What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Jeff 10]

It isn't a typical superhero movie - it's not a billionaire with a utility belt or a teenager who crossed a radioactive rail car. It's based on mythology but I don't feel like I'm watching a fantasy flick. It blends elements of several genres into something unique. Did you dislike it?

[Romão 2,274]

Thor was totally underwhelming. Totally predictable, unbelivable relationships, no feeling of anything at stake, bad CGI. It's the kind of movie one forgets the moment one leaves the theatre

[Datameister 2,043]

Spiderman 3

I liked this movie the first time I saw it in theaters. I hadn't revisited it until it came on TV the other night. I was appalled on so many levels. The acting was melodramatic and in some parts just plain bad.

That film was so bad that my then-girlfriend and I couldn't stop laughing when we saw it. Spawned a whole bunch of inside jokes and everything. Absolute trainwreck ending to a trilogy that I thought started out not too shabby, though it was never perfect.

[Quintus 5,399]

What's so unique about Thor?

Nothing, but it's a good, modern superhero move with charming characters and it isn't Batman. Thankfully, it has zero in common with Nolan's movies, especially in terms of tone. I mention Batman since it's apparently the benchmark these days.

I wouldn't waste your time with Thor.

[crocodile 8,013]

What's so unique about Thor?

Nothing, but it's a good, modern superhero move with charming characters and it isn't Batman. Thankfully, it has zero in common with Nolan's movies, especially in terms of tone. I mention Batman since it's apparently the benchmark these days.

I wouldn't waste your time with Thor.

I can sign under that as well. And I'd like to add this is even more lighthearted version of Iron Man. Pretty much the same story (arrogant male learns an important lesson through some key life-changing experiences taking place on the desert and is

betrayed by someone close to him

, in the end he learns what true heroism is all about), only in a more fantasy genre.

And no, there is nothing groundbreaking about the visuals.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

I maintain that Marvel should aim higher with their characters on cinema.

[crocodile 8,013]

We don't have to. Their films make money.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

Well, they could aim higher

[Romão 2,274]

That's exactly what I felt when watching Thor. No ambition whatsover, no chances taken, a completely run of the mill movie

[Quintus 5,399]

Sometimes it's better to play it safe, especially in these times of high-risk investment.

I presume you could tell the sort of movie Thor was going to be when you saw the pre-release trailer? I certainly could. Heck, even without a trailer I knew what to expect.

Which begs the question: why did you see it in the first place?

[Wojo 2,453]

I have avoided Thor because it's only in 3D in my immediate area, and haven't felt like driving 40 minutes for 2D or forking out extra for 3D.

[Romão 2,274]

Sometimes it's better to play it safe, especially in these times of high-risk investment.

I presume you could tell the sort of movie Thor was going to be when you saw the pre-release trailer? I certainly could. Heck, even without a trailer I knew what to expect.

Which begs the question: why did you see it in the first place?

I tend to watch pretty much all super hero movies, in the vain hope they might surprise and satisfy me, something that has only really happened with Nolan's Batman movies and Ang Lee's Hulk. Also, Thor some nice reviews, which, as it happened with Star Trek, baffled me quite a bit after seeing the movie

[Brónach 1,302]

Sometimes it's better to play it safe, especially in these times of high-risk investment.

I presume you could tell the sort of movie Thor was going to be when you saw the pre-release trailer? I certainly could. Heck, even without a trailer I knew what to expect.

Which begs the question: why did you see it in the first place?

I tend to watch pretty much all super hero movies, in the vain hope they might surprise and satisfy me, something that has only really happened with Nolan's Batman movies and Ang Lee's Hulk. Also, Thor some nice reviews, which, as it happened with Star Trek, baffled me quite a bit after seeing the movie

What did you think of Hellboy?

[Quintus 5,399]

Sometimes it's better to play it safe, especially in these times of high-risk investment.

I presume you could tell the sort of movie Thor was going to be when you saw the pre-release trailer? I certainly could. Heck, even without a trailer I knew what to expect.

Which begs the question: why did you see it in the first place?

I tend to watch pretty much all super hero movies, in the vain hope they might surprise and satisfy me, something that has only really happened with Nolan's Batman movies and Ang Lee's Hulk. Also, Thor some nice reviews, which, as it happened with Star Trek, baffled me quite a bit after seeing the movie

Fair enough, we like what we like

I have avoided Thor because it's only in 3D in my immediate area, and haven't felt like driving 40 minutes for 2D or forking out extra for 3D.

Unlucky, we caught it in 2D. Cannot see why this would 3D at all.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I thought Thor was a breath of fresh air in the realm of summer comic book adaptations.

[crocodile 8,013]

How?

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Like someone said, it's mythology based. It's very Shakespearean in nature, after I saw it I realized why Branagh would be interested in such a project. It had some pacing issues but it wasn't action packed. It had room to breathe and it had wit. At first I found it to be rather cheesy, then we go to Earth and it was funny. The filmmakers knew what they were doing. I'm sure there is plenty of stuff that's supposed to be funny in the Spider-Man trilogy that is just cringe-wrothy to me.

[Jeff 10]

And no, there is nothing groundbreaking about the visuals.

Maybe "groundbreaking" is an unrealistic threshhold, but nevertheless, I thought the design of Asgard and the rainbow bridge were some of the most stunning images I've seen since The Phantom Menace. Overall I think you guys are being overly harsh to a decent movie, especially one that is designed solely to entertain. There was plenty to criticize, but I was definitely entertained.

[crocodile 8,013]

No, not at all. You said it yourself: this movie "is designed solely to entertain". And that's exactly the point. And yeah, it was generally entertaining (in an almost cheesy way). But having so many comic book movies coming out at the moment, it is JUST that. That's all. In my first treaction from few weeks ago I mentioned it is better than I thought.

A for the Asgard and stuff, I didn't care for it mainly because I had this "oh it's a CG background and they're standing in front of green/blue screen" impression. But I liked the rainbow bridge.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

Ok this is comin g from someone who hasn't seen Thor but sees a lot of blockbusters.

The thing is, being "solely to enterntain" doesn't mean it can't aspire to beign awesome, cinematecally speaking. Steven Spielberg anyone? When I'm harsh on a film it's never because it's "just entertaining", it's because it's a failure on some sense (which might stop it from being entertaining at all, sometimes)

[Jeff 10]

What I meant is that Thor was not designed to win Oscars - it was designed to be a weekend diversion. It succeeded to that end. From my perspective, it also inspired and was "awesome." In that respect, it exceeded my expectations, which is a good thing. When you go see a movie like Thor, you shouldn't expect Schindler's List but you should be happy if you get a Raiders of the Lost Ark (metaphorically speaking - I'm not saying this movie is as good as Raiders), but don't be disappointed if you get a mere Transformers. I think Thor was somewhere in between Transformers and Raiders.

[Brónach 1,302]

I'm a "Raiders" kind of guy so I'll probably see it.

[Jeff 10]

I'm a "Raiders" kind of guy so I'll probably see it.

Whoa, don't take me the wrong way - this movie is no Raiders. I was just using that as an example of a movie on a spectrum of "popcorn" to "Oscar." I was just saying Thor is better than most popcorn movies.

[Brónach 1,302]

I understood you, I meant the "entertainment" kind of film.

There's the the "entertainment", the "boring", the "entertainment tha makes you think abou stuff" and the " boring that tries to make you think about stuff".

[Quintus 5,399]

I thought Thor was a breath of fresh air in the realm of summer comic book adaptations.

I wouldn't call it that at all.

I'd call it a welcome respite, nothing more.

[Jeff 10]

I understood you, I meant the "entertainment" kind of film.

There's the the "entertainment", the "boring", the "entertainment tha makes you think abou stuff" and the " boring that tries to make you think about stuff".

Ok, good. I just didn't want to be responsible if you had unrealistically high expectations.

[Brónach 1,302]

Star Trek

This time the music really jumped at me. I hadn't listened to it in months. The climatic chorus cues left me in awe. I think I prefer it to Up, which I find to be a somewhat cold score.

As for the film, I realized how many wonderful shots of space and action there are. Like the Enterprise slowy moving throgh the debris. But the film is edited in a way that doesn't let appreciate it much. I want more stuff like the Titan scene in the sequel.

[King Mark 3,631]

Hey, I'm watching Star Trek The Motion Picture on MPIX HD

It's really amazing how well the special effects hold up to this day. There's some lighting effects and sense of scale that CGI just can't do

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Sometimes it's better to play it safe, especially in these times of high-risk investment.

I presume you could tell the sort of movie Thor was going to be when you saw the pre-release trailer? I certainly could. Heck, even without a trailer I knew what to expect.

Which begs the question: why did you see it in the first place?

I tend to watch pretty much all super hero movies, in the vain hope they might surprise and satisfy me, something that has only really happened with Nolan's Batman movies and Ang Lee's Hulk. Also, Thor some nice reviews, which, as it happened with Star Trek, baffled me quite a bit after seeing the movie

Fair enough, we like what we like

I have avoided Thor because it's only in 3D in my immediate area, and haven't felt like driving 40 minutes for 2D or forking out extra for 3D.

Unlucky, we caught it in 2D. Cannot see why this would 3D at all.

the 3d was awful, it was poorly done on the cheap. In reality the only part of the film that I really enjoyed was the robot scene. Thor is just the least likable hero. I wanted him to lose.

[A24 4,333]

It isn't a typical superhero movie - it's not a billionaire with a utility belt or a teenager who crossed a radioactive rail car. It's based on mythology but I don't feel like I'm watching a fantasy flick. It blends elements of several genres into something unique. Did you dislike it?

I haven't seen it, Jeff, but I was curious to know what you meant with "unique" because, going by the trailer, that's a description I don't expect from Thor. Then again, whether it's gods from Greek Mythology or superheroes from USA mythology, it's all fantasy to me. Even as a comic book character, Thor has always been one of the many superheroes out there, just like Superman. At first, I thought you meant to say the film is aiming for something else, you know, like Watchmen (which is so cynical and pessimistic that it's a miracle it slipped through the meshes of the net). If that is the case, then I would be interested.

Alex

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Watchmen is one of the worst superhero films ever. It should have been titled UnWatchable.

[Brónach 1,302]

Not a fan of Watchmen (film), but I think you are exaggerating a lot there.

[Quintus 5,399]

Heh heh...

[Jeff 10]

At first, I thought you meant to say the film is aiming for something else, you know, like Watchmen (which is so cynical and pessimistic that it's a miracle it slipped through the meshes of the net). If that is the case, then I would be interested.

Alex

It definitely doesn't fit your criteria. Despite being "unique" for the reasons I cited, if you step back, it still follows the archetypal model - hero saves world, learns lessons and changes heart along the way.

[Morlock 11]

My only optimism for it was because of Branagh's involvement. But from what I've heard, it sounds just as crappy as the other Marvel films.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It's good entertainment.

Last night I watched Easy Rider (Criterion Collection).

My first time seeing it, and wow what an amazing film. I wasn't expecting it to be so visual. Great cinematography, and Criterion's transfer is unbelievable. Looks like it was filmed today, no noise with just the right amount of grain.

[Brónach 1,302]

X-Men. Good. I love the funny bits. Needs getting more into the different characters. Insatisfying because of its own simplicity. Great cast. Unusual point of view and choices for a X-Men adaptatiopn, but it works.

X2. Better. Fun. Looses its rythm here and there trying to follow so many different characters. Needs more Cyclops and definitely more Magneto. But this need of choosing of characters will always be the problem of making X-Men films. There are too many worth a storyline or two.

Next week, more mutants!

I think that X-Men could have worked as a long saga like Harry Potter.

[Matt C 454]

I think that X-Men could have worked as a long saga like Harry Potter.

I think it would've been a great idea, but the films have to be constantly successful like the HP films had in order to sustain a 6-8 movie arc. Then there's a thorny issue with securing the main ensemble cast (aka the 'unreplaceable' actors) for that long -- you're talking about 6-8 leads. It's not so much a problem with Potter since a studio can accomodate three top-billed actors easier and up the supporting cast's salary with each film.

[Brónach 1,302]

I think that X-Men could have worked as a long saga like Harry Potter.

I think it would've been a great idea, but the films have to be constantly successful like the HP films had in order to sustain a 6-8 movie arc. Then there's a thorny issue with securing the main ensemble cast (aka the 'unreplaceable' actors) for that long -- you're talking about 6-8 leads. It's not so much a problem with Potter since a studio can accomodate three top-billed actors easier and up the supporting cast's salary with each film.

Probably not so many leads since they can introduce new characters and return to the earlier ones later, but always keeping a core three or four characters (like the droids in Star Wars). I said it because it seems to me like a world as rich and interesting like the world of Harry Potter, and it also has the "young people with unusual habilities in unusual school" idea.

I think I just like stories about people with superpowers that deal about the people and the superpowers and not about going around catching criminals or something. I like Hulk too for this reason.

