Man of Steel - quick review (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

I definitely think Returns had a nostalgic "Donner" tone to it but I believe that was the problem. Modern audiences wanted something different, which is why it is seen as a critical and commercial failure. MOS with a cinemascore of A- has on the other hand definitely connected more with audiences,comments in this thread not withstanding.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Re: Superman Returns

I thought the effects were hit and miss with some really bad cgi. And the whole tone of the film is uneven. IMO, Man Of Steel is superior in every aspect. A true Superman film.Btw, MOS will have out grossed SR by the end of this weekend.

Just as you are entitled to your opinion, I just don't see MoS as "A true Superman film" because, in my eyes, it just betrays much of the core of what I personally hold true as to what Superman, the character is. Some of the articles I've linked to express why I feel this way, and why others also feel this way. Had this been a Miracleman film, or some "Ultraman-type" film without the core baggage, perhaps I'd enjoy MoS more, but I went to see A fresh take on the myth of Superman, and got something far more hollow and dark and non-inspirational.

And I kinda hate the "grosses prove me right" points. We can all agree that the Transformer films gross a lot of $$$$, but they aren't really good films either.

 

[Tino]

There's no "grosses proves me right" anything. Just stating facts. We of course all know grosses do not equal quality.And I can certainly understand why some here dislike the film because it didn't meet their expectations. For me, it met and exceeded them. It was even better on my second viewing and i plan a few more in IMAX before its gone.

 

[Simon Massey]

TinoWhy is SR seen as a commercial and critical failure exactly. From what I recall it did quite well worldwide and at the time I thought the critical consensus was good but not great, pretty similar in fact to the current critical consensus. though for different reasons. And I hold up the plane rescue sequence in SR against anything in Man of Steel simply because to me that sequence embodies what Superman is all about, like the helicopter rescue in the first film. It's funny because I grew to like SR even more, flawed as it may be, as I have seen it more with the Reeve films and think it was simply not what the majority were expecting from a modern superhero film. I agree that the current MoS is pretty much visually what an audience expects, and with a few caveats my first impression was quite positive. However, with subsequent viewings, I feel it just doesn't hold up as well and I do wonder if a lot of my initial connection to the first half of the film was down to my own attachment to the character of Superman ( he remains my favourite superhero character ). I can accept changes to the character and mythos (I'm one of the few who like the idea of Superman having a son and I didn't mind the end to Man of Steel) Perhaps I may be doing Snyder a disservice, but it just feels so rushed and disjointed. In many ways, I think Snyder was overreaching and should have left the arrival of the Kryptonians till the next film. And if Singer's version spent too much time lifting things, Snyder's version seems to spend a lot of time as a battering ram.Still now that Kent is at the Daily Planet and the Zod story is done, I suspect we may well see more traditional elements in the sequel, and hopefully a better film as a result. I doubt that the criticisms will have been missed by the filmmakers.

 

[Tino]

SimonLet me correct a statement I made. Superman Returns was not a critical failure. It got mostly positive reviews and is 75 % positive at rotten tomatoes, much better than MOS. However commercially, it is viewed as a failure since it was expected to do over $300 million domestically and was out for months just so it could inch it's way to $200 million. I remember this being discussed endlessly in the 2006 boxoffice thread. It was supposed to jump start the franchise and obviously didn't. It made $400 million worldwide in 2006 which is good but Warner's was expecting much more. But whatever. People loved and hated that one just as they love and hate this one. The difference being this one WILL jump start the franchise.There was a great cover story on all things Superman in a recent EW. Check it out.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I guarantee, this is going to be one of those Transformers-like movies that'll be popular in theaters but once it hits video and the flaws become more and more apparent, everyone will shake off their sugar high and say this movie really wasn't as good as they thought it was.

..because it wasn't.

 

[Tino]

Or it was......

 

[Lord Dalek]

Or it was......

Yeah your box office just fell almost 75% from last weekend, Cinemascore be damned.

 

[Tino]

Yeah your box office just fell almost 75% from last weekend, Cinemascore be damned.

So then you are one of those that equate box-office performance to quality then eh? Doesn't really help your argument.

 

[Tino]

Here is boxoffice mojo's projection for MOS this weekend:

Last weekend, Man of Steel broke the record for the biggest June opening ever - a record the Pixar folks held for three years. While film critics have been giving mixed marks, paying audiences have been very positive on the superhero reboot and word-of-mouth has been keeping daily grosses near or above eight-digit territory this week. But competition will be a factor as the two new releases will gobble up well over $100M in ticket sales. Plus comic book pics tend to draw their base upfront leading to large declines. A 55% fall would be reasonable giving Warner Bros. about $52M for the frame boosting the cume to $222M by Sunday night

It'll probably be closer to 60% drop which is expected for this kind of front loaded pic.

 

[Tino]

I guarantee, this is going to be one of those Transformers-like movies that'll be popular in theaters but once it hits video and the flaws become more and more apparent, everyone will shake off their sugar high and say this movie really wasn't as good as they thought it was. ..because it wasn't.

And by the way, I think this post is a bit insulting and uncalled for. You didn't like, it fine, no need to accuse those of us that did like it as being on some kind of " sugar high" and at some point will magically agree with you. Guarantee. Please.Unfortunately comments like these are becoming more prevalent here at the HTF recently. Similar comments were made in the STID thread, even by people who didn't even see the film. We all have strong opinions, but when those opinions are stated as facts, then the discussion becomes moot. Can't we all just get along and discuss these films without these kind of dismissive posts. I certainly hope we can.

 

[Sean Bryan]

That is one of my biggest peeves with the Internet and has lead to me removing myself more and more form Internet forum "conversations" and sticking more to just posting info that I think some may find interesting.

 

[Tino]

I agree Sean. I know many former members that used to post frequently here and don't anymore for this very reason. It seems to me worse recently as I remember years ago it was a lot of fun here. You remember those good times right Sean, since you have been a member since 1969! Ha.

 

[Simon Massey]

I certainly don't want to suggest that those that like it are wrong in some way - hell I'm still a fan of the SW prequels and take a lot of stick for that it just didn't meet my expectations.Star Trek into Darkness is a good comparison to MoS for me in how I liked it because I found both highly flawed in their plots and stories but I found it easier to forgive Star Trek's flaws and enjoyed the film immensely even on repeated viewings, largely because I enjoyed the characters so much. Perhaps I'm being too hard on MoS because I'm a huge fan of the character and wanted this to succeed more than any other summer film this year. I do hope it is seen as successful - it may struggle to break 300 mill domestically - because I'm hopeful that the sequel could be much stronger. They have certainly cast the film well IMO. On a lighter note did anyone notice how quickly Metropolis was rebuilt at the end of the film. Last I saw was buildings collapsing all around the Daily Planet, yet Clark shows up for work and everything looks rebuilt outside ?

 

[Tino]

It will definitely break $300 million domestically Simon. And a sequel has already been greenlit.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Some of us need to calm down. From my perspective, I can careless if somebody doesn't like a film that I do. It's their problem not mine because I enjoyed myself watching that film and they didn't have an enjoyable time doing the same. Let them scream to high heaven as it shouldn't take away from your enjoyment level. Just consider yourself fortunate this time because without a doubt, there will be another film in which you and that other person's opinion will be reversed and you'll be the one not caring for a film while not having an enjoyable time viewing it. Yes, it's an opinion and yes, we state our opinion about art as fact, but so what? It takes two to have an argument as I can live with somebody having a contrary view from me about any film.

 

[Sam Favate]

I saw this last night and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, but I had some problems with it.

Primary among them was the level of destruction. I have complained about the 9/11-type destruction in movies for a while now, and besides the fact that absolutely everyone is doing it (I won't be seeing Pacific Rim, thank you), I find it kind of offensive that these filmmakers are drawing out our emotional connection to those real life events. I can tell you that those of us who were there never need to see that again. Man of Steel took the destruction to an all-time high. It was pornographic. I'll take the next dozen superhero movies with fight scenes in pastoral settings, thank you.

The rapid-fire editing, shaky cam and the goddamn lens flares! Enough of this shit! A hundred years from now, these will be seen as the hallmarks of bad moviemaking. I also didn't like the washed-out color palate. Colors should be vibrant on screen. I know Snyder likes the washed-out look. I don't.

What is it about Zack Synder movies that the special effects sequences are always just out of focus? I guess that's technique. But having just paid $22 for two tickets, I want to be able to discern what the hell I am looking at.

There was not one moment of levity in the entire film. I'm all for a serious Superman movie (no one wants Superman III again), but come on, let's lighten up a little bit. Anyone remember when comic books (and comic book movies) were fun?

Lastly, Superman doesn't kill people. They got a very piece of the story flat-out wrong. And Superman should never kill anyone else in any movie again - that would negate the ending of this film.

Aside from that, I thought the cast was terrific. Cavill, Costner, Crowe - all really good in their roles. Loved Amy Adams as Lois -- a really great take on the character. Also thought Diane Lane was fantastic. Shannon was good, but I wished they'd played up his perspective a bit more that he was trying to save his people. Too often he came off as a mustache-twirler.

The story was pretty good too; I really liked how it was more of a science fiction movie than a superhero movie. The brief scenes of Krypton colonization were great.

I hope this is the start of series of DC Comics films, but I also hope the filmmakers learn the lessons of what's wrong in this film before proceeding.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I didn't call it "shaky" cam, just "hand-held", it's definitely a director's choice in using "hand-held" vs. the more conventional style of movie-making. I do notice it as the camera operator has to move around to get the footage, sometimes it's okay, other times it's a little distracting with the bumps as the operators moves the camera around.

Yeah, I agree this was bad handheld but not true "shaky-cam". When movies go shaky-cam, I get motion-sick - think the Greengrass Bournes or "Battle: LA". I literally couldn't view the screen the whole time as I got nauseous.

That wasn't an issue with "MOS", as the handheld wasn't at the same level of movement. However, it was a distraction for me - and used in a stupid manner for shots that looked bad handheld, like static dialogue scenes. The camerawork called attention to itself and took me out of the movie...

 

[KPmusmag]

I saw this last night and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, but I had some problems with it.

Primary among them was the level of destruction. I have complained about the 9/11-type destruction in movies for a while now, and besides the fact that absolutely everyone is doing it (I won't be seeing Pacific Rim, thank you), I find it kind of offensive that these filmmakers are drawing out our emotional connection to those real life events. I can tell you that those of us who were there never need to see that again. Man of Steel took the destruction to an all-time high. It was pornographic. I'll take the next dozen superhero movies with fight scenes in pastoral settings, thank you.

The rapid-fire editing, shaky cam and the goddamn lens flares! Enough of this shit! A hundred years from now, these will be seen as the hallmarks of bad moviemaking. I also didn't like the washed-out color palate. Colors should be vibrant on screen. I know Snyder likes the washed-out look. I don't.

What is it about Zack Synder movies that the special effects sequences are always just out of focus? I guess that's technique. But having just paid $22 for two tickets, I want to be able to discern what the hell I am looking at.

There was not one moment of levity in the entire film. I'm all for a serious Superman movie (no one wants Superman III again), but come on, let's lighten up a little bit. Anyone remember when comic books (and comic book movies) were fun?

Lastly, Superman doesn't kill people. They got a very piece of the story flat-out wrong. And Superman should never kill anyone else in any movie again - that would negate the ending of this film.

Aside from that, I thought the cast was terrific. Cavill, Costner, Crowe - all really good in their roles. Loved Amy Adams as Lois -- a really great take on the character. Also thought Diane Lane was fantastic. Shannon was good, but I wished they'd played up his perspective a bit more that he was trying to save his people. Too often he came off as a mustache-twirler.

The story was pretty good too; I really liked how it was more of a science fiction movie than a superhero movie. The brief scenes of Krypton colonization were great.

I hope this is the start of series of DC Comics films, but I also hope the filmmakers learn the lessons of what's wrong in this film before proceeding.

I heartily concur with your analysis. I enjoyed "Man of Steel" on its own terms, but it simply is not "my" Superman, for most of the reasons stated above. I did enjoy the characterizations, particularly Kevin Costner's, and the basic story made sense to me. But the overall tenor of the film just didn't work for me personally, at least as a Superman story.

I re-watched the 1978 film right after, and one thing that really struck me was that the portions filmed in New York seemed very, very real to me, in contrast to the the CGI Metropolis in the new film. Watch it with that in mind and perhaps you will see what I mean. It was kind of a startling contrast,

Anyway, I know many who whole-heartedly enjoyed this, this was the Superman some were hoping for, and to each his own. I vividly recall seeing the 1978 film when it came out, it was one of my favorite movie going experiences as a young teen. The whole family left elated, feeling as though we could fly. I left MOS feeling sad; which maybe is what Singer was going for.

 

[Rhett_Y]

I for one did not like the film. Very disappointed. The whole 30 minute (well it felt that way, and I almost fell asleep) fight seen between SM and the main baddy was absolutly horrible.

I actually like our superman, he wasn't bad but he wasn't great either. The whole love "thing" if you will between him and lois lane, where the hell did that come from?

Also is it me or the guy from SVU can't act? Good lord I was cringing everytime he was on screen. Yes let's get confrontational with an alien. Ugh. Kill me now.

Could there have been any more distruction? I mean seriously. The whole scene(s) with RC flying on the bird, did we really need to see that? He was also cringe worthy in a few of his scenes.

I did like how Lois traced back his roots, that part was interesting however, that was all of 5 minutes of the story.

Very disappointed. I had really high hopes for this. However I started to get a little worried. I started to see so many ad's and for the show and so many companies in support of the show ala Carl's Jr. and the like.