racketboy.com

Oops, now it's changed to Hoodwinked.

Luke wrote:SPACEBALLS

SPACEBALLS: THE POST

SPACEBALLS:THE REPLY

I'm watching Spider-Man 2, and although I still don't consider it to be a good Spider-Man movie* (and it hasn't aged well), I do have to give credit where credit is due:

Spider-Man 2 is the most Raimist film Raimi has ever made. The horror scenes, the close ups, the screaming women, the Raimi trademark cameos, the silly humor, the sight gags...It's basically SAM RAIMI:THE MOVIE. which is awesome, but for me it doesn't work with as a super hero film. That said I do enjoy the movie for all of its Raiminess.




*Keep in mind I don't think there has been a good Spider-Man movie and not sure if we'll ever get one.

Tower Block

An "enjoyable" romp through a confined, apathetic world despite its flawed premise. Kudos to elmagicochrisg for the recommendation.

How did I never notice that Willem Dafoe makes an obvious cameo in Spider-Man 3 during the infamous emo dance scene until today?

Madness I tell you.

Luke wrote:I'm watching Spider-Man 2, and although I still don't consider it to be a good Spider-Man movie* (and it hasn't aged well), I do have to give credit where credit is due.

At least it's better than Amazing Spider-Man. That one was horrible.

Re: Spider-Man 3: I always thought that movie was kind of brilliant in that the extremely negative reaction of most viewers to how Peter acts throughout is probably exactly what the filmmakers intended. Why? Because Peter doesn't realize he looks that way to the people around him due to the symbiote's influence. It's a clever piece of work that blurs the line between the film and the audience watching it.

Luke wrote:SPACEBALLS:THE REPLY

I'm watching Spider-Man 2, and although I still don't consider it to be a good Spider-Man movie* (and it hasn't aged well), I do have to give credit where credit is due:

Spider-Man 2 is the most Raimist film Raimi has ever made. The horror scenes, the close ups, the screaming women, the Raimi trademark cameos, the silly humor, the sight gags...It's basically SAM RAIMI:THE MOVIE. which is awesome, but for me it doesn't work with as a super hero film. That said I do enjoy the movie for all of its Raiminess.




*Keep in mind I don't think there has been a good Spider-Man movie and not sure if we'll ever get one.

How has it not aged well? It's not even that old. It's not like we're talking 30-40 years ago when special effects and camera technology limited what they could do.

I mean, not enjoying it is one thing, everyone has their own tastes. But the not aging well comment doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I personally think it's best Spider-Man film to date. Great looking special effects. Awesome battle scenes (especially when they're battling up and down the building, and the train sequence). And Alfred Molina had Doctor Octopus down to a T. The brilliant, intelligent (and he came off as such) and respected scientist gone mad and he doesn't even realize it until it's too late. You felt for the guy at the end of the film.

A pretty grim viewing, this. Still, they managed to squeeze in some element of humanity to the otherwise horrific atrocities at Nanking. "Never again" they said, yet it will keep happening till the end of time.


White Tiger

What could have been an excellent tank movie turned out more of a mystic romp through the eastern front. Not a bad viewing but they could have given us more authenticity if anything.

MrPopo wrote:

Forlorn Drifter wrote:

Luke wrote:No offense Forlorn, but it's obvious that we disagree on this.

Knew I should have placed a disclaimer towards you on my post...

I saw it with my friends. A bunch of "good ol' boys" in high school. So bro friends is applicable in this case.

Also, I'm with Popo. Its a giant satire. Although based on a true story, it just makes fun of how focused America is on things such as appearance, money, women, their manhood, and drugs.

I'm going to stop you right there. I was being massively sarcastic.

Blue text man. Blue text.

If one isn't supposed to see the irony of the whole story, then one should take into account that not every movie is an art piece, not every movie has above base humor, and not every movie is going to be liked. And, understand, I'm not neccesarily trying to defend the movie. I'm just trying to understand why I see the movie getting ripped on everywhere, yet few if any reviews give me any better reasons than arguably bad dark humor, and the general issues people have with Bay movies.

Blah.

BurningDoom wrote:[
How has it not aged well? It's not even that old. It's not like we're talking 30-40 years ago when special effects and camera technology limited what they could do.

I mean, not enjoying it is one thing, everyone has their own tastes. But the not aging well comment doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The special effects look something terrible; that is how it hasn't aged well. I love Molina as Ock, but the cgi Ock who appears any and every time there is a fight scene looks like nonsense. The cgi is too obvious and cartoonish. Same with Spidey swinging; the video games look more realistic.

Forlorn Drifter wrote:Blue text man. Blue text.

... I'm just trying to understand why I see the movie getting ripped on everywhere, yet few if any reviews give me any better reasons than arguably bad dark humor, and the general issues people have with Bay movies.

When someone says "The Rock as Jesus", I don't really see the need for blue text.

I have a friend who writes for Universal, is pretty high on the totem pole, and hates Bay movies. He liked Pain & Gain, which was a surprise to me. He didn't rave about it, but he certainly enjoyed it and commented that it was Bay's best movie since THE ROCK. So yeah, lots of people like it and it isn't struggling at the box office either.