'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  Apologist Puncher on Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:25 pm

Rduce wrote:Once again, you prove my point with your vitriol toward any person who does not agree with your personal points of view. You will distort the facts so they align nicely with reality they way you wish them to be. I believe if you were to actually read my past offerings you would see that I never once offered up any evidence that I am a member of any other board that discusses the topics of Superman, Batman or any other DC Universe character. The simple fact is I do not.

Hang on a sec. YOU come in here with bullshit like THIS:

I just had to return to see if my impressions of this group were correct and as I see they were. I fully expected this bunch of self-styled Superman fans to be giddy over this piece of heaping excrement. Well, if this sort of entertainment was all you were looking for you could have gone to the DC Universe online game and masturbated your little A.D.H.D. selves into oblivion. So glad I figured out why I did not fit into this nest of imbeciles and bailed 18 months ago…

Have nice life boys and do not become distracted by bright and shining things for too long…

And then WHINE about "vitriol" being thrown your way? Are you fucking serious bitch??

Take your lumps, boy.

I was never an advocate for a sequel to Returns; in fact, my abhorrence for that film is perhaps as intense, if not more, than your own.

Get the fuck outta here with this bullshit.


I simply fail to see the need for another origins film. Everyone knows Superman’s back-story, at least used to, and to waste a third of the film explaining why Kal-El is here was not necessary. The flashbacks in this film were a nice touch and worked for me in that regard.

Something tells me you fail at MANY things, ADouche....

Although, young Clark running about with a flowing red cape pretending to be, who, George Reeves, no wait that was me as a child, was a waste. I guess he was pretending to be a Roman Centurion.

Or possibly he had memories of his father in a cape, as well as his mother, engrained in his mind and he wasn't sure where it came from. He just knew it felt RIGHT.

Idiot. 

I just feel this is not a true Superman movie, just as Returns was not a true Superman movie. Sadly, I feel, Snyder missed the chance for it to be great and once again given us mediocrity. He and the writer stumble badly in so many parts trying to distance themselves from Returns. Too much energy was exhausted trying to make Kal Christ like, and just how many times do you need to see him power his way threw another building before you get that fact, Oh WOW, he’s got superpowers!

....Ssssnnnnoooorrrreeee....

I personally feel that the pressure to deliver a great Superman movie got to Snyder and as a result, he tried to darken the character of Superman, which I have been against since the rumors began two years ago and killing Zod was too much for me. Perhaps, I have grown too old to enjoy a modern age Superman. Once again I will state what makes Superman’s character so distinct is not that fact he has superpowers, but how he chooses to use those powers.

He could easily kill every one of his enemies, yet he holds himself to a higher standard and values life above all else. If that means my Man of Tomorrow is so Yesterday, so be it. Time will tell if the next installment can build upon those qualities that have come to be expected of Superman.

You know, it's been brought up many times that Superman KILLS Zod in 'Superman II', along with the other two's deaths being attributed to his actions. But 'Superman III' was on Cinemax last night, and I was reminded of something:

Clark Kent, SUPERMAN, chokes to death his evil half. With his bare hands!

But please, continue talking as if he has NEVER considered killing before. Dink.

I gave Returns an F as a Superman film and this one I give a C-. For me this film is on a par with Green Lantern, disappointing.

I give your mom an F-- for her fat, doughy ass and sloppy, hairy baby maker.

With that, I will leave you to rant and rile against the dissenter and promise never to darken your door again. Because you see, your like this film, are not the Superman fans I am looking for...

Who invited you back in the first place, Apologist?

_________________
BJ Routh and Bryan Singer WERE the worst thing to happen to Superman since Bepo the Super Monkey.
avatar
Apologist Puncher
Admin
Admin

Posts : 4864
Points : 7476
User Reputation : 548
Join date : 2010-10-11
Age : 41
Location : West Coast, USA

http://supermanfilmwatchdog.forumcanadien.org

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks on Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:54 pm

Superman killed Kumar and those other dudes when he lifted the Kryptonite island in SR. WHERE WAS THE OUTRAGE THEN!?! Shit, even the kid kills that one goon. OH NOES.

Really though, all these complaints about killing Zod is nonsense. I thought they way it was handled made it work and it was sensible that they showed how it really bothered Superman to be put in such a position. It's not like he's casual about it. Hell, Superman not only killed Zod in II when he was depowered, but he also smirked when it happened. Where was the outrage over that?
avatar
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 96
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:06 am

James Stocks wrote:Superman killed Kumar and those other dudes when he lifted the Kryptonite island in SR. WHERE WAS THE OUTRAGE THEN!?! Shit, even the kid kills that one goon. OH NOES.

Really though, all these complaints about killing Zod is nonsense. I thought they way it was handled made it work and it was sensible that they showed how it really bothered Superman to be put in such a position. It's not like he's casual about it. Hell, Superman not only killed Zod in II when he was depowered, but he also smirked when it happened. Where was the outrage over that?

Yeah, in S2 Superman crushed a powerless Zod's hand, then through him against the wall with force into which he fell to his death in that chasm. Non basically committed suicide, trying to fly & couldn't. But then Lois gets in on the action. She decks Ursa & she too falls to her death. And you're right. Reeve acted the part with a smirk. If you think about it, the way Superman did this in S2 was actually more of a reproach than the way it was handled in MOS, a really 'callous' approach. But where were all the complaints back in the day?

In MOS Superman knows he has to do something or Zod is gonna fry that family with his heat vision, effectively killing them! So Superman doesn't let that happen. I guess you could say that he acted just like a soldier or police officer would if thrown into a similar situation of life & death. So just what do these apologists think Superman should've done? Let Zod fry them but then he'll try to 'figure it out later'? I mean, c'mon!

As for Singerman, where's the outrage over what he did? Food for thought.
avatar
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  Comicbookfan-V2 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:10 am

non_amos wrote:As for Singerman, where's the outrage over what he did? Food for thought.

