|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 5, 2018 21:40:49 GMT -5
Speaking of Keanu Reeves, my unpopular film opinion is that this isn't even close to the best acting ever.
|
|
|
Post by songstarliner on Jan 5, 2018 23:50:53 GMT -5
That film is positively brimming with the best acting ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 14:31:13 GMT -5
Ryan Goslings best role is the big short.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 14:34:33 GMT -5
He really is just a lesser version of Jake Gyllenhaal
|
|
|
Post by kitchin on Jan 6, 2018 16:21:56 GMT -5
He really is just a lesser version of Jake Gyllenhaal Well he does have an older sister, with the same initials M.G. www.imdb.com/name/nm5071804/
|
|
|
Post by chalkdevil's night ๐ on Jan 8, 2018 9:43:38 GMT -5
That film is positively brimming with the best acting ever. God, I love that movie. Gary Oldman is my favorite Dracula.
|
|
|
Post by [Citrus] on Jan 10, 2018 21:32:05 GMT -5
Phantom Menace is better than Return of the Jedi. Which isn't saying it's good, but it is weirder and more interesting and nobody falls into a space butt. Only truly good Star War I've seen remains the first one though.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Locust of the Apocalypse on Jan 11, 2018 7:41:39 GMT -5
That film is positively brimming with the best acting ever. God, I love that movie. Gary Oldman is my favorite Dracula. I re-watched it the theater a year ago. Was pleasently surprised by how good it was despite the massive flaws. So yeah, that's my unpopular opinion. Ryan Gosling is my man-crush, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by Incense on Jan 11, 2018 9:47:42 GMT -5
God, I love that movie. Gary Oldman is my favorite Dracula. I re-watched it the theater a year ago. Was pleasently surprised by how good it was despite the massive flaws. So yeah, that's my unpopular opinion. Ryan Gosling is my man-crush, BTW. I love the aesthetic of that movie - my God, is it ever a beautiful movie. Also, I will never complain about Tom Waits or Richard E. Grant. I have a friend who believes that Keanu was perfectly cast because in her words, "Harker's a doof in the book too."
|
|
dwarfoscar
TI Forumite
it's complicated
Posts: 503
|
Post by dwarfoscar on Jan 16, 2018 14:20:26 GMT -5
I have not one, but many unpopular movie opinions about M. Night Shyamalan : - The Village is awesome, and still is to this day his best movie - Lady in the Water is also quite good - The Last Airbender is watchable, and better than The Happening or After Earth, his only two truly bad movies. - Signs rocks too, but that's problably a less unpopular opinion. It's not as vilified as other movies of his.
|
|
|
Post by songstarliner on Jan 16, 2018 15:54:17 GMT -5
I have not one, but many unpopular movie opinions about M. Night Shyamalan : - The Village is awesome, and still is to this day his best movie - Lady in the Water is also quite good - The Last Airbender is watchable, and better than The Happening or After Earth, his only two truly bad movies. - Signs rocks too, but that's problably a less unpopular opinion. It's not as vilified as other movies of his. The Visit. The Visit is by far his best movie, but I'll give second place to The Village, albeit because I think it's very, very funny.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 16, 2018 20:47:57 GMT -5
I re-watched it the theater a year ago. Was pleasently surprised by how good it was despite the massive flaws. So yeah, that's my unpopular opinion. Ryan Gosling is my man-crush, BTW. I love the aesthetic of that movie - my God, is it ever a beautiful movie. Also, I will never complain about Tom Waits or Richard E. Grant. I have a friend who believes that Keanu was perfectly cast because in her words, "Harker's a doof in the book too." The thing about Dracula the book though, is that it's a shitty, reactionary, racist, misogynistic ode to how great late 19th Century British society and scientific racism supposedly were, and every one of the heroes is dull as shit, and most of them are basically the same person. Like Jonathan = generic English gentleman. Seward = the exact same person as Jonathan but a doctor. Arthur = the exact same person as Jonathan, but definitively rich rather than merely upper middle class. Quincey = The same as Jonathan, only from Texas and he likes guns because he's from Texas. Mina = Generic English lady, except her flaw is that sometimes she has ideas above her station when she wants to do more with her tiny but unusually powerful woman's brain than, say, just memorize the train schedules for her husband or write down something that's being dictated to her. Lucy = the exact same person as Mina, except I guess she can't type or whatever and also she dies because she didn't marry her first boyfriend. The only outlier is Van Helsing, but his whole gimmick is literally just "saying vaguely offputting things sometimes, padding out the story interminably for ineffective suspense, and also I don't speak any Dutch at all but definitely the shittiest literary representation possible of a Dutch person speaking English".
|
|
|
Post by Incense on Jan 17, 2018 10:06:41 GMT -5
Well, my friend likes the book a lot, but has her own reasons for liking it. Personally, I've never read it, despite having gone through a big vampire phase in the early '90s, being an English major, and having tried three different times. Each time, I got a few pages in and threw the book down. My specialty was Victorian lit, so it wasn't issues with the style of writing. I just did not like it. I thought that what I did read of Stoker's writing was dull, so I didn't get as far as finding the individual characters dull.
And yeah, I totally understand the reactionary, xenophobic element of it. So the book's a wash for me, as is the '30s Universal monster movie version, because, boy is that shit ever boring too. (Potential hot take: I'm a lifelong horror fan who has always been a little bored by the '30s Universal monster movies. Frankenstein's okay, his Bride's movie is better, the mummy's not terribly bad, but I'm never going to watch them for fun.)
Fortunately, we now have a gorgeous tchotchke of a movie version of Dracula. With Tom Waits and Richard E. Grant. So that much I'm okay with.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 17, 2018 11:49:24 GMT -5
Well, my friend likes the book a lot, but has her own reasons for liking it. Personally, I've never read it, despite having gone through a big vampire phase in the early '90s, being an English major, and having tried three different times. Each time, I got a few pages in and threw the book down. My specialty was Victorian lit, so it wasn't issues with the style of writing. I just did not like it. I thought that what I did read of Stoker's writing was dull, so I didn't get as far as finding the individual characters dull. And yeah, I totally understand the reactionary, xenophobic element of it. So the book's a wash for me, as is the '30s Universal monster movie version, because, boy is that shit ever boring too. (Potential hot take: I'm a lifelong horror fan who has always been a little bored by the '30s Universal monster movies. Frankenstein's okay, his Bride's movie is better, the mummy's not terribly bad, but I'm never going to watch them for fun.) Fortunately, we now have a gorgeous tchotchke of a movie version of Dracula. With Tom Waits and Richard E. Grant. So that much I'm okay with. Yeah, and honestly, Johnathan visiting Dracula's castle at the beginning is one of the more interesting parts of the book; the book is rarely any more interesting than that. It was a real slog for me to get through the whole thing. And it probably doesn't help that any modern reader is going to be at least somewhat familiar with the story, thus making Stoker's already-not-great attempts at drawing out the suspense even more unsuccessful. But mostly, Stoker just isn't really that good of a writer, is he? I liked Coppola's adaptation as well; Tom Waits, Anthony Hopkins, and Sirius Black are all quite good in it, but my favorite old-timey horror monster adaptation is probably old-timey non-Herzog Nosferatu (which isn't without its own problems, as it strikes me as pretty anti-Semitic in places).
|
|
Dellarigg
AV Clubber
This is a public service announcement - with guitars
Posts: 7,608
|
Post by Dellarigg on Jan 17, 2018 12:53:17 GMT -5
The thing about Dracula the book though, is that it's a shitty, reactionary, racist, misogynistic ode to how great late 19th Century British society and scientific racism supposedly were Things from 20 years ago strike us as hopelessly misogynistic and racist nowadays, so what chance does something from 120 years ago stand? I've read it a couple of times over the years. The section where they try to cure Lucy reads quite tense and tight, I seem to recall, but overall Stoker is one of those lucky writers who caught lightning in a bottle just once as regards the public imagination. I'll go to stump for Herzog's Nosferatu as the best adaptation, and probably best vampire movie of 'em all. Some strange and stunning imagery in that one:
|
|
|
Post by Incense on Jan 17, 2018 13:35:37 GMT -5
Nosferatu's fantastic imagery really fires up my morbid Halloween imagination. I love it so much for its visuals.
And the title card where Orlock asks "Is that your wife? She has a lovely neck" cracks me up every time. Cut to the chase there, Count.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 17, 2018 13:36:43 GMT -5
The thing about Dracula the book though, is that it's a shitty, reactionary, racist, misogynistic ode to how great late 19th Century British society and scientific racism supposedly were Things from 20 years ago strike us as hopelessly misogynistic and racist nowadays, so what chance does something from 120 years ago stand? I've read it a couple of times over the years. The section where they try to cure Lucy reads quite tense and tight, I seem to recall, but overall Stoker is one of those lucky writers who caught lightning in a bottle just once as regards the public imagination. I'll go to stump for Herzog's Nosferatu as the best adaptation, and probably best vampire movie of 'em all. Some strange and stunning imagery in that one: Why are they all so calm with all those mice around them? And I'm not saying that Dracula is bad because it comes across as bigoted by 2018 standards, I'm saying that it comes across as bigoted by 1890s standards. The more liberal and feminist attitudes of the day towards women's role in society is looked down upon, the ultra-rich heroes are heroes in part because of their ability to spend a lot of money, servants are constantly being rebuked for laziness, and Stoker talks favorably of the work of Cesare Lombroso, literally the dumbest scientist that anyone ever took seriously, a man who thought that you could tell who was a "born criminal" by their supposedly atavistic facial features, because animals are supposedly more inherently "criminal" than humans. Lombroso was such a dumbfuck that he seriously proposed that insectivorous plants eating insects was an example of how "lower" species were more inherently criminal than "higher" species, and this helped to justify his claim that people with atavistic facial features were "born criminals". I think anyone who took Lombroso seriously, even back in 1890s-times, is worthy of criticism today. I'm not saying that we shouldn't read Victorian authors who didn't hold now-times standards of acceptable views. Hell, even George Eliot held some not-great views about women's role in society, and I don't think that makes Middlemarch any less of a masterpiece. And if Stoker hadn't been such a mediocre writer, and if Dracula were actually an enjoyable book to read, I'd have probably enjoyed it in spite of his reactionary, misogynistic, racist, classist views, but as it is, I think Dracula is a poorly-written book, and Stoker's views were pretty shitty even by the standards of his time, so I'm not about to defend the book as a "product of its time" or whatever. Edit: I thought the section of the book where they were trying to cure Lucy really dragged on and on, and was an example of where the book is trying to be suspenseful but fails quite badly and instead just needlessly pads out the plot.
|
|
Dellarigg
AV Clubber
This is a public service announcement - with guitars
Posts: 7,608
|
Post by Dellarigg on Jan 17, 2018 14:43:58 GMT -5
Those are plague rats in the picture. They've killed just about everyone, and the remaining populace have been driven insane by grief and terror. Y'know, Herzog stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 17, 2018 16:47:20 GMT -5
Those are plague rats in the picture. They've killed just about everyone, and the remaining populace have been driven insane by grief and terror. Y'know, Herzog stuff. Almost all of what I know of Herzog comes from Paul F. Tompkins appearing in character as him on Comedy Bang! Bang!. But yeah, I knew enough even from that to see why Herzog would be interested in remaking Nosferatu specifically when I first saw Murnau's version. The film is as much about vampires as a metaphor for a force of nature as they are about the person of Orlok in that movie. I guess I should probably watch Herzog's version.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jan 17, 2018 16:54:41 GMT -5
Almost all of what I know of Herzog comes from Paul F. Tompkins appearing in character as him on Comedy Bang! Bang!. Go watch My Best Fiend now.
|
|
Dellarigg
AV Clubber
This is a public service announcement - with guitars
Posts: 7,608
|
Post by Dellarigg on Jan 17, 2018 17:04:48 GMT -5
Those are plague rats in the picture. They've killed just about everyone, and the remaining populace have been driven insane by grief and terror. Y'know, Herzog stuff. Almost all of what I know of Herzog comes from Paul F. Tompkins appearing in character as him on Comedy Bang! Bang!. But yeah, I knew enough even from that to see why Herzog would be interested in remaking Nosferatu specifically when I first saw Murnau's version. The film is as much about vampires as a metaphor for a force of nature as they are about the person of Orlok in that movie. I guess I should probably watch Herzog's version. Try to get your eyes in front of Aguirre, The Wrath Of God, too. For all the comical eccentricities surrounding his persona, he's an incredible filmmaker, a true one-off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 17:56:15 GMT -5
The Game is the most underrated great film of the 90s
|
|
Trurl
Shoutbox Elitist
Posts: 7,668
|
Post by Trurl on Jan 17, 2018 21:17:47 GMT -5
That film is positively brimming with the best acting ever. Tom Waits is my favourite part of that movie.
|
|
|
Post by songstarliner on Jan 17, 2018 21:24:02 GMT -5
That film is positively brimming with the best acting ever. Tom Waits is my favourite part of that movie. Same. Best Renfield ever.
|
|
|
Post by Celebith on Jan 18, 2018 0:35:03 GMT -5
It had its flaws, but I love the way they treated the force. I feel like it's a lot closer to how the 'average' citizen of the galaxy would deal with it. It's really the start of the break away from the jedi / sith dichotomy that they get more into in VIII.
|
|
|
Post by Celebith on Jan 18, 2018 0:41:09 GMT -5
Well, my friend likes the book a lot, but has her own reasons for liking it. Personally, I've never read it, despite having gone through a big vampire phase in the early '90s, being an English major, and having tried three different times. Each time, I got a few pages in and threw the book down. My specialty was Victorian lit, so it wasn't issues with the style of writing. I just did not like it. I thought that what I did read of Stoker's writing was dull, so I didn't get as far as finding the individual characters dull. And yeah, I totally understand the reactionary, xenophobic element of it. So the book's a wash for me, as is the '30s Universal monster movie version, because, boy is that shit ever boring too. (Potential hot take: I'm a lifelong horror fan who has always been a little bored by the '30s Universal monster movies. Frankenstein's okay, his Bride's movie is better, the mummy's not terribly bad, but I'm never going to watch them for fun.) Fortunately, we now have a gorgeous tchotchke of a movie version of Dracula. With Tom Waits and Richard E. Grant. So that much I'm okay with. My daughter and I are reading it right now, because it's an option for her English class and we have it on the Kindle. I haven't read it since grade school, but it was one of the first epistolary novels I read and I enjoyed it for that. Also, I'm pretty sure I read Fred Saberhagen's The Dracula Tapes, where he corners the Harker's grandkids when their car breaks down, and narrates his side of the story into their 8-track. Talks about how of course Lucy is a mess, because they all tried transfusing her without knowing anything about blood types, and other stuff like that. I think it predated Interview with the Vampire and the whole heroic vampire renaissance. Either way, I liked both books a lot, although they're both very much of their times. ETA:I'm in favor of anything that gives Waits more work. Also, I meant to say that I read The Dracula Tapes before I read Dracula, so it colored my perception of the original.
|
|
|
Post by kitchin on Jan 19, 2018 8:16:38 GMT -5
ETA:I'm in favor of anything that gives Waits more work. Also, I meant to say that I read The Dracula Tapes before I read Dracula, so it colored my perception of the original. Across the Universe (2007) is my unpopular film opinion. It's got Joe Cocker not Tom Waits but your post reminded me of it.
|
|
|
Post by Post-St. Patty's Day Bloat on Feb 7, 2018 17:42:37 GMT -5
Not sure if this qualifies as an "opinion", but I don't give two fucks about anything Deadpool related and I sincerely doubt I will ever see the original or its upcoming sequel. Nothing about it looks appealing to me. Ryan Reynolds is like a studio-manufactured version of "funny."
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Feb 7, 2018 21:26:07 GMT -5
Not sure if this qualifies as an "opinion", but I don't give two fucks about anything Deadpool related and I sincerely doubt I will ever see the original or its upcoming sequel. Nothing about it looks appealing to me. Ryan Reynolds is like a studio-manufactured version of "funny." Good instincts. I found it a cynical and humorless film with a comedic aesthetic that's a good decade or so out of date, and it acts as if it fucking invented metafictional jokes, fourth-wall-breaking and R-rated violence in a superhero film. "A studio manufactured version of "funny"' not only describes Reynolds, but also the film as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Feb 11, 2018 1:33:07 GMT -5
Not sure if this qualifies as an "opinion", but I don't give two fucks about anything Deadpool related and I sincerely doubt I will ever see the original or its upcoming sequel. Nothing about it looks appealing to me. Ryan Reynolds is like a studio-manufactured version of "funny." Good instincts. I found it a cynical and humorless film with a comedic aesthetic that's a good decade or so out of date, and it acts as if it fucking invented metafictional jokes, fourth-wall-breaking and R-rated violence in a superhero film. "A studio manufactured version of "funny"' not only describes Reynolds, but also the film as a whole. This is encouraging to me. The X-Men films are the only comic book movies I consistently watch. But, wow, this one looked so unappealing I completely skipped it. Seems perhaps that was the right decision.
|
|