Unpopular Movie Opinions You Hold

big chicken wrote:I'm am so over EPIC LONG MOVIES which can easily be cut down to around two hours.

Me too! And I like long movies - if they actually need to be long. But Pirates of the goddamn Caribbean does not need to be 3 hours. I blame Deathly Hallows, which I don't actually blame blame them for because DH actually NEEDED to be two movies. But then it started all this bullshit with Twilight and Hunger Games. Breaking Dawn part 2 offends me the worst because the three sequels to Twilight could have been told in one movie, let alone 4 more.

I think Kill Bill started the trend of splitting the movie in post, although the mentality of premeditatedly telling the story in more than one movie that's, we'll, it's been a gradual process. (Actually, to be honest, I kind of see little apreciable intellectual difference between "I'm going to tell my story in increments as a "series" and "Let's chop up the novel into a serial of its own", although I will give Rowling points the yearbook conceit.)

I think trepidation about The Hobbit is pretty common, especially with some of the reviews, although I generally don't have opinions on movies I haven't seen.

Kill Bill would actually have been a much better movie if they'd cut out the extraneous parts and combined them into one movie.

Though, I confess, I am firmly of the belief that most movies do not need to be more than 2 hours. Especially comedies. Just because you thought of 50 punchlines doesn't mean you have to include them all. (I'm staring daggers at you, Judd Apatow.)

mokey75 wrote:Kill Bill would actually have been a much better movie if they'd cut out the extraneous parts and combined them into one movie.

Though, I confess, I am firmly of the belief that most movies do not need to be more than 2 hours. Especially comedies. Just because you thought of 50 punchlines doesn't mean you have to include them all. (I'm staring daggers at you, Judd Apatow.)

SO agree with this. I will actively avoid going to movies that are over 2 hrs.

Three + hour movies made sense when it was real "event" and there were this thing called interfreakingmission. So you didn't have to make a choice between your bladder/ass and not missing the movie. Hell I think 2+ hour movies should have them, I would think theaters would be more into it as it also gives time to buy at the concessions.

The problem is that cinemas have to squeeze in as many showings of blockbuster films as possible on every day of the opening weekends to get the maximum revenue, and they don't want to do anything that might cause them to have to drop a showing. I remember going to see Cry Freedom (I was nine and came out depressed as hell) and I think I remember an intermission, and the run time is listed on IMDB as nearly two hours and forty minutes.

I think, and have thought for a long time, that there is the real possibility of a serious backlash against The Hobbit. Peter Jackson's Tolkein Cinema Experience™ isn't a novelty anymore, three films feels like padding and I doubt many people are going to feel the same anticipation for every new episode as they did for LotR.

Matinee wrote:

mokey75 wrote:Kill Bill would actually have been a much better movie if they'd cut out the extraneous parts and combined them into one movie.

SO agree with this. I will actively avoid going to movies that are over 2 hrs.

I would point out that the two Kill Bills have the decency of each being only 2 hours. And I think the two movies have a very different tone, so the split seems very natural to me. But that's me, cuz I freaking love those movies. When I watch them, it doesn't feel like 2 hours AT ALL.

Same. I think also like you said the tones are SO different (and were clearly influenced by two different genres) that if mashed together the movie would for me, be incoherent and not nearly as good as it is. As it is now, I like Kill Bill Vol. 1 (particularly the huge climactic fight scene). But I LOVE Kill Bill Vol. 2.

And they're original works, so there's no comparing to the source material and judging whether two parts are necessary. In the case of The Hobbit, I feel like the book is no fuller than any of the three LOTR books, so making it into three parts seems way over the top. Especially three long movies.

I think that's my trepidation with these movies. I love LOTR. I think it's fabulous and amazing and wonderful. But three Hobbit movies? Isn't the book like 50 pages long?

I could see two at most, but not like 2.75 hours. I don't know if it's compelling enough to keep my ass in the seat.

Now Kill Bill 1&2? Those movies had very different tonal shifts. But I'd be curious to see what Tarantino would've done if it was one movie.

Cutebutpsycho wrote:I think that's my trepidation with these movies. I love LOTR. I think it's fabulous and amazing and wonderful. But three Hobbit movies? Isn't the book like 50 pages long?

Yeah. I adored the LOTR books and I was a huge fan of the movies. And even I am like "For the fricking Hobbit? You don't need two movies." Then it turned into three movies and it was just a massive eyeroll from me.

I'll still see them. In fact I'm still super excited. And I understand that they're throwing in Silmarillion stuff. But I don't understand what that has to do with the story of The Hobbit, and it basically seems like "The Hobbit and a bunch of other stuff that we got the rights to that the same guy wrote" and it just feels lame to me.

Mostly I just really don't want them to taint the original trilogy, because it was one of the few adaptations EVER of ANYTHING that I felt did the books justice. Some different stuff, but all stuff I was OK with. I still remember when they were originally being cast and I was like "If I could pick anyone in the world to play Galadriel it'd be Cate Blanchett" and then they announced that it was Cate Blanchett. Like everyone they cast was perfect. And the movies turned out so good and felt like such a labor of love. And now it feels like a cash grab and it makes me sad.

I hope they turn out to be good. But I also fear a backlash. On the other hand, I got all jump-up-and-downy-y at Colbert's LOTR geeking. I'm excited and I want to be excited but I don't like the obnoxious feeling that my excitement is being taken advantage of somehow.

I hated The Avengers. It just went on and on. I felt like it would never end. I understand that no one sees these types of movies for the plot (I wasn't either), but that doesn't mean that you can't cut the fight scenes down just a teensy bit. It was like Kingdom of Heaven all over again.

I liked it enough, but I don't get why so many people went apeshit over it this summer. It's not something I'd watch repeatedly, like the first two X-Men films or all of Nolan's Batman trilogy.

Just finished watching Dark Knight Returns and I just could not get into it. It sure seemed like it was never going to end, and I found myself eyerolling my way through a lot of the big plot twist reveals. I thought the last movie with the Joker was far better.

mrinsouciance wrote:Just finished watching Dark Knight Returns and I just could not get into it. It sure seemed like it was never going to end, and I found myself eyerolling my way through a lot of the big plot twist reveals. I thought the last movie with the Joker was far better.

I saw that one in the theater and I totally agree. I fell asleep for a good half hour somewhere in the middle (a pretty big feat considering it was a rather loud movie), had very little clue what had transpired while I was out and discovered that I profoundly did not care about what I had missed. It was so draggy in so many places and was entirely too long.

Overall I was really disappointed by it after enjoying Batman Begins and the Dark Knight (though both of those were a little too long for me as well.)

My brother and I watched the final Batman movie a few weeks ago, and couldn't believe that it was a Chris Nolan picture. It felt nothing like the previous two. I honestly didn't think he'd be able to top The Dark Knight, because I thought that was awesome. But this one kinda sucked in my opinion. They managed to make Bane a bit of a woobie. I mean come on. You are not supposed to feel any sort of sympathy for that character. The movie also felt way too talky, without making a lot of sense. I was having a hard time following the plot in some parts, despite all the dialogue. And I just hated the whole part where JGL's character

Spoiler:

That felt so far fetched that I was eye-rolling massively. We kept pausing the DVD and talking about the plot, because we were so confused as to what was going on, keeping track of all the characters, and basically criticizing it.

I liked the movie, but I think that was the more unpopular opinion tbh. Critics like it but most fans seemed meh at best except for parts.

That being said comic book Bane has been portrayed as somewhat sympathetic for years now. Particularly in Gail Simone's Secret Six. So I didn't find that too far off.

I couldn't get past the fact that Bane sounded like an avuncular Sean Connery. Granted it's been a long time since I read the original 90's era Bane appearances, but that's certainly nothing like I would've guessed.

I also HATED the way Gordon was used in this one. HATED.

ETA: I haven't read comics in probably 15 years, so I don't have any sort of recent knowledge of where characters are in the current mythologies. That might be a problem for me sometimes.

chibimanda wrote:And I just hated the whole part where JGL's character

Spoiler:

That felt so far fetched that I was eye-rolling massively. We kept pausing the DVD and talking about the plot, because we were so confused as to what was going on, keeping track of all the characters, and basically criticizing it.

Spoiler:

I enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises, but I certainly don't think it touches on the brilliance of The Dark Knight. It could have been a good twenty minutes shorter for starters. And considering how much effort went into toning down the campy unrealistic bits of the comics, there sure were some incredibly unrealistic plot points that, ironically, were highlighted all the more by how super seriously the film was taking itself.

For the most part, I loved the movie, but I found Bane's voice so distracting. Partly amusing, but mostly just distracting. He sounded way too much like Darrell Hammond's SNL impersonations of Sean Connery so I kept wanting to laugh inappropriately while Bane was menacing people.

Hee! "Batman, is that an anal bum cover you're sporting?"

I've been dragged to all three Batman movies and hated them all. HATED. The only thing I found enjoyable at all in any of the movies was the Harvey Dent/Two-Face storyline. Everything else? Feh.

I love Selina, but the film had SO MANY PROBLEMS. If the explosives are in fresh concrete, then why are suspension/steel bridges being blown up in the next shot? Its an awesome shot...but just say the construction workers are planting explosives. Why does one guy fall through the ice, and then the cops and Batman stand around in a huddle on it for a confab? Why is everybody figuring things out for BATMAN instead of the other way around? Why does Ra's age a bunch( from the mercenary in the flashback), Talia age to be a woman, but Bane not age at ALL? How can the people in the prison have an eyewitness account of Talia's escape to tell Bruce, ...after the prison raid when they were all vengefully murdered by Ras?
It reads like they took one stoyline from KnightFall, and one from No Man's Land, and a piece of A Tale of Two Cities ( am I really supposed to think of Bane as a Jacobin?) and did a Cut and Paste to make the screenplay.

The more that I think about the movie version of The Wizard of Oz, the more that I realize that the witch had a point regarding ownership of the ruby slippers, that Glinda and the Wizard were horrible, manipulative people who were attempting to consolidate their power, and that Dorothy was at best a patsy.

1) Why shouldn't the witch get the ruby slippers? It was her sister who died, and absent any other living relatives, they should likely go to her.

2) I didn't see any major difference in the governing styles of The Wizard and the Wicked Witch. Both were despots, with the only obvious contrast being that the Wizard seemed to prefer brighter colors.

3) Yes, the Witch kept her subjects under an oppressive regime, but the Wizard was willing to send a young girl and three badly disabled subjects (All three had major psychiatric issues, two of them due to missing vital organs) on a suicide mission under the assumption that they'd be out of his hair that way. And, finally, when they did succeed despite the odds, he still refused to help them until his ruse was discovered by Toto.

4) At the end, Glinda says that Dorothy had the power to go home with her all along. So why didn't she tell her that to begin with? The only realistic explanation is that she intentionally put Dorothy in harm's way in order to shift the balance of power in the region, and knew that sending her on the journey could prove to be the undoing of the Witch, and possibly could end the Wizard's reign as well. So with Dorothy out of the picture, who's the most powerful person in Oz? That's right: Glinda.

Now, this is about the movie version, so the Scarecrow's ascension to the throne and the existence of Ozma don't play into it. All that I can go by is what I saw on the screen, and what I saw was two adults willing to put a child in harm's way in order to eliminate a rival to their power, with one of the adults managing to get her the other one out of the way in the process.

EDIT: It couldn't possibly be a coincidence that Glinda didn't tell Dorothy that the shoes could have sent her home all along until after her rivals were either dead or flying back home. If I'd been Dorothy and had discovered that she'd been holding that info back while I was fighting a flame-throwing witch, her weapon-bearing minions, and FLYING FUCKING MONKEYS, I would have shown her how we throw down in the Midwest.

For real. Glinda basically manipulated Dorothy into getting rid of the Wicked Witch for her. She could've sent the kid home all along, but she chose to hang on to that helpful tidbit until Dorothy and her cohorts had disposed of Glinda's nemesis. And the bitch stole the WW's slippers, for sure. If I died, I'd want my tiny footwear collection to go to my sisters, not some random ass pony-tailed girl from another land! Regarding the Wizard, he was just a plain scam artist douchemuffin. 'nuff said.