It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1343 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 50, 51, 52, 53, 54  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm
Joaquin Phoenix in Talks to Play the Joker in Todd Phillips’ Standalone Movie


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Luke M wrote:

I don't get how they are casting an actor in his 40's to play the origin of a character. This is more of WB/DC throwing shit at the wall and looking to see what sticks. So far their batting average is pretty low, and will probably get lower now that Michael Bay has taken an interest in directing Lobo.

jbeall wrote:

Well, the dipshits have taken their time to sabotage Black Panther's rating on the IMDB. Seriously, how fanatic and racist you have to be to spend your time shitting on a movie. Trump's America ladies and gentlemen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
I resent the implication that the IMDb rating system waited until the Trump administration to become terrible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
swo17 wrote:
I resent the implication that the IMDb rating system waited until the Trump administration to become terrible.


I agree. And review bombing isn't new either. Look at any aggregate site that allows users to rate things and it becomes fandom hell. Although I will agree that it certainly feels certain films are suffering at least online because people disagree with their very premise.

The wild new conspiracy is that Rotten Tomatoes is conspiring against DC films (And apparently under appreciated master filmmaker Zack Snyder) to make Marvel look better. Despite the fact that Warner Brothers has financial stakes in Rotten Tomatoes. But you know the Illuminati is apparently suppressing Snyder's grand vision of an Objectivist utopia.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm
One of my unpopular movie opinions is that Sucker Punch is Snyder’s masterpiece.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
swo17 wrote:
I resent the implication that the IMDb rating system waited until the Trump administration to become terrible.

IMDb has been terrible for years, particularly ever since it was taken over by Amazon. As for the user ratings, they are well-known as garbage, and while some of the scores appear fair over time, none of them are, and I don't know a single person that gives them credence anymore, if they ever did.

I mean, really, is The Shawshank Redemption one of the top five films ever made? Of course not, but for years, it was right up there with The Godfather and Star Wars on IMDb--in fact, right now it's number one. That's right, if you were to take IMDb voting seriously, then The Shawshank Redemption, a movie with Tim Robbins, is the best movie ever made, and to top that off, Inception is a better film than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, GoodFellas and Seven Samurai, each of which is apparently a progressively worse film.

I will say that IMDb is the main reason why I give very little notice to Rotten Tomatoes (a site which might as well be part of the other RT, for all I care) or any other online voting metric.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
McCrutchy wrote:
I mean, really, is The Shawshank Redemption one of the top five films ever made? Of course not, but for years, it was right up there with The Godfather and Star Wars on IMDb--in fact, right now it's number one. That's right, if you were to take IMDb voting seriously, then The Shawshank Redemption, a movie with Tim Robbins, is the best movie ever made, and to top that off, Inception is a better film than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, GoodFellas and Seven Samurai, each of which is apparently a progressively worse film.

I will say that IMDb is the main reason why I give very little notice to Rotten Tomatoes (a site which might as well be part of the other RT, for all I care) or any other online voting metric.

Well, I don't know. I'm speaking here in a very general sense, but in defense of the IMDb ratings, I think they are a reasonable reflection of how the public at large regards a movie. In my experience, The Shawshank Redemption really is an enormously beloved movie. People really do love Inception. I don't think the ratings are designed to measure the objective quality of a movie - not like there's such a thing anyway - but rather just the general sense of how much people in general like them.

So in that sense, I don't object much to the IMDb ratings. I don't really even object to the efforts to sabotage a movie's ratings, like with Black Panther*; in the end, things will even out, more or less. What continues to be strange, though, to me is when people take them personally. They're just a curiosity, although sometimes instructive in small ways.

* - since nothing really goes without saying on the internet, let me say that (obviously, I hope) I don't mean that as an endorsement of the racism being spouted against the film.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
I'd like to point out that some of the review are very much down voted because of racism. The "We wuz kangz" meme originally sprouted from 4Chan and was used to mock black folks who discussed black civilizations (Like Egypt.) and I've seen that garbage show up on more than one review. They're down voting because a film about an advanced black civilization is apparently too much for them. The ability to abuse the rating system to promote such a blatantly racist agenda makes the site look pretty bad.

But Brian raises a good point. It should simply be a metric as to how users felt about the film they've watched. It should go without saying more than a few racists should show up to ruin things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
I guess most racists haven't discovered Letterboxd yet where only 4 people have given it the lowest possible rating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Big Ben wrote:
I'd like to point out that some of the review are very much down voted because of racism. The "We wuz kangz" meme originally sprouted from 4Chan and was used to mock black folks who discussed black civilizations (Like Egypt.) and I've seen that garbage show up on more than one review. They're down voting because a film about an advanced black civilization is apparently too much for them. The ability to abuse the rating system to promote such a blatantly racist agenda makes the site look pretty bad.

