There’s very little humor or joy in this Superman story.
Friday, 14 June 2013
Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon
Isaac said on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:55:26 PM
Simply put, this superman movie is just THE BEGINNING! All the marvel movies that had sequels were, if you noticed, exactly the same, minus the lack of humor, there was no character development because who cares about explaining the origin of not only the title holder but his slightly less important associates. After Johnathan died (By Choice) Superman had to decide if the people of earth would ever be ready for a beimg like him.
Also he had to kill Zod because it sets up why in the next movie, Batman doesnt like him, because if he can kill, he is an EXTREME THREAT!
Batman doesn't approve of killing....but from Superman's point of view, what choice did he have?? What prison is there for Zod?? Honestly?? The lack of story is because in EVERY Superman tale, you have to go BACK and tell a story, WITHIN A STORY! Give this movie a break, we all hated Superman returns, it might as well have been called Superman 5: Clark Comes Back to Check In.
Just watch, when you old heads & closed minded comic buffs get that old, cheesy Louis & Clark romance & "Oh as Clark I gotta be a dim witted loser" back. You'll still find reasons to complain.
The CGI fights were very needed as how is Superman supposed to fight??? Like batman?
All karate and no flash?? I think not, we've been waiting for Superman to Kick major ASS like this....now we get it &...."The story is terrible"......Really??
Comic book movies now are all about development.....THIS MOVIE WAS MEANT TO KEEP YOU THINKING "How will the next one be, or where will they go with it?
Not "That one from 30 years ago was way better!"
Groll said on Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:18:40 PM
This is up there with the first two superman flicks. The action eas non stop Now they need to bring Brainiac or Doomsday out for MOS 3 give Zod and Luthor a break.
Blue said on Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:50:39 AM
I have to admit, I didn't like the movie. I can't claim that I saw the originals, nor that I'm a hardcore Superman fan, but the fact is that the movie is flat. There is absolutely no character development and the relationships they form are shallow and ineffectual. Lois and Clark's relationship is him being grateful to her for not revealing his identity and her thinking he's hot. The only character I felt any connection to would be the female commander who is Zod's right hand, simply because she is witty and ironic. We supposed to feel for these characters, as shown by the situations that they're placed in, but it just doesn't happen. The visuals are there to distract the viewer from the poorly woven story, which consist mostly of CGI fights between Superman and Zod's forces. However, it doesn't excuse the movie from the way that Lois is suddenly kissing with some guy who she met just a few months ago. A sad comeback in Superman films and worthy of only a 5/10. A mediocre film that places too much importance on visuals rather than story.
Brandan said on Monday, January 27, 2014 7:34:17 PM
It's admirable for the creators of this film to try and retell the story of Superman. However, the major flaw in this film (which general audiences wouldn't pick up on because they become so absorbed into the action and the visuals) is in it's storytelling. The characters are poorly developed as well as the major plot points within the film.
Xander said on Sunday, January 26, 2014 3:47:13 PM
As an action movie it was great. But that's not what I feel it was supposed to be. It's a Superman movie for crying out loud. Not fucking Jack Reacher (I know it's a new movie but I'm younger than most of the people posting reviews so cut me some slack) Superman is supposed to be one of the few nice superheroes and the creators of this horror they call a film have turned him into the Dark Knight without the privilege and a tiny bit more murderess! I mean, really!?! And don't even get me started on the story. Yes, I am a big Superman fan and yes, I have seen the originals and honestly, no matter how cheesey they were, they were better. Even the cartoons were. I mean, why not just tell the story straight forward so people will enjoy it instead of making people confused with the constant scene jumping? The only reason I got it is because Superman has a freakin' shrine in my head! And one final note: why did they feel the need to show the baby's junk? I know it's not a big thing but it just made me and the GIRL friends that I saw it with feel fairly uncomfortable. And lastly, my friends got so worked up by the intensity of the battle scene between Superman and Zod that she was playing on her phone the whole way through! Great job Hollywood…NOT!
Doug said on Sunday, January 26, 2014 3:29:04 PM
I'm going to abridge my previous comment based upon something Richard Roeper said in response to someone else, that it wasn't that he wanted it to be the Chris Reeve movies or that it couldn't be dark- but it was joyless in other ways. Of course, sometimes a theme can inherently be a bit joyless as part of its nature. It may also be that so many of the reviews and opinions out there really are judging it by an outside standard rather than on its own merits. Apologies however for that remark.
Doug said on Sunday, January 26, 2014 3:22:23 PM
I found this review to be like most reviews of this movie, completely unprofessional, judging the movie by some outside standard instead of on its own merits. It's not the Chris Reeve movies. It's not the George Reeves show. It's going for far more realism. Giving it a bad review because you don't like the dark style or because you wanted a 1970s Superman movie is simply stating your personal likes and dislikes. Where was the review?
Luis Bernal said on Monday, January 13, 2014 5:32:36 PM
Im a big fan of superman, and all, but I say
this movie was not all that bad compared to
that cheesy piece of shit of superman returns!
JEDIDIAH said on Monday, December 16, 2013 4:21:27 PM
Man of Steel was more than just a one dimensional comic book. As good as the 80s film was, it was still a bit superficial. A guy in Clark's position is going to have to deal with a lot of heavy stuff and some tough choices. The old approach of employing cartoon violence with no real consequences really don't do it justice.
Jeremy Hudson said on Saturday, December 07, 2013 10:23:32 PM
A few things, hopefully with respect:
Are you rating this movie based on the humor and joy you expected it to have? If so, why? I'm not saying that the story would suffer from those things, but that's like complaining that "It Happened One Night" didn't have enough fist fights, or even worse: comparing this movie to "It Happened One Night."
Also, was the codex confusing? I thought they explained it well enough in the movie as something that contained the genetic code of every citizen of Krypton. I didn't think that was confusing, but I've been wrong before.
Also, why shouldn't a reporter be world weary? Should she be naive? I don't feel like her actions would carry the same weight if she didn't realize their significance.
Then, I don't know if it just sounded better or if you just didn't pay attention, but Zod is trying for genocide, not control.
And finally (this is the big thing) what more character development do you want? Over two thirds of this exceptionally long movie is an exploration into Clark's past and what made him who he is and so on. We don't get much insight into anyone else, but the parts that you said were the most interesting and turned out the best performances are the majority of the film.
I suppose I just don't get where you're coming from.
There's plenty wrong with the movie, just not what you said.