Divisive movies that are liked more now

TDKR (back on release....)

The Fountain (no explanation needed)

The Hateful Height

Melancholia

mother!

The Tree Of Life

The Neon Demon

Eyes Wide Shut

Man of Fire

Man of Steel

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me

Which film do you enjoy and do you think has aged better and washed off the criticism? I’ll say Eyes Wide Shut and TDKR since the majority seems to actively like them now.

Bump

??? confused =/

OP wants to talk about movies that weren't well received when they released, but are loved (&/or appreciated) now.
This will be an interesting topic.


I still dislike TDKR. And I love BB and TDK. Considered TDKR the weakest Nolan movie, until I watched Tenet.


Of the others mentioned, I loved Melancholia when I watched it for the first time. It's depressing and beautiful at the same time.


Man on Fire is good fun. I prefer the Washington version. Scott Glenn's version is good too(and feels more realistic) but I found the relationship between Glenn's and the girl's character awkward.

I feel TDKR has unrealistic expectations coming and was off TDK and Inception.

It has some flaws and Ledger's passing and rewrites. A lot of nitpicks and disappointments come from that.

It’s still much, much better than Tenet and one of Nolan's best films for me.

1. TDK

2. Inception

3. Begins

4. TDKR / Memento

5. Prestige

6. Interstellar

7. Dunkirk

8. Insomnia

9. Following

10. Tenet

Memento has better writing but I feel TDKR is more emotional, rewatchable and has better characters tbh.

I agree on the high expectations part. But I just can't get past all the loopholes in the story.



I do rate Following and Insomnia high.

It's still got a long way to go to respectability, but Gummo is at least now mostly understood as being something more than shock for shocks sake, which was how it was almost exclusively seen when it was released.

The Devils
Citizen kane
Heathers
Donnie Darko
The Night of the Hunter
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Mulholland Drive
Blade Runner
It's a wonderful life
The Thing
Harold and Maude
The Innocents
Umberto D
On the Waterfront

Bruce did not have a miracle healing factor. Old fashioned techniques were used to put a vertebrate back into place. His spine wasn't actually broken

TDKR did get something: they got the special forces that smuggled themselves into the city.*He travels the world in Batman Begins as an untrained man with very little money and resources. Are we supposed to be believe that an older and experienced Bruce suddenly wouldn't be able to do this?
Getting back into the city is achievable considering the fact that government special agents snuck in. If they are capable of that, how is a far more skilled and trained Bruce Wayne not?

After getting to Gotham, he went into getting the clean slate, searching Catwoman and needed Fox cause he has access of the backup armors and batwing that Bane didn't need and couldn’t possibly know. So he gets captured to get Lucius Fox, meanwhile Talia probably tells that Bruce is back (not Batman) or just thought it was fail proof because at the time cops were still into sewers and the nuke was going to be explode in hours.

He thought that Batman was weak and said that he wanted to kill Bane only at the end "when Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die", so it's plausibile that the blast needed to go like they planned.

-



Blake doesn't have a full confirmation that Wayne is Batman, but as he explains to Bruce, he always had an inkling.

Blake talks about losing parents is something no child can ever move on from, not someone stuck in an orphanage like him, or someone like Wayne, with boundless money and potential. Its a kind of unspoken comradery that only those in the situation can understand, hinted at when Blake says

Blake: No one knows how it feels to be angry in your bones.

From this, and from the time that Bruce visited the boys home, the boys always had a fantasy of Bruce being Batman, as a bit of a joke. But Blake could tell from Bruce's face that day, from the look and smile he gave everyone, that it wasn't just pure fantasy. As Blake also explains:

Blake: I know that smile you put on...its the same one I taught myself

From this, Blake has a gut feeling that Bruce isn't who he lets on to everyone, billionaire playboy extraordinaire. But something different.

Not to mention one big element from the movie, Bruce goes into seclusion almost around the same time Batman disappears. Putting these pieces together, Blake makes the assumption that Bruce is Batman, and confronts him with Gordon's shooting.

