Movies The Movie Thread! - Continuation - Part 1

[Riku]

Yeah, Ridley Scott is like a 50/50 kind of deal. He has some amazing films (, Blade Runner, Thelma&Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) but then he has done also some pretty horrible stuff (Legend, Robin Hood, Prometheus, Exodus). Particularly his newer stuff doesn't tend to be that good.

 

[Wowzers]

Just thought I'd check Rotten Tomatoes out, and they have posted the ratings for Wonder Woman!
It's still early, but it's sitting at 97%!

That's promising!

 

[FetherMan]

Well I didn't say he was as good a director as Spielberg and Scorsese. I do think he's better than Riddly Scott though.

Riddly Scott is a good director. When he gets a good script more often than not he makes good movies. The Martian was a good adaptation. The book was better but the adaptation was good. Alien, Blade Runner and a lot of other things he's directed were good too. But you give him a bad story he's going to give you a bad movie. Exodus: Gods and Kings for example.

James Cameron is a writer/director. He not only directed Aliens, Terminator, The Abyss, Titanic, and Avatar(which was Sci-Fi "Dances with Wolves" and I liked it) he wrote them. James Cameron is the complete creative package. The movies he's involved with are created and shaping almost completely by him. So his movies are as good as they are entirely because of him. And almost all his movies are at least good.

---------------------------------------------------------------

My point here isn't necessarily that you need James Cameron to make a good Alien movie or even a writer/director. My point is that Riddley Scott was never responsible for how great the Alien franchise was. Having Riddly Scott be in charge of the franchise is a problem because he doesn't actually know what a great Alien movie should look like or how to get there. Riddley Scott had nothing to do with writing in the original Alien. He just made a creature feature and it was pretty great. But I don't think anybody loved it for the directing. When Cameron came along with Aliens and created the concept of Colonial Marines. He turned it into a full blow Sci-Fi action/horror franchise. I think the Alien franchise needs somebody to do that again.

One of the problems with Alien: Covenant was that Scott had it written by Jack Paglen(Transcendence) and Michael Green(Green Lantern). That's obviously not the class of writer you need to make the Alien franchise what it was in the 90s. To make the Alien franchise what it once was you need somebody at the wheel that knows what they are doing from a creative standpoint. But as long as Scott's playing creative lead we're going to keep getting crap like this because he doesn't know how to reach that perfect blend of horror and sci-fi action that Cameron found with Aliens.

I'm sure somewhere out there is a great Sci-Fi novelist that's just dying to be that person to do that for him. Alien type books are not at all rare. Pair somebody like that up with a competent screenwriter and you've got something Riddly Scott can work with. The ones that come to mind for me are people like like Dan Abnett, Michael A. Stackpole, and Timothy Zahn but I'm sure there other even better people out there.

The problem is that I don't know if Riddly Scott realizes his limits enough to actually do that.

Well I didn't say he was as good a director as Spielberg and Scorsese. I do think he's better than Riddly Scott though.

Riddly Scott is a good director. When he gets a good script more often than not he makes good movies. The Martian was a good adaptation. The book was better but the adaptation was good. Alien, Blade Runner and a lot of other things he's directed were good too. But you give him a bad story he's going to give you a bad movie. Exodus: Gods and Kings for example.

James Cameron is a writer/director. He not only directed Aliens, Terminator, The Abyss, Titanic, and Avatar(which was Sci-Fi "Dances with Wolves" and I liked it) he wrote them. James Cameron is the complete creative package. The movies he's involved with are created and shaping almost completely by him. So his movies are as good as they are entirely because of him. And almost all his movies are at least good.

---------------------------------------------------------------

My point here isn't necessarily that you need James Cameron to make a good Alien movie or even a writer/director. My point is that Riddley Scott was never responsible for how great the Alien franchise was. Having Riddly Scott be in charge of the franchise is a problem because he doesn't actually know what a great Alien movie should look like or how to get there. Riddley Scott had nothing to do with writing in the original Alien. He just made a creature feature and it was pretty great. But I don't think anybody loved it for the directing. When Cameron came along with Aliens and created the concept of Colonial Marines. He turned it into a full blow Sci-Fi action/horror franchise. I think the Alien franchise needs somebody to do that again.

One of the problems with Alien: Covenant was that Scott had it written by Jack Paglen(Transcendence) and Michael Green(Green Lantern). That's obviously not the class of writer you need to make the Alien franchise what it was in the 90s. To make the Alien franchise what it once was you need somebody at the wheel that knows what they are doing from a creative standpoint. But as long as Scott's playing creative lead we're going to keep getting crap like this because he doesn't know how to reach that perfect blend of horror and sci-fi action that Cameron found with Aliens.

I'm sure somewhere out there is a great Sci-Fi novelist that's just dying to be that person to do that for him. Alien type books are not at all rare. Pair somebody like that up with a competent screenwriter and you've got something Riddly Scott can work with. The ones that come to mind for me are people like like Dan Abnett, Michael A. Stackpole, and Timothy Zahn but I'm sure there other even better people out there.

The problem is that I don't know if Riddly Scott realizes his limits enough to actually do that.

I

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 2, 2017, Original Post Date: Jun 2, 2017 ---

Well I didn't say he was as good a director as Spielberg and Scorsese. I do think he's better than Riddly Scott though.

Riddly Scott is a good director. When he gets a good script more often than not he makes good movies. The Martian was a good adaptation. The book was better but the adaptation was good. Alien, Blade Runner and a lot of other things he's directed were good too. But you give him a bad story he's going to give you a bad movie. Exodus: Gods and Kings for example.

James Cameron is a writer/director. He not only directed Aliens, Terminator, The Abyss, Titanic, and Avatar(which was Sci-Fi "Dances with Wolves" and I liked it) he wrote them. James Cameron is the complete creative package. The movies he's involved with are created and shaping almost completely by him. So his movies are as good as they are entirely because of him. And almost all his movies are at least good.

---------------------------------------------------------------

My point here isn't necessarily that you need James Cameron to make a good Alien movie or even a writer/director. My point is that Riddley Scott was never responsible for how great the Alien franchise was. Having Riddly Scott be in charge of the franchise is a problem because he doesn't actually know what a great Alien movie should look like or how to get there. Riddley Scott had nothing to do with writing in the original Alien. He just made a creature feature and it was pretty great. But I don't think anybody loved it for the directing. When Cameron came along with Aliens and created the concept of Colonial Marines. He turned it into a full blow Sci-Fi action/horror franchise. I think the Alien franchise needs somebody to do that again.

One of the problems with Alien: Covenant was that Scott had it written by Jack Paglen(Transcendence) and Michael Green(Green Lantern). That's obviously not the class of writer you need to make the Alien franchise what it was in the 90s. To make the Alien franchise what it once was you need somebody at the wheel that knows what they are doing from a creative standpoint. But as long as Scott's playing creative lead we're going to keep getting crap like this because he doesn't know how to reach that perfect blend of horror and sci-fi action that Cameron found with Aliens.

I'm sure somewhere out there is a great Sci-Fi novelist that's just dying to be that person to do that for him. Alien type books are not at all rare. Pair somebody like that up with a competent screenwriter and you've got something Riddly Scott can work with. The ones that come to mind for me are people like like Dan Abnett, Michael A. Stackpole, and Timothy Zahn but I'm sure there other even better people out there.

The problem is that I don't know if Riddly Scott realizes his limits enough to actually do that.

In regards to the "Alien" franchise comment, Scott, Cameron and Fincher all brought their own style and adaptation to the franchise, but to say that Scott's original film didn't make the franchise great, then why would the studio put money into three additional sequels after?.

And I don't think a director should be dismissed for making both good and bad films because that's a matter of people's opinion. I can tell you this, Blade Runner wasn't regarded highly at all when it came out in the 80's, but now all of a sudden it's a classic and the studio puts money into a sequel no less. I mean, you can nitpick about a director's faults (if that's what you consider them), but Cameron hasn't done nearly enough to be compared to the director's I've listed. If you want to give Cameron all this glory for box office numbers, because that's what most people do nowadays, cool.

