Man Of Steel (2013 Superman reboot directed by Zack Snyder)

[Brónach 1,330]

The success of The Avengers boils down to it being a funny film with a non boring pace with several popular characters in it. It's the construction of the classic hokey American super hero comic book on cinema, it isn't scared of what it is or tries very hard to deconstruct itself like others.

[publicist 4,650]

That applies to FANTASTIC FOUR and several others that could only dream of taking 10% of AVENGER's gross. THE SHADOW, i. e., was never as bad as its reputation but it sank like a rock.

[Wycket 36]

Here's my review. I'll keep it in spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie you know the deal

Well, let me start off by saying I'm a big comic fan, and unlike most here I really enjoyed the Avengers as I felt it really enveloped what a Marvel comic movie should be like. With that being said, I believe that Man of Steel really can be used to base all other DC properties off of. Those that said the movie was humorless were wrong, as there are plenty of moments of levity throughout the film. As an actual comics fan, I hate the idea that most people think Superhero movies have to be full of jokes and what not. Comics generally aren't like this, but the wit of the movie for me does a good job at capturing the kind of humor you would expect to see in a comic.

As for the movie, I thought it was a great science fiction action film. Its the story of an alien making first contact and choosing to side with his adopted planet over his own people, and I think it handles itself wonderfully. Cavil definitely has a presence in the film which cannot be denied, and definitely exudes Superman when he's on the screen. Some can argue he was too serious in the film, but considering the nature of the film I would hardly expect him to be a jolly guy. The movie really is more the story of Kal-El than Clark Kent, and its his journey in discovering who he is and what he needs to be that this film is really about. This film really only covers his fist days as Superman, and as such I would expect a much more refined hero in future films as would only make sense. There was no 12 cheat in this film like in the Donner films where we have no idea what he is doing. The idea of Clark traveling around Incredible Hulk style, helping people under false identities and leaving town when discovered was a great direction to take with the character to show him developing.

Now let's get to Lois. I thought it was great that Lois knew he was Superman before he even did. In many ways, Lois helps to form him into the man he will become and that is a nice change of pace to take for the character. No longer is the Pulitzer Prize winner unable to figure out her partner is an alien from another planet. The romantic stuff felt a little forced, but considering all Supes has had to do at times is to fly Lois around for a little bit for her to fall in love with him, the events of this film to me at least felt as if they had a good payoff. In no way do I think that the two are "together" at the end of the film, and the kiss was simply the hero getting a chance to kiss the girl moment.

For those that have compared the film to Transformers, I understand the military presence was going to cause such, but considering their was an army invading from another planet I really can't think of a better way to handle things. Clark trying to figure out whom he can trust is a big part of this movie, and when he eventually realizes that he can trust the people of Earth over Kryptonians is an important part of this film and the military simply serve as Earth's representatives in the film.

Zimmer's score was pretty lackluster, but considering I felt the same about Rises other than the Bane and Catwoman material, I'm not too surprised. Hopefully the next film will allow for a more superhero score, but considering this was more an alien invasion film than anything, I felt it worked for the most part. I quite enjoy the new theme, and while I would have liked some different arrangements of it in the film, I can live with it.

The villains did their job, and while Shannon does a good job with Zod, Faora really steals the show. Like a lot of Bond villain henchmen, she really gets far more moments to shine than her boss, and does a great job at being intimidating. Zod's story becomes quite tragic at the end, when he exclaims that he is simply following his genetic programming, something that he was essentially helpless against, it does make you feel sorry for him in a way and was an aspect that I had not considered at the moment. Its a much better explanation as to his actions other than simply being a maniac and was a nice layer to the characters.

Overall, I thought the film was pretty damn enjoyable. Is it perfect? Far from it. But I think it was the film that Superman really needed to break away with the Donner films and the outdated ideas of Superman. Donner did a great job at capturing a Golden Age Superman in the original film, and in turn I feel Synder did a great job at capturing a more modern Superman as he's been portrayed for the last 25 years in the comics. It was definitely a satisfying experience for me, one hopefully I can enjoy for years to come. The film is not without faults, and while I'm not a huge Synder fan, he's definitely proven to me that he understands what it takes to bring a comic to life.

[Brónach 1,330]

But they didn't have the build up.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

I prefer the X Men to the Avengers, but no one in the X-Men is as charismatic as Iron Man and that is the core.

[crocodile 9,724]

Oh dear. What a piece of turd.

Let me say this - it's not a bad idea for a story. You can tell Superman's story this way and there are some good ideas in there (potentially). But David S. Goyer's execution of the script is god awful. Not a single memorable line of dialogue or anything like that.

Snyder is a gifted filmmaker and brings some nice visual ideas to the table. But even those he buried under a ridiculous amount of explosions and excess. Trust me The Avengers was a small film compared to this one. It's mostly Transformers which happens to include Superman. About 60 minutes in I wished it was over.

I have no idea how many thousand innocent people got killed in this. And yet it was the only thing I could think of - it's quite ridiculous.

But Man of Steel has one, literally one, redeeming feature: Henry Cavill. He's the guy.

Karol

[gkgyver 1,647]

I thought it was great that Lois knew he was Superman before he even did. In many ways, Lois helps to form him into the man he will become and that is a nice change of pace to take for the character.

And we're getting ever closer to the Dark Knight series.

[crocodile 9,724]

It's nothing like The Dark Knight series. More like a Michael Bay film. Literally.

Karol

[gkgyver 1,647]

I mean that specific aspect, with

the female being the driving force behin the hero's development

[Quintus 6,495]

Grim

[crocodile 9,724]

I mean that specific aspect, with

the female being the driving force behin the hero's development

I witnessed no development at all.

Karol

[Wycket 36]

I mean that specific aspect, with

the female being the driving force behin the hero's development

I didn't mean it literally. Clark himself becomes Superman.

Lois is only really responsible for the name. Probably should have been more clear on that one

[Offline 29]

I saw the special Wal-Mart screening deal thing, yesterday at 7, here's my review:

Krypton:

We were a little late so I didn't get to see the ENTIRE beginning, but I saw enough of it. (I walked in basically at whatever point the Nokia trailer starts at). I will say I LOVED the beginning, I thought the beginning was quite amazing and goes far more in depth than i've ever seen the Krypton story told. The look, the story of what was going on, I thought it was VERY well done, even the music worked very well (Despite my hate for it later on, but we'll talk about that later.) It was a VERY good opening in my opinion, the ship took off and I was like yes! Here we go! This is awesome! And then...the trouble begins.

The Flashbacks:

In some movies, flashbacks work, and in some they don't. In "Man of Steel" they were...not a good choice. We go from his ship taking off, making it to Earth, and right before the thing crashes...we cut to a fishing boat...33 Years Later. I can't even begin to describe how off putting and jarring that choice was. It was awful, and explaining his childhood in flashbacks simply doesn't work as well as it could've. I already knew the story so I understood most of what was going on, but for people who don't know a thing about Superman (some people don't), I would imagine it to be very confusing and disorienting. I think this movie would've been a LOT better if they had introduced Clark in order, and shown more of his childhood / teen years development. By more, I don't mean the whole movie, but maybe 10 minutes more of that and the character could've been fleshed out far more and done way more justice. I just don't think we saw enough of his Earth parents influence on him. Also, I absolutely hated how they killed Johnathan Kent, I like WHY he died (saving something, and protecting his son's identity) but I hate HOW he died (Tornado which can destroy cars but apparently has no suction AT ALL)

Superman Himself:

Now, Henry Cavill and how Clark Kent was portrayed was superb. I think one of the biggest reasons that people don't get into Superman is that he's "just an unbeatable alien", but this portrayal actually showed a lot more than that. It showed how Human he really was, he seemed more like a Human with powers than an alien from another planet and I really liked that. The sequence of him flying was a great sequence and him flying through the mountain was hilarious. I also really enjoyed the bit where he just goes home in his suit and has very real interaction with his mother. It was very nice.

Lois:

I thought Amy Adams did surprisingly well as Lois. I was very skeptical about her quite honestly, but she did it VERY well, and I liked how her character was portrayed. I also like how smart she actually is as well. She actually tracked down Clark before they even met, which, while a jarring change to what I was used to, I really thought worked well. So, all in all, she did great!

The Action:

Here comes one of my biggest problems in the movie. The Action. Sure, it was intense, and yeah it was great action, but I swear instead of the action scenes having a point, and advancing the story they seemed to be strictly about...let's see how much we can destroy each action sequence. I mean, it was borderline ridiculous. I mean I don't think "The Avengers", "Cloverfield", maybe even Transformers had as much destruction as I saw in this movie. It was decent action but it was pretty ridiculous, speaking of ridiculous:

The Score:

Literally, any time I noticed the music (other than the beginning) and liked it, it was the same music, the piano stuff for Clark, or the fanfare thing from the Trailers, that was literally it, every other time is was either uninteresting ambience, or relentless pounding on the drums. As a score, it worked a little bit better in the movie than it does by itself, but it still didn't work. The stuff I noticed and liked was good, but that honestly was probably about 20% of the music they used. It was just very disappointing.

Product Placement:

It was not very subtle, and I noticed it EVERYTIME IT HAPPENED. I saw ihop too much, the Nokia phone thing was still a joke, and also Sears. Now, granted, it kind of worked, because me and my friends went to ihop afterwards. XD But still it was ridiculous.

The Ultimate Problem: The Writing:

The thing is, I really liked the new take of these characters, the characters themselves and the portrayals were great, but it's 60-70% of the things the characters did that I didn't like. Not to mention the extreme amount of lines lifted from other movies.

All in all, it had a LOT of potential, and just fell a little flat for me. The things I liked, I REALLY liked, but the things I literally ROLLED MY EYES AT, I reaaalllly didn't like. So, i'd say I enjoyed the movie, and I enjoyed more than I should've because I was already a Superman fan, and I liked seeing the new versions of the characters so my personal rating is 7.5/10. If I wasn't a superman fan though, it'd probably be a 6/10 being extremely generous.

Yup.

[gkgyver 1,647]

Wow, all this negativity is really surprising to me. I mean, personally, I expect not much from the film, but that the movie is criticized to this extent publically ... Didn't expect that.

[stewdog1 50]

Wow, all this negativity is really surprising to me. I mean, personally, I expect not much from the film, but that the movie is criticized to this extent publically ... Didn't expect that.

I thought it was great...

Sent from Tapatalk

[Ren 77]

Hated. Wanted to leave an hour into it.

[Matt C 605]

It's nothing like The Dark Knight series. More like a Michael Bay film. Literally.

Karol

In most of Michael Bay's films, his main characters are either bland (Pearl Harbor, Transformers) or massively unlikeable (Bad Boys II, Pain & Gain). Say what you want about Man of Steel, but the characters themselves are far more well-rounded than any in Bay's films. (Although Michael Shannon's Zod would, ironically, be perfect for a Bay film.)

I watched it a second time... and for me, what stands out the most is that Zod is an uninteresting villain. Faora has far more spark and unpredictability (it would've been far more interesting if she was the main villain instead). I don't know if Snyder directed Shannon poorly or whether Shannon just went into scenery chewing mode. And again, the flashbacks drag down the first half of the story. And Zimmer's score is, again, underwhelming. The quieter, less ambient pieces like the beautiful violin solo when Kal-El's capsule lifts off Krypton and into space are gorgeous. The underscore on the action scenes are just... repetitive.

[KK 3,313]

Well I unintentionally glossed over some comments here.

I still remain hopeful for the film. It just looks so great in the trailers, I'd like to see for myself just how much they may have or may not have screwed it up.

[Matt C 605]

I think it's like Snyder's usual movies... you'll either love it or hate it.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Actually, most of his movies are quite middle of the road hum-drum.

Not particularly hateable or loveable. Same as this.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

I have yet been able to finish a Synder movie since Dawn Of The Dead in theaters.

[crocodile 9,724]

It's nothing like The Dark Knight series. More like a Michael Bay film. Literally.

Karol

In most of Michael Bay's films, his main characters are either bland (Pearl Harbor, Transformers) or massively unlikeable (Bad Boys II, Pain & Gain). Say what you want about Man of Steel, but the characters themselves are far more well-rounded than any in Bay's films. (Although Michael Shannon's Zod would, ironically, be perfect for a Bay film.)

I watched it a second time... and for me, what stands out the most is that Zod is an uninteresting villain. Faora has far more spark and unpredictability (it would've been far more interesting if she was the main villain instead). I don't know if Snyder directed Shannon poorly or whether Shannon just went into scenery chewing mode. And again, the flashbacks drag down the first half of the story. And Zimmer's score is, again, underwhelming. The quieter, less ambient pieces like the beautiful violin solo when Kal-El's capsule lifts off Krypton and into space are gorgeous. The underscore on the action scenes are just... repetitive.

Let me put it this way: the film has an idea for a story, but not the story. I have no problems with some of the ideas and changes. I have problem with the absolutely horrid execution on almost all levels. The funny thing is you're not going to get much more from the film after seeing the trailers. I could swear I was saying almost every line in the first hour before characters did ( every single one Kevin Costner had anyway). It plays like a long promotional video montage, rather than a film. Then it jumps into non-stop action of apocalyptic proportions.

Kudos to Henry Cavill, though. Given the material, he's really likeable and has the presence of Superman.

Karol

[Hurmm 104]

I agree with most of what others have said in this thread, and I think this movie is damning proof that Snyder is at best a videogame action director. I love Watchmen, but that was mostly due to the source material, painted over in a modern styling. I haven't seen anything else from him that is of note or memorable.

Anyway, this is a hollow, hollow film. From a character standpoint, and from an action standpoint. You will witness a novel attempt in character development by staging semi-artsy flashbacks during key moments in the present day story, but it does not really work and ends up making Act II a disjointed mess. You won't necessarily be bored by what you're watching, but you'll know it all rings hollow. There is NOTHING of substance behind what you see. Worse, Superman has NO chemistry with any character in the film except Kevin Costner and maybe Diane Lane.

The action comes in thick and dense in the last hour or so. It's numbing action without any purpose other than to have wanton destruction. It's all quite good, the scenes of mass destruction are pretty unbelievable, but it's all CGI without much heft, both figuratively and physically. It brings to mind the Avengers and, unfortunately, the Transformers movies. One of Superman's main wonders is his ability to fly, and while you now get flying heroes in every other action movie, I wanted to see Snyder accentuate this aspect, at least try to make it MEAN something. We get none of that. It's like the filmmakers just decided to take for granted his ability to fly. And again it's all CGI, so there's no heft. I really didn't like the flying scenes in this one.

Can't say much about the casting too. Cavil was okay. Crowe and Costner (he's so underrated) are really good. The girl who plays Zod's second-in-command was badass. Diane Lane was okay I guess. No one else really convinced me, least of all Micheal Shannon as the scenery-chewing Zod. I think Shannon could be really good as a quietly menacing mental villain, but a villain of this scale is outside his range. His OTT scenery chewing mode is one-note and gets boring fast. He does have a nice moment near the end though. Actually I think Crowe would have made a much better Zod.

2.5/5 sounds about right, but I'll give it 3/5 because of the sheer spectacle of its action scenes.

Oh and Zimmer's score is absolute dog shit.

[TheUlyssesian 2,745]

While I was watching the sequence where Kal's spaceship is flying towards earth, I was thinking to myself, Giacchino would have killed this scene with a big grand sweeping 2 minutes of nearly sound effect free music. Zimmer's was just loud.

The score is okay, not horrible but not great either. The movie is okay too though more tending towards bad.

Btw, what's the deal with Henry Cavill's body? Was it real? He has the body of a god basically.

[Quintus 6,495]

So, is this Prometheus 2?

[KK 3,313]

Yikes...that bad?

[Brónach 1,330]

Really?

That would be disappointing even for me.

[Matt C 605]

While I was watching the sequence where Kal's spaceship is flying towards earth, I was thinking to myself, Giacchino would have killed this scene with a big grand sweeping 2 minutes of nearly sound effect free music. Zimmer's was just loud.

The score is okay, not horrible but not great either. The movie is okay too though more tending towards bad.

Btw, what's the deal with Henry Cavill's body? Was it real? He has the body of a god basically.

Yes. Those topless shots are the real thing.

[gkgyver 1,647]

Any topless Lois Lane?

[Ollie 1,375]

Well I had planned to go see it this weekend but then my best friend, a guy I'd call a brother, went and saw it and posted his review. He hated it.

He's someone who's opinion I value 100%. And he's more forgiving to the likes of Michael Bay and Zimmer.

I'm thinking I can wait for the DVD.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

leaving soon for some mongolian beef and some kryptonite.

[Quintus 6,495]

Well I had planned to go see it this weekend but then my best friend, a guy I'd call a brother, went and saw it and posted his review. He hated it.

He's someone who's opinion I value 100%. And he's more forgiving to the likes of Michael Bay and Zimmer.

I'm thinking I can wait for the DVD.

I'm sort of thinking that way too now. Karol hated it, and whilst I don't always agree with him, I most certainly shared the same harsh reaction to Prometheus last year. It's not just that either, but also the fact that evenings out with Claire are really precious rare things at the moment due to the kids being very young. We have a babysitter tonight but I'm considering a last minute change of plan and go out for a meal and drink instead - something guaranteed to be enjoyable rather than the possibility of walking out of Man of Steel really disappointed and an evening wasted. Gone are the days when a trip to the cinema were casual last minute affairs!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Stop fiddling with Android settings. Saves you so much time!

[crocodile 9,724]

Well I had planned to go see it this weekend but then my best friend, a guy I'd call a brother, went and saw it and posted his review. He hated it.

He's someone who's opinion I value 100%. And he's more forgiving to the likes of Michael Bay and Zimmer.

I'm thinking I can wait for the DVD.

I'm sort of thinking that way too now. Karol hated it, and whilst I don't always agree with him, I most certainly shared the same harsh reaction to Prometheus last year. It's not just that either, but also the fact that evenings out with Claire are really precious rare things at the moment due to the kids being very young. We have a babysitter tonight but I'm considering a last minute change of plan and go out for a meal and drink instead - something guaranteed to be enjoyable rather than the possibility of walking out of Man of Steel really disappointed and an evening wasted. Gone are the days when a trip to the cinema were casual last minute affairs!

