What is your unpopular flim opinion - eviltoast

I’ll go first. Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It’s like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds

  • idunnololz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This post is so confusing. Do I upvote opinions I strongly agree with or down vote them?!

    • Rejacked@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Upvote things that contribute to the post, downvote things that don’t. Has nothing to do with like/dislike, or agree/disagree.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      For these types of threads, I usually upvote things that are actually hot takes with some justification or unique insight. People that post an extremely popular decision or just insult something that a lot of people see value in get downvoted. Mostly it’s moderately common takes or unusual opinions with no elaboration, so I don’t vote on those.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is one of the things that killed the unpopular opinion subreddit, and made Reddit in general so annoying. The upvote/downvote is not an agree/disagree button, it’s for promoting valuable discussion and hiding the opposite

        • speck@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You upvote because you agree that it’s an unpopular opinion not because xou necessarily agree with the opinion

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interstellar is a terrible movie that doesn’t say or do anything special and I still don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s so amazing.

    I did really like the robot guy though.

    • Pyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Interstellar is one of my favourite movies, yet I can definitely say it’s not perfect. Hell, it’s got a few massive plot holes and the ending leaves a lot to be desired. Saying that, I still enjoyed it. I love the visuals, the BTS stuff is interesting, but most of all it made me feel. That’s what I value in media. Other people may value a coherent plot, historical accuracy, or a myriad of other things. We all like/dislike things for different reasons, and that’s okay.

      I also agree that TARS was very cool.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        We all like/dislike things for different reasons, and that’s okay

        Absolutely man. I gush about notorious flop Ninja Assassin elsewhere in this thread. We like what we like and I mean no disrespect.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dude I cannot understand the love that movie gets. Even the “scientifically accurate” go-to gets under my skin. I don’t know what it was going for, but it bristles my skin when I see discussion about how great it is.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          And the visuals at least. There’s a lot that’s very good about the movie, even if you don’t enjoy the premise and story.

      • hobovision@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think Interstellar has some of the best scenes in film, but it’s definitely not one of the best films overall. If you could somehow package the part about Matt Damon’s character into a 20 minute short film it would be fantastic.

    • ofk12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really need to add this.

      A friend of mine genuinely believes that it’s based on a true story.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Man that dude is living a wacky life of he thinks interstellar is real, and still goes to his job every day

    • teamevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought Oppenheimer was a mess of half fleshed out ideas and characters you were not invested in…very underwhelming. And I saw it at the proper IMAX.

    • justanotheruser4@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nolan is my favorite director. The Prestige and Memento are absolute genius movies, I cannot rewatch then enough times. Inception is great too. But Interstellar is so boring and pointless, I stopped it after 2 hours of nothing happening on the screen. It’s hard to believe all those movies were made by the same person

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a movie made for space nerds, and if you aren’t a space nerd I can understand not enjoying it. Part of what made it so amazing is just the black hole simulation, no one had ever rendered one that accurately with such high fidelity.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m a huge space nerd. I did also appreciate the visuals and realistic portrayal of time dilation, and should have noted that (though it may have diluted my opinion a bit?). I just didn’t like the actual movie itself.

      • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lmao, no it isn’t. At best, it’s made for people who are lightly into space/science and also lightly into cinema, so please don’t trot out the “you need a high IQ to enjoy this movie” stuff. If it were made for space nerds, two scientists selected for deep space flight wouldn’t need to stop and explain what E=MC² is to one another.

        That’s kind of always been Nolan’s schtick, though, and I guess it’s working out for him because he’s got the a huge, quite passionate fan base. I’ll never understand the hype and find his movies quite mid as cinema, but eh.

        • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There was a physics paper published based on the simulation of the black hole because of how accurate it was. The depth is there if you look for it.

          • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not quite right. They hired a theoretical physicist to provide them equations for simulating a black hole. Then, the SFX studio used their Nolan Movie Money to generate it extremely accurately to the extent that it helped spawn further research. It’s not that the studio happened to get it right from research. They were given all the pieces they needed and were able to do something these physicists had a hard time doing likely because they never had that kind of money/equipment: make an exceptional, high-fidelity, cinematic simulation.

            Link

  • DuckOverload@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Last year’s DnD movie is the best film of the last ten or so years. It succeeded on every level, except in the box office.

    My hypothesis is that Hasbro insisted on branding it “Dungeons & Dragons” to push the brand, and non-gamers figured it wasn’t for them. If they’d have made the main title “Honor among Thieves”, all the game nerds would have seen the DnD logo, and others wouldn’t have been turned off *. As it stands, people will find it and it’ll become the new “Starship Troopers” that bombed but shines forever in retrospect.

    * See “Arcane”.

  • DLSantini@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The original Star wars trilogy was overrated, the sequels were underrated, and I’d rate them all to be equally mediocre.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The original Blade Runner movie is not nearly as good as the sequel. The sequel highlights how lesser the original’s plot was. We overly praise the first one because of the Tear in the Rain Speech.

    • jmdatcs@lemmy.tf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wanted to downvote your stupid ass but op asked for unpopular opinions. So fuck you here’s an upvote.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks, to be clear I don’t dislike the original. It does a lot of stuff good, like world building. But 2049 is actually structured with acts and has a main character who develops throughout the film.

        • jmdatcs@lemmy.tf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I like them both a lot but the original is a classic I keep going back to. Maybe I’m just the right age for it.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s definitely a classic, it just seems like the parts with Ford in the middle of the film doesn’t really achieve much to me. I think a version of the film around Deckard chasing just Roy Batty (and not the others) might have been better. Hauer did fantastic work every time he was on screen he should have got more.

            But maybe it was an artistic choice to include Deckard hunting the other replicants as a commentary on meaningless violence.

    • Seven@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I loved the original, when I had only seen the TV cut which doesn’t include the protagonist committing rape. I’ve seen the full version all of once and that just broke it for me.

      I have the sequel on my to-watch list, but will be starting it off in a guarded manner.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mine is- the Marvel/DC superhero movies all but entirely ruined cinema.

  • eagleeyedtiger@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    I actually liked Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Both main actors were objectively terrible, but I still liked the movie 🤷‍♂️

    • eightpix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve given this a re-watch.

      The opening credits were great.

      The settings and costumes were good even if the actors weren’t. If you want to see Dane DeHaan in his element, see Chronicle. Cara Delevigne … um…

      Except Clive Owen. He’s a treasure. Any actor who can convincingly win a gunfight with a carrot has got the chops.

      The attack over planet Mül was objectively well done and the crash scene was impressive.

      It’s a good bit of fun in much the same way as The Fifth Element.

      • eagleeyedtiger@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah that’s a good take, it’s like a modern Fifth Element.

        I have seen Chronicle, but I probably need to rewatch it. Not sure if they just had bad direction or writing, but they seemed more like siblings instead of love interests.

          • eightpix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            YMMV.

            Without Chris Tucker, the Fifth Element would not be the same. There’s no Chris Tucker here. There’s no innocent/badass Milla Jovovich either. There’s Rihanna, but that scene was forced as well. The quick wit action hero is almost done well.

            Really, carrying the movie, there’s just two smart-ass surly 20-somethings that need to bone and get it over with. That trope is LONG dead.

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tarantino is overrated. You have to watch a lot of movies to come to this realisation, because otherwise you don’t realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies. Movies which did what he does better. That means that it doesn’t actually matter that Tarantino is overrated for most movie goers. More generally, this is why critics’ opinions don’t actually matter that much. They’ve watched too many movies and likely know too much about movies, to tell the average audience goer if they’ll enjoy a movie.

    Once you’ve watched a few thousand movies, and especially if you’ve ever studied film or read a few books about it, you’ll often find you enjoy interesting but shit movies more, than very well made but unoriginal movies. People who truly love film, invariably aren’t snobs. They enjoy absolute trash, they enjoy arty farty stuff. If someone has a related degree or even a doctorate or works in the industry, the likelihood is high that they’re also a fan of B-movies. They don’t need to pretend to be knowledgeable, because they are. A film snob will bore you with the details of a Tarkovski movie. A cinephile is more likely to bang on about 80s horror movies, lesbian vampire sexploitation movies, Albert Pyun’s Cyborg, or Troma’s The Toxic Avenger.

    • BeckonJM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      otherwise you don’t realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies.

      Isn’t that the definition of filmmaking? All movies are just collages of influences, style, and form. All art is a remix on previous forms.

      It’s okay to not like Tarantino, I don’t care much about that, but your argument doesn’t really hold up for me.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Almost all art is influenced by other art. But Tarantino very closely copies some scenes. Think a literal collage, made up of photocopied bits of another work, rather than a painting inspired or influenced by another work. Tarantino is honest about this.

        It’s a bit like Andy Warhol’s Mona Lisa:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Mona_Lisa

        Is that a great painting? I quite like it, it’s iconic, but it’s not the Mona Lisa, and Warhol is not Da Vinci.

        People who haven’t watched a lot of movies, think Tarantino is Da Vinci. That he created an iconic scene, like Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.

        People who have watched a lot of movies, realise he’s Warhol. There’s an iconic scene, but it’s based on an original work, like Warhol’s Mona Lisa.

        There’s nothing wrong with Warhol. Hell, it’s ok to think that Warhol is a better artist than Da Vinci, think that Warhol’s Mona Lisa is a better painting than the original Mona Lisa, art is subjective after all.

        But it’s a mistake to think Warhol is a genius, because he painted the Mona Lisa. He didn’t. That was Da Vinci. If you’re going think Warhol is a genius, you should think he’s a genius because he took an existing work and manipulated it in a way that is genius.

    • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure I get your point, but I agree with your premise. Tarantino has made some ok movies but more often than not I find them boring, with poor acting and absurdly uninteresting story lines.

    • fireweed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is how I’ve come to view anime. You can tell the age of an anime fan by whether they’re enamored by the latest hit series or they sigh and go “this is just a remake of [old series from the 90s/00s].” I don’t give a shit how well made a series is; if the premise is “been there done that” without an original take or twist, or a tired and worn trope gets trotted out (looking at you, every fucking series that includes a scene where a female character comments enviously on another female character’s large breasts, yes Frieren that means you), then I’m insta-jaded on the series. At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who “aged out.” For me, I knew it had gotten bad when I was struggling to enjoy Cyberpunk because I felt like I had heard all the voices before in previous series.

    • Quazatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I enjoy Tarantino movies. It all boils down to: are they solid fun entertainment or not, and to me the answer is yes.

      Someone else did it better elsewhere? Sure, and he is very forthcoming about his influences. So if you’re a fan, you’ll likely find his sources and enjoy those too. Win win.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Oh, wow. Old comment.

        The easiest route to learning about movies, is to watch a lot of movies, and reading about the movie you’ve just watched. Wikipedia, a more in depth review, interviews with people who made the movie (not just the actors).

        Google a top 100 list. Work your way through a few of them. Eg.

        https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time

        They also have cool features. For example, Michael Mann’s made a load of really cool action movies. Here’s a feature on his movies they made:

        https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/where-begin-with-michael-mann

        Or here’s famous critic Mark Kermode’s top 10 of horror movies:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdj_22hHRyM

        Yes, he has a PhD and is a member of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the UK equivalent of the Academy of Motion Pictures. No, he’s not a snob. Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s in the top 10. So are some older classics, which are still good.

        But if you want to read something, you could try:

        Bordwell and Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction.

        David A. Cook. A History of Narrative Cinema

        • legendarydromedary@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Wow, thank you so much for all the recommendations! I sometimes feel like I don’t know how to watch certain kinds of movies (e.g., older movies, or more artsy movies). I hope reading up a bit will help me appreciate them more

  • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interstellar is a bad movie. The story takes too long, the supposedly smart characters are acting obviously dumb, and the whole “we solved it all along because we figured out timetravel” trope is the most lazy way to wrap up a story.

    Oh and of course the small artifically built space colony near Jupiter does not care for fitting many humans, but instead is a shitty american suburb with lavish lawns. Because who needs to safe people from other cultures amirite?

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you mean? There are so many styles of animation, you mean like Pixar movies all look the same?

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pixar, DreamWorks, and Illumination are the largest studios that make animated movies these days and they all have such generic character designs now. Very soft, very round, large eyes, large mouths, and overall visually boring.

        And they often have the same cliche actions and expressions.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay, so not every movie, just some recent popular movies from the same year from two of the largest studios with personnel and historical ties, and I guess illumination is also 3d animation if a different character style.

          I understand the gripe, but that’s a very small section of animation.

        • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s weird to put illumination with the other two because while it’s technically a financially successful studio, everything they put out is borderline bootleg quality compared to the other two.

  • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Blade runner 2049 was a boring slideshow of backdrops with the “bwaaa” music overlaying it and occasionally plot happened. What plot is that? I don’t fucking remember.