Not complaining that the Avengers itself is lacking substance, rather that superhero movies have all become really fucking terrible, and have no actual heroic substance, everything is just "we're good, they're bad" - hell even in Batman, which is supposed to be "darker and edgier and morally grey" ends up not being the latter.

It's kinda lame, is all. I just want them to be like comic books, probably a bad thing to want out of comic book movies...

I saw the full version of A serbian film. The more I thought about it when I first saw it, the angrier I got. I absolutely hated it in all its pretentiousness.

And it doesn't hurt that I really enjoy superhero stories.

If you guys want to watch action movie adaptations of comic books that don't suck, watch Dredd.

A question regarding the Avengers: How did Bruce Banner suddenly managed to control Hulk after the fall? Was it explained poorly and I missed it, am I supposed to be initiated with the character and just know, or what?

The Avengers is really awesome actually. No. it did not have any deep seated real world themes or allusions - it was pretty much a glorified, big-money action movie to the extreme, with Whedon's usual themes of man's triumph over the divine heavily evident. But the writing was great for what it was going for. Very tight and well put together, tying together each film leading up to it with Whedon's usual great character writing, and the film sustained interest for well over 2 hours. The fact that it was built up by like four other films and was tied up so concisely and tightly was a masterwork of conceptual design. And it doesn't hurt that I really enjoy superhero stories. It was a pretty basic good versus evil story, yeah, but it also had first rate acting, some dynamite action sequences, and a great sense of weight and presence that blows any other Marvel movie out of the water.

And the newest Spider-Man is great because of Andrew Garfield's performance as the lead alone. The rest of the movie is incredibly well done itself, but his performance, as well as Emma Stone's, makes it a cut above the regular superhero movie.

Dredd is also really good. Kick ass Die Hard/Terminator-esque action fun.

Yessssssssssssssss

But the Stallone movie taught me the proper way to pronounce "LAAAAAAAWRH!"

If you guys want to watch action movie adaptations of comic books that don't suck, watch Dredd.

Damn straight. Dredd is just an honest, balls to the wall action flick. It's like dystopian Die Hard. After the massive letdown that was the Dark Knight Rises, seeing Dredd was... cleansing for the soul. Such a pity that it flopped so badly, there were plans for a follow up, possibly with the Dark Judges, probably won't happen now.

But how does it compare to the Stallone movie?

But how does it compare to the Stallone movie?

Such a pity that it flopped so badly, there were plans for a follow up, possibly with the Dark Judges, probably won't happen now.

A Serbian Film is pretentious? Funny, it simply strikes me as unnecessarily grotesque, but in no way would I call it pretentious. Care to explain, ORTAB? I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion.

The director and writer, Srđan Spasojević and Aleksandar Radivojević, have made statements to the effect that their creation is a parody of modern politically correct films made in Serbia which are financially supported by foreign funds.

On the question, why 'Srpski Film' for the title, Radivojević answers: "Srpski Film is also a metaphor for our national cinema - boring , predictable and altogether unintentionally hilarious which throughout our film to some extent is commented on and subtly parodied." Similarly, Radivojević describes Serbian cinema as "...pathetic state financed films made by people who have no sense or connection to film, but are strongly supported by foreign funds. Quality of the film is not their concern, only the bureaucratic upholding of the rule book on political correctness."

According to Spasojević, the character of Vukmir is "an exaggerated representation of the new European film order ... the Western world has lost feelings, so they’re searching for false ones, they want to buy feelings."

In another interview Spasojević is quoted as saying "my shocking 'A Serbian Film' denounces the fascism of political correctness." Questioned by the Croatian media on whether the violence depicted deals with crimes committed by Serbian soldiers during the
Yugoslav Wars, Spasojević answered: "'Srpski Film' does not touch upon war themes, but in a metaphorical way deals with the consequences of postwar society and a man that is exploited to the extreme in the name of securing the survival of his family."

"As much as we try to deal with our life in this film allegorically, and with the corrupt political authorities that govern it, we are also dealing with today’s Art and Cinema and the corrupt artistic authorities that govern them in a similar manner here. The films that preach and enforce political correctness are the dominant form of cinematic expression today. Nowadays in Eastern Europe you cannot get a film financed unless you have a pathetic and heartwarming ‘true story’ to tell about some poor lost refugee girls with matchsticks, who ended up as victims of war, famine and/or intolerance. They mostly deal with VICTIMS as heroes, and they use and manipulate them in order to activate the viewer’s empathy. They make a false, romanticized story about that victim and sell it as real life. That is real pornography and manipulation, and also spiritual violence – the cinematic fascism of political correctness."

Spasojević and Radivojević also express that the film is not exclusively dealing with Serbian issues but issues in the "New World" in general. "We didn’t want to make a hermetic picture that would deal exclusively with our local tragedies, but to tell a story with global overtones, because Serbia is merely a reflection of the ways of today’s New World in general, as it tries to imitate it and fails miserably. Contrary to the peerless politically correct facade of the New World, it’s still a soulless devouring machine for killing every small freedom – of art and free speech – we have left, destroying everything different in its path."

I just saw Gangster Squad today. I enjoyed it. The plot wasn't anything special, but I liked the acting and was surprised by the large amount of humor. I thought that Gosling and Brolin did excellent jobs along with the guy who played Mickey.

There were good things about the Stallone movie. The hive city looked great, as did the ash wastes and the hovercraft/ bikes. The mutant gang was fun, and god damned if I've ever seen a cooler robot in a movie than the ABC robot in there. That thing ruled. Of course it could have been much better but it's got more replay value than many of Stallone's movies just because of the stuff I mentioned. I'm probably watching the new Dredd tonight and I'm expecting it to kick ass, I hope the futuristic city atmosphere is conveyed even better in this one.

Didn't think this was a serious question.

He's named Sean Penn and he won 2 best actor Oscars... Kinda weird that you can name Gosling or Brolin but not Penn.