Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MAN OF STEEL Post-Release
#36

I didn't get that vibe at the time, but I know what you mean.

Going back to the phrase "collateral damage": every time I see it come up, I start thinking of Kingdom Come again. Even with the best intentions, Superman still has moments in his history where people die as a result of his actions and choices.

Reply
#37
This was already answered in that Hardee's commercial. Construction workers love the job security that Supes provides. They also get a tasty burger on top of it!
Reply
#38

Well, I'm satisfied.

(Thanks for the heads up about that!)

Reply
#39

Just came bock from a midnight showing...I'll bullet point this because its late as hell, but looking forward to in depth discussion:

Overall, i think its pretty damn good, but it has some major flaws that hamper it down...pretty much the same deal as "Batman Begins", but just like that film, there's a solid foundation to build a better follow up.

The Greatness:

-The action and visuals...there's little that can even come close to how amazing both are in this film, and while it does become a bit tiresome, the action scenes and visual spectacle vary enough to make this a homerun in terms of blockbuster filmaking; it may go over the top and fail to match Avengers in terms of balancing action with fantasy, but on sheer scale and visuals, this is hands down the most spectacular film in ages; that alone makes it a must see (no idea how it plays on 3D, though)

-Costner, Lane and Adams, along with the supporting cast really stand out, and give good performances; Costner performance even makes Pa kent's death scene work wonders despite how over the top it is. (I meant the way its filmed/portrayed, not the means of his death, which sadly, may hit close to home for many americans)

-Krypton: Love the whole nods to John Byrne's vision of it, and the whole Flash Gordon meets John Carter on a huge ass budget is fantastic.

-Lois Lane being a damn good reporter...loved that she figures out about Supes before everyone else in the world, and gives her character a lot of weight and credibility; its also a great inversion of the almost cartoony Supes fooling Lois yet again!

-The flashbacks sequences.

The Good:

-Cavill's  Superman is pretty much out of the comic book page in terms of attitude and look , and Cavill sells his perfomance; the script gives him little to do as Clark Kent, but thats a fix for a sequel.

-Crowe, Meloni and the actress playing Faora, who is , as Phillip J fry would say, "scarousing" in terms of look and performance.

-Shannon as Zod; sure, he is pretty two dimensional in terms of character, but he pulls it off in terms of menace and evilness; just the right amount of quality acting and cheese.

-The sheer scale of the action onscreen; yeah, its not exactly Golden or Silver age stuff, but i think it helps sell some realism to the movie's universe.

The Bad:

-Too little Clark Kent stuff; sure, its needed to set it apart from the typical superhero stuff and the previous movies, but I think it does rob Superman of his humanity, which oddly is the point of it all.

-Its not grim and gritty, as comic fans would day, but still, this movie goes to some dark places for the character its based on...I dont think its a bad thing, actually, but fans of the character might get riled by this.

-they do fumble the "Superman" though; they just throw it out there out of the blue.

The Weird:

-This is going to be the most homoerotic thing I've ever typed, but I think a JLA/Avengers movie would make millions just for an scene Hemsworth's Thor vs  Cavill's Superman; itd be the superpowered equivalent of  Vin Diesel vs Dwayne Johnson in  Fast Five.

-I hoped against my better judgment to see Krypto here; make him look like Ghost from Game of Thrones on steroids and it would work!

-Kinda torn we didnt get to see Fishburne go "Great Ceasar's Ghost!" here.

The Comic nerdery/fanboy wishes:

-Im betting the whole "dead kryptonian outposts" thing is either a hint at Braniac or even Doomsday; both would make sense as a Kryptonian hubris project having fatal consequences for its creators.

-Loved the Lexcorp little cameo.

-Id say go with Metallo or Brainiac plus Luthor on the sequel, to avoid another alien threat, then bring it back on full force third time around with Darkseid/Doomsday (Game of Thrones be damned, i cant help think a mocap Charles Dance would be perfect as Darkseid; Kirby based him on Jack Palance, I believe?)

As for the twist (pun intended), i think its valid given the movie's characterization and established universe, and it may even pay homage to more modern views of the Superman character; lets face it, the Gran Morrison "All Star Superman" or Garth Ennis take on the character on "Hitman" are my favorite and most accurate depiction of Superman IMO, but they would never work in a live action movie that pushes for some sense of realism; that said, I think Superman killing an enemy who is unrepentant and whose threat to other living beings is in character (see Doomsday, Byrne's take on the evil kryptonians, Morrison's Superman vs Darkseid in Infinite Crisis and even classic Supes pretty much killing the Anti monitor in the original Crisis on Infinite earths). Given how the movie establishing the stakes and Zod's threat level, i just had to go there, and while it fumbles the repercussions a bit and will piss fans of classic Supes, i think it works for this version of the character just fine.

That said, holy fuck, the final Zod vs Superman fight is essentially a PG-13 version of Miracleman vs Kid Miracleman; it doesnt go to the extrema dark places Alan Moore went, but its pretty much a sanitized version of it.

So, in conclusion, its flaws keep it from being awesome, but its pretty damn great and a solid place to improve as a franchise; cant wait to see it again.

Reply
#40

A review of Man of Steel by Mark Waid (writer of the DC Comics' title The Flash, as well as his scripting of the limited series Kingdom Come and Superman: Birthright, and his work on Marvel Comics' Captain America)

http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-...you-asked/

Covers issues similar to mine in a much more passionate way.

Quote:
The essential part of Superman that got lost in MAN OF STEEL, the fundamental break in trust between the movie and the audience, is that we don’t just want Superman to save us; we want him to protect us. He was okay at the former, but really, really lousy at the latter. Once he puts on that suit, everyone he bothers to help along the way is pretty much an afterthought, a fly ball he might as well shag since he’s flying past anyway, so what the hell. Where Christopher Reeve won me over with his portrayal was that his Superman clearly cared about everyone. Yes, this Superman cares in the abstract–he is willing to surrender to Zod to spare us–but the vibe I kept getting was that old Charles Schulz line: “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”
Reply
#41

This movie really zipped by.  That was a very quick 2+ hours.  Anyways, I think any experienced Superman comic book reader will love this.  I didn't pick up on any major flaws but the story/origin was very economical, which is fine for people familiar with the story.

I thought the first flying scene was fantastic - maybe not quite up to par with the Superman Returns Plane Sequence - but you would be very hard-pressed to find something like that recently.

I love the very quick reference to Kelex (even kept the design from the comics) and possible hint at Supergirl (empty pod).

Overall, I am very happy I got to see Superman action done as I had always imagined it could be done in movies.

Reply
#42

I can't help but think The Wachowski's would've nailed this movie.

Reply
#43

Add me to the underwhelmed crowd as well. Only Costner, Adams and Crowe really do anything with their characters. Cavill's alright if somewhat bland. I expected more of Shannon to be honest as he's one of my current favorite working actors. Maybe it was just the presence of Crowe but this kinda felt like a poor man's Ridley Scott's version of a Superman movie. The flashbacks worked well to keep me engaged during the first half but once it became a boxing match between Superman and Zod I kinda checked out.

Reply
#44

Just got back from the midnight showing.. I'm tired so bare with me.. But I thoroughly enjoyed it..  It had a few cringe-worthy lines, and it's attempts at humor seemed much more forced than needed... But daaaaamn was the action handled impressively... The coverage during the action, like the camera angles and viewpoints (switching from a wide shot, to a first-person view from Supes POV, then to a pilot's POV, then to a bystander's POV, etc) I found most impressive.  The action had fluidity and a real sense of power, and that's pretty much my main reason for showing up(I've never been a big Superman fan, so I'm biased).

As to all the collateral damage.. come on.. it's a Superman movie where he punches shit... Did he punch any babies or fry any innocent bystanders with his ray vision?  Those buildings were evacuated, people!!...  I saw him carry enough falling shit in SUPERMAN RETURNS... The chud review really sold me on all the destruction and chaos in the battles and that's what I was looking forward to the most.

I remember a time on this site years ago where people would bitch and moan at the "HE'S OKAY, FOLKS!!" shots when a fighter pilot pulled his emergency parachute just in the nick of time, or the cops would scramble out of their overturned cop cars, bleeding and bruised, but still alive..  just to get that sigh of relief from the few sensitive people in the audience who were really concerned for the safety of Helicopter Pilot #13.

Not trying to sound like an ass, but that part really didn't bother me at all.

Reply
#45

It didn't resonate the way I wanted to and I'm not the biggest fan of the way it was cut together. But the whole spiel about collateral damage? Way, way overblown. The dude was so busy getting his ass kicked back and forth that there was simply no time to avoid it. I really don't get the complaint at all. Nor do I get the complaint about the action being tedious, as I found it well-balanced.

That said, I'll watch this over Iron Man 3 any day of the week.

Reply
#46

I wonder if the tentacles on the southern hemisphere's World Engine were Jon Peters doing.

Reply
#47

I saw the midnight show and came away feeling pretty positive about it. No serious complaints, though i wonder how much of that is because of the last couple Superman movies that came out.

Reply
#48
AThe first 10 minutes are the closest we'll ever get to a "Sectaurs" movie.
Reply
#49

Just saw the midnight showing with a tepid audience. I thought it was great. There weren't enough jokes, it could get fairly cheesy, and none of the dialogue POPPED the way you want it to, but whatever, man, the plot thoroughly made sense, the stakes were huge (I was shocked at how intense it is; hundreds of thousands of people die in this movie), the action was amazing (easily the best superpowered, comic-book style, mano-a-mano brawling fight scenes I've ever seen), and the score smoothed over any rough edits. And every cent is shown on screen; it makes THE AVENGERS look cheap.

Is IRON MAN 3 a better MOVIE? Maybe. But for a SUPER HERO movie, I'd rather watch this any day of the week.

Reply
#50

I loved it. My review -

Ever since I was a young boy I have always maintained that Richard Donner’s 1978 film, Superman : The Movie, is not only the best Superman film, but THE definitive superhero film. Many have tried to knock it from the top spot over the years and have failed. Donner’s film, for me, has remained THE standout comic book adaptation and Christopher Reeve’s portrayal of the man of steel has never been equaled.

Until now. Because Man of Steel is a triumph.

Early signs were not good. I was encouraged by the news that Batman director, Christopher Nolan, and writer David S. Goyer would be collaborating on the story and that Nolan would also be producing. But I was less confident in the decision to hand the reins to Zack Snyder. He had shown himself to be a very competent filmmaker (Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen) but I had written him off as a style-over-substance director. But as I started to see some production stills my optimism began to grow. But then alarm bells started ringing when the film’s release was pushed back from December 2012 to June 2013. This is usually not a good sign. But we need not have worried. And I don’t mind admitting that I was wrong about Snyder. He has delivered not only a great Superman movie, but a cracking movie full stop.

We all know the basic Superman story by now and Man of Steel retells it faithfully, but with a few twists and variations which I won’t give away here. This is another superhero origin story, yes. But it doesn’t feel like it due to Snyder’s clever use of non-linear storytelling techniques and well-timed flashbacks.

I was one of the few who actually liked Bryan Singer’s 2006 effort, Superman Returns. But Singer (by his own admission) was such a huge fan of the original films that he couldn’t seem to find his own vision. He used John William’s iconic fanfare. He used a digitally-manipulated Marlon Brando as Jor-El. And he even cast an actor (Brandon Routh) who not only looked just like Christopher Reeve but sounded like him too. Man of Steel manages to break free of the shackles of the past and Snyder is very much free to do his own thing. And it’s abundantly clear from our first glimpse of the planet Krypton that Snyder’s interpretation is worlds away from Donner’s (and Singer’s) film.

The visuals are simply stunning. Krypton is like nothing I have ever seen on screen before and the opening 20 minutes alone contain more eye-popping shots than most movies do in their entire running time. Snyder’s distinct visual style permeates every frame of the film and whether we’re at the Kent homestead in Smallville or in the bustling city street of Metropolis, the film retains a realistic, naturalistic feel. Weta Digital have truly outdone themselves and the effects are top-notch. Live action elements and CGI are blended seamlessly and you completely believe what you’re seeing unfolding before your eyes, no matter how far-fetched. The fight scenes between Superman and the various villains are breathtaking and the action is very clearly staged and is never confusing.

There are some very nice character moments too. We get to see an adolescent Clark struggling with his heightened senses and learning to focus his mind. In fact, almost all of the characters are believable, three-dimensional people with clear motivations and goals – no matter which side they’re on. The film is beautifully paced and never feels like it’s in a rush and this allows moments between the characters to breathe. Snyder manages to satisfactorily both deliver spectacular action and an emotional punch, which is not an easy thing to do.

The cast is impeccable. Russell Crowe does a very solid job as Jor-El, Superman’s biological father. And Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are pitch-perfect as Clark Kent’s earth parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. Laurence Fishburne is good as the Daily Planet chief Perry White, although he’s not given a great deal to do. Amy Adams is great too as the spunky Lois Lane. And Michael Shannon’s General Zod is one of the most-menacing, fierce and terrifying screen villains we have seen in a very long time.

But this film belongs to Cavill. He is Kal-El. He is Clark Kent. And he IS Superman. Cavill demands your attention every time he is on screen. I had no knowledge of his work before he was cast in this role and as a result he brings no baggage with him. He slides effortlessly into the role of the titular hero and it’s hard to think of another actor alive today who could play the part better than he does here. On a side note – isn’t it strange that Batman, Spider-Man and now Superman are all currently being played by English actors?

I also have to mention the score by Hans Zimmer. Instead of trying to beat John Williams at his own game, Zimmer has gone for something entirely different which works wonderfully. Trust me, you’ll be humming the main theme long after you have left the theatre.

There are a few very minor quibbles. The movie is a tad too long and some of the action sequences become a little monotonous towards the end. But given the fact that the film has so much story to tell it does so with great efficiency and not a second of screen time is wasted. Plus, it’s not exactly a barrel of laughs. It does take itself quite seriously at times but manages to pull it off without being overly solemn.

It will be very interesting to see where they take it from here. A sequel has already been announced and I’m looking forward to another installment with Cavill in the red cape.

Welcome back, Superman.

Oh, and Disney, if you’re listening…give Snyder a shot at Star Wars.

Reply
#51
AGood to hear its really good I can't wait to see it. I'm probably going to see it tonight so I'll give my thoughts later. But glad to hear its not the cinematic travesty that some critics are making it out to be.
Reply
#52
ASeeing a lot of mixed reactions here, just as with the critic reviews. I'm honestly starting to dread seeing this thing on Sunday.
Reply
#53
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post

Seeing a lot of mixed reactions here, just as with the critic reviews. I'm honestly starting to dread seeing this thing on Sunday.


You might be dissapointed with parts of the script and the focus on action, but in terms of blockbuster spectacle at the movies, you"ll get your money's worth, no doubt about it (Plus, every woman in the audience i was seemed to reach a consensus on Cavill's eye candy status).

I think that pretty much on Elysium, Pacific Rim and the Hobbit sequel have any chance of matching this in terms of visuals and action.

Like I said, its pretty much a Batman Begins for a Superman franchise: a solid yet flawed reboot that has a lot of potential for sequel improvement, yet absolutely worth on its own merits.

Reply
#54

Dread nothing! It's good. It is good! But it's also twenty minutes too long and uneven at times, and as much as I love Amy Adams and Henry Cavill, they don't blend well together.

I'll echo Shaun H's sentiment: the collateral damage thing is a bit overblown. At the same time I agree, to an extent, with Nooj about how little effort the film exerts to make any such collateral damage a big deal. In a film like Pacific Rim, the collateral damage doesn't matter as much because of who the characters are (in theory, as I haven't seen the film yet); they're just regular human beings doing everything they can to fight off an interloping threat. But Superman isn't a Jaeger, he's a man dedicated to preserving life first and foremost. So I guess in a way it isa bigger deal for him to let so much destruction unfold.

But I also sympathize with his plight, because, as has been said before, Zod is basically just knocking Kal-El around in that final fight and gives him no quarter. So I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do. Smallville, that's a bit different, but the film does show him warning people away from the danger, which means he's at least aware of the damage that his fights with the other Kryptonians is incurring.

I would have liked a moment or two more in each big action sequence where Superman goes out of his way to save innocent lives- and I really think he should have struggled more to take the fight out of the city. The film could have Zod force the fight back into the city (and that does happen, briefly, when they fly into outer space), but it's important to see Superman try to reduce collateral damage. And I think just a beat here or there showing that would have really alleviated a lot of these criticisms.

On the Jewish front, I'm brewing up a counter-piece to the fan outrage that will surely flow over (spoilers, I guess, but if you're in Post-Release, it's your fault) Superman killing Zod. Maybe if we solely look at Superman as the Kryptonian boy scout, the murder is out of character, but as a paragon of Judaism- and I think one can easily argue that Siegel and Shuster definitely drew on Jewish theology to create him- it's actually his duty to kill Zod to save the lives of the family. To not do so would be to break Jewish law. So if you view the character this way, he has to kill Zod, something that Zod himself affirms through dialogue.

It helps, for me at least, that the moment is played with immense tragedy. Kal-El is devastated by being forced to make that choice. He doesn't want to kill, but he doesn't want innocent people to die. And he doesn't want to take the life of the last living Kryptonian. That beat works for me. It's probably the most successful moment in the entire film.

Reply
#55

I don't understand how anyone could have a problem with the way Kal-el and Zod's struggle plays out. It's one of the most cogent moments in the movie. I wish the entire fight was more reflective of what we see in that moment.

Reply
#56
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaisMagic View Post

But glad to hear its not the cinematic travesty that some critics are making it out to be.

No one is saying that.  Jesus, fanboys/girls.

Reply
#57
You know, if you dread going to see something so much, you don't have to see it.
It would be nice if people were as reflective of their own opinions as they are of others'.
Reply
#58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post

I don't understand how anyone could have a problem with the way Kal-el and Zod's struggle plays out. It's one of the most cogent moments in the movie. I wish the entire fight was more reflective of what we see in that moment.

Agreed on the last line. As far as people having a problem with the fight, well, the argument I've heard is as simple as "Superman doesn't kill!". And yeah, he doesn't, but at the same time he does and he has. He only does that when he must, though, and this is definitely a "must" scenario. So I think any geek outrage over this- and I suspect there will be some- is invalid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

No one is saying that.  Jesus, fanboys/girls.

Yeah, really. The film is getting mixed-to-positive reviews, with the mixed reviews often coming up on the positive end of the spectrum. Fanboys need to relax.

Reply
#59

I'm a little surprised people would have a problem with how the Kal-El/Zod fight ends.  It's the one real character beat in the whole fight and it works.  (Although I did keep wondering why that family didn't simply try to move out of Zod's "heat line" as Superman held his head.)

Reply
#60
AI thought the moment itself was good. It's just the build-up to it that I take issue with.

Also, this is a movie I wish continued the back and forth in the chronology all the way into the big climactic battle. To have scenes from the past continuing to resonate and juxtapose with the crazy action and vary up the pace a bit.

You knooooow... Like Speed Racer!
Reply
#61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I thought the moment itself was good. It's just the build-up to it that I take issue with.

Also, this is a movie I wish continued the back and forth in the chronology all the way into the big climactic battle. To have scenes from the past continuing to resonate and juxtapose with the crazy action and vary up the pace a bit.

You knooooow... Like Speed Racer!

We should talk more about how Speed Racer is totally the greatest thing ever.  Because it so is.

Reply
#62
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I thought the moment itself was good. It's just the build-up to it that I take issue with.

Also, this is a movie I wish continued the back and forth in the chronology all the way into the big climactic battle. To have scenes from the past continuing to resonate and juxtapose with the crazy action and vary up the pace a bit.

You knooooow... Like Speed Racer!

It could also have Jon Goodman going Mike Haggar on a ninja; that would improve most movies

Reply
#63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post

We should talk more about how Speed Racer is totally the greatest thing ever.  Because it so is.

The Wachowskis should totally make a Superman flick.

Reply
#64

I love you all.

To be more specific about that last comment...

A moment like Supes falling into the big blue laser of the World Engine and then 'triumphantly' coming back up?  That was as lame as that tired trope of characters or airplanes falling (goes quiet) then rising up from a canyon/mountain/cloud LIKE A PHOENIX.  It's a trope I wish would die (or at least be resorted to MUCH less).

My biases in terms of editing and storytelling (especially as this movie has already set up for itself) would've loved it if there was some cut back to another scene of Clark's past that could comment on it.  Or move one of Jor-El's speeches there and let Zimmer's score really build to something triumphant.

Because that detour with the Jon Peters Spider Robot Proxy was just ehhhhhh.

Reply
#65

Saw this last night at the Drive-In on a double bill with The Great Gatsby and loved it, but with reservations. I was definitely with the right crowd to experience something like this: after Gatsby ended, some kids a few cars over started chanting Man of Steel and it caught on like a wave. I think this movie is really going to register with audiences, although it won't catch the Zeitgeist the way The Dark Knight did back in 2008.

If anything, this isn't a superhero movie. It's a sci-fi/alien invasion film, and that may be off-putting to some at first. I know my fiancee leaned over to me around the time Jor-El is riding a space dragon and said, "Thanks for warning me about all the Star Wars stuff." By contrast, around the time Cavill comes running out of the water shirtless, she blurted out, "Whoa, who is this guy again?" Like it's also been said, 20 minutes could've been chopped off easily and that should've been the opening, because Jor-El's liquid metal French Art Deco explanation of Krypton's past at the halfway point explains everything the audience needs to know. I can only surmise they kept the opening on Krypton because that's what Superman stories do, and because Russell Crowe needed an action scene.

Kudos to the film for breaking the mold after the opening. This isn't a remake of Superman (1978), and it doesn't follow Batman Begins coda for coda. Once Zod shows up there's a constant state of emergency, but not constant action. The set pieces (Smallville, spaceship, Metropolis/Indonesia, Metropolis) are broken up by nice character beats and moments, and the flashbacks help to show Supes is still learning although those do peter out a bit. In so few words, and strangely enough after all that's been said about collateral damage, the flashbacks set up that Superman has been wanting to hit something his entire life and finally gets to let loose with Zod & co. Unfortunately the movie doesn't explore that, except for the brief bit when he learns how to fly, there can be a real exhilaration to reaching your full physical potential (see Dash in The Incredibles finally get to run as fast as he can). I did really, really like Zod and his crew struggling with their senses, and how the narrative puts that forth as to why Superman has an advantage over them: not only are they new at this (and still relying on their Kryptonian technology), but they don't have the capacity to think outside the box. At least until the end when Zod finally learns to fly.

Although it very much did its own thing, and justified being another origin by weaving the conflict into Supes' past, I did appreciate the nods to the comic book lore. Emil Hamilton is a nice touch and creates the same sort of cognitive dissonance as seeing Amanda Waller on screen in Green Lantern. Lana and Pete Ross being there, even if they aren't portrayed as lifelong friends, is fun. I'm also pretty sure that Jenny, the cub reporter that Perry struggles to save, is Jenny Olsen. I hope I hope I hope they clarify that in the sequel, because power to them for mixing things up.

Amy Adams really lived up to my expectations as fearless, sassy, and fairly modern (blogs aren't mentioned like I jokingly speculated, but leaking a story online using, GASP, a smart phone is a nice contemporary bit). I think her and Cavill have the appropriate amount of chemistry for the story at hand; this isn't a "can you read my mind?" love story. There's attraction in the heat of the moment, and hopefully that will be built upon in the sequel. I'm excited that the "Lois knows" aspect of their history together will finally be portrayed onscreen. Essentially there's a chance to cover the 1990s-2011 type story lines, not necessarily of them being married but of her being in on the secret. When Clark runs off to save someone, it's always fun when someone is in on it.

