All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 94

[John-An]

I don't think that was telekinesis. I think it was, similar to Clark when he took off where the gravity around him began to slow down.

Agreed on that... is a gravitational field like in the comics..

 

[Binker]

I have a common question concerning Jor-El and Pa Kent; they were vague in why he did or say to Clark/Kal-El that one wonders, what was their motivations? For Jor-El; what was the reason why he put the Codex inside Kal-El's blood? The only clues I have are him saying that Clark is a child of both worlds, which probably means he used the Codex on Kal to become a true Last Son of Krypton; but then later he says "we wanted you to learn what it meant to be human, first. So that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples," which in turn, he also said to Zod that his son would be Krypton's second chance. So was he rephrasing what he said before with different words Suggesting that Kal's existence was going to redeem Krypton's past by giving hope to Earth's future? Did he even reveal a hidden plan? Speaking of which, Jor-El once said at the council that he wanted to use the Codex to save Krypton; given his lines said to Kal-El/Clark/Superman, and later he mentions to Zod about coexisting: was this all connected, or happened on the spot?

Pa Kent was similar in vagueness. He gives advise and words of wisdom when it comes to Clark's future given what he is, but with the death of Pa flashback, he suggests continuing the family farm which goes against earlier flashbacks set prior to this one. But then, he says this line of dialogue: "Clark has a point. We’re not your parents. But we’ve been doing our best, and we’ve been making this up as we go along. So maybe, maybe our best isn’t good enough anymore." Now this is a double meaning, because our parents pulled this on us to express guilt; but on the other hand, was he about to suggest that it was time for Clark to make his own decisions? He did stop him from saving him so he wouldn't be exposed, and then we have Clark telling Lois that his father believed the world wasn't ready for him, explaining why he let himself die: to protect his son. But the thing is, given that scene, it's unclear on what he wanted his son to be.
Maybe it's easier for many than my own brain can figure out, but I do have theories and such; it's just that it's vague. Even TDKR took a second viewing to grab the clues, and figure out Bane's (and Talia's) reasons for their plan. MOS, on the other hand, just other theories for me, and I need help to solve.

P.S. I was going to post a op/ed on my flaws with MOS; I'll probably still will, but let me treat as an alternative/separate topic of discussion.

 

[sf2]

I have a common question concerning Jor-El and Pa Kent; they were vague in why he did or say to Clark/Kal-El that one wonders, what was their motivations? For Jor-El; what was the reason why he put the Codex inside Kal-El's blood? The only clues I have are him saying that Clark is a child of both worlds, which probably means he used the Codex on Kal to become a true Last Son of Krypton; but then later he says "we wanted you to learn what it meant to be human, first. So that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples," which in turn, he also said to Zod that his son would be Krypton's second chance. So was he rephrasing what he said before with different words Suggesting that Kal's existence was going to redeem Krypton's past by giving hope to Earth's future? Did he even reveal a hidden plan? Speaking of which, Jor-El once said at the council that he wanted to use the Codex to save Krypton; given his lines said to Kal-El/Clark/Superman, and later he mentions to Zod about coexisting: was this all connected, or happened on the spot?

Pa Kent was similar in vagueness. He gives advise and words of wisdom when it comes to Clark's future given what he is, but with the death of Pa flashback, he suggests continuing the family farm which goes against earlier flashbacks set prior to this one. But then, he says this line of dialogue: "Clark has a point. We’re not your parents. But we’ve been doing our best, and we’ve been making this up as we go along. So maybe, maybe our best isn’t good enough anymore." Now this is a double meaning, because our parents pulled this on us to express guilt; but on the other hand, was he about to suggest that it was time for Clark to make his own decisions? He did stop him from saving him so he wouldn't be exposed, and then we have Clark telling Lois that his father believed the world wasn't ready for him, explaining why he let himself die: to protect his son. But the thing is, given that scene, it's unclear on what he wanted his son to be.
Maybe it's easier for many than my own brain can figure out, but I do have theories and such; it's just that it's vague. Even TDKR took a second viewing to grab the clues, and figure out Bane's (and Talia's) reasons for their plan. MOS, on the other hand, just other theories for me, and I need help to solve.

P.S. I was going to post a op/ed on my flaws with MOS; I'll probably still will, but let me treat as an alternative/separate topic of discussion.

My take:

Jor el: yes. He intended to revive krypton on the earth too (or other planet). And he believed his son can do that.

Pa Kent: he was just an ordinary father who loved his son so much. On one hand, he believe his son power can do humanity good; one the other hand, he worry his son would get hurted. So he suggested his son to keep a low profile n work as farmer if there is no sign calling for a superhero help. You know... like an alien invasion.

 

[Nemeres]

We'll always have the memories!

I am very thankful for the movie, if only for the fun I had with you guys waiting for it and guessing about it

You didn't like it? I've been away from the boards so much that I still don't know which user liked it, which one didn't, who's ambivalent... For what it's worth, in a jiffy: I've watched it three times so far and the time I liked it the least was the 1st one. It's flawed as all bad place and and I really wish it hadn't missed the opportunities that it does, but it also has many good moments. I'm pleased as a fan overall, the word 'overall' being key here.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Yeah it's been kind of hard to keep up with everything, hasn't it?

TBH, i've been avoiding most of the discussion because it's just the same stuff being discussed to death over and over again now

But yeah, I didn't like it.

Right from the beginning, I had this horrible sinking feeling of 'this is not a well made film' that just kept growing. I remember sitting there and thinking 'Okay, well it's still a fun movie' and getting ready to forgive it for being a bit dumb... but then when my fan issues started piling on top, it became too much for me to put a positive spin on. I walked out of the cinema in a pretty devastated emotional state

Not liking the film was a hard fish to swallow, and i've tried to enjoy it from every angle. I've seen it repeatedly, and it's not without any redeeming qualities... but every single time I watch it in full, it brings up this deflated feeling inside me.

There truly are parts I love. But even the parts I love make me sad, cause I wish they weren't connected to such a poor finished product.

 

[Nemeres]

Yeah it's been kind of hard to keep up with everything, hasn't it?

TBH, i've been avoiding most of the discussion because it's just the same stuff being discussed to death over and over again now

But yeah, I didn't like it.

Right from the beginning, I had this horrible sinking feeling of 'this is not a well made film' that just kept growing. I remember sitting there and thinking 'Okay, well it's still a fun movie' and getting ready to forgive it for being a bit dumb... but then when my fan issues started piling on top, it became too much for me to put a positive spin on. I walked out of the cinema in a pretty devastated emotional state

Not liking the film was a hard fish to swallow, and i've tried to enjoy it from every angle. I've seen it repeatedly, and it's not without any redeeming qualities... but every single time I watch it in full, it brings up this deflated feeling inside me.

There truly are parts I love. But even the parts I love make me sad, cause I wish they weren't connected to such a poor finished product.

Ouch. Well, it's refreshing to see some frankness. Nothing against anyone, but with movies like this one or TASM, these boards often turn into pretty much 'apologist central'.

 

[STARMAN]

I feel like we all received the same Christmas gift but not everyone liked what they got.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Ouch. Well, it's refreshing to see some frankness. Nothing against anyone, but with movies like this one or TASM, these boards often turn into pretty much 'apologist central'.

Yeah there has been a bit of that, but hey, some people just genuinely love the film and are really happy with what we got.

Mostly I was just really jealous of them at first

And arguing about all the criticisms I have for the film really bums me out when it goes on too long. Because 1. I don't like having to be such a negative person all the time, and 2. It just consistently reminds me how utterly gutted I am I didn't get a film I could love, or at least like.

I feel like we all received the same Christmas gift but not everyone liked what they got.

Yeah, I guess so.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

I feel like we all received the same Christmas gift but not everyone liked what they got.

I loved what I got and my body won't be ready for the next round come 2015. t:

 

[John-An]

Yeah it's been kind of hard to keep up with everything, hasn't it?

TBH, i've been avoiding most of the discussion because it's just the same stuff being discussed to death over and over again now

But yeah, I didn't like it.

Right from the beginning, I had this horrible sinking feeling of 'this is not a well made film' that just kept growing. I remember sitting there and thinking 'Okay, well it's still a fun movie' and getting ready to forgive it for being a bit dumb... but then when my fan issues started piling on top, it became too much for me to put a positive spin on. I walked out of the cinema in a pretty devastated emotional state

Not liking the film was a hard fish to swallow, and i've tried to enjoy it from every angle. I've seen it repeatedly, and it's not without any redeeming qualities... but every single time I watch it in full, it brings up this deflated feeling inside me.

There truly are parts I love. But even the parts I love make me sad, cause I wish they weren't connected to such a poor finished product.

Well you didn't like it... It's ok... but this is not a fun movie... this is a movie which takes the characters seriously... I guess you were expecting smth like sTM or SR but this is another century.. Why the movie's dumb? one thing this movie has is taking the characters seriously, with another angle, I mean more realistic... what I applaud from Snyder, Nolan, Goyer they put Superman in situations that no other heroes were... put a more credible Supes more with the comic (not only the physique, also the presence and the light that surrounds the hero) but IMO the ESCENCE OF SUPERMAN WAS HERE!!! I know the movie is not perfect has its flaws but the final product was pretty well constructed from the beginning
They also show us casualties and the hero can't win always and show us also a relatable hero that is not perfect (not just the guy that always win and nothing happens to him) but he does his best for the mankind and in such dangerous.. the movie was about the begining of the legend of superman he's not an established hero... he can make mistakes, and that focus that he didn't born being a hero.. he's evolving being the simbol of hope that the mankind needs, that was what I love the most from the movie...
Your problem is that you were waiting for smth that never could happen, and your system didn't enjoy the movie... seeing the quotes from waid on your avatar makes me think that you're one of those that expected smth similar to Donner Movies... I liked yes but I think the plot from those movies is a little old fashioned..
I totally respect your opinion but I just can't agree with some of your arguments.. sorry but that's what makes the world go around

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Well you didn't like it... It's ok... but this is not a fun movie... this is a movie which takes the characters seriously... I guess you were expecting smth like sTM or SR but this is another century.. Why the movie's dumb? one thing this movie has is taking the characters seriously, with another angle, I mean more realistic... what I applaud from Snyder, Nolan, Goyer they put Superman in situations that no other heroes were... put a more credible Supes more with the comic (not only the physique, also the presence and the light that surrounds the hero) but IMO the ESCENCE OF SUPERMAN WAS HERE!!! I know the movie is not perfect has its flaws but the final product was pretty well constructed from the beginning.
They also show us casualties and the hero can't win always and show us also a relatable hero that is not perfect (not just the guy that always win and nothing happens to him) but he does his best for the mankind and in such dangerous.. the movie was about the begining of the legend of superman he's not an established hero... he can make mistakes, and that focus that he didn't born being a hero.. he's evolving being the simbol of hope that the mankind needs, that was what I love the most from the movie...
Your problem is that you were waiting for smth that never could happen, and your system didn't enjoy the movie... seeing the quotes from waid on your avatar makes me think that you're one of those that expected smth similar to Donner Movies... I liked yes but I think the plot from those movies is a little old fashioned..
I totally respect your opinion but I just can't agree with some of your arguments.. sorry but that's what makes the world go around

I'm not even gonna respond.

I'm just gonna laugh, cause you're guesses couldn't be further from the truth.

And how silly to make a post just assuming a bunch of stuff about a poster in order to dismiss their negative conclusions about the film.

 

[John-An]

I'm not even gonna respond.

I'm just gonna laugh, cause you're guesses couldn't be further from the truth.

And how silly to make a post just assuming a bunch of stuff about a poster in order to dismiss their negative conclusions about the film.

Well I´ve just give my opinion... you criticized the movie with so stupid arguments... you didn't like it that's ok and I respect your opinion but some words you've used are totally off some people just can't move on

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Yes, call my arguements stupid and roll you eyes at me.

That's a good way of showing you respect my opinion.

 

[John-An]

Yes, call my arguements stupid and roll you eyes at me.

That's a good way of showing you respect my opinion.

one thing is your argument that I saw that way and other is your opinion which is that you didn't like it WICH I TOTALLY RESPECT...
smth I'd like to tell you man;
In this movie also show us casualties and the hero can't win always and show us also a relatable hero that is not perfect (not just the guy that always win and nothing happens to him) but he does his best for the mankind and in such dangerous.. the movie was about the begining of the legend of superman he's not an established hero... he can make mistakes, and that focus that he didn't born being a hero.. he's evolving being the simbol of hope that the mankind needs, that was what I love the most from the movie... t:

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Seriously dude, my post is not an 'arguement'.

I directly responded to a poster who asked me about my opinion, and within that post I have commented on how much I dislike getting into debates about my criticisms of the film because it bums me out, and it just means going over and over the same stuff i've already said a bunch of times in the last few months.

 

[John-An]

Seriously dude, my post is not an 'arguement'.

I directly responded to a poster who asked me about my opinion, and within that post I have commented on how much I dislike getting into debates about my criticisms of the film because it bums me out, and it just means going over and over the same stuff i've already said a bunch of times in the last few months.

Don't worry I had the same but on the love side... I only told you some words that IMO weren't totally off describing the movie..
Sorry if you felt a little uncomfortable

 

[hopefuldreamer]

For the record, I don't like the Donner films, or SR, and taking the material seriously was absolutely my dream for the film.

So next time you engage with a poster (not me, I have no interest in debating this film's faults anymore), don't arrogantly assume to know why they have the opinions they do, and criticize them on that basis. Maybe actually ask them instead.

 

[Binker]

@hopefuldreamer: I like this movie (I didn't love it, but then again I don't recall ever "loving" a movie; I loved a person, a girl, that's sure, lol) but I do have some problems of my own, which I haven't posted a full report yet but I did ask about some of them earlier. But ironically, flaws I saw in it aren't shared with others, and me defending this movie doesn't seem to be leading to a repeated mistake I made with SR. After seeing this movie more than once, MOS isn't SR so I feel greatful when I take a stand in saying that I liked the film and, not troll people, but explain why their "flaws" aren't flaws and explain why things are the thing they were, in hopes of insight, or just pointing out when a flaw is actually a nitpick. Most of the people I have read their reviews on MOS, seem to suggest either a) new and fresh still meant Reeve's Superman, or b) like TDKR, things do in fact make sense if you think about it and paid attention.

The problems I had were: 1) Editing: the jumpcut from Kal-El's ship felt awkward and it affected the flow of the film at that point; the senses flashback was placed at the wrong place, again awkward; I still have this idea that if Clark told his story to Lois, and it was the flashbacks with the death of Pa Kent, it would be a nice alternative. 2) Jor-El's motivation with the Codex inside Kal-El was vague and confusing, giving us theories on why but no clear answers. I had no problem with the concept of the Codex, but this flaw makes me wish they rewrote that out, because in the end the Codex is nothing more than a McGuffin and Chekov's Gun. 3) Same thing with Jonathan Kent with his dialogue from the flashback on his death: his dialogue contradicted the flashbacks set prior concerning Clark, and that line "maybe our way isn't good enough" is a double meaning; parents say that to us for us to feel guilty, but on the other hand, could he have meant it was time for Clark to make his decisions? Was it connected to what Clark said, referencing Pa refusing him to save him, that the world wasn't ready? That would make sense, but then again...4) Maybe a nitpick, but with all the flashbacks detailing Clark's development, I don't think it was explained why, when and how exactly Clark decided to become a drifter so he can save people.

The last three are probably for us to figure it out for ourselves, when with that Jor-El/Codex flaw, it just should've been made more clearer. But for the rest of the film: it was fine, and I had no problems with the actors, the story, action, and even the ending. I defend that one that (and yes, it has to do with Waid's comment that you have).

But what about you? What exactly did you not like about MOS?

 

[Marvin]

The baby ship "jump cut" was one of my favorite parts. Very different but at the same time, very Waid. Caught me by surprise.

 

[John-An]

For the record, I don't like the Donner films, or SR, and taking the material seriously was absolutely my dream for the film.

So next time you engage with a poster (not me, I have no interest in debating this film's faults anymore), don't arrogantly assume to know why they have the opinions they do, and criticize them on that basis. Maybe actually ask them instead.

You seemed that.. but sorry my mistake... I'll take your advice

 

[The Guard]

I have a common question concerning Jor-El and Pa Kent; they were vague in why he did or say to Clark/Kal-El that one wonders, what was their motivations? For Jor-El; what was the reason why he put the Codex inside Kal-El's blood? The only clues I have are him saying that Clark is a child of both worlds, which probably means he used the Codex on Kal to become a true Last Son of Krypton; but then later he says "we wanted you to learn what it meant to be human, first. So that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples," which in turn, he also said to Zod that his son would be Krypton's second chance.

It was a hail mary play. Jor-El took the only chance he had to get the Codex off Krypton and out of harm's way, like he did with his son. Jor-El probably planned to have Clark restart the Kryptonian race somehow, which would have been potentially doable with the scout ship and Kryptonian technology that he knew was on Earth and its gestational chamber. But beyond that, he hoped that Clark would inspire humanity via Krypton's past values.

So was he rephrasing what he said before with different words Suggesting that Kal's existence was going to redeem Krypton's past by giving hope to Earth's future? Did he even reveal a hidden plan?

Both.

Pa Kent was similar in vagueness. He gives advise and words of wisdom when it comes to Clark's future given what he is, but with the death of Pa flashback, he suggests continuing the family farm which goes against earlier flashbacks set prior to this one. But then, he says this line of dialogue: "Clark has a point. We’re not your parents. But we’ve been doing our best, and we’ve been making this up as we go along. So maybe, maybe our best isn’t good enough anymore." Now this is a double meaning, because our parents pulled this on us to express guilt; but on the other hand, was he about to suggest that it was time for Clark to make his own decisions? He did stop him from saving him so he wouldn't be exposed, and then we have Clark telling Lois that his father believed the world wasn't ready for him, explaining why he let himself die: to protect his son. But the thing is, given that scene, it's unclear on what he wanted his son to be.

Pa didn't know what Clark could be, because neither he nor Clark knew what Clark was, or the significance of his origins. He was never going to make Clark's decisions for him. He wanted Clark to discover his purpose for himself.

 

[Dagoods]

And now the moment you've all been waiting for!

The movie SUCKED!
SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL PERIOD!
Cavill is no C. Reeve that's for sure!
Jor-El the scientist, the ash-kicker, the law-maker, the ghost, etc.
Cavill is too damn short (6-1)

BEN AFFLECK TO PLAY BATMAN oh wow that's great. He's 6-4 and Cavill is only 6-1 LOOOOLLL Batman taller than Superman!!!
back to the Superman Returns boots it is!

 

[Binker]

SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL PERIOD!

Aha,
You're probably one of the people who missed my question I asked some time ago concerning this. Don't worry, I'll ask you. Superman doesn't kill, sure, but had no choice. There was a good reason for that action, a reason(s) that a lot of people have ignored because that would mean they would have to accept it. So here's a question: what would you have done different? Keep in mind: phantom zone is gone; no kryptonite, no red sun radiation, bad place not even magic. You cannot bring in something like that only because it will make you happy.

Keep in mind, after I asked people this before, no one could answer it, thus proving my point.

Okay? Go!

 

[Tanin]

Superman has killed in the comic as a last resort before. People are making it sound like he is a bloodthirsty monster in the film.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

But what about you? What exactly did you not like about MOS?

I never know whether or not to bother answering these sorts of questions, because after everything you just said, I know your intention is to tear into any flaws I point out and try and PROVE that they aren't flaws in some way...

But I'm actually in the mood for putting some of how I feel about the movie into words today. I just hope you remember that this is how I FEEL, and none of what I say can be disproven... because it's just my opinion.

Okay.

- The Story was badly developed: ideas were not fully fleshed out or followed through, themes contradicted each other and came to no real conclusions by the films end, plot devices didn't really work in places etc.

For example:

One of the ideas in the film seems to be - The world needs to be protected from the truth that aliens exist until we are 'ready'...

...and yet Clark doesn't reveal himself in some moment where he has decided 'they are ready now' or even 'I am ready now' like you would expect to be the conclusion of such an assertion.

The truth of the existence of aliens is revealed by the villain, forcing him to come out when the world is NOT ready, when even characters like Perry are still saying 'this should be kept a secret cause the world would go mental if they found out.'

And it's even more confusing since it is the motivator for Clark letting Johnathon die. He let's him die because he trusts his Dad when he says that the world isn't ready and it is life and death level important that they wait until the right time before dropping such a bomb on the human race...

... but Zod then drops that bomb prematurely... so JK basically died in vain, and kind of got proven wrong, because the world DIDN'T implode with the knowledge (that we have seen).

And beyond that, if your going to have that much repeated discourse about how the world will react... at least follow it up by showing how the world reacted. But we got nothing, no world reaction whatsoever.

And no, 'that'll come in the sequel' does not fly. It was required in order to round off the movies themes.

- The characters dialogue is so poor:

There are so few moments that feel like natural discourse between two human beings (or Kryptonians ).

It makes Lois and Clark's scenes less believable (I actually love the scenes in which they DON'T talk the most, because I can see more in their silent acting than I can when Goyer's utterly horrendous dialogue gets in the way), it makes JK and CK's relationship feel less warm and tangible, and it makes Zod feel like a kind of hammy villain.

I mean, Zod has one half decent speech regarding his motivations, right at the end of the film. That's the only time I really even saw Michael Shannon being able to act well with the words he was given. The rest of it... well some of it was just pure cheese, and other parts just so sadly under used.

And every scene between JK and CK is a solem lecture. There are never any moments of levity between them, any relationship building scenes that show the audience what a great warmth there is in that household.

That's the warmth that's supposed to carry on through Clark's life. That's the warmth he carries with him, that makes him different from other superheroes who grew up without it.

And they just purely failed to show it in the script.

Clark's life, even as a kid, looked utterly depressing.

- The lack of pro active behaviour from Clark:

From what we can see in the film, Clark is wandering about following leads that might add up to some answers about where he is from. While he's doing so, he occasionally stumbles across disasters which he can't help but get involved in and save people... because he can (despite the fact that this goes against everything his father died for...).

And then once the world is threatened, he reluctantly comes out of the closet, still fearing that the people of earth can't be trusted with the truth about him.

There is only one moment in the entire film in which we see Clark actually ACTIVELY discussing wanting to do something more important with his life... and that's in the car during the argument between him and Pa Kent before the tornado.

But since his father dies right after they argue about that, he stops thinking about actively looking for ways to help people. He sticks to hiding like his pa wanted.

How utterly depressing is that? Man I seriously do not like what they did with JK and CK in this film. I really really don't like it.

- Lois Lane Sidekick:

I'm not a fan of what they did with Lois. I think they missed the point of her as a character.

I mean, the first half was fine, and I appreciated a few nuggets of Loisish behavior and dialogue. And I really liked the idea that she finds out his secret and keeps it for him because she sees the good in him. The scene in the desert before boarding the kryptonian ship is one of my absolute favourites ('Thankyou for beleiving in me').

But the minute she steps on that ship, she stops being anything more than a sidekick and damsel/love interest.

They said they wanted to have her be more active role in the story. But Lois has a function of her own... she is the journalist on the front line, that is where she belongs, that's the perspective her character provides.

She doesn't need to become Superman's sidekick and go on the ship with him and shoot lazers and work with Jor-el in order to be useful within the story. She should have HER OWN role in the story, and that role should involve representation of what's going on in the world below as the super powered beings battle above.

As it is, Perry, Lombard and Jenny are the people we have showing us what is going on in Metropolis. And even that feels kind of like a convenient after thought that is only barely included.

There are so many other ways in my imagination of splitting the story so that we see a lot more of what is going on with the people of Metropolis by allowing Lois to actually have a storyline of her own, rather than being piggy backed onto Superman's.

- The ending:

I don't like it. I've gone into why a million times, i've provided alternate endings that would have worked just as well and would have meant the movie end on a triumph rather than a defeat.

Because my main problem with the film is how deflating it all feels.

I absolutely want the material taken seriously. And I was looking forward to seeing a 'real world' setting (something I don't think we saw at all personally). But that's not what this was.

This was Snyder/Goyer thinking they'd try to make a point, but making it so badly that it feels more like doing it for controversies sake than actually serving to SHOW a side of the character, and explore the rammifications of actions like that.

This has nothing to do with 'Superman doesn't kill', and it can't be defended with the old repeated 'he had no choice' or 'he's killed before' lines.

It is a criticism of the ending as a creative CHOICE in writing, and the way in which that decision was handled within the material.

---

So there, that's a fair whack of why I don't like the film.

Tear away!