Disagreeing With The Critics On Man Of Steel

[blumatic]

I don't mind that this Clark wasn't familiar, that was actually what I was expecting based on the trailers. But a well-defined Clark, one who's motivation and intentions are clear would have been ideal. We don't know Clark Kent. We have an idea of who Kal-El is and I think Superman is okay, but we haven't truly seen the Clark yet.

And that's okay in a sense, but it didn't round this movie off for me.

Thats cool. I get the some may feel that Superman was incomplete. Which is true in a sense. I see it as a continuation to his destiny.

 

[Deserana]

Really? You liked IM3 other than the twist? That was your primary problem with it? Hell, I was already checked out of that movie well before the Mandarin twist. It didn't even make me angry/sad/upset because I didn't give two ****s about any character in that movie, or the plot.

I really hate that movie all the way around, the Mandarin twist is not even in the top-10 things wrong with that movie imho,

Jeez. I was the same way. I love Iron Man 1 heck even Iron Man 2 is watchable for me. But I don't know if it was anything to do with the mood I was in but **** me Iron Man 3 just ****** me off in every way. It just didn't seem part of the Iron Man series (I know we had aliens in the Avengers but did no one else feel it was extremely jarring to suddenly have immortal humans in this film series?), the action was dull other than the house scene (jumping from suit to suit doesn't thrill me), the things the suits can do.

I also never really take notice of logic gaps in films when I'm watching them (I left TDKR thinking it was pretty much a perfect film) it's normally after I pick up on these things but during IM3 there were SO many moments that took me out of the film because it didn't make sense. The huge cop out of the plane scene when we see that Stark isn't in the suit (ruins any tension). I could list forever. The mandarin stuff comes low down for me.

Whenever I think of lost potential in films I now go straight to IM3. Being a huge Nolan-trilogy fan it took me a while to finally admit TDKR was a little disappointing as both a huge Nolan and Batman fan. So I can't imagine how I would of reacted if I watched IM3 and Iron Man fan.

So it really dumbfounds to see how a critic. Someone who is paid to go into a film without any pre-determined thoughts and point out positives and negatives in a film can then say that Iron Man 3 is a better film than Man of Steel. Before anyone jumps on me please read my sig.

Also with YouTube reviewers they seem to point out problem after problem with IM3 but then it seems to just be let off and give a good score. But Man of Steel has a few flaws like too much action and suddenly the whole thing is crap, Snyder is awful, its too serious, where is the laughter? etc etc...

So Iron Man 3 is better cause Downey Jr cracks a few jokes after his Girlfriend is presumed dead? Seriously that's another issue with that film. Stark is a d**k. Beginning to end he is a d**k. Don't get me wrong Downey Jr is born for that role but holy hell what the **** were those scenes with the kid all about? There is a difference between being slightly funny and calling the kid a p***y.

Would anyone else have actually liked it if Clark cracked a joke in MoS every two seconds. Watching what that guy has gone through and what that suit means and how much is at stake it would stick out like a sore thumb if Superman was stood in Metropolis with debris and probably hundreds of bodies and a mile of just destruction and cracked a pun just before punching Zod in the face.

 

[sf2]

I kinda see what your saying. But it seems you were looking for a familiar Clark. I thought I saw a Clark I never seen before. This wondering lost soul looking for answers. And we got to know Kal, Son of El a bit better.

Have we ever seen Superman embrace his mother? In MOS we did. Was Clark always a good kid? No he was a bit of a jerk to his dad. MOS showed me a new side too Superman. And what's great about the film is at the end a familiar face appears waiting for us in the sequel.

I really like where the film took me. Oh a finally, we see Superman really fight. I guess the film should have had some familiar nuggets for many of the audience to chew on. Even Nolans Batman said "IM BATMAN." I would have liked that to. But I'm glad they put alot of fresh stuff in the film.

yup, i really love that scene and the scene where he went back home after discovering himself. i wish it was there in STM. it's like after he becomes superman, his mother and his past have no meaning to the story anymore. a total cut off.

anyway, i think MOS is very successful. as it manages to make non fans because fans... and make the people interested in his story again...

no longer just an iconic symbol.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I really thought the first half was a train wreck. It felt incredibly rushed. And, without going to into it, the stuff on Krypton was done in a way that just made no logical sense (i.e. Kal-El's rushed escape... even though they apparently had plenty of time). I hated what they did with Pa Kent. It seemed needlessly dark, and downright cruel with how he went out.

