BvS Henry Cavill IS Superman - Part 1

[The Shield]

Spoiler

The-Utterly-Annoying-Facial-Expressions-Henry-Cavill-Chooses-To-Make-During-His-Portrayal-As-Superman


Disclaimer: Just a bit of harmless fun, all for a laugh, not intended to insult anyone.

Now, I love MOS. I thought the action was spectacular, and I think Cavill did a SUPERb job. I can't wait to see what he brings to the table for MOS2/BVS.

Upon watching the movie, I'd share some of my opinions with you guys

I feel sometimes, Cavill literally looks like Supes fell out of a comic book - like here for instance:

Or here:

But then, he chooses to pull a face like this:

- and it, well, just puts me right off. What is he doing here, concealing a super fart?


Also, upon re-visiting the film, there are an awful lot of moments in this film, where Cavill chooses to pull a utterly super-slappable face - like so:

"Why did you say that? No, seriously, why? That hurt me. It's not what you said, per se, it's more the way you said it"

"Wasn't me. I'd never hurt a fly. I'm the embodiment of innocence. Liiiiiike me. Looooove me. Please. Just call me Super-pup ...."

"Yes, dad, I wear tights -- and I like it. I 'will' join the London Royal Ballet, whether you like it or not. See? This? Here I go. I'm going now. Seriously. In fact, I'm going to dance my way out. Here we go. Oh yeah. And turn. You can not stop this. You can not stop this"

starts to sing: #Have you seen my childhood?"


AND ESPECIALLY THIS SUCKER AT THE END .... cringeworthy -- yuuuggghhh

Arrrrggghhhh - just makes me go --- arrrggghhh!

ALSO:

Why the hell does Cavill's Superman have to sniff in the daisies every time he flies off? Why, Cavill, why, why, why?

SNIIFFFFFFFFFFFFF....

"Oh, General. That new cologne. It soooo complements your natural musk. Wear it again, general, please? Wait, I feel ... euphoric. (thinks) Dooope!"


Need I say more?



...




(Is that a fake hooter?)

Just my two cents.

This had me cracking up. t: Allthough I really enjoyed his intensity I noticed these one offs. And because he was such an awesome Superman I gave these very little thought. I was thinking though had this been any other actor I probably would have rip it up in criticism. Lol This dude jump right off my Jim Lee Supes pages and I thank him and Zack for that.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Is it this one?

Superman ate too much cheese and now he's constipated.
In all seriousness it could be worse, he could be like Kristen Stewart and have only one facial expression. LOL

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Cavill's not the only one with funny expressions in the film. This particular scene with Amy Adams, for example, is kind of.. erm.. suggestive.

 

[slumcat]

^^
Perry White:
But Lois what will you do after finding this man?

Lois:

Perry White:
Oh well. Suit yourself. I am taking no part in this.

 

[MrMaooz]

LMAO, yeah, Lois definitely wants the D.

 

[slumcat]

Epic flyby

 

[maluka]

LMAO!!!!!

I love his faces but that's right, sometimes it's a bit weird, he looks so pissed...
Anyways, it's perfect for this movie!
Reeves seemed so...unhuman. Like a robot. Nothin could hurt him. I mean, apart from the balls...

I know, he "sniiifes" sometimes.
But, let's say, it gives a sensation : like you're preparing before you do somethin, such as flying. And I like it. Better than nothin. But it was a little bit too intense!
At this point, I though he was going to breath in order use his superpower. (blow)

Well, let's stop right NOW!!! I want GOOD critics on HENRY

 

[MrMaooz]

He had a very serious face before and after the kiss, lol.

 

[John-An]

Epic flyby

EPIC t:t:

 

[John-An]

This had me cracking up. t: Allthough I really enjoyed his intensity I noticed these one offs. And because he was such an awesome Superman I gave these very little thought. I was thinking though had this been any other actor I probably would have rip it up in criticism. Lol This dude jump right off my Jim Lee Supes pages and I thank him and Zack for that.

I was amazed by all the facial capability from Cavill = great acting

 

[Tra-El]

I was amazed by all the facial capability from Cavill = great acting

Which baffles me when people said Cavill's performance was "wooden." That was more due to the script and digging into Superman's origin that broke up continuity with flashback story-telling. To me, Cavill looked different throughout the movie because of his facial expressions. He was anything but wooden.

 

[slumcat]

Good acting does not equal mobility of facial muscles. Otherwise Jim Carrey would be as celebrated as Laurence Olivier!

Good acting is the ability to convey different feelings and emotions and thoughts, with or without changing your expression. And in that aspect, Cavill was a bit limited. He conveyed just 2-3 things, introspection, anguish and wrath. Or something along those lines. Frankly the format these movies are made in, there isn't much for an actor to do frankly. The least an actor can be is charismatic. Even in that regard I think Cavill was a bit lacking. Look at Downey in Iron Man films or Hemsworth in Thor films, the way they just overwhelm and dominate the movie, that is called charisma. Even Loki has it!

 

[John-An]

Which baffles me when people said Cavill's performance was "wooden." That was more due to the script and digging into Superman's origin that broke up continuity with flashback story-telling. To me, Cavill looked different throughout the movie because of his facial expressions. He was anything but wooden.

Who said that has no idea about acting, maybe cause hi didn't make jokes or silly comments is wooden yeah the script has to have comedy to be great you know, not all the greatest movies had a lot of bla bla bla and even an origin story that has to deal with many characters to present the history of superman but the dialogue showed was great, realistic and emotional .. Yeah the origin and presenting 3 clarks decreased Cavill's time screen but not his presence and the dialogue that had was great acted.. When we see an stablished superman we'll se Cavill's true potential...

 

[John-An]

Good acting does not equal mobility of facial muscles. Otherwise Jim Carrey would be as celebrated as Laurence Olivier!

Good acting is the ability to convey different feelings and emotions and thoughts, with or without changing your expression. And in that aspect, Cavill was a bit limited. He conveyed just 2-3 things, introspection, anguish and wrath. Or something along those lines. Frankly the format these movies are made in, there isn't much for an actor to do frankly. The least an actor can be is charismatic. Even in that regard I think Cavill was a bit lacking. Look at Downey in Iron Man films or Hemsworth in Thor films, the way they just overwhelm and dominate the movie, that is called charisma. Even Loki has it!

Then if kristen stewart had great dialogue and a 1 face mobility is great acting?
Both are complements the dialogue the emotions, the presence.. and CHARISMA was one of Cavill's advantages that make Superman so great and credible that you're not seeing an actor you're seeing SUPERMAN... the of that Cavill showed charisma (but charisma doesn't mean that always have to make people laugh right?)
Cavill dominated the role even with less dialogue and act way better than Hemsworth IMO

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I have to say Hemsworth and Hiddleston owned Thor, they owned the scenes they were in, despite being in scenes with Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Eccleston. The only thing that topped them was when they had those scenes together escaping Asgard and

Spoiler

Loki's impalement

. They also had much better chemistry together here than in Thor or Avengers.

Not saying it as a slight against Henry Cavill, he's good at his craft, but the film didn't express that to the fullest.

 

[John-An]

I have to say Hemsworth and Hiddleston owned Thor, they owned the scenes they were in, despite being in scenes with Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Eccleston. The only thing that topped them was when they had those scenes together escaping Asgard and

Spoiler

Loki's impalement

. They also had much better chemistry together here than in Thor or Avengers.

Not saying it as a slight against Henry Cavill, he's good at his craft, but the film didn't express that to the fullest.

They owned not doubt of that.. but as I said before, Cavill in this movie as Superman he owned the role BEING a novice Clark and finding himself to be the hero we all know even being an origin movie (vs Thor and Loki 3 movies count) but in the next movie we'll see Cavill's true potential as an established Superman

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

They owned not doubt of that.. but as I said before, Cavill in this movie as Superman he owned the role even being an origin movie (vs Thor and Loki 3 movies count) but in the next movie we'll see Cavill's true potential as an established Superman

The number of times you have played a role does not necessarily mean you get better at it. Heath Ledger played The Joker once, and gave the absolute best performance in a CBM. Nicholas Cage played Johnny Blaze and was not very good.

 

[John-An]

The number of times you have played a role does not necessarily mean you get better at it. Heath Ledger played The Joker once, and gave the absolute best performance in a CBM. Nicholas Cage played Johnny Blaze and was not very good.

Agreed, but Cavill played the novice Superman finding himself to be the hero we all know that was why Cavill owned being that.. Joker played without an origin cause he didn't need it.. that's the magic of the character and why he did an excellent performance but not the same situation played as playing Superman...

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I think we'll see more of Cavill's potential just because hopefully they will have even more to say about the character... if the material is juicy enough, he'll have a lot to work with.

As much as I love origin stories, especially Superman's, there is an element of predictability in that it's always going to be about how the character grows to be a hero.

The sequels are where it gets really interesting, because a lot of superhero movies just don't really know where their character goes from there. Some of them throw him right back down in the dirt so that he has to climb up again. Some of them deal with actual issues that are personal to that specific hero.

I hope MOS 2 is the latter.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Agreed, but Cavill played the novice Superman finding himself to be the hero we all know that was why Cavill owned being that.. Joker played without an origin cause he didn't need it.. that's the magic of the character and why he did an excellent performance but not the same situation played as playing Superman...

I'm taking it that English isn't your first language? I'm not talking within the context of the narrative, Henry had no control of that. I'm only talking about performances from the actors.

I think Chris Hemsworth was better in his role as Thor, than Henry Cavill was as Superman (in as much as we've seen). Every role is comparable, otherwise no role would ever get cast.

 

[slumcat]

Then if kristen stewart had great dialogue and a 1 face mobility is great acting?
Both are complements the dialogue the emotions, the presence.. and CHARISMA was one of Cavill's advantages that make Superman so great and credible that you're not seeing an actor you're seeing SUPERMAN... the of that Cavill showed charisma (but charisma doesn't mean that always have to make people laugh right?)
Cavill dominated the role even with less dialogue and act way better than Hemsworth IMO

Where does Kristen Stewart enter this discussion?

His presence, by the nature of the script, was very muted. It was a muted character so the performance was muted. But even in a very very restrained role, you can create a very powerful and haunting impact. Watch Jean Louis Trintignant in last year's Amour, a very quiet role but the performance is truly devastating and unforgettable.

Cavill is obviously not there yet. I like Cavill as you can see from my posts here. It's just that MOS was not the fullest expression of his talents. Not even close to that. I think he can do much better. And hopefully with better scripts, will do better.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I think Henry was good but he didn't own the role. He didn't do anything that makes him own it.

RDJ owns the role of Iron Man and made it his own, Hugh with Wolverine, Patrick and Ian with Xavier and Magneto, Chris did that with Thor, other Chris with Cap, Keaton with Batman, Reeve with Superman, Tobey with Spider-Man (Spidey 3 never happened), and others.

Henry is in the same place Andrew is IMO. Their next film needs to have them do a great performance. At the same time, it's hard to do a great performance with a Goyer screenplay.

 

[Superherofan123]

I don't get the facial expression thing...Cavill was great IMO.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I feel like he owned it in the sense that his natural energy lent itself really well to the character, but there wasn't too much that really pushed him or that really defined this version of Superman as something memorable or powerful.

He did a good/great job with a lot of the emotional scenes, and there are little moments and looks and stuff that I love re watching because I just think he pulls them off so well (like the comforting look he gives Lois when she is freaking out after being injuring on the ship, when he needs her to calm down... that was so Superman to me )

 

[John-An]

I think Henry was good but he didn't own the role. He didn't do anything that makes him own it.

RDJ owns the role of Iron Man and made it his own, Hugh with Wolverine, Patrick and Ian with Xavier and Magneto, Chris did that with Thor, other Chris with Cap, Keaton with Batman, Reeve with Superman, Tobey with Spider-Man (Spidey 3 never happened), and others.

Henry is in the same place Andrew is IMO. Their next film needs to have them do a great performance. At the same time, it's hard to do a great performance with a Goyer screenplay.

Garfield owned Spidey (not Peter).. Cavill owned the part of the novie Superman because he wasn't superman yet but of course the role of Kal-Clark becoming Superman (the corageous Superman, never give up, the Clark confued) was owned by Cavill. but yeah in future films we'll see Cavil's true potential and if he embraces the stablished superman. and IMO Ian didn't own MAgneto nor from the one of the comics, the personality of Fassbender made me feel more the magneto of the comics than Ian... Chris didn't owned Captain America sorry, and neither Tobey (Garfield spidey was way better)