TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
So does Clark Kent get a job at the Daily Planet and wear the Glasse at all in the movie?

He does at the very end of the film


On another note, I didn't think I'd see another superman film where its reception would be even more mixed than Superman Returns.
 
LMAO @ anyone who decides what movie they watch based on what a "critic" says.

there are movies out there that hated by "critics" and yet I loved them, wanna know why?

Cause they are no different then you or me, just another human being, but for some reason they get paid to tell there opinion as opposed to everyone elses.
 
Some people just dont like the new Superman compared to the older one. MOS is supposed to be a fresh new take on Superman but some just cant get past that. Guess the world was not ready after all.
 
Well it's not really the critics reviews that I'm worried about personally, it's really more about how many posters here and other general fans have been bringing up a lot of the same issues that the film seemingly has that's concerning me, well that, and me having suffered from a bad case of having developed unrealistic expectations for this film.lol
 
Some people just dont like the new Superman compared to the older one. MOS is supposed to be a fresh new take on Superman but some just cant get past that. Guess the world was not ready after all.

Here's an example of what I see happening with a good number of critics:

"This Superman settles scores. And takes his shirt off.
This “Man of Steel” flies up, up and away, with his teeth bared and his fists clenched.
This Lois Lane knows his story, straight off. There’s little mystery about him.
If every generation gets the Superman it deserves, “Man of Steel” suggests we’ve earned one utterly without wit or charm, a grim, muscle-bound 33 year-old struggling to reconcile the past he is just learning about, trying to fit in with a military that may or may not consider him a threat but that needs his help when his fellow Kryptonians come to call.

“Man of Steel” is a radical re-interpretation of the Superman myth, no sin in itself. The Zack “300/Sucker Punch” Snyder version, scripted by David S. Goyer (story by Christopher Nolan), dwells much longer on Krypton and re-arranges the story, hurling us into the adult Kal-El’s Wolverine-like loner life as an American adult, showing us his formative childhood with the Kents (Diane Lane and Kevin Costner) only in flashbacks.
It gives his Kryptonian nemesis, General Zod, a mission — however misguided. And a point of view. So Michael Shannon, who plays him, isn’t all that scary, Without the wit, winks, flirtation and old-fashioned sentiment of the “Truth, justice and the American way” take on the character, all Henry Cavill (“Immortals”) has to do is mix it up in a lot of “Transformers” inspired brawls with armored-plated aliens and occasionally agonize over it all.

Yes, most of the far sillier “Transformers” movies were more fun
From its production design — ugly, black, insectoid spaceships — to its instantly forgettable Hans Zimmer musical score, this movie goes out of its way to remove itself from the Christopher Reeve “Superman” movies. And it is the poorer for it.
Russell Crowe and Ayelet Zurer play the parents who pack their baby up and ship him off their doomed planet. The sad resignation of the Marlon Brando version of Father Jor-El is lost because General Zod stages a coup, mid-planetary meltdown, giving this overlong prologue shoot-outs and armored brawls. And Crowe’s Jor-El never quite goes away. We spend far too little time with the story’s heart, the ways the baby is embodied with good old fashioned heartland virtues. Costner and Lane have the film’s best scenes.

“Decide the kind of man you want to be,” Clark Kent’s dad tells him, urging him to keep his ID secret, to use his powers sparingly, with care. The grown-up Clark wanders the bars and crab fishing fleets, committing the occasional supernatural act of compassion and the occasional supernatural fit of pique.
Amy Adams is an over-achieving Lois Lane, totally clued in on the evidence of an alien among us by the military. Laurence Fishburne is a dull Daily Planet editor Perry White.
Take away the antecedents (Lois Lane has no Jimmy Olsen, boy photographer), strip the character’s Americanness (to make it easier to sell overseas) and it’s still a competent movie — state of the art explosions, implosions and what-not.
But take away the whimsy, the fun, and one has to wonder why Snyder, Goyer, Warners and Christopher Nolan bothered."

http://rogersmovienation.com/2013/06/12/movie-review-man-of-steel-script-of-rust/

The question of what is good or bad, right or wrong is seemingly being tossed aside and replaced with. "Do I see what I think a superman film needs to be about in this movie..."

We'll see what the audience decides in few days.
 
I kind of agree to an extent when I think about it. This movie lacks "SUPERMAN" as a character. I got the feeling that it was just the Clark Kent they show us, but in a suit. Very little changes between Clark out of the suit and Clark in the suit, while the Superman everyone knows kinda acts as two people.

Even if he isn't working for the DP and doesn't need to disguise himself, I still think his persona could've changed a little bit.
 
I kind of agree to an extent when I think about it. This movie lacks "SUPERMAN" as a character. I got the feeling that it was just the Clark Kent they show us, but in a suit. Very little changes between Clark out of the suit and Clark in the suit, while the Superman everyone knows kinda acts as two people.

Even if he isn't working for the DP and doesn't need to disguise himself, I still think his persona could've changed a little bit.

Didn't someone, either cast or crew, say however that due to Clark not even knowing on who he was, there wasn't really an realistic way to show him acting like two different people in this film like most people are used to seeing since he was trying to figure that out for himself?
 
Didn't someone, either cast or crew, say however that due to Clark not even knowing on who he was, there wasn't really an realistic way to show him acting like two different people in this film like most people are used to seeing since he was trying to figure that out for himself?

Yeah, like I said since he hasn't had a need to "hide" himself yet then there wouldn't be much change, but I would've liked to see some kind of emotional change.

I was just trying to think of what reviewers might be getting at.
 
Pretty certain the sequel will be about becoming two people, and all the fun of acclimatizing to the world. It's pretty obvious and clever really.

Separating this into it's own films makes some sense. Especially if they pull a Nolan/Goyer and base a villain around that theme. Say hello earth based threat.
 
Few questions I have regarding a few scenes in the trailers

1. When Supes is seen falling to the ground with blood coming out, who is he fighting?
2. What is the scene with the skulls?
3. Why is Supes reaching out to the sun in one of the trailers? Is he hurt?
 
Few questions I have regarding a few scenes in the trailers

1. When Supes is seen falling to the ground with blood coming out, who is he fighting?
2. What is the scene with the skulls?
3. Why is Supes reaching out to the sun in one of the trailers? Is he hurt?

1. He's not fighting anyone. It's when he boards Zod's ship after surrendering and his body has trouble adjusting to the Kryptonian atmosphere.

2. After Superman passes out from trouble breathing aboard Zod's ship, Zod uses mind reading/invasion technology to speak with Clark in a dream state. The skulls appear after Clark asks Zod what will happen to the people of Earth if Zod tries to recreate Krypton.

3. This is after Clark takes down the World Engine, a massive ship/weapon that powers the terraforming of Earth.
 
Few questions I have regarding a few scenes in the trailers

1. When Supes is seen falling to the ground with blood coming out, who is he fighting?
2. What is the scene with the skulls?
3. Why is Supes reaching out to the sun in one of the trailers? Is he hurt?

1. Zod during battle of Metropolis (I think)
2. Zod has Jax-Ur mentally probe Kal-El and has projections in his head of a defeat human race that Kal-El has helped defeat.
3. Just destroyed Zod's Terraforming Machine in the pacific ocean and needs solar rays to gather strength back
 
^^ Thanks! Explains alot!

Last one, Do we see Zod hurt/kill anyone to prove a point to Clark?
 
I gave it a 6.5/10 the first time I watched MOS, because I went in thinking it would have a complex, mature, and rich in character development story and I did not get that.

I gave it an 8/10 after the 2nd viewing because I went in knowing it's more of a popcorn action adventure movie.

I went in expecting something like TDK (a crime drama with a lot of themes and depth mixed with some cool superhero action) and got the Avengers (action adventure movie with some dramatic moments), 2 movies I gave 9/10 for different reasons.

The reason I gave MOS only 8/10 is because some of the dramatic scenes were awkward and too melodramatic. It also lacked wit, charm,and a sense of humor.

But if we're talking about action adventure science fiction spectacle, it's the biggest one Ive seen in my life. It's so re-watchable because of how epic and awesome the action is.

Go to this movie expecting Death of Superman or Superman Earth One
instead of the cleverer ones like All Star Superman, For all Seasons, or even Alan Moore's stuff.
 
Poni tell me what you thought of:

The suit reveal. It is brought out and neither Clark nor Jor-El even mention it or address why he should put it on. He just puts it on and boom time to fly?

That part irks me like no other, and as much as people say "it's a new Superman" there has to be some kind of structure and familiarity with the character.

The suit is just as iconic as the symbol on the chest, and the decision to actually put it on and use it is huge......and it's completely blown over.
 
This is a interesting view i found.

by ishded197
Having seen the film, I think audiences will love it and don't think we should care as much about these reviews anyway. But since they are dominating this board, here is a great article covering the range of reviews:

http://www.newsarama.com/18065-early-man-of-steel-reviews-mostly-positive.html

As the article points out, all of the reviews are positive or mixed. Rotten Tomatoes has no outright BAD reviews. No one thinks this film is a failure. Most of the "rotten scores" are 2.5/4 or 3/5. This doesn't end up reflecting well on a site like RT that gives films a black and white, up/down score. If 2/3 of the reviews are positive and 1/3 mixed, that sounds like a decent critical reception to me. And this take on the character was always slightly controversial, so I feel like the number of mixed reviews shouldn't be too surprising. As I already mentioned, I've seen the film and think it's excellent and will really resonate with viewers this weekend.

It's telling that most of the reviews that are mixed come from the position that Superman just can't be taken seriously (and yet, something as fantastic like Lord of the Rings can? This says more more about the reviewer than the film. They just aren't willing to accept Superman as a serious scifi epic based on what they have seen before) Most of the "mixed" reviews seem to take the film to task for not feeling like the Donnerverse films in terms of tone. I'm A.OKAY with that! Even the apparently 'rotten' views praise the visuals, the acting, and the first half of the film. Cavill is also getting great praise (deservedly so. He rocks in the movie!) Hardly sounds like a critical drubbing
 
Poni tell me what you thought of:

The suit reveal. It is brought out and neither Clark nor Jor-El even mention it or address why he should put it on. He just puts it on and boom time to fly?

That part irks me like no other, and as much as people say "it's a new Superman" there has to be some kind of structure and familiarity with the character.

The suit is just as iconic as the symbol on the chest, and the decision to actually put it on and use it is huge......and it's completely blown over.

That was a very poorly written scene. Pretty sure my 6 year old son could have pitched a better reveal. Feels like they forgot about it completely and right before filming they said "Oh crap" and came up with it
 
That was a very poorly written scene. Pretty sure my 6 year old son could have pitched a better reveal. Feels like they forgot about it completely and right before filming they said "Oh crap" and came up with it

I agree. And there are a lot more similar scenes that kind of felt like it was fast forwarded. This is why I think the flaws in this movie stems from the storytelling and editing. And I'm not talking about the transition to flashbacks, but how the story was being driven forward.
 
I agree. And there are a lot more similar scenes that kind of felt like it was fast forwarded. This is why I think the flaws in this movie stems from the storytelling and editing. And I'm not talking about the transition to flashbacks, but how the story was being driven forward.

Like I said in my review, stuff happens "just because" which is a telltale sign of poor storytelling
 
Just got back from seeing it. Here's my review:

It's no secret that my favorite Superhero movie of all time is Batman Begins. Yes, even over the almighty Dark Knight.

That being said, I went into Man of Steel expecting it to be the Begins version of Superman.

WRONG-O.

That was my first mistake.

To be honest - in the end it felt more like the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern of Superman - without the comedy or whimsicalness of that flick.

And that's not a perk of Green Lantern or a requirement of Superman, more or less something that distinguishes the two films.

Man of Steel plays as if there's no script - but rather what we in the film industry call a "Beat Sheet". A series of events required to tell a story. The script then follows that sheet and expunges upon each beat, elaborating it into something more. Creating moments that matter and make us relate to character through them.

Truthfully - the components are all there - the liver, the eyes, the lungs, the legs and arms and there is cold and still - beating once or twice to give us a real moment. God forgive me, I love sentimentality and I love it in a Superman movie. Outside of two moments - one with Lois before Superman first meets Zod and the other during a pinnacle moment with Jonathan Kent - the moment had no moments that I really connected to.

The problem is the build for me. By the time Superman is in the suit... he doesn't take it off. The initial fight with Zod and crew and the final fight between Superman and Zod and crew is separated by a mere 10-15 minutes. Clark never even gets out of the suit. I was along with the movie until this point, chalking it all up to a slow build. Once I realized this was the final fight - I started hating the movie.

The fights and such are CGI Gumby men fighting and while I've long pined for Superman to punch something - I got what I wished for. And dammit - I don't think it was worth it. I wasn't riding with Superman. I couldn't get an "in" to be rooting for him.

Most of the build up is about Clark trying to find his place in the world... even though he really kind of already knows what it is. It's more or less him trying to figure out "when" to come out of the alien closet - reducing him to a one note character. The key to Superman, with all his physical prowess, is to give him as many internal and emotional struggles as possible. That not only makes him interesting when he's unbeatable physically - but it also makes him more human and thus more relatable. He does wonder how he got here and what his place is - but then Jor El pops up in the fortress and explains it all to him in under 3 minutes.... effectively ruining the last 30-45 minutes and making them irrelevant to his character arc..... rendering him to have none.

And then it's all punchy punch from there.

And even that has it's issues - whether it be the "ugh" CGI aspect of it, or the fact that the cinematography gets REALLY annoying. If you thought handheld was bad in Nolan's movies? WORSE. If you thought the camera was too close in Nolan's movies? WORSE. If you thought the CGI / Exposion was disgusting in the Transformers movies? WORSE. The cinematography did what I've dubed the "pop shot" in which the camera almost does a jump cut / quick zoom technique in the film and it gets overused and kills it reasoning. It's ok every now and then and especially allowed when Superman is honing in on something - but the rest of the time it's just jarring and takes me out of the moment.

The rest of the characters are also kind of one-note. They're all acted really well by the actors but they have no struggles of their own - sans Lois - which was the highlight of the movie. The direction and purpose they instill her with in this film was perfect and everything she needs for a modernization of her character. I wish we had gotten more.

All in all - I didn't really HATE this movie, but now I understand that justified rating on Rotten Tomatoes I so blindly argued against mere hours before. I stand before you humbled and corrected.

The film is by no means as boring as Superman Returns - but not at all as exciting as the perfect harmonization and balance that Batman Begins is.

This film feels a lot like "Unbreakable" in the sense that it really just feels like the 1st act of something bigger. Papa jow needs more Clark Kent and less Superman. More build and less fragmentation. More character and yes.... less action.

I'll see it again, hopefully my perception will change - but I'm starting to doubt it. It's still not "my" Superman, as the saying goes. It was however, my best friend's, as I could see the restraint he was holding back from slugging me when I started saying I was disappointed by it. I love you Bud, don't hate me. lol

See it. You'll make some connections with characters - but much like a 56K modem - don't plan on staying connected very long. Your emotions aren't in the back seat while the action takes the wheel - they're in the rear view... waving goodbye.

PS: If you miss the 20 some-odd blatant "LexCorp" logos in the final fight... you're blind. That's overkill on the easter eggs.


- Jow
 
That was a very poorly written scene. Pretty sure my 6 year old son could have pitched a better reveal. Feels like they forgot about it completely and right before filming they said "Oh crap" and came up with it

I guess you chose not to listen to Jor-El's speech about bridging the culture of Krypton with that of Earth. That's why he puts on the suit.
 
Anjow, from you said - it seems like it will be mine as well. Hell, even the trailer had a "moment" for me with him discovering the spaceship and asking Jonathan if he can continue pretending to be his son. That really struck a chord with me. Also Clark Kent is Superman, Superman is Clark Kent - the only alternate persona is "Clark Kent." Also that most of the build up is Clark trying to find his place? That and action is all I want from the film to make it "my" Superman review. Basically saying, awesome and surprisingly more hyped despite it being intended as a negative review. We've already seen the Daily Planet crew, so now it's really time to dive into "Who Am I?" as The Amazing Spider-Man should have done and promised. So it sounds like the introspective superhero movie I've been waiting for since TDKR with amazing action to add.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"