Controversial opinions about other movies

1323335373858

Comments

  • Posts: 526
    jobo wrote: »
    Escape From Alcatraz (Clint Eastwood) is better than the Shawshank Redemption.


    Totally agree!

    Awesome! Finally someone that agrees with me. :D
  • Posts: 7,500
    jobo wrote: »
    Escape From Alcatraz (Clint Eastwood) is better than the Shawshank Redemption.


    Totally agree!

    Awesome! Finally someone that agrees with me. :D

    Unfortunately I saw Alcatraz for the first time having already seen Shawshank. I remember I was baffled by the share ammount of scenes and themes that Shawshank outright stole from Alcatraz. Frankly embarrassing! Alcatraz did all of them better though. Less sentimental and 'in your face'.
  • Posts: 526
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Escape From Alcatraz (Clint Eastwood) is better than the Shawshank Redemption.


    Totally agree!

    Awesome! Finally someone that agrees with me. :D

    Unfortunately I saw Alcatraz for the first time having already seen Shawshank. I remember I was baffled by the share ammount of scenes and themes that Shawshank outright stole from Alcatraz. Frankly embarrassing! Alcatraz did all of them better though. Less sentimental and 'in your face'.

    Yes, I quote agree. Shawshank is overrated to me. Patrick McGoohan (sp?) as the warden in Alcatraz was sensational. He added a ton of presence to the movie. PM was also quite unlikeable. Really made you root for the convicts to escape. Well paced and plotted film.
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156
    I think it should have been Clint Eastwood instead of Sean Connery in "The Rock" because Clint Eastwood had already escaped from Alcatraz in another movie.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    MaxCasino wrote: »

    Hollywood is full of hypocrites. In other news, I defecate in the woods. Bears, I said bears, bears defecate in woods. Hypocritical or they simply didn't care because it wasn't their brother/sister/son/daughter that was the victim.


    I'm not sick of her, but I can't stand her off screen "wacky" persona. So manufactured, look close, and you can see the Miramax logo stamped on her.
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156
    As an old-school Star Wars fan who has seen them all on the big screen since 1977, the correct ranking in regards to quality is simply the order of release, because each film has been a disappointment when compared to its predecessor.

    1. Star Wars (IV A New Hope): just about the perfect film!
    2. Empire Strikes Back: pretty good, but points off for having no beginning and no ending, for not reintroducing the cast and for never explaining something called “the force.” Also, the witty banter between Han and Leia was anything but.
    3. Return of the Jedi: awesome special effects, but basically a rehash of the original. Could have been much better. Hated the Ewoks. Han was wasted.
    4. Phantom Menace: not good. But some good parts.
    5. Attack of the Clones: downright bad. They started to lose me here.
    6. Revenge of the Sith: NOOOO!!! What a disappointment! This is the movie that needed to make up for the lameness of the previous two entries, and to say that it failed to do its job is the understatement of the day. The whole prequel trilogy crashes and burns before our eyes. Thank goodness they’ll never make the sequels, right…?
    7. Force Awakens: an attractively-packaged handful of fan service thrown up against the wall to see what sticks. I fell asleep on my second viewing. This one sucks the big one.
    8. Last Jedi: what? Now what?? What is this??? Ah, never mind. Jeez.
    9. Rise of Skywalker: NOOOOOOO!!!!! Talk about not sticking the landing. This one and the previous one seem to be just making stuff up as they go along. A highly disappointing ending to a sad, sad story.


    I liked Rogue One and Solo better than anything since the Original Trilogy. At least they were watchable and entertaining.
  • Posts: 12,265
    On the topic of Star Wars and this thread title, I would say I'm somewhat surprised by how loved this series remained past the originals, given I don't think the movies that followed for the most part are very good. The prequel trilogy and sequel trilogy are both littered with problems. Personally, ROTS is the only post-original trilogy film I care for. I don't even own the sequels.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,526
    I really like Revenge of the Sith, and I have to say, the first half / first act of The Force Awakens is also some Star Wars magic. Mostly to do with the modern effects and the Falcon, and the chemistry between Oscar Isaac and John Boyega. Phantom Menace is great too; podracing, Qui-Gonn, Obi-Wan, Maul, Duel of the Fates... too much to just write off.

    Say what you will about Hayden Christensen, I'm very glad he's returning for the Obi-Wan Disney+ show. Besides, it's not as if Mark Hamill was some sort of Oscar-winning actor...

    The ranking above is bantha poodoo. ;)

    EDIT: Although, there are two points I agree with; I think they literally were making things up as they went along with TLJ and ROS, thanks to JJ Abrams' magic box nonsense; and Rogue One and Solo were both great, Solo suffered from following TLJ, and not being marketed well, but it really is fantastic.
  • Posts: 12,265
    1. The Empire Strikes Back
    2. Return of the Jedi
    3. Star Wars / A New Hope
    4. Revenge of the Sith


    5. Attack of the Clones
    6. The Phantom Menace
    7. Rise of Skywalker
    8. The Last Jedi
    9. The Force Awakens

    I guess a couple extra controversial opinions you could throw in are that I still prefer the prequels over sequels (there was a clear story to tell from the beginning), and ROTJ over the original.
  • Posts: 207
    FoxRox wrote: »
    On the topic of Star Wars and this thread title, I would say I'm somewhat surprised by how loved this series remained past the originals, given I don't think the movies that followed for the most part are very good. The prequel trilogy and sequel trilogy are both littered with problems. Personally, ROTS is the only post-original trilogy film I care for. I don't even own the sequels.
    I agree. The only ones I ever have the urge to rewatch are the originals and ROTS. I enjoyed TPM and AOTC when I was younger, but now I find them almost unwatchable.
  • Posts: 1,883
    As an old-school Star Wars fan who has seen them all on the big screen since 1977, the correct ranking in regards to quality is simply the order of release, because each film has been a disappointment when compared to its predecessor.

    1. Star Wars (IV A New Hope): just about the perfect film!
    2. Empire Strikes Back: pretty good, but points off for having no beginning and no ending, for not reintroducing the cast and for never explaining something called “the force.” Also, the witty banter between Han and Leia was anything but.
    3. Return of the Jedi: awesome special effects, but basically a rehash of the original. Could have been much better. Hated the Ewoks. Han was wasted.
    4. Phantom Menace: not good. But some good parts.
    5. Attack of the Clones: downright bad. They started to lose me here.
    6. Revenge of the Sith: NOOOO!!! What a disappointment! This is the movie that needed to make up for the lameness of the previous two entries, and to say that it failed to do its job is the understatement of the day. The whole prequel trilogy crashes and burns before our eyes. Thank goodness they’ll never make the sequels, right…?
    7. Force Awakens: an attractively-packaged handful of fan service thrown up against the wall to see what sticks. I fell asleep on my second viewing. This one sucks the big one.
    8. Last Jedi: what? Now what?? What is this??? Ah, never mind. Jeez.
    9. Rise of Skywalker: NOOOOOOO!!!!! Talk about not sticking the landing. This one and the previous one seem to be just making stuff up as they go along. A highly disappointing ending to a sad, sad story.


    I liked Rogue One and Solo better than anything since the Original Trilogy. At least they were watchable and entertaining.

    Not sure about your ESB points. Why reintroduce a cast about the whole world already knew and was eager to see by then? No beginning or ending, not so sure about that. It plunges right in and explains what happened in the interim in the title crawl. As far as the ending goes, it sets the stage so much better, making you so eager for what comes next, although what they come up with kind of makes it disappointing in retrospect.

    I don't know about not having enough about the force. Seems pretty workable for me. What didn't you like about the Han and Leia banter, it was a highlight? Jedi neutered it all in comparison. There was no edge, they just turned into a lame teenage lovestruck couple.
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156


    BT3366 wrote: »
    As an old-school Star Wars fan who has seen them all on the big screen since 1977, the correct ranking in regards to quality is simply the order of release, because each film has been a disappointment when compared to its predecessor.

    1. Star Wars (IV A New Hope): just about the perfect film!
    2. Empire Strikes Back: pretty good, but points off for having no beginning and no ending, for not reintroducing the cast and for never explaining something called “the force.” Also, the witty banter between Han and Leia was anything but.
    3. Return of the Jedi: awesome special effects, but basically a rehash of the original. Could have been much better. Hated the Ewoks. Han was wasted.

    Not sure about your ESB points. Why reintroduce a cast about the whole world already knew and was eager to see by then? No beginning or ending, not so sure about that. It plunges right in and explains what happened in the interim in the title crawl. As far as the ending goes, it sets the stage so much better, making you so eager for what comes next, although what they come up with kind of makes it disappointing in retrospect.

    I don't know about not having enough about the force. Seems pretty workable for me. What didn't you like about the Han and Leia banter, it was a highlight? Jedi neutered it all in comparison. There was no edge, they just turned into a lame teenage lovestruck couple.

    Sure, I get it: in 1980, literally everyone knew these characters--so why bother to set up the story? Why not take advantage of this familiarity to blast off fast? This is a legitimate storytelling decision. It's just not the decision I would have made; I would have gone with the more traditional approach of giving each character some kind of intro to remind everyone (and to inform newcomers to the series) of who is who and what is what (especially this mysterious Force--if you missed the original, you missed the explanation about how it surrounds us and penetrates us and binds us together, etc). For this reason, and for the lack of a definitive conclusion (admittedly, the cliffhanger ending is by design), ESB has never felt like a complete film to me.

    And the childish repartee between our two romantic leads is embarrassing. "Laser brain"? "Nerf herder"?? Yikes. They make Indiana Jones and Willie Scott bickering in Pankot Palace look like Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn! YMMV, but that's my Controversial Opinion.
  • Terminator Genisys>Terminator

    T2 is good but a bit overrated. By comparison, I’d say the three I rank above it are all somewhat underrated among Terminator fans. Especially Genisys.

    The Terminator > The Sarah Connor Chronicles > Terminator Genisys > T2
  • Posts: 526
    I think it should have been Clint Eastwood instead of Sean Connery in "The Rock" because Clint Eastwood had already escaped from Alcatraz in another movie.
    I think it should have been Clint Eastwood instead of Sean Connery in "The Rock" because Clint Eastwood had already escaped from Alcatraz in another movie.

    Nice call! I agree. Yes, ‘Escape From Alcatraz.” Nice tie in.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 15,803
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2021 Posts: 17,691
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.

    I have both. The 'Director's Cut' was not actually Donner's work. Studio cashing in, and yeah, the theatrical was definitely better.
    The greatest superhero movie ever made wasn't even based on a comic.

    Robocop
    Even more controversial: Robocop 3 was a way better movie than Robocop 2. Yep, I said that.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.

    The only scene from the "Director's Cut" that I feel is an absolute must-have is the scene in the playground where Riggs takes on the shooter in the window. It's a great scene.

    The rest....I can live without.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 15,803
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.

    The only scene from the "Director's Cut" that I feel is an absolute must-have is the scene in the playground where Riggs takes on the shooter in the window. It's a great scene.

    The rest....I can live without.

    I'll have to get the theatrical version and compare. Either way, I really love this movie.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.

    I have both. The 'Director's Cut' was not actually Donner's work. Studio cashing in, and yeah, the theatrical was definitely better.
    The greatest superhero movie ever made wasn't even based on a comic.

    Robocop
    Even more controversial: Robocop 3 was a way better movie than Robocop 2. Yep, I said that.

    I liked Robocop 3 as well. Saw it twice in the theatre in fact.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.

    The only scene from the "Director's Cut" that I feel is an absolute must-have is the scene in the playground where Riggs takes on the shooter in the window. It's a great scene.

    The rest....I can live without.

    Yeah, it's a nice scene, but kind of redundant to the scene where he asks everyone to 'shoot this prick' holding a gun to his head. And that scene was more powerful IMHO. Donner took that scene out for a reason.
  • Posts: 1,639
    Id like to see late 80s Narnia series again
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 14,822
    chrisisall wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.

    I have both. The 'Director's Cut' was not actually Donner's work. Studio cashing in, and yeah, the theatrical was definitely better.
    The greatest superhero movie ever made wasn't even based on a comic.

    Robocop
    Even more controversial: Robocop 3 was a way better movie than Robocop 2. Yep, I said that.

    Better or you enjoyed it more? These are two different things. My controversial opinion: the whole Robocop franchise is not that great. I always found Robocop himself to be a rather slow and clunky sentient superweapon.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Zack Snyders Justice League is better than all the Avengers movies combined.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,414
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Zack Snyders Justice League is better than all the Avengers movies combined.

    I would say it's better than the first two Avengers movies.
    However, Infinity War and Endgame are amongst my favorite superhero movies ever.
  • Posts: 631
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.

    Theatrical cuts are often much maligned. I haven’t seen the Lethal Weapon director’s cut so cannot comment, but I much prefer the tight theatrical cut of Apocalypse Now to the massively bloated later version, although that’s not particularly controversial.

    My controversial opinion is that I prefer the theatrical cut of Blade Runner to the countless later versions. I think the ending actually works better with the ride-into-the-sunset Shining outtakes than it does just stopping dead near a lift shaft. And I am ok with the voiceover too, I don’t love it but am ok with it. I’ve seen the film so often that I mentally fill in the voiceover anyway if I’m watching a non-voiceover version
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,109
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Zack Snyders Justice League is better than all the Avengers movies combined.

    I would say it's better than the first two Avengers movies.
    However, Infinity War and Endgame are amongst my favorite superhero movies ever.

    I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s really hard to get into the MCU these days. Avengers: Endgame felt like a true conclusion. Now it’s requiring that everyone watch everything that it makes when the characters are hard too like because they’re quipping jokes and the villains are cliches and little b**tches at heart.
  • Posts: 14,822
    Here's one: I think GE is not much lighter, if at all, than LTK. What it has more than the former is exoticism and glamour.
  • Posts: 6,812
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not 100% set in stone on this controversial opinion, but..................

    I think I prefer the theatrical release to the director's cut of Richard Donner's
    LETHAL WEAPON (1987).

    I feel the pace flowed better. However, I only have the director's cut on DVD so at the moment I don't have a way to compare.

    Theatrical cuts are often much maligned. I haven’t seen the Lethal Weapon director’s cut so cannot comment, but I much prefer the tight theatrical cut of Apocalypse Now to the massively bloated later version, although that’s not particularly controversial.

    My controversial opinion is that I prefer the theatrical cut of Blade Runner to the countless later versions. I think the ending actually works better with the ride-into-the-sunset Shining outtakes than it does just stopping dead near a lift shaft. And I am ok with the voiceover too, I don’t love it but am ok with it. I’ve seen the film so often that I mentally fill in the voiceover anyway if I’m watching a non-voiceover version

    I saw Blade Runner when it was originally released! It was stunning on the big screen, but I HATED that voiceover. Apparently Ford didnt want to do it, and it shows in his flat delivery!
    The ending was even more stupid. As director Terry Gilliam pointed out, why would people live in that horrible dark, over crowded city, when there was this wonderful countryside only a flying car trip away??
    For me, the Directors cut is the best version and the sudden closing of the lift doors seguing into Vangelis fabulous theme was the proper ending!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    My controversial opinion is that I prefer the theatrical cut of Blade Runner to the countless later versions. I think the ending actually works better with the ride-into-the-sunset Shining outtakes than it does just stopping dead near a lift shaft. And I am ok with the voiceover too, I don’t love it but am ok with it. I’ve seen the film so often that I mentally fill in the voiceover anyway if I’m watching a non-voiceover version
    Am I the Brudder you got? Because, man, this makes me so happy that I'm not the only one!!!
    I've owned every version down through the years, gave each one attention, but I keep coming back to the one I saw 15 times in the theatre back in 1982 (I saw a test screening in very early '82 that ended up being the theatrical version). Ford's uninterested & flat delivery of the voice-over was perfect for the character. He thought he was sabotaging it, but he ended up doing it better than if had put any effort into it, LOL. But I'm a big fan of the 1982 international theatrical release though- more violent, and thus more uncomfortable at a couple of points....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,541
    chrisisall wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that I prefer the theatrical cut of Blade Runner to the countless later versions. I think the ending actually works better with the ride-into-the-sunset Shining outtakes than it does just stopping dead near a lift shaft. And I am ok with the voiceover too, I don’t love it but am ok with it. I’ve seen the film so often that I mentally fill in the voiceover anyway if I’m watching a non-voiceover version
    Am I the Brudder you got? Because, man, this makes me so happy that I'm not the only one!!!
    I've owned every version down through the years, gave each one attention, but I keep coming back to the one I saw 15 times in the theatre back in 1982 (I saw a test screening in very early '82 that ended up being the theatrical version). Ford's uninterested & flat delivery of the voice-over was perfect for the character. He thought he was sabotaging it, but he ended up doing it better than if had put any effort into it, LOL. But I'm a big fan of the 1982 international theatrical release though- more violent, and thus more uncomfortable at a couple of points....

    I have no problems with the voiceover except when Roy "shuts down". Only silence can follow that amazing monologue. Ford's voice ruins that moment completely.
Sign In or Register to comment.