I Just Bought Popcorn and a Drink and Now I Have No Money - (movie reviews)

[Reply #200 on:]

I think things like the Scary Movies are great just from the value of having watched them with my friends and thinking about how only one of us thought a particular scene was so much funnier than the rest of us did, and from then on that scene makes you laugh like crazy thinking about how much it made your friend laugh. You know? ....yeah? Or am I weird? Maybe it's just that my friends have weird laughs.

Exactly, the bit with the Dewey knock-off character and his obsession with the vacuum is funny in Scary Movie but thinking about it while watching Scream brings me to sobbing-and-holding-myself-through-the-pain tears. One time my friend and I had to stop Scream for a solid ten minutes because we were laughing so hard about the vacuum thing, and even when we turned it back on we couldn't look at each other for a good half hour.

[Reply #201 on:]

8/10 for Spaceballs.  Really?

That movie gets a 10/10.

Mmm...

[Reply #202 on:]

Andrew Garfield played the best role as Spiderman. Toby Maguire is a weird, self-indulgent, goggle-eyed freak who couldn't act his way out of a WWC match.

^I fixed it for you.

[Reply #203 on:]

I honestly enjoyed Tobey Maguire's take on Peter Parker way, way more than Andrew Garfield's. Garfield's attempts at wise-cracking just came off as forced and obnoxious to me. The characterization of Parker in the original movies was much more satisfying as well. I actually believed Maguire as an awkward unpopular nerd who had to learn confidence when he got his powers, as opposed to Garfield's Parker who already was confident, stylish, and rebellious even before getting his powers, which is against the entire point of Parker's character in the comics. The new movie came off more like Spider-Man For Hipsters. I really, really didn't care for it at all.

[Reply #204 on:]

One thing I liked about Amazing Spiderman was that the secret identity drama was dispensed with by Peter revealing his identity to his love interest from the beginning. Otherwise, it seemed inferior to the original Spiderman films.

I hope one day we can have superhero films that don't feel the need to flesh out the origin story. For some, like Superman, we already know it, and for others, it's not really important. Take the Flash, for instance -- there would be little point in spending the first hour establishing why he has powers. That's not the point, the point is that he can run really really really really fast.

Wonder Woman is another character I believe the audience could do without extensive infodumping on, at least from the beginning. While the Amazons are an important part of her mythology (her dissent with their isolationist philosophy being one of the fundamental tenants of her personality), I think it would be interesting to approach them from a more mysterious point of view. We have no idea who she is, where she came from, or what makes her who she is. Let's find out about Themyscira in bits and pieces as the film progresses, much like the population in-universe do.

[Reply #205 on:]

I also preferred Sam Raimi's Spiderman over the new one, and did not see the point in rebooting a franchise so soon after it finished. I agree with Coldy about Toby Maguire being generally terrible, though I actually bought him as Peter Parker, so it didn't bother me so much.

[Reply #206 on:]

I did like Tobey Maguire as Spiderman because he got the dorky, awkward side of Spiderman down pat, where Andrew Garfield is way too football-jock type attractive to accurately portray such an outsider-type character. Garfield, while not completely destroying the role, makes the part feel so forced to me. It is interesting to see the Gwen Stacy route though, and I think casting Emma Stone was a smart choice.

[Reply #207 on:]

I never saw the second MIB, does anyone know if it's worth watching?

Does it have David Cross in it?

[Reply #208 on:]

To answer ShinyMetal***'s question, not really but its on cable for free all the time.  Watch it if you want to.

Winna, yes.

[Reply #209 on:]

If the answer to a question is yes, and if all questions are questions, then the answer to all questions must be yes!

[Reply #210 on:]

GEORGE ORWELL'S ANIMAL HOUSE:

4 kegs good, 2 kegs bad.

[Reply #211 on:]

Okay, Peter Parker hasn't been a dorky kid since the 1970s. Anybody born after that has grown up with Peter Parker the confident adult who lands hot babes and consistently outperforms all the guys who gave him shit in high school.
I'm frankly sick of various rebooted spider-man media (film, tv and comics) dragging us back to the bookish teenaged Parker. It worked in the 1960s when all comicbook readers were bookish teenagers. Not so much now. I thought the new film provided a workable middle-ground between those two extremes, which also served to distinguish it from its predecessors.

I'd have preferred it to have been much darker and more adult, however. Like Todd MacFarlane's run in the early 90s. Bleak and violent. But I started reading the comics right in the middle of Maximum Clonage, and I'm one of only seven people on Earth who enjoyed that arc and its tone.

I also despise Tobey Maguire at a cellular level. As a person, he is an arrogant, self-absorbed shit, and my opinion of an actor always carries over to my ability to enjoy their films. That's unfair to the films, perhaps, but I can't change it. For the same reason I'm incapable of enjoying anything with Tom Cruise in it. When dickhead hurt his back and they thought he might not be able to come back and do Spider-Man 2, Jake Gyllenthal was floated as a possible replacement. That could have been interesting. That was the best of the films anyway though. Don't get me wrong, I like the movies - I can't not, though. It's Spider-Man.

[Reply #212 on:]

Monsters University

I thought this was cute. Not as good as the original, but movies usually aren't. I loved the animation, as I always love Pixar animation, and I think there were lots of funny scenes. Overall, it was a really good film.

8.5/10

[Reply #213 on:]

Thor: The Dark World

I enjoyed it immensely. It had an interesting plot (even if the villain was ridiculously shallow) and I found the action really entertaining. And if there's one thing I've learned about Loki, it's that he's become much more cunning and deceptive since the Avengers.

And speaking of which...

Show spoiler

the part with Captain America was hilarious

something/10

it felt like the script was re-written to pump it full of funny Joss Whedon-y dialogue, ala The Avengers, but it just ended up being full of downright horrible dialogue that's trying too hard, ala Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

I thought a lot of the jokes were genuinely funny, but I agree that a few of them fell flat. I thought the bit with the car keys disappearing was particularly stupid.

[Reply #214 on:]

Pacific Rim

Dumbest movie since District 9.

100% brain damage out of ten

[Reply #215 on:]

Monsters University
8.5/10

Glad to know that I'm not the only one who liked it, I was surprised by how much hate that it got.

homerjaysimpson, Pacific Rim wasn't that bad, just quite forgettable.

[Reply #216 on:]

Ya, I was pretty disappointed in Pacific Rim as I expected a more interesting film from Del Toro.

District 9 was fantastic though, I thought.

[Reply #217 on:]

Yeah, I loved District 9. The style, the visuals, the story, the performances (and the little moments of comedy in the first half)... The whole thing worked for me. It's easily one of my favourite films from recent years.

Not sure how it could be considered "dumb" in an era of cinema being littered with overblown action/superhero films, god-awful "parody" movies, and of course, Adam Sandler.

[Reply #218 on:]

^ Um, excuse me! I love Adam Sandler.

[Reply #219 on:]

I love Adam Sandler.

This may be the most heart-breaking sentence I've ever read.

[Reply #220 on:]

District 9 had plot holes you could fly a giant alien spaceship through -- and they did...

But I loved it!  The style and ambiance was captivating, and I was readily able to suspend belief.

[Reply #221 on:]

Catching Fire
AMAZING, this was one of the best movies I've ever seen. It's so thrilling, the acting was spectacular, everything was brilliant, it was better than the first, which I thought wouldn't be possible. The plot was phenomenal, it brought the book to life. It had so much more action than The Hunger Games and I couldn't catch one mistake. I don't want to ruin anything for anyone, so I'll just say it leaves you hanging and I can not wait for the last one that will come out next year. Lets just say it's a movie you will want to watch over and over and over and over and over again. 9.9/10
GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!

[Reply #222 on:]

2 Guns
Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington are 2 Guns, or two guys with guns... who are running shooting and driving around shooting people... possibly bad people, like Edward James Olmos playing a Mexican drug cartel version of Bill Adama for some reason... and also Bill Paxton playing a creepy southern dude.
They also rob a bank, but it's ok because they're undercover or something... but they robbed TOO MUCH MONEY oh no.
Now everybody is mad... so they shoot them. The End.

Good mindless fun.
C+

[Reply #223 on:]

Catching Fire
AMAZING, this was one of the best movies I've ever seen. It's so thrilling, the acting was spectacular, everything was brilliant, it was better than the first, which I thought wouldn't be possible. The plot was phenomenal, it brought the book to life. It had so much more action than The Hunger Games and I couldn't catch one mistake. I don't want to ruin anything for anyone, so I'll just say it leaves you hanging and I can not wait for the last one that will come out next year. Lets just say it's a movie you will want to watch over and over and over and over and over again. 9.9/10
GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!

It makes sense; The second book was better, too.

[Reply #224 on:]

 I never really read the books. Which I think makes the movie better because then you don't know what's going to happen. Unless of course it's just another one of those movies in which the movie sucks and the books are better. 
Catching Fire wasn't one of those. 

[Reply #225 on:]

Gah, Catching Fire is my favorite of the books (so not looking forward to a two-part Mockingjay because fuck that book), so I'm glad to hear it's a great movie and hopefully I'll see it in the next day or so.

[Reply #226 on:]

 I hope you do too because it is magnificent  
Did you see the first one?

[Reply #227 on:]

Yeah actually I saw the first movie before I read the trilogy and I was super impressed with how emotionally invested I was by the half-way point. I think when it comes to adaptations it's important to be able to bring in the audience that doesn't have any insight into the material prior to seeing the movie because that means the movie can stand on its own. So the first movie I feel did accomplish that, and it made me want to go read the entire series. I have deadlines for things that I have to meet before I can go off and see a movie this weekend so in this case I'm glad I already know how it ends as it makes me not in as big a hurry to see it.

[Reply #228 on:]

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2

A pretty decent effort for a sequel but lacking those touches of brillance which made the original so special.

Rating: B

[Reply #229 on:]

RED 2
More mindless clunky geriaction from Willis, Malkovich and Mirren.
This time Anthony Hopkins (yay!) and Catherine Zeta Jones (meh) also appear, Hopkins and Mirren are great, the script not so much.
C

[Reply #230 on:]

Okay, Peter Parker hasn't been a dorky kid since the 1970s. Anybody born after that has grown up with Peter Parker the confident adult who lands hot babes and consistently outperforms all the guys who gave him shit in high school.
I'm frankly sick of various rebooted spider-man media (film, tv and comics) dragging us back to the bookish teenaged Parker. It worked in the 1960s when all comicbook readers were bookish teenagers. Not so much now. I thought the new film provided a workable middle-ground between those two extremes, which also served to distinguish it from its predecessors.

Yay! Someone who knows about ASM from after the Steve Ditko era. Coldy is correct, Parker quickly outgrew his insecurity and even his glasses (superpowers will do that to a lad) and if you take the comic canon in its entirety then "Midtown High's only professional wallflower" is clearly the smallest part of his story.

I'd have preferred it to have been much darker and more adult, however. Like Todd MacFarlane's run in the early 90s. Bleak and violent. But I started reading the comics right in the middle of Maximum Clonage, and I'm one of only seven people on Earth who enjoyed that arc and its tone.

Here's where we part ways. MacFarlane got too big for his "can't draw feet for shit" boots and demanded a comic of his own to write, at which point he tried to make Spider-Man, as you say, "bleak and violent". That isn't Spider-Man. If you want that, there's a wealthy, emotionally damaged chap living in Gotham who I'm sure will oblige.

As far as clonage goes, my approach was basically this: I don't care who the real Parker is, I just want to keep reading about the same guy who I've been reading about since the 70s. You know, that guy who went to the Secret Wars and picked up that alien costume and had all those battles with the Hobgoblin and married Mary Jane and every other thing that was in those approx 200 issues. I stopped reading new stuff around the clone time and just went for back issues.

But to now contradict what was said before about the "bookish nerd" I must confess that Parker remains insecure throughout his superhero career but he learns to hide it and the main way he shields himself is with his quips and humour. Scared to death the boy/man is, so he jokes to stop himself thinking about it.

One thing that they haven't managed to get across in any of the films for me is Parker's main driving motivation: guilt. Yeah, they've done the Uncle Ben is dead because of me bit but, in any of the movies, do you really feel he's out there swinging through the city because of that?

[Reply #231 on:]

he tried to make Spider-Man, as you say, "bleak and violent". That isn't Spider-Man. If you want that, there's a wealthy, emotionally damaged chap living in Gotham who I'm sure will oblige.

Insufficient. Everything should be bleak and violent.
Parker's always been angst-ridden in one way or another. I saw that period of the books as a shift from whiney angst to a more mature, brooding angst.

As far as clonage goes, my approach was basically this: I don't care who the real Parker is, I just want to keep reading about the same guy who I've been reading about since the 70s.

I enjoyed the convolution of plot during the clone saga - the various twisting arcs and the uncertainty re: truth. But then, I was an X-Files fan as well and liked the same thing about that series.

Scared to death the boy/man is, so he jokes to stop himself thinking about it.

Which is the impression I got from the new guy.


Have you had a look at 'The Superior Spider-Man'?
Otto has taken over Pete's body and is being Spider-Man in his own way.

[Reply #232 on:]

The Wolverine

I enjoyed this film despite having never seen any of the previous X-Men movies (or read the comics).

The acting was (mostly) good and the action was entertaining. That's good enough for me!

[Reply #233 on:]

My favourite part was the scene at the end

Show spoiler

Setting up Days of Future Past with an inexplicably resurrected Charles Xavier and re-powered Magneto,

and also the subtly-implied

Show spoiler

future return of Jean Grey. As in the comics, death is only ever a temporary hindrance to these characters.

[Reply #234 on:]

 Yeah, I saw The Wolverine as well but I thought they could have made it a little better, it seems the plot ran too fast. 

[Reply #235 on:]

It's a comicbook

[Reply #236 on:]

 I'm pretty sure UL is talking about the movie.

[Reply #237 on:]

Pacific Rim
B+, What did you expect from Monsters fighting Robots the movie, good effects, and entertaining

Elysium
Liked the plot, B+, not as good as District 9

Captain Phillips
Best movie if the year: A+++++

Gravity
Another Great one, A++

42
Pretty Good, not the best though, A-

[Reply #238 on:]

I'm pretty sure UL is talking about the movie.

You lament a thin plot in a film based on a super-hero comic. I just think that's a funny sentiment.

[Reply #239 on:]

 I suppose so, but movies were made to be more ostentatious and rather long winded whether or not it was based off of a comic. I mean, Spiderman movies were fairly lengthier than the Wolverine.