MovieChat Forums > FilmBuff

FilmBuff (2135)


Gotta Wait for the Next Episode Disney+ James Dean... Ranking the Films by Critical and Audience Response Ticket Sales Brisk Box Office Expectations? Could This Become the Only Non-Disney Film to Top $1 Billion in 2019? Funny Sometimes, a Few Standout Performances, But... Quick Shout Out to Felina Can They Work in Gardner Minshew II? View all posts >


If you don't see elements of Anderson's visual style or his quirky humor, so be it. That overt and clearly intentional stylistic homage was one of the things that struck me most on my first viewing of the film. I'm down for anything Lovecraft, even if it has Nicholas Cage in it. It didn't seem to me to be geared towards kids at all. In fact, I'd say it is something of a throwback to the '70s in terms of mood, style, and approach. It plays out more like a '70s Eastwood Western than a Star Wars chapter, and I wonder if very many people under the age of 20 will enjoy it. I only had time to watch about 2/3 of the first episode, but I found it engaging. It's a bit unnerving that the lead wears a helmet that covers his entire face, but that added to the effect, and I don't mind that so far. He sounds like young Clint Eastwood under that thing, and I'm really enjoying his performance so far, and like that he's able to do as much as he has while completely hidden. The story so far feels generic, but it has plenty of time to develop. Right now I'm watching a western set in outer space, and I'm digging it. It's paced nicely, and I'm constantly waiting for what comes next. I don't recall hearing any difficult words. Can you elaborate on that? That's a pretty vague "formula." We're talking about superhero films here, so "hero gains power," and most of the rest of what you list is to be expected. That's like writing off the Godfather film as a formulaic gangster picture because "you have a mob with a boss," "a rival mob wars with them," "gangsters kill one another," "guns are fired," "vengeance is sought," and so forth. A film containing touchstones of its genre is not considered to be merely adhering to a formula. I'd argue that despite touching on the familiar points that one expects in a superhero film, the MCU films are consistently able to transcend the genre by offering a fresh take nearly every time out. With The Winter Soldier we got a tightly-knit tale of espionage and government corruption, Homecoming gave us a coming-of-age story that was much John Hughes as it was Wes Anderson as it was a superhero film. Ragnarok perfectly blended dark, epic-stakes action with Norse mythology, all the while keeping an undercurrent of dry wit, and owes as much to Monty Python as it does to Stan Lee. Infinity War? Homerian tragedy, and the only superhero film I know of in which the ostensible villain is in fact the hero, who completes his quest and defeats the presupposed heroes. Captain Marvel? A clever film based more on the gradual development of its lead character than with any super-hero-ing, and one in which the action, while in steady supply and entertaining, takes a back seat to a story of Danvers gradually regaining her human-ness. Does Black Panther feel like any of the above? Where do the Guardians of the Galaxy fit into any of this? And Ant-Man-- a comedic heist film where the super powers are again almost secondary to the tale-- is yet another outlier. Kemal Atatürk had an entire menagerie called Logan. I don't see the formula. What about Iron Man do you see repeated in the Captain America films, or Thor, especially Ragnarok, or in any way in the Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, Black Panther, or Guardians of the Galaxy films? The beauty of the MCU films to date has been how each one is so different from the rest, yet they are all so consistently good. Remarkably, it has. This thing could have ended 31-14 Seahawks in regulation, but the 49ers have had lucky break after lucky break. Seems they may even win the thing. Do you think that a film based on a book needs to follow every last detail of the book? That doesn't make much sense to me. When a book is adapted for the big screen it's important to convey the main thrust of the book, but not very important to deliver every last detail. Characters and side plots can altered be omitted, plot points can be changed to create a better finished product, and basically anything ought to be fair game with the goal being to deliver an entertaining and thought-provoking movie. I can think of many, many films that were adapted from books where major changes were made, and the resulting film was great. Maybe don't get caught up in something so immaterial as gender-- after all, how does that change anything at all? It isn't as if changing Logan from a male to a female changes anything at all, and you could still end up with a to-the-letter adaptation of the book you love so much. Why does the gender matter? When something is remade/ rebooted/ reimagined, it's interesting to see new spins on the material. It makes sense to keep the core elements-- those things that define the material-- but the rest is fair game for change. Logan's gender is immaterial. If they decided to make Logan a dog, or a child, for example, that would be problematic, but the story of Logan's Run is that of a society where people are killed when they hit 30. As long as that remains the same, or similar, and Logan is trying to escape that fate, I think we're okay. View all replies >