Since when has a serious tone started and ended with Batman? Last I checked old Batsy can be as silly (if not sillier and funnier) as the rest. I don't think lightheartedness and humour is a requirement for Superman...just a preference if anything.
It would take him years to him and the rest of New Krypton to adjust. He doesn't care about the powers he wants Krypton to surive more than he wants powers.
I was going to write a review of this, but after reading Mark Waid's review and watching Moviebobs, I feel I don't have to. I really do think I liked Superman Returns better than this film. I didn't like that film, because I thought it was joyless, yet Man of Steel actually surpasses it. The hope theme is barely given lip service in favor of superpowered beings knocking over countless buildings.
I'm also angry that I so strongly defended Zack Snyder before the film. I really thought he got it. I thought he understood that Superman does not need the dark and gritty treatment. Yet, he went ahead and made the film all the haters thought he'd make.
If the rest of the DC movies are going to follow this ice cold template, then count me out.
Pretty much, that was the great thing about Zod, he genuinely wanted to save his people, he didn't care about rule nor power. Sure his ideas were militant and ultimately genocidal, but he didn't want people to bow down to him, he just wanted his planet and his people, at all costs...out of desperation.
Which makes his outburst in the end all the more tragic, because everything he does is out of despair at him failing in his mission to rebuild his home.
The dialogue between Kal-El and Zod was really something, the death was foreshadow as soon as Zod said "either you die or I do," *cue scene where Zod King Kongs his way to clash with Superman.*
You can tell how much Superman [BLACKOUT]didn't want to kill his fellow man[/BLACKOUT], but he was left no choice but to do so.
I may have posted this in the wrong thread:
My two cents:
Man of Steel is a good movie. It could have been a great movie, but as much as I think Nolan and Snyder's style worked together for (mostly) strong results during the first 90 minutes, they fell apart and became at odds for most of the last 45 minutes.
What Worked
First Henry Cavill is AMAZING as Superman. I will not say better than Reeve, because comparing them just feels silly to me. But he is the first actor since Reeve to ever make me forget about that performance. Not Dean Cain, not Tom Welling and certainly not Brandon Routh could do that.
Amy Adams offers one of the best interpretations of Lois Lane on screen. I somewhat prefer her plucky, witty interpretation in the first two Donner films, but let's just say Adams is a bit more fetching. Also, she brings a real world believability to Lois as a journalist, which is more than I can say for any film or television take to date. I especially like how they handled the Lois and Clark storyline, if you know what I mean. Different can be great.
Hans Zimmer's music. I admit that it hurt that we did not get the John Williams fanfare after Krypton blew and we saw Kal-El's ship headed to Earth. Otherwise though, Zimmer brought a new and refreshing sound to the character. It in no way replaces Williams, but like his Batman scores, it reinvents the character musically well enough that I do not find myself missing the previous composer. Which is nice because all Superman Returns did was remind me how much I wished Williams was composing.
The Kryptonian actors. They were all good for various reasons. So, I will narrow it down to the obvious. Crowe and Shannon both recreated their characters in exciting ways. Crowe may be my favorite Jor-El, unfortunately the presentation of his story left something to be desired...
Which brings me to the flipside of the good/bad barrier. The handling of the story. For the most part I thought the movie worked as a very toned down and, yes, Nolan-ized version of the story, right down to explaining where the costume came from and telling the tale in non-linear flashbacks during Clark's "lost years." Strangely, I actually preferred the Smallville scenes to the Krypton ones as Kevin Costner was fantastic as the underused Pa Kent. I also like that despite a handful of biblical references, such as Clark being 33, they left the Christian allegory to Donner and pursued a more American immigrant tale with this one. Also thematically, the writing of a haunted Clark Kent at war with himself and his multiple identities made this the most nuanced and complex interpretation of the character onscreen without falling into the trap of him becoming a brooder like Batman.
All that's great but....
What Didn't Work
First, there were times where I felt like what Goyer/Nolan put on the page came at odds with Snyder's vision. Snyder did not seem all that interested in certain things that were built up like in Batman Begins. For instance: where did the costume come from. All the stuff on that alien spaceship felt rushed to get from point A to B, because Snyder showed less of a curiosity in it. Similarly, I think the non-linear approach while different from Donner does not gel with Snyder's storytelling technique (I know odd, considering he made Watchmen). The cuts between times felt jarring. Especially the first one, but that relates to my biggest complaint:
Action burnout. Too many scenes and plots were undercut by a film that wanted to be thematically weighty from the page but felt (whether by studio mandate or not) grounded in eye candy on the screen. How much better would Krypton have been if it had remained about Jor-El, Zod and the Council? Really build it up to why Zod would perform a coup or whether this version of the council could be persuaded. Instead we got Avatar dragon-riding, weird underwater sequences and an all-too-brief scene to establish conflict between Zod and Jor-El. Similarly, the first thing we literally see Clark do on Earth instead of be a boy is save that oil rig crew. Jumping from one action sequence to the next with no room to breathe creates a senseless effect and undercuts the drama of Clark's identity crisis which isn't even introduced until nearly 30 minutes into the movie.
And that brings me to this early problem resurfacing in the third act. All the themes of Clark's Human/Kryptonian duality is completely dropped for a 45 minute throwdown. It is much better than Superman Returns' lack of action, do not get me wrong, but instead of being stunning and awe inspiring (as Snyder likely intended) it became claustrophobic in its excessiveness and wearing. I can understand if they aren't going for the "pow, wow" approach of Whedon's Avengers or Raimi's Spider-Man movies (the films that really changed the game in superhero films needing big action). However, instead of being seriously epic, the level of Metropolis destruction becomes numbing. Also, WAY TOO MANY falling skyscrapers for my taste. It felt like 9/11 x 10 and does not really make for a satisfying end, considering all the evil Zod did before that moment.
Still loved the final scene and how they twisted the mythos!
Overall, Man of Steel is a good movie. But if Snyder had more focus and tonal clarity, it could have been a great one.
Really? he seemed pretty well adjusted by the end of the movie. you dont remember that inexplicable moment when zod suddenly seemed to gain control of his powers?
I was going to write a review of this, but after reading Mark Waid's review and watching Moviebobs, I feel I don't have to. I really do think I liked Superman Returns better than this film. I didn't like that film, because I thought it was joyless, yet Man of Steel actually surpasses it. The hope theme is barely given lip service in favor of superpowered beings knocking over countless buildings.
I'm also angry that I so strongly defended Zack Snyder before the film. I really thought he got it. I thought he understood that Superman does not need the dark and gritty treatment. Yet, he went ahead and made the film all the haters thought he'd make.
If the rest of the DC movies are going to follow this ice cold template, then count me out.
Same. He had me going for a long time. From that first interview where he said that the one film he would not do in a stylised way, and that he'd prefer to ground in reality, was Superman.
I was going to write a review of this, but after reading Mark Waid's review and watching Moviebobs, I feel I don't have to. I really do think I liked Superman Returns better than this film. I didn't like that film, because I thought it was joyless, yet Man of Steel actually surpasses it. The hope theme is barely given lip service in favor of superpowered beings knocking over countless buildings.
I'm also angry that I so strongly defended Zack Snyder before the film. I really thought he got it. I thought he understood that Superman does not need the dark and gritty treatment. Yet, he went ahead and made the film all the haters thought he'd make.
If the rest of the DC movies are going to follow this ice cold template, then count me out.
Choked up numerous times in Man Of Steel - and listening to the soundtrack triggers it again.
From the tears streaming down Lara's face, to the sacrifice of Pa Kent - a choice to protect his son, to the agony of choice at the end; and so much in between. Then there's the exhilaration of flight, the conflict of doing what is right and scaring people for it.
Man Of Steel has more heart than any other Superman movie. The more I've thought about it throughout the day, the more I love it. Thinking on the themes, on what was happening. I've never had a Supes movie that effected me in such a way. Batman did it, especially with the hopeful lift at the end of TDKR. That choked me up too.
This wasn't the movie I expected and I could never have told you I wanted it, but I change my view when I encounter greatness. I feel for Kal-El in a way I never felt possible. Heck, I even get Zod. He was scary, but he also was attached to his purpose regardless of the cost.
Really? he seemed pretty well adjusted by the end of the movie. you dont remember that inexplicable moment when zod suddenly seemed to gain control of his powers?
That's why Zod came to Earth. He needed to get the codex from Kal-El. But, once the codex, why was he was planning to use his world engine, etc. to remake Earth into New Krypton instead of unoccupied planet somewhere? He's already terraforming to make it hospitable to Kryptonians, so why this one? He doesn't mention being unable to travel further. Sure, it's an inconvenience to have to find a different planet, but it would make Kal-El's cooperation a lot more likely, and it seems like such a minor thing to avoid genocide.
You're right...he could have just picked Mars instead...told Clark...hey, I'm going to take all of these embryos and create a new Krypton on Mars...you'll have both of your home worlds side by side. It makes no sense.
I enjoyed the film its not as bad as the critics are saying it is, but also not as epic some of the people here are saying. Its a good film but nothing more.
This movie was pretty, pretty.... pretty awesome. Also SPOILERS!!!
What I liked:
I liked that General Zod kept calling Superman "Cow". I like how Krypton had a more natural feel. I never like the '78 look of Krypton being a single dome on a flat white expanse. Though I do wish there were more crystal like features. As an aside, my first thought in the opening sequence was "this is what Green Lantern could have been". I like the action. Finally showing what Superman CAN do. I liked how they incorporated the old school "Krypton is more harsh so they're more rugged" with the sun super-sizing their powers. Also interesting is having our atmospheres not completely compatible with each other. I liked Zod's motives. It isn't just "I want to rule these people". It's sympathetic. Who wouldn't want to save their species? Plus, it's hard wired. And all the actors were great.
What I'm going to nitpick about (because I'm a fanboy and that's what we do):
Superman killing Zod. A small part of me because Superman doesn't kill, even though I understand why he would make an exception, but also because Zod was so good. And I hate killing good villains. Lois learning Superman's identity from the get-go. Though it IS forgivable because she finds out eventually, and there is no point in rehashing the old Superman/Lois/Clark love triangle. But she figured it out pretty quickly, so why couldn't others? From the flashbacks, aparently everybody knows Clark is special. Plus, and this was funny to me, she pulls up with a cop to the Kent farm, runs towards Superman yelling "Clark!" with the cop standing right there. Also, Clark tells the General he grew up in Kansas, and there's the plot point in the movie that "Lois knows who Superman really is", AND Zod shows up at the Kent's doorstep. I always like the idea that nobody would suspect Superman HAS a secret identity. Everybody just assumes Superman as always been Superman, and spends all his days being Superman. This goes for movies in general, not just this one, but when there are forces strong enough to pick up cars, and people are just standing around. Like when Johnathan Kent was engulf in the tornado waving good bye with cars feet away being blown past his head. And people running past cars that are being picked up by the gravity well (though to be fair, I think I did see some CGI people being picked up and slammed down in the background, so that's pretty cool). No after credit scene. It's become so cliche that I don't even wait around for it anymore. I did this time because it's Superman. And they didn't give us one. Makes me think Warner Bros has no idea where they are going with this.
I've seen people discussing the utter destruction of Metropolis and people get on with their lives. Well, to play devil's advocate, it happens in the comics all the time. And compared to the Avengers, all they really had was cars being flipped over and walls being blown out, while people ran for cover unscathed. I really liked how this movie upped the destruction to unbelievable scales. The Avengers (including the Hulk) vs. an alien invasion force did some property damage and made insurance companies mad. Superman vs. Zod leveled an entire city. Point to Man of Steel
Sorry, but I like dialog and plot-movement. The Fleischer cartoons bored me, too. I enjoyed the exposition part of the movie. And I enjoyed the action for a bit, but it just got old (I thought the comedic action sequences in POTC2 went on way too long as well, if it helps). Also, I just didn't find the Smallville/Metropolis action to be visually interesting (after a while - I was good with it at first, but then it just went on too long). I enjoyed the Krypton and space-ship action sequences very much, but got tired of the Earth-based fights. It's just an opinion.
I find it equally puzzling and disturbing that you seem unable to grasp the concept of balance. Excess isn't the answer to scarcity. Too much of one thing is good for nothing; the solution to too little is not, nor should it ever be, too much. That is knee-jerk, juvenile logic at its most extreme. You can't simply quantify its worth or relevance either, by arbitrarily claiming that 'one hour of story justifies aimless, wanton violence'.
I could understand it if there was no story to be found, you guys are acting like the movie is devoid of any emotion at all. The whole first hour is story and plot, they just show Clark saving people so it's not as tedious and monotonous as it could of possibly been. But to suggest there's no character stuff in this film at all, when that's pretty much all there is until the last 45 min, is inexplicable to me.
The dialogue between Kal-El and Zod was really something, the death was foreshadow as soon as Zod said "either you die or I do," *cue scene where Zod King Kongs his way to clash with Superman.*
You can tell how much Superman [BLACKOUT]didn't want to kill his fellow man[/BLACKOUT], but he was left no choice but to do so.
With the way some people were talking about it, I'd expected it to be one of those typical blockbuster hero moments where he says a one liner and kills the badguy, it wasn't like that at all! If anything Batman's infamous "I don't have to save you" moment in BB is far more controversial.
Saw it with my mom this afternoon and we both really enjoyed it. It's not without it's flaws but the acting was very good and overall entertaining. Right now I'd give it a 7/10 but that may go up on repeat viewings.
With the way some people were talking about it, I'd expected it to be one of those typical blockbuster hero moments where he says a one liner and kills the badguy, it wasn't like that at all! If anything Batman's infamous "I don't have to save you" moment in BB is far more controversial.
That was my preconception too! I cringed when Batman said that in BB, since the one-liner death is too cliche and morally "gray." But to my surprise you can sense the tension, turmoil and lack of time Superman had, that when he does the act, it's shocking for the audience (well me personally).
So I saw this....eh. Lemme first start on saying that I went in pretty blind. Other than the teaser attached to TDKR and the first theatrical trailer that I watched once (and the gifs that you guys had ) I didnt watch anything
It wasn't a bad movie. I liked many things about it:
-Henry Cavill was amazing. He really seemed like Superman come to life in a lot of the scenes
-The action like Superman vs Zoara (or wtf her name was) was f***ing badass. I was floored by how cool it was. All the action was good. I didnt even dislike the shaky cam, this was a good use of the technique...one of the few times I can say that.
-Costner and Crowe gave good performances as well.
-I liked the Krypton prolouge. Very cool.
-I loved having Jor-El leading Lois through the spaceship. Really cool scene
-The scene of [blackout]Costner's/Jonathan's[/blackout] death was very touching and will go down as one of my favorite comic book movie scenes
Now for the complaints:
-The action while good, there was too much. I read those complaints and rolled my eyes now I agree with them. There was a point, and what felt like the 2nd half, that it was literally action scene, after action scene, after action scene. While they were all filmed well, I feel that looking at films like Transformers 3 or The Avengers which are similar to this in terms of scale and destruction where the final action scenes were massive but they were able to balance the big action by putting it at the end of the movie. I wouldve cut out the whole gravity hammer scene or at least written it out/around it. It wasnt as interesting as the others and it felt too long
-With so many characters I was so let down about how they used him. Lois was so boring compared to all other adaptations of her. What's the point of having Amy Adams and not really use her that well? What's the point of having Laurence Fisburne and not give him much to work with?
-Zod was cool and I wont say Shannon gave a bad performance, but his whole performance seemed to just be grimace. I imagine Snyder saying: "Look angry...angrier...ANGRIER! Alright good now stay like that the whole scene.
-The lack of humor. Now Im not saying that Superman shouldnt be Tony Stark snapping quips now and then, but damn Lois, Perry, no one really had funny lines. To make a comparison in The Dark Knight Trilogy, you had Alfred or Fox making quips or having some funny, well written things to say. Ma Kent couldve filled that or Lois (which goes back to my point of how poorly I found Lois written)
-I was bored throughout the whole first part after the Krypton prolouge. And I thought it was boring because a) little to no humor and b) it felt so repetive especially in the flashbacks. We get it Clark is bullied and he learns not to fight back. They couldve cut some of the flashbacks out. Like I felt the school bus saving scene couldve been cut.
And now for my fanboy complaints:
-F*** the fact that Superman snapped Zods neck. I hated that so much. Even though I had problems with the film before that, that really pissed me off. It wasn't even "im not gonna kill you, but I dont have to save you" it was straight neck snapping. I didnt like it. Superman is supposed to be the big good of the DC Comics.
-Didn't like that Hamilton seemingly died. Not a deal breaker but I didnt like it
-DIdn't like the lack of Daily PLanet and the lack of Clark Kent at the daily planet. I feel thats an important part of the character where they couldve had it
-I hated that Lois figured out that Clark and Superman were the same in this movie. Now theyre relationship which I really like how it used be written (or currently idk whats up with Superman outside of the DCnU other than he boinked WW) where Lois seems to be in love with Supes but not Clark will be missing
Overall it's not bad, nowhere near but I am dissapointed. I feel this isnt the Superman movie Ive been dying to see. Similar to the TASM series I think my feelings for this serie really will depend on the sequel. I honestly hope that Snyder doesnt direct Justice League and Goyer doesn't write it.
I think Snyder would do a JL film just fine, similar to Avengers, these films don't require much plot or depth they just need to be one big fun climax of a movie. Snyder could do that very well.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) I didnt watch anything
