In my drunken idiocy last night (I don't remember posting), I forgot to mention I just saw Ted. I thought it was a solid effort. In romantic comedy terms it isn't really innovative, but MacFarlane doesn't drop the ball. It does indeed have a plot, a pretty well worn one in terms of a man-child needing to grow up and it's not the strongest, but definitely stronger than most movies of this genre. The jokes ranged from good to bizarre to hilarious; I don't wanna repeat any here but they're certainly on a page with the better Family Guy gags. There's a slew of cameos, and I didn't think they were overplayed. Pop culture references abound, but it goes easy on the flashbacks (I only remember two, and one was story related), and I think they're kept funny. The characterisation is perfunctory, but in a movie like this it's all it need to be, and Mila Kunis isn't just the naggy girlfriend plot device. Mark Wahlberg did a terrific job of acting opposite a special effect, so I think he deserves mad props too. Go and see it for a good time, if you want complexity, subtlety, nuance and depth, stay home and wank over a Tolstoy novel.
The Amazing Spider Man It's impossible not to compare this film to the 2002 effort, so to start: I liked this one better. The villain was better, the actor portraying Spider-Man/Peter Parker was a more believable teenager, the supporting cast was better (Dennis Leary, Sally Fields, Martin Sheen all did pretty well) and it stayed much more true to the comic. The good: it didn't try too hard and it stayed very close to the original comic in most ways. The fight scenes looked great and were well done. The exciting part of it was realizing the possibilities of the powers and how each action was a legitimate extension of that power. For example, why would Spider-Man punch a guy flat-footed and square, when he can jump on his back and catapult him to the ground? Garfield did a great job of portraying Parker as a nervous, awkward teenager. The plot was nothing outrageous for a comic book movie. Finally, this movie was true to the character in that you see how much being Spider-Man is fun, yet a huge drain on his life and the people in it. The bad: the music was pretty awful. A lot of the fight scenes were too fast to really follow. The Lizard's face just looked weird. They didn't use the "with great power, comes great responsibility" line that's been in every Spider-Man medium since ever. Garfield had a nervous twitch that was just bizarre. Overall, my complaints are minor and I enjoyed this movie a lot. I didn't see it in 3d, but there were a few key scenes that would have made it cool (I guess). Also, this is by far the best Stan Lee cameo I've ever seen.
Just saw The Amazing Spiderman. I don't know if it's just me seeing more of how movies work since I've seen the first one, (or maybe I've been reading too many of KIMaster's reviews) but I thought it was average. A couple points: (Spoilers) 1. The villain in The Amazing Spiderman wasn't developed enough. From what I saw, his main motivation for doing everything was his arm. He's deformed, and his hatred of his crippled self consumes him to the point that he is willing to turn himself into a monster to correct it. Now, this part is great; I liked it. I'm not an amputee, but whenever I get injured, I'm always thinking about that bone / muscle / joint. Having it permanently damaged and knowing that I will never have full functionality with it again would eat at me terribly. I can understand someone with the means to "cure" himself doing whatever it took to do so, even if the side effects were worse than the deformity. But the plot loses me when he decides that he's going to turn everyone into lizards. Why? He's doing this for himself, not for others. He got his arm back! I think a much more compelling story would have been him getting bigger and bigger, losing more and more of his humanity, and destroying everything that he loved, all because of his obsession with his missing arm. There would be a point where he realizes that he's gone too far, that it's not worth it, and yet still abandons himself to his fate because he cannot imagine going back to his former self. The climax of the movie would have Spiderman "curing" him, restoring his humanity... and with it, his old injury. That forced redemption and the acceptance that it brings would be far more compelling than the standard superhero model of "Supervillain is trying to destroy the city in.. T-MINUS TEN MINUTES AND COUNTING! You're our only hope, dude in spandex!" 2. The police chief baffled me. In the original Spiderman, the police are just doing their jobs. The bad guy is the tabloid editor pitting the public against Spiderman in order to sensationalize his news. In this one, the police chief himself is leading the fight against someone who is helping him! His real motivation for trying to "take Spiderman off the streets" is that Spiderman is doing his job better than he is! That just doesn't work, in my opinion. I could see the police chief being uncooperative and dismissive, but not blatantly antagonistic. On the other hand, I enjoyed Peter Parker's development far more. The first movie basically had him magically develop superpowers and go "Whee! This is so awesome!" This one has him being completely uncontrollable for the first few days. And, like a typical disaffected teenager, the first thing he does with his new power is bully the kid who bullied him. That's great stuff; it opens up that dialogue of "With great power comes great responsibility" that Uncle Ben should have out-and-out said. The girl is "meh," but no one really cares. She's there to look cute and cause Peter Parker to show the vulnerable side that just doesn't manifest itself when he's kicking ass. Some of the dialogue between them was truly, horrifyingly awkward... and sadly, very realistic. Summary: Good movie with a couple nitpicky flaws in it. Go see it; it's entertaining. Russell Crowe will throw a sword at you if you don't.
This kinda sums up the way I feel about The Amazing Spiderman. Nothing really wrong with it, some of it was very good, but still in the end it just didn't have whatever it needed to pierce the zeitgeist, at least in my eyes. It may just be wildly popular without me knowing why. Not bad, perfectly serviceable. Admittedly I only went because a bunch of my cousins were going and I wanted to catch up with them, so I'll say this: Our conversation afterwards was not dominated by the film at all. It had a lot of really funny little moments, but nothing overly quotable; a lot of good acting, and scenes that had the potential, but just kind of coasted by on their ideas alone, nothing quite 'popped'. I found myself rejigging the dialogue in my head, because it was always almost there. I did like Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben (though when he made a crack about being "young and wild once," I immediately thought of Badlands). All the non-leads appear to be stunt-casting, but they all do good work. Comparisons to Raimi's films? I can't be bothered really trying to explore it thoroughly, but I will say this: This film had three writers, which is actually less than the first Raimi film. But by the same token, I doubt Marc Webb's life has been leading up to the making of this film. He may be a fan of Spiderman, but I just don't feel that this is made with the same *love* Raimi infused into his work. (And don't come back at me with S3, we all knew that was a clusterfuck from the beginning). I don't know. I never read Marvel comics (not out of snobbery, I am just too stupid to keep track of comics), so maybe this is really what the fans want. With that ignorance of the comics in mind, I thought Spidey was meant to be really handy with the zingers. Wasn't that supposed to be his thing? He's not meant to be all brooding as Batman (and lord knows, I'm not asking for this to be Batman & Robin), but there were plenty of spaces in the action scenes devoid of one-liners and witty banter. Still, it has more heart and soul than any Transformers movie: so if you want to see a decent stab at comic book fare by all means enjoy the movie. Just don't expect it to leave a lasting impression.
TED: The vast majority of the funny material can be seen in the trailers. Mila Kunis is gorgeous enough to almost distract you from the fact that at least two of the jokes are recycled from Family Guy episodes. Yes, I know who Seth McFarlane is, and no, that doesn't excuse recycling your own jokes because you've burned through every last bit of creativity you had. If you can see it for $5 like I did, it's not painful to sit through, but it's nothing special.
I am somewhat bitter that they put the thunder song in the trailer. I think that would have been easily the biggest laugh out loud moment of the movie. There were a couple of moments where I kind of wish they'd gone for offensive jokes instead of chick flick moments - but overall I thought it was pretty funny. The fight scene was easily worth the price of big screen tickets alone. If you've watched Family Guy a lot, the jokes are pretty predictable - but it's still a decent movie.
And Hallelujah, I might add. The Amazing Spider-Man Definitely worth a watch. Things that the movie did well: - It's ridiculous how much better Andrew Garfield is than Tobey Maguire. When Tobey does his dorky/awkward shtick, you want to slap him in the face, or at least laugh at him; with Garfield, not only is it more natural, but it leaves you rooting for the guy. His witty quips are far less douchey, his body language is less pathetic, etc, etc. What I'm trying to say is, Fuck Tobey Maguire. - Much more development for Uncle Ben, Peter's love interest, and his relationships with people in general. This is a Good Thing. The relationship with Uncle Ben, especially, was really well portrayed. If you know anything about Spider-Man, you know Uncle Ben gets shot; the way this was handled was far better than it was in the previous series - there's actually some meaning to it, instead of it just being "lol some random thug shot me, go fight crime". The aftermath is also fun to watch. - The fight scenes were well-done. I especially liked the bit where he jumps on Lizard, webs him and scurries all over his body like a... wait for it... spider. Nice. Negatives: mostly minor things, but they add up. - Gonna have to echo earlier comments about the villain. His motivation doesn't really make sense. I can't hate the movie too much for it, though; this movie, after all, is much more about Parker himself. But even for the limited time they gave it, they could have handled that better. - Police chief: Good character, doesn't get as fleshed out as he deserves. He almost seems like he belongs more in The Dark Knight (but hey, more superhero movies could stand to be like The Dark Knight). See last two sentences above. - The movie occasionally remembers it's a superhero movie, and throws a bit of cheesiness at you. The scene with the cranes (Ordinary people being heroes! Hooray!) really stands out in this regard. - Little moments that break the suspension of disbelief. No one stops Peter from going in the secret room with the spiders? There's no surveillance cameras in OsCorp? Really? No one gets a picture of the Lizard while he's busting up cars on the Williamsburg bridge? Overall, definitely recommended, not life-changing, but much better than I expected, mostly due to Andy Garfield's standout performance. I'll be looking out for the sequel. Grade: a high +
The Dark Knight Rises Holy fuck, was I entertained. Spoiler-free lowdown: This series, I feel, was never realistic, but rather, used the veneer of a heightened realism as an aesthetic, to tell this story in a way that Batman hadn't really been presented before. If you loved the first two movies because you felt they were "realistic" then prepare to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed. While it doesn't abandon threads already established, it does take on an epic new scale that well and truly enters comic book territory. Look, I'm still digesting this film (my cinema also ran Batman Begins and Dark Knight in the lead up to the midnight showing), and I don't feel comfortable making much of a critical analysis of it at this point. I'm likely going to see it at least two more times before its run ends, at least once at Imax. I will say this though: I think it will be polarising. I think a lot of people are not going to click with this, though they may just end up being a vocal minority. I can't say I didn't have problems with it, and I can't say I didn't anticipate some of it's moves (even stuff the internet had long guessed about the ending); but goddamn if it didn't come up with many more moves I didn't see coming. Sweet fuck, in terms of scale it is a whole other level. The Dark Knight will be remembered as the superior film, I'm sure; the Empire to Rises' Jedi, only if the Ewoks were evil ak-47 wielding mercenaries. This one keeps its ties closer to Begins, no one mentions the Joker once. What they do deal with from TDK is the fact that the 'white lies' justified at the time, all come unravelling here, which I was really happy about. Also good call on using Maggie Gyllenhaal's face for the photo of Rachel. This being said, this one is the darkest and grimmest fare, which will be a sticking point for a lot of people: it's less 'fun' than the others, with the exception of Catwoman. She is the most cartoon-ish of the lot, and lightens the mood a bit, thankfully. Spoiler Though what's with her all like, lezzing out with that chick and stuff, and then at the end she turns around and is all like, in love with Bruce and shit?
Negative reviews of new Batman film on RottenTomatoes spawn numerous death threats. It's simultaneously funny, pathetic...and not the least bit surprising.
That's so sad, normally the comments section of anything on the internet ever are the beacon of respect and sanity.
The demented, angry comments are to be expected. But actual death threats?! Anyways, I want to see this movie, but also want to avoid big crowds. Any idea what matinee times are the best?
There aren't any. Last time a Batman came out, I went to the 9am show...packed. Other friends went sporadically throughout the day and every single time...packed. Kids will go all day to see it. And when kids go home for lunch, lunchtime-abled adults will see it. Pretty much shit out of luck all the way around. I'm debating my time but have resigned myself to the fact that it's going to be insane. I'm just happy I still have a handicapped parking pass.
The post above is usually pretty good. If i want to avoid big crowds on a big movie like batman, i normally wait about 3 weeks to go, by that time the crowds have thinned down.
If midnight screenings are any indication, it's going to be a looooong time before the crowds die down. http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/07/the-amount-of-dark-knight-rises-midnight-screenings-is-insane Supposedly WB has received reports of theaters requesting Brinks trucks make extra stops due to the insane amount of cash they'll be taking in this weekend. http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/dar...records-scalpers-brinks-trucks-than-avengers/
I went in the middle of a Thursday, and only a third of the cinema was occupied. One of the perks of living in Australia I suppose
I've had good luck with big releases opening weekend (uh.. Harry Potter and the Hunger Games.... don't ask) at between noon and 1.
Yeah, I gotta show this to my friends so they understand why I'm hitting the ground every 5 seconds I hear a gunshot. Just got tickets to see it in IMAX on Monday, $20 per ticket to buy it online in advance. I like the CNN write-up of the story better. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colora ... ?hpt=hp_t1</a>
look, the movie aint that good: and should really aim a lot lowerl; since it's using a lot of Kill Bill's techniques. The movie is good: but it aint' kill your hermano good...