Man of Steel
 

Man of Steel (Zack Snyder)

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...B5lp-ZDv-I31lw

Nolan & Snyder Take On Superman

Krypton is dying and Jor-El makes the brave decision to save his newborn son, Kal-El, by sending him off into the stars in the hopes of preserving their race. The newborn lands on Earth and as he grows older, is told to keep his powers a secret, for if the world found out, they would reject him. He travels the world looking for answers as to who he is and where he came from. He finds those answers when General Zod arrives, another survivor from the planet Krypton. He has the same goal as Jorl-El did, preserving the race...even if it means destroying another.

Man of Steel is Warner Brother's attempt at getting another franchise off the ground. Now that Harry Potter and Batman are done, they have nothing. so they go to the one man from their past who they know can resurrect a dead franchise: Christopher Nolan. With Nolan as the Producer, veteran comic scribe David S. Goyer behind the screenplay and the visual comic book flair eye behind the camera, Zack Snyder, it looked like WB had put all their eggs in one basket. For the most part, it paid off.

Man of Steel has it's fair share of problems, I walked away from it with the same feeling I had with The Dark Knight Rises (which was I really enjoyed it, but the problems it has were very apparent). This is a new take on the traditional superhero. This time, Nolan brings in his dark and brooding style to this franchise. Some people dislike this new look and feel, Superman hardly smiles, the world does not love him and the film is dead serious. There are little to no moments of humour. Nolan is taking a...wait, THE, definition of a Superhero and planting him into a real word realm, much like he did with Batman. While some people will be turned off by this, I actually found it kind of refreshing. Yes, we have another superhero who grapples with issues, but these are issues that he should be struggling with. Who is he, where does he come from, what is his purpose. Nolan and Snyder explore this notion and they do it well.

The narrative of the film is told in two segments, the present timeline which is Kent looking for answers to his past and the other timeline are flashbacks to pivotal moments in his life growing up. The flashback sequences feel like segments from Malick's Tree of Life, which fits the Kansas setting perfectly. Costner and Lane play Superman's Earth parents. Costner feels the need to hide Kurt's powers, he fears the world is not ready for someone like him, but he's Superman after all. So that need to save people, no matter what is there. Lane is given the short end of the stick here and is given very little to do.

Superman's other parents are played by Russel Crowe and Ayelet Zurer. We are introduced to them in an overly long prologue sequence set on Krypton. It feels like a scene that could have been told in ten minutes, instead it feels like twenty. The look and feel of Krypton is lackluster in the sense that we get an Avatar/Matrix hybrid of sorts with flying winged monsters and test tube babies. So the film kind of starts off on a misstep, but once we get to Earth, the film finds its footing. Goyer finds a way to keep Russel around much longer than he needs to be. Although Crowe does bring a bit of charisma to a nothing role.

Things get a little harry for Superman when a being who calls himself General Zod arrives. From that moment on the film feels less like a Superman film and more like an Alien Invasion movie and I feel like that was their intention. There is more destruction in this film than in last years Avengers or any of the Transformers movies. The last hour or so is relentless action and destruction. To the point where I didn't know if I could take it anymore. You can only throw a guy through several buildings so many times before it gets tiresome. Snyder is a visual director and he manages to keep the action going with some beautiful shots. These characters move at incredible speeds, so the fight sequences are CGI heavy. Usually when a film has to animate a human, it looks fake, here they seem to pull it off nicely.

General Zod is played by Michael Shannon. He plays up the bad guy role well enough for me to give a pass to. We know his intentions, we know he is a threat and Shannon seems to be having some fun with the role, despite the seriousness of the tone. He goes over the top and it works. Cavill is great as Superman, he has the looks, the build and the charisma. He's just never really given that one moment that I think he needed to really "sell" that Superman role. The one thing he seems to do different (other than brooding) is scream a lot. Unfortunately one of the biggest problems with the film is the chemistry between Adams and Cavill. Lane and Superman seem to have none of it and their moment at the end felt false. Although she does a much better job than the train wreck that was Bosworth.

Man of Steel is a great Superhero movie. It follows in the steps of Nolan's Batman series more than what Marvel is doing with their characters. I urge people not to expect that Superman from the past, goes he's gone. This new one is here to stay.

