Jump to content

Man Of Steel


Principled Man
 Share

Recommended Posts

THIS THREAD CONTAINS SPOILERS: This is your only warning! :scared: :scared: :scared:

 

 

 

OK, so here's what I liked:

 

1. The scenes of Clark Kent as a child and a young man. I am always mesmerized by the storyline of how the boy grew up and came to handle his "uniqueness". In this story, I was particularly intrigued by the not-so-happy nature of his youth and early manhood - being a loner, perpetually trapped in an anonymous life, always hiding who he was.

 

2. Kevin Kostner and Diane Lane - I thought they were excellent as Jonathan and Martha Kent.

 

3. The "Superman is a Threat" plotline - excellent retelling of Superman's beginnings on Earth. The cynic in me expects that if a Kryptonian ever did come to Earth for real, he would indeed be seen as a freak or threat, and treated as such.

 

4. Henry Cavill - I thought I wouldn't like him, but it turns out that I did. He gave a solid performance as Superman.

 

5. The "New Look Krypton" - Darker, more metallic and pewter-colored, unlike the bright, crystalline world we're used to seeing.

 

 

Here's what I didn't like:

 

1. Krypton - Too much of it. The battles and the alien creatures reminded me of Star Wars too much.

 

2. The makers of the film tried to do WAY too much......stuffing in as much Krypton and Russell Crowe as possible, way too many Epic Battle scenes, jamming in a quick and unnecessary romantic scene with Lois Lane, too many skyscrapers collapsing and people running in terror.....it was all just too much. They could have shortened the Epic Battle scenes in favor of more character-driven scenes, like with Lois Lane, or Clark's search for self-identity, etc.

 

3. General Zod - Does actor Michael Shannon have a speech impediment, or was Zod just chewing tobacco all the time? :eh:

 

4. The dialogue - pretty redundant and cliché at times. The endless fight scenes between Superman and the Kryptonians were filled with clichés and predictable platitudes.

 

 

 

I give Man Of Steel a 7/10. I liked it overall, I may see it again, but it definitely has its share of flaws. If I had to change one thing, it would be to let the film BREATHE. More action does not necessarily make a better film. Give the audience the opportunity to take it all in and appreciate the characters.....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll get to the film in good time, then the true verdict will be rendered,,, :smoke:

 

Any other opinions voiced till then are lies and falsehoods all! :madra:

 

Death to false critics! :madra: :blaze:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The girl who played Lois Lane could've been prettier, but I liked how much fighting was put into the movie. Very Sci-Fi, I loved it!

 

Nothing glamorous about Lois Lane or the film for that matter. Lois Lane isn't as "feminine" (as in a sex object), and Superman is hairier, rougher, and not nearly as naive and innocent. I found that the whole film was grittier, darker, and more "serious" than what we've seen in the past.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS THREAD CONTAINS SPOILERS: This is your only warning! :scared: :scared: :scared:

 

 

 

OK, so here's what I liked:

 

1. The scenes of Clark Kent as a child and a young man. I am always mesmerized by the storyline of how the boy grew up and came to handle his "uniqueness". In this story, I was particularly intrigued by the not-so-happy nature of his youth and early manhood - being a loner, perpetually trapped in an anonymous life, always hiding who he was.

 

2. Kevin Kostner and Diane Lane - I thought they were excellent as Jonathan and Martha Kent.

 

3. The "Superman is a Threat" plotline - excellent retelling of Superman's beginnings on Earth. The cynic in me expects that if a Kryptonian ever did come to Earth for real, he would indeed be seen as a freak or threat, and treated as such.

 

4. Henry Cavill - I thought I wouldn't like him, but it turns out that I did. He gave a solid performance as Superman.

 

5. The "New Look Krypton" - Darker, more metallic and pewter-colored, unlike the bright, crystalline world we're used to seeing.

