What's the last movie you watched (2010)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Luke_B said:
Sounds like you got more out of it than I did Electronic. But I agree, in the pantheon of superhero sequels it is streets ahead of Spiderman 3 (that movie murdered a wonderful franchise in cold blood). But it was nowhere near as good as something like The Dark Knight for me.
Click to expand...

I doubt anything will be toping The Dark Knight soon. Unless Nolan manages to create another mindblowing Batman movie for 2012.

The Iron Man franchise is very different from the Batman one, and in my view it's completely different from any other super hero franchises.
The whole thing is a bit silly. Enjoyable silly. There's stuff blowing up, amazing stunts, gags, wity banter between the hero and his friends/enemies, it never tries to be something other than to entertain.

Favreu's Iron Man is what Sam Raimi's Spiderman should have been. There is room to make Iron Man a dark & gritty movie franchise like Nolan's Batman, but they choose the "Adam West" route. And so far it's working for them.
 
I don't think Iron Man has an "Adam West" vibe - it's not camp like the Fantastic Four films. Also, I wasn't trying to imply that Iron Man 2 should have been similar in tone as The Dark Knight - only that I'd hoped it would be to Iron Man what The Dark Knight was to Batman Begins, or X-Men 2 was to the first X-Men film - a step up in quality.

I actually really like the first two Spiderman films. I liked them better than both these Iron Man films. They have much more pathos in my opinion. But the third is terrible, absolutely awful.
 
Electronic6 said:
There is room to make Iron Man a dark & gritty movie franchise like Nolan's Batman, but they choose the "Adam West" route.
Click to expand...
That's not even funny :( Batman's been dark & gritty for years anyway, and in my honest opinion I don't like it.
I think Iron Man is one of those right time, right place, right actor films. Robert Downey Jr. is absolutely perfect for Stark, IMHO. He's made that role his own and I can't really imagine anyone else in it. It's sort of, to me, like Hugh Jackman and Wolverine.

I'm really liking the latest Marvel films, especially the Avengers tie-ins. I'm really, really, really excited about next year's Deadpool and Thor films, and curious about what DC are doing with Green Lantern (Ryan Reynolds is in it, as well as starring in Deadpool) and possibly Wonder Woman (please be Bridget Regan. Please!).
 
LOL. I remember that first time around, Junk.

Jeff Goldblum and Jim Carrey.....

Went to see Iron Man 2 today and loved it. I'm clearly much less critical than you lot! (though I was never convinced that Mickey Rourke would make a particularly good villain.)

Hope you all stayed for the little teaser clip right at the end.

Mark
 
I just saw Kickass and I loved it. I thought it had a great balance between the violence, the humor, and the self-referential pop culture/teen angst. Every line out of Hitgirl's mouth is classic, and the action is top notch. The fight choreography was top notch, with numerous homages to classics films like La Femme Nikita and The Matrix. I think this is the best film I've seen in awhile, so I put it up at 8 or 9 out of 10. Of course, I love violent movies like Fight Club or Natural Born Killers, so this movie fits the genre.

The pacing and direction was excellent as well. Simple things that most writers/directors don't do, like showing the arch-villian practicing martial arts in an early scene while he discusses business, so that later in the movie when he busts out some martial arts moves, you don't think "Where did that come from?" It's the kind of critical pacing decisions that most directors screw up.
 
Hobbit said:
Went to see Iron Man 2 today and loved it. I'm clearly much less critical than you lot! (though I was never convinced that Mickey Rourke would make a particularly good villain.)

Hope you all stayed for the little teaser clip right at the end.

Mark
Click to expand...

I thought it was okay, not as good as the first one. For some reason I liked the interaction of the characters and their development better.

While I knew about War Machine most of the people in the audience did not and the movie did little to explain his origin or his name for that matter.

I was told there was nothing at the end of the film so I did not stay, now I have to go check it out again, dang it.
 
Last movie I watched was yesterday, checked out Big Man Japan. Pretty entertaining and wacky.
 
I just saw the new Nightmare On Elm Street movie, remake..For me what stood out is the way Freddy Krueger is portrayed..he talks of course..and the humor is still there..but it's very much a dark humor..they wanted to bring back a Freddy that's more scary..and I think it worked! You really got the feeling that Freddy was someone you'd not have wanted near any children at all..Creepy on all levels..worth checking out..In my opinion
 
DurzoBlint said:
While I knew about War Machine most of the people in the audience did not and the movie did little to explain his origin or his name for that matter.
Click to expand...

That's probably quite a good point. His name (as in his alias) was mentioned once in an indirect way, such as "So take that war machine..", I think. If you watched the first one, then War Machine was hinted at briefly but I don't think it helped that they changed his actor between the films, which would probably add to the confusion.

I didn't stay to the end but someone told me what happened, but sadly it wasn't anything new (to me).
 
I watched Avatar on DVD, only the second time I have seen the movie and all I can say is 'die puny humans'. :D
 
Must admit, Kater, I watched it on DVD last week and was a little disappointed. In 2D for the first time for me, I was surprised how much the film felt flatter and, on a smaller screen, much diminished.

Still laughing over 'Dances with Smurfs'. :D

Mark
 
Hobbit said:
Must admit, Kater, I watched it on DVD last week and was a little disappointed. In 2D for the first time for me, I was surprised how much the film felt flatter and, on a smaller screen, much diminished.

Still laughing over 'Dances with Smurfs'. :D

Mark
Click to expand...
Haven't watched it on DVD yet, but I have a feeling that your opinion will gain wider acceptance. I enjoyed it in theatres, enough to see it twice, but even then I knew it was being overrated by critics and fans alike.

It's a good action film, but not the ground-breaking, game-changing movie everyone said it was.
 
Evil Agent said:
Haven't watched it on DVD yet, but I have a feeling that your opinion will gain wider acceptance. I enjoyed it in theatres, enough to see it twice, but even then I knew it was being overrated by critics and fans alike.

It's a good action film, but not the ground-breaking, game-changing movie everyone said it was.
Click to expand...

I think it was ground-breaking only in the sense that it was the highest grossing movie in 3D. Of course if you look at what else was released in the month of December you will see that Avatar was your only real choice.

Avatar critique part 1

Avatar critique part 2
 
Yeah after the cinema, having such a wonderful 'thing' squashed onto my crappy old TV made me regret not coughing up for a HDTV flatscreen of stupid dimensions and or a blu-ray player. I think it's going to be one of the few movies where the cinema screen is it's primary medium, which in itself is an interesting proposition for future genuine 3-D films and how they diminish in that movement to small screen. How far away is 3-D TV?
 
Iron Man 2. Not terribly impressed (I merely liked the first one). Too many plot threads to have any of them develop in a satisfactory way, uninteresting/non-threatening villains, and too much of a feel of existing solely to set up the Avengers and
Thor
films.
 
You didn't need to spoiler that, Rich :P I think everyone knows now, especially with the shield that was the Cappy A reference ;)

I do agree that the "baddies" weren't too good, and that final fight is still grating with me.
 
DailyRich said:
Iron Man 2. Not terribly impressed (I merely liked the first one). Too many plot threads to have any of them develop in a satisfactory way, uninteresting/non-threatening villains, and too much of a feel of existing solely to set up the Avengers and
Thor
films.
Click to expand...

DR, I think you hit the nail on the head as to why the second Iron Man movie wasn't as inspiring as the first one. Nothing was developed and everything felt rushed and incomplete.

I think another reason that the first IM movie was so well done is that only 30% of the movie was scripted, the rest was done on the fly and added more realism to the film.

Switching Rhodey wasn't that big a deal for me, I prefer Cheadle, he is a much better and under used/under estimated actor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top