planetf1.com

Hot Tub Time Machine 2 wasn't as good as Hot Tub Time Machine. however if you liked the original it might be worth a watch for the throwbacks and similar gags. A few good laughs, but definitely not on the level of the original.

_________________
IV

I agree.

I don't think it felt as big as Avengers for one. I thought it dragged a bit as a result of trying to cram too much stuff into it. It's 2hrs 15 mins and so cutting some of the crap is rather annoying. They also gave no indication of Vision's powers. I'm more into comic books than most, but I don't much know. I also felt the ending was super-weak and just a sequel hook whereas for me Avenger's Assemble felt like a small bookend - not the end of the story but the end of that section of the MCU.

I wonder if it'll be enough to burst the bubble of Superhero films? I doubt it, but I do still think Ant-man is going to teach these guys a lesson.

I'm done with Marvel now. Not because of Age of Ultron, but before it came out I realised I have no desire to see it. I rarely rewatch the older ones, so it's not that the material is bad, I've just seen enough. It's been coming a while for me. Spiderman 2 I turned off halfway through and I didn't even watch Cap 2. Guardians gave me hope, but not since then has there been a superhero flick I've enjoyed. The bubble has definitely burst for me. I'll probably watch Deadpool and I'll still watch the DC animated films, but I shant be giving much attention to the Avengers franchise.

_________________
IV

I was wondering if it's because we've almost been spoiled with decent comic tv shows for a few years that the Marvel films don't hold me that much anymore (or simply my dislike of the common America's great but the military and/or government/corporation is bad story's that seem to be in a lot of big films nowadays).

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

X-Men 2, Iron Man, X-Men: First Class, Avengers Assemble, and Guardians of the Galaxy were all fantastic. Outside of that, the comic book movies have all fallen well short of a good movie for me. Most likely because everything has been so oversaturated since the original Spiderman (which I'm sure was a great and unique flick at the time, but I just never cared for Spidey).

I think I just have a distaste for constant sequels when I feel they are trying to make more money rather than tell more story. Which is why I couldn't stand Iron Man2/3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, the billions of Spidermans, Hulks, etc. even though they link in more info for other movies in the Marvel Universe. The one exception for the hatred of sequels for me has been Oceans 12/13 and Bad Boys 2. Love those even though they truly don't offer anything new.

With all of this said, I'll go see Age of Ultron once it's released here in the States. LOL

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

Spiderman, to me, has always been more driven by teenage angst and the like. That's basically his defining characteristic to me. The trouble with that is that I think you start to lose people who don't fall within that age bracket. I found the first Transformers fim pretty good when I was about the same age as the main character is supposed to be, but honestly feel I outgrew it being relevant to me. Of course, I still enjoy giant robots fighting (though I'd actually say only Transformers 3 is a good film, 1 and 2 are tolerable and AoE was somehow overly unrealistic... even with the suspension of disbelief that got me through the first 3) and Spiderman fighting bad guys. I liked Spidey 1 and 2 and Amazing Spiderman was really, really well done I thought. But the trouble is it only takes one bad film to really derail a franchise imo. A film doesn't have to resonate with me personally to be good. Schindler's List is a great film, but nothing in my life, thankfully, allows me to really relate to the characters within it. But I do feel it adds a little something. And that something is sometimes the little spark that makes you really love a film.

Since about 2000 or so, off the top of my head the big comic books that have been made into films are as follows -
Blade Trilogy (though I'm not sure how well known this is as a comic book film)
X-men Trilogy
X-men First Class + Days of Future Past
At least two Wolverine centric films (or, alternatively,at least 7 Xmen films).
Spiderman Trilogy
2 Amazing Spiderman films
Batman (Dark Knight) Trilogy
Daredevil
Elektra
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Catwoman (which after 30 seconds of being sufficiently distracted by Halle Berry being so damned hot, even I turned off.)
Constantine
Man of Steel
Superman Returns
Two Fantastic Four films
Watchmen (I'm going to buy this on blu-ray tomorrow after work if I get out early enough. I haven't seen this in ages and was great - though the ending was massively improved for the movie imo)
Iron Man, Iron Man 2 and that Tony Stark film released under the name "Iron Man 3"
Kick-Ass (which was a great film) and Kick donkey 2
Green Lantern (which wasn't as bad as everyone made out, though it was far from good).
Thor, Thor: Dark World
Cap 'Merica, Winter Soldier
Judge Dredd film
Guardians of the Galaxy
Avengers + Age of Ultron.
That seems like a LOT off the top of my head. And, as minchy mentioned, we also have TV shows. Even excluding animated ones there is:
Constantine, Arrow (which is awesome), Flash, Gotham (imagine Batman without the best thing about Batman!*), Daredevil, Smallville is a few years gone but 10 years of that (one of which was good, and their Doomsday storyline was awful), Agents of Shield, Agent Carter etc.

By my count, based off my off the top of the head writing, that is 42 movies in 15 or so years. I've seen 33 of them, and enjoyed 28 of those enough that if a pal wanted to come round here and watch them, I'd be up for it. But that is a lot of films it seems (though probably many more come from books rather than comic books). I'm sure there are also many more that I don't know from comic books or have forgotten.

Part of me feels a big issue is that a number of the most "famous" comic book characters have been played out. Generally, this would mean either you put them to bed for a bit, you reboot them, or you use some other material you have rights to. I think we've started to see this a little with the introduction of more characters. Dr Strange and Adam Warlock are not obscure comic book characters and both played a decent part in some famous comic book arcs. I'm sure the two of them are instrumental in "Infinity Gauntlet" and their roles may impact Infinity War a little more (or they may go in another direction or base it off Infinity War since that's the name of the film.) But you cannot sell a film based on them alone. And I swear that Ant-man is going to find this out. In the trailer they make fun of how crappy sounding he is, and I think the film will suffer from mass derision unless it is really good (this is what I said about Guardians, but that was really good).

Odd as this may seem, I'm also a little offended at Marvel and DC setting up their release schedules for the next 5 or so years. It almost annoys me that they seem to be so utterly confident that we'll all keep going. Despite Sony having greenlit Amazing Spiderman 3 after the first Amazing Spiderman then subsequently having to sack it. It annoys me more that I know I'm the sucker who will go see almost every film on the release schedule too. Even if the next one is crap I'll see the one after.

Further, to compare briefly my feelings at the end of Avengers and Avengers 2. Avengers seemed like a solid bookend to that section of the story. Avengers 2 felt like it was pushing the sequel hook a bit much.
More substantial Age of Ultron spoiler


Well, I usually save my rants for the videogame thread. Just realised I forgot the two Hulk films in my list above.

I don't know whether I'd say it was a disappointment for me because generally I can take or leave superhero movies. That said I didn't enjoy it as much as Avengers Assemble.

It's not a bad movie but you get pretty much what you expect. OK fair play they had a villain that was their own creation, but it was the usual 2+ hours of overly gratuitous fight scenes broken up with a little bit of humour. I don't think there was any need for it to be any more than 2 hours long.

On the other hand, it was a bit surreal to see them using part of my old University as a set for the new headquarters!

_________________
Pick 10 Competition:
2013 - 10th
2014 - 9th
2015 - 6th

Pick 10 Podiums:
1st Place: USA 2012, Japan 2013, USA 2015
2nd Place: Bahrain 2015, Barcelona 2015
3rd Place: China 2014

I remember when they were making the first Harry Potter films and using Durham Cathedral for part of Hogwarts - getting back from a night in the town we thought we'd cut through some fields to get home only to stumble onto the production crews campsite with a party if their own happening and no security stopping anyone else getting in!

That was a bit of a surreal night really.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Just seen Kingsman and it is quite possibly the best spy film I have ever seen!

Ludicrous plot, great gadgets, corny 1 liners, impossible feats of spyness, Samuel L Jackson as the super villan and Colin Firth as the gentleman spy - what more could you want in a cheesy British spy film? Filled in the hole left by James Bond going serious!

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

It was great wasn't it?

The church scene, the heads at the end, plus the princess... Aaaawww, I wanna watch it again!

I've not enjoyed a film that much for a long time

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Agree, it was very good. I had no expectations when I started watching but pretty much liked it right away.

_________________

I actually rather like the look of the Kingsmen but forgot to ever go see it (I probably wouldn't have gone to cinema for it anyway, not a fan of cinemas). For some reason, despite not having seen it I think it might be a little like In Bruges (which is a truly fantastic film) in humour. No idea why I have come to this image, but I have.

Also, I quite fancy the Spooks movie. My potential gripe with it, a movie is great when a TV show has a big plan and can't do it in "just" episodes. Spooks was pretty high budget and they did a lot of things in it that I think were essentially "movie quality". I'll probably still go see it or at least get it on DVD/Blu-ray when it comes out on those formats.

Anyway, despite my aversion to the cinema, I ended up seeing Age of Ultron again last week as one of my buddies desperately wanted to go and none of his other pals fancied it so I said I'd go. I thought it was a little better the second time around. My first viewing I left feeling vaguely neutral about it. This time I was a little bit more positive about it. A few lines and gags I missed made sense now. I still don't think it was a patch on the first Avengers film.

And Hulk's lullaby really reminded me of one of he doll-handler interactions from Doll House, written partially by Whedon (and also a fantastic show, though the first 2 or 3 episode are drastically crappy). Also, Whedon writes dialogue in such a way that I often feel I can predict certain aspects, especially with regard to his brand of humour. Doesn't bother me, I just noticed.

Funny that you say this. I adore the Craig Bond films. ADORE. Never really quite cared for the Brosnan / Moore films due to the cheesy-ness, but now that the Craig films are so serious, I've oddly found myself watching and enjoying the Brosnan films again. Haha! I must have been missing the tricks and gadgets! I may have to check out Kingsmen.

In regards to Age of Ultron, I've finally seen it. I didn't mind the length (Whedon confirmed it was also trimmed down from 3 hours!, with one scene removed against his will). I didn't care for the villain, but then again, I've been disappointed with the scale of the Marvel villains for some time now. I expect bigger, badder, and generally more unstoppable I guess - which means Thanos will be a disappointment I predict. I also didn't care for not having more of Vision's backstory. Loved the Thor hammer jokes throughout the film though. I laughed so much at those!

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

I'm a Bond fan, and I like Daniel Craig's films because they are truer to the character of Bond from the novels - which is only really of importance because I like that Bond. Bond must be pretty suave and charming, but I think the character needs to have that slightly psychotic edge, where he's happy to kill and rather uncaring toward the risk he's putting himself in. I very much dislike Roger Moore's tenure for making Bond so damned campy. I liked Dalton, and I loved Goldeneye which only really featured one unbelievable gadget in the watch laser. By the time of Die Another Day's invisible car, I'd say it had gone too far down a stupid road. I'm not against fancy tech and all that but within some kind of reason. Then again, I suppose I've got to consider the Thunderball jet pack nonsense too. Might be a case of selective memory coming into play here.

As a rule, if Bond is on TV I'll watch but not if it is Roger Moore (or Die another Day). I felt he looked rather old to begin with and by the end it was almost uncomfortable to see this creepy old b*stard trying to pump some 25 year old girl.

Brosnan had a great opening film, Goldeneye is a brilliant film. Pitting agent vs agent together is always fun. Bringing Dame Judy Dench to the series also worked really well, I love what they did with her story arc.Tomorrow Never Dies was pretty rubbish. TWINE had some cool bits. Introducing John Cleese was not one of them, and I pretty much adore John Cleese. Die Another Day was a film so poor that I've only seen it twice. The only real positive of that film is that the 10 seconds or so of Halle Berry in a bikini is slightly less painful to watch than the rest of the film, if you can call that a positive.

And I maintain that OHMSS is an important Bond film and grossly underrated and far too often written off.

After watching Kingsman for the 3rd time this week (yes, I love it that much!), I thought I'd actually have a read of some reviews to see if was just the British that got the comedy and enjoyed the film. And I happy to see that European and Asian critics and reviewers enjoyed it too. But then we get to America...... The critics and movie bloggers got it and enjoyed it, most of them giving it 7 or 8 out of 10. But reading the comments on the reviews, a much *inaudible* percentage of site visitors just seemed offended by it and didn't think the film took itself seriously!

It was my understanding that the film was at it's heart a comedy and wasn't supposed to take itself seriously. Most of the offence came from the amount of violence and took much 'dropping of the f bomb'. After watching the film a number of times now, yes the violence is fairly high, but done in a tongue in cheek, comedy way. But I really didn't notice an overuse of swearing. I'm wondering if most American's actually realise how regularly we use swear words in everyday conversation in the UK? And are they really offended when an r rated Movie contains violence and swearing? They all seemed overly offended to me.

Edit: Should just say, I'm not having a go at American's here, just don't understand how the critics and publics views of the same thing can so different.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

The church - Free Bird scene is one of my favourite movie scenes ever. My guess is that some people don't get that the violence is deliberately OTT to the point that it becomes funny. Though I suppose it is a matter of taste

I think my favorite scene is the head scene to Land of Hope and Glory and Merlin's line of 'Oh, that was f*cking Spectacular!'. As I did read in some reviews - one of those rare moments in films where you think 'now that's something I've never seen before!'.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Simple answer to the American criticisms: some people are just ridiculous. We'll eat up the over the top action of The Fast & The Furious or The Expendibles, but can't handle it in other forms if we haven't fallen for the actors. Going into an R-rated movie, a critic must recognize that there will be some "ugliness" from the human race that will present itself (violence, foul language, immorality, etc.). A good critic means they can accept that and view it for what it is despite their personal tolerances or beliefs - sounds like the criticisms you've found came from... well... terrible critics.

Wonder what those same people said about that movie with James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman. Can't remember the title now...

Speaking of Colin Firth, however, I do want to see his film with Emma Stone. The 1920's southern France film about a spirit medium and a magician. Horrible with titles again...

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

Rule #1 to maintain one's sanity: never read the comments.

Seriously, just don't. I have no idea why every mouth-breathing, semi-literate, hate monkey on the planet feels the need to spread bile in the comments section of an article or whatever, but they do. The signal to noise ratio is just too low to even bother with them. Reading comments sections lead to depression, anger, and the feeling that mankind deserves to be eradicated. It is my belief that the origin of most super-villains intent on world destruction is that they read too many comments sections and decided that nuking us all from orbit was the best solution. Reading comments sections leaves an annoying stain on your soul like grease on clothes, and it is every bit as difficult to get rid of it. So please, stay away from comments sections, and warn your friends and family about them, too. Think of the children.

That's a great one! I may steal and use that in casual conversation from now on.

Comment sections are brutal though. Whether it's YouTube or your local newspaper's online site. My wife had an accident last year where our one dog escaped our yard and killed another small dog. The newspaper inaccurately reported that our dog was a pitbull (was a boxer), and people did everything possible in the comments section to paint my wife as some rundown, good-for-nothing thug that feeds off the state and country's welfare system - with some very colorful language and similes and metaphors to boot. My wife? A well-paid, hardworking, middle-class, elementary school teacher who loves kids, animals, and Kate Spade handbags...

Comment sections in combination with the general public know-it-alls are cruel indeed.

And, back on topic...

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

The new Mad Max movie. Was. Awesome!

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

Can't wait to go see it!

_________________

Dragging the other half to see this Saturday. Can't wait. I loved the orginal films, but it will be nice to see it brought up to date.

I would like to see the new Avengers film, but with Cinema being so expensive I don't tend to go much, and Mad Max looks like a better value proposition. I may still end up seeing Age if Ultron, will have to see how bad my bank account looks by the begining of June after all the bills have come out.

_________________
The two most powerful warriors are patience and time…so remember: great achievements take time, there is no overnight success.

I have seen both and they don't even compare, unless perhaps you're some kind of Avengers fanatic. I'm tempted to go see Mad Max again but in 2D this time as the practically nonstop action was a tad difficult to follow from time to time in 3D (even though it was one of the better 3D realizations).

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

I will be seeing it in 2D as 3D gives me crippling migranes. It's bad enough when I try and use a low 3D effect on my 3DS. I did go and try see the 2nd Thor film in 3D and had to walk out after 15mins I felt so ill. So glad that cambridge cinema has lots of 2D showings for films. Plus I object to the rip-off extra charges for 3D.

I've not heard too much about the new Avengers film. I know it was hyped but since it's come out it's all been quiet, which is usually not a good sign. I think there was some kind of row over Black Widow's portrail in the film, but I tend to ignore outrage on the internet these days as so much of it is based on fallacey and incorrect information.

_________________
The two most powerful warriors are patience and time…so remember: great achievements take time, there is no overnight success.

Sorry to hear about the migrane, I too suffer from it (or cluster headache to be precise) but never has 3D triggered it.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

I hate 3D. It seems to me like it really darken the image, reduces the quality (which I guess would be expected) and give me a hideou headache. I've seen precisely one 3D film, which also wan't very good.

I play my 3DS with the 3D off most of the time.

3D doesn't bother me at all, but I know some who get sick / migraines from it, too. So that's understandable. Even without having issues, I honestly still prefer 2D. As mentioned, I feel the images are crisper, brighter, and less noisy in general. The first 3D I'd seen was The Last Airbender. Horrible movie. Never again, M Night Shamaylan. LOL

Intrigued by Mad Max. I've never seen the original but do really like both Hardy and Theron on-screen. Heard they both fought a lot on set (secluded in a hot desert with tempers) but Hardy apologized to her and they still keep in contact. Haha!

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

Never watched the originals? I must've watched Mad Max 2 alone twenty times

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

Have you seen any of the original Mad Max's? If not, I'd definitely recommend getting hold of Mad Max 2. There's a distinct difference in the style of film between the original and the next 2, and from the looks of the trailer for the new one, it's the style of the second and third films. Both of which were good fun (and imo better than the first), but I still think the second is best.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

It will look so weird if you watch them now, but they were fantastic at the time. Young Mel Gibson at his best.

No, I haven't seen ANY of the original Mad Max movies. Only a few clips here and there, but not enough to know the storyline/background or events in them.

I honestly don't mind watching the older movies though. I'm a product of the mid-80's so I was fortunately blessed with a lot of good looking films early in life (Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Terminator 2, etc.) but I've always been more drawn to great, generally plot hole-free storylines over cinematic special effects.

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

I actually quite like finding little plot holes in films (not huge gigantic ones mind), it doesn't detract from the overall enjoyment of watching the films, but does add extra talking points with people after.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

True! I guess I was more along the lines of horribly written with massive plot holes. I don't mind a bit of artistic liscense to skirt some possible issues in a story. And I do enjoy when there's enough freedom of interpretation that an opposing case can be made to a storyline without it being completely wrong (e.g. the theory that the Joker is actually the hero of The Dark Knight).

Another fan theory that got squashed recently was Bond being a codename shared by several people rather than a single identity. Skyfall sort of ended that one I feel.

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

Watched "Chappie" the other day. Found it really good. It's from the director of District 9, and it has the same feel about it.

_________________

Seen Mad Max now, and it does have good Mad Max battle scenes and a typical post apocalyptic scenario. But I was actually a bit disappointed as it was completely lacking in any kind of story other than I thought I may have been looking back at Mad Max 2 with rose tinted glasses in fondness so watched it again to see, and I did find it much more engaging and much better characters than the new one with a much better story arc whilst still having the cool vehicular battle scenes.

I'm not saying the new is terrible. But you really need to watch it as nothing more than lots of cool scenes of battles between crazy vehicles. That's all there really is to it.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Roger Moore Bond visiting Tracy Bond's grave? That's the main point I'd have previous to the reveal of Bond's parents names. Also, just never seemed to add up that British Intelligence would use the same name. If they changed everyone's names that'd make sense, if they didn't maybe that makes sense too, but to change them all to the same thing surely would just add suspicion to anyone heard using that name in a military intelligence context. That said, if Bond is always the top guy who generally gets the job done and is basically an almost mythical warrior aspect, then the "Bond, James Bond" become rather interesting again. Connery's return in DAF would also be slightly odd, though not unheard of? (I don't work in military intelligence so I'm guessing about a number of things obviously)

Though Lazenby's line in the opening to OHMSS "This would never have happened to the other guy" is pretty decent suggestion of it. His Bond can be explained as retiring after the death of his wife. Dalton's Bond makes perfect sense to have been completely disavowed after LtK (one of the better Bond films imo). I think Brosnan's Bond went a little rogue in DAD, and was certainly thought to have betrayed his country earlier on in the film (I haven't seen DAD in a long time, and not seen it many times). Add in age for Connery and the older Roger Moore and you have a reasonable shout for why each past Bond has stopped being Bond.

Felix Leiter appears multiple times in this era too, I think he had a different actor quite a lot. While I could see an argument for Felix Leiter just being a pseudonym for a CIA officer liasing with any British officer, Bond and Felix are friends. Close friends. Bond is best man at his wedding (and then makes out with the bride ) which I feel lends further evidence to the long relationship between the two guys covering multiple actors.

Of course, I don't really think it matters much either way.

For me, I view it simply as a series of events that happened to an intelligence officer and treat it as if it happened to the same guy, and ignore the contemporary setting of each film. Then Daniel Craig's Bond films are a reboot entirely with separate continuity. M being Judy Dench and being similar to Brosnan's M is nothing to say it's the same Bond, I just think it's because Judy Dench is a great actress and the dynamic of an almost motherly figure, while still being slightly cold is just one people quite like. I, for one, thought the progression over Brosnan and Craig's tenures with M were really well done and added a lot.

Seen the new Mad Max film and it was great fun. Not the most cerebral of films, but very engaging and entertaining. Like Mincy said, not the most complex of plots and mostly just an excuse for the vechilar action.

But one of the really great things about that film was the character of Furiosa. Finally Hollywood has managed the almost impossible - made a strong female character without making her a "guy with boobs". For years women in action films have been either the "guy with boobs" or "the mother". So it was great to see a woman finally cast who is strong minded and willed, but also having flaws and still having a feminine streak (like her motivations). For me she was the standout character. I hope to see more women in action films portaried like this, it was great to see.

_________________
The two most powerful warriors are patience and time…so remember: great achievements take time, there is no overnight success.

Well said. Watched it last night, my girlfriend even liked it, the guy with the guitar was outstanding for her! Reminded me a lot of Thunderdome, the whole concept. It was just brilliant. I would like Max to be more engaging, the whole story is about Max (well, it's in the title anyway), but Furiosa steals the show I think. Great great film