Yeah, it is my third favorite now. I liked it better than TDKR It's a simple movie that doesn't aim too high in terms of plot and characters but it gets the job done along criteria of its own.

Also, I think this movie should be good watching for you women, as this person is very handsome and you frequently get to see him in tights, rugged and naked + amazing physique....

Let me know if that turns out to be the case, I will have to see it

-----------------------------------------------

Man of Steel 3.5/5

(0:00- 1:40) 4/5

(1:40-2:24) 2.5/5

I it, I would give it a 9/10. The good-Cavill,Shannon,Crowe and Costner we're all amazing. I think it's the best superman movie to date!

I didn't really feel the chemistry between Superman and Lois (and I still think Amy looks to old for Henry) and I also really really missed John Williams score.

\

I am believer too now... I think Cavilli makes an excellent Superman and he fully embodies the role- face, voice, looks, body, demeanor, mannerisms, everything. Superman is the average joe that is also the world's sheepdog. Nothing more, and nothing less. .

Conversations with Russell Crowe played a much more extensive role than I anticipated and I liked seeing his presence and natural charisma repeatedly. Costner, a good actor, brought much warmth and convincingly showed to us that he was his father.

Shannon's role was okay and servicable imho, but forgettable. But then again- if one has read the comics- all of superman's enemies save for Lex luthor have been simple and just like Zod. They did justice to the comic.

As for Amy Adams- I think she was miscast and was too much like a normal woman. She was too old (clearly late 30s) , too heavy, and not attractive enough and not enough like the way Lois Lane is supposed to be (sexy, clever, resourceful, high energy, tall, beautiful, alpha woman, etc.) I didn't see chemistry between her and Superman either.

Antje traue played a minor role but she was very, very attractive and welcome whenever she appeared...

A few more comments:

+ There are many memorable superman moments and scenes.

+ This film gives a more personal edge to superman.

+ The first 1:40 minutes (up until after the confrontation) are well done.

+There was one fifteen minute (or so) confrontation that was very well done and was easily one of the best out of all the superhero sequences (ever filmed).

+They filmed a lot of sequences well and did not take any big, ruinous risks.

-The Last 0:45 minutes is where the movie starts to fall apart.

-About 1 hour of the film is prolonged, often unnecessary action.

- The movie plays out like a series of coincidences, macguffins, and deus ex machina plot devices but so does the comic...still they could have toned this down a notch. The silliness of the plot is always there but thankfully it doesn't ruin the enjoyment.

+It should be watched

Also, if you're a straight female or a gay man and you don't love Henry Cavill there's something really wrong with you. There were several times I thought my ovaries would explode.

Even straight men such as myself...............

Haha. He is great physical shape and I certainly wish that I looked like that naturally and with zero effort. As Clark Kent, he also comes across as a humble and very likable bloke that would offend no one..

The creases on his face, hair line, and whole facial structure are unusual and very super-hero ish. He looks the part of a top male model as well.

Yeah, it is my third favorite now. I liked it better than TDKR

Wow :shock: I think I'll wait for 3 superman movie's before I decide that, I liked how TDKR wrapped it all up.

Also, I think this movie should be good watching for you women, as this person is very handsome and you frequently get to see him in tights, rugged and naked + amazing physique....

Umm yes that was enjoyable

^

Haha. Unfortunately, we had Amy Adams :-p...According to imdb, the sub-par Rachel McAdams was considered a frontrunner for the role (she had played a journalist in 'Body of Lies'). As for Lois Lane, I am so out of the hollywood loop that I can't think of a suitable replacement (A lister, good actress, fits the role, etc.).

-------

Yeah, I rated 'Man of Steel' the same as 'TDKR' but I enjoyed the former a bit more. I liked the first two batman films significantly more and was let down by TDKR's closure.

This movie sucked. Superman had no acting skills. He was absent from a lot of the movie. Character development was just a a few token scenes. Once again we get an identical climax to 80% of all superhero flix with aliens doing battle with superheros in NYC streets. Gee who will win? oh the suspense. *yawn*

^

You just described 100% of all superman comics. IMHO, critics missed the ball on this one. It's not high drama or high art nor does it pretend to be.

