OT: Man Of Steel. Wow
Damn I had a free ticket and didn't go. Was it better than the latest batman movies?
It's not quite as good as the Batrilogy, but I'd say if you enjoyed them, you'll enjoy this. I feel like it would have been better if they had made it two movies instead of one. Some of the character development gets shortchanged. The ending is a bit grittier than I expected, I wouldn't take kids younger than 12 to it. Some of the fight scenes drag on because of the comic-bookish quality of superbeings not being able to get hurt. So that deflates some of the tension.
But my god, the visuals are awesome. Everything about Krypton has been updated, I think for the better. The cast is outstanding.
Some people comlain about the flashbacks, but if you're familiar with Nolan's work, you should be fine. It's entertaining. If you like Snyder's and Nolan's flicks, you'll like this movie.
I loved Batman Begins but Man Of Steel blew it away. MOS is right there with The Dark Knight and only because of Ledger as the Joker. The action was amazing but the down side is the killed the Lane story and a few details that Batman didn't.
Man of Steel. The other two lack the oomph that MoS has in spades.
Is "oomph" here used in the Michael Bay sense (i.e. forgoing character development, compelling dialogue, and a coherent narrative in favor of just indiscriminately blowing stuff up)? Because if so, you probably could've saved $20 by just staying home and microwaving a ball of tin foil.
I say that with a smile. I actually kind of agree about Bay, but IMO you cannot deny the action novie credentials of The Rock and the first Bad Boys. Well done action can be as compelling an experience as well done dialogue and other important elements.
This is the End was totes better.
...it was pretty funny. Superman was pretty solid...better than Star Trek...but way at isn't. :)
Crude humor is so passè. Nothing about that movie was particularly funny or creative.
do not want
Yeah...what these superhero movies need these days is more comedians. Orgazmo was just about the best superhero movie I've seen.
Not going to ruin it for any movie goers but the end was a tad meh...
Transformers 3, in that I couldn't focus during the destruction of Chicago or New York. Maybe I'll try without the 3d. What is the cape for? It's time to lose that. Superman must of learned some earthling MMA or they would still be smashing each other around.
I would give it a 5 out of 100 on rotten tomatoes. Story line and acting was horrendous.
Agree 100%... Then again who knows I fell asleep during it so maybe I missed the good parts.
While not Oscar quality it was more than adequate for this type of movie, You'll have to explain what is wrong with the story line because I thought it was okay.
We get it. You have a fantastic imagination.
I thought it was very average. Good action, but just bad acting (minus Costner and Crow) and awful dialogue. Could have been much better.
This is probably where I sit as well, the flashback sequences were great in fact I wish there were more of them and Snyder does "action" really well but the acting and the ending were just so so lacking with good actors/actresses nonetheless.
Frankly, the writing was as good as in any of the Dark Knight Trilogy or The Avengers.
Take out RDJr quips and what dialogue is there in The Avengers?
It lacked Avengers' sense of humor. I can't think of any really "light" moments where the audience has a chance to chuckle. It kind of took itself a tad too seriously.
Flying through a large amount of buildings does not a great action movie make.
I wanted to be excited to see this movie but every preview truthfully looked boring. I talked to a lot of people that said it was just a lot of CGI with poor acting/boring with a shitty ending. Next
except no one stood out like Ledger's Joker. That is really the only difference between the movies.
You keep saying this but provide no examples.
TDK was powerful not just because Ledger's Joker was so haunting, but because the idea of a terrorist just wanting to see the world burn was executed to perfection. It was interwoven with the Harvey Dent storyline so well - the politics, the turn of an idealist into a cynical murderer. The internal conflict of Bruce Wayne.
TDK was much more than The Joker.
Now, I'm not asking you to spoil Superman. Though I'm not a Superman guy and I'll never see this movie, but you keep talking like TDK was simply Heath Ledger when that is simply not the case and you aren't providing any reasons from MoS that suggest that it was a such a tour de force of storytelling.
I think TDK would have been serviceable without Ledger, but nothing more than a 7 out of 10. That character took a decent movie and injected it with whatever the hell it was that he injected it with. That is still one of the best acting jobs I've seen, and it's surprising to see that in a rubber suit movie. I still think the biggest flaw in TDK was Bale's comically gruff voice. It took away from a lot of scenes.
Of course, I'm about four decades older than the majority of the other members here so our taste is bound to be different. Just give me some movies with a Biel ass, Kidman legs and a McAdam's face and I'm as happy as hell.
are really creepy.
The movie was ok for summer popcorn action. My three sons thought it was great. I think the opening act was the best part.
Star Trek was better IMO.
Acting was fine. No better or worse than any superhero/comic book movie. Frankly, it was much better than most comic book movies over the last several years for one simple reason (to my taste, obviously): action.
I've grown kinda sick and tired of comic book movies that are two hours of people talking and fifteen minutes of the actual hero doing stuff. Take Iron Man 3, for example. Yes, Mr. Writer and Director, I understand that Robert Downey Jr. is funny and acerbic and witty and charming. But I'm really not interested in paying you $12 to watch him play word games with Gwyneth Paltrow and some annoying 10 year old kid. I paid you so I could watch a guy in a metal suit fly around and blow stuff up. And in that vein, Man of Steel delivers big time.
As for the complaints about the CGI, I guess I don't get it. Again, this is a movie about a guy with superpowers. He shoots frickin laser beams out of his eyes. I've read several reviews complaining that the fights were nothing but people throwing each other into buildings and cars. Uhh . . . yeah. Did you expect karate? Thumb wrestling? Maybe a little parkour? It's Superman vs. Zod. They fly and destroy stuff. The end. That's how it's supposed to be, in my mind.
Figured I'd give it a chance - horrible, horrible, horrible. How many intergalactic fights can one movie have? Just overkill and seems like it was made to appeal to the unsophisticated masses. Wish I had those couple hours back on my Fathers Day. Good news is that it will make money. SMH
It's like complaining about too much romance in a Danielle Steel novel.
If you don't like action than why see an action movie?
I give it a 6 out of 10
It lacked any of the fun of Iron Man and the story was very disjointed. If you're just looking for action you'll be happy but it didn't have a lot of substance.
The Dark Knight trilogy was far better.
The Dark Knight was outstanding, but The Dark Knight Rises was lacking the zest of the previous movie and the ending was stupid.
bring back the old points system for comments like this!
I think that it was used as a movie to set up a sequel. There was a lot of back story and character buildup and the action was crazy but the story was very generic allow for this. I didn't really want to see Zod as a villain either because while it solidifies that Superman views himself as a human it shows that Kryptonians can be killed pretty easily (basically a headlock to neck snap) and doesn't allow for a contrast of powers. It's just strength vs strength.
Yeah, when you notice all the trucks and stuff in the movie with "Lexcorp" written on it and a satellite with the Wayne Industries logo on it, I'd say it's safe to assume this is a setup for sequels.
and to setup the Justice League with Joseph Gordon Levitt as the new Batman.
...really? Dude is 5'9, 145 lbs soaking wet and looks like Ichiro Suzuki.
I know the Dark Knight Rises is a bit out of your league old man.
Isn't it more likely that Gordon-Levitt will be playing the role of Nightwing or, God forbid, Robin?
but I loved the trailers. I was afraid that I would run into a situation where I would be totally disappointed with great marketing and a marginal movie. Was that the case?
As you can see above, looks like a few people despised it. Me, I liked it a lot. But I didn't go in expecting it to be an amazing movie. Figured it would be your typical summer blockbuster/comic book type of movie and when I walked out I thought it was quite a bit better than most of those types of movies.
If you liked Avatar you'll like this. Not for me
The whole superhero shtick is basically indistinguisable from fantasy, while Avatar was placed within the realm of mainstream movie sci fi.
I'm referring to action (visuals) being more important than substance. This was obviously made to appeal to a simple minded, mass audience.
Science fiction is fantasy in scientific packaging.
IMHO the best of science fiction has been written by authors who make an honest attempt to place their stories within a scientifically-plausible universe. Yes, it requires a willing suspension of disbelief, but there's a vast difference between stuff written by Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Pohl, Niven/Pournelle, Bear, Robinson, etc. on one hand and comic book superhero stuff on the other end of the spectrum. That doesn't mean the latter can't be fun to read or see in the theater, but real science fiction it ain't, at least by my standards.
And then there's the Sy-Fy Channel, which is produced with the mind of an 11-year old as a target, and not a very bright one at that.
The movie is amazing and IMO the best of the year.
some of you are expecting shakespear. It is a comic book movie.
The only complaint I have is the sudden morale change of heart for the first time in 50+ years with Superman regarding the ending with General Zod.
It goes against everything Superman was for though. He makes Bruce Wayne look vicious, in fact Superman is supposed to be almost too good, that's why the ending was just so bad.
The end is perfect and I'm glad they didn't go cliché with Superman's being too nice.
You're ok with writers/directors changing a character's mythos as they see fit??
My Dad is a comicbook historian.(Yes, you read that correctly). He, like you, was shocked and a little appalled at that. But frankly I liked it. My main issue with Dark Knight is that it refused to have Batman kill anyone. That rather childish aspect reduced the effectiveness of the film in my eyes.
In the world we live in good men sometimes do have to kill. Man of Steel depicts that. It depics him killing Zod even thought he does not want to. That scene alone is paradigm-changing for a movie genre that needs it. Killing is part of our world. Making our superheroes immune from killing belongs to another age and time. In our more sophisticated, reality-based times it is more appropriate to show these superheroes having to make the morally complex decisions that presidents, soldiers, and police officers have to make.
Yeah, but the original Superman killing in the comic was after a whole lot of set up of his morality and how he saw killing as completely wrong, and it was huge thing for him to kill. In this movie, it was not setup pretty much at all, and it was never established that he had issues with killing. Not only that, but a lot of his attacks on Zod likely killed many people too (hitting him into a gas station and causing it to explode, for example).
Regarding the scene being a paradigm changer for the genre... really? Plenty of other superheroes kill. Wolverine. Cyclops. Wonder Woman. The Flash. Mr Fantastic. Captain America. Green Arrow. Spider-Man. Iron Man. Green Lantern. Thor. The list goes on.
Beyond that - superheroes being immune from killing belongs in another time? Because we live in a world where good people kill, but that wasn't the case in the past somehow?
The choice to have Batman and Superman not kill is not something that was just flippantly made. There's a reason it's part of their characters. You should read "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way" (or, barring that, watch Superman vs The Elite).
Other than that, there were some other kind of dumb changes/plot points in the movie. Jor-El is a peaceful scientist, yet is able to beat General Zod in a fight despite Zod being raised solely to be a warrior? The entire character of Jonathan (Superman's earth dad) was just dumb.
Wired wrote up a good article about the movie, much better phrased than I could ever be (and harsher than I'd be): http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/06/man-of-steel-movie-review/
Basically, the movie was decent as a NON-Superman movie, but as a movie using the Superman character it fell short in a number of areas. Redefining small parts of a character willy-nilly is fine. Redefining major aspects of a character without providing a solid reason for it... not so much.
Some of the things he points out were great (18,000 years of Kryptonian Tech), and others are selective memory (you can object to killing Zod but pointing to Superman 2 where he kills two of the three himself isn't really a good counter). But nice fodder for thought.
You want the campy cape dude watch Brandon Routh... This is exactly what i (cant imagine I'm the only one) wanted to see. If the actor sucked it would be different sure... But this Henry guy, the emotion that came pouring out in that last action scene was insane.
And super heroes is they find a way to not reduce themselves to their enemies tactics, and find a way to succeed without killing. (Like they could have in the movie). Bruce Wayne saw his family gunned down, so he never wants anyone else to be subjected to that. To have no other method than to kill is to have failed. Not doing so is what makes them better than us. Something to aspire to.
However the movie didn't bother me that much because you can see how much he agonizes over having to make that decision. Even if the majority of the crowd who cheered him doing it in the theater didn't get it.
You are not seriously arguing that a comic book movie character should behave in a given way because the movie should depict "the world we live in," are you?
If you wanted to see the protagonist kill someone, why go to a Superman movie?
I thought the movie was okay, but over-emphasized the zowie factor and underemphasized the character moments and dialogue. Acting was about what one would expect for a movie like this: a bit wooden, but servicable.
I think all three Batrilogy movies were clearly superior, but I think MOS was better than, say, the new Star Trek movies (which had the same plot and character weaknesses, but which hadn't nearly the same quality of special effects). I'd give this a 6/10 (and, thankfully, a 0/10 for depicting the world we live in).
DC was obviously OK with the script since they allowed it to happen. A new movie does not have to be exactly like the original happened. This is a similar argument with the Transformers movies. I'm a TF freak and have loved them since they came out in the 80s. I also love all three movies and cannot wait for the next one. That being said, there are many TF fans who hate the movies because the characters are not exactly like the comics or cartoons and some stories were changed. Well, Michael Bay even admitted that his movies are simply BASED ON the the Transformers of old. What is the point in making a new movie that is a replica of some old story? That is incredibly lame.
Of course there a going to be changes, I mean the X-men team in the original movie is nowhere near the actual first team. All comic book movies have origins that aren't close to the actual book origins, my point is that having Superman kill an enemy is quite the paradigm shift.
I welcome change. Superman has to do whatever is needed to protect Earth from Zod and if that means killing him, then so be it. The final battle was epic and the killing was the perfect end to Zod. It had to be done.
In what Warner Brothers, who owns them, does ith their properties. They don't make their own movies like Marvel.
I'm a bit of a comic book freak (or I was until having kids priced me out). I used to buy Superman comics. The writers and directors aren't changing mythos. Superman has killed before. Specifically, he's killed Zod and two of Zod's soldiers. Of course, comics constantly reboot and I think currently Zod is back again.
By the way, here's a little Superman trivia for the board. The two guys who created Superman (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) went to Cleveland Glenville High. I doubt they had very good 40 times.
Professor X made a good point. This is an action movie and meant to simply entertain people. If anyone wants a movie that talks about Susie and Mikey and their relationship, then go watch that crap elsewhere. Certain movies are made to just make you say, "WOW, that was awesome."
Ugh. I swear "Idiocracy" was a documentary.
I can't wait till Hollywood smartens up to what the consumers really want and just put "Girls Gone Wild" in theaters with splices of UFC fights and Jackass in between scenes.
the same thought about idiocracy pops into my head when I am teaching.
However, the original point of a blockbuster comic book movie is to entertain. If you want thought provoking plot development that challenges your beliefs and moral code go check out the latest coming out of Cannes.
I am sure the Brown Bunny is more of your cup of tea.
I disagree that entertainment and thought-provoking plot development are mutually exclusive. "No, I am your father" was about as thought-provoking a line as has been unttered in a movie, and it was in the vastly entertaining The Empire Strikes Back.
I think that one of the real problems with Hollywood is that too many people there think like your statement indicates that you do. Thus, the excellent, thought-provoking, and basass The Matrix got turned into the tripefest that was the later two matrix movies.
I think that the problem is that directors are too specialized, and few can do both action and character/plot. So, we end up with movies like Man of Steel instead of Alien.
There's no reason a summer blockbuster can't be action-packed AND thought-provoking. But if people accept lazy stories and defend them with the old "oh, it's only an action movie anyway" line, then why should anyone in Hollywood try to make a thought provoking movie?
Making a good, thought-provoking moving is HARD. Blowing up buildings--pretty much anyone can do that, as Michael Bay proves over and over again.
I'm not saying every movie has to be an Academy-nominated drama. But just because something is a comic-book movie doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) have depth.
Agree. Die Hard had excellent action, but stopped the bloodshed long enough to give us a reason to care about John McClane. Die Hard 2 and 4 didn't do this, because they were directed by people who didn't understand why the audience should think of their characters as people. Die Hard 3 match DH's approach, because it had the same director.
All of those movies had exploding buildings, but only good drectors can make exploding buildings more than casually interesting.
Die Hard is nothing but an action franchise (one I love). It features explosions and dudes shooting guns at each other.
Die Hard 1 was a lot more than just "dudes shooting guns at each other". It was actually a heist movie merged with an action movie. Sure, it featured lots of dudes shooting guns at each other, but also featured a lot more.
Same with Die Hard 3. There was a lot more going on than just the action. And just like grumbler said, that is why those 2 movies were so much better than most boiler-plate "action" movies. They actually had good scripts.
Love that you capitalized "Superman", but not "Shakespeare", which you also spelled wrong. Run along back to comic book land now.
Edit: Wow, this reply is 19 comments below Prof X's post that I was replying to.
Puh-leeze. Let me know when The Incredible Hulk 5 or Iron Man 7 comes out
This is clearly the best Superman story of all time. All others have failed (movies and TV I mean). It has just been extremely difficult to make a good iteration of Superman and they finally did.
Really awesome. I do not look to these flocks for life lessons, or some higher meaning. Instead, i put the brain on cruise control and just enjoy it.
Too many people go into a movie expecting artsy fartsy crap. Well, certain movies are not meant to do that and this is one of them. This is just a kick ass movie that is there to just make you have fun.
I don't know. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Turtles in Time was pretty bad.
Dont ever mention that movie again.. I was not asked to be in it therefore it sucked.
Henry Cavill is unbelievably well cast as Superman. The movie is not perfect but highly enjoyable. Snyder & Nolan took some liberties that not everyone will like but I was more or less fine with.
Had to work all weekend so I am going tomorrow night. Just wondering why they can't find an American to play Superman? Just sayin.
no matter where they originate from. British, American, Scottish, Irish..who the hell can tell the difference?
Besides, American actors largely suck.
"American actors largely suck." I'd say most actors suck, but the good ones I can name are all American. Edward Norton, Nicholson, Brad Pitt, Di Caprio, etc. I can barely name any foreign actors (except the ones with nice bust lines, hello Selma). And oh gosh, who is that droopy-eyed Brit in all of those romantic comedies? He's set acting back decades. AND the Brits have to claim that dog who played Bridget Jones.
American actors are culled from the masses to find the "Super Star". British actors are trained professionals. British superstars are far and few between, but british character actors are everywhere. Patrick Stewart, Ian Mckellan, Sean Bean, 90% of the Game of thrones cast.
If you're looking for someone to be larger than life, you get an american, if you want something more nuanced, you go for a brit or austrailan.
Because that's not really important. As long as the actor/actress is good and can pull of a convincing accent, then it doesn't matter. David Anders is American but everyone thinks he is English because his two most famous roles required him to have a British accent, which he pulled off flawlessly.
Superman is not a goddamn crumpet loving, tea drinking, pale skinned Brit. He's a cornfed Murican and that's that. This is just as fake as having an American play Sherlock Holmes and this movie was as superficial as that film as well. Although I think my 8th grade self may have really enjoyed the no-plot, punch-em-up script which was as intelligent as "300".
Maybe I'm just getting really tired of half of the big-budget Hollywood movies being based on superheros. I thought there were like 10,000 failed writers living in LA? Can't they think of something NEW for once? Oh well, the population is such that pretty much any movie will make movie if it's budget is managed correctly, dissuading innovation which may lead to disaster or success. Movies are taking after the Pirates... put out a "meh" product year after year if the sheeple are dumb enough to spend money on it, laugh all the way to the bank. Why take the risk and try to win if you're sure to make money just by re-producing the same films which were made poorly 10 years ago.
You do realize that the current Batman, Superman, Captain America, Spider-Man, Green Lantern and Wolverine are not American born right?
Cpt America is US born but the current Thor is not. My mistake.
Wolverine wasn't American anyway.
I think we just found the American version of Don Cherry.
I thought it was good, as good as any comic book movie outside of The Dark Knight. Yes they kind of mess with the Superman mythos, but this is the 21st century, let's not act like this wasn't eventually coming. Hell, they killed Superman in the 90s.
Zod came into being in the Reeves movies, not the comic book. Hollywood has a history of adjusting the Superman story.
Perhaps, but that is good. We can't keep seeing the same or similar story in all movies that were made years ago. I hate it when people complain (not saying you are), "That's not how it happened in <insert old movie, book, comic>." Well, that's OK. It doesn't need to be exact and frankly should not be.
Zod first appeared in Adventure Comics in 1961.
Simple minds, simple pleasures
The Michael Bay strategy: throw enough explosions and tits on screen and people won't notice you make generally shitty movies.
Hollywood movies are generally butterfaces with 750cc implants. You get so stuck watching the fun stuff you forget it's missing all of the important stuff.
Yippi Kay Yai Mother F'er
I thought the Batman films did a decent job of combining both drama, story, and action. Granted, there were flaws.
A suave billionaire falling in love with Maggie Gyllenhaal? Yeah I'll believe that after my girlfriends Kate Upton and Eva Longoria serve me grapes by hand.
But I didn't really notice much cleavage or overly sexualized women in M.o.S.
Well, that works for Ohio State fans.
my 6 year old loved it and I enjoyed it. But the ending pissed me off not because of Superman killing Zod but because of those f-ing people still waiting for their train. Two aliens with superpowers just destroyed the city and you still think the L-train is coming?
I've been into Superman longer than I've been into Michigan. I read the comics for far longer than a regular maturity grade should have made me stop. And I think either a lot of you guys are being too sarcastic, or we have very different ideas about movies, because I thought Man of Steel was one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever seen.
Yes, as a matter of fact, after Lord of the Rings and The Dark Knight I DO expect Shakespeare, or at least at attempt at having the plot and characters not be recycled canned spam from every goddamn Transformers crap blockbuster ever. This movie is no more deep than a successories poster: vivid imagery overlaid with inanity that people who've never had a thought provoked are meant to think is thought-provoking.
I submit for example: Ursa (or whatever, if she had a name other than the one from the comics and II, I missed it) is going on a punching-everybody-to-death-except-the-one-military-guy-we-are-supposed-to-empathise-with and delivers this little bit of expose' to explain the bad guys' moral position:
"Evolution will always win!"
Other grave sins:
- Jor-El suddenly has a flying insect riding beast, and can jump into the air Jedi-style and be caught by this thing. Who the fuck let George Lucas in here?
- The mythology of Superman is one of balance between his two worlds: Kyrpton and Kansas, and Metropolis is the combination of those two worlds. This balance is at the core of Superman mythology. Yet in this film, Metropolis is nothing but a playground to wreck, then wreck again, then wreck a third time after it's already wrecked (and then go to work in right afterwards as if the city getting leveled was just another day. Too much importance is placed on Kansas (even tagging him with their sports teams). This is bad characterization. This isn't a down-home boy who learned everything from his country father who sacrificed himself to keep the secret that everybody is now finding out--oh well. The character needs to have a greater world view. He needs to think he's too big for his hometown, and his home state, etc. because he is too big for all those things. The Metropolis part of his personality is a huge part of what makes the Superman character more than a strong guy in a leotard.
- The screenwriter ought to know something about that. David Goyer is an Ann Arbor (Huron) kid who went to USC. I am hereby writing off anything Goyer writes in the future. Chris Nolan kicked Goyer to the curb when he went to write The Dark Knight, which was better than the first movie, which was Nolan's vision mostly. I bet I can go back and point directly to the parts of Batman Begins that were Goyer's. Like Katie Holmes
- They can't decide if he's a Kansas or KState fan. ANY college sports fan will tell you that is impossible. Even if he was the kind of person to care about sports (he isn't because he could whup all of them if he wanted to and he isn't vain enough to want to), he'd have a side, and certainly his dad would have a side.
- Everyone keeps going back to the Kent house. If the whole world doesn't know Clark Kent=Superman the whole world is dumber than the writers thought their audience would be.
- Lois acts like anything BUT a journalist, and the military guys are happy to drive her wherever she wants to go. Including the Kents' house.
- So so so much more. Argh.
The Batman Trilogy, especially The Dark Knight, made me believe again that our civilization's greatest myths could be treated in our civilization's greatest art form with more than slam-bang-smooch-cheap laugh half-assed crap like Man of Steel that care more about reaching key demographics than how to tell a story.
And it's actually her from the comics that Ursa was based on.
And remember, this is a world that thinks a pair of glasses is an effective disguise.
And the screenplay was written by an Ann Arbor Huron HS alum!
Well that's disheartening. My twelve year old nephew can write a story entirely made up of throwing people and things into other things. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the story he WOULD write. Miss Congeniality was deeper than this film.
Well, it looks like your nephew and David Goyer have a talent that you, I and a majority of the people in this world surprisingly lack. I wish him luck in his budding screenwriting career and hope he doesn't forget his ol' Uncle Herm on his path to stardom.
But seriously, not everything in the cinematic world must have a deep meaning, most especially when the movie in question is based off of a comic book. Believe it or not, sometimes a well done "shoot 'em up" flick (short of a Michael Bay clusterfuck) that doesn't pretend to be a source of mental stimulation can be enjoyed just as is. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie because I came into it just wanting to be visually and aurally entertained, while also not expecting Shawshank Redemption.
By the way, I would suggest never admiting (or at least implying) that you've seen Miss Congeniality, as it immediately takes away every ounce of your credibility on the topic of film.
Plan on going tomorrow night. Should I see it in 3D or not? I have to admit the last 3D movie I saw in the theaters was Jaws 3
I don't think I'd try 3D on this. The action is so fast in this that I have to imagine it would play havoc with your eyes and it basically wouldn't add much.
That movie was horrible. The story was disjointed and made no sense and it was way too serious. Way to much Superman and not enough Clark Kent especially considering that Clark Kent is the only thing that makes the character relatable.
Hope it helps start a Justice League or Worlds Finest movie.
It wasn't anywhere near the greatest battle movie of all time. It wouldn't even rank.
It also wasn't a bad Superman film. It had some script problems, and a few questionable decisions, but had great casting and acting...and too much action? Everyone was complaining that the last one didn't have enough super action, I liken it to a Batman Begins, or even a Spider-man or X-Men 1, where it's a solid superhero flick, but set up for a kick-ass sequel now that the set-up is out of the way, and we can get more in-depth.
Or are you relying on a website full of haters? You remind me of "fantasy football" nerd that looks only at stats and think you know the game. It was the biggest June opening day of all time. Somebody thought it was good.
Because it is much more scientific to measure the relative quality of a movie based on the opening day gross than it is to use the aggregate value of reviews of the film. Since I'm sure everyone who went to see the movie on day 1 ONLY went specifically because they knew the film was awesome in advance, not because they loved Superman or happened to like the trailers for the film.
Not saying Man of Steel was a great movie (it sure as hell was entertaining to me atleast), but popular opinion doesn't make it fact, because at the end of the day, it's still just opinion. To use your avatar and username as an example, most people on this blog would probably say that Kid Cudi's music is terrible rubbish. I, and apparently you disagree with that majority opinion, and being in that minority doesn't make our own opinions on music in general irrelevant.
Superman is one of the hardest comic book characters to portray. You have to make a man who in invulnerable vulnerable. He is not relatable in the way someone like Batman is. They chose to focus on his worry in how the world would react to him. It was a different take, and I admire them doing it.
That being said, Zach Snyder knows nothing of subtlety. It is a profoundly humourless movie that takes itself incredibly serious. Also, I think it's amusing that people always complain about believability in a Superman movie. Suspension of disbelief is kind of par for the course when you are talking about an immortal alien who thinks glasses are a disguise.
I can't give this movie any higher than an 8.
Likes: The action sequences were good. I liked the narrative structure of mixing in the flashbacks as the film goes on, rather than telling the story in a linear fashion. The acting was serviceable, but I especially liked Michael Shannon as Zod. I am thankful that Snyder stayed away from his traditional super-slo-mo sequences that he couldn't stop doing in 300 at least.
Dislikes: The shaky-cam throughout the film gave me a massive headache. I was just glad I didn't see it in 3D. Too much CGI, but I'm not sure how else they were supposed to do the fights between characters that powerful. There were a handful of plot holes that annoyed the heck out of me.
Overall I enjoyed the film, but not as much as TDK or the Avengers. It was vastly superior to Superman Returns though.
As a plot twist, I wanted Russell Crowe to turn into Batman in the end.
I saw this movie this afternoon. I found myself looking at my watch and waiting for it to be over. It's a rental.