 

 

Here's what I didn't like:

 

1. Krypton - Too much of it. The battles and the alien creatures reminded me of Star Wars too much.

 

2. The makers of the film tried to do WAY too much......stuffing in as much Krypton and Russell Crowe as possible, way too many Epic Battle scenes, jamming in a quick and unnecessary romantic scene with Lois Lane, too many skyscrapers collapsing and people running in terror.....it was all just too much. They could have shortened the Epic Battle scenes in favor of more character-driven scenes, like with Lois Lane, or Clark's search for self-identity, etc.

 

3. General Zod - Does actor Michael Shannon have a speech impediment, or was Zod just chewing tobacco all the time? :eh:

 

4. The dialogue - pretty redundant and cliché at times. The endless fight scenes between Superman and the Kryptonians were filled with clichés and predictable platitudes.

 

 

 

I give Man Of Steel a 7/10. I liked it overall, I may see it again, but it definitely has its share of flaws. If I had to change one thing, it would be to let the film BREATHE. More action does not necessarily make a better film. Give the audience the opportunity to take it all in and appreciate the characters.....

 

I won't go point by point but disagree with a lot of what you didn't like. Zod was Ruthless and intense, perfect portrayal end of story. I'm so glad there was little screen time with the overdone Lois and Clark thing. In fact, I'm glad we didn't see Clark until the end of the movie. The added Krypton subplots helped make this version refreshing, instead of rehashing what has been rehashed to death.

 

It's an action flick and when I'm paying extra money for XD or IMAX, I don't want a flick to wallow in too much mellow drama.

Edited by calirush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't go point by point but disagree with a lot of what you didn't like. Zod was Ruthless and intense, perfect portrayal end of story. I'm so glad there was little screen time with the overdone Lois and Clark thing. In fact, I'm glad we didn't see Clark until the end of the movie. The added Krypton subplots helped make this version refreshing, instead of rehashing what has been rehashed to death.

 

It's an action flick and when I'm paying extra money for XD or IMAX, I don't want a flick to wallow in too much mellow drama.

 

Zod was a great villain; I was just put off a bit by his odd voice. I swear it sounded like he had some chew in his lip....:LOL: A very minor thing. I did like the Krypton scenes, but could do without the Lucas-esque creatures.

 

I do agree that big blockbuster films should give lots of bang for our buck, but for me, it doesn't have to be non-stop battles and such. I gots to have my breaks here and there......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

2. The makers of the film tried to do WAY too much......stuffing in as much Krypton and Russell Crowe as possible, way too many Epic Battle scenes, jamming in a quick and unnecessary romantic scene with Lois Lane, too many skyscrapers collapsing and people running in terror.....it was all just too much. They could have shortened the Epic Battle scenes in favor of more character-driven scenes, like with Lois Lane, or Clark's search for self-identity, etc. [/size]

I agree. It reminded me of the last transformers movie. After Manhattan had been mostly destroyed there wasn't much left for Superman to save.

 

 

 

I personally think that the whole "superhero as a villain" idea is becoming a huge cliché. I figured that this movie was going to go in that direction so I was prepared but it didn't go there as much as I thought it would which was nice. To me, one of the reasons I like Superman so much is that he's a symbol of a positive hero that unites everyone together. He's on our side and we trust him. He's not dark at all and everyone recognizes that; including military and law enforcement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw this Saturday night. Overall, I liked it and thought it was better than Superman Returns.

 

Good points: Superman and Lois were perfectly cast this time around. Is he Christopher Reeve? No, but nobody's going to top CR's portrayal of the character anyhow with me. I can't believe how much this guy looks like Tom Welling in the movie though, wow that's a weird coincidence isn't it? Lois wasn't annoying, and didn't look like she weighed 60 pounds like whosiewhatsis from Superman Returns did.

 

I LOVED how young Clark was freaked out by his new powers emerging. It made perfect sense- if you thought you were a normal kid and then all of the sudden you could start seeing people's skeletons and stuff you'd be scared too! Kudos for showing Pete Ross and (I think) Lana Lane in the school bus.

 

Costner was okay, but Crowe was outstanding. Makin' movies, singing songs, fightin' 'round the world indeed! Nice foreshadowing with the Lexicorp oil tanker. I like how Superman was disgusted with himself on how he handled Zod- this made perfect sense to the character I thought. I really like the way the movie ended at the Daily Planet and there has to be a sequel which should be a lot better!

 

Bad points: Their vison of Krypton is just too different. An ice planet with crystalline structures- that's how I thought it should look, not Avatar 2.0. I didn't mind all the space ships though. Zod was... well, he was good but again he's played so differently than Zod from the 1st two movies. I was expecting at least one "Kneel before Zod!" but maybe in retrospect this was a good thing.

 

I did not like the transition to the scout ship / Fortress of Solitude. It took me a few minutes to realize what was happening and BOOM, there's Superman tunneling through the ice to get to the ship? What? They never showed how he knew it was there. I don't know this whole transition was very jarring to me.

 

There's been much ballyhooing about the amount of destruction towards the end- there's only 2 things I had issues with: #1) When your city is getting the shit kicked out of it and everything's exploding, why does EVERY SINGLE PERSON just stand there and go "DUHHHHHH..!!!" Run for cover or something! This made no sense at all. #2) The CGI, while techincally-speaking looked good- just made the movements of Supes / Zod's guys look fake. You know what I mean? Like they move in inhumanly possible ways. I'm not talking about being able to jump 100 feet in the air, I mean when they're on the ground and they come at you with a leap at an impossible angle. I don't know how else to clarify this but I doubt we'll see anything that could be done better in the future without green screens and invisible wires holding the actors up.

Edited by Del_Duio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just how Michael Shannon speaks. He's incredible on Boardwalk Empire.

 

He was also fantastic in "Take Shelter". He's an awesome actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an enjoyable movie, but it does nothing to break the streak of forgettable/mediocre movies that DC has been pushing out since The Dark Night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first I thought I was in for something really, really stupid based on the Krypton opening. It was, like the OP said, way to much like Star Wars, just CGI everywhere...and that flying mount that Jor was riding. What the hell was that? It got better fast, though. Cavill made an awesome Kal, the scenes of young Clark were all badass, Kevin Costner was somehow touching, Lois was a solid character, Zod was a fantastic villain, even if his crew of Kryptonians was a bit silly.

 

I enjoyed the whole film, start to finish, even if it had a few writing issues for me. I thought they should have kept the whole Earth's atmosphere element out of it and just stuck with the Yellow Sun alone...I think that Krypton would have figured it out by then that nitrogen and oxygen give them superpowers. Overall though, hell yes, that was a good Superman film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just seen it !

Well a few hours ago

 

Brilliant !!! :cool:

 

The best of the lot .

How the hell do they top that ?!

 

Oh and I`ve seen Take Shelter with the Zod guy in it

Edited by By Tor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was okay. There was some good stuff but there was some equally dumb stuff. I was disappointed considering that this was the same creative teams that brought us Watchmen, Batman Begins, the Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises. The tone an morals were all over the place as well. My least favourite of the movies I've seen this summer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason this movie is doing as well as it is is because it has no competition right now.

You still think that? It's made over $650 million. It did well because: 1) It's Superman and many are automatically interested, 2) Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan, and David Goyer's names are attached to the flick so many are automatically interested, 3) It's got tons of action and eye-popping special effects. I still prefer Avengers, Batman Begins, and Dark Knight but Man of Steel lives up to the title of "summer blockbuster".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really sick of these superhero movies. Enough already.

Don't watch them then dood. There's plenty of shit out there to watch (and I emphasize the word "SHIT"). As I said in another thread, superhero flicks have AT LEAST another decade to go. Think about this: Look at all those cop flicks in the 70s and 80s. And did they ever REALLY die out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll get to the film in good time, then the true verdict will be rendered,,, :smoke:

 

Any other opinions voiced till then are lies and falsehoods all! :madra:

 

Death to false critics! :madra: :blaze:

Aye. I finally saw it today because it FINALLY hit theaters last Friday. I thought it was quite good. It had plenty of action with a different angle of looking at Supes. Surely, many wanted more Clark Kent in it but hell, Clark doesn't really exist does he? Kal-El is Superman.And I like that they didn't pick Lex as the villain (yet again and again as they did in the past) since Superman really needs to let loose with his punches. I'm hoping for Brainiac in the next one...yeah, I know Batman will be there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comment applies to many of the new super hero movies -- Why, oh why, must it always be about saving the planet from an extinction level event?? How the hell can we even relate with something of that size and scope? In PG-13 movies they never show innocent by-standers being crushed to death in flying debris and cars, but we have assume that there are dead bodies everywhere at the end of these movies. It's like 9/11 x 10 -- but they only show the debris and explosions -- never the people burning alive. But the level of destruction in these movies, and the inaccessible bad guys, alien forces and indestructible beings -- who the hell can relate with that.

 

The Superman I remember growing up:

 

1) Flies about as fast as an airplane and usually barely made it in time to save Lois. It's called suspense, people.

 

2) Struggled to lift giant boulders -- meaning he was super-strong, but not unlimited strength.

 

3) Had x-ray vision -- and not laser eyes.

 

4) Never, never, never told Lois and anyone his secret identity. The great moment in every episode: "Oh Clark, you idiot, if only Superman were here!!" Clark rolls his eyes. (that's called dramatic irony and it works for a reason)

 

With this Man of Steal mess -- where the hell do they go from here? He just save the world, going after bank robbers would seem a let down... even Lex Luther and some missiles would be like, yawn...

 

At one point, Superman flies to the opposite end of the planet to take out one part of the big machine and there are these CGI tentacles and things grabbing at him -- at no point am I thinking, he may not be able to bust up this machine, so I'm looking at my watch, totally bored.

 

There were parts that I like, the outcast stuff of his childhood, his father dying, and a few other moments... but mostly, it was so HUGE, the level of destruction, I thought I was watching another 2012 type movie. Who care if most of us are dead?

 

IMO -- the only movie(s) to get it right are Christopher Reeves I & II (which was one film divided into two parts) -- of course it was Mario Puzo's script that created the great arc of the story of Superman. He wasn't indestructible, he had weaknesses and Lois Lane dies because he can't save everyone -- how great was that?

 

I never read comic books, I like Mad Magazine, still read it from time to time -- but these Superhero movies today... it's hard to relate with the size and scope of the destruction, mind-numbing I think.

 

The Batman trilogy was great, especially the Joker. Batman got all busted up, he came home bruised and broken after a night out fighting gangsters and drug dealers. That's a Superhero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comment applies to many of the new super hero movies -- Why, oh why, must it always be about saving the planet from an extinction level event?? How the hell can we even relate with something of that size and scope? In PG-13 movies they never show innocent by-standers being crushed to death in flying debris and cars, but we have assume that there are dead bodies everywhere at the end of these movies. It's like 9/11 x 10 -- but they only show the debris and explosions -- never the people burning alive. But the level of destruction in these movies, and the inaccessible bad guys, alien forces and indestructible beings -- who the hell can relate with that.

 

The Superman I remember growing up:

 

1) Flies about as fast as an airplane and usually barely made it in time to save Lois. It's called suspense, people.

 

2) Struggled to lift giant boulders -- meaning he was super-strong, but not unlimited strength.

 

3) Had x-ray vision -- and not laser eyes.

 

4) Never, never, never told Lois and anyone his secret identity. The great moment in every episode: "Oh Clark, you idiot, if only Superman were here!!" Clark rolls his eyes. (that's called dramatic irony and it works for a reason)

 

With this Man of Steal mess -- where the hell do they go from here? He just save the world, going after bank robbers would seem a let down... even Lex Luther and some missiles would be like, yawn...

 

At one point, Superman flies to the opposite end of the planet to take out one part of the big machine and there are these CGI tentacles and things grabbing at him -- at no point am I thinking, he may not be able to bust up this machine, so I'm looking at my watch, totally bored.

 

There were parts that I like, the outcast stuff of his childhood, his father dying, and a few other moments... but mostly, it was so HUGE, the level of destruction, I thought I was watching another 2012 type movie. Who care if most of us are dead?

 

IMO -- the only movie(s) to get it right are Christopher Reeves I & II (which was one film divided into two parts) -- of course it was Mario Puzo's script that created the great arc of the story of Superman. He wasn't indestructible, he had weaknesses and Lois Lane dies because he can't save everyone -- how great was that?

 

I never read comic books, I like Mad Magazine, still read it from time to time -- but these Superhero movies today... it's hard to relate with the size and scope of the destruction, mind-numbing I think.

 

The Batman trilogy was great, especially the Joker. Batman got all busted up, he came home bruised and broken after a night out fighting gangsters and drug dealers. That's a Superhero.

 

You touched on some of my biggest problems with Superman. His powers are way beyond anything I think should be possible fore a superhero. I would love a Superman who can only LEAP tall buildings, not defy gravity. Yeah, Superman is fast, but he can't change the direction of the Earth's rotation. Yeah, his eye sight is perfect, but laser beam heat ray?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comment applies to many of the new super hero movies -- Why, oh why, must it always be about saving the planet from an extinction level event?? How the hell can we even relate with something of that size and scope? In PG-13 movies they never show innocent by-standers being crushed to death in flying debris and cars, but we have assume that there are dead bodies everywhere at the end of these movies. It's like 9/11 x 10 -- but they only show the debris and explosions -- never the people burning alive. But the level of destruction in these movies, and the inaccessible bad guys, alien forces and indestructible beings -- who the hell can relate with that.

 

The Superman I remember growing up:

 

1) Flies about as fast as an airplane and usually barely made it in time to save Lois. It's called suspense, people.

 

2) Struggled to lift giant boulders -- meaning he was super-strong, but not unlimited strength.

 

3) Had x-ray vision -- and not laser eyes.

 

4) Never, never, never told Lois and anyone his secret identity. The great moment in every episode: "Oh Clark, you idiot, if only Superman were here!!" Clark rolls his eyes. (that's called dramatic irony and it works for a reason)

 

With this Man of Steal mess -- where the hell do they go from here? He just save the world, going after bank robbers would seem a let down... even Lex Luther and some missiles would be like, yawn...

 

At one point, Superman flies to the opposite end of the planet to take out one part of the big machine and there are these CGI tentacles and things grabbing at him -- at no point am I thinking, he may not be able to bust up this machine, so I'm looking at my watch, totally bored.

 

There were parts that I like, the outcast stuff of his childhood, his father dying, and a few other moments... but mostly, it was so HUGE, the level of destruction, I thought I was watching another 2012 type movie. Who care if most of us are dead?

 

IMO -- the only movie(s) to get it right are Christopher Reeves I & II (which was one film divided into two parts) -- of course it was Mario Puzo's script that created the great arc of the story of Superman. He wasn't indestructible, he had weaknesses and Lois Lane dies because he can't save everyone -- how great was that?

 

I never read comic books, I like Mad Magazine, still read it from time to time -- but these Superhero movies today... it's hard to relate with the size and scope of the destruction, mind-numbing I think.

 

The Batman trilogy was great, especially the Joker. Batman got all busted up, he came home bruised and broken after a night out fighting gangsters and drug dealers. That's a Superhero.

 

You touched on some of my biggest problems with Superman. His powers are way beyond anything I think should be possible fore a superhero. I would love a Superman who can only LEAP tall buildings, not defy gravity. Yeah, Superman is fast, but he can't change the direction of the Earth's rotation. Yeah, his eye sight is perfect, but laser beam heat ray?

Superman was revamped in the 80s and given less powers and made to be less mild-mannered. But he was still more powerful than how he was originally written (i.e. no flight, eye beams, etc.). In any case, he constantly remains popular simply because he's Superman...75 years of comic book appearances and a big part of comic book culture [and American culture]. Actually, I never liked him too much but he IS the mold by which other superheroes are crafted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comment applies to many of the new super hero movies -- Why, oh why, must it always be about saving the planet from an extinction level event?? How the hell can we even relate with something of that size and scope? In PG-13 movies they never show innocent by-standers being crushed to death in flying debris and cars, but we have assume that there are dead bodies everywhere at the end of these movies. It's like 9/11 x 10 -- but they only show the debris and explosions -- never the people burning alive. But the level of destruction in these movies, and the inaccessible bad guys, alien forces and indestructible beings -- who the hell can relate with that.

 

The Superman I remember growing up:

 

1) Flies about as fast as an airplane and usually barely made it in time to save Lois. It's called suspense, people.

 

2) Struggled to lift giant boulders -- meaning he was super-strong, but not unlimited strength.

 

3) Had x-ray vision -- and not laser eyes.

 

4) Never, never, never told Lois and anyone his secret identity. The great moment in every episode: "Oh Clark, you idiot, if only Superman were here!!" Clark rolls his eyes. (that's called dramatic irony and it works for a reason)

 

With this Man of Steal mess -- where the hell do they go from here? He just save the world, going after bank robbers would seem a let down... even Lex Luther and some missiles would be like, yawn...

 

At one point, Superman flies to the opposite end of the planet to take out one part of the big machine and there are these CGI tentacles and things grabbing at him -- at no point am I thinking, he may not be able to bust up this machine, so I'm looking at my watch, totally bored.

 

There were parts that I like, the outcast stuff of his childhood, his father dying, and a few other moments... but mostly, it was so HUGE, the level of destruction, I thought I was watching another 2012 type movie. Who care if most of us are dead?

 

IMO -- the only movie(s) to get it right are Christopher Reeves I & II (which was one film divided into two parts) -- of course it was Mario Puzo's script that created the great arc of the story of Superman. He wasn't indestructible, he had weaknesses and Lois Lane dies because he can't save everyone -- how great was that?

 

I never read comic books, I like Mad Magazine, still read it from time to time -- but these Superhero movies today... it's hard to relate with the size and scope of the destruction, mind-numbing I think.

 

The Batman trilogy was great, especially the Joker. Batman got all busted up, he came home bruised and broken after a night out fighting gangsters and drug dealers. That's a Superhero.

 

You touched on some of my biggest problems with Superman. His powers are way beyond anything I think should be possible fore a superhero. I would love a Superman who can only LEAP tall buildings, not defy gravity. Yeah, Superman is fast, but he can't change the direction of the Earth's rotation. Yeah, his eye sight is perfect, but laser beam heat ray?

Superman was revamped in the 80s and given less powers and made to be less mild-mannered. But he was still more powerful than how he was originally written (i.e. no flight, eye beams, etc.). In any case, he constantly remains popular simply because he's Superman...75 years of comic book appearances and a big part of comic book culture [and American culture]. Actually, I never liked him too much but he IS the mold by which other superheroes are crafted.

 

Yeah, he's the mold. I just wish someone had the balls to take his "powers" down a notch or two.

 

As for Affleck's Batman. Apparently, he's going to be an experienced and mature Batman. Not a Batman who runs and hides in Wayne Manor for eight years and runs off to Europe to retire.

 

Will Affleck pull it off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The girl who played Lois Lane could've been prettier, but I liked how much fighting was put into the movie. Very Sci-Fi, I loved it!

 

Ok, I know this is a dead thread, but Mam Of Steel was unexpectedly my favourite film of 2013, and I felt the need to say so.

 

Also, I disagree. Amy Adams is gorgeous, and her cute girly face and stunning red hair make her one of my pin ups (alongside Eva Mendes, Jennifer Lawrence, Beyoncé and Emily Blunt. Plus Selma Hayek and...ahem...Tin Fey).

 

My biggest flaw with Man Of Steel is simple: the action blew my mind, but I want more from the characters next time.

 

Still, much better than the Spiderman reboot...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...