This movie was not as bad as the mainstream film critics would like you to believe. I agree though, this was a set-up flick to expand the DC extended universe. Having read the negative reviews for this movie beforehand, I went expecting less of the film only to later be surprised and find out on my own that it wasn't as bad as the critics say it was. This movie was definitely worth my $10 and I walked out of the theater thinking about the events that transpired in the film and what is in store for the rest of their sequels.
On the other hand, WB/DC ain't Disney/Marvel and it's pretty clear DC won't emulate the Marvel cinematic formula for making movies and I respect that since it shows that DC clearly wants to leave their own individual creative imprint in their DC comic book movies. I disagree with Bob though on Bryan Singer's 2006 Superman Returns. That movie was a total bore and letdown to real Superman fans who had been waiting anxiously since Christopher Reeve's take on Supes and instead got a mopey dopey Superman who was battling with "who's the baby's daddy" issues and a Manhattan-sized chunk of Kryptonite property. Seriously though the only good thing about Superman Returns was Kevin Spacey's portrayal of Lex Luthor.
Snyder's take on Superman happened only because he heard fans complaints about when they would be treated to a Superman who battles a villain besides Lex to finally show his Super side to battle powerful villains. Snyder's movies are not 100% spot-on but they aren't disappointing and they are far from being a Michael Bay film. It just shows when society has been dumbing down to the point where it's more entertaining to see a superhero throughout a movie making fart and masturbation jokes and a talking raccoon who's best buddy is a tree that say's and repeats its name over and over again when it speaks, but anyways to each their own.
Ultimately, critics nowadays are just as mediocre and useless and I truly believe the constant barrage of hatred this movie keeps on getting is because this movie dared to creatively explore a more modern and realistic take on two iconic characters who've been both consistently and inconsistently changed throughout the years depending on the comic book writer. Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy was good but it was far from being true to its source material, but I respect that because Nolan created a different and more realistic take on Batman. Critics shouldn't be so butthurt because of the fact this movie is making money and their reviews fell on deaf ears.
Seriously Rambow, watch the movie with a bit of depth, please. Your complaints:
1. Aquaman appears in it. Seriously. I guess you have something against Aquaman? I don't think that was a major flew in the movie.
2. You think the conflict was because "Superman could hurt people" haha? The conflict was because Superman is an alien with unstoppable powers. Hurt people? No no, he could destroy the entire planet. He could end humanity if he wanted to. And given that the world only came to know this Superman in the last few months, and all they know of him is a metropolis wrecking alien fight that killed and injured people close to Bruce Wayne, but don't really know his intentions, well heck, maybe that explain why Batman has issue with him.
3. Batman had a mother. Her name was Martha. She was traumatically killed in front of him. That probably would impact ones psyche a bit. On the verge of killing Superman, this alien, he hears Superman mutter "save Martha". All these memories come flooding back. Batman's personal desire to save Martha. And here is this alien, his dying wish being to save Martha? Wait, Superman has a mother on earth? Superman's #1 concern is to protect her? Omg, this guy isn't so alien. This guy isn't so different than Bruce Wayne. And Bruce may not have been able to save his Martha, but here he has a chance to save another mother, another Martha. Wow this just became a lot more real and a lot more human for Batman. He sees superman differently now.
Isn't it amazing the level of depth this movie has when you actually take a moment to think about it and use your brain. Hard work, I know. But it's worth it.
I'm just so sick of all this foolishly negative reviews about the movie. You don't have to like it, but at least have a valid reason to not like it that is actually based on the movie.
The movie blew. Aquaman appears in it. Seriously, Aquaman. The whole conflict between Supes and the Bat was ridiculous, "Oh, Superman could hurt people so not only do I have to stop him, I have to straight-up Kill him!" (meanwhile the Bat hurts/kills more people in the movie than Supes). And this lame justification to kill Supes is suddenly abolished when Batman hears Supes say "save Martha". That's it? All those insane reasons to kill Supes are just "poof", and now Superman's God-Like powers don't bother the Bat? C'mon man! Did I mention Aquaman is in this?
I thought the movie was fantastic. Intense slo-mo scenes followed by big action. All sorts of intricate plot lines scattered throughout the movie to keep you interested and always guessing. Introduction to the broader DC universe and set up for Justice League. Great score. And that ending. What an ending! Didn't see that coming at all and it was a very impressive and impactful way to resolve the conflict.
Isn't that funny, all the things that would typically be considered positives for a movie, you somehow decided were negatives in this movie. What a silly little review you did. But to each there own. For my money, I thought it was a highly entertaining film.
Wow! Surprise! Ben Affleck, worst (whatever you choose, but for this article...I choose) Batman ever. Oh, wait, that could have been George Clooney. I can't decide, both of them really sucked ass as Batman. Adam West is (hopefully not) rolling in his grave. Holy dichotomy Batman! Pow!!
P.S. Val Kilmer wasn't that great of a Batman either. Bam!!
P.S.S. Batman The Animated Series kicked ass over them all. The Dark Knight Films were fun too. Heath Ledger ruled as the Joker. Watch it J.G. The General says that you have to. (Inside Joke, if you get it...please respond.) Thanks, DC
Do not see this movie. They slapped Cloverfield and a few extra million dollars on it for a cash grab. In the original complete movie - the outside was a nuclear wasteland, they just added the monster there.
Genius move, but unethical and shady.
My take: http://www.reelinspiration.blogspot.com/20…
The secret life of walter mitty should have stayed a secret
I can't help but agree with you about the first Zoolander. I found it to be really weak, but when I heard so many positive things about it from others, I figured I must've been overlooking something; so I watched it again...2 more times! It became shittier with each viewing. I never got it, and I'm sure that I never will. Thanks for the heads up about the sequel, I'll use it as ammunition when people start telling me how great it is.
Clooney made another dud.
He also lost my support and business forever by supporting "migrant" invasion in Germany, and is going to meet with traitor Merkel personally.
Fail harder George.
The marriage is 45 years old, not the guy.
Pay attention Chump lover!
Holy cow, that guy is 45???? He looks 65.
Looks interesting, will check it out.
I've seen five of these movies (Spotlight, Mad Max - Fury Road, Ex Machina, Carol, and Bridge of Spies) and I'd like to see the rest of them. The movies I've seen were all terrific! This has been a good year for movies.
Call it a sign of the times: does anyone else feel like they ripped off their heroine from the hunger games? I'm all for a healthy dose of feminism (great scene you'll know it when you see it), but it does feel like after the matrix when every movie starting having slo-mo bullet dodge scenes. I mean, she carries a derelict stick of machinery over her shoulder like a bow for the entire movie, which serves no useful purpose I ever saw...imitation, flattery?
God I loved her. The Auto-Tuned computer generated crap people listen to today is disposable as Kleenex. I still feel her loss.
So, SPECTRE is a remake of East of Eden or the Cain and Abel myth. The film-makers went the gutsy route and took Bond to Campbellian heights this time around. Not bad as drama, but it does detract (as Grimm notes) from the established, if not expected, Bond mythos/formula: Bond sets out to save the world, in the interludes between jet-set travelogues and death-defying stunt action, he finds two girls. One girl dies helping Bond/betraying the villain, the other, "purer" girl helps Bond. Bond saves world. The End.
Not to put a spoiler, but the self-evident--and very powerful--sequel gets set up with this archetypal "relationship." In SPECTRE 2, or whatever, Bond will have to do Cain in. Assuming Bond is "Abel"--which is _not really_ clear. And therein lies the true, and intelligent depth of this entire "family" intrigue...
In the end, is Bond really his (big, as in Orwell) brother's keeper, his slayer (there's an atavistic reason Bond is a loner, a permanent outcast--the eternal bachelor) or his true victim? Does Bond unintentionally front for sinister forces of evil? Has he been on the "wrong" side of history (for Empire?) all along? This is not a storyline to be trifled with. SPECTRE merely whets our appetite. Do we really have to wait three years and for Idris Elba's performance to see the conclusion? (Not to mention Hinx, whose disappearance was a mere plot convenience)
That is the real reason to be upset at this Bond.
It is rare nowadays that a film has great writing, great acting, no CGI, no car crashes or chases, no shooting, and no monsters, and does not beat us over the head with preaching. Spotlight does appear to be more about the necessity of good investigative journalism in a an age of extremely lazy media reporting, rather than the abuse scandal. Excellent job.
Really great movie!
puts "petal" to the metal? Newspapers' operating statements are dismal everywhere, but you are right: this one needs a copy editor.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation