Comment and evaluate the last motion picture you've watched. Is it amazing, good, bad, dog turd, etc.
How would you rate it?
-----------------
Man of Steel
So I finally got round to viewing the most controversial motion picture of last year. The film that created canyon rifts with the audience. Excluding the people in the middle, one side adamantly claims that this is a terrific re-imagination of the tried-and-tested Superman formula into something more complex and yes, dark in dimension than the usual flavour we've all grown up familiar with. Then there is the half who would bury Zack Snyder in a shallow grave alive if they could. I sniffed the controversy and decided with a few friends to sit down and see what the actual fuss is all about.
Then it hit me. Much of the fury surrounding this film is based on what they've done in this reinvention of the titular character. It's taking the well-established Superman mythology and deliberately bending it into something many either can't stand to see in general because it doesn't conform into familiar molds (the usual notion of something being "butchered") or something they feel is an antithesis to what they believe about the character and what this character ought to do or stand for. I am not a big comic hero fan and thus Superman as a cultural icon doesn't form a big part of my identity. If this film grinds my gears in any way, it won't be because they have allegedly "ruined" Superman I know and love.
Man of Steel certainly isn't a character-driven flick. We just don't know Clark Kent as a person. Likewise, neither do we get much of Lois Lane except maybe only surface details. This is where you would feature Clark at his Daily Planet job, but I suppose I can understand why Snyder decided to ignore all that for this particular reimagining. But not having it helps solidify this film's status as a bit of usual summer blockbuster loud, violent escapism. It's a clear absence, and in its stead are these off-putting chronologically-jumbled segments of Clark as a kid, teenager and adult. It confused me at first - don't do this, film directors!
What character insight we do get of Clark I feel to be a bit...unclear? A big deal is made of what he ultimately does to General Zod, though I never received the impression that there was a personal, heightened emotional desire to not take a life. Clark was never truly brought up to believe this - heck, his father hinted that it would have been better if Clark had let the kids in the bus drown instead of exposing his powers. If he truly has no desire to witness deaths being inflicted around him, perhaps he should have done all he could to take the fight with Zod out of the city? Instead of shrugging off the fact that skyscrapers are being wrecked, debris are raining down unstopped on people below, and petrol stations are blowing up? I can understand trying to portray this Superman as someone who is substantially more flawed and less of a perfect, definitive paragon of heroic goodness (which I think is great!), but the handling of his character confuses me at some places, and I can't say I'm that satisfied with it.
Oh well. It's an average-decent film. I don't think it deserves the vitriol it has been receiving, and I can certainly recognise some of the interesting ideas with considerable merit. I've enjoyed it, and I would watch the followup that supposedly has Batman and Wonder Woman.
6/10
How would you rate it?
-----------------
Man of Steel
So I finally got round to viewing the most controversial motion picture of last year. The film that created canyon rifts with the audience. Excluding the people in the middle, one side adamantly claims that this is a terrific re-imagination of the tried-and-tested Superman formula into something more complex and yes, dark in dimension than the usual flavour we've all grown up familiar with. Then there is the half who would bury Zack Snyder in a shallow grave alive if they could. I sniffed the controversy and decided with a few friends to sit down and see what the actual fuss is all about.
Then it hit me. Much of the fury surrounding this film is based on what they've done in this reinvention of the titular character. It's taking the well-established Superman mythology and deliberately bending it into something many either can't stand to see in general because it doesn't conform into familiar molds (the usual notion of something being "butchered") or something they feel is an antithesis to what they believe about the character and what this character ought to do or stand for. I am not a big comic hero fan and thus Superman as a cultural icon doesn't form a big part of my identity. If this film grinds my gears in any way, it won't be because they have allegedly "ruined" Superman I know and love.
Man of Steel certainly isn't a character-driven flick. We just don't know Clark Kent as a person. Likewise, neither do we get much of Lois Lane except maybe only surface details. This is where you would feature Clark at his Daily Planet job, but I suppose I can understand why Snyder decided to ignore all that for this particular reimagining. But not having it helps solidify this film's status as a bit of usual summer blockbuster loud, violent escapism. It's a clear absence, and in its stead are these off-putting chronologically-jumbled segments of Clark as a kid, teenager and adult. It confused me at first - don't do this, film directors!
What character insight we do get of Clark I feel to be a bit...unclear? A big deal is made of what he ultimately does to General Zod, though I never received the impression that there was a personal, heightened emotional desire to not take a life. Clark was never truly brought up to believe this - heck, his father hinted that it would have been better if Clark had let the kids in the bus drown instead of exposing his powers. If he truly has no desire to witness deaths being inflicted around him, perhaps he should have done all he could to take the fight with Zod out of the city? Instead of shrugging off the fact that skyscrapers are being wrecked, debris are raining down unstopped on people below, and petrol stations are blowing up? I can understand trying to portray this Superman as someone who is substantially more flawed and less of a perfect, definitive paragon of heroic goodness (which I think is great!), but the handling of his character confuses me at some places, and I can't say I'm that satisfied with it.
Oh well. It's an average-decent film. I don't think it deserves the vitriol it has been receiving, and I can certainly recognise some of the interesting ideas with considerable merit. I've enjoyed it, and I would watch the followup that supposedly has Batman and Wonder Woman.
6/10