By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - I just watched the Man of Steel. I have no idea why reviews are so mediocre.

artur-fernand said:

So, I heard a lot of people on the internet complaining how Man of Steel has a serious pacing problem, and Zack Snyder's directing is average. Hell, it has a pretty disappointing average score on Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic.

What I just saw was one of the best super-hero movies I ever watched. I honestly saw no pacing problem, actually I thought they handled Clark's childhood and stuff really well. And the action scenes are TOP. NOTCH.

 

But then again, I think I'm not picky when watching movies, and don't try to look for flaws or plot holes and stuff. I REALLY enjoyed Iron Man 3 and Law Abiding Citizen for example. Judge me.

Did that movie review poorly? I thought it was fantastic.




Around the Network

I also saw the movie, and totally agree with the reviews :(.



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

Loved it. I personally think it's the 3rd best superhero film behind TDK and TDKR... yes I think MoS was better than The Avengers too.



Hated the film and contemplated walking out of it a few times. I knew this was going to happen due to influences probably from Christopher Nolan - making everything dark, depressing and apocalyptic.

Superman had zero personality. He just seemed to float through the film like a fart with no personality.

Jor-El's uploaded guide presence thing was equally 2 dimensional.

Superman is meant to be super intelligent and his father was supposed to have educated him on earth (being a super scientist himself an all), but here Superman was a bit on the dumb side.

So much stuff made no sense whatsoever, like:

1) Why is Superman such a boring fart? Where did his personality go?
2) Every Tom Dick and Harry from his past knows who Superman is due to his heroics before he got his disguise and him then going on national TV to give himself up etc
3) Superman would never have fought them on earth due to the large number of casualties and damage done to the city. Even in the original Superman film, he took them away from the city. Here, Superman was just as destructive and cavalier as the villain.
4) The end made no sense whatsoever. Superman got stronger as the Kryptonian gravity got stronger. That shit is illogical. When he was at the center of that device, he should have been crippled and completely drained. How the hell he broke all the laws of physics from any given planet is damn right miraculous. They should have just added a flying Unicorn with a rainbow shooting out of its rear end!

Above everything else, there was no depth to the character or characters, the entire film was just one big giant glorified DragonBall Z fight scene, barely any story worth remembering, and the film just lingered on. There was no urgency or climax or build up, it all just felt like a weird state of dream like when you are suffering from sleep depression.

Considering what this film could have been, this was very disappointing. Christopher Nolan's approach worked to an extent for Batman since Batman is set in a dark and depressing world (made colourful by the over the top caricature like villains) and the approach fits it, but Man of Steel has pretty much butchered anything Superman couldh have been. There goes any hope for a decent JLA film -_-



completely agree with the reviews. I m not a fan of superman, batman or ironman.. IM3 was great.. TDK was exceptionally nothing can beat it.. TDKR was  bad, but MoS was just poor, had so much hope on David S goyer and Christopher nolans story writing ability.. but what i got was poor character development, bad pacing.. corny Dialogue (he is not our enemy!! WTF). After watching MoS i realized how good and logical Superman Returns was..

 

I'am Rich Batman!!! XD



Around the Network

I didn't watch it, because I feel like we're in superhero film overload at the moment? I don't see films for explosions and witty one liners, I want them to be deep and intelligent. Recently all these Iron Mans, Avengers, Supermans and Batmans come off as passive entertainment only.



I liked it honestly...BUT...the first part of the film seemed to try VERY very hard to reach the actual Superman stuff but they didn't seem all that sure of HOW to get there in the end. So the first part of the film is actually a bit of mesh-mash to me with weird dialogue, weird reactions and weird overall developments.
The second half is absolutely insane in terms of action, with the director upping his game in that regard from Sucker Punch. It's a great slug fest with a lot of great action and great, intense moments. Too bad they tried to tie absolutely everything together so the normal movie-goer won't spend his precious time trying to intellectually jack off by searching for plot holes and inconsistencies and demanding explanations for WHY Superman can fly or WHY he can punch a villain into the other hemisphere. We don't really need stuff like that, but eh...it's an approach to superhero films as viable as the Marvel one so eh...

In my humble opinion, Man of Steel is a great film and one I'll rewatch with great pleasure at home, on Blu-Ray. It could have been better if it had dumped some of its baggage and kept things a lot simpler, but nonetheless it was worth the money. People just tend to have expectations set way too high for this sort of stuff and it honestly sucks afterwards that the public can't seem to enjoy something in the way it's meant to be.

Also...film critics aren't worth the energy that your computer consumes to load up their articles. It's generally very clear where "preferences" lie in their regards and you're off happier just ignoring any sort of review they may churn off.



The movie was mediocre. There's no two ways about it. The action was very generic as well. It made Brandon Routh and Superman Returns look good.



Its the best Superman film since Superman 1 and 2. No sure how that trash Superman Returns could have better reviews.

There were a few things that could have been done better, but Henry and Amy were so good. Henry was amazing as Superman, so for me thats what made the film.

I think the problem is David Goyer's script. Directing there was nothing wrong, I just don't think David S Goyer is all that.



Loved the movie, too! The only gripe I had was with the destruction scenes but not for the reasons others have had. These god like men laying waste to concrete and steel and whatever else didn't bother me. Given the context, it makes sense. But the scenes concerning Metropolis's citizens (specifically Laurence Fishburne and his coworkers) had the opposite impact it should of had on me. It tried to be so edge of your seat thrilling, but fell flat. Given the events at 9/11, these images did bring the terrorist attacks to mind but the idea that the group didn't die or that basically they were on the brink of destruction every step they took but mysteriously escaped harm's way almost made the scenes silly.

It's not that I want to see people die or have 9/11 recreated in any way. It's just that knowing about the carnage caused by two large skyscrapers falling and then watching the movie and seeing the entire city being torn asunder yet so many people just running away...it was silly. Frigging automobiles and buildings being lifted while nothing was happening to the humans -- I get the terra-forming weapon was probably magnetic in nature, but I wonder how being in some kind of magnetic storm like that would actually affect a human being?

It would have been better if Superman and Lois Lane, knowing what was coming had gotten word to the city in time to have it evacuated before Superman, Zod and the terra-forming weapon lay waste to the city, not because I am overly-sensitive to the issues but simply because the humans-running-scared-narrowly-missing-death-at-every-corner scenes took me out of the movie. Looked like something out of the film 2012.