Hot Heart Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 As shallow as it makes me, once I noticed the mole I just couldn't get it out of my mind. I have enough moles myself to not hold that against her... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTervo Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I don't know why I made such a long post. Batman Begins was really good. Dark Knight was better although it lost a lot of pace in the latter acts. The original Burton Batman is campy good. It's been too long since I've seen Spiderman 1 or 2 but I don't remember there being anything particularly bad about them. The Incredibles is amazing. I wasn't particularly impressed by Iron Man (I was watching on a distant plane TV and listening through crappy headphones though), I think mostly I was disappointed it didn't live up to the hype. Iron Man 2 was a bit too messy. Hellboy was quite fun. Blade is good fun, although I'm sure that's partly nostalgia (first 18 rated film I ever saw) but I can't really remember the sequels. I totally agree with everything you said there except: -Superman 1 is fucking incredible. Best superhero movie ever made imho. Completely true to the comic, but completely enjoyable in it's own way on the big screen. (EDIT: I just realised you said Spiderman 1 and 2. My bad. I really really like those first two entries, and am looking forward to the new reboot, though Spiderman 3 was pretty damn retarded, in no way due to fault by Raimi) -I thought the Incredibles was good, but not great. It had way too much generic affable kid-movie comedy. I barely laughed in it- but I did enjoy it when they started superhero'ing proper. -Iron Man was, imho again, good fun and pretty cool, but not a great movie. All I can think about when I watch either of the Iron Man's is how much of an asshole the director Jon Favreau is. I hate that guy. I don't think I have high standards for films, I just have standards is all. When people say 'sure it wasn't a very good film but it's just a popcorn flick' etc. it baffles me. Why settle for a sub-par films just because Hollywood are too complacent to aim higher? Plus it really annoys me that the average person, who tends only to hear about the big-name 'blockbusters' are then blown away by any half-decent film that manages to sneak into the public conciousness amongst all the usual Hollywood crap. My friend, who doesn't watch a lot of films, called Inglourious Basterds 'the best film ever'. Now Basterds is a good film, I'd even go so far as to say the script is brilliant, Waltz's performance was superb and you can't go wrong with Brad Pitt. It is, however, far from being 'the best film ever', unless, of course, you are only used to seeing the usual shit Hollywood churns out. I totally agree in every way. I even also hate on Watchmen pretty hard. But I have a totally different reason for Watchmen hate. Zack Snyder completely failed to take into account the most important thing when it comes to adaptations of any form of art- what works in some formats, won't work in others (you have to have flexibility to change elements of story, character, and pace, to make it work better as a whole). Watchmen (film) got the plot perfectly. It didn't quite get the story perfectly, as there's a lot of narration in the novel that wouldn't translate to a real-time medium like film. But what it completely failed at, was making the plot and story watchable in a film sense. Instead of looking at what makes the novel strong, and adapting that into a film, Snyder just copy and pasted. Sure, the comic's more intense and cinematic moments worked fine (Rorschach's discovery of the death in the house was incredible), but in order to make the non-action parts of a comic work in a film you have to do a lot of changing. Smooth out the story, cut the characters down (you can't fit 12 long issues of character development into 2 hours real-time), change the order of some events, etc etc. This will make it watchable. Basically make it 2 hours of easier to watch, interesting film, that flows from start to finish, and tells the story and characters effectively. The intensely edited and full-on Watchmen failed at that. It felt jaggy and very stop-start (to me, at least). Often I was aware that I was just looking at a screen and thought "this isn't fun to watch"- I wasn't immersed at all. Tl;dr- Because Snyder didn't smooth the comic's experience to work in film, it felt like it was missing something important, and it wasn't very interesting to watch, though it was a really faithful recreation. Everyone I know who hadn't read the comic but saw the film, didn't dislike the film, but didn't "get it". The comic's pace is perfect and you get to know the universe, but the pace of the comic doesn't work in the medium of film; so everyone I know who saw it, and hadn't read the book, was left feeling non-interested and confused. Edited February 1, 2011 by kenshi_ryden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staySICK Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 this reminds me, I have the director's cut / ultimate edition blu ray sitting here, I really need to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoStarr Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Why settle for a sub-par films just because Hollywood are too complacent to aim higher? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Meyer is why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.