CSHaviland
Dez. 2001 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Wir arbeiten immer noch daran, einige Profilfunktionen zu aktualisieren. Um die Kennzeichnungen, Bewertungsaufschlüsselungen und Umfragen zu diesem Profil zu sehen, rufe bitte vorherige Version auf.
Bewertungen1226
Bewertung von CSHaviland
Rezensionen46
Bewertung von CSHaviland
I have mixed feelings about this one.
On the one hand, the actors all did a fantastic job. Harrison Ford even seemed to try a lot harder in his new role than he did in the last two Indiana Jones movies, The Call of the Wild, Bladerunner 2049, or Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens.
And I really appreciated the attention to detail in cinematic choices to sell the scenes, with the lighting and camera work and special effects. Sam Wilson's costume and wing-work was spectacular.
But the whole movie was a continuity nightmare.
It tried to be a semi-sequel to The Falcon & The Winter Solder, The Avengers: End Game, The Eternals, and most problematic of all, The Incredible Hulk, all at the same time.
Firstly, while from a budget perspective The Incredible Hulk was a Phase I MCU project, it had been unceremoniously diced out of the MCU continuity all the way through End Game, perhaps mainly because they completely recast Bruce Banner from Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo, and then took the opportunity to completely redesign the Hulk himself so that he didn't look "rubbery."
I was really fine with this until they introduced Tim Ruth's Abomination as a cameo in both Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings and the embarrassing She-Hulk: Attorney at Law series. This gave us ties to The Incredible Hulk that didn't need to be there, despite that Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross was played by William Hurt throughout. But that could be ignored, since Ross was a politician all of the MCU except for The Incredible Hulk where the character was still a General.
But Captain America: Brave New World brought The Incredible Hulk fully into the MCU timeline with numerous references and even bringing back Liv Tyler as Betty Ross and Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns.
So now we're left with the massive character continuity shift where Bruce Banner, Hulk and Ross look COMPLETELY different since The Incredible Hulk. Yes, William Hurt died. Yes, Edward Norton was untenable as an actor because he's a notorious interventionist. But there are better ways around these problems.
For one thing, they could have ditched the idea of bringing Red Hulk to screen at all. That would have avoided the Ross problem, and they could have allowed the character to fade away. They also did not need to use Leader (Samuel Sterns) as the main villain-behind-the-curtain, though I love how Nelson plays him. Which means they should have just had an entirely different conflict.
For another thing, I really wish they did not go with the renaming of Falcon. Just call the Falcon "the Falcon" and let go of the Captain America mantle. So what if he's got the shield.
The Captain America movies should have stopped with Steve Rogers. (To be honest, I would have invited another Captain America movie with Chris Evans in the role showing his adventures in returning the Infinity Stones and reconnecting with his crew from the original WW II era movie. I would have loved to see Dum Dum Dugan and the others again. They could have used another legacy villain for him to fight, like Crossbones. It could also explain how Captain America, after he had grown old in another lifetime, somehow did not return to the Time Machine where the Avengers were awaiting him, but on a park bench. But I digress.)
So the movie just makes for lots of complications that stress the suspension of disbelief (worse than the recasting of Rhodes from Iron Man to Iron Man II) and makes it a confusing mess. My mother was so very confused when she saw the movie, because she doesn't track or remember the MCU installments (nor has she seen some of the TV series), because she said she doesn't remember Captain America being black or having wings, and didn't know who Ross was from the other movies.
And before you dismiss that it's because she's old and isn't in the right demographic, I have teenage sons who gave up on MCU and haven't seen Captain America: Brave New World because they are lost too. They missed some of the movies it's based on, and don't care for all the weird changes anyway.
So Disney/Marvel goofed up this installment pretty badly in my opinion. What a shame.
On the one hand, the actors all did a fantastic job. Harrison Ford even seemed to try a lot harder in his new role than he did in the last two Indiana Jones movies, The Call of the Wild, Bladerunner 2049, or Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens.
And I really appreciated the attention to detail in cinematic choices to sell the scenes, with the lighting and camera work and special effects. Sam Wilson's costume and wing-work was spectacular.
But the whole movie was a continuity nightmare.
It tried to be a semi-sequel to The Falcon & The Winter Solder, The Avengers: End Game, The Eternals, and most problematic of all, The Incredible Hulk, all at the same time.
Firstly, while from a budget perspective The Incredible Hulk was a Phase I MCU project, it had been unceremoniously diced out of the MCU continuity all the way through End Game, perhaps mainly because they completely recast Bruce Banner from Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo, and then took the opportunity to completely redesign the Hulk himself so that he didn't look "rubbery."
I was really fine with this until they introduced Tim Ruth's Abomination as a cameo in both Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings and the embarrassing She-Hulk: Attorney at Law series. This gave us ties to The Incredible Hulk that didn't need to be there, despite that Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross was played by William Hurt throughout. But that could be ignored, since Ross was a politician all of the MCU except for The Incredible Hulk where the character was still a General.
But Captain America: Brave New World brought The Incredible Hulk fully into the MCU timeline with numerous references and even bringing back Liv Tyler as Betty Ross and Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns.
So now we're left with the massive character continuity shift where Bruce Banner, Hulk and Ross look COMPLETELY different since The Incredible Hulk. Yes, William Hurt died. Yes, Edward Norton was untenable as an actor because he's a notorious interventionist. But there are better ways around these problems.
For one thing, they could have ditched the idea of bringing Red Hulk to screen at all. That would have avoided the Ross problem, and they could have allowed the character to fade away. They also did not need to use Leader (Samuel Sterns) as the main villain-behind-the-curtain, though I love how Nelson plays him. Which means they should have just had an entirely different conflict.
For another thing, I really wish they did not go with the renaming of Falcon. Just call the Falcon "the Falcon" and let go of the Captain America mantle. So what if he's got the shield.
The Captain America movies should have stopped with Steve Rogers. (To be honest, I would have invited another Captain America movie with Chris Evans in the role showing his adventures in returning the Infinity Stones and reconnecting with his crew from the original WW II era movie. I would have loved to see Dum Dum Dugan and the others again. They could have used another legacy villain for him to fight, like Crossbones. It could also explain how Captain America, after he had grown old in another lifetime, somehow did not return to the Time Machine where the Avengers were awaiting him, but on a park bench. But I digress.)
So the movie just makes for lots of complications that stress the suspension of disbelief (worse than the recasting of Rhodes from Iron Man to Iron Man II) and makes it a confusing mess. My mother was so very confused when she saw the movie, because she doesn't track or remember the MCU installments (nor has she seen some of the TV series), because she said she doesn't remember Captain America being black or having wings, and didn't know who Ross was from the other movies.
And before you dismiss that it's because she's old and isn't in the right demographic, I have teenage sons who gave up on MCU and haven't seen Captain America: Brave New World because they are lost too. They missed some of the movies it's based on, and don't care for all the weird changes anyway.
So Disney/Marvel goofed up this installment pretty badly in my opinion. What a shame.
I did not expect much from Wolf Man, given that the werewolf trope has been over-baked almost to the degree of the zombie trope. See last December's Werewolves for a good example.
But I was surprised to find that it offered some new ideas to the sub genre, not the least of which is a transformation that was painfully slow rather than unbelievably fast.
The character of Charlotte (played by Julia Garner, whom I absolutely loved in Ozark) led the movie, and competently played a mom and wife trying to navigate an increasingly perplexing and traumatic situation. My only minor gripe is that her curly hair was distracting me away from her acting.
Blake (played by Christopher Abbot, hot off of Kraven the Hunter) had little to do but start off worried, meet his crisis event, and then slowly morph into a monster, as the trailer gives away.
The weakness of the movie was also its strength: his transformation took a long time. So long, in fact, that by the time the real action began, the movie's ending came up fast. I wish more movies would tear a page from James Cameron and feature a "honey-pot" climax, where you think the third act has finally begun and everything's okay but you've been tricked - because the climax is yet to come. Cameron executed this deftly in The Terminator and Aliens, possibly inspired by Ridley Scott's Alien.
Director Leigh Whannell (known for weaker movies such as Insidious Chapter 3 and his odd remake of The Invisible Man) has improved his storytelling style, but the "honey-pot" climax technique would have given Wolf Man a bigger bite.
But I was surprised to find that it offered some new ideas to the sub genre, not the least of which is a transformation that was painfully slow rather than unbelievably fast.
The character of Charlotte (played by Julia Garner, whom I absolutely loved in Ozark) led the movie, and competently played a mom and wife trying to navigate an increasingly perplexing and traumatic situation. My only minor gripe is that her curly hair was distracting me away from her acting.
Blake (played by Christopher Abbot, hot off of Kraven the Hunter) had little to do but start off worried, meet his crisis event, and then slowly morph into a monster, as the trailer gives away.
The weakness of the movie was also its strength: his transformation took a long time. So long, in fact, that by the time the real action began, the movie's ending came up fast. I wish more movies would tear a page from James Cameron and feature a "honey-pot" climax, where you think the third act has finally begun and everything's okay but you've been tricked - because the climax is yet to come. Cameron executed this deftly in The Terminator and Aliens, possibly inspired by Ridley Scott's Alien.
Director Leigh Whannell (known for weaker movies such as Insidious Chapter 3 and his odd remake of The Invisible Man) has improved his storytelling style, but the "honey-pot" climax technique would have given Wolf Man a bigger bite.
The first act of the film was really interesting. This is mostly what you see in trailers.
But when the second act begins, the enjoyment ends.
It's as if the writers had a great log-line but didn't know how to plot it out intelligibly, and just made it up as they went along, paying homage to Terry Gilliam but lacking the wit.
It's really a shame, because Bong Joon Ho has made some really good movies, my favorites being The Host, Snowpiercer and Parasite.
Sadly, Mickey 17 is a huge toe-stub for him.
Honestly it got to the point where about half way through the movie I just started daydreaming, because there was nothing else to do.
The script had lost its way so badly that it was just throwing useless dialog at badly designed characters who had no continuity of behavior.
The main character, Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), at least had an excuse to be a little different as the movie progressed. But while he tried his best to bring his character(s) to life in different ways (no pun intended), Pattinson should have turned down this awful script, because it did not help his career.
Mickey was not very likable from the start of his story arc, and there wasn't much of an arc; it was more of a straight line that began with a dumb decision and bounced him chaotically through a series of misadventures designed by a set-chewing charismatic nincompoop named Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo in a role that was WAY beneath him).
Sorry Ruffalo, don't play dumb characters ever again. Stick to the intelligent ones.
Marshall was by far the worst figure in the movie, with a cardboard personality who acted like a wind-up clown with dialog that was so pointless that I literally suffered trying to listen to him.
So much of the movie was wasted opportunity. It was a long, long plot that had no idea where it was going, taking caricatures on a joy ride that sent them all over the place without accomplishing any goals I could track, and leaving me without any chance of suspense and nobody to relate to.
The movie was supposed to be a comedy but aside from a chuckle here and there, I found it more frustrating than anything else.
Don't waste your money on this one folks.
But when the second act begins, the enjoyment ends.
It's as if the writers had a great log-line but didn't know how to plot it out intelligibly, and just made it up as they went along, paying homage to Terry Gilliam but lacking the wit.
It's really a shame, because Bong Joon Ho has made some really good movies, my favorites being The Host, Snowpiercer and Parasite.
Sadly, Mickey 17 is a huge toe-stub for him.
Honestly it got to the point where about half way through the movie I just started daydreaming, because there was nothing else to do.
The script had lost its way so badly that it was just throwing useless dialog at badly designed characters who had no continuity of behavior.
The main character, Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), at least had an excuse to be a little different as the movie progressed. But while he tried his best to bring his character(s) to life in different ways (no pun intended), Pattinson should have turned down this awful script, because it did not help his career.
Mickey was not very likable from the start of his story arc, and there wasn't much of an arc; it was more of a straight line that began with a dumb decision and bounced him chaotically through a series of misadventures designed by a set-chewing charismatic nincompoop named Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo in a role that was WAY beneath him).
Sorry Ruffalo, don't play dumb characters ever again. Stick to the intelligent ones.
Marshall was by far the worst figure in the movie, with a cardboard personality who acted like a wind-up clown with dialog that was so pointless that I literally suffered trying to listen to him.
So much of the movie was wasted opportunity. It was a long, long plot that had no idea where it was going, taking caricatures on a joy ride that sent them all over the place without accomplishing any goals I could track, and leaving me without any chance of suspense and nobody to relate to.
The movie was supposed to be a comedy but aside from a chuckle here and there, I found it more frustrating than anything else.
Don't waste your money on this one folks.