What did you think of Man Of Steel?

News Den Of Geek 14 Jun 2013 - 11:30

Lots of spoiler-filled chat allowed here - share your thoughts on the new Superman film, Man Of Steel...

Well, it's been a long time coming, but the new Superman film, Man Of Steel, finally flies into cinemas worldwide today. Our own review of the film is here, but we thought it only right and proper to give you a spoiler-filled place to discuss this already-divisive movie. Please keep spoilers out of other posts on the site, but the purposes of this one? Help yourself...!

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

It was gash!

Still figuring out how I feel about him viciously breaking Zods neck....

Loved it! Took itself very serious, but a great telling and origin story. I, myself loved the tone and how the film unveiled. Costner was great for me, as was Cavill. I now hope it makes the money it deserves and we get more.

given the fact that is Zod was not going to stop and he was going to kill everyone Superman had to make a choice to cross that line.for that reason and that reason alone it was worth it.

the Superman movie was AWESOME! !!!!!

It was DoG that complained about the music wasn't it? It was brilliant and I haven't spoke to anyone that thought it wasn't.
As for the film in general I thought it was great. Yes it was very serious but I didn't mind that. Couple of fight scenes did go on a tiny bit too long and the lack of worry about collateral damage did bother me a bit but all in all it was a great start to reintroduce superman to audiences.
The prologue with Jar-El was brilliant, loved Russell Crowe.
As a comic book fan I am happy and as a film fab I'm happy too. 4 stars

Yeah Zod forced him in to it - he wanted him to do it actually as he had nothing to live for - and the world was at war so I accepted it. It's happened in the comics before

Thought it was absolutely fantastic and I can't get the theme out my head! I hope for MoS 2 they invest in a steady can though.

It's true, I mean Zod isn't the Joker you can't just throw him away in prison, so it was certainly justified...just felt they should have led up to it more, made it the absolute last, desperate choice possible (also another short scene dealing with the impact it has on Superman's character would have helped)

I enjoyed the movie overall. Wasn't perfect, but still great.

I was thinking it would maybe be a part of the sequel; Supes dealing with the fact he took someone's life.

Dealing with the fact that he took someone's life? The battle in Metropolis probably killed thousands. Every time you throw some one through a building in a major city you are going to kill some one. The emotional impact of killing Zod is completely impotent.

I would like to buy Zac Snyder a tripod

I thought the movie was really good,...however,by the end,i did seem to be getting bored of things being destroyed,LOL,its all that seemed to happen from start to finish

Good job there are a lot of buildings in Metropolis,right?

It was great, but I wish I'd gone for 2D instead. I actually had to leave the room for a few minutes because I felt ill.

I loved it, though I wish they had kept the carnage to a smaller scale - the amount if destruction made it hard to believe there would even be a city left.

For me, the breaking of Zod's neck worked: at that moment, it felt less the climax of the last half hour of action, more the last in the series of incidents where he took a breath and backed down when faced with bullies - the moment in the diner where the guy chucked food over his head after standing up for the waitress, when he crushed the steel bar as he was being picked on etc - finally he was pushed too far, and had no choice at all - I thought it was done brilliantly

The GOOD: The musical score; Clark and Lois; Cavill's amazing P90X superman physique; Russell Crowe; Kevin Costner; Shannon as Zod

The BAD: Sleepy CGI fights and massive destruction is like watching a boring video game; the marketing has more creative cinematographic elements than the actual movie; barely worth seeing on the big screen (and certainly not going back for second viewing)

The UGLY: DC publically taking bows before We The Fans have a chance to see and vote on the quality of the work. Could be embarrassing (*cough* rottentomatoes *cough*)

I did mention collateral damage in earlier comment so agree a bit but I suppose it did look as if at least most of the buildings seemed to be empty. Going from any book, film, comic etc I've read then people dying as a result of a person defending earth/country etc is not the same as said person killing somebody in cold blood. Or at least not if they are in the mould of Supes who wants to protect, save and redeem everyone

I really enjoyed the film but there was too much damn shaky cam which makes it a little bit of a headache in 3d

I liked it, though it was far from perfect. It told a really good origin story, the casting was spot on, but it had some very daft moments* as well, and some of the dialogue was atrocious.

Ultimately, the seriousness was okay, given the events in the film, though I do hope they don't make every single DC Cinimatic Universe film have this tone. Hopefully Snyder, Goyer and Co. will listen to both the fans and the critics, and not just their pocket books.

I have no particular issue with Superman killing Zod, afterall he's killed before in comics, but the particular scene was weak. If Superman had the leverage to break Zod's neck, he could have flown up, or put his hand over Zod's eyes, or any number of other things that made that particular moment not work.

*Especially Jonathan's death. Slight rewrite and the point of the scene would have been fine, but the fact that he ran out to save the dog of all things, which Clark easily could have done without revealing himself, was a moment of serious stupidity that undercut the drama of the scene.

Well written Mr. Williams.

Really enjoyed it the opening on Krypton was fantastic and really enjoyed the back story showing Clark growing up, once the action kicked in it was pretty relentless there must have been thousands killed in all the carnage. Will be interesting to see where the sequel goes Lex wont be as much of a physical challenge for Superman as Zod and his soldiers were.

Did anyone think the intelligence module things on krypton coupled with the tentacles on the earth terraforming machine and codec skull was setting up for brainiac?

I loved it. Yes there could have been more gags and yes, the action was a bit over the top at times but it didn't detract for me. I really liked the choice he had to make at the end between Krypton and Earth.

Most importantly, the character of Superman was fantastic. Cavill did not look at all out of his depth (which I was worried he might) and Goyer did a great job with backstory and character development.

It got a round of applause in the cinema I watched it at. I actually thought it was pretty powerful stuff. Can't wait for the sequel.

Overly long. Overly Complicated. Edited, seemingly, by a knobhead. Action sequences too loud and too fast.
I like Zod. I like how Zod is killed rather than just shoved down a hole like in Superman 2. I like Superman but not Clark Kent. Christopher Reeve owns the portrayal of CK as the polar opposite of his Alter-Ego.
Good film though. Third best in all, after the first two.

I bloody loved it!!! some real quality and fleshed out moments, as a father myself I really enjoyed one of the final scenes with Jonathan watching Clark play in the garden, and in that moment seeing for what he would become, the movie was full of moments like this and has brought a light to Superman on screen to a level not seen before.
Easily my favourite Superman film, easily my favorite film full stop, EPIC.

Yes you can pick holes but what film can't you?

2nd viewing at the cinema and blu ray? Yes please.

I thought it was great also. The 'human' scenes - like the one you mention with young Clark playing with the cape - were great. Powerful, even.

More than satisfactory adaptation of a familiar character and story which does succeed in breaking ground.I really liked how the discovery of Supermans' existence publicly was directly associated with extra terrestrial life, ,just good,basic storytelling.The film did mix spectacle,character stuff and action well but not as successfully as Avengers Assemble did.There were some blatant Marvelman references with Zod looking like Kid Marvelman and his execution.Lois was portrayed far better than in Superman Returns.

"YOU! THINK! YOU! CAN! THREATEN! MY! MOTHER!?" - the scene where most men on Earth can finally relate to Superman

A masterpiece of modern visual entertainment! I love how it was different to what has come before in so many ways, yet it still remained faithful to the characters, themes and ideas that is so ingrained in this story. I felt it was an excellent re-invention of the character for today's audience.

Sci-fi film-making on the grandest of scales. An onslaught on the senses!

I'm too out of touch with slang.

Does that mean good or bad these days?!

Did anyone else notice the sign 106 days without an accident... Dupes gets thrown into it at and the 1 & 6 falls off.

Just me???

Or did I imagine it??? :-/

That was the highlight of a slow, plodding movie. Be glad you didn't miss it.

Just saw the movie yesterday and I have to say that it was fantastic! The actors taken for the different roles are quite impressive. The serious theme of the movie was a good change and I def liked that. Thou I have a feeling that soon enough in the other parts of the movie, some comic element would be there. It did have its loopholes but nevertheless, it was a good to see movie! The action scenes were really good. Thou I also feel that a hell lot of destruction was caused! lol. I wonder how many buildings and people breathe their last!

Great film overall really. But I will never see a film in 3D again as my eyes were working so hard I never really relaxed and got absorbed and transported away like I did with the Nolan batman films

Film crit Hulk did an article on plotholes and their relevance in an engaging story recently. I suuest you check it out (make a cuppa, it's long. Think you'll enjoy it

Thanks for the carefully thought out critique.

Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner did a decent job but somehow i wasn't able to connect to the emotional element. Both of them combined couldn't create an impact of what say Michael Caine had with Alfred. Snyder rushed through the initial scenes so quickly that i wasn't able to absorb the essence of the character.

Wasn't very impressed with Amy Adams and Laurence Fishburne was completely wasted.

But despite all this i simply loved the movie. This is Superman as we never seen him before on screen. This is what everyone wanted in Superman movie-the people from Krypton beating the hell out of each other and everything around them. Action sequences such as these are rarely made in a superhero movies nowadays. That being said things did get a bit repetitive towards the end.

If Snyder had slowed down a bit and let the character of Clark Kent sink in before he had set him off flying, then we would had ourselves a masterpiece.

Another problem i have is that the trailers showed most of the conversations Crowe and Costner had with Supes. I knew the line was coming even before they said it.

Krypton looked like it was interestingly designed, but it was so badly filmed. As well as the shaky-cam and light constantly being shone into the camera, the colour palette was a uniformly smudgy teal & grey.
Henry Cavil didn't have a great deal to chew on, but I did think he made a better Clark/Super than Brandon Routh, but possibly only by dint of the fact that he wasn't asked to do a weak impersonation of Christopher Reeve. Cavil has something of a Michael Fassbender quality to him, unfortunately the script he's given here is of rancid quality ("On our planet this symbol means 'hope'" BLUUUGH!) (I did laugh at one point in this cripplingly humourless movie, and that was when Lois Lane yelled at her boss that she's a PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING JOURNALIST).
I'd say it fits right in alongside Battle: Los Angeles, Transformers 3, and Wrath of the Titans in modern mindless blockbusters that are relentlessly ugly, charmless, long and deafeningly loud. It's just no good at all.

Some of the dialogue was really bad, especially everything from General "RELEASE THE WORLD ENGINE" Zod - almost everything everyone said was explaining the plot, or what they were going to do, or what they had done... nothing felt natural at all. For a story so self-consciously epic to take itself that seriously, and to fall down that much on the character front, this was a big problem IMO.

I also thought Superman was a pretty blank character. Ok, they tried to flesh him out with some flashbacks to give depth to his outsider status, (although the scenes with his parents were rather cliched) but he discovers who he is and gets his suit about 10-20 minutes after the opening, so I don't think there was much time for us to invest in him as a character up until that point. After that, he's just flawless and stoic and, by turn, dull.

So, disappointing story and characters, with overblown but impressive visuals - just what you'd expect from Zack Snyder.

I wanted to love it, I thought it was awful. Awful.

It made Superman The Movie look like a pantomime!

Good stuff : Great cast, good plot, visually stunning and with some superb action sequences, it had a lot going for it

Bad stuff : I think Zack Snyder has a lot of potential as a director, but he really has to learn that less is more sometimes. He really doesn't allow his story time to breath, and the film has the feel of an overlong trailer. By the time Supes and Lois kiss at the end, it didn't feel like they'd had any time at all to build up some sort of rapport.

The film was too loud. Every scene either had explosions or ridiculously loud music on it. Don't know if it was just the cinema I went to, but it was really distracting for the first half an hour.

I'm quite a fan of shakycam, but it works best on the small screen. The larger the screen, the more distracting it is. I wish Hollywood would start toning it down for the Imax versions, because some scenes become unfollowable.

Overall, I'll give it 3/5. Lots to enjoy here, but doesn't have the charm of the Marvel films

If mallick and Bay had a lovechild this is what it would look like,

I liked it a lot, Superhero origin movies are always a bit of a chore, but as they go this is easily one of the best ones, dialog was a pretty generic Hollywood hack job, there was the superman sight gags and humour there but it was quite subtle(which makes it a good antidote to the marvel movies)

very strong supporting cast, acting heavy weights like crowe and Shannon hamming it up but still hitting all the right notes and not becoming cheesy.

For me id say as a superhero movie its in 2nd place behind the dark knight, but easily ahead of the dark knight rises
(edit!! I just remembered Spiderman 2, I'm not a big spidey fan so I'd keep man of steel in 2nd, spidey 2 in 3rd, but for spidey fans it will likely be the other way around).

I can understand how its going to be a total marmite movie, it will be to arty for Bay fans and too silly for some mallick fans(and Nolan/batman fanboys will be to blinded with bias to give it credit)

p.s. I didn't bother with 3d and I thought it looked great visually(although the shaky cam was a bit much at times, but that's something else)

id also say it stands up very well as a sci-fi movie alone, aswell as a superhero movie, id loved to have seen more on Krypton.

surely anybody with any sense can see right through rottentomatoes bs scoring system now.

Think it was on here or digital spy I read a comment from Warners' saying they wanted this to set the tone for an expansive DC set of films. A humourless Wonder Woman? She's got an invisible jet!

I agree with your comments too, this was a good film but style over substance and character isn't enough to warrant this epic/classic tag some folk are sticking on it. If the film was that engaging we wouldn't have had time to process glaring plot holes.

Can you provide a link for that Hulk article? Cheers.

Have to object at this film being mentioned in the same breath as the atrocious Battle: Los Angeles or Transformers. The character of Kal-El/Clark/Superman has never been written so well or with such depth as in Man Of Steel. Certainly not on screen at least.

The most relatable and human Superman I have came across without doubt.

There were a couple of LexCorp references so I'm fully expecting Luthor (and Krytonite) to show up in the sequel.

Can't believe you, DoG, gave it 3 stars!! Easily 4-4.5!!!

Really good film, kept me, my lovely wife and my 11 year old daughter rapt for 2.5 hours. Really didn't seem like a long film. Great to see Kev Costner on the big screen again, he really nailed the dad bits and his death (in the tornado) was very well done. Plenty to enjoy here, glad to see Wayne Industries logo on the satellite! I've been a bit worried about Zack Snyder after Sucker Punch and the owl film, here's evidence of a great director showing what he can do. Also props to the lady soldier (Zod's deputy), she was just right.

The last hour of this movie was completely vacuous, which is a real shame as the first half was really promising and deftly handled. The filmmakers decided to have a climax entirely comprising of a series of loud explosions, falling buildings and non stop cgi and lacking in any drama whatsoever. An example of gratuitously flaunting a big budget on the screen at the expense of a satisfying and engaging finale.

Dunno if this allows links so google 'hulk vs plot-hole and movie logic' - 2nd result

That is brilliant. Never thought of it like that

Didn't notice the satellite. Great spot!

Fantastic flic. Can't believe how many critics are giving it a thumbs-down. This is one of the best superhero flics of the last 20 years. On par with The Avengers and the Dark Knight. Check it out if you haven't yet.

Unbelievable... The first 10 minutes were more impressive than the whole of Avatar. The action was unbelievable, I also enjoyed the way they showed his childhood in flashbacks, rather than boring us with 20 mins of Clark growing up. Already one of my favourite films of all time!


Loved it, totally brilliant. It's what superman returns should of been. The cast are great, well suited to their roles as is Cavill who doesn't try to be like any previous superman, he just plays his own take on the character and the film is much better for it.

CGI was generally very good, a few cartoonish pieces (where Zod is swinging hiim around by his cloak) but nothing too jarring. I 'liked' the way Mr Kent died in this one, much more fitting ending than a heart attack but with the same feeling of Clark being unable to do anything to prevent it. Glad the dog was ok though, I kept willing someone to go back for the damn dog rather than save all the people lol.

The fight at the end was epic and loved the way the Kryptonian terraforming ships worked was very cool.

Definitely 9/10

Yep incredible film. The music was poignant in places while feeling like a power rising in others. I get what some fans are pissed about I suppose at the end but Cavil's performance totally sold it. The cast was incredibly with my favourite probably being Costner. He had so little screen time but created such an impact. Incredible character development with flashbacks that were really cleverly placed like memories Clark was having. I guess it had the tiniest bit too much action but it was so incredibly breath taking I didn't care and even at the end when I was thinking it was over and then Zod reappeared you just wanted him to throw a couple more punches. I also loved the little bondesque humour present throughout which was also present in Nolans batman films. 9/10 for sure. Plus, my dad grew up on the Christopher Reeve films and he described it as excellent. My father is an incredibly difficult man to please when it comes to films and we traveled an IMAX to see it so glad it was everything I hoped it would be.

Fantastic. I loved how well humanity actually handled themselves in the movie. They couldn't have done it without Supes and HE couldn't have done it without them. I liked that the "regular" people were more than just victims to be saved and/or jerks getting in the way of the hero. "This man is not our enemy" BOOM. Marvel movies are good but there is the difference between Marvel and DC. Even the Zod-thing at the end was substantively true to the character. In the Bryne run he also crossed that line when it seemed he had to. And afterwards he vowed to never do it again. That made the vow more real. Seeing the emotional impact on Supes after he did it in MoS has the same effect. If he vows to never do it again (and I can easily believe he would make such a vow) I will understand why. I'd love to see him back away from killing Luthor in the sequel because he just cannot bring himself to do that again.

it was painfully boring and the nonlinear story telling and jarring tonal shift destroyed any character development .

oh...and a side note. i found the "zoom in really tight" on his abs scene the most baffling directorial decision since the "batnipples" of batman and robin.

tood bad the rest of the dialogue wasnt as impactful

All I can say is that I was so looking forward to watching this, but was immensely disappointed with everything after the first hour. There's only so many times you can see a city being destroyed or CGI images of people being thrown through buildings in small town America. I'm thinking tis has been done so many times before, see Avengers, Thor, Transformers etc.
The whole Phantom Zone prison idea thing was a totally pointless exercise. If they knew Krytons destruction would release Zod and his crowd, why send them there? The editing was too quick and it was like watching a massive computer game for large parts.
Iron Man 3 has been the best Summer blockbuster by far, then Star Trek. Man of Steel will slip down the ratings into instantly forgettable.

I enjoyed it as a movie, it kept my attention throughout, Henry Caville was a good Supes, Zod worked for me, the neck break was Ok, it had some great moments.

I missed the original music alot. If, at the end, when clark smiled, the drums had just gone "dum dee dum" I would have cried a little, instead of the forgettable piano thing coming in and taking away a little of the magic.

I thought the plot seemed to jump to a lot of annoying conclusions. For example, Lois says "I know how to do it, the ship has phantom engines" and Neelix, the scientist who knows nothing about Krypton tech at all, replies "Oh of course, the other ship has them too, crash them together to form a black hole and suck them all away".... er what? How did you leap to that? And if you know that somehow, why aren't you thinking "A blackhole? Above metropolis? Wont that be bad?"
And when the key wont go in, Neelix, based on no evidence at all goes "Oh, wait, give it a twist, that will sort it" like some sort of Intergalactic Kwik-Fix mechanic.

And why did no one at any point go "What the hell? He can fly?!!". They all seemed pretty used to the idea from the off despite no one ever seeing anything like this before.

I don't know - I did enjoy it, but I didn't come out thinking "I must see that again". When I saw Superman Returns I just had to go back in and see it again when the credits rolled. I had to buy it on HD as soon as it came out. I don't get that feeling from this one, which is a shame.

I saw it as well, I did have an inward chuckle at that!

I have given up on 3D, I watched ST: Into Darkness in 2D and it was great, I then watched it in 3D and the SFX looked worse not better, given the choice no more 3D for me.

Loved the film, didn't mind lois u til the end battle scenes where she just has to turn up at the moment zod gets finished and she can cuddle superman. Frustrates when people in films don't sense danger and just stand there. Morpheus was a prime example.

Don't really consider making Superman relatable an appropriate approach consistent with the characters' conception.He is an alien from another planet with abilities that will always separate him from the humans he lives amongst.Superman should be an aspirational character.It's a regular misconception that Superman should be relatable devised by John Byrne when he rebooted the character in the comics.You can't pretend an alien living on an adopted planet is Peter Parker.Superman can be popular without being relatable and should be.

I would say there has not been a successful movie ever made which has not had a main character the audience relates to. Superman is no different - in the previous movies the audience clearly relates to Christopher Reeve's bumbling Clark Kent.

Whether Superman is human or not is irrelevant. For a story to work at its best, the audience must empathise with, sympathise with and root for the main character.

Since we are talking about a man who Jor-El says is "a god" to us, this was Goyer and Cavill's biggest challenge. I thought they did a brilliant job in humanising the problems Clark faces, especially as a young boy.

Never thought of that. I still think Lex for the 2nd one, and probably Brainiac for the 3rd

If bullets and knifes cant hurt Superman. How does he shave his beard?

I listened to the Mark Kermode review on Friday, he was pretty posative until the last 40 minutes or so when it went batshit crazy and almost completely destroyed the entire city and I feel much the same, up to the point when the teraforming machine was launched i was loving the film, it absolutely flew by but then it got progressively more OTT it lost a little bit of quality.

Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get.

Critics are so wrong about this movie. I had a blast. Still some minor flaws, but who cares? 8/10.

A move of scenes and moments rather than a cohesive narrative. Costner and Crowe carried it for me; Cavill played his part note-perfect but the script left his character(s) wanting.

It's also the first movie I've seen that was far, far too noisy. Never noticed it as an issue before but the Smallville battle was an unbearable mess of sound. It was also incredibly dull, as was most of the Metropolis battle (and it was named, on an army operations monitor).

he uses his heat vision and basically bounces it off a mirror, burning off his facial hair

now if only they could make a Dragonball z movie like this!

I believe there was a Superman comic where we saw him doing this, using a special concave mirror made out of some high temperature resistant material. So the follow up question has to be "how does he cut his hair?" He can't use the same approach, since he doesn't want to look like Lex Luthor, and even if he was careful he wouldn't be able to get the bit at the back without 2 of the above mirrors. I always had this image of Ma Kent going after him with a chainsaw or something leatherface style, which might explain why he has to use so much gel to keep it from sticking up all over the place.


Wow really? If there was 1 single moment in the movie that summed up the downside (there are many upsides but I saw this downside coming a mile off) to having Nolan have such a big contribution to this movie it was what Superman did to Zod. He was so successful with Batman I just knew that people would be pressuring him to do the same with Superman, even if that is not what his preference would have been. Problem is Batman and Superman are so fundamentally different in their approaches to the same goal that this was a big mistake.

There is no way, NO WAY that Superman would have killed Zod, no matter the provocation, no matter the reason, no matter the cost. Nor would he have let that family die of course, in fact the proper approach would have been for him to release Zod, rescue the family and then return to him. Now I know what you are thinking, "that would have been stupid, Zod would have escaped and put even more people at risk and could have kept doing this ad infinitum". This is true, and consequently is the biggest weakness of the superhero over the supervillain. Nevertheless, Superman is someone who cannot take a life, no matter what. Ever. Let me tell you why:

Superman is going to live a long time. A looong time. Some stories have him pretty much immortal (one has him living for millions of years) while others have him with a little bit of grey on his temples about 50 or 60 years after he first showed up in Metropolis. And on an almost daily basis he is going to be facing impossible decisions, fighting foes who are immensly powerful and who are perfectly willing to kill innocent people to achieve their goals. If Superman kills Zod today, then in a year or so he is going to find himself in an almost identical situation, and the decision to resolve it the same way is going to be slightly easier. And the time after that, easier still. Do you see where I'm going with this? Fast forward to 300 years time and Superman has become so used to using death as a solution to problems (as Stalin might have said) while at the same time the passage of years puts him farther and farther away from the lessons he learnt in Smallville that helped him develop such a strong moral compass. And Superman is an Earthbound God, the most powerful man on our planet and possibly the galaxy. That would not be a Superman that we would feel safe around.

In one story Superman becomes so disenchanted with mankinds inability to live in peace with itself and look after other humans rather than exploit them, that he basically seizes control of all of the worlds governments and installs himself as absolute ruler. And while he saves millions more lives than he takes, he is still viewed as a tyrant and a dictator. Superman is like an addict. He cannot let himself slip, ever, for any reason no matter how good, Because ultimately, all that is stopping him from becoming a monster is the only person that is strong enough to stop him. Him.

having said all of that, it did look pretty cool when he snapped his neck. there was like a shockwave and everything.

you do know superman doesnt have the same "code" as Batman and has killed on numerous occasions.

I believe that is because the council, as in the original films, didn't believe or want to believe Jor-El was right about the destruction of the planet. They foiled the coup, threw Zod in jail, and then as the planet blew up around them probably thought. ahhhh, Jor-El was right. Fu......... Also, at that point Jor-El was dead, and couldn't tell them that they were being dumb.

I thought it was a fantastic film. It didn't feel like 2.5 hrs.

Also, the acting was brilliant. I have kids, and the scenes at the start where Jor-El and Lara-El are saying good bye to the baby brought a tear to my eye, and a lump in my throat. Very moving. Later, the scene where Clark says to Jonathan "can't I just keep pretending I am your son" and Jonathans response "You are my son" that was brilliant, emotional acting. Again, lump in my throat and I could relate to my son (not that he's super human).

I didn't mind the Zod neck snap. The emotion again proved he didn't want to do it, but had no choice. He now has to live with the consequences, which is what Jonathan was telling him in most of the flash backs.

I did hope that the method Supes used to defeat Zod was related to his 33 years on earth, and his conscience. However, it was just a big punch up.

Also, I liked the supes theme music. It has stuck in my head since viewing. I also loved the sound effect of the planet machine. That relentless, whoooom smash, whoooom smash was tense.

All in all, a brilliant film, I hope it makes the money it deserves, and I look forward to the next installment.

I guess you must not have seen the talk with Clark and his dad when he revealed his son's heritage.

yeah too bad that a perfectly emotional scene was ruined by unnecessary shaky cam AND that the ENTIRETY of the dialogue was already shown in the trailers.

I liked it. But I didn't love it. Seemed like there was an hour straight of them just pushing each other through buildings. It felt repetitive and tired quickly to me. When he snapped Zod's neck I was wondering why he didn't do that an hour earlier. It seemed pretty easy.

It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty good. One thing I'd like to see in the sequel is Superman doing some regular crime-stopping before he tackles any super-villains, e.g. foil a bank robbery, save an old lady from being mugged, rescue an obnoxious kid at Niagra Falls ;) -- all with a dash of comic relief, before the serious stuff starts. I kinda wished they had some of that in Man of Steel. Although his handiwork with the diner douchebag's lorry made me chuckle...

Who? When? Why?

Cavil was a great Clark/Superman and Fishburne played Perry well but Costner was fantastic as Jonathan Kent.

That said I preferred the 70s version of events surrounding how, despite his powers, Clark could not save his father.

As for the director - preferred Watchmen to this. Started to get motion sickness from all the jerky hand-cam angles.

Spectacular as it was, the last 45 minutes was just a constant barage of super-people smacking other super-people about making buildings fall down or blow up with little regard for the people inside them. Had enough of that in 2012 and Transformers: Dark Of The Moon.

The battle of wits between Zod and Kal-El in the last half hour of Superman II made for more engaging watching.

Overall I think DoG's three star review is bang on the money. It was OK, and I enjoyed it, but it was not amazing.

Avengers Assemble was, and still is, for me, the benchmark for large scale superhero destruction mixing thrills, pathos, humour and good old fashioned derring-do perfectly.

Awful camerawork, the cameraman needs to get off caffeine and keep that camera steady, that out of focus zoom effect was over-used and unnecessary, 30 minutes too long, swathes of pointless destruction. Watch superman2 instead, far better.

here here!

I saw it Friday on release. A bit of action fatigue towards the end but all in all, a superb movie and an exciting opener to a potential JL cinema universe. Superman punching enemies thru sky scrapers? OH YES!

And of course the dilemma of Superman: The Movie was much more compelling than MoS.

a) How many buildings can I punch this invincible fellow through until he stops punching me through buildings?
b) How can I stop two nuclear weapons going off simultaneously at opposite ends of the country?

I know which kept me more on the edge of my seat on first viewing.

The last, video game-like, 40 minutes of Man Of Steel made Superman: The Movie look like a movie.

You do know that Hamilton, the military scientist, was played by Richard Schiff, best known as Toby from The West Wing and NOT Ethan Phillips, who played Neelix? Right?

It's an ancient Kryptonian word, meaning "to smell or taste of lower-hanging fruit".

I tend to agreee with the comments that the fight scenes went on too long. One with Zod, one with the lady and big guy. One with the machine then a final one with Zod. Were they all necessary? Also, Superman didn't seem overly concerned with skyscraper being smashed apart. Was everyone evacutated by this point? They certainly left it late at the Daily Planet! Also Superman didn't seem to use any cleverness to defeat Zod just apparently better at fighting. This is depite Zod pointing out that he was raised on a farm and Zod trained from birth.
Despite this I did like the film, esp Krypton and flashbacks to his younger days. I thought Kal/Clark did get fleshed out well. Also don't see what the gripes were with Lois? She had quite a bit to do and quite enjoyed the escape scene with Jor-El. Maybe a cut of the film with the fight scenes reduced would make it a more enjoyable film - and yes with less shakey cam!

Some really nice touches and a very solid, watchable first hour, but ultimately mediocre. A three-star movie if ever there was one.

By far the biggest problem with the film is the utter lack of any discernable characters. I like to use the 'Plinkett test' from the RLM Star Wars reviews - describe each character in the film without saying what they look like or their occupation. Hard isn't it? That's because the characters in Man of Steel are all bland, one-dimensional cardboard cutouts.

This is compounded by an almost complete absence of warmth and humour in the film - the relationship between Lois and Clark has no real grounding or basis in the story, or any real chemistry or romantic spark. They are attractive people who are a couple in the comics, ergo; they fancy each other. It's just not good enough for one of the most famous screen couples of all time.

The other major problem is action fatigue - one noisy, cluttered sequence of explosions after another. It just get numbing, and really boring, very quickly and the effects are so cg-heavy that they ultimately never look remotely convincing or have any sense of heft or scale. Lots of fakey rubber-man cg Superman shots too.

Also, the overly-complicated plot starts out well but then quickly collapses in on itself towards the end of the film - what a load of muddled, inconsistent gibberish.

I think quite a lot of people are getting a bit carried away here, and I think when the hype dies down and the faults become more apparent a lot of the shine will come off. To sum up - some great bits, some very nice visuals and a first-rate cast let down by very poor characterisation, convoluted, nonsensical plot, and an excess of explosions and overlong, tedious action scenes. Would have been an infinitely stronger film if they had been forced to make it on 1/3 of the budget and a much tighter running time.

Still makes no sense - surely there was time to leave the planet - they were a space-faring race were they not? I mean, Zod was able to basically build a ftl ship out of scraps.... Makes no sense!

Imo, they should have taken a leaf out of the 1978 film's book and kept the Krypton stuff relatively abstract and vague - it's a pretty goofy concept so best not to draw the audiences attention to it so much.


Nope - I saw it too - shame it was a blink and you'll miss it moment - in the old days it would have had a second or two more focus to get an audience laugh - of which there were very few (apart from one weird guy sat a few rows back who heartily guffawed at just about every action any character took - funny or not).

I can actually hear Toby Ziegler saying that comment, with his trademark rising volume until he's shouting the word "Right?". :)

Wasn't deliberate, but, in retrospect, reading it back to myself in that voice (in my head, mind. My colleagues would think me a touch odd if it was out loud), you are, of course, correct!

Pretty, but soulless. However the score if very much worth listening to.

No, obviously I didnt know! But then I don't feel so bad as at least two other people near me in the cinema also whispered "Ooh look Neelix!" (although one said Felix, so might have been thinking of yet another person :P )

Anyway, thanks, edited :)

He was grown up straight away, then had three rather predictable flashbacks and 15 minutes later he was having who he was explained to him!

the flashbacks were worked in nicely right up to the end of the film, its better than sitting through 10 seasons of a tv show waiting for him to suit up!

There was a Lexcorp logo on some vans that got smashed too... A set up for a wider universe? Justice League?

I just wondered if there was another reason you were refering to him as Neelix - some kind of joke I hadn't been included in on

Yeah there was Lexcorp on the side of the petrol truck that Zod rolled at superman but he flew in between the two tankers. I'm surprised most people missed the obvious placement.

Going by a lot of the comments here, a lot of people need to watch this film again. It seems a lot of plot points have been mis/not understood.

Much as I liked Man of Steel, it was a bit too dark I think. It needed some
humor and levity from Henry Cavill to make him more likeable, and it was
missing the classic John Williams score. Honestly, I don't even
remember the music right now.

I don't remember any of the Movie's music...I don't know why, but it just didn't resonate at all with me. Plus, Henry Cavill came across as a great superman, but it was missing that trademark smile of Christopher Reeve...a bit of humor would have gone a long way in making him seem more likeable.

I guess, seemed like it was trying too hard to be like Nolan's Batman. I
didn't say it was a bad flick, just it didn't resonate with me. It was def a pretty flick, the fights were awesome, and the CGI was cool, Lois Lane was done well, even liked the new Perry White. There were alot of bits that were good. Faora was cool.
But it needed just a bit more character I think for Supes and Lois...when they kissed at the end, I was like...umm...why? Him and Lois were missing some believable warmth.

I didn't mind the Zod scene though at the end. Supes really came off believable on that one. Good acting there, by Henry Cavill....although when you think of it, the destruction from the fight must have killed literally thousands of people. Holy crap, alotta people musta died in the end.

I specifically didn't watch any of the trailers for this other than the teaser when it came out. Best decision I think.. I still believe that TDKN was ruined a bit because i saw the plane sequence and the football field before hand.

First half - great.

Last half - like watching someone else play a beat-em-up on a console.

Where's the battle of wits between Superman and Zod's forces?

It was just punch, smash, building fall over, punch, smash, building fall over, punch, smash, building fall over, punch, smash, building fall over, punch, smash, break Zod's neck.

Well put.

Yeah. At least a SteadiCam. For a minute I thought I was watching Cloverfield.

Yeah. SUPER loud. And I agree with your Cavill statement: he nailed what he was given to work with, but he wasn't given enough. It was more like he was a character in a Zack Snyder movie, rather than Zack Snyder making a movie about a character.

Still, for me, the movie was awesome. The fight sequences were as realistic as I imagined a Superman fight sequence would be.

It was great except for the lady who had her crying baby with her in the theatre. Who does that?

She also wore pink spandex pants. Who does that?

i just saw it today and thought it was epic, iam slightly biased as an avid superman fan but it was genuinely a good film, my only gripe like stated in a review i read before hand is that one to many skyscrapers get demolished after the first 4-5 it gets kind of tiring but its only a minor gripe its not as annoying as say A Good Day To Die Hard where John Mclain's overuse of the word jesus (i assume due to the cut to the 12a rating) i mean its like every other word is JESUS!!!! but anyway i loved Man of Steel

This is the first super hero movie I've said this about since Wolverine Origins but that was truly awful. While I really enjoyed the action sequences there wasn't much else to recommend. The pacing was the most annoying part for me, he went so quickly from wandering loner to Superman complete with costume it was ludicrous. Jonathan's death seemed completely pointless (Clark could easily have saved the dog without a hint of powers, it would have been better for him to die of something Clark couldn't stop like heart failure). There were a few other annoyances too (who says f-ing?!) but that's enough of a rant.

I did like Jor-el and the Kents, best characters by a long, long way.

He killed Doomsday ..he also Killed Metello pre crisis superman has Killed before he will Kill when the stakes are high enough Doomsday was about destroy the world if let unstopped and Metello was pre crisis where superman was quite the physchopath some times

I absolutely agree with you, except on the first hour bit. I felt it dragged and the decision to tell the Smallville back story using a series of flashbacks killed any emotional build up. When Pa Kent died I just didn't care as I felt we didn't get to know him well enough which is a shame because Clarks time in Smallville and with Jonathan is what makes him the compassionate man he becomes.


and what is there to see? 9 out of 10 times I agree with the final ratings on RT. This so far has 55% and after seeing the film last night I'd say that would be about right.

Yes, the way they chose to tell the story was problematic. I'm no Superman fan - nor do I expect everything to be exactly like the Donner movies - but I felt like the character of Pa Kent was really badly portrayed. He seriously thinks Clark should have let all those kids die? Really? His death scene was stupid - did they really need to have a gigantic fake cgi hurricane? Then again, subtley was never Snyder's strong point. The film really needed a lot more quiet moments to contrast with all the noise and spectacle.

I also think it was a huge mistake to frontload the enormously overlong (20min+) Krypton stuff at the start of the film. It wasn't terrible, but is was pointless (and was all recapped at least once more - in detail - during the film anyway), and came with it's own problems. Superman's origin was always kind of silly and to show it in so much detail just makes you question it. They should have kept it more ambiguous and abstract like the original movies, then you don't question the logic of it and just accept it. It honestly felt like it was added in as an afterthought so they could open with a visual effects assault, and perhaps to pacify Russell Crowe's ego by giving him more screen time. Overall, the plot was so much more complicated than it needed to be - it felt like two films worth of plot squeezed into one.

Would have been far bolder to start the movie with the fishing stuff. Jumping around with the non-linear flashabcks really didn't help either. It felt like they were trying to be arty, but imo it all would have worked a lot better if it had unravelled in chronological order.

I loved it. I loved it so much I was stood in the car park for 20 minutes after chatting with my mates and jogging on the spot because I was so excited I didn't know what to do with myself.
I loved everything about it and I don't even LIKE Zach Snyder films!
It's the most fun I've had in the cinema since I don't know when.
Also I would like to be Lois Lane when I grow up.

Disappointing. Felt there was a great film in there - but it shared the screen with a crap slow boring film. Much like his "director's cut" of Watchmen, it lacked any subtlety and finesse. It tried to explain every possible aspect of the back story in minute detail.

30 minutes on Vulcan (sorry, i mean Krypton) might as well have been Avatar dyed red - it was unnecessary and should have been swiftly told in flash-backs.. Every other aspect of his boring life SHOULD NOT have been told in flash-backs.. the pace of the film was jarring.. every time stuff started happening we had weird emo-kid flashbacks where NOTHING happened.

Cut an hour out of Man of Steel and you are left with another Batman Begins. As it is however, i think it's probably closer to another Amazing Spider-man.

All that said, i think the reboot was successful and with a slightly more deft director, i look forward to the sequels.

I love how by the standards of modern blockbusters, things like poorly written characters and bad, illogical narratives are mere 'minor flaws'.

I don't know how anyone could sit through it a second time. It's so tedious by the end.

hard to avoid the trailers when Nokia showed one BEFORE THE FILM! Grrr.

well I prefer to go of the audience rating instead of the biased old hack brigades average rating.

The audience rating is boosted up by fan boys who spend all night putting in several reviews under different names. It's flawed. For example, number of audience ratings on MOS is 81,641 compared to just 237 professional reviews. Of course that score is going to be higher.

Yeah that was a a right pain. I closed my eyes for it!

fair doos then,

but personaly I try to avoid even looking at reviews until ive actually seen the film for myself and judged it on simply how much I enjoyed it,
do you remember the days when the only thing you knew about a new or upcoming film was a short trailer(before the start of a film at the cinema or a vhs rental), you could really be surprised all the way through a movie back then.

I simply never agree with rotten tomatoes scores, maybe its just my personal taste but they always seem off to me(sometimes way off), some of the films they have scored in the 90s are a joke.

the only disappointing thing about MOS for me was that it could have been great(as apposed to just good) if it had a stronger director instead of zack Snyder, it was full of great scenes but needed a better, more disipined director to edit & tie them all together in post production, it also seemed like the studios had a bit to much to say in things as well(to keep the age rating down, id imagine)

Yeah - I stay away from reviews myself. I went in Man of Steel completely cold. I'd just heard off a couple of friends it was cool. The recurring negative points in most reviews are the same issues I had - poor two dimensional characterizations, no emotional build ups, over long dull cg fights and a poor script. For me it just had no soul. Pretty much like the Star Wars prequels. It looked fantastic and some set pieces were great (I loved the Smallville 'Sears' scrap) but as a whole it felt lifeless and I didn't care for any character. I do wonder what film we would have got if Aronofsky would have got the gig.

i wouldn't bother going to see it, really! it has stuff going for it but... and i was looking forward to it too. misses a few movie beats by a country mile, unfortunately

I thought everything was there to make a fantastic Superman movie for the 2010s. But it was marred a bit by editing problems. The first hour should have been shown chronologically. Clark's upbringing and the death of his father had no impact. I felt cold and detached because we were having his motivations and experiences revealed to us, rather than experiencing them with him.
And much of the action could have been toned down or edited away. The destruction in every big battle scene was way too excessive. So much so that it killed any impact or tension. The action I appreciated most was the very end where he snaps Zod's neck. I thought that was well-done and, rather than infringing the 'Superman doesn't kill' rule, it could be observed as the traumatic end of his origin and the very inception of that rule as he decides not to resort to killing ever again.
That said, with a few editorial tweaks (which just might pop up on the internet, come the Blu Ray release) this could have been perfect. The acting was fantastic and the direction, while certainly not perfect, was distinctive and fresh. So of the dialogue was a little speechy and stilted, but it was generally beautifully executed and written.
I just think that Superman, love him or hate him, is THE superhero - the original. Snyder should not have aimed for any Nolan-y quirks like shaky-cam or a non-linear plot. Superman should be sturdy and central. Edit those unnecessary quirks out and this could be an excellent, relevant, very modern version of the Man of Steel. I'd say 3 out of 5 is a fair score.


The whole 'not killing' trope was why most kids abandoned DC comics in the 80s and went to Marvel....and this is precisely why Frank Miller's Batman brought them back...it is a world of grey and sometimes super heroes do bad things for good reasons which make them interesting and human....

Read More About:

Sponsored Links