Comic Vine Review

Comments

Man of Steel Review

5

Kal-El returns to the big screen in an amazingly entertaining fashion.

Ladies and gentlemen, there's a new "best comic book movie" in town and it goes by the name of Man of Steel. Sporting great performances and breathtaking action sequences, Clark Kent's return thankfully lives up to the mountain of hype and anticipation we've endured for at least several months. This new take on the iconic character delivers a constantly epic atmosphere which mixes a more serious tone with a lot of over the top fun. And when I say "a lot," I mean it.

Yes, this is a reboot of Superman's origin -- a story we've seen countless times before -- but it doesn't suffer from a sense of overfamiliarity at all. They clearly draw elements from various comic stories from time to time ('Earth One' obviously inspired General Zod's broadcast and the symbol standing for hope comes from 'Birthright'), but for the most part, this is a mostly fresh take on the legendary character. After the grand sci-fi opening on Krypton (Russell Crowe's Jor-El is a boss), we fast forward to grown up Clark. From there, we're treated to emotionally compelling flashbacks about him learning to cope with his powers and receiving moral guidance from the Kents. There's some changes here and there to the mythos and I imagine some fans won't dig it, but for the most part, I think it's something many of us won't mind -- especially when countered by all of the things this film does so well.

Remember how The Avengers hit us with an astonishing and goosebump inducing battle in New York? I honestly believed a comic book movie (in the near future, that is) wouldn't be able to bring that level of greatness again, but Man of Steel totally does and then some. The action pieces are absolutely staggering and downright surreal. Director Zack Snyder fully unleashes the power behind these characters and when they throwdown it's visceral, intense and had my jaw dropped basically the entire time. While the two huge action scenes may be a bit too long for some, it was nothing but pure bliss for me -- I seriously can't get over how good they were and I was in awe.

My only minor gripe with these scenes was the lack of concern over the populated areas, but at least they tried to justify it each time (for example, one time Clark is beyond pissed and another time he tells them to leave). After all, Clark is new to this and he's not exactly dictating the fights all the time. It's something I can overlook, but when Clark tackles his enemy through a convenience store and blows up a gas station before the area is evacuated, I'm sure some of you will tilt your heads. And speaking of stores, holy product placement, Batman! If that kind of thing bugs you, then there's sure to be a few moments that'll make you groan.

What really sells every scene (you know, aside from super powered punches) are the superb performances and Hans Zimmer's excellent score. The music simply brings everything to the next level, making even seemingly basic moments come off as extraordinary and legendary. You'll definitely want to see this one in a theater with quality speakers.

Michael Shannon kills it as General Zod, delivering a commanding performance and truly selling the raw emotion behind his standout acts. As for Henry Cavill... well, the man just oozes "Superman." Some may complain he's a man of few words in this film, but the quieter moments with the character allow him to physically convey the tone and he does so extremely well. And, when he does chat, you can really sense the warmth, honesty and good will behind his version of Clark -- and seeing as he's a character meant to inspire us, that's critical. Also, I thought he and Amy Adams had fantastic chemistry and she definitely brings a brave and believable Lois Lane to the table. Aside from one Daily Planet employee having a silly line or two, the remainder of the cast does a more than able job as well.

It's clear Warner Bros. had a "go big or go home" mentality when kicking off the new direction for their DC universe and they delivered big time. I spotted at least two Easter Eggs which filled my face with such a goofy smile and I haven't been this excited about a movie universe's future since Tony Stark met Nick Fury. Speaking of which, there unfortunately wasn't a mid or post credits scene during my screening.

I do have some small problems with the film, but honestly, they're massively overshadowed by the things I loved. This isn't just my favorite comic book movie at the moment -- it's one of the best moviegoing experiences I've had in quite some time. With gripping performances and overflowing with absurdly impressive action, it's safe to say many of you out there will love Man of Steel every bit as much as I did. I know I'm definitely going to see it at least two more times.

504 Comments
Edited by HiploBo

4/10

Man of Steel insults who Superman is and who Superman should be.

I truly am saddened that this movie will be the first exposure to Superman to some kids, or even some adults for that matter.

Problems:

Superman killed Zod--- Not to mention Superman surely kills hundreds of thousands of people by not taking the fight elsewhere, besides downtown Metropolis. Got Zod in a headlock, and he didn't have any other choice, besides killing him? Come on really? He didn't have the strength to push his head down a few inches? I'm sorry but Superman does not kill. Never ever. Mark Waid, the writer of some of the source material Superman: Birthright, even said that he almost walked out of the movie at that point.

Superman didn't save Pa Kent--- The entire half of the movie you set up the theme of "how would people react to you Clark?" When asked if he should have let the school bus full of children die, Jonathan Kent replies, "maybe"? WOW. Then, later on Clark has every opportunity so save his fricking father but doesn't take it? All because he doesn't want anyone to see what he can do?? And how people would react? Come on people, if you have the ability so save your father from certain death, that trumps any and all other factors. On a separate note, if you want to know what people of earth would think of this "alien", why not actually show their reactions to this news, besides the handful of clichéd military dudes, and a small group of Daily Planet workers? Maybe then would I believe the supposed realness of this movie. After all that is the overlying message Pa Kent is trying to teach Clark. Well he's dead now, so I guess that doesn't really matter.

Man of Steel was a joyless movie--- Not in terms of big battles mind you, that was cool to watch. It's the fact that Superman is a dang person who Is able to fly, super strength and countless other abilities. Why are you so darn depressed all the time? Get over it man! Quit wondering the earth saying "who am I?" In addition there was absolutely no comedic factors in the movie, aside from one lame joke about Superman being HOT! It was all a one note, grey toned feeling of bleakness.

Man of Steel was poorly written/directed --- It's bad when you cast all these wonderful actors and have this awful of a screenplay. Louis Lane was an afterthought of a character, who needed saving the whole movie. And I love Michael Shannon, but in this film, he was pretty over the top. He screams at Lara(Kal-El's mother) over and over again, "I will find your son! I will find him"(as he slowly backs away) and for the fifth time, "I WILL FIND HIM!" Yikes. Also, the story was poorly structured, and the pacing was all off.

The Good:

Special effects were good--- Hardly any slow motion! Thank the heavens! Zach Snyder is known for that! Space stuff, looked well. The flying/ sonic booms effects were pretty awesome.

Action scenes solid--- Yes finally a superman movie where he punches someone! Unfortunately it was straight into a 60 story skyscraper. But again with no emotional tie in to any of theses characters, I cared that much less of the outcome of the battle.

Casting Good --- Henry Cavill did a good job for what he was given. And another surprising highlight was Laurence Fishburn as Perry White. He did a good job not trying to overplay it.

Thanks if you read this and didn't totally hate on me for not liking the movie. It's just one man's opinion on probably their favorite fictional characters ever created.

Thank you!

Edited by Rich711

The fact is Novi hits the nail on the head with what was wrong with it when he said "choppy" and "all over the place". This director just doesnt know how to successfully tell a story. He is all flashy images for teenage boys with short attention spans. There was little to no character development, no real relationships created, and no fun moments. It's why you hear negative reviews of it from people like Bendis and Chuck Dixon because they are great storytellers. Not all comic book fans can tell a good story from a childish action-fest, plenty just buy something because it looks good and they think the character is "bad-ass". Rob Liefeld has made a fortune off of these fanboys. This director makes his money off the same demographic, the easily excited teenage boy and man-boys. I'm sure this movie will be loved by them and will be huge in Asia for the same reasons, until the next flashy thing catches their attention. It doesnt change that fact that anyone (whether they admit it or not) can see this is nothing more than an average addition to the new wave of superhero movies.

Edited by Azura_Thena

@hiplobo:

I disagree with a lot of what you said. The first thing that needs to be addressed is the clear misunderstanding that Superman does not kill. In the comics, he has killed Zod before in a canon Post Crisis issue. Not only that, but he killed Zod's subordinates as well. He had them defeated and THEN he chose to execute them. So as far as it being a problem to be included in this movie, I believe that to be an ignorant understanding of Superman. If anyone wants to then fall back on Reeve's Superman, let's not forget that he not only killed Zod in that one too, but he did it in an extremely violent and unnecessary fashion. He crushed a defenseless and therefore, defeated Zod's hand, threw him against a wall with enough force to surely break even more bones, and then let him fall to his death. He killed a virtually harmless opponent with a smile and felt no pain or anguish afterwards that Henry's felt. On top of that, he let a mentally handicapped person jump to his death and allowed Lois to viciously murder another defeated villain as well... again with an "aw shucks" smile on his face. Then they abandoned Luthor to the arctic north as Reeve went on a revenge agenda that could have potentially crippled a person that not only was beneath Superman at that point but also had no way of defending himself. If someone wants to complain about Superman actions that are decidedly un-Superman, they need to first address the former movie that is somehow preferred over the new one on the issue of killing, as well as address the killing Superman has done in the comics.

As far as the issue of not saving the humans that were around him, I am not sure if you are aware of this but Superman was kind of busy getting handled by other Kryptonians whenever there were humans around. No one died as a result of Superman's actions. He did the best he could when facing a small army of his equals. Also, in the comics, I don't believe Superman has ever had a fight that didn't result in several city blocks being completely destroyed. If you are angry at the movie for this, then surely the comics have angered you to the point where you need to be hospitalized.

