Jump to content

K1stpierre

Guardians of The Galaxy (2014)

By K1stpierre, in Review That Movie! (Spoilers Allowed)

  

153 members have voted

  1. 1. Grade it:

    • A
      102
    • B
      21
    • C
      11
    • D
      2
    • F
      2

Recommended Posts



RobinHood26 Global Phenomenon

RobinHood26

Posted
Posted

I understand it's Draxs character, I just think they give him 25% too many lines, ok? Stakes, because you I can never know how close we are to defeating him. At the end when they have the dance off you learn oh all he has to do is touch it to the ground.... If I had known that earlier I would be on the edge of my seat more.And not shooting on film is not fucking stupid! It's a VISUAL choice. A choice I disagree with. I have it a 82 instead of an 83 boo.... I can tell, just because you can't doesn't mean it's stupid. Again it's my review my thoughts, movies look different with different cameras. Movies would be different with different actors. Why can every aspect of a film be judged but the camera they shoot on.Fine he has a WEAK villain, he's obviously the villain but he's just kinda there which is what I meant by unclear Yes it's about friendship I got that haha doenst mean I have to like bringing 5 characters back to life Again I understand they can't kill the superheros. But then don't try and kill 5 in a movie. You don't have to kill somebody to make stakes or maki something good but 5 times is just to much for me. You don't have to not like it but in no way does it mean I'm wrong. To me Deaths do make films better if STID ended with Kirk dead I give that movie 5 points more right off the bat. You don't have to do it but when you do it's like ok ok wow you got balls I like that. I have to give props just for doing it.And I'm sorry but no randomly showing John C hugging his family was unnessarry. Yes he is in the movie, yes he saved people but he has like 4 lines and they squeeze him in the epilogue and it felt forced to me.Again your reading my posts on the surface you dorm understand them at all. Every single movie has a twist it doesn't have to be a "twist" but all scripts have twist turns and misdirections. Also again, just because I said the pacing is off and we visit to many planets doenst mean I'm to stupid to follow or understand I'm simply saying the first act is the weakest and that's a reason. Even my buddy who loved this movie agreed the first act was he weakest. Doesn't mean I'm too stupid to get it.You obviously have no idea what so ever what I'm talking about when I'm explaining the action scenes ands locations. I understand they have 3 main action scenes but that's not what I was talking about at all.Again I get the ending, I get the movie is about friendship. But how is that a response to me saying it was anti climatic?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites












Deep Wang Global Phenomenon

Deep Wang

Posted
Posted

I watch the first scene with Star Lord and I don't think wow how cool, I think mmmmm how would have shot it? I'd prefer instead of getting 8 wide shots and a couple of money shots before approaching the temple on the planet. I would have shot the whole scene closer tighter never reveling a full wide (besides one to open the scene) no large music cue until later that way when we get that nice epic pull up shot of the temple the music cue really hits me. It has no weight to me after already getting 8 money shots and grand music cues.The first shot of the Island Jurassic Park is a pull up shot and we get that amazing music cue. But what if we saw the island before the pull up shot?or got countless sweeping shots of the helicopter flying before approaching the island, that sense of suspense and awe would be gone.

 

This isn't Jurassic park though.  What was there to reveal? CG dinosaurs were a huge deal in 1993 and they are creatures that we've never seen moving around before.  There was a reason he built up the reveal the way he did and it worked.  For that movie and that instance.  Does that mean it's what you do with every movie? No.  You have to figure out what tone you are going for with your movie and what's best for it.  

 

The credits for GoTG set the entire tone for the movie and I think I am not alone in saying that I loved it.  It was a jovial, happy tone that the movie ran with for the entire running length.

 

That's a small quip I have.- I liked the soundtrack of course but it was too much... 25% less pop music 25% more score would be nice.

 

The soundtrack was #1 on Billboard Top 200.  I'd say most people really enjoy it.  Again, the tone!- the score wasn't great though

 

So you'd want less sound track and more score, even if it wasn't great?- I made it clear I think the movie has again %25 to many jokes- they run the Drak joke into the ground I thought

 

This is going back to the tone.  You don't think it should be as funny, and seeing how well it's done, I'd say the public has spoken with their wallets and it was just as funny as it needed to be.

 

 

 

And not shooting on film is not fucking stupid! It's a VISUAL choice. A choice I disagree with. I have it a 82 instead of an 83 boo.... I can tell, just because you can't doesn't mean it's stupid. Again it's my review my thoughts, movies look different with different cameras. Movies would be different with different actors. Why can every aspect of a film be judged but the camera they shoot on.

 

So there could be a movie that moves you on every conceivable level a movie could, but if it were shot digitally, the highest score you would give it is a 99?  

 

That is a visual and aesthetic choice.  Yes, you don't agree with it, but it's what they want to do with the movie for whatever reason.  That doesn't make the actual movie any different.  It makes the movie look different, sure, but does it actually make the movie any different?  Are the themes or character arcs changed because it's digital?  No.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




RobinHood26 Global Phenomenon

RobinHood26

Posted
Posted (edited)

So there could be a movie that moves you on every conceivable level a movie could, but if it were shot digitally, the highest score you would give it is a 99?  

 

That is a visual and aesthetic choice.  Yes, you don't agree with it, but it's what they want to do with the movie for whatever reason.  That doesn't make the actual movie any different.  It makes the movie look different, sure, but does it actually make the movie any different?  Are the themes or character arcs changed because it's digital?  No.

 

 

 

I don't see the difference between films shots digitally or on film, lets lone be distracted by it lol.

 

Honestly you guys are beyond annoying at this point, you are just asking for me to get up set. 

 

YOU GUYS DON'T READ A WORD I SAY. 

Edited by Jay Hollywood
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites




dashrendar44 Global Phenomenon

dashrendar44

Posted
Posted

- It looses 1 point for not being shot on film. It distracted me. And before you say I can't argue this point, I can. If you can argue acting, shots, color, music, why can't I argue camera? It can still be a great movie it's just that film to me is a "special effect" an effect that can sometimes help transport me to another universe quicker. 

 

 

So Jay you despise all David Fincher's movie aesthetics since Zodiac on principle just because those movies are shot on digital? Did you lower your grade on those movies just because of that criteria?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


RobinHood26 Global Phenomenon

RobinHood26

Posted
Posted

So Jay you despise all David Fincher's movie aesthetics since Zodiac on principle just because those movies are shot on digital? Did you lower your grade on those movies just because of that criteria?

NOOOI brought this up in the classic convo thread and everyone seemed to understand.Its like any other chocie a director makes. For some movies it works better then others. Her for examples I'm glad was shot digitally, it worked for the story.Blockbusters/period pieces are the ones that usually bother me.If you can talk about vfx, cinematography, lighting, editing, acting, sound mixing.... You can talk about what camera you use.Do movies look different depending on what camera they shot on.... YES! Why is it so hard to understand.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


RobinHood26 Global Phenomenon

RobinHood26

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sorry Jay it wasn't even in response to your review, I just genuinely don't see the difference.

To the average person yes, but I'mNot average. I watch 45 movies a month. Have 2 jobs and pay for my bills by working in film. My 3 roommates are all in film and my 2 best friends who I dont live with are also in film. And guess what my friends friends are also in film. It's legitimately the only thing I talk about. I can tell. I can watch a movie like Expendables 3, and ask myself 3 minutes in, why did they shoot on the Red? It looks so red like! I've seen enough college movies to point out a red camera. Film for a lot of movies is a layer of fantasy for me it helps transport me to another world. Lots of movies can shoot digital and be fine but look at a movie like Monuments Men and you'll see what I mean. If you know what your looking for there is a difference. And again you guys are all gang banging me over 1 point.... Edited by Jay Hollywood
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept