Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 447

2016 Movies Worth Watching

  1. #101
    tbh though anything superman touches turns to monotonous rubbish anyway. The guy is the most powerful hero around and that's part of the problem. But i don't wanna delve into that because we've been down that road before and it goes on for pages and pages :P

  2. Gamers Lounge Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #102
    FREEZE! Mokino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Not here
    The best Superman stories are the ones where the situation forces him to LIMIT his powers. When he's handicapped by his desire to protect the innocent.

    Unfortunately, Snyder pretty much threw that core part of the character away in Man of Steel.

  3. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA, USA
    I said this on another forum, and I'm sure Gadot does fine in the role, but I was thinking about it and I kind of wanted Faora to break out of wherever she is at the end of MoS, try and kill Superman, see what Lex does to Zod then join in on the Doomsday beatdown, setting Faora up (begrudgingly) to be Wonder Woman. But that's just because the kryptonians owning the military was the best part of MoS and she was the best part of that.
    My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.

  4. #104
    I don't think it's strictly necessary to limit Superman's power just to see him struggle, but of course the blockbuster action movie formula demands a certain way for the action to play out, and if you rely for your resolution on a big special effects laden setpiece of super powered dudes punching and eye lasering each other, you locked yourself into that way.

    "That's why we made him even more powerful than ever ..because everyone kept saying, 'you can't make a Superman story because if he can do anything than what conflicts are there?' Emotional conflicts. The biggest ones. The things we all understand."
    --Grant Morrison

    Morrison's All-Star Superman has a climactic battle in which a dying Superman leads an army of Superman robots into a battle against an evil living star that's trying to kill the sun. It's as amazing as it sounds stupid on paper and it's the kind of scene I'd love to see in a big budget hero flick. But the pivotal moments are found elsewhere - moments of humanity, tragedy, hope, compassion. The final confrontation with Lex is resolved not in a city-shattering epic battle but a moment of unlikely enlightenment.

    That's the sort of thing I've been missing from MoS' interpretation of the character. It wasn't reluctant or subtle about its religious symbolism, propping up Superman as legendary, religious figure. But it emphasized Superman's alienation from humanity and left him seeming distant and disconnected, even disinterested. Then it ended in an Emmerichesque orgy of destruction that was somehow supposed to be a positive ending?
    It felt cynical and depressing compared especially to Morrison's Superman, from whose book the film even took lines almost verbatim.

    ANYWAY sorry for the halfway-rant; I might still go catch BvS because I'm really curious about Batfleck in particular. But watching MoS left me feeling unusually exhausted and drained, so with that in memory I'm going to give it a long think beforehand.

  5. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member  #105
    Doltformer Kirjava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Habsburg Empire
    Judging from the orgy of reviews, Batfleck is at least a vaguely positive aspect of what is otherwise a grey humourless assault on the senses.
    "The ecosystem! We destroy that and this is ovah! CHAAAARGE!" - Lomax
    Doltmarines, for the Emprah: the place to play Dawn of War: Soulstorm
    "I'd probably lose my shit if I saw a mushroom with a mouth, eyes, and legs walking toward me in real life. That doesn't make me afraid to play Mario." - Starblade

  6. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member  #106
    Doltformer Kirjava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Habsburg Empire


    Sad Affleck.

  7. #107
    Proudly Politically Incorrect pseudonymn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    ^ I wanna hear what Henry Cavill was saying. Though the look on Affleck's face is not comforting. I honestly feel bad for the guy. =\

    Now, I haven't seen the film yet and am going to see it this weekend, so no spoilers please; but for those of you who have seen it, what makes this film as horribad as the review mags are saying? Was it the acting? The script? Did they (corporate meddling; people with political agendas) fuck with the characters in ways that would have been totally out of character for their established personae?

    I don't normally pay attention to the review mags and usually take the pulse of a movie from aggregate user reviews, if anything. But all this noise kind of has me worried. Frankly, I enjoyed MoS and was looking forward to this film kicking off DCU films. So help me god, if this film got fucked by corporate meddling or anything of the sort, Ima lose my shit!

  8. General Discussions Senior Member The Studio Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #108
    Player Hater Langy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by pseudonymn View Post
    Now, I haven't seen the film yet and am going to see it this weekend, so no spoilers please; but for those of you who have seen it, what makes this film as horribad as the review mags are saying? Was it the acting? The script? Did they (corporate meddling; people with political agendas) fuck with the characters in ways that would have been totally out of character for their established personae?

    I don't normally pay attention to the review mags and usually take the pulse of a movie from aggregate user reviews, if anything. But all this noise kind of has me worried. Frankly, I enjoyed MoS and was looking forward to this film kicking off DCU films. So help me god, if this film got fucked by corporate meddling or anything of the sort, Ima lose my shit!
    Everything I've heard just says that the artistic vision is kind of shit - it's Snyder's fault, not corporate's.

  9. #109
    The cat hatter Jopax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    *floating*
    I feel like Affleck is going "I just got to be fucking batman and these assholes are ruining it for me, god damn it people, let me be fucking batman"

    But seconding Langy here, it seems that they tried to do way too much and it kinda left everything a mess. Basically trying to pull off Avengers, but with like, only having a single Iron Man movie before it.

  10. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member  #110
    Doltformer Kirjava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Habsburg Empire
    I enjoyed MoS
    Well, see, there's your problem.

    Snyder is basically just a shitty director unless you love two hour-long music videos and desaturated colour, in which case run wild I guess. I think I saw it said best somewhere on the AV Club- he doesn't use a shot because it serves the story or communicates a message. He does it because it looks cool. And so, yes, lots of his shots will look very cool, but there's absolutely nothing of substance to them.

  11. #111
    Proudly Politically Incorrect pseudonymn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Is there anything of substance to any of the "capeshit" movies out there? Why do people read comic books? For enlightenment?

    MCU has made itself into a phenomenally successful, multibillion dollar industry because they are entertaining, not because they are writing prose that will shape and mold the human condition for generations to come. And even then, sometimes they do manage to sneak the odd nugget in there. But on that basis, all I really want to know is whether or not this film is entertaining for what it is and whether or not they've stayed faithful to the characters and universe that it portrays and tells a half-way decent story along the way.

  12. #112
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA, USA
    Snyder is basically just a shitty director unless you love two hour-long music videos and desaturated colour, in which case run wild I guess.
    300 and Man of Steel were pretty good. Watchmen was ok.

  13. #113
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Zealand - South African by birth.
    I'm not a fan of Superman. I think he is an unimaginative mess that starts from the concept of "MURICAFUCKYEAH".

    But I liked MoS. For once, it didn't feel like he was simply an overpowered godlike, but home grown, corn fed, red white and blue American in every single aspect right down to his pathetic love interest and braindead decision making capabilities.

    For once I felt something more than contempt for the character. And that's a massive change. (Okay, not the first time. Red Son and Kingdom Come were the only other two good Superman stories)

    MoS was a good movie. It was a fucking brilliant Superman movie. But still only "good" as a movie at all.

    I was excited about Affleck as Batman as soon as I heard about it. Seriously, Affleck can really act. He gets a lot of crap from haters, more than 90% of which is undeserved.

    So if BvS is like MoS in any way, and with Affleck as Batman? Then I'm kinda excited to see it. Going tomorrow.
    It takes a lot of argument
    to convince most people
    that they are lying.

  14. #114
    Dexter Ramrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    im in ur forums, trollin ur thr3adz
    I'm with LoCo here, as someone with a strong dislike for Superman, Man of Steel was the only Superman movie that I actually enjoyed. I understand Superman fans didn't like that take on him, and I guess it is a shame that it took a "wrong," for lack of a better word, Superman movie to get me to enjoy watching the character.

    I have middlin' expectations for BvS, so I doubt I will come out of it too offended, even if it does turn out to be a stinker. I was one of those guys who originally went "WHAT? Ben Affleck?! get fucked" when they announced his casting, but the trailers have sold me on him, and the reviews praising him have me pretty fucking stoked to see his portrayal.

    Going in about 4 hours, looking forward to it.
    Look at the bright side, kid - you get to keep all the money.

  15. #115
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA, USA
    I'm not a fan of Superman. I think he is an unimaginative mess that starts from the concept of "MURICAFUCKYEAH".
    Superman will always be rad because he defeated the KKK in real life.

    Along with Lego Batman, I think I'd rather watch a movie about that than BvS.

  16. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member  #116
    Doltformer Kirjava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Habsburg Empire
    300 was alright on the first watch provided one completely disengaged one's brain. Subsequent viewings reveal how over-long, dull, reactionary and stupid it is, and how Snyder somehow extracts stiff-as-floorboards performances from actors like Wenham and Headey. As for Man of Steel, it was just... boring. I'm not invested in Superman as a character, but just like 300 (and Watchmen, and now BvS as well apparently), it was tediously long. I was more interested in Twitter by the (blissful) end.

  17. #117
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA, USA
    300 was alright on the first watch provided one completely disengaged one's brain.
    You are watching a satire where the story is the guy who ran away told a story about the champions of democracy who are oiled up super buff fascists fighting the monster men led by a giant nakeder gold guy why would you not sit back and relax?

    302 is even better, because part of the point of 300 is proving Xerxes isn't a god, then 302 is about how he actually is a giant golden godking for reals because he took a dip in magic.

    Watchmen's kind of tedious but I liked it at the time. I didn't watch Sucker Punch because it looked like shit.

  18. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member  #118
    Doltformer Kirjava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Habsburg Empire
    I didn't watch Sucker Punch because it looked like shit.
    You are... you're not missing out.

    Also I think you're giving 300 a bit too much credit calling it a satire. It takes itself incredibly seriously.

  19. Modding Senior Member Dawn of War II Senior Member  #119
    Talented Musician Buguba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount of Olives
    In 300, I could never tell if the movie was a high-concept diatribe on revisionist history or if it was a genuinely offensive summer blockbuster that disregarded literally every form of sensitivity for a testosterone-fueled cinema erection. Regardless, I hated the movie, and I hate the blanched filter that Snyder puts in every. single. film.

    Also I think you're giving 300 a bit too much credit calling it a satire. It takes itself incredibly seriously.
    To be honest, I see it going both ways at times. For as seriously as it takes itself, am I not still obligated to give someone the benefit of the doubt that, when they draw up a Persian soldier as an actual Orc from LotR, they have to know what they've done? Maybe not though. It really was an awful movie.

    Batman versus Superman feels like a capstone movie in the same vein as Avengers 1, minus any of the contextual build-up that Marvel had spent the last 5 or so years developing. It's not a story about Superman, it's not a story about Batman, and it's not a story about Lex or Wonder Woman. They literally just get thrown into a rat cage and we get to watch the fireworks. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but, minus the development of prior films, it leaves you with the taste that you're watching a film for the sake of watching the next film (a deplorable trend in Hollywood as of late).
    "My soul belongs to God I know, I made that bargain long ago. He gave me hope when hope was gone. He gave me strength to journey on."

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Starblade
    I didn't watch Sucker Punch because it looked like shit.
    Sucker Punch is visually amazing and it has some great scenes, but the story is fairly weakly told. While I can sit down and enjoy it for what it is, it's not a movie I'd recommend to most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buguba
    In 300, I could never tell if the movie was a high-concept diatribe on revisionist history
    As far as 300 goes, it's based on the Frank Miller comic of the same name. And while that guy has written some good comics, he's also responsible for some fairly atrocious stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to find that everything that's wrong story wise with the movie is taken straight from the comic.

  21. Modding Senior Member Dawn of War II Senior Member  #121
    Talented Musician Buguba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount of Olives
    Everyone is a caricature, the plot is directionless and meandering, any and all emotional and/or intellectual rhetoric reads like a 1940's patriotic pamphlet, and every woman who appears on-screen is seen naked at least once during the film.

    Don't get me wrong, Lena Heady looks wonderful with no clothes, but that was probably the sole redeeming quality of an otherwise boring, unfulfilling film. And really, if that's your standard for cinema, you're probably better off just watching porn.

  22. #122
    Proudly Politically Incorrect pseudonymn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    /facepalm

  23. #123
    Dexter Ramrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    im in ur forums, trollin ur thr3adz
    You know what? Batman vs Superman was fine. Not great. Fine.

    No spoilers:

    I expected garbage when it was originally announced, then as the trailers came out I got more into the idea, and finally watching it, I was not disappointed. There was a lot of Dark Knight Returns in it, in a good way, and about five seconds of Flashpoint Paradox, which was weird but intriguing. The bits that ended up on the cutting room floor are glaringly obvious by their absence, cause the film's final act is rushed as fuck. I'm certain that the director's cut will be the version to watch.

    Lex Luthor is completely, utterly ass. It was a terrible, terrible mistake casting Jesse Eisenberg. Or at least writing the role to be what it was.

    I feel a little sad, though, that hidden in amongst all the Justice League setup are these glorious little glimpses of possibly the best Batman movie that never was. Ben Affleck knocked the role out of the park. The soundtrack during the Batman parts was absolutely incredible. The flashback to the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents was masterfully done.

  24. Modding Senior Member Dawn of War II Senior Member  #124
    Talented Musician Buguba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount of Olives
    /facepalm
    That's fair. I meant the Heady comment more tongue and cheek, but I still wasn't a fan of the movie (including the sexualization).

  25. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member  #125
    Doltformer Kirjava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Habsburg Empire
    Winged is onto something when he notes that the film is based on a comic by Frank Miller, a man not known for his subversive tendencies (rather the opposite, in fact). When Gorgo goes all, "Freedom isn't free" to her buddy in the government, she is doing it with 0% irony.

  26. #126
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA, USA
    Also I think you're giving 300 a bit too much credit calling it a satire. It takes itself incredibly seriously.
    Most satires do. Only a handful do it with a wink and a nod and those are usually the shitty ones.

    Winged is onto something when he notes that the film is based on a comic by Frank Miller, a man not known for his subversive tendencies (rather the opposite, in fact). When Gorgo goes all, "Freedom isn't free" to her buddy in the government, she is doing it with 0% irony.
    Similarly, Starship Troopers was based on a novel that is openly about how great fascism and the military is.

  27. Modding Senior Member Tabletop Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #127
    I liked Eisenberg a lot.

    I liked the movie overall, it could've done without the explicit Justice League tie-ins. Would've been a stronger movie for it. Tighten up the running time; I didn't miss the minutes as they passed, but it would've been a more focused experience.

    Unfortunately the Internet mob is very much set against Snyder (as as left-leaning as I am, I wonder if especially some of the more traditionally-liberal outlets have an issue with his politics IRL) more than anything actually in the movie. People railing on Affleck not being able to act, which I personally disagree with. But reviews are simply measuring sticks to gauge your own opinion against.

    If you don't want to cinema it, pick it up cheap on DVD at some point. At the very least, it's worth one watch, assuming you want to continue watching the DC franchise take root (if it even does). It's certainly selling well enough, which is generally what passes for success these days.
    I am an Iron Warrior. Iron Within, Iron Without.

  28. Gamers Lounge Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #128
    FREEZE! Mokino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Not here
    I don't hate Snyder. I just think he's an awful choice for doing Superman. Snyder's whole thing is doing dark and grim movies and that doesn't fit Supes at all.

    He'd be excellent for a stand alone Batfleck movie, for instance.

  29. #129
    I'm like the only person on Earth whose favorite Superman movie (Really the only one I like) is Superman Returns. Sadface
    "Fear nothing except in the certainty that you are your enemy's begetter and its only hope of healing. For everything that does evil is in pain."
    -The Maestro Sartori, Imajica by Clive Barker

  30. #130
    Proudly Politically Incorrect pseudonymn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    I don't know why that one got as much flack as it did. I loved it 100%. I'm just not sure what people expect from a Superman movie if they can't enjoy these latest three films. It's certainly not as bad as in Superman IV fighting against that Nuclear Man abomination (gag).

    I thought Brandon Rooth was an excellent choice for the role, though I like Henry Cavil as well, to the point where I don't know which I'd prefer in the role, honestly. Maybe along the lines of Rooth being a better, more traditional "Big Blue Boy Scout" version of Superman while Cavil portrays a more convincingly dark, conflicted Superman.

  31. #131
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Zealand - South African by birth.
    Okay. Seen it.

    Thoroughly enjoyed it. It wasn't the best movie I've seen all year, and even if I had watched crap before, I know it won't be the best I'll see if the rest of the year.

    But I enjoyed it. It was Batman being The Batman. Seriously, Affleck nailed the part.

    Apparently there are spoilers here



    All those negative reviews? Yeah, just the loud moaning of arrogant fanboys who weren't pandered to. That's right, I'm talking about Movie Bob and his ilk. What a bunch of whiners. And wrong too.

    It's a good movie. Better than MoS, and DC's best offering to date (Barring the Dark Knight stuff).

    Not yet on par with Marvel's stuff, but getting there quickly. I like Marvel more than DC, but I can recognize when DC does things right.
    Last edited by LoCo; 27th Mar 16 at 1:12 PM.

  32. #132
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA, USA
    I don't know why that one got as much flack as it did. I loved it 100%.
    My main issue with Superman Returns is that it is incredibly boring.

    Yeah, just the loud moaning of arrogant fanboys who weren't pandered to. That's right, I'm talking about Movie Bob and his ilk. What a bunch of whiners. And wrong too.
    I'm pretty sure not every negative critic on RT is a Moviebob, but I am glad that this movie is enraging the kind of critic who is.

  33. #133
    Burr! OhJohnNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    magic
    Does MovieBob even count as a critic? He's completely incompetent and knows absolutely nothing about film.
    Me... I Am OhJohnNo! The Perspicuous Prestidigitator

    Let's sail in this sea of charms
    Let's drown underneath the stars

  34. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member  #134
    Doltformer Kirjava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Habsburg Empire
    Yeah, just the loud moaning of arrogant fanboys who weren't pandered to. That's right, I'm talking about Movie Bob and his ilk. What a bunch of whiners. And wrong too.
    Yeah, fuck those nerds at the New Yorker/NPR/Observer/Washington Post/TIME Magazine!

  35. General Discussions Senior Member The Studio Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #135
    Player Hater Langy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    CA
    There are a lot of valid criticism about this movie. A lot. Whoever directed it should not direct movies. I mean, it's going to make a crapload of money, and I don't regret seeing it, but it is patently a bad film. It feels like a B-grade movie from a first-time author/director but with a AAA budget and cinematographer. And then a lot of crap got thrown in for no reason - especially the hallucination/dream sequences. There's maybe 20-30 minutes of those, and they don't impact the plot at all.

    One of them is pretty cool - it briefly turns the movie into a post-apocalypse Fallout-ish wasteland, with Batman going around in a bat-hat and brown trench coat, fighting Superman's evil army (including soldiers in power armor with dragonfly wings). But it makes no sense in the context of the movie, is never explained other than as a dream of Batman's, and is never mentioned at any point by anyone. And I am being 100% completely and honestly serious with that characterization. That happens in the film, for about 5-10 minutes.

    Also: There's going to be a 30-minute extended R-rated version of this!? WTF for?

    It was already at least 30 minutes too long (and that's coming from someone who thought Avengers 2 should have been 30 minutes longer), and the only sequences I can think of that could have had an R-rated insert are a few scenes of violence and Lois Lane's gratuitous nude scene (in the film version, her naked boobs are covered by murky bath water and at one point a pan up when she sits up out of the tub; maybe they just don't bother panning at that point, add in 30 minutes of extra dream sequences including a re-enactment of 'Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex' by Larry Niven, and call it an excellent R-rated production).

    Hmm. Or maybe they'll just put in a 30-minute scene of Batman Batmanning; at one point in the released film, Batman has to go Batman someone/something that we just had an extended sequence of him failing to Batman, but we're only shown the results of his Batmanning it successfully.

    Again, I don't regret seeing it - there's a fair amount of fun action sequences, and the film is visually quite good. But the plot and direction are some of the worst I've ever seen in a released film. Definitely worse than Star Wars Episode I, by a mile.

    Oh: The take on Alfred in this movie is genuinely great, though. Not necessarily the acting, but the idea that Alfred isn't just a butler. I don't think there's even a single scene of him butlering, really - but he gets to do some cool stuff to help Wayne out.

    From Here On be Spoilers:

    Spoiler




    All of this isn't to say there aren't good parts.

    The aforementioned post-apocalypse dream sequence, while terrible in the context of the film, would have been a cool stand-alone project or advertisement.

    A lot of the action sequences are cool, and I did like the idea but not the execution of the politics/philosophy regarding the Kryptonian 'savior'.

    Spoiler


  36. Modding Senior Member Tabletop Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #136

    Spoiler


  37. General Discussions Senior Member The Studio Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #137
    Player Hater Langy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbles View Post

    Spoiler

    Spoiler


  38. #138
    Dexter Ramrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    im in ur forums, trollin ur thr3adz
    The difference is a sort of cold, sociopathic insanity, and then a sort of "hey look at me I'm weird" quirkiness.

    One is intimidating. The other is unintentionally funny and/or cringey.

  39. Modding Senior Member Tabletop Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #139
    @Langy:

    Spoiler


  40. #140
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Zealand - South African by birth.
    One of them is pretty cool - it briefly turns the movie into a post-apocalypse Fallout-ish wasteland, with Batman going around in a bat-hat and brown trench coat, fighting Superman's evil army (including soldiers in power armor with dragonfly wings). But it makes no sense in the context of the movie, is never explained other than as a dream of Batman's, and is never mentioned at any point by anyone. And I am being 100% completely and honestly serious with that characterization. That happens in the film, for about 5-10 minutes.
    ...

    Just another reason where people who didn't like the new direction/take on DC Movieverse want the film to fail. Seriously.

    The dream made perfect sense in the context of the film. It was Batman's imagining of what the world would be like if he failed to kill Superman, coupled with his worry about Plot Device:

    Spoiler


    There is a lot of context for this. Did you listen to what he said when he spoke to Alfred at all? Were you watching when the film gave you all those reasons for Batman wanting to take Superman down? There were plenty of them. The film went out of its way to set up the conflict.

    I won't mention your R-rated rant since it has nothing to do with the film you saw, and lots to do with you raging about things you have no idea will even be in the film. Which is weird.

    It is NOT a patently bad film. Not by any yard stick. It is FAR from being a B-grade film. This is more weird ranting.

    Batman and Superman were going to fight each other no matter what. The only "manipulation" Lex did was try and ensure that it was to the death on Superman's part, hoping that pushing Superman that far would expose him to the world as a killer and that it would encourage Batman to end it quick. Batman was all for it for his own reasons, and Superman was all for smashing Batman's face until someone came to lock Batman up. It wasn't all some master plan by Lex.

    And Lex's hate of Superman is so cannon that even non-comic book readers know it is because Superman is an alien and Lex considers him dangerous. So this film didn't spell it out again... whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Not sure why that makes the fanbois rage... they already, assuming they are fans at all, know that.

    Maybe Gorbles is right. In defending the film it makes it look like I'm a massive fan of it.

    It was a good movie. Not the best movie ever. But good. There were a few things I didn't like. Many things I did. Not a bad effort at the end of the day.

    The raging hate for it is completely and utterly uncalled for. There is no reason in the amount of hate it is getting. Perhaps, for anyone who hasn't seen it, let that be your guide. There is no reason in hating on the film.

  41. General Discussions Senior Member The Studio Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #141
    Player Hater Langy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by LoCo View Post
    ...

    Just another reason where people who didn't like the new direction/take on DC Movieverse want the film to fail. Seriously.

    The dream made perfect sense in the context of the film. It was Batman's imagining of what the world would be like if he failed to kill Superman, coupled with his worry about Plot Device:

    Spoiler



    Yes, it may make sense in context once the Justice League movie comes out - but it was a bad idea to put it in this movie. It's not mentioned, referenced, or important to the plot or pacing of the film at all - same with the weird giant bat-person vision/nightmare he has in the tomb, and the hallucination of Papa Kent that Clark has.

    It is NOT a patently bad film. Not by any yard stick. It is FAR from being a B-grade film. This is more weird ranting.
    The vast majority of critics disagree with you.

    The raging hate for it is completely and utterly uncalled for. There is no reason in the amount of hate it is getting. Perhaps, for anyone who hasn't seen it, let that be your guide. There is no reason in hating on the film.
    Maybe you should look at some other critical reviews of the film. I'm not alone - and you very nearly are.

  42. #142
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA, USA
    Rotten Tomatoes has it at 29%, which is down from the 33% I last saw it at. Wow. Audience score is 73% though.

  43. Modding Senior Member Dawn of War II Senior Member  #143
    Talented Musician Buguba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount of Olives
    A better snapshot score is Metacritic, in my opinion, because Rotten Tomatoes is just a composite of the ratio of positive reviews. Metacritic puts it at a 44, I believe, which is decidedly not bad at all (more average on the side of needing improvement). People might look at a 44 and think it's low in the context of video games typically scoring between 70 - 100 on game review sites, but it really is a passable aggregate score.

  44. #144
    Burr! OhJohnNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    magic
    I dunno 'bout that. For movies I consider passable aggregate score to start at about 55. 44 is decidedly within the bounds of mediocrity.

  45. Modding Senior Member Dawn of War II Senior Member  #145
    Talented Musician Buguba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount of Olives
    I had meant "passable" as "average." I think Metacritic tends to weight slightly lower than a perfect 0 - 100 scale, so I might have given it a 50 - 55 were I the final arbiter of reviews. Maybe I had a slightly higher opinion of it than you did, but the end of the day my point is more that the movie certainly isn't being "panned" by reviewers in the sense of it being a horrible movie. The absence of raving reviews is not the presence of scathing reviews, that's all.

  46. #146
    Burr! OhJohnNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    magic
    I haven't seen the movie, I'm just disputing your reading of the score. I'd say 44 is what is generally considered to be in the better-end-of-bad range than the lesser-end-of-good. But I guess really it's a matter of perspective.

  47. #147
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Zealand - South African by birth.
    So, Langy, we're using the appeal to authority as our argument then?

    The "vast majority" of critics? Unlike most of those critics, I studied literary critical theory. So I guess that means I trump most of those critics, making my appeal to authority stronger than yours.

    Further still... the "vast majority" of critics is a fucking tiny number compared to the vast majority of non-critics. And for some impossible reason (if you go by critics) the non-critics are liking the movie. Or are we going to be pathetically misanthropic and say that people can't be counted on to know what they like? Or that people are stupid?

    You brought up numbers, and the appeal to authority. Both of those failed.

    The fact is that you are in the minority here. And when it comes to matters of value... the majority wins.

    I don't know a single movie critic that I agree with 100% of the time.

    Before we go any further, I'd like to ask... do you know of a single movie critic you agree with 100% of the time?

    The people saying the movie was bad like to pepper it with things like "But Batman was great" and such. Hell... most of the complaints come up for the end of the movie with critics saying that the first half of the film was good, with just a few nit-picks. It stands to reason that there is something about the second half of the film they didn't like, right?

    I put it to you that there are three things people didn't like about the second half:

    Spoiler



    2) I can understand. 1) was half of the point of the movie. 3) was totally to be expected.

    Sure, 3) could have been handled better.

    But the dreams and such? Have you ever read comics in your life? They are there. This is how comics set things up a lot of the time. It is a comic tradition. Also, Batman is fucking broken. In the head. Like, really. Him having weird ass, fucked up nightmares? Yeah, it is part and parcel of Batman since before Frank Miller. You complaining about it? Yeah, that's weird considering the character.

    Superman is different in this. He isn't a cocksure Boy Scout. He is conflicted about his power, because he knows he is fucking over-powered. That's what scares him. His own power. What he could do with it.

    It's a much better Superman than we used to have. The "critics" grew up with the old Superman. They don't like this new Superman. Stands to reason they will pan him.

    But the audiences? They enjoyed the movie.

    Who you going to trust?

  48. #148
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA, USA
    Who you going to trust?
    Critics, personally. I'm going to get around to seeing it sooner or later though.

  49. Modding Senior Member Dawn of War II Senior Member  #149
    Talented Musician Buguba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount of Olives
    The "vast majority" of critics? Unlike most of those critics, I studied literary critical theory. So I guess that means I trump most of those critics, making my appeal to authority stronger than yours.

    Further still... the "vast majority" of critics is a fucking tiny number compared to the vast majority of non-critics. And for some impossible reason (if you go by critics) the non-critics are liking the movie. Or are we going to be pathetically misanthropic and say that people can't be counted on to know what they like? Or that people are stupid?
    That's pretty unfair. Why would you assume that most critics have not studied some form of critical theory? This is their livelihood; not every critic is an uneducated nobody writing from the darkness of their mother's basement. They are just as likely to be educated as you concerning their work (if not more so).

    Moreover, the appeal that "the masses know more than the professionals" seems like a really emotional argument. The danger of of subjective fields like art and literature is that there is no such thing is a definitive "truth" when it comes to "good or bad." That said, if we were to really take your idea one step further, we could all argue that Twilight was a literary masterpiece because it was so popular. And, by your definition, don't the squads of raving teeny boppers outweigh the opinion of the critics?

    This seems like a really silly debate. I think it's alright if you liked a movie more than what the critical reception says it deserves. It doesn't make the critics wrong, and it doesn't make you wrong. It's ultimately a critic's job though to examine these films through the most objective scope possible within the context of the rest of the film industry, and I don't think a single one of them have an agenda to ruin what you feel is a perfectly acceptable movie.

  50. #150
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Zealand - South African by birth.
    I didn't say it was Buguba.

    I was responding to Langy's silly argument with one equally as silly.

    I assume it because most critics have not studied critical theory. There may be many that have, but percentage wise... "Most", "many" these are non-specific terms. How much is many to you? How about to Langy? How much is "vast majority"? Most, at the very least, is more than 50%. I wasn't saying that 99% of critics haven't studied critical theory. I was saying that most of them haven't.

    I was also, I point out again, responding directly to Langy's argument. In the same vein as his argument.

    If you want to be fair, then perhaps start there? Since you did bring up fairness.

    It is, again, not my idea. It is the extension of Langy's.

    I argued effectively against his criticisms of the movie. Unable to construct a better, or even factual, argument further, he appealed to authority. I simply used another appeal, this time to the masses since it is exactly as legitimate as his appeal to authority.

    Also, the argument that "art and literature" has no definitive "truth" is tired. As am I every time it comes up. It's a bit like saying that Poker is all about luck and is gambling. That may be the case for some people, but the same set of people make it to the final table in Poker tournaments. Are they just the luckiest people alive? Or is there actual skill involved? In literature and art there are definitive truths, just like skill in Poker. It's not just some random opinion pulled out of the air.

    And that's what most of these critics are doing. Just pulling up their opinion.

    Take the dream sequences and Superman talking to his dead father. Those are rather startling effects in a movie. Particularly since they are grounded in comic book tradition. They are well done. People got pulled in, their minds scattered in different directions while trying to place where, what, when was happening. It was a great effect, particularly since they didn't signpost it as previous similar scenes in other movies have done. There was no shaded edges, there were no visual or auditory clues that you were watching a dream or a hallucination. You were taken for a ride, exactly as the characters themselves were taken. They thought it was real, until it wasn't. The audience thought it was real, until it wasn't.

    In any other movie, it would have been praised. Those scenes were well plotted and fit so seamlessly into the movie that people were taken in. They were also in complete and utter accord with the characters and the DC universe and the comic book nature of the original subject matter. It was a good piece of cinematography. (Fact)

    Instead we get "critics" reaching for straws to justify disliking it. (Opinion)

    Do you see the difference?

    It is easy enough to criticize the movie on good, solid, critical theory grounds. For instance, while the pacing of the film was good, it was a convoluted plot which used a lot of coincidence and chance to construct what was supposed to be a "master plan" by Lex. It also gave Lex too much knowledge. Knowledge which, if he actually did have it, would have been better used in other ways. The film explained that Lex was a genius with the "master plan" and his scientific knowledge. But then the film showed that he was actually an idiot because of his lack of escape plan and his lack of creativity for using the knowledge that he had. Lex was a flawed character in the film. Not that his character is flawed like he has a bit of insanity in him. Just that his character contradicts itself. They should have done a better job there. It just didn't make sense. Maybe it would have for someone like the Joker... but for Lex? It was stupid.

    See? A critical look at a flaw in the film. It isn't hard.

    But instead of going for actual fact based criticism, we get this:

    Because it is



    And before you say I'm just raging at Moviebob... I can pull similar ... events... from other "critics".

    Now you tell me again that you don't think a single one of them have an agenda to ruin a perfectly acceptable movie. If they don't have an agenda, then they are grossly incompetent.

    Your pick.

    To be fair, that "agenda" is your word. I would say that they have a fan claim to a Superman that isn't being shown, and they resent that. It's a pretty basic motive and explains why many of these same people didn't like Man of Steel.

    And that's fair enough. They don't have to like this new Superman. They really don't. But they shouldn't use what is, actually, personal preference to pan a movie while hiding behind a critical theory banner. That's intellectually dishonest at best.

    If they have valid criticisms of the film... let them use that. I haven't seen much of that though.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •