OldBoy

this looks shit like shit.

stvn1974

So this film has no chance in catching the "amateurishly" shot Marvel's The Avengers at the box office?

stvn1974

I haven't seen the film but what I have read it looks like the characters do a lot of stupid things that make no sense. Also there are supposedly plot holes and inconsistencies so it looks like making those films with Nolan rubbed on on Pfister.

Solid Snake

Dude. We get it. Nolan taped you down and raped you somehow. Let it go. You can still walk after it.

RichC2

The Avengers really was just a weirdly shot movie.

Solid Snake

Wasn't really weirdly shot, in general. Whedon is a very TV kind of director so his visual frame in composition and movement is in that mindset. It's not horribly filmed but its pretty bland in comparison to something Cap 2.

The DP isn't at fault there, too much. I'd blame it more on Whedon. His DP is solid as hell. At the end of the day... Whedon has never been a really visual director.

hanshotfirst1138

Whedon, while less of a "function point and shoot" type director than may other TV-bred guys, has quite frankly never been a great visualist. The film is badly shot or dull or anything, but like Abrams, Whedon is guy weaned on TV who's films rely more on the rhythm of scripts and rapid-fire dialogue than necessarily concrete visual ideas. That's not to say the movie was visually uninteresting or didn't have cool shots, because I think it did. And lots of people have said the same about Nolan too. Cap 2 was filmed by TV directors as well though. So was Thor 2. In all honesty, I think Marvel like them because they know how to shoot fast (usually digitally), and since they aren't necessarily "aeuters," they probably aren't likely to mess with the formula too much.

Solid Snake

Abrams is a much more better visualist than Whedon. Abrams rapes Whedon on directing visual.

The big auteur in Marvel right now is Wright. That man has a style that is his own all the way. All the others have no real concrete visual style but Wright is easy to point out by visual.

jdslater1

On the Cap 2/Empire podcast the Russo guys said that they used 2:35:1 and Whedon liked it and will use it for Avengers 2.

So at least he is learning!

Supermallet

It's down to 19% on RT.

I can't believe we're still talking about how The Avengers is shot.

hanshotfirst1138

I love The Avengers, I just don't have anything else to do .

Deftones

Sounds like it isn't good at all: http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/16/56...endence-review

EddieMoney

Just looks like absolute shit.

Rypro 525

its at 12%. and religious propaganda "Heaven is For Real" has a higher RT score,

also the Transcendence score is LOWER than The Lone Ranger

inri222

$100 million budget and $20 million of that is Depp's salary.

Rypro 525

so in other words the real budget is prob 70.

jdslater1

Its when you watch the trailer and see what he is actually doing you then realize that sometimes people get paid too much.

Mr. Salty

Two words: Lens flare.

RichC2

So this is apparently similar to those 90s cyber thrillers (Lawnmower Man, Virtuosity, The Net) none of which would pass as "good" but, I don't know, I have a soft spot for movies like that.

Solid Snake

That doesn't stop him from being a better director than Whedon.

iggystar

Why does everyone keep saying this?! This was one of my most anticipated movies of the year.

Whatever, I have my ticket for tonight resigned I'm going to see a very pretty sequel to Lawnmower Man 2 and cry in my box of popcorn.

Ash Ketchum

Who's Wright?

RichC2

I assume Edgar Wright, writer/director of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and The World's End. Director of Scott Pilgrim vs The World. He's doing Ant-man. Unless Joe Wright has started working on Marvel movies?

Yavin

Since there's no review thread for this yet, I'll keep my comments brief and spoiler-free:

The film has a great cast, no question (although Depp disappoints by deadpanning his way all the way through the film). But its problem is how many half-baked concepts they try to cram into the narrative. To paraphrase something Johnny Depp's character says in the film, "There's not a lot of logic, but there's plenty of irony." That, in a nutshell, summarizes Transcendence, a film that spreads itself thin trying to accommodate one too many ideas, but is ultimately too fuzzy on its own logic to sustain the weight of its ambitious plot. It isn't a terrible movie, it's just rather unremarkable. Sci-fi junkies will still want to flock to it, if only to see how it liberally borrows from other works, some more cerebral than others; but with a title that seems to imply an incomparable filmgoing experience, it falls short of expectations.

My full review can be found here.

RichC2

The title doesn't imply an incomparable filmgoing experience. It suggests eXistenZ repackaged.