Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Massawyrm Refuses To Blow STARDUST!!

Good Review by mwhyntie	Jun 26th, 2007 06:53:47 AM
Makes a hell of a lot of sense. I completely get where you are coming from.
why? we don't NEED to know why by Fatkraken	Jun 26th, 2007 06:55:49 AM
I think I kind of miss yor point about why there are certain things in this film. why do the ogres in time bandits live in a ship that's actually the hat of an enormous giant? WHY are there fire sprites in the bog of eternal stench that like taking their heads off in Labyrinth? because it moves the plot along and looks cool. This kind of fantasy movie is about spectacle and wonder, not sitting down and painsakingly mappin out the sociopolitical ramifications of the goblin kingdom (Hey, where do the goblins get their FOOD if they live in a labyrinth! there's no farmland, that's SO unrealistic! and why is the goblin king human when goblins are muppets!?). That's a whole other kind of fantasy.
Rick Springfield at a country fair! by Spandau Belly	Jun 26th, 2007 07:10:20 AM
Gotta love them washups!
Damn you Michael Bay by MCMLXXVI	Jun 26th, 2007 07:11:36 AM
Damn you Michael Bay
Ratner was awesome on Entourage... by tonagan	Jun 26th, 2007 07:15:46 AM
Actually, his performance was a little stiff and self-conscious.
"I'm sorry the wonderful I left a film in the hands of by PacmanFever	Jun 26th, 2007 07:20:30 AM
an inferior being. Now here's a piece of shit I made"
Neil Gaiman by CBWolf	Jun 26th, 2007 07:22:28 AM
Gaiman's books in general I think are pretty poorly suited to being adapted. They live on the page. That said, I think Stardust was the best choice for a movie, and that many of the problems Massawyrm had were ones he would have had with the book. The world beyond the wall is something of a clusterfuck of high fantasy, but then that is the point. Perhaps it feels more clever on the page then the screen, but that is the reality of the world beyond the wall (although I think the sky pirates are an invention of the script writer).
Hope You Are Wrong by Roboteer	Jun 26th, 2007 07:22:56 AM
And given you like nothing translated from comic/illustrated book/graphic novel to screen, I don't think I have any worries.
Thanks for the review Massa by Boondock Devil	Jun 26th, 2007 07:24:38 AM
Personally I'm glad to see that not everybody is on board for this movie. Seeing too much love for any film before it's released usually leads to disappointment. I do have to side with Fatkraken about not needing to know "why" for a fantasy setting to make sense or reason.
Still blaming Ratner for X3 I see. by Shermdawg	Jun 26th, 2007 07:26:05 AM
Guys, why is it so hard to understand the blame should be placed on Rothman, Berry, and the script?
Matthew Vaughn sucks. by Mosquito March	Jun 26th, 2007 07:26:35 AM
Layer Cake was an overrated piece of shit.
I agree by kwisatzhaderach	Jun 26th, 2007 07:29:53 AM
Vaughn couldn't direct traffic.
Ratner needs to be thrown out of a flying pirate ship! by Knugen	Jun 26th, 2007 07:33:03 AM
And struck by lightning before his flabby ass hits the ground. Entourage just proved that he is everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Completely corrupt and with no talent other than stealing money.
I don't like fantasy. Will I like this film? by Franklin T Marmoset	Jun 26th, 2007 07:35:27 AM
I'm just wondering, because Massawyrm's review seemed to be coming from the point of view of a fantasy fan, and I'm not one of those. Mind you, I don't really like Ricky Gervais anymore, and I think he's in this, smugging up the place and whatnot. P.S. Motley Crue never had any glory days. P.P.S. The entity known only as MCMLXXVI is back!!!! We are with you, MCMLXXVI. We await the unfurling of your master plan. I expect to see you, possibly in the gaseous form you have taken on since becoming a bodiless cloud of anti-Bay energy, hovering over the Transformers premiere. Don't let us down!
Mass, I never agree with you, but I love your reviews. by beastie	Jun 26th, 2007 07:37:49 AM
I hope the trend continues with this review, because I love the book and have been looking foward to the movie. Despite not agreeing, though, you do write a good, well thought-out, and thoroughly funny review.
Massa's Reviews by EddieBlake	Jun 26th, 2007 07:39:24 AM
Okay...I have a theory about your "reviews." They sound very much to me like you write them for the sole purpose of going against the popular opinion and to cause controversy to make your reviews have a higher talkback post count than the other ones on the same subject. Some classic examples would be both Ant Bully and Happy Feet. Does that make you a rebel? I think you're way off in this review.
Also, the authorities need to be notified by Franklin T Marmoset	Jun 26th, 2007 07:39:42 AM
Someone should be looking into the replacement of Robert De Niro, sometime around the late nineties, with this cyborg or demon or whathaveyou that is wandering around looking like Robert De Niro and tarnishing his reputation by appearing in shit film after shit film. Surely, there is some kind of law against this. While they're at it, I would be grateful if they could do something about the Nicolas Cage doppleganger who keeps doing all those crappy action films.
