Page 66 of 69 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 ... LastLast
Results 1,951 to 1,980 of 2043
  1. #1951
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    Also, there were a grand total of -zero- moments where the theater applauded or cheered. In A1, there were no less than 5. I understand that's part of the initial shock value of a first movie, but really, not one moment that inspired applause? That's hard to do for a Marvel movie on opening night. Even Captain America 2 had a few moments where everyone cheered (Like when Fury rolled down his SUV window and laid the Samuel L Beatdown on all those fake cops). This movie failed to shock or amaze and was entirely predictable the whole way through.
    Last edited by Kyle; 05-05-2015 at 04:22 PM.

  2. #1952
    Geek Extraordinaire Hall of Famer Hamsterkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Frederick MD
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,575
    I agree that I think the dialogue writing took a step back (which was Whedon again). Or it could be the editing (which I feel was great considering how much plot was in only about 2 hours) hurt the dialogue by making it seem more rushed than necessary. The jokes themselves were in line with Whedon's usual style, no problem there for me.

    As far as Ultron vs Loki, I will agree that Ultron was not as compelling a villain as Loki. Loki had the advantage of already being a developed character at the start of Avengers 1 thanks to Thor 1, though. If you take just the Loki in Avengers 1 vs Ultron in Avengers 2, the characters come up much more even, in my opinion.

    Ultron himself isn't really supposed to be as compelling a villain as Loki, either. Loki as a character is designed to be sympathetic, fun, and surprising. Ultron is meant to represent the Avengers' failure, having been a villain they created themselves with the best of intentions, and his machine-like order stands in direct juxtaposition to the Avengers' chaos and humanity. He's the villain they needed for Avengers 2 with where they intend to take the series in Phase 3.

    Which brings me to the the Thanos relevance where I think your criticism is just plain wrong. If anything, I think Avengers 2 follows the overall Marvel pattern of hinting towards the Thanos encounter (really, Infinity War) more and more. This movie is the first time Marvel has gone, "Hey, these things are the Infinity Gems" and also the first time one of them has been named.

    I understand the criticism of focus on Hawkeye, Banner, and Widow, but that was actually a strength for me. The other Avengers have their solo films for character development where Hawkeye and Banner (so far) only are appearing in Avengers films, and Widow only has a couple of supporting role appearances outside them. Avengers is really the only chance the writers get to develop them into something you actually care about and Hawkeye didn't even really get that in Avengers 1, being mind controlled most of the time.

    In all, I think the most valid critique is one you didn't make, that the MCU is becoming so serialized that individual movies are less able to stand on their own. So no, I don't see Avengers 2 as a cash grab -- it's more of a connecting piece of the story than a major event, though, and I think they did a fantastic job with making that kind of film into as much of a spectacle as they did.

    Whedon had already elected to step away from the Avengers and Marvel for now (aside from continuing to produce Agents of SHIELD, which is run by his brother and sister-in-law). The Russo brothers (directors of Cap 2, and soon, Cap 3) will be directing both parts of Avengers 3 and the writers of Cap 2 will be writing for them.

    My theater had a handful of collective reactions. An applause, albeit brief, due to the pace of the movie, along with a few collective laughs and gasps.
    Last edited by Hamsterkill; 05-05-2015 at 05:15 PM.
    Curse of the Hamster
    My first round draft picks:





  3. #1953
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    I don't know about the Loki comparison. Thor 1 was not a very popular movie and Loki was not particularly strong in it. It was in Avengers 1 where he established himself, made people fans of Tom Hiddleson, and arguably stole the show as the strongest point of the movie. I was one of many who had not seen Thor 1 yet and still walked away amazed at Hiddleson's performance. I really don't think Loki's appearance in Thor 1 aided his character's success in The Avengers much. Its a fair point, but I can't go on to agree with your next point that Loki from Avengers 1 was about as well done as Ultron from Avengers 2. That's just not fair. No one talked about Hiddleson's performance as Loki until Avengers 1. They changed the character's personality quite a bit and essentially introduced a new, more clever, and more ruthless Loki (rather than the emo wreck from Thor 1) that people finally caught on to. Loki from Avengers 1, ignoring Thor 1 entirely, is still a far superior character than Ultron. No one has good things to say about Ultron's performance in the movie, of all its strong points he simply isn't one. Loki wins that comparison from any perspective.

    You can defend the presentation of the character but I simply think other actors and better dialogue could've made Ultron a better movie villain. As it is, he's forgettable at best, and terribly done at worst. He's a silly transformers character with James Spader's lame voice and awkward lines, not a part of the serious Marvel universe.

    *Spoilers ahead*

    Now, in response to where you called me wrong, I don't think you have any appreciation for how much of a hardcore marvel fan you needed to be to really understand what in the hell was going on with the vision and that suit and Ultron needing to activate his own consciousness into it (Or whatever he needed to do to possess the suit himself). And maybe that's because it seemed to take all of FIVE minutes from the moment Ultron awakened to the moment he introduced the suit, and then all of five more minutes to the moment his plan failed and the Avengers get some random super cyborg robot ally added their team who is basically the most overly-rushed addition to a super hero movie since...Ultron 10 minutes before him. If this paragraph seems convoluted, just imagine trying to keep up with the movie if you've never heard of Ultron or The Vision before it.

    So sure Hamster, maybe you kept up perfectly and were deeply engrossed in the 3 hour's worth of plot they sped through in 10 minutes, and therefor understood the connection the mind gem/The Vision had to the Thanos storyline right away, but most others were just struggling to keep up and had no idea that any of this was building into Thanos. Simply introducing an infinity stone is not building the Thanos plot, and a post-credit scene that doesn't reveal anything we didn't already know doesn't help much either. While it was cool to see, we were all already 100% certain Thanos would be assembling the gauntlet before Avengers 3. So no, the infinity gauntlet after the credits was not nearly enough Thanos for this movie. Avengers 2 should have been a plot manipulated largely by Thanos, just like Avengers 1 or Guardians of the Galaxy, not a movie about a totally unrelated side story where an infinity stone just happens to make an appearance. It should not have taken nearly 3 hours from the start of the movie to acknowledge Thanos.

    I'm glad its score is about 20% lower on Rotten Tomatoes, at least I'm not in my own world in thinking it was a much weaker movie. Still a really solid movie (With that budget and the team behind it, it had to be) but they did very little with the enormous opportunity in front of them to make another standard-setting super hero movie. If you take away all the bells and whistles that come with such a huge production budget and the natural charisma of some of the best actors in the world, you're left with an incredibly poorly paced plot, weak dialogue, lots of wasted time in the first half, and a story that feels more like a side project than part of an epic trilogy about Thanos.

    Avengers 1 required no thorough knowledge of the Marvel universe to enjoy and was perfectly paced. Avengers 2 punishes you much more for not knowing a lot of things about these characters, and even if you do, you still have to forgive the utterly awful pacing.
    Last edited by Kyle; 05-05-2015 at 06:26 PM.

  4. #1954
    Nitbag Hall of Famer FlyGuy78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,253
    I don't think it was that bad and it seemed rushed since they cut out almost an hour of the movie to make it shorter. When the extended cut comes out on DVD I think we will be more pleased. The theatre I was in everyone was laughing at every joke though some were not that funny. And I don't mind focusing on other characters than Iron Man and Cap since they aren't the only Avengers. I will admit that Ultron was weak sauce and that from the previews I thought he was going to be basically unstoppable. I will say I very much enjoyed the Vision character and the guy who played him. Too bad for him Thanos is coming to town and going to rip the mind gem off of him!

    Seeing the gauntlet at the end scene was priceless though! Thanos is my favorite villain!

  5. #1955
    Geek Extraordinaire Hall of Famer Hamsterkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Frederick MD
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,575
    Oh I agree wholeheartedly that there's more plot in the movie than there should be for a 2 hour film. I think I noted the breakneck pace of the film in my post.

    I understand the desire for more Thanos, himself, but Marvel is already likely to feature him a bunch over the Phase 3 films after Cap 3. Avengers 2 is more directly setting up Cap 3 than Avengers 3.
    Curse of the Hamster
    My first round draft picks:





  6. #1956
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    I will say I very much enjoyed the Vision character and the guy who played him
    Would've been nice to enjoy him for more than 10 minutes though

    Avengers 2 is more directly setting up Cap 3 than Avengers 3.
    Fair enough, I guess I'll have to accept that the point of this movie was simply changing the Avengers roster to set up future movies. That function just seems so beneath what the Avengers was supposed to be in the first place though, which was the ultimate super hero movie, the epitome of what all the other movies built towards, the "dream come true" experience you thought would never happen. Avengers 1 was all of those things, and I really expected Avengers 2 to be more of the same.

    Instead, I got a movie that I would rather re-watch Captain America 2 before watching again. I guess there was no way to meet the expectations set by Avengers 1!

  7. #1957
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    Also I didn't know the guy who voiced Jarvis all along since Iron Man 1 is the same actor who played The Vision (Paul Bettany). That's honestly mind boggling. Is Marvel just so lucky that the guy they picked to voice act happened to be a good enough actor to star in The Avengers, or do you guys think they made sure he could act as The Vision before even selecting him for Iron Man 1?

  8. #1958
    Nitbag Hall of Famer FlyGuy78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,253
    I don't think they had any idea when Iron Man 1 came out that they would need an actor for Vision or if they did if they would even make it that far. It was probably a happy coincidence like you said.

  9. #1959
    Geek Extraordinaire Hall of Famer Hamsterkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Frederick MD
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,575
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyGuy78 View Post
    I don't think they had any idea when Iron Man 1 came out that they would need an actor for Vision or if they did if they would even make it that far. It was probably a happy coincidence like you said.
    No, but I think they may have had an inkling that they might want him to appear as well down the line in some fashion, even if just a face on a screen or something. I think Jarvis was actually Bettany's first and only voice role he's ever done and he's a fairly acclaimed actor to be getting for Marvel Studios' first ever film if you think you're only ever going to use his voice.
    Last edited by Hamsterkill; 05-05-2015 at 08:03 PM.
    Curse of the Hamster
    My first round draft picks:





  10. #1960
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    I gotta lean with Hamster there.

    The more I read, the more I think this movie's biggest issue (Aside from essentially being a stepping stone to the next movie with an "Oops we created a killer robot" plot quickly thrown in) is how limited Whedon was on time. I wonder if his extended directors cut reveals a much better vision of the movie, if they let him include it with the Blu Ray.

    That said, if they were forcing him to make cuts, he really should've considered the farmland scenes or the Scarlet Witch visions (Two scenes Marvel pleaded with him to cut heavily). He wanted his movie to be more artistic but I really think we were all perfectly fine without some heartwarming glimpse into Hawkeye's home life. And the visions really dragged on and could've stopped after the first two for sure. Those are precious minutes that could've been used to expand the Ultron character or extend the weak final battle sequence with him. Ultron really doesn't fight much at all. And his robot horde was very modest compared to the previews and the talks about the Avengers being overwhelmed by a vast army before the movie. Loki fights a ton in A1, and his army fights a ton, almost an entire hour in fact. And at numerous times throughout the movie you truly feel a sense of desperation and hopelessness at the impending doom ahead of them.

    I'm not sure Ultron's robot horde lasted 20 minutes. A key point of any Avengers film should be establishing epic villains that demand the entire Avenger's attention. Ultron felt like more of an Iron Man villain than an Avengers nemesis. And it's amazing that it feels that way because he's much stronger than Loki and his robots are much more powerful than that alien horde. They really just did not do well in writing his character and allotting enough time for the final battle, either one of those would hurt the movie a lot, but together they really serve as a notable blemish. There was no time spent establishing the effect this villain had on any of the characters, there really was no sense of desperation even when the stakes were way higher than Avengers 1. Ultron really just sucked and may have been the lowest point of the movie, and an Avengers movie is only as strong as its antagonist(s). The whole point of building these super heroes in the same universe (Which has caused countless movies to suffer individually for the sake of the greater MCU) has to be to establish epic fights against foes that they can only take down together in the Avengers flicks. Ultron missed the mark.

    Whedon tried a bit too hard to meet some artistic vision. I think a much better idea would've been accepting that the time to build these characters is in the non-avengers movies, and that Avengers should really just focus on these incredibly epic villains that require all the best heroes in the world to counter, and over-the-top action sequences that last long enough to appreciate what each hero can do. A2 had over the top action, but far too short-lived. Too many people did not shine at all in A2.

    If I had to grade it, 7/10 which is normally solid but in this case is one of the bigger disappointments I can remember, mostly because of how good I expected it to be based on its predecessors (Specifically the first Avengers directed by the same person). This is one of the only movies ever that I was -positive- was going to be one of my favorites of all time before I even watched a single trailer, and instead it isn't even a top 10 super hero movie IMO
    Last edited by Kyle; 05-07-2015 at 12:10 AM.

  11. #1961
    Nitbag Hall of Famer FlyGuy78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,253
    The fighting lasted a lot longer than I think you are remembering. Plus, there were more Avengers in this movie than in A1 which maybe is why it seemed to you that it didn't feel like desperation. I felt like it did at times. And you say that Ultron feels like an Iron Man villain and not an Avengers villian, well Loki is a Thor villian, not an Avengers villian. The one thing I hated about A1 is that they reused a villian from Thor 1 instead of someone much bigger. Don't get me wrong I think Loki makes a great villian but Thor could easily kill him himself if he really wanted too just never would since he's his brother.

  12. #1962
    Geek Extraordinaire Hall of Famer Hamsterkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Frederick MD
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    That said, if they were forcing him to make cuts, he really should've considered the farmland scenes or the Scarlet Witch visions (Two scenes Marvel pleaded with him to cut heavily). He wanted his movie to be more artistic but I really think we were all perfectly fine without some heartwarming glimpse into Hawkeye's home life. And the visions really dragged on and could've stopped after the first two for sure. Those are precious minutes that could've been used to expand the Ultron character or extend the weak final battle sequence with him. Ultron really doesn't fight much at all. And his robot horde was very modest compared to the previews and the talks about the Avengers being overwhelmed by a vast army before the movie. Loki fights a ton in A1, and his army fights a ton, almost an entire hour in fact. And at numerous times throughout the movie you truly feel a sense of desperation and hopelessness at the impending doom ahead of them.
    I disagree. I found the farm sequence and the visions (other than Cap's, which I think they just to have Peggy appear), to be some of the stronger scenes in the film and I'm glad Joss fought to keep them. Those were the character-building pieces of the film. Without them, the movie seems like just another explosion-fest. Difficult to say for sure without seeing what got cut instead, but I think the movie would have been a lot weaker without them.

    Not sure where you remember Loki fighting a ton in Avengers 1? Really the only time he did was the beginning of A1 when he kills the SHIELD agents and then maybe killing Phil later on. Other than that, he's surrendering to Iron Man, getting destroyed by Hulk, or getting blown up by Hawkeye without really fighting. Not that I find that to be a problem -- Loki's not a fighting villain, he's a mastermind. Loki's in a lot more scenes than Ultron is, though, if that's what you meant.
    I'm not sure Ultron's robot horde lasted 20 minutes. A key point of any Avengers film should be establishing epic villains that demand the entire Avenger's attention. Ultron felt like more of an Iron Man villain than an Avengers nemesis. And it's amazing that it feels that way because he's much stronger than Loki and his robots are much more powerful than that alien horde. They really just did not do well in writing his character and allotting enough time for the final battle, either one of those would hurt the movie a lot, but together they really serve as a notable blemish. There was no time spent establishing the effect this villain had on any of the characters, there really was no sense of desperation even when the stakes were way higher than Avengers 1.
    I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. As Fly mentioned, Loki's not really an epic villain, either. I agree, I would have liked more time given to developing Ultron's character, but I understand the time constraint since Ultron isn't the type of villain they can have in the same room as the Avengers for half the movie the way Loki was. I think they did a pretty good job characterizing him in the time they did take do so. But I think part of why they chose Ultron for this film was to use him and throw him away rather than keep him around for future films like Loki.

    I agree that they really should have spent some time showing the effect of Ultron's creation on Stark and Banner. That was a disappointment for me that you don't really get to see how they cope with it, you just see them willing to make the same mistake a second time with Vision.

    I would argue that the key point of an Avengers movie is bring to the front the interactions between the different heroes. That's really the point of them, especially with Cap 3 on the horizon. Showing the friction, the cracks, and the glue in this team where each member is a superhero on his/her own.

    Ultron really just sucked and may have been the lowest point of the movie, and an Avengers movie is only as strong as its antagonist(s). The whole point of building these super heroes in the same universe (Which has caused countless movies to suffer individually for the sake of the greater MCU) has to be to establish epic fights against foes that they can only take down together in the Avengers flicks. Ultron missed the mark.