Then they just had Superman wandering the Earth aimlessly for decades. Nothing interesting happened in those decades? No superheroes or super villains? Nothing?

I will say that the action scenes were great, but it's hard to recover from that first half.

 

[Deserana]

I hated what they did with Pa Kent. It seemed needlessly dark, and downright cruel with how he went out.

Really? It seemed like a loving father sacrificing himself because of his son to me. It wasnt like he was saying "yeah Clark you watch me die and suffer mu. ha. ha." he didn't want Clark to save him out of fear of the consequences Clark would face.

The only thing I didn't like was that the reason he went back was cause of the goddamn dog. Bit of imagination would have done there.

I also don't get you mean by walking around aimlessly. That was the point of the first half. Him in-between jobs, tracking down anything that could be connected to his origin. He knew he was special but had no idea what to do with it.

And why would there be other Superheroes and villains? This is a film not a comic book, you cant just have bad guys come in without set up halfway through to fight Superman when Clark himself isn't even Superman. Plus it contradicts the whole point about the world not being ready if he just hops into the suit when a threat comes, it also wouldn't make any sense for Superman to react the way he does after killing Zod if he fought before.

You whole reason for disliking the film makes no sense to me.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well I hated the entire characterization. That scene was just the coup de grace.

Clark showed off his powers to a bus full of his classmates. He can't show off his powers real quick to save his dad in front of a bunch of strangers (who have no idea who they are)? Hell, most of them probably would just think they were seeing stuff from stress caused by a tornado.

Again though it's the entire characterization, not just that one scene I disliked.

Give me Smalville Pa Kent any day (and I'm not even a Smallville fan).

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

"Would anyone else have actually liked it if Clark cracked a joke in MoS every two seconds. Watching what that guy has gone through and what that suit means and how much is at stake it would stick out like a sore thumb if Superman was stood in Metropolis with debris and probably hundreds of bodies and a mile of just destruction and cracked a pun just before punching Zod in the face."

I WOULD. "Going somewhere General?"-As Zod takes off to harm innocents.

Superman looks at Zod's corpse and says "Oh Snap!"

Clark looks at Lois and says "Why didn't you take that gun with you?" "It would make the Smallville fight much easier."

Jonathan dies during a certain encounter with nature.
Clark rolls his eyes and says: "Boy that sucks!"

 

[dpguy]

I really thought the first half was a train wreck. It felt incredibly rushed. And, without going to into it, the stuff on Krypton was done in a way that just made no logical sense (i.e. Kal-El's rushed escape... even though they apparently had plenty of time). I hated what they did with Pa Kent. It seemed needlessly dark, and downright cruel with how he went out.

Then they just had Superman wandering the Earth aimlessly for decades. Nothing interesting happened in those decades? No superheroes or super villains? Nothing?

I will say that the action scenes were great, but it's hard to recover from that first half.

It seems that a lot of the criticism is aimed at the stuff on Krypton, but I'm kinda the opposite. I thought the scenes on Krypton were beautifully done and Russell Crowe's acting was top notch.

When the story turns to Clark Kent, the lone wanderer I became ambivalent. But the movie's "jump the shark" moment for me was this.

When a villain throws our hero through the wall of a small town diner after lecturing him on history and evolution, I can't help but laugh out loud (and the scene is clearly not played for laughs).

That's when the film officially lost me.

Many people love the movie and that's fine.

I think Zack Snyder's style is really just not my cup of tea.

The characters aren't as interesting as the Nolan Batman films, and unlike The Avengers, Man of Steel takes itself too seriously IMO.

 

[Tody]

The thing I hated most about Iron Man 3, was that they took the main villain (archenemy?), and made a mockery out of him and the movie's plot. Watching IM3 was no different to IM2.

I expected at least a bit of epicness as it's a main villain. The initial trailer was misleading as hell. I'm not sure why Marvel market their trailers as though their movies are deep and have substance and are dark and serious when we know full well the opposite is true. Just check out the initial trailer for Thor 2. But we all know they like to stick to just a good time, and lighthearted.

I enjoyed the humour of Iron Man 3, and some of the fight scenes were good (particularly all those IM suits), but the film had no substance. If I had to rate it on quality, it's average to decent at best. I just didn't walk away with anything from IM3. It may as well have just been "another Iron Man film" which was so painfully underwhelming for it featuring the main villain.

Sure he trashes his Iron suits in the end, but we all know with Avengers 2, he's going to be back. Probably kept one suit hidden or something.

Man of Steel for me had substance. There was a lot of back story, emotional depth, it was surprisingly and fantastically fresh for an origin story (I mentioned in my video that it in no way felt shackled or restricted). You can tell that Clark isn't yet complete, and with General Zod being the first villain and Kryptonians being on an even playing field to Superman, there's still the whole plot of Kryptonite open for the next movie, which most likely means the next villain, if it is Lex Luthor, may be the one to discover and weaponize it against Superman.

Basically what I'm saying is that we can talk about the plot and its elements. It actually sits with you after you leave the cinema. You think about it. You feel you want to go for a rewatch, as it will clear some things nagging at your mind up. That's substance. We can talk about what's to come. What hasn't been done. Analyse the themes. Reflect on the touching and memorable scenes, or just the awesome ones.

This is my personal opinion, but I just can't do that for Iron Man 2 and 3 or other Marvel movies.

That's not saying they're bad, but just not for me. Many people enjoy just going to the cinema, being entertained and that's the end of it. Many enjoy lighthearted movies, comedic value and so on. That's perfectly fine. But my tastes are just different. I can only enjoy so much popcorn entertainment, watch and forget kinda movies, especially when I feel most of the Marvel films are variations of the same thing, with Avengers being the best.

But the one true problem I do have, is when critics praise those movies so highly, but trash on something like Man of Steel, despite it packing substance and stellar action that blows away most of the competition. It's one of the strongest things the movie offers, and I've barely read praises of it. I've noticed that critics often don't like "humourless" movies, and maybe by that they don't mean funny ha-ha, but dull and serious.

Even Amazing Spider-Man, as mixed as the reception was, was a movie I really liked a lot. As I know the comics extremely well, see the inspiration, anlayse the themes and it's fun to work out which elements of Amazing and Ultimate are in place. But that movie was held down by its origin story, and I can't wait to see what the first full sequel does.

Man of Steel really is one of the best origin stories I've seen for a comic book hero, considering how fresh and free it feels. For me it's like Batman Begins level.

 

[gibsonm21]

The thing I hated most about Iron Man 3, was that they took the main villain (archenemy?), and made a mockery out of him and the movie's plot. Watching IM3 was no different to IM2.

I expected at least a bit of epicness as it's a main villain. The initial trailer was misleading as hell. I'm not sure why Marvel market their trailers as though their movies are deep and have substance and are dark and serious when we know full well the opposite is true. Just check out the initial trailer for Thor 2. But we all know they like to stick to just a good time, and lighthearted.

I enjoyed the humour of Iron Man 3, and some of the fight scenes were good (particularly all those IM suits), but the film had no substance. If I had to rate it on quality, it's average to decent at best. I just didn't walk away with anything from IM3. It may as well have just been "another Iron Man film" which was so painfully underwhelming for it featuring the main villain.

Sure he trashes his Iron suits in the end, but we all know with Avengers 2, he's going to be back. Probably kept one suit hidden or something.

Man of Steel for me had substance. There was a lot of back story, emotional depth, it was surprisingly and fantastically fresh for an origin story (I mentioned in my video that it in no way felt shackled or restricted). You can tell that Clark isn't yet complete, and with General Zod being the first villain and Kryptonians being on an even playing field to Superman, there's still the whole plot of Kryptonite open for the next movie, which most likely means the next villain, if it is Lex Luthor, may be the one to discover and weaponize it against Superman.

Basically what I'm saying is that we can talk about the plot and its elements. It actually sits with you after you leave the cinema. You think about it. You feel you want to go for a rewatch, as it will clear some things nagging at your mind up. That's substance. We can talk about what's to come. What hasn't been done. Analyse the themes. Reflect on the touching and memorable scenes, or just the awesome ones.

This is my personal opinion, but I just can't do that for Iron Man 2 and 3 or other Marvel movies.

That's not saying they're bad, but just not for me. Many people enjoy just going to the cinema, being entertained and that's the end of it. Many enjoy lighthearted movies, comedic value and so on. That's perfectly fine. But my tastes are just different. I can only enjoy so much popcorn entertainment, watch and forget kinda movies, especially when I feel most of the Marvel films are variations of the same thing, with Avengers being the best.

But the one true problem I do have, is when critics praise those movies so highly, but trash on something like Man of Steel, despite it packing substance and stellar action that blows away most of the competition. It's one of the strongest things the movie offers, and I've barely read praises of it. I've noticed that critics often don't like "humourless" movies, and maybe by that they don't mean funny ha-ha, but dull and serious.

Even Amazing Spider-Man, as mixed as the reception was, was a movie I really liked a lot. As I know the comics extremely well, see the inspiration, anlayse the themes and it's fun to work out which elements of Amazing and Ultimate are in place. But that movie was held down by its origin story, and I can't wait to see what the first full sequel does.

Man of Steel really is one of the best origin stories I've seen for a comic book hero, considering how fresh and free it feels. For me it's like Batman Begins level.

It's funny to see so many people bag on IM3. It honestly was my favorite IM movie. IM1 was good, IM2 was a watch and forget, but I was caught off guard by IM3 because I was expecting it to be IM 2.1 and it wasn't for me. I thought it was brilliant to have majority of the movie focused on Stark being IM w/o the suit and never once did I find myself asking how much longer till the end(like I did with IM2). But enough with IM

The first time I saw MOS, I was let down by so many things pace and mood(I actually was looking forward to it being a little darker than it was), but as the days went on, I kept finding myself thinking about scenes that I loved, so I went again. Every time I've gone to see it, I feel that it gets better and better. I just got back from either my 5th or 6th viewing and I can honestly say that considering the amount of material Goyer and Snyder put in this film, I don't think they could have done a better job with the editing.

I went in to the auditorium today fully expecting to be bored(considering I've seen the movie so many times) and once again I was glued to the screen. I definitely feel that SOME of the critical reviews were the honest opinions(others were definitely publicity stunts). I also feel that critics that were put off during their first viewing would look at their reviews with a side eye after viewing the movie for a second time.

As for some of the critiques of superman/clark not doing typical Sup/Clark things, I would say that I don't look at this movie as one about Superman, I look at it as one about Kal El and an event that forced him to come out of the closet as this alien amongst us. I feel that once the MOS franchise comes to a close, critics will look back on MOS just like they did with BB

 

[Lily Adler]

Really? It seemed like a loving father sacrificing himself because of his son to me. It wasnt like he was saying "yeah Clark you watch me die and suffer mu. ha. ha." he didn't want Clark to save him out of fear of the consequences Clark would face.

The only thing I didn't like was that the reason he went back was cause of the goddamn dog. Bit of imagination would have done there.

I also don't get you mean by walking around aimlessly. That was the point of the first half. Him in-between jobs, tracking down anything that could be connected to his origin. He knew he was special but had no idea what to do with it.

And why would there be other Superheroes and villains? This is a film not a comic book, you cant just have bad guys come in without set up halfway through to fight Superman when Clark himself isn't even Superman. Plus it contradicts the whole point about the world not being ready if he just hops into the suit when a threat comes, it also wouldn't make any sense for Superman to react the way he does after killing Zod if he fought before.

You whole reason for disliking the film makes no sense to me.

The tornado scene and the mind probe scene are just those two scenes that are too jarring for me because of the way they were executed. I liked the ideas behind both, but not the execution. I believe they could have shown Johnathan's concern of Clark being exposed, and what emotional trauma that would induce to him, better. Sacrificing himself after a failed attempt to save the family dog wouldn't be my ideal choice to have Johnathan die.

 

[JangoNate]

Yeah, Pa Kent going back for the dog was kind of a "Hmm?" moment for me and my wife. Certainly not a scene to take me out of the movie or ruin it for me or anything like that. But when I think about it, I can understand why they chose the family dog. If Pa went back to get a trapped little girl and Clark didn't save the both of them we'd have even more of a "What?!?" moment. Then we see a Pa Kent whose willing to sacrifice someone else to keep Clark's secret. The dog can be saved and just run away leaving Pa behind. Still not wholly satisfied.