[Datameister 2,043]

I just finished The Machinist. Wow...the payoff at the end may not have been as good as I hoped, but I think it's a very well-crafted film overall. Lots of interesting stuff happening visually, and the growing sense of guilt and paranoia is almost overwhelming. Not to mention the extremes to which Christian Bale went to look the part. And although I probably wouldn't buy the soundtrack, the score maintained an appropriately worried, outlandish tone that I quite enjoyed in the context of the film.

[A24 4,333]

Probably not so many leads since they can introduce new characters and return to the earlier ones later, but always keeping a core three or four characters (like the droids in Star Wars). I said it because it seems to me like a world as rich and interesting like the world of Harry Potter, and it also has the "young people with unusual habilities in unusual school" idea.

I think I just like stories about people with superpowers that deal about the people and the superpowers and not about going around catching criminals or something. I like Hulk too for this reason.

Yeah, how many times do we have to see Batman chasing The Joker, The Penguin or Two-Face?! At least Batman Begins dealt with the origins of Batman. We see him grow up from muppet baby to fully grown Bats. The film's only problem were the action scenes, which you couldn't really see. That's the point, you might say, but still, there's nothing to see. I've said it before, Nolan is the opposite of Snyder. One might wonder about the product of their merger.

Ang lee's Hulk is actually a modern version of Frankenstein. And funnily enough, both Bats Begins and Hulk are about father figures and disillusions.

Alex

[Brónach 1,302]

I didn't say that because of the Batman films, given that they work like criminal dramas with a touch of fantasy and not about dealing with superpowers. I cringe everytime they try to shoehorn Batman as a random superhero saving the day. Where he really works is on the "action detective" mode.

[A24 4,333]

Suddenly you're making exceptions for the Bats? Superpowers or super training leading to uberhuman results ... They are fighting supergangsters. What's the difference? It's all James Bond. I can't say that about Hulk or Watchmen.

[Brónach 1,302]

You answered yourself. Because Batman has nothing to do with characters like the mutants or Bruce Banner. He isn't in a "situation", he's more of a Bond type character. He's a guy who faces insanely fun characters because he's a bit insane deep down. I like all the doubts about what he should and shouldn't do, and why he's even doing what he is doing. Fantasy about the criminals.

It's not like, for example, the fourth chapter of Watchmen.

I don't know if I'm making sense. What I mean is it's all about the focus.

[A24 4,333]

I thought you had a problem with catching criminals. Isn't that what Bond does? Or is it okay to catch criminals when you don't have superpowers? I thought you liked Hulk because he's not a caped hero who uses his powers to catch criminals? What's the difference between Bats, Spider or Supes? Super or not, it's all James Bond.

[Brónach 1,302]

Oh I see.

Well James Bond is a cold blooded assasin and I hardly ever saw him as a hero, but that doens't mean he can't do good things.

Is it okay to catch criminals when you don't have superpowers? Not necessarily. I hate it when they put the law as that perfect thing you must follow and if you don't you're evil and should be in jail because you don't agree with us. Batman is an anarchist figure most of the time who does what he does because he has a Shlerock Holmes inside and doesn't know otherwise. Actually it might be just that, I like the world of Batman because of the crazy characters.

One of the reasons I like the Hulk character is that Bruce Banner is essentially a good person with a problem. He's chased many times, instead of being revered. It has that "person against the system" angle that I like sometimes.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I don't like Hulk because all he does is run from the government. It'll be nice to see him chase someone for a change.

[Brónach 1,302]

Oh that depends how the Hulk persona is handled. If Banner can't control it, the Hulk does whatever it wants, but it isn't necessarily evil.

[A24 4,333]

Well James Bond is a cold blooded assasin and I hardly ever saw him as a hero, but that doens't mean he can't do good things.

Why does he do good things? Because he's a cold-blooded assassin? No, he does them because he is 'good' like us. That's why everybody loves him. He wants to put everyone with an evil plan behind bars. And, most importantly, he does it with style, wit and humor. We want to be him! Cold assassin? I think not. Is it cold to kill the man who has his finger on the red button, ready to destroy the world?

I don't like Hulk because all he does is run from the government. It'll be nice to see him chase someone for a change.

That's why they made The Incredible Hulk, for people like you (and Joey)

[Brónach 1,302]

Maybe you can be "good" and be a cold blooded assassin at the same time.