Escape to the Movies: Man of Steel
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I saw it today, and it was really quite surprisingly good. The antagonists didn't pull their punches and went for the throat, which went a long way to explaining just why Superman couldn't save/fix/protect everyone and everything from harm. About my only complaint is that the crucifix impression he made while in space was a little much. The scene when he asks advice from a priest was alright though because it makes sense that a man raised in small town America would be the type of religious person who would place their faith in a higher power. It's part of what makes him the sort of man who would freely allow mankind to choose their own destiny and make their own mistakes, rather than place them under the benevolent dictatorship of his Kryptonian thumb.
Just saw this, but, uh, how in the world is this supposed to have been "dark" or "grim" or "brooding"? Superman saves the WORLD, not to mention a busload of children, oil rig workers, doesn't rise to the bait when someone's attacking him and takes the high road, grins like an idiot when he learns to fly, only kills the main villain because the guy literally forces him to, and only fights in the city limits because, again, the villain forces him to. It's an origin story. If he'd magically been a million times better and stronger than Zod from the get-go and flew the two of them off into space it would have utterly ruined an otherwise an impressive villain.
Come on dude, this ends with sunshine and rainbows and a gag bonus scene - it's hardly The Road.
Come on dude, this ends with sunshine and rainbows and a gag bonus scene - it's hardly The Road.
I'm extremely sorry for necroing this topic
But there is something bugging me since I saw this when it just came out.
So I simply MUST ask?
What's up with 90's Superman?
Why he have a gun?
I mean for average person firearm multiplies ones lethality.
Superman already can devastate small city just by flying through it.
So why such powerful creature needs a gun?
Does this gun shoots strategic fusion bombs, that can blow half a continent in one shot?
It really messed with my mind for last 3 months.
But there is something bugging me since I saw this when it just came out.
So I simply MUST ask?
What's up with 90's Superman?
Why he have a gun?
I mean for average person firearm multiplies ones lethality.
Superman already can devastate small city just by flying through it.
So why such powerful creature needs a gun?
Does this gun shoots strategic fusion bombs, that can blow half a continent in one shot?
It really messed with my mind for last 3 months.
... so why did the Kryptonian Doctor have a German accent?
I know, I know, it's a really petty gripe in a movie that us just full of things to gripe about, but seriously, why the German accent?
I know, I know, it's a really petty gripe in a movie that us just full of things to gripe about, but seriously, why the German accent?
Also this. I'm not a huge Superman fan as he's always been just too powerful as a character for me to find him interesting, but there are aspects I have a great deal of respect for. Pa Kent is a big one, and it seemed like the writers have an entirely different Jonathan Kent in their minds than what I've had in mine. All of the scenes with Pa Kent were jarring to me, and took me out of the movie.Sergey Sund said:
What the hell happened to Chipman after he made this video? This was probably the perfect review of this movie he gave. What the heck made him snap and pump out the reviews where he acted like Amazing Spider-Man 2 and every other movie he reviewed afterwards killed his family and raped his dog?
I don't know what this site's policy for necroposting is, but this is exactly my sentiment. At some point in the last couple of years Chipman kind of fell back on really crude, grossly over-exaggerated hyperbole instead of the balanced appraisal I initially liked watching him for. I mean, he always had a tendency to go on emotive rants, but now he relies on them like a crutch.Logience said:
Compare his review of this film to his review of its sequel [http://moviebob.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/review-batman-v-superman-dawn-of.html?spref=tw] and you really see a stark difference in his review style.
Since they haven't locked this thread, I'll throw in my 2 cents. I have to admit. I missed this guy. I really don't like that other guy who is currently claiming that he is "MovieBob".
This is a good example of what people mean by an objective review. He gave his subjective opinions about the movie. However, he didn't apply any standards outside of how movies should be judged. It didn't judge this movie based on his political beliefs, religious beliefs, or any other extraneous standards that have nothing to do on whether or not someone will like or dislike the movie.
This is a good example of what people mean by an objective review. He gave his subjective opinions about the movie. However, he didn't apply any standards outside of how movies should be judged. It didn't judge this movie based on his political beliefs, religious beliefs, or any other extraneous standards that have nothing to do on whether or not someone will like or dislike the movie.