    Whedon tried a bit too hard to meet some artistic vision. I think a much better idea would've been accepting that the time to build these characters is in the non-avengers movies, and that Avengers should really just focus on these incredibly epic villains that require all the best heroes in the world to counter, and over-the-top action sequences that last long enough to appreciate what each hero can do. A2 had over the top action, but far too short-lived. Too many people did not shine at all in A2.
    Again, I don't agree that the main point of having the heroes in the same universe is for taking on epic villains. That's part of it, occasionally, sure, and I would have liked for Ultron to seem more threatening than he did as well. But like I said, character building and interactions is the main attraction for me, especially when half the team doesn't have their own movies to be developed in. Without that aspect, all you get is an explosion-fest with a potentially compelling villain. While you can certainly make a good movie based around a villain, I don't think that's really what Marvel's goals are.
    Curse of the Hamster
    My first round draft picks:





  13. #1963
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    I know that isn't necessarily the point of any movie, but at the end of the day 2-3 hours simply is not enough time to develop 7-8 major characters/villains. Its doable, but difficult (as exemplified by A1's critical reception compared to A2), and in a situation where you have 8-10 hours worth of OTHER movies released every single year connected to the same universe, it just seems more reasonable to use THAT time to build the characters. Avenger's precious limited time should be used establishing this villain that forces the team to work together (Because a villain that the Hulk or Iron Man can't beat alone is in another category from the standard super hero villain) and the creative strategy utilized by a team with such varied superpowers. We didn't really see that creativity from A1, in A2 instead we just got really short, fleeting glimpses of what each character can do.

    I'm not trying to sound like an action whore with no respect for a good plot. But the Avengers movies really don't have enough time to be about plot and character development. The focus IMO should logically be on the villain, his effect on the Avengers, and the combined effort it takes to bring him down. This is supposed to be what the last 2-3 years worth of films were building towards and it just didn't feel much like it.

    An example of a scene that seriously didn't need to exist was everyone trying to pick up Thor's hammer. Truly lame waste of time. I guess they needed to give Don Cheadle his 30 seconds.

    PS I tried to make it really clear that Loki was an epic villain because of his army. Loki alone loses to Thor. Loki+Army of alien warriors with gigantic cyborg-looking armored flying worms? Easily beats any 1 Avenger. Ultron had the same concept going on, but we never felt like his horde was overwhelming the Avengers like the alien army in New York. In Ultron, Scarlet Witch pretty much handles 90% of the horde all on her own.

    Loki + his army made for a much more challenging, dramatic, clever, and memorable villain/final sequence than the lame and overly quick fight vs Ultron and his army. That was my point. I even mentioned that Ultron is much more powerful than Loki and should've been presented as such, but they simply didn't chose to make that obvious to us (Aside from his quick victory vs Iron Man).
    Last edited by Kyle; 05-07-2015 at 03:09 PM.

  14. #1964
    Geek Extraordinaire Hall of Famer Hamsterkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Frederick MD
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,575
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post

    An example of a scene that seriously didn't need to exist was everyone trying to pick up Thor's hammer. Truly lame waste of time. I guess they needed to give Don Cheadle his 30 seconds.
    I agree, generally, but it only exists to contrast with Vision later in the film.
    Curse of the Hamster
    My first round draft picks:





  15. #1965
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    I understand, I just think that scene was self explanatory without needing the prior scene to build it up. We all know only Thor can hold the hammer, I think anyone watching Avengers is well aware of that, even the most casual of fans.

    I still like the movie and will be enjoying it again when its released on Blu Ray, just not something I'll watch three times in theaters like A1. I set unrealistic expectations for the movie by predicting it would be at least as good as A1, but its hard not to have thought that after the incredible job they did recently with Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America 2.

  16. #1966
    Geek Extraordinaire Hall of Famer Hamsterkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Frederick MD
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    I understand, I just think that scene was self explanatory without needing the prior scene to build it up. We all know only Thor can hold the hammer, I think anyone watching Avengers is well aware of that, even the most casual of fans.
    Well, not exactly. It's whoever's worthy. A handful of other comics characters have wielded the hammer at times, including Captain America (hence the slight budge when he tried in the movie) and Loki.
    Curse of the Hamster
    My first round draft picks:





  17. #1967
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    Appreciate the correction. I didn't word it right, I just meant the vast majority of people would've understood the significance of The Vision picking up the hammer without the prior scene setting it up.

  18. #1968
    Geek Extraordinaire Hall of Famer Hamsterkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Frederick MD
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    Appreciate the correction. I didn't word it right, I just meant the vast majority of people would've understood the significance of The Vision picking up the hammer without the prior scene setting it up.
    Probably true.
    Curse of the Hamster
    My first round draft picks:





  19. #1969
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    Well I keep hearing about that Mad Max movie these days. Will check it out this weekend.

  20. #1970
    .. All-Star WIS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,725
    Go see Ex-Machina if it's playing in your area.

  21. #1971
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    Quote Originally Posted by WIS View Post
    Go see Ex-Machina if it's playing in your area.
    Did! It was awesome.

  22. #1972
    .. All-Star WIS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    Did! It was awesome.
    Right! I liked it. Had that you didn't know what was going to happen next thing about it. I like how it included just three characters.

  23. #1973
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    Quote Originally Posted by WIS View Post
    Right! I liked it. Had that you didn't know what was going to happen next thing about it. I like how it included just three characters.
    It was a very unique, downright weird movie in all the right ways. Huge fan

  24. #1974
    .. All-Star WIS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    It was a very unique, downright weird movie in all the right ways. Huge fan
    Weird is a good way to describe it. Glad I found this gem.

  25. #1975
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    The Entourage Movie is horrendously shitty. Watched a weaker cam rip but it's really not the type of movie you need to watch in good quality. As I and many others expected, it's just terrible. It just feels like a ridiculously drawn out episode of Entourage, and a really shitty one at that. I thought the show was pretty good back in the day, but this is pure garbage. Kevin Dillon (Johnny) is basically unbearable.
    Last edited by Kyle; 06-06-2015 at 02:24 PM.

  26. #1976
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    Jurassic World!!!!

    If you were obsessed with Jurassic Park at a young age, then this movie was a home run. The only real issue were a couple of glaring examples of trying to force drama with sad music when the scenes really weren't inspiring much sadness otherwise. But man it was a fun ride. 8/10 overall for me, but a 10/10 if you're just a fiend for the Jurassic Park franchise and have been waiting for a truly worthy follow-up to JP1.

    Mad Max: Road to Fury is far better though. I give it a 10/10. Some of the best choreography in the history of cinema. Incredible acting, a progressive role for women (Seriously, as soon as any of your daughters are old enough for hardcore violence, show them Mad Max! It will empower them), and some of the most brutal sequences ever put on film. Really, really exciting movie, a non-stop 2 hour thrill ride.
    Last edited by Kyle; 06-15-2015 at 07:20 PM.

  27. #1977
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687


    If you've never seen Kingsman, change that! Who hasn't wanted to see the (equivalent of the) Westboro Baptist Church killed?

    Video looked awfully weird to get past the copyright restrictions, but its worth checking if you enjoy gratuitous violence! Beyond that the film is very cleverly written, funny, and features some of the best cinematography of all time. By far my favorite spy movie ever made ahead of even Skyfall and the other of the more amazing 007 movies.
    Last edited by Kyle; 06-28-2015 at 10:25 PM.

  28. #1978
    Senior Member Hall of Famer two24four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    34,585
    Went and saw Ted 2 last night.

    It has it's really funny moments where you laugh your ass off, but it also has it's moments where it slows down a lot more than the original Ted. I was expecting more laughs out of Ted 2. I laughed way more at the first one.
    Last edited by two24four; 06-29-2015 at 09:29 AM.

  29. #1979
    Senior Member Hall of Famer phaneuf6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    26
    Posts
    10,127
    Quote Originally Posted by two24four View Post
    Went and saw Ted 2 last night.

    It has it's really funny moments where you laugh your ass off, but it also has it's moments where it slows down a lot more than the original Ted. I was expecting more laughs out of Ted 2. I laughed way more at the first one.
    I saw it yesterday as well. Pretty much agree with you. Good jokes throughout but it dragged a bit near the end. Could've been 20 minutes shorter.

  30. #1980
    Senior Member Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,687
    Yeah, I described Ted 2 as a low-quality movie, but it attempts SO many jokes that inevitably you'll end up laughing your ass off at a lot of them.

    Overall, I laughed more during Ted 2 than most comedies I watch, so I'm happy with it. But there are lots of bad jokes.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •