Sunday, June 16, 2013

MAN OF $TEEL vs critics

Despite a good number of bad reviews that say more about the critics than the film, moviegoers have given Man of Steel a Big opening box office, making a follow up very likely. The disconnect between critics and moviegoers reminds me of the disconnect between Washington and America. 

About those bad reviews, even a Rotten Tomato Representative is "Shocked" about its low rating since it's a "Good Film". I think there are a number of things in the film that typical liberal reviewers don't like. Off the top of my head: Independence, Choice, living life on one's own terms are valued in it. The clear lines between good and evil. The film portrays the U.S. military as heroic. And the climactic act in the film has liberals, and even some conservatives, upset. An ending I applauded loudly. Here's a lib from Entertainment weekly on the ending, and comic book writer Mark Waid on it, who said "it broke my heart. I mean, absolutely snapped it clean in half." What a drama queen, and I like his work.

See my Full cartoon -$UPERCAPITALIST - at


coldinkstainedhands said...

Read the Mark Waid commentary. Have to say I agree with some of his points, of course he's much closer to the material and knows so much more about all the incarnations of Superman and the plot points of the movie. I tend to forget a lot as soon as a movie's over, the first time anyway.

I cringed during the endless "destruction porn," both in Smallville (was anything left of the town!) and Metropolis (as Waid noted: how many died during that grudge match?).

What kind of man, especially a father, would teach his son (even an adopted one!) to become so heartless? That Jonathan/Pa Kent advises young Clark to let bullies intimidate/pummel him, then that he should have let classmates drown, and finally to allow himself to be killed (in front of Clark's face when Superman could have saved him)? All to protect "an image?"

Consider who/what "types" came across as Strong, Competent, and Consistent-in-(upstanding-)Character in "Man of Steel." It was NOT middle-America, salt-of-the-earth men.

rhjunior said...

ehhh. I gotta few gripes myself.

1)It might as well have been titled "Krypton, the Invasion." Way too much focus on Krypton.

2)"Maybe you should have let them die." The hell, Pa Kent?

3)His father dying like a dummy because he was afraid the world 'wasn't ready' to see his son save his life.

4)Massive plot hole: Zod and Lois didn't so much leave a trail to Superman's secret identity as much as a six lane highway with lit signs. Yet the military still can't figure out who he is?

Bosch Fawstin said...

Another bad review

Bosch Fawstin said...

CISH, it wasn't to protect an "image", it was to protect a son he loves, a son he Knew the gov would try to capture & dissect if they could. And if they couldn't kill him, they'd try all they could to control & use him. That clearly was behind Jonathan Kent's position, one that he Fully backed up in the tornado scene.