You know, after watching those Russian Dashboard Camera videos, the chase at the end of the 2nd Bourne Movie feels like it's missing some guy driving along beside on his phone being like "What hunny? No, just the usual commute. Traffics a bit heavy, but what do you expect on a friday?".
I don't know, trailers are one of my favorite parts of seeing a movie in theatres.
Basically, I go to theatres for two reasons, one, because I like good trailers. The second, is because I like love to laugh. Things are funnier in a crowd. If I laugh and they laugh, I laugh harder, because it's more funny when other people also enjoy it.
Reminds me of that Portal 2 development video. Basically it's soul crushing for a developer making a comedy when you look at videos of people playing the game when they think they're alone. Everyone is stone dead quiet with absolutely no expression in the same scenes that they would be cracking up over if they were in a group or knew they were being recorded.
Saw Man of Steel tonight and it was way better than I expected. It probably helps that Im not a huge Superman fan and basically dont read comics. The fight scenes were cool, which with Snyder attached isnt all too surprising (they did a really good job making the fights seem super), and the rest of the movie seemed coherent enough. I did want Superman to be a little flippant at times but alas.
I also refuse to believe Henry Cavill is that jacked.
It was also nice to see Kevin Costner in his natural state. Actually, all of the acting was pretty great in this movie but god damn does Amy Adams need to work on her scream.
Oh man, the previews before this movie though? There were a lot of them:
Despicable Me 2 - looked dumb
Turbo - actually looked decent
Elysium - will definitely see
Gravity - from the previews this looks like a movie where people just fall in space
The Butler - dumb name, might see although it looks fairly predictable, but it was nice to see Cuba Gooding Jr in a not straight to video movie
Pacific Rim
And like 2 or 3 other movies that Ive completely forgotten.
I do find the hatred against MoS a bit overblown. It has a lot of problems but some people seem to be complaining about everything. For example, I don't really understand why people don't like the acting, which I thought was fine.
+3
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
if that's a movie with a lot of problems, sign me up any time
The only issue that I had while watching the movie was a single line uttered by Faora:
The youre weak because you have morals and we've evolved past that thing because well, Kryptonians have been genetically engineered for a couple centuries.
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
I was ripped off when I saw Man of Steel.
I wanted a Pacific Rim trailer.
I got the "See it in IMAX!" trailer, which shows a couple of scenes and the screen slowly shrinks down to roughly TV sized and the tag line changed to "Go big or go home!"
Movie itself was fine, but trailer reel failed to deliever.
The only issue that I had while watching the movie was a single line uttered by Faora:
The youre weak because you have morals and we've evolved past that thing because well, Kryptonians have been genetically engineered for a couple centuries.
The exact nature of Kryptonian society was kind of under-developed.
And the bit about evolution was kind of just thrown in there, probably because they needed some scary science talk to make it clear these people were science jerks.
And Faora looked cool, and I liked her voice, but her delivery felt really stilted throughout.
I sawit yesterday and my only real complaint about Man of Steel (other than not offering anything to really make it special) was
The sheer amount of destruction that occurred without any attempt to deal with the consequences.
I mean, in a lot of big action movies you have skyscrapers being damaged, stuff being blown up, etc. But Superman had massive damage caused to a small town and then Metropolis having multiple skyscrapers collapsing. It felt more like a disaster movie than a superhero one. It evoked 9/11 feelings and not in a good way.
It definitely seemed like the Daily Planet building came down as well, but they were up and running without a problem at the end which may be part of the problem.
re: Man of Steel
i like amy adams but i thought she was actually one of the weakest characters in the movie. well russell crowe came off about how he normally does (he feels unenthusiastic about things i guess is the way i describe him) but really shannon and cavill do great work with their emoting and line deliveries.
real spoiler about part of the end of the movie
i literally gasped when he snapped zod's neck but it felt so right within the movie. supes had to choose between stopping zod or saving those people and he made his choice. i imagine there's going to be a lot of drawing back to that moment if they make more of these movies. i said this before but so many times superman wins and there are NO repercussions, everything works out just great. i agree there was a ton of destruction that they didn't show the impact of, but those are things i wouldn't mind being talked about in a sequel.
basically, i want more of this superman type movie
The Man of Steel thread is more talking about comics now so I'll put my thoughts here
I thought Henry Caville was perfectly cast. Did I hear something about how he won't be in the sequel? A crime against humanity. Not only did he look the part (perfect) but I thought his acting was spot on. I agree with another commenter that Amy Adams was a bit weak, but I like her overall and her character sort of isn't that complicated so whatever. They are real cute together.
Michael Shannon bothers me in some way I can't articulate, but that's definitely a GOOD thing. His female crony was 100% great. Speech at the end about how he was born/bred to be a warrior was awesome. They might have gone even further with this theme but in general the Krypton stuff I liked and understand why it wasn't more in depth.
The opening sequence kind of made me cry it was so cool. I have a definite weakness for dudes on cute flying animals. I had an Avatar flashback and peed myself a little with joy.
Sometimes the superfights made me feel like I was watching a fighting game. And they got a little drawn out. I have mixed feelings about the collateral destruction shown. On one hand, it's good that they didn't shy away and pretend like these super beings on Earth would always be fighting somewhere that people weren't around. Of course humans were gonna get hurt and crushed like ants. On the other hand, they didn't spend any time unpacking the consequences of all that damage. Maybe next movie.
On the third hand, the destruction graphics were radical.
I enjoyed the Daily Planet staff's human element. But good lord everyone there would have massive PTSD after all that.
Superman's Warby Parker glasses were awesome.
And that is all. I didn't read the whole MoS thread but I hear some people are pretty down on this movie. I just don't get why. Maybe it's because I'm not a lifelong Superman fan, just a casual one. I also haven't actually watched a Superman movie in over a decade (didn't watch any of the other reboots, or Smallville either). I dunno. My bf pointed out some of the misgivings lots of people have about Superman (he's too powerful! he's always going to win!) but I guess I just don't care about that stuff.
I absolutely loved Man of Steel. Exactly what I was looking for in a superman movie. I've been tired of seeing origin stories over and over, but this one made me forget about that. The way the back story was told through "snapshots" of sorts really worked. I've also been tiring of the anti hero, or the misunderstood hero, so seeing just a straight up iconic hero, that the populace likes, is refreshing.
I also got to see the new movie from one of the greatest filmmakers of our time, Park Chan-Wook. Stoker. I was very surprised by it. I found it very different from his previous movies. Visually it's amazing, and the story managed to surprise me. This is the sort of off kilter, disturbing role I always envisioned Mia Wasikowska playing....and she does a great job.
There was something that struck me about the way Stoker was shot. There are some scenes, mostly early in the movie, that make Mia look ...tiny, like a small child. The door handles loom higher than normal, the rocking chair she sits in is monolithic. I was always fascinated by the idea that Suspiria was intended to be filmed with children, and that Argento was forced to shoot with women, but made the sets so they seemed smaller. ...I don't know, I could just be rambling but if Suspira ever had to be remade, I'd want Park to do it.
re: Man of Steel
i like amy adams but i thought she was actually one of the weakest characters in the movie. well russell crowe came off about how he normally does (he feels unenthusiastic about things i guess is the way i describe him) but really shannon and cavill do great work with their emoting and line deliveries.
real spoiler about part of the end of the movie
i literally gasped when he snapped zod's neck but it felt so right within the movie. supes had to choose between stopping zod or saving those people and he made his choice. i imagine there's going to be a lot of drawing back to that moment if they make more of these movies. i said this before but so many times superman wins and there are NO repercussions, everything works out just great. i agree there was a ton of destruction that they didn't show the impact of, but those are things i wouldn't mind being talked about in a sequel.
basically, i want more of this superman type movie
I know a lot of people had a problem with all the destruction and Superman killing Zod but I feel like they can do a lot of stuff with it in the following sequels. When I first saw the movie with a friend we started talking about how the sequel totally has to be about Lex Luthor and how he becomes an integral part in rebuilding Metropolis. You can have Lex building mistrust in the citizens playing off all the destruction that was caused by Superman and the Kryptonians while Superman is dealing with the building fear in the common people. If they end up ignoring it all then it will be a shame.
I got around to seeing Bourne Legacy. I was already starting off in a bad mood because my PS3, which is also my BD player, YLOD'd and so I had to watch the movie in SD on my 360, and it's the sort of movie I much prefer watching in pretty, pretty HD.
That aside, the movie was pretty underwhelming. It was a good 30 minutes into the film before they even tried to make me care about anything. Prior to that, it was Guy Wandering Around In Snow and Bunch of People Upset About Something To Do With Jason Bourne, neither of which are compelling absent some sort of emotional context. Oh, okay, NotBourne is getting chased by wolves? Okay, I guess I'm rooting for him to live? Because his face was on the box art?
Midway, the movie remembered to make me give a fuck, but I'd already spent an house being disinterested. The action in the last half was decent, and the story kinda went somewhere, but the film seemed really long and I still never really engaged in the hero that much. It sure as hell wasn't up to the same quality level as the first three, but then Jeremy Renner is no Matt Damon. I guess I'm glad it watched it, but only barely.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I thought Amy Adams was great but they just put her in situations where it didn't make sense just so they can put in some exposition or get the story moving along.
Michael Shannon was OK but most of Zod's problems were due to the writing. It's like they couldn't make up their minds about what kind of person Zod should be. They wanted him to be sympathetic and a powerful leader but at the same time they also wanted him to be an incredibly shortsighted genocidal maniac who is blind to all reason.
Faora was great. Despite the limited screentime and mediocre lines, the acting was great and she was able to convey confidence and a cold calculating attitude with amused condescension. I was pleasantly surprised considering Snyder's previous work with Sucker Punch.
With this new Superman, I don't really see how a Batman/Superman movie or a Justice League movie could work. This Superman is so different that it'll be really hard to have that classic relationship with Batman. It'll be super weird.
Superman: "So Batman, why did you decide to become a superhero?"
Batman: "I wanted to show the people of Gotham that the city didn't belong to the criminals. I became Batman to create an incorruptible symbol to inspire people and give them hope so that they would stand up to the corruption and create a better city... Superman, why did you decide to become a superhero?"
Superman: "Well, I never wanted to be a superhero. I just wanted to stay out of sight and make sure no one can learn of my existence. Then these war criminals from my planet came to earth and threatened to kill everyone unless I gave myself up. So I guess I had to become a superhero because I really had no choice."
I haven't seen Man of Steel yet, but I'm glad to hear everybody loved Faora. Antje Traue was my favorite part of Pandorum and I was hoping her career would start to take off.
Monsters University was wonderful. There was much laughter to be had throughout the whole movie. I'm still not sure we needed a prequel to Monsters Inc. but I don't feel like I wasted my time seeing this movie. Is it up there with Pixar's best? Eh, I donno. There's getting to be a lot of Pixar movies by now though!
I suspect I, personally, would have enjoyed the film more if I wasn't getting such a strong "harmless Animal House/RotN" vibe from it--which is just purely a matter of my own taste.
That being said, I enjoyed the film. The original was my favorite Pixar film forever, but this was a respectable, fun sequel. Much more than I expect I'll enjoy seeing Planes when it comes onto cable rotation anyway.
I don't know how they're going to stretch Gravity's premise out to feature-length but the trailer is pretty gripping and I hope the movie lives up to the trailer.
I don't know how they're going to stretch Gravity's premise out to feature-length but the trailer is pretty gripping and I hope the movie lives up to the trailer.
I think that was my problem with it, it looked good (like, set design) but I just don't know how that premise can go on for two hours.
AJRSome guy who wrestlesNorwichRegistered Userregular
I saw Despicable Me 2 on the weekend. I liked it. It was definitely entertaining in the moment, and a fun distraction after a long week. But man, than thing moves along like a freight train. Fuck spending any time developing anything, let’s just keep pushing on and just have things resolved in the most convenient way possible without any real build-up. There’s so much charm in the animation and the voice acting, but the story is super paint by numbers to the point where I was constantly thinking they were going to pull a fast one on me. But it never happened.
I also found it kind of annoying that they went down the damsel in distress route too. I thought Lucy was going to play a big part in the final confrontation, but she basically get's captured without putting up a fight, which is weird.
I think the film is still worth watching because the slapstick stuff and the big setpieces are really fun to watch, but it's holding up a story that's both forgettable and rushed.
The Blues Brothers: still fun! It's a movie with everything: car chases, musical numbers, Carrie Fisher wielding a bazooka, Illinois Nazis.
One thing I never noticed before is that, naturally, there's a pretty big discrepancy between the musical talents of Aykroyd/Belushi and the film's superstar guest singers. This movie has Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Cab Calloway, and Ray Charles totally killing it....and then Jake and Elwood take the stage for the film's big climatic musical performance and...it's just two comedians pretending to be blues singers. I mean, they aren't embarrassingly bad, but they aren't anywhere close to being on the same level. But I guess the filmmakers knew that.
Incidentally Cab Calloway was 73 when the film was shot but he still had it - he pours tons of energy into his singing and acting.
The film does have this slightly amateurish quality to it. I think John Landis and co. don't do much interesting with the camera, and the editing feels a little loose - the film hangs on things a little long. And then on top of that the band's instrumental players aren't the best actors, because they aren't actors - they're musicians. But I don't think any of that really hurts the film. In fact it all manages to give the film a bit of a homespun quality.
I like how a lot of the musical numbers in this movie start without build-up - the film is just like surprise! Singing and dancing time!
And I like the fact that the film has such a gooey heart at its center. I mean Jake and Elwood are trying to save an orphanage. And at one point Jake steals Edwood's bed and Elwood is annoyed for a second, but then he puts a blanket on top of Jake. Isn't that sweet?
I don't know how they're going to stretch Gravity's premise out to feature-length but the trailer is pretty gripping and I hope the movie lives up to the trailer.
I think that was my problem with it, it looked good (like, set design) but I just don't know how that premise can go on for two hours.
I think the fact that the premise seems so constraining is part of what's interesting about it. It's like Rear Window or My Dinner With Andre - how do you make an entire movie about a guy in a wheelchair who looks out his window? About two guys having dinner? About two people drifting in space without a spaceship?
And the fact that Alfonso Cuarón is directing it and and co-writing it (with his son) gives me some confidence.
I don't know how they're going to stretch Gravity's premise out to feature-length but the trailer is pretty gripping and I hope the movie lives up to the trailer.
I think that was my problem with it, it looked good (like, set design) but I just don't know how that premise can go on for two hours.
You could easily milk this for a 1.5 hour or a bit more movie. I don't expect it to be a terribly long film. It's a solid, 90-100 minute film premise.
I recently rewatched Spiderman 2; I didn't particularly like it the first time round and was curious to see whether it fared better at a second watching. Turns out it didn't - the humour didn't particularly work for me, nor did the characters or the plot. In comparison I found the recent Spiderman film more enjoyable, better paced and funnier, although it's too 'been there, done' that to be great.
However, I remember people loving the film at the time and calling it one of the best superhero movies (I remember some reviewers saying it was the best since X-Men 2, which I enjoyed more). What's the general opinion here? Is it a good film, does it mostly work for Spidey fans or does it not hold up particularly well after 10+ years?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited June 2013
At its heart, Spider-man never really fit into the one-true-hero sort of superhero template (a problem with both the first Raimi one and the new one). It's actually supposed to be a soap with one particular fantastic element. Other than the superheroics it is about learning how to be an adult on your own, dating, struggling to live in a big city, working three jobs, and so on. Spider-Man 2 is really the only Spider-Man movie that truly captures that feeling of, "I'm late for my date and there's a giant metal octopus trying to kill me, and also I have to deliver these damn pizzas if I want to make the rent this month."
