Outrageous Prices For Food and Entertainment! (The Movie Reviews Thread)

[Reply #240 on:]

* Xanfor gazes quizzically.

[Reply #241 on:]

Did you just watch all of the movies any1else?

I haven't seen Prometheus btw.  I already know that stuff occurs and I don't care about the spoilers or not... but all of your alien like reviews are you trying to pretend any female in a strong defensive role is Ripley is quite preposterous!  Don't get me wrong, you can certainly make those tangents, and in some way all of the characters you described certainly borrowed from the archetype if they weren't directly inspired by Lt. Ripley.  Also the AVP movies are garbage, and they ruin the alien franchise and are filled with nonsense.  Perhaps you don't like suspenseful movies though, so I can see why you would enjoy the first AVP (it's a good action movie) and be somewhat bored by the first Alien.  The first Alien is the best one in the series, and it's because of everything even without the xenomorphs; it's just a really well written story.

Seriously your list has such great movies in it though.... even some of the bad ones are fantastic if only for the wrong reasons.  Candyman is fantastic... did you love that scene where he flies out the window backwards upside down?  I love terrorizing families and doing that, it fucks them the freak out everytime!

OMG IT!!~!!!  KISS ME FAT BOY!!!!!! /me glees all over the carpet

One of my friends had every line of Super Mario Brothers memorized.  SMB is a horrible movie, but it was fantastic seeing her watch the movie and quote it as the lines came up; excellent party trick.

TMNT hasn't aged well; the movie makes absolutely no sense, and it never did.  However, who wouldn't want to be a teenage mutant ninja turtle exiled in the countryside while april makes watercolor prints of everyone dealing with the loss of their master and father figure.  Come to think of it, I don't know how that happens in the movie... I guess he got kidnapped... cause he kills Shredder at the very end.... I don't know, I don't remember.

Also, if you and Coldy haven't already seen it, I suggest you catch Predators... it's the best movie in the franchise in my opinion, although maybe you'd get bored because it's kind of suspenseful.  It has lots of hot people doing actiony things in it sometimes though, so who knows.

[Reply #242 on:]

Just watched HBO's Recount. I miss President Gore...

[Reply #243 on:]

Prometheus

This film is solid popcorn grade material.  Great visuals are paired with a lot of good old sci-fi horror.  The main problem for me with the film is I'm not sure the story itself was supposed to be popcorn grade.  In order to drive the events of the film the writers made the crew part "scientist" and part keystone cop.  There should have been a laugh track to mark all the head slappingly stupid things the crew does on their first visit to an alien world.  Suspending disbelief shouldn't be this difficult.

B-

After watching the film I've come up with a slogan for Earth in the year 2093:

"Earth, we've conquered interstellar travel, but not female infertility!"

[Reply #244 on:]

Lockout
Wise cracking Guy Pearce gets tasked to rescue the presidents daughter (Maggie Grace) from a space prison when the inmates take over.
Very silly overall, expect some dodgy acting, plot and CGI, but at least Pearce was good at crackin' wise and being generally badass.
D+

The Way Back
A good film based on a book about some guys who escape the Siberian gulag in 1941 and walk 4000 miles to India, marred only slightly by the dispute that it ever actually happened.
B-

[Reply #245 on:]

The Amazing Spider-Man

Saw it in 3D. Was mega impressed. Not deciced whether I pefer this new series or the Raimi ones yet, but Garfield is deffo the better Peter Parker. The movie is super long, but doesn't feel like it's dragging. Connors is a great villain, the Lizard look/CGI/outfit was a little strange, but not as bad as some people are saying.

I wasn't that big a fan of Connors talking when in Lizard form, doesn't seem right. Emma Stone is way less annoying than Kirsten Dunst, and her character was likable. Some very funny scenes in the movie, and Stan Lee's cameo is the best yet. I'm calling it now, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will be about Norman Osborn/Green Goblin. The 3D was also superb. (Especially that final shot...)

Also, the mini-scene usually shown after the credits is shown like 40 secs into the credits, so don't wait until the very end like I did.

Can't think of a rating yet...

[Reply #246 on:]

It was a film that alternated between copying Raimi's film identically and changing it for the worse.

I'm sure the justification for remaking Spider-Man exists, but there's no evidence of it in The Amazing Spider-Man.

At one point in the film, a character refers to the theory that there are no more than seven plots in fiction and I just thought "Then why couldn't you pick one of the other six"?

Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield were great, though. That's it. Poor effort.

And the final shot basically felt like Sony were trying to ejaculate on my face after I'd serviced them with my wallet for two hours. I'm thankful it wasn't in 3D because that would have left me feeling even more violated.

[Reply #247 on:]

Way better Peter Parker.
Tobey MacGuire was loathsome from the very start. That whiney, boggle-eyed little freak did nothing but piss me off... and the sound of his voice - like a thousand metrosexuals crying out in unison over the price of tank-tops. All I wanted to do was headbutt the prick. Still do. And will.

The Amazing Spider-Man.

While I still don't quite see the point of rebooting the thing now, I was actually pleasantly surprised.

The pros:

*Costume: The altered pattern annoyed me greatly in the lead-up to the film, but I grudgingly found it actually worked. To a point. It looks like something a kid threw together. And all that embossed web texture has been toned-down. The whole elevated rubber strip deal in the Raimi movies were really just a touch too ostentatious for Spidey.

*Humour: Spider-man is actually funny this time around. Still not enough, but it's a start. The comicbook Spider-Man is a clown, constantly cracking wise. Tobey MacGuire, being a plank of wood, was never able to deliver the one-liners, which seemed to necessitate Raimi inserting wit from other sources (it was good, but often seemed disjointed).

*Realism: Sort of. It feels a bit more grounded. Somewhat more human. And also following Captain Stacy and depicting the involvement of the police, you get less of the sense that Spidey is operating in a vacuum. That and Spidey is more physically vulnerable this time - he gets the living shit kicked out of him and it really shows, even from ordinary non-superpowered thugs.

*No internal monologue: Even if it hadn't been bug-eye MacGuire delivering it, the narration of the previous films was always really lame. It works for comicbooks, but not so much for movies.

*No patriotism: Each previous film felt compelled to have Spidey swinging across a billowing American flag at one point. He isn't Steve fucking Rogers.

*Lizard: The Raimi movies taunted us with Curt Connors for years without actually whipping out the tail. Nice to finally have him realised.

*Promise of Osborn: Nice to have him mentioned, if not seen. I'd love to see another cinematic attempt at The Green Goblin. Hopefully he won't be as retarded as last time.

Cons:

*Over-exposure breeds apathy: It's too soon for this film. Milking it for all it's worth, Sony is going to kill the cinematic Spider-Man.

*Web-shooters: While not canonical, I actually liked the organic web-shooters from the previous films. Still, at least they didn't have Parker build them all on his own.

*The costume: Again, you don't fuck with the old red and blues. Alternate costumes are one thing (the symbiote, the spider-armour, etc), but messing about with the original is not on. They tried it once in the comics and it did not fly. I appreciate that the costume looks more real this time around, like a suit being worn by a man rather than some hand-moulded piece of abstract art, but they should not have stuffed around with the basic pattern.

*Everybody seeing Spider-Man's face: Too much revealing too soon. And kind of a lame reveal to Gwen. Not very dramatic at all.

*Lizard: The mouth was all wrong. I get that they were trying to keep him vaguely human-looking, but the question is why? If it has a six-foot tail, human has gone out the door. The crocodilian snout of the real Lizard is one of his defining characteristics. And while I have no problem with him speaking, he could... nay, should have elongated his essessssssssssssssssssss.


Anyway, all in all I liked it. Not the best superhero movie. Not even the best spider-man movie (the second one is still my favourite). But it's good. I like the slightly darker tone. It's closer to the real world, scaly monsters notwithstanding. The Raimi films felt much more sanatised, and on a grander scale. This film is more down and dirty, and bloody. Something more akin to Todd McFarlane's stint on the comics in the early 90s, while the Raimi films feel closer to the golden-age books.

Fuck of a lot better than Spider-Man 3 anyway. Fucking hell. Uncle Ben killed by Sandman!? You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Next film should have KRAVEN!

Got to go. My coldy-sense is tingling.

[Reply #248 on:]

FYI, the web shooters from the ramis/macguire spidy series were one of the better ideas lifted from the spiderman 2099 series, one of the only redeeming virtues of that failed experiment that was marvel 2099.

[Reply #249 on:]

Also you have to remember when the first Spider-Man came out, it was right after 9/11 when America was in uber-patriotism mode. So it made sense for the patriotism in that movie. That doesn't excuse 2 and 3 but that was how America was in 2002.

And thank you Coldy: Uncle Ben being killed by the Sandman is my 'Bat-Credit Card' moment. I was beyond fucking pissed at that and the first time I watched that movie that was just the crapper on the shit sundae.

[Reply #250 on:]

"The Amazing Spiderman"

Better than the previous two Spiderman films.  But it's still got its problems. It feels like the Raimi origin film's faults were fixed by this one, but on the points that the Raimi film nailed, this one sucked.

The Lizard was kinda cheap, kinda lame, and not as good as the trailer made out. The trailer made a lot of promises it didn't keep, to be honest. But there's a redeeming feature to this film overall: it was funny. It has moments that'll make you spit out (or choke on) your popcorn, as well as moments that'll have you wondering if DrThunder88 was one of the script editors.

If I was forced to put a grade to this film, it would be 12 out of 17. Purely to teach you a lesson about asking me for numerical values.

[Reply #251 on:]

Stan Lee's Cameo in The Amazing Spiderman

A+


To be honest that was the only part that made me really laugh. Okay, there were some giggle moments, but I want proper laugh moments where you end up feeling kind of embarrassed because your real laugh is so crazy. I found many of those initial interactions between Gwen and Peter to be almost, almost, as cringe-worthy as the Bella/Edward interactions in the first Twilight movie (thankfully the only one I was forced to see). I understand Spidey is meant to be kind of geeky and stuff, but it was like watching myself being awkward in real life, except it was an attractive version of myself with blonde hair and anime-sized eyes (I like Emma Stone, I never noticed how large her eyes were until now). But both of them are attractive, I don't understand attractive people acting awkwardly. There's no reason for it, just pounce on each other and go for it, consarnit! Also this Garfield guy should change his surname to Cheshire Cat since his creepy smile is equally creepy (no offence, kid).

The Lizard was kind of weird, but I get how it's a man and a lizard, because he has a human head while everything else is lizard. Also he can talk with words like man. So it makes sense. To me. But I don't read comics. And you can't really be sure what parts of each genetic structure he put together actually worked to make a new structure. Also, it's fiction, nothing makes sense in fiction. Creative license, bitches.

While I do agree with what everyone has been saying about how they only just did Spiderman and now here's Spidermen again, a problem I have with Spidey fans complaining about this is that there have been a billion different Batman movies in the past 20 odd years so I don't know what you're really complaining about. Spiderman hasn't had any screen time compared to the Bat. You should be complaining that it took them so long to get Spidey on the big screen in the first place. If it had happened at the same time as the Bat, with the new Spidey film out now you would be all like "Ohmg why did it take so long to re-boot him?!" Although I never really noticed if people had a problem with Batman being rebooted 8 years after the last Batman film, I do know people seemed to be really excited by the last film (although that could have been due to that dude dying or something) and the upcoming one (I don't think anyone has died for this movie yet so I'm thinking it is safe to assume people are excited for the movie itself). I don't really know anything much about the comic universes, but from my point of view, the films involving Batman had some different villains, but they also redid at least one villain interaction that I'm aware of. At least this new Spidey went with a new villain instead of instantly rehashing The Green Goblin. They alluded to him, so we're pretty sure that the next film will involve him, but as far as I'm concerned this was a completely different story so I can't really give that many fucks about how it only took them 4 years to re-do Spidey. Really it took 10 years from the original film, and who counts the 3rd film? So now it's 8 years since the last Spidey film and that's how long it took them to re-do Batman. MATH: NOT EVEN ONCE.

Overall, The Amazing Spiderman is an entertaining film. I thought it was going to be funnier, but it looked good, and the story was enthralling enough that I wasn't looking at the time constantly to see how long until the end. This film probably sets a better tone than the others (I enjoyed playing Spiderman 2 for PS2 far more than I enjoyed watching Spiderman 1-3), although it could do with some more humour if they're going ahead with sequels. The only thing I ask is if J. Jonah Jameson is in any sequels, they bring J.K. Simmons back to portray him. He's pretty much the only thing I remember from the original films anyway.

[Reply #252 on:]

MARVEL's attempt at rebooting Spider-Man by making it darker has worked. It's better than the last 3 but it's a little notch away from perfect as I have 2 mild complaints, the Lizard didn't really please me, I don't think he's as bad as some people are saying but they could have borrowed the crocodile-like mouth as I think he looks more man-like without them and I think he would be a little more threatening, I think Peter revealed himself WAY too much. Those issues are very minor as I think all the actors made an amazing job at making the movie even better and I thought they delt with Ben Parker really well. I actually think this movie was better than The Avengers as it felt less rushed and told a better story. I think this movie had the best Stan Lee cameo as I think it got the loudest laugh from the audience in my screen.
I'm looking forward to playing the video game as it concludes the story and looks like it's going to be a blast to play.

[Reply #253 on:]

my only real beef is that the spider bite, unle ben death, and spider-man/lizard transformation scenes seemed very rushed, especially since the spider bite and uncle ben parts obviously had to be taken care of right away. Also kind of weird that the entire events appear to take place in just a few days. On the plus side, the acting, action, characters, and special effects were very impressive. IU even thought the Lizard worked pretty well as a villain

[Reply #254 on:]

*Humour: Spider-man is actually funny this time around.

Sam Raimi's films were hilarious and the humour was far less tonally out of whack than it was in this film where things would just dissolve into three stooges territory for a scene, only to revert back to teen-angst melodrama the next.
I think this film got Peter Parker's character and his specific sense of humour a lot better if that's what you mean, but Raimi's films were much funnier in a less clunky way, if you ask me.

*Realism: Sort of. It feels a bit more grounded.

I completely disagree. Not only is the science a load of bullshit like it was in Raimi's films, but this film has horrendously two-dimensional characterisation that serves no purpose other than to keep the plot moving ("Sir, shall we go catch the harmless vigilante that annoys you for some reason or look into this dinosaur thing that's actually killing people and causing huge amounts of damage to the city?" "Let's get Spider-Man! He really pisses me off for some reason!") and things like the lizard finding that Peter Parker is Spider-Man because he leaves his camera behind with a sticker on it that reads "Property of Peter Parker". I mean, come on. That's absolutely horrible writing.
And even on the more superficial realism you're talking about, really? That CGI rat thing was more realistic than Raimi's films? The toxin that turns people into lizard-men in minutes but can be reverted with another toxin that undoes it all in minutes? The way that nobody seemed to notice that Spider-Man was using web readily available on the market? The way those cranes all happened to be able to line up offering Spidey a perfect pathway to the Oscorp building?

MARVEL's attempt at rebooting Spider-Man by making it darker has worked.

*Sony's.
And I didn't think it was particularly darker, but maybe that's just me. I certainly don't think it worked. I mean, it worked in that it'll make them money and they can launch sequels off the back of it, but I don't think it worked on an artistic level. Aspects of it did, but not the whole film.

It's better than the last 3

It's not as good as Spider-Man and it doesn't even come close to Spider-Man 2.

I actually think this movie was better than The Avengers as it felt less rushed and told a better story.

Ugh.

I think this movie had the best Stan Lee cameo

I agree with this.

[Reply #255 on:]

I want to see the new Spiderman movie pretty badly (and am therefore avoiding reading the five or so posts directly above mine, lest they spoil or otherwise turn me off the film in any way), but my friend and I decided to see this one tonight instead...

Brave (Beware of potential spoilers...)

Generally speaking, I'm not one for Pixar's stuff, but I figured I'd give this movie a go. The animation was, of course, beautiful--but the story was kind of blah. I liked (and could relate to) the central mother/daughter conflict, but other parts of the movie just seemed sort of aimless and disjointed; the whole arranged marriage thing got too much play at the beginning, and the resolution of that particular plot point seemed to come too soon.

I lost interest somewhat during the middle thirty-ish minutes, which were too leisurely-paced for my liking. All the mother-and-daughter-will-mend-their-pride-torn-rift stuff I took as a foregone conclusion; it was compelling and all, but not terribly suspenseful...at least not until the last ten minutes or so of the movie, that is. The ending totally hooked me; it was spot-on in terms of story and character and emotion (it was also borderline tear-jerk-y for me, and I am not one who cries easily at movies).

So, yeah. I can't speak to how it stacks up against other Pixar movies, but on its own merits, it was pretty good. The characters were interesting and well-grounded, there were a lot of funny moments, and it was just really beautiful to look at.

B+

[Reply #256 on:]

Young Macintosh is such a butterface.

[Reply #257 on:]

I rarely see movies in the theater but Brave has been intriguing me.  And I AM one who lets the on-screen melodrama wash over me until I feel the emotions portrayed by the characters.  Yes, Monsters, Inc. had moments that got the tears flowing 

Thanks for the review.

[Reply #258 on:]

I know I have been looking forward to Brave, so I'll be going in with lowered expectations.  Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, despite the middling reviews its been getting. 

[Reply #259 on:]

"The Amazing Spiderman"

Better than the previous two Spiderman films.  But it's still got its problems. It feels like the Raimi origin film's faults were fixed by this one, but on the points that the Raimi film nailed, this one sucked.

The Lizard was kinda cheap, kinda lame, and not as good as the trailer made out. The trailer made a lot of promises it didn't keep, to be honest. But there's a redeeming feature to this film overall: it was funny. It has moments that'll make you spit out (or choke on) your popcorn, as well as moments that'll have you wondering if DrThunder88 was one of the script editors.

If I was forced to put a grade to this film, it would be 12 out of 17. Purely to teach you a lesson about asking me for numerical values.

I was going to write my review, but I'd just be reiterating what you just wrote. Bravo!

Yes, what stood out to me was the sense of this film being an improved-upon Spider-Man 1. In some aspects, yes (Parkers' uncles' death was more 'organic'  than in the first film), but what irked me BIG TIME was the rather lacklustre reveal to Gwen and others. I like Emma Stone, though I'm not infatuated with her like everyone else seems to be, but she was good in this role. Andrew Garfield - what a talent. Those two definitely have more spunk than Maguire and Dunst.

[Reply #260 on:]

I liked Amazing Spider-Man fine. I think I was watching it with nostalgia goggles, I really do love the first two Spider-Man movies despite their faults (and there are many). The first half was just too long, I wanted to see Spider-Man dammit. I didn't like his costume, it felt like a lie. That isn't how Spider-Man looks and we all know it. Some nitpicks:

-Lizard was interesting at first, and then got less interesting.
-Lizards/newts appear out of nowhere.
-The movie likes to remind us that Spider-Man has something to do with spiders.
-I didn't care about Peter Parker. I felt bad at the right moments but overall I just didn't care.
-The random ass piano stings while Gwen is hiding from the lizard. It becomes a lame horror movie for a few minutes.
-The cops go shoot down the Lizard, but in all serious WHERE THE HELL IS SPIDER-MAN? FUCK THAT GUY.

Some positives:

-Emma Stone
-Dennis Leary w/ shotgun
-Martin Sheen

It was ok, I liked it fine. But it felt like two different movies smushed together, the teen drama leading up to Uncle Ben's death and then suddenly a superhero movie. The latter half of which was incredibly rushed in my opinion. Also one thing Raimi has right is that he really has the grand scope of how big the city is. Here it felt like everything took place on one block. The crane scene really minimized how small the city was, and there were no great webslinging shots. Also I was kind of annoyed with the subway scene. I understand that he's learning how to control his powers, but that running gag of him breaking everything got old and didn't make me feel like he was Spider-Man but Superman. I'm glad I saw it, but the Raimi films are just more fun and entertaining. This one not as much, maybe the next movie can breathe a little better since it won't have the origin to deal with.

7/10

So...that mutant rat thing is still loose in the Oscorp building? No one felt the need to take care of that? I smell a spin-off!

[Reply #261 on:]

So...that mutant rat thing is still loose in the Oscorp building? No one felt the need to take care of that? I smell a spin-off!

Oooh. Vermin, maybe? Perhaps they'll even have the balls to do something based on Fearful Symmetry.

[Reply #262 on:]

Or...Kraven's Last Hunt?

* JoshTheater crosses his fingers.

[Reply #263 on:]

But...those...the same...

[Reply #264 on:]

I knew that.

Actually I didn't. I feel pretty foolish now.

[Reply #265 on:]

[Reply #266 on:]

No Dark Knight Rises ratings yet?  Ok, I'll go first.  I liked it quite a lot.  Been many years since seeing Batman Begins.  Wish I'd seen it recently since it's referenced in this one.  Anne Hathaway makes a way better Catwoman than I thought she would.  Many potential spoilers in it so don't let anyone blab any plot points to you.

A-

[Reply #267 on:]

Pretty much a perfect ending to the trilogy.

[Reply #268 on:]

Well, except that it hinted that it's going to be more than a trilogy.

[Reply #269 on:]

Okay. The Dark Knight Rises is really good. It easily has the best interpretation of Bane so far.

[Reply #270 on:]

The Dark Knight Rises

No spoilers you say? Okay, it's pretty god damn amazing. The characters are done well, with my only nitpick being Bane's voice which is often a little hard to understand. Otherwise, all of the characters, villain and good-guy alike are done ridiculously well. It's both heart-wrenching and heart-warming, and any batman fan will get butterflies and goosebumps when the Batman makes his first screen entrance in the movie.

Spoilers ahoy!

Show spoiler

Easily my favourite moment, particularly music wise, was the climb from the prison. The chanting of Rise, mixed with the music was just absolutely epic and my heart was in my stomach the whole time.

The cameos were splendid. Seeing Jonathan Crane at his most aloof and psycho at the same time was both hilarious and wrapped the movies together ridiculously. At one point I could have sworn that Selina Kyle's wee friend was going to turn out to be Harley, she just had the sickly sweet mannerisms and the slight edge that Harley has.

The twist with Talia Al Ghul was done so well. I don't think there was a single person guessed, to be honest, and a collective gasp went around the cinema when she stabbed Bruce and revealed who she really was. I didn't see it coming and I don't think anyone else did either. As a point, it's not really something that non-comic readers are going to get, since she's a lesser known character, but it definitely goes a long way towards tying up the movies.

I had Robin "John" Blake pegged from the minute I saw him in the trailers, but it was definitely nice to see him rise up to the occasion, and become something so much more throughout the movie. He was definitely a character that I couldn't have found fault with, I just loved his portrayal.


What I liked in particular about this movie though, was that at the end... I really wasn't sure that things were going to go well for the heroes. I wasn't entirely sure that bomb wasn't going to go off and they weren't going to leave us with the devastation and then cut it off there and then. My heart was genuinely pounding because for a while I just wasn't sure. I cried like a baby when Alfred wept at Bruce's grave, and then for a while I was like "why aren't they bringing him back yet?".

But of course, all is well, and the smile on my face at the end of the montage of them all going on with things... and the Batsignal being reinstated... yeah it just made me so much happier than I ever though this movie could.

If you read any of the above, you're gonna have a bad time.

It gets a solid A from me, I'd give it a + but Bane's voice just killed it that little bit.

[Reply #271 on:]

Well, except that it hinted that it's going to be more than a trilogy.

Nolan made it clear he's not doing (writing or directing) another one, but I've read it will possibly be rebooted.

Nutmeg:

Show spoiler

Selena Kyles friend reminded me of the friend she had in Batman: Year One, I would bet there was an influence there.
The plot is a mix of the Ras Al Ghul/Bane comic storyline in Legacy, and the image of Bane lifting Batman over his head to break his back is right out of Batman: Knightfall, and the prison story is from Vengeance of Bane, Nolan managed to pull elements together nicely.
Also, an army of young orphans for future Batmen!

[Reply #272 on:]

I've read that they'll reboot only to tie it in with the new Man of Steel series. As it stands, in the world Nolan created for the Dark Knight, Superman could not reasonably exist. It's simply too gritty and realistic.

On a note, I saw the new Man of Steel teaser last night at the cinema. Still not that fussed.

[Reply #273 on:]

C-c-c-combo breaker! The Amazing Spiderman

(My longest review of all time maybe?)

Perhaps I'm a bit more patient than most folks these days to see a plot develop, but I didn't feel that the movie "dragged on", as some folks have said in their reviews. I do, however, agree that the 'horror flick' scene was pretty stupid with the whole raking piano key noises. I felt like Andrew Garfield nailed his performance as Peter. I really felt for the character of Peter Parker and the weight of all his losses (which are kiiiinnnnddaaaa his fault more or less). He played the awkward teen role all too well and it was a good sorta painful to see him interact with Gwen in such an awkward manner. I felt like there was plenty of web-slinging action dotted throughout the origin establishing  to keep things interesting. As everyone else has said, the Lizard could've used some visual improvements, namely in the face. Too human, not enough lizard. Could've done with a slight snout I think and he'd have been much more exciting. I didn't really have an issue with Peter using Bing. Do you want him to infiltrate a spy network or something? I truly don't understand the hate for that. I'm probably not thinking deeply enough on it, or more likely think it's a trivial matter and don't care how point A hits point B in the story so long as it works well enough. Stan Lee's cameo was rather unique and amusing. The music was lovely when I paid attention to it (which was at all the key moments, naturally). As for how Lizard was as a villain, I wasn't too bothered by him. I understand his motives, and why they made him the way they did in the characterization department. Not knowing source material probably gives me a different perspective to see this film through so bear with me. Basically all we know is that Connors worked with Peter's dad and not much beyond. At least in the cinematic movie-verse established here. Anywho, Connors spends decades thinking about this project, working on it and then when he doesn't do something for Norman Osborn, he gets the ax. Desperate to have something come of his work, he injects himself with the syrum, thus creating Lizard by accident. He really believes he can create a better world by mutating human DNA so we can regenerate body parts, cure diseases, etc.  That's established in the facility tour scene at OsCorp. The syrum makes him aggressive, as seen in the lab rat. Combine aggression and motive and bam, villain. Does it make him a strong villain? Not really, but it makes sense enough that the animalistic natures are brought forth and are capitalized upon when he transforms.

Peter did have his mask off a LOT in this film, but I can't say that it was a good or bad thing. The Gwen reveal was sorta iffy but I'll let it pass. I was expecting him to fly off the roof and go swinging though... Something more show-y off-y. I agree and the camera thing was stupid. You'd think he would've had sense to buy a shit camera or to cover the sticker or something so he didn't reveal his identity so blatantly. But... at the same time, he's human, he's in high school, and he's not infallible and as such... I can forgive that slip up. If you were rushing to go after a monster terrorizing the city and needed pics, would you think "Oh, I'm gonna fight my newly created nemesis. Let me make sure I've removed my name from anything I own that I'm taking along with me!" ?? Probably not. At least not if you're stupid and inexperienced and being more or less rushed. It's feasible that common sense flew out of Peter's proverbial window because he's new to keeping himself low-profile. Meh.

Do yourselves a favor and watch this, even if you love Raimi's trilogy. In the least it's worth watching to see the similarities and differences.

85/100 spiders

[Reply #274 on:]

The Dark Knight Rises
Pretty good film, but there were so many moments when I wondered why they verged so far away from the comics or why they painted themselves so much into a no-sequel corner. Now instead of the chance for an awesome same-universe follow-up in 10 years featuring Damien Wayne (really, why kill Talia when she could've escaped?) and Dick Grayson (they should've revealed Blake's given name as "Richard" instead of "Robin", it would've been more awesome and less "we needed to do it, sorry!"), they're gonna just release another reboot of the franchise sometime in the next 10 years.

It was great to see Crane back again. This is something I really appreciate about this trilogy: they don't kill characters off like other comic book movies. If Heath Ledger hadn't died, I guarantee The Joker would've been somewhere in this movie in the background. Harvey Dent, although not physically present, was used extensively throughout the story. That being said, once again, why kill Talia? They didn't actually show Bane being killed, so he could theoretically come back (in a world where there's another in-universe film), but Talia (in combo with her having sexed up Bruce) could've meant Damien Wayne in another theoretical in-universe film, which would've been bad-fucking-ass.

And why was it so easy for everybody to figure out Bruce Wayne was Batman? Bane figuring it out in the comics was really meaningful, since he was Batman's only enemy to ever deduce his identity. But in the film, he has to utilize means not so becoming of his high intelligence level to figure it out. At the same time, Blake was able to figure it out AS A FUCKING CHILD WITHOUT EVEN A SINGLE FUCKING HINT. I mean, Gordon couldn't even figure it out until Batman gave it to him on a silver platter at the end of the movie! And even after Selina Kyle heard that Batman was Bruce Wayne, her playing dumb with Bruce Wayne later in the film talking about "his friend" bordered on her actually still not getting that Wayne is Batman.

And why the hell did all of the citizens so eagerly join Bane's revolution? I liked the Reign of Terror imagery lifting, but still, people too easily joined up in the raping and pillaging.

I enjoyed it, but too many inaccuracies and odd choices.

[Reply #275 on:]

I agree with weiner in that I was suprised that everyone just suddenly figured out that Bruce was Batman, I was confused as to how Blake just knew. And Gordon never once put two and two together? Really?

It might have been the theater, though they had the speakers up pretty loud, I couldn't understand the dialogue not just from Bane but from almost everyone at one point or another. I think only Selina Kyle I understood clearly, but everyone else would mutter or have low voices and I just couldn't hear them. I think Bane was the worst offender of this.

I like these movies but both this and The Dark Knight have made me feel at times that for a Batman movie, it is sure weird when Batman pops up. The super-realism of the film makes it really awkward sometimes when the one guy in the batsuit shows up. It's his freaking movie and sometimes I felt like he didn't belong. Catwoman and Bane don't look out of place but he does. That's just me though.

Show spoiler

I had read that Talia al Ghul was not the role was not at all supposed to be in the movie. When it turned out she in fact was, I'll admit I felt lied to. Although it does add a lot more credibility to her character, who I thought was pointless up until that reveal, that misdirection is just silly. But I understand why, I was just initially like, hey wait, you said she wasn't! Also I was relieved that Bane wasn't the son of Ra's al Ghul, I thought that was too contrived/convenient.

PS: They kind of just forget about Bane. Boom! He falls down and no one ever talks about him again. It's like if in The Dark Knight they just stop talking about the Joker completely. He was the main villain for pete's sake!

This movie felt like there were three different movies going on at once: the Bane/police story, Bruce Wayne dealing with his shit, and Selina Kyle popping up here and there. It meshed together nicely at the end, but for a while it was jarring. That being said Selina Kyle was my favorite part of the movie. I wish she had been in the other Batman films, every time they were on screen together it was just fantastic. I want a spin-off film of her so badly!

Show spoiler

The end is the best, I love how everything wrapped up. (I was expecting them to say his name was Dick Grayson, but I would watch him be the next Batman too. I mean watching the movie, you realize there is no way they would be focusing on Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character that much without having him be Robin/Batman in the end. I was hoping for Robin.)

And hooray that Wayne and Kyle end up together, I love it. Even if their 'romance' was rushed and not really developed. If Batman had actually stayed dead, I would have been fine with that too, but the ending made me happy, especially after watching poor Alfred cry his eyes out.

And maybe it's because I've seen the Avengers too many times but:

Show spoiler

Was it just me or did Batman pull the same stunt that Iron Man did? Sacrifice himself by handling the nuclear weapon alone? "Dying" then coming back to life? There was something else too but I'm tired and can't remember it right now.

I actually liked Rises more than The Dark Knight. The Joker is the highlight of the movie and I just watched it again this weekend, and anytime he isn't on it is just so boring. This entire storyline with Rachel really drags down the whole series because she was not an interesting character. Selina Kyle was so much more interesting and it's a shame they saved her for the last film. I've read that the Joker was supposed to have a part in this that would have been a bigger role than just a cameo like Scarecrow (which was awesome, I have always enjoyed his presence in these movies, I wish there had been more of him honestly). That being said this was still good, Bane was a mean mofo who had fun and his story was pretty wicked. I liked Bruce in this one more too, like I said I didn't realize it until this movie but the Rachel bullshit dragged him down too, without her he could interact with Selina and Miranda much better and I liked it. I liked his arc. I liked John Blake, but I have yet to find a role JGL hasn't been enjoyable in.

I liked this a lot more than I thought I would, it deserves the attention it gets. It's not perfect, there were some weird things (the music cues got obnoxious), and while I had a heaping load of fun with The Avengers, I found myself really caring about the outcome of this movie.

A-

[Reply #276 on:]

JGL's performance was genuinely the highlight of the movie for me, as much as I love Catwoman (and the fact that Hathaway more than did justice to the role), seeing Blake develop throughout the movie was so enjoyable and I was rooting for him every time he stepped onto the screen.

Having come down from my high about Rises, I'm now able to look at it and criticise some aspects. I do find the way it strayed from the comics distracting in a sense, and like weiner, I genuinely can't understand why they killed off Talia. As soon as I found out who she was I had to stop myself from screaming "Oh my god she sexed up Bruce she may be pregnant with Damian!" And then she died, and I was left wondering "Why the fuck would they lose that opportunity, Damian is a fucking awesome character."

I agree with Spacedal entirely on the whole Rachel thing. She really, really does drag Bruce Wayne down to the ground and even further under it at times. She's not that interesting as a love interest, and to be honest, I much preferred her in Begins, when she's still developing as a character and there's nothing concrete between them. I always felt the magnitude of Bruce's love for her, but maybe it's just the fact that MG is a very flat actress, or maybe it's bad character writing, but she just pissed me off the entirety of Dark Knight. I didn't realise it until I watched it a few months ago, after not seeing it for a couple years.

I still love this more than I loved The Avengers, though. After the Avengers I found myself wanting to talk about it so much, and I had so much to comment on. Rises, I had no words to express how happy I was, so I just kinda stood there grinning stupidly for a while.

[Reply #277 on:]

I genuinely can't understand why they killed off Talia.

Now that I think about it, didn't she die in the Arkham City game, too.  Seems everyone wants to kill her.

[Reply #278 on:]

Nobody's ever dead forever in comics. There's always the chance that somebody will put them in a Lazarus Pit, or clone them, or go back in time to rescue them before their death, or borrow them from an alternate universe, or ask a divine entity to return them for One Last Mission, or decide to become the "new" version, and there's always the possibility of them being brought back with no real explanation.

There are so many ways to revive "dead" characters in the DC (and Marvel) universe. Not to mention that nobody's ever dead in a film until you see their grave. Sometimes, not even then!

[Reply #279 on:]

I wish people were using more spoilers in this thread about specific TDKR twists...I know in TV show threads things that have happened don't need to be spoilered, but considering this is a thread where people might come in to get opinions about movies they haven't seen yet to decide whether or not they should see them, major twists should probably be in spoilers.