New Superman Film :: Man of Steel

1212224262743

Comments

  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    anything over 60% is fresh, under rotten. right now MoS sits at 58%
    but far to many critics comparing it to the originals

    Thanks :)

    And far too many people putting their oar in before they've even seen the movie. It's quite tragic!
  • So 3008So 3008 Posts: 2,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Karis wrote: »
    Thanks for that! It's a really useful summary.

    So, what's it saying about MoS? What's Fresh 66 ./ Rotten 43 saying?

    Well the score is currently 66 positive reviews, 48 negative, giving Man of Steel a positive rating of 58%. So the critical reaction has so far been lukewarm at best, but still leaning towards a positive majority (even if RT count anything below 60% as a 'rotten' score).

    Tomorrow (or I assume it'll be tomorrow seeing as that's when the film officially opens), the general public will be able to vote and give their scores on RT as well, so we'll be able to compare the two reactions, which can be quite different. After Earth for example has a critic rating of 11% but a audience rating of 46%, a 35% difference in opinion.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So 3008 wrote: »
    Because instead of trawling through all the many, many different reviews to get a general consensus on the quality of the film, RT handily collects them all and tells you what percentage of reviews were positive or negative.

    It's good at seeing what the average movie-going-joe thinks of a film as well; especially in this case, where I think the viewer rating will be much higher than the critics current 61% positive.

    But surely it also isn't helpful. Half of the reviews (on any film) will be from critics whom in no way share similar feelings about film as you do. Some will also have a bias against a film in some way (in this case Snyder and Comic Book films) and only little would be from places you've heard of.

    It may get the consensus of every critic around but that isn't helpful whatsoever as its unlikely many of them share the same thoughts of films as I do. I care about what the people who enjoyed The Avengers, The Dark Knight Trilogy thought of it, not the people who loathed those films. If the people who have similar opinions as me hate it I can presume I may not like it either. If the people who hate those films hate it, that doesn't mean a thing for me.

    However, I do agree that the audience reaction will be stronger from the public they are raving about it on other sites.

    And critics have clearly been comparing to the Donner-films. Superman doesn't need to be light and fluffy. The Donner films gave that effect.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Film critics are rating things differently from the public. Critics/reviewers see so many films that they get bored of the same old trash, while the public can still enjoy trash if it's done well.

    Also the audience is surely going to be a lot younger than most film critics.


    I imagine it's going to be well-made but ultimately empty, rather like the last Star Trek film.
  • So 3008So 3008 Posts: 2,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I care about what the people who enjoyed The Avengers, The Dark Knight Trilogy thought of it, not the people who loathed those films. If the people who have similar opinions as me hate it I can presume I may not like it either. If the people who hate those films hate it, that doesn't mean a thing for me.

    Ah but The Avengers has a critic score of 92%, The Dark Knight Rises 87% etc. So clearly a great many critics (34% in the case of TA) who did enjoy those superhero films and superhero films in general didn't enjoy Man of Steel
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So 3008 wrote: »
    Ah but The Avengers has a critic score of 92%, The Dark Knight Rises 87% etc. So clearly a great many critics (34% in the case of TA) who did enjoy those superhero films and superhero films in general didn't enjoy Man of Steel

    True but there seems to be more bias around MoS. Critics accepted TDKR cause TDK "changed things" and matured the genre and was doing things no film before or since had done (scale-wise with new effects). Plus TDKR was still criticised for being worse than TDK and some slammed it.

    Avengers had RDJ (who seems to be a critic gold mine) and was the quintessential hero film that didn't take itself seriously.

    Of course these two were obviously good films as well.

    MoS has Zack Snyder. An easy to jump on person for the critics. A possibly "pointless" reboot argument. Very dark, as opposed to the lightness of Marvel and Donner's Superman.
    And Zack Snyder.
    Oh and Zack Snyder.

    For some reason critics seem to hate people who describes things as "awesome". He is level with Michael Bay in terms of style over substance with some critics.

    When I looked the other day 4 of the 5 rotten reviews says "Snyder" in its little sample quote.

    One critic wrote - "Man of Steel starts feeling like just another generic superhero movie - the exact opposite to the radical and unique stamp Nolan placed on the Dark Knight trilogy

    However, the main issue with the third act of Batman Begins to many critics was that it turned into a generic action film. So for Nolan its positive, Snyder its rotten.

    Or as you said maybe it really is a bad film. The public response will certainly be interesting.
  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    Tassium wrote: »
    Film critics are rating things differently from the public. Critics/reviewers see so many films that they get bored of the same old trash, while the public can still enjoy trash if it's done well.

    Also the audience is surely going to be a lot younger than most film critics.


    I imagine it's going to be well-made but ultimately empty, rather like the last Star Trek film.

    This is all so true. I've reviewed thousands of movies and I won't deny I do like a bit of substance to my movies.

    I also like mindless trash, but in just the right amounts.

    I can't wait for people on here to see the movie so I can hear some genuine feedback from people who aren't raving nutters (mostly) :P
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    Anybody pick up the Big Issue recently? I spotted the Man of Steel review, and flicked quickly to it.

    If you ever needed proof of the bullshit that reviewers will spout, it gets no better than this. I've thrown it away now, but the review is headlined "Failure to Launch", and as I was reading it I thought, "this guy isn't covering anything, only underlining his extreme snobbery against the blockbuster film industry". And then, whoosh, just like a bird or a plane, the reviewer admits he hasn't even seen the film! It screened too late for his deadline!

