Man Of Misunderstood: My Thoughts On Zack Snyder's MAN OF STEEL
I saw Man of Steel at the midnight showing fifteen minutes from my where I live. I am going to do a review mixed with what I believe to be misconceptions from so called "superman" fans that think this or that should not have happened in the movie.
1. There is a lot of so called "superman" fans(critics) that claim that this is a tedious action film that doesn't have Donner's influence anywhere in it. I say, that if you want to take the contrariety route then they simply need to stop giving reviews based off of that. Reeve's superman is for those who loved superman before 1986. Why 1986? Well, if you are a comic book fan everyone knows that "the Dark Knight Returns" made superman into a political "yes" man, that turned superman into a cold, dark enforcer. But..... As always, critics overlook things like this and think the Man of Steel was trying to break traditional convention and sabotage "their" version of superman they loved(the kitty cat saving one). While overlooking the superman that exists today.
2. Would the critics like superman that exists in stories like Superman vs. the elite? How about Red Sons superman? Would they complain about these types of stories because, in one superman kills? Or superman isn't for the "truth, justice, and American way?" I say they would. They did it with Watchmen. And they did it with V for Vendetta. Simply take it with all its truth. They don't want to give credit where credit it is due. One of the top critics claimed that Watchmen was a "mediocre" adaptation, when Watchmen was a page-by-page faithful adaptation. I think he took the contrariety angle just to stick out like a loose nail in a board to get some sense of enlightenment. Or hell, maybe just doesn't like Synder? Man of Steel seems to be falling into this same sad category of not liking because it doesn't resemble Christopher Reeve.
3. Why should you care right? A critics or "haters" opinion should hold about as much merit as you sitting on the toilet taking a S#*@t. I would agree with you, whole heartily. Even though I look at the RT scores as something of a "objective" rating along with Imdbs(not Top 250, just the score). Individual reviews from critics is something I don't care about. They are all trying to get feedback and publicity to boost their stock. I can forgive their non-likings, and likings for particular movies. But when they go out of their way to practice "philistinism" reviews toward a movie because it didn't look accustomed toward their past loves. Then I say their is no need for subjectivity, if that is the way they want approach a new and interesting Superman.
I enjoyed the Man of Steel. I'm giving it an 8/10, even though I'm really leaning toward a 7.5/10, because of some pacing issues in the beginning that I didn't like, or for the fact that is was extremely loud and unnecessary. Henry Cavill to me is my Superman. I want more movies of Superman with him. I enjoyed the cute smile of Amy Adams as Lois Lane. I think their chemistry was lacking the "romance", but this is a Clark/Superman movie. And she portrayed her roll correctly. I can forgive these little minor flaws. I was not overly serious when something Superman did, or didn't do(like snapping Zods neck, dawning the glasses until the end). I embraced it. I accepted change. Man of steel is a pure "fun" movie experience. It is loaded with action, and special effects. It has sad moments, and has its happy ones. There's enough for everyone. But sadly people will overlook it as a disappointment. And I say, "whatever".
P.S. Superman doesn't smile? He smiles when he's flying. He smiles when he is with Lois. He smiles when he is with Ma Kent. You get where I'm going with this...
: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct
. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE