Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Perdogg
I guess we're in the minority.

We hated this movie...BORING!

The characters were flat, the script was DULL and clichéd. No levity, warmth whatsoever. Just crash bang boom.

The Russell Crowe character was as close as it got to anyone having charisma and that wasn't much.

Zero chemistry between Lois Lane and S-man. Everyone was way too serious. They left out the stuff where Clark Kent is the bumbling alter-ego. The Christopher Reeve version with all its quirkiness was much more original and fun...all IMO. So much CGI...where has movie story-telling gone?

30 posted on 06/15/2013 10:28:11 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: what's up; Perdogg; Aevery_Freeman; ShadowAce; Jack Hydrazine; Altariel; nuancey; Thorliveshere; ...
>> I guess we're in the minority. We hated this movie...BORING! The characters were flat, the script was DULL and clichéd. No levity, warmth whatsoever. Just crash bang boom. The Russell Crowe character was as close as it got to anyone having charisma and that wasn't much. Zero chemistry between Lois Lane and S-man. Everyone was way too serious. They left out the stuff where Clark Kent is the bumbling alter-ego. The Christopher Reeve version with all its quirkiness was much more original and fun...all IMO. So much CGI...where has movie story-telling gone? <<

Actually, those of us who think the movie is a soulless Hollywood cash grab and can't touch the original are in the majority. 1978's Superman: The Movie got 93% favorable reviews, 2006's ill-fated relaunch Superman Returns got 76% favorable reviews, and 2013's "new and improved" reboot currently has 56% favorable reviews (it keeps dropping too: pre-screenings from studio suck-ups before the public got to see the movie were 71% favorable, then 59% opening day, now 56% four days later...)

Critics are paid to analyze a movie on its merits and look at these movies from a serious perspective, regardless of how many tickets the movie sold. Even the critics who "liked" the movie have admitted its shallow, and the negative reviews are piling up constantly, pointing out the numerous plotholes, weak rehashed story, and how the movie is devoid of wit or charm: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/reviews/?sort=rotten

The movie made a zillion bucks the opening week because a lot of the general public either don't care or don't know what critics said about the movie, and will go see the movie anyway because it has a "Superman" logo on the poster and they're curious about it. That's what the Hollywood studios are banking on. It has has an extremely slick advertising campaign and you can't get away from this "Man of Steel" stuff being plastered everywhere (if I see one more Gillette promo about "how does the Man of Steel shave?", I'll puke). Thanks to tons of product placement, the movie also consists of numerous battles taking place at IHOP and Sears.

It's also produced by Christopher Nolen (the Dark Knight trilogy guy with Christian Bale's throat cancer Batman) so the Nolan fanboys are just really loudly screaming that it's the "BESTEST SUPERHERO MOVIE EVAR!!!", and "SUPERMAN 4 OUR GENERATION!!!" which they would also be saying if the movie had Henry Cavill reading the phone book for two hours.

So it might be a flash in the plan success in the short run, but 30 years from now, the Superman people remember will be Christopher Reeve's version, and not this "dark and gritty" CGI explosion filled monstrosity. It could also drop like a rock the second week, once bad word of mouth starts to spread with the public. We'll see.

38 posted on 06/16/2013 9:17:10 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson