Absolutely woeful
-
MagneticMonopole — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 03:08 PM)
I'm genuinely perplexed as to how you get hysterical from
"It is more or less shot for shot LTROI".
Because this is a crazed lie, period. It is not in any reasonable sense a shot for shot remake. Any claim to that effect is just pure lunacy.
If you really believe this and aren't just engaging in childish hyperbole to attack the second film, you are exactly like the crackpots who think they see Jesus in the mold on their walls.
Oh behave and stop being disingenuous, you know as well as I that in terms of film an homage is a tribute to an earlier film or collection of films.
You are the one being disingenuous, here. If Reeves really did consciously duplicate some scenes from the original out of admiration for what the other director did, that's still an example of homage.
MI is (in my opinion) a pointless remake when it is so similar to the original and that's basically all I've said.
No, you couldn't just say that. You had to lie, accusing it of being so close to the first adaptation that it is more or less a shot for shot duplicate. This is utter bullshit completely divorced from objective reality.
Both films adapt the same novel and that is the primary source of the similarities. Almost no one in America was ever going to see the Swedish version or read the book, so making an English language version serves the completely reasonable function of bringing the story to new audiences.
And guess what–the vast majority of critics loved the second try, making your negative assessment a mere fringe minority take. You are welcome to it, but other than lying about the film or making unreasonable claims that no one should have adapted it a second time, you offer no coherent reason for thinking Reeves dropped the ball. Indeed, as a critic you leave a lot to be desired. -
nemesis — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 03:20 PM)
You're boring me now, you're overly invested in this to the point that you've lost control.
I'm happy that you prefer the inferior remake.
This is the bottom line, one is a stunningly beautiful film, shot in a wonderful landscape and the other is a poor copy that betrays the source material with a glaring omission.
Now, jog on "cupcake" this conversation is over. -
MagneticMonopole — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 04:51 PM)
nemesis said...
You're boring me now, you're overly invested in this to the point that you've lost control.
I'm happy that you prefer the inferior remake.
This is the bottom line, one is a stunningly beautiful film, shot in a wonderful landscape and the other is a poor copy that betrays the source material with a glaring omission.
Now, jog on "cupcake" this conversation is over.
Again, you are welcome to your completely uninformed, out of touch, utterly fringe minority opinion. Too bad you have to make up lies to justify yourself. What a clown. -
MagneticMonopole — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 06:48 PM)
A dark superhero movie for the sake of it.
It was dark because the source material has been dark for literally decades, not just "for the sake of it". It is more faithful to the tone and mood you find in the best modern comic books and graphic novels than any other live action adaptation has ever been, and that's why, despite your hate, it is going to go down as a classic take on the character of Batman for decades to come. -
I'VE BEEN OAN THE LASH FER 5 WEEKS — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:19 PM)
There is nothing classic about this, sweetie. It's being panned and rightly so.
This is paint by numbers, cookie cutter dirge for the ignorant morons who know no better, laddie.
Thank you for talking to me -
I'VE BEEN OAN THE LASH FER 5 WEEKS — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:31 PM)
It has terrible reviews for a massive budget movie with so much anticipation and an elite cast.
Are you going to melt down and throw Nelson Muntz style pejoratives now like you normally do?
Thank you for talking to me -
MagneticMonopole — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:32 PM)
It has terrible reviews for a massive budget movie with so much anticipation and an elite cast.
I hate to break it too you, cupcake, but most filmmakers would kill to get the kind of critical reception this one is getting. You are simply out of touch. -
I'VE BEEN OAN THE LASH FER 5 WEEKS — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:34 PM)
I'm a filmmaker myself and considered the main movie expert this website has. I was taught by J Neil Schulman himself.
I'm sorry, sugar, but this monstrosity has been panned and you need to accept this.
Thank you for talking to me -
-
MagneticMonopole — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:52 PM)
That I'm a filmmaker or that I'm the main movie expert here?
No one as dumb as you is ever going to be an expert in anything let alone a filmmaker who makes anything other than something you upload on YT with your iPhone. So yeah, I dispute both claims as utter bullshit. -
I'VE BEEN OAN THE LASH FER 5 WEEKS — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:54 PM)
No one as dumb as you is ever going to be an expert in anything let alone a filmmaker who makes anything other than something you upload on YT with your iPhone.
You ok there m8?
Thank you for talking to me -
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(April 04, 2022 05:17 AM)
most filmmakers would kill to get the kind of critical reception this one is getting. You are simply out of touch.
F<>k you're such an out of touch and brainwashed Moronpole! You do realize these critics have been bought off.
This was the most drawn out, lifeless, ponderous and B O R I N G piece of dreck to grace the DC world.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
degree7 — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 06:53 PM)
I hated Nolan’s Batman movies. No idea what people saw in them, they seemed excessively mediocre to me. Probably won’t see this one just because we’ve been overdosed on Batman and comic book media for the past couple decades, and Twilight Boy just isn’t a very good actor.