Escape to the Movies: Man of Steel

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

1) Henry Cavill's bottom teeth need fixing. It's not that big for most I imagine, but this is Superman. He needs to be damn near perfect.

Why the HELL are his lower teeth such a wreck? Otherwise, he was pretty amazing.

2) Lois Lane ruined every scene she was in. I get that people love Amy Adams (I'm not sure why), but every time she entered scene it just dragged the whole thing out. Could it be the writing as Bob seems to think? Maybe, but I think it's the deadpan facial expressions Amy Adams uses in each scene as well. Was she even trying?

3) Zod. Holy crap. I really really loved how invested the story made me feel in his character. Honestly, the movie made me care more about Zod and his "Programmed" desire to protect his people than it did in Supes finding his way.

I think between the scale of the enemy, the huge city destroying fight scenes, and the simple awesomeness that was Michael Shannon's portrayal of Zod... Any movie with Supes that comes next will fall hard. The Dark Knight syndrome.

Up until yesterday all the Snyder movies I'd seen, I'd liked. I never understood what people meant by them being, "Pretty but empty." At the conclusion of Superman I got it. I really did enjoy the movie, but I left the theater really feeling like it missed... Something.

Lethos:

I still don't understand why Bob seems to hate Nolan so much as well.

Consider that Bob is the same reviewer that defended hot garbage like Ironman 3.

I'm not sure if it's "how dare non-comic fan Nolan re-imagine my exclusive domain!!" (ever notice how Bob's favorite passive-aggressive put down is that Nolan/Abrams/etc "don't get" the material?)

I think it deeply troubles him that Nolan has set the example, and that what he's done with will be puzzled over, studied, and followed, long after all the Marvel movies have been forgotten.

abell:

I'm going to take my own leap here and assume that left wing politics maps with the Democratic Party in the Unites States. Also, I'm going to argue that the stance of that party is (generalized) one of pacifism and egalitarianism.

I think the reason my post seemed "weird as hell" to you, is because you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. Democrats openly reject both pacifism (as any sane person should) and egalitarianism (unfortunately). Neither are they a left wing party (at least not for MANY decades). Though they are to the left of the Republican party (slightly), and that's what may have given you this impression down in wherever it is that you're from, no one in the United States, not even the Democrats themselves, would accept you're characterization of them.

Please read up before you speak. It saves you the embarrassment of looking foolish.

As such, I don't believe that Nolan is a left wing writer at all. His famous Dark Knight Trilogy is of a super rich protagonist becoming a vigilante, (because he's better and above the law), who uses a clear allegory for the Patriot Act (cellphone radar) and who's big final battle is against the misused spirit of populism (Bane's Communist Revolution). I'm sorry, The Dark Knight Trilogy is obviously and inherently conservatice.

Now I'm starting to suspect that you're 5 years old, and struggling to comprehend that which you see on the TV screen. Firstly, the democrats embrace the Patriot act (look up the Verizon metadata scandal + PRISM)

Secondly, the point of The Dark Knight is as follows:

Batman and the Joker are two unrealistic characters, perfectly embodying opposite extremes of justice and chaos, and are playing a massive game for the soul of Gotham. Everybody else in the universe is portrayed as realistically grey. The point Nolan makes is that not even Batman is worthy of wielding so much power, which is why Batman destroys the machine (notice the subversion, it's only purpose was to confront an unrealistic evil, one that doesn't exist - being used by an unrealistic good!)

Batman is disgusted by the means to which he's sinking "I've seen what I have to become to fight men like this...", and "reward's...(Fox's) faith" by destroying this abusive power.

Likewise, Batman's final battle in Rises, wasn't against "populism" (wtf? where do you get these silly ideas from?). The point of the movie was that the abuses of the world had created Bane (the pit eventually throws something back), and that Bane represented the Jacobinte (capitalists bythedubz) tradition of what happens when the people can't afford bread, and the Marie Antoinette's say "let them eat cake".

I mean, FFS people, Nolan also included "A Tale of Two Cities" OPENLY in the movie. He quotes from it! He gave Bane ROBESPIERRE'S COAT!

He tries to make it obvious for you folks, but you still can't figure it out, and project your ignorance onto the movie!

NOLAN LITERALLY HAS TO INCLUDE PROTIPS IN HIS MOVIES, AND YOU FOLKS ARENT GRASPING IT!!!

I scream that because the same happened here! He included The Republic, to clarify and add depth and substance to the eugenics storyline, yet it was still missed! BOB ACTUALLY USED THAT TO ATTACK HIM!!

I...can't...even...

Was there ever any doubt that, whatever role he would have, Richard Schiff would be anything less than fantastic? Hell Schiff is the only reason I'd bother seeing Man of Steel

Saw it last night

Without spoilers, I can say the following:

1) It feels like it takes too long to get to the meat of things. I like what I'm shown, I like what I'm told, but it just feels long. I think its the pacing.

2) Grey on brown everywhere. This is NOT a good color combo for a 3D movie. Infact, a lot of moments in the the fight scenes - with all the dust being kicked up and whatnot - were almost impossible to actually see, since the 3D cannot focus on anything that has little to no contrasts.

So this movie clearly works best in 2D - and I for one will look forward to seeing it again on bluray.

So while Moviebob praises the movie's visuals - then I really didn't get to enjoy them that much, and that really annoyed me.

3) I like how the whole story of Zod was tied together with them eventually coming to earth after superman (No this isn't a spoiler, its revealed in the trailer and everyone knows this is what the movie revolves around)

so many comments so few replies
This isn't the place to start your film review blog guys

Also in case anyone thinks it's unfair to assert that Bob has a political bias against these films, consider:

-He trashed the politics of Star Trek Into Darkness. What were those politics? A rejection of extrajudicial assassination i.e. the main counter terrorism policy of Bob's favorite politician.

-He defended the objectively pro-torture Zero Dark Thirty, which we now know was a product of leaks by the CIA of Bob's favorite politician.

-In Man of Steel, the second to last scene involves Superman destroying a drone that the government sent after him. Drones of course, are the favorite weapon of Bob's favorite politician.

-In Man of Steel, the military is juxtaposed as being pretty much identical to the villain (potential anti-hero) Zod. Equally ready to sacrifice one of their own (Clark, who is "As American as it gets", a point emphasized various times).

What movies does Bob like, besides the aforementioned CIA worshiping ZDT? The military worshiping Iron Man.

Now, there's nothing wrong with liking what you like. But the political pattern here is clear, and I think it constitutes a bias.

_________________________

EDIT

It's worth pointing out that besides the political bias, isn't it pretty clear that MovieBob has an aesthetic bias?

Like, was there every any doubt what his review for this movie would be? Snyder/Action gud! Nolan/vision bad!

Bob's take on Marvel, Raimi, Abrams, Snyder, and Nolan are more constant than death and taxes.

Marvel/Raimi: "Yay! It worked! Miracle! Awesome!"

Abrams: "Booooooo!!! Down with the non-nerd usurper!"

Snyder: "Yay! It worked! Miracle! Awesome"

Nolan: "Boooooo!!! Down with the non-nerd usurper!"

Dastardly:
Say what you will about Goyer and Nolan, but they deeply appreciate economy in a story. There's not a lot of "just because."

And I understand that, completely. If DC is going to have any hope of an ensemble piece like a Justice League movie, they can have every hero surrounded by a whole bunch of "just 'cuz" and coincidence.

Kaora-Ul: fantastic henchwoman, without having to qualify any of her badassness with "...for a girl."

Wut? The first like half hour of that movie was "Just because!"

I am surprised Faora-Ul isnt getting more love in this thread. She was down right AWESOME! She had some of the best lines in the movie during the Ihop fight scene.

Desert Punk:

Wut? The first like half hour of that movie was "Just because!"

It sounds like you're another one that didn't even watch the movie.

Nolan may be the producer movies deserve, but clearly not the one they need right now. They need someone better with coloring books and sing alongs to start to remedy the fan base.

SixShooter:

Desert Punk:

Wut? The first like half hour of that movie was "Just because!"

It sounds like you're another one that didn't even watch the movie.

"I cant give a proper response to your criticism... Fuck! I choose you Ad Hominem fallacy!"

I watched the movie a couple of times already, and that point is never adequately explained.

Lethos:

I still don't understand why Bob seems to hate Nolan so much as well.

He's never ONCE even IMPLIED a statement like that. You and half the people here are just being hypersensitive crybabies that are getting butthurt over the fact that Bob doesn't find him (or movies you happen to like that he doesn't) perfect, and he just thinks that his style of characterization and filmmaking does not fit well with a character like Superman. Which he DOESN'T.

Woody Allen would be a poor choice for The Avengers/Tony Scott would be a poor choice for Moonrise Kingdom, if you want to think about it like that. Woody Allen like to linger on long shots and let his actors act and not cut that often while Tony Scott had his trademark manic/frenetic editing that had its own stylized purpose when it came to telling the stories he wanted to tell. And that's what it comes down to; how different filmmakers tell stories and the personal creative choices they choose to do so.

Nolan's method of storytelling was a good choice for Batman Begins. He was a good choice for The Dark Knight. Inception was his personal pet project so obviously that worked for him. As were his pre-Batman films Following, Memento, and Insomnia. The worlds he built and the characters inhabiting those worlds worked in favor of the story, to create the desired effect he wanted to create. The Dark Knight Rises was heavily flawed (get over it already) and so is Man of Steel, moreso MOS on a fundamental level. Which most of here NOT whining and crying about a guy having the audacity to *GASP!* critique a film have been going over throughout the thread.

Nolan is not a fucking infallible GOD and criticizing him when his influence over a film doesn't shape out the best way it could doesn't mean anyone "hates" him. It means we're just treating him as a fucking human being capable of missteps and mistakes.

The Dubya:
RAGE

Lol. Chill out man.

Ever since The Dark Knight Rises, Bob's been making jabs at Nolan consistently, whenever he can.

However given how passionate you got over a single sentence in my post, I'm going to assume Nolan killed one of your immediate family members. In which, my condolences.

Lethos:
I don't have an even remotely substantial response for your comment and reading more than two lines of words hurts my brain, so I'll just reply back with a lame attempt at a "hurrr hurr y so serious hurr hurr" joke to avoid having to actual add anything to the conversation and not even bother to defend the weak statement I made...because I now find it weak after being called out for it...I'M SO ASHAMEDDDDDD!!! D'x D'x D'x

Oh...well...I'm...damn, no need to feel ashamed, dude...I was just making a forum response. I really didn't mean to make you cry, honest! PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!!

RolandOfGilead:

Riobux:
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.

Maybe that says something about the superhero genre? I don't doubt there are better films than Watchmen, but in the superhero genre it's definitely not as tired, dull and worn as the rest in the genre.

The Dubya:

Lethos:
I don't have an even remotely substantial response for your comment and reading more than two lines of words hurts my brain, so I'll just reply back with a lame attempt at a "hurrr hurr y so serious hurr hurr" joke to avoid having to actual add anything to the conversation and not even bother to defend the weak statement I made...because I now find it weak after being called out for it...I'M SO ASHAMEDDDDDD!!! D'x D'x D'x

Oh...well...I'm...damn, no need to feel ashamed, dude...I was just making a forum response. I really didn't mean to make you cry, honest! PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!!

Apology accepted :)
I'm glad you apologized because for a moment there my day was really ruined.

Lethos:

The Dubya:

Lethos:
I don't have an even remotely substantial response for your comment and reading more than two lines of words hurts my brain, so I'll just reply back with a lame attempt at a "hurrr hurr y so serious hurr hurr" joke to avoid having to actual add anything to the conversation and not even bother to defend the weak statement I made...because I now find it weak after being called out for it...I'M SO ASHAMEDDDDDD!!! D'x D'x D'x

Oh...well...I'm...damn, no need to feel ashamed, dude...I was just making a forum response. I really didn't mean to make you cry, honest! PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!!

Apology accepted :)
I'm glad you apologized because for a moment there my day was really ruined.

Yeah, I can be a cruel bastard like that sometimes...

Good! Our long lasting friendship wasn't worth this crummy movie anyways.

NOW LET'S GO GET SOME ICE CREAM, BUDDY!

*skips away merrily*

Am I the only one that really didn't have any problem with this movie's story?

Granted, I'm not a comic book person. I only experienced Superman through the Justice League cartoons and I barely remember those, so I judged this film on its own merits alone and the story... works for me. I dunno. I guess if you don't exactly have a SPECIFIC vision of Superman and all you know is the basic premise (he's an alien from Krypton, gets uber powerful due to the sun, all that jazz and whatnot) then I guess that this story, imo, does work. I mean, strictly from the film's perspective, you have a guy who has had to literally deal with the fact that he's an exile from a planet he doesn't even know and is blessed with powers that he has to hide or the government will go find him. He's hid and adopted multiple personas several times in his life so that no one would ever figure out who he was (although Lois does a damn fine job of figuring it out).

Then he finally gets control of his powers and his past is revealed to him by his father, but now we have these Kryptonians, people from his world, who come by and ask him to surrender himself, led by a guy that his father explicitly warned him was completely, utterly evil and not to be trusted.

I can get why Supes is brooding. He doesn't have a lot to be happy about in this movie. Even when he learns how to fly, he then has to deal with fricken Zodd. The guy has to bridge the gap between wanting to be a normal human and being this messiah figure. Not exactly an easy task.

I get the complaints with Supes's portrayal, but it works for me, tbh.

I just saw Man of Steel last and I definitely agree with Bob's points on the movie. Let me break it down by pros and cons.

Pros
- The action scenes and visual effects are spectacular. From Superman's first flight to the final battle, this is Zack Snyder at his best.
- Henry Cavill does an impressive job as Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman, both performance wise and physicality (dear God, that man is jacked!).
- Kevin Costner and Russel Crowe turn in superb performances at Supe's daddies from different worlds and ideals.
- Michael Shannon owes the role of Zod in this movie. While I still have a place in my heart for Terrance Stamp's version, Shannon is no slouch when it comes to portraying one of Superman's top villains.
- Amy Adams pulls off a proper version of Lois Lane and proves herself to be very capable of handling herself, especially when it comes to discovering Clark's past.
- The concept of the world unable to trust a strange visitor from another planet is a nice wrinkle to the mythos.

Cons
- The final action scene between Superman vs. Zod and his army tends to drag on. I can understand that they wanted to move away from Superman II's Kryptonian triple threat by upping the stakes, but this is something that definitely needed to be trimmed down both in time and numbers (I.E. decrease the number of Zod's troops).
- The lack of levity and heart is definitely present in this movie. I could appreciate the "outcast of the entire world" aspect if used sparingly, but its so heavy-handed it almost made me want to smack the emo right out of this film and tell it to cheer up. If they do make a sequel to this, WB/DC need to give David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan their walking papers and find writers that truly understand Superman and not pretend they understand the character.
- Most of the cast, like Laurence Fishburne, feel tacked on in some points as either fan service or have some importance but given very little to do. Same could be said for Superman's moms (Diane Lane and Ayelet Zurer)
- The genetic macguffin is a plot point that feels unnecessary. There could have been some better reason to bring Zod to Earth but that's just me.
- The romance between Henry and Amy feels forced and could have been presented better. This is a relationship that could have evolved over the course of 2-3 movies rather than having them fall for one another in just one film.

Overall, its a good action movie but its flaws hamper it at times. If this was a school paper, I would give it a C+ with the sentence "A good effort but there is room for improvement" underneath. DC Comics and WB are off to a slightly better start but there is much work ahead of them if they want to bring the rest of the DC Universe to the big screen.

Wait - this movie is cold, dark and gritty?

So I'm the only one who cried in that BEAUTIFUL flying scene? How about the warmth in Cavill's deliveries in "it's not an S", "thank you soldier", "you're not gonna find out where I hang my cape", or when he looks to the sun?

Zimmer's score didn't touch anyone? I'm still waiting to receive mine in the mail!
- I'm actually surprised Bob didn't mention the score in the review. Maybe it feels generic on everyone, because it reminds us of inception, dark knight-trilogy? I would imagine some would say, "well, that's the problem, Superman isn't Dark knight or inception". - honestly Superman is just one thing to me - an ideal of hope. If this OST doesn't capture that, then I don't know what does.

Yes, sorry if I come off fanboy-ish, but as I left the cinema I thought that this movie was anything BUT cold. Hell, the audience laughed at least 5 times throughout the movie.

In terms of "getting Superman" - that last scene where he's flying above the soldier while smirking off "you're not gonna find out where I hang my cape" - I could only think of how much that reminded me of the animated series. His figure, his delivery.

I guess I'm in the minority on this one. Btw, my little head can't even comprehend that anyone felt like there was "too much action" in it, as it was the best eye-candy I've ever seen.

Do we get the "kneel before Zod" line in this and if so is it as good as Terence stamps zod saying it?

J.j. Trusello:

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.

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.

My Superman would not let Johnathon Kent die to protect his secret Identity. My Superman would not destroy a town and half a city causing thousands of casualties. He did not have to battle in the town at all. They were after him, he could have led them away. But back to the original line here. After this quote:"I let my father die...etc" I knew this was not Superman. Not the one I remember. We won't even talk about the finale.

HyperFreakNation:

Zimmer's score didn't touch anyone? I'm still waiting to receive mine in the mail!
- I'm actually surprised Bob didn't mention the score in the review. Maybe it feels generic on everyone, because it reminds us of inception, dark knight-trilogy? I would imagine some would say, "well, that's the problem, Superman isn't Dark knight or inception". - honestly Superman is just one thing to me - an ideal of hope. If this OST doesn't capture that, then I don't know what does.

You know what, that is one thing I'll also give the movie big props for. While the piffy script did nothing to sell me on Superman, the score was indeed working its ass off to elevate the film to the next level. That was one thing that really DID feel truly inspired, like "Yes, THIS feels epic and triumphant and uproaring and inspiring! THIS is what Superman is supposed to feel like!" It's just a shame that the rest of the movie didn't raise its game to that kind of standard.

arkwright:
Do we get the "kneel before Zod" line in this and if so is it as good as Terence stamps zod saying it?

Sorry, but we do not, friend. We do not...

The Dubya:

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.

That doesn't really explain the boring first half where we're supposed to be getting to know/care about Clark Kent before all the shit goes down...where they keep playing Tug of War with the "Be The Ideal You Were Meant to Be" or "No Son, Don't Reveal Yourself Because Humanity Isn't Ready For You" to tedious degrees.

If that's your argument I can respect that. The problem is that is not what most people are using as a complaint. They are basically complaining about a lack of camp, which is a completely subjective problem. I saw plenty of scenes where he was learning to fly where joy was expressed and then when the aliens came the joy went away, but people seem to think that superman has to be a happy go lucky boy scout or it doesn't work.

mattttherman3:

J.j. Trusello:

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.

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.

My Superman would not let Johnathon Kent die to protect his secret Identity. My Superman would not destroy a town and half a city causing thousands of casualties. He did not have to battle in the town at all. They were after him, he could have led them away. But back to the original line here. After this quote:"I let my father die...etc" I knew this was not Superman. Not the one I remember. We won't even talk about the finale.

They were attacking that city whether he was there or not. Even when he went off in another direction they continued to destroy the city so what would you have him do, let them? Honestly I think that climax with Zod completely speaks to his character. He could have easily done that at any time, but he didn't. Why? Because he was holding back. Because he didn't want to destroy the only other Kryptonian left. When Zod didn't give him another choice he did what he had to do, but he didn't had a look of anguish on his face doing it. That is most definitely Superman-esque.

J.j. Trusello:

The Dubya:

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.

That doesn't really explain the boring first half where we're supposed to be getting to know/care about Clark Kent before all the shit goes down...where they keep playing Tug of War with the "Be The Ideal You Were Meant to Be" or "No Son, Don't Reveal Yourself Because Humanity Isn't Ready For You" to tedious degrees.

If that's your argument I can respect that. The problem is that is not what most people are using as a complaint. They are basically complaining about a lack of camp, which is a completely subjective problem. I saw plenty of scenes where he was learning to fly where joy was expressed and then when the aliens came the joy went away, but people seem to think that superman has to be a happy go lucky boy scout or it doesn't work.

It's not even about camp vs. no-camp (and Superman's nor Steve Rogers' idealism =/= Camp, BTW), but it's just that the movie spent so much time on trying to sell us on so much nonsensical angsty melodrama for those childhood flashbacks for ultimately no reason. With those cliche bullying scenes and those little speeches Jonathon Kent was giving him I kept going "...um hi, WHY would people be afraid of him again?? Why does he need to keep them such a big secret? Why would it be a BAD thing if he owned up to being the one that saved those kids in the bus or his dad from the tornado? What is so vital about 'waiting for the right (arbitrary) time' before....doing...something? You know what, we're getting as bored as this as we are. Let's just drop all that shit for Acts 2 and 3." Really, it's not even HINTED to again. NOBODY in the film is shown to be afraid of him or not understand him or whatever the point of all of Costner Kent's babbling was, so why are you wasting my time trying to beat that dead-end angle into my head?

Clark finding out about his lineage and Jar-El's uplifting "You were sent here to be the new ideal for this planet, to do better than we did" speeches made much more sense and MEANT something to Clark and was a relevant point versus Zodd's predestination ideologies when it came to their showdowns. I can't think of a single relevant thing his Earth Dad said that had any useful application to the development of Clark or the situation he became a part of or the person/symbol he's becoming by the end. It really almost UNDERCUTS his character if, again, they didn't just drop those kind of scenes once they realized how pointless and stupid they were. Cut the flashbacks out entirely and the movie would've done fine.

Sovereignty:
Up until yesterday all the Snyder movies I'd seen, I'd liked. I never understood what people meant by them being, "Pretty but empty." At the conclusion of Superman I got it. I really did enjoy the movie, but I left the theater really feeling like it missed... Something.

The thing with the large majority of Snyders films, is that they are adaptions. 300 was a near frame-by-frame perfect adoption of the comic, from what I've heard, and Watchmen was pretty damn near the source material as well, except for a couple of plot element tweaks to fit the story for the 21th century. Legends of the Guardians was awesome, but failed by not having a target audience (it was a kids movie, but far too dark and stylistic for that audience).

All in all, I think he's probably the best director for comic book adoptions out there. Man of Steel's shortcomings seem to come from Nolan & Goyer's end.

The Dubya:

J.j. Trusello:

The Dubya:

That doesn't really explain the boring first half where we're supposed to be getting to know/care about Clark Kent before all the shit goes down...where they keep playing Tug of War with the "Be The Ideal You Were Meant to Be" or "No Son, Don't Reveal Yourself Because Humanity Isn't Ready For You" to tedious degrees.

If that's your argument I can respect that. The problem is that is not what most people are using as a complaint. They are basically complaining about a lack of camp, which is a completely subjective problem. I saw plenty of scenes where he was learning to fly where joy was expressed and then when the aliens came the joy went away, but people seem to think that superman has to be a happy go lucky boy scout or it doesn't work.

It's not even about camp vs. no-camp (and Superman's nor Steve Rogers' idealism =/= Camp, BTW), but it's just that the movie spent so much time on trying to sell us on so much nonsensical angsty melodrama for those childhood flashbacks for ultimately no reason. With those cliche bullying scenes and those little speeches Jonathon Kent was giving him I kept going "...um hi, WHY would people be afraid of him again?? Why does he need to keep them such a big secret? Why would it be a BAD thing if he owned up to being the one that saved those kids in the bus or his dad from the tornado? What is so vital about 'waiting for the right (arbitrary) time' before....doing...something? You know what, we're getting as bored as this as we are. Let's just drop all that shit for Acts 2 and 3." Really, it's not even HINTED to again. NOBODY in the film is shown to be afraid of him or not understand him or whatever the point of all of Costner Kent's babbling was, so why are you wasting my time trying to beat that dead-end angle into my head?

Clark finding out about his lineage and Jar-El's uplifting "You were sent here to be the new ideal for this planet, to do better than we did" speeches made much more sense and MEANT something to Clark and was a relevant point versus Zodd's predestination ideologies when it came to their showdowns. I can't think of a single relevant thing his Earth Dad said that had any useful application to the development of Clark or the situation he became a part of or the person/symbol he's becoming by the end. It really almost UNDERCUTS his character if, again, they didn't just drop those kind of scenes once they realized how pointless and stupid they were. Cut the flashbacks out entirely and the movie would've done fine.

I think a lot of people are forgetting the other thing that is pointed out substantially in Clarks "coming out"; Pa Kent says explicitly that its not just about people accepting him as a powered creature, its accepting the factual refutation of their belief systems. He is the answer for "are we alone" that Pa believes humanity isn't ready for. However, when Zod arrives and very overtly proclaims "You Are Not Alone" along with presenting an existential threat to humanity, Clark no longer has to hide and thus that point is effectively "dropped". It's not for nothing that Clark goes to see a priest and they have a discussion of faith before he "comes out". Nor is it simple coincidence that Pa is killed by a proverbial "act of god".
I think it is these elements that are really the other component to Snyder's signature. Like Suckerpunch, it's one part unique overload visuals, one part heavy metaphors and symbolism that are handled extremely poorly (having the stained glass Jesus in the background as Clark confesses is laughably ham fisted, but I got what he was going for).

Oh one thing I just remembered.

That gender bent character that everyone was bitching and moaning about? I never noticed him/her/it in the movie?

ThunderCavalier:
I only experienced Superman through the Justice League cartoons and I barely remember those, so I judged this film on its own merits alone and the story... works for me.

As you should. Superman has been reinvented several times in the comics, and to top that Zack Snider himself has even said that this is a complete reboot, in the sense that they are changing the superman-lore to their vision. There is no Superman to "get", because this is a new Superman. Changed for the vision, just like the mandarin in IM3 (which Bob had no issue with).

It's a new vision - you take it or leave it. Regardless of some awkward parts of the pace/screenplay, I still loved it.

HyperFreakNation:
Changed for the vision, just like the mandarin in IM3 (which Bob had no issue with).

It's a new vision - you take it or leave it. Regardless of some awkward parts of the pace/screenplay, I still loved it.

Yeah, I don't really get all the negativity people feel towards Man of Steel.

To me, it was a more interesting movie to watch than Iron Man 3; and while I think the screenplay was kind of flawed in places, and the movie lost a little bit of "soul" if you will, I would much rather have slightly less soul than have overbearing camp(Superman fights with or leads the baddies away from major population centers, does whatever is possible to save EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN PERSON, and so on).

I'd argue there's a good Nietzian reason why one would use Eugenics in a Superman movie.

I really liked this movie & I'd disagree with most of the negative point to this review. I found the story really made a lot of sense, if not spoon fed to the audience, & brought a believable dimension to the character.

I Just want to flag 1 of them. The destruction of krypton, which bob doesn't seem to understand, is clearly & unequivocally explained. But I can understand why a libertarian American may be deaf to 'mining can destroy the planet'.

we have marvel & superman 1-4,which I loved, to bring joy. but surely their is room for a little depth & seriousness.

O'well, you can't win'em all

P.S. I also liked The Dark Knight Rises & was not keen on Batman Begins, so feel free to ignore me.

There seems to be several plot holes and other issues that just took me out of it.


I could go on. Thinking about it at all just causes things to unravel.

Also, I kept expecting the Normandy to show up to fight those Reapers.

Zod is the one you'd think of in a punch up to end all punchups?

Because I'd think Darkseid.

That would be an entertaining fight, done in full on Bloated budget that only Hollywood knows how to do.

Desert Punk:
Oh one thing I just remembered.

That gender bent character that everyone was bitching and moaning about? I never noticed him/her/it in the movie?

It was "Jenny", not "Jimmy."

As someone whose major introduction into Superman mythos (much like Batman) came from the 90's animated series and having Lois Lane played by snark-master Dana Delany, Amy Adams' version PISSED me off for being a plot-device. I was equally annoyed by Costner's Pa Kent, until his "last" scene that, for me, made him kind of a badass.

As for levity, agreed it was really lacking, but I thought I could read a little bit of it in things like Superman's first flight or that odd "gee whiz" tone he takes towards the middle when he talks to the soldiers about Zod or the satellites - I swear he could pass for Captain America. Have him sound like that (and smile!) while paired with Batman and it could still work when/if Justice League happens.

And yes, this was absolutely "live-action Dragonball Z," to the point where if they stay away from the "realism" of Evolution and mesh the series together right it could be fantastic.

One thing I'm not sure of though that I feel should be a bigger problem than it is:

One other thing - I think the Imax I saw (by accident actually) was a bit scaled down and I don't know if it intentionally jacks up the volume more than normal screenings, but all the same, my advice: if you enjoy keeping your dental filings and not having your intestines shaken, avoid Imax.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here