Marvel's Antman and the Wasp: Quantumania

[loki2371]

I think you're just unable to distinguish acting from directing/writing. They nailed what they were given, you just didn't like that direction for their characters.

That can go both ways.

As there have also been great performances from actors that have saved bad movies. Just as bad movies have made good actors look bad.

 

[chrisstbh]

That can go both ways.

As there have also been great performances from actors that have saved bad movies. Just as bad movies have made good actors look bad.

Indeed

 

[Ropen]

I was thinking that this might be the case, but this version of Kang

Spoiler:

has scars while he who remains at the end of Loki did not. But the city here does indeed look so much like the TVA and it does seem like he wants to destroy universes just to prevent other Kangs from rising.

The TVA Kang is just as bad as this one when you think about the trillions he erases from existence whenever there is a "Nexus Event".

Spoiler:

Dude, i'm thinking The exile goes to the end of time, he doesn't die, his machine probably pruned him there, I just remember how mobius and loki got pruned, "Exile" Kang just got direct Ticket there, he still has a part of his armor so he can weaponize alioth, kills the actual time keepers and goes back in time and ends the multiversal war caused by the kang Dynasty.

 

[Wor-Gar]

there have also been great performances from actors that have saved bad movies.

Oh, I know this answer. Jon Voight in Anaconda?

Just as bad movies have made good actors look bad.

Oh, I know this too. Any Star Wars Prequel.

 

[The Buffinator]

There have also been great performances from actors that have saved bad movies.

Oh, I know this answer. Jon Voight in Anaconda?

OMG, tell me you're kidding! The only performance in that movie that was even remotely good was turned in by the CGI snake. I cringed every time Voight spoke it that ridiculous accent.

 

[Wor-Gar]

OMG, tell me you're kidding! The only performance in that movie that was even remotely good was turned in by the CGI snake. I cringed every time Voight spoke it that ridiculous accent.

You're right, I lied. I remember people saying he "saved" that terrible movie... but I agree with you. Nothing saved that movie.

That's what popped to mind first though with that question of a sucky movie saved by a great performance.

 

[The Buffinator]

You're right, I lied. I remember people saying he "saved" that terrible movie... but I agree with you. Nothing saved that movie.

That's what popped to mind first though with that question of a sucky movie saved by a great performance.

In retrospect, I do recall getting the occasional chuckle from whichever Ice rapper was in that movie (T? Cube? Latte?). Not enough to ever sit through it again though lol.

I'm stumped right now to think of a bad movie saved by a great performance. I'll rewatch bad/mediocre movies because I really like the lead actor or actress, but I can't objectively say any were "saved".

 

[Wor-Gar]

I know, I thought it would be easy but then I can't think of a bad movie saved by a great performance... though I know there's several examples. The titles just escape me.

 

[chrisstbh]

I know, I thought it would be easy but then I can't think of a bad movie saved by a great performance... though I know there's several examples. The titles just escape me.

The Room, Tommy Wiseau killed it.

 

[Ropen]

The Room, Tommy Wiseau killed it.

10/10 for sure

 

[MeatHookGekko]

I know, I thought it would be easy but then I can't think of a bad movie saved by a great performance... though I know there's several examples. The titles just escape me.

The interesting thing is the practical list might not be the most hard hitting movies. I.E. once you imagine taking that actor out of that movie, then you see how far it could have fallen down a cliff.

Adam Sandler in Happy Gilmore. Actually, if you look at Sandler in his earlier movie career, he took a lot of stupid plots, strange material, bad writing and insane premises, and made them pretty fun.

Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive. It was a great movie for it's time, but with age, the warts do start to show. TLJ is phenomenal.

Michael Fassbender in Prometheus. The scenes he are in versus not, it's like there are two different films going on. If Ridley Scott just stuck with android stuff, he might have gotten another Oscar out of it.

Angelina Jolie in Playing By Heart

While it's not a movie, Taraji P Henson in Empire. That was a pretty ridiculous prime time soap opera, but Henson made it into something way better than it deserved to be.

 

[BladeS]

Pretty good movie to my 'never really that critical and easily amused' self. It was a little clunky in a few places. Everything being CGI/in the volume was a little weak and immersion breaking but I know they are on limited time to make these and CGI artists aren't wanting to work with Marvel. Some of the jokes didn't land, and the first end credits scene was pretty campy.

Honestly though, those were kind of little things but my one singular complaint of the movie was how it ended. Kang is being talked up as this big powerhouse in every show/movie but then there isn't any follow through, I thought for sure he'd win or even kill a few protagonists as they tried to escape leaving him behind or something, but it mostly wraps up all nicely in a bow. They aren't giving us enough depth and information about the character, he's just kind of a generic evil guy who destroys things. Also he had arm lasers that were disintegrating creatures and mega telekinesis powers until they decided he'd just... Not do that. So that bummed me out. I like a good threat.

I don't think this deserved a 50 or whatever score it got. It's a fun movie and didn't make me feel dumb like Love and Thunder.

Positives: Majors was incredible, he was the highlight of the movie for sure. Everyone else was solid, I didn't mind the actress playing Cassie like some people. A handful of the jokes did get a laugh out of me. The quantum realm and creatures in it were fun and different. No one is bringing her up but the buff female resistance leader was pretty great in her action scenes and I thought she was pretty badass for not having a lot of depth to her character. Of course my favorite of the night though...

Cassie: Who's coming?
Kang: Me!!
... A lot of me.

 

[davejames]

Just got out of the movie and thought it was pretty decent overall, and thankfully nowhere near as painful and cringeworthy as Thor 4. It does suffer from CG overload at times (please let this be the last we ever have to see of the quantum realm), but the actors and humor keep it just engaging enough, and Kang did make for a pretty intimidating villain. Although not sure he's really quite worth revisiting again and again in every movie and TV series going forward...

 

[e30ernest]

Spoiler:

Dude, i'm thinking The exile goes to the end of time, he doesn't die, his machine probably pruned him there, I just remember how mobius and loki got pruned, "Exile" Kang just got direct Ticket there, he still has a part of his armor so he can weaponize alioth, kills the actual time keepers and goes back in time and ends the multiversal war caused by the kang Dynasty.

It would be funny if

Spoiler:

since he got sucked into his power core and there was a "Probability Storm" in there, he generated billions of Kangs which would eventually end up as the council of Kangs shown at the end credits. He did strongly imply time is a circle with no end/beginning.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Once a new movie is released, I get this great clean slate feeling. On to the next thing - John Wick 4, then Guardians, then Flash and Indy!

 

[jye4ever]

Going today lulz

 

[wormlander]

I think you're just unable to distinguish acting from directing/writing. They nailed what they were given, you just didn't like that direction for their characters.

They most certainly didn't "nail" anything. A good actor finds a way to deliver an interesting and believable performance, even when the writing is weak. Neither of them managed to do this. They're both delivering forced and unnuanced (and also very likely heavily improvised), over-the-top caricatures. Also, they both read these scripts and met with the directors before deciding to accept their roles (feeling confident they'd be able to create something great with it). Make of this what you will but there are also very few, if any, constructive analytical reviews that highlight those performances especially. Pascal is great in the Mandalorian but in WW2 he was cringe and that is only partly due to the atroceously bad dialogue.

 

[chrisstbh]

They most certainly didn't "nail" anything. A good actor finds a way to deliver an interesting and believable performance, even when the writing is weak.

That's not entirely the case though. The director, believe it or not, directs the actors. Actors can bring a part of themselves to their roles but fighting awful directors and writers is often a losing battle.

Neither of them managed to do this. They're both delivering forced and unnuanced (and also very likely heavily improvised), over-the-top caricatures.

Because that's what they're intended to be, like it or not.

Also, they both read these scripts and met with the directors before deciding to accept their roles (feeling confident they'd be able to create something great with it).

Directors, writers and scripts for all future projects have not been set in stone. These actors are locked into 10 year contracts, they can't just decide they don't want to do one movie they don't like. If that were the case then the Game of Thrones cast wouldn't have disliked the final season as much as they cleary did, and John Boyega/Oscar Isaac wouldn't be so dissatisfied with the Star Wars sequel trilogy.

Plus something can sound great in a meeting or on paper and turn out terrible. The same way us regular folk can accept a job at a company we think will be great and it turns out to be a miserable experience.

Make of this what you will but there are also very few, if any, constructive analytical reviews that highlight those performances especially. Pascal is great in the Mandalorian but in WW2 he was cringe and that is only partly due to the atroceously bad dialogue.

The Mandalorain is hardly the best example of Pedro Pascals acting ability. The entire DCEU was poorly written and cringe.

But agree to disagree, because we could go back and forth on this forever.

 

[ZE_501]

That's not entirely the case though. The director, believe it or not, directs the actors. Actors can bring a part of themselves to their roles but fighting awful directors and writers is often a losing battle.

100% agreed. I've brought this up before: I worked on a film wherein the director should have stayed a DP. He workshopped with the actors for weeks leading up to the shoot and made a charming, quirky, endearing couple in a budding romance come across as completely dysfunctional and somewhat frightening. Unintentionally.

He sucked the heart out of the performances and the film. I know this because I was intimately acquainted with the script and the concept, and had seen what the actors were capable of delivering in the auditions.

It's not always the actors' fault.

Something else I've said before: it's a miracle good films ever get made. A miracle.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Getting people on the same page is a near impossible task -- think about just getting a group of people to agree where to go for dinner, so you can imagine the monumental task of filmmaking. But it does happen on occasion. That's why there's so few great movies. It truly is lightning in a bottle. Otherwise, all sequels of great movies would also be great.