I wasn't particularly impressed by this film when I saw it in the theater. I've given it another look on Blu Ray, and I must say I find it considerably better than I first thought it was. The casting of Henry Cavil, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, and Amy Adams is great. The Phantom Zone aliens are well-cast, too, although I still find Michael Shannon somewhat off as Zod (he is a good enough actor to sell the role, though). What I'm particularly impressed by is how dream-like and even hallucinatory the film is. It ingeniously compresses familiar bits of Superman/Clark lore into dreamlike memories, and in doing so adds to the psychological and mythic dimensions of the film. I am also utterly fascinated by the set design and FX for all things Krypton-related, including the Phantom Zone tech such as the World-Engine. This film has one of the most ingenious visual textures of any sci-fi film since Blade Runner. It's still an awfully odd movie that I also find to be reactionary in some ways (all the stuff about how Kansan/American Superman is). But it's a good movie overall with some astonishing moments (I am particularly struck with Clark saving Lois in the disintegrating capsule in outer space right now, and with his being forced to kill Zod at the end).
I completely agree. I think this movie is given way too hard a time from some folks, simply because it's not a straight up re-telling of the origin story everyone's familiar with. The complaints about the battles and their "excessive" destruction will be made moot when the second movie deals with the consequences Superman must face. Besides, it was his first day on the job, his first real fight and he had no real training. I don't understand the vitriol. Cavill was great as the Man of Steel. Everyone else did a fantastic job as well, imho. I even liked that Lois knows who he is! It keeps the entire story fresh and doesn't feel like some sort of retread. I look forward to the next installment, without prejudice and whiny fanboy attitude. Jus' Sayin'
I really enjoyed Man of Steel as well. I liked Kevin Costner's role as well and would have liked him to reprise the role in future movies. I liked that he didn't have all the answers. The level of destruction is similar to the levels of damage we see in the comic books, but my one problem is that we should have seen Superman actually trying to save some of the people or cleaning up at the end. I really loved the Kryptonian scenes and would almost like to see a World of Krypton movie set in this universe.
Always thought Man of Steel deserved a lot of credit for its aesthetic daring and willingness to depart a little from the squeaky-clean Superman template to deliver a more compelling story. It was refreshing to see a Superman movie whose villain was something more than a cackling moustache-twirler, and the final throwdown with the Kryptonian baddies was everything one could wish for from a city-smashing superhero brawl. Why exactly it got such a bumpy ride from critics I really have no idea.
Yeah I really liked that about the film as well. I haven't always liked Snyder's directing in the past, but the way he was able to meld this moody, dreamlike quality with a gritty, naturalistic camera style I thought was really well done. And just did a great job making everything feel both mythic and real at the same time.
I keep thinking I should get this, though I still haven't seen it. I read Superman a lot as a kid (50s-60s), but the only videos I currently own are the Kirk Alyn serials and the first year of the George Reeves series. I'm more curious about Man of Steel than Into Darkness (which I haven't seen either).
Only saw it for the first time at the weekend, and to be honest I don't think it needed to be a Superman movie. You could change all the names and it would still be 95% the same alien on Earth film.
For the most part it was okay, but the big CGI battle at the end was ridiculously overblown. Metropolis was laid waste, probably tens of thousands killed. Half of that was Supes' own fault - he didn't seem to care if he caused a ship to crash into a city block, or how many buildings he punched Zod thru. The city looked nuked at the end. So much for our great super protector.
^ Not to rehash the same old arguments for the umpteenth time.... but it was actually Zod and his World Builder that was responsible for the vast majority of the city's destruction.
... and the rest, outside of the "vast majority" (a vastly overused favorite term on the internet) was Kal's fault. It's like if a mad gunman sprays a schoolyard and kills a dozen kids, and an armed citizen returns fire, but his stray rounds kill 6 kids too. It's not okay.
Perhaps you should rewatch the final 3rd of the movie. All the buildings Superman and Zod crashed into were empty; except the last one where Zod attempted to kill that family. I find it disingenuous to blame Superman for the casualties in the film. In MOS, Superman had no control of the situation. He's fighting people just as powerful as he is. His net advantage against Zod is 0. He was at a disadvantage against Faora and Nam-Ek in the Smallville fight since it was 2 against 1.
^ outside of the casualties caused by the World Engine. I didn't see anyone die as a result of Superman and Zod's fight. People lob that insult at MOS but when you watch the film all the buildings they slammed into didn't have people in them.
If the mad gunman had threatened to kill all life on Earth and had a gun that could actually achieve that by altering the planetary mass and atmosphere, then that might be a valid analogy. It might also justify some more drastic and hasty tactics by Kal (though never intending harm to anyone himself) when the stakes were as high as the literal end of the world for his adopted people.
Yeah, the whole "blame Superman for the destruction caused by Zod" thing was silly from the get-go. Then it became a meme, and like all memes it became worn out and tiresome. I didn't hear anyone complaining that the Avengers caused the destruction of half of Manhattan. Besides, the level of destruction was par for the course in the comics.
^ Yeah, it was equivalent to a billion other superhero urban brawl punch-ups we've seen in comic books and in other movies, just done with more visceral effects.
I will say the writers could have shaped the story in a way so Superman could have avoided such massive destruction. I think it's apparent they chose not to. But it's also apparent from watching the story that Superman himself, as the story was portrayed, could not have done anything about it.
What's funny is, I remember for decades people have been wanting to see a Superman/superhuman brawl with the actual amount of mass destruction something like that would entail, and then when we finally get it, it's all people complain about. There was even a Superman cartoon (I forget which) where Superman was fighting in the middle of Metropolis and buildings were collapsing around him that was highly praised at the time for finally being a Superman fight with real, measurable mass damage and consequences to it.