ajzepp Posted July 9, 2006 Posted July 9, 2006 I somewhat disagree with you tgreg on it being better than Superman. I really enjoyed Superman Returns. I loved the opening credits, Brandon Routh was very good, Kevin Spacey was great, and I must admit Kate Bosworth played a good Lois Lane. I thought it played out very well. Just my opinion. 720316[/snapback] I've yet to see either, but I thought the first POTC was good, not great....and I'll pretty much geek out over Superman, so I'm expecting to really enjoy seeing the new version. I'm pretty happy with how many of the superhero films have turned out over the past few years. I really enjoyed the Spider-Man films, loved Batman Begins, really liked Hellboy, and I expect to really like Superman Returns. I even enjoyed Daredevil, though I wish someone other than Bennie had the lead role. The only film I thought he was even half decent in was 'Good Will Hunting'. Aside from that, I feel like he's playing the same character in every film. He sucks. On the other hand, Matt Damon has far exceeded my expectations....he's perfect for the 'Bourne' films, was great in 'Rounders', great in "Talented Mr. Ripley"....the guy never makes a bad film. He's not in Phillip Seymour Hoffman's league, but he's a very solid actor.
LewPort71 Posted July 9, 2006 Posted July 9, 2006 Superman Returns was a fun and entertaining movie...I enjoyed it... Of the list from the first posting, I am looking forward to "You Me and Dupree" Owen Wilson is pretty good and the trailer was decent..
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Went to see "Pirates 2" today. It was pretty good but I was a little disapointed. Has any one else see it yet? I can't wait to see "Lady in the Water"...looks good. 720189[/snapback] I saw it yesterday too. All I can say is if Hollywood would spend half as much money and time developing scripts and plots as they do on special effects, movies just might be worth going to see. Needless to say this movie was big on flash and eye candy but very little substance.
CosmicBills Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I saw it yesterday too. All I can say is if Hollywood would spend half as much money and time developing scripts and plots as they do on special effects, movies just might be worth going to see. Needless to say this movie was big on flash and eye candy but very little substance. 720520[/snapback] See this is where I disagree. Certainly POTC:DMC is a spectical movie, as hollywood as you can imagine, but the writers are two of the best in the biz and there are a ton of layers to each character within this film. The problem is that the spectical sometimes overshadows it, but there is a good story and great characters writen into this film. Same with the first one. At least in my opinion. Vader, as for Superman, I am a huge fan of the original film. I still think it's the paramount of Comic Book films. So I went into Superman with high expectations, and just found the film dull. Afterwards I went home and watched the original and found that film more riveting and more exciting than the 2006 version, despite being limited with 1970s special effects. I mean, Superman Returns looked pretty, but the biggest story twist (won't spoil it but you know what I mean) you can see coming from the second they re-introduce Lois. There was nothing wrong with the movie in terms of story/plot/logic etc, it just seemed stale for some reason. But that's just me.
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 See this is where I disagree. Certainly POTC:DMC is a spectical movie, as hollywood as you can imagine, but the writers are two of the best in the biz and there are a ton of layers to each character within this film. The problem is that the spectical sometimes overshadows it, but there is a good story and great characters writen into this film. Same with the first one. At least in my opinion. 720551[/snapback] If you think that was a good story with lots of layers that ok, that's your opinion. However I disagree. The characters had NO layers and with a running time of two and a half hours they had plenty of time for character and plot development. But Hollywood with it flash, bang, eye candy movies they spent too much time and money on the spectical. The plot was weak, thin and almost non-existant. Watch a great movie done in the '30's or '40's prior to massive special effects and you'll see what I mean. I don't know, I guess it has to do with attention spans of people these days. Don't know how old you are but when you refer to Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man's Chest as POTC:DMC it makes me wonder if you could sit through a two hour movie without explosions but actual dialogue and not be bored to tears.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 If you think that was a good story with lots of layers that ok, that's your opinion. However I disagree. The characters had NO layers and with a running time of two and a half hours they had plenty of time for character and plot development. But Hollywood with it flash, bang, eye candy movies they spent too much time and money on the spectical. The plot was weak, thin and almost non-existant. Watch a great movie done in the '30's or '40's prior to massive special effects and you'll see what I mean. I don't know, I guess it has to do with attention spans of people these days. Don't know how old you are but when you refer to Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man's Chest as POTC:DMC it makes me wonder if you could sit through a two hour movie without explosions but actual dialogue and not be bored to tears. 720655[/snapback] Worse...they significantly changed the characterizations from the first one. Elizabeth Swann in "Dead Man's Chest" was not the same Elizabeth Swann as in "Curse of the Black Pearl". Not even remotely. I actually felt bad for Keira Knightley, having that BS part forced on her - it says a lot about the quality of the movie that she was mis-cast in a role she's played before. The deepest, most believable character, frankly, was Davey Jones...I was impressed with the quality of his acting, and his ability to, with just his eyes, express the emotional depth of a tormented soul while wearing a latex octopus on his face. The movie, though, is no worse than any other modern part 2 of a trilogy. There was a time (Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back), when the inner movie of a trilogy could stand alone as a story. Nowadays, they film the last two parts of a trilogy at the same time...and use the second story as a setup for the final film. Some trilogies do it better than others (Lord of the Rings, for example, or the Spiderman series)...but Dead Man's Chest is one of the worst examples of this I've seen, with a cliffhanger so blisteringly in-your-face obvious it should have been made for TV.
Rubes Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 The deepest, most believable character, frankly, was Davey Jones...I was impressed with the quality of his acting, and his ability to, with just his eyes, express the emotional depth of a tormented soul while wearing a latex octopus on his face. 720669[/snapback] Was that a real actor? I thought the whole time that it was entirely CG.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Was that a real actor? I thought the whole time that it was entirely CG. 720680[/snapback] The character was a real actor. Bill Nighy. I thought he did a pretty good job, considering he basically had just his eyes to work with. The face may have been CGI...but it looked an awful lot like an applique. Wouldn't surprise me if it were a hybrid - latex mask with cgi effects added (the texture, moving tentacles, etc.) Probably have to wait for the director's commentary on the DVD to find out...
inkman Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 ...while wearing a latex octopus on his face. 720669[/snapback] I thought I was the only one who did that. Oh, you said octo-pus. I thought you were talking about something else...
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 The character was a real actor. Bill Nighy. I thought he did a pretty good job, considering he basically had just his eyes to work with. The face may have been CGI...but it looked an awful lot like an applique. Wouldn't surprise me if it were a hybrid - latex mask with cgi effects added (the texture, moving tentacles, etc.) Probably have to wait for the director's commentary on the DVD to find out... 720702[/snapback] They did do a good job with Davey Jones and his crew but what was up with Naomi Harris as Tia Dalma? Looked like she had been chewing on a blue ink pen and it exploded in her mouth.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I thought I was the only one who did that. Oh, you said octo-pus. I thought you were talking about something else... 720705[/snapback] I also said "latex". And I would think inkman would wear an octopus on his face, come to think of it...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 They did do a good job with Davey Jones and his crew but what was up with Naomi Harris as Tia Dalma? Looked like she had been chewing on a blue ink pen and it exploded in her mouth. 720707[/snapback] More to the point, what was up with Tia Dalma? Nothing like introducing a perfectly pointless and useless character into an already bloated script...
Rubes Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 More to the point, what was up with Tia Dalma? Nothing like introducing a perfectly pointless and useless character into an already bloated script... 720710[/snapback] That was easily the most bloated script I've seen in a long while. I mean, I really couldn't keep track of what was going on for the entire first half of the movie. After that, it really didn't matter.
gantrules Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I saw Nacho Libre over the weekend. I'm not sure what they were trying to do but it wasn't funny or interesting. If the intent was to make a cult classic they missed a key ingredient. Humor. Worst "comedy" I've seen since Canadian Bacon.
SilverNRed Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 The character was a real actor. Bill Nighy. I thought he did a pretty good job, considering he basically had just his eyes to work with. The face may have been CGI...but it looked an awful lot like an applique. Wouldn't surprise me if it were a hybrid - latex mask with cgi effects added (the texture, moving tentacles, etc.) Probably have to wait for the director's commentary on the DVD to find out... 720702[/snapback] Supposedly he wasn't wearing anything on his face when they filmed and they added all the octopus stuff in post-production. The creature designs for the movie look incredible. And whoever came up with having a pirate with an octopus head with octopus arms for a beard (and hair?) is a genius. Very few things in movies these days are really that interesting to look at since it feels like we've seen just about everything by now, but the Davey Jones design would cause me to buy a ticket even if the reviews were all completely awful. It sucks that there wasn't much of a smooth transition from the first movie to this one. I heard someone comment that Johnny Depp isn't playing Jack Sparrow this time as much as he's playing a guy playing Jack Sparrow. I'm still planning on checking it out.
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I heard someone comment that Johnny Depp isn't playing Jack Sparrow this time as much as he's playing a guy playing Jack Sparrow. 720870[/snapback] Actually he was playing a guy who would be comfortable driving a Fit. I felt like yelling "quit prancing around you friggin' sorry excuse for a pirate." Pirates are rough, tough, murderous villians. Not some mincing pansy ass.
GoodBye Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I saw Nacho Libre over the weekend. I'm not sure what they were trying to do but it wasn't funny or interesting. If the intent was to make a cult classic they missed a key ingredient. Humor. Worst "comedy" I've seen since Canadian Bacon. 720844[/snapback] Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with it either.
CosmicBills Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 That was easily the most bloated script I've seen in a long while. I mean, I really couldn't keep track of what was going on for the entire first half of the movie. After that, it really didn't matter. 720770[/snapback] I don't want to come off sounding like I am trying to build POTC into the best film in history, clearly it is not. And a lot of the criticism is justified. However, one pet peeve of mine is this sort of comment. It is entirely unfair to criticize the script without reading it. What actually is on the page is very often not what appears on the screen. Changes are made whether it's the producer, director, set designer etc. I've read the script, and it is longer than the typical feature yes, but it is not bloated and does not have a wasted or unused moment -- now what happened on screen is a different story. If you think that was a good story with lots of layers that ok, that's your opinion. However I disagree. The characters had NO layers and with a running time of two and a half hours they had plenty of time for character and plot development. But Hollywood with it flash, bang, eye candy movies they spent too much time and money on the spectical. The plot was weak, thin and almost non-existant. Watch a great movie done in the '30's or '40's prior to massive special effects and you'll see what I mean. I don't know, I guess it has to do with attention spans of people these days. Don't know how old you are but when you refer to Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man's Chest as POTC:DMC it makes me wonder if you could sit through a two hour movie without explosions but actual dialogue and not be bored to tears. 720770[/snapback] Again, it's not that I am saying POTC is the best film ever, but the story in and of itself is more layered than most give it credit for. It's not the fault of the writers or the audience for the most part (though I agree with the attention span comments to a degree -- though not about my abbreviations ). It's that in a spectical movie, effects generally take the front seat while the story remains in the trunk. Recently, as others have pointed out, that has changed with great writers and directors tackling big box office movies (Alvin Sargent, Sam Rami in Spiderman 2, Nolan and Goyer in Batman Begins etc). In POTC you have Sparrow who, despite being a blantant shout out to Bugs Bunny (the classic Trickster character) is also a man so conflicted he doesn't know what he wants. So much so that the compas that always points to what you desire most is rendered useless in his hands. And when he finally steps up to do the right thing, to become the good man everyone sees him for, he is screwed over by the woman he loves. Depp brings his own style to the role, but there is a clear arc for Sparrow, one that is rife with conflict and desire masked by humor. In fact, everyone of the main characters has a clear desire and conflict that echos the themes present in the film. Perhaps none moreso than Davey Jones who is a reflection of not only Bootstrap Bill, but Will and Elizabeth's relationship as well. They are there to see, you just have to get past the spectical (which there is plenty of) to see it. So I would argue that Elliot and Rossio didn't write an ADD movie at all, they wrote one that caters to both the ADD crowd and those who are willing to look a bit deeper than a giant, ship eating squid and see the layers underneath. Is there a lot of dreck put out by big hollywood blockbusters? Absolutely. But there are plenty of terrible independant movies as well. Some with great special effects and some with none.
erynthered Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I haven't seen the movie yet, and will wait till it comes out on DVD. But you guys are being overly critical, IMO. ITS A !@#$ING MOVIE. Just like anything else, some of you over analyze everything, rather than enjoy. Pathetic. And I mean that in the nicest way.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 I haven't seen the movie yet, and will wait till it comes out on DVD. But you guys are being overly critical, IMO. ITS A !@#$ING MOVIE. Just like anything else, some of you over analyze everything, rather than enjoy. Pathetic. And I mean that in the nicest way. 721017[/snapback] But that's how I enjoy these things. Appreciating the technical aspects of what makes a good movie a good movie is how I enjoy movies (most things, really).
Recommended Posts