    So, why the review then, with a purposefully inflammatory and emotive headline, and an editorial of boring sub-A level film snobbery?

    In the bin with you.
  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    Kal_El wrote: »
    Anybody pick up the Big Issue recently? I spotted the Man of Steel review, and flicked quickly to it.

    So, why the review then, with a purposefully inflammatory and emotive headline, and an editorial of boring sub-A level film snobbery?

    In the bin with you.

    Pointless writing anything if you've not seen the movie. Just like the guy who linked to his blog above. Bit pointless when you've nothing to review...

    What's really interesting is that people who've now seen it today are overly gushing about it. Either they really enjoyed it or the fact that there was so much criticism online about it has pushed them in the other direction.
  • GARETH197901GARETH197901 Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Karis wrote: »
    Pointless writing anything if you've not seen the movie. Just like the guy who linked to his blog above. Bit pointless when you've nothing to review...

    What's really interesting is that people who've now seen it today are overly gushing about it. Either they really enjoyed it or the fact that there was so much criticism online about it has pushed them in the other direction.

    I agree,it does seem stupid that reviewers make their decision before even seeing 1 frame of the film,after all i wouldn't slate a book to my friends and family before reading it
  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    I agree,it does seem stupid that reviewers make their decision before even seeing 1 frame of the film,after all i wouldn't slate a book to my friends and family before reading it

    It's like all those cocks who give 1 to Twilight without ever seeing any of it.

    Makes me really sad as those people (and the scum that download a movie and then give it a 1) are just ruining the reviewing system for everyone else.

    Suppose it's all part of the age we live in. People can leave shallow reviews without thought to the damage they do.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    This made me laugh. From The Guardian. Says it all:

    "What I missed were the gentle, innocent pleasures of Superman's day-to-day crimefighting existence, depicted in normal sunlight and in primary colours: the bullets exploding harmlessly on the chest, the casually lifted automobile, the look of horror on the faces of low-level bad guys, the awestruck Rockwell kid's gratitude."

    Jesus f*cking wept.
  • So 3008So 3008 Posts: 2,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As we discussed yesterday, the general public rating is now open on RT. Currently it stands at:

    Critics: 58% ('Rotten')
    Audience: 82%

    Quite the difference in opinion so far.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well the public response (American) anyway seems to be overwhemingly positive.
  • waterlooenderswaterlooenders Posts: 98
    Forum Member
    I didn't like it very much to be honest.
    It went on for too long, the fight scenes got really boring. The acting was pretty good - some of the dialogue was laughable though.
    I enjoyed TDKR far more to be honest.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    I'm shocked that it's now got a 'Rotten' rating on RT. Can it really be worse than Iron Man 2 which got 73%. Or worse even than The Hobbit?!

    :confused:
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Kal_El wrote: »
    I thought, "this guy isn't covering anything, only underlining his extreme snobbery against the blockbuster film industry"

    But loads of blockbuster films score relatively highly on Rotten Tomatoes e.g. The Avengers, Thor, Iron Man and Iron Man 2, Spiderman, etc.
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    I saw Man Of Steel this morning and I thought it was really good.However I agree that it's too long and there is too much action in it.Its a great film anyway and don't let negative reports put you off!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,599
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Saw it today, I enjoyed it. But the first half suffered the same story telling/editing problems The Dark Knight Rises suffered from where characters mysteriously appear and pop up all over the place with little explanation to how they got there and people never seemed to question anything. Its also rather sexist in its portrayal of women, Lois Lane starts off as a strong investigative reporter but then gets sidelined as just damsel in distress and the token army woman is there only to swoon and ask the dumbest questions.
    Still the action was enjoyable and some great scenes, its a good blockbuster! 7/10 for me.
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    What characters suddenly appeared and the disappeared?As I didn't notice that happening during the film!
  • RadioKnowerRadioKnower Posts: 2,272
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I felt the planet of Krypton just felt like any old alien planet, the alien technology looked it it could be from any film, with the original everything relating to Superman's home planet felt so clinical.

    Didn't think the phantom zone, was a good as the original concept in the original films, the original gave a sense of wonder and how it works. This just felt like they were frozen on a space ship.

    Overall I felt this was a good film, better than Superman Returns which I feel no didn't do enough to reinvent the franchise.

    I think they were so concerned about making this film great, I'm not really sure where they could go with the next.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I saw it today and loved it.

    Any notice the animal at the start of the movie was a mastadge from the Stargate movie.

    It looked exactly the same.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzBIaX5KrFM

    Also, the Helmet's Zod and his crew wore looked like Space Jocky/Engineer helmets from Alien and prometheus so I wonder if Kryptonions and Engineers have crossed paths. :eek: :p
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A couple of scenes freaked me out where Cavill's face turned into Reeves. ;:eek: ;)
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    I was actually glad that Cavill didn't try to copy Reeve like Routh did in Superman Returns!
  • thedarklord _thedarklord _ Posts: 565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Motthus wrote: »
    I was actually glad that Cavill didn't try to copy Reeve like Routh did in Superman Returns!

    Well Superman Returns as a whole was meant to an homage of Richard Donner's films. Brandon Routh was only following orders from the director. It was a good impression IMO but an impression nonetheless.

    Man of Steel has it's own problems though ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.