Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Casual Shinji]

The thing is I don't remember Gremlins or the sequel ever asking anybody to take them seriously. But in Spiderman I'm supposed to feel angst for Peter and his friends. I'm suppose to be moved by character deaths and overdue meetings/rematches/whatever.

To me the Tom Holland Spidey just never found his footing in his own movies. He's a good sidekick to RDJ and Strange but not a very compelling protagonist. In all of 3 movies he never even fought a villain that was his own. Vulture is Iron Man's enemy. Mysterio is Iron Man's enemy. Both movies are essentially about Iron Man's relationship with Spider-Man, and Spiderman having to cope with too much RDJ or not enough RDJ.

And for the big finale they had to bring two other Spider-Man(s) and villains from like six different movies, because Tom Holland Spidey never built anything for himself - other than being cute with Zendaya. He's not that interesting and Holland's puppy-eyed aw shucks shtick can't carry a movie.

Garfield very gallantly assumes the role of Ugly Sonic but for Sony to point and laugh at how lame their own movies were isn't that funny.

I think Tom Holland's Spidey had a decent thing going in Homecoming. Sure, it was a teen comedy, but that did set it apart from both the previous Spider-Man movies and the MCU, and it handled itself very well. Also, throwing in an actual good twist that results in the most tense scenes in any superhero movie from the last decade. I still regard it as one of the few unique movies in the MCU.

 

[Absent]

The thing is I don't remember Gremlins or the sequel ever asking anybody to take them seriously. But in Spiderman I'm supposed to feel angst for Peter and his friends.

Aww but that tear-jerking narration of how that girl lost her father, weren't you supposed to feel angst about it ? Have you forgotten about it ? Gremlins 2 hasn't.

In that Spider Man movie, I think most of the intended emotion came from the viewer's nostalgia more than directly the in-universe references. I didn't feel that it poked fun at the other movies, more that it paid respect to them, and, in a way, praised them. It felt like a collective celebration.

I generally like the Holland spidey. I really don't mind stuff such as having "his own baddies" or such. I don't come to these movies with any outside references or expectations. It's just the most endearing representation of the character I've seen, I like the kind of stakes he faces in these films, they have a tone that I actually prefer to the general MCU one. But again, I think that most of the things I enjoy in these movies are a bit opposed to what marvel or (specific/general) superhero fans want. I'm the general public, so I do assume that stuff I like kinda betray the expectation of people for whom spider man comes with more luggage.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Talking Head (1992)

If there is one thing to be said about Japanese veteran director Mamoru Oshii it's that he has a unique talent for comedy that I wish he chose to exercise more often. Of course this might just be ignorance on my part, considering his first breakout success was the romantic comedy anime series Urusei Yatsura and he did Vlad Love, another romantic comedy anime quite recently, but when I think of Oshii, I think of long winded, ponderous political thrillers with a bad tendency towards author tracts.

While his live action work is a can of worms all on its own, I genuinely think that Red Spectacles, a dystopian satire, stands as not only the funniest Japanese movies I've ever seen, but perhaps one of the funniest movies I've ever seen period. The closest thing he ever made to a stylistic successor is 1992's Talking Head, an equally farcical story of a mercenary animation director taking over the troubled production of an animated movie after the mysterious disappearance of its original director. What unfolds is a surreal, slapstick infused satire on film making that plays as sort of a modernized Phantom of the Opera by the way of Monty Python.

A serial killer is picking off the (rather eccentric) production crew while the deadline for the final cut approaches. The director, played by a hilariously deadpan Shigeru Chiba, has to unravel this mystery and finish the project.

From here on out Talking Head plays as a series of surreal comedic setpieces that see Oshii thoroughly lampooning the film making process. Opting for visuals that emphasize the artificialty of film (there is a running gag about driving scenes happening in a van clearly shown as being on a stage in front of a green screen) Oshii pokes fun at the film making process, the film making business and film itself.

Moreso than Red Spectacles, Talking Head occasionally sees Oshii's more ponderous tendencies coming through, as it does feature a number of long winded monologues that give parts of the movie a sort of film essay feel. What differentiates those from the, often frustratingly circular, sociopolitical musings of something like Ghost in the Shell or Jin Roh is that, for one, film theory is just a more modest subject matter to lecture your audience about. But more importantly, Talking Head also very consistently pairs those lectures with inventive visuals that emphasize their points and never break the movies comedic tone.

It never quite reaches Red Spectacles' comedic heights but just like that movie, Talking Head provides a sample of a side of Mamoru Oshii I wish we'd see more of. Where I think a lot of japanese humour falls into that dichotomy of either being so overly zany it's not funny, or being so dry it's barely recognizable, Oshii has a unique talent for finding the perfect middle between absurdity and dry delivery that translates to a sense of humour that feels very universal.

Talking Head is a very funny movie that just so happens to also have a lot of interesting musings about film making in it. There is something very bizarre to the way Oshii seems to have absolutely no middle ground between embracing the more whimsical aspects of directing a movie and trying to downplay them at all costs, but god knows I prefer the former. Talking Head is another very good example of surreal comedy that gets very goofy, without ever burying its actual subject matter under those goofs. I just find it much easier to resonate with that sort of thing than with Oshii's dour meditations on war, oppression and technology.

 

[Eacaraxe]

But again, plot-wise, this is MCU.

With regards to this, I split the MCU up into two eras: before and after Winter Soldier. The MCU movies before (and including) Winter Soldier were quietly subversive in a "baby's first Oliver Stone movie" way, with some slightly milquetoast (but still present) critiques of American capitalism, public policy, militarism, and the military-industrial complex. Iron Man 3 had its unexpected payoff to "Mandarin as Osama bin Laden" metaphor, and Winter Soldier could not have been more timely due to its parallels in the Edward Snowden controversy. Then and only then, did MCU movies really turn into intellectually-devoid, "key jingling for the popcorn muncher" shlock.

Captain Marvel set the post-Winter Soldier standard for "brainless jingoism for mass appeal". About the only exception to that rule was the first Black Panther movie which couched its actual criticism beneath such thick facade, that not even wokies noticed it for the identarian distraction (and I suspect the suits correctly identified the movie's politics wouldn't be taken seriously, being it was by and for black people and saturated with black politics). I still to this day suspect Iron Man 3 and Winter Soldier ruffled some feathers in the Pentagon, the DOD told Disney to dial it back, and Feige in turn was told in no uncertain terms to knock if off.

