Reviews for Creed (Michael B. Jordan, Stallone, dir. Ryan Coogler)

Status
Not open for further replies.
guek said:
Rocky is definitely a more consistent franchise, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I'd suggest they share a similar quality curve, honestly. The only real discrepancy being Rocky II not being an improvement on its predecessor. Otherwise you start at roughly the same height, and then you descend, and only by the 6th movie do we start swinging back north.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
I dunno, I'd suggest they share a similar quality curve, honestly. The only real discrepancy being Rocky II not being an improvement on its predecessor. Otherwise you start at roughly the same height, and then you descend, and only by the 6th movie do we start swinging back north.
Click to expand...

Except A New Hope is the best Star Wars movie by far.
 
I've got Rocky 1 > II > Balboa > IV > III > V

I expect Creed to be at least >= Balboa. I think it's hilarious how endearing Paulie can be, despite being an abusive racist. Dude's such a messy person of a bygone era. Yet he still cracks me up...

and yeah Empire Strikes Back raises the stakes and goes much deeper into the lore but I still think I prefer A New Hope, it's such a timeless adventure film.
 
Discotheque said:
and yeah Empire Strikes Back raises the stakes and goes much deeper into the lore
Click to expand...

Even if you set aside those aspects, the film just looks better, moves faster, and is acted better. Also sounds better, and features better visual effects. As a movie, it's better constructed and executed in almost every way.

Rocky is a better looking, more interesting, better acted film than Rocky II. Balboa is the best thing Stallone's directed in the series, easily.
 
BronsonLee said:
If I had the stones, I'd straight up make a thread saying Creed is better than Force Awakens

Rocky is definitely better than Star Wars in my book. It's weird though. The most noteworthy moments people remember actually happen in Rocky II
Click to expand...

keep in mind that around the release of star wars, there will be about 50 threads that look like this:

TFA was shit

TFA was better then the OT, stop being nostalgic

TFA was worse then the PT

Mad Max >>>>>>>> TFA

TFA bombs at box office, only makes $208 million opening weekend

Was I the only one who didn't like TFA?

GAF, can someone recommend the best way to watch TFA?

etc.

Your thread will be just fine in comparison.
 
most underrated best part of Rocky 3 is all that shit Clubber Lang is talking while the camera is focused on Rocky/Mickey when Mickey quits.

“I’m glad you people are seeing this here! I’ve earned this I’ve worked hard for this here! Please don’t judge me by the color of my skin or the way that I look judge me by the content of my character, judge me by my pride, my determination or judge me by my fighting record”.

which is of course followed immediately by the best part of Rocky 3, "Hey woman! Hey woman! Listen here. Since your old man ain't got no heart, maybe you like to see a real man. I bet you stay up late every night dreamin' you had a real man, don't ya? I'll tell you what. Bring your pretty little self over to my apartment tonight, and I'll show you a real man."
 
Bobby Roberts said:
I dunno, I'd suggest they share a similar quality curve, honestly. The only real discrepancy being Rocky II not being an improvement on its predecessor. Otherwise you start at roughly the same height, and then you descend, and only by the 6th movie do we start swinging back north.
Click to expand...

I love both franchises and freely admit to loving Star Wars much more, but I think Rocky has a better track record overall if you're merely comparing good movies to bad ones. Rocky I is definitely the best in the series but II complements it so well. III, IV, and VI never reach the same heights but they're all enjoyable solid films. V is garbage. Star Wars in comparison has two great films, one that's pretty good, one that's decent, one that's pretty bad, and one that's flat out horrendous. Comparable but I think Rocky edges it out.
 
Here's why I don't like III and IV as much as people here do. Because it seems obvious to me those movies feature a Stallone who is kind of ashamed of Rocky as a character, and he's trying to figure out how to make him more like Sly than like Rocky.

People love the over-the-top bombastic cartoonishness of those two films (and Rocky III is basically the birth of the '80s movie as we know it, really) but they seriously fuck with what made Rocky WORK as a character, and bury him under Stallone's own hubris. Hell, Clubber is more or less the Rocky character in III. But Stallone has, interestingly, turned Clubber into a monster, and is asking you, the audience, to consider him as such. "You ain't so bad!"

This is all part of why Balboa works as well as it does, because it features a Stallone that seems to be accepting his role. He and his character are in roughly the same place, and it made his writing and direction a lot more empathetic and involving.

but I think Rocky has a better track record overall if you're merely comparing good movies to bad ones.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I'm just saying the quality curve looks pretty similar, to me. Start up high, slide down low (5th film being the nadir), start the climb up the mountain again on part 6.

It looks like Part 7 might be the return to the mountaintop for both, but it's hard to tell what with none of us having seen both part 7s yet.
 
ViewtifulJC said:
which is of course followed immediately by the best part of Rocky 3, "Hey woman! Hey woman! Listen here. Since your old man ain't got no heart, maybe you like to see a real man. I bet you stay up late every night dreamin' you had a real man, don't ya? I'll tell you what. Bring your pretty little self over to my apartment tonight, and I'll show you a real man."
Click to expand...

Southpaw already felt like a hollow ass remake of like 3 rocky movies but the most blatant example is that they ripped off this EXACT scene in the film too. Down to the opponent saying the same line to gylenhaal's wife.

And yeah Rocky in III and IV is a completely different person. All of a sudden he's so comfortable in the public, can speak eloquently and shit lmao. And he also looks like a damn action figure. Rocky IV's training montage is the best to ever exist, and peak aesthetic Sly but you can barely tell it's the same Balboa from the first two.

There's a reason why he wrote V to go 'back to the roots'. Except it was kind of a damn depressing ass throwback. Balboa ended up being a much better take on that idea.
 
Besides V, I enjoy the hell out of every Rocky for various different reasons. Such a great franchise, which is why I'm super hyped to hear that Creed seems to be amazing.
 
Discotheque said:
And yeah Rocky in III and IV is a completely different person. All of a sudden he's so comfortable in the public, can speak eloquently and shit lmao.
Click to expand...

Which made the transition back to V even worse as he kinda became a bumbling idiot when speaking, and then somehow got better by Balboa.
 
Same thing happen with Rambo, of course, the cartoonization and Stallone's ego. Wrote about that a minute ago

ViewtifulJC said:
Its amazing to me how the Rambo franchise became a thing after the first movie. IDK how anybody saw that film, with that sociologically intelligent tone, and those ultimately anti-violence themes, and that ending with Stallone curdled up in a ball of inarticulate hurt and pain, and thought, "Yes, this is the PERFECT vehicle for our re-do of the Vietnam war where we get to win!" And that is the face of the series, that is the pop culture reference for Rambo. He went from a disenfranchised loner out of step with the world to a giant inhuman robot of death, the cinematic icon of Reagan's America.

rambofyeah.gif


The first one climaxed with this scene. The last one climaxed with this scene.
Click to expand...
 
Bobby Roberts said:
Here's why I don't like III and IV as much as people here do. Because it seems obvious to me those movies feature a Stallone who is kind of ashamed of Rocky as a character, and he's trying to figure out how to make him more like Sly than like Rocky.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY why the later Die Hard movies (after 3) suck. John McClane isn't John McClane anymore. He is Bruce Willis channeling his default tough guy persona that happens to be named John McClane in those movies.

John McClane in those movies is no different tonally, than his character in GI JOE.
 
You can argue the cinematic merits of each if you like - that's simply the order in which I'd willingly watch them.

And say what you will about either franchise, I'd take more Rambo and Rocky movies any day over another awful Expendables outing.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
Here's why I don't like III and IV as much as people here do. Because it seems obvious to me those movies feature a Stallone who is kind of ashamed of Rocky as a character, and he's trying to figure out how to make him more like Sly than like Rocky.

People love the over-the-top bombastic cartoonishness of those two films (and Rocky III is basically the birth of the '80s movie as we know it, really) but they seriously fuck with what made Rocky WORK as a character, and bury him under Stallone's own hubris. Hell, Clubber is more or less the Rocky character in III. But Stallone has, interestingly, turned Clubber into a monster, and is asking you, the audience, to consider him as such. "You ain't so bad!"

This is all part of why Balboa works as well as it does, because it features a Stallone that seems to be accepting his role. He and his character are in roughly the same place, and it made his writing and direction a lot more empathetic and involving.
Click to expand...

I can get behind that, even if I love the cartoonishness of III and IV more than you. I almost consider those two completely different Rocky characters. IV is a logical continuation of III but VI is more of a sequel to II.
 
ooooooooooh yea. Pretty excited to watch this movie!

Got super hyped when i watched the trailer at the movies the other day.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
Even if you set aside those aspects, the film just looks better, moves faster, and is acted better. Also sounds better, and features better visual effects. As a movie, it's better constructed and executed in almost every way.

Rocky is a better looking, more interesting, better acted film than Rocky II. Balboa is the best thing Stallone's directed in the series, easily.
Click to expand...

This isn't a Star Wars thread, but let me just say that I thought the acting, story, dialogue, and action were all MUCH better in the first one. Aside from Hoth, Empire is significantly weaker.
 
I don't think it's that weird for a character to get old and act like they're old.

Most older people don't have the same mindset they did when they were in their 20s, especially if they've had/raised a family as both John Mcclane and Rocky Balboa have.
 
All of the Rocky movies try to emulate the general feel of boxing during the era in which they're released.

I think Rocky V would have been better if it had been released without the Don King character, and if there had been an actual fight between Rocky and some other guy.
 
ratcliffja said:
I thought the acting, story, dialogue, and action were all MUCH better in the first one.
Click to expand...

Well, you're wrong as hell, but like you said, this isn't a Star Wars thread.

ryutaro's mama said:
This is EXACTLY why the later Die Hard movies (after 3) suck. John McClane isn't John McClane anymore. He is Bruce Willis channeling his default tough guy persona that happens to be named John McClane in those movies.

John McClane in those movies is no different tonally, than his character in GI JOE.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good comparison, absolutely. I don't think Willis gives a shit about being John McClane in those movies, and honestly, I'm not sure he actually knows how to play that guy anymore.
 
ryutaro's mama said:
This is EXACTLY why the later Die Hard movies (after 3) suck. John McClane isn't John McClane anymore. He is Bruce Willis channeling his default tough guy persona that happens to be named John McClane in those movies.

John McClane in those movies is no different tonally, than his character in GI JOE.
Click to expand...

The Rocky films, IMO, actually work because they're rooted in public perception of Stallone at the time. Leading up to Rocky Balboa, which is a pretty blatant 'I'm capable of better' challenge by Stallone. In contrast to Die Hard, which increasingly has no thought whatsoever put into doing anything that interesting on a meta level.
 
My problem with Rocky III is that the whole point of his training with Apollo was to make him leaner and faster; that he couldn't go toe-to-toe with Clubber in a straight boxing match because Clubber would out-muscle him, and instead he'd have to move quicker to tire him out rather than taking blows to the head again.

And then, when the fight starts, he fucking lets Clubber just lob him in the head over and over. What was the point of all those speed exercises?!
 
Blader said:
My problem with Rocky III is that the whole point of his training with Apollo was to make him leaner and faster; that he couldn't go toe-to-toe with Clubber in a straight boxing match because Clubber would out-muscle him, and instead he'd have to move quicker to tire him out rather than taking blows to the head again.

And then, when the fight starts, he fucking lets Clubber just lob him in the head over and over. What was the point of all those speed exercises?!
Click to expand...

I believe Rocky III inspired TDKR. Nolan saw the speed, the ferocity, and decided to make Batman into an unofficial Rocky sequel.
 
Blader said:
My problem with Rocky III is that the whole point of his training with Apollo was to make him leaner and faster; that he couldn't go toe-to-toe with Clubber in a straight boxing match because Clubber would out-muscle him, and instead he'd have to move quicker to tire him out rather than taking blows to the head again.

And then, when the fight starts, he fucking lets Clubber just lob him in the head over and over. What was the point of all those speed exercises?!
Click to expand...

Swear Rocky got the worst defense in the history of cinema. This dude take more unguarded punches to the face than anybody.
 
Blader said:
My problem with Rocky III is that the whole point of his training with Apollo was to make him leaner and faster; that he couldn't go toe-to-toe with Clubber in a straight boxing match because Clubber would out-muscle him, and instead he'd have to move quicker to tire him out rather than taking blows to the head again.

And then, when the fight starts, he fucking lets Clubber just lob him in the head over and over. What was the point of all those speed exercises?!
Click to expand...

But he did out-box him with speed and agility. Rocky's problem was he couldn't out-punch him directly. He gased in their first bout without making a dent, so he forced Clubber to tire instead and wore him down with counter punches and jabs.
 
ViewtifulJC said:
Swear Rocky got the worst defense in the history of cinema. This dude take more unguarded punches to the face than anybody.
Click to expand...

I think Rocky is supposed to be just this decent fighter whose main strength is that he refuses to stay down. However, I think Stallone might not realize that sometimes the decision to stay down is rarely on the fighter. Even if the trainer doesn't throw in the towel, the referee will either call the fight or the fighter will be physically unable to continue. If anybody was taking those kinds of shots to the head, they'd be knocked out, crippled, or dead. The first two movies did a somewhat believable job of handling head-shots, but they just got ridiculous in 3 and 4. I still haven't seen 5, but from everything I've heard, there's no point.
 
ratcliffja said:
I think Rocky is supposed to be just this decent fighter whose main strength is that he refuses to stay down. However, I think Stallone might not realize that sometimes the decision to stay down is rarely on the fighter. Even if the trainer doesn't throw in the towel, the referee will either call the fight or the fighter will be physically unable to continue. If anybody was taking those kinds of shots to the head, they'd be knocked out, crippled, or dead. The first two movies did a somewhat believable job of handling head-shots, but they just got ridiculous in 3 and 4. I still haven't seen 5, but from everything I've heard, there's no point.
Click to expand...

5's best merits come from the broadest strokes of the story: Rocky starts neglecting his family when he begins training a young fighter. He starts reliving his glory days through the young guy and the film addresses Rocky's inability to prioritize his family as a real problem. It pokes at nostalgia and vanity in an admirable way (at a distance).

It's not the worst movie ever made, but it's not dumb-fun enough like IV or genuinely good in a story or character sense like I/II/Balboa. It's just weak enough all around to not satisfy anyone, really.
 
ratcliffja said:
I think Rocky is supposed to be just this decent fighter whose main strength is that he refuses to stay down. However, I think Stallone might not realize that sometimes the decision to stay down is rarely on the fighter. Even if the trainer doesn't throw in the towel, the referee will either call the fight or the fighter will be physically unable to continue. If anybody was taking those kinds of shots to the head, they'd be knocked out, crippled, or dead. The first two movies did a somewhat believable job of handling head-shots, but they just got ridiculous in 3 and 4. I still haven't seen 5, but from everything I've heard, there's no point.
Click to expand...

rules don't exist in the rocky universe. we've had ivan drago and others punching seconds after the bell and also drago beating apollo to death without any ref interference while this guy
damn.png
damn.png
damn.png


is yelling to throw the damn towel
 
inm8num2 said:
It's the best pre-Balboa sequel.
Click to expand...

You're probably right.

IV is a fine-polished music video of a popcorn movie, but III kind of balances that vibe out with a genuinely creative arc and message. It's a great turnabout for Creed after I and II, where some audience members would have easily labeled him a villain and not given him enough credit as a character.

I like II for a bunch of reasons, and the final moments of that movie are hard not to love. There's a lot to like, but III is a just more inventive and moves the needle forward, even if II is more of a "film" film.
 
KalBalboa said:
You're probably right.

IV is a fine-polished music video of a popcorn movie, but III kind of balances that vibe out with a genuinely creative arc and message. It's a great turnabout for Creed after I and II, where some audience members would have easily labeled him a villain and not given him enough credit as a character.

I like II for a bunch of reasons, and the final moments of that movie are hard not to love. There's a lot to like, but III is a just more inventive and moves the needle forward, even if II is more of a "film" film.
Click to expand...

II is a good movie and respectable sequel to the original, but it doesn't really break much new ground other than the different ending. I just love the way Rocky has to battle his way back and redefine himself in III. It's more inventive and forward moving, as you say.

Bobby tuned me into this video essay on Rocky III by Matt Zoller Seitz few months back. Quite worth watching/reading for Rocky fans.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/video-essay-cruel-summer-rocky-iii-1982
 
All of the rocky movies, regardless of quality, still warrant a view for differing reasons.

1 because it's a goddamn classic character piece about a guy whose iq is probably around the sum of his win/loss record but who has a big heart striving to achieve his dream of going the distance with a god.

2 because it's the guy who achieved his dream but has very little to show for it and is quickly heading down a path of being worse off than when he started because of his choices. He's being backed into a corner emotionally and figuratively, and the only way out is to keep doing what is sure to kill him.

3 because this is where it starts to get whacky and cartoony, and has a little fun with the idea and premise.

4 because it goes off the fucking 80s deep end and sets a theme for an entire decade plus of movies to come in the same vain. If he dies, he dies

5 because you can clearly see a man without any ideas left but who still enjoys the character enough to try and keep it going, but it's done so badly that it's like watching a cinematic train wreck.

Balboa because, well, it's on the level of the first one as a movie by itself, but factoring in everything the character has been through in his life it's especially poignant and elevates itself above the original
 
Discotheque said:
I've got Rocky 1 > II > Balboa > IV > III > V

I expect Creed to be at least >= Balboa. I think it's hilarious how endearing Paulie can be, despite being an abusive racist. Dude's such a messy person of a bygone era. Yet he still cracks me up...
Click to expand...

I go Rocky/Balboa/2, but yeah absolutely. And Creed is on that level to me.

Paulie is such a dickhole!

ryutaro's mama said:
But Clubber don't need no hasbeen messin' in his corner.

:(
Click to expand...

It's all part of the game.

Solo said:
1 >>>> 2 > 3 > 4 > 6 > 5
Click to expand...

Goddamnit Solo why did you betray me
 
Bobby Roberts said:
Here's why I don't like III and IV as much as people here do. Because it seems obvious to me those movies feature a Stallone who is kind of ashamed of Rocky as a character, and he's trying to figure out how to make him more like Sly than like Rocky.

People love the over-the-top bombastic cartoonishness of those two films (and Rocky III is basically the birth of the '80s movie as we know it, really) but they seriously fuck with what made Rocky WORK as a character, and bury him under Stallone's own hubris. Hell, Clubber is more or less the Rocky character in III. But Stallone has, interestingly, turned Clubber into a monster, and is asking you, the audience, to consider him as such. "You ain't so bad!"
Click to expand...

So I got sucked into watching a 90 minutes Rocky retrospective that was a recommended video on a Youtube link in this thread and I admit that I had never put together that Rocky III was a parallel to Stallone's career at the time (rich and successful but hadn't had a real hit in a while) and it kind of makes me appreciate it more.

Rocky IV, though, is just a bad, bad movie.
 
I'm screening Rocky I in our office's cafeteria right now. We have a big projection and sound system in there and I've deemed it appropriate for the week of Thanksgiving to show all of the Rocky films currently available on Netflix.

CrichtonKicks said:
So I got sucked into watching a 90 minutes Rocky retrospective that was a recommended video on a Youtube link in this thread and I admit that I had never put together that Rocky III was a parallel to Stallone's career at the time (rich and successful but hadn't had a real hit) and it kind of makes me appreciate it more.

Rocky IV, though, is just a bad, bad movie.
Click to expand...

It really is, but it's fun to look at and a big laugh if you're with the right crowd. That second montage is a riot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sinners from Ryan Coogler and Michael B Jordan
20
1K
Days like these... replied
Ryan Coogler Has Spoken To Gillian Anderson About ‘X Files’ Reboot: “Fingers Crossed There”
20
1K
RJMacready73 replied
Ryan Coogler's 'Sinners' opens to a 100% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes
2 3 4 5
249
9K
DKehoe replied
RIP Michael Madsen
2
59
588
TwiztidElf replied
Project Hail Mary - Ryan Gosling Film
2
57
575
MrTroubleMaker replied
Top Bottom