nick64

As someone who had absolutely no nostalgia for any old Spider-Man movies and dreaded what it would be after hearing all the rumors and leaks, I loved No Way Home because it didn’t simply rely on cameos happening and actually allowed the decisions of its main character to drive every plot turn, ending that character in a significantly different place than he started. The crossover characters actually have influence on the main character and play a part beyond just “Hey I know him!”. Sure there are things to nitpick, but I’ve never seen a blockbuster movie without things to nitpick. Nobody has to enjoy anything, but to tell people they’re wrong for liking something, stuck in the moment, and failing to view critically beyond theater experience is just unfair.

I think it’ll hold pretty well second weekend. I’m waiting to see it because my friends wanted a triple feature weekend with Barbenheimer. I’m sure some others are doing the same.

This was enjoyable and I liked the cast a lot, but I figured out who did it the moment the victim was revealed, and nothing the rest of the film presented even slightly made me waver. MOTOE had a nice surprise revelation, but this was just way too telegraphed. And yeah, the first half was SLOW. The tomb scene could have been cut out completely.

Really tried to enjoy this, but it was hard to appreciate Stewart’s performance when I had to listen to the 60 year old couple behind me struggle to keep it in their pants. No, that’s not a typo.

Ridley, people aren’t paying $10 a person in this economy/pandemic to “learn something”. Money’s tight, most people are gonna use their entertainment budget for a bit of fun escapism. This isn’t a totally new phenomenon either. Hell, Blade Runner flopped 40 years ago, how has he not learned this by now? If you’re really focused on making sure your art is seen, go the streaming route. Very easy way to reach an audience. But with a wide theatrical release, the primary goal is making as much money as possible, and you need to be widely appealing enough to get enough people to dish out for it. Is it ideal? No. But that’s the way it is, and whining won’t change anything. For what it’s worth, I saw this movie with my Stubs A-List and it’s one of my favorites of the year. But I’m not even a little bit surprised it flopped, and it’s simply naive to have thought it wouldn’t.

Lmao when they address every single one of these in the first minute of the new trailer This looks gorgeous, and the plot seems to have an epic feel to it. This and Shang-Chi both looked like risks on paper, so I’m delighted to see they both look like they’re gonna pay off!

For what it’s worth, Lucy was a pretty nice-sized hit back in 2014. Sure, that’s seven years ago and not at all an argument that she’s on the same level as the Rock, but she has shown her name can draw outside of Black Widow, at least more than other MCU actors have.

I think $90 is more realistic than $90million.

I did and still can’t wrap my brain around any way that Killmonger would time travel or go multiverse hopping. The multiverse opens a ton of MCU story possibilities, but there still needs to be a level of believability to its use. And when did Jon Watts say that? Not doubting you, just curious to read the full story and couldn’t find it by Googling.

I'm having a really hard time grasping the concept of a potential Killmonger return. Like how would it happen? We saw him physically die. There's been nothing to suggest Wakanda can revive the dead, and if they could, I'd imagine he's way behind T'Challa, T'Chaka, or Zuri on the waiting list. He's not a robot like Vision that can be rebooted. He's not some illusion expert like Loki or Mysterio that could reveal a fake out. I can't imagine time travel coming into play here or a variant somehow crossing into the main reality. What else is there?

That’s fair and I didn’t mean it to come off that way, because I don’t like when people do that either. If I didn’t care at all about this franchise, I wouldn’t even bother saying anything, but as a huge HP fan, I just really wish it was good. So yeah I guess I do “care” about the series, I just hate the direction they took and really wish Rowling and WB had handled it better. I’m still gonna see this third movie because of that deeper franchise love, I just wish I was looking forward to it more if that makes more sense.

The Harry Potter series was my absolute obsession growing up and to this day I still cherish it. I reread the books like every other year and could answer almost any question about the content within those books. I went to all of the midnight book releases and movie showings since I was seven years old. I was Harry for Halloween four years in a row, then went as Voldemort the next year. I have all of the movies in multiple formats, all of the video games, tons of collector items, you name it. I have seen both of these Fantastic Beasts movies once, walked out disappointed, and couldn’t care less about any aspect of this plot or these characters moving forward. That’s an absolute failure.

Trailer. The internet is chomping at the bit for this more than any other MCU trailer outside of the Avengers films, but I fully expect next to nothing to be revealed. Then again, having thought about it, Sony condensed the entirety of Homecoming into a trailer, so I guess you should never overestimate their level of caution.

Can’t wait for the inevitable meltdowns when the trailers drop and Tobey and Andrew are nowhere to be seen.

Can I just say oh thank god… Every day we went without an updated official poster was slowly eating at me.

I get your point, but Taika hasn’t directed anything yet since winning an Oscar. But also, nothing should be considered a “serious awards contender” or locked for a BP nom until after it‘s screened. If you are, you’re probably baiting (I’m looking at you, Mank).

Some of the reactions to this teaser (all over the internet tbc) have been absolutely ridiculous. ”Why am I supposed to care about these characters? Literally never heard of them before” - Did you hear about Nemo before Finding Nemo came out? No. Watch and find out. Actually saw a comment somewhere from someone saying they can’t imagine caring if one of the Eternals died... Since when did you have to have prior knowledge for something to resonate? ”Lol they just sat on their asses while Thanos wiped out half the universe” - Do you really think this isn’t gonna address the Snap? Every MCU project we’ve seen since Endgame has addressed that... ”Looks boring” - Based on what? This is a teaser of visuals. How can you judge a plot we know nothing about? ”Marvel has run out of ideas” - Or they had an excellent idea that you’re already dismissing because you’re not previously familiar with it... “What is this even about?” “Where do these guys come from?” “Where are the villains?” “How is this supposed to fit in with everything else?” People really expect a trailer to give them a whole movie these days. Why even watch movies if you need to know everything ahead of time? Just enjoy it...

Watts might not be the most visually interesting director out there, but he’s a lot better than many other safe studio directors at capturing character. I think he’s a good choice for a first Fantastic Four film to establish the family dynamic, but as they go more cosmic and weird in future films, they may want to hire someone new.

Still convinced the Enchantress is gonna have some role in this. She’s basically the only major Thor villain we haven’t seen yet, and the title just screams Enchantress.

To be fair, that could come down to simply precedent. There aren’t many examples of successful non-Rated R films released in early September, but there also aren’t that many examples of unsuccessful non-Rated R films released in early September. There are flops, but those are typically movies that were dumped. They wouldn’t have done well anywhere. Dolphin Tale 2 and the 3D re-releases of The Lion King and Finding Nemo pulled solid numbers in mid-September. I really can’t think of an example of a tentpole movie actually being failed by any release spot (other than being released with competition). It’s a new Marvel movie, and if enough people want to see it, there’s really nothing to suggest Labor Day weekend would stop them.

The Hunt

https://grabyourseat.wordpress.com/2020/04/06/the-invisible-man/ Can we get a round of applause for Universal? Following the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Universal was one of many studios who sought after their own cinematic universe with the Dark Universe, a world based on the Universal Classic Monsters. They had a plan, a cast, and too-high budgets, but after the critical and commercial failures of Dracula Untold and The Mummy, they stepped back and reconsidered. They dropped all of the overarching plans and decided to entrust the properties to low-budget experts Blumhouse Productions. For The Invisible Man, the first in this new franchise strategy, they hired writer-director Leigh Whannel, known for his work on Saw, Insidious, and Upgrade, and gave him a mere $7 million to work with. As a result, this Invisible Man is a much more focused film and a superior entry in both the horror world and the 2020 release calendar as a whole. The Invisible Man is a modern take on H. G. Wells’s classic 19th century novel, with an all-new perspective. This version follows Cecelia “Cee” Kass (Elisabeth Moss), who just barely manages to escape from her abusive husband, Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). A few weeks later, it is announced that Adrian has committed suicide, and Cee finally starts to feel a sense of freedom. However, she soon starts to notice some mysterious things taking place around her. Her husband was a wealthy optics expert, so she comes to the conclusion that he has managed to turn himself invisible. Could it be, or is Cee just suffering from some post-traumatic hallucinations? This is a really clever take on the concept of an invisible person, and it allows for some smart and careful commentary on timely issues. When abusers speak up, they are not always immediately believed. Maybe they’re just trying to get back at somebody? But when it’s true (and it usually is), the victim may feel trapped, with everyone doubting them and no proof to show that they really are telling the truth. This is how Cee feels when she tries to explain Adrian’s invisible. It’s understandable that the supporting cast doesn’t immediately believe her, but it’s frustrating at the same time. Cee feels alone, and you feel alone with her. This type of story must be treated carefully, and Elisabeth Moss is a spectacular choice for the role. She plays Cee as a woman who has clearly suffered a lot, but still has agency and wants to get her life back on track. She sells the character in every regard, ranges from fierce intensity to meaningful subtlety, and succeeds in spades at carrying the film on her shoulders. The cast around her is excellent at well. Aldis Hodge and Storm Reid play her surrogate family, who clearly care a lot about her but struggle to believe her wild claims. Oliver Jackson-Cohen perfectly blends the necessary charm and evil of his character in his few visible scenes, and Harriet Dyer and Michael Dorman work well in the minor, but still important, roles of the siblings of the two main characters. For as important Moss is to this film, it still would not work nearly as well without the support of writer-director Leigh Whannell at the helm. Whannell not only directs his cast to perfection, but truly knows how to build a chilling atmosphere for this story. His use of empty space, mixed with Benjamin Wallfisch’s excellent score, will make you wonder throughout the film if Adrian is around, just sitting in the corner waiting to attack. He brings the fear of the unknown to life and will have you on the edge of your seat throughout. Every scene is very carefully paced and staged. It’s slow at first, but picks up right when it needs to and doesn’t let go. The pacing fits the story it’s telling and wonderfully complements its themes. Whannell proves himself the right man for the job in the chilling scenes, the quiet scenes, and even the action scenes. Anyone who has seen the severely underrated Upgrade knows that the director is excellent at staging fight choreography on par with John Wick. Every movement is in frame, easily registered, and full of energy. The Invisible Man does a lot to surprise you. There are a handful of twists that you will not see coming (Get it?). You also won’t see the jump scares coming, but they are executed in a way that so few films have managed over the years. The atmosphere that Whannell has built sells itself to these jump scares. They feel earned, rather than cheap. There are easter eggs and symbols throughout that not only make callbacks to other films, but help define characters and provide hints for future actions. Watch The Invisible Man with a close eye, because Whannell gives us so much to discover. But for as many goodies as there are scattered throughout the film, there are times when you look back at something and wonder how the logic makes sense. Why didn’t anyone use *blank*? They’re small flaws that might detract from some viewers’ experiences, but the overall package is still undeniably strong and a huge jump in the right direction for Universal’s horror lineup. A

