Movies you've recently watched

Johnstantine

Skibbidy Boo Bop
Deci said:
Just got back from Man of Steel in 3D. I was very much pleased, I actually didn't notice any slow-mo, so not sure what scenes you're referring to Johnstantine... when he falls away from the spaceship in orbit? I think he was just pushing off toward Earth dramatically, as opposed to any motion being slowed down.

It was a nice surprise, wasn't it? I said that because I thought it would leave people even happier that they weren't there:)

I agree with you on most everything you said, except for
when Pa Kent died. I thought it was a moving scene. Jonathan stopped Clark from doing so because he would have rather died than have his son feel any pressures of his identity being revealed. It's pretty much how he would have been portrayed in the comics as well
.

Also, Krypton's backstory is pretty much just John Byrne's The World of Krypton miniseries that came out after Crisis on Infinite Earths had finished.
 
Ignoring all the Man Of Steel text above me till I watch it :farnese:. Couldn't sleep last night so ...

stoker1f-1-web.jpg


You can recognize Chan-wook Park's signature style (both Vengeance movies, Oldboy, Thirst) in his recent thriller - Stoker. It centers around 3 main characters, India played by Mia (Alice In Wonderland), her mother Evelyn played by Nicole Kidman and Matthew Goode who some may remember from Watchmen, plays India's uncle. The movie takes off with India's dad's passing, young and in a car accident. Her uncle who she didn't know about comes to live with them and both women are taken by him. There's more to it than just that and extremely well made. As a whole, it holds up pretty well till the last scene, totally recommended for the cinematography, soundtrack and great acting.

The-incredible-burt-wonderstone.jpg


The Incredible Burt Wonderstone isn't as incredible as I expected. Few laughs here and there at Jim Carrey's character parodying David Blaine. Wouldn't pay to see this, not too bad though.
 
Griffith said:
Hmmmm, it depends on how much you care about the Star Trek part (is the last movie just a fun tribute to ToS, or your favorite thing involving ToS?). It's a fun theater going experience if you just want to enjoy the ride, it's not like Abrams can't make a movie, and it does have some neat twists and turns to that end. It's basically a continuation of the last one, but I wanted more, and unlike last time where they treaded softly on sacred ground (somehow managing to be reverently irreverent), this time they trampled on it. It's not a bad summer movie, but it's a bad Star Trek movie.

I watched Into Darkness two/ three weekends ago and almost felt the same way. I re-watched Wrath Of Khan this evening and I can now confidently say that I agree wholly. I feel like it was visually really good but when you look at the depth in the characters or their actions or the basic story, it's trying to be a Wrath Of Khan but falls short. WOK didn't have the luxury of the kind of graphics movie makers have at their disposal but the integral story and characters made it special, without lens-flare. Old Khan felt like legit a villain with adequate sinister intensity but the new Khan was more a John Doe with super strength, super blood than the emotional backing or motivation compared to the original. He felt like a popular pretty boy from another science fiction franchise or big name than the character. New Kirk falls for Khan's deceit and so does Spock, who has to contact Nimoy to find out how bad Khan really is? Cop out in the script. I forget why Khan was scared in the end, trying to escape a chasing Spock, the original Khan didn't run away from conflict and was smarter? Again, on a purely visual level, this movie rocked and add some cool humor too (Bones specially). Cool chase scenes and sets, etc. but the story and characters lacked depth. I didn't like the loop holes in the 2009 re-boot but this didn't leave me convinced.

Before-Sunrise-001.jpg


Before Sunrise gets a refreshing 8.5/10. The film starts off with Hawke's character (American) on route to Vienna and Delpy (French) headed a bit further but they meet by chance and hit it off pretty well on the train. Vienna arrives and Hawke, besotted by her, asks her to get off the train with him to spend an evening in Vienna. She could take the train to carry on her journey tomorrow and he'd take a bus to catch his flight back to New York the same time. She's curious and takes on the adventure. The flowing conversation reminded me of Hawke's other movie Tape, it's intelligent, feels spontaneous and the onscreen chemistry between the two characters is really something, feels unscripted and honest. What's really cool is the open ending that plays right into the sequel which is what I watched next haha!

before-sunset-1.jpg


7/10 and pretty much spoiler if you haven't watched the first one, so be warned - 10 years later, Hawke's character is in (EDIT) Paris promoting his new book and they meet yet again. The tone is familiar with long dialogue throughout between both characters, giving each other glimpses of what they've been up to for the past 10 years and whether their liking for each other has grown distant or the same. They feel honest in the sense, their characters have grown and so have their problems. Hawke's in a failed marriage with a son and Delpy's in a pseudo-relationship with a war-photographer who's barely home. It culminates to another open ending for which the sequel recently came out. It isn't as enjoyable as the first but it's not your run-of-the-mill styled romantic story.

2111strangedays_hires.jpg


That cover has some cool names on it but does Strange Days hold up ... fairly well for it's time, yeah, under-rated science fiction too I'd say. It starts off slow. Nero (Voldemort) is a dealer for playback discs for this thing called squid (a device you put over your head that makes you feel + see anything that's on a playback disc aka usually someone reliving a moment ... could be an encounter on the beach, sex, etc.). Things go south when one his acquaintances is in trouble and tries to warn him about a playback disc that some people are after and her life's in danger which's where the movie takes an interesting turn. I'd like to re-watch it when I'm in the mood because I think there's more to enjoy the second time around. The music's great, feels nostalgic. 7/10

tumblr_m6z3u8Vd8u1r7kdduo1_500.jpg


8/10 - under-rated gangster film of old. The opening song is brilliant, loud and just ... great when you get to listen to it again in the end. Pierce Brosnan = suuuhhhprise. On surface it can look plane-Jane but the wit in dialog and characters pushes the movie up.
 

NightCrawler

Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
Just a small correction: Hawke is in Paris promoting his new book, not Vienna. The movie's spent in Paris.
 

Lithrael

Remember, always hold your apple tight
I finally got to see Star Trek: Into Darkness. It was fun to watch but ultimately so dumb and flat that the only things I still enjoy the next day are Scotty being awesome, Sulu being badass and Chekov being adorable.

Okay, so. This movie was actually my very very first exposure to Benedict Cumberthingy. And I am afraid I did not like him. Like at all. Actually, strike that, if he had just been a Voice, I might have been impressed. His vocal performance was pretty great. But every moment I could see his face I.. I'm sorry Ben... I was just laughing. I could not take him even a little bit seriously. He looked exactly like every single 'badass' LARPer I have ever known looks when they are staring down some other 'badass' LARPer. He was just missing some chubbiness and an oversized prop weapon.

Griffith said:
No fault of his own, but Cumberbatch was completely miscast, though the part itself and surrounding plot was a poorly written bore anyway. I would have rather he just been a henchmen because that's all it amounted to. In any case, the complaints about his casting aren't unfounded nitpicks. Beyond the legitimate complaints of whitewashing (and running from it through otherwise worthless deceptions), it didn't resemble the character in just about any way, superficial or deep. No wit, no charm, no charisma, no great intellect, no ethos, and it made him a completely shallow thug that was ultimately lame to boot.

Yeah. The writing definitely flattened him about as badly as it's possible to flatten a character.

The people defending the casting are IMO really REALLY missing the boat. After I heard they'd tossed around other casting ideas like Javier Bardem it became crystal clear that Benedict was 100% a butts-in-seats casting choice. It's NOT because he was the best man for the job. It's because he's a huge name right now from Sherlock with lots of awards and recognition. It's exactly the same kind of casting as getting Samuel L Jackson to play Mace Windu, instead of getting a Morgan Freeman or Laurence Fishburne type. Cast for who he is and who he'll draw, not for being the best guy for the job. Javier would have knocked it out of the park.

The plot itself was so loose and so full of 'wait, what?' bad-science moments, though. Eesh. I'm not expecting tight, hard sci-fi or anything but this was genuinely sloppy. If there are things that don't make sense when you sit down to examine the movie that's fine, that's almost all sci-fi. But if they don't make sense right there while you're watching the movie that's just too sloppy. (
Does the idea of surreptitiously working cryo-pods into a torpedo design make sense to anyone? How was that the best solution to that problem? How did that HAPPEN? Whether it was Khan's idea or the other guy's, which wasn't awfully clear in the movie, you'd think 200 kilos of dead weight in a projectile would raise an eyebrow or two somewhere along the line. Which is why Scotty was the best. "I am NOT letting this obvious plot device on my ship!"
)

I also saw EPIC, the movie about tiny little guys fighting for the health of a forest. It was pretty cute and excellently animated. The forest was straight-up beautiful. Lead animator on the dad character was absolutely perfect. They villainized bats though. DON'T DO THAT! :schierke:
 
NightCrawler said:
Just a small correction: Hawke is in Paris promoting his new book, not Vienna. The movie's spent in Paris.

Thanks mate. I might check Before Midnight out either this or next week. Have you watched it yet? Any good?

Lithrael said:
I also saw EPIC, the movie about tiny little guys fighting for the health of a forest. It was pretty cute and excellently animated. The forest was straight-up beautiful. Lead animator on the dad character was absolutely perfect. They villainized bats though. DON'T DO THAT! :schierke:

Ahhh cool, so pretty positive ... have you watched The Croods yet?
 

Lithrael

Remember, always hold your apple tight
Never saw The Croods but it looked okay. The visuals were good, the animals were adorbs. Without seeing it I can't comment on the story but it did look like a lot of the jokes were a little tired. It's pitched straight enough at kids that old jokes are a safe bet, though.

Oh, finally got around to watching Arrietty, right after Epic. We were rocking the small-scale theme pretty hard that day. It really engaged the local 11 year old, not so much the story but the world. I enjoyed it in a similar way, not feeling very invested in the characters but really enjoying the setting and the gentle pacing. A nice break from more in-your-face movies.
 

NightCrawler

Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
IncantatioN said:
Thanks mate. I might check Before Midnight out either this or next week. Have you watched it yet? Any good?

Not yet, i'm looking forward to it as i love the other two (watched them when in similar points in my life, although i was fairly younger than the characters), and the reviews seem to have been unanimously positive (reaching the "perfect" trilogy status perhaps?). But i'll wait for the dvd release since it's a more intimate movie, unfit to watch in a crowded theatre on a big screen.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Man of Steel... with a personality to match. I was unmoved, nice visuals and action, but it was more like Transformers than Superman's answer to The Dark Knight. Chris Meloni and the evil chick were the best characters/relationship in the movie (actually, the Kents were nice), and the movie didn't make sense for the most part and didn't really feel like Superman either.
Isn't Superman supposed to SAVE the city, not wreck it? That doesn't really work as an introduction since he'll always be associated with and likely blamed for the world almost being destroyed and hundreds if not thousands of people dying. I think that's always going to overshadow his stopping bank robbers in the future. Also, I guess he was less willing to compromise than Zod, since Zod sounded genuinely desperate to save the nursery or whatever and Supes had already destroyed the terraformer. So, why did he kill any chance of reviving his people, on a whim... what was that? Anyway, compared to the senseless destruction Superman wrought, Zod's motivations didn't actually seem so bad, and the filmmakers didn't justify the gravity of the kill at the end. It didn't have much meaning because they never touch on the fact that Superman doesn't kill, let alone why he shouldn't. I mean, saving those innocent lives was supposed to justify it, but he didn't much care about that while they were superfighting, so it makes more sense that killing didn't matter to Superman because he had already been a part of killing hundreds of people by that point anyway. Just more super collateral damage.
 

Dar_Klink

Last Guardian when? - CyberKlink 20XX before dying
Griffith said:
Man of Steel... with a personality to match. I was unmoved, nice visuals and action, but it was more like Transformers than Superman's answer to The Dark Knight. Chris Meloni and the evil chick were the best characters/relationship in the movie (actually, the Kents were nice), and the movie didn't make sense for the most part and didn't really feel like Superman either.
Isn't Superman supposed to SAVE the city, not wreck it? That doesn't really work as an introduction since he'll always be associated with and likely blamed for the world almost being destroyed and hundreds if not thousands of people dying. I think that's always going to overshadow his stopping bank robbers in the future. Also, I guess he was less willing to compromise than Zod, since Zod sounded genuinely desperate to save the nursery or whatever and Supes had already destroyed the terraformer. So, why did he kill any chance of reviving his people, on a whim... what was that? Anyway, compared to the senseless destruction Superman wrought, Zod's motivations didn't actually seem so bad, and the filmmakers didn't justify the gravity of the kill at the end. It didn't have much meaning because they never touch on the fact that Superman doesn't kill, let alone why he shouldn't. I mean, saving those innocent lives was supposed to justify it, but he didn't much care about that while they were superfighting, so it makes more sense that killing didn't matter to Superman because he had already been a part of killing hundreds of people by that point anyway. Just more super collateral damage.

I haven't seen the movie, and most likely won't, but I was talking to a friend about this point and he said that when
Superman broke Zod's neck, a bunch of young kids who were there together all started laughing and cheering and talking loudly about how awesome it was. It's funny/sad thinking of that as some kid's first real exposure to Superman. Him being some weird scary alien man killing other weird scary alien men while destroying cities with their battles.
 

Johnstantine

Skibbidy Boo Bop
Griffith said:
Man of Steel... with a personality to match. I was unmoved, nice visuals and action, but it was more like Transformers than Superman's answer to The Dark Knight. Chris Meloni and the evil chick were the best characters/relationship in the movie (actually, the Kents were nice), and the movie didn't make sense for the most part and didn't really feel like Superman either.
Isn't Superman supposed to SAVE the city, not wreck it? That doesn't really work as an introduction since he'll always be associated with and likely blamed for the world almost being destroyed and hundreds if not thousands of people dying. I think that's always going to overshadow his stopping bank robbers in the future. Also, I guess he was less willing to compromise than Zod, since Zod sounded genuinely desperate to save the nursery or whatever and Supes had already destroyed the terraformer. So, why did he kill any chance of reviving his people, on a whim... what was that? Anyway, compared to the senseless destruction Superman wrought, Zod's motivations didn't actually seem so bad, and the filmmakers didn't justify the gravity of the kill at the end. It didn't have much meaning because they never touch on the fact that Superman doesn't kill, let alone why he shouldn't. I mean, saving those innocent lives was supposed to justify it, but he didn't much care about that while they were superfighting, so it makes more sense that killing didn't matter to Superman because he had already been a part of killing hundreds of people by that point anyway. Just more super collateral damage.

I disagree with you. In the Superman comics, innocent civilians die all the time. Supes doesn't kill, but at the same time what were they going to do with Zod? The Phantom Zone was already closed and no prison on the planet could hold him. He didn't have much of a choice, and having only been Superman for barely a day didn't really give him time to find his moral code.

Zod was willing to compromise more? Seriously? Supes GAVE himself up so the world could go on. Then Zod turns around and says he's going to terraform the planet and bring about a new Krypton. Supes had done his duties as Superman at that point because he would have rather been captured than the world suffer for it. Zod could have chosen an entirely different planet since the ancient Kryptonians had gone to so many worlds. But he didn't. And he drove Supes to an impossible situation. I mean, they were evenly matched through the final fight. They couldn't introduce some all of the sudden brand new power (like freeze breath) and if he would have flown him up through the roof, the fight would have continued and more people would have died.

And how was the kill NOT justified? The "no" he yelled out at the end was justification enough for me. He knew what he had done and he knew he couldn't have done it any other way. It's the first time he's encountered people stronger than him. Also, one of the main things lacking from the Superman character in previous incarnations is something for humans to relate to him with. J. Michael Straczynski attempted this with Superman Grounded (which was good, and I recommend reading it), and he came close to it. But with Goyer, Supes killed, and now he has regret and will never do it again (until he fights Doomsday, I suppose). There's more of the "doesn't kill" point to Superman. What's more is that he can deal with not being able to save everyone, and deal with people talking about about him.

For a good example of the opposite, check out the Plutonian from Irredeemable. He's the anti-thesis to Supes.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Johnstantine said:
I disagree with you. In the Superman comics, innocent civilians die all the time.

The difference is he usually cares, and not just when its convenient for a hamfisted plot point that is in itself is controversial, and unearned.
BTW, quick tangent: What was with the clumsily obvious Christ parallels? The giant stain glass behind him at the church, him being 33, and flying out of Zod's ship crucifix style. Though, instead of being any sort of martyr it was everyone else that died for his sins. =)

Johnstantine said:
Zod was willing to compromise more? Seriously?

Actually, I was being facetious to make the point that the movie and its Superman were being that dumb.
They didn't even bother to follow up on Zod's cheap supremacist leanings (OMG, he believes in eugenics and selective bloodlines, like space Hitler!) when it came to humans. Yeah, he just didn't want new Kryptonians to have to adjust to Earth allergies, which took him like 20 minutes, "What, and have our eyes itch, Jor-El!? NEVER!!"
Everyone's ethos in this movie was just little excuse for everything to ESPLODE!

Johnstantine said:
Supes GAVE himself up so the world could go on. Then Zod turns around and says he's going to terraform the planet and bring about a new Krypton. Supes had done his duties as Superman at that point because he would have rather been captured than the world suffer for it. Zod could have chosen an entirely different planet since the ancient Kryptonians had gone to so many worlds. But he didn't. And he drove Supes to an impossible situation. I mean, they were evenly matched through the final fight. They couldn't introduce some all of the sudden brand new power (like freeze breath) and if he would have flown him up through the roof, the fight would have continued and more people would have died.

Ok, but we're not bound by the movie's spotty reasons or thin framework for why things happened the way they did. We can look beyond that, and I already pointed out some real holes.

Johnstantine said:
And how was the kill NOT justified? The "no" he yelled out at the end was justification enough for me. He knew what he had done and he knew he couldn't have done it any other way. It's the first time he's encountered people stronger than him. Also, one of the main things lacking from the Superman character in previous incarnations is something for humans to relate to him with. J. Michael Straczynski attempted this with Superman Grounded (which was good, and I recommend reading it), and he came close to it. But with Goyer, Supes killed, and now he has regret and will never do it again (until he fights Doomsday, I suppose). There's more of the "doesn't kill" point to Superman. What's more is that he can deal with not being able to save everyone, and deal with people talking about about him.

It wasn't that great a moment, it wasn't that great a Superman (he was actually kind of a jerk, though "kinda hot" lol amiright, General?), and it just wasn't that great a movie, visual action aside (which was pretty fantastic and at times imcrediable). Also, I wasn't exactly thrilled that they tried to front load so many significant Superman moments before the guy even became Superman, which I'm not even sure happened by the end of the movie.
I mean, 20 minutes in and he and Lois are on a Kryptonian ship, 10 minutes later she knows his identity, then General Zod shows up and it's Mars Attacks or 9/11 times a hundred. Everything in this movie is so premature that it makes me think Zack Snyder came his pants just thinking of sex for the first time (in his defense though, I'm sure it was a visionary and intensely directed thought =)
. Anyway, I think this review best sums up my feelings:

http://deadspin.com/its-a-turd-its-plain-man-of-steel-reviewed-513356149

Which also links to this review by Birthright author Mark Waid, which hit some of the same points I did:

http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/

Though I figured more people would complain about his
dooming Krypton and his own father's dream without a second thought. "URRRRGH, THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE MUST FIGHT ZOD NOW!" It felt more like the incredible Hulk at times with him yelling and having to be REAL STRONG!
It's too bad that somebody couldn't find a middle ground between this movie and Superman Returns; one is full of endless talk about the man, while this one sure got the super action right.


BTW, re-watched Superman: The Movie and Superman II the past two days as well, and while extremely dated and flawed in their own ways (especially II), they go much farther in capturing the spirit of Superman. The scenes of Pa Kent dying and Clark leaving the farm are so far beyond the new movie in terms of evoking emotional resonance as it relates to Superman, "All these powers and I couldn't even save him." Thank you! I'm looking forward to watching the Richard Donner cut of Superman II next. The years have not been kind to the campy theatrical version, though I remember it being awesome as a kid. I have a feeling it's going to be the same way with Man of Steel for a lot of people.
 

Johnstantine

Skibbidy Boo Bop
Griffith said:
The difference is he usually cares, and not just when its convenient for a hamfisted plot point that is in itself is controversial, and unearned.
BTW, quick tangent: What was with the clumsily obvious Christ parallels? The giant stain glass behind him at the church, him being 33, and flying out of Zod's ship crucifix style. Though, instead of being any sort of martyr it was everyone else that died for his sins. =)

I can't argue with you on the Christ allegories. It drove me nuts. He's 33? OH HEY, JESUS WAS TOO! There are a few others, but that one stuck out the most to me.
Griffith said:
Actually, I was being facetious to make the point that the movie and its Superman were being that dumb.
They didn't even bother to follow up on Zod's cheap supremacist leanings (OMG, he believes in eugenics and selective bloodlines, like space Hitler!) when it came to humans. Yeah, he just didn't want new Kryptonians to have to adjust to Earth allergies, which took him like 20 minutes, "What, and have our eyes itch, Jor-El!? NEVER!!"
Everyone's ethos in this movie was just little excuse for everything to ESPLODE!

Can't argue with you too much on this one. The movie was so fast paced that I didn't have much time to really consider the extremes they went to. It was all just in the moment for me. Good points though.
Griffith said:
Ok, but we're not bound by the movie's spotty reasons or thin framework for why things happened the way they did. We can look beyond that, and I already pointed out some real holes.

They weren't distracting to me, honestly. I enjoyed it for what it was, and I thought it was a lot.
Griffith said:
It wasn't that great a moment, it wasn't that great a Superman (he was actually kind of a jerk, though "kinda hot" lol amiright, General?), and it just wasn't that great a movie, visual action aside (which was pretty fantastic and at times imcrediable). Also, I wasn't exactly thrilled that they tried to front load so many significant Superman moments before the guy even became Superman, which I'm not even sure happened by the end of the movie.
I mean, 20 minutes in and he and Lois are on a Kryptonian ship, 10 minutes later she knows his identity, then General Zod shows up and it's Mars Attacks or 9/11 times a hundred. Everything in this movie is so premature that it makes me think Zack Snyder came his pants just thinking of sex for the first time (in his defense though, I'm sure it was a visionary and intensely directed thought =)
.

Eh, I can't complain much about the pacing. I thought it was fine and it felt pretty natural.
The only thing I was confused about was how Clark got to the ship's crash site. There's never any mention of how he even found out about it. And as for the general interaction between characters, I'm blaming both Snyder and Nolan. They're horrible at characterization (EVERYONE IN DARK KNIGHT RISES OH GOD WHY DID NOLAN MAKE THAT MOVIE).

Griffith said:
Anyway, I think this review best sums up my feelings:

http://deadspin.com/its-a-turd-its-plain-man-of-steel-reviewed-513356149

Which also links to this review by Birthright author Mark Waid, which hit some of the same points I did:

http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/

Yeah, I read Waid's review after it he posted it. I'm not the biggest fan of Waid (I hated Birthright), so it didn't jibe well with me. I thought he should have stuck with the Flash and not touch Supes, but apparently people like it when he writes for him. Also, that whole story wasn't even supposed to be canon. Instead they made it canon and retconned the shit out of John Byrne's awesome retelling. It made me sad =(
Griffith said:
Though I figured more people would complain about his
dooming Krypton and his own father's dream without a second thought. "URRRRGH, THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE MUST FIGHT ZOD NOW!" It felt more like the incredible Hulk at times with him yelling and having to be REAL STRONG!
It's too bad that somebody couldn't find a middle ground between this movie and Superman Returns; one is full of endless talk about the man, while this one sure got the super action right.

It baffles me that people thought Superman Returns was better than this. I just don't understand it. I absolutely hated that movie. Given the RT score on both, I'd say the half that hated MoS are the ones that liked SR, and vice versa. I loved MoS, though. I left the theater with more energy because of the movie itself. Well, the action at least. Also, the emotions between both of Clark's fathers and him were pretty moving (yes, I had to fight back the tears on multiple occasions).
Griffith said:
BTW, re-watched Superman: The Movie and Superman II the past two days as well, and while extremely dated and flawed in their own ways (especially II), they go much farther in capturing the spirit of Superman. The scenes of Pa Kent dying and Clark leaving the farm are so far beyond the new movie in terms of evoking emotional resonance as it relates to Superman, "All these powers and I couldn't even save him." Thank you! I'm looking forward to watching the Richard Donner cut of Superman II next. The years have not been kind to the campy theatrical version, though I remember it being awesome as a kid. I have a feeling it's going to be the same way with Man of Steel for a lot of people.
Yeah, it sort of sucked. But they're different movies with different writers and directors. If people wanted the same thing, then they should have just watched that they'd known.

The gravitas of Pa's death wasn't quite as heavy in MoS, but it made more sense in terms of just what he would do for his son so he wouldn't be found out. It wasn't as powerful, but I still enjoyed it.

Now I want to go back and watch 1 and 2, dammit.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Johnstantine said:
It baffles me that people thought Superman Returns was better than this. I just don't understand it. I absolutely hated that movie. Given the RT score on both, I'd say the half that hated MoS are the ones that liked SR, and vice versa. I loved MoS, though. I left the theater with more energy because of the movie itself. Well, the action at least. Also, the emotions between both of Clark's fathers and him were pretty moving (yes, I had to fight back the tears on multiple occasions).Yeah, it sort of sucked. But they're different movies with different writers and directors. If people wanted the same thing, then they should have just watched that they'd known.

Well, I'm always hoping for something better, and in this case I just felt like it was only different; undeniably better in some ways (visual effects), undeniably worse in others. Speaking of Superman writer/director teams though, on paper you can't argue with Mario Puzo and Richard Donner, and the results were there as well. The only thing that holds that movie back now is the limits of its time, and it was way ahead of it too. It was the pinnacle of super hero movies for over a decade and the blueprint which few were able to follow until recently.

Johnstantine said:
The gravitas of Pa's death wasn't quite as heavy in MoS, but it made more sense in terms of just what he would do for his son so he wouldn't be found out. It wasn't as powerful, but I still enjoyed it.

I was mad that he insisted on getting the dog. C'mon, let the super kid do it, dummy. =)

Johnstantine said:
Now I want to go back and watch 1 and 2, dammit.

I can't wait for the Donner cut of 2, never seen it.
 

Deci

Avatar by supereva01 @ DA
For me the criticisms all fall down to this: Everyone knows exactly how a Superman story should play out and exactly what type of character he is. Interestingly, not many people actually understand more recent incarnations of the character.

Since everyone has this unwavering image in their minds, any difference presented on the screen is going to be automatically categorized as a flaw.

The positive reviews seem to come from people who either a) actually do live and breath Superman. Having read up on countless stories and having blown up their perspective on it to understand and accept the intricacies therein or b) somehow manage to go in to the adaptation with a clean slate (or close to).

That's the biggest one anyway. There's also the misconception that this is supposed to exist in either the same universe or something close to Nolan's Batman Trilogy, which is silly. And of course the straight up Snyder haters, which I feel is sadly so abundant that it's hard to just ignore. Lastly, there's a pretty large margin of people who haven't ever liked super hero movies, I somewhat sense a Silent Majority vibe here, like it's an afterthought in the comments of a review. If someone's never really gotten into super hero movies I wish they'd just open with that.

I'm really too tired to be posting, I doubt that all made sense, but something resembling those thoughts are prevalent in my discussions on this movie and one's like it.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
I haven't seen Man of Steel, nor do I plan to, but after reading Deci's post I just had to jump in.

Deci said:
For me the criticisms all fall down to this: Everyone knows exactly how a Superman story should play out and exactly what type of character he is. Interestingly, not many people actually understand more recent incarnations of the character.
May as well just say how you feel, dude. This thin attempt to not sound like a dick is failing.

Since everyone has this unwavering image in their minds, any difference presented on the screen is going to be automatically categorized as a flaw.
Superman is an undeniable cultural icon, and everyone carries with them a sense of what that character is. This is the barrier to entry with a modern "remake" of him.

The positive reviews seem to come from people who either a) actually do live and breath Superman. Having read up on countless stories and having blown up their perspective on it to understand and accept the intricacies therein
So you're saying the hardest of the hardcore Superman fans are raving over Man of Steel...? Really? Could you show off some examples of this, because it sounds incredibly unlikely to me. Also, are you implying that these "countless stories" support Superman as
a killer..?
Is that somehow reconciled by exposure to this Superman-expert oxygen supply you referred to?

or b) somehow manage to go in to the adaptation with a clean slate (or close to).
Anyone who claims to have a "clean slate" with Superman is either kidding themselves or is a newborn, and probably shouldn't be in theaters.

And of course the straight up Snyder haters, which I feel is sadly so abundant that it's hard to just ignore.
It's definitely a factor worth considering after the reception to "Sucker Punch."

Lastly, there's a pretty large margin of people who haven't ever liked super hero movies, I somewhat sense a Silent Majority vibe here, like it's an afterthought in the comments of a review. If someone's never really gotten into super hero movies I wish they'd just open with that.
I doubt such a demographic would be very large, based on the rabid success of other superhero movies, such as Dark Knight, Avengers, etc. It's more likely that due to WB and Marvel continually playing the superhero note over and over these past few summers, many have become dull to the tone of these movies over time. I'm in that list, anyway.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Deci said:
I'm really too tired to be posting, I doubt that all made sense, but something resembling those thoughts are prevalent in my discussions on this movie and one's like it.

Well, you gloss over the possibility that the film does have legitimate, arguably fatal, flaws. It's not like everyone is just confused or suffering from some ignorant delusion based on their misconceptions of Superman, Zach Snyder, Christopher Nolan, superhero movies in general, or whatever other tangential excuse one can muster for the fact that despite it's best efforts it wasn't that great or deep a movie, Superman baggage aside. If you want to play that game though, I think most of the praise for the the film, such as it is, comes down to love of the action, visual style and effects, the perception of a darker, more serious tone (overblown as that is), and a moodier Superman, however superficial and ultimately sort of lame (in my opinion). Plus, plain old wishful thinking holding it all together, compensating for the film's deficiencies and emphasizing its strengths ("This works! It good! Oh, I ever so want to like this!"). Anyway, it wasn't any more an intricate character study of a modern Superman than ID4 was a thematic exploration of the meaning of Independence Day (though that's closer =), but in both of them the shit sure looked cool and blew up good, and that's their appeal. I mean, it wasn't bad overall, and I even think it's pretty significant as a summer action movie which raises the bar on super hero effects and fighting (so at least it really achieves at something, which is more than Star Trek Into Darkness can say), but the squishy stuff, the storytelling and characters, was nothing special and ultimately held it back for me.


Now, if you want a REAL raw hard look at a wimpier, whinier, more petulant Superman that the modern un-super person can really relate to, then check out Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut! It's all like, "Fuck you dad, I want to live with Lois Lane in the basement of solitude!" Just kidding, though it was interesting, especially watching it back to back with the theatrical version. I was impressed with how well put together it actually was for essentially being made up of 26 year old spare parts; only once is the screen test footage so obvious that it takes you out of the scene (going in I didn't know what to expect, like there might be time codes at the bottom of certain scenes or some shit =), and there's only a couple of scenes where the new shots or effects really bothered me. Otherwise, you wouldn't even know it was this type of project, you'd think it was just the way the movie was, warts and all, with some new effects (there's some really bad CGI effects to complete some scenes, but those are few and far between and there were some bad pretty old school effects shots in the original anyway). Of course, for obvious reasons it's still not as polished as the theatrical cut, they had to work with what they had and couldn't do reshoots with Christopher Reeve certainly (there is an impressive new scene using a double for Lois though). So, it could have benefited from a couple more transitional scenes to tie things together and some of the new scenes that could have been cut down were probably allowed to run long for the sake of showing us something different. Still, it's good enough as is that I wish Donner had been given a chance to give it that polish and complete it the right way in the film's own time. It might have been great, better than the first film even, but in this state it's a bit uneven and clunky, and ultimately can't live up to the splendor of Superman: The Movie.

As for the new content, there's A LOT more Jor-El and it goes much further into the significance of Superman giving up and regaining his powers, his relationship with his father, and there's some pretty dramatic and raw acting scenes with Reeve. Zod is a bit more fleshed out and he and cohorts are more menacing and less cartoonish in this version. The scene of them storming the White House has mostly the same shots, but a completely different tone, including a pretty cool and surprisingly effective moment where Zod picks up and starts firing off and killing people with a machine gun out of absurd whimsy, like he's misbehaving at a party or acting below his station (I think his self-amusement here is his most genuinely evil moment). I'd probably prefer a cut combining the best elements of both versions of Superman II (I prefer some of the Lois/Clark scenes in the theatrical cut, as well as the ending), or even better... a cut representing the original 500 page script of the first two films as one! It would be like a modern three and half hour superhero movie; again, ahead of its time. =)
 
depicable-me-2.jpg


Watched Despicable Me 2 yesterday, a lotta fun especially when you're watching it with younger kids in the theater and listening to their reactions during fun or tense or action moments. It's a different energy, kinda raw or pure. I wouldn't say it's better than it's predecessor but it's still pretty good. I was not expecting some scenes like
Gru doing some pelvic moves with a scientific detector in his belt while trying to trace stuff on a painting/ statue/ other placesp
in a kid's movie, you know. But it's forgivable when compared to the dick on A Little Mermaid's DVD cover, etc. I guess.

mdc-man-of-steel-01.jpg


Seeing all the Superman talk, I thought I'd break some of my thoughts down, I guess you can call it entertaining in the same way Fast & The Furious movies are ... but the guy's got history, so it's natural for fans to react the way they did. I haven't read any of Superman's comics, though I've watched all prior Sups-movies.

The bad -

Zod being beaten by
Jor-El, wasn't he supposed to be a badass ... funny how he later tells Superman how he's a military guy with immense training, etc. but he can't beat a meager scientist.

Tacky CG during that oil-rig rescue and Sups is OK with
stealing from people huh
... after all that moral talk from his Dad.

Superman and Lois
kiss scene kinda felt flat ... their 5 min encounter sorta didn't warrant it, or how close they stood when Superman was surrendering to Zod.

The way Jonathan
dies, although there's little merit to why he did it, it was still dumb
. Part of me argues he's trying to protect Clark from being discovered (because the world isn't ready for it) and it's a big moment when
he sacrifices himself. I think that scene was weird ... why allow an old 55/60 year old guy run towards a tornado when a healthier young Clark could do it better/ quicker. He isn't a kid at that point of the story. Maybe the scene's written badly, I dunno ... did he die this way in the comic?

One of the better moments of Superman Returns was Superman's vulnerability when he throws that island in space and falls to Earth after using up all his energy. It sort of felt natural. I didn't see that sort of vulnerability or threat against Superman in MOS, the closest was when he
was on Zod's ship or battling the World Engine
... he did yell though? :schierke:

Morpheus is Perry White.

The good -

Faora vs Col Hardy ... and Faora in general, what a bloody badass she was, she deserves a movie of her own like a spin-off series :farnese:. Her fight sequence on the ground against those troops was a lotta fun to watch.

All fight sequences were awesome, pretty much top 5 among superhero movies. Didn't look over-the-top or unbelievable and wasn't laced with dumb slo-mo sequences (Thanks Johnstantine, phew). Even the Superman-Zod fight was just fantastic to watch.

Krypton's destruction
looked cool.
 

Gobolatula

praise be to grail!
We saw This Is the End yesterday and it was pretty fucking funny.

I was kind of turned off when I saw that all these actors were playing themselves in the movie; I thought that whole aspect seemed kinda douchey. Honestly, I would've skipped this one if I hadn't heard such great things about it.

Luckily, everyone in the movie plays sort of exaggerated versions of themselves and they don't take themselves seriously at all, which is fantastic. My favorites were Michael Cera, who
had a brief cameo in the beginning. He was all fucked up on coke acting like a complete maniac and at one point he slapped Rihanna's ass.
I also liked Craig Robinson a lot, who was funny and cool.

Danny McBride is hit or miss. If he has a good role and a good script, he nails it. In this movie he killed it. Completely fucking hilarious.

The
monsters
were FUCKING AWESOME.
 

nomad

"Bring the light of day"
Man of Steel was the action flick I wanted to see for a long time. His story being well known, I wasn't betting on Snyder to go too deep into him, but rather just splash him with eye candy galore. With Supes having to go toe-to-toe with multiple foe's and actually portraying ridiculous amounts of liability damage that would take away years of sleep to any insurance accounts manager, was exactly what I had an appetite for and expected. Didn't care nor expected the name Nolan to either influence or just being used as the tipical marketing BS most of us despise reading in a trailer. I did however enjoyed some of the changes made from the known story as far as
Superman DNA
that made him stand out to other fellow Kryptonians. But the drama and results of this tittle's plot fell short... Not surprised. Overall as said before, I wanted to see a brawling Superman and it's exactly what I got out of it. With that expectation lacking in previous adaptations, or at least to a more 'believable' special effect based sequence. Dare I say it's the only thing that saved this movie. But if you are looking to see a well portrayed Kal-El in full circle, this film can dissapoint. However, the actor did played a good role as both Clark/Superman.
 

NightCrawler

Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
Gobolatula said:
We saw This Is the End yesterday and it was pretty fucking funny.

I was kind of turned off when I saw that all these actors were playing themselves in the movie; I thought that whole aspect seemed kinda douchey. Honestly, I would've skipped this one if I hadn't heard such great things about it.

Luckily, everyone in the movie plays sort of exaggerated versions of themselves and they don't take themselves seriously at all, which is fantastic. My favorites were Michael Cera, who
had a brief cameo in the beginning. He was all fucked up on coke acting like a complete maniac and at one point he slapped Rihanna's ass.
I also liked Craig Robinson a lot, who was funny and cool.

Danny McBride is hit or miss. If he has a good role and a good script, he nails it. In this movie he killed it. Completely fucking hilarious.

The
monsters
were FUCKING AWESOME.

Yeah, i was surprised by this movie as well, the premise was well delivered, and the cameos, for the most part, worked. I don't think it's as solid as Pineapple Express, but it had some honest laugh out loud moments. Specially from McBride (
the cuming exchange with Franco was amazing
).
Also, it's impossible not to like Craig Robinson, his deadpan, often dark humor delivery is the glue for movies like these. He stole the show on Pineapple Express, but he probably had the best lines in that movie. He's kinda like Zach G. but without the aloofness and crazy antics.
 
Top Bottom