bluearth
Civilian
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 396
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 38
I just read Forbes' worst and best of 2013 films. Man of Steel of course was listed under the worst of 2013. But theres a couple of things that I noticed in the summary thats becoming something of a theme across most negative reviews.
For one, Superman is continually blamed for the destruction. It makes me wonder if people have even bothered to watch the film twice. I read another negative review last night that claimed the entire city was a wasteland with a 3 mile wide crater in the middle of it. Such hyperbole in negative reviews is not uncommon.
So I have a feeling in time people will come to appreciate Superman was not knocking down buildings with his fist and Metropolis is still intact and the Daily Planet and General ending scenes didnt take place 24 hours later. A really good youtuber made the point that Zack Snyder doesnt always tell you certain things but at times expects you to connect the dots in your head. Another filmmaker would have had a 6 months or 12 months later caption at the bottom of the screen during the ending, but Snyder overestimates the public's intelligence.
A real simple thing alot of people forgot about the Mark Waid review: He starts it out saying "It's not for me." This is a clear admission that his general dislike of the film was because it didnt suit his tastes. He wanted a Superman that spent time enjoying his powers, along with a general lighter, funner tone. So many people went into the theater expecting one thing, and got another.
Thus there was the disappointment which led to the negative glasses being put on. Its interesting that Man of Steel's 6.2 Rotten Tomatoes score should be enough to earn it a fresh rating like other films with the same rating, but instead it was given a rotten rating. Again, this can be attributed to people simply saying: It was good or OK, but not what I wanted: thumbs down.
The other complaint I keep seeing is the lack of dialogue between the characters. About 30 minutes into the film I realized it was intentionally being told like a comic book, with economical lines between the characters. For example, when Lois sees clark climbing the ice cliffs to the scout ship she says "Where are you going?" Its the simple, charming dialogue I could see ripped straight from a comic book. I think many people didnt realize this, and thus blasted the dialogue as being too simple etc
Even I myself required a second viewing to appreciate certain things, like the World Engine defenses. On first viewing I thought it was simple excess. On the 2nd viewing I saw it as it really was: a page ripped straight out of a comic book.
Despite being blasted by many for what they think is an attempt to be the Dark Knight, this film is loaded with campy comic book style moments and set pieces, something the Dark Knight trilogy did not have at all, perhaps largely due to a real comic book fan like Snyder being the director and not Nolan. The exaggerated dress of the Kryptonian counsel, and of course the World Engine defenses are spectacular camp which separate the film from the Dark Knight trilogy easily.
My point? Man of Steel is easily the most misunderstood film I can remember in quite some time. Does this mean critical and public opinion of the film will improve in time? I think so, but not to the point where it universally liked. Snyder requires the viewer to connect many dots, something modern audiences and critics arent too keen on doing.
I think it will end up being a cult classic.
For one, Superman is continually blamed for the destruction. It makes me wonder if people have even bothered to watch the film twice. I read another negative review last night that claimed the entire city was a wasteland with a 3 mile wide crater in the middle of it. Such hyperbole in negative reviews is not uncommon.
So I have a feeling in time people will come to appreciate Superman was not knocking down buildings with his fist and Metropolis is still intact and the Daily Planet and General ending scenes didnt take place 24 hours later. A really good youtuber made the point that Zack Snyder doesnt always tell you certain things but at times expects you to connect the dots in your head. Another filmmaker would have had a 6 months or 12 months later caption at the bottom of the screen during the ending, but Snyder overestimates the public's intelligence.
A real simple thing alot of people forgot about the Mark Waid review: He starts it out saying "It's not for me." This is a clear admission that his general dislike of the film was because it didnt suit his tastes. He wanted a Superman that spent time enjoying his powers, along with a general lighter, funner tone. So many people went into the theater expecting one thing, and got another.
Thus there was the disappointment which led to the negative glasses being put on. Its interesting that Man of Steel's 6.2 Rotten Tomatoes score should be enough to earn it a fresh rating like other films with the same rating, but instead it was given a rotten rating. Again, this can be attributed to people simply saying: It was good or OK, but not what I wanted: thumbs down.
The other complaint I keep seeing is the lack of dialogue between the characters. About 30 minutes into the film I realized it was intentionally being told like a comic book, with economical lines between the characters. For example, when Lois sees clark climbing the ice cliffs to the scout ship she says "Where are you going?" Its the simple, charming dialogue I could see ripped straight from a comic book. I think many people didnt realize this, and thus blasted the dialogue as being too simple etc
Even I myself required a second viewing to appreciate certain things, like the World Engine defenses. On first viewing I thought it was simple excess. On the 2nd viewing I saw it as it really was: a page ripped straight out of a comic book.
Despite being blasted by many for what they think is an attempt to be the Dark Knight, this film is loaded with campy comic book style moments and set pieces, something the Dark Knight trilogy did not have at all, perhaps largely due to a real comic book fan like Snyder being the director and not Nolan. The exaggerated dress of the Kryptonian counsel, and of course the World Engine defenses are spectacular camp which separate the film from the Dark Knight trilogy easily.
My point? Man of Steel is easily the most misunderstood film I can remember in quite some time. Does this mean critical and public opinion of the film will improve in time? I think so, but not to the point where it universally liked. Snyder requires the viewer to connect many dots, something modern audiences and critics arent too keen on doing.
I think it will end up being a cult classic.
Last edited:
