TMOS Reviews Thread - Non Spoiler Review and Discussion - Part 4

[RoughNTumble]

I saw it tonight.

it's good, not great. Parts of it really bugged the hell out of me.

Russell Crowe gave the best performance.

7/10

vaguely, what parts didn't you like iyo?

 

[Sup3rman81]

I went back and read the reviews for Superman Returns and some are very similar to what MOS is getting. Critics saying it flies but doesnt soar, comparing both Returns and MOS to teh 1978 Superman movie. There are alot of comparisons to what reviews SR and MOS are getting. Both are close in the tomatometer as well. I feel that people are fixated on Christopher Reeve way to much and refuse to allow anyone else the honor of playing Superman. Reeve was great for his time-1978-but this is 2013 and its time for a change. If critics cant see that then maybe they need a new job.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Russell Crowe gave the best performance.

7/10

Agreed. Only performance that really stood out for me.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I went back and read the reviews for Superman Returns and some are very similar to what MOS is getting. Critics saying it flies but doesnt soar, comparing both Returns and MOS to teh 1978 Superman movie. There are alot of comparisons to what reviews SR and MOS are getting. Both are close in the tomatometer as well. I feel that people are fixated on Christopher Reeve way to much and refuse to allow anyone else the honor of playing Superman. Reeve was great for his time-1978-but this is 2013 and its time for a change. If critics cant see that then maybe they need a new job.

Or maybe, just maybe, people think Reeve did a better job with the character. Regardless of the lack of CGI stuff he punches.

Some portrayals are what they call "timeless"

 

[InJustice]

Or maybe, just maybe, people think Reeve just did a better job with the character. Regardless of the lack of CGI stuff he punches.

Some portrayals are what they call "timeless"

But would you really let that stop you from giving another portrayal a chance?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I went back and read the reviews for Superman Returns and some are very similar to what MOS is getting. Critics saying it flies but doesnt soar, comparing both Returns and MOS to teh 1978 Superman movie. There are alot of comparisons to what reviews SR and MOS are getting. Both are close in the tomatometer as well. I feel that people are fixated on Christopher Reeve way to much and refuse to allow anyone else the honor of playing Superman. Reeve was great for his time-1978-but this is 2013 and its time for a change. If critics cant see that then maybe they need a new job.

Reeve was fine. He just wasn't able to play a modern version of Superman.
As for MOS, if the narrative's flawed, it's flawed. It doesn't change the fact that we're gonna get the best Superman action, or arguably the most prestigious cast. If the critics are right, then it's another waste of potential. If they are wrong, then we have this underrated film for us to appreciate more.

 

[Sup3rman81]

Seems to me when you look at the negative reviews for the movie the more or less main complain is it lacks that Donner feel or at least that's what I'm getting.

I feel that if Donner was so damn great then why boot him from Superman 2 and go with another director. I have seen the Donner cut and its ok but not great. Even when I go back and watch Superman the movie I feel like its way past its prime. Reeve was the best actor but not the greatest to where all these Donner/Reeve critics and fans cant accept a new Superman

 

[Poni_Boy]

But would you really let that stop you from giving another portrayal a chance?

No. And I have yet to see any reputable critic saying they didn't give Cavill a chance. Have you?

At the end of the day if they found his performance lacking and believe Reeve is still the best personification of the character then who is anyone to say they're wrong?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/12/man-of-steel-doesnt-waste-time-on-doomy-naval-gazing-3837541/ Wow, a pretty good review. The reviewer actually seems excited.

 

[redhawk23]

Just out of curiosity... has it ever happened, or even possible/allowable for a critic to change their mind? or is that deemed too unprofessional so it never happens? whether good to bad or bad to good

I just feel like feelings after the initial viewing can sometimes differ DRASTICALLY from subsequent viewings/time mulled over

Annoyingly, several magazines including Entertainment Weekly published, new, better reviews of Avatar after it hit a billion dollars barely 5 weeks after its release. I was quite annoyed by that.

Originally EW didn't even give the film a full review. It seemed a lot of people were convinced it would just bomb.

 

[redhawk23]

No. And I have yet to see any reputable critic saying they didn't give Cavill a chance. Have you?

At the end of the day if they found his performance lacking and believe Reeve is still the best personification of the character then who is anyone to say they're wrong?

Yes because a professional writer is going to open a review with "I'm closed minded and nostalgia driven but here's my review of this new film."

 

[Sup3rman81]

Reeve was fine. He just wasn't able to play a modern version of Superman.
As for MOS, if the narrative's flawed, it's flawed. It doesn't change the fact that we're gonna get the best Superman action, or arguably the most prestigious cast. If the critics are right, then it's another waste of potential. If they are wrong, then we have this underrated film for us to appreciate more.

most of the negative reviews are complaints about too much action (the reverse of SR), too loud, and some mentions about Donner and the 1978 movie. I am only seeing a slight few negatives about the story and character. I would say that the older the critic the more they dont wanna see someone replace Reeve. But mostly this movie has had great reviews even though RT shows 70% it doesnt count other reviews that say this is one of the best CBM of all time and best movie of the year

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yes because a professional writer is going to open a review with "I'm closed minded and nostalgia driven but here's my review of this new film."

