theperfectmarysuekiller

Man of Steel is one of the better movies of 2013, certainly a definite improvement over the Donner films. There. I said it. One of the reasons it was as good as it was is because although it was certainly more serious than the original, it never gets too dark or depressing. The tone is occasionally light, especially when Kal-El first learns how to fly. The little things like that make this a success because they serve as welcome reminders of the original while being it's own thing.

The visuals, of course, are spectacular. As anyone who has seen Watchmen can attest to, Zack Snyder is a far better director than many people are willing to give him credit for. Each fight, shot of Krypton, superpower scene is incredibly well done and never feels fake or unrealistic.

The actors are all great, with exceptional performances all around. Henry Cavill perfectly portrays a Superman who feels like an outcast. He never comes across as melodramatic, and he has to grow into his role as a hero. Superman has a vulnerable, human side that grounds the film in a sort of realism. This version isn't nigh-omnipotent in the absence of Kryptonite. He isn't able to turn back time to bring someone back to life. There are high stakes, which help to make the film exhilarating and an incredibly enjoyable time at the movies.

Note: the hatred this film has received is largely from fans who wanted a re-screening of the original. If you can get past that, you will definitely enjoy this movie.

I will not attempt to describe The Room. If you are reading this, chances are anything I could tell you about this movie would be redundant, like many of the scenes in it. It is the pinnacle of so bad it's good movies, but is that really an accomplishment? Some of the scenes where so poorly done that I couldn't breathe for laughter. The plot is nearly nonexistent and would be incredibly boring if it weren't so inept.

I knew what I was watching was possibly one of the most incompetent things in existence, yet it was curiously entertaining. Would a one star rating really make sense to give if I enjoyed myself during this? Would a ten star rating really be appropriate for a film that only manages to be enjoyable due to failing on every conceivable level? I can't decide what the point of either would be, and there is no evidence as to whether or not this was intentional. Signs point to that it isn't.

In conclusion, The Room receives no star rating, as it is impossible to rate something for failing at something it can hardly be said to qualify as. Still, you might enjoy it... if you're drunk.