Double Vision
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
So wait, are you saying District 9 was not good? Did we watch teh same movie? Well, to each his own I guess. I'll grant you that Sucker Punch was pretty sucky on every level but the eye candy one. And no, I'm not jsut talking about the ladies- visually it was a very striking and enjoyable movie. It's too bad they tried to shoehorn a plot in there.AxelxGabriel said:
I must disagree. The action sequences were so poorly edited I couldn't enjoy them. The pacing was bad--this movie was at least a half-hour too long. And the plot was meaningless:FallenTraveler said:
World War I is still going to happen, only Moriarty won't be profiting from it. So a bunch of other war-mongers will instead, just like in actual history. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if Moriarty believed by manipulating the course of the war he could have minimized the death and suffering? Maybe by forcing Europe into war early before some of WWI's most devastating weapons were developed?
Because in this film, we have a colossal intellect, capable of rivalling Holmes, and his grand scheme is to make a lot of money over several years and millions of dead bodies? Surely someone that smart could have found easier, more efficient ways of getting rich if that's all he wanted.
Because in this film, we have a colossal intellect, capable of rivalling Holmes, and his grand scheme is to make a lot of money over several years and millions of dead bodies? Surely someone that smart could have found easier, more efficient ways of getting rich if that's all he wanted.
The things this movie had going for it were the interactions between Holmes and Watson, and the fact it had 100% more Stephen Frye than the first one. Those scenes were all gold. There just weren't enough of them. They kept shoehorning in more poorly-edited action scenes instead.
She uses them once in her introductory scene--which is admittedly pretty cool--and then basically becomes the plot device that moves Holmes and Watson to the next part of the plot.algalon said:
I loved the new Sherlock, but then again i always love the whole "two guys have an epic battle of wits with really high stakes"
See Death Note, Code Geass etc etc
Also is it actually possible to have a game of mind chess like in the final battle? It started an argument between by ex-Chess champion friend over whether it was possible.
Then again he doesn't "get" artistic licence.
And Chess always crops up in these kind of things, what no other symbolic games to choose from? Try Starcraft 2, science has proven it's better than Chess after all.
See Death Note, Code Geass etc etc
Also is it actually possible to have a game of mind chess like in the final battle? It started an argument between by ex-Chess champion friend over whether it was possible.
Then again he doesn't "get" artistic licence.
And Chess always crops up in these kind of things, what no other symbolic games to choose from? Try Starcraft 2, science has proven it's better than Chess after all.
I really enjoyed Sherlock Holmes 2 and although I can see and recognise it's flaws as a movie it's superior in every way to the first movie. I don't know why you would watch the first now when you can watch the second. They toned down the stupid and the magic from the first, upped the character and display of actual intelligence. Gave it a plot and villains who were fairly interesting (or a henchman that was fairly interesting) and made it look prettier.
The first half was slow and could have done with the extraction of all fight scenes and naked jokes. Particularly the fight scenes because it would have made the climax seem a lot better, but I loved the way they showed the final fight between Holmes and Moriarty. Just two ridiculously intelligent people being intelligent to each other and calculating the odds and in the end Holmes wins because he has purer motive in a way that was described at the start of the book.
I thought the tone was surprisingly appropriate and they managed to convey the back and forth, the grand scale of moriarty's plan and how run down Sherlock was pretty well.
The first half was slow and could have done with the extraction of all fight scenes and naked jokes. Particularly the fight scenes because it would have made the climax seem a lot better, but I loved the way they showed the final fight between Holmes and Moriarty. Just two ridiculously intelligent people being intelligent to each other and calculating the odds and in the end Holmes wins because he has purer motive in a way that was described at the start of the book.
I thought the tone was surprisingly appropriate and they managed to convey the back and forth, the grand scale of moriarty's plan and how run down Sherlock was pretty well.
Before we get all 'modern audiences are dumb' the original story just had Holmes _saying_ that him and Moriarty had an incredible battle of wits, without actually describing it in any way at all. Maybe the audience was too dumb to understand anything clever?008Zulu said:I watched the old Mission Impossible series as a kid (Sesame Street was for pussiesMovieBob said:
Granted the t.v series required a little more thinking to follow the story as it unfolded, especially some of the eps that featured move counter-move chess styled thinking, so I wonder now if "modern" audiences are incapable of thinking in these terms or being able to follow such a "complex" story?
I was truly astounded by horrible Sherlock Holmes 2 was. I greatly enjoyed the first film, and was even looking forward to this one, Robert Downery Jr., a "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, yeah I was prepared for it to be mediocre but...it was just a failure on so many different levels, the only ones where I thought it succeeded where the beautiful sets and costumes.
The characters? Wow they made sure to get Mary off the screen right quick, it's obvious the screenwriter was not happy being saddled with Watson's engagement. Stephen Fry is wasted, and I am sorry because I love the actor, that was not Mycroft he was playing. Mycroft is the person who is so intricately important that he never has to leave his room and can still manage the whole of the English Government. The least of the problems with him in this film was how proactive he was.
If this film is remembered several years from now, I look forward to the comparisons between Robert Downey Jr.'s performance of Sherlock and Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow. Wonderful in the first movie when it's all a part of the whole show, but over-used in the following ones for cheap comedy and wholly responsible for moving certain parts of the plot along because the lazy screenwriter can't see any other way of getting the characters to where they need to be.
The storyline? I've never before wanted to walk out of a movie, but this time I wanted to do it 20 minutes in with a death of a certain character that only exists to blatantly up the villain's bad guy status. A villain who if done properly shouldn't remotely need such a cheap ploy.
They up the number of action scenes to a ridiculous level, not a one that well choreographed, and made Sherlock far to good of a fighter, when the entire reason he did okay in the first movie is his strategy of cheating.
About half way through the movie, they slow things down to explain what exactly Moriarty's plan is, and it's a damn good thing they do, because there is no evidence up to that point at all of what it is. Oh yes they mentioned the tension between countries once or twice, but nothing really to show what he was even trying to do. And on the other hand you could see the other half of the plot threads a mile away and knew exactly what ploys they were going to try to use.
I think what offended me the most of the whole movie was not the stupidity of a lot of the scenes or the comedy, not the shoehorning of generic action movie plot to try and fit the characters (and failing), but how smart it thought it was. The ending Chess game just made me facepalm at the blatantness of it all, it wasn't clever. It was obvious, and you could see the results in advance and it was a chore to sit though.
I probably would have enjoyed the film so much more if it was the bland action movie the script was obviously based on, then it wouldn't have misused so many of my favorite characters and the whole pretentious air about it could have been forgone.
The characters? Wow they made sure to get Mary off the screen right quick, it's obvious the screenwriter was not happy being saddled with Watson's engagement. Stephen Fry is wasted, and I am sorry because I love the actor, that was not Mycroft he was playing. Mycroft is the person who is so intricately important that he never has to leave his room and can still manage the whole of the English Government. The least of the problems with him in this film was how proactive he was.
If this film is remembered several years from now, I look forward to the comparisons between Robert Downey Jr.'s performance of Sherlock and Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow. Wonderful in the first movie when it's all a part of the whole show, but over-used in the following ones for cheap comedy and wholly responsible for moving certain parts of the plot along because the lazy screenwriter can't see any other way of getting the characters to where they need to be.
The storyline? I've never before wanted to walk out of a movie, but this time I wanted to do it 20 minutes in with a death of a certain character that only exists to blatantly up the villain's bad guy status. A villain who if done properly shouldn't remotely need such a cheap ploy.
They up the number of action scenes to a ridiculous level, not a one that well choreographed, and made Sherlock far to good of a fighter, when the entire reason he did okay in the first movie is his strategy of cheating.
About half way through the movie, they slow things down to explain what exactly Moriarty's plan is, and it's a damn good thing they do, because there is no evidence up to that point at all of what it is. Oh yes they mentioned the tension between countries once or twice, but nothing really to show what he was even trying to do. And on the other hand you could see the other half of the plot threads a mile away and knew exactly what ploys they were going to try to use.
Why did they feel the need to fake out Sherlock's death twice, they established both of the Chekhov's guns which allowed him to survive in such blatant manner, that it felt insulting how long it took the characters to remember them.
And the movie was so obvious, that I actually told my friend "look out for waterfalls", because I could just tell they where going to try and reenact the Reichenbach Falls.
And the movie was so obvious, that I actually told my friend "look out for waterfalls", because I could just tell they where going to try and reenact the Reichenbach Falls.
I think what offended me the most of the whole movie was not the stupidity of a lot of the scenes or the comedy, not the shoehorning of generic action movie plot to try and fit the characters (and failing), but how smart it thought it was. The ending Chess game just made me facepalm at the blatantness of it all, it wasn't clever. It was obvious, and you could see the results in advance and it was a chore to sit though.
I probably would have enjoyed the film so much more if it was the bland action movie the script was obviously based on, then it wouldn't have misused so many of my favorite characters and the whole pretentious air about it could have been forgone.
I'm not surprised... Sherlock Holmes sucked and the MI movies are mediocre at best. The thing these movie series have incommen both are based on great premises which they 15 minutes into the first movie pisses away. I still remember watching the first SH movie in the cinema and laughing in disbelieve when they tripped that wire which made a whole building explode for no apparent reason other than the movie needed a explosion. I'm still going to watch these sequels for no other reason than the only way is up for these two.
Sorry mate, don't agree with you (on the Mission Impossible parts) for these reasons...
1. The Plot - sure it's the same 'save the world' thing but so is every bloody superhero movie that you rave about (sure I know you're biased towards them cos you're really into comics) but if you're going to see an action movie then there's not much more that you can do apart from 'if you don't succeed then the world will end'.
Think of X-Men First Class, great movie but the plot is not much different from MI4. You also loved 2012 (which I agree was a good fun movie and I am definitely in the minority on that) and that movie is basically about the end of the world.
2. Action 'Gimmick' - Only the gloves and the 'facemaker' thing malfunctioned. The other faults were human error (crashed the remote control electromagnet) or the tech was only programmed to work for certain variables (no more than one person for that 'stealth screen' thing otherwise it wouldn't work properly)
I also like that the 'facemaker' malfunctioned cos it was overused in MI2. The gloves malfunctioning created some tense moments and make the building climbing thing awesome. The whole Dubai part of the movie was sweet (had the foreshadow of the sandstorm which came into the movie later)
Overall the action scenes were varied and did what all action scenes should do, use the surroundings/setting of the action scene to their advantage (Burj Khalifi with its ridiculous heights and Dubai sandstorms, fight in the automatic parking garage using the elevators and several cars etc.)
3. 'Waste of actor from some other movie' (woopdeefrickendoo)
I agree that the bad guy from MI4 wasn't great but it's not the worst bad guy ever. He did what bad guys are supposed to do, be bad and test the good guy's endurance. I thought Ethan Hunt was far more human in this than in any other MI movie.
4. Final Battle
Not the best final battle ever (scenes in Dubai were more interesting) but still a great fight scene that took full advantage of its surroundings such as the elevators and cars in the garage. While it didnt make sense to me why the bad guy jumped off with the briefcase (couldn't he have just thrown it over and tried to run cos Ethan Hunt needed the briefcase to save the world so it obviously had more priority than the bad guy).
I am beginning to wonder what action movies are 'good' to you (apart from superhero movies which are clearly biased cos you're such a fan, nothing wrong with that of course, but you shouldn't try to hide your bias of superhero movies, admit that you are biased...Captain America was good but not THAT good).
That's just my two cents...
1. The Plot - sure it's the same 'save the world' thing but so is every bloody superhero movie that you rave about (sure I know you're biased towards them cos you're really into comics) but if you're going to see an action movie then there's not much more that you can do apart from 'if you don't succeed then the world will end'.
Think of X-Men First Class, great movie but the plot is not much different from MI4. You also loved 2012 (which I agree was a good fun movie and I am definitely in the minority on that) and that movie is basically about the end of the world.
2. Action 'Gimmick' - Only the gloves and the 'facemaker' thing malfunctioned. The other faults were human error (crashed the remote control electromagnet) or the tech was only programmed to work for certain variables (no more than one person for that 'stealth screen' thing otherwise it wouldn't work properly)
I also like that the 'facemaker' malfunctioned cos it was overused in MI2. The gloves malfunctioning created some tense moments and make the building climbing thing awesome. The whole Dubai part of the movie was sweet (had the foreshadow of the sandstorm which came into the movie later)
Overall the action scenes were varied and did what all action scenes should do, use the surroundings/setting of the action scene to their advantage (Burj Khalifi with its ridiculous heights and Dubai sandstorms, fight in the automatic parking garage using the elevators and several cars etc.)
3. 'Waste of actor from some other movie' (woopdeefrickendoo)
I agree that the bad guy from MI4 wasn't great but it's not the worst bad guy ever. He did what bad guys are supposed to do, be bad and test the good guy's endurance. I thought Ethan Hunt was far more human in this than in any other MI movie.
4. Final Battle
Not the best final battle ever (scenes in Dubai were more interesting) but still a great fight scene that took full advantage of its surroundings such as the elevators and cars in the garage. While it didnt make sense to me why the bad guy jumped off with the briefcase (couldn't he have just thrown it over and tried to run cos Ethan Hunt needed the briefcase to save the world so it obviously had more priority than the bad guy).
I am beginning to wonder what action movies are 'good' to you (apart from superhero movies which are clearly biased cos you're such a fan, nothing wrong with that of course, but you shouldn't try to hide your bias of superhero movies, admit that you are biased...Captain America was good but not THAT good).
That's just my two cents...
At least I can rest easy now, knowing that (in Bob's opinion) Brad Bird still directed his ass off, and if MI4 is crap, it's because of the script he was handed. Now that I think about it, though, the reason I enjoy his movies so much is because of their charm and deeply personal characterization, which stems from his writing, so I should have noticed early on that he was directing but not writing, and tailored my expectations accordingly.
I wouldn't use the phrase "modern audiences are dumb", I would say "used to over-simplification". Maybe Hollywood thinks people are dumb, but there has been the occasion where something clever has popped up and people didn't furrow their brows as if trying to remember how to make fire.BrotherRool said:
Christopher Nolan is making a pretty good career on producing intellectual thrillers008Zulu said:
I saw MI4 at an IMAX theatre and it was the most fun I've had at the movies this year. The scene where Cruise is climbing the skyscraper had me on the edge of my seat the entire time.
You know, I enjoyed the first Sherlock Holmes and I just got back from seeing A Game of Shadows. You know what, it was a great movie, in my opinion. This isn't the first time I've disagreed with Bob, but I felt the action in Holmes was perfectly fine and I thought it was obvious that Moriarty wasn't even slightly insane, just opportunistic.
I had a full wall-of-text written out explaining why I liked the movie and why I find Bob's criticism poor, but it really is futile to argue opinions, especially with Bob.
I had a full wall-of-text written out explaining why I liked the movie and why I find Bob's criticism poor, but it really is futile to argue opinions, especially with Bob.
Did Bob hate the first Sherlock Holmes too? Because both myself and everybody I know who's seen both films really enjoyed them.
Does Bob have something against them or is he once again being forced by his job to read too much into it and therefore missing out on the experience?
Does Bob have something against them or is he once again being forced by his job to read too much into it and therefore missing out on the experience?