I liked Deadpool a lot. Refreshingly different!

Thought Guardians was decent also

Deadpool was dreadful! The worst film I've seen for a very long time!

Guardians is probably the best Marvel movie I've seen but I did enjoy Winter's Soldier. Civil War look amazing, you're basically only missing Hulk and Thor.

Sweets - you have not seen London Has Fallen, see that before you pass comment on worst films you've seen.

I thought Deadpool was ok, nothing special. Had some funny moments, but the reviews people are giving it are well over the top.

I'm in the Deadpool was okay camp but then I think the first movies are always a bit... meh... as they have to build the back story. That's probably why Guardians of the Galaxy was great, there was next to nothing about Starlord's background, just the bit at the beginning with his mum.

Plus with Deadpool it didn't run it order, it jumped from present to past quite a bit and whilst I can see why they did it (one of the reasons to prevent a slow start like so many have) I'm not a fan when movies/TV programs do that. Basically I just want want want. There is certainly the need for more male shirtless scenes, not enough flesh on show IMO.

I dunno, I thought the topless scenes in the strip club were ok.

Deadpool was dreadful! The worst film I've seen for a very long time!

What didn't you like about it?

Plus with Deadpool it didn't run it order, it jumped from present to past quite a bit and whilst I can see why they did it (one of the reasons to prevent a slow start like so many have) I'm not a fan when movies/TV programs do that.

I thought it was a smart choice personally.

The worst thing about origin movies is the wait for the hero to put on the suit. A lot of origins are quite boring... Ant Man as a recent example was so dull there was almost no motivation to him being Ant Man so I didn't care how he got there.

Deadpool not being in chronological order meant that there wasn't a lull waiting for the story to get going.

I thought it was a smart choice personally.

The worst thing about origin movies is the wait for the hero to put on the suit. A lot of origins are quite boring... Ant Man as a recent example was so dull there was almost no motivation to him being Ant Man so I didn't care how he got there.

Deadpool not being in chronological order meant that there wasn't a lull waiting for the story to get going.

 

Deadpool is the perfect character to do that with because the whole thing is told from his perspective. Allowing him to jump about with the narration just fits.

 

I actually wasn't as blown away with it as some though. Good not great. At least it managed to be a cohesive bit of filmmaking though which Batman v Superman isn't. I think Zack Snyder is a flawed storyteller who puts images (which often already exist in graphic novel form)on screen well but struggles with basic ideas like pacing and tone and that's what let's this film down. Individual characters, sequences and shots work well in isolation but the whole is a bit of a mess. I get the sense that Snyder doesn't understand what makes hero stories work either.

 

Iron Man told a story well, and then hinted at a larger thing coming. This film is spending too much time trying to set other things up that it forgets it has to be it's own cohesive narrative first. It's a weird combination of having too much going on, yet also feeling a bit boring because you're not giving these seeds time to grow. 

Deadpool not being in chronological order meant that there wasn't a lull waiting for the story to get going.

Yep, that's what I said.

Iron Man told a story well, and then hinted at a larger thing coming. This film is spending too much time trying to set other things up that it forgets it has to be it's own cohesive narrative first. It's a weird combination of having too much going on, yet also feeling a bit boring because you're not giving these seeds time to grow.

Marvel have falls foul of it a few times. Iron Man 2, Captain America the First Avenger being the worst offenders. I didn't like either film because they were just fluffers for Avengers.

I'll agree that BvS did cram a lot of lore and foundation building of the DC Cinematic Universe into one film but I thought that the action sequences were really well done and entertaining.

I can't wait for the directors cut, 30 extra minutes that will hopefully make it a more complete movie.

Do you really think an additional 30 mins that the director thought were best cut out of the film will make this pile of turd any better?

Edited March 31, 201610 yr by Zola

Well I don't think it was a pile of turd, just the narrative was a bit disjointed which can indeed be fixed by 30 mins extra, as the 40 second clip WB released with Lex has already given a clearer indication of Lex's descent into craziness and his last line in the movie

 

Don't think it was thought best to cut out, I heard WB forced him to shorten it and get a lower age rating so the directors cut is Rated R.

 

30 mins is a third of a normal full length movie, it can add a lot.

 

So I'm hopeful yes, keen to give it a try at least.

Edited March 31, 201610 yr by Stim

What didn't you like about it?

It tried too hard to be funny and different, the constant breaking of the fourth wall got tiresome and the first half of the film was a mess, even more so than BvS. It improved in the second half but overall I just don't think it's my cup of tea. Give me Avengers or Bvs any day.

Marvel have falls foul of it a few times. Iron Man 2, Captain America the First Avenger being the worst offenders. I didn't like either film because they were just fluffers for Avengers.

I'll agree that BvS did cram a lot of lore and foundation building of the DC Cinematic Universe into one film but I thought that the action sequences were really well done and entertaining.

 

Iron Man 2 (and 3) I definitely agree is a flawed film but I love the Captain America films. He should be the closest in tone to Superman too but Snyder doesn't seem to get the basic concept of heroism which is why his Superman suffers. The one thing about all Marvel films, with the exception of the second Thor film, is that they tell self-contained stories well with the world-building stuff not affecting that.

 

Even Deadpool which jumps around a bit manages to tell a very simple revenge/love story very well. I agree that the humour was a bit 'try hard' at times but it had characters you cared about, relationships you genuinely believed in and very well done action.

 

BvS has decent action sequences but they're either copies of panels from well-known sources or it simply borrows the Arkham City games aesthetic. Snyder does action well but it tends to feel like a videogame. Ultimately, I came away from the film not thinking I'd seen a DC film but that I'd seen Snyder's very unique vision of DC characters (particularly Superman) and I don't particularly like his interpretation.

 

Maybe the extra 30 minutes helps with the pacing of the film and I can't wait to see Affleck play Batman more (maybe not this Batman though) but this Superman character is one I'm happy to never see again.

http://static.nieuws.vtm.be/cultuur-media/184181-ook-batman-leeft-mee-met-belgie

I'm in the Deadpool was okay camp but then I think the first movies are always a bit... meh... as they have to build the back story. That's probably why Guardians of the Galaxy was great, there was next to nothing about Starlord's background, just the bit at the beginning with his mum.

 

I thought the story in Guardians of the Galaxy was a bit too cookie cutter stuff after the first half an hour. I really liked the characters and the setting, but I wish the storyline would've been a bit more original, rather than this action romp. It was a decent movie and I was fairly entertained, but I think they missed an opportunity to "knock it out out of the park", so to speak. It's still probably my favourite Marvel movie, though.

 

Don't think it was thought best to cut out, I heard WB forced him to shorten it and get a lower age rating so the directors cut is Rated R.

 

I've heard the same thing. It's not all that rare for the production company or the producers to demand a shorter cut or make it clean enough to get a lower rating. One reason they usually demand a shorter cut for theatrical release is so that they can have more screenings during the opening weekend. It's all about the opening weekend box office sales and something like a 30-40 minutes longer movie will mean fewer screenings during the weekend. The Lord of the Rings movies were a good example of this. The first one was the only one where the theatrical release was a good movie. The second was barely a movie and the third one really needed the extended cut as well.

More than average, the actual fight between the 2 you could miss if you went to the loo!

People saying how good Afleck is as batman, I didn't think so!