Cynical Evaluations of Cinema: Movie Reviews

[Reply #640 on:]

Why watch that when I can just watch Ocean's 11.

TH is better, by virtue of the fact that it isn't trying hard to be overtly "cool" or unnecessarily convoluted.

[Reply #641 on:]

I finally got around to seeing Happy Feet 2 and found that I pretty much agree with cyber_turnip's review (second last one here).

I must admit though that I was a bit surprised

Show spoiler

no other penguins were caught outside when that mountain-sized iceberg crashed through several miles of (permanent) pack-ice to block the entrance to Emperor Land! (Without any of them noticing it was coming, either.)  

Apparently they are doing so well since the events of the first movie that they can afford to spend all their time grooving in Emperor Land instead of going fishing to feed their chicks and/or bulk up for the winter.

Also, what was the relevance of the krill to the rest of the movie? They reminded me of that Robot Liberation Front (or whatever it was) from the Astro Boy movie, i.e. they felt like they had just been added so that someone could tick off 'comic relief' on their Movie Making for Dummies checklist.

[Reply #642 on:]

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (US)

Very good, very harsh and blunt. They were not holding anything back here, which makes it all the more powerful and made me really invested in the characters. I enjoyed Lisbeth Salander a lot, I think she's the heart and soul of the movie (and I assume that is what everyone would say about the books and movies). I will try to read the book now, for it's one of those cases where I think seeing the movie will actually help me understand the book. Like with Jurassic Park, all the science mumbo jumbo is hard to understand but when you already have a good idea of what's happening it makes it easier, at least for me. I'll check out the Swedish trilogy at some point too.

A-

[Reply #643 on:]

The title character is the heart and soul?  Really?

[Reply #644 on:]

I finally got around to seeing Happy Feet 2 and found that I pretty much agree with cyber_turnip's review (second last one here).

I must admit though that I was a bit surprised

Show spoiler

no other penguins were caught outside when that mountain-sized iceberg crashed through several miles of (permanent) pack-ice to block the entrance to Emperor Land! (Without any of them noticing it was coming, either.) 

Apparently they are doing so well since the events of the first movie that they can afford to spend all their time grooving in Emperor Land instead of going fishing to feed their chicks and/or bulk up for the winter.

Also, what was the relevance of the krill to the rest of the movie? They reminded me of that Robot Liberation Front (or whatever it was) from the Astro Boy movie, i.e. they felt like they had just been added so that someone could tick off 'comic relief' on their Movie Making for Dummies checklist.

I think the krill were simply a means of adding something new to the formula, and for the most part, I felt it worked. I loved that they were so blatantly a gay couple, too. In a kids' film. I thought it was very progressive and I was surprised to have not heard anything about it before or afterwards. I normally hate when people start accusing cartoon-characters that are good friends (SpongeBob and Patrick for instance) of being gay, but these guys... they had to be, surely.
But yes, the krill helped pad out the story and add to the everybody has something to offer message they were trying to give.

[Reply #645 on:]

The title character is the heart and soul?  Really?

That's not always the case. Is Tron really about Tron? No, it's more about Flynn. Is Bye Bye Birdie really about Conway Birdie? No, the focus is the love relationship between his manager and the secretary. I'll admit it's kind of obvious that Lisbeth, the girl with the dragon tattoo, is the focus of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, all I was saying is that the movie/books wouldn't stand out if it wasn't for her characterization.

[Reply #646 on:]

Sherlock Holmes 2

I'll make it quick and painless

- If you want to see a Sherlock Holmes movie, that one is the wrong choice.
- If you're okay with seeing an action-oriented detective story in Victorian setting, that movie is the right choice.

[Reply #647 on:]

I think if you want an action-oriented detective story in Victorian setting, the first 'Sherlock Holmes' movie is the right choice and the sequel is something you should consider based on your opinions of the first.

[Reply #648 on:]

Iron Man 2

Got interested because it was going round that the music was from AC/DC.
It was on TV the other day, but highly disappointing, just lots of special effects and he's-the-hero-he-can't-die stuff.
And there wasn't even much AC/DC music, just Back in Black at the beginning, the film music was mostly boring crap. I thought they'd destruct themselves with War Machine in the background or something...
Not recommendable.

[Reply #649 on:]

It sounds like you accidentally watched the first film again.

'Back in Black' isn't in Iron Man 2 to the best of my knowledge - it appears at the start of the first film. 'Shoot to Thrill' and 'Highway to Hell' were certainly in the film.

[Reply #650 on:]

I don't really like Iron man I think he's one of the worst out of Marvel. I tried watching the first movie and it was awful! Maybe I need to try reading the comics? (are they any better?)

[Reply #651 on:]

I enjoyed both Iron Man films, and I'm not even a fan of the comics.

Also, they're making Iron Man 3.

[Reply #652 on:]

The first Iron Man is one of the best Marvel superhero films in my opinion. The second wasn't great, but I still found it enjoyable.

[Reply #653 on:]

I agree Josh, the first was the best in the Marvel Superhero franchise yet, even more so in the Avenger franchise.

[Reply #654 on:]

I don't really like Iron man I think he's one of the worst out of Marvel. I tried watching the first movie and it was awful!

You realise that Daredevil and Electra are both Marvel films, right?
Always be careful with the word "worst".

[Reply #655 on:]

Don't forget the Punisher films, the Fantastic Four films, Ang Lee's Hulk, X-Men 3 and Wolverine, Ghost Rider...I mean, c'mon. You don't have to like Iron Man, but if you think it was worse than any of those, something is wrong with you.

[Reply #656 on:]

X-Men 3 has become quite a lot better thanks to X-Men First Class to be fair.

[Reply #657 on:]

Hm. I don't really see how First Class being excellent makes 3 any better of a film, especially since it pretty much throws out the continuity from those films entirely (with the exception of Hugh Jackman still being Wolverine). You'll have to explain yourself.

[Reply #658 on:]

It explains a lot of the motivation behind Magneto, thanks to the backstory.

[Reply #659 on:]

Electra is the worst Marvel film of all. Even Howard the Duck had its cultish charm.

X-Men 3 wasn't that bad. Just sucked compared to 2. It had great music.

[Reply #660 on:]

I agree Josh, the first was the best in the Marvel Superhero franchise yet, even more so in the Avenger franchise.

I'm fond of both Thor and Captain America as well. Thor purely for the scenes in Asgard. Those were just amazing. Amazing antagonist as well.

[Reply #661 on:]

Best character in Thor is of course Heimdall, followed by Loki.

[Reply #662 on:]

X-Men 3 was absymal. It doesn't matter that First Class was great.

[Reply #663 on:]

I enjoyed both Iron Man films, and I'm not even a fan of the comics.

Also, they're making Iron Man 3.

Tre-quals are usually bad. They're making a Hangover: Part 3, and I have low expectations. The only Tre-quals that work are on extremely continuous series, such as James Bond, or Batman.

[Reply #664 on:]

*cough* Indian Jones.

[Reply #665 on:]

Their gonna make a 5th one..... :/


Hooray, post #500!!!!!!!!  

[Reply #666 on:]

The only Tre-quals that work...Batman.

There's no evidence to support this yet. I have reasonable expectations that Christopher Nolan won't fuck up, but until it comes out we don't know.

And if you're talking about the older Batman series of movies...lord no.

[Reply #667 on:]

Indian Jones.

[Reply #668 on:]

That's the 2nd movie not the 3rd!

[Reply #669 on:]

You typo'd. Indian. It was a joke. At your expense.
Heh... Indian Jones.

[Reply #670 on:]

See, coldy gets me.
...
I'm scared.

[Reply #671 on:]

coldy gets me.

Not yet, but I will.

I always do.

 

[Reply #672 on:]

I saw Salt a few nights ago, and really enjoyed it. 8.5/10

Also recently, I saw Transformers: Dark of the Moon. It was... okay. The action sequences were very entertaining, but the story, like the previous movies, was just dumb. 6/10.

[Reply #673 on:]

You have to realize that they're making a movie based on a toy and a kid's cartoon.

[Reply #674 on:]

And that Michael Bay sucks... I feel like that should definitely be mentioned.

[Reply #675 on:]

Just saw Apollo 18. Pretty neat and creepy little sci-fi movie. Looks really authentic. Don't know why it got such lousy reviews.

Except

Show spoiler

how did NASA get the film back to earth?

[Reply #676 on:]

Tre-quals are usually bad. They're making a Hangover: Part 3, and I have low expectations. The only Tre-quals that work are on extremely continuous series, such as James Bond, or Batman.

'The Hangover: Part III' can't possibly be worse than 'The Hangover: Part II'. I'm actually intrigued by it seeing as it's about them breaking Alan out of a mental institution instead of them doing the exact same storyline for a third time. But yeah, that trilogy was already ruined as a collective whole by its 2nd film.

You have to realize that they're making a movie based on a toy and a kid's cartoon.

That doesn't stop them being terrible films. 'Clue' was based on a board game and it's a good film. 'The Iron Giant' is based on a kids' book and it's a fugging masterpiece. Basically what you're saying is "you have to realise that the film is a cynical money-making excercise and that somehow excuses us from judging it as art like we would any other film".

Just saw Apollo 18. Pretty neat and creepy little sci-fi movie. Looks really authentic. Don't know why it got such lousy reviews.

Probably because it was awful.

They have Earth-gravity inside their lunar lander for no reason and this essentially sums up how much sense any of the film makes as well as how lazy it all is. Not to mention how laughable it gets when the penny drops about what exactly is going on on the moon.

[Reply #677 on:]

Not to mention how laughable it gets when the penny drops about what exactly is going on on the moon.

What is it?

[Reply #678 on:]

Tre-quals are usually bad. They're making a Hangover: Part 3, and I have low expectations. The only Tre-quals that work are on extremely continuous series, such as James Bond, or Batman.

'The Hangover: Part III' can't possibly be worse than 'The Hangover: Part II'. I'm actually intrigued by it seeing as it's about them breaking Alan out of a mental institution instead of them doing the exact same storyline for a third time. But yeah, that trilogy was already ruined as a collective whole by its 2nd film.

Agreed here. I'll probably actually watch the third one since it's not going to be the same exact plot as the first one like the second was...but I have little hope that it will be anywhere as funny as the first, since the second wasn't.

[Reply #679 on:]

Just saw Apollo 18. Pretty neat and creepy little sci-fi movie. Looks really authentic. Don't know why it got such lousy reviews.

Except

Show spoiler

how did NASA get the film back to earth?

Show spoiler

Surely it was space wizards... or was it space leprechauns?