They haven't been forced to reboot those yet and Bryan Singer hasn't completely disassociated with the franchise so I don't see it as a blatant cash grab.
You mean the Sam Rami Spiderman films. Spiderman 1, 2, and 3 were Sony just like Amazing Spiderman 1 and 2. They even used the Spiderman 1/2/3 font for the *Sony* Playstation 3 from 2006 through 2010. Ken Kutaragi fought for it.
I actually thought the first Amazing Spiderman from Webb was decent. I really enjoyed Stone and Garfield together, but the second one was a freaking mess. Too many villains and the whole break up, get back together thing made no sense. A real shame.
KT
That's because Hugh Jackman wants more money and obviously doesn't mind doing more and more of them. Spiderman would still be Tobey McGuire if he would have agreed to do more. Also they did basically reboot the series with the First Class movie and then with the Days of Future Past movie where they basically ignored everything that happened in all the previous movies.
Yes,i see on imdb it has a 7 score but it reminded me of this movie .:|
Under Her Skin with Scarlet Johannson 9/10
What a surprise. One of the most unique and interesting sci-fi movies I've seen in a long time. If I didn't know better, I would have sworn this was made in the 70's or 80's, because it is artistic and non-formulaic. I highly doubt the majority will love this movie, but if you love sci-fi, you should see it.
Hadn't seen that one, sill have to check it out.
Appears to be Under the Skin.
The new Godzilla bored me to tears IMHO, I even went full out in the theater on that one.
That's because Hugh Jackman wants more money and obviously doesn't mind doing more and more of them. Spiderman would still be Tobey McGuire if he would have agreed to do more. Also they did basically reboot the series with the First Class movie and then with the Days of Future Past movie where they basically ignored everything that happened in all the previous movies.
I don't think Days of Future Past ignored X 1-3. Scott and Jean were dead, Professor X was back and allied with Magneto, again (as was shown at the end of X3 and The Wolverine). Well, those were probably the main plot issues that could possibly be inconsistent, considering the huge leap in time between the last 2 present day X-men movies.
I think the biggest hole is that you go from The Wolverine, "today" where he is being recruited by Magneto and Professor X for "the great battle," and then there they are some 10 or more years in the future. Granted, could just be that we assume they went on their merry way and the war really has lasted that long, and this is what it's come to.
It was never explained how Professor X magically came back to life. Also, in the ending, when everything is saved and jumps back to normal time, you see who's alive, so you see who survived after the Age of Apocalypse movie since that movie takes place after Days of Future Past and before everything else.
I was hyped for "All is Lost" due to over-the-top critical praise. It was a huge disappointment. Basically, the bare minimum of what I would expect based on the premise alone. Absolutely no surprises.
It seemed like a lazy cash-in to me. If my idea for a movie was "guy stuck at sea, weathering storms and other typical perils," I wouldn't expect anyone to even agree to make the film. It's a blah idea for a movie and it never does anything beyond what you already expected. There was no reason to even bother making it. You've already seen the movie just by knowing the premise or seeing the trailer.
That makes for an un-involved / disconnected viewing experience.
There are no truly likable characters on this show. It doesn't make it that easy on us. Instead, it challenges us to find the humanity and the heart inside a team of geriatric care workers at a hospital that even sounds bottom-tier by its name.
It's been years since I worked in an office environment but this show makes me not miss it a bit.
As I said, this show isn't pandering to anyone. They don't seem to want your approval...they're almost seeking to repel it.
I do know one thing though...my wife, who has worked in similar medical environments before couldn't stand the show. "It's too real," she told me. "I felt like I just got off a double shift at work in 30 minutes." So, health-care professionals, be forewarned.
Ugetsu Monogatari
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugetsu
one of martin scorsese's favourite films. I get what they were trying to say, but maybe i'm too jaded for this film to take a hold of me. pretty standard story, albeit well shot and acted.
7/10 - for black and white japanese film, there's better out there.
Interstellar -- 7.5/10 -- I'm a grumpy old fart instinctively biased against anything garnering lemming-like hype. That said, my date wanted to see this, so see this we did, and I decided the greater wisdom was to ditch the grump (iness), let go, and just enjoy the spectacle.
And Interstellar was indeed a spectacle! I wish I could have gone through a worm hole or a rabbit hole or plot hole or some sort of "physics as we presently know it defying" heretofore unknown interstice in the space/time fabric and come out 10 years old before entering the theater, because I'm sure I would have then given this movie an 11.
One of the problems with all sci-fi / futuristic movies is getting the science/physics right, so why complain/nit-pick too much, right?
Another problem with these kind of large-scope movies is crafting the small scale/human story so that it matches the power and scope of the special effects/gee-whiz-bang/imax enhanced, mmmmm, so sugary and addictive envelope . . . you know, what impels most of the viewing public to go see the damn thing in the first place.
Almost no one ever pulls this off. That's what great literature is for. Nuance and subtlety and painting the human condition so completely that you manage to encompass seeming contradictions into one challenging and thought-provoking whole generally takes about 700 pages, is what I'm saying.
With a movie, you've got 2 hours (ok, nearly 3) in which to do this, and, in this restricted time frame you also generally have to wrap it all up in a nice feel-good bow of an ending so that the movie-going public (they're cute but so emotionally vulnerable!) won't stumble out into the parking lot wanting to end themselves before they even reach their Prius.
It's November. It's cold and it's dark. You must think of the non-chronological children! Plus, you do want them to come back for your sequel, and multiplex parking-lot suicides have an abysmally low rate of retention.
My date, otoh, was gobsmacked and now wants to see this movie again so she can better absorb all of its intense philosophical depth. All I can say is that internet dating isn't all it's cracked up to be.
I'll shut the fuck up now.
Another problem with these kind of large-scope movies is crafting the small scale/human story so that it matches the power and scope of the special effects/gee-whiz-bang/imax enhanced, mmmmm, so sugary and addictive envelope . . . you know, what impels most of the viewing public to go see the damn thing in the first place.
Interstellar -- 7.5/10 -- I'm a grumpy old fart instinctively biased against anything garnering lemming-like hype. That said, my date wanted to see this, so see this we did, and I decided the greater wisdom was to ditch the grump (iness), let go, and just enjoy the spectacle.
And Interstellar was indeed a spectacle! I wish I could have gone through a worm hole or a rabbit hole or plot hole or some sort of "physics as we presently know it defying" heretofore unknown interstice in the space/time fabric and come out 10 years old before entering the theater, because I'm sure I would have then given this movie an 11.
One of the problems with all sci-fi / futuristic movies is getting the science/physics right, so why complain/nit-pick too much, right?
Another problem with these kind of large-scope movies is crafting the small scale/human story so that it matches the power and scope of the special effects/gee-whiz-bang/imax enhanced, mmmmm, so sugary and addictive envelope . . . you know, what impels most of the viewing public to go see the damn thing in the first place.
Almost no one ever pulls this off. That's what great literature is for. Nuance and subtlety and painting the human condition so completely that you manage to encompass seeming contradictions into one challenging and thought-provoking whole generally takes about 700 pages, is what I'm saying.
With a movie, you've got 2 hours (ok, nearly 3) in which to do this, and, in this restricted time frame you also generally have to wrap it all up in a nice feel-good bow of an ending so that the movie-going public (they're cute but so emotionally vulnerable!) won't stumble out into the parking lot wanting to end themselves before they even reach their Prius.
It's November. It's cold and it's dark. You must think of the non-chronological children! Plus, you do want them to come back for your sequel, and multiplex parking-lot suicides have an abysmally low rate of retention.
My date, otoh, was gobsmacked and now wants to see this movie again so she can better absorb all of its intense philosophical depth. All I can say is that internet dating isn't all it's cracked up to be.
I'll shut the fuck up now.