But Brian raises a good point. It should simply be a metric as to how users felt about the film they've watched. It should go without saying more than a few racists should show up to ruin things.

Well sure, but as racism goes, this is a relatively harmless outlet for those guys, and one that makes themselves look pathetic more than it accomplishes anything else.

Still and all, racists are people too. And if they downvote a movie for racist reasons, well, that doesn't exactly make the rating inaccurate. It's instructive, in its own way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR
Brian C wrote:
McCrutchy wrote:
I mean, really, is The Shawshank Redemption one of the top five films ever made? Of course not, but for years, it was right up there with The Godfather and Star Wars on IMDb--in fact, right now it's number one. That's right, if you were to take IMDb voting seriously, then The Shawshank Redemption, a movie with Tim Robbins, is the best movie ever made, and to top that off, Inception is a better film than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, GoodFellas and Seven Samurai, each of which is apparently a progressively worse film.

I will say that IMDb is the main reason why I give very little notice to Rotten Tomatoes (a site which might as well be part of the other RT, for all I care) or any other online voting metric.

Well, I don't know. I'm speaking here in a very general sense, but in defense of the IMDb ratings, I think they are a reasonable reflection of how the public at large regards a movie. In my experience, The Shawshank Redemption really is an enormously beloved movie. People really do love Inception. I don't think the ratings are designed to measure the objective quality of a movie - not like there's such a thing anyway - but rather just the general sense of how much people in general like them.

This is my perception, as well. From what I remember of college & film school, at least, Shawshank was extremely popular with a certain kind of film buff whose interest doesn't expand beyond the USA or much further back than the 90s. Inception is big with the same crowd. This the same subset of people who strike me as most likely to be voting regularly at IMDb in large numbers, so it all makes sense to me, regardless of my own feelings about those or any other movies.

I'm also curious about Shawshank's characterization as "a movie with Tim Robbins." Am I supposed to infer that a movie whose lead actor was never a particularly huge star is unlikely to be so popular? Or is it that Tim Robbins being in a movie automatically implies something about how good it could be? Either suggestion seems odd to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
Kirkinson wrote:
I'm also curious about Shawshank's characterization as "a movie with Tim Robbins." Am I supposed to infer that a movie whose lead actor was never a particularly huge star is unlikely to be so popular? Or is it that Tim Robbins being in a movie automatically implies something about how good it could be? Either suggestion seems odd to me.

I just think it's absurd, that's all, and also a fine example of the utter pointlessness of internet voting. You are, of course, fairly spot on in your assessment of IMDb voters, which is precisely why the film has consistently ranked amazingly high on the site's Top 250 for what must be over a decade, now. Don't get me wrong, I think the film is wonderful, but I've simply never found their internet voting to be of good use. I did enjoy the IMDb forums regarding films and celebrities, even though they were abused by some, the forums were often interesting, and sometimes, had valuable information.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm
Brian C wrote:
Big Ben wrote:
I'd like to point out that some of the review are very much down voted because of racism. The "We wuz kangz" meme originally sprouted from 4Chan and was used to mock black folks who discussed black civilizations (Like Egypt.) and I've seen that garbage show up on more than one review. They're down voting because a film about an advanced black civilization is apparently too much for them. The ability to abuse the rating system to promote such a blatantly racist agenda makes the site look pretty bad.

But Brian raises a good point. It should simply be a metric as to how users felt about the film they've watched. It should go without saying more than a few racists should show up to ruin things.

Well sure, but as racism goes, this is a relatively harmless outlet for those guys, and one that makes themselves look pathetic more than it accomplishes anything else.

Still and all, racists are people too. And if they downvote a movie for racist reasons, well, that doesn't exactly make the rating inaccurate. It's instructive, in its own way.

Ok, I’ll bite how is it instructive? Black Panther already has a bunch of negative audience reviews from people who no doubt haven’t seen the film yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
Instructive of how many people are willing to rate the movie a 1 without having seen it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:39 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
The irony in it, from what a fellow French critic told me, is that Black Panther has a politic sub-text which is as progressist and subtle that Wonder Woman's feminism (ie a joke).

However, I've read that some DC fanboys might be behind the 1-bombing on RT.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:40 pm 

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:50 pm
Anybody expecting a Marvel film to have a nuanced and cutting edge political subtext is lying to themselves. I think the backlash to that sentiment is leading the negative review spam as much as racism. Some of the fan praise/hype for this I’ve seen online is ridiculous, as if Wakanda was real and the existence of the film acknowledging it is a revolutionary act


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:35 pm
Director James Mangold said his goal with Logan was to "make an Ozu film with mutants." ...Really? I have not seen the film, but if this is at all evident in the finished product I'd sure love to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
It's not. At all. Probably not even one second.
This only element that could be compared to an Ozu movie is the family bit, Logan being a father for X-23, and Ozu being often movies about families and father-daughter bond, but that's about it, and there's absolutely nothing in Logan that would make this bond feeling it's treated like an Ozu movie.
It feels more and more like Mangold, and Marvel with him, tries to amp up post-release the movie's legacy by making it look more arty and auteurist that it is, riffing on how some felt Logan was soooo different from other movies, but it never really feels this way. It's more graphic (yay, bloodshed !) and with more cursing (yay, cursing everywhere for no reason except saying curseword in a Marvel movie !), but that's about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
I don't agree with that- Logan really was an exceptional and different movie in a crowded superhero field, though the Ozu claim seems odd. It felt and played very much like one of the American tales on revisionist Westerns in the 70s, particularly The Outlaw Josey Wales (or even Unforgiven, later on)- the closing of the West, the dying of the frontier, the end of an era of freedom, only here what has taken its place is not an ambivalent civilization but an outright nightmare, and it seems to be America or the entire world that's falling apart.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
The Mangold quote is certainly hyperbole, but I believe it's important to recognize this quote is from a mainstream filmmaker who successfully convinced Marvel to allow Logan to be made as an "adult-themed" comic book film. As Mangold notes in his commentary track, the "R" (or "Adult") designation not only gave the film an opportunity to show more grisly violence (which Mangold admits is something that Wolverine fans would get excited about), but kept the studio from worrying about the length of some of the dialogue scenes or the need for Logan to have a pet dog or some such contrivance. Logan is certainly designed to be mainstream entertainment, but in the form of a classic Western (as "matrixschmatrix" notes above and which Mangold insists was the form he was going for). Compared only to the other Marvel offerings of the past decade, Logan is a relatively low-key, thoughtful action film where the stakes are much lower than usual (no cities being blown apart or alien invasions thwarted), but are more keenly-felt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
The bad guy is awful, all the secondary characters are underwritten and superficial, the whole vaguely melancholic setting feels wasted, the relationship between Logan and X-23 never is deepened in any way (it's especially hard to care for X-23's character, one of the most annoying character I've seen for a long time), the pace is tepid (the movie is at least 30 min too long), and the whole tone seemed inconsistant (especially the end encounter with the main baddie).

The result is a movie that probably is better than most current Supers movies (and superior to the other 2 Wolvie movies) (but that definitely wasn't hard to achieve), but never really works and feel extremely pretentious. It probably hoped to do vastly different things, blending together mainstream Super hero movies elements with a more low-key gritty aspect, but actually is just your typical super hero movie, but with an added superficial subtext (Getting old is tough, and at the end, you die) and a R-rating that allows nothing else than bloodsheds and swear words everywhere. Saved for its prologue, it never feels very gritty.

If I had to sum up the movie, it'd probably be somewhere like a bloated pretentious disappointment that probably was a good idea originally, but sadly ends up failing flat mostly due to its superficial writing.

The movie might be R-rated, but it didn't feel any more adult than many other PG-13 Super hero movies (GoG 2 felt vastly superior in this regard).

Roger Ryan wrote:
(no cities being blown apart or alien invasions thwarted)

This, however, was very refreshing indeed.


Last edited by tenia on Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm
diamonds wrote:
Director James Mangold said his goal with Logan was to "make an Ozu film with mutants." ...Really? I have not seen the film, but if this is at all evident in the finished product I'd sure love to.

He said similar things about The Wolverine, and that movie was even further from its supposed influences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
I think he gives himself too much credit, generally - Deadpool was a project that was long DOA that only got greenlit because of Kingsman's surprise success for Fox as an ultra-violent February release made on a relatively modest budget, and its success enabled Mangold to make Logan a "harder" film than what was being planned. It was basically fortuitous timing that he got to do the movie he did.

As somebody who really enjoyed the X-men films as a whole, particularly the delightfully lax continuity where not one film seems to make any sense when considering its supposed to take place around the other films, I found Logan just to be taking it a little too far and a disservice to the character as Jackman had played him for 15+ years to make him suddenly brutally violent in a film with swearing and lots of blood.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Ribs wrote:
...I found Logan just to be taking it a little too far and a disservice to the character as Jackman had played him for 15+ years to make him suddenly brutally violent in a film with swearing and lots of blood...

To be fair, Wolverine has viciously killed people with his claws in nearly every film he has appeared in (just not as gorily as in Logan) and his language has been the saltiest of any X-men character (discounting Deadpool) on film (note his F-bomb line in his gag cameo in X-Men: First Class).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Comic Books on Film
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
Yeah, I know, but I just thought Logan pushed it just a bit further to make it a really odd note to send off the character/actor. I get it, just wasn’t for me and the things I liked about the Bryan Singer X-Men universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1343 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 50, 51, 52, 53, 54  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Drucker, Google Adsense [Bot], Lost Highway


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection