Author Topic: Rate the latest movie you've seen.  (Read 119054 times)

Offline Munch

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2370 on: August 12, 2017, 12:24:00 PM »
The Wolverine (2013) - 5/10

Nothing too interesting.

That movie rides on Hugh Jackmans sexiness, I don't even remember the plot

Offline SGOS

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2371 on: August 12, 2017, 01:13:39 PM »
There were three Wolverine movies made, and I'd rank them all on the low end of the series.  The first one was helpful in explaining his origins.  But I think the rest of the X-Men movies were all better.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2372 on: August 12, 2017, 04:23:09 PM »
There were three Wolverine movies made, and I'd rank them all on the low end of the series.  The first one was helpful in explaining his origins.  But I think the rest of the X-Men movies were all better.

I forget which Wolverine movie it was, but where he lost the memory of his lady heroine from the bullets in his head, that made me very sad.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline SGOS

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2373 on: August 12, 2017, 06:24:40 PM »
I forget which Wolverine movie it was, but where he lost the memory of his lady heroine from the bullets in his head, that made me very sad.
Can't remember that, and I never watched a Wolverine Movie twice.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2374 on: August 12, 2017, 06:29:35 PM »
Can't remember that, and I never watched a Wolverine Movie twice.

Someone will know...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2375 on: August 13, 2017, 12:05:06 PM »
X men origins: wolverine
I think.
Movie wasn't good enough to make sure The other X-men could get their origins stories.
E = Mc²

In the end, we are all standing in the dark,
trying to figure out why we are here.
But let us not choose one direction
without proof of where it is headed.

Check your pocket for matches
so we can observe and learn together
as fast friends and relative idiots.

Offline trdsf

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2376 on: August 14, 2017, 10:47:48 PM »
Can't remember that, and I never watched a Wolverine Movie twice.
You're ahead of me, I haven't seen any Wolverine movie once.

*sigh*  I remember when he wore Michigan colors and had a personality, before he became The Thing That Ate Marvel's Brain.  The last time I walked into a comic shop (two or three years ago), the entire top row of the 'New Arrivals' rack was five different Wolverine titles.  I just walked away.
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

Offline SGOS

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2377 on: August 15, 2017, 06:32:58 AM »
You're ahead of me, I haven't seen any Wolverine movie once.

*sigh*  I remember when he wore Michigan colors and had a personality, before he became The Thing That Ate Marvel's Brain.  The last time I walked into a comic shop (two or three years ago), the entire top row of the 'New Arrivals' rack was five different Wolverine titles.  I just walked away.
As part of the X-Men group, he fits in fine.  The first movie starts with him, and he is one of the primary figures, but the real fascination comes when you start meeting all the other X-Men Characters, and learn about their society, and how Magneto split from the group.  When the first Wolverine movie came out, my immediate reaction was, "Why Wolverine?"  In fact, why any particular X-Man?  I thought maybe Marvel was experimenting so see if they could make theater-worthy stand alone superheroes out of individual X-Men.

When that failed, they did it again, and when the second one turned the first failure into an outright flop, they went for a third without even considering that the strategy may have worked better with a different character.  Somebody at Marvel is obsessed with proving a point or forcing a point that doesn't need to be made.  The X-Men is fine as a team.  The group is the hook, and the uniqueness of a group is what draws attention to the concept.  Wolverine is just a player.

Offline trdsf

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2378 on: August 15, 2017, 11:48:14 AM »
X-Men to me is always going to mean Scott, Jean, Bobby, Warren and Hank.  But I'm old.  :D
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

Offline Munch

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2379 on: August 15, 2017, 12:18:00 PM »
X-Men to me is always going to mean Scott, Jean, Bobby, Warren and Hank.  But I'm old.  :D

for me its always gonna be the 90s lineup, Scott, Hank, Logan, Ororo, Jean, Chuck, Remy, Rogue, with additional characters Peter, Kitty, Kurt, Bobby and Betsy, with maaaaybe Jubilee if she would shut up.

Offline Sorginak

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2380 on: August 15, 2017, 04:49:37 PM »
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
10/10, mainly due to the first five minutes with baby Groot dancing.

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2381 on: August 16, 2017, 01:19:43 PM »
Maybe this belongs in books more then movies, but it related to both. With the new dark tower coming out and already being regarded as a flop, and the upcoming remake of IT, I looked back on a lot of stephen king movie adaptations of his novels, and it began to make me think.

This is probably sacrilege to some people who are fans of his work, but has anyone ever considered the idea that, maybe, just maybe, King is that that good a writer?
Sure, he's popular, he's written some the most award winning novels, and their adaptations are some of the finest in cinematic history, adaptations like Misery (kathy bates still gives me shivers today), The Green Mile, the shining, many great and cinematic masterpieces that last today, infact I went out and brought misery recently because of kathy bates' role in it was so perfect.

But from what I understand of the process, these award winning or nominated movies adapted from his work, are as said, adaptations, they are reworked from the original story and made for cinema, the director making them into these great experiences. From what I read, King was against how the movie the shining was made, despite it being a massive success, so much so he had a direct to TV 2 part made of the shining, and it didn't do anywhere near as good as the Kubrick adaptation.

Getting back to the point, i'm not saying King is an awful writer, he is able to make some great books, but often it seems like he just gets lucky with it, that only a handful of his work extends to the wider spectrum, and only die hard fans can really say they like all his work. I've always found kings writing very, VERY long winded, over the top in detail, and it really takes a masterwork to cut down all the fat in his books to be adaptable for cinema.

We can't ignore the fact that there are so many crap stephen king adaptations, ones he has never seemed intrested in downgrading for how crap they are, but went to the trouble of saying he disliked the Kubrick version of the shining enough to try and make his own version? Something doesn't sit right there, any sane writer should know a book adaptation needs to be altered for a cinematic experience.

I think he's just someone who got lucky, since he's writer sooooooooooo many books, that a few of there were a success, and that is what put him on the map, which really can't excuse so much crap that he has done. I'll give him his phrases for his works that adapted into cinema, but theres always been something about king, either having an ego, or just caught in his own bubble, that stopped me reading a lot of his work.
King really is a good writer.  But not like a Michener--every book he wrote is excellent.  With King that's not so, for me.  But his style is always good--great character development.  I either seem to love or to hate his books.  The Stand I loved, for example.  Delores Claiborne was brilliant.  Cujo, Pet Cemetery and Misery I hated.  But even in the hated books, the writing was very good.  I read the first Dark Tower book and could make neither heads nor tails of it--just confused.  But the writing was good.  And his books like the Cell seems to be just part of a book--loved it, but it sort of ended in mid story.  Anyway, the moves based on his books are all okay--none are really outstanding for me.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Cavebear

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2382 on: August 17, 2017, 11:57:24 AM »
X-Men to me is always going to mean Scott, Jean, Bobby, Warren and Hank.  But I'm old.  :D

You and me both!  The Marvel Movies always mess me up by screwing around with origins.  Weren't the original origins good enough?  I mean, how much willing suspension of disbelief is required?  The original team would have worked fine for a movie.  Then add all the others.

And why mess around with the FF origins?  They would have been the same and Dr Doom would have been just as evil...

BTW, you ever read the Wild Cards books?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2383 on: August 17, 2017, 01:19:45 PM »
Is wild cards good, i want to know before i invest
E = Mc²

In the end, we are all standing in the dark,
trying to figure out why we are here.
But let us not choose one direction
without proof of where it is headed.

Check your pocket for matches
so we can observe and learn together
as fast friends and relative idiots.

Offline trdsf

Re: Rate the latest movie you've seen.
« Reply #2384 on: August 17, 2017, 01:24:35 PM »
You and me both!  The Marvel Movies always mess me up by screwing around with origins.  Weren't the original origins good enough?  I mean, how much willing suspension of disbelief is required?  The original team would have worked fine for a movie.  Then add all the others.

And why mess around with the FF origins?  They would have been the same and Dr Doom would have been just as evil...

BTW, you ever read the Wild Cards books?
I have, though I can't say they made as much of an impression on me as Thieves' World did.  My main memory of Wild Cards is having our supers APA reviewed in Comic Buyers Guide #1000 and being compared favorably thereto.  :)
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief