Movie Critics Thread

[VERT]

Just watched Man of steel. Its an okay movie but has alot that I dont like in it too. Wont give spoilers.

[Autocon]

DMe2. Not as brilliant as one, but still enjoyable. When the yellow guy made the fire siren noise, two little kids started making it to Some crackles emanated from the movie goers. Didn't feel as funny. I think there'll be a number three

[Kazza]

Watched Monsters University, quite enjoyable and played in well with Monsters Inc. Enjoyable for both kids and adult alike.

[SkyWarp91]

Man of Steel. Best Superman movie for my tastes. Bad-ass. Might be flawed in some parts but the first Reeve film is so outdated and Routh's Returns lacked the edge.

And Jor-El was BAD-ASS in this one!

8.5/10 - Great entertainment at the cinemas for what I consider a difficult concept to master on screen in this age.

[The_Black_Sheep]

Well I finally saw Superman last night... & compared to past Superman movies, I thought it was pretty good. Compared to the recent Batman trilogy, it wasn't as good as those movies but I'll wait for the sequel & hope they get better (if I was the editor, I would have cut out a tonne of the military stuff - at times it felt like I was watching a Bay movie).

I liked all the background flashbacks - they went a long way towards explaining things. When I first heard that this movie was essentially a prequel, I thought they would struggle to incorporate Lois into it but overall, I think they did a good job with her character (the ending was pretty sweet too ). & then there's the battle scenes - they really went all-out on those. I probably would have scaled back on all the CGI (especially the destruction of Metropolis) but that's just me. Oh and Henry Cavill as Kal-El/Clark/Superman was a fantastic choice!

Overall, not a perfect Superman movie but still it was pretty good. I'd give it 4 stars out of 5. Bring on the Sequel!

[morg176]

just saw man of steel.

awesome movie, go see it.

hottest Lois Lane ever

[GoktimusPrime]

MAN OF STEEL SPOILERS AHEAD






I liked Man Of Steel, but it seems more action driven rather than character driven. Clark's character development was kinda disappointing. We mostly see him complete tasks like a video game character... discover powers, obtain Cosmic MacGuffin^Codex key, find scout ship, access Jor El avatar, defeat Kryptonians, kiss Lois... but what do we know about who Clark Kent really is as a person? (o_O) Is the audience made to empathise with him as a character, or are we rooting for him or are we rooting for the survival of the human race?

Ironically I found Zod was a better developed character than Clark! And a story really shouldn't have its antagonist drawing greater audience empathy than the protagonist! Zod in Superman II was a far more petty and shallow villain. He was completely egotistical (demanding that everyone kneel and worship him, and address him as "General" in veneration, whereas in Man of Steel Zod actually defends Kal-El for not following social protocol in addressing him as General) and driven by his personal vendetta against Jor-El, and thus wanting to kill Kal-El as an extension of that hate. In Man of Steel Zod highly regarded Jor-El, but killed him because he was an obstruction to completing his mission objective. It was never anything personal. And he fights Kal-El for the same reason. Zod would most likely gladly accept Kal-El as a comrade if Kal-El were to willingly surrender the Codex and work with him. And one could even argue that Zod's working from the perspective that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A few Councillors and a single scientist can be sacrificed if it means saving the remaining population of Krypton. A single Kryptonian (Kal-El) and the entire population of "inferior" aliens can also be sacrificed for the sake of saving his own species for extinction.

Another thing that bugs me about Superman is the beard. He walks into the scout ship bearded, walks out with the suit and is clean shaven. Huh? Also... if he CAN grow a beard, why doesn't he also have really long hippie hair? Hair cut? HOW??? His hair's like freakin' indestructible... unless he somehow managed to get his hand on a pair of Kryptonite scissors, but then that'd freakin' kill him! I remember reading somewhere as a kid that in the comics, Earth's yellow Sun prevented Kal-El's hair and nails from growing (presumably he arrived on Earth as an infant already with a full head of hair, as opposed to being a newborn baby - as we saw in the Donner film).

So what did I like about the movie? (apart from Zod and the Dragonball Zed-esque fights? ) I did like the new take on Krypton and Kryptonian civilisation, and also providing a reason as to why Jor-El and Lara opted not to flee with Kal-El. I also liked this version of Zod; one who truly sees himself as a hero and performing his duty to his people, and from his POV Kal-El is the villain because he's betrayed Krypton and stripped Zod of his purpose and identity. Zod isn't actually "evil" in a more traditional or orthodox super villain sense... rather he simply subscribes to the belief that the ends justify the means. I liked how this film delved more into the characters having opposing sets of moral values rather than just being blanket good and evil.

I also liked how this film explained the differences between the effects of Earth and Krypton's Suns as being related to the age of the Suns rather than the colour. I did notice in the first scene that the Kryptonian Sun was rather yellow. I don't necessarily think this explanation is better or worse than the traditional one, but I do appreciate that they were going for something different. I also liked how Zod's message was beamed worldwide in every language. Although... how did the Kryptonians themselves learn how to SPEAK English? I could understand maybe Zod speaking in Kryptonian and their computer translating it for broadcast. Also terribly convenient that Jor-El's avatar could speak English too... unless it can somehow tap into Kal-El's mind and just speak to him in whatever language he can understand. Maybe the other Kryptonians also have some kind of technology like that... but the film never explains it. We also see the Kryptonians speaking to each other in English, even on Krypton... though I suppose one would argue that they're meant to be speaking Kryptonian but the audience is meant to suspend disbelief when hearing English. Meh... I prefer Avatar and Tolkien where non-human languages were constructed and used where they weren't supposed to be speaking English. Or heck, just use obscure existing languages, like they did for some languages in Star Wars (e.g. Ewokese = Kalmyk (the official language of the Republic of Kalmykia)) and Tolkien (e.g. Rohirrim = Old English).

I also liked how the movie ended with Clark joining the Daily Planet and being introduced to Lois, and the audience is left wondering if the disguise works on Lois or if she recognised him but was playing along.

[snaketales]

Thanks to evilbay I finally managed to watch the 1950s Hammer movie versions of The Quatermass Xperiment and Quatermass II.
Enjoyable to watch but my kids would find them interminably slow (especially the Xperiment).
My word, Quatermass comes across as a prick in Xperiment. I liked him more in II, probably because he's on the defensive for much of the movie.
Of the two I preferred Quatermass II. Quatermass and the Pit is still the best of the three movies.
Of the TV serials, Quatermass II is my favourite.

[jazzcomp]

Man of Steel was enjoyable for me. Definitely, recommend to watch to others.
Definitely better than Superman Returns.

[GoktimusPrime]

I actually prefer Superman Returns. It's a lot more challenging (but satisfying IMO) to continue from existing continuity rather than rebooting, which always seems like the "lazy" option to me. I really like how it continued from the events of Superman II; Lois' conscious memories have been suppressed, but part of her subconscious still remembers having been married to Superman (or at very least, that Superman is the father of her child). And I do like how Lois did bear Superman's son -- showing that there was a consequence to their marriage. At the end of Superman II Clark used his "super kiss" to wipe Lois' memories to save her the mental anguish of worrying about him, and then between that and SR buggered off to search for Krypton... all the time not realising what the effect that would have on Lois (and indeed on the people of Earth who'd come to adore him). The movie showed us the conflict between Clark wanting to find other survivors so he wouldn't be the last of his kind versus the emotional ties that he has with friends and family on Earth, and how the choice that he made has impacted on those relations. He also didn't consider that leaving Earth before Lex Luthor was trialled would have negative consequences too, as Superman wasn't able to appear as a key witness in Luthor's trial - thus failing to contain Luthor's menace to society.

I really liked the relationship between Superman and Jason. It formed a sort of closure for Clark's search for his own people, but in the meantime he had a half Kryptonian son to care for. Repeating Jor-El's soliloquy to Jason was an incredibly moving and emotionally powerful moment. And that's the thing... Superman is a character whose strength and weaknesses aren't really physical -- all that is just superficial. His true strengths and flaws are found in his character... in who Clark Kent is. And that was something that I found was lacking in Man of Steel.

In Superman Returns, Superman absolutely goes on a journey of change as he realises the consequences of his decision to leave Earth and what he can do the change things (e.g. stop Luthor, acknowledge Jason as his son) and accept things that he shouldn't change (e.g. Lois' marriage to Richard). Speaking of Richard, he is the REAL hero of the story. He was there when Lois needed him; caring for her and Jason who's not even his son (but loves him as if he were his own). He also risks his life to save Lois and Jason (and later Superman), which takes much more courage to do because he doesn't have super powers. Richard unconditionally loves a woman that he knows is in love with another man, and for a boy who isn't his biological son. Superman selfishly tries to come between Richard and Lois, although by the end of the film he's undergone change and realises that he has no right to break up Lois' family -- a family she formed because he chose to leave Earth. Superman had the choice to have a family with Lois, but he chose to walk away and Lois chose to move on with her life. Even with all of Superman's Godlike powers, there's nothing he can do to change that (at least, not without causing more emotional pain which would make him an incredibly selfish douche). I like this sort of real-world consequence based stories that force the protagonist to self reflect and undergo change.

Look at Clark when we first see him as an adult in the earlier part of Man of Steel versus who he is at the very end. He's completed a series of tasks and has acquired new knowledge, but how has he actually changed as a person? Stories are driven by character development... no characterisation = no story (all it becomes is a simple narrative of a series of events).

"I'm sorry. This is my fault. I've been a lousy father. Blind to what I have. So obsessed with being undervalued that I undervalued all of you. So caught up in the past that I... you are my greatest adventure. And I almost missed it." - Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible (The Incredibles)
^That pretty much sums up Clark's journey in Superman Returns, only without the "almost." Clark has missed it and needs to move on (oh, and that the source of his obsession what his search of personal identity, not a quest to be valued). For that reason I was really hoping that they would make a sequel to Superman Returns, but alas that hasn't been so.