Movie Review Rant 2022

[Chlidonias]

With things getting back to a sense of normality and with films finally being released then I thought it was time to resurrect the movie thread. First new film of the year for me was (surprising nobody) Black Widow, which I rented from Disney+ rather than going to the cinema. Not sure if that impacted my enjoyment of the movie or not but I thought the film was generally pretty meh for an MCU property, especially being released in between the final two episodes of Loki which is a bonafide masterpiece.

There were some really good bits of action in there, some great acting, but in the finest traditions of the MCU there is also a lot of quickly edited action scenes and dodgy accents. The humour isn't overdone in this which is a common complaint in most Marvel properties, but the stakes are meaningless because we've all seen Infinity War and Endgame by this point so there could have been a lot more levity.

Things I liked - Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh sell their relationship from the start, David Harbour is amazing as Red Guardian, Rachel Weisz (my teenage crush) has aged like a fine wine, and it's always great to see Ray Winstone chewing the scenery. Good to see General Ross back as well, even if it is only for one scene. Post-credit scene is great as well, looking forward to what it sets up going forward. Finally Taskmaster is a standard Marvel villain, not a patch on the comics version mind, but the changes they've made work for the story.

Things I didn't like - The the story is very similar in places to Winter Soldier with some of the same story beats. Granted I only picked up on that on the second watch but now I can't get over the similarities. Ray Winstone's accent is BAD and David Harbour's is very heavy to the point of stereotyping, Florence Pugh's is pretty damn good though. There's some very on the nose imagery in the flashback opening, the actual definition of heavy handed. And the Taskmaster reveal is telegraphed a mile off, a proper "Chekov's Gun" moment is provided very early on in the movie and you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to pick up on it... (no offence to anyone who didn't notice! )

I'll give this movie a rather average 6/10 but I feel it really suffers by being released now, rather than say 4 years ago when it would have been relevant.

I haven't seen it, which I know surprises you, but I've seen various clips and I really like the scenes I've seen with Yelena. She seems much more interesting and fun as a character than Natasha does. On the other hand, while I like Olga Kurylenko and Rachel Weisz, the clips I've seen with them make them seem extremely uninteresting.

I watched Black Widow a couple of months ago in a hotel. I liked it, on the whole, although there were bits I took issue with.

The best part was, obviously, Yelena. Her character just stole the whole movie - she needs her own one, and I'd probably even go to the cinema to watch it.

The Red Guardian was also fun - I did have a moment of "why is his English so broken when he was previously undercover as an American dad?" but then I decided that after several decades of being in a Russian prison he wouldn't be so used to English any more, so I could let it slide. His rapport with Yelena was also solidly done.

There were quite a few things I didn't like. Taskmaster was awful, and as @Brum says, it was very clearly signposted as to who was under the mask (for a start, Olga Kurylenko was prominently named as being in the movie, and wasn't for most of it, so it had to be her as the "dead" daughter). That line of "the one resource the world has too much of - girls" was just the terrible topping on a terrible ham-fisted plot message. The complete indestructability of Black Widow was impossible to ignore.

There are a bunch of other plot holes and inconsistencies, but generally speaking it was a fun movie to watch.

 

[birdsandbats]

Where The Crawdads Sing
The original book is one of my favorite novels ever. It was written by Delia Owens, who some of you may know as the famous zoologist and author of some nonfictions books including Cry of the Kalahari and Secrets of the Savanna. In her 2018 novel, Owens managed to create a simultaneously a suspenseful murder mystery, a celebration of nature, and a heartbreaking tale of an abandoned child trying to find love. The wildlife of its coastal North Carolina setting play a central role to the entire story.

There was so much that could go wrong with a movie adaptation of this story. The story is told non-linearly, which is of course hard to adapt to the screen. With nature playing such an important role in the movie, even the slightest natural history inaccuracies could bring the whole movie down.

But none of that happened. This movie did everything right. The incredible plot is still there in its non-linear glory, and the scenes were even re-arranged a bit to flow better. The entire movie is beautiful and paints the marshes and swamps of the Carolina coast as places of beauty. The only thing that looks bad in the entire movie is just a couple of wonky CGI-birds, and that's easy to ignore. The natural history is all accurate (or accurate enough). And the acting is excellent. I'm not entirely sure why but it felt more real than most other movies I have seen.

Of course, it's not as good as the book. Movies never are. But it's pretty darn close. Unless you have an interest in reading the book instead (which I do recommend), go see this movie right now! And if you do have an interest in reading the book, just see the movie after you're done reading it.

This is one of my favorite movies I've ever seen.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

Saw Nope last weekend and loved it! I might see it again, maybe in an IMAX theater. It has great commentary on the entertainment industry, including the way it uses animals.

 

[Chlidonias]

I watched Uncharted yesterday. I wasn't impressed. I had never heard of the video game - I think it says at the start or end of the movie that it is based on the game - but from watching some reviews afterwards it seems like fans of the game were not happy with the result.

Tom Holland was fine in his role apart for his "parkour" skills which were always pointless and painfully awkward-looking (apparently he was entirely unsuited to portray the actual character from the game as well, but I only know that from watching other peoples' reviews). Mark Wahlberg was pretty bad, he didn't appear to be trying at all. The girl sidekick was played by Sophia Taylor Ali who, it turned out, was playing an Australian. Why? No idea. I thought she was supposed to be English at first, then her accent started veering erratically between that, Australian and South African, with a few New Zealand sounds thrown in there for good measure. The funniest bit was where she said "mep" for "map". [I just googled it - in the game that character is voiced by Claudia Black, who is Australian]. Antonio Banderas' character could have been removed from the movie entirely with little impact to the plot.

The movie lost me in the first minute. It opened with a big action scene (which is from later in the movie, plot-wise) where Tom Holland is on a string of cargo bales being towed behind a plane hundreds of feet in the air, and he is running and jumping up the bales as if they were just lying on the ground. That's not how anything works! Later in the scene (when the movie catches up to that point) he is on the bonnet of a car which has come out of that plane. He's not holding on to anything, just casually crouched on the bonnet of a free-falling car. It was more stupid than almost anything in a Fast and Furious movie.

For an action movie it was curiously unengaging. It didn't help that it was basically just a very poor copy of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. They even had a battered old diary with all the clues in it. There was a point in the movie where Tom and Sophia find the old map they needed, he rolls it open, and I said out loud "oh my god, this has all just been a set-up for a sequel movie!" and one of the people I was with replied "no, we're still only a third of the way through." It felt like we had already been watching it for four hours!

So many stupid scenes as well.

There's one where Tom lights a fire on a bar to cause a distraction - but the thing they need to get to is directly behind the bar where he lit the fire! A distraction is supposed to draw people away from you, not bring them directly to you!

Have a watch of the Pitch Meeting and CinemaSins videos for more of the nonsense.

 

[TNT]

Saw Nope last weekend and loved it! I might see it again, maybe in an IMAX theater. It has great commentary on the entertainment industry, including the way it uses animals.

I'm in two minds... Not sure if I really like or dislike the move (probably the latter). I did not enjoy the chimp scene either, and those of you that have seen the film will probably understand why

 

[Sarus Crane]

I saw the new Disney Pinocchio remake this morning and here are my thoughts (SPOILERS AHEAD!!!):

Gepetto played by Tom Hanks is revealed that he has lost his wife and son and wants his latest marionette to come to life to replace him. Jiminy Cricket opens the movie in a way that's reminiscent of the original. Joseph Gordon-Levitt really became Jiminy Cricket in this and his performance gave me hope that if they redo James & The Giant Peach it won't be a total failure. Pinocchio's look is spot on the original and unlike the 1940 version since he's a puppet with movable parts he can use him arms and legs like boat propellers when he's in the ocean saving Gepetto. The new character Fabiana adds some time to the new movie and shows up later toward the end of the movie offering him a spot in the show.

The villains Honest John and Gideon provide some comedy and the actor they got for Strombolli looks very much like the 1940 version. He has a thick accent like the 1940 Strombolli and later gets arrested for his crimes. The Coachman played by Luke Evans made me think of a Gaston/Captain Hook/Jack Sparrow hybrid. He sounded like he could have been a pirate. In the 1940 version the Coachman is big and gives off that iconic demonic grin at Honest john and Gideon in the pub. That scene isn't shown here and it cuts straight to him picking up Pinocchio at the crossroads once he has escaped from Stromboli. The Pleasure Island scene has been modernized with no references to beer and alcohol. Root beer replaces the drinking and there's a scene where the kids are destroying a bunch of cuckoo clocks like in Gepetto's home. The transformation scene is pretty much the same. Lampwick tries to convince Pinocchio he doesn't need a conscience but helps??? Pinocchio and Jiminy escape by kicking a table in front of the Coachman and his minions allowing them a head start to the ocean. Monstro is a sperm whale/kraken hybrid with tentacles and a mosasaur like snout.

My favorite part was when the dark side of Pleasure Island is revealed was when you see the Coachman's minions. Its never truly known what creature/entity they are. In the 1940 version they look like shadow humanoid gorillas. In this remake they're greyish ghostlike humanoid gorillas made in the form of smoke. They give off a cool moaning sound like a ghost and they serve as both the loaders of the transformed donkeys and guards of the island. A very cool creepy effect that I think expands upon the original version!

There are a few unresolved questions... how does Gepetto know about Pleasure Island? Did he almost escape fate as a donkey too as a kid? Did Zemeckis open the door for a sequel given the way that the film ended? I wanted the Blue Fairy to sing more since she has a great singing voice. I went into the movie with an open mind and found it better than I thought it would be.

Overall Rating 8.5/10 For a Disney remake I really enjoyed it. It's my favorite after the 2016 Jungle Book remake. I'll have to do a post on that one another time.

 

[JigerofLemuria]

I saw the new Disney Pinocchio remake this morning and here are my thoughts (SPOILERS AHEAD!!!):

Gepetto played by Tom Hanks is revealed that he has lost his wife and son and wants his latest marionette to come to life to replace him. Jiminy Cricket opens the movie in a way that's reminiscent of the original. Joseph Gordon-Levitt really became Jiminy Cricket in this and his performance gave me hope that if they redo James & The Giant Peach it won't be a total failure. Pinocchio's look is spot on the original and unlike the 1940 version since he's a puppet with movable parts he can use him arms and legs like boat propellers when he's in the ocean saving Gepetto. The new character Fabiana adds some time to the new movie and shows up later toward the end of the movie offering him a spot in the show.

The villains Honest John and Gideon provide some comedy and the actor they got for Strombolli looks very much like the 1940 version. He has a thick accent like the 1940 Strombolli and later gets arrested for his crimes. The Coachman played by Luke Evans made me think of a Gaston/Captain Hook/Jack Sparrow hybrid. He sounded like he could have been a pirate. In the 1940 version the Coachman is big and gives off that iconic demonic grin at Honest john and Gideon in the pub. That scene isn't shown here and it cuts straight to him picking up Pinocchio at the crossroads once he has escaped from Stromboli. The Pleasure Island scene has been modernized with no references to beer and alcohol. Root beer replaces the drinking and there's a scene where the kids are destroying a bunch of cuckoo clocks like in Gepetto's home. The transformation scene is pretty much the same. Lampwick tries to convince Pinocchio he doesn't need a conscience but helps??? Pinocchio and Jiminy escape by kicking a table in front of the Coachman and his minions allowing them a head start to the ocean. Monstro is a sperm whale/kraken hybrid with tentacles and a mosasaur like snout.

My favorite part was when the dark side of Pleasure Island is revealed was when you see the Coachman's minions. Its never truly known what creature/entity they are. In the 1940 version they look like shadow humanoid gorillas. In this remake they're greyish ghostlike humanoid gorillas made in the form of smoke. They give off a cool moaning sound like a ghost and they serve as both the loaders of the transformed donkeys and guards of the island. A very cool creepy effect that I think expands upon the original version!

There are a few unresolved questions... how does Gepetto know about Pleasure Island? Did he almost escape fate as a donkey too as a kid? Did Zemeckis open the door for a sequel given the way that the film ended? I wanted the Blue Fairy to sing more since she has a great singing voice. I went into the movie with an open mind and found it better than I thought it would be.

Overall Rating 8.5/10 For a Disney remake I really enjoyed it. It's my favorite after the 2016 Jungle Book remake. I'll have to do a post on that one another time.

Huh, I wonder if they'll remake "Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night" as a sequel... Yeah, they've probably already bought the rights, and if they haven't, they will.

 

[Chlidonias]

I watched this last night - "disjointed" is exactly one of the words I used to describe it afterwards. But rather than "a little disappointed" I'd rate it as "a lot disappointed". I doubt I'd give it higher than 5 out of 10. I'm going to rewatch it when it comes out on Disney+ and see if I think better of it then - I liked (for example) Infinity War better on a later rewatch than I did on the initial watch, so we'll see.

Spoiler

Where to even start with this mess. I saw in a review video that Taika filmed masses of stuff with no clear idea of where the movie was even going, had some big name expensive actors (e.g. Jeff Goldblum) whose footage was never even used, and then just cobbled together something from all of that, and it really shows. I didn't mind a dramatic story about Cancer Jane as Mighty Thor; I didn't mind a super-dark story about Gorr the God Butcher; I didn't mind a light-hearted Ragnarok-type Thor - but not all in the same movie, swapping wildly from one to the other, even within the same scene.

All in all, the movie gave the impression of being a first-draft script used in the hope that ad-libbing comedy would fix it, and then released as a first cut with the studio assuming that because of the success of Ragnarok Taika knew what he was doing. Turns out he doesn't. It reminded me of how The Lord of the Rings trilogy was so excellent, and then with the goodwill from that Peter Jackson reverted to slapstick scenes in The Hobbit trilogy.

The best movie in Love and Thunder would have been the Gorr the God Butcher story. Make the whole movie about him, have him actually butchering some gods instead of just talking about it, then he has to battle Thor, and keep the humour at appropriate points. How Gorr even came into possession of the god-killing sword was ridiculous - he meets his own peoples' god, who then proceeds to call Gorr worthless scum, and then the god just up and goes "hey see that sword there beside you on the ground, that can kill gods like me. Oh, by the way, you're worthless scum and I hate you and your dead daughter."

There were some fun moments in the movie, but just so much awfulness as well. The narration by Korg seemed like super-lazy exposition. The Guardians of the Galaxy actors seemed like they didn't even want to be in the movie, in the few clips they had of them at the start. Thor's action scene at the start was ridiculously slapstick, almost to the point of it being a parody of a Thor movie rather than an actual Thor movie. Russell Crowe's Con the Fruiterer accent (1980s Australia called and wants their racism back!).

I have to say, also, that while I like Guns and Roses, their music was not used effectively here. The Led Zeppelin in Ragnarok was fitted perfectly to the scenes in which it was used, but the Guns and Roses songs in this movie were simply dropped over top of the scenes with no apparent concern for making any connection between the visual actions and the musical beats.

Some things I did like: Gorr the God Butcher - some of Bale's acting was a bit meh but I'm putting that down to poor direction or not being given a second take. The scene where Thor lost his clothes and the Greek goddesses all fainted at the sight of his body (I'm not sure if this was the intention, but my immediate thought was that Greek gods are famously built and yet even the Greek goddesses were overcome with seeing Thor naked). I thought the screaming goats were funny too, which I'm sure is going to be a minority opinion.

Really there were a lot of things in this movie which I would have liked if they were in their own movie, but in juxtaposition with other things in this movie they simply weren't funny or good.

I gave this a second watch the other day. I did like it a little better second time around, but it is still awful. Very much the scrapings at the bottom of the Marvel barrel. Even Howard the Duck is probably better than this.

Something I hadn't noticed before is that the actress who plays Valkyrie - her expression never changes! I think this was hidden in Ragnarok because she had face markings on for most of the movie, but in Love and Thunder it was really obvious - no matter if her scene was supposed to be funny or dramatic or sad, she only has a single facial expression.

 

[Chlidonias]

I also watched Prey, a "prequel" to Predator set in the early 1700s amongst a tribe of Comanche. Every time a new Predator movie comes out it disappoints, sometimes to an exceptional degree, but Prey was fantastic, easily the equal of the original movie. Some of the CGI was a bit janky (almost all the animals were CGI, and the bear and puma in particular don't look great) but the scenery shots were gorgeous and it really is terrible that it was never released on the big screen (it went straight to Hulu, which was probably a slap in the face to the people who worked on it).

The movie takes a long time to get going, with the first half basically following the main human character and showing snippets of the Predator hunting various local life forms, working its way up from spearing a rattlesnake to taking on a bear one-on-one. I sort of appreciate the slow start because it helps establish how utterly outmatched the 1700s humans are against a Predator, but at the same time we know all of this already. I think it only works because the story is so far out of present time - if it was set in modern times it would be like "just get to the kills already!" Once the actual Predator vs human action starts then things get real gory real fast.

Interestingly, the Predator matches its weapons to those of the humans. The Comanche only have spears and arrows, so the Predator uses its own equivalent of spears and arrows as well (although it obviously still has a technological advantage with its targeting system), and it is only when it comes up against the evil French fur-traders with their firearms that it brings out better weaponry. One of the best scenes in the movie is when three fur-traders fire simultaneously at the Predator with their muskets, look at each other in confusion when their guns had no effect, and then quickly try to reload their one-shot weapons, whereupon the Predator destroys them.

I'd give this movie a ten out of ten. Must watch.

 

[Batto]

Something I hadn't noticed before is that the actress who plays Valkyrie - her expression never changes! I think this was hidden in Ragnarok because she had face markings on for most of the movie, but in Love and Thunder it was really obvious - no matter if her scene was supposed to be funny or dramatic or sad, she only has a single facial expression

You're not the first nor last one to notice that.
Lol
Steve McQueen would have been proud of her...

 

[JigerofLemuria]

Something I hadn't noticed before is that the actress who plays Valkyrie - her expression never changes! I think this was hidden in Ragnarok because she had face markings on for most of the movie, but in Love and Thunder it was really obvious - no matter if her scene was supposed to be funny or dramatic or sad, she only has a single facial expression.

You know, between her and people like Kristen Stewart, I must ask... Why do they keep hiring actors and actresses WHO CAN'T ACT?! I just don't get why they get unexpressive, bland pieces of white bread leading roles in big budget movies!

 

[JigerofLemuria]

Ok, so I know this is a movie review thread but... At 10 episodes, I think it's short enough for a spoiler-free review; Primal Season 2

Primal is back, as epic, fantastical, violent and surprisingly emotional as ever. However, there exist various differences. While the first season had a more episodic feel, this time the series is a lot more serial (except for episode 5, which is more of a spinoff), episodes often ending on nail-biting cliffhangers. One thing many of you may not like is that, admittedly, there are quite a lot less prehistoric creatures, and most of the obstacles are on the human spectre. But personally, I don't think this is a bad thing at all, as the new characters, friend and foe alike, are incredibly well realized, some of which will awaken very raw emotions, as do the main characters, who have to work through a lot of hardship, though many beautiful interactions also take place.

Overall, I give this season a 9/10. It's damn good, and as per usual the animation and sound design are superb, but I kind of miss the more prehistoric aura of the first season, which scores a perfect 10/10 for me. But don't take my word for it; watch it yourself! It's an incredible experience!

 

[Batto]

I just don't get why they get unexpressive, bland pieces of white bread leading roles in big budget movies!

They might have good agents / influential proponents with lots of vitamin C. In the case of Ms. Thompson, being on very, very good personal terms with the director might have helped...

 

[JVM]

You know, between her and people like Kristen Stewart, I must ask... Why do they keep hiring actors and actresses WHO CAN'T ACT?! I just don't get why they get unexpressive, bland pieces of white bread leading roles in big budget movies!

I have not seen any films with Stewart so don't take this as a direct defense, but it is important to remember that sometimes lack of emotion is an intentional choice on part of the director that is instructed to an actor. I've seen a few actors get hit for 'wooden acting' and then later it came out to have been a creative choice, and people would be shocked to find out they had genuine talent in another, later project. I also think sometimes actors in supporting roles are dialed back to keep focus and attention on the lead role instead, although I have no direct evidence to support that specific claim.

 

[Batto]

but it is important to remember that sometimes lack of emotion is an intentional choice on part of the director that is instructed to an actor. I've seen a few actors get hit for 'wooden acting' and then later it came out to have been a creative choice,

That might be the case in a few occasions, but if the acting is constantly subpar, this excuse is not justified.

 

[Brum]

Double whammy of reviews from me today of two very different comic book movies.

First of all Black Adam, not the best movie I've seen this year but quite enjoyable all the same. Details will be scarce unfortunately because the film isn't memorable (and I did watch it opening weekend), and quite the checklist of comic book movie cliches from the late noughties. Understandable really as the film has been in development for 16 years, that long ago that in initial reports The Rock still had hair...

As for the actual movie, it has some decent action scenes, a few decent performances, and some varying visual effects. It also does a fairly decent job of world-building with some tie-ins to other properties and introducing aspects of the DCU that we've never seen but have been there all along, namely The Justice Society of America consisting of Hawkman, Dr Fate, Atom Smasher and Cyclone.
Highlights of the film come mainly from this team and include (but are not limited to) Pierce Brosnan as Dr Fate being very detached from it all whilst still chewing the scenery, some of his back and forth with Black Adam is genuinely great comedy, and also the whole team dynamic is great. You can buy into his and Hawkman's friendship, and you can buy into the other two members getting used to their roles since this is their first mission. Aside from the JLA the other team are the human characters, and again you can buy into their dynamic as well, not quite as convincing as the superhero team but still some decent performances from a relatively unknown bunch of actors.
Lowlights are all the cliches - we've got a sky beam, a misunderstanding where the heroes fight for a while, a generic CGI army to fight, annoying child character with echoes of John Connor in T2, and a bland and uninteresting villain that becomes a CGI monster at the end... And there is some clunky dialogue, heavy-handed political commentary, and a few badly done exposition dumps.
Also make sure you stay for the mid-credits scene, my cinema cheered like crazy!

I'll give this film a 7.5/10 as I had a great time with it but unfortunately I'm struggling to remember any standout scenes after only a couple of weeks.

On Friday I went to see Black Panther 2: Wakanda Forever but I'll have to review that later since Black Adam took so long to write up. I will say though that it may not be my personal favourite movie of the MCU Phase 4 but it is probably the best...

 

[Brum]

Black Panther 2: Wakanda Forever

As mentioned above I took myself off to the cinema again for one of the most anticipated movies of the year, and it didn't disappoint! I (in)famously disliked the first Black Panther so my hopes for this weren't high, especially after Love & Thunder was so underwhelming, but I'm glad to say I was wrong.
The film had a hard production due to the death of Chadwick Boseman, and having a film mirroring his real life passing really works on an emotional level. It also doesn't feel like a cash grab and comes across as a respectful tribute to a great actor, whereas I feel a different company might've handled it a lot worse.

The story doesn't completely revolve around the death of T'Challa but rather the world trying to get their hands on Vibranium to the backdrop of a family in mourning, along with introducing Namor and his people and their plight as well. Oh yeah, and they introduce Ironheart, and Martin Freeman is back, and... Well yeah, the film tries to do a lot, maybe even too much in its 2 and half+ hour run time. To be fair though, I think that's probably my main complaint about the film, that and the pacing, anything else will just be nitpicking.
The performances are great all across the board, and Angela Bassett deserves an Oscar for her performance, truly the standout performance which is an achievment in such a talented cast. Another amazing performance comes from Tenoch Huerta as Namor, truly menancing and charming at the same time, the proper anti-hero that Black Adam wished it could have pulled off. His character and appearance is amazingly comic-accurate but the origin and home of his people has been changed due to similarities to the Aquaman origin, and within universe it works perfectly.
The action and set pieces are great, the CGI is infinitely better than the first movie, and the final battle is fantastic. The dialogue is perfect in places, the film hits you right in the feels in certain parts, and again, the cast sell their roles all across the board.

Again, stay for the mid-credits scene, it got an even bigger cheer than the Black Adam one. It'a also the first time my entire cinema erupted in cheers and applause when the credits started rolling, a phenomenen I thought was strictly restricted to the USA.

A solid 9 out of 10, and that may rise to 9.5 on a second viewing. It's not my favourite MCU film of the past 2 years (No Way Home and Multiverse Of Madness were more enjoyable) but it is objectively the best story and production. A great way to finish Phase 4!

 

[Batto]

but the origin and home of his people has been changed due to similarities to the Aquaman origin(...)

Maybe rather due to the allegedly murky legal rights Universial still has over the character...

There's a Turkish indie movie about a zoo director and his CGI zoo animals finding a broader international release. Maybe something for those among you who have grown tired of the formularic MCU, DCEU etc. superhero movies...

 

[Brum]

Maybe rather due to the allegedly murky legal rights Universial still has over the character...

I thought they'd reverted back? I was under the impression Disney just waited them out since they weren't willing to sell. I know the Hulk rights are due to expire soon, if they haven't done so already, hence all the rumours of a new standalone Hulk movie.

 

[Batto]

I thought they'd reverted back? I was under the impression Disney just waited them out since they weren't willing to sell. I know the Hulk rights are due to expire soon, if they haven't done so already, hence all the rumours of a new standalone Hulk movie.

Just google "namor the submariner movie rights"; plenty of contradicting info there. It would explain the silly "Nãmor" pronounciation - and why those fishy mutated Mayans speak English with the accent of their Spanish colonizers.