Movies you've recently watched

Joe Chip · May 2, 2015

Yeah i also saw it yesterday. I really liked it. The

Hulkbuster

scene was amazing, i was looking forward to it and i loved it. I also liked Ultron,

but i was hoping that they show a bit more of his character. For example i liked the scene with him and Natasha, where he is building his new armor. Also i would have liked that they make his final form a bit stronger

BTW do you think that

They killed Ultron, i personally doubt it. They didn't really show it.

Honestly the only problem i had with the movie is that

all in all it felt like a giant filler movie for the infinity gauntlet arc. On top of that they laid the seeds for the Civil war that's coming up. It's like we are watching a TV series but we have to wait a few months between each episode, oh well.

underpileofdeadbodies · May 2, 2015

I agree with you Joe chip about the "filler." I didn't know until after viewing the film that Joss was toning down ultrons power significantly. This is all fine I just didn't feel he was as tough as I remembered.

I did enjoy the different feel of the film. The avengers focusing on saving humanity seemed as balanced as stopping Ultron. Truth be told I am sick of robotic looking villains.

It was fun and I enjoyed it, even if it left me a little underwhelmed. We really are just in the middle phase of making way for the purple ape. That will definitely get my expectations too high. :guts:

m · May 2, 2015

Griffith said:
Though, while it's the same length as the last one, it's not nearly as long or clunky

I didn't know both movies were the same length before reading your comment. If somebody had asked me which one was longer I would have guessed the second one hands down. I don't know why but throughout the movie I felt that it was way too long.

Griffith said:
(better movie, yes, but not a better Avengers movie)

I couldn't agree more.

Griffith · May 2, 2015

m said:
I didn't know both movies were the same length before reading your comment. If somebody had asked me which one was longer I would have guessed the second one hands down. I don't know why but throughout the movie I felt that it was way too long.

Throughout? So you thought the movie was too long even before it became long? =)

I guess I see what you mean, a lot was happening, though it all moved at a brisk pace to me. The first movie had fewer scenes and things to juggle (which is nuts to consider), but took a long time with everything (the opening with Loki is like a half hour long, and the Avengers take over an hour to come together). They did too much here, namely Whedon's twins and Marvel's everything else to come (by the end Ultron is almost an afterthought in his own movie, he's basically no real threat at all), but didn't linger on any one thing too long (or if it did, it was something worthy of extra time like Hulkbusting =).

m said:
I couldn't agree more.

Yeah, I enjoyed this, but it gives me a new appreciation for the first one as well. It does not crack my top ten list of the most significant comic book superhero movies, as written again below (at least not yet). Note: these aren't necessarily the "best," though some are on there for their quality, but an attempt at a more objective measure of their impact in defining the genre and its success. Anyway, here it is:

Superman (1978) - Was the only game in town for decades all around it. Pretty much set the standard, and still holds up.
Batman (1989) - Over a decade after Supes, a real visual breakthrough with superdom's second citizen. Keaton is still the only guy to really pull off Batman on screen.
Blade - It only took another decade for people to stop trying to copy Batman's formula and do something different. Marvel is on the board, and with a C-lister at best.
X-Men - It's the fucking X-Men, and it actually looks and acts relatively like it. More impressive today (and the still fucking going strong somehow).
Spider-Man - Basically the dawn of modern comic movies. Everybody has copied this since, especially the MCU. Has some silly shit in it though.
Spider-Man 2 - The best comic book superhero movie to date at the time... or still? Has some nice themes and balances light/fun with dark/seriousness (GRIT not included).
Batman Begins - The other modern comic book movie archetype that everybody has copied since. Let's get SERIOUS!
Iron Man - Perfect synthesis of the Spidey/Begins formula, and a superhero that acknowledges it's pretty head-expandingly awesome being a superhero (fantastic ending).
The Dark Knight - The best comic hero film to date (featuring Batman)? So good the Joker won an Oscar, and the Academy even changed the rules after it was film was snubbed.
The Avengers - The culmination of not only the unprecedented experiment Marvel began with Iron Man, but one that harks back to Superman '78 and the 30's and 40's cereals. Basically, to take comic book superheros and successfully translate them to the big screen. They didn't just do that though with the MCU and The Avengers, but managed to somehow translate movies into comic book series in themselves. I don't know where they go from here. A film of The Dark Knight's quality on the Avenger's scale? We'll see, or is that movie already out there? I have two or three honorable mentions that didn't move the needle like these, but are arguably worthy. Even though I'm 100% objectively correct, I'd like to hear others' opinions. =)

IncantatioN · May 3, 2015

Griffith, would you consider Guardians in that mix?

Reading your comments guys, I have low expectations from Ultron.

Griffith · May 3, 2015

IncantatioN said:
Griffith, would you consider Guardians in that mix?

Nah, but for no fault of its own; it's just that it's almost a different animal altogether. I'm very specifically focused on movie adaptations of established comic book superheroes (preferably costumed =) so as to avoid muddling the waters with original superhero movies, like The Incredibles, or any of the many other films adapted from comic books that have nothing to do with heroes. I guess the fact that Galaxy is almost something else altogether, sci-fi or space opera, while achieving such success couched in the Marvel universe is significant, but not in the way I'm interested in here (how to successfully do a costumed superhero movie, as opposed to not doing one but Star Wars instead). The most signicant thing about it from that point of view is that Marvel Studios managed to make Avengers money with essentially its D-list.

IncantatioN said:
Reading your comments guys, I have low expectations from Ultron.

If you liked the first Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy you should enjoy this too. Besides, my disappointments in it stem from its greater unrealized potential, not its actual deficiencies (basically, I'm disappointed it's not the best comicbook superhero movie ever =).

Hanma_Baki · June 12, 2015

So... This thread looks kinda dead right now, I sincerely hope nobody has seen this one without having the decency to mention it here.

I guess I'll go first then. I've always been a huge Mad Max nerd, and since like 90% of movies suck in this day and age you could imagine my fear going into this, but truth to be told I been to the cinema twice now and there's no denying it. George Miller, you genius son of a bitch, I could kiss you. I could go on but I hate spoiling and over hyping stuff, so go see for yourselves, all I can say is you don't wanna miss this on the big screen, preferably 3D but works fine either way honestly.

Edit: Btw I read somewhere (I think reliable) they've already signed on for a couple more installments. And I'm not exactly surprised since it seems like it's done pretty good this far. It just sounds too good to be true...

Griffith · June 12, 2015

It's like you've wandered out of a cave, my friend. Yeah, the Fury Road conversation kind naturally grew out of, and continues in, the "movies to look forward to" thread:

http://www.skullknight.net/forum/index.php?topic=8350.msg234721#msg234721

We even talked about it on the podcast and discussed it further in that thread:

http://www.skullknight.net/forum/index.php?topic=14680.0

IncantatioN · July 8, 2015

Watched Terminator Genisys last night. The movie is bad, as expected. But Arnold being the Terminator isn't that bad. Genisys is a train wreck when it comes to the plot. A pal called it Genishit. Some things are not explained purposely, I guess to make way for sequels? As the movie's opening credits rolled, was excited to see Hans Zimmer's name but the soundtrack was pretty shit throughout. I mean, that could've been the one good thing in the movie other than Arnold but it just wasn't to be. The mother of dragons did good in mimicking Sarah of old in her speech and Arnold retains most of the Terminator's mannerisms from T2. Spoiler -

the movie hashes some things from T1 and T2, you see a bit of T3 (bus scene).

It's most probably going to bomb in the US and make money internationally, or not. I have mixed feelings, I didn't mind some parts of the movie but ... maybe it didn't feel like the worst movie of the year because of Ted 2 (not my fault, bunch of pals wanted to movie hop and went to see Ted 2 ... hadn't even seen Ted and it was horrible, I wanted my 2 hours back).

It'll be fun to talk about it if someone else's watched it?

Caught Inside Out this weekend. I had no idea what the movie was about and it hit me HARD. Not as hard as Marley & Me (that's been the absolute worst movie of all time when it comes to me breaking down). Inside Out is intelligent, funny, heart warming, fun and I recommend anyone reading this to go out and see it. Don't look it up, just go. The animated short - Lava - before the movie is equally heart warming. If I hadn't seen Mad Max Fury Road, this would've been the movie of the year so far.

Grail · July 8, 2015

IncantatioN said:
I have mixed feelings, I didn't mind some parts of the movie but ... maybe it didn't feel like the worst movie of the year because of Ted 2 (not my fault, bunch of pals wanted to movie hop and went to see Ted 2 ... hadn't even seen Ted and it was horrible, I wanted my 2 hours back).

Yeah, Ted 2 seems like it would be a pretty huge waste of time. This is doubly disappointing because I actually thought the first movie was kinda charming, in a vulgar sort of way. :guts:

I saw Seth MacFarlane trying to hype up the story on Graham Norton the other day and I was already cringing.

IncantatioN said:
Caught Inside Out this weekend. I had no idea what the movie was about and it hit me HARD. Not as hard as Marley & Me (that's been the absolute worst movie of all time when it comes to me breaking down). Inside Out is intelligent, funny, heart warming, fun and I recommend anyone reading this to go out and see it. Don't look it up, just go. The animated short - Lava - before the movie is equally heart warming. If I hadn't seen Mad Max Fury Road, this would've been the movie of the year so far.

That's quite an endorsement! I'll admit that I've been kind of lazy about catching any of the big CG movies over the last couple of years, but it sounds like this one isn't one to miss! Besides, it's been a while since Gobs has cried at the movies, it'll be fun. :ganishka:

IncantatioN · July 8, 2015

Grail said:
Yeah, Ted 2 seems like it would be a pretty huge waste of time. This is doubly disappointing because I actually thought the first movie was kinda charming, in a vulgar sort of way. I saw Seth MacFarlane trying to hype up the story on Graham Norton the other day and I was already cringing.

I expected a Ted movie to be purely goofy like a Hangover or Hot Tub Time Machine and maybe the first one is, but this was part goofy part serious where the serious parts sucked. There's a sequence in the end that's cool but it's still the worst movie I've watched this year. Just glad I didn't pay for it. The crowd was pretty into it though ...

That's quite an endorsement! I'll admit that I've been kind of lazy about catching any of the big CG movies over the last couple of years, but it sounds like this one isn't one to miss! Besides, it's been a while since Gobs has cried at the movies, it'll be fun.

The one good thing was that my friends were sitting to my left, so I hid a tear drop or two and told my eyes "The right ... tear up just the right!" ... wishful thinking. Inside Out may not be as sad as Pixar's Toy Story 3 or Wall-E (at the end) or UP (the opening scene) but there could be a moment or two that'll creep up on you. I'm kinda bad when it comes to emotional stuff and try not to watch movies of that sort with friends. For instance, I made sure I watched The Lion King on Broadway by myself because of Mufasa, to play it safe!

Johnstantine · July 17, 2015

Saw Ant-Man last night and absolutely loved it. It was cheesy, fun and didn't take itself seriously at all.

Absolutely wonderful.

JMP · August 8, 2015

IncantatioN said:
Inside Out is intelligent, funny, heart warming, fun and I recommend anyone reading this to go out and see it.

I saw Inside Out a few weeks ago and it was really good! It's one I wouldn't mind seeing again. There was so much going on with how they represented the mind processing various things. I thought that was pretty cool and I'd probably get more out of it on a second viewing.

Johnstantine said:
Saw Ant-Man last night and absolutely loved it. It was cheesy, fun and didn't take itself seriously at all.

Absolutely wonderful.

Nice! This looked like it would be good to me, so I'll have to check it out!

Griffith · September 29, 2015

Finally completed Interstellar and it was... pretty stellar! :serpico:

Totally lived up to the, somewhat muted, hype and delivered without making promises it couldnt keep ("what's the meaning of life!?"). I'm not sure what some of the ambilivence is about with this one other than maybe it was being held to a higher standard (Guardians of the Galaxy totally rawks "for what it is" but this is somehow a disappointment?). I thought it balanced and blended hard science fiction with humanism and human drama nicely (with the exception of Anne Hathaway's bizarre, unsolicited love theory, but nobody's perfect =). Anyway, an incredibly ambitious effort and largely successful on big and small scales.

On the other hand, Hobbit 3: LotR 6: 5 or so Armies was predictably unecessary, drawn out, and turrible. It's like Peter Jackson doesn't even know how to make movies anymore (or just has no more to work with but reflexively needs to make 2.5 hours out of it). First, the end of the last movie finally shows up at the start of this one, and doesnt work as a beginning! Then the plot basically consisted of redundantly showing how greedy Thorin had become over and over a dozen times until he just... stopped. That's it! The rest is just video game fight scenes that make even less sense. This is now almost a fall from grace on par with the Star Wars prequels (and btw the visuals from the original LotR trilogy aren't aging much better); this made Revenge of the Sith look like a relatively worthy conclusion(!). I'm not against these movies wholesale either, I liked the first Hobbit movie, maybe best of all 6 films, because it was an actual movie with a story and character arcs and an unexpected journey somewhat resembling an actual adaptation of The Hobbit, albeit on a grand scale. The last two movies were just a bunch of shit stretched so thin it's liquid. Anyway, to reiterate a point above and tie it all together, if you thought this was acceptable but Interstellar was disappointing, go to Hell. =)

Aazealh · September 29, 2015

Griffith said:
Finally completed Interstellar and it was... pretty stellar! Totally lived up to the, somewhat muted, hype and delivered without making promises it couldnt keep ("what's the meaning of life!?"). I'm not sure what some of the ambilivence is about with this one other than maybe it was being held to a higher standard (Guardians of the Galaxy totally rawks "for what it is" but this is somehow a disappointment?). I thought it balanced and blended hard science fiction with humanism and human drama nicely (with the exception of Anne Hathaway's bizarre, unsolicited love theory, but nobody's perfect =). Anyway, an incredibly ambitious effort and largely successful on big and small scales.

I'm really surprised you think so. Interstellar is indeed incredibly ambitious, but also pretentious (unlike Guardians of the Galaxy, though that hardly rocked my socks either), and does make many promises it doesn't deliver on as far as I'm concerned. The Sci-Fi in it starts great but ends with a science = magic approach that makes Star Trek V's ending seem deep by comparison. Honestly I found it bloated and uneven, pretty clumsy at times (the love theory bit but also the weird "we're teaching that NASA didn't really go to the moon" part), and just lacking focus in the end. The human element is the movie's strongest point by far (well, alongside the visual element I guess), and largely rests on Matthew McConaughey's shoulders (him and the robots!). But it's not enough in and of itself to make a good Sci-Fi movie.

Walter · September 29, 2015

Griff, you should check out our conversation on Interstellar from last year, starting with MY impressions :daiba:

Griffith · September 29, 2015

Aazealh said:
I'm really surprised you think so. Interstellar is indeed incredibly ambitious, but also pretentious (unlike Guardians of the Galaxy, though that hardly rocked my socks either), and does make many promises it doesn't deliver on as far as I'm concerned. The Sci-Fi in it starts great but ends with a science = magic approach that makes Star Trek V's ending seem deep by comparison. Honestly I found it bloated and uneven, pretty clumsy at times (the love theory bit but also the weird "we're teaching that NASA didn't really go to the moon" part), and just lacking focus in the end. The human element is the movie's strongest point by far (well, alongside the visual element I guess), and largely rests on Matthew McConaughey's shoulders (him and the robots!). But it's not enough in and of itself to make a good Sci-Fi movie.

Well, I was drinking beer for the duration, so after 3 hours I was truly INSPIRED TO BELIEVE! :ganishka:

I'm surprised you're being so hard on it now considering your initial, more forgiving, review in the earlier discussion Walter directed me to. I don't think I feel much differently than you did then, but I would say despite it's problems, and certain space opera elements, it is definitely a good Sci Fi movie. Or a great one in the same vein as Back to the Future and other Spielbergian pop-sci fi, and one that actually has some impressive scientific bonafides. I mean, what practical, relative standard are we applying? Is Star Trek V a better Sci Fi movie (ha, that's a trick, because it's a bad movie =)? What percentile of contemporary Sci Fi would you put this in that it's a failure, or not worthwhile (especially considering the effectiveness of delivery, i.e. the human drama)? I think a lot of great sci fi has that jumping off point where it goes from science fact to completely off the deep end into completely speculative science fantasy, and here it's cleverly covered by the black hole/time travel element (hey man, you ever been in a tesseract designed by future humans across the 5th dimension inside a black hole? Didn't think so! :iva:

). Would you have preferred he just disappeared into the Black Hole? I know a lot of people feel that ending would have made a lot more sense, but I like the big, crazy ideas and questions posed by the movie as is, from a dramatic standpoint if nothing else (namely the payoff of him, unchanged, visiting his now elderly daughter). Sure, there's a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo in there bordering on magic, but fuck it, why not? Otherwise, what's the point? Maybe I'll feel differently in a few months.

Also, have you considered my LOVE for the movie proves it's scientific value!? No!? That's crazy nonsense? oh... :farnese:

Walter said:
Griff, you should check out our conversation on Interstellar from last year, starting with MY impressions

Wow, looks like we were on the same wavelength. Yeah, I was delightfully surprised. I figured it wasn't going to go far enough and just be kind of tepid (some ambivalent ending where he's trapped in space forever sending messages to his teenage daughter), but man did it GO FOR IT in the end, even if it doesn't completely justify how it got there.

Aazealh · September 29, 2015

Griffith said:
I'm surprised you're being so hard on it now considering your initial, more forgiving, review in the earlier discussion Walter directed me to. I don't think I feel much differently than you did then, but I would say despite it's problems, and certain space opera elements, it is definitely a good Sci Fi movie. Or a great one in the same vein as Back to the Future and other Spielbergian pop-sci fi, and that actually has some impressive scientific bonafides.

Well I might have simplified my thoughts a bit here, but the gist of it is that I wasn't blown away. And I seriously doubt people will remember Interstellar in 20 years like we remember Back to the Future today.

Griffith said:
I mean, what practical, relative standard are we applying? [...] I think a lot of great sci fi has that jumping off point where it goes from science fact to completely off the deep end into completely speculative science fantasy, and here it's cleverly covered by the black hole/time travel element. Would you have preferred he just disappeared into the Black Hole? I know a lot of people feel the original ending made a lot more sense, but I like the big, crazy ideas and questions posed by the movie as is, from a dramatic standpoint if nothing else (namely the payoff of him, unchanged, visiting his now elderly daughter). Plus, hey man, you ever been in a tesseract designed by future humans across the 5th dimension inside a black hole? Didn't think so! Sure, there's a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo in there bordering on magic, but fuck it, why not? Maybe I'll feel differently in a few months.

Just so we're clear, I don't have a problem with unrealistic Sci-Fi elements. But the way in which it's presented here bothered me. Maybe because it was too big a departure, a leap in suspension of disbelief for me to follow, or maybe because it felt uninspired and lazy. :iva:

I feel like it only pretends to address big questions while taking shortcuts, just like it only pretends to be hard science when it's convenient for its story.

Griffith said:
Also, have you considered my LOVE for the movie proves it's scientific value!? No? That's crazy nonsense? oh...

Griffith · September 30, 2015

Aazealh said:
Well I might have simplified my thoughts a bit here, but the gist of it is that I wasn't blown away. And I seriously doubt people will remember Interstellar in 20 years like we remember Back to the Future today.

You got me there, but my point was that a little "creative" science doesn't necessarily ruin a good sci fi movie; I actually think Interstellar is underrated. Again, it's not so much your opinion, but the general populace that pretend to love Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and any pop science crap turning their nose up at this. Does my defense of the movie coming from a place of deep cynicism and misanthropy sway you to my cause? :ganishka:

Aazealh said:
Just so we're clear, I don't have a problem with unrealistic Sci-Fi elements. But the way in which it's presented here bothered me. Maybe because it was too big a departure, a leap in suspension of disbelief for me to follow, or maybe because it felt uninspired and lazy. I feel like it only pretends to address big questions while taking shortcuts, just like it only pretends to be hard science when it's convenient for its story.

It's true that while on the one hand it makes more efforts than most, that also makes it's flights of scientific fancy more like a betrayal of its foundation. It's really two different movies in this regard, and neither work without compromising the other, thus why it feels like a cheat... but still, it kinda works for me! One hand washes the other. :guts:

BTW, the only argument here is for the movie I'm praising? Anybody want to defend the Hobbit? Anybody? Oburi (I know you're pretty loyal to all things Rings)?

Aazealh · September 30, 2015

Griffith said:
You got me there, but my point was that a little "creative" science doesn't necessarily ruin a good sci fi movie; I actually think Interstellar is underrated. Again, it's not so much your opinion, but the general populace that pretend to love Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and any pop science crap turning their nose up at this. Does my defense of the movie coming from a place of deep cynicism and misanthropy sway you to my cause?

Well I definitely don't think the movie's underrated, but your contempt for fake science fans is certainly alluring. :iva:

Griffith said:
BTW, the only argument here is for the movie I'm praising? Anybody want to defend the Hobbit? Anybody? Oburi (I know you're pretty loyal to all things Rings)?

I would actually argue that the first Hobbit movie is not any better than the rest. Granted, I didn't see the third one (I had learned my lesson), but I can't forget the agony of waiting for that first movie to end.

Walter · September 30, 2015

I actually liked the first 30 minutes of the first Hobbit movie. I turned off the second one about halfway through a rental and never bothered with the third.

Similarly, I like the first 30 minutes of Fellowship of the Ring as well, and pretty much none of the rest of the trilogy.

JMP · September 30, 2015

The Hobbit is one of my all-time favorite books. I saw the first movie and was so grossed out with it that I didn't even bother with the rest. :iva:

I wasn't a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies either, so it shouldn't have been a surprise and I guess it wasn't really, but I was still disappointed. Come here Peter Jackson! :rickert:

Griffith · October 1, 2015

Aazealh said:
I would actually argue that the first Hobbit movie is not any better than the rest. Granted, I didn't see the third one (I had learned my lesson), but I can't forget the agony of waiting for that first movie to end.

Dude, this one is like that for three hours, and it's the never-ending last three hours for the entire trilogy as a whole after the previous six hours! If you count the whole LOTR film franchise it's really after fifteen, or even twenty plus extended, hours! :ganishka:

DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT WANTING IT TO END! I WAS THEEEERE, MAAAAAHN! AT THE BATTLE OF FIVE ARMIES! HAVE YOU EVER HELD YOUR BEST FRIEND'S FACE IN YOUR HANDS AND REALIZED THEY'RE SO ASLEEP THEY JUST AREN'T WAKING UP!?

Sorry about the outburst, I'm still recovering from PLOTRSD.

Walter said:
I actually liked the first 30 minutes of the first Hobbit movie. I turned off the second one about halfway through a rental and never bothered with the third.

This was the perfectly efficient course of action. Actually, the second movie doesn't end much differently than turning it off in the middle, after like 3 hours of Smaug being a really stupid all-powerful dragon. I never thought I'd get tired of dragons!

JMP said:
The Hobbit is one of my all-time favorite books. I saw the first movie and was so grossed out with it that I didn't even bother with the rest. I wasn't a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies either, so it shouldn't have been a surprise and I guess it wasn't really, but I was still disappointed. Come here Peter Jackson!

Yeah, it definitely got run through the Peter Jackson LOTR EPICIZER, and I'm telling you, that was the best it ever got. If they had just stuck to the plan of two movies, An Unexpected ~~Journey~~ Party and There and Back Again (hey, like the book, nice), and dialed things back like the opening scenes there might have been hope, but we needed more epic Dragon exploitation and bloodless battle porn. It's still amusing how it so transparently went from one to two to three movies and the last one going from appropriately utilizing the title from the book to basically calling THE ULTIMATE EPIC LOTRs BATTLE OF ALL-TIME and completely subverting the tale to that end.

Lithrael · October 2, 2015

Agreed, agreed. My favorite thing to come out of it is David Killstien's cut, and I'm sure there are/will be other good fan-edits that take the stuffing out of the movie trilogy.

Walter · October 2, 2015

Lithrael said:
Agreed, agreed. My favorite thing to come out of it is David Killstien's cut, and I'm sure there are/will be other good fan-edits that take the stuffing out of the movie trilogy.

I've read about that one, but never bothered to seek it out. Worthwhile...?

Movies you've recently watched

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

Feel the funk blast

Skibbidy Boo Bop

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

Administrator

Administrator

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

Administrator

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

Administrator

Administrator

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew

Remember, always hold your apple tight

Administrator