Poser wrote:It's the female lead in Temple. She's borderline unwatchable. The endless shrieking.
If you ever wanted to hold up an example of a sexist female lead, using the damsel in distress trope, she's the ultimate example.
Incredibly annoying.
I don't actually think that's especially sexist, there's loads of people, both men and women who would be just as useless and whiny when taken outside their comfort zone and I suspect that is the idea with the character in the film not 'women are useless idiots lol'.
Poser wrote:It's the female lead in Temple. She's borderline unwatchable. The endless shrieking.
If you ever wanted to hold up an example of a sexist female lead, using the damsel in distress trope, she's the ultimate example.
Incredibly annoying.
I don't actually think that's especially sexist, there's loads of people, both men and women who would be just as useless and whiny when taken outside their comfort zone and I suspect that is the idea with the character in the film not 'women are useless idiots lol'.
Well whatever their idea or intention was, they completely play up to a damaging stereotype and the way it comes across is "women are useless idiots who only care about breaking their nails and shiny jewellery".
There's a difference between having a character out of their comfort zone and the stereotypical dumb blonde they present. Her opening scene shows her desperately trying to get hold of a diamond instead of helping Indy get the antidote for the posion he's had injected.
It's a shame because Raider's Marion Ravenwood was a great character. It's interesting Lucas and Spielberg were both going through a divorce at the time of Temple of Doom though...
Poser wrote:It's the female lead in Temple. She's borderline unwatchable. The endless shrieking.
If you ever wanted to hold up an example of a sexist female lead, using the damsel in distress trope, she's the ultimate example.
Incredibly annoying.
I don't actually think that's especially sexist, there's loads of people, both men and women who would be just as useless and whiny when taken outside their comfort zone and I suspect that is the idea with the character in the film not 'women are useless idiots lol'.
Well whatever their idea or intention was, they completely play up to a damaging stereotype and the way it comes across is "women are useless idiots who only care about breaking their nails and shiny jewellery".
There's a difference between having a character out of their comfort zone and the stereotypical dumb blonde they present. Her opening scene shows her desperately trying to get hold of a diamond instead of helping Indy get the antidote for the posion he's had injected.
It's a shame because Raider's Marion Ravenwood was a great character. It's interesting Lucas and Spielberg were both going through a divorce at the time of Temple of Doom though...
FWIW, I agree with Tomous, I think it's an incredibly sexist character, whether intentional or not. Ironhide is right, she was taken out of her comfort zone, as emphasised by where she and Indy met, but it's a very 80s take on things.
Holy gooseberry fool balls it is amazing. Not as good as Nolan's Batman trilogy but damn strawberry floating close. Laura is great too. Pacing was really good and so violent and sweary. I thought I gone back to the 80's here.
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Was the pacing reeaally that good?
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film a lot, but pacing would be one of the few issues I did have with it.
I usually give up on films/tv series that have gooseberry fool pacing and at no point I ever thought "get on with it". The whole running time just flew by.
I mean, it's a live-action Disney film so you kind of know what to expect. Production values are through the roof, the soundtrack just leaves you wanting the original (even Josh Gad as Le Fou left me disappointed after the Gaston song in the bar), and there's pointless padding to the plot (did anyone ever watch the original and think "hey, where's Belle's mom in all this?") They even try and explain why the Beast is so grumpy but there's two lines from Mrs Potts and it's never mentioned again (tl;dr - Daddy Issues). Like they knew that actually, no-one cares. It happens with a few of the new plot strands they've added in, like the homeless woman in town actually being the Enchantress or whatever at the end.
I still don't understand why they wrote more original songs when it was a Broadway musical so there's already songs out there. The lack of Human Again was a disappointment, too.
There's something really weird about the mix when Emma Watson sings. It's quite obviously not being sung live but I'm not sure why it's so obvious.
I think the biggest misstep is the casting. I don't buy Emma Watson as Belle. I never look at her and think "yeah, she's a bookish beautiful french girl", I think "oh hey it's Hermione why does she always have that weird smug resting face" I don't understand why they got a Scottish guy to play a French Candlestick, either. He does a decent job of it, but it feels like a strange choice.
Replacing the stained glass window introduction from the original with some goofy prologue was a dreadful idea too. Sometimes less is more.
It's like a 5/10. Better than Maleficent but nowhere near as nice as Cinderella was.
I should have looked up how this reviewed before watching because it was awful.
The story is, for the majority of the film dull, before turning stupid. It's predictable, plods along and never full engages you.
The CGI, which is vital for a for a film like this in this day and age, already looks dated.
Margot Robbie is bright enough and Alexander Skarsgard embraces the role at least. Christoph Waltz is completely underused though and I can't help but feel Samuel L Jackson is wheeled along because they were conscious of it looking too "white man comes to save the savages". Which it did.
Afterwards, you're left with the feeling that Tarzan is probably a hero that cinema needs to put to bed now.
Well they strawberry floated this up didn't they? A fresh premise, two of hollywoods current most bankable stars, decent supporting cast (Michael Sheen is always great isn't he?) and all the CGI they could need. And they came up with a boring, creepy "romantic" story that once again, has Hollywood suggesting you can manipulate people and do strawberry floated up gooseberry fool to them in the name of love. Throw in some daft sci-fi and there's not a lot redemning this.
Last edited by Tomous on Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:Logan 6/10 Good brutal action but the story was a total let down.
How so?
I thought it was a great story with a lovely arc for both Logan and Charles.
I didn't really like the plot with them being so weak and where has this come from? Last time they were all okay and doing fine and sunndenly they are down in the dumpster?
No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:Logan 6/10 Good brutal action but the story was a total let down.
How so?
I thought it was a great story with a lovely arc for both Logan and Charles.
I didn't really like the plot with them being so weak and where has this come from? Last time they were all okay and doing fine and sunndenly they are down in the dumpster?
In between films they were both involved in a very very serious rafting accident that left them both weak and just shadows of their former selves.
No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:Logan 6/10 Good brutal action but the story was a total let down.
How so?
I thought it was a great story with a lovely arc for both Logan and Charles.
I didn't really like the plot with them being so weak and where has this come from? Last time they were all okay and doing fine and sunndenly they are down in the dumpster?
They quite clearly explain that Xavier was suffering mental degeneration and lost control of his powers killing a number of xmen. The government used Caliban to track down and kill the other remaining mutants. As for Logan himself his powers were on the decline since the events of The Wolverine, I thought they explained that fairly well and the opening scenes set this up. He is old, tired and struggling to find meaning in his life aside from helping Xavier.
I felt the best part of the story was his relationship to Xavier and the father son bond. The fact he tried to hide the terrible past from him to spare him from remorse. X-23 comes along and gives him a new purpose.
This element reminded me heavily of The Last of Us. Cynical and tired old man who finds renewed purpose in caring for a daughter figure who is both capable and also in need of support, even once his obligation is complete to her he finds he has developed a bond and actually cares too much to let her go.
Thanks! I guess I wasn't paying any attention to what was being said at the beginning. Would have been good if they had done a flash back scene and shown it happen.