MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
There should be some sense of fun and even COLOR. There's a medium between "fun! fun! fun!" and between all seriousness and gray.
Not always. Not absolutely. And I'm thrilled they set that aside for this film. Ironically, despite not having his name in the title, this was absolutely a movie about Superman - about how he must reconcile Clark Kent and Kal-El before he really becomes super. Besides, the setup is there to do the "balancing act" exploration in the sequel.
I've always enjoyed the George Reeves, and Lois & Clark model where Clark is who he is, and Superman is just what he can do. The alien aspect has never caught my interest.
Perhaps, and I can see that. This was a set-up movie. But it just feels like it "lacked something." I'll see it again Saturday night and get a second opinion on it.
I've enjoyed those, too. And doing so again certainly would have been the safe route. Making Superman so explicitly alien isn't an easy thing to do. And the film itself certainly isn't without its flaws in that regard. But I'm glad they tried something different and took a chance (admittedly in a reboot
).
Just as long as it doesn't become Emoman. Sure, the character has got to be different and know it. He really can't be just a guy from Kansas given how truly different he is, but I lose interest when comics or films wallow in it. Hopefully this film doesn't go there when I see it.I've enjoyed those, too. And doing so again certainly would have been the safe route. Making Superman so explicitly alien isn't an easy thing to do. And the film itself certainly isn't without its flaws in that regard. But I'm glad they tried something different and took a chance (admittedly in a reboot
Yeah, I'm still on the fence about that. One the one hand... But then on the other.... Ehhhhh.... I dunno.
He's done it before.
Well, now that I have seen it, I can understand why people are a tad befuddled by the whole thing. It's not at all what 99% of people are going to expect. It is, as someone else said, primarily an alien invasion story - and a pretty frickin' scary one at that, which was something I wouldn't have anticipated in a million years.
Many of the criticisms are valid and how people react will depend on how much those things bother them. The wanton destruction is completely wanton, and a little disturbing, but the movie makes no bones about going for an operatic scale. Like most Snyder movies, it goes for big, testosterone-y conflict most of the time - but does much better than most of his movies at some subtle, tender moments. For instance, Clark and Lois' love affair is established in two, we-are-here-for-each-other hand squeezes that were quite remarkable.There's a coldness to it that goes beyond its steely palette (I see what you did there, Zack!). Particularly early on the deeply emotional family scenes are too thinly written for their pathos to truly sink in. For instance, I'd have liked to have seen Jonathon's point of view more clearly established as being about his own inability to bear losing his son should the truth about him become known.
That said, it is ballsy, risky, and refreshing for not repeating the now-completely-monotonous beats of a superhero movie. This is not your daddy's Superman. Hell, it's not even my Superman- it is an entirely more grown up animal in both its themes and viciousness. And I think that's what's freaking people out. You just don't expect that out of Superman.
Does that mean something has been lost? Give me a break. There's many different interpretations of Superman on screen, and a zillion more in print. There's room for one of them to be this. It may not please people with a, shall we say, mainstream view of superheroes - but I like it when someone finds a rather unmined vein in these stories. I think it keeps them fresh. As far as I know, no Superman origin story has ever handled his introduction to humanity this way.
There's lots more to say, but right now my conclusion is that it is really interesting as an interpretation of Superman, and an enjoyable, if somewhat exhausting and tense, movie. I feel like I felt at the end of the first time I watched The Terminator.
Many of the criticisms are valid and how people react will depend on how much those things bother them. The wanton destruction is completely wanton, and a little disturbing, but the movie makes no bones about going for an operatic scale. Like most Snyder movies, it goes for big, testosterone-y conflict most of the time - but does much better than most of his movies at some subtle, tender moments. For instance, Clark and Lois' love affair is established in two, we-are-here-for-each-other hand squeezes that were quite remarkable.There's a coldness to it that goes beyond its steely palette (I see what you did there, Zack!). Particularly early on the deeply emotional family scenes are too thinly written for their pathos to truly sink in. For instance, I'd have liked to have seen Jonathon's point of view more clearly established as being about his own inability to bear losing his son should the truth about him become known.
