|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on Apr 28, 2017 7:00:33 GMT
I think that when you have such a phenomenon like Guardians of The Galaxy it is really hard to duplicate its awesomeness, it's almost like catching lightning in a bottle, and the attempt to do it again without exploding. And that's why with a few exceptions most movie sequels tend to suck. Now, this movie didn't suck, in fact it was pretty fucking good!!!!
And, tho the first act was a bit prolonged it laid the foundations to one of the greatest story lines I have seen in Comic Book Movies as of yet, James Gunn takes us to a journey where he is not afraid to show us the silly and incredibly side of the Comic Books. A couple of easter eggs will take your breath away, but the story line is really smart and remarkably emotional at times, this felt almost as a conclusion to GoTG so I can't dare to think what the fuck are they going to do for Guardians of The Galaxy Vol 3.
As you can see I'm not talking about the plot, and I'm not going to do so as I would not want to rob you from the roller coaster of emotions you are bound to experience when watching this outstanding movie, but I will say this: You thought they turned Comic Book Movies "grounded" feeling upside down in the first one with a walking tree and a gun wielding raccoon? Just wait to see what they do with a character called "Ego the Living Planet."
Was it as good as the first one? In all honesty it was probably not, but it did not disappoint either. My rating is 8/10. And tho it goes without saying... stay until the credits have stopped rolling.
|
|
Peter B. Parker
Sophomore
Watch the hands, not the mouth
@babygroot
Posts: 853
Likes: 411
 
|
Post by Peter B. Parker on Aug 28, 2017 15:02:47 GMT
I actually enjoyed it more than the first, simply because this one was just beautiful in 3D, and baby groot is just too damn cute. And it perfectly combined humour and emotional moments too (more laughs than a comedy half its length and more emotional depth than a drama twice it's length). And the post credits scenes were great. There's no way of topping 5 post credits scenes (unless Taika Waititi is really going for that 40 minutes of credits thing in Ragnarok that he was trolling us with)
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 28, 2017 15:16:18 GMT
A solid take on the film sir.
(SPOILERS!!!!!!)
What impressed me most about it was the self control to focus on the characters and the choice to do that by breaking up the four members of the team to contrast and compare them with non team members was brilliant. There were moments of fun action sprinkled throughout, and then the ending with Ego was spectacular. But the cake topper was taking the concept of Ego and making his plan the most egotistical thing you could imagine. That he feels that he has discovered the true purpose in life and that this can only mean making the entire universe a part of him is a stroke of genius. The line he gives at the end about what other meaning could there possibly be and soon after Peter responds with saying there is nothing wrong with being like everybody else. That's something an egotistical person just wouldn't understand.
A spectacularly written film.
|
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Aug 28, 2017 15:51:05 GMT
How about this? This is probably one of, if not THE most visually gorgeous film I've seen this year so far, especially with all those vibrant colors.
Not to mention that the film's cinematography was excellent. Seriously, just watch the opening credit sequence and tell me that's a bad cinematography.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 28, 2017 16:10:21 GMT
7/10. Not as good as the first but still plenty of fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Aug 28, 2017 16:36:28 GMT
How about this? This is probably one of, if not THE most visually gorgeous film I've seen this year so far, especially with all those vibrant colors. Not to mention that the film's cinematography was excellent. Seriously, just watch the opening credit sequence and tell me that's a bad cinematography. Thank you! I don't know where MCU haters get this "MCU cinematography is bland or 'too TV'" or whatever the hell that means. |
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Aug 28, 2017 19:20:36 GMT
How about this? This is probably one of, if not THE most visually gorgeous film I've seen this year so far, especially with all those vibrant colors. Not to mention that the film's cinematography was excellent. Seriously, just watch the opening credit sequence and tell me that's a bad cinematography. Thank you! I don't know where MCU haters get this "MCU cinematography is bland or 'too TV'" or whatever the hell that means. Well, to be fair, 'The Avengers' DID have moments that made it look like a TV film at times, but keep in mind, this was Joss Whedon's first feature film in 8 years (after 'Serenity') and he never really handled a film with this level of scale before. Most people didn't took a lot of issues with that because everything else about the film was great. And it's not like Whedon was the only director who had this issues. Take J.J. Abrams, for instance. His first film, 'Mission: Impossible 3' received positive reviews, but some noted that it looked a bit like a TV film at times - in this case, mostly because of too many closeups.
