Official Movie Review Thread

For the talkin' of jibba jabba.
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
Global Mod
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Shroom Man 777 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:01 am

Siege wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:25 am
I've broadly come to the conclusion that I don't really care about Serious Business in my superhero movie. That doesn't mean I don't want my characters to make sense, or for a sense of consistency between franchise movies, but at the end of the day I know what I'm in the theater for, and it isn't what draws me to Dunkirk. I'm here to be entertained with a story about the main man/character engaging in whacky hijinks and getting himself out of crazy situations. That's what I found engaging about Iron Man, it's what was good about Avengers, and it's what makes Ragnarok work. The main accusation (if it is even that) I've seen is also voiced by Shroom:
Shroom wrote: Yes, they're good fun but that hesitation to tackle serious stuff in something called Ragnarok, mangs?
And I have to ask in response: what are you looking for in Marvel movies? Or even in Thor movies? Because there's been a fair bunch of them before; two in case of Thor movies and however freaking many in case of Marvel as a whole. By now I'd think people would know what they're getting into. I don't quite understand people who seem to think that they would get some SRS BSNSS here. It's a Thor movie. It's a Marvel movie. It's a Taika Waititi movie. Honestly, what did you expect?
I said I enjoyed it but nonetheless, even the first Iron Man and Thor movies - and especially Winter Soldier and Civil War - still dealt with their serious subjects with "heavier weight" without becoming one of those terrible post-Nolan impersonations or Snyder murderfests. Though with Thor, I think we did see something like that in Dark World and that was kinda pretty eh.

And well... the climax and final battle and clever resolution didn't seem to have as much creative investment as the parts with Goldblumpopolis. Maybe I'm too harsh? Maybe I didn't take the zombo skellington legions of genericness too well? I mean overall it was great, but I just felt that the huge awesome emphasis on Goldblumpopolis took away from the rest of it. It's like if ROTJ's Ewok sequences were awesome but the Emperor's Throne Room sequences didn't measure up - that would be pretty odd.
Image

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

User avatar
Siege
Site Admin
Posts: 2461
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Siege » Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:25 am

What more creative investment do the final bits of the movie need, in your opinion? I can sort of see what you mean, and even agree to an extent, but then we're not on Skaara Sakaar anymore; we're on Asgard, which is well established to be a certain way. I'm not seeing much opportunity to set Ragnarok, the crack of doom for Asgard, away from Asgard. You'd have to have a different story almost entirely.

I also think that making a movie about the Norse prophesized end times with superheroes that takes itself seriously will instantly turn it into Shakespeare in the park. That's what Thor cleverly avoided by setting most of itself away from Asgard, and precisely what was wrong with The Dark World.

Asgard, Thor and Loki, Odin - the whole thing is just so fantastical that I don't think you can do a very serious rendition of it because it is inherently a silly and ridiculous setting, with its pseudo-Norse trappings, its overdressing, its laser longship space fighters, the whole whacky grandiosity of it. That doesn't mean you can't occasionally have good character work or serious moments there, and Ragnarok delivered those, but at the end of the day this is a setting dreamt up by Lee and Kirby when they were smoking the good stuff back in the sixties. You can only do so much with what it is, and I firmly believe that taking it seriously all the way through just won't work. It's not King Lear, it cannot be and it shouldn't aspire to be (I know that's not your argument, I'm just sayin').

I also dispute that movies like Iron Man or Winter Soldier are all that much more serious. Iron Man dwelt on the tragic death of Yinsen for about two seconds before Tony Stark went back to eating cheeseburgers and it wouldn't be until Iron Man 3 that we got a good insight on the impact his superheroing had on the psyche of Tony Stark (and look how that movie was received for it). Winter Soldier meanwhile was a great movie, but did it really have a "heavy weight"? It had great action sequences and the Winter Soldier was a badass enemy, but at the end of the day that movie too ended with your typical big movie CGI climax explosions. It didn't delve into the tragedy of Barnes' fate at all. Even Civil War barely touched on how shockingly fucked up this guy's life is, and half the plot revolved around him!
"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia." - Frank Castle

I breakfast upon Armadas such as thine!

User avatar
Shroom Man 777
Global Mod
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Shroom Man 777 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:17 pm

Siege wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:25 am
What more creative investment do the final bits of the movie need, in your opinion? I can sort of see what you mean, and even agree to an extent, but then we're not on Skaara Sakaar anymore; we're on Asgard, which is well established to be a certain way. I'm not seeing much opportunity to set Ragnarok, the crack of doom for Asgard, away from Asgard. You'd have to have a different story almost entirely.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be in Asgard, but the final sequence just came off as pretty generic. I wouldn't know how to avoid that, since it was set up for a standard Fantasy Epic Throw Down. I don't know... but it just came off as whelming and was overshadowed by the goofy bits in Goldblumgard.
I also think that making a movie about the Norse prophesized end times with superheroes that takes itself seriously will instantly turn it into Shakespeare in the park. That's what Thor cleverly avoided by setting most of itself away from Asgard, and precisely what was wrong with The Dark World.

Asgard, Thor and Loki, Odin - the whole thing is just so fantastical that I don't think you can do a very serious rendition of it because it is inherently a silly and ridiculous setting, with its pseudo-Norse trappings, its overdressing, its laser longship space fighters, the whole whacky grandiosity of it. That doesn't mean you can't occasionally have good character work or serious moments there, and Ragnarok delivered those, but at the end of the day this is a setting dreamt up by Lee and Kirby when they were smoking the good stuff back in the sixties. You can only do so much with what it is, and I firmly believe that taking it seriously all the way through just won't work. It's not King Lear, it cannot be and it shouldn't aspire to be (I know that's not your argument, I'm just sayin').
I guess, it's got limitations, but maybe it's by degrees? I mean, it can be done in Star Wars, and it could be done Fifth Element-style. Yes, Fifth Element is already kooky but you can see that it still commits to it in a way that's different from Guardians of the Galaxy, they're on the same spectrum but somehow Guardians has less "commitment" and more winking-at-audience than something like Fifth Element.

I'm not asking for Total Nolan-esque seriousness. Like, if this was the first Guardians movie, I'd just suggest a few tweaks like removing a couple of Seth Rogen-y jerkoff jokes (like when Star Loyd jokes about taking a UV light to the corridors of his ship) AND perhaps giving us a more fulfilling final confrontation with Ronan De Accusar, that'd make it less shits-and-giggles while still keeping it within goofy Fifth Element territory, just adding and subtracting a couple of minutes here and there.

Though to be honest, you're right, Asgard's final throwdown WILL result in underwhelming generic LOTR-esque fantasy-style fighting.

Maybe partially it's the limits of Uber Hela? She just did kung fu and threw knives and had an army of skellingtons and a big dog... and I think that was just bland and under-whelming compared to the rest of the movie. I think my contentions would be decreased if the final confrontation was more innovative, like in Dr. Strange with space-time warping Mikkelsen shenenigans (I mean the rest of the movie was a mix of goofiness and some lip service to SRS BSNSS character arc).

I think that's it, the wrap up wasn't as good as I'd like it to be?

The payoff wasn't eh. It's like if Wrestlemania had an underwhelming main event. The wrap up is important in cementing the rest of the emotional up and downs preceding it.
I also dispute that movies like Iron Man or Winter Soldier are all that much more serious. Iron Man dwelt on the tragic death of Yinsen for about two seconds before Tony Stark went back to eating cheeseburgers and it wouldn't be until Iron Man 3 that we got a good insight on the impact his superheroing had on the psyche of Tony Stark (and look how that movie was received for it). Winter Soldier meanwhile was a great movie, but did it really have a "heavy weight"? It had great action sequences and the Winter Soldier was a badass enemy, but at the end of the day that movie too ended with your typical big movie CGI climax explosions. It didn't delve into the tragedy of Barnes' fate at all. Even Civil War barely touched on how shockingly fucked up this guy's life is, and half the plot revolved around him!
Winter Soldier *was* pretty damn heavy, mang. In those moments they were rather quite intense and I think those bits *did* add a higher level of seriousness, in a way that the Guardians-style stuff likewise subtracts from seriousness. Imagine if Stark or Cap did some Star Loyd shtick on Stane or Barnes :(

I think it's a matter of blending, they're all still following the standard Marvel formula but the little touches we see in Iron Mang and Winter Soldier and Civil War resulted in their weight. The lack of that, or the opposing extra-bits-of-goofy, has the opposite effect (I'm not saying that it should be entirely goofy-free, since Iron Man and Winter Soldier and Civil War had so much goofiness... it's just a matter of the blending and the proportions I guess).
Image

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

User avatar
Siege
Site Admin
Posts: 2461
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Siege » Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:42 pm

Shroom Man 777 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:17 pm
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be in Asgard, but the final sequence just came off as pretty generic. I wouldn't know how to avoid that, since it was set up for a standard Fantasy Epic Throw Down. I don't know... but it just came off as whelming and was overshadowed by the goofy bits in Goldblumgard.
I agree that the end fight had a generic element to it, in that it was another big brawl where we zip from one character to the next whilst they alternate between wailing on each other to no effect (whilst Looking Badass™) and effortlessly dispatching mook hordes (whilst Looking Badass™). But that's more a failing of the superhero movie genre than of this particular film I feel; there literally doesn't seem to be a way to end these movies than with a Big Fight. Even the most praised examples of superhero movies like Wonder Woman have their Big Fight at the end.

It's a bit tiresome, but at the same time I can't quite think of another way to end the sort of story these movies want to tell. It's a bit like how cowboy movies invariably end with a shootout at the end, even when they're Unforgiven. It seems you could have a different kind of fight (like in Civil War), but it'll still be a fight of some sort. And within its genre I feel Ragnarok handled the Big Fight very well. It was well-edited, well-paced, I could tell what was going on at all times, it had a nicely diverse cast of characters, it didn't go on for too long (like the fight in Wonder Woman did), the appearance of Ragnaros the Firelord Surtur and the role he'd play was properly foreshadowed... I can't complain too much.

I guess, it's got limitations, but maybe it's by degrees? I mean, it can be done in Star Wars, and it could be done Fifth Element-style. Yes, Fifth Element is already kooky but you can see that it still commits to it in a way that's different from Guardians of the Galaxy, they're on the same spectrum but somehow Guardians has less "commitment" and more winking-at-audience than something like Fifth Element.

I'm not asking for Total Nolan-esque seriousness. Like, if this was the first Guardians movie, I'd just suggest a few tweaks like removing a couple of Seth Rogen-y jerkoff jokes (like when Star Loyd jokes about taking a UV light to the corridors of his ship) AND perhaps giving us a more fulfilling final confrontation with Ronan De Accusar, that'd make it less shits-and-giggles while still keeping it within goofy Fifth Element territory, just adding and subtracting a couple of minutes here and there.
I wanted to say that the difference is that the world of the Fifth Element is whacky, but its inhabitants don't treat it as such. But upon reflection that doesn't feel fair toward the cast of Guardians of the Galaxy because they do seem to take their world equally seriously. Then I thought, it's just that the characters in Guardians are raging comic relief quipmonsters, and Bruce Willis was not. But then again Ian Holm prettty much was there for comic relief in Fifth Element, and Leeloo and Corben exchange dialog explicitly meant to be funny all the time. So I'm left wondering what makes the difference, what gives Guardians that 'winking at the audience' vibe that I do agree is there. Is it maybe just the incessant pop culture references? Or the more tactile violence of Fifth Element? I'm not sure.

Though to be honest, you're right, Asgard's final throwdown WILL result in underwhelming generic LOTR-esque fantasy-style fighting.

Maybe partially it's the limits of Uber Hela? She just did kung fu and threw knives and had an army of skellingtons and a big dog... and I think that was just bland and under-whelming compared to the rest of the movie. I think my contentions would be decreased if the final confrontation was more innovative, like in Dr. Strange with space-time warping Mikkelsen shenenigans (I mean the rest of the movie was a mix of goofiness and some lip service to SRS BSNSS character arc).

I think that's it, the wrap up wasn't as good as I'd like it to be?

The payoff wasn't eh. It's like if Wrestlemania had an underwhelming main event. The wrap up is important in cementing the rest of the emotional up and downs preceding it.
Hela could have been improved, sure. She wasn't as underwhelming as some other Marvel villains (hello Yellowjacket), but I could've done with some more showing of what she was trying to achieve. A bunch of dead Asgardian soldiers didn't do that sufficiently for me. I'd've liked to see more of her old campaigns, the kind of mass killing she presumably did, maybe tie it into the Valkyrie flashback... I dunno. But in the end I don't think that fixes the problem with the final act in the sense that it's going to still be a big CGI fight fest.

Winter Soldier *was* pretty damn heavy, mang. In those moments they were rather quite intense and I think those bits *did* add a higher level of seriousness, in a way that the Guardians-style stuff likewise subtracts from seriousness. Imagine if Stark or Cap did some Star Loyd shtick on Stane or Barnes :(
There was still plenty of humour in the exchanges between Captain America and Black Widow, or Captain America and Sam Wilson. Hell they even managed to fit an airco joke into that scene where Nick Fury is about to be assasinated. Yeah Steve Rogers is no Starlord but to pin the seriousness of a movie just on a single character running his mouth seems... a dubious proposition to me.

I mean, I'll grant you that Guardians of the Galaxy was less serious than Winter Soldier but it's very much a matter of subtle degrees to me.
"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia." - Frank Castle

I breakfast upon Armadas such as thine!

User avatar
Shroom Man 777
Global Mod
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Shroom Man 777 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:02 pm

Siege wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:42 pm
I agree that the end fight had a generic element to it, in that it was another big brawl where we zip from one character to the next whilst they alternate between wailing on each other to no effect (whilst Looking Badass™) and effortlessly dispatching mook hordes (whilst Looking Badass™). But that's more a failing of the superhero movie genre than of this particular film I feel; there literally doesn't seem to be a way to end these movies than with a Big Fight.
I'm not even trying to avoid a Big Fight, just adding enough ingredients to make a Big Fight compelling - the personal stakes, the "weight" behind their glares and snarls, hence Bucky versus Cap in Winter Soldier, Stark versus Stane, maybe even Star Loyd and Space Kurt Russel 100% Death Proof God. Winter Soldier's the peak of this, IMO.

Even Dr. Strange's final confrontation and even including the Dormamu bits was better.
Even the most praised examples of superhero movies like Wonder Woman have their Big Fight at the end.
WW's Big Fight was actually pretty terrible and I think when it came to fight choreo and the obligatory-ness of the big fight, it was out of the awesome director's hands and so it's more of the studio we're seeing?

Plus visually it was pretty shit since the Big Bad being a mass of metalspikes was pretty lame.

I recently saw the recent King Arthur movie by Guy Ritchie, it's not a super awesome movie but I had fun. There was Kung Fu George. And the aesthetics of the Big Fight with Jude Law turning into a Dark Souls Skeletor was nifty, and of course Guy Ritchie goofing around with fantasy and magic... anyway, aside from Jude Law Skeletor's bare pale chest, his TRUE FORM manifestation was actually better looking than Ares' in WW - PLUS it wasn't a big mass of just dark colored stuff, there were different gradients of darkness and greyness and ash and ember-colorations.
It's a bit tiresome, but at the same time I can't quite think of another way to end the sort of story these movies want to tell. It's a bit like how cowboy movies invariably end with a shootout at the end, even when they're Unforgiven. It seems you could have a different kind of fight (like in Civil War), but it'll still be a fight of some sort. And within its genre I feel Ragnarok handled the Big Fight very well. It was well-edited, well-paced, I could tell what was going on at all times, it had a nicely diverse cast of characters, it didn't go on for too long (like the fight in Wonder Woman did), the appearance of Ragnaros the Firelord Surtur and the role he'd play was properly foreshadowed... I can't complain too much.
Hmmm... I guess the thing is that it wasn't incompetently done but it didn't give us anything new or distinct - heck the skellington armies were pretty damn unimpressive (and for ancient superbadass warrior corpses imbued by supernatural flame, they were pretty meh, at least give them evil ethereal glow or some shit). In the contest of the craziness of Goldblumpopolis... yeah, it just falls short.

Seriously, if Hela's THE shit then give her something distinctively memorable.
I wanted to say that the difference is that the world of the Fifth Element is whacky, but its inhabitants don't treat it as such. But upon reflection that doesn't feel fair toward the cast of Guardians of the Galaxy because they do seem to take their world equally seriously. Then I thought, it's just that the characters in Guardians are raging comic relief quipmonsters, and Bruce Willis was not. But then again Ian Holm prettty much was there for comic relief in Fifth Element, and Leeloo and Corben exchange dialog explicitly meant to be funny all the time. So I'm left wondering what makes the difference, what gives Guardians that 'winking at the audience' vibe that I do agree is there. Is it maybe just the incessant pop culture references? Or the more tactile violence of Fifth Element? I'm not sure.
All of the above, as a whole, as a synergy of facets? I think it's the combination of the pop culture references AND I guess how they're distributed across the whole movie, it's their frequency and I guess it's in the blend - the amount of salt and pepper thrown in, I guess, and how there's a line between the spices complementing the meat and the spices overpowering the meat (in the films' case, the "meat" is our immersion).
Hela could have been improved, sure. She wasn't as underwhelming as some other Marvel villains (hello Yellowjacket),


Or Christopher Eccleston :(
but I could've done with some more showing of what she was trying to achieve. A bunch of dead Asgardian soldiers didn't do that sufficiently for me. I'd've liked to see more of her old campaigns, the kind of mass killing she presumably did, maybe tie it into the Valkyrie flashback... I dunno. But in the end I don't think that fixes the problem with the final act in the sense that it's going to still be a big CGI fight fest.
If it increases the investment of the final CGI fight fest, that'd be great.
There was still plenty of humour in the exchanges between Captain America and Black Widow, or Captain America and Sam Wilson. Hell they even managed to fit an airco joke into that scene where Nick Fury is about to be assasinated. Yeah Steve Rogers is no Starlord but to pin the seriousness of a movie just on a single character running his mouth seems... a dubious proposition to me.

I mean, I'll grant you that Guardians of the Galaxy was less serious than Winter Soldier but it's very much a matter of subtle degrees to me.
It's still a huge thing though, that's what made the Russo Brothers the new hot shit. I'm not saying it lacked humor, I just appreciate those small touches and we could've needed that stuff especially here.
Image

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

User avatar
Booted Vulture
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:33 pm

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Booted Vulture » Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:04 pm

My original review of Thor: Ragnarok. (spellchecked :S)
Me On SDN wrote: Just saw it. Quite fun but surprisingly lighthearted for a film about Ragnarok.

It seemed like a typical marvel movie but more so. The darkness doesn't seem to resound with the over the top comic moments.

And I'm annoyed that they killed The Warriors Three with hardly a line or a mention from Thor. Sif isn't mentioned at all and Valkyrie gets to be more badass than she ever was.

It's good and the comedy is well done but it's a bit out of place.
To me, it's like they've realised that Marvel is the fun one to DC's serious grimdark and gone over the top Playing up to it. Thor: Ragnarok is wall-to-wall fun and jokes and extravagance and cgi-punch fests and it was very fun to watch... once. Thinking on it later, there's just nothing much to dwell on or think about, I don't want to see it again.

The thing is there is plenty of potential for more serious moments and they clearly tried. Thor worrying about his home, his hammer, his faith in Odin and likeness to him, the 'thunder is in you and not the hammer', the Asgard is not a place thing. It just didn't work well for me. I mean this is a movie where Thor shows as much outrage and emotion about been given as hair cut as anything else that happens.

Thor 3 clearly has a lot more humour than over Marvel movies, other than GotGs at least in my opinion. The other films did have it but it was a much lighter touch and the tension was much more present for me.

Also from a fanboy perspective this movie cut off so many awesome things that might have been in Infinity Wars: Warriors Three/Avengers team up, Cap lifting Thor's hammer, reinforcements against Thanos delivered by Bifrost... I hoped to see these things.
Ah Brother! It's been too long!

User avatar
Siege
Site Admin
Posts: 2461
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Siege » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:39 pm

Shroom Man 777 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:02 pm
I'm not even trying to avoid a Big Fight, just adding enough ingredients to make a Big Fight compelling - the personal stakes, the "weight" behind their glares and snarls, hence Bucky versus Cap in Winter Soldier, Stark versus Stane, maybe even Star Loyd and Space Kurt Russel 100% Death Proof God. Winter Soldier's the peak of this, IMO.

Even Dr. Strange's final confrontation and even including the Dormamu bits was better.
Stane worked because he was clearly shown to be a someone Tony had known all his life, giving weight to his sudden but inevitable betrayal.

Kurt Russel honestly did far less for me than Jeff Bridges did, simply because he'd only just shown up in Star Lord's life. Personally I feel that's on the same level as long-lost-sister Hela. In fact I'm pretty sure I like Hela better, because her resolution at least wasn't 'blow up the MacGuffin that we don't need for the next installment'. Losing Asgard had real and personal consequences for our hero - consequences that go well beyond hitting the big ol' 'you're not a god anymore, maybe' reset button for Star Lord.

I suppose there was a more personal connection in Winter Soldier but that's for me majorly undermined by the comicbook-y randomness of it. Captain America rips off the Winter Soldier's mask to reveal... A LIZARD his old pal Bucky Barnes! Wait, what? Why? How? Didn't that guy plummet to his death from a fast moving train into a vast abyss? How is he alive? It was HYDRA all along! Oh, okay then... I liked the conundrum it created in that now Captain America couldn't just pummel the Winter Soldier into the ground anymore, but still.

And Strange's fight worked because because it was clever in its resolution. It wasn't a big wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am brawl, it was different (really the only thing different about that movie in terms of its story too, I would say, but I digress).

At the end of the day they're all still big fairly formulaic fights. Some may have a bit more personal punch than others, but I wonder how often you can repeat that without it getting old and tired. No doubt Marvel are asking themselves the same question.

WW's Big Fight was actually pretty terrible and I think when it came to fight choreo and the obligatory-ness of the big fight, it was out of the awesome director's hands and so it's more of the studio we're seeing?

Plus visually it was pretty shit since the Big Bad being a mass of metalspikes was pretty lame.


Khornate Berserker Ares didn't bother me too much; his dialogue on the other hand did. That old 'join me young Skywalker and we will rule the galaxy together' nugget is just that: old. And THEN I WILL DESTROOOY YOOUOUOUOU... Really? I suppose we have to end with Wonder Woman vanquishing her nemesis somehow, but I think I would've appreciated it more if he just faded away after she refused to join him. "Okay fine, have fun settling this GIGANTIC WORLD WAR then mwa ha ha." Then she'd have to settle for driving Ares off, the doomsday plot has been foiled, but humans are still humans and the God of War is still out there somewhere. But that's just me. Also the fight was too long, but plenty has been said about that by pretty much everybody already.

I recently saw the recent King Arthur movie by Guy Ritchie, it's not a super awesome movie but I had fun. There was Kung Fu George. And the aesthetics of the Big Fight with Jude Law turning into a Dark Souls Skeletor was nifty, and of course Guy Ritchie goofing around with fantasy and magic... anyway, aside from Jude Law Skeletor's bare pale chest, his TRUE FORM manifestation was actually better looking than Ares' in WW - PLUS it wasn't a big mass of just dark colored stuff, there were different gradients of darkness and greyness and ash and ember-colorations.
I enjoyed King Arthur, but the constant switching between the Dark Souls imagery and East London swaggering medieval gangsters got really grating after a while. It tried to be two totally different things and it honestly didn't work very well. Also the mage could've done with some actual character instead of just being there as a plot device that spawns cool CGI then gets conveniently captured when we need our hamfisted stand-off. Come the fuck on. It was a real clunky movie that could've done with a half dozen more passes by someone capable of unifying its disparate elements.

That being said some of the mythos in that movie is real fucking cool. Too bad we constantly cut away from it to hear some more wisecracking.

Hmmm... I guess the thing is that it wasn't incompetently done but it didn't give us anything new or distinct - heck the skellington armies were pretty damn unimpressive (and for ancient superbadass warrior corpses imbued by supernatural flame, they were pretty meh, at least give them evil ethereal glow or some shit). In the contest of the craziness of Goldblumpopolis... yeah, it just falls short.

Seriously, if Hela's THE shit then give her something distinctively memorable.
It would've been cooler if the skellingtons could at least, say, pull themselves back together again, explaining why they were such a potent threat. I liked how they were one of Asgard's old buried secrets, but yeah, they turned out less than impressive in the end. But to focus exclusively on the skellingtons feels a bit selective - there was also a giant wolf, a de-eye-ing, a space ship shooting at the animated dead, and a big ol' flame monster fighting the Hulk. Does that not count as new and distinct? I feel Godblumgard was played out by the time the movie left it behind; we spent just enough time there that it was still interesting, but it wouldn't've been for much longer.

It's still a huge thing though, that's what made the Russo Brothers the new hot shit. I'm not saying it lacked humor, I just appreciate those small touches and we could've needed that stuff especially here.
It was a huge thing, and justifiably so, because Winter Soldier mostly holds up. I do think the final act is its weakest point, exactly because the movie feels the need to go into CGI overdrive with an overhyped world-ending threat that can also be conveniently centrally dismantled. For an insidious pseudo-cancer that can eat an organization like SHIELD from the inside HYDRA sure as fuck was easy to beat. After decades in which nobody knew they even existed, at the end of which they ended up controlling everything from US Senators to Siberian super soldier bases to the highest echelons of SHIELD, turns out you can defeat them by dumping a floppy drive on the internet? I don't buy it. Frankly Winter Soldier suffers from a lot of the problems you've previously described, it's just that the first bit of the movie was so good we end up forgiving it for that. Which is fair enough, it's a cool movie, but that doesn't mean the resolution isn't weak.
"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia." - Frank Castle

I breakfast upon Armadas such as thine!

User avatar
Booted Vulture
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:33 pm

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Booted Vulture » Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:26 pm

Siege wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:39 pm
It was a huge thing, and justifiably so, because Winter Soldier mostly holds up. I do think the final act is its weakest point, exactly because the movie feels the need to go into CGI overdrive with an overhyped world-ending threat that can also be conveniently centrally dismantled. For an insidious pseudo-cancer that can eat an organization like SHIELD from the inside HYDRA sure as fuck was easy to beat. After decades in which nobody knew they even existed, at the end of which they ended up controlling everything from US Senators to Siberian super soldier bases to the highest echelons of SHIELD, turns out you can defeat them by dumping a floppy drive on the internet? I don't buy it. Frankly Winter Soldier suffers from a lot of the problems you've previously described, it's just that the first bit of the movie was so good we end up forgiving it for that. Which is fair enough, it's a cool movie, but that doesn't mean the resolution isn't weak.
They weren't exactly defeated by that, even in the movies. (Though much more so in Agents of SHIELD.) They were exposed and their current scheme was foiled by the were still around. Avengers mostly knocked them off between Winter Soldier and Age Of Ultron though.

But yeah even it being Hydra disappointed some people in that all the ambiguity of the first half of the movie was lost. (Though the movie is not even subtle at the start that we should be on Steve's side imho. )

There is a need for a grand finale in the films. (Eta: i mean i agree film makers force one in if it needs or not)
Ah Brother! It's been too long!

User avatar
Siege
Site Admin
Posts: 2461
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Siege » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:35 pm

'The Avengers mopped up some bases off-screen while we weren't watching' to me implies that whatever happened there wasn't worth our time and attention, so it can't have been very difficult, dramatic or imposing a task to dismantle this, you know, vast and ancient superterror network that existed in complete secrecy for decades, spread across the entire globe, infiltrated the highest levels of power and was on the verge of taking over the entire world.

So for all intents and purposes to me SHIELD croaked and that was that, the end of HYDRA. That's really fucking lame and mediocre, when you think about it.

If it had been just a HYDRA cell that managed to propagate itself inside SHIELD with the help of the Zola computer, I would've been fine with that. The movie could've made good points about how Fury's own mistrustful nature and drive for compartmentalization was what allowed a handful of deep moles to, once they'd gained control of the Helicarrier project, essentially commandeer the project and run away with it. One fatal missttep by Fury and HYDRA nearly bags the entire world. It would've been a damning indictment of both SHIELD's own method of operation and lack of transparency.

Instead it seemed half of SHIELD suddenly turned out to be HYDRA agents, complete with secret handshakes and whatnot. I have a hard time buying that Fury never saw that coming. It wasn't just Pierce he missed; it wasn't just that Pierce had compromised Rumlow and the other strike team members; they also apparently got full helicarrier crews, a senator, agent Sitwell... And they hadn't just been diligently working on a masterstroke to wrest control of this global superweapon, no, they've been causing worldwide chaos for decades and nobody noticed... C'mon now.
"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia." - Frank Castle

I breakfast upon Armadas such as thine!

User avatar
Shroom Man 777
Global Mod
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Shroom Man 777 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:51 am

xpost from FB:

The sad thing is that the best thing about Just Us Leg (which was an utterly tepid movie) is that we're finally through with it, we're finally done with it, it's a hurdle to get past, and now we can actually see DC and WB figure out the standalone films and the rest of its universe and different tones they'll take (hopefully more Wonder Womans and less Shitside Squawkeds) - things that they should've done BEFORE JL. Lol.

Think about it, while The Avengers for all its popcorn-ness was nonetheless something people anticipated, whereas with Just Us Leg it comes off as an obstacle, "let's just get this over with." JL's visuals are lacking even when compared to movies that came 10 years ago (Bayforminators' Baysplosions with Bayia LaBayeuf running from Baygatron looked baytter than Snyderwolf). Holy crap. So in terms of popcorn visuals it doesn't cut it, in terms of story hahahahahahahaha, in terms of character lol... the only thing it's got going for it is "by proxy," nostalgia and relation to other materials (for me that's Bruce Timm's excellent series and not crappy caped comics) that may just be potent enough to compel distraught nerds to lie to themselves about this movie's watchability.

[Even Avengers on its own is pretty hollow and relies on the setup of the rest of Marvel's phase one, it's pure popcorn gratification, but it required set up. JL didn't even pull that off, the previous DC movies save Wonder Woman didn't do it, the only "backbone" it probably has are thanks to freakin' cartoons and the fan fiction sold in comic book stores]
Image

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

User avatar
Siege
Site Admin
Posts: 2461
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Siege » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:00 pm

I haven't seen Justice League, but everything about it screams 'shortcut' to me. Don't bother introducing the main characters first, don't set up the tesseract mother boxes, don't explore the effects of the death of Superman for any length of time - just skip straight to the part where the big thing explodes into CGI. That'll get seats in theaters, right?

I'm not buying it. And I actually liked Man of Steel, flawed though it was. It did a good job setting up a believable world that I'd have liked to see more of. But everything in that universe since then has been absolute wank*, to the point where I've lost interest. The DC universe feels completely joyless. And I don't mean that the characters are all sour scowly grimdudes, but that the movies themselves don't seem to derive any satisfaction from exploring the world they're set in. They rush from setpiece to setpiece as if they feel obliged to, like as if there's a perception that this is how movies like these are supposed to work. It makes the whole exercise feel clunky and mechanical and obligatory. Like it's not actually a story with its own internal logic and dynamic but a thinly disguised means to catch up to the competition. It feels external to itself, curiously perhaps because this way of going about it invites direct comparison to that competition. 'Let's just get this over with so we can get to making the movies we want to make.'

Although weirdly I can't imagine what those movies would be. I can't imagine the people who make these movies actually want to make any more. The whole universe feels like this golem of artificial unlife forced into being with the lighting of a billion corporate marketing dollars. Now don't get me wrong, Marvel and Disney are obviously out to make truckloads of money too, but at least there I get the impression they had the good sense to involve people who actually cared for their characters and wanted to tell cool stories with them. DC and for that matter the Universal monster franchise come across as if theyre conceived by financial lizards who think of movies solely as investment vehicles.

* With the notable exception of Wonder Woman of course. At this point in time I'm legit wondering how the fuck that movie ever got made at all. There must have been a brief and fatal error in the unblinking stock machine robots in charge of DC when the decision was made.
"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia." - Frank Castle

I breakfast upon Armadas such as thine!

User avatar
Booted Vulture
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:33 pm

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Booted Vulture » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:15 am

Ever since the man of steel sequel turned into a batman/start of the justice league movie, DCEU has been a short cut. That's why Suicide Squad was such a surprise and a disappointment. It least it could have been something new and different.

Going to see Justice League next week. Will report back.
Ah Brother! It's been too long!

User avatar
Siege
Site Admin
Posts: 2461
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Siege » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:08 am

Like I said, I haven't seen it yet. But at this stage we're treating it like a 'if the weather is utterly terrible on Saturday and we literally can't think of anything else to do we might go see it' type of movie. I mean, I'm reasonably confident we're pretty much the target demographic here. If we feel that way about a space alien earth invasion superhero movie, that movie is not in good shape.

That being said, I'd love to hear what you think about it.
"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia." - Frank Castle

I breakfast upon Armadas such as thine!

User avatar
Booted Vulture
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:33 pm

Re: Official Movie Review Thread

Post by Booted Vulture » Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:23 am

How spoilererrific would you like to me?

I actually feel different to Shroom. I quite liked it. In facts it's about as best as we can expect a Justice League movie to be from that starting point. Half the league's characterisation is basically very quick origins story but they all get at least a little characterisation and some cool moments.

It's probably not a good movie and it may be helped by basically low expectations. They basically got Joss to come and reshoot and chop it to feel more Marvelly. But that works for me. I feel similarly as I did to Star Trek Beyond. It may not be an actual good movie (JL less so than STB) but it garners a lot of good will for me in that it at least feels like ti was trying to be more like what I want it to be.

Not going to say go massively out of your way to see it but it's worth a watch down the line.
Ah Brother! It's been too long!

Post Reply