Attack-Free Unpopular Opinion Thread

[Ezee E]

It's been a few years, but I think The Last Crusade is the best of the four because of the wide range of action sequences we see with beginning, middle, and ends. The use of boats in Venice, an old medieval castle, planes, a desert, sewers... There isn't a repeat sequence, something that I think has really hurt the Marvel and Fast & Furious movies. They all seem like the same sequence.

Add to that, I think Indiana really hits the mark from beginning to end, the Sean Connery character is the best of all the sidekicks in the movie, and I think the use of the supernatural at the end is far scarier and more interesting than what we see in Raiders.

I actually REALLY enjoy all of the first three, but Last Crusade is always the one I'll return to.

[Skitch]

Connery slays in that film and the desert scene fighting nazis is just pure amazing cinema.

[PURPLE]

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.

To be fair, I love many films that qualify as slow cinema, and I am not a fan of most of the slow films you listed (though I would not consider Andrei Rublev, Russian Ark, and The Red and the White to be slow). Basically, I'm not a fan of Joe either, lol. I prefer the term "Contemporary Contemplative Cinema" instead, anyway.

I don't recommend someone a CCC film if they don't like them already if they want something they're going to think is good. There are built-in preconceptions about how to interact with a film, what a film should present to the viewer, and what constitutes a good film that just don't make much sense when it comes to CCC. I find those aspects fascinating and liberating, especially because I find the American style of "central conflict theory" cinema to be most often manipulative and meaningless, diverting in the worst possible way. But CCC is certainly not going to fit the same "checkbox" as a "central conflict theory" type of film because typically the intent is to avoid conflict and avoid manipulation and free the viewer's mind to, well, contemplate. If you're not ready to not be constantly fed a stream of elements to pay attention to, then you're certainly not going to enjoy.

And then, of course, you're not going to enjoy some either way. Such is life.

[Milky Joe]

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

man you haven't even seen his three best movies. you should get on that ASAP. Wild at Heart is OK.

[Skitch]

man you haven't even seen his three best movies. you should get on that ASAP. Wild at Heart is OK.

I know! At least I blind bought them though, right?

It just occured to me all three are different formats: 1 VHS, 1 laserdisc, 1 dvd.

[Skitch]

Also...VHS is still a valid format.

And laserdisc is the only place to find legal unedited widescreen Star Wars. I know you may think that's not an unpopular opinion, but hot damn to people fight me about it.

[Irish]

Also...VHS is still a valid format.

Tangential pet peeve: People who fetishize aspect ratios, especially on different Blu-ray releases.

I watched hundreds of movies for the first time on shitty, pan-and-scan VHS. Many of them classics. I really don't care about the different between 1.77 and 1.85, or how the director originally envisioned the film.

Tangent to my tangent: Certain directors who get fussy about film over digital, or who are horrified when people watch movies on a phone. It's a new world, precious, and you no longer have complete control over your images and how they will be seen. Get used to it.

[Milky Joe]

Also...VHS is still a valid format.

one of the opinions I considered posting was that "some movies are best watched on VHS"

[Skitch]

one of the opinions I considered posting was that "some movies are best watched on VHS"

I stumbled across the original CBS fox vhs releases and nabbed em out of nostalgia. These were the versions I watched on TV and home video my entire childhood. Full screen, grainy, crap. Just for shits and giggles I popped it in. Watched entire trilogy. It was AWESOME.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's been a few years, but I think The Last Crusade is the best of the four because of the wide range of action sequences we see with beginning, middle, and ends. The use of boats in Venice, an old medieval castle, planes, a desert, sewers... There isn't a repeat sequence, something that I think has really hurt the Marvel and Fast & Furious movies. They all seem like the same sequence.

Add to that, I think Indiana really hits the mark from beginning to end, the Sean Connery character is the best of all the sidekicks in the movie, and I think the use of the supernatural at the end is far scarier and more interesting than what we see in Raiders.

I actually REALLY enjoy all of the first three, but Last Crusade is always the one I'll return to.

It's definitely the one with the most heart in it, although I could see some viewers chiding it for that sentimentality after the comparative ruthlessness of Raiders and Temple. I think all three are excellent and worthy of the title "best of." Raiders is the original, the trendsetter, probably the tightest of the three on a story and craft level, with the best villain. Temple of Doom is the best evocation of its inspirations, with all the outrageousness that implies, from its treatment of women to its Kipling-esque endorsement of colonialism - it's a more uncomfortable watch than its bookends, but maybe it should be, you know? Anyway, the opening and closing sequences are high points of the series.Last Crusade is the heart, where it's got the most memorable dialogue, the best sidekick (Ezee E is right on with this), and closes out the series with a surprising amount of honor.

I don't hate Crystal Skull, but it's not in the conversation.

[baby doll]

I prefer the term "Contemporary Contemplative Cinema" instead, anyway.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a less problematic label than "slow cinema."

[PURPLE]

I'm not sure that's necessarily a less problematic label than "slow cinema."

If I were explaining the style to someone interested, it's more descriptive of the philosophy underpinning the method. If I were explaining it to someone not interested I would call it "slow" and change the subject.

[baby doll]

If I were explaining the style to someone interested, it's more descriptive of the philosophy underpinning the method. If I were explaining it to someone not interested I would call it "slow" and change the subject.

Personally, I'm not convinced there's a coherent philosophy or method underpinning the work of all the directors listed on the site you provided a link to. If there were, we wouldn't need so many of them.

[MadMan]

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.

That show is hilarious.

I love Lost Highway. Best quasi horror movie remake of Detour, ever.

[MadMan]

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

I have seen all of those. I still need to see The Elephant Man, The Straight Story and Inland Empire. Dune sounds hilariously awful.

[MadMan]

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

Not even at the "You'll have to answer to the Coca Cola company" line? That part is pretty funny to me.

[MadMan]

I looked at that list and I realized I still don't get what the hell slow cinema even means.

Last Crusade is awesome and all, but Raiders is the best Indy outing imo. I liked Temple way more after a theater watch. Crystal is better than people think, but it's major problem is that it has a really silly third act. Aliens are lame compared to powerful, way more cool supernatural religious artifacts.

[MadMan]

As for giving out perfect ratings, do whatever. Love a movie, it's ok.

[Skitch]

I have seen all of those. I still need to see The Elephant Man, The Straight Story and Inland Empire. Dune sounds hilariously awful.

Dune is hilariously bonkers. Inland Empire would make a great david lynch short film, unfortunately it's around 137 hours too long full of
n o t h I n g.

[Dukefrukem]

It's been a few years, but I think The Last Crusade is the best of the four because of the wide range of action sequences we see with beginning, middle, and ends. The use of boats in Venice, an old medieval castle, planes, a desert, sewers... There isn't a repeat sequence, something that I think has really hurt the Marvel and Fast & Furious movies. They all seem like the same sequence.

Add to that, I think Indiana really hits the mark from beginning to end, the Sean Connery character is the best of all the sidekicks in the movie, and I think the use of the supernatural at the end is far scarier and more interesting than what we see in Raiders.

I actually REALLY enjoy all of the first three, but Last Crusade is always the one I'll return to.

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

]

[Dukefrukem]

Tangential pet peeve: People who fetishize aspect ratios, especially on different Blu-ray releases.

I watched hundreds of movies for the first time on shitty, pan-and-scan VHS. Many of them classics. I really don't care about the different between 1.77 and 1.85, or how the director originally envisioned the film.

Tangent to my tangent: Certain directors who get fussy about film over digital, or who are horrified when people watch movies on a phone. It's a new world, precious, and you no longer have complete control over your images and how they will be seen. Get used to it.

Oof. definitely Unpopular opinion to the MAX. Hard disagree. The pan and scan COMPLETELY removes me from the immersion. It's so clunky and distracting.

[Irish]

Oof. definitely Unpopular opinion to the MAX. Hard disagree. The pan and scan COMPLETELY removes me from the immersion. It's so clunky and distracting.

What if it were the only version available? Would you skip it?

Watching VHS pan-and-scan didn't hurt my experience then, so why would I be overly concerned that a transfer might have the wrong aspect ratio now? That's what I'm talking about here.

[Dukefrukem]

What if it were the only version available? Would you skip it?

Watching VHS pan-and-scan didn't hurt my experience then, so why would I be overly concerned that a transfer might have the wrong aspect ratio now? That's what I'm talking about here.

Even before widescreen TVs existed, before I realized that the aspect ratio in theaters was different than home VHS, before I even knew what Pan and Scan was, I found it incredibly distracting and unnatural. I remember watching ET and being so annoyed by it.

Then there was this one store in the mall that sold incredibly expensive VHS tapes that were ALL widescreen. I purchased my first one: Goldeneye back in 1996 and felt like I was in heaven.

[Scar]

Irish, did you make an edit before I could comment that they would’ve been digging in the right place if Jr hadn’t shown up?

[Scar]

Even before widescreen TVs existed, before I realized that the aspect ratio in theaters was different than home VHS, before I even knew what Pan and Scan was, I found it incredibly distracting and unnatural. I remember watching ET and being so annoyed by it.

Then there was this one store in the mall that sold incredibly expensive VHS tapes that were ALL widescreen. I purchased my first one: Goldeneye back in 1996 and felt like I was in heaven.

Yes. Yes. Yes.