Attack-Free Unpopular Opinion Thread

[Irish]

Also, I kinda want Ezee to defend "Temple of Doom," just to see if his opinion and mine line up a little bit.

I think I can guess why he likes it, but I wanna hear him talk about it.

[Skitch]

which ones haven't you seen?

Havent seen: Wild At Heart, own but havent watched yet: Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Fire Walk With Me.

[Skitch]

I wouldn't argue that Indy opinion either. It may be favorite as well. At any rate, Last Crusade > Raiders, which makes it top two.

I wouldn't argue about Hugo either. Not because I agree about Wats' conclusions on Scorcese (exception woman hating, agree), Hugo is so so damn good.

[PURPLE]

Anyone who says they cannot give a new film full marks, but will give a film from 50 years ago that they just watched full marks, makes me want to cut myself. Actually, them, but that's illegal.

[transmogrifier]

Anyone who says they cannot give a new film full marks, but will give a film from 50 years ago that they just watched full marks, makes me want to cut myself. Actually, them, but that's illegal.

I very, very, very rarely give any film "full marks" (well, for me that would be 100/100, which is basically impossible, so think 90+, 5/5, or A+) on first watch because I'm of the opinion that rewatchability is an important component of a great film - the film should still work once all the narrative surprises are known. So it probably means I underrate a lot of films first time through, but so be it.

[Dukefrukem]

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the best Indy movie.

SECONDED!

[Dukefrukem]

I very, very, very rarely give any film "full marks" (well, for me that would be 100/100, which is basically impossible, so think 90+, 5/5, or A+) on first watch because I'm of the opinion that rewatchability is an important component of a great film - the film should still work once all the narrative surprises are known. So it probably means I underrate a lot of films first time through, but so be it.

I used to think like this too, kind of like when you're rating Pizza Places. You never want to give a place a 10/10 because what if the next place you eat is better than the 10/10 place?

But life is just less fun when you're thinking this way. Therefor, Inception 10/10, A+, 100/100, ★★★★★

[transmogrifier]

Slow cinema is, for the most part, a real fucking chore to sit through. And the rewards aren't worth it.

[Dukefrukem]

Slow cinema is, for the most part, a real fucking chore to sit through. And the rewards aren't worth it.

Hell yeh. Fuck Nicolas Winding Refn.

[StanleyK]

I don't care if Scorsese hates women or his movies are misogynistic as long as they're good, and his gangster movies are among his best.

[Lazlo]

I don't care if Scorsese hates women or his movies are misogynistic as long as they're good, and his gangster movies are among his best.

I guess the question would be whether the misogyny makes them not good. Seems like you may not factor that in; others may feel differently.

[Spinal]

Rustlers' Rhapsody is funnier than Blazing Saddles.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I liked Dr. Strangelove but didn't laugh once.

[Scar]

Titus is one of the best TV comedies ever made (and way ahead of it's time) and is an enormous shame it's been almost forgotten.

Met him while he was touring a couple years back. Have always been a fan.

[PURPLE]

I very, very, very rarely give any film "full marks" (well, for me that would be 100/100, which is basically impossible, so think 90+, 5/5, or A+) on first watch because I'm of the opinion that rewatchability is an important component of a great film - the film should still work once all the narrative surprises are known. So it probably means I underrate a lot of films first time through, but so be it.

I don't have an issue with that - you can make your own criteria as you see fit. There's no criteria that makes sense to treat films like wine, though. They're just moving pictures and sound, all of them. The idea that watching a film made today is any different from watching a film made in 1960 is silly, though. When they watched the film in 1960 they called it "today", and it was the exact same as the one you saw in the day you call "today".

[PURPLE]

Slow cinema is, for the most part, a real fucking chore to sit through. And the rewards aren't worth it.

I agree with this - with the exception that I love slow cinema. It's just that cinema, for the most part, is a real fucking chore to sit through.

[PURPLE]

Hell yeh. Fuck Nicolas Winding Refn.

He's not slow cinema at all, though. Here's a list, some of which are really not that "slow":

https://theartsofslowcinema.com/a-to-z/

[Dukefrukem]

He's not slow cinema at all, though. Here's a list, some of which are really not that "slow":

https://theartsofslowcinema.com/a-to-z/

That was more of a tongue and cheek jab at him.

[Spinal]

He's not slow cinema at all, though. Here's a list, some of which are really not that "slow":

https://theartsofslowcinema.com/a-to-z/

Andrei Rublev **1/2
Battle in Heaven *
Mirror **
Russian Ark **
The Red and the White ***1/2
The Sacrifice **
The Turin Horse **
The Wayward Cloud ***
Uncle Boonmee who can recall his past lives **1/2

Yeah, I don't like it much either.

[baby doll]

"Slow cinema" is a stupid label, since it implies that (a) slowness in itself is a virtue, (b) "slow" films are stylistically homogenous, and (c) there's an objective, transhistorical standard of slowness. (As Bordwell points out in his book on Dreyer, Day of Wrath looked a lot more extreme in the 1940s than it does today.)

Also, I'm not sure how Jancsó even remotely qualifies as "slow cinema"; he liked long takes in the 1960s and 1970s, before it became "too easy" to do that sort of thing, but his shots are so dense with activity that the perceptual challenge they present spectators is not the lack of stimulus but an overabundance of it.

[Spinal]

Also, I'm not sure how Jancsó even remotely qualifies as "slow cinema"; he liked long takes in the 1960s and 1970s, before it became "too easy" to do that sort of thing, but his shots are so dense with activity that the perceptual challenge they present spectators is not the lack of stimulus but an overabundance of it.

I've only seen two of his movies, but I was surprised to see him on that list. The Red and the White has very long takes, but I wouldn't call it slow.

[StanleyK]

I guess the question would be whether the misogyny makes them not good. Seems like you may not factor that in; others may feel differently.

No doubt, the question for me is whether or not that's an unpopular opinion. I'm guessing not too much at large, but maybe more so around here.

[Philip J. Fry]

Met him while he was touring a couple years back. Have always been a fan.

His stand-up is really good.

[Skitch]

I very, very, very rarely give any film "full marks" (well, for me that would be 100/100, which is basically impossible, so think 90+, 5/5, or A+) on first watch because I'm of the opinion that rewatchability is an important component of a great film - the film should still work once all the narrative surprises are known. So it probably means I underrate a lot of films first time through, but so be it.

THIS.

[PURPLE]

That was more of a tongue and cheek jab at him.

But is that an unpopular opinion!?!?!