Shermdawg... by rev_skarekroe	Jun 26th, 2007 07:44:07 AM
...I'm with you. Ratner did exactly what he was hired to do - make X-Men 3 look like X-Men 1 and 2. In this, he succeeded. The script failed in lots of ways, but that's the fault of the writers.
I loved the script by Darth Fart	Jun 26th, 2007 07:46:31 AM
and I never questioned why -- because I believed in the world.
For me, this is a good sign by 13th Librarian	Jun 26th, 2007 07:51:54 AM
As Massawyrm's past reviews have been so full of crap that his reasonings here for not liking this movie should mean it'll be good..
massawyrm are you seriously calling narnia a well by lilgorgor	Jun 26th, 2007 08:01:32 AM
constructed fantasy world? because if so you are fucking insane. cs lewis was obviously making that shit up as he went along. motherfucking santa claus? give me a break.
Franklin T Marmoset by TheNorthlander	Jun 26th, 2007 08:17:11 AM
I think that Nicolas Cage doppelganger is actually Charlie Kaufman's brother.
Why the hell by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 08:17:39 AM
do people keep hating on X3? It was a hell of a lot more engaging than the first X-Men, more faithful to the comics than the first X-Men, had better SFX than the first X-Men, and didn't put me to sleep after the first 30 minutes like the first X-Men. It also had the balls to actually kill off beloved characters (who we all know will return, anyway!). Sure it wasn't perfect, but this deceased horse has been flogged over and over again, and I still haven't yet seen one coherent argument why X3 was a terrible movie...or why it was all Ratner's fault.
Stardust sounds like the Gaiman equivalent of by TheNorthlander	Jun 26th, 2007 08:18:45 AM
the Hitchhiker's Guide movie. Still, Gaiman rocks, so this I will definetly see. It can't be worse than Eragon.
Damn you MCMLXXVI by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 08:19:42 AM
I bet you already have your tickets for next week.
Figures ....it's massawyrm by PhantomSpazzz	Jun 26th, 2007 08:22:46 AM
Harry, get rid of this guys reviews. He blows. The poor man's Kevin Smith if you will....or rather, Kevin Smith on a budget.
There's plenty of blame to go around. by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 08:33:42 AM
The script sucked, the studio's direction sucked, but there were plenty of shitty, shitty moments in the film that were all in the hands of the director.
I enjoyed X3 by silver screen surfer	Jun 26th, 2007 08:36:26 AM
It wasn't as good as the first two, but not nearly as bad as some make it out to be either.
why? why?? WHY??? by Holodigm	Jun 26th, 2007 08:37:57 AM
i hated princess bride because there was no sense to it. why were the ROUS's there? sure they were funny, but what purpose did they serve to further the plot? i hate that frodo got stabbed in fellowship, because there was no point to it. he gets stabbed, healed, and they continue on their way without ever mentioning it again. why? why did they even bother having frodo stabbed? clusterfucks like princess bride and lord of the rings should never have been made!
In the book and Princess Bride by filmcoyote	Jun 26th, 2007 08:44:12 AM
Massa everything you complain about sounds like it's right from the book. Besides how can you complain about an ending out of no where and things not explained and then praise Princess Bride which has the whole 'mostly dead' thing to get them out of a corner. Now, before you all wail on me I'm not knocking PB, I love that film, every moment of it, I just don't get how Massawyrm can criticise this for having a world you just have to go with and accept for what it is and then love Princess Bride which is the same type of thing! For me I prefer this type of fantasy world you just go with to the LotR real-world parallels. It is called fantasy after all, why do they all have to be overexplained Massa? That said Vaughn sounds like an arrogant tosser. Sure Ratner's a hack, but to say he's superior to Ratner when he's not proved as such - just a fairly cookie-cutter British gangster flick to his name, solid though it was - seems the height of arrogance to me. I'll watch Stardust, i'm intrigued and it has the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer, which is enough for me, but i bet you Vaughn is one of those real assholes like his mate Guy Ritchie.
Holodigm by Shermdawg	Jun 26th, 2007 08:49:26 AM
I'm no LOTR expert, but didn't Frodo tell Sam in Return of the King that the stab wound never fully healed and that's why he had to take the cruise?
still the worst reviewer on the website by Nightwood	Jun 26th, 2007 08:52:17 AM
...compelled to constantly 'take a stand' against nothing and pat himself on the back the whole way. No, douche, you do not need to know 'why' minor details exist in fantasy worlds.
Hitchhiker's Guide was good and so is this by pipergates	Jun 26th, 2007 09:00:21 AM
Hitchhiker's Guide wasn't perfect but it was pretty damn cool. Not near as cool as the books but that would have been difficult. Motley Crew always stank badly. I believe in the previous reviews of Stardust more than this griping guy, though he probably has some points about the sarcastic usage of fantasy lore. Thats something that comes up in comics, when the writers try to be clever and refer to classic literature it does not always work. Often ends up being contrived and pretentious. Allan Moore is pretty good at it, Gaiman more or less, others mostly fall very flat. Sure hope he is very wrong about the setting of the fantasy realm, but that is one point others rave about. My theory is this Massawyrm smokes some kind of really bad weed before seeing his films.ta den du Northlander.
point taken, sherm, but i was sarcastic anyway by Holodigm	Jun 26th, 2007 09:05:49 AM
just using a different method to criticize the review
Plenty of by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 09:06:28 AM
"shitty, shitty moments" in X3? Name them. I'll be happy to counter you with a list of the kickass moments in X3.
It isn't a fantsy movie...it's a fairy tale... by Bones	Jun 26th, 2007 09:08:57 AM
There is a big difference. Fairy tales can have complete lapses in logic, so long as they maintain their personal metaphores. This is why the Narnia books are set in a Fairy Tale world, not a true Fantasy setting...and that is okay, because most people like Fairy Tales. I am taking my wife to see this move--and if it is romantic, has good eye candy, plays with fairy tale conventions AT ALL...then I will be happy--because it means I am getting laid that night. Sometimes we just need a Fairy Tale date movie.
so Vaughn is maybe doing Thor next... by pipergates	Jun 26th, 2007 09:13:58 AM
sure wish he had done Xmen, those studio pricks are so dumb dumb dumb. I wonder if there is anything possibly interesting to be done with Thor, like Superman he is just boring. Maybe he could do that Thor Vikings Max-story with undead vikings, garth ennis i believe, that was cool. or ultimate thor.
Don't hate on Massa by Robots In Das Guys	Jun 26th, 2007 09:16:31 AM
He's reviews are funny as hell, and besides, and I don't think he "hates" every movie he reviews, but rather he gets movies that for some reason just don't do it for him, personally. Now, he hated FF: ROTSS, but he loved Crazy Love, right? was that him?
American Gods by Sulis	Jun 26th, 2007 09:17:42 AM
Could be the follow-up to Pan's Labyrinth. Magnificent book. But Stardust... I'm guessing Massa's right. There's nothing in the trailer that gives me any hope for it.
seagrass-- by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 09:25:09 AM
I'm sorry, but kickass+shitty does not equal kickass. And those "shitty, shitty moments" I referred to were totally aside from the completely bollocksed script and story.
Seagrass...here you go... by Bones	Jun 26th, 2007 09:27:36 AM
Shitty moments in X-Men 3: Killing off Cyclops--which they have never done in the comics Jean Grey standing around behind Magneto all movie, when she is the most powerful mutant on Earth If Jean Grey IS the most powerful mutant, she should have taken the reigns from Magneto and become the main villain, only to be redeemed in the end by Scott...who should not have been killed off Angel serving no purpose to the story at all, except to be in his own tangent storyline The complete abuse of geography. I mean they are on the East Coast, West Coast, Midwest...which would make sense if they still had a teleporter in the cast Actually killing off Professor X--another thing that they only ever did in the comics as a stunt...only to bring him right back Having Rogue choose to be human, rather than accept her gifts Not giving a sense of closure to the Kitty Pride story--I mean, how cool would it have been to see her despondent over Iceman, only to notice Colossus walking in the hall? Rushing the production to meet a release date, rather than having the time to work out kinks in the story, holes in the plot, inconsistencies in the acting, bad directing choices and such Not time for re-shoots to cover their mistakes Choosing to create a bastardized plot from the Legacy Virus, rather than being smart and adapting "Days of Future Past" which would have been the logical third chapter in the Bryan Singer trilogy about humans fighting mutants. I mean, if Heroes could do a story that kicked ass about a similar subject...in one hour of television...why couldn't X-men? They should have worked with Singer on the schedule--and gotten a really good movie out of it. The fans were desperate for a great movie, and if they had waited another year to release it right, the fans would have still showed up and it would be an even bigger hit.
bones...NEVER killed cyclops? by Holodigm	Jun 26th, 2007 09:34:15 AM
you must not read x-men
Holodigm... by Bones	Jun 26th, 2007 09:39:55 AM
Oh did they kill im off recently, in order to make it like the movie? Sad.
Or do you refer to their time in the outback? by Bones	Jun 26th, 2007 09:42:14 AM
When they "died" and stepped throught the Siege Perilous? I haven't read the main comic in a coule years, only Astonishing X-Men...and I am behind on that one...
BUT, back to Stardust... by Bones	Jun 26th, 2007 09:55:49 AM
It does sound like Massa was disappointed because it wasn't the type of story he was expecting. I had the same problem when I saw Serenity the first time...it was good, but it wasn't what I wanted it to be. You know what improved the movie? A second viewing...so maybe this is a movie that improves on multiple viewings. It doesn't work all the time, though. I still pretty much hate Peter Jackson's KING KONG and stick with the 1933 version.
A collection of why's by Massawyrm 1	Jun 26th, 2007 10:30:09 AM
Some of you are taking that a bit far in your defense of a film you have not seen. To crib a bit from history, let me say this: A collection of fantasy set pieces are no more a fantasy world than a pile of stones are a house. That's the problem here. Nothing feels like it belongs.
