Batman v. Superman RT Thread: like standing ovations in rain

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was definately a huge mess. I was pointing out two scenes that are on paper pretty straight forward - a car chase and a guy rampaging through a room filled with thugs. While serviceable overall I was constantly frustrated by the editing and staging. There's very seldom a clear shot with multiple elements working at once, but rather cuts back and forth from one to another. I found it made them chaotic and more difficult to follow. And also, despite all the money on screen, much less impressive visually as a result.
Don't disagree. Was especially disappointed because Snyder usually nails that aspect of fight choreography.
 
So what you're saying is some scenes weren't fleshed out?

I have just read how a lot of people think there was bad editing, scene transitions, etc. When you're cutting 30 minutes out of a 3 hour movie, sacrifices are made to get the important stuff in. Watchman DC was way better than theatrical, Blade Runner, heck even Affleck's Daredevil DC was a much better movie.

Those 30 minutes could be key 2-3 minutes that really change things just ever so slightly but make them better.

And to everyone saying I'm being a critic just by saying I liked it and to not listen to people, isn't that what people should do? So apparently if you have an opinion and voice it, you're a critic. I didn't critique the movie in any way, so it doesn't really fit the definition of "critic". If you only will pay money if 100% of everyone absolutely loved it, I feel sorry for you.
 
If the editing were better it would have been a better viewing experience. But everything is all over the damn place and the excessive CGI set pieces certainly don't help - it's a huge turnoff.
 
if I hate it i'll apologize for hating AoU

Here's the thing.

AoU was bland and generic, was bored to death and unimpressed. Couldn't care at all.

This is not something that happens with BvS, it's either gonna make you mad, or you'll at least care to see where the whole thing ends at. Was also more interesting in its action.

Some people did get bored to death though apparently so hopefully it won't be your case.

If anything, it is NOT worse than Spiderman 3. I'll fight anybody that disagrees with that.
 
The entire movie was just boring as fuck.

Nothing happened in the first half, and then the second half was a cacophonous grey clusterfuck.

how did something this bad have so much money spent on it?
 
Saw the movie, was solid. In no way can it possibly considered the same tier as paul blart mall cop or worse than xmen origins wolverine. 30% is harsh as fuck for this movie. Easily better than Man of Steel. The problem with the movie is that its just a bunch of good individual scenes just kind of slapped together. Didn't flow well. But 30%? Fuck outta here.

Ima repost my own post:

They're not "Rotten Tomatoes reviews". They're just reviews.

All RT is aggregate reviews from media. That's literally it.

The percentage you see? That's not an average rating or average quality. That is:
Code:
[Number of positive reviews] / [Total Number of Reviews] = Rotten Tomatoes Score

That's all! It's indicative of how many outlets enjoyed the movie (i.e., gave it a positive rating), not its rating. Maybe it can give you an idea of its overall quality, if you judge quality based on critical concensus.

If you want the average score, there's a helpful little "Average Rating" metric.

For example:
5Zjv50j.png

BvS doesn't have an average rating of 32/100.
BvS does have an average rating of 5.2/10.

30% isn't a rating (well, it is--but not in the way that most people think). In the context of your post, it might mean that 70% of critics found it so disjointed and incomprehensible that they didn't like it--not that their average score was 30/100.
 
I did the exact thing, but no, Allegiant was terrible. Even my wife, whonis EXTREMELY lenient with YA adaptations said they missed the mark entirely.

I thought Allegiant was fine, they missed the mark on many things though as you've mentioned; however, I did find myself enjoying the wall climbing action sequence much more than the entire action sequences in BvS - tightly edited and on the edge of my seat comparatively to the latter.
 
Reading some impressions you really get the sense that Snyder's biggest failing is that he doesn't have a feel for narrative flow and storytelling at a basic level. He'd probably benefit hugely from letting someone else put his films together after he shoots them.

It's the same problem with Man of Steel. More than an hour in, it's still doing the flashback thing, but the narrative shifts don't flow, the flashbacks don't really help to add anything to the present storyline most of the time. And if it's not helping, it's actually hurting - there's no real inbetween.

You can see he has high-minded intentions with the way he cuts his films, but he doesn't actually pull it off. It reminds me of when great comic book artists get big enough, they inevitably try to write too - and you can usually tell, suddenly these guys are "cutting" their own stuff, and it's not nearly as good.
 
30% isn't a rating (well, it is--but not in the way that most people think). In the context of your post, it might mean that 70% of critics found it so disjointed and incomprehensible that they didn't like it--not that their average score was 30/100.

As an aside, the user reviews are coming down now that the film is out and people are actually seeing it. 74% liked it vs. 78%, average review of 3.9 vs. 4.1 in that shot. Probably a normal trend for these kind of films but I wonder whether it will fall in line with the critics or whether there will be a gap in the end, as there sometimes is.
 
Just got off the phone with Mr. Tomato, he's telling me they've made a grave mistake. Turns out they accidentally reversed the scores, it's not a 33 but a 67.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom