Unpopular Opinions

[wallflower75]

@Wiendish Fitch I love Strictly Ballroom.  Like you, I feel it's Baz Luhrmann's best movie.  His other movies give me headaches.

@VCRTracking It doesn't matter how many times I see Casablanca--sorry, y'all, I love that movie--I always laugh at Captain Renault taking his winnings as he closes Rick's place.

[Wiendish Fitch]

2 minutes ago, wallflower75 said:

@Wiendish Fitch I love Strictly Ballroom.  Like you, I feel it's Baz Luhrmann's best movie.  His other movies give me headaches.

Same here! 😀 

[Raja]

Ralph Macchio and Ming-Na Wen both look 50 something to me.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

Ralph Macchio and Ming-Na Wen both look 50 something to me.

Not disputing Macchio, but if I look half as good as Ming-Na Wen when I'm fifty, that'll be just dandy.

[Blergh]

6 hours ago, Raja said:

Ralph Macchio and Ming-Na Wen both look 50 something to me.

50 something months, perhaps? LOL

Edited September 11, 2020 by Blergh

[Ambrosefolly]

Kristie Alley is right about the new diversity guidelines for the Oscars, and yes I read them myself, so I know that there aren't that many. I am also a woman of Asian Indian descendant.  There shouldn't be arbitrary "woke" rules in the nomination process. If a movie features an all white, all male cast with an all white, all male crew and it is a clearly a contender for the Oscars, then it should be nominated. Technically,  Parasite wasn't a racially diverse movie, in front of and behind the camera. What if there is some great movie after 2024 that is say, about Ireland, but is shut out of Best Picture because they have an ethnically Irish cast with an ethnically Irish film crew?

The Oscars' New Diversity Rules Won't Change Who Wins Best Picture, They'll probably do more to lock out indie filmmakers than to advance real inclusion. -Reason Magazine

Edited September 12, 2020 by Ambrosefolly

[katha]

The acting Oscar categories have always been a mess because the Academy members are obsessed with "making it up" to actors they ignored and in the process constantly create new actors they ignored and then need to reward for inferior work. Vicious cycle. Al Pacino, Paul Newman, Denzel Washington, Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore are examples of this, and that's just the first batch that comes to mind.

Rami Malek has given plenty of good performances. "Bohemian Rhapsody" is not among them, it's a middling imitation stuck in a bad movie. Taron Egerton showed a vastly superior rendition of that kind of acting last year. Honestly, the Oscar attention for "Bohemian Rhapsody" looks already very misguided and I'm sure the more years pass the worse it will seem.

Joaquin Phoenix should have won for "Her." He's given a lot of stellar performances, but should have absolutely won for "Her." I thought Adam Driver was incredible in "Marriage Story" last year and should have beaten Phoenix. But the old "Someone's been so good for such a long time and we've slept on a dozen great performances of them, now it's their turn, Lifetime Achievement Award!" nonsense that pretty much ruins the acting categories is always at play. I'm sure that if people like Driver or Egerton keep at it, they'll also get awards for inferior, but prestigious work in the "Traning Day/Scent of a Woman/The Color of Money" mode. 😉

Lupita Nyong'o should have won Best Actress last year. She wasn't even nominated. Stellar work by the Academy as usual.

The Supporting Actress Field was pretty weak, but I'm unconvinced by Dern's win. It wasn't that interesting a performance IMO and also had the whiff of "Lifetime Achievement Award."

Brad Pitt was very good, but he was lead in his movie and I'm so tired of the constant category fraud.

Meryl Streep shouldn't have won for "The Iron Lady."

Glenn Close should have an Oscar by now. But not giving her one for "The Wife" was the right choice. Nominating her for it was already sketchy IMO. The movie is weak and her performance is skilled, but really can't elevate the subpar material.

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by katha

[Ambrosefolly]

2 hours ago, katha said:

Meryl Streep shouldn't have won for "The Iron Lady."

I was rooting for Viola Davis. 

[starri]

21 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

 If a movie features an all white, all male cast with an all white, all male crew and it is a clearly a contender for the Oscars, then it should be nominated. Technically,  Parasite wasn't a racially diverse movie, in front of and behind the camera. What if there is some great movie after 2024 that is say, about Ireland, but is shut out of Best Picture because they have an ethnically Irish cast with an ethnically Irish film crew?

None of the rules are particularly onerous.  If an ethnically-Irish film can't somehow get 30% of people behind the camera to be women or LGBTQ folks, they'd have to be willfully avoiding it.

Parasite is fine, as it starred and was crewed by members of underrepresented group.

[Ambrosefolly]

1 hour ago, starri said:

None of the rules are particularly onerous.  If an ethnically-Irish film can't somehow get 30% of people behind the camera to be women or LGBTQ folks, they'd have to be willfully avoiding it.

Parasite is fine, as it starred and was crewed by members of underrepresented group.

So what if a film is willfully avoiding quotas. If the film is great and follows the guidelines that are still in play now, that it should get nominated.  What does an "underrepresented group" even mean in a global market? Korea, like ever country with a decent film industry, have their own film awards, awards that usually only recognizes films that were created by people within their own country. Bollywood films aren't award at the Oscars, but there are over a dozen film awards within the country. 

Now the funny thing is that the now controversial Gone with the Wind probably still makes the cut because the director was a closeted homosexual, is centered around a woman, and had African American women in prominent supporting roles.

[starri]

8 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

What does an "underrepresented group" even mean in a global market?

Underrepresented in the US film market, not the global one.

Even the Best Foreign Language Film category has a strong European bias.  Japanese films have won four times, with Taiwanese and Korean films winning once each. Spanish language films (that aren't from Spain) have been awarded a total of four.  By contrast, Italy has 14.  I do not believe that the film industry in Italy has that much superiority over a country in Asia.

Since you mention India, from 52 submitted films, they've never won and have only managed to score 3 nominations.

[Ambrosefolly]

43 minutes ago, starri said:

Underrepresented in the US film market, not the global one.

Even the Best Foreign Language Film category has a strong European bias.  Japanese films have won four times, with Taiwanese and Korean films winning once each. Spanish language films (that aren't from Spain) have been awarded a total of four.  By contrast, Italy has 14.  I do not believe that the film industry in Italy has that much superiority over a country in Asia.

Since you mention India, from 52 submitted films, they've never won and have only managed to score 3 nominations.

Not surprising considering how derivative Indian films tend to be. Those Oscars are going to be worth less, not more, after the diversity rules are fully enacted. Frankly, I don't need to actually see my race or gender to relate to an experience. As Reason Magazine pointed out, it won't effect the big studio prestige films, only the truly independent films. They are arbitrary rules - it is not like they have to do safety. 

Edited September 13, 2020 by Ambrosefolly

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Those Oscars are going to be worth less, not more, after the diversity rules are fully enacted.

Unfortunately it will just give people an excuse to dismiss any win they don't agree with by saying the film just won to reach some quota.

My UO is that entertainment awards should be dismantled completely as it is not even remotely a representative of how good or even how popular a film is. The whole thing is BS.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/13/2020 at 2:44 PM, Ambrosefolly said:

Not surprising considering how derivative Indian films tend to be. Those Oscars are going to be worth less, not more, after the diversity rules are fully enacted. Frankly, I don't need to actually see my race or gender to relate to an experience. As Reason Magazine pointed out, it won't effect the big studio prestige films, only the truly independent films. They are arbitrary rules - it is not like they have to do safety. 

Back in the late seventies, maybe early eighties, there was a slew of movies that almost ticked off boxes when it came to representation. They would usually be low-budget, sleeper films that became cult hits; The Warriors and the Walter Matthau iteration of The Bad News Bears come to mind, but even 1989's The Blood of Heroes could qualify, since Delroy Lindo and Joan Chen have prominent roles. Mass appeal aside, since those are mostly niche movies that appeal to a certain audience, under the new diversity rules they'd be exactly what the Academy is looking for.  I don't think that's what they had in mind, but there you are.

[caracas1914]

Grace Kelly  is viewed by many as the epitome of latter day Hitchcock Blonde goddess,  but I actually find her the least appealing of his 50’s/ 60’s heroines.   Kim Novak, Eve Marie Saint, Janet Leigh  and even  Tippi Hendren just seem so much more interesting  and possessed of an inner life that seems entirely lacking in Kelly, for all her good bone structure.
 

[Spartan Girl]

This is something that's been on my mind lately, and I'm not sure this is an unpopular opinion or not, but here it goes: I think it's okay to like movies/stories that are problematic or come from problematic people. It doesn't automatically make you a bad person.

[kiddo82]

28 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

This is something that's been on my mind lately, and I'm not sure this is an unpopular opinion or not, but here it goes: I think it's okay to like movies/stories that are problematic or come from problematic people. It doesn't automatically make you a bad person.

I think it's only human to be able to compartmentalize.

[Blergh]

12 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

This is something that's been on my mind lately, and I'm not sure this is an unpopular opinion or not, but here it goes: I think it's okay to like movies/stories that are problematic or come from problematic people. It doesn't automatically make you a bad person.

I agree. However, if the participants (e.g. performers, producers,directors, writers,etc.) have become irrefutably known to be criminals, abusers, bullies,intolerant bigots,etc., I think each individual consumer may want to reconsider whether to keep on patronizing whatever production  the  individual/s are part of. It's all a matter of keeping one's personal standards intact re what one considers acceptable for others and whether one wants to support them. 

  Productions about problematic themes and/or people may not be ideal but these are ultimately fictitious and one can like or dislike them if one chooses without being a 'bad person'. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

This is something that's been on my mind lately, and I'm not sure this is an unpopular opinion or not, but here it goes: I think it's okay to like movies/stories that are problematic or come from problematic people. It doesn't automatically make you a bad person.

Depends on who you ask:

https://urge.org/its-okay-to-like-problematic-things/?fbclid=IwAR2eDM4bAkNjpcCyg2opbvezaOmvcXgxuTffQG3Kg2IIud1l_cBZAQ-4oV8

'It's okay to like problematic things, except not really, because you should look for less problematic things to like.' Um, okay.

I admit to going back and forth on it. The struggle to be 'woke' is what's led us to diversity standards for the Oscars, which IMO won't do anything but shut out smaller movies for consideration, not the obvious bait films. Also, despite the overall whiteness of the cast, The Family Stone is a movie about people who see themselves as supportive and tolerant but are really just bullies with a liberal bent. As obnoxious as I find the romanticizing of toxic relationships, and as annoying as I will always find Sarah Jessica Parker, I think Meredith being screamed at over dinner because she said something not well-worded is far more problematic because the people doing it imagine themselves as bastions of tolerance.

[Anduin]

So there's a new Osbournes special coming. I remember the original. The early days of reality tv, before I knew what was up. I was expecting an interesting look at the homelife of one of my favourite musicians! God, that was a disappointing trainwreck. And Ozzy was the most disappointing of the whole thing. Never again.

Go ahead, make your Crazy Trainwreck jokes. I can't stop you.

[caracas1914]

On 9/16/2020 at 6:37 PM, Spartan Girl said:

This is something that's been on my mind lately, and I'm not sure this is an unpopular opinion or not, but here it goes: I think it's okay to like movies/stories that are problematic or come from problematic people. It doesn't automatically make you a bad person.

 

It's sooo personal.

Disclosure:  as filmmaking I think Leni Riefenstahl's  Triumph of the Will is a masterwork of filming, the editing, the flow of the camerawork is mesmerizing, and yet it's also of a subject matter so repugnant and horrific that it's all so complicated as far as my POV.   As someone said, it's related to how much we can personally compartmentalize.  

[Blergh]

On 9/17/2020 at 9:30 PM, caracas1914 said:

 

It's sooo personal.

Disclosure:  as filmmaking I think Leni Riefenstahl's  Triumph of the Will is a masterwork of filming, the editing, the flow of the camerawork is mesmerizing, and yet it's also of a subject matter so repugnant and horrific that it's all so complicated as far as my POV.   As someone said, it's related to how much we can personally compartmentalize.  

You make an excellent point there. It also should be noted that but, for the choice of her horrific subject matter, Miss Riefenstahl would be openly celebrated as one of the most innovative and important cinematographers/directors (male or female) of all time! I have to admit I've only  seen   small snippets of her latter work ( underwater oceanic footage on par with Jacques Cousteau )  but, despite the fact that it was decades and a continent removed from her earlier work, it's hard for me to watch that for the pure art and skill (she personally filmed this in her 70s through mid 90s) without thinking of how she glommed on Hitler's patronage earlier!

Edited September 19, 2020 by Blergh

[VCRTracking]

21 hours ago, Anduin said:

So there's a new Osbournes special coming. I remember the original. The early days of reality tv, before I knew what was up. I was expecting an interesting look at the homelife of one of my favourite musicians! God, that was a disappointing trainwreck. And Ozzy was the most disappointing of the whole thing. Never again.

Go ahead, make your Crazy Trainwreck jokes. I can't stop you.

I liked the show. It brought some lightness for me after 9/11. Favorite moment is when they're in a car after the MTV Movie Awards and Jack is excited when he sees McDonalds brought back the McRib "(Gasps)The McRib is back!" and Kelly is like "You can't be serious." and makes fun of him Jack gets pissed "Y'know what Kelly? It's the little things that count!"

Edited September 18, 2020 by VCRTracking

[GHScorpiosRule]

After watching all two seasons of Cobra Kai, I went back to the beginning and watched the original up to the horrid Tue Next Karate Kid(more on this below), and NO WAY will I accept the smug asshole at times that Danny turned out to be. Hotheaded, yes. Did something with his life and was a success? Yes. Even at the end of the first one, Johnny handed over the trophy to Danny and told he was “All Right”, which to me meant they became sort of friends after this. I don’t CARE that it was black and white in terms of hero and villain. Danny AND Mr. Miyagi ( The AWESOME Noriyuko Pat Morita (ARNOLD! from Happy Days) were the HEROES. Kreese (who played the lovable, chauvinistic  Isbecki on Cagney & Lacey), Johnny, and to a lesser extent, Tommy and Bobby were the villains, even if the last three saw the error of their ways at the end. HMPH.

And that 5-6 years passed between the first and the third, and Ralph still looks like a baby!

What was the point of Robin Lively’s character, again? A plot point to get Danny to defend his title? She owned her pottery place..,had been in California for two months, but boo-hoo, didn’t make any friends and it’s back to Ohio to see if she can work things out with her cheetin’ ass boyfriend. Whatever.

I can’t believe what a one-note cardboard villain Sean Kanan’s  Mike Barnes is after watching again all these years later. At least his acting got better. Thomas Ian Griffith will always hold a special place in my heart as Catlin on Another World, so it was distressing to see him as the villain.  God he was so hawt, even though Silver was slime.

And just what was the POINT of the Hillary Swank version? Other than seeing the late great Senator Inouye (who I met and worked with many moons ago)? Hardly any karate or even the plot as was set up in the first three.

And while I LOVE Michael ironside (BEST Darkseid EVAH!) his role and his band of raping thugs (yes, raping  especially that Ned), were so over the top as to be caricatures. And trying to give him the same redemption or what? Look on his face when he told him to kill Chris, like Johnny? PUHLEAZE. Unlike Johnny, there wasn’t a single fracking decency in Ned. And I say that based on Johnny from the movie, not the show.

And shallow pool, but Hillary’s chompers always distracted me. Blah!

They shoulda ended it with III.

Edited September 21, 2020 by GHScorpiosRule

[Spartan Girl]

7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

After watching all two seasons of Cobra Kai, I went back to the beginning and watched the original up to the horrid Tue Next Karate Kid(more on this below), and NO WAY will I accept the smug asshole at times that Danny turned out to be. Hotheaded, yes. Did something with his life and was a success? Yes. Even at the end of the first one, Johnny handed over the trophy to Danny and told he was “All Right”, which to me meant they became sort of friends after this. I don’t CARE that it was black and white in terms of hero and villain. Danny AND Mr. Miyagi ( The AWESOME Noriyuko Pat Morita (ARNOLD! from Happy Days) were the HEROES. Kreese (who played the lovable, chauvinistic  Isbecki on Cagney & Lacey), Johnny, and you a lesser extent, Tommy and Bobby were the villains, even if the last three saw the error of their ways at the end. HMPH.

So Cobra Kai is just more villain apologia bullshit at the expense of assassinating Dan's character? Ugh. HARD PASS.

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

So Cobra Kai is just more villain apologia bullshit at the expense of assassinating Dan's character? Ugh. HARD PASS.

Not exactly. I don't want to spoil it here, as that is a television show that is now available on Netflix. I will say I find it very difficult to believe that Johnny ended up where he was when the show opens. But there's enough of the "Danny and Johnny are 'gray' characters" from the creators that just have me rolling my eyes. 

But a lot of people seem to love their take on this and on Johnny and that Danny turned into a smug asshole. I'm not one of them.

[Shannon L.]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Not exactly. I don't want to spoil it here, as that is a television show that is now available on Netflix. I will say I find it very difficult to believe that Johnny ended up where he was when the show opens. But there's enough of the "Danny and Johnny are 'gray' characters" from the creators that just have me rolling my eyes. 

But a lot of people seem to love their take on this and on Johnny and that Danny turned into a smug asshole. I'm not one of them.

I can't really speak to this since we're only 5 episodes into the first season (I didn't read your first post because I was worried about spoilers. Thank you for not doing it in this one), but I was telling my husband and our son last night that while the others skirt the edges of being caricatures, Johnny is 100% there.  His is the most eye roll worthy of all of them.  Daniel, who's adult personality I don't care for, isn't too off putting for me yet, because even though he was a nice kid who was bullied, he had his hot headed moments--quick to fight and quick to tease. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

31 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

I can't really speak to this since we're only 5 episodes into the first season (I didn't read your first post because I was worried about spoilers. Thank you for not doing it in this one), but I was telling my husband and our son last night that while the others skirt the edges of being caricatures, Johnny is 100% there.  His is the most eye roll worthy of all of them.  Daniel, who's adult personality I don't care for, isn't too off putting for me yet, because even though he was a nice kid who was bullied, he had his hot headed moments--quick to fight and quick to tease. 

Yeah, I tried to be very careful because I know that Cobra Kai has just recently been added to Netflix and I didn't want to spoil it for those who are watching or haven't seen it yet. Tried to make my comments clear without giving spoilers away.

 

[caracas1914]

On 9/21/2020 at 5:14 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Not exactly. I don't want to spoil it here, as that is a television show that is now available on Netflix. I will say I find it very difficult to believe that Johnny ended up where he was when the show opens. But there's enough of the "Danny and Johnny are 'gray' characters" from the creators that just have me rolling my eyes. 

But a lot of people seem to love their take on this and on Johnny and that Danny turned into a smug asshole. I'm not one of them.

Just wanted to point out an individual can be both an essentially nice person AND a smug asshole at times.  People are complicated that way.

[GHScorpiosRule]

24 minutes ago, caracas1914 said:

Just wanted to point out an individual can be both an essentially nice person AND a smug asshole at times.  People are complicated that way.

To me, Danny never was and to have him turn into one didn’t ring true for me.

[proserpina65]

On ‎09‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 7:13 PM, katha said:

Rami Malek has given plenty of good performances. "Bohemian Rhapsody" is not among them, it's a middling imitation stuck in a bad movie. Taron Egerton showed a vastly superior rendition of that kind of acting last year. Honestly, the Oscar attention for "Bohemian Rhapsody" looks already very misguided and I'm sure the more years pass the worse it will seem.

I loved Bohemian Rhapsody and thought it was a terrific movie.

On ‎09‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 10:30 PM, caracas1914 said:

Disclosure:  as filmmaking I think Leni Riefenstahl's  Triumph of the Will is a masterwork of filming, the editing, the flow of the camerawork is mesmerizing, and yet it's also of a subject matter so repugnant and horrific that it's all so complicated as far as my POV.   As someone said, it's related to how much we can personally compartmentalize.  

That's how I feel about Birth of a Nation.  Its storyline is loathsome, and so are most (if not all) of the "heroes", but as a work of filmmaking, it is groundbreaking and deserves to be thought of that way.  But it's a film I've only watched once, and it was not a pleasant experience.

[Mulva]

My UO:  The much vaunted Black Panther was just a rehash of Thor: Ragnorok.  Think about it for a minute.  Both movies featured a super duper technologically developed society with a bizarrely medieval political system.  (I keep thinking of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the peasant tells the king, "that's no basis for a system of government!).  The king dies, a hitherto unknown, evil, member of the royal family shows up and usurps the throne with the intention of causing mass destruction and chaos.  then the crown prince visits daddy in the spirit realm and defeats the usurper.  It's the same picture!  

I'm not saying it's a bad movie, it's just that I've seen it before.

[VCRTracking]

Both make different points about the subject of colonization. Asgard were the colonizers and Wakanda did nothing to help it's neighbors being colonized.

[Anduin]

"The true story" of some historical figure. It never is. I once saw the 'true story' of Vlad Tepes. Yes, he turned into a vampire at the end. Unless someone is nearly 2,000 years old or can travel in time, we'll never get a true story of King Arthur either. Even biopics of people born in the last century or two take liberties.

I know, sometimes there's downtime in a person's life. They just spun their wheels for a while. But even so, cramming 80 years into two hours just can't be done. Maybe some history movies should be miniseries instead, or better yet not be made.

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, Anduin said:

"The true story" of some historical figure. It never is. I once saw the 'true story' of Vlad Tepes. Yes, he turned into a vampire at the end. Unless someone is nearly 2,000 years old or can travel in time, we'll never get a true story of King Arthur either. Even biopics of people born in the last century or two take liberties.

I know, sometimes there's downtime in a person's life. They just spun their wheels for a while. But even so, cramming 80 years into two hours just can't be done. Maybe some history movies should be miniseries instead, or better yet not be made.

I agree! It would be better if they said ' a fictionalized dramatic interpretation of certain highlighted events of historic/legendary people' instead of ' calling a so called biopic a 'true story' but I guess the former is too wordy even though it's more accurate.

[Danny Franks]

8 hours ago, Anduin said:

"The true story" of some historical figure. It never is. I once saw the 'true story' of Vlad Tepes. Yes, he turned into a vampire at the end. Unless someone is nearly 2,000 years old or can travel in time, we'll never get a true story of King Arthur either. Even biopics of people born in the last century or two take liberties.

I know, sometimes there's downtime in a person's life. They just spun their wheels for a while. But even so, cramming 80 years into two hours just can't be done. Maybe some history movies should be miniseries instead, or better yet not be made.

I remember Jerry Bruckheimer bragging that his King Arthur movie (the one with Clive Owen and Keira Knightley) was the "true story... that's never been told before" and finding it incredibly amusing, in a weary sort of way. 

There is no "true" story of King Arthur, because it's a pretty sure bet he never really existed. At best, he's an amalgam of different warlords from the early Dark Ages who were then mythologised by later writers and then further mythologised after that. The only contemporary source we have of the Ango-Saxon invasion of England is Gildas, and he never mentions anyone called Arthur.

[Browncoat]

I don't like "Hocus Pocus", and I really don't like that the ads for that movie continually misspell "amok".

[Blergh]

7 hours ago, Browncoat said:

I don't like "Hocus Pocus", and I really don't like that the ads for that movie continually misspell "amok".

Yeah, IMUO, it would have been MUCH better as a single SNL 'short sketch' instead of the draggy movie it was!

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 9/27/2020 at 2:49 PM, Browncoat said:

I don't like "Hocus Pocus", and I really don't like that the ads for that movie continually misspell "amok".

I don't know why people are so gaga for Hocus Pocus. Look, I'm a feminist, and I'm always grateful for movies with primarily female leads, but I'm entitled to have standards, and I'm not just going to gobble up the crumbs thrown at me! I dislike Hocus Pocus as much as I dislike A League of Their Own.

I do, however, adore 9 to 5. That movie is a gem and a half.

[kiddo82]

The A-Force moment in End Game is clumsy at worst.  However, it ultimately detracts from nothing and is 30 seconds out of  a 3 hour film.  I don't understand why people are still gnashing their teeth over it.  

[Anduin]

6 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

The A-Force moment in End Game is clumsy at worst.  However, it ultimately detracts from nothing and is 30 seconds out of  a 3 hour film.  I don't understand why people are still gnashing their teeth over it.  

Because some people are idiots who think their opinions matter out of proportion to everyone else.

[VCRTracking]

It was pandering fan service but so was that whole battle. Hell the whole movie was fan service, but people don't make a fuss about that.

 

[Danny Franks]

If it had been all men in that scene, no one would have batted an eyelid. The fact it was all women was geared to antagonise the constantly enraged corners of the internet - those upset over Captain Marvel and Rey from Star Wars and pretty much any iteration of a strong woman - and it was great.

Yes, it was a bit too on the nose and didn't really make sense in the context of the battle being fought but the fact that Marvel had all their other women gather around Brie Larson, the target of so much incel/alt-right/insecure baby outrage, was perfect. Then they made it even better by having her go toe-to-toe with Thanos.

[VCRTracking]

UO: I like that MCU Spider-Man/Peter Parker is mentored/sponsored by Tony and I like their relationship and Peter's arc in the movies. I doubt we'll see a Batman movie where Dick Grayson as young Robin who grows and comes into his own as his own hero and then when Batman dies he takes up the mantle.

[Ubiquit0us]

On 9/18/2020 at 1:33 PM, VCRTracking said:

I liked the show. It brought some lightness for me after 9/11. Favorite moment is when they're in a car after the MTV Movie Awards and Jack is excited when he sees McDonalds brought back the McRib "(Gasps)The McRib is back!" and Kelly is like "You can't be serious." and makes fun of him Jack gets pissed "Y'know what Kelly? It's the little things that count!"

Why do people get so excited about the McRib returning?  It happens every six months, at least! 

On 9/27/2020 at 2:49 PM, Browncoat said:

I don't like "Hocus Pocus", and I really don't like that the ads for that movie continually misspell "amok".

I never saw it, never wanted to, never understood the excitement for it.

 

[Danny Franks]

I've just watched Inglorious Basterds and am reminded why I have so little time for Quentin Tarantino movies. This film is so self-indulgent and so set on wallowing in the director's ego that it's almost unwatchable.

Every single scene feels five minutes too long, and most of them go on forever just to have no meaningful payoff other than letting one character or another look really cool.

For example, the scene in the cellar bar, with Michael Fassbender and his apparently faulty German. It last for about twenty minutes, takes about six absurd leaps of logic, ends up with everyone dead and Brad Pitt's character cracking wise. What was the point of any of that?

[starri]

Rogue One>Almost all of the Skywalker Saga

[WritinMan]

10 hours ago, starri said:

Rogue One>Almost all of the Skywalker Saga

Almost all?

[Shannon L.]

I've tried to watch a few of the latest Star Wars movies and the only ones that I enjoyed were Rogue One and Solo. I either quit watching the others or fell asleep. I did like the original 3, but I was a kid and they were like nothing we'd ever seen before. I've tried to watch them again, but I can't sit through them now.

[Blergh]

8 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I've tried to watch a few of the latest Star Wars movies and the only ones that I enjoyed were Rogue One and Solo. I either quit watching the others or fell asleep. I did like the original 3, but I was a kid and they were like nothing we'd ever seen before. I've tried to watch them again, but I can't sit through them now.

That's why I've AVOIDED virtually everything since the original 3 as much as possible (after having made the mistake of seeing the bummer prequels a single viewing each ), so I can enjoy sipping the perfect soup without having to dodge all the needless sludge added  since, IMUO!