Yeah, Supes definitely did alot of wrongs in that one and it doesn't involve taking a life!
avatar
Comicbookfan-V2
Reputation: Asshole

Posts : 586
Points : 482
User Reputation : -249
Join date : 2010-10-15
Age : 35
Location : Texas but originally New York

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  lib on Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:53 am

I guess being a deadbeat dad of a bastard son is more Superman than killing Zod is. LMAO
avatar
lib
SuperFriend
SuperFriend

Posts : 67
Points : 89
User Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-15
Location : Toronto, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos on Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:27 am

I guess more debate goes on over Superman killing Zod. I originally found this via my Facebook notifications. Anyway, we have some dude I know nothing about named Chris Clow condemning Superman's actions but on the flip side we have of all people defending Superman's actions, none other than 'Jeffrey Taylor' of duh Homopage fame.

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/our-comic-book-experts-debate-controversial-ending-39man-steel39/12622

The Devil's Advocate on Killing Zod

by Chris Clow


What are some of the many reasons so many die-hard Superman fans attach themselves to the character in the first place? His inherent value as a symbol of truth and justice? The images conjured by a legacy of amazing creative teams in comics over the last 75 years? How about that he just looks cool in a red cape?

There are a multitude of reasons that people gravitate towards Krypton’s Last Son, and those fans know that deep in their Superman-loving hearts the character absolutely does not kill. So, it’s not too surprising to see that the fan backlash toward the character’s decidedly brutal deposition of General Zod in Man of Steel has left a lot of people cold, a fair amount of people angry, and perhaps even more people disheartened.

Why is this? The Superman that I’ve gotten to know over the course of my lifetime has always had a very profound reverence for life, and in most cases has attempted to protect it at all costs. The burden that Superman has carried through most of his existence is different from practically every other superhero because as the most powerful being on the planet with a sense of compassion to match, he feels guilt when he fails to save everyone. Images immediately come to mind of a Man of Steel thrown into emotional turmoil in the aftermath of the Imperiex War, even changing his very costume to carry a mournful black in place of the vibrant yellow on his chest to represent how heavy the losses of that war weighed upon him.

That might seem an esoteric example to cite, given the type of film that Man of Steel aimed to be in appealing to everyone, but what I’ve heard most consistently from the creative team is that this is the modern incarnation of Superman. To me, that means that everything from at least the early to mid 1990s is fair game, and the Imperiex War dominated the Super-books in the early 2000s.

One of the very architects of the modern Superman, Birthright and Kingdom Come writer Mark Waid, made it clear that Superman’s shocking final act against Zod is something that may count as something of a cardinal sin against the DC Universe’s beacon of hope, and that he may have only bought it if the film attempted to conclusively prove that he really did have no choice. Ardent defenders of Man of Steel will explain to no end that the movie was effective enough in illustrating this point, but if you’re a big Superman fan, I know that there’s a voice in your head telling you, after you read Waid’s thoughts, that “…yeah, he has a point.”

It’s too easy to point to superhero films today that are a little too compromising on what we thought was an uncompromising rule. The Dark Knight trilogy is guilty of it with Ra’s al Ghul and (to a lesser degree) Two-Face, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has transgressed in that direction in all three Iron Man films, Captain America and The Avengers, and now in even Superman’s latest outing, the one hero who is never supposed to compromise is now guilty of it. As someone who did enjoy Man of Steel a lot, it’s very difficult for me to look at the genre today without a degree of regret, since one of the ideals I attach to so much in superhero fiction hasn’t been able to make the jump into cinematic success in the same way as the characters have.

Now to be clear, there’s a degree of devil’s advocate to this argument I’m making. I do largely think that Superman killing in a film is a questionable move, and that the superhero genre as a whole needs to pull back from that edge a bit more than it has in recent years. When it comes to this latest situation with Zod, the one story that ultimately helps me to give Man of Steel something resembling a pass in this department is one of the first comics stories I ever read as a young child: Superman (vol. 2) #75.

There’s no getting around that in that story, Superman’s intent was to kill an unstoppable behemoth rampaging across America. No prison could hold him, no one else could ever have hoped to stop him. Is the logic too different from the choice he made in Man of Steel?

You tell me.
 
And from the same link here's JT's rebuttal:


In Defense of a Perfect Ending
by Jeffrey Taylor
I wrote this piece just a couple of months ago, to explain why it is so important that Superman never kill his enemies. I was only guessing one potential possibility. I said, “If Superman does kill his enemies on purpose in the film, it will lead to the ultimate alienation of the fan base.” I was clearly correct because the fan bases are now torn for exactly that reason in a way that could only be done previously by Star Wars or religion. Thanks to having written this article, I can honestly show that I understand both sides of this argument. Yet I loved the ending of Man of Steel and think it made for a perfect moment.
It’s absolutely vital that Superman not kill, because it’s against his character. I find it similar to the idea of a doctor who takes a Hippocratic Oath to save lives and not take them. Superman has killed before, most notably in Superman (vol. 2) #22 where Superman had time to think about it and decided that Zod, Faora and Quex-Ul were too dangerous to allow to live, so even though they had already been permanently robbed of their powers, he unleashed Green Kryptonite to painfully execute them while they begged for mercy. This was after he had already saved the world as Superman for seven in-continuity years. Many, myself included, still disagree with the decision, but there’s no denying that the subsequent stories revolving around Superman’s regret for the premeditated decision were worthwhile. The only reason to forgive the decision is the aftermath.
In Man of Steel, fans are treated to a young, fledgling Superman who has only just learned of his past and getting control over previously undiscovered powers like flight. He hasn’t even put on his glasses to work at the Daily Planet yet, so he is allowed to make mistakes on the journey as long as he learns something from them. Granted, this doesn’t help the ending of this single film to stand on its own, but it’s what Obi-Wan Kenobi might call a “First step into a larger world.” My only complaint about the moment would arise if it is never addressed in a sequel, but I have to believe it will in some way.
Everything about the Man of Steel‘s Superman is about protecting life. The plan he set in motion to stop the other Kryptonians by way of Lois and Jor-El’s plan was to save the lives of humans and his fellow Kryptonians. He intended to send them back into the Phantom Zone rather than kill them all. He had no control over being sent to Earth or knowledge that activating the ancient ship would draw Zod et al to create so much destruction and death. Placing the blame for the destruction of Metropolis on Superman is frankly lazy, and untrue.

After Zod has nothing left to live for and claimed that Superman had taken “his soul,” he decided to force Superman to kill him. There is always a choice, but Superman absolutely made the right choice to allow the threatened family to live, in contrast to the way he allowed his own adoptive father to die. I know I’m not the only one to say this, but this is Superman’s “Kobiashi Maru,” an unwinnable situation. It’s easy to say “Superman always finds a way,” but at the same time, if something this horrific and traumatic happens to the character, it belongs in his first week of being Superman. Then we can move on to why it matters so much that Superman knows even more clearly why he can never kill.
Given the option, Superman wouldn’t have fought Zod at all. As a military tactician with the same powers as Superman, he chose the venue that would offer the maximum collateral damage and then ultimately chose his own death. After all, we’re talking about heat vision. Superman was holding his head, but why would that stop Zod from flicking his eyes over just a tiny bit more and finishing off the family? This was all under Zod’s control.
The scene where Superman breaks Zod’s neck is incredibly poignant and clearly something Superman did not want to do. The horrific scream he gave after having done it mirrored the scene where he allowed Jonathan Kent to die. The mirror is quite literal. Clark was on the right side of the screen looking to the left of the audience in the first scene as a teenager, and then after killing Zod instead of allowing the family to die, he was on the left of the screen looking to the right of the audience when he screams in the same way. It’s all about choosing to not allow the family that Zod was threatening to die the way he allowed his surrogate father to die.
Granted, this still remains a difficult debate. I agree that Superman should not kill, but I also recognize the value of putting him, as a Superman so early in his career, in a situation where there is no other possibility. It has value and a relevant place in the story. I hope and expect it to affect decisions he makes in future films. I will have a bigger issue with the moment if it is simply never addressed again, but I would bet vital parts of my anatomy that it will be in some way.
It’s clear that this was a very specifically thought-out scene and not something the filmmakers put in to annoy the fans, as some are already suggesting. This film has earned its place in Superman's history and it's not going away.



What gets me is that some are coming to the conclusion that somehow MOS has divided the fanbase due to this issue. Have these morons forgotten Singerman already? Now that divided the fanbase like nothing I've ever seen! Yet that fact seems lost on these 'tools' now.

Oh boy! Frustration
avatar
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend on Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:57 am

As you say (or imply anyway), Taylor is an Apologist par excellence. I got into it with him over Singerman's lackluster box office. The guy was so set both in his Apologist views ("$400 million worldwide!!") and Communist politics that when I said Singerman lost money in both territories (ie, the domestic and international markets), he somehow interpreted that as a jingoistic "Superman belongs to America and nobody else" type of sentiment and then argued with me on that basis. I'm not sure if it's because he's an idiot and misunderstood what I said or if he was playing dumb so that he could shout me down with a "point" he felt more comfortable arguing.

Snyder gave some interview or another where he said he wanted to establish "the why" of Superman's no-kill policy. According to him, that was the one element of Superman's worldview that he felt needed to be firmly established. Truth, justice and the American way seemed implicit but the no-kill thing, he thought, needed an explanation. Presumably then, this type of thing won't ever happen again. I'm cool with that. I don't necessarily need this to be revisited/continued in a sequel but maybe I'm alone on that one.

I'm so happy right now as a Superman fan. This movie could've gone so many different ways but Snyder hit the right notes.
avatar
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks on Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:52 pm

The perfect Superman film for me would have been an adaptation of John Byrne's MAN OF STEEL reboot. That's what I was really hoping for with Zack Snyder's involvement when the news broke out, to see it come alive on screen like WATCHMEN. But I'm happy with what we got, I'll take it.

Also, this short video sums up the whole debate over Superman killing Zod.



Much easier to get through than long-winded debates that always come to the same conclusion.
avatar
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 96
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  Comicbookfan-V2 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:38 am

Apologist Puncher wrote:But I'll let you know what the cameo was:

When Superman is under the gravity beam, his face changes into Christopher Reeve's for a split second.

No lie.

Specking of which, there's a panel over at Supermanhomepage.com with a motion pic posted on it of that exact scene I'm assuming this is what you were talking about!



Funny how this could be an indication that Cavill has a more resemblance to Reeve than Routh does.
avatar
Comicbookfan-V2
Reputation: Asshole

Posts : 586
Points : 482
User Reputation : -249
Join date : 2010-10-15
Age : 35
Location : Texas but originally New York

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks on Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:06 am

I don't see the Reeve resemblance, I see Superman.
avatar
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 96
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos on Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:24 am

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:
Apologist Puncher wrote:But I'll let you know what the cameo was:

When Superman is under the gravity beam, his face changes into Christopher Reeve's for a split second.

No lie.

Specking of which, there's a panel over at Supermanhomepage.com with a motion pic posted on it of that exact scene I'm assuming this is what you were talking about!



Funny how this could be an indication that Cavill has a more resemblance to Reeve than Routh does.

 I see where it looks like it changes for a split second but it doesn't last long enough for me to study it! I think that's why I didn't really 'get it' in the theater that day. Is there any way that someone can get a 'freeze frame' shot of that pic? Just that pic alone? The thing is though is that the guys who were with me both saw it but somehow I just didn't, not completely anyway.
avatar
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend on Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:43 am

I don't think it's a complete change the whole way through. The nose looks like Reeve through a good bit of it and so does the upper lip but the lower lip, chin, brow and other stuff only last for a split second and then they gone.

If Reeve must be referenced in some way or another... I guess this is okay. Just no more. Let Cavill be Superman now.
avatar
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  Bug-Eyed Earl on Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:29 am

James Stocks wrote:Superman killed Kumar and those other dudes when he lifted the Kryptonite island in SR. WHERE WAS THE OUTRAGE THEN!?! Shit, even the kid kills that one goon. OH NOES.

Really though, all these complaints about killing Zod is nonsense. I thought they way it was handled made it work and it was sensible that they showed how it really bothered Superman to be put in such a position. It's not like he's casual about it. Hell, Superman not only killed Zod in II when he was depowered, but he also smirked when it happened. Where was the outrage over that?

