PDA

View Full Version : Man of Steel



Bad Ronald
2013-Jun-14, 09:35 PM
Has anyone seen it yet?

If you're going to SPOIL it, give a heads up that you will, please. Thank you.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-15, 09:45 PM
Just got home from watching it. I'll be writing a review soon. For one thing, I have to decide if I'm going to give it a six or a seven out of ten. I enjoyed the story frankly more than I was expecting to (I'm not actually a huge Superman fan, much as I like superheroes as a genre), but I hated the filming.

Solfe
2013-Jun-16, 02:45 AM
Better than 5? I may go see it then.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-16, 02:53 AM
I hated the filming, but I liked the story. And Russell Crowe was considerably better as Jor-El than the ghost of Marlon Brando was in Superman Returns. It's a better Superman, too, and Amy Adams isn't a bad Lois. And, as expected, it was an excellent Zod. There are some silly bits, and there are plenty of bits where I said, "Wait, do they not know how science works?" However, overall, I enjoyed it more than not.

LotusExcelle
2013-Jun-16, 03:43 AM
Not to armchair write and direct.. but I will. I think taking a semi-sympathetic tack with Zod was a good move. But I would have gone much further, earlier. If Zod had approached earth and Kal-El as a friend and then the majority of act 2 was Kal-El realizing that Zod was a monster (but for good internal reasons), it would have made for a much better movie.

Also I didn't like the structure. I would have preferred linear, or at least MUCH less "here's a flashback that pertains to this exact scene coming up".

I liked all of the casting and liked Crowe's resigned and solemn Jor-El. Also I'd really like to see Antje somehow make her way back for a sequel. Holy moly.

Snyder, I think, needs a smaller movie to work on. Definitely good directing but the writing seemed... I'm not sure how to explain it. Square peg round hole?

Solfe
2013-Jun-16, 11:47 AM
My son and I watched a couple of trailers this morning, I have to say I was very impressed with the one single image of the little boy putting on a red cape. That struck me as completely awesome. As we got to the more warlike images, my son shook his head and asked:

"Dad, the US army* is the best. And the Russians and the British and the Germany's and the Japanese all have the best armies. Why do they always lose in movies? Blown up is blown up, right?"

I couldn't think of a single movie where any military had a good showing against aliens, at least not one that a 11 year old can watch. District 9 hints at it, but the language! Avatar has a mother-nature of a spoiler ending. He might be right.

*Not politics - This is a case of my son not understanding the word "army" vs. "military" or "world-wide" vs the military of single country. He really like soldiers in particular and military stuff in general. And I mean he really like soldiers. When he was about 4, he asked a woman in a Coast Guard uniform for an autograph... while she was pumping gas.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-16, 04:37 PM
I believe the assumption is that, if the aliens have the power to get here, they have the technology to beat human armies. In this case, it isn't even a matter of technology per se. It's the "yellow Sun" mythos that's been part of Superman for decades. All the bullets and missiles and so forth in the world only do you so much good if you're firing them at people who basically can't be hurt. And certainly the military forces in the movie don't lack for bravery, just effect.

A bigger problem, as I saw it, was that because the aliens can't be injured by conventional means, there's no suspense to most of the fight scenes. Yeah, we wonder if Christopher Meloni is going to die, but we know Superman isn't. We know Zod isn't. We know Zod's soldiers aren't. We know that the Kryptonians can pound on each other all day, and be shot at by jet fighters, and anything else the movie chooses to throw at them, and they aren't even going to get bruised. So why do the scenes last for as long as they do? Are there people who actually like fight scenes that long?

Nowhere Man
2013-Jun-16, 07:06 PM
Two hundred forty-three minutes of
LOUD.

I dunno, this plot would have been better for a second or third movie. If you go saving the world in every story, it gets boring after a while.

I laughed when I saw Big Blue and Lois standing out in the desert, and she's wearing spike heels.

Henry Cavill's lower incisors are crooked. I guess braces don't work on Kryptonian dentition.

Regarding the property damage, to quote The Thing from an 80s-era FF comic, "Who's gonna pay for all this?" And after all that chaos, life goes on as if a major city had not been trashed. Kind of like The Avengers.

Physics takes by far the worst beating of anything in this movie. Even Especially the principle of leverage gets abused.

Spoilers of sorts:
Earthlings now have hard evidence of life elsewhere in the universe, and a sample of such alien life in Gnl. Zod's carcase. (Earthlings may or may not be degenerate Kryptonians; I think it's "not" -- the "genesis" thing hadn't been triggered). They also have samples of alien technology, although it's somewhat the worse for wear. Big Blue's secret identity is pretty much an open secret. If Lois can figure it out, and the gummint can't, what good are they? And if they have figured it out, why are they spying on him?

How did Clark do what he did to the logging truck without anyone hearing or seeing?

Jor-El's ghost must have manufactured the supersuit on the scoutship; there's no way it could have been there all along.

I'll shut up now.

Fred

geonuc
2013-Jun-16, 08:15 PM
A bigger problem, as I saw it, was that because the aliens can't be injured by conventional means, there's no suspense to most of the fight scenes. Yeah, we wonder if Christopher Meloni is going to die, but we know Superman isn't. We know Zod isn't. We know Zod's soldiers aren't. We know that the Kryptonians can pound on each other all day, and be shot at by jet fighters, and anything else the movie chooses to throw at them, and they aren't even going to get bruised. So why do the scenes last for as long as they do? Are there people who actually like fight scenes that long?

That's the issue I had with the movie. It's as if the filmmakers needed to destroy virtually every building in the city. It got a little tedious.

Solfe
2013-Jun-16, 08:30 PM
That's the issue I had with the movie. It's as if the filmmakers needed to destroy virtually every building in the city. It got a little tedious.

I have a feeling all film makers watch WWII films and assume that cities were destroyed to grant the protagonists access. Destroyed as in 15 minutes before filming, and not the result of a several month campaign. Hence, city busting battles.

I like city busting battles, but they are some sort of "evil whimsy", not realism.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-16, 08:52 PM
That's the issue I had with the movie. It's as if the filmmakers needed to destroy virtually every building in the city. It got a little tedious.

And why did it take so long for them to leave the Daily Planet building, which is, like right next to the thing destroying Metropolis? I can accept that it's in Metropolis because of course it is, but by the time Perry White tells his staff that it's time to go, I would have been gone for at least ten minutes and moving as far away from that thing as I could get.

Nowhere Man
2013-Jun-16, 09:02 PM
Agreed. If I was in a city and buildings started dropping like flies, my priority number one would be [acronym which would get me moderated but could be translated as "being somewhere else with extreme prejudice"].

Fred

korjik
2013-Jun-16, 11:24 PM
My son and I watched a couple of trailers this morning, I have to say I was very impressed with the one single image of the little boy putting on a red cape. That struck me as completely awesome. As we got to the more warlike images, my son shook his head and asked:

"Dad, the US army* is the best. And the Russians and the British and the Germany's and the Japanese all have the best armies. Why do they always lose in movies? Blown up is blown up, right?"

I couldn't think of a single movie where any military had a good showing against aliens, at least not one that a 11 year old can watch. District 9 hints at it, but the language! Avatar has a mother-nature of a spoiler ending. He might be right.

*Not politics - This is a case of my son not understanding the word "army" vs. "military" or "world-wide" vs the military of single country. He really like soldiers in particular and military stuff in general. And I mean he really like soldiers. When he was about 4, he asked a woman in a Coast Guard uniform for an autograph... while she was pumping gas.

Battle Los Angeles isnt a great movie, but it is one where the military isnt completely outclassed. I agree with what Gillianren said tho, I think the assumption is that if you can cross interstellar distances, you are going to have the locals outclassed.

korjik
2013-Jun-16, 11:30 PM
Agreed. If I was in a city and buildings started dropping like flies, my priority number one would be [acronym which would get me moderated but could be translated as "being somewhere else with extreme prejudice"].

Fred

Mine wouldnt. If I can see the buildings getting knocked down like that, it is too late to run. I would have started clearing out of the city the second Zod 'jacked every screen on the planet.

Polite aliens say hi from outside orbit and ask permission to land. If I see an alien spaceship hovering over a city I figure it is probably too late to run.

NorthernDevo
2013-Jun-17, 01:24 AM
Hi all; judging from opinions here this film might be worth watching after all - I'd dismissed it as just another too-big reboot of a storyline already done to death, complete with epileptic cameraman. But if you guys liked it - by and large - I might look into it. One question: I'm hearing about city-busting battles and questionable writing etc. but is there much humour in it? Or is it just doom, gloom and grit, grit, grit like its advertizing suggests? That's what I loved about the Chris Reeve version - good writing and good humour (and, of course,Miss Tessmacher (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl9409NQPuU).) I don't like movies that take themselves way too seriously and that's what MoS looks like. :)

Gillianren
2013-Jun-17, 04:43 PM
Bluntly, Superman isn't a very funny character and hasn't been since about the 1940s. They do their best, and I did laugh a couple of times (the rest of the audience laughed more often than I did, except those poor small children--one literally a babe-in-arms--someone brought), but one of the differences between DC and Marvel is that Marvel tends to be funnier.

Doodler
2013-Jun-17, 09:13 PM
I couldn't think of a single movie where any military had a good showing against aliens, at least not one that a 11 year old can watch.

Transformers, a very deliberate decision on the part of JJ Abrams

Doodler
2013-Jun-17, 09:16 PM
Just got back from seeing it, and was impressed, even if a little dizzied by the filming. It's a VERY kinetic movie, things in motion are doing so in all three axes, so take a dramamine. They did the core of the story rather well, and I was very impressed about how they portrayed Kryptonian culture.

NorthernDevo
2013-Jun-21, 02:32 AM
Bluntly, Superman isn't a very funny character and hasn't been since about the 1940s. They do their best, and I did laugh a couple of times (the rest of the audience laughed more often than I did, except those poor small children--one literally a babe-in-arms--someone brought), but one of the differences between DC and Marvel is that Marvel tends to be funnier.

No; but the first Chris Reeve movie did a good job at making a thoroughly entertaining adventure; filled with laughs, gasps and wonder - of course; any movie containing Gene Hackman and Ned Beatty is going to have wonderful dialogue.
:) I'm going to go see it tomorrow night - I trust the opinions of people here and really was hooked by the power of the trailer. Even if it is all doom, gloom and grit; if it's glorious enough it might well be worth watching and the only way for me to find that out is to watch it.
Cheers! I'll let you know my opinions tomorrow night. :)

Edit: Actually I just checked local listings and it's on tonight at 10 in 3D at my nearest theatre so I'm leaving right now. I'll write my opinion at 2-ish. :)

Gillianren
2013-Jun-21, 02:53 AM
I can name Gene Hackman and Ned Beatty movies that I think have terrible dialogue. And I wouldn't waste the money on 3D--post-conversion!

NorthernDevo
2013-Jun-21, 08:11 AM
Well; just watched it - I'd like to say how wrong I was in an earlier post; and how much I enjoyed this spectacular film.

I would like to; unfortunately I can't. What a load of complete and utter rubbish Man of Steel was. OK, that might seem to be a bit harsh, but to my eyes it was a miserable movie. Maybe it's just me - maybe I'm just a dinosaur being left behind by modern movie-making; wishing they'd make movies like Lawrence of Arabia again but I was so extremely disappointed. It was still salvageable up until the bit where the bad guys showed up but after that; it just went downhill fast into the weirdest game of tennis ever filmed. Zod goes 'Yaaaah!' and knocks Superman into a building, which collapses. Supie goes 'Yaaah! and knocks Zod into a building, which collapses. Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth for hours and hours and hours....it seemed, at least. It has to be one of the most boring movies I've seen recently. How it's possible to make a flick with wall-to-wall action boring is beyond me; but they managed it. Somewhere around the 600th or so collapsing building (two thirds or so of the way through) I was praying for the bloody thing to just end so I could grab my hat and get out of there.

There were some good things; Lawrence Fishburne was excellent, I thought. As was Russell Crowe - it was a good part (though he was way too involved, I'd say) played with style and grace. Jor-El was the high point of the movie, IMO. The Superman suit was very well done too; it made perfect sense based on the Kryptonian culture presented (though I'm still wondering why the cape flapped in the wind...in outer space.) And I must say Henry Cavill looked incredibly gorgeous in it. Even as a totally heterosexual man I was drawn by his handsome, masculine magnetism; I'm not afraid to admit my admiration of his spectacular image. The depiction of Clark's youth was also very good; as were his parents, Diane Lane in particular.

I also (surprisingly) liked Faora; Zod's second-in-command. The rest of the bad guys were pretty forgettable and the fight scenes overall ludicrous; but hers were superb. She's clearly made to be this movie's version of Ursa from Superman II; she holds the same position and looks very much like the sexy and somewhat frightening Sarah Douglas (as opposed to the comic-book Faora). She looks fantastic and I thought she brought the character to vicious, sinister and hauntingly desirable life quite well.

There were lots of good things here; but they all just fell to pieces in the face of hopeless writing and direction. There was so much overall stupidity, bad writing and boring repetition surrounding them to be able to string them into a positive experience. And - of course - we got the epileptic cameraman again. (sigh) Even in a sweet, quiet scene in which Clark is comforted by his mother the camera's shakin' away and coming in waaaay too close.

Oh well - that's 30 bucks (popcorn included) I won't get back. I'm not going to detail all the things that really annoyed me or we'll be here all night. I'm going out tomorrow to get the 1978 film again - the good one.

Night, all.

NorthernDevo
2013-Jun-21, 08:21 AM
I can name Gene Hackman and Ned Beatty movies that I think have terrible dialogue. And I wouldn't waste the money on 3D--post-conversion!

You're quite right, of course; that statement was a little too definitive, if that's the right way to put it. And if you're talking about me seeing Man of Steel in 3D, I'm afraid your warning came too late - I really wish I'd been able to take your advice there.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-21, 05:05 PM
I've been giving to to everyone who'd listen, to be honest. There's a website I keep bookmarked (http://www.cinemablend.com/news.php?tag=to%203d%20or%20not%20to%203d) that usually tells me the one thing I want to know most--post-conversion or not--and gives me a few other details as well. Though in general, we just don't bother with 3D at all anymore.

korjik
2013-Jun-21, 06:15 PM
I've been giving to to everyone who'd listen, to be honest. There's a website I keep bookmarked (http://www.cinemablend.com/news.php?tag=to%203d%20or%20not%20to%203d) that usually tells me the one thing I want to know most--post-conversion or not--and gives me a few other details as well. Though in general, we just don't bother with 3D at all anymore.

I agree about the 3D. Even when designed from the ground up as 3D it isnt worth the effort. I dont know about anyone else, but I realized the last time I saw a 3D movie that 5 minutes into the movie my brain filtered out all the 3D effects. It really hit me at the end when they put some 3D text on the screen and my brain couldnt put it back into proper perspective that I had been editing out all the 3D that had been edited in.

I think I may take it a step farther tho. I am at the point where if a movie comes out in only 3D I probably will skip it. Even if I would go see it otherwise.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-21, 06:55 PM
Fortunately, no movie we've ever wanted to see has been available in just 3D that I'm aware of.

NorthernDevo
2013-Jun-22, 09:42 AM
I think you're right - the only 3D movies I've seen where the third dimension has really (IMO) improved the impact of the film was Avatar and John Carter. In those films the 3D enhanced the reality - again IMO - of the fictional worlds. No other 3D film (and I've seen few) was enhanced in any way by the 3D effect.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-22, 03:42 PM
I would really, really like to see Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams in 3D. When Werner says that 3D is necessary for a proper analysis of the cave walls, I believe him. However, I live in a fairly small city, and our one art house theatre can't afford a 3D projector. I might have been able to track down a theatre in Seattle that was playing it in 3D, but only possibly.

Solfe
2013-Jun-26, 02:43 AM
The last time I saw a movie in 3-d was Toy Story 3 and it wasn't used to good effect. The only part where it was really noticable and effective was in the junkyard and that scene scared all three of my kids.

On more on topic news, there is a small chance that my wife will take us to see this movie*. She is hearing good things from friends.

*I won't inflict a superhero movie on my wife, she generally doesn't like them.

AKONI
2013-Jul-06, 11:23 PM
I loved this movie and I was old enough to see the 70's film in the theaters, which left me with a sense of wonder as a child. I've noticed that the critics who don't like MOS were hoping for that 1970's film, but that wouldn't work today just as the Exorcist wouldn't seem as scary today as it did when it was first released in theaters.

MOS is not a movie for children of all ages. It's more adult. It's for teenagers and adults (as were the last three Batman films). The violence and destruction were exactly what we'd get if beings as powerful as Superman fought, and thank God ... SPOILER.... an ace reporter like Lois is no longer so stupid she can't see past a pair of glasses.

Noclevername
2013-Jul-07, 12:18 AM
Spoilers, just saw MOS, and my response was "meh". I don't think more explosions and punching make a film "more adult". More adolescent, perhaps. And the whole Kryptonian/Necromonger Warrior culture was sadly disappointing, as was the "genocide of a whole species was deserved because some of them are jerks" message. Apparently the El family were the only ones of their kind worthy of survival-- even the many colonists alluded to were called home just to make sure they died with Krypton because Plot God said so. The "battle armor", genetic record MacGuffin and multiple designs of spaceship were cynically toyetic. There were about 3 special effects that actually made good use of 3D. This Superman kills.

On the plus side, the acting and casting were better than the last Superman movie.

Basically this was not a film for Superman fans. It was an attempt to use the familiar character's image to squeeze more money out of the franchise.

Gillianren
2013-Jul-07, 01:08 AM
I think they were actually called home long before the destruction of Krypton, if I got the chronology right--Krypton was closing in on itself metaphorically long before it did literally.

Doodler
2013-Jul-07, 03:48 AM
I think they were actually called home long before the destruction of Krypton, if I got the chronology right--Krypton was closing in on itself metaphorically long before it did literally.
Yeah, Jor El explained to Kal that when they instituted the engineered society, they entered a full withdraw from the offworld colonies.

Torsten
2013-Jul-07, 07:43 AM
The volume kept me from falling asleep.