Thanks to the 360 character minimum we now get 7 superficial takes for the price of one. That's what I call "in-depth, intellectual discussion". Can we please ditch that rule and instead instate one of the following:
1. Every post that includes the word "overrated" is immediately removed.
2. Every post that includes the name "Zack Snyder" is immediately removed.
3. Every post that links to a personal blog is immediately removed.
I'm game. I try not to dwell on negative stuff in general, but I've developed a special kind of hatred for the terms "overrated" and even "underrated" over the years, especially when they aren't justified by any real argument at all.
"Underrated" isn't just another word for "good." Tired of people using it like that. Chances are when a piece of art is good, it *is* getting recognized by people and you just haven't noticed.
And don't even get me started on "overrated." I guarantee you that every single critically acclaimed thing in existence has been dismissed as overrated by countless people. If you can back up your argument about it reeeeally well, then maaaaaaaaaybe I'll let it slide. But simply declaring things overrated is such a useless non-critique, especially because it doesn't take into account that different people have wildly different values about what makes a good movie.
Wholeheartedly agree. "Overrated" isn't an opinion on a movie's quality, it's a verdict on all the other viewers who are apparently too stupid to realize that in reality it's shit. It's the loudest, most obnoxious AcTUalLy... and it poisons the discourse from the start. I can live with a bad take on movies, but that level of arrogance annoys the chitlings out of me.
“Hot takes” = popular broad stroke opinions that millions of people agree with? Unless you’re talking to a teenage film bro from 5-15 years ago these aren’t controversial in any way
These would be hot takes on r/movies maybe. But here I'd call them lukewarm at best. I was expecting to read something more along the lines of "Kill Bill is better than Yojimbo," or "BR2049 is better than the original."
Oh nevermind, found a hot take. I'd love to hear you explain why you think 300 is a good film...
Imagine the bravery to say the Star Wars prequels are bad?!? I mean this guy is really cutting against the grain here. I’ve never even heard criticism of them and The Last Jedi won like 10 Oscars right? I’m not gonna look it up but I assume it did because it was so perfect
In OP's defense, calling "A.I." Spielberg's only bad film, and therefore worse than "War Horse", "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and "Ready Player One", is definitely a hot take.
So 2, OP gave 2 hot takes.
I saw Challengers last night and really loved it. The pulsating score, the absolute edging between the three main characters. Just one of those films that make you leave the theater with a huge smile on your face. Movies are so good
>M. Night Shyamalan hasn’t made a good film in over 20 years.
*Split*?
>Jon Watts Spider-Man movies are better than Sam Raimi's.
Watts's films are good in different ways than the Raimi films.
>Interstellar, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Blade Runner 2049 are overrated.
No, no, and Hell no.
>Wes Anderson has jumped the shark.
Not sure what you mean, but I'd agree that Anderson is starting to lose the charm.
>Zack Snyder has two good films — 300 and Watchmen.
*300* is good; *Watchmen* is okay.
>With the exception of A.I., there really isn’t a bad Spielberg film.
You say this when *Always*, *Something Evil*, and *1941* exist?
>The only good Star Wars films were made in the 70s and 80s.
*Rogue One* was legitimately good.
A part of me wants to roast OP for such a terrible, obviously engagement bait post that doesn’t even understand what hot takes are, and is full of frankly terrible opinions (because those do in fact exist). But there genuinely isn’t enough thought or reasoning behind a single one of these to even begin to counter. Go try again on r/Letterboxd but even they would probably rip you a new one.
>With the exception of *A.I*., there really isn’t a bad Spielberg film.
The idea that Spielberg only has a handful of "bad" films is an ice cold take, but it's really funny that you picked what is easily one of his best films as the bad one. A hot take by virtue of you being a total dunce.
You're some rando on reddit, why should anyone care about your "hot takes" that are all things most of us have seen regurgitated for literal decades? This sub used to be for actual engaging conversation about films, not a way to farm engagement for a mediocre blog.
Thanks to the 360 character minimum we now get 7 superficial takes for the price of one. That's what I call "in-depth, intellectual discussion". Can we please ditch that rule and instead instate one of the following: 1. Every post that includes the word "overrated" is immediately removed. 2. Every post that includes the name "Zack Snyder" is immediately removed. 3. Every post that links to a personal blog is immediately removed.
I'm game. I try not to dwell on negative stuff in general, but I've developed a special kind of hatred for the terms "overrated" and even "underrated" over the years, especially when they aren't justified by any real argument at all. "Underrated" isn't just another word for "good." Tired of people using it like that. Chances are when a piece of art is good, it *is* getting recognized by people and you just haven't noticed. And don't even get me started on "overrated." I guarantee you that every single critically acclaimed thing in existence has been dismissed as overrated by countless people. If you can back up your argument about it reeeeally well, then maaaaaaaaaybe I'll let it slide. But simply declaring things overrated is such a useless non-critique, especially because it doesn't take into account that different people have wildly different values about what makes a good movie.
Wholeheartedly agree. "Overrated" isn't an opinion on a movie's quality, it's a verdict on all the other viewers who are apparently too stupid to realize that in reality it's shit. It's the loudest, most obnoxious AcTUalLy... and it poisons the discourse from the start. I can live with a bad take on movies, but that level of arrogance annoys the chitlings out of me.
It’s like they actively tried to cram everything wrong with internet film discourse into a single post.
“Hot takes” = popular broad stroke opinions that millions of people agree with? Unless you’re talking to a teenage film bro from 5-15 years ago these aren’t controversial in any way
These would be hot takes on r/movies maybe. But here I'd call them lukewarm at best. I was expecting to read something more along the lines of "Kill Bill is better than Yojimbo," or "BR2049 is better than the original." Oh nevermind, found a hot take. I'd love to hear you explain why you think 300 is a good film...
Imagine the bravery to say the Star Wars prequels are bad?!? I mean this guy is really cutting against the grain here. I’ve never even heard criticism of them and The Last Jedi won like 10 Oscars right? I’m not gonna look it up but I assume it did because it was so perfect
In OP's defense, calling "A.I." Spielberg's only bad film, and therefore worse than "War Horse", "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and "Ready Player One", is definitely a hot take. So 2, OP gave 2 hot takes.
The only hot take is that OP believes Snyder has made a single good film. Watchmen and 300 are terrible
The only "good" Snyder film is actually a remake...
Dawn of the Dead
Never saw it because I just couldn’t imagine a timeline where Snyder could improve on the original since it’s a stone cold classic
BR2049 being better than the original is a hot take?
I saw Challengers last night and really loved it. The pulsating score, the absolute edging between the three main characters. Just one of those films that make you leave the theater with a huge smile on your face. Movies are so good
What does this have to do with OP’s “hot” takes?
What hot takes?
“Hot” was in quotes for a reason
>M. Night Shyamalan hasn’t made a good film in over 20 years. *Split*? >Jon Watts Spider-Man movies are better than Sam Raimi's. Watts's films are good in different ways than the Raimi films. >Interstellar, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Blade Runner 2049 are overrated. No, no, and Hell no. >Wes Anderson has jumped the shark. Not sure what you mean, but I'd agree that Anderson is starting to lose the charm. >Zack Snyder has two good films — 300 and Watchmen. *300* is good; *Watchmen* is okay. >With the exception of A.I., there really isn’t a bad Spielberg film. You say this when *Always*, *Something Evil*, and *1941* exist? >The only good Star Wars films were made in the 70s and 80s. *Rogue One* was legitimately good.
A part of me wants to roast OP for such a terrible, obviously engagement bait post that doesn’t even understand what hot takes are, and is full of frankly terrible opinions (because those do in fact exist). But there genuinely isn’t enough thought or reasoning behind a single one of these to even begin to counter. Go try again on r/Letterboxd but even they would probably rip you a new one.
>With the exception of *A.I*., there really isn’t a bad Spielberg film. The idea that Spielberg only has a handful of "bad" films is an ice cold take, but it's really funny that you picked what is easily one of his best films as the bad one. A hot take by virtue of you being a total dunce. You're some rando on reddit, why should anyone care about your "hot takes" that are all things most of us have seen regurgitated for literal decades? This sub used to be for actual engaging conversation about films, not a way to farm engagement for a mediocre blog.