This is like Gremlins. Nobody complains about the plot in Gremlins.

This is because Gremlins is a far smarter film than most give it credit, and Dante and Columbus really learned their lessons from the popularity of teen slasher movies at the time. Specifically, teen slasher movies' tendency to subvert Hays Code-influenced protagonist/antagonist storytelling, framing monster as protagonist and carving their way through unsympathetic "victim" antagonists. You ever notice how Kingston Falls is full of assholes, the only really bad gremlin is Stripe and the others just follow his lead, and while being generally chaotic and destructive, the gremlins really only go ham on the assholes in the town while acting in self-defense otherwise? People would point to Billy's mom and Murray, but Billy's mom attacked first and Murray was an obnoxious, loudmouth, racist drunk.

Billy and Kate weren't the audience surrogates; the gremlins were, giving the audience a vicarious thrill going after the kind of people that just piss you off in day-to-day life.

 

[gorfias]

Terminator on Max (formerly HBO)

I saw this in the theater when it first came out in 1984. I was with friends. We didn't really expect much of it.

Few hours later, one buddy couldn't stop repeating, "I'll be back."

This movie holds up incredibly well. The characters, situations, the way it was filmed, it's direction. Little things like when Reese hits Arnold with a car, and the car is shown backing away, and an automatic rifle slides off of the front grill of the car.

We were lucky to have such films. A+

 

[Hawki]

With regards to this, I split the MCU up into two eras: before and after Winter Soldier. The MCU movies before (and including) Winter Soldier were quietly subversive in a "baby's first Oliver Stone movie" way, with some slightly milquetoast (but still present) critiques of American capitalism, public policy, militarism, and the military-industrial complex. Iron Man 3 had its unexpected payoff to "Mandarin as Osama bin Laden" metaphor, and Winter Soldier could not have been more timely due to its parallels in the Edward Snowden controversy. Then and only then, did MCU movies really turn into intellectually-devoid, "key jingling for the popcorn muncher" shlock.

Captain Marvel set the post-Winter Soldier standard for "brainless jingoism for mass appeal". About the only exception to that rule was the first Black Panther movie which couched its actual criticism beneath such thick facade, that not even wokies noticed it for the identarian distraction (and I suspect the suits correctly identified the movie's politics wouldn't be taken seriously, being it was by and for black people and saturated with black politics). I still to this day suspect Iron Man 3 and Winter Soldier ruffled some feathers in the Pentagon, the DOD told Disney to dial it back, and Feige in turn was told in no uncertain terms to knock if off.

Really not sure how this figures.

There's 8 films before Winter Soldier. Of those films, only two of them (Iron Man 1/3) come anywhere near close to saying anything about the topics at hand. You could be generous and include IM2, but that's really stretching it. Tony Stark keeps his exo-suit as personal property, Justin Hammer's drones go rogue and is put down by the guy who refused to surrender his property to the government, etc. Contrast this with First Avenger and Avengers, where the military is portrayed in a positive light, and both Thor films where no human military features at all. And in case you're wondering, I'm not including Hulk as the premise is so far removed from reality that it can't really be taken as a critique of anything.

Winter Soldier has a bit more brain to it than a lot of MCU films, but it's still operating within the confines of its genre, where the eqivalent of drone warfare is helicarriers, for instance. The closest the MCU has ever come close to saying anything about anything (in my experience) is in both Black Panther movies. That's not to say that every film is devoid of thematic weight (e.g. the theme of fatherhood runs through Guardians 2), but if you want actual weight on real-world topics, the MCU isn't the place for it.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Guardians of the Galaxy 3

Pretty good, not as good as I expected. I just feel this thing was a bit hyped? Maybe it's cause the other MCU stuff started to get stale, it was James Gunn triumphant de-canceling, and it had this whole Rocket backstory.
But the Rocket backstory was... ok? The best and worst thing about the movie I think is the villain is extremely cartoonish evil. I even read an interview where this was explicitly the choice and that's fine- I am a frequent critic of "morally grey" being used as excuse to not have clear plots. It just contributed to the overall approach of the movie being essentially a slapstick comedy interspersed with the animal welfare commercial with the Sarah McClachlan song.
There is an animal character who keeps saying "it's good to have friends" and it was supposed to be touching but my wife and I kept laughing at how telegraphed their demise was, since, you know, we've watched things and we know how this goes. Maybe we are just monsters I dunno.

Anyway it's the action and the set pieces that matter that was a mixed bag. There is the requisite triumphant everybody fighting together in the end and it was great. The whole bad guy headquarters with the poofy suits was f'n stupid looking. Not enough of Gemora for me (yeah I'm just a sucker for Zoe Seldana jumping around in a tigh-fighting outfit, whatever her skin color happens to me in a role).

Minus some points for being 2.5 hrs long, which I'll say about any movie over 2 hours unless it really merits it, which comic book movies never do. Plus points for the post-credits dialogue reference to King Crimson.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Really not sure how this figures.

There's 8 films before Winter Soldier. Of those films, only two of them (Iron Man 1/3) come anywhere near close to saying anything about the topics at hand. You could be generous and include IM2, but that's really stretching it. Tony Stark keeps his exo-suit as personal property, Justin Hammer's drones go rogue and is put down by the guy who refused to surrender his property to the government, etc. Contrast this with First Avenger and Avengers, where the military is portrayed in a positive light, and both Thor films where no human military features at all. And in case you're wondering, I'm not including Hulk as the premise is so far removed from reality that it can't really be taken as a critique of anything.

Winter Soldier has a bit more brain to it than a lot of MCU films, but it's still operating within the confines of its genre, where the eqivalent of drone warfare is helicarriers, for instance. The closest the MCU has ever come close to saying anything about anything (in my experience) is in both Black Panther movies. That's not to say that every film is devoid of thematic weight (e.g. the theme of fatherhood runs through Guardians 2), but if you want actual weight on real-world topics, the MCU isn't the place for it.

As I said, "baby's first Oliver Stone movie" and "milquetoast critiques". Just because criticism is anemic, doesn't mean it didn't exist, nor is worthy of attention. Also of note is the DoD's remarkable intolerance towards criticism of any form whatsoever -- to the point both Blackhawk Down and American Sniper were considered landmarks of DoD transparency for allowing portrayals of non-uniformed enemy combatants, including women and children. Now, film by film...

Hulk does in fact have a place in this; it's the same place as First Avenger. At least, insofar as unethical human experimentation and weapons testing by the military is concerned. The Super-Soldier Serum project is a pretty obvious metaphor for the Manhattan Project -- you did know the Manhattan Project included testing radioisotopes and radiation dosage on human test subjects, and invasive surgeries to collect radiation-affected tissue samples, without subjects' knowledge or consent, right? But, that's the tip of the iceberg given the military's historic predilection for testing chemical agents on soldiers (see, the Edgewood Arsenal experiments), radiological weapons testing on the public (see, Operation Plumbbob), running biological weapons testing on citizens and the general public (see, Operation Sea-Spray, the subway experiments, and Operation Big Buzz for a starting point on this).

Of course, specific to First Avenger is the parallel in how US POW's were hung out to dry and subject to humiliation and erasure, during and after the war. By far that was the most impactful theme in the movie, being I'm the grandchild of a US POW from WWII who suffered greatly from maltreatment during the war and afterwards from the VA.

With Iron Man 2, it's far beyond just what Tony did with his suits. He kicked off an arms race which the DoD sought to coopt and control (see also, First Avenger's Manhattan Project parallel, a trend which would continue into Winter Soldier), while imposing zero sanctions or consequences whatsoever for Stark Industries selling weapons to terrorists. Meanwhile, Stark is set against Hammer, whose notoriously corrupt corporation is shown to deliver substandard, mission crept, product at premium prices for little to no ROI, thanks to Congressional interference with procurement (which should ring some bells, if you're attentive in any way whatsoever to the defense industry).

I'm talking about the Bradley, Land Warrior system, and F-35 by the way. Just to name three off the top of my head.

Then you have the whole thing where it turned out Howard Stark stole the credit for the arc reactor technology, and left Vanko completely out to dry. You know, so long as we're talking about the military stealing technologies and weaponizing them (which is also what happened in First Avenger and Thor, and which formed the premise for Avengers).

So anyways, Winter Soldier. I could really care less about the stupid helicarriers.

I'm more interested in pointing out the whole thing about using automated mass surveillance through personal electronic devices and predictive analytics to identify subversives and dissidents, which is kinda the whole reason I invoked Snowden's name. But more subtle is the allusion to Operation Paperclip and the Nazification of the US government under the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, under auspices of anti-Communism and the Cold War: Winter Soldier perfectly continues the "HYDRA as Nazis" metaphor, by putting a spotlight on how HYDRA operatives were smuggled out of Germany by sympathizers and profiteers, put to work in the US government, gained influence, and eventually coopted the government for their own ends.

Oh, the thing about Black Panther nobody noticed, is that Killmonger's attempted coup was a CIA plot to start a civil war in Wakanda. Ross spilled the beans halfway through the movie in one of those "ugh, boo-ring! poopoo-peepee time now so I don't poopoo-peepee during bad guy punch time!" expository scenes.

 

[Trunkage]

Guardians of the Galaxy 3

Pretty good, not as good as I expected. I just feel this thing was a bit hyped? Maybe it's cause the other MCU stuff started to get stale, it was James Gunn triumphant de-canceling, and it had this whole Rocket backstory.
But the Rocket backstory was... ok? The best and worst thing about the movie I think is the villain is extremely cartoonish evil. I even read an interview where this was explicitly the choice and that's fine- I am a frequent critic of "morally grey" being used as excuse to not have clear plots. It just contributed to the overall approach of the movie being essentially a slapstick comedy interspersed with the animal welfare commercial with the Sarah McClachlan song.
There is an animal character who keeps saying "it's good to have friends" and it was supposed to be touching but my wife and I kept laughing at how telegraphed their demise was, since, you know, we've watched things and we know how this goes. Maybe we are just monsters I dunno.

Anyway it's the action and the set pieces that matter that was a mixed bag. There is the requisite triumphant everybody fighting together in the end and it was great. The whole bad guy headquarters with the poofy suits was f'n stupid looking. Not enough of Gemora for me (yeah I'm just a sucker for Zoe Seldana jumping around in a tigh-fighting outfit, whatever her skin color happens to me in a role).

Minus some points for being 2.5 hrs long, which I'll say about any movie over 2 hours unless it really merits it, which comic book movies never do. Plus points for the post-credits dialogue reference to King Crimson.

I too watched the Guardians 3. And am at the same position as you

So, the High Evolutionary is the dumbest villain in the MCU. Like the Thinker from The Suicide Squad dumb. So much so that I questioned how anyone followed him in the first place. Or why people didn't turn on him immediately, or even after the first genocide. There was no point in the Guardians doing anything, the High Evolutionary was defeating himself. And like the Thinker, this dumbest really detracts from the whole movie. This is really disappointing because that actor is one of the best things about Peacemaker, and I think he acted his ass off here. It was a script problem. And he might be my least favorite villain in the whole MCU

Nor did I feel any catharsis

Also, someone fought for the first MCU f-bomb to be about a car. So, so, so dumb

Otherwise, it's pretty good

 

[Hawki]

As I said, "baby's first Oliver Stone movie" and "milquetoast critiques". Just because criticism is anemic, doesn't mean it didn't exist, nor is worthy of attention.

Maybe not, but would you agree that some films have more to offer than others in terms of critique?

There's a world of difference between Kim Stanley Robinson and Captain Planet when it comes to the environment for instance.

Hulk does in fact have a place in this; it's the same place as First Avenger. At least, insofar as unethical human experimentation and weapons testing by the military is concerned.

Well, sure, okay, but "military experiments on someone" is a dime a dozen. Thing is, you COULD give it a bit more gravitas (see Falcon/Winter Soldier with Isiah Bradley), and have supersoldiers fit into real-world history, but the entire idea of the Hulk is too far-fetched for that to happen.

The Super-Soldier Serum project is a pretty obvious metaphor for the Manhattan Project -- you did know the Manhattan Project included testing radioisotopes and radiation dosage on human test subjects, and invasive surgeries to collect radiation-affected tissue samples, without subjects' knowledge or consent, right? But, that's the tip of the iceberg given the military's historic predilection for testing chemical agents on soldiers (see, the Edgewood Arsenal experiments), radiological weapons testing on the public (see, Operation Plumbbob), running biological weapons testing on citizens and the general public (see, Operation Sea-Spray, the subway experiments, and Operation Big Buzz for a starting point on this).

I'm assuming all those real-world examples are true, none of them have any real bearing on the film that I can see. For your specific claims:

-No, I don't see how the serum is an analogy for the Manhattan Project, especially since, to best knowledge, the Manhattan Project still occurs in the MCU. Most people in the world would agree that the emergence of nuclear weapons set the stage for the Cold War, introduced MAD, triggered a nuclear arms race, etc. - Cap doesn't result in any of these things. I know superheroes have been used as some vague analogy for nukes in some media (I think Red Son did?), but this isn't one of them.

-Again, supersoldiers and magic juice are stock tropes in fiction. Heck, Captain America himself became a character in the real world before the bomb was even dropped.

-On the subject of content, Steve gives his full consent. He's well aware of the risks and outcomes, he takes the serum regardless. It's hard to present a metaphor for lack of consent when consent is provided in said metaphor.

Of course, specific to First Avenger is the parallel in how US POW's were hung out to dry and subject to humiliation and erasure, during and after the war. By far that was the most impactful theme in the movie, being I'm the grandchild of a US POW from WWII who suffered greatly from maltreatment during the war and afterwards from the VA.

I'd be able to take that seriously if the film did.

Tony sets off an arms race that goes nowhere in the MCU, and even in the film itself, is played for laughs when other countries fail so miserably, some of their own soldiers are killed by their mechs. Not to mention that by my reading, the film expects us to take Tony's side when he refuses to give the Iron Man tech to the US military. And as for sanctions, well, as you say, zero sanctions. The film isn't interested in sanctions, because it isn't that kind of film. It's a dumb popcorn flick that's pretty lacklustre even by the standards of dumb popcorn flicks (look at any MCU film ranking, you'll see IM2 near the bottom). IM1/3 certainly dip their toes in some real-world commentary, IM2 bypasses it.

With Iron Man 2, it's far beyond just what Tony did with his suits. He kicked off an arms race which the DoD sought to coopt and control (see also, First Avenger's Manhattan Project parallel, a trend which would continue into Winter Soldier), while imposing zero sanctions or consequences whatsoever for Stark Industries selling weapons to terrorists. Meanwhile, Stark is set against Hammer, whose notoriously corrupt corporation is shown to deliver substandard, mission crept, product at premium prices for little to no ROI, thanks to Congressional interference with procurement (which should ring some bells, if you're attentive in any way whatsoever to the defense industry).

I'm talking about the Bradley, Land Warrior system, and F-35 by the way. Just to name three off the top of my head.

Again, I might be able to entertain that if the film was actually that cerebral.

Justin Hammer makes drones that go bad due to evil Russian guy (no, I can't remember his name, no, I can't be bothered to look it up). Could you use drone versions of mech suits as an allegory for the real-world use of drones and risk of AI? Yes. Does the film do so? No. It has no problem with the concept itself, the drones only exist to be used as part of Russian guy's vendetta, are destroyed by Tony and War Machine, and are never brought up again (to my knowledge).

Also, I don't recall Hammer being that in-bed with Congress, my understanding was that he only got his breaks when he broke Russian guy out of prison and had Rhodes deliver his suit to use as a basis for his drones, but meh.

Then you have the whole thing where it turned out Howard Stark stole the credit for the arc reactor technology, and left Vanko completely out to dry. You know, so long as we're talking about the military stealing technologies and weaponizing them (which is also what happened in First Avenger and Thor, and which formed the premise for Avengers).

Not sure if that's a military thing - wasn't the arc reactor solely for power genreation before Tony appropriated it for his suit in the first film?

But again, business guy steals secrets. Yes, and? That's a well-worn trope. I need something meatier than that to give IM2 any kind of credit for thematic storytelling. Compare something like that to, I dunno, The Big Short, Margin Call, or The Founder. These are intelligent films with stuff to say on business, capitalism, what have you, and are entertaining ones at that. IM2 doesn't even belong in the same building as them.

So anyways, Winter Soldier. I could really care less about the stupid helicarriers.

I'm more interested in pointing out the whole thing about using automated mass surveillance through personal electronic devices and predictive analytics to identify subversives and dissidents, which is kinda the whole reason I invoked Snowden's name. But more subtle is the allusion to Operation Paperclip and the Nazification of the US government under the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, under auspices of anti-Communism and the Cold War: Winter Soldier perfectly continues the "HYDRA as Nazis" metaphor, by putting a spotlight on how HYDRA operatives were smuggled out of Germany by sympathizers and profiteers, put to work in the US government, gained influence, and eventually coopted the government for their own ends.

I brought up the helicarriers as part of that context. I saw the hellicarriers as analagous to drones given how they'd function (the antagonist mentions something about pulling the trigger to stop a war, the helicarriers would have impunity to strike anywhere), whereas the information control is, well, information control. Winter Soldier is by no means a deep film, but it does manage to be a bit more socio-political than most other MCU films.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Maybe not, but would you agree that some films have more to offer than others in terms of critique?

That was never up for debate; rather, that was the very point in my disclaiming the weakness of early MCU films' critiques. As I said, a film having a weak critique doesn't mean it has no critique.

Well, sure, okay, but "military experiments on someone" is a dime a dozen. Thing is, you COULD give it a bit more gravitas (see Falcon/Winter Soldier with Isiah Bradley), and have supersoldiers fit into real-world history, but the entire idea of the Hulk is too far-fetched for that to happen.

This is going to be a running theme in your response, so I'll speak to it generally now: conceits of fiction are metaphor to express social commentary. That's true whether it's using dragons as metaphor for nuclear weapons, hive mind insect aliens as metaphor for Communism, the obliteration of hive mind insect aliens as metaphor for fascism, androids as metaphor for race or fears of automation, cyborgs as metaphor for Jesus and the last temptation, vampires as metaphor for non-cisgendered and non-heterosexual identity, zombies as metaphor for consumerism, or "cyberspace" as metaphor for globalization and the loss of cultural identity.

Capeshit is no exception. You may not like it or find it particularly persuasive, but it is still there.

No, I don't see how the serum is an analogy for the Manhattan Project, especially since, to best knowledge, the Manhattan Project still occurs in the MCU.

What? That has no bearing on whether or not it can or should be interpreted as metaphor for the Manhattan project.

Most people in the world would agree that the emergence of nuclear weapons set the stage for the Cold War, introduced MAD, triggered a nuclear arms race, etc. - Cap doesn't result in any of these things.

Here we upgrade "what?" to "what the actual fuck?" This is literally the entire plot of the first two movies. The Nazis started their super soldier project first, initiating an arms race. The United States won that arms race in WWII; after the war, the Soviet Union acquired the technology through espionage, and implemented their own program thereby continuing the arms race through the Cold War.

Now you should ask yourself if any of that sounds remotely familiar. It should, because it's the story of how nuclear weapons were developed and the start of the nuclear arms race.

Again, supersoldiers and magic juice are stock tropes in fiction.

So are androids, but we don't debate whether androids can be or are used as metaphor and vehicle for social commentary.

Heck, Captain America himself became a character in the real world before the bomb was even dropped.

And? Captain America had been around in the comics for sixty years before 9/11, but when 9/11 happened the character was rewritten to reflect social commentary on post-9/11 collective anxieties, introspect on the US's role in geopolitics, and the war on terror. It was the seed for the most famous and popular comic storyline Marvel ever produced: Civil War.

On the subject of content, Steve gives his full consent.

We're counting "given an anecdote or two by a guilty doctor who's already had a few" as informed consent, now?

Tony sets off an arms race that goes nowhere in the MCU, and even in the film itself, is played for laughs when other countries fail so miserably, some of their own soldiers are killed by their mechs.

"It doesn't work because they didn't treat other countries' militaries and weapons programs seriously".



I musta missed the part where we do in the real world, either. Probably shouldn't have been watching those sizzle reels of T-72 tanks getting ammo racked and exploding, insurgents mercing each other through poor planning and training to a funny soundtrack, and Apache and drone footage of other insurgents fucking goats and camels while the crews laugh their asses off on hot mics.

Could you use drone versions of mech suits as an allegory for the real-world use of drones and risk of AI? Yes. Does the film do so? No.

"Iron Man 2 could not have had social commentary because Iron Man 2 was not Age of Ultron".

Also, I don't recall Hammer being that in-bed with Congress, my understanding was that he only got his breaks when he broke Russian guy out of prison and had Rhodes deliver his suit to use as a basis for his drones, but meh.

He was working with Stern the entire time to discredit Stark, flip public opinion, and get a contract to develop power armor for the US military.

Not sure if that's a military thing - wasn't the arc reactor solely for power genreation before Tony appropriated it for his suit in the first film?

You're not sure if weaponizing emergent technologies is a military thing?

Compare something like that to, I dunno, The Big Short, Margin Call, or The Founder. These are intelligent films with stuff to say on business, capitalism, what have you, and are entertaining ones at that. IM2 doesn't even belong in the same building as them.

Compare the science fiction movie, to fictionalized film adaptations of real-world events? Shit, I should have thought about that one. Clearly, District 9 doesn't even belong in the same building as Escape from Pretoria, Sarafina, Invictus, or Cry Freedom, either.

 

[Hawki]

This is going to be a running theme in your response, so I'll speak to it generally now: conceits of fiction are metaphor to express social commentary. That's true whether it's using dragons as metaphor for nuclear weapons, hive mind insect aliens as metaphor for Communism, the obliteration of hive mind insect aliens as metaphor for fascism, androids as metaphor for race or fears of automation, cyborgs as metaphor for Jesus and the last temptation, vampires as metaphor for non-cisgendered and non-heterosexual identity, zombies as metaphor for consumerism, or "cyberspace" as metaphor for globalization and the loss of cultural identity.

Capeshit is no exception. You may not like it or find it particularly persuasive, but it is still there.

I don't have the time or inclination to go through all of those examples, but I'll try and boil things down to a few points:

-Can those things be used as metaphors for what you say? Yes (e.g. in the novel Starship Troopers, the Arachnids are a communist metaphor)

-Are those things always used as metaphors? No (that the Arachnids are used as said metaphor doesn't mean that every bug species in sci-fi is automatically using a metaphor)

-Are conceits of fiction always a metaphor to express commentary? No (I write fiction, I can assure you that not everything is a metaphor or an allagory or what have you)

One last point on the metaphor thing, with cyberspace and AI, those things are beyond the realm of metaphors, because both exist in some form right now. I think I had a debate with Silvanus awhile back about AIs being used as a metaphor for slavery or something, and while that's certainly possible to do, I disagree with the notion that any depiction of AI rebelling must be a reference to real-world history as opposed to the real-world concerns of AI becoming manifest.

What? That has no bearing on whether or not it can or should be interpreted as metaphor for the Manhattan project.

Disagree, it does, in my mind. It's like saying "Hydra is a metaphor for the Nazis" when the Nazis already exist. It's pretty redundant to have metaphor and the literal depiction of the same thing in the same story.

Here we upgrade "what?" to "what the actual fuck?" This is literally the entire plot of the first two movies. The Nazis started their super soldier project first, initiating an arms race. The United States won that arms race in WWII; after the war, the Soviet Union acquired the technology through espionage, and implemented their own program thereby continuing the arms race through the Cold War.

Now you should ask yourself if any of that sounds remotely familiar. It should, because it's the story of how nuclear weapons were developed and the start of the nuclear arms race.

Not sure how any of that disproves what I said.

MAD shaped global policy in the Cold War. It altered the very nature of war, because it was no longer tenable for superpowers to engage in direct conflict without risking mutual annihilation. It triggered proxy wars in various places instead.

