Man of Steel (2013) (1 Viewer)

[Tim Glover]

Fantastic Trailer Brandon. That was awesome. One of the few here who loved Superman Returns. Still remains one of my favorite cinematic moments. The IMAX was terrific. Looking forward to MOS.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

The thing I find fascinating about this film are the comments being posted to reviews that are not positive and/or point out issues those reviewers have with the film. Talk about vicious! Wow.

 

[Sean Bryan]

 

[Sam Favate]

Here is EW's review. It is not glowing.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20483133_20687777,00.html

I already know the film is going to be an explosion-fest, which is something I am very disappointed about. Does every movie have to feature massive destruction? Whether or not anyone considers this inappropriate, it's tiresome and been done to death.

 

[Brett_M]

I am avoiding most reviews and spoilerish stuff so I can go in with no expectations. I am a fan of 300 and Watchmen and the Nolan Batman franchise -- I trust them with this material. The cast is great and that means everything in a flick like this (after the script anyway).

Christopher Reeve will always be Superman to me. When he smiles at the camera flying over Earth at the end of S:TM, I smile, too. I also feel a bit sad.

That being said, I love Superman as an idea. He represents the hopes and dreams of human kind. I don't care who he fights. Henry Cavil did his earnest best in The Immortals. I hope he delivers -- I really do.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I already know the film is going to be an explosion-fest, which is something I am very disappointed about. Does every movie have to feature massive destruction?

In all fairness, many of the SM comics are just that - explosion-fests. It's the nature of the character, as well as visual effects being able to catch up to the limitless possibilities of comic story panels.

And that review is yet another in a long line that only know Superman from his 50's TV, Donner films appearances and silver age comics. Superman has been anything but whimsically joyful (which is apparently what they want) for decades now. Heaven forbid the character actually contemplate his role in the world!

 

[Lord Dalek]

For comparison purposes...

Superman Returns Tomatometer: 76% Fresh
Man of Steel Tomatometer (as of 6/12 @ 5:15 PM EST): 65% Fresh trending downward

Way to go Nolan.

 

[Brandon Conway]

RT includes reviews that say things like this, so, yeah....

The awkward acrobatics to modernize "Man of Steel" are most evident with its new explanation of Superman's shield. The "S," we are told, doesn't stand for Superman, but is a Krypton glyph meaning hope. But if "S" doesn't stand for "Superman," "Man of Steel" is the one with the identity issues — not to mention a spelling problem.

 

[TravisR]

RT includes reviews that say things like this, so, yeah....

The awkward acrobatics to modernize "Man of Steel" are most evident with its new explanation of Superman's shield. The "S," we are told, doesn't stand for Superman, but is a Krypton glyph meaning hope. But if "S" doesn't stand for "Superman," "Man of Steel" is the one with the identity issues — not to mention a spelling problem.

I have little familiarity with Superman comics and I haven't seen the other movies in years but I thought that the S was a family 'crest' and the world called him Superman based on the S and his superheroic deeds. It's one thing to be called Superman by people but what kind of egotistical asshole would start off calling himself that?

 

[FoxyMulder]

I have little familiarity with Superman comics and I haven't seen the other movies in years but I thought that the S was a family 'crest' and the world called him Superman based on the S and his superheroic deeds. It's one thing to be called Superman by people but what kind of egotistical asshole would start off calling himself that?

Yes, in Smallville it was certainly used that way.

 

[Lord Dalek]

The "family crest" thing was something originated by Donner, before John Byrne made into a native American symbol, and then they reverted back to the Kryptonian origin thing. Before then, Superman just wore an S on his chest.

 

[Brandon Conway]

My point was that a lot of these reviews are criticizing the film for silly reasons which make little sense per the last ~30 years of Superman comics. The 'S' symbol being the Kryptonian word "Hope" originates with the 2004 comic Birthright. Since Donner introduced the family crest angle there have been several variations on it being a symbol. The 'S' standing for 'Superman' is a silver age simplicity that has been abandoned for decades now. This is all akin to reviews for the 1989 Batman calling it too much a diversion from the 60s TV show.

 

[TravisR]

The "family crest" thing was something originated by Donner. Before then, the S stood for exactly that.

I can see how, in the 1930's, they went with the S simply meaning Superman and I can see how the subsequent writers just continued with that but after the mid-1980's Crisis On Infinite Earths (when DC reorganized their continuity and matured their books), the S must have had a different meaning than just "S is for Superman!"

EDIT: My point is that it's silly to criticize the movie for not having the S mean Superman when that probably hasn't been a part of the comics in nearly 30 years and would just come off as goofy in a modern movie.

EDIT 2: Brandon made the same point before me and he did it more articulately.

 

[Quentin]

On one hand, yes, criticizing the movie over the "s" symbol is utterly ridiculous. Then again, if he's focused on the "s", he wasn't involved in the movie in the first place.

 

[Tim Glover]

It's my most anticipated film this summer but I'm also going in somewhat skeptical. There's been lots of movies & I worry that Zod as the villain is not very original. Snyder brought in to give Superman some pazazz. Then again how does one reboot & do an origin story without doing a few things that have already been done? Nolan's Batman was such a fresh take but also had a STELLAR cast & story. I'm hoping MoS can pull it off. I also wonder if superman can exist in today's cynical world. We tend to enjoy more complex & flawed "heros".

 

[Quentin]

Well, no more complaints or worries about Amy Adams/Lois. I found this interpretation of the character to be the hands-down best of any I've seen or read and Amy is fantastic. I wish her 'relationship' with Kal was a little more earned and/or she had more on-screen heat with Cavill. But, overall, I loved this Lois.

And, her final line in the film is perfect.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Eh, I didn't really buy their chemistry, nor did I think the role was all that well-written. She didn't win me over.

 

[mike caronia]

Incredibly well made movie. Excellent cast.
Ho hum...been there, done that story.
And way, way overdone destruction of Metropolis.
Wanted to love it, but can't say I did. 3/5.

How about a movie just based on Krypton?
Crowe and Zod (the guy from Boardwalk Empire was incredible) chewing up scenery for 2 1/2 hours might have been more entertaining.

 

[Quentin]

How about a movie just based on Krypton?

I'm down with that. That place was fascinating!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There were certain changes that I thought worked really well for the movie. Having Lois figure out who Clark is before he even properly becomes Superman is going to be very controversial, but I thought it was a huge improvement. For one thing, it showed Lois actually chasing down leads and doing what a reporter does. And for another thing, it spares the audience a ridiculous conceit. That a Joe Schmo reporter at Daily Planet (or even Perry White) doesn't connect the dots is one thing. But Lois is face to face with Superman all of the time. She'd have to be an idiot not to put two-and-two together.And while I wouldn't want it to become a bedrock part of the mythology, I enjoyed the Gattaca overtones to the Kryptonian species. It makes Kal-El special and unique again, something that's lost when a whole ship full of Kryptonians survive, and it gets to the heart of the nature-versus-nuture dilemma at the heart of the character; while Zod's Kryptonians were genetically engineered for the tasks before them, Kal-El is a love child -- a product of chance genetic recombination -- whose destiny is not predetermined.And while I think I still prefer the poignancy of Jonathan Kent's death by heart attack being something so common and yet so outside Clark's power to fix, I really loved how the character went out in this film. That Jonathan would sacrifice himself not to save Clark's life but to preserve Clark's future was incredibly moving to me. That's a dad right there.The product placement was a little overboard, but Superman: The Movie was also crammed with obvious product placement so it's not exactly a new issue for the character. These movies are expensive, and you've got to pay for them somehow.The costume in Superman Returns was better in motion than in the production stills... but it never really worked. Even though the costume in this movie is less faithful in some of the particulars, I never for a second doubted that I was looking at Superman. It wasn't as faded as I feared, either. The blue is dark, but the red is a deep rich primary red.My main problem with the film was my usual problem with Zack Snyder films: it was always in too much of a hurry to get back to the action. I was hoping for pacing closer to Snyder's excellent Watchmen adaptation but was disappointed. It takes about half of Superman: The Movie until we get to Superman, and a lot of my favorite scenes are in that part of movie. Most movies put all of their action money shots into the trailer and leave the character moments for the feature. The Man of Steel ad campaign did the opposite; it put all of the character scenes into the trailers and left the bulk of the action for the feature. The advertising promised a much more contemplative and character-driven movie than what we got.Kevin Costner is a tremendous Jonathan Kent, maybe my very favorite portrayal of the role, but because of the fragmented and frantic nature of the movie, we never really get to spend any time with the character. The fragmented nature of the narrative is part of the problem, but the main issue is that the flashbacks we do get never get a chance to breathe.Likewise with the opening sequence on Krypton. It covers a lot of the same territory as the opening section of Superman: The Movie but it doesn't have any of the gravitas. Snyder's not content to let the last gasp of a great civilization sink in; he's got to compete with Avatar and turn the revered scientist Jor-El into an action hero. Starting the movie in this way left me cold, and I struggled going forward to overcome that initial impression of: "Why all of the pointless spectacle?"Henry Cavill makes a terrific Superman, decent and moral, confident but polite. I feel very comfortable with him in the role heading into future movies. I do wish he'd had more to work with here. A lot of doing, and only a handful of scenes with real character work. I thought his performance elevated the rather so-so material he had to work with.A lot of people are complaining about this Superman killing Zod. I didn't have a problem with that, since the movie made it clear that any mercy at that juncture would have only resulted in many more innocents dying. I do wish there had been a good deal less Superman fighting and a good deal more Superman saving. The flashbacks to the bus and the oil rig were great, really capturing the heart of the character, but once he puts on the suit he pretty much just kicks ass while lots of innocent bystanders get hurt and/or killed in the crossfire. One of my favorite parts of Superman: The Movie is that the montage of Superman's heroics upon unveiling himself to the world ends with him rescuing a little girl's cat from a tree. That, to my mind, is what the character should be. He is not a super soldier, he's someone who saves and protects.And I don't think there's anything more boring than watching invincible people batter the shit out of each other. Lots of noise and debris, but no real consequences.