Attack-Free Unpopular Opinion Thread

[Neclord]

Die Another Day is the second best Brosnan Bond outing.

[Dukefrukem]

Die Another Day is the second best Brosnan Bond outing.

[megladon8]

Boiler Room > The Wolf of Wall Street

[Milky Joe]

^ Ahahahahahaha. That is some hilarious MST3K worthy nonsense. Brosnan's acting throughout the entire sequence is somewhere between 'slight indigestion' and 'have to take a bad shit'.

[Dukefrukem]

That was my way of saying "hell no". Tomorrow Never Dies is the 2nd best Bronson Bond because a)Wai Lin b) this bike chance and c) they literally drop through the roof of two people having sex before Bond casually drops a "pop the clutch" line.

[kuehnepips]

Venom is great

[Philip J. Fry]

After watching the Patrick Willems video about music biopics, it came back to my mind that if there could be someone who could be the subject a pretty kickass biopic, it'd be The Gun Club's Jeffrey Lee Pierce. He wrote some great music and innovated the field (specially creating the groundwork for Cowpunk and Alt Country), but unlike many musicians Willems mentions like Ray Charles, Freddie Mercury or Johnny Cash, he didn't have the money, fame or mainstream success they had to offset/redeem his antics (and boy, did he had those) which would already subvert a good chunk of biopics: this wouldn't be a story of success, this could be the hard hitting tragedy of a man who lived hard, made quality music... and drove away multiple friends, lovers and bandmates just to end up with cirrhosis, AIDS and an untimely death, kind of like a compressed season arc of BoJack Horseman. And even some of the music reflects that, beginning with a no holds barren, fast-paced attack in Fire of Love and finishing with the introspective, sad and angry Lucky Jim.

[Philip J. Fry]

Anyway, if you could make a music biopic, who would you do and how would you approach it?

[Neclord]

Granted I came up with that opinion after watching the Brosnan movies in quick succession, but I can't say I was bored while watching Die Another Day *ahemworldisnotenoughcough*

[baby doll]

Anyway, if you could make a music biopic, who would you do and how would you approach it?

I have no ideas myself but I doubt anything can top The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach.

[Philip J. Fry]

I have no ideas myself but I doubt anything can top The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach.

Never seen it, I'll look it up.

[Philip J. Fry]

The only thing I remember about The World is Not Enough is the cool Garbage music video.

[Mysterious Dude]

Never seen it, I'll look it up.

Then we can resume our discussion on slow cinema, and the value of movies that look and sound like shit.

[Morris Schæffer]

You forget to mention the one thing that hurts RAIDERs and most people seem to ignore...

[

Show Spoiler

The Nazis would have been defeated without Indy's involvement anyway- deus ex machina to the literal sense

]

People are ignoring this because it's bullshit buddy. I wonder how many folks genuinely feel this hurts the movie or are just blurting this out in an attempt to achieve faux superiority in a "haha I noticed this and you didn't therefore I'm smarter" kinda way?

Every scene is great in this movie and it maintains its intensity all the way until the end. But worst of all, your, well, attack, seems to imply "deus ex machinas" are inherently wrong. That's rubbish Dukey boy, because Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't cheat, doesn't betray everything they've built up before the opening of the ark. Its dark powers are in fact suggested very early in the movie, a theme which reoccurs at several intervals, no less by the sinister humming sound which makes even the rats scurry away.

You might have had more of a point if the movie went out of its way to suggest the contents of the ark were skittles, oreo cookies and rainbows, only for the finale to bring entirely unexpected pandemonium.

No, Raiders of the Lost ark is a good example of Deus Ex Machina. Your opinion is objectively wrong.

[Skitch]

IMO what hurts Raiders is the silly ending. How the hell did he know that keeping eyes closed would save them? WHY does it save them? Very weird and convenient.

[Dukefrukem]

People are ignoring this because it's bullshit buddy. I wonder how many folks genuinely feel this hurts the movie or are just blurting this out in an attempt to achieve faux superiority in a "haha I noticed this and you didn't therefore I'm smarter" kinda way?

Every scene is great in this movie and it maintains its intensity all the way until the end. But worst of all, your, well, attack, seems to imply "deus ex machinas" are inherently wrong. That's rubbish Dukey boy, because Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't cheat, doesn't betray everything they've built up before the opening of the ark. Its dark powers are in fact suggested very early in the movie, a theme which reoccurs at several intervals, no less by the sinister humming sound which makes even the rats scurry away.

You might have had more of a point if the movie went out of its way to suggest the contents of the ark were skittles, oreo cookies and rainbows, only for the finale to bring entirely unexpected pandemonium.

No, Raiders of the Lost ark is a good example of Deus Ex Machina. Your opinion is objectively wrong.

I'd respond with a serious retort, but your post is so condescending it hurts you and transcends me.

[Irish]

IMO what hurts Raiders is the silly ending.

At first glance, I thought you were talking about the MC poster, not the movie. Very confused there for a sec.

I'd respond with a serious retort, but your post is so condescending it hurts you and transcends me.

Did you really just respond with a fancier version of "I'm rubber and you're glue ..." ?

[baby doll]

Every scene is great in this movie and it maintains its intensity all the way until the end.

That's called monotony.

[Grouchy]

That's called monotony.

Nope, that's not what that's called. Try crescendo.

[baby doll]

Nope, that's not what that's called. Try crescendo.

Admittedly my memories of the film are a bit hazy, not having seen it since 2004, but my impression of the film is that it consists of one spectacular action sequence after another, all of them extremely well executed but yielding progressively diminishing returns over two hours.

[PURPLE]

Nope, that's not what that's called. Try crescendo.

That's definitely not what crescendo means.

[Irish]

Admittedly my memories of the film are a bit hazy, not having seen it since 2004, but my impression of the film is that it consists of one spectacular action sequence after another, all of them extremely well executed but yielding progressively diminishing returns over two hours.

*cough cough*

[

Show Spoiler

But Spielberg’s technique may be too much for the genre: the opening sequence, set in South America, with Indy Jones entering a forbidden temple and fending off traps, snares, poisoned darts, tarantulas, stone doors with metal teeth, and the biggest damn boulder you’ve ever seen, is so thrill-packed you don’t have time to breathe—or to enjoy yourself much, either. It’s an encyclopedia of high spots from the old serials, run through at top speed and edited like a great trailer—for flash. It’s like a hit number in a musical which is so terrific you don’t want the show to go on—you just want to see that number again. When the action moves to Indy back home lecturing to an archeology class, you know that Spielberg, having gone sky-high at the start, must have at least seventeen other climaxes to come, and that the movie isn’t going to be an adventure but a competition—Spielberg versus Spielberg.

[...]

Kinesthetically, the film gets to you. It gets your heart thumping. But there’s no exhilaration in this dumb, motor excitement. The best of the satirical pulp-adventure movies—the 1939 “Gunga Din” (with a plot lifted from “The Front Page”)—was carefree: there was fresh air between the thrills and the gags, there was time for digressions and for the pleasure of seeing actors you knew horsing around. The picture made you feel good, as if you were singing along with it. In the past, Spielberg has demonstrated a talent for just that kind of elating silliness, and he has a lot of it going here, especially with Harrison Ford, who does mammoth double takes, recoiling in disbelief. But “Raiders” is so professional and so anxious to keep moving that it steps on its own jokes. You can almost feel Lucas and Spielberg whipping the editor to clip things sharper—to move ahead. (I say the two, rather than just Spielberg, because this picture gets dangerously close to cancelling itself out, in a way that recalls “More American Graffiti,” which Lucas also produced.) The effect of the obsessive pace is that the picture seems locked in. Our eyes never have a second just to linger on a face or on an image of planes coming out of the clouds. The frames fit into each other, dovetailing so tight that sometimes it seems as if the sheer technology had taken over. It’s all smart zap—a moviemaker’s self-reflexive feat.

]

[Grouchy]

That's definitely not what crescendo means.

What? Crescendo is a term for a particular type of musical composition. I'm just making the association with film.

[PURPLE]

What? Crescendo is a term for a particular type of musical composition. I'm just making the association with film.

"maintains its intensity all the way until the end" describes something that is consistent and not changing. A crescendo starts less intense and peaks at the crescendo - it's not consistent. In film we might call it a "climax". In sex we might call it a "climax". During sex, you can't climax the whole time, otherwise it's not a climax. This is the same with a crescendo - you can't "maintain a crescendo all the way until the end" - it's not a crescendo.

[MadMan]

Die Another Day is the second best Brosnan Bond outing.

No. World's Not Enough is.