Here we have the 2nd half of my top 12 movies that I like but most people seem not to like. I expect a few raised eyebrows at a few of these films and I expect some to say that I have no taste in movies with some of these choices. Regardless of whatever you have to say, here are 6-1 of the top 12 movies. I forgot to mention yesterday as well, some of these comments will contain spoilers so if you've never seen these movies and want to, then you should go to the next one on the list after reading the title.
6. The Last Temptation of Christ. Big controversy with this film. For those who've never seen or heard of this movie, it presents Jesus' adult life in a sort of "alternate reality" in which he is fearful of the future, and also battles severe self-doubt about his true mission. The second half of this film was the big shocker for most people. It depicts Jesus coming down off the cross and living a normal life with Mary Magdalene. He has kids, he grows old, and on his deathbed, his former disciples, particularly Judas Iscariot, ridicule him for turning his back on humanity. We then find out that his life after the cross was a dream and that it was his "last temptation" by Satan to try to lure him off the cross. This presents another controversial aspect of the film. Judas is not played as a simple traitor. He's played as Jesus' most loyal and trustworthy disciple who was handpicked by Jesus to be his betrayer. In this film, he's not motivated by greed but by genuine love for Jesus as he has to do the hardest thing anyone would ever be asked to do. People have asked me how, as a Christian, I can support the film since it's message is so contrary to what the Bible has to say on the subject. My answer to that is that I understand that this is an alternate take on historical events. Going into it, I realized and understood that this film was basically a "what-if" scenario. In fact the film even states at the beginning that this is exactly what it is. There is no attempt to pass this film off as historical fact. I figure basically the morons who protested it and threatened the people who made the film were either illiterate and couldn't read that simple message or their eyes were so clouded by religious bigotry that they just simply missed seeing it. In many ways, it's perhaps the best representation of Jesus the man on film. We truly do not know, no one could, whether or not he was subjected to the same fears as we all are. The film itself is well acted and very well directed. A rarity given that Martin Scorcese is directing it. If you dislike the film, dislike it because you think it's a poorly done film or because religious material is just not your cup of tea. Don't hate this film based on religious ignorance and the belief that this film is "undermining the message of God" because that's not what it's doing nor is it trying to do so.
5. Cars. This only speaks to the original. I'm not at all referring to the Larry the Cable Guy Show aka Cars 2. Prior to Cars 2's release, many people not in the southern US saw this as the weakest film by Pixar. I disagree. You'll see which one I think is the worst on my top 12 films that I hate that everyone else loves. If you break it down, I think so many people hated this film because of the obvious Nascar influence in the story. This is why I said most of this films fanbase is in the south. Many people just simply saw this as so inferior to the other Pixar films at that time and again, aside from the general dislike of Nascar, I really don't see why. This story has indeed been told a million times. Hot shot with a severe ego problem settles down and becomes enamored with small town life and thus becomes humble. Not Iron Sheik humble, just humble. However, the story itself is at least a decently told story and the CGI used in this film is arguably the best that Pixar has yet done. In a way, its currently a little difficult to watch this film because of my base hatred for what Nascar has become since 2004 and as I said, the connection between the film and Nascar is undeniable. I would basically say to anyone to just ignore the Nascar aspect of the film and treat it as any other animated movie on its own merits and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
4. James Cameron's Titanic. The hate for this film seems to have only spawned in the last few years. At one time, this was one of the most respected films ever made but now, it seems to be one of the more reviled. As I mentioned earlier, I think a lot of this hate has to do with the general dislike of James Cameron which, again, I simply don't understand and no one's ever given me one legitimate or logical reason for their hatred of him. I will state this much on the film. The love story is pure drivel as are most love stories. There are a few that are well done. Doctor Zhivago comes to mind, but those are very few and far between. However what makes this film great to me is the historical accuracy implicit in the film regarding the actual disaster itself. There were some inaccuracies in the film for dramatic purposes. This is inherent in every true events based film that's ever been made. There are also inaccuracies in it that were not known in 1996-1997 when the film was made. For instance, we now know that the ship didn't break from the top to the bottom. It did the reverse. We also know that the ship listed on its side ever so slightly. It didn't stay perfectly upright. Lastly, we also know that the ship didn't sink at the angle depicted in the film. The angle at which the stern broke off was much lower than previously believed. Again, we can't fault the filmmakers for this because it simply wasn't known at the time. Back to the film itself. It's James Cameron's usual perfectionist attention to detail which really makes this movie the great film that so many people said it was in the late 90's yet have suddenly retracted in the last few years. Sorry folks, James Cameron's involvement is not a good enough reason by itself to hate this film or any other film that he's ever done.
3. The Godfather Part III. Most of the hatred for this film centers around the casting and subsequent performance of Sofia Coppola. Yes, nepotism in its purest form on display for the world to see. This criticism is well founded and one that I have absolutely no disagreements with especially considering who was originally signed to play the role of Mary (Winona Ryder). As I understand it, Sofia was basically chosen because Francis Ford Coppola didn't feel he had time to recast the role through traditional means so he basically went with the quick fix. Where I do begin to disagree with the hatred of this film is that first of all, Sofia Coppola is only on screen for something like 10-15 minutes maximum in a near 3 hour movie so I can overlook her performance since it's rather miniscule in the scheme of things. Granted her role is a very pivotal one and I would say her character is the 2nd most important one in the film behind Michael, the actual amount of screen time is low enough that Sofia Coppola doesn't ruin the film for me. Another reason for a lot of hate is the absence of Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen. This was due to salary negotiations breaking down and thus the character was written out. Had he not been written out, I'm told that he would've essentially been the main villain of the story since he was to betray Michael. But that's conjecture. Taking into account the film we have, I feel it's very well done and is a fitting conclusion to the Corleone family saga. Pacino is superb as usual but for me, the man who steals this show is Eli Wallach. For the life of me, I can't understand why Eli Wallach isn't a household name or why he didn't become one of the biggest stars in movie history. A last little bit of trivia as well here. The original title of the film wasn't to be "The Godfather Part III." It was to simply be called "The Death of Michael Corleone" with no mention of Godfather. Paramount refused to relent and forced Coppola to name it as we know it today. Coppola has since stated that he views Godfather 1 and 2 as the actual series and part 3 as the epilogue. Using this description, Part 3 works very well at its intention which is to provide a resolution, albeit a very sad one, to the saga of the Corleone family.
2. Alien 3. The film debut of David Fincher who has since become one of the biggest directors in the world. Everyone considers this by far his weakest film and to that, I respond by saying apparently you've never seen The Social Network or Zodiac. This film was the victim of an unrealistic deadline as well as multiple directors/writers/etc. because the studio just couldn't decide on a proper direction to take the film. I don't see how anyone considers this film to be worse than Alien: Resurrection which immediately followed it. I'm guessing that a lot of people have never seen the re-assembled director's cut that came out a few years ago. The theatrical version of the film is a mess but it's still not as bad as people say. The director's cut fleshes out a lot more of the plot points and has a much more satisfying ending in Ripley's suicide. David Fincher showed us in the film what he was capable of doing even under the worst of conditions and he hit his stride later with such films as Se7en and Fight Club. He then went on to apparently decide he could do no wrong and then released Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Social Network all in a row. All 3 of which are in absolutely no way worthy of any praise they get.
And the number one movie that I like but most people seem to hate is........
1. Gods And Generals. I get why people hated some of the artistic choices in the film. I don't like the decision to play a lot of the Confederates in the manner that they did. I'm of the personal opinion that while there were many decent men who fought for the Confederacy, the Confederacy as a whole should never be portrayed in a positive light because they were fighting for the preservation of one of the most evil institutions in all of human history and that's human slavery. That being said, I enjoy the film because of the performances of the actors as well as the scope, scale and accuracy of the actual battles themselves. They suffer from artistic license but as a whole, are pretty good representations of what the actual battles probably looked like. Stephen Lang, Robert Duvall, and Jeff Daniels all turn in superb performances even if in the case of Lang and Duvall they're played much more positively than they should be. I blame a lot of this on the film's director Ronald Maxwell and, given that he financially backed this film and it's predecessor, Gettysburg, I'm rather sure that Ted Turner had a lot to do with this sympathetic portrayal of the south as well. Summing this up, I disagree vehemently with the portrayal of the south in this film but given the accuracy of the portrayal of most of the events in the story, I still find it to be a decent movie. For anyone who's never seen the film, if you get a chance to do so, I would recommend finding the extended director's cut of the film. It is FAR superior to the theatrical cut of the film and also includes several things that were regrettably edited out of the theatrical cut. The biggest of these is the Battle of Antietam Creek which was completely omitted from the original theatrical release.
