GrimFandango

July 13, 2017

28 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

I was psyched b/c so many of you said there were no supers trailers on the movie:)...I was shocked that WB got their product seen on a Marvel movie:)...and it was the very 1st trailer, so it was a great way to start:)...

I also got the JL trailer in front of SM:H, along with Black Panther.

July 12, 2017

2 hours ago, That One Guy said:

Jeezus that's disturbing!!!

July 12, 2017

4 minutes ago, Morieris said:

This (+ Homecoming and Dunkirk) got delayed for China release

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/china-delays-release-spider-man-homecoming-valerian-1020258

Wow, that could put a damper on the OS performance of these guys. It's been a few years since I last familiarized myself with the China market, but I seem to remember that had a habit of only paying something like 25% of the sales back to the studios or something?

July 11, 2017

Maybe this has been answered already and I missed it--will this be shown in IMAX 3D? Since Dunkirk is coming out the same weekend and is guaranteed IMAX space, I'm assuming they'll be competing for IMAX screens? Sorry if this is a dumb question.

July 11, 2017

14 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

A good start with 75%. It is too early to predict the RT score after only 20 critics weighed in... but apparently not too early to write something like this:

When they smell blood in the water, some media hacks are eager to pile on a movie like Valerian. I'm not sure where it comes from, especially when the actual reviews are not that bad (yet?).

Yeah, that really is a piece of hyperbolic BS...and I still think the Hollywood Report critic was WAY over the top--reminded me of that critic from Birdman.

July 11, 2017

10 hours ago, KeepItU25071906 said:

Pulse:

1. SpiderMan

2.Despicable 3

3.SpiderMan 3d

4.Baby

5.Apes

First one I've seen in a while that didn't have Wonder Woman on there.

July 11, 2017

6 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

I agree with him (mostly) on A:C. Let's not go down this path again.

I strongly disagree and can argue it, but I'll respect your desire to stay focused.

July 11, 2017

11 minutes ago, The Panda said:

But does the Tomato Law apply when one of the first reviews shown says "Razzies 2017 front runner"?

Except that same guy said this:

So his critic credibility is pretty questionable, since A:C was none of those things.

July 11, 2017

7 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

Movies based on commercials is next. I can't wait for the Geico Cinematic Universe tbh

Rango was a pretty good start.

July 11, 2017

5 minutes ago, CJohn said:

Hint: she is hot.

Plus Luc has a....thing for young, waify model types.

July 11, 2017

38 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

You'll probably regret seeing it at home. Every review says the 3D is a standout and it needs to be seen on a big screen.

Yes! People don't make the same mistake I did with Dredd 3D--some movies MUST be seen at the theater to really appreciate them to their fullest, and by all accounts this is one of them!

I can't imagine if I'd missed seeing Avatar in IMAX 3D :sadben:

July 11, 2017

2 minutes ago, teardropmina said:

I think it connects to the female demo in a way that it's not just a movie.

this is just an example how WW gone viral, something might seem so ridiculous for males...

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/06/158291/wonder-woman-thigh-jiggle-male-gaze

the original tweet has gotten more likes and rt since ofc.

also, the wonder woman pose/gesture, clothing, hair style, uplifting quotes, and etc. are just so perfect for this twitter/instagram age.

Not to mention that it also appeals to an older demographic than most SHMs, and even to people who don't normally see CBMs. It's like a 4-quadrant-plus film. I've seen it a lot, and I'm surprised at the number of older couples (dare I say even elderly) that I've seen, and they seem to love it: lots of laughs, etc. As some reviewers have notably said, WW is very balanced--it's not too dark, not too light, not too much action, and not too wordy. Every time I see it, it feels shorter than its 2hr21min run time, and that is a rare accomplishment. It's hard to find a place for a bathroom break, for god's sake!

It's going to be referred to as one of the best examples of CMBs, and particularly origin stories, ever put to film.

July 11, 2017

Geez, reading that Hollywood Reporter's review makes you think Besson stole that guy's girlfriend and fucked his cat.... :winomg:

July 11, 2017

Just watched the Screen Junkies review, and while they thought the story and lead actors were "meh", they say it is a must-see in 3D experience. Similar to Avatar, but a lot more interesting.

This jives with my impressions without having seen it--a visual delight that must be seen on big-screen in 3D, but don't expect much from the story.

If this were a just world, this should make Transformers franchise numbers (excepting TF5).

I'm going to see it with low expectations for the performance and plot, but with super-juiced curiosity for the visuals and world-building.

