A Super Disappointment? - My Man of Steel Review (Spoilers)

Since Man of Steel has been released for a while I figure I can discuss spoilers in this review on a comic book site where most people will probably have seen the movie before me. However, if you haven’t seen the movie yet, then don’t go further than this paragraph to avoid spoilers. Anyway, I finally got around to seeing Man of Steel yesterday as a post exam treat. And what did this Superman fan think of it? The title indicates it but I’ll let my review speak for myself.

Firstly, I suppose I should go over what I did like about this film. Overall, Man of Steel possesses a very strong cast who deliver spectacularly on their roles. Russell Crowe turned his role of Jor-El from a glorified cameo that Marlon Brando made it in the first Superman films into an awesome badass father for Superman. Given his past roles in action films, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Crowe’s Jor-El is a bit more active. Yet Crowe imbues Jor-El with a natural authority that particularly comes across in the early scenes of the film when talking to the Council and confronting Zod. He also serves as a strong guiding force for Superman when they finally meet and you can see the impact Jor-El will have on Clark becoming Superman being as strong an influence as Jonathan Kent. Speaking of Jonathan Kent, the other Robin Hood of a Dad for Superman, Kevin Costner, is an excellent source of moral wisdom for Clark in the flashback sequences. He displays Jonathan Kent’s moral intuition on solving moral problems very well which shows how his influence on Clark guided him into becoming the man he was capable of being. And I thought that how he died was quite a poignant event in Clark’s life. Diane Lane also plays a fantastic Martha Kent, filled with the love and care of any great mother whilst also making it clear that it was not just Jonathan Kent who played a prominent role in shaping Clark Kent.

Furthermore, the main villains of this piece are very much the sinister pair. Michael Shannon makes a brilliant megalomaniac out of Zod whose intentions are understandable. He was born to protect the people of Krypton and even throughout all his violent, despicable crimes committed in the film, he is trying to ensure his people’s survival the whole time. And when that’s taken away from him, Shannon plays up Zod’s loss in spectacular fashion in that last fight. But the real surprise star is Antje Traue’s Faora. It’s not a long performance by any means but Faora gets an awesome mean streak along with some ominous lines delivered excellently by Traue. Plus Fishbourne plays the no nonsense yet also has a heart Perry White well enough.

You’ll notice I haven’t talked about Henry Cavill as Superman yet. Well, to his credit, he is much better suited to the role of Superman than Christian Bale ever was to the role of Batman. Cavill does the best he can out of a limited script. For instance, When he talks to the authorities, or anyone for that matter, it has the perfect blend of respect, directness and control. That’s a good product of the modern version of Superman. Still, Cavill's Supes is a lonelier, darker character than previous installments, but that is a product of the script, not the actor. I will discuss that more later.

Next, I’ll move onto the story itself. Was it good? Well it was decent enough to follow. It played out in much the same way a Superman origin story would be played out but there were some interesting additions. I liked the inclusion of the Bryne/Post Crisis notion of a Krypton that had expanded into the universe before becoming xenophobic and committing to birth control. Kal-El’s birth was what broke the mould and made him unique in being able to forge his own destiny. That was played up well in the film via Crowe’s quote “What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society intended?” Also the flashbacks were the highlight of the film for me as they really looked at what Clark had to go through when he was younger and the differences he possessed were a real fear to young Clark. Credit has to go to the young actor who played him for pulling that off very well. And I enjoyed the Birthright influence of Clark travelling the world as a mysterious figure taking remote jobs and saving lives without many knowing who he really was. Meeting Jor-El was pretty well handled as well. The first two thirds or so of the film do progress well in terms of story flow. It’s the final third where things get difficult.

As Snyder is directing the film, I had no doubt there would be over the top epic visual effects and I was not disappointed. Snyder really upped the game in what we can do visually in a film. Krypton was filled with gorgeous wildlife, epic aerial battles and a harrowingly looking planetary explosion. Superman’s first flight was a real treat and I liked how Snyder made him practice first before giving us the epic scene of Superman properly lifting off that had me grinning the entire time. Superman’s flight has never looked so good. And what an action packed feast it was! From Jor-El and Zod’s confrontation on Krypton to Superman’s fight with Faora and Non to Superman vs Zod, Snyder pulled off the look and feel of these fights very well. The punches looked authentic and it was practically how I imagined a bunch of godlike aliens would fight. Tearing up streets, buildings and anything in their way made for spectacular visual effects. Although they bring their own problems to the table, Nolan and Goyer do act as good steadying influence on Snyder so he doesn’t make his past mistakes.

However, as you may have noticed by the title, these positives are going to be weighed down by some crippling flaws. Let me begin with the least of these. There are 3 actresses whose roles I didn’t like. Aylet Zurer played a forgettable Lara in all honesty. Her role was inconsequential and not done well. Also Jenny Olsen was literally the most pointless character I have ever seen in a film. Nothing new was brought to the table with a female actress replacing the male Jimmy Olsen. A male actor could have played the same role and could have done just as good a job as the female actress. Finally, although I love Amy Adams in The Fighter, she played a Lois that was wet behind the ears. She seemed quite moralistic which played into the film’s theme of how Superman is shaped by those around him. But she didn’t have the spunk or defining edge that other actresses such as Margot Kidder or Teri Hatcher brought to the role in the past.

Secondly, I really don’t like the tone of Nolan’s films. Especially not what he does with my two favourite comic book characters. His way of filmmaking is highly overrated if you ask me. By trying to make Superman into a truly believable character that could exist in our world, he mutes the actual believable nature of Superman. That is, Nolan’s tone clashes with the very notion of Superman as a bright ideal of the best humanity can possibly be. Nolan tries to bring this about in the film but it is executed in a way that makes the film cold and hollow. This coldness also comes from the added sci fi tone of the film injected into it. It severely lacks the heart and substance of what makes Superman the character he is. There isn’t any lightness or friendliness to this Superman. Nor is there a gentility or friendliness to the character that the first two Superman films captured in an abundance. Nolan seems to ignore the sincerity of the values that Superman stands for. Instead, he opts for a bleak, morally ambiguous introspective look at Superman. And Superman is not about moral ambiguity but moral certainty. He has been raised by the Kents who instilled within him one of the strongest ethical compasses seen in a fictional character. He does not worry what the right thing to do is because he unquestionably knows how to act on it. He can face opposition and doubts, that’s not what I’m objecting to. What I am objecting to is that Superman can’t seem to grasp what the right thing to do is when the essence of his character is about doing the right thing.

Furthermore, the story doesn’t lend itself to the film. Despite the first two thirds being the better part, it still jumps around from flashback to present back to a flashaback etc. It really bemused me that Goyer was unable to keep a steady flow or focus on the story, instead opting for a confusing jump around. I would have liked to seen a more concise structure to the story that kept the viewers engaged and focused on events rather than moving backwards and forwards to different parts of the story. What’s more, the story’s structure is very poorly paced. We have exposition, origin and character introductions in the first part of the film. Then, in the last part, we have the action packed invasion of the Phantom Zone escapees. It’s poorly paced and doesn’t move as succinctly as it should do. I would have preferred it if the action sequences weren’t left until the last minute so that the last part of the film didn’t feel as shallow as it did. And the themes were not subtly placed at all. Take the ridiculous religious imagery for example. Clark goes to see a reverend (who according to the Easter Egg details on a website was Father Leone from For Tomorrow. Nice.) and is positioned right behind a stained window of Jesus. It just seems detrimental to Superman to even think of linking him to any religious doctrine. Yes I know Superman was created by two Jewish teenagers and that the parallels between the biblical story of Moses is evident but Superman has outgrown that now. He represents the best of humanity, the ideal human nature that we should all strive towards. He should not be bogged down in stupid Jesus comparisons. And I am really not a fan of how seemingly everyone knows who Superman is. Lois, Father Leone, hell he even says he’s from Kansas to General Swanwick! Talk about giving away personal information. He may as well discard the Clark Kent disguise since everyone knows who he is. As Lois now knows who Clark is, it removes the relationship present in the earlier comics that made the pairing of Lois and Clark so charming in their trying to one up each other along with the suspicion surrounding Clark. Now that can’t come into play which is a real shame.

