MovieChat Forums > FilmBuff > Replies
FilmBuff's Replies
I have no idea why Marvel did it, but from my standpoint as a fan, Krasinski doesn't work as Reed Richards. He lacks the gravitas and the physique. Reed is a thin, nebbish man who used his brains more than his superpower. Krasinski is a large, brutish, pudgy guy who comes off as goofy and affable, nothing like Richards. I don't know that Pascal is the perfect fit, but he's far, far closer than Krasinski.
When it came out. I don't remember too much, but recall that it made for a fun night at the movies.
This is the beginning of the build-up. The Fantastic Four film is akin to the Iron Man movies. Presumably they'll bring in the X-Men next, and start building out an entirely new story.
As for Krasinski, he was not a good Reed Richards. He's too much of a doofus, and there's no way anyone can take him seriously in the role of the smartest man on earth. Pascal has more gravitas, and frankly, looks the part better than Krasinski.
The Incredibles was a riff on Fantastic Four, so it makes sense that it does. I'm just glad it's set in the 1960s. When I suggested that the day after Disney acquired Fox it felt like an impossibility.
That's what I've said all along. It was a very successful film.
This site isn't very good in terms of fostering discussion between movie-lovers, but I don't know of anything better. It seems like at least half the discussions here, if not far more, are pointless back-and-forth political arguments from the same handful of users. What discussion of film that does take place tends to only be about very recent or very well-known films, and rarely is it more than "I loved it"or "I hated it" or "rank your favorites."
Twitter has a solid film community, but the nature of the site prevents much in the way of long-form discussion.
Reddit is the worst of them all.
If there is a site where people interact in a friendly manner and engage in intelligent discussion of film, I don't know about it. Maybe someone should create an invite-only Discord channel for a handful of film-lovers?
Spoiler alert, but it would have made more sense to present it as here's the death camp, and here's the swastika, open the doors and see all the victims.
I didn't interpret as you did at all. Harrison seemed enchanted by, and infatuated with, Toth for most of the film. He seemed in awe of his talent, and repeatedly admitted that he himself had no talents to speak of, and wished he was more like Toth. When he raped him, it seemed to be the end result of him romanticizing and lusting after what he couldn't have or be-- which does fit with the jealousy aspect-- and had nothing to do with power or race. Harrison's later shame at what he'd done seems to underscore this reading of the moment.
This is a pretty fringe site. In addition to those of us here to talk about films, the site attracts people like you who come to espouse fringe politics, and berate other users. Using this site as a bellweather for social media is going to offer flawed conclusions.
What goal post? Or are you just throwing out a generic reply you see people make a lot online?
The story moves quickly, and there are some montages, but they are very meta. The entire film is simultaneously kid-friendly and entertaining for adults. There are riffs on Robocop, Die Hard, Sergio Leone's films, and a lot more. I'm almost tempted to go back and watch it again just to catch the rapid-fire references and jokes. So yes, it's a fast-paced film, but not in a dumbed-down video game style. It's more akin to the Hawks or Capra style of rapid-fire humor, but aimed at 7-year-olds.
Without the dog I'd almost certainly have watched this film alone. Instead, my wife and two young sons are now excitedly awaiting opening night. I think this is the norm, and the reason family-friendly films do so well at the box office.
If Man of Steel, or any of the Snyder Superman films were coming out this year, I would not be able to bring my sons to see them, and that should not be the case. Superman is probably the most kid-friendly superhero in existence, something Warner Bros. somehow failed to take into account, which is why the lost so much money on those films.
Kids love Dog Man, and kid films are about the only things that make money at the box office anymore. Let's hope Dog Man prevails!
Deadpool and Wolverine made out okay.
Slyde debuted in The Amazing Spider-Man #272, from January 1986. I was still reading the comic then, but I barely remember him and had to look him up. I noticed that though the issue came during the Tom DeFalco/Ron Frenz run, which I think was the best of the '80s and '90s Spider-Man runs, that was an issue Sal Buscema drew.
I've never heard anyone refer to the first film in a franchise as being a reboot. That was the confusion. You may want to look up the meaning of the word reboot before calling me pedantic for not realizing what you meant.
The 2005 film was the first, and the 2007 film was its sequel. The 2015 was the first reboot. If you weren't including the 1994 film, then what do you consider to be the second reboot?
I was about to tell him the same thing. Marvel once again owns the rights to the Fantastic Four, acquired when they bought Fox.
That's inaccurate. The 2005 and 2007 films were both popular, and profitable. The second one was not well-reviewed, and despite the film making $300 million on a $130 million budget, it wasn't successful enough to warrant a third film.
There was no film before those. You are probably referring to the 1994 film, which was made only to maintain Bernd Eichinger's rights to the franchise. It was conceived as a film that would be shot but never released, which is exactly what happened.
Only the most recent film, the ill-conceived 2015 reboot, can be labeled a flop.
Will the new one make lots at the box office? Who knows? If it's good, it should. All we've heard so far has been promising, but it's early to say.
I've never heard of Prager U.
I'm stating facts. MLK was a Republican. Republicans were the ones who pushed for the Civil Rights Act, first in the '50s, when the Democrats blocked it, then again in the '60s when Republicans finally got it passed. Democrats have been opposed to equal rights from the get go. They fought a Civil War to preserve slavery. The created the Ku Klux Klan to oppress minorities. They fought against the Civil Rights Act. You can pretend this isn't the case, but it's historical fact.