Billy Bathgate. I'm not even sure people know this movie exists. It's got one hell of a cast -- Nicole Kidman, Steve Buscemi, Bruce Willis, Dustin Hoffman, Steven Hill -- and they're all excellent. Compared to the high-energy likes of "Casino" and "Goodfellas" it's comparatively languid pace might be a major turn-off for some. I, however, find it refreshingly different ... and captivating. It also sports excellent period design and moody cinematography.
shareI'm going to get killed for this choice, although maybe not since the film is so old. Popeye...I love Robin Williams and Harry Nillson. The music was hated by the masses but I loved it.
Here is another one that everyone, I mean everyone abhorred...The Lone Ranger. I loved Johnny Depp in it. It was 20 minutes too long however I enjoyed it.
Nothing But Trouble.
I love it. Everyone else seems to have it.
Holy Man https://moviechat.org/tt0120701/Holy-Man
I thought it was funny and had a heart. It was nice to see Eddie Murphy in a more muted, but still comedic role. Jeff Goldblum gave a great performance, as did the lovely Kelly Preston.
Mumford. Apparently over 8000 people have seen it, but I've met none of those. I think it's a case of 'not many have even heard of this' but tbh I'm not even quite sure why I like it so much. I just, do.
shareMy favorite movie of all time, Armageddon! Everybody seems to see that movie as a joke.
shareRight now it seems to be The Last Jedi. I have a few issues with it, but overall I really liked it and what it did for the series.
shareI like "Jedi" too. Like "Temple of Doom," "Empire Strikes Back" and other Lucasfilm endeavors this one took risks and pissed off a lot of people as a result (despite the fact that these very people are often the ones bitching about how few risks popular entertainment seems to take nowadays). In the years to come "Jedi" will either go down as a classic like "Empire" or be forever divisive like "Temple." Either way, "Jedi," while far from perfect, is an admirable achievement, and hopefully will inspire future filmmakers, entrusted with celebrated franchises, to forego pleasing the fanboys and instead take risks.
shareI love Temple maybe the most of all the Indys! I think you're right about me responding to the risk-taking. I really was asking for that, and so were many others, I just felt like I got what I wanted. One of the best parts about it is it will challenge JJ Abrams to resolve the story satisfactorily, and he can't phone it in. There's no blueprint for how to pull off this next and final chapter, and JJ hasn't been challenged in a long time.
share"Temple" and "Jedi" have one thing in common: they don't give a shit what the audience thinks. I can respect that. Neither film is perfect -- far from it, actually -- but I'll take something that strives to be different, however messy the end result may be, over something that bends over backwards to please, any day. I'm convinced that the next "Star Wars" film, like the "Indy" film that followed "Temple," will be an "apology" for its predecessor's brazenness. That pisses me off. I like "Last Crusade" but have a fundamental problem with what it represents: safeness. "Crusade" just rehashes "Raiders" and throws in Connery. Fine. I love Connery and I love "Raiders." And if you're going to rehash something at least rehash the good stuff. But "Temple" didn't rehash anything (well, it did borrow a lot from "Gunga Din" -- which is a must for fans of "Temple" -- but it certainly didn't revisit themes already covered in its series). And neither does "Jedi." They go off in unchartered territory for their respective franchises -- and in doing so scared, frustrated and pissed off audiences who just want sameness (even if outwardly they're whining about how homogenized everything has become).
shareBelieve me: JJ will find a way to "apologize" for "Jedi."
shareTime will tell but I really don't know if the next Star Wars can be an apology on the level of Crusade. So much more was shaken up in Star Wars with Last Jedi than in Indy with Temple. I agree they are analogous, but I stand by my claim that there is just no easy outs for JJ. It will have to be the most standalone movie if it's going to resolve the series; it just can't be like anything we've yet seen, and if it is, it will be a big fail, which Dis just won't allow. They're not above firing and replacing people, and the studio was pleased with the controversy and money Last Jedi brought in, so they may feel like there's nothing to apologize for. Lucasfilm under Disney seems to be ok with pissing off small groups of viewers in favor of better reviews from critics. The money seems to be the same either way.
shareIt will be a lot like "Return of the Jedi": it will take some risks -- like "Jedi" took with the Luke/Vader relationship -- only to offset this risk-taking with vanilla characterizations and lazily-concluded stories -- like "Jedi" in the case of Yoda, Han, Leia, Lando and pretty much everything else other than Luke and Vader. And it will definitely make tons of references to past entries in the series, like "Rogue One" and "Force Awakens," so mercurial fan boys will be distracted. Oh, and it will give the Jar-Jar of "The Last Jedi," Rose, a bigger, more obnoxious presence ... while potentially interesting characters like Poe get sidelined for good.
share