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

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

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

    Horror films are where art flourishes and it has a huge culture of being outside of Hollywood which is just a plus. Also the acting is usually way better

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

    I watched The Princess Bride and couldn’t understand why it gets so much love. I found it really gruesome and unfunny, and Robin Wright’s princess was bland and unlikable.

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

    Terminator is better than Terminator 2, and as cool as it is Terminator 2 should never have been made (or should have a different script).

    I know the mob is raising the pitchfork, but hear me out, there are two main ways time travel can solve the grandparent paradox, these are Singular Timeline (i.e. something will prevent you from killing your grandfather) or Multiple Timeline (you kill him but in doing so you created an alternate timeline). Terminator 2 is clearly a MT model, because they delay the rise of Skynet, but Terminator is a ST movie. The way you can understand it’s an ST is because the cause-consequences form a perfect cycle (which couldn’t happen on an MT story), i.e. Reese goes back to save Sarah -> Reese impregnates Sarah and teaches her how to defend herself from Terminators and avoid Skynet -> Sarah gives birth to and teaches John -> John uses the knowledge to start a resistance -> The resistance is so strong that Skynet sends a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah -> Reese goes back to save Sarah…

    The awesome thing about Terminator is how you only realise this at the end of the Movie, that nothing they did mattered, because that’s what happened before, the timeline is fixed, humanity will suffer but they’ll win eventually.

    If Terminator was a MT then the cycle breaks, i.e. there needs to be a beginning, a first time around when the original timeline didn’t had any time travelers. How did that timeline looked like? John couldn’t exist, which means that sending a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah was not possible, Reese couldn’t have gone back without the Terminator technology, which they wouldn’t have unless the resistance was winning, and if they are winning without John, the Terminator must have gone back to kill someone else and when Reese went back he accidentally found Sarah, impregnated her and coincidentally made a better commander for the resistance which accidentally and created a perfect loop so that next time he would be sent back and meet Sarah because she was the target (what are the odds of that). Then why is the movie not about this? Why is the movie about the Nth loop after the timeline was changed? The reason is that Terminator was thought as a ST movie, but when they wanted to write a sequel they for some reason decided to allow changes in the timeline which broke the first movie.

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

      Not to mention that it’s fucking stupid to have all your infiltration units have the exact same face and body. The first movie even showed other terminators with different faces, so why is every T-800 Arnold?

      That said, T2 is one of my favorite movies.

    • swordsmanluke@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah! A fellow holder of the belief that time travel stories are better when they are internally consistent! I hate e.g. Looper for having time travel that makes no goddamn sense. It takes me out of the story when the characters are literally watching the timeline change before them as it magically radiates out from one point. And then our protagonists somehow remember the original timeline… Bah.

      …So I must ask - have you seen Primer? If not, maybe you’d like it!

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

        As someone who enjoys the magic systems of Brandon Sanderson, I do piss on Star Wars for not having a logical basis for The Force.

        Actually it’s not that bad. Harry Potter is much worse.

      • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, the problem is internal consistency, in Star Wars the force works the same way in all films. But imagine if on one movie someone was shown using the force to move objects, and on the next movie the same character was shown trying to reach for something important and failing and not using the force and when asked he replies “it’s not possible to move objects with the force”. That’s the problem here, internal consistency, on one movie it’s said it works one way, on the other it’s said it works differently. I love both movies, I just think T2 shitted on one of the main things from T1.

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

          Except the prequels establish force powers that we never see again and so do the sequels. Like force super speed in the phantom menace.

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

    Films where I don’t recognize a single actor among the whole crew are almost always better than ones where I’ve seen such and such actor in other movies. Just more immersive. And even if they’re not the best actors I’d much prefer that over whatever the hell Chris Prat or Tom Cruise or Leo D are up to.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Tom Cruise has employees rewrite movies he’ll be in to make his part more, and more in his style.

        He has more acting range and ability than so many other actors

  • eagleeyedtiger@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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 🤷‍♂️

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

    The Mario movie was incredibly mediocre, despite its high production value. I’m talking MCU-levels of truckloads of money spent with shockingly little to show for it.

  • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Dennis Villeneuve is currently untouchable in the same way that Christoper Nolan was a few years ago. For whatever reason I meshed with Nolan’s work at the time but I have been completely disenchanted by Villeneuve since Blade Runner.

  • gwildors_gill_slits@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Dark Knight has fucking terrible editing and a lot of bad, hammy acting. The opening bank heist is just bad, with really on-the-nose dialogue delivered pretty badly…even William Fichtner seems like he’s trying a little too hard, and he’s an otherwise good actor.

    I know the editing has been covered in some YouTube essay that made the rounds a number of years ago so maybe that’s not such an unpopular opinion, but it really sticks out to me like a sore thumb.

    Before anyone gets totally mad at me, I still enjoy the overall story, a lot of the action, and I think both Ledger and Bale (dumb batman voice aside) are great. Also, Morgan Freeman, Michal Caine and whatshisname who plays Harvey Dent are also very good too.

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

    As much as I love Denis Villeneuve, I still love David Lynch’s Dune more. Yes, the acting is spotty, and there were more than a few questionable changes to the plot, but I can’t get that art direction out of my mind. That being said, I haven’t seen part two yet.

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

    I love the first Dune book, and I love the goofy 80’s Dune movie, which was pretty close to the book in terms of getting a lot of the internal dialog in place. But I hated the new Dune movie. I didn’t like how sterile and empty they made the palace, or the weird anus mouth design of the sand worms. Or the silly use of balloons to help lift harvesters. I very much didn’t like how they made Lady Jessica an emotional mess, instead of being in control of her outward emotions, as she was trained to do.

    They also screwed up the personal defense shields REAL BAD. The idea that the shields react to kinetic energy, so a fast moving project from a firearm would get stopped, but a slow moving blade would pass through. The fight near the end had people being killed by fast sword strikes by hitting the shields, it was just so jarring and lazy. They also completely misrepresented who and what the Sardukar are. Based on how many people loved the movie, I have an unpopular opinion. Though I found that most people who absolutely loved the movie hadn’t seen the original movie, or read the first book, so they didn’t know anything to color their impression.