Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Man of Steel - quick review


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
241 replies to this topic

#41 of 242 WillG

WillG

    Producer

  • 5,213 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted June 15 2013 - 03:08 PM

My thoughts

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by WillG, June 15 2013 - 03:09 PM.

STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#42 of 242 Quentin

Quentin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,472 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002
  • Real Name:Quentin H
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted June 15 2013 - 03:15 PM

I loved it. Best Superman film since the original. I thought it had plenty of heart amidst the tremendous action.

And regarding 3D, I saw it in an ETX theater with Dolby Atmos and thought the presentation was flawless. Great sense of depth in the 3D.

Seeing it in IMAX 3D next, since it was sold out this morning.

Boo on you Chuck! ;)

 

Honestly, Tino, the 3d conversion leaves a LOT to be desired.  They mailed this one in.  And, even if the HAD done a job worth seeing, the fast action of the last 30 minutes is just too overwhelming to utilize 3d.

 

IMAX most DEFINITELY.  This film has the biggest action I've ever seen on screen.  See it LARGE.



#43 of 242 Matt Wooten

Matt Wooten

    Second Unit

  • 360 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2001

Posted June 15 2013 - 03:35 PM

The reason people don't seem to care about the ending in Superman 2 is because they just fell into the abyss of the Fortress of Solitude.. Even as a child watching that movie I was never under the impression the same characters could not be brought in again. Maybe that's naive comic thinking, but it is completely different from
Spoiler
Or to take from another DC film, seeing the Joker's lifeless body after falling countless feet with a gargoyle strapped to his foot.

Spoiler


I just get the feeling these guys wrote a movie based off researching Wikipedia..


Next thing The Puinsher will be rebooted.. This time he fights bad guys with Nerf guns. Crazy.

#44 of 242 WillG

WillG

    Producer

  • 5,213 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted June 15 2013 - 03:41 PM

I know you wanted to use The Pitchman Of Steel joke (which is pretty amusing) but I wouldn't even remotely call it obtrusive. While Snyder is just covering their use of product placement, he's still right when he says that the world is littered with logos and so it makes sense to also see them in a movie. It takes me out of a movie more when I see "BEER" rather than a brand name on a can.

 

Agreed. I don't mind product placement as long as it's organic and not obtrusive. If Clark is going to drink a beer, it would very likely be Budweiser as it is one of the (if not the) top selling brands in the USA. Like I suggested in my earlier post, the Sears thing in MoS is the opposite of unobtrusive. Very obviously deliberate that they were trying to get as many shots of "Sears" in as they could.

 

Another example that comes to mind is in Austin Powers II where he says to someone "Get your hands off my Heiney Baby" and the other person holds out a bottle of Heineken right for the camera to zoom in on.


STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#45 of 242 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,075 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted June 15 2013 - 03:49 PM

Spoiler

Edited by Brandon Conway, June 15 2013 - 03:56 PM.

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#46 of 242 WillG

WillG

    Producer

  • 5,213 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted June 15 2013 - 04:06 PM

Spoiler

 

Spoiler


Edited by WillG, June 15 2013 - 04:46 PM.

STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#47 of 242 Scott Burke

Scott Burke

    Second Unit

  • 341 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 2000
  • Real Name:Scott B.
  • LocationUnited States

Posted June 15 2013 - 04:15 PM

I thought the 3d was amazing. I saw it in IMAX 3d. While it isn't the superman that we grew up with, I think that was the point. I thought the origin was mostly borrowed from "birthrite" but I will have to check since my memory is hazy on that graphic novel.
The only thing that bothered me was the constant allusions to the matrix series. That pulled me out of the movie.

#48 of 242 Stephen Brooks

Stephen Brooks

    Second Unit

  • 332 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 19 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen
  • LocationBrownsburg, IN

Posted June 15 2013 - 08:53 PM

I'm frankly quite glad that they finally eased up on the whole "DC heros never ever kill anyone under any circumstances". It was really getting to be annoying pacifist BS IMO. Iron Man obviously kills people. Even Captain America, who is about as straight-laced goody-two-shoes as they come, is a soldier, and as such he does use guns and kill people when he has to. Are these characters "murderers"? If they are, then all cops and soldiers are murderers too and there are no real heros anywhere! There was no prison on Earth that could hold Zod. He basically had nothing to do with the rest of his life besides kill humans. Superman's actions were perfectly appropriate.

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Home Theater Forum mobile app


  • Cameron Yee and Brandon Conway like this
IMPERIAL OFFICER: Lord Vader, I can't find the Central Navigational Network!

VADER (points to control panel): This......is CNN.

#49 of 242 Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan

    Sean Bryan

  • 2,509 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Sean

Posted June 16 2013 - 07:44 AM

I liked it.

It wasn't as fun of a viewing experience as I had hoped it would be, but the spectacle was impressive. I thought Clark, the Kents, Lois, and Zod were all really good in their roles, and I was moved by lots the the stuff with Clark, Martha, and Jonathan (though I would have liked to see more of that).

I also enjoyed some of the smaller roles like Perry White and Colonel Hardy.

I think maybe the action could have used a bit more interpersonal drama spliced in.

I don't understand any issues some people have with the killing of Zod. Zod had said his goal at that point was to kill as many humans as possible, purely for the sake of vengeance. There was no way Clark could hope to simply restrain and imprison him. But still, it wasn't like he was subdued and Clark had to wrestle with a decision of what to do with him. Zod was actively trying to incinerate people as Clark was struggling to keep it from happening. Ultimately, he did what he had to do. And his reaction afterwards says all they need to say about how he felt about having to do it.

I also liked Lois tracking down Clark and deciding to keep his secret.

So I'd say that, for me, it was a cool and enjoyable film but it was missing "something" keeping it from being great. Sometimes with additional viewings some of these films find more of an emotional resonance with me, so I'll see if maybe that magical "something" pops up with the next viewing.

Thing are also now nicely set up for the more traditional Superman/Clark Kent at the Daily Planet scenario for the next one.

Edited by Sean Bryan, June 16 2013 - 07:47 AM.

I don't believe in transcending the genre, I believe IN the genre - Joss Whedon

#50 of 242 mdnitoil

mdnitoil

    Supporting Actor

  • 767 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2006
  • Real Name:Scott

Posted June 16 2013 - 10:50 AM

The product placement made me a little nuts for this reason.  Shaky cam, shaky cam, perfectly stable, clearly focused shot of product label, shaky cam, shaky cam...  That annoyed the hell out of me.  It's not whether the items would have occurred in the natural flow of things, it was the fact that they were so clearly identifiable when many other things weren't.

 

Other than that, it's another one of those movies I think was great at the time because the action was so overwhelming, and years from now I'm going to remember what a crappy story it had and never pull it off the shelf.  I almost hate to say it, but a lot like almost every Michael Bay movie, and I really wanted to avoid that comparison.



#51 of 242 Simon Massey

Simon Massey

    Screenwriter

  • 2,028 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 2001
  • Real Name:Simon Massey
  • LocationKuwait

Posted June 16 2013 - 11:34 AM

Im a fan of Superman Returns and like the fact I now have a sort of unofficial Donner trilogy to enjoy so i was quite open to a reboot. i like the emphasis on the alien/scifi elements as it differentiates it quite well. The score was fairly good ( nothing was going to match Williams) and all the cast are great. I liked it but essentially there were too many competing ideas/themes and storylines to do any of them justice. Not surprising they never got to Clark Kent as a reporter.

The film was at its best in the first half and I think Snyder would have been wiser to scale back on the action at the end and present more of the origin story. That was working. The decision to use flashbacks was a poor one IMO as a straight chronological version would surely have allowed these moments to breathe and provide a stronger emotional connection to the characters, especially Costner who I thought was excellent. Either that or more flashbacks before the tornado scene which was still a weak point despite strong performances.