Hey Massawyrm, a quick question... by Bones	Jun 26th, 2007 10:40:47 AM
And I am not being snarky. Have you read the book? Because it might be a good adaptation of the book, but if you just don't like the story then there is nothing that can be done. I enjoyed the book and am looking forward to the movie.
I think you're being very narrow... by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 10:51:56 AM
...in your criteria of what makes a good fantasy movie. Creating a cohesive fantasy world is a great thing for a film to do that I enjoy a lot. But that's not the entire point of fantasy.
Bones by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 10:56:32 AM
Only a few of those points are worthwhile. So Jean stood around...so what? As Phoenix, she just wanted to be free from any sort of control, which Magneto pretty much did most of the time they were together. Only when she was threatened did she do something...and vaporizing all those soldiers and mutants and the surrounding environment was a pretty strong display of her power. Killing off Cyclops and the Prof AND Jean was brilliant...and they can always be brought back from the dead, just like in the comics, so that's not even a valid issue, sorry. For me, the Kitty Pryde element was added to give weight to Rogue's plight of not being able to touch those she loves...Kitty was never going to be romantically involved with Bobby (don't you know flirting when you see it?); however, she was able to get close to Bobby in a way that Rogue never could, which influenced Rogue's decision to take the treatment...which, if you watched the end of the movie, was not permanent like everyone thought it was. Rogue's power was treated like a curse for all 3 movies, so I don't want to hear any crap about her not "embracing" her power. In which of the 3 movies did she do anything truly worthy of her powers, anyway? She was abused by Magneto, helped to put out a few fires, and almost crashed the Blackbird. Singer didn't even really know what to do with Rogue, and she was wasted in all 3 films. The rushed production schedule did hurt the movie, but in no way is Ratner to blame for this. I think he did a fine job under all that pressure. If you have to blame someone, blame the studio, and then blame Singer for jumping ship, resulting in his directing a film which has even more flaws than X3. Singer did a great job on X2, and that's IT. The first X-Men had more problems (onscreen) than X3 did!
Singer is by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 11:13:13 AM
overrated. He's got some issues with hubris that need resolving, post-haste.
Seagrass by Robots In Das Guys	Jun 26th, 2007 11:13:14 AM
How was "Killing off Cyclops and the Prof AND Jean" brilliant? Can you elaborate?
It is obvious... by Flaggg	Jun 26th, 2007 11:13:55 AM
... Massawyrn doesn't understand the fantasy genre. It isn't all about world building -- only people who adore Tolkien, Lewis, Jordan, and Erikson more than their own mother think they know what fantasy is. It is much more than just setting. It is character. It is plot. It is every facet that IS NOT world building. It is quite apparent from that review which type of person Massawyrm is: He wants a built world above all else. But you know what? Some of the best fantasy stories out there have almost 0 world building. Why do they work? Characters. Does Gaiman do characters well? You bet he does. So spend some time on what makes the story important and relevant: The Characters. Otherwise you just another troll bitching about some minor aspect that isn't truly important to the STORY.
seagrass-- by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 11:18:16 AM
Jean: Jean just standing around is a big deal. They make a big deal of how she's a creature of passion, anger, hate, whatever. And then... she stands around like a zombie. Yeah, real cool. Cyclops: I don't like Cyclops, but killing him off in the first few minutes of the movie was stupid, and it was clearly only done to focus the movie back on Wolverine. Scott's off-screen death had no drama to it, very little emotional impact, and removed a complicating element that would've made the Phoenix story much more emotional. I'm all for killing him--but imagine if they'd done it at the end, and that moment was when Logan finally realized he needed to kill Jean? Would've had vastly more impact. Rogue: I agree that I don't mind her choice to lose her powers, but you inadvertently touch on one of the biggest problems with the movie: With their cute little Magneto ending, they totally undermined the entire point of the film. The entire mutant-cure plot is a big "just kidding!", they may as well have shown Rogue waking up and finding out it was all a dream. Blaming the studio: The studio didn't fuck up Ratner's pacing, the studio didn't fuck up Ratner's editing, the studio didn't force him to put in some of the most awful "Cut to character saying "May God help us all."" shots I've ever seen. The movie was a disjointed mess, rife with over-the-top melodrama in the editing, score, and supporting cast, all of which we can lay at the feet of Ratner. Again, no one can say the studio didn't fuck that movie up, and no one can say the script didn't have horrendous plot holes, problems of focus, and awful dialog, but just because other people fucked up doesn't excuse Ratner.
It was brilliant because by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 11:22:28 AM
1. It was faithful in spirit to the comic. 2. It was pretty damn brave, because how often do superhero movies show the heroes perishing? Cyclops' death advanced the plot by demonstrating that Jean's powers were not under her control, and they were ruled by her emotions. The Prof's psychic blocks were proven necessary. She lost control and killed Cyclops and the Professor...but again, the end of the movie showed that things weren't as they seemed. I like Singer as much as the next guy, but I don't get the Ratner-bashing that runs rampant here. Come on, Tyler Mane as freakin' Sabretooth? Sabretooth, who has this long, complicated history with Wolverine, and who was ABANDONED in X2 without any mention of what happened to him. Don't even get me started on the whole Senator Kelly "mutation" death. Give me a break.
so the protagonist is like Anakin Skywalker... by Reynard Muldrake	Jun 26th, 2007 11:23:20 AM
...in the Phantom Menace? Things happen to him, people talk about him, and he accidentally saves the day by accidentally pushing buttons and doesn't use any real skill at all? "What does this button do?" Yeah, no thanks.
The mutant-cure plot resolution by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 11:30:52 AM
was not a "just kidding." There were no long-term studies and tests done with the cure before it was actually, tested, so how the hell would anyone know if the effects were permanent or not? We now know that all the mutants who were "cured" will gain their powers back (maybe not in full, and maybe they will mutate further). Honestly, we don't even know this...perhaps another movie will explore this further. And complaining about the script...come on. The 1st X-Men had quite a few laughable lines, most coming from Toad or Storm or Sabretooth. "You still owe me a scream"?? The infamous Toad/lightning thing?? The whole Wolverine-Mystique fight? What the fuck EVER. Singer got just as much wrong as Ratner supposedly did, and only redeemed hiimself with X2...and then made a beautiful, cerebral BORING fim based around one of the most non-cerebral heroes in comic history.
Also by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 11:41:55 AM
perhaps Magneto didn't get a large enough dose of the cure, even with all those syringes Beast jammed into him...he's a pretty damn powerful mutant, and the cure, while coming from Leech, was not Leech's power. I do wish Angel had been used more, and again, I don't think X3 was anywhere near perfect...but it was a lot more entertaining than the first film, and it retained the spirit of the comic books. Ratner was a hired gun, and did a fine job with what he had. Remember Kubrick and Spartacus? A similar situation, except that Ratner hasn't "disowned" X3.
I AM THE LEGMAN and . . . by GreatWhite	Jun 26th, 2007 11:45:58 AM
Messawyrm is wrong. Just plain wrong. I can't believe anyone could be so negative about such a fun movie. Sure, he and I have some of the same issues regarding the effectiveness of the hero (see my review, at least for a little while longer, on the main page), but overall the movie was immensely -- IMMENSELY -- enjoyable. Did it go into great detail about the mythology of the world? No. But that's because it was a streamlined adventure, not a great big epic. Not every film has to be LOTR -- although honestly I wish they'd try for LOTR a little more, instead of all these kiddie flicks, Narnia, Golden Compass, etc. Stardust is definitely not a kiddie flick -- wolves ripping people apart, brothers gleefully killing each other, people actually (gasp) having sex. A lot of damned fun. Just go see it and ignore Massawyrm.
The problem with fanboys by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 12:04:20 PM
is that they exist.
All that and... by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 12:39:17 PM
...your only argument is that "maybe the cure'll work on other people"? Come on. they undermined the entire root of the story. They made almost everything that happened fairly pointless--and not in a cool Maltese-Falcon kinda way.
Seeing as everyone else seems to love this thing.... by Angry Mean Panda	Jun 26th, 2007 12:54:21 PM
and you're easily the single worst reviewer on this site, I now can't wait to see it. I realize you meet the single criteria for working here (being Harry's friend), but you ahve the weirdest, most fucked up opinions about movies I've ever seen someone who claims to be a movie fan have. You're not as bad as Scott Holleran over on Box Office Mojo or anything, but you're still pretty fucking terrible. You have these weird notions about how to tell a narrative that just don't, in any way, have any basis in anything.
While I think Massa's opinions.. by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 01:01:12 PM
...often come totally out of left field and seem to have little or no basis in reality, I think it does a disservice to him to even mention him in the same breath as Scott Holleran. Now that's a guy who shouldn't be talking about movies.
scott holleran by Holodigm	Jun 26th, 2007 01:11:03 PM
is the the box office mojo reviewer? if so, what a bastard. he knows jack shit about the movies he's reviewing, and despite my 'why' criticism massa is in a league far far above the BMO douche.
I Am Massawyrm by Robots In Das Guys	Jun 26th, 2007 01:11:20 PM

I'm not saying he's wrong... by Lucasblows	Jun 26th, 2007 01:18:27 PM
...but this is the only negative review I've read. Unless I missed one somewhere.
Holodigm-- by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 01:30:19 PM
That's the guy.
that was his experience by HEADGEEK	Jun 26th, 2007 01:38:14 PM
But I really do feel that he has never been further offbase on any film in history. I've never read the Gaiman book, but I had NO PROBLEM understanding the world on the otherside of the wall. It was an industrialized fantasy land - not unlike those that Miyazaki has constructed in his 2D wonders. I just feel incredibly sad for Massa, he really missed the joy and wonder of the film... and that's sad.
Zb.brox by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 01:56:09 PM
That wasn't my argument at all..where did you get that from? All we saw was Magneto wiggle a chess piece...THAT'S IT. It was just a wink at the audience, not a complete disregard for the events that had just taken place...maybe Magneto will get his powers back, maybe he'll only be able to flip a quarter with his mind. Personally, I'd love to see a sequel where the "cure" actually ends up mutating the mutants further somehow...that would be a nice way to work in Rogue's flight powers...and give Magneto even more of a reason to hate humanity. Also, you still haven't come up with any arguments as to why the first X-Men was better than the third. More examples of crappy X1 dialogue: "How do I know you're the real Wolverine?" "You're a dick." What do they call you? "Wheels" Yep, that's Dickens-level literature right there.
I Would Wager... by TheRealMoriarty	Jun 26th, 2007 02:20:31 PM
... the biggest problem is that this doesn't fit into Massa's fairly narrow definition of fantasy. Keep in mind, guys, he's a massive D&D nerd, so he needs orcs and blood and warfare and that sort of fantasy world. I think he doesn't really get the "fairy tale" end of the spectrum, which is where STARDUST is firmly rooted. Oh, well. I think the people who are up for the ride will have a great time, and it sounds like far more people dig it than don't.
seagrass-- by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 02:30:27 PM
My point is that your argument is based on "maybes", not what we see in the film. Is it possible that was any number of other things than a giant step back from the premise they'd established? Sure. But within the context of the film, what does it do? Provide a convenient way out so they can bring back Magneto and anyone else they choose. It totally undermines the drama of the film. And both of those lines in X1 were frickin' hilarious, so I'm not entirely sure what your problem with them is. X3 could've used some better one-liners, because the lines that seemed like they were supposed to be badass and funny fell totally flat.
you know what... by FrenchBastard03	Jun 26th, 2007 02:47:13 PM
...id trust a moriarty review over a massawyrm review any day of the week..
worst reviewer ever.... by Fre3Cajunlove	Jun 26th, 2007 03:08:03 PM
is David T Lindsay of Stomp and Stammer magazine in Atlanta. Here is his review for 28 Weeks Later: ""Vastly superior in every way to the earlier 28 Days forerunner, in that within the first ten minutes it's established a more intelligent premise than any Romero zombie flick by showing that medical and scientific research has contained the rage virus. With its initial victims subsided, portions of London are being re-inhabited as the US military patrols the area. The message here is clear from that final shot of Paris being overrun: stay out of the way and permit the US soldiers to do their job or risk the infection of Islamic-stink.""
Well, zb.brox, in that case by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 03:31:11 PM
then the entire fabric of comic book reality as we know it is just a load of bullshit without any drama whatsoever. Why? Because even when a writer kills off a character, another writer can always bring that character back. The comic book industry rarely gets taken to task for doing this, so why are you being so harsh on X3, which does the EXACT SAME THING as the comics?
Stomp and Stammer by seagrass	Jun 26th, 2007 03:32:16 PM
just sucks in general. I live in Atlanta, too, and that has got to be the worst indie-rag I've ever tossed in a recycle bin.
Here's how to test Massawyrm's judgment on fantasy: by FluffyUnbound	Jun 26th, 2007 03:34:36 PM
Massa - Baron Munchausen. Good or bad? That's a movie with no real appeal to logic in the construction of its setting. And that's kind of the point.
seagrass... by Mattyboy122	Jun 26th, 2007 03:57:08 PM
Just because it works in a comic doesn't mean it can work on film. Saying they can bring back Cyclops, Xavier, etc with some bullshit retcon is wrong. Your average Joe would see trailers for the flick and go 'wtf, I thought they died. Lame.' and move on, like they should. Just because a lot of comic book writers are sloppy doesn't mean that shit can fly with movies.
Oh, and saying by Mattyboy122	Jun 26th, 2007 04:04:52 PM
That, despite the huge amount of needles injected into Magneto, he wasn't 'cured' because he's a 'really powerful mutant' is pretty absurd. The film's ending was a cop-out, a sad attempt to take back almost anything that happened earlier in the film.
David T Lindsey by rev_skarekroe	Jun 26th, 2007 04:23:55 PM
That guy's a nut. He's one of those people you kind of hope is just a brilliant satirist. However, I used to spend time at the bookstore where he worked, and this guy's the genuine article all right.
seagrass-- by zb.brox	Jun 26th, 2007 04:41:16 PM
1: Killing a character and then bringing them back to life usually sucks. It can be an effective tactic dramatically, but usually it's just pussy-footing. Are you telling me it's NOT an insult to the Dark Phoenix Saga that it was retconned into virtual irrelevance? 2: It is rare, and much worse, for these drama-sapping retcons to happen within the story in which the initial idea is introduced. 3: People complain about characters dying and coming back in comics ALL THE TIME, why shouldn't we complain about similar bullshit in movies? 4: Comics are ongoing serials, it's the nature of continuity in such things that this kind of bullshit will happen. Films, with the possible exception of the Bond franchise, have no such excuse--and certainly not within the same film. 5: There is a huge difference between un-doing something that has been done, potentially in an interesting way, and stripping events of their dramatic power. When Jean was brought back to life in the comics, we learned that she was never the Phoenix, and the events people had enjoyed actually didn't happen the way we thought and, really, didn't matter much. That kind of things is terrible stroytelling--in contrast, what Mark Waid did on the Flash, by challenging, undoing, or re-affirming a whole variety of characters' lives and deaths took what was established and built on it. There was never a moment where prior events were revealed to be far less meaningful than they were thought to be. 6: Even if you removed their cute little wink to the audience, the movie would still suck, and you've ignored all my other criticisms...
aw man, why you gotta hate on TITO? by captainCAPSLOCK	Jun 26th, 2007 04:49:50 PM
that's messed up. everything i saw about this movie made me yawn. American Gods suffered the same protaganist problem - main character is just around to watch shit go down and doesn't really do much. all my fantasy eggs are in the Dark Crystal 2 basket.
Fanatasy: Suspension of Disbelief by powervideo	Jun 26th, 2007 05:08:04 PM
At what point did you lose this ability, Pal? "Then we're treated to a climax of Are you fucking kidding me proportions in which you are forced to ask yourself "If they could have done that all along, why didn't they?"". I suppose you hated LOTR for this very reason as well? The eagles came and rescued Frodo and Sam from the erupting volcano at the very end. Jezus Kee-rist, why didn't they just give 'em a lift from Rivendell months before and let 'em drop the fucking ring in the lava as they flew over??? Your jaded and pretentious review holds as much water as a bedouin's jockstrap. Go out and get an office job with cubicles, break rooms, and time cards. You're ready.
Powervideo by GreatWhite	Jun 26th, 2007 05:19:05 PM
Actually, that's a good point about LOTR, and it's not the only weak point either. After all, if wearing the Ring makes the wearer nearly all-powerful, then how did Gollum take it away from Frodo? Yes, I know he bit off his finger, but still. But no matter its weak points, it's still a great story, both on print and onscreen. A few flaws can't destroy a masterpiece. And enough about X3 already! It's not worth this amount of debate.
I, 100% completely disagree with you... by Beeslo	Jun 26th, 2007 07:08:11 PM
Stardust was a great film and without hesitation, proudly and confindently proclaim that Stardust is like and even better than the Princess Bride. I never read the book, so I don't have previous expectations blinding my viewing. I had little knowledge even of what the plot entailed. However what I do know is that this was one incredibly entertaining movie that hit every point exactly. Sure they don't explain the ghosts, they don't need to. All we need to know is that the brothers need to kill each other out of some wacky tradition and that their souls will remain trapped until the new king is crowned. Why? Who cares why? Its a fantasy film. No one who watched LOTR ever questioned "why" the ring of powerful was so powerful...we were just told so and we moved on. The same with the Sky Pirates. The reason these Sky Pirates were not really pirates was more of a joke on itself. They "acting" as pirates was just that. They were "whalers of the sky" but liked to pretend in being tough, bloodthirsty pirates just as they acted that their captain was not a cross-dresser. Never did I go, "oh no, pirates" because they were never supposed to seem that way. They were supposed to be the Miyazaki like pirate archetypes, where you might at first think they are bad news but you almost immediately realize that they are just playing the role of being bad. So hows that hard to figure out. They were just a bunch of whalers who captured lightning to sell and pretending to be pirates to entertain themselves. And of course, the plot was easy to figure out most fantasy stories are like that. Who went into LOTR not expecting the ring to be destroyed in the end? Its fine that you didn't enjoy it. But your complaints are very limited and completely unfounded. But whatever, I loved it and I thought Vaughn did a terrific job.
Oh and Bones hit it right on the head... by Beeslo	Jun 26th, 2007 07:13:17 PM
"There is a big difference. Fairy tales can have complete lapses in logic, so long as they maintain their personal metaphores. This is why the Narnia books are set in a Fairy Tale world, not a true Fantasy setting...and that is okay, because most people like Fairy Tales. I am taking my wife to see this move--and if it is romantic, has good eye candy, plays with fairy tale conventions AT ALL...then I will be happy--because it means I am getting laid that night. Sometimes we just need a Fairy Tale date movie." Just had to be said again.
'Bout fuckin' time. by Jonny_Dr_Thunder	Jun 26th, 2007 07:25:41 PM
Bring the pain, Massawyrm. I appreciate you taking the time to write this and give us your smooth-as-hell honest opinion, as always. I'll check this out myself and see if I agree or disagree, but either way, damn fine review, man, keep 'em coming!!!!!!!!!
most important aspect of fantasy is setting? by oisin5199	Jun 26th, 2007 08:27:41 PM
Hardly - although Tolkien's geography was interesting and crucial to his stories, most fantasy tales have negligible settings that are pretty much generic. It's the characters, dummy! Sure there's fantasy archetypes, but it's all about how the characters fulfill or buck those types. If the characters are interesting and charming, you'll want to follow them. I could give a shit about the setting as long as its visually realized well. Having said all that, I do agree this story is a fairy tale, not a fantasy.
jumping in a bit late to the X3 argument by oisin5199	Jun 26th, 2007 08:40:34 PM
seagrass, you're on crack. In what universe was that piece of crap 'brilliant'? I'm a huge X-fan (having read almost every single issue since the 60s) and really liked (not loved) the first two movies, and was all hyped for the 3rd and I kept on ignoring the naysaying and hoping Ratner could pull it off. And he blew it. Big time. Not only do I agree with all of z.b. brox and bones' points, but I'll add this. Whereas Singer took his time and let the emotional resonance sink in (and sometimes all it took was 1 line: 'Does it hurt?' 'Every time'), Ratner jumped around like a kid with toys, throwing everything he could at it and seeing what stuck. And nothing did. The only scene that came close was the one with Beast and Leech. And even that one he cut away from before the audience even had a chance to take it in. The whole thing felt like a rushed mess - they were so worried about being cool ('I'm the Juggernaut, bitch'? Are you fucking kidding me?) that they forgot to actually have a story that meant anything. They squandered a good premise with the cure and did nothing interesting with it, wasted Rogue, wasted Angel, did that stupid reversal at the end, wasted Cyclops, wasted Colossus, wasted the Danger Room. This iteration of Kitty Pryde was certainly my favorite and the Madrox cameo was cool. But everything else was a cheap, half-ass attempt compared to the first two. Matthew Vaughan would have at least made it interesting. Singer would have rocked. Oh, well. Maybe the Wolverine and Magneto prequels won't suck.
Movies that get overly positive feedback. by bioforge	Jun 26th, 2007 08:54:12 PM
Tend to be the ones pretty much forgotten in a year. While the ones that tend to get around 50% at RT are the ones that people argue on about passionatly for years. So what really makes a great movie (btw i like a good fairly tale more then fantasy)? I say the ones that stir the most passion ( good or bad).
Is the movie actually completed? by AnwarNamtut	Jun 26th, 2007 11:49:30 PM
I know that may be a dumb comment as I just watched it at Halfassathon, but I didn't get the impression that it was actually complete (sound seemed mixed strangely at times, some effects were significantly weaker than others, some pacing weirdness in the editing). In the taped intro, the director didn't say one way or the other, he just said we are seeing it very early. The cool part is, done or not, it was a highly entertaining, incredibly well-casted fantasy film that I look forward to seeing again. My old lady was completely enamored by it. Of course, she likes me, so there is no accounting for taste there I reckon. Massa, I'm personally glad you gave it a bad review so that folks don't think the site is just kissing ass for getting the preview, but come on. You make it sound like Uwe Boll or worse yet that hack Joel Schumacher directed it.
but it didn't have by AnwarNamtut	Jun 26th, 2007 11:51:56 PM
Shatner, which would have made it perfect.
or Al Jolson by AnwarNamtut	Jun 26th, 2007 11:53:36 PM
in blackface
gonna keep this thread alive by AnwarNamtut	Jun 26th, 2007 11:56:06 PM
so we can roast Massa more for trying to steal candy from children.
and he molests unicorns by AnwarNamtut	Jun 27th, 2007 12:04:56 AM
I mean, I know unicorns are "in" again and all, so maybe I shouldn't think this is special, but Stardust has maybe the coolest unicorn moments since Legend. Then again, I don't regularly watch movies with unicorns. That I'll admit to.
Yackbacker, so funny and so true about the SW special. by superninja	Jun 27th, 2007 12:07:11 AM
They forgot one word though. FAILED. As in FAILED archetypes and FAILED mythology.
Walter Simonson Thor rocks. by superninja	Jun 27th, 2007 12:16:12 AM
It should be an ensemble cast. It should not be told from Thor's POV. I'd rather it be told from Loki's, actually. Maybe a series of "tales" seemingly loosely connected ending in the big shabang finale that ties them all together?
X-3 was not that bad. by superninja	Jun 27th, 2007 12:46:14 AM
Why is he still talking smack about Ratner?
Cloud World by griffinlite	Jun 27th, 2007 05:19:55 AM
Massawyrm is so right about settings. I saw another post about the Stardust trailer that compared the sky pirate part of it to a book called Cloudworld that came out in England last year. I don't think it's been ripped off - the similarities are too slight. But, going back to Massawyrm's point, Cloudworld is really worth reading. Its got a slow start and the story is like many others, but the world its set in is incredibly special&vivid - like a film playing in your mind while you read
there are so many reasons to ignore Massawyrms opinions by Lost Prophet	Jun 27th, 2007 07:35:55 AM
but I'll give you an easy one: He stated boldly last year that the boring, turgid pile of shit that was SR was going to make Spiderman money. this, therefore, should be good. BTW X3 was bad- just not terminally awful- why is this being dragged out again?
Your arguments prove the point, by Rolander	Jun 27th, 2007 05:18:17 PM
If I recall, the story was specifically written in a pre Tolkien style. I think there is an interview around somewhere where Neil commented on how after LOTR all fantasy books changed, whereas prior to that they were simply novels and not considered a distinct literary style, or something like that.
You sir, are the biggest douchebag ever. by CornsilkSW	Jun 28th, 2007 04:31:18 AM
Congratulations. Here's your trophy. It smells of old fish....... Why Harry publishes your dreck is baffling to me.

Talkbacks

Massawyrm Refuses To Blow STARDUST!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks