Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[RJK1981]

The Adjustment Bureau 9/11

[srboone]

Captain America: 4/5. Thrilling from beginning to end with some terrific performances, great period flavor and outstanding CGI; a fun, old-fashioned adventure film with a modern flair; Hugo Weaving makes a great villian. Docked a point for the utter preposterousness of the whole thing and some silly CGI scenes, (mostly involving scenes that were designed for 3D, I'm sure--I saw it in 2D). Be sure to stay thru the credits for a first look at The Avengers coming in May 2012.

[peteOcha]

Captain America: 4/5. Thrilling from beginning to end with some terrific performances, great period flavor and outstanding CGI; a fun, old-fashioned adventure film with a modern flair; Hugo Weaving makes a great villian. Docked a point for the utter ridiculousness of the whole thing and some silly CGI scenes, (mostly involving scenes that were designed for 3D, I'm sure--I saw it in 2D). Be sure to stay thru the credits for a first look at The Avengers coming in May 2012.

That's one I really want to see! And The Avengers as well, although not as much since I learned that Edward Norton wouldn't be playing the Hulk.

[srboone]

That's one I really want to see! And The Avengers as well, although not as much since I learned that Edward Norton wouldn't be playing the Hulk.

I'm in the minority of people who like Ang Lee's Hulk better. But Norton did bring a external intensity to the role that Bana did not.

[MrRoland]

Captain America. I was prepared not to buy the CGI required to make Evans look scrawny, but I have to say they did a really good with that, so good in fact that when they turn him into the super soldier, I thought he looked fake when they opened the device. There were a couple of scenes that did look fakey, like the first time he's running after being transformed. Good story though and I agree with srboone, Hugo Weaving made an excellent Red Skull. 4.5 stars.

[Dan Hocker]

Ugg can't wait, going to see it tonight!

[ozmosis7]

Captain America - 9.5/11 - but I do think it helps to know the storyline a bit. My wife didn't grade it so high.

Ange Lee's hulk for me would have been a 0/11. I hated the whole Nick Nolte Role, and how CGI it actually was, making the character totally unbelievable. While I enjoyed the storyline surrounding Norton more (7/11 if I am feeling generous), I still find myself wondering why they need to make this guy so big. Cant they just do what the highly successful TV series did and hire some roided out guy? I think even with green paint that makes it more believable. I mean, you can even do the Green Mile trick on him if you really need him to be bigger.

[srboone]

I liked the framing of Ang Lee's movie. Someone finally figured out how to make split screen come alive; not only by using panels to suggest story flow, but by using different angle shots within the same panel. His film was visually arresting and exciting to watch. I also like how the action sequences were secondary to the juxtopposed oedipal complex stories of two children and their parents. Definitely not your typical comic book movie. The Norton Hulk movie was a 90 minute chase movie which is fine, but it was ordinary and what I expected from a standard formulaic action picture. Hulk:3/5; The Incredible Hulk: 2.5/5

[ozmosis7]

I'll definitely give you the scene splits. I did like those, but at times they got a bit confusing. Still, I don't think it stayed true to the story. Even more so I have this as a point of argument....

Spoiler!

Two roided out Scooby Doo looking dogs, only greenish-blue. I've never seen anything so ridiculous. Pus, since when did he become the Hulk as fault of his father? I don't think any of the stories ever mentioned his father. Those two things ruined it for me, even made it come off more comical than Scooby.

...but I will concede on the splits.

[srboone]

My counterarguments, Ken, would be that:

1) this is a movie, not the comic book; and much like movies based on books, they have to be allowed to stand on their own; changes made are for dramatic purposes and drama in books and comic books are different animals than drama on film; and

2) every few years, the writers of comic books rewrite the origins of their heroes anyway--with slight differences; somebody always complains, but it's still done. How else could Batman have been created in 1939, have a 20 year crimefighting career and still be duking it out with the baddies in 2011?

And as for the CGI, well, I only gave it a 3 outta 5...

[ozmosis7]

Hmm...fine points. I would agree about the movie versus what was written thing any day, typically. But in this case they must have seen something they didn't like or they wouldn't have rebooted. Although they are doing that with Spiderman, and I'm not sure it was all that bad until the goofy 3rd one. Some parts of the 2nd were bad, but not all that bad.

And I do agree that they do these reboots in the comics a lot. But I also think they try to stay true to part of the storyline. For instance, Bruce Wayne's parents have always died. Same with Peter Parker's. Peter has always been bitten by a spider. There are constants, and I just think Ange, while being innovative, went so much against that storyline that he cursed himself to the $5 bin at Walmart. I might even go lower on the CGI for that one personally, although there were some really cool scenes I have to admit.

For me, I am just a huge fan of the TV series, and while I will also agree that Norton didn't strike that as well, and it was a little goofy bringing both of those people into the movie in order to try and solidify that notion, it did a better job at the feel of the TV show. So I guess it depends on what you like in that regard. The huge overblown CGI graphics, or the story about a guy forced to be a loner. I lean towards the second personally.

I really think they should have found a no name guy, done the whole enlargement CGI they did with The Green Mile, paint him green using CGI, and make it more realistic. I rather him be a believable green monster, even if they decided to go with the huge bushy fake eyebrows LOL.

As for Batman, I never read much of that series. I was big on Cap, Ironman (my fav), Flash, Green Lantern, and a few others. Didn't they clone him at one point though? And I also thought he did the whole Zorro thing, training a replacement and all. I know the Batman X gen thing failed, but I thought that is how they explained it at least once. Maybe Robin becomes the next Btaman? No idea.

But talking about that, I was discussing this with the wife. I know they did things like the X-men, and then went back and did entire series on aspects of each characters past lives. I know the original Cap came out long ago, and then they deepfreezed him to get him to different times. They have always come up with a reason though for the reboot. There has always been an excuse, or a different time period, or something.

I think where Ange lost a lot of true fans was adding too much, and taking too much away. I mean, imagine they made The Gunslinger, only he was a sword fighter and the Man in Black was a woman that told fortunes. I'd tune out within seconds. I think you can take liberties going from print to screen, but if you go to far you curse yourself. I just think that is what ange did is all. No offense or anything, but having read some Hulk I thought it came off poorly. To each their own though.

I think you can actually get either in the $5 bin now LOL. Sad that movies end up there so quick. I really do wish they would try that character again, only simplify--no big stars and less CGI. I did like some of the concepts introduced in the 2nd one though that eluded to many of the comic series fiends and foes. Anyway, long winded, but cheers regardless.

[srboone]

But well worth readin, Ken.

Well, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of a fan of movies, not comic books, tho I do have a few favorite titles and I have a small collection of graphic novels from my days as a comic book shop owner (I paid for my last year of college by doing that, but I sold my stock and got before the market crashed in the 90's). Every movie makes it to the discount rack eventually and reboots are simply Hollywood's answer to a lack of imagination and veiw of the typical movie goer as a mindless junkie jonesing for his next fix. I'm a big fan of the TV series and while Norton's Hulk was in that vein..been there, seen that, got the t-shirt, etc. Lee's Hulk was different and complex.

But 0/11??? That's awfully harsh........

[ozmosis7]

But 0/11??? That's awfully harsh........

Okay, I'll bump it up to 1/11 for the cutscenes

Ya, it just didn't resonate with me. I typically try to separate the book and movie myself, but with this I had a lot of trouble. I guess if you are fond of something, as I was the TV series, than something like what Ange did can be a blasphemy of sorts. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[srboone]

1/11...

...

....

.........

That's makes it 1 better than Blood-Sucking Freaks!!! (a true 0/11)

[gcgirl]

Captain America 3.5/5

Standard superhero stuff, including horrible physics and general ridiculousness (Hitler can't afford to feed his army for a month, but he can afford to outfit Hydra with zillions of dollars worth of futuristic Nazi swag?), but with a lot of heart and a good sense of humor. There's a super-soldier out of Return to Castle Wolfenstein and a bit of a nod to the Lovecraftian in the Hydra insignia--a skull with six tenatcles--which is always fun.

ETA: And I agree with the other posters' reviews: solid performances, awesome period pieces, fantastic CGI. And I saw 2D as well; there were some obvious catering-to-3D moments that didn't play so well, but it wasn't a huge distraction.