Movie Review: “Man of Steel,” script of rust

ImageThis Superman settles scores. And takes his shirt off.
This “Man of Steel” flies up, up and away, with his teeth bared and his fists clenched.
This Lois Lane knows his story, straight off. There’s little mystery about him.
If every generation gets the Superman it deserves, “Man of Steel” suggests we’ve earned one utterly without wit or charm, a grim, muscle-bound 33 year-old struggling to reconcile the past he is just learning about, trying to fit in with a military that may or may not consider him a threat but that needs his help when his fellow Kryptonians come to call.
“Man of Steel” is a radical re-interpretation of the Superman myth, no sin in itself. The Zack “300/Sucker Punch” Snyder version, scripted by David S. Goyer (story by Christopher Nolan), dwells much longer on Krypton and re-arranges the story, hurling us into the adult Kal-El’s Wolverine-like loner life as an American adult, showing us his formative childhood with the Kents (Diane Lane and Kevin Costner) only in flashbacks.
It gives his Kryptonian nemesis, General Zod, a mission — however misguided. And a point of view. So Michael Shannon, who plays him, isn’t all that scary,
Without the wit, winks, flirtation and old-fashioned sentiment of the “Truth, justice and the American way” take on the character, all Henry Cavill (“Immortals”) has to do is mix it up in a lot of “Transformers” inspired brawls with armored-plated aliens and occasionally agonize over it all.
Yes, most of the far sillier “Transformers” movies were more fun.
From its production design — ugly, black, insectoid spaceships — to its instantly forgettable Hans Zimmer musical score, this movie goes out of its way to remove itself from the Christopher Reeve “Superman” movies. And it is the poorer for it.
Russell Crowe and Ayelet Zurer play the parents who pack their baby up and ship him off their doomed planet. The sad resignation of the Marlon Brando version of Father Jor-El is lost because General Zod stages a coup, mid-planetary meltdown, giving this overlong prologue shoot-outs and armored brawls. And Crowe’s Jor-El never quite goes away.
We spend far too little time with the story’s heart, the ways the baby is embodied with good old fashioned heartland virtues. Costner and Lane have the film’s best scenes.
“Decide the kind of man you want to be,” Clark Kent’s dad tells him, urging him to keep his ID secret, to use his powers sparingly, with care. The grown-up Clark wanders the bars and crab fishing fleets, committing the occasional supernatural act of compassion and the occasional supernatural fit of pique.
Amy Adams is an over-achieving Lois Lane, totally clued in on the evidence of an alien among us by the military. Laurence Fishburne is a dull Daily Planet editor Perry White.
Take away the antecedents (Lois Lane has no Jimmy Olsen, boy photographer), strip the character’s Americanness (to make it easier to sell overseas) and it’s still a competent movie — state of the art explosions, implosions and what-not.
But take away the whimsy, the fun, and one has to wonder why Snyder, Goyer, Warners and Christopher Nolan bothered.

2stars

(LINK: Did “Sucker Punch” predict “Man of Steel” would suck?)

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language
Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Lawrence Fishburne
Credits: Directed by Zack Snyder, scripted by David S. Goyer. A Warner Bros. release
Running time: 2:23

About these ads
This entry was posted in Reviews, previews, profiles and movie news. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Movie Review: “Man of Steel,” script of rust

  1. Gary Smith says:

    ‘this movie goes out of its way to remove itself from the Christopher Reeve “Superman” movies’ i think what you wanted was already done…movie called Superman Returns. I for one welcome the fresh, realistic approach far removed from the Donner influences.

    • That was years ago, and no. Donner’s films, decades ago. There’s nothing wrong with making a Batman Superman movie. But tossing out the myth? Stupid, soulless move.

      • Gibby says:

        I respect the review, and everyone is obviously entitled to their opinion. But I really do think you have come to expect wit and charm in superhero movies. This is a trait that Marvel are running with, and kudos to them. But you have to appreciate the tone that DC are trying to go with, hence the tone of Nolan’s Batman trilogy.

        You mention tossing out the myth, but your basing this off the mythos of previous Superman films. At the end of the day, this movie is based off a comic book(if you had done any research before reviewing this movie, you’d know that DC rebooted their comics with an edgier tone), not the previous movies.

        Also, you don’t need to ridicule the people that take the time to provide hits for this website and read your reviews. Sure people can be bums and get annoyed when you don’t agree with them, but your probably older than a lot of these people. Show a bit of class and rise above it.

      • When I say “Myth” I am referring to the comics. And the earlier incarnations of Superman. I’ve been to Metropolis, Illinois. So thanks for the lecture on myth, but no.
        Here’s a news flash. Fanboys like their comic book movies “dark,” as if that lends them, and the comic books they’re based on, gravitas. It doesn’t. This is more “Wolverine” meets “Transformers” than “The Kryptonian Knight.” Hackwork. Go see and judge for yourself — noise, effects, ugly design, a Messianic touch in one spot. And that’s it.
        And it’s “You’re.” Not “Your.” Sorry for the ridicule, but when you’re being ridic…

  2. Mathew says:

    Thank you for your review…it’s all I wanted to hear…reading that it’s nothing like old Superman movies is music to my ears. I hate those movies…I’m 23 BTW. You would like more jokes like in IM3[stupid movie]? When I read all those reviews that say there’s too much action[there was none in old movies and they change one of the most recognizable villain into a joke] or reviewer misses red panties I’m just happy cause probably I won’t think the same about this movie. I’m going with fans opinion and pretty much all of them say this movie is epic and…well super.

    • Uh, “red panties?” Well, you go and enjoy two hours and 23 minutes of digital fist fights, sonny. With $100 million worth of other lemmings. But when you figure out it’s lifeless, don’t get your panties in a bunch. You were warned.

      • GG says:

        And meanwhile you enjoy that elitist attitude that you think sets you apart from the Transformers-loving ‘unwashed masses’.

        When it comes to this movie I note there’s a total disconnect not only between the critics and audience viewers(from twees, blogs et al) but also between different critics(for every one of you that criticizes an element there’s two others that praise the same thing). I’m guessing it’s because some of you are utterly fixated on the Reeves movies and consider action-heavy popular entertainment as crap.

      • You be an unwashed, no taste uninformed boob if you like. But you’re the one reading reviews and ranting at them because they do not affirm your lack of taste and poor arguments for having a lack of taste.
        And if you’ve been running to crappy movies I’ve panned, you, Vin Diesel and Tyler Perry must be on a first-name basis.

      • Mathew says:

        First of all don’t call me sonny. Second of all I’m pretty sure I will enjoy this “lifeless” movie more than the movie where superman turns back time by flying backwards around the earth…maybe Donner’s Superman would be more enjoyable to me if they would do what would actually happen if superman would stop the earth’s rotation. Maybe you can explain to me what was so great about old superman movies? If one of those “great” features of the old ones was characters “Americanness” maybe that’s my problem…I don’t care about that.

      • You talk childish nonsense, you get called “Sonny.” You’re the one who brought up your callow lack of life experience.
        This is no “Avengers” or “Iron Man” or “Dark Knight.” Or Donner “Superman,” which still has its fans. Inferior in all comparisons. “Lifeless.”

    • SupesFan says:

      Ugh, can’t believe I’m getting sucked into this nonsense. People hurling insults on the internet like superheroes and villains hurling cars!

      However, Matthew the 23-year-old, it is clear that you missed out on what actually happened at the end of the original Superman. So I will inform you.

      Superman did not “stop the earth,” so we don’t need to see what would happen in that event. He didn’t change the rotation of the earth in any way! What he did was fly faster than light, making it possible to travel back in time (Einstein be damned). Earlier in the movie, during his interview with Lois, she asked how fast he could fly but the question was never answered. So it tied up a loose end in dramatic fashion as Superman went against his father’s wishes to save Lois.

      Of course, introducing a time-travel component pretty much ruins any further Superman stories, but it worked well for the first movie.

  3. Gary Smith says:

    i don’t understand your comment about tossing out the myth. Snyder, Goyer and Nolan haven’t tossed out anything. The Superman mythos and canon is still there as it’s just updated for a modern audience. I think you’re image of Superman is engrained in those Donner movies and as great as they are they are severely outdated and would not hold in today’s audience. Remember, the Donner route was already tried with Superman Returns to modest results. From what I recall is that everyone’s complaint at the time was there was not enough action. And if you think about it, I don’t think Superman has punched anything since Superman II which was like what…30 years ago? Anyway your opinion is your opinion and will not criticize you if you did not enjoy the movie. But really your review, and majority of the negative reviews, did not like the movie because mainly it was a far departure from the light-hearted, cat tree saving Superman of yester years. If that’s the case, then I’m that more excited come June 14th.

  4. jmoneyideas says:

    Living in central Florida the one thing I have learned is that if Roger hates a movie run out and see it and do the opposite of he doesn’t. Serioulsy lets not forget it ia summer movie season and we expect to see a spectacle. We are not intetested in seeing Gone With the Wind Superman Style. We want a movie that has thought and lots of action. They seem to do a good job with the Christ aspect of a super hero like superman . There even having Pastor sneak previews. Says something about the thinking in this movie, yet it still is a Summer Box office event… you reviewers always seem to forget that and thats why you usually hate Emmerich’s films as well.

    • It’s the most simplistic silliness in movie making to have a character spread his arms wide and “die for our sins.” Does that make it “Deep” or make it work? No.

    • jmoneyideas, why is it that most of the critics AND fans liked Nolan’s Batman trilogy? It balanced character, story, and action. This is Zack, fucking, Snyder and I am not surprised about these reviews AT ALL. The guy’s movies all LOOK “cool” but they are empty shells. Dawn of the Dead stripped the original’s social commentary and just made it a bloodbath. 300 was…just a bloodbath, a pretty looking bloodbath though. Watchmen isn’t even CLOSE to being as good as the graphic novel. It just LOOKS like it but doesn’t replicate what it FEELS like. WB tried to get Snyder before for Superman and he turned it down, they gave him Watchmen, and then they AGAIN gave him Superman and I HATE WB for it because they guy is a hack.

      • Jason Todd says:

        I think I get this movie based on what Roger (and other critics) are saying, and what I’ve seen in the trailers. Basicaly this Superman (and the one from Superman Returns) have identity crises and spend a lot of time navel-gazing. That’s NOT Superman! Superman is a force of positivity and optimism. (OK, perhaps a Reagan allusion more than a Christ one…and maybe some Repubs will say what’s the difference? :-) But Christopher Reeve hit the right tone. We don’t need a brooding and grim Superman, that’s what Batman is there for. Anyone who knows the comics mythos knows that the two have become counterpoints to each other. (especially since the ’86 Crisis) . And no he doesn’t have to be all jokey like Iron Man. There is a balance that can be struck.

  5. Donald says:

    Hi Roger, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one for a couple of reasons that I’m going to list as I have had the chance to see the film too. Also, I’m going to explain why I enjoyed the film, speaking as a hardcore Superman fan. Let me make it clear that I loved the old Superman movies, and Reeve will always be the man who made you believe you could fly.

    That being said today’s word is dark and brutish, but with a glimmer of hope. It’s not the 1970s anymore, we’re living in dangerous times, and if you follow the comics, Superman is having trouble fitting into that to. The DC’s New 52 Superman has a hard time fitting in and is constantly butting heads with the military/governments regarding his powers, and the fear that he cannot be controlled…does this sound familiar?

    The problem Snyder faced when making this film is that there are now two competing versions of Superman, your Golden Age cat from the tree Superman and the new ‘covered in blood and chains’ modern Superman who in a previous recent issue dropped an aircraft carrier on a group of super-powered villains…or was it a submarine…or both? Nevermind. What did Snyder try to do? Blend them into something new.

    The other thing that I liked about this Superman is that unlike the Reeves version, I found that there wasnt as many Christ-like similarities in this film, you actually see him finding himself and where he belongs, and as we both know…he screws up several times and people die. In the Reeves version of Superman, he goes into the Fortress as a child and emerges as full Superman! *cue John Williams theme*. Similar to Jesus, you see him as a child, and then *POOF* he’s 30. But wait? What about puberty? That must have been tough?, etc. etc.

    Even in old versions of Superman comics, you had him traveling the world incognito trying to find out where he belonged, and helping where he could, and not always succeeding. Is there a Wolverine comparison to make? Sure, but remember that Superman was growing a beard and traveling the world 30 years before Wolverine even made his comic debut.

    Now regarding the action, I will agree with you that it sometimes bordered on Transformers-level insanity, and you sometimes wonder what the hell is going on. However, in the old Bruce Timm animated series, and in the several DC animated films since, Superman causes a truckload of collateral damage in window-shattering building toppling fights. How else do you stop someone as strong as you? Bullets…no…but wait…let’s drop 1000 tons of concrete on their head, maybe that will work. I began to ask myself halfway through the big sequence at the end how there was even any city left, but I let that go.

    Snyder, and more so I’m willing to bet Nolan, tried to inject some real worldness into this, like what would happen if Superman landed in our 2013 world and started a fight with some baddies just as strong as he was…you get a crap-load of damage. Could they have like gone to a less-populated area? Sure but Zod wasn’t exactly accommodating. Also, was the damage overkill? Sure but tame when you read any issue of Superman comics or watch any film/tv version that has him up against someone as powerful as him. Dropping an aircraft carrier on their head seems like a better solution than punching him again, not to mention more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

    So that’s my piece, just thought you’d like to hear from someone who wasnt pouring the hate on so to speak, but someone who enjoyed the film, and thought to share their perspective.

    • David Summers says:

      How are these days more “dangerous times” than the 1970s? We have never lived in a time more safer or technologically advanced or with a better quality of life for most people than now. Back when Superman I came out the cold war was in full swing, we had just come off the Vietnam War a few years back, and we were about to enter the economic recession of the early 80s. You couldn’t walk five feet without finding a fallout shelter in those days, figuratively speaking.

      Anyway, I saw Man of Steel at an early screening. Having a decent tone is nice but it doesn’t work if the rest of the movie doesn’t hold up. That would be like saying “Oh, the tone Michael Bay’s Transformers was going for was a fun, over-the-top suspenseful actiony tone”. Does it kind of hit that tone? Sure. Is it a good movie because of that? Nope. Movies are more than just a dark, serous tone – they have to be convincing, well-plotted, and interesting. imo, MoS wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t very good either from what I was expecting. It’s worth seeing but only just.

    • addiegoart says:

      That’s another thing: two super-powered beings crashing into random buildings is a standard trope of superhero comics. This critic just doesn’t get it.

  6. GT says:

    It sounds like you forgot Superman is a comic book character. The issues you bring up are intrinsic to most interpretations of Superman these days. Thankfully, the Donner version isn’t the benchmark, and hasn’t been for a good long time. Also, the score is forgettable? Are you kidding me? It’s brilliant.

  7. Carlos says:

    Thank you for your review, reading that it’s nothing like the Donner movies make me wish to go see it even more. :)

  8. steelmouth says:

    sometimes bad reviews actually are very good, you just mentioned everything we want from the movie pity you didn’t like those things, state of the art explosions? yes yes please

  9. mike says:

    Gotta give it to him, this reviewer gives as good as he gets

  10. al says:

    Don’t matter how much action or effects a movie has. If you don’t feel for the characters, it is not a good movie. You cared for the characters in the Donner’s Superman movie. That’s is why the movies are still great today.

    • David Summers says:

      ^This.

      Every movie seems to have big set pieces and explosions nowadays. Dunno why people are getting so hyped about action set-pieces when we’ve seen the exact same alien-attack-w/-city-leveling-action type of thing at least twice before (Avengers, Transformers 3, etc.). At least Into Darkness was brief about it’s city-destroying moment. It’s getting really tired.

  11. Christian Gibbons says:

    Is it possible you were biased when reviewing this film? I’m not looking to rant or offend. I’ve just been reading a lot of reviews and a lot of negative ones have compared this one rather unfavorably to the original Donnor films. Some, indeed, have been visibly biased. I’m just wondering whether your expectations might have colored your opinion.

    • A review is, by its very nature, biased. HOWEVER — I have interviewed Zack Snyder and loved loved loved “300.” I have interviewed and given Henry Cavill the benefit of the doubt before, and I worship Michael Shannon. Many interviews with him over the years. This. Doesn’t. Cut. It.

      • addiegoart says:

        See that? He’s basically saying that bias is all well and good, which makes it all the more obvious that he basically had this review pretty much written before he ever set foot in the theater to watch it.

      • Look up “Bias,” addled one. It’s “OPINION.” Which is what a review is. Glad I could help you with that.

    • David Summers says:

      You could say the same exact thing about people who are blindly praising the film and going to see the film based on Chris Nolan’s presence alone, or on simply making it a “darker tone for a darker time”. Or whatever. Every reviewer suffers from a natural bias. Hence the difference in review scores between reviewers.

      I think the big issue is that people are expecting a “darker” Superman ala the Dark Knight trilogy, which is fine if done right, but it doesn’t adhere to its tone as well as it could. It’s certainly not terrible or anything but the film does have a “been there” feel in light of other summer blockbusters and didn’t really surprise me.

      My point is tone alone isn’t everything. If the film had a brighter tone, but was of the same quality and adherence to it as the darker tone, I still would have thought it a fairly mediocre/average experience.

  12. Rob says:

    Roger… don’t feed the trolls. These clowns haven’t even seen the film yet. Fanboys were attacking critics who gave Iron Man 3 a bad review BEFORE it came out, and now those same “fans” are trashing the movie even more than what it probably deserves.

    • I liked Iron Man 3. That had humanity.

      • Jack says:

        Iron Man 3 was terrible. You obviously enjoy schtick in your comic book films, which is what Downey as Tony Stark has become. Thanks for the review, though. Never wanted to see a film more now.

      • “Terrible”? Naaahhh. Not in the same league with “Avengers,” but “IM3″ had pathos, characters you cared about. No small feat.

      • addiegoart says:

        Man of Steel had more humanity in the famous “what was I supposed to do? Just let ‘em all die?” then Iron Man 3 had in its entire two hours. It’s a popcorn action film. This is something bigger. It’s a portrait of a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders.
        Sorry we’re not allowed to take superheroes seriously without being called “fanboys.”

      • cyborg6971 says:

        Iron Man 3 was a joke. If you liked that film and thought it had humanity I feel sorry for you. And your taste in cinema.

      • Jason Todd says:

        @Jack:
        Sometimes “schtick” is warranted in a comic book film. (and so did Return of the Jedi for that matter.) Iron Man is a more light hearted character than Batman, Wolverine, Daredevil or even Thor. Green Lantern on the other hand, might have benefited from a lighter touch. (and a better lead, but I’m not gonna get into that right now.)

      • John Smith says:

        You liked Iron Man 3. Ok, that’s all I need to hear. Now I know Man of Steel will be great.

  13. Garret Wood says:

    You didn’t like the score, I personally love it, a taste preference in which I can respect. You didn’t like the over serious tone of the movie, I feel that is what the movie needs to be successful at the moment. You didn’t like the transformers style action in this movie. I point to the 2006 Superman Returns to show you what Superman looks like without action, not a terrible movie by any stretch, but just at times, very boring,(it does have the greatest superhero entrance ever though with that plane scene). This superhero is begging for that type of action. You don’t have a superhero who can throw meteors into space have action sequences like say, a Batman would have. It just wouldn’t make sense. Overall I think you are being a little harsh, but I shall see it tomorrow at 7 and make up my own mind. I do have a question for you though Roger, can you please explain to me how Rotten Tomatoes has reviews that are B- territory, or even C+, and are put as Rotten? That seems to me to be a little off, considering by their own standards, a 60% is considered Fresh.

    • It depends on whether RT puts the rating on itself, or the critic loads his or her review up.
      The tone of a review says more in words than mere star ratings, etc.
      A lot of people, myself included, use words like “efficient” and “competent,” while panning the film. Note that there are no real raves up there. Critics are shruggingly endorsing it, or panning it.

      • Garret Wood says:

        I am just reading the reviews and everything I am reading is music to my ears. I am all for a seriously toned Superman movie with over the top action sequences, because that is exactly what I expect from Superman. I don’t expect him to drive in a car or a boxing match, I expect buildings to crumble from the carnage that is Superman against Zod. The last thing I wanted was a Marvel type superhero movie that doesn’t take itself serious, with little to no action. That would be just like the last incarnation of Superman, and there is a reason so many fans of the Superman franchise have an extreme distaste for it. I have a feeling that even though this movie will sit mediocre with the critics, it will sit very well with the audience, myself included. Thanks for the review though!

      • Here’s a chap who knows how to “use” a review. Enjoy.

      • Scottie says:

        Yet you have reviews that are B+ and 3 out of 4 stars that are given a rotten tomato. Methinks Rotten Tomatoes has something fishy going on…

      • Again, RT sometimes takes it on itself to fiddle with ratings. Not my doing. If you name the reviews you say are rotten when they should be fresh, I will go in and fix it.
        And again, note that there are NO RAVES for this movie. None. Indifferent endorsements, indifferent pans. And it’s at 65% and falling on the RT scale.
        And you’re making more of that scale than you should. The middle-ground consensus? It’s not all that.

  14. Frankie Addiego says:

    Of course, the film WASN’T devoid of “wit,” it just wasn’t the character of the Christopher Reeve films that Superman Returns was. Anything less than that, I guess, is a Nirvana album to these people.
    I grew up reading Superman in the ’90s. This movie is hardly “dark” compared to things like Doomsday, Reign of the Supermen and Kingdom Come.
    It’s as if from the moment Chris Nolan’s involvement was announced, these “critics” made up their minds that they’d turned him into this glum sourpuss and that there would be no humor in the film. I saw it. There’s wit, there’s charm. It’s just not a friggin’ 2-hour long stand-up routine like the Iron Man films.

    • I dare you to point out Nolan’s contributions to the script. He’s invisible. Unless it was his idea to jumble things up and tell the story out of order. Which doesn’t work either, BTW.
      And Frankie, seriously, stop commenting here. I’ve deleted, what, 7 comments that cross the line? Back under the bridge with the other trolls.

  15. Scottie says:

    Another reviewer stuck in Donner’s world, endlessly comparing it to something outdated and campy. It is widely known that Snyder/Nolan used the comics to make this movie and used NOTHING from previous films/television. Judging by the early audience reaction, your review is way off base; it certainly makes me want to plunk my money down for it!

    On another note, read Rex Reed’s review. His review was so laughingly scalding, he came off as angry he didn’t get another cameo.

  16. John says:

    Wow I’m really bummed about the reviews for this film. While I haven’t seen it yet, I can tell several reviews are being pretty biased, exactly the same as what happened for the Amazing Spider-Man. Some negative reviews actually makes sense and I take those seriously since they explain really problems with the film, such as action being too stretched, the beginning of the movie feeling choppy because of the constant jumps from Krypton, flashbacks then the present or a few secondary characters being underdeveloped.

    Then there are the reviews that, to sum it up; Reboot = rotten no matter what, nothing like the Superman in the original movie = rotten no matter what, Nolan influence = rotten no matter what, no red undies = rotten no matter what. The funny thing is, these problems are somehow stretched into a full out review trying it’s best to make it seem as if it were written by a professional. I usually refer to professional reviews for movies, but there are times when you just gotta ignore them and judge the movie for yourself.

  17. Jason Todd says:

    Superman is a hard character to do well in movies or TV. His best ever representation may well be the cartoon version of a few years back. Cracked did a analysis of this and had it down pat. In movies, the number of foes that can put up a credible fight are limited. (And when I say limited, I mean limited by Warner Bros. fiats about what plot lines meet with approval. I’ve been saying for years we need a Superman movie — or Wonder Woman movie — that takes place in Apokolips and introduces Darkseid to movie audiences. (And look at this; Avengers has beaten DC to the punch and is going to have Thanos – a Darkseid ripoff — on screens first. Tsk!)

    Something I have opined about is that the Punisher movies never work because in the comics he exists as a counterpoint to Spider-man and Daredevil, two men who have a strict no-killing policy. In the movies, he’s just another goof with big guns. Yawn.

    Superman and Wonder Woman work in the comics/cartoons because they’re surrounded by myraid alien threats and supernatural threats. In their respective TV shows all they did was beat up bank robbers and spies in sharkskin suits. Double Yawn.

    Avengers, on the other hand, worked because you have super heroes fighting super threats. And each other. (Hulk vs. Thor on the big screen?? That’s what I’m talking ’bout Willis!)

    If this Superman is a success maybe future films won’t be afraid to go further.

  18. Vivek says:

    U all would be happy to knw that movie superman returns got scores of 76% (RT) and 72 (Metacritic) by critics like Roger himself. However sensible viewers like us have rated it at 67% on (RT) and 58 on (Metacritic)

    You all would also be amused to know that Superman Returns (72) have a better score than Avengers (69) on Metacritic.

    So technically that makes superman returns a better film than the Avengers…hahahahahaha

    EPIC FAIL Roger
    EPIC FAIL

    Its better you keep your opinion with yourself and don’t preach others with your baseless talks.

    • You are so idiotically off topic — Superman Returns? 2.5 stars from me ages ago — and off your nut, gramatically and rationally, that I will leave this up, as one should always archive the IP address of the dented.

      • eyeforani says:

        Dear Roger,

        You are an intelligent person. Kudos on the intentional bad review. It seems like you’re getting a lot of hits on your site.

        Sincerely,

        Thoughtful.

      • It’s not like mine is the only weak-to-bad one. So there goes your theory. 63% and falling.

  19. eyeforani says:

    Dear Roger,

    Interesting.
    I never stated your review is the only bad one.
    I just merely alluded to the concept that bad reviews get more hits. More hits, in many instances; means more money. And we all can never have too much money right?

    Sincerely,

    63% and falling.

    • Yes, and I was responding to your suggestion that I panned the movie just for traffic. Preposterous. I had hopes for “MOS” based on one of the trailers. I do, however, take pains to get my Rotten Tomatoes blurb to be as grabby as possible.

      • eyeforani says:

        You say preposterous, I say rational. :)

      • No, math illiterate works though. And argumentative. Twenty eight bad reviews on RT alone. And I just adore abuse from some delta bravo who hasn’t seen the movie she/he is defending, slinging accusations that you can’t back up.

  20. Alex says:

    Roger, I do appreciate your review and your perspective. However, I do have to agree with some of the other comments. I love Superman. I was the child who ran around with a towel around my neck pretending I could fly. I love Batman, but Batman is my #2 favorite. I loved the Dark Knight Trilogy. It was serious, compelling, complex, thematically rich, etc. I watched Iron Man 3 the other day. I found it to be simple, vacuous, uninspired, lacking in depth or substance, etc. But I went to the theater expecting it to be this type of movie so I’m not complaining. Terrible? No. Entertaining? Yes. Memorable? No. It was a popcorn movie without soul. I thought the same thing about The Avengers. When I walked out of The Avengers last May I turned to my dad and my brother and said, “That was a lot of fun, but I’ll be very upset if they make Man of Steel like this movie”. The Avengers was fun, witty, clever, and entertaining, but it’s not what I want from a Superman movie. I want movies that take the genre more seriously. Not all movies need nor should have ‘comic relief’ (I don’t mind SOME well placed humor). Many people love Spider-Man 2. I don’t get it, for the same reasons. The first hour of the original Superman movie is brilliant. Some of the best that superhero movies have ever offered. Serious, comtemplative, etc. Then the movie becomes campy and silly. It takes me out of the story. Of course I’m just expressing my own aesthetic preferences and they are neither right nor wrong and neither are yours or any others who are posting comments here. I have not seen Man of Steel yet so I might not even like it, but I am intrigued by the critic’s negative reviews. Many sites that I frequent are gushing over MOS. They say it’s everything that they had hoped for in a Superman movie. Then I read reviews that are critical of it because it’s too serious, they don’t connect emotionally to the characters, or there is too much action. I want to see Superman kicking a@@ and lots of it, but I also want seriousness, depth, emotion, complexity, etc. Many have said that this movie has it all and many disagree. It’s seems to be a very polarizing movie. I hope I agree with those that love it and connect with it, but I won’t convince myself it’s good if it isn’t. I didn’t like Superman Returns and I enjoy Superman I and II, but I have begun to outgrow them. I doubt there is a Superman fan as excited as I am about this movie. I guess I just don’t care what they do to other superheroes, but keep my Superman and Batman serious. I loathe the Transformer movies, Emmerich movies, etc. However, the only difference between these movies and The Avengers, Iron Man, Spider-Man 2, etc, is that the latter have charm, wit, and levity. But charm, wit, and levity aren’t enough for me. I think that superhero movies need to take a page from the Dark Knight Trilogy and ride that wave. There’s a reason that everyone loves The Empire Strikes Back so much. Dark, serious (with some well placed but tempered humor), philosophically complex, dripping with ambiguity and conflict, etc. Maybe MOS is none of these things. Maybe it is. I hope so and I’ll find out in 48 hrs. Roger, keep the discussion alive, it’s important. Cheers!

Comments are closed.