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

[Reply #600 on:]

I think Pixar have forever left me with impossibly high expectations as far as kids' movies go.

[Reply #601 on:]

I agree with Josh about Frozen. It's got problems, but I'm not exactly up in arms about it because it's made for five-year-olds.

The most minor of these being how the King and Queen came to the conclusion that the best way to deal with the fear-induced-unpredictability of their daughter's random magical powers would be to isolate her from everybody and everything, thus ensuring that when she did come into contact with the world in general, it was always going to scare her shitless and result in some sort of nightmarish icepocalypse.

The parents were the true villains of the movie, in my opinion. 

Also, is the Lego movie any good? I've been intrigued for quite a while, but never bothered to actually see it.

[Reply #602 on:]

Also, is the Lego movie any good? I've been intrigued for quite a while, but never bothered to actually see it.

It's funny enough to make it worth watching at least once, but it's nowhere near as good as people were making it out to be.

[Reply #603 on:]

Also, is the Lego movie any good? I've been intrigued for quite a while, but never bothered to actually see it.

Got it on Blu-ray yesterday, seen it 3 times in total now. It is well-worth a watch. Phil Lord & Chris Miller (Clone High, 21/22 Jump Street, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 1/2) have a very good sense of humour, some of which will go over kids' heads. Plus, the film is beautiful to look at, it's so well-animated.

[Reply #604 on:]

there wasn't even a cursory attempt to mislead the audience about Hans being a shitbag (seriously. Am I the only person who read him as a smarmy fucktree from the moment he appeared?)

Oh, I feel quite differently: I never saw Hans to be a jerk, and in fact thought that his turning point was the cheap thing rather than his initial, nice first impression.
IMDB says:

Originally, Queen Elsa was intended to be the villain of the story. However, when the character's major song, "Let it Go," was played for the producers, they concluded that the song was not only very appealing, but its themes of personal empowerment and self-acceptance were too positive for a villain to express. Thus, the story was rewritten to have Elsa as an isolated innocent who is alarmed upon learning that her powers are inadvertently causing harm and struggles to control her powers with Anna's help.

--so Hans was not originally intended to be the main villain, and this "twist" was decided in the middle of movie production. His transformation seemed completely out of the blue to me: although he might've been a might of a douche, he was not any more than Disney's other Prince Charmings. Hans and Anna shared a duet and danced and shit. That means something! They had chemistry, or something-- I never read Hans as being evil (and still refuse to accept the movie's "plot twist" because of it). I could've bought that he had turned evil after meeting Anna. He was, after all, in charge of an entire kingdom, something he would never get the opportunity to do in his own home, and perhaps after realizing this, he decided that companionship was a small loss compared to this enormous gain of power. I would've been satisfied with that. But Hans does not strike me as an evil mastermind; when you look at his scheme and at his dialogue together, they just don't seem to work.

You don't actually need to read these, so I spoiler'd them.

Show spoiler

HANS: As thirteenth in line in my own kingdom, I didn’t stand a chance. I knew I’d have to marry into the throne somewhere--
ANNA: What are you talking about?
HANS: As heir, Elsa was preferable, of course. But no one was getting anywhere with her. But you-
ANNA: Hans?
HANS: You were so desperate for love you were willing to marry me, just like that. I figured, after we married, I’d have to stage a little accident for Elsa.
ANNA: Hans. No, stop.
HANS: But then she doomed herself, and you were dumb enough to go after her.
ANNA: Please.
HANS: All that’s left now is to kill Elsa and bring back summer.

ANNA: (frustrated) Hey!
HANS: I’m so sorry. Are you hurt?
The rider, HANS, sure is handsome and regal.
ANNA: (gentler) Hey. I-ya, no. No. I’m okay.
HANS: Are you sure?
ANNA: Yeah, I just wasn’t looking where I was going. But I’m okay.
He hops down from his horse and steps into the boat.
ANNA (CONT’D): I’m great, actually.
HANS: Oh, thank goodness.
He offers her a hand and their eyes meet. Chemistry. He helps her to her feet.
HANS (CONT’D): (bowing) Prince Hans of the Southern Isles.
ANNA: (curtseying) Princess Anna of Arendelle.
HANS: Princess...? My Lady.
He drops to his knees, head bowed. The horse bows too, curling his hoof up and out of the boat.
The boat tips. Hans tumbles on top of Anna. Awkward.
ANNA: Hi...again.
The horse slams his foot back into the boat to stabilize it. Anna and Hans tumble the other way. Anna lands on top of him.
HANS: Oh boy.
ANNA: Ha. This is awkward. Not you’re awkward, but just because we’re-- I’m awkward. You’re gorgeous. (did she just say that?) Wait, what?
Hans quickly gets to his feet and helps Anna up again.
HANS: I’d like to formally apologize for hitting the Princess of Arendelle with my horse...and for every moment after.
ANNA: No. No-no. It’s fine. I’m not THAT Princess. I mean, if you’d hit my sister Elsa, that would be-- yeash! ‘Cuz, you know… (patting the horse) Hello. But, lucky you, it’s-it’s just me.
HANS: Just you?
Hans smiles, amused. She smiles back. The bells RING. She doesn’t notice at first; she’s too busy drinking in Hans’s handsomeness.
ANNA: ...The bells. The coronation. I-I-I better go. I have to...I better go.
She hurries off, stops, turns back. Gives Hans a little wave.
ANNA (CONT’D): Bye!

Anna teaches Hans how to eat krumkake.
ANNA : Yeah, the whole thing! You got it.
They laugh as the krumkake crumbles in his face.
ANNA(CONT’D): Okay wait, wait. So you have how many brothers?
HANS: Twelve older brothers. Three of them pretended I was invisible… literally… for two years.
ANNA: That’s horrible.
HANS: It’s what brothers do.
ANNA: ...And sisters. Elsa and I were really close when we were little. But then, one day she just shut me out, and I never knew why.
He takes her hand. Leans in close.
HANS: I would never shut you out.
ANNA: Okay, can I just say something crazy?
HANS: I love crazy.

...and it's not letting me copy and paste the song, but I'm going to count that, too.
Thanks, official transcript!

Okay, the "I would never shut you out" part is fucktree-ish, but they're young romantics and it's a Disney love story. That kind of stuff is almost required.

THE FLAWS IN HIS STORY! Or the two I feel like pointing out.

As heir, Elsa was preferable, of course. But no one was getting anywhere with her.

He can't have known that no one was getting anywhere with Elsa. The castle gates had been closed for what? Ten years? Longer. No one had seen the princesses during that time aside from a few servants and butlers. No one was getting anywhere with Anna, either.
There is the possibility that Hans hadn't planned this idea in advance-- which is most likely, come to think of it-- but the fact is he can't have known that pursuing Elsa would be pointless, nor that Anna was the better and easier choice. But then, that's an awfully risky plot to try considering he didn't know anything about the princess or kingdom. Anyway, what I most want to focus on is this:

He offers her a hand and their eyes meet. Chemistry.

Admittedly, it's only one line (or one word, to be more accurate), but as it was important enough to be included in the Official Transcript, I think it's fairly significant. They had chemistry. This was exaggerated in the film, really emphasizing the fact that Hey! Hans is a good guy! Look, he's handsome, he had twelve older brothers and did I mention he's a prince? Also, he's the perfect match for Anna based upon the information we're giving you. Hey, he's looking at her! She's looking back! THEY HAVE CHEMISTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!



Here's a YouTube comment I liked.

The way he stares at her at the end there is very lovey-dovey.  Maybe it's just a, "This is gonna be too easy," face, but I mean Hans was laying on the charm before he even knew who she was.

Maybe this is just the way he is-- charming-- but it's not as if he becomes any nicer (or douchey, depending on how you look at it) after he finds out that Anna is the princess.
Reading some headcanon and thoughts from fans, some of Hans's behavior can be explained. But this is still, I think, an insufficient solution: speculation should strengthen and help to further develop a character, but basic motivations and mannerisms should be clear within the show or movie itself.

Around 1:16 in the above video, Hans smiles at Anna (at least, I think it's Anna-- I certainly hope it's not his horse) when no one else is around-- and it is a lovey-dovey smile. They're cartoons. If the animators wanted Hans to be evil, they should have let him express something just a little bit more sinister, especially if we (and the horse) would be the only ones who got to see it.

I suppose I don't have any real point here other than the entire Hans-is-evil thing is bullshit. Not because it was obvious (it wasn't to me), but because it so ridiculously and unexplainedly betrayed everything we knew about the character up to that point.

Oh, another problem I had with the movie was that one of the main morals seemed to be true love doesn't happen in a day or don't put your complete trust in guys you just met, but Anna seems to do all of this with Kristoff the first day of meeting him. Granted, they doesn't get engaged,* but I still feel that it at least slightly contradicts the moral.

*I doesn't want to change that.

[Reply #605 on:]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more with almost everything you said. It's like you missed the entire point of the movie, except obviously you didn't since you state what that point is quite clearly...instead, it's that point itself that you seem to take issue with. Everything about the movie that I actually thought made it somewhat bold and original were the things you hated about it. Geez.

Alright, let's try to address this in portions:

Hans and Anna shared a duet and danced and shit. That means something! They had chemistry, or something-- I never read Hans as being evil (and still refuse to accept the movie's "plot twist" because of it).

Yeesh, this is a doozey. Of course they had "chemistry"...they were supposed to have chemistry. That was the intent of the movie, to make them seem perfect for each other based on their verbal interactions alone, in order to make the twist more unpredictable. It's also a testament to just how cunning and manipulative Hans was. You raise a lot of points about how Han couldn't possibly know enough or be smart enough to have pulled off such a plan, but these observations are based on things that Han himself says...point being, hans was a dirty liar. What I took away from the twist was that Han knew plenty about the kingdom and the two princesses (including that Elsa was being isolated) beforehand, but pretended to know nothing to make himself less suspicious.

But this is still, I think, an insufficient solution: speculation should strengthen and help to further develop a character, but basic motivations and mannerisms should be clear within the show or movie itself.
...
If the animators wanted Hans to be evil, they should have let him express something just a little bit more sinister, especially if we (and the horse) would be the only ones who got to see it.

What? Why? Every character has to be transparent? Characters can't lie or be cleverly manipulative to lead other characters into thinking they're different than they really are? Or, if they do, the writers must at least somehow telegraph this manipulation to the audience so we're in on it? I can't begin to understand the logic behind that. If a character can lie and mislead characters in the movie/show, the audience should be able to be just as misled. That's what makes the twist of their true motivations coming to light work.

betrayed everything we knew about the character up to that point.

That was completely intentional. The audience is meant to be fooled by the character as well, in order to drive the point home about allowing oneself to have intense emotional investment and trust in somebody too soon based only on shallow interactions.

Oh, another problem I had with the movie was that one of the main morals seemed to be true love doesn't happen in a day or don't put your complete trust in guys you just met, but Anna seems to do all of this with Kristoff the first day of meeting him.

This is true. However, she doesn't put her trust in Kristoff until he more than proves his kind and genuine nature through overwhelming physical action. Sure, it's quick, but considering his actions amount to going out of his way and forsaking his own self-interest to save the lives of Anna and Elsa, you can excuse that. Meanwhile, Anna's investment in Hans came solely from a day or two of chatting and falling for his well-executed act for which he gave up almost nothing.

Obviously these circumstances are extreme due to it being a crazy epic animated movie. But I think how what the movie is saying translates to real-life situations can be easily discerned.

but they're young romantics and it's a Disney love story. That kind of stuff is almost required.

I think this is your biggest hang-up. The whole point of the twist and moral lesson of this movie was to completely contradict the Disney too-good-to-be-true love fantasies that have plagued past Disney movies and other kids movies since as long as they've existed. It was meant to be patently un-Disney in order to make a realistic point about human relationships. In other words, it strived to be more than just entertainment for kids, but something that they could remember and hold on to and hopefully apply in their real lives.

[Reply #606 on:]

Everything about the movie that I actually thought made it somewhat bold and original were the things you hated about it.

Oh no, I can't say I hated much about this movie (especially because my definition of "hate" is "would enjoy slowly torturing and killing it"). I was pleased with it overall, but, as with every film, there were a few things I felt obliged to obnoxiously point out. After-movie-viewing is a good time to tune me out, for future reference.

You raise a lot of points about how Han couldn't possibly know enough or be smart enough to have pulled off such a plan, but these observations are based on things that Han himself says. ... Han knew plenty about the kingdom and the two princesses (including that Elsa was being isolated) beforehand, but pretended to know nothing to make himself less suspicious.

Too much relied on chance for me to believe that he had planned it all from the start (unless he was incredibly lucky). I just don't think he had the opportunity to learn that much about the kingdom: even the Duke of Weselton, Arendelle's closest economic partner, did not know anything about the princesses themselves. Sure, he could have had a spy-- but I still don't buy it. Anna and Elsa did not talk to anyone at all during the isolation. The doors were locked, the windows were closed, most servants were fired. I'm not much of a risk taker, so maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion, but it would have been a huge risk if Hans had been caught sending a spy to Arendelle Castle (as thirteenth in line, I highly doubt he had the authority to communicate with anyone important in that kingdom, and the citizens didn't know anything about the royalty's situation).

Every character has to be transparent? Characters can't lie or be cleverly manipulative to lead other characters into thinking they're different than they really are? Or, if they do, the writers must at least somehow telegraph this manipulation to the audience so we're in on it?

Nooooo. I don't want to be able to see a character's actions coming from a mile away. However, I do want to be at least somewhat satisfied by the character motivations once they are truly revealed. I felt like the developers went out of their way to show Hans' genuine attraction towards Anna, but did not go through any such effort to tell us (believably) why he was a bad guy. His grand master plot felt flat and dull. Walking into the movie, the thought might have passed through my mind (oh, a perfect prince who turns out to be not-so-charming?) but as the movie continued, it impressed me and I abandoned this notion-- surely they wouldn't use such a cheap and common twist.

If a character can lie and mislead characters in the movie/show, the audience should be able to be just as misled. That's what makes the twist of their true motivations coming to light work.

Yes, they should. I, however, did not come away from the film feeling misled by Hans. Rather, I was exasperated by such a scheme. What I may be trying to address (but haven't found the words to until now) was that Hans' plan was generic. It has been done many times before, and will be done many times again. The person you trust at the beginning is always the one to betray you. Yes, this can happen, but it usually is not, as most films (I've seen) portray it, a scheme from the get go; usually one realizes their greed and discards the relationship after getting some actual enjoyment (or something less-- or more) out of it.

betrayed everything we knew about the character up to that point.

That was completely intentional. The audience is meant to be fooled by the character as well, in order to drive the point home about allowing oneself to have intense emotional investment and trust in somebody too soon based only on shallow interactions.

Okay, yes. You're right. It was. But I am still unable to connect what we later learn about Hans to what we first think of him. The two personalities conflict too much with each other-- and, yes, this is probably the point, but they just don't feel like the same character to me…. Which I suppose was also the point, right? Well, okay. If that's the case, I can accept it, but that doesn't mean I'll be happy about it.

she doesn't put her trust in Kristoff until he more than proves his kind and genuine nature through overwhelming physical action. Sure, it's quick, but considering his actions amount to going out of his way and forsaking his own self-interest to save the lives of Anna and Elsa, you can excuse that. Meanwhile, Anna's investment in Hans came solely from a day or two of chatting and falling for his well-executed act for which he gave up almost nothing.

You're definitely right here. I do like Kristoff a good deal better than Hans, and recognize that, under the circumstances, she had no choice but to trust him (and was right to do so). I was just a bit bothered by the fact that, even if their relationship was much better developed than Anna and Hans', they still only met and fell in love over the course of twenty-four hours. This is more of a nitpick than anything else, and not something I'm largely bothered by.

but they're young romantics and it's a Disney love story. That kind of stuff is almost required.

I think this is your biggest hang-up. The whole point of the twist and moral lesson of this movie was to completely contradict the Disney too-good-to-be-true love fantasies that have plagued past Disney movies and other kids movies since as long as they've existed. It was meant to be patently un-Disney in order to make a realistic point about human relationships. In other words, it strived to be more than just entertainment for kids, but something that they could remember and hold on to and hopefully apply in their real lives.

I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding how you read my statement here, so please correct me if I've addressing something completely irrelevant. Or somewhat irrelevant. Whatever works.
I'm not taking points off for the gooey, cheesy, young romance-y stuff-- what I meant by that was only that I wasn't surprised or upset by it because I came in expecting a Disney movie and, well-- that was about what I expected. I suppose the only reason I said that was to be clear that I was okay with it…? I'm not sure. It was a few hours ago, and my memory doesn't go that far back.

[Reply #607 on:]

You make a lot of good points. Now I'm only going to respond to the ones I want to contradict.

it usually is not, as most films (I've seen) portray it, a scheme from the get go; usually one realizes their greed and discards the relationship after getting some actual enjoyment (or something less-- or more) out of it.

Okay, so here's where I'm going to really editorialize about why the twist of this movie worked for me (in terms of being a kids movie). To me, the whole thing is less about how realistic or practical Hans' master plan was and is more of a metaphor for real-life situations. Hans' manipulation of Anna from the get-go seemed to me like a commentary on how some guys approach relationships or romance in general...as a means to an end. For an easy specific example, we could make it about sex...lots of guys are willing to put on an act and be "Prince Charming" to a girl with not much more than the prospect of sexual relations in mind. They will go out of their way to impress and relate to a girl for this sole purpose. It's ridiculous and sad and crazy, but it's true, and I feel like Hans' plans to take over the kingdom were really an analog for more base male desires, and a commentary on how much people are willing to deceive to get what they want.

But I am still unable to connect what we later learn about Hans to what we first think of him. also the point, right?

Yes, basically. Have you ever known someone who was cheated on? Were they head over heels in love beforehand? Did they think the person they were with was absolutely perfect, right up until (and maybe even a bit after) the point of betrayal? It's likely they had no idea what was coming, as they were lost in a fantasy idealization of their relationship. The fact is it's far, far easier to be completely fooled by people than we like to tell ourselves.

Again, I think this where the movie is being more symbolic than literal. Yes, even if Anna had fallen for Hans, we as an uninvested audience should probably have been more able to pick up on his deception. But I think the movie was trying to put the audience in Anna's frame of mind and treat them as if they are as invested as she is in order to let them more closely relate to her being taken advantage of. Remember that this is a movie aimed at young children, who are just wrapping their minds around concepts of love and relationships. It's a much bigger slap in the face to convince the audience that Hans is the way Anna thinks he is, because it makes the message of "this could happen to you!" much more effective. Not necessarily more realistic in terms of narrative storytelling, but effective. Blah blah, kids movie, etc.

[Reply #608 on:]

Begin Again
A kind of romantic comedy (although not much romance happens really, it just kind of feels like it does) with Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo.
About a record label owner (A&R guy) who loses his job but then immediately hears something in the performance of a girl in a bar and starts recording an album with her.
It's fun and lighthearted and has some nice music moments, not overly cheesy.
Above average!
B-

[Reply #609 on:]

Guardians of the Galaxy

THE best Marvel movie so far...easily. Hell, this is one of the best sci-fi action movies of the past decade or so period, and one of its best qualities is that it can stand completely on its own to a viewer with no other knowledge of the MCU (while still tying into the MCU in incredibly important ways). The cast is amazing, the action is clever, it's completely hilarious and pokes fun at its own clichés, and it has heart without being sappy and is overall feel-good. I was entertained every second of the way. The score is excellent too, and the soundtrack has a fetish for groovy 70s source music that I was not at all complaining about.

Not to mention that the movie is beautifully shot. Every frame has incredible detail, and I don't think I've ever made this recommendation wholeheartedly before but see this in 3D if you can! It's the best use of the technique I've seen so far. There was barely ever a point where I felt like I couldn't see everything that was in the shot totally clearly, and the movie's brilliant use of colors more than compensates for the inevitable slightly darkened shade that 3D glasses give movies which I've always hated.

See this damn movie.

A

[Reply #610 on:]

I can't wait to see it. I think it's out in a week or so here in 'Stralia (which is odd, because the Marvel films sometimes come here first).

[Reply #611 on:]

Saw it this afternoon, such a fun movie

[Reply #612 on:]

Saw it last night. Will probably go see it again in 3D later this weekend. I saw it by myself and I think that kinda made it less fun but it was still a good movie. Best Marvel movie? No I wouldn't say that, it's rushed and the plot follows the same beats that most of these movies have.

THAT being said, it's a fun movie and I highly recommend it. If you were worried don't be, let it wash over you.

Groot+

[Reply #613 on:]

Yeah, I've been eagerly awaiting this one since they announced James Gunn as writer/director. I've been following his career for a while now and he's yet to disappoint me (ignoring the Scooby Doo stuff he did to get his career off the ground).

[Reply #614 on:]

That Scooby Doo stuff actually punched above its weight.

[Reply #615 on:]

I remember really enjoying the first one as a kid...I think I was just the right age for it. In retrospect it's pretty awful, but at the time I was still immature enough to enjoy the comedy while old enough to get all the winking self-aware nods to the cartoon.

[Reply #616 on:]

I have a soft spot for the Scooby Doo movies. As far as Linda Cardenilli and Matthew Lillard go, that was perfect casting. My mom was also super impressed with the second movie with the scene where the ghost pirate ship floats over the city. I don't know why she just thinks that's a cool shot.

[Reply #617 on:]

I remember enjoying both but I was pretty young when they came out and I just assumed that they'd suck now, given their reputation. Maybe I should revisit them.

[Reply #618 on:]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Fuck this stupidly written, incohesively plotted, horribly directed, obnoxiously scored, terribly paced piece of garbage. Despite a great cast (who here give performances almost as bad as the material they're given) and some fun action sequences, this movie's horrendous flaws annoyed me to tears for most of its overlong running time.

Congratulations Marc Webb, you've successfully made me tired of Spider-Man. I hate you.

C-

[Reply #619 on:]

I remember being underwhelmed but I wouldn't go as far as you did. I think I actually like anything that involves web-slinging and fighting though, I just block out the shit.

[Reply #620 on:]

Ya, the web-slinging scenes were as good-looking as they've ever been, and the fight scenes were cleverly choreographed even if they didn't do a great job making the CGI look not so video-gamey. But there weren't nearly enough of those things in the movie to justify having to sit through the atrocious plotting and dialogue. There are enough visually entertaining movies that also get those things right that I shouldn't have to accept that shit.

"It's my birthday, now it's time for me to light my candles!" - Electro, right before shooting lightning. Yes, he really says that.

[Reply #621 on:]

More like EELectro

[Reply #622 on:]

Yeah, I didn't like it all that much either for pretty much the same reasons. The dialogue was very corny/cheesy, particularly in the fight scenes and stuff, although like you said they were very cleverly done. One thing that did get me though was the ending - totally wasn't expecting that. And I liked the whole family backstory thing, but yeah it still wasn't even that good. The first one I didn't find that exciting either, but I suppose if you have nothing else better to do then torture by bad movies is a good excuse.

More like EELectro

[Reply #623 on:]

One thing that did get me though was the ending - totally wasn't expecting that.

I did, but only because I knew (even as a someone who has never read the comics) that it's the only reason that character really exists.

That said, it was probably the only well-executed dramatic moment in the whole movie.

[Reply #624 on:]

The buildup to it is terrible. It's like the movie was like, "oh crap [redacted] is still alive? Harry GET IN HERE! We need to put a cap on the movie even though it ended two minutes ago!"

[Reply #625 on:]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Fuck this stupidly written, incohesively plotted, horribly directed, obnoxiously scored, terribly paced piece of garbage. Despite a great cast (who here give performances almost as bad as the material they're given) and some fun action sequences, this movie's horrendous flaws annoyed me to tears for most of its overlong running time.

Congratulations Marc Webb, you've successfully made me tired of Spider-Man. I hate you.

C-

That score seems way too generous after your scathing review. Who do you think you are, Rolling Stone?

[Reply #626 on:]

I preferred it to the first The Amazing Spider-Man, if only because it wasn't a completely unnecessary, inferior remake of a Sam Raimi film.

[Reply #627 on:]

Does it count as a "remake" if it's an adaptation of something else in the first place? Mind you, I haven't actually seen either of the Amazing Spiderman movies; just some food for thought.

[Reply #628 on:]

It's not really a remake in the truest sense of things, but The Amazing Spider-Man is basically a shot-for-shot retelling of Sam Raimi's film with a few choice moments that have been completely changed to try and pretend that it's a new film and all of those moments completely suck.

Seriously; there's even the scene where Willem Dafoe argues with himself in the mirror, with the character swapped from The Green Goblin to The Lizard.

[Reply #629 on:]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Fuck this stupidly written, incohesively plotted, horribly directed, obnoxiously scored, terribly paced piece of garbage. Despite a great cast (who here give performances almost as bad as the material they're given) and some fun action sequences, this movie's horrendous flaws annoyed me to tears for most of its overlong running time.

Congratulations Marc Webb, you've successfully made me tired of Spider-Man. I hate you.

C-

That score seems way too generous after your scathing review. Who do you think you are, Rolling Stone?

Hehe...that's me trying to balance a very subjective, biased review with a more objective score. I hated it for what it was and what it tried to be, but in terms of all bad movies ever made I'm not sure it's necessarily worthy of a D grade, since it did have some elements that worked.

cyber_turnip: While I agree that this one probably had more going for it in terms of original plot points than the first, those plot points were incredibly unclever and downright stupid. Also, the bad acting in this one made me smack my gobs far more than the first one ever did.

[Reply #630 on:]

Let's just agree that they both suck.

[Reply #631 on:]

Let's just agree that you suck. Buuuurn!

[Reply #632 on:]

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy earlier, really enjoyed it. Chris Pratt is a great actor, and all the characters were really interesting and created a great dynamic. I loved the designs of the technology, ships and locations. Plus, awesome soundtrack. Great film.

7.5/10

[Reply #633 on:]

It's not really a remake in the truest sense of things, but The Amazing Spider-Man is basically a shot-for-shot retelling of Sam Raimi's film with a few choice moments that have been completely changed to try and pretend that it's a new film and all of those moments completely suck.

Seriously; there's even the scene where Willem Dafoe argues with himself in the mirror, with the character swapped from The Green Goblin to The Lizard.

There were two things that stuck out to me with the first Amazing Spider-Man;

1. The movie apparently thought its audience would confuse Spider-Man with Flipper the Dolphin so they kept reminding us with spider iconography throughout the whole film.
2. This movie and the sequel are just filled with moments that happen to get from plot point A to plot point B without actually understanding how script logic works. Case in point: the mutant rat thing. It shows up to establish that something might go wrong with Dr. Connors' experiment *gasp*, and then the movie promptly forgets about it. So somewhere in these movies lurks a gross mutant rat, definitely in the sewers, who probably came across some baby turtles that he would eventually train to become ninjas.

This movie is a backdoor origin story of TMNT.

[Reply #634 on:]

I'm not sure if you know this, but ironically and bizarrely, TMNT actually took their origins from a different Marvel comic book, Daredevil.

But yeah, the writing in these films is awful. The bit that stays with me is when Peter Parker leaves his camera in the sewer in the first one with "property of Peter Parker" conveniently stuck on a label on the side. I mean, that'd be bad writing for a child.

[Reply #635 on:]

The Lego Movie

I'd been told it was better than Frozen (see the last page). It is, but only just. The major redeeming feature of this film is that you can watch it with the sound off, and just enjoy the sequences of things being built, as though it's an extended 1980s/1990s Lego commercial.

I want the Lego train from this film, and am disappointed that this does not appear to be something for which instructions exist.

[Reply #636 on:]

Guardians of the Galaxy: CGI Owls No More!
So Marvel are balls out with the fun/serious comic book movies these days, and I had never even heard of this comic until all the hype and trailers started showing up.
Still enjoyable, it's good to have Peter Quill as the human to make it somewhat relate-able in a galaxy of talking trees, various coloured dudes and raccoon creatures.
Seriously though, Thanos is the biggest armchair badguy ever, at least he spinned his hoverchair all the way around in this movie.

B+

[Reply #637 on:]

The Hobbit (extended edition)

Disappointing compared to the LOTR films.  Inconsistent.  Mostly great visuals.  Boring at times.  Scored very well.  But who the hell really directed this movie?  It reeks of Steven Spielberg.

C

[Reply #638 on:]

Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

The "director's cut" is absolutely the only way to go with this film. I used to own a bootleg copy where someone had edited the footage of the original ending that was briefly released on DVD before being recalled. It switched to black and white at the end but it was still better than the theatrical cut. I'm so glad that they've released the proper version of the film on blu-ray.

Also, it's a wonderful film. Funny, dark, wonderful music, recordings that top the original stageshow cast and surprisingly impressive direction and special effects.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

Roberto Orci is a miserable good-for-nothing retconning bastard.  But I enjoyed the film. The scene in the Engineering spaces did have me cringing in a serious way, though, and if the dialogue had continued mirroring Star Trek II I would have ejected the disc from my player and fired it into the sun at warp 9.

Zachary Quinto is the perfect younger Spock and most of the cast members gave performances that were faithful to and respectful of the original cast.

B

It's an odd one, isn't it? It's hard to love it because it's so utterly disrespectful to its source material, but it's hard to hate it because it's so ridiculously entertaining in a braindead kind of way.

No, don't say that. The Lego Movie is far and away better than Frozen.

I disagree. I thought The Lego Movie was offensively mediocre. I think I found maybe two gags funny; whilst most of them were cringey. The story was an interesting concept, poorly executed and the characters basically all sucked. It was just... bleh.
Frozen, on the other hand, is a decent little film. I can't begin to understand why it's so popular over the likes of the superior The Princess and the Frog and Wreck-It Ralph, but for whatever reason, it has struck a cord with people.

I think that a lot of tnuk's complaints about the animation are off. I agree that the colours and water movements don't always follow how they should look in reality, but it's an animated film. It should embrace artistic choices that defy how things look in real life, otherwise they'll reach a point where animated films don't look any different from live-action films.

Also, is the Lego movie any good? I've been intrigued for quite a while, but never bothered to actually see it.

Got it on Blu-ray yesterday, seen it 3 times in total now. It is well-worth a watch. Phil Lord & Chris Miller (Clone High, 21/22 Jump Street, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 1/2) have a very good sense of humour, some of which will go over kids' heads. Plus, the film is beautiful to look at, it's so well-animated.

Clone High was rubbish. It played like a not-particularly-good Saturday morning kid's cartoon that wasn't appropriate for children. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was pretty mediocre - basically on par with The Lego Movie to be honest. 21 and 22 Jump Street are both pretty good but neither are the masterpieces that some people are making them out to be. They're just fun, disposable comedies. As for the animation... eh. It's pretty basic CGI designed to look like stop-start animation because they were too lazy to use stop-start animation. It has a unique visual style and that's basically all I can say in defense of its aesthetic.






Also, for what it's worth, seeing as I'm just responding to all sorts of things on the last two pages of this thread, Transformers is shit. Even the animated film that they made years before Michael Bay got his hands on the property was shit.

[Reply #639 on:]

I'm going with a separate post for this as I'm now going to talk about Guardians of the Galaxy which I saw in a screening, annoyingly, packed full of people that came to the cinema to watch The Inbetweeners 2 only to find that every showing was sold out.

As I said before, I'm a huge fan of the writer/director, James Gunn. I adore his previous film, Super. In fact, I'd say that Super is one of the best superhero films ever made.

It was good but, to be honest, I feel let down and I can't for the life of me understand why people are singing its praises to the extent that they are? I've heard countless people call it Marvel's best film. I preferred Iron Man, both Captain Americas and it doesn't come close to the quality of The Avengers. It had a good sense of humour and I was surprised at how violent Marvel allowed it to be (obviously, it's all off-screen, but they portray one of the heroes ripping a guy's nose off for christsakes).

I wanted to see more of The Collector and I wanted to see more of John C. Reilly - an actor that I'd pay money to watch sitting on the toilet for two hours. The best bit was the post-credits sequence - though I feel the same way about a lot of Marvel's films.

7/10


For the sake of reference, here's how I'd rate Marvel's films to date:
Iron Man - 8/10
The Incredible Hulk - 7.5/10[/b] (I'll admit that I have a weird soft spot for this one. Objectively, it doesn't deserve to be rated so highly over some of the others - I just like it is all)
Iron Man 2 - 5/10
Thor - 7/10
Captain America: The First Avenger - 8/10
The Avengers - 9/10
Iron Man 3 - 7/10
Thor: The Dark World - 6.5/10
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - 8/10
Guardians of the Galaxy - 7/10