And not at all remarkably, that score is having no effect on the film's success whatever.
Ba-Da-Boom!
MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
And not at all remarkably, that score is having no effect on the film's success whatever.
Ba-Da-Boom!
And not at all remarkably, that score is having no effect on the film's success whatever.
I take it Mach5 doesn't like the film and is happy about the low rating?
It still sounds like something I will enjoy. I am all for mindless action and escapism in movies.
I am going to say something that may shock people. I think the whole "Character development and Character motivation" in films is overrated.
As a mental health therapist many times people act in ways without knowing or showing their motivation. A lot of times people do not change a lot (a lot of therapy is dealing with acceptance of the self as they are). I digress. So I do not look at movies always looking for Character development or motivation. If a movie has it, fine, but it is not essential to my enjoyment of a movie.
Lots of people will enjoy it, it's very Transformers-esque is how I can best describe it especially if critic ratings don't match up with audience opinion.
So, where to begin? There has been so much hype for this movie and there seems to be an awful lot riding on it. Given Marvel Studios amazing success in creating a cinematic universe for their characters, DC have been conspicuously lagging behind with only Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy representing the other great comic house's stable of characters on screen with any real quality. Attempts to bring The Flash and Wonder Woman to the screen have stalled while the less said about Green Lantern, the better. DC/Warner's hopes of creating a movie universe pretty much hangs on Man of Steel's success. Early rumblings would suggest that it will be a big box office hit but, as we all know, box office takings do not mean a good movie. So is it any good?
Well, there are good things in it. Firstly, and probably most importantly, Henry Cavill is a great Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman. He really is. He has the presence, the charisma, the warmth, the strength and the nobility that this role requires and I really look forward to him playing the role again. I just hope it's in a much better movie than this one. Let me put this into some perspective. This is nowhere near the disappointment of Green Lantern, Spiderman 3 or Batman and Robin. They were awful. Nor is it as embarrassing as Superman 4. That has a special place on the 'unimaginably rubbish' list. No, Man of Steel is not a bad movie. It's just a bit boring and, for me, being boring is a cardinal sin in a comic book movie. By the way, do not mistake boring for quiet or sedate. In fact, the quiet moments are what make the movie. Scenes between Clark and his adopted parents, played by Diane Lane and a brilliant Kevin Costner, bring much needed heart to an otherwise rather soulless endeavour. Russell Crowe, as Kal-El's birth father is good, if overused. There is much to be said for Marlon Brando's brief role in the 1978 movie. The Daily Planet characters are bland, even Lois Lane, who is the victim of some truly bizarre breaches of movie logic (you know, the logic that is far from normal logic but that we allow in a movie of this type). Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all is Michael Shannon's General Zod. Gone is the cool, arrogant evil of Terence Stamp; Zod here is one big ball of rage, one dimensional and completely uninteresting.
The final act is perhaps the biggest problem. It is a superhero movie so we expect a spectacular ending, epic and exciting, but what we get here is spectacle ala Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay; in other words, massive, wanton destruction. Seriously, the final act of MoS makes the end of The Avengers looks like a Mike Leigh film. However, whereas The Avengers laced its action with humour, heroics and, above all, a sense of fun, MoS gives us such unrelenting, impersonal destruction that we might as well be watching Transformers. Whereas I came out of The Avengers on a high, I came out of MoS exhausted.
There are 2 great scenes though. One is a flashback that packs a real emotional wallop, while the other is the very final scene which sets us up for the sequel in such a way that I felt good at such a prospect, even given the preceding 2 hours. It made me smile and reaffirmed my belief that, in Cavill, we have an actor who can carry the DC movie universe on his broad shoulders. They need to give him a better story though, more interesting villains and a chance to show the warmth and humour that he naturally has. Perhaps, like X2, Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight, having taken care of the origin story, we will get a really good sequel and I hope we do. I want to see Superman back as a permanent fixture on the cinematic landscape. He is a great character and he deserves a great movie. Sadly, this wasn't it but they have the right actor in place; they've stumbled a bit this time out; hopefully, next time, they will soar.
Well, there are good things in it. Firstly, and probably most importantly, Henry Cavill is a great Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman. He really is. He has the presence, the charisma, the warmth, the strength and the nobility that this role requires and I really look forward to him playing the role again. I just hope it's in a much better movie than this one. Let me put this into some perspective. This is nowhere near the disappointment of Green Lantern, Spiderman 3 or Batman and Robin. They were awful. Nor is it as embarrassing as Superman 4. That has a special place on the 'unimaginably rubbish' list. No, Man of Steel is not a bad movie. It's just a bit boring and, for me, being boring is a cardinal sin in a comic book movie. By the way, do not mistake boring for quiet or sedate. In fact, the quiet moments are what make the movie. Scenes between Clark and his adopted parents, played by Diane Lane and a brilliant Kevin Costner, bring much needed heart to an otherwise rather soulless endeavour. Russell Crowe, as Kal-El's birth father is good, if overused. There is much to be said for Marlon Brando's brief role in the 1978 movie. The Daily Planet characters are bland, even Lois Lane, who is the victim of some truly bizarre breaches of movie logic (you know, the logic that is far from normal logic but that we allow in a movie of this type). Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all is Michael Shannon's General Zod. Gone is the cool, arrogant evil of Terence Stamp; Zod here is one big ball of rage, one dimensional and completely uninteresting.
The final act is perhaps the biggest problem. It is a superhero movie so we expect a spectacular ending, epic and exciting, but what we get here is spectacle ala Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay; in other words, massive, wanton destruction. Seriously, the final act of MoS makes the end of The Avengers looks like a Mike Leigh film. However, whereas The Avengers laced its action with humour, heroics and, above all, a sense of fun, MoS gives us such unrelenting, impersonal destruction that we might as well be watching Transformers. Whereas I came out of The Avengers on a high, I came out of MoS exhausted.
There are 2 great scenes though. One is a flashback that packs a real emotional wallop, while the other is the very final scene which sets us up for the sequel in such a way that I felt good at such a prospect, even given the preceding 2 hours. It made me smile and reaffirmed my belief that, in Cavill, we have an actor who can carry the DC movie universe on his broad shoulders. They need to give him a better story though, more interesting villains and a chance to show the warmth and humour that he naturally has. Perhaps, like X2, Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight, having taken care of the origin story, we will get a really good sequel and I hope we do. I want to see Superman back as a permanent fixture on the cinematic landscape. He is a great character and he deserves a great movie. Sadly, this wasn't it but they have the right actor in place; they've stumbled a bit this time out; hopefully, next time, they will soar.
Yes.Do you realize that you made no point at all, there?
Seeing it in IMAX 3D tomorrow. 
The movie isn't out here yet.
But I have to agree with you on the music; very dull. Zimmer's written this score for other movies better in the past. But I hope the music works better with pictures, as it is supposed to be.
And compared to Giacchino's Star Trek theme (which I'm listening to as I type this) everything seems dull these days.
http://collider.com/man-of-steel-thursday-box-office-21-million/
Bulletproof and critic proof
And not at all remarkably, that score is having no effect on the film's success whatever.
Bulletproof and critic proof
I gave it an A. I really don't understand the poor reaction this movie is getting from the critics, because I thought it was fantastic. Fortunately audiences don't seem to be agreeing with the critics. I hope this movie makes a ton of money, because this is the best interpretation of Superman to come around in a very long time.
I did think it meandered a little bit in the early going, and it took a little while to pick up steam, but once it got moving it didn't stop. Personally I'm fine with this interpretation of Jonathan Kent, and I vehemently disagree with those calling it "character assassination." Jonathan's goal, first and foremost, is to protect his son--and Clark is his son, regardless of who actually sired him. I do think the tornado scene could have been handled a bit better, but it didn't ruin the movie for me, either.
I had a huge grin on my face in the final moments of the film. I'm glad WB is fast-tracking a sequel, because I want to see more of this Superman--and hopefully a Justice League including him--ASAP.
Oh, and I saw it in 3D, and it looked great to me. Didn't find any of it distracting, nor did I think any of the action (which was very well-done) difficult to follow.
I did think it meandered a little bit in the early going, and it took a little while to pick up steam, but once it got moving it didn't stop. Personally I'm fine with this interpretation of Jonathan Kent, and I vehemently disagree with those calling it "character assassination." Jonathan's goal, first and foremost, is to protect his son--and Clark is his son, regardless of who actually sired him. I do think the tornado scene could have been handled a bit better, but it didn't ruin the movie for me, either.
I had a huge grin on my face in the final moments of the film. I'm glad WB is fast-tracking a sequel, because I want to see more of this Superman--and hopefully a Justice League including him--ASAP.
Oh, and I saw it in 3D, and it looked great to me. Didn't find any of it distracting, nor did I think any of the action (which was very well-done) difficult to follow.
The bad reviews won't keep me from seeing the movie, but this might. I HATE being preached to...
I was watching the "Cinema Snob's" Midnight Review of the movie, where they all seemed to hate it, and they made an interesting point. Clark Kent is more interesting than Superman and in this movie we see very little of Clark. It also neuters the Clark/Lois dynamic by having her know right away which, again, has always been an interesting aspect. Clark trying to get Lois to notice HIM instead of Superman.
Seeing Clark balance his Superhero life with trying to live a "normal" life has always been interesting and here we don't get that. And, really, we haven't gotten that in ANY of the Superman movies because in the other ones the Clark persona is exaggerated into the bumbling idiot shtick rather than him just being a bit awkward or bland.
I again look at this movie as being sort of like Batman Begins which, itself, was rather bland and dull, filled with set-up and exposition (though an interesting one sense we never really get to see these "origins" of Batman) so I hope that if/when in the next MoS movie we get more fun out of it because, really, Superman should be more light-hearted and fun. He's a character of optimism and hope. Not dourness and frowns, the problem with Routh's Superman.
Heck, if a DC-CU is going to work on a level like the MCU has and lead up to a Justice League movie the entire franchise needs to be injected with some color and fun because that's what was so great about the MCU.
Seeing Clark balance his Superhero life with trying to live a "normal" life has always been interesting and here we don't get that. And, really, we haven't gotten that in ANY of the Superman movies because in the other ones the Clark persona is exaggerated into the bumbling idiot shtick rather than him just being a bit awkward or bland.
I again look at this movie as being sort of like Batman Begins which, itself, was rather bland and dull, filled with set-up and exposition (though an interesting one sense we never really get to see these "origins" of Batman) so I hope that if/when in the next MoS movie we get more fun out of it because, really, Superman should be more light-hearted and fun. He's a character of optimism and hope. Not dourness and frowns, the problem with Routh's Superman.
Heck, if a DC-CU is going to work on a level like the MCU has and lead up to a Justice League movie the entire franchise needs to be injected with some color and fun because that's what was so great about the MCU.
One of the reasons I watch films and play videogames is that it gets my mind off my anxiety, which can last from the time I get up to the time I go to bed. I was able to watch twice IM3, ST:ID, and F6, and feel the anxiety lessen. Man of Steel failed to medicate my anxiety. The anxiety increased sometime about the first battle between Superman and Zod's forces, and I felt small tremors rippling through my back. For me, the intensity of this film was greater, and didn't let up until the end, then for those other films. Unlike those other films, I will not be seeing this film again.
While it's not difficult to see parallels to Christianity, the film really isn't preachy at all. There are a couple of moments where faith is explicit (Clark's question to his dad about God, and Clark seeking advice from a priest). But to me, those moments made sense in the context of the film and didn't feel forced or gratuitous.
Sounds a lot like they are stuck in the past and are too inflexible to accept a new take on the character. Personally, I found it refreshing that Lois and the other characters weren't spending the film being so obtuse as to not notice that Superman is Clark Kent sans glasses. Besides, this was about Clark Kent reconciling his human and Kryptonian selves as one person, and not about some rehash of the superficial tension centering on his not-so-secret identity.
I'm glad they chose to take this film in a new direction - unfortunate for those pining for the same old, same old, though.
Let's face it, the Superman as Jesus thing has been there for a LONG time. The movie isn't anymore preachy than any other movie, but there is subtext and parallels there.
Not really, most of their complaints on the movie were just that it was boring. That was just a one-off thing that I thought was interesting, seeing Clark balance trying to live a normal life with living as Superman is a bit more interesting than just watching Superman.
After having read several reviews, the consensus seems to be that it wasn't comic booky enough. Their own expectations ruined the movie.
I agree. It was fast and frenetic, but the action was pretty clear. Someone learned from Transformers.
I loved it. They could have rehashed the same old story, but they didn't and I thought it worked out great.
Next time.
I didn't see dourness in Man of Steel. In fact, I think it hit the right notes. There was fun, wit and charm, it just wasn't on the level of Robert Downey Jr. and not every movie needs that.
Personally, I want more movies like this and The Dark Knight. We have enough of the formulaic Marvel stuff already. And honestly, I'm tired of this notion that scifi and comic book movies have to be fun! fun! fun! all the time.
