I can't think of a suitable place to begin with this rant. I've just this minute finnished watching the movie, and everything about it is awful. The lousy acting (especially Reeve and Stamp), the obvious special effects, the writing and dialogue in this movie can only be described as shoddy and borish at best.
I hope that Zack Snyder can bring the franchise back from the hangover that's been left by a series of morons.
That is all.
The special fx are dated, but so is the original's. Lousy acting no way. Reeve is as good as ever, and Stamp was great as the power hungry Zod. So was Douglas as Ursa.
What was your problem with the writing?
Imbecile. Way too many imbeciles on IMDB.
shareYou can offer a better rebuttal than just name calling. Tear down the arguments made with good points.
shareHear hear, there's way too many of these sorts on IMDB (not lowering myself to name-calling). Anonymity makes some people think they can get away with abuse, but it's just cowardly.
As for the OP, I don't really understand how they were seeing it in terms of Reeve and Stamp's acting. They, along with Hackman (one of my favourite actors, though more-so in a several other films), were top-notch for the dialogue they were given in my opinion. That, in itself wasn't too bad for this style of movie, and there's quite a few funny lines.
It's easy to judge too harshly fx from 31 years ago when we're now used to Avatar capabilities.
Is it "used to" or "use to"? I'm used to not caring; I did at one time use to care.
It's easy to judge too harshly fx from 31 years ago when we're now used to Avatar capabilities.
"finnished"? "borish"? Pot...kettle...black.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
[deleted]
[deleted]
At least "Finnish" is an actual word. Example: "The Finnish hate the Russians and vice versa." LOL.
"Ass to ass. Ha ha ha ha. ASS TO ASS!"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5z77EI8y0
"At least "Finnish" is an actual word. Example: "The Finnish hate the Russians and vice versa."
Yes, but you can't use it that way. You can say 'Russians', because it refers to 'Russian people', but there's no word like that for 'Finnish people', so you have to write 'Finnish people'. Otherwise it's lacking, making the reader wonder, 'the Finnish WHAT?'
As in 'The Finnish fruit bowls hate..'
Also, why make such prejudice-based generalizations about millions of people without recognizing their individuality, right to have a different opinion or being a human being instead of just a part of some mass?
The Finnish people do not hate 'the Russians' (who are also not just a unified mass, but individual human beings, you insulting glob), they have various, varying opinions, viewpoints and takes on the topic, and even though the countries were at war a long time ago, there are Finnish people that have Russian friends and vice versa.
Please learn to be civil and recognize humanity and to use language properly before lecturing someone else on how to use language with your prejudice and hatred expressed as artificially imposed hatred on innocent group of people that did nothing to you.
The OP is just trolling the message board, looking for a fight. It's one thing to not care for a film, but it's another to chime in and trash every last thing in extreme fashion in some silly attempt to get attention. Seriously, he's one of those folks who thinks a film is defined by special effects, so I am sure he'll like the new movie for that one shallow reason. The movie is a classic, and that doesn't happen to awful films. Being a classic that has stood the test of time and still is being talked about with affection today is much bigger and carries more meaning than the thoughts of a $hit-stirrer does! These trolls can attack classic films all they like, but they'll never change the fact that they are classics.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Lack of clarification on why they think the movie is bad makes be believe it is just a trolling attempt.
shareThe op must've been born in the late 80's or early 90's.
you shoot me in a dream you better wake up and apologize.
No way is the acting bad, not sure how anyone can say that.
I actually prefer Lester's take to Donner's in 2 key scenes:
1. Where he tells his mother that he loves Lois
2. Where he goes back to the Fortress and tells Jor-El that he failed then screams father.
Awesome acting.
"But it happened at sea! See? C for Catwoman!!"
@manofsteel I was born in the early 90s and I adore this film this and the original are some of my favourites as a kid I especially love the musical score so memorable
"The stuff that dreams are made of."
OP is a dumb fanboy but he's still correct. See my posts on this. As a kid I loved this movie, but as an adult I realize how poorly written (not to mention scientifically ignorant and illogical) it is. Puzo should have stuck with mafia epics.
"Ass to ass. Ha ha ha ha. ASS TO ASS!"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5z77EI8y0
Personally, as an adult I realize a movie doesn't have to be super realistic to be good. :)
"Can it be that they are mad themselves who call me mad?"
Allow me to rephrase that. Not realistic per se, but rather realistic within the context of the film. I suppose the word would be logical consistency. The movie contradicts its own rules all the time. General Zod and his gang can take missiles and bullets without flinching... yet Ursa is bitten by a regular old-fashioned snake. An evil Kryptonian breaks off and throws a radio tower at Superman. Later, this same tower is used by Superman to imprison an evil Kryptonian, who all of a sudden is not strong enough to bend and break that metal. Makes no sense. Indefensible. Just plain bad filmmaking. I don't mind fantasy, but when the author or filmmaker is just making it up as they go along for no reason, then I lose patience.
"Ass to ass. Ha ha ha ha. ASS TO ASS!"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5z77EI8y0
Every film has nitpicks and inconsistencies. Indefensible is a rather strong word to use.
"Can it be that they are mad themselves who call me mad?"
fan boy of what exactly?
share[deleted]
Bad special fx, and they are not all bad, doesn't make the movie silly you know. The story and cast are strong.
share[deleted]
Yes really. I didn't find them distracting. Some of the new movies have some duff special fx moments but it doesn't spoil them. The Raimi Spider-man movies have slapstick in them as well and Spider-Man 2 is considered one of the greats in the comic book movie genre.
The acting was great. Especially from Reeve, Stamp and Douglas.
Er.... in the S4 thread, you posted the following:
how can this movie bad!? I the first was was wonderful, and the sequel was a blast.
Er.... in the S4 thread, you posted the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how can this movie bad!? I the first was was wonderful, and the sequel was a blast.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So do you like S2 or not?
Tripping up on your own opinions. That's got to hurt.
shareYou're just trolling and besides Zack Snyder's Superman Film will never be better then this one it will lack what this one have.
Well I hope it's better and I saw this in the theater when it came out.I would just like to see a good update and maybe a little bit more concise to the comic book, Here's hoping.
share[deleted]
I'm a big fan of Reeve's Superman, but I feel the movies has it's weird moments. Like when the kid falls into Niagara Falls and Superman saves him and he says ''Again again'', or when his mother says ''Boy you're gonna get it'', who says that after watching their kid fall like that lol. It was kind of the retarded mother's fault too for not watching him.
shareThe whole Niagara falls setup was done by Lester I believe. The same man who had full control and gave us S3.
I personally like much of his humour, although I'm not sure it's suited to a Superman film, but we had silly moments in 1 too, like when the little girl tells her mother about Superman and she gets told to stop telling lies. You can hear a slap in the background.
The kid was an idiot and if he's playing around OUTSIDE the rail, he's probably mentally retarded, ergo, him saying 'again, again' could make sense. His mother, on the other hand, seems to be too busy eating candy floss (I think) to care about her son, so she doesn't really seem like a role model type of mother to me.
"But it happened at sea! See? C for Catwoman!!"
I think I saw the theatrical cut a long long time ago. However, watching it for the first time in ages last night, I felt it was 'sanitized' in a number of places. So many people when they talk about superior '2' movies would often talk about 'Superman II' and 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.' Alot of people even talk alot about General Zod, though when it came to him and the Kryptonian Criminals, I was figuring they'd have been doing much more damage or destruction. I guess my thinking was, if they care very little for humanity, there'd be more bodies littered along the ground.
Plus really: Zod is going to let someone with a mile-a-minute-mouth like Luthor live?
Given where movies 3 & 4 went, the theatrical cut definitely feels like there's traces of the filmmaking machinery beginning to malfunction.
Is it me, or did part of that fight on the streets just turn into 'product placement central?'
"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."
- Toy Story 3 (9/10)
''Alot of people even talk alot about General Zod, though when it came to him and the Kryptonian Criminals, I was figuring they'd have been doing much more damage or destruction. I guess my thinking was, if they care very little for humanity, there'd be more bodies littered along the ground.''
you gotta remember the film was aimed at kids so they could not really go round butchering people and have it looking like a concentration camp,considering there would be many kids in the audience there was only so far they could take the movie.