• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film Man of Steel

Rate the Film

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/1star.gif[/img]

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/2stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/3stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/4stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 4 50.0%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/5stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Total voters
    8

MrGrunge

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
3,797
Man-of-Steel-poster2-610x904.jpg


Can't believe there hasn't already been a thread about this - you'd think a superhero movie made by Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan would have drawn more buzz.

Anyway, I'm going to see the movie tomorrow night. I'm not real excited about it (just going with some comic-nerd friends), but it seems like it should be better than the standard Marvel fare.

POST YOUR THOUGHTS, OPINIONS, AND OTHER BULLSHIT REGARDING MAN OF STEEL IN THIS THREAD!
 
Just saw this today.

Loved it. True, it's no Batman Begins, but the F/X, plot, and acting work, while a Brit like Henry Cavill hits Superman's personality better than American Brandon Routh ever did (my main complaint with the '06 movie). If they'd cut down on the flashbacks, Russel Crowe's onscreen time, and the angst that worked with Nolan's Batman but which seems more than a little forced here, it would've hit a solid five in my book. Still, four is pretty good. :)

Recommended.
 
I love Christopher Nolan's work but hate the Superman character. still worth a try?

ebola
 
If you don't like Superman to begin with, I doubt this will change your mind. I've loved the movies since the '78 version, though strangely enough I've always been lukewarm on him in the actual comics and animated series.
 
^
It was worth watching for Kevin Spacey, though I prefer Hackman's more affably evil Lex. It wasn't a terrible movie, but IMO the whole thing seemed to lack personality, from an unfortunately bland Lois to that saturnine, stalkerish, tight-lipped Superman. I've heard that Singer and company wanted the movie to emphasize Superman's alienness more than the Reeve films did, and it shows. It's better than Superman IV, but that's what you call some low-hanging fruit.
 
He's not wearing red underpants.

This is clearly a dealbreaker for me.

Edit: This post was in no way in relation to Bel's "Low-Hanging Fruit Remark." ;)
 
I've heard good things.

Also the poll is goofed up and there's no way to fix it. Gadzooks!
 
6.7/10

I liked it, but it wasn't phenomenal. There really wasn't a lot of development. Its okay though.

I don't really like to give ratings though. I change my mind. Much of it was well done. Something just felt about 7/10 or less about it. Overall. But I guess that isn't bad.

Amy Adams is hot.
 
Last edited:
^I thought Marvel's most recent offerings (Avengers and Iron Man 3) were a lot of fun, like superhero movies should be, for the most part (although Captain America's 1940s diesel-punk concept did fall pretty flat). I didn't find Man of Steel very fun at all in this sense. It was more brooding and plodding and arduous. It took forever just to get off Kypton, and much of that never really got worked into the later plot to justify the time that the Snyder spent gawking at the epic destruction and insurrection. And even then so much was exposition/back story.

And:
[spoil]the gravitational wave explanation was just laughably tacked on, the whole Jesus symbolism in the church and Superman miming the crucifixion as he leaves through the hole in the Kryptonian spaceship with Earth as the backdrop was really heavy handed (Superman is a pop-culture sun god, I get it), plus, Superman just lets his frigging dad get sucked into a tornado? WTF?[/spoil]

There was a lot of talent working on this movie, and I like a lot of their previous work, but much went wrong here. I think there's just too many idealistic and deistic themes in the story to make it work as a live action super hero movie (it may be easier to stomach in a more icongraphic medium like animation where such conceits don't pop out so gratuitously -- it certainly works fine in graphic novels). That said, the fight scenes were pretty epic, and the 300-esque close-in chiaroscuro lighting does work well with those themes aesthetically in terms of light and dark, good and evil.

EDIT: All the design and production of the Kryptonian tech was pretty cool, too (the retracting virtual-veil helmets and the presentation of the holographic projections especially). It's also only fair to admit that my perceptions, and, perhaps, my judgments, were altered by MXE and cannabis.
 
Last edited:
^I thought Marvel's most recent offerings (Avengers and Iron Man 3) were a lot of fun, like superhero movies should be, for the most part (although Captain America's 1940s diesel-punk concept did fall pretty flat).

I agree that Marvel's films are 'fun', but I disagree that that is how superhero movies 'should be'. This is the reason I never took to Marvel comics - they're all about highlighting epic fight scenes and witty dialogue over deep characters and creative stories, whereas DC, in addition to their Superhero licenses, have many series which transcend typical Superhero tropes. Granted, with the exception of The Watchmen and the recent Nolan Batman trilogy, past DC films have felt pretty unspectacular (or in Green Lantern's case, downright abysmal). But the Nolan trilogy and the Watchmen managed to capture exactly what I want from a superhero FILM - they cater to fans of the source material, respect the audience members who aren't as familiar, and do it all with engaging stories and interesting characters. Can you really say that any of the Marvel films depict truly interesting, multi-faceted characters with unexpected and well-written story arcs? I certainly can't. There's never any tension in Marvel films because you know the good guys are always going to win no matter what (because the franchise depends on it) - it doesn't matter how insanely powerful their enemy is or what outrageous odds they face because they'll win regardless. That doesn't make for good storytelling, imo (and is the main reason why Superman is my least-favorite DC character, barring a couple specific comic book runs). The first Iron Man film is the only Marvel offering I even slightly enjoy, the rest are all cheap cash-ins on the easily-entertained general populace's fascination with explosions and witty banter. I hate feeling pandered to and that's exactly what I get from Marvel.

That doesn't mean I think people are wrong for liking Marvel films, just that the majority of Marvel films are pretty shitty.
 
^Though I didn't mention she was the one who originally stated it, I was thinking similar when my girlfriend said what I basically echoed of her in my last post, that is:

Marvel's most recent offerings were a lot of fun, like superhero movies should be.
,
As she said it I was, like you, thinking that "The Watchmen" and Nolan's Batman trilogy aspired to be more and succeeded in many ways.

In bringing up her viewpoint in this thread my intention was just to highlight how much "Man of Steel" was not like Marvel's recent stuff -- so different as to reach a point of being taxingly brooding and overwrought, I thought. When my girlfriend mentioned how bored she was I agreed and asked if she wanted to leave, but she didn't so we stayed. Afterwards, discussion revealed we had both independently been sighing and making "aack" noises under our breath during the same occasions when we agreed the movie had belabored a point.
 
Last edited:
i enjoyed it quite a lot. the flashbacks and the backstory all worked for me. it's hard to flesh out god mode, but i think they did it just right. my only issues are bits of small sloppiness, such as
NSFW:
the military working out the gravity machine. those graphics they were interpreting from were just ridiculous. what technology could that have been?

the tentacle fighting was just a tacked on mess. came out of nowhere, went nowhere.

part of the spectacular dragon ball/matrix fight at the end goes from the ground into space and then back again, but it happens to land back in metropolis. this could have used some world wide localities to make it less of an inexplicable coincidence, and make the threat far more universal.


4/5

Edit. Oh and the 3d was a no show. Don't waste your money on it.
 
Last edited:
NSFW:
the military working out the gravity machine. those graphics they were interpreting from were just ridiculous. what technology could that have been?

the tentacle fighting was just a tacked on mess. came out of nowhere, went nowhere.

part of the spectacular dragon ball/matrix fight at the end goes from the ground into space and then back again, but it happens to land back in metropolis. this could have used some world wide localities to make it less of an inexplicable coincidence, and make the threat far more universal.
[spoil]I found their destination in space even more ridiculous ... a tiny satellite that just happened to be there to get destroyed. I believe this is derivative of
Akira, though in Akira Tetsuo follows up a laser beam to the military satellite directly overhead that fired it, which provides some sort of explanation (all the anime influences make me wonder if the tentacle scene is a reference to Legend of the Overfiend, heh). The flying creature ride on Krypton also looks taken from yet another movie: Avatar. So far as I can tell the fact that they landed back in Metropolis is a blatant contrivance to put some of the characters Superman knows back in danger, which seems to be one of the few reasons many characters exist (that or to martyr themselves unnecessarily in the hope of evoking associations with America's historical heroes [or to save a cute little doggy rather than let his super-powered adopted son do it]). [/spoil]

(To those who may not know: you look at spoiler tags by highlighting the black with your cursor.)

Again, I think some of this would've been more passable in an animated movie or comic book. The problem is that so many of the movie's style and scenes are meant to evoke gritty realism, such as a nomadic underemployed unkempt Clark Kent hitchhiking across America. This works well as a contrast to depictions of the fantastic we are expecting from any superhero movie, making the amazing stand out that much more, but to me it really doesn't work well with overtly manipulative events that don't at all emerge naturally from the genre or the tone of a film.
 
Top