Double Vision

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

SnakeoilSage:

LobsterFeng:
I'm pretty sure the Captain America movie was just following the craziness from the comics. Just sayin'.

http://blip.tv/at4w/captain-america-comics-1-5773562

Linkara, nationally pitied comic book expert, discusses the first Captain America comic. I rest my case.

What case is that, exactly?

Holy bugged forums Batman. I couldn't read the posts before posting. Oh, went to see Holmes tonight. I liked it. I should've expected the last part but somehow I forgot the tell 30 minutes prior. Oh and SPOILER Irene dies. I expected it to be a bit more dramatic, maybe a shot from that gun Moriarti kept holstered under his wrist in the first movie. Haven't seen MI 4. Don't expect that I'll bother since the second and third movies were very forgettable.

Well, I watched Sherlock Holmes: AGoS, and it was absolutely fantastic, and yes I watch more than one movie a year. So, Bob, that's your last ball dropped on me. I still like the Big Picture though, so see you Tuesday.

algalon:
Holy bugged forums Batman. I couldn't read the posts before posting. Oh, went to see Holmes tonight. I liked it. I should've expected the last part but somehow I forgot the tell 30 minutes prior. Oh and

Haven't seen MI 4. Don't expect that I'll bother since the second and third movies were very forgettable.

You should put that spoiler tags, like so.

Anyway, I saw Sherlock Holmes today, and I have to say I really enjoyed it, possibly more than the first one. I thought that the mental game of chess was really cool. Sure, it wasn't Oscar material, but it was heck of alot better than alot of movies this year

LobsterFeng:
What case is that, exactly?

That Captain America didn't get his start fighting Nazi steampunk warbots, and the Red Skull wasn't some mad scientist building ray guns with alien technology. Even though super-science is involved, his origin story practically breezes over the fact to focus on Captain America hunting Nazi saboteurs on American soil.

Judge Dredd had the malfunctioning tech bit, to the point that whenever Stallone got one you were like, "Oh, whens it going to fail this time?".

Shame about Holmes 2 being a let down but then I think that was a kind of given from the outset. :(

AxelxGabriel:
Hmm, I was actually hoping the Sherlock Holmes movie would be good.

Then again, this is the same guy that thought District 9 and Sucker Punch were good movies, so I'm going to listen to a few more reviews before I decide for sure.

So wait, are you saying District 9 was not good? Did we watch teh same movie? Well, to each his own I guess. I'll grant you that Sucker Punch was pretty sucky on every level but the eye candy one. And no, I'm not jsut talking about the ladies- visually it was a very striking and enjoyable movie. It's too bad they tried to shoehorn a plot in there. :p

FallenTraveler:
Except for the fact that Holmes wasn't terrible, it was perfectly serviceable and it maintained a style that everyone asked for more of. Holmes maintained its style and created an interesting set of action pieces. I was more entertained by this than I have been by other movies of late.

Also, why is it always so bad to play what you're good at playing?

I must disagree. The action sequences were so poorly edited I couldn't enjoy them. The pacing was bad--this movie was at least a half-hour too long. And the plot was meaningless:

The things this movie had going for it were the interactions between Holmes and Watson, and the fact it had 100% more Stephen Frye than the first one. Those scenes were all gold. There just weren't enough of them. They kept shoehorning in more poorly-edited action scenes instead.

algalon:
Now playing the part of Kate Beckinsale is Noomi Rapace. I have to know, did she also pull out her weapons overly-dramatic and then never use them? That poster looks ripped right out of Van Helsing.

She uses them once in her introductory scene--which is admittedly pretty cool--and then basically becomes the plot device that moves Holmes and Watson to the next part of the plot.

I loved the new Sherlock, but then again i always love the whole "two guys have an epic battle of wits with really high stakes"

See Death Note, Code Geass etc etc

Also is it actually possible to have a game of mind chess like in the final battle? It started an argument between by ex-Chess champion friend over whether it was possible.

Then again he doesn't "get" artistic licence.

And Chess always crops up in these kind of things, what no other symbolic games to choose from? Try Starcraft 2, science has proven it's better than Chess after all.

I really enjoyed Sherlock Holmes 2 and although I can see and recognise it's flaws as a movie it's superior in every way to the first movie. I don't know why you would watch the first now when you can watch the second. They toned down the stupid and the magic from the first, upped the character and display of actual intelligence. Gave it a plot and villains who were fairly interesting (or a henchman that was fairly interesting) and made it look prettier.

The first half was slow and could have done with the extraction of all fight scenes and naked jokes. Particularly the fight scenes because it would have made the climax seem a lot better, but I loved the way they showed the final fight between Holmes and Moriarty. Just two ridiculously intelligent people being intelligent to each other and calculating the odds and in the end Holmes wins because he has purer motive in a way that was described at the start of the book.

I thought the tone was surprisingly appropriate and they managed to convey the back and forth, the grand scale of moriarty's plan and how run down Sherlock was pretty well.

008Zulu:

MovieBob:
Mission Impossible 4 and Sherlock Holmes 2 are so similar, it's spooky.

I watched the old Mission Impossible series as a kid (Sesame Street was for pussies :) ), and it occurred to me that the individual stories they had for those eps were far better than the main plots for all the Mission Impossible movies and Sherlock Holmes combined.

Granted the t.v series required a little more thinking to follow the story as it unfolded, especially some of the eps that featured move counter-move chess styled thinking, so I wonder now if "modern" audiences are incapable of thinking in these terms or being able to follow such a "complex" story?

Before we get all 'modern audiences are dumb' the original story just had Holmes _saying_ that him and Moriarty had an incredible battle of wits, without actually describing it in any way at all. Maybe the audience was too dumb to understand anything clever?

I was truly astounded by horrible Sherlock Holmes 2 was. I greatly enjoyed the first film, and was even looking forward to this one, Robert Downery Jr., a "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, yeah I was prepared for it to be mediocre but...it was just a failure on so many different levels, the only ones where I thought it succeeded where the beautiful sets and costumes.

The characters? Wow they made sure to get Mary off the screen right quick, it's obvious the screenwriter was not happy being saddled with Watson's engagement. Stephen Fry is wasted, and I am sorry because I love the actor, that was not Mycroft he was playing. Mycroft is the person who is so intricately important that he never has to leave his room and can still manage the whole of the English Government. The least of the problems with him in this film was how proactive he was.
If this film is remembered several years from now, I look forward to the comparisons between Robert Downey Jr.'s performance of Sherlock and Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow. Wonderful in the first movie when it's all a part of the whole show, but over-used in the following ones for cheap comedy and wholly responsible for moving certain parts of the plot along because the lazy screenwriter can't see any other way of getting the characters to where they need to be.

The storyline? I've never before wanted to walk out of a movie, but this time I wanted to do it 20 minutes in with a death of a certain character that only exists to blatantly up the villain's bad guy status. A villain who if done properly shouldn't remotely need such a cheap ploy.
They up the number of action scenes to a ridiculous level, not a one that well choreographed, and made Sherlock far to good of a fighter, when the entire reason he did okay in the first movie is his strategy of cheating.

About half way through the movie, they slow things down to explain what exactly Moriarty's plan is, and it's a damn good thing they do, because there is no evidence up to that point at all of what it is. Oh yes they mentioned the tension between countries once or twice, but nothing really to show what he was even trying to do. And on the other hand you could see the other half of the plot threads a mile away and knew exactly what ploys they were going to try to use.

I think what offended me the most of the whole movie was not the stupidity of a lot of the scenes or the comedy, not the shoehorning of generic action movie plot to try and fit the characters (and failing), but how smart it thought it was. The ending Chess game just made me facepalm at the blatantness of it all, it wasn't clever. It was obvious, and you could see the results in advance and it was a chore to sit though.

I probably would have enjoyed the film so much more if it was the bland action movie the script was obviously based on, then it wouldn't have misused so many of my favorite characters and the whole pretentious air about it could have been forgone.

I'm not surprised... Sherlock Holmes sucked and the MI movies are mediocre at best. The thing these movie series have incommen both are based on great premises which they 15 minutes into the first movie pisses away. I still remember watching the first SH movie in the cinema and laughing in disbelieve when they tripped that wire which made a whole building explode for no apparent reason other than the movie needed a explosion. I'm still going to watch these sequels for no other reason than the only way is up for these two.

Sorry mate, don't agree with you (on the Mission Impossible parts) for these reasons...

1. The Plot - sure it's the same 'save the world' thing but so is every bloody superhero movie that you rave about (sure I know you're biased towards them cos you're really into comics) but if you're going to see an action movie then there's not much more that you can do apart from 'if you don't succeed then the world will end'.

Think of X-Men First Class, great movie but the plot is not much different from MI4. You also loved 2012 (which I agree was a good fun movie and I am definitely in the minority on that) and that movie is basically about the end of the world.

2. Action 'Gimmick' - Only the gloves and the 'facemaker' thing malfunctioned. The other faults were human error (crashed the remote control electromagnet) or the tech was only programmed to work for certain variables (no more than one person for that 'stealth screen' thing otherwise it wouldn't work properly)

I also like that the 'facemaker' malfunctioned cos it was overused in MI2. The gloves malfunctioning created some tense moments and make the building climbing thing awesome. The whole Dubai part of the movie was sweet (had the foreshadow of the sandstorm which came into the movie later)

Overall the action scenes were varied and did what all action scenes should do, use the surroundings/setting of the action scene to their advantage (Burj Khalifi with its ridiculous heights and Dubai sandstorms, fight in the automatic parking garage using the elevators and several cars etc.)

3. 'Waste of actor from some other movie' (woopdeefrickendoo)

I agree that the bad guy from MI4 wasn't great but it's not the worst bad guy ever. He did what bad guys are supposed to do, be bad and test the good guy's endurance. I thought Ethan Hunt was far more human in this than in any other MI movie.

4. Final Battle

Not the best final battle ever (scenes in Dubai were more interesting) but still a great fight scene that took full advantage of its surroundings such as the elevators and cars in the garage. While it didnt make sense to me why the bad guy jumped off with the briefcase (couldn't he have just thrown it over and tried to run cos Ethan Hunt needed the briefcase to save the world so it obviously had more priority than the bad guy).

I am beginning to wonder what action movies are 'good' to you (apart from superhero movies which are clearly biased cos you're such a fan, nothing wrong with that of course, but you shouldn't try to hide your bias of superhero movies, admit that you are biased...Captain America was good but not THAT good).

That's just my two cents...

At least I can rest easy now, knowing that (in Bob's opinion) Brad Bird still directed his ass off, and if MI4 is crap, it's because of the script he was handed. Now that I think about it, though, the reason I enjoy his movies so much is because of their charm and deeply personal characterization, which stems from his writing, so I should have noticed early on that he was directing but not writing, and tailored my expectations accordingly.

Moviebob:
Nyqvist, on the other hand, has the same "fading into the scenery" problem he had in the Tattoo movies, where he tended to come off as that guy who was also there, next to the quirk-riddled, showier Salander character.

To be fair to him, that's just because he was playing the character of Blomkvist really well. That's precisely what his character is, he is the sidekick that's just there, she's the lead. And I'll be seeing the Craig version at the weekend, I truly hope that they got this right and didn't make it the 'James Bond and the unknown actress' show...

Raiyan 1.0:
Wait, MI4 has a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes? Crap, that's more than Tropic Thunder. :/

Aggregate sites are worth fuck all, and are the worse things on the internet that aren't actually illegal.

pearcinator:
Sorry mate, don't agree with you (on the Mission Impossible parts) for these reasons...

1. The Plot - sure it's the same 'save the world' thing but so is every bloody superhero movie that you rave about (sure I know you're biased towards them cos you're really into comics) but if you're going to see an action movie then there's not much more that you can do apart from 'if you don't succeed then the world will end'.

Your post was poorly written and you used the word 'bias' too many times for me to take you at all seriously, but I'll contest this one... No, you're wrong.

There. Contested.

Alright, I'll give you a little more... A lot of Superheroes aren't saving the world, they're saving themselves. Yeah, sure, if they die then the thinking is that then the supervillian goes bonkers and will be unchecked, but often in those films, the superhero comes first, and then the baddy essentially rises to the challenge and goes after them directly. Batman, Iron Man, Thor, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, Spiderman. All movies of guys that have to deal with threats that indirectly, they themselves inspire or create. Most standard action movies do this the other way round, with the baddies having a plot in full motion at the start of the film that the good guys then thwart.

Also, superheroes don't really save THE world, more they save THEIR world. Their own environments, lives and loved ones are on the line, and the thing they're righting against is very rarely the kind of ridiculous super-power one needs to be to seriously consider the world being destroyed in a comic-book sense. Proper action films however, have access to things like governments and nukes.

And his point wasn't how these films are generally following action movie tropes, but more like how they're very similar to each other in numerous ways.

Finally, shut up using the word bias, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

BrotherRool:
Before we get all 'modern audiences are dumb' the original story just had Holmes _saying_ that him and Moriarty had an incredible battle of wits, without actually describing it in any way at all. Maybe the audience was too dumb to understand anything clever?

I wouldn't use the phrase "modern audiences are dumb", I would say "used to over-simplification". Maybe Hollywood thinks people are dumb, but there has been the occasion where something clever has popped up and people didn't furrow their brows as if trying to remember how to make fire.

008Zulu:

BrotherRool:
Before we get all 'modern audiences are dumb' the original story just had Holmes _saying_ that him and Moriarty had an incredible battle of wits, without actually describing it in any way at all. Maybe the audience was too dumb to understand anything clever?

I wouldn't use the phrase "modern audiences are dumb", I would say "used to over-simplification". Maybe Hollywood thinks people are dumb, but there has been the occasion where something clever has popped up and people didn't furrow their brows as if trying to remember how to make fire.

Christopher Nolan is making a pretty good career on producing intellectual thrillers :D

I saw MI4 at an IMAX theatre and it was the most fun I've had at the movies this year. The scene where Cruise is climbing the skyscraper had me on the edge of my seat the entire time.

You know, I enjoyed the first Sherlock Holmes and I just got back from seeing A Game of Shadows. You know what, it was a great movie, in my opinion. This isn't the first time I've disagreed with Bob, but I felt the action in Holmes was perfectly fine and I thought it was obvious that Moriarty wasn't even slightly insane, just opportunistic.

I had a full wall-of-text written out explaining why I liked the movie and why I find Bob's criticism poor, but it really is futile to argue opinions, especially with Bob.

Did Bob hate the first Sherlock Holmes too? Because both myself and everybody I know who's seen both films really enjoyed them.

Does Bob have something against them or is he once again being forced by his job to read too much into it and therefore missing out on the experience?

TheEndlessSleep:
Did Bob hate the first Sherlock Holmes too? Because both myself and everybody I know who's seen both films really enjoyed them.

Does Bob have something against them or is he once again being forced by his job to read too much into it and therefore missing out on the experience?

He reviewed it in "Escape to the Movies". Check it out. If you don't want to, I'll tell you what he said. He said it was average but that their Holmes and Watson are the best he's seen on screen.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here