356 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

Hmmmm . . . SKY CAPTAIN is better than CAPTAIN AMERICA?

Yep. Better visual design, better score, better action sequences, and it doesn't have the second act/third act problems of CAPTAIN AMERICA. SKY CAPTAIN's characters aren't as strong as CAPTAIN AMERICA's, but characters aren't everything.

But truth be told, SKY CAPTAIN didn't have to set the stage for the AVENGERS film as had CAPTAIN AMERICA, that made SKY CAPTAIN's task a lot easier.

[Harmsway]

But truth be told, SKY CAPTAIN didn't have to set the stage for the AVENGERS film as had CAPTAIN AMERICA, that made SKY CAPTAIN's task a lot easier.

CAPTAIN AMERICA didn't do a whole lot of AVENGERS set-up, aside from a few minutes tacked on at the end. Hardly any great burden.

[marktmurphy]

Y'know, I actually enjoyed CAPTAIN AMERICA. Nothing especially great, but a nice enough excursion into a SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW-ish retro-pulp adventure (though SKY CAPTAIN is the better film, and, for my money, one of the most underrated entertainments of the last decade). CAPTAIN AMERICA largely nails the first act, somewhat loses its way in the second, and closes with a lackluster finale, but it's probably my favorite of the new Marvel universe films, and is the most fun I've had in theaters this year. At least it was more bearable than the dire HARRY POTTER closer.

I think you were right in your prediction for it: I found it a very soulless affair with a complete vacuum for a leading man (not Evans' fault- there was no character there), no charm, no jokes, no interesting action scenes and zero stunts. I was hoping for something along Rocketeer lines (and that's not exactly impossibly high- I think Rocketeer is sort of missing an act somewhere) but it didn't even approach the same levels of charm or heart. Weirdly I think it doesn't even manage to be as patriotic as Rocketeer; which for a film called 'Captain America' is a bit odd!

For me the only Marvel to have succeeded is Iron Man, and I accept that that's not a great, authored film. It does have laughs and the ability to raise tension, however. I didn't bother with Thor. I think I may have had enough of superheroes now.

[Dustin]

But truth be told, SKY CAPTAIN didn't have to set the stage for the AVENGERS film as had CAPTAIN AMERICA, that made SKY CAPTAIN's task a lot easier.

CAPTAIN AMERICA didn't do a whole lot of AVENGERS set-up, aside from a few minutes tacked on at the end. Hardly any great burden.

True, but where CAPTAIN AMERICA had to fit the Marvel mould (and mind of course its own series backstory and some serious expectations from fans and producers) SKY CAPTAIN could happily romp away without further thought for franchises, borrowed whatever it found worthwhile, pulp fiction, Golden Age comics, Crimson Skies and Wild Cards, King Kong and Atlantis, and ultimately succeeded. I'd argue CAPTAIN AMERICA wasn't as free in its decisions and execution, although that doesn't excuse its problems. The only expectations SKY CAPTAIN didn't meet were financial ones. I'd have been surprised if CAPTAIN AMERICA had been as fine a film as SKY CAPTAIN.

Edited by Dustin, 16 August 2011 - 04:21 PM.

[Harmsway]

I think you were right in your prediction for it: I found it a very soulless affair with a complete vacuum for a leading man (not Evans' fault- there was no character there), no charm, no jokes, no interesting action scenes and zero stunts.

Agreed on the action, but I thought CAP. AMERICA had plenty of charm (not so many jokes, apart from some okay dialogue elevated to laugh-inducing status by folks such as Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci), and that Steve Rogers himself was as compelling a hero as we've seen put on film. He's a straight-laced good guy, little else, but that's really the appeal.

And, y'know, I think it might actually be better than THE ROCKETEER.

[Safari Suit]

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Billy Campbell's dull lead leaves a big whole at the centrre of The Rocketeer I've always thought (and despite her famously "appealing" dresses, Connelly's character is both bland and kind of annoying)

[marktmurphy]

I may need to give it another go; everyone keeps saying how full of heart it was and yet I found it completely dry and empty. Only Tucci lifted his role off the paper I think; I thought even Tommy Lee Jones fail to steal in the film in a role that should have done exactly that. And the girl was utterly forgettable in every way. I just don't get the appeal of Rogers; no sense of fun or imperfections at all- he's a dullard. And sadly his outfit is really stupid- when he's going on missions with his mates all dressed in cool leather jackets etc. he looks like an idiot. A shame because I think Evans is usually very good.
Rocketeer's an imperfect film but it's got miles more feel and connection than this soulless affair. Sadly I get the feeling Cowboys will go the same way, but I'll give it a go.

[Miles Miservy]

Now that Hollywood has dropped this mediocre, over-hyped bomb on us, can we safely assume that Harrison Ford is no longer a movie star? I mean, the guy hasn't starred in a really big movie since 1997's Air Force One. Upon pushing 70, this might've been his last big part but unfortunately, even Daniel Craig couldn't carry him.

Although he was involved in two of the biggest film franchises in movie history, I'm afraid that the time has come for Mr. Ford to realize that he's no longer significant. Han Solo/Indiana Jones (the only 2 roles he'll ever be famous for) doesn't seem to offer much of anything else, creatively speaking.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 17 August 2011 - 03:42 PM.

[Germanlady]

Now that Hollywood has dropped this mediocre, over-hyped bomb on us, can we safely assume that Harrison Ford is no longer a movie star? I mean, the guy hasn't starred in a really big movie since 1997's Air Force One. Upon pushing 70, this might've been his last big part but unfortunately, even Daniel Craig couldn't carry him.

Although he was involved in two of the biggest film franchises in movie history, I'm afraid that the time has come for Mr. Ford to realize that he's no longer significant. Han Solo/Indiana Jones (the only 2 roles he'll ever be famous for) doesn't seem to offer much of anything else, creatively speaking.

Just generally speaking - J. Depp and A. Jolie just proved, that even the worlds biggest stars cannot bring a movie to success, that the audience feel is bad or mediocre. Never mind, who is in it - they not gonna see it. Its in a way reassuring, that the Industry needs to concentrate on a good script and not trust the actors to compensate for weaknesses. They don't anymore. The other way around it means, one shouldn't blame the actors ALWAYS, if a film doesn't live up to expectations. Here, I feel the fault lays with J. Favreau, who did overhype this film like it was the second coming. There was no chance in hell, it could life up to what he has promised. With less Boohoo and less expectations, audiences might have been more merciful with it. Lets see, what the rest of the world thinks. Still - I have read everything from the best film of the year to the worst movie ever. LOL

[Safari Suit]

Harrison Ford is a thing of the past, but so, for the most, are A-Listers of the kind he used to be.

[blueman]

Fyi, "The Tourist" grossed $68 mil in the states, but $211 mil foriegn box office. Nearly $300 mil total (that's w/o DVD sales/rentals), a hit is a hit is a hit.

[Germanlady]

Fyi, "The Tourist" grossed $68 mil in the states, but $211 mil foriegn box office. Nearly $300 mil total (that's w/o DVD sales/rentals), a hit is a hit is a hit.

Well, dunno if you saw the Golden Globes - ty as they are - but this thing was considered a bad flop by all means.

[Dustin]

Here, I feel the fault lays with J. Favreau, who did overhype this film like it was the second coming. There was no chance in hell, it could life up to what he has promised. With less Boohoo and less expectations, audiences might have been more merciful with it. Lets see, what the rest of the world thinks. Still - I have read everything from the best film of the year to the worst movie ever. LOL

I don't think that's just Favreau's doing. It's the whole 'The Next Big Thing Is Coming To YOUR Theater' hype that is wrapped around every second film these days. Decades ago a film used to be just that, a film. If it was a good one it may have influenced its genre and directors, or maybe not. Today, there has to be nothing but mega-event films to change the course of history, filmmaking and society (at least), all in one go. I think with that kind of expectations even Jaws and Star Wars would have disappointed audiences in the seventies. It's a shame but I think some of the 'innocence' of seeing a new film today just isn't possible in the same manner it was in former times.

[Safari Suit]

More than that I think a lot of people just couldn't get past the title, and dismissed it in the same way they would Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus or something

[Dustin]

Hm, probably. It is a title that doesn't appeal to everybody and a lot of people who might otherwise have enjoyed an entertaining two hours will probably only see it in a few years on the telly.

[jaguar007]

I mean, the guy hasn't starred in a really big movie since 1997's Air Force One.

Despite all the bad reviews it got, 2008's Indy 4 did gross over $700million, if that is not a big movie, I don't know what is.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Just saw this now that it's finally out here, and I thoroughly enjoyed COWBOYS & ALIENS. I can't relate to any of the criticism I've read of this film. Best film I've seen in some time.

[Mr_Wint]

I mean, the guy hasn't starred in a really big movie since 1997's Air Force One.

Despite all the bad reviews it got, 2008's Indy 4 did gross over $700million, if that is not a big movie, I don't know what is.

... and it didn't get all bad reviews either. Indy 4 got mixed reviews, pretty much the same as the typical Bondmovie or, dare I say, slightly above the average Bondmovie.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I mean, the guy hasn't starred in a really big movie since 1997's Air Force One.

Despite all the bad reviews it got, 2008's Indy 4 did gross over $700million, if that is not a big movie, I don't know what is.

... and it didn't get all bad reviews either. Indy 4 got mixed reviews, pretty much the same as the typical Bondmovie or, dare I say, slightly above the average Bondmovie.

Careful, the internet revisionist brigade will storm in and set the 'facts' straight.

[marktmurphy]

Just back from seeing this; very pleasantly surprised. Much better than I thought it was going to be: full of good sympathetic and engaging characters with rounded and well-thought through story arcs; well acted; decent laughs (although perhaps could take a couple more); very strong and exciting action set pieces... it just all works. It does everything the bland and soulless Captain America fails to, in fact.
It's not the greatest film ever, but does exactly what it promises to. I'd put it on a par with Star Trek: a superior -if not truly memorable- blockbuster movie. It does everything a movie like this should do, which the reviews made me think it wouldn't.

[DR76]

Hmmmm . . . SKY CAPTAIN is better than CAPTAIN AMERICA?

Yep. Better visual design, better score, better action sequences, and it doesn't have the second act/third act problems of CAPTAIN AMERICA. SKY CAPTAIN's characters aren't as strong as CAPTAIN AMERICA's, but characters aren't everything.

Well . . . I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one.

. I'd put it on a par with Star Trek: a superior -if not truly memorable- blockbuster movie. It does everything a movie like this should do, which the reviews made me think it wouldn't.

Whatever flaws it has, I believe that "COWBOYS AND ALIENS" is ten times better than 2009's "STAR TREK". Which was a piece of crap in my opinion.

[Jim]

Maybe it was me but I was expecting it to be a bit jollier; not raucous comedy but a bit more wit (although, saying that, one may then question - how much "more wit" - n much? a dogbowl full?). Seemed to take itself a bit seriously. Better than much of the stuff I've taken the children to see this summer but not totally convinced it was absolutely necessary it existed (again, this is an argument as impermeable as a teabag and isn't a realistic threshhold for a James Bond film site).

[marktmurphy]

Yeah, could have taken a bit more wit in places; both leads are of course more than capable of delivering a laugh, and do just that in a few places here, but a few more would have been welcome. I don't think it took itself too seriously; it was just a fairly gritty and tough western for a family audience.

[Dekard77]

The movie felt flat. There was enough potential for it to be entertaining but left feeling cold instead. Is DC cursed at the b.o ? The film neither had a Predator or Maverick (1994) vibe. Also the greenish photography was out of place with a silly alien disco lights before abductions.The creature ships which grab the slaves reminded me of Wild Wild West (1999). Overall the there was no energy for the movie to be a summer hit. I've enjoyed Thor, Bridesmaids, X Men First Class, Captain America, Transformers Dark of The Moon and Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. The summer was also crowded and seriously if kids had to chose between colourful blue creatures vs a grim cowboy movie they will definitely pick the former. Green Lantern faired worse since the lead was constantly nagging about being a hero we hardly got to see any fantastic fights or explosions.

I hope Tin Tin and TGWTDT will do well or DC might not get anymore high profile jobs for sometime.

[Dustin]

Fair entertainment, but somewhat overhyped? It could have done with the odd wink, but then it wasn't perhaps sure about its own future and didn't want to drift into the wrong direction. At any rate it doesn't deserves some of the less friendly reviews and is indeed fun to watch, just what it should be. I'm not sure there will be a follow-up, though. Not everything has to become a franchise and Cowboys & Aliens belongs into that category IMO.

[David Schofield]

I hope Tin Tin and TGWTDT will do well or DC might not get anymore high profile jobs for sometime.

Personnally, I'm waiting for Craigy to give it a go in a rom-com. A piece of lighthearted fluff, perhaps even slightly sending up his stern, 'serious actor' demeanour.

I know in the past he been quoted as saying he doesn't like Hugh Grant-style movies, but after the choices he made since 2006 (outside Bond) haven't exactly been mega, I'd have thought he might consider a different tack.

[Dekard77]

I also think DC needs a better agent or direction in selecting roles. Outside Bond he has not been able to hold an audience.

[David Schofield]

I also think DC needs a better agent or direction in selecting roles. Outside Bond he has not been able to hold an audience.

I certainly think Craig's been keen to chase the box office and Hollywood A list after CR; attempting to sign on for franchises like THE GOLDEN COMPASS, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, DRAGON TATTOO being strong indicators of such.

Then again, his "indie" project, FLASHBACKS OF A FOOL - the closest film to his pre-Bond ouvre - turned out to be dire.

Whether it's Craig himself who wants desperately to join the Hanks, Cruises and Clooneys, or whether he's just been badly lead by his agent, who knows?

Frankly, I think being the Bond star and becoming box office as a consequence is rather misleading; James Bond is the star, not the actor playing him. This is true of Craig, sadly, as it is of all his predecessors. Being James Bond does not guarantee non-Bond stardom, though I do think Craig has the greater drive, talent and the more favourable circumstances than any of the other five to achieve it.

[Dekard77]

Either way things aren't looking too good for him now. I also blame the ridiculous cost involved in Cowboys…. $160 million is rather bloated for a western. It's not like the aliens were destroying mega city structures or wiping out countries. Poor management and half baked script ruined the movie. I was rather surprised that even Spielberg was unable to salvage project.

[BoogieBond]

I also think DC needs a better agent or direction in selecting roles. Outside Bond he has not been able to hold an audience.

I certainly think Craig's been keen to chase the box office and Hollywood A list after CR; attempting to sign on for franchises like THE GOLDEN COMPASS, COWBOYS AND ALIENS, DRAGON TATTOO being strong indicators of such.

Then again, his "indie" project, FLASHBACKS OF A FOOL - the closest film to his pre-Bond ouvre - turned out to be dire.

Whether it's Craig himself who wants desperately to join the Hanks, Cruises and Clooneys, or whether he's just been badly lead by his agent, who knows?

Frankly, I think being the Bond star and becoming box office as a consequence is rather misleading; James Bond is the star, not the actor playing him. This is true of Craig, sadly, as it is of all his predecessors. Being James Bond does not guarantee non-Bond stardom, though I do think Craig has the greater drive, talent and the more favourable circumstances than any of the other five to achieve it.

Yes, being James Bond raises the actor's profiles to get bigger parts. Craig has received these as you mentioned, and we have Tintin and Dragon Tattoo films to come this year, it may be a case when you are Bond that you make hay while the sun shines. Brosnan and certainly Connery got successful careers, and Craig is going for that same level of success. Being James Bond makes that possible.

Saw Cowboy's over the weekend and it was an entertaining and fun enough movie. Silly in places, but you go with it, and enjoy it for what it is.

Edited by BoogieBond, 05 September 2011 - 09:52 PM.