Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Bullitt68]

Well I have been watching movies like a machine of late. First, I'm all caught up on my Marvel movies. @Ricky13, if you're out there, we need to talk about Avengers: Infinity War and consequences. They did some stuff right but they also did some stuff wrong. But since it's obviously just the first part to a bigger story I'm reserving final judgment. @Dragonlordxxxxx, what's the consensus on Phase Three? Are people digging the direction the MCU has been heading? What was the reaction to the end of Infinity War? How do you rank the Phase Three films?

Spoiler

And does everyone else know with 100% certainty that they're just going to get the Infinity Stones back from Thanos and use the Time Stone to reverse time and undisintegrate everyone who disintegrated at the end of Infinity War?

As for the standalone films: Doctor Strange sucked. Just a redundant character and silly Harry Potter crap. But Mads was an awesome bad guy so at least there was that.

Thor: Ragnarok wasn't as bad and silly as I was scared it was going to be based on the trailers, but it's still nowhere near as awesome as the first two films. Thor is still the best Avenger, though, and his ass-kicking returns in Ragnarok (on the Bifrost) and Infinity War (in Wakanda) were the highlights of both films.

Black Panther was good but not great. It's easy to understand why it's gotten so much critical attention, and it's definitely more than just a bunch of black people - the black people in it are also talented and did solid work - but the script left a lot to be desired, Michael B. Jordan wasn't even close to Max Cady levels of righteous rage which is what was needed to really sell that character, and Chadwick Boseman is a bland hero.

Spider-Man: Homecoming was the surprise of the bunch. I thought that it'd suck and that Michael Keaton would be the only thing I wouldn't hate but I was WAY off. This says more about how relatively weak Phase Three has been, but I think that this is easily the best Phase Three film. And, of course, Michael Keaton was awesome in it.

For more serious stuff, I watched three recent Atom Egoyan films on Netflix. @Rimbaud82 and @moreorless87, what are your thoughts on him? I've found him kind of disappointing. First I watched The Captive. I found the premise intriguing and the film itself was intriguing and the way that Egoyan chose to tell the story in non-linear fashion worked very well. But the ending stunk. Not terribly to the point where it ruined the experience, but enough to where I was bummed at the end. It should've been at least 20 minutes longer and featured a more substantive conclusion.

Then I watched Devil's Knot. Again, I found the premise intriguing, except this time the film was not very intriguing. It was told poorly, dragged, was boring, and then ends abruptly with text on the screen providing information that should've been conveyed with at least 30 minutes of more movie taking us through the events casually thrown up on the screen. Plus, like Hitchcock with The Wrong Man, Egoyan shackled himself to the true story and that limited what he could do with his script.

And then I watched Remember. This is easily his best film IMO. Short, simple, and packs a hell of a punch. It's basically a Holocaust-themed Memento with an old guy with dementia rather than a young guy with a head injury. Christopher Plummer and Martin Landau are both great and Egoyan finally manages an ending that not only doesn't suck but that's actually great.

I also watched Into the Forest on Netflix. It was terrible. I like both Ellen Page and Evan Rachel Wood, but this movie was dull, dragged on forever, and ended on a nothing note that made the whole experience feel like a waste of time.

I had a James Gray double header and watched We Own the Night (sloppy script and lame performances, although the car chase with Joaquin Phoenix and Robert Duvall trying to get away from the Russian mobsters was an excellent sequence) and The Immigrant (I love Marion Cotillard and she was great but, again, the script was very weak, though Phoenix's "I'm nothing" speech at the end is worth the price of admission).

I watched Strangerland which was fucking retarded.

And then, @europe1, I've watched a few classics that you might be interested in. Did you ever see Crime Wave? Somehow I'd never even heard of it but it was amazing. Sterling Hayden is a cop riding an ex-con who as it happens gets tangled up with his old crew (featuring a young Charles Buchinsky in easily his best pre-Charles Bronson role) and has to find a way to escape their clutches for his and his wife's sake (and his wife is the heroine from House of Wax).

Another cool one was Crack-Up. Pat O'Brien plays a renegade art historian who becomes the victim of an elaborate frame-up to keep him from lecturing at a museum. Right up this nerd academic's alley, that's for sure.

And Too Late for Tears was a serious trip. Never heard of this one, either, but I'm so happy I stumbled across it on TCM. Dan Duryea turns in his best performance as a sleazeball who's broken by the depths of cruelty Lizabeth Scott is able to reach. Quite a unique femme fatale.

Finally, I rewatched Jeanne Dielman. I fucking love this movie. loved it when I first watched it a few years back for a film class and I loved it on the rewatch, too. Such an uncompromising and ballsy (irony intended) movie. A unique cinematic experience for sure, and one that I highly recommend.

