MAN OF STEEL (Zack Snyder/Chris Nolan 2013)

[Johann]

Whoever that man is, he'll grow up to CHANGE THE WORLD....


Man Of Steel was Magnificent.
Best Superman movie ever made, and possibly the best action film I've ever witnessed. I won't do any spoilers at the moment, so I'll just say that this film was facing high expectations from this fanboy, and it exceeded them by a galactic mile.
Henry Cavill was spot-on perfect as Clark Kent/Superman/Kal-El, and I wanted to see the movie again as soon as it was over.
It moves at a breakneck pace- it never lets up. It is a freight train of a Blockbuster. I think it's safe to say that it will bethe biggest movie of the year, on every sane critics' best of-lists. It was stunning. RUN to see it. I saw it on an AVC screen (slightly smaller than an IMAX screen) in 3-D and it knocked my socks off.

Thanks to every single person who worked on this EPIC film, especially Chris Nolan, David S. Goyer and Zack "KING-DADDY" Snyder.
They brought it home for your Mama to cook, Yo.

[tabuno]

What really stands out during the first half of this movie was how unnecessarily disjointed the editing became with the non-chronological scenes using flashbacks and forward jumps in order to tell superman’s origins. Man of Steel initially incorporates visual similarities to the alien ambiance of Avatar (2009) and later visual elements of the more raw and gritty District 9 (2009), The Matrix (1999) and Inception (2010). As with these special effects extravaganzas, there will always be more and better movies to come and like Avatar and Inception, Man of Steel has lifted the bar moderately for now to present an enhanced 3-D experience. Such advances in appearance, however, can’t overcome the disjointed quality of how this story unfolded until later in the movie when the action takes over to the end of the movie.

Unlike the horror movie Constantine (2005) that uses primarily a linear chronological unfolding, where its director included judicious use of flashbacks, but only to enhance the story, not to dominate it. Man of Steel’s unfolding story seems to have been based on avoiding extended scenes lengths to reduce cost or compress the time to supposedly pick up the pace. Even From Up on Poppy Hill, a Japanese animated movie that came out this year understood the selective and deliberate use of flashbacks that didn’t necessarily confuse and jolt the audience suddenly ahead in time or back in time like some audience member to be manipulated for the sake of the director’s interest. What made Ryan Lantern’s character in Green Lantern (2011) so enjoyable was its depiction of the character development and human connections and discovery. Omitted in this version of Superman is the even the initial fascinating discovery of Superman by his adopted parents or even an extended evolving childhood development in which psychological attachment is so important a period in any character’s life. Kill Bill No. 1 (2002) and No. 2 (2003) were a few of the action movies in which the use of non-linear flashbacks was well executed and didn’t confuse or break the rhythm of the movie, even Elektra (2005) was able to accomplish this same feat.

Unlike The Matrix (1999) where the antagonist is primarily an unemotional machine, where there is logically a black and white element to the antagonist’s character, the human resemblance and actually the literal adoption of the human form as Superman’s biological parents makes for the use of the black and white stereotypical antagonist as two-dimensional qualities quite inconsistent with a three-dimensional visual movie format. Spiderman (2002) perhaps reflects the best of allowing a movie to unfold in its storytelling narrative, that includes the same life experiences as occurred in Man of Steel albeit which was more condensed that included a moment of discovery (unlike that omitted in Man of Steel), the attachment to one’s parents and the parent-son conflicts. But in Spiderman series, even a more multi-dimensional antagonists that made for a more compelling, balanced emotional tension as in Spiderman (2002) and more recently Spiderman 3 (2007) where the Sandman character is a compelling example of a more complex character that allows for a more reflective and substantive satisfying emotional experience.

Even as Christopher Nolan who helped with the movie’s story, whose Dark Knight (2008) visual design and lighting were the problem but not in Man of Steel, nevertheless unlike Dark Knight the attempt to compress many individual scenes and history into this movie didn’t come off well. The Dark Knight succeeded in its depiction of extended deliciously wicked moral dilemma’s while Man of Steel that seemed more by the numbers. While it is commendable that Russell Crowe as Jor-El in place of the Marlon Brando of Superman (1978) has an even more compassionate and emotive portrayal, the script still didn’t allow Russell Crowe the breadth of character development, interaction that could cement the beginning scenes. Then at some point more wasn’t sufficiently better and as the awesome Inception (2010) like visual effects and other superhero banging and crashing into buildings continue they becomes very overdone by the ending of the movie.

Overall, Man of Steel is an impressive presentation of this superhero, yet it just seemed overly chaotic, a bit over done in places, a bit by the numbers, and overly ambitious in its use of special effects.

As for the end scene, I was a bit disappointed that Clark Kent wasn't more distinguishable from Superman as he and Amy Adams as Lois Lane seem to already have a connection that wasn't in any of the previous incarnations of Superman. The mystery and the discovery of who Superman is just as in Batman or Spiderman was part of the special nature of these superhero movies.

[tabuno]

I sure hope I don't get cinemabon to begin criticizing a movie I loved. If he did, I probably have post traumatic stress and forgotten about it.

[Chris Knipp]

Wow, cinemabon. That is an unusually frank and strong condemnation.

I'm in NYC and though a theater showing MAN OF STEEL is a few blocks away, there are so many other interesting new movies to see I haven't gotten to it yet as I thought I would. Despite Johann's rave, the reviews according to Metacritic are below-average. That is for a movie one wants to run out to see. Howevcer, if it's really the big blockbuster of the summer or even the year as all reports indicated I need to see it, though I might have to wait till the end of next week when I leave NYC since it is showing at my neighborhood cinema in California.

Films I have seen in NYC this week (if not otherwise indicated I've written and posted reviews of them):

DIRTY WARS
PLIMPTON!
EVOCATEUR: MORTON DOWNEY JR. -- NO REVIEW. This guy was so sleazy I don't know if I want to revisit his story.
SHADOW DANCER
HANNAH ARENDT
THIS IS THE END -- NO REVIEW. Did not like, may skip writing about, though I have followed these actors for years.
ALYAH -- PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED; rewatched
THE BLING RING
THE WALL [DIE WAND, German]
BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO

More to come. I'm focusing on movies in theaters (no series now), but have also been to the JP Priestley play revival, CORNELIUS and visited MoMA and spent some time with firends and walking around.

[Chris Knipp]

What THE END are you talking about?

What you say bears out that endlessly redoing things that have been done perfectly well before is a losing game. But that's today's bottom-line-obsessed Hollywood.

[Chris Knipp]

Oh, THIS IS THE END. Well, I expected to enjoy it, but found it tasteless and not very funny. The extremely cheesy apocaliptic trappings aren't made funny. I thought of Gregg Araki's "teenage apocalypse trilogy," which is full of great stuff. Whoever this director was he was just a hack cranking out a film to Seth Rogen's forced script. Of course this is for most, celebrity porn, and as that I suppose it may succeed. Avoid, im my opinion.

And by the way: hammering drums in action movies have become a curse. They are laied on at the slightest excuse. All I can think is I hope my friend Kumiko whose husband Seiichi Tanaka's San Francisco Taiko Dojo has been in movies is making money out of all this noise.

[Johann]

I will ignore cinemabon. Negative reviews are not warranted for MAN OF STEEL.

It delivers on an Epic scale. It is sci-fi (based partly on Earth!) that absolutely destroys the likes of Star Trek.
Superman has been done right for all times now.
His battle is gargantuan. His enemies are formidable.
His powers are indeed Super- I love how they made him fly. At one point he tells Lois to stand back, because the shockwave from him taking off could knock you out, even kill you.
The action sequences are mesmerizing- I didn't blink much while watching this movie. People will criticize and say Superman moves too fast to be believable but I say you are retarded if you think that. He moves like lightning, bitch, and the editing illustrated it.

I'll be seeing this at least 3 more times. I will bathe in Zack Snyder's glory. Oh Yes.

I don't have much time today, so tomorrow I'll go into more detail on why I loved this and why it is the Best Superman film ever made.
Little details like his chest hair, his father on Earth (Kevin Costner) saying that maybe he should have let the kids on the bus die- WOW- all of it adds up to sheer magnificence.

If you pan this movie, you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies. You go to movie jail. Minimum 6 month sentence.
Better yet, get into a Phantom Zone pod and blast the fuck off!

[tabuno]

While I have problems with Man of Steel, Johann's observation about Superman's flying does stand out for me. The patient attention to detail with Superman's flying does reverberate with a vivid intensity and strength that really did come through, more so than perhaps any of the previous Superman movie incarnations. For me there was a lot to like about the movie, but there were enough theatrical flaws that really diminished by total enjoyment of the movie.

[Johann]

Sorry. I have to disagree.
There were no flaws with this movie.
NONE.
It's all in your head tabuno.
If there were flaws, I would point them out.
This is a summer blockbuster. The Benchmark, actually.
It seems as if you guys didn't allow yourselves to enjoy it- you went in with a critical cap on.

I'll have a lot more to say tomorrow. My time is limited today.

[Johann]

On Facebook Monte Hellman called it a bore but well-cast and well-acted.
I guess you old guys can't handle the bombast.
Can't handle the noise.
Turn down those hearing aids....

For me, TURN IT UP! BRING THE NOISE!!!!!!

[tabuno]

Johann, I'm disappointed that you would comment on my comment without having read my previous comment at 06-14-2013 05:03 PM posted right have your first posting. I have already pointed out the problems that I observed in this movie. You have implied that I would just make arbitrary comments without justification. I make it a point to spell out my reasons for my evaluation of movies while you just flippantly ignore them.

Your emotional reaction to all these negative comments on this thread is discrediting your objectiveness and weakens the validity of your points seemingly suggesting that they are based more on subjective emotions than cinematic techniques or valid theatrical points. If so, it may not be possible to really discuss this movie meaningfully with you at all.

[Chris Knipp]

Tabuno,

Johann is a fanboy, self proclaimed, primed to love the new Superman movie pretty much no matter what. We must not be too hard on him. We love his enthusiasm, and he admittedly doesn't write reviews, as such, just appreciations (and sometimes equally enjoyable diatribes: see the Lounge for some of them about Canada's government).

[Johann]

I will. They have my money.

Call me flippant all you want, I've already said it: criticism for MAN OF STEEL is not warranted.
The film is pretty much flawless in my view. Sorry you don't like it.
I am a film enthusiast, not a critic. You have never heard me say I am a critic and you never will.
Critics are paid to shape public opinion. I am nothing of the sort.

Snyder, Goyer and Nolan have NAILED Superman. I don't know how much more clearer I can make it.
It irks me that you guys seem to believe that ALL movies deserve criticism. Some don't, like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Man of Steel.
Flawless entertainments.
Pick it apart all you want- you never came to the film on it's own terms. You came to it on your OWN.
It's glaringly obvious.
I'm not just primed to like this movie- it seems as if it was made for fanboys like me.
I appreciate the Holy Hell out of it, just like I appreciate what they did with Batman.

Movies like this are to be celebrated.
It just broke the box-office record for June (beating Toy Story 3's record- $113 million).
It deserved every fucking penny.

[Johann]

"OVERBLOWN" and "REDUNDANT" are words that should never be used to describe this movie.

OBLIVION deserves those words. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS deserves those words.
Not Man of Steel.

[Johann]

Here's why this movie RULES:

- the first half-hour on Krypton is Incredible sci-fi. Zack Snyder gave those scenes a serious EDGE. cinemabon mentions the 1978 Superman and it's Krypton scenes. Bill, do you really believe that Richard Donner did a better job of creating Krypton? All we saw were long shots (very nice long shots by Geoffrey Unsworth I'll admit) and a few scenes on studio sets. Zack Snyder gave us a lot more. He gave us jagged landscapes and Epic aerial shots- done with beautiful CGI that looked great in 3-D. The costumes of the Kryptonian Council- beautiful.
Just as I would imagine them to be. And then he has shocking violence- the murders of council members by Zod (to "save" Krypton?) right off the bat we know that Zod is *seemingly* misguided- a military Leader who has gone off the rails- he disregards Democracy, all to save his race. But Jor-El knows something that Zod doesn't.
The "Natural Birth" angle was something that surprised me but also WORKS. It makes Kal-El's story more plausible. I've read reviews that say they changed Superman's mythology too much, and, like Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, makes Superman too Christ-like.
I say this:
If Superman were to actually exist in the real world, as this film tries to do, set in modern times, RELIGION and CHRISTIANITY are thrown into question. Because, how can God and Jesus have Dominion over Earth if there are other planets that have "humans" with physical capabilities that far outweigh our own? How does God fit into that? When Clarks' Earth Dad Kevin Costner says that maybe those kids should've been left to die THAT is some serious human shit right there. How would you answer your "child" in that circumstance? How do you encourage him to "be himself" when he is so much more gifted than anyone else?
This is riveting to ponder.

- the way that Zod's powers (and his minions') are also formidable on Earth (just like Superman) makes for very compelling viewing.
Those action scenes where Superman is getting his ass kicked all over the place by that chick in Zod's army was just plain AWESOME.
Too much bombast for ya?
Boo-hoo.
What the fuck were you expecting to see? You had to know that there was some intense action coming your way- his flagship comic is called ACTION COMICS. "nuff said.

My roommate asked me before we went to see it what I was expecting to see.
I said "I'm expecting to see Superman do some SUPER SHIT."
And my expectations were met. You can get into the minuitae of the characters and the scale of the explosions and destruction, but guess what? This is sci-fi/fantasy that is based on a comic book. How critical can you get?
This isn't LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD. And because it isn't, for what it is aiming to do, it's FLAWLESS.
And the filmmakers know it.
I'm VERY GLAD that Chris Nolan doesn't give two shits what critics think.
He just brings it and doesn't care, like Oliver Stone. Critics are moot to him.
THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS TO BE.
You'd lose your mind if that was the case.

[Chris Knipp]

I am a film enthusiast, not a critic. You have never heard me say I am a critic and you never will.

Of course that is what I was trying to tell tabuno and cinemabon.

But even masterpieces have flaws, or even when they don't, masterpieces desserve intelligent analysis, informed praise, which is also criticism. If one loves something surely one will enjoy talking about what makes it good.

[Johann]

Yes, ALL films have flaws. Not one is 100% PERFECT.
They're made by human beings, after all.

But some are about as perfect as you can hope for.
And MAN OF STEEL is that for me.

[Chris Knipp]

As they say in Orwell's Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

I guess you're saying this new guy is the best, most appropriate Clark Kent/Superman ever?

[Johann]

Yes I am.
Henry Cavill is Clark Kent/Superman. He played the character perfect. Truly perfect.
Monte Hellman is right that this film is well-cast. (He particularly liked Lawrence Fishburne's Perry White performance).

I hear what people are saying about the movie descending into a miasma of explosions but I loved it. It all works.
I have nothing but praise here, and I will not apologize for it. NEVER. My fanboy flag is FIRMLY planted on this.

[tabuno]

It's nice the way Johann describes the Man of Steel's Kryton. I can appreciate the set design and the visualization of it. The costumes also work. I also comprehend and share in the shock value of Zod at the beginning. I also like the natural birth idea revealed in this movie, making the contrast between genetic manipulation and humanity's on proclivity natural birth, and it also raises a contemporary and relevant contrast between sci fi and reality and how the two are beginning to intersect in this world as well. I enjoyed Johann's diving into morality and religious philosophy because it did help to remind me of the deeper levels that this movie embraces at times and the much under-rated Kevin Costner getting an opportunity to act in a wonderful scene with such resonance.

But at the same time for me, Zod's character remains two-dimensional like the cartoon strip in a 3-D world design. Towards the end of the movie there is an effort to justify Zod's character as genetically endowed which in some ways makes sense. Yet, it would have been much more layered if there had been some corruption of genes that would have allowed Zod some awareness of his own lack emotional empathy so that the audience could have had some ambivalence towards him...these black and white, all or nothing characters make it all to easy to ignore them. I don't even buy into the notion that Zod is "off the rails" at all, it was his manipulated destiny - Ken Russell's character in Soldier (1998) or Louis Jourdan portrayal of Dracula in Count Dracula (1997) both of whom presented a compelling duality of duty versus humanity or nature versus humanity.

Lastly, when my comments aren't responded to with a simple "not warranted", I get the impression that they have such validity that there isn't any way a oppose them and therefore they have more truth than otherwise. John Stuart Mill, the British philosophy and political scientist indicated that the best way to discover truth is to be courageous enough to make a statement and see if it can withstand criticism otherwise it is just a straw-man ready to fold at the moment one just touches it. So far Johann hasn't touched them at all. It's an interested way to live life by just telling another person that a response isn't warranted. But the message being sent to the other person is that one isn't important or another person risking a comment isn't valuable or worthy of consideration, which in my mind is pretty disrespectful.

[Chris Knipp]

Well said, tabuno, and touché, cinemabon. But tabuno, aren't you making Johann into a "straw man" here now? You know he's not going to reply in kind. Alll I can say is wait for me to see and review the movie and then we can debate it.

Meanwhile go to the Forums and read my new review, of Zal Batmanglij's THE EAST, a thriller about anarchists and the corporations that hate them, with an adorable cast of Brit Marling, Patricia Clarkson, Ellen Page, and Alexander Sarsgard, and others.

[Johann]

:)


Ostriches are noble beasts.
They lay the largest eggs of any birds.
Let my shit hatch.
They're also the fastest running birds- up to 70 km an hour.
They can't fly, but they are the largest bird in the sanctuary.

[Chris Knipp]

That ostriches bury their heads in the sand is a myth.

[Johann]

That's absolutely correct Chris.
Glad someone has my back.
But I think you won't like MAN OF STEEL.
Just a hunch.

[tabuno]

At least Johann knows how to make me smile. At most, who knows?

[tabuno]

I just read Johann's review of Oblivion and I find it curious that his insistence on non-criticism doesn't seem to apply when it comes to other movies, especially Oblivion. He seems to have a lot more to easily criticize there than Man of Steel (as if criticism like bullets would just bounce off Superman's chest).

As maudlin as Johann found Oblivion, I guess one could use the same argument as Man of Steel, especially as Cinemabon seems to have a strong case for comparing the storyline with Spiderman (2002). As with Oblivion and Johann's comments about special effects, the same can be applied to Man of Steel, as I've persistently mentioned that there will also be more new and creative and awesome special effects to top the last movie and Man of Steel is no exception. I will continue to admit that Man of Steel has moved the bar a little higher especially for the franchise.

Personally, it is the strong intimate love theme that resonates most with me, likely due to my personal experiences with the emotion and thus Oblivion wasn't maudlin to me. It was deeply personal and brought up some strong associations and empathy. As for Man of Steel, perhaps, my association with Kevin Costner as a father, was muted by my own personal experiences and therefore didn't connect with me as deeply. Interestingly, there really wasn't that I found new in terms of sci fi plot outline here with Man of Steel and I found Oblivion more refreshing and daring.

How can Johann and I be so different...? My childhood wasn't pervasively filled with comic books as opposed to sci fi paperbacks. Anybody have any ideas?

[Chris Knipp]

I'll have to see, Johann. There might be something in it that appeals to me.

[Chris Knipp]

If you pan this movie, you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies. You go to movie jail. Minimum 6 month sentence.
Better yet, get into a Phantom Zone pod and blast the fuck off!

How can one possibly take that seriously and be offended by it? It's pure hyperbole and meant to be fun. Let's move, on, shall we?

As for the arguments about MAN OF STEEL's faults, I'm ready to enter the fray, I have seen the movie now and will write a review. But I can say beforehand that I think though there is much that I would do differently, if it makes any sense to say that, you have to take MAN OF STEEL on its own terms. On those terms it is grand and works well enough as an original, cleverly written re-thinking of the origins of Superman.

MAN OF STEEL is an epic story. The new Superman star is perfect looking, dashingly handsome yet human, and very appealing. I'll discuss the other casting later. The visuals are beautiful, the long final battle sequence, not to my mind unlike THOR, or various TRANSFORMERS movies, not to mention (maybe the ultimate model of blockbuster success) AVENGERS, is nonetheless beautifully done in its way. I'm not qualified now to compare it with the 1978 Clive Donner vesion; I don't remember it. My guess is just that the new version accurately reflects current tastes. But I have a few other ideas to put forth. . .

[Chris Knipp]

Zack Snyder: MAN OF STEEL (2013)

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/7374/69p.jpg
HENRY CAVILL AND AMY ADAMS IN MAN OF STEEL

A savior, who fights

In the big summer blockbuster, Man of Steel, the Superman origin story has been rethought. Hollywood blockbuster script writers draw on so many stories, it's not surprising that this time the child from Krypton seems like Jesus. The plot hasn't been changed but this aspect is just hinted at more in the scenes. The baby Kal-El is sacrificed by his father high above and sent down to Earth in futuristic swaddling clothes as a double savior -- of humankind, and of the fading Krypton world. It's at the age of 33, like Jesus, when his great sacrificial role is bestowed upon him. Even as a child those around Kal-El, now called Clark Kent, know that he is not an ordinary mortal but a special being with marvelous powers destined to save the world. This is what his earthly father (the warm and humble Kansas farmer Kevin Costner) keeps saying. Up above there is a war between the forces of good, represented by Kal-El's Kryptonite father, Russell Crowe, (not, alas, as memorably other-worldly as Marlon Brando in the 1978 version), and evil, embodied in Zod, the role handled by Michael Shannon. Despite his demonic intensity, Shannon isn't quite right either. His skill as a hyperactive neurotic ill suits him to play a declamatory Satan. If you've watched him in Revolutionary Road or Take Shelter on screen, or Bug or Mistakes Were Made on stage, you'll realize he's wasted here.

But watch the grown up Clark Kent, and you'll know that the handsome, hunky Brit Henry Cavill is the perfect new Superman. He makes the movie work, and he's ably supported by Amy Adams as Lois Lane, now freed of ditsyness and a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, whose platonic romance with Clark begins, in this version, with full knowledge of his special powers, long before Clark goes to work on The Daily Planet. We're not going to see Clark working at the Planet. That just begins in the last scene.

Though it is a titanic battle of Good and Evil, Biblical texts are less of an influence when the epic battle with Zod comes along, and as Kal-El, AKA Clark Kent, must unleash his full powers against Zod, the New Testament is less important than borrowings from such current box office material as Thor, Transformers, and, top gun in the field, The Avengers. Man of Steel has to go somewhere, but this is in the nature of an elaborate, battle-rich prequel whose grandiose action sequences have little of the human interest of, say, the new Spider-Man series reboot with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.

It's full-on science fiction, as well as a war of the gods, inter-planetary war fought out by proxy between two supermen, with the usual supporting players of street crowds, cops, and minor characters. Zod wants to take over Earth and turn it into a replacement of Krypton, over not just the dead bodies but mountains of skeletons and skulls of the human race. Clark/Kal-El may be a Krypton boy, but he grew up in Kansas, imbued with a strong moral sense, and he has to save Earth for the Earthlings.

Before that, the film has jumped from Krypton down to a twenty-something Clark, with flashbacks to show him repressing his special powers, but sometimes forced to utilize them, like when, as a mere schoolboy of nine (Cooper Timberline), the bus runs off a bridge, and his classmates are threatened with drowning. But these are just quick sequences, the grown man looking back. This is the writer's way of avoiding a lengthy slog through Superman's childhood and too much time spent away from Henry Cavill. That's not unwise, but the only trouble is it makes this seem an origins story that's a bit reluctant to dwell on the earliest of those origins.

It has to be admitted that the machinery of Krypton is a bit of a mess, its dark biomorphic gadgets over-complicated standard issue variations on the imagery of H. R. Giger. The way Crowe keeps coming back to deliver lengthy speeches despite being dead is a bit confusing. As in the latter part of Thor, I kept wondering why the hero who is saving mankind has to destroy so much real estate, in this case prime locations in Manhattan, in the process. Are the other four boroughs going to take over, the way Krypton was going to take over Earth? Moreover, isn't it a bit odd that as Zod and Clark, now in red cape and unitard (the "S" stands for "harmony": did we know that?), crash deep holes through skyscrapers, Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams, and others of the newspaper staff, hover on the street, in piles of gray rubble, commenting on the action, yet never harmed? Isn't it a bit odd that so many buildings are partially demolished, yet we see no human casualties? Couldn't Superman have kept the fighting outside of town? But this is a Transformers kind of battle sequence. The destruction and the unharmed characters is a received current convention of the genre. You see it in Branagh's Thor too. The promise of the earlier story is sacrificed to provide a great show of spectacular action, a titanic conflict we know very well who is going to win.

Obviously the writer, David S. Goyer, is following a formula rather than being true to the origins story of Superman, turning the second half of the movie into the most advanced and expensive high-speed CGI-assisted violence and nothing more. But still and all, Man of Steel does maintain an epic feel. The humanity gets rather buried in the grandeur as time goes on, but the grandeur is always there.

Man of Steel, 141 mins., opened in the US and UK 14th June 2013.

[tabuno]

Maybe Johann has worn me out as I find Chris's comments nice even when I disagreed with some of them and none of them stirred me to intense reactive opposition.

I preferred Russell Crowe's performance Kall-El's Kryptonite father over that of Marlon Brando in the 1978 version which as I recall seemed rather emotionless and dry, almost as if Brando was just reading his lines, it seemed shockingly almost amateurish. I almost felt sorry and embarrassed for Mr. Brando. I sort of agree with Chris and his opinion of Michael Shannon as Zod, but perhaps for different reasons and wonder how much the script left him down rather than his acting. I had more problems with the script's two-dimensional characterization of Zod than the acting. I can appreciate with Chris's comment on Henry Cavill's fit as Superman and enjoyed even more now that Chris made a point to remind of of Amy Adams as Lois Lane without the ditsyness and the appropriateness of the timing of budding platonic romance at this point in the movie franchise. Adam's characterization avoided the distracting nature of the stereotypical, gender bias of earlier Lois Lane's incarnations.

While I acknowledge the compulsion of "the nature of an elaborate, battle-rich prequel whose grandiose action sequences have little of the human interest of, say, the new Spider-Man series reboot with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone," I don't believe it's necessarily established that the human interest must be needlessly sacrificed and felt that even Tobey Maquire's character as Spider-man in the
2002 version was much more accessible and enjoyable as a everyman-boy, more down to earth than the more idealistic he-man version of Andrew Garfield projected into his 2012 version. Though maybe the female audience movies could have easily fallen in love with such handsome, strong-willed perfection of Mr. Garfield. Unlike Chris. somewhat, the movie for me seems to descend more into fantasy magic with wizards and knights using magic to do battle with only a thin veneer of science fiction to define this movie as a sci fi movie.

I have more of a problem with the "quick sequences" of flashbacks than Chris who seems to accept the writer's avoidance of slogging through Superman's lengthy childhood past which in these contemporary times is perhaps some of the most important and compelling interpersonal and bonding moments of anybody's life for it defines that person. Too often Americans take their history for granted, having albeit a very short cultural history compared to both European and Asian cultures that extend back thousands of years and thus is much more appreciated.

Unlike Chris, I really liked Krypton in this updated movie version, much more so than Brando's which seemed cheap and artificial. The almost natural alien feel seemed to offer a rich and convincing strange and foreign ambiance that enhanced these beginning scenes.
And not being a particular fan of Russell Crowe, it also appreciated, unlike Chris his coming back to deliver lengthy speeches despite being dead which reflects many psychological superego states that people in the real world can quite identify with. Crowe's presence lent a bit of stability and needed assurance in the chaotic turmoil that would beset the second half of the movie.

I agree with Chris that it's "a bit odd that as Zod and Clark, now in red cape and unitard...crash deep holes through skyscrapers, Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams, and others of the newspaper staff, hover on the street, in piles of gray rubble, commenting on the action, yet never harmed? Isn't it a bit odd that so many buildings are partially demolished, yet we see no human casualties? However, I don't know if "The destruction and the unharmed characters is a received current convention of the genre," as it sanitizes and maybe dangerously desensitizes its audiences to violence and mayhem as the optimum solution. Tom Cruise experienced much human death in the 2005 War of the Worlds alien invasion or the current action thriller Olympus Has Fallen (2013) which by the very headcount increased the audience emotion ire and patriotic bonding to this movie. And yes it does seem as Chris writes, "the second half of the movie into the most advanced and expensive high-speed CGI-assisted violence and nothing more."

Whereas Chris is willing to state that "Man of Steel does maintain an epic feel," even while pointing out that "The humanity gets rather buried in the grandeur as time goes on," I'm a bit more reluctant to maintain. For me what makes an movie "epic" is its ability to incorporate and retain as a lasting and indelible element of an epic movie is its very "humanity." It is the relational theme as such that makes epics out of Doctor Zhivago (1965), Forbidden Planet (1956), Excaliber (1981), Memoirs of a Geisha (2005), The Godfather (1972), Schindler's List (1993), Twelve Monkeys (1996), Dances with Wolves (1990), How The West Was Won (1962), The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951).

[tabuno]

I had wondered about the use of animal forms for use as by other beings to flying. How I quickly made sense of such animal use as opposed to machines is the idea of ecological balance and embrace of the natural environment instead of destroying it and just taking it over with machines. It might be consistent therefore that advanced alien races may have merged with its animals as part of their living environment instead of destroy them.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for all your comments. I'm out of my depth with comic book superhero movies. I think I wrote betteer reviews recently of SHADOW DANCER and THE EAST and of DIRTY WARS and WE STEAL SECRETS. Those contain material I'm more at home with and qualified to speak about.

Market considerations. Cinemabon ends at a good point with the quote from David Edelstein about China and the world market. That has a lot to do with MAN OF STEEL's structure leading into a major final action sequence. Remember Soderbergh's STATE OF CINEMA speech at the SFIFF this year? The focus is on big budget movies with huge returns. The big money in the world market comes from action, not dialogue. Jane Austen they don't want.


We differ on the parts that we like. In these things I tend to like the parts that take place on earth, against the ones set up in fantastical space in elaborate Giger costumes. I didn't mean to imply Michael Shannon's acting fails to measure up. Rather this role is not suitable for him. Crowe is more of a regular in this kind of material. But he seems past his best work. His showing in LES MIZ was unimpressive. As for other recent superhero movies, I'm in love with Andrew Garfield myself and was already a fan of his work when SPIDER-MAN came along; this is one reason I prefer that recent comic book reboot.

[Chris Knipp]

"Grandeur" and "epic." I didn't mean to say the movie is "of biblical proportions." Just that it hints at a link between Cal-El and Jesus this time. It was just a thought. Forget it if it doesn't work for you. I am thinking of Johann and his great love of this movie when I consider its grandeur and epic quality. I think it has the seriousness as well as humanity that merit a basic reboot of a favorite superhero story, one of our popular myths. It does not lose that.

Epic is an interesting topic. When I think of epic I think of the great original ones that represent the ideals of a people, notably Beowulf, the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Aeneid. I was thinking of them in connection with the flashback structure, but it was a bit complicated to explain in a review. It's characteristic of Beowulf and Homer that there are long flashbacks at certain points. A characteristic of epic is that it's slow-moving. It takes its time. And when there's a characteristic of the hero that needs expanding on, or a background story that the audience needs to be reminded of, an expansive flashback comes. I originally learned about this from Erich Auerbach's discussion of the Odysseus' scar passage in his chapter on Homer in Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. I learned more in studying oral formulaic poetry. According to students of oral formulaic composition, the bard slows down his narrative at key points and expands the audiences' understanding of the hero and the story through introducing flashbacks. The structure of MAN OF STEEL seen in these terms seems natural and in keeping with traditional epic. However I can understand people not liking it, wanting whole real, successive chapters on Clark at 9 and Clark at 13 and moving forward to Clark at 25 or 30 chronologically, instead of jumping right to him at that age. However, at risk of being a pedantic bore, I might point out that beginning "in medias res," in the middle of things, is a characteristic of epic and is the MO of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid.

[cinemabon]

Instead of the post I made, I'd like everyone who comes to this site and reads our words go to this link instead and listen what screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has to say about life and writing...

https://soundcloud.com/bafta/charlie-kaufman-screenwriting-lecture?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

[Chris Knipp]

I see much earlier on this thread Johann wrote:
I've read reviews that say they changed Superman's mythology too much, and, like Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, makes Superman too Christ-like.


So the Christ thing isn't just me: others see it. I don't see how the comix creators being Jewish has anything to do with this, and Jews in Hollywood have made some major "Christian" movies. See this list. (http://www.interfaithfamily.com/arts_and_entertainment/popular_culture/My_Top_Five_Christmas_Movies_with_Major_Jewish_Con nections.shtml) Anyway that doesn't really matter because they're making a new movie version. And as I said, I am not wedded to this idea, so you need not try to refute it.

[Johann]

tabuno:

Man of Steel is probably the only movie I have "reviewed" on this site that I feel is safe from harsh criticism. You can dislike this or that, but in totem, Man of Steel is virtually flawless to me. Criticism is being levelled at it all over the web. That's to be expected. But I think people are not stepping back far enough from the film to see how truly awesome and Epic it is as entertainment.
That's my main point.
Is it violent as hell? Yes.
Is it full of characters that are almost too crazy to believe to be true? Yes.
It's a MOVIE, but it tries to depict what it would be like if we had Super-Humans like Clark Kent and General Zod land on our blue orb.
The emotional resonance is powerful to me- the very human elements give it a grounding amidst all that CGI and sci-fi bombast.

I think it needs to be viewed multiple times to grasp how wonderful it really is.


Thanks for your review too Chris- always great.

[Johann]

I have to add, my roommate is of Greek descent, and he loves the history of the Spartans- his favorite movie is 300, also directed by Zack Snyder, and he told me/taught me that Superman is in part based on an archetypical Spartan.
AND,
if it wasn't for Leonidas stopping the Persians at the Hot Gates, the human race wouldn't have DEMOCRACY.
He told me that before Spartans, there were only Kings and Slaves on earth.
Sparta and Spartans spawned Democracy.
Make of that what you will...I'm not trying to brow-beat anyone here. Form your own opinions please and thank you...

Not only that, but ADOLPH HITLER wanted to raise a new race of men just like the Spartans- it's in a speech clip apparently where Hitler mentions Sparta and their indominable will.
Bless Frank Miller for telling that story the way he did, and thanks again to Zack Snyder, a director I would love to meet and chat with...

[Johann]

Superman's heat vision was done Awesome.
Anyone else like his heat vision?
He ATOMIZED!

I also like how they made Superman THINK. Just like in the comics, he always has to think about his powers and how to employ them without harming innocents. I read another (ignorant) review that said Superman appears indifferent to the people dying and suffering as a result of Zod's gravity havoc. We'll just ignore that, shall we?
Anyone with a brain knows that Superman has DEEP CONCERN for the human race, and the cause & effect aspect of his actions.

This movie shows how we humans would probably react to aliens pretty damn well.
First we'd blame Zod, then we'd blame Superman.
Then we'd put a pox on both their houses and tell them to leave us alone, that we don't need their "help" or their "wars".

You bet your ass we'd blame them.

[Johann]

I would also like to recommend two Superman graphic novels:

All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison & art by Frank Quitely- pure GENIUS in the comics medium. Two Scots who deliver GENIUS!!
Sun-Eaters! Superman is at grave risk of dying due to too much solar exposure. He battles baddies on Bizarro World, shared billing with Samson the Time-Traveller & Atlas, and Lois Lane gets Superman's powers for one day. (AND her own Super-costume!) READ IT. BUY IT.

and one I like even more:

Red Son by Mark Millar and art by Dave Johnson. Superman is a Communist in 50's Russia, Loyal to Stalin. He crash-landed in Russia as a boy, Not the Good 'ol USA. So the results are quite different. YEARS in the making (in the 90's) and it is just a really cool ELSEWORLDS tale, a must-buy if you are a comic book nut.

[tabuno]

I'm intrigued by Johann's little reminders of various elements of Man of Steel. Interestingly for me it's not about "stepping back" from the film as Johann suggested but becoming more immersed in stepping 'closer' to the movie. Using Johann as a guide, he can enhance the particular moments of the film that emphasize the "entertainment" and "violence" depiction, and the contrast between normal humanity and super-humanity. While I probably will never be able to appreciate and become so enamored with this movie as Johann because of the way this movie was shot and edited, Johann's helpful pointers do enhance the memories of the movie and I can endorse these bits of comments that he has described about the movie.

[Johann]

Stepping closer is great! See it as many times as you can tabuno! Get as close as you can.
This movie is a jewel in a sea of crap.
I'm so tired of by-the-numbers movies, especially popcorn movies. Audiences are fairly savvy now I think.
We can handle more out-of-the-box and unique ways of telling stories with a camera.
I think MAN OF STEEL is an up-sized value meal, and a lot of people just groan at the weight of the action scenes.
Again, I wonder what people think they are going to see when they buy a ticket.
And I'm pretty sure you can get your money back if you leave the theatre within 30 minutes. (at least you can here in Canada).

I'll see it a few more times this summer and post more concrete "opinions". I don't really write reviews, as you all know.


And I have obtained the gorgeous WHITE Man of Steel poster- that HUGE one. It's gonna cost me to frame it- it's bus shelter sized- but what a piece of film art to hang in my livingroom! It pays to have a Superman tattoo.....

[Chris Knipp]

Armond White has highly praised the movie, said it's unfairly underrated; considers the Iron Man films snarky and overrated.

[Johann]

Chris- you mention the action scenes as being similar to TRANSFORMERS- I've thought about the CGI effects too, and I think that is the standard nowadays. It's the best way to do action on the screen. How else are they gonna do it?

Zack Snyder was in an interview where he said Superman can no longer be done with wires, as it was in Superman Returns, where Brandon Routh was hooked up to wires- even to place the Daily PLanet globe onto a car a la Atlas). Superman has to CRUSH a car he picks up to throw- he has to appear indestructible, all-powerful, compared to human beings. That's why I think some people laugh at it or scoff at it.
But that's what movies are, aren't they?
They take you out of your reality. (If they are any good).


And re: Michael Shannon. I hear you how this may be a waste of his talent due to other work he's done, but I think he's in the top 3 of best things about this movie, the other two being how they made Superman fly and the fight between Supes and Zod's minion chick.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't know if it's a waste of Michael Shannon's talent. Ask him. I guess there was a good paycheck. It doesn't seem a role he's ideally suited for, though one can see generally why they thought of him for a villain. He plays villains. See him in THE ICEMAN, which I've seen and ought to review. A very unpleasant film. I still think he was absolutely perfect on stage in the play, Bug (filmed by Friedkin).

As for CGI, of course when they can afford it they'll use it. That's the trouble. Which is better, grandiose classic productions by Abel Gance, D.W. Griffith, or Cecil B. DeMille, Joseph L. Mankiewicz -- or Marc Forster doing WORLD WAR Z? CGI can mask directorial mediocrity, but only for a while. Without CGI if you have a low budget you can do lo-fi sci-fi, and it can be mind-bending and fun like SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED or Shane Carruth's PRIMER. CGI means nothing seems real any more -- though sometimes it is; sometimes actors do their own stunts.

[Johann]

I'm sorry I missed Primer. I've heard nothing but raves about Carruth's latest.
And I'm kicking myself for missing ROOM 237, a full documentary on what people theorize Kubrick's THE SHINING is all about.
It only played one week along with The Shining at the TIFF Bell Lightbox.
It is not endorsed by Kubrick's estate or Warner Brothers- it said so right on the poster.
I guess I have to wait for it on DVD....

Good point about CGI masking mediocrity.
Someone could argue DeMille is better than Marc Forster, that's for sure.
I read a review in NOW! that said the lighting on WORLD WAR Z was terrible. They said the lighting designer should've been fired.

[Chris Knipp]

3D darkens everything. If you'd watched it in 2D the lighting was not a problem. Reports on Screen Rant were that WWZ had lengthier than usual period of reshoots, possibly a rougher than usual rough cut. You should watch Primer and Upstream Color. Room 237 was a sidebar at last year's NYFF but I skipped it. Some liked, others were indifferent. For you it would probably be something to see.

I saw and reviewed Upstream Color at New Directors/New Films earlier and you'll find that in the Festival Coverage section. For me it was the most awaited event of the series, and though reactions are mixed, it's a must-see. Would see it again at IFC if I were still in NYC; might still in July if it's still showing then -- IFC has a lot of turnover but keeps some things a long time too.

Superman fans might want to peruse "KRYPTONOMICS: Why Superman’s creators got a raw deal" (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/06/24/130624crbo_books_friedell) " a review by Deborah Friedell in The New Yorker of a new dual biography of Siegel and Shuster, the two Jewish sons of immigrants cinemabon has talked about and how they got screwed over the years because they signed off rights to the comic book hero right at the outset.

[Johann]

Apparently Room 237 has some outrageous theories and it has nobody connected to the film speaking in it.
So I don't know how good it will be. It was made on a shoestring.

Sorry, I meant UPSTREAM COLOR. That's the one that everyone is raving about. (at least in Toronto).

[Johann]

My roommate tells me that Zack Snyder's stamp on MAN OF STEEL is clear in these ways:

1. When Jor-El says "THIS IS MADNESS!" to Zod (that line was in 300)
2. That scene where Superman is sinking like quicksand in the skulls (that was in 300- the baby skulls- remember?) Snyder said he loves skulls, so look for skulls in all of his future movies
3. Lara (Jor-El's wife) is VERY similar to Queen Gorgo in 300 (Leonidas' Spartan wife)- look at her costumes- look how she dies with Honor...

[cinemabon]

Hilarious debate on video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEv22m2gnA

[oscar jubis]

Great. Passionate expressions of opinion about movies make me happy, whether I agree with them or not. We'll have a showing of Man of Steel for our students somewhere in the fall semester. I'll catch it then.

[Chris Knipp]

My passion has rather cooled. But I stand by what I said.

[cinemabon]

This one's for Johann

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj6d8TBYNPk

[Chris Knipp]

Johann, Peter said he unlocked your Harper Lounge thread, and I just tested it and was able to post. Try it.

[Chris Knipp]

As you like. We aim to keep you function on all levels, man.

[Chris Knipp]

You can still re-post it there, and delete it here.

[Johann]

I found out a few things about this film:

Superman's cape was CGI for certain scenes, as Zack Snyder says he had to "control the cape's peformance"- Cool.

Why did Superman break Zod's neck? That goes against the Rules! WRONG.
Where was it written that Superman cannot or will not take a life?
Up to 5000 people die in the final battle Supes has with Zod. That goes against the Rules! WRONG.
That is how shit would go down if a Kryptonian General fought a Red-Son ex-patriot on Earth.
Buildings would crumble and people would die.

Bravo to Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan.
You did it.
You made the best Superman film to date.
How you gonna top MAN OF STEEL?
Can't wait to find out.

[Johann]

Re: Man of Steel DVD release

I have to agree with Bruce Kirkwood- the limited edition Blu-Ray DVD set kinda sucks.
The metal (made in China? WTF) Superman shield box is very nice, but the plastic display stand that comes with it is lame.
You try setting that thing up! You will lose patience...
And I have to outright slam HMV on two fronts: first, you jacked the price up TEN DOLLARS one week after the set debuted.
You jacked up the price on the regular DVD release by FIVE DOLLARS as well. You fucking pigs.
6 days at $19.99 then whammo!! $24.99 + tax. Talk about gouging for the holiday season...

Second, I asked staff about Miley Cyrus' new CD, which has a parental guidance sticker on it. I asked at what age would they allow someone to buy the CD without a parent/guardian. The clerk told me "TWELVE".
I looked at her and said "You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. You boycotted the Rolling Stones merely when they offered Best Buy their "40 Licks" album first. You pulled all of their product off your shelves. Have you been watching this dumb tart lately? And you don't boycott her "act"?? What gives?" She had no answer. She just said "I'm sorry you feel that way".

Back to Man of Steel.
What a juicy fanboy movie. Prayers were answered for Superman fans. This movie has polarized people and I'm mystified by it.
"Die-Hard" Superman fans are barking about how Superman was ruined, just like how die-hard Star Wars fans are always bipping off about Lucas' prequels.
Um, I'm a die-hard Superman fan (and film buff) and I'm telling you, Zack Snyder brought the fuckin' goods.
Word.
For Shizzle My Nizzle.
If you didn't like Man of Steel then you must like your Superman as a pussy.
You must like him as a wimpy tool of Lois Lane's.
I don't.
I want Strength. Power. A Man of STEEL.

[Chris Knipp]

You're a fan, you pay!

[Johann]

Yep. They have us fans by the goo-goo.
The regular Blu-Ray disc went up by 5 bucks at HMV too. They are gouging for Christmas..

I bought the Dark Knight trilogy (Blu-ray Ultimate set) for $79.99
This week you can buy it for $99.99 @ HMV.
A $20 jump in only 4 fucking weeks!

[Chris Knipp]

They push people to want to buy the stuff in the first few days or weeks of the sale and then that build up the buzz and increases overall sales, most likely, given that it's a sure sale. They're sure they've got you by the goo goo, either way.

[Johann]

Other things I've learned about this film:

Zod isn't wrong. According to Debbie Snyder, if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd do the same thing to save your race.
The fact that he doesn't care about Earth in order to preserve that race makes it interesting, because Clark Kent's mother (Diane Lane) taught Clark that the emotional aspects of life are more important than his physical powers. Zod will kill billions on earth to preserve Krypton's race. Superman can't have that, and so that epic battle happened.

I love how Krypton has no evidence of stone or metals in it's structure.
I read that Jor-El (Russell Crowe) could never have known that the earth needed someone as strong as the son he sent them.
The House of El symbol for Hope is cool- the way they used it on costumes is amazing. I wouldn't mind if they brought Mon-El to life in the next Superman films. I love the character of Mon-El in the comics. He took over for Superman once when he left earth- and he wore the "S" House of El symbol as a favor to him. Zack Snyder should find a way to work Mon-El into the storyline. Mon-El is cool as fuck to me.

I also love how Perry White deals with Lois. He's paid his dues, chasing down stories over the years, and he keeps her in check.
Lawrence Fishburne isn't the typical newspaper editor Perry we're used to- the mythos has been given new life.
I also love how incredible (and incredible-looking!) the Kryptonian warrior council (nee: Zod's army) armour is.
How would you attack an opponent looking as they do? They are fearsome.

Superman is the #1 Hero.
Batman is considered in his league, but only because he represents the best hero Earth could probably produce. Superman works with everyone in the JLA but he knows he is more powerful than all of them combined. They are not equals, the Justice League, no no no.

[Johann]

If there is anything that pacifies me these days, it's MAN OF STEEL.
I've been watching it on DVD for a while now, and Great God is it Awesome.

Zod's line: "Where did you train?!? ON A FARM!?!?!?!" gets my jack up everytime.
and so does
Kal-El's line "You're a Monster Zod. And I'm going to stop you"
Hell yeah.

The close-ups on those skyscrapers collapsing during the Zod/Superman fight- awesome. Just like real-time footage.
The skies...the CGI speed for the action scenes...how can you not give it up for such kick-ass cinema?
This movie has it all to me.
It's lacking nothing.
No flaws. I said it before and I'll say it again: it's virtually flawless entertainment. It will stand for 100 years, it's that good.
The LOOK of this film is beautiful. The costumes- the production design-the sets- professionals did that work.
Artisans did that work. This movie is the best sci-fi movie I have ever seen. No faint praise here.
I am so fucking happy that this movie exists. I was asking for this movie years ago, right here on FilmLeaf.
And I got it. WE got it.
It could only be better if Zack Snyder invited me on set to watch the shoot.

[Johann]

Re: reviews for MAN OF STEEL


I read a great review on Amazon by a Superman fan who thinks like I do.
He distilled the polarization of this film quite succinctly. He says the internet is full of vitriol for Man of Steel, specifically on comic book message boards, and that the LOUD minority don't see the film for what it is: a Magnificent rendering of the Best Super Hero we've ever known.
Fans (myself included) have been whining for a "proper" Superman film for years.
Well, we got it in Man of Steel, boys and girls. We Got It.

The limited edition (10,000) Blu-Ray set is frustrating to set up, and luckily mine didn't break- many people have said that the plastic base that comes with the set snaps in two or breaks if you use too much pressure setting it up. TRUE. Be careful when you assemble it.
But the tin "S" shield box is lovely. And the discs look great too, in their fold-out sleeve. The tin makes it worth the price. Should be made of brushed STEEL, tho....warner brothers...........

And who doesn't rave about the quality of the picture and sound on these Blu-Rays, Mang?
The Dark Knight trilogy looks so fucking gorgeous on Blu-Ray.

[Johann]

The Metro has a list of the Worst Films of 2013, and guess which one was #1?
Man of Steel.

Here's the blurb, written by a one Ned (NED?) Ehrbar:

While there may have been many technically worse films this year, Zack Snyder's bombastic, tone-deaf update on Superman fails on a spectacularly higher level. Consider it a weighted grade.
Moralizing, wanton destruction and clumsy product placement are a tough mix.

Me, Johann:
Ned, if that is all you can say about Man of Steel to illustrate why it's the #1 worst film of 2013 then you are a hurting unit.
What were those criticisms?

Bombastic. (um, that's what the fuck I want in a Superman flick.)

Tone-Deaf. (um, tone-deaf to what exactly, Ned? Tone-Deaf to what? My Super-Hearing heard nothing but Awesome.)

Moralizing. (um, that's what SuperHeroes do, dipshit- they draw their lines in the fucking sand)

That's it.
3 words to explain why Man of Steel is the worst film of 2013.
Product placement is in almost every film nowadays. It didn't distract me in Man of Steel. It seems to have distracted you Ned.

And as for wanton destruction, that is not only encouraged for a Superman film, but in my case it's Demanded.
These are Super-Human freaks at war here, Ned. If there isn't wanton destruction then there is no fucking movie.
Do you want to see Superman and Lex Luthor dance the cha-cha or fight to the fucking death?
I want to see them fight to the death. I want WAR. I want planets colliding. I want Supernovas and Meteor showers.

That's what we got with MAN OF STEEL.
And I hope that Awesome Ante is UPPED in the next one.

Go watch the Smurfs Ned.
Seems more up your alley.

[cinemabon]

According to "scuttlebutt" the script is closed, the casting is closed and shooting for "Man of Steel 2" with Ben Affleck as Batman will go before cameras this spring and a summer of 2015 projected release. Another 18 month agonizing wait (unless Warner decides to rush production into a December release versus the third installment of The Hobbit - also a Warner release).

[Johann]

They can take their Time.
I'll wait.

The only remote thing I'm worried about is Ben Affleck.
Thé sequel cannot have any weak links.
Ben knows this. Thé filmmakers know this.
But considéring thé Team, one should not worry.

[Johann]

I feel like posting some more on MAN OF STEEL, one of the BEST films of 2013.

I feel the editing must be singled out as a HUGE reason why this film kicks ass and takes fucking names.
The way Zack Snyder tells this story (briskly, with no bullshit whatsoever) is exactly how you have to tell a sci-fi story like this.
The edits are sharp, crisp and push the epic story ever forward. The (switched-on) audience has no trouble keeping up.

The only thing that felt out of place to me in the whole movie was the very very end, where Lois tells Clark "Welcome to the Planet".
They are all smiles after what just transpired. The earth was almost obliterated, and they are ready to hit the newspaper beat!
A little too tidy an ending.
But who cares? It leaves you wanting more, which is the sign of a Master at the Helm.
Zack Snyder cannot be dismissed anymore. He's been ridiculed and mocked since 300, and he never deserved any of that bunk.
He is a serious filmmaker, one who has Chris Nolan's vote. That should be enough for people, but no, they have to rip his movies to shreds.
Zack Snyder can now be mentioned in the same breath as Spielberg, Ridley Scott, George Lucas and James Cameron.
Man of Steel has taken a glorious (outer space) cue from movies like Revenge of the Sith, Avatar and Blade Runner.
No one has made that connection here, but I have.
Watch that movie over and over-- it has it all. Criticism is not warranted.

Cinemabon- I know you're reading this. Do you not see the glorious science fiction that is on display?
Sci-Fi is your bread and butter...what are your criticisms of Man of Steel? How would you improve it?
What would you do differently?
Do you like Superman?
Or do you consider him silly?

[Johann]

I'm happy you responded cinemabon.
NOT responding is a response ;)

More to say about this film:

When Kevin Costner sacrifices himself it's a huge thing. He's basically telling Clark- no, he's SHOWING Clark something very important.
It's enough to make you cry.
All these comics fans bipping off about how Superman shouldn't have killed Zod are idiots.
What comics have you been reading, nerds? Because Superman has killed Zod in the past in the funny books.
It might've been cool to see Zod sent back to the Phantom Zone, to live to fight Superman another day, but that would be a cop-out.
And Zack Snyder is no cop-out. Not anymore.

This is my favorite movie now. I've seen it almost ten times now on DVD and it is Sheer Awesome Cinema.
Michael Shannon is the best thing about it. My opinion has changed. Without Michael Shannon, this film would be a helluva lot less.
He is intense as fuck.
His talent is not wasted here- he is demonstrating his acting chops. And he deserves an Oscar nomination.
Why doesn't he deserve a Nomination? He fucking earned it.
Look at what he did with one line on the page: "I WILL FIND HIM!"
Wowza.
The bar was set high.

[Chris Knipp]

I've listed MAN OF STEEL as one of the year's two best blockbusters. I'd have doubts about Ben Affleck. Michael Shannon has had a remarkable career. He's always powerful in anything. The first place I saw him was live on stage in Tracy Letts' BUG in the West Village, an amazing play that he dominated. He probably will get an Oscar one day. Though he seems older, he is almost a year younger than the late Paul Walker was. He's already been nominated for REVOLUTIONARY ROAD and won five lesser best actor awards for TAKE SHELER. MAN OF STEEL is his biggest mainstream role so far.

[Chris Knipp]

Armond Whilte's reviews have dropped from City Arts and he's moved to National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375062/captain-america-red-white-and-false-armond-white) where perhaps his contrarian views can blend more freely with his conservative and pro-Christian ones. In his first review there of CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER, he decidedly prefers MAN OF STEEL. That's find with me; I share a liking for MOS.

"Seen close up on the 3D screen," White begins, "actor Chris Evans’s ruddy lips, bright complexion, and sparkling eyes look like a Pop Art personification of red, white, and blue patriotism in Marvel Studios’ Captain American: The Winter Soldier. Referred to as “The greatest soldier of all time” by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), his paramilitary boss at S.H.I.E.L.D., Evans’s Steve Rogers, who was scientifically re-engineered into the ever-youthful, muscle-bound World War II veteran of the title, represents a timeless idea of American strength and virtue: “I’m 95, I’m not dead,” he tells flirtatious superhero colleague Natasha (Scarlett Johanssen)."

Then the pitch: "Evans’s cartoon image lacks the uncanny moral resonance that distinguished the compassionate Superman in Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel – the best in the recent surfeit of comic-book movies. . ."

But I'm not so happy about White's condemnation of WINTER SOLDIER's apparent liberal politics: "In The Winter Soldier, talk opposing the deployment of drone-like aircraft yet defending the release of government secrets via Internet links gives this sci-fi fantasy the pretense of topicality. The filmmakers, producer Kevin Feige and directing team Anthony and Joe Russo, casually referred to this as 'a political film.' But the politics are merely au courant –as shallow as the red, white, and blue shield that Rogers wears magnetized to his back."

White has used this ploy before of damning liberal-progressive politics as mere fashion.

[Johann]

Glad Armond is still expressing his "contrarian" views.
Yep, au courant politics seem to get dropped into mainstream movies more these days.
Studios are trying to appeal to viewers any way they can, I guess. If you can appeal to 5 different types of people, then I'm sure they'll try it.
Plus it might get people talking more about their movie.

Man of Steel is my current favorite movie. I've watched it many times and I will watch it many more. I never get tired of it.
On Facebook I had a huge debate with 3 different guys on the Facebook Film Forum- a great new group that you can join by e-mail.
There are 1000+ members of the "high discourse" film forum, you might want to join. The people there gave me a great debate, and they thanked me for the Man of Steel posts, saying that they were more entertaining than movie itself.
The posting was made that Man of Steel was horrible, and I obliterated that notion.

The guys were basically saying that Superman was a scourge to the Earth, bringing death and destruction and that Superman just didn't care about the people of earth. And that the dark tone of the movie was wrong, that Superman should be more positive, like the Richard Donner Chris Reeve Superman.
I hear what they are saying, but Man of Steel appeals to me way more than Chris Reeve's Superman. (And I love that Superman).
Like Armond said, this was a compassionate Superman- he's compassionate even though the movie has a brooding quality. In the debate, those guys were saying that Superman was an unshaven drifting bum who brooded too much. I didn't see much brooding from him, just brooding in the movie's TONE, and I told them he was evolving, figuring out his place in the world. They scoffed. They hated that up to 5000 people die in the final fight with Zod. I asked "Do you want 5000 dead or 5 Billion?" And they said that asking that question in the first place is why Man of Steel was wrong.
I said bollocks to that, and asked what the hell kind of Superman movie they were hoping for. No one offered an answer. Anything but Man of Steel, seemed to be their attitude. One guy said the Superman Legend was ruined. I replied "What IS the Superman Legend"?
Again, no answer. Nothing but crickets.

I totally agree with Armond White that Man of Steel is the Best of these superhero movies we've seen released.
It has it all to me, lacking zilch.
It's the kind of Superman movie I've been waiting for my whole life. Seriously. Zack Snyder put everything I ever wanted in a Superman movie in Man of Steel. I'm really stoked to see where he takes Superman next.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a box-office hit and is getting great reviews. Can't wait to check it out.

[Chris Knipp]

Due to my review-writing I wouldn't have time to contribute to that new Facebook movie discussion page. I can see you are a big addition to it. Don't let it take you away from Filmleaf, though! Hopefully we'll both see WINTER SOLDIER soon and can discuss it. My memory of MAN OF STELL unfortunately is not as clear as yours though. I always have so many new films to watch. Working on THE UNKNOWN KNONW and a couple of SFIFF films the next couple days.

I had lost track Armond White for the past month. His reviews on Nat'l Rev. Online were not coming up in Google searches. But now I know where to look and can follow him again. I like to see what he has to say each week. Masses of reviewers and ordinary citizens are like sheep on the latest films, adopting the same views, even when they're wrong. MAN OF STEEL is clearly an example.

[Chris Knipp]

Armond also has a review on OUT ENTERTAINMENT. http://www.out.com/entertainment/armond-white/2014/04/02/lars-von-trier-nymphomaniac-commits-cinematic-sex-crimes

[Johann]

Armond has his views. He's pretty solid to me. Thanks for that link.

re: Man of Steel
I'm actually very surprised that this movie polarizes so much. What's not to like here? I mean it: this movie has it all to me. A great new director and direction for Superman. It's frickin' Awesome Mang.

Have you seen the 75th Anniversary animated short on the Man of Steel DVD?
It is infinitely watchable. Superman literally leaps off the pages of Action Comics. He's on that famous cover of issue #1, holding a car over his head.
Do you know what he proceeds to do with that car? He throws it away like it's a beer cap. Then he does some pretty Super shit. LOL
It's a fantastic animated cartoon, that illustrates the whole career of Superman, including Christopher Reeve and Henry Cavill. I watch it before Man of Steel everytime I play it.

All I can say is Man of Steel Rocks. Sorry, but it does. It Rocks in so many awesome ways. Superman is back on the silver screen in a way that is really really cool to me. And there's no real need to get uppity about it anyway, grousing about how the Legend is ruined. Do you honestly believe that they will never make a different style of Superman again? They could have had Christian Bale play Batman in this upcoming sequel. If Chris Nolan had told him to play Batman in the Man of Steel sequel Christian would have done it. He did not hang up his cowl. He didn't "pass the torch"to Ben Affleck. No way. It's a creative change. They are up to something here. They are changing it up even on their own visions. As an example, Chris Nolan took the character of Rachel in the Batman movies and switched actresses. Nobody was the wiser, and Maggie and Katie are clearly not identical twins. So if they can change it up in their own mythologies, then they can drop the characters and let another creative team make another trilogy. With characters like Batman and Superman being open to many styles of interpretation, it should be illegal to say that your version of the character is the definitive version. History will judge. Plus variety is the spice of life, no?

[Johann]

MAN OF STEEL 2 has a very "scheduled" marketing plan, according to director Zack Snyder.
He says he would love to release photos of the new costumes for Batman and Wonder Woman, which are going to be starring next to Superman in the same movie for the first-time ever. It really is historic in pop culture history. Never have Supes, Bats and Diana been onscreen together at the same time.

Batman is the villain here. When ideas were being tossed around for who Superman should fight after Zod, Zack came up with Batman.
How he becomes the villain we don't know, but it'll probably have something to do with kryptonite.
Snyder says the new Batman costume is Epic, but an image won't be released until many months from now.
Can't wait. Man of Steel was Astonishing to me. The anticipation for the sequel is quite high, what with Batman and Wonder Woman appearing.
DC is showing how big they are onscreen. I think it's amazing and awesome that Marvel and DC are both producing quality films on these Iconic characters. It really is awesome to comic book fans.

[Johann]

I've read a lot of reviews online about Man of Steel and the main complaint seems to be "lack of character development".

I agree that there is a degree of lack of character development, but I forgive it. I think if there is anything you can gloss over in this movie, it's lack of character development. How important is character development here, anyway? Everybody already knows these characters. It's Superman Chachi, not Shakespeare. Zack Snyder is trusting in you, the viewer, the "erudite, switched-on" viewer.
It's a comic book story, science fiction. It could've been created by Jules Verne: "20,000 Leagues of the Super-Men".

I find this film to be a welcome thing. ALl credit to Warner Brothers and Snyder's teams and Chris Nolan's teams- and to SuperFan David S. Goyer. I am jealous green at this guy. First he re-invents Batman for the 21st Century with Chrios Nolan. Then he re-invents Superman (on the 75th Anniversary of the Iconic Hero, no less) with Nolan and Zack Snyder. I nominate David S. Goyer for President. The man is unstoppable. I'm Jealous as Hell of him, making these Batman and Surperman flicks. Lucky Bastard.

Man of Steel is beyond reproach. It's a great film. I find it gives way more Hope than Obama ever did.