Page 1 of 1
MAN OF STEEL (the new superman movie)
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:50 pm
by Dave (imported)
Surprise, surprise, one of the websites posted a spoiler filled review of the new movie based on a screening that was done in the past day or two. Yes, as late as three weeks before release studios do screenings and then ask questions.
So this fellow (who is not in the USA) writes up a critique.
The non-spoiler sum of it is "he liked it"
and the observation I will repeat is that all that superfast cutting scene jumping you see in the two big PREVIEWS is not representative of the movie. Which means you eyes will not jitter and your head will not ache from the superfast cutting.
That's a relief. I hate "shaky cam" and I despise all that jerky fast cutting in and out.
Re: MAN OF STEEL (the new superman movie)
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:33 am
by Cainanite (imported)
I liked this movie, for reasons almost completely inexplicable to me.
There are plot holes big enough for a Kryptonian moon to fall through.
The new Superman is rather wooden, and is mostly just "the guy in the Superman costume." He brings nothing of any substance to the table.
The story is disjointed, and told out of sequence.
Lois Lane apparently has the ability to be wherever the plot requires her to be without any realistic explanation or logic to how she gets there. Can she teleport? Who's paying her travel expenses? Why does she get access to so much classified military stuff, including being allowed onto a military flight to deliver a bomb? Why does general Zod want this puny Earth mortal to come along?
The young actors portraying Clark Kent as a boy were far better actors, and had a much more interesting story to explore than the adult guy playing the role. I would have been a lot happier if the director chose to tell the story of Clark Kent as a boy, than just seeing the kids in flashbacks.
The special effects were actually distracting to the overall story. They sort of went all "Michael Bay" on this one. More special effects, less character development.
The story was too mindless for adults to fully enjoy, but too violent to take kids to.
The story takes the Superman mythos we all know and love, and rather carelessly throws it out the window.
Despite all of that, I enjoyed the move. Sadly it wasn't the best of the bunch. I actually think "Superman Returns" was a better constructed and acted film than this one.
Still enjoyable though. Feel free to catch it when it comes out on video. I wouldn't pay full price for it though.
Re: MAN OF STEEL (the new superman movie)
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:47 am
by Dave (imported)
There's an interesting correlation here:
The critics who liked SUPERMAN RETURNS with Brandon Routh dislike MAN OF STEEL with Henry Cavill,
and the reverse -- the critics who dislike SUPERMAN RETURNS with Brandon Routh like MAN OF STEEL with Henry Cavill...
It's even more interesting that people who just go to movies to be entertained like both.
Re: MAN OF STEEL (the new superman movie)
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:06 am
by Eunuchorn (imported)
I had to stop watching any sort of Superman story after reading Larry Niven's essay, Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex. there's just too many ways to start making double entenders out of nearly any reference, especially any thing when he was younger.
Re: MAN OF STEEL (the new superman movie)
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:18 pm
by A-1 (imported)
Cainanite (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:33 am
I liked this movie, for reasons almost completely inexplicable to me.
There are plot holes big enough for a Kryptonian moon to fall through.
The new Superman is rather wooden, and is mostly just "the guy in the Superman costume." He brings nothing of any substance to the table.
The story is disjointed, and told out of sequence.
Lois Lane apparently has the ability to be wherever the plot requires her to be without any realistic explanation or logic to how she gets there. Can she teleport? Who's paying her travel expenses? Why does she get access to so much classified military stuff, including being allowed onto a military flight to deliver a bomb? Why does general Zod want this puny Earth mortal to come along?
The young actors portraying Clark Kent as a boy were far better actors, and had a much more interesting story to explore than the adult guy playing the role. I would have been a lot happier if the director chose to tell the story of Clark Kent as a boy, than just seeing the kids in flashbacks.
The special effects were actually distracting to the overall story. They sort of went all "Michael Bay" on this one. More special effects, less character development.
The story was too mindless for adults to fully enjoy, but too violent to take kids to.
The story takes the Superman mythos we all know and love, and rather carelessly throws it out the window.
Despite all of that, I enjoyed the move. Sadly it wasn't the best of the bunch. I actually think "Superman Returns" was a better constructed and acted film than this one.
Still enjoyable though. Feel free to catch it when it comes out on video. I wouldn't pay full price for it though.
Isn't it obvious that the general wants to have sex with Lois Lane? However, she would prefer to have "...a man of steel..."
Why is this so HARD to understand...?
...just remember, good girls go to Heaven... bad girls go everywhere else... as for all of those secrets, apparently they are primarily "pillow talk"
Please see the sequel "...Men of Steel and Krypton Nights..."