Finally you've watched it!

I've not seen the ultimate cut and yet it's supposed to be better than what I saw in the cinema.









* * * S P O I L E R S * * *







Believe me, there's a lot that got cut out in the theatrical cut (TC) from what I read. Stuff like the photographer being shot was Jimmy Olsen but this was never identified in TC but was in the ultimate cut (UC)


My biggest problem with superman is the same issue I had in MoS. I just don't care about him. Yes he's "Superman" but there's no charisma, no humanity about him. He constantly appears tortured. I don't recall him being charming or loveable the way Christopher Reeve's Superman was. His Superman felt like a positive "good", optimistic etc. I didn't feel that way about Cavill's Superman. I know it's not his acting - he can be suave and smooth like Bond when he played Solo in the Man from UNCLE. He never really connects with the population.


Completely agree about this. From what I gather, Snyder really wanted to do a Batman film. But given that he couldn't do a proper job of Superman in MoS, I was sceptical about BvS. But some of the trailer scenes had me stoked.


I went out of my to read up on those things, whereas friends and relatives didn't bother and thought it could have been missed out.


Nope. I gather in UC it's explained a lot more. I found the character very annoying.


The action sequences do feel like comic book scenes. The warehouse takedown scene IMO was great but what I hated throughout the whole thing was this "Bat of Murder". IMO once Batman starts killing, there's very little reason for a lot of what he does - why dress up like a bat? Why use non-lethal weapons like batarangs? Why not just go whole out Punisher and use guns and grenades? I can kind of understand that this is a Batman who has been driven to killing, but then why is the Joker still alive? I've heard that in Suicide Squad, Batman loses the turrets on the Batmobile which may indicate him returning to "normal" or "nonkilling".


Affleck's Batman IMO is far superior to Bale's - more aggressive, engages multiple foes, faster, stronger etc but Nolan's films were stories and much better written than Snyder.







* * * E N D O F S P O I L E R S * * *

I see the Star Trek Beyond reviews are all pretty middling... More and more the average trailer gives you a bloody good idea whether to spend your money or not - that's either laziness on the part of the trailer editors, a crap film giving them little copy, or both.

The trailer looked good. If I have time, I'll so and see it. Doubt I'll have time though.

The BFG

It's been a long time since I read the book and watched the cartoon version. I can't comment on how faithful it is as a result though there are scenes that I remember from either book or cartoon that were present. The problem is the film wasn't as engaging as either the book or the cartoon. The funniest moment was derived from a fart joke and I knew well in advance what was going to happen which took a lot of the humour away. There's discord between real world acting and the CGI, most noticeable in scenes where the BFG has Sophie in his hand and is lowering her. I just didn't connect with the film and would happily have fallen asleep in the theatre. Most of the "tender" moments just didn't feel as such, and I think it was down to the music.

Very mildly entertaining and yes it still beats MoS. Don't bother if you're an adult but I reckon worth going with kids especially if they've not read the book nor watched the cartoon.

Almost every review of Jason Bourne says it's really weak, with one reviewer asking was it the worst film of the summer. And that's saying something, cos it's been a remarkably anaemic summer.

Transformers: Age of Extinction - Bad, even for a Bay film. There's actually an hours worth of footage set in China purely so they could sell it to them, with totally random scenes just to get Chinese actors involved. It's staggering how bad it is; Autobots fight each other just in case you were thinking about walking away or whatever.

I only watched it for something I didn't have to think about, but it's still offensive in just about every way. It's the same as the last few movies (I didn't pay for them) in that it has an actor known for comedy who is utterly useless in every sense in the movie, dramatic actors hired purely to be utter penises, the hot girl who can't act, same with the bloke... The only thing it gets right is that you still get a rush of pride when Optimus deals it out, but that's got little to do with Bay, really.

And yet this one has had the biggest international box-office takings of any of the Bourne films.
It's already made $110 million of the $120 million budget it cost, so it's pretty safe to say there'll be another one at some point in the not too distant future.

Mark

I'm wondering what people are expecting for a Bourne film.
Matt Damon - check
Being chased by the CIA - check
Things get a bit fighty - check
He gets away at the end - not seen it but based on the others I've got to assume check

It's a pretty simple formula. There's not an awful lot that can go wrong really. I mean, it's not like they've had to resort to Bourne.... In SPACE yet.

It's partly because they're hyped this as 'We weren't doing this until we had a good script and got everyone back.'

Just seen Star Trek Beyond.
Not bad, some good laughs although I have to agree with the description of action movie that happens to be set in Trek.
Plus, they really need to get through at least one of these where the Enterprise doesn't get totally fried.

Naturally there are plot holes ago go and some stuff makes no sense in terms of canon either but hey ho.

7/10

Don't know if this helps in terms of what you were saying about canon, and I could be preaching to the choir...

The Alternate Timeline of the New Star Trek Movies Finally Has an Official Name
http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-alternate-st ... 1782687811

ION, I caught a few minutes of Huntsman 2: Winter Beard or whatever it's called. The accents alone are reason enough not to watch that film, but the script is even worse!

Spoilers!







So, my nit is that they find an NX (or apparently NX class) starship. The reg number is NX3xx so I guess it may not actually be an NX as in the Enterprise from Enterprise but... It's stated top speed was warp 4, not 5 and it was equipped with a weapons load out (spatial torpedoes) that was already obsolete by the end of Enterprise. This ship would have presumably launched well before the Kelivin timeline diverged so it really shouldn't be as apparently primitive as it is and the divergent timeline shouldn't have affected it.

Suicide Squad. Went to see this on Sunday with my daughter, (the wife didn't fancy it) and I'm just going to say a few words, as I don't want to spoil it for anyone.

We both really enjoyed the film and agreed that the stand out star was Harley Quinn, with Margot Robbie giving a great performance which brilliantly demonstrated just the right mix of cute and crazy.

Thinking about it, there weren't actually any performances which were bad, in my opinion, and this just adds to my theory that critics are nothing but a bunch of dicks who really don't know what they're talking about.

I'm also of the opinion that there's a growing divide between what critics want from a film and what the audience wants.
Even critics that claim to be huge fans of a given films source material often appear to be looking for things from the films that the average, casual fan isn't.
I've noticed this particularly with reviews of Suicide Squad - I've not seen the film yet.
There's a massive pent-up want/need for the film to be uber-super-SUPER great, and when it's just okay - or even good - then that's just not good enough.
When did a good film suddenly not become good enough to like, that it has to be picked apart for every single flaw (actual and perceived)?
I just don't get it, which is why for the majority of films that get released that I'm interested in seeing, I simply avoid all reviews and see the films anyway.

Mark

On the critics, they have the benefit and hindrance of having already seen all the great films. Films from the 80s and 90s even, that the current crop barely scratch, if at all. They know there's little reason for current films to just be relatively meh. And IMO that's being way too kind to some of them.

Generally though, after all this time and in an age of great TV, you should have a fcuking script/screenplay before you get started. And speaking of TV, overall ticket sales are down because nobody has to tolerate nearly three hours of meh any more in the scrolling world of Netflix. Why go and watch an average or downright sh1t film at the cinema when you can watch a better written average film in your own house? And that's after you've watched some of the finest TV comedies and drama the world has to offer, used the internet on your phone, maybe played a few games on it...

What I'm saying is the critics are living in the same world as the rest of us with way too much content to consume. I remember when they didn't reflect the average person's views at all lol, people like Barry Norman and that bald dude from the Beeb. You had to pick up a magazine, and now those are dead on their arse too because of the aforementioned time constraints. I read the truly geeky sites and those that would have more prestige shall we say. There's a pretty broad consensus on your average superhero film now, for instance. And that's probably about as close as you're gonna get to honest reviews - it certainly seems to be reflected in how the numbers fall off a cliff in week two of the biggest releases. I think it's worth remembering that EVERYONE is a geek now, one way or another.

The way I see it, even the 'FFS, don't lose us set access!' reviews from the likes of Empire usually tell you they didn't really like the film before giving it four stars now.

Another thing that strikes me is there are now so many superhero films that any kinda film even slightly weaker than 'average' sticks out like a sore thumb. There's so many superhero films that the bar has been raised very high. Plus those films have taken over ground normally associated by straightforward horror, thrillers, comedy, you name it. Marvel do all that alone. In fact, they're competing with themselves ffs. They're even competing with themselves via their Netflix success.

Oh, and just in case I sound like I'm defending the critics too much, I still have deep suspicions about them when a review becomes a sexism polemic (Ghostbusters) instead of an honest opinion. Or when their favourite director gets another stonking review despite all the evidence.

I could sum it all up by saying take a look at the very mixed The BFG reviews. There's a time when Spielberg could have shat in a bag, set fire to it and gotten glowing press. It's not like the critics are mostly telling you what you want to hear, or pushing agendas. That simply wouldn't work in the internet age.