It's really heartwarming that someone actually values my opinion on anything.

But hey, this spot says I'm wrong:

Who am I to argue with great critics?

I'd also like to add that Zimmer's score is far from the film's worst aspects. In fact, in it's quiet New Age-y pop-ish piano/synth moments, it offers the film with one of the few glimipses of human emotion. Cheap, cliche, and including woman vocals (yeah!) but still.

Karol

[Ren 77]

Yeah Lee. Casual nights out have been swapped with schedules and planning wayyyyy in advance

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

you poor bastards! LOL

[Quintus 6,495]

Stop fiddling with Android settings. Saves you so much time!

People who play with their phones during a movie should executed

[Matt C 605]

Any topless Lois Lane?

Sadly, no. Not even a single cleavage shot.

It's nothing like The Dark Knight series. More like a Michael Bay film. Literally.

Karol

In most of Michael Bay's films, his main characters are either bland (Pearl Harbor, Transformers) or massively unlikeable (Bad Boys II, Pain & Gain). Say what you want about Man of Steel, but the characters themselves are far more well-rounded than any in Bay's films. (Although Michael Shannon's Zod would, ironically, be perfect for a Bay film.)

I watched it a second time... and for me, what stands out the most is that Zod is an uninteresting villain. Faora has far more spark and unpredictability (it would've been far more interesting if she was the main villain instead). I don't know if Snyder directed Shannon poorly or whether Shannon just went into scenery chewing mode. And again, the flashbacks drag down the first half of the story. And Zimmer's score is, again, underwhelming. The quieter, less ambient pieces like the beautiful violin solo when Kal-El's capsule lifts off Krypton and into space are gorgeous. The underscore on the action scenes are just... repetitive.

Let me put it this way: the film has an idea for a story, but not the story. I have no problems with some of the ideas and changes. I have problem with the absolutely horrid execution on almost all levels. The funny thing is you're not going to get much more from the film after seeing the trailers. I could swear I was saying almost every line in the first hour before characters did ( every single one Kevin Costner had anyway). It plays like a long promotional video montage, rather than a film. Then it jumps into non-stop action of apocalyptic proportions.

Kudos to Henry Cavill, though. Given the material, he's really likeable and has the presence of Superman.

Karol

That's the case with virtually every blockbuster nowadays, most of the studios spoil the key scenes, money shots and lines in the numerous trailers and TV spots. I felt some deja vu there too. I'd wish Snyder went the Nolan 'blackout' route and kept some of the better sequences out of the marketing.

I don't mind the differing opinions, as long as folks elaborate why. It's nice having a healthy debate.

[nightscape94 968]

Just got back. Not a bad film. Not as brooding as I anticipated. Certainly not self-effacing either, but that comes with the territory of a Superman film I suppose. It definitely wears on your ability to endlessly watch rock 'em sock 'em combat between seemingly boundless god-like figures, hear ceaseless cliched speeches about hope and destiny, but it has some good spectacle. I can't speak to the iconology of Superman, but it's a watchable flick.

Any topless Lois Lane?

Sadly, no. Not even a single cleavage shot.

There's some man cleavage though.

[Uni 307]

Don't usually do this, but I think this belongs here as much as it does on the other thread, so here's my take:

Man of Steel

What a disappointment. Seriously.

I feel like I've just been made to endure a prolonged beating. This movie is little more than noise, spectacle, and weak attempts at philosophizing over morality and cultural influences. The actors all make a game try of it, I suppose, but ultimately their performances had the feel of a high school play--an attempt to play-act at roles others have filled much more effectively in far better movies. The effects . . . are CGI effects. A lot of it comes across as convincing and impressive (though a fair amount of it, surprisingly, doesn't), but it looks like every other sci-fi action movie on the market nowadays.

That's ultimately this film's biggest problem: there is nothing here--literally not a single thing--we haven't seen a hundred or more times before, usually much better-executed than this. In a sense, the only thing this movie did for me is make me realize how exhausted I am of watching movies like this.

I am so tired of seeing the rummy-tum-tum military types watch doom unfold on tactical screens while looking as though their serious expressions alone will be able to overcome whatever threats they see there. This was cliched back in the 70s, was really starting to get old in the 80s, and is now officially way, way past its expiration date.

I am so tired of knowing exactly what's going to happen to each character, in each scene, because filmmakers can't come up with anything more interesting than what others have done before them. When a movie telegraphs who's going to live and die almost from the first moment you see each person, it leaves very little fodder for suspense. Along the same lines . . . prolonged battle scenes between invulnerable opponents just isn't interesting. We know they're going to destroy everything around them, and we know just as well they won't get hurt doing it. What's the point anymore?

I am so tired of computerized effects being used as a surrogate for good storytelling, as though we can be hypnotized by visual cacophonies thoroughly enough to forget that nothing's actually happening up there. Can I make a point here? Doing something the same, only bigger, or faster, or louder, does not make it different. It only makes it bigger, faster, and louder, thereby increasing the odds that it will also be more annoying.

I am so tired of movies that combine those last two elements ad nauseum. The first scene of this type I can remember was in The Matrix Reloaded, when Neo starts fighting the army of Agent Smiths. There's too many of them for him to overcome, and we know damn well he's not going to die. So we spend ten interminable minutes bored out of our minds by what are supposed to be eye-popping effects, but they have no substance because it's all happening in a computer--literally AND figuratively--and wondering why in the hell he doesn't just fly away, which he finally does long after we're good and pissed. Man of Steel unfortunately keeps this tradition alive through several such scenes.

I am so tired of Hans Zimmer's music. This exact same type of score worked moderately well in the Dark Knight movies. Hearing it again here, the same rhythms, the same ambiance, just made me shake my head in frustration. I'm done with the guy.

And I am so, so, SO, SO tired of angst, regret, and bitter self-reflection being played as some sort of mark of nobility and higher thinking. At some point--around the time of the aforementioned Matrix sequels, I think--"deep" supposedly became "cool." The rule (such as it is) seems to be the more seriously you take yourself, the more seriously the audience will take you. These days, screenwriters who haven't learned the meaning of good drama and solid characterization from classic literature and cinema can create what they believe is a convincing replica of it through the heavy-handed use of melancholic restlessness. The result, in this case, was a first for me: before today I'd never left a theater after watching a Superman movie in such a dreary state of depression.

This may reflect the influence of Christopher Nolan. I'm a fan of his movies, but where this kind of serious-handed contemplation works very well in stories like Inception and the Dark Knight trilogy, it's completely wrong for Superman. Angst was Bruce Wayne's burden, his mode of perception, a central part of his character. Taking Clark Kent down that road is a wasted attempt at deeper meaning the franchise just doesn't need.

One of the hallmarks of the 1978 Superman film (which, I'll freely admit, remains one of my all-time favorites) was it's clever and stylish sense of humor. They knew we knew who Superman was, what his habits were, and they used it to magnificent effect. Man of Steel is singularly lacking of humor and almost entirely devoid of joy--save the scene when Superman first tries out his powers, which may have been the best moments in the movie. There's no sense of triumph, even in his victories. Nothing in this story ever rises above the level of bittersweet . . . and what the hell fun is that?

This is most painfully borne out in the final moments of his battle with General Zod, which culminates in a completely unresolved, absolutely

bizarre moment that leaves us wondering what the hell happened to the people he was so desperately trying to save.

The level of destruction in this movie is appalling, to the point where it drains even the trademark heroism from the comic world's most classic hero. I mean, I understand he's trying to save the whole world 'n' all, and it's small wonder there are some casualties along the way, but the death toll in Metropolis alone by the end of the film cannot be any less than five figures. The horror of that kind of mass annihilation just feels misplaced in a Superman movie. I remember when the franchise couldn't stand the idea of a busload of people getting hurt. Now we've got a Superman standing at a Hiroshima-scale ground zero worriting over the kinda guy he oughta be.

The overall style of the film falls short as well. It fumbles around on a disordered timeline for so long I eventually lost track of whether I was in the past or in the present. A movie that feels it necessary to prologue (at length), backflash repeatedly, display an illustrated history, reveal plot through hallucinatory vision, and still feels the need to feed us great gobs of expository dialogue straight through is trying way too hard. And yet, with all that revelation going on, both the story and the characters occupying it feel flat, empty, and underdeveloped.

So is it really that bad? I gotta say . . . yeah, it is. Aside from a handful of moments that kinda worked, it was far more disappointment and depression than it was worth.

*1/2 out of ****

- Uni

[airmanjerm 84]

[uni's Review..........]

*1/2 out of ****

- Uni

THIS. Down to Uni's choice of punctuation.

Can I please get MORE of the pointless fight scenes? Uni even referenced that junk in the Matrix movies that irritated the snot out of me when I saw part 2 in the theater. Uni, I couldn't agree more.

Also, on a completely different note/rant:

Call me a prude, but I've come to believe that maybe taking my kid to see freakin' SUPERMAN might be an okay thing. But 2 minutes after meeting Lois Lane she's gonna make A DICK JOKE???? Ok seriously....I couldn't care less personally, but come on. Before having children, I probably wouldn't have noticed, so I guess maybe I was a little more irritated at that than some. But also, it was a cheap joke, which offends me even more.

[crocodile 9,724]

Any topless Lois Lane?

Sadly, no. Not even a single cleavage shot.

It's nothing like The Dark Knight series. More like a Michael Bay film. Literally.

Karol

In most of Michael Bay's films, his main characters are either bland (Pearl Harbor, Transformers) or massively unlikeable (Bad Boys II, Pain & Gain). Say what you want about Man of Steel, but the characters themselves are far more well-rounded than any in Bay's films. (Although Michael Shannon's Zod would, ironically, be perfect for a Bay film.)

I watched it a second time... and for me, what stands out the most is that Zod is an uninteresting villain. Faora has far more spark and unpredictability (it would've been far more interesting if she was the main villain instead). I don't know if Snyder directed Shannon poorly or whether Shannon just went into scenery chewing mode. And again, the flashbacks drag down the first half of the story. And Zimmer's score is, again, underwhelming. The quieter, less ambient pieces like the beautiful violin solo when Kal-El's capsule lifts off Krypton and into space are gorgeous. The underscore on the action scenes are just... repetitive.

Let me put it this way: the film has an idea for a story, but not the story. I have no problems with some of the ideas and changes. I have problem with the absolutely horrid execution on almost all levels. The funny thing is you're not going to get much more from the film after seeing the trailers. I could swear I was saying almost every line in the first hour before characters did ( every single one Kevin Costner had anyway). It plays like a long promotional video montage, rather than a film. Then it jumps into non-stop action of apocalyptic proportions.

Kudos to Henry Cavill, though. Given the material, he's really likeable and has the presence of Superman.

Karol

That's the case with virtually every blockbuster nowadays, most of the studios spoil the key scenes, money shots and lines in the numerous trailers and TV spots. I felt some deja vu there too. I'd wish Snyder went the Nolan 'blackout' route and kept some of the better sequences out of the marketing.

I don't mind the differing opinions, as long as folks elaborate why. It's nice having a healthy debate.

I meant that the film (particularly the first hour) feels like an extended trailer for a longer film. Not a single fleshed out scene in there. Hence, it had no dramatic impact on me.

Karol

[publicist 4,650]

The sad truth: 'Man of Steel' soars to $44.1 million Friday, will speed past $100 million

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni55801400/?ref_=hm_nw_tp_t1

[Quintus 6,495]

It's not really sad if, like many of the more pragmatic reviews have suggested, the groundwork is in place for a potentially much better follow-up.

[TheUlyssesian 2,745]

While I was watching the sequence where Kal's spaceship is flying towards earth, I was thinking to myself, Giacchino would have killed this scene with a big grand sweeping 2 minutes of nearly sound effect free music. Zimmer's was just loud.

The score is okay, not horrible but not great either. The movie is okay too though more tending towards bad.

Btw, what's the deal with Henry Cavill's body? Was it real? He has the body of a god basically.

Yes. Those topless shots are the real thing.

Definitely one of the most striking moments in the film, if not the most.

Any topless Lois Lane?

Adams was kinda sexless to the extreme. Though Faora was sexy as hell.

[Ren 77]

Don't usually do this, but I think this belongs here as much as it does on the other thread, so here's my take:

Man of Steel

What a disappointment. Seriously.

I feel like I've just been made to endure a prolonged beating. This movie is little more than noise, spectacle, and weak attempts at philosophizing over morality and cultural influences. The actors all make a game try of it, I suppose, but ultimately their performances had the feel of a high school play--an attempt to play-act at roles others have filled much more effectively in far better movies. The effects . . . are CGI effects. A lot of it comes across as convincing and impressive (though a fair amount of it, surprisingly, doesn't), but it looks like every other sci-fi action movie on the market nowadays.

That's ultimately this film's biggest problem: there is nothing here--literally not a single thing--we haven't seen a hundred or more times before, usually much better-executed than this. In a sense, the only thing this movie did for me is make me realize how exhausted I am of watching movies like this.

I am so tired of seeing the rummy-tum-tum military types watch doom unfold on tactical screens while looking as though their serious expressions alone will be able to overcome whatever threats they see there. This was cliched back in the 70s, was really starting to get old in the 80s, and is now officially way, way past its expiration date.

I am so tired of knowing exactly what's going to happen to each character, in each scene, because filmmakers can't come up with anything more interesting than what others have done before them. When a movie telegraphs who's going to live and die almost from the first moment you see each person, it leaves very little fodder for suspense. Along the same lines . . . prolonged battle scenes between invulnerable opponents just isn't interesting. We know they're going to destroy everything around them, and we know just as well they won't get hurt doing it. What's the point anymore?

I am so tired of computerized effects being used as a surrogate for good storytelling, as though we can be hypnotized by visual cacophonies thoroughly enough to forget that nothing's actually happening up there. Can I make a point here? Doing something the same, only bigger, or faster, or louder, does not make it different. It only makes it bigger, faster, and louder, thereby increasing the odds that it will also be more annoying.

I am so tired of movies that combine those last two elements ad nauseum. The first scene of this type I can remember was in The Matrix Reloaded, when Neo starts fighting the army of Agent Smiths. There's too many of them for him to overcome, and we know damn well he's not going to die. So we spend ten interminable minutes bored out of our minds by what are supposed to be eye-popping effects, but they have no substance because it's all happening in a computer--literally AND figuratively--and wondering why in the hell he doesn't just fly away, which he finally does long after we're good and pissed. Man of Steel unfortunately keeps this tradition alive through several such scenes.

I am so tired of Hans Zimmer's music. This exact same type of score worked moderately well in the Dark Knight movies. Hearing it again here, the same rhythms, the same ambiance, just made me shake my head in frustration. I'm done with the guy.

And I am so, so, SO, SO tired of angst, regret, and bitter self-reflection being played as some sort of mark of nobility and higher thinking. At some point--around the time of the aforementioned Matrix sequels, I think--"deep" supposedly became "cool." The rule (such as it is) seems to be the more seriously you take yourself, the more seriously the audience will take you. These days, screenwriters who haven't learned the meaning of good drama and solid characterization from classic literature and cinema can create what they believe is a convincing replica of it through the heavy-handed use of melancholic restlessness. The result, in this case, was a first for me: before today I'd never left a theater after watching a Superman movie in such a dreary state of depression.

This may reflect the influence of Christopher Nolan. I'm a fan of his movies, but where this kind of serious-handed contemplation works very well in stories like Inception and the Dark Knight trilogy, it's completely wrong for Superman. Angst was Bruce Wayne's burden, his mode of perception, a central part of his character. Taking Clark Kent down that road is a wasted attempt at deeper meaning the franchise just doesn't need.

One of the hallmarks of the 1978 Superman film (which, I'll freely admit, remains one of my all-time favorites) was it's clever and stylish sense of humor. They knew we knew who Superman was, what his habits were, and they used it to magnificent effect. Man of Steel is singularly lacking of humor and almost entirely devoid of joy--save the scene when Superman first tries out his powers, which may have been the best moments in the movie. There's no sense of triumph, even in his victories. Nothing in this story ever rises above the level of bittersweet . . . and what the hell fun is that?

This is most painfully borne out in the final moments of his battle with General Zod, which culminates in a completely unresolved, absolutely bizarre moment that leaves us wondering what the hell happened to the people he was so desperately trying to save.

The level of destruction in this movie is appalling, to the point where it drains even the trademark heroism from the comic world's most classic hero. I mean, I understand he's trying to save the whole world 'n' all, and it's small wonder there are some casualties along the way, but the death toll in Metropolis alone by the end of the film cannot be any less than five figures. The horror of that kind of mass annihilation just feels misplaced in a Superman movie. I remember when the franchise couldn't stand the idea of a busload of people getting hurt. Now we've got a Superman standing at a Hiroshima-scale ground zero worriting over the kinda guy he oughta be.

The overall style of the film falls short as well. It fumbles around on a disordered timeline for so long I eventually lost track of whether I was in the past or in the present. A movie that feels it necessary to prologue (at length), backflash repeatedly, display an illustrated history, reveal plot through hallucinatory vision, and still feels the need to feed us great gobs of expository dialogue straight through is trying way too hard. And yet, with all that revelation going on, both the story and the characters occupying it feel flat, empty, and underdeveloped.

So is it really that bad? I gotta say . . . yeah, it is. Aside from a handful of moments that kinda worked, it was far more disappointment and depression than it was worth.

*1/2 out of ****

- Uni

THANK YOU I whole heartedly agree

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

Was this film shot in 3D or converted?

[Quintus 6,495]

Okay, going to see this bugger in an hour.

[Maurizio 6,913]

Was this film shot in 3D or converted?

Converted. It was on shot on traditional film, in 2D.

3D conversion was a decision made well after the shooting was completed. In fact, I heard from people who saw it in 3D and they told me that Snyder's shaky-cam style doesn't merge well with 3D.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

Shot on film????