The Avengers had some color but the lighting made it look like a TV movie. And the shot where Loki catches the arrow might be the most obvious green screen in the entire MCU. I’d much rather gray than cheap personally. But they’re fun to watch regardless of course.

Just throwing this in here for anyone who thinks Disney+ is an option

https://grabyourseat.wordpress.com/2020/03/25/emma-2020-film-review/ There’s a very good chance you already know the story of Emma. Maybe you’ve read Jane Austen’s acclaimed 1815 novel, one of four she published in her lifetime. Maybe you’ve seen one of the handful of films and miniseries based on the novel, starring such actresses as Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Beckinsale. Or at the very least, hopefully you’ve seen Clueless, which is actually a fairly faithful modern adaptation of the novel. If not, you should definitely fix that and this new adaptation is a pretty good place to start. Emma. (period included) follows Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy), described as “handsome, clever, and rich … [who] had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with little to distress or vex her”. Living at the Hartfield estate in Regency Era England with her widowed father (Bill Nighy), Emma has very little responsibility or worry, and almost no desire to get married. However, she does enjoy playing matchmaker for her friends. Taking on young Harriet Smith (Mia Goth), Emma hopes to find the right husband for her new companion, but finds that not everything goes to plan and comes to some realizations about herself in the process. With this novel, Austen ingeniously took what could have been a very standard love story and made it so much more. The title character is not meant to be likable. In fact, in most stories from that time period, she likely would have been an antagonistic supporting character. But Austen, who was unarguably way ahead of her time, recognized the potential for a complex character study of Emma Woodhouse and turned the novel into one of not just romance, but maturity, self-awareness, status, and class relations. And I’m glad to say that this film captures the story and all of its themes wonderfully. When adapting a Jane Austen novel, it is crucial to remember that one of the greatest reasons for her success is her writing style. Therefore, it is important to have a director behind the wheel that can properly capture that style and tone. Autumn de Wilde, though it’s her first feature film, proves herself an excellent choice. She keeps the proceedings light, letting the natural humor of screenwriter Eleanor Catton’s adapted dialogue shine, but also lets the more serious moments sink in. De Wilde has a history as a photographer and it shows. Everything is staged remarkably, and cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt provides a nice, clear shot that results in some simply beautiful imagery, always synced with the tone of the scene and almost always looking worthy of a photograph. The production designers, costume designers, and hair and makeup specialists also deserve praise for wonderfully recreating early 19th century Britain, as do Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) and David Schweitzer, who provide a memorable period score. And of course, you can’t make a good Emma. without a good Emma. Thankfully, Anya Taylor-Joy makes a great one. Known for her parts in films such as The Witch, Morgan, Split, and Thoroughbreds, Taylor-Joy has a gift for bringing out a character's darker side, while still maintaining an illusion of innocence. Her Emma Woodhouse can manipulate with just her eyes and a smirk, and even though you know how sinister she can be, you’ll still find yourself endeared to her. Taylor-Joy also has a lot of talent around her to work off of. Mia Goth is a scene stealer, capturing the goofy innocence of Ms. Smith, while Johnny Flynn and Callum Turner respectively make for a wonderfully irritable George Knightley and devilishly charming Frank Churchill, two prospective suitors. Bill Nighy and Miranda Hart bring their usual talents in strong supporting roles, as well. Every actor is fantastic here, from Emma herself to the supporting cast to the silent workers in the background. Every performer has the perfect body language to capture their character as best as possible. Now for all the praise I’ve heaped on this film, there is one thing it lacks, and that’s originality. Between films, TV, and even a web series, this is the eight major adaptation of Emma, and they’ve all been decent to good. This might just be the best one yet, and it is quite faithful to the novel, but it doesn’t bring anything particularly fresh to the table. The story may not connect with all viewers, but fans of the novel are sure to love what Autumn de Wilde and Anya Taylor-Joy have done with the tale, and even for those unfamiliar, Emma. will be a nice treat for any fan of period pieces, romantic comedies, or simply quality filmmaking. A-