Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread

[OzzyFan]

Hmmmmmm....

How High is one of the top 10 funniest movies ever imo. (And I don't even smoke)

Yardbirds> Led Zeppelin.

Arrested Development is funnier than Seinfeld.

I Spy is the funniest Eddie Murphy movie of all time.

Mitch Hedberg is the funniest short joke comedian of all time.

Louis CK is an overrated comedian.

Leslie Nielsen is the most underrated comedy actor of all time.

I prefer movie versions over book versions of "stories" because of the amount of time I save for other stuff if given the choice (even at the cost of some quality).

 

[Langdon Alger]

The movie is actually very good but I was really annoyed by how silent the movie is. There's like no music in it or anything. I found the movie very boring the first time I saw it and bailed just like you.

Then I gave it another try and it turned into a tarantino movie.

I like the fact there's no music in it. I wouldn't like it in every movie, but in no country it worked for me. I loved hearing the sound of Bardem walking when he was looking for Brolin at the motel. Made it creepier in my opinion.

 

[Devourers]

I saw No Country for Old Men in the theater with a couple of friends and I remember walking out, about to say what a terrible movie when they beat me to it and started gushing about how great it was. Really kind of blew my mind. It's a minority opinion but you couldn't pay me to watch that movie again.

Surprised. Most people think that movie is amazing but I honestly completely agree with you, and it's rare to find someone else who does imo. The movie to me was just terrible. You could pay me to watch it again, I'm all for giving things a second chance, but I probably won't ever re-watch it if I'm not paid

-The best South Park episodes were in the first ~5 seasons, when they just thought up a random plot and let the foul-mouthed kids be funny in that situation. The trend to pop-culture hot takes has made the show poignant but less funny

-Hollywood should only be allowed to release one WWII film per year

For South Park, I completely disagree, but I guess you could call that controversial because I find the first season or two to be extremely dumb even if they are funny, and not as well animated. Also being that season 6 is my all time favorite, I'm definitely going to disagree there but I do understand why you feel that way.

As for WWII films per year, one solid one a year is enough, but I wouldn't complain if there were 5 solid ones. That just is rarely the case.

 

[hototogisu]

I'd guess that if the original Solaris by Tarkovsky was released today, it would probably hold a mediocre imdb rating rather than the 8+ it has now. The reason is because the mass public and not just film-lovers or people who are willing to watch classic film would be going to see it as well and they'd shred it apart because let's be honest, the pacing is a bit slow and boring. I mean if they rated the re-make low which was 90 minutes long then they'd probably hate the 2.5 hour original version which is even slower lol.

I don't think that's true. I mean, they're still making slow, inaccessible, arty foreign-language films today, are they not? And it's not like those get plagued with low reviews, because they simply don't really reach the "mass public".

Unless you had a slow, arty movie with mainstream actors targeted at more of a mass audience...the best recent example I can think of is probably The Tree of Life but even art-house film fans are split on whether that's any good or not, so it's not an art-house vs. mainstream thing in that case...

 

[Reality Check]

Married With Children might be the best guilty pleasure sitcom of all-time.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I loved One Tree Hill.

As.far as teenage drama.goes, it was very good.

 

[RussianRifle27]

21 Pilots is cancer

Award shows and awards are stupid and should hold no bearing on one's enjoyment of a film, or music

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

21 Pilots is cancer

Award shows and awards are stupid and should hold no bearing on one's enjoyment of a film, or music

I agree with the point in general, but I sure hope to god that no one takes music awards as even being slightly prestigious by this point in time.

 

[McOilers97]

Here's one: I think the Downey Sherlock films are better than the Cumberbatch Sherlock series.

I actually might agree with you.

I find the BBC Sherlock very overrated. It's ok popcorn entertainment, but when people act like it's one of the greatest TV series of the decade I die a little inside.

 

[Shareefruck]

Anything Benedict Cumberbacht does automatically feels hackey to me for some reason.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Anything Benedict Cumberbacht does automatically feels hackey to me for some reason.

I wouldn't go that far as I do think he has some good performances under his belt, but I get the feeling his identity as an actor has been shaped a lot by Sherlock, Star Trek and the like. In both those examples, there was a certain intensity/energy in his performances that really did not fit with everything around him, standing out in a way that does not feel consistent with the tone of the property. Mind you that isn't necessarily a bad thing for Star Trek Into Darkness since that film was pretty garbage anyway (not so controversial to say I take it), but I also get same feeling in Sherlock where he is so intense 100% of the time. Best way to describe my feelings on this problem: all the other actors look like they are in a TV show while he is in his own stage production, ultimately feeling forced due to this discrepancy.

I suppose that is fine for television and the series was entertaining enough, but having rewatched the first Downey Sherlock recently I must admit that Downey's more subdued performance felt far more organic despite sharing identical traits. Is it merely Downey being a superior actor (which is probable either way), or does it have to do with everything coming together around him?

Having said that I thought he was very good in both 12 Years a Slave and TTSS in somewhat smaller roles, so I cannot say for certain whether this is a case of less is more or if it happens to be him working with superior material and direction. For the record, I haven't bothered to watch The Imitation Game yet.

 

[member 151739]

21 Pilots is cancer

Seriously though, 21 Pilots is atrocious.

Also, credit to Samkow for introducing me to this meme and making me laugh.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yikes. Those examples of 'good' lyrics

Cumberbacht strikes me as one of those guys who think that an intense presence = acting..... he's seemed pretty phony in everything I've seen him in, personally. I'll never understand why The Imitation Game is considered a critically respectable movie.

 

[member 151739]

Yikes. Those lyrics (intended to impress?) are laughably atrocious, too.

Yeah, that's what I said when I first saw it too.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

21 Pilots is cancer

Yes.

Also: Arrested Development is not funny. Even David Cross couldn't make that show funny, and that's legitimately incredible because, IMO, David Cross is one of the funniest people on the planet.

 

[Ben Grimm]

1. Shatner is considered a bad actor, but watching him try is mesmerizing. Like a bad car accident, you just can't look away. 2. There was a time when everyone had a strong feeling on whether they were Beatles or Stones. It wasn't just their music, it was the type of rock you like, the image of bands you like, etc. Are you Beatles or Stones?

 

[aleshemsky83]

There's an old episode of Columbo that Shatner is in that I really recommend people watch. I think it's his best performance honestly because I'm sure whoever cast him knew he was a horrible actor and it just makes the character seem mentally disabled. It's great.

 

[Mimsy]

Shatner on Six Million Dollar Man (commit yourself to at least 30 seconds of viewing, after which Shatner takes it up a notch):

 

[End on a Hinote]

Office Space is a stupid movie and not very funny. Peter Gibbons is a miserable, whiney, unlikable character.


SPOILER AHEAD








And how in the hell would he not at least think for a second that it could have been Ron Lumbergh, not Bill that had sex with Joanna? Badly written.

 

[Cloned]

Bad Things is a good song.

 

[Roo Returns]

Shatner isn't that bad, it's all about how he's used and whose directing him. He was great in Star Trek II, IV, VI, and as Denny Crane. The whole thing about Kirk is he was supposed to be playing a JFK in space without the Boston accent so there's a certain amount of charisma he has to ooze regardless.

21 Pilots aren't that bad. At least they write their own music.

As for the Beatles vs. The Stones...I've also heard of this for Led Zep vs. The Who, Ramones vs. Sex Pistols, Biggie vs. Tupac, etc. The Stones are a great band but the thing about them is they don't use as many guitar tones, styles, or interesting rhythms as bands like The Beatles, Led Zep, etc. used. Also with the exception of Charlie Watts, everyone in that band has dressed terribly since Ron Wood joined. Some of their 80s outfits are just downright embarrassing.

 

[Shareefruck]

The whole identifying with The Beatles or The Stones thing always seemed poorly represented to me. The difference that I see between the two was that The Stones were content with coming up with a really cool new trademark sound that had this loose, laid back, hanging out feel to it and mostly sticking within that comfort zone (Zeppelin too), whereas The Beatles were tightly wound, ambitious, and had more interest in trying new things. But instead of that narrative, the feeling I get from people is that they think it's a distinction between The Beatles = soft, safer music/delicate, politician-like personalities, The Stones = hard rebellious music/tough, outcasty personalities, which was complete nonsense. The Beatles probably had a rougher/tougher/street-honed working class upbringing than The Stones did, and was more bold/daring/creatively rebellious, and eccentric/unpredictable than The Stones. There are better and more appropriate representatives of what The Stones seemed to represent for people, such as The Velvet Underground. The grimey/rough/testosterone driven aspect of the Stones/Zeppelin always seems pretty superficial and false to me. They and their music were far less volatile, wild, raw, and unhinged than their image made them out to be.

