TMOS Reviews Thread - Non Spoiler Review and Discussion - Part 5

[slimshady247]

1 and half out of 4? Yeah sorry you're entitled to your opinion but I doubt it's THAT bad.

That's the spirit!

It is to me. Doesn't have to be to you. That's how opinions work.

Your snark is getting old.

 

[Snark88]

That's like saying "With all due respect you are an ass."

No that's twisting my words.

It means I disagree with him and that's all.

 

[Valcari]

Here ya go: http://www.gotham-news.com/news/201...gi-laded-slugfest-with-little-heart-review-★½

Thanks for the article. I'll revisit it when I'm done the film tomorrow.

 

[db85usa]

1 and half out of 4? Yeah sorry you're entitled to your opinion but I doubt it's THAT bad.

Yeah that's treading Batman & Robin rating the movie isn't even half as bad as he is making it out to be though... That's the funny part.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's like saying "With all due respect you are an ass."

Pretty much. Hence the snark.

 

[Snark88]

That's the spirit!



Your snark is getting old. Do you have no other way to communicate?

I can always post the violin scene in Titanic if you want me to revert back to Buzz Kilington t:

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yeah that's treading Batman & Robin rating the movie isn't even half as bad as he is making it out to be though... That's the funny part.

I don't know how anyone could compare Batman and Robin to MOS aside from technical aspects. B&R knew it was a campy movie and went with it. MOS is the polar opposite.

 

[Showtime]

Your snark is getting old.

I'm right here, he's just as entitled to talk about the negative aspects of the film as you are the positive.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's the spirit!



Your snark is getting old.

I feel old so I guess it fits

 

[Snark88]

Pretty much. Hence the snark.

You don't give snark to the Snark ok? It's just that not everyone is gonna agree with your review.

 

[db85usa]

I don't know how anyone could compare Batman and Robin to MOS aside from technical aspects. B&R knew it was a campy movie and went with it. MOS is the polar opposite.

Oh, so you're saying MoS is actually good? Since it's the polar opposite, right?

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm unsure if anyone has noted this BUT....

Yesterday top critics was at 53% and right now it's at 63%.

Some internet reviewers might be going down, unsure what's going on there - but among the TOP critics it's going UP.

The top critics are liking it MORE than the internet critics. I think internet might be basing it off preconceived notions, while film critics are just looking at the film. As said, it's going up.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You don't give snark to the Snark ok? It's just that not everyone is gonna agree with your review.

Never did I say I expect anyone to agree with it. Someone asked me for a detailed analysis of why I didn't like the movie. I posted a link to my review. Didn't tell him to agree or disagree. Not my job.

 

[flickchick85]

I don't recall other superhero films wanting a New Krypton besides Superman Returns and Man Of Steel? Earthquake machines and microwave emitters are not the same thing.

But Lex wasn't trying to make a new Krypton. He just wanted the only real-estate game in town. The only reason he used the phrase "new Krypton" is because of the source and as a "**** you" to Superman. Zod is an alien who wants to colonize Earth and her resources, annihilating the indigenous species in the process. Not the same thing, and the latter is one of the most common plans for any alien invasion story, from Independence Day to War of the Worlds. The difference here being, the invading aliens just happen to be the race that the main character belongs to, which I think makes it more interesting. I don't think many audiences will see the two plots as being similar at all.

And I wasn't saying it was the same as a doomsday device, I was saying these two plans have as much in common with each other and any two doomsday device plans from any two superhero movies have in common with each other.

On a side note, I doubt I'll agree that Clark is a coward in the scene, but that tornado scene otherwise sounds stupid as hell. Of course I look forward to judging for myself.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Oh, so you're saying MoS is actually good? Since it's the polar opposite, right?

Missed the point entirely

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Stop talking about freakin Superman Returns! Jeeze do you guys need a map to the Superman Returns board! Has anyone else seen this movie yet and has something to say?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But Lex wasn't trying to make a new Krypton. He just wanted the only real-estate game in town. The only reason he used the phrase "new Krypton" is because of the source and as a "**** you" to Superman. Zod is an alien who wants to colonize Earth and her resources, annihilating the indigenous species in the process. Not the same thing, and the latter is one of the most common plans for any alien invasion story, from Independence Day to War of the Worlds. The difference here being, the invading aliens just happen to be the race that the main character belongs to, which I think makes it more interesting. I don't think many audiences will see the two plots as being similar at all.

And I wasn't saying it was the same as a doomsday device, I was saying these two plans have as much in common with each other and any two doomsday device plans from any two superhero movies have in common with each other.

I think you are missing the point.

Whether they truly have the same idea at heart is irrelevant. What is relevant is that out of the hundreds of ideas you could have for a Superman movie, they decided on aspects that are very similar to what has come before.

As hard as people want to avoid it, this film is essentially STM and Superman II, with a third act device that is not dissimilar to SR.

I personally don't have a problem with that, especially if they pull it off. But that is how it is.

 

[Valcari]

Missed the point entirely

Sarcasm... you know, because he really misunderstood what you stated. Man you should be more clear when you say things like that!

 

[Poni_Boy]

I think you are missing the point.

Whether they truly have the same idea at heart is irrelevant. What is relevant is that out of the hundreds of ideas you could have for a Superman movie, they decided on aspects that are very similar to what has come before.

As hard as people want to avoid it, this film is essentially STM and Superman II, with a third act device that is not dissimilar to SR.

I personally don't have a problem with that, especially if they pull it off. But that is how it is.

Bingo

 

[db85usa]

Missed the point entirely

Maybe it was intentional? MoS is better than 5/7 Batman films out there so 1/4 stars is a big head scratcher. For me, that means you have complete disdain for the character. You put SR on a pedestal, yet that is one film most fans and the GA will talk about negatively. And again, the GA will probably have open arms with this Superman rather than the last one.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Maybe it was intentional? MoS is better than 5/7 Batman films out there so 1/4 stars is a big head scratcher. For me, that means you have complete disdain for the character. You put SR on a pedestal, yet that is one film most fans and the GA will talk about negatively. And again, the GA will probably be in open arms with this Superman rather than the last one.

Huh?

 

[Ultimatehero]

I think you are missing the point.

Whether they truly have the same idea at heart is irrelevant. What is relevant is that out of the hundreds of ideas you could have for a Superman movie, they decided on aspects that are very similar to what has come before.

As hard as people want to avoid it, this film is essentially STM and Superman II, with a third act device that is not dissimilar to SR.

I personally don't have a problem with that, especially if they pull it off. But that is how it is.

Unsure why it having that connection to SR is a bad thing or a thing to avoid to some people. Singer brought a lot of good to that film. The child, although I'm bias, is a great aspect to add because what an adoptee yearns for is that biological connection which we often get through our children since we don't have that with our families. It is something that Superman probably too has always yearned for. And it twisted what we want most - that connection to our biological world - against us. I'm unsure if Singer invented that being used against Clark, but if he did he should get the credit for it. It was a great and emotional punch to the gut Singer gave the character probably from what he knew would be a punch to him (he's also adopted, and that notion as an adoptee - at least to me - is really frightening and emotional). It has the more emotional gravitas to it that very few superhero movies ever reach with its conflict. There's some negatives with that film, while the child is controversial - the conflict was a really rich one.

 

[flickchick85]

I think you are missing the point.

Whether they truly have the same idea at heart is irrelevant. What is relevant is that out of the hundreds of ideas you could have for a Superman movie, they decided on aspects that are very similar to what has come before.

As hard as people want to avoid it, this film is essentially STM and Superman II, with a third act device that is not dissimilar to SR.

I personally don't have a problem with that, especially if they pull it off. But that is how it is.

And what I'm saying is, the 3rd act sounds nothing like SR's to me, and the stretch of connective tissue is that it involves "changing the land." Otherwise, one is an alien invasion threat, and one is a growing rock. I don't blame the filmmakers for not making that connection, as I don't think many members of the audience will either.

I'm not arguing the other points: It's totally STM and Superman II, but I think they're more combined with Flyby than SR.

 

[Poni_Boy]

"How do you rate the movie on its own merit" Poorly

"Ok well how does it hold up compared to the other films?" I preferred several of the other ones

"STOP COMPARING IT TO OTHER SUPERMAN MOVIES!"

Dammed if I do, dammed if I don't

 

[Showtime]

Hello.