Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +1

[Jussi]

The new Avengers is a three-hour movie? Holy ****...

And it felt the shortest 3 hour movie I've ever seen.

 

[2CHAINZ]

Avengers end game 5/10. I gave it a 5 so I don't get too flamed.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

And it felt the shortest 3 hour movie I've ever seen.

Yeah, pacing was great. During one of the last scenes, I was thinking to myself "Wow, has this really been 3 hours? Keep it going. I could do this all day," haha

Avengers end game 5/10. I gave it a 5 so I don't get too flamed.

Hey man, everything isn't for everyone. You do you, and enjoy doing so.

 

[2CHAINZ]

Yeah, pacing was great. During one of the last scenes, I was thinking to myself "Wow, has this really been 3 hours? Keep it going. I could do this all day," haha



Hey man, everything isn't for everyone. You do you, and enjoy doing so.

I know my opinion is an unpopular one and I totally respect those who do not share my opinion. I also share the sentiment you do you, and enjoy doing so.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I can't even tell you how much I hate superhero movies. They're slowly but surely killing movie releases of different types in theaters. Not that it's a direct result of superhero movies that this happened, but I look at something like Annihilation being pulled out of so many theaters worldwide and it makes me sad. There are so many movies coming out in this day and age that are a marvel to see on the big screen for the sound/visuals, and I can guarantee you that there are going to be multiple movies of that ilk that are going to get passed over in theaters for Netflix or some other similar streaming service.

At the end of the day it's what the majority of people want and the box office obviously reflects that, but it's frustrating to see from someone who views them as generic and formulaic garbage. And I know the Oscars themselves are a joke but now there seems to be even more of a push to get them viewed as "legitimate movies" in regards to awards/critical acclaim (which you started to see with Logan and Black Panther, and I just know there's going to be a massive push for Endgame too), and it's just further pushing this agenda for more and more superhero movies to be made. I just find the whole thing to make me view the genre in such a negative light.

I've made a point to see the big ones that get talked about a lot and the only one I have ever viewed in a positive light is the first Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

[The Macho King]

I can't even tell you how much I hate superhero movies. They're slowly but surely killing movie releases of different types in theaters. Not that it's a direct result of superhero movies that this happened, but I look at something like Annihilation being pulled out of so many theaters worldwide and it makes me sad. There are so many movies coming out in this day and age that are a marvel to see on the big screen for the sound/visuals, and I can guarantee you that there are going to be multiple movies of that ilk that are going to get passed over in theaters for Netflix or some other similar streaming service.

At the end of the day it's what the majority of people want and the box office obviously reflects that, but it's frustrating to see from someone who views them as generic and formulaic garbage. And I know the Oscars themselves are a joke but now there seems to be even more of a push to get them viewed as "legitimate movies" in regards to awards/critical acclaim (which you started to see with Logan and Black Panther, and I just know there's going to be a massive push for Endgame too), and it's just further pushing this agenda for more and more superhero movies to be made. I just find the whole thing to make me view the genre in such a negative light.

I've made a point to see the big ones that get talked about a lot and the only one I have ever viewed in a positive light is the first Guardians of the Galaxy.

It took me a second, because at first I thought you were saying that they were bringing the Annihilation crossover out and I wasn't following because like Galactus and Annihilus haven't been introduced to the MCU how are you going to do that but then I kept reading.

Frankly, I find the criticism a little stale. This sort of argument is made against any blockbuster fad. I heard it for the disaster movies, the "Die Hard in a [blank]" movies, etc. People have been complaining about sequels and derivative movies since like... the 1920s. Marvel is the big thing right now, and they're making the popcorn flicks which are in demand literally every summer - just most of them wear spandex right now.

 

[ORRFForever]

Avengers end game 5/10. I gave it a 5 so I don't get too flamed.

I have not seen it but...

 

[Trap Jesus]

It took me a second, because at first I thought you were saying that they were bringing the Annihilation crossover out and I wasn't following because like Galactus and Annihilus haven't been introduced to the MCU how are you going to do that but then I kept reading.

Frankly, I find the criticism a little stale. This sort of argument is made against any blockbuster fad. I heard it for the disaster movies, the "Die Hard in a [blank]" movies, etc. People have been complaining about sequels and derivative movies since like... the 1920s. Marvel is the big thing right now, and they're making the popcorn flicks which are in demand literally every summer - just most of them wear spandex right now.

I'm not arguing anything other than my personal opinion. Proof is in the pudding with the numbers, and great job my Marvel/Disney from a financial perspective, but I just find it to be toxic. I don't think it's THE reason for movie releases of different types becoming much more streamlined in theaters, but it's definitely a big factor.

And it's gotten way past the point where it's just a fad. The X-Men and Spiderman movies kicked it off in the early 2000s, The Dark Knight and the Nolan Batman series made it gain a ton of steam in the mid 2000s, and then Marvel just took over going into the 2010s, consistently ramping up steam and spawning copycats until we've reached the insane level we're at today. This goes back nearly 20 years, and it's gathered more and more steam ever since. Superhero movies have certainly dominated this decade. At what point does it stop being a fad?

And you can tell just how much money they have to burn with all these actors they're bringing in, especially recently. You know who has to play helmet guy? Jake Gyllenhaal. Oh, is Cate Blanchett available to play a random one-off villain? Cool. Who won best actor at the Oscars recently? Michael Keaton? Nice, he'll play our cartoonish villain in this one.

 

[Arizonan God]

Not gunna do a full review on Endgame, but I really, really loved it. One of my favourite superhero movies. I wasn't a big fan of Infinity War, and I'm mixed at best with this whole MCU business, but this was a proper blockbuster epic. It's fufilling in a fan service sense, and an emotional sense.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'm not arguing anything other than my personal opinion. Proof is in the pudding with the numbers, and great job my Marvel/Disney from a financial perspective, but I just find it to be toxic. I don't think it's THE reason for movie releases of different types becoming much more streamlined in theaters, but it's definitely a big factor.

And it's gotten way past the point where it's just a fad. The X-Men and Spiderman movies kicked it off in the early 2000s, The Dark Knight and the Nolan Batman series made it gain a ton of steam in the mid 2000s, and then Marvel just took over going into the 2010s, consistently ramping up steam and spawning copycats until we've reached the insane level we're at today. This goes back nearly 20 years, and it's gathered more and more steam ever since. Superhero movies have certainly dominated this decade. At what point does it stop being a fad?

And you can tell just how much money they have to burn with all these actors they're bringing in, especially recently. You know who has to play helmet guy? Jake Gyllenhaal. Oh, is Cate Blanchett available to play a random one-off villain? Cool. Who won best actor at the Oscars recently? Michael Keaton? Nice, he'll play our cartoonish villain in this one.

yeah, its the hot genre at the moment so of course everyone will try to get some shine off it.

its no different than like in the 60s when there were a million Westerns, or the 50s when there were a million war movies, or the 90s when Disney cartoons ruled the world, or the 70s and gangster movies.

Lets be fair here too. Marvel has 50 years worth of established stories to pull from and adapt for film. Its not like they are just making up garbage as they go to keep the money train rolling. Kevin Feige is treating it with proper respect. He is keeping it a coherent universe with relevant stories that follow the comic books.

And it has also become a way for actors and directors to establish themselves as top notch. For all the established actors that take on bit roles, the main ones have mostly gone to lower level actors and allowed them to become stars like Boseman, Hemsworth, Pratt, Mackie, Evans, etc. In addition to giving big breaks to directors like the Russos and Watiti.

Its not your thing, and thats fine. There will never be anything that everyone likes. But not liking something doesn't make it illegitimate or garbage.

 

[Osprey]

I can't even tell you how much I hate superhero movies. They're slowly but surely killing movie releases of different types in theaters. Not that it's a direct result of superhero movies that this happened, but I look at something like Annihilation being pulled out of so many theaters worldwide and it makes me sad. There are so many movies coming out in this day and age that are a marvel to see on the big screen for the sound/visuals, and I can guarantee you that there are going to be multiple movies of that ilk that are going to get passed over in theaters for Netflix or some other similar streaming service.

At the end of the day it's what the majority of people want and the box office obviously reflects that, but it's frustrating to see from someone who views them as generic and formulaic garbage. And I know the Oscars themselves are a joke but now there seems to be even more of a push to get them viewed as "legitimate movies" in regards to awards/critical acclaim (which you started to see with Logan and Black Panther, and I just know there's going to be a massive push for Endgame too), and it's just further pushing this agenda for more and more superhero movies to be made. I just find the whole thing to make me view the genre in such a negative light.

I've made a point to see the big ones that get talked about a lot and the only one I have ever viewed in a positive light is the first Guardians of the Galaxy.

I agree. It's disappointing to me that superhero movies get so much of the resources, hype and box office dollars at the expense of other genres. I miss historical epics, for example, and it's disappointing that Blade Runner 2049 lost money at the box office.

I don't exactly have anything against superheroes. I really enjoyed the Superman and Tim Burton Batman films when I was growing up. The difference, I think, is that they didn't overlap each other and both stood out from other films at the time. Now, the genre is saturated with dozens of superhero films at once, so to speak, and most of them are very similar in appearance, writing, characterization and style. The only ones that I sort of liked were the first Captain America, the first Guardians of the Galaxy and the first Deadpool, since each was different than the usual superhero movie. I wasn't as keen on their sequels because the novelty had worn off, among other reasons.

Frankly, I find the criticism a little stale. This sort of argument is made against any blockbuster fad. I heard it for the disaster movies, the "Die Hard in a [blank]" movies, etc. People have been complaining about sequels and derivative movies since like... the 1920s. Marvel is the big thing right now, and they're making the popcorn flicks which are in demand literally every summer - just most of them wear spandex right now.

That's true, but the fact that it's not a new criticism doesn't de-legitimize the argument, IMO. Movies have suffered for a hundred years from criticisms over poor acting and writing, for example, that we don't dismiss as being stale.

 

[Shareefruck]

Regarding the "it's always been that way" argument, you probably COULD argue that while that concern has been around forever now, it's also probably legitimately had an ongoing negative impact that would make ongoing frustration justified, in terms of massively popular mainstream entertainment becoming less and less likely to be actually great over time. Marvel movies are just another version of the same catalyst, yes, but it's a particularly formidable one that pushes things further in a direction that has smelled worse and worse, at least for certain people's tastes.

It's really just the down-to-a-science formulaic and soulless way that Marvel (and I guess DC, if they were relevant) approaches it that bothers me, though, not superhero movies as a whole being a tired premise that's inherently too shallow to be worthwhile or anything like that, though.

 

[Trap Jesus]

yeah, its the hot genre at the moment so of course everyone will try to get some shine off it.

its no different than like in the 60s when there were a million Westerns, or the 50s when there were a million war movies, or the 90s when Disney cartoons ruled the world, or the 70s and gangster movies.

Lets be fair here too. Marvel has 50 years worth of established stories to pull from and adapt for film. Its not like they are just making up garbage as they go to keep the money train rolling. Kevin Feige is treating it with proper respect. He is keeping it a coherent universe with relevant stories that follow the comic books.

And it has also become a way for actors and directors to establish themselves as top notch. For all the established actors that take on bit roles, the main ones have mostly gone to lower level actors and allowed them to become stars like Boseman, Hemsworth, Pratt, Mackie, Evans, etc. In addition to giving big breaks to directors like the Russos and Watiti.

Its not your thing, and thats fine. There will never be anything that everyone likes. But not liking something doesn't make it illegitimate or garbage.

The acting comment was more just thrown in, I'm not saying it's a bad thing or bad casting, I just find it funny that it seems like it's open season budget wise to hand select anyone they want. These aren't complex roles, yet they're bringing in all of this insane talent to play these roles just because they can.

I think in a way directors are kind of the same way. They bring in all these indie directors that have made unique and interesting movies before, but everything always ends up feeling the same. It's almost like it's a facade to try to convince people who like other types of movies that superhero movies are legitimate or more interesting. How many unique things can you do when you're dealing with characters that have a decade worth of characterization from other movies, and an overarching story path to follow, completely controlled by Feige and co.? What unique feel are any of these movies giving off?

And I view these as different from other genres of the past. As Shareefruck mentioned, the approach is a huge part of the problem, it's not just about them being "superhero" movies per se. It feels like a movie factory that has been perfected and designed to engulf everything. They just keep churning out these movies that are all linked and in some way or another imitations of one another. It's spawned all these franchises that are trying to do the same thing, linking everything in their own cinematic universe. Just sequels upon sequels, crossovers upon crossovers.

I agree. It's disappointing to me that superhero movies get so much of the resources, hype and box office dollars at the expense of other genres. I miss historical epics, for example, and it's disappointing that Blade Runner 2049 lost money at the box office.

I don't exactly have anything against superheroes. I really enjoyed the Superman and Tim Burton Batman films when I was growing up. The difference, I think, is that they didn't overlap each other and both stood out from other films at the time. Now, the genre is saturated with dozens of superhero films at once, so to speak, and most of them are very similar in appearance, writing, characterization and style. The only ones that I sort of liked were the first Captain America, the first Guardians of the Galaxy and the first Deadpool, since each was different than the usual superhero movie. I wasn't as keen on their sequels because the novelty had worn off, among other reasons.

As I mentioned before, I liked Guardians of the Galaxy. It was this fun movie that was well written, enjoyable and had a funny script; it did feel different from other superhero movies I've seen. But now I'm looking back at it and just seeing it as part of this machine. I watched Infinity War and I was like "WTF, I can't believe so many of the characters and things in the Guardians movie are so integral to the plot in this." And it's not like it's clever in any way, it's just apparently the main female character in the movie has a relationship with Thanos, and that magic stone was one of the big magic stones that's important to the plot of Infinity War. Obviously Guardians was a sleeper success so they adjusted and made it more important to the story. If it wasn't a success they would have pivoted and went another way. You can do whatever you want when it comes to comic book characters and plots, even if it always boils down to bad guy wants to destroy the world so good guys need to stop him. It's like Ironman wasn't a big comic book character (apparently anyways, I was never big on comic books growing up), but Robert Downey Jr.'s charisma made him an integral part of Marvel's universe. That's all well and good, but I just think it underlines how so many things just don't matter because at the end of the day, you can do whatever you want story wise because it's a generic and formulaic good vs. evil plot.

 

[Arizonan God]

I share some of the same frustrations RE: Superhero movies as some here, but I've mostly come to peace with it. I'll keep championing independent and original cinema, while also getting my coke and popcorn and watching super powered people punch the crap out of eachother.

 

[Osprey]

Regarding the "it's always been that way" argument, you probably COULD argue that while that concern has been around forever now, it's also probably legitimately had an ongoing negative impact that would make ongoing frustration justified, in terms of massively popular mainstream entertainment becoming less and less likely to be actually great over time. Marvel movies are just another version of the same catalyst, yes, but it's a particularly formidable one that pushes things further in a direction that has smelled worse and worse, at least for certain people's tastes.

It's really just the down-to-a-science formulaic and soulless way that Marvel (and I guess DC, if they were relevant) approaches it that bothers me, though, not superhero movies as a whole being a tired premise that's inherently too shallow to be worthwhile or anything like that, though.

This current superhero fad does seem a lot different than past fads. Macho Man above gave "Die Hard in a [blank]" and disaster movies as examples of past fads. Well, the "Die Hard in a [blank]" fad was really a pretty minor one, since there were only three movies at the time and no more than a handful of copycats, and it lasted less than a decade. The disaster movie fad was larger, spawning a little over a dozen movies (not counting all of the TV movies), but even that lasted only a decade.

How many superhero films have been released in the last 10 years? I just looked it up: it's 42 since 2009... and 50 if you go back to 2007. Back then, 3 or 4 came out per year, which was still a lot more than most past fads. In 2016, 2017 and 2018, 6 were released in each, and, in 2019, there are due to be 7. This is more than an ordinary fad and it shows no signs of slowing down like other fads typically have after a decade.

Superheroes: All Superhero Movies From 1978 to 2020 - IMDb

 

[Trap Jesus]

I share some of the same frustrations RE: Superhero movies as some here, but I've mostly come to peace with it. I'll keep championing independent and original cinema, while also getting my coke and popcorn and watching super powered people punch the crap out of eachother.

I'm not even talking about indie movies though. Not like I'm expecting some arthouse foreign film to be screened in theaters across North America. I'm more talking about blockbuster type films that are either original ideas or based on something that is far less known or established. Everything is funneling towards the direction of building upon cinematic universes (or creating cinematic universes), or just churning out sequels because it makes sense business wise.

Two of my favorite blockbuster-type movies of the past few years were Annihilation (which I mentioned above as having its release in theaters cut everywhere but the US, Canada and I believe China), and Edge of Tomorrow (which may be Live. Die. Repeat. now not sure, because they had to change the name to try to market it differently because no one was going to see it). Critics raved about these movies too, but no one went to see them. When you look at failures like this, studios are going to take fewer and fewer chances; you can argue that the studios themselves played a part in their failures for being too concerned about how they'd perform in this climate. Back in the 90s and earlier you'd see studios taking chances on more interesting and unique movies/ideas much more frequently, but it looks like that is dying out.

 

[Shareefruck]

The acting comment was more just thrown in, I'm not saying it's a bad thing or bad casting, I just find it funny that it seems like it's open season budget wise to hand select anyone they want. These aren't complex roles, yet they're bringing in all of this insane talent to play these roles just because they can.

I think in a way directors are kind of the same way. They bring in all these indie directors that have made unique and interesting movies before, but everything always ends up feeling the same. It's almost like it's a facade to try to convince people who like other types of movies that superhero movies are legitimate or more interesting. How many unique things can you do when you're dealing with characters that have a decade worth of characterization from other movies, and an overarching story path to follow, completely controlled by Feige and co.? What unique feel are any of these movies giving off?

And I view these as different from other genres of the past. As Shareefruck mentioned, the approach is a huge part of the problem, it's not just about them being "superhero" movies per se. It feels like a movie factory that has been perfected and designed to engulf everything. They just keep churning out these movies that are all linked and in some way or another imitations of one another. It's spawned all these franchises that are trying to do the same thing, linking everything in their own cinematic universe. Just sequels upon sequels, crossovers upon crossovers.



As I mentioned before, I liked Guardians of the Galaxy. It was this fun movie that was well written, enjoyable and had a funny script; it did feel different from other superhero movies I've seen. But now I'm looking back at it and just seeing it as part of this machine. I watched Infinity War and I was like "WTF, I can't believe so many of the characters and things in the Guardians movie are so integral to the plot in this." And it's not like it's clever in any way, it's just apparently the main female character in the movie has a relationship with Thanos, and that magic stone was one of the big magic stones that's important to the plot of Infinity War. Obviously Guardians was a sleeper success so they adjusted and made it more important to the story. If it wasn't a success they would have pivoted and went another way. You can do whatever you want when it comes to comic book characters and plots, even if it always boils down to bad guy wants to destroy the world so good guys need to stop him. It's like Ironman wasn't a big comic book character (apparently anyways, I was never big on comic books growing up), but Robert Downey Jr.'s charisma made him an integral part of Marvel's universe. That's all well and good, but I just think it underlines how so many things just don't matter because at the end of the day, you can do whatever you want story wise because it's a generic and formulaic good vs. evil plot.

I would probably modify this part a bit, as I think phrasing it this way might be cutting them a bit too much slack and makes it seem like too much of an inevitability that's out of their hands.

I don't think the phenomenon has anything to do with decades' worth of established characterization/story paths leaving otherwise interesting directors doomed to only be able to do so much with what they have-- You could hypothetically do a lot with these restrictions/constants with even a modicum of creative freedom given, and we see that with wildly different adaptions about the same things in popular culture all the time.

It's more what you alluded to afterwards, IMO-- that all of these movies clearly have a specific mandate to keep to a certain tone, sensibility, and formula that's consistent with Marvel's brand, the expectations of the target audience, and what they've perfected as a safe and easy way to appeal to alot of people, with every detail being overseen to keep it that way.

Even when there's a certain gimmick that on a surface-level seems wildly out of character for them, it's all just smoke and mirrors-- everything that actually matters about these movies still ultimately feel like a clone of the same thing (even if we're wildly jumping from Avengers to Deadpool to Logan, they're really not different at all, IMO).

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I would probably modify this part a bit, as I think phrasing it this way might be cutting them a bit too much slack and makes it seem like too much of an inevitability that's out of their hands.

I don't think the phenomenon has anything to do with decades' worth of established characterization/story paths leaving otherwise interesting directors doomed to only be able to do so much with what they have-- You could hypothetically do a lot with these restrictions/constants with even a modicum of creative freedom given, and we see that with wildly different adaptions about the same things in popular culture all the time.

It's more what you alluded to afterwards, IMO-- that all of these movies clearly have a specific mandate to keep to a certain tone, sensibility, and formula that's consistent with Marvel's brand, the expectations of the target audience, and what they've perfected as a safe and easy way to appeal to alot of people, with every detail being overseen to keep it that way.

Even when there's a certain gimmick that on a surface-level seems wildly out of character for them, it's all just smoke and mirrors-- everything that actually matters about these movies still ultimately feel like a clone of the same thing (even if we're wildly jumping from Avengers to Deadpool to Logan, they're really not different at all, IMO).

I would imagine that to be the case for every movie (or book for that matter) since when you boil it all down there is really only like seven basic plot lines in all of literature or film. I just don't see why this criticism (clone of the same thing) is brought up against universally, mass-enjoyed, pop-corn fare that a majority of people choose to see. Why aren't the high-art films also blasted for being derivative of one of the seven major plot categories as being yet another art-house cookie-cutter take on an old story.

I get that you probably won't enjoy this movie, what I do understand is the need to discuss your non-enjoyment of it. When I don't enjoy something, I'm wired in a way that I don't spend any time on that thing...I don't continue to watch it and I don't strike up conversations with folks about it. I simply move on to something else that I may enjoy. To each their own, I suppose.

 

[Arizonan God]

I'm not even talking about indie movies though. Not like I'm expecting some arthouse foreign film to be screened in theaters across North America. I'm more talking about blockbuster type films that are either original ideas or based on something that is far less known or established. Everything is funneling towards the direction of building upon cinematic universes (or creating cinematic universes), or just churning out sequels because it makes sense business wise.

Two of my favorite blockbuster-type movies of the past few years were Annihilation (which I mentioned above as having its release in theaters cut everywhere but the US, Canada and I believe China), and Edge of Tomorrow (which may be Live. Die. Repeat. now not sure, because they had to change the name to try to market it differently because no one was going to see it). Critics raved about these movies too, but no one went to see them. When you look at failures like this, studios are going to take fewer and fewer chances; you can argue that the studios themselves played a part in their failures for being too concerned about how they'd perform in this climate. Back in the 90s and earlier you'd see studios taking chances on more interesting and unique movies/ideas much more frequently, but it looks like that is dying out.

Well, that’s why I also included “original cinema” in my post as well. And I mostly agree, but I just find it futile to get too upset to it personally. There’s always going to be tension between art and commercial viability.

 

[Puck]

Not gunna do a full review on Endgame, but I really, really loved it. One of my favourite superhero movies. I wasn't a big fan of Infinity War, and I'm mixed at best with this whole MCU business, but this was a proper blockbuster epic. It's fufilling in a fan service sense, and an emotional sense.

I'm happy to hear that Endgame is better than Infinity. Infinity War was ok, but I thought they had gone a bit Michael Bay-ish (Transformers) with endless epic battles last time.

I won't complain or criticize anyone that does a review of a Marvel movie. I think Marvel movies are ok. There will be so many reviews and opinions though, I won't feel the need to add on (except post one or two sideline comments like this).

 

[Shareefruck]

I would imagine that to be the case for every movie (or book for that matter) since when you boil it all down there is really only like seven basic plot lines in all of literature or film. I just don't see why this criticism (clone of the same thing) is brought up against universally, mass-enjoyed, pop-corn fare that a majority of people choose to see. Why aren't the high-art films also blasted for being derivative of one of the seven major plot categories as being yet another art-house cookie-cutter take on an old story.

I get that you probably won't enjoy this movie, what I do understand [you mean "don't", right?] is the need to discuss your non-enjoyment of it. When I don't enjoy something, I'm wired in a way that I don't spend any time on that thing...I don't continue to watch it and I don't strike up conversations with folks about it. I simply move on to something else that I may enjoy. To each their own, I suppose.

(Apologies for the long-winded post)

Regarding the first point, what you're referring to isn't really what I was talking about. Good movies have their own unique sense of identity, personality, and soul to them regardless of whether they fit into broader archetypes or not-- and fitting into broader archetypes is not what I would hold against Marvel movies. A lack of real personality is (especially in the way that it's executed). When I see the same problem in an art movie, I make the same criticism.

FYI, I wasn't even really saying that being a clone of something is inherently bad-- I was more-so saying that being a clone of the thing that I just called soulless and uninteresting is bad, and claiming that these movies aren't really close to being exceptions, despite trying to superficially present themselves that way.

Regarding the latter point, I similarly don't really empathize with people who subscribe to a "stay in your own lane and only discuss what you enjoy" attitude.

This is generally my thought process, if you're curious....

• There's inherent human satisfaction in genuinely expressing your thoughts and opinions, whatever they may be
• There's inherent human satisfaction that comes with bouncing your ideas off other ideas to strengthen your own understanding of what you think. Honest discussion is fun and rewarding, period.
• There's inherent human satisfaction in connecting with people who share similar opinions, which may be about what you don't enjoy
• There's inherent human satisfaction in the process of trying to get to the bottom of what you think is true.
• There's inherent human satisfaction in just anally up-holding what you think is fair and deserved. If something is good, you just instinctively WANT to see it praised, and if something is bad, you WANT to see that called out. It feels wrong and unjust when it isn't.
• There's inherent human satisfaction in just outright basking in reality, whether you think it happens to be positive or negative.
• Reading the thoughts of others who are similarly vocal/critical/uncompromising about what they think is something that I enjoy, appreciate, and rely on to paint an accurate and non-misleading picture of the experiences that are out there (not that anyone's views are gospel). So I feel good about trying to do the same.

All of these are things that I see a lot of value in, and all of it is essentially lost if you just always stay in your own lane and shut up about what you don't like.

Also...

• I don't know if you relate to this, but whether I appreciate something or not isn't really tied to how easy it is to watch or be pulled into (in fact, it's often the other way around). I can acknowledge that some things that I dislike can be engaging in a degenerate addiction kind of way. Because of that, it's also not really a chore or any skin off my back to watch an easy-to-consume Marvel movie that's getting hyped up like it's a big deal, and want to chime in if I think it was predictably poor and unrewarding. The zeitgeist alone can create a sense of curiosity that I'm happy to feed without there having to be light at the end of the tunnel.
• It doesn't really make me feel bad to voice my displeasure about things. Like... at all. If anything, it can be liberating/grounding. So if I were to avoid doing it, it wouldn't be for my own sake.
• The only other remaining reason I can think of to actively avoid voicing my displeasure about things is that it might bother other people for reasons that in principle SHOULDN'T bother them, in my opinion..... and I'm not going to avoid doing what I find worthwhile simply to appease people who I think are reacting irrationally/unjustly and acting unnecessarily thin-skinned and entitled to begin with.

It's moronic that speaking badly about something that someone else happens to like is seen as an insult or sign of disrespect. So in cases where this causes tension despite no lines legitimately being crossed, I think the onus is on the reactor to not be childishly offended rather than on the commentator to not risk offending. And while I would never go out of my way to TRY to upset people, I think it's ultimately good for the former to be more exposed to that principle rather than be protected from it.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Yeah, pacing was great. During one of the last scenes, I was thinking to myself "Wow, has this really been 3 hours? Keep it going. I could do this all day," haha

I wouldn't say that the pacing was great but at the same time, I'd say the 3 hours went by fast. It felt like the theatre was at the edge of their seats for much of it despite this film being more drama and emotion than most Marvel films including a long drawn out epilogue (which still kept people at the edge of their seats unlike that slow-motion LOTR 3 epilogue that just kept going). This girl next to me literally had her legs up on her seat covering her mouth with her hands and a guy on the right was like shaking with excitement.

Anyways, it's a lot of film to digest and really tough to review. It's problematic like a 3 hour blockbuster film trying to tie 20+ films will be but at the same time, it's really f***ing enjoyable.

 

[Elias Stewart]

Avengers End Game. Do you really think i have to rate that movie?

 

[Puck]

This isn't a review of Avengers just a sidebar. One difficulty I had with Infinity War was the plot. Thanos doesn't want to destroy the universe, he just wants to wipe out half for the good of the other half. If you know how big the universe is, it doesn't make sense. For the sake of argument, it doesn't even make sense for Earth unless you believe things like the US is full. Any person will tell you we could use a more proper or optimum use or re-allocation of resources and we're fine. The Marvel Malthusian population bomb solution just makes sense for writers looking for an ideology for a villain, but a guy as smart as Thanos, you'd think he could come up with different options. but i'm willing to park logic for the sake of a fictional story.

We are told however that this last Marvel Avenger movie is an apex of sorts of the MCU universe, not just conflating the arcs of all Avenger movies but all 22 Marvel movies. Okayyyy. SO what we have here is not just an ordinary sequel, but the Mother of all sequels. Now this thinking pretty much knocked out Joss Whedon as Avengers Director (he directed the 1st two), he wasn't buying it. (I've read that Whedon thought television shows are a question, movies are an answer; tv is a medium that offers a venue for exploring a subject for years, whereas movies should make a more definitive statement (so he bowed out from making a Saturday matinee blockbuster multi-parter). This format is a great money-maker for Marvel. Most sequels for other projects have a more definitive beginning and end for each movie (like Mission Impossible), not a 'to be continued' like Lost in Space.

If this 'to be continued' format is lucrative, expect more. I personally don't like it though, even if it works for this one. This tentpole movie might be great, I might enjoy the blockbuster when I see it. But a part of me still hates being manipulated with a 'to be continued' format. Actually, the best storyline for a Marvel movie I've seen recently was the smaller-scale project, Spider-verse animated flick. I really liked the story in that one.

ok rant over. I didn't really think this over, it's just an instinctual stream of consciousness keyboard post. I'll still spare you yet another review when I see. Having said all that i'll probably like it when i see it.

 

[Shareefruck]

As a sidebar to that sidebar, Spiderverse was cool. As someone who despises the way that 3D model movies look compared to hand-drawn animation, that's a great way to do it that I think has a lot more visual potential, and personally, I hope most if not all 3D movies in the future used something closer to those techniques than what we usually get (and better yet, if more of the stuff that looks ridiculous in live action-- like Superhero movies-- became animated features instead by using that style).