I just saw This is the End, which definitely exceeded my expectations. I'm not going to pretend it was an artistic masterwork, but it was nothing but entertaining pretty much all the way through, and you could just feel that it was a hell of a lot of fun to make. It also did something a bit new by having all of the actors play themselves in a sci-fi setting, and it plays around with reality-TV bits at times in some interesting ways. Easily my favorite movie from most of these actors.
I just saw This is the End, which definitely exceeded my expectations. I'm not going to pretend it was an artistic masterwork, but it was nothing but entertaining pretty much all the way through, and you could just feel that it was a hell of a lot of fun to make. It also did something a bit new by having all of the actors play themselves in a sci-fi setting, and it plays around with reality-TV bits at times in some interesting ways. Easily my favorite movie from most of these actors.
I was expecting the worst from that movie, but I forgot that all of those comedians (except Danny McBride I think) are writers and a lot more clever. The greatest part of the movie is when they take pot shots at each others acting careers. It's a terrific apocalypse movie because not only does it explore the days during a big cataclysmic event when you are stuck at the house, but it has a tremendous payoff with several hilarious scenes. Not only that, but it has a great ending and a brilliant cameo at the level of Zombieland funny. (Not the same person, but it's awesome when it happens) I absolutely recommend that movie.
I also saw Man of Steel yesterday. Good movie that I can recommend, primarily because of the action, the visuals of krypton/violence and the casting choices. However, there are big problems with the plot and storytelling because they want to question what Superman's morality would be...but Superman himself get to give his own opinion. Henry Cavill didn't make much of an impression on me, nor did Amy Adams, but I was really impressed with Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon.
It echoes of Batman Begins and Amazing Spiderman to it's benefit and detriment. If anything really failed for me, it was Jonathan Kent making really bad decisions and Snyder's strange sense of storytelling moving back and forth between his childhood and current life. It feels like a sense of time or learning is missing to an extent, especially with the message of the movie. Not to mention, I think the movie leaves too much unresolved in order for it to be answered in the next movie, especially with Superman and Zod's fight. I really loved the fight, but the scene right after that brought down the movie a few notches. I think this movie is on par with Iron Man 3 for me, where I did enjoy it especially as a viewing experience, but there were lots of annoying character choices and plot jumps.
I wonder how Equestria Girls went down, I'm not in the US, so waiting for the internet uploads sooner or later :P
I've seen it now. To avoid a textwall, I'll just link to my thoughts. The post above mine is worth reading as well, as it fills in a few gaps in my criticism. Overall it had a pretty good number of decent jokes, everyone's pretty much in character, and it's surprisingly watchable, even pleasant, out of the gate. However, it gets worse as it goes on, spiraling downwards to a hollow ending with a bunch of terribly sloppy/rushed plot points, resulting in a very meh overall effect... and that's discounting the most cringe-inducing bits we all know about already.
Zack Snyder's Man of Steel was an awful, awful movie; seriously. I already hated Snyder for a number of his movies that I disliked tremendously, but seeing as how Chris Nolan wrote this, I decided to give Snyder another chance. Oh how I wish I had my two hours back.
I had rather low expectations already and I heard before that the general consensus it was really really mixed, but I have to go with the naysayers on this movie. Every aspect about this movie was train wreck to some extent. All the acting was hollow and I didn't feel anything from any character nor did I care about them, there was a unnecessarily ridiculous overuse of CG (which is one of Snyder's biggest problems in general), the pacing was utterly horrible and the movie just wouldn't end due mostly to how never-ending the action scenes were (not to mention how boring they got after a while), the cinematography and lighting looked really artificial (I could swear that 80% of it was done in post-production and they put the minimal amount of effort whilst shooting), and the storytelling/writing was convoluted, resorted to plot lines that were either tired or cliched, and didn't tell a clearly defined story.
This may sound like I'm being hyperbolic (as I admittedly get sometimes), but in all honesty, I'm really really not. I was angry, bored, and occasionally in pain the entire time. My family went to see it with me and they all had the same reaction I did, so I wasn't alone in my complaints. Any way you look at this movie, it is absolutely horrendous and I think it epitomizes a lot of the problems with Hollywood today in terms of "lets throw CG at every second to compensate for all our problems". To put it into perspective: Superman Returns was BETTER than this, and I never thought that would be possible. Again, I wish I was over-exaggerating; but I genuinely am not.
If you value your free time and want to get your money's worth, stay away from this movie like the plague; I beg of you. This was probably one of the poorest movies I've seen in quite some time.
Zack Snyder's Man of Steel was an awful, awful movie; seriously. I already hated Snyder for a number of his movies that I disliked tremendously, but seeing as how Chris Nolan wrote this, I decided to give Snyder another chance. Oh how I wish I had my two hours back.
Christopher Nolan did not write this. It was the same scriptwriter of the Dark Knight, David S. Goyer, but Christopher Nolan had barely anything to do with this movie. He was a producer and pitched the idea to Warner Bros, but that's about it. Sorry, but something that's irritating me with the criticism of this movie, is that people are pegging the mistakes as Nolan's problems or that it's defended by Nolan-fans. This is all on Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer. (Goyer may have the most inconsistent screenwriting history I've ever seen.)
Red Letter Media guys hated it. That's good enough for me.
They got me to skip it too. I've already hit my big dumb action movie limit for the summer, it sounded pretty exploitative and cynical, and they're generally more forgiving than I am. I think the creative team waw overcompensating in response to the complaints in past movies that people wanted to see Superman fight some guys.
World War Z is not a zombie apocalypse movie. It is a pandemic investigation movie... Wait a minute, didn't Brad Pitt just do one of those?
I heard they pretty much bought the (very popular, well-regarded) book for the title because they liked it, then completely threw the plot out the window.
I've been meaning to post about Man of Steel. I liked it. The more I thought about it, I liked it overall. I even liked Superman Returns.
I will say, I've read nothing of any Superman comics nor have watched the stand alone animated series. My only exposure to Superman is the Christopher Reeve's Superman and Justice League. I never found myself really trying to know more because he didn't seem as interesting or as cool as Batman.
I had a discussion with a friend, who loves to analyze movies, box office figures, and is into comic books. He described this version of Superman as not really a movie for the comic book fans, but for the normal type people. I think that's pretty succinct.
I liked this better than Superman Returns. I thought Zach Synder did a pretty good job, especially with pretty much no use of his signature slow-motion action sequences. However, he has turned to the use of the snap zoom technique like in Firefly.
I loved the CG. The world building and destruction of Krypton was fabulous. I wanted to know more about the technology, the wildlife, and overall way of life of the Krypton. I really enjoyed how they put more of Jor-El into the film. That was fairly clever.
I had no problem with the pacing and characters. The flashbacks of Clark's childhood help show his personal conflicts of whether or not he should reveal his strength. It overall showed how much more of a hard decision it was for him in the end for when he decided to kill Zod.
Also, I like how they didn't make Lois Lane dumb as a fucking post. I love Amy Adams and I like how in the ending she still knew Superman's identity. None of that bullshit kiss of forgetting. Also the use of his powers weren't overdone or over the top.
My only main gripe with this movie was the wanton destruction caused and created whenever Superman fought whatever villain. They really emphasized how he didn't want anyone to die, but it seemed pretty fucking apparent that innocent bystanders more than likely caught a bad one when a building was destroyed. There was no moment of Superman going, "Hey, there could be innocent people in that building. Perhaps with my super powers and agility I could change the momentum to go at a different angle so no one gets hurt."
Also I really liked Faora-Ul. What a cool badass female villain.
All in all, I would watch it again when it comes on Netflix or through other digital means. It's definitely no Chris Nolan Batman, but it's decent. I really don't look forward to seeing how WB tries to get a Justice League movie. I'm just not feeling it. Especially from what we've seen so far with Green Lantern. That shit was a mess.
And on a different movie, I watched Monsters U today. Seriously great prequel. The part with the clown jazz hands had me in tears. As for the short before the movie, The Blue Umbrella, I was a bit underwhelmed. Great animation as always, but the story was flat and is subpar after watching something like Paperman from Wreck-It Ralph. I felt they could have done something different.
Ro's opinion is the one I see the majority of the time I can only assume Geo has some sort of bias against Zach Snyder :-p
Yep. I have never liked a single one of his movies, so I had low expectations going in (as I stated before). I just think that, behind a lot of his films, there is this hollow, ego-fueled vibe that comes off of it that really disturbs me. Also telling is the fact that he has never made a movie that doesn't use special effects to some extent, which I also have something of a dislike against because it is synthetic by its very nature and too much of it just shuts me down.
I really enjoyed Dawn of the Dead, while it wasn't more cerebral as the original, I thought it was a solid action movie. 300 was fun and entertaining. Watchmen has one of the best opening sequences I have ever seen. I actually was tearing up during it! and the movie was pretty good. Haven't seen Rise of the Guardians. I actually enjoyed Sucker Punch even though a lot of people hated on it but I can't really call it "good" more of a guilty pleasure. Haven't seen Man of Steel yet (and I'm amused they are doing a 300 prequel... really?)
Also telling is the fact that he has never made a movie that doesn't use special effects to some extent, which I also have something of a dislike against because it is synthetic by its very nature and too much of it just shuts me down.
If you went to a movie about a bloke who flies about, can lift thousands of tons of weight, and shoots fucking heat-rays out of his eyes, but didn't expect special effects, then you propably need to reassess either your world-view or your expectations for the movie, whichever applies.
In fact, excluding Day of the Dead which is almost all practical effects and Legend of the Guardians(which is 100% CG - we'll give it a pass, since without computer effects, it's a fucking radio drama), we have: 300(fair enough, the effects were a bit far out there), Watchmen(another movie about superheroes with crazy tech or powers going hog-wild, you really should expect effects there), and Sucker Punch(explicitly about a girl retreating into her fantasy dreams to escape a horrible reality), and the aforementioned flying-and-eyebeams movie.
While you're doubtless expressing your emotions and opinions on the topic quite well, I'm not entirely sure your expectations are realistic.
Pretty much what Churba said. Geo, you're coming off as a pretentious film student that is full of himself.
Zach Snyder has not once really came off as anything other than a special effects, big budget guy. I will contest with Sucker Punch and found him to be completely pretentious.
Churba pretty much broke down all of the stuff he's done. So what were you expecting? Most of the titles are based off of comics or books. If that's not what you like, then don't watch it.
Is there a reason I should see 1 or 2 instead of 3? I don't really want to see any, but that's not an option.
Not really. I just saw Whedon's Much Ado last night, and it's damn funny. The actors are a bit slow to get into it, but it just gets steadily better for the whole movie.
Edit: Also, what Ro said. Stop trying to be a jaded old man and enjoy the opportunity to see a good movie.
Because if there's one thing old men are known for, it's their aversion to Shakespeare. Seriously, guys, I'm not trying to be jaded, I've just gotten sick of big budget blockbusters. If I'm going to watch a movie, I'm going to watch something made by a guy who bootstrapped his career with an OAV he made with his wife in his basement. Shame there's nothing like that I could watch.
Robot and Frank. Pretty good drama/comedy/science fiction type thing. The robot effects are very cheap (think: small person in a cardboard box) but the acting by all involved was good enough to carry the movie. Frank Langella is a very convincing old person. And somehow Liv Tyler still looks about 25, though I'm pretty sure she's old than I am.
The movie also seems to be stealing loads from a novel by Vernor Vinge called "Rainbows End". Both feature an old person with altsheimers, robots, and a library being closed and being replaced by an alternate reality version of the same thing.
As homework for a podcast with an Edgar Rice Burroughs expert (though talking about a different story) I watched John Carter (of Mars).
It looked amazing! The action was really good! The costume and set design was spot on! The creature animation was awesome! The overall story was a bit too complex, but there wasn't anything wrong with it.
And yet the entire movie left me bored and restless throughout.
The main problem was the casting and the actors. The only actor who looked like he knew what he was doing was Mark Strong, as the main bad guy. Nobody else seemed to understand what movie they were in.
And in this case, I've got to lay all the blame on the director. Andrew Stanton can get amazing performances out of CGI characters. For proof, look at Finding Nemo and Wall-E... and all of the CGI characters in John Carter! But with human actors you can't go back a few weeks later, once the scene is further along in production, and change the pacing or the wording or the facial expressions or anything at all. If you can't get a good performance on the day, you're stuck! Pickups can be done later in production, but it seemed like they only noticed that they didn't have the right takes well into post production.
For example, when the princess first shows up, she's doing a monologue directly into the camera. It turns out she's just practicing a speech for later, and is actually alone. Then she has to act into thin air for another 30 seconds before anyone else turns up. This is fine for Wall-E, where a whole team is bringing him to life. But the actor just didn't have what it takes to do that kind of thing off her own head. A character introduction like that is for acting greats, for Oscar winners, for stage actors who have been training for years and are doing that scene for months at a time.
Anyway, I think the whole movie would be improved if the humans on Mars were replaced by CGI characters like everyone else in the movie. Then Stanton could make them better actors and more likable, and I'd actually give a shit what happened to them for the rest of the movie.
Also the score wasn't very good. I guess that's what you get for having Michael Giacchino write music for you. Oh well.
I've watched it before, and it's still really good. It's one movie for the first three quarters, and then it turns into another movie for the last section. Both parts are good, but it's a very jarring transition.
And talking of scores, the music in Sunshine is awesome! I already own the soundtrack, so it got to me in a whole new way watching it this time. I've also noticed the music being reused in other movies, and also in a few trailers for different movies too. That's the sign of a good score!
It was the last Bond Night that a friend has been doing every Monday evening. Everyone got dressed up in tuxedos or cocktail dresses. It was really good fun.
The movie itself wasn't quite as good as I remember it from the cinema viewing. It felt really long, and quite silly in places. But the lighting is just amazing throughout. If something looks pretty, it's quite easy to forget that the plot doesn't really make sense. And it's good to get the whole team back together again, with Bond and M and Q and Moneypenny and Tanner all in place for their next adventure.
Went out to catch up on a couple summer movies, and decided on Now You See Me and Fast & Furious 6. Honestly, I loved Fast 5 for the level of stupid fun it achieved, so between the two, I was expecting to like it better based on the reviews.
As it turned out, Now You See Me had a lot more of the stupid fun I wanted, so I ended up liking it a lot better. It is not a great movie, and it might not even be a particularly good movie, but it is a fun movie, especially if you're like me and you like stage magic, plot twists, and the actors involved.
With Fast 6, I got the kind of action and fun I wanted during the spectacular tank sequence (which honestly could and should have been the actual climax). But then the film killed itself after that scene with an ending that was stupid and over-the-top even even for this franchise. Seriously, it was almost Man of Steel levels of frustrating for me, in the sense that its badly shot, tone deaf, dragging action made me keep mentally begging the movie to just end already.
Comments
I also saw Man of Steel yesterday. Good movie that I can recommend, primarily because of the action, the visuals of krypton/violence and the casting choices. However, there are big problems with the plot and storytelling because they want to question what Superman's morality would be...but Superman himself get to give his own opinion. Henry Cavill didn't make much of an impression on me, nor did Amy Adams, but I was really impressed with Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon.
It echoes of Batman Begins and Amazing Spiderman to it's benefit and detriment. If anything really failed for me, it was Jonathan Kent making really bad decisions and Snyder's strange sense of storytelling moving back and forth between his childhood and current life. It feels like a sense of time or learning is missing to an extent, especially with the message of the movie. Not to mention, I think the movie leaves too much unresolved in order for it to be answered in the next movie, especially with Superman and Zod's fight. I really loved the fight, but the scene right after that brought down the movie a few notches. I think this movie is on par with Iron Man 3 for me, where I did enjoy it especially as a viewing experience, but there were lots of annoying character choices and plot jumps.
