I consider it good. SuckerPunch got a much harsher review then it deserves, visually it was awesome, it had a decent concept as well I thought; escaping a mental institution and not being able to tell reality from fantasy(sounds awful similar to a much loved movie Shutter Island) and the depiction of escapism was entertaining as well. It was a movie focused on a female lead and a primarily female cast yet that still somehow rubbed people the wrong way. People are too critical at inappropriate times lately and once something has a mild disapproval people are afraid to admit they like it or give it a shot.
No idea about Dawn of the dead, but watchmen and sucker punch were boring with watchmen seemed edgy and wannabe imo. 300 however was good.
The thing about snyder is that his movies are visually appealing but bad at story telling, MoS was OK. Generally snyder is "Wouldn't change channel if was on TV" tier, unlike Nolan when I hear snyder's name my first instinct is to be pessimist since expecting something like The dark knightvfrom him is asking to be disappointed.
Dude, Watchmen is a faithful adaptation of one of the best graphic novels ever. (Alan Moore dammit) It had a great story and setting, and was everything but wanna be edgy. Check out the ultimate cut (4 hour version) if you don't believe me.
I do agree that Snyder is kinda polarizing, with most of his works being either score or fluke in the most extreme ways possible.
Btw, ironically, Watchmen is also poorly received by RT movies like Captain America and Avengers having way more than it. Goes to show their credibility. :sdo:
Dude, Watchmen is a faithful adaptation of one of the best graphic novels ever. (Alan Moore dammit) It had a great story and setting, and was everything but wanna be edgy. Check out the ultimate cut (4 hour version) if you don't believe me.
I do agree that Snyder is kinda polarizing, with most of his works being either score or fluke in the most extreme ways possible.
Btw, ironically, Watchmen is also poorly received by RT movies like Captain America and Avengers having way more than it. Goes to show their credibility. :sdo:
Well to be fair Cap is still one of my top comic movies yet. Cap has the most replay value and the best combination of story and visuals. Avengers I'll agree should be = to or slightly below Watchmen. The real problem with Watchmen is once a movie gets to a certain time length people start to get annoyed unless it is a phenomenal movie(personally I'm not a huge fan of the Godfather films for that reason)
Considering i'm in the filmsphere of online criticism- it really was the other way round before the premiere, previews had almost universal good reception from critics. I don't get why or believe that it's done a 180.
Considering i'm in the filmsphere of online criticism- it really was the other way round before the premiere, previews had almost universal good reception from critics. I don't get why or believe that it's done a 180.
The worst part about sites like those are spiteful people go on them and bash things they dislike just to appease their sense of worth. The only people's opinions we should bother with are those we know and respect what does it matter what 5 million random people who you have no idea if they share the same tastes as you thinks of a movie?
The worst part about sites like those are spiteful people go on them and bash things they dislike just to appease their sense of worth. The only people's opinions we should bother with are those we know and respect what does it matter what 5 million random people who you have no idea if they share the same tastes as you thinks of a movie?
I'll take the word of established film critics whose work I follow over my mate Dan tbh. Devin Faraci, Max Landis, Deniz, Anthony Lane, Mike Stoklosa- hell, even some of the upper Youtube crowd. Understanding film discourse is something as a film student that I can respect without being pretentious about it.
Their opinions are usually in line with mine. That's why people have favourite critics. They're not all the cliche 'artsnob i hate everything critic' archetype. I do agree that people do this, hate on stuff to validate themselves. But that's more petty distaste- something you'll fin moreso on here, RT or IMDB.
I'll take the word of established film critics whose work I follow over my mate Dan tbh. Devin Faraci, Max Landis, Deniz, Anthony Lane, Mike Stoklosa- hell, even some of the upper Youtube crowd. Understanding film discourse is something as a film student that I can respect without being pretentious about it.
Their opinions are usually in line with mine. That's why people have favourite critics. They're not all the cliche 'artsnob i hate everything critic' archetype. I do agree that people do this, hate on stuff to validate themselves. But that's more petty distaste- something you'll fin moreso on here, RT or IMDB.
Those are people whom you know(though not personally, you still know of them and their credentials) whose opinions you respect, that's not the same as seeing what millions of random people, many of which you've never read a single word by, say about a film then basing your opinion on whether to view it or not.
Well the fan reviews are at 79% and a 4.1/5 so, plus most of the criticisms of the movie are "it had too much going on and not enough focus on specific points" Not exactly a crippling critique in my eyes.
I feel most critics(who are probably in their late 40's or better) went in with the same question my parents asked me "Why are they fighting each other aren't they both heroes" and not being able to understand the why prevents them from moving on with the movie as they're still hung up on why is this even happening.
this movie is 7/10 it sort of stretches itself out in a weird way and the scenes jump back and forth and there's nothing really that ties them, the fights were short unsatisfying but enjoyable it's a letdown mainly because my expectations were too high. I think Ben affleck is absolutely perfect for the role and he does a really great job. You'll still Enjoy it for what it is. I'm gonna see it again next Saturday.
Assuming that we're going for a scale of:
1 - bad
2 - watchable
3 - good
4 - very good
5 - excellent
it's a 3.5/5 for me. It is a good movie but not enough to be called Very Good. It's somewhere in between.
It had one flaw over which I simply couldn't cross, so I gave it such a grade. Not gonna say what as it'd spoil the movie but it did make me a bit disappointed. Basically, the movie was, besides this flaw, a total masterpiece. Had it not been this thorn in my eye, it would've been the best comic book movie ever.
Then again I maybe just to strict. Regardless, watch the movie everyone. It's definitelly worth your time and money. Don't believe the RT critics btw. The movie indeed has a problem, but it's absolutely nothing like what they're saying.
People absolutely need to understand the characters the movie covers in order to understand what's going on. This movie in particular goes by the assumption that you already know who is who. And that's a good thing. Not every movie needs to spell it all out for the clueless to understand.
Also, this isn't a movie adaptation of a certain comic. It's a movie based on characters from a certain comic. These characters had 10 movies about them before and 75 years of existence in pop-culture. If you didn't feel the need to pick anything about them up then you don't have anything to do in this movie.
It's not chronological. It's events are going to be covered both back and front in the future movies. Critics literally complained because the whole plot wasn't layed out right away so that they could watch the movie brain-dead as if it was some sort of DC Avengers.
People absolutely need to understand the characters the movie covers in order to understand what's going on. This movie in particular goes by the assumption that you already know who is who. And that's a good thing. Not every movie needs to spell it all out for the clueless to understand.
Also, this isn't a movie adaptation of a certain comic. It's a movie based on characters from a certain comic. These characters had 10 movies about them before and 75 years of existence in pop-culture. If you didn't feel the need to pick anything about them up then you don't have anything to do in this movie.
It's not chronological. It's events are going to be covered both back and front in the future movies. Critics literally complained because the whole plot wasn't layed out right away so that they could watch the movie brain-dead as if it was some sort of DC Avengers.
That's common sense. The movies stand alone from the comics and is up to them to give you the full story. If you're watching the movie and you can't understand something because the movie expects you to go to the comics and fin the explanation, then the film has failed to give proper exposition, which is a failure in filmmaking.
People need to understand the characters the movie is about, and the movie should be able to give the proper exposition and development for the audience to have this understanding. Otherwise, the movie needs to piggyback off the comics, which is a sign something is wrong. If the movie just started off with Superman and Batman hating each other and fighting without showing why either of them want to clash, and the filmmakers say "Well go read the comics if you want to know why and how it got to this point," would you say the filmmakers did its job?
The bolded just proves my point btw. It's taking characters from a comic, and establishing a film universe about these characters. Keyword: Establishing. If something regarding this independent movie universe can't be found in the independent movie universe, then the film and/or franchise isn't being made properly.
If the movie is just throwing events at you without explaining why it's happening, chronological storytelling or not, then people have the right to claim that to be a flaw.
That's common sense. The movies stand alone from the comics and is up to them to give you the full story. If you're watching the movie and you can't understand something because the movie expects you to go to the comics and fin the explanation, then the film has failed to give proper exposition, which is a failure in filmmaking.
People need to understand the characters the movie is about, and the movie should be able to give the proper exposition and development for the audience to have this understanding. Otherwise, the movie needs to piggyback off the comics, which is a sign something is wrong. If the movie just started off with Superman and Batman hating each other and fighting without showing why either of them want to clash, and the filmmakers say "Well go read the comics if you want to know why and how it got to this point," would you say the filmmakers did its job?
The bolded just proves my point btw. It's taking characters from a comic, and establishing a film universe about these characters. Keyword: Establishing. If something regarding this independent movie universe can't be found in the independent movie universe, then the film and/or franchise isn't being made properly.
And established them it did. Have you watched the movie? What you're talking about and what I'm talking about aren't the same things.
I'm talking about critics dissing the film because not everything about the universe in which they are and the characters which appeared was revealed. Spoilers incoming:
Example of that are the nightmare sequences, Flash's appearance, the JL member footages and Wonder Woman's backstory. All things which weren't the focus of the movie and are to be touched upon further movies.
You can't expect the whole franchise to be revealed in one movie. What would be the point of making any more then? And that's exactly what the critics did. And that's exactly what I am criticizing them for. The characters have been established and are well-known already. Their motives are shown properly and the setting is described in a subtle but good manner.
You need to think a bit and put the pieces together. That's the kind of movie this is. Something that opens the gates to DCEU rather than throwing everything out and closing them right away. What needed to be said has been said.
I can't believe how many critics insist that the movie is bad because they find the idea of "2 good guys fighting" dumb. Despite the fact that the reason why they are fighting is clearly shown, hell, you have it right in the synopsis.
And established them it did. Have you watched the movie? What you're talking about and what I'm talking about aren't the same things.
I'm talking about critics dissing the film because not everything about the universe in which they are and the characters which appeared was revealed. Spoilers incoming:
Example of that are the nightmare sequences, Flash's appearance, the JL member footages and Wonder Woman's backstory. All things which weren't the focus of the movie and are to be touched upon further movies.
You can't expect the whole franchise to be revealed in one movie. What would be the point of making any more then? And that's exactly what the critics did. And that's exactly what I am criticizing them for. The characters have been established and are well-known already. Their motives are shown properly and the setting is described in a subtle but good manner.
You need to think a bit and put the pieces together. That's the kind of movie this is. Something that opens the gates to DCEU rather than throwing everything out and closing them right away. What needed to be said has been said.
I can't believe how many critics insist that the movie is bad because they find the idea of "2 good guys fighting" dumb. Despite the fact that the reason why they are fighting is clearly shown, hell, you have it right in the synopsis.
If you have to study the source material to understand anything about the movie franchise, then the franchise is a failure because it needs the exposition to deliver that. Of course they don't understand the full cinematic universe, but when it comes to movies, you shouldn't have to go "Oh well if you want the answer to that, read the comic/book."