I think you may have misunderstood the scene of Pa's death. Superman didn't give a fig about people knowing about his powers. His father did and specifically made the choice to sacrifice himself in order to protect Superman. Superman, as much has he clearly didn't want to, honored his father's wishes. He honored his father's choice and showed his father that not only does he respect him, but he trusts him as well. Your opinion that humanity would readily accept an alien among them is only your opinion. I believe it is an incorrect opinion though, we can't even accept each other. An alien with the power to annihilate us on a whim living among us would cause the exact kind of panic that Pa was afraid of.

It was a mostly serious movie but I don't know that I would call it joyless. Wondering who you are does not mean you are walking about with a deep depression. He didn't seem all that depressed to me when he found his mother alive and well. Saving Lois didn't throw Superman into a suicidal depression. I like comedy as much as anyone else but it is absolutely not necessary to prevent a movie from being labeled as 'joyless'. The modern Superman in comics has often been depicted as a brooding man, if that helps put your grievances to bed.

Lois always needs saving. I don't know why this is a problem for you and you are going to have to clarify what you mean by 'second rate woman', a vague statement that I find slightly offensive. Michael Shannon's performance was completely fine if you actually understood his character in this film.

It seems to me that you need to watch this movie again because I am of the opinion that you spent the entirety of this movie wrapped up in your inaccurate preconceived notions of who Superman is and what he should be to actually enjoy this film for what it was.

Edited by RedK

already seen it twice, it was awesome, sure theirs a few things I'd like to of been changed like the dark knight rises but over all it was just the best film I've seen in ages, can't wait for the 2nd one and really hope they do a trilogy

Posted by HiploBo
Edited by gotwillpower

Was anyone else bothered by the weird electronic music that turned on in the middle of Superman's first flying sequence? There was the regular drum and classical music, but then there was this weird electronic, high-pitched pattern that just repeated for a couple minutes. It was really distracting to me.

Edited by novi_homines

@rich711 said:

The fact is Novi hits the nail on the head with what was wrong with it when he said "choppy" and "all over the place". This director just doesnt know how to successfully tell a story. He is all flashy images for teenage boys with short attention spans. There was little to no character development, no real relationships created, and no fun moments. It's why you hear negative review of it from people like Bendis and Chuck Dixon because they are great storyteller. Not all comic book fans can tell a good story from a childish action-fest, plenty just buy something because it looks good and they think the character is "bad-ass". Rob Liefeld has made a fortune off of these fanboys. This director makes his money off the same demographic, the easily excited teenage boy and man-boys. I'm sure this movie will be loved by them and will be huge in Asia for the same reasons, until the next flashy thing catches their attention. It doesnt change that fact that anyone (whether they admit it or not) can see this is nothing more than an average addition to the new wave of superhero movies.

Thanks. And not only Brian Bendis and Chuck Dixon, but renowned superman writer Mark Waid as well.

Also to add a point, every film seems to have the characters personality, as the flavor of the film. IM trilogy was more wild, and filled with witty comments, much like the character. Cap: TFA had a more serious, all american, flavor to the film. Much like the character. But when thinking of Man Of Steel, this film did not have a superman flavor to it. And that's where it fails for me. They took superman, and gave it batman's flavor, and that's where the disconnect for most people comes from.

I was supposed to have a smile on my face while watching this film (not from jokes). Theres a difference between comedy making you laugh, and a movie evoking the feeling of joy.I was supposed to be walking out of the theater filled with joy, happiness, while smiling. It was supposed to be uplifting.This is Superman, and it's what I expected from this film. I wasn't supposed to be thinking about the action. A superman movie should have bigger aspirations than that. I was supposed to be thinking about life, and how I personally can be a better person. It was supposed to be moving, and it was supposed to evoke all of these thoughts. It simply did not. And this is where all of the "cold", "disconnected", "not superman" comments from critics come from. The movie wasn't filled with joy, it wasn't filled with happiness, it wasn't filled with hope and inspiration. They took these things away from this film, and they lost the character in the process. It's a shame really, in a world such as this, where everyone prefers "dark", we could've used a little "light".

Edited by JLDoom

Just saw the movie and to me it was amazing. All I wanted from a Superman movie and more.

I really don't get some comments that say the movie was "too dark" and not joyful enough. Superheroes get different interpretations all the time, as long as they stay true to the core of the character they're all valid and to me this movie respected everything about Superman while delivering a highly entertaining experience.

Posted by NovaRichRider
Edited by darkwolverine

this picture looks way better

Posted by Supermansito

@jldoom said:

Just saw the movie and to me it was amazing. All I wanted from a Superman movie and more.

I really don't get some comments that say the movie was "too dark" and not joyful enough. Superheroes get different interpretations all the time, as long as they stay true to the core of the character they're all valid and to me this movie respect everything about Superman while delivering a highly entertaining experience.

agree

Posted by Supermansito

@hiplobo:

I disagree with a lot of what you said. The first thing that needs to be addressed is the clear misunderstanding that Superman does not kill. In the comics, he has killed Zod before in a canon Post Crisis issue. Not only that, but he killed Zod's subordinates as well. He had them defeated and THEN he chose to execute them. So as far as it being a problem to be included in this movie, I believe that to be a ignorant understanding of Superman. If anyone wants to then fall back on Reeve's Superman, let's not forget that he not only killed Zod in that one too, but he did it in an extremely violent and unnecessary fashion. He crushed a defenseless and therefore, defeated Zod's hand, threw him against a wall with enough force to surely break even more bones, and then let him fall to his death. He killed a virtually harmless opponent with a smile and felt no pain or anguish afterwards that Henry's felt. On top of that, he let a mentally handicapped person jump to his death and allowed Lois to viciously murder another defeated villain as well... again with an "aw shucks" smile on his face. Then they abandoned Luthor to the arctic north as Reeve went on a revenge agenda that could have potentially crippled a person that not only was beneath Superman at that point but also had no way of defending himself. If someone wants to complain about Superman actions that are decidedly un-Superman, they need to first address the former movie that is somehow preferred over the new one on the issue of killing, as well as address the killing Superman has done in the comics.

As far as the issue of not saving the humans that were around him, I am not sure if you are aware of this but Superman was kind of busy getting handled by other Kryptonians whenever there were humans around. No one died as a result of Superman's actions. He did the best he could when facing a small army of his equals. Also, in the comics, I don't believe Superman has ever had a fight that didn't result in several city blocks being completely destroyed. If you are angry at the movie for this, then surely the comics have angered you to the point where you need to be hospitalized.

I think you may have misunderstood the scene of Pa's death. Superman didn't give a fig about people knowing about his powers. His father did and specifically made the choice to sacrifice himself in order to protect Superman. Superman, as much has he clearly didn't want to, honored his father's wishes. He honored his father's choice and showed his father that not only does he respect him, but he trusts him as well. Your opinion that humanity would readily accept an alien among them is only your opinion. I believe it is an incorrect opinion though, we can't even accept each other. An alien with the power to annihilate us on a whim living among us would cause the exact kind of panic that Pa was afraid of.

It was a mostly serious movie but I don't know that I would call it joyless. Wondering who you are does not mean you are walking about with a deep depression. He didn't seem all that depressed to me when he found his mother alive and well. Saving Lois didn't throw Superman into a suicidal depression. I like comedy as much as anyone else but it is absolutely not necessary to prevent a movie from being labeled as 'joyless'. The modern Superman in comics has often been depicted as a brooding man, if that helps put your grievances to bed.

Lois always needs saving. I don't know why this is a problem for you and you are going to have to clarify what you mean by 'second rate woman', a vague statement that I find slightly offensive. Michael Shannon's performance was completely fine if you actually understood his character in this film.

It seems to me that you need to watch this movie again because I am of the opinion that you spent the entirety of this movie wrapped up in your inaccurate preconceived notions of who Superman is and what he should be to actually enjoy this film for what it was.

Bravo x 2

Posted by Stormbox

@novi_homines: Meh, shocking the first time maybe not so much the second time, especially when you analyze the whole thing

Worse stuff happens in comics all the time, i dont see what's so wrong about the destruction in this movie

Posted by Cyborg6971

@lilben42 said:

@cyborg6971: Yeah! He isn't the superman we all know and love yet but by the second movie he probably will be. I really hope Zack Snyder looks at the reviews and changes some stuff because Man of Steel was good but it could use better pacing and character development.

I agree. And now with the sequel fast tracked we won't be bogging the film down with the origin part of it. I'm glad it's out of the way to tell a different story. Like with brainiac or mettalo or something.

Edited by novi_homines

@stormbox said:

@novi_homines: Meh, shocking the first time maybe not so much the second time, especially when you analyze the whole thing

Worse stuff happens in comics all the time, i dont see what's so wrong about the destruction in this movie

I don't understand what the first line is a response to. tone of man of steel?

