MovieChat Forums > DarthRoger > Replies
DarthRoger's Replies
I think you're only looking at the physical aspect. Theodore wants a "purposeful" connection, something with more than a sexual component, such as he had with his ex-wife. In the somewhat dystopian world he occupies, nearly everyone keeps to themselves and stay inside themselves. Real communication between people seems cropped and sanitized. Theodore struggles to find meaning in all this, despite his talent for writing heartfelt letters that speak to the soul. He wants more than what's all around him. Sure he's got typical male attitudes and almost has sex with his date. That moment of realization that they're drunk and the starkness of the mood change in that scene with Wilde was jarring. She wants more but he's not what she's looking for and he wants more, yet she's not what he's wanting either.
Samantha is that sudden constant, that interactive one who sees him and talks to him when he's away from that world at home and then sometimes outside in that world. She knows his hopes, his dreams, his struggles, his faults and his gifts.
This movie came across to me as a bitter-sweet romantic story that does have a strangely pleasing end. It's a rare, very thoughtful and introspective movie that I believe is a looking glass into our very near future.
Well the jury's still out on this one and it looks like the box office haul in China is going to boost AMATW numbers substantially. Could still make 600 million plus. We shall see.
Actually it's currently sitting at 471.2 million for a worldwide gross. That's not bad at all, considering all the competition it had in movies like Jurassic World and The Incredibles 2.
I'd even venture that it'lll pass Solo domestically, in another week and a half. It's currently only 4 million behind and closing that gap fast. I think it will end up doing over 500 million, worldwide. That's hardly a flop financially and it's got an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes.
If all that meets your definition of a "flop" then you must be using some odd metrics.
Hey, I'm with you. I saw this when it came out and I thought it was fine. Maybe my expectation level wasn't on par with a bulk of viewers but the movie was enjoyable to me. Green Lantern isn't on the same par, popularity-wise, as Superman or Batman, so I went into the theater with an open mind.
This movie might be disliked but it's at least watchable and can be enjoyed for what it is. The same can't be said for BVS, JL or even Suicide Squad. None of those movies was what I'd describe as "fun", whereas Green Lantern had it's fun moments and the CGI was quite good.
I'd give GL a 6 out of 10. Not a ringing endorsement but then again, I wasn't looking for something epic. It's kind of the way I felt when I went to see Ant-Man. I loved it but I didn't go in with grandiose expectations. And even though Ant-Man was a better movie than Green Lantern, my approach beforehand was the same.
Keaton was amazing. He throws himself into a part and is so believable while in character. He brings that attitude to every role I've seen him in. Actors like him are few and far between these days.
Still love Dafoe's Green Goblin the best but I know what you mean by a Hollywood version of the character. A lot of people didn't like the "power ranger" type of suit but I actually liked it. Both GG and Molina's Doc Oct (another excellent villain) were more sanitized for a mass audience who likely weren't all comic book fans. Sometimes I'm glad that do this as some characters from the comics would come across as campy and silly. Just look how they've rendered characters like Hawkeye, Falcon and Scarlet Witch in the MCU. If they had presented them exactly like they appear on the comic pages, they would have looked like stunt performers from a traveling circus. Thank goodness that Marvel Studios redesigned them for the movies!
I agree that BVS is microwaved Buffalo excrement but I have kind words for John. He's always come across as a guy who looks for the best in every movie, even the truly lousy ones. If there's a silver lining, John Campea will find it. I actually like that about the guy.
They should recast the role. Ben reminds viewers too much of BVS.
I did like the Ceratosaurus and his part in the story of the Late Jurassic. It was a bummer that he met his end by another carnivore but I still liked the progression of events. I think it showed amply how survival in this primal world was moment to moment. One minute you're pursuing potential prey, the next minute you are the prey.
The graphics in this video were some of the best dinosaur CGI I had seen, since the first Jurassic Park movie.
This is true. The Sokovia Accords had some questionable restrictions, mainly the one you mentioned. I think it was more of a situation by situation issue, however Cap was right about "seeing something going south" and not standing by. Context is everything though and Cap only sees things in red or green, not yellow. If he has any failing, it is in this respect. I too love Cap but like you say, he's not perfect.