But for me, I can tell you that "Gladiator" for example, is a classic and then to do that and something like "Black Hawk Down" or even "Exodus" just shows your ability as a director who tries different types of genre. Cameron plays it safe and I'm not putting him above Scott because of Avatar's success or Titanic for that matter.

That's just me though.

 

[Jammin]

In regards to the "Alien" franchise comment, Scott, Cameron and Fincher all brought their own style and adaptation to the franchise, but to say that Scott's original film didn't make the franchise great, then why would the studio put money into three additional sequels after?.

Because it was a great concept.

None of the proceeding movies had Riddley Scott directing. They still got made. I would argue James Cameron's Aliens was even better than the original. Good enough that two terrible sequels got made; then they finally gave it up.

And I don't think a director should be dismissed for making both good and bad films because that's a matter of people's opinion. I can tell you this, Blade Runner wasn't regarded highly at all when it came out in the 80's, but now all of a sudden it's a classic and the studio puts money into a sequel no less. I mean, you can nitpick about a director's faults (if that's what you consider them), but Cameron hasn't done nearly enough to be compared to the director's I've listed. If you want to give Cameron all this glory for box office numbers, because that's what most people do nowadays, cool.

But for me, I can tell you that "Gladiator" for example, is a classic and then to do that and something like "Black Hawk Down" or even "Exodus" just shows your ability as a director who tries different types of genre. Cameron plays it safe and I'm not putting him above Scott because of Avatar's success or Titanic for that matter.

That's just me though.

I agree to a point. A director has a huge influence on how the movie turns out. So how the concept of a movie is executed, for better or worse, should be attributed to them. But if the concept of a movie is bad there isn't much they can do about it.

I don't really give credit for trying different genres either. If someone wants to branch out I'm not going to knock them for that but I don't particularly care how well rounded a director's resume is either I just want a good movie. So I only care about the results. Would you rather eat at a place where they only serve one thing but it's the best in the world or would you rather eat somewhere where they can cook anything with mixed results? For me the answer is obvious.

As for how Cameron compares to other directors. It doesn't really matter. I only brought him up as an example of someone who actually was responsible for things people love about the Alien series. As opposed to Scott who is just not that guy. But for some reason he is the guy FOX put in charge of the franchise.

My fear about that is we will keep getting Alien movies that don't give people what they want. Resulting in more movies that don't make back their production budget, like Prometheus didn't and Covenent apparently won't, and FOX will put the franchise back on ice. I don't want to see that happen.

 

[Wowzers]

Just saw Wonder Woman!
It's a nicely done origin story that isn't as dark as the other recent DC movies. Hardly any humor though, just a few situations that bring a smile.
I did feel that the Big Baddy at the end was kind of unnecessary. Wasn't the war itself bad enough?
I Would give it a 'Very Good' ranking but not Excellent.

By the way, there are no end credits scenes at the end of this movie so you can get to the washroom ahead of the half-theatre full of people wating for the almost obligatory extras.

 

[Organizized]

Oh gosh... Murder on the Orient Express is a terrific book, definitely worthy of the "classic" status it's received. The trailer for the new Kenneth Branagh version, while visually appealing, looks... terrible. Oh dear.

Branagh is so damn hit-and-miss. As an actor he can be great at times, as a director he's usually not-so-great but passable. But seeing him as Hercule Poirot, even for just a few seconds, made me kinda cringe..

 

[Riku]

I actually like Wonderwoman too. It wasn't the most orginal of scripts, very formulaic, but it worked well. Its was very exciting and it was fresh to wee a woman in the hero role. Pretty badass action sequences. Very solid hero flick.

Oh god the Orient Express trailer was cringy. I kinda liked the visual (interesting neo-noir vibe in a setting that is usually done in the traditional crime/noir style). Or maybe that impression came mostly from the choice of graphics. It has an all-star cast and all, but still the acting felt so damn awkward. Branagh did not feel or look like Poirot at all. Not the tiniest bit.

Murder on the Orient Express in no doubt a classic book and worth of fame, but why remake it in the first place? I mean, first of all (I might be overestimating the literature knowledge of a common citizen) but who in the world doesn't know the solution already, even if they haven't read the original book? It has been adapted so many times already, on the big screen, tv and stage. And it is referenced in pop culture with frequent basis. It's a common item on reading lists of schools all over the world. And based on the one trailer, it didn't seem like it is an very border-pushing creative adaptation either. So just why? I want the interview where they explain why they felt like they needed and wanted to do a new adaptation of it.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 9, 2017, Original Post Date: Jun 9, 2017 ---

I liked the point-of.view shot gliding thorough the cart a lot. This is kinda off-topic, but that made me wonder why a murder mystery VR-game with similar style hasn't been created yet. Or a VR-short film to that matter. You know, a game where it matters who/where you look at when you choose your actions/words. Could be very interesting.

 

[Organizized]

Pretty much summed up everything I thought as well.. Though I actually managed to go until I was like 20 before I read the book and hadn't been spoiled (don't ask me how), but since then I've seen it everywhere. It's kind of like the classic Sixth Sense or Empire Strikes Back spoilers, I feel.

And like you said, it's not like they seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Unless they actually change the "twist", but without that half the genius of the story is gone (no, I do not in the least believe Branagh can come up with something clever enough as an alternative). It feels like Branagh just picked the story with the most different major characters he could think of because he knew he could call in some favors among his major actor/actress friends or something...

I can't take him seriously as Poirot. The more I look at him the more it feels like he's mocking the character, and potential viewers.. like, how could anyone buy that guy as Poirot? Looks like he just some grey wool and pasted it to his face.

The VR mystery game idea is awesome. Hopefully someone else thought of it as well and we'll get to see something like that soon.

 

[kkck]

Welp, on one hand I saw wonder woman. Great movie, all dc movies should be like that. With actual plot I mean. And none of whatever it is snyder tried to pass for plot in the other films. Hopefully they take the hint that people like movies with compelling stories instead of a string of scenes which sporadically look cool (though batfleck is the best batman yet).

On the other hand I saw the mummy. I was pleasantly surprised. I expected an awful movie and instead it was a solid "meh". I don't expect a sequel to this though. I look forward to their next attempt at kickstarting the monster movie universe though. That said, I get the feeling whoever wrote the movie was a fan of the hellsing manga.

 

[Wowzers]

On the other hand I saw the mummy. I was pleasantly surprised. I expected an awful movie and instead it was a solid "meh".

I agree 100% with this statement. I almost didn't go to it because of the awful reviews, but it wasn't too bad actually. Certainly not going to get an Oscar for... pretty much anything, but it was still entertaining. I liked it better than the Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

 

[Styx]

I watched Wonder Woman and The Mummy.

I was incredibly surprised, especially that there was so little Feminist propaganda. The only real complaint I had was with the ending. Overall I give it a 8.7/10. Can't wait to see where the series is headed. DCU needs some heavy hitters to get on track.

I honestly hated The Mummy. The pacing was quick. the characters were just thrown at you without any real development whatsoever and the plot was weak. The only redeemable aspect I found was Tom Cruise's stunts. I give it a 2/10. Would have rather bought tickets to see the original movie. In fact, I'm going to go watch it now.


(Aflack the best Batman yet?! ARG! My heart!)

 

[Wowzers]

This weekend I saw Despicable Me 3 and Baby Driver!

Despicable Me 3 was good, but I felt that it wasn't as good as the previous 2 movies in the series. Even Minions was better. Still, it is good and worth watching.

As for Baby Driver, that was freaking awesome!
Get out and see it when you can!

 

[Organizized]

Edgar Wright is a favorite filmmaker of mine. Baby Driver has been one of my most looked forward films for a long time so I'm definitely seeing that in theatres when it comes out here (July 17, I think). The trailer looked incredibly disappointing imo, so I kinda lost the hype for it, then I heard people say the trailers were terrible at showing what the actual film is like, and that it is everything you'd hope it would be. People are calling it "an action musical", where they sing with their action and their bullets, everything perfectly adjusted to the music. That just sounds so up my street it's almost crazy.

