Indeed! I saw it as an amalgamation of Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica (TOS), Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, and all the crap that came out after Star Wars came out.
Also, the way Hollywood chews threw pretty young things, I have to think legions of nerdy comic book fans will probably keep her professionally relevant a lot longer than she would be otherwise. But that's the cynic in me.
I can understand why a director might seek out the technical and creative challenges of a high-concept blockbuster. That's real resume stuff and can demonstrate range. But for actors and actresses asked to recite trite dialogue and be constantly required to defer to a stand-in/double/CGI model, I would think it's professionally frustrating and unsatisfying. I have read that some actors have taken these kinds of roles to please children and grandchildren; that's cool.
Samuel L. Jackson is having a ball doing it. Chris Evans really doesn't want to, but he wouldn't have much of a career without it. Scarlett is still doing other stuff.
At least the characters aren't stiff robots like the Star Wars prequels.
Meh. It's a paycheck and--in the case of a recurring role in a series--several of them.
There are those actors who participate in such blockbusters which are devoid of any acting challenges specifically so they can have those checks pay for those periods when they are doing movies and plays that are far below their current pay "grade".
Saving Mr. Banks (2013) Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Colin Farrell. Somewhat fictionalised account of PL Travers and Walt Disney coming to terms with the production of Mary Poppins. Thompson is brilliant. This is a film to see.
Ted 2. Some lols, but mostly meh. Fortunately the setups were obvious enough that with judicious use of fast forward, I got through the movie in 45 minutes and I'm pretty sure I saw all the good parts.
Also meh, for other reasons. The ultraviolence thing that whatshisname does is wearing thin on me. But hey, at least all the least-bit-sympathetic characters were dead by the end.
Also meh, for other reasons. The ultraviolence thing that whatshisname does is wearing thin on me. But hey, at least all the least-bit-sympathetic characters were dead by the end.
That movie would have bee pointless and trite human waste if it wasn't for Christoph Waltz. I found it to be one of the more enjoyable of that screenwriter/director's movies. This time instead of the N word, it was Jews.
Ribtor wrote: Captain America Winter Soldier (2014) Why is The Girl With The Pearl Earring doing this?
Why is Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury? Robert Downey Jr, Iron Man? Why did Ang Lee direct Hulk?
Probably one part to fund everything else they want to do, and one part maybe they actually think its fun.
Downey gets a percentage of the revenue for Marvel movies he's in. I remember reading he made 50ish million for Avengers. The disparity is huge. One of the super heroes made 'only' $200,000 apparently.
Downey was also mostly unemployable when he was cast as Iron Man. He'd been in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang but Marvel was pretty opposed to putting him in Iron Man. I think Favreau threatened to quit or something.
But in general wouldn't you want to play a super hero if you could? That sounds dope as hell.
user wrote: Kinda liked seeing Hitler getting iced.
as a standard movie it was middlin' but as a revenge fantasy it was superb
the expressions on the faces of the soldiers while they pump hitler full of lead while a dead jew's face hovers in the smoke laughing maniacally -- sorry but that was goddam poetry
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
user wrote: Kinda liked seeing Hitler getting iced.
as a standard movie it was middlin' but as a revenge fantasy it was superb
the expressions on the faces of the soldiers while they pump hitler full of lead while a dead jew's face hovers in the smoke laughing maniacally -- sorry but that was goddam poetry
Then why did they blow themselves up? That part made no sense.
The Amazing Spiderman (2012) I only managed to get half way through. I notice that his web shooter is a piece of tech and not a mutation. I like the awkward mannerisms of the lead but I prefer the Toby Maguire original movie from ten years earlier.
Ribtor wrote: Captain America Winter Soldier (2014) Why is The Girl With The Pearl Earring doing this?
Why is Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury? Robert Downey Jr, Iron Man? Why did Ang Lee direct Hulk?
Probably one part to fund everything else they want to do, and one part maybe they actually think its fun.
Downey gets a percentage of the revenue for Marvel movies he's in. I remember reading he made 50ish million for Avengers. The disparity is huge. One of the super heroes made 'only' $200,000 apparently.
Downey was also mostly unemployable when he was cast as Iron Man. He'd been in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang but Marvel was pretty opposed to putting him in Iron Man. I think Favreau threatened to quit or something.
But in general wouldn't you want to play a super hero if you could? That sounds dope as hell.
I think Downey is well cast. It's a good role for him.
Ribtor wrote: The Amazing Spiderman (2012) I only managed to get half way through. I notice that his web shooter is a piece of tech and not a mutation. I like the awkward mannerisms of the lead but I prefer the Toby Maguire original movie from ten years earlier.
That's how it was in the comic books.
The Toby Macquire movie made it a mutation to drive home the semen/puberty thing. More recent comics have retconned to match.
Ribtor wrote: The Amazing Spiderman (2012) I only managed to get half way through. I notice that his web shooter is a piece of tech and not a mutation. I like the awkward mannerisms of the lead but I prefer the Toby Maguire original movie from ten years earlier.
That's how it was in the comic books.
The Toby Macquire movie made it a mutation to drive home the semen/puberty thing. More recent comics have retconned to match.
The Tobey Maguire version of Spiderman did remove a problem: a kid develops a wire--to be sure: rather short-lived--that can be sprayed out and has a strength many times greater than any equivalent steel cable? Why wasn't Peter Parker a multi-billionaire sitting on the royalties from that astounding chemical breakthrough by the time he was 20?
Ribtor wrote: The Amazing Spiderman (2012) I only managed to get half way through. I notice that his web shooter is a piece of tech and not a mutation. I like the awkward mannerisms of the lead but I prefer the Toby Maguire original movie from ten years earlier.
That's how it was in the comic books.
The Toby Macquire movie made it a mutation to drive home the semen/puberty thing. More recent comics have retconned to match.
The Tobey Maguire version of Spiderman did remove a problem: a kid develops a wire--to be sure: rather short-lived--that can be sprayed out and has a strength many times greater than any equivalent steel cable? Why wasn't Peter Parker a multi-billionaire sitting on the royalties from that astounding chemical breakthrough by the time he was 20?