Like you said in your review superman has changed, and I loved it. I loved what they did with Krypton, I thought the opening 20 minutes where fantastic. People say the movie tryed to be emotional and failed, which I think is utter crap. The tornado scene with Kevin Costner, was very moving and one of my favourite scenes. I think this movies was alot better than The Dark Knight Rises.

Re: Man of Steel
 

You thought the tornado scene was moving? In all respect, I thought that was the dumbest scene in the entire movie. He just stood there and waved? Who does that? And I didn't get why superman didn't go and save him.

Well then you didn't get the movie. A massive point of the film was that his earth mother and father where protecting him, they thought the world wasn't ready for him, they was protecting him from us humans. The scene was moving because, we all know superman could of saved him but his earth father was still protecting him.

Spoiler


One thing I didn't get, don't know if I was at toilet or what. The space craft that was on earth, the one where superman met lane, how did that end up on earth?.

So keeping his powers a secret to the world was more important to him than his father's life? I'm not sure if I hate that more because it makes superman look like an a-hole, or because that's totally unrealistic.

As far as how the space craft ended up on earth, I'm pretty sure we don't find out. Or I just can't remember.

It was more important to his father, he didn't want the world finding out his son was an alien. He would be known as a freak, an outcast. It would throw the world into fear. He was doing what he thought was right.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Eh, I still can't buy it. Even if that's what he thought was right, I don't buy that he would sacrifice his father's life for it. I might have been able to suspend my belief if the scene was really well executed, but the wave was just so cheesy...

He didn't wave. He put his hand up to say no! Stay there.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Suspend your disbelief, which some people do far too easily sometimes and some people almost never do because of all the baggage they carry with them.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I am so bummed out right now. You know when General Zod lost his mask on earth and all of his senses developed into a hyperactive headache? That describes my IMAX 3D viewing of Man of Steel. The fight scenes were fun, but everyone involved really missed the true essence of Superman. The opening sequence on Krypton was sick! In fact, the first film should of been a prequel focusing on Krypton lore starring Russell Crowe, setting up Supermans debut in the 2nd of the trilogy.

Re: Man of Steel
 

The ship that Supes meets Lane on is one of the thousands of scouting ships that were sent out by Krypton. Zod mentions this when he also describes how he was released from his 'prison'. The project was abandoned and all the scouting people/vessels died.

As for the tornado sequence.

Re: Man of Steel
 

It's kinda obvious where the ship came from... I haven't seen the film yet and put two and two together...

Re: Man of Steel
 

I didn't have any issues with the tornado scene. In fact I didn't have issues with any of the early Kent stuff. My issue was the last hour when the film becomes non sop stuff blowing up. Also when are they going to stop putting two people who are indestructible in a fist fight, just an excuse to destroy even more stuff.

That's all the Avengers was, yet people loved that.

Because that was actually fun. When this movie tried to do a big epic final fight it was dull. The Marvel movies have embraced the notion that they are a comic book movie. They have fun and and interesting characters beyond the broody and melancholy. Which have made for much better adaptations. Warner Brothers has messed up all their modern DC titles save for the first two Batman movies from the Nolan trilogy.

Oh please, the end of man of steel was nothing but fun. Superman changed for the better, this take on superman was alot better than the past superman's and alot more real. Man Of Steel was alot better than The Avengers hands down.

Re: Man of Steel
 

You have your opinion. Absolutely foreign to me but you are entitled to it. I watched this hoping for a good movie, I got a dull polished turd. And for a movie based off a comic, the biggest crime you can do to the film is make it dull. I will stick to Richard Donner's 1978 movie with Christopher Reeves. And I still say The Avengers is still the best comic movie to date.

Superman had to change for a modern day audience. If it stuck to its same camp style as previous movies, then what's different?. It changed for the better and c'mon the Avengers is a 2/5 at best. Iron Man, Thor, The Dark Knight, Man Of Steel and Burton's batmans are all better movies.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Superman Returns is dull.

Iron Man and Thor led to The Avengers, those movies were the building blocks to a massive comic book cross over on screen. And it was awesome!

My issue with Man of Steel is that the darker tone and the "super hero set in reality" thing does not work for Superman. It worked great for Batman because his character is dark. He has no super powers and his rogue's gallery are littered with villains with no super powers. Nolan's style worked great there even when they strayed from the comic. But how are you going to base Superman in reality? When I watch Iron Man or Thor, I know I am watching a movie based of a comic character and those movies reflected that feel. This movie failed to deliver.

And you do not have to go full blown Adam West camp for a good Superman movie. Hell the Animated series did serious stories all the time. He had problems in that show, there was drama, and plenty of action too. But it also knew what it was. Either way I fail to see the appeal of this movie.

It was. And I am having a hard time deciding which was the worse movie.

You can't be serious?.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I didn't hate this film, but did check out in the last hour where I did not during The Avengers. So I agree with gunslinger about the difference between Man Of Steel and Avengers, but agree with Masterman that it is far superior to Returns.

Oh I am dead serious. I can't decide if whiny emo Superman or dull and unheroic Superman was worse. That is how much I did not like this movie.

Neg Repped.

Seriously do not care. :D

At least you guys got WAY more out of this movie then I did.

After reboots of almost every commonly known superhero movie we didn’t had to wait long for a new Superman although the last one was only 7 years ago. Creative minds behind Man of Steel were the same that gave us The Dark Knight trilogy, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, while Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) got to visualize it.
Approach was very similar as the one in The Dark Knight trilogy so it’s hard not to occasionally compare two of them. Main idea is to show what Superman would be in real world just like it was with latest Batman. That, of course, implies much darker, both story and visualization of Superman than before.
Nolan and Goyer gave us new perspectives on few things, such as how he came by his costume and what the S on it means, he’s relationship with Lois and we get completely new, action packed, look at the Jor-El presented by Russell Crowe.
In movie’s prologue we see happenings at Krypton just before its demise. We are for the first time introduced with Krypton's politics, military and history in an action packed sequence in witch General Zod (Michael Shannon), Krypton's military ruler, tries to overthrow the government which led the planet to its inevitable destruction while Jor-El (Russell Crowe) is trying to save his newborn son by sending him away from decaying planet.
After the prologue movie continues with 33 years old Clark Kent who wanders around the Earth and occasionally saves people until he finds old Kryptonian space ship who’s activation attracts General Zod and his men while the Clark’s youth is shown in flashbacks which are somewhat connected with happenings in real time.

Screenwriting is far from being special in any way but it’s a solid origin story of a 75 years old comic book. There’s a big impression that Goyer’s motto was: If you’re stuck just do it like in Batman, what isn’t all bad, we all liked Batman but we don’t want the same thing over and over again. It’s not only Batman, there’s even a little bit of Avatar and Transformers in this. To be short, it looks like mishmash of everything that was successful recently.
The great thing in this Superman story is that Superman isn’t all nice guy, while Zod isn’t embodiment of evil. Superman actually kills people here, both indirectly and directly and he just watches some of them die while Zod just does his job. Both Henry Cavill as Superman and Michael Shannon as General Zod earned their paycheck. Shannon’s Zod is definitely best one on screen ever while there will be a big number of fans that will think the same for Cavill’s Superman.
Amy Adams as Lois Lane is a very good. This was the third time that she tried to embody her and she made sure that she will be Lois for at least one more time which was very hard since Lois was terribly written. It looks like whole movie was written without her and at the end somebody said: We have to have Lois Lane in this!, so Goyer just inserted her randomly in the scenes. There is so much boredom, coincidence and stupidity and so little logic and sense in scenes that include Lois that the one has to ask did they really forgot about her and inserted her later or does Goyer and Nolan hate her so much. But that’s still nothing compared to the tornado scene which makes almost every man watching it to feel ashamed on behalf of writers.
Although there is only one group of Supermen’s nemesis there are few big battles with another few minor conflicts which are all nicely done but it made movie unnecessarily long which will cause polarization between viewers since the part of them who will not like the movie will hate it more because of endless action while the other part will enjoy in it.
Nolan and Goyer should have spent more time in developing deeper story and characters instead of playing with easter eggs. There’s even a short scene dedicated to producer Jon Peters which will be one of the best parts of movie for all those familiar with his ideas for never filmed Superman reboot with Nicholas Cage.

On the other hand Zack Snyder did his job almost flawless. Main battle sequence is pornography for action lovers. Visual effects are top of the class, just like complete scenery and music by, one and only, Hans Zimmer. I was kind of happily expecting random slow motions scenes from Snyder but I guess it wasn’t compatible with realistic approach that Nolan and Goyer imagined.
There is a great amount of CGI but the good thing is that they tried to film everything they could without it, on real sets, so it didn’t end like 300 as some were afraid.

Man of steel is very good origin reboot, nice start of potentially great trilogy and, despite bad acceptance among critics, hit among the fans. Screenwriting could have been much better and I expect great improvement in sequel while it’s hard to make visually better one I’ll be modest and expect the same level on that.
Although the movie has deeper context, even the religious one, it’s in the first place for superhero and action lovers or as we’re used to say, it’s blockbuster and in that genre it scores pretty high.

Hahaha. Yeah, I know what you mean.

How can you know what he means?. He clearly doesn't wave.

I know that he held up his hand signaling stop, but after that I swear I remember a wave. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, it was a bad scene. It's hard to feel any emotion when a character lacking any personality dies. Even if they play sad music during it. :rolleyes:

Well just where to start with this trainwreck of a Superman movie.

BEWARE SPOILERS!

The 10 deadly Sins of Man of Steel.



3/10

How I would rank Superman Movies;

1. Superman (1978)
2. Superman 2 (1980)
3. Superman Returns (2006)
4. Superman 3 (1983)
5. Man of Steel (2013)
6. Superman 4: The Quest for Peace (1987)

If you want to enjoy Superman then dust off you old Superman 1 and 2 dvd's that have been gathering dust because that is still the only way to enjoy Superman on the big screen.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Man Of Steel Did it came out already?

Re: Man of Steel
 

Gandalf26 you rank Superman III above Man of Steel? Damn I didn't go that far! Good to know I ain't the only guy who sees this movie as a bad movie. I still can't say I think Superman III is better, mostly because I have not seen that sequel since like 1989 or so. lol

Re: Man of Steel
 

At least Superman 3 has that awesome good Superman vs Bad Superman scene at the Garbage dump. Where is the awesome scene in Man of Steel?

Man of Steel sucked. So disappointed.

Is this the same Zack Synder that made awesome Watchmen?

The only scene in the movie that really got my attention was the oil rig scene.

But still, I was very disappointed with what was shown. No argument there.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Good review, I'm thinking of going to see the movie, just way too many differing opinions. As long as it's better than Superman III and IV I'll be happy.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Well I hope you like it, cuz I didn't.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I thought Man of Steel was a pretty damn good Superman movie. I actually like the darker tone they set this universe in, and I like Superman's development in it because of it. It's about time the man of steel got a more mature story, I say. And I've heard some people complain about it having too many action scenes when my only complaint about the previous films is that they didn't have enough action. My only problems with the film are these: the overuse of shaky cam during the action scenes made me nauseous, and the human characters needed more development. Other than that, I don't really see anything wrong with the film.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I just saw "Man of Steel." I am sorry to report that I really didn't like it. In my opinion, it really is not a good movie at all. I agree with pretty much everything Gandalf said. The movie is poor. First of all, the movie was incredibly confusing. It was very difficult for me to figure out what happened and why throughout the movie. There is little to no explanation of the plot and what little explanation that existed was confusing. I have seen many of these types of movies, from "Iron Man" to "Harry Potter," "Lord of the Rings" and everything in between, and I've never been as confused as I was in this movie. In addition to the difficult to follow plot, the tone of the movie was all over the place. Parts of the movie were dark and somber while the overwhelming majority of the movie was non-stop wall to wall action. This difference in tone was really striking. The filmmakers appeared to not know what kind of movie they wanted to make since different parts of the movie had a totally different feel. The movie was also extremely repetitive. There are so many action scenes in this movie of people smashing into buildings and things exploding all over that are all pretty much the same. None of it is very interesting. This movie also had little to no character development. Even Amy Adams, who is one of my favorite actresses, did not impress as Lois Lane. Her and the actor who played Superman had little to no chemistry onscreen, and the Lois Lane character was so underwritten that she was left with little to do. The standout in this movie was Kevin Costner, but like Amy Adams, he is left with very little to do. The script for this was absolutely terrible. Parts of it had promise, but the movie had no cohesive tone or theme to it, and overall, this is a movie I would recommend avoiding.

My opinion may or may not be representative. I talked with a few people in my screening after the movie and most of the people I talked to said that they really enjoyed the movie. I went with two other people, and both of them did not enjoy it any more than I did.

