Man of Steel (2013)

I hated everything about this movie. This what I said about it on another forum.

I found it unwatchable. All style no substance.

I fast forwarded through most of the horrible Krypton part of the film. In what universe will a civilization ever create giant anthropomorphic metal beads as a display instead of just using video? Umm why the f*** is there giant dragon fly?!? Why are they all wearing layers of heavy what is that armor? What function is it serving, it didn't even look good.

Oh hey deadliest catch and Alaska is popular, lets work that in.

Is this a flash forward, a flash present, a flash sideways, a dream.... Oh wait the movie is being narrated from Lois' perspective, oh wait it's not that was just for one part of the film between flashbacks, within flashbacks.

Clark you have super powers because you grew up absorbing the sun and the atmosphere yeah that it's the atmosphere. Zod you have superpowers because the script demands it. You also want to terafrom the planet and take superpowers away from your race because it also makes no sense and the script demands it.

How many people just causally died when that ship just knocked over half the damn city?!? Oh hey look they are running from a falling building as dust billows behind them just like 9/11, that's a great image I want to relive. Didn't they do this in that horrible Star Trek movie this summer.

Yeah they set it off and everyone is back in the phantom zone., Film over, wait there is a half hour left, damn it he has to fight Zod again, didn't they do this in that horrible Star trek movie this summer? fast forward...

 

Me, too- seems we have similar tastes, Michael- I agree with you a lot regarding movies and TV.

 

I haven't seen it since I saw it the one time in theaters. Still haven't gotten the BR.

The sad thing about this movie is that they made the movie like every other movie in Hollywood. A Superman movie devoid of any substance, personality and most of all: heart. Instead, they took all that out and they left us with a limp and dull movie that makes a lot of noise and does nothing else. It's a cold film that has very little to say.

 

I didn't completely hate the film. There were things I feel should have been done differently but not to the point I totally disliked it.

 

While I agree that Man Of Steel is a terrible film I take issue with sweeping generalizations like "every other movie in Hollywood", sure, there are plenty of bad films, but saying every film is unfair and frankly inaccurate.

 

Okay. Then let's say almost every other superhero, action-filled, CGI film in Hollywood.

 

Don't fool yourself, Man of Steel was basically written by a committee, like so many other huge blockbusters in Hollywood today. Warner Bros. keeps using Goyer because he'll take whatever suggestions the studio/director/producer keep throwing at him.

 

You never know who actually writes films. It's a long process and at the end they are huge negotiations about what names get the credit. All kinds of crazy things happen, some writers get credits they don't want, some get ones they don't deserve. Some work in Hollywood for decades on dozens of films and never get a single credit.

There is a great Projection Booth interview with Daniel Waters where he discusses it pretty in depth.

http://podbay.fm/show/421863760/e/1344733200?autostart=1

 

Has there been any news on whether or not Man Of Steel 2 Batman VS Superman will make room to fill in those blanks from the first movie that I'd like to see fleshed out, such as whether Supergirl really was the survivor from that Kryptonian ship or if we'll get to see more of Clark working at The Daily Planet with Lois Lane knowing his secret? My worry is that all the plans for a direct sequel have been quietly brushed under the carpet in favour of a prototype Justice League film, possibly because someone quickly realised the planned series was never going to last based on its critical reception - at this rate, we might not even get the third part, which promised to be a full crossover! Maybe it's a case of "now or never" for more characters to be introduced? Then again, does anyone honestly believe we'll hear from Wonder Woman for another generation after her upcoming appearance in the latest gloomy epic by the same team as MOS? Of course not... it's going to offend the majority of her followers just as much, if not more because I fear they'll play her role very, VERY safely.

Assuming there is more to come further down the line, can we really blame Christopher Nolan for the failings of this project so far? I wouldn't even be surprised if it's later revealed he was only brought on-board to give the whole thing some real credibility, having already proved that Batman could be modernised successfully. He supposedly pleaded to have General Zod kept alive, and I can't imagine him signing on to be involved in the first place if the powers that be already intended to replace his vision of The Dark Knight with a new, older take on the same figure. On the other hand, I don't really want to point the finger at Zack Snyder, either. I genuinely loved his take on 300, though to be fair it was similarly long-winded in placed. Actually, just yesterday I gave up on watching MOS again around the point I just wanted Superman (or whatever he's now called) to get on with snapping Zod's neck and therefore avoiding the last third, which I can only describe as totally unnecessary disaster pornography.

Finally, ignoring the painfully uneven sound mix, supposedly professional camera work and occasionally over-the-top CGI where some fights especially look as if they were captured using data taken straight from a videogame, there's one tiny little element I fear most critics aren't even noticing when looking or a scapegoat, and it's not even David S. Goyer. Buried deep in the credits after a wealth of other cooks all equally responsible for diluting the proverbial soup, I spotted one Jon Peters mentioned. Wasn't this the same guy who tried to get a new Superman title off the ground on several occasions since the late 1980s, only relatively succeeding once before this while spending a huge amount on concepts that ultimately never materialised?

While I realise his input was probably reduced significantly after previous aborted efforts, I still don't understand why DC or WB continue to let him anywhere near a franchise I must have wrongly assumed they'd do anything to protect. Alternatively, perhaps everyone involved really has reached the point where they are prepared to throw anything at the wall in the misguided hope that one day something will stick. After all, it's clear DC isn't doing so well theatrically when compared to Marvel and its many success stories. Can we expect another Crisis-type wiping of the slate sooner rather than later? If so then count me in, and let's cross our fingers any future movies aren't based on the New 52 reboot, either. Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to dust off my Ultimate Collectors Edition DVD boxed set for the millionth time, though I'll probably need the inner strength of Christopher Reeve to endure Superman Returns!

 

Oh, I'm aware. Very aware. But when a movie's story and screenplay credits include David Goyer and Christopher Nolan, the duo who brought us The Dark Night and one of whom has the clout to throw studio notes in the trash, I expect more. Much more. At the end of the day, Goyer was okay with the sole credit. Even if all he did was put his name on it while it was cobbled from studio notes by an assistant, he was still likely wiping himself with the money they paid him.

 

that's cool! I like it...

 

Wow, I thought *I* was being harsh on the movie with my long winded review lol. You guys are brutal! But unfortunately.... correct. The movie is the antithesis of the Superman personage. Pretty bad.

 

My gosh, that was ridiculous wasnt it? Who just stands there and lets a tornado take them to "prove a point and protect an identity" that was already highly compromised. And I have news for them. Pa would not have been standing up as he was covered in a haze of debri. Hed have been knocked over way before the main part of the tornado hit him. And if he COULD stand with that much force against his body why couldnt he have limped to safety within eyeshot of his family. Totally stupid scene.

 

There were ways to re-write that scene that stayed true to the character, like putting Clark in an impossible moral dilemma like having to choose between his mother or his father. The moral choice presented in MOS was terrible, because it really wasn't a good decision given the known facts.

 

Imagine how great that scene could have been if they had played it the other way. Clark rescues his father making a statement that no he can not hide, he has to be who he is , and in that moment his no longer a child and in a sense becomes Superman.

I'm not even a writer and I can see the major improvements and possibilities presented in that scene that were ignored just so they could have some cheap emotion and do something different for no other reason then to do something different because this is a new more real darker Superman.

 

And ironically, had they gone in that (smarter, more sincere) direction they likely would've achieved what they were going for.

 

It would take a lot more than just fixing that one sequence to improve this film, like starting over from scratch with a different writer and director.

 

The tone was just too dark and gritty for Superman. The previous films may have been disappointments, but doing a 180 isn't the answer.

 

Saying the tone was too dark gives them too much credit.

The film was bad because it terribly written If they had written a good consistent story that made sense a dark tone would have been fine

 

Saw MOS last night (on dvd). I thought it:

* was no fun
* contained too much action
* didn't develop its characters enough
* did not develop the Lois/Superman relationship very well
* was rather "mean", in particular, I thought too many people were allowed to be killed
* (as another member said) lacked humanity

Between MOS and Superman Returns, I definitely liked the latter more despite its much slower pace and relative inaction, though I prefer Mr. Donner's film over both.

Trivia......

* I liked Henry Cavill as Superman.

* I did think showing Clark Kent moving from one hourly-wage job to another was a realistic touch, and wish there had been more such back story included.

* what's with Superman's 1950s-era hairdo? It's 2013! As a warrior of sorts, IMO he should have a short haircut, not quite army-issue but something more appropriate for his fighting & world-altering line of work.

* liked his suit - the external red underwear thing has never looked good to me.

* every time I saw Amy Adams I was reminded of Kristin Wiig.

* the world machine laser coupling thingy reminded me of a major story line in David Brin's novel Earth, which I happen to be re-reading right at this moment. Weird.

 

The new Superman costume and that "world engine" terraforming device look as if their designs were compromised to please a certain Jon Peters, who is (thankfully) buried deep in the credits on Man Of Steel - let's not forget this guy previously claimed his ideal vision for a Superman movie was one where he doesn't fly or wear the familiar outfit and inexplicably fights a giant mechanical spider, even though his established rogues gallery lacks such an enemy. I noticed that it was previously suggested the reason David S. Goyer keeps getting superhero film writing jobs is because he's flexible and willing to be the face of an anonymous committee, so I really do suspect a lot of the coldness many of us have felt is the influence of Peters rather than someone like Christopher Nolan or Zack Snyder, but since their names are far more visible it's natural they'll end up taking a lot of the blame for the project's many failings. Maybe he's the real problem? I genuinely believe that without Peters interfering then Returns may have been even more of an obvious direct sequel to Richard Donner's two efforts, with the slight change in tone being his idea as opposed to a direction Bryan Singer personally wanted... Maybe that's why he's really avoided revisiting this piece of work in a director's cut or even a commentary track?

 

I thought the super-fighting was some of the best superhero action we've seen on the big screen. It conveyed a palpable sense of men moving very quickly and the ramifications of superhumans fighting in an urban environment. They did go overboard on the damage to Metropolis, that was gratuitous and over the top. I'm sure it was included to placate the kiddies of today.

 

Just watched this to kill an afternoon. Undoubtedly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. No characters, barely a story, rampant stupidity. Just awful on every single level.

 

That's why I passed, even at $7.99...too many stinky reviews. Sorry about your afternoon.

 

It's not that bad of a movie. Man of Steel feels like what it was crafted to achieve, making sure it was completely opposite of everything the Donner Superman films had done.