Man of Steel review - WITH SPOILERS

[B-Lister]

Also, this film is very much the first act of a larger story. I think the sequel will give us some lighter moments, we may even see the hues of the costume lighten. There were some light moments, and moments of genuine Super Goodness, especially with regards to Martha Kent, but more definitely wouldn't hurt. I think we will see your 'easier to add things' approach in full development in the sequel.

The tone won't be light to the point of 'gee, shucks' wholesomeness of Mayberry, but I don't think a sequel will be light on human moments, Or Action. Which is also important.

This film took the criticisms of the last film to heart, and delivered where the last one failed. In so doing, we almost have a pendulum shift, but I think it stayed good in spite of it.

But we definitely need a balance. All human moments and no action and it will be awful, all action and no human moments and the film has no heart. This one comes close, but I still feel it delivers.

I just hope they listen to the criticism and try to strike a balance on the sequel.

Fair?

[huedell]

Okay Huedell, what do you think MOS 'takes away' from the character?

Granted, he is not the Silver Age Superman by any means, but I feel the film portrays him pretty faithfully to the current depiction.

Simply put (it's late and I thought it was pretty clear what kinds of things I claimed were missing anyway in previous posts).... in MOS, when the city is being torn apart, he stays, continuing to contribute to the havoc with no notable signs of conflict within him for collateral damage.... in Superman II... well, you know how Superman handles that there.

That's all I can muster typing.

[B-Lister]

Ok, I have a much clearer picture of what you are saying.

The damage was excessive, but I believe in context it was unavoidable. Do I think it needed to be shown as long as it was? No. I think that time could be better spent building up the secondary characters a bit, or explaining that the city was mostly deserted (to reduce casualties).

Most of this is in the novelization, along with clearer motivations for Clark helping people. But it should be in the movie.

This was my primary complaint about the story "Final Crisis" if you need annotations to explain a story, then your story is lacking something.

[boynightwing]

Personally, the scene just before Superman reverses time is one of my favorite scenes in any movie. He finds Lois dead in a car full of rubble. He loves Lois. He takes her out carefully hoping he can revive her. He realizes he can't and he cries. (I'm getting goose bumps just typing this) When Superman cries, I cry. That's when you know things are bad. It's not out of character to have a guy like Superman break the time barrier. Flash does it all the time. Why not Superman? I wouldn't say he could do it willy-nilly but when someone he loves has been horribly killed? Yeah why not. A guy that powerful could break time given the right circumstances.

If you have read the Emperor Joker story that ran in Superman like 10 years ago. At the end of the story SPOILERS Batman has been severely scarred inside because the Joker killed him every night for who knows how long. Batman went crazy insane. Superman was able to take that knowledge from Batman so he could be sane again. It's not so different then taking Lois's memories only I don't think Superman kissed Batman...

Man of Steel has consumed my thoughts these past few weeks. I really wanted to like this movie. I wont tell you it sucks. I just don't think it was for me. There were so many things they didn't hit on to make me care about it as I watched in horror. They didn't introduce us to the Planet staff yet they wanted us to be worried about them as Metropolis fell. I wasn't concerned. I didn't get a Lois that is witty or fun or lovable. But I didn't mind that she figured him out. I really didn't. I just wish we could have got glimpses in to these characters personalities. They were...souless? I dunno if that's the right word but I can tell you they didn't feel complete. I agree with Huedell, it's what was missing that bothered me more than what was there.

[B-Lister]

But I think we will still get all of that. We need to think operatically. This is act one. It stands alone as a complete narrative, but opens the door for more.

Luke Skywalker was not a complete character at the end of ANH, neither was Han or Leia. Some were more fully developed than others by the end, but none were as fully developed as they were at the end of Jedi.

I think we will see the full hero's journey here, and by the end we will have something more in tune with what we have come to love about these timeless characters.

[spacecaps]

Man of Steel has consumed my thoughts these past few weeks. I really wanted to like this movie. I wont tell you it sucks. I just don't think it was for me. There were so many things they didn't hit on to make me care about it as I watched in horror. They didn't introduce us to the Planet staff yet they wanted us to be worried about them as Metropolis fell. I wasn't concerned. I didn't get a Lois that is witty or fun or lovable. But I didn't mind that she figured him out. I really didn't. I just wish we could have got glimpses in to these characters personalities. They were...souless? I dunno if that's the right word but I can tell you they didn't feel complete. I agree with Huedell, it's what was missing that bothered me more than what was there.

One of the thing that's been bothering me is the lack of Clark Kent. I think the reason Christopher Reeves is so beloved as Superman is because he humanized a god through his portrayal of Clark. I'm sure it's been pointed out before but the one thing that separates Superman from just about every other superhero is that he disguises himself as a normal person to hide his true identity whereas everyone else disguises themselves as a superhero to hide their identity. Although MOS shows Clark Kent, we never really get a feeling for who he is as a person. He's a drifter, a loaner, and sometimes a confused youth but there is no development in his character at all. Reeves portrayed a Clark Kent that you rooted for and when he got picked on or spilled his coffee the audience knew it was just part of his act to fit in and that if he wanted to, Superman could superman his way out of whatever awkward situation Clark was in. There is none of that in MOS. I don't think the quick change in a phone booth would have worked here but essentially we got a Clarkless Superman movie and the more I had a chance to think about it, the more criminal it is. Imagine if a Spiderman movie came out and didn't show us Peter Parker or a Bruce Wayneless Batman. Now I realize we got a lot more of the Kal-el side of Superman and but again, making your immortal god relatable is why Clark Kent, bumbling news reporter, is essential to the story.

I also think the Half-In-The-Bag review made some excellent points when they pointed out that after the final battle with Zod, the headlines in the paper would,'t read "Superman Saves The Day" it would read "Superman is a Harbinger of Doom." He doesn't save anyone in this movie on a personal level. It's all punching giant lasers in India and throwing martians through buildings. How is that a hero the masses would root for?

One other thing I'm really sick of hearing about is "the story arc" and "you gotta wait for the sequel to get the full picture." No I don't. You've got all of the money in the world and a two and a half hour platform to tell a story that makes sense to the audience. Sub-plots that need to be explained in director/actor interviews, expanded universe garbage I'm not going to read, deleted footage that will be on the DVD six months from now, a "this scene would have made a lot more sense if we didn't cut this out from the original draft of the script" apology, and a "Just wait till the sequel when we introduce this and do that cause then it'll be really good" is just another way of saying "This movie could have been better." "Wait for the sequel." is for movies what "Well get em' next year." is in sports. You played a good game, you tried your best, and you lost. Next year isn't a guarantee neither is part 2 or 3 of your really expensive but ultimately dull and boring movie. There's a good chance a sequel doesn't even get made. It happened with Narnia and Superman Returns. The Hulk had two separate movies come out and there isn't a sequel to either of those. Maybe the director drops out (although in the Man Of Steels case it would be a good thing) or a principal cast member doesn't return. Sometimes sequels can actually make the originals worse like with the Matrix or Superman III and IV. Occasionally a movie like Aliens comes along or Dark Knight and elevates the status of the original but those films are few and far between.

If you want to take Star Wars as an example, when ANH ends, Luke is a totally different character at the end of the movie then he was at the beginning. The entire movie is him experiencing the hero's journey which begins on his farm and ends at the medal ceremony. He went from a mundane routine existence to a journey that taught him bravery, loss, friendship, inner strength, and self-awareness. If Empire or Jedi were never made, the story of Luke Skywalker would have been considered complete by the end of A New Hope. Unless your dealing with a character like Harry Potter who was conceived from the very beginning to have a seven story arc, every origin movie should be sufficient on it's own without the "wait for the sequel" excuse. I wasn't dying to see what Clark Kent will be like in MOS Part 2, I was lamenting his absence from MOS Part I.

The parallel to Man of Steel to Star Wars isn't with Luke though, it's with Anakin which would make the current Superman movie the equivalent to The Phantom Menace. It's big, loud and hugely successful in terms of dollars but as the weeks go by the word is out that this is a movie nobody asked for with a story no one wanted to see. Sure it's got it's moments. Ewan McGregor was awesome as Obi-Wan. Cavill is a great Superman but the bad far outweighs the good. When the Phantom Menace came out everyone went to see it and everyone wanted to like it and some truly did. It made all of the money in the world at the time but on the whole it just didn't work as an entertaining and enjoyable movie and just like with the Phantom Menace, it took some time for people to realize the movie they got wasn't all that great and that when the "Wait for the sequel!" battle cry begins.

[B-Lister]

I wasn't paralleling MOS to Star Wars, I was simply using it to illustrate a point. That this is only the beginning. If, when all is said and done, this version of Superman has not grown as a character, then yes, it deserves scorn, but I am confident that we will see plenty of growth. We saw plenty already, but definitely need more before he's a fully developed Man of Tomorrow.

And Star Wars had to have a complete narrative and a complete character growth for Luke in case that's all there was. MOS was conceived as a first act so a full character arc wasn't as needed (though I disagree that he was as undeveloped as some would claim). That doesn't invalidate the criticism, but i definitely think many will revise said critique when we have opportunity to view the full tapestry.

That is my hope, at least.

[spacecaps]

What your hoping for is what Dark Knight did to Batman Begins. People weren't sure what to make of Begins when it came out. Some said it was "good", others thought weird and different because it wasn't anything like Batman of the the past. Nolan was also an up and coming director with very little to his name so there was potential there. When Dark Knight came out, the performance of Ledger + the fact that he died a month before the movie came out made it the movie event of the decade. Nolan also went on to do Inception which became one of the most debatable and talked about movies in cinematic history. We've kind of already seen what Snyder is capable of and he's been riding his 300 card for a long time now. He makes Michael Bay look like a brilliant director. He took a huge dump on Watchman (points for trying I guess) but then he followed that up with Sucker Punch which by all accounts was a totally unwatchable waste of film. (I don't know because I couldn't get past the first half hour.) and then he needed help from Nolan to finish this movie. Now maybe if they cast someone obscure unlikely choice to play Lex Luthor and he nails it in a way no one has ever envisioned the character before then yes it could happen but that's a long shot.

My point in using Star Wars as a comparison was just to say that no matter how many sequels you have lined up in the future, your movie should be self-containted in telling a complete narrative within that movie. Take Star Wars out and substitute it with any movie you'd like. Batman Begins did that. Every single Marvel superhero movie since Spiderman has been able to do that. Even the Harry Potter movies can stand alone without the support of the other movies in order for them to make sense. I don't think Superman is the platform to try to flesh out the story over three sequels in five years. We know to much about him already to hold our attention. The legend of Superman is engrained in our consciousness. We already know his story, we just want to see him do cool stuff. It's the same reason everyone moaned about the Amazing Spiderman. We don't need the "here's why this superhero is who he is" story. We already know it and altering it doesn't help either. Superman isn't the Lord of The Rings which was never filmed before and when it was filmed it was made in succession and released one year apart from the last one.

Without the ability for a movie to stand alone on it's own and tell a complete story featuring a beginning, middle, and end, which is essentially writing 101, your left with the exact same concept that was applied to The Phantom Menace and we all know how that turned out.

[B-Lister]

Harry Potter can do it, and Star Wars can do it because their first chapters had to sink or swim on their own merits. There would be no sequel without the success of the first story.

Superman is time tested. There will be more Superman movies.

MOS has a beginning, middle, and end. I am sorry it didn't meet everybody's expectations, but I left completely satisfied and fulfilled, as did many others.

Your criticisms have merit, but a lot of these complaints make it sound as if it was the worst thing ever put on film, or was incomplete.

Instead of saying it was not a complete narrative, you might be better off stating that it is not what you expected, and since it did not meet with those expectations, you were left unfulfilled and disappointed.

There is no shame in that, and you have every right to feel that way. But try to understand that I went in with zero expectations, and therefore I was able to immerse myself fully in the story, and was very satisfied as a result.

No, he is not 100% the character we know and love, by film's end, but we can see he's WELL on his way to becoming that.

As I said before, it is not without fault, but there isn't a film that isn't, let alone a Superman film. We overlook them in the things we love, because they're not great movies in spite of their faults, but because of them.

Back to the Future has plot holes you can drive a truck through. Indiana Jones has its share of logical fallacies, Star Wars has some truly ridiculous situations.

But we love them anyway.

Cavill delivered an outstanding performance. If there was any fault in character development, Goyer and/or the editor are at fault. And it can be addressed in future installments.

Superman, thankfully is a very episodic character. You can always tweak what isn't working.

[boynightwing]

Spacecaps nailed it with Phantom Menace. I've been comparing MOS to Transformers Revenge of the Fallen. All flash and no substance with an overall plot that felt forced and made no sense.
I think both comparisons work and strangely enough I felt as let down by MoS as I did seeing those movies.

I remember I went to the midnight of Transformers 2. When it ended somebody stood up and clapped. I turned away to my girlfriend and said "you gotta be kidding me!"

When Man of Steel ended, my girlfriend in all seriousness said to me "are you okay? You look like you're going to cry." At the same time my phone vibrates and it was a friend who was somewhere in the auditorium. His text read "what a piece of...!" Which made me chuckle but still want to cry.

Despite me not liking it, I'm happy that some people did because it brings more exposure to Superman. At the same time it bugs me that people are bringing kids to it because I'm not so sure this one is for them.

[Nostalgiabuff]

I still liked it, although I agree, it is probably not for little kids. too much swearing for one thing.
i have never understood all the hate on Suckerpunch, i love that movie. it might not make a whole lot of sense but it is visually awesome. the fantasy sequences are fantastic and have to be watched in full surround sound to get the full effect.
i thinks people are looking for too much out of most movies, these aren't Shakespeare, they are popcorn movies. i don't want to have to have deep thoughts about them, i just want to be entertained for a few hours.
Mindbending movies like Inception are very few and far between

[hedrap]

Um, does anyone else remember the big promises WB/DC people made about project announcements at SDCC?

DC has made their announcements, as had WB TV. Robinov and Tull are now "gone", which means Legendary might have their own panel.

So, WB is either going to make huge news, or the **** is about to hit the fan.

Can they really show at SDCC without one superhero project on the slate?

Is that why Marvel decided to go bat-crap crazy and bring everything? To bury WB/DC?

[madmarva]

It's hard to say if Marvel and Fox are doing more than they would have otherwise, but in April and early May' it was Robinov and Geoff Johns quoted as saying there would be an announcement "soon" or at "Comic Con" and that their are plans for characters like GL, Flash and Wonder Woman. That was obviously prior to Robinov leaving before the door hit him in the butt.

But I haven't seen an announcement for a Warner's movie panel as of yet. DC Entertainment is having a panel celebrating the 75th anniversary of Superman that is supposed to include those involved with Man of Steel. That could be where they announce a MOS sequel, but it may not be either.

Hobbit, which is WB's big Christmas release, isn't having a panel. So who knows?

[hedrap]

Just read Legendary is holding "their panel" within the WB panel. I guess that's a concession since WB is still on the marketing hook for Godzilla and if Legendary stepped out of the WB panel, all they would have is Hobbit.

I think MOS 2 is about as far as they're announcing. Even that is probably more time spent on explaining problems with MOS, so they better have Goyer and Snyder on hand, because without Robinov and Tull, leaving it up to Johns and Dido is a credibility death wish. If Snyder and Goyer aren't their, take that as a sure sign WB is looking at other people.

I just realized with Legendary leaving, it effectively kills Del Toro's JL Dark. I never thought it would happen anyway, but this seals it.

[madmarva]

Yeah, everything Snyder and Cavil have said in the press is pointing to MOS sequel, but with things in flux who knows if they will announce it, but with the money made and the interest, It's a no brainier. All the debates and sales show there is interest in Superman. This is Snyder's first moneymaker since 300. He'd be crazy not to re-up. Same with Goyer.

With GL flopping the way it did, I doubt Johns has much of a voice with the films other than providing what he's asked for in background, and I don't think Didio, despite his TV background, ever had any clout with the films with him being in New York. But that's just me guessing.