I was just bored throughout. I mean, it was acted fine despite the blandest Lois to date and the action was kinda fun but I just couldn't work up any enthusiasm for the film. I was ahead of the plot most of the time, which doesn't usually bother me (it certainly didn't in Iron Man 1 or Batman Begins) but it did this time for some reason. Also, the outfits were silly, although that's nothing new for the DC movies.
So yeah, hard to find fault, I just found it dull.
(I'd like to point out that everything "spoiler worthy" has been tagged and you can read everything else safely. It mostly constitutes opinions on things you already know. Otherwise, please beware of the spoiler tags.)
Henry Cavill doesn't have much of a personality in the title role but at least he is allowed to show more emotion than Routh ever did in that other attempted revival. So he's much more palatable as the main character. Don't get me wrong, he's still playing Sups like the square boy scout that he is, but he gets to tap a wider emotional range (as opposed to Routh's one-note melancholy stare). Amy Adams is a bit more action-y as the new Lois Lane and even gets to
a) fight off actual Kryptonians and b) escape for herself, or at least get halfway through an escape attempt, before Sups rescues his damsel in distress.
Michael Shannon is good as the villain Zod, though I missed some of Terence Stamp's mysticism and hamminess from Superman II. Shannon's Zod is pretty straightforward as a villain. I love the casting of the secondary characters - Morpheus as Perry White, Maximus as Sup's dad, and the Kevin Costner/Diane Lane couple as the Kents are all spot-on.
And now about the plot...
The first act is essentially one big self-destructing sequence, as we hang around Krypton for about 20 mins while the planet is literally crumbling to pieces. It's both gripping and awesome, and we get to see Jor-El (Sup's dad) in full-fledged action against Zod and his minions. The mythos we all know plays out as usual - Kal-El gets ejected towards Earth, and the bad guys are imprisoned after a failed coup. The script makes it so that Zod kills Jor himself, which adds up to the inevitable confrontation later on. 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 weaker link of the movie, I think. We're constantly cutting between two time frames:
1) Kal's existentialist looking-for-myself walkabout as he roams the Earth (i.e. the US) while averting disaster and being a nice guy in general. Tell me he doesn't look remarkably like Wolverine at a distance - he's introduced as bearded, muscular, frumpy adult who is shirtless and has something that looks like dog tags hanging against his chest. Around now we're also introduced to the Daily Planet staff, etc.
2) Kal's childhood, which is so much more interesting than his dreary adult quest for whatever. Here's a fun thing that never occurred to me about Superman - he grows up unable to control his powers, so that his X-Ray vision forces him to watch his school classmates and the sweet teacher as monstrous skeletons, for example; and his Super Hearing forces him to hear everything nasty the skeletons say about him. I thought that was a nifty take.
The reason I find this so weak is that the whole walkabout is so bland, it feels like a device to lengthen the movie and make you root for the other half of the 2nd act: Clark's childhood. I wish the movie had been more straightforward about Clark's "road to becoming Superman", because the road itself is so straightforward: Clark grows up with the right kind of values, daddy Kent dies (an incredibly idiot death involving the family dog, by the way) so that Clark ciments those values, and the road is complete when he finds the fortress of solitude (a spaceship) and learns from holo-Jor about Krypton and such. It's a very, very linear highway of one-tack notes and elementary character development. And here I would like to politely suggest that the reason this scrambled timeline structure worked so well in Batman Begins is because Bruce goes through a lot of "states of mind" in his journey to become Batman (fear, guilt, confusion, revenge, shame and eventual moral upper-hand by refusing one hero's call - the League of Shadows - by accepting a different, more personal kind of call - Batman. Clark's "road to Superman" is a follow-the-dotted-line affair, and as such scrambling around the 2nd act's chronology into two or three timelines feels forced and unnecessary.
The big finale involves Zod's return, obviously, and the lengthy, lengthy fight sequence/s that make up a whole act. It works and we're interested in Superman because a) he's never actually fought before, so he's still in the learning process, b) it's against other Kryptonians, so the stakes are even and c) there isn't much action going on anywhere else in this movie, save the first 20 mins and some obligatory feats of strength, so it feels appropriately climactic.
All in all, it's a pretty good movie. Snyder is known for his visual excesses but here he spreads himself thin and does a sober job in presenting the action. You can tell producer/"story by" Nolan had a LOT of hand in the script, since it mirrors Batman Begins' so much. Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much.
-We see a couple of "Lexcorp" ads, so you can expect Luthor to play Joker in the following movie.
-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.
-No Kriptonite. It'll probably show up when Lex does, since he needs some sort of upper hand on Superman.
Closing thoughts? It's a good movie. Not wonderfully good, not eminently memorable. The inventiveness comes and goes. The guiding point for the making of this movie seems to have been "let's not take any risks with anything". So yeah, awfully predictable as well. But it's also fun, the 3D pays off in spades around the finale, the casting is top notch and it's a decent foundation for an even better sequel.
EDIT: Also I'd like to point out that after hearing the line "This is madness!" I was fully expecting someone to reply "This. Is. Krypton!". Alas, we are not so lucky. But seriously though, that took me off from the movie for a sec. Good thing it happens near the beginning. Is it true Snyder likes to reference his other movies at the beginning of the following ones?
(I'd like to point out that everything "spoiler worthy" has been tagged and you can read everything else safely. It mostly constitutes opinions on things you already know. Otherwise, please beware of the spoiler tags.)
Henry Cavill doesn't have much of a personality in the title role but at least he is allowed to show more emotion than Routh ever did in that other attempted revival. So he's much more palatable as the main character. Don't get me wrong, he's still playing Sups like the square boy scout that he is, but he gets to tap a wider emotional range (as opposed to Routh's one-note melancholy stare). Amy Adams is a bit more action-y as the new Lois Lane and even gets to
a) fight off actual Kryptonians and b) escape for herself, or at least get halfway through an escape attempt, before Sups rescues his damsel in distress.
Michael Shannon is good as the villain Zod, though I missed some of Terence Stamp's mysticism and hamminess from Superman II. Shannon's Zod is pretty straightforward as a villain. I love the casting of the secondary characters - Morpheus as Perry White, Maximus as Sup's dad, and the Kevin Costner/Diane Lane couple as the Kents are all spot-on.
And now about the plot...
The first act is essentially one big self-destructing sequence, as we hang around Krypton for about 20 mins while the planet is literally crumbling to pieces. It's both gripping and awesome, and we get to see Jor-El (Sup's dad) in full-fledged action against Zod and his minions. The mythos we all know plays out as usual - Kal-El gets ejected towards Earth, and the bad guys are imprisoned after a failed coup. The script makes it so that Zod kills Jor himself, which adds up to the inevitable confrontation later on. 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 weaker link of the movie, I think. We're constantly cutting between two time frames:
1) Kal's existentialist looking-for-myself walkabout as he roams the Earth (i.e. the US) while averting disaster and being a nice guy in general. Tell me he doesn't look remarkably like Wolverine at a distance - he's introduced as bearded, muscular, frumpy adult who is shirtless and has something that looks like dog tags hanging against his chest. Around now we're also introduced to the Daily Planet staff, etc.
2) Kal's childhood, which is so much more interesting than his dreary adult quest for whatever. Here's a fun thing that never occurred to me about Superman - he grows up unable to control his powers, so that his X-Ray vision forces him to watch his school classmates and the sweet teacher as monstrous skeletons, for example; and his Super Hearing forces him to hear everything nasty the skeletons say about him. I thought that was a nifty take.
The reason I find this so weak is that the whole walkabout is so bland, it feels like a device to lengthen the movie and make you root for the other half of the 2nd act: Clark's childhood. I wish the movie had been more straightforward about Clark's "road to becoming Superman", because the road itself is so straightforward: Clark grows up with the right kind of values, daddy Kent dies (an incredibly idiot death involving the family dog, by the way) so that Clark ciments those values, and the road is complete when he finds the fortress of solitude (a spaceship) and learns from holo-Jor about Krypton and such. It's a very, very linear highway of one-tack notes and elementary character development. And here I would like to politely suggest that the reason this scrambled timeline structure worked so well in Batman Begins is because Bruce goes through a lot of "states of mind" in his journey to become Batman (fear, guilt, confusion, revenge, shame and eventual moral upper-hand by refusing one hero's call - the League of Shadows - by accepting a different, more personal kind of call - Batman. Clark's "road to Superman" is a follow-the-dotted-line affair, and as such scrambling around the 2nd act's chronology into two or three timelines feels forced and unnecessary.
The big finale involves Zod's return, obviously, and the lengthy, lengthy fight sequence/s that make up a whole act. It works and we're interested in Superman because a) he's never actually fought before, so he's still in the learning process, b) it's against other Kryptonians, so the stakes are even and c) there isn't much action going on anywhere else in this movie, save the first 20 mins and some obligatory feats of strength, so it feels appropriately climactic.
All in all, it's a pretty good movie. Snyder is known for his visual excesses but here he spreads himself thin and does a sober job in presenting the action. You can tell producer/"story by" Nolan had a LOT of hand in the script, since it mirrors Batman Begins' so much. Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much.
-We see a couple of "Lexcorp" ads, so you can expect Luthor to play Joker in the following movie.
-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.
-No Kriptonite. It'll probably show up when Lex does, since he needs some sort of upper hand on Superman.
Closing thoughts? It's a good movie. Not wonderfully good, not eminently memorable. The inventiveness comes and goes. The guiding point for the making of this movie seems to have been "let's not take any risks with anything". So yeah, awfully predictable as well. But it's also fun, the 3D pays off in spades around the finale, the casting is top notch and it's a decent foundation for an even better sequel.
EDIT: Also I'd like to point out that after hearing the line "This is madness!" I was fully expecting someone to reply "This. Is. Krypton!". Alas, we are not so lucky. But seriously though, that took me off from the movie for a sec. Good thing it happens near the beginning. Is it true Snyder likes to reference his other movies at the beginning of the following ones?
I thought it was an (almost) classic. It's getting a lot of hate, but the actors were fenominal, the story was well written, and most importantly, the characters were well rounded. As I stated in a previous post, I expected zodd to beat his chest, declare himself emperor, and then get beaten up by supes. Instead we have a somewhat tragic character who believed his world was dying, and tried to save it. He killed a close friend, and then he failed, getting to watch his world burn from orbit. He needed to be stopped, but everything he did made sense. He wasn't evil for evils sake. My main issue was that the tone was all wrong, and it didn't always feel like a superman movie. However, in a time when film studios always play it safe, superman dared to take chances, and I would argue it worked more than it didn't. The film broke the mold, and needs to be commended for that. It wanted to be something more. Love it or hate it, you can't say it was a cheap cash grab.
I enjoyed it. It wasn't the Superman movie I would have wanted, but I'll give it a B for effort.
I was not a fan of the visual style this was done in. This would have been better served with a color pallet more in line with the Marvel movies. This would have worked great in a new Batman film, but not Superman.
The Kryptonian eugenics element I found to be very fascinating, if not a little bit confusing. If they were a space faring civilization that had spread out across the galaxy with the ability to terraform planets to their needs, then why did they implement population controls in the first place? This wasn't fridge logic by the way, that question immediately popped into my head as Jor'El gave us the abridged Kryptonian history. I really want to know, what the heck could cause a galaxy spanning empire to willingly regress to a planet bound society? Now that is a movie I want to see.
Pa Kent's death was just stupid. I mean really, the dog? You're going to endanger you life for the effing dog? I mean it's not even like sending Clark back to get it would have revealed his super powers; just make a quick jog to the truck and let it out. The only difference would have been that Clark's ankle wouldn't have broken, and the people under the bridge would have thought he was crazy but none the wiser to his secret. It's just bad movie logic of the kind that left me more thinking Pa Kent made a stupid decision rather than a heroic sacrifice for his son. It killed any emotional significance the scene should have had. And what about Ma Kent? She was in the back of the car with the dog, why didn't she take it with her when she fled for her life too? (the answer is that she's smarter than Pa Kent and knew to fuck the dog and save her own skin)
Oh wow, so we're going with leveling half of Metropolis and the Daily Planet on the first movie? No, no it was pretty cool to watch just that, ya know, I'd have saved it for when we were more invested in the world.
They offed Emile Hamilton, awesome, now who's going to run Star Labs in future movies? (unless they make a contrived subplot to bring him back from the phantom zone)
Ho-holy shit did you guys hear that gut wrenching crack as Superman snapped Zod's neck? Damn that was a satisfyingly awesome way to get rid of a villain. Superman killing him though would have had more of an emotional impact if more emphasis had been put on him not using deadly force. Why do we always have to kill the villains in our superhero movies? I'm tired of having members of a rogue-gallery being removed from the list of potential antagonists due to death. Give me a "NEXT TIME G.I. JOE!!" or "NEXT TIME GADGET! NEXT TIME!!!!" ending once and a while. Marvel's actually done pretty good with this, so props to them.
All in all I'd say that I wish Nolan had not had his fingers in this movie as his visual style and his avoidance of going balls deep into an uncompromising adaptation of superheroes to the big screen I think will ultimately hurt WB's attempt at a Justice League franchise. This has kind of set the tone for all the movies in that potential franchise and that tone seems to be CoD brown and grey.
Also, where the hell was an after credits lead in to Justice League continuity? I think it just shows how uncommitted and nervous WB is about the whole thing. I walked away entertained from the movie, don't get me wrong, but it leaves me with a sick feeling in my gut about how what follows is going to turn out.
So I checked it out and it certainly had ups and downs.
Let's start with the bad...
Some of it was just rushed. A lot of key scenes of explanation seemed to be there just so the audience didn't have to figure things out. And when the explanations were there; they were rapid fire one after another. There was no real discussion between Kal and his father; it was a Q&A time for the benefit of the viewers.
More rushing; Kal happened to show up at his fathers grave when Lois did?
Generally speaking the pacing was off in a lot of those places. Which is a shame given the fantastic build up for the more climactic encounters. I can forgive the child backstory since it was clear when it happen, but time jumped randomly and sporadically during the normal plot.
And as others had pointed out, there were a few plot holes. They knew it was Krypton? (Although I might forgive that consider Kal and Lois discussion in interrigation). Why exactly did they want Lois? How did they even know about her?
It felt like the destruction of the city, while awesome in it's own right, was specifically done to one-up Avengers.
Considering the Eugenics program designed people to fulfill a specific task; how exactly did the bad guys figure out the retro fit on the engines? Seems like they just proved they weren't bound by design there. Hamfisted even scientist for an explanation along with figuring out and explaining the Codex transfer.
Things that were good...
The eugenics plot actually gave Zod an interesting story considering he was bound by his birth the serve and protect the best interests of his people. Considering the circumstances, I can understand why he acted the way he did. It was a twisted interpretation, but a valid one nonetheless. The actor also did a very good job at the role. His emotional range, although restricted toward one spectrum, seem very appropriate. I loved the scene where he held the ashes of his race and spoke about losing them along with his soul. I understand why he decided it was them or the humans; and Kal made the choice for him.
The build up regarding rejection of Kal from the human race is actually quite superb for a sequel with Lex, considering they never fully explored that. This movie was essentially humanity supporting Kal, which we know they don't all do. The consequences were never really explored, and I think that would be a fantastic character arc for Kal in the next movie. Also consider Lex to be the prime choice since the AI's were adapted by the plot away from the likes of Brainiac.
The made Kal actually make tough decisions. Sure they were shitty decisions, like dooming his race and actually killing his enemies; but I liked that he was forced into making those tough decisions. It wasn't simply going to be "super-this" or "super-that" to fix the problem. I really liked that he was forced to kill the one remaining Kryptonian that remained. And unlike other "one shall stand-one shall fall" tripe from Robots-in-disguise, they actually did it. I mean he really killed him. (Although I still question how they wailed on each other for hours without a scratch and then he just snaps his neck? Odd)
Papa Kent willing to die to preserve his sons secret? That's fucking devotion, no two ways about it. Really made me want to see more vindication for his position though; perhaps in number 2.
I'd say it's worth a watch, but the expectation should be a popcorn flick. Definitely room for improvement. The take was different enough to be interesting and the art style for the movie was certainly striking. The musical score is also top notch; but then again anything Hans Zimmer touches is gold. They could have done a lot more, and I suspect some future deleted cut scenes which may or may not help certain issues.
My sentiment exactly. If you check one of the comments above, I posted a Q&A from a reviewer who thought the scene made sense. I get his point but I don't think I feel the same way.
Ho-holy shit did you guys hear that gut wrenching crack as Superman...
That was incredibly satisfying and out of the blue. I would use spoiler tags on that bit though, some people may not have seen the movie yet.
Also, where the hell was an after credits lead in to Justice League continuity? I think it just shows how uncommitted and nervous WB is about the whole thing. I walked away entertained from the movie, don't get me wrong, but it leaves me with a sick feeling in my gut about how what follows is going to turn out.
I think that's a Marvel thing. I don't recall any other superhero movies with post-credit stingers. Were you expecting Christian Bale to show up, clap his hands and recruit Supes?
Also, where the hell was an after credits lead in to Justice League continuity? I think it just shows how uncommitted and nervous WB is about the whole thing. I walked away entertained from the movie, don't get me wrong, but it leaves me with a sick feeling in my gut about how what follows is going to turn out.
I think that's a Marvel thing. I don't recall any other superhero movies with post-credit stingers. Were you expecting Christian Bale to show up, clap his hands and recruit Supes?
I was hoping maybe a meeting between Amanda Waller and Lex Luthor. Yeah, it kinda is a Marvel thing to do, but I think DC would do well to use it in setting up a villain worthy of the league to tackle; Cadmus feels like a good target for them tackle for their first outing.
Also, where the hell was an after credits lead in to Justice League continuity? I think it just shows how uncommitted and nervous WB is about the whole thing. I walked away entertained from the movie, don't get me wrong, but it leaves me with a sick feeling in my gut about how what follows is going to turn out.
I think that's a Marvel thing. I don't recall any other superhero movies with post-credit stingers. Were you expecting Christian Bale to show up, clap his hands and recruit Supes?
I was hoping maybe a meeting between Amanda Waller and Lex Luthor. Yeah, it kinda is a Marvel thing to do, but I think DC would do well to use it in setting up a villain worthy of the league to tackle; Cadmus feels like a good target for them tackle for their first outing.
My sentiment exactly. If you check one of the comments above, I posted a Q&A from a reviewer who thought the scene made sense. I get his point but I don't think I feel the same way.
In order to save either of mine? Yes, I would put my life in danger. No hesitation whatsoever. Must be a pack thing. And I don't mind being called stupid for thinking that way.
The absence of Kryptonite was a major plus for me. I'm not a huge comics reader, and it's nice to see that Supes actually has a weakness other than Kryptonite/endangering the people close to him. Also the first time I've seen Supes personally off an enemy on-screen (outright killing someone with his bare hands). I also like how the film portrays him as a flawed character (that one instance with a truck) before he decides to take the Messiah figure.
As for sequel ideas, I hope they incorporate that awesome World of Cardboard speech. Think about it: Just how much mental fortitude does it take to keep your powers in check when you're dealing with normal people?
My sentiment exactly. If you check one of the comments above, I posted a Q&A from a reviewer who thought the scene made sense. I get his point but I don't think I feel the same way.
In order to save either of mine? Yes, I would put my life in danger. No hesitation whatsoever. Must be a pack thing. And I don't mind being called stupid for thinking that way.
Oh, nobody's calling anybody stupid. The scene is, though.
I appreciate Jonathan's devotion, but he didn't HAVE to sacrifice himself for the dog, just as Clark didn't HAVE to sacrifice himself for it either. If it had been for a kid, fair enough. Jonathan dies protecting his child's secret. A dog, though? It felt like a parody of the very scene they were showing.
Oh, nobody's calling anybody stupid. The scene is, though.
I appreciate Jonathan's devotion, but he didn't HAVE to sacrifice himself for the dog, just as Clark didn't HAVE to sacrifice himself for it either. If it had been for a kid, fair enough. Jonathan dies protecting his child's secret. A dog, though? It felt like a parody of the very scene they were showing.
Consider looking at it from the perspective of the characters as opposed to the intent behind the director...
You are not halfway to the overpass and the tornado is still a fair distance away from the vehicle. Would it be reasonable to assume that you could run back, grab a canine and then run to safety? He had the time if it had not been for the unfortunate circumstance of a car being thrown conveniently on top of him both pinning him and harming him in the process.
And as your quote earlier suggested regarding story and intent...
Superman was always shown to cherish life in all forms (consider the cat mentioned in a previous movie). And the family dog is a mainstay of American country culture. From a cinema perspective, a dog is an easy device to establish a characters nature beyond that of him protecting his own kin. In the same way "kicking the dog" as been used to establish the level of bastard a villain is. If Papa Kent had not sacrificed himself, he wouldn't have been as wholesome as he was characterized to be.
From a development standpoint, you could consider it critical considering Papa Kent sacrificed himself for a specie that was not his own, giving the foundation for Kal to ultimately choose humanity over his own people. Also consider the nature of choice underlying the purpose of Kal's very existence. Papa Kent choose to do what he did because he believed it was the right thing to do, regardless of the personal cost to himself. In turn, Kal choose to put himself in harms way because he believed it was the right thing to do.
Now of course this is one possible take, nothing more.
I really enjoyed the movie too myself, and I'm not bothered about
The total absence of Kryptonite, as they can always bring that up for a later movie. They did throw in the little Lexcorp signs to flag up a possible villain for part 2.
I agree with many others, and really hated the scene
where Johnathan kills himself for a dumb dog. It's meant to be a poignant, meaningful scene but just came across as funny. You could almost here the collective facepalm of everyone watching too
I really enjoyed the movie too myself, and I'm not bothered about
The total absence of Kryptonite, as they can always bring that up for a later movie. They did throw in the little Lexcorp signs to flag up a possible villain for part 2.
I agree with many others, and really hated the scene
where Johnathan kills himself for a dumb dog. It's meant to be a poignant, meaningful scene but just came across as funny. You could almost here the collective facepalm of everyone watching too
They're definitely bringing in the Kryptonite when Luthor shows up. And yeah, no doubt the dog scene was intended to work on a number of different levels, but the way it's presented made the whole audience groan and/or chuckle.
The problem with the dog scene is that John Kent obviously thought he'd be able to save the dog, and he's right, he would've.
So if he thought it was possible for him to save the dog without superpowers, then why didn't he just let Clark go get it? Even from his point of view letting Clark get it would be win/win, as he'd easily be able to without revealing that he's a Superhuman. Heck, even if Clark cut it close (which he wouldn't) he could've just increased his running speed slightly. The conclusion everyone would jump to is he's the luckiest son of a ***** ever who almost got killed by a tornado, rather than, you know, an immortal alien.
When you think about the way Glenn Ford's Kent goes, it makes the whole dog thing so much more unnecessarily convoluted...
I was looking for a clip of that but instead found this cute scene between father and son.
I hate this movie and everything it stands for. ADHD screenplays that are just dumbed down rushed versions of older movies. I wouldn't have minded if this movie had gone in a bold new direction but it didn't. It was the first act of superman one with the second and third act of Superman 2. All the scenes it replicates are worse than the originals. Both scenes originally from the comic and scenes those movies invented.The Krypton part Superman had too much quiet dignity lets make Jar-El fist fight like ten guys and win then ride a dragon. That is one of MANY scenes this movie dumbed down. And no it did not have a good story. The screenplay was horrendous.
I hate this movie and everything it stands for. ADHD screenplays that are just dumbed down rushed versions of older movies. I wouldn't have minded if this movie had gone in a bold new direction but it didn't. It was the first act of superman one with the second and third act of Superman 2. All the scenes it replicates are worse than the originals. Both scenes originally from the comic and scenes those movies invented.The Krypton part Superman had too much quiet dignity lets make Jar-El fist fight like ten guys and win then ride a dragon. That is one of MANY scenes this movie dumbed down. And no it did not have a good story. The screenplay was horrendous.
I hate this movie and everything it stands for. ADHD screenplays that are just dumbed down rushed versions of older movies. I wouldn't have minded if this movie had gone in a bold new direction but it didn't. It was the first act of superman one with the second and third act of Superman 2. All the scenes it replicates are worse than the originals. Both scenes originally from the comic and scenes those movies invented.The Krypton part Superman had too much quiet dignity lets make Jar-El fist fight like ten guys and win then ride a dragon. That is one of MANY scenes this movie dumbed down. And no it did not have a good story. The screenplay was horrendous.
No. I'm complaining they took in a worse direction. Different is a neutral thing. Things can be changed for the better or the worse. I didn't mind the changes to Zod because they were good ideas. The changes to Krypton were just adding more splosions which did nothing but hurt the power of the section.
The absence of Kryptonite was a major plus for me. I'm not a huge comics reader, and it's nice to see that Supes actually has a weakness other than Kryptonite/endangering the people close to him. Also the first time I've seen Supes personally off an enemy on-screen (outright killing someone with his bare hands). I also like how the film portrays him as a flawed character (that one instance with a truck) before he decides to take the Messiah figure.
As for sequel ideas, I hope they incorporate that awesome World of Cardboard speech. Think about it: Just how much mental fortitude does it take to keep your powers in check when you're dealing with normal people?
I was just bored throughout. I mean, it was acted fine despite the blandest Lois to date and the action was kinda fun but I just couldn't work up any enthusiasm for the film. I was ahead of the plot most of the time, which doesn't usually bother me (it certainly didn't in Iron Man 1 or Batman Begins) but it did this time for some reason. Also, the outfits were silly, although that's nothing new for the DC movies.
So yeah, hard to find fault, I just found it dull.
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.
