We're just days away from the release of Man of Steel. In fact, today is the day that the review embargo is lifted and we'll start hearing what the professional critics think of the film. Regular readers of this blog probably are aware that I've been a massive Superman fan for as long as I can remember.
Though the ad campaign has been so aggressive that I've actively begun avoiding the newest clips and trailers released online, I was very impressed by the first few trailers. It looks like director Zack Snyder and writer David S. Goyer have done a great job of reinventing Superman. I've already bought my tickets to the midnight showing and hope that my faith is rewarded.
But already I've noticed an annoying trend in many of the Man of Steel articles already released - the need for the writer to take a potshot at 2006's Superman Returns. From the way some people talk about it, you'd think that the film was a Catwoman-sized bomb and not a movie that got rather positive reviews and did somewhat solid (if not impressive) box office.
To that end, I have written a piece celebrating Superman Returns, which you can find over at Film School Rejects.
I really enjoyed this movie the first time I saw it and the passage of seven years has done little to dampen that feeling. This is why it’s been so hard to see the narrative shift to the point where it’s assumed this movie was a horrible bomb. There are people I know who loved it in 2006 who have since taken up the anti-Superman talking points, just because it’s cool. Here’s where I blame Warner Bros a little bit. I think if they had pushed forward with a sequel and released another solid film three years later, Returns would be a lot better regarded today. Instead, they dragged their feet for a few years, the momentum dissipated and by the time Christopher Nolan was announced as producer, the internet had decided that whatever its merits, Superman Returns must be a bad movie simply because it failed to spawn a sequel.
Go here for the rest of the article.