Oh I know, I'm just thrilled to find another fan who agrees. :)
Most of my comic book movie friends are "Team Cap" all the way and refuse to look past the love they have for Chris Evan's version of the character. They will make excuse after excuse when I point out the deeply inherent flaw in Cap's reasoning, even though I'm trying to make them see that you can have a favorite character be wrong and still be a favorite character. "Team Iron Man" may not be everyone's choice but Tony is right on this one.
Well there's only so many times they can keep kicking this can down the road, before they aren't taken seriously anymore.
What surprises me is how Marvel Studios can just churn their movies out, with fine casting and good story lines, yet DC movies (outside of the Nolan trilogy and Wonder Woman) have the look and feel of full-fledged dumpster fires. It's inexcusable and I'm sick of it!
WB needs to treat these characters as the great legacy they are. Superman and Batman are the GOLD standard in classic superhero history. THEY DESERVE THE BEST!!!
I lay all the disasters that have befallen the DCEU at the studio's feet.
Okay, I was thinking of giving it another viewing. Maybe I'll notice more with a second look.
That's some of it but not most of it.
At the end of the day, Tony is just morally right. Cap refuses to budge and look at the bigger picture. I would argue that he even knows he's wrong.
I'm usually not a fan of prequels, mainly because they ruin great characters when they go that route (Darth Vader, anyone?).
With this show, I've been delightfully surprised. I honestly thought I'd get halfway through season 1 and then lose interest. That hasn't happened. The dysfunction between Jimmy and Chuck was fascinating to watch. His touch-and-go friendship/relationship with Kim, his association of convenience with Mike and the way he connects with everyday people, make Jimmy/Saul an even better character than the one we skimmed the surface with in Breaking Bad.
Quite frankly, I can't wait to watch season 4. Here's hoping they keep doing it justice!
What initially bothers me, is that someone would create such an elaborate scenario with cassette tapes. It's like a plot line conceived by a super villain in some suspense thriller. What suicide perpetrator does such a thing? It's just weird. And the fact that she claims that someone has copies of the tapes and will make them public, unless her dying wishes aren't carried out in order?!? If I had gotten tapes like that, I would have turned them over immediately to the police or her parents. Guess I just need to watch further but so far, this is a murky story.
LOL. Good one.
It's one of three superhero movies where the villain won, the others being Captain America: Civil War and The Dark Knight. Zemo and Joker also got what they wanted. Thanos was the focus of Avengers 3, mainly due to past criticism that MCU villains weren't complex characters. I never bought into that argument but Marvel Studios listens and the responded by making Thanos a character with emotions and a motivation you can understand.
" A) You're teachers didn't know what they were talking about
B) You didn't pay attention in class
C) You are being dishonest "
Denigrating my character.
" I'm also not believing that you remember this specific lesson from 40 years ago, I think you are lying to me."
There's where you denigrate my character yet again, after claiming you never did.
Okay, let's place that behind us, because I truly don't have any ill will towards you. Likely, if we knew each other out in the world, maybe we'd be friends.
Here's what I want to know though: If you're truly an evolutionists with no predisposed belief or an atheist who believes that everything in this life is due to macro evolution, why do you really care what a religious person believes? Why is that a threat? If we all die and then nothing, then you can go through the only life you'll have, at peace in knowing that you know what comes next. Someone else thinking there's something else beyond physical death shouldn't even bother you. After all, what's the point of convincing them they are wrong, if you're not saving them from anything but the same end that you have coming?
Just wondering.
I'm 50 years old. I was in about the 5th grade (1977?), when our general science class was introduced to evolution theory. The time period given then for the Earth's age was 6-7 hundred million years. My teacher, a Ms. Bramlett, seemed to know the curriculum and I was just a kid, so I heard what she explained to us and saw what our textbooks stated.
There's no reason to go from denigrating my sources to denigrating my education or character. Not agreeing with you is not the same as being dishonest.
Again, believe what you want. I will believe what I want. End of discussion for me.
I'll check it out. I've seen lesser known, lower budget Sci-Fi films that were engrossing. "Primer" readily comes to mind. I also like Lawrence Fishburne, who I understand has a lead role in "The Signal."