That's the theme that people seem to be alluding to yet I can't find one review that shows it. Hard to claim that critics are "obviously" close minded without evidence they are.

 

[redhawk23]

Not 80% or bust. These critics are called critics for a reason. They sit through the film over-anylizing it for there review, which does not put them in the GA frame of thought. The GA goes to a movie to be entertained, not to sit there and take notes on why you feel you don't like certain things about it. It's like going on a roller-coasters with a pen and pad in hand judging each turn by numbers! Do you honestly think the average coaster rider is thinking about anylizing each turn and loop they go through? NO! This is why critics are called critics, the GA will have a much different response then these 13 people ( I mean critics) on RT.

You assume critics are incapable of enjoying films purely on an emotional level. The whole analysis thing is literally their job, but they do it so much that it is almost automatic. They can feel the emotions evoked by a scene while simultaneously evaluating the elements that work to create that feeling, or if they aren't feeling what is obviously intended, take note of why that is.

 

[Sup3rman81]

Or maybe, just maybe, people think Reeve did a better job with the character. Regardless of the lack of CGI stuff he punches.

Some portrayals are what they call "timeless"

Thats all Reeve will be remebered for sadly is being Superman. I think Cavill gave us a Superman we wanted. He studied the material and worked his ass off to give the fans a Superman we have wanted. His work has been praised and most critics say he is Superman and that he was the best part of the movie.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You assume critics are incapable of enjoying films purely on an emotional level. The whole analysis thing is literally their job, but they do it so much that it is almost automatic.

Nailed it.

When you have to watch 100+ movies a year it can become rather monotonous.

 

[redhawk23]

That's the theme that people seem to be alluding to yet I can't find one review that shows it. Hard to claim that critics are "obviously" close minded without evidence they are.

I guess its more of a matter of how relevant a performance like Reeve's would even be in the context of the story and material on hand here. Similarly, the relative merits of Jack Nicholson have nothing to do with Heath Ledger and the quality of The Dark Knight. Does Cavill's performance serve the film he himself is in? For most people that's what they care to hear about and should be the standard by which Cavill is judged.

 

[Gavan]

No. And I have yet to see any reputable critic saying they didn't give Cavill a chance. Have you?

At the end of the day if they found his performance lacking and believe Reeve is still the best personification of the character then who is anyone to say they're wrong?

Persons in the right. The old films are like an idol with a golden head and feet of clay. A false god.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Thats all Reeve will be remebered for sadly is being Superman.

Umm, what's sad about that exactly?

 

[Sup3rman81]

I am going to see this movie with an open mind. not swayed by some *****e that gets paid big money to either bash a movie because he loves something more or praise a movie. If people go into this movie already down because little old Richard Roeper didnt like it then they arent going to like it. In the end its up to the fans to decide a movies fate. Thats why I dont see getting all bent out of shape over what some critic says. Go watch the movie and be YOUR own critic

 

[Poni_Boy]

I guess its more of a matter of how relevant a performance like Reeve's would even be in the context of the story and material on hand here.

Relevancy is still subjective. I'm a 30 year old male who loves action movies but I didn't find Cavill's performance any more relevant than Reeve's regardless of the timeplace of the films.

Does Cavill's performance serve the film he himself is in? For most people that' what they care to hear about.

Personally I found his performance wanting. Would have loved to feel difference but I don't.

 

[Sup3rman81]

Umm, what's sad about that exactly?

Lots actually! The man had talent beyond Superman and all he will measured up for is playing Superman. I think if he were still here he would have praised Routh and Cavill. I know he enjoyed Welling and the time he was on Smallville. Reeve would not want people to judge someone soley on his past work. He sure the hell isnt Jack Nicholson who even though enjoyed Ledger playing Joker, seemed to want to steal the spotlight from him. Singer never should have tried to make Routh a Reeve type Superman. I praise Snyder and company for going out and getting a fine actor and someone who seems to truly want to make fans happy

 

[WormyT]

vaguely, what parts didn't you like iyo?

I thought some really important scenes were either left out, rushed or not given enough build up.

A movie should suck you in from beginning to end or at least suck you in at the important parts. Snyder had a lot of time to watch this over and over and see which scenes could have been improved. It was so close to greatness in parts.

I liked it,but some folks are not going to dig it. I was with 8 people and 6 of them didn't like it. Me and another were kind of meh.
It's not the phantom menace! It's just not a masterpiece.

Faoras was awesome.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

A raving score from a movie blog http://renegadecinema.com/9151/man-of-steel-review

 

[InJustice]

No. And I have yet to see any reputable critic saying they didn't give Cavill a chance. Have you?

At the end of the day if they found his performance lacking and believe Reeve is still the best personification of the character then who is anyone to say they're wrong?

That's not the point. I could care less if they think Reeve is the ideal Superman, more power to them. But don't try and match future Supermen up to Reeve's standards, because you will never give them (and the movie) a chance to show you what it can do.