 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 11, 2013 - 8:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
Iron Man as a concept is "dead". I have no interest in this film. I know it's taboo to be critical of something one has never seen.
I don't know if it's taboo, but you do run the risk of being, as you are here, almost entirely wrong. For most of the movie Stark isn't in the suit, and while I don't want to spoil anything, a lot of the stuff you're talking about is set up basically to bring things back to basics. It does go overboard, and as I mentioned some of the execution is half-assed, but the impression you've picked up from the trailers is, mostly, not representative of what's in the film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 11, 2013 - 9:21 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Iron Man as a concept is "dead". I have no interest in this film. I know it's taboo to be critical of something one has never seen.
I don't know if it's taboo, but you do run the risk of being, as you are here, almost entirely wrong. For most of the movie Stark isn't in the suit, and while I don't want to spoil anything, a lot of the stuff you're talking about is set up basically to bring things back to basics. It does go overboard, and as I mentioned some of the execution is half-assed, but the impression you've picked up from the trailers is, mostly, not representative of what's in the film.
I do know what happens in the film. So I was being as general as I can in my description. If nothing else the film was an excuse to merchandise many multiple Iron Man variants. I have nothing against merchandising, but its obviously that was the real reason here. The big wrap up was a lame excuse to justify the over commercialization of the product. If the next film keeps to the basics it might be the Iron Man film I want to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spoiler:
I also heard he no longer needs his power core, and chucked it into the sea.
Every hero needs an Achilles’ heel.
This was dealt with in IRON MAN 2:
The palladium core in the arc reactor that keeps Stark alive and powers the armor was slowly poisoning him and he hadn't found a substitute until he sees a hidden message in the diorama of the 1974 Stark Expo and it proves to be a diagram of the structure of a new element. This allows him to power the suit for finale.
IRON MAN 3 however has Tony using that element to power the suits themselves and is not directly linked to his arc reactor.
This is why Tony has to use electricity to recharge the Mark 41.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEVER LET ME GO -- -10/10
Negative 10
This movie was so HORRIBLE I am almost tempted to buy the book which is widely praised and see what went wrong or perhaps everything went right and people are just idiots.
So the film is about Ruth, Kathy and Tommy, spend their childhood at a seemingly idyllic English boarding school. As they grow into young adults, they find that they have to come to terms with the strength of the love they feel for each other, while preparing themselves for the haunting reality that awaits them which is they are in fact clones created for their organs and that after THREE donations most of it not all die. The film shows us how this group of three try to extend their fates by proving they are in LOVE.
My biggest problem with this film is that we are presented with characters that clearly wish to live, have souls [a theme of the film], and want more time but none of them have a "spirit" to FIGHT, REBEL, or ACT for what they want! I was willing to buy the fact that they were willing to go along with being killed but all they wanted were a few more years but once they are told NO they simple accept it... and in such a way that almost ruins the entire idea of watching film.
Why watch a "struggle" if it is hardly that or watch characters that essentially go through nothing and demand zero, why care, why connect, why invest?
I don't think a film has ever ANGERED me at such a poor display of the human spirit and even now as I write this I am wondering if maybe THAT was the point... that these clones weren't human and because of what they lack weren't HUMAN BEINGS as centuries of our human progression has been made on rebellions and adversity and these kids... give up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LET ME IN -- 0/10
what an awful film! like DRIVE everything but the story is there. my biggest beef with this film is that nothing of interest happens and the two leads don't make me care about anything. it wasn't a horror film, it wasn't a scary film, it wasn't an ANYTHING film. it had moments that were good and of angst that worked but none of these moments made me feel that the kids in it needed to be ripped to shreds LOL. in the end it was almost like watching a film between a violent husband and the wife that learns to love him because our main character is essentially nothing more then a daytime guarding and we see the vampire in this film have no use for her current protector who is rather selfless and blinded by his love.
one thing is awesome and that is the film score! MY GOODNESS was it amazing and far better then this film deserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 18, 2013 - 1:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011) dir. Lasse Hallström -- Generally inoffensive but really a wasted opportunity. Ebert's review is spot-on: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/salmon-fishing-in-the-yemen-2012
Safe Haven (2013) dir. Lasse Hallström -- Exactly what you expect from a Nicholas Sparks movie. There's one predictable element that doesn't work in much the same way it didn't work in Dream House.
Timeline (2003) dir. Richard Donner -- I expected to hate this after all the poor reviews, but really I didn't. It wasn't awful or risible so much as dull. Which is, in some ways, worse. Also, the travel effect is inexcusable after StarGate set the bar for that kind of thing almost a decade earlier.
Texas Chainsaw (2013) dir. John Luessenhop -- Some people seem confused by the timeline here. I guess I'm more forgiving since I'm used to the rolling timeline that's commonplace in comics. (Or maybe some people are either (a) too stupid to be watching movies or (b) too literal-minded to be watching genre movies. But that's not very generous of me.) Anyway. Alexandra Daddario's abs star in this movie that thankfully dispenses with its slashing fairly quickly and aspires to something a little more. Without much success, I should say, but it tries. Still and all, pretty tedious stuff.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) dir. J.J. Abrams -- I liked this just fine. It was definitely popcorn cinema; its limited aspirations to deeper and darker places were just window dressing, and the antagonist had some truly clunky lines. But as far as popcorn cinema goes, it was definitely more worth my money than, say Iron Man 3 was, for what that's worth. A well-made action adventure, and the stupidity wasn't as overwhelming as I feared. There were some missteps: the magic blood was completely unnecessary and there wasn't anything in this movie that couldn't have been worked around without it, and while the radiation inversion worked thematically even though it was not very well executed, the "KHAAAAANNN!!!" shout was genuinely laughable and should have been left out for sure. Anyway. An enjoyable couple hours, a good score by Giacchino. Will I watch it again? Maybe once, before I see the next Trek film, so it's not exactly a keeper, but as summer spectacle it was fine. If you're looking for more than summer spectacle in a Trek film, you may or may not find what you're looking for here.
People Like Us (2012) dir. Alex Kurtzman -- I was curious to see what Kurtzman and Orci could do away from the big dumb blockbuster mode, and honestly I was pleasantly surprised. This is one of those movies that could have ended at the beginning with a simple conversation, but unlike most films of that nature I could understand why that conversation went unhad and what was driving the characters. Chris Pine was much better here than he is in genre junk (much like Gerard Butler is capable of delivering a surprisingly good dramatic turn when given the chance), and it was nice to see Elizabeth Banks in something other than a supporting role. Not a great movie but a solid little drama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 22, 2013 - 7:33 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
DeputyRiley
(Member)
|
Deadfall (2012) -- 9/10
A superior thriller. Excellent cast: Eric Bana, Olivia Wilde, Charlie Hunnam, Kris Kristofferson, Sissy Spacek, Treat Williams, Kata Mara. Various characters -- some criminal, some law, but many connected by family -- become involved in disparate events throughout a relentelessly snow-drenched French-Canadian border wilderness, ultimately all convening at a bloody nightmare Thanksgiving dinner.
Awesome performance by Eric Bana, who makes for a chilling villain...who isn't quite a villain, or at least doesn't think he is, and his acts are often either angelic or devilish. He alternates between likeable and unlikeable with exquisite grace and turns in a very disturbing performance that is wisely tempered and never over-the-top.
Deadfall is also an interesting study of kin, psychologically damaged relationships, and strained and conflicting loyalties. Marco Beltrami's score is fantastic and evocative here but sadly mixed down horribly in the soundtrack. Nevetheless it manages to give the proceedings a grim, haunting quality in a voice that is distinctly Beltrami -- dark and soulful.
The film was originally titled Blackbird, which makes more sense than Deadfall, which makes no sense and has no ties to the film, just a generic word that could title any straight-to-DVD 80's thriller. At one time the film was also called Kin, which is my favorite of possible titles, because it's the heart of the story.
Watch this film!
The Fast and the Furious (2001) -- 3/10
Might be one of the worst-written films in history. Assumes all audience members are idiots, evidenced by wretched dialogue from a MST3K film and a plot that is a near-direct xerox of Point Break.
Say what you will about a film like Saw IV, but that horror thriller had more intellect and thought put into its narrative and storytelling than The Fast and the Furious could ever begin to imagine.
Having said that, bt's score was thrilling and the car chase sequences were impressive. There is something magnetic about the two leads, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker, that I somewhat enjoyed myself watching them even though whatever they were doing and however they were acting was laughable at any given moment. Plus, Jordana Brewster and Michelle Rodriguez...lovely-lookers.
Very interested in the F&F sequels, however, and have them lined up to watch next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 22, 2013 - 7:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Michael24
(Member)
|
The Fast and the Furious (2001) -- 3/10
Might be one of the worst-written films in history. Assumes all audience members are idiots, evidenced by wretched dialogue from a MST3K film and a plot that is a near-direct xerox of Point Break. Say what you will about a film like Saw IV, but that horror thriller had more intellect and thought put into its narrative and storytelling than The Fast and the Furious could ever begin to imagine. Having said that, bt's score was thrilling and the car chase sequences were impressive. There is something magnetic about the two leads, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker, that I somewhat enjoyed myself watching them even though whatever they were doing and however they were acting was laughable at any given moment. Plus, Jordana Brewster and Michelle Rodriguez...lovely-lookers.
Huh. I was always under the impression you were a huge fan of this franchise. I guess not. Haha! I finally saw this one last year, and while it was nothing special, I did think it was fun and was surprised to find it was nowhere near as bad as the sequels, which I actually saw some of first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
