MAN OF STEEL (Zack Snyder/Chris Nolan 2013)

[Johann]

Whoever that man is, he'll grow up to CHANGE THE WORLD....


Man Of Steel was Magnificent.
Best Superman movie ever made, and possibly the best action film I've ever witnessed. I won't do any spoilers at the moment, so I'll just say that this film was facing high expectations from this fanboy, and it exceeded them by a galactic mile.
Henry Cavill was spot-on perfect as Clark Kent/Superman/Kal-El, and I wanted to see the movie again as soon as it was over.
It moves at a breakneck pace- it never lets up. It is a freight train of a Blockbuster. I think it's safe to say that it will bethe biggest movie of the year, on every sane critics' best of-lists. It was stunning. RUN to see it. I saw it on an AVC screen (slightly smaller than an IMAX screen) in 3-D and it knocked my socks off.

Thanks to every single person who worked on this EPIC film, especially Chris Nolan, David S. Goyer and Zack "KING-DADDY" Snyder.
They brought it home for your Mama to cook, Yo.

[tabuno]

What really stands out during the first half of this movie was how unnecessarily disjointed the editing became with the non-chronological scenes using flashbacks and forward jumps in order to tell superman’s origins. Man of Steel initially incorporates visual similarities to the alien ambiance of Avatar (2009) and later visual elements of the more raw and gritty District 9 (2009), The Matrix (1999) and Inception (2010). As with these special effects extravaganzas, there will always be more and better movies to come and like Avatar and Inception, Man of Steel has lifted the bar moderately for now to present an enhanced 3-D experience. Such advances in appearance, however, can’t overcome the disjointed quality of how this story unfolded until later in the movie when the action takes over to the end of the movie.

Unlike the horror movie Constantine (2005) that uses primarily a linear chronological unfolding, where its director included judicious use of flashbacks, but only to enhance the story, not to dominate it. Man of Steel’s unfolding story seems to have been based on avoiding extended scenes lengths to reduce cost or compress the time to supposedly pick up the pace. Even From Up on Poppy Hill, a Japanese animated movie that came out this year understood the selective and deliberate use of flashbacks that didn’t necessarily confuse and jolt the audience suddenly ahead in time or back in time like some audience member to be manipulated for the sake of the director’s interest. What made Ryan Lantern’s character in Green Lantern (2011) so enjoyable was its depiction of the character development and human connections and discovery. Omitted in this version of Superman is the even the initial fascinating discovery of Superman by his adopted parents or even an extended evolving childhood development in which psychological attachment is so important a period in any character’s life. Kill Bill No. 1 (2002) and No. 2 (2003) were a few of the action movies in which the use of non-linear flashbacks was well executed and didn’t confuse or break the rhythm of the movie, even Elektra (2005) was able to accomplish this same feat.

Unlike The Matrix (1999) where the antagonist is primarily an unemotional machine, where there is logically a black and white element to the antagonist’s character, the human resemblance and actually the literal adoption of the human form as Superman’s biological parents makes for the use of the black and white stereotypical antagonist as two-dimensional qualities quite inconsistent with a three-dimensional visual movie format. Spiderman (2002) perhaps reflects the best of allowing a movie to unfold in its storytelling narrative, that includes the same life experiences as occurred in Man of Steel albeit which was more condensed that included a moment of discovery (unlike that omitted in Man of Steel), the attachment to one’s parents and the parent-son conflicts. But in Spiderman series, even a more multi-dimensional antagonists that made for a more compelling, balanced emotional tension as in Spiderman (2002) and more recently Spiderman 3 (2007) where the Sandman character is a compelling example of a more complex character that allows for a more reflective and substantive satisfying emotional experience.

Even as Christopher Nolan who helped with the movie’s story, whose Dark Knight (2008) visual design and lighting were the problem but not in Man of Steel, nevertheless unlike Dark Knight the attempt to compress many individual scenes and history into this movie didn’t come off well. The Dark Knight succeeded in its depiction of extended deliciously wicked moral dilemma’s while Man of Steel that seemed more by the numbers. While it is commendable that Russell Crowe as Jor-El in place of the Marlon Brando of Superman (1978) has an even more compassionate and emotive portrayal, the script still didn’t allow Russell Crowe the breadth of character development, interaction that could cement the beginning scenes. Then at some point more wasn’t sufficiently better and as the awesome Inception (2010) like visual effects and other superhero banging and crashing into buildings continue they becomes very overdone by the ending of the movie.

Overall, Man of Steel is an impressive presentation of this superhero, yet it just seemed overly chaotic, a bit over done in places, a bit by the numbers, and overly ambitious in its use of special effects.

As for the end scene, I was a bit disappointed that Clark Kent wasn't more distinguishable from Superman as he and Amy Adams as Lois Lane seem to already have a connection that wasn't in any of the previous incarnations of Superman. The mystery and the discovery of who Superman is just as in Batman or Spiderman was part of the special nature of these superhero movies.

[tabuno]

I sure hope I don't get cinemabon to begin criticizing a movie I loved. If he did, I probably have post traumatic stress and forgotten about it.

[Chris Knipp]

Wow, cinemabon. That is an unusually frank and strong condemnation.

I'm in NYC and though a theater showing MAN OF STEEL is a few blocks away, there are so many other interesting new movies to see I haven't gotten to it yet as I thought I would. Despite Johann's rave, the reviews according to Metacritic are below-average. That is for a movie one wants to run out to see. Howevcer, if it's really the big blockbuster of the summer or even the year as all reports indicated I need to see it, though I might have to wait till the end of next week when I leave NYC since it is showing at my neighborhood cinema in California.

Films I have seen in NYC this week (if not otherwise indicated I've written and posted reviews of them):

DIRTY WARS
PLIMPTON!
EVOCATEUR: MORTON DOWNEY JR. -- NO REVIEW. This guy was so sleazy I don't know if I want to revisit his story.
SHADOW DANCER
HANNAH ARENDT
THIS IS THE END -- NO REVIEW. Did not like, may skip writing about, though I have followed these actors for years.
ALYAH -- PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED; rewatched
THE BLING RING
THE WALL [DIE WAND, German]
BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO

More to come. I'm focusing on movies in theaters (no series now), but have also been to the JP Priestley play revival, CORNELIUS and visited MoMA and spent some time with firends and walking around.

[Chris Knipp]

What THE END are you talking about?

What you say bears out that endlessly redoing things that have been done perfectly well before is a losing game. But that's today's bottom-line-obsessed Hollywood.

[Chris Knipp]

Oh, THIS IS THE END. Well, I expected to enjoy it, but found it tasteless and not very funny. The extremely cheesy apocaliptic trappings aren't made funny. I thought of Gregg Araki's "teenage apocalypse trilogy," which is full of great stuff. Whoever this director was he was just a hack cranking out a film to Seth Rogen's forced script. Of course this is for most, celebrity porn, and as that I suppose it may succeed. Avoid, im my opinion.

And by the way: hammering drums in action movies have become a curse. They are laied on at the slightest excuse. All I can think is I hope my friend Kumiko whose husband Seiichi Tanaka's San Francisco Taiko Dojo has been in movies is making money out of all this noise.

[Johann]

I will ignore cinemabon. Negative reviews are not warranted for MAN OF STEEL.

It delivers on an Epic scale. It is sci-fi (based partly on Earth!) that absolutely destroys the likes of Star Trek.
Superman has been done right for all times now.
His battle is gargantuan. His enemies are formidable.
His powers are indeed Super- I love how they made him fly. At one point he tells Lois to stand back, because the shockwave from him taking off could knock you out, even kill you.
The action sequences are mesmerizing- I didn't blink much while watching this movie. People will criticize and say Superman moves too fast to be believable but I say you are retarded if you think that. He moves like lightning, bitch, and the editing illustrated it.

I'll be seeing this at least 3 more times. I will bathe in Zack Snyder's glory. Oh Yes.

I don't have much time today, so tomorrow I'll go into more detail on why I loved this and why it is the Best Superman film ever made.
Little details like his chest hair, his father on Earth (Kevin Costner) saying that maybe he should have let the kids on the bus die- WOW- all of it adds up to sheer magnificence.

If you pan this movie, you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies. You go to movie jail. Minimum 6 month sentence.
Better yet, get into a Phantom Zone pod and blast the fuck off!

[tabuno]

While I have problems with Man of Steel, Johann's observation about Superman's flying does stand out for me. The patient attention to detail with Superman's flying does reverberate with a vivid intensity and strength that really did come through, more so than perhaps any of the previous Superman movie incarnations. For me there was a lot to like about the movie, but there were enough theatrical flaws that really diminished by total enjoyment of the movie.

[Johann]

Sorry. I have to disagree.
There were no flaws with this movie.
NONE.
It's all in your head tabuno.
If there were flaws, I would point them out.
This is a summer blockbuster. The Benchmark, actually.
It seems as if you guys didn't allow yourselves to enjoy it- you went in with a critical cap on.

I'll have a lot more to say tomorrow. My time is limited today.

[Johann]

On Facebook Monte Hellman called it a bore but well-cast and well-acted.
I guess you old guys can't handle the bombast.
Can't handle the noise.
Turn down those hearing aids....

For me, TURN IT UP! BRING THE NOISE!!!!!!

