TMOS Reviews Thread - Non Spoiler Review and Discussion - Part 7

[macphisto96]

STM boasted great visuals for it's time but was very much a vehicle that allowed Chris Reeve to shine. Donner made sure Chris shined. MOS seems to have let the mayhem and chaos outshine it's Superman..

I'd disagree with this statement completely. The mayhem and chaos take their toll on Superman and because they took the time with some apparent pacing issues (that was a lot like the awkward pacing of Batman Begins and Iron Man) you relate to him.

Part of why the action at the end drags on so long is because of who Superman IS

Spoiler

and what he refuses to do until he is forced to. Sure they could have forced him into the situation earlier, but then the ending would be more abrupt than it already is.

I look forward to some great debates on this one. I saw no more flaws than usual. It was better paced and with better action than Batman Begins. I'd rate it ahead of Begins, behind Dark Knight, ahead of TDKR, and ahead of all other Superman and comic book films.

#2 behind The Dark Knight for comic book movies IMHO.

 

[The Batman]

Nothing tragic about them? Not even a tortured young Clark realizing his limitations, or Superman trying to figure out who to save?

I realized long ago that most of the people that nitpick the donner films dont actually pay attention to them.

 

[Street Vendor]

I did see STM in theaters (I was 4). When he smiled at the audience in that last shot, it didn't seem like it was even just a movie anymore. I still adore that shot. But if someone tried that today, it would be derided as campy and cheesy.

My dad took me to see Superman because he grew up on the comics and watching George Reeves on TV. It opened with that little boy reading the comic book, and it made the movie something that one generation could pass to the next, and beautifully so. It embraced the nostalgia of it.

Wonderful post, and I was there as a boy to see STM too. I watched the George Reeves show, read the comics(though I was always more of a Batman fan), and the movie just blew me away. Christopher Reeve once described STM as " a valentine to a more innocent age", and he was absolutely correct.

 

[blumatic]

Nothing tragic about them? Not even a tortured young Clark realizing his limitations, or Superman trying to figure out who to save?

Nah. I mean i get what you're saying. But where was the loss or grave consequence?

Supes saved the mother from Jersey. Lois died and came back. That film had flaws but thats like most 3rd act CBM. In Superman 2 SUpes used that chamber because he knew for sure Luthor would warn Zod. I mean no one dies from Superman's decision.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

More raving blog reviews. Is WB giving them something special? http://dfwlive.org/beta/2013/06/13/man-of-steel-review/
http://www.dayatthemovies.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-review-10-hero-that-matters.html

 

[Jake Cassidy]

I realized long ago that most of the people that nitpick the donner films dont actually pay attention to them.

I've always thought that people who nitpick movies pay TOO much attention to them.

 

[macphisto96]

Speak for yourself, you're doing a bad job speaking for everyone else.

Since I posted under my own ID, I think I was speaking for myself. You're welcome to have your own opinion.

I work with people younger than me. I'm 35 and was born in 1978. I see very little reverence with the mid-20s and lower crowd for STM. They fall asleep during it. They do the same for Wrath of Khan, another film I love.

It's anecdotal, but all evidence is unless we commission a scientific poll.

And if I have an opinion from observation that disagrees with yours there are more polite ways of trying to refute it. I love the first two films, but I also can see why people younger may not like it.

 

[The Sage]

I'd disagree with this statement completely. The mayhem and chaos take their toll on Superman and because they took the time with some apparent pacing issues (that was a lot like the awkward pacing of Batman Begins and Iron Man) you relate to him.

Part of why the action at the end drags on so long is because of who Superman IS

Spoiler

and what he refuses to do until he is forced to. Sure they could have forced him into the situation earlier, but then the ending would be more abrupt than it already is.

I look forward to some great debates on this one. I saw no more flaws than usual. It was better paced and with better action than Batman Begins. I'd rate it ahead of Begins, behind Dark Knight, ahead of TDKR, and ahead of all other Superman and comic book films.

#2 behind The Dark Knight for comic book movies IMHO.

The pacing was on par with Batman Begins, IMO. Begins had its share of jarring moments also.

 

[danoyse]

Wonderful post, and I was there as a boy to see STM too. I watched the George Reeves show, read the comics(though I was always more of a Batman fan), and the movie just blew me away. Christopher Reeve once described STM as " a valentine to a more innocent age", and he was absolutely correct.

Thanks. Reeve was right. It came out in 1978, which was just after Vietnam and Watergate. The timing on that movie couldn't have been more perfect.

And there was not a trace of irony in that performance. Nothing sounded campy when he said it.

I have such a crush on him when I watch that movie now...

 

[Snark88]

Here's my question to those that saw it.

Did the audience seem into it?

 

[macphisto96]

I realized long ago that most of the people that nitpick the donner films dont actually pay attention to them.

Are you just speaking for yourself or for everybody else?

Nitpick, at least of Superman II: The Donner Cut. Why would he go back at the end and pinball the guy who got him earlier when that event never happened since he turned the clock back (again)?

 

[Gavan]

It opened with that little boy reading the comic book, and it made the movie something that one generation could pass to the next, and beautifully so.

I thought it was awkward because the movie isn't Action Comics #1 and the sequence makes the film initially look like it's set in 1938. Threw me off. Opening with Krypton would be natural.

 

[The Sage]

Here's my question to those that saw it.

Did the audience seem into it?

Absolutely. The audience will eat this film up, IMO. It's the critics who are divided over it.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Thanks. Reeve was right. It came out in 1978, which was just after Vietnam and Watergate. The timing on that movie couldn't have been more perfect.

And there was not a trace of irony in that performance. Nothing sounded campy when he said it.

I have such a crush on him when I watch that movie now...

Exactly. You saw him, and you believed the character could actually exist. It didn't matter that some of the back-projection/green screen is obvious, or that the movie became campier as it went along. The character gave the audience a sense of wonder and hope.

 

[Super Kal]

Here's my question to those that saw it.

Did the audience seem into it?

very much so. my wife, who is part of the general audience, loved it

 

[The Batman]

Since I posted under my own ID, I think I was speaking for myself. You're welcome to have your own opinion.

Did you not say "WE like them because we grew up with them"?

Someone even had to tell you that he did not grow up with the film and did not watch it until he was 20. That wouldn't have happened if you spoke for yourself as you claimed you did.

Are you just speaking for yourself or for everybody else?

Try again. Had no idea that "most" now meant "Everyone".

 

[danoyse]

I thought it was awkward because the movie isn't Action Comics #1 and the sequence makes the film initially look like it's set in 1938. Threw me off. Opening with Krypton would be natural.

I think it was the movie's way of saying, "Remember when you loved this as a kid?"

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

The pacing was on par with Batman Begins, IMO. Begins had its share of jarring moments also.

Well then that makes me REALLY happy. I think part of the "draggy" quality of BB is the lack of thrilling action sequences. The tumblr chase was kind of cool, but many of the fight scenes lacked peril, and that's when one could see what was happening.

 

[macphisto96]

Here's my question to those that saw it.

Did the audience seem into it?

Yes. Really heavy clapping at the end. I've been to several early screenings (or midnight showings) of many different films that would bring out the fanboys, so I look at them as equivalents.

This was the LOUDEST I have ever heard the clapping in the same theater where I saw Dark Knight, LOTR, Rises, both Star Treks, etc. All of those films were well received. Superman Returns got some lighthearted claps. Green Lantern got pretty much nothing.

This one got hooting, hollering, and prolonged loud clapping. And people stayed to see the Superman Crest during the credits and cheered again before piling out.

There was one person who didn't like it ("Not my Superman!" - she preferred the stalker from SR and thought that was the best Superman film to date). Another really liked it, but still felt that it wasn't his Superman. The crowd was enthusiastic and very happy with the film. Heard no negative comments, but there was some good discussion about what had happened (contrast that to many of the Marvel films where it's just about how awesome this or that sequence was - this one was more thought provoking).

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/287318/Man-of-Steel-Review-[2].htm Another very positive one. 8/10

 

[bullets]

just got back from the movie... dont believe all the negative hype.

it has action, emotion, suspense, everything you want in a Superman movie.

Cavill= amazing job. He embodies what Superman looks like and more.
Crowe= delivers Jor-El as he should be; caring, thoughtful and loving
Adams= not too much dialogue, but what she does have, she delivers beautifully. a lot fo potential for Adams in this role
Fishbourne= did a great job as a supporting role
Shannon= holy crap, he was incredible. his character is fleshed out very well, and his performance... wow. just wow.

this movie has the perfect blend of everything you would want, plus more... these major critics are so stuck on Superman The Movie, they dont know a good Superman movie when they see it, and this is a GREAT Superman movie

the only thing i wish they could of spent a little bit more time on was his childhood years, plus the zoom-in/zoom-out camera and shaky-camera was a bit much for my eyes...

and with that, i give this movie a 9.75/10


go see this movie. it does not disappoint.

This basically sums up my thoughts. Lots of general movie goers and fans will be plenty pleased.

 

[danoyse]

Exactly. You saw him, and you believed the character could actually exist. It didn't matter that some of the back-projection/green screen is obvious, or that the movie became campier as it went along. The character gave the audience a sense of wonder and hope.

Absolutely. I watched STM and Superman II today, and you can point out plenty of effects that just haven't aged that well. But it didn't matter. He was Superman.

I remember seeing Superman II in the theater, and how all the kids went nuts when he asked the general to step outside.

 

[Hero 1]

Are there any kind of references to Brainiac in this film? Anything Kryptonian that looks overtly skull-like with tentacles, like his portrayal in the comics and animated series?

 

[macphisto96]

The pacing was on par with Batman Begins, IMO. Begins had its share of jarring moments also.

Agreed.

Structurally it is very much like Begins, though I think the action in this film during the back half is far superior.

The flashback sequences are very much like both Begins and Iron Man. The most jarring aspect is the film jumps from completely linear to non-linear and then back to linear.

 

[danoyse]

very much so. my wife, who is part of the general audience, loved it

That's good. My mom is coming along when we see it on Saturday, it's rare that she wants to see these movies. Hopefully she'll like it too!