Re: Man of Steel

Saw it last night at midnight (IMAX 3D).

My god, it was brilliant. I loved it. Absolutely loved it.

And Zimmer's score was really fantastic. There's a clear homage to Williams' theme, but it's completely original and very moving.

Re: Man of Steel

This film seems to have a very mixed reaction from people, but I thought it was great myself. I'm not usually one for big CGI clusterfuck setpieces, but damn the action in this impressed me.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

I think this is the first movie in a long time where my own reaction is completely mixed. The stuff that's good is really good, and I honestly think this is the best Superman movie yet made. It's not "gritty," but it is serious, removing the irony from all the proceedings and aiming to deal with Superman's internal conflict as much as his external. I don't think it entirely succeeds, but I appreciate the effort.

At the same time, the action, while delivering incredible spectacle, is so monotonous it becomes numbing. I can only watch cartoon people smash into the sides of buildings so many times before I begin to check out, regardless of -- or maybe as a result of? -- the amazing destruction simulations, and that post-9/11 obsession with falling skyscrapers we have often noted was just out of hand here.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

  Show
LotR is to endings as MoS is to expositions, and Star Trek is to lens flares as MoS is to super quick zooms in action sequences (which annoyed the crap out of me). Did Snyder just feel the urge to pull a quick shaky zoom followed by a focus pull in almost EVERY epic action shot? Good grief. I can tolerate those shots, but only in moderation and when they're used appropriately.

I did not like this movie. It just seemed like a great big mess to me. I think I smiled twice throughout it, at least when you don't count the times that I was laughing at silly dialogue. Not that it was necessarily riddled with it, but there were some moments that I couldn't keep a straight face through.

  Show
"You love these people so much............................... "
I kept waiting for him to say ".... then why don't you marry them?!?!"

This was a movie that, to me, was too long and yet not long enough. Scenes needed more breathing time. They just sort of all blurred together. By the end it had all felt so rushed, but at the same time I couldn't wait to just get to the end. Maybe this should have been a two-parter?

  Show
And the scene where Zod takes over seemingly every screen in the world bothered me. How exactly did he do that? He just got to Earth. So now he just knows how to tap into every sort of man-made wireless network out there? Does he even have a camera? Or a text generator of some sort? And if he can do all that then why does it have to be all fuzzy and hard to make out? Oh, because it's more creepy that way? Yeah... I wasn't feeling it.

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. Maybe I was just tired and grumpy because it was after midnight and I haven't had much sleep lately. But I was disappointed.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

I found the perfect guy to play Lex Luthor in the sequel

SPOILER Show
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-06-12-Bryan_Cranston_517x307.jpg

Re: Man of Steel

Ewing wrote:

I found the perfect guy to play literally every character ever.

SPOILER Show
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-06-12-Bryan_Cranston_517x307.jpg

FTFY.

Re: Man of Steel

Eh, too obvious. Lex Luthor is going to be played by someone completely unexpected and, on paper, inappropriate; the internet will froth and rage; then the movie will come out and he'll be amazing and the froth-rage will turn to fellatio and everyone will pretend they had vision all along.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

So, Benedict Cumberbatch again?

Re: Man of Steel

Dorkman wrote:

Eh, too obvious. Lex Luthor is going to be played by someone completely unexpected and, on paper, inappropriate; the internet will froth and rage; then the movie will come out and he'll be amazing and the froth-rage will turn to fellatio and everyone will pretend they had vision all along.

Hugh Jackman!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/8129b3f1054b136f6ded7090c7bef8d3/tumblr_mj1j1bah6u1qe56h2o3_250.gif
http://25.media.tumblr.com/7d6503f91690d5577042e9b51228168c/tumblr_moeinl0BG01ql7s9ho1_500.gif

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

My reaction to this was pretty mixed too.  I came away from this film a bit annoyed and disappointed.  I had high hopes that this would be the better film this summer...  Sadly, it seems to fit right in there with the dark knight rises.

go ahead and rage against me, I don't care.  it looks as if this summer isn't turning out much better than last summer...

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

Dorkman wrote:

Eh, too obvious. Lex Luthor is going to be played by someone completely unexpected and, on paper, inappropriate; the internet will froth and rage; then the movie will come out and he'll be amazing and the froth-rage will turn to fellatio and everyone will pretend they had vision all along.

SPOILER Show
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZjupR10xUrE/T4NGfvzyAJI/AAAAAAAAAhk/8ykGNTApGyo/s1600/rob-schneider-wide-420x0.jpg

Re: Man of Steel

I liked it, but didn't care. Same as Returns.

But I did make one observation that seems oddly crucial to this film and other modern filmmaking.

Tell me about Superman, as if you had only seen this movie. Don't tell me what happened to Superman, tell me about him. Describe Superman as a person. Imagine you're setting me up on a date with him. Who is he?

Right? Nothing.

"Character development" in this movie (and other recent ones I can think of) boils down to simply showing formative experiences, without showing how they actually formed the character. You never see how someone reacts to their circumstances, or reconciles them.

You find out that something has happened to someone, and then you see them later. That's modern character development. My contention is that we shouldn't see what happens to them and then not see how they build their life afterwards, we should see the opposite. We should hear that something awful happened to a character, as we learn more about what they're doing now and how they're managing. Character is personality, and personality is internal reactions - not external events.

  Show
Unrelated to this, one thing I really liked about this movie was what they did with Pa Kent's death. In '78, Clark's dad dies from a heart attack, and we're being sold a struggle along the lines of "and I wasn't there to help him, there was nothing I could... do?" It wobbles. Basically, his dad died and it made Clark sad. Didn't have anything to do with him. In this film, the throughline has been adjusted such that Pa Kent's whole thing was "jesus christ, kid, you need to hide this shit until the world is ready, mm'kay?" And his death was completely avoidable, if Clark had Superman'd him out of it - but Pa wouldn't let him. Pa believed so strongly that Clark was meant for something huge, that would be undermined by blowing his cover, that he died for that belief while Clark watched. That's like nine times more interesting.

Anyway. Movie happened. Disliked score. Come at me Alex.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

The film was a flatline for me. Not necessarily bad but there's not much to like about it either. I honesty don't have any desire to ever see it again.

Also important to note, I can picture in my head what this movie would look like without the 225 million dollar price tag. It would be the same movie just some of the action wouldn't be as obnoxious and over the top. I have only seen that in a few other movies. John Carter and Transformers 3 are good examples because the stories are relatively simple (or not even present), but they look way to expensive. It like watching money burn on screen.

  Show
Watching Michael Shannon climbing up a building like a cat was about dumbest looking thing I ever seen.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

Teague wrote:

Tell me about Superman, as if you had only seen this movie. Don't tell me what happened to Superman, tell me about him. Describe Superman as a person. Imagine you're setting me up on a date with him. Who is he?

He's intelligent, caring and has a deep connection to those closest to him (as evident by flipping shit when Zod showed up at the farm). Initially, he's a man conflicted about his identity. He wants to change and embrace who he really is but doesn't know if the world is ready to accept him. Eventually, he overcomes this internal dilemma and exposes himself to the world because it's more important for him to protect the innocent than protect himself.

Re: Man of Steel

And then the Romans crucify him.   

/Shyamalan!

Re: Man of Steel

Ewing wrote:
Teague wrote:

Tell me about Superman, as if you had only seen this movie. Don't tell me what happened to Superman, tell me about him. Describe Superman as a person. Imagine you're setting me up on a date with him. Who is he?

He's intelligent, caring and has a deep connection to those closest to him (as evident by flipping shit when Zod showed up at the farm). Initially, he's a man conflicted about his identity. He wants to change and embrace who he really is but doesn't know if the world is ready to accept him. Eventually, he overcomes this internal dilemma and exposes himself to the world because it's more important for him to protect the innocent than protect himself.

I believe you just got told sir.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldsjz0PFKc1qbozzn.gif

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: Man of Steel

fwiw, Armond White liked it a lot.

Re: Man of Steel

i have to agree with Teague here.  Alot of reacent movies don' t have great characters that you can describe w/o talking about what happened to them.  This movie somewhat notwithstanding.  You can say however that many of the characters in this don't change much.

The Pa Kent death scene was done really well.  We finally see superman's reaction to something instead of just having a blank face or grimacing.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

Trey wrote:

fwiw, Armond White liked it a lot.

I was going to read it but couldn't get past his first line-

Man of Steel is the first superhero movie to be directed by a real filmmaker since Tim Burton took on Batman in 1989

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

heh, I guess since it's a glowingly positive review he felt compelled to start with something inflammatory to keep his cred intact.

to be fair, I can sorta see what he means when he says "real filmmaker" - although I'd include Nolan in that category even if White doesn't.

Re: Man of Steel

Yeah, it was Nolan I was thinking of too. And I wouldn't say Ang Lee is terrible either.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

Trey wrote:

to be fair, I can sorta see what he means when he says "real filmmaker" - although I'd include Nolan in that category even if White doesn't.

Ang Lee, Chis Nolan, Zack Snyder, Michel Gondry, Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon

And those are just the ones I noticed quickly scrolling through the list of superhero movies that came out since Burtons Batman...

I see you're using the school of douche definition of "real filmmaker".

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2013-06-15 19:13:19)

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: Man of Steel

Well, sure.  I went to that school.

Re: Man of Steel

BigDamnArtist wrote:

Ang Lee, Chis Nolan, Zack Snyder, Michel Gondry, Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon

Yeah, Zack Snyder is who Almond White meant by the term 'real filmmaker'.

Does The Green Hornet count as a 'Superhero' film?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Man of Steel

If Tim Burton, a man who freely admits he couldn't pick a good story of a crap heap, is your benchmark...

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2013-06-15 19:45:51)

ZangrethorDigital.ca