• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Man of Steel (with spoilers)

ToughLoveDeac

ToughLoveDeac

Ricky Peral
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
577
Reaction score
44
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Saw it at a midnight showing and it was truly awful. Both my roommates agreed.

RT score still above 50% though, so maybe I'm way off.
 
I thought this was the definition of an event film, and what Goyer and Snyder did with the "origin" story I found to be incredibly inventive. The fractured narrative structure was very well done, and helped it to avoid the monotony that is usually present in the first half of any origin story, especially one that is so well known, and has been done before (The Amazing Spider-Man was very guilty of this). It's a new approach to telling a back story in a superhero film, and indeed, it could be mistaken as less story and not letting us know who Clark Kent really is. But, the glimpses we get of Clark's childhood are enough for us to know his struggles, and I completely disagree with the notion that this is an emotionless movie. I thought the scenes with Johnathan and Martha Kent were incredibly stirring, and Kevin Costner was particularly good, that tornado scene was incredibly resonant. I really thought the elliptical nature worked here, as events in the present triggered memories from the past, and I think people are mistaking this form of non-linear storytelling which, yes, values individual moments over long form character development, for not caring about Clark's backstory.

So let's get beyond the story and characterizations, and focus on what I think is the most impressive part of the movie, the pure visceral nature of the whole thing. Snyder pitches the entire movie at such an incredibly high-level that it can almost be overpowering. Zimmer's score absolutely pounds from beginning to end, there's nary a second that it isn't present. I saw it in IMAX, and it was pretty awe-inspiring. I'll say more about the action as more people see it, but I think Snyder was able to visualize, like nobody ever has, just how powerful Superman is. The battles between him and the Kryptonians were exhilarating. It's a visceral and aural assault for sure, but I don't consider that to be a bad thing.
 
TinyMixtapes review:

Empathy is not a quality that should be in short supply in a superhero film — particularly so when, in previous installments, the hero in question went so far as to reverse time and send all the nuclear weapons on earth into the sun as ways to save the world.

That’s why it feels so wrong somehow to see the raging, mindless destruction that fills up the last half of Man of Steel, with building upon building in Metropolis collapsing, killing — one must assume — thousands upon thousands of people inside. But in director Zack Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer’s vision of the Superman story, the most important thing is that Kal-El (Henry Cavill) finally comes to accept who he is and win the hand of Lois Lane (Amy Adams). Yes, he does save the world from the evil plans of General Zod (Michael Shannon in full fire and brimstone mode), but that’s merely an afterthought in this loud, brash, and exhausting spectacle.

You might hear the same discussion from other critics and comic book geeks, but it’s most likely going to be drowned out by the chatter about Goyer and Christopher Nolan (who co-produced and help conceive the story) eschewing the well-known Superman origin. The crux is the same, with Jor-El sending his son out into space to save him from the destruction of Krypton. But added into the mix is a Matrix-like angle that involves Kryptonians that are genetically modified to serve certain roles, and Jor-El sending his son with the codex that carries the DNA for a new breed. Naturally, Zod wants this information to help create a super race, and, even after being banished from his world after attempting a coup d’etat on the power structure, searches the galaxies for it.

You can see where this is going, right? Zod finds Kal-El on Earth and wreaks havoc in search of the codex. And that’s when the glass starts shattering, the concrete starts crumbling, and tiresome latter half of this film slogs toward its inevitable happy ending.

The disappointment of Man of Steel is doubly felt because Snyder creates a fairly affecting portrait of Kal-El in the first 40 minutes. The film moves ably between the present day man wandering the Americas, trying to hide his abilities out of a sense of duty for his adoptive father (a grizzled and well-cast Kevin Costner), and his childhood as he grapples with what he is capable of. The weight of these early sequences is supposed to fall on the burly shoulders of Cavill, but it is Dylan Sprayberry playing a teen Clark Kent who captures this internal struggle so graciously, even when he is pushing a school bus out of a river to rescue his classmates.