People treat it like The Beatles are the safe choice and The Stones are the "**** you!" choice, when, at least in hindsight, it's actually closer to being the other way around. And while The Stones were an incredible band with excellent output, I never felt they were deserving of being put on the same pedestal that Dylan/The Beatles were and getting the reputation of being the consensus #2 band of all time.

I've always been far more heavily biased towards a more of a raw, sparse, grimy, unhinged, primal/minimalistic "**** everything" type of music, and yet I've always favored The Beatles over The Stones by a wide margin.

 

[CaptBrannigan]

Saw the new Guardians of the Galaxy trailer. I'm over baby Groot already.

 

[Roo Returns]

The whole identifying with The Beatles or The Stones thing always seemed poorly represented to me. The difference that I see between the two was that The Stones were content with coming up with a really cool new trademark sound that had this loose, laid back, hanging out feel to it and mostly sticking within that comfort zone (Zeppelin too), whereas The Beatles were tightly wound, ambitious, and had more interest in trying new things. But instead of that narrative, the feeling I get from people is that they think it's a distinction between The Beatles = soft, safer music/delicate, politician-like personalities, The Stones = hard rebellious music/tough, outcasty personalities, which was complete nonsense. The Beatles probably had a rougher/tougher/street-honed working class upbringing than The Stones did, and was more bold/daring/creatively rebellious, and eccentric/unpredictable than The Stones. There are better and more appropriate representatives of what The Stones seemed to represent for people, such as The Velvet Underground. The grimey/rough/testosterone driven aspect of the Stones/Zeppelin always seems pretty superficial and false to me. They and their music were far less volatile, wild, raw, and unhinged than their image made them out to be.

People treat it like The Beatles are the safe choice and The Stones are the "**** you!" choice, when, at least in hindsight, it's actually closer to being the other way around. And while The Stones were an incredible band with excellent output, I never felt they were deserving of being put on the same pedestal that Dylan/The Beatles were and getting the reputation of being the consensus #2 band of all time.

I've always been far more heavily biased towards a more of a raw, sparse, grimy, unhinged, primal/minimalistic "**** everything" type of music, and yet I've always favored The Beatles over The Stones by a wide margin.

It's funny because The Beatles have more of a mass appeal due to their sound changing so much, school bands covering their songs, etc. but they were pretty diverse especially in the second half of their career. The hippy generation identified with them making them seem like a peace band, but they were in no way soft, John Lennon had a bad temper and often spoke about it.

Led Zep was one of the most diverse hard rock bands ever. They went from Good Times, Bad Times and Dazed and Confused to In The Light, Trampled Underfoot, and then All Of My Love. They had these hippy elements at first, then got proggy, funky, psychedelic, etc. All the guys in that band were exceptionally talented.

Stones never had any of that. They're a great band but their sound is the most limited, and while talented they weren't virtuosos like Led Zep or had the diversity of second half Beatles. A lot of that is because Richards had his guitar tone and that was it, they'd get piano or banjo or sax here and there, but mostly Richards just played a Les Paul through an amp with little effects, Watts/Wyman kept it steady, and Jagger didn't venture out of his range. I don't mean to crap on the Stones in any way, I do enjoy them but as a full product I put Beatles, The Who, Led Zep, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Allman Brothers, even prime Skynyrd ahead of them in terms of musicianship and memorable albums.

 

[kihei]

Well, I'm firmly in the Beatles camp. But.....

After the Beatles, the Stones have by far the best song list of any pop/rock band in history. I would put them light years ahead of Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, The Allman Brothers, and Skynyrd. The Who is a great band, the best that I ever saw in concert, but much of their reputation justifiably rests on live performance in which they had no peer in my book, not so much on recorded output. The Stones came up basically as a blues band and it looks like they are going out basically as a blues band. But inbetween they produced great rock music; I would include all of the following albums, and parts of many more:

12 X 5
Our of Our Heads
Aftermath
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile on Mains St
It's Only Rock 'n Roll (thanks largely to Mick Taylor)
Some Girls

They had three or four great live albums as well. As for the second greatest rock band in history, it is a toss-up between Led Zep and the Rolling Stones for me. I think a helluva case could be made for either band.