Re: Man of Steel
 

3 Decades have gone by & they still can't make one decent Superman movie. Embarassing!

At this point I would have much preferred a sequel to Superman Returns than this. Have some kind of Supervillain show up to take on Superman rather than this terrible reboot.

Can anyone who watched and liked Man of Steel tell me if they remember any awesome scenes from the movie, because I can't. The Dark Knight movies had like 10 awesome moments per film that I You Tube now and again, but I can't think of a single scene from MOS that I desire to watch ever again. At least Superman Returns had a damn amazing shuttle/plane save.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I thought the movie was good! I give it a + It will probably go up upon a re-view.

I thought the opening 15 minutes was fantastic. I also liked the flash backs of his childhood, I liked all the cast, I liked the action. Funny how the dark knight rises has so many problems, a weak story being one of them, yet people are moaning about this.

Re: Man of Steel
 

In my opinion, even though it was the weakest of the trilogy, "The Dark Knight Rises" was a masterpiece compared to this movie. "The Dark Knight Rises" had a consistent theme throughout and it's tone was appropriately dark. This movie had a totally inconsistent tone and a story that really did not make any sense. I have a psychology Bachelor's and a law degree and I could not understand this movie. That tells you something! ;)

How did the story not make sense?.

Re: Man of Steel
 

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

The whole movie was just very confusing. In the beginning, the planet was going to explode. Why did this happen? If the planet was going to explode, why did General Zod try to stage a coup? He couldn't stop the planet from blowing up, so wasn't that coup useless? When they sent General Zod to a sensory education camp, what the hell is that?

When they got on Earth, why didn't they show Superman growing up and learning to understand and use his powers, and show how he was adjusting to his newfound abilities? They showed like one scene of him in the closet at school, which really didn't show anything, then him saving those people on the bus, than they fastforward to him being an adult. An origin story is supposed to have character development along the lines of what I outlined earlier in this paragraph. Why was that virtually nonexistent in this movie?

Then when they find Superman, why did they not just kill him and get the kodex thing? Why did they have to kill everyone on Earth in order to save the people of Krypton? Superman was from Krypton and he could live on Earth, so why can't they co-exist together? Why did Earth have to be destroyed?

Why did the movie contradict itself? Both General Zod and Superman thought they were the only hope for Krypton, but that doesn't make sense. They can't both be the only hope for Krypton. Why was this theme repeated by different people (Jor-El, General Zod, Jonathan Kent) and why was this so repetitive?

What was happening during all of those action scenes? They never explained anything that was going on. I didn't understand why the characters were doing what they were doing.

How did Jor-El keep popping up randomly throughout the movie if he was dead? In the old Superman movies with Christopher Reeve, they summoned him through the crystals, but in this movie he kept popping up randomly to deliver philosophical messages. How does that make sense?

What happened in the cave with Lois Lane? That was all very difficult to follow.

In the end, how did they end up destroying General Zod's ship? What were they talking about with respect to destroying the ship and having it enter a black hole? I didn't understand anything that happened there.

These are just a few of the problems that I had with this movie. If you can answer these questions, I'd be happy to read your answers to fill in these gaps!

It's in his nature. People from Krypton are 'born' to be certain things. Zod was born to protect the people from Krypton, regardless of what was happening to the planet. His vision of saving the Krypton race was the steal the codex and continue the race, but Jor-El had already stolen it. The planet was going to explode because they used up their resources from mining to its core. I guess you missed the scene where they explain everything?

The flashback sequences were to show important moments of his life, first recognizing his powers, deciding to do good with his powers, deciding not to fight despite his powers, making the hardest decision in his life to listen to his father and conceal his powers, etc. I liked how we saw glimpses of things in his lifetime and not the usual boring sequences of him learning his powers.

Then when they find Superman, why did they not just kill him and get the kodex thing? Why did they have to kill everyone on Earth in order to save the people of Krypton? Superman was from Krypton and he could live on Earth, so why can't they co-exist together? Why did Earth have to be destroyed?

Two different people can't have opposing views on the same subject? If both think they are the last hope for Krypton than that creates conflict, which is exactly what movies need. I don't see this as a justifiable complaint. Jonathan Kent had no idea where he came from, why throw his name in there? Jor-El infused the codex with his son, which is why he would think that. Zod's only purpose is the survival and well being of his species, so obviously he would think he was the only hope.

Seriously? Zod was going to destroy the human race so he can repopulate his own. Superman was obviously fighting for the human race. How are you missing the biggest points for the film?

Again, they explain this in the film. Go watch it again. It's his preserved consciousness within the ship.

Superman healed her wound, left her behind and flew the ship away. It was pretty basic.

They used the ship Superman crashed on Earth to do it. Again, did you miss the scene that was specifically added to tell the audience what their plan was?

None of the questions you raised were really confusing and were all explained in the film point blank. If you have any more, I'd be happy to help.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Where did Jor-El go on his honeymoon?

How the hell are people missing this? He went to Pandora.

It was Thanagar in the comics. :p

Re: Man of Steel
 

The influence of Cameron and big bucks.

Re: Man of Steel
 

The moment I saw Russell Crowe riding a giant honeybee, I knew the filmmakers are going to try real hard to deviate from the usual Superman & that's exactly what happened.

Looks like a Michael Bay film.

No it doesn't.

MOS has SOOOO many problems. It's not even as smart as a Michael Bay film and that says a lot. Worst use of flashbacks EVER.

4/10

Even watching this film with lower expectations, I’m still stunned at how bad it turned out. It’s at least 3/4 of an extremely shallow and ineptly written mess. This reboot made the same mistakes that Amazing Spider-Man made in terms of its supporting cast. Every single one of them are one dimensional and barely even register. They completely wasted Ma and Pa Kent, Perry White, Jor-el and (the biggest crime of all) Lois Lane. Thus, they completely wasted stellar talent and an amazing cast.

Everything felt cut and honestly plays like it was written by a teenager. That low level is what surprises me, not that the story itself is lacking like all the critics are saying. What is also a major surprise is how the super-powered action falls flat. To me, that’s the real disappointment here. There’s no variety. The only time I was pulled out of the monotone video game type action was to notice just how many people were being slaughtered at every turn. We’re talking MASSIVE civilian and military casualties from explosions, planes crashing and buildings crumbling. That was jarring to me and took away from what should have been the coolness factor. (On a side note, why exactly did 7-11 and Sears pay to be put in a film where it’s obvious that their customers and employees were killed just for being in those places of business?)

Overall, this is simply a flat out disappointment devoid of any real fun.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I totally agree with everything that you said. This movie had an impressive cast, but none of them were really given significant, interesting roles. Since the movie had little to no character development, I am really surprised that A-list actors like Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Kevin Costner, etc. decided to do this movie. Why do you think they chose to do it? After seeing it, I was surprised that this was a movie that all of these respected actors wanted to be in, since their roles were not very interesting and the movie itself was simply not very good.

Why wouldn't they do it?. All those actors have already been in there fair share of bad films.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Masterman you are clinging by your fingernails to the fact that this movie was good. Just accept that it wasn't.

Why would I accept it wasn't?. It annoy's me that people rave about The Avengers and then slam this. Okay if you don't like the movie based on the fact it's not like the old superman fair enough, but to say its a bad film is stupid.

There's no doubt Costner and Crowe just wanted an easy paycheck. Costner knows a quality script and he had to cringe reading whatever draft he read. Goyer wrote an awful script plain and simple.

Amy Adams said she always wanted to play Lois and that this was her last chance. I like her a lot and hope that they get it right in the sequel for her sake. For me, this is exactly like the Amazing Spider-Man reboot. I didn't like that film either (but it is better than MOS). I'm hoping they get a better script for that cast as well.

In few years he will grow up & his opinions will surely change & he'll be embarassed of the fact that he thought this movie was good.

To Zack Snyder, If I wanted to see you play a videogame, I'd have loved to drop by your place.
Or I could just watch my little cousin play with his Xbox.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I just got my tickets for tonight. Really looking forward to this.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I've kept away from this thread for now, but now I've seen it I can comment.

I'd have preferred to see more of a battle on Krypton, that led to Kal-El being sent to Earth, then jump to Clark as an adult and have flashbacks of his childhood and show him becoming Superman and getting a job at The Daily Planet...
... then have a cliff-hanger ending when Zod turns up... that would have worked better imho.
But, in another respect, if that was the case, it would be accused of copying the original films.


There are a number of good points going on about the bad side of the film, and I agree, the character writing is poor...

Snyder, Nolan and Goyer have skipped the character writing I think, because those seeing it will already know what these characters should be thinking about each other.
The problem is, it's a fundamental part of the character traits.

I reckon the film is still great though, nothing that will make favourites lists but it's a Superman film that has been missing for a long time.
The action, epic size of destruction and general sense of threat from the antagonists is perfect for the Universe. Action and looks wise, it beats the other Superman films hands down... just the character writing lets it down in the first half. The only real connection is a kiss between the two of them that says "Yep they love each other"... I was like, where did that come from?
Maybe I missed something.


Tbh though, it's about time a Superman film had the guts to go full on with the punches and explosions rather than just relying solely on a love story between Lois and Clark and constantly having Lois in danger before Clark decides to don his blue suit...

The other thing is the torn feelings of Clark between rebuilding his race and saving mankind from a maniac.
Zod himself seems to have a more "humane" side as you can see he is genuinely thinking about what he is doing and seems to even question his actions, even if it is momentarily.

This is a part of the Lore that hasn't been seen in the on screen Superman before... I think the second half writing more than makes up for the first half writing because of these points I've made above.

I also felt that the first half was more of an origins story with all the flashbacks. The tonal change half way through gives me the impression that the filmmakers wanted to get all the stuff we already know out of the way so they can get on with the brawl between Supes and the bad guys.


Chances it'll make a favourites list? Slim.
Being a decent Superman Comicbook film? Absolutely.

Zack Snyder isn't one of my favourite directors. He has a striking visual style, which works in several of his films, but when it comes to his adaptations, they always come off as entertaining bits of fluff instead of skilled, respectable adaptations/remakes. I have nothing wrong with entertaining bits of fluff, but when it comes to creating a cinematic vision of a source material I actually care for (Watchmen), I'd rather a good adaptation instead of a cool-looking, but hollow vehicle. I had these fears for Man Of Steel. I feared that Snyder would strip away the fun, light-heartedness of the original films and leave us with a dour, unenjoyable mess that tries too hard to be darker and more modern. Most importantly, I feared it would be missing the spark that would help Superman soar. But I'm happy to say that not only was Man Of Steel better than I expected and certainly Snyder's best work, but also one of the best films of the year and one of the best superhero films I've seen in a long time.

One of the very few problems I have with the original Reeve Superman films is that Superman is never, ever in danger. Even in Superman II, with Zod, Ursula and Non, three supervillains who are supposed to match Superman in every way, it never feels like Superman is ever in trouble. Also, the original films rarely scratch the surface of what makes Superman tick and how he feels about being Earth's saviour. Man Of Steel chooses to focus on Superman's complexities: his relationship with his adoptive father, his feelings about having to hide his true powers, his coming to terms with what he is and what he is capable of. The exploration of these areas provides many great moments, including a few surprisingly emotional ones. It's in these moments where we can see how much Snyder's style has matured over the years, as the material is handled in a mature, serious and ultimately superb way.

Even though it's these character moments that made Man Of Steel such a great experience for me, there's enough dazzling spectacle here to entertain. Despite it being set in a heavily populated city area (which is becoming a pet peeve of mine in modern superhero/alien invasion films), I enjoyed Snyder flaunting his visual style, while thankfully toning down the slo-mo that populates most of his other films.

I had my doubts about unknown Henry Cavill in the iconic role, but he is perfect. He fantastically embodies what Superman is about, while brining a few qualities of his own to the role. The other highlight of the cast is (surprisingly) Kevin Costner. This has to be his best performance in ages. He's given very brief screentime as Jonathan Kent, but in his few moments, he delivers a simple, but highly engaging performance that leads to some of the film's most heartbreaking moments. Michael Shannon is unfortunately the film's weakest link, at times a moustache twirling villain and others a relatable warrior with a noble goal, not very good with either of them.

Man Of Steel won't please everyone, but it definitely pleased me, offering up a view of the complexities of being the world's biggest outcast with more than enough grit and emotion while adding a heavy dose of action and pyrotechnics. It may not work 100% of the time, but when it does work, it's magical. There isn't quite enough to make Superman soar, but there's more than enough to get him off the ground.

Re: Man of Steel
 

I fully enjoyed Man of Steel. I really liked Snyder did to develop the character unlike Superman Returns.

Sure, the spectacle of Superman fighting Zod was amazing. But the scenes I enjoyed were the ones between Clark and his father. The tornado scene is gut wrenching as well. It really helps to deliver the punch in the final moment between Superman and Zod. I thought all the actors did a fantastic job. Maybe Amy Adams as Lois Lane was the weakest, but still worked none-the-less.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Good movie.

I did feel that the fight sequences were redundant after awhile, but I found this Superman to be more compelling than previous efforts. I'm also glad we get to see Superman fight someone at his level and see the destruction it causes. That might seem like a conflict with my previous point, but it's a wash.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Just got back from seeing Man of Steel finally, and I must say that I was very impressed.

Don't laugh at me but I thought the highlight of the film was Amy Adams. She did a terrible job with the role she was given. Overall just a highly enjoyable movie with a great cast. The plot may have had some holes that obviously could have made the film a bigger hit with others but other than that it was entertaining from point A to point B. The beginning of the film kept me attached to the movie, and not knowing much about Superman's background story I was able to figure it out easily

8.5/10 from me.

Re: Man of Steel
 

Man Of Steel was amazing

What does this mean???

Re: Man of Steel
 

It's better than SUPERMAN RETURNS but that's not saying much. Cavill makes a decent Clark/Kal-El ("Superman" isn't acknowledged in the end titles), and Diane Lane acquits herself nicely as Martha Kent, but Amy Adams is an awful Lois (Lois Lame might be a more appropriate name for her character), and Laurence Fishburne's Perry White (complete with earring! ) is more Frank Langella than Jackie Cooper. The one casting choice I had high hopes for was Michael Shannon as Zod, and while he brings a great deal of menace to the proceedings, he lacks the calm, cool confidence of Terence Stamp's interpretation. Perhaps modern audiences expect their villains to be over-the-top bad asses with no shades of grey, and if that's the case, then this new Zod delivers. Christoper Meloni, one of my favourite LAW & ORDER actors, has a nice supporting role as an army officer.

But my main quibble with the film is the way it approaches the action sequences. Perhaps I'm out of step with the times, but I don't see the point in making a SUPERMAN movie where it's painfully obvious all the actors are standing in front of a green screen and the "epic" digital action is out of focus and cut with attention deficit sufferers in mind. When Christopher Reeve played Superman, you could actually see his derring-do whereas in MAN OF STEEL the action is cut so quickly you have to guess. Also, the Kryptonian architects were most definitely inspired by H.R. Giger this time out, so it's little wonder Jor-El and the Missus had no interest in raising a child in such a dark and uninviting environment. One last note: I'm glad they didn't try to tack the Williams SUPERMAN theme onto this as it wouldn't have worked, but Hans Zimmer completely misses the mark with his score for MAN OF STEEL.

**.5 / ****

Man Of Steel
 

I thought that Man Of Steel was a very interesting movie. Interesting is the best word i can use to describe it because of all the things going on is this movie. Although i enjoyed the fact they didn't do the complete back story of Superman in chronological order i think it may be a bit hard to follow if you don't already know Superman's past. As for the events that take place during the story i found that they tried to cram a lot in over the 143 minutes, it seems as though they concentrated too much on setting up possible sequels than giving us a captivating story.

Henry Cavill played the role extremely well so i cant fault him for anything. I loved how Russell Crowe got involved in this movie, in my opinion he made the film all the better. I also must tip my hat to Kevin Costner who once again brought much to the movie and helped get the sensitivity of a young Clark Kent struggling to come to terms with his talents come across to the audience.

All in all a generous 7/10 from me.

I dont want to spoil the ending of the movie so i wont say how i felt about that but if anyone does want my opinion you can always PM me.

If you feel differently or think i have given a fair assessment of Man Of Steel lets discuss.

You can hide information in a Spoilers Tag. You can learn how to do that here

Thank God this person only posted once and never returned.

A fantastic modern adaptation of Superman. This is a pretty common flaw in most super hero movies. The CG seemed video gamey at times, which is not good in cinema. And there seemed to be some Metal Gear Solid influence in the design of the Kryptonian spacesuits, which is not a bad thing. It felt like a cross between Dragon Ball Z, Metal Gear Solid 4, and The Matrix at times. So fitting that Laurence Fishburne has a role. The story is awesome. Supreme logic is a term I first used to describe the mindstates of Kevin Smith's characters in Clerks. Again there is a form of supreme logic being followed by Superman and the other Kryptonians. I am definitely hungry for more back and future story of this universe.

8/10