Escape to the Movies: Man of Steel
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah I wish he let loose once in a while too you know, dropping bad guys from a hight that won't kill them. But on the other hand breaks a few bones here and there. Or just good old fashioned rage to liven things up.
Are you f**king kidding me Bob? It's the first Superman film since that fiasco called Superman Returns. And you are not happy that it's better than the aforementioned film? Sometimes critics are just critics who are looking too hard for things.
I had my doubts of watching it but now I'm actually going. Thanks for creating a opposite motive to watch the film. You were dead wrong on that Sucker Punch flick that felt like actually being sucker punched (in a bad way). So now no force on heaven or earth will stop me from watching it.
Are you f**king kidding me Bob? It's the first Superman film since that fiasco called Superman Returns. And you are not happy that it's better than the aforementioned film? Sometimes critics are just critics who are looking too hard for things.
I had my doubts of watching it but now I'm actually going. Thanks for creating a opposite motive to watch the film. You were dead wrong on that Sucker Punch flick that felt like actually being sucker punched (in a bad way). So now no force on heaven or earth will stop me from watching it.
Exactly.bartholen said:
I dislike the original Superman, and it's very obvious that Nolan and the rest really don't care for him. That's good. Non-fans are the people to turn to when you're rebooting a franchise, because they will fix the biggest issues with the characters and stories that fans will gloss over in favor of making stupid shoutouts and references.
Here's the thing Bob: It had a lot of smiles and cheers. You were just too busy focusing on the fact that it was made by people you don't like and aping off a film you didn't like, so you couldn't be bothered to see them. When he first flies, when he is being interviewed, when he meets with his mother, when he chats with the military, he's obviously having fun. Yes, there's a lot of talk of responsibility and duty, but what are you going to expect? He's fucking Superman. He's carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders because he needs to be a better example to us humans.
This film was great, and I'm proud to say it made Superman cool again.
Please Answer: Do you prefer College or Professional football?
Screw you Captcha, I'm a rugby sort of guy.
Either we're angry that he said it rather backhandedly, or we're just finding excuses to ***** about him now. I think I'm in both camps, as much as I hate to admit it.GestaltEsper said:
You really need to watch Superman VS The Elite, it sounds like it's exactly the Superman movie you want to see, no Superman Origin story, no ridiculous sacrifices, a good reason for the romance between Lois and Clark (they're married) no de-powering of superman, no Kryptonite, no campy superman (they even make a few quick jokes at the campy versions), and if you like what superman stands for, I guarantee at a point you won't be rooting for him. It's an interesting film.immortalfrieza said:
THIS.SixShooter said:
Bob, you're way off here. It's strange how you seem to just hate on some movies just to hate on them. IM3 was a disgusting pile of trash, but you gave it a pass. Man Of Steel is very well done, yet you pick it to death.
I just know I never want to see or even think about IM3 again, but I can't wait to see (and eventually own) Man Of Steel.
Nice.... I remember that show too.Varya said:
I also find it amusing that he has two dads that are both expert archers in previous lives
As a side minor point I enjoyed that line when questioning the safety of America, "I grew up in Kansas, I'm as American as you're going to get"... played by an Englishman.
You don't really NEED to up the stakes for it to work. As long as the next villain is just about as strong and threatening as Zod and his crew then it'll work. One doesn't need to ramp up the villain threat every single movie in order for it to be worthwhile. Besides, there are villains like Darkseid who are just as strong as Superman and have entire armies at their disposal they can use if it's really necessary.Makabriel said:
After seeing this movie I have one thing to say. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I saw all the bad reviews before I went to see it having bought my ticket before the reviews came out and then, after seeing it, was completely confused as to why it had so many bad reviews. It has a good story with intelligently written characters that actually feel real. The MacGuffin, called a codex, isn't really that hard to understand, they breed their offspring to genetically fit a predetermined place in their society. That means that they have to have a blueprint for what to put into each of these offspring so that they will fit in their place. The MacGuffin is that blueprint. It really shouldn't be that much of a tax on your intellect to figure that out.
In many of the reviews, including this one, I found the common thread of "joylessness". It seems like all the critics were really hoping for Otis and the campy villains that shared that space. Zod is actually given a reason for what he does that makes sense as opposed to the "'cause I'm the badguy" reason that he had in the Donner flick. The last reboot was so bad because they were trying to mimic the Donner film and this one goes nowhere near that. This is a wholly unique take and it's the best one I've seen so far. All of these qualms seem more like "but Superman is supposed to be the happy one," whining rather that an honest look at the movie itself such as the Superman/ Batman inequality image you showed.
Superman is the last survivor of his entire species which is probably a little worse than just losing your parents. He has to struggle with the fact that his abilities could have serious negative effects on the human population. He gets bullied but can't fight back because he would probably kill the kid without even meaning to. Some would make him a god while others would make him the devil. Governments would know that he was completely untouchable and therefore a threat to their entire position. How does he control his own nature and avoid abusing the power that he has? These are questions treated in the movie and they aren't things that lend themselves to levity. Why should they not be asked just so you could stroke your nostalgia a little?
This isn't really for people that don't get or don't like Superman but for people who want a little more from a character than "I'm good because... Superman".
In many of the reviews, including this one, I found the common thread of "joylessness". It seems like all the critics were really hoping for Otis and the campy villains that shared that space. Zod is actually given a reason for what he does that makes sense as opposed to the "'cause I'm the badguy" reason that he had in the Donner flick. The last reboot was so bad because they were trying to mimic the Donner film and this one goes nowhere near that. This is a wholly unique take and it's the best one I've seen so far. All of these qualms seem more like "but Superman is supposed to be the happy one," whining rather that an honest look at the movie itself such as the Superman/ Batman inequality image you showed.
Superman is the last survivor of his entire species which is probably a little worse than just losing your parents. He has to struggle with the fact that his abilities could have serious negative effects on the human population. He gets bullied but can't fight back because he would probably kill the kid without even meaning to. Some would make him a god while others would make him the devil. Governments would know that he was completely untouchable and therefore a threat to their entire position. How does he control his own nature and avoid abusing the power that he has? These are questions treated in the movie and they aren't things that lend themselves to levity. Why should they not be asked just so you could stroke your nostalgia a little?
This isn't really for people that don't get or don't like Superman but for people who want a little more from a character than "I'm good because... Superman".
I agree with Hellfireboy, I don't get this review or the others that call the movie "joyless." I feel like half these reviews are just quoting and agreeing with each other without actually having seen the film. It's like they watched a bunch of trailers half-asleep, read some reviews, and pretended they saw the whole thing by writing a bunch of stuff that ultimately is vague and just echoes what other vague things other writers wrote.
There are definitely aspects of the film where things are to be taken seriously -- but really, what the movie takes seriously is the idea that this man, Kal/Clark, realizes he's unique on earth, with special gifts, and is trying to figure out who he is. The iconic, classic heroic journey to self-discovery might by highly mythologized in Superman, but it's a story worth telling over and over and the movie does it right. And it does need to be serious to an extent to be told well. The elements of Superman's backstory ARE serious--it begins with the death of an entire planet and its people. It's been like that since his inception. Are we supposed to make light of that? Are we supposed to not think about what kind of impact that might have on the story of that world's last son?
At the same time, I don't feel the movie overburdened itself with "grimness" -- to me it utterly avoided the "Grimdarkness" I was afraid it would fall prey to. Just because a movie makes appropriate moments serious does not mean it is wallowing in "grimness." There is some great dialogue, and as for humor, many lines throughout the film that made the entire (very large) audience I was in laugh out loud several times. This isn't the best example but off the top of my head, for example Lois's answering Superman's explanation of the "symbol of hope" on his shirt. "Well, here it's an S." Lots of cute moments too--many of them with Pete Ross, Clark's glasses showing up halfway through, and so on.
I also loved the kindness and compassion Clark had (and I loved how much it caused him pain to do what he had to do at the end in the final battle), and I loved that it was shown that he WORKED to develop that kindness within himself. I loved that they did not make him some same-old vengeance driven superhero all the cool kids like to watch. I loved the warmth in Ma and Pa, in Jor and Lara. I loved the teamwork and regard for each other--complete with teasing--that the Daily Planet had, who were far more than just a "requisite" b-plot, they were real characters, and I remember holding my breath as Perry and his team tried to save the trapped intern as much as when Superman was trying to shut down the doomsday device. Skip through the special effects moments, and much of the movie is very much about the bonds of family, and what constitutes a family (e.g., Superman's birth family, his adoptive family, Lois's "family" of co-workers at the Daily Planet; even Zod and Jor had an "estranged brother" feel to their conflict even though they were not related). They told this story well, and telling a story well about families requires a deep understanding of warmth and joy...
... which leads me to think that the movie's writers have a much better sense of these things than MovieBob and the other hater-reviewers ever will.
I don't really get what MovieBob wanted or expected out of the film in lieu of what was produced. Slapstick? Luthor in a toupee dating Parker Posey? Out of place antics by Richard Pryor? 1940s gags about women in the workplace at Lois's expense?
I wasn't going into Man of Steel expecting comedy or tomfoolery. I went in to see a retelling of the classic heroic epic. I got that and then some, with a story of a good heroic man with a lot of self-exploration and heart -- yeah, some of it occasionally got drowned out by the over-long fight sequences that dragged out toward the end, but you can't have a movie like this without gratuitous explosions these days. Even with the fairly minor issues the movie had, they must have done something right, because I left leaving the theater not only grinning, but feeling like I could fly.
There are definitely aspects of the film where things are to be taken seriously -- but really, what the movie takes seriously is the idea that this man, Kal/Clark, realizes he's unique on earth, with special gifts, and is trying to figure out who he is. The iconic, classic heroic journey to self-discovery might by highly mythologized in Superman, but it's a story worth telling over and over and the movie does it right. And it does need to be serious to an extent to be told well. The elements of Superman's backstory ARE serious--it begins with the death of an entire planet and its people. It's been like that since his inception. Are we supposed to make light of that? Are we supposed to not think about what kind of impact that might have on the story of that world's last son?
At the same time, I don't feel the movie overburdened itself with "grimness" -- to me it utterly avoided the "Grimdarkness" I was afraid it would fall prey to. Just because a movie makes appropriate moments serious does not mean it is wallowing in "grimness." There is some great dialogue, and as for humor, many lines throughout the film that made the entire (very large) audience I was in laugh out loud several times. This isn't the best example but off the top of my head, for example Lois's answering Superman's explanation of the "symbol of hope" on his shirt. "Well, here it's an S." Lots of cute moments too--many of them with Pete Ross, Clark's glasses showing up halfway through, and so on.
I also loved the kindness and compassion Clark had (and I loved how much it caused him pain to do what he had to do at the end in the final battle), and I loved that it was shown that he WORKED to develop that kindness within himself. I loved that they did not make him some same-old vengeance driven superhero all the cool kids like to watch. I loved the warmth in Ma and Pa, in Jor and Lara. I loved the teamwork and regard for each other--complete with teasing--that the Daily Planet had, who were far more than just a "requisite" b-plot, they were real characters, and I remember holding my breath as Perry and his team tried to save the trapped intern as much as when Superman was trying to shut down the doomsday device. Skip through the special effects moments, and much of the movie is very much about the bonds of family, and what constitutes a family (e.g., Superman's birth family, his adoptive family, Lois's "family" of co-workers at the Daily Planet; even Zod and Jor had an "estranged brother" feel to their conflict even though they were not related). They told this story well, and telling a story well about families requires a deep understanding of warmth and joy...
... which leads me to think that the movie's writers have a much better sense of these things than MovieBob and the other hater-reviewers ever will.
I don't really get what MovieBob wanted or expected out of the film in lieu of what was produced. Slapstick? Luthor in a toupee dating Parker Posey? Out of place antics by Richard Pryor? 1940s gags about women in the workplace at Lois's expense?
I wasn't going into Man of Steel expecting comedy or tomfoolery. I went in to see a retelling of the classic heroic epic. I got that and then some, with a story of a good heroic man with a lot of self-exploration and heart -- yeah, some of it occasionally got drowned out by the over-long fight sequences that dragged out toward the end, but you can't have a movie like this without gratuitous explosions these days. Even with the fairly minor issues the movie had, they must have done something right, because I left leaving the theater not only grinning, but feeling like I could fly.
Um, this is why the movie is getting weird reviews. People like this guy see the movie but they don't WATCH IT OR PAY ANY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON.piscian said:
You say Superman killed millions?? You wanna back that up?? No, because you can't. Who was it that came here with the intention of genocide?? Zod. Who was it that made the call to put the World Engine on right top of Metropolis? Zod. Was it Superman?? No, it wasn't, SO HOW CAN YOU HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE???
Superman actually SAVED BILLIONS by coming out on top in the end.
How can anyone say they watched the movie yet come to such ridiculous conclusions?? It's like saying Bambi is responsible for his mother's death.
No, it's not. Superman spent 90% of his (waaaay too long) boss fight with Zod slamming him through buildings in an incredibly densely populated city. We may not have seen any people in those buildings, but logically, they had to have been there or near there- it's not like New York Metropolis had any time to evacuate. To put this in perspective: 9/11 consisted of two hits to the tops of two buildings, and there were around 3,000 deaths. Superman slammed Zod through at least six buildings; that's 9,000 or more deaths on his shoulders. He didn't even seem to care about the people in the city or the irreplaceable architectural landmarks being destroyed (cough Grand Central cough).mrhumble1 said:
Not only did he make no effort to draw Zod away from the city, he was actively destroying it himself. I actually found the part where he's trying to stop Zod's laser vision from hitting that family kind of laughable- he was fine with letting Zod bring the roof down and kill them and anyone else trapped in there, but killing them directly was horribly inhumane.