The only thing I remember him praising Man of Steel without qualifications is the visuals. His words in his review went something like "Visually, the film is a masterpiece." But then he follows it up with something like "But the film's core is cold, calculating, and soulless."daxterx2005 said:I don't understand how Bob praised the hell out of Man of Steel....but now in all his big picture vids he wont stop complaining about it?
So the visuals of Man of Steel are gorgeous (and I agree), but the core of the film was lacking, which I also felt. At the end of Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Avengers I felt like I knew what those characters were there for. I knew why they were there, why they wanted to be there, and what they were about. At the end of Man of Steel, I didn't feel like I "got" Superman, or Kal El, or whatever we're calling him. His issue wasn't that Superman is too "bland" or too much of a goody-goody to hit the big screens, people said the same thing about Captain America when the movie was announced but he still turned out to be awesome. And I don't know enough about Superman to really pin down what they missed or what they could have done better, all I know is something vital to his character was missing, and it kept me from identifying with him.
And at the end, I didn't even recognize the significance of him killing General Zod. I didn't learn until I watched Moviebob's rewview afterward that it was a big deal. I kind of figured Superman was one of those "no-kill" heroes, but that was never made clear in the movie, and I kind of assumed he was used to collateral damage after he helped level New York with most of the population still inside. I just found it incomprehensible that he was so bent out of shape over Zod after his slamming and flying around would have killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocents.