There’s very little humor or joy in this Superman story.
Friday, 14 June 2013
Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon
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!
Simon said on Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:30:54 PM
With all due respect sir, you are an idiot. You seem to be stuck in the past way of doing things. The limp dicked camp frankly terrible movies of the past.
My favourite superman comics were the more serious ones, the most realistic ones.
Superman NEEDED re-inventing BIG TIME. This re-invention is welcome and frankly the right direction. The action has never been this good, never had this much power. The story is reasonable and authentic to what Superman SHOULD BE.
How can you be happy with the dumb old movie where the main female character is not just retarded but also blind as she seems to be un-able to tell Clark from Kal-El through some geeky glasses... Which is basically 70% of the humour from previous versions of Superman. It's about as believable as Sparkling unicorn vampires that fly via shitting out rainbows. Get over yourself man and realise that this is a far better representation of Superman
The best representation in-fact.
Reply from Richard Roeper
Well. As long as it's with all due respect.
With no due respect, get back to me when you can elevate your argument above the level of "you are an idiot."
Tim said on Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:29:43 PM
Watched about 15 mins, this is a disgrace to superman! Superman is my favorite super hero of all time(I have the S tattooed on my right Bicep)! How dare you change his costume or make Superman seem so weak! What a DISGRACE! Please NEVER make a super hero movie again! I shut it off, way too horrible to watch I want my rental fee back! What TRASH!!!!
Cameron 0_0 said on Friday, November 22, 2013 12:15:11 PM
I did not like this movie. I thought it had some pretentious ideas but like all the critics say, the action never slows down it never gives us a breather and it just clumsily directed. Not to mention the acting is very underwhelming and stiff and they didn't give much purpose to Lois Lane. Also the flashbacks just jump all over the place and it's hard to follow. I would have preferred the story to be told in order. I also believe that most of the films problems can be summed up when he find the fortress of solitude. That should be the dramatic pinical point of the movie but they if felt really rushed and felt like it didn't go anywhere. However I didn't think it was bad movie, I love the scene where young Clark is scared and is hiding in the storage closet from everyone, it was a great scene. I wish the film had more scenes like that.
Terrence said on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:06:21 PM
I enjoyed Man Of Steel how could some critics say,the film has too much action. It's a superhero movie. What did you expect Superman and General Zod to talk out there differences? I just think there is a certain bias when it comes to Superman.
Sam said on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:10:45 PM
I could not believe how disappointing this movie was. If you want to appeal to adults, that's fine, but shoving senseless action in our faces will not be enough. I don't think people should have to do ANY research before watching a film, especially one based on such a well known character. For the comic fan, movie lover, or child going through a DC phase (my son): this movie was terrible. The cast! Amy Adams as Lois , ha! That was a sad effort from whoever cast this film. The best acting came from Superman's birth parents before they died and Faora was the only convincing warrior! Although, Cavill does seem like the perfect superman; body, that voice, the almost alien demeanor. Still, the story jumps back and forth so much, the action is noisy and almost boring. It was nothing we have not seen before. Anyone daring to compare this film to Avengers or Dark Knight would do well to remember that this movie was made to appeal to all types of viewers and not just comic book groupies. The opening credits should include "based on the inspiration of the character called Superman" because this film was clearly adopted and raised by Hollywood..
Jason Dyson said on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:23:16 AM
This movie is a muddled mess. People claim this film has substance. Many films has substance. nThis film has little substance. It values CGI loaded action over story, characters and drama. How is this possibly the Superman film Superman fans have been waiting for? Is this what you wanted to see? A decrepit and melodramatic Superman film that offers little to no new concepts and ideas but wallows in its own pretentious commentary. No onw wants to return to the Donner films. Those films had their time and it's obviously time for a change. But this? God, folks. Have standards. I know it's the best thing we've gotten sicne Superman II, but they CAN do better. Where's my proof? Superman For All Saesons, Superman: Birthright, All-Star Superman, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, For the Man Who has Everything; there are 75 years worth of terrific Superman tales to draw inspiration from. Instead of making this film an amalgamation of the all this terrific mythology, Snyder and Goyer (stop referring to Nolan! He had as much to do with this film as Steven Spielberg had to do with Transformers)hand pick a few Superman stories and decide to make the rest of a film a complete overhaul of the character and his core characteristics. But ultimately, this all doesn't matter! Idf the story, characters and drama were actually intriguing and engaging, I would be too invested to care about such trivial details! Nolan's Batman trilogy changed as lethora of details but I was too damn busy having a great time to give the slightest fuck. Great Review as always, Mr. Roeper. 6/10