The Film Thread: Page 343 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

The Film Thread

Claudius

Burnwinter wrote:
Logan is about twenty minutes too long, has lots of very silly moments, and has its head way up its own arse in the way a lot of westerns do. But apart from a few bum notes at the very end, it's vastly superior to most superhero films.

It achieves its superiority by doing some simple things the vast majority of superhero films don't in a workmanlike way: convincingly depicting moments of human frailty, vulnerability and intimacy, and drawing on cinema history for inspiration.

How easy it would be for all franchise cinema to suck as little as Logan did—not necessarily to be great, but just to be not awful.

The credits on a movie are hundreds of people. You wonder how so many constantly get something that appears simple so wrong almost every time.

QuincyAbeyie

Irish gunner wrote:
Just finished Rogue One, thought it was absolutely fantastic. So much better than TFA

Yeah, no doubt. TFA was good because we were happy as long as they didn't fuck it up like the prequels, but Rogue One was just an extremely entertaining space action.

Irishgunner

I'm about to watch Vin Diesel's the last witch hunter. I fully expect it to be complete shite yet fantastically enjoyable!

Klaus

That sounds about half right from memory! Pretty solid film that actually underwhelmed a little when it came to the enjoyable shite part. I would have loved for them to crank it up a bit more. It felt a little like Constantine (I liked The Last Witch Hunter better of the two) and I thought they should have aimed towards Evil Dead instead. It's pretty entertaining though!

banduan

Beauty and the Beast is a decent trip down nostalgia lane and a good replacement to the original for kids who haven't seen that. Competent performances, with Gaston and Le Fou outstanding. Ewan / Candlebloke is awful.

Ghost in the Shell is awful. Wasn't a huge fan of the original but appreciated its value. This remake had none of the good qualities of the original, and the novelty value has worn off thanks to The Matrix. It's badly paced, too fast in the wrong moments, slow in the irrelevant ones. You care for none of the characters. ScarJo walks with a hunch and it's distracting.

invisibleman18

Yeah saw Beauty and the Beast in the weekend and it was pretty good.

banduan

I don't care if yous don't like these Marvel flicks, this is just a major turn-on.

QuincyAbeyie

You don't even need to be a fan of the MCU to want to see what Waititi can do on a blockbuster budget.

Gazza M

the visuals in these marvel movies still bug me. something bland and washed out about them

looks more promising than the previous thor movies though

QuincyAbeyie

I've also wondered about that. Doesn't seem like it would take a lot of work to improve either.

banduan

I'm not so sure about that, Thor 3 looks like it takes on 3 different aesthetics: Thor 1&2 at Asgard, with bright visuals slightly toned down, Snyderscope for what looks like to be a flashback of Hela (Cate Blanchett's character) and a full blown Guardians of the Galaxy vibe for the Planet Hulk section.

Burnwinter

It's a seriously good trailer—using Immigrant Song was a stroke of genius.

Apparently a lot of the film is "road trip comedy" which sounds promising. Hemsworth's a solid comic talent which is one of the reasons the Thor films have sucked less than most of the MCU offerings.

QuincyAbeyie

After a previous discussion I rewatched them both. The first one was a lot more enjoyable than I remembered, but still think the sequel is pretty bad. Especially the Portman and Dennings parts, while the villain is weak even by Marvel standards. Both Hiddleston and Hemsworth are perfect for their roles though.

Qwiss

Burnwinter wrote:
It's a seriously good trailer—using Immigrant Song was a stroke of genius.

Apparently a lot of the film is "road trip comedy" which sounds promising. Hemsworth's a solid comic talent which is one of the reasons the Thor films have sucked less than most of the MCU offerings.

Qwiss

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
After a previous discussion I rewatched them both. The first one was a lot more enjoyable than I remembered, but still think the sequel is pretty bad. Especially the Portman and Dennings parts, while the villain is weak even by Marvel standards. Both Hiddleston and Hemsworth are perfect for their roles though.

The second Thor is possibly the worst film of the MCU. Its certainly one of.

RocktheCasbah

Anyone seen Get Out?

goon

Guardians of the Galaxy is the one I'm looking forward to, the first was one of my favorites from the MCU.

Tony Montana

RocktheCasbah wrote:
Anyone seen Get Out?

Yep.

Burnwinter

Qwiss! wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:
It's a seriously good trailer—using Immigrant Song was a stroke of genius.

Apparently a lot of the film is "road trip comedy" which sounds promising. Hemsworth's a solid comic talent which is one of the reasons the Thor films have sucked less than most of the MCU offerings.

Yeah, the second one wasn't great I acknowledge—largely because of the paint by numbers villain—but there's a lot of pure shite in the MCU.

There's just a great critical and consumer tolerance for shitty ensemble cast films rehashing the same "enemy within" plot again and again. The Thor films have consistently transcended that visually and dramatically. When you watch them it doesn't feel like you're spending the day at your office job.

banduan

Natalie Portman's character spoilt the first two Thors for me. Rewatching the first, I found moments of real character, but it's quickly snuffed out by Portman's perplexingly besotted scientist.

« Previous Page Next Page »