Saw TMNT: Out of the Shadows last night · 3:48pm Jun 6th, 2016
Hot damn is this movie better than the first one! I don't understand why it's getting poor critical reviews, excepting if critics hate cartoons for some reason. Because make no mistake, this is the cartoon, simply in live-action/CGI form, right down to the closing credits having the TMNT cartoon them play as the first song during them (a somewhat modern cover, granted, but close enough to the original as to make little difference).
Better still, the Turtles are definitely the focus this time around rather than April O'Neil, with a lot of time spent on developing them as brothers and as a team. O'Neil is decidedly a secondary character; she has her own subplot but it doesn't intrude on the Turtles, who retain more screen time than her. Casey Jones also has his own subplot involving Beebop and Rocksteady, but it is, again, a secondary thing to the Turtles themselves.
Speaking of, Beebop and Rocksteady were amazing. Every scene with them is pure gold, both pre- and post-mutation. Krang was great, too (though I preferred the spelling "Kraang", but the movie goes with the one-A variant), as was The Shredder and Baxter Stockman. Kirai is somewhat underutilized as a character, but in this movie she's pretty much here just to be The Shredder's lieutenant and doesn't really need much development for that role.
Basically, if you liked the cartoon, you'll like this movie and should go and see it, help the poor thing out - it definitely needs the help. Kind of like the movie version of Speed Racer, which is the anime in live-action form and makes no attempts to justify or apologize for anything from the anime, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows is the cartoon, and everything that entails.
Interesting. I'll probably see it next Saturday, unless I get it out of the way some night this week. Maybe Tuesday.
I'm firmly convinced that movie critics don't actually approach things from a regular human perspective and generally don't matter much for me.
Seems weird that most superhero films not made by Marvel studios this year are getting really bad reviews.
Well that's now 2 movies I have to see. This one, even if I don't like it, it's bound to be entertaining in one way or another, and Captain America Civil War which due to scheduling conflicts, I've been unable to see and now that I FINALLY have time, it's not playing anywhere. Ironically the only time it was playing at a decent hour was during Finals. Which is a city-sized nope, of course.
The trailers for this movie were actually pretty promising. Suitably ridiculous.
Hopefully I can see it without having to watch the first one.
I saw it a few weeks ago now and picked up the first film for cheep to see the night before.
I've got a rather average response to it, I'm not greatly impressed but it wasn't an actively bad film. Maybe I couldn't turn my brain off enough to just enjoy it, the coincidence of two planes just happening to cross over each other so close just seemed jarringly unlikely to me.
Really liked the movie, never thought I would see the Celtic warrior sheamus plus rocksteady
Mostly familiar with the 2003 cartoon but I have seen episodes of the first cartoon and liked it
I saw the trailer for this in the theater the other day, and I said to my friend "I'd be really excited for this movie if I didn't know it was by Michael Bay". Because the trailer did hit all of the right spots for me. It really looked like the cartoon I remembered coming to life. But after seeing Bay take a steaming dump on Transformers, I couldn't trust it. :)
I saw previews for The BFG, which was one of my first and favorite Roald Dahl stories... I'm hoping Disney doesn't screw it up, but I'm not confident considering the abysmal track record when it comes to putting his stories on the big screen.
I'd love to see a ponified version... giants, orphans meeting royalty, dream trumpets, snozzcumbers and nightmares?
Cool. The trailers have been looking good, add in Stephen Amell as Casey Jones but...
Michael Bay. I mean I know he's just a producer but still...
Michael Bay.
Reasons it could be getting poor reviews range from the movies departing from the origins of the story, the fact a lot of people grew up with the old turtles and aren't fond of the CGI that is overused in most movies now, even plots that don't make much sense.
4002777 Because some of them are just bad, the studios are just putting out superhero movies just so they can keep the intellectual property, a good example is the last fantastic four movie. Marvel sold the rights to a bunch of stuff years ago with the agreement that if they aren't used after 'x' number of years the rights would go back to Marvel, or something like that.
static.srcdn.com/slir/w570-h456-q90-c570:456/wp-content/uploads/Marvel-Characters-Movie-Studio-Ownership-570x456.jpg
4006002 I was referring to superhero properties in general, not just Marvel properties. Studios can make good movies and they can make bad movies. I've seen X-Men Apocalypse, TMNT Out of the Shadows, and Batman V. Superman and I won't say any of them were perfect; but I don't buy it for a minute they deserve the critical thrashing they all got. In comparison, Civil War got mass praise I don't think it exactly warranted. And I say that as a confessed Marvel Studios fanboy.
4006156 Out of those I've only seen batman vs superman, and that was really disappointing, the plot was lacking and didn't make sense, lex was.... uggg. and the reason they stop fighting.... because their mothers have the same name
4006356 To each their own opinion. When I first saw it I was miffy about it, but grew to like it when I looked at it through a different lens (it being a story of a grizzled ex-hero falling off the slope and having a big heel realization to snap him back to his sense, then wanting to atone). But I have seen the others I listed and thought they were all pretty solid. Not perfect, but having merit and not warranting the incredibly lopsided Rotten Tomatoes and critical score they got.
4006488
You're not the first person to bring up that possible character arc, but it has a fundamental problem - namely that Batman still slaughters people even after learning that Clark's mom was named Martha too. His attack on KGBeast's hideout could only have resulted in deaths from blowing up various cars and ammunition depots (we see people consumed by the flames), and that's leaving aside his killing of KGBeast himself.
I see nothing to suggest that this iteration of Batman is anything more than a psychopathic killer dressed in a bat suit. He is at best a chiropteran Punisher, and the Punisher deserves to be behind bars.
4006658 I wasn't talking about the killing part. That, I actually don't mind too much since I'm in the camp of stuff can be changed if it makes sense in context. But, I'm not here to argue and I don't want to cause one.
4006658 Look, it's Crazy Steve. He broke into the batcave and stole the suit and is running around in it. That makes more sense than Batman shooting guns.