and people would give them. 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problem with spoilers, either. Every so often there might be something I'll try and avoid spoilers for, depending on the situation (I've actually been doing that with Parasite, and I did that for Get Out, too).

But in general, yeah, I don't feel a story's been ruined for me if I get spoiled by it. For one thing, sometimes the journey can be just as interesting as the end result. For another, a review, or a series of photos or a promo, can give me a general summary of what happens in the movie/show/book, but it's one thing to get glimpses of it through other people's descriptions. It's another to actually see or read it in full, on my own. I can still appreciate a twist I was spoiled on if I see how they worked up to it. And with other things, there can still be surprises even if you know how the general story goes. Some element that a review or a photo didn't cover and capture, something you picked up on that somebody else missed, stuff like that. Reviews and pictures and such don't always tell the whole story, so even if you know the main plot points, that doesn't mean you automatically know about everything that happened.

Edited by Annber03

Share this post


Link to post

I seek out spoilers.  I can’t deal with violence or lots of tension or sudden scares or most things people seem to love these days.  One day hubby will realize that my trip(s) to the bathroom are more strategic than necessary. 🤷‍♀️

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind spoilers either!  I used to work at a film society which did a yearly tribute to famous film actors/directors, and they would show clips from the person's career.  That's when I came to realize that no matter how frightening the film in question might be, it was the tension and buildup that was the hardest to take.  Just a scene or two isn't always that bad ... though I can't watch realistic violence in the movies either way.   I can watch mysteries on TV, as long as they follow the typical "Law and Order" pattern, and have the already dead body discovered right at the beginning. Less tension!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

UO:  I don't mind spoilers. 

I actively avoid them.  I've found that when I'm watching a series for which I don't want spoilers and which I have to record rather than watching live, I have to avoid EW's website until I've watched because they frequently give them away on their main page.  I think any entertainment website which does that should be roundly castigated.

However, if I go deeper than the main page, say, into a show's comment threads here or somewhere similar, I take my chances and deserve what I get.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/25/2020 at 9:06 PM, Annber03 said:

I have no problem with spoilers, either. Every so often there might be something I'll try and avoid spoilers for, depending on the situation (I've actually been doing that with Parasite, and I did that for Get Out, too).

But in general, yeah, I don't feel a story's been ruined for me if I get spoiled by it. For one thing, sometimes the journey can be just as interesting as the end result.

Same. In my case, I've spent so much of my adult life seeing stage performances of standard-repertory works in which the "how" (the artistry with which we get from one point to another) is everything. Almost everyone will go in already knowing the "what." So I'm just wired that way.  

If what I'm seeing is almost entirely plot-dependent, like a mystery in which the whole point is finding out which of the people in the house committed the murder, then I'll try to avoid them. But very little of what I care to watch can be described that way anyway. 

I do think that's a good strategy with Parasite. It isn't entirely dependent on plot, but it does have some delicious turns.   

I think we've gone too far in the direction of spoiler hysteria and rage. A few years ago, I saw people ripping into Amy Adams on YouTube because she gave an interview about Arrival and said the hardest part was the death of the daughter, as she (Adams) is the real-life mother of a daughter. People were writing "NOW I DON'T NEED TO SEE THE MOVIE! THANKS A LOT!" over something that happens in the first few minutes. Even when told it happens in the first few minutes and is part of the movie's setup/premise, they weren't backing down.  

It used to be a different world. I've read reviews of the book Gone with the Wind, from when it was newly published, that blithely give away the terms on which Scarlett and Rhett end the story. Or you see old trailers for classic films like Chinatown and they show you most of the final scene, including the last line.  

Edited by Simon Boccanegra
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

I think we've gone too far in the direction of spoiler hysteria and rage.

I don't think that's true.  Those who want spoilers can easily find them.  Those of us who don't, well, we've learned where we can and can't go on the internet.  Like reading/watching interviews with the stars, for example, where things which could be taken as spoilers might be discussed - those I would avoid if I wanted to remain unspoiled.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I don't think that's true.  Those who want spoilers can easily find them.  Those of us who don't, well, we've learned where we can and can't go on the internet.  Like reading/watching interviews with the stars, for example, where things which could be taken as spoilers might be discussed - those I would avoid if I wanted to remain unspoiled.

I don't either. I like that there's an option for both. There's some movies I don't mind reading all the spoilers and watching/reading all interviews before going to see the movie or TV show and while others I really don't want any spoilers and will avoid places on the internet, articles and interviews. It just really depends on the movie. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think Diablo Cody is a bad writer and I resent being told that she's this incredibly feminist voice. There are much better female writers.

The United States of Tara was boring and terrible. Juno was mediocre at best. Young Adult was fine. I don't know why I'd ever want to see Ricki and the Flash or Tully. I don't need to watch Jennifer's Body to know it's probably not going to be the brilliant feminist cult classic that people are claiming. And everything I've heard about the book she wrote for the musical Jagged Little Pill sounds like trash. 

I can just think she's a bad writer. People can think her movies are bad for reasons other than because they don't get how to watch things with a feminist lens or don't appreciate female writers. I can't keep giving hours of my life to reaffirming that I think she's a bad writer. I just can't. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I want Tom Hanks to do more comedic roles. He has fantastic comedic timing yet most of his live action movies are dramas. Not over the top serious but still dramatic. He gets to do comedy in the Toy Story movies but I want a good, solid, live action comedy from him. His career took off because of Big, his rom-coms made money, he was hilarious in A League Of Their Own, and brings the funny when he's doing interviews. He and comedy go together perfectly. Take a break from the dramas and make us laugh Hanks.

This. And also, if he wants to direct that's cool too as long as it's more along the lines of That Thing You Do! I would love it if he just decided to direct a Netflix rom-com out of nowhere.

Speaking of Beyonce, I don't think she's a terrible actress. She is one of the many people in Dreamgirls who deserved an acting nomination over Jennifer Hudson. Jennifer Hudson was a terrible actress when she made that movie and the fact that she has major acting awards is a travesty. I think she is getting marginally better over time and God bless her for continuing to try but being a great singer is not the same as being a good actor. The Adam Sandler Netflix movie Sandy Wexler is the first time she's been believable to me as an actress and hasn't just let her voice carry her. Her line delivery was actually somewhat natural and her eyes weren't vacant and she was actually reacting to her scene partners. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/7/2020 at 6:17 AM, aradia22 said:

I think Diablo Cody is a bad writer and I resent being told that she's this incredibly feminist voice. There are much better female writers.

The United States of Tara was boring and terrible. Juno was mediocre at best. Young Adult was fine. I don't know why I'd ever want to see Ricki and the Flash or Tully. I don't need to watch Jennifer's Body to know it's probably not going to be the brilliant feminist cult classic that people are claiming. And everything I've heard about the book she wrote for the musical Jagged Little Pill sounds like trash. 

I can just think she's a bad writer. People can think her movies are bad for reasons other than because they don't get how to watch things with a feminist lens or don't appreciate female writers. I can't keep giving hours of my life to reaffirming that I think she's a bad writer. I just can't. 

My only interest in Ricki and the Flash is Rick Springfield. Honestly. And that's probably ridiculous but... that's it. Despite that, I still haven't mustered up the time to actually watch it. Maybe I just like the idea of Rick Springfield playing Meryl Streep's rock n' roll boyfriend even with her ridiculous hair and I don't actually have to see it play out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/9/2020 at 1:39 PM, Dandesun said:

My only interest in Ricki and the Flash is Rick Springfield. Honestly. And that's probably ridiculous but... that's it. Despite that, I still haven't mustered up the time to actually watch it. Maybe I just like the idea of Rick Springfield playing Meryl Streep's rock n' roll boyfriend even with her ridiculous hair and I don't actually have to see it play out.

I saw it. It was an average/mediocre movie,

Spoiler

with a great ending.

  I don't know if it's worth anyone's time 😞 But if you love Rick Springfield, maybe it would be.  I love Meryl, but I did not love the movie.  If you're not going to watch the whole thing, I would advise YouTubing

Spoiler

The ending.

 

I liked Juno a lot, but haven't been a fan of anything else by Diablo Cody's so far.  #FilmTwitter loves Jennifer's Body, though.

I always say I'd like Tom Hanks to do asshole roles more.  He was an asshole in A League of their Own and he was HYSTERICAL!  And obviously, he's great comedically in Sleepless in Seattle.  Not necessarily an asshole, but a great comedic performance.

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm ambivalent on Diablo Cody's output, but one thing she does well: Writing female characters who are allowed to not be "awesome badass superchick", but flawed, selfish and unpleasant. For all her problems, this is also something that Lena Dunham gets right. Portraying women as jerks, just like men, is something that still needs to happen more IMO. Not EBIL or anything, just not very nice. With interiority and complexity and clear weaknesses and flaws.

Because while it's admirable to have strong, heroic, morally upstanding female characters, never going beyond that has the risk of putting women on pedestals again and demanding that only idealized versions of feminity count. And everyone who doesn't live up to the ideal is worthless. And that's a very restrictivce concept, kinda Victorian just with modernized content like "badass", "hypercompetent" thrown in the mix. Men are portrayed in moral shades and variations, I think that still needs to happen more for female characters.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, katha said:

I'm ambivalent on Diablo Cody's output, but one thing she does well: Writing female characters who are allowed to not be "awesome badass superchick", but flawed, selfish and unpleasant. For all her problems, this is also something that Lena Dunham gets right. Portraying women as jerks, just like men, is something that still needs to happen more IMO. Not EBIL or anything, just not very nice. With interiority and complexity and clear weaknesses and flaws.

Because while it's admirable to have strong, heroic, morally upstanding female characters, never going beyond that has the risk of putting women on pedestals again and demanding that only idealized versions of feminity count. And everyone who doesn't live up to the ideal is worthless. And that's a very restrictivce concept, kinda Victorian just with modernized content like "badass", "hypercompetent" thrown in the mix. Men are portrayed in moral shades and variations, I think that still needs to happen more for female characters.

Well said, katha. I maintain that Young Adult is one of the most unfairly underrated films of the last 10 years. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and proclaim it was the film Trainwreck tried (and, IMO, failed) to be.

While I've never been a Lena Dunham fan, I will give her this... like Albert Brooks, she not only writes her own stuff, but she isn't afraid to play unpleasant, far-from-admirable protagonists. That takes a special self-discipline, because if left to their own devices, writers/actors will too often fall into the Mary Sue trap, with ridiculous results (oh, Neil Breen, bless his heart).

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

This one is shallow, but:  I hated that cream colored cable knit sweater Chris Evans was wearing in Knives Out. The jacket in that ugly brown made it even worse (he looked slightly better when he took the jacket off).  Those colors looked horrendous on him.  The blue sweater he wore later made him look much better.  Why they didn't put him in a dark blue or blue-gray cable knit and black coat is beyond me.

  • Like 2
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

I hate Harley Quinn. Always have, always will. I don't think she's cute, funny, lovable, or a feminist antihero. She's just an irritating, crap excuse for a gangster's moll who is 100% complicit in the Joker's crimes. I feel so stupid voicing such a strong opinion about a fictional character who got her start on a 90s animated series, but I'm tired of all the media around me lecturing me on why Harley Quinn is the greatest thing ever.

Please. Just. Stop.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size