 

[FetherMan]

Baby Driver was awesome, seen last weekend and Wright made a better action film with car chases than this year's "Fate of the Furious". Only imagine what he could've done with "Ant Man".

p.s., "Spider-Man: Homecoming" up next, hope it does something different this time around than the previous 5 films.

 

[Faust]

Spoiler: Spider-Man: Homecoming

The overall movie is good.

Tom Holland is probably my favorite Spider-Man now.

Vulture lacks charisma like most of Marvel's villains, Loki being the only exception.

Ned's probably the best Marvel sidekick right now (since Groot can't be considered as Rocket's sidekick right?)

Happy to see Pepper Potts again!

Potential Sinister Six with the mid-credits scene and that new suit made by Tony!

The Captain America videos were funny. They even put one as a post-credit scene.

And that "WTF" ending scene with Aunt May discovering Peter is Spider-Man

My only complaint is that there wasn't really much development with the Peter-Liz thing. I know Liz was just a transitional love interest since it's obviously Michelle that would be his main love interest further along but they could've done it better. It was just essential with the twist of Liz being the daughter of Vulture, which was good and unexpected.

Saw the trailer of Baby Driver at the cinema and didn't really get sold not before I saw that it was directed by Edgar Wright. The showing date here is on Aug. 16 so I still need to wait for over a month!

 

[Styx]

I just saw the Spiderman movie...

Spoiler: spoilers, duh!

My complaints first: the utter betrayal and re-designs of iconic Spider-man characters such as Flash Thompson and M.J! I could get over the change to Aunt May--that was good!--but changing Flash into a "smart ass" geek? What?! No, no, no! A muscled jock that torments Peter is what his character is! Not this! And changing M.J into a "Michelle" "smart-ass", jokster, hipster protester who can't be proud of something for retarded political agendas? There is also the complaint of its pacing. The first half or so of the movie suffers from quick pacing. Everything is happening at once, he meets his stale-old idea of a sidekick through his friend Ned almost instantly (we didn't need Ned as that role!) and just so much more...

The good? Tom Holland was great. He wasn't a douche-bag like Garfield's Spider-man, both in or out of the suit! He was a clumsy nerd outside of the suit and a slightly cheeky teen inside of the suit. They managed this part of the Spider-man persona well! The original movies with Tobey in it had it, for sure, but it wasn't "enough". This was largely due to the fact that that series was aimed more towards a "hard story", as in a concentration of just the story. It wasn't focused too much on getting humor out there or those awesome fight scenes, it just happened. Other great stuff includes; the action and web slinging parts, the humor presented by Tony, Happy, the AI etc and wasn't overburdening the movie with it like many other Marvel movies, the bad guy (The Vulture was done very well though I can't say he was very close to any comic book representation I have read or seen), and most of all...getting us into a story centered around a hero teen! That was believable! How he just wanted to prove himself even if it meant being an idiot sometimes.

Anyways, I honestly can't say much more than that, I wouldn't know how to start. I just know that movies, all movies, lately seem to lack a real deep substance to it. However, I do have to admit it was a "hilarious ride" but I do hope they try to change the Marvel tone of "too much humor, not enough story" in the next film at least.

So I give it a 8/10. The changes to M.J were just too jarring to me as a comic book fan, so I had to knock it down a lot. Either way, I definitely say go watch it. One of the best Marvel movies of recent times (Ant-Man and Doctor Strange for example).

 

[kkck]

Spoiler: Spiderman Homecoming

Ok, I saw homecoming. Plotwise it was a solid movie overall. It's not my favorite marvel movie by any means though. I still like both GOTG and antman better TBH. In any case, it is still refreshing to see a spiderman movie with a solid plot after the mess spiderman 3 and the amazing spiderman 2 was.

Vulture was the best part. Which was a surprise for me because that is a villain which I never thought of before and never really got the hype behind him. I knew him as some old guy from the spiderman animated series way back in the day... Still, great surprise. And I gotta say, I was legitimately surprised when he turned out to be liz' dad. Even thought every moment leading up to the reveal should have made it insanely obvious....

Also, ned needs to die. His one kinda funny moment in the movie with the "guy in the chair" bit but that is it. Were it not for him saying peter new spiderman half the movie would have not happened. Had peter tied a web around his neck and tossed him of the Chrysler building I would not have held it against him nor felt it in any way made him a bad person.

One thing that did seem weird to me is that spiderman seemed conveniently less competent than his appearance in civil war. During the movie he appeared, took captain's shield and went on to be a huge pain in everyone's ass. Well, captain and bucky's anyways. He did a good job overall. In turn in this movie we see the guy kinda just figuring things out, he fumbles his way everywhere and awkwardly resolves everything. Because he is an awkward teenager right? right? Had he been half as competent as he was during the civil war movie half the movie would not have happened. And the other half would not have happened if ned could keep his mouth shut. Well, and there is a small bit of the movie that wouldn't have happened had toni actually communicated with peter. Imagine this exchange:

Peter: Mr stark, there is a guy making superweapons out of alien tech and selling it to random thugs on the street.

Tony: That is the absolute worst business model I have ever heard. Pretty sure anyone can pay better than random assholes busting ATMs. Heck, the equipment should be worth more than the money inside several ATMs.

Peter: Maybe? I am a teenager so these adult stuff makes no sense to me. Anyways, there is a guy in a winged armor protecting this guys, maybe you should call the avengers. But not steve, he has no superpowers.

Tony: Steve could knock you out if he wanted to.

Peter: How? I bet I could survive being flattened by concrete. And my spidersense would help me avoid the shield as many times as necessary. Wait, do I even have a spidersense?

Tony: Riiiiight.... Anyways, avengers deal with bigger threats than this.

Peter: bigger than a guy arming petty criminals with future tech? Mr stark, this is a god damn movie. In RL a weapon with a charge time that fires blast that can be seen by the naked eye would be objectively worst than a crappy gun from the civil war. But this is a movie, a guy with a shocker fist would beat a horde policemen armed with real guns.

Tony: That is the stupidest thing I have ever hear... OH MY THOR THIS IS TOTALLY IN THE AVENGER'S PAYGRADE!

Other stuff that annoyed me: Tony coming up with the "friendly neighborhood spiderman" thing. And finally.... A big part of the movie is when tony calls out peter on being a reckless child who did not follow orders and put everyone in danger and then taking the suit. But then spidey fixes everything by.... being a reckless child who puts everyone in danger. I mean, had spidey simply gone to the tower and talked to happy then there would have been a horde of iron an suits on vulture's ass from the get go.

 

[Styx]

Spoiler: Spiderman Homecoming

Ok, I saw homecoming. Plotwise it was a solid movie overall. It's not my favorite marvel movie by any means though. I still like both GOTG and antman better TBH. In any case, it is still refreshing to see a spiderman movie with a solid plot after the mess spiderman 3 and the amazing spiderman 2 was.

Vulture was the best part. Which was a surprise for me because that is a villain which I never thought of before and never really got the hype behind him. I knew him as some old guy from the spiderman animated series way back in the day... Still, great surprise. And I gotta say, I was legitimately surprised when he turned out to be liz' dad. Even thought every moment leading up to the reveal should have made it insanely obvious....

Also, ned needs to die. His one kinda funny moment in the movie with the "guy in the chair" bit but that is it. Were it not for him saying peter new spiderman half the movie would have not happened. Had peter tied a web around his neck and tossed him of the Chrysler building I would not have held it against him nor felt it in any way made him a bad person.

One thing that did seem weird to me is that spiderman seemed conveniently less competent than his appearance in civil war. During the movie he appeared, took captain's shield and went on to be a huge pain in everyone's ass. Well, captain and bucky's anyways. He did a good job overall. In turn in this movie we see the guy kinda just figuring things out, he fumbles his way everywhere and awkwardly resolves everything. Because he is an awkward teenager right? right? Had he been half as competent as he was during the civil war movie half the movie would not have happened. And the other half would not have happened if ned could keep his mouth shut. Well, and there is a small bit of the movie that wouldn't have happened had toni actually communicated with peter. Imagine this exchange:

Peter: Mr stark, there is a guy making superweapons out of alien tech and selling it to random thugs on the street.

Tony: That is the absolute worst business model I have ever heard. Pretty sure anyone can pay better than random assholes busting ATMs. Heck, the equipment should be worth more than the money inside several ATMs.

Peter: Maybe? I am a teenager so these adult stuff makes no sense to me. Anyways, there is a guy in a winged armor protecting this guys, maybe you should call the avengers. But not steve, he has no superpowers.

Tony: Steve could knock you out if he wanted to.

Peter: How? I bet I could survive being flattened by concrete. And my spidersense would help me avoid the shield as many times as necessary. Wait, do I even have a spidersense?

Tony: Riiiiight.... Anyways, avengers deal with bigger threats than this.

Peter: bigger than a guy arming petty criminals with future tech? Mr stark, this is a god damn movie. In RL a weapon with a charge time that fires blast that can be seen by the naked eye would be objectively worst than a crappy gun from the civil war. But this is a movie, a guy with a shocker fist would beat a horde policemen armed with real guns.

Tony: That is the stupidest thing I have ever hear... OH MY THOR THIS IS TOTALLY IN THE AVENGER'S PAYGRADE!

Other stuff that annoyed me: Tony coming up with the "friendly neighborhood spiderman" thing. And finally.... A big part of the movie is when tony calls out peter on being a reckless child who did not follow orders and put everyone in danger and then taking the suit. But then spidey fixes everything by.... being a reckless child who puts everyone in danger. I mean, had spidey simply gone to the tower and talked to happy then there would have been a horde of iron an suits on vulture's ass from the get go.

Spoiler: spoilers

To be honest, the movie didn't even need Ned, Flash or M.J. Their roles were so shallow or unnecessary that they only really took away precious time they could have used developing Peter, Toomes and the storyline itself. They were so forcefully put into the movie their scenes—even if one or two were funny—felt jarring and out of place. That's not even considering how horribly they ruined the character of Flash (a skinny book nerd that just rarely pops out snarky comments instead of being the bully that torments Peter) and M.J...oh, I mean "Michelle". The girl who 100% no longer resembles M.J and should have just been an entirely new character.

And to answer your question (though you didn't out right ask it xD)—the creator of the movie did not want to direct the spidersense, one of Spider-man's most iconic and used abilities. If you ask me, that was really stupid. It forced Peter to rely on his suit more than his actual natural talent, making him more like Iron Man than Spider-man. Spider-Man is supposed to be incredibly durable. He shouldn't need an Iron-Man suit to protect him or amplify his strength/endurance!

Other stuff that annoyed me: Tony coming up with the "friendly neighborhood spiderman" thing. And finally.... A big part of the movie is when tony calls out peter on being a reckless child who did not follow orders and put everyone in danger and then taking the suit. But then spidey fixes everything by.... being a reckless child who puts everyone in danger. I mean, had spidey simply gone to the tower and talked to happy then there would have been a horde of iron an suits on vulture's ass from the get go.

Yes! I was like, wait, what? What did he prove Tony? It was exactly the same shit you yelled at him for...was it not reckless because he didn't have the suit? The logic there was exceptionally flawed.

You know though...people will fall all over the movie and say it had no flaws because they're that blind.

 

[Faust]

 

[FetherMan]

Spider-Man: Homecoming 7 / 10

Only real difference in this film was the connection now to the MCU, other than that, it didn't do anything different from the previous 5 films. Holland's Peter Parker was much better, but he, Mcquire and Garfield all the same when the costumes on. Hopefully, they'll do more with Spider-Man in future films.


War for the Planet of the Apes 9 / 10

Great film and conclusion to this back story trilogy involving the evolution of the apes through Caesar's leadership and this was translated well through all three films. I still like "Dawn" the best because "War" was expected from beginning to the end, but the execution of the film was done well, big props to Reeves and Wyatt as well.