› ›

Controversial opinions about other movies

1…4748505253…58

Comments

  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree
    edited October 2022 Posts: 784
    I think Blonde was horrible and Ana de Armas was terrible in it. I wasn't able to watch 2 minutes without forwarding, and still haven't been able to finish it in 3 sittings. Her interpretation of Marilyn lacks confidence completely.

    Pretentious people are breaking new records pretending to like turd quality

    She was really good at playing stupid and unaware in NTTD, but this is absurd without meaning to be.

    It encapsulates everything that is overrated about art house.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited October 2022 Posts: 15,838
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    I think Blonde was horrible and Ana de Armas was absolutely terrible in it. I wasn't able to watch 2 minutes without forwarding, and still haven't been able to finish it in 3 sittings. Her interpretation of Marilyn lacks confidence completely.

    Pretentious people are breaking new records pretending to like turd quality

    She was really good at playing stupid and unaware in NTTD, but this is absurd without meaning to be.

    Yes. I felt she was one note throughout. Mostly tragic and tortured. Marilyn had many facets to her personality and Ana didn't get to explore much other than tragedy.
    I believe the director said he always wanted to see an NC-17 Marilyn so that's what he made. Exploitation, IMO.
    In fact one might be better off to go on pornhub and watch a 15 minute video of someone doing their "Marilyn" impression performing sex acts than sit thru a nearly 3 hour film of the same.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,276
    Saddened to see the negative reception for Blonde here and almost everywhere else. I thought it was going to be a slam dunk. I'll probably still watch it for myself at some point though.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2022 Posts: 23,564
    I don't hate the movie or Ana's performance. In fact, I quite admire how the film focused on Marilyn's tragic life without mincing words. The filmmakers went for shock value, and I can see how that can put people off. This isn't a glamour tale, that's for sure. And yes, Ana is showing a lot of skin. But why hide the fact that girls like her were Weinsteined every step of the way? Why euphemize an ugly reality? I don't think this film wants us to enjoy it. I think it's successful in its mission if it leaves us repulsed. And, as others have said, no one can play Marilyn Monroe; only Norma Jean could. But Ana is far from bad.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    I think Blonde was horrible and Ana de Armas was absolutely terrible in it. I wasn't able to watch 2 minutes without forwarding, and still haven't been able to finish it in 3 sittings. Her interpretation of Marilyn lacks confidence completely.

    Pretentious people are breaking new records pretending to like turd quality

    She was really good at playing stupid and unaware in NTTD, but this is absurd without meaning to be.

    Yes. I felt she was one note throughout. Mostly tragic and tortured. Marilyn had many facets to her personality and Ana didn't get to explore much other than tragedy.
    I believe the director said he always wanted to see an NC-17 Marilyn so that's what he made. Exploitation, IMO.
    In fact one might be better off to go on pornhub and watch a 15 minute video of someone doing their "Marilyn" impression performing sex acts than sit thru a nearly 3 hour film of the same.

    Isn't that a bit unfair? A girl shows some nipple. Pornhub is something else entirely. Have we gotten afraid of breasts again? 😉 Either way, I saw a different film, clearly. Yes, Ana Knock-Knock'ed her breasts into focus again, but that is not what this film is about. That's like saying that one should watch construction workers instead of MR for all the steel cutting done in that film. 😉
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156
    Don’t get me wrong: RESEVOIR DOGS is a great little film for sure! It’s a highly polished gem that does exactly what it needs to do with no waste or redundancy and very few slipups. I love it! But it is not better than PULP FICTION.

    PULP FICTION is a true masterpiece that reaches higher and achieves more than most movies. It defined an era and a style; it may be the most influential American film since CITIZEN KANE. It’s more entertaining (to me) than THE GODFATHER (although not as mind-blowing as 2001). Bigger, more elaborate, more creative, with one iconic scene after another, PULP FICTION is Tarantino’s best movie (with the arguable exception of JACKIE BROWN—ymmv). I admit this is not a controversial opinion.

