Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Review: Captain America

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the first-avenger-or-something dept.

295

If you have been living under a rock, you might not be aware that the next in the ongoing series of Avengers prequel movies came out this weekend: Captain America follows Steve Rogers origin, and sets him up for next summer's kajillion dollar Whedonesque mega blockbuster. But how is it as a movie in its own right? Hit the link to read my 2 cents. Standard spoiler warnings apply.

cancel ×

295 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Scientists See 'Hint' of Higgs Boson God Particle (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870962)

Researchers might be catching a glimpse of the elusive Higgs Boson particle -- dubbed the "God particle" -- which is thought to hold the key to solving a basic question in nature.

Researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) fire streams of protons through the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator, and found something unusual.

The bumps in data could be the first signs of the particle, researchers said. Physicists stressed that it was too early to know whether the signals were due to the missing particle, but it does mark the latest step in the mystery.

At the same time, researchers have been analyzing data from the Tevatron machine near Chicago. The hints seen at the Tevatron are weaker than those reported at the LHC, but occur in the same "search region".

"We cannot say anything today, but clearly it's intriguing," Fabiola Gianotti, spokeswoman for Atlas team, said.

The picture would become clearer as the groups gathered more data and combined results in the next few months, she explained.

The view was shared by the CMS group, which said more data was needed to understand whether the bumps were due to "statistical fluctuations or possible hints of a signal".

The results are being presented and discussed at the Europhysics conference in Grenoble, France.

If scientists find the Higgs boson, it will prove that the Standard Model, which has been a cornerstone of particle physics for decades, is correct.

The standard model says that the Higgs boson is the reason that some particles -- and the atoms of which they are made -- have any mass at all, and why photons do not.

No experiment has directly observed the Higgs boson yet. The Higgs is called the God particle after the title of a book by American physicist Leon Lederman, in part because it would help unify several branches of physics by proving the Standard Model.

The LHC will keep running experiments through the end of 2012. By that time enough collisions will have happened that it should be clear if the Higgs exists or not.

Re:Scientists See 'Hint' of Higgs Boson God Partic (0, Offtopic)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871334)

Mod parent up please, this is far more interesting...

Yawn. (4, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870984)

Its about time Hollywood came up with something original instead of digging ever deeper into the list of 2nd rate comic book "heroes"?

Re:Yawn. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871166)

Well, they have green-lighted "Space Invaders" if that's more to your liking.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871370)

I'm still not sure how much I'd enjoy 90 minutes of "Increase speed, drop down and reverse direction!".

Re:Yawn. (5, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871388)

I'm still not sure how much I'd enjoy 90 minutes of "Increase speed, drop down and reverse direction!".

That would be an improvement on NASCAR.

Defender would have been better (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871476)

At least theres a vague basis of a story there and the sound effects would rock. :o)

Re:Yawn. (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871178)

Captain America "2nd rate"?!?!? You, sir must be from Earth 2.

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871202)

Its about time Hollywood came up with something original instead of digging ever deeper into the list of 2nd rate comic book "heroes"?

Second rate? What the fuck are you? A COMMUNIST? Seems like it, with you calling Captain FUCKING America second rate, and insinuating with double quotation marks that he's not a comic book hero.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871424)

Hitler fought the communists. Captain America fought Hitler.....That makes him what, pro communist? Just asking.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871596)

Maybe he's from one of those countries that America likes to blow up?

Re:Yawn. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871220)

Agreed....

The Tick in movie form would rock.

same for Johnny the Homocidial Maniac... I think Jhonan Vasquez would enjoy torturing theaters full at a time...

Re:Yawn. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871704)

Animation was a great match for the throwaway absurdity that is The Tick. A movie would probably be fun, but I'd rather see another cartoon series.

Re:Yawn. (1)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871286)

Original like what, the Greek myths? Maybe some Grisham? Some King? I'll take Stan Lee's stories and characters any day of the week. Sure, they can screw it up if they try, but it's a good starting point.
(Haven't seen it yet. For all I know, it could be horrible.)

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871628)

And yet again we see how clueless people are regarding Stan Lee's contribution (or lack of) to the world comic book super heroes. Give Jack Kirby a little credit, willya?

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871312)

What we need now is some new, fresh clichés.Seems to be a new take on Sam Goldwyn's remark as quoted elsewhere.

Re:Yawn. (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871482)

they've been talking about fresh cliches since the cows left home.

Re:Yawn. (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871354)

Why would they spend time and money on developing new ideas that may or may not be a bust, when they have old ideas that are more or less ensured to be a blockbuster?

Re:Yawn. (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871402)

What, like Green Lantern?

Re:Yawn. (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871468)

Why would they spend time and money on developing new ideas that may or may not be a bust, when they have old ideas that are more or less ensured to be a blockbuster?

Narrowcasting is the death of the industry.

The only people participating in their tiny little market are those who are easily amused. I can't be bothered to watch this tripe for free.

Lets say something new and edgy, the "star wars" of the late 70s, came along.

Then instead of getting a blockbuster percentage of 50% of the 8 million easily amused population to show up at a theater, you might get perhaps 10% of the 300 million total population to show up.

Run the numbers, see which profit you'd prefer.

We're in a vicious narrowcasting fight right now in the media in general. The same thing is killing TV. Practically no one watches, and all the producers are interested in is increasing their share of a shrinking, tiny little pie. Same problem with the music industry, FPS video games, etc.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871510)

Considering that the blockbusters outsell any other genre of movie by disgusting margins. I'd say that your theory is more then a little off.

Re:Yawn. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871712)

Considering that the blockbusters outsell any other genre of movie by disgusting margins. I'd say that your theory is more then a little off.

Not at all... Lets try it with your numbers...

"Then instead of getting a blockbuster miracle percentage of 100% of the 10 million easily amused population to show up at a theater, you might get perhaps 10% of the 300 million total population to show up.

Run the numbers, see which profit you'd prefer."

The part they don't get is if your product's market is only a tiny fraction of the total population, no matter how perfectly and expensively it appeals to that tiny little market, even the most mediocre competitor that appeals to a good fraction of "everyone" can outsell you 10 to 1 without even trying.

Or rephrased, almost no one cares about movies anymore because they're only manufactured to appeal to the small subculture that likes them. Standard slashdot car analogy is its like making a big deal about Volvo's new car lineup; no one cares. Now the Ford F-150, that's a big deal because a very large segment of the population is interested.

Re:Yawn. (2)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871508)

That's probably the opinion of a lot of us that grew up in 80/90s comic era. For better or worse, everything had to be darker and edgier then. But in defense what could you do, the Captain America/Superman/White Knight archetype does not respond well to more robust characterization since they themselves are so "singularly" purposed (that did make Superman vs Batman decent but a little overplayed). The other problem is that in real life, those type of moral high-horse people are usually really hypocrites and it's a rare treat to meet the ones that bump this convention. Oh, Captain America hasn't had a war worth fighting for since WWII anyways (on the US side). He should have stayed frozen until America is the gov't of the people and not that of the Corporations

Re:Yawn. (2)

Artraze (600366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871658)

Isn't it about time that Slashdot critics came up with something original rather than rehashing this "originality" crap again? Originally is as much of a gimmick as anything else... Sometimes it enhances a story and sometimes it takes it away. For example, I'd consider most of M Night Shyamalan's movies to be fairly original, and yet, somehow they often end up lame.

Oh, you say, they weren't "original". Well, you can say District-9 (oft considered fairly original IIRC) is just aliens in apartheid and Firfly is just a standard western in space. Reduced to archetypes, no stories are "original". The only original thing about a story is it's telling (e.g. using aliens in the apartheid). For thousands of years, humanity has enjoyed hearing old stories retold with a new twist because that was the heart of the story, not whatever framing of characters and plot was present. For some reason people these days want something original, but quickly dismiss all the original elements. If you want an original movie, then look forward to The Amazing Spiderman. Sure it has similar characters and settings to another, but it has a whole new _story_. ...supposing you want something original and not something to complain about, of course.

P.S. In this regard, Captain America does fail, as it feels much more like a "here's a recap of C.A.'s origin so you have a movie-based context for him when you see Avengers" than a story. Probably thanks in no small part to the action montage, causing the cadence to be like "this guy did some action stuff (we focus on these couple missions) and beat the Nazis or whatever" and sandwiching it between 'present day' scenes for a "we found this guy in the ice, but, just so you know, he was cool before that".

P.P.S. I dunno why you put heroes in quotes there... Captain America may be somewhat obscure and second rate, but I'd have to say that by most definitions he's probably (in part because of those reasons) more heroic than most.

Re:Yawn. (2)

JMZero (449047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871700)

I think the exact opposite complaint has more merit - most good movies are based on published books, history, plays, previous movies, or something. Sure there are exceptions (and clearly some very big ones), but I'd say that in general Hollywood does better when it isn't "coming up with something original".

And if it's comic books you have a problem with, I'll partially agree with you... but also largely disagree. Sure there's been some bad ones, but if we restrict ourselves to action movies, I'd say the comic book films probably average out to "above average action movies". I'd certainly take "X-Men: First Class" over "Congo" (based on a book, with real chapters!) or "The Fast and the Furious" (which was "Hollywood doing something original"). And even outside of "action", I'd rather rub gravel into my forehead than watch, say, "Random Hearts" (based on a critically acclaimed novel by Warren Adler, I see) - one of the worst films I've ever tried to watch.

Sure I'd be happy to replace "Green Lantern" with another "The Seventh Seal" - but that's effectively saying "why doesn't Hollywood stop making bad movies and just make good ones". That is just not a helpful thing to say. Hollywood makes all kinds of movies, usually bad but sometimes good in all genres and niches. In general, I'd say there's more quality movies per year pretty much every year - and movies in most genres are getting continuously better (look at, say, kid's animated films and compare the "best list" between the 1980s and the 2000s).

And, yes, comic book movies too have stretched into "good movie" territory. "Dark Knight" was pretty watchable, and I thought "The Watchmen" (while panned in many quarters) was visually interesting and had a lot of redeeming qualities. And suppose they did quit comic book movies, what would they do for mass market summer movies? You miss "original" stuff like "Armageddon"? Sure, I'd love another "Raiders of the Lost Ark" too - but, again, it's not helpful to say you want good movies. Most people in Hollywood want to make good movies too - but whether they do so is a function of talent, effort and luck, not genre.

Ah! So that explains it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870988)

So the 70 years under ice was why Marvel skipped the political issue and why Captain America wasn't kicking ass in Vietnam?

Yawn (1, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870992)

Another "movie" made from a comic book.

Simply? (2, Informative)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870998)

It sucked. Boring. Waste of time. Save your money. You won't really remember it in five years.

Re:Simply? (4, Informative)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871070)

I concur, the movie wasn't great at all. You know its pretty bad when they use a montage for the first real action set that the Captain is in. And not a good montage in the least.

Re:Simply? (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871200)

You just described pretty much every superhero movie.

Re:Simply? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871570)

eh - wrong! on all counts!

go back to watching your favorite movie of all time "The Navigator" - the absolute worst movie of all time!

Two Questions (1)

BlackTriangle (581416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871020)

Is it in 3D? Is so, does it suck as badly as Thor did in 3D? Or Tron? Third question (fourth): How the fuck did Tron become the example of the possibilities of 3D? It's used to advertise every fucking 3D widget in the Universe, but the 3D in it is absolutely god awful.

Re:Two Questions (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871264)

"How the fuck did Tron become the example of the possibilities of 3D?"

it was latched onto by low IQ marketing droids that are desperate for you to replace that 42" TV you bought 2 years ago with a new one that does nothing more other than WOOOOOooooooo Threeeeeee Deeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! Woooooooooooo!

I have seen ONE decent home 3D setup. it was a pair of projectors using polarizer filters and you used the IMAX 3d Glasses.

Re:Two Questions (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871728)

There is a 3D release. I'm not sure if this is just a fault of the technology in use at the theatre I was at, or the fault of the movie, but gigantic scenes had very little depth. Everything past certain distance was just a very flat wall. It felt very much like a 3D conversion where they only spent time on the foreground, but since I know nothing about how the movie was made, that's just my theory.

However, in terms of 3D there were very few scenes that shouted "We're doing this for the 3D", so despite generally hating 3D, I didn't actually find it that bad in this movie. Lackluster, but not bad. There were other things that bugged me more. Two full scenes were clearly either shot at a different frame rate, or a different F-stop or SOMETHING because there were definitely times that the movie shifted from film look to video look. That probably only bugs a certain set of people who are sensitive to such issues, but if you are, well... the scenes are pretty protracted, and one of them is an action scene. Most of the "wrong" looking stuff looks the kind of thing that would have been filmed by the second unit director.

Besides that, the glaringly inaccurate map of North America that included a territory in Canada that most definitely didn't exist in the 40s kind of bugged me, because besides that it did look very period. And there were a few plot holes... being unfamiliar with the original comic, I'm not sure how many of those were a result of being faithful to source material...

But yeah, it's not a "great movie". It's an average one, that you shouldn't bother seeing in 3D at the increased ticket price unless you're a huge fan of the genre in which case... it still doesn't seem overly stunning in 3D, and a 2D version would probably still be just as good.

Good to hear (1)

webheaded (997188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871030)

I'd seen some snobby reviews on Metacritic at the outset but most people I talk to seem to really like this. I am glad. I can't wait to see it...going tomorrow. I am a huge Cap fan. I started reading with Ed Brubaker's run that started a few years ago and never looked back. :)

Re:Good to hear (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871610)

I enjoyed it a lot. I think that a big part of it was the setting, but I found it much more engrossing than Thor. By the time the action stopped, I barely realized that two hours had passed.

It's not a deep or intellectual movie. Like just about every superhero movie, it's a popcorn flick that's just designed to kill a few hours. But it was great at what it was aiming to do.

Who cares (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871040)

Did you hear about the blonde who tried to bomb the Norwegian government?

Re:Who cares (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871138)

Did you hear about the blonde who tried to bomb the Norwegian government?

He went to an island, and shot 85 people?

Not a particularly good joke.
Did you hear about the horse who walked into a bar?

And the punchline (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871154)

Did you hear about the blonde who tried to bomb the Norwegian government?

he thought he was working against the interest of Islamic domination.

Re:Who cares (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871392)

Was she hot?

Agreed (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871046)

Though I have to admit that I like all comic book films... mostly. One issue with Cap A. There isn't one scene, or an actual climax moment, that sticks to the mind. No truly stand out lines that I will be quoting.

It was all good, maybe even great. Very, very fun to watch. But it never had that "Indiana Jones under the truck" or "Indiana Jones hates snakes" or "Its just a thin mint" moment or line that we will be thinking about and/or repeating....

Re:Agreed (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871182)

"That's right bitches, I've got a crossbow." - From another mover Chris Evans was in.

Re:Agreed (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871554)

"No truly stand out lines that I will be quoting."

This is very good news. I don't mind movies coming out that I don't give a damn about, but when the insufferable quotes start bleeding into conversations it's like second-hand stupid. So it pleases me very much to hear that there's nothing worth quoting from this one.

Re:Agreed (1)

djshaffer (595950) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871706)

But it never had that "Indiana Jones under the truck" or "Indiana Jones hates snakes" or "Its just a thin mint" moment or line that we will be thinking about and/or repeating....

"I had a date". Okay, it's not that quotable. But it is the line that makes you realize that this story is, in a very real sense, a tragedy.

And this guy got a press pass to see the shuttle? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871050)

Once again we see that CmdrTaco can't be bothered with much outside of the realm of what keeps 8 year olds entertained. He's not a geek. He's a wannabe. But keep kissing his read, Slashtards. I expect nothing less. Maybe you can keep flapping your mouths about science and technology but few of you are really involved in any of it.

saw it this weekend (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871056)

what makes captain america so good is that it is straightforward, honest, and unironic

it's a throwback to the pulp of the 1940s, and when i say that, i'm not talking about speech and clothing, i'm talking about worldview and attitude and theme

the world today is cynical and oh-so-knowing. the world back then was uncomplicated: good was good and evil was evil

now, pleae: don't get me wrong: abandoning modern day wordliness is not be a good idea for your ideological health

but in order to make an entertaining MOVIE, it works quite effectively

Re:saw it this weekend (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871112)

now, pleae: don't get me wrong: abandoning modern day wordliness is not be a good idea for your ideological health

don't you know anything? we're supposed to interpret what you said in the very worst possible way imaginable and then ascribe to you every negative trait that could be derived from this process. then demand you prove a negative if you protest. then fill the next few threads with the bickering that results.

that's the Slashdot way! here there is no such thing as "you fucking know what the guy was saying so quit acting like he ran over your dog", oh no.

Re:saw it this weekend (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871260)

lol ;-)

imagining someone said something they didn't and then overreacting to that voice in your head hysterically is not the slashdot way. it is, unfortunately, the way of the world, from marriages to national politics

Re:saw it this weekend (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871762)

here there is no such thing as "you fucking know what the guy was saying so quit acting like he ran over your dog", oh no.

Well, (-1, Overrated) works pretty well as a defense against those types.

Re:saw it this weekend (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871436)

The nice thing about fighting the Nazis is that you really don't have to wonder whether you're on the side of the angels.

Anyway, I saw it with my kids and we all enjoyed it -- another home run from Marvel.

I like living under my rock (5, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871060)

It's a good rock. Nice and cozy. It's a very selective rock. Blocks all kinds of advertisements, Hollywood spam and MTV rubbish.

I love my rock.

Re:I like living under my rock (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871170)

You beat me to it. I don't feel obliged to rush out every weekend and see Hollywood's latest attempt to separate me from my $$$. If it turns out to be good I'll eventually rent it, or not. The film industry is not one I'll blindly support.

Re:I like living under my rock (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871418)

I know. I didn't even hear about Avatar until after it was out (for several days at that), thats how much I was out of the news cycle. I've discovered that bugs tend to be a problem in under-the-rock living conditions, did you manage to get rid of them or just use them as part of your food cycle? :)

Now, unfortunately, I visit /. every day, so I always get my daily dose (and then some) of Hollywood gossip.

Re:I like living under my rock (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871620)

Just remember Patrick the Starfish lives under a rock too.

Kid Friendly? (1)

dmorin (25609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871080)

My son is just 5 years old, and he's heavy into his superhero phase. I think it's a crime that all of these movies are rated PG-13 while the toys are clearly aimed at capturing a younger audience who may not even get to see anything but the tv commercials. He's got no less than 3 different Captain America shields (one that I made him, one that his grandfather made him, and one we bought from the store). The one his grandfather made him - out of wood! - came with a home made Thor hammer. He doesn't care. He's Captain Thor America. So, somebody tell me - of this and all the other superhero movies this summer, would you take a 5 yr old? Just how scary/bloody is the violence? I expect that any "adult situations" will go right over his head (bordering on outright nudity and/or sex scenes, which I don't think these movies have). But a really scary monster/bad guy may give him nightmares. I know that most of the others will be gone from the theatre now, but as they start coming out on DVD, which would be the safest to let him watch? Help me out. I desperately want him to have the memory of going to these movies when they were a big deal, like I remember going to see Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871212)

The worst "adult situation" is a brief kiss, but there's quite a bit of violence. Most of it is the typical PG-13 style where people just get knocked out or shot bloodlessly (or get instantly vaporized), but the villain is a bit creepy looking.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871282)

There is some blood though. Late in the film a man gets kicked off a plane and through the propeller in a shower of blood. That's probably the goriest part of the movie.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

dmorin (25609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871438)

Are you referring to the new super hero movies, or to Raiders of the Lost Ark? I certainly remember that "through a propeller" sequence - not to mention the whole "melting their faces off" thing. But that was 30 years ago - plus I'm pretty sure I was more like 8 or 9 when that movie came out.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871682)

I didn't see anything in Captain America worse than in Indy Jones... There might have been swearing. These days, they tend to add a few scenes to a PG movie to "boost" it to PG13 because that makes it "not a kid's movie".

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871462)

Now that you mention it, that same sort of propeller-meets-bad-guy death occurred in GP's mention of Raiders of the Lost Arc. Overall, if GP saw Raiders at the same age, he or she can base the decision on that being pretty comparable in terms of scariness or violence.

Re:Kid Friendly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871222)

For the most part, movies these days get rated PG-13 for any amount of violence. I haven't seen Captain America, but generally there's little to no blood in mainstream superhero movies, although sometimes there's some "scary situations" or minor coarse language (you won't hear "fuck" though). I think your kid will be fine seeing this one.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

JStyle (833234) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871228)

I'm not totally sure, but there are some pretty straight forward reviews that give you all the facts to make your decision for your family. http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/captainamericathefirstavenger.aspx [pluggedin.com] http://www.screenit.com/movies/2011/captain_america_the_first_avenger.html [screenit.com] Hope this helped.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871588)

I happened upon this website a few years ago while looking for something else:

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/ [kids-in-mind.com]

It's definitely got a Christian bias, but the way they describe movies, and how appropriate they are for kids is pretty objective, and allows a parent to know what's in a movie without giving away any/many plot details. Here's an example from the Captain America review:

VIOLENCE/GORE 6 - This World War II Era film includes many scenes of gunfire, military vehicles shooting cannons, soldiers firing on the enemy, falling bodies, men carried on stretchers, exploding grenades and bombs with smoke and fire; there is little blood. A man flicks a cigarette lighter, blowing up a piece of equipment, and then shoots another man in the chest (we see three dots of blood over the heart and he dies).

They rate each film according to Sex, Violence, and Language "quotients" so you can see at a glance how much violent or sexual content has. And, being that it's such a conservative group doing the reviews, they tend to include things like kissing or hand holding, which many might not find offensive, but some probably would.

Re:Kid Friendly? (2)

PrimalChrome (186162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871262)

I took my 6 year old and 10 year old to see it....and don't recall any scenes as being cringeworthy with regards to how appropriate they would be for a 6 year old. He had a great time and did get a bit bored in some of the scenes that were heavy on the dialogue. The PG-13 rating is (I believe) based solely on the rock-em-sock-em bash-em-with-a-shield violence. The Red Skull might give him nightmares....and the violence might not be appropriate if you are very sensitive to that sort of exposure.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871270)

Captain America shoots people and throws knives and kills people. Bucky falls from a train, but you don't see him hit anything. You just know he is dead. The only blood is some the Red Skull wipes off his jacket after shooting someone. Mostly you have shots and people falling over or flying away from explosions or Cap's shield.

And Sex? Two kisses.

Once upon a time, I took my young son to Jurassic Park, That was much more scary in my mind than this movie.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871382)

And the guy diced by the propeller after fighting on a flying plane/bomb, but you do not see actual chopping. Not materially different than the propeller scene in the Indiana Jones' films; You have the setup, then shot of blood. In Cap A, they cut to a distance shot of the plane in flight, and you see a red "cloud trail" behind the plane.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

Nephilium (684559) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871274)

I'd say that Captain America is not that kid friendly (YMMV of course). This is set in WWII, so there's gunfights, people being shot, and quite a bit of death. There are energy weapons that vaporize people, and at least one person falling through a propeller that turns into a fine mist.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871326)

It's because they use the F bomb and show cleavage.... Your child should easily handle it if you were not over protective in his upgringing... IF he is reading classic comic books from the 60's to 80's then he has been exposed to far more violence and sex than this movie has.

Although some people freak out at a half boobie shot but are ok with the kid seeing the daily violence we have on the news. Make your own judgement.

It's fine (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871480)

I took my six year old and didn't think twice about it. In fact, I hadn't even thought about the rating until you mentioned it. I've always thought the MPAA rating system was aimed at parents who would rather try to carpet the world than raise their kids to wear slippers, if you know what I mean.

Re:Kid Friendly? (2)

leamanc (961376) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871496)

I desperately want him to have the memory of going to these movies when they were a big deal, like I remember going to see Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T.

Sorry, it ain't gonna happen. I have a kid that is roughly the same age as yours (turned 6 last month). For kids today, the massive amount of TV/movies/associated tie-ins being slung their way has pretty much guaranteed that no one movie will be a "special experience" seeing it in the theater. They know good and well that if they didn't see it in the theater, it will be on DVD in three months, and forgotten about three months later...unless there is a sequel to hold their interest.

I have told my kid plenty of times about the magic of seeing Star Wars in 1977, or how we all gasped when Darth Vader claimed to be Luke's father in 1980, or how magical ET was. It just doesn't sink in to this generation. I think most of them prefer to watch movies at home. Until more theaters convert to digital projection, I can't really blame them. The setup for watching movies at home is pretty cool, and you don't have to sit and be quiet for two hours.

Re:Kid Friendly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871500)

I haven't seen the movie, and I can't tell you how to raise your kid, but consider the movies of your childhood for a second. Star Wars has Vader and dead pilots. Raiders has melting faces and that creepy dude in glasses. ET...has men in containment suits.

I was four when I went to see Empire Strikes Back. Vader (and Chewie) scared the shit out of me, but I loved it nonetheless. If Luke & co. could stand up to Vader (or sit next to Chewie), then I could be brave and do it to. I don't think it would have been as impactful if the bad guys weren't scary, if the good guys weren't up against the wall, or if the hero's choices weren't as tough.

Re:Kid Friendly? (1)

WraithCube (1391567) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871574)

While I didn't really pay much attention to it while watching Captain America does tend to be at least a bit kid friendly though some parts are probably too much for a 5 year old. There is not a lot of blood (a lot of the guns just vaporize people) though plenty of people do get shot. Which naturally involves death including somebody close to Rogers. The only part I can remember with foul language would be a soldier mooning Cap and saying "kiss my ass". There aren't any sex scenes (Caps is a classy guy).

Despite one thing you should keep in mind is that part of the reason the latest set of movies have been PG-13 is because they are actually staying closer to the original comics. The majority of comics were written targeting a young-adult audience as the core group of comic readers tended to be aged 14-21. Despite whatever the marketing departments have done (and animated cartoon spinoffs) these superheroes were meant for kids just over 13.

DO NOT CARE AT ALL (2)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871084)

How much does Hollywood pay the talking heads to pawn off every piece of drivel they come up with. I can't go anywhere for news, TV News, internet news, etc. without seeing this marketed junk all over the place.

Re:DO NOT CARE AT ALL (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871498)

It wasn't drivel or junk, it was pretty good. And the rest of us will go have fun watching it while you hunker down and tell us all to get off your lawn.

Re:DO NOT CARE AT ALL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871666)

That's odd cause I've read plenty of news online and never saw any mention of this movie. It must be outside my adblock universe. I'll take my "rock" anyday.

Re:DO NOT CARE AT ALL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871766)

Slashdot MOVIES. You knew what was going to happen when you clicked the link.

Oh, wait, you're one of those "big companies make nothing but shit, support the indie labels who make REAL entertainment" people, aren't you?

Go back to your coffehouse while the rest of us enjoy our time out in the sun.

The connection to now is horrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871092)

The movie was good until they did a completely unbelievable tie in to the present day, the only thing that could have made it worse was if he immediately went out to fight terrorists.

Re:The connection to now is horrible (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871190)

Captain America being frozen in ice, then thawed out to be a hero in the modern day is exactly the sort of comic book science the movie was aiming at recreating. In fact it's exactly what happened in the comics. I fail to see how it's less believable than having drugs and radiation give a man such an unrealistic increase in muscle mass and size in a matter of a few minutes. Or the crazy aerodynamic properties of the shield.

Re:The connection to now is horrible (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871356)

It surprised me that he didn't ask the most obvious question: "How did the war turn out?"

Re:The connection to now is horrible (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871478)

That was straight from the comics. I was wondering if they were going to "modernize" his origin and have him be "born" in a Middle Eastern conflict like Iron Man or use the story from the comics. Kinda cool that they went with the comic version. Sure it's a bit unbelievable. So is serum that instantly makes a 99 pound weakling into an Olympian gymnast/martial artist, or a shield that bounces off walls to return to its owner.

Good flick. (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871114)

The only moment where my suspension of disbelief ran into problems was a brief technobabble tossaway about the super soldier serum and his "genetic code". So when I got home and googled around a little to learn a little more of the history of what the state of knowledge was between Mendal and Watson&Crick. Now I find myself reading Schrödinger's 1944 book "What is Life?".

CmdrTaco (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871118)

You have the writing and comprehension skills of a fourth grader. You have absolutely no technical chops, and are a complete poseur geek on every single level.

That's my review of you.

Re:CmdrTaco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871614)

Also, he's got a lot more money than you. And a more attractive spouse.

So suck it loser.

The tanks looked like Metal Slug... (1)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871148)

Now, I never read a Captain America comic, but I did see the movie. The movie had giant-ass tanks like the one you see when you play Metal Slug series. It was as if I was watching clips from the game.

Does the original comic have this type of art direction?

Captain America (0)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871180)

Go Captain America, pound those underhand Frenchies and evil Muzzies.

Unlike the haters. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871188)

I don't have a problem with Comic book movies. This movie was fun but I feel it missed the mark. You did have the death of Buddy which is cannon but as a whole I felt it lacked emotional content.
1. I at no time ever felt that Capt was in danger. I mean he never really was defeated. He won every battle.
2. I felt no real pain over the Buddy's death. I saw no soul searching or pain. Now this was WWII so in away that is expected. People died all the time in that war. Just to help put it into perspective. The Iraq according to wikipedia the US had 3,510 killed and 31,956 wounded in Iraq from 2003-2010. During the battle of Okinawa the US had 12,000 killed and 50,000 wounded in 82 days.
The main thing was just that I never felt that the Red Skull had a chance. Captain America just kicked butt and took names. The fear of failure as lacking in this film. But it was fun. It really was a fun summer movie. I would give it a good but not great. It was not as good as Thor, Ironman or the Dark Knights IMHO.

I, apparently, live under a rock (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871218)

I guess I must have been living under a rock then. Along with billions of others.

I call my rock "The Earth". Living "under" it is reliant really on which way you regards as "up".

digitally altered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871250)

Chris Evans had a digitally altered body (it was still his own, just modified) as he felt he should play the entire role and not have a body double and just superimpose his face on it for the first portion. Its under the IMDB trivia for the movie. They said it was very difficult to do as they shrunk his body they had to fill in all the backgrounds that his body used to cover.

Suffers from same thing all prequels suffer from (1)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871296)

This movie, like a lot of the others in the Avengers series suffer from the exact same thing. They can't stand on their own. Sure, the effects were good. The writing wasn't half bad. The acting was pretty decent. But the entire story was servicing the inevitable sequel. As a result, the film itself wasn't very interesting. Everything seemed to be there specifically to set up for the next movie. Sure, there was the "fight/chase scene" that concluded the movie with a little resolution but it wasn't a very satisfying ending. So it doesn't stand on its own but it didn't generate in me an overwhelming anticipation of the sequel either. Every part of it said "there's going to be more in the next movie" without really building the anticipation. It really felt like they were just rushing through everything to make sure they had the bases covered for the movie next year. The underlying story for this movie really didn't really engage me.

That being said, it is a decent movie. It's worth seeing on the big screen in the theater. The story may have been flimsy and cliche but the characters themselves were developed pretty well. Like I said above, the writing and acting were acceptable. The effects were pretty good too. You have to suspend your disbelief on a lot of things but this is a movie based on a comic book so that's a given. And if you do that, the movie is enjoyable.

Re:Suffers from same thing all prequels suffer fro (1)

Slider451 (514881) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871638)

I disagree. The only setup for the sequel was him waking up in modern times and meeting Agent Fury. That's right out of Cap canon. The rest of the story is self-contained. The fact that he lost everything and everyone he knew over his 70-year hibernation is part of the tragedy of his character. If anything is missing it's giving him a few minutes at the end to reflect on his losses and the challenge of preserving his values amid contemporary chaos.

The preservation of his boy scout ideals in an uncertain world makes him a very compelling character, IMO. And the pitting of his humble leadership style against the massive egos of Tony Stark and Thor will be quite fun to watch.

Dieselpunk (5, Informative)

tomewilson (2416480) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871376)

"The movie dripped with a cool 40s art style, with enough odd looking modernizations to make it all work. It wasn't steam punk. It wasn't art deco. It wasn't historically accurate. But it was awesome. Every aspect of the world was wonderfully realized to give us a parallel WWII that I totally bought into."

The style name your looking for is "dieselpunk."

It's like steampunk, but rooted in the years between WWI and the bombing of Hiroshima.

Re:Dieselpunk (1)

tomewilson (2416480) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871426)

TYPO

"your" = "you're"

Continental Europe is under a rock? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871384)

So continental Europe is under a rock?

Well then it's a rock with 100Mbps FTTH.

America, fuck yeah! (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871396)

I wonder, what is up with so many fairy tales being told about super heroes on TV these days?

It's probably because in most of our lives there aren't real heroes around and there isn't a happy ending.

Re:America, fuck yeah! (1)

Slider451 (514881) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871772)

The nameless soldiers who got vaporized fighting alongside Cap in the movie are no less heroes than him. They just don't get their stories told.

Similarly, there are real heroes in the world today. Their actions are just not exciting enough for their stories to generate viewer interest sufficient for the media to report on them. Nor would they ask for glory. But it's sad that the good they do is unnoticed by the masses.

Instead we're fed politics, celebrity, and scandal.

You bet your bottom dollar I'll see it. (1)

CHK6 (583097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871516)

Once it hits Redbox and I can watch it for a dollar.

Movies based on literature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871568)

There really aren't many made-from-scratch movies. The most recently made movie that I've seen that wasn't based on pre-existing literature is Inception, by Christopher Nolan.

AFAIK he wrote the original story, and had been thinking about making that movie since he was a child.

So, in summary, find something worthy to be pretentious and nit-picky about. Because the vast majority of films are based on literature. Short stories, comics, novels, or biographies, etc.

My comments (1)

fiendy (931228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871576)

I actually saw it last night. While not normally a fan of comic book movies, it was fun. Wasn't looking for anything serious. My only real complaint (taking into account I wasn't looking for an Oscar-winner or anything) was that for a 2 hour movie, they spent too much time building up the plot - although this does make sense if you consider it as a prequel to the Avengers movie(s).

I felt like the some of the epic battle scenes were more montages or practically fast-forwarded through and although I'm sure they are expensive to produce, are what I would have expected to see more of from a movie like this.

What About Mature Adults? (0)

TheTyrannyOfForcedRe (1186313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871660)

If you have been living under a rock, you might not be aware that the next in the ongoing series of Avengers prequel movies came out this weekend

Living under a rock? How about this instead:

If you're a mature adult who ignores pop culture for the mindless, endlessly recycled drivel that it is, you might not be aware that the next in the ongoing series of Avengers prequel movies came out this weekend

Huh? Captain of the good ship "America"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871672)

Never heard of that ship. Dunno how they'd make a movie out of it. Is it something like "Pirates of the Caribbean" or "Das Boot"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>