Printable View
The Great Gatsby, Open Air Cinema at the lake.
I found the movie a nice picture. And the all the scenes filmed outside the two mansions at the bay fitted so nicely in the the scenery of the cinema under largo old trees next to a body of water.
Was all nice, but the projector gave up 5 minutes before the end (at least the important part was already over). It seems the projector, which was actually brand new and quite powerful had the same problem with the movie as I have: It's too long.
World War Z.
Not too bad.
I now know, however, how that Zombie plague came to pass: The absolutely horrible security in biolabs. Seriously: "What do you need? Marburg? You'll find that in those flimsy glass vials right next to the Bubonic plague and Sars. Take care not to shatter the Ebola vial, though (not that you'll be able to distinguish that one from the others due to our lack of actually labelling them meaningfully). We only hire scientists with the fat finger syndrome in order to introduce some Darwinism around here! Full body environmental suits are for sissies!"
Heh its a movie about zombies. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
It was pretty good too for those complaining it wasn't like the book... GOOD. If they tried to make it like the book it would be disjointed and bad.
I thought they changed the outbreak because of China wanted to boycott the movie otherwise.
I liked it enough to watch it twice, once in 2D once in 3D. Did I already say that in subtitles in Turkey they substituted Israel with 'Middle-East'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What did they use for Mossad?
I forgot, but probably some generic term for secret service. The israeli flags weren't touched by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Saw Man of Steel. Okay, but honestly nothing that exciting. I had known the reviews were so-so, but I'd also gotten it highly recommended from some friends. They clearly have different taste than me. And if Manhattan is blown up with mega casualties one more time, I'm going to finally get fed up with it. Lots of explosions, but the underlying story wasn't anything special.
My big beef with Superman movies is that the fundamental concept of Superman is flawed. He's literally invincible, so there's just no good stories to tell about him. There's one of three options: 1) Get some Kryptonite, 2) Get someone else from Krypton, or 3) Give Superman a moral quandry (save Lois Lane or a city?). All three have been tried, but they're just not satisfying. Kryptonite is pretty boring stuff, and essentially we just get Superman toughing it out. Bringing in another Superman (e.g. Zod) makes the entire conflict meaningless - there's no appreciably good reason why one should triumph over another, and it's not even very clear why one of them does end up on top (as in this movie, as well). How can you kill a Kryptonian? And lastly the moral quandries are never that heart-wrenching, mostly because Superman always manages to get out of it without having to make a choice (in contrast to, for example, The Dark Knight).
There's a reason why the Batman franchise has been so successful in recent years. It's not just that they got rid of the campy stereotypes of old superhero films, or that they added a gritty realism - all superhero films, including Superman, have done this to an extent. It's successful because we see Bruce Wayne as a very human character, with all of the attendant issues and vulnerabilities. He's not always a good person, he can be put in genuine jeopardy, and he endures loss. He's relatable. Superman, on the other hand, is simply too powerful. He's a built-in deus ex machina.
Saw a few other films lately. Oz the Great and Terrible was a serious disappointment. I was hoping it would be grittier with more adult themes, but instead it was far too cute. A few nice homages to the original Wizard of Oz, and some of the visuals were nice, but otherwise a great disappointment.
Randomly saw an old film called Regarding Henry. Thought it couldn't be too bad because it starred Harrison Ford and Annette Bening. I was not impressed; basic plot is that big bad lawyer loses his memory and has to relearn to talk/walk/read/etc. and becomes a not terrible person. Bleh.
Trying to avoid seeing WWZ because I liked the book so much. I'll probably Redbox it at some point just to assuage my curiosity.
magic. superman sucks against magic too.
I think there was a door left open at the end of this Superman movie for a storyline involving Superman's "American ideals" clashing against America's interests (movie also included a few Lex Industries easter eggs). A common arc in the comic books, and it would be stupid easy to make a gritty or dark superman movie around that idea. Also wouldn't mind seeing a movie adaptation of his slide towards a totalitarian leader, something along the lines of Red Son.
I had the same opinion of Man of Steel - it was decent, but not great. Probably better than Superman Returns, at least.
Superman's a hard character to write for, for the reasons wiggin stated. There are a few good stories involving him, but it's difficult to come up with any believable conflict for him to be part of. He's just too powerful. This is also why I've generally liked Marvel's stable of heroes more than DC's - DC's characters with the exception of Batman seem to tend towards ridiculous power levels, with their only weaknesses being something silly (the color yellow, things made of wood, green rocks that are apparently as common as sand) and a lack of imagination in the use of their powers. Marvel's characters are of much lower power levels and they're almost all deeply flawed as people.
That said, I'd go see an adaptation of Red Son.
IMHO they touched on it multiple times in the film, but I think the direction they want to head in isn't with focusing on how Superman is a hero, but how he empowers and motivates regular average Joes to be heroes. Jon Kent took a tornado to keep his son's identity a secret. Perry White helped people evacuate The Daily Planet, and then chose to stay with his trapped employee at the end in the face of being killed. That military guy, and the scientist both sacrificed themselves to guide their airplane and Superman's pod into Zod's ship. A ridiculous amount of soldiers kept shooting the Kryptonians even though their weapons obviously did nothing.
I don't find a sequel very likely given the reception of this film. I also found their exploration of the Superman/government thing lackluster at best - from the previews it had seemed like a major plot point, but in the end it boiled down to Superman doing whatever he was going to do anyways - because, after all, how was anyone going to stop him? To be fair, I don't think that Iron Man addressed this issue well either - but at least there the government could do something about it (as in IM2).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
My belly button lint was better than Superman Returns. The one thing going for it was that it actually had the damned Superman theme music, something that cannot be said of Man of Steel. Don't get me wrong - I like Hans Zimmer, and I thought his music was just fine. It just wasn't Superman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I can't say I have much exposure to superheros aside from film and TV, so I can't speak to your broader critique of DC. I think Batman, though, is one of the best conceived superheros of them all. The Marvel stable I've seen - Spider-Man, Iron Man, Daredevil, Captain America, The Hulk, various X-men, The Punisher, The Fantastic Four, and Thor - are generally OK, but rarely exceptionally good. Iron Man stands out for execution and humor, but most of them were just enjoyable, not really awesome. I do see, though, that the underlying idea of some of these characters has potential. They often revolve around questions of vigilante justice or the way the 'different' fit into society.Quote:
Superman's a hard character to write for, for the reasons wiggin stated. There are a few good stories involving him, but it's difficult to come up with any believable conflict for him to be part of. He's just too powerful. This is also why I've generally liked Marvel's stable of heroes more than DC's - DC's characters with the exception of Batman seem to tend towards ridiculous power levels, with their only weaknesses being something silly (the color yellow, things made of wood, green rocks that are apparently as common as sand) and a lack of imagination in the use of their powers. Marvel's characters are of much lower power levels and they're almost all deeply flawed as people.
This is one of the reasons why I enjoyed Watchmen, despite all of its flaws (and apparently its lack of fidelity to the original?). It's one of the first stories to acknowledge that superheros are kinda psychopaths.
Had to look that up. Probably interesting, but I doubt it would really play that well. It also would probably be quite anachronistic.Quote:
That said, I'd go see an adaptation of Red Son.
Also, Illusions: that scene with Perry White was unnecessary filler, and we all knew it. Also, what you see as heroes in the soldiers attacking the bad guys to no effect, I see as inflexibility in adapting to new tactics in the face of failure. Why did the fighters continue to attack the ship at the end when their missiles were going haywire and further destroying Manhattan? Idiocy, just to make pretty explosions. Bleh.
Hero worship is fundamentally flawed, but that's ultimately what attracts and interests viewers and fans. We've reached the point where comic book characters (created by previous generations) has to be modern and timely, with enough car chases and bomb explosions to keep the moral challenges "relevant" but also entertaining. Often using a female love interest as damsel in distress or counter-power. :bored:
The movies haven't done them all much justice. Except for Iron Man, who was taken from a C-Lister to an A-Lister by Downey. I've thought the Spider-man movies have never been particularly good, except the second which was decent but not great. I'm basing my opinion more on all media, not just the movies. They're generally more realistic people often with serious character flaws and not really that powerful individually. Also Deadpool.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I thought the problem with Watchmen was that it was too faithful to the original. They only made one serious change, but it might have benefited from more.Quote:
This is one of the reasons why I enjoyed Watchmen, despite all of its flaws (and apparently its lack of fidelity to the original?). It's one of the first stories to acknowledge that superheros are kinda psychopaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Kn...acter_analysisQuote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I'm assuming we are referring to movies only? Cause Blaze (Ghost Rider) beat Watchmen to the psychopath department by a decade.
can't deny its a selling point though. Kick Ass did very well exploring that, and Kick Ass 2 is apparently going to be brutal enough on the big screen that Jim Carrey had a small twitter meltdown over its violence.
Pacific Rim.
There were these monsters, and then there were some robots, and then the robots punched the monsters. It was basically everything I've ever wanted in a movie.
In what way does this differ from the premise of Neon Genesis Evangelion?
You don't have to put up with Shinji's whining to get to the punching parts.
How does it compare to Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla?
I saw Holy Motors. Wtf. it was entertaining enough to watch, but I still don't have a clue what the hell was going on.
More monsters for punching and more robots to punch them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
RED
The first one.
Its a fun movie, crazy transparent in its plot, but a great flick to veg out on. Lots of guns, and shit getting blown up.
I love Matt Damon and Jodie Foster as actors. I also loved District 9 as a movie. Hoping the new movie Elysium will be even better than previous movies in the apocalyptic sci-fi futuristic genre. :D
Wolverine
Good take, no point seeing it in 3D, def. wait for mid-credits teaser
Are you planning to go see the 2nd one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Yeah, but no idea when.
Just saw Pacific Rim, well paced action flick. Enjoyable even though it tends towards the campy at times. I will definately see RED 2 one of these days.
Lawrence of Arabia on TCM. They aired it as originally played in theaters with a long "Intermission" break, and no TV commercials. :D
Seems like most the cable movies are programmed to reflect current events. Espionage, moles, whistle-blowers, conspiracy theories.....government sex scandals and cover-ups. Half-watched a 1987 movie with a young Kevin Costner and Gene Hackman earlier tonight with those themes (No Way Out).
The more things change, the more they stay the same?
I managed to watch Red 2 the other night - A v.good watch and a worthy sequel in my opinion. I do believe John Malkovich stole the film though - he had me laughing a lot with his lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer