I'm surprised Hollywood can get away with an article dropping, fake Indian accent in a movie now. I mean, Burt Lancaster's "Apache" was almost 60 years ago.
I enjoyed the movie immensely. Depp's humor made up for a ton of errors in the flick. Maybe you should attempt to see some Native American movies, you will see how this one is in parallel with their cosmology. For a movie supposedly taking place in Texas, they sure spent a lot of time in Arizona. The Navajo Nation enjoyed the income.
You haven't watched it yet have you moron? High School???? Get a real job Junior.
Ed Wood is a classic. Edward Scissorhands, Cry Baby, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Sweeney Todd, Donnie Brasco, Sleepy Hollow...I love Depp. He's rich now. Time to make movies with a brain that matter again. His blockbuster alter ego needs to go away.
Paris Hilton is not as dumb as she appears. Like Lady Gaga, she has engineered her fame, and fame is the obsession of our fast, sick culture. Corporations use psychology to reinforce our delusions, their goal to guide our actions by shaping our thoughts. You can't watch movies and discover this. You have to read books like Brandwashed and The Filter Bubble. Several statements made in this movie review indicate that the reviewer didn't realize that this movie is based on a book. That is why the movie was made, not because Sophia Coppola decided to tell this story out of thin air. Coppola optioned the book to make the movie, which has the same title: The Bling Ring by Nancy Jo Sales. It discusses culture, which the movie cannot.
I'm glad that you appreciated 'Ed Wood'; a movie which, like 'the Big Lebowski', I'm afraid I know every line of.
Way to harsh. You need to keep the grumpiness at the door. Ok it was to long and ok it tampered with the ultraviolet content a bit too much. Depp's "Dark Shadows"(also based on a TV show) was far worse and completely a bore. At least this movie had fun in parts. Boo
7 Psychopaths is why I don't go to many movies. This is supposed to be good, it stunk.
Whistleblowers, or men and women risking disclosure to protect the many, unfortunately pay a high price in the short term for their actions of conscience. The value to society is as high as the penalty for speaking out to protect. The level of retaliation sought against them is usually proportionate to what it is that is trying to be covered up. Everything will be done from this point forward to discredit and attack Snowden's reputation. He will have to have given up almost everything to bring this to light. The good company Colin Boyd speaks of has a very high price.
To the folk taking a pop at the reviewer and others: GROW THE HELL UP AND STOP ACTING LIKE SELF ENTITLED PUNKS!!
I swear this groupthink mentality's laughable as it is disturbing and it gets worse ever year. You're only confirming the fact that you lot are the lowest common denominator who truly enjoy making asses out of themselves online. Instead of a polite "I respectfully disagree" and move on, you shout down anyone who doesn't have the same views as you like rabid dogs who're in need of euthanasia.
So what if 100 odd film critics and some viewers voice their bemusement regarding Man Of Steel. They're no more entitled to their opinion than you are regardless of how much money it made opening weekend and being at the No. 1 spot. IT'S NOT THAT FRIGGING SERIOUS!!!
You make those Kardashian stans (Super Fans, FYI) look like saints...and to be blunt, it really doesn't say much.
Easily one of the worst reviews to date. Reviewer contradicts himself within 3 sentence range on regular basis. What a trash!
I suggest people ignore this punk and see the movie. It's really great, emotionally moving and visually appealing. Easily, THE BEST Superman movie to date.
(This is to all the Reviewers you thought Man of Steel was a bad movie, those at Rotten Tomatoes in particular)
Don't you get it?
The problem isn't with Superman. The problem is with humans (especially humans like you)! You need to give a Superman something to protect. You need to give him some decency, some nobility, some good worth protecting, worth watching over for. This is a real World Superman. He's been bullied as a kid all this life. He's been bullied as an adult. He had to watch his own father DIE because his father was convinced the world wasn't ready for him. This isn't the 20th-Century rose-tinted Americana world where Superman was born a slave to protect the American Dream as if this was Gospel, this is a 21st-Century where Superman is skeptical, is doubtful and is unsure of humans and it but only natural.
Don't you get it? Superman ISN'T YOUR SERVANT! YOUR ON-COMMAND LAPDOG SUPERHERO YOU CALL ON TO PROTECT YOU ANYTIME YOU'VE MESSED UP! First you need to make yourselves worthy of being protected.
"They will race behind you. They will stumble, they will fall. But in the end, they will learn to follow you."
Time for you to learn, you reviewers. LEARN. Superman isn't the hero that the World deserves. Its the hero that the World NEEDS.
Be warned. Superman isn't an American superhero anymore, not in this film. He's a Krpytonian one, a Man of Steel. This isn't Liberty, Justice the American Way anymore.
People need to get over the fact this isn't a donner film. It's a reinterpretation. And it is supposed to be darker. Why? how would an alien fit into the culture of this planet? he is realized as someone who would be very isolated, and afraid not only of the world, but his own powers. Superman isn't a comedian, he is no Iron Man. There is existential crisis in his character. People say "oh it's too serious, too dark" Whatever. Get with the reality of how this character might inhabit this world if he did exist in it. Superhero films are supposed to be entertaining, but that doesn't mean they all need to be semi-comedy. Watch iron man for that. Some superhero films dig deeper for a meaning we can maybe relate too..if we weren't so afraid of that meaning.
This is the biggest film of the year. So no doubt it has the biggest bullseye on it's head. And a man in tights is easy to hate on. It's just that stigma. Superman in America's eyes is supposed to be perfect. Now because this Superman isn't, it seems people cry foul. Noone is perfect, not even critics.
It's official: this guy's in the Bizarro world.
"The result gives us a dull Superman who whines about his parents a lot." "Whining about his parents," is a reverse-hipster way of saying experiencing emotional turmoil. See, the people who claim to be Superman fans but aren't seem to think Superman's supposed to be this carefree guy where nothing bad happens to him. It's especially hilarious because he keeps talking about Superman Returns and how much better it was.
"Man of Steel has some impressive fireworks but it severely lacks soul. It's a Superman Transformers movie." This is completely untrue, but then he just belittled the heart & soul of the movie by dismissing it as "whining." I think we really know who has no "soul."
"Problem is, he's duller than an ax after 10,000 rounds with a really big, hard boulder." No, he's actually got a certain humility to him which is exactly what Superman should have. No, the DULL one was Mr Routh. Just watch his attempt at handling the monologue at the end of SR.
"For instance, whenever Superman flies, he flies like a supersonic jet. The camera is often very far away, and he's just a little speck zipping around. When we see him up close, he's bouncing around so much we can't really enjoy the visual of a man flying. It's like watching a really bad Top Gun movie." Wow, I didn't know Top Gun had sequels. In any case, this is all subjective, I just don't think there's anything Snyder could have possibly done to avoid this kind of criticism.
"This is another origin story, and with Nolan in the mix it's an often somber one. The thing with Superman is that he's supposed to be selfless. His primary concern is saving people's clumsy asses, not who his parents really are. Sure, he cares to a certain extent, but not to the extent that it derails his primary mission of protecting humanity. That's my take on the character."
Well, the last guy did a pretty good job of tearing this one apart, but let's see if I can.
1) A somber tone (admittedly, a more fair assessment than the overused "dark") doesn't have anything to do with whether or not he tries to save people.
2) Superman IS supposed to "selfless" in that he's incredibly altruistic, not that he doesn't have any concerns about his family. Now, the comics have been rebooted and reimagined several times, but basically, in the late '50s-early '80s, Superman had a veritable obsession with learning more about Krypton. This was done away with for a while in the 1986 reboot also titled Man of Steel, but it later crept back in. And why not? It's interesting.
I'm also not sure how it derails his attempts to protect people. I mean, to be critical, the film did fail to show us how he knows about the Fortress.
3) AT-LEAST he didn't consult the hologram of his dead mother to ask whether or not it was okay for him to have a girlfriend and give up his powers without a moment's thought when she said he couldn't like in the galactically overrated Superman II!!!
"As Lois Lane, Amy Adams doesn't really factor. The script calls for her to be rather humorless and dull in her own right." Um, no it doesn't. In fact, many of the more charming moments in the film are because of her, including the "well here, it's an S," line, or her exchange with Chris Meloni (though she's more the straight man there). The film isn't exactly packed with comedy, but it has more light humor than people give it credit for. It's just that it has the normal amount of humor you'd expect to hear, instead of the standup routine that is Tony Stark.
I think I get where this guy's going, though. A lot of people were unfair to Superman III, and now that it's been remade as Iron Man 2, it's done a lot better. Seriously, though: most of this guy's criticisms just don't match what was on the screen and that's constant with the film.
It's like they think Superman's supposed to be a comedic character devoid of any gravity and in thinking that, they're almost as bad as the haters who bash the character while praising any guy whose father-figure was gunned down as a work of Shakespeare.
"The thing with Superman is that he's supposed to be selfless. His primary concern is saving people's clumsy asses, not who his parents really are. Sure, he cares to a certain extent, but not to the extent that it derails his primary mission of protecting humanity. That's my take on the character."
In Superman I, he spun the WHOLE WORLD around and back in time just because Lois died. Not a perfect move. In Superman II he gave up all his powers for love... not a perfect move. In Superman Returns he LEFT Earth for YEARS...that self-interested prig! And those 3 movies are far better than the trash of III and IV.
you know that Superman may not be his perfect self yet because it is an origin story tho right? So many reviewers whine about his lack of humanity in the movie, but then are criticizing his need to know his own family and history, and the path he takes to get there? Superman is not a perfect gdm character. Do you want the super-good god robot Superman, or the one that learns and has faults and STILL ends up doing good things. doing the right things.
I haven't seen it yet, so who knows if all in all you are correct in its deserving of 2 out of 5 stars. I guess I'll grow my own opinion tomorrow night.
I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Superman, being a child of the 80s. I just don't understand the "reasoning" behind many of the negative reviews, because many of them still have many good things to say about it. I'm hoping it lives up to my my fav comic movies:
The Dark Knight
and yeh... the Hobbit made over $1B worldwide, and 85% of RT community loved it. What a big failure that was.
@G. DiNardo - I can't speak for Bob, but I've only been told to watch my step on one review in 15 years. That was the second Tomb Raider movie, and it came from Paramount through its half-brother CBS radio when I did reviews at a CBS radio station in Phoenix. They didn't want bad press, but my response was, "Then don't make bad movies." But that's it. The only time I've ever been leaned on about a review.
As for The East, I'm reviewing it for the June 20th issue.
I'm wondering of there's such a thing as a 'gentlemen's agreement' about which films to avoid reviewing or publicizing. "The East" has gotten great reviews from non-advertising-dependent sources, but because of the subject matter, is it being ignored by reviewers who've been ordered to let it die?
I couldn't disagree more with Colin Boyd's review of "Angel's Share" as "sad and disappointing". Having lived in a depressed city in Scotland in the 1970s, the Ken Loach's portrayal of the cycle of poverty and hopelessness in inner-city Glasgow is spot on. This makes it all the more heartwarming to see the lead character make the audacious leap out of this cycle. And it is not an easy move! I was on the edge of my seat during the brewery scene as he was siphoning the "Angel's Share" and felt the triumph of his struggle in the final scenes with his new family. The film was hilarious (especially if you are familiar with Scottish culture), touching, and entirely human. It is absolutely worth seeing! (Word of warning: The use of the F-word is prolific throughout the film, which may bother some viewers.)
Hahaha. Vin Diesel is a "douche." So funny you said it twice. Insightful critique. At these moments you seem like a Gawker commenter circa 2006. I prefer the "amiable Bob Grimm" where you're equally ignorant but not as mean-spirited...sort of a Jackie Harvey with better spelling.
Surprising take. Grimm is generally the kind of pretentious wanker that trots out Lars von Trier references while bashing Michael Bay quick-cutting (like a Village Voice wannabe with inferior vocabulary.) Yet Apatow's home movies have impressed him. Bob, if you like this, you must think Spanglish is the second coming of Vertigo.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation