But... then I won't understand the plot or what crucial developments happen to the charact...
Seriously though, does the Rifftrax make New Moon vaguely survivable?
I tried to get through New Moon with Rifftrax. I'll probably try again someday. But I couldn't do it. Their Twilight Rifftrax is a classic, though. New Moon is just insufferably boring and dull and terrible.
He killed Doomsday. And in an alternate universe, he killed Zod and his followers after they killed pretty much everyone else in that universe. Superman has always been the kind to look for another solution wherever possible. I don't think there was one in the situation in Man of Steel.
Speaking of, I'm not sure which movie is my favorite summer movie now, Star Trek or Man of Steel, but I thoroughly enjoyed Man of Steel.
I'll say this. Into Darkness did try to keep me on my toes, but I had already read spoilers before hand. Man of Steel, I knew certain things were going to happen, but it did surprise me in one instance,
Superman killing Zod in order to save that family. By the way, it did kind of bug me that some kid behind me, not sure of his age, was saying, "Just kill him!"
. I think Into Darkness had the better villain, but Man of Steel had a nice big climax of awesomeness. Really hard to compare the two, especially since I can't see them back-to-back, so until they're both out on Blu-Ray, I think they'll be about even.
Ehh... It was okay, but there were several times throughout the movie where there was no music in the background when there ought to have been.
For example, when they are at the reaping (the event where tributes are chosen), there is no music whatsoever to set the mood. None. No upswell of emotional music when
Prim is chosen
; and not when everyone holds their fingers up in salute/defiance.
There is music sometimes, but other times there is not and those times fail to bring emotion to the audience that they are supposed to have.
I only saw the movie once, but I was under the impression was that the lack of music was intentional, to really make that early part of the movie seem more desolate.
Though, really, sometimes music can save scenes.
I think Hunger Games was a movie primarily created to give a audio-visual representation of the books. In this respect, it succeeded, since it was very accurate to the source material, and obviously created by people who really cared about getting things right. Where it failed was in the type of narrative they chose to pursue. The creators were so intent on creating the most accurate novel representation, that they didn't really think about what makes a good film. Sometimes, in order to make a good film, you need to significantly change things from the books. Some things work wonderfully on paper but just aren't as powerful on screen and vice versa.
However, given I enjoyed the books, I found the film relatively harmless and enjoyable. Yes, it wasn't memorable, I won't look back on it with fond memories or buy every DVD copy I can get my hands on, but I certainly didn't feel insulted by it. I do think that they should have started out by thinking about the message the books were trying to portray and focused more on getting the same message into the movie, even at the expense of some of the plot detail.
I hate to say it, but I also cried during the movie. Here's what I posted on Facebook about it to a friend of mine in Kansas.
Yes. It had some missteps, but...you have no idea how hard this is for me to put into words so soon. This is a movie that, if someone wanted to, would be VERY easy to tear down. Okay? VERY easy. And I could probably write an entire essay on it. I'm still figuring out what I thought of everything. But I also think tearing this movie down is going the easy route. I'm also tired of tearing movies down lately. It's just so easy.
The movie is different, and odd. I'm so used to Donner Superman, and animated Superman, that modern comics Superman on the screen was literally jarring. This Superman feels like an alien, and it was very, very, very odd. I'm not used to a Superman that doesn't feel human. There were shades of The Day The Earth Stood Still here. ad Superman is incredibly hard to relate to if you don't come at him from the right angle. This movie explores the right angle. Which is that Superman is a Kansas-raised farm boy with Midwestern ideals and belief systems, who also happens to have powers. You might find that close to home somewhat. Especially the powers part, since you're basically a superhero yourself.
Superman's relationship with Pa Kent is very well done. I have a friend who would disagree here, but I thought it was spot on. Kevin Costner is the man. He's protective, and he really sells himself as a Midwestern father struggling with his own beliefs and worldviews in relation to his new son. It's a powerful portrayal, with some very brave, very odd choices that will make you say "WHAT IS THAT" if you don't stop to think about it first. Kevin Costner's portrayal got me in tears. I was shocked at first, but then I realized using Costner to generate emotion is almost unfair.
