There’s very little humor or joy in this Superman story.
Friday, 14 June 2013
Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon
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.
Brian D Brant said on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 9:22:36 PM
For those of you who say its horrible because if doesn't reference the originals, well it's not supposed to and quite frankly shouldn't. I loved the originals (or at least the first 2) but that superman wouldn't fit in today's society. I admit there could have been more humor but this is not a comedy, it's an epic origin story, while it may stray from original context it is still well told. I also admit a few of the actors seemed bland in their performances but those people have always been like that. Some people say its bad because they destroy Metropolis and their is a death toll, but tell me how a single Kryptonian is to stop an army of Kryptonians from invading with our at least some people dying. I don't want to be that guy but I bring it up, not a single person who complains about the death toll in MoS mentions how many people died in the Avengers. Well the point in the deaths are to make it mean that much more when Superman stops Zod. All of the evil that happened ultimately triumphed over by our hero. Was it the best movie in the world? Hell no. Was it still a good movie? Yes. Oh and in the comics Superman didn't have a no killing rule. He only did it when he truly needed to.
FireHawk said on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 9:53:14 AM
It seems cinema story telling has been lost to explosions and the "need to change". Man of Steel has to be the worst origin story ever told. The Action scenes are what the world had been waiting for and we got a great Jor-El, Zod and Krypton. Reading the comments I guess a lot of viewers didnt see the butchering of superman. Dark Knight retold the story of Batman with the right story arc and as a anti-hero but nevertheless a HERO with rules and boundaries.
Man of Steel gave us an evil superman who stole, acted on revenge, was vain, allowed his father to die and has no respect for authority. The theme of the movie was Zod was the good guy driven mad by his genetic makeup and superman was everyone (God Complex).The fortress of solitude is now a ship with a baby matrix maker and he is the codex? He was a hero by reputation.
Very disappointing movie which will make a lot of money because people cannot see a story past the action. Hollywood Strikes again....
Erik said on Monday, December 02, 2013 8:08:02 PM
Great, succinct review, Richard. As a lifelong Superman fan, I was excited for this movie, but I could sense from early reviews I was going to be disappointed, and I was. Like you, I enjoyed some of the flashback scenes that offered unique insight into Superman's character, but beyond that, there wasn't much to grasp. The movie felt tonally flat--dark and dreary, without humor or joy, as you pointed out. But I could have even accepted a humorless Superman movie if there had been more of a character arc--a little more depth and complexity than a barrage of Jesus analogies. Instead of getting 2 hours of story, we got one hour of fragmented flashbacks and one hour of excessive CGI destruction. Zack Snyder seems more concerned about big explosions and heroes looking cool than about character interactions, and without dynamic character interplay, the movie was unable to grow into anything more than a series of interesting flashbacks and an expensive and overlong finale. A C+ seems generous to me, but I understand your points and certainly would not claim that "you are an idiot" with any "due respect sir."
I would also respond to Simon's highly thoughtful post by saying that yes, it's silly that Lois Lane can't tell Clark Kent from Superman in the old movies, but the glasses are not his disguise--it's a metaphor for how we perceive other people through their external sensibilities. Superman's disguise is one of a shift in persona, of personality, and that is why it's such a joy to watch--it allows for dramatic irony and interesting character interactions, something the new Superman sorely lacked. This new movie was made for the low-IQ, popcorn butter slurping masses. I'm glad you enjoyed it!