Um….I've used 'disappointed' too much in the past, so the only other term that comes to mind is "underwhelmed."
Plot: In a far off galaxy, the planet Krypton, which looks more like a dustier version of Vulcan from J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek," Scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) tries to warn the council that the planet is doomed to explode due to the depletion of their natural resources. Yet this doesn't seem to stop General Zod (Michael Shannon) from staging a coup d'état against the council. Despite this, Jor-El manages to steal a Kryptonian Codex that contains the genetic code of artificial children, graft the code to the cells of his newborn son, Kal-El, and send him off before the planet explodes, though not before Zod and his flunkies are banished to the Phantom Zone.
Then, in a series of flashbacks interwoven throughout the movie, we see Kal-El try to control his powers as he attempts to find his place in the world while keeping his powers a secret as Clark Kent (Henry Cavill), only to occasionally reveal them to people when he comes to save them. Eventually he finds his way to the Arctic where he locates a spaceship that contains a hologram consciousness of his father explain his origins. Now wearing a blue costume with a red cape, Clark runs into Daily Planet Journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who figures out he has superpowers cause, well, he's really lousy at covering his tracks apparently. But things take turn for the worse when General Zod finds his way to Earth and wants to terraform the planet so they can have a new Krypton. Deciding he's the only one who can save the planet, he suits up and goes on a colossal fight that causes immense collateral damage.
Storywise, the movie has no surprises. It's the traditional Superman origin lifted straight from the Richard Donner movies; but the major problem with the movie is that is doesn't really say anything new about Superman himself. It just plays up the paranoia of people not trusting him because, ooh, he has super powers! Really, it's nothing new that we haven't seen in that other movie Christopher Nolan did, I forget the name, but it had a guy in a suit in it and nobody fully trusted him then. Honestly, the movie just feels like another summer blockbuster and all the visuals are the only thing that keeps it from falling into the same issues I had with "Elyisum" and "Pacific Rim."
But I know what you're all thinking, what do I think about the whole Superman killing Zod thing? Yeah, sorry for the spoiler alert, but I had to tolerate this annoying internet war that started because of this one moment where Superman is forced to kill General Zod while he fires lasers at innocent people. While I could be that "one guy" and say this contradicts Superman's ideology of not killing this foes, honestly, there are many other things Superman could have done to avoid that and make him, you know, not look stupid:
-Superman could have poked Zod's eyes out while holding him in a headlock
-Subsequently, Superman could have tilted Zod's eyes upward to keep them from moving to the side.
-Superman could have just just flown Zod away from the city and from civilians.
-Subsequently, Superman could have punched Zod's head in the ground, zoomed in and got all the innocents away and then come back to Zod who is still pulling his head out of the ground.
-Superman could have kept fighting Zod in outer space.
-Superman could have just lobotomized Zod, sure he'd be a vegetable, but he'd still be alive.
-Superman could have used a Kryptonite bullet (oh, I'm sorry, Kryptonite was lame? Well I'm sorry you fail to comprehend the concept of weakness for this god-like being that could stop a supervillain)
-Superman could have flung Zod onto the other side of the planet, where there is no sunlight, and keeping fighting Zod until he runs out of juice from the sun's yellow rays and Superman could beat him into submission.
-Subsequently, Superman could have tunneled Zod to the center of the Earth, away from the Sun's yellow rays and let him burn up.
-Superman could have used his freeze breath to freeze Zod in place and then fly him to the Arctic and leave him to be frozen until Global Warming frees him.
-Or, instead of fighting General Zod, do what HowItShouldHaveEnded.com suggested: Instead of talking to a priest for advice, talk to the hologram consciousness of your father for advice then take the ship you came to earth on, set it do that dimensional thingy and throw it at Zod's space ship and force him and his cronies to avoid this huge battle that cost billions of dollars in collateral and untold lives to be lost in the fighting.
All these options and more, Superman could have done to have prevented killing him, but do I call this moment offensive? Oh no, that's not the most offensive moment.
It's the moment where Superman let's his adoptive father, Jonathan Kent, die.
In one of Superman's flashbacks, Clark is having an argument with his adoptive father, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) when they suddenly get out of the car and witness a tornado approaching all these other cars. Clark and his adoptive mother run away to shelter when Jonathan runs back to save a dog, yes a dog, left int he car, at the cost of spraining his ankle, Clark wants to run out and go save him, but Mr. Kent just holds up his hand and Superman lets his father get sucked up into a tornado.
Now you might say that he didn't save him was because his dad didn't want him to reveal himself in front of all these people, but this is offensive to Superman. How is it he decides not to save his adoptive father JUST BECAUSE his dad didn't want him to do so? How many times has Superman flown up to people attempting to jump off of rooftops and talked them down from killing themselves? How many times has Superman ever let anyone kill themselves just because they told him not to save them? When has Superman ever stood around and let someone die when he had it in his power to stop them?
This is why I love Glenn Ford's Pa Kent in the original Superman movie, right after Clark has shown off to his jerk classmates, he has a very touching conversation with Clark about being on this planet. Clark playfully races with Pa Kent to the barn as Pa slows down, breathing heavily. He checks his pulse and then collapses on the ground, Clark runs up to check on Pa, but the next scene shows that Pa has died. This is brilliant because it shows that even with all the powers Superman has, he is powerless to stop his adoptive father from dying from a heart attack.
But here? Clark had the power to save him father. He could have used his super breath to blow the tornado away. He could have used his super speed to zoom in and save his father while the tornado sucked him in and fly away while everyone didn't notice. He could have just taken his father's place to save the dog, since he is younger and he could have been smarter to get the lousy dog out.
What is frustrating is how this movie seems to take from other movies:
-The Matrix: Artificial babies in orbs that are collected? Can they be used to power the machines of Krypton as well?
-The Matrix Revolutions: A huge fight of two super powered being flying around causing destruction to a city while being knocked back and forth? I'm convinced the reason Zach Snyder didn't use his slow-motion technique he's known for this movie was because people would then figure out he was stealing from the Wachowski Siblings.
-Avatar: Jor-El flies around on a winged creature, how could Avatar not come to mind?
-The Tree of Life: the editing focuses on an wheelbarrow turned on it's side and a bucket filled with water with clothespins left inside. You're not Terrance Malick, Snyder, stop pretending you're deep by using these images when they have no poetry to them.
-J.J. Abrams Star Trek: this, more than any of my previous comparisons, it seems that Zach Snyder not only rips off this movie's visual look, but also the lens flare and the computer technique Abrams does where the camera zooms in on a particular action during a fight.
But thinking back to all of Zach Snyder's other movies and how many of them have scenes that directly rip off other movies (ex. "Apocalypse Now," "Spartacus," "Enter the Dragon") it really should come as no surprise to me the lack of originality Snyder has that he is willing to rip off of better movies to make his movies. Now you might call me out on this and say Nolan did the same thing with "Inception," but there's a major difference between directly stealing scenes and ideas from better movies and paying homage to these movies and using them for inspiration to create a movie that feels fresh.
Henry Cavill: Well, I'll give him this, he really looks like Superman, look at that jaw of his! It looks like he personally chiseled his jaw but as Clark Kent, I'm sorry, but he looks like the cover of a GQ magazine model. Take anther look at Christopher Reeve, the guy did a great job balancing both the stoic and humble Superman with the nervous and stuttering honesty of Clark Kent, if you looked at Reeve's Clark Kent, you'd never even make the connection that he'd be Superman. But just like Christian Bale, you can't really buy that this guy can have an alter ego, he just looks like he's hiding something. But I admit, the parts of the movie that show a young Clark Kent trying to control his powers, are really the more fascinating elements that the movie covers to show how scary it is for the young Clark Kent to discover all these powers and not understand what is going on.
Amy Adams: She's…just there. I'm sorry, but she ultimately leave no impact to me as Lois Lane. Amy Adams just feels like she's playing the same kind of character Maggie Gyllenhaal and Gwyneth Paltrow have played in superhero movies. Amy Adams is a fine actress, don't get me wrong, but she lacks character development as a romantic interest, hell, when she and Superman kiss, it's one of the most out of place moments I've ever seen a kiss to happen since they never even spent pivotal time to develop the tools necessary to develop characters, especially romantic interests.
Michael Shannon: Hey, surprise, surprise, I prefer Terrence Stamp's General Zod than Michael Shannon's General Zod. Terrence Stamp was a guy who had regality to him, he was boisterous and full of pride, he had a charm to him that couldn't be matched. Michael Shannon was just a guy who shouted a lot and a beard. The movie tries to make him looks sympathetic with trying to bring back the Kryptonian race, but he never seems to explain this plan and just seems to yell a lot.
Laurence Fishburne: He's………..there………..he doesn't make his infamous "Great Caesar's Ghost" but he does threaten to fire Lois Lane…honestly, this role could have been played by anyone, he was picked so his name could put more butts in the seat.
Kevin Costner: I already went on a tangent about how offensive it was that Superman doesn't save him, Costner is just doing his same shtick he's done for years. Monotone and uninterested. Now that I think about it, maybe Superman did us a favor in letting the tornado suck him up, no more box office bombs from you.
Diane Lane: The only memorable moment she has is a moment where she an intimate moment with Clark about holding him close to her when he was but a baby years ago, she would listen to him breathe. It shows the intimacy of Clark and his adoptive mother.
Russell Crowe: Word of the wise General Zod, don't pick a fight with the Gladiator himself. He's okay, he's no Marlon Brando, but then again, who is? Brando was an actor nobody will ever match and I highly doubt anyone of Brando's caliber will ever come again in this lifetime. Russell's main job is to dump exposition about Krypton.
Christopher Meloni: Word of the wise to future screenwriters, if you make a character who is so forgettable and is only memorable because of the actor who plays them, you know you could do better. All through this movie, I kept calling this character Elliot Stabler cause I recognize him the best from Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. He has no actual character though and he could have been played by anyone and it wouldn't have made a difference.
This entire movie does have a long line of all-star actors, but barely any of them get any proper character development to make these characters that interesting.
Maybe this is coming from a sense of burnout from seeing all these summer blockbusters, but I am starting to get a little tired of Green screen. Even though green screen really opens up the possibilities or visual effects, they just don't impress me all that much. The visual landscapes on Krypton look unimpressive, in fact, it just makes it look like the Kryptonians just landed there in these ships and they haven't colonized the planet yet. While I admit, the visuals work in effect to show the destruction of Superman fighting with other Kryptonians, the fights go on for far too long and eventually, wear thin on my patience. Even the final fight with Superman and Zod, while, I admit, visually impressive, just left me cold and tired. In fact, I'm getting tired of seeing big budget mano-a-mano fight scenes in movies nowadays. "Pacific Rim," "Elysium," "Transformers," it's like the entire movie builds up to the protagonist and the antagonist engaging in a fist fight that runs on for 10 minutes. While I may not agree with RedLetterMedia about everything they say, I will agree with their statement that "stretching a fight scene out for so long in an over-the-top and show-off way is the equivalent of a middle-aged business man whose short, balding and has a tiny penis so he buys a red Lamborgini to compensate."
This ending fight with Superman and Zod is the film's version of compensating for the lack of character development and ability to connect to the audience on an emotional level by using overblown visual effects.
Costuming is…not as bad as I thought of it before. The spandex looks a little silly on Russell Crowe and General Zod, but I admit, I'm not so much bothered by the Superman costume anymore. It is a little jarring to see Superman without his iconic red tidy-whities, to have that weird padding thing on this sides, it made it less awkward to me.
Music is…really forgettable, which is a shame cause Hans Zimmer can make memorable music when he's allowed to experiment: "The Lion King," "The Thin Red Line," "The Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Dark Knight" if you need examples. Frankly, I didn't find anything that memorable. The official theme does have a dramatic sense of building bravados, but it doesn't lift a torch to John Williams' 1978 theme. Yeah, it seems unfair to compare, but if I ask you to look at the Superman logo, are you going to think of Hans Zimmer's theme from 2013 or John Williams' theme from 1978 that has become the staplemark of a Superman theme (kinda like how the 1960's Batman theme is iconic and remembered even after all these years).
There are a lot of people who are calling this movie a masterpiece and a brilliant reboot.
I say, it's a bloated run-by-the-numbers summer movie that has to take ideas from the original Superman movies and insert over-the-top anime style fighting because it cannot come up with anything new. While the visual effects of all the destruction looks nifty, the lack of character development makes the movie seem pretentious in the parts with Clark Kent trying to adapt the the real world while the parts with Superman lack the suspension of disbelief or majesty. This movie constantly hammers in the issue that if people saw Clark Kent with superpowers, what the consequences would be, but we never see those consequences outside of fear from a Kansas mother and some concerned soldiers. If they really wanted to show consequences of Clark's actions, they could have shown on the news cults be formed proclaiming Superman as "the Messiah's return" and the arrival of Zod as "Judgement day." Missed opportunities to explore these themes are lost to showing off special effects. The parts with Clark as a kid honing his powers are neat, but we don't get a genuine sense of his abilities outside of just a vague idea of it that you have to be a Superman fan to already understand or know. The movie looks impressive visually, but, just like the Star Wars prequels and "Transformers" it favors special effects over story and character development.
Say what you will about the costumes or special effects for the 1978 Superman movie, the original had one thing this movie lacks: interesting people and the human factor. We see Clark land on Earth and we see him arrive in metropolis under his mild-mannered identity. "Man of Steel" focuses on Superman, the Kryptonian instead of Superman, the Hero of Earth.
A lot of people love this movie, I won't be one of them. I'll stick to that "old and lame" Superman movie that had interesting characters and a likable Superman that I would feel comfortable to save me from a falling helicopter, I'd probably suffer whiplash from this Man of Steel if he grabbed me from mid-air.
Final Rating: 2/5
As for the upcoming "Superman Vs. Batman" movie, how will that pan out? Well, Ben Affleck is playing Batman, a nice choice actually, considering the last three movies Affleck has directed and the fact he played Daredevil once, I think he could pull it off. But frankly, leave David S. Goyer out of the screenwriting process and get a more mature screenwriter, or in the case of the original, four seasoned screenwriters (said four are Mario Puzo of "The Godfather," David Newman and wife Leslie Newman of "Bonnie and Clyde," and Robert Benton of "Kramer Vs. Kramer.") I'll see it, sure, but after seeing this movie, my expectations are pretty low.
Think about it. People have been bitching since 1983 about how the Superman movies are weak because he basically never punches anyone or does much other than lift heavy things. Now, we get a movie that is a direct response to 30 years of Superman movies (60 if you go back to George Reeves) where he doesn't do a god-damned thing.
I've come to accept how nerds are always going to be greener on the other side of the crowd. Nothing will ever make you happy. "The movie was too serious!" What, so we need more cutting room floor Richard Pryor stand-up and slapstick routines in the opening credits? More "rebuild the Great Wall of China rays" coming out of Superman's eyes? Big celophane S's being hurled off of Superman's chest and turning into big plastic nets? I mean, really.
Is Man of Steel perfect? No, absolutely not. But is it good? Yes. Was it made with a love and respect for the character? Yes. And there is nothing in this movie that people have been bitching about instensely that wasn't in the original Christopher Reeve movies. That thing about what happens with Zod in the end... Yeah hate to tell you, but it also happened in Superman 2 (both versions I might add), and way worse, in a manner that made Supes out to be way more of an asshole, to be honest.
Was it too long? Maybe, but it's the same length as the Richard Donner version, which as much as I love, I find way more of a snooze to watch these days.
Everyone says "It's a blooming hour before Clark puts on that suit!" Again... way longer in the Donner version. At the one hour mark, Clark's stil hanging around Smallville... a Smallville we DIDN'T get the benefit of being abridged... just one straight long-ass shot. Same with Krypton, yeah, they both take up a half hour at the beginning, but the first time in 1978, it was a half-hour of standing around and mispronouncing "Krypton".
Lois having no real business in the second act... Hell, in Superman Returns, Lois has no purpose in the entire narrative at all, except to be a loathsome attempt to market her as the ultimate single mom working girl, despite that not being anything close to what Lois Lane is all about.
I could go on and on, but my point is if you are going to complain about things in this movie, you MUST hold the older films responsible as well when they do the exact same thing. It's the same argument that can be made about the first Amazing Spider-Man film. Fine, dislike the choices they made, but don't stand there and go on about how perfect the originals are when they do the exact same shit.
I do hate that reboots and remakes lately force people to take such a strong stand that you can only like one or the other. I love the originals, but I feel myself having to bash them to defend my point against the people bashing the new one. It just seems stupid to me. I think people need to start being happier things aren't as bad as they could have been and stop bitching how it wasn't as good as you wanted.
Not so much because of how "it has to be to the Donner movies" but I raise comparison to it NOT in the intentions of how Superman should act, but in HOW to tell a story in where you make a super-human character identifiable to the audience.
"Man of Steel" is a movie that is trying to tell a story of one man coming to terms with his identity while trying to honor the lessons learned from his alien father and his human father, even though the two ideologies vastly conflict with each other. The movie attempts to juggle the themes of the power of choice, the fear of being rejected by society and washing away the sins of the father, all ideas that I am in full support of had the movie's narrative not been so handled clumsily. The movie establishes these themes and yet the biggest failing of the film is not illustrating Clark's reaction or his thinking process to these themes.
Here's an example, the movie illustrates at the beginning this theme of choosing between good or evil with the powers Clark possesses, had the movie used a scene like, say, Clark pondering whether to use his powers to steal money or get back at people who harass him, there would be building tension to see Clark make the choice whether he chooses good over evil. This could have been resolved with Superman rejecting Zod's plan to destroy Earth, hence relaying to the audience Kal-El has made his choice and then that would make the final battle with Zod more emotionally satisfying and tense when we get the sense that Clark is now proving his moral stance by defending the people of Earth rather than destroying them.
Instead, the movie takes away this choice by showing Clark already making the decision to help people, removing the actual choice of choosing good vs evil even when the movie keeps bringing up this concept over the course of the film when we, the audience, already know what Kal-El's moral stance is. There's a point where the movie drops this lesson in morality for Kal-El to not use his power against humans for fear of being ostracized, yet by the time it's finally established, Superman is already beating up other super-powered beings, thus making the time spent to build up this theme irrelevant to the ultimate conclusion of the film.
And here's the thing, ideas and thoughts like that don't come to me when I'm initially writing reviews, it's only way, way later when my mind processes themes and ideas do these concepts come to me. It's been months since I wrote this, I wrote it when I thought people were finally done with this movie and moved on, but I can see this movie's reputation is not going to leave anytime soon. So fine, call me a "bitchy whiner," but removing the Richard Donner films from the mind and just looking at this movie academically, it falls short on what it's trying to convey. It has ideas that are interesting, but it doesn't convey them very well. It's structure is the ultimate problem and while I still hold issue with a guy who has the godly power to save people and yet allows people to die, the real failing of the movie comes from it's failure in conveying a message of hope or morality when the audience is already aware of what his choice is. He's not gonna let Zod terraform the Earth, we know that because he's Superman. But if the movie really wanted to be bold and present a "new" Superman, then there's nothing wrong with showing a Superman learn to overcome the temptation of evil to do what's right even when people fear him.
I still don't like this movie, but regardless of my feelings on this movie, you can still expect me to be standing in line for "Superman vs. Batman" when it rolls around in 2016.
As for the neck-snapping thing, aren't you forgetting that Batman technically killed Harvey Dent?
Superman vs Batman?
Well. We all know it probably won't be as awesome as Freddy vs Jason.
(Also What date will Star wars Ep 3 Review will be out next year proberly)
As I said, asking constantly is not going to make it appear in thin air. In either case, you already had that review of it that you wrote without any input from me, I would have thought that would be enough for you.
I mean Zack Snyder I did check his progress and he made some of the most greatest movies like 300, Dawn of the Dead, Watchmen, (not counting sucker punch), and he is really an Artistic Director because he did read the comic or Graphic novels and made little changes like in Watchmen their was no Slimy Squid, or changing the origins of Rorschach like it was mad max except if it was Beyond Thunderdome OH YES!, but still when he made a choic to reboot the series, he seem to have the idea going back to the origins of superman.
also Christopher Nolan I respect him making on of my favourite Trilogy The Dark Knight Trilogy and The Walker brother did silabilng Rivalry Rob went on a Rant saying that Christopher Nolan is a underdog and he was loved by Critics and then he said "You don't get it, your just an evil critic you snooty Bastards, and your ivory towers wouldn't know a good movie this is the people's movie"
I mean I got a little disappointed with The Amazing Spiderman because they changed the origin from the Sam Rani movie. but with that said I will defend Man of Steel because. I started with the Dean Cain Tv series then the animated series, and then Superman Returns movie and finally this.
also Michel Shannon is a brilliant Zod
because of that message www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6iXqW…