change isn't always bad. so stop hating. haters.

Rating: 9/10 (21 June 2013)

So I wrote my opinion on Man of Steel about a week ago, and I've been getting some flak regarding the quality of my blog. I tried to share my opinion about the film, while trying to remain tight lipped, but I think in turn I wound up not putting enough of my opinion about it. So...sorry for that. But I also have seen some very negative reviews about Man of Steel that got me super heated, so this is my perfect opportunity to vent a bit, while being able to explain the quality of this gem. So let me start off by saying that for me, this was the best film of the summer without having to see the rest out there. Man of Steel had just the right everything: emotion, action, and performances to put this one above the rest. I find it funny that the skeptics who talked so much crap about the film before it even came out still flooded the cinemas this past weekend with their popcorn in one hand and hateorade in the other, contributing to the very film they chastise. It's the villain, it's the ending, to the suit, the pacing, blah, blah, blah.
The thing that really grinds my gears is the fact that because of these ambitious changes, film critics, fanboys, and everyone in between is calling Man of Steel a bad movie. The reasoning seems to stem from the lack of similarities between the film, and the source material, but for real though: is that really a legitimate reason to say the movie is just plain bad? Because regardless of all that, this is still a very well made film. So what then constitutes this film as bad? It can't be the acting, no that can't be it. This film has a virtually unknown actor portraying Superman, but you have an Academy award winner playing Jor-el, an Academy award winner playing Jon Kent, an Academy award nominee playing Mrs. Kent, a four time Academy award nominee playing Lois Lane, an Emmy winner and Oscar nominee playing Perry White, I mean did I miss something here? Even if Cavill weren't a good Superman (which he is), he would look good just by association. It can't be the new suit, can it? The red undies over blue spandex? Although as iconic as the bald eagle, I don't see the problem with modernizing the suit. That's like having Hugh Jackman rolling out of the Blackbird wearing yellow spandex in X-men, a notion so ridiculous, it was even humorously referenced in the film. Costumes are extremely hard to transfer over from comics to film, do you really want to have a multi million dollar film with costumes that look like you got them from Party City? There are only a few costumes that have transferred over gracefully, but it wasn't done without a few changes. Superman wears a onesie now, get over it. Now I understand that there are people who are die hard Superman fans from the comics, and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I just think that most are these skeptics are just bored muckety mucks who try to deliberately draw that line in the sand separating movie goers with comic geeks. I mean it's great that you guys know more than us peons, but I don't understand why we can't share the lore. It's not always supposed to be an extension of the story you've read in the comics, it's inspired by the comics, a celebration even, so what's the point of complaining? Why would anyone want to pay 20 bucks to sit in a theatre and watch the same regurgitated story, only this time in light, sound, color, and motion? Give a damn about the rest?