• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Unpopular or Uncommon Opinions

Yeah you're right, Freddy. It wasn't a long scene. The problem, for me, was how it was executed. Tonally, it didn't make sense.
 
Lord of the Rings was bloody terrible. I liked the book when I was 13.
I fail to understand the appeal in anything Kurosawa does.
I don't want to understand why Citizen Kane is so important to cinema.
Most black and white movies pre 1960s are awful and overtly melodramatic.
I dont want to see Casablanca.
 
jpgrdnr said:
I fail to understand the appeal in anything Kurosawa does.
I don't want to understand why Citizen Kane is so important to cinema.
Most black and white movies pre 1960s are awful and overtly melodramatic.
I dont want to see Casablanca.
Click to expand...

:/

Would you rather watch Transformers or Twelve Angry Men?
 
^Some people just can't appreciate classic cinema. Or in this case don't want to :(
 
Last edited:
Danny Boyle peaked as a director with Trainspotting. All his other films so far are just all right.
 
I kind of agree with you, jpgrdnr. The best cave painting doesn't have shit on Picasso; old films are, more often than not, inferior. But there are gems. Casablanca is horse shit, in my opinion. Citizen Kane is also horse shit. But I honestly don't understand what appeals to you about the '97 version of 12 Angry Men. The '57 is better. Full stop. As a general rule, contemporary cinema is superior to classic cinema. But, as with all general rules, there are exceptions. The original King Kong is much better than all of the remakes combined. The 1970s Jeff Bridges King Kong is the worst. The 1933 is the best. Peter Jackson's is somewhere in the middle.
 
Zooey Deschanel, or rather, the character she plays in absolutely everything she's in, is unbelievably irritating.
Guy Ritchie's only movie worth watching is Snatch (please, don't try to tell me that Lock Stock was better. It was basically the same film except less funny, and with a plot that was excessively messy and convoluted even by Guy Ritchie standards.)
Regarding Fear and Loathing, I was not thrilled by the movie. But I admit that my intense love for that book may be clouding my judgment.
Wanted was a fucking awesome movie. Physics be damned. A similar shout-out goes to Crank.
Seinfeld is not funny.
Family Guy is not that good.
Oliver and Company is an extremely underrated Disney movie.
 
Last edited:
^ it's "lock, stock..."

and "lock, stock and two smoking barrels" was the better movie. and it came first. "snatch" was a poor follow-up.

alasdair
 
^ I know that it came first, which is why I was very excited to watch it and had high expectations. I dunno, I just found the plot to be increasingly incoherent as the movie progressed. I thought Snatch had a more cohesive plot, and was more entertaining overall. But really, I'm mainly confused as to why Guy Ritchie felt the need to make the same movie twice.
 
sarcophagus.heels said:
Zooey Deschanel, or rather, the character she plays in absolutely everything she's in, is unbelievably irritating.
Click to expand...

me said:
I hate Zooey Deschanel. I hate her names (both of them), her face, the contant fucking flirtatious shit that every one of her "characters" revolves around like a flimsly layer of cheap nail polish.
Click to expand...

Hooray.
 
sarcophagus.heels said:
I thought Snatch had a more cohesive plot, and was more entertaining overall. But really, I'm mainly confused as to why Guy Ritchie felt the need to make the same movie twice.
Click to expand...

It's the only movie Guy Ritchie knows how to make. Lock, Stock's plot was entirely cohesive - everything comes full circle eventually. It might be more complicated than Snatch's plot, but that's kind of the point - that a single mistake can usher in a clusterfuck of related events. Lock, Stock is the most ambitious of Ritchie's films, and certainly the most clever. I like Snatch (Pitt's character is the best from either film, imo), but Lock, Stock is the better film overall.
 
^ Eh, I'll concede the point. Maybe I'll give Lock, Stock another chance sometime. Haha, and I'll admit that a large factor in my preference for Snatch is that I fucking love Brad Pitt's character...so brilliant.
 
you can say a lot of things about the ls&tsb plot but you think it lacks cohesion? i think it's incredibly cohesive. we're talking about the same word, right? cohesion: "the act or state of sticking together tightly"

:\

alasdair
 
^ Haha, no, I'll grant you that point. A more accurate statement is that the plot of Lock, Stock is complicated for the sake of complexity. It's just seemed unnecessarily circuitous. But I guess all of Ritchie's movies are needlessly elaborate, so perhaps it's a moot point :\

And adding to the Zooey Deschanel thing - especially regarding her character in New Girl (fucking hate that show) I am really irritated by the 'manic pixie dream girl' trope that seems to be the female love interest in every rom com I've seen in the past few years: clumsy, spontaneous, and seemingly a bit off upstairs, but it's okay, because the fact that she's drop-dead gorgeous makes up for her complete lack of social intelligence, and she will teach her male counterpart how to let go and live life despite being completely vacuous themselves. At some point, "quirky" was confused with "acting like an eccentric 8 year old who never learned how to behave in public." I fail to see how this new trend in romantic comedy is much better the 90's valley girl...
 
Last edited:
Your opinions about Deschanel are beautifully articulated; simultaneously hilarious and exceptional words. Well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top