July 9, 2017

44 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

I don't just want Valerian to do well, I think it NEEDS to do well. It's the kind of movie that Hollywood rarely makes. They rarely spend 200M+ on a little known property. They rarely let a visionary director have full creative control. They rarely take risks on big budget sci-fi. Valerian is doing a lot of things that people want to see more of in Hollywood. How many times have you seen someone on Reddit or something say how Hollywood is out of original ideas and takes no risks...before rejecting the original ideas and risks. It's a constant pattern of people clamoring for something new, yet when they get something new, they claim it's too weird or too out of the box and don't see it. This has become so ever-present with Valerian about to be released, and so many people shouting "BOMB!" at it, mocking it, etc. without even thinking, just for one second, to give the movie a chance.

See Valerian. Pay for it. Tell your friends about it if you like it. Do this for the sake of Hollywood and taking risks. Please. Valerian isn't just another film to me, it's something special. It represents one of the last chances for Hollywood to realize risks can succeed. If it succeeds, more risks are taken in Hollywood. If it doesn't, and this pattern continues into next year, the year after, etc., we'll be getting the same movies every year. I just wanted to make this post because so many people have been mocking Valerian for so long and it's disheartening. I want people to give the movie a chance.

I've had guarded hopes for this movie, and I really do hope it is a good one for the reasons you've stated. I saw the 3D trailer when I watched SM:H, and because of the awesome visuals I will see it at least once in 3D.

If it under performs though, I hope that Hollywood takes away the right lessons from it, because it seems that too many times they don't. But I can't throw money at a bad film just because I want Hollywood to keep taking risks, because then they'll learn the wrong lessons and keep making the same mistakes. What Hollywood needs to know is that people will see original movies, if they are done well. This summer is a great example so far, because so many high-budget films (sequels in particular) have fallen flat, and it's not because people are tired of them--it's because the stories are bad. If you want a lot of people to keep spending a lot of money on your movies, you can't keep pushing out crap when there are so many other quality options out there. Studios seem willing to spend money and time on special fx and spectacle, but they really need to up their game on getting good writers and spending more time on the scripts. It blows me away the number of films that have come out in recent years where the script is being written during shooting, or is thrown together in a few weeks in order to get a sequel out, because they just turn out shitty. Hype can get you good OWs, but the legs will be crap. Even if you're lucky and the movie does great numbers in the short run, if your movie's legs are weak, you're sacrificing franchise longevity for short term profits.

All that being said, I really hope Valerian is a good movie. I'm concerned about the leads because in the stuff I've seen so far, there's no chemistry and the performances look meh, but I'm willing to be surprised. If the visuals blow people away but the acting/story are just ok, it might turn into an Avatar lite. As for opening against Dunkirk, for me personally the Dunkirk trailers haven't convinced me that it's a must see yet so I'll wait for the reviews on that on.

July 9, 2017

20 minutes ago, baumer said:

Here's a great summation of it, kind of echoes my thoughts:

Tom Holland delivers a good performance as a hyper-active, mildly charming kid. Michael Keaton is extremely good as a sinister weapons dealer. Unfortunately the film itself is lacking on every front.

If you went to the film looking to see the next comedic installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, then you probably left happy. If you went to the film looking to see Spider-Man, you were probably very disappointed.

The film lacked heart. The one element that Spider-Man is known to deliver better than any other super-hero. Homecoming constantly throws away dramatic moments for the sake of comedy. Many of Spider-man's abilities are erased (or at least overshadowed) by Tony Starks Spider-Iron-Man suit. There was no mention of Uncle Ben, great responsibility, or Peter's Spider-Senses. Essentially all the things that make Spider-Man Spider-Man. Spidey was even afraid of heights, and chose to drive a car rather than web-slinging.

Considering how much fans celebrated returning Spider-Man to his roots, it's shocking how much this film changed from traditional Spidey mythology. Many supporting characters don't resemble their inspirations in any way, shape, or form. Peter and his best friend border between mildly funny and very annoying, and feel like a cross between the two buddies in SuperBad and Spritle and Chim Chim. Speaking of whom this film actually delivers a tone similar to the failed Speed Racer film, which I actually enjoyed much more than this.

Finally, the action and fight-scenes really under-deliver. Spidey and friends never feel like they're in any sort of danger or true struggle. And Tony Stark replacing Uncle Ben as Pete's mentor is just really off-putting.

Marvel has a formula that delivers successful movies, but it's just not worth sitting through 2 hours of fart-joke type humor to advance the MCU a couple inches all the while killing the heart of Spider- Man

Excellent point--that was bugging me too but I didn't know why. You're on point, because they really did mess up Spidey's own mythos by wedging the Avengers into it the way they did.

July 9, 2017

7 minutes ago, baumer said:

I don't think those who like it are now saying it sucks

I do however know there are people who didn't care for it...myself included.

The suit is one of the problems I mentioned last night

Agreed. I'm one of those who also had a problem with the suit among other things, and I defend my criticism of the movie which I did in my spoiler review.

Here's my feeling on the situation and what my gut tells me:

SM:H is a good movie, but not a great one. It's good enough that most critics recommend it, hence the high RT score; and really any good movie should get a high score on RT since it is an aggregate score site.

After seeing it for myself, I find that the high, high praise that a lot of critics have heaped on it are a bit unfounded, and I'm curious to see if either I'm being over-critical, or whether other movie goers will feel the same way. If my gut is right, then the high critic praise will have inflated the opening day numbers, but as people judge it for themselves the WOM will tone down some and dampen the following days, along with fewer people going in for repeat viewings. The legs will be average for the typical Marvel film, but overseas will pump the numbers because that market tends to be less critical.

If my gut is wrong, then SM:H will continue to post high numbers and have a pretty good run all around.

Saturday's 37 million tells me my gut feeling might be right though. (assuming that number is accurate).

Again, I'm not saying it's not a good movie or that I hope it does poorly, but for me the plot had a lot of glaring problems, most characters were not well-developed, and Spidey comes off being weaker than his CW debut.

July 9, 2017

The first few times I watched this film, it was for Clint. Ever since then, it's been for Tuco; and it really is Tuco's film. To me that's the most interesting thing about it, because it's one of the few films I can remember where the anti-hero really shines.

All three men are interesting characters, but Angel Eyes really has no arc and we don't know much about him other than he is a badass. Virtually the same for Blondie, but he and Tuco do learn something from the war, but primarily Blondie learns something about Tuco...and Tuco by far is the most fascinating character. Eli Wallach hit this one way out of the park, and I'm too young to know if he did but I sure hope he got the accolades he deserved from this film.

This is one movie I really wish would get a re-release in theaters because the cinematography and score just beg, beg, beg to be played on the biggest IMAX screen you can get and with an equally impressive sound system. One of my favorite sound tracks to listen to.

For me, this and Once Upon A Time in the West are the apex films of the genre.

July 9, 2017

Since most everybody's covered everything else, I'll just focus on the few things that really stood out to me:

For me the first issue is that by the end of the movie, Spiderman comes off as a weaker superhero than what I felt he was in Civil War. His character arc was one of some maturation, but because of all the help he got from the Stark costume, at the end I felt the costume was more powerful than Spiderman himself. It really drove home the point that if Spiderman ever has to come to the aid of the Avengers in a desert, he better charter a plane otherwise they'll be dead by the time he gets there.

The second issue is that only a few characters in the film actually get fleshed out at all: The Vulture, Spidey and his buddy (I can't even remember his name). And Keaton's talent really overshadows everybody else, even against RDJ's cameos.

A huge problem for me was that the plot entirely hinged on Happy repeatedly hanging up the phone a little too early....? It feels like lazy writing.

One spot that I though really could have turned this movie into something special was the ferry sequence. When that laser thing was going nuts, I thought sure people had gotten killed (I mean, come on, every person on that boat should have bought lotto tickets at that point just for surviving that!). And if not then, when the boat was split in half. The fact that the ferry definitely should have sunk in a couple of seconds BUT DIDN'T broke my suspension-of-disbelief meter. What was wasted was that if Peter had actually caused the deaths of those innocents, the entire lesson of the movie would have been made right there, and in a much more impactful way. But Iron Man saves the day, welds the boat together and we are reminded that this is a Avenger's Marvel Movie attempting to be a John Hughes movie.

The last thing I will harp on is something that's bugged me in a lot of Marvel films but a recent youtube video was actually able to put a label on it, and that is bathos: whenever things get serious, somebody has to crack a joke or some out of place humor gets injected into it, and it just drains away the emotional impact of the scene. The best example is when Happy brings Peter into the men's room to have a heart-to-heart talk with him, and I really want to hear what he has to say....but then we get that awkward, cringey piece where we have to wait for the kid in the bathroom to pop out of the stall and slowly wash his hands and slide out of the bathroom. I was completely taken out of the moment and thought to myself "God-dammit Marvel!" It's supposed to be humorous, but really comes off as a cheap laugh. This happened here and there and especially with some of RDJ's scenes, and there is a cost to this kind of humor; and that cost is that as a viewer, I am less invested in the movie, and in particular I care a little less about the characters.

I did like the movie as a popcorn CBM and I liked Holland's performance but especially Keaton's, and I give it a B.

July 8, 2017

Spider-Man: Homecoming in IMAX 3D

July 6, 7:00 PM, 75% full

AMC Colorado

It looked like a lot of people were there for SM:H showings.

Trailers:

Pitch Perfect 3 (a couple chuckles)

The Dark Tower (no reaction)

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (laughs)

Justice League (reaction for Wonder Woman)

War For The Planet of the Apes (no reaction)

Valerian 3D (no reaction-convinced me to see this in 3D though)

Black Panther 3D (some clapping)

Very tame crowd. A couple of chuckles here and there, but otherwise not much reaction. Lot of people coming in and out during the movie and was kind of distracting since I was right at the walk-way level. No applause or reaction at end.

July 8, 2017

Just got back from watching SM:H. Theater was about 75% full. Lots of showings for it though. WW still had one showing going on, and it was nearly sold out, but in a small theater.

The audience was meh. A couple of chuckles now and again. I thought it dragged here and there, and there weren't any "F**-YEAH!!" moments or anything that memorable. Keaton was great--reminds me that I need to see Birdman still. Couple plot problems bothered me, and Spiderman's constant chatter started getting on my nerves. I kind of wished it had more gravitas; there was a scene mid-way that really piqued my interest because I thought it was going to go one way, but it played it safe and totally didn't so it really turned vanilla for me. Also it suffered from the "everything could have been resolved by some communication" trope.

I listened to Stuckmann's review on the way home, and he pretty much summarized it for me. I give it a solid B. I think it's going to have a really good OW, but I wouldn't be surprised if its legs are just ok. OS I imagine will be quite good.

July 7, 2017

27 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

Now that Wonder Woman has hit five full weeks, looking at its weekly drops is pretty incredible:

Date
(click to view chart) Rank Weekly
Gross %
Change Theaters / Change Avg. Gross-to-Date Week
#

Jun 2–8 1 $147,822,503 - 4,165 - $35,492 $147,822,503 1

Jun 9–15 1 $86,004,227 -41.8% 4,165 - $20,649 $233,826,730 2

Jun 16–22 2 $59,378,428 -31.0% 4,018 -147 $14,778 $293,205,158 3

Jun 23–29 2 $37,324,317 -37.1% 3,933 -85 $9,490 $330,529,475 4

Jun 30–Jul 6 3 $28,121,716 -24.7% 3,404 -529 $8,261 $358,651,191 5

Peace,

Mike

That 24.7% drop despite losing 529 theaters is astonishing.

July 7, 2017

2 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

i'd expect 15% drop against SMH, but it seems, WW and SMH don't have that much of overlapping target audience, WW and SMH could be the most "uncannibalising" pair of CBM movies....

I know WW was able to pull a lot of people who normally don't see CBMs, especially from the older female demographic. I think that is part of why WW has had such good legs is because it was able to appeal to a much larger audience. I was surprised at the number of senior citizens who were in the audiences the number of times that I went, and even from work I know people who hadn't been to a movie in a long time did go see WW. Of those groups, I don't think too many will carry over to Spider Man, although I hope that WW did make CBM fans out of some people who normally dismiss those kinds of films out of hand.

On the other hand, I did notice a small group of CBM fans who've flat out refused to see WW (or keep saying they will, but don't), but say they will see SM:H....

July 4, 2017

18 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

There is absolutely nothing organic about how the movie unfolds, it s a bunch of disjointed parts telling 10 different stories.

I ve never seen anything like it on this level.

It makes look BvS and Amazing Spiderman 2 like coherent masterworks.

The last act had batshit insane visuals tho, ILM spared no expense.

Plus, they had a ton of editors working on it--having a bunch of writers and bunch of editors working on a project seems like a recipe for disaster. Elsewhere somebody posted this article, and what I gather from that is that this was the first movie these editors had worked on that had so many people editing on it, and Bay was sending "finished" sections back and forth between editors to do additional editing. I don't see how he could expect a coherent piece of work to come out of that?

July 4, 2017

11 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Because 5th Element came from Valérian and Jean Claude Mézières.

I know, I mean beyond that:

Valerian = Dallas

Lauraline = Leeloo

Bubble = Diva Plavalaguna

Herbie Hancock character = Ruby Rhod

The scene in the video where Valerian and Lauraline walk down the ramp in civilian clothes feels like the scene where Corbin and Leeloo pick up their tickets at the space port.

The flying bus in the video reminds me of the flying cab scene.

etc.

Date (click to view chart)	Rank	Weekly Gross	% Change	Theaters / Change		Avg.	Gross-to-Date	Week #
Jun 2–8	1	$147,822,503	-	4,165	-	$35,492	$147,822,503	1
Jun 9–15	1	$86,004,227	-41.8%	4,165	-	$20,649	$233,826,730	2
Jun 16–22	2	$59,378,428	-31.0%	4,018	-147	$14,778	$293,205,158	3
Jun 23–29	2	$37,324,317	-37.1%	3,933	-85	$9,490	$330,529,475	4
Jun 30–Jul 6	3	$28,121,716	-24.7%	3,404	-529	$8,261	$358,651,191	5

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Blogs

Gallery

Annual Subscriptions

Media Demo

Posts posted by GrimFandango

Important Information