Yes, as I said I know I'm in the minority. Little did I know that disliking this movie means that I need all my heroes to be anti-heroes and that I am unable to grasp the complexities of a period piece. I am so ashamed. Clearly I need to take a Captain American sensitivity course.
Hmm, I wouldn't say the character has to be dark and gritty, but I certainly prefer when the character (and setting) have some depth to them and feel like they weren't ripped directly from the pages of a 40's comic book. You can have depth without being an anti-hero. This movie was way too "gee-whiz!" and more importantly just not entertaining. I realize I'm in the minority on this, I was quite surprised by how much I hated it after having heard generally positive reviews. Nothing resonated with me or felt real to me, didn't care about the characters or the plot. In fact I'm worried Captain America will ruin The Avengers for me.
But wasn't Captain America terrible? God I hated that movie. Another reason characters are reinterpreted is because the original interpretation was for a different era; I like my characters complex and somewhat realistic. Captain America super cheesy.
Hmm, no - I think it gets praise because lot of people found it to be a decent, entertaining, fairly well acted movie. I watched it with my wife who couldn't care less about X-Men or superheroes in general and she quite enjoyed it.
It says it's a teaser for the superbowl ad. Which begs the question, they have teasers for ads now?? Anyway, if that's accurate I suppose the actual ad will be longer.
So... how can Uncanny X-Men be at issue 11? I'm pretty sure when I was buying them in the '80s they were in the 300's. I assume they have more than one series with the same name? Or they restarted the numbering sequence? Weird.
After seeing Daniel Radcliffe host SNL this weekend my opinion of his acting has changed for the better. Much to my surprise, I thought he did a great job. And he does a very solid American accent! He should give Sam Worthington some lessons.
Some constructive criticism: It would be great if the photo galleries could be improved. I click on the gallery, click through the photos, that works fine. Then you hit Back and you go to the previous photo, instead of out of the gallery. Ok, not great, but fine. But if you hit back to the beginning it doesn't take me back to the page. It gets stuck on the first photo. I have go back to the io9.com url to get back here. I'm using Chrome if that matters.
Seconded. I enjoyed the first 4 or 5, struggled through the next couple, and gave up somewhere around book 8 or 9. After reading the wikipedia synopses for the books I "missed" I picked up Sanderson's last and it was actually readable, and stuff actually happened. Looking forward to the conclusion.
Isn't the sequel to The Passage by Justin Cronin supposed to come out in 2012?
And now you've spoiled it for those who were wise enough to skip the entry for a series they haven't finished yet....
Huh. Clearly in the minority here, interesting how people's expectations shape their enjoyment. I thought the first season was so-so, wondered what all the hype was about. But am really enjoying this season, in fact I'm finding myself looking forward to this show more than any other each week. If they were running from zombies every episode it would get dull really fast - finding more and more convoluted ways to get our heroes into trouble all the time, when in reality the best thing they could do to stay safe is what they're doing: go somewhere with low population and lay low.
This was the Stephen King book that (finally) stopped me from automatically buying and reading everything he wrote. Such an investment of time for such little payoff.
I didn't intend to pile on, and I didn't. I didn't give you a hard time for the way you feel. There's probably lots of stuff that I feel that would invite comment if I shared it here. So I don't.
Not to pile on, but you have to admit that it's a bit of a bombshell to drop, "this kind of stuff just turns my stomach..." You must realize this is a very unusual reaction / aversion, and that it would invite comment. Comparing it to a dislike of raisins is disingenuous - it's very common to dislike raisins, it's very uncommon to have depictions of sex turn your stomach.
Hmm, no, not really... I'd say the level of raunch is about the same, book to show.
I saw Blade Runner many years ago but had forgotten most of it, so recently bought a copy when the local Blockbuster was going under. I was expecting awesome, and was disappointed. It was okay, but the pacing is pretty brutal. I can totally understand why it didn't do well during its theatrical run.
I've seen most of the big SF movies from the late 70's on... no glaring omissions that I can think of.
I've seen most of the big SF movies from the late 70's on... no glaring omissions that I can think of.
I agree. Just saw it last night and expected it to be awful based on what I'd read here. I think it speaks to how high the bar has been raised for superhero movies in the past 10 years - if this had come out in 1998 we would have been blown away. Also it probably helps that I know nothing about Green Lantern so wasn't pre-occupied with fanboy issues.
I know these are just set photos but I don't find Anne Hathaway's Catwoman very sexy looking at all... hopefully something proper lighting and angles can fix.
This show had a standard bland network feel to it. Except for the CG which was pretty crappy for a major network show. I'll give it another episode or two, but my hopes aren't very high. Too much cheese!
