Age of Ultron's only bigger problem is pacing and even then, only with the most pointless sequel building like the Thor scene. And Ultron could've been made a bit more threatening a villain by showing it beating up a couple of the Avengers into a worse condition. Otherwise it's still a good movie with plenty to like (decent opener, party scene was fun, Hulkbuster vs Hulk and everything that lead to it, Hawkeye's home scenes, Vision & Ultron's last scene etc.)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Thor 3: Ragnarok Review Thread
- Thread starter MadLaughter
- Start date
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
I'm totally with you in that it has a good opening act, but it just kind of devolves from there. The love interest doesn't really go anywhere (especially in the context of the MCU), the writing is incredibly by the numbers, the university sequence feels totally pointless since at no point do I believe military vehicles are going to stop the Hulk, and the final fight doesn't have a lot of impact. I don't have a problem with the Hulk's characterization either, but Banner feels really lackluster here, especially compared to Ruffalo's performances.
I love the Incredible Hulk. It falls apart a bit at the end, and it doesn't have much in way of a plot, but I love Norton as Banner. He's intense and desperate and that really comes through. His performance drives the film all on its own.
Ruffalo is probably a better actor, but his Banner just doesn't compare.
At this point it's been pushed out of my top five but it was a favorite for a while. I prefer the MCU films that focus on character above all else.
autumnleaf
Member
The biggest problem with the Incredible Hulk is being led to believe Tim Roth is some special forces soldier who the Hulk can't just squash in half a second.
Wrong.gif
The scene with Tony watching a reel of his deceased father alone makes the movie better than the whole of IM3, easily.
Imo IM3 is -by far- the worst mcu movie (and not just because of the awful Mandarin story), though still mostly watchable.
At least Thor 2 had some emotional pull with Frigga's death, and Loki. And the end fight in London and across space time rifts was pretty impressive.
IM3 had a contractual RDJ out of his armor for most of the film and doing gun fu, papier mache armors, a ridiculous Ben Kinsley, and a very annoying 'gifted' kid to boot (plus a terrible treatment for the Extremis storyline, on top of a wasted Guy Pierce as Killian).
The only positive thing I can say for it is that my 8 year old laughed quite a bit at the slapstick comedy of Stark getting smacked by his own armor pieces... And I guess they tried to retcon the stupid Mandarin story afterwards... Kinda?
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
This might just be a preference thing, but I much prefer Ruffalo's take. He lets the pain shine through sometimes, whereas Norton is just engulfed by it. I find the Ruffalo version stronger because there are more layers to him, and find Norton to be very one-note.
Ruffalo's Banner seems to me a more realized character in the shared screentime he gets in Avengers than Norton's, even though Norton got a full movie devoted to him. Norton's version gets more focus, sure, but the film doesn't do anything with it that we don't expect going in.
Totally agree with this. I've been disappointed with others (AoU), but IM2 was the only movie I felt was terrible.
It's definitely a preference thing. I don't really think of the Hulk as a character that calls for a subtle performance - he's Jekyll and Hyde crossed with a nuke.
Banner is representative of hate and anger and desperation and strong, intense emotion - just as much as the Hulk is. Banner just tries, and fails, to hide it. I think more direct, archetypal performance works better.
But honestly direction plays a role here too. Norton's Banner is a man on the edge, trying anything, one bad day away from suicide. Ruffalo's is a guy who's tried it all and failed - this is his life and he's come to terms with it. The latter works a lot better opposite RDJ, for instance.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
Yeah, I can see how you might prefer that kind of archetypal performance. That's not me, but I see what you're saying.
I still think that script is aggressively monotone though, and even the individual lines could be written by virtually anyone who knew the story beats they had to get through. Like Thor 2, it's a film that could have been so much better with a bit more effort.
Unlike Iron Man 2, which just wasn't sure what story it wanted to tell so it just told several instead.
IndoAssassin
Banned
I'll never understand how people keep saying they don't understand how other people like things they don't like and vice versa.
What to do when you can't come up with a story worth a damn:
- Crank up the saturation
- Fill the script with pop culture and self referencia jokes
- Make your characters downgrade to a max IQ of 60
- Insert everyone's nostalgia tracks guilty pleasure songs to the film
- Convince everyone it's just "fun"
Sorry but I won't support mediocrity. I didn't ask for the people who adapted beloved and respected characters to make them clowns /and/ to ask me to give them money for that.
- Crank up the saturation
- Fill the script with pop culture and self referencia jokes
- Make your characters downgrade to a max IQ of 60
- Insert everyone's nostalgia tracks guilty pleasure songs to the film
- Convince everyone it's just "fun"
Sorry but I won't support mediocrity. I didn't ask for the people who adapted beloved and respected characters to make them clowns /and/ to ask me to give them money for that.
I'm jealous you saw the movie early
This is why the MCU is great. The variety ensures a wide selection of viewers have films they gravitate towards because of the genres.
For me? I love Doctor Strange. I put it on par with many other Marvel movies, and it's a visual treat unlike any other film I've seen in recent years.
Next to the shocking reveal of Subpar Spartula just existing for trolling, you beeing a time traveler who endured a Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie is quit surprising.
Also, you should have done something better with the opporturnity to travel in time. If I could spend 2 hours a few days in the future, I would look up the lotto numbers and dont watch a movie every person on NeoGAF dot com would have told you would have ended up hating.
Do we have this to do in ever Marvel Review Thread? You acting like you have seen the fucking movie while you in reality would not consider it?
I just want Marvel to respect their legacy. You never hear me whining about the Captain America movies, or Iron Man, hell, I didn't love Spider-Man but I could tell that it was a good adaptation of his early comics.
What people sometimes don't understand is that these movies are what is gonna be referenced when those characters are brought up. That amazing, amazing, amazing Ragnarok comic? It might as well never existed, because Ragnarok + Thor is now a silly buddy comedy, forever.
Lapping up to the people who are laughing at these characters and turning them into clowns feels unethical to me.
But what do I know, I'm a haterzz
Ahasversus, youre so full of shit.
You have a problem with this for no other reason than it's an MCU movie.
You loved WW and Snyder's bastardization of Superman and Batman.
"Unethical"? Stop being so overdramatic.
Your shtick is as old as posters like Bleepey. Everyone expects it by now.
Sgt. Kabukiman
Banned
1) Homecoming
2) First Avenger
3) Ragnarok or Black Panther, hopefully
4) Civil War
5) Incredible Hulk
Why do you say that?
2) First Avenger
3) Ragnarok or Black Panther, hopefully
4) Civil War
5) Incredible Hulk
Why do you say that?
They should take some lessons from the great false god and his 100% true to the legacy interpretations of tankdriving Murder-Batman and City-downtearing no fucks given Superman.
And LOL @ Not liking Spider-Man. Just read through the last review thread. You even had to eat crows when it turned out that the movie was good and had to apology for shitposting.
Referenced by who? The mass majority of people who will watch this film have no clue (and probably don't care) about Thor in comics. They have always had a very base knowledge of the character and it will stay that way. The people who do know about those great Thor comics will keep on referencing them.
Not to fall into this trap, again, but whatever Snyder did in BvS was meant to say something.
These "fun" movies are, at their best, cynical cash grabs, and at their worst, an insult to the characters.
That you people have accepted that in the name of being "the winning team" is sad. You should be the first to demand quality stories and adaptations. I'm the first one on the line to shit on Suicide Squad for a reason.
I don't hate the MCU, I hate what a great portion of the MCU has done to characters I like, in the name of "fun".
Fuck that noise. Give me the hard boiled stories that made Marvel what it really is. Give me more Winter Soldiers, Civil Wars, hell, Black Panther looks out of this world.
"Look how dumb and adorable Thor is in this colorful movie" is NOT a worthy selling point, to me, any ways
Not that I'll ever convince you, but I'll keep expressing my opinion.
I know a few people who know and have worked with him and they say hes a real cunt behind closed doors. Not in a Weinstein or Polanski way or anything, just an unchecked ego and treating others with disrespect.
You heard it here first folks, Zack Snyder is the Macklemore of directors.
which is odd, considering its a freaking comic book based on a Norse god. Like what do you want?
I loved the first Thor, thor 2 was mediocre, but i dont understand Marvel fans hatred of Thor. He's a better character than boring captain america, yea i said it, what?
"Beloved" is pretty subjective here.
Before the MCU, Thor (as a Marvel character) had no mainstream appeal. He didn't even have much geek appeal. When they announced they were making a Thor film, I remember saying "What are they thinking?" He was part of a bundle of properties no one had bought the movie rights to for a reason.
Well, it turns out people liked the MCU Thor, who is a cheerful and good-natured borderline airhead. People didn't like dark and grim, which was Thor 2.
You have to face it. This is the beloved Thor now, and has been for 6 years for everyone outside of hardcore Marvel Comics fans.
clay_ghost
Member
.......... you do understand that Thor2 is a meme here right ? Alrthought Thor 2 is one of the lower tier MCU movie , no one actually hate Thor.
Don't bother , he have double standard and will argue for DCEU when what they did in BVS is a cynical cash grabs and an insult to the characters.
This is true and false.
Snyder has something to say about superheroes - that they're awful. It's why he values the work of Moore and Miller, two authors who built their careers on the back of tearing down the basic concept of superheroism. His message is pretty much always that the idea of peopling doing good, for good reasons, and the public loving them for it - that this world is a childish fantasy.
Waititi has something to say about Thor - that Thor is dumb. That the concept of a Norse god that flies around with his magic hammer and pals around with atomic monsters while fighting aliens? That's dumb. We should laugh at it, because it's ridiculous, and we can't pretend that it's not. His vision, I presume, is that a film that takes this subject too seriously will fail.
One uses drama to debase the classic mold of the superhero, one uses comedy. Both are equally insulting.
We hear this since the movie started. Marvel made just our brain bleed out and replacing everything with a FUN FUN FUN agenda. We are to stupid now to appreciate batman vs superman.
Imagine if Tolkien had thought his tale about magical rings, elves, giant eagles, orcs and dwarves was dumb and we should laugh at it.
Fiction is not dumb for being fiction. Making it dumb and laughing at it is easier than making it good and giving it worth.
That's my problem, basically, the MCU most of the time just takes the easy way instead of trying to do something worthy.
Marvel didn't stay in the 60's forever. If it had, it would be dead. Marvel grew with its community and has no shortage of great stories and character studies.
Your Spiderman jab plays into that. When I grew up, Spiderman was already and adult and his stories (or the ones I read) were actually not that colorful, the characters were, but the stories clearly weren't.
Homecoming was a wake up call to me. That was not /My/ Spiderman, it was.. Spiderman the original one. I grew to accept that.
Give you the hardboiled stories that made Marvel what it really is? What are you talking about? Do you even read comics?
And, again, no one actually believes you when you say it has to do with the character portrayals. The MCU has been more faithful with its characters than the DCEU. You were up in the Spiderman review thread whining about them making the character 'fun.'
And if you really demanded quality stories and adaptations, you wouldnt get all salty at the negative consensus on Snyder's superhero movies.
BadAss2961
Member
But the critics like it bro.
Maybe its just that some movies are shit, others are good? I mean, Wonder Woman reviewed pretty good and very many people liked it?
The Lord of the Rings movies have a LOT of comedy in them though...
AND... well, Thor's a bit silly even in the comics.
WadiumArcadium
Member
There's a quote for the back of the Blu-ray.
Personally, I do think that Tolkien's works are dumb, and I do laugh at them. Self-serious high fantasy is eye-rolling on a good day. That doesn't mean there's no value in them, but you should never forget that it's a drama about tiny, fuzzy-footed men carrying magic jewelry.
Your essential argument is that drama is a higher form of art than comedy, and that something that intends to elicit positive feelings has no worth. Which you're welcome to think, obviously, but comes across hollow when we're talking about a genre that - if I'm being frank - is incapable of not being being stupid.
And I spend at least $1000 annually on comic books, so believe me, that's not a complaint.
MadLaughter
Member
Comedy is not "easy", by the way.
Sgt. Kabukiman
Banned
I see. Well, that sucks.
BadAss2961
Member
Yes, all 17 Marvel movies were good.
Ahasverus when he watches Justice League, a fun and playful DC movie by Joss Whedon:
lmao
Ahasverus when he watches Justice League, a fun and playful DC movie by Joss Whedon:
Sadly, the League of damaged Gentlemen can opt out and blame Whedon who turned the movie to bad shit if it really turns out to be that way.
Bill R Boggess
Member
I mean, I can understand where you are coming from but to be fair comic books - even comic books that deal with the same characters - do so in very disparate ways. Tonally they are all over the place, which is why I can't get too offended when a director decides to get a bit silly with one of these films.
Also, I'd reserve judgement until seeing the film because it might not be as offensive as you presume, especially given the talent of the director.
Nice way to skip that argument, bro. Not that I expected a real alswer lol
And it would be quiet big news that people consider generally all 17 movies as good. On the earth where I live, people think of a couple of them as quite stinkers.
mrmickfran
Member
So it's too funny?
I think Guardians Vol. 2 had the same issue. Wayy more jokes compared to the first, often affected the tone of some scenes.
I think Guardians Vol. 2 had the same issue. Wayy more jokes compared to the first, often affected the tone of some scenes.
Marvel movies have succeeded for the most part because they realize that the comics are largely unfilmable in tone and content. This may displease comic purists but hey.
Welp, we now know the answer.
GOTG 1 was considerably better than Thor 1 or 2.