darth_ender said:
While not a fantastic movie, the most enjoyable part of Thor was that same antagonist before he develops more grandiose schemes, and I like him far better. He's actually quite sympathetic and interesting, and I don't know if I'd appreciate that as much had I seen the films in the correct order. Just my thought.
You just summed up the only thing about Thor that was actually good.
xhonzi said:
Johnny Ringo said:
also, Jones[y] is a dick!
:(
not you, the cat!
Spiderman 3 (2007).
I can't see what all the fuss was about.
It's no masterpiece but none of the series were.
I'd put it on par with the first one and just behind the second one.
3 Dark Splodges.
Bingowings said:
Spiderman 3 (2007).
I can't see what all the fuss was about.
You have to be a Venom fan to understand.
Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959)
Man, James Mason has one cool voice. Wonderful movie, I really enjoyed it.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Bingowings said:
Spiderman 3 (2007).
I can't see what all the fuss was about.
You have to be a Venom fan to understand.
No I don't.
I've been a Green Goblin fan since as long as I can remember and the Power Rangers villain in the first one wasn't him.
Once I got over that I could enjoy the film for what it was rather than what it wasn't.
Venom needs it's own film series to work really well but it's not exactly Bane in Batman & Robin level awfulness.
Spider-man 3 is my least favorite of the series, but I don't hate it as much as so many. My biggest gripe is really that there is just too much for one movie. In reality there were four villains, and none got the respect or attention they deserved. IMO, Harry/Goblin should have been the focus. Sandman should have been left out. Venom, if he must be included, should have simply been an instrumental character, but I'd rather they had focused on the "fourth" villain, Black-suit Spidey. Peter's own darkness as he tries to battle Harry were more interesting, and I personally would have liked to see Harry never get redeemed. Once Peter overcomes the symbiote and defeats Harry without giving into his most base emotions, then we could see the symbiote crawling off to find Eddie Brock, and then we're in a demanding place for a sequel while still having produced an enjoyable and not overflowing film. I was disappointed with the film overall.
I have to be honest, since this thread is discussing the merits of films at the moment, I personally enjoy X3, and while it has some flawed character usage and some cheesey RPG elements (Level 4 mutants?!), in many ways it's my favorite of the trilogy. It takes risks and alters/kills major characters. It is emotional. It didn't get old to me as quickly as the previous two did. It's exciting. And it has far and away the best soundtrack of the trilogy. People talk like it's a horrible movie, but it's much better than the X-men prequels that don't even fit the continuity.
I've never seen X-Men 3, mainly because I hated X-Men 2 and felt no need to see more or what I assumed would be the same. The same goes for the prequels, too.
Now I'm wishing for a reboot of the X-Men films, one based on the classic comics from the '60s, with no Wolverine in sight. God, if only I was a Hollywood bigwig ...
It seems that most fans loved x2 - where nothing much really happens and hated x3 where the plot moves forward and raises the stakes.
I feel x3 is a bit underrated and x2 is WAY overrated. Loved x1 though.
I agree about Wolvering - but he's a cash cow. He's been in five Xmen films now with at least 1 more on the way...
Bingowings said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
Bingowings said:
Spiderman 3 (2007).
I can't see what all the fuss was about.
You have to be a Venom fan to understand.
No I don't.
I've been a Green Goblin fan since as long as I can remember and the Power Rangers villain in the first one wasn't him.
Once I got over that I could enjoy the film for what it was rather than what it wasn't.
Venom needs it's own film series to work really well but it's not exactly Bane in Batman & Robin level awfulness.
Eddie Brock is supposed to be a brute, and Venom is supposed to be BIG. His voice had none of the menace that it does in animated series and game renditions and the origin story is ridiculous. I'm a fan of the Goblin and Venom and I think the movie Goblin was a far better take on the character than Venom's was.
darth_ender said:
My biggest gripe is really that there is just too much for one movie. In reality there were four villains, and none got the respect or attention they deserved. IMO, Harry/Goblin should have been the focus. Sandman should have been left out. Venom, if he must be included, should have simply been an instrumental character, but I'd rather they had focused on the "fourth" villain, Black-suit Spidey. Peter's own darkness as he tries to battle Harry were more interesting, and I personally would have liked to see Harry never get redeemed. Once Peter overcomes the symbiote and defeats Harry without giving into his most base emotions, then we could see the symbiote crawling off to find Eddie Brock, and then we're in a demanding place for a sequel while still having produced an enjoyable and not overflowing film. I was disappointed with the film overall.
Yes.
I have to be honest, since this thread is discussing the merits of films at the moment, I personally enjoy X3, and while it has some flawed character usage and some cheesey RPG elements (Level 4 mutants?!), in many ways it's my favorite of the trilogy. It takes risks and alters/kills major characters. It is emotional. It didn't get old to me as quickly as the previous two did. It's exciting. And it has far and away the best soundtrack of the trilogy. People talk like it's a horrible movie, but it's much better than the X-men prequels that don't even fit the continuity.
X-Men: First Class is waaay better than X-Men 3.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Now I'm wishing for a reboot of the X-Men films, one based on the classic comics from the '60s, with no Wolverine in sight. God, if only I was a Hollywood bigwig ...
Maybe you should see X-Men First Class...
RE: The Avengers
Thor is a Jerk for Making an Adoption Joke About the Evil Villain
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Yeah, what he should have said was. "he is fictional and Nordic" which would no doubt have enraged the fictional Nordic crowd but who cares, I just made them up anyway.
Psh.
Are people really this overly sensitive?
He *spoilers* didn't say he was adopted and that that made him evil. He had just finished saying that he was family, he was reminded that Loki was evil, and then he distanced himself from the villain he claims as family by citing the adoption.
People are too eager to get offended sometimes.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
doubleKO said:
I have to be honest, since this thread is discussing the merits of films at the moment, I personally enjoy X3, and while it has some flawed character usage and some cheesey RPG elements (Level 4 mutants?!), in many ways it's my favorite of the trilogy. It takes risks and alters/kills major characters. It is emotional. It didn't get old to me as quickly as the previous two did. It's exciting. And it has far and away the best soundtrack of the trilogy. People talk like it's a horrible movie, but it's much better than the X-men prequels that don't even fit the continuity.
X-Men: First Class is waaay better than X-Men 3.
Not sure I agree. I thought First Class was still really goofy. And it doesn't match any continuity. At least X-Men 3 was a sequel to X-Men 2.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Apparently none of these people have seen "Thor" because the distinction of him being adopted is because he's not Asgardian. He's a Frost Giant raised as an Asgard. It's may actually explain why he's so evil: it's in his nature.Gaffer Tape said:
RE: The Avengers
Thor is a Jerk for Making an Adoption Joke About the Evil Villain
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Harry Palmer no. 2 and 3, both are long OOP and just to finally see them was something:
Funeral in Berlin
An interesting straightforward spy story of double and triple crosses in Berlin. The use of location shooting at the Berlin Wall really adds to the effect. Caine is just as arrogant and fantastic, and overall the film is good if not a bit draggy and underdeveloped.
3.5 balls out of 4 spies with glasses.
Billion Dollar Brain
This is a really strange one. Not only is it completely bizarre, but it is also hauntingly mesmerizing. Caine's Harry Palmer is thrust into yet another situation on behalf of England, beginning with a computerized voice ordering him to smuggle a thermos of eggs containing viruses to Finland. And this is just the opening.
We are kept in a state of confusion that matches Harry's constant bewilderment. Thus we must pay as much attention to crucial story elements as if we were spies as well. The real plot that eventually begins to take shape is bizarre, over the top, and also completely all too real.
A Texan oil tycoon has built a billion dollar supercomputer to help him and his private army to rid the world of Communism.
The film is a nightmarish dreamic landscape that never once is fully realistic in any way. The score adds to this effect immensely, always eerie and melodic and featuring one of the greatest title themes I've ever come across.
The cinematography is pitch perfect, aptly matching the maintained state of confusion, which is also held up by inventive editing. This film also features some of the best snow landscapes put to celluloid.
A highly recommended blend of 60's spy film, quasi-realism, Michael Caine and an art movie. Plus it's a Ken Russell movie to boot. There's really nothing like this, even in his canon.
4 balls out of 4 "Because my arm is long and my vengeance is total."
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
Alien: Director's cut...some changes were good.
Jones[y] is still a dick.
Bring on Prometheus.
I went out of my way to find a copy of the theatrical version of Alien because I kept hearing about how the director's cut wasn't actually a director's cut and how it was actually shorter than the theatrical version and that the only new thing about it was a quick shot of an alien egg hatching.
No spoilers
I'm not really a fan of goof comedies where a ton of impossible shit happens. I assumed this was one of those and never bothered to see it. I caught it on HBO a few days ago (I've been on vacation all week) and decided to give it a look.
Man, am I glad I did. Loved it! It's not one of those goof comedies that are so popular these days. It has plenty of silly and highly improbable moments, but it always stays just this side of ridiculous.
The cast is fantastic and each was perfectly cast. The leads make the film. My favorite is Jason Bateman. Probably because he's pretty much playing a nearly spot-on version of myself.
Anyway, good stuff. It's well written, intelligent humor. I liked it so much, I've watched it three times this week. Ordered it already, so that I can rip the audio.
An easy 5 out of 5 briefcases.
Tobar said:
I went out of my way to find a copy of the theatrical version of Alien because I kept hearing about how the director's cut wasn't actually a director's cut and how it was actually shorter than the theatrical version and that the only new thing about it was a quick shot of an alien egg hatching.
Here's the rundown on that.
The 1979 cut of Alien is Ridley Scott's preferred version, so it's his "director's cut."
In the early 2000s, Fox was looking to create extended versions of all the Alien movies for the Quadrilogy box set.
Scott found out and offered to recut the movie himself (or they asked him, I can't remember). So he did, and the studio called it a "Director's Cut" since he actually worked on it.
Scott sees the 2003 "Director's Cut" as an alternate version that's cut more to modern sensibilities - a lot of small trims are made to make the movie move by a little quicker, but it's not noticeable unless you're really familiar with the movie (the comment Dallas makes about Ash being a last-minute replacement is cut, for instance).
He also added in a few deleted scenes - Ripley finding Dallas being turned into an egg and killing him with a flamethrower, Ripley arguing with the rest of the crew just after Kane is brought aboard against her orders, a clear shot of the Alien in the scene where Brett gets killed (which is the main thing I dislike about the 2003 cut), etc. And, yes, Kane and the egg was recut slightly IIRC.
Overall, with stuff being cut out and stuff being extended, the 2003 cut clocks in at roughly one minute shorter than the 1979 theatrical cut.
So there you have it - it's a very subtle alternate cut with a few extensions and a few trims, but nothing Earth-shattering. I still prefer the 1979 cut, as does Ridley Scott himself, but aside from that one shot of the Alien in Brett's death scene, there's nothing wrong with it, either.
I could have sworn Alien came out in 1979. ;)
Where were you in '77?
Whoops, you're right! Fixed.
Batman: Year One
Even though it was pretty close to the comic, which I love, it felt really over the top a lot of the time. I think some of the things worked better in still images. However, I still found it really enjoyable.
Bryan Cranston may well be the perfect James Gordon. I love Gary Oldman, but I think Cranston nailed the character (of course, comparing voice work to a full live action role isn't always fair, Cranston also has the look for the role, and no doubt the ability).