Author Topic: Movies you've recently watched  (Read 172225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NCHaskew

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1275 on: March 18, 2018, 07:35:37 PM »
Glad you said so because that hits it on the nose, it's trying to Guardianify Thor into something more fun. Which I sort of understood going in, but forgot by the end because while it has all the irreverent space hijinks on its surface, it has none of the pathos so therefore misses the mark. This movie didn't know how and wouldn't dare to be as unapologetically sentimental as the Guardian movies are at heart. That's what made all the other stuff work though and why it doesn't go over as well here (it's copying the worst parts of those movies when the jokes are trying too hard). Anyway, I can't feel the emotion of a moment just because Sir Anthony Hopkins tells me too, especially when everything is seemingly just made up and inevitably undone on the spot.

I'm glad someone else feels that way xD for me personally, Ragnarok was a miserable experience. Sure, if you through literally a thousand darts at a board, a couple may bullseye, but a couple may also hit a stray cat and you'll be stuck with its wailing. That was the comedy. The first half is nothing but comedy, and even when the second half starts getting serious, every scene still ends with a joke to take away all tension.

Then again, I've had Marvel fatigue since Age of Ultron. I did really enjoy Black Panther, and Infinity War looks like it may actually have some teeth.

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9818
  • Karma: 277
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1276 on: March 19, 2018, 05:32:50 PM »
Then again, I've had Marvel fatigue since Age of Ultron. I did really enjoy Black Panther, and Infinity War looks like it may actually have some teeth.

I think the last one I liked or was impressed by was Civil War, which sort of felt like the darker, more introspective Avengers sequel AoU failed to be. I haven't seen Panther yet, probably won't see Doctor Strange, and just saw Spider-Man: Homecoming this weekend, which was similarly underwhelming given its reputation. I mean, it was fine, but low stakes, casual, and by the numbers Marvel at this point (almost like a sitcom), and probably the third or fourth best Spider-Man movie I've seen (fifth counting Civil War =). Basically, for all the "Marvel homecoming" hype, and the promise the character showed in Civil War, the movie did little to distinguish itself from those that came before it.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 06:09:51 PM by Griffith »

Offline NCHaskew

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1277 on: March 19, 2018, 08:20:42 PM »
I think the last one I liked or was impressed by was Civil War, which sort of felt like the darker, more introspective Avengers sequel AoU failed to be. I haven't seen Panther yet, probably won't see Doctor Strange, and just saw Spider-Man: Homecoming this weekend, which was similarly underwhelming given its reputation. I mean, it was fine, but low stakes, casual, and by the numbers Marvel at this point (almost like a sitcom), and probably the third or fourth best Spider-Man movie I've seen (fifth counting Civil War =). Basically, for all the "Marvel homecoming" hype, and the promise the character showed in Civil War, the movie did little to distinguish itself from those that came before it.

I haven't seen Homecoming or Guardians of the Galaxy 2. My current plan is to watch 3 MCU films per week leading up to Infinity War. So those first 2 weeks? Pretty fun. Next 2 weeks? Not so fun. Last 3 weeks? Very unfun  :rickert:

Offline Lord Leith

  • Of the Interstice
  • **
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: 6
  • Gender: Male
  • Welcome back Casca
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1278 on: March 19, 2018, 10:33:04 PM »
I agree with the Marvel/Superhero fatigue being expressed here, it'll take a lot more for most Marvel movies now to impress me compared to the first phase since the formality of it all is really starting to make viewing each new film a repetitive experience, I do however disagree with you Griffith on Spider-man Homecoming, I think its one of the best Marvel movies in years (up there with Iron Man, the Avengers, Winter Soldier and GotG 1 imo) and debatably the best Spidey film yet since it felt the most true to his character (I'd have it tied with Spider-man 2, with Spider-man 1 being 2nd/3rd best and Spider-man 3, Amazing and Amazing 2 being all crap).

In the Sam Raimi movies they nailed the nerdy aspect to his character but overall Peter himself was too much of a doofus, they express that he's a genius but its never really explicitly shown, in Amazing they did a better job at portraying Spider-man's smartass attitude but Garfield as Peter was awful casting and didn't pass off as a guy who'd get bullied in school, too much of a pretty boy skateboarding hipster, at the very least they did demonstrate his genius level intellect but they immediately ruin it by having him do dumb things like leaving a camera with his full name etched onto it behind in the sewers near the Lizard. The only thing that positively stands out about the Amazing movies is Garfield's chemistry with Emma Stone.

In contrast, Homecoming shows a Peter whose an anxious teenager, has strong convictions (I loved the short montage scene where he does lil mundane things like save cats from trees and help old ladies across the street, demonstrates perfectly how he's the "friendly neighbourhood" Spider-man), struggles with his inexperience as a hero and every day school boy, his intellect is undermined by his dependence on Tony but I'd still say it balances the genius/doofus side to his character better than past iterations. Michael Keaton's Vulture was also one of the best MCU villains to date (not that that's saying much but still) and up there with Doc Ock as far as on screen Spidey villains go.

I have my issues with it like Iron Man being the key motivator for him to get out of the rubble rather than a memory of Uncle Ben or something (I wish Uncle Ben had more of a presence in the movie but don't get me wrong, I don't want nor expect another redoing of the origin, simply hearing Ben's voice in Peter's inner monologue rather than Tony would've been enough for me, Peter's infatuation with Tony undermines Ben too much in my eyes who should still serve a minor role in the MCU's first Spidey movie) but compared to recent Marvel films I had a much better viewing experience. Im biased though, Spider-man is my favorite light hearted hero (in distinction from my favorite heroes overall being Punisher and Ghost Rider).

Dr. Strange and Black Panther were good but borderline mediocre, just okay really and in Black Panther's case, extremely overhyped. I'm interested in seeing Infinity War since its such a large ensemble cast and Im a fan of the original Infinity Gauntlet storyline but I can't say Im super excited or anything, I don't have any expectations, I feel like reflecting on the 10 year build up in anticipation would only lead to me being disappointed in it as an adaption even if the movie itself ends up good on its own merits.

« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 10:58:03 PM by Lord Leith »

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9818
  • Karma: 277
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1279 on: March 20, 2018, 04:42:31 AM »
I haven't seen Homecoming or Guardians of the Galaxy 2. My current plan is to watch 3 MCU films per week leading up to Infinity War. So those first 2 weeks? Pretty fun. Next 2 weeks? Not so fun. Last 3 weeks? Very unfun  :rickert:

Oh, I forgot about Guardians 2, which I enjoyed, but hasn't stuck with me and isn't groundbreaking or anything. Anyway, I don't know that it'll be that bad, I broke it up and the distribution of fun, not so fun, and very unfun is pretty balanced:

Iron Man - Fun
The Incredible Hulk - Not So Fun
Iron Man 2 - Very Unfun

Thor - Not So Fun
Captain America: The First Avenger - Fun
Marvel's The Avengers - Fun


Iron Man 3 - Very Unfun
Thor: The Dark World - Very Unfun
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Fun

Guardians of the Galaxy - Fun
Avengers: Age of Ultron - Not So Fun
Ant-Man - Fun


Captain America: Civil War - Fun
Doctor Strange - ???
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - Fun

Spider-Man: Homecoming - Fun
Thor: Ragnarok - Not So Fun (but really, fun is kinda exactly what it is =)
Black Panther - ???

Upon further consideration this is a difficult rating system because even the less ambitious ones like Ant-Man are "fun" if nothing else. Well, except the Thor and Iron Man sequels.

I agree with the Marvel/Superhero fatigue being expressed here, it'll take a lot more for most Marvel movies now to impress me compared to the first phase since the formality of it all is really starting to make viewing each new film a repetitive experience, I do however disagree with you Griffith on Spider-man Homecoming, I think its one of the best Marvel movies in years (up there with Iron Man, the Avengers, Winter Soldier and GotG 1 imo) and debatably the best Spidey film yet since it felt the most true to his character (I'd have it tied with Spider-man 2, with Spider-man 1 being 2nd/3rd best and Spider-man 3, Amazing and Amazing 2 being all crap).

Objectively, it's probably up there with Spidey 1, but that movie basically invented the modern Marvel movie and this is doing it for the umpteenth time, it's preceisely that fatigue you spoke of that underwhelmed me. Actually, it felt like a movie with no ambitions other than to showcase Spider-Man the character. It's just sort of hanging out with him for two hours, which is cool in its own way, but doesn't make for great drama. It also hurts that almost every set piece was reminiscent of one I've seen from all the other Spidey movies! Actually, what set it apart was him fucking up and falling and shit. That was good and would have added realism if the animation were a bit more convincing than Raimi's from over a decade ago.

Anyway, my updated Spidey-Ranks:

Spider-Man 2 - Best standalone Spidey movie and among the greats of the genre, and doesn't address web fluid/shooters at all so technically comic accurate in a vacuum. =)
Spider-Man - Was an amazing leap forward and great in its time. Pretty much laid the groundwork for ALL of this. Edit out Macy Gray for a web-shooter scene in the suit montage and it's perfect!
Spider-Man: Homecoming - Sort of combines the strengths of both the Raimi and Webb movies in an even spunkier package, but is also highly derivative and not very ambitious.
The Amazing Spider-Man - A different take on Spidey, more grounded, more hip, less fun, but has some strengths and heart.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Uh, Spidey's suit looks accurate, but the CGI was a bit weightless and the rest was even worse.
Spider-Man 3 - The infamous and still worst, yet I think it's still the highest grossing Spidey (give Raimi another chance =)! Cut out the symbiote and Venom stuff Raimi didn't want to do and it's probably ok.

In the Sam Raimi movies they nailed the nerdy aspect to his character but overall Peter himself was too much of a doofus, they express that he's a genius but its never really explicitly shown, in Amazing they did a better job at portraying Spider-man's smartass attitude

I mean, I feel like the semi-loud case against Maguire's Peter as off is pretty overstated and contradictory. He's plenty a smartass with the quips and like you said, if anything, they go overboard on how smart he is. Also, "his genius not being shown" is simply coded language for "organic web-shooters." =) Anyway, more importantly they did a good job creating a sympathetic and relatable cinematic interpretation of Parker that could carry a movie or three for the audience, which nobody has pulled off since. If Parker is supposed to be the kid reading the comic, Raimi/Maguire's version was certainly enough like the people watching the movies that it worked big time.

In contrast, Homecoming shows a Peter whose an anxious teenager, has strong convictions (I loved the short montage scene where he does lil mundane things like save cats from trees and help old ladies across the street, demonstrates perfectly how he's the "friendly neighbourhood" Spider-man), struggles with his inexperience as a hero and every day school boy, his intellect is undermined by his dependence on Tony but I'd still say it balances the genius/doofus side to his character better than past iterations.

Garfield's didn't leave much impression and Holland's is on point, especially in Civil War, but we'll see if it amounts to anything besides him acting like a flustered Peter all the time because it was almost a bit much in Homecoming (I'm sure he'll become more badass as the character ages, and they have a real opportunity to develop him like no other). But right now I'm not getting the same strong sense of identity, for better or worse, that Maguire's certainly had.

Michael Keaton's Vulture was also one of the best MCU villains to date (not that that's saying much but still) and up there with Doc Ock as far as on screen Spidey villains go.

I thought Keaton was good, but under-written/utilized. Despite the obvious cheese factor, Dafoe's Goblin is the only big screen Spidey villain that really measured up as a memorable adversary. He actually seemed like a real threat simply because he was actually threatening him and provided a real foil for Peter and Spider-Man. Doc Ock did that for Peter, but his cheesiness in the fights kind of clashed with that, whereas Dafoe was leaning into it so hard it worked. :ganishka:

I have my issues with it like Iron Man being the key motivator for him to get out of the rubble rather than a memory of Uncle Ben or something (I wish Uncle Ben had more of a presence in the movie but don't get me wrong, I don't want nor expect another redoing of the origin, simply hearing Ben's voice in Peter's inner monologue rather than Tony would've been enough for me, Peter's infatuation with Tony undermines Ben too much in my eyes who should still serve a minor role in the MCU's first Spidey movie)

If I may switch sides for a moment, my defense of that is this isn't supposed to be some perfect ideal iteration of Spider-Man (ahem, Spider-Man 2), but a working version that fits perfectly into and "lives in" the MCU, so he doesn't have to be all uncle Ben/"responsibility," because we all already know that, but he does need to have a relationship with Iron Man, etc.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 05:01:09 AM by Griffith »

Offline Lord Leith

  • Of the Interstice
  • **
  • Posts: 126
  • Karma: 6
  • Gender: Male
  • Welcome back Casca
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1280 on: March 20, 2018, 05:54:13 AM »
Objectively, it's probably up there with Spidey 1, but that movie basically invented the modern Marvel movie and this is doing it for the umpteenth time, it's preceisely that fatigue you spoke of that underwhelmed me. Actually, it felt like a movie with no ambitions other than to showcase Spider-Man the character. It's just sort of hanging out with him for two hours, which is cool in its own way, but doesn't make for great drama. It also hurts that almost every set piece was reminiscent of one I've seen from all the other Spidey movies! Actually, what set it apart was him fucking up and falling and shit. That was good and would have added realism if the animation were a bit more convincing than Raimi's from over a decade ago.

Its true that Spider-man 1's influence alongside X-Men and Blade cannot be overstated, especially in regards to the MCU but I do think its aged pretty badly which I don't think is even necessarily due to its age seeing as how Spider-man 2 has aged perfectly fine (CGI aside), but rather due to it having a shaky script and questionable performances from Dafoe, Kirsten Dunst, Maguire as Spider-man, etc (his performance as Peter is fantastic but he does not pull off Spidey's quips, Im perfectly aware that he still makes them, the recent Raimi trilogy haters who claim he never made any are wrong but the fact that his quips are so forgettable to begin with speaks to a larger issue regarding the performance, his inflections sound insecure whenever he cracks a joke as opposed to how Spidey is in the comics where he hides his insecurity by acting overly confident behind the mask).

For what its worth, I do think it may have been deliberate seeing as how Raimi wanted to adapt the tone/feel of Lee + Ditko era Spider-man which would inevitably mean a sillier tone. In that way, its puristically accurate to 60s Spider-man (for better & worse) which I appreciate.

I mean, I feel like the semi-loud case against Maguire's Peter as off is pretty overstated and contradictory. He's plenty a smartass with the quips and like you said, if anything, they go overboard on how smart he is. Also, "his genius not being shown" is simply coded language for "organic web-shooters." =) Anyway, more importantly they did a good job creating a sympathetic and relatable cinematic interpretation of Parker that could carry a movie or three for the audience, which nobody has pulled off since. If Parker is supposed to be the kid reading the comic, Raimi/Maguire's version was certainly enough like the people watching the movies that it worked big time.

Garfield's didn't leave much impression and Holland's is on point, especially in Civil War, but we'll see if it amounts to anything besides him acting like a flustered Peter all the time because it was almost a bit much in Homecoming (I'm sure he'll become more badass as the character ages, and they have a real opportunity to develop him like no other). But right now I'm not getting the same strong sense of identity, for better or worse, that Maguire's certainly had.

I thought Keaton was good, but under-written/utilized. Despite the obvious cheese factor, Dafoe's Goblin is the only big screen Spidey villain that really measured up as a memorable adversary. He actually seemed like a real threat simply because he was actually threatening him and provided a real foil for Peter and Spider-Man. Doc Ock did that for Peter, but his cheesiness in the fights kind of clashed with that, whereas Dafoe was leaning into it so hard it worked. :ganishka:

Again I disagree, I don't actually mind the organic web shooters, thats not the only way to show him being a genius, in Spider-man 1 we spend about 15-20 minutes in high school before he graduates and in those 20 minutes he makes a mess in the cafeteria, beats up Flash, etc but we never see him act intelligently in an academic setting. We do see him in Spider-man 2 answering some questions with Professor Connors but not to any level where his intellect is clearly above average, that "Raindrops Keep Fallin On My Head" montage that follows soon after again depicts him as a doofus.

I won't get into Spider-man 3 and the Emo disco walk since thats beating a dead horse but I do think its accurate to say Peter's genius is only referred to in dialogue and never outright shown which always bugged me, yes having him build web shooters would immediately fix that to some extent but I don't think its necessary, in either case Raimi went overboard with Peter's goofiness, its an aspect of his character yes, especially in his early budding relationship with MJ but its overstated in the original trilogy. Webb's movies had the opposite issue in which Peter's intellect was shown well but his goofiness was understated to the point where it was hard to believe Garfield in the shoes of a high school dweeb.

I do agree however that Maguire was very sympathetic, if Im passing off as one of those people who suddenly started hating the Raimi movies (since that seems to have become a popular contrarian stance) then thats not my intention, they're great and you're right in saying Homecoming is derivative (I think that was inevitable for it being the 2nd reboot in under a decade) among other flaws (as much as I love Holland as Spider-man, one of my pet peeves is how they adopted some of the more annoying traits of teenagers like him bouncing all over his bed in excitement, it was cute and funny to open the movie with but the 2nd or 3rd time rubbed me the wrong way) but whats most important to me is the comic book accuracy and under such a lens Homecoming really tickled my fancy, it has some diversions from the comics (I really didn't like how Flash is a mean spirited rich kid instead of a jock, I don't want Flash to look like a kid I could bully on my own) but compared to Raimi and Webb's iterations I think it was the most well rounded depiction of Spider-man.

As of right now, I do think Maguire's Spider-man is a better written character (despite the flaws I have with it) but thats simply because he's had 3 films to evolve, Holland's character in my opinion is starting with stronger foundations to develop in future films so I think that he has the most potential that even after 3 films Maguire's Spider-man didn't have such as academic/school life playing a larger role instead of being glanced over (which holds true for both high school and university in Raimi's films).

If I may switch sides for a moment, my defense of that is this isn't supposed to be some perfect ideal iteration of Spider-Man (ahem, Spider-Man 2), but a working version that fits perfectly into and "lives in" the MCU, so he doesn't have to be all uncle Ben/"responsibility," because we all already know that, but he does need to have a relationship with Iron Man, etc.

You're right, everyone knows the bit and its not 100% necessary to develop the MCU so I can see why most would consider it redundant but I do think its a key aspect to his character that shouldn't be completely ignored, if only so that the film can work in its own right as a film, lets just assume for a minute that someone out there doesn't know about Uncle Ben dying, the film failing to address it in some meaningful way (besides him mentioning Aunt May got sad after his uncle died) that adds to his pathos means the film fundamentally lacks one of Peter's key motivators in life, we as an audience who are familiar with the 50+ year mythology are aware but an adaption shouldn't depend on supposed common knowledge to make short cuts.

As is, Peter's sole motivator in the whole film is to impress Tony which I find pretty weak, just 20 seconds of Ben's voice during the scene where Peter lifts up the rubble would have been enough imo so maybe Im nitpicking but I dunno, I think its pretty important.

Also on second thought I retract my statement of Amazing Spider-man 1 being complete crap, its an okay movie so I agree with your ranking (for the most part) and I wouldn't group it in with 3 and Amazing 2 like I did initially, its just somewhat forgettable aside from the budding romance with Gwen Stacy (which was adorable).
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 06:27:04 AM by Lord Leith »

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9818
  • Karma: 277
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1281 on: March 20, 2018, 03:33:05 PM »
Again I disagree, I don't actually mind the organic web shooters, thats not the only way to show him being a genius, in Spider-man 1 we spend about 15-20 minutes in high school before he graduates and in those 20 minutes he makes a mess in the cafeteria, beats up Flash, etc but we never see him act intelligently in an academic setting. We do see him in Spider-man 2 answering some questions with Professor Connors but not to any level where his intellect is clearly above average, that "Raindrops Keep Fallin On My Head" montage that follows soon after again depicts him as a doofus.

We don't see him inventing something amazing or anything (except his suit I guess), but he's clearly depicted as an intellectually gifted nerd that has the awe of his peers and respect and admiration of his seniors (Osborn, Conners, Octavius). I would have believed that Parker could build web-shooters before Garfield's cool skater boy any day.

compared to Raimi and Webb's iterations I think it was the most well rounded depiction of Spider-man.
As of right now, I do think Maguire's Spider-man is a better written character (despite the flaws I have with it) but thats simply because he's had 3 films to evolve, Holland's character in my opinion is starting with stronger foundations to develop in future films so I think that he has the most potential

I mean, I thought Holland's Spider-Man was the best yet just after his Civil War guest shot, but the character somehow didn't translate as well to his solo movie because in some ways he was taking a step backward, the overabundance of teen awkwardness, exuberance, and incompetence, so it was a bit frustrating. He was pitch-perfect in Civil War, but I think they had the advantage of just needing him to show up and act like Spider-Man rather than have conflicts and an arc. So, for better or worse, he was a realistic teenage Spider-Man, and he probably will, if he doesn't already, have the most depth, except...

I do think its a key aspect to his character that shouldn't be completely ignored, if only so that the film can work in its own right as a film, lets just assume for a minute that someone out there doesn't know about Uncle Ben dying, the film failing to address it in some meaningful way (besides him mentioning Aunt May got sad after his uncle died) that adds to his pathos means the film fundamentally lacks one of Peter's key motivators in life, we as an audience who are familiar with the 50+ year mythology are aware but an adaption shouldn't depend on supposed common knowledge to make short cuts.

As is, Peter's sole motivator in the whole film is to impress Tony which I find pretty weak, just 20 seconds of Ben's voice during the scene where Peter lifts up the rubble would have been enough imo so maybe Im nitpicking but I dunno, I think its pretty important.

Yeah, I agree it's strange he basically NEVER brings up Ben or even seems sad or personally motivated by it considering he's still freshly Spider-Man. I wouldn't have wanted to hear Ben if they weren't including him otherwise (and then you're getting into flashback territory), but just Pete mentioning how important he was at some point would have been appropriate.

Offline NCHaskew

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1282 on: March 20, 2018, 06:25:51 PM »
Oh, I forgot about Guardians 2, which I enjoyed, but hasn't stuck with me and isn't groundbreaking or anything. Anyway, I don't know that it'll be that bad, I broke it up and the distribution of fun, not so fun, and very unfun is pretty balanced:

Man, that's harder. I think I'll have rating system of awful, bad, ok, good, great:

Iron Man: great
Incredible Hulk: good
Iron Man 2: bad
Thor: ok
Captain America: great
Avengers: great

Iron Man 3: bad
Thor 2: awful
Winter Soldier: amazing (broke the charts  :isidro:)
Guardians of the Galaxy: good
Age of Ultron: bad
Ant-Man: awful


Civil War: good
Doctor Strange: ok
Guardians of the Galaxy 2: haven't seen
Homecoming: haven't seen
Ragnarok: God's mistake  :rickert:
Black Panther: great

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9818
  • Karma: 277
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1283 on: March 23, 2018, 06:33:27 PM »
Because I'm a big nerd I checked out the consensus ratings for the Spider-Man films on the more rosy Rotten Tomatoes and harder Metracritic, both critics and users to account for objective quality vs. fan satisfaction, and then averaged them together for an overall score.

1. Spider-Man 2
RT: 93% 81% MC: 83 8.6
86.75

2. Spider-Man: Homecoming
RT: 92% 88% MC: 73 7.7
82.5

3. Spider-Man
RT: 89% 67% MC: 73 8.6
78.75

4. The Amazing Spider-Man
RT: 73% 77% MC: 66 7.0
71.5

5. Spider-Man 3
RT: 63% 51% MC: 59 6.7
60.0

6. The Amazing Spider-Man 2
RT: 52% 64% MC: 53 6.5
58.5

Not a bad ranking! Also, Spidey has been pretty lucky on the big screen, even his two bad movies aren't like Superman's, Batman's, or even the X-Men's worst, ya know? :ganishka:
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 06:46:52 PM by Griffith »

Offline Aazealh

  • 髑髏の騎士
  • Administrator
  • Of Terror
  • *****
  • Posts: 18556
  • Karma: 676
  • Gender: Male
  • そうはいかぬ
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1284 on: March 31, 2018, 10:02:20 PM »
Went to see Ready Player One a couple days ago. It's got some nice visuals and some cool references for those of us over 30, but I wasn't blown away. The plot in particular is the movie's weakest point.

Offline Skeleton

  • Falconian
  • Of the Nexus
  • *****
  • Posts: 737
  • Karma: 72
  • Gender: Male
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1285 on: April 01, 2018, 03:28:15 AM »
Went to see Ready Player One a couple days ago. It's got some nice visuals and some cool references for those of us over 30, but I wasn't blown away. The plot in particular is the movie's weakest point.

I was hoping the movie would be great but was afraid thatís how itíd end up. What a shame.

Offline NCHaskew

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1286 on: April 01, 2018, 12:42:47 PM »
Went to see Ready Player One a couple days ago. It's got some nice visuals and some cool references for those of us over 30, but I wasn't blown away. The plot in particular is the movie's weakest point.

Yeah, that's kinda what I expected--it just looked like the Hunger Games with video games and 80s/90s references

Offline Aazealh

  • 髑髏の騎士
  • Administrator
  • Of Terror
  • *****
  • Posts: 18556
  • Karma: 676
  • Gender: Male
  • そうはいかぬ
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1287 on: April 01, 2018, 04:17:08 PM »
I was hoping the movie would be great but was afraid thatís how itíd end up. What a shame.
Yeah, that's kinda what I expected--it just looked like the Hunger Games with video games and 80s/90s references

I haven't seen the Hunger Games but my guess would be that RPO's plot is actually much less grim/serious than that. The main villain is basically portrayed as an inept moron, which allows a few funny scenes but also makes the "high stakes" of the movie a lot less believable. That stuff would be fine for a kids' movie, but RPO is otherwise aimed at an older audience and the combination makes for an odd dissonance at times. I feel it's best to see it as a mindless, fun romp and nothing more.

While I'm at it, I also recently saw Annihilation, which is a better-than-average sci-fi movie starring Natalie Portman. Recommended for fans of the genre.

Offline Urosh

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1288 on: April 01, 2018, 09:34:51 PM »
Quote from: Aazealh
I also recently saw Annihilation

The Ex Machina guy. This intrigues me.

It's been a month since I watched Under the Skin (2013) and I still find it strangely appealing.
"It's!"

Offline m

  • Falconian
  • Of the Interstice
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
  • Karma: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1289 on: April 02, 2018, 05:55:26 AM »
It's been a month since I watched Under the Skin (2013) and I still find it strangely appealing.

Fantastic movie. I don't own physical copies of many movies, but I do have a copy of that one on DVD, and that says a lot about my opinion of it.

Offline Urosh

Re: Movies you've recently watched
« Reply #1290 on: April 05, 2018, 09:44:38 PM »
Quote from: m
Fantastic movie.
Yeah, at times I was captivated. Maaaybe a bit on the artsy side but it realy delivered on its high notes.
I would recommend, based on a vague similarity (or by my strange association) "My Joy (2010)".
"It's!"