currently on at the 'pictures':

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

THOR looks lame in my view in the shots I've seen thus far, Lew; however I hope I am pleasantly surprized by it. I'll add my two bob's worth on here, for what that's worth....

[Digifiend]

It's getting mixed reviews. I buy two Sunday papers, one of them praised it, the other criticised it. Who needs critics' opinions anyway? People should judge for themselves.

[philcom55]

Just seen Thor and I have to say I was really impressed (especially as I didn't expect to like it at all!). Usually these comic-book adaptations leave me cold but in this case - unlikely as it seems - Kenneth Brannagh has got the mix of action, humour and spectacle just about perfect. Also, while I'm not one of those people who automatically dismiss Stan Lee as an untalented self-publicist (and I certainly don't begrudge his cameo appearance in each new Marvel production) I do think that this film comes closer to Jack Kirby's individual vision than anything else that has yet made it onto the big screen: what's more I'm pretty sure he'd have enjoyed every minute of it. The Destroyer in particular is totally Kirby...and totally terrifying!!!

The Captain America preview looked promising too. I'm almost beginning to think they might actually pull off the inevitable Avengers blockbuster! (and there's a nice bit of continuity with the Iron Man films). I wonder if we can expect to see the debut of Ant-Man and the Wasp before long?

- Phil Rushton

[Lew Stringer]

I saw Thor on Monday morning. Really enjoyed it. Thank Asgard they went with Anthony Hopkins as Odin and didn't use Brian Blessed as was rumoured. Blessed would have been completely wrong for this film, even as Volstagg.

The Captain America preview looked promising too.

Yes, I was impressed at how Chris Evans looks exactly like Steve Rogers from the 1940s comics!

I'm almost beginning to think they might actually pull of the inevitable Avengers blockbuster! (and there's a nice bit of continuity with the Iron Man films).

Even more if you saw the scene after the credits. A nice tie-in with Captain America and next year's Avengers movie.

I wonder if we can expect to see the debut of Ant-Man and the Wasp before long?

- Phil Rushton

An Ant-Man movie is in development Phil. I understand it'll have "humourous elements" (which is a wise way to win over the public with a film about a man who talks to ants) and it won't be part of this current Avengers movie continuity. Don't expect to see it until 2014.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

THOR didn't do a lot for me, guys, but I'm glad you enjoyed it. To be fair, the approach the film-makers took was a good bit different to the usual MARVEL recreations.

The live-action counterparts of comic-book heroes always look feeble and Earthbound compared to the comic-strip versions, which are infinitely more dynamic and impressive than any mere actor can convey [even after the usual CGI embellishments.]

It took a long time for THOR to take to the skies with his flying hammer, but it was nicely done when it finally arrived. The Robot Destroyer was very true to the Kirby style as Phil testifies to. Natilie Porterman was her usual babesome self [she seems to have been in about 4 films I have seen this month].

Lew: I missed the after-credits teaser, as the projector abruptly stopped just after 'THE END' for some reason, and the auditorium just plunged into silence.....first time I ever saw this happen! I accept your comment that it was well worth waiting on.




[3/5].

[Digifiend]

Sounds like the projectionist screwed up. Complain.

[Lew Stringer]

Lew: I missed the after-credits teaser, as the projector abruptly stopped just after 'THE END' for some reason, and the auditorium just plunged into silence.....first time I ever saw this happen! I accept your comment that it was well worth waiting on.

I'm sure you'll either catch it on DVD or on YouTube at some stage. It may even be replayed in The Avengers movie, just as the post-credit scene from Iron Man 2 turned up in Thor.

[colcool007]

Well, while I have been away, I've watched a few movies and most of them will soon be coming to a DVD near you by now. Some have been interesting and worth the time, some have been mindless entertainment.

Drive Angry Another Nicholas Cage vehicle, but not really worth the cost of a cinema ticket. Definitely mindless entertainment.

Battle: Los Angeles The Saving Private Ryan of the SF genre. Crackingly good fun to watch but very cheesy start and finish. Worth getting out on DVD.

Suckerpunch Starts off with the premise of a girl that shoots her little sister in an attempt to stop her father from abusing her and then it gets weird! I thought that this was going to be all style and very little substance, but was genuinely surprised to find out that the style hides a hell of a lot of substance. Be prepared to get brain in gear for this one.

Rio Two blue macaws are brought together in order to prevent the species from becoming extinct. This is a kids movie, but the script has been written for the adults to enjoy, without having too many awkward questions being posed by the kids. Worth watching on DVD for a family night in.

Pirates Of The Carribean: On Stranger Tides Buckle your swash and have your tot of grog ready for another wander through this chuckle-laden version of Piracy on the High Seas. Ian McShane shines as Blackbeard and Johnny Depp continues to show that he can act. Defintely one for an easy night in.

Thor I so wanted this to be a great movie, but it is merely a good one. Worth watching on the big screen? Hmm, not too sure on that one. But it looks like too much effort in the script is aimed at prepping up for The Avengers movie next year. The fight scenes are quite decent, but not really worth the price of a VIP seat at your local cinema.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Thank you for your noteworthy additions, Col: you clearly enjoy a trip to the flicks as much as I do...




