Your Most Controversial Film Opinions?

Speak for yourself - just checked my own ratings and, out of the ten films of his that I've seen, I only have five of them at 3.5 or higher. No idea how much (if any) of that has to do with evaluating them less as their own works and more other people "overrating" them, though - then again, we've been over the problem with overrated discourse time and time again on here so yeah.

That being said, I wonder if it's possible for something to be called overrated so much that it loops around to being underrated. Don't think that applies to Nolan films, though.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I think it's obvious that's exactly what I was doing, yeah. But I'm pretty sure a lot of the criticisms around Nolan are based around what I'm saying: some kind of resentment that the hoi polloi think of them as "smart" when they're more "smart for a blockbuster," or whatever. And besides if you really want a film that touches on those themes something something Tarkovsky.

Kinda reminds me of The Matrix and all the pushback it got because people were annoyed by teenagers thinking it was profound because it was their first exposure to several (extremely common and shallowly represented) philosophical concepts.

Anyway, I think it's shockingly hard to separate opinions of things like this from the reaction the culture at large has to them.

__________________
letterboxd

Musicals should not be eligible for the Oscars.

The Matrix was important for really implanting the simulation hypothesis in the public consciousness.

Plato's Cave and Descarte's Demon hypothetically offer the same thought experiment, but these ideas don't really "bite" for modern people, because they don't fit in the modern metaphysical picture of materialism. The simulation hypothesis, by contrast, fits neatly into the materialist's universe. Thus, it's not rejected by default (e.g., "Well, I'd simply think I was crazy before I believed that a 'demon' was manipulating my consciousness.").

The kicker of the simulation hypothesis is that it sneaks the old world picture in through the back door. If our world is a "sim," then it was made by a conscious intelligence for some purpose. God is back. He has the whole world on his computer. "Oh, my user!" And with this, you can challenge someone to think terms like Aristotle. Final causality is returned to the universe. Materialism swallows its own tail on this view, and the old order is restored. And that is radical. It's one of the few ways I've found which can provoke the gestalt to see the world as we used to. So, I give Neo a few points for warming up our leftovers.

I'm curious what your logic is. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They're films just like action films or fantasy films, and they're eligible for Academy Awards. What's the kicker?

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!

I hate insomnia. Oh yeah. Last year I had four cases of it, and each time it lasted three months.

All of the changes made for Lord of the Rings from book to screen made the movies disastrously awful. I've not seen such messy garbage that people love that ruined such a great story. The books are excellent; the movies are trash.

@matt72582
Given the reaction that I got from my 100 favorite movies list, it appears that my most controversial film opinion is that The Birth of a Nation (the one by D.W. Griffth, not Nate Parker) is the second greatest American film ever made (behind Intolerance).

@Gideon58
“I predicted and am one of the few people on the planet who thought Crash deserved the Oscar for Best Picture of 2005.”

I love Crash and think it’s better than Brokeback Mountain. But I don’t think either deserved Best Picture. Of the nominees, my choice would have been Munich.

I also think Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of a Crystal Skull was a good movie.

Mark

*Faints*

I agree on Munich.


Not so much the other opinions, but to each their own.

Never read the books. I like the movies. As far as trilogies go, top five for me. I've never met Tom Bomadil and I am willing to concede that the books may be 10X better, but one can do this without also conceding that the films are trash for this reason.

Maybe a special category under the Tony Awards.

I agree. Never read the books but love the films.

I don't care what others think, they are fun to watch.

Shakespeare In Love deserved Best Picture.

I'm a bit surprised. I am a fan of the book(s) and had just finished re-reading LotR when Fellowship came out. I thought they did a fairly good job of it.

Is it controversial to say Gone With the Wind is a bad film?

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Bad in what way?

Is it a bad adaptation of the source material?

Are the technical elements not up to the highest standards of the late 1930s?

Technically and visually speaking, it's outstanding. No issues there at all. I also think Scarlet's arc is highly interesting and builds up to one of the most daring endings I've seen in a Hollywood romance. Its strengths are just wrapped up tight and snug in one of the most annoying packages I can think of. The relentless melodrama, crying, and the romanticization of the Confederacy really sinks its potential like a rock. It seems like a film which should be much better than it is, but its bad elements are just way too relentless and way too hard for me to ignore. Heck, even if everything related to the Confederacy was removed, I still doubt I'd enjoy it.