› ›

Controversial opinions about other movies

1…5681011…58

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Godfather 3, although not on par with the first two, is a worthy conclusion to the saga.

    Only watched it once several years ago, but I liked it.

    At the end, I was hoping for a fourth movie with Andy Garcia in the lead.

    Still not to late?

    Who knows? Andy García looks to have taken to the Francis Ford Coppola look, too:

    article-1279310-09A15849000005DC-700_224x287.jpg

    He certainly has. Looks like a professor.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited August 2018 Posts: 17,293
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Godfather 3, although not on par with the first two, is a worthy conclusion to the saga.

    Only watched it once several years ago, but I liked it.

    At the end, I was hoping for a fourth movie with Andy Garcia in the lead.

    Still not to late?

    Who knows? Andy García looks to have taken to the Francis Ford Coppola look, too:

    article-1279310-09A15849000005DC-700_224x287.jpg

    He certainly has. Looks like a professor.

    He does! If they ever make a Francis Ford Coppola biopic, they know who to cast.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2018 Posts: 17,691
    Fury Road was seated in the same 'we don't need this' section of the plane as Solo, but Solo had a tiny nostalgic edge IMO. And FR wasn't even a prequel or sequel... it was a sidequel... ;)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,507
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Godfather 3, although not on par with the first two, is a worthy conclusion to the saga.

    Only watched it once several years ago, but I liked it.

    At the end, I was hoping for a fourth movie with Andy Garcia in the lead.

    Still not to late?

    I thought his bastard-son-of-Sonny was the best thing in it-- he certainly had Daddy's temper and passion.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,507
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Fury Road was seated in the same 'we don't need this' section of the plane as Solo, but Solo had a tiny nostalgic edge IMO. And FR wasn't even a prequel or sequel... it was a sidequel... ;)

    Huh... Food for thought @chrisisall ... What you said is both controversial, but not wrong either.

    Mind. Blown.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,114
    peter wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Godfather 3, although not on par with the first two, is a worthy conclusion to the saga.

    Only watched it once several years ago, but I liked it.

    At the end, I was hoping for a fourth movie with Andy Garcia in the lead.

    Still not to late?

    I thought his bastard-son-of-Sonny was the best thing in it-- he certainly had Daddy's temper and passion.

    If you want The Godfather Part 4, I recommend reading The Family Corleone, by Edward Falco. It's originally based on Mario Puzo's script for a fourth movie. It can act as a prequel to both the book and the movie.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,790
    I always thought the third one was ok. Not up to par with the other two, but not the total disaster many make of it either.

    On another controversial note, while I absolutely love The Exorcist, I Iike The Exorcist III even better.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I always thought the third one was ok. Not up to par with the other two, but not the total disaster many make of it either.

    On another controversial note, while I absolutely love The Exorcist, I Iike The Exorcist III even better.

    I don t think I have seen the third, but I enjoyed the second.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I always thought the third one was ok. Not up to par with the other two, but not the total disaster many make of it either.

    On another controversial note, while I absolutely love The Exorcist, I Iike The Exorcist III even better.

    Me too @GoldenGun

    Exorcist III has real nightmarish quality to it and has one of the greatest scares in cinema history!

    Just love George C Scott in it. And Brad Dourif gives an incredible performance. The climax was re-shot and is a bit OTT but it isn't detrimental to the film overall

  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,500
    peter wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Godfather 3, although not on par with the first two, is a worthy conclusion to the saga.

    Yes @Thunderfinger -- very controversial, my friend!

    I'm not sure that the tears that gush from my eyes are from laughter or from the pain of what the series descended to.

    I half-jest.

    However, I've just stopped watching it; I know very well it exists, but it's on the top of my mental trash heap.

    I was just writing to one of our forum members that my 17 year old son is exploring with interesting and diverse films (Kubrick being his favourite at the moment). He adored GF1&2, but was blown away by what a mess three was.

    There are themes and ideas in this third that are interesting. But it falls apart in execution. It tried to be a GF picture-- the music and the look and the returning actors (good for Duvall to say no way).... but it feels more fan made than that passion that drove the first two...


    I think you are the one being controversial here!

    Nr 3 did not reach the sky high level of expetation set by the first film and (to a slightly lesser extent) the second, but ut is still a very well made film with some even great moments. It is the kind of slow thriller you watch dreaming of Sicily, it's drama, passion and beauty!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,507
    jobo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Godfather 3, although not on par with the first two, is a worthy conclusion to the saga.

    Yes @Thunderfinger -- very controversial, my friend!

    I'm not sure that the tears that gush from my eyes are from laughter or from the pain of what the series descended to.

    I half-jest.

    However, I've just stopped watching it; I know very well it exists, but it's on the top of my mental trash heap.

    I was just writing to one of our forum members that my 17 year old son is exploring with interesting and diverse films (Kubrick being his favourite at the moment). He adored GF1&2, but was blown away by what a mess three was.

    There are themes and ideas in this third that are interesting. But it falls apart in execution. It tried to be a GF picture-- the music and the look and the returning actors (good for Duvall to say no way).... but it feels more fan made than that passion that drove the first two...


    I think you are the one being controversial here!

    Nr 3 did not reach the sky high level of expetation set by the first film and (to a slightly lesser extent) the second, but ut is still a very well made film with some even great moments. It is the kind of slow thriller you watch dreaming of Sicily, it's drama, passion and beauty!

    then I'm glad I lived up to the name of the thread...
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited September 2018 Posts: 4,114
    I think after Sherlock Holmes 3 with Robert Downey Jr, they should adapt the Mary Russell stories by Laurie King. Downey could play him as an old man, and have a new recurring role for his older years. What I like about Downey as Holmes is that he plays himself, while acting. Get an unknown actress for Mary Russell, and start with The Beekeeper's Apprentice. Then just adapt as they go along.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,114
    I think that the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to rest as well, after Avengers Infinity War part 2. There’s only so much bad humor and lame villains that can be taken seriously in the average 2 hour runtime of their films. There's rarely any rewatch value for me, with a few exceptions, Iron Man 1, Captain America trilogy. It's a shame because I really like comic books and their source material. I find myself rereading the comic books more than rewatching the movies because their all becoming the same. In particular, the MCU. Even James Bond hasn't release more than one movie in a year!
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think that the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to rest as well, after Avengers Infinity War part 2. There’s only so much bad humor and lame villains that can be taken seriously in the average 2 hour runtime of their films. There's rarely any rewatch value for me, with a few exceptions, Iron Man 1, Captain America trilogy. It's a shame because I really like comic books and their source material. I find myself rereading the comic books more than rewatching the movies because their all becoming the same. In particular, the MCU. Even James Bond hasn't release more than one movie in a year!

    Does CR and YOLT in 1967 and OP and NSNA in 1983 count?
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,790
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think that the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to rest as well, after Avengers Infinity War part 2. There’s only so much bad humor and lame villains that can be taken seriously in the average 2 hour runtime of their films. There's rarely any rewatch value for me, with a few exceptions, Iron Man 1, Captain America trilogy. It's a shame because I really like comic books and their source material. I find myself rereading the comic books more than rewatching the movies because their all becoming the same. In particular, the MCU. Even James Bond hasn't release more than one movie in a year!

    I think they’re a bit overrated anyway. They’re fine but hardly masterpieces. I’ve seen them all at least once, except the last three.

    So far I only feel I’ll ever rewatch Iron Man, Captain America: First Avenger, Captain America: Civil War and Thor: Ragnarok.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,114
    Remington wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think that the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to rest as well, after Avengers Infinity War part 2. There’s only so much bad humor and lame villains that can be taken seriously in the average 2 hour runtime of their films. There's rarely any rewatch value for me, with a few exceptions, Iron Man 1, Captain America trilogy. It's a shame because I really like comic books and their source material. I find myself rereading the comic books more than rewatching the movies because their all becoming the same. In particular, the MCU. Even James Bond hasn't release more than one movie in a year!

    Does CR and YOLT in 1967 and OP and NSNA in 1983 count?

    Sorry I forgot about those, but two of them aren't official anyway.

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,114
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think that the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to rest as well, after Avengers Infinity War part 2. There’s only so much bad humor and lame villains that can be taken seriously in the average 2 hour runtime of their films. There's rarely any rewatch value for me, with a few exceptions, Iron Man 1, Captain America trilogy. It's a shame because I really like comic books and their source material. I find myself rereading the comic books more than rewatching the movies because their all becoming the same. In particular, the MCU. Even James Bond hasn't release more than one movie in a year!

    I think they’re a bit overrated anyway. They’re fine but hardly masterpieces. I’ve seen them all at least once, except the last three.

    So far I only feel I’ll ever rewatch Iron Man, Captain America: First Avenger, Captain America: Civil War and Thor: Ragnarok.

    Same here, but I would replace Thor Ragnarok with Captain America The Winter Soldier.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think that the Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to rest as well, after Avengers Infinity War part 2. There’s only so much bad humor and lame villains that can be taken seriously in the average 2 hour runtime of their films. There's rarely any rewatch value for me, with a few exceptions, Iron Man 1, Captain America trilogy. It's a shame because I really like comic books and their source material. I find myself rereading the comic books more than rewatching the movies because their all becoming the same. In particular, the MCU. Even James Bond hasn't release more than one movie in a year!

    Does CR and YOLT in 1967 and OP and NSNA in 1983 count?

    Sorry I forgot about those, but two of them aren't official anyway.

    I know. Just messing with you pal.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    With Henry Cavill parting ways as Superman last week, I feel he was a bit of a missed opportunity. I never really cared for MAN OF STEEL, or BATMAN V SUPERMAN. I didn't even get all the way through JUSTICE LEAGUE. Every time those films got to an action scene I got bored feeling I was just watching a video game somebody else was playing.
    That said, Cavill himself was pretty decent in the role. I thought he looked even better in his Curt Swan audition costume than the rubbery "new" whatever he was wearing in those films.
    He probably could have done well in a Superman film styled like Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner. He also might have excelled in a Superman film inspired by the film noir first season of ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN. That I would have loved.

    This leads to my controversial opinion: TV's George Reeves remains the definitive Superman (Chris is 2nd for me). Not only did he have the best chemistry with his Daily Planet regulars, the concept they couldn't recognize him due to his disguise was always played off as a joke.
    Lois was constantly trying to prove they were one and the same, with Kent just one step ahead. Unlike later Superman performers, George Reeves wasn't afraid to beat the tar out of his opponents, or even leave them stranded atop a snowy mountain. He was a bad a$$ when crossed. In addition, his Clark Kent was a tough reporter who only became mild mannered when he needed an excuse to leave so he could change into Superman.
    In many ways Cavill reminded me more of George Reeves' Superman than Chris.


    Which leads to my second controversial opinion: as excellent as Christopher Reeve was in his quartet of films, there were some scenes that were unintentionally funny.
    The first film when he spins the world around, that shot of him screaming always made me laugh. The scene in SUPERMAN II when he gets pounded in the diner I find unintentionally hilarious as well. Had that scenario been shot in the '50's with George Reeves, not doubt he would have handled it differently and come out on top. The bully would have probably been played by B movie character actor Richard Reeves, and the diner would have looked like the one in THE KILLERS (1946)
    . Cavill was great in a similar sequence in MAN OF STEEL.

    Seems to me, in this day and age a character like Superman is extremely difficult to get right on film. He's either too goody goody or attempts to darken him don't quite work. Maybe I should look at MAN OF STEEL again and give it another chance?
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,790
    Never been much of a superhero fan but I feel the same about Cavill’s Superman. In fact, despite its flaws I thought BvS was decent. But not so much Man of Steel, which I found a bit boring at times. Justice League I rate somewhere in between those two.

    Controversially, and admitttedlty as a non-fan, I have enjoyed Superman Returns more than most of the more recent “overhyped” DC and Marvel films.
  • TracyTracy
    edited September 2018 Posts: 1,640
    In the 80s when I was a kid in Norway nobody cared about Marvel , we watched some Spidey and friends episodes but that was about it
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    There were lots of Marvel comics in Norway in the 80s.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Unforgiven is great on a production level but fails overall to deliver a competent story
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Unforgiven is great on a production level but fails overall to deliver a competent story

    It works for me. Anything in particular you disapprove of?
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Never been much of a superhero fan but I feel the same about Cavill’s Superman. In fact, despite its flaws I thought BvS was decent. But not so much Man of Steel, which I found a bit boring at times. Justice League I rate somewhere in between those two.

    Controversially, and admitttedlty as a non-fan, I have enjoyed Superman Returns more than most of the more recent “overhyped” DC and Marvel films.

    Agreed @GoldenGun I find Superman Returns far superior to the recent DC output and a lot of the Marvel as well.

    I think it's a criminally underrated film. The plane rescue sequence is more exciting than anything any other superhero film has offered up in recent memory.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,114
    My 10 Favorite Walt Disney Animation Studios:

    1) 101 Dalmatians.
    2) The Fox and the Hound.
    3) Aladdin.
    4) The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
    5) The Emperor's New Groove.
    6) Pinocchio.
    7) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
    8) The Lion King.
    9) Beauty and the Beast.
    10) The Little Mermaid.

    Honorable Mentions: The Jungle Book, The Rescuers, The Rescuers Down Under, Wreck-It Ralph, Zootopia.

    What's controversial is that The Lion King is ranked so low.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,270
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    My 10 Favorite Walt Disney Animation Studios:

    1) 101 Dalmatians.
    2) The Fox and the Hound.
    3) Aladdin.
    4) The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
    5) The Emperor's New Groove.
    6) Pinocchio.
    7) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
    8) The Lion King.
    9) Beauty and the Beast.
    10) The Little Mermaid.

    Honorable Mentions: The Jungle Book, The Rescuers, The Rescuers Down Under, Wreck-It Ralph, Zootopia.

    What's controversial is that The Lion King is ranked so low.

    The Lion King is my #1, but I love most of your picks - especially The Fox and the Hound and The Emperor’s New Groove, two often underrated films!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Personally, The Lion King is my favourite Disney film. But the “best” film I think they ever made was Dumbo.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    1 The Aristocats
    2 Robin Hood
    3 The Jungle Book
    4 Peter Pan
    5 Fantasia
    6 Sleeping Beauty
    7 Pinocchio
    8 Snow White And the Seven Dwarves
    9 The Emperor s New Groove
    10 Dumbo
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited September 2018 Posts: 17,293
    Controversial opinion regarding Disney films; I've never been that much of a fan of their full-length movies - at all. Even as a kid I found them too… how should I put it - sentimental? Too cute and too much drama for me to really like them.

    I've always preferred the animated cartoons with Donald Duck, as he's really the most true and human character Disney's ever made, IMO. He has all the negative characteristics we all have, and he's flawed – in contrast to the perfect, but annoyingly boring Mickey Mouse, for example.

    Other than the animated cartoons with Donald Duck, I also prefer the Looney Tunes and the Tom and Jerry animated cartoons to the Disney films.
Sign In or Register to comment.