I agree this was not a must see movie, Johnny Deep just can,t cut it
FYI: The following will probably be the best article ever written about MAN OF STEEL. So hilarious, and soooo accurate.
Wow! Thanks, Matt! I have to say, I've been trolling the internet for a great reviewer since Roger kicked it and I am thrilled by your stylings! I'm now sifting through your reviews and I'm loving it. Thanks for the props and look forward to reading more!
Spencer, I haven't read the thread, so I'm not sure of the other comments, but I don't think it was as bad as Green Lantern. Very few things are that bad. It is what it is: A film about special effects, loosely based on the Superman mythology. I did think it was about on the level as a Transformer film and not as good as one and 3 of the X-men films. But I actually kind of liked the Transformer films for what they were. Good loud fun. And Transformers (the first one) was at least funny in parts! That was a surprise. Anyways, I thought the flight scenes were pretty great, though the 3-D fell very flat for me. Compared to Into Darkness the 3-D and the last Batman... it was poorly done. A couple of parts popped but the rest... might as well taken the glasses off. But like it or not, Superman is a cultural icon with a deep-seated cultural mythology. And the first film REALLY IS a great film. Remember, in 20 years, the special effects in this Superman will look dumb, too. I'll admit that Superman 2 is not so great (still campy fun and a better Zod portrayal) and 3 is horrible with a horrible bastardized soundtrack. But Superman the Movie was a film of its time and it was taken seriously by the filmmakers and film-scorer and critics. It was sort of like the first Rocky (which was a great film and won Academy Awards) or Star Wars in that Superman is really a coming of age story, revealing a hidden glory, a veiled greatness. The kind of greatness we all hope we have. You couldn't make that film today and you shouldn't try and that's why the last Superman reboot ultimately fell flat for me, though I enjoyed it in a sad nostalgic kind of way. And then I never wanted to see it again. I have seen the first trailer for it about 500 times though. Probably the best superhero trailer ever made. haha. Most of the gripes that I stated about this film had to do with being derivative, heavy-handed, and poorly cast. It may not be the worst film ever made, but it sure isn't the best. By a LOOOOOOOONG stretch.
IgnatiusTwain: Wow. That was a superb commentary, bringing up a couple of points I hadn't even contemplated. Your analysis of the "you're not my real dad" scene was particularly insightful.
Oh, and "not as a backup drive for the Krypton population (whatthecrap?)" made me chuckle.
Since people seem to think that I am some sort of child, let me back track and try to keep things simple and "mature".
From the comments, it appears that this film is very black and white in terms of like and dislike. People either love it or hate it. I personally loved the film. I thought the story was original enough, I thought that there were plenty of surprises throughout the film, and the action was simply unbelievable. Personally, it annoys me that people compare this to Michael Bay and any other popular sci-fi film. This film has CGI and action like I have never seen, and I think that's exactly what they wanted to deliver.
I have no problem with people not liking this film, as long as they can give good reasons for not liking it and don't go overboard. The reason I was so infuriated initially was because of comments in the review such as, "There's a strong possibility that Man of Steel might be the dullest superhero saga ever filmed," or even the title itself. Comparing it to awful movies like The Green Lantern and saying that it is worst is just as frustrating. It just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't help when other people say things like, "If you like shiny things and moving, soulless visuals, I have a set of keys you can borrow. Jiggle them in your face and save some money." That literally makes no sense.
All in all, I loved the film, and I can't wait to see what comes next from this re-boot.
Great review. I'm a sucker for good Christ-allegory, after-all, sacrificial love and redemption are in every great story, but this was so heavy handed, I thought Superman was going to get saved and baptized. This film was incredibly goofy. It had zero real heart and felt like the writers fished two rejected scripts out of the Twilight pile and the Transformer pile and made a superman/x-man movie. It was bereft of all real Superman mythology and fell short of resembling Superman at all. Even the little temper tantrum with the trucker's semi-truck fell flat on movie goers. Wolverine doing that? Yes. Superman? No. The whole theater just kind of gave a muted chuckle and then puzzled silence. I don't know if it was bad CGI or if it was actually little scary and indicative of the film-maker's subconscious and the weird undertoning of how we deal with aggression in our world today-- Don't actually square off face-to-face in peace or violence, but when they aren't looking, drone the crap out of them- but it seemed incredibly strange and unsatisfying. The real Superman never "gets even", he defends and protects.
I suppose the only scene that I liked was the oil-rig scene but that felt too much like a Wolverine film and at one point I had to double-take because he looked so much like Jackman's Wolverine with the body and facial hair. Other than that, it was too referential in almost every scene... and it didn't help that their casting department seemed to have mined the Matrix cast for generals and important leaders. I suppose no one saw the similarities in how superman took off and how Neo took off?
As far as mythology goes.. It was almost as if, in their Nihilism, they just couldn't come to terms with Superman, a man that can do no evil. And this is what makes Superman a different kind of comic book hero, and the most unique of all of them. He is perfection coming down to live with imperfect man, and his man-identity, Clark Kent, is his real secret identity. His super-self is his native form. He wasn't bitten by a spider or genetically altered by radiation. He wasn't a rich billionaire with expensive toys and fancy karate lessons in the alps by some mystical Asian guy. Nay, Superman came from somewhere else and from a higher and infinitely more evolved form of man, sent to earth, not as a backup drive for the Krypton population (whatthecrap?), but to be a force of good to a race of similar beings that need guidance and help in such a way that they cannot actually achieve their greatness without outside help. In a sense, humanity, through the mythology of Superman, is hopelessly flawed without the help of a "savior." And this is why Superman was sent, so that some greater good could come of Jor-El's line, and this is why it has resonated with fans for ages. But here? Superman is reduced to cracking the neck of Megatron, I mean... General Zod, and passive-aggressively maiming some idiotic trucker's semi rig and then telling his earthly father that "your' not my REAL dad" with the sensitivity of a modern-day sociopath. Forget the neck snapping of Zod; in that scene alone, with Clark and his dad, the director robbed Clark of all his "humanity." He might as well have transformed into a Klingon. I know what they were going for: A Luke Skywalker Tosche Station or Peter Parker moment, but it fell flat and the ultimate sin of a writer is to cause your character to do something out-of-character.
Yes, gentle commenter holding your twinkie crusted x-box controller, the first Superman film is still the greatest superman film ever made because it is actually a film and not a vehichle for the Director to transform Superman into the Dark Knight and to flex their special effects. The cinema photography in the first Superman is beautiful, it is perfectly paced, perfectly cast, and perfectly acted. I even like the special effects better. Shoot, the twister in the Wizard of Oz looked better than this twister.
As far as story, the flash-back narrative is a weak one and a real sign of laziness. As-in: Hey guys, whats the quickest way to write this story so that I can show Superman's pecs and fists pounding Zod. A strong driving narrative is always better and when you do use a flashback, it should always be a surprise. Flashbacks used in this way are right up there with, “oh, it was only a dream!” Only way it really works is in a film like Memento or Pulp Fiction where the flashback IS the narrative. It’s a character in itself. It's got to be creatively done. This was by the numbers.
Also, all the obi-wan dad stuff (both his Crowely and Kevinly father) was pretty dumb and felt once again indicative of some kind cultural cry for the modern gen-x man's perpetual need for guidance because their baby-boomer dads raised a bunch of indecisive crybabies. So, what do we need??? We need dad appearing around every corner and bailing our butts out, telling our girlfriends to dodge like Morpheus with Neo. Daddy Ex Machina, baby. In the original Superman, Cal-El must ultimately make his own decisions and Jor-El is confined to a inactive role in his son’s decisions, thereby forcing Superman out of the nest and to be his own man. But here, we have a more "Halo" influenced version of Jor-El where he is ever-present and actually doing some of Superman's goodness for him where Superman falls short. Philosophically or subconsciously, one could see how the filmmakers toppled the problem of Superman's "goodness" by using this device: it was all dumped into Jor-El, who was basically unable to do anything real to help and therefore rendered ineffective. Now that I think of it, in a subtle way, all real good was defeated in this film. Eventually, all good must die and you just gotta kill someone to make it happen. Nihilism sucks. Every 50 years we learn this lesson and unfortunately we learn it the hard way.
Hey, Spencer Rhodes? Leaving this?
"Lastly, you can leave that arrogant, know-it-all attitude somewhere else."
On this page? This is Matt's page. It says his name at the top, not yours. You take YOUR arrogant, rude attitude somewhere else, because he can say whatever the hell he wants to on his OWN FUCKING REVIEW. This space is his, not yours, and as shocking as this may seem, the entire world is not waiting on pins and needles for your entitled point of view.
As for the rest?
Matt's review is spot-on; the movie should have ended with the (*MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*) climatic Lois Lane kiss. Instead it stretched out for what felt like a hundred hours with a million identical explosions and with Zod's one facial expression. Yawn. If you like shiny things and moving, soulless visuals, I have a set of keys you can borrow. Jiggle them in your face and save some money.
Reverence: I would never call you an "insecure fanboy" because, unlike Spencer and most of the others, you did not feel a need to hurl personal insults but instead elected to air your opinions in an adult and respectful manner. So thank you for that. Too bad there aren't more like you commenting on this movie.
NIce review, spot on my thoughts exactly!
You're doing the exact same thing by calling them insecure fanboys. The fact is the majority of viewers (and there are a lot of them, thank god) enjoyed this movie. The performances, aside from Laurence Fishburne, who I expected a bigger role/performance from (given his acting chops), were all fantastic. I would have to say I strongly disagree with your view about Brandon Routh putting in a better performance than Henry Cavill. Routh seemed to remain quiet and unemotional for the entire duration of the 2006 film, while Cavill did a great job of humanizing a character. I'm not a fan of the way the conflict in this movie was resolved, but in that one scene after the deed is done, Henry Cavill showed more acting ability than Brandon Routh could in the entirety of Superman Returns, so with all due respect, I have to disagree with you.
First of all, I have said plenty of substantial things, but you are simply ignoring them in favor of being a hypocrite and hinting that I am a complete fool.
Secondly, I am not a Superman fanboy. I haven't even read a single Superman comic. It may appear that I am because I act as if I know what Superman fans wanted. I am only saying so because I have heard so from friends who are Superman fanboys who loved the movie, as well as from other forums and comment threads I have read online.
Lastly, you can leave that arrogant, know-it-all attitude somewhere else. Maybe the reason people are being so negative towards you is because of that. Better yet, maybe it's because they think you're completely off base about this movie...
Hey, I'm all for sharing and debating views in MATURE discussions. But on this thread alone, I've been called "idiot," "retard" and, thanks to you, "complete fool." I don't mind in the least -- it's always amusing to see what words people grasp for when they have nothing substantial to say -- but it's hard to engage in a meaningful dialogue with insecure fanboys who feel threatened that not everyone in the world agrees with them on every single movie.
I'm a sucker for great visuals. One might say that my generation is being spoiled by the evolving HD nature of TV and film. On the contrary, it simply makes things all the more realistic, and isn't that what movies and TV are about? Putting our imaginations on the big screen? This movie is what most Superman fans, as well as most people, wanted out of it. This movie took CGI to a whole new level. It also gave a fresh re-take on a classic superhero story, and added layers upon layers of depth that, although do not fit perfectly together, still provide something substantial over the action. The fact that there are some minor flaws does not make this film terrible, and certainly not a "superbore". All your review did was completely over-exaggerate a few things that could have been better. Critics like you make me sick, because you can't see anything but your own view.
Spencer: By your own admission, the film was poorly paced, the script was inconsistent, and the character development was weak. But because it had awesome CGI and looked pretty, that's all it took to get an unqualified rave from you? And you say I sound like a "complete fool"?
Rob: Your comment that the special effects DEFINE the movie rather than ENHANCE it is spot-on. That would certainly explain why so many fanboys unequivocally love it -- it's the movie to tide folks over until Michael Bay's next TRANSFORMERS sequel.
I really just do not understand how anyone can hate this movie. Yes, the pacing was not that great. Yes, their were plot holes. Yes, the character development wasn't quite there. But does that mean that the movie sucked? Absolutely not! It is a visual marvel, and I have never seen CGI like I did in this movie. That alone makes this movie stand out from the likes of The Avengers, which in comparison to Man Of Steel, looks like a small-time middle school play.
I will gladly re-watch this movie again. And again, and again...
The movie sucked. The writers, directors and producers should be ashamed. They had an opportunity to make an epic movie and they failed miserably. Now, if you like pretty colors and loud noises, then I'm sure you loved the movie. But if you're a moviegoer that enjoys character development and a movie that uses special effects to ENHANCE the movie instead of DEFINE the movie.. then you'll hate Man of Steel. If this was an animated TV movie then I would have loved it. But it wasn't. It was a large scale, huge budgeted movie that put in a C- effort to make an adult story. Look at Lord of The Rings as a benchmark for using the words EPIC and MOVIE together and tell me where you think Man of Steel ranks on that scale. I challenge anyone who liked the movie to sit through it again and not be bored.
Don't be sheep- Demand Excellence in Entertainment.
Dear Mr. Brunson,
Your opinion about this film could not be more infuriating to the majority of Americans who think this movie was fantastic. Let's set-aside all the foolish comparisons to the Superman movies of old, because let's face it, you simply can not compare movies in the 21st century to anything from the 20th century. Marvel films, The Dark Knight trilogy, and Man Of Steel, are shining examples of what the masses want in a superhero film. How can you watch the action in this movie and not get butterflies? How can you begin to say Man Of Steel and bore in the same sentence? I was literally flying on the edge of my seat watching this film. This film stretched my imagination in ways that I can not even fathom, and made it all look POSSIBLE! I'm not saying any of this to sway your opinion, because I know that just will not happen. Rather, I am saying this just to let you know that you sound like a complete fool to almost everyone who reads this review.
Side note: Oh yes, Pa-Kent definitely doesn't care about his wife. That's why he made his super-human son make sure that she was safe while he rescued the dog -_- The only problem with that scene is the fact that Mama Kent left the dog in the car in the first place.
Agreed - Horrible! Imagine Michael Bay took the junk from Transformers 3 and combined it with 2 hours of lame flashbacks... Now add a bunch of corny lines and you have Man of Steel. In all fairness, the first 30 minutes or so were sweet, then it was all downhill (remind you of Looper, anyone?). And what an inactive protagonist! It boils my blood.
This movie was a way too long special effects extraviganza. No plot, no characters, literally couldn't wait for the one-hour final fight scene to end. I'm not a picky movie-goer. This movie was simply lame and a complete waste of time.
Powered by Foundation