• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Batman v. Superman RT Thread: like standing ovations in rain

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nafai1123

Banned
Thor 2 is not a bad movie, okay.

It's not a bad movie per-se, it's just mediocre and forgettable. I think I've seen it twice now and for the life of me I can barely remember what it was about.

I'll take a divisive, interestingly bad train wreck of a film over Thor 2 any day.
 

icespide

Banned
It's not a bad movie per-se, it's just mediocre and forgettable. I think I've seen it twice now and for the life of me I can barely remember what it was about.

I'll take a divisive, interestingly bad train wreck of a film over Thor 2 any day.

Kat Dennings am cry
 

Fliesen

Member
Just watched the movie, went in with an open mind.
Here's a few, spoiler free, thoughts

* The noticeable bad editing made it feel really disjointed. Not only does it cut from scenes with dramatically different tone; there's also seemingly random continuity across some cuts.

* There was no real chemistry between the characters. I wonder if anyone actually had a good time making the movie. The only 'chemistry' was Batman's disdain for Superman.

* Affleck was a great angry batman. And boy, is he buff. Irons was a great Alfred.
* Eisenberg felt like Joker meets Riddler meets rich kid.
* I simply can't seem to like Cavill's portrayal Superman. If he's not arrogant he's kinda angsty. Superman should be a beacon of positivity - something he could still be, even in an otherwise 'dark' movie.

* There were scenes that were so obviously shoved in just to tease the Justice League movie. Shoved in in ways that it almost broke the fourth wall

* Girlfriend and myself, we couldn't have rolled our eyes harder when the movie went back Man-of-Steel mode, spectacle for spectacle's sake, with no perceivable stakes whatsoever.
 
Just another dinosaur on GAF.

you rang?

That's a quick impression, not a review.

Are you saying all those one word twitter comments/reactions are reviews too?

Again, how aren't they?

Are people not critically appraising the shit they just consumed?

A "review" doesn't have to be a 300 word published piece broken into paragraphs and spell-checked.

Seriously, how many people currently posting at this forum that is almost 100% made up of opinions on the varying quality of pop-culture entertainments in multiple forms don't recognize that they're essentially a gathering of amateur (and even a few professional) critics?

That's what we mostly do here. We share our opinions on things we watched/read/played/listened to. We review shit.
 

Raptor

Member
Im reading it has editing issues, again with this shit?

MoS biggest issue along with the script was that and they didnt bothered to hire a competent editor for fucks sakes?

Jeez.
 

Schnozberry

Member
I wouldn't say 90%, but yea a couple of them are very mediocre (Iron Man 3, Captain America and AoU stand out to me).

Most of them are mediocre. Winter Soldier and Guardians are the only two that really stand out as being good films. Even the first Avengers movie is really only made memorable by Tom Hiddleston's above average villainy. The rest is entirely forgettable.
 
DerZuhälter;199047248 said:
The intermisson was a german thing. They cut in the middle of movies longer than 120 minutes to sell icecream.
Detailed impressions later. On the phone right now

Man, I wish they did that here.
 
Just watched the movie, went in with an open mind.
Here's a few, spoiler free, thoughts

* The noticeable bad editing made it feel really disjointed. Not only does it cut from scenes with dramatically different tone; there's also seemingly random continuity across some cuts.


* There was no real chemistry between the characters. I wonder if anyone actually had a good time making the movie. The only 'chemistry' was Batman's disdain for Superman.

* Affleck was a great angry batman. And boy, is he buff. Irons was a great Alfred.
* Eisenberg felt like Joker meets Riddler meets rich kid.
* I simply can't seem to like Cavill's portrayal Superman. If he's not arrogant he's kinda angsty. Superman should be a beacon of positivity - something he could still be, even in an otherwise 'dark' movie.

* There were scenes that were so obviously shoved in just to tease the Justice League movie. Shoved in in ways that it almost broke the fourth wall

* Girlfriend and myself, we couldn't have rolled our eyes harder when the movie went back Man-of-Steel mode, spectacle for spectacle's sake, with no perceivable stakes whatsoever.
Does Snyder work with a particular editor because this has been a problem in a lot of his movies. I know that I wasn't the only one in my screening that noticed how badly MoS was butchered but I thought maybe it was more glaring since I used to be an editor.

Sounds like the problem is getting worse film to film based on your observation.
 
Does Snyder work with a particular editor because this has been a problem in a lot of his movies. I know that I wasn't the only one in my screening that noticed how badly MoS was butchered but I thought maybe it was more glaring since I used to be an editor.

Sounds like the problem is getting worse film to film based on your observation.

Apparently both this and MoS had the same editor.
 

Alienous

Member
Just watched the movie, went in with an open mind.
Here's a few, spoiler free, thoughts

* The noticeable bad editing made it feel really disjointed. Not only does it cut from scenes with dramatically different tone; there's also seemingly random continuity across some cuts.

* There was no real chemistry between the characters. I wonder if anyone actually had a good time making the movie. The only 'chemistry' was Batman's disdain for Superman.

* Affleck was a great angry batman. And boy, is he buff. Irons was a great Alfred.
* Eisenberg felt like Joker meets Riddler meets rich kid.
* I simply can't seem to like Cavill's portrayal Superman. If he's not arrogant he's kinda angsty. Superman should be a beacon of positivity - something he could still be, even in an otherwise 'dark' movie.

* There were scenes that were so obviously shoved in just to tease the Justice League movie. Shoved in in ways that it almost broke the fourth wall

* Girlfriend and myself, we couldn't have rolled our eyes harder when the movie went back Man-of-Steel mode, spectacle for spectacle's sake, with no perceivable stakes whatsoever.

Funny you should say that.

Snyder finds a way.
 
Does Snyder work with a particular editor because this has been a problem in a lot of his movies. I know that I wasn't the only one in my screening that noticed how badly MoS was butchered but I thought maybe it was more glaring since I used to be an editor.

Sounds like the problem is getting worse film to film based on your observation.

Earlier a user posted it's the same editor from MoS, David Brenner, but not Snyder's other films.
 
Does Snyder work with a particular editor because this has been a problem in a lot of his movies. I know that I wasn't the only one in my screening that noticed how badly MoS was butchered but I thought maybe it was more glaring since I used to be an editor.

Sounds like the problem is getting worse film to film based on your observation.

The editor of MoS and BvS was David Brenner, who has not worked with Snyder otherwise.
 

Zzoram

Member
"Hollywood might get the wrong message from Deadpool"

A review mentioned this movie making an 8 year old kid cry within minutes.

I wonder, did they film this to be an R-rated movie then just trimmed back whatever bits were necessary to squeak into PG-13? Could that explain some of the disjointed and editing complaints?
 

Turrican2

Member
Watched it today in fact i just came out of the cinema 15 minutes ago.

- there is just too much stuff in the movie, should have made at least two movies out of it

- too many cheesy moments

- editing not good

- Super Woman was hot

- Ben Affleck suprised me in a good way (in a not so good movie)
 

kewlmyc

Member
But, that describes 90% of the MCU. Why Thor 2 gets singled out I'll never know,

I wouldn't say 90%, but the ones that are mediocre do get pointed out a lot (Iron Man 2 and 3, both Thor movies, AoU, CA: First Avenger). The rest stand out way more for various reason.
 
Watched it today in fact i just came out of the cinema 15 minutes ago.

- there is just too much stuff in the movie, should have made at least two movies out of it

- too many cheesy moments

- editing not good

- Super Woman was hot

- Ben Affleck suprised me in a good way (in a not so good movie)

Super Woman? You mean Wonder Woman?
 
I mean this is a guy who made Superman (who avoids killing though it's not as much of A Thing as it is with Batman) kill someone so it's not entirely surprising.

That said,
yeah, a Batman who kills without a shitload of hesitation and/or regret and angst is not Batman.
That pretty much makes the film a 0/10 right fucking there.

Are spoiler tags no longer required? C'mon seriously.
 

SRG01

Member
A review mentioned this movie making an 8 year old kid cry within minutes.

I wonder, did they film this to be an R-rated movie then just trimmed back whatever bits were necessary to squeak into PG-13? Could that explain some of the disjointed and editing complaints?

Is this really the case? My brother in law is bringing my four year old nephew to this movie... :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom