No, no the remake. I'm talking about the original from 1981.
Me and horror movies have sort of an agreement. I don't watch them and they let me sleep peacefully. But with the recent news of Poker Night 2, I figured I might want to get some background info on our Remington-wielding hero.
The film starts off like a typical B-Movie. A group of five teenagers (consisting of the crazy girl who's going to die first, the everyman hero, his girlfriend, the jackass who will get what's coming to him and HIS girlfriend) goes out to vacation at an old cabin in the woods, which is surrounded by Demons attracted to a mysterious creepy book with a face on it. What could possibly go wrong? Short answer:
80% of the cast ends up dead.
As the film begins, it takes a while for the horror of everything to sink in. There are jump scares abound and the required-by-law fake-out that's specifically designed to piss you off, plus the usual horror movie pitfall of characters who are literally too dumb to live. If don't care if it's dark out and you're in the woods, that's no excuse for forgetting how to stand up every five steps you take.
The set-up is simple, but the pay-off, all in all, is pretty impressive. The way that shots are set up, it's not always obvious what's going to happen next, which already puts it ahead of the curve as far as horror movies go.
The characters, for the most part, are pretty well done, even though they tend to border on the obvious side of stereotypical. The only character who really gets to make a lasting impression, however, is the hero, Ashley Williams. He's set up as an everyman, but as the movie goes on he slowly becomes the kicker of deadite ass that we tend to think of him as. I think the reason Ash has become so popular is become people can identify him almost instantly as the badass demon-killer from Evil Dead. Seriously, try to think of another actor who could pass physically AND vocally pass himself off as Bruce Campbell.
The movie is low-budget, but it's a well-done variety of low-budget. Every single prop and model is put to good use, and not a single scene is wasted on padding. My only real problem with the special effects is that I think they went a little overboard in the bloody basement scene. It's like they had a half tank of fake blood left and Sam Raimi said "just pour it all over the floor."
By the time the movie is over, you're left shocked, grossed out, and seriously unable to sleep, all of which are good signs that the movie did its job of scaring the crap out of you.
Overall, the movie is a bloody riot and incredibly enjoyable to watch. Be warned though, this is not a movie for the casual audience.
No, no the remake. I'm talking about the original from 1981.
Me and horror movies have sort of an agreement. I don't watch them and they let me sleep peacefully. But with the recent news of Poker Night 2, I figured I might want to get some background info on our Remington-wielding hero.
The original '81 film is a classic (and my personal favourite in the series) but if you really wanted to get to know the character of Ash, who'll appear in 'Poker Night 2' then you really should have watched 'Evil Dead 2'. The first film is a straight up horror, whereas it's the sequel (which you don't even have to have seen the original in order to follow the plot) is a comedy-horror and it's with that film (and its followup 'Army of Darkness') that the world was introduced to the character of Ash; badass deadite killer.
You don't know Ash, till you've seen him clip a chainsaw to his bloody stump and utter that immortal word - "Groovy".
Well, that was a surprise. I loved this film.The manic energy, the quick-fire pace of the jokes, the basic but well realized plot... I thought it was was a great film. Not exactly the most complex or insightful movie in the world, but I had a blast watching it and don't care about anyone else.
whereas it's the sequel (which you don't even have to have seen the original in order to follow the plot) is a comedy-horror
I think the term "Splatstick" is appropriate here.
(and its followup 'Army of Darkness')
Which you forget to mention is also itself largely yet another genre, in the vein of what you might call a classic and essentially family-friendly adventure with undead monsters.
Ash; badass deadite killer.
The guy you're talking to likely won't know the "deadite" nomenclature, since that name wasn't used until Army of Darkness.
I want to encourage everyone to go see the movie Home Run. It's an inspiring movie that I think especially those who are hurting (that is, everyone) should go see. Also, not that it matters, but I know quite a number of people who were involved in the making of the film.
Iron Man Three (according to the film certification at the start, that's how you spell it): 9/10.
Fantastic film from start to finish. If you're at all interested in the franchise, the actors or just good films in general, GO SEE THIS. It's everything good from the first two films with practically none of the bad stuff. RDJ is Iron Man.
I've heard he's lost any real character depth. The alcoholism and everything was ignored in favour of another generic super hero movie.
Keep in mind I wasn't a huge fan of The Avengers either. Again, lack of depth and substance was the culprit.
This isn't even a case of pleasing a die hard fan. I've never read a single Iron Man comic. Once you have a character established, and everything works so well like with Robert's portrayal, you've got to dig deeper by the third film. Even Robert wanted that... Yet they kept it simple and bland. I'm disappointed and so was he.
He's haunted by nightmares of what he did in Avengers, which causes him to not sleep and have panic attacks. So there's that aspect which crops up every now and again. But otherwise, yeah, there's not a huge amount of character development. But hey, there's cool action scenes with dudes in robot suits, so...
This is a movie that wears way too many hats. It starts to get good at dealing with one and then, BAM, okay, we're doing something else now. Okay. It tries to mean a lot of things and ends up meaning nothing much at all, while consistently being less funny than previous Iron Man films and previous Shane Black action-comedies. This is definitely a lower-tier Marvel film, though not bottom-tier(I doubt anything is ever going to be worse than Thor).
The "villain" is better than the villain. The villain is extremely boring and plain, the "villain" is really cool.
Also, they say Extremis weird.
And now it gives you fire powers I guess? Okay....
They never make it clear that
he uses it for a suit, which is sort of something they should have done with one of those cheesy "Hollywood reveals", with like his hand morphing into an armored glove or his spine glowing or something.
Instead I more or less have to fall back on my comics knowledge to understand what a very vague ending line even means.
Also, the end-credits sequence was inspired and fun and made me smile, but the after-credits scene was...disappointing.
Are you sure because I have at least half a dozen other issues that have gone into my train of thought since I posted that and I can totally expand on them.
She KNEW that plant was exploding. It wasn't even like, "Hey audience, this thing is doing a weird glowing thing, but the characters don't notice it." The thing BLOWS UP, and she's like "Yeah, that's a problem that I totally know about", and then later she's going forward with human trials, which has the SAME PROBLEM. If being explodey was still an issue, WHY THE HUMAN TRIALS?!
Are you sure because I have at least half a dozen other issues that have gone into my train of thought since I posted that and I can totally expand on them.
She KNEW that plant was exploding. It wasn't even like, "Hey audience, this thing is doing a weird glowing thing, but the characters don't notice it." The thing BLOWS UP, and she's like "Yeah, that's a problem that I totally know about", and then later she's going forward with human trials, which has the SAME PROBLEM. If being explodey was still an issue, WHY THE HUMAN TRIALS?!
Aldrich Killian and his think tank funded her but they called the shots on how it was used and he never listend to her though out the movie like when he tried to kill Stark when she said she needed him so it's likely he just ordered then to test on humans in trail and error with "The Mandarin" to cover it up.
I did have one big problem with the film
where the suits held together by gum or something!? Seriously count how many times one of those suits gets broken destroyed or comicly smashed! The final battle must have gone though like 8!...til he blew the rest up anyway.
Iron Man Three or All Cripples Are Evil, Let's Go Beat Up Comrade Pants
Cool, I finally saw it with the whole family. Hold your applause, I know you're all waiting eagerly for my words of wisdom. So how would I rank it among the others? I disagree with the dislike toward the movie. I really enjoyed this one. I kind of came away from it with a different overall impression than I have seen most people take.
Iron Man Three excels in a few ways. First, it beat Valve in the counting department. Second, it beat the trilogy curse. Third, I can count to three too. Valve - 0 Me - Okay, I'm stalling.
Are you telling me that the secret to fixing the genetic code of human beings can be written down on the back of a tiny notecard?
Why couldn't Maya Handjob figure it out on her own? She's the expert in the field, not Tony Stark. Is she really just a big, stupid idiot? The movie suggests this.
"If her project has a "glitch" why did she proceed with human trials" - Rather Dashing
Why did she take any interest in Killian whatsoever when she had a friend known as Tony Stark.
Why didn't she go to his home at any time to ask him for his help. Why did she wait so long to show up.
I'm glad Killian is ugly and nerdy at the beginning so we, the audience, can understand he's a misunderstood genius. It worked very well for Joel Shumacher's masterpiece Batman Forever as well.
When Happy was caught by Savin, you know the right hand bad guy guy, why did Happy just blurt out why he was there and what he was doing. That seems kind of stupid to me. If he hadn't done that, he wouldn't have gone from Happy....to Nappy. (is booed)
Why does Tony just blurt out where his home is on air to a terrorist, and then take no precautions whatsoever. Literally no precautions. Get the damn suits out on patrol. Set up an ambush. You frakkin idiot.
How is it possible to reconstruct a crime scene down to, literally, the rubble and location of the dog tags on the ground in proximity to Happy's pointed finger.
How come Tony didn't even notice the helicopters hanging out around his house. How come earlier the copters are close to his house and then later are shown flying toward it from farther away.
Where was SHIELD.
JARVIS isn't a moron. Why did he let Tony fly off to Tennessee. Why. Yeah it was the flight plan. Why didn't he change it. Why. I guess Jarvis is an idiot. Let's change Jarvis to Jar of Piss. Just a rather only-functional poorly implemented stupid system.
"We're connected" UGHHHHH.
The actress playing Brandt (chain to neck fire chick) was noticeably bad.
Where was SHIELD.
How does Harley survive on his own.
How will his mother react to a garage full of science gadgets.
If he becomes Iron Man Jr. I swear off Marvel.
Why did Tony build his suits out of explosive aluminum.
Where was SHIELD.
Where was Captain America. The President was kidnapped. Where was Captain America.
Why did Killian leave Trevor unguarded by actual Extremis mutants. Why. This is the dumbest move imaginable.
Why could Tony have the shrapnel removed. Why? WHY? WHYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!?
I can go on with complaints, but since you've read through them, I'll add that NONE OF THAT MATTERS. I don't care. A good chunk of complaints can be explained anyway. This movie reminded me of good action movies from the 80s like Die Hard and (shocker)Lethal Weapon. So with this one, I can shut my brain off and just enjoy it for once. And that's a rare thing nowadays. So in the series of substance-lite blockbuster Marvel superhero action movies, this one ranks up there rather high. In the top five at least.
And the amount of humor might turn some off, but I found it kind of enjoyably subversive.
Watched Fellowship of the Ring for the very first time. It was entertaining, and about a billion times more accessible than the book, which I have never managed to get more than twenty pages into without losing interest. (it's a travesty, I know) And now I know where Warhammer and D&D 'borrowed' or 'outright stole' most of their ideas from.
Well, I saw Iron Man 3. It was good, maybe even great. Last night I told Guru and Fawful what I would put in an Iron Man movie to make it interesting. Iron Man 3 had a large number of those things. On the one hand, I'm happy, on the other, that means my version of it can never be made because all those things happened in this movie so now I have to come up with a new dream movie.
JARVIS isn't a moron. Why did he let Tony fly off to Tennessee. Why. Yeah it was the flight plan. Why didn't he change it. Why. I guess Jarvis is an idiot. Let's change Jarvis to Jar of Piss. Just a rather only-functional poorly implemented stupid system.
I think that this is a set up for some future problems with Jarvis. I mean, Stark has been relying on Jarvis for the last two Iron Man movies and Avengers. Jarvis is practically his nanny at this point. He runs the suits, he runs the security, he keeps the calendar... everything.
