MoSFAN1998 wrote:

MusicBox wrote:

MoSFAN1998 wrote:What went wrong?

That photoshop...
It's currently at 72%

"All critics l Top critics"
Do I really have to tell you this?

yeah I had a feeling film snobs won't take to this as well as others

Darius wrote:Overall reviews don't mean very much and it's up to the viewers to determine what they feel....but seriously these reviews are annoying.

I mean I haven't seen this movie but is it seriously worse then iron man 3 which has a 78 percent on RT (note that RT rates prestige 76...really?). 72 percent? I hope It atleast stays at the mid 70's....I seriously doubt this movie is worse then that.

Also what's with the complaints about it having too much action? Is this movie's action being rejected because it dares to take itself serious? Is avengers nonstop action finale (which I enjoyed) only accepted because whedon filled his script with one liners and a ton of humor?

What the hell is wrong with this world? Lol
Well I'm gonna see which side I fall on very soon. Really excited for MOS and really annoyed at some of these wierd hypocritical criticism. Feels like TDKR all over again.

It does feel like TDKR over again.

That's the burden of hype and expectations. Its getting better reviews than I thought it would

If it stays in the 70s, I think that is more than respectable. Yes, it was a bit of a concern when the embargo was on 5 days until release, and I didn't expect it to have a score in the 90s. But, I know a hell of a lot of films in the 70s and 80s (Prestige, Place Beyond the Pines come to mind) that are great films. This doesn't worry me one bit if it stays in the 70 percentile...if it starts dipping lower though, that's another issue.

It really does....I hope the outcome is the same as TDKR...an epic awesome movie.

Oh and I keep seeing humorless, too serious, and too action packed as criticisms. It being serious and having a ton of action is probably the exact thing the audience is gonna praise it for lol so in a wierd way these negative reviews are actually good reviews.
On the side of praise from what I hear.

Amazing action? Check
Emotional and inspiring story? Check
Takes it's drama serious? Check
has an epic scale? Double check

I think we have ourselves the superman we've been waiting for...anyway time to go see the movie.

Darius wrote:Overall reviews don't mean very much and it's up to the viewers to determine what they feel....but seriously these reviews are annoying.

I mean I haven't seen this movie but is it seriously worse then iron man 3 which has a 78 percent on RT (note that RT rates prestige 76...really?). 72 percent? I hope It atleast stays at the mid 70's....I seriously doubt this movie is worse then that. (I think IM2 is actually rated higher? I struggle to believe that)

Also what's with the complaints about it having too much action? Is this movie's action being rejected because it dares to take itself serious? Is avengers nonstop action finale (which I enjoyed) only accepted because whedon filled his script with one liners and a ton of humor? Something doesn't add up when the complaints are about something other movies are praised for.

What the hell is wrong with this world? Lol
Well I'm gonna see which side I fall on very soon. Really excited for MOS and really annoyed at some of this wierd hypocritical criticism. Feels like TDKR all over again.

Let's not rationalize too much now. Too much action sometimes damages character development, especially when the action itself isn't a method of development for the themes and characters. This is their complaint that explains the majority of your post. Conversely, and believe me when I say I'm not one to sit around defending Avengers day and night, The Avengers finale develops almost all the characters throughout the action. Additionally, critics review films based on how closely they master what they're setting out to do. In this way, a 3/4 for one film could very well sit miles above a 3.5/4 for a different kind of film. This is a method of reviewing Ebert had constantly defended. Lastly, this is nothing like The Dark Knight Rises. Rises was, and still stands to be, critically acclaimed to an incredibly rare degree for a blockbuster, much less one so ambitious and so much room to fail. As discussed on this site many times, Rises has about the same critical reception as Inception, which has been hailed as a masterpiece by many.

Reviews matter for a lot of reasons, but they do right now because they adjust how objectively likely it is for a film to fail or succeed to audiences. My expectations still run high, but that is due to the nature of their criticisms. Many critics attack the film for misinterpretting Superman. That may be true, but a reinvention can't be a terrible thing when Superman's always alienated many comic and movie fans, myself included.


-Vader

I'm super fine with the movie being humorless. I'm so pissed by the stupid one liners and the comic relief characters.
This is one of the many reasons why I enjoy Nolan movies. He doesn't do that!!!!
Pumped for the movie!!!

Mahiya_Borden wrote:I'm super fine with the movie being humorless. I'm so pissed by the stupid one liners and the comic relief characters.
This is one of the many reasons why I enjoy Nolan movies. He doesn't do that!!!!
Pumped for the movie!!!

Christopher Nolan is notorious for being one of those "unintentionally funny" writers

Mahiya_Borden wrote:I'm super fine with the movie being humorless. I'm so pissed by the stupid one liners and the comic relief characters.
This is one of the many reasons why I enjoy Nolan movies. He doesn't do that!!!!

Yeah... Let's be fair here. Humour, like almost any element in a film, is a tool that can be used well or not.

Nolan knows how to write a serious story very well (and yet I wouldn't say his films are completely devoid of humour, though such is sometimes a quite dark variant), but that doesn't mean all serious stories are inherently superior to the humorous ones. It's the job of the director to determine whether humour or seriousness improve or harm the narrative.

didich wrote:

Mahiya_Borden wrote:I'm super fine with the movie being humorless. I'm so pissed by the stupid one liners and the comic relief characters.
This is one of the many reasons why I enjoy Nolan movies. He doesn't do that!!!!

Yeah... Let's be fair here. Humour, like almost any element in a film, is a tool that can be used well or not.

Nolan knows how to write a serious story very well (and yet I wouldn't say his films are completely devoid of humour, though such is sometimes a quite dark variant), but that doesn't mean all serious stories are inherently superior to the humorous ones. It's the job of the director to determine whether humour or seriousness improve or harm the narrative.

Not really
He is just the king of expository dialogue. And that's not an actual good thing.