If so, I completely disagree. I watched it twice, and I was able to judge it better the second time around. It was just as shocking and disappointing the second time around. They took superman, and turned him into your average superhero with strength and flight. It was a more "sci-fi", "generic popcorn flick" route, than an actual "Superman" film. No matter how many times Jor says keywords like "hope", "symbol", etc., it won't change the fact that none of it was apparent in the movie. You can't just say these things. You have to show me, and they didn't. It was all talk and no substance.

Posted by Cyborg6971

@stormbox said:

@novi_homines: Meh, shocking the first time maybe not so much the second time, especially when you analyze the whole thing

Worse stuff happens in comics all the time, i dont see what's so wrong about the destruction in this movie

I don't understand what the first line is a response to. tone of man of steel?

If so, I completely disagree. I watched it twice, and I was able to judge it better the second time around. It was just as shocking and disappointing the second time around. They took superman, and turned him into your average superhero with strength and flight. It was a more "sci-fi", "generic popcorn flick" route, than an actual "Superman" film. No matter how many times Jor says keywords like "hope", "symbol", etc., it won't change the fact that none of it was apparent in the movie. You can't just say these things. You have to show me, and they didn't. It was all talk and no substance.

Unfortunately Kal was the only hope for earth at that moment. I can see why some didn't like it. But this is live action not a comic. To quote comic writers who have done nothing in the live action field of film means nothing to me. All Waid and bendis are to me are fanbois looking for some attention because the spotlight isn't on what they're doing right now. FU to them.

Posted by Stormbox

@novi_homines: Uh i'm talking about the destruction, that's what we were talking about, how destroyed metropolis was, no idea were you got the rest from

And if you think superman is only that kind of stuff you clearly havent ready many superman comics

Edited by novi_homines

@stormbox said:

@novi_homines: Uh i'm talking about the destruction, that's what we were talking about, how destroyed metropolis was, no idea were you got the rest from

And if you think superman is only that kind of stuff you clearly havent ready many superman comics

oh, then I was off. Sorry.

And not only, but definitely mainly. MoS doesn't capture superman, IMO.

Edited by novi_homines

@cyborg6971 said:

@novi_homines said:

@stormbox said:

@novi_homines: Meh, shocking the first time maybe not so much the second time, especially when you analyze the whole thing

Worse stuff happens in comics all the time, i dont see what's so wrong about the destruction in this movie

I don't understand what the first line is a response to. tone of man of steel?

If so, I completely disagree. I watched it twice, and I was able to judge it better the second time around. It was just as shocking and disappointing the second time around. They took superman, and turned him into your average superhero with strength and flight. It was a more "sci-fi", "generic popcorn flick" route, than an actual "Superman" film. No matter how many times Jor says keywords like "hope", "symbol", etc., it won't change the fact that none of it was apparent in the movie. You can't just say these things. You have to show me, and they didn't. It was all talk and no substance.

Unfortunately Kal was the only hope for earth at that moment. I can see why some didn't like it. But this is live action not a comic. To quote comic writers who have done nothing in the live action field of film means nothing to me. All Waid and bendis are to me are fanbois looking for some attention because the spotlight isn't on what they're doing right now. FU to them.

I don't think they care about fame in the slightest. And Waid has written some of the most popular and Iconic superman stories ever. Stories that has helped to define superman as a character. If there is any fanboy's opinion that I would trust, its his.

Edited by SmashBrawler
Posted by novi_homines
Edited by SmashBrawler

@novi_homines: So what's this whole thing about "trusting his opinion"? That's something someone who hasn't seen the movie would say.

Posted by SandMan_
Posted by Rich711

@cyborg6971:
No, you are right, Bendis & Waid only want attention and what would they know about storytelling and Superman... /sarcasm, LOL.

Beware the wrath of the fanboy scorned.

Edited by MB25

@k4tzm4n I love you.

And to the people worried about the negative reviews dont let that bullsh*t out there disuade you. This movie is fantastic on a different level.

Posted by novi_homines

@smashbrawler: It was in reply to the person I was quoting, who said he didn't think their opinions held any value. I was stating why I believe it does.

Posted by SandMan_
Posted by SmashBrawler

@novi_homines: Waid's opinion holds no value to me. Even if Siegel and Shuster themselves hated the movie I still wouldn't care. I know what I like and just because someone else didn't like the movie I'm not changing my opinion, and I've been reading Superman for long enough to know what I want to see in a Superman movie.

Bendis' opinion is even more worthless to me.

Edited by Lone_Wolf_and_Cub

People complaining about Waids opinion I find ridiculous. He's one of the best comic writers of all time. Hell if any of you so called Superman fans would know he wrote one of Supes best stories Birthright, which had a little influence on the film. Not to mention he also wrote one of the biggest DC stories of all time "Kingdom Come" you may have heard of it. He also had great runs on Flash, JLA, Captain America and he currently has one of the best reviewed books on the shelf in Daredevil. Waid is also admittedly a huge Superman fan and I've seen some picks online of his collection. So for fans to dismiss his review of a person who knows Superman more than most people I find hilarious. He was hoping for something more. I think it had great action and some good moments. For the most part I enjoyed it but in my eyes it isn't the greatest comic film of all time nevermind the greatest film of all time. I'd give it a 3.5. It was a solid comic movie which hopefully improves in the sequel.

Online
Posted by novi_homines

@novi_homines: Waid's opinion holds no value to me. Even if Siegel and Shuster themselves hated the movie I still wouldn't care. I know what I like and just because someone else didn't like the movie I'm not changing my opinion, and I've been reading Superman for long enough to know what I want to see in a Superman movie.

Bendis' opinion is even more worthless to me.

ok.

Posted by JLDoom

I dont see how Mark Waid's opinion somehow holds more value than other people's. Sure, he wrote a couple of good Superman stories but I wouldn't call him the most influential writer on the character ever and he's still just another person out there with an opinion on the movie, just like you and me, not some kind of god. At the end of the day what matters is whether you liked the movie, not someone else, just you.

Edited by novi_homines

@sandman_ said:

@novi_homines: Do you still like the movie?

Good question. I definitely still like the movie in the direction they chose. My only problem is I don't like the direction they chose. They're stripping what makes superman unique, in my personal opinion. But for what this new universe seems to be going for, I thought it was successful. I already touched on the story, and screenplay, etc. so there's no point in being redundant. So I stick by my 7/10. Definitely not a bad movie. I don't know if Zack is capable of filming a well rounded superman movie, that's not heavily reliant on action. But that remains to be seen. Visually though, its the best cbm ever made. There's something to be said for that. Zack Snyder is simply unparalleled in terms of "epic action", and he's the perfect guy to film a JL movie.

Posted by SandMan_

@novi_homines: This is an inexperience Superman, so if you were expecting to see All-Star Superman, we are light years away from that. He still has a lot of issue to work out and the way the movie ended, the story for the sequel will be more fantastic. It will probably touch the repercussion of how Superman battle with Zod change the world and all of that. There are plenty of good things that can lead to that. Also, if anyone is to blame for the ''too much action'' are the fanoys.

Posted by Cyborg6971

@rich711: No fanboi here. They trash it cause it's not their superman and what are they gonna do about it make a better movie? I'd they are so passionate about the character and think they can make a better movie write one. If wb rejects it do it again. I know waid and bendis love comics but how much trash do they speak about other writers in comics pull some stuff that's not too their liking? Do they blow up the twittersphere? Talking smack "almost didn't finish reading it".

Edited by novi_homines

@sandman_ said:

@novi_homines: This is an inexperience Superman, so if you were expecting to see All-Star Superman, we are light years away from that. He still has a lot of issue to work out and the way the movie ended, the story for the sequel will be more fantastic. It will probably touch the repercussion of how Superman battle with Zod change the world and all of that. There are plenty of good things that can lead to that. Also, if anyone is to blame for the ''too much action'' are the fanoys.

I understand this. Maybe your right. Although I felt that after Jonathan finished raising Clark, and after that last inspirational speech Jor gave, Superman officially should've became the All-Star Superman we know. Because I feel these two people, along with Martha, are the main influences on how he becomes All Star superman, and they had done their duty. But that may just be a personal opinion of mine.

Edited by SandMan_

@sandman_ said:

@novi_homines: This is an inexperience Superman, so if you were expecting to see All-Star Superman, we are light years away from that. He still has a lot of issue to work out and the way the movie ended, the story for the sequel will be more fantastic. It will probably touch the repercussion of how Superman battle with Zod change the world and all of that. There are plenty of good things that can lead to that. Also, if anyone is to blame for the ''too much action'' are the fanoys.

I understand this. Maybe your right. Although I felt that after Jonathan finished raising Clark, and after that last inspirational speech Jor gave, Superman officially should've became the All-Star Superman we know. Because I feel these two people, along with Martha, are the main influences on how he becomes All Star superman, and they had done their duty. But that may just be a personal opinion of mine.

Probably. But it took Superman a while to mature and all. Even all star presents it. This was supposed to make Superman look like he is not perfect.

Alright. I can understand you are somehow disappointed...Maybe it was because your expectations where to high? Mine where as well. When the reviews came out, they descended...But in the end...I think that helped me enjoy the movie more.

Posted by kei_vermillion

Its good but the Sears and Ihop stuff annoy me to no end. They could have at least made the in-movie advertisements more subtle.
Martha Kent works at Sears. Thats nice.