I always wondered about the pass that scene got. Is it fans knowing about the behind the scenes drama and just chalking it up to the now-hated Salkinds?

Bug-Eyed Earl
Kirk Alyn
Kirk Alyn

Posts : 18
Points : 28
User Reputation : 10
Join date : 2011-02-03

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks on Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:05 am

I've rarely heard that scene debated by many fans, particularly the way he dispatches the villains with a callous attitude. I don't have much of a big problem over it, but I would have preferred they kept the Arctic police arresting scene, primarily because it actually gives the Luthor storyline closure. In the theatrical cut it makes it look like Superman and Lois just left Luthor in the fortress, which is just odd. Then there's the Donner Cut which has Superman destroy the fortress with Luthor inside! Of course, he reverses time anyway... which makes his destruction of the fortress seem rather pointless.

Neither version is really perfect for me, but somewhere in between there is. I might just get around to making my own personal cut one day. Either way, there's one bit that does get debated once in awhile: Superman getting revenge on the trucker. Many would argue it's unSuperman like to get revenge, but I personally love the scene and it very much strikes me as a thing Superman would have done during his early years where he would punish someone who had it coming. Plus, he was nice enough to give money to the owner for the damage. Fun 
avatar
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 96
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend on Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:35 am

I think a lot of people have given Superman II a pass on a lot of stuff because of sentimentality or because it has a lot of roots with Donner. But it's one of those things that doesn't really hold up very well when you analyze it for all the reasons which have been pointed out... as well things like Superman willingly sacrificing his powers basically just to get laid.
avatar
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks on Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:35 pm

Stuff like that only worked in the context of what the two films were supposed to be, as a two-parter where the whole character arc is about Kal-El becoming a man at the end. Lester's theatrical version trying to distance itself more as a sequel than a major component of the first film is what makes that whole arc seem awkward, as you'd assume after the first one ending on a definitive note that Superman's arc is complete. Donner's Cut at least shows that he didn't need to depower to have a love life with Lois. He already has that, it's Jor-El that enforces it on him for choosing a woman over humanity.

Like I said, neither version is perfect. I think the best version of SUPERMAN II is the original Mankiewicz script itself. It's the only one that feels complete, and I do love a lot of the lines that did not end up on either version of the film, like when Superman tells Luthor about the molecule chamber.

Superman: "Perhaps there is some good in you after all."
Luthor: "Are you kidding? I'm loaded with good, I've never used it!"

I can totally see Hackman having fun with a line like that.
avatar
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 96
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos on Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:07 am

Here are a couple of good articles supporting MOS that I found, the second article is actually referenced in the first.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darryl-woodard/man-of-steela-mach-10-win_b_3513597.html


Darryl Woodard

Blogger
GET UPDATES FROM Darryl Woodard

Man of Steel: A Mach 10 Win Worldwide
Posted: 06/28/2013 1:45 pm


A favorite song can be like a favorite film. One can listen to a favorite song and seemingly never tire of listening to it. Just like one can watch a favorite film, and seemingly never tire of watching it.

The song Just Don't by Raphael Saadiq does it for me, from his album Stone Rollin. The song Set Fire To The Rain also does it for me, by six time 2012 Grammy Award winner Adele from her album 21. When she sings that song, it's as if the storm clouds were suddenly breached by rays of sunlight.

And then there's Skyfall as among my favorite of James Bond 007 films and winner of two Academy Awards for 2013, winning in a tie with Zero Dark Thirty for Best Sound-Editing, and also winning for Best Original Song. And who was the person who won for that song award? Adele, who had both co-written the song as well as sung the theme song for the film Skyfall. Let's face it that lady's got some pipes!

A favorite film like a favorite song captures you. Both arrests your attention by taking hold of your consciousness and your heart, working it on in there, seizing all of you and refusing to let go in that moment. For obviously there's a certain aspect or a theme within a favorite song as well as a favorite film that attracts you. And on June 14 th opening day, and last week again one week from that day, for me it was the latest reboot Superman film Man of Steel.

Money talks in Hollywood, we all know. Because they don't call it show business for nothing.
Yet despite mixed reviews Man of Steel came out on top on opening weekend at $125.1 million. Yes it did fall 64 percent after the second weekend recently at third behind World War Z. Still, as noted by Nicole Pedersen at collider/weekend-box-office, Man of Steel soared above $345 million worldwide. And some say higher than that at $400 million. This is despite the critics who either gave the film 2 ½ stars or who hated the film.

The question is why do I like the Superman reboot so much? There are several reasons why. But one involves a scene in the film while trying not to reveal a spoiler by not going too deep.

There's a scene where the visual consciousness of the deceased Jor-El (biological father of Kal-El/Clark Kent) meets the grown up Kal-El for the first time. In that scene Jor-El explains to his Earth-raised son, the meaning behind what's known as the Kryptonian genetic engineering Codex, and how he and his beloved deceased wife Lara (Kal-El/Clark Kent's biological mother) both broke with Kryptonian tradition by having a wiser far nobler use for it. And it was Jor-El a leading scientist, who also tried to warn the stubborn high council on the planet Krypton of their once great civilization's impending doom.

Again most critics I've read gave the film 2 ½ stars. One gave it three until finally recently; I came across a review titled Man of Steel: review by Brandon S. Todd on June 19, 2013, who gave the film five stars. It is an excellent review, very well written and very in-depth brilliantly explaining all major aspects of the film such as story, acting, CGI action scenes and cinematography. A definite must read.

One of several complaints among critics about Man of Steel, was that the battle scenes were long while depicting an overkill of destruction in the city of Metropolis. Well in Mr. Todd's review in a paragraph he explains that, within a sentence with Superman, "...confronting beings with powers equal to his that will inevitably lead to a brutal battle." That happened to be the second of three topics I've covered to counter three main critic's complaints, all in my previous HuffPost blog Man of Steel: Was Superman Super? For I mentioned that naturally there's to be a protracted fight, within my paragraph later ending in a sentence with the words with mankind was now witnessing the most powerful beings ever to walk the face of the earth.

The point being the second time I saw Man of Steel I counted about ten Kryptonian soldiers including General Zod who all landed on Earth, all with powers equal to Superman. And that is along with the advanced alien Kryptonian technology these ten alien soldiers bring. So it stands to reason an epic battle would result in near mass destruction of the city of Metropolis. Critics who've complained about this in the film obviously haven't looked at a superhero comic in a long time.

When superheroes fight in comics especially with amped up amazing powers like Superman, Thor, Wonder Woman and the Hulk, if they fight villains of equal might they could lay waste a whole city block. Many times that if they are fighting several super powered villains, or superior like Galactus or Darkseid. There are no Marquis of Queensbury rules in comics and it's not like a Manny Pacquiao vs. Juan Manuel Marquez fight at MGM Grand.

And then what also astonishes me is that Rotten Tomatoes.com critics had rated Superman Returns (2006) at 75 percent starring Brandon Routh (last name said like South) as Superman, yet they rated the recent Man of Steel starring British actor Henry Cavill as Superman at 58 percent. This even shocked Grae Drake Senior Editor at Rotten Tomatoes.com who said on Fox Business TV, that as much as she loves and respects the critics at Rotten Tomatoes she is shocked at the 58 percent rotten score of Man of Steel. She closed by saying the movie is not perfect but it is a good movie.

About Superman Returns (2006) I don't blame lead actor Brandon Routh, or any other actor in the film responsible for Rotten Tomatoes.com audience rating at 67 percent, whereas Man of Steel was given an audience rating at 82 percent. I blame the script concept, about Superman mysteriously missing from Earth for five years. Of course he later revealed to Lois Lane once he returned that he sought to discover the remains of his home-world Krypton.

Then there was the Lois Lane Pulitzer Prize winning article titled Why The World Doesn't Need Superman which she wrote while he was gone. And following later she tells Superman why, "The world doesn't need a savior. And neither do I." Now Superman could have responded with, Lois did I not just yesterday save your life and a plane load of reporters and the pilots from crashing, after an experimental rocket-ship launch malfunctioned atop your plane? But Superman being Superman, then took her in his arms before responding in his own unique way.

Overall I blame the script, and the director who shared in the story in Superman Returns. And I honestly thought Brandon Routh was good as Superman. Yet Man of Steel exceeds by a quantum leap. To which Brandon S. Todd agrees as he says in his five star review, "This is the Superman film we've been waiting for. Unlike 'Returns' this movie is composed of well- orchestrated, explosive, and dramatic action and story. It has style, substance, and Superman at his best." And obviously worldwide audiences so far at the tune of $345 million do agree.

He represents the best of two civilizations, as said by the visual consciousness of Jor-El half way into the film. But to go a step further he also represents the best of two father figures, Jor-El the scientist, and Jonathan Kent the farmer. Mr. Brandon S. Todd applauds the film as well as Ms. Grae Drake Senior Editor at Rotten Tomatoes.com. And of course so do I. Superman is back and here to stay.

 
http://www.movieweb.com/movie/man-of-steel/REAKNb3UPIejEC



Man of Steel: Review By Brandon S. Todd


Jun 19th, 2013 by Brandon S. Todd



"One of the best comic book film adaptions yet; hands down. This film is action packed, emotionally engaging, and very refreshing. Superman is back."



  • OVERALL
    5.0
    SUPERB


Superman has returned to the big screen, without all the romanticism, cheesiness, and dullness that Bryan Singer's 2006 film Superman Returns had with the new Superman reboot titled 'Man of Steel.

Henry Cavill, an up and coming star in his own right, has taken up the alter of being the Big Blue Scout.

Except in Man of Steel, this is no Big Blue Boy scout; this Clark Kent/Superman is a conflicted, introverted, altruistic Alien who roams the earth taking up various low key jobs helping those in the face of certain danger.

Ultimately, learning his true identity and that a Kryptonian army led by General Zod has invaded the earth seeking him, Clark Kent/Kal-El dons his family crest and a suit of organic tech Body Armor becoming the symbol known as Superman.

Zack Snyder, David Goyer, and Christopher Nolan have delivered a masterpiece as far as comic book adaptions goes; and even action/science fiction films.

Man of Steel is on par with Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. It delivers superb story, a great script, unbelievably amazing action, beautiful cinematography, veristic production design, and glorious visuals.

Also the film has a non-linear plot, with flashbacks taking up most of the second act. Once again there is similarity here between Nolan's Batman Begins and this Superman origin story reboot, as both use flashbacks to establish the protagonists internal conflicts.

Superman had somewhat been off the radar in Hollywood since the alleged failure of Superman Returns in 2006. It was a decent film, but I, like many others, think their was not enough action, originality, or villainy to go around. According to most "not a punch was thrown" by Superman in that film.

Also it simply continued Donner's original themes, look, and story, failing to deliver any thrill or intensity; instead it was more of a Love story.

Well, Man of Steel has corrected those mistakes. In all three acts spectacular set pieces dominate the screen, along with plenty of action of Henry Cavill's Superman saving people and more so brutally battling Krytonian soldiers and General Zod.

This is the Superman film we've been waiting for. Unlike 'Returns' this movie is composed of well orchestrated, explosive, and dramatic action and story. It has style, substance, and Superman at his best.

The film has well over 70 minutes of pure adrenaline pumping action. But all that action means nothing without the technical aspects being done well, and goodness gracious Snyder, Nolan, and Goyer and Co. have made a film that shines on all technical levels.

Firstly, the acting is delivered perfectly by the cast. Cavill's Superman, is Superman. There's no second guessing, the guy is built like him, talks like him, and has the swag like him.

He's Superman and deserves a lot of credit for bringing the character back to life. Goyer and Nolan, in creating their story, have essentially done a character study on Clark Kent; while altering the origins and the story of Superman from a fantasy tale, to a grounded Science Fiction/Drama.

Krypton is explored like never before in this take on Superman, giving plenty glimpses at Kryptonian culture, politics, and technology that hasn't been witnessed on film and the introduction gives Man of Steel a foundation of Science Fiction and Drama to stand rather than just being an outright superhero movie.

Even Superman's powers have much more scientific emphasis placed on them, and are giving specific explanations and plenty of back-story on his powers rather than assuming the viewer to be naive and to accept that Superman is simply able to do these things because the story calls for it.