The entire movie is so emotional it's not funny. There are...three jokes in the whole movie? This will be very polarizing to people who want an upbeat Superman. This Superman is upbeat in terms of an ideal, a very Nolanesque story beat. Although in Batman the ideal to aspire to concept was tragic where this one is filled with hope. It's a neat contrast. The entire movie is polarizing. The movie makes choices that will piss off comic book fans. Donnerverse fans are already angry.
I came close to tears on a few occasions, and the movie got me in tears twice. I can't believe how effective it was. I'm still questioning myself because superhero movies do not bring out emotion like that in me ever. Maybe I'm easier than I think? I say that because it still doesn't make sense to me that I got teary-eyed at this at all. But there are effective scenes. Perry White got a scene that got me to cry for crying out loud. Friggin PERRY WHITE. EVEN ZOD CRIES IN THIS MOVIE FOR A GOOD REASON. FEELS FEELS EVERYWHERE.
Zod is...I can't believe I'm saying this....a well done villain. I HATE ZOD AS A CHARACTER. I'm not a big fan of him even in this as a choice, but for what they did, they did a great job with him. They did some things with his character I didn't expect, such as giving him a belief in a Kryptonian master bloodline-master race-Kryptonian version of Arianism, which was different. Yet they didn't take the easy route and then also make him space Hitler. Instead they made him a monster with a relatable internal misery. I didn't expect that. There are some dumb, laughable choices with Zod too, though.
Some of the dialog is bad. MOST of it is great. But they do do that thing where they have to literally explain what things are in dialog because the audience is too stupid to get it. The words "What's terraforming" are uttered. The words "They hacked into the RSS feeds" are uttered. It's COMPLETE BULLSHIT and I hate it when movies do that. There are also some odd editing choices, with quick cuts to new areas and scenes instead of showing how characters got there. I disliked that too.
Krypton's design is neat, BUT EASY TO TEAR DOWN if you want to. It has creatures that I swear might as well have been pulled straight from Avatar's CGI archives, and the Kryptonian technology is weird and nonsensical at times. I'm not a fan of the artificial intelligence present in the movie, but I guess it might be their way of leading into Brainiac which I am a fan of. Jor-El has a ton of screentime and kicks ASS. He kicks tons of ass even after he's dead! TONS AND TONS OF ASS KICKING! It's no surprise Russell Crowe signed on to this. Costner too. They both do an amazing job.
There was one action scene I hated, which involved tentacles and it looked so stupid, but it was cut together with a scene that made me cry, so I'm torn there. Most of the action was intense, EASY TO SEE SCREW YOU MICHAEL BAY, brutal, and fast. There was even an on-screen tearing apart of a human resulting in a massive blood spray which shocked me. The movie takes some cues from Avengers, but is on so many steroids it overdoses. Zod kills hundreds of thousands of people battling Superman over the course of the film. Skyscrapers are leveled. People are horrifically killed. Things turn apocalyptic, Zod wrecks shit so bad. A good part of the emotion comes from just how high the stakes are, and how hard on the characters the movie is. This movie is BRUTAL to its characters.
If I had another complaint.....there is one stupid joke, which is in the trailers, and the CGI is really spotty at parts. It's tough not to spoil more, but I could probably argue any complaints you might have, and you probably will because the movie does open up for complaints and there are some missteps.
But...I cried....and for that to happen, I have to evaluate the film's merits. There are some seriously dumb moments, but they're few and far between. Honestly, this movie is subjective. This is a movie that will get a different reaction from everyone. If you watch it, I can definitely get more in depth on problems and merits, but for now I do think it's worth seeing.
I cried when Krypton died.
I cried during the tornado.
I cried during the robot tentacle scene.
I cried when Superman made his final decision.
I cried when Zod made his confession behind his purpose for being.
I cried when Superman was finding the joy of flying for pete's sake.
Damn this movie.
(I don't want to add another '10/10' to the ever-growing number of them that are popping up in this thread, but on this occasion, I have no other choice.)
Mad Max - 10/10
I hadn't ever seen the original film before yesterday. I'm glad I finally got around to watching it, though, because it really, really lived up to its reputation. It's one of those gems that actually deserves its cult following.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly what's so great about the film. It has some great villains, some really colourful characters, some exciting action scenes, excellent pacing, and a very good script. But, I think the thing that endeared it to me so much was the genuineness of the film. It's not overly flashy, or showy, or pretentious, nor is it overly unbelievable; it feels real, it feels honest, and it feels very down-to-earth. In that sense, it actually feels like a reflection of Australia itself at the time of production. It displays the classic Australian attitude and culture, but does so in a way that doesn't make it feel wank-y or intentionally advertising.
It exhibits a unique, undeniably Australian vibe, but it doesn't draw attention to that aspect, since that's not the actual purpose of the film (unlike some embarrassing Australian films); the intention of the film is merely to tell a good story, tell it well, tell it honestly, and move the audience. And, in the process, the team behind it crafted a 100% authentic piece of film-making which ended up being much more than the sum of its parts.
Okay, I went in prepared to hate this movie, given my first attempt at watching it... and I didn't. Turns out the first half hour was kinda the worst part of the movie (in my opinion) and it picked up as the film progressed. In terms of the look, general feel, and Jennifer Garner as Betty Ross, it's a superior film to Incredible Hulk. However, I would rate the overall experience as being roughly equal due to some really bizarre scene change animations that looked like they were lifted out of a Power Point presentation, the distracting comic panel layout (which was incredibly difficult to take in when they included the same person from different angles), the beginning, which dragged its feet, and David Banner.
My main issues are with the last two points, mainly because they irritate me as a Hulk fan. First of all, Bruce Banner's father's name was Brian, not David. I don't know why this annoys me as much as it does, but... it does. Secondly, while the man did experiment on Bruce and abuse him canonically (and kill his mother in front of him), and was kinda insane, Bruce never really forgot his father, he simply refused to acknowledge that the man was anything less than a saint until the admission was almost literally dragged out of him kicking and screaming. Even after he killed him.
Which leads me to my third point. In the comics, the confrontation between the two is possibly the most anti-climactic thing you could imagine in a comic about a guy who turns into a giant green rage monster. And it's brilliant. Because after years of emotional repression and having this intense mental image of his father being this horrific monster, Banner accidentally runs into the man while visiting his mother's grave. They, of course, argue and then fight, and Banner just pushes him over, he cracks his head on a headstone and dies.
In short, I kinda felt robbed of that sort of thing with him having superpowers.
Okay, things I liked. I really liked the way they animated Hulk. It's waaaaaay better than the Norton version, but not as good as the Avengers one, so in this middle ground. I liked how they incorporated Bana's facial structure into the animation (which they didn't even attempt to do in the Norton version). I wasn't a fan of the shake and bake second transformation, but the third one was fantastic.
The tank battle as well, it really felt like something out of the early comics, and strangely enough, it was nice to see that the destruction wasn't actually hurting the soldiers, because, in my opinion, that's a pretty big part of the Hulk's character, smashing property, not people. I liked how he wasn't always moving as well... somehow that suited the tone of the film better, that he was more or less harmless unless provoked. From what I remember, there wasn't a single fight in the film that he actually started, which was very in character.
I really liked Jennifer Garner as Betty Ross. She was infinitely better than Liv Tyler, who gets the award as the least convincing scientist ever, and she also sold me on being from a military family. Something about being straight-laced and determined... she could have practically put on a uniform herself. Eric Bana was... okay, I suppose. I wasn't very impressed at the beginning but I can't tell if that was Bana's fault or the really dumb lines he was saying totally straight at the beginning. I think they were meant to be sarcastic, which, if they'd been done that way, would have made me like them a lot more. That and there's a very thin line between emotional repression and no emotion and he kinda wandered over that line in both directions. I couldn't help but feel that he was kinda cast because he looked the part, though.
I liked the more subdued tone once the film started to get going (so about thirty minutes in). It made the film more about the people and less about the monster, which was great, and really gave a much more concrete foundation for Betty and Bruce's kinda rocky relationship, which was lacking in the Norton version. Also gave the film a more realistic tone, for a given value of realism and seemed to focus more on the psychological implications, which was also great. Unfortunately, psychology was only briefly mentioned, in two short scenes, whereas I think it might have been more interesting to just go all the way with it in full throttle Peter David style.
I could go on, but I think I've probably gone on long enough. All I can think of is that if they did something similar to this, but with Mark Ruffalo, a later chronology plot, and Joss Whedon writing, we might have my favorite Hulk film in the making.
The first 2 hours of "The Last Of Us"
Not feeling the hype so far. Heavily skripted, limited levels, and you are constantly on a chain like a dog. It also has a huge The Walking Dead by TellTale vibe. Seen it; been there; no interest.
Also the prologue was so unexcitig.
They expect me to care within 15 minutes. Not going to happen. Especially since I haven't seen the girl anyewhere in the trailers etc. This has to go very well for her!
Then about 1 hour in you finally meet the girl from the trailers and it could get interesting. It doesn't, yet. Instead the plot turns
from "The Walking Dead" to "I Am Legend"
.
"The Walking Dead" made you care by spending hours with your group. So far "The Last Of Us" didn't achieve that.
The first 2 hours of "The Last Of Us"
Not feeling the hype so far. Heavily skripted, limited levels, and you are constantly on a chain like a dog. It also has a huge The Walking Dead by TellTale vibe. Seen it; been there; no interest.
Also the prologue was so unexcitig.
They expect me to care within 15 minutes. Not going to happen. Especially since I haven't seen the girl anyewhere in the trailers etc. This has to go very well for her!
Then about 1 hour in you finally meet the girl from the trailers and it could get interesting. It doesn't, yet. Instead the plot turns
from "The Walking Dead" to "I Am Legend"
.
"The Walking Dead" made you care by spending hours with your group. So far "The Last Of Us" didn't achieve that.
I wasn't expecting much. It's a movie about a 911 operator and a serial killer. Oddly enough, it's one of the best movies I've seen this year. It just works.
10/10
Man of Steel
I was mostly with it the first hour, then it turned into Transformers. Superman should be better. More saving people, less... this.
6/10
I wasn't expecting much. It's a movie about a 911 operator and a serial killer. Oddly enough, it's one of the best movies I've seen this year. It just works.
10/10
Man of Steel
I was mostly with it the first hour, then it turned into Transformers. Superman should be better. More saving people, less... this.
6/10
Well, let's be serious here. By the time Superman got to Metropolis, I would imagine most of the buildings, or at least the upper floors where the majority of the Superman/Zod fight took place, were evacuated. In fact, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Superman was focusing the fight on him and Zod. The more Zod focused on Superman, the less he would attack civilians. However. I do agree he should have saved a few more civvies. We have the two extremes now when it comes to a battle between two superbeings. We have Superman vs Nuclear Man in Superman IV where Superman was so focused on the civilians that he stood in place and kept screaming "No! Not the people!" And we have Superman vs Zod in Man of Steel where it seems like Superman completely ignores potential casualties. And then, right in the middle where Man of Steel should have been, we have Superman vs Zod, Ursa, and Non from Superman II where Superman split his attentions.
Funny enough...I can think of ways to improve both Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness, but not Iron Man 3...but Iron Man 3 was my least favorite of the three summer movies.
Yeah, I walked out of Man of Steel and the first thing I thought was, "Man, Superman killed more buildings at the end of Man of Steel than Hulk did in all three of his movie appearances put together."
Neither is Banner. He's just a scientist. And when he's the Hulk, he's an untrained, uncontrollable, superpowered fighter with the mentality of a five year old. And he still managed to destroy fewer buildings.
Well it's more of a general response to the theme I've heard that he should have tried to lure Zod away.
I'm like... so you've never actually been in a fight, have you.
Superman DID keep the fight up in the air away from ground level as much as possible though. He was likely trying to keep Zod's focus on him. If Supes had spent more time rescuing civilians, Zod would have been like, "Huh. If he keeps doing that, I'll threaten more and wear him down." That being said...he could've at least been showing saving SOMEONE other than Lois.
Wreck it Ralph- 7/10I was kinda dissapointed in this movie i was expecting more video game references like ratchet and clank references maybe some uncharted and some other games MARIO FUCKING MARIO DIDNT EVEN APEAR and bowser did so they clearly had the license for that.But the story was interesting and kinda funny at some points.
Why Ratchet & Clank or Uncharted? They're not classics really. And they didn't want Mario to be reduced to a pointless cameo(no such reservations for the blue hedgehog).
Why Ratchet & Clank or Uncharted? They're not classics really. And they didn't want Mario to be reduced to a pointless cameo(no such reservations for the blue hedgehog).
I just wish they could have more references maybe not ratchet and uncharted but MORE Characters maybe kirby , glados , shel etc...
Wreck it Ralph- 7/10I was kinda dissapointed in this movie i was expecting more video game references like ratchet and clank references maybe some uncharted and some other games MARIO FUCKING MARIO DIDNT EVEN APEAR and bowser did so they clearly had the license for that.But the story was interesting and kinda funny at some points.
y u say that not Everyone thinks the same geez people just complaining cause i give my FUCKING opinion . I dont Have to give the movie 10/10 just because everyone else likes it FFS
This thread is full of people giving vastly different ratings on movies. Often the same ones. But generally, the complaints for a given movie aren't based on what references it lacked, but how the narrative fit together and how any references that appeared benefitted the story as a whole.
I suppose I'm saying that it's a little ridiculous to dock a movie three points because it didn't have a reference that you wanted when such a reference would likely have made the movie worse with its presence. Dock it for its over-reliance on references, dock it for the poor pacing through Sugar Rush, dock it for the somewhat cheesy and predictable ending.
This thread is full of people giving vastly different ratings on movies. Often the same ones. But generally, the complaints for a given movie aren't based on what references it lacked, but how the narrative fit together and how any references that appeared benefitted the story as a whole.
I suppose I'm saying that it's a little ridiculous to dock a movie three points because it didn't have a reference that you wanted when such a reference would likely have made the movie worse with its presence. Dock it for its over-reliance on references, dock it for the poor pacing through Sugar Rush, dock it for the somewhat cheesy and predictable ending.
But references? Really?
Well it isnt really references i probably put it the wrong way i wanted more Characters to apear in the movie they clearly had the licenses(at least for nintendo) so i was expecting it to have more retro game characters but if you people cant take someone elses opinions in this thread then why should i bother really im erasing my "review" and i can safely say im not coming back to this thread that soon
I'm not saying you should erase your review. I'm just telling you my opinion on it. And I don't think that adding more characters would have made it a better film. I think adding more would have made it a worse film.
Comments
I tried to get through New Moon with Rifftrax. I'll probably try again someday. But I couldn't do it. Their Twilight Rifftrax is a classic, though. New Moon is just insufferably boring and dull and terrible.
Well, since my official stance is "The worst thing visual media can be is boring", I shall probably skip it. Thanks for the heads up guys.
Duh.
He killed Doomsday. And in an alternate universe, he killed Zod and his followers after they killed pretty much everyone else in that universe. Superman has always been the kind to look for another solution wherever possible. I don't think there was one in the situation in Man of Steel.
Speaking of, I'm not sure which movie is my favorite summer movie now, Star Trek or Man of Steel, but I thoroughly enjoyed Man of Steel.
Ehh... It was okay, but there were several times throughout the movie where there was no music in the background when there ought to have been.
For example, when they are at the reaping (the event where tributes are chosen), there is no music whatsoever to set the mood. None. No upswell of emotional music when
There is music sometimes, but other times there is not and those times fail to bring emotion to the audience that they are supposed to have.
Though, really, sometimes music can save scenes.
I think Hunger Games was a movie primarily created to give a audio-visual representation of the books. In this respect, it succeeded, since it was very accurate to the source material, and obviously created by people who really cared about getting things right. Where it failed was in the type of narrative they chose to pursue. The creators were so intent on creating the most accurate novel representation, that they didn't really think about what makes a good film. Sometimes, in order to make a good film, you need to significantly change things from the books. Some things work wonderfully on paper but just aren't as powerful on screen and vice versa.
However, given I enjoyed the books, I found the film relatively harmless and enjoyable. Yes, it wasn't memorable, I won't look back on it with fond memories or buy every DVD copy I can get my hands on, but I certainly didn't feel insulted by it. I do think that they should have started out by thinking about the message the books were trying to portray and focused more on getting the same message into the movie, even at the expense of some of the plot detail.
Good film noir. Although, the climax could have been better.
That’s what she said.
I had many feels.
I feel that feel.
I cried when Krypton died.
I cried during the tornado.
I cried during the robot tentacle scene.
I cried when Superman made his final decision.
I cried when Zod made his confession behind his purpose for being.
I cried when Superman was finding the joy of flying for pete's sake.
Damn this movie.
I'm seeing it again this week though.
Man, just tearing up thinking about it.
Mad Max - 10/10
I hadn't ever seen the original film before yesterday. I'm glad I finally got around to watching it, though, because it really, really lived up to its reputation. It's one of those gems that actually deserves its cult following.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly what's so great about the film. It has some great villains, some really colourful characters, some exciting action scenes, excellent pacing, and a very good script. But, I think the thing that endeared it to me so much was the genuineness of the film. It's not overly flashy, or showy, or pretentious, nor is it overly unbelievable; it feels real, it feels honest, and it feels very down-to-earth. In that sense, it actually feels like a reflection of Australia itself at the time of production. It displays the classic Australian attitude and culture, but does so in a way that doesn't make it feel wank-y or intentionally advertising.
It exhibits a unique, undeniably Australian vibe, but it doesn't draw attention to that aspect, since that's not the actual purpose of the film (unlike some embarrassing Australian films); the intention of the film is merely to tell a good story, tell it well, tell it honestly, and move the audience. And, in the process, the team behind it crafted a 100% authentic piece of film-making which ended up being much more than the sum of its parts.
I would have liked better if the animation hadn’t been so damn trippy.
Okay, I went in prepared to hate this movie, given my first attempt at watching it... and I didn't. Turns out the first half hour was kinda the worst part of the movie (in my opinion) and it picked up as the film progressed. In terms of the look, general feel, and Jennifer Garner as Betty Ross, it's a superior film to Incredible Hulk. However, I would rate the overall experience as being roughly equal due to some really bizarre scene change animations that looked like they were lifted out of a Power Point presentation, the distracting comic panel layout (which was incredibly difficult to take in when they included the same person from different angles), the beginning, which dragged its feet, and David Banner.
My main issues are with the last two points, mainly because they irritate me as a Hulk fan. First of all, Bruce Banner's father's name was Brian, not David. I don't know why this annoys me as much as it does, but... it does. Secondly, while the man did experiment on Bruce and abuse him canonically (and kill his mother in front of him), and was kinda insane, Bruce never really forgot his father, he simply refused to acknowledge that the man was anything less than a saint until the admission was almost literally dragged out of him kicking and screaming. Even after he killed him.
Which leads me to my third point. In the comics, the confrontation between the two is possibly the most anti-climactic thing you could imagine in a comic about a guy who turns into a giant green rage monster. And it's brilliant. Because after years of emotional repression and having this intense mental image of his father being this horrific monster, Banner accidentally runs into the man while visiting his mother's grave. They, of course, argue and then fight, and Banner just pushes him over, he cracks his head on a headstone and dies.
In short, I kinda felt robbed of that sort of thing with him having superpowers.
Okay, things I liked. I really liked the way they animated Hulk. It's waaaaaay better than the Norton version, but not as good as the Avengers one, so in this middle ground. I liked how they incorporated Bana's facial structure into the animation (which they didn't even attempt to do in the Norton version). I wasn't a fan of the shake and bake second transformation, but the third one was fantastic.
The tank battle as well, it really felt like something out of the early comics, and strangely enough, it was nice to see that the destruction wasn't actually hurting the soldiers, because, in my opinion, that's a pretty big part of the Hulk's character, smashing property, not people. I liked how he wasn't always moving as well... somehow that suited the tone of the film better, that he was more or less harmless unless provoked. From what I remember, there wasn't a single fight in the film that he actually started, which was very in character.
I really liked Jennifer Garner as Betty Ross. She was infinitely better than Liv Tyler, who gets the award as the least convincing scientist ever, and she also sold me on being from a military family. Something about being straight-laced and determined... she could have practically put on a uniform herself. Eric Bana was... okay, I suppose. I wasn't very impressed at the beginning but I can't tell if that was Bana's fault or the really dumb lines he was saying totally straight at the beginning. I think they were meant to be sarcastic, which, if they'd been done that way, would have made me like them a lot more. That and there's a very thin line between emotional repression and no emotion and he kinda wandered over that line in both directions. I couldn't help but feel that he was kinda cast because he looked the part, though.
I liked the more subdued tone once the film started to get going (so about thirty minutes in). It made the film more about the people and less about the monster, which was great, and really gave a much more concrete foundation for Betty and Bruce's kinda rocky relationship, which was lacking in the Norton version. Also gave the film a more realistic tone, for a given value of realism and seemed to focus more on the psychological implications, which was also great. Unfortunately, psychology was only briefly mentioned, in two short scenes, whereas I think it might have been more interesting to just go all the way with it in full throttle Peter David style.
I could go on, but I think I've probably gone on long enough. All I can think of is that if they did something similar to this, but with Mark Ruffalo, a later chronology plot, and Joss Whedon writing, we might have my favorite Hulk film in the making.
It's Connely. JENNIFER CONNELY, DURN YOU. *push*
*Alcoremortis falls over, hits her head on her collection of skulls, and dies*
Well, that was anti-climatic.
Goddammit. I knew I was going to make that mistake and was so focused on not making it that I totally made it anyways.
Not feeling the hype so far. Heavily skripted, limited levels, and you are constantly on a chain like a dog. It also has a huge The Walking Dead by TellTale vibe. Seen it; been there; no interest.
Also the prologue was so unexcitig.
"The Walking Dead" made you care by spending hours with your group. So far "The Last Of Us" didn't achieve that.
Why? I am watching it on Youtube. And as scripted as it is I see no reason to buy a PS3 + a TV + the game just to play this myself.
Not the average zombie flick. More of like an action film with elements of horror. Still, it was pretty damn good.
I wasn't expecting much. It's a movie about a 911 operator and a serial killer. Oddly enough, it's one of the best movies I've seen this year. It just works.
10/10
Man of Steel
I was mostly with it the first hour, then it turned into Transformers. Superman should be better. More saving people, less... this.
6/10
This article I just read sums my feelings and thoughts on the movie pretty well.
Well, let's be serious here. By the time Superman got to Metropolis, I would imagine most of the buildings, or at least the upper floors where the majority of the Superman/Zod fight took place, were evacuated. In fact, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Superman was focusing the fight on him and Zod. The more Zod focused on Superman, the less he would attack civilians. However. I do agree he should have saved a few more civvies. We have the two extremes now when it comes to a battle between two superbeings. We have Superman vs Nuclear Man in Superman IV where Superman was so focused on the civilians that he stood in place and kept screaming "No! Not the people!" And we have Superman vs Zod in Man of Steel where it seems like Superman completely ignores potential casualties. And then, right in the middle where Man of Steel should have been, we have Superman vs Zod, Ursa, and Non from Superman II where Superman split his attentions.
Funny enough...I can think of ways to improve both Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness, but not Iron Man 3...but Iron Man 3 was my least favorite of the three summer movies.
I'm like... so you've never actually been in a fight, have you.
Superman DID keep the fight up in the air away from ground level as much as possible though. He was likely trying to keep Zod's focus on him. If Supes had spent more time rescuing civilians, Zod would have been like, "Huh. If he keeps doing that, I'll threaten more and wear him down." That being said...he could've at least been showing saving SOMEONE other than Lois.
Why Ratchet & Clank or Uncharted? They're not classics really. And they didn't want Mario to be reduced to a pointless cameo(no such reservations for the blue hedgehog).
I just wish they could have more references maybe not ratchet and uncharted but MORE Characters maybe kirby , glados , shel etc...
...I'm guessing you're new around here.
y u say that not Everyone thinks the same geez people just complaining cause i give my FUCKING opinion . I dont Have to give the movie 10/10 just because everyone else likes it FFS
This thread is full of people giving vastly different ratings on movies. Often the same ones. But generally, the complaints for a given movie aren't based on what references it lacked, but how the narrative fit together and how any references that appeared benefitted the story as a whole.
I suppose I'm saying that it's a little ridiculous to dock a movie three points because it didn't have a reference that you wanted when such a reference would likely have made the movie worse with its presence. Dock it for its over-reliance on references, dock it for the poor pacing through Sugar Rush, dock it for the somewhat cheesy and predictable ending.
But references? Really?
This is what I'm saying.