Movie Critics Thread

[Bartrim]

I watched Suicide Squad a bit ago. Damyum. I thought BvsS was a crap movie.... Suzie Squad makes it look like a masterpiece. I ended up pushing through the whole thing hoping it would get better. It didn't. I skipped through the credits to see if there was anything at the end, there wasn't. I breathed a sigh of relief.

Apparenltly the DVD version was a better version than the cinema version. It must have sucked watching it at the movies...

I do like grumpy old man bats. As long as he remains grumpy and ends up with an army of monster bat robots who patrol Gotham for him.

The extended version of Suicide Squad is a lot better. There are a couple of extra scenes of the squad walking through Midway City that shows them interacting together that are enjoyable. I honestly am enjoying the DCEU. I loved stage 1 of the MCU but it's starting to leave a wash, rinse and repeat taste in my mouth. Watched Doctor Strange the other night. I was impressed that they could hold my interest in the movie for as long as they did but how he beat the big bad guy at the end was down right ridiculous. Give me the more serious DCEU.

[GoktimusPrime]

Wow... I'd heard rave reviews about Suicide Squad...
...from my Year 12 students last year.

(which goes to show how teenagers are far easier to please as an audience )

Finally watched Antman the other night. One of the few Avenger-eque films I hadn't seen. Was surprisingly good - very funny and great use of the shrink/grow motif.

One thing I liked about Ant-Man was the updated costume being completely self-contained with no exposure. This is scientifically important because it explains why he can continue breathing when shrunken down. The helmet completely covers his face and appears to have a breathing apparatus. This is important because at his small size Ant-Man would be unable to inhale the number of oxygen molecules required. Breathing the air around him at that size would be like breathing very thin air at the top of Mount Everest... you'd expire.

Although there's a butt load of other stuff which makes no sense, but ya for the suspension of disbelief.

[Lord_Zed]

I suspect that is more how Clark Kent/Supes is written rather than what Cavill brought to the role. I think that ultimately, the writers of MOS and BVS and Zack Snyder just don't understand the character and made him morose, depressed, hopeless, unsympathetic, and conflicted. His motivations are muddled and the bon mots of "wisdom" shared by Jonathan Kent in both films just muddied the character even more.

Think of it this way, the difference between Christopher Reeve's Superman (noble, gentle, kind, heroic) and Cavill's is a bit like the difference between the Optimus Prime we know from various fictions (principled, noble, heroic) and Bay's OP (violent, vengeful, even sadistic). May as well be considered different characters.

Cavill was plenty of fun in Guy Ritchie's The Man From UNCLE, playing a charming and suave action hero, so I'm saying the writing and direction was the issue, rather than the actor.

Each to their own possibly, I didn't find Cavil's performance particularly memorable in that film either, I much prefer the other actors who were in it. Not saying he can't act, just saying I have yet to see him give any sort of stand out performance. He's got the look, but that's all I see.

[GoktimusPrime]

The thing that I love about Christopher Reeve's Superman/Clark Kent is that he portrayed both characters very differently from each other. Reeve's Superman was heroic, utterly fearless and exuded a powerful yet compassionate presence. His Clark Kent on the other hand was a bumbling, naïve and appeared to be socially awkward and lost. It really helped to sell the Clark Kent persona to the audience, cos let's face it, a pair of glasses aren't the greatest disguise* in the world.

Cavill doesn't even make an effort to really behave differently as Clark or Superman. Lois was able to see through his disguise instantly when Clark first rocked up with his specs on at the Daily Planet (as the Man of Steel ended with the two of them giving each other a knowing smile) - and it was simple enough for Luthor to discover his identity, kidnap Mrs. Kent... you know, the precise reason why superheroes have secret identities in the first place! Not just for their own protection but also for the protection of their loved ones. #Martha

Reeve's mannerisms completely change when he's Clark. Even his voice is at a higher octave and becomes deeper when he's Superman. There's that scene in Superman II when Clark tries to tell Lois the truth (at the hotel at Niagara Falls); we see Clark remove his glasses and speak to Lois with a lower voice, then he quickly changes his mind, puts his glasses back on and his voice goes higher and he starts speaking awkwardly etc. There's a lot more theatrics that go behind Reeve's Clark Kent persona.

With most other superheroes, their superhero identity is the false identity and their secret identity is who they really are. e.g. Bruce Wayne is the true identity and Batman is the created one. But Superman is Kal-El's true identity whereas the post-Smallville Clark Kent persona which he presents to those around him is the constructed one. Superman wears no mask, whereas Clark's glasses acts as a mask. Having a different persona in Clark also acts as a psychological mask - and both the Reeve Superman films and Superman Returns makes light of this as there are moments where people start to wonder if Clark might be Superman, only to think, "Naaaah!" because despite the physical similarities there's just no way that someone has daggy as Clark Kent could be Superman. And this is all deliberate on Kal-El's part in the way that he behaves as Clark.

This is a quality that I find completely absent in Cavill's Clark Kent. e.g. when he confronts Bruce Wayne at Luthor's party, he is basically behaving like Superman. He's strong, resilient etc., not the bumbling dork that we saw Reeve and even Routh play. It's even parodied in the Jimmy Kimmel version of that scene where Kimmel points out that there is no difference between Clark and Superman. Batffleck at least has a different voice!

-----------------------------------
*rivalled only by Prince Adam/He-Man's pasty vs bronzed skin.

[BruiseLee]

^ totally agree on Reeve's portrayal of Clark Kent. Very true to the comics how he played it. Seem to recall in one issue of Superman where Luthor used some findangy to discover that Clark was Superman and did not believe it as why would someone with the power of a god stoop to be a bumbling, poor excuse of a man like Clark. Reeve played this perfectly.

Have to disagree about the Bruce Wayne being the true identity though as I feel that this is his created persona and Batman is his true identity. You can read many cases in the comics where he has to pretend to be this irresponsible playboy rich dude and keep up the facade where he would rather put on skin tight leathers and keep swinging...

[Megatran]

Have to disagree about the Bruce Wayne being the true identity though as I feel that this is his created persona and Batman is his true identity. You can read many cases in the comics where he has to pretend to be this irresponsible playboy rich dude and keep up the facade where he would rather put on skin tight leathers and keep swinging...

Lol. I see what you did there.

[shockNwave]

That wasn't Henry Cavill in Scott Pilgrim, it was Brandon Routh who played Supes in Bryan Singer's movie

I think Snyder tried to emulate the grittier and darker tone of Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy but couldn't pull it off. Superman IMO is a pain in the ass character to create a 'grounded' movie for because he's so OP in the real world. The moment you try to bring something to match him (Doomsday) you lose the gritty edgy tone.

My bad!

[GoktimusPrime]

Have to disagree about the Bruce Wayne being the true identity though as I feel that this is his created persona and Batman is his true identity. You can read many cases in the comics where he has to pretend to be this irresponsible playboy rich dude and keep up the facade where he would rather put on skin tight leathers and keep swinging...

Actually, come to think of it you're right. And again, some actors portray this much better than others. One that comes to mind is Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman. Bale has pretty much set the modern standard for Batman with the growling, gritty voice, but his Bruce Wayne is very much the reckless playboy. One of my favourite moments for this was in The Dark Knight where he sacrifices his Lamborghini to defend a police car, and when Gordon came to praise him Wayne simply said that he was running a red light because he was in a hurry and had no idea as to what all the commotion was about, leading Gordon to believe - in shock and dismay - that Wayne doesn't even bother watching the news (cos he's just that self absorbed).

We don't quite see this aspect to Affleck's Bruce Wayne, but really because the BvS movie doesn't have time to allow for this level of individual character development. Perhaps the stand alone Batfleck movie will allow for this.

[GoktimusPrime]

Watched Kubo and the Two Strings yesterday. Excellent movie and I highly recommend it. The animation is so well done that there are times when you think that it's CGI and forget that it's actually stop-motion animated puppets! The numerous references to Japanese culture and folklore is amazing, and the shamisen music both in the actual story and soundtrack is also phenomenal, especially the end theme which has a new version of The Beatles' "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" but played with a shamisen. (Click here to listen)

But just cos I'm a nitpicky kinda guy, there are a few elements of the film which are a tad too Yankocentric for my liking - but most audiences (and certainly not kids who are the target audience) are gonna care about this stuff. Overall it's a really great film.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

I watched Tonari no Totoro the other day and had a bit of a wow movie is very good and this is kind of a random thought aspect I guess as well, but here we go.

The first time I saw it, I didn't quite grasp the length of the story. I guess I kind of assumed it wrapped up pretty quickly. However after being in Japan for a bit, I picked up that the story takes part over a couple of months. The cues for the progression of time are contained within the seasons and it struck me, if you don't have the affinity for how people percieve the change of seasons in Japan, you might miss these timed cues.
For example: The move at the start of the summer. The weather is sunny and clear, it looks nice.
Later the winds (and totoro) blow and things get a bit wild, typhoon time.
After that, the wild winds are down and the good old cicadas are chirping away annoyingly.

I never really noticed that before, or if I did, I didn't think anything of it. But having experienced the progression, I found it added quite a bit of meaning for me.

I guess, its all a cultural context.

Another is FInding Nemo. this came up after a friend was "looking after" another friend's fish, which died. So they gave it a ceremonial flushing. This shocked many of my Japanese pals.
We explained the flushing thing to them and brought up the secene in the dentist office where the fish want to play dead to get to the toilet. None of my Japanese friends understood that joke in that scene and they found it funny afterwards/

Again cultural context.
Wow.