Well put. To this day, I've still yet to read a legitimate complaint about MoS that can't be attributed to personal bias. As much as I enjoyed WW, I wished it was a little more provocative. Jenkins completely sidestepped why WW turned her back on humanity for 100 years.
Last edited by The Beast; 06-06-2017 at 10:27 AM.
Ohoh, MoS same ol' endless discussion INCOMING AGAIN!!
Hit the shelters people.
It's starting to become an annoyingly long till June 21st when the damn movie finally opens overhere
Thank you very much for that very useful definition but i was more wondering about what was the point you were trying to make with that question.
This doesn't give me much confidence. I actually I liked MoS. I liked the fact that Superman/Clark behaved like a human being and not like James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump. We live in a harsh and complex world and I would like to see a hero that deals with the world as it is.
I get nervous when I hear an American film being described as being humourous, because I find that more often than not, they are more silly than just funny (like the first Avengers film). My favourite SH/comic book films are Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Batman Begins, Logan and the Dark Knight Rises. How does WW stand up?
All I want to know is....Is there a Cut Scene in the Credits!? Cause darn it I still like to enjoy a Super Big Gulp with my bucket of Popcorn!
How are you defining 'behaved like a human being'. Cos that's pretty broad, given that humans have a tendency to all behave very, very differently. Sure, by that almost limitless definition, Clark did indeed act like a human in the movie. Unfortunately, the human he chose to act like was a broody numpty who looked at the world through the eyes of an emo teenager.
Most of the humour is derived between Diana and Steve's relationship, and in the earlier parts of the movie, from her 'fish out of water' status outside of Themyscira for the first time. Whilst this obviously isn't Logan dark, there's nothing about it that I'd label as inherently 'silly'. And when it deals with the bigger issues of good and evil, of war and peace, of human behaviour and choice, it does it in a thoughtful and mature manner.