Man of Steel - quick review (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

No one thought Superman or Lois killed Zod or Ursa or Non. The script is cheeky in how the then non-powered Kryptonians are dispatched in the FoS, but they aren't killed.

But you can't know that going by the 2 official cuts of the film. Hell, in the Donner cut, Supe destroys the fortress with his heat vision, presumably with the villains still inside.

You can believe that the villains didn't die in SII which is fair enough, but the fact is there is nothing that confirms that they didn't fall to their deaths (aside from footage that was omitted from both official cuts).

But, even aside that, Supe did kill Nuclear Man by dropping him into a nuclear reactor in IV.

 

[Tim Glover]

Well dang. Wanted to like this. Just didn't. Some promising moments that never get fulfilled. By far the best scenes are with Kevin Costner. The emotional high of the film is the tornado scene. Sad since the cast is very good. Just a disconnect from it all. Never once really did I feel this sense of wonder or caring really. I cared because I was supposed to & because I wanted to & kept waiting for something to solidify things. Never happened. I also thought Michael Shannon was not a good villain. Truthfully, Zod bored the hell outta me. Way way too much independance day/Armageddon damage at the end. This film needed a big shot of emotional adrenaline & instead we get an overlong cgi catastrophe ending that goes on & on & on...Lost here is how good Cavill & Adams were tho & what could have been. He looks the part, good screen presence, & was way underused. It's a big box office hit & will make a ton of cash but its a forgettable film with little redeeming value. I'm writing this & it's harsher than I want. But it's pretty much how I feel.

 

[Patrick Sun]

But you can't know that going by the 2 official cuts of the film. Hell, in the Donner cut, Supe destroys the fortress with his heat vision, presumably with the villains still inside.

You can believe that the villains didn't die in SII which is fair enough, but the fact is there is nothing that confirms that they didn't fall to their deaths (aside from footage that was omitted from both official cuts).

But, even aside that, Supe did kill Nuclear Man by dropping him into a nuclear reactor in IV.

As a friend of mine also said, my 13-year old mind at the time believed Superman does not kill. We never see them die, there's a puff of fog/snow/powder when Zod's body slid down and Non just lands in a big puff as well. That there even exists the footage added to the TV version would invalidate the claims that Superman killed in cold blood in SII, as the producers don't spend money if they don't have to to simply film cutting room footage. Please, remember, way back in 1980, Superman did not kill. How hard is this to comprehend? Again, the scene was a playful way to dispatch Zod, Ursa, and Non after all the crap they started up with Superman in the film.

Re: Nuclear Man, who's to say he's now one with the reactor now, existing in a different form? Haha. Actually I don't really have any substantial recollection of that film, so if you say so, so be it.

 

[Tim Glover]

The more I think about it, the more I think this is a big deal. Music does a great deal to set the emotional tone of a movie. This is definitely no rousing, heroic tale emotionally speaking.

Amen. Huge misfire.

 

[WillG]

We never see them die, there's a puff of fog/snow/powder when Zod's body slid down and Non just lands in a big puff as well. That there even exists the footage added to the TV version would invalidate the claims that Superman killed in cold blood in SII, as the producers don't spend money if they don't have to to simply film cutting room footage. Please, remember, way back in 1980, Superman did not kill. How hard is this to comprehend? Again, the scene was a playful way to dispatch Zod, Ursa, and Non after all the crap they started up with Superman in the film.

It's got nothing to do with "comprehension". Youre interpretation of the scene and the fate of the criminals is subjective. As far as them being taken into custody by the arctic police, my view is that if ended up on the cutting room floor or that resolution wasn't at least mentioned it didn't happen. Point is, one could just as easily assume from the footage that made it into the movie that they fell to their deaths just as easy as one could assume the didn't die. The official cuts of the film never shows us one way or the other.

Still, let's just say that Superman never kills, well, he still crushes the hand of the depowered Zod. He still launched him into a ice/crystal wall which could have killed him right there. And again, the revenge he takes against the bully in the diner. Ok, so maybe he doesn't kill, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with the occasional infliction of catastrophic injury to mortal men.

