To be fair I'm not positive the cans on the ground weren't Pepsi, but the can he drinks from was just purple stuff. I actually thought it was weird they couldn't get someone to sign on to quality screentime there.
Mysteries!...which I will not solve since I have no intention of seeing that movie again before it maybe ends up on basic cable.
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?
Spiderman and Spiderman 2 were, at the times of their release, two of the best superhero movies ever made. X-Men was up there, too. This is because 90% of superhero movies prior were so fucking terrible that we had zero expectations. I think the first Spiderman isn't much better than Green Lantern, and I found that movie pretty bland and unenjoyable. But the action in the Spiderman flicks was amazing (ha!) by the standards at the time, Raimi is a competent director, and Maguire was a convincing Parker (if a rather boring Spiderman).
But now we've seen superhero movies that were not just great superhero movies, but great movie, period. We've basically seen our superhero Godfather, and now that we know it's possible, we're going to expect more. My enjoyment of Raimi's Spiderman when I first saw it was much higher than my like enjoyment of Amazing Spiderman, but Amazing is definitely a better movie in pretty much every way.
The two exceptions I'm aware of are the first Superman movie and Burton's first Batman. The former is lovably earnest, the latter is full of goofydark Burtonesque charm, and both of them contain some really outstanding acting from both the heroes and the villains.
I agree wholeheartedly. But I want to ask, which movie do you consider the "superhero" Godfather?
I expect you'd say The Dark Knight, but I'm going to say Batman Begins. Because that makes The Dark Knight into The Godfather Part II!
<Quote trimmed for brevity)
I was deliberately vague on that point, because the Best Superhero Movie depends on what you expect out of it. The Dark Knight is probably the best in terms of Best Overall Film. It's certainly the one most commonly given that honor, so we can just go with that.
Iron Man is probably the best in terms of visceral fun. It's well-scripted, slickly directed, Downey, Jr. is superb, and it just hits almost all the right notes. While I don't think it's the same caliber of work as, say, Die Hard, it's pretty comparable given the body of work we have to go with.
So... yeah, I dunno. Less so than there being a single Godfather, my point was more that superhero films have managed to succeed by all manner of metrics, and that there's no reason to ever say, "we shouldn't expect X out of a superhero film." We should both demand X and then expect Y and Z as a matter of course, because filmmakers can absolutely deliver if they stop trying to give us great superhero movies and just try to give us great movies that happen to feature superheroes - which is something they're actually attempting to do now, so yay. And in addition to the obvious megahits, we've seen more experimental films, like Chronicle, Special, Kick-Ass, and some others. They don't always succeed, but they're trying, which is the important bit.
I will now refer to Batman Begins as The Superhero Godfather. And Iron Man as the Superhero Goodfellas.
I am entirely comfortable with this.
(I also liked both TDKR and Godfather III, while recognizing the failings of each.)
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.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I remember reading Encyclopedia Brown but I don't actually remember anything about Encyclopedia Brown, which means it's a perfect property to turn into a movie according to Hollywood Logic.
I rewatched Spider-Man 2 a while back - I'm not sure what all is wrong with it but it didn't hold up as well as I was hoping it would. Still, I'd rank it above most of the superhero movies that come out today, if for no other reason than Sam Raimi injects the movie with good amount of stylistic panache, and also it isn't another friggen origin story.
I think one mistake was making Mary Jane so upset with Peter Parker on account of him missing her play and not spending enough time with her. She'd be more likeable if she was less outright angry and more, like, quietly disappointed.
I rewatched Spider-Man 2 a while back - I'm not sure what all is wrong with it but it didn't hold up as well as I was hoping it would. Still, I'd rank it above most of the superhero movies that come out today, if for no other reason than Sam Raimi injects the movie with good amount of stylistic panache, and also it isn't another friggen origin story.
I think one mistake was making Mary Jane so upset with Peter Parker on account of him missing her play and not spending enough time with her. She'd be more likeable if she was less outright angry and more, like, quietly disappointed.
She'd be more likable if it wasn't Kirsten Dunst.
I'm telling you guys, it's anti-charisma. She's actually a good actor, she just radiates a sort of disdain.
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
My main problem with SM2 was that a lot of the character arc elements surrounding Peter just seemed stupid. Okay, he can't squirt webs because he's all anxious and subconsciously doesn't want to be Spider-Man. Fine. I can even buy his being less coordinated. But going nearsighted? Losing his super-strength? That seemed stupid to me. I have been anxious before, I have subtly sabotaged myself because I didn't want to be doing something, but I've never gone nearsighted. Yes, I know that hysterical blindness is a thing, but it still struck me as going too far into the realm of ridiculous.
Also, as was mentioned, MJ seemed kind of shrill. And I never bought their chemistry together. And the thing on the train with the citizens seemed way too overwrought, as well as I didn't buy that not one of those guys wouldn't have leaked his identity to the press. And dude loses his mask, like, every 30 seconds.
So the plot elements were kinda weak for me, but the action was great and I loved Doc Ock. I find it the most rewatchable of the two films.*
*No, SM3 doesn't count as a SM film. It doesn't count as anything. It is a sucking void in the cosmos. You gaze in its direction, and you suspect something was there at some point - something terrible, something that the universe itself was forced to excise from spacetime out of sheer adherence to basic decency. Then you look quickly away, and your brain erases almost all trace of the experience from your memory. And yet. And yet. There will come times - dark times, lonely times, middle-of-the-night times - when you will awaken, as if from a half-remembered dream tottering on the edge of nightmare, and you will stare at the ceiling. That is your mind trying to repair the damage wrought by your brief encounter with that dreadful non-movie, that cursed non-thing. Your mind will try to mend itself, again and again. But it will fail. Every last time, it will fail.
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.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
In today's sad movie news, World War Z is getting a sequel and Richard Matheson died.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
My main problem with SM2 was that a lot of the character arc elements surrounding Peter just seemed stupid. Okay, he can't squirt webs because he's all anxious and subconsciously doesn't want to be Spider-Man. Fine. I can even buy his being less coordinated. But going nearsighted? Losing his super-strength? That seemed stupid to me. I have been anxious before, I have subtly sabotaged myself because I didn't want to be doing something, but I've never gone nearsighted. Yes, I know that hysterical blindness is a thing, but it still struck me as going too far into the realm of ridiculous.
The nearsighted thing was in the same vein as him losing his ability to shot web and super strength; in SM1 he wears glasses before he was bitten, then when he wakes up post-bite he notices that his glasses make his vision blurry now, and he sees fine without them. I.e. Corrected vision was one of his "powers", so he lost it along with the other stuff.
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I understood the link between his vision and his powers, it just seemed implausible that fundamental changes to your DNA that affect involuntary traits like eyesight would be affected by stress. It would be like if Wolverine got similarly stressed out and his claws fell off.
I understand that such a thing may technically be possible, it just seemed silly the way it happened in the movie. I accept that perhaps I am the only person bothered by this, but it added to a general theme of Raimi taking something and wrapping it in symbolism to the point of being dumb. Couch this in terms of the movie failing to secure my suspension of disbelief, if you'd like - had everything else in the movie been awesome, I wouldn't have cared too much about his glasses.
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 understood the link between his vision and his powers, it just seemed implausible that fundamental changes to your DNA that affect involuntary traits like eyesight would be affected by stress. It would be like if Wolverine got similarly stressed out and his claws fell off.
I understand that such a thing may technically be possible, it just seemed silly the way it happened in the movie. I accept that perhaps I am the only person bothered by this, but it added to a general theme of Raimi taking something and wrapping it in symbolism to the point of being dumb. Couch this in terms of the movie failing to secure my suspension of disbelief, if you'd like - had everything else in the movie been awesome, I wouldn't have cared too much about his glasses.
Tobey Maguire may be a decent portrayal of the common perception of Peter Parker but he's a pretty terrible portrayal of Peter Parker who is actually a lot closer to Garfield's.
"I knew Bugs had stolen the second Death Star plans because he claimed he was on Alderaan at the time, but Alderaan was destroyed by the first Death Star!"
Grown Ups 2 is currently tracking way, way better than Pacific Rim, and they release on the same weekend.
Grown Ups 2 should track better than anything else shouldn't it? It's got some of the most popular comedians of our day acting in a thoroughly inoffensive comedy.
Grown Ups 2 is currently tracking way, way better than Pacific Rim, and they release on the same weekend.
Grown Ups 2 should track better than anything else shouldn't it? It's got some of the most popular comedians of our day 1995, and Kevin James (as Chris Farley) acting in a thoroughly inoffensive comedy.
I think this is a bit more accurate...
+6
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I've always thought that the best job in the world is to be a host of Top Gear.
I sometimes wonder if it would be better to just be Sandler's friend. Do nothing but five minutes of being stupid in a movie every six months and you get money hand over fist.
I thought the robots are supposed to be considered monsters because they also destroy cities (in their fights with the aliens), like, one of them is using a giant cargo ship as a bat. Thats kinda what I liked about it, in most movies the destruction caused by the hero is ignored (see Man of Steel), but in Pacific Rim maybe itll be addressed (it wont)?
I have a feeling that Pacific Rim is going to bomb and bomb hard. And that's from someone that's super hyped and excited for it.
I've always sort of assumed it would bomb hard. It was just a matter of whether it was a good movie that bombed hard, or whether it was Megashark Vs Giant Octopus that somehow was given lots of money through some freak accident.
And while I'm hoping Del Toro gets rewarded for making a great film (if it is great), I predict that the film's success would usher in a glut of movies made by producers who think if you just take a dumb enough concept and throw money at it, it totally makes a great film.
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.
So, after hearing some East Coast people talk up Pope of Greenwich Village so much, I finally got a chance to see it since it was playing on some movie channel. Never even heard of this movie until recently, but it was pretty decent. Didn't expect Mickey Rourke to be decent in it...
I have a feeling that Pacific Rim is going to bomb and bomb hard. And that's from someone that's super hyped and excited for it.
I've always sort of assumed it would bomb hard. It was just a matter of whether it was a good movie that bombed hard, or whether it was Megashark Vs Giant Octopus that somehow was given lots of money through some freak accident.
And while I'm hoping Del Toro gets rewarded for making a great film (if it is great), I predict that the film's success would usher in a glut of movies made by producers who think if you just take a dumb enough concept and throw money at it, it totally makes a great film.
There is no such thing as a bad story. There are stories; some are told poorly.
If Megashark Vs. Giant Octopus had had the budget and time to have a few script rewrites, a better cast, effects that wouldn't embarrass the PS2, and more than two takes per shot, I can imagine it becoming an embodiment of the dumb fun popcorn movie.
A smart movie can do well enough on little money; stupid movies need money to be any good at all. Of course, there is the bloat threshold, where the amount of money pumped into a project seems to flip what could have been an epic into an overproduced bombastic mess once the budget gets past a certain point, but...
WWZ had its very obvious flaws and I don't like how it ended, but I give it credit for not having the main crew completely ignore logic, like in most other zombie media. They make mistakes and are occasionally ignorant, but at least they didn't do all the stupid and illogical crap that takes place in The Walking Dead show.
The grenade and plane crash were ridiculous, but I'm not sure how else they could've done zombies on a plane. You can't open the emergency hatch while the plane is in the air. I guess maybe directing the pilots to land earlier.
I don't think they could've followed the book very easily, but I also think the book was flawed. Slow zombies just don't work when you have paramilitaries and miliataries involved. They work for small groups of 5-10 people trapped in malls or w/e, but as soon as an apache helicopter or sealed perimeter gets involved, I think you need fast zombies to make it compelling and threatening.
The PG-13 rating harmed it immensely, although the closeup zombie acting was great. Still, needed more people eating/tearing/etc.
The story was definitely disjointed and I wish the investigation had continue, and the cure hadn't been handled like that (although in general, the WHO building stuff was well done.) Also, the geopolitical stuff could've been so much better. I guess they cut it down because the scope was getting too large, but seeing the UN take control just made me laugh.
Letting the wall thing happen like that was dumb. Like someone else said, cameras or watch towers or anything. I was expecting a wall breach through terrorism or something, which would've been more interesting imo.
I liked that they had Pitt give up his axe (and the best weapon of the 3) in order to keep the door open.
It wasn't great, but I'll take it over the vast majority of other zombie movies/TV just because Pitt and his crew, as dull as they sometimes were, at least paid attention. I'll take bad plot over illogical characters any day.
Posts
Mysteries!...which I will not solve since I have no intention of seeing that movie again before it maybe ends up on basic cable.
For Science!
I am entirely comfortable with this.
(I also liked both TDKR and Godfather III, while recognizing the failings of each.)
I remember reading Encyclopedia Brown but I don't actually remember anything about Encyclopedia Brown, which means it's a perfect property to turn into a movie according to Hollywood Logic.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think one mistake was making Mary Jane so upset with Peter Parker on account of him missing her play and not spending enough time with her. She'd be more likeable if she was less outright angry and more, like, quietly disappointed.
She'd be more likable if it wasn't Kirsten Dunst.
I'm telling you guys, it's anti-charisma. She's actually a good actor, she just radiates a sort of disdain.
Also, as was mentioned, MJ seemed kind of shrill. And I never bought their chemistry together. And the thing on the train with the citizens seemed way too overwrought, as well as I didn't buy that not one of those guys wouldn't have leaked his identity to the press. And dude loses his mask, like, every 30 seconds.
So the plot elements were kinda weak for me, but the action was great and I loved Doc Ock. I find it the most rewatchable of the two films.*
*No, SM3 doesn't count as a SM film. It doesn't count as anything. It is a sucking void in the cosmos. You gaze in its direction, and you suspect something was there at some point - something terrible, something that the universe itself was forced to excise from spacetime out of sheer adherence to basic decency. Then you look quickly away, and your brain erases almost all trace of the experience from your memory. And yet. And yet. There will come times - dark times, lonely times, middle-of-the-night times - when you will awaken, as if from a half-remembered dream tottering on the edge of nightmare, and you will stare at the ceiling. That is your mind trying to repair the damage wrought by your brief encounter with that dreadful non-movie, that cursed non-thing. Your mind will try to mend itself, again and again. But it will fail. Every last time, it will fail.
The nearsighted thing was in the same vein as him losing his ability to shot web and super strength; in SM1 he wears glasses before he was bitten, then when he wakes up post-bite he notices that his glasses make his vision blurry now, and he sees fine without them. I.e. Corrected vision was one of his "powers", so he lost it along with the other stuff.
I understand that such a thing may technically be possible, it just seemed silly the way it happened in the movie. I accept that perhaps I am the only person bothered by this, but it added to a general theme of Raimi taking something and wrapping it in symbolism to the point of being dumb. Couch this in terms of the movie failing to secure my suspension of disbelief, if you'd like - had everything else in the movie been awesome, I wouldn't have cared too much about his glasses.
Mutant epigenetics. It's a thing.
Look it up.
I'd prefer Conservapedia Brown.
"Someone pilfered the collection plate? But we needed that money to fund the church's abstinence only sex-ed program!"
"Looks like the work of Planned Parenthood. If kids stop having premarital sex, then they'll stop having abortions."
"That's right! 90% of Planned Parenthood's business comes from abortions!"
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
"I knew Bugs had stolen the second Death Star plans because he claimed he was on Alderaan at the time, but Alderaan was destroyed by the first Death Star!"
I remember Encyclopedia Brown was technically right all the time, but still wished I could punch him for being a know-it-all dick.
A wild BUGS MEENY appeared!
"Go SALLY!"
SALLY used TOMBOY PUNCH!
It's super effective!!
"Sorry Bugs, these latest polls indicate you're guilty, no matter what Gallup claims."
Grown Ups 2 is currently tracking way, way better than Pacific Rim, and they release on the same weekend.
Grown Ups 2 should track better than anything else shouldn't it? It's got some of the most popular comedians of our day acting in a thoroughly inoffensive comedy.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I think this is a bit more accurate...
I sometimes wonder if it would be better to just be Sandler's friend. Do nothing but five minutes of being stupid in a movie every six months and you get money hand over fist.
The tag line is, "To fight monsters we created monsters," but has anyone gotten that impression from the trailers?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
And to combat the robots controlling giant monsters, we created giant robots.
So robots were the real monsters the whole time.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I've always sort of assumed it would bomb hard. It was just a matter of whether it was a good movie that bombed hard, or whether it was Megashark Vs Giant Octopus that somehow was given lots of money through some freak accident.
And while I'm hoping Del Toro gets rewarded for making a great film (if it is great), I predict that the film's success would usher in a glut of movies made by producers who think if you just take a dumb enough concept and throw money at it, it totally makes a great film.
woop woop
There is no such thing as a bad story. There are stories; some are told poorly.
If Megashark Vs. Giant Octopus had had the budget and time to have a few script rewrites, a better cast, effects that wouldn't embarrass the PS2, and more than two takes per shot, I can imagine it becoming an embodiment of the dumb fun popcorn movie.
A smart movie can do well enough on little money; stupid movies need money to be any good at all. Of course, there is the bloat threshold, where the amount of money pumped into a project seems to flip what could have been an epic into an overproduced bombastic mess once the budget gets past a certain point, but...
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
And I'd gladly pay to see it in 3D/IMAX.
I don't think they could've followed the book very easily, but I also think the book was flawed. Slow zombies just don't work when you have paramilitaries and miliataries involved. They work for small groups of 5-10 people trapped in malls or w/e, but as soon as an apache helicopter or sealed perimeter gets involved, I think you need fast zombies to make it compelling and threatening.
The PG-13 rating harmed it immensely, although the closeup zombie acting was great. Still, needed more people eating/tearing/etc.
The story was definitely disjointed and I wish the investigation had continue, and the cure hadn't been handled like that (although in general, the WHO building stuff was well done.) Also, the geopolitical stuff could've been so much better. I guess they cut it down because the scope was getting too large, but seeing the UN take control just made me laugh.
Letting the wall thing happen like that was dumb. Like someone else said, cameras or watch towers or anything. I was expecting a wall breach through terrorism or something, which would've been more interesting imo.
I liked that they had Pitt give up his axe (and the best weapon of the 3) in order to keep the door open.
It wasn't great, but I'll take it over the vast majority of other zombie movies/TV just because Pitt and his crew, as dull as they sometimes were, at least paid attention. I'll take bad plot over illogical characters any day.
plot/theme is super similar to district 9's, but whatevs. blomkamp creates really compelling worlds, and he knows how to do sci fi action right