Yeah, Hitler was REAL funny.

I figured you would be a Hitler apologist.

I wish the amazing musical score for this movie was featured in a better film.

Hitler wasn't German, dumbass. Even if he was, what you just wrote was incredibly racist.

Couple of review headlines I enjoyed:

"Kraptonite!"

"Man Of Stool: Pooperman"

Your children write reviews!?

My favorite and most accurate review headline is the one currently featured in my sig:

"The Clark Knight"

I like that one, actually.

/

I find your lack of bulge DISTURBING...

Um, I saw it before the embargo lifted.

After seeing 300 and Watchmen, Zack Snyder would’ve been one of my last choices to direct the latest Superman reboot. It’s not that 300 and Watchman are terrible moves, but their flaws are aggravating for how little emotional depth is beneath the visual extravaganza.

Man of Steel is a similar experience. On one hand it is a beautiful film aesthetically, perhaps Snyder’s most attractive in that department. It’s a film one could enjoy with the sound off with the way Superman and company are filmed against the world’s backdrop. The action scenes are both explosive and visually clean, allowing the viewer to see everything that’s happening.

But as usual with Snyder, there just isn’t enough else going on here. The characters speak not like people, but movie line-delivery devices. The characters speak lines as if meant to display emotion, but it’s calculated and not believable. Amy Adams does great work in spite of this and is the highlight of the film, but it can’t save the rest of the scenes.

Furthermore there is little nuance in the ups and downs of the film. The films packs on action scene after action scene, but its characters and plot never has time where they sit back and breathe. In part I suppose, because these are barely real characters. Man of Steel has little feel for the storytelling and character building part of filmmaking. It excels at dessert but not the main course.

At the same time, Man of Steel is so relentlessly committed to its visual masturbation and action scenes that it borders on visual operatic experience. Though whether for talent or will reasons, it never truly gets there artistically. Still, Man of Steel is a unique film, especially compared to Marvel’s increasingly following a blueprint entries.

Man of Steel is a film that I enjoyed watching for the visuals and action, but left it knowing how empty the film and experience I just saw was. It’s not bad, but it’s barely good. Zack Snyder is turning into one of the more consistent and recognizable directors out there, but unfortunately for the wrong reasons as much as the right ones. But I guess that’s still better than a director who makes bad films or one with no unique style.

http://jrodgermoviereviews.wordpress.co ... yder-2013/

I wanted to see it again before I cemented in a final grade and I'm glad I did because I had much more fun with it the second time around. Yes, the film has it's problems (Jor-El riding a dragon, there's not enough Kevin Costner/Diane Lane, Supes could've used a couple of more moments where he was smiling) but most of the problems I had were either explained away (20,000 years), were never there to begin with (Supes lack of a moral compass, aka he throws Zod into buildings. He never does and he never causes damage on purpose. You will still have the Luthor, or whoever, angle that if he was never there to begin with it never would've happened therefor he's the enemy, but anyone who says Superman doesn't care is dead wrong), or just flowed much better the second time around (the flashbacks and Lois & Clark's romance).

And the film ends pretty damn perfectly.

There's still quite a bit of room for improvement, but this is a very good starting point.



(A-) - About on par with Superman II. It was never going to match the original in my eyes since that's my favorite film, so I never considered that a possibility and tried to compare the two. I also need to rewatch Superman Returns.

I'm a little conflicted when it comes to Man of Steel. On one hand, it's passably enjoyable through the majority of its running time and I can admire the fact that the filmmakers are trying to take Superman in a more grounded and cerebral direction. On the other hand, the story is too expansive even for a 143-minute length, and the tone is so straightly serious that it's difficult to enjoy it as much as some of the highlights of the superhero sub-genre; even the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy had more humor and playfulness than is on display here. The major pieces of the movie - the prologue on Krypton, the flashbacks to Kal/Clark growing up in Smallville, the beginning of the relationship with Lois Lane, and the cataclysmic showdown with Zod - work, but feel underdeveloped given that they're all squeezed into the film. They also don't resonate as strongly as they did in the very first Superman film, which is likely owed to the serious, borderline-sterile approach Zack Snyder takes to the material; while it does give the material a somewhat interesting edge, it's missing the heart that helped to define Superman and Superman II (and the still severely underrated Superman Returns). The final battle, while very protracted, is fun to watch; although it's astounding that the filmmakers so easily handwave the immense amount of collateral damage Superman causes. In the title role, Henry Cavill fares nicely. He doesn't have the personality of Christopher Reeve (or even Brandon Routh), but he has the presence, and he'll probably have no trouble sliding back into the role in the sequel. Amy Adams is always nice to see in movies, but there's not strong enough material for her to really make her mark as Lois in this film. Michael Shannon appears to have a ball devouring the scenery left and right, while Russell Crowe does some nice, understated work as Jor-El. And as others have said, Diane Lane and Kevin Costner are the heart of the film. It's hard for me to say that I'm not disappointed with Man of Steel, but it's not because it's a bad movie (it's not); it's because it's so workmanlike and stoic that it's more "ehh... good, I guess" than "super."

B-

What an ass clown.

*Bane* Impossible.

I'm assuming this is the only film your brother has ever seen. Because that's a ridiculous statement to make.

What didn't work

- Shaky cam (but more on this. I do feel it was the right approach)
- Amy Adams (she played a good character. She played an interesting character. She was no Lois Lane though)
- Editing (The flashbacks, the fight scenes, everything was great. The putting together part not so
- Length (though length itself is not an issue. This falls back to some editing
- Over usage of green screen and gray scale

What worked? I'm going to skip this part and go straight down to the synopsis.

While many may have enjoyed Chris Reeve's Superman growing up, Superman in the animated universe will point towards why Superman is such a hard character to create for a movie going audience. His power levels are changed episode to episode to keep him relevant, he is forced to be grouped with various other characters etc. In anything live action, ever iteration of Superman has been forced to play it safe.

The issue boils down to the fact that no matter what you do with Superman, you will end up pissing someone off. Make him godly and people complain about the messiah complex. Make him omnipotent and where is the danger. Make him face off against other non Godly characters and people point to the fact he is indeed omnipotent and should have destroyed his enemies in seconds. He's a boy scout and a moral compass ... and we all know how much movie audiences hate someone who is defining morality for them. His issues with kryptonite is a cop out. Bottom line, he has the potential to be controversial, boring or completely unbelievable.

On the flip side of things, Superman is a brilliant character, if he actually did exist in real life. You're talking about someone whose grown up knowing what he is and being forced to stay completely hidden, blend in and most importantly, hold back no matter the cost else he risks destroying whatever he touches. He spends an entire lifetime learning to cope with overwhelming senses that would drive any person insane. It is an amazing character study.

Why is any of this relevant to the movie? Because I believe beneath all those issues, Snyder and Goyer had an amazing script for such a character. They addressed the messiah complex, his omnipotence, his frustration with what he had growing up and how he was forced to control his every action. It even addressed his morality ... by making a boy scout ... but not really. People died .. lots ... but it was done in a manner where the situation was taken somewhat out of his hands.

And then the fight scene. Goyer and Snyder had balls not to play it safe. They went all out and honestly, provided a level of destruction that should come with Superman. Watching it, I expected Gods to fight in the manner they did, eliminating humans with a flick of a finger, crushing each other in the manner they did, knocking down sky scrapers as they fought. To not expect such a fight is to not acknowledge the powers you're dealing with.

So is Superman a good movie or a bad movie? Well, its problems will always be the same as one would have with the Hulk. Both are fundamentally interesting as they're reasonably complex characters, far more complex than those we've come to love (Ironman and Batman whose general stories are far more relatable but fundamentally, simple). However, how do you create a story where in most situations, they are forced to hold back punches and forced to generally behave awkwardly and when the time comes, to engage in complete over the top action.

With all the issues pointed out above, this is a Superman movie done right as a first step and how it should and needs to be and I can only hope that it improves over with passing sequels. Those who disliked it, or hated it .. it is a very understandable thing. Superman will, and will always remain a character driven story and if you fundamentally take issues with the character's traits (note, this does not translate to disliking the character himself), it is hard to like this movie.

The original 2 Superman movies played it safe. They were new back then. They will have a special place in people's hearts and will, in mine as well. I still prefer the first movie over this one. But I think this is a Superman that was being done right. Hick ups yes. Hopefully, Snyder can make the technology for a Superman film work now so we can stop relying on horrible gray scaling, green screens and shake cams.

B+/Possible A-.

One note though. I found the action sequences infinitely better than the final sequence of the Avengers ... simply because most of the Avengers final scene made no sense due to the universe's most incompetent army.

You're welcome.

'Cause she's not useless?

Because she is intelligent.

The real Lois Lane would never have figured out who Kal-el/Superman was!

I didn't hate MAN OF STEEL.

My Lois comment was defending the film, by the way. Lois as conceived in MAN OF STEEL is an excellent version of the character.

I agree with most of the points Shack made in his review. C+. I slightly prefer Superman Returns more.

I'm growing tired of all the pure CGI action-packed Summer blockbusters that have been overrunning the box-office recently. I was somewhat interested in seeing Pacific Rim next week, but I feel too exhausted to consider it now knowing it'll be more of the same.

God what an awesome movie this is!

Zod vs. Superman was the moment so many fans have been waiting for.

You're so bipolar about this movie.

MAN OF STEEL just happens to be the best summer movie in a decade that does absolutely everything right while also being terribly frustrating with a script that doesn't work and they have to make sure the writer doesn't return for the sequel.

Makes sense to me.

Man of steel is too awesome not to love, but from a more analytical stand point, it has plenty of flaws.