#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 Of course! She's an actress, not a singer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,515 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 Oh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,191 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 8 minutes ago, Stefancos said: Of course! She's an actress, not a singer. But usually, Disney tends to hire actresses who actually can sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 T2 Trainspotting Danny Boyle leans a bit too much on his previous film, as there are several flashbacks and nods to the original film. (Even Kelly Macdonald has a one-scene cameo.) The returning actors are in fine form, but the story made me go "That's it? That's what Mark, Sickboy and Begbie have been doing for the past 20 years?" It's still an enjoyable film, just don't expect the story to wow you. Their Finest A true gem. It's a warm satire of the British filmmaking scene during World War II, with some pointed barbs at the sexism Gemma Arterton's character faces in the film. But there's heart and love invested into this film, and you really get a sense of the time period the film takes place in. Sam Claflin and Bill Nighy are good, but Arterton is fantastic and anchors the entire film. I hope she gets some awards love later this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick1Ø66 4,711 Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Kong Skull Island. Utterly stupid. I mean, I was expecting typical popcorn film stupid, but this was pretty inane. Fun in parts to be sure (the film is a snooze without the John Filey character), but I expected to like it more than I did. I came away with no desire to see a sequel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. It gave us more of everything - gags, character motion, flashy visuals, pop music... running time. It's fun for the most part but somewhat over-indulgent, overlong and poorly paced. A very awkwardly and clumsily put together story held together largely by one-liners. The first one wasn't a masterpiece of plotting but this one, while not devoid of some humour and heart, doesn't hold together as well. But James Gunn is trying very hard to outdo himself, bless his heart. 14 hours ago, Nick1066 said: Kong Skull Island. Utterly stupid. I mean, I was expecting typical popcorn film stupid, but this was pretty inane. Fun in parts to be sure (the film is a snooze without the John Filey character), but I expected to like it more than I did. I came away with no desire to see a sequel. It felt a bit like a tie-in to an actual film than the event itself. Peter Jackson can sleep peacefully. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 4 hours ago, crocodile said: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. It gave us more of everything - gags, character motion, flashy visuals, pop music... running time. It's fun for the most part but somewhat over-indulgent, overlong and poorly paced. A very awkwardly and clumsily put together story held together largely by one-liners. The first one wasn't a masterpiece of plotting but this one, while not devoid of some humour and heart, doesn't hold together as well. But James Gunn is trying very hard to outdo himself, bless his heart. Yeah, the trailer already said that much. Gunn is afflicted by the dreaded 'More' disease. Is there by any chance a kid in the movie that says: "You call him Dr. Star-Lord, doll!"? No? Now James Gunn has an excuse to make a third Guardians movie. You know, to make up to the audience for the second one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 So let's all skip this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 But ... then Marvel will not come up with the dough for the third movie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 They would make it on a lower budget. More story and character, less FX! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Or ... Breaking News: James Gunn jumps ship and joins DC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Yes! Josh Whedon and James Gunn. DC is saved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Stefancos said: So let's all skip this one! Never gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 5 hours ago, Alexcremers said: Yeah, the trailer already said that much. Gunn is afflicted by the dreaded 'More' disease. Is there by any chance a kid in the movie that says: "You call him Dr. Star-Lord, doll!"? No? Now James Gunn has an excuse to make a third Guardians movie. You know, to make up to the audience for the second one. It's not terrible or anything. Just doesn't really hold together very well. I can't say I really cared about the story at all. The smaller moments and eye candy visuals are still appealing. But it's less than sum of its parts this time, I'm afraid. There was a point, about halfway through, that I started to think to myself: OK, what is this story about again? It seems to really almost entirely on character moments and jokes. Half of which already reference the original film. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,346 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 That's too bad about the pacing and bloat. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Karol's is the most negative take I've seen. Many people seem to think it's very good indeed. Can't wait to find out I feel about it! Most promising to me is I've read it's free of MCU tie-in nonsense, that it stands alone as a film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 That's right! I completely forgot! Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2: RT: 88% IMDb: 8.3/10 Metacritic: 67 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 35 minutes ago, Disco Stu said: Karol's is the most negative take I've seen. Many people seem to think it's very good indeed. Can't wait to find out I feel about it! Most promising to me is I've read it's free of MCU tie-in nonsense, that it stands alone as a film. It's not un-enjoyable. It just feels bit unfocused. My two cinema companions loved it. But I heard some of the younger audience members sitting on the other side saying they "prefer the first one". So people will have different opinions on this one. This one definitely feels less like Star Wars and more like Jupiter Ascending.If you liked the colourful and over-designed world of the first film, and you love your one-liners, then it should be fine. This film has more of that. It's probably more s-f comedy rather than space opera this time. All the successful ingredients are supposedly there but they don't feel as fresh and as well balanced. It's a bit like Age of Ultron in that respect, a film which isn't really bad at anything, just slightly... off. It does reference a lot of Marvel stuff. But not in direct plot-related way. Some things may setup something that might happen in the next two Avengers films but it doesn't really matter. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, crocodile said: It's a bit like Age of Ultron in that respect, a film which isn't really bad at anything, just slightly... off. I was the weirdo who prefers Ultron to the first Avengers so I'm primed and ready to like this movie more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Disco Stu said: I was the weirdo who prefers Ultron to the first Avengers so I'm primed and ready to like this movie more I like Age of Ultron too. But you have to admit that film actually feels like there's too much stuff in there and none of the elements ever get a chance to play out fully. There's the villain who supposedly has an agenda... but it gets reduced to a couple of lines of dialogue. There's a hero whose ambition ultimately causes terrible tragedy but you never get to see any consequences of his actions (they rectified that in Civil War, thankfully). You have a love story... that doesn't really feel like much. Everything is sort of very compressed and undercooked. 38 minutes ago, BloodBoal said: The first one was already a bit like that. True, but the first one moved more quickly. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, crocodile said: I like Age of Ultron too. But you have to admit that film actually feels like there's too much stuff in there and none of the elements ever get a chance to play out fully. There's the villain who supposedly has an agenda... but it gets reduced to a couple of lines of dialogue. There's a hero whose ambition ultimately causes terrible tragedy but you never get to see any consequences of his actions (they rectified that in Civil War, thankfully). You have a love story... that doesn't really feel like much. Everything is sort of very compressed and undercooked. Intellectually, I know everything you say is correct. It just turns out that, emotionally, I like Joss Whedon best when he's stretched to his breaking point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Disco Stu said: Intellectually, I know everything you say is correct. It just turns out that, emotionally, I like Joss Whedon best when he's stretched to his breaking point! I'm still amazed that it all still works as well as it does. Karol - who, for whatever reason, started to like Ant-Man after a recent re-watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Reviewers say it's got a big heart (underneath the sarcasm), so maybe there's hope, because it's probably the reason why I like the first one. Alex - who didn't see a lot of heart in Age Of Ultron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 None of them have even a fraction of the heart contained in your average (pre-2009) Star Trek film. Disco Stu, his arms wide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 12 minutes ago, Alexcremers said: Reviewers say it's got a big heart (underneath the sarcasm), so maybe there's hope, because it's probably the reason why I like the first one. Alex - who didn't see a lot of heart in Age Of Ultron. But Alex.... You're a connoisseur, a lonely voice of reason. After Roger Ebert's passing you're the last bastion of good taste. You can't be talking about heart. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Of course I can talk about heart. Heck, I couldn't even tell you the story of the first one. I leave that to the story watchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasey Kockroach 2,344 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Since when did we get the idea that Roger Ebert had good taste? Didn't he give Space Jam a positive review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Ebert was a populist. He's not really too well known here in the UK, but even I can tell he wasn't exactly a difficult critic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Ebert was a wonderful, intelligent, and sensitive writer who had an open, curious mind that never gave into easy cynicism. Dixon Hill and mrbellamy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said: Ebert was a wonderful, intelligent, and sensitive writer... Are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Oh yes! And he was very funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Disco Stu said: Ebert was a wonderful, intelligent, and sensitive writer who had an open, curious mind that never gave into easy cynicism. Agreed. He was truly brilliant in his criticism and his arguments were always well-supported and thought out. He was a good writer who took film very seriously as art and was in no way lenient for the sake of popularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 He was great. The only critic I've ever been able to stand, because he was so much more than just a critic. I've not seen anyone else able to genuinely accomplish that. Most are stuck peddling pseudo intellectual tripe. Not Mr. Big 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbellamy 6,278 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Ebert's weekly reviews were okay and usually pretty enjoyable reads and he was an entertaining TV presence, but he really rose in my estimation as a writer with his Great Movies essays and his blog after his cancer had left him literally speechless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 6 hours ago, kaseykockroach said: Since when did we get the idea that Roger Ebert had good taste? Didn't he give Space Jam a positive review? What you got against Space Jam, bub? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 He didn't like Aliens or Die Hard either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 I also think GotG 2 was alittle too much in one liners, but my girlfriend and the rest audience loved it, lots of loud laughs over the film. The de-aging technology is becoming really great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Great for Indy 5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Bring it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 De-age the Short Round actor too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 If they can get connery out of retirement definately i would like indy 5 to be set between LC and KOTCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 He's 86 now, and frail looking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Maybe they could bring him back to play Bond? Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 I didn't know you could drive a mobility scooter! Drive yes. Disembark, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmm 91 Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 Like reviews have said, not as good as the first. What was once considered fresh is now expected, and the sequel doesn't quite rise above it. But it's still pretty darn good, and hugely entertaining in most parts. Part of the problem it has is due to the lack of focus and visible plot for the first half of the movie, but I would contend that even when the story finally unfolds, it's not terribly exciting stuff. I'm not sure if I'm alone in this, but Kurt Russell wasn't very good in this - in fact I'd say he's not in the same league as the rest of the cast, which is pitch perfect. Spoiler The movie stalls in the early scenes in Ego's planet. There just wasn't anything interesting happening, and the planet itself was quite a bore. It looked literally like a any other desert. A lot of the humour works though, and there is some comedy gold here. I also think they did a fine job with Baby Groot. They could have easily made him the cute comic relief and ran away with it but thankfully they did not overplay it at all. Part of the charm of the characters is that they're all quite different and everyone has their own favourite. Drax was mine. Even Gamora, who on her own would have been drab, works really well as a counterweight to all the other colourful characters. Spoiler I never read the comics, so it was a surprise to me that Quill had god powers. To be frank I was disappointed in learning that he could fly and do crazy shit, but thankfully the writers/filmmakers realised this as well and made his superpowers brief in duration. He only really works as a normal human being with no superpowers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeping Strings 2,354 Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 Guardians Of The Galaxy 2 - half-an-hour longer than the first, which unfortunately just means that it sags drearily in the middle. But there's enough action and irreverent humour to see it through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 Why is it so long? First one felt exactly long enough. Sweeping Strings 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 Longer, bigger, louder, more = better, Alex! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 Guardians of the Galaxy, vol. 2 It's good. Better than the first, actually. A deftly handled ensemble piece with plenty of laughs, thrills and cheers. I look forward to seeing more of these characters in Vol. 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now