On the TV front, I watched Sons of Anarchy for my cousin (long story) and was supremely disappointed. That show sucked and is philosophically one of the most objectionable shows I've ever watched with some of the most pathetic and reprehensible human beings ever captured onscreen. Now I'm nearing completion of Parks and Recreation, which I ignored for a long time but which I'm enjoying now that I've finally gotten around to it, though it's rather low-level comedy if compared to the sitcom GOATs.

I liked it a lot, but the only other Bresson I have seen is Diary and I just absolutely love that film, so I definitely prefer it to Pickpocket. Will probably watch The Trial of Joan of Arc next once I can find a good copy.

There's only one Joan of Arc as far as I'm concerned and it's Dreyer's. I'd say go straight for A Man Escaped.

It's distributed through Netflix actually! In the UK it is anyway

Just put it on my list. I'll definitely be watching that in the near future.

It was still pretty good, just not as good as I was expecting.... I think I enjoyed it for the cinematography more than anything. It was very stylish but felt a little too cold and sterile to me, a bit dry, I guess this is somewhat the point as we are supposed to associate this style with Clerici's repression, but it just didn't engage me too much (other than visually).

Oh, that shit engaged me. It felt like I was in a bubbling volcano.

Have you seen Olmi's The Tree of Wooden Clogs? I think you'd enjoy it too if you like this.

Had never even heard of that one. But I notice that it's an Olmi film and I did love Il Posto when I watched it for an Italian cinema class back in the day.

(I haven't actually seen any of his films in many many years, but it always feels good when getting confirmation for my prejudices.)

He isn't a big fan of Tarkovsky of course so I'm not really surprised he doesn't like Malick.

Personally I do tend to think Malick is a little overrated as a visual director, I mean his best work obviously looks good but there is something of the "new age motivational poster" to it for me. I still feel that Badlands is by far his best film due to having such a strong performance from Martin Sheen in it to backup the visuals.

Badlands is great obviously, and I can see the argument for that, but I still think Days of Heaven is possibly his best still.

I'm on moreorless's side and would pick Badlands over Days of Heaven. But both are light years ahead of the garbage he's done since his comeback.

@Bullitt68 You all should watch Bone Tomahawk on Amazon prime. Awesome horror western, with a great cast. Looks cheap but it's worth it.

I remember edco recommending this one to me. I even had it on my Netflix list while I was in the UK but then when I got back to the US it was gone. Still haven't gotten around to it but it's on my to-see list for sure.

And bull im working my way through s3 of hannibal. Dont worry

One of my latest LP purchases lol

"Brahms!"

He doesn't say it with anywhere near the same force, but when I saw "Brahms!" written there, I heard in my head his "Yams!" line in Friends

 

[Dragonlordxxxxx]

@Dragonlordxxxxx, what's the consensus on Phase Three? Are people digging the direction the MCU has been heading? What was the reaction to the end of Infinity War? How do you rank the Phase Three films?

Spoiler

And does everyone else know with 100% certainty that they're just going to get the Infinity Stones back from Thanos and use the Time Stone to reverse time and undisintegrate everyone who disintegrated at the end of Infinity War?

Consensus is people love Phase 3 in general. Yeah, people are digging the direction MCU is heading in but at the same time dreading that some of their favorite characters/actors won't be appearing again in Phase 4 onwards. The people's reaction to Infinity War was that it was awesome, it was heartbreaking and they couldn't believe at that time that they did what they did - basically similar to people's reaction with the end of Empire Strikes Back.

My ranking of Phase 3 films would be:
1. Avengers: Infinity War
2. Thor: Ragnarok
3. Spider-Man: Homecoming
4. Black Panther
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
6. Doctor Strange
7. Ant-Man and the Wasp

 

[Bullitt68]

Consensus is people love Phase 3 in general. Yeah, people are digging the direction MCU is heading in but at the same time dreading that some of their favorite characters/actors won't be appearing again in Phase 4 onwards.

Spoiler

Who's not coming back? I know the Guardians of the Galaxy (yuck) disintegrated (or, in Gamora's case, were killed), but none of the "favorites" - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, even Black Widow - disintegrated. And is it already known of what films Phase 4 will consist?

EDIT: I just realized that Phase 3 isn't over yet. Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame are still to come and those will mark the final two films of this Phase. Right?

The people's reaction to Infinity War was that it was awesome, it was heartbreaking and they couldn't believe at that time that they did what they did - basically similar to people's reaction with the end of Empire Strikes Back.

Spoiler

I can see that, but, like I said: Isn't it obvious that they're just going to reverse time and undo the disintegration? What else are they going to do? Nothing? Just go about their business with half of the population gone and leave it with Thanos winning? No way. Especially since two of their popular new characters, Black Panther and Spider-Man, are among the disintegrated.

Also, they dropped the ball BIG TIME with Thanos' acquisition of the Soul Stone. When it's revealed that he who wishes to acquire the Soul Stone must sacrifice what he loves in a soul-for-a-soul exchange, Gamora talks shit about how he's failed because he doesn't love anything. How retarded could that character be? All the hatred for him in the world wouldn't explain how in the fuck it's possible for her to be so clueless to not realize that he loved her. They should've had her realize that he was going to sacrifice her and she should've twisted the knife and explained to him that he's never had to actually feel what loss feels like as he's gone around "balancing" everything out and this loss represents the chickens coming home to roost.

Lastly, there was again the "Superman Dilemma" with Thor. He's so powerful that they have to come up with a reason why he's not there otherwise he'd just kill everyone. In Ultron, he had to go do his vision quest. In Infinity War, he had to go get an axe. It's lame storytelling. It reminds me of True Blood when they'd try to come up with ways to "explain away" the fact that Eric was a thousand years old and couldn't be threatened by humans (and always settling for silvering Pam). And, sure enough, Thor instantly kills (for all intents and purposes) Thanos. Sure, they did the "You should've gone for the head" thing, but that was stupid and just drives home the fact that the "conflict" was contrived. It's quite sad when Cate Blanchett proves to be Thor's most formidable foe.

My ranking of Phase 3 films would be:
1. Avengers: Infinity War
2. Thor: Ragnarok
3. Spider-Man: Homecoming
4. Black Panther
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
6. Doctor Strange
7. Ant-Man and the Wasp

I refuse to watch the Guardians or Ant-Man movies, so those excluded mine would be:

1. Spider-Man: Homecoming
2. Thor: Ragnarok
3. Avengers: Infinity War
4. Black Panther
5. Doctor Strange

Pretty much the same only I'd swap Homecoming and Infinity Wars and, generally speaking, don't hold the films from this Phase in very high esteem. They're not out of steam yet, though, so I'm by no means throwing in the towel on the MCU. I will, however, be very interested to see where they go from here.

Since the Thors are my favorite, I also have to ask: Where does Ragnarok stand for you in comparison with the previous two? Is it your favorite of the three?

 

[moreorless87]

Since the Thors are my favorite, I also have to ask: Where does Ragnarok stand for you in comparison with the previous two? Is it your favorite of the three?

I would say top 3 with Infinity War and Civil War, a bit ironic though that you refuse to watch Guardians as arguably Ragnarok is the film people were hopefully for with the sequel to that film rather than following the previous Thors.

I mean Malick wise I do somewhat see your criticism of Tarkovsky as being more relevant to him as I said I think visually he is rather straight forward picturesque. I don't think theres the same taste as Tarkovsky, Bela Tarr or Kieslowski in terms of atmospheric art cinema visually though nore you could argue the same dramatically, it does all feel rather too on the nose at points. Ultimately though I do think that he has a good deal more talent than you'd expect from a film maker with those issues typically and for me Tree of Life does work even if I think he might have been better off following someone like Marty in style more career wise.

To pimp my avatar have you ever watched any Frantisek Vlacil Buillitt? Marketa Lazarova and Valley of the Bees(I would actually recommend starting with the second as its an easier to follow intro to his style) seem like they follow Andrei Rublev but without as much overt philosophy and airy visuals which you seem to dislike, much darker and more Kubrickian in tone and much more confined visually creating an atmosphere somewhat similar to Woman of the Dunes.

When my turn in the club comes around I'll probably go with a few B&W 60's newave films that aren't your typical naturalistic/cool drama(A Bande Apart, etc) like the above.

 

[europe1]

And then, @europe1, I've watched a few classics that you might be interested in

And I've seen none of them. Which -- sigh -- leaves me with nothing to respond to except your Marvel stuff.

As for the standalone films: Doctor Strange sucked. Just a redundant character and silly Harry Potter crap. But Mads was an awesome bad guy so at least there was that.

People often hail Mads as an awesome bad guy and an example of the Marvel universe finally doing a baddie correctly (pre-Thanos, that is). But to me, he was just a so-so villain-of-the-week character. I don't understand why fans adored him so (at least at the time, he seems to have little staying-power in peoples memories).
There was that line he told Cumberbatch "we're all just dust in the universe" or something like that, aping something Doctor Potter had said previously, basically them playing the whole "you and me are actually quite alike" card. I wished they would have done something more thorough with that angle. It could have given the movie more of an identity. Overall, Strange was a pretty mediocre film and the mindfuck-magic didn't really impress.

but it's still nowhere near as awesome as the first two films

You liked the fucking nerdy dark elves pointy-eared pasty motherfuckers better than Hulk v Thor? By Ymir's asshole what the fuck?

Thor: Ragnarok

Ragnarok was pretty good, I suppose. The whole "I've been dethroned! Gah!" bit was handled well, lending more drive to his character as he tries to recover and rebuild from its disgrace while also being enslaved. The interactions with Hulk and Loki were fun too.

But for a movie called Ragnarok, it felt much more interested in Planet Hulk than it did the actual Ragnarok itself. This focus on the scrap-planet makes the whole revision of Asgard's identity feel rather limp. They turn Asgard from Disney Land into a post-Colonialist power -- but since the main focus is on Thor's adventures -- this terrible unveiling just feels route. "Odin was an imperialist, oh the horror!"

Mostly I'm just depressed that the superb mythology of my ancestors has been prostituted into this. How the hell did those dastardly Finns get theirs remade into Lord of The Rings while we got this mess of mediocrity?

Michael B. Jordan wasn't even close to Max Cady levels of righteous rage

Eh, if you compare performances to De Niro's Max Cady. Almost every righteous avenger will straight-out suck.

I actually thought Michael Jordan was the best part of that movie. Honestly, I think his dying words is easily the best line ever spoke in the Marvel-verse. "You believe that? Kid from Oakland, running around believing in fairy tales."

the black people in it are also talented and did solid work

Personally, I found a lot of them pretty underwhelming. Chadwick Boseman doesn't bring much of a presence as T'Challa. He's just so... soft and stiff somehow. It's like he's trying to be regal but doesn't have any of the gravity of regality.

Spider-Man: Homecoming was the surprise of the bunch. I thought that it'd suck and that Michael Keaton would be the only thing I wouldn't hate but I was WAY off. This says more about how relatively weak Phase Three has been, but I think that this is easily the best Phase Three film. And, of course, Michael Keaton was awesome in it.

Bullitt of Mars strikes again! Is that glass-canister astronaut-helmets that your species wear running out of breath-gas or something?

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to blacken the name of Michael Keaton by implying--no, stating!--that there was anything in this movie worth liking save him (and his dad-reveal). It's just a boring quirk-fest. I'll just steal this review and let it do the job for me.

The word to describe Spider-Man: Homecoming is mild – it’s mildly funny, mildly amiable, very mildly exciting. It’s a hymn to carving down the square peg to fit the round hole. It works very hard to make sure it does everything right whilst not trying to do anything new. Which means it does nothing right at all.​

And Too Late for Tears was a serious trip. Never heard of this one, either, but I'm so happy I stumbled across it on TCM. Dan Duryea turns in his best performance as a sleazeball who's broken by the depths of cruelty Lizabeth Scott is able to reach. Quite a unique femme fatale.

So this is the Lizabeth Scott movie to see, eh? She's always seemed like one of those pretty faces that hung around in the movies and was out-shined by everyone else, like Dead Reckoning or The Strange Vice of Marta Ives. I recently watched Desert Fury with her and Burt Lancaster (or at least they had top-billing, the real protagonist was John Hodiak). Probably the most extreme example of old-timey acting I've ever seen; you know where every line feels staccato and you can practically feel the actors waiting to nail their ques. I don't really have anything against that, but in this movie it was so extreme that it felt notoriously garish and weird. Decent movie, overall, even though you can feel every actor doing it for a paycheck and Lizabeth can't really act. Had some fun homosexual undertones to keep it entertaining.

There, now I can stretch out Desert Fury from my next mega-post

Who's not coming back? I know the Guardians of the Galaxy (yuck) disintegrated (or, in Gamora's case, were killed), but none of the "favorites" - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, even Black Widow - disintegrated. And is it already known of what films Phase 4 will consist?

EDIT: I just realized that Phase 3 isn't over yet. Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame are still to come and those will mark the final two films of this Phase. Right?

Well, some people really are so dumb that they expect super heroes to stay dead forever.

However, many actors have been wanting to call it quits for quite a while now. For example. Chris Evans (my personal favourite) and Robert Downey Jr. So with their departure, one has to wonder what will happen to the characters.

Especially since two of their popular new characters, Black Panther and Spider-Man, are among the disintegrated.

Not to mention those two already having movies in pre-production

Also, they dropped the ball BIG TIME with Thanos' acquisition of the Soul Stone. When it's revealed that he who wishes to acquire the Soul Stone must sacrifice what he loves in a soul-for-a-soul exchange, Gamora talks shit about how he's failed because he doesn't love anything. How retarded could that character be? All the hatred for him in the world wouldn't explain how in the fuck it's possible for her to be so clueless to not realize that he loved her.

Well this assessment is based on Gamora being a smart, clear-headed character. She clearly isn't based on missing that.

I think there is a disparity to the character. Gamora is written as if she has a white-hot hatred for Thanos because of all the sadism she had to endure, the sort of white-hot hatred that would indeed make her blind to such a feeling from him (which is what the directors want us to feel and inquire from that scene). However, that doesn't really come across in how they interact with one-another. When they interact, you much more get the impression that she's keyed-in on his feelings towards her rather than having some trauma-blaring rage that completely blinds her to his feelings.

In Infinity War, he had to go get an axe

At least it resulted in the joke of a dwarf playing a giant. It was quite the childish piece of frivility, but it got a laugh out of me.<45>

I refuse to watch the Guardians or Ant-Man movies, so those excluded mine would be:

Civil War is also a Phrase 3 film.

To pimp my avatar have you ever watched any Frantisek Vlacil Buillitt? Marketa Lazarova (

Personally, I didn't really like Marketa Lazarova. My basic critizism is that one one hand its long and dreamy but simultaniously it asks you to pay attention to complex political family-feuding. That's two impressions that run very counter to one-another and the mixing is just very jarring and unengaging.

For Czech strange-to-understand arthouse, you got to go with Cremator (1969). But of course the GOAT czech film is Lemonaid Joe.

 

[ufcfan4]

Trying to see some of the award contender type movies:

Green Book was a very entertaining, feel-good film. The thing that stood out most to me were the really high-quality performances from Viggo and Mahershala Ali- completely convincing in their interactions and the friendship built in an organic way. It was a story well told that made for a solid road movie which I think definitely should live on as a popular film to view around Christmastime in the future. Loved the stuff with Viggo's family (had no idea Sebastian Maniscalco was in this). Great blend of comedic elements and resonant drama. I very much recommend it.

It's cool that this was directed by Peter Farrelly. I'm wondering if he's going to transition into more dramedy type stuff at this point in his career. Might be cool to see both brothers team up again for a similar style movie.

The Favourite- This is a weird one that I liked but cannot emphatically recommend. Throw it into the "not for everybody" category. I think one element that stood out to me after I watched it was that I had a lingering question of, what was the aim of this film? Not that I thought it was lightweight or inconsequential at all but more that I felt as though it did not really know exactly what it wanted to be. It tells a story about manipulation, competition, mental illness, exploitation of vulnerability, etc and it does so in an effective manner. Yet I felt as though something were missing. I have to give it some more thought because there were certainly aspects that I enjoyed.

The cinematography, the score, the way in which certain scenes were staged and shots were framed were memorable. The three leads performances were all strong. And I think one of the key aspects of the film is the way that, much like The Prestige, the film plays with the notion of whom the audience is meant to sympathize with.

Some pretty good humor in there, too. Nicholas Hoult's delivery and most of his lines were damn funny.

Spoiler

and there's this anachronistic dance scene at a formal party that nearly made me spit out my drink. Don't know if anyone else found it funny- not much reaction in the crowd- but I thought it was funny shit.

.

Other scenes have an askew, eccentric humor that didn't always land for me. There's one sequence with Stone and her military suitor in the woods that was ridiculously dumb (presumably intentionally).

I liked it enough- but I thought Green Book was definitely more my speed.

 

[ufcfan4]

Consensus is people love Phase 3 in general. Yeah, people are digging the direction MCU is heading in but at the same time dreading that some of their favorite characters/actors won't be appearing again in Phase 4 onwards. The people's reaction to Infinity War was that it was awesome, it was heartbreaking and they couldn't believe at that time that they did what they did - basically similar to people's reaction with the end of Empire Strikes Back.

My ranking of Phase 3 films would be:
1. Avengers: Infinity War
2. Thor: Ragnarok
3. Spider-Man: Homecoming
4. Black Panther
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
6. Doctor Strange
7. Ant-Man and the Wasp

See I loved Doctor Strange. Probably just outside the top 5 or 6 MCU movies for me. Thought the visual effects were awesome and liked the origin story in a way that I didn't like some of the other origin story type comic book films of recent years. Also thought Cumberbatch, Swinton, and Ejiofor delivered.

Otherwise, I'm pretty much right there with you. Infinity War is my favorite MCU movie overall and therefore easily tops the Phase 3.

