Movie opinions thread (what have you seen, what did you think?)
- Thread starter aria
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2007
- Posts
- 13,424
Sounds like Avatar 2 is basically the same movie as Avatar 1 (which was already the same movie as Dances With Wolves and Pocahontas) except 30 minutes longer.
Sucks that James Cameron decided to waste the last several decades of his career making this crap. He has already shot scenes for Avatar 5.
Sucks that James Cameron decided to waste the last several decades of his career making this crap. He has already shot scenes for Avatar 5.
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 11,863
Yeah, I've read it's almost exactly the first movie just set in water with a bunch of little kids and even worse dialogue. Everything about it sounds awful. The first one was one of the most eye-rolling pieces of braindead dreck ever made and we've already seen the world he's created and 3D was just another shitty gimmick so there is absolutely zero reason to watch it. I hope it bombs so the studios get a wakeup call and stop throwing their money away on shit no-one asked for. Cameron said this needs to make $2 billion for this to even break even.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2007
- Posts
- 13,424
Also nobody seemed to notice that Top Gun 2 is just A New Hope. It's not even subtle about it.
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 11,863
There have been a handful of very negative (aka honest) reviews and the amount of people coming out of the woodwork to defend Avatar 2 is shocking. I don't understand how anyone can give two shits.
The first movie isn't a beloved classic so it's not like the 13 or however many years wait has had everyone crazy with anticipation. We've seen so many movies since then that are almost all CGI so the visuals aren't going to be mind-blowing again. In fact I'd wager that since we've become so desensitized to spectacle that 4 hours of 99.99% CGI is really going to feel hollow on an all new level. There's no depth to the story or characters so there's nothing there to think about or latch onto concept wise. This is cowritten by the people behind Jurassic World and Mulan couple that with Cameron and you know it's going have the subtlety and dialogue of a 4th grade school play.
I honestly don't understand where any enthusiasm from movie-goers would even come from. There's nothing there to like.
The first movie isn't a beloved classic so it's not like the 13 or however many years wait has had everyone crazy with anticipation. We've seen so many movies since then that are almost all CGI so the visuals aren't going to be mind-blowing again. In fact I'd wager that since we've become so desensitized to spectacle that 4 hours of 99.99% CGI is really going to feel hollow on an all new level. There's no depth to the story or characters so there's nothing there to think about or latch onto concept wise. This is cowritten by the people behind Jurassic World and Mulan couple that with Cameron and you know it's going have the subtlety and dialogue of a 4th grade school play.
I honestly don't understand where any enthusiasm from movie-goers would even come from. There's nothing there to like.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2014
- Posts
- 3,616
As Mr. Carlin once said, "Think of how stupid the average person is and realize half of them are stupider than that".
I have no doubt that this movie is as stupid and derivative as the original. Plus this doesn't have the advantage of being on the crest of renewed interest in 3D but there were a LOT of people that went and saw that movie several times and thought it was all caps amazing despite being dumber than a bag of hammers. Plus it's generic and spectacle-y enough to be universally appealing to people in other countries. I don't think it's going to be as successful as the original movie but doubt James Cameron at your own peril.
I have no doubt that this movie is as stupid and derivative as the original. Plus this doesn't have the advantage of being on the crest of renewed interest in 3D but there were a LOT of people that went and saw that movie several times and thought it was all caps amazing despite being dumber than a bag of hammers. Plus it's generic and spectacle-y enough to be universally appealing to people in other countries. I don't think it's going to be as successful as the original movie but doubt James Cameron at your own peril.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Posts
- 46,743
Probably why it was so entertaining, plus the scenes with jets were awesome. I don’t think anyone is saying it’s going to go down as a legendary flick or anything.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Posts
- 4,620
re-watched willow for the first time in decades. the story was a bit more choppy than i remember, but it still holds up remarkably well imo. i hope the new willow will be good, but i'm not hopeful.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Posts
- 4,620
i doubt they are gonna do a sequel for alita. if i remember correctly, it was a box office dud. i thought it was a solid film.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2014
- Posts
- 3,616
Cameron will likely be dead or retired before anything non-Avatar has a chance of taking shape. While he loved Alita (and it found an audience after its theatrical release), it was not particularly successful.
It's almost like hero journeys share a lot of common storytelling elements.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2014
- Posts
- 3,616
Congrats to your cousin. I'll be seeing it a second time with my dad over the holidays. Die Hard is our annual Xmas tradition and it'll be a good excuse to get out of the house and spend time with the crusty old sailor.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2007
- Posts
- 13,424
Flying down a long ass trench dodging tower fire to shoot a missile down an exhaust port and blow up the enemy base. That's not an archetype of a hero journey, that's just ripping off the end of another movie.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2014
- Posts
- 3,616
And A New Hope blatantly rips off The Hidden Fortress, Dune and The Court Jester. Fuck that derivative piece of shit, right?
Negging a movie because it uses familiar tropes and elements from other successful movies isn't the burn you think it is.
Negging a movie because it uses familiar tropes and elements from other successful movies isn't the burn you think it is.
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 11,863
The Banshee of Inisherin- In a small village in 1920s Ireland a rift between two long time friends escalates into spite, jealousy, insanity and ultimately a mediation on happiness and life. It's hard not to make comparisons to In Bruge and while this retains a lot of the same understated dark humor this is very much it's own thing. Slow, bleak, beautiful, ominous, witty and at times hilarious, this is an expertly made film. Highly recommended.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts
- 4,330
Looks like Gunn's first act as DC's analog (lol anal) to Kevin Fiege is to get rid of one of the only well cast actors in the franchise.
Oh and rebooting Superman and Wonder Woman. Hopefully they'll reboot Batman too. I think it's been 5 minutes so we're about due for a new Bat origin story.
comicbookmovie.com
Oh and rebooting Superman and Wonder Woman. Hopefully they'll reboot Batman too. I think it's been 5 minutes so we're about due for a new Bat origin story.
SUPERMAN Movie In The Works With James Gunn Penning The Script; Henry Cavill Is No Longer The Man Of Steel
Bombshell DC news here, as James Gunn has announced the first project of his new DC Universe, and it is indeed Superman! He'll be penning the script, but Henry Cavill is no longer the Man of Steel!
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts
- 4,330
Disagree.
I mean, I get it, not everyone liked the Snyderverse. Was it too dark and broody? Sure. But I actually did enjoy his JL. Whedon's was an abortion. And I am one of the few that liked MoS.
But even all that aside - Henry Cavill was nearly as perfectly cast as Reeve was. He just needed better writing, and make him a little (or a lottle) less broody and dark. But keeping Cavill would've essentially made the majority happy. People get a reboot into the Superman they think should have been, the actor who loved playing the character (and was recently told by WB to announce his official return) would continue to don the cape, and fans of the actor playing the character get what they want.
Money all around.
I mean, I get it, not everyone liked the Snyderverse. Was it too dark and broody? Sure. But I actually did enjoy his JL. Whedon's was an abortion. And I am one of the few that liked MoS.
But even all that aside - Henry Cavill was nearly as perfectly cast as Reeve was. He just needed better writing, and make him a little (or a lottle) less broody and dark. But keeping Cavill would've essentially made the majority happy. People get a reboot into the Superman they think should have been, the actor who loved playing the character (and was recently told by WB to announce his official return) would continue to don the cape, and fans of the actor playing the character get what they want.
Money all around.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Posts
- 13,393
I like Gunn and am alright with seeing something new. I'm a fan of the snyderverse, but it was kind of working it's way into a corner. I love cavill and Affleck, and am sorry to see them go, I think they were great as the characters.
Patterson and the batman on the other hand was well done, but bored me and I'm not particularly interested in seeing serial killer versions of the rogues gallery.
Patterson and the batman on the other hand was well done, but bored me and I'm not particularly interested in seeing serial killer versions of the rogues gallery.
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 11,863
The problem is that you can't separate Cavill from the Snyder movies. I agree he was very well cast but they allowed the DCU to become such a mess that rebooting the core JL centric parts entirely is basically the only option. The new Superman is supposedly going to be younger so they wouldn't be using Cavill anyways. It's not like they are recasting his part.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts
- 4,330
To me its like Spielberg saying "Hey Harry, you were super great and perfectly cast as Indy. You got 4 movies, but we're gonna reboot. Gonna get some kid to play you, but GUESS WHAT!! You get to play Short Round!"
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,968
Well, it's a "younger" Clark working at the Daily Planet, so actually, they are basically recasting his part. They don't mean young Clark on the farm.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,968
Also, while I understand the drive to reboot the DC movie shared universe and start it with a new, brighter version of Superman, I'm not sure having his new movie debut written by the "Aquaman fucks fish/Fuck you, Barry" guy is going to get you where you want to go.