 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, this post-release marketing gimmick to receive "photocopies of the many positive write-ups" sounds absurd! Where can I find information on this non-sense?
But which part is non-sense? (--And why is "non-sense" hyphenated?) Look at it from Touchstone's point of view. Suppose some portion of the public has the mistaken impression that your movie is "reviled." --A strongly negative term IMHO for a movie which received overwhelmingly positive critical reception from the mainstream press, to say nothing of its seven Oscar nominations. This next part is kind of far-fetched, but: suppose there's even a person still spreading this mistaken, unsupported impression a whole twenty-three years after the theatrical release (twenty-two years after the film won three of its seven Oscar nominations), through something called "the internet." He won't say WHO reviled it (just not him) but he states casually and confidently that it was reviled, as if that were a commonly-known fact.
Movie marketing executives know that there is no more valuable and powerful a marketing device than positive word-of-mouth. No amount of advertising can match it. Yet, somehow, "out there" the impression exists that your film is "reviled" by some unspecified entity somewhere. What more practical response could there be than to send additional posters to theaters, informing the public that in fact your film was very positively reviewed and, for those interested in facts, offering to mail a free envelope of photocopies of these positive reviews. Most people won't bother to request such "proof," and for the small number of film-school-nerds who do, the postage will be negligible and the labor actually free: movie publicity interns work for nothing.
DID YOU NOT TYPE:
. . . but Beatty's Dick Tracy does not have a long legacy of entertaining. It was reviled upon its release . . .
To reiterate (pardon the cliche), you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. If you're essentially "informing" us that the film was hated, but not giving us a single name of a critic or member of the moviegoing public who did hate it, and I still have my stack of positive press reviews which Touchstone mailed me in 1990, then I'm just informing you, as a matter of fact, it was NOT reviled. You don't revile it, and you still haven't informed us of anyone else who does, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More and more it seems as though this film was aimed at, and is being embraced by, the TRANSFORMERS crowd.
Those films made ENORMOUS AMOUNTS of money worldwide and in the US.
The more discriminating audience that loves THE DARK KNIGHT and even the original SUPERMAN is sol
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sig, this is one AWEsome line. So relevant to the world of today. Mind if I steal it from time to time???
May as well. I think I first heard it in some Harlan Ellison rant.
I apologize for derailing this thread. It was the "reviled" comment, and the casual matter-of-factness of it, which simply didn't match my own experience of the film, (or of the mail-in offer), which got to me, I guess.
When "Dick Tracy" came out I was just beginning to study film in college, and it affected me similarly to my first screening of "Citizen Kane." The material does not quite live up to the artistry in either case, yet both Beatty and Welles took such obvious delight in exploring the storytelling capabilities of the film medium, I've got a soft spot for both pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 24, 2013 - 12:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mstrox
(Member)
|
The first half, up through Lois and Superman's escapes back to Earth from the spaceship, I thought was really good. The brutal last hour of nonstop smashing (smashing restaurants, smashing helicopters, smashing stores, smashing Kryptonians, smashing humans, smashing skyscrapers), I could have done with far less of that.
My biggest problem with the movie was that Superman (and Zod, but partially Superman) demolished dozens of giant buildings - skyscrapers, parking garages, etc. Half of the whole Superman thing is making sure that people survive - catching the people falling off of buildings, etc. He doesn't typically demolish buildings atop of people. I understand that this would likely be the technical reality of such a fight, but no I did not care for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
More and more it seems as though this film was aimed at, and is being embraced by, the TRANSFORMERS crowd.
Those films made ENORMOUS AMOUNTS of money worldwide and in the US.
The more discriminating audience that loves THE DARK KNIGHT and even the original SUPERMAN is sol
bruce
You know it's possible to like all those films, right?
i like TRANSOFRMERS one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 24, 2013 - 1:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
I like Hook and Dick Tracy.
Dick Tracy more to be sure.
Dick Tracy is totally engrossing, hypnotic, sweet and musical and - well on and on, goodness through and through.
Hook is too long, but it is pretty good and a great score. It is massively produced, which probably hurt it to some degree, but impressive.
The best Peter Pan live action is PJ Hogan Peter Pan, wow that is a truly beautiful and sweet picture, you can feel the sadness of Peter wanting to love and be loved. This is a really good film.
Again, a lovely score by JN Howard.
Transformers 1 is by far the best of the pack, a decent picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 25, 2013 - 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dan Hobgood
(Member)
|
Overall I thought it was ok but my biggest issue was how repetative the action sequences were. Seriously, how many shots were there of Supes smashing a baddie into the ground or a building and vice versa? It actually got a little tedious after a while.
The other thing which really bothered me is the way Pa Kent died (don't read on if you think this might be a spoiler but it is pretty well established Supes lore that Pa Kent pegs it);
In Man of Steel his death is utterly meaningless. Ok, so he doesn't want Clarke to reveal his powers but seriously, would that really stop anyone from saving their own father? Especially when - as seen ad infinitum later in the battle between Supes and Zod, Clarke can move so quickly he is just a blur. So he could easily have snatched Pa Kent (and the bloody dog) from the twister and nobody would have known what happened. But the key issue for me is that, in Donner's movie, Pa Kent's death has an impact on Clarke - "all those powers, all those things I can do, and I still couldn't save him" whereas in Snyder's movie the death really serves no purpose at all.
Whole movie was a mess. Horrible, poorly-conceived and thought-out screenplay. Even the violence is contradictory, for goodness' sake!
In particular, the origin story is unnecessarily complicated, with Krypton looking like something out of a "Star War" prequel. Far too literal-minded, with no nuance, no artistry. It makes one even more fully appreciate the way Donner & Co. treated the subject in 1978. So visionary, so poetic.
Performances were generally good, although Shannon as Zod was at best a poor man's Terrance Stamp.
We should have known this project was doomed from the moment we saw two words associated with it: Zack Snyder.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I loved Man of Steel.It was easily the best Superman film ever made and i loved Zimmers score.I really dont get the haters, i cant get the main theme out of my head!
Most of the criticism of the film that i have read are just endless variations on ' IT DIDNT LOOK AND SOUND LIKE THE FILM MADE 35 YEARS AGO!!!! '
I loved the Reeve films when i was a kid but they are really dated now and Man Of Steel is a fresh new take on the marterial and i cant wait for the sequels!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of what I think has been said already, of course.
I liked Amy Adams more than her immediate predecessor in the role of Lois Lane.
There is a truly great film, a monumentally great film, in MAN OF STEEL, trying to get out. If the same movie were edited differently, it would be magnificent.
- They should have used more of the human-relationship scenes I'm sure they shot but omitted for time. The emotional payoffs in the film were somewhat shortchanged (though not as badly shortchanged as they were in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, imho). MAN OF STEEL could have had a huge emotional impact if only we had a better chance to care about the characters. As it was, the big moments we should have felt seemed a bit rushed. The characters were fantastic, but the emotional climaxes were not set up properly and allowed to land with any force.
- They should have left some of the cacophanous, full-blast action footage in the cutting room. Just the repetitive stuff that went on forever. Some is great, too much is too much.
- They should have given the film a brighter, more natural level of color saturation. And a lighter blue suit on Superman, with red trunks (it looks like he forgot to put them on).
- I would have liked a leitmotif score with melodic themes. Along with re-editing the film to leave in more human relationship scenes, a melodic score would have helped a lot at giving emotional power to the story climaxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
