Man of Steel ::: 14 June, 2013

I'm actually with Harms regarding the third act.  I've always enjoyed Hackman.  Whatever it's problems I'd call it a desert island movie.

But what do I know?  I'm the guy who loves SUPERMAN III (while fully seeing it's a travesty).

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Whatever it's problems I'd call it a desert island movie.

It's too fun for a desert island movie.

Watched MAN OF STEEL last night.  Enjoyed it.  It's flawed to some degree, complete with an absolute crazy introduction to Krypton at the beginning.  Pacing could have been worked on, but as a whole better than RETURNS and better than the other summer movies I've seen (and somehow less ridiculous than FAST AND FURIOUS 6).  I have no issue with any of the main players, but Michael Shannon is the stand out as Zod.

Armond White LOVES it:

http://www.nyfcc.com/2013/06/movie-of-the-year-man-of-steel-reviewed-by-armond-white-for-cityarts/

My remaining trusted review sites have all said good things about it -- or at least said things about it that indicate it's good to me.

Harmsway wrote:

Armond White LOVES it:

http://www.nyfcc.com/2013/06/movie-of-the-year-man-of-steel-reviewed-by-armond-white-for-cityarts/

OMG.

Catching it tomorrow...anyone else own over 1,000 Superman comics? :face:

Make it over 1,001...Superman Unchained #1 is the new kid on the block.

I'm quite excited for it. From what I hear, it's a Superman film that's finally broken away from trying to retread Donner and instead actually reflects the modern comics somewhat (mostly John Byrne's MAN OF STEEL mini-series and Mark Waid's BIRTHRIGHT series from what I hear, although there's also a touch of Grant Morrison's ALL-STAR in there judging from the trailer dialogue).

The Byrne bit gives me hope. I don't read comics, but that mini-series is one of the few that I actually got.

Apparently a lot of their interpretation of Krypton and Jor-El and Lara comes from it, among other things.

Nuclear Man lives! http://www.myfoxhouston.com/video?clipId=8990596&autoStart=true

Largo's Shark wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Armond White LOVES it:

http://www.nyfcc.com/2013/06/movie-of-the-year-man-of-steel-reviewed-by-armond-white-for-cityarts/

OMG.

FWIW, I don't agree with Armond about this film, though I'll share his praise for Snyder's style. This is the first film since Ang Lee's HULK to imbue the actions of these demi-god characters with beauty and awe-inspiring power.

However, MAN OF STEEL does not do well by its characters, who scarcely register as people (Superman included).

If this is too Nolan-y, I'm not going to bother with it. I do see Armond liked it, so maybe it's not that bad.

Jack Wade wrote:

If this is too Nolan-y, I'm not going to bother with it.

It has a sense of spectacle and visceral power that's very, very unlike Nolan. But like Nolan's movies, it gets heavily bogged down in plot mechanics and exposition.

From what I've heard it sounds like a pretty even mix of the best (and sometimes worst) traits of Goyer, Nolan and Snyder.

MAN OF STEEL inspires genuine awe, but that sometimes seems like the film's only priority. What the film lacks is humanity, and humanity isn't the strong suit of Goyer, Nolan, or Snyder.

But I will say this: while MAN OF STEEL is pretty sober (the moments of levity feel almost out of place), it doesn't really feel like Nolan's Batman films.

What Armond said about Clark and Lois is interesting ... any other reviews I've read suggest they aren't too convincing together.

Leonard Maltin doesn't seem to like it much, calling it "a giant video-game-like demolition derby" that "may please ardent fans of the Transformers movies" and "drags on much longer than it needs to."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/man-of-steel

Maltin's an idiot.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

What Armond said about Clark and Lois is interesting ... any other reviews I've read suggest they aren't too convincing together.

Cavill and Adams might have the potential to be convincing together, but it's hard to tell. The film does so little to give their characters anything other than a kind of sober earnestness, so there's not a lot of passion or joy in their relationship. With a little more humor and ease, their relationship might have clicked.

Caught it last night. The first half is very good, some of the finest superhero-genre work I've seen. Excellent pacing, humane performances, non-annoying score from Zimmer, and poetic cinematography. Overall, it begins like a worthy, modern retelling of Superman I and II. 

But man, what a tease that Zach Snyder is! The last act was one of the biggest disappoints I've endured in a movie theatre. After such an honest, breathtaking set-up to the mythos, Man of Steel surrenders to that same banal Hollywood crap-fest of incomprehensible shaky cam nonsense, trailer dialogue, predictable urban destruction (featuring a city even more generic than Dark Knight's Gotham), and overall nausea. As Silva would've said, "It's so exhausting!" It's not a secret that Hollywood is in a deep, deep creative crisis. That a film with such a promising first half ends up with a finale comparable to the worst of Marvel and Transformers is pure proof of that crisis. That said, I'll gladly rewatch it at home and without the 3D (seriously, how much more do we have to suffer the painfully dark-tinted conversions?) Btw, loved Amy Adams in this. Not one of my favourite actresses, but is a great Lois Lane.

Just got back from seeing this tonight. I definitely have a few issues with the film, character development being one of them.

Clark was the only one who felt remotely developed, and even then, not terribly well. Another issue I have is a certain scene in which Man of Steel blatantly contradicts the comics from which it was based (at least the Superman comics I'VE read).

That being said, I thought it was a really solid movie regardless. I'll let it sink in a bit and probably go to see it again (being a Supes fan myself) and we'll see how my opinion of it changes.

Saw it. Loved it. Review to follow in time. It had some issues but none I can't forgive. my main one was the level of destruction and collateral damage seemed really high but that was part of the bigge scale of spectacle which I liked, so my feelings are mixed. Ultimately the movie got the character of Superman himself spot on, which was the most important thing to me. That and it gave him new and interesting and dynamic things to do.

I really enjoyed it. Seems like the critics are having a field-day ripping into this one, with most citing that the film is too deadly-serious. It's true that the film isn't all puppies and rainbows, but MAN OF STEEL isn't nearly as bleak as it's being made out to be, either. Superman himself could have been written with more of a boisterous and jovial attitude, but it certainly didn't detract from the movie, for me at least. And it looks like they're setting him up to be more cheery in the sequel, anyway. I liked that Goyer chose to focus on the first contact aspect of the story, and his use of the flashbacks was definitely more inventive and effective than simply going from point A to B on the origin of Superman. What Goyer's script was lacking, however, was character material, with Clark being the only character that gets any kind of focus. He also relies almost entirely on trailer dialogue, which didn't particularly bother me too much, but I can see how it would easily upset others.

Snyder, on the other hand, really outdid himself. His imagery is so incredibly effective, and the way he conveyed such a grand sense of scale (especially in the action scenes) is simply dazzling. His visual style in the film is an effective cross between Terrence Malick's rusticity, Abrams' clean and bright lens flare-ish look, and ultra-bold look of comic book reels. Combined with Zimmer's energizing score, Snyder achieves a truly stirring visceral experience that firmly sets Man of Steel apart from most other comic book and superhero movies. Performances are universally good, with Amy Adams being the only real weak link. I think she's fine as an actress, but there's something about her that just didn't work for me (despite what Armond said about the two, I didn't think she shared any chemistry with Cavill at all). 

Overall, for me MAN OF STEEL is easily one of the best superhero movies out there, with Nolan's Batman films being the only other real contenders. But, MAN OF STEEL is so much more visually interesting and energetic that I may have to give it the nod for the time being. It'll be interesting to see how Snyder follows this up story-wise, considering the stakes have already raised almost as far as they can go. I'm not quite sure where they go from here...