00:00
00:00
VicHD
you can also visit me on Twitter: @victorfioriHD. Some of my popular flashes are now available on youtube.com/@VicHD. I'm also on Patreon! Enjoy Ep. 11
Ep.12 coming soon.

Victor Fiori @VicHD

Age 39, Male

Telecom Engineer

Caracas, Venezuela

Joined on 1/9/03

Level:
22
Exp Points:
5,259 / 5,380
Exp Rank:
8,757
Vote Power:
6.40 votes
Rank:
Police Sergeant
Global Rank:
8,320
Blams:
807
Saves:
310
B/P Bonus:
12%
Whistle:
Bronze
Trophies:
24
Medals:
145
Supporter:
11m 29d
Gear:
4

Man of Steel review *Spoilers*

Posted by VicHD - September 9th, 2013


Originally I was looking forward to this new Superman reboot, so much hype went into it because Chrstopher Nolan, the director of "The Dark Knight" trilogy was involved in the project, as a producer and in the story'. Zack Snyder, the guy behind 300, Watchmen and the Dawn of the Dead remake to name a few is in the director's chair for this film.

then I started to see the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes which initially started off well, but then it oddly slumped to a near polrizing 56%. Out of curiosity I also went to see the film and, well... It sucked. If you guys liked it I won't argue with you, but it just didn't do it for me.

First off the "shaky cam" technique was distracing as hell. It only works during actions scenes, not during dialogue scenes.

Second, most of the acting was rather bland with a few minor exceptions from Henry Cavil (Kal-el/ Superman) and Michael Shannon (Zod) and Antje Traue (Faroa) at times. I really didn't care much for the other characters that were skimmed out through the story like Pete Ross who had largely nothing to do with the story.

Third, they altered some of the Superman mythology, like having Pa Kent choosing to die in a tornado instead of dying of a heart attack. It would have made more sense if Clark rescued his dad from the tornado and then died from a heart attack due to the shock of the current events. This scene was better seen as a personal family tragedy, not as a natural disaster in my opinion. Even the whole story between Lois and clark was altered, too much if I might add. They traditionally meet in the Daily Planet, not in Superman's Fortress of Solitude in the second act of the story. the "mild-mannered Clark Kent" concept was thrown out the window for the most part and saved for the very end, it just felt pointless to me.

Fourth, He's way too dark and serious.He was never like that as far as I know. Most of the stuff that made Superman a fun character is largely missing. People criticize Superman's campy funny moments, especially in the Richard Donner movies, but that's the whole point. Superman is the epitome of oldschool! He was created in 1933 and was known for his kid friendly inage. Then his story got rebooted in 1986, but essentially it was the same noble character only more mature. In the film he's a mopey loner and constantly questions his origins instead of just helping out more after realizing that he has the power do do so before getting the suit. he bacame a largely bland and generic superhero . There are scenes that do work, but the rest just falls kinda flat.

Fifth, The Fight scenes focus more on debris exploding and falling instead of focusing on the fighting itself. I wanted to see more fists flying and Superman rescuing people, not have metropolis turn into Ground Zero x10 (no offense of course). He's supposed to save the city without completely destroying it.

And finally that dumb joke in the end where a female sloldier smiles and says to her general that Superman's hot...I FACEPALMED!!! it's quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in a Superman film and I do acknowledge a lot of dumb moments in earlier films and TV adaptations, but they were at least funny.

I can go on and on ranting and nitpicking about this film. It's not the Superman I grew up with since I was 2 years old ,but maybe that's the whole point. Still, I've seen better origin stories in other adaptations. Here it just ends up being a rehashed recycled retelling of "Batman Begins". I have nothing against Chris Nolan, his films are amazing. Keep in mind that the problem is mostly Snyder here, not Nolan.

What I want to point out here is that dark and gritty stories only work for dark and gritty characters like Wolverine or Batman for example. Superman was never this dark. I've always seen him as a mature, triumphant, noble "boy scout" character (labeled by Batman) and always did things "...for Truth, Justice and the American way" (before getting rid of his American citizenship). He's an old school character that really can't shake off his campy past like Batman did over the years and a good amount of fans don't want him to change this drastically . This film shouldn't treat him like Batman! Apples and oranges people! They have their own mythologies.

Anyway if you enjoyed this movie, I won't question you. It has some good moments. But I prefer the old supeman movies(the first two) , the cartoons, even the Smallville TV show. I enjoyed them a lot more than this.

As for Ben Affleck as Batman in the "sequel"? It's the Michael Keaton effect all over again. I won't question it until I see it.


Comments

I left the theater ranting about the exact same things you're talking about. I felt like Nolan thought he was making another Batman movie. I'm also not making a fuss about Ben Affleck as Batman. I'm more upset that they're making a sequel to this movie!

I blame Goyer and his script. Snyder is a great director in my opinion and Nolan hardly did anything on Man of Steel. The problem was story and I didn't enjoy any of it expect the beginning on krypton.
I mean, Kevin Costner sacrificed himself for a f**king dog?? Seriously??!! It is a small yet important scene, and it still bugs me.

p.s. Ben Affleck was the bomb in phantoms.

I agree with everything you said except for shakey cam. Shakey cam never works. God damn shakey cam. God damn it to hell.

I thought it was a fairly good movie, disappointing, but good.

How can a movie be disappointing and good at the same time?

It had no class. As campy as the first two were,there was a level of class from the actors ,director etc. Sure they did have alot of tongue and cheek,but they handed the property will a level of class,the new one didnt. The writer and director of the new one handled it like a kid smashing his action figures together.

The only thing I didn't like about Man of Steel was that it tried too hard with the humor most of the time, especially with Cavill. I agree that some of the jokes were completely stupid. I agree with that reaction to the female soldier, but I'm sure the women found it funny. Humor really didn't work in this movie. Dark Knight kept it to a minimum except with characters like the Joker who were just bat-shit (forgive the pun) insane.

I thought this movie was well thought out though.

You didn't think the movie was going to be darker? When you consider the change between the original Batman movies and the new ones as well as the Nolan doing this sequel (they made no secret they were trying to Dark Knight-ify Superman), again all I can ask is "What did you expect?" If you expected it to be light-hearted and funny like the original, I want to know where you thought that. Everything that advertised this movie has basically said flatout they were trying to bring a more realistic view (aka Dark Knight-ify) to Superman just as they did for Batman.

And are you REALLY complaining about the movie not following the comics to the letter? Since when has video game or comic movies EVER followed the comics? Movie-makers don't do that for a reason. If we want to see the events of a comic or game, we'll go read the comic/ play the game. They use them and their stories as templates for the movie and try to give us something new while staying true to the characters in the comics. For the most part, Superman WAS a boyscout like he was in the comics. There was a good reason why the story got redone, because if it hadn't we'd have ended up with a oldstyle Superman movie, which is what they were trying to avoid.

The fight scenes were focused more on debris. I don't argue that, but when you consider the fact that they really can't hurt each other, what's the point them trading punches over and over again when it has no effect on them?

I agree about one thing, this movie DID have many flaws. My favorite part was the beginning part of the movie that took place on Krypton. That and the Kryptonian battle in his home town. This movie did some things wrong, but overall it was a very enjoyable experience. It's not often I go to the movies anymore to see a new movie, but I went and saw this movie twice because even with it's flaws, it was still a damn good mov

Just to clarify, I'm open to updating and altering a character's image and backstory if it's done right. I'm just saying that a darker and more realistic take on a story that as been set in stone for many years doesn't always mean it will be better. With Superman you always suspended your disbelief because he's literally a god and can do anything. There is a difference between telling a dark realistic story and telling a mature and serious one. If you liked MoS, fine. Like I said, this just didn't work for me since I'm too familiar with the earlier versions that were at least upbeat and adventurous.

I agree 100% with the characters. I've seen some saying that Costnor was the best Pa Kent, saying his performance seemed "effortless..." I don't see how that was a good thing. The only guy I actually REALLY liked was Zod, though I think Cavill was a decent Superman.

Lois meeting Clark in the Fortress was kind of a head scratcher for me. Wasn't she in Canada while I'm thinking about it? Unless I'm forgetting something, or not remembering clearly, they must of moved the location of the Fortress too, as I always thought it was in the South Pole. Pa dying in a Tornado was also rather odd. As for Clark Cent, they threw it out for the whole film. He doesn't appear as traditional Clark until quite literally the very end of the movie, and even then he doesn't change his voice for the 1 line he has when he finally appears. I'm THOUGHT we'd get more of that in the sequel... but now that it's going to be a Supes/Bats crossover, I kind of doubt it.

I actually kind of like the darker approach, but they didn't do it right... I would elaborate, but it would involve giving out MASSIVE spoilers (such as the ending) and I don't want to tick off someone reading these comments. Let's just say that if they did it right, it would of made the ending easier to swallow for me. It also mixes into the fight scenes and showing Supes rescuing (or attempting to rescue) more people. For the record though, I DID like the fight scenes... I really liked how Supes gets his ass kicked big time at first, seeing how he's fighting militarily trained fighters and this is his first real big fight in this continuity.

Supes has had some good dark storylines over the years though, "The Death of Superman" ("The Return..." on the other hand...), Kingdom Come, and a few others were able to keep the core concept of the character alive while going into darker depths, which is something that I don't think this movie did well though. That much, I cannot deny.

Also, the Jesus iconography got really grating... Was there REALLY any reason for him to fly out of Zod's ship with a cross pose!?

All I can say is that I hope the sequel, both the Supes/Bats crossover and the real solo Supes sequel turns out to be pretty good. For me, this was a decent start for the franchise and I hope it goes up rather then down.

Just to clarify, Superman came out in 1938, not 1933. Aside from that, your review sounds like something written by Michael Barrier. Here's his website if you're interested: http://www.michaelbarrier.com

Wikipedia and other sources state the following:

"Superman was created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, high school students living in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1933; the character was sold to Detective Comics, Inc. (later DC Comics) in 1938."

As for Michael Barrier, I've never heard of him. I'll visit his site just to see.

To answer you question, I guess you an say I expected more than what I got, but for what I got, I thought it was worth seeing.

I do admit, ir could've been a lot better, but the fact that Kent died in a tornado, right after Clark said he wasn't his real dad left a pretty deep impact on me.

Its funny, I actually had the same view when Batman decided to redo their storyline when I first went to see the Dark Knight. I thought Batman Begins was mediocre at best and I liked the old cartoony style from the old movies. That opinion changed rather drastically when I saw Dark Knight though. As for MoS, I personally think it would have been FAR more effective if they'd not tried so hard with the humor. I do admit though, they didn't entirely think it through well enough to work. This movie really did feel like they were just trying to rip off Dark Knight.

And Superman is NOT a god. Just point that out to all the stupid fanboys.

He may not be a God in your point of view, but you still see a lot of Jesus symbolisms from the charcter none the less even though his story elements are influenced more by Moses and other Jewish themes.

@SS4FlameAlchemist

Yeah, I completely agree with the whole "trying to rip off Dark Knight" thing. They tried WAY too hard to be like a Christopher Nolan flick (kind of ironic considering the fact that he produced the film).

Less and 4 Swords Misadventures 9 is out!! :DDDD