What's the latest movie you've seen?

[Leo656]

Hulk (2003) apparently cost about $137 million, and only made back about $245 million, so... no. Not even close to "successful". This was still back when the idea of a comic book movie making a billion or anywhere close was a total joke, but it would have needed to make almost four hundred or at least three-fifty to be "successful". It was expected to be HUGE, the biggest movie of the year, and it just wasn't. It made pretty much all its money on opening weekend and after that it sank like a stone. I went to a screening on opening night, and the crowd was HOT. They were doing T-shirt giveaways, people were cheering... then after it was over, people were laughing. Definitely didn't go over the way it was obviously expected and intended to.

It took a rather severe critical beating, as well, although that's always the least important thing because 99% of those rubes don't read comics anyway. The critics' and general audience consensus was "Too much talking, not enough smashing" (that's actually a pull quote from that stupid Rotten Tomatoes website). Basically, it was too highbrow for an audience who really just wanted two hours of "Shrek Goes Wild". But it was I'd say about 98% faithful to the comics, certain stories in particular.

Having watched it again recently for the first time in a while, I actually liked it more than I'd remembered, although it is very long and talky and the CGI is abysmal in spots. But it tried really hard to be "a real movie" and not a live-action cartoon, and I liked the quiet intensity that Eric Bana brought to it. He's still the best Banner, for my money.

I prefer when these things try to be "real movies" and aim higher that the standard cartoonish super-hero fare - otherwise what's the point of making a live action film in a "real-world" setting with real actors? Just make a cartoon if you want to be cheesy and silly - so for my money, warts and all, this was still the best "Hulk" movie.

The Incredible Hulk (2008 version) was considered a "soft reboot" so they could just get right to the "HULK SMASH!" stuff immediately and do a lot more of it, and to their credit it does a good job with that. Financially, it cost more than the first (around $150 million, although with five years of inflation it was probably about the same) and only brought in about $265 million. So again, adjusting for about five years of inflation, the cost/reward was about Exactly The Same as the first movie. Critically, it was received almost exactly the same, as well, despite being a very different kind of movie. So that's weird. It's weird that a movie made as an "apology/do-over" for the first movie was nonetheless received Exactly The Same Way across the board, albeit for different reasons.

This would at least partially explain why there were no more solo Hulk movies, regardless of the sticky distribution rights issue between Disney and Universal. Bottom line, if the movies had made more money, they'd have made more of them, a'la Spider-Man and Disney having to play nice with Sony over him. "Incredible" was supposed to be the "We're Sorry" Hulk movie, with lots of CGI action and comedic bits and when you watch the two back-to-back it really does feel like the second film was made with a checklist of sorts, like "Where the first movie Zigged, we Zag. Then we'll make $400 million." But it didn't work.

Critically, both films were slammed for "not being funny enough". Which explains why 1. The MCU Hulk in the Avengers movies was so well-received, and 2. Why only people who read comics have any business getting paid to review comic book movies. The Hulk is not a comedic character. But the first movie was being compared to the first Spider-Man film and "Incredible" was being compared to the first "Iron Man", which while good movies were still pretty thickly-covered in cheese. But critics get it into their head that "That's what ALL these movies are supposed to be, Big Dumb Fun (emphasis on "Dumb")" and so whenever a comic book movie tries to take itself a little more seriously, they point at it and laugh for "missing the point." And I'm over here like "No, YOU missed the point, f*ckface." Drives me nuts. The Hulk is a tragic character with horror elements, not a generic super-hero. His movies SHOULD be completely different. BUT, money talks and bullsh*t walks, and that's why we'll never get another Hulk movie anytime soon.

Personally, I think both Hulk movies were about as good from very different directions, although I prefer the first one (awful CGI aside, but I can overlook that since the story is good). I do concede that "Incredible" was more of a crowd-pleaser and had a lot more action, but some of the hokey-jokey bits really didn't land, for me, and I prefer the darker, more cerebral approach of the first. It really did try to be something more unique, whereas the second film didn't aim very high and settled for just being "Super-Hero Movie 32-B". As far as fidelity goes, again they're about equally as faithful to the comics from different directions, as they each pull from different runs of the book but adapt them pretty well.

The second one is definitely more action-packed, but I like the first movie's cast WAY better and the story puts it over, for me. But I don't hate the second one or anything, it's fine. I actually like it a lot more than most people seem to, but like I said if nothing else the A++ cast of the first has me lean hard towards that one. You ain't replacing Sam Elliot, sorry. And I like Liv Tyler but Connelly was way better, I thought. And of course Bana. I like Norton and I appreciate that he tried to "save" the second film by basically being a huge dick to everyone and trying to rewrite it himself on-set to be less of a cartoon, but it didn't come together in the final cut AND he basically committed career suicide by doing so. It was an earnest attempt, though. He's "fine" I just thought Bana got more out of it.

They're both pretty underrated movies.

[newfan]

I feel the same on a couple of points. I also preferred the first cast, I didn't dislike the 'incredible' cast, just didn't feel the fit as much.

My son even noticed the CGI right away in Hulk, earlier days for CGI, I did like his design though, putting the CGI aside.
I also found more appreciation watching over, I do have a preference for the first but for me there isn't a massive gap in enjoyment. Both rewatchable.

I knew there were issues around more Hulk movies but not sure exactly what they were, though I assumed success of the others was part of it.

[Leo656]

It's basically 1. They didn't make enough money, and 2. Universal Studios has distribution rights over Hulk solo films, so if Marvel makes any, they have to share money with Universal.

They have a "shared custody" arrangement similar (but not exactly the same) to how they do with Sony over Spider-Man, but the Spider-Man movies make a ton of money so it's in Disney and Sony's best interests to "play nice and share their toys" even though they'd rather not.

If Disney saw a billion dollar gross for a Hulk movie, they'd do one and eat the split with Universal. But they don't, so they won't.

[newfan]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's basically 1. They didn't make enough money, and 2. Universal Studios has distribution rights over Hulk solo films, so if Marvel makes any, they have to share money with Universal.

They have a "shared custody" arrangement similar (but not exactly the same) to how they do with Sony over Spider-Man, but the Spider-Man movies make a ton of money so it's in Disney and Sony's best interests to "play nice and share their toys" even though they'd rather not.

If Disney saw a billion dollar gross for a Hulk movie, they'd do one and eat the split with Universal. But they don't, so they won't.

Yes not much money to share. Also if they wanted to carry on from Endgame, well, remember how Hulk finished up.

[PizzaPower1985]

My latest viewing experience was Wonder Woman 84. It'd been a while since I'd seen a superhero/comic book flick (I much prefer reading comics over watching these kinda films)... And

IT STUNK. Absolute dreck!

Really a shame because I went in with high high high expectations and... was let down. The first WW movie is one of the best DC Comics films ever made! And I love retro/80's stuff... so, I thought I'd love this!

Very disappointing.

[Leo656]

Whoof. Anything in particular? Feel free to vent, I'm genuinely curious.

Turns out we (or her parents, I guess) have HBO Max in the house. Her Mom was watching WW84 earlier, I noticed. So I guess we can check it out anytime but I've had, like, literally zero urgency. I have a very strong feeling that I'm not going to like it much at all. And I really liked the first one a lot so I'm almost "afraid" to watch this one on account of how bad I assume it is.

I mean, I've read NOTHING but awful things except for a few "I watched it with my kids, we had fun" type comments, and even those are rare. So yeah, feel free to dish the dirt, I'm interested.

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Whoof. Anything in particular? Feel free to vent, I'm genuinely curious.

Turns out we (or her parents, I guess) have HBO Max in the house. Her Mom was watching WW84 earlier, I noticed. So I guess we can check it out anytime but I've had, like, literally zero urgency. I have a very strong feeling that I'm not going to like it much at all. And I really liked the first one a lot so I'm almost "afraid" to watch this one on account of how bad I assume it is.

I mean, I've read NOTHING but awful things except for a few "I watched it with my kids, we had fun" type comments, and even those are rare. So yeah, feel free to dish the dirt, I'm interested.

Terrible script. Not enough 80's aesthetic (they limited it to like a mall scene and some underused synth soundtrack)... There was some demonization of Afghani people that didnt need to be there. Cheetah literally looked like a reject from Cats (she does a "happy dance" for about 15 seconds that might make you laugh). I found the narrative slow in places... I could write an essay on the bad...

On the plus side, Patty Jenkins, one of the most gorgeous Hollywood directors ever, knows how to direct action. The action scenes were on par with the best from the MCU. I love Gal Gadot as WW. Great performance.

That's about it.

[PizzaPower1985]

If I could draw an analogy I would say... WW 2017 is like Superman: the Movie or Batman Begins... WW84 is like Superman 4 or Batman Forever. WW84 not as bad as Clooney's Bat movie BUT... it does not live up to the standard of WW 2017.

[Leo656]

Sounds about right. I read a very detailed plot synopsis over a year ago (which was corroborated recently after the movie came out) and the entire script/plot sounds like complete ass. I imagined that the visuals alone might be enough to make it a Win for some people, but apparently not even.

I must say, it surprises me. I keep hearing "The story is just plain terrible." And I can't help it, I'm like, "These same people saying that just made the MCU over 5 billion dollars in the last couple years, they suddenly care about stories?" But apparently, yeah, sometimes the story has to be good and the whole thing can't just be spectacle. Go figure. I'd pretty much given up on comic book movie fans being able to tell the difference. Y'know, on account of there's TWO "Ant-Mans".

I knew the whole "set in the 80s" thing was a bad, stupid idea. I'm surprised they did so little with it, but I was against it from the beginning. I was afraid it would create some BvS plot holes, but apparently they actually bothered to stay tight with that, more or less. But if they weren't even going to do anything with it, they may as well have just set it in the present-day and be done with it.

The whole thing seems half-assed.

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Sounds about right. I read a very detailed plot synopsis over a year ago (which was corroborated recently after the movie came out) and the entire script/plot sounds like complete ass. I imagined that the visuals alone might be enough to make it a Win for some people, but apparently not even.

I must say, it surprises me. I keep hearing "The story is just plain terrible." And I can't help it, I'm like, "These same people saying that just made the MCU over 5 billion dollars in the last couple years, they suddenly care about stories?" But apparently, yeah, sometimes the story has to be good and the whole thing can't just be spectacle. Go figure. I'd pretty much given up on comic book movie fans being able to tell the difference. Y'know, on account of there's TWO "Ant-Mans".

I knew the whole "set in the 80s" thing was a bad, stupid idea. I'm surprised they did so little with it, but I was against it from the beginning. I was afraid it would create some BvS plot holes, but apparently they actually bothered to stay tight with that, more or less. But if they weren't even going to do anything with it, they may as well have just set it in the present-day and be done with it.

The whole thing seems half-assed.

Now that you mention it, it does seem like fans of these movies are far more forgiving to the mediocre-ness of Marvel's later films but are completely down on or polarized about DCEU.

I like MOS the more I watch it. Not a huge fan of the Jonathon Kent death thing but I like that movie. BVS had a lot of potential and I like Bat-fleck okay... but missed a lot too. Billy Zane could have been an excellent Luthor but we got that kid from Zombieland/Social Network... ugh.

Justice League, Shazam, Aquaman all have their moments. Being a DC fan more than Marvel, I want people to give the DCEU their due! But WW84 is the worst of the lot.

[Leo656]

Billy Zane's been my personal Luthor pick for about 20 years now, but I gave up on that forever ago. He must have pissed someone off really bad because he just doesn't get cast in sh*t anymore, definitely not anything "big". So at this point I probably have a better shot at playing Luthor than he does. Frankly, I'm fine with Eisenberg - his vocal inflections are odd but the script is totally "Lex" all over, so I can forgive more than some people I guess. But if I had a gun to my head I'd pick Zane for Lex in a heartbeat. Too bad it's pretty much impossible.

MoS is easily my favorite Superman solo movie, but honestly I liked BvS about as much for different reasons. I find almost all of people's complaints to be incredibly nitpicky, but it's whatever. Going on 5 years now it is what it is.

I liked Shazam and Aquaman both more than I thought I would, mostly because neither one was anywhere near as silly or dumb as the trailers made them seem (and Aquaman was surprisingly violent, way more than I expected). I kinda thought they gave the store away by debuting the entire Marvel Family at the end of Shazam, but that took some guts and I honestly marked out huge for that. It's just SO stupid that in-universe the guy doesn't even have a name (since "Shazam" is both the name of the Wizard AND The Word Billy uses to call forth his powers, so he can't even call himself that out loud). I imagine the sequel will continue to run the joke of him not having a name into the ground. Because that's "funny", you see. So dumb. Billy Batson is Captain Marvel. Period, end of story. Carol Danvers should be called "Captain Copyright Loophole" or some sh*t like that for all I care. She AIN'T "Captain Marvel".

I don't think the theatrical cut of Justice League was AS bad as people say it is, but it's definitely a f*cking misfire and I look forward to having it stricken from the record in March. We really got sold a bill of goods on that movie, what with exactly two seconds of footage from the trailers actually being IN the damn movie. Forget hashtags and Twitter campaigns for the director's cut; I'm f*cking shocked there wasn't a class-action lawsuit for false advertising. The movie we were sold was NOT the movie we paid to watch, and I kinda don't think they should be allowed to do sh*t like that.

It also tried very hard to be funny, and it wasn't. I don't like "funny" super-hero movies, anyway - especially when they're supposed to be the direct sequel to two Very Serious ones - but watching Joss Whedon try hard and fail was painful.

It was eh. I don't necessarily hate it, but I hate what it represents and I'm sure I WILL hate it once I see the "real" movie in March. So that's something to look forward to.

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Billy Zane's been my personal Luthor pick for about 20 years now, but I gave up on that forever ago. He must have pissed someone off really bad because he just doesn't get cast in sh*t anymore, definitely not anything "big". So at this point I probably have a better shot at playing Luthor than he does. Frankly, I'm fine with Eisenberg - his vocal inflections are odd but the script is totally "Lex" all over, so I can forgive more than some people I guess. But if I had a gun to my head I'd pick Zane for Lex in a heartbeat. Too bad it's pretty much impossible.

MoS is easily my favorite Superman solo movie, but honestly I liked BvS about as much for different reasons. I find almost all of people's complaints to be incredibly nitpicky, but it's whatever. Going on 5 years now it is what it is.

I liked Shazam and Aquaman both more than I thought I would, mostly because neither one was anywhere near as silly or dumb as the trailers made them seem (and Aquaman was surprisingly violent, way more than I expected). I kinda thought they gave the store away by debuting the entire Marvel Family at the end of Shazam, but that took some guts and I honestly marked out huge for that. It's just SO stupid that in-universe the guy doesn't even have a name (since "Shazam" is both the name of the Wizard AND The Word Billy uses to call forth his powers, so he can't even call himself that out loud). I imagine the sequel will continue to run the joke of him not having a name into the ground. Because that's "funny", you see. So dumb. Billy Batson is Captain Marvel. Period, end of story. Carol Danvers should be called "Captain Copyright Loophole" or some sh*t like that for all I care. She AIN'T "Captain Marvel".

I don't think the theatrical cut of Justice League was AS bad as people say it is, but it's definitely a f*cking misfire and I look forward to having it stricken from the record in March. We really got sold a bill of goods on that movie, what with exactly two seconds of footage from the trailers actually being IN the damn movie. Forget hashtags and Twitter campaigns for the director's cut; I'm f*cking shocked there wasn't a class-action lawsuit for false advertising. The movie we were sold was NOT the movie we paid to watch, and I kinda don't think they should be allowed to do sh*t like that.

It also tried very hard to be funny, and it wasn't. I don't like "funny" super-hero movies, anyway - especially when they're supposed to be the direct sequel to two Very Serious ones - but watching Joss Whedon try hard and fail was painful.

It was eh. I don't necessarily hate it, but I hate what it represents and I'm sure I WILL hate it once I see the "real" movie in March. So that's something to look forward to.

Agreed with everything here... Carol Danvers worked best as Miss Marvel... she wore a cooler costume then too. The Batson/Shazam copyright name thing is one of my personal bones to pick with the industry as a whole. The idea that "everyone just always called him Shazam anyway so we named him that"... first of all, not true, Mr. Johns... real fans knew the bleedin' difference! And 2) Shazam is an awesome name for an ancient wizard... kinda dumb for a superhero name IMO.

[Leo656]

Y'know where Billy Zane was good, was as "The Collector" in "Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight". That's one of my all-time favorite villain roles, and a movie not enough people give credit where it's due for just being really good in general. Always a fun watch.

Lotta people think Zane, they automatically go to "Titanic", but... ehhhhhh, naaaahhhhhh. That movie's overrated as f*ck unless you're a 15-year old girl, and while he was good enough in that as he is in everything, he's way better in other things. Like "Demon Knight". If you watch "Demon Knight" and don't immediately think, "Damn, this guy would be PERFECT as Lex Luthor", you need your goddamn head examined, because that's all I can think every time I see that movie.

I wonder what the hell he did to who. Since we haven't seen or heard much from him in going on two decades.

[Hamato Yoshi]

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

Child’s Play 3 (1991)

Pretty good sequel too. Never imagined we’re going to army camp with Andy but here we are.

Andy tried to warn this little boy Tyler but he ignored him and calling him a liar. I would just let stubborn Tyler get killed by Chucky tbh, but Andy still persist trying to find him to save him. Guess he has a hero complex.



Life is hard being a soldier with unnecessary shouting, being talked down like you’re scum and endless workout. And just with every unpleasant people there is, when they died, we don’t give a damn about them. So when the rude barber got killed, the violent teenage colonel got shot to death - no damn were given lol. But when Ellis the bullied boy bravely shielded his mates from a detonating grenade and died, the impact was felt.

There’s a good life lesson to be learnt here.

So Chucky died again. Is he gonna kept being rebuilt as the series go on? Pretty funny cycle. Anyway I enjoyed the trilogy. Next one is Bride of Chucky (1998 ) I guess.. pretty long 7 years gap.


One thing I like about this series is that there’s no nudity, surprisingly. It’s always cheesy and cringeworthy when they just put in topless women for cheap thrills in old horror movies (I’m looking at you Halloween (1978 ) & Friday the 13th (1980 ). This one is different, bravo.

Because of the horrendous Bulger torture/murder by 2 kids in UK (the kid they killed was only 2 yrs old) i havent seen CP films (it could never be proven they had seen it though.....read on wiki , its too unsettling to think about

---------------------------------------------------------

I much prefer the Freddy of NOES 1 & 2 where he wasnt so much a "comedian" , this was the Freddy that was truly scary imo

[PizzaPower1985]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Y'know where Billy Zane was good, was as "The Collector" in "Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight". That's one of my all-time favorite villain roles, and a movie not enough people give credit where it's due for just being really good in general. Always a fun watch.

Lotta people think Zane, they automatically go to "Titanic", but... ehhhhhh, naaaahhhhhh. That movie's overrated as f*ck unless you're a 15-year old girl, and while he was good enough in that as he is in everything, he's way better in other things. Like "Demon Knight". If you watch "Demon Knight" and don't immediately think, "Damn, this guy would be PERFECT as Lex Luthor", you need your goddamn head examined, because that's all I can think every time I see that movie.

I wonder what the hell he did to who. Since we haven't seen or heard much from him in going on two decades.

Yeah, I always loved him as an actor. I think Demon Knight is probably THE underrated horror movie of the 90's. Andd yeah, considering that he kinda has the Superman TAS look a little bit, I too think there will never be a better casting for Lex... particularly since Zane can play villains so well. I find myself wondering a lot actually of what's become of his career.

Originally Posted by Hamato Yoshi

Because of the horrendous Bulger torture/murder by 2 kids in UK (the kid they killed was only 2 yrs old) i havent seen CP films (it could never be proven they had seen it though.....read on wiki , its too unsettling to think about

---------------------------------------------------------

I much prefer the Freddy of NOES 1 & 2 where he wasnt so much a "comedian" , this was the Freddy that was truly scary imo

I think CP3 is the last entertaining film in that franchise, say what you will about John Waters and his films (I love the guy) but Bride and Seed were such a departure. A lot of good kills and the last time Chuck was creepy. And, while I agree with you about Krueger, 1 & 2 were great films for his character, let's not undersell the absolute brilliance of DREAM WARRIORS.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by newfan

Did you manage to finish it? Just wondering if it's worth buying/renting.

Re-watched the Hulk movies, were they both unsuccessful btw? I find them re-watchable, not enough knowledge of the comics to say what they may or may not have gotten right so far as keeping to source material.
I know they wanted a change up with the Incredible Hulk and I can see a difference in things like dropping the split screens for example but for me they could have just as easily continued from previous with the same cast.

I was then sat comparing Hulk designs over those and the avengers Hulk, obviously later CGI quality had come along, but it was more the features I was comparing.

Sorry, for the late reply. I really like Tenet! Especially on an audio & visual level. I'd say it's worth it if you are willing to invest in the story or just want to see some great action scenes and don't mind being confused.

[PizzaPower1985]

I have a movie recommendation for you guys, if you like retro 80's flicks.






THE TRAILER:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F13m...creamFactoryTV

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by PizzaPower1985

I have a movie recommendation for you guys, if you like retro 80's flicks.




https://gonewiththetwins.com/new/wp-...ofthecomet.jpg

THE TRAILER:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F13m...creamFactoryTV

LOL!

As a kid I was equally captivated by that movie as I was mortified by it. It's not that it's scary, but as a kid it had this whimsical desolation to it that felt different at the time. I don't think kids who weren't there would understand. And then when I first got Netflix (maybe 11 years ago now? 10?) they were sending out more DVDs than they were streaming. I hadn't seen this movie since the 80's and it was one of the first discs I had sent to me.

Just a crazy sort of modified zombie flick. Really strange to see this obscure movie pop up here.

[newfan]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Sorry, for the late reply. I really like Tenet! Especially on an audio & visual level. I'd say it's worth it if you are willing to invest in the story or just want to see some great action scenes and don't mind being confused.

If it's a decent watch I'll take being confused and hope that aspect can at least be resolved in the end. Thanks.

Last movie watched, the new Witches movie. It wasn't bad, I was interested to see what they decided to do with it, but I do like the original so that still remains my preference.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Watched Soul. Was really cute and heartfelt, which I love in a Disney movie. And had a great message, though I think the ending was a bit bittersweet. Mainly because

Spoiler:

22 would not even remember any of what happened.