Do you breath through a straw when your head's buried so far up your ass? That's what my next movie is about. It's a 'boy in a bubble' story that will make you feel shitty, and it's definitely not colored with any annoying personality quirks.
Throbbing Member
Do you breath through a straw when your head's buried so far up your ass? That's what my next movie is about. It's a 'boy in a bubble' story that will make you feel shitty, and it's definitely not colored with any annoying personality quirks.
Throbbing Member
I love it when people make their arguments for me. Res ipsa loquitur.Originally Posted by Magtig
BADGERS
You know, I find it odd that people are reacting the way they are. It's the controversial movie opinion thread, no the popular movie opinion thread. That said are you ready for this one?
I hate Indiana Jones movies. They are all trash.... the Last Crusade was alright. But I just find them boring. And, you know what? The fourth one isn't any different than the others. It's over the top kitsch just like the others. But at least Crystal Skull has a way of embracing it's kitschiness that the others don't. I never got what everyone hated so much about that one versus liked about the others.
James Bond: Way better.
Throbbing Member
I enjoyed the original trilogy for mindless fun; nothing original, though. For me, Crystal Skull was going one too many times to the well. I hear they may make another one, unfortunately. By the way, when you mention "James Bond" do you mean all of the versions or do you have a particular actor that you favor, as Bond, over the others?
BADGERS
I recently started watching through the Bond movies again, and I guess I cave to the popular opinion that the connery ones are the best. But I grew up with Brosnan, and I'm enjoyed the Daniel Craig one's. BUT, and here's where this thread comes full circle, License to Kill is one of my favorites. Like top 3 or 4.
Throbbing Member
Dalton in you top 3-4? Definitely an interesting opinion. I actually favor the gritty Craig version, myself; even over Connery. I'm glad Skyfall is getting released, given the recent studio issues that occurred, almost derailing the franchise.
Active Member
I know this post is old, but I agree 100 percent. Dalton was a great 007. I saw The Living Daylights twice, recently, and it's only gotten better over the year, IMHO. License to Kill was also a great Bond. I liked the Brosnan-era and Pierce should be credited for bringing the franchise back from the dead, but Dalton's two movies are arguably better.
ETA--Of all the actors to play James Bond, Dalton was the closest to Fleming's literary creation. He took the role very seriously, reading the books on set for guidance, etc. When people say that they don't like Dalton because he was "humorless, too serious, not like Connery/Moore," etc. they are overlooking the fact that's what the original James Bond, the one created by Fleming, was like.
Last edited by GulDukat; 03-26-2014 at 07:33 AM.
Active Member
jesus christ please close this thread.
Bite me
Ha, no way, Abominari (n/k/a Corvus) needs to TAKE OVER THIS THREAD, BITCHES!!
Active Member
Ha! I was wondering where he'd got to.
Hairy Member
Batman Begins is the best Batman movie ever made.
Throbbing Member
Batman Returns is the best Batman movie! Nolan can be as realistic and gritty as possible, he will never match the darkness of this movie.
Wow, this certainly is controversial.
Lynch is never weird for its own sake! Not that this is a bad thing, I like Wes Anderson very much.
Also, A Clockwork Orange is a despicable movie and unnecessarily tacky... "Oh, he slays her with a penis statue, get it?....Get it?"
Vertiginous Member
Personally, I really don't like Returns at all. Batman is a two-dimensional guest star in his own film, the portrayal of Penguin is just plain hard to watch (not necessarily condemning Danny DeVito's performance - it's the way he eats fish more than anything else...) yet dominates most of the movie, and it's three waterskied metres over a great white on the silliness scale. Generally speaking, in my opinion it's more of a Tim Burton film than a Batman one... that's not a terribly controversial viewpoint though from what I've heard.
One thing I'll laud that film for though is the portrayal of Catwoman, and the dynamic between her and Bruce. Pfeiffer is incredible (screw Nicholson, she gives the finest pre-Nolan series performance as far as I'm concerned), and there's a real tension and chemistry between the two.
What I love about Begins is that it's a film about Bruce Wayne, it's not dominated by the colourful rogues gallery. Batman's at its best when the focus is on the titular character in my opinion.
Anyway, on topic, I think Revenge Of The Sith is the best Star Wars movie. Serpentine plotting with massive pay-offs, some of the series' strongest emotional elements, and great lightsaber fights. Jaw-dropping opening sequence too, especially in the cinema. As much as Empire Strikes Back has going for it, like the rest of the original trilogy it's always felt rather slow and a bit of a chore. To me, at least...
And just to round out the controversy, in my opinion Brosnan's the best Bond, Tree Of Life's the best Malick film and highlight of 2011, and I thought Daredevil was fairly decent. Yeah, I said it.
Stubby Member
A lot of people would argue that Returns is more about the Batman character as the two villains act as cyphers for him.
With Penguin being the alternative outcome to the rich orphan and Catwoman being the alternate outcome to the masked vigilante. They act in exploring where Bruce Wayne draws the line in becoming Batman and where he could and can go wrong.
Also using the "it's more of a Tim Burton film than a Batman one" as any kind of argument against those movies seems to me outrageously ridiculous when you consider Nolan made Batman films so much Nolan films that he couldn't include the range of Batman's exceptionally strong rogues gallery.
Throbbing Member
Joseph Gordon-Levitt: I like the guy, decent actor, not my favorite by far, comes across as a little too easy going, hasn't quite washed off that annoying child actor aura during interviews (and looks like a kiss ass on sets); shows up in a little too many trailers lately and seems to play the same "decent guy" character in every fucking movie. Fuck him.
Last edited by hobochic; 09-15-2012 at 05:52 AM.
Stubby Member
Shyamalans's ill-recieved The Village is a fucking masterpiece and pure cinematic perfection. Escapism at its best.
Vertiginous Member
At the very least, that film is stunningly beautiful. Really need to pick it up on Blu-Ray.
Flaccid Member
Ah, what a great thread!
I DO NOT get any of the sudden love and attention Tom Hardy seems to get. If you watch any interview with him, you will realize that he comes of as your typical "rich kid gone bad" douchebag, who takes himself way too seriously and puts myspace-style crotchshots of himself on the internet. I mean, just read this paragraph from his biography: "He developed an alcohol abuse problem as a teenager, wound up expelled from one school, periodically spent nights in jail cells for disorderly conduct, and even found himself arrested and facing serious charges for stealing a car and gun possession - all while still a teenager. He avoided doing hard time, he later said, only because his co-conspirator was the son of a British diplomat."
That's not the kind of guy that I'm gonna find all awesome and sexy. And he isn't even a good actor either.
Hairy Member
Either which way, he still has the discipline to take on different roles and carry them out well. I get what you're saying, but he has managed to "see the light" and become a very solid actor. You just need to look at his transition from "Inception" to "Warrior", to see that he does have some talent.
Throbbing Member
Im sorry but if you have seen his 2006 film Stuart -A Life Backwards with Benedict Cumberbatch in which he plays a psychotic homeless Heroin Addict, you will see he is an extraordinary actor. One of the best performances i have ever seen so realistic.
He is captivating in that Vulnerable, terrifying and likeable in equal measure. He was like a young Gary Oldman. I remember thinking this guy is going to be huge.
I dont like him in interviews that much either he seems all over the place, but on film i think he is better than Leo Dicaprio, Ryan Gosling or other Hollywood A List studs.
He can bring out a very real usually dark presence.
I hope he chooses his roles well. And does not get sucked into bad Hollywood films, he spent years doing some great British T.V films, when he could have been in Hollywood.
Hairy Member
I loved The Village, because to me, the movie embodied a utopia within earth. But it still needed the fear of the unknown, to entrap them and medical science to save one of them. Much like most religions.
Maybe I've read too much into the themes, but it's all too beautiful of a coincidence.
Active Member
Watch Bronson and tell me the guy isn't a good actor.
The Enhancer
Fucking rights, he slayed it in that one.
Throbbing Member
V For Vendetta was a boring movie and not the "epic" everyone told me it was.
Tree Of Life is the most beautiful film I've ever seen.
Watchmen, while holding to many of the great images of the novel, was a terrible movie.
Wes Anderson is a genius.
Active Member
V for vendetta looked nice but I think it missed the point of the book, ie fascism is opportunistic and needs the exact right conditions and a suspension of plurality/democracy/choice to survive, whereas liberty/anarchy is something people gravitate towards whether times are good or bad, and in that sense it will always endure. Basically fascism needs to be handed power whereas freedom is like a force of nature. I can't really remember the film much, but didn't they make the BUF type party a bunch of bible bashers? And also it's inferred that global civilisation still exists. For me that dilutes the message a bit
Active Member
Plus samuel l jackson, wayne knight, greg peck... It has a really great cast
I know everyone says this, but isn't it weird how the special effects look really real & kick the shit out of most depictions of dinosaurs that have emerged since then?
Active Member
One can not say this often enough to encourage people to combine real practical effects with CGI to get the best results! Look at Guilermo del Toro and how well this works for his movies!
I rewatched JP a few days ago though and I have to say that it HAS indeed aged. But only a bit and it still has the best looking and most believable dinosaurs in any movie to date. the lost world comes next and even that lousy JP3 has some of the best looking, but ultimately already too cgi-like animals in it.
Active Member
^^^
A always hated JP2: The Lost World, simply because the story didn't live up to the high standards the first one set. It looked great, had some nice set pieces and was also loaded with a good cast, but it just didn't click.
Stubby Member
That's how I feel when I watch it now. It wants to be good, it looks great (still) but just doesn't quite make it.
Stubby Member
maybe something is lost in the transition from theater to small screen, or possibly the director's cut, but natural born killers was many things, but i'd never say it was boring. if anything it was complete sensory overload.
jurassic park was a really good movie, classic payoff of the dino's at the end and an admittedly slow buildup throughout the film. as mentioned great cast as well.
i remember reading something about the film the dino's were really expensive to produce and the effects budget dictated less dinosaurs, however i think that really works in the film.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote