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 deaditegonzo

@sandman_ said:

@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.

And that's the thing, it was supposed to be controversial. It was supposed to be a situation with two answers that arent "good". It is a dissection of the entire concept of an oath not to kill, it is the ultimate inspection of Superman's character. If your jaw didnt drop, if your stomach didnt sink at that moment, then it didnt do it's job. You cannot be a hero or an symbol without your most sacred ideals being confronted. Superman had an impossible choice,no matter how powerful or idealistic he was, at that moment, he was just like us. I love this scene.

Posted by SandMan_

@sandman_ said:

@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.

And that's the thing, it was supposed to be controversial. It was supposed to be a situation with two answers that arent "good". It is a dissection of the entire concept of an oath not to kill, it is the ultimate inspection of Superman's character. If your jaw didnt drop, if your stomach didnt sink at that moment, then it didnt do it's job. You cannot be a hero or an symbol without your most sacred ideals being confronted. Superman had an impossible choice,no matter how powerful or idealistic he was, at that moment, he was just like us. I love this scene.

It was indeed a very powerful moment. People clapped and cheered when Supes did that. It seems people now take Superman more seriously.

Edited by deaditegonzo

@sandman_ said:

@deaditegonzo said:

@sandman_ said:

@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.

And that's the thing, it was supposed to be controversial. It was supposed to be a situation with two answers that arent "good". It is a dissection of the entire concept of an oath not to kill, it is the ultimate inspection of Superman's character. If your jaw didnt drop, if your stomach didnt sink at that moment, then it didnt do it's job. You cannot be a hero or an symbol without your most sacred ideals being confronted. Superman had an impossible choice,no matter how powerful or idealistic he was, at that moment, he was just like us. I love this scene.

It was indeed a very powerful moment. People clapped and cheered when Supes did that. It seems people now take Superman more seriously.

This time, and this didnt happen in my first viewing, somebody did clap when Zod died. Now, its something that should be enjoyable for multiple reasons, but to me it wasnt an empowering or exciting moment (im glad for some people it was, of course), it was the darkest moment Superman has ever faced in a movie, and it scarred him.

In this movie, Superman was a lot more emotionally vulnerable than he was/ is in the comics, but im ok with that. WB is trying to tell an interesting, involving, heartfelt, story in a 2 hour period. Its trying to be honest to the character, but also tell a story that will be beloved in it's own right. Mission accomplished beyond all hopes and expectations. It is like a dream, like my best dream about Superman saving the day.

Posted by SandMan_

@deaditegonzo: It was dark. Superman felt bad about it afterwards...But it seems Superman is back to being liked by general audience. That was the whole point I guess...But ultimately the ''too much action'' critic falls to the fanboys fault. Cause that is what they wanted :/

There will be more character development in the second one though.

Edited by novi_homines

@hiplobo: Bravo. Very good points there.

Edited by SPM1M

@sandman_ said:

@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.

And that's the thing, it was supposed to be controversial. It was supposed to be a situation with two answers that arent "good". It is a dissection of the entire concept of an oath not to kill, it is the ultimate inspection of Superman's character. If your jaw didnt drop, if your stomach didnt sink at that moment, then it didnt do it's job. You cannot be a hero or an symbol without your most sacred ideals being confronted. Superman had an impossible choice,no matter how powerful or idealistic he was, at that moment, he was just like us. I love this scene.

well said, very well this is exactly how i felt. the crowd literally gasped and as the "damn", the "wow", even "no f*cking way" filled the theater you know it was done right.

Edited by Cyborg6971

@rich711: If you can't recognize smack talk when you read it you're pretty thick. I don't know how you get fanboi out of my comment but the way you jumped all over it means I chose the correct bait. Luring the true fanbois out.

My gripe is with other artists who are not in the same field talking smack and that's what it was.

I have comics from almost every publisher and enjoy all. I also enjoy some of the movies that are based on them. Like 30 days of night the Burton batmans the first 2 Nolan batmans. And so on and so forth.

My theory is your a marvel fan who was so disgusted with IM3 that your only outlet is talking shit about this, a far superior film to try and make up the short comings of your beloved hot mess of a pile.

Like I said I like comics and comic book movies from both and all publishers. What I don't understand is the trance like state the marvel films have on anyone. Maybe no body has the stones to say that was not good in order to not rock the boat. All of their films have a gloss to them that can only be provided by Disney. They're almost campy with the comedy to the point that I could care less about any and all in the film. They're a cheap character of the comics. And the pg-13 ratings are for show. Maybe the first iron man could earn that rating. But the rest are just fluff. Culminating into the very average grossly overrated avengers.

So if DC has more serious films I'm all for that. Because my balls dropped over thirty years ago. If I wanted a toy commercial for a film, which is what a majority of marvel puts out them I'd also be high on their Koolaid. And I liked the avengers the first couple times I saw it.

Posted by Vlitra

I know a lot of people are hating on this movie but I disagree with them. I thought Man of Steel was awesome. If you ever wanted to see a Superman fight ripped straight out of a comic book and put in a movie, this will not disappoint.

Posted by lapis2

I still cant get over the positive reviews of this film. Its like people watched it with their brains turned off. Theres just so much wrong with it, which I was willing to forgive right up until superman killed zod. Dont give this he had no choice crap, hes superman there are many things he couldve done to save those people besides killing zod. It was just lazy writing. Id give this film 2/5 stars. I really wanted to like it but sadly for me its the kind of movie that the more I think it about the worse it gets.

Posted by novi_homines

@lapis2 said:

I still cant get over the positive reviews of this film. Its like people watched it with their brains turned off. Theres just so much wrong with it, which I was willing to forgive right up until superman killed zod. Dont give this he had no choice crap, hes superman there are many things he couldve done to save those people besides killing zod. It was just lazy writing. Id give this film 2/5 stars. I really wanted to like it but sadly for me its the kind of movie that the more I think it about the worse it gets.

Same. Its also a movie that relies on the action for its quality. The more times you watch it, the less the action seems awesome, resulting in a lower quality of the film over time.

Posted by DocLuthorVonDoom

"We...imagined a champion, a thought-powered redeemer capable of saving the world. A made up Messiah...[but] we sold out! They had 500 experts lined up thinking in harmony to streamline the Superman brand for maximum cross-spectrum, wide platform appeal. They built a violent, troubled, faceless anti-hero, concealing a tragic secret life, a global marketing icon. Everybody wears its brand. It makes people feel part of something big and new and cool. Superman helps them forget the reality of their drab, obediant lives"

Grant Morrison, Action Comics # 9

This quote seems amazingly poignant after watching that mass-produced piece of garbage. Seriously, this movie was like all special effects, and fights. I think this had the least amount of dialogue of any movie I've ever seen. Also, do you never give a negative review?

Posted by HiploBo

@docluthorvondoom: Agree with you Mr. Doom, Huge fan of Grant Morrison's. He has a great take on Superman... if anyone hasn't read Supergods his book about the history of comics, it's pretty awesome.

Edited by DocLuthorVonDoom

@hiplobo said:

@docluthorvondoom: Agree with you Mr. Doom, Huge fan of Grant Morrison's. He has a great take on Superman... if anyone hasn't read Supergods his book about the history of comics, it's pretty awesome.

Finally! Someone else who's read Supergods! Not only did I love it! It inspired me to start working on my comic again; something I had given up many and many a year ago.

Posted by turoksonofstone

Posted by Azura_Thena
Posted by Azura_Thena

@hiplobo:

The only issue that can be had when going into this movie with an inaccurate preconceived notion of who Superman is, is that you will miss everything about this film that did in fact do a good job in honoring the core of the character. I referenced the two mediums that are being used by those that did not like the movie to incorrectly slander this movie as a horrible offense to the character that is Superman. Both of my references point out the flaw in the accusation. I know you want to believe that Superman would never kill but that is not who Superman actually is. When he thought Lois died at Doomsday's hands and Superman was killing people in his attack on who he thought was Doomsday, he specifically said he didn't even care that people were dying because of his actions. He literally was aware of what he was doing and did not care at all. All he cared about was revenge. Superman is not infallible. He is not Christ. He is a flawed "human" being with human reactions to dangerous situations. He projects an image of perfection to the people he protects in his universe but you must take care not to become absorbed by the identity that he is trying to project or you completely miss the reality of who Superman is in the comics, which in my opinion means you miss a critical aspect to enjoying Superman beyond seeing how much he can lift.

I don't understand your problem with the realism. You are going to have to clarify that statement for me in order for me to address it to the best of my ability. Why was the destruction of part of the city a problem? Why was the kiss after they thought the battle was over a problem for you? Believe it or not, people do sometimes kiss when in, or after scary and/or harmful situations.

Lois finding Superman right after the fight with Zod seems like a bit of nitpicking to me. If that got to you, how do you ever enjoy any movie at all? They all use a bit of movie magic to compress time for the sake of plot. But if you need an in-canon explanation, it is entirely possible that their fight concluded within reasonable running distance. The same goes for your grievance for them landing in the city after flying into space. I am sure that if anyone came to you with trivialities like this over a movie that you had even a neutral stance on, you would likely find it hard to do anything but dismiss their opinion on the film entirely. Lois was identified as someone who was close to Superman and thus might have had information that the Kryptonians required. This was actually explained in the film.

I disagree with your opinion on the destruction in the comics being portrayed as fun or silly. I don't think that has ever been the norm in a Superman comic with regards to city-wide destruction. I can't remember every comic, so there may be some out there but I do remember many and none of them showed Superman skipping over dead bodies or doubling over in laughter right after.

If Superman flew away to a desert mid-battle, he would have flown there by himself while the Kryptonians continued to kill everyone around them. The Kryptonian armor did not grant them the ability of flight and it shielded them from the sun's radiation, which meant that none of them had the ability to follow him. Not only that but there was no need to follow him. He initially wasn't the reason they were in the city (and town for that matter) causing mayhem.

I again disagree with your point about requiring character development to care when they are dying. It was not that we were supposed to care that Jenny was about to die. It was that other characters came together to risk their lives to prevent her death and when that failed, to knowingly die with her. The struggle to prevent her death was what was important, not the character.

Posted by Sylvain

k4tzm4n you gave IM3 a 4/5? sylvain and you a 5/5?

Lol when did i gived 5/5 for im3?Lol......-Still think that you are out of your mind @k4tzm4n-.Thanks for reading.

Edited by DocLuthorVonDoom
@hiplobo said:

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.

Thank you! I'm glad someone said! Mark Waid, a great writer for Superman, and author of the incredible Kingdom Come, also former editor'n'chief of DC Comics had nothing but contempt for this film. I think it's interesting that the outrage of such a legend in the industry was not even mentioned in this review or anywhere else on comic vine, instead, it's all one sided praise.

Edited by Angelo2113

@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 respected everything about Superman while delivering a highly entertaining experience.

Absolutely agree.

I believe the problem with the people who didn't like this film or the characterization of this Superman is that everyone has their own vision of Superman and this isn't what they wanted. Superman in Man of Steel was faced with reality, some people accepted it while others didn't.

Posted by Veshark

@hiplobo said:

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.

Thank you! I'm glad someone said! Mark Waid, a great writer for Superman, and author of the incredible Kingdom Come, also former editor'n'chief of DC Comics had nothing but contempt for this film. I think it's interesting that the outrage of such a legend in the industry was not even mentioned in this review or anywhere else on comic vine, instead, it's all one sided praise.

