Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by VAMOSDNA, Apr 16, 2013.
Really? Even after watching it in the trailer over, and over, and over, and over, and over again?
Does Superman also have to go to the bathroom or have issues with gas ?
Yeap! seemed to be a very receptive crowd! I enjoyed it too but I gave the film a 3.5/5 in my review. I still think Christopher Reeve is the best superman (party because Cavill didnt have any "Superman" moments) but Cavill is the better Clark Kent in my opinion. It showed how everyone keeps mistreating him but he's still that nice guy with a smile.
I enjoyed the movie, but they got too carried away with the fight scenes. Like someone else said, how many times are they going destroy buildings in the middle of fighting. Got old. A few super cheesy moments didn't help either.
But I enjoyed it overall. Russell Crowe was great.
I saw it anyways. I was dragged by a friend.
I saw some Sucker Punch elements in Man of Steel...
How is he great? Tell me one reason why Cavill performed well as Superman. Because there was absolutely no chemistry between him and Lois Lane.
Of course those movies were campy during those times. They had limited technology and didn't have much to work with. However, the CGI crap in this movie makes it just as bad as Superman Returns.
The part I had a hard time with was that it lacked any kind of CHARM. Not much between Superman and Lois that the older movies had. I can't really comment on Cavill's acting since it didn't seem like he had much dialogue.
It's already been confirmed that a sequel is being made everything that was missing in this film will be included in the sequel.
Also, I was bummed there was no extra scene after the credits.
If they want an epic sequel they need to have Superman die at the hands of Doomsday and then of course come back to life
Haha, that JPG was funny! :lol:
Thor could have stopped it all by himself though.
Personally, I loved it. I thought Cavill was a great Superman, and definitely had the look. About time Superman actually looked like Superman, hairy chest and all. Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe both brought amazing acting to it as well. The action was great.
Really great movie, way better than the old ones
Have you guys heard of "World War Z" it stars Brad Pitt the trailer looks so sick!
yes seen the trailer. looks good but I heard it is just a massive violence movie and nothing more. and Superman is just kind of same. but then what possible good storyline can you have with this kind of movie ??
If Superman had multiple girlfriends, I would go see that one.
Saw WWZ last nite. Entertaining, pretty intense in spots. Thumbs up, but i'm generally pretty easy to please.
I got bored...
I saw Man of Steel last night....what can I say?
It wasn't the worst film I've ever seen but I wouldn't describe it as a 'good' film. Think "War of Worlds" with a slight Superman theme with Transformers CGI karate fight scenes for the last third of the film. It's really alot of set pieces running after each other without a coherent plot or any real character development.
I'd give it 5/10. The film will be forgotten about in a few years time.
You're being too modest... :roll:
I can't wait to see what an overdeveloped / non-existent plot is like.
It's a Superman film. You would have to try pretty hard to screw that up.
There are dozens of films that have those qualities.
He has a fight with the giant mechanical flying snake from Transformers and gets bashed through a skyscraper a hundred times, then he bashes his enermy through a skyscraper a hundred times, rinse and repeat a hundred times.....it was like watching a really bad video game.
I don't mind good action scenes, but these were just silly with little or no thought being put into them.
When you've been re-making the same story again and again for over half a century, it's hard to surprise anybody with novel plot or character development. It's the 2002 Ford Thunderbird of movies.
warning: spoilers ahead....
I really enjoyed this movie.
I had low expectations since we've seen so many mediocre versions of this story before.
I was immediately drawn in by the CGI vision of Krypton: really stunning visuals.
Second, the stirring soundtrack was absolutely beautiful.
There are also some very strong performances from Diane Lane and Kevin Costner, who have aged beautifully and gracefully, and are still able to act and emote, since neither has opted for any of the frighteningly unsuccessful experiments in anti aging via botox or plastic surgery so commonplace in the industry these days.
In fact, the emotional world of the kent family is worth the price of admission alone. I've never considered Diane Lane to be one of the masters of her craft, but she displays a rare depth I have not yet seen from any of her prior performances.
The CGI is spectacular, as one might expect, but I enjoyed this virtual reality even more since they share such a strong resemblance to another of my favorite franchises: the matrix.
Which is to say, there is a strong and pure moral sensibility here, where Kal-el 'chooses' to defend the freedom of the physically weaker humans against the forces of sociopathic authoritarianism, as embodied by the remnants of his own race.
Kal-el would rather live and perhaps even die amongst humans rather than to side with his own people, who would only be destined for lives of pre-determined servitude, under the thumb of a vicious tyrant.
The film was emotionally riveting, almost overwhelming. I was moved far beyond any limited expectations I initially had. If you enjoy the superman fable, you will surely enjoy this version.
Oh, and I would be remiss if I did not mention Russell Crowe's powerfully understated performance. Another example again, of an actor aging gracefully into middle age. Diane Lane, Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe can now all be designated as masters of their craft.
Visuals doesn't make a good movie. If it did, the Transformers movies would have won an Academy Award.
Lane and Coster's performances weren't that good due to the incoherent script. These two could not save this mess of a movie.
Seriously? I hope you are kidding. I understand your fondness of The Matrix, but Reloaded and Revolutions were extremely bad movies. Almost every technical aspect of those films were atrocious- dialogue, plot, acting performance, cinematography, etc.
You are simply hyping this movie. Did you even pay attention to it? There were several times when Superman inadvertently caused the deaths of thousands of people and there was no emotional connection between Superman and Lois.
In fact, Cavill didn't have any memorable dialogue from the movie and his performance was as bland as a box of Wheaties.
Snyder put Superman out of character so many times, that 'Man of Steel' is technically not a Superman movie. Also, General Zod was portrayed terribly. I can't believe they crapped on that character. Amy Adams' portrayal as Lois Lane was just as bad as the actress from Superman Returns (possibly worse).
Regardless if it was following the comics or not, having Superman kill someone (besides extreme threats including Doomsday, Despero, Darkseid, etc.) is like Batman using a gun.
1 and 2 are not re-makes of the same story.
Look, I can come up with one word for this movie. Lifeless.
All plot but no story.
You can actually make a good Superman movie without all of the crappy filmmaking techniques that directors have done over the years. Also, there are a lot of villans and story arcs that they could easily use but the producers and directors clearly do not read the source material.
There is a reason why 95% of all live-action Superhero movies are technically mediocre-abysmal.
Remember Batman and Robin? The Spirit? The Iron Man movies (which I believe they are all mediocre in their own ways)? The Hulk films?
I think you get the idea.
P.S. Do not see this movie.
It is a complete waste of time and money. You could spend your 2+ hours on TT or play tennis.
Here's a review for the movie by Confused Matthew (contains spoilers).
I thought LLoyd Christmas did an excellent job as General Zod, very impressive!
Also, the after credits scene of Supes dealing with all the death & destruction around him was VERY moving...
^ You must be joking..............
Good mindless action, if you're into that. I happen to be a little bit of a sucker for epic CGI, and the movie definitely had that. That's about all I liked about the film. Bad directing, awkward over-acting, lame dialogue, and poor fluidity in my opinion.. for what I expected to be an instant classic.
I remember the last superman movie, while not quite as action packed, had good dialogue/script, funny/dorky superman humor..and just a nice charm to it. It felt like a Superman movie. Man of Steel felt like I was watching the average Hollywood action film.. with Superman thrown into the mix.
I'm not even that old, but I remember a time when not all movies had to be Hollywood Michael Bay films nor did the trailers have to have a variation of Inception Horn in them.
I maintain that it was a very well-done Superhero movie. No pleasing everyone, and that's fine.
Saw it a couple weeks ago, as good or better as any superhero flicks I've seen,, and yes former comic nerd here.
Completely agree. I much preferred Superman Returns. In fact, I really liked it. Had more soul to it instead of feeling like were in a War of the Worlds meets Tekken 4 'beat em up' computer game (Man of Steel). I guess the current audience for this film really are much more from 'Playstation' generation.
The problem with making a Superman film is that he's actually indestructible so unless you humanise him and show him (or Clark Kent) with some fallibility it becomes a really unbalanced film with him just fighting essentially 'space aliens' and giant mechanical snakes ie Man of Steel. If Snyder / Bray and whoever it was that wrote / directed this wanted to genuinely make a great film, they went the wrong direction with this film. It seems more of a commercial profit making exercise by the studio concerned.
Saw this last week. A whole lot of noise, and not much more.
Really, really stupid. It's a pity that there is a thriving market for this stuff.
Exactly. At the VERY least it was on-par with everything else. Everyone complained S.R was too boring. They add action and people think it's too much action. I thought the movie was paced perfectly, and only the last 30 mins were action packed. Just because most movies are like that now, doesn't mean M.O.S sucks, because it didn't.
I think the best 'superhero' film is actually Kick A$s. I was expecting it be awful but its well written, genuinely original and very funny.
Complete blows the rehased / rebooted Superman Man of Steel crap out of the water.
Looking forward to the sequel:
I've seen it.
It as decent and one of Cages' 'better' movies, but that is not saying much.. his co-stars were young teenagers... :roll:
From your comments, I suspect that you're a teenager yourself or a person with arrested development.
I agree, I thought this was a very good movie.
The initial CGI images of krypton were absolutely stunning. I was completely taken in from the get go.
The core of this film however, is the family dynamic of the kent family. Diane Lane and Kevin Costner are epic. They are so much better now at their craft now than when they were young; their age lines only add to their brilliance. Russell Crowe is also very good.
Henry Cavill is just good enough, and the ongoing requirement to attempt to seamlessly fuse live acting with CGI does have a few hitches.
There is an emotional core and honesty here which completely took me by surprise. Add a whopping does of spectacular CG, and you have the makings of a very, very good comic book movie.
Sort of damning with faint praise here, guys.
What is the best of this genre?
Best Superhero movies IMO:
(in no order at all because there's no way I can rank them)
The Dark Knight
Superman 2 (Richard Donner cut)
Man of Steel
Forgot Steel? Its Hammertime!
My top 5 would be:
2) Sin City
3) The Dark Knight
4) Men In Black
5) Spider-Man 2
If my list was longer I'd include Blade 1+2, Hellboy 1+2, Superman 2 (Donner Cut), Batman, Akira, The Avengers...
But if I dared make it any longer I'd be too lazy to stop :lol:
How can I forget X2?? Definitely add that to my list. I'm a big X-3 fan too, no matter what the haters say.
Great assessment - I agree completely
There are some cracking things in X-3. Young Xavier and Eric visiting Jean as a girl, the sentinel in the training room, Kelsey Grammar as Beast 8), Logan being thrown through the ceiling in one room and crashing through the ceiling in another, Magneto "Building bridges."
The film still annoys me though :lol:
I really adore X-2 though. It's got some really memorable action set pieces (the storming of the White House, then the storming of the Mansion), loads of characters who all get screen time and character development, Brian Cox playing the villain and, just, so many things! Again I have to stop because if I don't I'll just keep going, and I've got a train to catch soon
What is the Good and Bad of this movie ?
The good was everything IMO. It's not easy to reboot something that's already been rebooted and still find a way to make it seem new. The Jor-El stuff in this movie is crazy-good.
Good is the CGI and amount of action. The bad is dialogue, script, and fluidity. If you enjoyed Transformers and the average Hollywood action film, you will enjoy Man of Steel. If you have a keen eye/ear for script and directing, steer clear.
well, I wouldn't expect it to have the intrigue and high intelligence that "Raiders of lost ark" or James Bond movies has, of course but just so that it isn't totally all what we know already. With Movies like this, you have to mix in some unexpected stuff or stories.
Superman helps man build Spaceships that can travel the universe. and maybe Superman actually has babies with earth woman, instead of just making out.
Or, Superman's love interest is Luis Lane. They stroll the tony shopping districts of Metropolis looking for attachè cases and whatever, in the re-re-reboot: "SuperMen": Men of Feel.
Separate names with a comma.