It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I don't know why some reviewers criticise films for not having enough humour. Why does everything always have to be funny? The same goes for the length. Who cares if a film is three hours! Not that MOS is this long anyway.
Yeah, I think so too. It can ruin the intensity and drama. I like humour to be in more natural, realistic places.
I'm going to see it again on the weekend but at this stage I'm not sure how pleased I am with the order in which the flashbacks of Kent's childhood were presented. They were well played, although too brief, but I wonder if I would have preferred it if the film had have been shot in a more chronological format.
I loved the film's darker tone and the fact that it lacked humour.
These modern action blockbusters are so fast paced. It's a pity. I miss the good ol' days of the 80's and back.
Correct me if I'm wrong then, but does that mean this WAS the pointless dark gritty reboot I thought it'd be ;) Not really interested in seeing it anymore but I'd be interested to read some of the opinions on here.
@Bounine Given that it's Zack Snyder, I'm guessing most of the action was CGI too?
Seriously? Some of you really need to think for yourselves sometimes.
I was never really interested anyway. I said right from the start that I was sick of the dark gritty reboot trend, that I didn't like the character and that I didn't like Sucker Punch.
After I read posts in this thread talking about how brilliant it would be, and the trailers looking quite cool, I said I might see it. But the reviews seem to be confirming my worst fears so I'm not going to spend my time and money on something I probably won't enjoy.
Saying that though, I might give it a watch when it's on Sky Movies in a years time if I have some time to kill.
Much of the action is CGI, yes. "Weta Studios - New Zealand", the people who did Lord Of The Rings. It's not bad CGI though. I expect this when it comes to Superhero films which I'm not big on anyway. I've always enjoyed the original Superman films though and the Nolan Batman flicks.
The acting is decent. I thought that the dame who played Louis Lane was good along with Russell Crowe and one of the army chaps whose name I don't know. I've seen him in other roles. He had a longer part than the other soldiers. Superman himself is alright. Certainly not bad but not fantastic either. Costner and the woman who played Clark's earth mother also gave good performances. Sadly maybe, I found myself caring about Costner's character more than Superman but then the latter is almost unbreakable anyway.
It's certainly not pointless but I thought that we could have seen a bit more of Clark's childhood and I feel that it could have been edited differently, that is chronologically. All the flashbacks got on my nerves a bit. I feel that this was a major issue. This was the disappointing part for me. Guess that they were worried about the mainstream audience with the supposed attention span of 5 year olds, getting bored again.
The dialogue sounded like Nolan and I was pleased with this and the serious, more realistic tone of the film. Loved that it had a lack of humour. I don't know why every Hollywood blockbuster has to be a comedy.
All the flashbacks scattered around the movie hindered my enjoyment to a point though.
http://videobull.com/?s=graham+norton+show&x=16&y=12
Just a question and I have to know because I've wondered about it for many years...is it mentioned in the canon if SM needs to go to the loo? He does eat and drink, but where does the waste go...
Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=81564#ucbECfibTAdgrRCi.99
Great! Many thanks.
The only thing I'll say is that bad word of mouth and poor critical reviews did nothing to dampen The Transformers box office takings. After all, Transformers: Dark of the Moon got 36% Rotten and still managed to pull in over $1 Billion worldwide, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (20% Rotten) which resulted in U.S. Domestic Total Gross: $402,111,870. I honestly don't think that many people put much stock in what critics say anymore.
Maybe $800 million at the most, it all depends on the word of mouth.
Looking forward to seeing this tomorrow.
Cavill as Supes makes the role his own and completely embodies the role, much in the way Reeves made the role his own. Make no mistake, Cavill is superman and the fights and action set pieces are perfectly apt. Anyone complaining about too much action in a superman movies needs to be punched and then ignored. Forget ironman, forget avengers, just forget the rest, the original daddy of superheroes is back on the throne.
Go see this film immediately!
8.5/10
So its ok then?
I just keep having this feeling of "been there, done that" with The Man of Steel.
I loved the Christopher Reeve movies, well the first two anyway, but all I can say now is we are treated to another CGI extravanza that Hollywood keeps turning out.
Like the cliche goes, "if you keep serving slop, people will aquire a taste for it.."
That's my dread when I see this film, I thought Iron Man 3 was bad enough.