|
Democratic Pirate posted:My opinion of Kat Dennings is clouded by that stupid sitcom she's on that I catch moments of whenever I forget to change the channel. 2 broke girls I think I didn't care for her before the stupid show and it certainly hasn't helped it.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
penismightier posted:Naw, I don't think so. She didn't get much to work with but she took her small thankless part and made it memorable and fun. Contributes to the general levity and slice-of-life quality that makes Thor the second best of all the Marvel films. I think I agree with you. I actually thought the weakest part of Thor was Portman. Kat Dennings was in a pretty miserable role and made the best of it, Natalie Portman was in a more sizable role and went absolutely nowhere with it. I've realized recently that more often than not you get the kind of performance out of Portman that you have in the Star Wars prequels and not Black Swan. I'm not sure if it's that she doesn't care about most projects, she's incredibly limited in what she can do or if she just needs a really strong director.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Naw, I don't think so. She didn't get much to work with but she took her small thankless part and made it memorable and fun. Contributes to the general levity and slice-of-life quality that makes Thor the second best of all the Marvel films. First. I'm generally curious which you'd put above it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Darcy adds just enough, and some very vital, flavor to the overall tone of the movie. I don't really see how anyone could have a problem with the character unless they have a pre-existing problem with Kat Dennings and were focusing on her any time she was on screen to make sure they hated it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:First. I'm generally curious which you'd put above it. Iron Man 1, of course, which has a similar vitality. All the rest are inert and joyless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Iron Man 1, of course, which has a similar vitality. All the rest are inert and joyless. Wait...did you just call Captain America and Iron Man 2 joyless? Also, are you counting Avengers in that too? I think we may have seen entirely different movies...
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Wait...did you just call Captain America and Iron Man 2 joyless? Also, are you counting Avengers in that too? I think we may have seen entirely different movies... ALL joyless. Long tedious slogs with too much explaining. Except Dominic Cooper in Captain America. It should've been a movie about him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
penismightier posted:ALL joyless. Long tedious slogs with too much explaining. Except Dominic Cooper in Captain America. It should've been a movie about him. Mix it with his AL:VH character. I find it funny that IM2 and CA have a chorus line song/dance bit, though obv. CA's is longer (and better). I tend to have a soft spot for most superhero movies, it's the kid in me, so if I just think of Avengers as a saturday morning cartoon it's okay. I just realized the Hulk in Avengers isn't Vincent D'onofrio, that Mark Ruffalo guy looks really similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
Captain America was loving amazing in the 1st act , fell apart in the middle, and then got it back a bit in the last act. I think next to Avengers it's my favorite Marvel movie. I want to see Mark Ruffalo in a Hulk movie. I really want them to do the storyline where Hulk and Banner become seperated and Banner has to stop the Hulk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Darcy adds just enough, and some very vital, flavor to the overall tone of the movie. I don't really see how anyone could have a problem with the character unless they have a pre-existing problem with Kat Dennings and were focusing on her any time she was on screen to make sure they hated it. I didn't realize it was Kat Dennings playing that character until this thread pointed it out. Her character was just kind of comic relief, joking about the weirdness going on around her, but she never really felt out of place. The fact that Williams is in a lovely sitcom shouldn't be held against her, since plenty of struggling actors and actresses take whatever paying work they can get to pay the rent. I don't know of anyone clamoring for a deluxe Blu-Ray box set of Bosom Buddies, but Tom Hanks seems to be getting by. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Hollis posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Iron Man 1, of course, which has a similar vitality. All the rest are inert and joyless. Right after I posted that, I instantly went 'oh yeah, it'll be Iron Man'. Thor was so good, I'm really apprehensive about the second one now that Branagh isn't attached.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
effectual posted:Haha they copied Superman 4? Awesome. Pretty sure that storyline predates Superman 3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Darcy adds just enough, and some very vital, flavor to the overall tone of the movie. I don't really see how anyone could have a problem with the character unless they have a pre-existing problem with Kat Dennings and were focusing on her any time she was on screen to make sure they hated it. As for me, I love Kat Dennings, love Thor, but hated her in it. To me, I just didn't really take to her obnoxious sitcommy-ness, and it often felt like they put her in because they didn't trust the fish-out-of-water stuff and the slapstick physical comedy (e.g. Thor constantly getting run over) to pull its weight in the comedy department (which it did for me). Some scenes are better than others, but the "Yeah, we get it, you're hammerrrred"  and "I had, like twenty songs on my iPod" bits just didn't land with me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Kat Dennings rules. I'm pretty sure only posting "QFT" is a probatable offense, so I'm going to point out that she was key in establishing the film as an inversion of the male gaze. She was the first to point out how hot Chris Hemsworth was, and every film with a mysterious and hot female character has a side kick who says "drat, she hot" to the male protagonist. (Also having gone through trying to find an internship that fit my major and not make me want to kill myself, makes me laugh at the the idea of a poli-sci major working with astronomers).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
penismightier posted:ALL joyless. Long tedious slogs with too much explaining. Except Dominic Cooper in Captain America. It should've been a movie about him. I completely agree with this entire opinion. I think Iron Man 1 and Hulk being mostly entirely personal stories helped them immensely, as they added much needed depth to them. All the rest seemed to be about everything around the main characters and felt entirely flat and completely lacked depth. And whatever the hell Avengers was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
I wonder if Iron Man 3 will break the whole 3rd movie is terrible. Spider Man 3, X men United, Superman 3, Blade 3. 3rd Batman film whatever it was called. To me it looks amazing and hopefulyl wont be a retread like Iron Man 2 was or Iron Man 1 part 2 as it should be called really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I'm pretty sure only posting "QFT" is a probatable offense, so I'm going to point out that she was key in establishing the film as an inversion of the male gaze. She was the first to point out how hot Chris Hemsworth was, and every film with a mysterious and hot female character has a side kick who says "drat, she hot" to the male protagonist. (Also having gone through trying to find an internship that fit my major and not make me want to kill myself, makes me laugh at the the idea of a poli-sci major working with astronomers). This was one of my favorite things about Thor. It was really refreshing to see a female lead in an action movie who is openly sexually interested the male lead but who isn't cast as a slut for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
e: eh nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with Kat Dennings on principle, but I agree that her character in Thor was just godawful, as were a few other things about that movie. Iron Man and Captain America are the two best Marvel Studios (or whatever this current franchise is called) movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Iron Man 1, of course, which has a similar vitality. All the rest are inert and joyless. No love for Ang Lee's Hulk? Technically it's a Marvel film and it having no connection with the soulless franchise-verse is a plus. edit: Nevermind, apparently it wasn't Marvel Studios. Which also probably explains that more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Danger posted:No love for Ang Lee's Hulk? Technically it's a Marvel film and it having no connection with the soulless franchise-verse is a plus. Ang Lee's Hulk is the best Marvel superhero related movie thus far. I do think Del Toro brought an interesting vision to Blade 2 so I like it in that respect at least and Raimi did well with Spidey 2 but I dont jive with his feel. IM1 was cool pull off considering the challenges while X2 is decent. Cap was fluff but entertaining and Thor was lighthearted fun but Marvel studio flicks kind of pale in comparision. I thought Amazing Spidey was good and First Class had good elements. I am most excited about Iron Man 3 as it it hopefully is mainly a stand alone and hope Thor 2 is similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Kat Dennings is fine in Thor, after all, she's a side character. What does she even have, ten lines? You know who's useless in it: Natalie Portman. She brings nothing whatsoever to what is supposed to be the female lead and romantic love interest of the film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Hollis posted:I wonder if Iron Man 3 will break the whole 3rd movie is terrible. Spider Man 3, X men United, Superman 3, Blade 3. 3rd Batman film whatever it was called. To me it looks amazing and hopefulyl wont be a retread like Iron Man 2 was or Iron Man 1 part 2 as it should be called really. The Iron Man series already doesn't fit into this mold because in all those series where the third was terrible, the second one was great if not the best and that's not the case with Iron Man 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Senjuro posted:The Iron Man series already doesn't fit into this mold because in all those series where the third was terrible, the second one was great if not the best and that's not the case with Iron Man 2. Agreed, it's (hopefully) more like Indiana Jones. The first was the best, second was, while decent, just not as good, and the third was fantastic. (In my opinion, of course, I know a lot of people like Temple of Doom and don't really care for Last Crusade, but I think Last Crusade is almost as fun as the Raiders.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Agreed, it's (hopefully) more like Indiana Jones. The first was the best, second was, while decent, just not as good, and the third was fantastic. (In my opinion, of course, I know a lot of people like Temple of Doom and don't really care for Last Crusade, but I think Last Crusade is almost as fun as the Raiders.) I think it's generally accepted that ToD is the weakest Indy film by a decent margin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Also, if you don't like Last Crusade then you don't like Sean Connery and if you don't like Sean Connery then wha?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
The main criticism I've heard for Last Crusade is that it's basically Raiders all over again, while Temple of Doom tried something different. My thoughts are that what Temple tried didn't work, and I wanted another Raiders. But that's me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I think it's generally accepted that ToD is the weakest Indy film by a decent margin. Uhhh, Crystal Skull? And Last Crusade retroactively makes Raiders better because you can't have enough Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Kat Dennings is fine in Thor, after all, she's a side character. What does she even have, ten lines? You know who's useless in it: Natalie Portman. She brings nothing whatsoever to what is supposed to be the female lead and romantic love interest of the film. Yeah, but all ten of 'em are really terrible one-liners. You're right about Natalie Portman though. That movie has its moments (the Asgard stuff is some of my favorite special effects/production design of the past ten years or so, plus Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hiddleston are great and a lot of the fish-out-of-water stuff works), but it's such a messy jumble of half-assed poo poo overall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Aside from the cliche nerd hyperbole associated with the following sentence: Crystal Skull doesn't really exist, I think it can be used in this case. Entirely forgettable and was insane with all of it's action scenarios. Bigger is not always better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
If Kat Dennings' character had been played by Aubrey Plaza, the movie would have been completely identical and fans would have praised her performance and inclusion instead of decrying Dennings'. Iron Man 2 is a weaker film from the addition of all the Pre-Avengers stuff. Just like Tony Stark, the audience feels like they're being groomed for something bigger and vague farther down the line, but it distracts from the narrative of the movie itself, and muddles the pacing. Sequels are already problematic because they need to have an audience already scaffolded to a certain level of buy-in and in-universe knowledge; sequels which build directly into a concluding film (Pirates, Matrix, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc) are worse because a normal plot's rising and falling ebb and flow becomes closer to a straight line, and the movie doesn't feel complete. Sequels which do this while taking on the simultaneous burden of world-building for three other completely separate franchises in order to culminate all four eventually is just a hot mess. tin can made man fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
tin can made man posted:If Kat Dennings' character had been played by Aubrey Plaza, the movie would have been completely identical and fans would have praised her performance and inclusion instead of decrying Dennings'. While I can see where you're coming from, I would still at "yeah, we get it, you're hammered".But yeah, Natalie Portman isn't that great in Thor either - bad characters/performances in a movie isn't a zero-sum game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Yeah, but all ten of 'em are really terrible one-liners. I'm about to drop another one on ya - try to watch Iron Man 1 now. It does not hold up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Danger posted:No love for Ang Lee's Hulk? Technically it's a Marvel film and it having no connection with the soulless franchise-verse is a plus. Ang Lee's Hulk would've been extraordinary if the climax was the Hulk in the desert stuff, not all that weird nighttime electric Nolte stuff afterwards. It gets poo poo, but I love the look of The Hulk in that one, that radioactive green is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
tin can made man posted:Sequels are already problematic because they need to have an audience already scaffolded to a certain level of buy-in and in-universe knowledge; sequels which build directly into a concluding film (Pirates, Matrix, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc) are worse because a normal plot's rising and falling ebb and flow becomes closer to a straight line, and the movie doesn't feel complete. On the contrary I feel Dead Man's Chest is actually probably the only movie that breaks the mold you're describing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm about to drop another one on ya - try to watch Iron Man 1 now. It does not hold up. I've actually been thinking about rewatching it lately so I'll take you up on that. I've seen it at least three times and it only came out five years ago though, so I really don't anticipate my opinion changing much. I have a pretty strong love for the improvisational style, the excellent effects work (this was a really great movie for Stan Winston to go out on), and the three central performances by Downey, Paltrow and Bridges. Then again, I think I'm more forgiving towards the Marvel Studios flicks than most around here. I think Iron Man and Cap are both great, Avengers and The Incredible Hulk are both decent, and only Iron Man 2 and Thor are outright missteps. penismightier posted:Ang Lee's Hulk would've been extraordinary if the climax was the Hulk in the desert stuff, not all that weird nighttime electric Nolte stuff afterwards. It gets poo poo, but I love the look of The Hulk in that one, that radioactive green is awesome. I actually agree with this. Most of the problems are in the last act - it feels like an unnecessary fourth act to a three-act movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
It might have been nice to handle it in a different way but considering Hulk and the issues with fathers and their children something like that had to be adressed. I kind of got the impression after Banner's unleashing that level of rage at his father might have allowed some peace to the point at the end of the movie he might be able to control his transformation but i dont yhink i have proof of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
I just remembered one of my favorite bits from Iron Man, when Pepper has to change the arc reactor in Tony's chest. It's superhero movie by way of body horror by way of screwball comedy, and it rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Iron Man had a nearly perfect first act, everything leading up to the tunnel escape is incredible. The second act was highly entertaining but the third fell flat. I don't like when the villain is tied into every bad thing that happens in the world, and I didn't care for the major battle sequence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 20:58
|
|
