Movies you've just watched

[options]

just rewatched Cap: Civil War with a buddy who hadn't seen it yet and the few minor gripes I had after the first viewing seemed to melt away this time. it's easily one of Marvel's strongest and is the best example yet of how good they are at the whole connected-universe thing that all of Hollywood is so desperate to copy. at this point, each film really does feel like the next "issue."

while the action scenes were cool, I was most entertained by the smaller character moments since we already know everyone's a badass. RDJ's performance was particularly impressive to me, but for different reasons than in the earlier films. and despite the fact that damn near the entire MCU was in it, it is still a Captain America movie. really good.

[Ixmucane2]

Captain America: Civil War

After the Avengers cause deadly collateral damage again, an international treaty attempts to put them under the control of the United Nations; Tony Stark accepts quite readily, but Steve Rogers doesn't; violent disagreements ensue, but in the end the submissive faction and the rogue faction of the Avengers reconcile enough to deal with the current throwaway villain.

Does it sounds like a plot that makes sense? Well, it doesn't. The script is rotten, from the core, with two incurable flaws.

• The Avengers are still friends; their disagreements are superficial (none like the treaty, it's only a matter of seeing it as a necessary sacrifice to remain in business or as an unacceptably dangerous reduction of superhero activity), their fights are of course nonlethal (and often silly rather than spectacular), their misunderstandings are temporary. If you want drama, look elsewhere.
• Even worse, the international treaty that should be the cornerstone of the plot is deliberately neglected, along with any serious attention to the related ethical themes of law vs. freedom, guilt vs. heroism, friendship vs. duty, and so on. A realistic version of a treaty would be shaped over many months of political struggle between the Avengers and many interesting friends and enemies, with ample opportunity for character development and memorable speeches and confrontations; instead, the treaty is drafted by unknown parties, signed by many nations offscreen, and notified to our heroes like a court order, no discussion allowed, in more or less the same time the Avengers need to go home and shower. Likewise, the designated U.N. overseers of the Avengers never appear, with little hints of what sort of people and what sort of organization they could be.

Compared to this, other problems are minor: the differences with the apparently much better comic book version, new characters that are introduced as very promising but are completely wasted, the unusually pathetic villain, the many conspicuous and unreasonable absences (among others, the X-Men, Pepper Potts, Nick Fury, Hulk, Thor, meaningful Hydra and/or SHIELD remnants), the obnoxious product placement (which includes Spiderman: "Spiderman will return") could be forgiven in a film with more purpose.

[GaijinPunch]

I have never seen a single Marvel movie since that crappy Amazing Spiderman, and only saw a couple before that.

[Mischief Maker]

I have never seen a single Marvel movie since that crappy Amazing Spiderman, and only saw a couple before that.

When people talk about "Marvel Movies" they're talking about the studio (owned by Disney). Amazing Spiderman was a Sony movie. Part of the reason people are going nuts for the character of Spiderman being in Civil War is Marvel studios finally got the rights to the character and presumably are going to do him justice.

X-Men and Deadpool currently belong to Fox. That's why nobody says "mutant" in the Avengers movies.

[boagman]

That's why nobody says "mutant" in the Avengers movies.

Ah, I hadn't figured out the reason for that! Makes sense.

[boagman]

Captain America: Civil War

After the Avengers cause deadly collateral damage again, an international treaty attempts to put them under the control of the United Nations; Tony Stark accepts quite readily, but Steve Rogers doesn't; violent disagreements ensue, but in the end the submissive faction and the rogue faction of the Avengers reconcile enough to deal with the current throwaway villain.

Does it sounds like a plot that makes sense? Well, it doesn't. The script is rotten, from the core, with two incurable flaws.

• The Avengers are still friends; their disagreements are superficial (none like the treaty, it's only a matter of seeing it as a necessary sacrifice to remain in business or as an unacceptably dangerous reduction of superhero activity), their fights are of course nonlethal (and often silly rather than spectacular), their misunderstandings are temporary. If you want drama, look elsewhere.
• Even worse, the international treaty that should be the cornerstone of the plot is deliberately neglected, along with any serious attention to the related ethical themes of law vs. freedom, guilt vs. heroism, friendship vs. duty, and so on. A realistic version of a treaty would be shaped over many months of political struggle between the Avengers and many interesting friends and enemies, with ample opportunity for character development and memorable speeches and confrontations; instead, the treaty is drafted by unknown parties, signed by many nations offscreen, and notified to our heroes like a court order, no discussion allowed, in more or less the same time the Avengers need to go home and shower. Likewise, the designated U.N. overseers of the Avengers never appear, with little hints of what sort of people and what sort of organization they could be.

Compared to this, other problems are minor: the differences with the apparently much better comic book version, new characters that are introduced as very promising but are completely wasted, the unusually pathetic villain, the many conspicuous and unreasonable absences (among others, the X-Men, Pepper Potts, Nick Fury, Hulk, Thor, meaningful Hydra and/or SHIELD remnants), the obnoxious product placement (which includes Spiderman: "Spiderman will return") could be forgiven in a film with more purpose.

I saw it last night, and didn't see the need to dig as deep for meaning into the movie as you did. It's not *trying* to be "No Country For Old Men"...it's trying to be what it is: an exploding comic book come to the screen, with fun little quips. It succeeded, much in the way the original "Iron Man" did, when it blasted onto the scene.

I was actually rather impressed with the "throwaway" villain. He brought some depth of humanity to things, I thought, and did it well. It wasn't anything Oscar worthy, but then, in this kind of movie, what is? I don't recall "Die Hard" ever being gussied up for Oscars, either.

What it was trying to do, it did well. Whether that's something that you want to see on the big screen for $10 a pop, that's another question altogether. I liked it and had fun because it worked. Mission accomplished.

[atheistgod1999]

Is it just me, or is there a new superhero movie every other week nowadays?

[options]

What it was trying to do, it did well. Whether that's something that you want to see on the big screen for $10 a pop, that's another question altogether. I liked it and had fun because it worked. Mission accomplished.

well said.

[emphatic]

The "throwaway villain" is actually a pretty big deal in the Marvel Universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Zemo

[iconoclast]

Is it just me, or is there a new superhero movie every other week nowadays?

https://twitter.com/georgeb3dr/status/6 ... 5972709380

[Mischief Maker]

Is it just me, or is there a new superhero movie every other week nowadays?

https://twitter.com/georgeb3dr/status/6 ... 5972709380

Even more comprehensive!

[EmperorIng]

One of my fervent prayers is for the superhero movie fad to end, end quickly, and take as many careers down with it as humanly possible.

[GaijinPunch]

I did go see Eye in the Sky this past weekend. A pretty intense look at what all goes on when the west bombs suspected terrorists. Very dramafied, but still entertaining and pretty intense. I'm sure in the real situation it's even grayer. Nothing oscar-worthy but solid performances by everyone. (RIP Alan Rickman).

[Vexorg]

I could care less one way or another, just as long as Zac Snyder goes down in flames.

[Mischief Maker]

A compelling explanation for why Snyder's interpretation of Superman turned out so dire and joyless, and why Supes looked so miserable when saving the day:

Spoiler

I have been working on The Fountainhead. I've always felt like The Fountainhead was such a thesis on the creative process and what it is to create something. Warner Bros. owns [Ayn Rand’s] script and I’ve just been working on that a little bit.

[Xyga]

Ha ha ha

[Skykid]

Is it just me, or is there a new superhero movie every other week nowadays?

https://twitter.com/georgeb3dr/status/6 ... 5972709380

Even more comprehensive!

It is totally absurd. It's like every time someone asks me do I want to go see a movie, it's a superhero movie.

I wonder if anyone still reads the comic books these days.

[Ed Oscuro]

Is it just me, or is there a new superhero movie every other week nowadays?

https://twitter.com/georgeb3dr/status/6 ... 5972709380

George's speed is...what, one project every decade? Oh well

A compelling explanation for why Snyder's interpretation of Superman turned out so dire and joyless, and why Supes looked so miserable when saving the day:

Spoiler

I have been working on The Fountainhead. I've always felt like The Fountainhead was such a thesis on the creative process and what it is to create something. Warner Bros. owns [Ayn Rand’s] script and I’ve just been working on that a little bit.

A piss-stained copy of "The Virtue of Selfishness" continually beckons (taunts?) from near the top of my pile of "you better read me" books. Somehow I always manage to shovel it back under again.

[EmperorIng]

I wonder if anyone still reads the comic books these days.

I think the continued success of these movies is going to drive the whole medium into niche irrelevancy. To wit, no, no one, or few new readers are going to be drawn to comic books when potential young minds are assaulted with these loud trash-fests year-in and year-out.

Probably for the best since there's a little too much reverence towards the shaky source material... It really struck me, after seeing Batman's costume in BvS, how utterly goofy it is to go around fighting crime in your underwear and pajamas. The silliness of the whole endeavor is only really made manifest in the genre's worst offerings (to see the opposite: Tim Burton's "dark fairy-tale" approach to Batman).

[NTSC-J]

I wonder if anyone still reads the comic books these days.

SJWs, apparently.

[Ixmucane2]

Captain America: Civil War
...

I saw it last night, and didn't see the need to dig as deep for meaning into the movie as you did. It's not *trying* to be "No Country For Old Men"...it's trying to be what it is: an exploding comic book come to the screen, with fun little quips. It succeeded, much in the way the original "Iron Man" did, when it blasted onto the scene.

I was actually rather impressed with the "throwaway" villain. He brought some depth of humanity to things, I thought, and did it well. It wasn't anything Oscar worthy, but then, in this kind of movie, what is? I don't recall "Die Hard" ever being gussied up for Oscars, either.

What it was trying to do, it did well. Whether that's something that you want to see on the big screen for $10 a pop, that's another question altogether. I liked it and had fun because it worked. Mission accomplished.

For me, no mission accomplished because there is no mission at all. I don't expect a "cinecomic" to be particularly deep, but I always expect a honest attempt to tell a worthwhile story. In this case, it's clear that the writers and directors are instead embracing failure, ingeniously plugging holes of their own making instead of trying to make something good; the combined constraints and mandates of an unprecedentedly planned "cinematic universe" and of standard Hollywood practice have never been heavier.
I agree that the villain was one of the most coherent parts of the film; it's only throwaway in the sense that he completes the whole cycle of appearing for the first time, getting noticed and being defeated for the foreseeable future in a single film.

My problem with the weak motivations of the "civil war" plot is not that they are valid but poorly explained, but that they are, on the contrary, lame excuses that are artfully inflated in order to look reasonable: clearly the authors wanted to avoid real conflict and real feeling.

The Avengers should fight supervillains, with cathartic levels of heroism; here the fights are as dangerous as going to the gym and as fake as a wrestling tournament, ruining the shallow spectacular side of the film. For example, the excellent choreography and special effects cannot make the airport fight less stupid.
Again, it didn't have to be so; a different choice of villain (instead of a harmless mastermind, some dangerous monster) would have allowed the Avengers to break up without silly physical violence and to set aside their differences to join a massive final battle against a proper enemy.

[Skykid]

Captain America 3: Civil War

Actually "Avengers 3", since it's not Captain America focussed whatsoever, I was invited to see this today for a friend's birthday.

Altogether, mostly completely useless, it's marginally better than Avengers 2 (which isn't saying much, as that was utter dross) but by now we're really seeing the formula in the formula. Almost completely bankrupt in imagination, this is simply a series of same-old fight scenes - a CG mashup of shaky camera angles and hard to follow impossibilities that move too fast to digest and go on just long enough to get boring.

The plot... well there is no plot. There's kind of a done-to-death series of disagreements, "superheroes at odds with the public", but even that's completely fleeting, with zero members of the general public voicing their opinions, just government people standing around in rooms saying things to that effect. It's boiled down to basically components of the formula, the dialogue is effort-free and one-dimensional, as are all the people in colourful costumes saying some things before punching some things.

It's boring. I was really bored.

I don't recall "Die Hard" ever being gussied up for Oscars, either.

