As a side minor point I enjoyed that line when questioning the safety of America, "I grew up in Kansas, I'm as American as you're going to get"... played by an Englishman.
Escape to the Movies: Man of Steel
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You don't really NEED to up the stakes for it to work. As long as the next villain is just about as strong and threatening as Zod and his crew then it'll work. One doesn't need to ramp up the villain threat every single movie in order for it to be worthwhile. Besides, there are villains like Darkseid who are just as strong as Superman and have entire armies at their disposal they can use if it's really necessary.Makabriel said:
After seeing this movie I have one thing to say. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I saw all the bad reviews before I went to see it having bought my ticket before the reviews came out and then, after seeing it, was completely confused as to why it had so many bad reviews. It has a good story with intelligently written characters that actually feel real. The MacGuffin, called a codex, isn't really that hard to understand, they breed their offspring to genetically fit a predetermined place in their society. That means that they have to have a blueprint for what to put into each of these offspring so that they will fit in their place. The MacGuffin is that blueprint. It really shouldn't be that much of a tax on your intellect to figure that out.
In many of the reviews, including this one, I found the common thread of "joylessness". It seems like all the critics were really hoping for Otis and the campy villains that shared that space. Zod is actually given a reason for what he does that makes sense as opposed to the "'cause I'm the badguy" reason that he had in the Donner flick. The last reboot was so bad because they were trying to mimic the Donner film and this one goes nowhere near that. This is a wholly unique take and it's the best one I've seen so far. All of these qualms seem more like "but Superman is supposed to be the happy one," whining rather that an honest look at the movie itself such as the Superman/ Batman inequality image you showed.
Superman is the last survivor of his entire species which is probably a little worse than just losing your parents. He has to struggle with the fact that his abilities could have serious negative effects on the human population. He gets bullied but can't fight back because he would probably kill the kid without even meaning to. Some would make him a god while others would make him the devil. Governments would know that he was completely untouchable and therefore a threat to their entire position. How does he control his own nature and avoid abusing the power that he has? These are questions treated in the movie and they aren't things that lend themselves to levity. Why should they not be asked just so you could stroke your nostalgia a little?
This isn't really for people that don't get or don't like Superman but for people who want a little more from a character than "I'm good because... Superman".
In many of the reviews, including this one, I found the common thread of "joylessness". It seems like all the critics were really hoping for Otis and the campy villains that shared that space. Zod is actually given a reason for what he does that makes sense as opposed to the "'cause I'm the badguy" reason that he had in the Donner flick. The last reboot was so bad because they were trying to mimic the Donner film and this one goes nowhere near that. This is a wholly unique take and it's the best one I've seen so far. All of these qualms seem more like "but Superman is supposed to be the happy one," whining rather that an honest look at the movie itself such as the Superman/ Batman inequality image you showed.
Superman is the last survivor of his entire species which is probably a little worse than just losing your parents. He has to struggle with the fact that his abilities could have serious negative effects on the human population. He gets bullied but can't fight back because he would probably kill the kid without even meaning to. Some would make him a god while others would make him the devil. Governments would know that he was completely untouchable and therefore a threat to their entire position. How does he control his own nature and avoid abusing the power that he has? These are questions treated in the movie and they aren't things that lend themselves to levity. Why should they not be asked just so you could stroke your nostalgia a little?
This isn't really for people that don't get or don't like Superman but for people who want a little more from a character than "I'm good because... Superman".
I agree with Hellfireboy, I don't get this review or the others that call the movie "joyless." I feel like half these reviews are just quoting and agreeing with each other without actually having seen the film. It's like they watched a bunch of trailers half-asleep, read some reviews, and pretended they saw the whole thing by writing a bunch of stuff that ultimately is vague and just echoes what other vague things other writers wrote.
There are definitely aspects of the film where things are to be taken seriously -- but really, what the movie takes seriously is the idea that this man, Kal/Clark, realizes he's unique on earth, with special gifts, and is trying to figure out who he is. The iconic, classic heroic journey to self-discovery might by highly mythologized in Superman, but it's a story worth telling over and over and the movie does it right. And it does need to be serious to an extent to be told well. The elements of Superman's backstory ARE serious--it begins with the death of an entire planet and its people. It's been like that since his inception. Are we supposed to make light of that? Are we supposed to not think about what kind of impact that might have on the story of that world's last son?
At the same time, I don't feel the movie overburdened itself with "grimness" -- to me it utterly avoided the "Grimdarkness" I was afraid it would fall prey to. Just because a movie makes appropriate moments serious does not mean it is wallowing in "grimness." There is some great dialogue, and as for humor, many lines throughout the film that made the entire (very large) audience I was in laugh out loud several times. This isn't the best example but off the top of my head, for example Lois's answering Superman's explanation of the "symbol of hope" on his shirt. "Well, here it's an S." Lots of cute moments too--many of them with Pete Ross, Clark's glasses showing up halfway through, and so on.
I also loved the kindness and compassion Clark had (and I loved how much it caused him pain to do what he had to do at the end in the final battle), and I loved that it was shown that he WORKED to develop that kindness within himself. I loved that they did not make him some same-old vengeance driven superhero all the cool kids like to watch. I loved the warmth in Ma and Pa, in Jor and Lara. I loved the teamwork and regard for each other--complete with teasing--that the Daily Planet had, who were far more than just a "requisite" b-plot, they were real characters, and I remember holding my breath as Perry and his team tried to save the trapped intern as much as when Superman was trying to shut down the doomsday device. Skip through the special effects moments, and much of the movie is very much about the bonds of family, and what constitutes a family (e.g., Superman's birth family, his adoptive family, Lois's "family" of co-workers at the Daily Planet; even Zod and Jor had an "estranged brother" feel to their conflict even though they were not related). They told this story well, and telling a story well about families requires a deep understanding of warmth and joy...
... which leads me to think that the movie's writers have a much better sense of these things than MovieBob and the other hater-reviewers ever will.
I don't really get what MovieBob wanted or expected out of the film in lieu of what was produced. Slapstick? Luthor in a toupee dating Parker Posey? Out of place antics by Richard Pryor? 1940s gags about women in the workplace at Lois's expense?
I wasn't going into Man of Steel expecting comedy or tomfoolery. I went in to see a retelling of the classic heroic epic. I got that and then some, with a story of a good heroic man with a lot of self-exploration and heart -- yeah, some of it occasionally got drowned out by the over-long fight sequences that dragged out toward the end, but you can't have a movie like this without gratuitous explosions these days. Even with the fairly minor issues the movie had, they must have done something right, because I left leaving the theater not only grinning, but feeling like I could fly.
There are definitely aspects of the film where things are to be taken seriously -- but really, what the movie takes seriously is the idea that this man, Kal/Clark, realizes he's unique on earth, with special gifts, and is trying to figure out who he is. The iconic, classic heroic journey to self-discovery might by highly mythologized in Superman, but it's a story worth telling over and over and the movie does it right. And it does need to be serious to an extent to be told well. The elements of Superman's backstory ARE serious--it begins with the death of an entire planet and its people. It's been like that since his inception. Are we supposed to make light of that? Are we supposed to not think about what kind of impact that might have on the story of that world's last son?
At the same time, I don't feel the movie overburdened itself with "grimness" -- to me it utterly avoided the "Grimdarkness" I was afraid it would fall prey to. Just because a movie makes appropriate moments serious does not mean it is wallowing in "grimness." There is some great dialogue, and as for humor, many lines throughout the film that made the entire (very large) audience I was in laugh out loud several times. This isn't the best example but off the top of my head, for example Lois's answering Superman's explanation of the "symbol of hope" on his shirt. "Well, here it's an S." Lots of cute moments too--many of them with Pete Ross, Clark's glasses showing up halfway through, and so on.
I also loved the kindness and compassion Clark had (and I loved how much it caused him pain to do what he had to do at the end in the final battle), and I loved that it was shown that he WORKED to develop that kindness within himself. I loved that they did not make him some same-old vengeance driven superhero all the cool kids like to watch. I loved the warmth in Ma and Pa, in Jor and Lara. I loved the teamwork and regard for each other--complete with teasing--that the Daily Planet had, who were far more than just a "requisite" b-plot, they were real characters, and I remember holding my breath as Perry and his team tried to save the trapped intern as much as when Superman was trying to shut down the doomsday device. Skip through the special effects moments, and much of the movie is very much about the bonds of family, and what constitutes a family (e.g., Superman's birth family, his adoptive family, Lois's "family" of co-workers at the Daily Planet; even Zod and Jor had an "estranged brother" feel to their conflict even though they were not related). They told this story well, and telling a story well about families requires a deep understanding of warmth and joy...
... which leads me to think that the movie's writers have a much better sense of these things than MovieBob and the other hater-reviewers ever will.
I don't really get what MovieBob wanted or expected out of the film in lieu of what was produced. Slapstick? Luthor in a toupee dating Parker Posey? Out of place antics by Richard Pryor? 1940s gags about women in the workplace at Lois's expense?
I wasn't going into Man of Steel expecting comedy or tomfoolery. I went in to see a retelling of the classic heroic epic. I got that and then some, with a story of a good heroic man with a lot of self-exploration and heart -- yeah, some of it occasionally got drowned out by the over-long fight sequences that dragged out toward the end, but you can't have a movie like this without gratuitous explosions these days. Even with the fairly minor issues the movie had, they must have done something right, because I left leaving the theater not only grinning, but feeling like I could fly.
Um, this is why the movie is getting weird reviews. People like this guy see the movie but they don't WATCH IT OR PAY ANY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON.piscian said:
You say Superman killed millions?? You wanna back that up?? No, because you can't. Who was it that came here with the intention of genocide?? Zod. Who was it that made the call to put the World Engine on right top of Metropolis? Zod. Was it Superman?? No, it wasn't, SO HOW CAN YOU HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE???
Superman actually SAVED BILLIONS by coming out on top in the end.
How can anyone say they watched the movie yet come to such ridiculous conclusions?? It's like saying Bambi is responsible for his mother's death.
No, it's not. Superman spent 90% of his (waaaay too long) boss fight with Zod slamming him through buildings in an incredibly densely populated city. We may not have seen any people in those buildings, but logically, they had to have been there or near there- it's not like New York Metropolis had any time to evacuate. To put this in perspective: 9/11 consisted of two hits to the tops of two buildings, and there were around 3,000 deaths. Superman slammed Zod through at least six buildings; that's 9,000 or more deaths on his shoulders. He didn't even seem to care about the people in the city or the irreplaceable architectural landmarks being destroyed (cough Grand Central cough).mrhumble1 said:
Not only did he make no effort to draw Zod away from the city, he was actively destroying it himself. I actually found the part where he's trying to stop Zod's laser vision from hitting that family kind of laughable- he was fine with letting Zod bring the roof down and kill them and anyone else trapped in there, but killing them directly was horribly inhumane.
Supes wasn't f#$@ing around with Zod, he couldn't afford to, he had to throw everything he had to stop Zod. If Zod wasn't stopped, the entire planet was screwed, if a few people end up dead, so what? What difference does it make? Besides, most of the buildings around the World Engine were already evactuated, and quite a bit of the wreckage was actually Zod's fault anyway.Hito-Chan said:
Except he doesn't keep the fight in that part of the city.immortalfrieza said:
But even in the Smallville fight Superman tells everyone to stay inside their houses. Then when a tanker truck is thrown right at him Superman DODGES IT!!! It then slams into buildings and destroys them.
This is the part where I realized they completely missed Supermans character. Superman would have jumped right in front of that to save lives. I mean that's standard super hero stuff.
Then the end.. ZOD WINS!!. Zod says "You have to kill me" what does superman do????
He could have found a way to send him back to the negative zone or put him in some type of stasis or freezing.
Zod even talks about how Superman's compasion is his weakness yet he really isn't that compasionate. Why not have that play in the fights more?
I can't believe I have to state the obvious but I guess some people just don't like to use their brains.Hito-Chan said:
What do you suggest Superman could have done?? He was up against someone as strong and as destructive as he is and who wanted to murder as many humans as possible. Should Superman have said "Oh please Mr Evil Genocidal Murderer, please come over to this remote desert and fight me so nobody gets hurt!" Zod's goal at that point was not to kill Supes. What he wanted to do is kill humans and create as much destruction as possible. Do you really think he would have followed Superman somewhere?? Do you think Superman could have just grabbed him and taken him wherever he wanted??
Also, and this is the most important point of all, Superman was not responsible for ANY OF THIS. All of the responsibility is on Zod's shoulders because he is the one who initiated all of the conflict. Superman is only one guy and up against a lot of tech and many other super-beings. He got some help from the military, sure, but that was necessary because he was on the other side of the planet stopping the other World Engine. Did Superman choose this?? NO, he didn't. He did the best he could with what he had.
Agreed.immortalfrieza said:
Look at the Avengers fight at the end. There you have them actually making efforts to save people. Or even the old superman films. The one thing they got right was Superman constantly having to stop fighting to save people. Or risking himself to save people.mrhumble1 said:
Superman could still have not killed Zod. There are ways of stoping homicidal super men with out killing them. SEE AVENGERS. Like Bob said what happens in the next superman when he faces someone who wants to wipe out all life on earth?
See my above post on the Smallville fight
Honestly I am still raging way to much right now to properly articulate why I ffffucking haaaate this movie. I?m not even a comic book fan I have read Red Son and Kindome Come that?s it that?s...okay I read those 90?s Superman is dead stories in 07 too but I am no way a hard cor comic fan. I am however a hardcore Superman MOVIE fan and fuck.... That was Mass Effect with a Red CAPE!
That movie is just so cold and he?s right there is no chemistry between Louis or Superman or anyone really!
And Dear god it is such a disjointed broken mess that everything just feels bum rushed.
*calms down*
That. Was. Not. A. Superman movie.
To this day my favourite Superman movie and secretly one of my favourite movies is still yeah I?m saying it Superman Returns. That was a hell of a beautiful movie. So full of heart...I?m gonna have to watch it now just to get rid of the horrible taste in my mouth that this movie has left.
EDIT: I still think I need to let my mind settle and just take some time to think over it. Maybe like the Avengers I'll actually like this movie some day.
That movie is just so cold and he?s right there is no chemistry between Louis or Superman or anyone really!
And Dear god it is such a disjointed broken mess that everything just feels bum rushed.
*calms down*
That. Was. Not. A. Superman movie.
To this day my favourite Superman movie and secretly one of my favourite movies is still yeah I?m saying it Superman Returns. That was a hell of a beautiful movie. So full of heart...I?m gonna have to watch it now just to get rid of the horrible taste in my mouth that this movie has left.
EDIT: I still think I need to let my mind settle and just take some time to think over it. Maybe like the Avengers I'll actually like this movie some day.
Bob, I pretty much agree with you on this movie. This is an imperfect movie... and some people can't seem to deal with that.
It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't the best, either. Bob said that. Yet apparently SOME fans (not all) take offense when someone even says that much.
Seriously, I've been looking at comment sections for various reviewers and over and over I'm seeing the usual "What's wrong with critics? Don't they like movies?" (often in far more uglier tones). What irks me the most is the absolute juvenile approach they take. Man of Steel has become the Transformers II of this summer, defended by people who seem to think that all a movie needs is a roller-coaster-ride mentality.
So folks, here's the truth: Man of Steel has flaws. Whether or not you think the flaws overshadow the good is a matter of opinion, but people like Bob (and me) are going to point them out. Because they're there, and no amount of cheerleading is going to change that.
It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't the best, either. Bob said that. Yet apparently SOME fans (not all) take offense when someone even says that much.
Seriously, I've been looking at comment sections for various reviewers and over and over I'm seeing the usual "What's wrong with critics? Don't they like movies?" (often in far more uglier tones). What irks me the most is the absolute juvenile approach they take. Man of Steel has become the Transformers II of this summer, defended by people who seem to think that all a movie needs is a roller-coaster-ride mentality.
So folks, here's the truth: Man of Steel has flaws. Whether or not you think the flaws overshadow the good is a matter of opinion, but people like Bob (and me) are going to point them out. Because they're there, and no amount of cheerleading is going to change that.
You know, the same thing happened when that poop stain, The Dark Knight Rises, came out. It was rightfully criticized for being a bloated mess of a movie, but not necessarily a bad one. The fanboys went on an apeshit jihad and accused anyone not liking their little treasure of having no taste and of not being able to "understand" what Nolan was trying to do; ironically, it was those same fanboys who eventually got the commenting system over at Rotten Toamatoes shut down because of their toxic reaction to less-than-stellar reviews of TDKR. I'm seeing a similar reaction from folks here.RTK1576 said:
To paraphrase the guys over at Red Letter Media: "The Man of Steel was made to sell its own trailers". I think that's a perfect summation of MoS. All spectacle, no soul.
Just saw and I give it a 7.5/10. I say that this is a massive improvement to Superman Returns. Where a bland Lois Lane couldn't connect the dots that Clark Kent and her lover Superman were one of the same as they were both missing for 5 years and look alike. Superman stalking Lois whom he left without saying goodbye, ect.
Heavy. Handed. Religious. Undertones.
Seriously, they could have just taken the "S" and called him "Space Jesus", for fucks sake.
Seriously, they could have just taken the "S" and called him "Space Jesus", for fucks sake.
Spoilers!!!!!
Start
in
two
more
lines:
There are the usual "Superman could totaly do that, but the human he's gripping/saving would totaly die" scenes, which I won't gripe on because they are intrinsic to every Superman comic & movie.
They tried to go gritty with this, and it kind-of works, but it's obviously PG13 (sigh) so they only go gritty for show and not really-really. Like, all those office buildings he gets bashed through, bowling all that office furniture aside? Why wasn't there anyone in there? Like, shouldn't Supes be bowling and tearing apart innocent bystanders while batteling his foe? THAT would have been gritty. And morally interesting.
But no. It's the middle of the day, the Daily Planet is hard at work - but entire skyscrapers of offices have zero people in them.
There's also this:
Supes "has to" kill someone in this movie and it really gripes me that the same people who got THAT right with Batman couldn't with Superman. What the actual fuck. Batman/Superman do NOT kill. Not ever. It's the invisible line you have to draw for yourself if you are a potential extinction level threat to the population, should you ever decide it's OK to start just killing all the bad guys.
What were they thinking? Jonathan Kent tells him (in the trailer even) that he "maybe" should have let a bus full of kids freaking drown. What? That's like Batman's father grabbing his son in his death throes and telling him to murder his killers entire family.
That scene in the movie is akin to Batman getting into a tight spot and suddenly producing a Bat-Revolver to headshot the Joker at point-blank range.
Part of him being the super man is because options like that aren't even in his playbook. A last-resort killing is an understandable necessity if you are a mere mortal like you and I. This, however, is freaking SUPERman and he should always, always find a way.
And THERE FREAKING IS! The last phantom drive ship, which Supes crashes on purpose!!!!, would have enabled him to just dump his enemy at any given location in the universe, stranding him there forever.
This new, gritty-but-not-100%-gritty Superman does not think things through from scene 1 - he solves problems with his hands/fists and thus the escalation at the end is not really a surprise, but a sad, sad conclusion of the actions of a misunderstood character.
Start
in
two
more
lines:
There are the usual "Superman could totaly do that, but the human he's gripping/saving would totaly die" scenes, which I won't gripe on because they are intrinsic to every Superman comic & movie.
They tried to go gritty with this, and it kind-of works, but it's obviously PG13 (sigh) so they only go gritty for show and not really-really. Like, all those office buildings he gets bashed through, bowling all that office furniture aside? Why wasn't there anyone in there? Like, shouldn't Supes be bowling and tearing apart innocent bystanders while batteling his foe? THAT would have been gritty. And morally interesting.
But no. It's the middle of the day, the Daily Planet is hard at work - but entire skyscrapers of offices have zero people in them.
There's also this:
Supes "has to" kill someone in this movie and it really gripes me that the same people who got THAT right with Batman couldn't with Superman. What the actual fuck. Batman/Superman do NOT kill. Not ever. It's the invisible line you have to draw for yourself if you are a potential extinction level threat to the population, should you ever decide it's OK to start just killing all the bad guys.
What were they thinking? Jonathan Kent tells him (in the trailer even) that he "maybe" should have let a bus full of kids freaking drown. What? That's like Batman's father grabbing his son in his death throes and telling him to murder his killers entire family.
That scene in the movie is akin to Batman getting into a tight spot and suddenly producing a Bat-Revolver to headshot the Joker at point-blank range.
Part of him being the super man is because options like that aren't even in his playbook. A last-resort killing is an understandable necessity if you are a mere mortal like you and I. This, however, is freaking SUPERman and he should always, always find a way.
And THERE FREAKING IS! The last phantom drive ship, which Supes crashes on purpose!!!!, would have enabled him to just dump his enemy at any given location in the universe, stranding him there forever.
This new, gritty-but-not-100%-gritty Superman does not think things through from scene 1 - he solves problems with his hands/fists and thus the escalation at the end is not really a surprise, but a sad, sad conclusion of the actions of a misunderstood character.