The origin story is given much more substance, background, and explanation as far as character motivation and plot. For instance the "S" on Superman's chest doesn't stand for Superman.

It stands for hope. This idea is derived from a Superman comic book, and these attempts to give meaning and substance to the story by mingling elements from other source material works out well on screen.

It recognizes the impact of Donner's original film, while innovating the origins and even giving inclusion "nolan-style" through pseudo-science to the "Phantom Zone" and even Kryponite.

Many people, especially the 90's babies, are not really interested in Superman anymore, in comics or film, because the character is essentially invincible. He's bulletproof, has super-speed, he can fly, and has super strength and many can't relate to the many superhuman qualities of the character.

So how do you make a character like that interesting?

Two Words: Internal conflict. That's what Snyder, Goyer, and Nolan have perfected with both Batman and Superman. Examining not only the external conflict, but the internal conflict that makes these hero's become who they are. The internal conflict of Clark Kent is what essentially drives Man of Steel, as it did with Bruce Wayne in Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy.

In Nolan's Batman Begins Bruce Wayne feared bats, and wanted to prey on those who preyed on the fearful; therefore he become his fear, becoming Batman.

Similarly, Snyder, Goyer, and Nolan's Superman fears his powers. He's uncertain of what he's to do with his gifts and isn't sure if the world will accept him due to him being an Alien, but after discovering his true identity he overcomes his fear of his powers, embraces his gifts, dons his suit, and sacrifices himself to save the world from Zod's wrath becoming Superman.

The story of this film makes Superman relevant once more and the character regains it iconic status.

Also Cavill's Kent struggles with the deaths of both his fathers; Jor-El and Pa Kent. Both deaths have a significant impact on Kent, and his transition into becoming the symbol of Superman.

Man of Steel is basically "Superman Begins". It's very much alike Batman Begins as far as plot structure, themes, and protagonist arc. Cavill shoulders the role of Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman fabulously. Some have called him dull, or too serious.

But that's what I want, that what many of us want. A serious and dramatic Superman story plain and simple. Actually though, Cavill gives Kent a few extra layers; portraying a societal outcast, with great power, whose also filled with doubt and uncertainty. Once Zod attacks Earth, Kent must transform into Superman and triumph over his uncertainty and Zod and his army.

I wouldn't consider Cavill's performance dull on any level. Instead I applaud him for his acting in the film; he's projected a very somber, melancholy, and emotional Clark Kent. He had me sold as being Clark, Kal-El, and Superman.

Plus if you consider the "serious" acting from a story standpoint you have a being who has these amazing powers, has just put on this suit of armor, and is confronting beings with powers equal to his that will inevitably lead to a brutal battle. I'd be pretty serious too.

Who'd have time for smiles, quips, and eye winks when the world is at stake and very powerful fellow Aliens are planning on destroying humanity? Cavill did a terrific job and I greatly enjoyed his performance.

Superman's arc in this film is shocking. How his battle with General Zod ends is a big surprise for those who aren't familiar with the darker interpretations of Superman and "Angry Superman".

The step he takes to defeat Zod is absolutely uncharacteristic of the classical Superman, and it brings the character into the modern age by humanizing him and shaking up his "code" a bit; giving him more of a utilitarian moral framework, as opposed a deontological one.

Cavill was great as Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman in all three acts.

As for the other actors:

Russell Crowe gives a stoical, intellectual, and very wise take on Jor-El, Superman's father. His screen-time exceeds over 30 minutes, and his character plays a vital role in the overall story.

Crowe handles the character awesomely, and provides much needed emotional depth, soundness, and motivation to the role.

Michael Shannon dominates the screen as Zod. His presence and intimidation is felt at the intro of the film, and it doesn't let up. His utilitarian take on the character fits well into the plot, making it both a global threat and a personal threat to Superman.

Shannon's Zod is much different from that of Terrence Stamp's. No theatricality here, or "kneel before Zod" quips, but rather Shannon projects intensity and drama without seize.

He embodies the nature of General Zod, and gives him a different, gritty, and vile substance; he's a genetically engineered soldier meant to protect Krypton at all costs.

When Superman threatens that goal; he acts accordingly. He tries to destroy him, and the humans he's protecting; forcing Superman to go to the full extent to stop Zod and his army.

Amy Adams Lois Lane is a witty, sexy, and sassy incarnation of the character. Her and Cavill have a good chemistry, and the relationship between Kent and Lane, although not thoroughly explored, is done very well in the film.

Lane and Kent develop a chemistry and ultimately bond near the end of the film; giving it a subtle romantic element rather than the all out romanticism of Superman Returns which was a turn off for most Superman and action movie fans at that time.

Kevin Costner and Diane Lane both give solid performances as their respective characters of Ma and Pa Kent. The entire cast did a supreme job in giving life to the script and the story of Man of Steel.

Ante Traue is another captivating antagonist, fully embodying the General Zod's subordiante: Faora. Also a genetically engineered warrior, Faora is a ruthless, unmerciful, instinctive killer. And Traue manifests the character in a very elegant way, giving a very captivating performance.

Now as for the Production Design. It's very naturalistic, and gritty giving the film a very different tone than its predecessors. No doubt about it, this film has a darker tone; perhaps even more so than Batman Begins.

The Cinematography is exquisite. The Score by Hans Zimmer is outstanding as always. Snyder's directing ability has progressed tremendously, and his film gives the viewer outstanding shots, fluidity, and realism.

The physics of flying, super speed, heat vision, and X ray vision are explored and established in the film in a very grounded way.

Many critics have called this a cynical take on the Superman origin story due to the excessive amount of death and destruction that takes place in the third act; you actually witness many people dying which is unlike many superhero movies.

But in the overall scheme of things I believe Snyder and Co. were trying to manifest the reality of what would happen if an Army of super-powered Aliens with advanced ships and tech went up against a single super-powered being in Superman.

If that were to really occur in this world, death and destruction would ensue no matter how many people Supes were to try to save.

He would not be able to save everybody, nor even that many people considering the circ*mstances. So I agreed with the carnage that took place in the third act.

Also, considering that this is an origin story, Kent/Superman is just learning how to use his powers full fledged and against opponents of the same stature.

Just as Nolan's Batman films, this new take on Superman is an attempt to create a hard-boiled story with grim action sequences; giving it a consistent tone with the Batman films of feeling realistic.

Overall the darker tone is a beneficial change for DC and Warner Bros as the lighthearted nature of Donner's Superman isn't compatible with the Zeitgeist of America at this time. Nothing is wrong with having a dark, dreary, and serious Superman story with elements of loss, death, and extreme violence.

Yes, it's still fantastical, but the way its shot it gives it a naturalistic tone without all the bright, campy, and cheesy colors, dialogue, action, and set pieces.

There is CGI throughout the film, but its expected with a film of this scale and stature where people are flying at impossible speeds and throwing each other throwing building at hundreds of miles per hour.

The set pieces are so broad and the action so defiant of the natural rules of gravity that it must contain CGI.

And thankfully, its been applied well in this movie. Snyder seems to have perfected CGI, because all the action and scenes requiring it are still fully engaging and leave you in awe with some of the best visuals of any action film to date.

This film contains the best visuals I've ever witnessed. I will also say this. The third act of this film is mind blowing. Action, action, action, action....that's the Third Act. This one film has more action in it than all of Nolan's Batman films combined.

It doesn't let up, and with visuals and the Cinematography the way they are it creates some great action sequences and shots in general.

The length, the quality, and the aggressiveness of the action of the Third Act makes this an astounding addition to the comic book movie genre; and to DC's library of comic book adaptions.

Ladies and Gents, DC is back. Marvel Studios watch out, because DC is creeping up and it seems this cinematic rivalry could turn into a Tortoise and Hare race.

With Man of Steel 2 already green lit it seems that DC is pushing toward a transition into forming a shared DC cinematic universe ultimately leading to Justice League near 2018.

Perhaps patience is all DC needed. After Green Lantern's apparent failure, it seems they learned that their properties are not compatible with the humor and campiness that Marvel uses in their works.

Rather, as seen in Batman Begins, TDK, TDKR, and Man of Steel, it seems that DC's properties fair better when produced as serious, dramatic, and epic films; instead of simply comic book adaptions.

I look forward to seeing Man of Steel 2. In fact, I plan on seeing Man of Steel again in theaters. That's how great it is. It's an achievement in the genre of Superhero movies, but also in film.

Americas greatest superhero has been revived for the modern age in a film that is far darker, far more epic, and far more serious than its predecessors. It's larger than life, noble, and very grounded.

It feels, when you're watching it, that all of it could take place in our world which was Snyder and Nolan's intent.

The shooting styles, themes, and great sense of realism in the fantasy elements and action of this movie are miraculous and very captivating.

You feel for Jor-El as he sends his son off to Earth in the wake of his planets destruction. You feel for Clark Kent as he struggles growing up knowing he's an alien with superpowers. You feel for Pa Kent. You feel for Lois Lane. You even feel for General Zod.

The action is remarkable in this film, but what makes it is the story. Scriptwriter David Goyer, and Co-Story Writer and Producer Christopher Nolan have crafted a magnificent story.

Along with Zack Snyder's directing ability, these men have developed a dark yet dazzling Superman film. One that takes itself seriously, one that has the action, the character development, and the story.

Man of Steel makes Iron Man 3 and The Avengers look like sugar; sweet little children's movies that disguised as dark, on the edge, action films. Unlike the camp-fest that happened in The Avengers and IM3, in Man of Steel when the world is attacked people actually die and their deaths are shown.

Marvel can't help but keep it light with their tones in their movies, because they're primarily marketing to kids and "big kids". But as shown with Batman Begins, TDk, TDkR, and Man of Steel; DC is going dark, really dark.

If DC's path is to keep on implementing drama, personal tragedy, and exploring the origins of their superhero with depth and complexity then I'm really looking forward to their next cinematic endeavors.

The world is truly at stake as Zod implements his plan to takeover Earth, unlike Loki's little plan of making the Avengers look bad.

In Man of Steel you see mass destruction, and you see the real consequences of what would happen if an Alien army really invaded earth; instead of gimmicky movie magic that shows no brutality or true violence and is essentially for teenagers.

This Superman film is for the mature, adult Superman, comic book, and action film fan looking for a darker, and more modern take on the character.

As I wrote, DC is going to do big things in the next few years. If they were able to concoct a way to retain Chris Nolan, David Goyer, and Snyder for their other superhero properties then perhaps they can overcome Marvel's takeover of comic book film adaptions.

If they can make a great Superman film, what's to stop them from making a Flash, Aquaman, or a Wonder Woman film, along with rebooted Batman and Green Lantern films?

Nothing, because now considering that the film has made over $100 million this weekend, will exceed its $250 million dollar budget, and will most likely earn $1 billion worldwide DC and Warner Bros will now fully invest into creating their Cinematic Universe.

Yes, Man of Steel is a comic adaption but the films primary genre is science fiction/drama. This film, along with Nolan's TDK trilogy, are formulas that DC can use to translate their other properties, like Flash and Wonder Woman, onto the big screen.

If all goes well, I know a Batman/Superman film or Justice League will be in the works by the end of the year.

That's great news. DC has the opportunity to reach an apex in the movie business as Marvel Studios has creating healthy competition while expanding the market for the superhero film genre.

Many Easter Eggs were placed into the movie referencing Bruce Wayne, and of course Lex Luthor which will be interesting if they bring both characters into the mix in the sequel.

Man of Steel is, in my view, one of the best comic book film adaptions yet; hands down. The film is full of action, emotionally engaging, and very refreshing. It's more than worth the price of admission. Superman is back.

Brandon S. Todd

Howard Creek, Florida


 Ya know what? It's good to see that some people in the media 'get it'. But here's a thought I just had. Superman on film was very nearly destroyed by duh apologists before, right? By dividing the fanbase. Combining that with the involvement of Bryan Singerman & BJ the Bartender this ship was very nearly sunk! But duh critics loved Singerman!

Now we have a similar situation. Duh apologists are once again trying to divide the fanbase but this time the critics hate the film too. But this time it's apparently falling on deaf ears.
avatar
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend on Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:31 pm



Nothing new for any of you. Get it while it's hot because I don't think it'll be around too long.

_________________
TCB's podcast- http://twotruefreaks.com/shows.php?show=32
avatar
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  superman1938 on Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:54 pm

Classic.....now I want to see for the third time...
avatar
superman1938
SuperFriend
SuperFriend

Posts : 44
Points : 77
User Reputation : 21
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos on Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:22 am

thecolorsblend wrote:

Nothing new for any of you. Get it while it's hot because I don't think it'll be around too long.

 I usually watch these clips on Youtube itself. The comments alone can sometimes be, well, 'insightful'. But really no different from the crap we see elsewhere. Someone pointing out how good the film is, then some Blandonite pointing out how much it sucked. Here's a voice of reason (to a point):


Posh Frenchie 4 hours ago
As a critic who does write movie reviews for publications, I loved this film: 4.5/5 stars. It's not without its flaws: some of the cgi in the fight scenes (esp this one) could've remained consistent with the realism, few plot holes here and there, but nothing that warrants the hate this film is getting (mostly from nostalgiacs). This is a Superman for the new generation; acting was perfectly balanced; action was grandiose but reasonable (most of the time). This is THE BEST hero film after TDK.


So this film should not be getting the hate that it's getting & this coming from a self-professed film critic. And look who he's saying that the hate emanates from: nostalgiacs. Didn't he actually mean 'nostalgics' or did he deliberately put it that way? Whatever the case it's a good point. It just further emphasizes all the Donner love that's going 'round.Too bad though that 'love' doesn't translate into box office dollars. I think the only point I disagree on is him saying The Dark Knight is a better film. Don't get me wrong, I liked TDK too (for what it is) but I wouldn't rate it better than Man Of Steel. I even put Avengers & Watchmen ahead of TDK & I most definitely put Batman ahead of it!

Now one more voice of reason:


hurricane302010 5 hours ago
This is Superman's first day on the job, his second fight ever, and the first time he's fighting someone who can also fly. This enemy also just so happens to be a trained general of an entire planet. The man is fighting for his life for the first time ever. Also, why would Zod listen to any form of reason and move the fight somewhere else. He just pledged to kill every last person on earth in his previous monologue... I think the deaths will be addressed by Luthor in the future.



Another great point. This is like Superman's first day on the job. Give him a break already! And he just saved the Earth to boot! Stop the H8T! And Lex Luthor probably will put his own spin on this in the sequel. Bank on it!

And now the voice of a loser:


John handcock 37 seconds ago
this movie was the worst i ever seen.. it cuts all over the place.. the flying scenes suck it jumps scenes .. etc.. worst story line... the only thing thats good is the fighting scenes thats about it... then again everything in life is about looks there is no more quality movies or music tha tall died after 1995.... now its make it look cool to rake in the money..


An obvious apologist. I mean, look, the dude can't spell or use proper grammar. It doesn't even look like he knows how to properly structure a sentence! But what do you expect from a guy whose user ID is that he's got his 'hand on his cock'! No doubt he meant 'Hancock' like the film but he couldn't even spell that right.

But for everyone else, watch the film again, if you can. Ignore HANDCOCK.
avatar
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos on Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:42 am

More crap reactions to MOS ,this time from Facebook comments:


http://www.facebook.com/Superman.in.2013

John Carter
"Man of Steel" was a good movie, but it was waaaaay off the original story line.
Like · · about an hour ago



  • Juan Mimendi Espinaco is way too superior than the original movie (there are different times) if you don't want to move on that's your problem....
    about an hour ago · Like

  • John Carter its way different from smallville also. krypton is made of crystals, not futuristic space crap. the way he killed zod was retarded, zod has the same powers as superman, therefore he could not have died that easily, and so on
    about an hour ago · Like

  • Mary Wilcox John -- Sounds like you're caught up in the original film, and haven't read any Superman comics. If you don't have all the "Superman" facts, of course this movie isn't gonna be to your expectations.
    38 minutes ago · Like · 1

 

 The idiot in question here is 'John Carter' but this dude must be from Mars! After all, 'Krypton is made of crystals, not futuristic space crap'. The voice of reason in this exchange is the people who responded to his idiocy. Some things never change I guess but this is something I wish would. Rolling Eyes
avatar
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend on Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:08 am

Ignorance like that... all too common place but always annoying. This reinforces my opinion that, if anything, WB should have rebooted back in the 90's. And true, they certainly gave that their best shot in some ways but, man, it could take years to overcome that stuff. Then again though, the kids coming up today are only going to know Superman from MOS so they won't know wtf the old cranks are whining about with their crystals and Williams music.

_________________
TCB's podcast- http://twotruefreaks.com/shows.php?show=32
avatar
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  lib on Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:56 pm

just saw Man of Steel tonight. All I can say is...WOW. That was a Superman movie.
avatar
lib
SuperFriend
SuperFriend

Posts : 67
Points : 89
User Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-15
Location : Toronto, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos on Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:41 pm

lib wrote:just saw Man of Steel tonight.  All I can say is...WOW.  That was a Superman movie.

 I just have one question out of curiosity. What took you so long?! I'm glad you saw it & liked it but a full month after it came out?
avatar
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  Comicbookfan-V2 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:03 pm

lib wrote:just saw Man of Steel tonight.  All I can say is...WOW.  That was a Superman movie.

Coincidentally I saw it the second time yesterday as well along with "Pacific Rim" and so far my mind is left unchanged, still as good as I saw it the first time. Plus, I even figured out something that some folks had been asking even myself included after the first watch and that was... Why Lois was taken on a board the Black Zero (Zod's ship) in the first place? Well it turns out that Zod needed information on retrieving the codex figuring that Lois may had some more info than what Clark might provide and was even put under the same mind scanning treatment as Clark had since Lois is the only who has been following his trail but how Zod got that intel still remains a mystery.
avatar
Comicbookfan-V2
Reputation: Asshole

Posts : 586
Points : 482
User Reputation : -249
Join date : 2010-10-15
Age : 35
Location : Texas but originally New York

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum