What Movies Have You Seen Lately?

Quote: Nareed

AS usual, this boils down to either:

1) It seemed like a good idea at the time.

or

2) Here, hold my beer.

This should be a macro. Perfect for all occasions lately.

Quote: terapined

If you didn't block AMS
You would know the movie sucked and saved 15.00
lol

I didn't *hate* it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

There are some good aspects (Wonder Woman and the Flash are the standout characters for me). There are some cool sequences (Superman's first scene where he meets the League is awesome).

However, the story sucks (one of the most forgetful villains you will ever see). The CGI sucks. The movie is ugly to look at. It's horribly shot (I was seriously considering asking management afterwards if the screen was framed incorrectly).

Meh.

What is amazing to me is that The X-Men #1 (published in September 1963) sat around for so long Marvel had so many failed attempts at movies, TV shows, and animated series. It took almost four decades until they made a hugely successful film.

X-Men Release Date: July 14, 2000 Production Budget: $75 million
Domestic: $157,299,717 + Foreign: $139,039,810 = Worldwide: $296,339,527

Now with close to 4 dozen Marvel comic based films, they have had varying degrees of success, but probably only two films that were outright failures.
Elektra: January 14, 2005 Production Budget: $43 million Domestic: $24,409,722+ Foreign: $32,271,844= Worldwide: $56,681,566
Punisher: War Zone : December 5, 2008 Production Budget: $35 million Domestic: $8,050,977+ Foreign: $2,049,059= Worldwide: $10,100,036

In comparison, DC comic based movies struggle so hard to have some success.

Well, I saw Justice League.

Meh.

Not a bad idea, but not well executed.

The good parts:

SPOILERS AHEAD.



YOU'VE BEEN WARNED






1) They had to resurrect Superman. That's better than what I expected, which would be something like "he wasn't really dead."

2) Good ratio of build-up to payoff. Even though there were three reluctant hero tropes to deal with.

3) Diana and Barry were great.

4) There was good enough team chemistry in the League.



The bad parts:

1) The typical "this guy's going to kill everyone in the world, so we should leave this to four people to handle."

2) It wasn't that clear Superman was needed, except at the last bit to break the unholy trinity apart (did anyone get that reference?)

3) See 1) and add: the world was stunningly un-involved, except for the Amazons, the Atlanteans, and one Russian family. Seriously.

Quote: Nareed

SPOILERS AHEAD.
YOU'VE BEEN WARNED
.

Ha ha, very funny. I'll never see it,
even when it's free. I still haven't
gotten over that I saw Wonder
Woman, ick. Never again..

Started watching the 2011, Green Hornet movie the other night. Seth Rogan was okay, but seems like he was the one actually miscast. Surely there could have been a better actor/comic choice.

I did like some of the car scenes though.

https://youtu.be/Wa3l6Q7e5aA?t=56

Don't they make no film noir no more?

All nights are rainy, all alleys are dead ends, all cops are on the take, all dames are gin-soaked temptresses that lead a man to his doom. Most of all, blood spills onto a white carpet, not into some vampire's mouth.

Quote: Fleastiff

Don't they make no film noir no more? All nights are rainy, all alleys are dead ends, all cops are on the take, all dames are gin-soaked temptresses that lead a man to his doom. Most of all, blood spills onto a white carpet, not into some vampire's mouth.

I saw Sunset Boulevard last night,
considered by many to be the best
film noir movie. No cops, no private
eyes, it's just dark and gloomy and
depressing. And it has a narrator, which
the best film noir movies have.

None of the characters are likeable,
even the main character, played by
Bill Holden. He dies in the very first
scene, then narrates the rest of the
movie. Weird.

Norma Desmond is a washed up
silent film star who lost her job
when talkies came along. She's
very rich though. I found it
interesting that she explains this
by saying she invested wisely, in
oil wells, and she owns 3 city blocks
in downtown Hollywood.

It's interesting because it was 1950,
long before the real estate boom that
would hit Calif in the 60's and 70's.
That the writers would think to mention
Calif real estate as a way to riches in 1950
was a bit of fortune telling, they knew
the boom was coming. Bob Hope invested
heavily in Calif real estate in the 40's and
50's when it was cheap.

A good movie, all in all. Depressing, though.

I think it might be worth signing up to IMdB just to make completely stupid lists

Like so.
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls055129982/?ref_=nm_rls_1

Quote: Evenbob

It's interesting because it was 1950, long before the real estate boom that would hit Calif in the 60's and 70's. That the writers would think to mention Calif real estate as a way to riches in 1950 was a bit of fortune telling, they knew the boom was coming. Bob Hope invested heavily in Calif real estate in the 40's and 50's when it was cheap.

EVERYONE knew the boom was coming. During filming of Shangri La the entire cast and crew bought up land in the Ojai Valley where the film was shot. That actor who played the private eye who lived in a trailer and took buses could afford his history making lawsuit only because he had bought up half of Canoga Park real estate when it was raw acreage. Westwood had corn fields but became extremely valuable real estate though I think values dipped a bit when It became headquarters for the Crips. One LA fireman bought an abandoned water tower for pennies and eventually it was appraised at just under two million dollars. Most of those small bungalows in South Beach (Hermosa beach, manhattan beach, El Segundo,) eventually sold for over a million dollars.