Movie Thread

zitothebrave said:
I liked Ms Marvel, but I don't believe we are the intended audience. The show was clearly trending younger than 25-40 White Male. I agree for me it's not on par with Hawkeye, Wandavision and Loki. But I think at a minimum it looked good. I cannot say the same for Secret Invasion. VFX get really wonky later on.

It is not better than Falcon and the Winter Soldier. At least that moved and set something up. That's my biggest gripe with Secret Invasion, it seems more like poor closure than continuing a story. And it wasn't proper closure either. It was like a comic book story that was being told on the side about something that didn't matter.
Click to expand...

I thought Falcon and Winter Solider was extremely mediocre. I really hated how they nerfed Bucky for that series. I get the Flag Smashers had super serum, but they were basically protestors. They weren't ex military, or trained assassins like Bucky. Not to mention, Bucky having a friggin vibranium arm. They honestly should have posed no threat to Bucky at all.
 
I'll admit it - I liked Barbie. If they took out the opening scene where they were crushing the baby dolls I wouldn't have found one issue with the movie.

Personally, I think it was a mockery of the concept of a patriarchy.
 
zitothebrave said:
I'd bet a healthy chunk of change it will do well. It won't be the biggest seller of the year, neither will Oppenheimer but it will do very well. My guess is it will beat movies like Transformers and John Wick, though that will depend on how it does in China. But I'll assume it should do at least acceptable.

My hope is Oppenheimer gets in around 700M global, and Barbie around 500M.
Click to expand...

I was very happily wrong, Oppeneheimer is 3rd this year globally with 800+M (2nd highest R rate film of all time) and Barbie has passed Mario as the top grossing film of the year over 1.3 billion.

If it has legs (no blockbusters really coming out anytime soon so it should) it could claw it's way into the top 10 of all time (about 130M shy of original Avengers) Rest of the year's slate is soft on blockbuster draws. Next heavily advertised movie is Killers of the Flower Moon which won't make that much. I think Five Nights and Freddy's could go a number of ways, I think it debuts relatively weak but could roll strong with good reviews, but I suspect it will suck.

I think there are gonna be good films coming out this year, but I'm skeptical we could see even a 500M global the rest of the year aside from the Marvels which should net a decent BO but I don't think it breaks a billion. Unless it's a truly amazing film, which it's been a long time since a marvel film has been truly amazing.

Killers of the flower moon and The Creator are the films that intrigue me the most. I love Scorsese, always have and he has almost never let me down. The Creator really intrigues me, Gareth Edwards helmed operation, could be great, could be ass. We'll wait and see.
 
zitothebrave said:
I was very happily wrong, Oppeneheimer is 3rd this year globally with 800+M (2nd highest R rate film of all time) and Barbie has passed Mario as the top grossing film of the year over 1.3 billion.

If it has legs (no blockbusters really coming out anytime soon so it should) it could claw it's way into the top 10 of all time (about 130M shy of original Avengers) Rest of the year's slate is soft on blockbuster draws. Next heavily advertised movie is Killers of the Flower Moon which won't make that much. I think Five Nights and Freddy's could go a number of ways, I think it debuts relatively weak but could roll strong with good reviews, but I suspect it will suck.

I think there are gonna be good films coming out this year, but I'm skeptical we could see even a 500M global the rest of the year aside from the Marvels which should net a decent BO but I don't think it breaks a billion. Unless it's a truly amazing film, which it's been a long time since a marvel film has been truly amazing.

Killers of the flower moon and The Creator are the films that intrigue me the most. I love Scorsese, always have and he has almost never let me down. The Creator really intrigues me, Gareth Edwards helmed operation, could be great, could be ass. We'll wait and see.
Click to expand...

Napoleon looks good
 
We'll see how it shakes out but based on early returns of reviews on napolean it doesn't seem to be challenging Oppenheim and Killers of the FLower Moon for best picture, etc. Given that Killers is going to be a box office bomb. I'll be shocke dif this isn't a huge Oppenheimer season.
 
The Holdovers is the best movie I have seen in years. It's certainly not going to be for everyone and it's not going to kill at the box office, but Alexander Payne has really put together a great little movie. It's set in the 1970-71 school year (which was my senior year in high school) and Payne got the look and feel just right. No car chases. No existential crises. No gigantic message. Just a very good story told extremely well. Paul Giamatti is superb.
 
Seems like Napoleon is going to be a Kingdom of Heaven situation where the theatrical cut is mediocre and the director’s cut is great.

I am a huge sucker for that era of European history (France and Russia in particular), so I’ve been hoping that movie is solid
 
chop2chip said:
Seems like Napoleon is going to be a Kingdom of Heaven situation where the theatrical cut is mediocre and the director’s cut is great.

I am a huge sucker for that era of European history (France and Russia in particular), so I’ve been hoping that movie is solid
Click to expand...

Which to be blunt, if you have to go over 3 hours, you're not making a movie, you're making something else. It's honestly a huge reason I didn't get around to seeing Killers of the Flower moon. Nearest theater to me is half an hour away, arrive at least 15 minutes early for food and drinks and account for lines (small theater so any line could back everything up) so I'm leaving at say 6:15 for a 7PM showing, I won't be home until around 11PM. That's insane. At the very least if you're going to do that to me, include an intermission. Oppenheimer was right at the edge for me. 3 hours is the edge, anything over that should have an intermission. I remember almost pissing my pants at The Return of the King. And I had a young man's bladder then.

A calling card of a good film and director is the ability to tell a story in a specific time frame.
 
chop2chip said:
Seems like Napoleon is going to be a Kingdom of Heaven situation where the theatrical cut is mediocre and the director’s cut is great.

I am a huge sucker for that era of European history (France and Russia in particular), so I’ve been hoping that movie is solid
Click to expand...




Directors cut is four hours and ten minutes. Should be nice
 
zitothebrave said:
Which to be blunt, if you have to go over 3 hours, you're not making a movie, you're making something else. It's honestly a huge reason I didn't get around to seeing Killers of the Flower moon. Nearest theater to me is half an hour away, arrive at least 15 minutes early for food and drinks and account for lines (small theater so any line could back everything up) so I'm leaving at say 6:15 for a 7PM showing, I won't be home until around 11PM. That's insane. At the very least if you're going to do that to me, include an intermission. Oppenheimer was right at the edge for me. 3 hours is the edge, anything over that should have an intermission. I remember almost pissing my pants at The Return of the King. And I had a young man's bladder then.

A calling card of a good film and director is the ability to tell a story in a specific time frame.
Click to expand...

Scorsese could have easily cut it down by half-an-hour, but it would still have been three hours. Scorsese is brilliant, but he's he can't seem to compress things. The Irishman ran three-and-a-half hours. The Wolf of Wall Street ran three. Even Silence ran more than two-and-a-half. He's the best American filmmaker of his generation, but he's gotten into this habit of adding a lot of footage that really doesn't add that much to the story.
 
50PoundHead said:
Scorsese could have easily cut it down by half-an-hour, but it would still have been three hours. Scorsese is brilliant, but he's he can't seem to compress things. The Irishman ran three-and-a-half hours. The Wolf of Wall Street ran three. Even Silence ran more than two-and-a-half. He's the best American filmmaker of his generation, but he's gotten into this habit of adding a lot of footage that really doesn't add that much to the story.
Click to expand...

You'd put Scorcese over Coppola and Spielberg?
 
thewupk said:
Looks like the MCU train has finally derailed.
Click to expand...

They jumped the shark with Endgame. Since then, the only good ones to come out have been the 2 Spiderman movies and GTG3. Shang Chi was decent. Dr. Strange 2, Thor 4, and Black Panther 2 were all pretty underwhelming, imo. Black Widow and Antman were extremely mediocre to bad. Eternals was pretty awful.


Aside from Loki, I've stopped watching most Marvel content at this point. I couldn't even finish Secret Wars. I will watch Deadpool 3, but I probably won't anything else until they introduce the X-MEN and Fantastic 4.
 
The Chosen One said:
You'd put Scorcese over Coppola and Spielberg?
Click to expand...

Coppola had some of the highests highs of any director. But the selection isn't comparable. He basically did nothing of note outside of the 70s. Spielberg and Marty released iconic films across multiple decades.

I take Scorsese over Spielberg too. While I appreciate Spielberg, he lacks Scorsese's auteur statis.
 
thewupk said:
Looks like the MCU train has finally derailed.
Click to expand...

MCU train derailed a long time ago. Attempting to cash in on plots people don't care about but the real problem was them buying Fox and people waiting for XMen. EVeryone is assuming the whole universe is going to reset to allow Mutants to come into play.
 
zitothebrave said:
Coppola had some of the highests highs of any director. But the selection isn't comparable. He basically did nothing of note outside of the 70s. Spielberg and Marty released iconic films across multiple decades.

I take Scorsese over Spielberg too. While I appreciate Spielberg, he lacks Scorsese's auteur statis.
Click to expand...

I mean the Godfather 1 and 2 are both firmly in many top 5 and top 10 all time lists for greatest movies ever.

Apocalypse Now is also one of the best ever.

He may not have the bulk catalog as the other two, but he also decided he got bored with filmmaking George Lucas did after they hit their apex.

Maybe I'm biased because the Godfather 1/2 can easily be rewatched any time and doesn't feel like it takes forever like a Scorcese classic despite the long run times they both have.
 
The Chosen One said:
I mean the Godfather 1 and 2 are both firmly in many top 5 and top 10 all time lists for greatest movies ever.

Apocalypse Now is also one of the best ever.

He may not have the bulk catalog as the other two, but he also decided he got bored with filmmaking George Lucas did after they hit their apex.

Maybe I'm biased because the Godfather 1/2 can easily be rewatched any time and doesn't feel like it takes forever like a Scorcese classic despite the long run times they both have.
Click to expand...

I won't argue against the highs of Coppola. For 10 years he made some of the best films of all time. But just for ****s and giggles, we compare the highest box office coppola vs. Scorsese.


Godfather
Bram Stroker's Dracula
Apocalypse Now
Godfather Part 3
Jack
Godfather part 2
The Rainmaker
Peggy Sue Got Married
The Cotton Club
The Outsiders

You could say 4 of them are considered classics (God Father 1+2, AN, and Outsiders) 2 are considered good films but behind the rest of his catalogue (part 3 and Dracula) 4 of those most wouldn't be able to tell you what that are.

Compared to Scorsese.

Wolf of Wall Street
Shutter Island
The Departed
The Aviator
Gangs of New York
Cape Fear
Hugo
Killers of the FLower moon
Casino
The Color of Money

Like Coppolo iconic films off this (Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull)

I haven't seen Killers of the FLower moon. But most of those films are memorable. Several are iconic.

Again Coppola has the highest highs, but just not the total catalogue and several of his films were not that great. I can respect him for his elite 70s career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top