If they're in the same bracket as "popcorn entertainment", it should have been. We're talking worlds apart in terms of engagement, plot, relatable characters - suspense. Even the stuff that's meant to be impactful isn't: the death of someone's folks, a kiss with a really awful female actor, Chris Evans staring at things with a single expression.

I can't really blame the actors though, they're kind of just stand-ins for everything else. They prop up the movie by standing around in imagination free locations between battles, amazing places like talking a little in an office, in a bedroom, in a car park, in an airport, in yet another concrete structure in a snowy place, an HQ that looks like it's come out of an IKEA catalogue.

Dull to high heaven, honestly it was an ordeal. That's the best way to describe getting through 2hr 20 mins of this. An ordeal. By the time it was finally winding up all the you've-seen-it-all-before stuff, I was completely confident it was another superhero movie I would never bother to see again.

They need to change the script. Literally.

I wonder if anyone still reads the comic books these days.

SJWs, apparently.

Is that farce?

[NTSC-J]

If only.

Here's another good one. This one, too.

It really is a shame we lost our SJW image thread.

[Skykid]

Lol, I hate it when I post a movie review and it's the last of the page!

If only.

Here's another good one. This one, too.

What in the actual fuck? I take it back, nobody should be reading comics anymore if they're that filled with such brazen propaganda.

It really is a shame we lost our SJW image thread.

One of the great crimes in recent forum history. In my opinion it should be unlocked in the name of anti-third wave feminist/SJW indoctrination. We must strike back.

That said I'm not sure whether those comics constitute worse entertainment than Captain America 3. Really.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

It really is a shame we lost our SJW image thread.

One of the great crimes in recent forum history. In my opinion it should be unlocked in the name of anti-third wave feminist/SJW indoctrination. We must strike back.

Agreed, now that every anti-sjw post is met with "fuck off, gamergate".

[BrianC]

I watched the new Jungle Book. I liked it quite a bit. I liked how it combined elements of the books and the Disney movie. Bill Murray was excellent as Baloo.

[Xyga]

Leviathan (1989)

One of the post-Abyss jokes, kind of borrows to The Thing and Alien for the beast.

Awful. Even worse than Deep Star Six.

0.5/10
Not 0 only because it's got one of the most ridiculous "black guy has to die" scenes ever, and a little unexpected gesture from Peter Weller before the end rolls.

[EmperorIng]

I still wanna see Deep Star Six!

Leviathan was so disappointing. Stan Winston's crew must have been on holiday, because the monster is sort of half-assed. The cool industrial set is a plus, as well as some good character-actor performances. But it's all so wasted on a meandering script and a totally awful climax - right you are that "black man must die" is so completely out of the blue, it's as if the movie jumped the shark... Oh wait, it did that too, literally. I am far more kind in giving it a 5/10... as expected of the middling efforts of George Cosmatos (whose only truly great movie remains Rambo: FB2).

Speaking of lousy movies... The Glimmer Man!

Saw this last night. I expected Steven Seagal crappiness. I got Steven Seagal crappiness! But it's always the good kind. Wonderful attempts at "one-liners" that go on and on, like "You know, you look like the type of guy who looks at himself in the mirror and likes what he sees. That disturbs me. I'm going to make sure you can't look at yourself in the mirror ever again." ... ... uh, zing? A running gag that involves Keenen Wayans, because of Steven Seagal, becoming hopelessly addicted to deer penis. A litany of conveniently-placed spikes to allow badguys to impale themselves after being thrown out of windows. And of course, incredibly improbable action movie scenes that border on the surreal.

At a lean 92 minutes, it's a pretty stupid and dumb movie, but I'd be lying if I didn't enjoy the whole thing.

[Xyga]

Leviathan was so disappointing

Yes. I give it to the movie the environments look good indeed. Plenty of JVC pro monitors sights also. ^^

[Skykid]

Leviathan (1989)

One of the post-Abyss jokes, kind of borrows to The Thing and Alien for the beast.

Awful. Even worse than Deep Star Six.

0.5/10
Not 0 only because it's got one of the most ridiculous "black guy has to die" scenes ever, and a little unexpected gesture from Peter Weller before the end rolls.

I don't know man, that anti feminism closer is pretty awesome