I liked it just fine. I've head a lot of people Echo the idea that "It's a Superman movie for people who don't like Superman" and I have to agree.
If I'm being honest I was never a big fan of Superman as a kid. Mainly because without sufficient risk to the hero I have a hard time being invested in their victories. Yeah, we all know that the hero is going to win in these things but there still has to be the potential for failure there.
So yeah, humanizing Superman a little bit by showing that maybe his godlike powers aren't always the end-all be-all solution to everything made me enjoy the movie a little more than I otherwise would have.
Now I'm not saying I need my Superman to be "Dark and Brooding," not at all. If I want that I've got Batman. I just don't want him to be the "Super Powered boyscout."
I liked it just fine. I've head a lot of people Echo the idea that "It's a Superman movie for people who don't like Superman" and I have to agree.
If I'm being honest I was never a big fan of Superman as a kid. Mainly because without sufficient risk to the hero I have a hard time being invested in their victories. Yeah, we all know that the hero is going to win in these things but there still has to be the potential for failure there.
So yeah, humanizing Superman a little bit by showing that maybe his godlike powers aren't always the end-all be-all solution to everything made me enjoy the movie a little more than I otherwise would have.
Now I'm not saying I need my Superman to be "Dark and Brooding," not at all. If I want that I've got Batman. I just don't want him to be the "Super Powered boyscout."
Addressing couple of comments and questions that you made:
Johnny Novgorod said:
And the one thing that didn't quite make sense - why is Zod staging a military coup while the world literally explodes? What was he trying to gain by that?
The leaders were to blame for putting Krypton in this situation and weren't listening to Jor-El's pleads to evacuate/preserve the race. Zod, being a product of tank bred soldier program, who's entire existence and motivation revolved around protecting Krypton and its ways, responded the only way he knew how. Had he succeeded, he probably would have spent the final days/weeks that Krypton had, launching whatever useful people and resources he could have, to recolonize the older outposts.
Johnny Novgorod said:
-Fishburne as Perry White is severely underused. We see him twice in some throaway scenes before he transforms into just another random extra in the fleeing crowd. I wish they could've given the guy something more interesting to do.
-There was some flaming about Jimmy Olsen becoming "Jenny Olsen". There is one character called Jenny in the movie that sticks around Perry in her scenes, but not once are we given her surname or any indication she's there to replace Jimmy as a photographer or future character.
Yeah... I kinda hate these. Classical big executive arbitrary changes for the sake of changes. I can totally picture the board meeting going something along the lines of this...
Board member 1: "...and we also need an angle... something to get people talking... Wasn't there a big fuzz about there being a black man playing a god in one of those Marvel films?"
Assistant: "Yes, sir. They had an African American playing what Norse Mythology described as 'the whitest of the gods'"
Board member 2: "BRILLIANT! Why didn't we think of that? That certainly must have gotten those chat rooms buzzing."
Board member 1: "We need to cash in on this as well... Is there any character in the Superman mythos that we can black up as well?"
Board member 3: "There's a Lois Lane, isn't there?"
Board member 2: "Clark Kent?"
Assistant: "...sigh... Perry White"
Board members: "...."
Board member 3: "There's 'White' in his name."
Board member 1: "Brilliant! Make the necessary changes now! Oh, and there are not enough female role models in this film, turn some insignificant background character that only die hard fans are gonna care about into a woman; preferably someone who repeatedly find himself in distress."
...at any rate, Warner Brothers is kinda screwing with the mythos in many ways that outsiders won't notice but fans are gonna pick up on. They killed off many good characters that they could have used in future installments. Zod is gone for good so no recurring villain treatment for him. Even more, they had Superman kill him. Superman forcing to kill someone, is a big deal. Something they could have and should have saved for future installments.
Other semi-minor character that made a cameo that was killed off was Dr Hamilton. Most people who watched the animates series + justice league know him as a scientist with great understanding of Superman's physiology and eventual father of Power Girl. He became superman's enemy after realizing the potential of danger that he represented. Would have been a perfect future villain to team up with Lex or some shadow military operations, wanting to create a superman clone but there's another potential lost.
They pull the exact same shit with almost all of their DC films. Almost all the batman films, the original and the reboots, have Batman kill off a major villain. A huge exception is Heath Ledger's Joker, but then the actor died, so yeah. This limits their potential to develop some good chemistry between the hero and a recurring villain.
In short. Warner Brothers have no idea how to preserve characters, for long term franchises.
The reviews are being kind of brutal to this movie. I'm really hoping that everyone's still just bitter about Sucker Punch. The... the trailers made it look so good!
The reviews are being kind of brutal to this movie. I'm really hoping that everyone's still just bitter about Sucker Punch. The... the trailers made it look so good!
The reviews are being kind of brutal to this movie. I'm really hoping that everyone's still just bitter about Sucker Punch. The... the trailers made it look so good!
Well Man of Steel just didn't pull any sort of emotional response from me, and it was trying so hard and that really turned me off. That's probably my biggest problem with it, how hard it was trying. You have these subtle christ references that never really jive, Pa Kent's death scene which just felt silly, the three Daily Planet reporters I'm supposed to care have survived the world machine, etc.
Sucker Punch didn't give off the same vibe, had some amazingly silly visuals and a Snyder track.
The reviews are being kind of brutal to this movie. I'm really hoping that everyone's still just bitter about Sucker Punch. The... the trailers made it look so good!
Well Man of Steel just didn't pull any sort of emotional response from me, and it was trying so hard and that really turned me off. That's probably my biggest problem with it, how hard it was trying. You have these subtle christ references that never really jive, Pa Kent's death scene which just felt silly, the three Daily Planet reporters I'm supposed to care have survived the world machine, etc.
Sucker Punch didn't give off the same vibe, had some amazingly silly visuals and a Snyder track.
...at any rate, Warner Brothers is kinda screwing with the mythos in many ways that outsiders won't notice but fans are gonna pick up on. They killed off many good characters that they could have used in future installments. Zod is gone for good so no recurring villain treatment for him. Even more, they had Superman kill him. Superman forcing to kill someone, is a big deal. Something they could have and should have saved for future installments.
Other semi-minor character that made a cameo that was killed off was Dr Hamilton. Most people who watched the animates series + justice league know him as a scientist with great understanding of Superman's physiology and eventual father of Power Girl. He became superman's enemy after realizing the potential of danger that he represented. Would have been a perfect future villain to team up with Lex or some shadow military operations, wanting to create a superman clone but there's another potential lost.
They pull the exact same shit with almost all of their DC films. Almost all the batman films, the original and the reboots, have Batman kill off a major villain. A huge exception is Heath Ledger's Joker, but then the actor died, so yeah. This limits their potential to develop some good chemistry between the hero and a recurring villain.
In short. Warner Brothers have no idea how to preserve characters, for long term franchises.
Well Nolan kept his options open about the Batman villains.
R'as al Ghul wasn't *definitely* confirmed dead up until the third movie. So was Two Face. Both characters were only presumed dead until confirmed as such. And Scarecrow was never killed off, he kept showing up (in increasingly conciliatory fashion, granted). Even Joker was never officially killed off, even though he simple disappeared after Ledger's death. By the third movie we only realize R'as is definitely dead, and that Bane and Talia get killed in the end only because there won't be any more Batman movies in that timeline
I thought it was terrible, quite honestly. It's one of those movies I just wanted to be over about halfway through.
Too much exposition, not enough core character development, and what character development there is comes from sudden jarring shifts to flashbacks.
Action scenes? Climax? Shot in that extreme closeup I don't like; blurry nonsense with vague shots of clarity do not impress me.
As for the character of Superman: I am not a comic fan. I walked into this without bias or care for continuity, tropes or themes common to the character. His character development ranges from good to incredibly cliche and to ridiculously stupid (the tornado scene had me knuckling myself in the face with its idiocy).
I thought it was terrible, quite honestly. It's one of those movies I just wanted to be over about halfway through.
Too much exposition, not enough core character development, and what character development there is comes from sudden jarring shifts to flashbacks.
Action scenes? Climax? Shot in that extreme closeup I don't like; blurry nonsense with vague shots of clarity do not impress me.
As for the character of Superman: I am not a comic fan. I walked into this without bias or care for continuity, tropes or themes common to the character. His character development ranges from good to incredibly cliche and to ridiculously stupid (the tornado scene had me knuckling myself in the face with its idiocy).
Speaking of Supes' costume: how the hell did he get it? He steps into his post-modern Fortress of Solitude, and when he steps out he's wearing it! Where the hell did he get it? What is it supposed to represent? Why does it fit him so perfectly? And when did he shave? Because he was Wolverine-hairy when he stepped in...
He meets his real father for the first time? Earlier in that scene Jor-El reveals the costume to Clark in one of the chambers. He also shows himself wearing a similar costume under his clothing. I'm not sure what you mean by 'represent', but in the questioning scene with Lois, he says the symbol means 'hope'.
In regards to the film: I actually liked it.
I've never been a massive fan of Superman and therefore went in with moderate to low expectations and a pretty neutral perspective. I thought Cavill played Supes quite well, especially for a character who I always thought was quite, for a lack of a better word, boring due to the whole unshakeable morals and bastion of justice and all that malarky. That's probably part of the reason why
I didn't mind him killing Zod at the end, and he doesn't have this unshakable moral code.
I also really liked the first part of the movie that takes place on Krypton, and Russell Crowe did pretty well as Papa Supes. Almost makes me wish for a prequel set entirely on Krypton.
I can't really argue with some of the criticisms since a lot of them just seem to be wholly subjective opinion. However, I would disagree with the hyperbolic argument that some people are using that the film is full of Transformers esque explosions and CGI. It was only really the last third or so of the film that the action ramped up and for a movie about an alien that can travel faster than a speed bullet and is stronger than anything else on the planet, CGI is a necessity. I thought that technically, the CG work and fight scenes were very good. Especially those with Faora (Zod's lieutenant?), who pretty much spent the whole movie being a badass. You really felt the weight and speed of the blows.
Another thing that nobody seems to be mentioning is the stellar soundtrack. If you're composing the soundtrack for a Superman movie, you've gotta make it grand and epic, and Hans Zimmer delivers in spades. Honestly, Zimmer never fails to impress.
Of course, it was far from a perfect movie, and had it's fair share of flaws:
The tornado scene - I didn't find it quite as bad as others apparently did, but I still think it was pretty silly. I understand that they needed to sacrifice Papa Kent for a reason, but they definitely could have done it better.
The Daily Planet reporters - I just didn't really care much for them. The only reason I can see them being there is to give an excuse to show the viewer all this wide-scale destruction from the human perspective, but I don't think they were really needed at all. They were just kind of...there.
The pacing was a bit off at times, such as the whole 'bearded Clark finding himself' part, which I thought dragged on for a bit too long. Either that, or it didn't really have much of a direction. Inversely, I thought the part where he becomes Superman in the fortress was a little bit too short.
You could see Nolan's influence on it as it mirrors Batman Begins in some ways. As such, I could potentially see them pulling off a 'Dark Knight' in a sequel, featuring Lex Luthor (several Lexcorp adverts were seen in the movie). Whereas Ra's Al Ghul/Zod were there to help Batman/Superman find who they really are, the Joker/Lex would be the ones to really challenge them mentally, being much weaker physically than Batman/Superman. Of course, that's all speculation.
So overall in my opinion, not the best film you'll ever see, but still pretty good nonetheless.
Speaking of Supes' costume: how the hell did he get it? He steps into his post-modern Fortress of Solitude, and when he steps out he's wearing it! Where the hell did he get it? What is it supposed to represent? Why does it fit him so perfectly? And when did he shave? Because he was Wolverine-hairy when he stepped in...
He meets his real father for the first time? Earlier in that scene Jor-El reveals the costume to Clark in one of the chambers. He also shows himself wearing a similar costume under his clothing. I'm not sure what you mean by 'represent', but in the questioning scene with Lois, he says the symbol means 'hope'.
But why that one shiny blue sparkly suit with a red cape? It looks nothing like what we've seen in Krypton and I wonder what it's supposed to represent. Not because of the 'S', just, is it supposed to be ordinary Kryptonian clothing, or what? I like it in superhero movies when they show you how they come up with their ridiculous suits and for ways to ground them in reality a bit. This just seemed out of the blue. Boom, come get your Superman suit, because you have to wear it for some reason.
Speaking of Supes' costume: how the hell did he get it? He steps into his post-modern Fortress of Solitude, and when he steps out he's wearing it! Where the hell did he get it? What is it supposed to represent? Why does it fit him so perfectly? And when did he shave? Because he was Wolverine-hairy when he stepped in...
He meets his real father for the first time? Earlier in that scene Jor-El reveals the costume to Clark in one of the chambers. He also shows himself wearing a similar costume under his clothing. I'm not sure what you mean by 'represent', but in the questioning scene with Lois, he says the symbol means 'hope'.
But why that one shiny blue sparkly suit with a red cape? It looks nothing like what we've seen in Krypton and I wonder what it's supposed to represent. Not because of the 'S', just, is it supposed to be ordinary Kryptonian clothing, or what? I like it in superhero movies when they show you how they come up with their ridiculous suits and for ways to ground them in reality a bit. This just seemed out of the blue. Boom, come get your Superman suit, because you have to wear it for some reason.
Well I suppose the real answer would be 'because that's what the costume is like in the comics'. In any superhero film this is always the bit where you have to use some suspension of disbelief and just accept what the costume looks like. If you're really looking for an explanation then let's say, I dunno, it's a unique Kyptonian armor that allows maximum flexibility and protection (seeing as it never gets damaged at any point). Maybe it's a prototype, after all his father was Krypton's leading scientist.
I thought this movie was pretty terrible. The parts with Supes acting human and living in a human world were good, but I hated every scene involving action or Kryptonians. The heavy sci-fi angle was completely out of sync with what I know of Superman and Krypton (granted, that's not a ton) and uninteresting on top of that. The action was exhausting, and the extensive property damage made me legitimately anxious. The abuse of special effects made all the fight scenes into incomprehesible Transformers-like blurs as well. Michael Shannon is a great actor, but he was so, so flat as Zod. If they had made it a fractured, character focused film like the trailers suggested, I would have loved it, but instead, it was a tired alien invasion movie with a big name license thrown on.
In short, Zack Snyder is the worst director in Hollywood.
The action scenes are amazing because there's no boundaries as to what can happen. It's not like Thor where one guy has powers the other doesn't have, it's not like Iron Man where it's all dependent on Stark having a suit, it's not like Captain America where no one can fly, it's not like Hulk where the powers are out of control -- Zod and Superman have the exact same set of no boundaries superpowers, and it was spectacular.
Everything else sucked and sucked hard. I dislike superhero movies, and I hate Superman the most of any superheroes. "I am a ruggedly handsome, charismatic, morally incorruptible, enigmatic, genius, meticulous socialite with a dark past, a flawless love interest, a typical upbringing in America, similarly charismatic and morally incorruptible parents, and superpowers that have no feasible limit. NOW FEEL BAD FOR ME AND MY PERFECTLY SCULPTED FACE AND MUSCULAR STRUCTURE ON MY SIX FOOT TALL FRAME, DON'T I HAVE SUCH A HORRIBLE LIFE AND CIRCUMSTANCE?"
I?m not going to bother doing some kind of extensive quasi-review on the pros and cons of Man of Steel, but let?s just say that I liked it (minus repetitive city-destruction-LOOK-HOW-MUCH-WE-SPENT-scene after another) and all the main characters? performances are solid (although I do agree with MovieBob on Perry and Lois? ?reduced-to-tick-boxing? roles); the film could?ve been better, but maybe they?re waiting for that in the sequel (which, from the ending showing Clark becoming a reporter at The Daily Planet, as well as the Lexcorp teaser, hypes me for).
I really don?t think people should compare it with the Reeve films, though, since they?re such different takes on the character and his story. No, it doesn?t add anything that particularly new or is even groundbreaking for the summer blockbuster reboot of the world?s most famous superhero, but it doesn?t have to be. It?s just good fun, which is what?s most important.
Just to note, I?m not that big a fan of Superman; I know much more about and prefer the Marvel superheroes. Most of what I know about Superman comes from the first two Superman films, The Dark Knight Returns, and some stuff I?ve read on the internet.
"I am a ruggedly handsome, charismatic, morally incorruptible, enigmatic, genius, meticulous socialite with a dark past, a flawless love interest, a typical upbringing in America, similarly charismatic and morally incorruptible parents, and superpowers that have no feasible limit. NOW FEEL BAD FOR ME AND MY PERFECTLY SCULPTED FACE AND MUSCULAR STRUCTURE ON MY SIX FOOT TALL FRAME, DON'T I HAVE SUCH A HORRIBLE LIFE AND CIRCUMSTANCE?"
For what it's worth, the movie doesn't ask us to feel sorry for the guy. That was Bryan Singer's job with Superman Returns, AKA "Superman Return with Angst".
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.
