> Jennifer Lawrence was fine as Mystique... I really don't understand the hate. Far
> better than Rebecca Romijn who had like 4 lines of dialogue the entire original trilogy.
> Lawrence's Mystique was more of the militant character she became in her most memorable
> days in the comics as opposed to a henchman, and Lawrence really didn't do a bad
> job acting in the role. I really don't get why she gets dished on so bad.
> But, apples and oranges haha
She was garbage as Mystique. It felt like Fox paid her so much to play the roll that tried too hard to write her into the movie and give her a bigger part than she should have had. Everything just felt way too forced and out of place. RRS's portrait felt much closer to the comics, in which she was Magnito's henchman.
>> Jennifer Lawrence was fine as Mystique... I really don't understand the hate.
>> better than Rebecca Romijn who had like 4 lines of dialogue the entire original
>> Lawrence's Mystique was more of the militant character she became in her most
>> days in the comics as opposed to a henchman, and Lawrence really didn't do a bad
>> job acting in the role. I really don't get why she gets dished on so bad.
>> But, apples and oranges haha
> She was garbage as Mystique. It felt like Fox paid her so much to play the roll that
> tried too hard to write her into the movie and give her a bigger part than she should
> have had. Everything just felt way too forced and out of place. RRS's portrait felt
> much closer to the comics, in which she was Magnito's henchman.
That just isn't true haha. She wasn't even Magneto's henchman in the comics. She was completely her own villain, who teamed up with Magneto for a brief period. For the movie, she was written as a no-dialogue henchman in order to get another character with "cool powers" from the comics into the movies. The same thing happened to Sabretooth and Toad. They included their general premise but threw their actual personalities (what makes a character a character) to the wayside in order to fill Magneto's Brotherhood stable as the "mini-bosses" of the movie. Mystique doesn't even look like Mystique in the movies besides the color blue.
While I can understand not changing her look to keep with the franchise, Jennifer Lawrence's take on Mystique was written 100% more accurately to the comics than the henchman role she played in the original trilogy. And in my opinion, Lawrence played the role perfectly fine. Again, far better than Rebecca Romijn, who admittedly wasn't given a character to work with so much as a lackey.
Does anyone else feel like X-Men 2000 wouldn't be nearly as well-received if it were released in today's superhero movie climate?
I love those movies, 2000 and X2, but the MCU has proven that you can do comic-accurate, colorful takes on these characters and still get incredible movies out of them. Wolverine could still be short, savage, masked, and dressed in yellow and work if given the right treatment.
While the OG X-Men movies are (mostly) great, they get a lot wrong from the source material. Imagine if, in a world where Avengers Infinity War is a few months away, Fox plopped down a hunky-actor Wolverine-lead X-Men movie where they all wore black costumes instead of the colorful spandex we all know and love? It'd be like if Iron Man stayed in his first prototype suit. Or, well, it's exactly like the Josh Trank's Fantastic Four - usually-colorful characters in stark costumes and grim situations. What a difference a decade and a half makes.
Though, it's pretty much all thanks to X-Men 2000 that superhero movies are what they are, so it's unfair to compare like that. But it's fun to think about how different the reception to that movie would be if it were released today.
henchman wasn't really the right word, but more of an underling since shes was a member of the Brotherhood of Mutants in different parts of the comics. The movie made her a little more on the henchman side, but that's still a hell of a lot better than the one who trained the Xman, LOL. that was just bad. I didn't much like how they never really mentioned the connection between her and Nightcrawler though, kind of strange.
I think we may all agree that the worst portrayal of a character in the movies was Juggernaut. Yuck.
The Clone-trope was absolutely terrible. It was interesting up until that reveal and then I had a hard time digesting the rest, because everything else from that point on so focused on that crap.
I watched Logan Noir a few months back, and I fudging love it in black & white. The clone thing still makes me roll my eyes.
That they would purposely try to make a superhero film that feels so unlike a superhero film, and then write into the script one of the most comic-booky tropes ever completely defeats what they were trying to do with the film.
It's the best of the solo Wolverine flicks, but it could have been so much more.
Shape of Water... all the acting was really good. The main girl did a terrific job. Octavia was great. Michael Shannon as well, who is actually one of the best actors these days.
I realize it's the heavy fav for awards and whatnot, I just found it very boring and pretentious. I kept watching, waiting to see hat the buzz was about. But really just felt underwhelmed when it was over. *shrug*
The movie is quite similar in tone to Jean Pierrue Jeunet's movies (Amelie, City of Lost Children, Delicatessen) but mixed with classic 50's horror movies, most notably Creature from the Black Lagoon.
We do not get a lot of movies like either and having one that feels like a great homage to both being done by Del Toro felt like a breath of fresh air to me, not at all pretentious rather more of a love letter to those kinds of movies told in a very Del Toro way.
> henchman wasn't really the right word, but more of an underling since shes was a
> member of the Brotherhood of Mutants in different parts of the comics. The movie
> made her a little more on the henchman side, but that's still a hell of a lot better
> than the one who trained the Xman, LOL. that was just bad. I didn't much like how
> they never really mentioned the connection between her and Nightcrawler though, kind
> of strange.
Just saw this. Mystique wasn't an underling in the comics. Like I said, she was a complete villain all on her own. When the Brotherhood formed, and in most of its forms, it was more of an "evil Avengers" in that under-utilized mutant villains of equal power teamed up to form the group. Of course, in comparison to Magneto, any villain would look like an "underling" when working in a team with him - but that's just because he's been the "big bad" from the beginning. Mystique as she is, even during her Brotherhood days, was far more a character than the sex-appeal lackey she was in the original X-men trilogy.
I also don't remember her training the X-Men in any big, criticizable way. In First Class, she was a bit "above" the others due to being Xavier's "sister", but was still just learning with the rest, and in Apocalypse there was like a 30-second scene of her training the next "generation" of X-Men as any veteran member of a team would. Neither came off as her being a legit "trainer" or anything.
I do agree some Mystique/Nightcrawler connection would have been cool, but that's just how the X-Men movies go haha. They take some of what's in the comics, and leave a lot out. Each X movie has been pretty dense as far as content goes, so forcing the whole mother/son thing in these movies would have gotten pretty convoluted.
> I think we may all agree that the worst portrayal of a character in the movies was
> Juggernaut. Yuck.
100% in agreement. They did the worst job with this character. Juggernaut could have been SO FUDGING BADASS. Give him the whole Xavier storyline from the comics, have him almost kill the X-Men, etc etc. Anything would be better than a throw-away joke referencing a YouTube video as performed by a cameo actor. -_-
> The movie is quite similar in tone to Jean Pierrue Jeunet's movies (Amelie, City
> of Lost Children, Delicatessen) but mixed with classic 50's horror movies, most notably
> Creature from the Black Lagoon.
> We do not get a lot of movies like either and having one that feels like a great
> homage to both being done by Del Toro felt like a breath of fresh air to me, not
> at all pretentious rather more of a love letter to those kinds of movies told in
> a very Del Toro way.
Yeah I agree. Shape of Water was my #1 movie of 2017. I don't know what one would find pretentious about it either. It was a simple fairytale love story, but with the whole "monster movie" twist that Del Toro is a master at. I loved how the theme of loneliness played into each character's motivations and all the subtle quirks they all had.
I thought it was an absolute modern classic. Not Del Toro's masterpiece, that title still goes to Pan's Labyrinth in my opinion, but this is a close contender.
So Netflix just dropped the new Cloverfield movie tonight (the one that was being called God Particle), anyone gonna watch it? Such a big surprise, thought it was delayed and everything and then bam. Gonna watch it tomorrow when I have time to.
Cloverfield Paradox...I dunno. I didn't like Cloverfield, thought Cloverfield Lane was good, and this looks like maybe too much unneeded explanation. Even though I haven't been enthralled by the Cloverfield 'series', I liked the idea more than we never got any answers and only bits of partially related stories that were snippets of the universe. I guess for the price of free, it can't hurt to give it a go...I just don't see myself caring enough to see it all explained because the explanations in cases like this are never satisfying.
Watched it last night as soon as it was available. It's a mediocre movie with only a few decent bits. To be honest, I think most people wouldn't care much about it at all if it wasn't tied to the Cloverfield Universe. It feels like your average Made-for-SyFy-Channel sci-fi movie. Not much character development and the stuff that is forced in really does feel forced in.
And, yes, the tie-in to other Cloverfield stuff is pretty light. Could very easily just be an unrelated movie by itself -- and then tied in after the fact with just a few extra scenes. But, some people might LIKE that. I mean, the first two movies in the Cloverfield Universe are very loosely tied together, of course -- so it seems fine to me that this one is also only loosely tied in.
Long story short: It's no 10 Cloverfield Lane -- which I felt was a great stand-alone movie that happens to be tied in. This is generic sci-fi, at best. I'd probably give it a 6/10 (which is pretty low for me) except that I really enjoyed how it was released and the tie-in (even if pretty light).
The Cloverfield Paradox (aka Repairing a Space Station: The Movie) - 5.5/10
Love the Cloverfield franchise but this one was a bit of a miss. It really does seem like Bad Robot just finds scripts already close to production, buys them, and then implants something Cloverfeildy in at some point. For example, it almost feels like the on-Earth storyline following Ava's husband and random little girl was the result of some post-purchase rewrites, because otherwise this movie would have just played as an alternate dimension "stuck on a space station" movie as there was really nothing that connected those scenes to the overarching Cloverfield storyline other than the blatant last-minute video interview with that expert played by Donal Logue who showed up solely for a skype session and subsequent paycheck.
That said, the Earth-bound story was the one I was really interested in, because I've been hankering for a direct follow-up to the OG Cloverfield from a street-level perspective- i.e. a more traditional sequel. That was close to happening in this movie, but unfortunately the Earth stuff only made up like 15% of the movie and besides a real neat Lovecraftian style shot of a shadowy Cloverfield monster, there wasn't much in the way of "giant monster" in this one at all. Also, this Earth stuff leaves a bad taste in my mouth because this movie would have played perfect as a direct prequel to Cloverfield. I was totally expecting that escape pod to be the same thing we see fall into the ocean at the very end of the first movie. That moment was an easter egg that not everyone caught at first, but anyone who cares about the franchise knows what I'm talking about. I was expecting that final shot of the pod falling to edit into that found footage scene from the first movie, but instead we get a GIANT version of the classic Cloverfield monster which was real jarring, especially because the animation looked sort of rough.
All in all it was okay. The acting teetered from meh to good, some characters were half-baked, the "horror-by-numbers" kills were predictable and the story really lulled after the first act and never really recovered.
And holy crap, half the movie were static shots of repairs being made on the station. There are so many scenes that involve fixing something, soddering something, pressing something. It really felt like someone took the most boring aspects of the most boring episodes of Star Trek and wrote them into a generic sci fi script.
As far as monster movies go, this was not one. As far as the "stuck on a space station" schtick goes, there are far better movies in that genre. So yah, pretty disappointing - but I wouldn't mind Netflix making more Cloverfield movies. Just please give me some monsters from now on.
Watched the first one tonight and enjoyed it enough that we'll keep watching.
(I'm a sucker for Patton Oswalt -- I'd probably watch anything with him actually in it. I mean, I know he does voice stuff (including for Goldbergs which I really like) -- but I like to SEE him in stuff too!)
Game of Thrones Creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss have signed on to do new Star Wars series. With episode 9 coming, a trilogy from Rian Johnson, and now this trilogy, it's going to be awful busy in the SW universe.
Ehh it hasn't happened in 30+ years and if the MCU has taught us anything, it's that people will consistently go out in droves if the fandom is popular enough. If they put out good stories, it'll last. I do think that after a few years, it'll cool down to one every 2 years or so as opposed to each year, but I don't see them ever completely stopping over audience exhaustion. Feels kinda like SW is a genre all its own at this point.
Personally, I didn't care that it was "over" when the PT ended as I can accept when a series ends, but I still look forward to more. I enjoy the new movies and I enjoy Rebels so I'm on board for now.
I will say that I know the series is capable of putting out movies that I dislike and I fear the Anthology movies now run the risk of becoming those. Rogue One was good. Solo looks like fun but could end up a train wreck. Unless there is a REAL good story to justify it, I don't want an Obi-Wan movie that runs the risk of retconning his "stranded hermit" gimmick from ANH. And I just straight up don't want a Boba Fett movie that would be the complete over-saturation of a character that was only ever cool due to his costume to begin with (feel like Ep II messed that character up enough). But on the same note, I'm excited for stories that could actually expand the universe and follow other aspects of the world that the established films created in a similar vein to Clone Wars or Rebels. I look forward to Johnson's series and I look forward to the GOT fellas' series until they give me reason not to, I'm just hoping they are a little less "connected" to what we've already seen come before.
So I'm always cautiously hopeful whenever it comes to Star Wars and I acknowledge some tough pills to swallow could be approaching the franchise. I'm just going to work real hard at not becoming a cynic who needs to shoot-down the series, or fans of the series, when the "bad" movies show up. My personal "bad" SW movies already did and I still looked forward to each one, and still looked forward to the sequels when they were announced. Even if Fett: A Background Character's Story comes out, whether I see it or not, I'll still be a Star Wars fan.
I actually legit walked out of the theater during a screening of that last year. I was bored to tears and didn't care how it ended. I was legit more interested in picking up some shampoo from Walmart and walking to the bus stop.
Not a review, but I was just on IMDB and here's the synopsis of the new Deadpool movie: After surviving a near fatal knee boarding accident, a disfigured guidance counselor (Wade Wilson) struggles to fulfill his dream of becoming Poughkeepsie's most celebrated French Bulldog breeder while also learning to cope with an open relationship. Searching to regain his passion for life, as well as a new stuffed unicorn, Wade must battle ninjas, tight assed metal men, and babysit a group of stereotypical side characters as he journeys around the world to discover the importance of family, friendship, and creative outlets for his very open-minded sex life. He manages to find a new lust for being a do-gooder, a sparkly Hello Kitty backpack, all while earning the coveted coffee mug title of World's Best 4th Wall Breaking Superhero.
I watched this movie on the airplane last week. Boring is all I can really describe it as, just wasn't fun, interesting, or really any good in any capacity. My Wife was next to me playing Mario Kart 8 on my Switch, and watching her get 5th place in 50cc races was more fun and interesting than this movie was. The CGI was also horrible.
Anyone into the Maze Runner movies see the newer one? I only ever saw the first and thought it was actually pretty decent, but public perception of the sequels have kept me from checking them out. Anyone see 2 & 3 and think the negative backlash is just people getting burned out on young adult literature adaptations or are they really just crap?
I watched 1 and really enjoyed it but hated the 2nd entry in the series. It went form weird mysterious movie that kept you thinking to a run of the mill zombie movie. I haven't watched 3 yet but will get around to it eventually.
> Anyone into the Maze Runner movies see the newer one? I only ever saw the first and
> thought it was actually pretty decent, but public perception of the sequels have
> kept me from checking them out. Anyone see 2 & 3 and think the negative backlash
> is just people getting burned out on young adult literature adaptations or are they
> really just crap?
So, I thought that first one was pretty decent -- I really enjoyed it.
I thought the second one was "ok" at best. Although, it was better than the 2nd in the Divergent series, at least!
Just saw the third one and actually enjoyed it. However, you DO have to ignore a few too many "huge coincidences" that keep happening. Like, things just happen to "line up" for them now and then, you know?
If you can ignore that "plot hole" and just go with it, then it really is an enjoyable movie. Decent action throughout -- not a lot of "ok, um, time for something to happen" moments like happens in way too many similar movies.
Also, no "teen angst" or excessive "teens in love" crap going on. (Always a bit, of course, but not like Twilight or even, again, Divergent.)
> Yeah, I know. I went into part 2 not knowing anything about it so I was surprised
> and disappointed that it took the zombie route considering the 1st movie had zero
> references to zombies of any kind.
To be fair, the 3 books (and the 3 movies) are divided up into very separate little worlds. So, I didn't mind this move. It actually fits in with the overall universe.
In the first movie, we just had no idea WHY they were in there even. In other words, those "zombies" existed even then -- they simply were outside the maze. So, it still works -- even if it is a common trope thing.
>> Yeah, I know. I went into part 2 not knowing anything about it so I was surprised
>> and disappointed that it took the zombie route considering the 1st movie had zero
>> references to zombies of any kind.
> To be fair, the 3 books (and the 3 movies) are divided up into very separate little
> worlds. So, I didn't mind this move. It actually fits in with the overall universe.
> In the first movie, we just had no idea WHY they were in there even. In other words,
> those "zombies" existed even then -- they simply were outside the maze. So, it still
> works -- even if it is a common trope thing.
Yeah, my main issue with it was that it went from a weird mysterious survival type movie to image
From a purely movie watching point of view, it kind of sucked that they took that approach. From the book point of view, it sounds like its pretty much in line with what the readers got but that still doesn't really make for good movie watching.
Slightly OT but I'm getting REALLY PISSED OFF at my local movie theater chains. The keep announcing movies for months and then don't show them locally - they stick them in a few cities nationwide. But not HERE. We're a fudging big city, the state's fudging Capital, and they flood theaters with crapty Mexican movies no one goes to see.
Three Billboards, The Disaster Artist, Call Me By Your Name, Detroit (this one got a release... five months later!), All The Money In The World, Phantom Thread, Lady Bird.
But you know what movie they brought back for a second run? A GHOST STORY. Just, WHY?!
Augh. And they wonder WHY WE PIRATE MOVIES SO gosh darn MUCH.
It gets everything wrong that the last one got right and that isn't much, and in turn it only gets a couple of things right int he process that simply don't make for a better movie than Revelations...but at least Revelations kind of had an excuse. As crapty as Revelations was, it had a zero budget and was filmed in like 3 days. For what its worth, it had a lot of good ideas just terrible acting and the worst Pinhead actor imaginable. This one has a vastly better replacement for Pinhead that visually comes much closer to the real deal, but in the process they managed to fudge up the rest of the movie other than production values and acting in comparison to the last one.
This movie makes the mistake that a couple of past straight-to-video Hellraiser have made, and that's trying to make Hellraiser a fudging detective movie...and a boring one at that. There are a couple of fresh ideas here, but they're poorly implemented. Also, Pinhead has been reduced to a fudging corporate CEO of hell essentially. He sits in his executive stone chair, facing a wall the bulk of the film while some front desk assistant does interviews on victims before sending them to slaughter by some fat baby-face guy with Psycho Mantis hidden in his back. Not to make it sound like this happens a lot or anything but that's the roles the cenobites (?) play here. I'm not even sure they're the same cenobites portrayed in prior films, or if this is something like Jason X where it's an alternate universe or what.
Anyways much like the other wannabe detective Hellraiser movies, 90% of this movie is boring detectiving that's basically a Seven rip-off where they're tracking a seven deadly sin murderer. They even have a sort of Brad Pitt looking detective. Unfortunately, this movie's twist doesn't even make sense in relation to the whole plot set up. It completely contradicts everything prior to it and is stupid because it's a twist just for the sake of acting like they threw you off the trail... and then we come to the ending, which I think is both stupid and maybe a blessing. It's stupid in the way that the ending of Friday the 13th Part 8 Jason Takes Manhattan's ending was completely senseless and retarded. Yes, it's in that territory...but maybe it's a blessing because unless they write this off as an alternate universe movie, it's essentially the end of Hellraiser as we know it, which may very well be what the series needs at this point.
I dunno. It sucked. It was boring. If you bother watching it, just watch the first 15 mintes and skip to the last like 20. The whole middle is basically a wash.
It's such crap how they did Clive Barker. They announced he was writing a new Hellraiser and directing it years ago, he wrote the script and got Doug Bradley back on board to play Pinhead and turned it in and then nothing....he says the studio never contacted him or anything since, and it's been a few years then they just made this new one instead.
I mean they literally got all the fans excited because Clive was going to make a new one and just up and left everyone hanging and pumped out this cheap one instead.
Honestly, he's probably too old to do it at this point. I think if anything good came from Revelations, it was the design for Pseudo Pinhead, which I personally think that if they just want to reboot Hellraiser with a bit of a re-design, this would be a good start:
> Well, he is older but Pinhead by design is more about the voice/mannerisms. Since
> his entire head is prosthetic/makeup his age isn't really going to affect it as long
> as he can still do the voice.
He's old now. Doug Bradley was already showing his age in the last Hellraiser movie he was in, 12 years ago. No amount of makeup can counter old age - at least, not his aging, and he's definitely not had any plastic surgery done. He got out just in time.