Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?

[DBT]

Inside Job 9/10

Documentary about the causes of the 2008 financial collapse. One of many. Probably the best. Depressing because since nothing has been done to change the behavior of the banks, it is probably all going to happen again.

Too much money to be made by the pigs with their snouts in the trough, I guess.

 

[Arctish]

Long Way North 8/10

Long Way North is a French/Danish animated film about a 14 year old girl in late 19th century Russia following in her adventurous grandfather's footsteps. The animation is fairly simple but quite lovely, especially when the characters are contending with misty expanses of ice and sea and the barren beauty of the far north. It lacks the depth of a typical Pixar offering but it avoids the familiar tropes of a Disney movie. It's charming without being sugary, and actually somewhat somber without being a downer.

 

[TSwizzle]

Black Sea, 5/10; Stars Jude Law as an underwater salvage expert who has been made redundant. He gets involved in a scheme to retrieve 2 tons of gold from a Nazi U-Boat stuck at the bottom of the Black Sea. He assembles a crew of 12 miscreants half of them Russian and half of them British, and rents an old, barely sea worthy submarine to go fetch the gold. What could possibly go wrong ? Anyway, it's an OK movie and I managed to get through it.


Burke and Hare, 8/10; Stars Simon Pegg, Tom Wilkinson and directed by John Landis. The movie takes a light hearted look at the exploits of two 18th century body snatchers in Edinburgh who turn to murder to meet the demands of the medical profession for fresh bodies for dissection.

 

[credoconsolans]

In what sort of world does he live where this is possible?

They don't get into the science of it. The story uses its outlandish premise to examine human relationships and society, much the same way Jonathan Swift used talking horses, giants, and tiny people to do the same in Gulliver's Travels.

I see I have it On Demand. I watched the trailer, it looks really funny.

The line I liked was "Your preference?"
"Women."
Pause.
"Is bisexuality still an option?"
"No, bisexuality is no longer an option."

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

6 out of 10

Suffering from a cold, and half knocked-out from meds, I watched this one again. It seemed better than my original viewing 35 years ago; maybe because I couldn't lift my head, and watched the whole thing sideways.

I was surprised when I heard this line from Spock:

"Any show of resistance would be futile, Captain."

 

[credoconsolans]

Dr. Strange 6.5/10

Pretty good. Wicked special effects.

But the story is rather thin. The earth is constantly under mystic threat from supernatural entities that can swallow the entire planet and send us all into darkness forever. And the planet is guarded by about a dozen folks in 3 houses. 2 in the West and only 1 in the East and it appears the lower hemisphere is completely unguarded. Sorry all you Aussies and Kiwis. And these dozen folks are easily taken down by 3 bad guys in one afternoon.

I'd say our mystical protectors don't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to protect the planet when they can't even protect a book.

Dr. Strange is a good character. Asshole, super rich, uber talented neurosurgeon with photographic memory, gets taken down several pegs when he loses everything, but you can't kill his ego. He gets through his mystical training on the accelerated path while all the schmucks before him take years and lifetimes to gain what he seems to learn in a few days? Weeks? Months? His arrogance returns even in the face of stuff he doesn't really get.

So, unlikeable character passes the Darkside test, and gets kinda likeable.

Strange, no?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Star Wars Episode VII - Watched it again, with Rifftrax running along. Rifftrax saves this dog. Everything that was wrong the first time watching, remains wrong the next time. This movie lacks everything A New Hope had, I mean magic wise, it ripped off its plot pretty well.

Rating: 1/4 portion!

 

[Underseer]

I just want to take a moment to celebrate Chris Evans for his portrayal of Captain America in the movies.

To talk about this, let's talk about Superman instead. Superman is a goodie two-shoes, and because of that, it is terribly difficult to make Superman interesting. Heck, most of the time, I find him boring as fuck in the comic cooks books, and that's the source material.

Notice how every portrayal of Superman has been horrible since Christopher Reeve? That's not because the actors since then have been horrible. That is just a terribly difficult kind of character to make interesting and compelling. It's not that the actors since Reeve have been that bad, it's that Reeve was that good and everyone else suffers by comparison.

Which brings us to Chris Evans. I don't think most people appreciate how difficult it is to make a character like that compelling and interesting. At some point, we will probably see someone else playing the part of Steve Rogers, and I don't think it's going to stack up at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I just want to take a moment to celebrate Chris Evans for his portrayal of Captain America in the movies.

To talk about this, let's talk about Superman instead. Superman is a goodie two-shoes, and because of that, it is terribly difficult to make Superman interesting. Heck, most of the time, I find him boring as fuck in the comic cooks books, and that's the source material.

Notice how every portrayal of Superman has been horrible since Christopher Reeve? That's not because the actors since then have been horrible. That is just a terribly difficult kind of character to make interesting and compelling. It's not that the actors since Reeve have been that bad, it's that Reeve was that good and everyone else suffers by comparison.

Which brings us to Chris Evans. I don't think most people appreciate how difficult it is to make a character like that compelling and interesting. At some point, we will probably see someone else playing the part of Steve Rogers, and I don't think it's going to stack up at all.

While Evans is great with the character, I think the writing behind the Marvel films is the bigger asset here. Evans played Flame Boy or whatever his name is in The Fantastic Four and that sucked, he wasn't that good and the writing was hacky.

The viable character development and script writing is what holds the Marvel films (most of X-Men and an Ironman or two excluded) above DC films, which just aren't as well done. Of course, having too many indestructible characters steels away most tension and anxiety. And having Ben Affleck doesn't help either. *brood*

 

[Underseer]

Dr. Strange 6.5/10

Pretty good. Wicked special effects.

But the story is rather thin. The earth is constantly under mystic threat from supernatural entities that can swallow the entire planet and send us all into darkness forever. And the planet is guarded by about a dozen folks in 3 houses. 2 in the West and only 1 in the East and it appears the lower hemisphere is completely unguarded. Sorry all you Aussies and Kiwis. And these dozen folks are easily taken down by 3 bad guys in one afternoon.

I'd say our mystical protectors don't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to protect the planet when they can't even protect a book.

Dr. Strange is a good character. Asshole, super rich, uber talented neurosurgeon with photographic memory, gets taken down several pegs when he loses everything, but you can't kill his ego. He gets through his mystical training on the accelerated path while all the schmucks before him take years and lifetimes to gain what he seems to learn in a few days? Weeks? Months? His arrogance returns even in the face of stuff he doesn't really get.

So, unlikeable character passes the Darkside test, and gets kinda likeable.

Strange, no?

I thought the movie did a good job of presenting the source material: he doesn't solve problems through direct combat. He can't. As powerful as he is, his foes are much more powerful. His skills didn't actually progress that much (compared to the experienced magic users) if you pay attention, and the Ancient One acknowledges this.

 

[Ford]

I just want to take a moment to celebrate Chris Evans for his portrayal of Captain America in the movies.

To talk about this, let's talk about Superman instead. Superman is a goodie two-shoes, and because of that, it is terribly difficult to make Superman interesting. Heck, most of the time, I find him boring as fuck in the comic cooks books, and that's the source material.

Notice how every portrayal of Superman has been horrible since Christopher Reeve? That's not because the actors since then have been horrible. That is just a terribly difficult kind of character to make interesting and compelling. It's not that the actors since Reeve have been that bad, it's that Reeve was that good and everyone else suffers by comparison.

Which brings us to Chris Evans. I don't think most people appreciate how difficult it is to make a character like that compelling and interesting. At some point, we will probably see someone else playing the part of Steve Rogers, and I don't think it's going to stack up at all.

While Evans is great with the character, I think the writing behind the Marvel films is the bigger asset here. Evans played Flame Boy or whatever his name is in The Fantastic Four and that sucked, he wasn't that good and the writing was hacky.

The viable character development and script writing is what holds the Marvel films (most of X-Men and an Ironman or two excluded) above DC films, which just aren't as well done. Of course, having too many indestructible characters steels away most tension and anxiety. And having Ben Affleck doesn't help either. *brood*

Reeve's Superman (at least in the first couple movies) was great not just because of the actor, but the movies seemed to understand that Superman's greatest weakness is that he's so pure. He's physically invincible, so the only way to beat him is to trick him like Lex did.

Evan's Cap is not invincible, but his weakness (like Superman) is that he really believes in "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" and conflict arises because he's so rigid in his goodness that he clashes with the flawed world he's awoken to. He's not personally conflicted at all, while DC has been making Superman all sorts of conflicted lately. I like the fact that the Captain America films have stuck with the true nature of the character. While he was physically transformed into a super-soldier, inside he's still the skinny idealistic kid who will jump on a grenade to save his buddies.

 

[credoconsolans]

I just want to take a moment to celebrate Chris Evans for his portrayal of Captain America in the movies.

To talk about this, let's talk about Superman instead. Superman is a goodie two-shoes, and because of that, it is terribly difficult to make Superman interesting. Heck, most of the time, I find him boring as fuck in the comic cooks books, and that's the source material.

Notice how every portrayal of Superman has been horrible since Christopher Reeve? That's not because the actors since then have been horrible. That is just a terribly difficult kind of character to make interesting and compelling. It's not that the actors since Reeve have been that bad, it's that Reeve was that good and everyone else suffers by comparison.

Which brings us to Chris Evans. I don't think most people appreciate how difficult it is to make a character like that compelling and interesting. At some point, we will probably see someone else playing the part of Steve Rogers, and I don't think it's going to stack up at all.

While Evans is great with the character, I think the writing behind the Marvel films is the bigger asset here. Evans played Flame Boy or whatever his name is in The Fantastic Four and that sucked, he wasn't that good and the writing was hacky.

I thought the Fantastic Four movie was very good. It stuck to the comics. The Fantastic Four stories were always about publicity and public image and commercialism. Evans played the Torch perfectly. His Johnny Storm is an egotistical jerk with a heart of gold.

Dr. Strange 6.5/10

Pretty good. Wicked special effects.

But the story is rather thin. The earth is constantly under mystic threat from supernatural entities that can swallow the entire planet and send us all into darkness forever. And the planet is guarded by about a dozen folks in 3 houses. 2 in the West and only 1 in the East and it appears the lower hemisphere is completely unguarded. Sorry all you Aussies and Kiwis. And these dozen folks are easily taken down by 3 bad guys in one afternoon.

I'd say our mystical protectors don't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to protect the planet when they can't even protect a book.

Dr. Strange is a good character. Asshole, super rich, uber talented neurosurgeon with photographic memory, gets taken down several pegs when he loses everything, but you can't kill his ego. He gets through his mystical training on the accelerated path while all the schmucks before him take years and lifetimes to gain what he seems to learn in a few days? Weeks? Months? His arrogance returns even in the face of stuff he doesn't really get.

So, unlikeable character passes the Darkside test, and gets kinda likeable.

Strange, no?

I thought the movie did a good job of presenting the source material: he doesn't solve problems through direct combat. He can't. As powerful as he is, his foes are much more powerful. His skills didn't actually progress that much (compared to the experienced magic users) if you pay attention, and the Ancient One acknowledges this.

How long was he in training? He was able to control time, and fight with the disks. That's pretty advanced for a beginner who apparently was not even trained in combat before going to Nepal.

 

[KeepTalking]

While Evans is great with the character, I think the writing behind the Marvel films is the bigger asset here. Evans played Flame Boy or whatever his name is in The Fantastic Four and that sucked, he wasn't that good and the writing was hacky.

I thought the Fantastic Four movie was very good. It stuck to the comics. The Fantastic Four stories were always about publicity and public image and commercialism. Evans played the Torch perfectly. His Johnny Storm is an egotistical jerk with a heart of gold.

It has been a while since I have seen the movie, but I agree. That version of the Fantastic Four was pretty good, definitely the best FF film to date. I would probably give it a 6.5-7 out of 10. The sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer, was a bit of a let down, but still better than that piece of crap movie they put out a year or two ago to hang on to the franchise.

 

[TSwizzle]

We Need To Talk About Kevin, 5/10; Stars Tilda Swinton as the mother of a teenage boy who has committed a mass murder at his high school. The story involves a series of flash backs as she recalls her sons difficult upbringing. I found this style made the movie incoherent to watch.

David Brent: Life on the Road, 8/10; Ricky Gerveis as David Brent who is going out on the road touring with a band he has put together. Brent is the lead singer and manager of his reluctant band mates who are playing gigs locally and for free. The Brent character is almost always cringe worthy and even more so when singing his material such as "Native American; flies like an eagle, sits like a pelican". Worth a watch but nothing really new if you are familiar with the Brent character.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I thought the Fantastic Four movie was very good. It stuck to the comics. The Fantastic Four stories were always about publicity and public image and commercialism. Evans played the Torch perfectly. His Johnny Storm is an egotistical jerk with a heart of gold.

It has been a while since I have seen the movie, but I agree. That version of the Fantastic Four was pretty good, definitely the best FF film to date. I would probably give it a 6.5-7 out of 10. The sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer, was a bit of a let down, but still better than that piece of crap movie they put out a year or two ago to hang on to the franchise.

I think that comic book movies are the best when they're not embarrassed about their source material. The FF is stupid, campy bullshit and it always has been. The movie made itself stupid, campy bullshit and it worked well as a result. They took the point too far in the second one and overdid the stupidness, so it didn't work. Then, in the latest one, they tried the dark, gritty realism angle on these characters and they didn't work in that context ... I assume. Honestly, I only ever watched it on Netflix when I had a bit of insomnia and I fell asleep twenty minutes into it and didn't feel that I'd missed anything by not seeing the rest of the movie, so I never went back to it.

The first one is good, stupid fun, though.

 

[KeepTalking]

John Wick 2, 7/10

This is an action packed movie from beginning to end, but what else would you expect? In all the ways that matter for this franchise, it is better than the original. If you are looking for a cerebral action movie, however, this is not it, and it fares worse in the believability department than the previous movie. The chase scenes and fight choreography are top notch, and flow seamlessly from one action scene to another. The cinematography and direction are also extremely good. So, where is the problem? The problem for me is with the backdrop against which the movie is set. John Wick does not inhabit the same world that we do, though one would be hard pressed to tell the difference visually. This movie exists in an alternate reality where organized crime is at the level of an international intelligence organization. A reality where hitmen are literally everywhere, and operate within a structure similar to MI6 in a James Bond movie. Melding the genres of organized crime and spy thrillers is a cool trick, that works well for the action oriented viewer, but is bewildering for someone like who wants to make some sense out of what they are watching.

There was one other thing that bothered me:

Show

John Wick gets gut shot about 2/3rds of the way into the movie, but it barely slows him down for one scene, and that's about it. The wound is never treated, but it stops bleeding anyway, and he just has to put his hand over it every once in a while to show you that he even realizes that he has been shot. In the context of the movie, he is in that state for at least a day, if not longer. Seriously, this was harder for me to believe than the world they built for the movie, which took considerable suspension of disbelief.

So, if you don't mind disengaging your brain for a couple of hours, score this movie a couple points higher, and you will have a great time. You don't need to watch the first movie to understand what is going on, they fill you in very quickly, and most of the world building you will need to be clued into occurs in this sequel. Also, there will definitely be a John Wick 3, which should have more insane action than first two, but this is the one that people will likely remember as the best of the franchise.

 

[Underseer]

While Evans is great with the character, I think the writing behind the Marvel films is the bigger asset here. Evans played Flame Boy or whatever his name is in The Fantastic Four and that sucked, he wasn't that good and the writing was hacky.

I thought the Fantastic Four movie was very good. It stuck to the comics. The Fantastic Four stories were always about publicity and public image and commercialism. Evans played the Torch perfectly. His Johnny Storm is an egotistical jerk with a heart of gold.

Dr. Strange 6.5/10

Pretty good. Wicked special effects.

But the story is rather thin. The earth is constantly under mystic threat from supernatural entities that can swallow the entire planet and send us all into darkness forever. And the planet is guarded by about a dozen folks in 3 houses. 2 in the West and only 1 in the East and it appears the lower hemisphere is completely unguarded. Sorry all you Aussies and Kiwis. And these dozen folks are easily taken down by 3 bad guys in one afternoon.

I'd say our mystical protectors don't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to protect the planet when they can't even protect a book.

Dr. Strange is a good character. Asshole, super rich, uber talented neurosurgeon with photographic memory, gets taken down several pegs when he loses everything, but you can't kill his ego. He gets through his mystical training on the accelerated path while all the schmucks before him take years and lifetimes to gain what he seems to learn in a few days? Weeks? Months? His arrogance returns even in the face of stuff he doesn't really get.

So, unlikeable character passes the Darkside test, and gets kinda likeable.

Strange, no?

I thought the movie did a good job of presenting the source material: he doesn't solve problems through direct combat. He can't. As powerful as he is, his foes are much more powerful. His skills didn't actually progress that much (compared to the experienced magic users) if you pay attention, and the Ancient One acknowledges this.

How long was he in training? He was able to control time, and fight with the disks. That's pretty advanced for a beginner who apparently was not even trained in combat before going to Nepal.

He barely held his own, got his ass kicked, and only managed to save the day because he had an Infinity Gem and the Cloak of Levitation.

 

[credoconsolans]

I just want to take a moment to celebrate Chris Evans for his portrayal of Captain America in the movies.

To talk about this, let's talk about Superman instead. Superman is a goodie two-shoes, and because of that, it is terribly difficult to make Superman interesting. Heck, most of the time, I find him boring as fuck in the comic cooks books, and that's the source material.

Notice how every portrayal of Superman has been horrible since Christopher Reeve? That's not because the actors since then have been horrible. That is just a terribly difficult kind of character to make interesting and compelling. It's not that the actors since Reeve have been that bad, it's that Reeve was that good and everyone else suffers by comparison.

Which brings us to Chris Evans. I don't think most people appreciate how difficult it is to make a character like that compelling and interesting. At some point, we will probably see someone else playing the part of Steve Rogers, and I don't think it's going to stack up at all.

While Evans is great with the character, I think the writing behind the Marvel films is the bigger asset here. Evans played Flame Boy or whatever his name is in The Fantastic Four and that sucked, he wasn't that good and the writing was hacky.

The viable character development and script writing is what holds the Marvel films (most of X-Men and an Ironman or two excluded) above DC films, which just aren't as well done. Of course, having too many indestructible characters steels away most tension and anxiety. And having Ben Affleck doesn't help either. *brood*

Dr. Strange 6.5/10

Pretty good. Wicked special effects.

But the story is rather thin. The earth is constantly under mystic threat from supernatural entities that can swallow the entire planet and send us all into darkness forever. And the planet is guarded by about a dozen folks in 3 houses. 2 in the West and only 1 in the East and it appears the lower hemisphere is completely unguarded. Sorry all you Aussies and Kiwis. And these dozen folks are easily taken down by 3 bad guys in one afternoon.

I'd say our mystical protectors don't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to protect the planet when they can't even protect a book.

Dr. Strange is a good character. Asshole, super rich, uber talented neurosurgeon with photographic memory, gets taken down several pegs when he loses everything, but you can't kill his ego. He gets through his mystical training on the accelerated path while all the schmucks before him take years and lifetimes to gain what he seems to learn in a few days? Weeks? Months? His arrogance returns even in the face of stuff he doesn't really get.

So, unlikeable character passes the Darkside test, and gets kinda likeable.

Strange, no?

I thought the movie did a good job of presenting the source material: he doesn't solve problems through direct combat. He can't. As powerful as he is, his foes are much more powerful. His skills didn't actually progress that much (compared to the experienced magic users) if you pay attention, and the Ancient One acknowledges this.

I thought the Fantastic Four movie was very good. It stuck to the comics. The Fantastic Four stories were always about publicity and public image and commercialism. Evans played the Torch perfectly. His Johnny Storm is an egotistical jerk with a heart of gold.

Dr. Strange 6.5/10

Pretty good. Wicked special effects.

But the story is rather thin. The earth is constantly under mystic threat from supernatural entities that can swallow the entire planet and send us all into darkness forever. And the planet is guarded by about a dozen folks in 3 houses. 2 in the West and only 1 in the East and it appears the lower hemisphere is completely unguarded. Sorry all you Aussies and Kiwis. And these dozen folks are easily taken down by 3 bad guys in one afternoon.

I'd say our mystical protectors don't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to protect the planet when they can't even protect a book.

Dr. Strange is a good character. Asshole, super rich, uber talented neurosurgeon with photographic memory, gets taken down several pegs when he loses everything, but you can't kill his ego. He gets through his mystical training on the accelerated path while all the schmucks before him take years and lifetimes to gain what he seems to learn in a few days? Weeks? Months? His arrogance returns even in the face of stuff he doesn't really get.

So, unlikeable character passes the Darkside test, and gets kinda likeable.

Strange, no?

I thought the movie did a good job of presenting the source material: he doesn't solve problems through direct combat. He can't. As powerful as he is, his foes are much more powerful. His skills didn't actually progress that much (compared to the experienced magic users) if you pay attention, and the Ancient One acknowledges this.

How long was he in training? He was able to control time, and fight with the disks. That's pretty advanced for a beginner who apparently was not even trained in combat before going to Nepal.

He barely held his own, got his ass kicked, and only managed to save the day because he had an Infinity Gem and the Cloak of Levitation.

He shouldn't have even been able to do that. He had no fight training. He can't even use his hands. He should have beaten and killed.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought the Fantastic Four movie was very good. It stuck to the comics. The Fantastic Four stories were always about publicity and public image and commercialism. Evans played the Torch perfectly. His Johnny Storm is an egotistical jerk with a heart of gold.

Dr. Strange 6.5/10

Pretty good. Wicked special effects.

But the story is rather thin. The earth is constantly under mystic threat from supernatural entities that can swallow the entire planet and send us all into darkness forever. And the planet is guarded by about a dozen folks in 3 houses. 2 in the West and only 1 in the East and it appears the lower hemisphere is completely unguarded. Sorry all you Aussies and Kiwis. And these dozen folks are easily taken down by 3 bad guys in one afternoon.

I'd say our mystical protectors don't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to protect the planet when they can't even protect a book.

Dr. Strange is a good character. Asshole, super rich, uber talented neurosurgeon with photographic memory, gets taken down several pegs when he loses everything, but you can't kill his ego. He gets through his mystical training on the accelerated path while all the schmucks before him take years and lifetimes to gain what he seems to learn in a few days? Weeks? Months? His arrogance returns even in the face of stuff he doesn't really get.

So, unlikeable character passes the Darkside test, and gets kinda likeable.

Strange, no?

I thought the movie did a good job of presenting the source material: he doesn't solve problems through direct combat. He can't. As powerful as he is, his foes are much more powerful. His skills didn't actually progress that much (compared to the experienced magic users) if you pay attention, and the Ancient One acknowledges this.

How long was he in training? He was able to control time, and fight with the disks. That's pretty advanced for a beginner who apparently was not even trained in combat before going to Nepal.

He barely held his own, got his ass kicked, and only managed to save the day because he had an Infinity Gem and the Cloak of Levitation.

He shouldn't have even been able to do that. He can't even punch with his hands. He should have been killed immediately.

 

[Underseer]

I just want to take a moment to celebrate Chris Evans for his portrayal of Captain America in the movies.

To talk about this, let's talk about Superman instead. Superman is a goodie two-shoes, and because of that, it is terribly difficult to make Superman interesting. Heck, most of the time, I find him boring as fuck in the comic cooks books, and that's the source material.

Notice how every portrayal of Superman has been horrible since Christopher Reeve? That's not because the actors since then have been horrible. That is just a terribly difficult kind of character to make interesting and compelling. It's not that the actors since Reeve have been that bad, it's that Reeve was that good and everyone else suffers by comparison.

Which brings us to Chris Evans. I don't think most people appreciate how difficult it is to make a character like that compelling and interesting. At some point, we will probably see someone else playing the part of Steve Rogers, and I don't think it's going to stack up at all.

While Evans is great with the character, I think the writing behind the Marvel films is the bigger asset here. Evans played Flame Boy or whatever his name is in The Fantastic Four and that sucked, he wasn't that good and the writing was hacky.

The viable character development and script writing is what holds the Marvel films (most of X-Men and an Ironman or two excluded) above DC films, which just aren't as well done. Of course, having too many indestructible characters steels away most tension and anxiety. And having Ben Affleck doesn't help either. *brood*

That's certainly possible. I'm not in the business, so how do I know what can be attributed to the actor versus the writing or directing. I just know that it would be in WB's financial best interest to get Superman right, and they've failed miserably ever since Reeve. Maybe Marvel could replace Chris Evans without a hitch, but I'm hoping I don't have to find out.

 

[bigfield]

I just want to take a moment to celebrate Chris Evans for his portrayal of Captain America in the movies.

To talk about this, let's talk about Superman instead. Superman is a goodie two-shoes, and because of that, it is terribly difficult to make Superman interesting. Heck, most of the time, I find him boring as fuck in the comic cooks books, and that's the source material.

Notice how every portrayal of Superman has been horrible since Christopher Reeve? That's not because the actors since then have been horrible. That is just a terribly difficult kind of character to make interesting and compelling. It's not that the actors since Reeve have been that bad, it's that Reeve was that good and everyone else suffers by comparison.

Which brings us to Chris Evans. I don't think most people appreciate how difficult it is to make a character like that compelling and interesting. At some point, we will probably see someone else playing the part of Steve Rogers, and I don't think it's going to stack up at all.

Captain America is also interesting because he is an irrepressible idealist surrounded by cynics; an anti-antihero.

DC could probably do the same for Superman but first they need to build a Justice League of cynics for him to lead. Wonder Woman could be written as a "war never changes" cynic based on what I know of her bio, and Batman is already a vigilante.