Man of Steel ::: 14 June, 2013

I think the destruction of most of Metropolis could actually do a good job of setting up the modern version of Lex Luthor in the sequel, the savvy scientist business mogul who swoops in and builds most of the city and sets himself up as a saviour but has an ulterior motive.

Judging by the (kind've bizarre) critical response, it might be smarter for the sequel to go smaller rather than bigger. Focus on a more human story -- we're in this world now, how do we live in it?

What I feel like MAN OF STEEL was trying to do, and largely succeeded at, was in making up for lost time and delivering in spades the kind of huge scale action really suited to Superman and always part of the comics, but that had never really been portrayed on the big screen before.

To quote myself, on Facebook,

"This is the Superman I've been waiting to see on the big screen. It felt like a combination of all the best elements of Superman I and II, while fixing the problems I had with those movies and also managing to feel new and fresh. Ultimately the movie has some problems of its own, but nothing I can't forgive it for. It's greatest success is in making Superman feel modern and cool instead of old-fashioned and corny, without disregarding those essential qualities that make him a great hero. This man of steel feels like Superman, not a belabored Chris Reeve homage.
Also Hans Zimmer created a great musical score with a strong new Superman theme that made me totally forget John Williams."

It felt like a movie really designed to "correct" the "mistakes" of SUPERMAN RETURNS, although they kept the Christ imagery albeit more muted. However I applaud them for delivering a Superman, a Krypton, a Jor-El, a Zod, and a musical score that all felt RIGHT but also didn't feel like an attempt to copy or homage the Donner films.

Honestly other than all the collateral damage and deaths implied by the movie that Superman doesn't save or stop (which felt out of character), my only big issue is the way Pa Kent's death was handled. (The idea of Pa dying because of something Superman CAN'T do or change or save, the heart attack, seems much more powerful to me than what occurs in Man of Steel).

The entire cast is excellent though. Henry Cavill is a totally believable Superman, and he IS the character while making it his own and not apeing Chris Reeves. I fell in love with Amy Adams all over again as Lois Lane. And Michael Shannon totally nails Zod -- a character who thanks to this movie finally has a real and understandable motivation beyond "I'm a power-hungry facist bad-guy". I also kinda fell in love with his lieutenant, Faora, who's like Ursa in Superman II only way up on the sexy awesome evil hot-in-a-I'm-a-little-scared-of-you-way.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Ultimately the movie got the character of Superman himself spot on, which was the most important thing to me.

It did?

I dunno. I thought Superman as presented here was kind of cold and distant, lacking Superman's charm, humor, and essential sweetness. Maybe that last criteria isn't "cool" enough to make it into a modern reimagining, but I miss it.

And having the climactic act for the character be *that* act? Yeesh.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I fell in love with Amy Adams all over again as Lois Lane.

I really don't understand this.

I like Adams, I do. But she's given nothing to work with.

Shocking, truly awful movie. I thought Batman & Robin/DAD could never be beaten in terms of gutter trash, but Man of Steel has happily knocked them both off for the Number. 1 spot.

This really is a bad, bad film. The action is meaningless, the characters I didn't care about, the flimsy rumour of a story has a `making it up as we go along' type attitude, characters like Lois Lane suddenly gets caught in the action, in a laughably bad sequence where she interacts with the ghostly Jor-El.

This was the first film since DAD that I have seen at the cinema and was ready to walk out half way through, in a mixture of disgust and downright boredom. Its a cross between the terrible Transformers and 2012, but nowhere near as good as those 2 crap movies.

Given this 1/10 is being too kind. Man of Steel is one of the worst films ever made! Period!

Good to see you again, Willy. Never mind Superman, how goes the website business?

Hi Erica. Pretty much given up on it TBH. I think these days information websites don't rake in that much money, unless you have an online shop. Apps is where the cash seems to be these days.

I see you've discovered our 'new improved' quote function, bollocks to that.

Yeah, I've never worked out how to monetize a website. Only beneficiary seems to be the reader. Watching the world's news media implode as they give themselves away for free is interesting, though.

Still, at least you've saved me twelve quid: I was going to go and see Man of Steel tonight.

Same. I was going to see the film but starting with the Standard's review on down through to tonight it doesn't seem much point.

I really wouldn't waste your time or money. The film is very, very bad. It actually makes Superman Returns look great.

The film is so noisy in the second half, with non-stop CGI action fest, it was like watching a computer game. How many skyscraper buildings can explode, how many times can we see Zod and Superman throw themselves at each other and bounce through lots of buildings.

I came out of the cinema with a headache and had to take a couple of tablets when I got home. Costner is the best thing in it, and he is only in a few scenes.

Jor-El will always be Brando, and Reeve will always be Superman. This film is just a bad joke.

Well, it is Zack Snyder. He's the only guy I know of who managed to make a porno in which everyone kept their clothes on.

The quote function is seriously broken, but I'd like to respond to harms and say that I think the film has Superman's charm, warmth, and sweetness totally intact, it just didn't go out of it's way to show them because ultimately the movie was clearly very concerned with being an action extravaganza, something that it really needed to be. That being said I think the film got very right the exact kind of hero Superman is, what makes him heroic, his goodness, etc. I recognized the character Cavill was playing as Superman, whereas the character Brandon Routh played was only Superman because he was wearing that suit -- no fault really of Routh's but more of how that script was written and portrayed its version of Superman.

I did find myself questioning his "last act", but it's clear that he's agonized over it and is not revelling in it, and it's really the only ending that makes sense for Zod's character arc as written -- it's an act that makes sense in the context of the movie's wider themes. What I didn't like about it, however, was the really contrived nature of the scenario they used to force it -- there were a bunch of other ways Superman could have gotten out of that situation, IMO. I dunno, it didn't break the movie for me, but I could understand if it did for others. Personally, I'll take a Superman who agonizes about that action and presents it as a choice he clearly didn't want to make -- over the Christopher Reeve Superman who tossed Zod down a bottomless pit and smiled about it.

As for Willy's comments -- well, I get what you're saying, but I while I do see the flaws in Man of Steel, I can't quite grasp your decision to proclaim it the worst movie since DAD. And if you truly feel that only Brando can be Jor-El and Reeves can be Superman, then yeah SUPERMAN RETURNS is your movie dude, they made it just for you. For the rest of us? I'm kinda glad to see a take that finally breaks away from worshipping a film made over thirty years ago.

Finally -- did anyone else get a kind've DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL vibe from this in some ways? Cavill's Kal-El reminded me a lot of Michael Rennie's Klaatu in some scenes.

Great review from Mark Kermode on 5Live. Summed it up perfectly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXrKQ3X9pFM

Might catch this at the local cinema tomorrow with a free ticket I have. 2D or 3D?

It was shot 2D in a very "faux cinema verité" style -- lots of lens flare, snap-zooms, and hand-held, so the 3D post-conversion doesn't really blend well -- on the other hand, the 3D does a great job of enhancing the fantasy scale of things and hiding the CGI seams.

In my city it was a bitch trying to find a 2D showing so I went 3D and ultimately didn't find it as intrusive as I had feared.

Saw it yesterday, fairly underwhelmed. More detailed thoughts in 'Last Movie You Watched'.

See it in 2D, Sharky.

Running total against previous Super-films, adjusted for inflation:

SUPERMAN (1978) - $1,042,248,558.83
SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006) - $443,661,314.50
SUPERMAN II (1980) - $296,779,367.17
*MAN OF STEEL (2013) - $200,281,486 -- After first weekend
SUPERMAN III (1983) - $160,336,978.42
SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987) - $31,194,670.30
SUPERGIRL (1984) - $31,104,815.61
SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN (1951) - $4,481,402.81

"Just back from the Guardian focus group for Superman IV. 

"They didn't like Superman: Bloodlust.

" They didn't like Superman: This Time It's War. 

"They didnt like Superman: Mental As Anything. 

"And they definitely didn't like Superman Does Lois in the Ass. 

"They're thinking Superman: The Quest for Peace.

"It sends out the right message."

I'm seeing this in 0D. If this has Nolan's fingerprints all over it ... no thanks.

It feels the most like a balanced Nolan/Goyer/Snyder joint. It's got Nolan's trademark non-linear flashback structure in the beginning, Snyder's eye for beautifully rendered large scale action sequences, and Goyer's comic book writing sensibilities. It doesn't really come across as the singular product of any one of them, except for maybe a more toned down version of Snyder. It's more like a really big budget live-action version of DRAGONBALL Z than something like THE DARK KNIGHT. The movie is almost wall-to-wall action sequences and those are all Snyder's province, not Nolan's.

That being said it seems clear by now that if what you want is a light-hearted, jokey, wink-at-the-camera isn't-this-all-so-silly kind've experience, than this isn't gonna be the movie for you.

Oh well, I saw this barrel of fun and positivity coming a mile off. What a waste. Anyone who's seen the film wish they'd gone for another Routh Supes film instead of MOS?

You've seen it?

No chance, will never pay to see this, just had all of my fears confirmed by comments made by others. Superman didn't need another origin story, as with the equally meh-received Spidey reboot, and all the joylessness, lack of warmth and lack of great music I'd feared (as well as CGI overload) are all predictably being highlighted as big downsides to MOS. Even the name of the film is sh**e, just lazily rehashing The Dark Knight's "nickname-as-title". Wish Nolan had been involved in Goldfinger, at least then the film would have it's deserved title of The Smug Lazy Bastard.

Isn't that sorta what you said about SKYFALL in months coming up to its release?

Kind of, but SKYFALL always had two aces up it's sleeve: Guaranteed improvement score-wise and a great leading actor in Craig. Nothing about MOS offered hope going in, everything already seemed inferior and pointless compared to what had gone before.

Well, I'll see it in a few days and report back duly. Got a free ticket so I might as well use it.