[tabuno]

Johann, I'm disappointed that you would comment on my comment without having read my previous comment at 06-14-2013 05:03 PM posted right have your first posting. I have already pointed out the problems that I observed in this movie. You have implied that I would just make arbitrary comments without justification. I make it a point to spell out my reasons for my evaluation of movies while you just flippantly ignore them.

Your emotional reaction to all these negative comments on this thread is discrediting your objectiveness and weakens the validity of your points seemingly suggesting that they are based more on subjective emotions than cinematic techniques or valid theatrical points. If so, it may not be possible to really discuss this movie meaningfully with you at all.

[Chris Knipp]

Tabuno,

Johann is a fanboy, self proclaimed, primed to love the new Superman movie pretty much no matter what. We must not be too hard on him. We love his enthusiasm, and he admittedly doesn't write reviews, as such, just appreciations (and sometimes equally enjoyable diatribes: see the Lounge for some of them about Canada's government).

[Johann]

I will. They have my money.

Call me flippant all you want, I've already said it: criticism for MAN OF STEEL is not warranted.
The film is pretty much flawless in my view. Sorry you don't like it.
I am a film enthusiast, not a critic. You have never heard me say I am a critic and you never will.
Critics are paid to shape public opinion. I am nothing of the sort.

Snyder, Goyer and Nolan have NAILED Superman. I don't know how much more clearer I can make it.
It irks me that you guys seem to believe that ALL movies deserve criticism. Some don't, like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Man of Steel.
Flawless entertainments.
Pick it apart all you want- you never came to the film on it's own terms. You came to it on your OWN.
It's glaringly obvious.
I'm not just primed to like this movie- it seems as if it was made for fanboys like me.
I appreciate the Holy Hell out of it, just like I appreciate what they did with Batman.

Movies like this are to be celebrated.
It just broke the box-office record for June (beating Toy Story 3's record- $113 million).
It deserved every fucking penny.

[Johann]

"OVERBLOWN" and "REDUNDANT" are words that should never be used to describe this movie.

OBLIVION deserves those words. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS deserves those words.
Not Man of Steel.

[Johann]

Here's why this movie RULES:

- the first half-hour on Krypton is Incredible sci-fi. Zack Snyder gave those scenes a serious EDGE. cinemabon mentions the 1978 Superman and it's Krypton scenes. Bill, do you really believe that Richard Donner did a better job of creating Krypton? All we saw were long shots (very nice long shots by Geoffrey Unsworth I'll admit) and a few scenes on studio sets. Zack Snyder gave us a lot more. He gave us jagged landscapes and Epic aerial shots- done with beautiful CGI that looked great in 3-D. The costumes of the Kryptonian Council- beautiful.
Just as I would imagine them to be. And then he has shocking violence- the murders of council members by Zod (to "save" Krypton?) right off the bat we know that Zod is *seemingly* misguided- a military Leader who has gone off the rails- he disregards Democracy, all to save his race. But Jor-El knows something that Zod doesn't.
The "Natural Birth" angle was something that surprised me but also WORKS. It makes Kal-El's story more plausible. I've read reviews that say they changed Superman's mythology too much, and, like Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, makes Superman too Christ-like.
I say this:
If Superman were to actually exist in the real world, as this film tries to do, set in modern times, RELIGION and CHRISTIANITY are thrown into question. Because, how can God and Jesus have Dominion over Earth if there are other planets that have "humans" with physical capabilities that far outweigh our own? How does God fit into that? When Clarks' Earth Dad Kevin Costner says that maybe those kids should've been left to die THAT is some serious human shit right there. How would you answer your "child" in that circumstance? How do you encourage him to "be himself" when he is so much more gifted than anyone else?
This is riveting to ponder.

- the way that Zod's powers (and his minions') are also formidable on Earth (just like Superman) makes for very compelling viewing.
Those action scenes where Superman is getting his ass kicked all over the place by that chick in Zod's army was just plain AWESOME.
Too much bombast for ya?
Boo-hoo.
What the fuck were you expecting to see? You had to know that there was some intense action coming your way- his flagship comic is called ACTION COMICS. "nuff said.

My roommate asked me before we went to see it what I was expecting to see.
I said "I'm expecting to see Superman do some SUPER SHIT."
And my expectations were met. You can get into the minuitae of the characters and the scale of the explosions and destruction, but guess what? This is sci-fi/fantasy that is based on a comic book. How critical can you get?
This isn't LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD. And because it isn't, for what it is aiming to do, it's FLAWLESS.
And the filmmakers know it.
I'm VERY GLAD that Chris Nolan doesn't give two shits what critics think.
He just brings it and doesn't care, like Oliver Stone. Critics are moot to him.
THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS TO BE.
You'd lose your mind if that was the case.