Jump to content

Movies


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Of the three superheroes coming out this year (that I know of, there must be more!) First Class looks the best, but I also have high hopes for the WWII-era Captain America, even though I've never been that into the character. One of the reaons I loved Iron man so much was a lack of rabid fan expectations, and I hope the same hold true here.

As for Thor, this new trailer makes me want to see it again, though I imagine it will be still be the weakest of the lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e07hmZ2NEjY

Posted

As for Thor, this new trailer makes me want to see it again, though I imagine it will be still be the weakest of the lot.

The one that's being helmed by Kenneth Branaugh, universally-acclaimed British actor and director of dozens of Shakespeare productions and film adaptations, the one starring George Kirk and Sir Anthony Hopkins, that's the one you have the lowest expectations for? Seriously?

Posted

The one that's being helmed by Kenneth Branaugh, universally-acclaimed British actor and director of dozens of Shakespeare productions and film adaptations, the one starring George Kirk and Sir Anthony Hopkins, that's the one you have the lowest expectations for? Seriously?

Only because I think it's gonna be hard to strike the right balance of the magic and the mundane, and massive CGI battle scenes can be hard to pull off; the cast and director are all folks I really like, so I am hoping it will be good.

And how could I forget Green Lantern? To me, that one actually looks the weakest, because I think RR is somewhat miscast. As was discussed in chat, I think he'd make a better Flash than a Lantern.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Can't wait. Looks better than Thor, I think.

Oh I agree; I'm looking forward to Thor, but actually pumped for Cap and X-Men: First Class. Two period superhero flicks in one year!

Posted

You say "period" like the 20th century was decades ago :P

First Class is set during the 1960s, and Captain America is set during the '40s (in both cases, when the original comics debuted). That's 50 and 70 years ago respectively. 50 years is long enough ago for it to be a "period piece."

Oh I agree; I'm looking forward to Thor, but actually pumped for Cap and X-Men: First Class. Two period superhero flicks in one year!

I disagree. Thor is the one I'm really excited about, and to me it looks like the best of the lot.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

THOR

See it. See it now. Your eyeballs will thank you.

Also, I can easily see the FC-verse version of this movie, featuring Horus the Avenger. (Horus, son of Ra, cast out of Heliopolis for starting a war with the Serpent-Men of Duat, while Horus' brother Set -- really the son of Apep, King of the Serpent-Men, taken by Ra during the last war on Duat as a way to broker a lasting truce -- plots and schemes against, well, everyone. Horus must learn humility if he is ever to reclaim his Ankh and thus his awesome power.)

/me now has an urge to play a Paragon...

My biggest complaint: the lack of Marvel movie trailers. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS is due out in a month, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGERS a month after that, this would be the perfect time to show new trailers! Instead, I got trailers for CARS 2, REAL STEEL (i.e., Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie), PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, and TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON (the teaser one showing them on the moon, not the more recent one showing 'Bots and 'Cons tearing **** up).

Posted

THOR

See it. See it now. Your eyeballs will thank you.

Also, I can easily see the FC-verse version of this movie, featuring Horus the Avenger. (Horus, son of Ra, cast out of Heliopolis for starting a war with the Serpent-Men of Duat, while Horus' brother Set -- really the son of Apep, King of the Serpent-Men, taken by Ra during the last war on Duat as a way to broker a lasting truce -- plots and schemes against, well, everyone. Horus must learn humility if he is ever to reclaim his Ankh and thus his awesome power.)

/me now has an urge to play a Paragon...

My biggest complaint: the lack of Marvel movie trailers. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS is due out in a month, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGERS a month after that, this would be the perfect time to show new trailers! Instead, I got trailers for CARS 2, REAL STEEL (i.e., Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie), PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, and TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON (the teaser one showing them on the moon, not the more recent one showing 'Bots and 'Cons tearing **** up).

Lucky you. I got the Captain America and Pirates 4 trailers, along with Colombiana and Cowboys & Aliens.

Thor was solid. There was more that I liked about it than disliked, but it never really blew me away the way that Batman Begins or Iron Man did. Although I will give it the credit that it's due that, like those two movies, it tells a real and universal story that happens to take place in a science fiction superhero setting. It actually has something to say other than "Thor is AWESOME!" (I'm looking at you, Tim Burton). Most of the actors are good in their roles. It even made me genuinely laugh out loud a couple of times. I'm glad I saw it, but I wouldn't go see it a second time. And I could tell I the rest of the audience felt the same way, because there wasn't any applause or cheering when the credits rolled.

Branagh and Hensworth both nailed Thor's characterization. Thor himself is easily the best part of Thor. He's charismatic as Hell, I had no problem believing that Asgardians and humans alike would be drawn to him, and yes, he did remind me why a Thor-expy has always been my second choice for an M&M PC. Anthony Hopkins brought his usual A-game; I'd pay to watch that man read a telephone directory. Colm Feore was as menacing as always as Laufey the king of the frost giants. Hell, they were all menacing, even under The Worf Effect.

But I got the distinct feeling that a good 20 minutes of plot and character development, mostly for the human cast, got left on the cutting room floor, Daredevil-style, so the whole thing felt a bit rushed. And unlike, say, the Transformers series, the human cast weren't a bunch of completely unnecessary and annoying wastes of screen time AND carbon used merely to pad out the running time and save money on special effects. I wouldn't have minded seeing more of them. The chemistry between Hensworth and Portman was real, even if the movie wasn't at all subtle about it. Kat Dennings doesn't seem to have much range as an actress, but she's got great comedic timing and delivery. Stellan Skaarsgaard was the best of the bunch, and the director obviously knew it too, judging from the fact that Skaarsgaard got more screen time than all the other humans put together.

If anything, it was the extra Asgardians who didn't contribute much to the plot. I found myself constantly comparing Thor to Batman Begins and watching Thor fall short in this regard. In Batman Begins, you have seemingly too many characters, and yet you still make it work, make them all matter, and manage not to waste any of them. In Thor, you just have too many characters, and a lot of them ARE wasted.

Also, don't bother paying extra to see it in 3-D. It doesn't add much.

The way they worked Donald Blake into the plot was a clever nod to the fans of the source material without standing out as a non sequitor to newcomers, the way Cyke's "yellow spandex" line did in X-Men. I liked the cameo, and I hope they bring both the character and the actor back for the Avengers movie, but I wish he'd have least gotten to do his thing instead of just standing there looking slick and quipping. Speaking of the Avengers movie, yes, there is an Avengers movie Easter Egg for it at the back end of the credits, and yes, you should wait for it, because it is the mother of all Avengers movie Easter Eggs. Nick Fury finally shows us what the plot will be about, and it's kind of a big deal.

Posted

Lucky you. I got the Captain America and Pirates 4 trailers, along with Colombiana and Cowboys & Aliens.

:argh:

If anything, it was the extra Asgardians who didn't contribute much to the plot. I found myself constantly comparing Thor to Batman Begins and watching Thor fall short in this regard. In Batman Begins, you have seemingly too many characters, and yet you still make it work, make them all matter, and manage not to waste any of them. In Thor, you just have too many characters, and a lot of them ARE wasted.

I do definitely wished there'd been a bit more with the Warriors Three, though since they are the B/C-List Asgardian team, I do see a concern about having too much of them overshadowing Thor. However, I was immensely pleased with how they did Fandral: he looked and acted the most like his Simonson-era comics counterpart. (Volstagg acted the part, but I don't think he quite pulled off the look ["Hollywood Pudgy" :argh:]; I can't recall Hogun even having any lines, and his lack of his distinct hat [and Fu Manchu mustache] kept throwing me off.)

More Sif would've been nice -- more refrigerator-less women in comics/comics-derived works is always a plus -- but I honestly don't know her comics incarnation well enough to make any comparisons to gauge if what little they had of her in the flick did her justice.

Also, don't bother paying extra to see it in 3-D. It doesn't add much.

I'd disagree on this point: I thought the 3D in it was far, far better than the 3D in Avatar (though that's the only other 3D movie I've seen, so my sample base for comparison isn't that large).

Posted

I'd disagree on this point: I thought the 3D in it was far, far better than the 3D in Avatar (though that's the only other 3D movie I've seen, so my sample base for comparison isn't that large).

Really? I felt the exact opposite. I've been to...too many 3-D movies, and Avatar was the ONLY one I ever saw (that wasn't completely animated*) where the 3-D added significantly to the experience. Which probably had something to do with the fact that it was actually filmed in 3-D from the beginning, with two-"eyed" cameras.

*3-D is much easier to do with animation than with live-action filming, but that doesn't mean it's always good. For every Coraline or Up, there's a truckload of Monsters vs Aliens.

Posted

3-D is evil to us blind people who don't own contact lenses. Since you have to put glasses on top of glasses and it itches like all hell.

I had no problems with the 3D glasses over my own glasses.

Posted

Just got back from a triple feature, Gnomeo and Juliet, Thor and Hanna. I enjoyed the hell out of all three, but Hanna stole it for me, to be honest. I could easily see a few similarities between the title character and Sage (esp. with regard to some of the telepath's metaplot (yes, I actually have one!)) and so, yeah. I will always root for the ass kicking teenage women.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...