And then at the end of the movie? Boom. Extremis. Tony doesn't need Jarvis to run the suit anymore. He can do it himself. You know what this says to me? Jarvis is being set up to be the next villain. Imagine, maybe he's been corrupted by something already which has made him screw up so many times and by the time the next movie rolls around, he might start going completely psycho. With control of all the suits, that AI could really become a force to be reckoned with, especially considering that he can essentially kidnap people in the suit and run off with them.
Where was SHIELD.
If I had to guess, they're probably busy dealing with that mysterious Council, or some other internal problems, most likely to be revealed in the TV show. They could also be trying to fix the helicarrier... which last time we saw it had suffered some severe structural damage, courtesy of Banner.
There, of course, is also the possibility that they were on the case, they just couldn't get there as fast as Tony could. I mean, they don't have cool rocket suits to go tooling around in.
Where was Captain America. The President was kidnapped. Where was Captain America.
Steve doesn't have any modern technology. At the end of Avengers, he just took off on a motorcycle to god knows where, without any way of communicating with the rest of the world. He probably saw the whole snafu on TV, but I imagine that even if he rode his motorcycle as fast as possible back to protect the president, he wouldn't have made it in time. Maybe the start of the Captain America movie will show him arriving in Washington DC a week after the whole affair is over, and then get back on his motorcycle.
The more appropriate question is: why didn't Stark call Banner and say, "Hey dude, party on a yacht, I need you to smash a bunch of genetically altered weirdos!"?
I mean, Banner could certainly get there in time, as he was in New York and can leap tall buildings in a single bound. And was in a place that had a phone that Stark knew the number to. Though, I think the answer to this one is that Tony just needed to do this by himself. He can't always have someone catch him when he's falling out of space. Sometimes, he needs to do the catching.
Well, that and it probably wouldn't be a good idea to advertise that he's got an unstable ragemonster man chilling out in his penthouse apartment. That's probably the main reason, actually.
Though I totally am in agreement about the suits that have the structural integrity as LEGOs. Maybe that was to promote the new line of Marvel superhero LEGOs or something. Seriously, it was probably a good idea to scrap the lot. I mean, if a regular guy with some fancy brain stuff can rip apart a Hulkbuster suit... I think the suit has more or less failed in it's ability to bust Hulk.
Though I totally am in agreement about the suits that have the structural integrity as LEGOs. Maybe that was to promote the new line of Marvel superhero LEGOs or something. Seriously, it was probably a good idea to scrap the lot. I mean, if a regular guy with some fancy brain stuff can rip apart a Hulkbuster suit... I think the suit has more or less failed in it's ability to bust Hulk.
I'd imagine that if there was an actual person inside the suits, they'd have a lot more structural integrity due to having an actual solid mass to be attached to. If something's hollow, it's always going to be less stable.
Green Lantern: Extended Cut - 7/10... for what it is
The movie is fine. It's serviceable. It has fewer plot holes than most superhero movies, hell, most Marvel superhero movies. The CGI is horrendously shitty, and somewhere the movie stops looking good. Seriously, the first half looks great, although the color palette is shit. I enjoyed it well enough. It didn't really annoy me much.
It's not a special movie by any means. It doesn't do anything memorable with its universe or characters. It hits all the typical beats this sort of movie hits. But it's not even close to the worst set of superhero movies I've ever seen. It's not the horrendous cancer I'd been led to believe. I'd put it in the same category/ranking as Thor, with Thor only really beating it out with a better villain.
Now that that's out of the way, I enjoyed the film and don't think it's a "rip-off" like some Trekkies probably will. The original cast did a fantastic job as per usual, with Simon Pegg really getting a chance to shine as Scotty, Alice Eve fit in really well with the crew as Dr. Carol Marcus(not spoiler tagging that cause it's pretty damn obvious), and Benedict Cumberbatch...well, wow. The man makes a very charismatic villain. I would almost go gay for that voice. The only real gripe I have with the movie is
the poor USS Enterprise gets beat to hell and doesn't even get a shot off before her weapons are taken out. Next movie better have some more even ground.
The special effects were great, the sets were great, the music was great, the references to other Trek were great(Admiral Marcus's office had models of the XCV Enterprise, Zefram Cochrane's Phoenix, the NX-Alpha prototype, the Enterprise NX-01, and the Kelvin), and even another reference that I wasn't expecting that may have been coincidental:
McCoy to a revived Kirk: "Don't be overdramatic. You were only mostly dead." Princess Bride, anyone?
One more spoiler before I give my preliminary rating:
I was grinning like an idiot during the final scene when Kirk delivered the "Space, the final frontier" speech and the Enterprise warped off on her five year mission.
So, my preliminary rating, which could change after seeing it in the theater at least one more time: 9/10 Not perfect, but pretty damn good and if you pay attention, a good allegory for things happening in our world today.
That final speech sounded prrrrettty bad in the German version.
Still, Star Trek: Into Darkness 8.5/10
The action barrage notwithstanding, almost every character got his/her moment to shine, and they were all so wonderfully 'in character'. There was a 'too much action' nod off moment for me unfortunately, but it was right before the really big shock. And interestingly, precisely because that big shock moment was an actual reference to the original movies, it was a really moving and believable occurence. Well done, really well done.
Oh, and well done Noel Clarke. He got a lot communicated in that pretty short scene and those two short sentences of his. But I guess he isn't exactly 'lost' to Star Trek right now. :rolleyes:
That final speech sounded prrrrettty bad in the German version.
Still, Star Trek: Into Darkness 8.5/10
The action barrage notwithstanding, almost every character got his/her moment to shine, and they were all so wonderfully 'in character'. There was a 'too much action' nod off moment for me unfortunately, but it was right before the really big shock. And interestingly, precisely because that big shock moment was an actual reference to the original movies, it was a really moving and believable occurence. Well done, really well done.
Oh, and well done Noel Clarke. He got a lot communicated in that pretty short scene and those two short sentences of his. But I guess he isn't exactly 'lost' to Star Trek right now. :rolleyes:
Noel Clarke did a really good job with what little he was given, he really sold that part.
Upstream Color. I can't really give it a number or letter grade because I don't even know if I really understood it. But I sure as hell felt it, and loved it. For fans of Kubrick, Malick, and truly independent and experimental cinema. Like Shane Carruth's previous film Primer, multiple viewings are pretty much a requirement. Which is why I bought it yesterday.
Now I just need to get around to reading Walden.
I liked it in the theater. Then I came out of the theater and asked myself
"Why the fuck was Dr. McCoy injecting a Tribble with Khan's blood in the first place? WHAT SCIENTIFIC SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? Is this some kind of sick hobby where he just injects dead things with other things blood? Why did he inject the entire sample? Why didn't he look at it under a microscope? Do they not have microscopes in the twenty-third century anymore? What about sequencing? How would the blood do anything at all anyways as there's no DNA in blood cells? Was it magic?"
and the movie fell apart from there.
Still decent enough as the acting was pretty good and it's always great to see Harold driving a starship, but does not suffer poking well.
Comments
No, no the remake. I'm talking about the original from 1981.
Me and horror movies have sort of an agreement. I don't watch them and they let me sleep peacefully. But with the recent news of Poker Night 2, I figured I might want to get some background info on our Remington-wielding hero.
The film starts off like a typical B-Movie. A group of five teenagers (consisting of the crazy girl who's going to die first, the everyman hero, his girlfriend, the jackass who will get what's coming to him and HIS girlfriend) goes out to vacation at an old cabin in the woods, which is surrounded by Demons attracted to a mysterious creepy book with a face on it. What could possibly go wrong? Short answer:
As the film begins, it takes a while for the horror of everything to sink in. There are jump scares abound and the required-by-law fake-out that's specifically designed to piss you off, plus the usual horror movie pitfall of characters who are literally too dumb to live. If don't care if it's dark out and you're in the woods, that's no excuse for forgetting how to stand up every five steps you take.