Like X-Men 2, now that I think about it, Spider-man 2 works because it's minimally about being a big comic book movie and mostly about its characters navigating the emotional realities of their lives. As long as you have compelling characters and a moderately twisty (emotional) plot, that is always an entertaining sort of movie to watch.
I love Blues Brothers, but ever since I lived in Illinois it really bugs me that it takes them about 5 times longer to make the drive at the end than it should. Also that they manage to do it on half a tank of gas. I mean, I can ignore it and still enjoy the film because the chase is fun, it is just something I notice now.
Raimi's Spider-man never worked for me. This is not me jumping on the bandwagon after Spidey 3, I thought they sucked right from the start.
Tobey Maguire has the dork part of Peter Parker pre Spider-man down, but I never believed him for a moment that he had anything that happened after he got bit by spider. Him trying to convey the idea that he was tortured by the death of uncle Ben beats Vaders noooooo at the end of Episode III for crap emotional acting. The less said about Kirsten Dunst's MJ, the better. Fuck I hated the character of MJ in the Raimi movies. Its supposed to be this kick ass character and she was turned into a repeat damsel in distress that I didn't want the Hero to save. She was just so self-centered.
For my Money Andrew Garfield is Spider-man and the only Spider-man Movie is the Amazing Spider-Man.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Reminds me of that Portal 2 development video. Basically it's soul crushing for a developer making a comedy when you look at videos of people playing the game when they think they're alone. Everyone is stone dead quiet with absolutely no expression in the same scenes that they would be cracking up over if they were in a group or knew they were being recorded.
Like X-Men 2, now that I think about it, Spider-man 2 works because it's minimally about being a big comic book movie and mostly about its characters navigating the emotional realities of their lives. As long as you have compelling characters and a moderately twisty (emotional) plot, that is always an entertaining sort of movie to watch.
I understand all of what you're saying in the abstract, but I just never felt it when watching Spiderman 2. The first Raimi Spiderman isn't great, but I enjoyed it more; the second one mostly bored me, mainly because the characters felt so flat. I don't have anything against Maguire or Dunst, but in the second film I found them entirely unengaging. I found Garfield's Peter Parker much more engaging.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Posts
Comedies never work as well alone imo.
I also refuse to believe Henry Cavill is that jacked.
It was also nice to see Kevin Costner in his natural state. Actually, all of the acting was pretty great in this movie but god damn does Amy Adams need to work on her scream.
Oh man, the previews before this movie though? There were a lot of them:
Despicable Me 2 - looked dumb
Turbo - actually looked decent
Elysium - will definitely see
Gravity - from the previews this looks like a movie where people just fall in space
The Butler - dumb name, might see although it looks fairly predictable, but it was nice to see Cuba Gooding Jr in a not straight to video movie
Pacific Rim
And like 2 or 3 other movies that Ive completely forgotten.
for problems
Also Faora was amazing and conquer my homeworld any time she so desires.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I wanted a Pacific Rim trailer.
I got the "See it in IMAX!" trailer, which shows a couple of scenes and the screen slowly shrinks down to roughly TV sized and the tag line changed to "Go big or go home!"
Movie itself was fine, but trailer reel failed to deliever.
The exact nature of Kryptonian society was kind of under-developed.
And Faora looked cool, and I liked her voice, but her delivery felt really stilted throughout.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I mean, in a lot of big action movies you have skyscrapers being damaged, stuff being blown up, etc. But Superman had massive damage caused to a small town and then Metropolis having multiple skyscrapers collapsing. It felt more like a disaster movie than a superhero one. It evoked 9/11 feelings and not in a good way.
It definitely seemed like the Daily Planet building came down as well, but they were up and running without a problem at the end which may be part of the problem.
i like amy adams but i thought she was actually one of the weakest characters in the movie. well russell crowe came off about how he normally does (he feels unenthusiastic about things i guess is the way i describe him) but really shannon and cavill do great work with their emoting and line deliveries.
real spoiler about part of the end of the movie
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Michael Shannon bothers me in some way I can't articulate, but that's definitely a GOOD thing. His female crony was 100% great. Speech at the end about how he was born/bred to be a warrior was awesome. They might have gone even further with this theme but in general the Krypton stuff I liked and understand why it wasn't more in depth.
The opening sequence kind of made me cry it was so cool. I have a definite weakness for dudes on cute flying animals. I had an Avatar flashback and peed myself a little with joy.
Sometimes the superfights made me feel like I was watching a fighting game. And they got a little drawn out. I have mixed feelings about the collateral destruction shown. On one hand, it's good that they didn't shy away and pretend like these super beings on Earth would always be fighting somewhere that people weren't around. Of course humans were gonna get hurt and crushed like ants. On the other hand, they didn't spend any time unpacking the consequences of all that damage. Maybe next movie.
On the third hand, the destruction graphics were radical.
I enjoyed the Daily Planet staff's human element. But good lord everyone there would have massive PTSD after all that.
Superman's Warby Parker glasses were awesome.
And that is all. I didn't read the whole MoS thread but I hear some people are pretty down on this movie. I just don't get why. Maybe it's because I'm not a lifelong Superman fan, just a casual one. I also haven't actually watched a Superman movie in over a decade (didn't watch any of the other reboots, or Smallville either). I dunno. My bf pointed out some of the misgivings lots of people have about Superman (he's too powerful! he's always going to win!) but I guess I just don't care about that stuff.
I also got to see the new movie from one of the greatest filmmakers of our time, Park Chan-Wook. Stoker. I was very surprised by it. I found it very different from his previous movies. Visually it's amazing, and the story managed to surprise me. This is the sort of off kilter, disturbing role I always envisioned Mia Wasikowska playing....and she does a great job.
There was something that struck me about the way Stoker was shot. There are some scenes, mostly early in the movie, that make Mia look ...tiny, like a small child. The door handles loom higher than normal, the rocking chair she sits in is monolithic. I was always fascinated by the idea that Suspiria was intended to be filmed with children, and that Argento was forced to shoot with women, but made the sets so they seemed smaller. ...I don't know, I could just be rambling but if Suspira ever had to be remade, I'd want Park to do it.
I'm sure it is. For the first couple of days at least.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
okay good!
That aside, the movie was pretty underwhelming. It was a good 30 minutes into the film before they even tried to make me care about anything. Prior to that, it was Guy Wandering Around In Snow and Bunch of People Upset About Something To Do With Jason Bourne, neither of which are compelling absent some sort of emotional context. Oh, okay, NotBourne is getting chased by wolves? Okay, I guess I'm rooting for him to live? Because his face was on the box art?
Midway, the movie remembered to make me give a fuck, but I'd already spent an house being disinterested. The action in the last half was decent, and the story kinda went somewhere, but the film seemed really long and I still never really engaged in the hero that much. It sure as hell wasn't up to the same quality level as the first three, but then Jeremy Renner is no Matt Damon. I guess I'm glad it watched it, but only barely.
Michael Shannon was OK but most of Zod's problems were due to the writing. It's like they couldn't make up their minds about what kind of person Zod should be. They wanted him to be sympathetic and a powerful leader but at the same time they also wanted him to be an incredibly shortsighted genocidal maniac who is blind to all reason.
Faora was great. Despite the limited screentime and mediocre lines, the acting was great and she was able to convey confidence and a cold calculating attitude with amused condescension. I was pleasantly surprised considering Snyder's previous work with Sucker Punch.
With this new Superman, I don't really see how a Batman/Superman movie or a Justice League movie could work. This Superman is so different that it'll be really hard to have that classic relationship with Batman. It'll be super weird.
Batman: "I wanted to show the people of Gotham that the city didn't belong to the criminals. I became Batman to create an incorruptible symbol to inspire people and give them hope so that they would stand up to the corruption and create a better city... Superman, why did you decide to become a superhero?"
Superman: "Well, I never wanted to be a superhero. I just wanted to stay out of sight and make sure no one can learn of my existence. Then these war criminals from my planet came to earth and threatened to kill everyone unless I gave myself up. So I guess I had to become a superhero because I really had no choice."
I suspect I, personally, would have enjoyed the film more if I wasn't getting such a strong "harmless Animal House/RotN" vibe from it--which is just purely a matter of my own taste.
That being said, I enjoyed the film. The original was my favorite Pixar film forever, but this was a respectable, fun sequel. Much more than I expect I'll enjoy seeing Planes when it comes onto cable rotation anyway.
Shit, this movie does not go slowly. It's zero to smoking-PCP-in-the-middle-of-an-intersection-at-gunpoint in literally 15 minutes.
I think that was my problem with it, it looked good (like, set design) but I just don't know how that premise can go on for two hours.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
One thing I never noticed before is that, naturally, there's a pretty big discrepancy between the musical talents of Aykroyd/Belushi and the film's superstar guest singers. This movie has Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Cab Calloway, and Ray Charles totally killing it....and then Jake and Elwood take the stage for the film's big climatic musical performance and...it's just two comedians pretending to be blues singers. I mean, they aren't embarrassingly bad, but they aren't anywhere close to being on the same level. But I guess the filmmakers knew that.
Incidentally Cab Calloway was 73 when the film was shot but he still had it - he pours tons of energy into his singing and acting.
The film does have this slightly amateurish quality to it. I think John Landis and co. don't do much interesting with the camera, and the editing feels a little loose - the film hangs on things a little long. And then on top of that the band's instrumental players aren't the best actors, because they aren't actors - they're musicians. But I don't think any of that really hurts the film. In fact it all manages to give the film a bit of a homespun quality.
I like how a lot of the musical numbers in this movie start without build-up - the film is just like surprise! Singing and dancing time!
And I like the fact that the film has such a gooey heart at its center. I mean Jake and Elwood are trying to save an orphanage. And at one point Jake steals Edwood's bed and Elwood is annoyed for a second, but then he puts a blanket on top of Jake. Isn't that sweet?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
And the fact that Alfonso Cuarón is directing it and and co-writing it (with his son) gives me some confidence.
You could easily milk this for a 1.5 hour or a bit more movie. I don't expect it to be a terribly long film. It's a solid, 90-100 minute film premise.
However, I remember people loving the film at the time and calling it one of the best superhero movies (I remember some reviewers saying it was the best since X-Men 2, which I enjoyed more). What's the general opinion here? Is it a good film, does it mostly work for Spidey fans or does it not hold up particularly well after 10+ years?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Like X-Men 2, now that I think about it, Spider-man 2 works because it's minimally about being a big comic book movie and mostly about its characters navigating the emotional realities of their lives. As long as you have compelling characters and a moderately twisty (emotional) plot, that is always an entertaining sort of movie to watch.
Tobey Maguire has the dork part of Peter Parker pre Spider-man down, but I never believed him for a moment that he had anything that happened after he got bit by spider. Him trying to convey the idea that he was tortured by the death of uncle Ben beats Vaders noooooo at the end of Episode III for crap emotional acting. The less said about Kirsten Dunst's MJ, the better. Fuck I hated the character of MJ in the Raimi movies. Its supposed to be this kick ass character and she was turned into a repeat damsel in distress that I didn't want the Hero to save. She was just so self-centered.
For my Money Andrew Garfield is Spider-man and the only Spider-man Movie is the Amazing Spider-Man.
Since the conversation's been about horror here too, this reminds me of two things by Robert Brockway, one about horror and the audience, and the other about the proximity of comedy and horror.
I'm just here because I watched The Raid last night, and that was some of the best-filmed action I have seen in so long.
Just everyone reaction's to some of the fights and violence in the film. I still shudder at the thought of flourescent lightbulbs.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods