This is a straight copy of a post from my blog, found at http://onceuponatimeinmythoughts.blogspot.com, thanks to Aaron Silverman for this idea. I'm posting here for discussion as well as shameless self-promotion. Anyway, here's the list. 12. Transformers The Movie (1986). This amazes me how many people dislike the film. I don't know if it's because of Michael Bay's recent abominations or because they didn't like the fact that Optimus Prime died for the first of many times in Transformers mythos here. If nothing else, this is the one movie based on an 80's toy line that most people remember either positively or negatively. The story is a decent story, and honestly sitting next to Bay's films it should be considered a masterpiece. Optimus Prime's death here is arguably the most memorable scene in the film and is one of the better animated death scenes that I've personally ever seen. The fight scenes are spectacular as well. However the most important thing in this movie to me is that it was not dumbed down. This movie was geared towards a teenage audience in order to make it appeal to more people and this to me is the biggest reason why it's still remembered to this day. 11. Dodes'ka-den. A somewhat obscure film made by the master himself Akira Kurosawa. If Kurosawa had one film that even Kurosawa buffs dislike, it's this one. The story takes place in present(1970) day Japan in the middle of a landfill. It tells a story of multiple people and how their circumstances impact their lives. Some deal with it with hope, and some with despair in various forms. The title of this film comes from a line that one of the characters, a mentally-challenged teenager, continually mumbles throughout the day. This boy imagines himself as a train conductor and "dodes'ka-den" is his representation of the sound that a train makes as it rolls on the tracks. I think most people hate this film because of the films that preceded it. Such masterpieces as Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, The Hidden Fortress, and to continue on with that would be to simply list other accepted world classics. Most of these were epic-action films and starred the great Toshiro Mifune. Dodes'ka-den has none of those. Kurosawa and Mifune had their falling out several years earlier and as I said, this entire film takes place in a landfill. No action, no epic grand scale, just down and out characters trying to survive from day to day. Aside from the story, the film is actually a technical marvel featuring a wide palette of color in such a bleak setting to go along with Kurosawa's typical masterful editing. I will admit that it is one of the weaker films in Kurosawa's filmography but I think to hate or dismiss it entirely is a mistake because it may not be Seven Samurai or Yojimbo, but Dodes'ka-den has much to offer for anyone willing to listen. 10. Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. Ahhh Episode 1. You hold such a special place in my heart. For the record, this is a bad movie and I get why this movie receives the venom it does from most people. What I don't get is what people were expecting. I do own the Star Wars movies because I believe every serious fan of cinema as a whole should own them, but I am not a fan of Star Wars. The stories they tell have been told a million times and unlike say Avatar, they don't even re-tell these stories very well. Episode 1 is largely criticized for the character of Jar Jar Binks. Jar Jar is to me one of these characters that is SOOOO stereotypical that he's actually funny. George Lucas' attempts at lame humor here are not at all funny, but the fact that he made a character who is so one-dimensionally stereotypical and quite frankly insulted his fan base so bad actually is funny. Yes, I get joy from watching this character because I know there are thousands of mindless Star Wars fans losing sleep even 13 yeas later because this character exists. Lots of animosity also exists because Anakin Skywalker appears as a young child in the film....wait...what? People are angry that Anakin began life as a boy? How else do you expect him to begin life? What is he supposed to be Benjamin Button or something? They're also angry at how immature and bloody annoying he was but again, what did you expect? Are you seriously expecting a 9 year old boy to be fully mature? For the reasons mentioned above, I do actually enjoy this awful movie because it warms my heart knowing that Star Wars fans who take these films way too GD seriously are still losing sleep and facing blood pressure problems 13 years later due to this film. Good show George Lucas. Good show. For the record as well, if you are a fan of Star Wars, God bless you. You're a normal person who happens to have a hobby and you should be commended for putting your interest into a subject that isn't harming anyone. But for those of you who literally hinge life and death on these bloody films and actually have the gall to refer to the first 3 films as "The Holy Trilogy" I hold no sympathy for you because anyone who takes any film so seriously as to refer to it as "Holy" should be removed from the gene pool. These are the people that I enjoy laughing at every time George Lucas makes some minute change to the original films and of course, these people react as though an asteroid is about to collide with Earth. 9. The Matrix Sequels. Yes, these 2 films are not anywhere on the level of the first Matrix film. But they are not at all bad films. The action is spectacular in them and the story line at least follows a consistent path. I will admit that it seems Keanu Reeves remembered that he was Keanu Reeves in these 2 and returned to his wooden "style" of acting. In the first Matrix, he seemed to forget who he was to a certain extent and actually put some feeling and emotion into the Neo character. The shining star in all 3 films really but especially these sequels is Hugo Weaving as Smith. The fight scenes are spectacular and it's amazing to watch this character's transformation from essentially a Captain Ahab-like character into one who just simply is tired of it all and wants to rest. Honestly, I really don't have a lot to say about them because I've only seen them a couple times and it has been a while but I did enjoy them when I saw them. I guess for these 2 films, I will just ask you to take my word that most people hate them but they're not as bad as many people say they are. 8. Terminator 3/Terminator Salvation. Most people dislike these films from what I've seen for a few reasons. The first of which being James Cameron's lack of involvement with them which in itself fascinates me because so many people despise James Cameron to begin with and no one's ever presented a logical reason to me as to why. In the case of T3, most people I've seen absolutely hated the ending of the film. There is simply no other way it could end. For this 3rd film to exist, Judgement Day can't be averted again. If it is, there's no reason to make the 3rd film. Now I know people say that there was no reason to anyway since T2 brought the story to a logical conclusion. I raise this question though. If we can assume everything else about the Terminator series to be true, why can we not also at least consider the possibility that the U.S. government could've gotten ahold of Cyberdyne's technology or perhaps may have been funding Cyberdyne's research to begin with? This is not answered in the film, it's speculation on my part. Yes Miles Dyson destroyed his files in T2, but again, who's to say that someone else at Cyberdyne, perhaps Dyson's boss whomever it may have been, wasn't sharing some of this info with the government. This could explain as well how it would've taken 7 years to get to the stage of Skynet's final creation. Without Dyson to spearhead the operation, I imagine it would've taken longer than it would've with him there and if the film says 7 years without him and 3 years with him, I can accept that as a logical gap since Dyson was "the man most directly responsible" for Skynet. Terminator Salvation was the film that Terminator fans had wanted for a while as far as finally getting to see the future war in a substantial way and not just in brief "flashbacks." The major thing I saw that angered people about this film was the fact that McG directed it. Again, if he makes a good film that stays true to the storyline and is entertaining, who cares? McG did everything to maintain the continuity between the previous films and the CGI Arnold near the end to go with Brad Fiedel's original score was absolutely fantastic. Christian Bale is his usual superb self here and was a worthy successor in the role of John Connor. This was something that I've seen that angered a lot of people as well and that was the absence of Edward Furlong as John Connor in both films. Granted, I would've liked to have seen this continuity maintained as well, but Furlong has a long history of drug issues and was battling addiction and legal issues at the time both of these films were being made. I hear he's gotten himself straightened out and if there is a Terminator 5 someday, perhaps he can resume the role that made him a star. 7. Eyes Wide Shut. I will admit that I'm at a loss as to why this movie gets the hate that it does. It's a well acted, well directed film with a story line that just screams bizarre. I guess for me I like this movie because I actually "get it." The film features a pre-bat-shit-crazy Tom Cruise as a prominent doctor who is ultimately forced to deal with his own sexual inadequacies. The repression in this man's eyes throughout the whole film is staggering. The world he dips into is one of depravity and the rituals in this world are just utterly bizarre. I use that word constantly to describe this film but I think it's so accurate. The orgy sequence in the movie is one of the rare times in movies that I've been legitimately creeped out by what I was seeing. Especially the beginning of it with all the chanting. It literally gave me chills because it was just so creepy. I will admit I would like to have learned whether or not Sydney Pollock's character was lying at the end about the girl's fate as well as the circumstances around the orgy sequence but it doesn't ruin the film for me. To me, it's a fine film that served as Stanley Kubrick's final work as he passed away a few months before this film was released in 1999. 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.