Delete the whole Indian Ocean sequence as it adds absolutely nothing except one long ridiculous CGI battle which could easily have been staged in Metropolis. And we had already had the battle of superheroes throwing each other through buildings etc in Smallville so why do the same thing with the final battle? Much better to have Superman take the battle away from the city straight away and still have that final moment where he has to make a choice.

And I have to say I really missed the moments of awe and wonder of Superman simply saving people and helping them. Oh for a moment like Reeve helping save the cat in the tree for the little girl or the little boy who fell at Niagara Falls.

I actually thought Returns did a much better job at capturing the wonder of flight and Superman's abilities. I get they were going for a different approach but I think it detracts from the character

Edited by Simon Massey, June 16 2013 - 11:41 AM.


#52 of 242 MishaLauenstein

MishaLauenstein

    Supporting Actor

  • 573 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 04 2002
  • Real Name:Misha Lauenstein
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted June 16 2013 - 01:11 PM

George Reeves the definitive Superman in my mind and he'd NEVER do something like that

No, he would just leave some people stranded on a mountain until they die because they found out his secret identity.


  • Cameron Yee likes this
40% Ben Katz + 30% Bobby Hill (Texas) + 20% Monica Geller + 10% William Dent. (Wardrobe by George Costanza)

#53 of 242 MishaLauenstein

MishaLauenstein

    Supporting Actor

  • 573 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 04 2002
  • Real Name:Misha Lauenstein
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted June 16 2013 - 01:17 PM

Spoiler

Spoiler


40% Ben Katz + 30% Bobby Hill (Texas) + 20% Monica Geller + 10% William Dent. (Wardrobe by George Costanza)

#54 of 242 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,493 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted June 16 2013 - 01:31 PM

Spoiler

That's a solution to the immediate problem. It's sure not going to work in the long term. And by long term, I mean in the next 20 or 30 seconds after that.



#55 of 242 David Weicker

David Weicker

    Screenwriter

  • 1,499 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 2005
  • Real Name:David

Posted June 16 2013 - 04:24 PM

IMO, there are two aspects to the point being discussed -

Spoiler
.

 

The first is the actual event, and while I don't like it, I do, kind of, agree with the others here that it probably had to happen.    I think that if it were a cleverer screenplay, another solution could have been reached

 

However, the second aspect is the way it was shown.    

Spoiler
  Too many film-makers today think that just because the can show something, they should show something, regardless of what it does to the story or the tone or the emotions of the audience.

 

David


Edited by David Weicker, June 16 2013 - 04:28 PM.


#56 of 242 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,183 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted June 16 2013 - 04:28 PM

IMO, there are two aspects to the point being discussed - Superman killing Zod.

 

The first is the actual event, and while I don't like it, I do, kind of, agree with the others here that it probably had to happen.    I think that if it were a cleverer screenplay, another solution could have been reached

 

However, the second aspect is the way it was shown.   The in-your-face neck-cracking, damn-you-we're-you-gonna-make-you-watch-this was gratuitous and, to me, off-putting.   Superman II has been brought up, and the fact that Zod was sent down to crevice to his death.  But that death was off-screen.   Too many film-makers today think that just because the can show something, they should show something, regardless of what it does to the story or the tone or the emotions of the audience.

I'm not buying that cleverer screenplay stuff.  The filmmakers made a conscious decision to show Zod's death like it was on the screen.  I think all parties concern are intelligent enough to come up with a different way for him to die if they wanted to, but chose this way.  It's as simple as that.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#57 of 242 Nick*Z

Nick*Z

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 211 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 30 2003
  • Real Name:NICK

Posted June 16 2013 - 04:52 PM

Dear Raul:

 

I'm with you. I don't understand what's come over directors of late. I understand the necessity to jazz things up for a remake. I mean, you can't just do the same movie over and over again or we just call Gus Van Sant on his almost shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's Psycho, slap an ice pack over our foreheads and call it a day.

 

But we shouldn't be looking to retool a beloved franchise in ways that alter the fundamentals of stories we've come to know and love. Lucas did it with the Star Wars franchise. God knows they've been tinkering waaaaaay too much with the formula for Bond movies ever since Roger Moore left the series - mostly to its own detriment. I mean, a black Moneypenny and kick-boxing Daniel Craig looking like eight miles of bad road while he basically drinks himself into oblivion...these are not the characteristics of our iconic MI6 agent.

 

Man of Steel veers to wildly away from the wonderment and joy of the Superman film franchise that, let's be honest, after part II became a badly mangled affair too. My philosophy is to leave well enough alone. There are plenty of other stories to tell. Leave us to our collectively treasured moments.

 

I didn't mind Henry Cavill - impossibly muscled and not all that great an actor but salvageable on the whole. But the middle of that film is in desperate need of an editor who isn't in love with his exposition and ditto for the interminably long final battle sequence that becomes an exercise in tedium rather than taut tension. 

 

Man of Steel will make a ton of money and that's pretty much all the bean counters care about - regrettably so. I wish I could suggest to you that some higher artistic merit was at play. It isn't. Movies today are made to grab that 30 second groundswell of fame and box office and to hell with what will be remembered or resurrected for a 50th anniversary box set fifty years later. That's a sad - but frankly accurate - indictment on film-making today.

 

No kidding: the bottom line was always paramount in the industry. But at least in the good old days they were more involved in telling a good story first, and once it took off preserving the legacy of that movie by telling more stories with the same attention to detail. Today, anything goes. That's why Man of Steel will do big business.  It's a good popcorn movie for those who know absolutely nothing about the trademark of Superman and those who frankly don't care, and finally, those who don't mind their heroes being unheroic, dark, brooding, and self-destructive in spots. I don't ascribe to that backwater of cultural claptrap but it's paying the bills in Hollywood. So just consider what it says about the general understanding and respect of the average movie fan going to the theater today.  I hate to even entertain the thought.

 

Best.


Edited by Nick*Z, June 16 2013 - 04:53 PM.


#58 of 242 MattBradley

MattBradley

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 148 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 2009

Posted June 16 2013 - 05:26 PM

My super generic review:

 

Watched it this morning and loved it. I had a group of 6 and two of us really enjoyed, another two felt like there was no emotional attachment to any of the characters and the last two flat out did not like it.

 

I think the movie tried to put too much in it but still worked for me. The relationship between Lois and Supes was a surprise but works for me. Kevin Costner was great and believable. I even got a little choked up while he was helping on the side of the road.

 

I was digging the DC Universe references! Lots of little, quick things were flying by on the screen. Can't wait to see what I missed!

 

Bring on the sequel! Now that the reboot is out of the way, they can really let loose!


What is understood need not be discussed.

#59 of 242 DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator

  • 13,206 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted June 16 2013 - 05:38 PM

The introduction was a spectacular renewal of the Superman myth. I was mostly spellbound throughout. I was also figuratively gasping for breath: the first half was a narrative sprint, getting through as much story as possible. It was a good movie.

But it was good enough to also be frustrating. A defining character moment happened, and then the story moved on seemingly without consequences.

I'm puzzled what to make of superman's victory -- how did he succeed? And what of the toll his victory took?

Spoilers:
Zod asks the obvious, that I was asking the second half, how does Kal El defeat him? Zod is a trained warrior in armor? Kal isn't. And it isnt answered. Superman is losing the fight, and then he's inexplicably got Zod in a neck lock.

I don't mind Superman killing Zod as a plot twist or a new take on the character. But I do mind that the next scene is Clark happy and smiley joining the Daily Planet and telling the military to stay the f* off his trail.

The entire movie, the whole backstory, everything Jonathan Kent taught him was against this. There should be consequences. There were no consequences to this tremendous moment.

Edited by DaveF, June 16 2013 - 06:32 PM.


#60 of 242 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,493 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted June 16 2013 - 06:29 PM

Movies today are made to grab that 30 second groundswell of fame and box office and to hell with what will be remembered or resurrected for a 50th anniversary box set fifty years later. That's a sad - but frankly accurate - indictment on film-making today.

People have saying that same basic thing probably since the second movie came out. "That horse running movie was amazing but after that, it all became about the money..."






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users