Meh. Probably not.
-
!!!deleted!!! (52029528) — 11 years ago(November 24, 2014 12:35 PM)
Worst? nahhh.
Most disappointing? now
there's
an argument
One of the worst in recent years? probably
It might be the worst in terms of expectation and ambition. what it was
trying
to be and how badly it failed at that.maybe ASM2 beats it for bad.
We could list off some schumacher batmans as obvious duds but at least those movies were somewhat self-aware. I can watch those for 10 min and laugh at how dumb they are.
I would say most overrated by their fanbase. even the people who liked ASM2 don't call it a masterpiece. they don't say this was the best superhero film ever -
wingnut9 — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 11:41 PM)
Goodbye and good riddance we did NOT need to see any of that crap.
That's the good thing that will come if this true word of mouth can win the day. The WB will be forced to stop flooding the market with crap. -
!!!deleted!!! (52029528) — 11 years ago(November 26, 2014 12:44 AM)
No. Those movies are worse. But then again those were just movies you can laugh at. Batman and Robin were at least self aware stupidthis was more disappointing because I expected it to be awesomewellsorta..I-fvck it idk
-
Vermilion315 — 11 years ago(November 26, 2014 11:58 AM)
This I can agree with.
There are some movies that are entertaining in spite of (and in the case of the aforementioned, because of) how bad they are, but the problem with MoS is that it so desperately wants to be a deeply serious movie with pathos and gravitas, but anything of meaning is superficial and glossed over. I mean, Superman himself uttered about 5 sentences by the time the movie had gone on for an hour. You kidding me? The protagonist and namesake of your movie has NO lines to speak of? And you guys seriously praise Cavill's performance more than Reeve, whose portrayal of the character actually had personality and charisma? Give me a break. One of the most colossal disappointments within the genre, unquestionably.
I have a hard time picturing this mute, wooden character as the leader of the Justice League. The writer and director either didn't have enough confidence in their material, the character himself, or the actor (perhaps all three), and that's just sad. What's REALLY sad is that a jingoistic, flag thumping boyscout like Captain America has a more fleshed out personality and leadership skills than the granddaddy of all superheroes. That's just a travesty. -
!!!deleted!!! (52029528) — 11 years ago(November 26, 2014 04:34 PM)
Winter solider made me love captain America. I'm legit excited for him in Avengers 2. He has a personality. It's basically where marvel succeeds and DC/WB failed here. marvel wasn't afraid caps antiquated ways wouldn't capture audiences. They let cap be cap. It's like MoS was ashamed of the character and essentially changed the make up of that character.
-
Vermilion315 — 11 years ago(November 26, 2014 06:51 PM)
Agree on Cap, but with regard to MoS, I don't even think it was a matter of them changing Superman, they just didn't do anything with him. He was practically a blank slate the entire time. Certainly, at least half the cast had more dialogue than he did, and when he wasn't speaking, he was doing one of two things - listening to someone preach, or fighting.
This is why it always puzzles me when people give Cavill all of this superlative praise for his "performance". What performance? The guy barely did or said a thing. I can't even imagine how awkward the production of this movie must have been for him; if it were me, I'd be stuck saying to myself "Ok, so when will I get to do some acting?" You compare his role to that of any other protagonist from the genre within the last 15 years or so, and his Superman is far and away the most wooden, vanilla portrayal of a leading man by far. That's sad, because movies that were far worse (although there aren't many) have more fleshed out characters than Man of Steel did. I can't even think of another example where that applies. The thing is, however, that I don't even blame the guy; he was simply doing what he was told and working with what was given to him as an actor. If it's anybody's fault that we got such an anemic Superman, it falls squarely on the shoulders of Snyder. Goyer too, of course, but the buck stops at the guy behind the camera at the end of the day, because as the chief storyteller behind the project, he should've found a way to incorporate his lead's actual character and personality into the film.
This singular detail is among the many reasons why I just can't even empathize with most Man of Steel fans. The way they praise the movie is just patently untrue in a lot of cases, and I can't even see things from their perspective because the stuff they say about this movie is just so off the wall. For most other movies I dislike, I can at least get why fans feel the way they feel about it. In most cases, they can actually articulate what they liked about the movie in a sensible, and more importantly,
accurate
manner. About the only thing that I can ever seem to agree with them on is the aesthetics; the sets and costumes really do look splendid, but that's about where it begins and ends. This movie really is a phenomenon all right, but for all the wrong reasons. -
!!!deleted!!! (52029528) — 11 years ago(November 26, 2014 09:32 PM)
Totally agree on Cavill. I actually think he's a great choice for Superman. But the movie does nothing with him. His first line of dialogue was in that bar scene. He had two lines. I don't think he spoke again until Jor el meets him. I feel bad for the guy because he in the very few scenes he had something to work with..I think he did good. But never have I seen a leading man who was given such little dialogue.
The fanboys will tell you it was "intentional" or that "it's not about lines so much as body language"I agree he has good presence but ya need something to say. It's like they thought the flashbacks could develop his entire characterbut the flashbacks don't do a good job following his arc anyway. -
Donnie_Darkrr — 11 years ago(November 27, 2014 03:14 AM)
Well, he's not in (most of) the flashbacks anyway, so you have bad character development and three actors trying to play the same part at different intervals. I'm sure Snyder probably thought that was no big deal; after all, Nolan did it in 'Batman Begins.'
I had no particular opinion of Cavill before seeing this movie but now, I just think of him as a walking constipated frown. Whether that's all the movie allowed him to do, I don't know, but he didn't particularly impress me.
Superman 1938-2013. R.I.P. Look up in the sky