RottenTomato critic ratings for CBMs do you think are way too low?

[Senator Pleasury]

The entire Avengers movie is one huge pay off from six previous movies which is why it struck such a huge pop culture nerve.

The execution was near perfect as well. The closest any major superhero movie has gotten to being the living embodiment of a comic book. Pure bliss.

I agree with pure bliss and high entertainment. Not so much with near perfect though.

I enjoyed the movie a whole lot. But it suffers of having to explain more than a movie can. It's really damn hard to be a proper sequel for four movies and still have lots of action and still be entertaining.

 

[spider-neil]

Well I'd disagree with a great many on the list as to their scores but what's the point of complaining about something that's already set. I just rest secure in the knowledge that what the RT says really doesn't mean anything when it comes to whether I'll like a movie or not, especially in this genre. I mean, I like Punisher'04 at 29% waaaaay more than TDK at 94% so all bets are off. I'd give TDK the Punisher's RT score and give Punisher Anghulk's score and Anghulk I'd give Steel's score(12%).

What is it about TDK you hate so much?

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Ok. I'll give each movie a score that I think it should have rec'd from the critics.

Spoiler

The Dark Knight 94%

Easily worth 94.

Iron Man. 94%

I'd probably go a little lower...somewhere around 89 or 90.

Superman (78). 94%

Why isn't this at a 100? Well, it should be.

Spider-man 2. 93%

93 is good.

The Avengers - 92%

Eh, maybe not 92. I'd go 88.

Spider-man. 89%

80

X2. 88%

90

Superman 2. 88%

95

The Dark Knight Rises - 87%

60

X-men First Class 87%

92

Batman Begins 85%

80

X-men. 82%

92

Captain America. 79%

83

Batman Returns 79%

80

Iron Man 3 78%

65

Thor. 77%

77 is about where I'd put it.

Superman Returns 76%

Blecch. 46.

Iron Man 2. 74%

64

The Amazing Spider-man 73%

85

Batman (89). 72%

Again, how this isn't at 100...it should be.

The Incredible Hulk 66%

Sure.

Watchmen. 65%

70

Spider-man 3 63%

30

Hulk. 62%

70

Blade 2. 59%

40

X-men 3. 57%

45

Man of Steel 56%

70

Blade. 55%

68

Daredevil. 45%

41

Batman Forever. 44%

40

Wolverine. 37%
Fantastic Four 2 37%
The Punisher. 29%
Green Lantern. 27%
Ghost Rider. 27%
Fantastic Four 27%
Punisher War Zone. 26%
Blade 3. 26%
Superman 3. 24%
Howard the Duck. 16%
Ghost Rider 2. 15%
Jonah Hex. 13%
Batman & Robin. 13%
Elektra. 10%
Catwoman. 10%
Superman 4. 10%
Supergirl. 8%

All these are rated ok.

 

[spider-neil]

Ok. I'll give each movie a score that I think it should have rec'd from the critics.

Spoiler

Easily worth 94.



I'd probably go a little lower...somewhere around 89 or 90.



Why isn't this at a 100? Well, it should be.



93 is good.



Eh, maybe not 92. I'd go 88.



80



90



95



60



92



80



92



83



80



65



77 is about where I'd put it.



Blecch. 46.



64



85



Again, how this isn't at 100...it should be.



Sure.



70



30



70


40



45



70



68



41



40



All these are rated ok.

Superman 78 has GOT to lose points for the biggest Deux Ex Machina in the history of cinema.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Reversing the Earth's spin was pure symbolism.

Anyone who can imagine losing a loved one in the prime of their relationship can understand this.

It's not because they painted in a corner story-wise.

 

[flower]

I'd put Captain America,TDKR and The Avengers lower, TIH and TASM higher

 

[spider-neil]

Reversing the Earth's spin was pure symbolism.

Anyone who can imagine losing a loved one in the prime of their relationship can understand this.

It's not because they painted in a corner story-wise.

You can call it symbolism if you wish, I on the other hand would use it as an example to screen writing students how not to ever end a movie.

 

[kedrell]

What is it about TDK you hate so much?

I hate it when a movie I paid to see basically treats me like I'm an idiot. It was soooooo egregious in TDK. They basically had no idea how to make Joker a credible threat so they waved a magic screen writer's wand over him and gave the character carte' blanch to get away with anything they needed him to do until they needed the movie to end, where his ridiculous luck or whatever ended right on que. I half expected Joker to have prepared and pulled out a parachute when Batman tossed him off that building. The movie had been so gratuitous up to that point it really wouldn't have been out of place at all. The only reason anything happens in the film is that the movie needs it to happen, not because it makes any damn sense. Dent becomes Two Face because the movie says that's how it should be, not because it makes any sense for him to do a 180. Repeat ad nauseum.

 

[kedrell]

You can call it symbolism if you wish, I on the other hand would use it as an example to screen writing students how not to ever end a movie.

I agree, probably the single biggest cop out in movie history. Certainly in superhero movie history. And we now know that the sequence was actually intended by Donner to be at the end of Superman 2 originally.

 

[Visualiza]

I hate it when a movie I paid to see basically treats me like I'm an idiot. It was soooooo egregious in TDK. They basically had no idea how to make Joker a credible threat so they waved a magic screen writer's wand over him and gave the character carte' blanch to get away with anything they needed him to do until they needed the movie to end, where his ridiculous luck or whatever ended right on que. I half expected Joker to have prepared and pulled out a parachute when Batman tossed him off that building. The movie had been so gratuitous up to that point it really wouldn't have been out of place at all. The only reason anything happens in the film is that the movie needs it to happen, not because it makes any damn sense. Dent becomes Two Face because the movie says that's how it should be, not because it makes any sense for him to do a 180. Repeat ad nauseum.

I agree with every word.

For as much as I enjoyed Ledger's acting, the script's portrayal of the Joker was rather...unimaginative. He was omniscient and omnipresent with regard to the plot, and if Ledger wasn't so mesmerizing, it would've fallen flat. This is what people call realism? Doesn't even qualify as verisimilitude; the character was far too ahead of the curve, coupled with the fact that everyone else around him was so incompetent.

When you peel back the style and tone, the writing in TDK was fairly pedestrian, but Nolan's slick cinematography and knack for suspense and tension managed to overcome it, at least until repeat viewings for me. I can't sit through the film anymore, save for Ledger's scenes.

 

[weezerspider]

So he quits helping people because of his first world problems but realizes he's being a jerk when people and loved ones scream for help so he suits up again?

I wouldn't put that in the top ten superhero movie character arcs let alone my top 2.

Avengers wasn't just punching. Black Widow had to face her fears of mortal combat with her long time friend. Stark had to figure out SHield's angle and break ties to save the world. Banner was a threat to everyone and had to figure put a way to trust and help the team and world. Thor still had hopes Loki would put family above ambition. Cap felt out of place and struggled to find his purpose in the modern struggle. Fury had to bring together these god-like forces with Loki sowing the seeds of distrust and hate.

This was Peter Parker's conflict and demons (mostly a repeat of SM1 and Superman 2) in SM2 multiplied by 10.

Yeah, but none of this was dealt with in any sort of depth at all. Spiderman 2 was a true character study. The Avengers was a well executed action film. That's not a bad thing, but a well executed character study is a deeper, better story than a well executed action story 100 out of 100 times. Joss Whedon himself said Avengers isn't a great film, its a great experience. Its a spectacle. Spiderman 2 was a better film because it was more than spectacle.

 

[Visualiza]

^ I think you're glossing over and trivializing the extent to which Avengers delved into the characters. It was a highlight of the film without question, and I think you're also missing the fact that the action itself was a method Whedon used to explore that depth. Every conflict in the movie up to and including the climax was relevant to each characters sensibilities, and the climax itself reflected their cohesion and growth as a team. The easy way out would've been to show the Avengers battling Loki and his cronies endlessly & aimlessly for 2 hours, but such was not the case. Taking the action at face value is missing the message, to a degree.

Otherwise, your conclusion isn't unequivocally true in the least. Watchmen was a damn good character study, but as a film, I don't think it holds a candle to the likes of action-driven films like Die Hard or Terminator 2. You can't shoehorn movies into boxes like that, because for every one example that you think illustrates that point, there are dozens of others that would refute it.

With all that being said, I do agree that Spider-Man 2 was a better film than Avengers.

 

[kedrell]

Spider-man 2 to me is pretty much nails on a chalkboard, as all the Raimi films are. They got Ock wrong and because of it they had to get Lizard wrong in TASM or he would have seemed like an Ock clone. Those films were always miscast for the leads and I think passable at best is the only nice thing I can say about them.

 

[Human Torch]

You have to remember the context Superman The Movie was in.Back then,we didn't have the realism police breathing down our collective necks.We actually were allowed to have a little fun with our imagination and consider-"gee,if Superman were angry enough,could he actually turn back time for the woman he loved and could not save?"

 

[kedrell]

^The worst part of the spinning the world back gag is that he'd been warned about it at least 3 times by his father. He did it anyway and.......NOTHING! All is well. I guess Jor-El was full of it on that one.

 

[spider-neil]

I agree, probably the single biggest cop out in movie history. Certainly in superhero movie history. And we now know that the sequence was actually intended by Donner to be at the end of Superman 2 originally.

Doesn't matter whether it appeared in Superman 1 or 2, it's a cop out that in no way shape or form is set up in any part of the movie. Some people call Superman the movie the gold standard of Superhero movies, you have GOT to be kidding me. It also completely undermines the character for all the sequels because if the **** hits the fan then all he has to do is go back in time (I think he is going back in time, not reversing the Earth).

Horrible, horrible, horrible.

 

[spider-neil]

I agree with every word.

For as much as I enjoyed Ledger's acting, the script's portrayal of the Joker was rather...unimaginative. He was omniscient and omnipresent with regard to the plot, and if Ledger wasn't so mesmerizing, it would've fallen flat. This is what people call realism? Doesn't even qualify as verisimilitude; the character was far too ahead of the curve, coupled with the fact that everyone else around him was so incompetent.

When you peel back the style and tone, the writing in TDK was fairly pedestrian, but Nolan's slick cinematography and knack for suspense and tension managed to overcome it, at least until repeat viewings for me. I can't sit through the film anymore, save for Ledger's scenes.

The biggest problem for me in TDK is Two-Face, they establish Dent as the 'White Knight' a man who is not afraid to go to any lengths to ensure the safety of the city and the rounding up of criminals but all of that is gone when he loses half his face and girlfriend. Nope, not buying that quick a chance that comes out of left field, either Dent's whole persona was a lie or the character of Two-Face is completely unearned.

And I hated the coin tossing,
'I want to kill you'
*toss*
'Heads, darn!'
*toss*
'Heads, darn!'
*toss*
'Heads, darn!'
*toss*
'Tales!'
BANG!!

The sequence with TF in the car where he tossed a coin for the boss and then the driver infuriated me. He should have tossed the coin and when he lost he should have got out the car. That is the character of Two-Face.

 

[spider-neil]

Spider-man 2 to me is pretty much nails on a chalkboard, as all the Raimi films are. They got Ock wrong and because of it they had to get Lizard wrong in TASM or he would have seemed like an Ock clone. Those films were always miscast for the leads and I think passable at best is the only nice thing I can say about them.

They improve on Doc Ock in SM2. Recently Ock has depth in the comics but before SM2 Doc Ock was one note and uninteresting (but still my favourite Spidey villain, go figure).

Be glad they put the Conner's dynamic on Doc Ock because you wouldn't have seen the family dynamic of Conner's in a Spidey origin movie, there simply isn't time for it. Lizard needed to be in a sequel and a throwaway villain needed to be in ASM 1. Lizard is too complex a character for an origin movie. That said if Lizard returns they can set up his family to add conflict.

 

[Visualiza]

The biggest problem for me in TDK is Two-Face, they establish Dent as the 'White Knight' a man who is not afraid to go to any lengths to ensure the safety of the city and the rounding up of criminals but all of that is gone when he loses half his face and girlfriend. Nope, not buying that quick a chance that comes out of left field, either Dent's whole persona was a lie or the character of Two-Face is completely unearned.

And I hated the coin tossing,
'I want to kill you'
*toss*
'Heads, darn!'
*toss*
'Heads, darn!'
*toss*
'Heads, darn!'
*toss*
'Tales!'
BANG!!

The sequence with TF in the car where he tossed a coin for the boss and then the driver infuriated me. He should have tossed the coin and when he lost he should have got out the car. That is the character of Two-Face.

Agreed, his inclusion felt completely forced. I actually think that Eckhart's performance as Dent was one of the few highlights of the film; he had depth for days, but the TF transition just wasn't there. You hit it on the head, the movie didn't earn it.

 

[spider-neil]

Agreed, his inclusion felt completely forced. I actually think that Eckhart's performance as Dent was one of the few highlights of the film; he had depth for days, but the TF transition just wasn't there. You hit it on the head, the movie didn't earn it.

I dislike the 3rd act of TDK (not just Two-Face) but to be honest that is becoming the norm for me.
Superhero films where I lose almost all interest in the movie in the 3rd act (climax).

TDK
IM (terrible 3rd act)
BB
ASM
MoS (I can't even begin to sum up how **** up the 3rd act of this movie is)

I point out the above because I really really like act 1 and 2 of these movies.

 

[Visualiza]

^We're on the same wavelength here.

I've noticed this far too frequently within the genre, in that the filmmakers can't quite wrap their heads around finishing strong. It's especially bad with the origin films.

Captain America was a brilliant movie until the fighting started. Steve was one of the better developed protagonists in the MCU, but the premise(one soldier impacting a world war in blue tights) and execution fell horribly flat once the plot shifted gears from character to conflict. The whole premise of Captain America is rather pulpy and jingoistic in the first place. With that being said, I think Johnston did a bang-up job considering what he was given, but it just wasn't up to standard. I really hope that he's still on Marvel's radar, because of all the directors save for Whedon, I think he understands characterization the best. Anyway, same happened in Thor, and the rest of the films you mentioned as well.

I think the main issue with this is that it's just a tough task to approach from a writing standpoint. Most of these films require a tonal shift once the hero is fully established, and with that in mind I would imagine that it's almost like creating two separate movies.

 

[spider-neil]

^We're on the same wavelength here.

I've noticed this far too frequently within the genre, in that the filmmakers can't quite wrap their heads around finishing strong. It's especially bad with the origin films.

Captain America was a brilliant movie until the fighting started. Steve was one of the better developed protagonists in the MCU, but the premise(one soldier impacting a world war in blue tights) and execution fell horribly flat once the plot shifted gears from character to conflict. The whole premise of Captain America is rather pulpy and jingoistic in the first place. With that being said, I think Johnston did a bang-up job considering what he was given, but it just wasn't up to standard. I really hope that he's still on Marvel's radar, because of all the directors save for Whedon, I think he understands characterization the best. Anyway, same happened in Thor, and the rest of the films you mentioned as well.

I think the main issue with this is that it's just a tough task to approach from a writing standpoint. Most of these films require a tonal shift once the hero is fully established, and with that in mind I would imagine that it's almost like creating two separate movies.

To be fair, it makes sense why origin movie 3rd acts usually suck.
They spend so much time establishing the hero, there is next to no time for the villain, without a strong villain it is very unlikely you are going to have a satisfying conclusion. In the case of TDK's 3rd, it's too long and needed to but cut and a character that should have been saved for a sequel was forcefully shoehorned into the climax.

An example of a great 3rd act, Terminator 2. All the elements set up over the course of the movie are paid off in the final act in a satisfying and engaging way. I just don't see or feel that pay off with far too many superhero movies.
For instance I thought the 3rd act of IM3 was complete rubbish as nothing set up is paid off and far too many elements come from absolutely no where.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Doesn't matter whether it appeared in Superman 1 or 2, it's a cop out that in no way shape or form is set up in any part of the movie. Some people call Superman the movie the gold standard of Superhero movies, you have GOT to be kidding me. It also completely undermines the character for all the sequels because if the **** hits the fan then all he has to do is go back in time (I think he is going back in time, not reversing the Earth).

Horrible, horrible, horrible.

The scene is beautiful.

Superman pushes his power beyond his limits and ignores Jor El's sacred warning out of deep love for Lois. He's on the verge of tears hoping with all his heart his efforts will bring back the love of his life.

It would undermine the character more if he accepted Lois fate and Jor El's ”rule” when the love of his life lays dead in his arms.

You're not supposed to draw plausibility from the ending. Only that Supes is willing to push his god-like powers beyond it's limits and betray his obligation to his Kryptonian legacy for a single, human Daily Planet reporter covered in dirt.

It may not resonate with people stuck in Nolan's ultra-realistic line of thinking but that doesn't make it a bad ending. It dwelves into fantasy and symbolism to send a heartfelt message about the importance of love. Why fault any movie for that?

It's not like Supes killed someone. That would be way worse.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

As I did no watch Man of Steel, I can't agree or disagree with the score
Here's what I disagree with (and remember, the percentage is of critics who liked the movie):

Batman Returns 79%: The first movie is far better, and this one gets better reception
The Amazing Spider-man 73%: Some reasons aren't solid. "Retread of the first movie?" Did they not see the differences?
The Incredible Hulk 66%: I don't get the hate this one is getting
Hulk. 62%: Hulk movies are underrated

And these are scored too low, they deserve more liking, especially the Punisher
X-men 3. 57%
Batman Forever. 44%
Fantastic Four 2 37%
The Punisher. 29%

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

They improve on Doc Ock in SM2. Recently Ock has depth in the comics but before SM2 Doc Ock was one note and uninteresting (but still my favourite Spidey villain, go figure).

Be glad they put the Conner's dynamic on Doc Ock because you wouldn't have seen the family dynamic of Conner's in a Spidey origin movie, there simply isn't time for it. Lizard needed to be in a sequel and a throwaway villain needed to be in ASM 1. Lizard is too complex a character for an origin movie. That said if Lizard returns they can set up his family to add conflict.

Thete are plenty of sympathetic villains in Spider-man. There was no need to morph Dr Ock into yet another father-figure turned kidnaping arch nemesis.

Dr. Ock is not a good person or family man. He's the opposite of Peter Patker the way the Joker is the opposote of Batman.

And giving Dr. Ock a split personality via computer chip is not adding depth It's a cheap ploy that could be used by a forgettable soap opera episode.

Dr. Ock represent pure, calculated evil. Like the scientists who served Hitler. He's not a Green Goblin/Lizard knock off.