Movie opinions thread (what have you seen, what did you think?)

[HornheaDD]

Captain America: Not Steve Rogers Edition

Red Hulk is in it for like 5 minutes. I dont know why I was surprised.

WTF did they do to the Leader. He was like a poor man's Angstrom Levy. Probabilities as his power? Don't we have an Xman with that alrady? sheeeiiiiit

Nah man. Nah.

Liv Tyler still looks like her dad with tits.

 

[jro]

@Average Joe

Yeah, I couldn't help but feel like T3 was something of a course-correct for Leone and the franchise a bit in general. Much shorter, actually explains Art a bit, makes it clearer as to who/what Sienna is. Given the success of 3, I hope he doesn't feel, again, enpowered to go way TF overboard with 4. LaVera and Thornton don't need a bloated script to make a very compelling good vs evil.

 

[wyo]

The first Terrifier movie was quite good but I don't like the sequels. Boring torture porn movies died out for a reason.

 

[SouthtownKid]

What a sad world we live in where "T3" now refers to the fucking Terrifier and not the Terminator franchise. What the hell, man.

 

[terry.330]

I watched both of these on Hulu and I assume they are taken from the recent 4k AI remasters that have been somewhat controversial. Apparently Cameron used AI pretty extensively to remove the film grain and it shows. Aliens just does not feel right with no grain, some of the background details seem off and sometimes skin looks a little rubbery. It’s also noticeably brighter with warmer tinting. The Abyss fairs better and I really didn’t have any issues with it. Although it does look exceptionally clean it never feels like it’s too processed or unnatural.

Aliens- One of the best action movies ever made and influential to a degree that few movies are.

The Abyss- Cameron’s underwater epic is still highly enjoyable. The underwater stuff all still looks great and is what really makes the movie. The alien stuff gets a little goofy but whatever. It’s an awesome movie.

 

[SouthtownKid]

influential to a degree that few movies are.

For better or worse. For me, Cameron as a director is more of an extremely competent technician than any kind of artist with anything to say. I mean, he's better than a Michael Bay or Zack Snyder, but he's definitely of that class.

 

[Taiso]

I still consider James Cameron the best blockbuster director of all time and no one is close. He makes movies that are accessible to the widest audiences possible and is very demanding when it comes to the quality of the production. HIs films are the perfect popcorn fare and I almost never feel as though my time has been wasted. He's not an 'auteur' by any stretch of the imagination but he's only ever made one movie I didn't thoroughly enjoy (True Lies).

 

[terry.330]

For better or worse. For me, Cameron as a director is more of an extremely competent technician than any kind of artist with anything to say. I mean, he's better than a Michael Bay or Zack Snyder, but he's definitely of that class.

Sure and I’d agree he is but I was speaking more about the actual movie’s impact on pop culture. Just look at its influence on video games and related art as well as comics. Not to mention the litany of direct knock-offs and other movies that outright steal entire chunks from it. Also there’s the whole female characters in action roles angle. Plus I mean Space Marines… that’s like 90% of the entire sci-fi action genre right there.

The movie isn’t high art but it is iconic and that’s the reason it resonates with and continues to influence so many people after 40 years.

 

[SouthtownKid]

I still consider James Cameron the best blockbuster director of all time and no one is close. He makes movies that are accessible to the widest audiences possible and is very demanding when it comes to the quality of the production. HIs films are the perfect popcorn fare and I almost never feel as though my time has been wasted. He's not an 'auteur' by any stretch of the imagination but he's only ever made one movie I didn't thoroughly enjoy (True Lies).

For me, it's the opposite. There are only three I've actually enjoyed: Terminator, T2, and to a lesser extent Aliens, and all the rest have been varying degrees of wasting my time. His most successful movie, Titanic, is a basic bitch dumbass story aimed at the very lowest common denominator, just a completely excruciating experience, as is his second most successful movie, Avitar. No doubt his Avitar sequel is just as bad. By the time you get down to stuff like True Lies, they are movies I wouldn't rewatch now to win a bet.

But again, even those Cameron movies I hate are all impecibly crafted. On a technical level, they are outstanding. But I mean, you could kind of say the same thing about George Lucas. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are still giant chunks of shit, though.

edit: One addendum. Something about my Lucas comparison doesn't quite sit right. Cameron's movies on a structural level are much better than Lucas'. I have to admit that.

And I might put forward Spielberg as a better blockbuster director, although he's not one of my favorites, either. But when he hits, his movies are more solid all around than anything Cameron has produced. Like Raiders > Aliens and Jaws > T2.

Sure and I’d agree he is but I was speaking more about the actual movie’s impact on pop culture.

Definitely, but that's why I say for better or worse. Some of that impact has led to negative trends and lesser imitations in Holywood. Not the females in action roles thing. That's great. A lot of the other stuff isn't.

And on the "Alien is infinitely better than Aliens" front, I would say that low key, Ridley's Blade Runner has had a much larger and lasting impact on the sci-fi genre, novels, movies, video games, etc.

But different strokes, mileage varies, etc. I do get why he's popular.

 

[StevenK]

Well I won't be doing my largely positive True Lies review now then

 

[jro]

The Descent 2- Holy shit, I heard this was bad but jeezus. It’s not just a terrible, terrible movie but a complete insult to the first. Trash.

Yeah, it's really bad. Kind of interesting to me how Neil Marshall made four awesome-ish movies (Centurion is pretty bad but has quite a cast and a few good action scenes) and then just sort of pieced the fuck out with little regard for his legacy.

 

[Dr Shroom]

How strong is your conviction?

convict deez nutz

 

[Taiso]

For me, it's the opposite. There are only three I've actually enjoyed: Terminator, T2, and to a lesser extent Aliens, and all the rest have been varying degrees of wasting my time. His most successful movie, Titanic, is a basic bitch dumbass story aimed at the very lowest common denominator, just a completely excruciating experience, as is his second most successful movie, Avitar. No doubt his Avitar sequel is just as bad. By the time you get down to stuff like True Lies, they are movies I wouldn't rewatch now to win a bet.

Titanic, and all of his films, succeed on a commercial level precisely because they are 'lowest common denominator'. I still find all of his films enjoyable. I even think he finds a great way to weave universal human themes into many of them. He does it in a way that is relatable to broad swaths of the moviegoing audience. That may not work for you, but you clearly aren't the target audience. I don't know that I am, either. But I still enjoy his films and will continue to go see them because, at the very least, I will walk out feeling I watched an earnest attempt to entertain me.

But again, even those Cameron movies I hate are all impecibly crafted. On a technical level, they are outstanding. But I mean, you could kind of say the same thing about George Lucas. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are still giant chunks of shit, though.

edit: One addendum. Something about my Lucas comparison doesn't quite sit right. Cameron's movies on a structural level are much better than Lucas'. I have to admit that.

I was about to politely call bullshit on comparing Lucas to Cameron in terms of popcorn cinema mainstream entertainment. Glad you checked yourself on that one.

And I might put forward Spielberg as a better blockbuster director, although he's not one of my favorites, either. But when he hits, his movies are more solid all around than anything Cameron has produced. Like Raiders > Aliens and Jaws > T2.

I put Cameron above Spielberg in terms of popcorn cinema fare because he has been broadly more consistent with the high quality of his output.

I've described Raiders of the Lost Ark as, along with Rob Roy (not Spielberg, obviously), the only 'perfect' films I've ever seen. The problem is that Spielberg also directed Temple of Doom, Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. None of those movies are better, in my opinion, than any of Cameron's films. And if you look at the catalogue of Spielberg's popcorn fare, you'll find it similarly inconsistent and where it fails, it's far more obvious. Camereon has yet to make a movie on par with Schindler's List or Munich (the latter of which is my favorite Spielberg movie ever), but Cameron is more concerned with being the king of the box office forever than with telling anyone what he really thinks about issues that matter.

 

[Taiso]

View attachment 85071
convict deez nutz

EZ clap, they're guilty of every crime known to man and would do hard time in Gitmo.

RIP Shroom's nutz.

 

[Average Joe]

The first Terrifier movie was quite good but I don't like the sequels. Boring torture porn movies died out for a reason.

I hate to pull a fami, but Terrifier 3 made 90 million, so there is definitely a market.

 

[SouthtownKid]

I was about to politely call bullshit on comparing Lucas to Cameron in terms of popcorn cinema mainstream entertainment. Glad you checked yourself on that one.

I do think Cameron is a more rounded filmmaker than Lucas. BUT. They both prioritize new filmmaking technology and special effects over actual onscreen storytelling and they are absolutely on the same level (low) in terms of writing ability. There is a comparison to be made.

As there is between Cameron and Michael Bay/Zack Snyder. Again, emphasis on cool visuals over storytelling. And when there is some theme or "message", it's laughably shallow. Oh, Aliens is about motherhood! lol gtfooh with that. That's as embarrassing as Zack Snyder's attempt at religious messaging/imagery in Man of Steel. Just stop it.

 

[wyo]

I hate to pull a fami, but Terrifier 3 made 90 million, so there is definitely a market.

They are well done for what they are.

 

[Taiso]

I do think Cameron is a more rounded filmmaker than Lucas. BUT. They both prioritize new filmmaking technology and special effects over actual onscreen storytelling and they are absolutely on the same level (low) in terms of writing ability. There is a comparison to be made.

As there is between Cameron and Michael Bay/Zack Snyder. Again, emphasis on cool visuals over storytelling. And when there is some theme or "message", it's laughably shallow. Oh, Aliens is about motherhood! lol gtfooh with that. That's as embarrassing as Zack Snyder's attempt at religious messaging/imagery in Man of Steel. Just stop it.

Of course Aliens is about motherhood. It's at the absolute core of the film and even Sigourney Weaver would state that. You know, the star of the movie that Fox didn't want to cast until Cameron fought for her to get paid which, in retrospect, she absolutely deserved (if not more). Only a clod or an obstinate old fuck would say otherwise.

Message is shallow but Cameron is better at establishing characters the audience can root for and his pacing is perfectly fine. Lucas, Bay and Snyder have never written a character as effective or convincingly portrayed as Michael Biehn in The Abyss cracking under the pressure. Or the Ripley mother allegory to the alien queen. Those other directors may have clumsily attempted to visit those narratives but they aren;t capable of convincingly pulling it off, although I will give Lucas credit for doing it in a very cynical era in the medium of cinema. As an outsider, Lucas was able to do what he wanted. Cameron worked predominantly WITHIN the system and took it farther than Lucas was capable of. He was a fierce renegade that rustled jimmies all along the way and still got his vision on the big screen. I consider that more impressive because he fought the system from within and made the movies he wanted to make.

Saying that Cameron is firmly in the 'popcorn cinema' group is fair. Saying he's not the absolute best of that bunch by miles shows an embarring lack of objectivity and while you may or may not be saying that (I am still not really sure), it is a hill I will die on.

 

[wyo]

Idgaf what anyone says, James Cameron is a great director. I haven't seen the Avatar movies but I really enjoyed the recent re-releases of T2 and yes Titanic in 3D.

Come on... if you didn't like Titanic at the time of release you were probably an edgelord faggot with no friends. As a grown man I am not watching gay CGI-fests like Avatar so how about making another proper film, eh Jim?

T2 3D in particular I feel sorry for you if you missed it at the theater. Aliens, True Lies, The Abyss and of course the original Terminator are all excellent big-screen entertainment, expertly crafted movies that shit all over most modern "blockbusters".

 

[Taiso]

Of course he's a great director, and it's not just on a technical level. I've already stated he's no auteur but movies are a business and we can't all be art fags all the time. So his movies are accessible and don't require much intuitive thought or inner reflection for such massive audience reach. So what, exactly? We all know he's playing to the masses. Judging him for doing exactly what he sets out to do and still exceeding expectations. The horror!

 

[SouthtownKid]

Of course Aliens is about motherhood.

Yeah, I know. Of course. I'm just saying that's as thin as the "themes" and "allegories" Michael Bay and Zack Snyder think they're putting into their movies. If you want to say Cameron does it better, that's fine, but it's a case of Bay/Snyder being a 1 on a scale of 1-10, and Cameron being a 1.75. Big whoop.

and his pacing is perfectly fine.

Yes. Structurally, Cameron's movies are vastly superior to Lucas'. I already agreed with that.

 

[Taiso]

If you want to say Cameron does it better, that's fine, but it's a case of Bay/Snyder being a 1 on a scale of 1-10, and Cameron being a 1.75. Big whoop.

It's much higher than 1.75 and we both know it. Just because you're a snooty intellectual doesn't most people can grasp the subtlety of an auteur director.

Cameron makes popcorn flicks that connect with people. On that level, he's a 10. You want to grade him on an auteur scale, he doesn't even rate.

 

[SouthtownKid]

It's much higher than 1.75 and we both know it. Just because you're a snooty intellectual doesn't most people can grasp the subtlety of an auteur director.

Cameron makes popcorn flicks that connect with people. On that level, he's a 10. You want to grade him on an auteur scale, he doesn't even rate.

I don't think it's snooty. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. I think the snootiness comes from the people making a mountain out of oooooooooooh, motherhood!! Stop being proud of that like it's Baby's first finger painting. I have more respect for dumb action movies that don't make the attempt at fake depth.

And if you can't see the similarity between Zack Snyder's embarrassing attempt at thematic subtext in Man of Steel and Cameron's attempt in pretty much any movie he's made, I don't know what to tell you. Absolutely the same level on display.

 

[SouthtownKid]

Come on... if you didn't like Titanic at the time of release you were probably an edgelord faggot with no friends.

I went to see it in the theater with my then girlfriend and it was a tedious, self indulgent slog. If it had been an hour shorter, maybe I could be more charitable, but literally the only moment I enjoyed out of the 195 minute endurance test was the 5 seconds during the scene the boat is split in half, the back half vertical, and the guy falls and bounces off something on the way down. That at least was a laugh. Oh, okay, and also the brief nudity of whatshername. So two enjoyable moments. The entire rest of the movie was me fighting to stay awake. As soon as the movie was done, as we were filing out, my girlfriend said she couldn't wait to watch it again. To which, my response was, "By yourself."

As usual, I appreciated the technical aspects, as Cameron put on a filmmaking clinic. Appreciated the practical effects of having hallway sets actually filling up with water. But so dull. And I hope these were not supposed to be examples of the "great characters" Cameron fans want to claim he's known for. One note cardboard cutouts who would have felt right at home in Attack of the Clones or Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor.

 

[Taiso]

I don't think it's snooty. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. I think the snootiness comes from the people making a mountain out of oooooooooooh, motherhood!! Stop being proud of that like it's Baby's first finger painting. I have more respect for dumb action movies that don't make the attempt at fake depth.

And if you can't see the similarity between Zack Snyder's embarrassing attempt at thematic subtext in Man of Steel and Cameron's attempt in pretty much any movie he's made, I don't know what to tell you. Absolutely the same level on display.

It's pretty snooty and gay to grade Cameron the way you're grading him. You're eating popcorn and sipping champaign at the same time.

Cameron and Snyder aren't even in the same realm in terms of ability to connect with the audience. One can do it very well. The other one is Zack Snyder.