    That said, DOGS may be more re-watchable. PULP can get long and boring after so many viewings (but the same is true for THE GODFATHER).
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,838
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I don't hate the movie or Ana's performance. In fact, I quite admire how the film focused on Marilyn's tragic life without mincing words. The filmmakers went for shock value, and I can see how that can put people off. This isn't a glamour tale, that's for sure. And yes, Ana is showing a lot of skin. But why hide the fact that girls like her were Weinsteined every step of the way? Why euphemize an ugly reality? I don't think this film wants us to enjoy it. I think it's successful in its mission if it leaves us repulsed. And, as others have said, no one can play Marilyn Monroe; only Norma Jean could. But Ana is far from bad.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    I think Blonde was horrible and Ana de Armas was absolutely terrible in it. I wasn't able to watch 2 minutes without forwarding, and still haven't been able to finish it in 3 sittings. Her interpretation of Marilyn lacks confidence completely.

    Pretentious people are breaking new records pretending to like turd quality

    She was really good at playing stupid and unaware in NTTD, but this is absurd without meaning to be.

    Yes. I felt she was one note throughout. Mostly tragic and tortured. Marilyn had many facets to her personality and Ana didn't get to explore much other than tragedy.
    I believe the director said he always wanted to see an NC-17 Marilyn so that's what he made. Exploitation, IMO.
    In fact one might be better off to go on pornhub and watch a 15 minute video of someone doing their "Marilyn" impression performing sex acts than sit thru a nearly 3 hour film of the same.

    Isn't that a bit unfair? A girl shows some nipple. Pornhub is something else entirely. Have we gotten afraid of breasts again? 😉 Either way, I saw a different film, clearly. Yes, Ana Knock-Knock'ed her breasts into focus again, but that is not what this film is about. That's like saying that one should watch construction workers instead of MR for all the steel cutting done in that film. 😉

    Haha! Yes my analogy is extreme. I like nudity as much as anyone :D
    However, this film is complete fiction so the sex scenes are fantasy. For instance, Marilyn stood her ground when it came to the casting couch, this film portrays the opposite as an excuse to show her getting it doggy style in all it's NC 17 glory. I'd rather see a stronger Marilyn considering she was a very strong (yet vulnerable) person,
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,121
    DrunkIrishPoet wrote: »
    Don’t get me wrong: RESEVOIR DOGS is a great little film for sure! It’s a highly polished gem that does exactly what it needs to do with no waste or redundancy and very few slipups. I love it! But it is not better than PULP FICTION.

    PULP FICTION is a true masterpiece that reaches higher and achieves more than most movies. It defined an era and a style; it may be the most influential American film since CITIZEN KANE. It’s more entertaining (to me) than THE GODFATHER (although not as mind-blowing as 2001). Bigger, more elaborate, more creative, with one iconic scene after another, PULP FICTION is Tarantino’s best movie (with the arguable exception of JACKIE BROWN—ymmv). I admit this is not a controversial opinion.

    That said, DOGS may be more re-watchable. PULP can get long and boring after so many viewings (but the same is true for THE GODFATHER).

    I agree. The middle section of Pulp (with Butch) goes on longer than it needs to.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,884
    DrunkIrishPoet wrote: »
    Don’t get me wrong: RESEVOIR DOGS is a great little film for sure! It’s a highly polished gem that does exactly what it needs to do with no waste or redundancy and very few slipups. I love it! But it is not better than PULP FICTION.

    PULP FICTION is a true masterpiece that reaches higher and achieves more than most movies. It defined an era and a style; it may be the most influential American film since CITIZEN KANE. It’s more entertaining (to me) than THE GODFATHER (although not as mind-blowing as 2001). Bigger, more elaborate, more creative, with one iconic scene after another, PULP FICTION is Tarantino’s best movie (with the arguable exception of JACKIE BROWN—ymmv). I admit this is not a controversial opinion.

    That said, DOGS may be more re-watchable. PULP can get long and boring after so many viewings (but the same is true for THE GODFATHER).

    Pulp is great, Dogs is very rewatchable, but The Godfather never gets boring. I discover new things each time I've watched it and that's many times.

    Most influential since Citizen Kane? I'd argue against that. Influential for sure, not that groundbreaking, though.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I don't hate the movie or Ana's performance. In fact, I quite admire how the film focused on Marilyn's tragic life without mincing words. The filmmakers went for shock value, and I can see how that can put people off. This isn't a glamour tale, that's for sure. And yes, Ana is showing a lot of skin. But why hide the fact that girls like her were Weinsteined every step of the way? Why euphemize an ugly reality? I don't think this film wants us to enjoy it. I think it's successful in its mission if it leaves us repulsed. And, as others have said, no one can play Marilyn Monroe; only Norma Jean could. But Ana is far from bad.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    I think Blonde was horrible and Ana de Armas was absolutely terrible in it. I wasn't able to watch 2 minutes without forwarding, and still haven't been able to finish it in 3 sittings. Her interpretation of Marilyn lacks confidence completely.

    Pretentious people are breaking new records pretending to like turd quality

    She was really good at playing stupid and unaware in NTTD, but this is absurd without meaning to be.

    Yes. I felt she was one note throughout. Mostly tragic and tortured. Marilyn had many facets to her personality and Ana didn't get to explore much other than tragedy.
    I believe the director said he always wanted to see an NC-17 Marilyn so that's what he made. Exploitation, IMO.
    In fact one might be better off to go on pornhub and watch a 15 minute video of someone doing their "Marilyn" impression performing sex acts than sit thru a nearly 3 hour film of the same.

    Isn't that a bit unfair? A girl shows some nipple. Pornhub is something else entirely. Have we gotten afraid of breasts again? 😉 Either way, I saw a different film, clearly. Yes, Ana Knock-Knock'ed her breasts into focus again, but that is not what this film is about. That's like saying that one should watch construction workers instead of MR for all the steel cutting done in that film. 😉

    Haha! Yes my analogy is extreme. I like nudity as much as anyone :D
    However, this film is complete fiction so the sex scenes are fantasy. For instance, Marilyn stood her ground when it came to the casting couch, this film portrays the opposite as an excuse to show her getting it doggy style in all it's NC 17 glory. I'd rather see a stronger Marilyn considering she was a very strong (yet vulnerable) person,

    Okay so I will most definitely watch it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,934
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    this film is complete fiction so the sex scenes are fantasy. For instance, Marilyn stood her ground when it came to the casting couch, this film portrays the opposite as an excuse to show her getting it doggy style in all it's NC 17 glory. I'd rather see a stronger Marilyn considering she was a very strong (yet vulnerable) person,
    Y'know, it sounds less like a film about Marilyn Monroe and more like the director's rape and abuse fantasies being acted out. I've not seen it, so I could be way off the mark there and doing him a disservice, but...I'm dubious to say the least.

  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree
    Posts: 784
    After finishing the film I think the director deserves more blame than Ana.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,564
    I fail to see what 'blame' is needed at all. It's a fictionalized version of the life of Norma behind the Marilyn Monroe glamour, told in an uncomfortable, dour and depressing way. It's an arthouse movie, relentless in its brutal visual style. In other words, choices were made that will leave some intrigued and others repulsed. But it's not like a crime was comitted.
  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree
    edited October 2022 Posts: 784
    I think it was poor in quality, a film that couldn't bear its weight regardless of the major directional choices they made. It wasn't the visuals that were the problem. It was repetitive, the pacing was very off and story was extremely thin just like other arthouse films, it would have had a bigger cultural impact if had more flesh.

    Films can stand out, and still be poor. If rewatchability takes a hit, I wouldn't claim it to be successful.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,791
    Last week I had a very busy day and I was in the mood for atmospheric nonsense, I watched Van Helsing and I loved it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,564
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Last week I had a very busy day and I was in the mood for atmospheric nonsense, I watched Van Helsing and I loved it.

    I had all but forgotten about that one. Silly fun for sure.
  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree
    Posts: 784
    The good thing about art house films is they dare to be experimental but I don’t understand why they insist on being being so hollow and slow.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    The good thing about art house films is they dare to be experimental but I don’t understand why they insist on being being so hollow and slow.

    I think saying “art house films insist on being so hollow and slow” is a gross generalization. Some are, and they’re worse for it. No film intends to be these things. I haven’t seen Blonde yet and I’m sure it’s very possible I’d agree with your assessment of it, but to make that statement about arthouse films en masse I think is incorrect.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,564
    I didn't find the movie boring or slow. It pauses and breathes, allows its lead actress to sort out her thoughts in close-up, and looks at the world behind the spotlight spectacle, not so much at the spectacle itself. It is also my belief that the film intentionally courts controversy. My wife haaaated it, barely made it to the end, thinking it dull beyond imagination. I disagree with her. The next day we watched Zemeckis's Pinocchio, and our opinions flipped. 😄
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,791
    I once had to talk my other half into watching Antonioni’s L’ eclisse, she turned out loving it and now whenever I propose to watch a classic art film, we make an evening out of it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,564
    I can barely get my wife to sit through a Kubrick film. She liked Spartacus and half liked EWS, but hated Dr Strangelove. The Shining gave her goosebumps, an experience she hates, and she felt Lolita and Barry Lyndon were too long. I almost dare not show her ACO, FMJ or 2001, not to mention Kubrick's first four. She doesn't appreciate arthouse cinema. I haven't even tried to show her a film by Lynch yet.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,121
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    The good thing about art house films is they dare to be experimental but I don’t understand why they insist on being being so hollow and slow.

    EON should take note of this, for Bond’s future.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can barely get my wife to sit through a Kubrick film. She liked Spartacus and half liked EWS, but hated Dr Strangelove. The Shining gave her goosebumps, an experience she hates, and she felt Lolita and Barry Lyndon were too long. I almost dare not show her ACO, FMJ or 2001, not to mention Kubrick's first four. She doesn't appreciate arthouse cinema. I haven't even tried to show her a film by Lynch yet.

    Kubrick takes more than one watch to appreciate, honestly.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,791
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can barely get my wife to sit through a Kubrick film. She liked Spartacus and half liked EWS, but hated Dr Strangelove. The Shining gave her goosebumps, an experience she hates, and she felt Lolita and Barry Lyndon were too long. I almost dare not show her ACO, FMJ or 2001, not to mention Kubrick's first four. She doesn't appreciate arthouse cinema. I haven't even tried to show her a film by Lynch yet.

    Usually my strategy is the following:

    “I’ll watch Jurassic World with you if you watch 8 1/2 with me.”

    Luckily, she also loves Bond films, so no negotiations needed there ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,564
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    The good thing about art house films is they dare to be experimental but I don’t understand why they insist on being being so hollow and slow.

    EON should take note of this, for Bond’s future.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can barely get my wife to sit through a Kubrick film. She liked Spartacus and half liked EWS, but hated Dr Strangelove. The Shining gave her goosebumps, an experience she hates, and she felt Lolita and Barry Lyndon were too long. I almost dare not show her ACO, FMJ or 2001, not to mention Kubrick's first four. She doesn't appreciate arthouse cinema. I haven't even tried to show her a film by Lynch yet.

    Kubrick takes more than one watch to appreciate, honestly.

    Absolutely true. The problem is that I can't get her convinced of that. She'll never watch The Shining again, I'm sure. ;-)
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can barely get my wife to sit through a Kubrick film. She liked Spartacus and half liked EWS, but hated Dr Strangelove. The Shining gave her goosebumps, an experience she hates, and she felt Lolita and Barry Lyndon were too long. I almost dare not show her ACO, FMJ or 2001, not to mention Kubrick's first four. She doesn't appreciate arthouse cinema. I haven't even tried to show her a film by Lynch yet.

    Usually my strategy is the following:

    “I’ll watch Jurassic World with you if you watch 8 1/2 with me.”

    Luckily, she also loves Bond films, so no negotiations needed there ;)

    You're a lucky man. My wife is very critical of Bond. ;-)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    The good thing about art house films is they dare to be experimental but I don’t understand why they insist on being being so hollow and slow.

    EON should take note of this, for Bond’s future.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can barely get my wife to sit through a Kubrick film. She liked Spartacus and half liked EWS, but hated Dr Strangelove. The Shining gave her goosebumps, an experience she hates, and she felt Lolita and Barry Lyndon were too long. I almost dare not show her ACO, FMJ or 2001, not to mention Kubrick's first four. She doesn't appreciate arthouse cinema. I haven't even tried to show her a film by Lynch yet.

    Kubrick takes more than one watch to appreciate, honestly.

    Absolutely true. The problem is that I can't get her convinced of that. She'll never watch The Shining again, I'm sure. ;-)
    There are ways.
    600cecdb6d6f1926f3f6c68f95efd619.png


  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,564
    Good one, @Thunderfinger. ;-)

    I don't know how controversial this is, but I've never understood why people like TRUE LIES that much. Technically, it's a well-made film. Arnold is pretty good in it. But overall, I find the movie bloated, a tad dull, and a bit of a let-down considering Cameron's previous four films (as a director), which I absolutely love. True Lies is where I feel that Cameron began to lose his interest in strong plots.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,791
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Good one, @Thunderfinger. ;-)

    I don't know how controversial this is, but I've never understood why people like TRUE LIES that much. Technically, it's a well-made film. Arnold is pretty good in it. But overall, I find the movie bloated, a tad dull, and a bit of a let-down considering Cameron's previous four films (as a director), which I absolutely love. True Lies is where I feel that Cameron began to lose his interest in strong plots.

    Think it’s fine, especially Jamie Lee Curtis stands out for me, but she always does :)

    Never considered it a great movie or anything, but I wouldn’t switch it off either.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,828
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Good one, @Thunderfinger. ;-)

    I don't know how controversial this is, but I've never understood why people like TRUE LIES that much. Technically, it's a well-made film. Arnold is pretty good in it. But overall, I find the movie bloated, a tad dull, and a bit of a let-down considering Cameron's previous four films (as a director), which I absolutely love. True Lies is where I feel that Cameron began to lose his interest in strong plots.

    A
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Good one, @Thunderfinger. ;-)

    I don't know how controversial this is, but I've never understood why people like TRUE LIES that much. Technically, it's a well-made film. Arnold is pretty good in it. But overall, I find the movie bloated, a tad dull, and a bit of a let-down considering Cameron's previous four films (as a director), which I absolutely love. True Lies is where I feel that Cameron began to lose his interest in strong plots.

    Agree totally! Never liked it, and the whole section with Bill Paxtons character is extremely tedious! As @Creasy47 says, Jamie Lee Curtis is the only reason to watch it, especially for her,ahem,. .dance scene!!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Good one, @Thunderfinger. ;-)

    I don't know how controversial this is, but I've never understood why people like TRUE LIES that much. Technically, it's a well-made film. Arnold is pretty good in it. But overall, I find the movie bloated, a tad dull, and a bit of a let-down considering Cameron's previous four films (as a director), which I absolutely love. True Lies is where I feel that Cameron began to lose his interest in strong plots.

    I never understood the appeal either. A controversial statement: the French comedy it's based on was way funnier.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,838
    I never cared for TRUE LIES either.
    Considering the Bond homages, one might think it'd be right up my alley, but no.
    I remember at the time feeling it'd been so long since we had a new Bond film, most of the references wouldn't be caught anyway.
    Maybe I'd appreciate the film more now?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    My issue with TL is that's it's both a parody and an action movie, and overall it feels schizophrenic.
Sign In or Register to comment.