Nostalgia Critic reviewing Man of Steel

Post Reply New Topic

Apparently he's actually gonna review this movie. I know everyone's entitled to their own opinion about a movie but for some reason I get really pissed off when someone is talking about Man of Steel like this. I honestly don't see what is wrong with this movie and I don't think I really want to know. I think it's probably one of the best movies I've ever seen and probably one of the only movies I've seen this year that was actually good. I guess it feels like I'm literately putting my hands over my ears and saying la la la I'm not listening when it comes to someone explaining "the flaws" of Man of Steel. I will admit there are a few nitpicks with the movie. In fact the only nitpick I can remember right now was the shaky camera but I eventually got use to that as the movie was going on. While I do occasionally enjoy NC's reviews maybe this is one I'm gonna skip. Like I said before we're all entitled to our own opinions even NC but I think I may skip this review. I mean it's not like this guy has hated other movies that were loved e.g. Shrek, The Dark Knight Rises, Avatar etc but sometimes he does occasionally like films that are considered bad e.g. Spider-Man 3, X-Men The Last Stand, Star Trek Nemesis etc and movies that are mixed e.g. The Amazing Spider-Man (I personally love that movie alot too).

First, I should admit, I'm not a huge Superman fan, BUT I really liked Man of Steel as well.

My only beef at all with the movie is that they could have saved the last 20 minutes of destruction for the next movie... But that's a minor quibble. I also like the controversial ending (I won't spoil it here).

I loved the scifi/first contact elements of the story and I loved the fight scenes. It was like a live action version of Bruce Timm's Justice League Unlimited. IT WAS AWESOME.

I know some people were complaining about all the destruction in Metropolis etc, and they thought Supes should have fought smarter and avoided all that... But here's the thing--this was Superman's first fight. You can't expect him to be perfect his first time out.

Also, all that destruction lays the groundwork for why Superman should be FEARED. If the writers are smart, they will explore themes of fear and trust and how the world would really react to a being like Superman. From what I'm hearing about Batman vs Superman they will be exploring that stuff. I'm glad. It finally makes Superman interesting.

Yeah, it boils down to different strokes for different blokes, doesn't it? I've at times encountered reviews from the TGWTG crew that made sport of movies/shows I loved, but it's no skin off my nose.

I love 'Man Of Steel'. I love 'Iron Man 3'. I love 'Iron Man 3' better than 'Man Of Steel', and I realise that that's the less popular opinion among the geek community, but I stand by it. The cliff-notes version of my reasoning behind this, would be that IM3 doesn't take itself entirely seriously, while 'Man Of Steel' (though not devoid of irony or some winks to the original comics) cuts down on the fanfare and the romanticised grandeur that comes with most Superman adaptations.

I guess my point is, why would it bother you if there's an averse opinion floating around about a movie that is widely praised? Part of my personal enjoyment of many movies, well-beyond the superhero genre, is hearing the opinions of other people on them, especially when they're critical.

At any rate, Nostalgia Critic's show is more about entertainment than of actual movie criticism to begin with, so he doesn't aim to drop that heavy a coin in the water.

I stopped giving a f**k about the Nostalgia Critic a long time ago, but this seems wrong to me, in that, if he's the Nostalgia Critic, why is he "reviewing" more recent films like this? Isn't that Chester A. Bum's job? Personally, and with this in mind, I think Doug made a huge mistake in bringing the character back. But that's just me.

As for Man of Steel, I guess I have to be the one to say it wasn't that great of a film. Too much action, not enough story (it nearly gave me a headache), and it gave me a strong desire to rewatch the Christopher Reeve films (at least the first two), which I did a couple months later. But, as CyclopsSummers said, different strokes for different blokes. So there.

Oh my God..........I'm not the only one who watches the Nostalgia Critic, or anything on ThatGuywiththeGlasses.com. I'm amazed.

Anyway, as far as Man of Steel that movie gets a lot of crap, and to me most of the reasons are nonsensical, even when Doug himself reviewed it. It doesn't bother me at all that it's a bit of a dark reboot, and that's what I don't think some people get, that the movie is a reboot. Or complain that it's not like what Christopher Reeve did: I will point out that this is NOT Christopher Reeve or Richard Donner's work.

I had no idea the movie had such a poor consensus rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I have to admit that the online communities I frequent are generally positive toward it; either loving it or liking it. Certainly up there in the top 3 of 2013's best action movies.

I think that's an interesting point you raise - online communities you frequent.

I've noticed that with a lot of comic book things, they tend to be rather well-received by the fans who are already familiar with said material and who can appreciate it on an entirely different level compared to average joe (case in point, that Agents of SHIELD thing). Sticking with Man of Steel, if you don't know or care that much for Superman (even the Christopher Reeve ones), then there's an entirely different point of view on whether Zack Snyder's movie works or not. It also doesn't help that Superman in recent decades has almost become synonymous with the American ideal and arguably speaking (and I speak only for myself here), a stand-in for Judeo-Christian preachings - kind of alienating if you're not either of those things. But that's just my opinion - Superman works for lots of people and I'd be a fool for denying Man of Steel's profitability and its audience responding well to it.

Anyway, you were right in saying 'different strokes for different blokes' - The Nostalgia Critic/Guy with the Glasses or whoever he is... at the end of the day, he's just a person who has his own views and opinions - why are people treating him as a sort of compass as to whether a movie is good or not? And why are people getting so defensive if he criticises something? It's not as if he's actively telling people to outright ban material he doesn't care for, nor is he attacking anyone for their tastes (as far as I'm aware; I stopped watching his videos a long time ago). People are free to think what they want.

I only started watching the Nostalgia Critic earlier this year and I enjoy his reviews, banter and outbursts for the most part. Same with regular Doug Walker too and just about everyone else on his website. But as far as some of the movies Doug himself likes or dislikes, some of his reasons don't make sense to me.

I have always found Michael Shannons portrayal as General Zod in Man of Steel as immensely inferior to that of Terence Stamp in Superman II.

IMO, his dialogue was bland, his motives were generic (movie villains who will do anything to save their people are a dime a dozen), and his means were silly.

And, furthermore...

But Stamp's Zod had a pretty generic motive too, which was just coming to Earth to take over.

The problem Man of Steel really had was that it focused on flash over substance. That made it popular to some segments of the audience, but anyone who was hoping for something more out of the movie, like character development, a well put together plot, and a little bit of soul. The movie delivered action, it delivered some great visual effects, it even delivered some interesting additions to the classic Superman origins that even those who have never read a comic book vaguely know. I used to dislike the movie quite a lot, for the reasons listed above (among many others, such as the many stupid necessities that were in the movie that HAD to be there but had no REASON to) but now I'm seeing it as a potentially interesting start to a series. If the next film sort of acknowledges the lack of character that occurred in the first, it might be able to break new ground in the realm of superhero movies. I'm hoping that the first movie was meant to draw in everyone who didn't need much characterization or classic comic book elements and the next film(s) will have more depth and characterization (and less shoddy writing).
I could point out a lot of the specific things wrong with Man of Steel, but it would be a pretty lengthy process.

As far as I'm concerned I don't really think there is truly wrong with MOS and I may have been over reacting. I mean everyone is entitled to there own opinion about any film. Just because NC says a film is bad doesn't mean it actually could be. I mean don't get me wrong alot of those movies he's reviewed are really really bad e.g. Son of the Mask, Felix the Cat but a film is only good or bad to the person who likes or dislikes it. I mean if someone likes movies like The Last Airbender and considers it flawless and a personal favourite then I guess that's OK. It's just someones own opinion. However I will probably give NC's MOS review a skip non the less but will still sort of respect his disgust towards this wonderful film. But I'm not gonna spend 20-25 minutes or more of him ripping something I love. I know that sounds ridiculous but I did use to love the Spider-Man movies alot until he got me thinking about what he said in his top 11 dumbest spider-man moments and I don't wanna be feeling the same about MOS.

This is what the actual Doug says about the film:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... n-of-steel

I think its less about the destruction itself, that people complain, but simply how long it took in real life.

For me its similar to the chasing in Matrix 2 or at "Pirates of the Carribean 2" on the Island with the big wooden watermill wheel. Normally a chase or a fight, adds a thrilling highlights to a film. Just like if you into a circus, there you will have a trapez show, and they normally will do some triple saltos as highlights while thrilling music plays.

If you go into circus and you see some trapez artists doing 30 minutes long, nothing else then doing triple saltos, then it becomes boring. So after 30 minutes you dont sit there any longer breathless, but have thoughts like "Oh come on please, you have overdone it now by long and it has become boring, now could you go on with the show again." You simply ruin the thrill of the action moment, by smashing it on you in an amount that the thrill needs to become boring, and that you are no longer intersted in the outcome of it, but only that it ends, and the film goes on.

Nothing about chases and action scenes, they are cool as long as they dont last forever and so get boring.

But Stamp had *style*:

Compare the level of Bad Ass in these two clips:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls7r5JJSEzw[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAWdc9haQcA[/youtube]

To me, Michael Shannon's Zod was angry and psychotic looking in that clip. Stamp's Zod was admittedly, pretty classy but that doesn't mean Shannon's was bad at all.

Of course the line "Kneel Before Zod" can't be topped.