Who Should Watch "Star Trek Into Darkness"

Star Trek Into Darkness - Movie Review

The voyages of the Starship USS Enterprise have not boldly gone where no on has gone before just yet. After a survey mission that turned into a breaking the rules of Starfleet in order to save a species that is not suppose to know Starfleet exists yet goes better than expected, things back home on Earth get horribly worse. Shortly after losing the Captain's chair as well as the Enterprise for breaking the rules of said previous mission, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) finds himself being locked in to a game of cat and mouse against a  dangerous new enemy. Former Section 31 Super Secret Agent, John Harrison played by BBC Sherlock's Benedict Cumberbatch. His mission: destroy Starfleet... Or is it?

That is the mystery that Star Trek Into Darkness poses to its viewers: Who is John Harrison and why is he attacking Starfleet? His TRUE identity may not be such a mystery for the casual to hardcore science fiction fan, but its his motivations that are the real mystery.

The Mystery of the Villain

Back in 2009, J.J. Abrams reboot/remake/prequel/sequel Star Trek was a major surprise for audiences. While it may not sit well with some long time Trekkers, the film managed to find a voice and gain new fans (myself included) in what I believe to be one of the most clever ways to reboot a franchise. The idea of having this film tie-in directly with the previous line of work through means of time travel and alternate realities was probably the only way this series could've been rebooted for an audience that has grown tired of Star Trek. With that high precedence and expectations set very high for what is to come, there is only one logical angle for them to go to: Bring on a devastating new villain. The series does appear to have some parallels with the franchise formula established by Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy. Star Trek was akin to Batman Begins just as Star Trek Into Darkness is akin to The Dark Knight. Following this formula, the tough question came up as to who this new (or old but rebooted) antagonist will be. Some fans who saw the logic behind this formula automatically pointed towards one individual: Khan Noonien Singh. Arguably the most recognized and iconic Trek villain who was forever immortalized by a powerful performance from Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And to those fans, it seemed they were right on point.

While the mystery of what the story will be, the contenders for who could play the villain started popping up. Benecio Del Toro and Edgar Ramirez were both approached to play the unnamed antagonist. Given their ethnic background, everyone automatically assumed what seemed to be obvious: the new villain is Khan. However things got interesting when a certain pale, skinny, "Sherlock-ian," British actor was casted in the role. Enter Benedict Cumberbatch, a phenomenal actor who rose to fame through BBC's brilliant modern retelling of Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock. It is this casting choice that goes against all the traits of the people previously considered. That is when things started to boil down to one thing: Who the hell is this guy playing?

As a year passes by since the announcement a lot of peculiar things started popping up. Leaked set photos of a short haired, rather fit, silver long coat, star fleet uniform wearing Benedict Cumberbatch appears online fighting Zachary Quinto's Spock. This is when the theories start popping up. Some locked in to still believing that he's playing Khan. Others however started bringing up other theories. The Star Fleet Uniform must mean he's Gary Mitchell, a former Star Fleet officer who gains superhuman powers. The fashionably long silver coat he wears could mean he's Garth of Izar, a legendary Star Fleet Captain who was hailed as a hero but then goes mad after being turned into a superhuman shapeshifter. Or he could be a new version of Harry Mudd. These were all theories that were thrown around as to who Cumberbatch was playing. It won't be until the first trailer appears that the theories really start to ramp up.

The trailers displayed the following qualities: The villain is really good at making monologues, his voice makes anything sound epic, he has a vendetta against Star Fleet, superhuman abilities, and is pretty much a terrorist. In other words....that could be anyone. Even the revelation of his name being John Harrison didn't help either. Although the qualities do point to the one everyone thought he was from the start, the reason for hiding his identity is all part of the mystery that is this character.

Does it pay off? My reaction

In the long run. No. But I'll get into that in a bit. If you skipped all the way to this part, yes, this is the actual review. The film starts off with a bang having Capt. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban) on an island inhabited by aliens who have not yet fully developed as a society. The duo cause a distraction to lure the aliens away from a volcano on the verge of erupting that could possibly wipe out all life on the planet (that is their claim not mine). Up top in a small shuttle, Commander Hikaru Sulu (John Cho) and Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) launch Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) into the volcano to activate a device to prevent its eruption. Things go wrong when the shuttle gets damaged and Spock is left stranded inside the volcano. Sulu, Uhura, Bones, and Kirk make it back to the Starship Enterprise concealed beneath the ocean but faced with a decision: expose the Enterprise to the indigenous aliens and therefore breaking Stafleet's Prime Directive or risk exposure in order to get in range to teleport Spock out of the volcano. Kirk being Kirk, breaks the rules to save Spock's life. Unfortunately for him, that means losing his rank as Captain as well as the Enterprise. 

Some may see this film as retreading ground from the last film due to Kirk not being Captain. However that gets short lived when an attack on Starfleet by former Section 31 Agent John Harrison gives Kirk the leverage with Starfleet's Admiral Marcus to regain his rank, his ship, and launch a manhunt for the terrorist. The film acknowledges something that was a concern in the previous film, Kirk became Captain a little too quickly. In this film that concern is brought to light here with the main story being about Kirk becoming a Captain whereas the previous one was him having to earn it. More so, this film was more focused on the relationship between Kirk and Spock. In the previous film it was animosity which lead to trust. In this film it is about them becoming the friends that long time Trek fans know them to be. However, because it is about developing the relationship of Kirk and Spock from colleagues to friends that meant pushing everyone else to the sidelines. Anton Yelchin's Chekov served a very small part in the film and really didn't do much. New comer Carol Marcus portrayed by Alice Eve does help but not in a grand fashion other than having a memorable underwear scene. And while Simon Pegg's Montgomery Scott was  given a big sub plot, it still was more about Kirk and Spock. That is the one thing I'll hold the previous film in high regard compared to this one. Everyone seemed to be on the same playing field whereas in this film it was more about Kirk and Spock with maybe a little bit of Uhura too. That doesn't mean their performances were bad, their chemistry was great, its just obvious that in this film some were taking the spot light more than the others.

Now comes Cumberbatch's John Harrison, whose real identity is Khan. While not really much of a spoiler it does make me wonder why keep something like that a huge secret? And his casting does call some things into question. While this is an alternate universe they never took the time to explain why Khan looks white instead of being Arab. Then again the original actor who played him wasn't Arab either, but a spray tanned latin man. Ethnicities aside though, with what Cumberbatch had to work with, he delivers as Khan. Does he reach Heath Ledger's level from The Dark Knight? No he doesn't. How so? Mainly because Khan's presence in this film felt more like Tom Hiddleston's Loki in Thor. He hasn't become the menace he could become yet, but this is where his madness starts. And if they decided to bring him back for future sequels, which I hope they do, I'm sure he'll be the tragic calculating monster Trek fans know him to be. They could also come up with the explanation that when Starfleet found him they performed facial reconstruction to hide a known Tyrant from history amongst their ranks. Seriously, how hard would it have been to just add something like that?

For the film overall, it was pretty good. The third act however is when things start treading some hallow ground. While I could argue that the first and second act was a clever way of reintroducing the ideas brought up in the Original Trek episode, "Space Seed," the third act was a borrowing way too much from the iconic Wrath of Khan. Its jarring at first, and while it doesn't bother me to the point where I'll hate this movie, it may bother others to that point.

Verdict: Doesn't surpass my expectations but still good

Critical score: 8.2 - A good follow up, but not the one that we hoped would wow us

Who Should Watch "Into Darkness?"

This film will be more enjoyable to people who are not so passionately connected to Star Trek. It is one of the prominent reason why I can sit through the film and enjoy the ride. However I know some Trek fans who will not be please with the treatment of Khan and the way the Third Act plays out. There are a few Trek fans out there who have embraced the new Alternate Timeline created by J.J. and his team acknowledging that what had came before still exists. The current Star Trek is pretty much the Star Wars prequels we wanted but never got. Lets see how J.J. fairs with a Star Wars Sequel.

Who Should Watch "World War Z"

World War Z - Movie Review

Former U.N. Investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) finds out that a zombie apocalypse has broken out in his hometown only to discover that this event has been building rapidly across the world. After an adrenaline fueled first act to get his family to safety, Gerry finds himself recruited by the surviving members of the U.N. to help discover the point of origin of the zombie plague and hopefully find the means of eradicating it. Otherwise, the world is doomed.

That's nice.

When a good idea becomes something else entirely

Like many people, or at least I hope more than my circle of friends and myself, I'm aware that this film is based on a book. I'm also aware that the book is not actually a "story," per se. The book is structured as a really elaborate U.N. report that deals with the zombie apocalypse going in depth about how it affects every facet of society as well as the science behind zombies. From what I've heard and from the couple of chapters that I managed to read from the book store (even though it was recommended to me, I don't feel compelled to buy it) I can gather that this might make a great TV series. I say series because I look at The Walking Dead and think that it is doing a superb job in adapting not only a comic book but a very specific horror genre for long narrative silver screen time. The way that I thought that the series would go about would be more like a mock National Geographic or Nova or name anything you see on PBS. What I had in mind was a documentary mockumentary style told in a serious fashion to a point where it can be compelling yet semi-educational. Semi-educational in the sense that everything in this series would not be true, but if the zombie apocalypse does breakout then maybe it will be fully educational. But for all intents and purposes, that's who I viewed this book should be adapted. Then came the news that Brad Pitt's company Plan B has purchased the rights to turn it into a film. My first thoughts were, "interesting." Then when the synopsis came up that it was going to be an action thriller and have an actual plot, that's when I went, "huh?"

The idea of turning this book into a movie was an interesting move. I'll give Brad that. What I thought was weird was the fact that they decided to take the premise of the book alone, or rather take the title, and turn it into a narrative story instead of a long BBC documentary. That's when I started having some doubts about this movie. Then came the announcement of the director, Marc Forster. While I'm aware that this guy directed some pretty critically acclaimed dramas: Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland, I'm also aware that he directed Quantum of Solace, a James Bond flick that I could care less about other than the fact that Olga Kurylenko was in it. In other words, I don't know about him at the helm of an action film, let alone an action horror film. Given how much I didn't really like Quantum of Solace, I began to write this movie off from my radar. Then came the interesting turn of events when J. Michael Straczynski, one of my favorite comic book writers, comes along as the screenwriter. Then my interest was a little bit peeked. That wouldn't last long however. In fact I could really say my interest was not really there. I had some interest, but not enough to have a rabid fan following like I did with the anticipation of Man of Steel. I can honestly say that I pretty much didn't have any interest in it at all. Then came the premier of the trailer.

My first reaction to the trailer was not all that impressed. All I remembered from the trailer was Brad Pitt, a little girl screaming, and a massive horde of zombies moving like ants at a rapid speed. That's when I had zero interest in the movie at all. It wasn't that I don't like Brad Pitt. I like his films with David Fincher. It was because of the zombies that were shown in the trailer. I don't have a problem with fast moving zombies like what was shown in Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake. What I had a problem with was the speed these zombies were moving at. The major superhuman aspect of the zombies automatically told me that this isn't the movie for me. And that I would never watch it. That is until I received a message from a friend I haven't seen in years asking me if I would go see it with her. Not wanting to miss a reunion, I decided to go see it with her.

Sometimes having Low Expectations help

Now for the review. About thirty minutes or so into the film, something began to dawn on me: I really like this movie. After an elaborate Title Sequence that showcases how an event like this could go un notice for a while, it immediately transitions to a quiet setting. Like most zombie films it starts out in a quiet every day setting just to let the audience know that it's not some special event that gets announced but rather something that can happen any time. This film is no difference from the rest with the standard kids jumping on the bed, having breakfast, and then going about one's day. Whatever plans Pitt's Gerry and his family had for the day are abruptly cut short when an incredibly infectious form of rabies turns people into superhuman "zombies" that are almost near indestructible. Almost immediately after the quiet opening the tension and urgency begins to escalate. From that point on it's tension building immediately followed by exhilarating action then subdued by a momentary quiet moment which immediately starts building the tension once again.

As stated before in the plot synopsis, Gerry does eventually get his family to safety due to having a previous connection with the United Nations. However that safe haven that comes in the form of several aircraft carrier ships becomes short lived when Gerry is recruited to once again take on his old position as a U.N. investigator to discover the origin of the virus. While reluctant at first, he discovers he has no other choice due to the policy of keeping only essential personnel on board the ships. In other words, if he doesn't take the job, his family cannot stay on the floating safe haven. Not wanting to put his family through the ordeal of having to survive in a world populated by zombies, he takes back his old job and sets out on a globe trekking mission to discover the fabled Patient Zero.

This is where the film starts to get me. Usually in Zombie films, the setting is only placed in a small setting: a mall, a town, a hotel, some place claustrophobic. And then there are rare occasions when it does take place in a city location, but this film feels different in the fact that it goes global. Some could argue that the Resident Evil films have this epic scale sort of feel. And while they do, for some reason the epic global scale portrayed in World War Z seems ten times larger than what was shown in Resident Evil. I now understood what the creators of the film meant when they were creating an international thriller that spans across the globe. Even though it does have the horror element of it, this film is by no means a horror film. It is first and foremost an action thriller that goes global, similar to the Bourne series except with a lead who is not an advanced secret agent but a well trained government employee.

The globe hopping helped drive this story forward while at the same time offering us glimpses of how different countries would react to the situation. The most memorable location as well as the one with the  biggest scale was Jerusalem. The portrayal of how the city would react to a situation like the one presented was pretty much how it seemed to be. It was definitely one of the most memorable moments of the film and delivers on some great intense action sequences.

The third act however is when the tension starts to take over above the action. The third act is what most people attuned with the zombie genre will be familiar with. An isolated location inhabited by zombies. It is a tense driven third act that really brings back what zombie lovers adore about the genre, without the blood and gore that happens along the way.

All of this tension could not have been done without a solid direction as well as a solid cast. Forster delivers in directing what could have pretty much been a disaster, but he handled it with such precision and gave it the right amount of pacing it needed. Brad Pitt, being the only big name star in the film, had a lot on his shoulders to carry the entire movie through from beginning to end and he completely nails it. His character's interaction with the family were genuine and added some weight in hoping that his character doesn't get killed. The film benefits from not surrounding Pitt with even more big name stars. Although it can be argued that The Killing's Mireille Enos is a big name on television, most audience members would probably not know she's the header for a prominent TV drama. I would say that this movie would benefit more if no big name stars were on it, but having Pitt in the film really adds a big draw for audiences to a film that would need it. Lost's Matthew Fox is present in the film but was really just an extra, not even a glorified extra, just an extra.

If there are any complaints I have it really was not going in depth with whatever subtext they were trying to deal with. As I've stated before, the Jerusalem set piece was brilliant, yet at the same time it kind of looks over some of the possible social commentary that was definitely present there. It also doesn't help that by the end of the film it feels like a Pepsi Commercial. When and if you watch you will understand what I mean.

Verdict: Exceeds My Low Expectations by Miles

Critical Score: 7.5/10 - A really good Pepsi Commercial

Personal Score: 8.3/10 - I really was not expecting to like this

Who Should Watch "World War Z?"

I have to give a warning to Zombie fans in that this is not the film you will be expecting. There are no endless gallons of blood. There are no limb chopping or exaggerated head shots of any kind. This is a PG-13 action thriller, and by action it really puts the action and thriller aspect first before the zombie aspect. If you're a lover of action films like the Bourne Series and don't mind having near indestructible superhuman zombies that can do incredible things running around every now and then, this is the movie for you. Fans of The Walking Dead or any other zombie film may not find this to their liking, but that really depends on how much are you will to accept what this movie is and not what you want it to be. It is a definite must watch for the summer as great entertainment. Probably the most exhilarating summer blockbuster this year so far.

Would Should Watch "Monsters University"

Monsters University - Movie Review

If you have seen Monsters Inc. then you are very well aware of the ultimate "scare team": Mike and Sulley. The two powerhouse monsters from Monsters Incorporated were not always the prime example of what a scare team should be. The story takes place at a time when Mike and Sulley, were not Mike and Sulley. It takes place at the very beginning: a young Mike Wazowski (and by young I mean very child young) on a class Field Trip to Monsters Incorporated, where the inspiration for pursuing a career in scaring takes hold in his mind. In order to do that, he'll have to learn from the best: Monsters University. Mike climbs his way up the academic ladder and gets accepted into the Scaring School of Monsters University. It is here that he meets Jimmy P. Sullivan who will eventually be known as Sulley. The two don't start off on good terms but eventually find themselves confronted with a situation that could make or break them at the University.

The Problem with Prequels

Monsters University, is a prequel. This is an area that Pixar has not adventured in before. They have done sequels which help progress the characters forward and add more depth to them. However, the thing about Prequels is simply this: we know what happens to them. We know that Mike and Sulley will succeed, in some form or another. We know how their relationship is going to wind up in the end. Mike (Billy Crystal) will be the coach and Sulley (John Goodman) will be the scare master. The premise of seeing how they come together was not really something that was on people's minds when they watched Monsters Inc. However there are some rare occasions when a Prequel Works.

What I liked about "Monsters U."

1. The evolution of Mike's character. His origin was the most interesting of the duo. While we know Mike doesn't wind up being a scarer in Monsters Inc. it is interesting to point out that being a scarer was his original dream to begin with.
2. Sulley, or rather Jimmy, in the film as a cockier version of himself. While I found it cliche that they went with the most obvious angle for his character's origin, a cocky jerk who turns out to be a softy, the way it was handled was so well that the cliche could be forgiven. Besides, what else were they going to do?
3. Oozma Kappa Fraternity. The characters in Oozma Kappa were both fun and a great representation of Pixar at their best. The stand out of the bunch was Art voiced by "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's" Charlie Day.
4. All the voice acting was superb. With voice cameos all around, it all felt natural to watch and absorb. It never felt like someone was in there as a gimmick. It all just worked.
5. The twist of how they really end up to work at Monsters Inc. was obviously well thought out and a clever way of throwing viewers off with how you expect the story to go.

What I didn't like about "Monsters U."

I really only have one thing to say which is, that twist I mentioned before. That twist really makes me question the message that this movie is trying to send. Obviously education is important, but given what happens in the movie it makes it seems like it isn't. Not that there's anything wrong with what they did, it just makes me wonder what kind of message they're trying to send to children. It makes sense to us who are in college, however I don't know what this could mean to kids who see it. That's just me. You can interpret it anyway you want. I suppose it means: Never Give Up On Your Dreams.

Verdict: A great pixar film, not amazing and emotional, but great

8/10 - This isn't Pixar's best film, but it is pure entertainment!

Who Should Watch Monsters University?

This is definitely a film that everyone can see. However if you have a really big problem with prequels, then this probably isn't for you. If you have a strong hatred for Pixar (I know a few people who don't like Pixar) or animated movies made from America in general (same exact people I'm talking about earlier) then by all means save the trouble of everyone else who want to enjoy it. It seems pointless to watch a movie you know you're going to hate just to prove that you hate it. You're just wasting money. Whereas the people who will watch this will find their money's worth. It isn't going to reach the emotional highs that previous Pixar films had achieved (sans Cars 2 and Brave) but it is definitely a fun and enjoyable movie to watch.

Who Should Watch "Man of Steel"

Man of Steel - Movie Review

In the words of Grant Morrison (author of All-Star Superman), "Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple. Superman." Those words from his critically acclaimed take on the Man of Steel, accompanied by minimalistic art, immediately tells the reader the origins of Superman in a few short bursts.

This sets the stage for the remaining narrative. Kal El has made his way safely to our planet, Earth, and has grown up to become Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) who goes on a journey of discovering who he is. Once he does he triggers a series of events that would eventually launch him into direct conflict with General Zod. It is through this confrontation that he is faced with the ultimate decision: does he save the human race from genocide or does he help his own people restore their race?

A difficult task to shoulder

Taking on a character of this magnitude is very shaky ground. What Superman represents is something beyond the pages of a comic. He represents hope. A hope that there is a better tomorrow. And in the current world we live in, Superman doesn't seem to fit in a world where there seems to be no hope. It is even a world where he is now criticized as always doing the right thing and not being a dark character. This is where Zack Snyder comes in to play, taking on the responsibility of bringing this character into a modern world. The "300" and "Watchmen" director takes on the challenge head on knowing that this will probably be the most important film he's made for comic book fandom other than "Watchmen."

Did his team pull through? Here's my breakdown:

What I didn't like about Man of Steel

1. Promoted itself to be some serious dramatic film when it is really a heavy action film with dramatic elements.
2. The pacing of the beginning after the Krypton Scenes.
3. The oil rig rescue was too short and didn't really deliver a heroic "Yeah! Save them, Superman!" moment.
4. The scenes that occur in between the flashbacks before Lois Lane shows up didn't really add much to the narrative other than being filler between flashbacks.
5. Amy Adams has not really reached the level I was expecting for Lois. She shows promise during the "interrogation" scene with Superman. If she had that type of chemistry flowing through the whole film I would've loved her performance.
6. Some of the dialogue were taken directly straight from comic books. While it may work in a comic, that doesn't necessarily mean it will work in a film.
7. For a script that boasts the writing of David S. Goyer (Batman Begins and the Dark Knight) and Christopher Nolan (the Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises) it wasn't as profound as some might hope.
8. Constant use of a J.J. Abrams Star Trek' Pop Zoom that gets a little bit annoying at times.
9. Product Placement Galore: While its expected, it doesn't really seem that subtle in this film. Despite the fact that their argument for doing so is to show that it takes place in our world. Yes it does, but it's also like shoving an ad in my face.
10. The intense "shaky cam" that was used to give it a documentary style feel.
11. The intense "shaky cam" disappearing entirely at the end of the movie.
12. The final battle did feel to go on forever just a tad bit.
13. Henry Cavill didn't really had that much to work with. His portrayal of Clark was really a man of few words but when he transitions to Superman he had more to say. Even then it still appeared he had little to work with till he put on the "S."

What I did like about Man of Steel

1. The scenes on Krypton were some of the most imaginative and best fantasy science fiction worlds I've seen in a while. I only hope the new Star Wars films will impress me as much as Snyder and his art department have done with Krypton.
2. Jor El was given more than just a mentor role. It shouldn't be a spoiler that he dies on Krypton but the method of keeping him as an active role in the film was really well done and helped move the plot. Russell Crowe's performance as Jor El was definitely my favorite part of the film.
3. The change to Kal El's birth. Making Superman the first naturally born Kryptonian instead of a genetically engineered being with a specific purpose (ex. Zod and Faora were made to be soldiers and nothing else) adds more to his character in giving him the choice of choosing who he wants to be.
4. Jonathan and Martha Kent portrayed by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane respectively. Their scenes added the heart to the film that it needed in order to prevent it from moving to dark territory.
5. The decision to base him a little bit more on Kal L (the original Superman from the 1930s and Earth 2) than Kal El (the mainstream Superman). Kal L is more violent and learns restraint later on in the comics but that is in part due to him being raised in an orphanage. With the Kents in the picture as well as his reaction to killing someone, its clear that this Superman will eventually become the Kal El from the mainstream comics everyone knows."
6. The military actually seems to know what they're doing in this film. Major props to Christopher Meloni's character in the film.
7. The villains actually posed a direct threat to humanity. While Michael Shannon did fine as General Zod, Antje Traue was definitely the more memorable of the two performance wise.
8. Reasonable explanation for Superman's Alter Ego.
9. While the battles may have been too long, they were definitely the best Superhero battles ever produced on film. I actually felt like the world was at stake, unlike in The Avengers where at no point did I feel like the world would be conquered.
10. Cavill is Superman

Verdict: There is still Hope...even if it's not the one we hoped for

Professionaly as a critic: 6/10 - Does not live up to the expectations that were set

My personal view though: 8.5/10 - My standards were met even though they weren't exceeded

Some may ask me why would I like something that seems disappointing? Well first of all, if anyone were to call this the worst Superman movie ever, I'd have to disagree with them when Christopher Reeves' Superman III and IV were clearly the worst Superman movies ever. I refuse to personally label this film a terrible movie, because it isn't. The problem that most people will have with this is that the audience is expecting something like "The Dark Knight" when they should've been expecting "Batman Begins." And when I walked out of the theater, knowing that it was getting negative criticism, I told myself, "I love this movie." Do I disagree with the critics who give it a negative review? No, because they are right. But what I don't agree with, is this being a horrible movie. It is a good start to a brand new Superman Franchise, and I hope to see more in the future.

Who Should Watch Man of Steel?

Fans of Superman who are open for new interpretations should definitely see this take on the character. DC comics fans who have an open mind may be able to appreciate what this film has to offer. Hardcore comic readers will be divided. Fans of Zack Snyder's work should definitely watch this film in order to see a completely different side of him that doesn't involved heightened worlds and numerous slow-mo. For a normal audience, its hard to tell. Most will walk out in awe, with some not so much impressed. Film buffs will look at this movie and really think nothing of it, ignoring what has come before. It is a polarizing film, but it deserves better criticism than what it is receiving now.