I am surprised at the tepid reaction this is getting from some. I think in retrospect it'll be fascinating to see why this was so divisive, because it's a solid, good, competently made film but not a classic. I'll admit that while I wasn't bothered by the reckless endangerment during the battles (Superman and Zod's fight is after Metropolis has had a bad day, and it goes out of its way to show people down on the street and not in the buildings), but I do wish there had been more of a social champion aspect to Superman's character. My favorite moment is when he tells the General, "You don't control me, and you never will"; Cavill really sold the benevolent defiance for me, but I wish there had been more of the original Shuster/Siegel and recent Morrison take on the character. Even Birthright, the obvious template for this movie, has Superman scaring the hell out of a corrupt gun store owner for supplying some teenagers with guns.

Still, like I said earlier this isn't a superhero take on Superman. This very easily could've been another story about an alien race fighting it out on earth. Still, now that this has dipped its toe in the water, I want a sequel that tackles the firmly superhero aspects of Superman.

Reply
#66
AI spent the whole movie waiting to find something to lock in on. It has the quintessential "and then" script, just piling on one incident after another without the major dramatic beats registering. It's just in a big hurry to cram as much plot in there as possible. The characters are just sort of there, but not really given much depth or dimension.
Reply
#67

I was surprisingly taken in by Lois's escape, with Jor-El's help, from Zod's ship and the bombing raid on Metropolis. The little rivalry set up between Faora and the Colonel, capping off with her tearing the plane apart and his "A good death is its own reward" was very satisfying and worked for me as a cool little short story. Nice mixing up of the action, as well, so everything wasn't Superman punches something.

Reply
#68
A[quote name="Bartleby_Scriven" url="/community/t/148183/man-of-steel-post-release/60#post_3529216"]If anything, this isn't a superhero movie. It's a sci-fi/alien invasion film, and that may be off-putting to some at first.[/quote]

I kept having the same reoccurring thought while watching it, but my reaction was that I was happy that they wholeheartedly embraced it. And I really dug the shit out of the Krypton stuff.
Reply
#69

The Good:

Faora. Every scene she was in... I loved it, mesmerized even, next female terminator? perhaps I went into the movie biased.

Action scenes were by far the best I've seen. Some scenes were "off" can't describe it as more than that.

Henry Cavill looked good as superman but as others have said wasn't really given much dialog to chew on.  He did his best with contorting his face to show emotion.

The Bad:

The Krypton seemed very unneccessary.

The soundtrack must of have been playing nonstop, I was somewhat annoyed with that, sometimes the music didn't really fit or it felt like they were shoe horning in scenes to fit the music.

I wish they delved a little more deeper, spent more time with clark as I child, the flashbacks were nice, but it took me out from the immersion.

Michael Shannon, love the guy, but I dunno.  His presense was good but something with his dialogue just made him feel cheesy and annoying.

Conclusion:

The visual effects are top notch, you see things you haven't seen before in a superman movie.

The movies is missing something, I left the theater not really caring about it.  I loved the visuals, but I didn't come out thinking man I want to see it again.

I'm hoping to catch it again during the day, maybe because I was tired when i saw it at midnight; my comments are skewed.

I think children will LOVE this movie, perhaps even teenagers, but that may be stretching it.
I think this is a movie you can have on in the background and not pay attention to and then glimpse over for some choice actions scenes and enjoy,

but to actually sit down and watch it...

I hope a second viewing will clear it up for me.  It will decide if I buy the bluray or not.

Reply
#70
Quote:
Originally Posted by behimo View Post

The Good:

Faora. Every scene she was in... I loved it, mesmerized even,

Sigh...

Oh Faora...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

The little rivalry set up between Faora and the Colonel, capping off with her tearing the plane apart and his "A good death is its own reward" was very satisfying and worked for me as a cool little short story.

I loved this little arc.  Felt more dangerous and satisfying than any of the big stuff.  And that little moment of fear and anxiety that Meloni shows when they make first contact with the Kryptonians was great.  Ever greater because it was followed by courageous defiance by him when they demand to take Lois with them.

That's the kind of heroism I fist-pump for.

Superman's a jerk.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)