Once the exposition is disposed of — along with any hint of genuine emotion or warmth that emanated from those early scenes — then it’s time for a bit of the old ultraviolence to make viewers feel like they got their money’s worth. And if you haven’t mentally checked out by the time a truck gets hurled through the Kent family home’s roof or when you catch some of the most egregious product placement this side of a Bond film, you might stagger out of the multiplex saucer-eyed, giddy, and hungry for more. For the rest of you brave souls in the theater, hang tight and grit your teeth for your reward will be great in heaven.
 
I have to say I'm 100% with WakeFanatic this time. I'm on the record as HATING the origin segment of any of these superhero movies, but this movie (and Russell Crowe) knocked it out of the park.

Superman purists are going to be irate at how Zod was resolved and over time, after I get off the post movie high, I may join them. Some attributes are so fundamental to the character that when they don't adhere to them, you don't get the same character any more. Superman's morality is more a part of him than flight, heat vision and super duper strength. His morality unequivocally keeps him from ever taking a life.

There were other faults I won't dwell on right now.

Also more than a few bones were thrown out for the fans, like the inclusion of Pete Ross, Lana Lang (only called by Lana) and a LexCorp truck.

Allessandro Juliani had a bit role, which is nifty because he was in Smallville too, playing Dr. Hamilton.

It was great in IMAX. This flick had a surplus of explosions, which IMAX, visually and aurally, enhances.
 
The ending is interesting. It comes down to Superman having to commit this act that is against everything he stands for in order to uphold, and become the moral guardian that we know him as. Early on Costner tells him that maybe he should have let those kids die in order to hide who he was. Certainly he was facing an identity crisis, trying to identify as a human vs. an alien. At the end he triumphantly chooses humanity, and his immediate reaction after killing Zod is one of utter despair. He never wanted to have to do that, but he was left with no choice. I have very little knowledge of who Superman is in the comic books or graphic novels, but for this iteration of the character, I think that the ending worked.
 
Well they finally got Superman to fight a giant spider. Nice back door.

Good movie. Wish it was better. The end didn't live up to the beginning. They really tried to do too much. It's hard to do an origin movie, Zod movie, Lois movie, and viably set up a Justice League franchise. They had to make several tough choices and some worked and some didn't.

More thoughts later.
 
Last edited:
WakeFanatic said:
The fractured narrative structure was very well done, and helped it to avoid the monotony that is usually present in the first half of any origin story, especially one that is so well known, and has been done before.
Click to expand...

I felt that, especially in the first 45 minutes, the film bounced around so much that I felt I was getting the cliffnotes of a movie, not the actual movie. Since it bounces around so much, each scene seems incredibly rushed. The opening scene is a perfect example, where, in the span of what felt like 30 seconds, we get 1) Jor-El approaching the council 2) Zod killing the council and 3) Zod imploring Jor-El to come to his side. Way too much in way too little time.

WakeFanatic said:
But, the glimpses we get of Clark's childhood are enough for us to know his struggles, and I completely disagree with the notion that this is an emotionless movie. I thought the scenes with Johnathan and Martha Kent were incredibly stirring, and Kevin Costner was particularly good, that tornado scene was incredibly resonant.
Click to expand...

I thought Costner was good, but again, every little scene with him and Clark was basically just Costner rolling out some one liners ("The world isn't ready for you, Clark", "Nothing wrong with being a farmer, Clark",etc.). There is no real conversation between the two that goes past two or three lines.

And WHY again is the world not ready for Clark? This movie wants the audience to basically take every movement of the plot for granted. We are just meant to accept that the world isn't ready for Superman, only because one kid he saved from a bus got scared, or something. I can't help but compare it to Spider-Man, which did a fantastic job of showing how Peter Parker had to adjust to his new powers, and contemplate how the world will feel about him, and feel out how far he could push himself. I didn't get any kind of emotional connection to Clark or any of these people. It moves so fast that there doesn't seem to be time for introspection.

WakeFanatic said:
I'll say more about the action as more people see it, but I think Snyder was able to visualize, like nobody ever has, just how powerful Superman is. The battles between him and the Kryptonians were exhilarating. It's a visceral and aural assault for sure, but I don't consider that to be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. The action scenes were loud. And moved fast. That's it. The Superman and Zod battle at the end consisted of the two flying at each other, colliding, and causing a big rumble that caused buildings to fall. And don't even get me started on the twenty minutes before that, where the plot was glossed over so quickly that I barely knew why Superman was flying towards the thing, and what the hell that giant tentacled thing was, or whatever the hell else was going on. I also love how Amy Adams escaped the black hole because she was, I don't know, falling down out of the helicopter 20 feet away from the others.

And there is no, and I mean NO, character development here. Zod could have been an excellent villain - but, like, every other character, he doesn't seem to be conflicted at all. He has to save Krypton, so people on Earth must die, and that's it. Sure, there are scenes where people TELL him he should think about what he's doing, but you never actually feel he's considering it.

Quick tangent - 5 minutes in the beginning where we get to see Zod as a good person, and a true friend to Jor-el, would have done wonders here. Remember how good a villain Doc-Oc was in Spider-Man 2? It's because we saw him when he wasn't evil - when he was kind to Peter, and was working for the betterment of society, and so on. We don't get that here. When Clark kills Zod in the final scene, there should have been some kind of resonance regarding the fact that he's killed a once good and honest man who, though blinded by his ambition, was truly trying to save his people. The movie wanted me to feel that way, but had not done any of the work in order to get me to that emotional place. When Superman screams out loud, I just laughed.

Other bad things: "Ghost" Russell Crowe shuffling people around the ship; Lois Lane shooting armed Kryptons despite having no training; the awful and emotionally empty love story between Lois and Clark.

The movie is above 50% on RT, so like I said, I must be in the minority here. But I truly believe this is one of the 10 worst films I've ever seen.
 
Last edited:
ToughLoveDeac's post embodies "tough love".

They had tough decisions to make. It's hard to make a single movie about Superman, not just because of his powers but because there are so many stories to tell that clash with each other.

Want to tell a Superman origin story? Great. How much time are you going to spend on Krypton? In Smallville? Is he going to be Superboy? Are you going to show how his powers manifest? Is he going to save people? Hurt people?

Oh yeah. Don't forget that a TV show spent 10 seasons and 218 episodes telling a Superman origin story.

Is Superman the first super powered person Earth has known? If no, then why has he been in hiding all these years if there are other people saving lives who he could join up with? Why can't they help? If yes, then who does Superman fight? Does he just save people from planes, buses, and other heavy things? Does he fight human villains who are really good at building robots (i.e. Lex Luthor or Toyman)? Does he just fight another alien? OK. Which alien? General Zod, Darkseid, Doomsday, who? What's their motivation? If it's Zod, then you need a longer Krypton origin and he needs a specific Krypton based motivation?

Well you gotta do Lois, right? No question. Is Lois a lovelorn silly girl with a crush on Superman who blows off Clark Kent? No. Can't do that. It's 2013. Is she a smart headstrong reporter who doesn't take no and can serve as a role model for young women? Yeah. That's the ticket. Well if she's a good reporter and smart individual, how does she not do her research and find out who Superman is? Oops. How does she not know the Superman from Clark Kent? Ouch.

Want to use this movie to set up a Justice League franchise? So why the hell does this guy with seemingly unlimited powers need help? Against what supervillains? And where are these superheroes coming from if no superpowered individuals exist?

I was really hoping Man of Steel would delicately answer these questions and take the time to realize they didn't need to do everything in one movie. A lot of the things that worked in the short term like the Guardian Angel narrative hurt the long play and character development and didn't tell a good story. Why was he wondering around taking odd jobs in different places? Was he learning how to use his powers in out of the way locations and just working to make ends meet? Did he leave Smallville after his dad died at age 17 presumably? Was he working in places where he thought he could help people? (the ship meets this but the bar clearly does not) The storytelling was incomplete.

I agree that the way the origin was thrown in was an attempt not to drag down the movie with the origin, especially since the origin is probably what people know the most about Superman. The origin dragged down the most recent Spiderman. That's sad because the origin and childhood scenes were particularly powerful. Of course, I'm biased as a father of two young boys. Unfortunately, turning Jonathan Kent and Martha Kent into Uncle Ben and Aunt May didn't work for me in the tornado scene and afterwards just didn't work for me.

I thought Amy Adams was excellent as Lois. I wish she wasn't given the material she was given or at least an explanation. For example, it was silly that she was a deadshot with the Kryptonian gun. If they had simply used her modern origin and stated that she was the daughter of a retired military man and could defend herself and was handy with weapons, it would have made more sense. All it would have taken was a reference to her dad when she landed in the arctic to make it make sense.

It felt like a more convoluted version of Thor with Jor-El as Odin and Loki as Zod right down to the small town battle with the giant Kryptonian who looked a lot like The Destroyer.
 
Last edited:
Ph - It's funny you mentioned Smallville. I've actually never seen it, but from what friends have described, it sounds like that show is what I wanted this movie to be. I thought Costner was good (Lane as well, though she wasn't given too much), and I would have liked a movie where it's just Clark being a kid trying to grow up struggling to contain these abilities and relate to his parents, classmates, etc.

And I guess I can sort of give them credit for trying a different narrative structure (jumping around from 5 minute scene to 5 minute scene, back and forth through time), but there's a reason most movies aren't made that way: it's difficult to string along a narrative.
 
I need to add that I also thought the Lois Lane "romance" was forced and unnecessary. There was no romantic spark between them at any point in the movie until their kiss, which just felt weird.

To anyone that reads comics - is Pa Kent still alive? He died in "Smallville" but was alive and well in the last Superman comic I read about 15 years ago.
 
ToughLoveDeac said:
Ph - It's funny you mentioned Smallville. I've actually never seen it, but from what friends have described, it sounds like that show is what I wanted this movie to be. I thought Costner was good (Lane as well, though she wasn't given too much), and I would have liked a movie where it's just Clark being a kid trying to grow up struggling to contain these abilities and relate to his parents, classmates, etc.

And I guess I can sort of give them credit for trying a different narrative structure (jumping around from 5 minute scene to 5 minute scene, back and forth through time), but there's a reason most movies aren't made that way: it's difficult to string along a narrative.
Click to expand...

I would have loved to see just that movie too ending with Clark going to Metropolis and becoming a reporter and coming into a situation that finally forced him to reveal Superman to the world. A good Superman origin movie doesn't NEED a supervillian. It's just hard to sell a movie nowadays without one.

I understand why they didn't do straight origin. People already know it and it would have been too much like what worked in the early seasons of Smallville. I wouldn't recommend watching it though. The good stuff is hidden in a bunch of typical teen age drama mess and sci-fi "freak of the week" stuff.

Cavill looked a lot like Tom Welling after shaving the beard, supposedly with a Gillette razor if you believe the promos.

The "romance" was the typical "we just went through something traumatic and we're both hot so we're going to kiss each other" movie troupe. It's lazy. That said, I would have kissed Amy Adams, too. She's been my second favorite Amy for a long time.
 
A point on the difficulty of finding a good Superman villain, I looked at a random list of "top 10 Superman villains" (obviously there are many more). Seven were aliens (Zod, Mongul, Darkseid, Mr. Mxyzptlk, Bizarro, Brainiac, and Doomsday). One builds robots (Luthor), one is a robot (Metallo), and the Parasite. Zod and Bizarro basically are Superman clones for all intents and purposes. Mongul and Darkseid have a very similar power set. Parasite can steal Superman's powers.
 
I liked it, way more than Iron Man 3. I disagree about Zod needing confliction to be a dynamic character. I actually thought the film went overboard in describing why Zod wasn't conflicted, through his final monologue. As for the criticisms of Lois escaping the black hole, 99% of super hero action scenes are physically implausible, such as Iron Man or Super Man jetting through the air while holding a person, because the acceleration induced G-forces of such a feat would easily kill the person being rescued.
 
Last edited:
Just got back from seeing it, and I have mixed feelings that sort of mirror this thread so far.

The first act was pretty strong. I love the way Krypton was (albeit briefly) explored with Jor El and Zod...honestly, I thought they could have spent an hour on Krypton and I would have loved it. Crowe did a great job with his character. At this point I'm feeling pretty good about the movie...

...and then we get to the second act. There was a point in the second act where I thought "Oh, no...this movie is terrible." I understand the points ToughLoveDeac makes above...but the plot became disjointed, the character development was nonexistent, and too many things just made no sense at all. The whole endeavor felt rushed, as if they felt they just couldn't put off getting him in a cape any longer. I actually thought this act would have been stronger had the storytelling shifted to Lois Lane. I was far more interested in the concept of Superman as Bigfoot than the half-hearted cut scenes of Clark as a kid or his random acts of heroism that all seemed out of context. Lois tracking his exploits as a reporter would have been a much better narrative (and beats all the origin story cliches). Everything here was just lacking. And why the hell was Zod interested in bringing Lois on the ship, again? Did I miss something?

Then we get to the third act, which isn't bad, but isn't really good either. The cinematography seemed made for IMAX...the action is massive in scale and speed. The power exhibited by God-like characters is always cool no matter how much you see it (although I did find myself saying "Wait...they leveled Metropolis in the first movie?") I didn't finally feel anything towards Superman until the final scene with Zod and the gut-wrenching decision he had to make. That scene resonated, I thought, where much of the film failed to do so. At the very end, though, I had really hoped we would avoid Clark Kent, Daily Planet reporter...the concept seems dated, but I know people were waiting for it.

I though the villains were strong, while every other character went underdeveloped and didn't resonate. Diane Lane did stand out, as did Crowe and Zod (actors name escapes me). Cavill and Adams were good, but weren't really given a chance to stand out due to the weak nature of the plot.

The movie isn't bad...it really isn't. I'd tell friends to see it. Its weaknesses are just glaring.
 
Deadbolt said:
Just got back from seeing it, and I have mixed feelings that sort of mirror this thread so far.

The first act was pretty strong. I love the way Krypton was (albeit briefly) explored with Jor El and Zod...honestly, I thought they could have spent an hour on Krypton and I would have loved it. Crowe did a great job with his character. At this point I'm feeling pretty good about the movie...

...and then we get to the second act. There was a point in the second act where I thought "Oh, no...this movie is terrible." I understand the points ToughLoveDeac makes above...but the plot became disjointed, the character development was nonexistent, and too many things just made no sense at all. The whole endeavor felt rushed, as if they felt they just couldn't put off getting him in a cape any longer. I actually thought this act would have been stronger had the storytelling shifted to Lois Lane. I was far more interested in the concept of Superman as Bigfoot than the half-hearted cut scenes of Clark as a kid or his random acts of heroism that all seemed out of context. Lois tracking his exploits as a reporter would have been a much better narrative (and beats all the origin story cliches). Everything here was just lacking. And why the hell was Zod interested in bringing Lois on the ship, again? Did I miss something?

Then we get to the third act, which isn't bad, but isn't really good either. The cinematography seemed made for IMAX...the action is massive in scale and speed. The power exhibited by God-like characters is always cool no matter how much you see it (although I did find myself saying "Wait...they leveled Metropolis in the first movie?") I didn't finally feel anything towards Superman until the final scene with Zod and the gut-wrenching decision he had to make. That scene resonated, I thought, where much of the film failed to do so. At the very end, though, I had really hoped we would avoid Clark Kent, Daily Planet reporter...the concept seems dated, but I know people were waiting for it.

I though the villains were strong, while every other character went underdeveloped and didn't resonate. Diane Lane did stand out, as did Crowe and Zod (actors name escapes me). Cavill and Adams were good, but weren't really given a chance to stand out due to the weak nature of the plot.

The movie isn't bad...it really isn't. I'd tell friends to see it. Its weaknesses are just glaring.
Click to expand...

Michael Shannon. Too lazy to edit your post down to the relevant question on my phone.
 
Despite my own review, the critics reviews I've read are frustrating, as well. A decade of super hero flicks, and these guys still don't have any imagination. It seems like they were all actually wanting something more formulaic. I'll at least give Snyder credit for trying some things.
 
I'm almost in 100% agreement with Deadbolt. Good review.

I also thought the same thing about Metropolis and Smallville. Seems shortsighted to destroy both of the main places the protagonist would likely be.

Also a lot of people know Clark Kent is Superman. The military. They see the first byline and they'll know where he is.

Also a lot of people were in there they we were supposed to care about but they didn't tell us why. Like the two people with Perry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top