|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 23, 2016 22:09:02 GMT -5
I saw Watchmen in the theaters with my mom and regardless of how people lambaste it for being an inferior adaptation, it was still an experience wholly it's own, much like V for Vendetta. I think the only film adaptation of Moore's work that reflected poorly on both Moore himself and the original version was League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Winter Soldier was, without question, single-handedly one of the greatest movies in recent memory and a pretty damn good superhero movie as well. Chris Evans is so utterly perfect as Cap on and off screen that he just ignites my love for the character to further and further heights. I also thought that it was immensely adorable that he's a fan of the New England Patriots
I also have really strong nostalgia for Batman Forever and I really feel like Tommy Lee Jones' portrayal of Two-Face is criminally under appreciated. Val Kilmer is also great as Bruce Wayne and gives the character a stoic somberness that really sets him apart from Michael Keaton, George Clooney, and Christian Bale
|
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Apr 24, 2016 4:31:45 GMT -5
I think if I would have to pick a single one, it's Blade (the first movie). Very stylish, very good performances by Snipes, N'Bushe Wright, Dorff, and Kristofferson, neat action choreography, fine special effects, engaging plot.
As I said before, I think it's really cool that a lesser known Marvel property translated into an entertainingly credible high-quality film, and helped give superhero films a boost.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Apr 27, 2016 22:27:29 GMT -5
I'm a bigger fan of Superman II than I am of the first Reeve film. Actually, I'm a bigger fan of Superman II than I am of any other superhero film or serial come to think of it. A lot of great moments in that one:
-Reeve shifting from mild mannered Clark Kent to the majestic Man of Steel in a single fluid moment by straightening his spine, removing his glasses, and altering his voice as he considers telling Lois who he is.
-Kent giving up the milquetoast act halfway through a denial that he's Superman to concede that, yes, he is Superman and that Lois may be right in guessing that he slipped up because he wanted to.
- "Would you care to step outside, General Zod?"
- Superman confiding in Luthor only to be double crossed by Luthor only for Luthor find out he's been triple crossed by Superman.
- The Super-Kiss which everyone who isn't me hates. Look - I get it - Superman's able to set things back to their status quo by kissing Lois deeply? An amnesia inducing kiss? Come ON!! I would find it ridiculous and a cop out too... if it weren't for Lois' speech before it's delivered. I can't help it - for once, you get the feeling that Superman loves Lois as much as she does him. This isn't one of those comic plots where Superman seems relieved that he can't marry Lois because it would place her in jeopardy. He truly wants her and she him. But as Lois explains "he's a pretty hard act to follow. Do you know how painful it is to have to sit next to the man you love everyday and know you can't have him because he belongs to the world?" For once, Superman doesn't have to hide behind Clark to be with Lois, he can be who he is, and we know that's what he wants... only Lois' admission makes that impossible. Go ahead and groan at the "What we were talking about Clark? What's going on in the world?" bit - Reeve smiling sadly and returning to a life of solitude because that's how it has to be when you're Superman and the responsibility of carrying everyone's burden on your shoulders is what you do even when for a tiny moment you got to share that burden with someone you love just hits me in the gut.
-Oh and I'll say this too - I love the super-cellophane and transportation tricks. I know these are powers that have never been exhibited in the comics (or films before this point) but in my mind, they were abilities Superman and Zod et al had access to because they were in the Fortress with all those weird Kryptonian crystals and stuff around them. It doesn't explain why Zod is able to levitate some guy in Houston earlier in the film, but to that I say - deal with it! |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Apr 27, 2016 22:31:32 GMT -5
- The Super-Kiss which everyone who isn't me hates. Look - I get it - Superman's able to set things back to their status quo by kissing Lois deeply? An amnesia inducing kiss? Come ON!! I would find it ridiculous and a cop out too... if it weren't for Lois' speech before it's delivered. I can't help it - for once, you get the feeling that Superman loves Lois as much as she does him. This isn't one of those comic plots where Superman seems relieved that he can't marry Lois because it would place her in jeopardy. He truly wants her and she him. But as Lois explains "he's a pretty hard act to follow. Do you know how painful it is to have to sit next to the man you love everyday and know you can't have him because he belongs to the world?" For once, Superman doesn't have to hide behind Clark to be with Lois, he can be who he is, and we know that's what he wants... only Lois' admission makes that impossible. Go ahead and groan at the "What we were talking about Clark? What's going on in the world?" bit - Reeve smiling sadly and returning to a life of solitude because that's how it has to be when you're Superman and the responsibility of carrying everyone's burden on your shoulders is what you do even when for a tiny moment you got to share that burden with someone you love just hits me in the gut.
-Oh and I'll say this too - I love the super-cellophane and transportation tricks. I know these are powers that have never been exhibited in the comics (or films before this point) but in my mind, they were abilities Superman and Zod et al had access to because they were in the Fortress with all those weird Kryptonian crystals and stuff around them. It doesn't explain why Zod is able to levitate some guy in Houston earlier in the film, but to that I say - deal with it!
Excellent Points Chad!
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Apr 28, 2016 2:50:23 GMT -5
I watch lots of them over and over again. I've seen Spider-Man 1 + 2 countless times, the first 2 X-Men films countless times, the Nolan Batman films countless times. I've watched Iron Man a few times, Avengers a good number of times, X-Men Days of Future Past a few times, as well as Guardians of the Galaxy and Big Hero 6....
The Raimi Spider-Man films, the Nolan Batman films and the Singer X-Men films are the ones that stand out most to me that I love. Spider-Man 2 is without contender my favorite superhero film.
Prior to our modern era, my favorite superhero film was almost certainly Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, which I rewatched recently.
I also love Big Hero 6 and most of the MCU, particular Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy and the two Avengers films.
I have some appreciation for the Donner Superman films, Burton's Batman and the '60s Batman films. But this is more an academic appreciation than a genuine passion. They are not the movies I pick up to rewatch like the ones above.
I also quite like the Rocketeer and the Hellboy films.
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Apr 28, 2016 20:18:25 GMT -5
I'm a bigger fan of Superman II than I am of the first Reeve film. Actually, I'm a bigger fan of Superman II than I am of any other superhero film or serial come to think of it. A lot of great moments in that one:
-Reeve shifting from mild mannered Clark Kent to the majestic Man of Steel in a single fluid moment by straightening his spine, removing his glasses, and altering his voice as he considers telling Lois who he is. That sounds more like the scene in Superman 1 after their first flight to me... |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Apr 28, 2016 20:20:41 GMT -5
-Oh and I'll say this too - I love the super-cellophane and transportation tricks. I know these are powers that have never been exhibited in the comics (or films before this point) but in my mind, they were abilities Superman and Zod et al had access to because they were in the Fortress with all those weird Kryptonian crystals and stuff around them. It doesn't explain why Zod is able to levitate some guy in Houston earlier in the film, but to that I say - deal with it! The only problem with that is Superman says he "used to play this game as a kid", long before he had the fortress. Was that supposed to just be a hide & seek reference?
Also, the issue with the super-cellophane stunt wasn't so much that it was new as that it was useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 28, 2016 20:40:53 GMT -5
The Raimi Spider-Man films, the Nolan Batman films and the Singer X-Men films are the ones that stand out most to me that I love. Spider-Man 2 is without contender my favorite superhero film. Spiderman 2 indeed is great but it really is just the second part of a story begun in the first one. My only problem with it is the epilogue : it announces that the story isn't over, even though all the questions have been answered and Spidey has been defined, it cheapens the whole, sadly... |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 28, 2016 23:29:53 GMT -5
Spider-Man 2 is without contender my favorite superhero film. I love the character development and relationship building in II better, but I much prefer Willam Defoe to Alfred Molina, so I struggle to choose between them. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 29, 2016 5:11:33 GMT -5
Spider-Man 2 is without contender my favorite superhero film. I love the character development and relationship building in II better, but I much prefer Willam Defoe to Alfred Molina, so I struggle to choose between them. But you really don't have to, they 're just one and the same. Only the third one is articficially connected to the story Raimi was set to tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 29, 2016 7:37:30 GMT -5
I saw Watchmen in the theaters with my mom and regardless of how people lambaste it for being an inferior adaptation, it was still an experience wholly it's own, much like V for Vendetta. I saw it again two weeks ago and came out with the same impression as the first time : I think it was almost good. The movie has many qualities, but in my eyes suffered from a few choices that were downright wrong. I'm not talking about skipping the pirate story or replacing the squid by Dr. Manhattan : that was actually an excellent decision. No, it's more like little things that changed the tone of the film, mostly when Snyder decided to favour an "in your face" approach to a slightly more subtle one. That the superhero concept is rooted in fascism and violence despite its good intentions is already obvious. I don't think we needed scenes of open fractures in slo-mo to make the point. It might have been meant as satire (gaudily-clad characters laughingly inflicting brutal injury not being a positive thing, no matter what spin popular culture puts on it) but in the film it almost looked like violence for violence's sake. "Yeah, that was the point!" someone might say. But the point was made anyway, with no need to go all graphic on us. The scene with Rorschach and the kidnapper played much more strongly in the comic than in the film, precisely because in the comic you don't see the bad guy die. Rorshach is made that much more frightening for his clinical detachment, and his very cruel way to send the fellow ad patres. In the film, nothing was left to the imagination. The same goes for Rorschach pursuing the crime boss all the way to the toilet : it was obvious what he was planning when he told his comrades he had to go to the loo before escaping prison; did we have to actually see the bad guy when the door opened? The fistfight at the end was way too long, as if it was mandated that any superhero movie must have an extended fight in it. Veidt was much more powerful than his opponents, and his smacking them down in something like three panels was much more efficient (storytelling-wise) than what we got on screen. It's as if the film was weighed down by the genre's tropes, and had to obey the "good guys fight bad guys at the end" rule. The message "grow up, Daniel" (which was basically addressed at all superheroes and at the genre in general) plays much better when a character like Veidt uses intelligence instead of fists, no matter how good he is with them, than when he indulges in the tactics of superheroes and goes all ninja on us. I also regret the decision to have the catastrophe at the end occur in real time. The comics' revelation that it had already happened half an hour ago gave much more of that "OH, SH** !" realization, I think. As I say, all little things... but they add up. The brilliant choices in music, the cinematography, the outstanding work of Jeffrey Dean Morgan, all end up being overshadowed by them. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 29, 2016 7:44:39 GMT -5
I loved the soundtrack, especially the opening Bob Dylan theme of "Times Are A Changin'", it just fits so perfectly
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 30, 2016 0:33:04 GMT -5
I saw Watchmen in the theaters with my mom and regardless of how people lambaste it for being an inferior adaptation, it was still an experience wholly it's own, much like V for Vendetta. I saw it again two weeks ago and came out with the same impression as the first time : I think it was almost good. The movie has many qualities, but in my eyes suffered from a few choices that were downright wrong. I'm not talking about skipping the pirate story or replacing the squid by Dr. Manhattan : that was actually an excellent decision. No, it's more like little things that changed the tone of the film, mostly when Snyder decided to favour an "in your face" approach to a slightly more subtle one. That the superhero concept is rooted in fascism and violence despite its good intentions is already obvious. I don't think we needed scenes of open fractures in slo-mo to make the point. It might have been meant as satire (gaudily-clad characters laughingly inflicting brutal injury not being a positive thing, no matter what spin popular culture puts on it) but in the film it almost looked like violence for violence's sake. "Yeah, that was the point!" someone might say. But the point was made anyway, with no need to go all graphic on us. The scene with Rorschach and the kidnapper played much more strongly in the comic than in the film, precisely because in the comic you don't see the bad guy die. Rorshach is made that much more frightening for his clinical detachment, and his very cruel way to send the fellow ad patres. In the film, nothing was left to the imagination. The same goes for Rorschach pursuing the crime boss all the way to the toilet : it was obvious what he was planning when he told his comrades he had to go to the loo before escaping prison; did we have to actually see the bad guy when the door opened? The fistfight at the end was way too long, as if it was mandated that any superhero movie must have an extended fight in it. Veidt was much more powerful than his opponents, and his smacking them down in something like three panels was much more efficient (storytelling-wise) than what we got on screen. It's as if the film was weighed down by the genre's tropes, and had to obey the "good guys fight bad guys at the end" rule. The message "grow up, Daniel" (which was basically addressed at all superheroes and at the genre in general) plays much better when a character like Veidt uses intelligence instead of fists, no matter how good he is with them, than when he indulges in the tactics of superheroes and goes all ninja on us. I also regret the decision to have the catastrophe at the end occur in real time. The comics' revelation that it had already happened half an hour ago gave much more of that "OH, SH** !" realization, I think. As I say, all little things... but they add up. The brilliant choices in music, the cinematography, the outstanding work of Jeffrey Dean Morgan, all end up being overshadowed by them. You point to violence, as I did, but there're more flaws. The catastrophe at the end, occurs in real time? I missed that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 30, 2016 7:20:51 GMT -5
I saw Watchmen in the theaters with my mom and regardless of how people lambaste it for being an inferior adaptation, it was still an experience wholly it's own, much like V for Vendetta. I saw it again two weeks ago and came out with the same impression as the first time : I think it was almost good. The movie has many qualities, but in my eyes suffered from a few choices that were downright wrong. I'm not talking about skipping the pirate story or replacing the squid by Dr. Manhattan : that was actually an excellent decision. No, it's more like little things that changed the tone of the film, mostly when Snyder decided to favour an "in your face" approach to a slightly more subtle one. That the superhero concept is rooted in fascism and violence despite its good intentions is already obvious. I don't think we needed scenes of open fractures in slo-mo to make the point. It might have been meant as satire (gaudily-clad characters laughingly inflicting brutal injury not being a positive thing, no matter what spin popular culture puts on it) but in the film it almost looked like violence for violence's sake. "Yeah, that was the point!" someone might say. But the point was made anyway, with no need to go all graphic on us. The scene with Rorschach and the kidnapper played much more strongly in the comic than in the film, precisely because in the comic you don't see the bad guy die. Rorshach is made that much more frightening for his clinical detachment, and his very cruel way to send the fellow ad patres. In the film, nothing was left to the imagination. The same goes for Rorschach pursuing the crime boss all the way to the toilet : it was obvious what he was planning when he told his comrades he had to go to the loo before escaping prison; did we have to actually see the bad guy when the door opened? The fistfight at the end was way too long, as if it was mandated that any superhero movie must have an extended fight in it. Veidt was much more powerful than his opponents, and his smacking them down in something like three panels was much more efficient (storytelling-wise) than what we got on screen. It's as if the film was weighed down by the genre's tropes, and had to obey the "good guys fight bad guys at the end" rule. The message "grow up, Daniel" (which was basically addressed at all superheroes and at the genre in general) plays much better when a character like Veidt uses intelligence instead of fists, no matter how good he is with them, than when he indulges in the tactics of superheroes and goes all ninja on us. I also regret the decision to have the catastrophe at the end occur in real time. The comics' revelation that it had already happened half an hour ago gave much more of that "OH, SH** !" realization, I think. As I say, all little things... but they add up. The brilliant choices in music, the cinematography, the outstanding work of Jeffrey Dean Morgan, all end up being overshadowed by them. That. Because of all the recent discussion around it, I settled to a second watch, the extanded cut. I still thinks it misses the point. It looks nice, sure, and there's two scenes that maybe work better then in the comic (Rosrach in prison and the animated Pirate), but it still feels cringy. I'll admit that this cut toned down a little how negativly you percieve Ozymandia at first glance, the suspense was better than in the theatrical cut. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 30, 2016 13:09:16 GMT -5
Watched Deadpool last night and Jesus it was one hell of a ride of laughter, balls-to-the-wall action, and drama
I just feel kind of sad that I don't much care for the comic iteration
And Colossus played the straight man to Deadpool's Castello amazingly well, loved the static shot of him eating a bowl of grape-nuts
|
|
