CharlieK

The scene that started to turn me toward MoS' destruction being over the top was when Zod throws a tanker truck at Supes. Instead of stopping it, Supes jumps over it letting it explode behind him and demolishing a parking deck.

And I realize that there's so much devastation in the movie, that this little bit seems inconsequential, but it really stuck out at me and just made think they were just blowing shit up CGI-style because it looked cool.


EDIT: Removed reference to Donner films from my criticism.

DaveyJoe

Still referencing the Donner films in your criticism.

raven56706

again... referencing the Donner films. Those movies will be behind everyones mind when they watch this movie and the others.

Still love this film and like it for what it is. A new age version of Supermans universe

CharlieK

Ok, ok, yes, I referenced Donner's movie, but I wasn't comparing them. I only brought up Superman II because that scene was similar in both. I feel like my point still stands about not stopping the tanker and just letting it explode behind him was gratuitous.

I liked Man of Steel a lot and thought it was a great update. There were things I would have done differently, but overall I thought it was a good take on Superman.

raven56706

its all good.. everyone will refer those movies. But i think its unfair because then the nitpicking starts(Why didnt Superman save the dad, how come metropolis was destroyed?, why did so many people die?, why did etc?) just being very nitpicky for a movie about the origin of an alien god fighting other gods on our planet.

fujishig

I guess if I look at MoS as a disaster movie or something in the realm of Godzilla, I can justify the destruction porn.

Brack

To be fair, it wasn't destruction porn. They were terraforming.

Giantrobo

Got it. I just quoted you for context.

Mabuse

Just watched this for the first time. Here's my take. It is in no way a "bad" film. It has many scenes, some of them absolutely great, some of them just good, but certainly nothing bad. When Howard Hawks was asked what makes a great film he famously said, "Two great scenes and no bad scenes." And I'd say that Man of Steel definitely passes that test. Most of the high points for me were not action scenes. I loved Lois Lane tracking down Superman; following him like she's tracking down an urban legend. The scene where Zod broadcasts his message, that looked and sounded so cool and dark and without feeling. Like I would address an ant before stepping on it. I liked the angle that Clark Kent is torn between two fathers who have very different feelings about whether his powers and abilities should be shared and how. That's a great bit of internal conflict to give the character. These were all very new wrinkles on old material.

However it fails to be any greater than the sum of its parts. The decision to do so many flashbacks makes the film feel very fragmented and prevents it from being really engaging. As I watched I felt distanced and just sat their saying to myself "that was great", "that was good", "that was just okay", "that was a good way to pay that off", etc.

Why start this thing on Krypton? If you're trying to do a "Dark Knight" to the Superman mythos why not start with his crash to earth or discovery by his parents or something? Clark is going to eventually find out everything from the recordings of his father so why bother even showing Krypton? Showing Krypton suggests a lot more fantasy and sci-fi than a "new, darker" Superman needs.

Lastly, I have to talk about Donner's film. Man of Steel is a 2 hour and 15 minute distillation of Superman: The Motion Picture and Superman II, two films that add up to around four and half hours. Man of Steel hits almost every beat of Donner's saga but does so in so much less time. How? By cutting out characterization. And that, more than anything, is what Man of Steel is missing. We barely know these characters.

Mabuse

I am aware of all this, but the question I've always had is, what was the ending of the first film supposed to be before they decided to move up the time travel from part 2?

Traxan

Isn't that the common knock on action movies these days, the mass destruction? Godzilla was the same way. Zilla and the Mutos turned Chinatown and SOMA in SF into a mosh pit and just dropped one whole high rise after another.

Still, MoS was utterly ridiculous.

fumanstan

This bump brought back fond memories ready Brack's justification for Superman time travel.

I've been meaning to rewatch Man of Steel again on Blu-ray. I'm curious how it holds up for me.

RocShemp

It was a cliffhanger. Superman stops one missile but the second detonates as he takes it out to space. The shockwave frees Zod, Ursa, and Non. Superman's fate is unknown. Then we were supposed to see clips of Superman II before the end credits rolled.

Paul_SD

Sort of. The earthquake would still have played out with the exception of Lois losing her life. Superman would have still put out all the little emergencies and the film would have ended with Luthor deposited at the prison and then the coda before the credits would have been the release of the Zone villains and the "to be continued"

The turning back time was only really needed as a dramatic solution for Lois's death. And I do think if they were going to use it, it works better in an emotional context like that than it does simply to undue a bunch of destruction caused by the trio of villains (though it turning back time might have been more for the purpose of getting them back in their zone prison than to merely undo the physical damage). It's still a weak resolution I dmit, but I get why they put it where they did. And it still works for me on a purely emotional level.

I'm planning to re-watch it again soon too. Probably a day or two before I see Avengers- with the hope that MOS's flaws will help get me over AoU's easier.

RocShemp

You already hate AoU?

Paul_SD

yes, that's exactly what I said.

Spiderbite

I rewatched this with my 11 year old son yesterday as we have been going through all the Superman films recently since he had never watched the originals. Both of us saw MOS in the theater and I came out hating it and my son thought it was fine at at the time but didn't go nuts over it like the Spider-man, Iron Man or Avengers films.

I came away this time not hating it but just being more disappointed than anything else. I typically am much more critical of movies I see in the theater than when I see them at home. I went into the original theater viewing with crazy high expectations (due to the excellent trailer they were showing at the time). I liked Superman Returns but I wasn't against a reboot or new vision at the time, I just wanted to watch an enjoyable movie with Supes.

Anyway, this movie, like Superman Returns (which we also rewatched recently) has lots of problems. The chemistry between the leads is non-existent. The death of Pa Kent pisses me off the most and is the biggest insult in this film in my opinion. That entire scene is so fucking stupid, from saving a fucking dog (couldn't they have at least made it the kid he saved right before?) to holding his hand out for Clark to not do anything and watch the tornado whisk him away...which seemed to take forever since they are doing their best to milk your emotions. The whole codex, Krypton citizens cells in Superman is just kinda bizarre and strange. The make-out session while standing among the utter and complete destruction of Metropolis (of which Superman is at least 50% to blame) is horrible.

And why does Clark love humans? Every scene they flashback to basically shows that humans have been a dick to Clark his entire life. Hell, even after he is fighting the bad guys, the military is still trying to kill him. Even after he saves the planet, they are still distrusting of him and are following him. When the military commander at the end asked, "How can we trust you?", it just came across as beyond stupid. Did he not just see the same movie I did with Superman saving his bacon?

And the building destruction porn in the last hour is just too fucking much. Some is fine but it really just comes across as a new CG programmer got handed a massive check for extra overtime and he decided this is what he would do. Even my 11 year old started laughing 30 or 40 minutes into the destruction and stated, "They are even destroying buildings that aren't even built yet" when Zod and Supes decide to destroy a building construction site.

All that being said, there is a decent movie hiding in there. I didn't mind the time spent on Krypton or the look of Krypton. I liked the scene of Clark saving the workers on the oil rig and him saving the kids in the school bus. Him dealing with all the sounds and maturing in to his powers is a nice touch. Lois not having to fake not recognizing him at the end and knowing he is Clark is fine. I was fine with him killing Zod. The fight scenes and special effects are mostly well done and the sound and picture quality on the BD is beyond excellent.

So, anyway, I went from hating this movie to thinking it is just okay. I would give it *** out of *****.

Just dump the ridiculous Pa Kent scene, the awful make-out session (a quick smooch would have been enough and would have served the purpose the movie makers wanted), and trim the Metropolis destruction down and I would enjoy the movie much more. Oh, and take out the Perry White/Daily Planet staff scenes. It is way too long at almost 2 and half hours anyway. Oh, and I would love to see the movie in color. The video posted above looks fantastic.

Mike86

It's funny the first time I saw this film I loved it. It was a new take on the Superman character but overall done pretty well. The second time I saw it in theaters I still liked it but didn't love it as much. I think that's carried over to each subsequent viewing of the film for me. I don't think it's s bad film at all but the problems it has become more evident the more times I see it.

I like the cast a lot. Cavill, Crowe, Shannon, and Adams all did really well in their parts. The opening sequence on Krypton is very well done and one of the best aspects of the film. I also really like the Antarctica scenes where Kal gets the suit and starts to fully explore the powers he has. The parts with Lois using her investigative skills into finding out the story behind Clark and putting it together that he's Superman was enjoyable as well.

I think the film sort of falls apart in the action sequences. They're well done and action packed but at the same time Superman doesn't feel like the most heroic character. I get that he's focused on Zod and that realistically even Superman can't save everybody, but I do think the destruction got pretty out of control and he didn't seem to try much to save civilians.

I don't hate the film by far but I can see the problems more now that other fans had with it. I still wouldn't put myself in the position of loving the Reeve films either and I still feel they're pretty badly dated in a lot of ways, but I do like Reeve more as Superman. He definitely had a charm to him that made him so Damn likable that I don't feel any other actor who's played the part has been able to re-capture.

Match

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Du-eYiD9OfM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Solid Snake

They can call it restored color but it still looks fucked up. It wasn't a good "restoration" it was a neat attempt at best.

Why So Blu?

Those people saying that it should be "colorized" will never EVER be directors. Hell, that's why they're not - they know nothing about the filmmaking process.

DaveyJoe

The 'colorized' version looks just as unnatural, but in the other direction, and doesn't fit the tone of the movie.

Spiderbite

Dammit. I hate to hear that. And here I had my heart set on being a Hollywood director one day.

Why So Blu?

That was just a far out example. Don't ever teach or critique film, because you won't know what you're talking about if you defend the colorization of the film.

Michael Corvin

Can you colorize a film that's already in color? More like going back and removing the instagram filter Snyder had a hard on for.