Henry Cavill IS Superman: - Part 7

[Rowsdower!]

Hmmm, watched that video review and it seemed like the guy was overlooking Immortals' potential shortcomings, while the girl sounded like she thought she was too good for it. But then, it's good to hear that both of them were impressed with the visuals, which is probably the one thing that will make or break this movie at the box office. Though good performances from your hero (Cavill) and your villain (Rourke) won't hurt. From what I've seen, both of them look strong (or at least stronger than Worthington and everyone else in Crap of the Titans, yes, even Neeson and Fiennes, who were phoning it in).

I'm still a little pissed at Rourke though for ripping Ryan Gosling's acting in an interview for this movie. Hey Mickey, here's a tip. Just because an actor is younger than you and doesn't look like he's had his face run over by a Dodge pickup doesn't mean he's not a better actor.

 

[manofsteel4life]

What do you guys think about what they both agreed on was Henrys acting......to me I think it's hard to protray dramatic scenes in this type of movie....I mean besides the dramatic action scenes, but as far acting it's very limited, cause it is an action movie

 

[flickchick85]

I completely buy that woman's reaction - I was never expecting top-notch character/story work from this film. That almost never happens with a Greek mythology movie, let's face it. So it doesn't surprise me at all that this has thin characters and recycled plot. She's probably spot on there. BUT when she said she couldn't root for Theseus because he was like Captain America, that's where I feel like my opinion will divert from hers. Anyway, the appeal of a movie about Greek mythology to me is the creation of that world, and that's where it sounds like Tarsem brought something special to the table, which is frankly, exactly what I was hoping for and expecting.

As for the acting, I don't put too much stock in it - all the other accounts I've heard so far have liked Henry and Rourke's acting, so it seems like Henry's at least a step above Sam Worthington even if he and the cast don't get much to work with.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I completely buy that woman's reaction - I was never expecting top-notch character/story work from this film. That almost never happens with a Greek mythology movie, let's face it. So it doesn't surprise me at all that this has thin characters and recycled plot. She's probably spot on there. BUT when she said she couldn't root for Theseus because he was like Captain America, that's where I feel like my opinion will divert from hers. Anyway, the appeal of a movie about Greek mythology to me is the creation of that world, and that's where it sounds like Tarsem brought something special to the table, which is frankly, exactly what I was hoping for and expecting.

As for the acting, I don't put too much stock in it - all the other accounts I've heard so far have liked Henry and Rourke's acting, so it seems like Henry's at least a step above Sam Worthington even if he and the cast don't get much to work with.

It seems to me that she couldn't take HC's acting seriously because she found him too attractive -- she even sort of said just that with her reference to Cap. It's a pretty common and sometimes unjustified mentality that good looking people can't act.

 

[Spider-Ranger]

Hey guys, which film with Henry Cavill is worth watching??
Are there movies with him in a leading role? or just minor roles??
and I mean besides the Tudors

 

[moviedoors]

Hey guys, which film with Henry Cavill is worth watching??
Are there movies with him in a leading role? or just minor roles??
and I mean besides the Tudors

I had a good time with Blood Creek. That flick deserves a bigger audience.

 

[chamber-music]

I'm surprised anyone judges actors acting ability by big budget action movies. I know they get the biggest audiences but characters in those types of movies tend to not be well written or have good performances so it probably isn't best to gauge acting ability from those type of films.

 

[Astrodust]

The review is what I expected it to be. It is essentially a good vs evil film much like Lord of the Rings. It isn't Game of Thrones. I love both of these types of stories and they can both work. 300 didn't have character development either and worked for most people. It kind of depends on your mood, and state of mind. Going in with the wrong expectations can ruin a film. No one sees Transformers expecting A Beautiful Mind. At the same time you don't want horrible acting either. I'm just going for Tarsem cause it's been so long since his last film. The man does not make enough films.

 

[Showtime]

I had a good time with Blood Creek. That flick deserves a bigger audience.

I thought that movie was more like a "It's so bad, it's good" for me. Awful.

Any sort of positive reviews aren't really going to matter for Immortals, it's not going to do well at the box office, I'm being nice saying it that way. Does that mean the film is bad, well, maybe not. To tell the truth, it doesn't matter if this movie does well or not. Not for Cavill.

For those of you simply routing for this film to support Cavill, the film is irrelevant to Superman.

 

[manofsteel4life]

I thought that movie was more like a "It's so bad, it's good" for me. Awful.

Any sort of positive reviews aren't really going to matter for Immortals, it's not going to do well at the box office, I'm being nice saying it that way. Does that mean the film is bad, well, maybe not. To tell the truth, it doesn't matter if this movie does well or not. Not for Cavill.

For those of you simply routing for this film to support Cavill, the film is irrelevant to Superman.

True I think it's more for fan boys or girls to see cavill on film before superman comes out, so I'm not worried..... But I do hate listening to reviews before I go watch any movie though, just cause of situations like this. Instead of going in with your own expectations, you have other peoples reviews in the back of your mind

 

[moviedoors]

I thought that movie was more like a "It's so bad, it's good" for me. Awful.

You must not watch a lot of horror movies then (BTW, I don't mean that to be in anyway insulting. If anything it says more about me and my diet as a filmgoer). I watch anything with that tag, so I watch an ungodly amount of crap, but when a competently made little gem like Blood Creek comes along, it's a breath of fresh air. A horror flick with a neat premise, good actors, tight, effective direction, and a badass villain? I don't get nearly enough of those. And for the record, I didn't watch it because Superman was in it. I knew nothing about it other than the title and the cover of the DVD when I put it on. While watching the atmospheric opening with the credits rolling, I started going "holy crap, look at this cast" and then "Joel Schumacher directed this?!" And then when it was over, I went "why the hell didn't I hear about this earlier and why didn't it get a theatrical release?" But it got Rogue-ed (you know, the giant killer croc movie thats release also got shafted by Dimension, even though it happened to be the best giant man-eating animal-in-the-water flick since Jaws). This was the zombie Nazi movie Dead Snow failed to deliver on, and The Bunker almost knocked out of the park.

But, come on. Zombie horses. The concept alone should cause delight.

Now for a bad horror movie with Cavill, look no further than that Hellraiser movie he was in. Holy crap, THAT was bad.

 

[Astrodust]

You must not watch a lot of horror movies then (BTW, I don't mean that to be in anyway insulting. If anything it says more about me and my diet as a filmgoer). I watch anything with that tag, so I watch an ungodly amount of crap, but when a competently made little gem like Blood Creek comes along, it's a breath of fresh air. A horror flick with a neat premise, good actors, tight, effective direction, and a badass villain? I don't get nearly enough of those. And for the record, I didn't watch it because Superman was in it. I knew nothing about it other than the title and the cover of the DVD when I put it on. While watching the atmospheric opening with the credits rolling, I started going "holy crap, look at this cast" and then "Joel Schumacher directed this?!" And then when it was over, I went "why the hell didn't I hear about this earlier and why didn't it get a theatrical release?" But it got Rogue-ed (you know, the giant killer croc movie thats release also got shafted by Dimension, even though it happened to be the best giant man-eating animal-in-the-water flick since Jaws). This was the zombie Nazi movie Dead Snow failed to deliver on, and The Bunker almost knocked out of the park.

But, come on. Zombie horses. The concept alone should cause delight.

Now for a bad horror movie with Cavill, look no further than that Hellraiser movie he was in. Holy crap, THAT was bad.

I watch a ton of films and Bloodcreek was no gem lol. In fact it wasn't even in the "It's so bad, it's good" category. You know what is though, Doomsday with Rona Mitra. That was great. Bloodcreek was just very meh. Not faulting Cavill though, there wasn't much to that film. However if Cavill fails to impress me with Cold Light of Day, I'll be a little worried about MoS.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Blood Creek is a perfect film to watch hungover on a Sunday. In other words, I really enjoyed it.

 

[moviedoors]

Ugh, I did not like Doomsday. Most disappointing follow up to an awesome flick (The Descent) I've seen since Richard Kelly perpetuated Southland Tales on cinema goers everywhere.

And I didn't say I watch "tons of films" I said I watch "tons of horror movies." Suffer through something like Amusement or Primal and then tell me that Blood Creek was "awful".

 

[Astrodust]

Ugh, I did not like Doomsday. Most disappointing follow up to an awesome flick (The Descent) I've seen since Richard Kelly perpetuated Southland Tales on cinema goers everywhere.

And I didn't say I watch "tons of films" I said I watch "tons of horror movies." Suffer through something like Amusement or Primal and then tell me that Blood Creek was "awful".

What does Doomsday have to do with The Descent? At least it's much closer to the "So bad it's good" category than Bloodcreek. Not that that is a bragging right, but at least Doomsday doesn't take itself seriously. I liked The Descent but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about entertaining bad films. Bloodcreek is just hollow and boring and makes Shumacher look like an amateur. Actually now that I think about it, Trespass was really horrible as well. I don't think he's made a good film since Phone Booth. Neither Bloodcreek or Doomsday were "gems" though.

 

[Eddie Dean]

The Descent and Doomsday were both directed by Neil Marshall.

 

[moviedoors]

What does Doomsday have to do with The Descent?

The same director. Hence the whole "most disappointing follow up" rant.

And I defy you. Try it:

Suffer through something like Amusement or Primal and then tell me that Blood Creek was "awful".

And I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong for disliking Blood Creek, but it makes me question just how much horror you've seen if you'd describe it as "awful." To me, that just sounds like typical geek culture "it's either the greatest thing ever or a blight upon humanity" attitude. Nothing's just "okay" or "alright" or "not very good" or "meh" or "that was fun; moving on" anymore. People just default to these extreme reactions constantly. I'm not gonna say Blood Creek was a great movie, but it simply strikes me as hyperbolic to say it was "awful".

