The Best & Worst Of 'Man of Steel'

Features
by The Playlist Staff
June 17, 2013 4:34 PM
165 Comments
  • |

“The Worst”/What Didn’t Work:

The Overly Long 40 Minute Punch Fest
When are writers and directors going to realize that endless fist fights between invincible characters simply aren’t dramatically compelling? “Man Of Steel” is especially guilty of this, given that there are roughly four characters with the abilities of Superman himself. Three of them (Supes, Faora and some CGI giant fellow) land in Smallville to do battle and the end result is simply violence, with a complete lack of progression to the narrative. Granted, this scene gives Antje Traue’s swagger-licious Faora some action beats in a film that, like all superhero pictures, is light on a female presence, but aside from that, it only establishes what we already know: Kryptonians are pretty nasty brawlers. By the end, Zod’s plan has been deep-sixed, and his only reaction is to lash out like a cornered animal, leading to a scrap that results in the further demolition of an already Hiroshima’d Metropolis, with two unstoppable characters figuring it will be THIS or THAT punch that finally stems the tide. Superman’s got heat vision, x-ray vision, flight, and smarts, but clearly he’s never found a situation he can’t fly straight into, fists extended like a Kryptonian battering ram. And Hollywood, yes, the falling skyscrapers are off-putting once we’re forced to consider the death toll, but have you realized this: the more CGI lets us see the destroyed skyline of a major city, the less interesting it gets? Yes, the endless brutality is discomforting, but it’s mostly just boring; maybe we need some fresh ideas for those big action climaxes, no?

The Brutal Collateral Damage
Let’s face it, the destruction of Metropolis is callous and brutal and like we said, we’re not the only ones to complain about it. Perhaps the biggest missed opportunity is to acknowledge the 9/11 style damage in the last act and have Superman react to it instead of being the primary cause of it. Imagine a world where we have a hero like Superman on a day like that. The fact that this scene so obviously recalls the realistic horrors of that day without giving us the catharsis of the hero to respond to it is the biggest missed opportunity. Destruction and mayhem hover over all these scenes like troubling, rotting death, but Superman seems to be too busy busting Zod’s skull to notice. The evoking of 9/11 in these scenes is therefore shallow and hollow, the tragedy being abused for this superhero film, but never seeming at all earned. There’s little to no humanization in it whatsoever except for the scene of Perry White helping his assistant out of rubble. Disturbing and disconcerting to say the least.

The Shouty One Note Villain
Michael Shannon is one of our great actors, able to arouse great nuance out of a steely glare and a short story worth of sentiment in a single line. So it’s unfortunate that he would be saddled with this role, a far cry from the aristocratic snobbiness of Terrence Stamp’s classic creation in the earlier films. Instead, Shannon is given a score of yelling speeches that only increase in number as the film persists: here’s an actor of hidden corners and unexpected gestures, forced to compete with computer effects and repetitive violence just to be heard. It’s safe to say the blockbuster formula doesn’t suit Shannon, and it results in a villain that seems to believe destruction is the best cause of action. Are we to believe that there are absolutely NO other planets the Kryptonians can colonize with their “World Engine”? And that Zod simply can’t appeal to his shared background with Kal-El in coaxing the Codex from the Man of Steel, possibly to take it to another planet or galaxy? You wonder why an Oscar-nominated actor like Michael Shannon is hired for a role best suited for a stubborn bruiser like Kevin Nash or Dave Bautista, casting that would better suit the primitive nature of this film’s central conflict.

Little Sense Of Discovery
For a reboot that inventively rebooted and reconsidered Superman’s origin, Clark Kent’s life on Earth and thrust the franchise firmly into the 21st century with greater stakes, and deep emotional underpinnings, it’s curious that the superhero’s pure sense of discovery and awe is mostly left out of the film. While we do get a cursory scene of Superman learning how to fly, for the most part, his powers are treated as a burden before he comes suited up. And that’s fine. But was there no moment as a kid when he realized the extent of his strength? Or even as a grown man, has he ever surprised himself by the sheer strength he has? Even Goyer and Nolan’s Batman do-over spent more time on Bruce Wayne fumbling around in “Batman Begins” and in subsequent films, having a bit of fun playing with Lucius’ latest toys. Here, Superman flies into outer space, holds up entire oilrigs, bends Mack trucks for fun like it’s all in a day’s work. He never seems at all surprised about how strong he is, but most crucially, never feels truly threatened as a result. Thus, even when he is getting thrown around Smallville, there is never any question that he will come out on top and that gives “Man Of Steel” very little sense of tension.

The Expository & Groan-Inducing Dialogue
The take on Superman on “Man of Steel” is fresh and great, and that’s why the movie is more of a disappointment than a disaster. At no point during the film’s running time did we lose total sight of the film it could have been. but it seemed like about 50% of the film’s dialogue was either exposition or the character’s spelling out how they were feeling and really could’ve used another pass by another writer (like Nolan, who rewrote Goyer’s “Batman Begins” screenplay and relegated him to “Story By” on the two other Bat-films to follow). Exposition is a huge problem that makes the movie clunky over all. From groaning lines like “I’m a Pulitzer Prize winning writer!” to "There's only one way this ends, either I die or you will!," as much of the story and set up of “Man of Steel” is great, the almost annotated delivery of dialogue is just a little painful and first draft-y.

The Final Scene
Ok, you’ve spent two and half hours boldly deconstructing the hallowed origin of Superman, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Pa Kent, etc. and what do you do for a finale? Cave comfortably into the most obvious character myth imaginable. C’mon, Clark’s not a journalist in “Man Of Steel,” he’s been an offshore worker, a manual labor blue-collar type of guy. He clearly didn’t go to university and that’s fine because all of that texture is elemental to the type of Superman story that Goyer, Nolan and Snyder chose to tell. But the end of “Man Of Steel,” with Clark joining the Daily Planet just seems incredibly contrived, winky and played for pure fan service. Forget that part that he has no credentials for journalism, suspend your disbelief -- but are we to believe the government is looking everywhere for this guy and he’s just going to pop up on the staff of one of country's biggest newspapers, out in the open? Something tells us the NSA is gonna figure out who Clark is pretty damn fast. That and the fact that it just seems silly. So Lois Lane can now pretend she doesn’t know him and they can surreptitiously flirt in the office? What is this “Superman II”? We thought you guys were boldly world building here and were going to be something different moving forward. What the end of “Man Of Steel” conveys is to the audience is: “Ok, you know how we’ve fucked with the origin story thus far and changed everything? Well, thanks for being super patient. Back to our regularly scheduled program now.” It’s incredibly disappointing -- especially after a scene with a drone that’s been following Superman and feels very contemporary. And it points to a potential comfortable laziness in the sequels where Superman can just be the Superman we all love and know, rather than this fairly unique and new one we were presented with up front. Simply, this ending just feels incoherent in tone with what came before it.

No Payoff For What The World Will Make Of Superman
Much of the movie pivots on how the world will react to Superman's appearance. Pa Kent (Kevin Costner) suggests that people aren't ready for his power and pleads with Clark to keep his specialness a secret; Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) thinks that news of a classified alien visitor will cause a mass panic; Superman's biological father (Russell Crowe) is all for him becoming the hero the world so desperately needs – even giving him his nifty, sparkly suit. But once Superman is revealed to the public, through some very conspicuous displays of his power and innate punching abilities, we never get to see how people react. There are no "citizens of Smallville/Metropolis" reaction shots, no news clips suggesting how the everyday person is dealing with this mind-blowing revelation (plus, didn't Zod's social media throw down kind of spoil things for the Big S's arrival?) It's bafflingly abandoned. For a movie to obsessively work over this thematic concern and then do absolutely nothing with it is the kind of fiendish plot worthy of a super-villain (though to be completely fair, Goyer did say this would be addressed to some degree in future films).

Miscellaneous “Worst” Stuff:
Everyone’s mentioned the dumb CGI zooms and they’re not terrible per se at first, but it's the one “visual gag” of the film (since Snyder seemed to dial back the use of every other one of his tricks like speed ramping, thank god) and it’s a trick that the director employs over and over again, to the point of annoyance. Product placement is pretty damn rampant too from Sears, IHOP, 7-11 and more. We’d argue some of it is simply endemic to the heartland of America where much of these sequences take place (Kansas), but it’s one thing when James Bond has a cool watch and it’s quite another when you stage entire fight sequences in front of several brands rather blatantly.

Your thoughts? Clearly audiences went out in droves to see “Man Of Steel” and the media narrative thus far is that audiences love it and that critics hate it. Hopefully we’ve at least shown the conversation is more complex than that. What did you love about “Man of Steel”? What kind of threw you or felt off? What didn’t you like and what elements of the film did you downright hate? To dig in to the additional idea: where does “Man of Steel” go from here? Discuss and weigh in with your thoughts below. - Kevin Jagernauth, Rodrigo Perez, Drew Taylor, Gabe Toro, Cory Everett,

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

165 Comments

  • joy | December 28, 2013 9:52 PMReply

    Name is solomon joy, From United Kingdom. I wish to share my testimonies with the general public about what this man called dr cuba has just done for me , this man has just brought back my lost Ex husband to me with his great spell, I was married to this man called Steven we were together for a long time and we loved our self’s but when I was unable to give him a child for 2 years he left me and told me he can’t continue anymore then I was now looking for ways to get him back until a friend of mine told me about this man and gave his contact email, then you won't believe this when I contacted this man on my problems he prepared this spell cast and bring my lost husband back, and after a month I miss my month and go for a test and the result stated am pregnant am happy today am a mother of a baby girl, thank you once again the great ogul for what you have done for me, if you are out there passing through any of this problems listed below:
    1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you need child
    (3) if you need promotion in your office
    (4) if you always have bad dreams:.
    visit his email or Contact him
    +2348108060242 am always in the temple all sickens have cure

  • Cristian | November 19, 2013 9:39 PMReply

    Best parts in the movie are provided by older veteran actors - Costner's death and checking on his son, Maximus' pained doom while sending baby S off into space and Lou Fishburne's selecting to stay and die with his friend when he couldn't get her out.

    I love the layers, and good motivations each character gets; Gen. Screamer makes perfect sense and is a fine villain; a sort of pragmatic military man who has lost his way, and perhaps he screams more out of anguish than resolve, maybe the feeling that he is failing what he was born to do, protect his kind.

    What really is GRATING and TIRESOME is the loud big wholesale destruction. It happens in every superhero movie nowadays, and each week another comes out, see Thor, see Ironman Part 14, see The Avengers Vs. the Transformers Part 11.

    How cool would it have been if Jesus led Zod and his check-out my blue eyes hench-woman, away from the city to fight them in the desert, arctic or underwater? You don't need gravitas and significance by destroying skyscrapers full of people. We already get, that he saved the world, see their terraforming devices and invulnerability to our missiles, planes and bullets.

    Plus, later I'd scoff at Superman for saving LL from falling, like, what kind of egalitarian hero are you, you just let whole buildings full of people collapse while you flew to catch LL, are you kidding me right now?

    Also, his diplomatic skills, suck. I would have told Zod, look dude, I'll give you the goods you need, just terraform any number of planets, maybe ones that were previously colonized - obviously, they must have been good places if picked once before. Let's save these people and save Krypton too; or let's krypton form the moon or Mars, and work with the humans, why kill them, and WHY OH WHY, would you RISK all Kryptonians fighting me, for Earth? Let's leave Earth together and find a new Krypton in this big Universe; sure, Earth and LL doesn't get S-man, but they also don't lose Manhattan for the umpteenth time.

  • John | December 19, 2013 10:21 PM

    I agree with the action, especially the Zod and Superman fight, which I read was added in there to the script at the last minute, Zod should have either got suck into the Phantom Zone or the fight with the World engine should have been greatly toned down and have a conclusion that emphasize not only the destruction of Metropolis but also Superman killing.

    Now for the terraforming any other planet part, in that dream sequence when Zod was inside Clark's mind Superman should have mentioned it to Zod and Zod tell him why it has to be Earth or they would have already terraformed another planet years ago.

    Goyer's script for the sequel is also getting rewritten by one of the guys from Argo, so Bvs.S will be better in at least that department.

  • Vang | October 22, 2013 4:11 PMReply

    I think dialogue is one of the most important aspects of a film. I think it’s what makes a film great, and I’m glad you made that point about Christopher Nolan rewriting David S. Goyer’s screenplay for Batman Begins, because a lot of people don’t know that. I think Goyer is a good storyteller, but he’s definitely a weak writer. I liked Nolan’s dialogue. I think his writing is what made the Dark Knight trilogy great.

    The dialogue made the characters feel dry and bland. For example, the conversation between Clark and Jor-El. I swear, Jor-El went full in detail with his explanation of Krypton only to have Clark answer with short one sentence questions. Seriously, wikiquote it. It made for bad character development. Especially the chemistry between Clark and Lois.

    In the end, the film was only okay. I was disappointed, because I expected something like Batman Begins or Iron Man. (As far as origin stories and film quality) I think stronger dialogue would have made it a lot better. It was a great visual film, and I praise the action sequences. I also didn’t agree with the end result, because it conflicted with Superman’s obvious morals from the comics, but I guess I don’t really care about it as much as other people do. I’m curious to see how his darker characterization is going to contrast with Batman.

  • Russ | October 22, 2013 2:28 PMReply

    Superman has never been one of my favorite superheroes. I have always thought he was corny and lame. This new movie did better at illustrating Superman's story then any previous movie. I think Christopher Nolan did a good job and will make this Superman series more enjoyable for me.

  • Jenifer | October 22, 2013 10:21 AMReply

    Am from CANADA and my name is Jenifer, i had a girl friend that love me so much but something terrible happen to our relationship one afternoon when her girl friend that was always trying to get to me was trying to force me to make love to her just because she was been jealous of her friend that i was dating and on the scene my girl friend just walk in and she thought we had something special doing together, i tried to explain things to her that her friend always do this when ever she is not with me and i always refuse her but i never told her because i did not want the both of them to be enemies to each other but she never believed me. She broke up with me and i tried times with out numbers to make her believe me but she never believed me until one day i heard about the GREAT Dr.ADANIKE and i emailed him with his email (dradanikesolutionhome@outlook.com) and he replied me so kindly and help me get back my lovely relationship that was already gone for two months. Am so happy.Thank you Dr ADANIKE.he phone number +2347058747764

  • Ted | October 17, 2013 11:43 PMReply

    SO many hacks in here trying to get their creatively challenged opinions spread. Stop nagging and make your own film if you think you know better. I respect Zack's work and vision, he is one of the few directors who blends intelligence and a unique creative imagery to films.

  • John | October 17, 2013 8:48 AMReply

    first and foremost I liked Man Of Steel a lot very different and a fresh take but good. The first act 45 minutes is the Superman we know in probably a bit more detail of the Krypton world and what it was like to live on krypton, sending him off to earth, finding is origins, going from place to place being the hero and finding the fortress and becoming Superman and the first flight was amazing! then it becomes it's own story of a emotions, loss and trying to fit in to the world and I side we've never really seen on film. I know the action was a lot but it was good movie " Superman movie" people complain about the death toll. I never noticed anyone complaining about Superman: the original when Lex Luthor set nuclear rockets and Superman saved one but couldn't save the other and the was basically every know disaster scenario happen in that third act. In the sequel it would be nice to see more of the third act side of the story Superman/Clark/Daily Planet less Smallville because that was told in the first one and more reporting from the famous two Lois and Clark that's what the second one should explore. it's a very good movie though! less complaining more enjoying because it's best superman we've had since the first one.

  • Anna Lewis | September 4, 2013 7:18 AMReply

    Thank you DR.OLOKUN The love spell worked and my ex returned to me. You are a marvelous, wonderful, shocking and extraordinary person with so much talent. You have a gift like no other I have seen. You are an amazing person with a beautiful soul and inner balance that shines on all you meet. You surpass any and all other gifted individuals I have ever met. Your information is so accurate it is incredibly unbelievable. Your wonder-working magical know how of the universe and its laws are magnified within a structure so unique it's impossible to find anywhere. Again, thank you for everything! olokuspiritualworldtemple@gmail. com is the only answer to your problems ,Anna Lewis {+2348052168467}

  • Mike Krista | September 4, 2013 7:09 AMReply

    UNBREAKABLE LOVE BOND VOODOO SPELL TRUE LOVE SHOULD LAST FOREVER.This powerful voodoo love spell will ensure that you will be admired, cherished, worshiped and loved by that special person and allow you to feel truly complete in your relationship. This powerful voodoo love spell will bind its energy to them and retain it forever in order to protect your relationship for life – no matter what challenges your relationship faces. After all – true love should last forever!Contact him Via his Email:olokuspelltemple@yahoo. com ,Mike Krista +2348133047855

  • Yves Orzel | August 21, 2013 6:14 PMReply

    Does anybody remember that moment when he complains about how alone he is as a kryptonian for the first hour and a half, then when baby kryptonian genocide happens he doesnt even notice and just turns around and kisses Lane?

  • Jaco Tromp | August 21, 2013 10:03 AMReply

    The special effects, some of the acting and the themes of the son of God< jesus Christ was everywhere, it is not bad because of these things. here is the main reason i hated it and walked out of the movie 1 and a half hours into it.
    It feel slike you are on a rolercoaster. The scenes jump so much between eash other that you feel like there is no grounding to anything, not one scene or place gets a chance to realy get our teeth into the story and realy relate to the characters and the surrounding around us.
    They go from the interigations scene immediatly to the surrender of Superman in the blink of an eye.
    Lane discovers Superman so quickly that it makes a joke of the whole Clark Kent business. According to the original source, didnt he become a reporter in order to be part of normal life? Lets just throw that whole neccesity out of the window.
    Myself, i hated the movie and hope to never see it agian, but to those that loved it, it is your right and in no way will I let your opinion not count.
    i just feel that we live ina world that is so fast, we need to ubsord as much information as possible, that people have forgotten the true beauty of film, the story

  • Julie Stanovich | August 14, 2013 8:30 PMReply

    Please understand Dr. Lametu, that what I’ve gone through has been unbelievable. When I purchased your Love Retrieval; I was literally about to give up. I thought he was gone for good and I was beyond heartbroken. I thought, that’s it, my life as I knew it is over. And now only 4days after you cast this spell for me – he is HOME! I don’t know what you did or what happened but we are together and planning our future – marriage, children a new home – everything. Bless you Dr. Lametu, bless you!” Ancientspiritualtemple(at)gmail(dot)com

  • MYK EL | August 12, 2013 11:56 PMReply

    And now instead of addressing and developing those stories points, the WB decide to cram Batman in there and no doubt, have him kick the snot out of this guy with god-like abilities because "Batman is cooler"

    F*&king ridiculous.

  • Sindri | August 8, 2013 2:06 PMReply

    For the whole "invincible people fighting each other", Superman snaps Zod's neck, ergo, it is revealed that Kryptonians are strong enough to kill other Kryptonians, ergo, any of Zod's lackeys (or Zod himself) could do the exact same thing to Superman, ergo, Superman can be killed in those fights, making it not a "invincible people fighting each other".

  • Alberto | August 6, 2013 10:03 PMReply

    Given the current state of journalism, the daily planet could justify hiring Clark Kent only when they had fired all the college journalist and Clark is willing to work for 1/20 of their payment.

    What? Is realist!

  • Meg | July 26, 2013 11:28 AMReply

    Umm, am I the only one that was a bit torn up by the collateral damage to the Kryptons? I was bemused. The whole movie starts with the tragic demise of Krypton, and almost the entire purpose of conceiving Cal and sending him to Earth was to make a chance to restore the Kryptonian race. All these words about how Superman could become a bridge, not let one race or the other be destroyed, so on and so on. And yet despite his grief at killing Zod, he doesn't mourn the loss of his race! No one does! The implications are not remotely explored. Only that moment when he sees he must destroy the ship then- nothing. I do not get it! Help me out here?

  • Meg | July 26, 2013 11:28 AMReply

    Umm, am I the only one that was a bit torn up by the collateral damage to the Kryptons? I was bemused. The whole movie starts with the tragic demise of Krypton, and almost the entire purpose of conceiving Cal and sending him to Earth was to make a chance to restore the Kryptonian race. All these words about how Superman could become a bridge, not let one race or the other be destroyed, so on and so on. And yet despite his grief at killing Zod, he doesn't mourn the loss of his race! No one does! The implications are not remotely explored. Only that moment when he sees he must destroy the ship then- nothing. I do not get it! Help me out here?

  • Emptypage | July 22, 2013 7:25 PMReply

    As a long time Superman, I loved this film. Enjoyed it more than Avengers and have yet to meet a person in person that did not like it. Critics might have hated it but 80% of viewers liked it. This has made the Man of Steel relevant again. The movie was never boring, never dragging, or confusing. Maybe we saw a different movie but all 5 times I've seen this in theatres it received a round of applause at the end. To my surprise, even from an old couple that sat in front of me. Bring the MoS sequels!

  • MANNIXX | July 17, 2013 8:45 PMReply

    Suddenly all over internet there is a bunch of critics, experts and losers that are not even able to create something in their own lives... Even the so-called fans are idiots... AWESOME MOVIE!!!

  • Norman | December 24, 2013 12:47 AM

    no your an idiot

  • Xel Tulhor | July 21, 2013 2:37 PM

    The fact you insult people as an argument reflects how poorly you build your "arguments". Telling the movie is just "awesome" (in capital letters) is as empty and superficial as thinking you found the "right women for you" just because she has big tits

  • arvv77 | July 15, 2013 3:27 PMReply

    Mos movie=worst cast and worst story=worst reboot ever

  • MANNIXX | July 17, 2013 8:39 PM

    Shut up you dumb fuck , you don't know shit about anything, much less superman, fucking cunt...

  • Teru Kage | July 12, 2013 6:15 AMReply

    The movie had potential (I especially liked the introverted Clark and the real-world approach) but the ending was ultimately unsatisfying. As mentioned in this review, it would have been nice to see more of Clark using his years on Earth as an advantage during his fight with the Kryptonians (I can picture Clark hiding behind a structure and using his X-ray and then heat vision to attack Zod). And the wanton destruction...on the one hand, I like how this new Superman has a temper that can take control of him ("don't touch my mommy!") but his utter lack of concern for collateral damage in Smallville and in Metropolis was just appalling. He didn't even attempt to draw Zod and company away from the civilian population.

    I agree with the sentiment that the movie didn't spend any time on the ramifications of discovering new alien life. At least The Avengers showed a collage of news reports to show the public's reaction.

    I'm not saying that I hated the movie (I'd give it a B overall and I'm looking forward to the sequel) but I just expected a little more from the team that shepherded the Dark Knight triology.

    One parting thought: how can Clark possibly keep his identity secret now? There are too many people in Smallville who have seen him in action, and now that he's working in Metropolis it'll only be a matter of time before Superman get's captured on film and everyone recognizes that it's Clark.

  • james bond | July 10, 2013 8:58 AMReply

    man of steel

  • Homer | July 8, 2013 6:27 AMReply

    I liked the fight scenes, similar to the animated series and to the JL series in terms of scope and damage, fun to watch. It's just grittier because it's 'live action'. I for one rate the MoS ones the best superhero fight scenes ever, much better than the ones that Disney/Marvel/Sony/Fox dish out, in fact. I thought, wow, Supes could take out pretty much everyone else. But that's just me being a Superman fan. Fortunately I don't watch films because of what critics say. Just sit back, relax and enjoy every movie you fancy watching. Having said that, I do find what other people have to say about the movies I watch interesting reading. Nice article.

  • TrailBlaizer | July 5, 2013 8:04 AMReply

    Just because people didn't like the movie doesn't mean it was because they were expecting the Christopher Reeve version. I enjoyed the movie, but it had a lot of flaws as pointed out in the article. The main problem was that the ideas were good, just not executed well.

    Wanting to explore Clark's backstory; great. Not giving him that much dialogue; not so great. It made the character feel undeveloped.

    Clark having to kill Zod to protect the humans; great. Him not doing it earlier when Zod and his men were responsible for thousands dying; not great. Seeing a family of four nearly die made it necessary to kill him? Why not when thousands were dying because of the terraforming machine? You could argue that it's because Zod said he would kill all the humans because Clark stopped his plans, but Zod even told Clark earlier in the film he'd do that regardless.

    The acting at times did seem stale. That I believe is mostly due to poor direction, though. The writing was corny at times. And it did seem silly that Clark would work at the Daily Planet and use that whole glasses disguise (though, I can't lie, that part does put a smile on my face).

    Other than that, the movie had some good elements to it, some not so good. And please, for the people that are bashing others who didn't like the film; grow up. It's getting stupid.

  • Chris | July 3, 2013 11:58 AMReply

    Great article. I agree with this on so many levels. Very much a love hate relationship with this film. It's almost so complicated a movie that it's annoying. I thought about this film for a long time after I watched it. I still battle certain demons from my "Man of Steel" experience.

  • Truth Powell | July 1, 2013 11:57 AMReply

    Complaining about super beings fighting each other for 40 mins in the eternal struggle of good versus evil? Its a superhero movie for crying out loud! This notion that superhero movies with less superheroes is better or classier is assinine. Don't lose sight on what the genre is about.

    Zack Snyder knows what he's doing. He's making a popcorn film. How are you going to inspire the kids without heroic action? The biggest failure of the new wave of superhero movies IS Christoher Nolan's vision and the overkill soap opera of Spiderman 2 & 3. All the truly great superhero movies (Tim Burton's original Batman, Raimi's Spiderman 1, Avengers, and yes Snyder's Man o Steel) are abundant in the superhero being the hero and doing his thing. If you want 2 1/2 hours of epository dialogue go watch Almodovar. Leave the superheroes to people that actually like comic books and heroic action.

  • Matteo | July 7, 2013 6:29 PM

    This comment pretty much shows you know NOTHING about superhero comic books.
    Marvel comics always were a mixture of action and soap-opera. The whole "superheroes with super-problems" is a founding concept of their entire production. Spiderman is a geeky bullied nerd with a big complex for letting his uncle die, people thinks he's a criminal and his girlfriend dies at the hands of his archenemy. X-Men are a racial minority that can't control their powers led by a man on a wheelchair. Iron Man is an alcoholic with a disfunctional heart. Hulk suffers from personality disorders and can't control his superhero persona, and the army chases him. The Thing is a monster, only loved by a blind artist. Daredevil is blind, his mother is a nun, his father is a boxer that was killed by the mob and his girlfriend becomes a porn actress and a junkie (just to die few years after by AIDS), but he's able to find a new sexy ninja girlfriend, except that she dies herself, then is resurrected and becomes evil.
    You are blatantly ignorant about comic books in general.
    Nolan's Dark Knight is effectively the best superhero movie ever made, and that's because of the great balance between action, witty script and psychological introspection of the characters.
    Man of Steel fails on so many levels. Not because of the action parts, which i frankly found great, but it's part of the story that is absolutely mediocre. I mean, Jonathan Kent dies TO SAVE A DOG? IN FRONT OF HIS INVULNERABLE, SUPERHUMAN SON WHICH DOESN'T MOVE A FINGER TO HELP HIM BECAUSE HE NODS TO HIM SUGGESTING NOT TO ACT BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL FIND HE'S NOT HUMAN? I mean, really? The same guy that saved all of his classmates in front of all of them, and, according to their mothers, already did it a few times earlier? The same guy who then proceeds to save people after people, always giving a shit if they see him doing it, and the only one he doesn't move a finger to save is HIS OWN FATHER? Bullshit. -_-

  • Roger | July 5, 2013 12:27 PM

    Thank you for saying it!

  • bocomo | July 3, 2013 6:16 PM

    Read an article on cracked's website called 6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/

    There are action movies that do a good job and then there is Man of Steel. It's action is all turned up to eleven and there is no pacing or building up to any of it. It got really tiresome (and I enjoy action flicks)




    Good article, btw (great reasons for disliking what you did dislike)

  • JOSE | June 30, 2013 11:59 AMReply

    Thanks GUSTAV for your reply. I completely agree. As I said before Man of Steel has its flaws but what I wanted to prove is the intention of the filmmakers. They give us a story with good ideas and depth, instead of other movies with only good cgi and jokes. The Avengers has an excelent execution but its an empty story, with the ussual stuff, conquering the world, good guys, only bad guys, and guess what, it had excellent reviews. Zod in MOS at least had his own intentions justiffied by his own believes and ideas, you can think if you want that Zod is a villain or not. What he does is not only because he is the bad guy, he does it because is his purpose in life, and he will do whatever it takes to accomplish that. Its an strange feeling that its more valuable good visuals than a good story. Goyer is a great screenwriter but I think that Nolan should have been more involved in the writing process, what he did with Batman its outstanding despite the fact that they are different characters. Nevertheless Man of Steel is a good atempt of giving an iconic superhero a fresh take. Its impossible to please everyone but I think that they are going through the right path, and its the first film, the first part of a rebooted franchise. We should wait and see. I also agree that its not neccesary to insult others, everyone has its own opinion and we should pay respect.

  • Bob | June 28, 2013 1:50 PMReply

    Kevin Jagernauth, Rodrigo Perez, Drew Taylor, Gabe Toro, Cory Everett. You guys are all shitty critics. And obviously, you now shit about films and storytelling. I bet you failed as filmmakers and decided to become shitty critics.

  • MANNIXX | July 17, 2013 8:42 PM

    Amen to that, this fuckers think they know everything about creating something... FAIL.

  • GUSTAVE | June 29, 2013 5:21 AM

    Really? Personal attacks on people you don't even know because their opinions are different than yours? They give well-thought out, thorough, and smart critiques on a film and you respond with insults instead of just disagreeing and providing evidence of your own to back you up? Sounds like you could learn something about argumentation from these "shitty critics."

  • Donella | June 27, 2013 11:20 PMReply

    Missing from Man of Steel: Warmth, humor, character development, majesty, memorable dialogue, chemistry between Lois and Clark, epic music score, Marlon Brando, Terence Stamp, Christopher Reeve, Mario Puzo's story and screenplay. Made all the difference between a story and a cold, empty shell of violence and noise.

  • Joe Tyrrell | June 27, 2013 4:57 PMReply

    The only way "Man of Steel" could have been more disappointing is if it turned out to be about Stalin. As it was, the lead character has as much in common with a Soviet dictator, and more with Wolverine and Batman, than he does with Clark Kent. That is the story Snyder, Nolan and Goyer "needed" to tell, because that find it so much more interesting than Superman.
    So we get an angry, marginalized superhero who judiciously declines to save his adoptive father. We get endless fistfights and continual explosions instead of a tale of a young man growing up and into his powers in a peaceful rural setting. We get product placement instead of detail, militarization instead of invention and a continual crescendo of noise that drowns out all but the most thundering chords of that purported score. While other versions of Superman tried to avert or reverse disasters and avoid bloodshed, here once again Hollywood cashes in on 9/11, a real catastrophe with real victims.
    Yes, there are some pretty graphics, several good performances _ although blank-slate Cavill lets his suit do the talking _ and a few ideas that could have worked well in other hands. Overall, though, this is a movie that validates H. L. Mencken.

  • Dan | June 27, 2013 3:32 PMReply

    Great Movie, A few issues and questions do come to mind, but i think that this is just the first part of a larger story to come. Much in the way the dark knight trilogy was. Can't wait to see what's next....

  • Jose | June 27, 2013 1:53 PMReply

    Well I liked the movie, And after reading a lot of comments and reviews I can say that the main problem of the movie is to be an christian metaphor... in Hollywood... and that is hard to accept, ask Mel Gibson with his Passion and what happened to him and Caviezel afterwards. Man of Steel is not a perfect movie of course, but there are so many bad reviews and comments that makes you wonder, why the people and the critics are so divide? A lot of people hates Snyder cinematography and vision. Some plot Holes... I admit that the action was over the top but people, in Superman Returns we've complained that it was a sissy movie, and now we have a Superman more real and modern and is not good enough either, come on! Is an inspiring story, as a filmaker student i can see a story here, with heart, a character with a good arc and transformation. Is a story about sacrifice and identity, find who you are and share your best for the greater good of the people inspiring others. The visual and other shit are just ways to figure that out. Is a film with good inner content, thats my point,.

  • GUSTAVE | June 29, 2013 5:35 AM

    While a film's "inner content" has some merit, ultimately that can't be subtracted from the execution of that content. I agree that Man of Steel has some good ideas in it, but the writing of those ideas was problematic and not very good. Likewise "The League of Extraordinary Gentleman" has great ideas but a terrible execution. The two areas are not mutually exclusive. The inner messages have to be judged on how well they're presented to us, because ultimately what we see and hear in films is all the information we can use to judge them.

  • Ashley | June 27, 2013 3:53 AMReply

    Funny how pa Kent has a british accent on planet Krypton, while everybody else speaks American.

    Funny how you always know Superman's going to win the fight no matter how many cars, buildings and roads get smashed up.

    Funny how EVERYONE out saving each other in superhero movies. Oh my, the humanity.

  • Richard | July 25, 2013 12:15 AM

    I'm not sure if "American" is a language

  • Stef | June 26, 2013 4:35 PMReply

    The movie was much better than most people think it really is... I mean the somewhat awkward pacing is understandable for an awkward alien-like character. Also the collateral damage is very understandable. First: He is very inexperienced, so he definitely learn to handle that better the next time. Second: It sets up Lex Luthor re-building Metropolis and finding Kryptonite in the terraformed area in the city (we have our villain). Also, I never understood people hating on CGI, when so much is CGI anways that we sometimes don't even know what is CGI or real. So just relax and look for some of these things when watching it a second time :D!!!!

  • Chris | June 26, 2013 12:56 PMReply

    The end I didn't get. The aliens went to visit Ma Kent. The NSA/CIA/FBI/NASA/Armed Services would have to have been clued into this. The "tragedy in the heartland" fight/destruction of Smallville wouldn't have been completely investigated as to why it occurred there. The stories of a young Clark Kent would have to have come out in the open (unless everyone died in the tragedy of the Smallville Battle). It is clear at the end of the movie that the government is looking for him.

    But he takes on the name "Clark Kent" when he joins the Daily Planet. It felt like this made no sense, and an incredibly poor screenwriting choice.

  • Arnold | June 27, 2013 3:36 PM

    Other than Lois Lane, Goyer said in an interview that there are a number of people that know Kal-El is Clark Kent by the end of the film and these people are willing to keep his secret. I think Perry White and General Swanwick know who he is, as well as many people in Smallville. I would think everyone has different motivations for protecting the name Clark Kent. Loyalty/friendship? Gratitude for saving the world. God worship? Or simply fear of repercussions from Superman. Swanwick may trust Kal-El now, so he would try and prevent other government officials showing up at Martha Kent's doorstep?? Don't piss off Superman lol

  • Stef | June 26, 2013 4:30 PM

    You might be wrong though. Remember that the suit was found on the ship and he must've hidden the ship again; he also moves to Metropolis after the job. There are some questions that definitely need to be answered in the Sequel.

  • Benjamin | June 25, 2013 1:46 PMReply

    I agree with the Zod point, to a degree; Zod isn't meant to be a one dimensional brute, and if you watch the Krypton sequences, he isn't during those. Apparently, in this continuity, the Phantom Zone makes Generals become rather unintelligent. However, Michael Shannon does do extremely well, given what he had to go with.

    In regards to the Clark at the Planet end, I liked it, sans one point; we didn't get the iconic shirt rip, which the writers at DC comics have even said is "just too iconic to let go", so why was in not in this movie? It was like "Yeah, you're the Man Of Steel... but you're not Superman yet, you've not balanced the two alter egos". I'm hoping this will be addressed significantly in the sequel(s) (maybe even make 60+% of the second film revolve around Clark Kent rather than Superman, show the differences and nuances in the character, more for Henry Cavill to sink his teeth into.)

    One main issue I had; Lois knowing EVERYTHING. It eliminates the best source of comic relief from the comics; the love triangle between Clark Kent, Lois Lane and Superman. Hoping that they'll find some way to wipe her memory of it in the sequel, and that he'll be smart enough to keep her unknowing. However, I did like the fact that she was more of a reporter than we've seen in some of the more recent Superman films (I refer you to the second half of Superman 2 through Superman Returns). Hopefully, this will persist and she won't fall into the "heroes girlfriend" rut we've seen good characters in other super hero movies fall into (*cough* Gwen in amazing Spider-Man *cough*).

    Overall, though, it was very good; Cavill was amazing as Superman (though we didn't really see him as Clark, even when he was out of the suit), with his part at the ending being evocative of the ending of the Superman: Earth One graphic novel. Nice little nods to both of the main billionaires in Clark's life (Bruce Wayne, his best friend, and Lex Luthor, his arch Nemesis). Something of a rushed relationship between Superman and Lois Lane, but when they had a 2 and a half hour movie and wanted it established by the final act, as abhorrent as it is to rush such a thing, I understand why. Russell Crowe reminds us why he's thought of as such a great actor, and Michael Shannon does manage to do relatively well, despite not being given a great deal to work with. Faora was a nice addition, if feeling slightly under developed as a character given her screen time (was it more than Zod's? I lost track) though she was true to her sadistic persona from the comics. The one thing that I felt was a shame; a lack of scenes between the late teens Clark (though, having Cavill play that was a slight error in judgement in my honest opinion) and Jonathan Kent. I'm hoping that there were more and they'll simply appear on the DVD / Blu-Ray special features. I have other gripes, granted, but that was a true shame, especially given how well Kevin Costner played Jonathan (I won't lie, I nearly cried during the scene where he reveals Clark's origins to him, being met with "I just want to be your son" and responding with "You are my son.", beautiful scene). Hopefully, we'll see more material with Jonathan through flashbacks in the sequel(s). Yeah, I think that's it... think I might've just given massive spoilers and a review xD

  • Steve | June 23, 2013 4:43 AMReply

    There were many things about Man of Steel that I liked, a few things I didn't, a few things they could have done better, and 1 thing I absolutely abhorred. Most of the things that did the movie the most justice, were the memories that led Clark to be the man he was destined to become. Michael Shannon was great, Amy Adams was actually attractive, and Henry Cavill fit the bill perfectly. I felt that the CGI was too fast and unnatural in some cases even for super speed. I also have to say that it would take a lot more than a colonel's faith to keep the people from being upset about the billions of dollars in damage that were done to Smallville and Metropolis. But the elephant in the room was definitely the fantastically poor choice for the head of the family who is supposed to symbolize hope for the universe. The only hope I had was that Jor-El would be dead and gone early, and that I wouldn't have to see the romper stomper's nasty face again. No such luck, Russell kept popping up and deflating my suspended disbelief, and delivering the flattest lines in the movie, to be rivaled only by Zod's female general. The difference? I didn't feel her character to be a universal irony. The last thing anyone could ever expect out of Russell Crowe is to bring anyone hope. Casting, aside from Russell Crowe would have gotten an A+, but thanks to Hollywood's inability to actually consider the fans of any of their projects, I'm giving it a C-, and I won't be returning to theaters if they try to sell me Russell Crowe as a good guy, or even an actor, again.

  • Alan B | June 23, 2013 6:15 AM

    So you hate Crowe and therefore the filmmakers disrespect the fans? You think you embody the entire thoughts and feelings of an entire fanbase? You can dislike the film and the actor, but please don't equate your own feelings to a collection of people.

  • Lucio7Lopez | June 22, 2013 2:32 PMReply

    Not agree with the complains. The final act is awesome, super climax battle! That's what the comic book lovers are waiting for years. the collateral damage is the price for a gods battle (ask to Alan Moore's Miracleman). And Krypton was a old society with robots and dragonfly, What's wrong with that? Is alien, not suppose must be logical to us. And sorry but Zod was far better than other ridiculous villains from other superhero movies (I speak Iron-Man 3 for example).

  • Dino Valeriano | June 23, 2013 8:39 PM

    I totally agree with, Lucio7Lopez. This movie is a comic book fan's dream-come-true. When gods battle, the resulting damage should be collosal!

  • Ian | June 22, 2013 12:19 AMReply

    Okay, I'm not a big Superman geek, but I thought there were details that just didn't make sense and some that seemed to contradict themselves.

    Like why were the Krypton refugees so immediately powerful on Earth if they were wearing gas masks? When Superman breathes their ships' air he's immediately weak, but they were just automatically strong, fast , indestructible, etc even with gas masks?? Doesn't make sense. Superman' power was supposed to be a product of weaker gravity, sure, but also of years of our young sun's radiation, years of our air, etc. To me the whole movie was a write-off from that point alone.

    Why doesn't he just snap Zod's neck an hour earlier and get it over with? That would save like half the city too. So they can punch each other so unbelievably hard with no effect, but somehow their necks are vulnerable to a twist?? Laughable.

    And speaking of Zod's death scene, are we to believe that Superman was finally goaded into killing Zod only after he threatened to kill that young family? Really? How about the tens of thousands that must have been killed by their city-destroying fight? Their lives didn't count I guess. Wow.

    I could go on and on with these absurdities. I was rolling my eyes by the last hour or so. Lame movie. I was hoping for it to be good, but..... No.

  • Mak | June 26, 2013 4:39 PM

    The suits were probably made to soak up the radiation to increase power. He probably doesn't snap Zod's neck because he is the last of his race and with people that powerful it is tough to do so.... and it is a bloody movie. I didn't see many people complain about the Avengers killing thousands and here we have people complaining about a battle between basically 2 gods. Just NO to you... probably a fan of Marvel too.

  • Tanner | June 21, 2013 10:12 PMReply

    I have to disagree with the last bit about how Superman contributed to the destruction of the city. He just saved the whole planet from being turned into another Krypton, and the city at that point was already totaled, there was almost no saving it past that point. The only part I didn't enjoy about the movie was all of the yelling on Superman's part. Also, Superman killing Zod at the end was to save more lives. Superman doesn't kill unless he has to. In that scene, he had to.

  • Jim | June 21, 2013 9:08 PMReply

    I loved the movie until the prison/portal/black hole closed. To me that should've been the death of Zod as well, because even while I'm trying to figure out "how" they're going to kill or rid themselves of multiple characters with super human powers, just breaking Zod's neck wasn't on the list of options.

    Between the closing of the prison and Zod's death, it became preachy. I didn't mind Zod's message, but it really seemed contrived, almost as if Snyder wanted him alive long enough to make a speech. I felt it was commentary on the United States government, using military to dictate policy. That's fine, but make it part of the plot. Zod has to return to the prison. To me that had to be his end. Make the grand 1-on-1 between Superman and Zod in the context of returning him to the prison, saving Lois and to some extent saving himself, trying to escape the force of the black hole.

    I hated the drone scene. We're to believe that Superman is going stop genocide to save the planet, but when asked how the US military will know whether or not he'll act in the US's best interest, suddenly Superman is an American? The whole struggle of Superman was an issue of humanity not nationalism. I think this could've easily been part of struggles in future movies, such as Superman stopping or hindering the plans of aggressive governments (such as a scene in X-Men First Class). Not to say it can't be part of future plots, but again, it seemed too staged.

    I love that he takes the job at the Daily Planet. He explains his motivation behind it, and I don't have a problem with Lois Lane knowing his identity. It could become part of future conflict, and just like in Superman 2 and X-Men First Class (Dr. Xavier), a little light memory wipe via a kiss can cure the identity issue. After all, if you're "Superman" wouldn't you rather a woman love you as Clark Kent so you know it's real?

    We can still see plot lines dealing how the world and Superman interact with each other. There can be future flashbacks dealing with how Clark came into dealing with his powers.

    Sidenote: I LOVED how flashbacks were handled in Man of Steel. Now, if we can just get George Lucas to revisit how this was done, gut Episode 1 so we can get more Clone War action, it could help redefine Anakin's angst, giving us more time to see his life away from his mother, instead of him just being a spoiled brat 50% of the time, and...oh...by the way...his mother died in his arms.


    Your points about how Superman and Earth relate to each other is excellent, as is your point about how we could've seen more about how Superman reacts to the realization of his powers. That can still be played out in future movies.

    I agree with your takes on the devastation of those fight scenes. I wasn't bothered by them in a 9/11 sense. It just seem overdone, and the one point you had about it not being very compelling is spot on!

  • Matt | June 21, 2013 2:10 PMReply

    Good article. What I really hate is the people who say things like "It's too bad a lot of people couldn't enjoy the movie because they were such pussies when it came to the fights" or "People didn't like it because they canonize Christopher Reeve" or "People who didn't like it just don't like a different/darker take on the character". None of that is true. I love action and fights. That's why I got into comic books as a kid. But you have to do it right, which includes not overdoing it to the point of making it boring. Action is good, but too much of anything is bad.

    I do love Reeve as Superman, and he did a wonderful job, but that has nothing to do with my opinion of this movie. Cavill was good enough to make it work. I also don't mind a different take on the character. What excited me about the previews was that it was a different take, and seemed to be more dramatic dealing with interesting realistic themes. What let me down was that they didn't follow through. They introduced some ideas like how the world would realistically react to someone like Superman. But, as pointed out in the article, they didn't see it through.

  • Earl | June 21, 2013 10:21 AMReply

    It's too bad a lot of people couldn't enjoy the movie because they were such pussies when it came to the fights. Meaning, superhero movies should be been preparing to gear up for wonton destruction a long time ago. 9/11 was a tragedy, sure, but damn, we can't keep quaking in our boots every time we see a building fall in a movie. The Marvel movies made everyone too soft, and the old Superman movies shouldn't be on anyone's lips anymore because they're just too campy.

  • James | June 21, 2013 2:15 AMReply

    General Zod's final contradiction really spoiled what could have been an adequate ending for me. His logical rant of doing anything to save the Krypton race including genocide etc painted him as patriotic and noble if still lacking all empathy. Then immediately breaking down as soon as his plan fell apart by yelling that he will kill everyone for no reason apart from petty revenge really weakened his character and the final scenes.

  • jade | June 20, 2013 10:52 PMReply

    I am amazed at the number of people who complain the most about the destruction of Metropolis during the fight. Seriously? It's not like Superman wasn't getting his butt handed to him for the majority of the fight. It's not likely that the buildings would have been occupied anyway what with the giant spaceship destroying large parts of the city to begin with. Staying in the buildings at that point would be akin to standing in front of a large glass window and watching as the tornado comes as opposed to seeking cover.

    The Lois/Superman kiss complaint is also a bit strange. He saved her life. They saved each other's life. It was more of a, "Holy crap, we almost died but we didn't and you know, you're kind of hot" kiss than a "I want to have your super babies and love you forever" kiss. It leaves room for more and, honestly, I'm ok with that now that Lois isn't a dumb groupie who thinks it's ok to be rude to anyone without a cape and who is too stupid to figure out the guy she was sucking face with is that guy because he put on a pair of glasses. The new Lois has potential to not hurt the franchise the way the old Lois did.

    As to the product placement, I kind of thought it was hilarious that the guy who tormented Clark as a kid worked at IHOP as a grownup. Product placement helps pay for both tv and movies, it's not worth griping about.

    Yes, Terrance Stamp was awesome and those are some mighty big shoes to fill. However, Michael Shannon does a good job and the character wasn't written so that the shoes even had to be filled.

    Everything about the story in this movie changes and expands on the originals so that comparisons should not be made. Hopefully, the sequel will take this and run with it. The movie is not without flaws but it was what it was supposed to be... a good superhero summer blockbuster. It didn't have to be high art and very few movies are close to perfect.

  • kalel | June 20, 2013 8:30 PMReply

    WHY... GOD WHY should every superman movie be like Superman I and II?
    I loved the modernized Man of Steel, it didnt matter to me that Supes kills Zod and i still love Christofer Reeve in the old movies. But the story didnt need a re telling, it needed a fresh reboot!
    The only part i agreed with is with the music, yes they didnt use well Hans Zimmer's great score.

  • slumptaketwo | June 20, 2013 6:40 PMReply

    I've not seen it, but trying to make Superman serious and realistic in the same vein as Batman sounds like a bad idea to me. Superman is Superman. Perhaps why I never thought he was that interesting of a superhero.

  • kiwi | June 20, 2013 8:58 AMReply

    i completely agree with rush of a romance between lois and superman. frankly i could have done without the kiss in this movie... it would have made something to look forward to in the next.

    the next is michael shannon.. the brilliant actor that he is, they just did not write his part well. i believe there should have been more on the relationship between Zod and superman. he is one of the only surviving people of his planet and the fact that he knew Kal's father and killed him. i wish there was more

    the last thing... the action was way off. i would like to see the death toll next time.. random buidings falling off and shit like that is not always necessary. Remember the final confrontation between Spider-man and Goblin, its fucking personal is what it is.... and brilliant.

  • kwasia | June 21, 2013 1:03 PM

    with the final confrontation,i dont dont agree with you cus its 2 supermen fighting,2 gods if i may,those buildings that fell where not random for shit,they obviously crashed into them.it was personal for sure,and please dont compare spiderman and goblin to this duo.and also in spiderman movie you wont see buildings falling cus,spiderman doesnt have the strength to destroy them.hahaha the buildings are fucking important,they emphasiZe,the strenght of these kryptonians.

  • Vaportrail | June 20, 2013 2:33 AMReply

    "...with a complete lack of progression to the narrative."


    "This man is not our enemy."
    So, there. =)
    There's some good points here, but most of this is overthinking it. Are people seriously still ragging on product placement? Everyone does it, that's a part of how these expensive films get paid for. Plus, you see this stuff all the time IRL, so why's it a problem for movies to have it?

  • youknowme | June 21, 2013 1:01 PM

    with the final confrontation,i dont dont agree with you cus its 2 supermen fighting,2 gods if i may,those buildings that fell where not random for shit,they obviously crashed into them.it was personal for sure,and please dont compare spiderman and goblin to this duo.and also in spiderman movie you wont see buildings falling cus,spiderman doesnt have the strength to destroy them.hahaha the buildings are fucking important,they emphasiZe,the strenght of these kryptonians.

  • dirk | June 19, 2013 9:15 PMReply

    The CinemaScore was A-, so "the people" liked it. The critics, I think, canonized Christopher Reeves after his death and therefore find the re-booting of the character as apostasy. Heresy. Because after Mr. Reeves death how many critics said he "will always be Superman."

    Hollywood (critics included) rally around their own. The new Superman didn't do his best Chris Reeves impression ala Brandon Routhe, so he is a heretic. That's what the critical reviews are all about. Nothing more.

  • Joe | June 20, 2013 1:13 AM

    I totally disagree, the movie really wasn't spectacular. IT HAS NOTHING to do with Christopher Reeve. I struggle to figure out who gave this movie an 8. There are so many holes in the plot that you can stick both hands right through. At best it is a good action movie, but with superman you look for a little more depth of character than "I have a problem so... I guess I'll punch it".

  • ARVV77 | June 19, 2013 4:01 PMReply

    Mos, disappointed me, batman meet immortals=hopeman?. What a joke. only my opinion. It sucked.

  • The dude | June 19, 2013 3:58 PMReply

    Why does everyone treat this "proactive, humane Lois" like its a new thing? It's not.

  • JOE | June 19, 2013 12:36 PMReply

    Marvel is destroying DC. As a kid growing up I loved all of the DC characters more than Marvel. But when it comes to movies Marvel has got them beat. Green Latern was terrible and Superman has logic errors every two mintues, I wanted to throw my shoe at the screen it was hilarious while trying to be serious, it was overdrawn and at times felt rushed. The entire opening scene on Krypton looked great but made me question the intelligence of a suposedly more advance society.

    1. "We invented space ships a long time ago but we refuse to use one to escape this planet about to explode because we have no time to evacute but there's still time for war??" - Face Palm!

    2. Your telling me that a race that expanded to several planets (Which I'm assuming have cores) used it's own core for power? - Who the hell is running this planet JAR JAR BINKS??

    3. There is no time to evacuate! except for insane criminals who they punish by sending them AWAY fom a planet about to explode on a bloody unguarded SPACESHIP!! - yes that will teach them.

    4. "Wow! those prisoners escaped from the unguarded prison and found superman, what a suprise!!" - Said absolutely no one.

    5. Superman's mom just had a baby and doesn't try to go with him to earth!!!??? She stands there and let's herself die because jorel was right it's the end??? - Mother of the year.

    6. How about superman not wanting to out himself just to save his father, right after a scene that has him saying that he isn't his real father making superman look like a douche! nevermind the fact that several people already have seen him rescue people many times including all the kids on the damn bus, but he can't save his father??? what?- Superman is a douche.

    7. Superman wants to save mankind but not without killing a few million people first. -WTF?

    8. Let's blowup New York again! Ooops I mean Metropolis which strangely resides on a peninsula and looks exactly like New York.

    9. Superman snaps zods neck! he has the strength to snap his neck but not the strength to push him away from the people. - Cool scene but I now view Superman differently.

    Aside from the errors and the glaring WTF? moments Superman was very entertaining to me and my friends were laughing the whole way through it, I would give it a 6.5 to 7 out of 10.

  • Joe | June 24, 2013 5:44 PM

    I'm sorry yet another person who wants to defend teh stupidity in thsi film?? Where are you guys coming from, janewill. If you have time to hunt down and fight and sentence prisoners. THEN YOU HAVE TIME TO LEAVE YOURSELF!!

    We as humans do incredibly stupid things on a daily basis true, but we also do great things two and we are extremely smart (except for the writers in this film). And if you think for one second, that if we had their capabilities that we would drill a damn hole in our core and use it for power instead of using a different planet then I question your intelligence.

    THE NO TIME LEFT EXCUSE, DOES NOT WORK. lol, you people are ridiculous. their were ships everywhere. You mean to tell me that they wouldn't try to save anyone, NO ONE??? REALLY? Why send superman in a capsule ge tin the damn space ship yourself and go with him. it was not a small ship. thats why it makes no sense.

    Again, people had already seen him several times in fact save someone, that was not an emotiona moment, it was completely stupid. I feel sorry for your parents, because I dont care who sees me do what I will save them. The government can't take him against his will because HE IS SUPERMAN.

    I am goin to stop now, because I suspect your probably like 9 years old judging by your reasoning. So I will leave it alone.

  • JanieWill | June 24, 2013 1:15 AM

    I feel like I should explain your "plot holes" and why the majority weren't plot holes at all but you not thinking through the movie... :)
    1. Yes the Kryptons had space ships but they didn't have enought to save everyone. In fact Jor-El says "there is only time to save the Elders".

    2. Never underestimate the stupidity of people. For example like the Kryptonians we are doing something harmful to our future by pumping tons of chemicals into the air each year. A scientific fact is the green house effect ... we are effectively screwing ourselves over.

    3. Their original punishment was to spend a thousand years in another dimension with no hope of escape. Imagine being unable to move, unable to eat, unable to talk for a thousand year....

    4.Face palm ....

    5.The mother could not follow the child because there was not time left the planet was killing itself, right then... Also Jor-el wanted clark to grow up on the planet without the 'failures' of Krypton and they (Jor-el and the mother) were products of the old generation.

    6.That scene was one of the most emotional scenes in the movie because of the inner tourmoil. Clark choose to do what his father wanted and not save him. Because if he had everyone there would have known that he wasn't normal... and Clark would have been taken away by the government. The scene showcased a father's love and what he went through to protect.

    7.Their epic battlescene at most could have killed a few thousand and guess what there is a few billion on Earth :-).

    8. no comment

    9. You should remember Clark isn't a cold hard killer he grew up normal and for anyone who grew up normal. Taking a life is a big deal.... he simply didn't think 'oh maybe I should just kill the guy' he only killed him when was forced to.

    Yes there was some plot holes but nearly as much as you think.
    Also I loved the movie too.

  • Joe | June 23, 2013 11:33 AM

    Tanner, I believe those things you listed are flaws in your logic not mine. If you have time to send prisoners out in space on a space ship then you can get in one yourself, the way they rewrote it was simply stupid. In the original yes they didn't have time to leave all they had was a small capsule to send their son in, but it was not so in this version they had the ability to leave.

    Again, the lady who came to se jonathan stated that the bus was one of several time sthat clark had been sen saving some one, he was also seen doing amazing things at the rig, I'm sorry why not do it one more time to save your dad???

    People were in those buildings, Metropolis is filled with people so when him and his arch enmey were flying around destroying the city, they were also killing people.

    It's funny to me how you tell me to shut up about the movie when what you said actuslly proves my point. This movie is a action movie alone, if you expect it to be deep or have meaning or even make sense at times, you have the wrong film. Overall it is one of the worst comic movies aside from green lantern in the last several years. The acting was good but not good enough to save the script.

  • Tanner | June 21, 2013 10:19 PM

    Several flaws in your logic. 1. The government of Krypton believed the planet would survive and were wrong. 2. Superman's mom had to launch the ship from her home, and it took off fairly quickly and it had almost no room for her anyways. 3. His "father" didn't want people to know who his son was. And in the comics, his Earthly father is dead. He could have saved him and he knew it, but his father didn't want to be saved, he wanted his "son" to hold back. Those people at the bridge would have gotten a fairly good look at him, unlike the people in the helicopter who probably assumed he was dead after the oil rig fell on him. 4. I don't see how Superman killed a few million people in any part of the movie. 5. Cities being destroyed is a popular movie tactic, and it's Metropolis which is just a futuristic city in a completely DIFFERENT UNIVERSE. 6. The only way Superman would have stopped more destruction and saved more lives is by killing Zod. Now shut up about the movie.

  • vkatnyte | June 19, 2013 11:06 AMReply

    I agree with most of this however with your "so-so" with the character of Jor-El..
    Russel Crowe brought a dynamic to the character that was missing and more interesting than even on the show Smallville or in the previous versions were very stiff.. If anything they should give Russell Crowe best supporting actor because without Jor-El nothing in the film would've made sense..Also Jor-El's key was what had his soul or essence and knowledge downloaded into which worked on Zod's ship as well as all the others because Jor-El was also responsible for the building of those ships and a major part of Krypton's exploration of other planets..

  • T. | June 19, 2013 8:52 AMReply

    Thank you for this review. It was everything that I had ever wanted to say and more, after watching the movie. I'm a Batman fan, and also a Nolan fan; which is why I decided to watch this despite never bothering with Superman before. I remember thinking, during the flashback and fight scenes, that the only real thing I can appreciate here is the musical score, firstly, and you guys are right about it not being used properly. Second, I like the premise, the retelling of the mythology, even the philosophy of the characters---but I feel like we have only seen glimpses. I would've loved to see more of that instead of the punchfest in the third act which was one of the most boring and longest minutes ever.

  • Mickey Paraskevas | June 19, 2013 7:42 AMReply

    I was excited to see this but the best and only thing that worked in this film was Kevin Costner and his relationship to his son. The rest of it was a total bore. If Nolan had anything to do with this I'd be surprised.

    As for Zack Snyder. After watching Suckerpunch I can only think the studio handed this classic idea to a terrible director. I should have skipped it. Let's hope that someday, someone does this idea justice. All these movies will end up on the heap of unwatchable films years from now... I can only hope.

    m

  • Paul Willis | June 19, 2013 4:18 AMReply

    Initially, I was completely celestialized by the idea of a Christopher-Nolan-involved Superman movie. His work with Batman (especially "The Dark Knight", obviously) was nothing short of inspiring--especially to myself as a future writer/actor/director type.
    I am now hiding in the shadows of self-doubt about the film industry. Those who know movies know that Zack Snyder is in fact a powerhouse director. As much as everyone thought it was gimmicky, his fluid-form-alternating-frame-rate action sequences in "300" were simply iconic. No one will ever link that trope more accurately to another director besides him (even though he did not invent the idea). Because of the body of work he comes with into "Man of Steel", his involvement with Christopher Nolan, and the intense cast of actors he was provided, I was prepared to quietly melt into my chair from a mixture of awe and childlike excitement. What I was met with was mostly disappointment.
    I agree with this article on almost all points. Michael Shannon was saddled with a role unfitting of his wealth of talent. The man can act, and Zod is--like the Joker--a character with such a unique story arc and motivation that he should be a positively redefining turn for any performer with the agency connections to land the part. Unfortunately, that is not how Zack directed him. Zod had some cool moments, and true to modern form, plenty of quiet, threatening lines recorded on a boom mic with the bass notes turned up to 3000% (I doubt viewing audiences will ever tire of baddies having gravelly, terrifying low voices). Zod also had the best line in the whole movie: something epic about "harvesting the codex" and "building Krypton on Superman's bones".
    I could go on and on, but let's just leave it at this: next time, make the filmography less Marvel-y, and more grand, simply forgo any and all attempts to make a fight scene happen through the medium of CG, and please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, let the actors do their work.

  • yetneberk tefera | June 19, 2013 3:54 AMReply

    I like it your film

Email Updates