Don't you think using quotes at the start of your reviews feels a little trite? And why are you writing these long reviews? Is that just how you naturally express your feelings or are you trying to get published?
I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not really knocking it, I really enjoyed it (I gave it a B+, that's a really good score), it's one of the best films this summer. I'm actually saying it might have explained to much of the galaxy, or at least shown too much of it, which kind of made the whole thing a bit messy. I just wish they would have explained the main character a bit more is all. We were being thrown into a new galaxy with him. Keep in mind I'm not saying this ruined the movie, it just made it a bit lesser.
Tobar said:
DominicCobb said:
I get leaving out stuff like the identity of his father for a sequel, but simple stuff like his feelings about leaving Earth behind I think is rather essential to completely understanding the character.
Throughout the film they give lots of hints about the resentment he fills about being torn away from his family.
Again, we're just meeting the character in this film. If they were to give everything away in their first go there wouldn't be anything to explore about the character later on.
Yeah I do remember him telling Yondu he was not so happy about his abduction, but still, does he want to go back to Earth or not? Does he even have the ability to? I'm sorry, I get wanting to explore more things in the sequel, but this is the main character, and, more importantly, the audience's most relatable figure in this unknown world. I get leaving out bits about character back stories (Rocket, for example, is only vaguely explained), but to open with the character the way they did, and then jump so far ahead and not fill in the gaps, not just in the story (which I'm okay with) but in the mindset of the main character, I'm sorry I can't excuse that. I still love the character and the movie but I feel like leaving stuff like that out is only to the detriment of this film, and a cheap way to make the next film more interesting. If you don't think so, then agree to disagree I suppose.
My biggest issue with that scene is actually his slave girl and what she does which I found totally random (though again I understand that they wanted to show the power of the orb, but still this was not the best way to do that I think).
Earlier in the film they show how cruelly he treats his slaves. In the scene in question, he just got done explaining how the infinity stones bestow awesome power to those with the ability to wield them. Overhearing that and no longer wanting to be enslaved and at the mercy of this psycho she makes a play to escape. I don't get what's hard to understand about that.
Alright, yeah, I forgot that early scene you mentioned. Still, I wasn't a big fan of the execution.
Ultimately, like I said before, with so many different elements to this universe being introduced, I felt that things like the characters and the story were a bit clouded. Perhaps if I see the film again, I'll be able to appreciate it more, but opinion will still remain that the film is a bit cluttered, which leaves things (like characterization which is mostly excellent in regards to the titular team) a bit lost in the shuffle, even if it is there.
Tobar said:
DominicCobb said:
If I have one complaint about his Peter Quill, it's that we don't get enough of him. There's definitely a lot about him that hasn't been said (how does he feel about being abducted? does he want to go back to Earth? etc.), and presumably will be in a sequel. But it really should have been said here.
The main purpose of this film was to establish the characters, organizations and settings of this world.
If they had explored those things about Quill in this film it would have been rushed. Leaving it to a sequel gives them an opportunity to explore it in depth in a story that has the potential to be more conducive to it.
I get leaving out stuff like the identity of his father for a sequel, but simple stuff like his feelings about leaving Earth behind I think is rather essential to completely understanding the character.
I'm sure stuff like the scene with the Collector made comic fans wet, but, to me, it was just really weird and rather random and not entirely necessary.
I'm not familiar with the source material either but I think it's pretty apparent they're setting up the Collector to be a bigger character later on. It was already established in Thor: The Dark World that he posses one of the other infinity stones. And Benicio Del Toro is a big name actor that you don't waste on an unimportant side character.
This film is setting up a lot of things that will inevitably pay off in later sequels like Jon C. Reilly and Glenn Close's characters.
Anyway, the Collector scene was necessary from a storytelling perspective. First it allows for a breather in between action scenes and second it provides vital exposition that informs the main characters about what it is they're dealing with.
Yeah I get it's setting stuff up (at least I hope they wouldn't waste talent like that). Still, judging this film on it's own terms, I can't let it go by with criticizing it. And yes, I realize the importance that was given to the scene with the Collector. But as it stands that's his only scene in the film and he's basically just there to be weird and dump exposition. Again, as a stand alone film it's an issue. My biggest issue with that scene is actually his slave girl and what she does which I found totally random (though again I understand that they wanted to show the power of the orb, but still this was not the best way to do that I think).
I just felt like they were throwing too much alien (as in extraterrestrial and strange) stuff at us. That made it harder to connect with the story, I felt, and made it easier to zone out when people start saying all these different names and such. It just made the film feel a little muddled.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - Fun times all around. The titular Guardians are the real highlight here and, more or less, the only interesting characters. My biggest gripe with the film is it spends all this time with the extremely dull villains, who I really couldn't care less about. Those scenes are so humdrum that they really stand out in a bad way, especially in comparison to the scenes with the Guardians, which are constantly bursting with life, energy, and laughter. Thankfully the latter scenes take up most of the film, because they really are something special. Each Guardian is a treat to watch. Special shout outs to Bradley Cooper doing Joe Pesci as Rocket, and, of course, the best part of the film, Chris Pratt as Star Lord. Pratt has to be one of my favorite actors right now. His performances are always a delight. He's got this charismatic man child sweetness to him, which, combined with blockbuster heroism, makes him a truly unique leading man, the likes of which I cannot say with certainty I have seen before. I love that he's the star of next year's Jurassic World, and I can't wait to see what else he'll do. If I have one complaint about his Peter Quill, it's that we don't get enough of him. There's definitely a lot about him that hasn't been said (how does he feel about being abducted? does he want to go back to Earth? etc.), and presumably will be in a sequel. But it really should have been said here. Unfortunately I do feel like this film is rather messy in it's plotting at times. Often, I felt out of the loop. I'm sure stuff like the scene with the Collector made comic fans wet, but, to me, it was just really weird and rather random and not entirely necessary. When the film came to an end, though, and all was said and done, I couldn't help but love it. The humor, the music, all that fun stuff, that was all great. Definitely worth a watch. B+
Tobar said:
DominicCobb said:
The Last Starfighter (1984) - Pretty fun Star Wars knock-off. Special effects aren't very good at all, but they're an interesting novelty. B
The special effects were revolutionary. It was the first time a film attempted realism with CG (TRON doesn't really count). Doesn't hold up in the least but its place in cinematic history should be acknowledged.
Yeah, I understand that. By "novelty" I meant it's interesting to consider their place in film history. Still, I've seen shitty CGI before and, revolutionary or not, the CG in that movie was the shittiest. They could have used practical effects but they didn't because CG was, I guess, cheaper.
The Last Starfighter (1984) - Pretty fun Star Wars knock-off. Special effects aren't very good at all, but they're an interesting novelty. B
Heavy Metal (1981) - Strange, I had heard that this is an animated film for adults, but it seems rather juvenile to me. Nonetheless, the film ranges from vaguely cool to very cool. While there are a lot of aspects that could have been done better, there are a lot of things that were done well. Overall, pretty enjoyable. B-
Big Trouble In Little China (1986) - I've been meaning to watch this for awhile, and I wish I hadn't taken so long. What can I say about this film, other than that it is totally awesome. This might actually be my favorite Kurt Russell performance. Everything about his character is perfect, from the bumbling heroism to the John Wayne impression. (N)oodles of fun. B+
DominicCobb said:
darklordoftech said:
unamochilla2 said:
Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded
In that case, thank you Abrams! Star Wars is Luke and Vader, not these random "new" characters who episodes 7-9 plan to introduce.
In Star Wars, Luke didn't show up until the 15 minute mark, and Vader had 11 minutes of screen time.
This is a great point.
I think generally the BTTF sequels have the reputation they deserve: as enjoyable follow ups to an infinitely better film.
If either is underrated it is certainly 2, as I've heard many say it is easily the worst, even though it's probably on par or better than 3.
TV's Frink said:
Neglify said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Jaitea said:
Sith is just an anagram
J
hits?
Isht(ar).
hit(ler)s
sith(s)
darklordoftech said:
unamochilla2 said:
Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded
In that case, thank you Abrams! Star Wars is Luke and Vader, not these random "new" characters who episodes 7-9 plan to introduce.
In Star Wars, Luke didn't show up until the 15 minute mark, and Vader had 11 minutes of screen time.
The Mummy (1932) - Not sure why it took me this long to watch this film. An enjoyable suspense story. The make-up effects would impress even today. A shame Karloff isn't in mummy attire throughout, though. B+
I thought I read he created the robots so none of the superheroes would need to superhero anymore.
The Dark Knight Rises
Star Trek Into Darkness
You've removed Vader's "useless gesture" that he does once he's finished talking to Tarkin.
I haven't seen Ghostbusters II since I was a kid, and while I remember not liking it as much as the first, I can't remember what there was about it that inspired the hatred it gets on the web. So I'll (cautiously) call that underrated.
I think all of the Indiana Jones sequels (prequel if that's what you consider TOD) are underrated.
The first three Die Hard sequels are all underrated to some extent.
Star Trek III
Spider-man 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand are not as worthless as some would have you believe.
The Matrix sequels do not rank as two of the worst films of all time.
Terminator 3 and Salvation have a number of redeeming qualities.
The Star Wars prequels are much better than their reputation suggests (especially ROTS).
Star Wars has been mainstream my whole life it seems. Can't remember anyone being ridiculed for liking it. Can remember people being ridiculed for not having seen it.
Batman has always been cool, as far as I can remember, and especially from 2005 onwards (and especially especially from 2008 onwards).
Can't remember anyone being ridiculed for liking Star Trek. Then again, I'm the biggest Trek fan out of my friends, and I have barely/never seen/don't even like TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. And I didn't start watching Trek anyway until 2006 or 2007. But the series is pretty cool now as of 2009.
Power Rangers is, and has only ever been, cool to five year olds.
I wasn't aware of Doctor Who until a few years ago. I only knew one person who watched it, too. Yet, within the last couple years, it has suddenly become very popular, it seems.
Of course, I've never really considered myself a nerd or a geek. What do those words even mean anyway? I don't really identify with what I've seen is their "culture." I just happen to like some of the things they do.
timdiggerm said:
DominicCobb said:
ObiWanKennerobi, I think you're on the wrong site.
Because a discussion forum is only for people who agree?
I merely meant he'd be better suited discussing Wars on TFN. I was not aware at the time that he used to do so there.
ObiWanKennerobi, I was not trying to make you feel unwelcome, I simply mean that you will not find many (any?) here that will agree with your line of thinking, at least to your extent.
To clarify my own opinions, I actually do love the PT and Lucas, but I can admit to their many faults.
ObiWanKennerobi said:
"^Trolling?"
No. I think it's pretty funny that you don't assume someone on a Star Wars message board is honest in really taking George Lucas seriously as an artist. Once you get to know me, you'll know I'm serious in my admiration of the work of George Lucas. I'm very out of step with popular opinion in more ways than that. Can you believe that I didn't like The Dark Knight!? Gasp!
I too admire Lucas's work and respect him as a great artist who gave me my all time favorite film. But Lucas was far from the only one who worked on that film (unlike Orwell on 1984). Of course he played the largest role in it's production, but sometimes I wonder, if he had his way (like on the PT) if I would ever even be a Star Wars fan.
Also, he didn't even direct my second favorite film of all time, he hired someone else to do that (and let's be honest, Kershner did a better job than Lucas could have).
To not take something Star Wars sans-Lucas seriously is, frankly, stupid.
^That'd all be fine if the writing didn't suck.
ObiWanKennerobi, I think you're on the wrong site.
^Trolling?
When I was young the line about the Clone Wars never really stuck with me. It was just something someone said. It wasn't until after I saw AOTC and then re-watched ANH that I actually noticed the reference.
Yeah, yeah. I'll probably read that.
The Adventures of Don Juan (1948) - Oh boy do I enjoy a good Errol Flynn swashbuckler. Tons of fun. B+
generalfrevious said:
You know the nuking the fridge scene in Crystal Skull? Same thing happened to Batman in the Dark Knight Rises. Characters surviving nuclear explosions without any nuclear fallout instantly takes me out of any movie.
That was a fusion bomb in TDKR. No radiation.