Bookmark
 
 
 
 
Nuts on Clark
 

Man of Steel (2013; Rated Rated PG-13)

Man of Steel
C+
 

“There’s very little humor or joy in this Superman story.”

-Richard Roeper

Man of Steel Review

Man of Steel

(2013; PG-13)

In theaters:
Friday, 14 June 2013

Genre:
Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Director:
Zack Snyder

Cast:
Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon

COMMENTS(237)
 
Post a Comment
 

Deborah R. said on Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:39:35 PM
This movie was such a disappointment. The special effects were excessive. Very little effort, if any, was made in building Superman's personality or that of the other characters. I did enjoy Amy Adams' spunky personality at times, but the relationship between Superman and Louis Lane is a superficial one with no chemistry at all. This movie only made me miss Reeves' quircky portrayal of Clark Kent and his heartfelt performance as Superman all the more. Another thing, what's with Kent Sr's memory of Superman playing with a cape as a child??? This made no sense since it was not even known who he was. The film even lacks consistency. It's clear that more effort was put into getting everything out of the way to get to the special effects. A battle where Superman has no consideration for the human lives at stake. Another blunder I have to mention is when Kent Sr. dies in the tornado. Look at his hair and clothes, it's not even blowing in the wind! Epic Fail as they say these days. Meh.

KC said on Monday, July 07, 2014 7:46:38 PM
Dear Mr. Roeper,

Your review and this movie together seem to have inspired a lot of passion! This is the internet, and you've been presented with the expected range of personal attacks and flawed arguments. For example, although it is clear that you were disappointed with Man of Steel BECAUSE you are a Superman fan, a curious number of people accused you of being ignorant of canon.

I did not grow up reading the comics, but I DID watch the older movies staring Reeve and Kidder. Even as a child I thought those movies were little silly, but I enjoyed them immensely. I have read a lot of comics, but I never did read much from DC.

After sifting through a lot of vicious comments in this thread, I only found one thing I agree with: expectations can really affect your enjoyment of a movie. Lately I've been trying to clear out my expectations before watching a film and it really helps! It's harder for me to be disappointed when I'm not "looking" for something specific. Out of curiosity, why were you disappointed by the lack of joy in the movie? I felt that the movie's makers were trying to impress upon us the dire state of humanity, and used Krypton as a way to give us a glimpse of the grim future where we continue in our ways.

Finally, I feel that too little credit is given to special effects. You mention how good the CG is with the same tone I hear from a lot of critics: "Yeah, the effects were good, but it made me want to vomit!" I rather liked the art direction for this movie. I guess everyone has their own inner imagination and the LOOK of this film rather appealed to me. Teams of artists and CG people slave away to bring us something of this quality, and I think their vision is worthwhile. I don't know how many times you've seen this film, but would it be worth clearing out your expectations and prior knowledge and just viewing it as a work of art to see if it has any merit?

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!"
Be open

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!

 
Comments: 1 - 10 of 237

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
   Page: 1 of 24
 
POST A COMMENT
 
 
  indicates required field
Name:  
Email:  
Website:  
YouTube
Response URL:
   ?
     
Comment:  
     
Enter text as shown:  
     


NOTE: Your comment will be approved before it is posted.
 
 
 
Sports Terminal
 
Related Links
Chicago Sun-Times   |   Rotten Tomatoes   |   Hulu   |   Hollywood.com   |   IMDB.com   |   Filmmaking.net   |   TV.com   |   Filmspotting   |   perezhilton   |   ReelzChannel
©2014 Richard Roeper. All Right Reserved | Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com
Questions and Comments   |   Site Map   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Use   |   RSS