ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Oct 20, 2009 8:37:57 GMT -5
How odd...TIME Magazine loved it. I wonder who owns TIME Magazine?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 20, 2009 8:44:03 GMT -5
Great. Good for you. That review certainly dwarfs the two reviews by the professional critics.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 20, 2009 8:56:04 GMT -5
I think it's 20th Century Fox, WB's competitor. (I could be wrong, but too lazy to check it out right now as it's eeeearly right now.)
Newsweek I think is owned by WB- or an associate. Would that make them biased to like it?
Probably.
But the more important thing is:
Regardless of who owns it, was the review well written? (And one can be, even if one disagrees with it- I have a friend that disagrees with me on half of the movies I love, but gives me lengthy analytical reviews that really dig deep from different angles, so it's not about having to be a 'they like what I like so I'll listen to them' scenario)
It almost doesn't matter who writes a review to me- if it's a well written one, it's a well written one (which to me is free of sarcasm if I really want to know what a film is, what it does and doesn't deliver, and why it succeeded/failed)
But....someone asked whether or not any professional reviews were written that liked SR- so, it's funny that when any actually exists, it's STILL questioned.
I don't care if someone hates SR--- I just think it's more worthwhile if they have a smart (not smartASS) review that is insightful as to why it was considered not good enough. I have friends that have differing opinions of SR than me, and we have strong discussions on it, but it's rarely one-sentence barbs that often are thrown out there that people often throw out, then walk away, (not you, but others), as if that one-liner was so clever and insightful, that all other reviews should be disregarded in favor of it.
The thing with comic book films (or fantasy films)--- is that they're usually discriminated against as 'kiddie fare' and slammed against by movie critics--- that's changed with superhero films in general getting (overall) better and better.
Regardless of whether or not a superhero film is liked, if a reviewer is good, and the reviewer is attacking what they think is lacking in a film- it should be interesting to read regardless of whether or not one agrees with it, not even more irritating because the person not only said something bad about a film one liked, but couldn't be bothered to try to form an intelligent review of why something was considered defective other than a few words.
If Time or Newsweek (Or any other review source) simply put out one-sentence barbs for their 'reviews', would it be considered worth anything?
To clarify: if Tarantino wrote a 20-page review HATING SR I would be just as enthused to read it. Why? Because of the thought and effort put into it.
If someone here hates it so much that they don't think it's worth the effort to go into why, that's understandable--- but it's also understandable how lightweight that opinion would be as well to those who do like it.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 20, 2009 9:02:32 GMT -5
I don't really see evidence of this too be honest. If a film is good regardless of the genre, then it will gets positive reviews. At least what I've read over the years.
and I'm certainly don't have the time to write a length "review" of why I think SR disappoints.
I bet if someone flippantly claims "Superman Returns rules!" that you won't be mentioning these "well written reviews" because their conclusions match yours and so that's good enough for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 20, 2009 9:10:56 GMT -5
If someone flippantly says that they love "Glitter" or some other film that I think is purely ridiculous, I wouldn't be interested enough to try to challenge them.
SOMEONE asked for whether or not the professional reviews existed that liked SR, so I put these up.
I think you must like the character enough to be spending the time to be put off by the movie enough to keep chatting about it. So why not go into detail? Obviously, you didn't like it--- why not put the energy into trying to sway others with a smart argument why it's indulgent?
Negative flippancy anywhere pisses me off, because it takes so little effort.
I just prefer deep debate where I can see the other person's point of view.
If someone doesn't want to spend the time debating it, that's fine, but then I say, don't just leave a flippant remark at someone's doorstep (not saying that you are, but in general)- and then walk away. It's irritating.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Oct 20, 2009 9:11:55 GMT -5
I think it's 20th Century Fox, WB's competitor. (I could be wrong, but too lazy to check it out right now as it's eeeearly right now.) ;D...it's Time Warner...who owns Warner Bros. who owns DC... www.timewarner.com/corp/businesses/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 20, 2009 9:13:16 GMT -5
Ok. But what'd you think of the review, regardless?  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 20, 2009 9:33:04 GMT -5
I think it's 20th Century Fox, WB's competitor. (I could be wrong, but too lazy to check it out right now as it's eeeearly right now.) ;D...it's Time Warner...who owns Warner Bros. who owns DC... www.timewarner.com/corp/businesses/index.htmlpwned |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 20, 2009 9:33:51 GMT -5
Yet another thought out, deep review. *sigh* |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 20, 2009 9:35:38 GMT -5
If someone flippantly says that they love "Glitter" or some other film that I think is purely ridiculous, I wouldn't be interested enough to try to challenge them. I just prefer deep debate where I can see the other person's point of view. So if its a film you agree its crap then its OK not to challenge them, but if its a (crap) film you like then they ought not to resort to one sentence negative flippancy? Hope you are reading this, Guru! |
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Oct 20, 2009 9:36:22 GMT -5
Personally, I do not care. I have seen the movie and made up my own mind about it.
At the root of all reviewers is a dude (or woman) who saw a movie and wrote about it. Other then me writing about it, we are the same...each with our own opinion.
I actually find it sad that some feel they need to hunt for a 'professional' opinion in order to validate their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 20, 2009 9:39:45 GMT -5
What's the point of one sentence negative flippancy?
Are you trying to talk about a film's pros and cons, or is the point to try to be provocative?
That's what I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 20, 2009 9:51:21 GMT -5
Discussion is discussion. Sometimes a good review (whether it's an internet review or other) helps pinpoint this or that idea in a film to help talk about something in a film. Someone on the thread asked if any existed, so I threw those out. I didn't hunt them down, they're giant magazines.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 20, 2009 10:00:52 GMT -5
Definitely.
This happens a lot in Media and politics.
An opinion from a guy who can barely string a sentence together (dyslexic for example) is not as valid as a man who happens to get paid for reviews? (be honest, a movie reviewer is not exactly the best job in the World)
That's the vibe I am getting.
I think my job as a software developer taxes my brain more than a frickin movie reviewer. Infact, tending bar and adding up prices in my head all night taxed my brain more than writing about films!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 20, 2009 10:10:50 GMT -5
Definitely.
This whole discussion is going in a direction that's far from the point in the beginning, which was discussing SR and whether or not it's epic. I admit I get hotheaded during SR discussions, if someone wants to go into detail about the pro or con, that's great. If not, that should be fine and I certainly don't have the right to dictate what someone can or can't say.
I know I've been a little more sarcastic and hypocritical in this discussion over it, and I apologize for that.
Someone mentioned before that attacking SR can feel like a personal attack, when it's not. I need to remember that.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 20, 2009 10:19:23 GMT -5
Oh no, saying a film is crap is certainly NOT a personal attack.
Appreciate the message; I think we've all said our bit now, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby M on Oct 20, 2009 11:07:59 GMT -5
Well, here’s the thing. I’d actually argue that reading a positive review of a film that is generally derided is just as interesting and worthy of discussion as a positive review of a critically acclaimed one. I’m not saying everyone has or should take that stance, but it’s my own perspective. That’s why when I post a review of a film here, I usually pick one to write about that is either obscure or not very highly thought of that I myself happen to like a lot. I don’t see any point in writing a big review of, say, The Godfather, because it’s been done a zillion times over and everyone knows it’s one of the best films ever made. It may generate more discussion because it has a lot of fans, sure, but for me as a writer I’d find it quite boring. That is unless I added something personal to it such as how and when I first saw that film and what it means to me at a deeper level. I’ve never seen Glitter (the film that was mentioned above) and have no intention of doing so, but I have heard that it’s an atrocious piece of film-making. So if someone here were to write a review defending it, I’d probably be more interested in reading that than another musing on Citizen Kane. And this is, I think, what makes Superman Returns discussions so interesting around here. Everyone pretty much reveres Superman The Movie and we’ve talked about it to death, so there isn’t that much more to say there. But Superman Returns is a recent film that can obviously inspire polar opposite feelings in people, whether it’s about the film itself, Brandon, Singer or whatever. As a result, even though I haven’t seen it yet, I find topics on Superman Returns to be the most interesting ones in the Supes Media sub-forum. As for the notion that anyone can write a film review and it doesn’t take much intelligence, I think it depends how you go about it. Anyone can write a blurb of a couple of hundred words for a magazine that just details their personal thoughts on a film, true, but I think it takes a lot more to write a lengthy and balanced piece that dissects the film in question and talks about its sub-text, production history, metaphor and so forth. That actually does take some intelligence, not to mention a lot of time and effort, if you ask me. Anybody can watch something like Superman Returns and say “I thought it was the best Superman film yet”, while not as many can watch a