TMOS Reviews Thread - Non Spoiler Review and Discussion - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
tumblr_md1rnigM0w1r2q56co1_250.gif
 
I don't take the humor/too serious thing. Every superhero movie need humor? Since when?

The other side to that coin is that excessive seriousness can seem superfluous and melancholy. Just as with any misplaced emotional weight, it can bog a film down if it doesn't gel with what's happening on screen. Some films are just far too somber for their own good, and the end result is that it cheapens the intended impact. It's the polar opposite of mindless slapstick, which isn't funny precisely because it's so overblown. I've said this many times, especially lately, but people are far too quick to give a free pass to somber, serious, and dark films, but just like anything else, those themes can be done poorly as well. It's high time we stopped taking them for granted.

The other issue is that people keep interpreting this criticism as if to say, "Well if it's too serious, did they expect slapstick humor to be mroe appropriate?"

And of couse the answer is no; this notion that "if too little doesn't work, then too much should suffice" is pure nonsense. Balance is the key issue here, and if an element of a film seems imbalanced, be it in one direction or the other, then it should be noted, period. People have been rationalizing the action complaint in this manner as well, but come on folks. When is excess, be it too much or too little, ever a good idea? Does a balanced diet mean either starving yourself half to death or gorging yourself to the point of morbid obesity?
 
That explains why the serious and brooding Skyfall has over 90% rating.

Skyfall is set in that world. The Avengers existed in a campy world and so did Superman before this re-imagining (wonder why The Super-franchise was rebooted again? RIGHT, too campy, out of place, outdated and BORING) so everyone expects what they love from these characters and that's to be campy, Superman being one of them.

The critics choices in negativity is the reason why Superman will ALWAYS be that untouchable and controversial character that will always lack to move forward.

I read some guys review that his ideal version of the character is Christopher Reeve's Superman and Superman: The animated series and that's that. It's those types of attitudes and close-mindedness to the character that won't allow guys like Snyder/Nolan/Goyer re-invent the character and give us something DIFFERENT.

Again, all the negative reviews are actually positive for this fan. It's all good.
 
I like him because at heart he's a fanboy. I remember when Fantastic Four came out, he gave it a bad review, but he did so because he talked about how the movie failed to live up to the genius that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby brought about in the comics. This isn't Rex Reed who simply reviews a film to blast it for daring to be a "mindless action comic book film". This is a guy who loves these movies, and wants to see them well done.

I don't always agree with him, as I mentioned, I liked Captain America and thought it was a good intro film for that character, despite it's flaws. But he is reasoned, and he doesn't hate films for the sake of hating them.

His MOS review seems to be heavily influenced by the fact that its an origin story which he found pointless, because EVERYONE just knows where Superman came from, why show it? Basically ignoring the performance of Crowe or the visuals, both of which have generally been praised.

To me that is not a reasoned reviewer. A reasoned reviewer would take issue with it if the performance was bad or if it hurt the overall story and flow in some way. Also my feelings for him have nothing to do with his Man of Steel review. I didnt always agree with Ebert, but could generally understand his reasoning. Roeper? Nope.
 
yup. absurd suggestion that a superman project should be practically devoid of humor. or that a tragic event that the character was too young to remember somehow explains the lack of any funny moments.

ill wait until ive seen the film to judge it, but this looks to be as far as possible from the All Star Superman style movie I was vaguely hoping for.
 
So people that "don't like" this movie are ones who say there's too much action and that it's "too serious", are mad they did the origin again, or are still bitter about Superman Returns.

They needed to do the origin because, while most of these 40 + year old film critics and "longtime fans" may know it, most the people from my generation do NOT.

So all of their "criticisms" are a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

The superman origin, like batman and spiderman, are pretty much archetypes for every other origin story told.

The Superman origin story so much so that megamind, a film for children, can riff on it.
 
And the laugh-riot The Dark Knight got a 94%.

I think people forget how important Tim Burton's Batman was to removing the goofy stigma from Batman. But he didn't go full tilt in the other direction. He just made sure Joker had all the laughs and Batman was grim dark. By the time Nolan came along, an entire generation of non-comic fans had seen it and BTAS.

STAS is fun. Singer's wasn't devoid of fun. It just wasn't fun.
 
Since when was Superman supposed to have comedy? What a ridiculous assertion.

Since when was Superman not supposed to have comedy or be fun? I can't think of a single previous incarnation of Superman which has been wholly "dark and brooding".
 
Whenever I read a negative comment and feel a bit dismayed, I am reminded that the MOS score is weaving itself in and out of my brain. The music alone is enough to incite powerful emotions within me and I can imagine those feelings being amplified as I see the film come to life around those musical notes. Look to Superman's chest at the Kryptonian symbol for hope. Have some yourselves. I'm still super pumped for Friday!
 
Skyfall is set in that world. The Avengers existed in a campy world and so did Superman before this re-imagining (wonder why The Super-franchise was rebooted again? RIGHT, too campy, out of place, outdated and BORING) so everyone expects what they love from these characters and that's to be campy, Superman being one of them.

The critics choices in negativity is the reason why Superman will ALWAYS be that untouchable and controversial character that will always lack to move forward.

I read some guys review that his ideal version of the character is Christopher Reeve's Superman and Superman: The animated series and that's that. It's those types of attitudes and close-mindedness to the character that won't allow guys like Snyder/Nolan/Goyer re-invent the character and give us something DIFFERENT.

Again, all the negative reviews are actually positive for this fan. It's all good.
I have a few problems with the Avengers (still love it and have seen it far too many times already), but how is it campy?
 
Since when was Superman not supposed to have comedy or be fun? I can't think of a single previous incarnation of Superman which has been wholly "dark and brooding".

The way he is presented here is serious in tone. If critics are really turned off by that this much they kind of well..

Suck...
 
Since when was Superman not supposed to have comedy or be fun? I can't think of a single previous incarnation of Superman which has been wholly "dark and brooding".

I know people who always liked Superman more than Batman because it wasn't as dark and brooding. :cwink:
 
Since when was Superman not supposed to have comedy or be fun? I can't think of a single previous incarnation of Superman which has been wholly "dark and brooding".
I've seen the word fun used several times to describe this film across multiple reviews. And you haven't even seen the film, so how do you know whether it is "wholly 'dark and brooding'"?

Anyway, that's the approach. This should have been accepted long ago. Not exactly news.
 
ill wait until ive seen the film to judge it, but this looks to be as far as possible from the All Star Superman style movie I was vaguely hoping for.
Really? You though Goyer/Snyder could pull off something with the tone of All Star when their track record points towards the exact opposite.
 
I've seen the word fun used several times to describe this film across multiple reviews. And you haven't even seen the film, so how do you know whether it is "wholly 'dark and brooding'"?

Because I know people who have and I've read every review and my understanding is that there isnt a moment of levity until about 1.5-2 hours into the movie. Not a wisecrack from a character, situational comedy or one-liner.
 
I have rarely seen any feel that is truly devoid of humor. I laugh and smirk quite a bit during films like CR, Skyfall, and TDK series. I laugh out loud during most Scorsese films, even Raging Bull. There are almost always funny bits. People just have different senses of humor.

Also there is a difference between humor and an all around sense of fun and exhilaration.
 
Because I know people who have and I've read every review and my understanding is that there isnt a moment of levity until about 1.5-2 hours into the movie. Not a wisecrack from a character, situational comedy or one-liner.

I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. If only for the fact that Lois will probably get a few good lines somewhere in there. And the fact that the "interrogation" scene, which has some subtle humor in it likely takes place earlier than an hour and a half into the film.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"