- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 151,587
- Reaction score
- 24,108
- Points
- 218
You guys are making me glad I don't go to the movies anymore. I'll catch this on Disney+ later.Just finished Cap 4. Awful, man. What are we doing

You guys are making me glad I don't go to the movies anymore. I'll catch this on Disney+ later.Just finished Cap 4. Awful, man. What are we doing
They briefly touch on the pressures of Sam being Captain America in a racist America, but boy do they not take it nearly far enough. It amounts mostly to lip service, but it is something that makes him standout and we can get behind. But they have opted to make these Captain America films too apolitical. I understand that as a business, the red side spends money as well, but it's proven that they will see well made movies with themes they don't agree with. My dad loves Avatar, and if this were real he would be the first guy saying "We should just shoot the frigging tree down! There are a million trees, they can live in another one!" So the choice to not engage with the thing that makes Sam unique nearly enough is badly hurting his developmentThe thing about the first three Captain America movies is that we cared about Steve Rogers. His character. His struggles. His beliefs. The "man out of time" theme that flows through his entire run.
Does Sam have any character arc? Falcon & Winter Soldier gave him a sister who was going to lose the family boat and he is from New Orleans. Anything else?
The Dark Knight Returns
![]()
Get a first look at Armie Hammer dealing out vigilante justice in the Uwe Boll movie The Dark Knight
Armie Hammer puts fear into criminals while being hunted by law enforcement in Uwe Boll's upcoming crime thriller.www.joblo.com
Bush era politics is a compliment.God, when even IGN has an article critical of Brave New World's politics....
X-men is sooo cooked.
Finally got around to watching Joker Folie à Deux. Hoo Boy, where to begin...
I've read theories online that Todd Phillips was contractually obligated by WBD to make a sequel to Joker, and having actually watched the result, I'm inclined to believe it. Folie à Deux is a classic example of an artist giving the middle finger to his corporate overlords. So you're gonna force me to make a sequel I'm not interested in making?? Here's your damn sequel, enjoy. And to add insult to injury, WBD not only allowed Phillips to make exactly the movie he wanted to make, but also gave him $200 million of their money to basically flush down the box office toilet. It reminds me of Sony being gaslit by a few social media pranksters into re-releasing Morbius into empty theatres. Seriously, you can't make this **** up. I seriously wonder sometimes who the decision-makers are at these Hollywood studios...
I almost felt like I could hear Phillips' thought processes while watching Folie à Deux. It's as if he analyzed what he thought made fans connect with the first film and deliberated went out of his way to shed that audience as decisively as he could. Audiences enjoy being titillated so instead he choses to bore. Fans like to be engaged so instead Phillips choses to alienate. And the worst part is, Folie à Deux was so dark, dank, and depressing that I couldn't even muster enough energy to hate it. Lacking any kind of shock, offense, narrative drive, or storytelling momentum, all it did was lull me into a state of apathy and pity. Sad...
Joker, indeed. Only in this case the 'Joker' was Phillips and the 'joke' was on WBD for allowing him to sabotage their budding franchise, and on the audience who went into this turd expecting more of whatever made the first film a 'lightning in a bottle' grassroots phenomenon.
The more I think about this movie, the more I dislike it...
View attachment 122765
God, when even IGN has an article critical of Brave New World's politics....
X-men is sooo cooked.
I'm guessing The First Avenger was last place?3rd out of 4. Lets go.
At this rate, MCU X-Men will be about a bunch of good looking, white actors with various superpowers living in a stately mansion in wealthy Westchester, crying about being discriminated against.
It'll be tone deaf as hell but we'll finally have comic accurate costumes.![]()
So…2nd lowest, then. After TFA.
No one predicted the Human Torch would soon become America's Ass back then.So…2nd lowest, then. After TFA.
I'm inclined to believe he didn't purposely try to make something that WB/fans would dislike, I believe it's more of what we've seen with other directors who get some power within n WB such as Snyder with B v S and Jenkins with WW84 in that they just want to make a film that caters to them and their sensibilities and forget the audience.Finally got around to watching Joker Folie à Deux. Hoo Boy, where to begin...
I've read theories online that Todd Phillips was contractually obligated by WBD to make a sequel to Joker, and having actually watched the result, I'm inclined to believe it. Folie à Deux is a classic example of an artist giving the middle finger to his corporate overlords. So you're gonna force me to make a sequel I'm not interested in making?? Here's your damn sequel, enjoy. And to add insult to injury, WBD not only allowed Phillips to make exactly the movie he wanted to make, but also gave him $200 million of their money to basically flush down the box office toilet. It reminds me of Sony being gaslit by a few social media pranksters into re-releasing Morbius into empty theatres. Seriously, you can't make this **** up. I seriously wonder sometimes who the decision-makers are at these Hollywood studios...
I almost felt like I could hear Phillips' thought processes while watching Folie à Deux. It's as if he analyzed what he thought made fans connect with the first film and deliberated went out of his way to shed that audience as decisively as he could. Audiences enjoy being titillated so instead he choses to bore. Fans like to be engaged so instead Phillips choses to alienate. And the worst part is, Folie à Deux was so dark, dank, and depressing that I couldn't even muster enough energy to hate it. Lacking any kind of shock, offense, narrative drive, or storytelling momentum, all it did was lull me into a state of apathy and pity. Sad...
Joker, indeed. Only in this case the 'Joker' was Phillips and the 'joke' was on WBD for allowing him to sabotage their budding franchise, and on the audience who went into this turd expecting more of whatever made the first film a 'lightning in a bottle' grassroots phenomenon.
The more I think about this movie, the more I dislike it...
View attachment 122765
Yeah. Apart from Cap not being a popular character back then (especially internationally), The First Avenger released just one week after Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.I'm guessing The First Avenger was last place?
Yeah. Apart from Cap not being a popular character back then (especially internationally), The First Avenger released just one week after Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.
I've seen Ralph Fiennes in a number of movies since then. He's a fantastic actor, but every time I see him the first thing that pops into my head is:I can't believe it's been that long. Anytime I hear 'Deathly Hallows Part 2', I automatically see:
"Come on Tom, let's finish this the way we stah'ted! Togetha!!"
View attachment 122790
Finally got around to watching Joker Folie à Deux. Hoo Boy, where to begin...
I've read theories online that Todd Phillips was contractually obligated by WBD to make a sequel to Joker, and having actually watched the result, I'm inclined to believe it. Folie à Deux is a classic example of an artist giving the middle finger to his corporate overlords. So you're gonna force me to make a sequel I'm not interested in making?? Here's your damn sequel, enjoy. And to add insult to injury, WBD not only allowed Phillips to make exactly the movie he wanted to make, but also gave him $200 million of their money to basically flush down the box office toilet. It reminds me of Sony being gaslit by a few social media pranksters into re-releasing Morbius into empty theatres. Seriously, you can't make this **** up. I seriously wonder sometimes who the decision-makers are at these Hollywood studios...
I almost felt like I could hear Phillips' thought processes while watching Folie à Deux. It's as if he analyzed what he thought made fans connect with the first film and deliberated went out of his way to shed that audience as decisively as he could. Audiences enjoy being titillated so instead he choses to bore. Fans like to be engaged so instead Phillips choses to alienate. And the worst part is, Folie à Deux was so dark, dank, and depressing that I couldn't even muster enough energy to hate it. Lacking any kind of shock, offense, narrative drive, or storytelling momentum, all it did was lull me into a state of apathy and pity. Sad...
Joker, indeed. Only in this case the 'Joker' was Phillips and the 'joke' was on WBD for allowing him to sabotage their budding franchise, and on the audience who went into this turd expecting more of whatever made the first film a 'lightning in a bottle' grassroots phenomenon.
The more I think about this movie, the more I dislike it...
View attachment 122765
I can't believe it's been that long. Anytime I hear 'Deathly Hallows Part 2', I automatically see:
"Come on Tom, let's finish this the way we stah'ted! Togetha!!"
View attachment 122790
I've seen Ralph Fiennes in a number of movies since then. He's a fantastic actor, but every time I see him the first thing that pops into my head is:
They literally explained that in the movie in a very spoonfed manner.I heard people who didn't read the book were confused on how Harry won in the end. The Elder Wand Voldemort uses unknowingly rightfully belonged to Harry and thus he couldn't kill him or use its power. When Nagini is killed Voldemort becomes vulnerable enough that the wand backfires and kills him.