man of steel understands superman...for the most part.
lets get that out of the way. gunn fans need to hold thy horses.
moments like clark destroying someones truck is not out of character lol.clark himself actually is a pretty solid character overall, his journey to becoming a hero is interesting and you can definitly see how he's kinda struggling with what he is but ends up embracing it.
but what i think also holds all of that back is that no i do not think henry cavill is that good of an actor, i have nothing against him, i really like him in MI fallout but he's not that great in his other films imo including this one.
that sucks because he definitly looks the part.
zod i think is a really good villain, he's menacing and how he justifies his ideology is fascinating. but and yes there is another but, the other characters don't do it for me. ma and pa kent are decent, they aren't major characters and don't get huge focus but they serve their purpose well enough.
lois lane on the other hand....i don't think she has good chemistry with clark, i don't think she is a terrible character but ultimately i don't feel like i knew her as a person that much. she spends allot of time either doing something with superman or something related to superman and yes she is a character related to superman, she is her love interest but that shouldn't mean that all of her scenes have to connect to superman in some way.
overall the daily planet doesn't get much focus in the first two acts, in the third act they kinda do ig with perry white played by laurence fishburne and two other employees try to escape the collatoral damage which is trying to create tension and it kinda falls flat for me because idk these people.the cinematography for the film is half of the time good but then you have scenes that are to desaturated which looks hideous which is hillarious because you also have scenes that look amazing aswell.
overall i think they hadn't really found the balance between snyders usual style and the look of a comic book.
and btw it shouldn't directly look like a comic book but you also don''t have to de-saturate it to the point it looks dry like my skin after a shower.like i said earlier it does understand superman as a character but i also scratch my head at some minor decisions like him just.....not stoping that tank that in turn destroys a building. like that moment genuinely felt like they just wanted superman to looks cool and badass.
overall is this a good film? almost i would say but it just has allot of things holding it back but i also think it understood superman for the most part its just some little things don't make sense.
is snyder our savior? no. is gunn gonna be the superman savior? idk but i don't think superman ever needed saving(at least creatively with zack)
gunn fans should shut the fuck up, you can heavily dislike this film or heavily like it but calling it the abomination of superman films and that its not really superman is horse crap.
i give it a lower rating then last time but i also apreciate it more and got more out of it then last time if that makes sense.(also watch my new film https://boxd.it/VbxI )
Recently Reviewed
Idk what it was this time but yeah no I think this is my favorite nicolas cage film. It qeustion what love is, anxieties as a writer and just an all around best nic cage performance put to screen.
Every character is engaging to follow and i think what makes this film so special is timed way to reach the audience and how relationship and self love means to us as people.
Just like better man, micheal Gracey's direction is the only good thing about this piece of filth.
The characters weren't good, I barely knew any of the performers, I knew barely any of the other characters aswell which makes every emotional moment the funniest thing ever.
The cinematography is fine but nothing stands out.
The music is also fine, I didn't like or dislike any musical numbers even tho they are all kinda bland.
Everyone does a decent job but not a single actor stands out, they all blend in with how oke all of the performances are.(Watch my newest film shadows scare me on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/VbxI )
The producers doesn't always land with its jokes and the characters aren't always easy to root for but gene wilders and zero mostel are easily the best part about this film and without them this film wouldn't have succeeded as well as it did. They have great chemistry aswell great line delivery.
bottle rocket is the feature length debut of wes anderson.
it doesn't heavily feature what would become staples of his latest work, it does in small doses but it more or less looks like a regular film.
and actually i love the cinematography in this film, the composition is not always amazing but the colors and location make this film have a warm vibe to it. the characters are oke but are well played, luke and owen wilson play their parts pretty good and robert musgrave is decent.
he only ever played a big role in this film and then sort of did nothing else as important or good. i wonder what happened.(also watch my newest film https://boxd.it/VbxI )
Barbarian is still really cool and good.
The cinematography is amazing imo and some great shots that perfectly set up the tone of specific scenes.
Georgina Campbell, Justin long and for as little as he is in it, bill skarsgard all amazing in the roles and i like specifically justin long because his character is not some surface level dickhead, he's a wannabe good guy that only wants to make himself feel better. He's not a good person and while he states in a speech that he maybe is, he doesn't ultimately care and its just in his nature.( also watch my newest film shadows scare me on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/VbxI
https://youtu.be/9RrlyH2CioY?si=lw8PRTgmxun__sgi<b> )</b>
Its interesting to see where film makers began and while wes andersons short version of bottle rocket is not amazing, it laid the foundation for his debute feature film which is cool to see.
(Also watch my newest film
https://youtu.be/9RrlyH2CioY?si=lw8PRTgmxun__sgi
shadows scare me on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/VbxI )
Just watch my newest movie instead.
It has more originality and creativity then this.https://boxd.it/VbxI
https://youtu.be/9RrlyH2CioY?si=lw8PRTgmxun__sgi(I can see why people would give this film a positive rating, it essentially follows almost every step the original animated film took....just with worse acting, visuals and overall lack of anything new. I'm not saying you can't like this but it's really obvious how allot of people, even when saying so, aren't immune to nostalgic remakes)
i don't enjoy adam sandler comedies that much but this wasn't entirely bad. its certainly better then the others i've watched but its still pretty mediocre.
(also watch my newest film https://boxd.it/VbxI )
Friendship is not perfect, its maybe a bit to slow for its own good allot of the times but other then that its a very funny film, a funny film about someones own lack of self awareness which leads to self destruction.
Tim Robinson and Paul rudd are great in they're respective roles and the jokes are mostly funny.
The story is kinda all over the place but it's not bad or anything.(Also watch My newest film shadows scare me on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/VbxI )
just rewatched the trailer and every shot shown is just a recreation of a shot in this film lol.
this film is perfect in my opinion and while some of its character models look outdated its still a visually pleasing film and jay baruchel plays hiccup very well. i also just find his voice very fitting for his character.now i wanna talk about the new remake a bit and just the disscusion on remakes as a whole. what is a good remake?
imo a good remake is something that embraces its roots while also bringing something new to the table.
there are more bad remakes then good ones but there are a few that are good, for example:
funny games.but why is funny games considered a good remake despite being a shot for shot recreation? from reviews i've read its because it actively wants you to watch the bloodshed and terror again before it pulls the rug from under you and calls you out again. the reason to recreate every little detail, every camera angel has a purpose.
now i can't speak on everything that happens in the how to train your dragon remake because i haven't seen it yet but the trailers show me the exact same film that was made in 2010, just in live action.'
and overall im just thinking: what is the point?
at least funny games seems to have a purpose behind it to be remade 10 years after the original. the original how to train your dragon was made in 2010 and im wondering, why are we remaking such relatively new films? you could do so much with remakes of like 1920 to 1940 films(which often then not, people still fumble that somehow)
but i want to give the new film a chance because i really love these films so im planning to watch it tommorow perhaps.(also watch my newest film https://boxd.it/VbxI )
the film is the perfect length.
its filled with dread, you don't know whats specifically wrong but there is something going on. nothing is explained but thats cool.
was it something supernatural or something made up by the human mind or a combination of the two?(also watch my new film https://boxd.it/9XU0h7 )