Also, say what you will about, 'Avengers: Age of Ultron', but that was a clear improvement in terms of production values over the first one.
Finally, it's not like 'X-Men' series didn't have a film or two that looked like a TV film. Take a look at 'X-Men: First Class'. Great film, but the production values looked surprisingly cheap for a $160 million film.
|
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 29, 2017 15:54:34 GMT
It was a good movie, probably about on par with the first one. Better villain this time around.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 29, 2017 16:23:30 GMT
It was a good movie, probably about on par with the first one. Better villain this time around. I think Ronan gets way too much hate. Of course Ego is better, but Ronan was well acted and had a clear motivation. I don't know what there was not to like. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 29, 2017 20:53:34 GMT
It was a good movie, probably about on par with the first one. Better villain this time around. I think Ronan gets way too much hate. Of course Ego is better, but Ronan was well acted and had a clear motivation. I don't know what there was not to like. He had a good character design but like most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe villains they're underdeveloped and forgettable. They also made him out to be joke at the end too. Ego was one of those that wasn't like that which is why he was better. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 29, 2017 22:21:57 GMT
I think Ronan gets way too much hate. Of course Ego is better, but Ronan was well acted and had a clear motivation. I don't know what there was not to like. He had a good character design but like most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe villains they're underdeveloped and forgettable. They also made him out to be joke at the end too. Ego was one of those that wasn't like that which is why he was better. How is he underdeveloped? Seriously, is he less developed than Alexander Pierce who is considered a great villain? We know about Ronan's family history with War and death at the hands of Xandar. We know about his Rogue status with his own people. We see how he acts in command of others. We know about his dealings with Thanos. What needed further development? I honestly think is just a cliche'd response.
And they didn't make him into a joke either. The dance off is actually a pretty clever ending. All Quill wanted to do was confuse him for 5 seconds, and he did, in a very Quill way. It doesn't take away from Ronan to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on Aug 30, 2017 0:13:13 GMT
It was a good movie, probably about on par with the first one. Better villain this time around. Funny Kurt Russell had two blockbuster movies this summer: -GoTG v2 -FF8 |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 30, 2017 1:55:49 GMT
He had a good character design but like most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe villains they're underdeveloped and forgettable. They also made him out to be joke at the end too. Ego was one of those that wasn't like that which is why he was better. How is he underdeveloped? Seriously, is he less developed than Alexander Pierce who is considered a great villain? We know about Ronan's family history with War and death at the hands of Xandar. We know about his Rogue status with his own people. We see how he acts in command of others. We know about his dealings with Thanos. What needed further development? I honestly think is just a cliche'd response.
And they didn't make him into a joke either. The dance off is actually a pretty clever ending. All Quill wanted to do was confuse him for 5 seconds, and he did, in a very Quill way. It doesn't take away from Ronan to me.
Alexander Pierce had a lot more screentime than Ronan, he also had more personality and was generally more interesting. Ronan's back story was briefly mentioned and not shown, him killing Drax' family was mentioned and not shown. He was two dimensional. He was generic. He had no character development like Loki. He has no unique personality traits that make him stand out. Like Malekith he was just a very generic evil alien who wanted to destroy and wanted power. At the end the tension that he was trying to build up when he was about to murder an entire city full of innocents was undone when they turned the scene into a comedic moment with the dancing which just undermines him entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 30, 2017 2:13:00 GMT
How is he underdeveloped? Seriously, is he less developed than Alexander Pierce who is considered a great villain? We know about Ronan's family history with War and death at the hands of Xandar. We know about his Rogue status with his own people. We see how he acts in command of others. We know about his dealings with Thanos. What needed further development? I honestly think is just a cliche'd response.
And they didn't make him into a joke either. The dance off is actually a pretty clever ending. All Quill wanted to do was confuse him for 5 seconds, and he did, in a very Quill way. It doesn't take away from Ronan to me.
Alexander Pierce had a lot more screentime than Ronan, he also had more personality and was generally more interesting. Ronan's back story was briefly mentioned and not shown, him killing Drax' family was mentioned and not shown. He was two dimensional. He was generic. He had no character development like Loki. He has no unique personality traits that make him stand out. Like Malekith he was just a very generic evil alien who wanted to destroy and wanted power. At the end the tension that he was trying to build up when he was about to murder an entire city full of innocents was undone when they turned the scene into a comedic moment with the dancing which just undermines him entirely. It didn't need to be shown. We didn't see Pierce and Fury's backstory either. If Ronan was two dimensional, what was 3D about Pierce? And if you're just going to compare him to Loki and say therefore he's underdeveloped, then I just don't see the point. We didn't get or see Joker's backstory in TDK. Pretty one dimensional character. Are you going to call him underdeveloped? I thought Ronan was quite unique and enjoyable. Malekith had an understandable backstory as well, we see him in a previous war killing his own people to return the universe to a state he feels is it's natural state. He's not just a generic villain, he views the entire universe as a sort of disease that has overtaken reality as it should be in his mind. I truly don't understand what the problem is.
And you're overlooking the point of the dancing scene. It's not a comedic moment just for the sake of it, it's a bridge, and it's exactly what Starlord would do to buy time. What it's bridging, if you thought about the story structure, is the high tension moment that came to a climax, with a brief interlude, and then another high tension moment based around the hope of a heroic sacrifice. The dance highlights Starlords uniqueness as a character right before he switches the tension from terror to hope. It's a brilliant scene really and you're viewing it on an extreme superficial level where you think it ruins the tenion when in fact it transitions and builds character.
|
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 30, 2017 12:32:45 GMT
Alexander Pierce had a lot more screentime than Ronan, he also had more personality and was generally more interesting. Ronan's back story was briefly mentioned and not shown, him killing Drax' family was mentioned and not shown. He was two dimensional. He was generic. He had no character development like Loki. He has no unique personality traits that make him stand out. Like Malekith he was just a very generic evil alien who wanted to destroy and wanted power. At the end the tension that he was trying to build up when he was about to murder an entire city full of innocents was undone when they turned the scene into a comedic moment with the dancing which just undermines him entirely. It didn't need to be shown. We didn't see Pierce and Fury's backstory either. If Ronan was two dimensional, what was 3D about Pierce? And if you're just going to compare him to Loki and say therefore he's underdeveloped, then I just don't see the point. We didn't get or see Joker's backstory in TDK. Pretty one dimensional character. Are you going to call him underdeveloped? I thought Ronan was quite unique and enjoyable. Malekith had an understandable backstory as well, we see him in a previous war killing his own people to return the universe to a state he feels is it's natural state. He's not just a generic villain, he views the entire universe as a sort of disease that has overtaken reality as it should be in his mind. I truly don't understand what the problem is.
And you're overlooking the point of the dancing scene. It's not a comedic moment just for the sake of it, it's a bridge, and it's exactly what Starlord would do to buy time. What it's bridging, if you thought about the story structure, is the high tension moment that came to a climax, with a brief interlude, and then another high tension moment based around the hope of a heroic sacrifice. The dance highlights Starlords uniqueness as a character right before he switches the tension from terror to hope. It's a brilliant scene really and you're viewing it on an extreme superficial level where you think it ruins the tenion when in fact it transitions and builds character.
Alexander Pierces didn't really need to be shown, there was nothing vital there unlike Ronan killing one of the main characters family. Pierce was three dimensional because he was a good guy and part of Shield and then it turned out to be an act as he was infact a completely different character by actually being a villain who was part of Hydra. That alone made him more interesting than Ronan. Joker never requires a back story because that would ruin him entirely. He wasn't one dimensional at all. Ronan has maybe 10 minutes of screening in the whole film? 15 minutes at best. That's not enough to made a good villain. The most significant thing the character did was something we didn't see. He didn't do anything tha t was particularly memorable. His personality wasn't that interesting. The acting was good enough and that's it. The dancing is what Star-Lord would probably do but it shouldn't have been done for the main villain who was supposed to be a big threat who was going to kill everyone. It turned a dramatic into a joke. The tension they were trying to build up with Ronan at the end was only done that way to elevate the joke. That's all people will remember of that scene now. Most Marvel villains have been so poor because of a sheer lack of screening meaning they have little to do to be memorable or stand out. Everyone's favourite is Loki and it just so happens that of all of them Loki had the most screentime. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 30, 2017 13:17:26 GMT
It didn't need to be shown. We didn't see Pierce and Fury's backstory either. If Ronan was two dimensional, what was 3D about Pierce? And if you're just going to compare him to Loki and say therefore he's underdeveloped, then I just don't see the point. We didn't get or see Joker's backstory in TDK. Pretty one dimensional character. Are you going to call him underdeveloped? I thought Ronan was quite unique and enjoyable. Malekith had an understandable backstory as well, we see him in a previous war killing his own people to return the universe to a state he feels is it's natural state. He's not just a generic villain, he views the entire universe as a sort of disease that has overtaken reality as it should be in his mind. I truly don't understand what the problem is.
And you're overlooking the point of the dancing scene. It's not a comedic moment just for the sake of it, it's a bridge, and it's exactly what Starlord would do to buy time. What it's bridging, if you thought about the story structure, is the high tension moment that came to a climax, with a brief interlude, and then another high tension moment based around the hope of a heroic sacrifice. The dance highlights Starlords uniqueness as a character right before he switches the tension from terror to hope. It's a brilliant scene really and you're viewing it on an extreme superficial level where you think it ruins the tenion when in fact it transitions and builds character.
Alexander Pierces didn't really need to be shown, there was nothing vital there unlike Ronan killing one of the main characters family. Pierce was three dimensional because he was a good guy and part of Shield and then it turned out to be an act as he was infact a completely different character by actually being a villain who was part of Hydra. That alone made him more interesting than Ronan. Joker never requires a back story because that would ruin him entirely. He wasn't one dimensional at all. Ronan has maybe 10 minutes of screening in the whole film? 15 minutes at best. That's not enough to made a good villain. The most significant thing the character did was something we didn't see. He didn't do anything tha t was particularly memorable. His personality wasn't that interesting. The acting was good enough and that's it. The dancing is what Star-Lord would probably do but it shouldn't have been done for the main villain who was supposed to be a big threat who was going to kill everyone. It turned a dramatic into a joke. The tension they were trying to build up with Ronan at the end was only done that way to elevate the joke. That's all people will remember of that scene now. Most Marvel villains have been so poor because of a sheer lack of screening meaning they have little to do to be memorable or stand out. Everyone's favourite is Loki and it just so happens that of all of them Loki had the most screentime. Most Marvel villains have been pretty good actually, so I don't know what you mean by poor. In fact there isn't one that I would call poor. Enchantress and Lex were poor. Nobody in the MCU is anything close to their level of bad, or even bad at all.
What you mean is, you would have liked them to get more screen time, and fine, that's fair. But they were well presented and served the roll of the story being told. More footage of Ronan wouldn't make him a better villain. He's solid as is.
And I completely disagree with your take on the dance off scene and I'm actually sorry that you don't enjoy it. It's absolutely brilliant, fits the character, provides a transition to the heroic events after. It's awesome. I hope you end up enjoying it as much as I do.
|
|
Peter B. Parker
Sophomore
Watch the hands, not the mouth
@babygroot
Posts: 853
Likes: 411
|
Post by Peter B. Parker on Aug 30, 2017 15:23:48 GMT
It was a good movie, probably about on par with the first one. Better villain this time around. Funny Kurt Russell had two blockbuster movies this summer: -GoTG v2 -FF8 lol I literally just realised that  |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 30, 2017 15:57:12 GMT
Alexander Pierces didn't really need to be shown, there was nothing vital there unlike Ronan killing one of the main characters family. Pierce was three dimensional because he was a good guy and part of Shield and then it turned out to be an act as he was infact a completely different character by actually being a villain who was part of Hydra. That alone made him more interesting than Ronan. Joker never requires a back story because that would ruin him entirely. He wasn't one dimensional at all. Ronan has maybe 10 minutes of screening in the whole film? 15 minutes at best. That's not enough to made a good villain. The most significant thing the character did was something we didn't see. He didn't do anything tha t was particularly memorable. His personality wasn't that interesting. The acting was good enough and that's it. The dancing is what Star-Lord would probably do but it shouldn't have been done for the main villain who was supposed to be a big threat who was going to kill everyone. It turned a dramatic into a joke. The tension they were trying to build up with Ronan at the end was only done that way to elevate the joke. That's all people will remember of that scene now. Most Marvel villains have been so poor because of a sheer lack of screening meaning they have little to do to be memorable or stand out. Everyone's favourite is Loki and it just so happens that of all of them Loki had the most screentime. Most Marvel villains have been pretty good actually, so I don't know what you mean by poor. In fact there isn't one that I would call poor. Enchantress and Lex were poor. Nobody in the MCU is anything close to their level of bad, or even bad at all.
What you mean is, you would have liked them to get more screen time, and fine, that's fair. But they were well presented and served the roll of the story being told. More footage of Ronan wouldn't make him a better villain. He's solid as is.
And I completely disagree with your take on the dance off scene and I'm actually sorry that you don't enjoy it. It's absolutely brilliant, fits the character, provides a transition to the heroic events after. It's awesome. I hope you end up enjoying it as much as I do.
Enchantress was poor in the same way several MCU villains have been poor actually same with Ares. Lex was poor just for a completely different reason entirely. Of the villains they've had Whiplash Red Skull Abomination Red Skull Malekith Ronan Yellow Jacket Kaecilius
Have all been entirely forgettable and mediocre villains.
Screentime is important and compared to other villains like Joker (Nicholson), Penguin, Doctor Octopus, Magneto, Striker, any of the main villains from The Dark Knight movies and Zod to name some of them. They're just better and more memorable villains and not just because of screentime.
The MCU has done it's heroes very well but it's always had a problem with the villains.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 30, 2017 17:03:08 GMT
Enchantress was poor in the same way several MCU villains have been poor actually same with Ares. Lex was poor just for a completely different reason entirely. Of the villains they've had Whiplash Red Skull Abomination Red Skull Malekith Ronan Yellow Jacket Kaecilius
Have all been entirely forgettable and mediocre villains.
Screentime is important and compared to other villains like Joker (Nicholson), Penguin, Doctor Octopus, Magneto, Striker, any of the main villains from The Dark Knight movies and Zod to name some of them. They're just better and more memorable villains and not just because of screentime.
The MCU has done it's heroes very well but it's always had a problem with the villains.
No MCU villain has been remotely as bad as Enchantress and it's not even close.
All the ones you listed there were solid villains. I'm not saying they were the best villains ever, but they had clear motivations, clear backstories, and were good, enjoyable, well acted, purposeful villains. Enchantress is just a ghost (we know nothing about) who wants to build a "machine" (somehow) and destroy the world? because she doesn't like technology (for some reason.)
You have this standard where you think every villain needs to be some Oscar worthy performance with an elaborate backstory and I have no idea why you think that makes them as poor as somebody like Enchantress. It's very odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 30, 2017 18:11:06 GMT
Enchantress was poor in the same way several MCU villains have been poor actually same with Ares. Lex was poor just for a completely different reason entirely. Of the villains they've had Whiplash Red Skull Abomination Red Skull Malekith Ronan Yellow Jacket Kaecilius
Have all been entirely forgettable and mediocre villains.
Screentime is important and compared to other villains like Joker (Nicholson), Penguin, Doctor Octopus, Magneto, Striker, any of the main villains from The Dark Knight movies and Zod to name some of them. They're just better and more memorable villains and not just because of screentime.
The MCU has done it's heroes very well but it's always had a problem with the villains.
No MCU villain has been remotely as bad as Enchantress and it's not even close.
All the ones you listed there were solid villains. I'm not saying they were the best villains ever, but they had clear motivations, clear backstories, and were good, enjoyable, well acted, purposeful villains. Enchantress is just a ghost (we know nothing about) who wants to build a "machine" (somehow) and destroy the world? because she doesn't like technology (for some reason.)
You have this standard where you think every villain needs to be some Oscar worthy performance with an elaborate backstory and I have no idea why you think that makes them as poor as somebody like Enchantress. It's very odd.
You shouldn't just accept something just because it's a solid. You shouldn't want a villain that's merely passable or decent. People love these MCU movies but it's common knowledge that the villains have been pretty weak compared to most other aspects of those movies. As least Enchantress had the whole thing where she was both a normal girl and then suddenly a demonic witch thing and the relation with Rick Flag and him having to kill her but doesn't want to. What's Malekith got going for him? He was as interesting as a potato. They don't all have to be great but why can't they all be done as well as Ego or Vulture? They were fine because not only did they have more screentime they weren't two dimensional. Ego had his relationship with his son. Seemed like a good guy but turned it he wasn't. Vulture was a good man who ended up having to do bad things. He's a father and a husband whose daughter liked Peter. He also wasn't three dimensional. Even they aren't great villains but they're leaps and bounds better than the norm that they've had. Kaelicius last year, completely forgettable and boring. |
|
