Escape to the Movies: Man of Steel

[Arcane Azmadi]

Oh dear. For some reason I'm reminded of Bob's Captain America review where he cited as the film's primary strength its complete lack of irony: Captain America is a purely "good guy" with not a trace of irony in his role. It seems like Nolan just couldn't leave well enough alone again. Oh well. Glad Snyder came through on the action scenes at least. I'll still be checking this out anyway, but it is a bit disappointing.

Most of the time you're okay. And I know you see movies for a living so you are more jaded than the rest of us, but do you have to let your pretentious movie snobbery come through every fucking week? Maybe you'll grow out of it like Ebert did. Smh.

Yeah, because god forbid a movie critic actually fucking criticise a movie when it has actual flaws. Jesus wept...

 

[Vausch]

I fucking despise Superman and everything he stands for, so I might just enjoy this movie.

You despise someone because his main goal is to protect the place he calls home from the people that would sooner turn it into a wasteland or slave pit? Huh.

Agreed. This a weird sentiment that some people seem to share when it comes to Superman and it flabbergasts me.Superman is no more 'OP' than any other protagonist for anything else ever. Its commonly refered to as 'plot armor' just about everybody who has a story written about them have it. Superman just shows it up front, and most of the time that just leaves him free to tell stories that arent about beating up bad guys.

What I often find strange is they say "His one weakness is Kryptonite and that's silly that the villain has to use that to hurt him". Superman has several weaknesses, Kryptonite is just the most well known and it's not exactly difficult for his enemies to find it or make it using someone like Element Lad.

Heck, wanna talk broken characters that nobody complains about? Flash doesn't have an established weakness except the fluctuating power of the speed force and he's the most powerful thing in the entire DCU. Seriously, he's faster than Superman and when he applies physics in proper to his movements, he carries enough mass in his body when moving faster than light to punch someone with the weight of the universe itself.

 

[GraveDigger27]

Guess I'm surprised by the large numbers of negativism regarding this film. My younger brother and I both saw the movie earlier today separately and his reaction was this might be the best super-hero film ever. While I'm not quite sure I would claim that (yet) we both thought that the filmmakers really captured the character and that the action scenes were better than any we've ever seen. Plus, coming off the criticism of the previous Superman movie, which many people was only a homage to the Richard Donner films with new actors, I was looking forward to a "Batman Begins" reboot of the character that doesn't rely as much on what went before. Also, we're not new to the genre having been readers of the comics since the early 60's.

One thing in particular that I thought was well done was the level of destruction we saw as a result of a fight between nearly indestructible beings of unbelievable power. There's no doubt that there were people killed and that the battle had ramifications. There was no pinning someone with a radio antenna, hitting someone with a manhole cover, knocking people into landmarks or advertising signs. Plus, it always bothers me when the hero attempts to "take the fight somewhere where ordinary people won't get hurt". There's nothing for the villain to gain by doing that and the hero normally only shows up WHEN there are innocents around.

In the 75 years that Superman has been around, there have been numerous takes on the character. From the movie serials, radio shows and Max Fleischer cartoons of the 40's, the George Reeves TV shows of the 50's, the Filmation and Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the 60's and 70's, the Christopher Reeve films of the 70's and 80's, the Dean Cain and Tom Welling TV shows of the 90's and the 2000's, to the Brandon Routh and Henry Cavill films of recent years every generation has their view of the character. Superman is an icon and although everyone is familiar with the character his story can be retold in different ways to reflect the times.

Man of Steel captured the reaction of a post-9/11 world and reflected the fear and suspicion that a being with this much power would bring about. It worked for me and delivered on my expectations of a major summer blockbuster.

 

[mattttherman3]

This movie was a piece of shit, I don't know what that was, but it was most definitely not a Superman movie. That was not Superman.

 

[CGAdam]

I thought it was ok. I did think it was better than any other live action Superman movie to date, mostly because they didn't waste half the movie on a date with Lois. They also came a lot closer to living up to the potential of what a Superman movie could be, mostly because of modern day effects coupled with a guy that loves to make fight scenes with 'em.

The time cuts bugged me, too.

I did like that we got to see the difference between power and skill show up now and then. The other Kryptonian soldiers were definitely much better fighters than ol' Blue Boy.

I got a sense that Nolan was trying to work a little of his trademark 'realism' into this movie, what with

Spoiler: stuff

the "Kryptonite" actually being Superman more used to/adapted to Earth's environment than Krypton's, plus the slightly more in depth explanation of how Supe's powers were fueled by a combination of things, instead of just comic book physics.

I don't think it really hurt anything, but I also don't really think it was necessary.

Loved both the tanker and satellite easter eggs towards the end of the film.

I still think that the best Superman movie they could make would involve Darkseid. I'm not necessarily saying he should be the big bad in the next movie, but he's the perfect opposite to Superman: near equal power, used to dominate instead of protect. He's the black to Superman's white, and that works for a character who is as unequivocally GOOD as Superman is.

I think that if I had MoS and Iron Man 3 on dvd, I'd end up watching IM3 all the way through more than once, but probably skip around to the fight scenes on Man of Steel.

My bottom line: Pretty good, but the DCAU still ranks supreme for me.

 

[Riobux]

The hilarious part about this film from what I can discern is just how much it feels like a money-printer film. Everything is there:
A. Recognisable comic book hero? Check.
B. Brooding back story that makes him dark and mysterious but never has a lasting impact? Check.
C. The Hero's Journey [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey] done to the letter? Check.
D. Wazzy exploding action scenes? Check.
E. Shout outs to comic book lore, but with some re-imaginings that'll probably upset comic fans but will draw in the mainstream crowd? Check.

I don't see anything about this film that makes it seem like it has a soul. At least Iron Man, as soulless as that film is, is amusing enough that I can numb that nagging feeling that maybe I could of spent my money and time on something better. Hell, the only thing I can say about Iron Man 3 after I saw it in cinemas and people asked me what it was like, was the phrase "it's an Iron Man film". Maybe my standards for comic hero films are too high? They are set to Watchmen level which pretty much flipped everything onto it's head and went places with it's plot.

 

[faefrost]

I saw it. Visually it's stunning, (except somebody really really needs to buy Zach Snyder a Camera Dolly and a Tripod. Really they do. Pretty please. Not every movie has to look like the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan all the way through.)

And it's weird. With the exception of Russel Crowes scenes, it's the silences that work best in it. The scenes where the visuals are telling the story, and the action sequences are wonderful. However anytime pretty much any character except for Crowe opens their mouth and starts to deliver dialogue it all goes to shit. The script is quite simply awful. On top of that it totally lacks charm and humor. There is one funny or amusing line in the movie. And when you get it it is totally jarring because there is literally only one. I normally love Amy Adams, but there is less chemistry between her and Cavil then between Natalie Portman and Thor. It's almost as bad and senseless as the chemistry between Natalie Portman and Anakin Skywalker. 9(K maybe not that bad or creepy, but damn its not good.)

Not a bad movie per se. But nowhere near any of the Marvel movies. It reminds me a lot of the JJ Abrams Star Trek films. Great fun popcorn action movies that somehow missed a few critical points of their source material.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

What can I say MovieBob? You're just wrong on almost all of these things (except Zod, fucking brilliant). Also, they're not really 'falling for one another'. They're caught up in the emotions brought about by their circumstances, and what's better, they know it, that's why the film makers didn't simply have their first two almost-kisses immediately interrupted by events, Lois and Clark awkwardly delayed it themselves because they both knew they were mostly just caught up in events but also knew they needed and wanted an outlet. It's even more brilliant cause the film makers must surely have been aware that the audience expected it and that the audience would be pretty pissed at the cliche at the same time. If they were really 'falling in love', they would have kept in touch before he just showed up at the Daily Planet. She was not expecting to see him. So, what emotions? Well, it might be cliche, but it's really true that people usually like you more if you save their lives. That handles Lois. What of Clark, he knows he's unlikely to die, so what's he feeling? He's an outsider on an alien world, and he found someone to trust.

Yes, the movie is taking itself somewhat seriously, but they're just defining Superman for you, that's all really. Go take a look at the DeathBattle episode of Goku vs Superman. Clark knows he's different, this causes angst in sentient beings, don't know what else to tell you; other than they didn't lay it on too thick so I'm cool with it.
Only complaint is the city destruction fight actually did go on too long, which is not something I thought I'd hear myself say ever. Of course I was in slight physical discomfort from the theater's speaker system at the time.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

And really, what the hell is wrong with explaining what the hell is going on?

 

[RolandOfGilead]

A) I saw it. Visually it's stunning, (except somebody really really needs to buy Zach Snyder a Camera Dolly and a Tripod. Really they do. Pretty please. Not every movie has to look like the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan all the way through.)

B).. The script is quite simply awful.
C).. On top of that it totally lacks charm and humor.
D).. missed a few critical points of their source material.

A) yes
B) Blatant lies
C) Well, duh, they weren't trying to add any. Good on them for trying to tell a serious story.
D) You don't know much about Superman, he's been reinvented too many times to make this valid.

 

[RTR]

It definitely feels like a Superman movie with a Batman filter on it. I'm willing to lay like 90% of the films problems at the screenplay's feet. This is a movie that's supposed to not only make Superman "cool" again, but remind us about how he's an ideal to look up to, but the movie ends on kind of a downer despite having Superman win. For all the talk of how everyone is going to look up to Superman, we never get to see that. Despite all the very impressive action, we never get a real "Fuck yeah!" moment out of the movie. The film is almost devoid of any of the joy and energy of watching a great superhero movie. Everyone onboard is trying their damndest, but they're all getting dragged down by the film's tone.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

For all the talk of how everyone is going to look up to Superman, we never get to see that.

We're not supposed to. That's something that takes a long time. "They will stumble. They will fall." Superman can't make everything better just by showing up. He's not magic

 

[RolandOfGilead]

Maybe my standards for comic hero films are too high? They are set to Watchmen level which pretty much flipped everything onto it's head and went places with it's plot.

What? Watchmen wasn't that great honestly. It's not a bar-setter.

 

[J.j. Trusello]

To all the people complaining about joylessness, in a movie where an alien race with superpowers invades your home and are trying to TERRAFORM your planet, I can't expect the people to be randomly singing happy happy joy joy, and I honestly don't want them to.

 

[aceman67]

I just got back from seeing the movie (I watched the review before watching it), and I have to say: I didn't see anything you said was a failing in the film. Quite the opposite in fact, what you saw as failings, I saw as minor gripes that absolutely don't hurt the film, even in the slightest.

I mean, seriously, You're entirely wrong, and truthfully, I think you went into the film expecting it to be the original, and when you saw that it didn't live up to your expectations, you nit-picked the hell out of it.

This film and the original are two entirely different films, each made to entertain the respective times they were made (Had the original been made now, it would be considered a bomb).

/rant

 

[J.j. Trusello]

This movie was a piece of shit, I don't know what that was, but it was most definitely not a Superman movie. That was not Superman.

It may not have been your superman but do you not realize superman has been re-envisioned dozens of times? This version is just another one.

 

[UberNoodle]

Sick of reviews which are far more about the author than the film itself. Similarly, I am sick of reviewers who spend so much effort speaking for the motivations of artists they have never met nor spoken to. Who knows how much Goyer and Nolan 'understand Superman'? There's an assumption there, Bob, that it is YOU who truly understands, yet that is something without any objective meaning. I don't care what you believe to be the film makers' motivations and understanding, nor do I care for your 'protest-too-much' theory on which maturity level coincides with the liking of this film.