MAN OF STEEL Review

by     Posted 315 days ago

man-of-steel-image-henry-cavill-slice

Who is Superman?  Is he Kal-El, the Last Son of Krypton?  Or is he Clark Kent, the adopted child of Smallville farmers?  Is it even a choice?  Can’t he both?  Superman has been dismissed as the “blue boy scout” by those who aren’t willing to take the time to consider his fascinating origin.  He’s an immigrant from a destroyed planet, he’s the loneliest guy in the world, he’s an outsider, and he’s humanity’s shining beacon even though he’s not human.  He’s the best of both worlds, and arguably belongs to neither.  Zack Snyder‘s Man of Steel tries to get to the heart of this conflict, but ends up missing the heart of Superman.  Almost everything that surrounds the character is amazing from the set pieces to the restructured origin story to the score to the acting to his path before putting on the cape.  But inside the iconic suit, there is no Superman.

Krypton is about to die, but the world’s chief scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) has built a rocket for his son Kal-El to travel to Earth.  The infant Kal-El is imbued with the planet’s codex, which contains all of Krypton’s knowledge, in particular the ability to craft the species’ eugenics.  General Zod (Michael Shannon) attempts a coup and tries to get the codex, but is apprehended and sent into the phantom zone along with his co-conspirators.  Krypton explodes, Kal-El reaches Earth safely, is found and raised as “Clark Kent” by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane), but with the twist that Pa Kent wants Clark to hide his powers for fear the world will reject him.  The adult Kal-El (Henry Cavill), eventually discovers his true origin, and then has to fight to protect the Earth when Zod discovers that the Last Son of Krypton—and therefore the codex—are on our planet.

RUSSELL CROWE as Jor-El in MAN OF STEEL

The overarching narrative loosely follows the origin story we all know, but with many welcome twists.  Clark’s journey is viewed through the prism of his two fathers rather than him going through the standard story beats of discovery, fortress of solitude, join Daily Planet as a cover, and then save the day as Superman.  We’ve seen that so many times before.  In this new adaptation, the beats are there, but given far more depth.  Most importantly, we see two different belief systems.  Jor-El believes that Kal-El should embrace his powers, and become a force of good for Earth to guide our planet to a better tomorrow.  Jonathan believes Clark needs to keep his powers a secret in order to stay safe or else humanity will reject him.

But all of this conflict happens around the adult Kal-El/Clark Kent.  He’s a wanderer and a super-powered good guy who can fight off super-powered bad guys.  But the conflict that’s presented is two teachings rather than an inner conflict we see on screen.  He’s given a purpose and the suit by Jor-El, but the uncertainty is with Clark.  The suit doesn’t bring certitude.  It doesn’t bring anything.  There’s no nobility, no joy, no humility, nor any of the personality traits we associate with Superman.  His guard is up so high that we can’t see any growth behind the emotional wall he’s constructed.  A shy, concerned Superman is interesting to a point, but if this is an origin story, we need to see how Kal-El/Clark emotionally fights and reconciles the conflicting ideologies of his fathers.

Man-of-Steel-image

Instead, the only fights we see are physical.  I will say that these fights are spectacular.  They are truly a wonder to behold, and unlike anything you’ve ever seen on screen.  Snyder has taken an understanding of Superman’s physical abilities and attempted to test them in a way that’s convincing and exciting.  Furthermore, Snyder does it without his trademark and tired speed-ramping.  He’s fighting alongside the character rather than trying to eclipse him.  When it comes to sheer action, these are the battles that Superman deserves (although the 3D adds absolutely nothing).

However, these battles lack any emotional weight and eventually become exhausting.  They don’t tell us anything about Superman’s personality or development.  That doesn’t mean the fight needs to take an intermission so that Kal-El can have an emotional breakthrough, but these set pieces are completely devoid of any character moments for our hero.  For example, a fight along Smallville’s main street has plenty of smashing, and Superman trading blows with Zod’s compatriot Faora (Antje Traue), but it doesn’t tell us anything new about Superman, and it doesn’t develop his character.  We never see a moment of Kal-El having even a semblance of a revelation that would bring him one step closer to the hero we know and love.

Man-of-Steel-Henry-Cavill-image

Even outside of the action scenes, the story struggles to push Superman forward.  Zod is presented as a rejection of the choice Kal-El/Clark has to make.  For Zod, who, like most Kryptonians, was genetically engineered into his profession (as opposed to Kal-El, who was the first natural birth in centuries), a new Krypton must be built on eugenics.  Whether Kal-El chooses to reject his purpose or take a chance on humanity, we know he’s never going to consider Zod’s option of wiping out humanity to make room for Kryptonians.  Kal-El may be rejected by humans, but he’ll never destroy them.  Furthermore, despite Jonathan’s warning, we don’t really see a hint of humanity’s rejection. At most, we see paranoia from the military, but it’s the military, and it’s their job to be paranoid.

The American military doesn’t represent all of humanity, and Clark mostly interacts with individuals as opposed to a faceless mob.  Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is a fine human being, but there’s never any chance she’ll reject him.  The story does a wonderful job of redefining her character to not only show her journalistic abilities (rather than just tell us she’s a good journalist), but also makes her a central figure in the plan to save Earth from Zod.  There’s also the chemistry we’ve come to expect from Lois and Clark, and it develops in a way we’ve never seen before.  Clark’s experience with humans is pretty common: mostly good people, but there are also some jerks.  But the people from his childhood don’t know him as Superman, and we never learn what anyone outside of Lois and his parents think of him.  Even in his big battle in Metropolis, there’s hardly anyone to look up and discern if the object above is a bird or a plane.

HENRY CAVILL as Superman MAN OF STEEL

This inability to make the conflict hit at the heart of Superman as a person is so damned frustrating because everything that surrounds him on a technical and emotional level is beautiful.  Crowe and Costner are deeply moving as two fathers who only want the best for their son.  As the young Clark Kent, Dylan Sprayberry captures the fear, anger, and heartbreak of someone who knows he’s always going to be an outsider and struggle to find his place in the universe.  The film cuts back and forth between Clark’s past and the present, which is absolutely necessary in order to prevent the film from getting bogged down in exposition, but it also shows how Clark has become guarded to he point of not having much a personality.  He’s the blue boy scout but without the smile.  The only time it peeks through is during his first flight, and we witness the pure joy and exhilaration on Superman’s face.  It’s a wonderful moment, and it’s sadly absent from most of the picture.

Our enchantment comes from what’s happening on a technical level.  Krypton is absolutely gorgeous, and as I watched what was happening, I had trouble imagining how Snyder could ever recapture the experience of complete and total awe once we were on dumb, ol’ Earth.  Krypton is a sci-fi fantasy like no other.  Liquid metal flows through the technology while the world collapses from above and below.  Spaceships zoom through the air alongside winged beasts.  And it’s not just eye-candy.  All of it is anchored by the conflict between Jor-El and Zod.

Man-of-Steel-Henry-Cavill-image

The events on Krypton don’t overshadow the movie because its essence permeates the rest of the picture.  We see it in Zod and his comrades; we see it in the design of Superman’s suit, which blends the details of Krypton with the bright colors of Earth.  And most of all, we hear it in Hans Zimmer’s astoundingly gorgeous score.  There is no competition between Zimmer’s work and what John Williams did with earlier Superman films because it’s not a matter of one being better than the other.  They’re both perfectly suited to the story being told.  Zimmer’s music brings us perfectly through Clark’s melancholy, Jonathan’s concerns, Jor-El’s hopes, and Superman’s brawls.

So much care and devotion has been brought to create the world of Superman, and Superman isn’t there.  It’s a big, expensive party, and the guest of honor hasn’t shown up.  Snyder’s take hasn’t corrupted or disrespected the character.  This isn’t a careless adaptation as much as it’s a misguided one.  Superman isn’t easy.  Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer try to find the hero in his fathers, in a character caught between two worlds, in a “realistic” take about an alien hiding amongst humans, and as long as Superman isn’t on screen, they’ve succeeded on an emotional level.  Trying to find depth outside of the hero is important, but Superman is supposed to be the realization of all the hard work that’s gone into his past.  He’s supposed to be the product of hopes, fears, triumphs, and downfalls, but it only adds up to someone who can leap tall buildings in a single bound.  When Lois asks Kal-El what the “S” emblem stands for, he responds that it’s not an “S”.  He says on Krypton, it means “hope”.  But in Man of Steel, it’s a symbol without a Superman.

Rating: B-

man of steel poster




Please Like Collider on Facebook

Comments:

FB Comments

  • Nolan Whore got exposed

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHA

    • Nolan B. Exposed Lulz

      P.S. I came.

      • Nolan B. Exposed Lulz

        . . . but only because after months of asking, i FINALLY got a Chris Nolan impersonator to take a hot piss in my mouth! Hmmmmm mmmmmm . . . . GOOD! ;-)

      • LOL

        (Nolan trying to escape negative reviews but finds them blocking him off. Righteous Nolan hater emerges from the shadows)

        Righteous Nolan Hater: let’s not stand on ceremony here Mr. Nolan.

        (Nolan screeches runs at Righteous Nolan hater and flails limp wristed punches at him Righteous Nolan hater bitch slaps him to the ground).

        Righteous Nolan Hater: Victory has defeated you!
        (Righteous Nolan Hater lifts Nolan overhead and brake spine with knee)

      • Griz

        So I hope you all learned a valuable lesson about not letting a well done marketing campaign convince you that a film is a masterpiece before you see it. I feel like fucking Rosa Parks right now, enduring horrific prejudice in the pursuit of justice.

      • Nolan B. A. Ho

        58 on Metacritic? Ouch! Well, now that Nolan is no longer being critically praised for mediocre fare, I feel that I can finally move on and troll this place no more. Victory is mines!!!!

      • Griz

        LOL 69% on rottentomatoes. I know I said I wouldn’t gloat but f-ck all of you. This shite will be rotten and I called it. I called it. I called it f-cking hard. All you took swings at me though, you blind Nolanite punks. Where’s your f-cking apsaragus comments now? Huh. Come at me b-tches. COME AT ME!!!!!!! ARRRRGGGH!!!!!! [Flexes Out]

      • DG

        69% is fresh….

      • Lulz

        I’ll do a live update as we progress. Rex Reed, Roeper, and a plethora of others all gave it negative reviews that haven’t been posted. I basically HAVE to throw this back in everyone’s faces. I’m actually passionate about film and not just a fanboy. Looking at the history of those involved Nolan, Snyder and Goyer, I knew there was no hope in hell this would be good and predicted many times this would fail critically (for which I was insulted). Hopefully Nolanites treat this as a learning experience. For me, it’s been extremely gratifying and just, just …wonderful.

        P.S. Where you at Strong Enough? Remember when I asked if you’d be ‘Strong Enough’ to admit you were wrong when this film was critically lambasted.

        Griz, feel free to Post the asparagus comment. Nothing will take away this victory. You just can’t argue with numbers.

      • Voltron

        IGN gave it a 9/10. comicbookmovie.com gave it a 4.9/5. Comicbook.com gave it a 5/5 (and said it was the best cbm ever). Cinemablend gave it a 4/5. Those who gave it negative reviews were because either (a) there was too much action (really?), or (b) it was not light-hearted enough like the Donner films. As a huge superman fan (Snyder and Nolan’s involvement are purely collateral in my mind) I am totally fine if that is all they can complain about. Besides, I trust these reviews much more than the critics who were disappointed in not seeing Superman Returns 2.0.

      • Lulz

        So you’re a fanboy who doesn’t care if the movie is good: noted.

      • Voltron

        Quite the opposite, actually. Yes, as a Superman fan I really want this movie to be good. But that doesn’t mean that I am going to scream with blind glee during the movie no matter how bad it is. I also love Green Lantern as a character, but will happily admit that the movie was terrible. I judge a movie on its merits, and will readily concede if a movie is no good. So lets not jump assumptions here because we all know how that usually turns out.

        Anyway, I am merely pointing out that so far a majority of those who actually appreciate the cbm genre have been giving it either rave or good reviews.

      • HAHAHAHA

        68% on RT.

        (Nolan wakes up in prisoon of metaphors with a broken spine. He sees Righteous Nolan Hater looking down at him)

        Nolan: Why didn’t you just kill me?

        Righteous Nolan Hater: Your punishment must be more severe.

      • I have smote mine enemies

        65% lulz. 5% away from righteous victory for the haters.

      • Griz

        64%

      • Poor guy..

        holy shit you must have no life.

      • lulz

        63% lulz

      • Lol

        62% 3 more % to rotten. Mucho Lulz.

      • Griz

        And, say it with me now: 57%. Hard to argue against that.

      • Griz

        And, say it with me now: 57%. Hard to argue against that.

      • doctor_robot

        are you like… 14?

      • doctor_robot

        are you like… 14?

      • doctor_robot

        are you like… 14?

    • Hop

      Guys, the tomatometer is at ROTTEN: 57%. And for this I blame 110% Zack Snyder. It is his fault.

  • Liderc

    Goldberg gives a bad review, news at 11.

  • Douglas

    pooperman

  • Julio Navas

    This guy bitches about everything. -B? ReallY? Steve should fire Goldberg and put someone else in charge of the reviews.

  • poppincherry

    Zach is a hack and this movie is a big ole pile of CG shit. I knew it!

    • Eric Cormier

      It got a B- what is your problem?

  • Grayden

    Guess Goldberg still longs for a Superman movie where Clark shows up in Metropolis as Superman and everyone is just cool with that. Where it’s never explained, nor has ever been explained, why he’s doing what he’s doing. Fanboys can go watch the ’78 Donner film if they want that, but as for myself and many, many other fans, being able to finally see Kal-El wrestle with conflict of his heritages, human and kryptonian, and feel as though he doesn’t belong fully in either world is entirely refreshing. This review further convinces me that Goldberg is just simply jaded by the industry he happens to be employed in because almost no one makes movies the way he wants them to be made. :yawn:

    • John Jay

      If this is a plot hole by your standards then Clark not saving his father from a tornado is a freakin’ plot chasm. Especially, since Superman kept pace with The Flash in the comics. Consider that The Flash saved a couple million people 30 miles away in 0.01 microseconds.

  • poppincherry

    doesn’t the poster above look like the one for TDKR? LOL!

    Nolan was brought in to add sprinkles of his Batman and Inception. The movie is a 175 million joke. I can feel it.
    We’ll see Zack working that SYFY channel movie of the week.

    • Jason Richards

      All the other reviews I’ve read have been positive. So idk what to think of this review.

  • The Exploiter

    Goldberg didn’t like it! Yes! High hopes now.

    • The Exploiter

      I take it back. Goldberg’s review is dead on.

      • Hop

        Yeah, this movie sucks. Just sayin…

      • Hop

        I’m kidding. I’ve never even seen it, and it looks bloody awesome!

  • Jack Stanley

    Didn’t in your interviews, you told the cast you f**ken loved the movie?… wow… double sided much?

    • SamBerns

      that was frosty im pretty sure

    • Josh Kaye

      Goldberg didn’t do the interviews. While I’m one to bash Goldberg, read who actually writes the interview articles before you criticize someone. The interviews were done by Radish or Frosty, not Goldberg.

      • Jack Stanley

        Fair call gents. Thanks for the clarification.

        I stopped watching the interviews after 5 seconds as I got sick of whoever it was, saying “Talk a little about…” every damn question…

    • Grayden

      Frosty is the one who enthusiastically drops the F-bomb all the time. It’s how you know he loves something.

  • Dino

    Snyder is leading this up to Man of Steel 2 so perhaps Goldberg will see the ‘superman’ emerge in the next installment…sounds like this installment does its job! great!

  • Murdoch

    Wish i could say i was surprised, but after Goldberg expressed his disappointment about the 1st trailer at comic con (footage that turned out to be pretty damn good), i can honestly say that he has become the “Armond White” for a new generation of film goers. If he says it sucks, its probably Ah-Mazing!

    • Jason Richards

      Yeah and he bashed Star Trek into Darkness also. Idk, I’ve read some pretty good reviews on the film. They’ve said it isn’t perfect but the reviews have been very positive. Goldberg is more of a cynic, though so who knows.

      • Murdoch

        Compared to the first, Into Darkness was a bit of a let down, but what REALLY got me was his insistence on trashing Dark Knight Rises (my personal favorite out of Nolan’s trilogy) while hailing Avengers as an example of the kind of movie it SHOULD have been . . . personally, i like IGN’s reviews better. They line up more closely to my tastes.

        http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/06/10/man-of-steel-video-review

      • Petrelli

        Come on dude..I’m not a fan of Goldberg but TDKR was not a good movie..The first two were well written and well told..they were brilliant..TDKR just had too many stupid errors and holes..not to mention the terrible ending with Bane..

        I don’t know if you’ve read Michael Shannon’s interviews..but the first thing he says is that it didn’t feel like it was a comic book movie..therein lies the problem..These are comic movies based on iconic characters..those are the movies the fans want to see..Thats why Avengers was great and thats why Marvel keeps making money..they’ve got the right formula

      • Liderc

        Yeah, they’ve got the right formula for selling bullshit to idiots. Great formula. Iron Man 3 was total trash and made 1.2billion, that goes to show that moviegoers are mostly morons and that advertising is all that matters.

      • ScottX

        Well, sorry to tell but money is what they want, do you think anybody would spend 200 million dollars just to give fanboys nerdagms?

      • ScottX

        Well, sorry to tell but money is what they want, do you think anybody would spend 200 million dollars just to give fanboys nerdagms?

      • Murdoch

        87% on rotten tomatoes and more than a billion worldwide. The only thing with plotholes big enough to fly an alien armada through was Avengers.

      • Petrelli

        You wanna talk about rotten tomatoes? Man of Steel is on 59% right now and it will probably still make a billion too. This is not about the critics, the Marvel/DC war that most fanboys seem to be a part of, or the amount of money it cost to make these movies..Its about the quality.

        And if you honestly think TDKR didn’t have any plot holes (Stock exchange takeover/bomb taking 5 months to go off/batmans back miraculously healing in a hole..just to name a few) maybe you should go watch the movie again. Avengers had holes, the alien army dying Phantom Menace style wasn’t the greatest idea, but at least it didn’t take itself too seriously and provided the entertainment it promised. When you set out to make a serious movie you should deliver on that without stupid errors like TDKR..Avengers was a pure blockbuster.

        And yeah..Iron Man 3 wasn’t great either..but as long as RDJ is around they’ll keep milking that cow.

      • Murdoch

        87% on rotten tomatoes and more than a billion worldwide. The only thing with plotholes big enough to fly an alien armada through was Avengers.

      • Ian

        I’m with Petrelli – Dark Knight Rises was a huge letdown. The reason why people nitpick it and point out plotholes is because those things would have been forgivable if the movie wasn’t so unengaging. The first 2 were great but the 3rd was just a dull, messy slog with a lot of questionable choices made by Nolan and his team.

      • Ian

        Yeah, can’t speak for this movie, but Into Darkness wasn’t that good. They could have done anything yet they lazily rehashed Wrath of Khan and just reversed things around without putting any genuine emotion behind it. I’d give it a C myself.

      • Hop

        Into Darkness was typical stupid Lindelof hack-work. Iron Man 3 was awesome popcorn entertainment. Dark Knight Rises was pretty awesome, but not without plotholes so big you could fly a jumbo jet through.

    • DG

      Matt, don’t listen to this guy. You’re not another Armond White, you’re a nobody…so don’t get all excited and explode in your pants.

    • Joseph A Banks

      Armond White is an amazing writer….. even his hacky reviews are interesting reads. Where as, Goldberg is just a hack trying to make his name off negative grades.

  • Kale

    Goldberg, you mentioned in your last podcast that people get so passionate and offensive over a trailer. Now, not to offend you or any commenters, but why do so many people get so offensive over a freaking review. People, it’s Monday night and you guys are giving him crap, because he didn’t give it an A rating. All of you people haven’t even seen it yet, and y’all are bashing his review. Give him a break, and wait for the last time he’s entitled to his opinion. Oh by the way, did kyrpto the dog show up in the movie Matt?

    • Jason Richards

      Goldberg has a history of shitting on films that are perfectly acceptable, though. It’s turned into a running joke on the site.

    • Grayden

      Opinions are subjective. A review, if done properly, should be entirely objective. The merits of the film; it’s beats, themes, pacing, acting, score, effects should all be objectively judged. Saying he didn’t like something because well, he didn’t like it, or it’s not how he would have done it, or even how it should be done, is subjective opinion. Ebert was objective and even when I disagreed with him, his review wasn’t his opinion, but his objective take of the film as a whole from his understanding of the filmmaking process. Sure, Goldberg isn’t giving it a Thumbs Up/Down, which was a bit contrived and too black/white for my taste, but he says things in such a condescending way that you expect him to give the film a failing grade, but it ends up being a B-. Which is guess is still 4/5 stars, technically. He just inserts his personal opinion too much and his professional opinion too little.

      • Nathaniel Haywood

        I completely agree. A real review tackles a film from a filmmaking standpoint. There’s a place for the reviewers opinion, but that shouldn’t overpower the review. Ebert was an expert of respecting a film even if he didn’t personally like it – and he could say it without disrespecting the film. He could give a film he didn’t like a bad review or vice-versa and you would understand and respect his reasoning. Goldberg is so condescending and arrogant that you can’t stomach what little objective review he has. His review is so tainted by his personal distaste for anything that the public would conceivably like that you can’t take him seriously.

      • chandler Bing

        Ebert LOVED to bash the film he hated. Have you read the review where he goes on the ‘i hate this movie’ rant? And your comment is stupid. You give a film a bad review PRECISELY because you dont like it. Thats the whole point of reviewing. Are you high?

      • Nathaniel Haywood

        No, not really. A review is subjective, sure, but it should be based on filmmaking. “I like this film because it does these things well from a filmmaking standpoint” – but that’s not what Goldberg does. His reviews all consist of “this movie is terrible because they didn’t make it the way I would have made it if I were a filmmaker instead of a lowly reviewer on Collider.” I don’t even need to read his reviews anymore to know that his opinion about every movie is going to be the same – they didn’t follow the imaginary guidelines he set in his head for the film, therefore it’s terrible. No thanks, I’d rather read a real review. I’d honestly be fine with a bad review for Man of Steel if it came from a real reviewer and not a hack like Goldberg. Like I said, though, I’m not upset at him because I know he’s a hack job. I just want Collider to let someone else on their staff review movies as well.

      • GrimReaper07

        Reviews should be as objective as possible, but they are still very much a subjective thing BECAUSE they are based on opinions. Not even Ebert could have pretended to be entirely objective because he sure wasn’t and that’s okay. That’s why arguments exist, so that we can explain the reasoning behind our opinions and possibly convince other of them.

        Still agree that Goldberg has a shit opinion though (and before people get all oversensitive, by that I mean I rarely agree with his opinion and I find many of his arguments downright stupid and occasionally pretentious and contradictory)

      • Kale

        I know, but should we crap on someone’s review, before we see the movie?

      • ikkf

        Normally, no. But Matt seems to bring that out in people more than any other critic.

      • Bo

        Nonsense! A rethinking of your stated position might be in order. There is no such thing as an ‘objective’ review. Any review comes from a subject, a person, thus making it always…ALWAYS…subjective. To think otherwise is a bit naive. It is impossible to view any film without it passing thru your personal experience(s) and aesthetic awareness. One simply cannot render an ‘objective’ review. Nice try, but I just disagree; though, I know what you are getting at. Ebert, Pauline Kael, James Agee…the greats…all knew cinema profoundly, but still their views and opinions always were based on their subjective perceptions. Can’t be any other way, my friend. Having said that, I can certainly agree that Goldberg’s review here and most others are way over the top of being subjective and who cares what he thinks they should have done in the making of this film? It’s just his very, very subjective opinion and best to take it with a grain of salt. I batted heads with him regarding the Girl Dragon Tattoo film. He hadn’t even read the book and all his views were way subjective…as were mine. I just didn’t judge the story of her seeking revenge and the violent way she did so as morally as Goldberg. Both of our views were subjective though. Anyway, well written Grayden none-the-less on your part. Thanks.

      • Bo

        Nonsense! A rethinking of your stated position might be in order. There is no such thing as an ‘objective’ review. Any review comes from a subject, a person, thus making it always…ALWAYS…subjective. To think otherwise is a bit naive. It is impossible to view any film without it passing thru your personal experience(s) and aesthetic awareness. One simply cannot render an ‘objective’ review. Nice try, but I just disagree; though, I know what you are getting at. Ebert, Pauline Kael, James Agee…the greats…all knew cinema profoundly, but still their views and opinions always were based on their subjective perceptions. Can’t be any other way, my friend. Having said that, I can certainly agree that Goldberg’s review here and most others are way over the top of being subjective and who cares what he thinks they should have done in the making of this film? It’s just his very, very subjective opinion and best to take it with a grain of salt. I batted heads with him regarding the Girl Dragon Tattoo film. He hadn’t even read the book and all his views were way subjective…as were mine. I just didn’t judge the story of her seeking revenge and the violent way she did so as morally as Goldberg. Both of our views were subjective though. Anyway, well written Grayden none-the-less on your part. Thanks.

    • ikkf

      Because many viewers will decide whether or not to see a movie based on reviews, so sometimes the success of a film is determined by its reviews. If people are passionate about a film and the chance of future sequels being made is adversely affected by negative reviews, they’re going to speak up. It’s their chance to say whether the critic is off the mark or not.

    • uf

      Matt’s given harsher reviews than this. A B- isn’t even a bad review! AV Clb just gave this a very harsh C.

      Also, Matt was super harsh on Dark Knight Rises, Amazing Spiderman & The Hobbit – all movies people gave him crap for yet they wound up being super polarizing and mixed amongst fans. And more and more audiences are turning on Star Trek Into Darkness too, so he’s pretty much on the wavelength of those movies’ haters/dissenters.

      Long story short, people need to relax.

  • iconoclastimatic

    Just skipped to the grade to verify that Goldman took a steaming shit all over the movie. Probably a 5 star film judging from that alone.

  • DjangoBro

    Goldberg didn’t like it! This is amazing news!!! Now I now for sure that i’m going to love it!

  • Liderc

    Fact is, Matt gave Iron Man 3 a good review, when it was one of the worst films ever made in the genre, then he gave Star Trek Into Darkness a D grade, when it was a good film, possibly even a great film. Now he rags on Man of Steel and then gives it a decent grade. Sorry, I can’t take someone seriously who reviews like this.

    If Man of Steel sucks, I’ll be the first one to say it does, but what’s the point of these reviews if we can’t take your opinion seriously.

    Leave the mainstream films to people who don’t think they’re cool because they wear skinny jeans and listen to vinyl.

    • safichan

      true…matt goldberg only give good review about what he like, not about what he want to know…iron man 3 is a fun film, not good,..but hey he gave it good review by the way…its his opinion by the way…

    • Jenny

      Iron Man 3 is complete TRASH. He praised it and the Avengers, which was also crap. He clearly likes movies where you have to turn off your brain before viewing it. BTW Star Trek is wayyyyyyyyyy better than that garbage Iron Man3

      • chandler Bing

        Ohkay. You lost all credibility when you said Avengers is crap.

      • Hop

        Naaah….Avengers was crap.

    • John Jay

      STID deserves a D. It was a complete rehash (not an homage) of Space Seed and Wrath of Khan.

      • Tom

        TOTALLY AGREE! The movie not only ripped off the canon but also disrespected it.

      • Liderc

        STID is the highest rated film this summer, with an 87%. Iron Man 3 has a 78%. STID 10x better than Iron Man, I don’t care if it raped the source material, it was an exciting movie, which is all that matters in this genre. If we were talking about art films, it would be different, but I went into Iron Man 3 and was bored out of my mind, went into STID and left excited and I’m not a star trek fan in the least.

      • ska7triumph

        Actually the genre also has some thinking parts in it. STAR TREK differentiated itself as the thinking popular sci-fi, and not ful-on action/western/soap opera – say was STAR WARS is.

      • ska7triumph

        Actually the genre also has some thinking parts in it. STAR TREK differentiated itself as the thinking popular sci-fi, and not ful-on action/western/soap opera – say was STAR WARS is.

    • Hop

      Why the f**k do people not like Iron Man 3? It wasn’t particularly deep or anything, but the action was great, the acting was funny, the screenplay was sharp, the dialogue was witty, the story was straightforward, the characters were fully fleshed….
      It was a perfect Marvel entertainment movie!

  • Hop

    Good review!

    • xoder

      It’a a shitty review

      • chandler Bing

        Different people, different opinions bro.

  • Dustin

    Ok Matt, I see what you’re saying, but I don’t fully understand what you meant by the filmmakers not being able to get to “the heart of Superman.” What is the movie missing? Personality? Character development? I was a little hazy on what you were getting at.

  • Nathaniel Haywood

    DON’T READ IT! DON’T LET IT SPOIL YOUR EXCITEMENT FOR THE MOVIE! I didn’t read it – all I had to do was look at the name to know what it most likely contained. My complaint is not against Goldberg – I know he is not a real reviewer and he just trolls for extreme reactions of the fans. Whatever – they are a dime a dozen on the internet. My complaint is with Collider. I love this website, but movie reviews are the one area that it fall short. I get that they need internet traffic so they have Goldberg do crappy reviews so people get riled up and visit the site. But can’t Collider also give an actual real reviewer? I promise I’ll visit both pages – just give me at least one real review. Please???

  • Feyd Darkholme

    This is nothing but nerd bait, engage adblocker and ignore this POS review…

    • Farrell

      and you took it.

      • Feyd Darkholme

        No ad revenue = They get nothing from my clicks coming here to comment, but people really need to be informed when some toolbag “critic” is just trying to nerd bait to drum up page views.

  • Saltonstall

    This review isn’t bad, per se, but saying the movie is flawed because it fails to get at one person’s idea of what’s in the heart of Superman doesn’t really merit dropping it to a B-. It’s basically a slightly more positive variant on his review of Dark Knight Rises, where he complained that Batman wasn’t really in it.

    • TJ

      That was my complaint with TDKR, it felt like a movie that had Batman in it rather than a movie about Batman.

  • Tom

    agree or disagree, matt goldberg always gives subjectively articulate, corroborated reviews. the whole point of a professional movie review is for the critic to critique the film before the general audience has access to it. there are people who don’t read any reviews before entering a movie as to not confuse or dilute or skew their personal opinions. then there are people like me who like to read reviews before, watch the movie, project my own opinions and compare it to critics i like. the point is not to shit on a critic’s review. the point to to compare and contrast my own review with the critic’s, to find out points of similarity and points of difference, the origin of those differing opinions, and judge for myself whose viewpoint is more valid.

    and ppl bringing up his past reviews, especially star trek into darkness, is so inconsiderate. matt believes stid shat on an entire legacy, and his comment about the iconic “khannnnnnnnn” scream was bang on. he made a judgment based on his history and emotional ties with the original series and subsequent films. so why would ppl judge him so harshly for making a judgment based on a very personal viewpoint? it’s not even like matt shits on a movie without explaining why.

  • safichan

    look, there are many critics out there praising man of steel…its just a personal opinion by goldberg…not collective ones…actually goldberg dont even like man of steel that much since the very 1st trailer released months ago…so he carry his mood until he saw the movie…nothing surprise here…the only surprise for me is the level of troll in here…they dont even see the movie yet, but keep trolling like a retard child…

    • lol

      60 on metacritic, lulz.

      • greg

        Avengers is 67 or so on metacritic and Iron Man 3 is 62%. Your point?

      • Lex Walker

        I think the point is that Man of Steel likely isn’t the huge comic book movie revolution DC fanboys want it to be, it’s not “sticking it to Marvel”, it’s just being equally as entertaining.

      • Liderc

        Iron Man 3 was terrible though, so if Man of Steel is even decent it’ll look 10x better.

      • safichan

        Still 1st day review…put the number after at least 2 weeks after wide release…

  • Randika Perera

    Thank god at least it is a B-

  • Jamesy

    Goldberg asks “Who is Superman? Is he Kal-El, the Last Son of Krypton? Or is he Clark Kent, the adopted child of Smallville farmers? Is it even a choice?” The answer is he is the best of both, and that what makes him super. Just because he’s not the overgrown boy scout who shakes hands and smiles with everyone as he fights them doesn’t mean he isn’t Superman. Any previous movies it’s been, ok this guy shows up wearing tight pyjamas and red underwear, can do these incredible things and everyone’s ok with that? Ok, where did he come from, why is he here…no, none of that is questioned or answered. Any previous is not Superman, its just an overgrown boy scout who wears red pants for no apparent reason, what’s super about that? THIS is Superman, questioning the why’s and what’s and what ifs, asking why is he here what does that mean for us, he’s an alien an outsider crash landing on Earth, feeling lost, part of two worlds and civilisations but belonging to none. It’s asking those questions and dealing with the answers and consequences that make him Superman, and that make this movie miles better than anything that’s come before. I thought Snyder was just overly cgi, entertaining to watch but no substance. He honestly really surprised me with this, the way the story was approached and the way he brought it to life, reinventing Superman and giving the audience something to walk away with. “You’ll believe a man can fly” for the original, for this it should be “You’ll believe” thanks to the way Snyder and team approached this.

    P.s Goldberg, remove the tampon and stop bitching.

  • DerpDErp

    Wasn’t it called “Man of Steel” because he doesn’t see himself as Superman yet, leaving it for the sequels? Calm down Goldy

    • Jamesy

      Exactly, he’s still figuring out what he’s fully capable of. If this is the origin story they did a hell of a job, the sequels should be Clark coming to terms with it fully and realising his potential.

      • Guest

        Did you just agree with yourself?

  • alex

    this review is definetely out of my mind.i cant wait to see this movie.but it will release in June 20th in china mainland.

  • Raymond Duck

    Having not seen the movie, I don’t know yet whether I agree with your review, but it was nevertheless very well written; your best to date I think, Matt. I have criticised your work in the past, but this was good writing. Thanks.

  • Its ME Jessica!

    Actually a B- from Goldy is pretty high praise, especially considering we all know how he felt about this movie from day 1.

  • Jack Flack

    I console myself with the fact that when it comes to reviewing big budget movies, Matt rarely knows what the **** he’s talking about.

  • Joe

    On the Goldberg scale, a B- is an A. You basically +2 grade levels.
    Hence, he loved the movie and so will you when you watch it.
    Enjoy!

  • Kryptonian Knight

    First off the fact Goldy (Who is and has always been a terrible movie critic check his record and you will see for yourself.) gave MOS a B- means this is going to be really good! His basic critique if foolhardy. Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither was Superman, this is only the first act in the cannon. Experience is the greatest teacher and the sequel will only elevate his personal conflicts and growth. Get excited people!!
    Ignore the trolls and enjoy the rebirth of the last son of Krypton!

  • Romsy

    All these DC vs Marvel arguments are stupid. It’s ok to like both people. Every major artist/ writer in the business has worked for and loves both. There is no animosity between these companies, dumb fanboys need to understand this.

  • Joseph A Banks

    What movies does this guy like? Its basically a joke at this point.

    • Murdoch

      He loved Avengers and his favorite Marvel movie in Punisher WarZone.

    • Murdoch

      He loved Avengers and his favorite Marvel movie in Punisher WarZone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sangbaran Sam

    Man of Steel is going strong at 83% fresh at rotten tomatoes..Matt think before you write
    BTW the D rated Star Strek is also 87% fresh at RT.:)

    • Joseph M

      The new Fast And Furious is a big hit, too. Does that mean it’s a good film?

      • http://www.facebook.com/sangbaran Sam

        it an full on entertainer with no pretension.
        one cannot watch Fast and furious and TDK with the same mentality!

      • cb

        Are you joking? I freaking loved it, my 60+ mom loved it, my 19yo cousin loved it . . . hell, with all the international / cross-generational appeal it has, i’m surprised it didn’t make more.

    • Tom

      its currently at 72% with average rating of 7.5. amongst top critics its at 50% with average rating of 6.6. your argument is quickly losing its grip.

      • http://www.facebook.com/sangbaran Sam

        seems like that… i might have to retract!

  • Alan Burnett

    Meh, was anyone really surprised? Five months ago, I wrote to Goldberg on Twitter “You know, disliking something just because it is ‘real’ is as stupid as liking it
    for just that reason … Can’t wait for the review. You’ll write “Snyder doesn’t get Superman” and write ‘gritty’ and ‘realistic’ a lot” and this is essentially what we got: Snyder and co. don’t get THE REAL SUPERMAN and that it’s misguided for having an interpretation that is different to Goldberg’s, blah, blah, blah. I don’t know what is more pathetic: his inability to open himself up to different experiences or his arrogant assumption that another person’s interpretation is incorrect. This is a review written by someone who didn’t want to like a film, and I think that’s a sad thing to say of anyone, let alone a ‘film reviewer’ like Goldberg.

    • OhDawg

      This.

  • Joseph M

    The majority of commentators here haven’t seen MOS, yet they’re attacking the reviewer for not completely enjoying it. That’s a little depressing. His job is to see the film and offer an opinion, not blindly like it because everyone wants it to be awesome. We knew that Nolan’s involvement would mean instant depressed Superhero, which was bearable with Batman, but not Superman.
    So far, it looks like the two remakes are the two extremes of the concept. Superman Returns was far too slow, too much character study and not enough showing what the man is capable of. MOS appears to be all about fight scenes and visuals, with a little attention to an angst-ridden, dour Superman. Looks like the best Superman is one that can balance both extremes.
    I’ll still see the film, and I’ll probably enjoy it, but I suspect MG is right; that it may be an adrenalin-fuelled, action packed CGI orgasm but lacking the positive, optimistic essence the main character always brought to the table. This is a film about a handsome alien that wears a cape, can lift a truck with one hand and is able to fly around the world in one second. Let’s not get too bogged down in gritty realism. TDKR – about a handsome billionaire who dressed-up as a bat to fight crime – took that line about as far as it could go.

  • Jenny

    This fcking reeeetard Matt Goldberg rated Iron Man 3 a “B” and gives this a “B-”? This moron is obviously doing this on purpose to piss off people or just really REALLY has bad taste in film.

    • Joseph M

      What did you think of the film (assuming you saw it before writing your comment)?

  • Pingback: MAN OF STEEL Reviews Online (mild spoilers) | EyesSkyward News

  • Jared

    Have they not said from the very beginning that he’s not going to be a big, blue boy scout in this film? Yet Matt’s gripe is that he’s not a big, blue boy scout. Come on man.

  • Pingback: Eerste indrukken van ‘MAN OF STEEL’ rollen binnen | TheObservants.be

  • DemiathDoomhammer

    Goldberg didn’t like it! Big surprise! I think most of the problems with MoS will be solved when the sequel arrives – meaning Lex Luthor!

  • tom

    interesting. he gave ironman 3 a better review and i actually didn’t like it. i guess i am going to love this movie.

  • http://www.brndbl.tumblr.com/ Ryan Donnell

    Did you all see the movie? Give Goldberg a break, maybe the movie is just average.

  • J.R.

    I like how the say to the producer that they love the “fucking” movie, and now i read and there’s a B- posted in this review?……Really?

  • Nomis1700

    Shame you still exist Matt, you’re always so negative. It’s never good..

  • J.R.

    I like how they said they loved the “F’king” movie, and then we have a B- posted here, what a shame!

  • mike_thoms

    Is it me or does it seem like this website gives all movies bad reviews?

  • poppincherry

    So Zod wants superman to surrender or he’ll kill everybody in New York in 24 hours…
    Lol. Go ahead.
    This movie is going to be a fucking joke.175 million dollars worth of goddamn CG.
    I head the last 60 minutes is just one explosion after the next.
    Ain’t nobody got time for that!

  • Pingback: Man of Steel - Page 18

  • Dan_489

    Terrible review as per usual, Goldturd.

Copyright ©2005 - 2014. All Rights Reserved. Built by topLingo

Click Here