movie like RoboCop and see it as something more than a flick about a cyborg who fights crime. I think it depends on your aptitude. Russ, you mentioned software design and doing maths on the spot – I have a lot of respect for people who can do that because they’re things I just can’t get my head around. My brain isn’t scientific and just doesn’t work like that, so I’d struggle with those things unless I really put my mind to it. Which I find difficult because there’s no level of interest for me there. But I think I am good at more arty and creative stuff, so I try to stick to that where possible. I guess you’re one of the lucky ones who can do both. Here’s an interesting question: For those who don’t think that Superman Returns is epic, do you think it could be made so with an extended cut that restores some of the mythical deleted footage we’ve heard about, such as the multi-million dollar “Return To Krypton” sequence? |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Oct 20, 2009 11:48:48 GMT -5
Here’s an interesting question: For those who don’t think that Superman Returns is epic, do you think it could be made so with an extended cut that restores some of the mythical deleted footage we’ve heard about, such as the multi-million dollar “Return To Krypton” sequence? I think without a doubnt that it would give it even more of an Epic feel than it already has. I desperately hope to see it added back in some day. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 20, 2009 11:54:14 GMT -5
Adding more footage will just make it more bloated and more bum numbing.
For those who thinks long automatically = epic then from that POV it will be more epic...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ollie W on Oct 20, 2009 23:23:04 GMT -5
I agree with ye5man that SR is seriously bloated.
Cut out a huge chunk of the Lex scenes and make the film more of a focus on Superman. Then you can include more of the Smallville scenes and perhaps the return to Krypton sequence.
The handling of Lex is one of the films biggest problems. It dwells on and explains things in great detail that we don't care about.
Granted Gene had significant screen time in STM but I never found him to be a bore.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 21, 2009 3:52:28 GMT -5
I definitely agree about Lex, waaaaay too much screen time. They either treated it like a Batman film where typically the villains are the centrepiece, or Singer just liked Spacey too much.
Cut a huge chunk out the 3rd act (especially where Supes doesn't even appear for 20 minutes or so), trim most of Spacey's scenes and especially lose the opening scene, put that Krypton scene in and then we're talking.
Lex's henchmen: don't they need dialogue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Oct 21, 2009 13:38:37 GMT -5
I say it's epic. My idea of epic is grand in scope and design, takes place in many locations, is well acted, memorably scored, has classic character designs, incredible visual and audible stimuli, has extreme occurrences that don't normally occur in movies, etc. thats about exxaaaaaaccctly what i was gonna say. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Oct 22, 2009 13:01:14 GMT -5
Kev FTW!
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul (ral) on Oct 22, 2009 14:38:20 GMT -5
Watched SR in Blu-ray for the first time in a long time - all the way through - with the misses. She loves it. With the Blu-ray I was expecting to find something new (going by comments from others on the forum). It's not a bad film and certainly is a lot better than I had remembered - but it is fundamentaly flawed (for me) and the Blu-ray did not erase those flaws from my mind. I still hate the suit and the color palette of the movie. Routh for the most part is good but in some parts he is terribly stifled. Were he to return as Superman I would expect him to raise his game (I don't mean to sound mean - I do realise he had limited acting experience). In retrospect I can't help asking myself if Brandon was choosen for the wrong reasons. Then again I can't judge the man when the script is underpar - (Mankiewicz on his worst day would come up with a better scene for Clark and Lois than Lois wanting to borrow a stapler) no originality or dynamic. Spacey is no more than a "panto-villian" with the only truely good scene where Supes gets a beating and stabbed. All in all the X-Men team where the wrong team for Superman - who would have thought it  Anyway, just my 2 cents and no more valid than anyone elses - even if I am right. |
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Oct 22, 2009 15:09:47 GMT -5
I'm with Jimbo on this one and what Kevin said is what I expect of an epic movie, but SR isn't that.
STM has the epic elements. Shit, even the opening credits are epic and grand.
|
|