 

[Quentin]

Snyder gives his thoughts in a podcast with Empire online (transcribed by Indiewire):

David [S. Goyer], Chris [Nolan] and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him. The 'Why?' of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained… I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he's going to see [Metropolis' citizens] chopped in half, or he's gotta do what he's gotta do.”

Formative experience, as I had thought.

 

[Stephen Brooks]

Myself, and everyone I've ever known up until right now, assumed the villains were killed. And going strictly by what's in the actual movie, they were. Sent from my SCH-S738C using Home Theater Forum mobile app

 

[MarkV74]

Patrick, I agree with your review. I have a feeling A LOT of Superman fans are going to be angered with changes to the mythology, in particular those relating to Lois and Clark (like how they first meet). Not wanting to give any spoilers, but.... The conclusion with General Zod? Come on..... It goes against everything we knew about Superman. Raul

I agree.

Spoiler

I'm sure it will be controversial but it's not like he breaks Zod's neck, gets up and says "I did that with break neck speed" like he's Dirty Harry or something. He doesn't want to kill him and hates when he has to do it.

..also to add my 2 cents... he's done that in the past (comic books )

 

[MarkV74]

My 2 cents:

It's easy to say "they couldve done this, they couldve done that... quarterbacking is very easy." they have limitations to stay as true to the comics as possible, ( specially pleasing the masses lol ) I believe this is the best Superman that "Hollywood" can give us atm, I liked the movie very much albeit i noticed the 'product placement' as well but heck we live with this every second of our lives... look around lol. I hope that they improve it in MoS 2 and dive into the comic further... but out of 10 i'll give it an 8.5 if not 9 even with the bad reviews I loved it. by the way... anyone seen the "What if Superman Punched you" Video on Youtube? it was amazing lol.... I hope I dont upset anyone and this is solely my opinion


Mark.

 

[dpippel]

Just got back from screening MoS and generally liked it very much. I thought that Cavill did a great job as Supes and the rest of the cast was equally fine. Shannon chewed the scenery effectively as Zod and Costner delivered a surprising gravitas as Jonathan Kent. That said there were some things I was bothered by...

Spoiler

For all of the talk about protecting humanity and Superman's aversion to harm befalling the citizens of Earth, there sure was a LOT of wanton destruction dished out by all of the Kryptonians, Kal-El included. Smallville was almost leveled and Metropolis was supremely trashed, but Superman didn't seem to be too concerned at all about slinging Zod and his minions hither and yon through buildings and anything else that was in the way. Logic dictates that the civilian casualties of such a battle would be very, very high. I also think that the battle scenes went on for too long in the last half hour of the film.

I didn't have too much of a problem with the killing of Zod, but simply could not buy Kal-El standing there doing nothing while Pa Kent got sucked up into a tornado. No way he'd let it happen, no matter what he'd been told by his "father". That was the single biggest "D'OH" moment for me. I also wasn't thrilled with the fairly militant portrayal of Jor-El and Kryptonian society in general. I much preferred the pacifist scientist of Donner's Superman to Mr. Kick-Ass Russell Crowe (although I felt he was good in the part).

Overall though I felt that Snyder did a good job with the material, and I really did like Henry Cavill. I'm looking forward to seeing him again in the cape.

 

[John Doran]

Again, that's because the script closes off all of the Kryptonian options to deal with Zod (the last is when Kal uses his heat vision to burn through the scout ship, and sends it crashing into the ground). Please read what I wrote previously yesterday, it was a writing choice to close off these options to arrive at "The Final Solution".

sure, but that's the whole point of the narrative: to force superman into a very specific moral conundrum: to kill one person, or to allow the deaths of thousands upon thousands more. i mean, you might as well say the writing in sophie's choice was terrible because it forced sophie into a horrifying moral dilemma. unless, of course, you just don't find moral dilemmas compelling subject matter, which would no more make them terrible than it would make scorsese's movies terrible just because they bore me to tears.

and let's be very clear: the fact that the superman of the comics and the previous movies never kills anyone is also a very specific writing choice and equally contrived. the DC universe that provides the context for many of supes' acts of heroic mercy, for example, is populated by an infrastructure of fantastical technology that allows for genetic-dampeners and super-max prisons capable of holding and neutralzing individuals with superman-level power-sets, without which superman (and the rest of the superhero copmmunity) wouldn't be able to be so sanguine about the deployment of non-lethal means of restraint for super-villains. and it is clear the TMoS takes place in a world without such resources. and if you buy into the idea that zod et al survive the end of the 1980 Superman II, it's only because, again, the writers chose to depower them and eliminate their deaths as a legitimate alternative.

this whole theme is explored spectacularly well by Robert Kirkman in his Invincible series, which also was the first comic that i have read accurately to portray the catastrophic, city-levelling damage caused by the unfettered combat of beings like superman and the kryptonians. and if you want to see what might happen to a city left at the hands of a superman-class being who is bent on destruction and murder, you need look no further than Alan Moore's Miracleman when the deranged Kid Miracelman has his way with London England for mere hours.

(Which is also why "thinking 2 or 3 moves ahead" is just not an option for Kal in TMoS: each second not spent forcing the Kryptonians to focus their efforts on him is a second where tens or hundreds or thousands of humans perish at their hands.)

 

[TravisR]

Spoiler

...but simply could not buy Kal-El standing there doing nothing while Pa Kent got sucked up into a tornado. No way he'd let it happen, no matter what he'd been told by his "father". That was the single biggest "D'OH" moment for me. I also wasn't thrilled with the fairly militant portrayal of Jor-El and Kryptonian society in general. I much preferred the pacifist scientist of Donner's Superman to Mr. Kick-Ass Russell Crowe (although I felt he was good in the part).

I was having trouble buying that at first too but

Spoiler

when Pa Kent put his hand up to Clark, they sold it to me.

And yeah, I guess becoming a very high ranking Kryptonian bureaucrat science nerd requires Navy SEAL training.

 

[Sam Favate]

I never thought Supes killed Zod and company at the end of SII, he was just having some fun with them after they got de-powered. Sheesh!

I always thought the same thing.

 

[Patrick Sun]

sure, but that's the whole point of the narrative: to force superman into a very specific moral conundrum: to kill one person, or to allow the deaths of thousands upon thousands more. i mean, you might as well say the writing in sophie's choice was terrible because it forced sophie into a horrifying moral dilemma. unless, of course, you just don't find moral dilemmas compelling subject matter, which would no more make them terrible than it would make scorsese's movies terrible just because they bore me to tears.

and let's be very clear: the fact that the superman of the comics and the previous movies never kills anyone is also a very specific writing choice and equally contrived. the DC universe that provides the context for many of supes' acts of heroic mercy, for example, is populated by an infrastructure of fantastical technology that allows for genetic-dampeners and super-max prisons capable of holding and neutralzing individuals with superman-level power-sets, without which superman (and the rest of the superhero copmmunity) wouldn't be able to be so sanguine about the deployment of non-lethal means of restraint for super-villains. and it is clear the TMoS takes place in a world without such resources. and if you buy into the idea that zod et al survive the end of the 1980 Superman II, it's only because, again, the writers chose to depower them and eliminate their deaths as a legitimate alternative.

this whole theme is explored spectacularly well by Robert Kirkman in his Invincible series, which also was the first comic that i have read accurately to portray the catastrophic, city-levelling damage caused by the unfettered combat of beings like superman and the kryptonians. and if you want to see what might happen to a city left at the hands of a superman-class being who is bent on destruction and murder, you need look no further than Alan Moore's Miracleman when the deranged Kid Miracelman has his way with London England for mere hours.

(Which is also why "thinking 2 or 3 moves ahead" is just not an option for Kal in TMoS: each second not spent forcing the Kryptonians to focus their efforts on him is a second where tens or hundreds or thousands of humans perish at their hands.)

