tonytr87

Erm no. Smaller indies don't have trailers in front of big movies. I see plenty of TV ads for indie films if they're expanding, like Mud or The Bling Ring.

He was lucky. McCarthy on the other hand is officially a draw.

Do you know anybody that pays attention to commercials? Because I don't. Especially with TiVo.

I've always maintained that TV advertising plays a relatively small role in getting people into theaters. Except for the Super Bowl. That's the only time people give a shit about commercials.

Magic Mike is the only one he "opened." The Vow had a perfect release date and 21 Jump Street had brand recognition, a funny trailer, and good WOM.

How was the marketing bad for WHD? I saw the trailer with nearly every movie so far this summer. I really think people use "bad marketing" as a crutch when trying to explain away disappointing performances.

It's been a somewhat underwhelming summer for me: This is the End - A Star Trek Into Darkness - A- World War Z - B Iron Man 3 - B The Great Gatsby - B- Man of Steel - B- Furious 6 - C+ The Hangover 3 - C After Earth - C Only This is the End and Trek lived up to or exceeded my expectations.

He's brilliant in The Social Network.

Even with a good increase it won't make more than 42m for the weekend.

So MOS is looking at a 65% drop?

No. Donner Luthor is lame. Comics Luthor is one of the greatest villians next to Joker.

It's not mindless. It TRIES to be deep, but it fails.

They were constantly punching each other through buildings. Over and over.

The anti-Lindelof sentiment certainly is overdone. Prometheus isn't bad and Lost is a classic series.

Jack was almost playing himself. He's top 10 but definitely not #1. 1. Ledger 2. McKellen 3. Pfeiffer 4. Hardy 5. Dafoe 6. Nicholson 7. Hiddleston 8. Brian Cox 9. Stamp 10. Molina

If Superman fans are happy with MOS, then I feel sorry for Superman fans.

Returns had enough action. Action does not require punching.

It's not that. Watchmen and 300 are better than MOS and they're both fresh on RT.

I'm not a big fan of Thor and especially not Captain America and even I thought they were better than Man of Steel, and the latter was my most anticipated of the year. MOS rushes through Superman's character arc and falls flat on an emotional level. The last 45 mins of nothing but repetitive action hurts the movie.

Not a fan of actors playing roles in both the Marvel and DC universes.

Man of Steel: Fri 6:40 pm Sold out Trailers: Pacific Rim - chatter, teenagers behind us were already quoting along with "cancel the apocalypse" The Butler - silence The Lone Ranger - minor chatter, World War Z - silence Paranoia - silence Gravity - minor chatter Movie: B- I'll need to see it again before I form a concrete opinion, but this was definitely something of a disappointment. It's visually spectacular, and the action sequences are nice to look at, but overall the movie lacked the nuance, heart, and character work that makes a true epic. Yes, the action was epic, but the film's approach to all of the different relationships at play left a lot to be desired. And even the fight scenes became repetitive after a while. Costner and Lane elevate their scenes, and Crowe does his best with the platitudinal dialogue he's given. Shannon has his moments, but for the most part he comes across as a pretty standard VILLAIN villain, mostly due to the writing. As for Cavill, he's hit and miss. More hit than miss, but whenever he's playing "noble" such as when he speaks to the military he comes off a little wooden. He's better in the more personal scenes and he certainly knows how to sell an emotional scream. Amy Adams and Laurence Fishburne give good even if their characters are woefully underdeveloped. Lois starts out well enough when they're establishing her personality, but from there she sort of becomes just Superman's tag-along. The transition from journalist/subject to romantic couple is rushed, rushed, rushed, and so is Clark's transition to becoming Superman. We've barely met the adult Clark before he's donning the suit and fighting Zod. Where's the arc? Scenes of him as a child learning lessons from his father do not count as an arc. Zimmer's score is haunting and emotional in the quieter moments, not so much when he's scoring the action scenes. The film is nonetheless entertaining, and I understand that they were trying to cover his origin without going into incredible detail because most people know it already, but those details are essential to making the audience care. It's also obvious that they were at least trying to inject emotion, powerful themes, and character development, but all three are lost or truncated amid the noise and a plot that never slows down to let anything breathe.

Good drops, but many of them will drop 50% or close to it this weekend.

Vaughn and Wilson seem content to collect paychecks the rest of their career. You'd think after a string of flops for the both of them they'd actively seek out good material.

Should've been the plot for this one. The problem is it resorts to tired "faceless killers stalk a family's house" cliches. I mean, how many of those have we seen in recent years?

It's apparently not very good. I don't understand why people want movies to do well regardless of their quality.