Finally, this film’s greatest sin is not understanding the core of Superman’s character. As I said earlier, Nolan’s tone along with the sci fi feel of the film makes Superman’s character cold, hollow and kind of hopeless. To use the words of my mother after seeing the film, Superman comes across as nothing more than a glorified super soldier. There is no sense of him being the protector of humanity when his battles with the Kryptonians destroy more buildings and probably (if we’re being realistic as Nolan likes to be) killed far more people than he saved. Seriously, Metropolis is a blooming wreck after Superman and Zod fought in it. What exactly is Superman the protector of now, a construction site? Also I didn’t get the sincerity of Superman’s values in this film nor a friendliness or being able to approach this character. I wanted to be inspired, I wanted to root for my all time favourite superhero on this big screen appearance of his. But I couldn’t. I just couldn’t. There was hardly anything of my all time favourite fictional character on there. Especially not after THAT SCENE. Let me tell you what I was thinking beforehand. As Superman had Zod in a choke hold and Zod’s heat vision was edging ever closer towards the family, I was thinking “This’ll be where he shows us that there’s always another way to solve our problems, a better way that we can aspire to. He wouldn’t break...” And then I heard Zod’s neck snap. I almost shouted “No!” in the theatre and a few of the people sitting next to me gave me funny looks which prompted in a short snap from my mother not to be so dramatic. But that was when my heart broke. This is going to cause some major disagreement when you read this but Superman does not kill. Not even as a last resort. I’m sorry but that is not the character is at all about. At the core of his character, Superman’s greatest strength and most appealing characteristic is his ethical compass. It is one built on his upbringing by the Kents as salt of the earth people who raised their child to be as special and as principled as they could. This was so when he grew up, he could shoulder the weight of the world on his shoulders. That ethical compass never came across in Man of Steel and if you don’t get Superman’s ethical compass right, you don’t get the right Superman film. At all. And for those who say that was the only way he could stop Zod, what about throwing him away, punching him, kicking him, flying high up into the sky? Those are 3 things off the top of my head and I’m hardly a good writer. Goyer had a duty to write Superman better than this and if it wasn’t him who ordered Superman’s killing of Zod, then whoever did has earned my ire at destroying the essence of what makes Superman who he is. And for those of you who cite the times Superman has killed in the comics, I’ll debunk those in the comments.

Overall, I was tempted to give this a a lower score and do away with the DC Cinematic Universe. When I came out of the cinema, I was disappointed, despondent and incredibly frustrated. Tell me something, is that how you’re supposed to feel coming out of a Superman film? Frankly, I’d be surprised if the answer was yes. But that be fair to the strengths of the film. It’s just that I came in with high expectations. The trailers lulled me into thinking this would be an epic film. And I was sorely let down as a Superman fan. This character means the world to me and I don’t entirely like this interpretation of him. It’s a decent film though but it’s far from a good film, let alone a great or phenomenal film. Whilst there is potential for improvement, the flaws in this film are crippling and it would be a tough job to fix them so that I would be more pleased with the sequel.

Final Score: 6/10 (originally a 7/10)

272 Comments
274 Comments
Posted by Lvenger

Thanks for reading through this if you have. I appreciate it greatly. Feel free to comment below and tell me whether you think I'm being uncharitable and have got something wrong or whether I'm justified in holding the view I do.

Posted by confirukia

Well... for one i think the Man of steel is nicely made,it also had alot of emotion.I kinda like the ending because if it did came down to it superman would kill zod to save all those civilians.But you do have a point.....

soo i think you have to bump up you rate from a 7/10 to 8/10

Posted by TheAcidSkull

brilliant Review man, i do disagree on some points but just to put it out there NOLAN was actually against Superman Killing, it was DC and the others who said it was fine. :)

Posted by Squalleon

@lvenger: Well i don't know if it is the fault of the movie or our fault for expecting to much from it.

Jimmy or Jenny i don't really care.They probably put her there just to have more female characters.And to give Perry a Father/daughter relationship for the emotional scenes.
I personally haven't a problem with the end it gives space for character development.Really when i saw it, i didn't even blink,Superman had killed before,in a conversation with batman in Worlds Finest said that in a extreme situation he would kill.Plus the movie doesn't have to be a 100% adaption of the comic.Batman in Nolan's trilogy was just a shadow of his comic self.
As for him being cold and just a soldier i would say that the tone of the movie and direction show us that he strives for the best fo humanity but he still hasn't really found his place.
Personally i feel that he will be closer to the comics superman in the second movie.Since he found his place in the world,a job,friends and a balance between human and kryptonian.

Posted by Strider92

I agree with basically everything you said. I felt pretty much the same way 7 seems like the rating I would give it too.

Posted by Lvenger

@confirukia: Why? I note at least 4 major flaws with this movie. That's not good enough grounds for an 8 IMO. An 8 doesn't have too many major flaws in it. And I didn't get a lot of emotion from it. MOS felt stifled and bleak rather than a bright hopeful film that Superman is supposed to be.

@theacidskull:Thanks mate! So it was DC themselves who said it was fine? I need to read those forums and see what the details of that are.

@squalleon: That's something I forgot to put in my review damnit! I disagree with you there as in the end, character development felt compressed IMO. The characters were introduced yes but they never got time to grow. I'd much rather have seen the characters grow than 45 minutes of exciting but poorly paced action. With Superman killing, for the few instances he said he would kill, I can cite at least double the number of quotes where he admonishes killing. And if my education has taught me anything, it's that you go for the more consistent stronger evidence. For me, Superman has more or less always been against killing that for him to kill goes wholly against the character. Finally, he felt like a cold solider in that there was no sense of him protecting us or being an ideal we should strive towards. That was missing from the film.

Posted by Lvenger

@strider92: Really? No offence but I thought you'd like it more than I would. Superman doesn't act in the way I've known him to and we've had discussions about the killing codes of superheroes before. But yeah I felt it didn't grasp the true nature of the character properly.

Edited by jumpstart55

I though it was great, mainly because my expectation weren't ridiculously high like many other Superman fans. It was a great first effort. First films aren't always suppose to be great, there suppose to give you an idea what the film series has the potential to offer. Another reason why so many people were disappointed with this film, is because most people aren't used to seeing a Superman in training, which is basically what Cavils Superman was in this film, we cant accept a young Superman that makes mistakes, but some time or another were going to have to get over it. Second time around, i know Snyders Superman is only going to better and more experienced with age. I cant wait for the second film!

Posted by TheAcidSkull

@lvenger: Yup, Nolan was against it, he didn't feel that superman would kill.

Posted by Squalleon
@lvenger said:

@squalleon: That's something I forgot to put in my review damnit! I disagree with you there as in the end, character development felt compressed IMO

I actually agree on that.
well you can't become superman in one day.It would be nice if superman became that ideal through out the trilogy.
Have Zod's death as a lesson to him etc.

Anyway the movie was good not great.It felt oddly paced but it was enjoyable.The cast was great,the action was great when it wasn't shoehorned (World engine tentacles.),the soundtrack was incredible, as someone who isn't much of a nostalgia person i can appreciated it without compairing it to the 1978 theme.
It felt more like Snyder's playground rather than superman :-P

8/10 for me

Posted by Lvenger

@jumpstart55: It's not that Superman was in training. It's that he acted totally out of character. Even as a rookie, Superman hasn't acted the way in the comics as he did in Man of Steel. Mistakes I can handle but going against the core of the character is a no no for me.

@theacidskull: Just reading the article now. Interesting what Nolan, Goyer and Snyder say. So it's Snyder I have to blame for this then?

Posted by TheAcidSkull
Posted by Lvenger

I actually agree on that.

well you can't become superman in one day.It would be nice if superman became that ideal through out the trilogy.

Have Zod's death as a lesson to him etc.

Anyway the movie was good not great.It felt oddly paced but it was enjoyable.The cast was great,the action was great when it wasn't shoehorned (World engine tentacles.),the soundtrack was incredible, as someone who isn't much of a nostalgia person i can appreciated it without compairing it to the 1978 theme.

It felt more like Snyder's playground rather than superman :-P

8/10 for me

Perhaps it'll be worked in later. But he shouldn't need a lesson to make him Superman. He should be who he is because of how he was raised by the Kents. I never commented on the soundtrack did I? It was decent I guess. That main theme is pretty punchy but it wasn't anything too special. Snyder did inject it with his usual work but I felt Nolan and Snyder tempered him well.

Edited by Jonny_Anonymous

@lvenger: awesome, I'v been waiting for this review and it's pretty much how I feel about the situation.

Posted by Strider92

@lvenger: I may not be a big Superman fan but i'm big fan of sticking to character morals and personality so I just asked myself would I ever want to see Spider-man (another character who is almost the eptiome of good like Superman) outright break sonmeone's neck on screen under any circumstance? And the answer was a resounding no. I found it hard to treat the film as a Superman one when that happened. It suddenly became a "what if" in my eyes and not an accurate representation of who the character is and what he represents.

I am also not a big fan of excessive CGI so that brought it down a tad in my eyes.

Edited by DRUDOX19

I will keep saying due to all the complaints MOS 2 is gonna become a romatic comedy now which is unfortunate Zack Synder cant catch a break which means MOS 2 will have a different director overall. I enjoyed MAn of Steel cause i knew what it was based off of Bryne Superman another version of SUperman that was panned by fanboys when that reboot can out post crisis. I like MOS made me tear up in some scenes first i am not freaking out this is the first film its not the end of the world for me since its the FIRST FILM!!!!!!! Also Superman will never please anyone period IMO now if people lost there crap over MOS imagine WW John Campea from AMC brought this up has well WW has Camp but Fanboys will go nuts if they remove the camp seeing how everyone is going nuts over MOS. So is the world ready for WW after this fan reaction i dont think so matter a fact with WW it will be WORST!!!! MOS 2 will be better they heard all the complaints and its likely WB is going to change Directors and Writers due to the backlash. CGI didn't bug me you expect that from a Superman film if there isnt Darkseid and Doomsday will look very retarded. Anyways i don't hate the film where getting a sequel whether you like it or not and i have hope the sequel will be better also the killing of Zod to me was Zack paying homage to the Bryne Superman and the DC story WW3 to which Black Adam decided he would kill every single mortal on earth ( his body count was 50 million people) When Zod says i will kill every human on earth Black Adam said the same thing he just said mortal and his Collateral Damage was 19,000x worst then Zods.

Anyways i will be happy for the sequel and i just come to except with Superman nobody can be happy with him even in film they give you actions which superman returns lacked its a huge issue and people go PC over damage control. Also you can tell Zack cut a lot out from the film this movie was probably 3 hours long. I will wait for MOS 2 that will be good but be careful what we wish for next thing you may see is action is toned down comedy gets shoe horned because of the complaints and next thing we know we will bitch about that next for MOS 2 -_- Superman does have heart yes but Superman was never a funny dude at all shoe horning comedy to characters that dont have it seems stupid. So will we shoe horn comedy in a WW film or Martian Manhunter see where i am going there, there supporting characters are funny there's a freaking difference the lack of humor in MOS was because lets face it JIMMY OLSEN WASN'T THERE!!!!!!! He didn't even appear yet in this series lol. So i am not for shoe horning comedy cause superman isnt a funny dude he makes witty remarks but he doesnt crack jokes every 5 seconds. You leave that to characters like Flash imo you dont pull that BS with WW or Superman period there supporting characters are funny.

Edited by Deranged Midget

Very detailed review mate, I like it! I disagree heavily on some points, especially on one in particular but that doesn't deter me any less from a brilliantly written piece of work!

Moderator
Edited by laflux

@deranged_midget: Have you made a review for Man of Steel? I Would like to read it

I think I agree with @strider92 here (though I wouldn't mind if someone broke SpOck's neck, but that's for another day). It did feel quite a bit like an elseworld tales, a what if, so to speak. But at least we have all the neck brace jokes now >:P

But very good @lvenger. A detailed review, and ultimately agree with you.

Posted by Deranged Midget
Moderator
Posted by warlock360

"killed far more people than he saved" well yeah sorta, y'know 6 billion vs a bit more than the 9/11 incident, close enough tho... <.<

Posted by Lvenger

@jonny_anonymous: Wait my review in particular or a review that isn't wholly praising Man of Steel?

@strider92: That's surprising mate. You give some very good reasons but it's just I always see you blog about your love for the more morally ambiguous heroes like Kaine and Backlash. Which is fine and you give awesome reasons for liking them. I like anti heroes too. But I agree, something that goes against a character's morals and how they act is a flaw to me.

@deranged_midget: Thanks buddy! I was about to post on your wall to see what you thought of it. Took me most of the morning to write it! Glad you appreciate it even if we disagree. Which parts do you disagree on if you don't mind my asking?

@laflux: Thanks mate, I appreciate your agreeing with me! Also you and DM have the same AV. LOL.

Posted by Lvenger

"killed far more people than he saved" well yeah sorta, y'know 6 billion vs a bit more than the 9/11 incident, close enough tho... <.<

What do you mean by this?

Posted by laflux

@lvenger said:

@warlock360 said:

"killed far more people than he saved" well yeah sorta, y'know 6 billion vs a bit more than the 9/11 incident, close enough tho... <.<

What do you mean by this?

I think what is meant is that the fight between Zod which ultimately resulted in Zod's death, killed loads of people, but Zod said he would stop until all the humans were wiped out, so if you look at it that way..........

Though I may be wrong.....

Edited by warlock360

@laflux: The terraformer would have killed everyone. Superman stopped it, "only" at the cost of around 9 / 11.

Posted by Lvenger

@laflux said:

@lvenger said:

@warlock360 said:

"killed far more people than he saved" well yeah sorta, y'know 6 billion vs a bit more than the 9/11 incident, close enough tho... <.<

What do you mean by this?

I think what is meant is that the fight between Zod which ultimately resulted in Zod's death, killed loads of people, but Zod said he would stop until all the humans were wiped out, so if you look at it that way..........

Though I may be wrong.....

So it's the greater good thing point then? Then I ask why didn't Superman tackle the ship in Metropolis and the army the terraformer robot?

Posted by warlock360

@lvenger: Because the Indian Ocean part needed to be shut down first and superman did that :)

Posted by warlock360

I'm suprised you didn't bring up the killing of the infant pod's though (which resulted out of his actions "Krypton had it's chance")

Posted by Lvenger

@warlock360: But he was weakened there and might not have succeeded. The military could have blown that machine up without taking that chance.

Edited by Lvenger

@warlock360: Well that's somewhat different. None of those babies were actually alive in all honesty. They did contain the potential for all the new Kryptonians it's true but that's all it was. Genetic potential, not actual life.

Posted by warlock360

@lvenger said:

@warlock360: But he was weakened there and might not have succeeded. The military could have blown that machine up without taking that chance.

How many hours later though, they would have gotten there lets say USA to India in ... around 10 hours with a jet? not sure. And then they weren't able to do it in Manhatten either if you recollect, the gravity messed them up. Superman's chances were low, but their best bet. It was a risk they HAD to take to actually minimize the casulties. If they would have actually waited 10 hours, imagine how much more would have been destroyed.

Posted by k4tzm4n

@lvenger: Yup, Nolan was against it, he didn't feel that superman would kill.

Nolan was against the idea of Superman killing Zod -- it wasn't actually written at the the time. Upon reading how Snyder/Goyer wanted to do it, Nolan was allegedly sold on the idea.

Staff
Posted by Lvenger

@k4tzm4n: That's not how I heard it. On an podcast for Empire magazine, Nolan said he was against the idea of Superman killing Zod at the end.

@lvenger said:

@warlock360: But he was weakened there and might not have succeeded. The military could have blown that machine up without taking that chance.

How many hours later though, they would have gotten there lets say USA to India in ... around 10 hours with a jet? not sure. And then they weren't able to do it in Manhatten either if you recollect, the gravity messed them up. Superman's chances were low, but their best bet. It was a risk they HAD to take to actually minimize the casulties. If they would have actually waited 10 hours, imagine how much more would have been destroyed.

Well I don't think it was executed that well. Especially not the Kamikaze dive at the end of that sequence

Edited by k4tzm4n

@lvenger: You just said the exact same thing I did. He was against the idea of Superman killing Zod. Snyder and Goyer weren't happy with everyone being sucked into the phantom zone and wanted it to end with Clark killing Zod. He basically said hell no -- as did DC. But Snyder and Goyer said they wanted to write a scenario anyway and see how everyone felt. Upon writing it and presenting it, that's when the group changed their minds.

"I wrote the scene and I gave it to Chris and he said, “OK, you convinced me. I buy it.”

And Empire's podcast was with Goyer. Unless there's another podcast with Nolan floating around -- but I haven't seen anything about that.

Staff
Posted by warlock360

@lvenger said:

@warlock360: Well that's somewhat different. None of those babies were actually alive in all honesty. They did contain the potential for all the new Kryptonians it's true but that's all it was. Genetic potential, not actual life.

i kind of thought it resembled the debate with abortion in a ethic manner.

@lvenger said:

Well I don't think it was executed that well. Especially not the Kamikaze dive at the end of that sequence

Ok, thats possible.

Posted by Lvenger

@k4tzm4n: I'm pretty sure there was a podcast or interview with Nolan too. In any case, Goyer absolutely dropped the ball in what makes Superman tick by doing that. Anyone who has the faintest understanding of the character should know that killing is not what Superman is about. That's what I can't forgive about this film unfortunately Gregg. Superman means a lot to me and the core of his character was badly portrayed.

Posted by k4tzm4n

@lvenger: No offense, but I had no interest in diving into opinions surrounding the scene. At this point, I've exhausted my ability to chat about the subject and a breather from it is definitely required. I just wanted to clear up the discussion I saw on the interview -- that's all.

If you could locate said podcast, I'd appreciate it because that's something I would love to listen to.

Staff
Posted by Lvenger

@k4tzm4n: None taken. I'm late to this so it's fine to not talk about this any further. I'm surprised you commented on my review. And I might just do that to see if I'm right or whether my memory is deceiving me.

Posted by lilben42

@lvenger: It seems people forget that this isn't the Superman we all know and love. This is an inexperienced Superman who has barely fought or dealt with any problems. This is supposed to show Superman starting out. So his morals are only starting to form. Over the trilogy he will turn into the Superman that we know. If I remember correctly Superman killed Zod in the comics and felt so remorseful about it he fled Earth. That's what MoS did well mostly.

Edited by k4tzm4n

@lvenger said:

@k4tzm4n: None taken. I'm late to this so it's fine to not talk about this any further. I'm surprised you commented on my review. And I might just do that to see if I'm right or whether my memory is deceiving me.

Cool. Yeah, if I'm wrong and that podcast does exist, I'd love to give it a listen. Thanks.

Staff
Posted by Jonny_Anonymous

@lvenger: Yours specifically, I knew you hadn't seen it and I was interested in your opinion.

@lilben42 said:

@lvenger: It seems people forget that this isn't the Superman we all know and love. This is an inexperienced Superman who has barely fought or dealt with any problems. This is supposed to show Superman starting out. So his morals are only starting to form. Over the trilogy he will turn into the Superman that we know. If I remember correctly Superman killed Zod in the comics and felt so remorseful about it he fled Earth. That's what MoS did well mostly.

Yea but Kal didn't form his morals by becoming Superman, they where instilled in him by being raised by the Kents

Posted by lilben42

@jonny_anonymous: His morals are there but they aren't as strong is what I meant.

Posted by Lvenger

@lilben42 said:

@lvenger: It seems people forget that this isn't the Superman we all know and love. This is an inexperienced Superman who has barely fought or dealt with any problems. This is supposed to show Superman starting out. So his morals are only starting to form. Over the trilogy he will turn into the Superman that we know. If I remember correctly Superman killed Zod in the comics and felt so remorseful about it he fled Earth. That's what MoS did well mostly.

I'm not saying he should instantly become the Superman we know and love. But even from the get go, there wasn't much of the Superman I knew, even when starting out. He should have his moral compass upon becoming Superman from being raised by the Kents. As for that comic you reference, that was a poorly written fiasco. Superman betrayed his values by killing defenceless foes then seemingly washed his hands of it by fleeing Earth. I don't call that doing Superman justice.

Edited by WaveMotionCannon

I like the movie a lot and this is coming from a non Superman fan. I was a fan of the Byrne version as it made a lot more sense to me then previous and some prior versions of Supes. The movie was a bit too long but overall I really liked it. Its a great modern take on an iconic character, putting him in a realistic world. Idiot would've been bright sunny 78' Christopher Reeves version all over again it would've been HORRIBLE! This is supposed to be the beginning to tie the DC Cinematic Universe together and since Batman is in modern close to real world setting it wouldn't have made sense to have him being the Big Blue Boy Scout all smiles with an American flag hanging out of his ass would it?

Posted by Deranged Midget

@lvenger said:

@warlock360: But he was weakened there and might not have succeeded. The military could have blown that machine up without taking that chance.

See, that's one of the things I understand the film did. Clark was the only one who could reach the Indian Ocean that fast, the military would take far too long and we already saw that the military was useless when up against the World Engine as it completely messed with electronics and avionics.

Moderator
Posted by UltimateSMfan

@lvenger: Nice review,i don't agree with some points but hey, to each his own and well written.

Is there anywhere on the net that has Grant Morrison's views on this film? i would absolutely wanna see that.

Posted by Pyrogram

@lvenger said:

@lilben42 said:

@lvenger: It seems people forget that this isn't the Superman we all know and love. This is an inexperienced Superman who has barely fought or dealt with any problems. This is supposed to show Superman starting out. So his morals are only starting to form. Over the trilogy he will turn into the Superman that we know. If I remember correctly Superman killed Zod in the comics and felt so remorseful about it he fled Earth. That's what MoS did well mostly.

I'm not saying he should instantly become the Superman we know and love. But even from the get go, there wasn't much of the Superman I knew, even when starting out. He should have his moral compass upon becoming Superman from being raised by the Kents. As for that comic you reference, that was a poorly written fiasco. Superman betrayed his values by killing defenceless foes then seemingly washed his hands of it by fleeing Earth. I don't call that doing Superman justice.

Fact.

Posted by _Black

You make several good points and I agree with some of them. I was somewhat disappointed with the film but I had incredible expectations going in. I felt like character development, Lois, and basically "what makes Superman tick" were the big faults with the film, like you mentioned. Personally, I kinda think that all of that will be much more expounded upon in the next film, especially with the murder of Zod and the repercussions that will stem from it. It seems like Snyder and Goyer needed more time, in which was already a pretty lengthy movie, to fully capture Superman and deliver character development and some actual meaningful dialogue from Clark. I believe the first movie will be more positively looked back at when the second and probable third films are released. Hopefully.

Nice review, by the way.

Posted by CaptainLantern76

Your review was just what I predicted it would be.

@lilben42 said:

@lvenger: It seems people forget that this isn't the Superman we all know and love. This is an inexperienced Superman who has barely fought or dealt with any problems. This is supposed to show Superman starting out. So his morals are only starting to form. Over the trilogy he will turn into the Superman that we know. If I remember correctly Superman killed Zod in the comics and felt so remorseful about it he fled Earth. That's what MoS did well mostly.

Thank you! Finally, someone else who fricking understands!

Posted by AmazingAngel

I liked the movie and really don't know why it's getting lambasted so much critically, I mean it's as good as iron man three was in my mind, they just differed heavily in tone.

The Superman killing thing is obviously gonna be controversial with him betraying his established morals but for me that moment salvaged a lot of the movie, Zod just going back into the phantom zone wouldn't have provided a suitable climax for the movie after it dragged it's feet in the middle, while I do think Supes shouldn't break his code I think the way they did it was reasonable and understandable, he had to make a choice between Earth and Krypton....he chose Earth.

Edited by lilben42

@lvenger: I am assuming you are a very big Superman fan and I see where you are coming from. But you should also remember that this is a modern take of Superman. A superman in the real world. He really had no other choice. There is no kryptonite, no red sun (That they know about) , no phantom zone. I do agree that they didn't show all of Superman's iconic qualities but they still have two or more movies to do so hopefully. I thought it was a great introduction into the MoS trilogy if we have one.