: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Quentin Black -> : (16/6/2011 11:32:44 AM)

What the hell is wrong with all the fan boys on these boards? Crying and lashing out at very petty things with absolutely no basis for your statements is just pathetic.

I've never been one to completely agree with Empire, personally I think they can be swayed all too easily by hype and the Hollywood mainstream. However I recognise that Empire is just the views of a committee of individuals and there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved, whether we agree or not.

The one thing I will say is that Empire have been fair with previous comic book outings. With a couple of exceptions all the recent comic book films were awarded three star reviews, ratings that actually go against the grain of the hype around them. Their reviews accurately reflect what these films are...fun and enjoyable to watch but flawed in terms of structure and film-making. If the film, like Thor, is slightly more impressive then it gets another star. If the film, like Wolverine and Green Hornet, is truly awful then it loses a star.

Yeah Kim Newman's review isn't the most articulate one I've read but have any of you considered that Green Lantern might just be that bad that it deserves two stars? How can any of you really be that surprised? If the repulsive designs, weak promotional material and dodgy effects weren't enough of an indicator surely the unanimously poor reviews from nearly every critic going should give you all a clue.

All the fan boys need to grow the hell up and stop being so petty so others can actually enjoy these forums.

http://www.theonion.com/video/green-lantern-to-fulfill-americas-wish-to-see-lant,20741/




Quentin Black -> RE: Ok, so let's go over the list: (16/6/2011 11:52:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gazz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

I agree....Ang Lee's Hulk was utter turd...


At least that was interesting and bold, TIH was just another generic blockbuster, a poorly made one.



Sorry to continue to be off topic (but still in the realm of comic books) but I agree and think Ang Lee's Hulk gets an awfully bad rap for simply putting character and substance first when people were just screaming out for "Hulk SMASH!". Though aspects of the film fell flat I never once got the impression that Ang Lee was on auto-pilot and never did he play the films into the hands of safety. It was a bold move and always interesting, unlike TIH.



Sorry this just caught my eye and I wanted to share this.

I have a strange relationship with Ang Lee's Hulk. As time goes by I'll start remembering the film through rose tinted lenses and start thinking that I misjudged it. Maybe the symbolism and characters were really powerful. Maybe it was really clever and ahead of it's time. Then I'll watch it again, which I did recently, and remember why I hate it.

I can't tell what's worse, Talbot spinning off screen mid explosion like he's from a 1960s Batman serial or the classic fights involving gamma poodles and Nick Nolte's mugshot poorly CGI-ed on to a giant bubble. Then you have Nick Nolte's overacting to compensate for lines like "It was as if she and the knife merged. You cannot imagine the unbearable finality of it." and Jennifer Connelly not knowing how to handle such gems as "Bruce, you were going to die. And I was standing there, helpless, knowing you were going to die!".To top off the cartoony effects and terrible script, the whole thing is stuffed full of ham-fisted symbolism that is a lot less subtle and clever than it would like to think it is.

I want to like it and I keep giving it chances but it keeps getting worse.




gregorro -> RE: : (16/6/2011 12:01:02 PM)

The problem I have with the review is that the critic simply hated the concept. Funny douche is given a magic ring which grants him unlimited power based on his will power. Well, that is how it all began for this character. And the fact that the film is filled with CGI should not be a surprise, as a lot of what happens in the comic book would be impossible to achieve on film if it were not for CGI. So I really don't understand the flippant attitude towards this film, when it is what it is, and never claimed to be anything else.

Films are meant to entertain you, and he never really answers the question. Was he entertained?
After all, this was never going to be a serious movie like The Dark Knight (which I love), but instead chose the fun route, and the trailers advertised it as such. So why are people surprised?

People need to give this a chance, origin movies are always hard to pull off.




Ralancian -> RE: : (16/6/2011 12:04:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

What the hell is wrong with all the fan boys on these boards? Crying and lashing out at very petty things with absolutely no basis for your statements is just pathetic.

I've never been one to completely agree with Empire, personally I think they can be swayed all too easily by hype and the Hollywood mainstream. However I recognise that Empire is just the views of a committee of individuals and there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved, whether we agree or not.

