|
>I think it's looks different from Superman's vibrant colors
>because it's reflecting the headspace she's in, maybe? I guess
>putting the depressed near alcoholic who's dog is dying in
>vibrant colors would have been a different choice people would
>criticize too.
Maybe, though given the source material's color palette, and given *so many* superhero/big-budget movies seem to look like this these days, I suspect it's less about artistic vision and more about what color/light/designs are easiest to pull off when using an abundance of CGI.
>>Aycock is right for the part, but the script and the way it
>>was shot and edited did her absolutely no justice here imo.
>
>Editing was rough in areas. Mamao's pacing - and that cigar -
>were rough too.
Momoa felt shoehorned in. Because he was. Bad inclusion, sadly, even if the concept of Lobo could make for a good movie.
>But this seems exactly like a sci-fi/fantasy movie from the
>long tradition of them - not an all time great Epic fasnasy
>film.
>
>I sat through about 50% of Morbius in a military waiting room
>and that was worse in every single way - but made a lot more
>money.
I truthfully don't really care how much money a movie makes, end of the day. In the annals of history, box office is a footnote. Whether a movie is good or bad is what will make people remember it.
I don't need every movie to be an all time great epic fantasy. But I would like every movie to be good, ideally. There are plenty of 2.5/4 star type superhero movies that are worth a matinee ticket price. I'd file this notably below those. Being better than Morbius doesn't really move the needle for me, lol.
>I think this is an okay film - not BAD - but not great. It was
>funnier than I expected. I think the villain was fine - he's
>not THE JOKER or DR DOOM - but in a series of films he's fine.
>Not every single villains needs to excite people like THE
>JOKER .
Again, I don't think every villain needs to be the Joker, but I do think a villain needs to be interesting and have a modicum of character beyond a compulsion to eat other people's food. (Apparently an earlier cut had more villain backstory and it was all cut-- not convinced that was the right choice imo!)
>I thought this was better than a lot of comic book movies that
>did "better" than it has. Thor 2. Ed Norton Incredible Hulk.
>Howard the Duck. Dick Tracy. Stallone Judge Dredd. Spawn. The
>original Supergil film. Superman III. Superman IV. Tank Girl.
>X-men 3. Elektra.
I'm not convinced many of those movies after the first two did better financially than Supergirl-- but again, I don't really care if something bombs or not. Plenty of movies I love bombed. Plenty of awful movies make a ton of money. Unless I have some sort of personal career stake in a movie, it doesn't make much difference to me.
(I'd also put Dick Tracy above this... and probably Thor 2. And maybe some of those movies from the 90s like Judge Dredd that I wouldn't call "good" but had awesome practical sets and stunts and costumes and felt more like movies and less like video game cut scenes. The more of these digital smear CGI fests I see, the more I value movies from the pre-"CGI everything" era.)
>But maybe for okay films the budget should be less.
I definitely think if you can't afford a final action sequence that looks better than this one on the budget you have, maybe you need to reconsider your choices.
More Christmas movies coming in 2025...
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