Criticising a comic book movie for having a predictable ending is like criticising an island for being surrounded by water. That the good guy wins and the bad guy loses is a given, it's Superman.

^

You just described 100% of all superman comics. IMHO, critics missed the ball on this one. It's not high drama or high art nor does it pretend to be.

True, I'm just really surprised it got an 8.2 on IMDB:)

Did you know that RT gave it 56%? Metacritic and other 'public' metrics like imdb gave it a high score (8X %). Professionals did not. This is a case where the 'intellectual elite' has diverged from the 'people'...

My theater viewing featured strong applause at the end.

Loved it!
-Henry Cavill was perfect as Clark Kent/Superman and played the role without making it cheesy. He is ridiciously hot too!!!
-The rest of cast was good and portrayed their characters flawlessly! (Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Michael Shannon, Laurence Fishburne and Christopher Meloni). Even the two boys who played young Clark Kent really looked like Henry Cavill. Especially the older one had an uncanny resemblance.
-My only kind of complaint was the character of Lois Lane. Amy Adams was good as Lois Lane, just not quite as spunky as I thought she would be. (But it could have been much worse, so I really shouldn't complain!)

Storyline was solid. Special effects were really good. Everything about it was good. I highly recommend it!

Did you know that RT gave it 56%? Metacritic and other 'public' metrics like imdb gave it a high score (8X %). Professionals did not. This is a case where the 'intellectual elite' has diverged from the 'people'...

^

But I don't think that's a fair way to look at it.

There are barely any movies that get a bad rating by the audience on sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes because the only ones that bother to vote are fans of the movie.

Look at Gatsby for example. It's a generally agreed fact that the movie was absolutely terrible, and you will hear so by critics and people that blog about movies, yet it has high ratings by the public because of the army of Leo-fangirls.

Although, to be really honest, I saw Gatsby for Leo and I will see Man of Steel for Henry no matter what

A good tumblr-friend of mine who's a big movie-buff and I usually agree with told me this: "It was great until the last hour." Would you agree?

Clever W, I made a review of sorts on post 59. Yeah, I agree- in fact that's the thing that stood out the most.

--------

The advantage of those aggregates is the size of poll (potentially hundreds of thousands) while critics number two hundred or so. There are many bad user ratings and ratings that diverge negatively from critics although what you say about 'cult icons' does factor in to varying extents. A huge cult icon could potentially distort ratings without merit. I did check 'superherohype' and 'nolan fans forum' just before and after to see what the hard core fans are thinking. I had read modern superman stories (Red sun and Birthright) in the past and knew what to expect. They were definitely more lenient towards the flaws on the film however, they were more astute to understanding what superman was all about. The big poll (similar to RT's critics in size) they had there averaged around 8.5 as well.

Synder's comic book movies (Man of Steel, 300 and Watchmen) were distinguished by the fact that they resemble snapshots of the actual source material. This is contrast to what many other directors do with comics (which is, a full conversation to the big screen). Watchmen, for instance, is disjointed and structurally incoherent if one doesn't read the graphic novel first. So people who understand comics (which is the minority of critics) appreciate these films more.

As far as general audience- they tend to be much less strict than the critics and appreciate accessibility and straightforwardness. I think 'man of steel' fits the bill here. Great films that are too sophisticated and difficult to understand even get penalized a bit. (eg. The Thin Red Line).

There are barely any movies that get a bad rating by the audience on sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes because the only ones that bother to vote are fans of the movie.

Look at Gatsby for example. It's a generally agreed fact that the movie was absolutely terrible, and you will hear so by critics and people that blog about movies, yet it has high ratings by the public because of the army of Leo-fangirls.

Although, to be really honest, I saw Gatsby for Leo and I will see Man of Steel for Henry no matter what

I'll wager that you'll like the film as much as I did (7/10)

In my humble opinion ...

Excuse me for my expression but Superman shits all over The Avengers. While I love anything that comes from Marvell those movies are like: Explosion BOOM, NYC going down BOOOM another explosion, BANG there goes Hong Kong, BOOOOM ALIEEENS!, you barely see any emotion coming from those characters with Iron Man 3 being maybe the only exception.In this occasion you do see Clark's struggle to find who he is and his struggle to hide his strength

The scene when we had to let his father die to protect his identity was heartbreaking

that's stuff you never see in Marvell stuff. That's what I like about Superman and obviously Barman, they make this superheroes more human, more realistic and you truly like them and cheer for them.

Obviously you do know earth is getting saved in the last two minutes of the movie no matter what, but at least with Superman you also get to see a different story a whole different perspective. Unlike Thor, Captain America, Iron Man who are like "Yay I'm super powerful and awesome and I will kill the bad guys", this time it has a completely different approach, he has to choose between saving the planet where he was born and he belongs and recreate Krypton or saving the planet that he called home for 33 years, even when humans were pretty shitty with him most of his life.

Loved it!
-Henry Cavill was perfect as Clark Kent/Superman and played the role without making it cheesy. He is ridiciously hot too!!!
-The rest of cast was good and portrayed their characters flawlessly! (Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Michael Shannon, Laurence Fishburne and Christopher Meloni). Even the two boys who played young Clark Kent really looked like Henry Cavill. Especially the older one had an uncanny resemblance.
-My only kind of complaint was the character of Lois Lane. Amy Adams was good as Lois Lane, just not quite as spunky as I thought she would be. (But it could have been much worse, so I really shouldn't complain!)

Storyline was solid. Special effects were really good. Everything about it was good. I highly recommend it!

THIS.

I thought I was the only one who noticed that, that kid looks like he could be Cavill's son or brother

^

Nice to hear, MizzLima

The biggest 'characterization' based franchises that Marvel has appears to be Spiderman and, to a much lesser extent, Wolverine. The X-men, iron man, and avengers series do not focus much on individuals, and the 'Avengers' movie was true to form.

DC has Batman and Superman. They are my favorites of the mainstream superheroes as the quality of the stories are higher.

------

PS. I kind of want to see it again..

Saw it, and loved it :dance: I'm used to seeing Superhero movies more on the comedy side of things (Iron Man, Avengers, pretty much Marvel comic movies) I really liked the more emotional side of things, Clarks dramatic story, etc.

And I'm going to go super girl mode right now. But holey fhndalfhneio;afieoashbf Henry Cavill is HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT Like I seriously had the biggest smile on my face everytime he was on the screen. His body, his hair, his cheekbones Honestly, every girl should see this movie if not only for THAT. And she will have a good time!

Overall really good movie! I've never actually seen a Superman movie I liked, and I definetly got what I wanted to see! 8.5/10

So I finally saw it, and I’m happy to report that I really enjoyed it. I'd be very surprised if it was remembered as fondly as The Avengers in years to come, but overall it was good fun, if a little heavy-handed at times and occasionally repetitive. Great action sequences, I was particularly fond of the opening on Krypton and the scenes in which Clark flies for the first time and breaks the sound barrier.
 
Russell Crowe's Jor-El was a highlight, and thumbs up to Henry Cavill in the title role. While probably not as ideal a Superman as Reeve was, I thought he embodied everything an actor should to portray the character. I liked the fact that Lois had his identity figured out from the beginning too, that whole "Lois has no idea that Clark is Superman" thing is so hackneyed, I’m amazed that it’s taken this long for someone to throw it away. Michael Shannon's Zod didn’t really work for me, from the way the character looked to how he played it, but how fantastic Faora was! Honestly thought she could have carried the film as the sole villain, I hope to see a lot more of Antje Traue in the future.
 
I must also say that the grittier tone of the movie, which I know was a bone of contention for many, made more sense to me by the end. It only crossed my mind afterwards, but we've yet to see a fledgling Clark Kent on the big screen, and I think it would have been extremely difficult to launch a confused rookie hero into becoming the world's saviour so quickly without first introducing some dark themes. He didn't have ten years to learn his craft like in the Donner version, he was basically a transient worker who found out the extent of his alien heritage within a matter of hours. So all in all, a good launching point for future films, and hopefully the first step in the development of the Superman we've come to know. On a scale of Batman & Robin to The Dark Knight, I'd give it an X-Men.

Man of Steel was soooo boring. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed super hero movies before (like the Dark Knight trilogy), but this one was just so bland. I can't believe the same guy who made 300 made this also.