There are easy criticisms to be made of this film:
- Benedict is playing the same role as Sherlock
- Origin stories by their nature are too formulaic
- Marvel care more about the overall arc to the next Avengers film than this.
So whilst all of those points have small truths in them, this film is pretty damn enjoyable and satisfying, not least to Steve Ditko's amazing visuals.
It is jaw dropping what you see on screen. The fights are more magical than Potter and there's a logic at work even in the most bonkers action. Marvel even provides a worth villain
And Benedict if anything comes across more like a likeable version of House, so he's got some range.
So I'd give it a solid B+ and now the character is established you can do even more off the hook stuff with him.
Sounds very positive, BC a good choice too. Catching a different film tonight (in theory, we'll see...), but I do read the comic and maybe it'll be the first ever Marvel movie I can make to the end before bailing out :D
Im excited about this movie, but im intrigued to hear that Jacquin Pheonix was originally approached for the role. Wouldn't have minded seeing him in role. Nothing against Cumberbatch just find him so overexposed in media lol :)
I'm going on Saturday
Tickets booked for Sunday. I've gone off the boil a lot with Marvel films (Guardians was the last one I really enjoyed, Avengers 2 was the last one I watched and it didn't really do it for me so couldn't muster up the enthusiasm to watch Antman or that Civil War thing) and can't seem to care either way about this one, but my wife wants to go and I'm setting my expectations to fun throwaway popcorn entertainment. Maybe it'll surprise me!
Antmans good, Civil War not so much.
Quote from: Satanist on 28 October, 2016, 11:16:21 AM
Antmans good, Civil War not so much.
Civil War is fine, it's just no Winter Soldier. Ant-Man came out of nowhere to end up as my joint-second favourite movie of last year (tied with John Wick, behind Fury Road).
Dr Strange is great. He isn't Sherlock; he's
House.* The plot, it's true, is a little by-the-numbers, but the film is visually stunning and well worth sitting through in front of the biggest screen you can get to. 3D, for those that can stomach it, really works well.
(Also, worth sticking around for the mid- and end- credit sequences, BTW.)
*Yes, I know House=Sherlock, but Strange is pretty much
actually House for the first twenty minutes or so of the movie...
Really enjoyed Doc Strange, best Marvel movie in a while for me. Nicely done engrossing self-contained story, pretty intense drama at times and different from the Marvel formula of late, thumbs up!
The spectacle of the fight while time reverses was Oscar worthy, I think. Well worth the admission* to a great action romp.
*I got free tickets. Your value may vary
Great fun, this. The whole family enjoyed it, even my 7 year old, who I thought might have found the mystic instruction lectures dull - not a bit of it. I have a few niggles (there was no real moment where Stephen first 'did' magic, just one where he got better at it; similarly his physical quest amounted to getting a plane to Nepal, his destitution rather undercut by his laptop: all a bit easy), but thought it did a great job of being distinctive and complete in itself, not unlike Antman in that regard.
I loved the design of the various psychedelic sequences, and I particularly enjoyed how Strange essentially talks his way round Dormamu rather than punching him or zapping him with some CGI. I also thought Kaecilious was an unusually plausible and rounded baddie, helped by a great performance. In fact despite the rather obvious casting choices, everyone was brilliant, even the underused McAdams. The broken watch as symbol was well handled.
And again, full marks to Marvel for embracing the silliness of the costume and having fun with it.
I got a very pleasant nerd-buzz from realising that Daredevil, Jessica Jones and Spidey now all live/work in the same movie city as Dr Strange. What a time to be alive.
Heaven help Wonder Woman following this tour-de-force...
Quote from: TordelBack on 08 November, 2016, 09:11:32 PM
I particularly enjoyed how Strange essentially talks his way round Dormamu rather than punching him or zapping him with some CGI.
I was especially struck by this. A very refreshing change from a welter of meaningless CGI sound and fury -- plus a smart and appropriate way for Strange to find a resolution.
Now you probably convinced me to see the movie.
Ant-Man was okay,but it was pretty much a repeat of Iron Man.
Quote from: Smith on 15 November, 2016, 06:15:39 AM
Ant-Man was okay,but it was pretty much a repeat of Iron Man.
How?!
Its a pretty similar formula.A guy makes/gets a high tech suit,fight a corrupt buisnessman in a similar suit.
Ah, I see where you're going with this. See also Batman (damaged guy builds armoured suit and gadgets v damaged criminals with gadgets), Captain America (guy gets given muscles and hi-tech shield v secret societies with hi-tech gubbins), Wolverine (guy given unbreakable bones and claws v various corupt military types with cybernetics and tech or evil counterparts), Spiderman.. etc etc.
I think you may be happier avoiding superheroes althogether, cos generally they acquired some kind of techno-magical super-advantage and fight corrupt/evil types with similar advantages: you might indeed call it a formula . A superhero formula.
Or alternatively focus a bit more on the differences between them, like the differences between Scott Lang's story and Tony Stark's. Although I should warn you that many films these days feature moving images in colour, and some form of musical accompaniment, and thus could be considered virtually identical.
^Yeah,I guess all origin stories are similar in a way.And repeat was maybe a strong word,but some similarities are there.
But anyhow,we are getting off topic.So,Doctor Strange...
Snarky response aside, I think he was referring to the fact that the villain in both films is an evil industrialist who is not only trying to steal the hero's Magic McGuffin, but ends up using an almost identical suit for the big final battle. I don't think it was the "techno/magic powers" thing but the lack of imagination in just making the villain an exact counterpart of the hero with identical gizmos/powers.
Now if Captain America went up against an evil nazi who throws a shield around, or if Spider-Man went up against a supervillain who'd been bitten by a slightly different breed of radioactive spider....
Yes, apologies Smith for the unwarranted dose of snark. I agree that there are plot similarities in addition to the conventions of the genre, but within those parameters they really are very different films.
(Although I'll respond to DDD by noting that many of Spidey's villains are similarly animal-themed (e.g. Doc Ock, the Vulture, the Rhino, the Lizard, the Scorpion, even Venom) with powers of a similar techo-biological origin, and Cap spends much of his time duking it out with enemy super-soldiers empowered with variayions of his own serum or cybernetic enhancements, ans with a similar WW2 origin... mirroring of hero and villain was a thing even before Killing Joke, honest! On a practical level it allows the powered hero to demonstrate that that their heroic qualities go beyond their enhancements, by fighting on a level playing field and still triumphing).
.(It's interesting to note that Dr Strange does this too, [spoiler]by employing the time-powers of the Eye to match Dormamu's timeless universe and allow them to match wits instead of majicks[/spoiler])..
Mutants have other mutants as enemies,patriots have "patriots",an Spiderman has animal themed enemies;as JMS notes in his Spiderman run.
Thats how things are,and its not my problem.Its just that the mirror match setup has been overused in Marvel movies,at this point.
Thoroughly enjoyed my afternoon's viewing of Doctor Strange (hugely enhanced by being the only customer in the cinema at the time, it has to be said.)
And if you have not seen it, do stay to the very end. There is a nice piece halfway through the end credits and then another bit right at the very end.
Helps that I was enjoying the score anyway.
In the end,it was an enjoyable movie.Even if Im a bit burned out on origin stories,like I said before.
Thought it was splendid. Particularly enjoyed two of the supporting performances, Benedict Wong, and the Cloak of Levitation.
BC was indeed channelling Dr Gregory House MD; the bit about the lead antimony bullet poisoning was, to the best of my professional knowledge, a bit of bogus House-ery. Dr Palmer's technique for relieving Strange's cardiac tamponade looked correct although there was rather more blood in the syringe than I would expect from the pericardium. Her defibrillator technique needs refreshing though, firstly she shocks a flat line (which doesn't work but is one of the top three medical errors shown on TV and film), secondly one she has got a rhythm she then does a complete no-no by increasing the DC shock to 360 joules and shocking a patient with a normal heart rhythm, admittedly she does this under protest at the behest of astral Strange.
Oops, sorry about that. Got caught talking shop again. Anyway I had a great time and look forward to seeing him pop up in the next Avengers movie.
You're worse than Burdis. WORSE!
I was thinking that myself :lol:
:D
Quote from: TordelBack on 15 November, 2016, 10:46:17 AMmirroring of hero and villain was a thing even before Killing Joke, honest!
Apparently Dormamu is uncredited in the film because he was motion captured and voiced by Cumberbunch - the creative reasoning being that since Dormamu is formless, he'd take on aspects of Strange in order to interact with him.
I right enjoyed that. Each everything said about how it bucked the trend in terms of finale (some writer must have been waiting for a vehicle for that reverse time fight sequence since they first saw bullet time in action).
But wouldn't a genuine time loop play out exactly the same every time rather than work through a myriad of possibilities?
I guess this was one of those "magical" time loops then.