Movie Reviews 2.0

I'll admit that I was a child of the 70's, and as such I read a LOT of marvel comics. So I was very familiar with all the major marvel characters, and I'm looking forward to the Dr strange movie. However there are still alot of "second rung" characters from marvel that I don't actually recall from my childhood reading, i.e. Antman, hawkeye, black widow, scarlet witch, the guy with the mechanical wings and also the guy that ended up with the voice of Jarvis.

I guess maybe some of these came after I stopped reading the comics, or they were in the comics I just didn't read.

I bring this up because I'm looking at that picture of the "justice league". I know Batman and Superman obviously, wonder woman from the lynda carter series, vaguely know flash from the TV series (but didn't follow it), The guy on the right I'm guessing is aquaman, I have only heard of him from the big bang theory, and in that he is constantly protrayed as a bit whimpy, and the guy in the middle I have no idea. Was/Is the justice league as big as Marvel/Avengers at the time, and I just picked one over the other, or are some of these characters the equivalent of the Marvel second rung, and just never had much prominence generally.

Also, I still find it hard to get to grips why superman needs help from anyone. My historic view of superman was that he was pretty much as strong as he wanted, and pretty much invincible (except the kryptonite thing)

Also in the wonder woman preview, when chris pine struggles around the beach a little, it almost looks like he has a star trek communicator peaking out of his coat :)
 
Last edited:
I'm glad I'm not the only one with regards to BvS.

I know not everyone is a fan of what Nolan created with his Batman trilogy, but I honestly think his re-envisioning of the franchise set new boundaries to the genre and how not all superhero flicks have to follow the same path they used to. For what it's worth; I quite enjoy the bit over the top but entertaining Marvel flicks like Iron Man, but I also really liked the more gritty approach to (Nolans) Batman as a drama/thriller and Man of Steel following that same or at least a very similar path. I also think Nolan was very critical about what worked and what didn't. Before The Dark Knight Rises (or was it after Batman Begins?), I read he was unsure if he wanted to include the character Robin because it didn't fit in the whole world he built up and was too soon. And thank you Nolan, that he didn't rush it but actually found a way to add him as a character without feeling rushed or cheap.

I get there are a lot of fans of the comics who used to read them, but IMO comics are a very different medium to film-making and not everything that works in a comic also works in a 2 hour movie. My biggest gripe with the Batman v Superman starter is that both these franchises were built up with certain expectations. And these expectations sort of went down the drain when they filmed this new movie starring both. I also think that both these characters aren't really compatible within the same "world". Truthfully, I felt the same when Marvel threw in Thor into Iron Mans world in the Avengers (mixing a essentially a God with a mere mortal in a high-tech suit but making them equals), but somehow it felt less disturbing there because to some degree, the Marvel films were always less constrained by reality because none of their films aimed to be that. I'm more critical of BvS because both Nolans Batman and Man of Steel were more than just an entertainment flick. They set a strong precedence for the world they've built up. It's bad enough to see how mindless Bruce Wayne is going on his crusade against Superman, but then to add Wonder Woman to the mix as if it was the most logical thing ever...

I would have much preferred to see a Man of Steel 2 dealing with the issues of how mankind comes to dealing with having an overpowered Alien among them, but that can never happen because clearly BvS takes place right after (and during) the occurrences of the first part. Anyway, this just feels too much like a cheap copy of the Avengers. Avengers, it works, maybe because that came after most its characters had already established themselves well in their stand-alone movies. Then Avengers come along and the characters follow the same path of what is expected of them. Tony Stark is still Tony Stark and predictable (as also witty) as ever, Thor is Thor, heck, even Captain America is consistent. On every level, the Avengers movie is a consistent experience to the precedent that the stand-alones started.
 
BTW; I just watched Star Trek at the movies last night. I really liked it. In fact, I really liked all of the new ones so far (as I did the old ones). Still think though that "First Contact" will probably stay as my favorite Star Treks of all time. That one was just epic.

R.I.P. Anton and Leonard. :(
 
I think the nutrek films are likeable primarily because IMO, they got the major castings spot on (although I'm not overly keen on simon pegg as scotty).
 
tangey said:
IMO, they got the major castings spot on
Click to expand...
This, yeah. Even with the nonsensical script, the first nuTrek was greatly enjoyable thanks to the really good casting. Pegg - well. You could go either way here. You either like him or you don't. He isn't much like James Doohan's Scotty, but he's got his own qualities too. On the whole I rather like him I think, but the weirdo pet he keeps around they should have struck right out of the initial script. WTF is up with that thing?
 
London-boy said:
Yep. At least the WW movie looks a lot better, so far.
Click to expand...
Which, apparently, Zack was a writer for - this was kept quiet until recently.

However, following the panning that BvS got, Warner Bros got the message and they have very much been on the press offensive with JL - already had press onset and highlighting the "lighter" tone to the film. Hopefully it is more than just surface to keep press on-side and that the plot and script is a lot more cohesive to begin with.
 
Saw Deadpool today. Didn't find it very good. Didn't find the juvenile humor funny, the plot was sentimental and boring, the gratuitous nudity was inappropriate and ridiculous, and the fourth wall-breakers even more so.

Surprisingly for a movie of this caliber, there's a couple rather badly animated CGI shots spread throughout the movie. You'd think they'd have more a handle on physics and human motion capture by now.

Movie was also overly long.

The dialogue is written for a bunch of 12-year-olds, but there's naked ladies in a stripclub at one point and buttcrack galore at another, not to mention the beheading, splatting corpses...; is this what america has come to - a nation of man-babies watching this shit and laughing...?

I'm seriously not impressed.
 
I liked the gratuitous nudity and the violence:) And I genuinely enjoyed the back and forth between Reynolds and Baccarin. I'm more or less with you on everything else, though. They threw too much pizza at the wall hoping something might eventually stick. I have very little fondness for referential humor in particular. Too much "hey, we're now gonna point and laugh at the fact that Charles Xavior is played by two different dudes in the X-Men films because reasons."
 
Saw Star Trek Beyond over the weekend. My initial impression is that it was rubbish. Sometimes I change my mind on a second viewing so we'll see in a few months when it's released on Sky. But until then my impressions are as follows:

The Bad:
  • The motorbike scene was even worse, and even more nonsensical than the desert buggy scene in Nemesis.
  • The 'Mars Attacks' style solution to the enemy ship problem was ridiculous.
  • The destruction of the Enterprise was done with zero respect. Not that I had a whole lot of respect for that version of the Enterprise anyway.
  • Yorktown? Since when was the Federation in to, or even capable of building 'Halo' like starbases?
  • There was a joke in there that was shamelessly ripped off from Futurama. It escapes me what it was at the moment. EDIT: 'Classical music'. Great joke 17 years ago when Futurama came up with it.
  • Captain Kirk doesn't think exploration for explorations sake is a worthwhile endeavour now?
  • Too many aliens that looked like monsters and too much Jason Bourne style hand to hand fighting.
  • Spock laughs
The Good:
  • Karl Urban did a great job as Bones as always.
  • Nice and plentiful nods to Star Trek Enterprise (as strange a series to nod to as that may be)
  • Nice nod to 'absent friends' at the end - which as well as being a touching nod to those cast members and crew that are no longer with us, was also a nice nod to Star Trek 3.
  • Clumsily handles but still appreciated nod to Leonard Nimoy and the original film cast.
 
pjbliverpool said:
My initial impression is that it was rubbish.
Click to expand...
I can see where you're coming from. I personally enjoyed the movie a bit more than you seem to have done, but it had some issues, yeah. I can agree with that. :)

An even bigger issue is, it's Star Trek's 50th anniversary, and the year is more than half over and what has Paramount (CBS?) done so far? Big fuckall, pretty much. The scene mentioned in Beyond is sweet, but it's not much.

Half of the original cast is still alive; Nichols, Takei, Koenig, Shatner. Not to mention the more recent series. If I was the owners of this franchise, I'd commission some one-offs, featuring brief cameos and peeks of where some of these characters are in their respective Trek timelines (assuming any of the actors are still interested in playing these characters, of course... lol), and an interesting science fiction-y situation with a star trek spin of some sort. Naturally, preparation work for this would have started well in advance of the anniversary, to make sure scripts and casting are solid, and so on.

*shrug*
 
Wow. I'm actually a bit shocked. Suicide Squad seemed like the badly needed redemption Warner/DC needed but the first reviews are absolutely brutal.
If even this amazing cast can't save their movie, there is really something seriously wrong with the direction Warner is taking.
Shocked.
 
I only saw the trailer and wasn't really sold. It just seems too.... dunno. Weird?. Crazy? Chaotic?

I usually watch movies based on directors or actors I like, and it starring Will Smith is probably enough for me to want to see it, but it's not particularly high on my priority list. I wouldn't mind simply watching it once it's out on Bluray.

And speaking of movies that don't interest me in the slightest... add the new Ghostbusters to that too. With women? What in gods name were they thinking. Then again, I asked myself that not too long ago with an other particular high profile movie (blockbuster)......
 
London-boy said:
Wow. I'm actually a bit shocked. Suicide Squad seemed like the badly needed redemption Warner/DC needed but the first reviews are absolutely brutal.
If even this amazing cast can't save their movie, there is really something seriously wrong with the direction Warner is taking.
Shocked.
Click to expand...

With David Ayer at the reigns, they even got a pretty damn good action director to put the bloody thing together. I loved both End of Watch and Fury. Too bad SQ is apparently just a shit version of Guardians of the Galaxy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
12K
trinibwoy
T
B
The melodrama of making the Miami Vice movie
Replies
4
Views
2K
101998
1
R
  • Locked
Reverend at The Pulpit #12
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
13K
Dave Baumann
Dave Baumann
P
Matrix Revolution. WARNING spoiler
Replies
5
Views
2K
Sazar
S
R
Reverend at The Pulpit #3
Replies
14
Views
3K
pcchen
P
Back
Top