The set-up is simple, but the pay-off, all in all, is pretty impressive. The way that shots are set up, it's not always obvious what's going to happen next, which already puts it ahead of the curve as far as horror movies go.
The characters, for the most part, are pretty well done, even though they tend to border on the obvious side of stereotypical. The only character who really gets to make a lasting impression, however, is the hero, Ashley Williams. He's set up as an everyman, but as the movie goes on he slowly becomes the kicker of deadite ass that we tend to think of him as. I think the reason Ash has become so popular is become people can identify him almost instantly as the badass demon-killer from Evil Dead. Seriously, try to think of another actor who could pass physically AND vocally pass himself off as Bruce Campbell.
The movie is low-budget, but it's a well-done variety of low-budget. Every single prop and model is put to good use, and not a single scene is wasted on padding. My only real problem with the special effects is that I think they went a little overboard in the bloody basement scene. It's like they had a half tank of fake blood left and Sam Raimi said "just pour it all over the floor."
By the time the movie is over, you're left shocked, grossed out, and seriously unable to sleep, all of which are good signs that the movie did its job of scaring the crap out of you.
Overall, the movie is a bloody riot and incredibly enjoyable to watch. Be warned though, this is not a movie for the casual audience.
Final Score: 8/10
The original '81 film is a classic (and my personal favourite in the series) but if you really wanted to get to know the character of Ash, who'll appear in 'Poker Night 2' then you really should have watched 'Evil Dead 2'. The first film is a straight up horror, whereas it's the sequel (which you don't even have to have seen the original in order to follow the plot) is a comedy-horror and it's with that film (and its followup 'Army of Darkness') that the world was introduced to the character of Ash; badass deadite killer.
You don't know Ash, till you've seen him clip a chainsaw to his bloody stump and utter that immortal word - "Groovy".
Well, that was a surprise. I loved this film.The manic energy, the quick-fire pace of the jokes, the basic but well realized plot... I thought it was was a great film. Not exactly the most complex or insightful movie in the world, but I had a blast watching it and don't care about anyone else.
The guy you're talking to likely won't know the "deadite" nomenclature, since that name wasn't used until Army of Darkness.
You mean like he does in... oops, almost spoiled it.
I liked it, but that's the unpopular opinion.
Crazy, simple film. Think I got it for 5 bucks or something. Well worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se3L51jHIos
I love film noir.
Fantastic film from start to finish. If you're at all interested in the franchise, the actors or just good films in general, GO SEE THIS. It's everything good from the first two films with practically none of the bad stuff. RDJ is Iron Man.
Keep in mind I wasn't a huge fan of The Avengers either. Again, lack of depth and substance was the culprit.
This isn't even a case of pleasing a die hard fan. I've never read a single Iron Man comic. Once you have a character established, and everything works so well like with Robert's portrayal, you've got to dig deeper by the third film. Even Robert wanted that... Yet they kept it simple and bland. I'm disappointed and so was he.
This is a movie that wears way too many hats. It starts to get good at dealing with one and then, BAM, okay, we're doing something else now. Okay. It tries to mean a lot of things and ends up meaning nothing much at all, while consistently being less funny than previous Iron Man films and previous Shane Black action-comedies. This is definitely a lower-tier Marvel film, though not bottom-tier(I doubt anything is ever going to be worse than Thor).
The "villain" is better than the villain. The villain is extremely boring and plain, the "villain" is really cool.
Also, they say Extremis weird.
And now it gives you fire powers I guess? Okay....
They never make it clear that
Also, the end-credits sequence was inspired and fun and made me smile, but the after-credits scene was...disappointing.
Let's see Tony Stark top THAT.
I did have one big problem with the film
Cool, I finally saw it with the whole family. Hold your applause, I know you're all waiting eagerly for my words of wisdom. So how would I rank it among the others? I disagree with the dislike toward the movie. I really enjoyed this one. I kind of came away from it with a different overall impression than I have seen most people take.
Iron Man Three excels in a few ways. First, it beat Valve in the counting department. Second, it beat the trilogy curse. Third, I can count to three too. Valve - 0 Me - Okay, I'm stalling.
Why couldn't Maya Handjob figure it out on her own? She's the expert in the field, not Tony Stark. Is she really just a big, stupid idiot? The movie suggests this.
"If her project has a "glitch" why did she proceed with human trials" - Rather Dashing
Why did she take any interest in Killian whatsoever when she had a friend known as Tony Stark.
Why didn't she go to his home at any time to ask him for his help. Why did she wait so long to show up.
I'm glad Killian is ugly and nerdy at the beginning so we, the audience, can understand he's a misunderstood genius. It worked very well for Joel Shumacher's masterpiece Batman Forever as well.
When Happy was caught by Savin, you know the right hand bad guy guy, why did Happy just blurt out why he was there and what he was doing. That seems kind of stupid to me. If he hadn't done that, he wouldn't have gone from Happy....to Nappy. (is booed)
Why does Tony just blurt out where his home is on air to a terrorist, and then take no precautions whatsoever. Literally no precautions. Get the damn suits out on patrol. Set up an ambush. You frakkin idiot.
How is it possible to reconstruct a crime scene down to, literally, the rubble and location of the dog tags on the ground in proximity to Happy's pointed finger.
How come Tony didn't even notice the helicopters hanging out around his house. How come earlier the copters are close to his house and then later are shown flying toward it from farther away.
Where was SHIELD.
JARVIS isn't a moron. Why did he let Tony fly off to Tennessee. Why. Yeah it was the flight plan. Why didn't he change it. Why. I guess Jarvis is an idiot. Let's change Jarvis to Jar of Piss. Just a rather only-functional poorly implemented stupid system.
"We're connected" UGHHHHH.
The actress playing Brandt (chain to neck fire chick) was noticeably bad.
Where was SHIELD.
How does Harley survive on his own.
How will his mother react to a garage full of science gadgets.
If he becomes Iron Man Jr. I swear off Marvel.
Why did Tony build his suits out of explosive aluminum.
Where was SHIELD.
Where was Captain America. The President was kidnapped. Where was Captain America.
Why did Killian leave Trevor unguarded by actual Extremis mutants. Why. This is the dumbest move imaginable.
Why could Tony have the shrapnel removed. Why? WHY? WHYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!?
I can go on with complaints, but since you've read through them, I'll add that NONE OF THAT MATTERS. I don't care. A good chunk of complaints can be explained anyway. This movie reminded me of good action movies from the 80s like Die Hard and (shocker)Lethal Weapon. So with this one, I can shut my brain off and just enjoy it for once. And that's a rare thing nowadays. So in the series of substance-lite blockbuster Marvel superhero action movies, this one ranks up there rather high. In the top five at least.
And the amount of humor might turn some off, but I found it kind of enjoyably subversive.
I enjoyed it.
As problems go... not so bad.
And Fawful, can't answer all your questions but:
And then at the end of the movie? Boom. Extremis. Tony doesn't need Jarvis to run the suit anymore. He can do it himself. You know what this says to me? Jarvis is being set up to be the next villain. Imagine, maybe he's been corrupted by something already which has made him screw up so many times and by the time the next movie rolls around, he might start going completely psycho. With control of all the suits, that AI could really become a force to be reckoned with, especially considering that he can essentially kidnap people in the suit and run off with them.
There, of course, is also the possibility that they were on the case, they just couldn't get there as fast as Tony could. I mean, they don't have cool rocket suits to go tooling around in.
The more appropriate question is: why didn't Stark call Banner and say, "Hey dude, party on a yacht, I need you to smash a bunch of genetically altered weirdos!"?
I mean, Banner could certainly get there in time, as he was in New York and can leap tall buildings in a single bound. And was in a place that had a phone that Stark knew the number to. Though, I think the answer to this one is that Tony just needed to do this by himself. He can't always have someone catch him when he's falling out of space. Sometimes, he needs to do the catching.
Well, that and it probably wouldn't be a good idea to advertise that he's got an unstable ragemonster man chilling out in his penthouse apartment. That's probably the main reason, actually.
Though I totally am in agreement about the suits that have the structural integrity as LEGOs. Maybe that was to promote the new line of Marvel superhero LEGOs or something. Seriously, it was probably a good idea to scrap the lot. I mean, if a regular guy with some fancy brain stuff can rip apart a Hulkbuster suit... I think the suit has more or less failed in it's ability to bust Hulk.
Good movie. Good plot. Another womanly villain. (What, that guy with the lollipop in Iron Man 2 wasn’t enough?)
Green Lantern: Extended Cut - 7/10... for what it is
The movie is fine. It's serviceable. It has fewer plot holes than most superhero movies, hell, most Marvel superhero movies. The CGI is horrendously shitty, and somewhere the movie stops looking good. Seriously, the first half looks great, although the color palette is shit. I enjoyed it well enough. It didn't really annoy me much.
It's not a special movie by any means. It doesn't do anything memorable with its universe or characters. It hits all the typical beats this sort of movie hits. But it's not even close to the worst set of superhero movies I've ever seen. It's not the horrendous cancer I'd been led to believe. I'd put it in the same category/ranking as Thor, with Thor only really beating it out with a better villain.
Boring.
Wait there's an EXTENDED CUT?! When did this come out??
And seriously...I do not understand the flak that this movie got. I enjoyed it.
It adds ten minutes of beginning scenes. They only add material to Hal Jordan's family history, nothing more.
Oh. So extra of the kinda boring character crap, not the actual Green Lantern stuff. Never mind then.
It's one of the better ones. Much better than the last two anyway. I'd say the series gradually degraded with every movie.
Now that that's out of the way, I enjoyed the film and don't think it's a "rip-off" like some Trekkies probably will. The original cast did a fantastic job as per usual, with Simon Pegg really getting a chance to shine as Scotty, Alice Eve fit in really well with the crew as Dr. Carol Marcus(not spoiler tagging that cause it's pretty damn obvious), and Benedict Cumberbatch...well, wow. The man makes a very charismatic villain. I would almost go gay for that voice. The only real gripe I have with the movie is
So, my preliminary rating, which could change after seeing it in the theater at least one more time: 9/10 Not perfect, but pretty damn good and if you pay attention, a good allegory for things happening in our world today.
Still, Star Trek: Into Darkness 8.5/10
The action barrage notwithstanding, almost every character got his/her moment to shine, and they were all so wonderfully 'in character'. There was a 'too much action' nod off moment for me unfortunately, but it was right before the really big shock. And interestingly, precisely because that big shock moment was an actual reference to the original movies, it was a really moving and believable occurence. Well done, really well done.
Oh, and well done Noel Clarke. He got a lot communicated in that pretty short scene and those two short sentences of his. But I guess he isn't exactly 'lost' to Star Trek right now. :rolleyes:
Noel Clarke did a really good job with what little he was given, he really sold that part.
Now I just need to get around to reading Walden.
Re-watched in preparation for...
Star Trek: Into Darkness - 8/10
I enjoyed it a great deal, even if the
Eh, whatever. Great film.
I got no fancy word to describe how good this movie was.
I liked it in the theater. Then I came out of the theater and asked myself
Still decent enough as the acting was pretty good and it's always great to see Harold driving a starship, but does not suffer poking well.