Today:



KUNG FU PANDA 2:


Beautiful production design, and strikingly-designed characters, topped with spectacular set-pieces. This film is highly amusing and definately not boring, however.....



-----the endless straining for grotesque effect is tiring over 90 minutes or so, like an extended 1960S Tom and Jerry animation by Chuck Jones, which saw the cat and mouse reduced to a series of non-stop gestures rather than involved storytelling: that's what this film is like. Some good use of hand-drawn Panda Animation in bits, also some cool fake 'shadow-puppets ' of the Chinese cut-out variety. The characters look brilliant, but are too repellent overall for the average viewer to actually care anything about them, with the exception of the shots of the Panda as a cub in a couple of brief flashback-sequences.


I knew a guy who worked on PANDA 1 and I looked out for his name on the credits, but after about 800 names whizzed past, I gave up.


[3/5] Visually, this film is well worth seeing,----which accounts for a lot in my book------ but really the story is a confusing, forgettable mess.

[presterjohn]

I used to be a big cinema goer back in my youth and even up to ten years ago I was still going most weeks for at least one showing. Since I have been with the Mrs though and even more so since the children were born I have gone less and less. These days I only go to see the big movies that really benefit from a huge screen and great sound.

One thing I have noticed of late though is how 3D has not turned out to be such a great experience as it should be. Avatar did it well but almost every film I have seen since has seemed to drop the ball. Those infrequent wow shots are not worth the darkness of the screen in my view.

I went to see Green Lantern this week and genuinely did not notice any stand out 3D shots (apart from the credits. Why do they always do the credits well?). It basically cost me an extra £2.15 to see less brightness on the screen. All a bit pointless really. As for the film itself it was much better than the disaster the reviews had promised but it was not as good as X-Men: first class which is probably the best X film made so far.

[colcool007]

Thank you for your noteworthy additions, Col: you clearly enjoy a trip to the flicks as much as I do....

Rab, I have enjoyed the pictures for many a year. Going to the Regal in my hometown, and when that closed, the ABC and Odeon in Dundee. But these days, it has to be a good movie to make it worth going to. I find that it gets to be an expensive business to go on a weekly basis especially if it's a family film that is new out. TRON was the last one when we went as a family and that was the best part of £50 with seats, popcorn and fizzy. After all, you can't go to a movie and not get popcorn!

I am already booked to see HP 7.2 as my daughter has seen all and she wants to see the denouement of Voldemort and Harry living happily ever after. But I do like the Vue cinemas and their Kids AM club where you can see a movie for 99 pence. Great idea and affordable for most, but I have to give up my lie-ins to see them!

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I remember paying a hefty 5p every Saturday morn for the Odeon matinee, Col!

Cinema prices rocketed about 20-fold by the end of the 70s, and that was me apparantly finished with the cinema: but come the late 80s, my love-affair with TV was almost over, and the lure of the big screen returned for me, seemingly permanently.

Since 2001 I've been a 3-or-4-times a week man.


I go to the cinema a lot as well.......

[Jonny Whizz]

I went to see Senna this evening. I thought it was brilliant - the classic footage came together really well and the story was far more interesting and emotional than anything that could have been made up.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Senna was very good, Jonny: and I've absolutely no interest in motor racing. I never even knew what the film was about before I went in, but a good documentary, well worth seeing, and a sad end .



Today I saw GREEN LANTERN which is much more our cup of meat. I know the name of the US comic character only, and expected a low-key affair. However 'Green' as those in the know dub him, is an almost God-like, extremely powerful superbeing of seemingly unlimited powers. A bit too much , indeed, as the events depicted are extremely far removed from the likes of Batman and even more fanciful than Superman [live-action films versions, not the comics].

The hyper-fantastic events were too over-the-top for my tastes, and I'm a big fantasy fan. Fun, amusing and very expensively-mounted however.


Maybe if you are familiar with Green Lantern in the first place, you will get more out of it than I did.




[3/5].

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

CAPTAIN AMERICA:


This is another USA comics-character I certainly recognize, but know next-to-nothing about.........I'm familiar only with the Kirby [?] covers of wartime Axis leaders getting clobbered.

All the events are based in 1942, which makes a nice change from the usually contemporary-set Superhero flicks. A Nazi defector of the evil scientist variety has got hold of almighty power of the type depicted in endless Marvel comics, and decides it's too good to be wasted on his masters.

The origins of Captain America himself make up the bulk of the early scenes, with good representations of 1940s 'World Fair' amongst other retro-artefacts serving up much visual interest.

Deliberate use of Hollywood Razamatazz [ cute chorus gals onstage perking up the proceedings admidst an 'Unca Sam' motif] reeks of unabashed showmanship, even if the scenes of half-Nazi/half-Fantasy creations leave something of a nasty taste in the mouth.


The typically finely-chizeled, all-American , square-jawed hero sums up this genre perfectly, and there's a dazzlingly sassy English Rose who makes up the central female love interest: she's a looker and a stunner [and possesses a mean left hook, to boot].


Much use of Captain's one-off titanium-like shield, and overall groovy retro-setpieces single out this one as a winner.


Much better than the listless THOR, or the soupily confusing Green Lantern, of the same era.


The best superhero flick of the year in my assessment.





I'll be going back for a repeat viewing, you bet yo' boots!!!



MUST SEE! 5/5