Ragnarok's humor and overall style were great. But, much like, Bullitt, I thoroughly enjoy the first Thor film and find it strange that so many people...don't. I keep hearing that the Thor films were bad until Ragnarok, which, to me, underrates the original film substantially. I'll wholly admit Dark World is one of the weakest MCU films, but I still find it entertaining enough.

Guardians 2 is weirdly underrated too in the sense that so many people seem to unfavorably compare it to the first one when it very much sticks to what worked with the first film while also adding some interesting and poignant moments and reflections on family relationships, etc. Bautista was hilarious in that one as well.

Homecoming was a lot of fun and Keaton showed how good he is once more with one of the best Marvel film villains so far. Holland really struck all the right notes as Parker and Spidey in my opinion.

 

[ufcfan4]

Spoiler

Who's not coming back? I know the Guardians of the Galaxy (yuck) disintegrated (or, in Gamora's case, were killed), but none of the "favorites" - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, even Black Widow - disintegrated. And is it already known of what films Phase 4 will consist?

EDIT: I just realized that Phase 3 isn't over yet. Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame are still to come and those will mark the final two films of this Phase. Right?

Spoiler

I can see that, but, like I said: Isn't it obvious that they're just going to reverse time and undo the disintegration? What else are they going to do? Nothing? Just go about their business with half of the population gone and leave it with Thanos winning? No way. Especially since two of their popular new characters, Black Panther and Spider-Man, are among the disintegrated.

Spoiler

I think it's certainly clear things will be reversed but I don't mind that at all. I completely buy into the stakes and the way the film highlighted just how formidable Thanos was. I'm very much looking forward to how The original contingent of Avengers band together to reverse the situation and thwart Thanos in the sequel. I guess my point being is sometimes even when you know the ending- or have a general sense of where it is headed, you can still be fully engaged by the struggle if it is sold well through the narrative.

Spoiler

Also, they dropped the ball BIG TIME with Thanos' acquisition of the Soul Stone. When it's revealed that he who wishes to acquire the Soul Stone must sacrifice what he loves in a soul-for-a-soul exchange, Gamora talks shit about how he's failed because he doesn't love anything. How retarded could that character be? All the hatred for him in the world wouldn't explain how in the fuck it's possible for her to be so clueless to not realize that he loved her. They should've had her realize that he was going to sacrifice her and she should've twisted the knife and explained to him that he's never had to actually feel what loss feels like as he's gone around "balancing" everything out and this loss represents the chickens coming home to roost.

Spoiler

That scene was not a problem for me so much. They really kept going back to- across multiple movies- that Gamora and Nebula absolutely despised Thanos. Her hatred for him could certainly color the way that she saw their relationship. Thanos continually indicated she was his favorite daughter, but, in her mind, that really just comes down to the fact that he likes her because she is a very capable killer. As far as she is concerned, there is not necessarily any legitimate emotional attachment there.

What I find more problematic is the series of- has to happen just right- scenarios that lead to some of the more important events in the film. There's a few. None of them are even close to deal breakers. I love the movie and it's at the top of my list for MCU films. That said, there's one that underscores what I mean and remains a bit troublesome. It's the notion that Thanos is primed and ready for the Guardians to arrive at Knowhere. He anticipates Gamora will be there. He stages the fake reality to bait her into thinking that he hasn't already gotten the stone from Benicio. He even tells her that he "counted on" her arriving there. BUT how could he have? The only people who knew that the aether from Thor 2 was at the Collector's place were the Asgardians- Thor, his friends, and probably no one else. The Guardians don't know until Thor tells them. Thanos has no reason to believe that Gamora will go to Knowhere because he has no reason to believe that Thor survived or to assume that even if he did, the Guardians would find him and he would share that information. Basically, I see no reason why he would have any rationale for believing that Gamora would be going there.

.

 

[ufcfan4]

And I've seen none of them. Which -- sigh -- leaves me with nothing to respond to except your Marvel stuff.



People often hail Mads as an awesome bad guy and an example of the Marvel universe finally doing a baddie correctly (pre-Thanos, that is). But to me, he was just a so-so villain-of-the-week character. I don't understand why fans adored him so (at least at the time, he seems to have little staying-power in peoples memories).
There was that line he told Cumberbatch "we're all just dust in the universe" or something like that, aping something Doctor Potter had said previously, basically them playing the whole "you and me are actually quite alike" card. I wished they would have done something more thorough with that angle. It could have given the movie more of an identity. Overall, Strange was a pretty mediocre film and the mindfuck-magic didn't really impress.

Like I said, I really liked it overall but Mads didn't factor into my assessment of it. Awesome actor, no doubt, but that was not the type of character with which he could shine. I mean, at the end of the day, he's somewhere in the mid-range of MCU villains. Pretty forgettable character who has one really good scene- the awesome sequence in the sanctum where Strange first showcases his high-level skills and the cloak of levitation comes into play. Conversely, I thought Mads lent a lot of conviction to his role in Star Wars: Rogue One and that, for having only several minutes of screentime, he made an impact and left his mark.

You liked the fucking nerdy dark elves pointy-eared pasty motherfuckers better than Hulk v Thor? By Ymir's asshole what the fuck?

haha. People tend to point to Malakieth as one of the worst MCU villains and it is hard to argue against that. But what I thought was good about Eccleston's character in that film was the notion that he was looking to achieve his universe-ending plot and Thor really didn't matter much to him. Guy came across as someone who basically did not give a fuck about Thor and didn't view him as either a threat or even an interesting foil. I thought that was a good angle because usually the whole dynamic in these films is the personal grudge, mutual hatred or perhaps begrudging respect between the hero and the villain. With Malakieth and Thor it is an ancient disdain for each other based on the realm from which they come (and of course made even more personal for Thor by what happens to his mother) but otherwise Malakieth seemingly views Thor as at best a nuisance and at worst a non-entity.

Ragnarok was pretty good, I suppose. The whole "I've been dethroned! Gah!" bit was handled well, lending more drive to his character as he tries to recover and rebuild from its disgrace while also being enslaved. The interactions with Hulk and Loki were fun too.

But for a movie called Ragnarok, it felt much more interested in Planet Hulk than it did the actual Ragnarok itself. This focus on the scrap-planet makes the whole revision of Asgard's identity feel rather limp. They turn Asgard from Disney Land into a post-Colonialist power -- but since the main focus is on Thor's adventures -- this terrible unveiling just feels route. "Odin was an imperialist, oh the horror!"

Mostly I'm just depressed that the superb mythology of my ancestors has been prostituted into this. How the hell did those dastardly Finns get theirs remade into Lord of The Rings while we got this mess of mediocrity?

I liked it lot but it's a bit tonally weird as there's so much humor and yet then the ending sequence is meant to be ultra high stakes intensity. Hulk vs. Thor arena scene was great. Otherwise, I thought Banner/HUlk did not have much to do.

Spoiler

I was particularly bewildered by the way they used Hulk in the final battle. You could have him decimate the evil hell wolf but instead it's like an even fight and he ultimately "wins" by surviving a fall that the wolf does not. I sort of expected some King Kong vs. T-Rex esque snap

Eh, if you compare performances to De Niro's Max Cady. Almost every righteous avenger will straight-out suck.

How do you feel Mitchum's performance stacks up against Deniro's? I always enjoyed the original Cape Fear more than the Scorsese film. Deniro is epic in it though.

I actually thought Michael Jordan was the best part of that movie. Honestly, I think his dying words is easily the best line ever spoke in the Marvel-verse. "You believe that? Kid from Oakland, running around believing in fairy tales."



Personally, I found a lot of them pretty underwhelming. Chadwick Boseman doesn't bring much of a presence as T'Challa. He's just so... soft and stiff somehow. It's like he's trying to be regal but doesn't have any of the gravity of regality.

I felt Boseman was great in Civil War- really made an impact in that one. I've liked him in his two subsequent appearances as well. That said, it seemed like Killmonger was meant to be the more intriguing, scene-stealing character so that might impact the way Boseman's performance is judged in that film. Sometimes the hero has the less dynamic role than the villain. Jordan's screentime is limited but he makes the most of it. Quality performance.

 

[europe1]

People tend to point to Malakieth as one of the worst MCU villains

Another thing. You have a character based on norse mythology yet don't even give him a norse-ish name like everyone else? Instead you have something that sounds generically old-testament-ish.

Such little effort.

How do you feel Mitchum's performance stacks up against Deniro's? I always enjoyed the original Cape Fear more than the Scorsese film. Deniro is epic in it though.

I concur in thinking that the original is better. Actually, I also think Mitchum's performance is better, really one of the best of his career. He really nails that sort of calm menace, acting with such confidance that he projects an air of inevitibility to the sucess of his crimes. DeNiro is amazing as well but Mitchum's poise has such an unusual edge to it that only he could muster.

I felt Boseman was great in Civil War

Great point and I had completely forgotten about that. In Civil War he seemed more pained and introverted. It added much to the gravitas of his character. In Panther there is none of that, with him actually being quite go-happy and easy-going underneath the formalities of his office. I guess they redesigned the character.

 

[moreorless87]

Personally, I didn't really like Marketa Lazarova. My basic critizism is that one one hand its long and dreamy but simultaniously it asks you to pay attention to complex political family-feuding. That's two impressions that run very counter to one-another and the mixing is just very jarring and unengaging.

Not sure if there was direct influence given how closely they were released but to be it feels almost like a response to Andrei Rublev the year before. That film I would call "dreamy" in typical Tarkovsky fashion and the details of the plot are mostly incidental compared to the overall story. Marketa Lazarova on the other hand I think is the opposite visually, were as Tarkoksky is all grand romantic visions its deliberately much more confined, more telephoto lens often shot though obstructing detail that doesn't give you the same sense of space. The plot being more obtuse I think plays into that as well, the same with the characters speech often being deliberately unnaturally echoy, its ment to be a bit disorientating although I would say it did definitely benefit from multiple viewings as well.

As I mentioned before I would suggest trying Valley of the Bees from the following year, that takes a similar kind of style but is much less obtuse and dark, much easier to follow.

Great point and I had completely forgotten about that. In Civil War he seemed more pained and introverted. It added much to the gravitas of his character. In Panther there is none of that, with him actually being quite go-happy and easy-going underneath the formalities of his office. I guess they redesigned the character.

I would say there is some of it but its notable IMHO that it was actually Civil War that gave us the heart of the character dispite him being in a supporting role. Exellent writing/directing in that film to carry that off were as I felt Black Panther was rather uneven in both.

 

[Uncommon Valor]

I've finally gotten around to seeing The Big Lebowski. I'd give it an 8/10. I'll probably have to watch it again to actually get it though.

 

[Yotsuya]

The Strange Vice of Marta Ives.

but I like how your subconsious works.

Mostly I'm just depressed that the superb mythology of my ancestors has been prostituted into this. How the hell did those dastardly Finns get theirs remade into Lord of The Rings while we got this mess of mediocrity?

This kind of makes me doubt your word, that you’re not a drinking man.

 

[europe1]

This kind of makes me doubt your word, that you’re not a drinking man.
Dana05

Haha The whole Väinämöinen --> Gandalf connection flashed through my mind as I typed that and I decided to roll with it despite not making much sense.<45>

Deported1
but I like how your subconsious works

Somehow the titles of The Strange Love of Martha Ivers and The Strange Vice of Mrs. Warth got scrambled together in my brain.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Mostly I'm just depressed that the superb mythology of my ancestors has been prostituted into this. How the hell did those dastardly Finns get theirs remade into Lord of The Rings while we got this mess of mediocrity?

Well even apart from my strong distaste for superhero films, and you saying Lord of the Rings is Finnish mythology (I know he was influenced by it, but ), at least you have the mythology used in some way at all. I remember reading how Michael Fassbender was gonna making a film of the Táin Bó Cúailnge but it's obviously stuck in development hell or something.

 

[europe1]

I remember reading how Michael Fassbender was gonna making a film of the Táin Bó Cúailnge but it's obviously stuck in

You'd think a story about a teenager killing half the population of his Island would be more popular, but nope!

and you saying Lord of the Rings is Finnish mythology (I know he was influenced by it, but

The influences from Norse mythology is surely more plentiful on LOTR than the Finnish one. I just said that to aggrandize my pain.

 

[moreorless87]

You could argue that the Balrog in Lord of the Rings has a very similar influence to Surtr, both drawing on the same mythology and indeed Ragnarok drawing on the designs from Jacksons film.

 

[Yotsuya]

Haha The whole Väinämöinen --> Gandalf connection flashed through my mind as I typed that and I decided to roll with it despite not making much sense.<45>

It’s a good point. I’ve been trying to think myself if there’s an archetype for this kind of immortal and roaming battle wizard, who doesn't mainly dwell in some tower reading books. Did Merlin have a base of operations? Edward Bulwer-Lytton wrote a book Zanoni (1842) about kind of a wizard/sage, who just traveled the world through ages trying to safeguard the fate of mankind. His wisdom and knowledge did not rise from books, but from observing the world, which seems to be Gandalf’s thing too. That’s my closest reference. Zanoni did not carry a sword like Merlin and Väinämöinen, but unlike them and like Gandalf, he was an unselfish and principled benefactor for the flawed mortals.

Edit. Was Merlin a battle wizard in Arthurian legends or do I just have this image in my head, that he carried a sword?

Somehow the titles of The Strange Love of Martha Ivers and The Strange Vice of Mrs. Warth got scrambled together in my brain.

Yeah, it takes a certain level of a movie nut to make that mistake.

 

[The Hug Dog]

Bump for the GOAT Sherdog thread. We rocked this place 10(!) or so years ago. Funny looking at our old top 25. Some real howlers in there. Very of its time.

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

@Bullitt68 where did you find Crime Wave to watch it?