Let me keep it brief, sure, it's Goyers/Nolan/Snyder's choice to take the Man of Steel into this lose-lose situation, because, you know, it's such an interesting take on the character. Not. I realize they've said that their use of this moment was to be the catalyst for "no more killing" in the myth of Superman. Am I to assume that Clark won't kill another Zod-like threat again in the future? Yawn? It also takes the Super out of Superman. Superman always finds a way. That's a nostalgic throwback, forgive me, I know. This guy, this Clark Kent guy on-the-screen was written so dumbly. It pained me to watch all these choices he makes. Maybe if he was 20-25 years old, I'd forgive the choices. He's 33 years old, and has the strategic capabilities of a 13-year old most of the times. They (the writers/producers) really stripped him of any appreciable foresight or care for human collateral damage (are we to assume that everytime Clark punches the other Kryptonians through buildings, he makes sure that building is deserted of people?). Frankly, the level of non-care for human casualties before the Zod moment makes the actual Zod moment laughable in many respects.

 

[TravisR]

^ I just heard the same argument at my local comic book store. Oddly enough, it's a hotly debated and very divisive topic with the people there.

 

[Simon Massey]

The lack of acknowledgement of any human casualties in the film is a real problem. I dont think the destruction on show was any less than that shown by The Avengers last year but it is still a problem here because Superman as a character for me has always been about saving people. That essentially was what was missing from this film. Im not averse to changing the mythology of the characters, but taking this away from the character makes him far harder to accept or invest in. Here Superman and Zod are reduced to the level of Optimus Prime v Megatron in the Bay's awful Transformers films and its only the prior work in the first half of the film that it can rely on to pull us through these scenes and invest in them. Having already been subjected to several bouts of Superman fighting Kryptonians etc it is a little much.

I dont have a problem with the scene of Zod being killed. Like others, I had always thought Superman had killed Zod in the Reeve version and its only now its been brought up that I had considered otherwise. Putting Superman in a position where he has to kill makes him that moment more interesting IMO and I wonder whether they may bring this up again in the next film.

 

[Simon Massey]

As an aside, I'd still rank the two first Reeve films as the best ones. I also think Superman Returns is a better film than this and a much better interpretation of the character. What was weak for me was the Luthor plot, not the lack of huge action sequences. Here again, its the way in which the villain(s) is/are handled that lets the film down. Get Superman's antagonist right and you are likely to have a much stronger film.

And yet I still enjoyed Man of Steel despite its huge flaws. They get a lot right in many ways which is why its so infuriating that they got a lot wrong too.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Just got back seeing this with about fifteen 70+ year olds and I must say I've never seen such an upset group of people since watching JFK back in the day. These folks certainly weren't happy with the film and it was rather hilarious seeing them rant to the manager.

As for me, I'm rather lukewarm about it. The special effects were great but once again we're given a film about visuals and not any story, character development or even emotion. I'm sorry but I found the screenplay to be incredibly bland as were all of the characters. None of the characters could ever come to life and this includes Superman who just wasn't all that interesting here. The Amy Adams character was also quite bland and while both Costner and Russell gave fine performances, the emotions that their characters were suppose to bring just wasn't there. I really don't think the director can handle any sort of characters or story but instead he can just give us a bunch of visuals.

I think the biggest problem overall is that they tried to copy the Nolan Batman films. I think turning those pictures into "dark" movies was something that worked wonderfully well but it just didn't work here. I think the biggest sin is that they forgot to make this film fun.

** 1/2


Edit to add: This film really needed to be influenced by SUPERMAN IV meaning that cut the damn running time down.

 

[Jacinto]

The lack of acknowledgement of any human casualties in the film is a real problem. I dont think the destruction on show was any less than that shown by The Avengers last year but it is still a problem here because Superman as a character for me has always been about saving people. That essentially was what was missing from this film. Im not averse to changing the mythology of the characters, but taking this away from the character makes him far harder to accept or invest in. Here Superman and Zod are reduced to the level of Optimus Prime v Megatron in the Bay's awful Transformers films and its only the prior work in the first half of the film that it can rely on to pull us through these scenes and invest in them. Having already been subjected to several bouts of Superman fighting Kryptonians etc it is a little much.

This.

A friend of mine brought up the destruction in Avengers as well, like that somehow let Man of Steel off the hook. Even in the Avengers, with all of the destruction in New York during the final battle, Captain America's whole goal was to protect the innocent civilians. That's what was important to him in the midst of the chaos of the invasion. Joss Whedon managed to stay true to the heart of characters even when the shit hit the fan -- that's what good writers should be able to do. And if there's any character from the Marvel Universe that has the same heart, character, and integrity as Superman, it's undoubtedly Captain America. But in Man of Steel, when the the going gets tough, Superman ceases to act like Superman, and instead just wants to hit stuff real hard. In the end, that mistake undermines much of the character the filmmakers have tried to build up through the rest of the film. Sloppy.

I hoped I would enjoy this more on my second viewing, but sadly, I didn't. I did manage to come away with several nit-picks though, in addition to several already mentioned by others here (SPOILERS BELOW):

• If Kryptonians are genetically engineered for their specific roles in life, how come Jor-El is a brilliant scientist, an expert in physical combat, and a Michael Phelps-like swimmer?• If the Kryptonian settlement ship has been here 18,000 years, why is the Superman Suit onboard?• Why does Zod want Lois Lane aboard his ship? All he does is put her in a room with access to the computer mainframe so she can engineer the escape. He certainly didn't get any information about Clark from her mind that he didn't already get from Clark's mind. He had no way of knowing Superman liked her prior to bringing her aboard, so he wouldn't think that threats to her well-being could be used as leverage against Superman. WTF?• The entire World Engine sequence. It's pretty convenient that one side of the process happens to be right over Metropolis, of all places. Wouldn't it make more sense to do this on the magnetic poles of the planet along the axis? Was it just so we could have a scene of Perry White failing to save an intern trapped in the rubble? If the goal was to do it over a populated area to inflict maximum damage to mankind, why go with Metropolis on one end and the middle of the Indian Ocean on the other? There are major cities that do line up with each other on the other side of the planet, like Shanghai and Buenos Aires, Lima and Bangkok, Bogota and Jakarta -- any one of those options would have put millions and millions in danger on both sides of the globe. Also, since the terraforming process requires machines at both sides of the globe to work, why split up at all, with Supes going the the Indian Ocean, and the attack force going to Metropolis? This is one of those head scratching moments like in G.I. Joe when they split up to chase the missile and the detonator, when destroying either one will eliminate the threat. Stick together and take one of them out, you idiots! Perhaps they just needed an excuse to insert the mind-numbingly stupid Superman vs the giant CGI metal tentacles scenes. Even if my seat were six inches deep, I still would have not been on the edge of it during this part. To top it all off, after Superman destroys the World Engine he lies there, weak, as the sun hits him. Newsflash -- it's still daylight in Metropolis on the other side of the planet! How is the sun on the opposite side of the globe at the same time?• Why would Zod, the General, abandon his crew to go get the settlement ship right after the terraforming process begins? He doesn't need it yet -- Kal-El is neither in his custody nor dead at this point, so why does he want to get his test-tube baby lab right then? Just so he can have one more scene opposite Russel Crowe, which falls kind of flat anyway? Or was it a lame excuse to get him off of the main ship so he wouldn't be sucked away with the rest of his crew, in order to set up The Major Final Battle? Either way, it's kind of stupid. Either Zod should have been onboard the main ship and died with his crew -- which would have ended the film 15 minutes earlier, or so, and neatly avoided Supes having to break Zod's neck (I didn't have a huge issue with that, by the way). Or if you want some sort of final battle, find another way to get Zod off his ship before the Phantom Drives collided. Then, Superman could have lured Zod to the other ship in the arctic in order to protect civilians, and find some sort of way to defeat Zod using the Phantom Drive there. That would at least preserve that ship, even if the drive no longer worked, to serve as the Fortress of Solitude in future installments.In spite of all of that, I like Man of Steel, but in a frustrating way, because I feel like with a few changes to the script it could have been an absolute home run. I am looking forward to seeing more of Cavill as Superman, as he, and the rest of the cast were superb, in my opinion.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Talk about "cart-before-the-horse" storytelling:

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2013/06/18/nolan-opposed-man-of-steels-controversial-ending-spoilers/

The comments are hilarious.