This turns out to be correct, of course, and garner's Bruce's trust because Blake is someone who can understand Bruce's situation, coming from it himself. And Blake is also someone who share's Batman's ideals, as he says:

Blake: I don't know why you took the fall for Dent's murder, but I'm still a believer in the Batman

Showing us and Bruce that he has, at least similar, ideals to how Bruce was when he first put on his cape and cowl. And also the reason why he trusts Blake with the cave at the end.

TDKR had no plot holes. This website debunks them all -*

http://www.vardulon.com/2013/07/its-...ong-about.html

Melancholia is a personal favorite and would be my favorite on this list. I find it brilliant and painful and beautiful.

Eyes Wide Shut was an instant-classic for me, I have a little trouble understanding why this wasn't received as well as a lot of his other work.

I liked The Fountain right off, though I had hoped for a little more. It didn't seem to quite get where it was going.

The Hateful Eight was wearying self-indulgence punctuated by entertaining characters and moments.

Man Of Steel just sucked. Other than Cavill, who I think is perfect, I can't think of anything else positive to say about the film. It feels like it gets everything wrong and not just wrong versus canon, really... just wrong.

TDKR is Nolan at his Nolaniest for me, an overlong, over-convoluted, kinda soulless, and utterly implausible grind through material that should have been more entertaining, and with his signature weak third act just to annoy me further. I would not want to have to sit through it again, though I could be convinced to watch the Bane scenes, as I liked him.

I haven't seen the others.

But I also thought Only God Forgives was a fantastic movie made as if someone had made a movie just for me.

Thanks for your opinion, but since films are subjective I respectfully disagree.

I don't see what Tarantino has done that can be considered "indulgent", and TDKR is a comic book film, and the third act was quite thrilling. It seems like that movie and Interstellar get a lot of flack due to not being perfect.

I know bringing expert opinion into things isn't always cool when we're dealing with movies, but when a movie/filmmaker trucks in the notion that this is all really able to happen in the real world as it is on-screen, he should gotten the back-injury thing better.
I'm a doctor and I specialize in spine. And Bruce's injury as we saw it was such that he would likely have never walked again and probably would not have had bowel or bladder function ever again. Immediate, high-level medical treatment, surgery, and months to years of physical rehab could potentially have gotten him back to being "functional" but just as likely not. And "old-fashioned technique", that doesn't even break the skin, is not a thing. There is certainly no way on Earth he could have been effective as the Batman again, much less gotten out of the hole with all the amazing leaping and ****.
And that's ignoring how debilitated he appeared to be before Bane displaced one of his vertebrae.
I am willing to take things with a grain of salt in movies but, as I've said, less so when the filmmaker is trucking in realism. It's SO far off the mark that I basically just have to ignore it to be able to watch the movie.
Fortunately, I think so much of the rest of the movie is so ridiculous that it doesn't really matter... and I don't watch the movie so I don't have to fret about it.

No, that's fine and it's something that can be easily misrepresented. Batman is my favorite character and I am following him since years and there isn't anything ridiculous in the movie especially using "comic book logic" since the trilogy has always been grounded but not realistic.

Bruce’s back could be healed as a misaligned vertebrae had to be put back, it's simple and really does not even needs to be explained.

if we're referring to comics, then Bruce's knee is also like the comics --- a throwback to the robotic limb enhancements in The Dark Knight Returns.

I hated this film so much when I first saw it, that I invited another film fanatic friend over and we watched it again. I just don't like Von Trier, and how he handles his characters. Magnificent looking film. I also have to mention the score, where Von Trier trolls the viewer with the same piece from Tristan und Isolde. Really set my teeth on edge. I hate this movie, but will probably watch it again sometime when I feel like self-flagellating.

__________________

Bingo. If I have to be honest, I absolutely hate the way he provocate the audiences and his nihilism pretentious films. His comments regarding Hitler didn't make me hate him but dislike him more, obviously.

I love pretty much everything Von Trier has done, with maybe the exception of Epidemic, which feels like too much of a troll job at times, even for him.

Every art medium needs its prankster. I don't care if much of the emotions that Von Trier puts on screen are sometimes just there to agitate his audience, or superficially manipulate them. As far as I see it, he's just laying bare the artifice of narrative, occassionally poking us in the ribs with things that offend us. It's all a laugh, dressed up in beautiful filmmaking. He's one of my all time favorites.

Both Von Trier and Claire Denis seem cut from the same cloth, as far as I am concerned, or at least the films I have seen from her, anyway, which is admittedly not a wide selection.

As far as Von Trier, the guy is good at what he does, it all just rubs me the wrong way. Dancer in the Dark was brutal, but I guess that would be my favorite from him, if I had to choose. I dunno, Maybe Melancholia for the imagery.

I guess this will be an unpopular opinion but I forgot to name Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, despite me loving Mulholland Drive I feel Lynch is an one-trick pony like Von Trier is.

The greatest devil trick David Lynch ever pulled was convincing the world that his movies makes sense.

Lynch is a fraud, and his followers barely have anything to say in his defense except crap like "his films are trying to become mirror or dreams", or "his films are supposed to be experienced like a piece of music (no one ever points out that a narrative-reliant format like film is completely different from music)", or "go read someone's subjective explanation online", or -- and this is my favorite one, "his films are 2 deep 5 u."

Even a genius writer like James Joyce was held to task by the literary establishment when he came out with the incomprehensible "Finnegans Wake". But Lynch gets a free pass from the film industry because passively watching random nightmares and one dimensional nameless characters used to shock the viewers for two hours is far more pleasurable than slogging away at an inconceivably dense, 600-page-long book for months and months. Intellectually insecure critics and film-goers don't have the courage to call out Lynch on his bull****. They're busy focusing on false praises showered on Lynch by the elite-owned media. It's all a sad circus, really. Let the lynching begin.

And I do enjoy ambiguity and scope for subjective interpretation in a work of art. But there has to be -- I don't know -- some kind of reference, a structure, a starting and end point, a coherent vision to work with when critiquing a medium like film. I have no issue whatsoever with people enjoying and loving Blue Velvet; my issue is with their zealous cries of "one of the best films ever" that drown out any kind of criticism or questions that should logically be welcomed with regard to this film's artistic legitimacy. Like all sincere (con) artists, Lynch has refused to provide his own interpretation or explanation for Inland Empire and Blue a Velvet, in an effort to preserve the mystery and enigma surrounding his supposed nightmare. Surely his visions for Mulholland Drive as i learner were different, so he really got a film out nothing: No matter what Lynch now claims about the project, what we saw was originally conceived as a TV pilot. If my film starts with a shot of a woman being murdered, followed by a man cutting down a tree with an axe, followed by two lesbians kissing each other at a restaurant, you can rest assured someone in the world out there will come up with an explanation to make sense of these completely random, disconnected events, provided I have been hyped up by the media to the degree that my reputation is untouchable in the field of art I'm employed in. One could also make a case for Blue Velvet being a worthless movie made of flat, one dimensional characters and terrible writing but This brings me to some tough questions I'd like to ask to anyone who likes Lynch: Who is the ugly creature behind the diner? What is his significance? Who is the Detective in Blue Velvet? Is he a stock David Lynch character like Mystery Man from Lost Highway? What exactly does the nightmare mean? What about the Ghost? Is it all a dream -- who's to tell? There are so many questions whose answers one can only conjecture without ever reaching a consensus. By doing so, we venture into the dangerous territory of ambiguity for ambiguity's sake, ambiguity that comes artificially to a work of art through conscious design, and not organically. Why such a film is routinely considered one of the best of all time is beyond me. I intend to attack and question its artistic greatness till my last breath

Sorry for the rant, but upon watching all of Lynch's filmography I just like 1 film, love 1 film and think 1 film is great, I don't like the rest.

I much prefer some intelligent director, with nothing pretentious such as David Cronenberg or Carpenter. They make quality films that are also fun to watch and entertaining.

