› ›

Controversial opinions about other movies

1…5253545557

Comments

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited February 2023 Posts: 6,786
    Speaking of Sergio Leone, my favourite of the Dollar trilogy is actually A Fistful of Dollars, though I prefer Once Upon a Time in the West to all the Dollar films. For my money, that one is the best western ever.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,813
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Speaking of Sergio Leone, my favourite of the Dollar trilogy is actually A Fistful of Dollars, though I prefer Once Upon a Time in the West to all the Dollar films. For my money, that one is the best western ever.

    Agreed about 'Once Upon a Time in the West'
    Marvellous film.
    I used to love 'A Fistful of Dollars' , but a recent viewing, I found it a bit on the dull side! I think 'For a Few Dollars More' is better!
    Actually I think ' A Fistful of Dynamite' gets overlooked in all this. Always find that entertaining!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Controversial opinon:

    LAST MAN STANDING , starring Bruce Willis is by far the BEST version of YOJIMBO, even out YOJIMBOing A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS.

    Haha!

    Just wanted to revive this thread and cause a few waves.............................

    Actually I'm only about 25 minutes into this remake, and I actually kind of like it. I get why this bombed and has a poor reception, though.
    I am enjoying the prohibition era setting.
    Besides, it's got Spider from GOODFELLAS!

    I disagree about LMS, however I do consider it underrated. The first review I read about it said western and hardboiled crime fiction don't mix, which is both patently false and unfair to the film.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,688
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Speaking of Sergio Leone ... I prefer Once Upon a Time in the West to all the Dollar films. For my money, that one is the best western ever.

    + 1
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    I think I said it before, but Terminator did not need a sequel.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,544
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think I said it before, but Terminator did not need a sequel.

    It didn't need it, but boy am I happy with the result! T2 long held the status of most impressive action film of the '90s for me.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,688
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think I said it before, but Terminator did not need a sequel.
    Hardly any great movie "needs" a sequel. But it tends to come up when the original is successful. And, say, both Terminator 2 and Aliens (= Alien 2) weren't bad, although I'm definitely not a fan of James Cameron. Most other sequels were at least somewhat inferior to the original.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 1,517
    Having recently seen The Banshees of Inisherin, I can't label it as a masterpiece as some have. It is very entertaining and well-acted. I liked it immensely. But a masterpiece? What is the bar for a masterpiece these days? Is it a film I will want to revisit from time to time? Unlikely. Possibly I might see it again, but will I discover more than I already have? We might discuss the social context of its allusion and metaphors, but will the filmmaking itself rise to the level of masterpiece?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Having recently seen The Banshees of Inisherin, I can't label it as a masterpiece as some have. It is very entertaining and well-acted. I liked it immensely. But a masterpiece? What is the bar for a masterpiece these days? Is it a film I will want to revisit from time to time? Unlikely. Possibly I might see it again, but will I discover more than I already have? We might discuss the social context of its allusion and metaphors, but will the filmmaking itself rise to the level of masterpiece?

    No. I don't think so. It's a film I appreciated more than I loved. And I think you have to have a balance of both of those emotions in order to even enter the "masterpiece" discussion.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think I said it before, but Terminator did not need a sequel.

    It didn't need it, but boy am I happy with the result! T2 long held the status of most impressive action film of the '90s for me.
    Technically it was great and Cameron pulled a miracle by creating an antagonist more menacing than Arnie with a daring casting choice, but I always thought we lost something in the sequel. The first movie is a dark horror/sci-fi thriller exploiting brilliantly the fears of the time. The second is an sci-fi action film. It takes away a lot of the soul of the first.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,111
    https://collider.com/damian-wayne-dick-grayson-batman-robin/

    I agree with this. Bruce Wayne needs a break.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,544
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    https://collider.com/damian-wayne-dick-grayson-batman-robin/

    I agree with this. Bruce Wayne needs a break.

    I couldn't disagree more.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,267
    Meanwhile, my apprehension always goes up way higher whenever Robin or any other sidekicks are rumored to be in a Batman project X) I like Robin in a lot of things, but my preference tends to be Batman / Bruce Wayne alone.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Meanwhile, my apprehension always goes up way higher whenever Robin or any other sidekicks are rumored to be in a Batman project X) I like Robin in a lot of things, but my preference tends to be Batman / Bruce Wayne alone.
    Same here.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    I've read First Blood and I think the movie adaptation is rather weak and sugar coated in comparison. A faithful adaptation done as a tragedy with calls back to the Frankenstein myth could win Oscars.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited February 2023 Posts: 4,111
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Meanwhile, my apprehension always goes up way higher whenever Robin or any other sidekicks are rumored to be in a Batman project X) I like Robin in a lot of things, but my preference tends to be Batman / Bruce Wayne alone.

    I think it would be nice to have Bruce/Batman talk and relationships with others, more positively than what Zack and company did. The best way to start a new Batman is to give him someone who can work up close with him and help both of them grow as characters. No Batman & Robin style whining, or Batman v Superman straight to fighting. Find a unique way. If WB and DC are planning on hyping up Batman’s 85th anniversary next year, we might have a new Batman and Robin by the end of the year. We’ll probably get a new Talia with this story. She does deserve a new story, with a more fleshed out role. Other villains (other than The Joker) will probably be a surprise.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2023 Posts: 8,025
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I've read First Blood and I think the movie adaptation is rather weak and sugar coated in comparison. A faithful adaptation done as a tragedy with calls back to the Frankenstein myth could win Oscars.

    Funny thing is I think Stallone could have pulled that off if he didn’t have aspirations of making it into a series of films. He already had ROCKY as a sure fire series, so I dunno why he thought he needed another film series in his pocket.

    I guess that all built up to 1985 delivering his most overt American movies with Rocky defeating a Russian in the ring, and then Rambo killing both hundreds of Viet Cong and Russians at the same time.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think I said it before, but Terminator did not need a sequel.

    It didn't need it, but boy am I happy with the result! T2 long held the status of most impressive action film of the '90s for me.
    Technically it was great and Cameron pulled a miracle by creating an antagonist more menacing than Arnie with a daring casting choice, but I always thought we lost something in the sequel. The first movie is a dark horror/sci-fi thriller exploiting brilliantly the fears of the time. The second is an sci-fi action film. It takes away a lot of the soul of the first.

    Each film excels in their differing styles, just like the first Alien film and its sequel, Aliens. Those two films are outstanding and it's up to each individual viewer to decide which they prefer. It's the same with The Terminator and T2. Me, I love Aliens and T2 more than the first films respectively, because they build upon the strong foundation of the first ones. They flesh out the world. I don't ever feel that the soul of it was lost from the first ones, quite the opposite.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I think the first two Terminator films compliment each other very well. The first film works as a horror/thriller because it’s about the inevitability of Judgement Day that Sarah is coming to grips with, whereas the second is about taking control of your fate. It’s somewhat more optimistic and that fits with the more action blockbuster oriented vibe.

    In an ideal world, the films would have stopped at 2. We did not need anything that came after.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,544
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I think the first two Terminator films compliment each other very well. The first film works as a horror/thriller because it’s about the inevitability of Judgement Day that Sarah is coming to grips with, whereas the second is about taking control of your fate. It’s somewhat more optimistic and that fits with the more action blockbuster oriented vibe.

    In an ideal world, the films would have stopped at 2. We did not need anything that came after.

    Completely agreed. Although I love the Sarah Connor Chronicles.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I've read First Blood and I think the movie adaptation is rather weak and sugar coated in comparison. A faithful adaptation done as a tragedy with calls back to the Frankenstein myth could win Oscars.

    Funny thing is I think Stallone could have pulled that off if he didn’t have aspirations of making it into a series of films. He already had ROCKY as a sure fire series, so I dunno why he thought he needed another film series in his pocket.

    I guess that all built up to 1985 delivering his most overt American movies with Rocky defeating a Russian in the ring, and then Rambo killing both hundreds of Viet Cong and Russians at the same time.
    The films are so jingoistic it becomes embarrassing. Even the first one is flawed, making Rambo and the general too heroic and the sheriff far too villainous. The novel is so much more. I read it and could not believe the missed opportunity.
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think I said it before, but Terminator did not need a sequel.

    It didn't need it, but boy am I happy with the result! T2 long held the status of most impressive action film of the '90s for me.
    Technically it was great and Cameron pulled a miracle by creating an antagonist more menacing than Arnie with a daring casting choice, but I always thought we lost something in the sequel. The first movie is a dark horror/sci-fi thriller exploiting brilliantly the fears of the time. The second is an sci-fi action film. It takes away a lot of the soul of the first.

    Each film excels in their differing styles, just like the first Alien film and its sequel, Aliens. Those two films are outstanding and it's up to each individual viewer to decide which they prefer. It's the same with The Terminator and T2. Me, I love Aliens and T2 more than the first films respectively, because they build upon the strong foundation of the first ones. They flesh out the world. I don't ever feel that the soul of it was lost from the first ones, quite the opposite.

    I still think the first Terminator needed no sequel. The ending was so perfect. Edward Furlong as John Connor annoys me to no end.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,544
    Ludovico wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I've read First Blood and I think the movie adaptation is rather weak and sugar coated in comparison. A faithful adaptation done as a tragedy with calls back to the Frankenstein myth could win Oscars.

    Funny thing is I think Stallone could have pulled that off if he didn’t have aspirations of making it into a series of films. He already had ROCKY as a sure fire series, so I dunno why he thought he needed another film series in his pocket.

    I guess that all built up to 1985 delivering his most overt American movies with Rocky defeating a Russian in the ring, and then Rambo killing both hundreds of Viet Cong and Russians at the same time.
    The films are so jingoistic it becomes embarrassing. Even the first one is flawed, making Rambo and the general too heroic and the sheriff far too villainous. The novel is so much more. I read it and could not believe the missed opportunity.
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think I said it before, but Terminator did not need a sequel.

    It didn't need it, but boy am I happy with the result! T2 long held the status of most impressive action film of the '90s for me.
    Technically it was great and Cameron pulled a miracle by creating an antagonist more menacing than Arnie with a daring casting choice, but I always thought we lost something in the sequel. The first movie is a dark horror/sci-fi thriller exploiting brilliantly the fears of the time. The second is an sci-fi action film. It takes away a lot of the soul of the first.

    Each film excels in their differing styles, just like the first Alien film and its sequel, Aliens. Those two films are outstanding and it's up to each individual viewer to decide which they prefer. It's the same with The Terminator and T2. Me, I love Aliens and T2 more than the first films respectively, because they build upon the strong foundation of the first ones. They flesh out the world. I don't ever feel that the soul of it was lost from the first ones, quite the opposite.

    I still think the first Terminator needed no sequel. The ending was so perfect. Edward Furlong as John Connor annoys me to no end.

    Furlong was cute in some scenes, and a little less in others (particularly when his voice broke, which, of course, is not the lad's fault.) Still, I like him ten times better than Nick Stahl and way more than the actor that looked like Christian Bale but wasn't Christian Bale (*), and also way more than Jason Clarke. I guess I like Thomas Dekker in the role though.

    (*) I think an older model cyborg pretended to be Bale, a usually very good actor but somehow not quite as good in Salvation.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,111
    https://variety.com/2023/film/news/disney-bob-iger-disney-streaming-espn-earnings-1235517437/

    Sad but true.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I think the first two Terminator films compliment each other very well. The first film works as a horror/thriller because it’s about the inevitability of Judgement Day that Sarah is coming to grips with, whereas the second is about taking control of your fate. It’s somewhat more optimistic and that fits with the more action blockbuster oriented vibe.

    In an ideal world, the films would have stopped at 2. We did not need anything that came after.
    I remember enjoying 3, but I'd have to watch it again to be sure. It's been a few years.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited February 2023 Posts: 3,985
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I've read First Blood and I think the movie adaptation is rather weak and sugar coated in comparison. A faithful adaptation done as a tragedy with calls back to the Frankenstein myth could win Oscars.

    I love em both! An incredibly powerful novel but an also bloody good film.

    I think Stallone is terrific in it. Great location work and that stupendous score from Jerry Goldsmith!

    Loved it on the big screen in 1982. An amazing year for top notch cinema.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,813
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I've read First Blood and I think the movie adaptation is rather weak and sugar coated in comparison. A faithful adaptation done as a tragedy with calls back to the Frankenstein myth could win Oscars.

    I love em both! An incredibly powerful novel but an also bloody good film.

    I think Stallone is terrific in it. Great location work and that stupendous score from Jerry Goldsmith!

    Loved it on the big screen in 1982. An amazing year for top notch cinema.

    I hear ye mate! 1982 was a great year for movies, 'Blade Runner' 'The Thing' 'Tron' among others. And I love 'First Blood' Great big screen experiences!
    Back then I was a regular cinema goer, cant remember the last time I went!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I've read First Blood and I think the movie adaptation is rather weak and sugar coated in comparison. A faithful adaptation done as a tragedy with calls back to the Frankenstein myth could win Oscars.

    I love em both! An incredibly powerful novel but an also bloody good film.

    I think Stallone is terrific in it. Great location work and that stupendous score from Jerry Goldsmith!

    Loved it on the big screen in 1982. An amazing year for top notch cinema.

    I still think a more faithful adaptation of the novel would be great.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,415
    I'm a sucker for the dumbest of Adam Sandler comedies. Now I do have standards. I won't stoop to That's My Boy or Jack and Jill level. But the Grown Ups films, Chuck and Larry, Zohan, Pixels and the earlier Happy Gilmore/Billy Madison films are things that I get laughs out of.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,111
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    I'm a sucker for the dumbest of Adam Sandler comedies. Now I do have standards. I won't stoop to That's My Boy or Jack and Jill level. But the Grown Ups films, Chuck and Larry, Zohan, Pixels and the earlier Happy Gilmore/Billy Madison films are things that I get laughs out of.

    I agree with some of your picks. Billy Madison and Anger Management are two of my favorites. I’m not a fan of when he works with director Dennis Dugan. That guy gives me the creeps. Watch the behind the scenes of his movies, and see how he treats kids, on screen and off.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I've read First Blood and I think the movie adaptation is rather weak and sugar coated in comparison. A faithful adaptation done as a tragedy with calls back to the Frankenstein myth could win Oscars.

    I love em both! An incredibly powerful novel but an also bloody good film.

    I think Stallone is terrific in it. Great location work and that stupendous score from Jerry Goldsmith!

    Loved it on the big screen in 1982. An amazing year for top notch cinema.

    I hear ye mate! 1982 was a great year for movies, 'Blade Runner' 'The Thing' 'Tron' among others. And I love 'First Blood' Great big screen experiences!
    Back then I was a regular cinema goer, cant remember the last time I went!

    Yep me too. I used to go at least once a week. The last time I went cinema was NTTD...
Sign In or Register to comment.