I had rather low expectations already and I heard before that the general consensus it was really really mixed, but I have to go with the naysayers on this movie. Every aspect about this movie was train wreck to some extent. All the acting was hollow and I didn't feel anything from any character nor did I care about them, there was a unnecessarily ridiculous overuse of CG (which is one of Snyder's biggest problems in general), the pacing was utterly horrible and the movie just wouldn't end due mostly to how never-ending the action scenes were (not to mention how boring they got after a while), the cinematography and lighting looked really artificial (I could swear that 80% of it was done in post-production and they put the minimal amount of effort whilst shooting), and the storytelling/writing was convoluted, resorted to plot lines that were either tired or cliched, and didn't tell a clearly defined story.
This may sound like I'm being hyperbolic (as I admittedly get sometimes), but in all honesty, I'm really really not. I was angry, bored, and occasionally in pain the entire time. My family went to see it with me and they all had the same reaction I did, so I wasn't alone in my complaints. Any way you look at this movie, it is absolutely horrendous and I think it epitomizes a lot of the problems with Hollywood today in terms of "lets throw CG at every second to compensate for all our problems". To put it into perspective: Superman Returns was BETTER than this, and I never thought that would be possible. Again, I wish I was over-exaggerating; but I genuinely am not.
If you value your free time and want to get your money's worth, stay away from this movie like the plague; I beg of you. This was probably one of the poorest movies I've seen in quite some time.
I will say, I've read nothing of any Superman comics nor have watched the stand alone animated series. My only exposure to Superman is the Christopher Reeve's Superman and Justice League. I never found myself really trying to know more because he didn't seem as interesting or as cool as Batman.
I had a discussion with a friend, who loves to analyze movies, box office figures, and is into comic books. He described this version of Superman as not really a movie for the comic book fans, but for the normal type people. I think that's pretty succinct.
I liked this better than Superman Returns. I thought Zach Synder did a pretty good job, especially with pretty much no use of his signature slow-motion action sequences. However, he has turned to the use of the snap zoom technique like in Firefly.
I loved the CG. The world building and destruction of Krypton was fabulous. I wanted to know more about the technology, the wildlife, and overall way of life of the Krypton. I really enjoyed how they put more of Jor-El into the film. That was fairly clever.
I had no problem with the pacing and characters. The flashbacks of Clark's childhood help show his personal conflicts of whether or not he should reveal his strength. It overall showed how much more of a hard decision it was for him in the end for when he decided to kill Zod.
Also, I like how they didn't make Lois Lane dumb as a fucking post. I love Amy Adams and I like how in the ending she still knew Superman's identity. None of that bullshit kiss of forgetting. Also the use of his powers weren't overdone or over the top.
My only main gripe with this movie was the wanton destruction caused and created whenever Superman fought whatever villain. They really emphasized how he didn't want anyone to die, but it seemed pretty fucking apparent that innocent bystanders more than likely caught a bad one when a building was destroyed. There was no moment of Superman going, "Hey, there could be innocent people in that building. Perhaps with my super powers and agility I could change the momentum to go at a different angle so no one gets hurt."
Also I really liked Faora-Ul. What a cool badass female villain.
All in all, I would watch it again when it comes on Netflix or through other digital means. It's definitely no Chris Nolan Batman, but it's decent. I really don't look forward to seeing how WB tries to get a Justice League movie. I'm just not feeling it. Especially from what we've seen so far with Green Lantern. That shit was a mess.
And on a different movie, I watched Monsters U today. Seriously great prequel. The part with the clown jazz hands had me in tears. As for the short before the movie, The Blue Umbrella, I was a bit underwhelmed. Great animation as always, but the story was flat and is subpar after watching something like Paperman from Wreck-It Ralph. I felt they could have done something different.
In fact, excluding Day of the Dead which is almost all practical effects and Legend of the Guardians(which is 100% CG - we'll give it a pass, since without computer effects, it's a fucking radio drama), we have: 300(fair enough, the effects were a bit far out there), Watchmen(another movie about superheroes with crazy tech or powers going hog-wild, you really should expect effects there), and Sucker Punch(explicitly about a girl retreating into her fantasy dreams to escape a horrible reality), and the aforementioned flying-and-eyebeams movie.
While you're doubtless expressing your emotions and opinions on the topic quite well, I'm not entirely sure your expectations are realistic.
Zach Snyder has not once really came off as anything other than a special effects, big budget guy. I will contest with Sucker Punch and found him to be completely pretentious.
Churba pretty much broke down all of the stuff he's done. So what were you expecting? Most of the titles are based off of comics or books. If that's not what you like, then don't watch it.
1) WWZ
2) Star Trek II: Dark Boogaloo
3) Joss Whedon's new Shakespeare thing
Is there a reason I should see 1 or 2 instead of 3? I don't really want to see any, but that's not an option.
You have cool parents. Savor this sort of thing.
Edit: Also, what Ro said. Stop trying to be a jaded old man and enjoy the opportunity to see a good movie.
Robot and Frank. Pretty good drama/comedy/science fiction type thing. The robot effects are very cheap (think: small person in a cardboard box) but the acting by all involved was good enough to carry the movie. Frank Langella is a very convincing old person. And somehow Liv Tyler still looks about 25, though I'm pretty sure she's old than I am.
The movie also seems to be stealing loads from a novel by Vernor Vinge called "Rainbows End". Both feature an old person with altsheimers, robots, and a library being closed and being replaced by an alternate reality version of the same thing.
It looked amazing! The action was really good! The costume and set design was spot on! The creature animation was awesome! The overall story was a bit too complex, but there wasn't anything wrong with it.
And yet the entire movie left me bored and restless throughout.
The main problem was the casting and the actors. The only actor who looked like he knew what he was doing was Mark Strong, as the main bad guy. Nobody else seemed to understand what movie they were in.
And in this case, I've got to lay all the blame on the director. Andrew Stanton can get amazing performances out of CGI characters. For proof, look at Finding Nemo and Wall-E... and all of the CGI characters in John Carter! But with human actors you can't go back a few weeks later, once the scene is further along in production, and change the pacing or the wording or the facial expressions or anything at all. If you can't get a good performance on the day, you're stuck! Pickups can be done later in production, but it seemed like they only noticed that they didn't have the right takes well into post production.
For example, when the princess first shows up, she's doing a monologue directly into the camera. It turns out she's just practicing a speech for later, and is actually alone. Then she has to act into thin air for another 30 seconds before anyone else turns up. This is fine for Wall-E, where a whole team is bringing him to life. But the actor just didn't have what it takes to do that kind of thing off her own head. A character introduction like that is for acting greats, for Oscar winners, for stage actors who have been training for years and are doing that scene for months at a time.
Anyway, I think the whole movie would be improved if the humans on Mars were replaced by CGI characters like everyone else in the movie. Then Stanton could make them better actors and more likable, and I'd actually give a shit what happened to them for the rest of the movie.
Also the score wasn't very good. I guess that's what you get for having Michael Giacchino write music for you. Oh well.
I've watched it before, and it's still really good. It's one movie for the first three quarters, and then it turns into another movie for the last section. Both parts are good, but it's a very jarring transition.
And talking of scores, the music in Sunshine is awesome! I already own the soundtrack, so it got to me in a whole new way watching it this time. I've also noticed the music being reused in other movies, and also in a few trailers for different movies too. That's the sign of a good score!
It was the last Bond Night that a friend has been doing every Monday evening. Everyone got dressed up in tuxedos or cocktail dresses. It was really good fun.
The movie itself wasn't quite as good as I remember it from the cinema viewing. It felt really long, and quite silly in places. But the lighting is just amazing throughout. If something looks pretty, it's quite easy to forget that the plot doesn't really make sense. And it's good to get the whole team back together again, with Bond and M and Q and Moneypenny and Tanner all in place for their next adventure.
As it turned out, Now You See Me had a lot more of the stupid fun I wanted, so I ended up liking it a lot better. It is not a great movie, and it might not even be a particularly good movie, but it is a fun movie, especially if you're like me and you like stage magic, plot twists, and the actors involved.
With Fast 6, I got the kind of action and fun I wanted during the spectacular tank sequence (which honestly could and should have been the actual climax). But then the film killed itself after that scene with an ending that was stupid and over-the-top even even for this franchise. Seriously, it was almost Man of Steel levels of frustrating for me, in the sense that its badly shot, tone deaf, dragging action made me keep mentally begging the movie to just end already.