Man of Steel

[Looney]

So, I went this weekend . . .

I was really worried during the first twenty minutes or so, but it picked up after that. I felt there were a few plot inconsistencies, but I enjoyed the movie overall. I am not a comic reader and I only know Superman's story from the old fifties TV show and the movies. That being said I feel like this was a really decent effort. It isn't perfect, but it is very entertaining.

I felt this movie was an improvement over Superman Returns, but I feel like there is some voodoo at work with Returns. What I mean is, that movie should have been AWESOME and it wasn't. I know some blame Routh, but I disagree. My opinion is that the only person who was mis-cast in that movie was Kate Bosworth. When I heard Bryan Singer directs Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor I literally did a fist pump. And we all know what happened . . . voodoo curse. That being said, it isn't a terrible movie. It just doesn't live up to the expectations I and many had. Man of Steel met most of my expectations.


NOW THE MOVIE I SAW THIS WEEKEND THAT I LOVED . . . . . THIS IS THE END

It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you like the movies these guys have done before then you'll probably really enjoy this flick. I am planning to see it again. Mostly to see what I missed when I was in hysterics.

[Jan]

I just saw it a short while ago and liked it quite a bit. I wish they'd cut the fight scenes by about 2/3 but overall I liked it. Could have used a few more character moments, too.

But the one thing I was sure I was going to hate (leaving it spoiler free for now), I ended up not hating even if I didn't love it. I'll be interested to see where they take that.

Jan

[Ubik]

I just saw it a short while ago and liked it quite a bit. I wish they'd cut the fight scenes by about 2/3 but overall I liked it. Could have used a few more character moments, too.

But the one thing I was sure I was going to hate (leaving it spoiler free for now), I ended up not hating even if I didn't love it. I'll be interested to see where they take that.

Jan

I may yet see it, if I can get over my latent fear of Zack Snyder. I hear the first 1/3 was solid, before it descends into one big drawn out fist fight.

[DeMonk]

I may yet see it, if I can get over my latent fear of Zack Snyder. I hear the first 1/3 was solid, before it descends into one big drawn out fist fight.

My feelings exactly, and far too noisy!

[AstroBoy]

I saw it a few weeks ago and while I liked it, there's a lot that didn't really grab me.

I'm glad we got to see Lois is actually doing some reporting and investigations. I like that Zod had an actual purpose and it made sense. I don't much care for Pa Kent's cavalier attitude about letting a bunch of kids on a bus die. Nor did I think that his death was handled well. The one thing I really chaff at however is the fact that Lois knows who Clark /Superman is. This is a major break with established canon going back to the beginning of SM. While the glasses disguise is all kinds of silly, was Lois being able to figure it out just rubs me the wrong way. I thought the fights were well done and we were able to see the kind of destruction that would likely occur in such a fight. I wasn't much in favor of Kal-El killing Zod, I think there could've been a better way of handling that also.

[phazedout]

Astroboy,

I stopped reading your post about two lines in, since the thread title doesn't include spoilers, I would humbly ask you use the tag if discussing specific plot points from the movie.

Kind Regards,
Phaze

[Jan]

Phase, I've added spoiler tags. Sorry, I've been blipping in and out and didn't notice the new post in this forum.

What do you think, folks? Have enough of us seen it that we should add spoiler notification to the thread title?

Jan

[Ubik]

Haven't seen it yet, but not bothered by spoilers. I can always avert my eyes!

[babylonlurker]

Haven't seen it yet, not overly bothered with spoilers.

[DGTWoodward]

I habe seen it....

Firstly, and even though I have already seen it, I would have been bothered by spoilers so let's please continue to stick to the etiquette of using them to assist those who have plans to see it too.

As to the actual movie....My opinion is that the whole film is carried by Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe in the first third of the movie, and by Michael Shannon in the final two thirds. I think that this is because they are the only actors that seem to have any emotional investment in their respective characters' roles. None of the other characters are anything like developed enough for us to care about them at all. Amy Adams' Lois Lane comes the next nearest and looks like she might even be having some fun in the part, though her Lois is so woefully a victim of underdevelopment that any believable chance of a romance between her and Kal-El is strained to the point of non-existence...they only share about 15 minutes total screen time together in a 150 minute film. Henry Cavill looks amazing as Kal-El, but I found him totally disengaged and with no emotional appeal that a cinema goer could respond to. Are there plenty of 'super' things for him to do this time around? There certainly are, all the action a Superman fan could ever want, all the action there should have been in Superman Returns and then some...but that's all it is from about the 2nd hour in. Just action. And more action, and yet more action. it's great for about 15 minutes but then you quickly come to realise that that's all there is going to be for the next hour and a half and it gets boring! If Kal-El actually looked like he cared about the hundreds, maybe even thousands of humans he obviously killed (and notice I did not say "the Kryptionian refugees"...no, rather Kal-El himself) it might be different, but he doesn't. He just continues to crush buildings, destroy storage silos and obliterate vehicles wantonly. All of this makes the final, deciding act play out as a rather hollow gesture, considering the carnage he is responsible for in the previous few minutes. It says something if an audience member feels more about the villain than the hero. Shannon's General Zod is really well played. I don't know if it was meant to be there, but in the end Zod comes across to me as a character of deserving great pity. He knows that Kal-El is something new and different, and would love to be that himself but knows that he is genetically designed to only ever be a soldier...that this will only ever be the sum total of his development. There was a sadness there that he could never alleviate, hence his initial rebellion against the ruling Kryptonian council. As strange as it may seem, I found this film akin to Quantum Of Solace and The Mummy Returns. In that, there were good films in there trying to break free but what we got was definitely not it. When Chris Nolan made Batman, he made him contemplative and brooding. This is perfect for Batman. It is not perfect for Superman, but that is what we got, and it just does not fit the character, besides which, there was 10 years worth of "Smallville" that dealt with all of that indecision and inner contemplation. We did not need it stinking out a Superman movie. Also, at this point, it is difficult to not draw a parallel with Christopher Reeve's version of the character. Reeve showed that you can play the character dead straight and still make him real, you can play him with insecurities but not make him moody and overly contemplative, you can have humorous moments without being overly camp and you can have a serious tone without needing the Prozac. I think that after the fury of merchandising and hype dies down and a the quickie sequel gets rushed out...the 'new direction' Superman will become recognised for what he really is, a very pretty but more-or-less empty bag of tricks and that Reeve's version will once again reign supreme as the definitive Superman adaptation.

[Ubik]

Your assessment seems to be very much in line with what I feared the film might be. I still might see it, but at least I know what IÆm letting myself in for.

I think the next film (of the things explode / popcorn variety) that I want to see is Pacific Rim, which looks rather splendid. Del Toro rarely disappoints.

[Looney]

So, I love what everyone is saying. I feel that DGTWoodward makes some really good points that actually may be a good reason to see the film. The movie has a lot of failings, but its successes make it worth seeing at least once.

After seeing this movie I felt like I enjoyed it and I felt like it could be similar to Batman Begins (2005) in that a better sequel might be coming. When I think about it, after seeing the movie and letting it digest for awhile, I am doubtful for many of the reasons all of you have brought up.

After my initial viewing I also felt that this movie was a mistake to do as a reboot. I think the gravity of the plot would have been better served as a sequel or even an ending to a trilogy. I feel like they should have done the first hour of setup better and then moved on to a plot that had less magnitude than the one they followed. They could have come back in a sequel and dealt with, possibly more effectively, what they ended up dealing with in this movie.

The thing I find most amazing about this is how I agree with almost everything everyone is saying. That is really rare. However, I don't have a lot of really strong feelings about this movie. I love Michael Shannon as an actor. I think he was great in this movie and that he hit his character right on the money. Some of the others, not so much. I don't think they were bad, I just think, as others have stated, they were not fleshed out properly. That doesn't mean there isn't room to improve.

And things that really annoyed me . . .

are details like how is he supposed to have a secret identity at all? The whole town of Smallville has to know who he is. The government has to know who he is. And I too am annoyed about Lois knowing, but not that much. It is the fact that we are supposed to believe everybody else doesn't know. And yes, Costner's response to the bus incident was ridiculous. As was them expecting me to believe that Clark would just stand there while the twister took his Pa. And while this is tagged, do you agree with me? Shouldn't they have had Zod searching and maybe come back in a part 2 or part 3? I mean, we are talking about villains who gain most of Superman's powers wanting to remaking the planet, killing off the entire population process. That seems like a huge first task for Superman to deal with. Shouldn't they maybe have come up with a lesser villain with a scheme that wasn't so grand. I know they were trying to hook people into the franchise reboot, but it seems like they might have a tough time topping that scenario without doing some silly thing like taking away all of Superman's powers. Hey, wait just a minute ! ! ! ! And they didn't really explain how Zod freed himself well enough. And I have many other complaints, but you all mostly covered them. I don't think anyone mentioned this, so who caught the Lex Corp reference? Oh it is so great to talk in here without fear of spoiling the movie for anyone else. (BTW - I hate reading spoilers. I even try to avoid trailers if possible.)

And speaking of Del Toro, WHERE IS MY HELLBOY III !?!?!?!?!? Actually, I just purchased the Criterion Blu-Ray of The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), a film I have always loved. I am soooo glad I made the purchase because it includes a segment where Del Toro discusses his love of Hitchcock and this movie. He says all of the things I love about the movie and more.

[cornholio1980]

I actually quite enjoyed it - if not quite as much as I expected to, though.

Lets start off by saying I have never been the biggest fan of Superman. I find him a rather bland and uninteresting character. Then again, I've never really been in to superhero-comics as a child, so I only know him from the Reeves-movies (who don't hold up all that well, in my very humble opinion). Also, I'm a huge Zack Snyder fan. I love everything about his visual style, how he accentuates certain key moments in action sequences, his slow motions, etc. I just thought that his visual style is perfect for a larger-than-life-character like Superman. Think bryan Singers bullet-to-the-eye-sequence, but times ten.

Unfortunately, that's not what I got. My biggest quarrel with the movie is actually that he completely left his typical style behind, which in my opinion, is a huge shame. He was one of the few guys in Hollywood you could trust to NOT shake the camera around all the time; alas, not any more. The shaky cam, that was used also in the quieter scenes, really was a huge distraction for me.

Other than that, I rather enjoyed it. As a not-so-great fan of superman, I also had no problem at all with the changes, and actually welcome most of them.

Yes, some people know who Clark Kent is. But very few, actually (no one in the Daily Planet except Lois, for example, got a close enough look of Superman to make the connection), and the important thing is that the ones who know shut up about it. And seriously, it was always a thing that was hard for me to accept, like he puts on some glasses and no one recognizes him. Not even Lois, who's in love with superman, and is supposed to be a really clever and good reporter. Gimme a break. Also, I guess I was the only one who loved Pa Kent's death. I found it really touching, and totally got why Jor-el did what he did in this scene, and actually think it did a lot to make the character more interesting.

And as one of the people who thought that the old movies where too funny and "campy", I really enjoyed this more serious approach. Would a little humor have hurt? No. But I didn't miss it either.

Overall - sorry, blasphemic opinion ahead! - I thought it was the best superman movie to date; however, it still wasn't perfect or even "super", so there's still some room for improvement when the inevitable sequel comes around.
I give it a 7/10.

[Looney]

With reference to Snyder, I agree that this movie did seem to deviate. I am not a huge Snyder fan since Sucker Punch. In my opinion some of Snyder's visual style may have been hidden in this movie because I feel like he chose a visual theme for Man of Steel that is not typical for him. Snyder's previous films have had a darker edged visual style. I mean darker edged in reference to edges and shadows and so on. (I don't think this is really a spoiler so I am not going to hide it.) My opinion is that Man of Steel had a very light themed visual style or really used sunlight as a visual theme. There is a lot of brightness and much of the film takes place during daylight hours. Even the poster I am looking at on IMDB right now to remember the Cinematographers name, (Amir Mokri), shows Kal-El flying into bright light. So, with so much light used as a theme I feel this movie just may not have looked like a typical Zack Snyder film. But I do agree that there are other aspects that made me feel like it was a departure. I am trying to imagine Watchmen done with this theme of brightness and wondering if it would seem like the same director. I don't think so. I think there is more than just the bright quality that does not feel like Snyder. Hard to put my finger on it. Maybe it all comes down to him listening to Mokri too much. After all Mokri did Transformers Dark of The Moon. I refuse to watch that movie, but I am sure the whole thing is done with a shaking camera. . .

AND I HATE IT WHEN THEY SHAKE THE CAMERA ! ! ! !

[DGTWoodward]

I don't think anyone mentioned this, so who caught the Lex Corp reference?

I did, but who also spotted the.....

"Wayne Technology" satellite getting destroyed?