The Movie Review Thread

[nmboltsfan]

Originally Posted by Mifune

For all the fun things the new Spiderman did, it really hurt me that the grand conclusion ultimately came down to a countdown release of the serum. And for such a genius scientist, he sure fell privy to undeveloped emotions with the depth of a kiddie pool. Oh gosh, humans are pathetic! Let me now release this serum to convert them into ADVANCED LIZARDS, because you know, I spent my life trying to develop mutagenic regeneration to benefit humankind.

I wonder why writers can't relate to humans in the most fundamental ways. They seem to only really focus on plot advances and how characters can sustain such progresses. It'd be nice if the villain could be a reasonable fellow who isn't strictly evil for the sake of being evil.

I mean, that's kind of the thing with most antagonists? They can't relate, they're outsiders. There's something off about them.

Originally Posted by WootMonkey

Spiderman sucks and has always sucked. His story is cliche and uninteresting and most of his villains are lame.

That felt good.

Aren't all hero stories cliche? They can't not be. It's a genre.

[crixus]

The History Channel aired the Hatfields & McCoys again last week. It's an awesome movie that I highly recommend.

[LongTimeOCBolts]

Originally Posted by crixus

The History Channel aired the Hatfields & McCoys again last week. It's an awesome movie that I highly recommend.

I saw that on the first go-round. I endorse it, too.

[Mifune]

Originally Posted by nmboltsfan

I mean, that's kind of the thing with most antagonists? They can't relate, they're outsiders. There's something off about them.

That's a different scenario. This antagonist here was actually a decent guy, and his descent into villainy was brought on by a number of factors that showcased rather facile emotions, due to the disconnect between feel and do. What I mean is that, we're not shown why he becomes nutty, but rather told. Or if anything, we're not shown enough on an intrinsic level.

Take for instance the Joker in TDK. He's clearly insane and it feeds into his enigmatic character. He tells his tales to incite fear that give us some background into what could have shaped his character, and even then he's lying and telling different tales of how he procured the facial scars. We're not directly learning why he is that way, thus retaining the important mysterious nature of the villain while implying the things that might've warped him.

Anyway, background on the villain changes the landscape. If we're to know who he is and what kind of guy prior to his descent, it better be well executed. When it revolves around him obsessed with his lack of arm and the demanding corp putting its interests before his personal ones, so much that he becomes ENRAGED and uses the mutation TO CHANGE HUMANITY just 'cause stronger is good, well, he's a very silly lizard scientist.

So I guess it really isn't about a lack of show, but more just it being a stupid setup. If you can't develop a villain with some ingenuity, just let him be arcane.

[WootMonkey]

Originally Posted by nmboltsfan

Aren't all hero stories cliche? They can't not be. It's a genre.

There are ways to do it that don't suck. Nolan's Batmans are a great example.

Spiderman has been just a bland hero (for me anyways) all the way back to his comics.

[WootMonkey]

Rented Lawless last night. Wasn't all that great.

[Tjchargerfan]

Finally saw Skyfall, great movie, Judi Dench is great in M´s swang song, Q is back and is accordingly with the 21st century as is the new Moneypenny, but I am old, although I figured out Eve´s place in the franchise it was somewhat late, as for Ralph Fiennes, at first i thought him as the mole, but as the movie progressed with his last name, the way he defended M both as a politician and physicly, and with some of his backstory revealed, and the decision to help M and Bond, him looking aged and the reciding hairline, he looked like Bernard Lee and he is now M, down right to the Bernard Lee office, and he plays M like he is suposed to, a maste spy who knows how to deal with the politicians and burocracy; too bad they did not get Sean Connery to play McKade it would have been full circle; the reeboot is complete.

Come 007 there´s much work to be done.

[chargertom]

tbab;dr

[LongTimeOCBolts]

Originally Posted by WootMonkey

Rented Lawless last night. Wasn't all that great.

I disagree on this one.

I loved this movie -- not because it had some super cool plot, but because it was gritty, and most importantly, I thought the acting was phenomenal.

Man, Tom Hardy is FINALLY an actor who is believable as a tough guy.

[LongTimeOCBolts]

That reminded me -- if you didn't see Warrior, you should.

Another Tom Hardy movie -- I've seen it twice, and caught the second half for a third time last week when it was on HBO.

Funny, cause I had never even heard of it when it came out. Sort of thought when I saw the title later that it must be just another dumb action movie. But far from that, it was really good.