Man of Steel |OT| It's about action.

Rhode Island? You aren't in Mass!? Mind blown! Or are you just on vacation or something.

Sanjuro said:
I have the recording sessions version. Can never go back. It's wonderful.
Click to expand...

I can't get down with the track names though. "Train Fight" just isn't as cool as the name of a bat species.
 
The complaints that its not like the old films is astounding. They did that 7 years ago and we were all bored, it doesn't work anymore. This is why these aggregate sites are awful.

Whatever, that poster is amazing and I took Friday off. I get up so early that we probably won't go to a midnight showing. Still trying to decide between a 3d showing with Dolby atmos or 2d imax. Doesn't sound like the 3d is anything special.
 
I honestly like SR. In the same way I like Ang Lee's Hulk. Both are failures in many ways, but interesting failures.
 
Discotheque said:
Ang Lee's Hulk is a fuckload better than that piece of shit with edward norton
Click to expand...

Without question. I find "which Hulk do you prefer?" to be a pretty good litmus test for gauging how other people's tastes will line up with mine. I love Ang Lee's version, warts and all.
 
DaveH said:
fuVqVZb.jpg
Click to expand...

Holy crap I want this framed.
 
Discotheque said:
Ang Lee's Hulk is a fuckload better than that piece of shit with edward norton
Click to expand...

Solo said:
Without question. I find "which Hulk do you prefer?" to be a pretty good litmus test for gauging how other people's tastes will line up with mine. I love Ang Lee's version, warts and all.
Click to expand...

Damn, right. I like the Ang Lee one a lot. Is it perfect? No. But it has style to burn and the desert base escape near the end is awesome stuff.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
Damn, right. I like the Ang Lee one a lot. Is it perfect? No. But it has style to burn and the desert base escape near the end is awesome stuff.
Click to expand...

It also has one of the last memorable Danny Elfman themes. My only real gripes are that it runs a bit long/could have been tightened up, and I hate the Hulk dogs.
 
Solo said:
Rhode Island? You aren't in Mass!? Mind blown! Or are you just on vacation or something.



I can't get down with the track names though. "Train Fight" just isn't as cool as the name of a bat species.
Click to expand...

I'm south coast MA. Easy access to Providence and Boston. One city can't handle me.
 
Sanjuro said:
I'm doing Saturday night IMAX. Across the theater is a wonderful pub with the best home brews in the state of RI. Plan on reflecting with heavy alcoholism with a bunch of friends

...I mean fuck this. Not going to this inferior to Green Lantern trash.
Click to expand...

Rhode Island?!?!

Solo said:
Without question. I find "which Hulk do you prefer?" to be a pretty good litmus test for gauging how other people's tastes will line up with mine. I love Ang Lee's version, warts and all.
Click to expand...

oh Ang Lee's is a far better filmthan the Ed Norton i'd say by a good half mile.
 
Discotheque said:
Ang Lee's Hulk is a fuckload better than that piece of shit with edward norton
Click to expand...

They both were awful. Avengers is the best Hulk movie.





Also, I ain't surprised by the reviews. I knew those early "greatest thing ever" tweets were just hyperbole. The film sounds entertaining though, which is all I asked for.
 
evil solrac v3.0 said:
Rhode Island?!?!



oh Ang Lee's is a far better filmthan the Ed Norton i'd say by a good half mile.
Click to expand...

They do reserved seating at this theater. Fuck that noise of getting there 40 mins early to get a good seat.

Also, the other IMAX theaters are in the middle of nowhere. This is downtown Providence, ready for night on the town, free parking!

Not to mention they have a homebrew Kolsch to die for, and better late night eats.
 
ViewtifulJC said:
So it was a Zack Snyder film all along
Click to expand...

Some of the negative reviews kinda go after both of them. I laughed at one lengthy review on forbes (pretty well articulated) where the reviewer thought this movie combined the worst out of Nolan and Snyder:

"With Man Of Steel, Nolan and Snyder have combined to make a film that plays to their worst stereotypes. It’s full of big and stupid action at the expense of character while drowning itself in self-serious grimness, on-the-nose thematic exposition, and shoe-horned James Bond riffs."


but then again, there are reviews out there claiming this is the best superman movie ever and that it exceeded even 'astronomical expectations'. It is interesting how we can look at the same thing through totally different lenses. For instance, I liked Immortals yet RT scored it at 35% and i didn't like DK yet RT scored it at 90+! crazy...

I think i will enjoy MOS a lot cause i'm a big superman fan! and RT of 70 is not aweful, just disappointing for a film which had so much promise...oh those those trailers
 
Expendable's twitter:

"Man of Steel is a large-scale headache, esp. the last half. Cavill & cast are impressive, but Snyder's direction is rarely invigorating."

Waiting for full review.
 
and I will NEVER EVER EVER give a shit what any of these mainstream reviewers say about any superhero moviewhen the mouthbreathing morons are going to knock on a movie because it's too "grim" "no comedy" "saving cats out of trees' or whatever else it is that they wrote.

wonder if grampa back in the day complained about Christopher Reeve's version being too grim-dark compared to the George Reeves show.
 
This was a very mediocre movie. Snyder has some neat visual touches placed throughout, but the entire last half is a mindless headache -- think of the worst parts of The Avengers without any of the fun camaraderie. Henry Cavill is very strong, as is most of the rest of the cast, but the script is poor. It's mostly exposition and the most banal, forced kind. I didn't necessarily mind the flashback structure, but it undercuts some momentum. There are a few bad-ass moments...and that's about it. More to come.


Right now I'd go C or C+.
 
Expendable. said:
This was a very mediocre movie. Snyder has some neat visual touches placed throughout, but the entire last half is a mindless headache -- think of the worst parts of The Avengers without any of the fun camaraderie. Henry Cavill is very strong, as is most of the rest of the cast, but the script is poor. It's mostly exposition and the most banal, forced kind. I didn't necessarily mind the flashback structure, but it undercuts some momentum. There are a few bad-ass moments...and that's about it. More to come.


Right now I'd go C or C+.
Click to expand...

There was fun during the Avengers action sequences?!
 
evil solrac v3.0 said:
and I will NEVER EVER EVER give a shit what any of these mainstream reviewers say about any superhero moviewhen the mouthbreathing morons are going to knock on a movie because it's too "grim" "no comedy" "saving cats out of trees' or whatever else it is that they wrote.

wonder if grampa back in the day complained about Christopher Reeve's version being too grim-dark compared to the George Reeves show.
Click to expand...

To quote Mr. Beaks at AICN:

When Richard Donner’s SUPERMAN arrived in 1978, audiences were ravenous for a new kind of big-screen spectacle. They craved larger-than-life vistas stuffed with then-believable special effects, and – after being inundated with ten years’ worth of entertainment reflecting the political upheaval of the times – a kind of outsized, childlike hope. They wanted to believe in the good guy again. So who better to divert moviegoers from war, corruption and cynicism than the flying fella with the spit curl? Truth, justice and the American way – all delivered via state-of-the-art visual wizardry, and pumped up with a grandly inspirational score from John Williams? It was time for uplift. It was time for Superman.
Click to expand...

I think nowadays this applies but people are much more cynical. It's natural that some will enjoy the spectacle and others won't find it interesting.

But to me the positives of the positive reviews bear more significance than the negatives of the negative reviews.
 
Expendable. said:
The part I mentioned is the only thing it had going for it, so take that away and...yeah. If I see another movie with a goddamn
blue beam at the center of a city attack
, I might blow my brains out.
Click to expand...

How would you compare it to your taste with Donner and Singer's variants?
 
Expendable. said:
This was a very mediocre movie. Snyder has some neat visual touches placed throughout, but the entire last half is a mindless headache -- think of the worst parts of The Avengers without any of the fun camaraderie. Henry Cavill is very strong, as is most of the rest of the cast, but the script is poor. It's mostly exposition and the most banal, forced kind. I didn't necessarily mind the flashback structure, but it undercuts some momentum. There are a few bad-ass moments...and that's about it. More to come.


Right now I'd go C or C+.
Click to expand...
How was Shannon as Zod?
 
Expendable. said:
I haven't seen those movies in a hell of a long time, but I certainly remember liking Superman Returns a great deal more.



He was strong and has some fun moments where he chews the scenery.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I've been having the expectation that Superman Returns might be as good or if not better.

The charm of the Donner film always wins me over.
 
It's weird that this is getting lukewarm reception. I mean, a week ago I was led to believe that this was going to be on the level of the Nolan Batmans. Where did that notion come from?
 
Solo said:
It's weird that this is getting lukewarm reception. I mean, a week ago I was led to believe that this was going to be on the level of the Nolan Batmans. Where did that notion come from?
Click to expand...
Fanboys.

They're still here in the thread, sniping at reviews for "doing it wrong"
 
Solo said:
It's weird that this is getting lukewarm reception. I mean, a week ago I was led to believe that this was going to be on the level of the Nolan Batmans. Where did that notion come from?
Click to expand...
WB marketing and initial fan impressions?

Hard to classify as lukewarm as some people loved it and others didn't like it as much. There aren't even enough reviews on RT yet.
 
Dahbomb said:
Hard to classify as lukewarm as some people loved it and others didn't like it as much.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said "polarizing" instead of lukewarm. The reception is all over the place. I've seen it called a great on the level of Batman Begins, only to turn around and see it called worse than Superman Returns.
 
sketchsanchez said:
Fanboys.

They're still here in the thread, sniping at reviews for "doing it wrong"
Click to expand...

Foxy Fox and I were told we were being too critical of the movie in the spoiler thread. (I saw it a few days ago). I wasn't as harsh as some reviews I've read. Still go see it though, it's worth seeing in theaters and is entertaining. Don't expect 95% RT quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
967
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
Doctor Who Series 10 |OT| He's Back, and It's About Time
84 85 86 87 88
4K
475K
EvilRedEye replied
Straight & Alternative |OT|
37
5K
Astral Dog replied
Top Bottom