And I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: ZOMBIE HORSES

 

[Rowsdower!]

I thought Cavill and Fassbender did well in Blood Creek. Was it a great movie? No. But I did find it at least interesting, which is more than I can say for most horror movies, which have gotten so horribly predictable that something that's a tad different feels like a breath of fresh air. It could have been better of course, but I think Joel Schumacher not only lost his credibility with those Batman films, but he also lost a lot of his directorial skills, because he hasn't made a great movie in a long time. You watch Falling Down or Flatliners and then you watch Blood Creek and you probably wouldn't think they were made by the same guy.

Anyway, regardless of how much Joel has fallen off, I'd still say the movie is worth a watch. Though I'll admit, I probably wouldn't have bothered seeing it if it didn't star Superman fighting Magneto, but I'm a geek for that kind of stuff. The only reason I watched the 90s rom-com Speechless was because I wanted to see Batman and Superman competing for the same girl.

 

[Showtime]

You must not watch a lot of horror movies then (BTW, I don't mean that to be in anyway insulting. If anything it says more about me and my diet as a filmgoer). I watch anything with that tag, so I watch an ungodly amount of crap, but when a competently made little gem like Blood Creek comes along, it's a breath of fresh air. A horror flick with a neat premise, good actors, tight, effective direction, and a badass villain? I don't get nearly enough of those. And for the record, I didn't watch it because Superman was in it. I knew nothing about it other than the title and the cover of the DVD when I put it on. While watching the atmospheric opening with the credits rolling, I started going "holy crap, look at this cast" and then "Joel Schumacher directed this?!" And then when it was over, I went "why the hell didn't I hear about this earlier and why didn't it get a theatrical release?" But it got Rogue-ed (you know, the giant killer croc movie thats release also got shafted by Dimension, even though it happened to be the best giant man-eating animal-in-the-water flick since Jaws). This was the zombie Nazi movie Dead Snow failed to deliver on, and The Bunker almost knocked out of the park.

But, come on. Zombie horses. The concept alone should cause delight.

Now for a bad horror movie with Cavill, look no further than that Hellraiser movie he was in. Holy crap, THAT was bad.

Well...you're way off on my familiarity with the horror genre. In fact, in the not so distant past I took at pass at an iconic horror figure which just recently returned to the big screen.

I'm a huge horror movie buff and to me it was as much of a gem as a films like "Christina's House" or "Lair of the White Worm". In other words, "so bad it's good"

 

[chamber-music]

Blood Creek was like a extended episode of Supernatural. It wasn't bad but it wasn't memorable either. Its not as good as Joel Schumacher's Lost Boys.

Doomsday was a fun movie I thought. Its escape from New York mixed with Mad Max.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Blood Creek was like a extended episode of Supernatural. It wasn't bad but it wasn't memorable either. Its not as good as Joel Schumacher's Lost Boys.

It think I might give it another try. There were a few reasons it didn't sit well with me, but I think a lot of it was to do with it simply being SO different from what i'm used to with mainstream horror - with the happy world of the character set up first, and then the world descends into chaos...

There was just none of that. It started with the mythology and then jumped straight into the aftermath of Cavill's characters brother being missing. There was no happy world, no real character set up, no chance for you to emotionally connect or feel for anyone, other than a little bit for Cavill - but his character having so few lines didn't help with the connection. Mostly just a lot of looking sad and brooding, and then later looking shocked or scared.

I also didn't really understand a lot of why the characters were doing what they were doing. They almost seem to make decisions based on what suited the story more than what actually made relatable sense.

And in terms of the plot, it was a little confusing. I'm not entirely sure I could explain what happened to someone...

But hey, like I said, I might give it another try and see if any of that changes.

 

[Wheels]

Well...you're way off on my familiarity with the horror genre. In fact, in the not so distant past I took at pass at an iconic horror figure which just recently returned to the big screen.

I'm a huge horror movie buff and to me it was as much of a gem as a films like "Christina's House" or "Lair of the White Worm". In other words, "so bad it's good"

Freddy, Jason, or Michael?

 

[blueboy2010]

Well...you're way off on my familiarity with the horror genre. In fact, in the not so distant past I took at pass at an iconic horror figure which just recently returned to the big screen.

I'm a huge horror movie buff and to me it was as much of a gem as a films like "Christina's House" or "Lair of the White Worm". In other words, "so bad it's good"

Hey, just wanted to say that I consider myself a big horror fan, but I think the genre has been dead since the early 80s.
Let The Right One In is one of the only classy horror films released for a long time.

 

[Showtime]

Freddy, Jason, or Michael?

 

[Showtime]

Hey, just wanted to say that I consider myself a big horror fan, but I think the genre has been dead since the early 80s.
Let The Right One In is one of the only classy horror films released for a long time.

I think like any genre, there has been ebs and flows, I think you can find some good entries throughout the decades.

I do agree that Let The Right One In was really well done.