What MOVIE(s) have you been....seeing? watching? ARCHIVE

I believe in Arabic countries that the first Avengers is censored down to just the shawarma scene.

Black Barney wrote: bob, yeah I think Cinderella is the last kid's movie to come out.

Judging from the demographics at the Avengers screening I went to, it was a kid's movie. Way too many young kids. At one point towards the end (or was it during the Iron Man/Hulk battle?), you could hear several moan/cries. One kid started hyperventilating with that moan/cry sound and his mom had to take him out of the theater. There's such a weird disconnect between these comic book characters seeming to be kid-friendly, and then the movies having so much tension and destruction. I don't think there should have been any six-year-olds at that movie, but that's just me.

As for my take on the movie, eh, it wasn't very good. Very much a mess, and as I've since learned from interviews, Whedon was interfered with a LOT by the studio. Even with his explanation, I don't think the "Thor in a puddle" scene would have ever worked, but I definitely could have used some deepening of the character stories. Supposedly, there's almost an hour's worth of extra footage. I'm curious to see how much they incorporate into the DVD release.

One thing I did really appreciate-- visually, I thought it was very much a comic-book movie. There were shots and framings that just so perfectly captured panels from a comic book. Especially during the fight scenes. I don't remember any of these movies try to embrace that aspect of the form since Ang Lee's Hulk, and we know how that turned out.

All the violence is absolutely fine. A hint of a kiss and bring out the censorship committee.

We are talking about a place that censored The Lion King for kissing.

I did a bunch of yard work last Saturday, and was too tired afterwards to put up a fight when the spousal unit decided that we would watch Maleficent. It wasn't the pinnacle of American cinema, but if you have a hankering for yet another grimdark take on a fairy tale, you could do worse. Angelina Jolie did a pretty good job, but Sharlito Copley kind of sucked. Which was sad, because I liked him in District 9 and Elysium.

Gregarius wrote: One thing I did really appreciate-- visually, I thought it was very much a comic-book movie. There were shots and framings that just so perfectly captured panels from a comic book. Especially during the fight scenes. I don't remember any of these movies try to embrace that aspect of the form since Ang Lee's Hulk, and we know how that turned out.

I actually really liked Ang Lee's Hulk movie. It was an interesting experiment that still gave some decent pop corn style cinema thrills. It was well cast and generally pretty fun. I don't have any major issues with it. I even kind of like the Nike Nolte Freudian father story line, it takes some bold steps. But in the first Avengers there is a great scene that very much reminds me of comic book framing. During the big fight scene at the end there is a bit where you get to see every single Avenger fighting bad guys in one long un-edited shot as the camera moves throughout the city. That shot very much feels like a big spread in a comic. I can imagine opening the pages for a double spread and then realizing that there is more to un wrap... you pull back the next two pages to reveal a four page spread then you peel back two more to reveal a six page spread... thats what that scene feels like to me. I'm pretty sure it was intentional too. There's other little moments like that but this one stands out.

I'm mainly excited for the new Avengers movie because as much as I liked the first one it kind of felt like someone just filmed Mark Miller's The Ultimates... which is ok but I felt like I knew all the twists and turns. I don't need to be surprised by plot twists (execution is way more important to me than plot twists) but it did feel like ground I already knew and knew well. This movie sounds more like Whedon's own thing. Which gives me higher hopes.

As bad as any Marvel movie or TV series may be these films and shows don't get nearly enough credit for doing something never before attempted in modern media. To have movies with different titles (and shows) that can be watched independently but really work best in tandem as each bit of celluloid informs all the others that come after it. It's incredibly ambitious and even if you have seen too many comic book movies (which sounds as ludicrous to me as I've seen too many horror films or romantic comedies) you've never seen anyone do this particular thing before. We're talking about dozens of hours of media all telling the same over arching story. None of these stories happen in a vacuum and that is a cool and interesting experiment.

That shot you are talking about is the absolute peak of superhero cinema. It really captures the look, feel, tone...everything...about Marvel Comics in particular. The way each character's colors pop and how they are all perfectly posed. I lost my breath seeing that, it was literally exactly how I would imagine Marvel Comics coming to life when I was a kid.

Of course, there is a similar scene in the new one from a different angle, that is also pretty awesome. Not as titanically iconic though. And lots of awesome comic framing throughout, there's a shot in the opening that you can just imagine being a collector's cover from an Avengers book.

Lots of good points, JonJacob. I had actually forgotten about that master shot from the first Avengers. Good call.

I actually liked Hulk, too, although I only saw it the one time in the theater. I appreciated that Lee went to the dark, psychological side of the character rather than the obvious big green smashy guy. I think everyone who's followed has been wise to continue that idea.

And it is pretty incredible that they can work out the logistics and storytelling of such an intertwined universe. I think Lord of the Rings showed that it could be done profitably, but they've taken it to a whole new level by making them not as sequentially dependent. Unfortunately, I think that hurts the Avengers movies the most, as they end up being nexus focal points for each individual story/character, rather than solid stories in and of themselves. Age of Ultron was particularly burdened by having to set up so many threads for the future.

My wife and I were watching Hulk, and at some point I had pretty much lost interest and got up and left for some reason or the other. Hit the can, hunted up a book to read, whatever. I came back, but now my wife had wandered off. I was watching some kind of still-life sort of scene, and after a few seconds thought to myself. "Great. This movie's ground to a halt." After another few seconds I realized that my wife had put the movie on pause before she left. Besides my idiocy, the sad part was that the movie wasn't much less exciting than it was when the pictures were moving.

Interesting tale Robert. I think you may want to change the drugs you're on.

Black Barney wrote:

Green Lantern wrote: Ummm, if you are referencing Man of Steel here you just countered your own point. Iron Man wasn't able to save everyone in the fight with Hulk. No way a building comes down like that without casualties and I'm pretty sure the final battle with Ultron resulted in thousands of deaths. How is this different than the battle with Zod?

wot? Tony Stark doesn't give a rat's ass about civilian deaths. The guy is an arms manufacturer. He and his father are indirectly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Superman doesn't play in those swamps. The guy is pure lawful good. It's normal to hold Superman to task on this kind of stuff.

LOL! Excellent point on Stark, Barney. It still doesn't excuse the melodramatic ending of Iron Man 3 or Hulk's timidity in unleashing his power. For the record, I loved Age of Ultron and Man of Steel and simply want to point out the hypocrisy surrounding the death toll in both movies. For some reason fans clamored for more action after Superman Returns and when they got it they "switched the flip" and moaned about gratuitous violence. If you prefer a touch-feely Superman who faces down real estate plots a lot of ground has been covered there. I was thrilled to get more action in Man of Steel and felt the threat from Zod and his minions far more than any Hackman or Spacey Luthor ever brought to the table.

I digress so I'll get to the point. Why does the fight with Hulk and Iron Man get a pass for maximum destruction but the Superman/Zod gets hammered? And how about that final battle? The Avengers had a full team and weren't able to prevent destruction and death on a large scale. Please give me more than Superman should have taken the fight somewhere else I beg you. That argument works if Zod was after Superman only but he was focusing on human casualties at that point. It wouldn't have mattered if Superman flew off as he did in Superman II because Zod stays in Metropolis and razes the entire city. Speaking of Superman II why does the murder of Zod there not get the same response we saw in Man of Steel? Talk about a night and day contrast between the "classic" superman and the "dark angsty-angst" Superman in Man of Steel. At least the Man of Steel Superman killed Zod to save bystanders. Why exactly did Superman II have to toss a mortal Zod into the arctic abyss?

I wasn't convinced those guys were killed in Superman II. I think he tossed them into a deep freeze so that one day Sam Witwicky's great grandfather will find them one day and then we can be presented with a series of movies that critics everywhere praise as anything from "shit!" to "fucking shit!"

I think Superman is held to task on this stuff cuz he's supposed to avoid civilian deaths at all costs and the Avengers dismiss collateral damage cuz they're from Earth and are assholes like the rest of us

Damn, Barney, cut back on the Tobasco, man. You be extra saucy today.

Black Barney wrote:

wot? Tony Stark doesn't give a rat's ass about civilian deaths. The guy is an arms manufacturer. He and his father are indirectly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Superman doesn't play in those swamps. The guy is pure lawful good. It's normal to hold Superman to task on this kind of stuff.

Tony Stark used to not give a rat's ass about civilian deaths, but we have a kinder gentler Tony Stark now. He's building crazy stuff as usual, but his objective now is to Save the Earth, Save the Avengers, etc.

As far as Superman goes, by the end of Man of Steel, Superman apparently gives less of a shit about civilian casualties than the Hulk does at the end of the fight in Seoul. Kal-El is doing basically nothing to drag his General Zod fight out of Metropolis.

Honestly I don't give a rats ass about character integrity or staying true to the original vision of a character... batman used a gun in the first few comics... no one seems to give a shit about that now and if you gave him one today fans would complain that it was 'out of character' ... bah.. All that matters is execution. If they want Superman as a bad guy I'm on board IF IT'S GOOD... that's it. Over Superman's long history in print he has been portrayed several different ways and not all of it is true to the character people may want to see from him right now. But it's fair to have a version you like and one you don't... it's just that it's simply opinion. It's important to remember that sometimes a film is bad, sometimes you don't like it and you think it's bad... but you don't get to choose all by yourself.

I think one of the problems with DC's approach is that it is much harder to do dark well. The light bubblegum approach that Marvel (until Daredevil I guess) is using is much easier to pull off. Mainly because when something doesn't take itself too seriously we're usually willing to give it more leeway. But when something is really dark, sinister, serious etc... it's much harder to pull it off. There is very little respite. Super Heroes are still a bit of a joke in pop culture, people don't really take it seriously (despite the billions of dollars) so the light approach works. If you want to go all Image comics angsty 90's style you're climbing a much bigger hill. To pull that off you have to have a pretty much flawless film because that style doesn't allow for the kind of leeway we see being given to the lighter fare that Marvel puts out.

However IF you pull it off people will love your film (or at least respect it) much more. The Dark Knight movies are generally considered to be much better films than what Marvel puts out because they nail that darkness (and there is a fuck of a lot of grim darkness in those films). Personally I don't like them better, they feel like 70's cinema to me... cool, but a little bit too regressive. Too much deconstruction and not enough reconstruction.

That said quality of execution inside of that still counts too. People hated Green Lantern and it was as light as can be (I actually really enjoyed that film but I think the public just hates Ryan Renolds) Superman Returns too actually. DC tried to do some lighter fare and it failed them. Somewhat unfairly I guess but that's how it goes. Timing counts too.

I've watched the following films over the past week or so:

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon - Such a good film. So many great characters...beautifully shot. The fight choreography is beyond excellent. The story though is key...it's very well done. Apparently they're making a sequel to it this year...

Avengers 2 - I very much enjoyed it. I think it was better than the first one. Ultron was great and Spader did a wonderful job chewing through his lines. They made Hawkeye enjoyable which was nice. Some of the action scenes in the first act are edited to quickly too see what is actually happening. Thankfully a lot of the "team up moves" in the final act were fucking awesome. Overall. it's not a revelation or anything, but these are primo popcorn flicks. Glad to see the quality is still there...bring on Ant Man.

House/Hausu - This Japanese flick is about 7 schoolgirls who end up traveling to an old creepy house. The house is owned by one of the girl's Aunt...who she hasn't]seen in a long, long time. The film is VERY Japanese. All of the girls have names like Gorgeous, Fantasy, Kung Fu....basically their name describes what they're personality traits are. It's fucking bizarre. Once they get to the House things just get more and more acid trippy. The film uses lots of matte paintings and it gives the whole thing a dreamscape quality. There is also lots of animation mixed in for special effects. There really isn't anything like it. The whole thing barely makes any sense. It's like if you shoved a Dario Argento film through 1970s Japanese transmogrification machine....and out popped House. The weird fever dream atmosphere is mixed with this commercial J-pop sensibilities. It's oddly satisfying and I'm sort of obsessed with it.

The Black Cat - This 1981 film from Lucio Fulci is loosely based on Poe's story of the same name. It's basically a movie about an old man with crazy fucking eyebrows and his cat. And the cat murders people in increasingly bizarre and complicated ways. It's awesome. The film uses more zoomed in, tight angled, eye shots than every Sergio Leone Western film combined. It's ludicrous. The film has some pacing problems and the story is really fucking dumb. It's an entertaining time waster though. Watch it with a group of people, imbibe some alcohol and laugh your ass off.