|
|
Post by scabab on Mar 11, 2019 15:42:25 GMT
Just came back from seeing it. I can't be bothered to do a full review so just a few things off the top of my head.
- Movie was pretty good. It wasn't great but it was decent enough, one of the weaker MCU movies but not the weakest.
- Brie Larson as Captain Marvel wasn't a particularly good character. I'd say the weakest MCU lead since Edward Nortons Bruce Banner.
- The villain was predictable.
- The movie went down hill a little once Captain Marvel went to see her pilot friend.
- The special effects were pretty good.
- There was a particularly song that played during one of the fight scenes towards the end which awful and it didn't go with the scene well at all.
- It's probably most comparable to Thor but with better action and less interesting characters.
- Definitely not as good as Wonder Woman.
- Probably give it a 6.5/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 11, 2019 15:58:09 GMT
Agree on all points except I didnt think the villain was predictable. The twist that the Skrulls were actually refugees and that Jude Law was the villain was pretty good and unexpected . And I thought the movie picked up when she went to see her pilot friend, gave a good perspective on her backstory and how Rambo had lost a best friend and still didnt recognize Carol as shes back with strange powers and a fractured memory. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Mar 11, 2019 16:22:14 GMT
Well I made a thread a month back about the villain and called it then. That said I wasn't expecting that regarding the Skrulls but I knew Jude Law had to be the villain. So that was a unexpected surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 11, 2019 16:46:35 GMT
Just came back from seeing it. I can't be bothered to do a full review so just a few things off the top of my head. - Movie was pretty good. It wasn't great but it was decent enough, one of the weaker MCU movies but not the weakest. - Brie Larson as Captain Marvel wasn't a particularly good character. I'd say the weakest MCU lead since Edward Nortons Bruce Banner. - The villain was predictable. - The movie went down hill a little once Captain Marvel went to see her pilot friend. - The special effects were pretty good. - There was a particularly song that played during one of the fight scenes towards the end which awful and it didn't go with the scene well at all. - It's probably most comparable to Thor but with better action and less interesting characters. - Definitely not as good as Wonder Woman. - Probably give it a 6.5/10. It's interesting because I'd agree that Wonder Woman is overall the superior film even if I actually think CM has better characters. The villains are cartoonish in WW whereas there's an ambiguity to pretty much everyone in CM. Also, CM picked steam as it went along whereas WW fell flat in the third act (mostly because it was such a shameless ripoff of Captain America TFA and the villain was a video game boss). Disagree on Larson, I wasn't sold on her going into the film but she proved to be more than capable in the role. I was hoping for a little more effects wise, but since most of it was 90s MCU there wasn't a ton of super powered action to be had. The villain reveal wasn't shocking, but the characters who weren't villainous were a fun twist. Mendelsohn was brilliant casting in that regard. It's a second tier MCU flick for me. Not an all time great but still pretty damn good. It takes a while to get going and it's really handcuffed by its retcon nature, but the film makes the most of its opportunities. I'd probably go 7/10. The shame of it is this flick could've been incredible if they had been able to introduce her into the current storyline a few years ago without retconning anything; though I do love that the Avengers Initiative was named after her.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Mar 11, 2019 17:00:00 GMT
I can't think of anything that was retconned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 11, 2019 17:25:47 GMT
I also thought it was pretty similar to the first Thor movie. CM was a cleaner, more polished movie than Thor but it also had less emotion and character. So CM had the better CGI, better action, better pacing whereas Thor had the better characters, better heroic feeling and better emotional beats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 11, 2019 17:33:00 GMT
I can't think of anything that was retconned. The entire film is retroactive continuity. It's a story that takes place between other events in an established universe while not completely sticking to the established narrative. For the most part you can argue it's a retcon by omission, or deliberate misdirection by some of Fury's previous dialog. (They started building weapons from Hydra tech after the events of Thor? As opposed to this near extinction level event? He didn't think the Battle of NY or Ultron was an emergency?) Or the fact that Fury himself is a completely different character in 2008 than he is here in 1995; which would be fine, except Pierce in TWS makes it sound like Fury as always been as ruthless as he is in 2014.) The effects of the retcon are minor, but it's a retcon nevertheless.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Mar 11, 2019 17:33:08 GMT
I can't think of anything that was retconned. Nick Fury's eye was at least semi retconned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 11, 2019 17:58:19 GMT
I also thought it was pretty similar to the first Thor movie. CM was a cleaner, more polished movie than Thor but it also had less emotion and character. So CM had the better CGI, better action, better pacing whereas Thor had the better characters, better heroic feeling and better emotional beats. My big issue with Thor is the 'hero loses his powers' trope. It always feels like the writer throwing their hands into the air because they don't know how to ground such a powerful character. They do it better in CM because she doesn't even know how powerful she is (and neither does the audience).
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 11, 2019 18:19:39 GMT
I also thought it was pretty similar to the first Thor movie. CM was a cleaner, more polished movie than Thor but it also had less emotion and character. So CM had the better CGI, better action, better pacing whereas Thor had the better characters, better heroic feeling and better emotional beats. My big issue with Thor is the 'hero loses his powers' trope. It always feels like the writer throwing their hands into the air because they don't know how to ground such a powerful character. They do it better in CM because she doesn't even know how powerful she is (and neither does the audience). Well in Thor's case, it's part of his Marvel story, so it's not like they could have done away with it and still made a proper origin story. It can also be argued that the trope is usually when a hero loses his power somewhere in the middle of his journey. For Thor, it happened near the beginning of his journey. In fact it's what really starts his journey in the MCU. They didn't use this trope in CM, so it's not really comparable to Thor in this regard. For CM, the trope they use is the "hero struggles to fully unlock their power".
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 11, 2019 18:28:05 GMT
My big issue with Thor is the 'hero loses his powers' trope. It always feels like the writer throwing their hands into the air because they don't know how to ground such a powerful character. They do it better in CM because she doesn't even know how powerful she is (and neither does the audience). Well in Thor's case, it's part of his Marvel story, so it's not like they could have done away with it and still made a proper origin story. It can also be argued that the trope is usually when a hero loses his power somewhere in the middle of his journey. For Thor, it happened near the beginning of his journey. In fact it's what really starts his journey in the MCU. They didn't use this trope in CM, so it's not really comparable to Thor in this regard. For CM, the trope they use is the "hero struggles to fully unlock their power". It was comic accurate for Thor, I just thought it made a boring movie. And Destroyer, while being a classic comic adversary for Thor, made a boring villain for the film. I think they'd do a lot of things differently if they had that movie to do over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Mar 11, 2019 18:40:47 GMT
I can't think of anything that was retconned. The entire film is retroactive continuity. It's a story that takes place between other events in an established universe while not completely sticking to the established narrative. For the most part you can argue it's a retcon by omission, or deliberate misdirection by some of Fury's previous dialog. (They started building weapons from Hydra tech after the events of Thor? As opposed to this near extinction level event? He didn't think the Battle of NY or Ultron was an emergency?) Or the fact that Fury himself is a completely different character in 2008 than he is here in 1995; which would be fine, except Pierce in TWS makes it sound like Fury as always been as ruthless as he is in 2014.) The effects of the retcon are minor, but it's a retcon nevertheless. Not going to argue with you but none of that meets my understanding of what a retcon is.
|
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 744
Likes: 301
 
|
Post by Marendil on Mar 11, 2019 18:43:34 GMT
My big issue with Thor is the 'hero loses his powers' trope. It always feels like the writer throwing their hands into the air because they don't know how to ground such a powerful character. They do it better in CM because she doesn't even know how powerful she is (and neither does the audience). Well in Thor's case, it's part of his Marvel story, so it's not like they could have done away with it and still made a proper origin story. It can also be argued that the trope is usually when a hero loses his power somewhere in the middle of his journey. For Thor, it happened near the beginning of his journey. In fact it's what really starts his journey in the MCU. They didn't use this trope in CM, so it's not really comparable to Thor in this regard. For CM, the trope they use is the "hero struggles to fully unlock their power". I thought they were also subtly analogizing her earlier comics history where she lost her memories and powers to Rogue and then got a big power boost when out in space with the X-Men and became Binary, more powerful than she'd ever been.
They had Thor do the Jesus trick, his father sending him down to Earth where he got some followers and some persecutors and ends us sacrificing himself to save all us silly humans, and is then reborn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 11, 2019 18:45:39 GMT
The entire film is retroactive continuity. It's a story that takes place between other events in an established universe while not completely sticking to the established narrative. For the most part you can argue it's a retcon by omission, or deliberate misdirection by some of Fury's previous dialog. (They started building weapons from Hydra tech after the events of Thor? As opposed to this near extinction level event? He didn't think the Battle of NY or Ultron was an emergency?) Or the fact that Fury himself is a completely different character in 2008 than he is here in 1995; which would be fine, except Pierce in TWS makes it sound like Fury as always been as ruthless as he is in 2014.) The effects of the retcon are minor, but it's a retcon nevertheless. Not going to argue with you but none of that meets my understanding of what a retcon is. It doesn't ruin anything per se, it just stretches plausibility in some cases. I see your point though, and I don't think either of us is wrong. Either way I enjoyed the hell out of the film so whatever.
|
|
