Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Since reviews are pouring in...

**SPOILERS WITHIN**

Please continue pre-release discussion here.

Movie:
"Doctor Strange" (Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Mads Mikkelsen, Tilda Swinton, Michael Stuhlbarg, Benjamin Bratt)

Release Date:
11/04/16

Rating:
PG-13 (for sci-fi violence and action throughout, and an intense crash sequence throughout.)

Running Time:
115m. (1h. 55m.)

Budget:
$165 million (estimated)

IMDb Synopsis:


IMDb Info and Rating:
8.3 (4,167 votes as of 10/26/16)

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:42 Rotten:01 (98% as of 10/26/16)

Metacritic:
74 metascore ('Generally favorable reviews' as of 10/26/16)

Trailer:


Poster Art:
http://static.srcdn.com/slir/w691-h1...Con-Poster.jpg

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I wonder how well the RT score will hold - it looks like it might end up on the upper tier of MCU movies as far as reviews go. The current highest rated movies are -

Iron Man - 94%
Avengers - 92%
Guardians - 91%
Civil War - 90%
Winter Soldier - 89%

Metacritic wise Strange is sitting at 4th at 74, behind Iron Man (79), Guardians (76), and Civil War (75).

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Yeah, Rotten Tomatoes w/ Avg Rating has it slightly different as well overall:

Avengers - 92% / 8.0 avg
Guardians - 91% / 7.8 avg
Iron Man - 94% / 7.7 avg
Civil War - 90% / 7.6 avg
Winter Soldier - 89% / 7.5 avg
Doctor Strange - 98% / 7.3 avg

Doctor Strange is getting more 3 and 3.5 out of 5 ratings than the others, fewer "love it!" and more "It's pretty good"

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Saw it today and like it quite a lot. Succinct review: We've seen this basic plot a few times too many, but the way it's presented is top notch. Stunningly cool special effects that really capture the essence of Ditko's art, winning performances by Cumberbatch, Swinton, etc., and some of the best action sequences we've seen yet in a Marvel movie I think.

My main caveat, and I think a lot of folks might fall on this side of things, is that we've seen an AWFUL lot of superhero origins stories by now and when you get down to it, they almost all follow the same story arc, which doesn't leave a lot of room for surprises.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I was never a big Doctor Strange fan... but I loved this movie and the special effects were top notch, cool ass action sequences. Can't wait for the BD.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

did you see in 3D?

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

This seems to be the consensus from most reviews I've seen - it follows the "Marvel Formula" a bit too much. At a certain point their playing it safe is going to start hurting their movies. Though I can't fault their "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality when the money keeps rolling in.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

That does seem to be the consistent criticism for this film (and the last few new character Marvel superhero films).
I think that was already feeling "same old, same old" several years ago, which is why when you get a movie that eschews that, like GotG, it makes even more of an impact.

I think in some cases though, the liability of the standard formula might actually work to the properites overall benefit. When you have a movie with an awful lot of fantasy exposition- as I expect DS to have in terms of magical rules, locations, abilities, etc- then a more complex plot or character relationships might come across as too much to digest on first (or second) viewing.

Of course, I haven't seen it so I can't say if the formula is too rote and undermines everything else, or if it just helps you glide through it to enjoy what new stuff the film offers.

And simplistic formula might work OK for a first or second viewing, but might not offer much for repeat viewings down the line.
But then, we are talking about properties explicitly designed as series franchises, so the first hurdle is to get the audience indoctrinated into the property first. Sequels are the avenues to make things more complex and nuanced.

At least that's what I think theoretically.

I'm just glad we've gotten to the point where properties like this can let their geek flag fly in all it's their corny four color glory. Preserving as much of that iconography as they do now definitely counts for a lot with me. And if the stories all feel a little same-y at first, well...that's part and parcel of the source material too. Innovation usually crops up later in a run, not right off the bat.
Marvel's big innovation, as a comic company, was to have relatable characters in soap opera continuity. That differentiated something like Spider-man from Superman more than mere surface powers.
Marvel as a film studio has shaken things up by creating a universe of separate but related film (properties). That's as big a mark as what they did in the 60s as a comics company.

Because of the success of that, they have room (and resources) to become truly literate and unique in terms of dramatic possibilities in the future.
But to get there you first need to build the foundation- and that requires structure and in structure lies formula.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I thought Strange was the movie that was specifically targeted a year or two back as not having a traditional origin story? Or was that another Marvel movie?

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

So, I think I might see this in an IMAX reserved seating theater I've never been to. Do I have to pick a seat? I would hate to spend the money and find out it's not exactly the seat I would feel comfortable in. I like to just go and find for myself...

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Unless your city has a different definition of "reserved seating" then all the theaters i've been to, then yes I assume you pick a seat :lol:

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I figured that, but going online and looking at the set up does shit for me. I'll probably just go and take my chances with this particular theater. Thanks fum.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Enjoy the front row.

Seen it happen multiple times at Alamo Drafthouse. Someone just shows to find the movie sold out (Shin Godzilla) or just front row seats left. If you can't figure out the website, go to the theater days/weeks in advance and get your tickets.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Well, it's not close to me and I highly doubt it will be even close to sold out. It's contingent on my plans in the area on Friday. I'm planning on meeting sister for dinner there being that I have a half day bc of conference day and would like to see the mid-day show. I'm sure it'll be fine. Back to review discussions...

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Chris Stuckmann recommends seeing it in 3D.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Taking off early from work on Friday to see it in IMAX 3D.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Got my reserved IMAX tickets for tomorrow. This will be my second IMAX experience with the first being The Hobbit. What a dreadful experience though. Not sure if it was just the movie I disliked or the whole IMAX experience, but hopefully second times the charm...

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I don't think GOTG was the typical origin story.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Is there a end credits sequence, like the very end of credits?

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Man. Google that shit. We've known about when and where that shit is for a while.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

If he used Google his post count would be in the low hundreds. You know this.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

http://i.imgur.com/3eue6GG.gif

-------

seeing this flick at 10 in 3D. I don't normal care for PC films but Strange just seems to be something that would easily lend itself to 3D in whatever form cuz... Strange gets trippy w/ the visuals in the comics. I don't do drugs.. but I'd take a drug and watch this thing. Unfortunately... a shit ton of Long Island Iced Teas will do for now.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Saw it and really enjoyed it. My only complaint isn't with the film but with the way my theatre presented it. I went to the 3D because I had heard a lot about the effects lending themselves to the format well but a lot of the movie was out of focus because my local theater kinda sucks. Guess I should have known better but it's been a while since I've seen something there in 3D.

The movie itself though is awesome I thought. Really liked Cumberbatch in the title role and the rest of the cast was great too. The villains are never the strongest suit and I felt like that was the main thing lacking but overall it didn't bother me too much. I liked how the film was just something completely different for the MCU. The visuals were cool despite the bad 3D and the run time seemed like it flew by. I've heard some complaints from reviews about the humor not always working but for the most part I thought it was fine.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

If the movie was out of focus, you should have got up and said something. I had that problem during the trailers, got up and said something, and they fixed that shit.

Re: Doctor Strange (Derrickson, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I saw an IMAX screening tonight in Austin, which was attended by C. Robert Cargill, one of the screenwriters. He said the first script didn't have much of an origin but that Marvel had them add it.