That said, it is ballsy, risky, and refreshing for not repeating the now-completely-monotonous beats of a superhero movie. This is not your daddy's Superman. Hell, it's not even my Superman- it is an entirely more grown up animal in both its themes and viciousness. And I think that's what's freaking people out. You just don't expect that out of Superman.
Does that mean something has been lost? Give me a break. There's many different interpretations of Superman on screen, and a zillion more in print. There's room for one of them to be this. It may not please people with a, shall we say, mainstream view of superheroes - but I like it when someone finds a rather unmined vein in these stories. I think it keeps them fresh. As far as I know, no Superman origin story has ever handled his introduction to humanity this way.
There's lots more to say, but right now my conclusion is that it is really interesting as an interpretation of Superman, and an enjoyable, if somewhat exhausting and tense, movie. I feel like I felt at the end of the first time I watched The Terminator.
Just posted this elsewhere, thought I'd post here too...
I liked it. A lot. I've seen it twice in 18 hours. I was not disappointed. I could see where two or three hard-cuts where made for time and I wish they'd not been. I found the hand-to-hand combat much too fast-past and visually difficult to follow, but that's Snyder for you. It felt a bit like it was compensating for the lack of epic spectacle of past Superman films + past Superman shows (namely Smallville) by cramming every last iota of explosive action in as could be. But overall I really enjoyed it. A good reboot, a good origin tale, a good film. All the acting was good, the characters good. I have no significant complaints just the ones I've said above. Was shocked by Zod's death at the hands of Superman... but I've also always thought it naive of Superman to be so squeaky-clean. It takes the number 2 slot of best origin films for me, only behind Batman Begins. Takes the top Superman film slot as well. I think when all is said and done it'll be a great success that revives and rejuvenates the Superman brand.
I liked it. A lot. I've seen it twice in 18 hours. I was not disappointed. I could see where two or three hard-cuts where made for time and I wish they'd not been. I found the hand-to-hand combat much too fast-past and visually difficult to follow, but that's Snyder for you. It felt a bit like it was compensating for the lack of epic spectacle of past Superman films + past Superman shows (namely Smallville) by cramming every last iota of explosive action in as could be. But overall I really enjoyed it. A good reboot, a good origin tale, a good film. All the acting was good, the characters good. I have no significant complaints just the ones I've said above. Was shocked by Zod's death at the hands of Superman... but I've also always thought it naive of Superman to be so squeaky-clean. It takes the number 2 slot of best origin films for me, only behind Batman Begins. Takes the top Superman film slot as well. I think when all is said and done it'll be a great success that revives and rejuvenates the Superman brand.
Another thing that annoyed me, when he dons the suit - it's not epic, it doesn't feel monumental or a great weight. It' just a suit. Same with the flying scene, when he "learns" to fly properly - it's not really joyous, or monumental or any of that, he is just flying. You have that generic Hans Zimmer drumbeat rattling in the background while you see a shaky cam of a blue blur, the closest it got to being cool was when he went through space. It just rushed it.
Compare and contrast with Iron Man when he flies the suit into the atmosphere the first time and around town. Hell, even in Star Trek when you see the Enterprise for the first time in the 2009 flick would be a comparison.
Compare and contrast with Iron Man when he flies the suit into the atmosphere the first time and around town. Hell, even in Star Trek when you see the Enterprise for the first time in the 2009 flick would be a comparison.
I think what makes him killing Zod at least "work" as that it seemed he really had no other choice and the way he broke down in anguish after doing it.
I also think the destruction inflicted on Metropolis in this movie is way over the top considering several blocks of it was pretty much vaporized into oblivion. After The Avengers there was talk about the amount of damage done to NYC in terms of dollars (I don't recall it, but while it was steep it was on par with most natural disasters) here? A good chuck of Metropolis is LEVELED, gone, and then there's a lot of secondary damage from the fight between Zod and Superman (which it would've been nice that if instead of seeing buildings collapse killing countless people we see Superman do things like weld back support columns and stuff to prevent a building collapse.
Again, it goes back to how much the MCU tried to ground itself in "a" reality and not make things too far over the top. Here? Metropolis is highly destroyed, countless people are no doubt dead and as a result of the terraforming device Earth's entire gravitational pull has been slightly altered.
I also think the destruction inflicted on Metropolis in this movie is way over the top considering several blocks of it was pretty much vaporized into oblivion. After The Avengers there was talk about the amount of damage done to NYC in terms of dollars (I don't recall it, but while it was steep it was on par with most natural disasters) here? A good chuck of Metropolis is LEVELED, gone, and then there's a lot of secondary damage from the fight between Zod and Superman (which it would've been nice that if instead of seeing buildings collapse killing countless people we see Superman do things like weld back support columns and stuff to prevent a building collapse.
Again, it goes back to how much the MCU tried to ground itself in "a" reality and not make things too far over the top. Here? Metropolis is highly destroyed, countless people are no doubt dead and as a result of the terraforming device Earth's entire gravitational pull has been slightly altered.
An enjoyable movie that gets my stamp of approval, but really that's it. It's not bad, but it's not really "holy shit, that was awesome!!!111oneone". There's a decent storyline, hitting all the generic notes about finding your place in life and all that usual stuff. Some great action scenes which are at times really badass and some really cool stuff involving soldiers and fighter jets. It makes for a fun afternoon at the movies, but it's not really particularly memorable or noteworthy. The non-linear story with all the flashbacks took some getting used to. It's not a format I'm opposed to, but the way it's handled isn't among my favourite storytelling methods either.
Strangely enough, I found myself being distracted by really silly and trivial issues. Like just how much money are they going to have to sink to repair all that damage? All those buildings, a decent portion of a city completely wiped out isn't going to be cheap to fix. At the end, the General gets pissed at Superman for taking out that surveillance drone that costs twelve million. A building several storeys tall collapses, that ain't going to be cheap to fix.
And yeah, I usually don't mind shaky cam, but damn this movie wore it out completely. Honestly, I have trouble believing they hired a cameraman who knows how to hold a camera. And lens flares, I am so sick of lens flares, and guess what this movie has an abundance of? It's not quite as bad as the Abrams Trek movies, but it's still pretty bad.
Strangely enough, I found myself being distracted by really silly and trivial issues. Like just how much money are they going to have to sink to repair all that damage? All those buildings, a decent portion of a city completely wiped out isn't going to be cheap to fix. At the end, the General gets pissed at Superman for taking out that surveillance drone that costs twelve million. A building several storeys tall collapses, that ain't going to be cheap to fix.
And yeah, I usually don't mind shaky cam, but damn this movie wore it out completely. Honestly, I have trouble believing they hired a cameraman who knows how to hold a camera. And lens flares, I am so sick of lens flares, and guess what this movie has an abundance of? It's not quite as bad as the Abrams Trek movies, but it's still pretty bad.
Last edited:
I'm sure the death toll would be pretty high if the events of either Universe occurred in the real world.
The death toll, and the way it's basically glossed over, is my biggest issue with the film. Superman felt anguish over his decision to defeat Zod - where was the similar anguish over the consequences of the battle which, while necessary, perhaps, was utterly devastating?
Other criticisms, like shaky cam, focusing on a unified character (rather than the secret identity angle) and "donning the suit not being epic enough" are simply stylistic choices. I guess ignoring the death toll is a style now, too (see: Avengers, Transformers, etc.) but for this film, which makes such a big deal about safeguarding and saving lives, ignoring the cost is, to me, a more relevant flaw in terms of the film's internal consistency.
Other criticisms, like shaky cam, focusing on a unified character (rather than the secret identity angle) and "donning the suit not being epic enough" are simply stylistic choices. I guess ignoring the death toll is a style now, too (see: Avengers, Transformers, etc.) but for this film, which makes such a big deal about safeguarding and saving lives, ignoring the cost is, to me, a more relevant flaw in terms of the film's internal consistency.
