Topic: The Movie Thread

@KALofKRYPTON Just because those films are made by Fox and don't interact with the MCU, they are still 'Marvel' films. I wasn't just talking about the 'connected' films of DC or Marvel but ALL films with Marvel or DC characters. Nobody argues that films like Deadpool or Logan aren't some of the greatest Marvel films and if it hadn't been for the success of the X-Men, maybe we wouldn't have had Iron Man and the start of the MCU. All these films still have 'Marvel' branding!

I know that BvS doesn't have a lot of source material for these two coming to blows but both have a long history and quality of Source material to make the film more meaningful. The Dark Knight Returns though does climax with a showdown between an aged Batman and an angry, politically-motivated Superman. The fight sees Superman fight not only an armored Batman, but also a brand-new Robin and a one-armed Green Arrow, with the latter employing synthetic kryptonite that allows the Dark Knight to triumph. Before this, they had always been seen as 'friends' and it took years before friendship returned in the comics. Anyway, the point was more about the source material of both characters, the supporting cast etc that could of been used to improve the movie - not just the collision course that Lex put these two on and the 'Martha'. There was so much more they could have done, better casting for Lex for a start. It seemed that the movie missed the mark with the DC history, missed the mark with some casting and certainly editing and also was split by the setting up of the Justice League movie and telling a cohesive Story.

As for the future, Part of the issue with having a 'connected' universe is that the cast grow old, contracts run out, get bored of playing the same role etc. That means that they either have to write characters out, move on to other, maybe less popular heroes, reboot the Universe or set it in a 'different' time zone - similar to the X-Men First Class. At least with 'stand alone' movies, they can have a different actor, focus on different storylines - whether directly from the comics or even using the comics as inspiration. I liked the Nolan Batman trilogy - not so much the third - funny how things tend to drop with the third (Superman 3, Batman Forever, Spiderman 3, X-Men 3 - even Iron Man 3 wasn't the 'best' although that was tied into the MCU). I know it gets 'tedious' with each new group also doing an Origins movie but as with comics, you don't get a 'continuous' shared universe. With the amount of reboots, different directions etc, its hard to know what is 'canon' any more - especially as the majority have ended up 'dead' at some point or another and then been alive in a different storyline.

Its easier to take each as separate and not have to watch 'every' movie in the universe to understand what's going on. Miss the Winter Soldier out for example and the films before and after are 'different' because of the events in that movie. You have to watch a movie that has little/no interest just to make sense of the movies that do interest. Not every of course as some stand-alone movies stand up in their own right because they are either introductions or 'separate' events that don't tie in to the main story arc because they happen somewhere (or when) else - off world, different time zone etc.

I have no issue with watching say a Spider-Man trilogy and then a totally different take on Spider-Man in another trilogy. Its doesn't need the same actor as the other Spider-man and can still tell a great Superhero story - doesn't need to tie in to Hulk or Iron Man movies or even tie in to the previous Spider-Man movies - just stand up on its own merits.

Don't think it was ever released in the cinema, just went straight to Netflix.

Not being a student of the comics or animated series either with DC or Marvel, I guess you could call me a more casual superhero fan. I do watch all the movies from DC and Marvel and follow cinema plot lines, but as a casual fan, I enjoy the spectacle of new characters and seeing the heroes interact with each other. So I think I probably represent the less educated masses a little more who just want to see how does Hero A interact with Hero B and C and how would their powers size up against each other. For that reason I have liked the Marvel movies that get a bunch of other movies protagonists all together, as now in the later movies is happening with regularity. I can’t wait to see how the Guardians of the Galaxy interact with the Avengers in the next film. Some of this pandering to the masses creates confusion and weak storylines and characters that felt ‘plugged in’, which I think Justice League was guilty of, with Cyborg and Flash, and to an extent Aquaman just being forgettable.
I can appreciate whoever said Affleck was just going through the motions in JL. To me he seemed weak, overweight, and old compared to his companions — all actors who are buff and in their 20’s or 30’s and look more, ... heroic. I guess the 45 year old Affleck was supposed to be the distinguished elder statesman and leader but he came off looking lazy I thought.
And I agree with Spiderman Homecoming being quite good. It was a pleasant surprise.

@JohnnyShoulder it was released in cinemas in the US. Everywhere else it went straight to Netflix.

@JohnnyShoulder It was meant to be released in the Cinemas outside of the states but internal arguments between director and studio bosses over a poorly received test viewing, with a Paramount exec demanding changes and the Producer refusing and opting to keep the film as was, a deal was struck with Netflix to handle international distribution.

It was however made for the cinema first and foremost. As Director and Screenplay Writer Alex Garland said:

"We made the film for cinema. I've got no problem with the small screen at all. The best genre piece I've seen in a long time was The Handmaid's Tale, so I think there's incredible potential within that context, but if you're doing that – you make it for that [medium] and you think of it in those terms. Look... it is what it is. The film is getting a theatrical release in the States, which I'm really pleased about. One of the big pluses of Netflix is that it goes out to a lot of people and you don't have that strange opening weekend thing where you're wondering if anyone is going to turn up and then if they don't, it vanishes from cinema screens in two weeks. So it's got pluses and minuses, but from my point of view and the collective of the people who made it – [it was made] to be seen on a big screen."

I don't want to blow anyones minds but after watching the toddler TV show 'In the Night Garden' on BBC Cbeebies I am convinced that Annihilation is a prequel to it. If you know, you know.

I really wanted to love Annihilation. On paper, it ticks off all of my boxes.

In practice? It felt like it had a lot of unexplored potential. Tons of interesting themes and plot points are introduced or alluded to, but never explored. The movie has some wonderful, fantastical imagery that feels like it's being squandered by an unfocused script. It also didn't do a good job walking the line between science-fiction and horror.

With that said, it was an interesting failure. I'd still much rather see this than Black Panther, Avengers 3, Pitch Perfect 9, etc.

Alright, I was weak. I had to go see Tomb Raider today. And I’ve got a lot of thoughts about it. I’ll try my best to avoid spoilers as I know many on the forum will be interested in watching it eventually. Where to begin ...

Let me preface all my impressions with saying that I am a big Tomb Raider fan. I’ve liked both old school and new. Lara Croft is easily one of my very favorite characters. I watched and enjoyed both of the Angelina Jolie movies years ago, although I would never say the movies or her portrayal of Miss Croft resonated well with me. They were okay, but nothing I ever felt the need to highly recommend to anyone but a TR fan. So with that background in mind ....

I will start by saying Alicia Vikander is fabulous in the role, in my opinion. Obviously this being an origin story patterned after the 2013 game, she plays young Lara extremely well. In fact, she has officially moved way up my list to become one of my very favorite actresses after watching this movie. Honestly, I did feel like the script and direction of the movie actually seemed to hold her back, like she was shackled a smidge and could have really nailed it if she had a little better screenplay to deal with. That said, she performed admirably in the lead role. Her strong acting skills in portraying Lara’s naïveté and then escalation into violence for self preservation was spot on. Unfortunately the film itself has some pacing issues and jumps around a bit and falls short of really showcasing that progression well. Lara’s first kill is very well done, and even when the dialog of the script is lacking, Vikander’s face communicates the emotions of the character well. Wealthy and intelligent, yet very much the girl next door. Strong and athletic, yet vulnerable and inexperienced. It was probably my favorite part of the movie was watching Vikander take the role. And man, she’s cut. Physically much thinner than Jolie (and the video game character) but impressive nonetheless. Abs goals for sure.

The supporting actors are rather pedestrian. Perfectly serviceable, but nothing special. Perhaps because they are in stark contrast to Vikander, I don’t know. The villain is alright, but despite the movie’s attempts, he didn’t quite reach the level of disdain he should have. Her companion Lu Ren stuck out to me as a weak link. He’s a good actor, but I don’t think he was quite the right fit for the role. Something just didn’t set well with him, imo.

The movie itself was well told, outside of the pacing and jumping around a bit like I said. It could best be summed as an Indiana Jones meets National Treasure on a island type of movie. No surprise there. It loosely follows the game, and if you have seen the trailers you knew that. It’s slow to get going because it does the audience the service of a fair amount of build up and back story, rather than just jumping in at the scene on the boat sailing to the island like the game did. I liked the story and appreciated that it did vary from the game a little so it kept it fresh for me. Nevertheless if you’ve played the game, certain aspects of the plot and story won’t have the same impact. But don’t worry, there are plenty of surprises where it does deviate. I liked the nods to game’s fans like the inclusion of the bow and arrow and the pickaxe, and the funny scene where she buys her 2 handguns (that was in the trailer, so not a spoiler)

The action sequences were really good and are some of the best part of the show. The narrow escapes, the fights, the chase scenes. It all builds tension well, and is interestingly framed and realistically rendered, although if you have seen the trailer some of the video game-esque jumps and such are (intentionally) awe inspiring, but yet not too unbelievable. I kept thinking of Uncharted as a lot of the sequences are reminiscent of what Drake goes through in his adventures. However, unlike the other TR movies, the action doesn’t seem ridiculously superhuman (any more so than most action movies) and I appreciated that Lara was more realistic.

Overall I would recommend seeing it. Not great or transcendent, but a solid fun time. In my opinion it’s probably one of the best video game licensed movies out there. I realize this may sound like damning it with faint praise considering it’s peers (kind of like calling it the tallest dwarf) but it really is entertaining, especially for fans of the latter games. If you’re one of those TR purists and think the new games ruined the franchise, then you should probably avoid this movie though.

@Kidfried Thanks man! I get pretty long-winded sometimes and should probably restrain myself from rambling 😅 But I figured people would have a lot of interest in the movie seeing as many on here love the franchise.

Watch King Kong Skull Island. Felt really uncomfortable watching the movie. Special effects were great though.

There's a live action Dynasty Warriors movie. That last scene.haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=53&v=-z5PbO2_rAY

@WanderingBullet What's funny is Chinese movies already act like DW with how the generals and such can fight and kill so many regular soldiers on the battlefield. They're good movies too,so I feel like we already have movies for DWs.

@Th3solution Nice review.
I don't think I'll be going our of my way to see it. But I'll give it a go.

The Eurogamer review seemed to nail my expectations to the board though. These days I feel like you could almost 'shot-for-shot' film a game movie and have it turn out better than what ends up on screen after creative license trims and adds elements.

@Jaz007 I don't think it'll happen often but it'll be interesting to see how many times we'll see those kind of action sequences during the film.

@KALofKRYPTON Thanks, my friend. It is fun to share my impressions and I would be curious to read how others receive this latest video game movie adaptation of Lara Croft’s adventures. I hadn’t read the eurogamer review until just now and in fact, hadn’t read a single review of the movie. But now reading that review, which is of course written from a gamer perspective, it does resonate with some of my thoughts. He is a little more down on the movie than I think I am, but I believe he’s right about things like the lack of any real humor, and the inherent challenges of transporting the game plot over to the cinema. Telling a story effectively in a game is different than telling it effectively on the big screen. Maybe one day some film maker will get it right, but for now I think this latest Tomb Raider is one of the better attempts at that lofty goal.

@Th3solution Just give Uwe Bol a £10 note and a couple of weeks...

That said - I liked Prince of Persia, Mortal Kombat - given the source material is a good stab. And, I actually thought Assassin's Creed was alright, though it did have some pacing issues, and came across as though it was pretty badly hacked up in the edit.
Papers, please was pretty perfect.

I don't think it's all as different to adapting a book, or comic. Just the people involved really. Adapting a game is largely a franchise opportunity; so the motivations of decision makers are often solely about making money. The story and characters present in the TR reboot would translate perfectly, even the set pieces for key action scenes. As a creative choice - jettisoning the supporting cast of Lara's story is akin to dumping Sully from an Uncharted film. Stupid. But it keeps absolute focus on Lara.

@KALofKRYPTON I agree. I did not know here was a Papers, please film adaptation. A quick google search shows that it is available on YouTube, so I should watch that, except I haven’t played the game yet. Maybe I should do that first

@Th3solution Papers, Please is only a short - but a very, very well done one.

The feel and tone of the game have been very well observed. It's all fairly on-the-nose stuff (in the game), but well put across nonetheless.

Absolutely play the game first! I have the Vita version, which is great. Didn't play it on mobile or PC - I should think either would be an easier proposition, but the vita control scheme is brilliant - both for thoughtful design and I think adding to the occasionally overwhelming nature of the game.

It's about as much on Steam as it is Vita at this point I reckon. But yes - highly, highly recommended game.

I've probably wobbled on about this before but I genuinely think there is an issue in adapting a lot of games into movies and that is a big part of why we haven't really had a cracker of a good gaming movie. The first point is that the story is often an enabler for the gameplay - by that I mean, the setup and story are often done to serve the gameplay style. They can be pretty out there but its ok in a game because they create unique gameplay systems. Assassins Creed is a good example - the actual plot (assassins fighting templars for a mcguffin and templars using assassins descendents to find their genetic memory to try and find said mcguffin) sounds pretty ridiculous but is more acceptable in a game.

Not only that but many game stories are not that unique but the gameplay dimension makes them feel so. If you strip away just the bare story in TLOU, actually elements of the story has been done elsewhere. What makes it special is that you live that experience in the game.

Thirdly, games are a long art form, like books, and can easily include supplementary material to enhance the world (notes, audio logs, environmental storytelling etc.). Films can't do this so rely on the characters and overall plot. I know that many have tried to adapt Bioshock and on the surface, this sounds like a great idea but if you imagine the amount of plotting you would need, just to explain Rapture, Adam, the Little Sisters, Big Daddies, as well as the characters, you can see how tough it would be to make something cohesive.

Lastly, I think studios are just looking for name recognition and want to show iconic scenes from games in trailers to sell the movie, which means having to lift things from games into movies.

All my opinions of course, and I am sure it is possible for some games to make good movies but I think it is pretty difficult. I thought Assassins Creed was OK, as have been several other movies but I think adapting a game is a more unique challenge then say,a book or comic.

@Rudy_Manchego As a follow on thought... comic to game (say - The Wolf Among Us), to film.
The adaptation to game is well done. The tone, sound, and atmosphere of the whole game is masterful. I honestly think that the 'ideal' path through the game as directed could largely be transposed as is and edited to a very satisfying film.

Also, as long form as games are as an art form - so are books - usually more so and often with very little visual and auditory reference attached - yet they are adapted successfully as often as they are not.

I honestly think that the 'cash grab' nature of movies based on games is the main downfall.