Searz's review thread

[quote=Searz]Time for the Cruise special: [spoiler=Edge of Tomorrow]I can't say I've been a big fan of Cruise, but he does stellar work in this movie. As does pretty much every other actor that graces the screen with their presence. Characters are not only well acted, but interesting and have great motivations. There's a surprising amount of humor spliced in for a movie set in a world of impending doom. The visuals are gorgeous. There are some great visual effects and very impressive fighting scenes. This is made even better by a very clever story and fantastic use of plot twists. The only plot point I have minor issues with is the final assault, but it's minor enough for me to overlook, and I can be pretty picky. The ending was fantastic. I love that it ended in a place that while showing a proper end to the story, it also left the continuation open. It left the viewer thinking about what could happen next, but without the need for a follow-up to complete the story. All around amazing movie. Highly recommended.[/spoiler] [spoiler=Jack Reacher]Former military badass looks into the murder of 5 people. The detective work makes sense. No magical image enhancements or other silly stuff. The action scenes are brilliantly laid out. Each encounter follows a logical path and while a complete badass, the main character isn't invincible and needs to use tactics. The fights are also incredibly well coordinated and very kinetic. I have a sweet-spot for kinetic fights. Such fights are rare. Most movies barely have the fighters touching each other with each hit. Aside from the intentionally misleading intro the story is pretty solid too. Great movie. Highly recommended.[/spoiler] [spoiler=Oblivion]A visual feast. All around gorgeous visuals in this one. Very impressive. What isn't impressive however is the story. It's predictable and has more plot holes than a swiss cheese. One of which bugged me to no end, because it would have avoided the sacrifice at the end. This is only made worse by the fact that this very thing was done earlier in the movie, but closing in on the end this suddenly isn't possible. It's like they contrived a way to shove in dramatic story elements for no solid reason other than adding drama. As you might have gleaned by now, the ending is just stupid. Real fucking stupid. Watch it if you want to see a visually stunning movie. Just don't think too hard while watching.[/spoiler] To contrast with the great ending of Edge of Tomorrow and the lack of pointless dialogue in Jack Reacher I'd like to present the movie [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816442]The Book Thief[/url]. [spoiler=The Book Thief]The movie drags on, being overly slow. Lots of tiny kind of pointless stuff or stuff that just takes more time than it needs to. But more importantly, it also ROYALLY fucks up the ending. The ending was literally like 3 different endings all bundled together. If it had just ended at the first one (the air-strike) then it would have been an amazing ending, but no, it kept going and had two more fucking endings >.> This is a perfect lesson in how NOT to end a movie. In this one they showed far too much and just left me wanting it to end. It does have a fair share of good qualities too, but I honestly wouldn't recommend the movie.[/spoiler] I'd also just like to voice my extreme disapproval of Mr.Cruise's off-screen behavior. That kind of crazy religious zealotry is hurtful to both him and everybody around him. But that luckily doesn't impact his on-screen performances, and I can't fault those much.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=emoriam]What about Interstellar and the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey?[/quote] Maybe some time down the line. Not any time soon.[/quote]

[quote=Searz]Now time for the artificial intelligence special! [spoiler=A.I.]It's a cute Pinocchio story of a boy wanting to become real. Very heartwarming and cute. It's absolutely full of pseudo-science however. Lots of just pure bullshit going on. It's clear that Spielberg (writer & director) has very little knowledge of technology. Just because a robot with feelings and conscience is invented doesn't mean that it will share the traits and flaws of a real human being. That would require a more exact replica of the human body and brain. And apparently batteries don't exist in the future, cuz this little robot boy can keep chugging for millennia without running out of juice... Which is obviously just silly. I can handle some butchering of science, but when so many integral plot points rely on it I really can't ignore it. The story in general is pretty bullshit. And oh my god the Dr.Know part.. It's clear that this was done before the smartphone/search-engine revolution. It might be worth watching for the heartwarming cuteness, but I honestly wouldn't recommend the movie.[/spoiler] [spoiler=I, Robot]The artificial intelligence part kind of takes a back-seat in this one, unlike the other two movies. This is an action flick. A smart-ish one, but still an action flick. You know, the kind with big explosions, guns and muscles. With the lack of focus on the AI, I can't complain as much about technological inaccuracies, but even so this movie is far more realistic than A.I. is. There really isn't much to complain about in this one other than the obvious things like "internet" only being integrated into the latest robot models and the world being a bit more futuristic than would be possible in just 20 years. There isn't much that stands out as stellar either, but a loveable quirky main character, a solid plot and some pretty cool action scenes all make this a pretty solid movie. I'd recommend it. Also, you get to see Shia Lebouf being a dorky little hooligan, that's pretty funny.[/spoiler] And now for the best movie of 2015, that I've seen so far(I doubt anything will top it): [spoiler=Ex Machina]The reclusive genius behind "Google" develops an AI in his remote bunker and wants to evaluate it. In many ways the movie has a lot in common with the common horror movie premise. A few characters, alone in a remote location with a mysterious entity. And it is pretty scary, but that is not a result of gratuitous gore, jump-scares or magic mumbo-jumbo. No, this is quite different. What makes this movie scary is that it plays it so close to reality. [b]This shit could happen[/b]. I want you to keep that in mind while watching. There are of course some technical inaccuracies, but they are very minor and things I have no problem overlooking. The movie is remarkably accurate when it comes to technology. This paired with a fantastic plot, great acting, interesting cinematography and an amazing ending makes this movie quite remarkable. I highly recommend giving it a watch.[/spoiler] You wanna know something crazy? Alex Garland, the writer and director behind Ex Machina also wrote 28 Days Later, which is probably my favorite horror movie. And Dredd, a pretty great action movie. I had no idea of this connection, but genius does indeed stick out. Wanna know something even crazier? Alex Garland also wrote the screenplay for the Halo movie, which Neill Blomkamp was going to direct. You know, the Blomkamp who directed all 3 of my first reviews. Here's what the IMDB pages says about it: "When Guillermo del Toro left the running, Peter Jackson settled on the novice Neill Blomkamp for director. Blomkamp worked to exhaustion for five months preparing the project, which went as far as constructing props and costumes and producing short Halo-themed films as test footage. The project then collapsed. Jackson allowed Blomkamp a free reign in choosing a new project, which led to District 9 (2009). Although Blomkamp is still "creatively interested" in Halo, he does not wish to return to the project after working on it for so long and watching it collapse." I think I'm gonna do an Alex Garland special after this. Then a Danny Boyle special, and then probably a Duncan Jones special (Duncan Jones is making the Warcraft movie btw).[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]It'd be cool (imo) to see a comparison between the Marvel Spiderman movies and the Sony ones. In my opinion, they both dropped the ball in different ways. Sony definitely cast Spiderman/Peter Parker a lot better than Marvel did – Tobey Maguire portrayed the character as moody and whiny throughout the original Marvel Spiderman trilogy (which is NOT what Spiderman is supposed to be like) – but their movies had many other flaws so it really evened out for me. I do like the overall feel of the Sony ones better, but that's because Spiderman actually feels like Spiderman in those movies (both due to the actor cast in the role and the fact that they followed the Spiderman origin story a bit more closely) and no other reason. I will say that Doc Ock was portrayed incredibly well in Spiderman 2 by Alfred Molina, but outside of that most of the villains in the Marvel movies were not done particularly well. James Franco was a pretty poor casting choice for Harry Osborn as well, another disappointment. The Sony Spiderman movies failed pretty monumentally with villains in general (though Harry Osborn was surprisingly well cast in the first one). The biggest failure was probably with Electro, one of the most ridiculous Spiderman villains and the butt of many a joke in nearly everything he appears in, being a dark and serious villain in the second one. Jamie Foxx did a better job than I would have expected, even with the role being badly written, but that's kinda like saying Liam Neeson did as good a job as he could with Qui-Gon Jinn in the first Star Wars prequel. Anyways, despite my own wall of text of an opinion on the matter, I really am interested in seeing what you think. Also original Star Wars vs Prequels would be cool too, now that I think on it.[/quote]

[quote=Searz]I've seen all the Spiderman movies and read none of the source material. I have no plans of reading the source as I have little doubt that it will have trouble standing the test of time. I'm also not one that cares about how faithful an adaptation is. Just because something is faithful doesn't mean that it's any better or worse than something that isn't. It's not a qualitative measurement. It's been years since I watched the movies and I don't really have any plans on re-watching them, so I'll go from what I remember. The only movie I liked was the first Marvel movie. The rest were pretty meh or just bad, as in the case of number 3. The melancholic tone didn't bother me as there wasn't any incessant whining and the ending really fit. I quite liked that ending. It is kind of silly watching clearly grown people portraying high-schoolers though :D As for Star Wars.. I would rate 4-6 slightly higher than I would the prequels, mainly due to the story being a little more nonsensical in the prequels, but the prequels are vastly superior in visual fidelity compared to EP4-6. That said, the story is not something I'd praise about any of the Star Wars movies. I mean, christ, the idiotic method of exposition dump employed in every single movie just boggles the mind. Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to dump exposition through text scrolling through space?.. This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think that Star Wars in general is especially good. It's a pretty mediocre series with a few stand-out qualities that gained a massive following due to it being the first major science fiction series back when the overall quality of movies were lower in general. Back then it was a marvel of filmmaking, but when compared to the movies of today it has trouble stacking up. I do have to praise the musical score though. Pretty much all of the movies have fantastic music.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]Capturing the character's overall personality in the source material is pretty important for it being a good representation of the character or why bother calling the movie "Spiderman" in the first place? For example, Robert Downy Jr. does a great job of portraying Tony Stark/Iron Man. Did the first Iron Man movie follow the plot of the original comic perfectly? no. Did it capture the essentials and portray the main character in a way that was reminiscent of the source material without feeling like it was just a copy of the source material? Yes. I admit the lack of a giant fucking dragon (Fin Fang Foom) in the third Iron Man movie was a disappointment though. Missed opportunity there as far as random special effects nonsense. 8D EDIT; Spiderman has already been around for more than 50 years (his first appearance was in 1962, first solo comic in 1963 iirc), so I'm not sure "standing the test of time" is proving to be too much of an issue for him atm.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]Capturing the character's overall personality in the source material is pretty important for it being a good representation of the character or why bother calling the movie "Spiderman" in the first place?[/quote] You can argue the point of definition, brand even, but you cannot argue that it makes a difference for the quality, because it doesn't. Faithfulness is not a qualitative measurement. Edit: [quote=The_Nameless_Bard]EDIT; Spiderman has already been around for more than 50 years (his first appearance was in 1962, first solo comic in 1963 iirc), so I'm not sure "standing the test of time" is proving to be too much of an issue for him atm.[/quote] I might be using that phrase the wrong way. I meant that it can't compare favorably to the high quality works of today, not that it was able to stay popular, which probably is the common meaning of that phrase.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]The movie, like it or don't, is an adaptation of the source material. It's somewhat important that they portray the main character in a way that is reminiscent of the source material or it's a bad adaptation. Faithfulness is only a measurement of how good [i]the adaptation of the source material is[/i], not how good the movie on its own is, of course. If they had wanted to portray a new Spiderman with a different alter ego or in its own, different timeline then it would be a lot less problematic, but they didn't do that. They chose to stick with the standard, Peter Parker, and they just happened to do a really poor job of portraying that character even though the actual movie wasn't particularly bad as a standalone flick. EDIT: I mean, Guardians of the Galaxy didn't perfectly follow the source material's plot perfectly either, but, in contrast, the characters were still reminiscent of the source material. It was not only a good movie, but also a good adaptation. Those are two different things, but I feel you kind of need both to make a successful movie adaptation of any source material. Bad adaptations don't tend to sit well with fans. So, hopefully this will clear up my point: Spiderman is a decent movie but a poor adaptation, while the Amazing Spiderman is a silly movie but a far better adaptation. Which is probably why the latter was liked more by audiences, in general.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]The movie, like it or don't, is an adaptation of the source material. It's somewhat important that they portray the main character in a way that is reminiscent of the source material or it's a bad adaptation. Faithfulness is only a measurement of how good [i]the adaptation of the source material is[/i], not how good the movie on its own is, of course.[/quote] Of course. I agree. But as I stated: I don't care about the faithfulness. I just judge the quality. Edit: [quote]EDIT: [...] So, hopefully this will clear up my point: Spiderman is a decent movie but a poor adaptation, while the Amazing Spiderman is a silly movie but a far better adaptation. Which is probably why the latter was liked more by audiences, in general.[/quote] Sure, that makes sense.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]Yea, I have the unfortunate issue of having read some of the source material and also having watched a lot of Spiderman cartoons as a kid. So I want to see a good Spiderman movie that's also nostalgia inducing. xD[/quote]