I'm only commenting on the ones I have seen.


TDKR
As ridiculous and dumb as a Charles Bronson - Cannon Films flick, but attempts to hide it with its enormous budget and overly serious tone.
I also want to note I'm not a fan of Nolan's movies at all.



The Hateful Eight
I love this movie until its final 30 minutes or so.


mother!
I liked this when it came out. I was only 16 though, so this might just be a dumb teenager thinking that, just because a movie takes a big swing it is good or some stupid **** like that. I remember being quite bothered by its heavy handed Christian symbolism and thinking if Aronofsky ditched all of that and just gave us this Kafkaesque nightmare of a house slowly being invaded by more and more strangers, I would probably be more comfortable in saying I loved it. That scene where she keeps telling people to not sit down on the sink until it finally breaks was one of the biggest shocks I've ever had in a theater, because that's an actual nightmare scenario for me. Everyone else at that screening loathed the movie though.

The Neon Demon
In general I'm a Refn apologist, but this movie does nothing for me.


Eyes Wide Shut
Sometimes I think this is my favorite Kubrick. Not best, but the one I want to revisit the most.


Man of Fire
Big Tony Scott fan, especially from his latter, more experimental period. This might be the best one from that bunch, though weirdly enough my favorite movie of his is The Last Boy Scout.


Man of Steel
I haven't seen this since I was a 14 or something, so no real opinion, but I remember it looked cool. I always viewed Snyder's DCEU as more of an Elseworld universe anyway, so I find it easier than most to deal with his not always faithful portrayal of the actual characters.

Here are my thoughts on some of the films mentioned here:

TDKR

Didn't care for it, nor do I care much for Nolan in general. I loved the action scenes and I thought Bane was a memorable villain (with that being said though, I have no idea why people loved the fight scenes between him and Batman, as I found them clunky as hell). The rest of the film though is a huge mess. It's directed in a way which can make it hard to notice these flaws, but the more you dig into the film and think about it, the less sense the film makes. It's a really hot mess of a film.

The Hateful Eight

I think I like this one more than most of my fellow Corrie buddies. It's not my favorite Tarantino film (the flashback structure and some of the violent bits didn't work for me), but I found it to be a masterclass is setting claustrophobia and suspense. Putting it in the context of his entire filmography, it's definitely a lesser film, but I still love it.

Melancholia

I like this one a lot, though I prefer the first half due to its brilliant depiction of a loveless wedding which shows and doesn't tell. The second half is strong too, but I found the first half to be a more oblique way of handling the lead protagonist's mental state.

On a side note, though nobody is going to agree with me, I kind of dislike the cinematography in Lars Von Trier's films. Yes, I get that he frames many of his shots well, but something about the cinematography in his films feels artificial. It's like if someone took a great photograph, but edited it a bunch of times and added some unnecessary filters to it in Paint or whatnot. It kinda muddles what works for those shots, in my opinion.

The Tree Of Life

A masterpiece and my 4th favorite film of all time. Here's what I wrote on it in the MoFo top 100:

While its story isn't too hard to wrap your head around once you get the general idea of it (the opening five minutes with the quote from the Book of Job and the nature v. grace monologue provide the backbone for, well, pretty much everything in the film), I was mainly drawn to the style of the film. Malick has a visually outstanding and sensually pleasing style with the way he edits and displays the events in his films and this film is the best utilization of his style I've seen. The whole film has a spiritual and poetic feel to it, and the way the actors move around onscreen makes the film feel like a ballet. This feel exists in some of his later films (To the Wonder, Knight of Cups), but the aforementioned spiritual element is what separates this film from his others for me.

Gummo

This is a phenomenal film. It's sort of like Terrence Malick, except, as where Malick finds beauty in nature and (with his later films) ballet-like movement, Korine finds beauty in disgust and ugliness. It once made my top 10 (or top 15, idk), but fell out of it some time ago. I'll have to revisit it someday to see what I think of it.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd