[ZeoRangerV]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

Thanks for reminding me about Retaliation, I think I was one of the two people who liked the first movie and am interested to check out the second.

I must be the other person who enjoyed the first movie then, and I hated the second

There's a lot of great films that have only just come out that I haven't had a chance to see yet (Hobbit, Saving Mr Banks, Frozen...plus a couple of others that probably wouldn't be considered "great") so this is a harder one for me. Never had a chance to see Gravity either.

Iron Man 3 sucked and Thor 2 was okay, so Marvel are out.
I really enjoyed Man of Steel despite its flaws, so I guess that's a contender.
I thought Gatsby was great, despite what people say.
Star Trek was meh.
World's End was alright.

To be honest the only films I can remember seeing and REALLY enjoying we're Kick Ass 2 and Pacific Rim, so I guess the latter wins out.

[ComicGuy89]

The other two films I would place in my top are Star Trek Into Darkness and Pacific Rim, although I can see where people might have problems with the former. I had a lot of fun with them and Pacific Rim in particular was a joy to behold with its originality and world-building.

[Omega Sprinkle]

Pacific Rim, because reasons. *stomps around room smashing things*

[ComicGuy89]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega Sprinkle

Pacific Rim, because reasons. *stomps around room smashing things*

Hello, good to see another kindred spirit in liking Pacific Rim.

[Omega Sprinkle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComicGuy89

Hello, good to see another kindred spirit in liking Pacific Rim.

Well it was designed to be a B-movie with a massive budget, tropes and all. How could I not love that? Add to the mix Ron Perlman and sentai like nature of some of the fights and I was sold, it's flawed, stupid, over the top but that's the point. It's one of the worlds loudest meta statements.

[Dr Kain]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

I don't know why Gangster Squad gets such a bad wrap, a movie that is just about being pure fun shouldn't be hated. Especially as it was a multiplex film, which are all about mindless popcorn entertainment. It was right at home, and did its job beautifully. I thought Star Trek 2 and Thor 2 were much worse than Gangster Squad.

My biggest issues with Gangster Squad was from its final quarter of the movie. We had this out of no where Matrix-style shoot out with bullet time and stuff in the middle of a hotel lobby that felt tacked on. I know they changed the ending because of the theater shooting, which is bull because delaying the movie was good enough, they did not have to change the historical aspect of it, and it showed that it was made up at the last second. Another issue I have with the movie is just how predictable it was. It felt more like Public Enemies 2 than a movie about Cohen.

I've been told that tv mini series that had just aired does Cohen justice compared to Gangster Squad.

Quote:

I also think 2013 was a better year for the independent scene, than the multiplex scene with great movies like The Dirties, Prince Avalanche and Maniac being released which were some of this years highlights for me, moviewise.

Never heard of any of those, but honestly, I don't pay too much attention to the independent movie scene. Nothing against them, but I'm not going to look for movies that never come out in the theaters around me, and a lot of times, they just aren't my type of movies.

Anyway, if I did a top 10 list of 2013's releases, it would probably be:

1. The Hobbit 2
2. The World's End
3. Frozen
4. Star Trek 2
5. Thor 2
6. Catching Fire
7. The Wolf of Wall Street
8. Monster's University
9. Man of Steel
10. Pacific Rim

[Locke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComicGuy89

So yeah, I felt Kristoff's story was a welcome addition that the movie would have suffered a bit without.

I know why they did it, but I don't feel that it made for interesting viewing, he just felt like a waste of space. Perhaps if the movie was longer, and more fleshed out, they could have used him better to explore different kinds of love but as it stands when he wasn't being used for target practice he felt tacked on for me and I don't feel him needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Kain

My biggest issues with Gangster Squad was from its final quarter of the movie. We had this out of no where Matrix-style shoot out with bullet time and stuff in the middle of a hotel lobby that felt tacked on. I know they changed the ending because of the theater shooting, which is bull because delaying the movie was good enough, they did not have to change the historical aspect of it, and it showed that it was made up at the last second. Another issue I have with the movie is just how predictable it was. It felt more like Public Enemies 2 than a movie about Cohen.

There was no bullet time? There was slow motion and I personally found that pretty cool, "Here's Santa Claus!" then all those presents exploding in slow motion.

I don't care about historical accuracy, it isn't a documentary, it's a popcorn flick - I find the criticism about the historical accuracy one of the most hilariously daft criticisms of the film and of films period. Since when was Cohen's tale sacred? It was more like an Untouchables remake, then a remake of the utter shite that was Public Enemies.

My top ten, in descending order, would probably have to be:

10) How I Live Now.
9) The Package.
8) Pacific Rim.
7) Maniac.
6) Spring Breakers.
5) The World's End.
4) Prince Avalanche.
3) The Dirities.
2) Frozen.
1) Gangster Squad.

[ComicGuy89]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

I know why they did it, but I don't feel that it made for interesting viewing, he just felt like a waste of space. Perhaps if the movie was longer, and more fleshed out, they could have used him better to explore different kinds of love but as it stands when he wasn't being used for target practice he felt tacked on for me and I don't feel him needed.

Goodness me, if there's anything I can't stand is animated movies going longer than average. He's not a waste of space if he contributes something, even if it's a little. Of course, whether you think that is enough, I guess, is entirely subjective, but I like my movies short and to the point so it works perfectly for me. Besides that, it keeps the focus on Anna and Elsa.

[Locke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComicGuy89

Goodness me, if there's anything I can't stand is animated movies going longer than average. He's not a waste of space if he contributes something, even if it's a little. Of course, whether you think that is enough, I guess, is entirely subjective, but I like my movies short and to the point so it works perfectly for me. Besides that, it keeps the focus on Anna and Elsa.

To an extent I'd agree, I'd rather the movie shorter and cut him out all together.

[ComicGuy89]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

To an extent I'd agree, I'd rather the movie shorter and cut him out all together.

Yours is the either/or neither/no approach. The movie can have its cake and eat it, why not? Cut Kristoff out and you're left with 3 main characters and 2 funny sidekicks. Really sparse set there, I'd think.

And I've said before, you need Kristoff there to contrast his relationship with Anna with that of Anna's and Elsa's. The movie needs variety, and while Anna and Elsa are strong, it would be a rather empty world with just them.

And by that logic, why not cut out Hans, Olaf and Sven too? Oaken maybe? The Duke?