'Man Of Steel' Reviews *SPOILERS*

Spoiler-filled review- http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62552

The safe/spoiler-free summary quote- "Superman hasn’t been done better than this."

Most of you are probably saying "no fucking duh" but there it is.

I also liked "What it is is seriously geeky, and was probably made to appeal to Superman fans first and foremost. This is because it takes its mythology seriously. It’s a long movie, but it’s never boring. It does return to the greatness of the first two movies. I thought this movie delivered on what I was after all along: a physical match for Superman."

Spoilers lurk therein. Tread lightly, young Jedi.

EDIT- The definition of "spoiler" varies from person to person. To me, this is more of a recommendation to see the movie as I don't think it gives away much of anything that we haven't surmised, and most of that relates more to style and presentation than actual content and plot points. Still, the spoiler warning applies but I think it's a safe read.

I just read that. Sounds like a plan! But there is one thing that bothers me:

Spoiler:

So what's up with that? Is that even necessary? Where are those red sun chambers & the Arctic police when you really need them? But I guess we'll know soon enough if this report is true or not.

non_amos wrote:I just read that. Sounds like a plan! But there is one thing that bothers me:

Spoiler:

So what's up with that? Is that even necessary? Where are those red sun chambers & the Arctic police when you really need them? But I guess we'll know soon enough if this report is true or not.

If it was any other villain, I might not feel this way but being as I'm already sick to fuck of that character (irrespective of who's playing him), this news might not bother me.

By the by, a lot of people are raising the bullshit flag on that review. Not so much that the writer hasn't seen the movie but that he's some random shmuck. The theory is that it's a studio plant (written by either someone at the studio or by Harry Knowles under a pseudonym). Considering how little of the plot is given away in that review... well, I could see the argument. Not saying I buy it (or reject it); only that I can see the merit to it.

I haven't read any of the above, and I'm going to avoid spoilers the next 2 & 1/2 weeks. But keep all spoiler-related content here, if you don't mind......

Apologist Puncher wrote:I haven't read any of the above, and I'm going to avoid spoilers the next 2 & 1/2 weeks. But keep all spoiler-related content here, if you don't mind......

Fair enough. And I'm thinking you have the right idea. So much of Singerman was predictable that I'm glad that MOS has so far played things close to the vest. In fact, I dig in general that Hollywood isn't necessarily spoiling every last freakin thing about their movies anymore these days. It makes things a little fresher and more enjoyable at the midnight premiere.

Some people have a really fucking retarded definition for the word "spoiler" so to hopefully prevent complaints from crybabies, I'm putting this stuff here.

Zack Snyder via movies.com wrote:Snyder: You can’t fly him on a wire and have him fly around. Those days are over.

Snyder: Whatever the stakes are, you have to figure that Shannon will raise them just by being Shannon.

Jackoff Interviewer: Are there any other Easter eggs?

Snyder: There’s probably a few. The guys, the art department guys have really tapped deep into the mythology of—

Jackoff Interviewer: Mort Weisinger, something or other. [Weisinger Elementary School]

Snyder: I think that even the character names that we’ve chosen, you’ll see, they resonate with different iterations of Supermans. It’s all nonspecific, right? I changed the Smallville high school mascot to the Spartans just because I thought that was cool. I think in the comic book they’re something ridiculous.

URL- http://www.movies.com/movie-news/zack-snyder-man-of-steel-interview/12374

I call the interviewer a jackoff because (1) he's a Eunuch page staffer who also acts as a fulltime hanger-on at other web pages (although at least the Eunuch page got passed over again to be the PR outlet of choice for the new movie so there's that) and (2) the guy's a fucking Communist... which, once upon a time, was thought of as a bad thing.

I'm seeing MOS at 7pm on Thursday, 06.13.2013. I will bash together a review as quick as I can when I come home.

Superman beats the piss out of Zod in better video quality.

Snippets of three scenes in fairly decent video quality.



Guilty until proven innocent but everything -- EVERYTHING -- has exonerated the movie so far. Check out Cavill's posture, voice and body language in the interrogation scene. With just a handful of lines, he brings across more life, gravitas and Superman awesomeness than Blandon managed with 2+ hours to work with.

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/man-of-steel-review/12488

I'm not actually posting the article but rather the link because it's one of those articles that has either pics or the trailer spread throughout. It'd mean a lot of 'copy & paste' for me unless you guys know how to post the entire thing without breaks? Anyway, it's written by Jeffrey Taylor who if I'm not mistaken is the same dude from duh Homopage. His review doesn't really reveal anything regarding spoilers but I posted it here anyway. It's an OK review so feel free to post the entire thing if you can.

I'll be blunt. I don't trust him. (A) He's from the Eunuch page and (B) he's got the same conflict of interest that the Eunuch had with Singerman. After being given a set visit, access to the director and lead actor and other things, do you REALLY expect a fair and unbiased review? I'm not saying MOS will be anything like Singerman. All signs say it won't. But there's such a thing as objectivity and Jeffrey Taylor (actually, his real name is Jeffrey Taylor O'Brien) doesn't have it.

several reviews have found their way online. i have to say - a lot of the reviews are slamming the movie.

lib wrote:several reviews have found their way online. i have to say - a lot of the reviews are slamming the movie.

Huh?! Links, please? Everything I've seen thus far sound like Snyder hit it out of the ball park! 10 out of 10, 9 out of 10, etc.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/11/man-of-steel-new-superman-movie-starring-henry-cavill-falls-flat.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/man-steel-review-grimmer-superman-might-not-soar-152553455.html

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/man-steel-reviews-best-superman-movie-ever-145954233.html

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/review-leaden-man-steel-doesnt-soar-220017766.html

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/first-reviews-man-steel-too-dark-too-big-160000239.html

I guess you can't always please everyone. There have been a lot of positive reviews also. Just kinda surprised to see the negative ones.

I'm avoiding reviews and clips until Thurs. at 7pm. Just don't need it.

Having said that though, I HAVE read a few of the "negative" reviews, and there is one thing they ALL have in common:

The reviewer is carrying in a preconceived notion and personal bias towards what THEY "think" a Superman movie should be. And they don't do that with shitty rom-coms, Oscar bait films or left-wing propaganda tripe.

So because of that, their opinions mean less than shit to me.

Apologist Puncher wrote:I'm avoiding reviews and clips until Thurs. at 7pm. Just don't need it.

Having said that though, I HAVE read a few of the "negative" reviews, and there is one thing they ALL have in common:

The reviewer is carrying in a preconceived notion and personal bias towards what THEY "think" a Superman movie should be. And they don't do that with shitty rom-coms, Oscar bait films or left-wing propaganda tripe.

So because of that, their opinions mean less than shit to me.

I just got through reading every one of those reviews that lib posted the links to here. The 'Daily Beast' review in particular was negative while the others seemed to straddle the fence in some areas. 'Daily Beast' for example seem to learn towards 'emotional needs' if you will. Look how touching the scene is with the birth of Kal-El & Jor-El present. Such emotion, such tenderness, yada yada yada. That seems to be what floats their boat! But all the intense action sequences of hurtling each other through buildings? Overloaded CGI for the sake of CGI. Or so would 'Daily Beast' have you believe.

Ya know what I think? I bet that dude loved Singerman Peeps. After all, what it lacked in action it certainly made up for in 'emo needs'. But in Singerman people complained because they wanted Superman to 'punch someone'. Now that we actually have a Superman who 'punches someone' they complain that he's 'not emotional' & doesn't smile & wink like Christopher Reeve did. Gimme a break! Do these people even know what they want?!

When it comes to critics and Superman I take things with a grain of salt. Don't forget, they gave positive reviews to SR, which seems to be higher than MOS at the moment. Heck, it's got more good reviews than WATCHMEN.

Fuck them.

James Stocks wrote:When it comes to critics and Superman I take things with a grain of salt. Don't forget, they gave positive reviews to SR, which seems to be higher than MOS at the moment. Heck, it's got more good reviews than WATCHMEN.

Fuck them.

Speaking of WATCHMEN, here's what I'd like to know. I'm reading these reviews & when Snyder's name is brought up, in some cases they state that he 'deconstructed the mythology' in reference to his take on said film. And they mean it in a negative way too, you can sense that they do. So what do they mean exactly by 'deconstructing'?! WATCHMEN was one of the best comics films I've ever seen bar none! Even if I didn't particularly get into the comic. Are these critics even watching the same film? Or are they just harping on the lack of 'the squid'?

Apologist Puncher wrote:I'm avoiding reviews and clips until Thurs. at 7pm. Just don't need it.

Having said that though, I HAVE read a few of the "negative" reviews, and there is one thing they ALL have in common:

The reviewer is carrying in a preconceived notion and personal bias towards what THEY "think" a Superman movie should be. And they don't do that with shitty rom-coms, Oscar bait films or left-wing propaganda tripe.

So because of that, their opinions mean less than shit to me.

That's pretty much where I am too. My Internet has been out for 48'ish hours non-stop so I've missed whatever's happened in the intervening time. As I will see Man of Steel in just over 24 hours from now, it doesn't make sense to spoil myself on all the shit that's probably out there right now rather than waiting to see it all for myself. I might not have had this policy even a month ago but it's been this long. I can wait a bit longer.

non_amos wrote:

James Stocks wrote:When it comes to critics and Superman I take things with a grain of salt. Don't forget, they gave positive reviews to SR, which seems to be higher than MOS at the moment. Heck, it's got more good reviews than WATCHMEN.

Fuck them.

Speaking of WATCHMEN, here's what I'd like to know. I'm reading these reviews & when Snyder's name is brought up, in some cases they state that he 'deconstructed the mythology' in reference to his take on said film. And they mean it in a negative way too, you can sense that they do. So what do they mean exactly by 'deconstructing'?! WATCHMEN was one of the best comics films I've ever seen bar none! Even if I didn't particularly get into the comic. Are these critics even watching the same film? Or are they just harping on the lack of 'the squid'?

They're likely referring to the work itself, which was a "deconstruction" of the superhero genre. It's Elitist Critic Speak for "turning the whole thing on its head".

i'm not saying i support the reviews or agree with them.  just kind of surprised to see them. 

i agree with what AP said.  Some of the reviews seemed to have a pre-conceived notion of what the movie should be.  One review kind of sounded like he would have preferred a continuation of the Donnerverse only updated.  He kept pining over how Christopher Reeve portrayed Superman / Clark Kent. 

From all the clips and previews - i'm excited about the film

lib wrote:i'm not saying i support the reviews or agree with them.  just kind of surprised to see them. 

i agree with what AP said.  Some of the reviews seemed to have a pre-conceived notion of what the movie should be.  One review kind of sounded like he would have preferred a continuation of the Donnerverse only updated.  He kept pining over how Christopher Reeve portrayed Superman / Clark Kent. 

From all the clips and previews - i'm excited about the film

I wonder how much is due to the fact that most critics aren't Zack Snyders biggest admirers.

Best not to even get started on how most movie critics are Apologist assholes...

Typing review now.

I struck out bad tonight! I had the tickets. I took off from work. I was on my way to the theater. Wanna know what happened? I live on the East Coast & that severe thunderstorm system that started out West came through my state with force! 'Straight-line winds' & all of that. So the town I was gonna see the film in was pretty much blacked out of power. They were still gonna try to show the 'Walmart version' as they put it but we waited around until almost 9 PM & they finally pulled the plug on it. Then it was only gonna be the midnight showing. However, they did hear from Warner Brothers as other states had the same scenario going on with power outages like in Tennessee I believe so duh brothers were aware of the problems with the 7 PM advance screening so they're gonna honor the tickets any time we wanna go which in this case appears to be this Saturday. To tell you the truth, I am royally pissed off! Well laid plans gone awry! To quote Alanis Morrissette, a little bit ironic, dontcha think?! Sure, I can see it Saturday but it defeats the whole purpose of tonight! What did I take off work for for crying out loud?! And to add insult to injury surrounding businesses nearby got power back in record time but they happened to be on a different power grid, different company. You can't win for losing!

Spoilers follow. If you don't want spoilers, read something else.


Guilty until proven innocent. The verdict? Innocent.

I think you all saw that one coming but dammit this movie could've seriously fucked itself up at so many junctures along the way that I gave up counting after a while. I don't think it was an accident either. Part of me thinks Snyder knew well what our trepidations would be and he always kept a toe just behind the line so the core fans would wonder if he'd cross it. But he didn't.

I can already predict that people will lose their shit over Superman killing Zod. Superman killed Zod in this movie. Before credits roll, Zod is dead and the reason Zod is dead is because Superman killed him. I'm one of those people who think Superman shouldn't kill without a damned good reason. Superman doesn't kill... but if he does, these are basically the circumstances where he'd do it. Part of me takes issue with doing this in the first movie of a reboot but that seems like a quibble.

There are nods aplenty to the comics. Krypton has a very Birthright vibe to me. Maybe elements of Byrne's MOS but I think Birthright was a major influence on Krypton. And Kelex!!! I never thought we'd see Kelex in live action but there he was!

As with Smallville, Lois is in on the ground floor of this thing. She backtracks stories of a do-gooder to Smallville and the trail leads her to Clark Kent. So when Clark Kent begins working at the Daily Planet just before credits roll, she knows damn good and well who he truly is. It seems like extra-comics media are headed this direction. I'm okay with it. Lois has become increasingly more important to the formation of Superman. That trend began with Lois & Clark, was strengthened somewhat in the comics, Smallville took it the next level and MOS took it even further. It works for me on the level that it clearly demonstrates Lois Lane's intelligence and resourcefulness.

The music fit the film. The new hero theme for Superman is understated but clear and recognizable. I enjoyed it. The percussive music is somehow less noticeable given how bombastic the movie itself is. I really enjoyed the music. Through out, I never missed Williams.

Oh yeah, the action. People are bitching and complaining about the action overload in this movie and for the life of me I'll never know why. "Too much action" doesn't belong in a review about a Superman movie. Period. If you think that, find the tallest building you can and jump off it. This movie had shitloads of action. Singerman put MOS behind the 8-ball on a lot of shit. Snyder basically had no choice but to lead with a Superman II type of narrative within the context of an origin story and part me questions if that would've been his preference otherwise. Nobody will ever convince me this is the movie that would've been made had Superman had a cleaner slate. I'm not complaining though as I've wanted more action in my Superman for years now. Superman punches the absolute fuck out of the rogue Kryptonians. No "protector" shit, no "finding another way". You cross Cavill's Superman and it's your ass. Several Kryptonians had to learn that lesson the hard way.

And let's talk about Cavill. When Cavill was doing his thing, at no time did I ever miss Reeves, Reeve, Cain or Welling. And seriously, do I even need to mention Routh? Cavill dominated this movie, hitting all the right notes at all the right times.

I never questioned that Costner would own Jonathan Kent so it came as no big shock that he did. Ditto Lane as Martha. What I dig about Costner is that his usage in this movie permits his return in sequels. True, the character dies but I think all of his scenes are done in flashback. So, um, why can't we have some more flashbacks in future movies? Jonathan's death vindicates his warning to Clark about the possible necessity of letting people die. Like it or lump it, Jonathan meant it. He lived by those words and he died by them too. His death scene was heavy. Clark could have saved him but it would've meant giving away his secret. Jonathan Kent died to protect Clark's secret. Clark knows damn good and well what was lost. It was a pretty heart-wrenching moment.

As for the "darkness", I think this film is serious more than dark. There are plenty of moments of action (trust me), several humorous beats and even some romantic stuff. But "dark"? No. This movie isn't dark.

Is this the perfect, most ideal Superman movie I would've wanted to see? No. My tastes, esp lately, veer more toward the heavy science-fairy tale vibe of the Silver and Bronze Age comics. Man of Steel treads a middle ground between Nolan's Batman films and the Avengers. The character arcs are dense and heavy but those things get tossed out the window during heavy action scenes. Overall, it's a good, crowd-pleasing balance. And for wide audiences, this is the best possible foundation you can lay right now. If Snyder can't make Superman work right now, I doubt there's another filmmaker out there who can. Snyder set up a Superman destined for great things and Superman does things in MOS that are truly a job for Superman.

GO FREAKING SEE THIS MOVIE! IT'S BEEN PROVEN INNOCENT!!