Unpopular movie opinions...

[Tiller]

I don't like most Golden Era dance movies. I'd rather do my income taxes than watch Fred Astaire.

I'm the opposite. I could watch Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers dance all night long and be entertained. Only God knows why though, since I can't stand 99.9 percent of dance movies lol.

 

[Miss Golightly]

Most people don't like Hitchcock's "Marnie" but I absolutely love it! In fact it's on Sky Classics right now......

 

[Yeps]

. Only God knows why though, since I can't stand 99.9 percent of dance movies lol.

That is obvious. Real dancing (in one shot).

 

[LizzieMaine]

The single most non-essential innovation in motion pictures was color.

 

[Italian-wiseguy]

I did see Alice in wonderland in 3D, and enjoyed it very much. .

I personally didn't really enjoyed it; just tired of Johnny Depp johnnydeppizing around, and the 3D keeps looking like a pop-up book in scenes with crowds of people...

 

[Talbot]

Argh! I failed to mention one of my ultimate hatreds!

Pick a Lord of the Rings movie, any one...

The Lord of the Rings movie franchise was nothing more than a money making scheme unrelated to the stories and entirely self-interested in some grandoise illusion of epic proportions. The books were far, far superior in depth and drama.

National Lampoons 'Bored of the Rings' is worth a read.

"Benelux, Electrolux, Onward!"

 

[CopperNY]

The single most non-essential innovation in motion pictures was color.

...and the weirdest coworker i ever had was in his 60's (in 1995) and -refused- to watch anything in black and white.

"now we have color. why go backward?"

creepy.

 

[Widebrim]

The single most non-essential innovation in motion pictures was color.

In what way?

 

[rcfko]

The single most non-essential innovation in motion pictures was color.

I have to disagree. I believe that the innovation of colour in motion pictures is as essential and important as the innovation of sound in motion pictures. It opened a new field for artist to play on. In some movies, the use of colour communicate the message and convey emotions very effectively, see oriental film Hero starring Jet Li, or The House of Flying Daggers.

A truly great film artist would know how to use sound (voice, noise, and music) and colour, or lack thereof, very effectively.

What I believe the single most non-essential innovation in motions pictures is 3D. Can do with or without it.

 

[Pompidou]

Color might not be essential, but I love Technicolor movies. The Adventures of Robin Hood and The Wizard of Oz are colorful in ways no movie has ever been since, and I just love it - especially the former. Essential? Hardly. I don't even think sound is essential - I really enjoyed Metropolis and Nosferatu - but like any tool, it's a blessing when well used. My two iTunes movies since the harddrive dump not too long ago are The Adventures of Robin Hood and The Maltese Falcon - the most colorful and the best black and white.

 

[Blackthorn]

As a huge fan of film noir, I find Sunset Blvd to be completely unwatchable. In fact I'll go so far as to say that its not even film noir!

I don't find the films of Quentin Tarantino to be brilliant. They are for the most part a watch it once and forget about it type of stuff.

I don't get the cult of Fight Club. I just don't get it. It was mildly entertaining, but nothing to write home about.

Doug

Yes, yes and yes! Especially the Sunset Blvd. What a major disappointment. I was expecting something even better than the Maltese Falcon. :eusa_doh: :eusa_doh: :rage:

 

[VitaminG]

The Lord of the Rings movie franchise was nothing more than a money making scheme unrelated to the stories and entirely self-interested in some grandoise illusion of epic proportions. The books were far, far superior in depth and drama.

I found the movies watchable although (waaay) overly long. I tried reading the books once. After years of my sister raving about how amazing they were, I found the first one such an arduous task, like wading through waist deep swamp water, that I eventually gave up on it. Poorly written, badly paced, boring. Tolkien might've had a good idea for story and a knack for made up languages, but the story was poorly executed. I don't understand the fuss over those books. The guy is clearly no writer.

Avatar, I also found a decent watch in 3D at the cinema. The movie bears no analysis at any depth though. I wish the wife hadn't bought it on dvd - that one viewing was all I ever needed and I can't sit through the entire movie when the kids put it on. A few people have got upset when I called it an updated Pocahontas. Even the hero - John Smith = Jake Scully?

One movie well done in 3D was Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. Very nicely done - immersive, non-intrusive & the movie stands up just fine with the gimmick of 3D. None of that schlocky 50s ducking out of the way as a spear pokes out of the screen stuff.

 

[scottyrocks]

I thought that the LOTR trilogy was very well done, but especially the first one. Two and three were definitely too long and a bit trying to sit through for mainly that reason. They all captured the spirit of the novel, afaic, but the first one was particularly good, as if often the case with movies and their sequels (even if theyre shot at the same time, as was this trilogy).

 

[LizzieMaine]

A truly great film artist would know how to use sound (voice, noise, and music) and colour, or lack thereof, very effectively.

Which is exactly the problem -- most of them don't use these tools effectively. While there are certainly pictures where color does add to the experience, there are thousands of others where it's just *there* for no good reason at all other than the fact that "well, it's expected." The result is a bland, pointless thick-headed naturalism that comes out of the same mindset that leads newspapers to colorize daily comic strips.

I think color was used most effectively in the twenties and early thirties -- "color sequences", specifically designed to heighten the emotional power of a scene. If everything's in color -- and not even imaginative color, just a dull simulation of reality -- you might as well just throw that potentially-valuable tool away.

 

[Sunny]

I thought that the LOTR trilogy was very well done, but especially the first one. Two and three were definitely too long and a bit trying to sit through for mainly that reason. They all captured the spirit of the novel, afaic, but the first one was particularly good, as if often the case with movies and their sequels (even if theyre shot at the same time, as was this trilogy).

I agree; the first movie is my favorite. I think it's because it was so close to what it should be. After that the differences build up and they must be enjoyed as separate from the books. The extended editions really help, though.

 

[Puzzicato]

I agree; the first movie is my favorite. I think it's because it was so close to what it should be. After that the differences build up and they must be enjoyed as separate from the books. The extended editions really help, though.

Definitely. The extended editions give you lots more Ents, which was good.

 

[Paisley]

I found the movies watchable although (waaay) overly long. I tried reading the books once. After years of my sister raving about how amazing they were, I found the first one such an arduous task, like wading through waist deep swamp water, that I eventually gave up on it. Poorly written, badly paced, boring. Tolkien might've had a good idea for story and a knack for made up languages, but the story was poorly executed. I don't understand the fuss over those books. The guy is clearly no writer.

I had a sister who loved Tolkien, too. I tried to read Tolkien twice and just couldn't get into his books. I know others adore them, but they struck me as the silliest stuff I'd ever read. I like Night Court (the TV show), Dumb and Dumber and John Candy, so my tolerance for silliness is pretty high.

 

[Undertow]

I had a sister who loved Tolkien, too. I tried to read Tolkien twice and just couldn't get into his books. I know others adore them, but they struck me as the silliest stuff I'd ever read. I like Night Court (the TV show), Dumb and Dumber and John Candy, so my tolerance for silliness is pretty high.

lol :eusa_clap

p.s. I loved Night Court and Dumb and Dumber!

 

[Undertow]

I thought that the LOTR trilogy was very well done, but especially the first one. Two and three were definitely too long and a bit trying to sit through for mainly that reason. They all captured the spirit of the novel, afaic, but the first one was particularly good, as if often the case with movies and their sequels (even if theyre shot at the same time, as was this trilogy).

I will give you that. The first was the better of the three, although there were still spots that grated against my nerves terribly.

The Nazgul and the Balrog were well portrayed, regardless of CGI, and there was a theme that was much more palpable than the other two movies.

Liv Tyler saving Frodo at the fjord? Don't get me started. That made me sick.

I understand others' sentiments regarding the books. I don't think Tolkien was as gifted at writing for a larger audience. He was very focused on a crowd that was already highly interested in fables, history and legend. You can see much of Beowulf (which Tolkien helped bring back to life through a published translation) in his work. In any case, I loved the books, although they were quite dry and difficult at times.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

So, for those of you who have seen both, who's movies are a better match between book and movie?

Lord of the Rings Trilogy VS James Bond

Hint, anybody read the BOOK "The Spy Who Loved Me"?

later