Yeah....that's inaccurate. Waid explicitly states that he enjoyed the first two-thirds of the movie. His primary dislike of the movie stems from the mass-destruction of the final battle, and Superman not being shown saving innocents. He doesn't even have an issue with the final Zod scene, it was mostly to do with the above. I would hardly call it 'outrage', that final third just left a really bad taste in his mouth and he views the movie as joyless and missing the point of Superman being a protector.

I'm not saying he loved the movie, but it's hardly 'nothing but contempt'.

Edited by DocLuthorVonDoom

@veshark: I don't know man, I read his thrillbent review...dude sounded pretty pissed to me. He does say that it was a good scifi movie, he liked the look of Krypton and the characterization of Jonathan Kent, but then goes on to rip it apart as a comic book movie, which is, for all intents and purposes, what it is, and what it should have tried to live up to.

Posted by Veshark

@veshark: I don't know man, I read his thrillbent review...dude sounded pretty pissed to me. He does say that it was a good scifi movie, but then goes on to rip it apart as a comic book movie, which is, for all intents and purposes, what it is, and what it should have tried to live up to.

He seemed more disappointed than 'outrage' or 'hate', I just think he went into it willing to let many things slide, but finally leaving unsatisfied.

Edited by Cyborg6971

@docluthorvondoom said:
@hiplobo said:

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.

Thank you! I'm glad someone said! Mark Waid, a great writer for Superman, and author of the incredible Kingdom Come, also former editor'n'chief of DC Comics had nothing but contempt for this film. I think it's interesting that the outrage of such a legend in the industry was not even mentioned in this review or anywhere else on comic vine, instead, it's all one sided praise.

Who cares about what waid says? I don't. When was the last time he made a blockbuster. phucking never. You can hate it that's fine or you could like it. Bottom line it was better than anyone had anticipated and that this vision of supes isn't the donners vision or the singers, and that's the best part about it.

The biggest mindbender of this nerd rage to me, is the pissing and moaning about "oh there was too much action". WTF! Sow your vagina up right now before your insides fall out. Seriously! This is ridiculous, first off if that was too much STOP reading comics because there is soooo much action on every page (if you get a cape comics). Second, isn't that why you went in the first place. If you want David Mamet go watch Glen Gary Glen Ross, and stay as far away from this as possible so I don't have to hear your BS, that's the ABC of it. Third Zach Snyder directed this film. You all have been predisposed of his look and feel of his direction. While he may have the bombastic look of bay with a little more elegance you can't tell me with a straight face that you were blindsided by it, HOMEY DON'T PLAY THAT.

The most common divide by reviewers and fans is that he killed Zod thus making supes flawed, which is something a lot of people don't want to accept. The flack for this not being a donner superman film is unwarranted uncalled for and lazy reviewing.

I for one am happy they told this story and are serious about the hero. His story may have been condensed and not as fleshed out as many would like but I have no problem with it or it's tone. If this is the tone that comes with DC's shared universe of film, I'm beyond excited. As opposed to phase 601 of marvels "family" hero films. I'm not saying they're bad, I'm saying that Disney will never have the balls to attempt this kind of film for any of their IP's and the assembly line structure they have going leads to banality. If that's what you like hooray for you. You'll have decades of it with marvel and star wars for billions of summers to come.

What I want most of all is marvel to take their films more seriously and DC to lighten up a tad and have both meet in the middle. Do I wanna see ant man? Hell yea and black panther, strange the whole universe would be great. Same with DC. I want martian manhunter, aquaman and the kitchen sink. But what I don't want is the same safe movie everytime that is a bookend to another team up. Man of steel surprised me, not just the end but that WB had the guts to do it.

Edited by DocLuthorVonDoom
@cyborg6971 said:

.

Who cares about what waid says? I don't. When was the last time he made a blockbuster. phucking neve

I'll be honest with you, I didn't read your whole comment, just the first part...it's really long, and the first part is all I needed to read. Making a blockbuster doesn't translate to quality, it just means that your vision was dumb enough, or that you dumbed down your vision enough, to appeal to the idiotic masses, (*cough* present company included...I'm sure). Mark Waid's brilliant, Snyder and the Nolan family are hacks, that's why they're house hold names and he's not, 'nuff said.

P.S. I love that to you the antithesis of an action director, like Snyder, is Mamet (who wrote,not directed, Glengarry Glenn Ross, btw). Not Tarkovsky, or Dreyer, or Cocteau, but the creator of another HUGE box office success, but, that's the masses for you...okay so maybe I did read a bit more of your comment then the first part.

Edited by DocLuthorVonDoom

@angelo2113 said:

I believe the problem with the people who didn't like this film or the characterization of this Superman is that everyone has their own vision of Superman and this isn't what they wanted. Superman in Man of Steel was faced with reality, some people accepted it while others didn't.

It's a comic book movie, a fantasy, I'm not suppose to have to "accept" reality when I go see it. Superman never kills and he always saves everyone; this is, at least one, of the things that makes him such an endearing character that has inspired people for generations. A realistic, brooding, representation who kills, even as a last resort, negates all of that and makes it a completely pointless characterization. It's the exact same problem I had with the Nolan Batman: too much reality. I want a comic book hero on screen, not a gritty, semi-realistic character study that has very vague resemblance to the source material.

Edited by Supermansito

@hiplobo:

The only issue that can be had when going into this movie with an inaccurate preconceived notion of who Superman is, is that you will miss everything about this film that did in fact do a good job in honoring the core of the character. I referenced the two mediums that are being used by those that did not like the movie to incorrectly slander this movie as a horrible offense to the character that is Superman. Both of my references point out the flaw in the accusation. I know you want to believe that Superman would never kill but that is not who Superman actually is. When he thought Lois died at Doomsday's hands and Superman was killing people in his attack on who he thought was Doomsday, he specifically said he didn't even care that people were dying because of his actions. He literally was aware of what he was doing and did not care at all. All he cared about was revenge. Superman is not infallible. He is not Christ. He is a flawed "human" being with human reactions to dangerous situations. He projects an image of perfection to the people he protects in his universe but you must take care not to become absorbed by the identity that he is trying to project or you completely miss the reality of who Superman is in the comics, which in my opinion means you miss a critical aspect to enjoying Superman beyond seeing how much he can lift.

I don't understand your problem with the realism. You are going to have to clarify that statement for me in order for me to address it to the best of my ability. Why was the destruction of part of the city a problem? Why was the kiss after they thought the battle was over a problem for you? Believe it or not, people do sometimes kiss when in, or after scary and/or harmful situations.

Lois finding Superman right after the fight with Zod seems like a bit of nitpicking to me. If that got to you, how do you ever enjoy any movie at all? They all use a bit of movie magic to compress time for the sake of plot. But if you need an in-canon explanation, it is entirely possible that their fight concluded within reasonable running distance. The same goes for your grievance for them landing in the city after flying into space. I am sure that if anyone came to you with trivialities like this over a movie that you had even a neutral stance on, you would likely find it hard to do anything but dismiss their opinion on the film entirely. Lois was identified as someone who was close to Superman and thus might have had information that the Kryptonians required. This was actually explained in the film.

I disagree with your opinion on the destruction in the comics being portrayed as fun or silly. I don't think that has ever been the norm in a Superman comic with regards to city-wide destruction. I can't remember every comic, so there may be some out there but I do remember many and none of them showed Superman skipping over dead bodies or doubling over in laughter right after.

If Superman flew away to a desert mid-battle, he would have flown there by himself while the Kryptonians continued to kill everyone around them. The Kryptonian armor did not grant them the ability of flight and it shielded them from the sun's radiation, which meant that none of them had the ability to follow him. Not only that but there was no need to follow him. He initially wasn't the reason they were in the city (and town for that matter) causing mayhem.

I again disagree with your point about requiring character development to care when they are dying. It was not that we were supposed to care that Jenny was about to die. It was that other characters came together to risk their lives to prevent her death and when that failed, to knowingly die with her. The struggle to prevent her death was what was important, not the character.

Bravo!

Posted by Rezn0ir

It's a comic book movie, a fantasy, I'm not suppose to have to "accept" reality when I go see it. Superman never kills and he always saves everyone; this is, at least one, of the things that makes him such an endearing character that has inspired people for generations. A realistic, brooding, representation who kills, even as a last resort, negates all of that and makes it a completely pointless characterization. It's the exact same problem I had with the Nolan Batman: too much reality. I want a comic book hero on screen, not a gritty, semi-realistic character study that has very vague resemblance to the source material.

I honestly don't understand you ^

No one asked you to quote Accept reality, but sense it's a live action film sadly there are going to be moments when films dabble on reality. After all it is the setting of the film. the idea of Superman in real life was kinda.. um. .. I don't know. Part of the whole point. What I don't get is why people are so bothered by the notion that he killed a guy. Yet most of you have played the game Injustice. The same thing goes for the countless tellings, via game (as I mentioned), comic, and animated film of superman be it prime, and or other variant earth versions/multivers of him that has in fact killed before on far worse terms. Yet for the strangest reason in this film Superman kills Zod and you people cry foul. Why? It seems like people were to busy wanting one thing and missing the points of the story. Should I have to explain them? I seriously hope not. I guess no one understood Zod or what he told Clark before their final fight. The film was great, Sure it can only improve as they make a second one. So far It sounds like you along with a great number of other posters forgot your sense of imagination/open mindedness when seeing this film.

Was Man of Steel terrible? No. Was it done right? For the most part yes.

Lastly. Your comic book hero was on screen. However when you want one thing and don't get it in the exact way you expected it it is only natural to ignore what was presented instead with a willing bias..

Posted by hart7668

I'm just curious: Superman had the strength to snap a Kryptonian's neck, but no strength to simply fly him up, up, and away with that choke hold he had? Because he snapped Zod's neck rather easily.

Posted by Arkhamc1tizen

i have to choose between star trek and this to watch on today

Edited by HiploBo

Let me remind everyone that these are opinions we are dealing with. How I perceive Superman may not be how you perceive Superman. I can look at one scene and see and feel something entirely different. To say that someone's own opinion is incorrect, is an ignorant thing to say. I respect everyone's opinion on here that uses logic to back their reasoning behind liking or disliking the film.

@azura_thena I see where you are coming from and everything you said does make a lot of sense - it's just not how I perceive things. I WAS just nit-picking on those particular scenes, but I was making the point that those small things just added up for me.

My point about realism was this --- the more you try to place a movie in the "real world" and make the audience believe what is happening in it, the harder the job Is for the filmmakers. A comic book movie about a man who disguises himself with a pair of glasses is especially hard. The film makers have to either commit to complete realism or not at all. I just felt it wasn't a good fit to make a Superman movie into a gritty sci-fi tale.

I think my original review of the film should have went like this --- It's not the Superman I would like to see and it wasn't structured/written to my liking. And left it at that.

Quite a few people don't like my reasoning behind why I didn't like it, but on the flip side yes there are a lot who agree with me as well. Whoever said that you shouldn't care about what a well known comics creator's opinion is, was absolutely right. You shouldn't. I only care about my own feelings I had coming out of the movie. And that's all that matters.

Thanks.

Edited by drphilter

@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.

Thank you! Particularly for the Pa Kent explanation. I don't get how people don't understand this. I guess if you can't understand that then a lot of this movie would be a mystery to people. I think that's sort of a problem with things. People think just because you CAN do something means you SHOULD. That's what Pa was trying to teach the whole time, restraint and being aware of these things at all times. Pa and Ma Kent love Clark very much but they also want to protect him from the world which is really sweet to me. It's not in fear of what would happen to Clark physically, obviously, but what would happen to him psychologically and they love their son and don't want him to go through that. I think whether or not you think humanity would accept him is irrelevant, the fact that his father was so adamant and believed it to be true transcends this. As you put it, he was respecting what were his father's last wishes. This was clear as day to me as I watched it. Really the odd similarities between Pa Kent and Jor-El were a really interesting factor for me, one I really liked.

In regards to people calling this movie "cold". This has been my biggest complaint and fear of the Marvel movies in general and specifically Iron Man. People love Downey and love the catch phrase heavy, quippy remarks, etc etc. I enjoy it in small doses, at least when dealing with a superhero flick. But that has become the expectation. I wrote a piece last year after Dark Knight Rises came out and there people really started to contrast the humor and light hearted fun of Avengers with the more serious tone of Dark Knight Rises. It bugs me that humor has to be so involved for people to like these movies because that is still part of the general audience and critics alike saying these movies can't be taken seriously. I grew up when Comic books were looked down upon much more than they are now, they were never adequate forms of story telling, they were always a joke, the ladder two Batman flicks only reinforced this way of thinking. Then we see movies like Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Green Lantern and Superman returns that struggle with being funny, goofy and cutesy. I honestly believe there are parts in all of those movies that had great potential if the urge to inject comedy and a light hearted atmosphere weren't so prevalent. Being a hero, saving the world can and usually is more serious than fun, and in movies should be treated that way. I think when it's treated with humor and ease it sort of demeans the importance of what actually happens, on a deeper psychological level. Which in contrast makes The Dark Knight or Man of Steel seem cold and all that non-sense.

It really strikes me that people don't realize that it took this event for Clark to really be able to find that balance of him as Clark and him as Superman and I thought that is exactly what the ending of this movie pointed out. He was able to find who he was as Kal-el, Superman and Clark through this journey of a movie but it did require that journey. The journey of even being more aware of innocent byestandards in the future. I would actually really love to see him quit a fight to ensure the safety of someone, even if that makes him vulnerable to an attack, but this was him getting his footing. It would be incredibly cheap for him to just all of the sudden work that way. He goes from learning how to fly to all the sudden being this savior of everyone? That's not a bit of a stretch for anyone?

You can't have it both ways. This is why Superman is so hard to tell. You can't be that cheesy "Clark Kent *glasses off* Superman *glasses on* Clark Kent *glasses off* Superman" "It's a bird it's a plane..." and be taken seriously. I feel like this movie did everything people complained was lacking for Superman Returns, or wanted to see in Superman Returns and now people are complaining because they didn't have enough of those features. Furthermore considering that Superman Returns was technically the 5th installment in that storyline, so it had the benefit of being established, whereas this was breaking new ground for a new cinematic experience with the character.


I really hope the people who didn't enjoy this at least check it out on home video or something and give it another chance and even try to see certain things the way I did because I really do think it was a terrific movie. I honestly could have cared less about the action sequences. At this point in my life I feel like I can't really see anything new, so while they were fun and visually awesome, I really think this movie has more heart than what people give it credit for. It sucks that Mark Waid didn't like the movie and I also hope he gives it another shot. I am inclined to say because it wasn't exactly Birthright page for page, perhaps he is bias and perhaps deservedly so, he did give us probably one of the best Superman stories ever told. One thing I will say about Marvel is, phony or not, at least their guys are always supportive to press. I mean I didn't hear Garth Ennis come out about Punisher War Zone or Chris Claremont come out about Wolverine Origins. It actually kind of irritates me to know that Waid was so free to dish on the film because his influence is pretty prevalent. I know that's asking too much, but still. At first glance it seems like Waid isn't happy it didn't get made exactly the way he would have done it, so wasn't happy with it but I guess that could be said for anyone who doesn't like any movie, I know that is one of the first things I think about when I give a film a bad review, how would I have done it differently. Maybe they could enlist Waid's writing skills for Man of Steel 2, one of those put up or shut up situations.

Posted by Pwok21

I'll be honest, I didn't go into this film with high expectations even with everyone buzzing about the trailers.
This wasn't a good film. The plot was weak, the villain was weak and even the supporting cast was weak.
Cavill had a superb Superman but at no point did Zod feel like a threat, what with being punked by Jor-El five minutes in. There was no doubt that Superman would deal with him, and the inclusion of Lois Lane was one of the worst executed romances I've seen in a film period.

I came out of the cinema spelling out multiple plot holes or problems in my head, and whilst I'm not going to tirade and list them I will say that how people have came out stating this is a 5 star film is beyond me.

It's a typical Snyder film,and for that reason not worth revisiting.
Same as 300, same as Watchmen and the same as Sucker Punch.

I'd give it a 6/10 to be generous as I loved Cavill and Crowe but that is ONLY because I enjoyed the performance of those two.
I'd give it an easy 4/10 had those two not been involved.

Edited by drphilter
@hiplobo said:

@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.

Well, I see what you mean regarding "whats wrong with a preconceived notion" and I guess that's just a debatable point. On one hand, I kind of agree, whoever we are whether we read Supes comics forever, recently, etc we all know and either love or hate the character. So preconceived notions are hard to avoid. On the other hand, I would say this is an attempt to reboot the character and tell a familiar story with some updated twists, so as much as possible I think trying to clear the slate, so to speak, isn't out of the question of reasonable requests. That said, it's really up to ourselves to do that or not. I often think that very point is what makes movies more enjoyable for me than I see the vast majority of other people. Great example is, ironically, Snyder's "Sucker Punch". I heard for weeks how terrible it was, etc etc, but I saw a single trailer, thought it seemed like a neat concept and I was able to really enjoy the movie. Was it groundbreaking storytelling or even filmmaking? No. But does film always have to be that? Can't it just sometimes be fun? Which is weird because I really loathed the ladder two Transformers flicks and people who like them say the same thing. I guess it's just how material is presented. (Though I take hotties in skimpy outfits over dirty beat up autobots any day, lol)

I guess I don't distinguish the difference between The Avengers battle and this one, even though this one was definitely more real world-esque. It was never a complaint about either film but I do remember thinking right after Iron Man woke up, "New York is f*****!" I hate the term real-world used in reference to movies because, they are movies, it's all fiction, there's nothing real world about anything in movies. Even David O'Russell pictures over exaggerate things for drama, so maybe that's a bit of disconnection on my part or why things don't bother me that way. I see them as mere artistic differences. Though, Marvel has always struck me as more or less friendly, so I thought both destruction scenes felt at home. I don't argue with the point of safety, though I would say Metropolis was ground zero for Zod and they weren't there to battle Superman, they were there to terraform. Now, I will say, after playing Injustice: Gods Among Us, it would have been pretty epic to see the fight span from Metropolis to the Fortress of Solitude (which was no longer there thanks to Zod, but at least perhaps the arctic) or try things with outrunning each other since Zod was new to flying and super speed, would have been cool and that is why this movie wasn't perfect because those were missed opportunities. I really just assumed, knowing there will be a sequel, that there were things in this move that will be addressed in the future films. (I mean can you imagine Batman lecturing and not fully trusting Superman because he did kill Zod? If we do get a World's Finest film, that would be amazing to play off in which case I will thank this movie everyday for letting that happen.)

It sucks that you didn't find joy in the movie, that is a perception thing. The moment when Ma Kent is at the school with Clark, pretty much any scene with Pa Kent and most scenes with Jor-El really got me into the movie not just for their sake but really helped me put myself in Clark's position and how crappy that's got to feel. I actually really felt for Chris Meloni's and Richard Schiff's character's and their fate more than I did Lois and that's not a dig on Lois, just I especially liked Meloni in this movie.

Yeah, they didn't give much to Perry White or Jenny Olson but why should we care about them? Cause they were innocent people, victims to a madman. I think we should care about them for the same reason Superman does, they are life, human, innocent. I didn't know anyone in any of the countless tragedies that have occurred the past decade plus, but I felt for each of them and their families all the same. I agree character development is important, but White and Olson weren't prominent characters. Prominent only because we know who they are and how they play into Superman's world as we have known it, but with in the context of the movie, they were simply just associates of Lois Lane. Well, they did play Perry up a bit and I really liked Laurence Fishburne in the role, suited him well.

Edited by lilben42

@drphilter: I like your post and I don't think the Daily Bugle is supposed to be important I think we are supposed to get a glimpse of them.

Posted by drphilter

@lilben42 said:

@drphilter: I like your post and I don't think the Daily Bugle is supposed to be important I think we are supposed to get a glimpse of them.

I really hope you meant Daily Planet :)

Edited by novi_homines

@docluthorvondoom said:
@hiplobo said:

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.

Thank you! I'm glad someone said! Mark Waid, a great writer for Superman, and author of the incredible Kingdom Come, also former editor'n'chief of DC Comics had nothing but contempt for this film. I think it's interesting that the outrage of such a legend in the industry was not even mentioned in this review or anywhere else on comic vine, instead, it's all one sided praise.

That's the internet. It's fueled by this "pack mentality", that if I see most people liking MoS, then I should too. It's pretty surprising. Everyone doesn't follow this, but i've seen so many people just blatantly ignore the issues the film has, and writes them off as small nitpicks. After i've seen the reactions of people here, as well as other sites, I began to think to myself that this is the exact reason critics exist. Some other viewers can't or won't, for whatever reason, objectively judge things. People have wanted a good superman movie for so long, and in a way this is the best one of this era. But that doesn't mean that its the best cbm, or anywhere even close. People have opinions, that I can accept. But when I try to point out an issue I have with the film, one that seems clear and respectable, its interesting seeing some brush it off as irrelevant. That goes farther than a simple rational opinion.

Edited by lilben42

@novi_homines: I kind of agree with you. I thought it was a good movie but far from the best cbm. I fell like people are exaggerating a bit. I mean better than The Dark Knight, hardly. I see why the critics didn't like the movie. But I can easily get over it because to me the good outweighs the bad.

@drphilter: Oh yeah sorry I was thinking about how similar the Daily Planet and the Daily Bugle were while typing it. haha

Posted by DocLuthorVonDoom

That's the internet. It's fueled by this "pack mentality", that if I see most people liking MoS, then I should too. It's pretty surprising. Everyone doesn't follow this, but i've seen so many people just blatantly ignore the issues the film has, and writes them off as small nitpicks. After i've seen the reactions of people here, as well as other sites, I began to think to myself that this is the exact reason critics exist. Some other viewers can't or won't, for whatever reason, objectively judge things. People have wanted a good superman movie for so long, and in a way this is the best one of this era. But that doesn't mean that its the best cbm, or anywhere even close. People have opinions, that I can accept. But when I try to point out an issue I have with the film, one that seems clear and respectable, its interesting seeing some brush it off as irrelevant. That goes farther than a simple rational opinion.

Yeah, it seems that if you voice any kind of legitimate, well thought, complaint, you're automatically some kind of terrible troll. It's all that "if you don't have anything nice to say" mentality.

Edited by DocLuthorVonDoom

@rezn0ir said:

@docluthorvondoom said:

It's a comic book movie, a fantasy, I'm not suppose to have to "accept" reality when I go see it. Superman never kills and he always saves everyone; this is, at least one, of the things that makes him such an endearing character that has inspired people for generations. A realistic, brooding, representation who kills, even as a last resort, negates all of that and makes it a completely pointless characterization. It's the exact same problem I had with the Nolan Batman: too much reality. I want a comic book hero on screen, not a gritty, semi-realistic character study that has very vague resemblance to the source material.

I honestly don't understand you ^

No one asked you to quote Accept reality, but sense it's a live action film sadly there are going to be moments when films dabble on reality. After all it is the setting of the film. the idea of Superman in real life was kinda.. um. .. I don't know. Part of the whole point. What I don't get is why people are so bothered by the notion that he killed a guy. Yet most of you have played the game Injustice. The same thing goes for the countless tellings, via game (as I mentioned), comic, and animated film of superman be it prime, and or other variant earth versions/multivers of him that has in fact killed before on far worse terms. Yet for the strangest reason in this film Superman kills Zod and you people cry foul. Why? It seems like people were to busy wanting one thing and missing the points of the story. Should I have to explain them? I seriously hope not. I guess no one understood Zod or what he told Clark before their final fight. The film was great, Sure it can only improve as they make a second one. So far It sounds like you along with a great number of other posters forgot your sense of imagination/open mindedness when seeing this film.

Was Man of Steel terrible? No. Was it done right? For the most part yes.

Lastly. Your comic book hero was on screen. However when you want one thing and don't get it in the exact way you expected it it is only natural to ignore what was presented instead with a willing bias..

Just because it's a live action movie doesn't mean it has to be serious and pretentious. I suppose that's my biggest problem, not that it tried to be "realistic", but that it was so friggin' serious and pretentious. Cape comics can be cheesy, they can be undeveloped, but rarely ever are they pretentious (...at least that use to be the case). I guess I wanted something more like the Burton or the Donner films, still my favorite live action super hero adaptations, because they knew what they were, and were still full of fun, and light, fantasy elements, and, at no point, did they try to be gritty and serious.

And--bit of a side-note, just to set the record straight--as much as I love the first two Donners, I think the best adaptation of Supes on the screen is the Fleischer Bros cartoons, nothing will ever come close to those.

Posted by Vulshock

I went into this film not knowing a whole lot about Superman. Sure i know the most common stuff that most fans of comics do and i have been leaning towards Marvel most of the time. I was amazed while watching this movie. The sense of movement they created was amazing. The story was also good and they didn't explain the origin in a linear fashion which i thought was nice. There where times when i questioned what was going on. Why was Kal beamed by that ray? Luckily nothing was left unanswered. This movie has done what Green Lantern failed at. It didn't introduce to many different elements.

A rule of thumb for every super hero movie should be to not have more than one villain in the first movie.

Posted by Cyborg6971

The hollywood reporter just broke news that the man of steel just broke the june record opening with 125.1 million from the weekend.

Posted by AmazingWebHead

5 stars? I've heard some amateur complaints, but now that a viner (a fellow professional comic fan) has given it 5 stars, I know seeing it is the right thing to do.

Posted by Webjaker

When this movie ended I was filled with a sense of disappointment - there was way too much crammed into one movie, too much fighting, not enough story, way too much cheese factor and a terrible score. That being said, there WAS a lot of stuff that was awesome - over all however I give it a 'meh'

Posted by Rezn0ir

@rezn0ir said:

@docluthorvondoom said:

It's a comic book movie, a fantasy, I'm not suppose to have to "accept" reality when I go see it. Superman never kills and he always saves everyone; this is, at least one, of the things that makes him such an endearing character that has inspired people for generations. A realistic, brooding, representation who kills, even as a last resort, negates all of that and makes it a completely pointless characterization. It's the exact same problem I had with the Nolan Batman: too much reality. I want a comic book hero on screen, not a gritty, semi-realistic character study that has very vague resemblance to the source material.

I honestly don't understand you ^

No one asked you to quote Accept reality, but sense it's a live action film sadly there are going to be moments when films dabble on reality. After all it is the setting of the film. the idea of Superman in real life was kinda.. um. .. I don't know. Part of the whole point. What I don't get is why people are so bothered by the notion that he killed a guy. Yet most of you have played the game Injustice. The same thing goes for the countless tellings, via game (as I mentioned), comic, and animated film of superman be it prime, and or other variant earth versions/multivers of him that has in fact killed before on far worse terms. Yet for the strangest reason in this film Superman kills Zod and you people cry foul. Why? It seems like people were to busy wanting one thing and missing the points of the story. Should I have to explain them? I seriously hope not. I guess no one understood Zod or what he told Clark before their final fight. The film was great, Sure it can only improve as they make a second one. So far It sounds like you along with a great number of other posters forgot your sense of imagination/open mindedness when seeing this film.

Was Man of Steel terrible? No. Was it done right? For the most part yes.

Lastly. Your comic book hero was on screen. However when you want one thing and don't get it in the exact way you expected it it is only natural to ignore what was presented instead with a willing bias..

Just because it's a live action movie doesn't mean it has to be serious and pretentious. I suppose that's my biggest problem, not that it tried to be "realistic", but that it was so friggin' serious and pretentious. Cape comics can be cheesy, they can be undeveloped, but rarely ever are they pretentious (...at least that use to be the case). I guess I wanted something more like the Burton or the Donner films, still my favorite live action super hero adaptations, because they knew what they were, and were still full of fun, and light, fantasy elements, and, at no point, did they try to be gritty and serious.

And--bit of a side-note, just to set the record straight--as much as I love the first two Donners, I think the best adaptation of Supes on the screen is the Fleischer Bros cartoons, nothing will ever come close to those.

All I got from this was that you found the film to be pretentious, and that from your last paragraph my assessment about your willingly bias based on the film not being what you wanted to be, being very accurate. Also to no surprise you're still hung up on previous adaptations of Superman. Again a willing bias. As such I am not sure how can dub the film pretentious as you put it. Thus only furthering the point I made.

Sadly this is the problem I have. You come off as having no desire to even truly consider this telling of Superman or any other beyond it. Also when you said that Superman never kills I cannot help but further express how I do not understand you. You cite the first two Donners films, Yet superman not only de-powered, out smarted Zod, Ursa, and Non in a peaceful manor. Thus winning!, but turned around and killed Zod in almost villain like fashion. Along with Lois joining in on the fun with smiles all around. He could have turned them in, locked them up etc. It was a pointless and unnecessary kill with no remorse. Yet somehow Zod in Man of Steel being killed off by way of a reason that made much more sense and gave more dynamic along with the rest of the film is Pretentious? At least in man of steel he felt remorse about having to kill Zod. You do realize that If we were going by those Superman films today, they would still be frozen corpses with Lois having committed unnecessary murder and being A-OK about it.. . And all that ended with a smile some humor, and some more humor. Gee that's not dark swept under the rug at all for 1977.

Here's your reminder in the link below. All and all. Jor-El would be saying "Umm WTH my son?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0

Posted by Ancient_0f_Days

Just saw the movie...

flawless, well, maybe one flaw, there wasn't any ...

but I can get over it since it was so damn good, too bad about the damn baby crying throughout the majority of the film .........

Edited by Cyborg6971

Let's not forget that in superman 2 that when Clark got his powers back he went back to the diner where a De-powered superman got his bum handed to him and proceeded to take revenge with his powers. That seems more out of character than the snap decision of killing zod. Oh how easily we forget.

The cbm that failed the most was im3 not man of steel. Marvel will keep churning out the fluff and those mediocre films will continue to get rave reviewers for being predictable funny and wholesome. Never stray or take the whole genre seriously. Just pump out the cookie cutter 3 part acts. Im3 didn't surprise me you could see the twist from a mile away or at least knew something was up. But with the neck snapper no one expected that no one and that's why it's such a polarizing film. And in the end better. Im3 was choppy with no characterization a predictable plot and a lame ending. With an even more lame villain. Not to mention a slap in the face to comic fans.

Edited by DocLuthorVonDoom

@rezn0ir:

You use that term "willing bias" quite a bit; between this and your last reply at least a dozen times. But what does that mean? It's right up there with "elitisim"; essentially a disparaging term for having standards, used by those who lack the will or knowledge to create their own. I've been a long time reader of Superman, and I've seen what works, and what doesn't work for the character. Essentially, Superman is a righteous Messiah for the space age, a being who represents the best of what we are and what we can be. I can think of no better example to represent standards. A mass produced action flick that's only appeal is rampant destruction, bright colors, a shit town of CG, and lots of wanton violence made for the sole purpose of box office gross is in direct opposition, even a bastardization, of what the character represents and is suppose to do: inspire us to be better.

Also, the pushing off the canyon at the end of Superman II is ambigous. Do they die? I don't know, and neither do you; but the fact that it's such a light hearted scene implies that there is no death involved. Not to mention the scene in the directors cut where they're clearly seen being incarcerated after the show down in the Fortress. Zod's death in Man of Steel leaves no ambiguity, it's dark and serious, and is obviously intended to be shocking

Edited by AndresZR

So... maybe this is a great movie, or the best superhero movie for someone who doesn't know what superman is all about, for me it was a awful movie because is not superman for me, is a movie that use the name of superman but doesn't represent he.

i think that the critic made in the movie superman vs the elite or kingdom come is just exactly what is happening with this movie.

everyone is like alright he had to kill, he had no choice, this is a new take on superman, is a new era, he did kill before, he did kill in superman II the movie, etc, etc

yes that's exactly what the critic of the things i say first is, in superman vs the elite based on the What's so funny about truth, justice, and the American way? some new "heroes" appear applying the easy way, if something is bad you have to finish it, and the people is like "yes!!, cause superman is so nice but he never finish the problem" is seem like superman in this movie is the elite and your alright with it.

in kingdom come he is an outcast, dropout by the world cause they don't understand his ideals, of not killing and his way to do things, and all the heroes that appear as superman is gone, are all like doing fast and easy choices.

im 20 years old, im too young but i have seen many things about superman, and i haven't seen the old movies (1978....) complete. but i think that this movie is giving a bad name to superman, cause this movie will succeed or it seems like that, and every time in the future that they want to do a new movie, they will say this movie went great, and will say lets see what it got... lot of destruction, it has to be many destruction, lots of people dying everywhere, it has to show superman fighting every-time going through buildings full of people, and if the enemy is to powerful superman have to take the enemy himself cause there is no other way.

sad, cause i thought that superman was all about the message of hope, but in the movie there is not a real message, someone can tell me the message, the message that superman always tell us to be better persons, better HUMANS.

superman for me in this movie was pa kent, how sacrifice his life for saving people, for saving a dog and teaching a lesson to clark in the process, how the things are done.

but is like superman doesn't learn anything from that masterpiece of scene, is simple logic, the first he have to do is save the people, doesn't matter what happen with you, superman is pa kent, zod an co is the tornado, the dog are the humans "an inferior raze", is simple but is like they took that scene out of a comic book, and didn't understand the meaning, is that spirit of sacrifice, what is superman all about.

apart from that i think the movie has everything, great soundtrack, great cast, great acting, especially great effects, great dialogues, some memorable quotes, but is lacking the morality of superman in my personal opinion.

and one more thing, i apologize for my English im from Colombia and here we speak Spanish.