Posted by Antonio_Blackheart
Posted by novi_homines

@sandman_:

Maybe. I have honestly said before that "this looks like it'll be the best cbm ever made". Its crazy how high expectations were, but this was a claim many people seemed to be making. The trailers were perfect. So yeah, maybe expectations got out of control. Although like you, after seeing the reviews, I was slightly worried that it might not be greatest cbm ever, so expectations were lowered a bit.

Posted by SandMan_

@novi_homines: I enjoyed it. Remember all the best CBM are sequels to something...or a build up.

Man Of Tomorrow might be better.

Edited by novi_homines

@sandman_ said:

@novi_homines: I enjoyed it. Remember all the best CBM are sequels to something...or a build up.

Man Of Tomorrow might be better.

Is that the actual name? Or just a nickname you gave it? I LOVE it.

Posted by Rich711

@rich711: No fanboi here. They trash it cause it's not their superman and what are they gonna do about it make a better movie? I'd they are so passionate about the character and think they can make a better movie write one. If wb rejects it do it again. I know waid and bendis love comics but how much trash do they speak about other writers in comics pull some stuff that's not too their liking? Do they blow up the twittersphere? Talking smack "almost didn't finish reading it".

Go find something in either of their reviews that is trash talk. They thought it was a weak movie, it was. You can't comprehend that because you are a full on fanboy, no matter how you spell the word. Go find anything in either of their review and tell us how what they said is not true to the movie we all saw. Only someone with fanboy-glasses on would not see that this is not some conspiracy, it was not a great movie. There are plenty of great comicbook movies to pick from and this one clearly isnt one of them. But whatever, the same people that thought 300 was awesome are the same that will think MoS is awesome, people that dont need more than the most minimal of story and need nothing from their characters other than to do cool things and look good doing them. Some people are just simple like that.

Edited by SandMan_

@sandman_ said:

@novi_homines: I enjoyed it. Remember all the best CBM are sequels to something...or a build up.

Man Of Tomorrow might be better.

Is that the actual name? Or just a nickname you gave it? I LOVE it.

It kinda fits the theme of where this is going XD

Edited by panchecozarrapastro

Wow that is a heated debate. Overall it is a good movie, but id didn't feel like a super heroes movie. Specially not a Sup movie. from Sups killing Zod, the dark morality lessons from the father, to Sup's total disregard of human life, I think this is not how they should have handled it.

Before I get grilled, I was cheering for the movie to succeed. I really want to see a wonder woman, flash, etc movie. But with this as a base, a superman that kills and does not have human lives as priority 1 where is the moral compass of the justice league going to be?

And lastly, sorry, but the feeling you get from seeing avengers for the first time can not compare to Man of steel. I think the 2nd batman, avengers, and iron man 1 were far better depictions of comic books characters.

Just my 2 cents :)

Posted by deaditegonzo

I watched it again today with my kids. Maybe it was because my stomach was bothering me on my first viewing, but this time it was even BETTER than before.

Literally the whole time, I had goose bumps, a stupid grin, and tears in my eyes. Im thinking it helped to be 100% focused this time, without my stomach roaring at me, haha.

Definitely 10/10 and the new standard against which all superhero movies will be judged.


Posted by The Stegman

@hiplobo:

I disagree with a lot of what you said. The first thing that needs to be addressed is the clear misunderstanding that Superman does not kill. In the comics, he has killed Zod before in a canon Post Crisis issue. Not only that, but he killed Zod's subordinates as well. He had them defeated and THEN he chose to execute them. So as far as it being a problem to be included in this movie, I believe that to be a ignorant understanding of Superman. If anyone wants to then fall back on Reeve's Superman, let's not forget that he not only killed Zod in that one too, but he did it in an extremely violent and unnecessary fashion. He crushed a defenseless and therefore, defeated Zod's hand, threw him against a wall with enough force to surely break even more bones, and then let him fall to his death. He killed a virtually harmless opponent with a smile and felt no pain or anguish afterwards that Henry's felt. On top of that, he let a mentally handicapped person jump to his death and allowed Lois to viciously murder another defeated villain as well... again with an "aw shucks" smile on his face. Then they abandoned Luthor to the arctic north as Reeve went on a revenge agenda that could have potentially crippled a person that not only was beneath Superman at that point but also had no way of defending himself. If someone wants to complain about Superman actions that are decidedly un-Superman, they need to first address the former movie that is somehow preferred over the new one on the issue of killing, as well as address the killing Superman has done in the comics.

As far as the issue of not saving the humans that were around him, I am not sure if you are aware of this but Superman was kind of busy getting handled by other Kryptonians whenever there were humans around. No one died as a result of Superman's actions. He did the best he could when facing a small army of his equals. Also, in the comics, I don't believe Superman has ever had a fight that didn't result in several city blocks being completely destroyed. If you are angry at the movie for this, then surely the comics have angered you to the point where you need to be hospitalized.

I think you may have misunderstood the scene of Pa's death. Superman didn't give a fig about people knowing about his powers. His father did and specifically made the choice to sacrifice himself in order to protect Superman. Superman, as much has he clearly didn't want to, honored his father's wishes. He honored his father's choice and showed his father that not only does he respect him, but he trusts him as well. Your opinion that humanity would readily accept an alien among them is only your opinion. I believe it is an incorrect opinion though, we can't even accept each other. An alien with the power to annihilate us on a whim living among us would cause the exact kind of panic that Pa was afraid of.

It was a mostly serious movie but I don't know that I would call it joyless. Wondering who you are does not mean you are walking about with a deep depression. He didn't seem all that depressed to me when he found his mother alive and well. Saving Lois didn't throw Superman into a suicidal depression. I like comedy as much as anyone else but it is absolutely not necessary to prevent a movie from being labeled as 'joyless'. The modern Superman in comics has often been depicted as a brooding man, if that helps put your grievances to bed.

Lois always needs saving. I don't know why this is a problem for you and you are going to have to clarify what you mean by 'second rate woman', a vague statement that I find slightly offensive. Michael Shannon's performance was completely fine if you actually understood his character in this film.

It seems to me that you need to watch this movie again because I am of the opinion that you spent the entirety of this movie wrapped up in your inaccurate preconceived notions of who Superman is and what he should be to actually enjoy this film for what it was.

Bravo, Bravo, excellent post.

Edited by SandMan_

@deaditegonzo: There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding Supes action...But Jesus, there was no other way this would have ended. Superman himself felt remorse after.

Edited by HiploBo

@azura_thena: Thank you for an actual well thought out response Azura. I work full time at a movie theater in cleveland(birthplace of superman ironically) and have seen the film too many times, or at least parts of it over and over again and may have too much of a factor on my opinion. You may be right in saying that I went into the movie with a pre conceived notion of who I think Superman should be. But really what is wrong with that? If you take a character you truly like and hand it over to someone who doesn't respect the core of the character, (again my opinion on what that core is) of course it'll upset anyone. And I really couldn't set that aside at all for this interpretation of Superman.

I feel the main flaw to the movie was it trying to be so realistic that in by doing so I found all the flaws within it. The more real you try to make the world, the more far fetched its actions are in that film whenever their is a plot hole, or an "out of character" moment. Even more so in a comic book film.

So all the little things that wouldn't be a problem normally like the mass destruction of Metropolis, actually is a problem for me. Or kissing in the middle of the destruction. Or how Louis found Superman so fast after he landed and killed Zod. Or how they crashed back down In the exact same spot over and over again after being in space. Or why was Louis Lane taken on the spaceship in the first place? The filmmakers want me to take this as if superman were real and grounded but they leave all these small things in that add up to bug me. I know it's petty and I should enjoy it for what it is but it's difficult for me when the realism gets in the way.

For example the destruction in avengers or even Superman in the comics, versus this film, is that it's a realistic take on things versus straight up fun fiction. Even if it looks like someone dies, you don't think about it because its fun and silly. Ill give it to them though they did a good job with the realism because I care this much about such destruction, I take it to heart for all those dang people dying. I know superman is all new to this. But it seems like a simple decision that is inherent within superman. Ok I'm fighting these people, I will now fly away at light speed, to a dessert. Bam simple. I mean did his father only teach him how to hide his identity or what? Or did he teach him how to be a good man?

And yes I consider it a joyless movie, not because anyone else says so. But because that's how I felt. Joy is a matter of perception, and I just so happened to perceive it that way. I may have a calloused heart but I just didn't feel for the characters.

I don't mind them changing the continuity or origin story, it's just the way they execute it. They try and shove a theme of do the right thing down our throat, which is ok if you do it right and make me feel for these people. Know what they are going through. They tried but came out flat. Speaking of pointless character, Jenny Olsen? You show her in the background for two seconds and next thing you know she's trapped in rubble and is about to die? Why should I care about her? I don't know her. Character development is very important in a successful movie. And there just wasn't enough of it.

Thanks. Sorry for ranting.

Edited by lilben42

@panchecozarrapastro: Superman still has life as priority #1. He ****** once. Hated it. Felt remorseful and will never do that ever again. Hopefully that's what Zack Snyder is going for.