What we have in the MCU doesn't really apply to that. First, the "arms race," as you describe, is barely conducted on a national level. The US gets one supersoldier that's absent after WWII, Hydra gets the Winter Soldier, the USSR gets Red Guardian, etc. That's not exactly "supersoldier proliferation" as opposed to the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of nukes in arsenals. Second, and more importantly, nothing about supersoldiers in this context changes the nature of war. As far as I'm aware, everything in the MCU from 1945 to 2012 (Battle of New York) more or less progresses in the same way. That certainly changes in-universe with the Avengers, but in the period in question, the super-soldier serum does nothing to change how countries conducted their affairs in the real world. Nukes still exist, MAD still exists, standing armies still exist. Third, multiple countries pursued nukes in the real-world, in the MCU, we have 2-3, none of which really overlap.

So are androids, but we don't debate whether androids can be or are used as metaphor and vehicle for social commentary.

Except I disagree that androids are social comentary ipso facto. Can they be? Yes. Are they always? No.

And? Captain America had been around in the comics for sixty years before 9/11, but when 9/11 happened the character was rewritten to reflect social commentary on post-9/11 collective anxieties, introspect on the US's role in geopolitics, and the war on terror. It was the seed for the most famous and popular comic storyline Marvel ever produced: Civil War.

Yes, but the MCU Cap wasn't rewritten to be a commentary on MAD, was he? Stuff like Winter Soldier certianly touches on the issues you mention, but the Cold War? Not really.

Also, wait, Civil War is popular? That's news to me, and having read it, I didn't see any of what you're describing. If the whole 'civil war' is meant to be a metaphor for what you describe, it's a piss-poor one.

We're counting "given an anecdote or two by a guilty doctor who's already had a few" as informed consent, now?

Um, pretty much? I understood that Steve knew what he was getting into before that.

"It doesn't work because they didn't treat other countries' militaries and weapons programs seriously".

View attachment 9397

I musta missed the part where we do in the real world, either. Probably shouldn't have been watching those sizzle reels of T-72 tanks getting ammo racked and exploding, insurgents mercing each other through poor planning and training to a funny soundtrack, and Apache and drone footage of other insurgents fucking goats and camels while the crews laugh their asses off on hot mics.

The people don't treat the attempts seriously because the film itself doesn't. The film, both in-universe and out-universe, is saying "look at this and laugh." And if IM2 was meant to convey the start of a mech arms race, where is that mech arms race? Because the MCU has been going for 25 years, and so far, mechs still aren't a thing. Your super-soldier analogy has more water than this because more than one super-soldier exists in the setting, so far, a handful of characters have ever used Iron Man suits, and all of them are American.

"Iron Man 2 could not have had social commentary because Iron Man 2 was not Age of Ultron".

Well first, I disagree that Age of Ultron has any social commentary. It's the stock "AI goes evil, tries to destroy the world." I need a bit more for it to be social commentary. Heck, it doesn't even need to be that cerebral (see the Terminator films), but AoU doesn't even manage that. It has nothing to say on AI or any related topic, it's a popcorn movie where evil robots try to destroy the world, good guys save it, the end.

Second, what other films may or may not do is irrelevant. IM2 doesn't have social commentary because it doesn't. Certainly nothing worthy of the name.

You're not sure if weaponizing emergent technologies is a military thing?

Oh absolutely the military would do that (though civilian technologies come out of the military as well, so go figure), but in this case? The arc reactor was developed by Tony Stark, then used by Tony Stark, and hasn't gone beyond that. Hammer's drones don't use arc reactors, least as far as I'm aware, nor is there any proliferation of arc reactor technology in the MCU. Heck, it's arguably something of a plothole that it isn't - I mean, wouldn't the world want clean energy from arc reactors?

Compare the science fiction movie, to fictionalized film adaptations of real-world events? Shit, I should have thought about that one. Clearly, District 9 doesn't even belong in the same building as Escape from Pretoria, Sarafina, Invictus, or Cry Freedom, either.

You've missed the point. It's not a question of what's real or not, it's a question of the depth of the subject matter. You can absolutely have a fictional world/story that works well as metaphor/allagory. I haven't seen it, but my understanding is that District 9 is a metaphor for refugees, immigrants, etc. However, compare District 9 to something like Battle: Los Angeles. One's a metaphor, one's a shoot 'em up.

In this case, IM2 is Battle: LA.

 

[Piscian]

TMNT Mutant Mayhem

I finally got to catch this yesterday. I have pretty mixed feelings about it, but overall I can easily recommend it as yet another fun TMNT film. I find myself having difficulty like comparing it to other films. If I tell you uts the best film since TMNT Id be lying, but its also not worse. Its just got different pros and cons for me.

So the big hook here is that this is like pre-day one turtle's. Like they literally fight for the first time here. They act more like children than teenagers even.

Theres also a complete, somewhat needless, change in back story to say they literally do just learn fighting from Bruce lee movies and theres no connection to japan.

The primary plot driver this time around is that splinter had a bad first contact with humans and literally fears and hates them so the turtles are actually hiding from humanity despite being teenagers, lonely and desperate for acceptance into the human world.

That really is the driver and the whole story and ending revolves around it.

The movie and animation are pretty awesome. The fighting and action are phenomenal. If I had a complaint its that the whole film takes place at night and they use an art style that similar to SF ink filter so at times it was hard for me to see what was happening.

The turtles are very fun and likeable. The comedy reminded me most of TMNT II. Lot of laugh out loud moments and this is solidly a comedy above all else.

I didn't love it though. Not a 9/10 its like a 7-8.

1. Its very short like 90 minutes. It felt a lot like the 2007 where it coulda used a little more meat. At no point does the film has a Raphael goes to the movies moment or any character exploration. It tells more than shows. I needed 10-20 minutes at the farmhouse exploring the turtles more.

2. I won't spoil it but the ending sorta ..well resolves TMNT. Like its very much a self contained "What if?" version of TMNT and it didn't quite hit home for me. They leave it open for a sequel, but this wasn't anything new or big that demands a sequel. I have trouble believing anyone left the theater going "Wow I can't wait to see where they take this story!"

Now to the films credit I went to watch Across the Spider-verse last night and ended up shutting it off 30 minutes because I was tired and its like 3 hours long.

TMNTMM is 90 minutes and I can see myself watching it a hundred times cause its tightly filmed and every minute endorphins getting delivered where as you take ATS or any other marvel movie lately and its gonna be an investment and depressing.

So easy recommendation to go and turtle an afternoon, Im being nitpicky so I suspect other might even think this one was a homerun.

 

[Hawki]

Pokemon 3 (5/10)

...ugh.

I really don't even want to bother talking about this film. There's family films, there's children films that an adult can still enjoy, and then there's stuff like this. Not that I expected Shakespeare, but this is the film that people hold as one of the greatest in the series? Really? Either my tastes are different, or the first two films (which I saw when they came out) aren't as good as I remembered. Honestly, both are true.

Fine, whatever. A scientist gets pulled into some limbo dimension by the Unown, and his daughter, Molly, is able to conjure up an Entei using their psychic power. Consequently, the area around her mansion turns to crystal, and Ash's mum is kidnapped by the Entei to be Molly's mother. Ash, Brock, and Misty set off to rescue her, while Team Rocket does...stuff (honestly, you could remove Team Rocket from the movie and nothing would change in terms of plot).

Now, I can sort of see why so many people rank this film highly, in that at least in theory, it does deal with themes of loss and family. Molly lost her mother long ago (how is never explained), now her father's gone, so now she's conjured up a dream to live in, has had a mother brought into her dreamworld (why can't she dream up a mother like everything else?). In theory, you could point to the throughline of Molly having to let go of her illusion and be forced to confront reality, no matter how painful it might be. However, two problems. One, she gets her parents (yes, her mother just turns up) at the end, so really, she loses nothing. She never grows as a character through loss. Second, the film's story and dialogue is just too banal for that to really apply. Whatever gravitas it might have had is just smothered by the simplicity of the film.

There's other things too, stuff I'm only really noticing now as an adult. There's a pattern of dialogue with the trio that's used over and over and over. It basically goes like:

Ash: Says X

Brock: Says Y

Misty: Says Z

Pikachu/Togepei: Cute sound effect

The order may change, but it's the same formula. Same basic dialogue with tweeness at the end. Like I said, I know this is a film for kids, but the dialogue is so basic, there's no meat or gravitas to be found. This extends to the Pokemon battles in said film. For instance, Brock and Misty both challenge Molly to pokemon battles in order to buy time for Ash to find his mum. Simple plot point, right? However, this is undercut by just how happy-go-lucky the dialogue is, as if nothing is on the line, as if this is a battle like any other. What's more, Molly's pokemon are also basically conjured up, and are much stronger than Brock and Misty's. As I watched this, my thoughts were along the line of "huh, maybe she can't lose because this is a a dream. No matter how hard Brock/Misty try, they can't win, because the laws of the dream won't allow them to. Maybe this can tie in with Molly's character arc of having to grow up, to learn that in the real world, defeat is a possibility." Well, more fool me, because nothing of that happens. Molly beats Brock, then Misty, they say what a great pokemon trainer is, the end. Gah!

So, yeah, I didn't like this much. Rankings are below:

1: Detective Pikachu
2: Pokemon 2000
3: The First Movie
4: Pokemon 3

 

[Hawki]

Chevalier (7/10)

The TL, DR version is that while this is a good film, it's a film that takes massive liberties with history. While I'd generally recommend it, I'd also recommend against using it as a basis for historical know-how. Same way I can praise the film Amadeus, while also pointing out that there's no evidence Salieri murdered Mozart or whatnot.

The film tells the story of Joseph Belogne in late 18th century France, in the years/decades leading up to the French revolution. The son of a plantation owner and a slave, he's brought to France, given the best education his father can afford, is shown to be a prodigy in everything from fencing to, more importantly, music. He's generally well regarded in court, and is friends with Marie-Antoinette (who gives him the rank/title of "chevalier"), but as a "mulatto," has to deal with everyday racism. He also has to deal with how unpopular the monarchy is at this point in time.

At this point, things take a sharp turn as a matter of historical record. Joseph's father dies, and his mother comes to live with him in Paris after years apart (in reality, they were only separated for 20 months). Joseph Balogne and Christoph Gluck are given a challenge - compose a new opera, the winner will become head of the Paris Orchestra. Gluck is portrayed as an old man, set in his ways, unable to innovate, where the only reason he wins is because Balogne is turned down because of his skin colour (also, he gets into an affair with his lead singer, who's married to a noble who despises opera). While this works well from a storytelling standpoint, it doesn't from a historical one - Gluck is widely credited as having moved opera forward, there is no historical record of such a competition, and while rumours did persist of an affair between Belogne and said singer, there is no evidence this is the case, not to mention that her husband was a poet himself.

All of this isn't so much an issue by itself (plenty of films take historical licence), but while the material is good, it does feel a bit twee. We spend so much time on Bologne's love affair that the backdrop of the French revolution remains undercooked, and Bologne's role in it (where he rose to the position of colonel, leading his own "coloured regiment") is reduced to an afterward. For whatever reason, the writers decided to spend time on a fictional love story rather than devote the time to his actual history. Granted, it's probably easier to tell a love story than a war one, but still...

Anyway, film's still good. Music's good, and it's integrated well into the film. It sort of reminds me of Amadeus in a way, though not to the same extent. Amadeus would often show actual performances, Chevalier usually keeps the music in the background, especially when used to convey the passage of time. From what I've been able to read up, Bologne is an interesting figure, and it's good that his music is being rediscovered, but while the film is "good," it could have definitely been better. But when the opening scene is Bologne literally upstaging Mozart (in realty, there's no evidence that this ever occurred), it's clear that story is being put before history. Bank of Dave had the same problem, though unlike BoD, this is still a good film at the end of the day.

 

[BrawlMan]

TMNT Mutant Mayhem

I finally got to catch this yesterday. I have pretty mixed feelings about it, but overall I can easily recommend it as yet another fun TMNT film. I find myself having difficulty like comparing it to other films. If I tell you uts the best film since TMNT Id be lying, but its also not worse. Its just got different pros and cons for me.

When you say TMNT, do you mean TMNT (1990), TMNT (2007) or TMNT (2014)? Both of the latter two are 7/10 movies for me, but TMNT '07, had really weak and generic villains I didn't care for. I do prefer 2014 over 2007. TMNT 1990 trumps over both of them.

Theres also a complete, somewhat needless, change in back story to say they literally do just learn fighting from Bruce lee movies and theres no connection to japan.

So you can call it a Chinese connection. I remember when some people (1987 fan boys) were bitching about Splinter and the turtles learning ninjitsu from a book they found in the sewers. Odd how almost none of them are whining now, considering it's technically worse overall in that regard. What, y'all couldn't have thrown in a few clips of Five Elements Ninjas or a some Sho Kosugi ninja films? We all know the only reason they did this, was because Jackie Chan voices Splinter now.

The primary plot driver this time around is that splinter had a bad first contact with humans and literally fears and hates them so the turtles are actually hiding from humanity despite being teenagers, lonely and desperate for acceptance into the human world.

That really is the driver and the whole story and ending revolves around it.

The movie and animation are pretty awesome. The fighting and action are phenomenal. If I had a complaint its that the whole film takes place at night and they use an art style that similar to SF ink filter so at times it was hard for me to see what was happening.

The turtles are very fun and likeable. The comedy reminded me most of TMNT II. Lot of laugh out loud moments and this is solidly a comedy above all else.

I never had any problems following the action, but everyone's eyes are different. I do appreciate the big change up, and it was needed. They couldn't do the same thing again. Done that already about a million times. TMNT'07 tried a similar change up, but that movie was implied to be a sequel to the first three movies from the 90s, and it felt more like a straight-to-DVD movie released in to theaters. Comedy wise Mutant Mayhem I find much better than Secret of the Ooze. I don't hate SothO, but my love kinda dropped a lot for it as I got older. The Turtles not being able to use their weapons is a huge bummer for me. Back on point MM kept me laughing.

I didn't love it though. Not a 9/10 its like a 7-8.

1. Its very short like 90 minutes. It felt a lot like the 2007 where it coulda used a little more meat. At no point does the film has a Raphael goes to the movies moment or any character exploration. It tells more than shows. I needed 10-20 minutes at the farmhouse exploring the turtles more.

2. I won't spoil it but the ending sorta ..well resolves TMNT. Like its very much a self contained "What if?" version of TMNT and it didn't quite hit home for me. They leave it open for a sequel, but this wasn't anything new or big that demands a sequel. I have trouble believing anyone left the theater going "Wow I can't wait to see where they take this story!"

I disagree on most fronts. The movie didn't feel too short at all, and was the right length. I am glad they didn't go overboard on the running time. TMNT 2007, while a similar length, dragged at times. This movie doesn't have this issue. I love the ending for this movie, and the turtles and Splinter deserves something nice. Them coming together with the other mutants (who are major villains in most other continuities) and being a family, makes almost tear up. Bebop and Rocksteady are family with the turtles now! Other citizens of NY helping them is also a nice minor callback to Out of the Shadows with NYPD helping them, or Danny helping them in TMNT 1990.

As for the sequel hook, but many of the people in my theater really want to see where the sequel goes with this big change up. Myself included. If it was one-off, I wouldn't complain either way. Movie is a borderline S rank for me. I will say they did a little to heavy with some of the pop culture references. I did not expect an Attack on Titan reference in a TMNT property. That, and I wish these movies wouldn't end on sequel hooks/stingers so much. The 2010s TMNT verse never got that third movie, because the producer was a whiny dick who overblew it in marketing and didn't get all the money in the universe.

Now to the films credit I went to watch Across the Spider-verse last night and ended up shutting it off 30 minutes because I was tired and its like 3 hours long.

TMNTMM is 90 minutes and I can see myself watching it a hundred times cause its tightly filmed and every minute endorphins getting delivered where as you take ATS or any other marvel movie lately and its gonna be an investment and depressing.

Speak for yourself. Mutant Mayhem and Across of the Spider-Verse are awesome for the same and different reasons. I get you were tired, but ASTV never dragged for me, nor was I depressed. It's only 2 hours and 20 minutes. It at least has the content to justify it; I can't say the same for most of the recent output of MCU movies/TV shows. Don't forget, without Into the Spider-Verse, there wouldn't be a Puss N' Boots: Last Wish, The Michelsons vs. Machines, nor a Mutant Mayhem.

As far as rankings TMNT movies go:

1. TMNT (1990)
2. Batman vs. TMNT
3. Mutant Mayhem
4. Out of the Shadows
5. TMNT (2014)
6. TMNT (2007)
7. Secret of the Ooze
8. TMNT III

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Here’s my only extremely useless contribution to the TMNT discussion:

I am currently on this extended destination wedding trip with a ton of time to kill and limited entertainment options. So I been channel flipping the local TV and watching bad movies. One of the ones that came on was a TMNT, but the on-screen guide was kinda broken so dunno which one of the above listed it was. It had Meghan Fox and I figured well at least I could get to watch some silly action and a very pretty woman while I scroll reddit or whatever. But it was so dull and stupid I couldn’t even do that. I go as far as the turtles’ reveal to Meghan and they were all angsty and gritty? Nah.

 

[thebobmaster]

Just as a heads up for all two of you who might be waiting for it, my review of Licence to Kill will not be likely happening for a bit. Broke my arm, so typing out a full review on one hand is a bit daunting.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There is an animal character who keeps saying "it's good to have friends" and it was supposed to be touching but my wife and I kept laughing at how telegraphed their demise was, since, you know, we've watched things and we know how this goes.

I don't see how that could've been in doubt though, considering Rocket never brought them up in the previous movies, him being miserable and alone, and the doom that hangs over each of these characters. I don't think you were ever supposed to expect they were going to survive. Sure, you could say their demise was telegraphed, but then they're utterly warped Frankenstein creatures, so... yeah.

There was no point in the Guardians doing anything, the High Evolutionary was defeating himself.

Well, other than saving everyone aboard his torture ship. Defeating the guy isn't even presented as the most important thing, it's getting all the test subjects out that's treated as the real victory.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Just as a heads up for all two of you who might be waiting for it, my review of Licence to Kill will not be likely happening for a bit. Broke my arm, so typing out a full review on one hand is a bit daunting.

Throwing hat incident or an encounter with Grace Jones?