Man of Steel

[Ouch!]

The first half of the movie felt very disjointed for me, largely as a consequence of trying to cover as much ground as they did. Going from the destruction of Krypton through the first 33 years of Clark's life is an awful lot of exposition to get through. All things considered, they did a fairly good job of that, although I'm not convinced that the heavy reliance on flashbacks was the best way to do it. The choreography and filmography in the second half of the movie, however, were absolutely top notch. While the movie as a whole had a dissonant narrative, it was a hell of a lot of fun to watch, and that's what I most expect out of a superhero movie anyway.

(SPOILER)I'm torn on the results of killing Zod. On the one hand, I think it's brilliant to force Superman's hand that way. Now he's not just the last Kryptonian. He's the last Kryptonian because he had to kill the only other one with his bare hands. DC more so than Marvel is rampant full of characters too noble to kill, and forcing Superman--the supposed paragon of virtue in the DC-universe--to kill his enemy in the debut of a new continuity is about as bold as it gets.

On the other hand, where exactly do we go from here? Unless they immediately launch into the Justice League (which has been stated as a goal), Superman is now left without a major foe who can match him physically--at least one that audiences at large are going to recognize and embrace. There's Darkseid and Doomsday, I suppose, but most people are going to expect Lex Luthor as a villain. Frankly, Superman is at his best on the big screen when he's up against enemies who can give him a run for his money in a fist-fight. This movie was exciting because all the villains were just as strong, just as fast, and just as invulnerable as Superman. Previous Superman movies have been boring because they've had to avoid Superman going head-to-head against his enemies at full strength, because there's no justifiable way that he might lose. Unless it involves Kryptonite, and that turns him into a puddle on the floor without leaving room for action.

[Miriel]

I thought it was a solid B movie.

It was entertaining and mostly good, but there were some serious issues I thought with pacing and editing and character development. And the dialogue was really crappy at times.

Strangely enough, I thought that they really underused Henry Cavill. I felt like Jor-El got more screen time (non CGI, flying through buildings screentime) and more dialogue than Superman did. Which was weird. I thought that we needed to spend more time with the Kents to see how Superman got his moral center. Because from what we saw in the movie, Jonathan Kent wasn't very good in instilling values of courage and goodness into his son.

Maybe I should spoiler tag the rest of this? (SPOILER)It really bothered me that after the bus incident, he made it sound like Clark should have let them die. I mean, wtf? And his death was just beyond ridiculous.

Too much collateral damage for my tastes. And it really really bothered me that during the fights, Superman made no attempts to save the people who were being killed by the thousands. Really, you're gonna save Lois falling from the sky but NO ONE ELSE?!

The kiss was cringeworthy. As was the line following it. The line about Superman being hot was terrible as well. The movie was really sprinkled with these bad one liners. I also didn't like the line (or maybe it was just the delivery?) of "this man is not our enemy". So cheesy.

I thought the constant flashing back and forth made for a disjointed film. I also thought that it wasn't one cohesive story and they were trying to do to much in one film. It really felt like they tried to smash in movies 1 and 2 of a trilogy into one movie.

Now for the good stuff.

I thought that Cavill did SUCH A GOOD JOB!!! I thought he was perfect and I only wish he had more to work with. I don't feel like his Superman was developed enough, but that's not Cavill's fault. With what he was given, he was just fantastic. And my goodness the man is gorgeous.

I loved all the stuff with Krypton and Russel Crowe was fantastic as well.

I thought it was just a beautiful movie to look at. Like, wow. I also loved the way they showcased Superman's powers. Everything felt real which is so hard to do with a guy who has god like powers. Amy Adams was ok. I liked Diane Lane as Martha Kent. For the most part, I also really liked the score, although sometimes it did feel like it was getting repetitive. But it was lovely Han Zimmer stuff.

Overall entertaining. Not sure if I would watch again, but I am super interested to see how they carry on with the following movies.

[Shiny]

I don't think the actor playing Superman looks the role at all. Maybe he'll be able to act the role, I dunno, but not impressed with any of the trailers.

In Henry Cavill we trust. I have had a girl boner for this dude since that crap show Tudors. He is by far the best looking Superman and the most fitting. He may not be as tall as his predecessors, but he makes up for it in other areas. The areas of looking amazing.

No Superman movie has ever been impressive to me so low expectations for this one as well. At least it will be visually stunning.

[charliepanayi]

I came out of this with a bit of a headache which kind of sums things up really.

(SPOILER)
- It was probably appropriate the film started with Russell Crowe, the world's most humourless actor in a very po-faced film.
- The opening segment on Krypton seemed to go too long in my opinion.
- I thought Henry Cavill was a perfectly good Clark/Superman, though he must be hoping for better luck in his career than his predecessors.
- It goes without saying but Michael Shannon was excellent, hopefully he gets a lot more attention from the wider world after this.
- Amy Adams *swoons*
- The action stuff was definitely impressive, even if after a while it started to feel like I'd been bludgeoned over the head repeatedly.
- Clark's father died because he went back to rescue the dog?!
- I know a kiss is obligatory in these films but this one seemed especially crowbarred in, surely they could have found a better place for it.
- Superman killing Zod? I can see why it's annoyed some people, but at the same time you could see the anguish it caused him to do it.


Overall, I'm not too sure. Not a bad film by any means, but something was missing for me.

[Depression Moon]

The first half of the movie felt very disjointed for me, largely as a consequence of trying to cover as much ground as they did. Going from the destruction of Krypton through the first 33 years of Clark's life is an awful lot of exposition to get through. All things considered, they did a fairly good job of that, although I'm not convinced that the heavy reliance on flashbacks was the best way to do it. The choreography and filmography in the second half of the movie, however, were absolutely top notch. While the movie as a whole had a dissonant narrative, it was a hell of a lot of fun to watch, and that's what I most expect out of a superhero movie anyway.

I can agree about Krypton. To me (SPOILER)Jor-El's death didn't feel impacting because we didn't get to see Krypton before it was discovered that it was about to implode.

I can also agree about the "I just think he's hot" quote was silly, but those stupid little things happen in movies all the time, that I just throw it off. Not even sure why these directors, put corny trout like that in there.

(SPOILER)I'm torn on the results of killing Zod. On the one hand, I think it's brilliant to force Superman's hand that way. Now he's not just the last Kryptonian. He's the last Kryptonian because he had to kill the only other one with his bare hands. DC more so than Marvel is rampant full of characters too noble to kill, and forcing Superman--the supposed paragon of virtue in the DC-universe--to kill his enemy in the debut of a new continuity is about as bold as it gets.

On the other hand, where exactly do we go from here? Unless they immediately launch into the Justice League (which has been stated as a goal), Superman is now left without a major foe who can match him physically--at least one that audiences at large are going to recognize and embrace. There's Darkseid and Doomsday, I suppose, but most people are going to expect Lex Luthor as a villain. Frankly, Superman is at his best on the big screen when he's up against enemies who can give him a run for his money in a fist-fight. This movie was exciting because all the villains were just as strong, just as fast, and just as invulnerable as Superman. Previous Superman movies have been boring because they've had to avoid Superman going head-to-head against his enemies at full strength, because there's no justifiable way that he might lose. Unless it involves Kryptonite, and that turns him into a puddle on the floor without leaving room for action.

I think we can give Lex more credit than that. I mean the Joker is a notable villain that had a successful movie and he isn't someone that can challenge Batman physically. Joker and Lex Luthor challenge the morals and existence of those characters. if they do it well, it'll be good.

[DMKA]

I watched it on Friday. It was a lot of fun. Way more (silly) action in it than I was expecting.

[Raistlin]

I was much less impressed than most people here, maybe because I actually let myself have pretty high expectations. I will say that it was a good Superman movie, but considering Superman movies are awful, that's not a very high standard. Otherwise, it was a solid 6-7/10, but no better.

Main criticisms: (spoiler alert)

-Too much focus on big, city-destroying fight scenes, very little on dialogue and character interaction (outside of the Krypton scene, which was silly and just an excuse to have a Jor-El/Zod chase and action sequence, and pretty much the whole thing could have been cut or very much condensed with no loss to the film). I think Clark and Lois had a combined 5 minutes together before their kiss, which was topped by painfully cheesy dialogue.

-For Superman to have been so hard on himself about killing Zod, he sure felt little hesitation about fighting in a major city and killing untold thousands of people in the process -- and all for the sake of having flashier, more destructive fight scenes. No hesitation or even the barest attempt to try to take the fighting elsewhere. And the fight scenes lasted forever.

-It seems like the Kryptonians demanded Lois come along with Superman onto their ship just as a plot device so that she could use Jor-El's key on their ship (and she was conveniently held in a place with the appropriate port).

-What little development there was in the present of the film (not flashbacks) was frantically paced -- until you reached a fight scene. Lois had a couple of sassy lines before she was relegated to continual damsel in distress. The story parts of the movie could have been two movies, if properly paced. Or at least an extra 30-40 minutes on this one, with the Krypton part and some action scenes condensed.

-I have never seen someone so smug about his own entirely unnecessary death as Jonathan Kent.

Much more minor nitpick: I know that the damsel-falling-into-Superman's-arms trope is as old as the Superman comic itself, but I still find myself wondering what the difference is between concrete and invulnerable superarms. Both are perfectly capable of killing someone when contacted at 200+ mph.

But the movie had upsides, and was definitely worth seeing. Superman's actor was pretty much spot-on, and the acting overall was great. The plot was notably good for a Superman film, just weirdly paced. And the action scenes were very well done, if also over-done. It was a good summer blockbuster, and very entertaining.

[Slothy]

(SPOILER)Too much collateral damage for my tastes. And it really really bothered me that during the fights, Superman made no attempts to save the people who were being killed by the thousands. Really, you're gonna save Lois falling from the sky but NO ONE ELSE?!

Did you just happen to miss the the fact that (SPOILER)every time people are "dying by the thousands", Superman happened to be fighting one or more Kryptonians at the same time?

-For Superman to have been so hard on himself about killing Zod, he sure felt little hesitation about fighting in a major city and killing untold thousands of people in the process -- and all for the sake of having flashier, more destructive fight scenes. No hesitation or even the barest attempt to try to take the fighting elsewhere.

You make it sound as though taking the fight elsewhere when you're fighting someone who's about as powerful as you are, is a better fighter than you are and who wants to kill as many people as possible is the easiest thing in the world. Try picking a fight with someone and guiding them somewhere else while still fighting them and see how that works out for you. What was he supposed to do though? Honestly? Moreover, who's to say he wasn't trying? It's not like he can just grab Zod or the other Kryptonians and just fly away?

For that matter, we don't know how many people had gotten out of those skyscrapers and were well on their way to getting as far from the city as possible. But Superman would probably have some idea. Honestly, aside from Perry, Jenny and that other guy, there didn't seem to be many people running around downtown by the time Zod's ship was destroyed.

[Raistlin]

I wasn't asking for much: just a thought or sign that it mattered in the slightest to Superman, even if he couldn't successfully change the venue of the fight. Just some indication that he gave a crap and understood what was happening.

You're right about one thing (though not in the way you intended): the consequences of the urban fighting were very white-washed. The whole city could not have been evacuated in minutes, and thousands, tens of thousands, must have died. But we don't see it, and it certainly didn't matter to any of the characters onscreen. It was very G-rated, senseless, consequence-free action, which is a bit weird given that Christopher Nolan had a hand in it.

[Ouch!]

I think we can give Lex more credit than that. I mean the Joker is a notable villain that had a successful movie and he isn't someone that can challenge Batman physically. Joker and Lex Luthor challenge the morals and existence of those characters. if they do it well, it'll be good.

It's not about Lex, it's about Superman. The dynamic between the Joker and Batman works so well even though the Joker can't challenge him physical because Batman is interesting as a character even when he isn't beating peoples' heads in. Batman is a detective. He's cerebral. Pitting him against someone who challenges him in a non-physical manner is interesting because of the way his character is capable of responding. The problem is that no matter how interesting Luther is, Superman is boring when he's challenged in any way other than physical. Unless a villain poses a physical threat to Superman, things get boring fast. And when kryptonite is used as the only means to bring Superman down, it's boring because there's not much that he can do against it.

[Shiny]

I did fall asleep during one part, but it still proved to be an enjoyable movie. I don't get Amy Adam's appeal and wish they would find someone with less of a bitchface to play Lois Lane, but other than that I liked it. I guess though technically Lois Lane has traditionally had a bitchface though so fair enough. I liked how they gave General Zod more of a reason so that he just wasn't inherently evil. It was entirely possible for them to coexist, but people always gotta be cray.

Although one thing that does always piss me off in these movies... WHY THE HELL DO THEY WRECK EVERYTHING TO DESTROY A FEW VILLAINS? Keep your fights in the same area or knock him a smurfing field. Yeah let's go destroy some schools and museums. I was less pissed when I remembered what the moms said, "it's only stuff, Clark". So yeah true, it is only stuff, but still wtf especially considering people definitely died in those buildings that they smurfed up. And why oh why were people in a museum when they knew danger was imminent? I'm pretty sure what was happening in Kansas was all over the news worldwide. Also why does he magically not have a beard after he puts the suit on for the first time? Do aliens have invisible razors?

Basically the best Superman movie out of them all which isn't saying much because those other ones blew. This made it up for it with it's action which is exactly what I want when I go to see a super hero movie. And if you're seeing a super hero movie going "too much action" then go watch The Notebook or some other sissy movie. This is a friggin' super hero movie.

Also Michael Shannon is great and if this movie were done about fifteen years ago I could easily see Gary Oldman playing his part just like he did. Damn that would've been awesome.

[charliepanayi]

I don't get Amy Adam's appeal and wish they would find someone with less of a bitchface to play Lois Lane.

She's one of the best actresses working today, there's the appeal. And I have no idea what a 'bitchface' is, but what an unpleasant (and unnecessary) comment to make.

[Shiny]

That's what her marketing during the academy wanted you to think. She is a subpar actress who always plays herself. Just because you think she's hot doesn't mean she's a good actress.

Also:



Bitchface

And with that note, Henry Cavill is a hot too, but also doesn't make him good. I cringed at a few of hus line deliveries. I have to remember that Clark Kent is really wholesome Kansas farmer boy so some of that line delivery was accurately cheesy.

[Miriel]

Vivi22 (aka Mr. Loves to create reasons to defend poor decisions made by movie characters), are you seriously gonna try and ignore ALL the various instances throughout the movie where there was outrageously over the top and gratuitous collateral damage with Superman (once he became Superman, not when he was Clark Kent) seemingly being indifferent to the deaths of anyone aside from a speaking role character? Really? Even just a quick throwaway line or any kind of small action to try and save lives or minimize damage would have been nice. Avengers had a huge amount of collatoral damage too, but at least they acknowledged it a few times with the Avengers assigning people to help the civilians escape, as well as the montage in the aftermath showing the people grieving over the loss of lives and the destruction of the city. But in Man of Steel, there was barely any recognition of that. If I'm remembering correctly, in the scene with Zod & Martha Kent, Superman comes pummeling into Zod and actually punched him INTO the middle of the town. I mean, wtf?? There's farmland everywhere!

Shiny - I actually had the opposite problem with Amy Adams (who I normally adore). I thought she was TOO smile-y and nice to be Lois Lane. I can't look at Amy Adams without thinking she's going to burst into song and dance. Also regarding the cheesy lines, I don't think it was Cavill's delivery that was the problem. He just had some truly cheesy lines to deal with. I think he actually delivered them better than can be expected. I thought he elevated the sub-par writing. Imagine what he could have done with Joss Whedon type dialogue instead.

[charliepanayi]

Huh? All I said was the action stuff was impressive *confused*

And Shiny, who would you have rather play Lois Lane? Tell us some non-bitchface actresses who are more talented than Amy Adams. Thanks for providing a still of her (is that from The Master?) as concrete evidence though.