The one thing I will say is that Empire have been fair with previous comic book outings. With a couple of exceptions all the recent comic book films were awarded three star reviews, ratings that actually go against the grain of the hype around them. Their reviews accurately reflect what these films are...fun and enjoyable to watch but flawed in terms of structure and film-making. If the film, like Thor, is slightly more impressive then it gets another star. If the film, like Wolverine and Green Hornet, is truly awful then it loses a star.

Yeah Kim Newman's review isn't the most articulate one I've read but have any of you considered that Green Lantern might just be that bad that it deserves two stars? How can any of you really be that surprised? If the repulsive designs, weak promotional material and dodgy effects weren't enough of an indicator surely the unanimously poor reviews from nearly every critic going should give you all a clue.

All the fan boys need to grow the hell up and stop being so petty so others can actually enjoy these forums.

http://www.theonion.com/video/green-lantern-to-fulfill-americas-wish-to-see-lant,20741/

All the critics panned Sucker Punch and I thought that was a work of real intelligence that got horribly mis-represented and marketed. That said my views are usually in line with Empire's it's why I read the reviews I do use my own judgement when trying to work out what they thought were the flaws. They've been a little off the mark recently with my view though Thor 4 stars probably about right although I wouldn't say it was that good then the film wasn't decidedly average either. X-Men First Class actually very good a tiny bit flawed that stop be saying amazing but better than Thor in my opinion. I already said my vast disagreement about Sucker Punch (yes I know most people disagree with me).

My problem with Newman's review isn't he disliked the film he's entitled to that opinion and I haven't seen it yet but the fact he doesn't explain why he disliked it in any manner that I can understand.


On unrelated note it's nice to see people appreciate Ang Lee's Hulk which I thought was trying pretty well and while it fails miserably in the final act was pretty good elsewhere. TIH well it was Hulk SMASH! that's all I can say about it nothing particularly great or rubbish about it at all just average.




The Dude01 -> Crap movie for a crap superhero (16/6/2011 12:32:05 PM)

This is what you get when you try to make a movie about one of the most cliche and one dimensional characters in comics. And Geoff Johns source material they based this movie on is vastly overrated. The problems (bland lead character, corny dialogue, unbalanced tone) are all typical of Geoff Johns' Green Lantern comics.




Jasper_29 -> RE: Crap movie for a crap superhero (16/6/2011 1:00:45 PM)

Martin Campbell's movies range from good (Mask of Zorro) to excellent (GoldenEye, Casino Royale) to utter garbage (Vertical Limit). This one falls into the latter category.




some_film_guy -> To be fair.. (16/6/2011 1:02:10 PM)

... is anyone surprised by the low scores this film is getting? Maybe this is why Ryan Reynolds has been a little unenthusiastic in the press interviews I have heard him do.. he knows it's going to get panned.. Still, probably looks nice on the screen with the VFX :)




UTB -> RE: To be fair.. (16/6/2011 1:08:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: some_film_guy

... is anyone surprised by the low scores this film is getting?



Not really... I saw the trailer.




clownfoot -> RE: To be fair.. (16/6/2011 1:25:31 PM)

So, I caught this at the special screening in Leicester Square last night. Went in with fairly low expectations thinking it was likely to be a complete disaster (memories of Mission to Mars and the pain of sitting through that reared it's ugly head) but it was actually quite fun. Sure it has numerous flaws - bird from Gossip Girl is woefully miscast (a fighter pilot, really?) and completely wooden, the score is complete shite, some of the CGI is spectacularly wanky (the scene with the helicopter - oh dear) and the big bad is a little bit wafty, but it's kinda saved by Reynolds being Reynolds, a few chuckles to be had along the way, Mark Strong really getting it, Tim Robbins hamming it up a good 'un, some decent action and a universe that is rather compelling (I'm new to the Green Lantern so the backstory of their order I found pretty intriguing). Certainly watchable and comes across more like a B-Movie summer blockbluster; poorly made bobbins that somehow just works. Yet, against other comic-book movies it only really out does Daredevil (which is proper awful, so no great surprises there) and considering the amount of money Warner Brothers have thrown the Green lanterns way, perhaps 'watchable' and 'fun' isn't quite the justification they require...  




burtbondy -> WHEELER (16/6/2011 1:36:28 PM)

Such a move should't require a debate.Dont let Newmans review rule the roost. Watch it, forget about it and move on.




Ralancian -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 1:45:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot

quote:

ORIGINAL: albumental

I'm sorry but that review was utterly incomprehensible.

"Like the movies’ Peter Parker or Tony Stark — and unlike the comics’ straighter-arrow Hal Jordan — Reynolds does panicky comedy schtick to delay hard-to-sell oath-reciting heroism. "

What?


To be fair, I think Kim only saw it at last nights screening (well he was there), so the review probably hasn't been properly edited yet...
Wait a second...last night? This review was up yesterday well before the evening! So either he hated the movie so much he saw it twice, or something fishy is going on here.




clownfoot -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 1:52:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralancian


quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot

quote:

ORIGINAL: albumental

I'm sorry but that review was utterly incomprehensible.

"Like the movies' Peter Parker or Tony Stark — and unlike the comics' straighter-arrow Hal Jordan — Reynolds does panicky comedy schtick to delay hard-to-sell oath-reciting heroism. "

What?


To be fair, I think Kim only saw it at last nights screening (well he was there), so the review probably hasn't been properly edited yet...
Wait a second...last night? This review was up yesterday well before the evening! So either he hated the movie so much he saw it twice, or something fishy is going on here.


Hmm, perhaps there was a previous press screening and he went to see it a second time to wrestle with whether it's actually a two or three star movie.




Emyr Thy King -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 1:53:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I'm not sure I understand the first post - the quote is in perfect English? 


You what? No it's not, it's clunky.

"Reynolds does panicky comedy schtick to delay hard-to-sell oath-reciting heroism"

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
but one that also gives strong nods to the context of where Green Lantern stands in the superhero world and where this particular version stands in the Green Lantern world. .


For a film review, such detail to me is superfluous. Unfortunately, the review doesn't elucidate upon the finer detail of the film. There's isn't much if any mention of the script, cinematography, special effects, directing or the pacing. I think he gives a very brief mention to the characters but that's it. A disappointing read as I've read some very good reviews by Empire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aticus

What's with all the reviewing of the review?


Read here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire Admin

Post your comments on this article


quote:

People have too much time on their hands. Film students presumably. I liked the review and I like Kim (based on his reviews and things, I have never met him (though I would like to one day)).

Not sure I will watch the movie, will probably wait for the DVD.


What's your excuse being here, then?

What's with the excessive parentheses?

I'll state my opinion (but I should include something here just so people don't misunderstand me ((again I need to explain further for some reason)) (((indecisive....I feel like taking up more word-space)))).

I don't see why it's relevant to state that you'd like to meet Kim Newman either.

The problem is the reviews are typically posted a few days before the general release of the film. Not all of us are blessed with the opportunity to go to press screenings. So until the film is on release to the wider public, there isn't much we can comment on other than the review. I don't mind someone de-constructing a review as long as it's constructive and they don't become personal. I'm not an ardent supporter of Kim Newman's reviews because he seems to write very basic and general reviews. Without really expanding on anything. I'm not seeking to be pernicious here, just simply sharing my disappointment.

Just wait for adambatman82's review. He always does a thorough and efficient job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: burtbondy

Such a move should't require a debate.Dont let Newmans review rule the roost. Watch it, forget about it and move on.


If the debate is about more than just the film then yes it is worth it. Besides, we can decide whether something's worth a debate or not.




burtbondy -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 2:56:28 PM)

I dont think you should make decisions for anybody seeing as you cant put a sentence together.




Emyr Thy King -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 3:10:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: burtbondy

I dont think you should make decisions for anybody seeing as you cant put a sentence together.


Firstly, before advising me on English comprehension son, you may want to add the odd punctuation there: "don't", "can't". Secondly, I'm not making decisions for anyone else. I'm simply replying to the points others have made, and admittedly adding my own. Which is considerably better than telling others "Such a move should't require a debate.Dont let Newmans review rule the roost. Watch it, forget about it and move on."

There we are, I've given you a few sentences to mull over. [;)]




elab49 -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 3:22:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire Admin

Post your comments on this article




Semantics and pedantry - this is a review and discussion thread for the film. And once we get Empire to change this unfortunately abused wording it will no longer act as an excuse for this happening each and everytime there's a new 'big' film.

And which requires us to repeat - if anyone wishes to complain about Empires review and scoring then take it to the Empire Online/Magazine sub-forums. If there is no existing thread (and there certainly is for complaints about ratings) then feel free to start one.

I know it isn't just you Emyr and this isn't directed at you. But this being repeated in review thread after review thread is unfair to those who wish to use this thread for the purpose it exists - discussion  of the film.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 3:30:02 PM)

Embrace the summer blockbuster madness Elab!

Embrace it!




elab49 -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 3:36:23 PM)

Thanks to Gimli's latest picture quiz I now have some idea of what devastation is still to come. [&:]




Emyr Thy King -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 3:36:45 PM)

Hello elab49,

Thanks for taking the time to address the point. It's strange, on the review article the bit that invites one to respond is labelled "write your review", then here it's different. So people who go staight to the forums will of course only see the latter. I know the "complaints/improvements" section is where I say such a thing, but it's worth a mention here anyway.

Furthermore, for me it would be sad if no-one were longer allowed to at least appraise a review. To me this enriches a discussion and perhaps informs a part of one's expectation of a film prior to seeing it? Many here come to read these reviews so they can get the most accurate possible précis of the film. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least critique the review. As long as there's no malice or liberlous remarks involved. Which I do loathe and must stop. I think the problem is not a poster challenging the review per-se but rather the hostile and vitriolic bilge that some come out with. It's this that should be vehemently challenged. Not actual genuine criticisms of a review which are perfectly valid within the scope of discussion for the film.

Here's the bugbear for me. The film is not due for general release to the public until tomorrow. Yet, an Empire review has been posted prior to general release. One which solicits opinion. Do you not see a conflict there?




elab49 -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 3:52:12 PM)

quote:

Here's the bugbear for me. The film is not due for general release to the public until tomorrow. Yet, an Empire review has been posted prior to general release. One which solicits opinion. Do you not see a conflict there?


Absolutely, and we completely agree with you. We have previously discussed locking these threads until general release to ensure the discussion is for the film. Since the rule change in Movie Musings the thread here is the primary thread for discussion of the actual film and we've had complaints in the past from people having to trawl through pages of argument about the review to get to that (was it Inception that started about 12 pages in? [:D]).

The problem, though, is that not all of our posters are restricted to UK general release dates - overseas posters and those seeing films at festivals, eg, should be able to discuss films as well so it didn't seem fair to do the lock thing. E.g. take a film like Stakeland - I saw it at the GFF in Feb and I think it was on at the Belfast festival too - but it was only on general release this week. And while I could live with it being locked for stuff like that, I think when it comes to overseas Empire posters it's a little more unfair.

In general I'm not really talking about people saying that they agree/disagree with a review and where that conflict lies - but that just isn't what's happening. We get pages complaining about the English or the ranking from people who've never seen the film. So they have no basis to criticise the actual opinion. And, within reason, disputing the actual opinion from an informed basis has never been the problem. It's pages of people taking uninformed pops and, if the review has 4 or 5 stars, making libellous accusations against Empire.

E.g. I disagree to an extent with a couple of things Newman said in the review of Stakeland (although not the score) but that was specific to comments re the film and based on my take of the film. Just as people will do with each other's reviews in here. That's not a problem. Complaining because Kim Newman exists and writes? That kind of thing has no place in here. Discussing the standard of English in reviews really doesn't contribute to the discussion of the film either - but is a valid topic for discussion content of the Magazine or Online articles, and it has been discussed in there before along with the issue of spoilers in reviews and the star system generally.

In short (sorry for the ramble) - I think there is a distinction between disputing the opinion of the film presented in the review and what we see in these threads.  




jonathanogg -> Green Lantern (16/6/2011 3:53:20 PM)

One other person here mentions it but it is strange that loads of people saw Kim Newman at Wednesday nights screening and yet the review was posted in the morning of the same day.
I sat a few rows behind him by the way and for the record i thought the film was decent. Its a good origins story with a few flaws but plenty of promise for a sequel.

I know it seems paranoid to point this out, but it would be good to have this explained because this film apparently had very few press screenings to avoid bad reviews (which is a topic for another day) so I don't know when he would have seen it first to get the information for this review. Also if he thought it was shit the first time, so why go a second time? Someone does mention that he may have gone again to make up his mind, but he had already posted the review by then and I have never seen Empire change an already posted review.

I know its trivial and largely unimportant but I am curious now.

cheers
John




Emyr Thy King -> RE: Green Lantern (16/6/2011 4:02:44 PM)

Thanks for addressing those points Elab49. I hadn't thought about overseas posters nor films doing the rounds in festivals and so forth. Still, as it's a British publication and the bulk of the readership are based in the U.K. You have a whole host of readers who can only go on a review to get a taste of a film. So there's a dichotomy here! Although I agree it would be unfair on those who can contribute with an informed opinion, especially if it differs from the Empire review itself. I'll think more carefully in future where I'll post any 'indictments' of a review.




clownfoot -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 4:16:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The problem, though, is that not all of our posters are restricted to UK general release dates - overseas posters and those seeing films at festivals, lucky gits eg, should be able to discuss films as well so it didn't seem fair to do the lock thing.


[:D]




elab49 -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 4:19:22 PM)

O/T The prevalence of early release dates for Asian cinema in New Zealand has long been a bugbear[>:]




Darth Marenghi -> RE: Green Lantern (16/6/2011 4:34:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonathanogg

One other person here mentions it but it is strange that loads of people saw Kim Newman at Wednesday nights screening and yet the review was posted in the morning of the same day.



Kim saw the film twice yesterday, John.




jonathanogg -> RE: Green Lantern (16/6/2011 4:42:45 PM)

Fair enough Darth Merenghi, he must have wrote the review bloody fast as it was up quite early yesterday. It must have been 10/11am or there abouts when I think I read it. So now i am curious what time the first screening actually was lol. But I guess that all explains some of the clumsy sentences some of the other people mention within the review.

thanks mate
John




burtbondy -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 5:07:54 PM)

You're giving people a grammer lesson now?  The characteristic of a genuine heroism is destruction of opponent/obstacle or surrender. Who said that? I did. Mull over that for yourself.




NunianVonFuch -> RE: What the...? (16/6/2011 5:41:15 PM)

Kim Newman was far too kind on the film, I saw it last night and it's one of the worst films I've ever seen. Dull, cliched, predictable, lifeless characters, plotholes everywhere, terrible 3D (things that should have depth appearing as flat objects, like the constructs), needless exposition explaining things we've just seen happen onscreen, terrible enemies that just aren't formidable at all and what's with the needless nepotism? Each of the 3 key characters, The Hero, The Villain and The Girlfriend are told at various points that they only have their jobs because of their fathers. Do they want us to like these people at all? One of the best parts was cribbed from another better superhero movie:

<Spoilers>
The robotic airplanes he dogfights with at the start are defeated the same way as at the end of Iron Man - Hero flies to sky/space so that engines cut out.
<Spoiler End>

About the only positive thing I can take from this film is that Joel Schumacher can finally rest easy for The Green Lantern is far worse than Batman and Robin.




Emyr Thy King -> all you bases are belong to us (16/6/2011 6:17:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: burtbondy

You're giving people a grammar lesson now?  The characteristic of a genuine heroism is destruction of opponent/obstacle or surrender. Who said that? I did. Mull over that for yourself.


In addition to a spelling one by the looks of it. No, it's just you son, since you got it into your head that I couldn't "put a sentence together". No need to mull over it, when it comes to words; I can already tell you have the deft touch of a rhino on walkabout with a tranq up its arse




Rob -> RE: all you bases are belong to us (17/6/2011 12:20:37 PM)

So has anyone seen this and enjoyed it yet? I mean members of the movie going public / empire forumites not critics.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625