Last edited by wmgaretjax; 03-23-2013 at 10:52 PM.
Yeah, the first Wolverine movie, despite how terrible it was, made gobs of money, it was a giant hit.
I was really disappointed to hear that they were using the Japan storylines. Those were the only Wolvie books that just never kept my interest for shit, and I was all about that dude.
I'm really glad Days Of Future Past is coming, but I'm also really worried how they're going to manage to fuck it up. It's such an easy fucking story to do, hell they already did it fairly brilliantly in the original TV series, and I just know they're going to get "creative" with it. Goddammit.
Hopefully some day we'll finally get to the best X-men moment of all time: X-Men 25.
Maybe one or two movies before #25, just to explain why colossus joined the acolytes and the whole asteroid M thing. Days of Future past is being directed by bryan singer and X2 was the best x movie so far, so expect good things. Im excited just because we finally get to see some sentinels in action.
"hey, i dont know where you came from tin woodsman, but im sending you back to oz....... in pieces!" - wolverine
"optic-blasts hu? Heres one from a PRO!" ZZZZZZZ-ZAP! - cyclops
I was really displeased with everything Singer did, and just saying that X3 was worse is no excuse. He demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the comic book with the single greatest history of storylines that could have been translated into amazing movies with practically no effort whatsoever. They should keep the guy who did First Class, he's done the only X-Men movie that was actually good.
Lets never discuss X3, in fact we can pretend it never happened. Like nightcrawlers dad Azazel, who was in first class . I dont like stupid scenes where x men are dancing to crocodile rock or whatever the fuck that song was. It was just really really dumb. Mystique really stole the whole movie though in x2. When she pumped the iron into the guards ass then magneto ripped it out of him to escape. And when she posed as wolverine to break into strikers base, then slid under the door while flipping everyone off. Good shit right there. In all seriousness, Man of Steel will be the superhero movie of the year. Sorry marvel, DC brought its "A" game.
Nightcrawler and Azazel are both just really good powers to have in movies, what're ya gonna do. As far as the montage where the kids are all hanging out, I really don't see what's so objectionable about that. They're kids. They just found out there's more of them. I thought it was pretty well done.
So your argument for what makes X2 so great is that Mystique did sneaky things. Brilliant. You're a fucking asshole.
I really liked X2 a lot, but I loved First Class. Matthew Vaughn did an amazing job (same guy who directed Kick-Ass btw Randy). I've liked all of his movies so far. I was disappointed he didn't sign on for the next one.
Azazel isnt even acknowledged in any comic after Austens run. With all the hell,hel, and limbo story lines in marvel you would think someone would write him in, but no hes shit. Lady deathstrike vs wolverine was a great fight scene as well. Also, "Kill them all, kill all the humans" and when magneto pulled out the pins on the grenades the guards had. I may be an asshole, but i know a good x movie when i see one.
First class? Heres some x-men 101, this is the first class:
When I was 11 I cared about source material keeping some kind of continuity. Unless you're doing direct adaptations of actual stories, who the fuck cares? Comic books themselves barely have any continuity themselves anymore. Attempting to keep relationships and origins straight when adapting 30-60 years worth of history is pointless.
It's a fucking ridiculous argument. Stryker wasn't the same character he was in the books either. He was a ridiculously shittier and contrived version of the character who conveniently had previous ties to Xavier and had kept his mutant son around even though he's supposed to hate all mutants with religious, maniacal fervor.
Cause what actually matters, you dickhead, is the CHARACTERS. Not the particulars of their powers or their fucking fight scenes.
In fact, guess what--they changed almost everything.
Azazel is an incidental character they threw in to the Hellfire Club because they needed to have someone with those powers because they're just really, really good on screen and make a ton of shit about the fights possible/interesting. I don't really care about his background, he's a secondary villain. Who gives a fuck.
First Class actually treated some of the emotions genuinely. The standoff at the end where they take sides was brilliantly handled. The entire final battle sequence was by far the best of the entire series and it wasn't cheap. The whole thing was just really well executed, if you can't see that you're an asshole.
Spring Breakers was that sick twisted adrenaline rush i was wanting. Awesome. Props to Franco for that role. v
I don't get the high praise for Spring Breakers. It was entertaining enough and wasn't horrible, but I thought there was very little meat to it and overall I probably disliked it more than I liked it. Franco was great and there was a couple of memorable moments. It just blows my mind that Spring Breakers seems to be considered some sort of masterpiece to some of you, yet films like the Hurt Locker are crap. I just don't get it.
Spring Breakers addresses deep ideas? Ha! And its form is more innovative? Seriously. A film that is essentially a girls gone wild video with a narrative, with a little bit of Zoolander and blacklighting thrown in is more innovative? I've seen plenty of films with similar form, I'm sure some of which you have bashed on here.
I'm not saying Spring Breakers is an especially profound movie, but it deals (in its way) with sociological currents that underlie contemporary youth culture. As such, it has more on its mind than "this guy is addicted to danger and not fit for life if he's not defusing bombs".
As far as the formal innovation, you're describing the surface of the film but not the ways it uses that surface to toy with our impressions of the things we're seeing onscreen. The conversation just in this thread indicates that there are multiple ways it can be interpreted, and it's more interesting to me than a firmly journeyman, white-knuckle thrill ride, however well-executed.
Well kids, the movie year is still young, but we have an early front-runner for biggest disappointment of 2013. The Place Beyond the Pines - Derek Cianfrance's follow-up to my Best of 2010 pick Blue Valentine - is mostly a wipeout.
The film lends itself easily to a Twitter joke equating it with my last Gosling-fronted whipping boy, but the truth is it fails for me in almost the opposite fashion of Drive, and ultimately a bit moreso. While Refn's last seemed almost defiant in its refusal of anything approaching substance, Pines is lousy with effort to say something big; problem is, its thesis on the connection between fathers and sons leads to a suffocating, sometimes groan-inducing sense of predetermination, reductive enough to rob both male and female psychology of any real complexity. I admire Cianfrance's attempt to expand his range - in particular, his eschewing of the cross-cutting that dominated Blue Valentine yields an engrossing structure - but it's pretty clear that his strength is not melodrama; it's difficult to fully enjoy this film even on a superficial level when nearly every major beat is explicitly telegraphed visually and textually. It's somewhat watchable for the things that work - Cianfrance is still a master director of actors, and the grainy 35mm lensing by Sean Bobbit is mostly appealing - but I can't find a way to classify this as anything but a major letdown.
Spring Breakers was kinda awful. I gotta say, I bet if Harmony directed Project X everyone would of loved it and said it was "a fever dream of a film that dives into the teenage psyche, social commentary on youth culture" blah blah blah etc.