cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 2,136
|
Post by cherry68 on Jul 16, 2017 22:21:15 GMT
Life is Beautiful, while conceptually problematic, is a fairly good movie (this seems to be an unpopular opinion among this crowd at least). I actually think the concept is great but the excecution is problematic. It's too silly and melodramatic. It's not really a bad film still, just not remotely great either. If you speak about Nicoletta Braschi, I agree. Have you seen it in Italian?
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Jul 16, 2017 23:38:22 GMT
I really despised The Maltese Falcon, but admittedly a re-watch is needed. The Room is a great movie. It's one of the best comedies of the century. I don't care if that wasn't the intention. While I initially adored Synecdoche, New York, I kinda forgot about it after a while. It didn't have staying power for me. I still think it's good, but not deserving of all the praise it gets. True Grit is the Coens' worst, and Miller's Crossing is mediocre. None of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies are good, but I should re-watch the first two. No need to rewatch The Maltese Falcon, it is not anything good. That is its intention. Shame. Agreed. Strongly disagree. I rewatched the first two this year and I like them far more as an adult than I did when I was younger.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 17, 2017 0:07:05 GMT
While I initially adored Synecdoche, New York, I kinda forgot about it after a while. It didn't have staying power for me. I still think it's good, but not deserving of all the praise it gets. True Grit is the Coens' worst, and Miller's Crossing is mediocre. In the Heat of the Night is incredibly forgettable and bland. None of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies are good, but I should re-watch the first two. Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland isn't bad at all, and the original is easily my all-time favorite Disney film. -I'm trying to get into some Kaufman. He's talented, but he's kind of a niche thing. Being John Malkovich.... was good, but not special and really dated now and bit simple-minded. I think the others are all good, but they say Synecdoche, New York is the peak of his talents. I'll wait to rewatch it, along with Where the Wild Things Are. -I love True Grit, but absolutely agree with you on Miller's Crossing. Why that mediocrity gets no flack is beyond me. It's the only Coens acclaimed film I can see no argument for, it's just a bland era movie. However, I will say that the performances are fucking amazing, the best ensemble in a Coen movie ever. Even over some of their more acclaimed ensembles. Marcia Gay Harden > Lorraine Bracco in Goodfellas. Finney > Pesci in Goodfellas. Turturro absolutely destroys DeNiro, and even Byrne is better than Liotta. -Agree but half disagree, but it's a fairly conventional movie so I can see where you're coming from. It's not a masterpiece and it doesn't get into the Southern context deep enough to see it past a simple undercurrent of racism/acceptance and black/white companionship. I give it about an 8. -Like Jay, I strongly disagree. I think all 3 are fantastic movies, with the last being among the most underrated and mis-reviewed films at initial release. -Hmh, not sure, but I'm trying to rewatch all the early Disney animation after having a discussion about it with another user here last night. I think all of the early ones aren't very childish at all, and I think only at the point of Olivier and Company (1988) is where they can be seen as childish by today's standards. I'm certainly more interested in rewatching Alice in Wonderland more than all of their other stuff - Bambi aside.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 2:10:17 GMT
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 17, 2017 23:31:28 GMT
I actually think the concept is great but the excecution is problematic. It's too silly and melodramatic. It's not really a bad film still, just not remotely great either. If you speak about Nicoletta Braschi, I agree. Have you seen it in Italian? No, I've actually seen the german dub.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 18, 2017 1:06:57 GMT
No need to rewatch The Maltese Falcon, it is not anything good. (and I'm not even its biggest fan)
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 18, 2017 1:07:31 GMT
I'll be sure to re-watch the Spider-Man trilogy sometime soon.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 18, 2017 1:14:50 GMT
-Like Jay, I strongly disagree. I think all 3 are fantastic movies, with the last being among the most underrated and mis-reviewed films at initial release. Finally something I can get 100 % behind. Though to be fair: The reception wasn't that bad, it's just been a welcome target of nitpicking culture.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Jul 18, 2017 7:04:15 GMT
Lubitsch is overrated. I saw To Be or Not to Be, The Shop Around the Corner and Trouble in Paradise and they're decent films I guess, nothing to write home about, and nothing that wasn't improved upon later on by Billy Wilder . His style of comedy irks me.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Jul 18, 2017 9:08:57 GMT
Gary Cooper is a great actor.
Asian action films in general are far more entertaining than American action films.
The Last Temptation Of Christ is Scorsese's best film.
Eternal Sunshine Of A Spotless Mind is a contrived, artificial and over-melodramatic mess and one of the worst films of the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Jul 19, 2017 1:29:35 GMT
Lubitsch is overrated. I saw To Be or Not to Be, The Shop Around the Corner and Trouble in Paradise and they're decent films I guess, nothing to write home about, and nothing that wasn't improved upon later on by Billy Wilder . His style of comedy irks me. Retire
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 20, 2017 0:11:38 GMT
Round two, wimpies.
-Whoever gives Best Actor to Stanton or Abraham in 1984, watch Albert Finney in Under the Volcano and get back to me. I like Stanton, but I don't get the huge enthusiasm for him here. I can understand if they just like his starry-eyed broken-up man with a heart-of-gold act, and his drifter persona has always appealed to beat generation minded people, but at best... I only kinda like him, I don't love him. Sorry, folks. And Abraham has always struck me to be nomination worthy, but not win worthy. Finney, however is the thespian masterclass of the year.
-Poltergeist > E.T.; dunno why Poltergeist doesn't get any love at all. I wouldn't call it a great movie, but it has the demons vs humans clash-of-war, with added spiritual realms, and I liked that tug-of-war through the realms - it was cool. The imagery of the portals and demons in it can sometimes compete against The Evil Dead in greatness. It's not as good as The Evil Dead trilogy, but it deserves some love. I understand the confusion as to who actually directed it: Hooper or Spielberg. If it's Hooper, he's proven to be a great horror director. If it's Spielberg, put me down as someone who finds Poltergeist to be one of his most underrated, rarely talked about films. And is better than stuff like E.T., Raiders, or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Maybe even Jaws.
-1982 is one of the weakest years ever, but I need to rewatch The Thing. However, my winner is Poltergeist, as I just talked about - partly due to the lack of choices. Speaking about 1982, how the hell was Peter O'Toole robbed of best actor? Only reason Kingsley won is because he made the bigger pop culture impact, but O'Toole was better. Kingsley was 3rd place among the nominees though which is still not that bad.
-Mao and Castro are far worse than Hitler. Notice how I omitted Stalin in this discussion, because I think he did a great job transforming Russia economically, technologically, infrastructurally, and militarily. Accomplishments that are impressive even by today's standards.
-Emmanuel Macron isn't all that bad. I know he's not exactly a hero for the right, though not the most hated either. Even if I'm at the very least fundamentally right (not though strictly), I think the man is mostly all talk. He doesn't want the immigrants anymore than Trump would - he just doesn't say it as bluntly. And I think his sucking up to Trump and Putin just proves how he models himself after others instead of having any original ideas - as he's far from a progressive - just a centrist whose center politics won him the masses, though I will say he is quite removed from being able to relate to the working class. But his "I'm France's emperor" bullshit is just kek, and I get the feeling he's actually quite a douchebag in private. Which is good, because all leaders need to be a bit douchey.
-The 2010s generation is the most close-minded group of people, in the history of ever. The previous decades were not nearly as privy to as much empty-headedness. Someone give them a book and a documentary for them to realize that culture and other social ways existed before the ultimate nice guy media ham for the cameras Obama wasn't king of the world.
-Street of Crocodiles > Metropolis. Last Year at Marienbad > Hiroshima mon amour. Jules and Jim > The 400 Blows
-Lost in Translation > In the Mood for Love
-People who call people like Lynch, Bergman, or Kubrick inaccessible really have me scratching my head, they're either pretentious or simply think they're more unique than they actually are. There's nothing remotely inaccessible about the majority of their movies (some exceptions aside). I can understand an argument for Fellini, Tarkovsky, and Antonioni as inaccessible - though I even approach calling them that with caution. But people simply need to stop giving themselves so much credit for being "artsy" like the majority of commoners don't "get it." And if they don't... who cares?
-2010s PTA and Nolan are FAR FAR better than their earlier stuff. Not saying The Dark Knight Rises is a great movie, or even a good one, but I vastly prefer Inception and Interstellar because they're more far out than his stuff before the 2010s. Same goes for PTA...... The Master is far more far-minded than There Will Be Blood and Magnolia - those two have a clear destination in mind and I don't care for their simple design. There Will Be Blood is a pretty simple tale of wealth and rise, and Magnolia's structure is certainly nothing new.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 20, 2017 1:59:22 GMT
Lubitsch is overrated. I saw To Be or Not to Be, The Shop Around the Corner and Trouble in Paradise and they're decent films I guess, nothing to write home about, and nothing that wasn't improved upon later on by Billy Wilder . His style of comedy irks me. Watch Ninotchka (because that's the best)!!! Also consider to check out Die Puppe (1919). I'm unsure if its 100 % up your alley but it's an incredibly unique and imaginative movie. There isn't anything like it. I highly disagree that Wilder improved on everything (I don't think he's remotely as good as Lubitsch although he made some very fine films). Wilder was a very good writer (he also co-wrote Ninotchka) but his direction can't hold a candle to Lubitsch imo. Lubitsch technical proficency is simply immense. Wilder is somewhat limited in those regards. Usually lighting, blocking and camera (movement and composition/angles) are all relatively simple (which works well for the films Wilder made) but Lubitsch could structure entire films around the intricacy of his blocking (which is already evident in his American silent films). Wilder I find is a relatively unremarkable director who still made many really good films due to his strong writing. Imo the best 2 films Wilder was involved in aren't even directed by himself (Ninotchka & People on Sunday).
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 20, 2017 2:14:34 GMT
Fitzcarraldo White Dog Burden of Dreams Passion (Godard) Veronika Voss On Top of the Whale Blade Runner Fanny and Alexander Tootsie Blade Runner Wrath of Khan missing Koyaanisqatsi The Secret of N.I.M.H. ??? As for your Macron comments: You're an American, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 2:59:17 GMT
Gary Cooper is a great actor. Asian action films in general are far more entertaining than American action films. The Last Temptation Of Christ is Scorsese's best film. Eternal Sunshine Of A Spotless Mind is a contrived, artificial and over-melodramatic mess and one of the worst films of the 21st century. Agreed. I guess I agree, but I still need to watch more. Not a big fan of american action films in general. I'd give the edge to Taxi Driver, but yeah, still easily one of his bests. I disagree, but I do think it's quite overrated. Kaufman has yet to really grab me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 3:23:36 GMT
-Mao and Castro are far worse than Hitler. Notice how I omitted Stalin in this discussion, because I think he did a great job transforming Russia economically, technologically, infrastructurally, and militarily. Accomplishments that are impressive even by today's standards. -Emmanuel Macron isn't all that bad. I know he's not exactly a hero for the right, though not the most hated either. Even if I'm at the very least fundamentally right (not though strictly), I think the man is mostly all talk. He doesn't want the immigrants anymore than Trump would - he just doesn't say it as bluntly. And I think his sucking up to Trump and Putin just proves how he models himself after others instead of having any original ideas - as he's far from a progressive - just a centrist whose center politics won him the masses, though I will say he is quite removed from being able to relate to the working class. But his "I'm France's emperor" bullshit is just kek, and I get the feeling he's actually quite a douchebag in private. Which is good, because all leaders need to be a bit douchey. -The 2010s generation is the most close-minded group of people, in the history of ever. The previous decades were not nearly as privy to as much empty-headedness. Someone give them a book and a documentary for them to realize that culture and other social ways existed before the ultimate nice guy media ham for the cameras Obama wasn't king of the world. -Lost in Translation > In the Mood for Love -People who call people like Lynch, Bergman, or Kubrick inaccessible really have me scratching my head, they're either pretentious or simply think they're more unique than they actually are. There's nothing remotely inaccessible about the majority of their movies (some exceptions aside). I can understand an argument for Fellini, Tarkovsky, and Antonioni as inaccessible - though I even approach calling them that with caution. But people simply need to stop giving themselves so much credit for being "artsy" like the majority of commoners don't "get it." And if they don't... who cares? Castro > Stalin > Hitler > Mao. It feels weird and pointless ranking horrible tyrants, but yeah. They're all awful. I say Castro is the least bad because compared to the others, his impact wasn't all that great. Stalin was awful as well, but I say he was better than Hitler based on, as you said, innovation- and I don't think every death attributed to him is completely fair. And Mao might be the worst person to ever exist, at least in terms of the impact he had. None of them deserve any respect. Macron is just a puzzle. He could be just the typical globalist puppet, but he goes so extreme on every side... it's kinda hilarious and very strange. I still have no idea what to think of him. Yeah pretty much agreed. The general ignorance and apathy of today is baffling. Whenever I see one of the videos, like; "these people can't tell me who fought in the civil war", or whatever- it just depresses me. I wasn't a big fan of either, but I easily prefer In the Mood for Love. Well I guess that depends on what you define as accessible, and what demographic we're talking about. Most people my age (16-17) wouldn't even attempt to appreciate or understand a Lynch film. And people who are never exposed to any film beyond summer blockbusters wouldn't ever want to watch a Bergman movie. I can definitely see Kubrick being accessible to these types of people, but even then, general audiences would probably be immediately turned off by Eyes Wide Shut. But I don't know, this is just based on my encounters, and how people react when I talk about movies I like. I think it all varies incredibly depending on the individual.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Jul 20, 2017 6:05:13 GMT
Lubitsch is overrated. I saw To Be or Not to Be, The Shop Around the Corner and Trouble in Paradise and they're decent films I guess, nothing to write home about, and nothing that wasn't improved upon later on by Billy Wilder . His style of comedy irks me. Watch Ninotchka (because that's the best)!!! Also consider to check out Die Puppe (1919). I'm unsure if its 100 % up your alley but it's an incredibly unique and imaginative movie. There isn't anything like it. I highly disagree that Wilder improved on everything (I don't think he's remotely as good as Lubitsch although he made some very fine films). Wilder was a very good writer (he also co-wrote Ninotchka) but his direction can't hold a candle to Lubitsch imo. Lubitsch technical proficency is simply immense. Wilder is somewhat limited in those regards. Usually lighting, blocking and camera (movement and composition/angles) are all relatively simple (which works well for the films Wilder made) but Lubitsch could structure entire films around the intricacy of his blocking (which is already evident in his American silent films). Wilder I find is a relatively unremarkable director who still made many really good films due to his strong writing. Imo the best 2 films Wilder was involved in aren't even directed by himself (Ninotchka & People on Sunday). I don't really dislike him and I'll give Ninotchka a chance for sure, just saying I much prefer the (less convoluted) humor and charm in films like Sabrina, The Apartment and Some Like it Hot and that I don't really *get* what's so great about him..but eh, I haven't seen nearly enough to have a definitive opinion on him, so I'm expecting that to change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 18:34:57 GMT
-Poltergeist > E.T.; dunno why Poltergeist doesn't get any love at all. I wouldn't call it a great movie, but it has the demons vs humans clash-of-war, with added spiritual realms, and I liked that tug-of-war through the realms - it was cool. The imagery of the portals and demons in it can sometimes compete against The Evil Dead in greatness. It's not as good as The Evil Dead trilogy, but it deserves some love. I understand the confusion as to who actually directed it: Hooper or Spielberg. If it's Hooper, he's proven to be a great horror director. If it's Spielberg, put me down as someone who finds Poltergeist to be one of his most underrated, rarely talked about films. And is better than stuff like E.T., Raiders, or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Maybe even Jaws. -The 2010s generation is the most close-minded group of people, in the history of ever. The previous decades were not nearly as privy to as much empty-headedness. Someone give them a book and a documentary for them to realize that culture and other social ways existed before the ultimate nice guy media ham for the cameras Obama wasn't king of the world. Last Year at Marienbad > Hiroshima mon amour Agreed on these, although as far as Poltergeist goes I do feel like Spielberg had a much bigger hand in the finished film than Hooper. Also, I think this is kind of random - "But people simply need to stop giving themselves so much credit for being "artsy" like the majority of commoners don't "get it." And if they don't... who cares?" Haven't seen a single person on here acting like this.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 20, 2017 22:39:13 GMT
tobias I'm American. I definitely need to rewatch Fitzcarraldo too. Not sure how many of the others are Herzog, but Blade Runner is good but underwhelming. I understamd the movie alright, but there never was enough to take it to the next level for me. Fanny och Alexander is pristinely made - but no emotional connection. Koyaanisqatsi used to be in my top ten of all time - slipped way under now. And funny thing is I actually intended Wrath of Kahn to be my favorite of the year when I first saw it in my Star Trek phase, but it's a really cheap and dated movie now - and I prefer the First Contact and after Star Treks (Nemesis obviously stinks but I at least like all of the others). Rats of Nimh looks interesting (I think I read it as a kid), I'll look into that. So... I stand by my opinion. Based on what i've seen from your list - Poltergeist is the only one I feel good calling favorite of the year, with only Fanny och Alexander as possible 2nd bill - but it's missing the emotional connection so it's hard to call it best of the year - Bergman epics don't interest me as much as his more simple stuff. @tepebenjamin I agree on Mao and Stalin, but I think Castro is the worst simply because it was literally scary to live in Cuba at that time. He was barbaric and ruled a society everyone wanted out from. At least Mao and Stalin there's a sense of civility living under their rule, and if you call yourself a convert of the red book, chances are... you're safe. In terms of genocidal tendencies, Mao has them all topped. He's a lunatic. You can argue Castro came around far too late to be called an innovator of communist societies, and Cuba doesn't have the population of Europe, Russia, or China but he was also a tyrant for about 50 years - longer than the others. I think Macron just wants to think himself as a leader to be taken seriously, and has these grand ambitions that he talks about - like a new guy in the office. He speaks extreme, but I think the major difference between him and Le Pen isn't immigration or terrorism - it's more how Macron is more tolerant to foreign cultures' public nuisance, where Le Pen may have all those small mandates on customs and her "take your shit and get out" stance regarding public behavior. As far as the EU going down the drain, I think both Macron and Le Pen have their work cut out for them there, and Macron so far is dumping some new prospective immigrants down to countries below. And on films and art, and especially politics - don't even get me started there. It's bad enough they don't know their stuff before Obama, but even on films of the 90s do they show strict ignorance of. And 90s are only about 15-25 years old. I think LIT is really special, but the way some people are put off by it I'm really not sure what they're seeing. Everyone I've met appreciated it more as they've gotten older. Since you've just seen it, I'd give it a couple of more years for a rewatch. I think in terms of film buffs. If you get into some entry level body horror, and gory violent thriller stuff - I don't think Lynch is too far out for them. Since he has lots of trademarks, and even his weird structures and inexplicable tendencies you can elaborate on, and using a little bit of imagination shouldn't be too hard. In every single movie of his - apart from Eraserhead and Inland Empire, he always has a world of indulgence that can surely be interpreted as entertainment. And Bergman.... to non film buffs - they simply throw his movies away. But once you've seen some atmospheric dramas and some psychologically intense stuff - Bergman always has a simple bare core in all of his films. Since you agree with me on Kubrick - I just think... after they get into Kubrick, how much harder is it to get into Lynch or Bergman? @redhawk10 I don't think anyone should have any complaints about this board so far. This board is among the nicest corners of movie forums, and if I'm considered the most controversial, then I don't know if that word should exist on this board. I just kind of sometimes miss Film General - where you can find every attitude there is, including the one I mentioned. I just miss being an asshat, clash wits, and show people the way it's done sometimes, I guess. Long story short, I'm talking about the wider film buff population, not this board
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Jul 23, 2017 17:54:26 GMT
Super hero films are pretty popular these days so I might as well give my two cents on this emerging genre. Here goes... Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is A LOT better than Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy overall. Batman and Robin > Batman Forever
The Dark Knight Rises is terrible. Batman Begins isn't that great either but it has its moments. Every film I saw from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, including ones I enjoyed initially, in hindsight are either bad or just stupid. The Incredible Hulk is one of the better ones. I don't think it is unpopular to dislike them, but I must add that The Amazing Spider-Man films are worse than any other super hero film I've seen, with the second one being on my bottom 10. Superman II isn't good. Superman Returns is perhaps Brian Singer's best film. Interpret that as you see fit. X-Men was bad all the way up until 2011, when it shifted to decent.
Deadpool has its moments but ultimately subverts nothing and is too safe.
Batman v Superman is messy, problematic, full of itself, and pseudointellectual but it is ultimately fun in my opinion. Batman and Alfred are well cast and their stuff is cool. "Save Martha" is misread. Watchmen is one of the best films of the 2000's. In a lot of ways, it improves upon its source material, but falls flat in some subtleties.
Now regarding Spider-Man 3... - the film is essential to bring closure to the relationship between Harry, Peter, and Mary Jane - the dance scenes are self aware and intentionally cringy, and they add to the narrative and character of Peter - Venom was perfectly cast and has an appropriate amount of screentime - it does not have too many villains - it makes perfect sense for Bernard to withhold information from Harry to avoid tarnishing his father's legacy... Peter did the same. Bernard reveals the truth at an appropriate time as he sees Harry knows his father was the Green Goblin as the secret base was opened (though this does raise the question to who cleaned up the shattered mirror in SM2). Alfred also withholds information from Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight and nobody complains.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 23, 2017 21:49:33 GMT
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is A LOT better than Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy overall. Now regarding Spider-Man 3... - the film is essential to bring closure to the relationship between Harry, Peter, and Mary Jane - the dance scenes are self aware and intentionally cringy, and they add to the narrative and character of Peter - Venom was perfectly cast and has an appropriate amount of screentime - it does not have too many villains - it makes perfect sense for Bernard to withhold information from Harry to avoid tarnishing his father's legacy... Peter did the same. Bernard reveals the truth at an appropriate time as he sees Harry knows his father was the Green Goblin as the secret base was opened (though this does raise the question to who cleaned up the shattered mirror in SM2). Alfred also withholds information from Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight and nobody complains.
You got it. Del Torro's Hellboy is also much better than Nolan's Batman, mainly because the 2nd is close to a masterpiece imo (the first really isn't all that special), same goes for Spider-Man 2 though, whereas TDK is a very messy film that I respect for its ambition but don't find great in its excecution (aside from Ledger). I don't think The Amazing Spider-man is that bad though (but definitely unnecessary). The 1st one was extremely generic but the 2nd one was actually quite interesting (if you can look beyond that Raimi's cast was insurmountably better). In any case The Avengers is a much worse film imo and that's usually said to be the best Marvel film (but it's the only one I've seen) so I find it somewhat hard to believe it would be the worst superhero films of all time. Yuck. The 2 new ones (not seen Apocalypse, so the other 2) are both worse than any of the 3 old ones imo. The 3rd being the best (now that's an unpopular opinion). I don't think the 1st or the 2nd are that special but I think they do reasonably well what they set out to, I find they are some of the few dramatically coherent superhero films. The 3rd is super convoluted and in many ways poorly directed and plotted but it's the most contentfilled of all superhero films. It's a mirror of society at that point. Have you read my review (it's also not perfect but I think it would help explain)? The 2 new ones I think are perhaps a little better cast (though they ain't got anything on Stewart) but the story they try to tell are also less coherent and less consequential. Whereas X-Men and X2 felt like finished stories, the new films just feel like it's going on and on which is a bit tiring tbh.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jul 23, 2017 23:32:55 GMT
Annie Hall is among the worst movies I've ever seen, without a doubt. Midnight in Paris lands in a similar ballpark.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jul 23, 2017 23:34:15 GMT
Watchmen is one of the best films of the 2000's. In a lot of ways, it improves upon its source material, but falls flat in some subtleties.
What have you done?
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jul 24, 2017 0:01:50 GMT
Annie Hall is among the worst movies I've ever seen, without a doubt. Midnight in Paris lands in a similar ballpark. Annie Hall was so weird to watch for me. I really dug the first half or so, and then it inexplicably became truly painful to endure (yes, endure) right up until the end. I don't really know what to say about it as a whole. I guess I don't like it? I loooved Keaton though. Midnight in Paris was just straight-up bad start to finish. Have you seen Blue Jasmine? It's by no means great, but it's easily the best Woody Allen film I've seen (probably the only one I like, actually), and Blanchett really is incredible.
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jul 24, 2017 0:14:21 GMT
Other than the dinner scene between De Niro and Pacino, Heat just ain't all that good. In fact, I don't like Mann as a director much at all.
|
|