The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The sense of being an outcast? Feeling like he is different than everyone? Having to find his own place in this world. How is that not relatable?

For me, that is the problem. I do not want to relate to a Superhero. I want him to be from/in a completely different situation in life. I want his struggles to be bigger, epic, and more important.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The sense of being an outcast? Feeling like he is different than everyone? Having to find his own place in this world. How is that not relatable?


The character has just been portrayed incorrectly in the past to let viewers in and identify with him. It's very easy to find a 'common ground' for people to be on with Superman...it just gets ignored in favor of being Mr. Boyscout like in the Reeve film.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

For me, that is the problem. I do not want to relate to a Superhero. I want him to be from/in a completely different situation in life. I want his struggles to be bigger, epic, and more important.

Kind of what SquidPuppet said but with more emphasis on his actual plight; you really feel for Batman, with his brooding outlook, because him being a man makes him easily identifiable. Anyone's parents could be killed and they could blame themselves.

Superman is entirely different: he has superpowers and comes from another planet. As someone says in the trailer, humans are nothing but specks of dust compared to how powerful and incredible Supes really is -- and yet he's portrayed as this super conservative, squeaky clean guy who just saves the world because he feels he has to. It's quite hard to vocalise the problems I have with him (even though I do find the films entertaining) but I guess it mainly comes down to me not finding the character that interesting...compared to other superheroes, anyway.

[Al_The_Strange]

Just saw Man of Steel...



Will review soon...

Originally Posted by Diesel

I have to disagree with you entirely on the film needing to play out chronologically. When first seeing that jarring cut to years later I was thrown for a loop...but as the movie went on with this method of story telling, I actually came to love it and think it was the perfect way to show us what we needed to see. I do however, agree that I would have liked to see more of that past stuff like I mentioned in my 'review'. This is just up to personal taste I suppose as I loved it and you hated it

I'm afraid I'll also have to disagree with the Fogster and agree with Diesel; mixing up the chronology worked for me. If anything, I felt Superman: The Movie dragged a lot, because nearly an hour or so is spent on Krypton and Smallvile.

Even though the older Superman films take the time to breathe more, I think the shorter MoS scenes show more of what's important. They not only show Clark as an outcast, but also show how he learns to hold back and moderate his powers. Plus, he learns more of the human condition and suffering through his encounters, and that's what makes him a stronger (and I daresay a better "Christ-like") character.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I enjoy comic book and superhero flicks. But not Superman. He was always too wholesome and straightlaced for me.

Plus there is the whole leotard thing.......just wrong IMO.

[Show spoiler]

lol. I can definitely see Superman as being excessively goody good, and the outfit from the older films is horrendous. All the more reason why I loved MoS better; he's good and all, but never overly sappy about it. I also thought the new suit was looking good.

Originally Posted by Diesel

He actually does something in this film that is very much against the traditional Superman stigma that really shocked me.

What did you think about Superman actually

[Show spoiler]killing Zod?

I was not expecting that at all.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

What did he do? Dont worry about spoilers.

Originally Posted by DisneyWorld

[Show spoiler]Superman broke Zod's neck.

Originally Posted by Diesel

[Show spoiler]They actually have him intentionally kill the villain. Snaps his neck to be specific.

The more I thought about that scene, the more I liked it, because

[Show spoiler]if you compare that to The Dark Knight, I realized that Superman is the exact opposite of Batman. Batman never kills; that's his moral code. Superman takes the opposite approach; he can kill, but for the greater good. In MoS, he killed Zod to save lives.

I remember in college philosophy class, there were two ways to handle things: Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Batman is a Kantist, because according to that philosophy, a person should NEVER do anything wrong. Morality becomes a universal law that cannot be broken. So he's willing to do anything and everything it takes to get the job done, without taking lives. He even goes on to take the full blame and soil his own character for the sake of the greater good. Superman, on the other hand, is a Utilitarianist, because he will do whatever it takes for the greater good, even murder. Even in the original film, he does this, as he saves just about everybody but doesn't get to Lois Lane in time.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thats exactly it for me too. Iron Man, Batman, Hulk, etc all have "issues". Superman is too simple and FAR too clean cut for my tastes.

Originally Posted by Diesel

The character has just been portrayed incorrectly in the past to let viewers in and identify with him. It's very easy to find a 'common ground' for people to be on with Superman...it just gets ignored in favor of being Mr. Boyscout like in the Reeve film.

The classic Superman films are definitely one-sided this way. MoS will just make it even more blatant.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

For me, that is the problem. I do not want to relate to a Superhero. I want him to be from/in a completely different situation in life. I want his struggles to be bigger, epic, and more important.

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Kind of what SquidPuppet said but with more emphasis on his actual plight; you really feel for Batman, with his brooding outlook, because him being a man makes him easily identifiable. Anyone's parents could be killed and they could blame themselves.

Superman is entirely different: he has superpowers and comes from another planet. As someone says in the trailer, humans are nothing but specks of dust compared to how powerful and incredible Supes really is -- and yet he's portrayed as this super conservative, squeaky clean guy who just saves the world because he feels he has to. It's quite hard to vocalise the problems I have with him (even though I do find the films entertaining) but I guess it mainly comes down to me not finding the character that interesting...compared to other superheroes, anyway.

Pathos is always necessary to make any story great.

Superman has interesting attributes; aside from flying and stuff, there is the fact that the Superman/Clark Kent identity is reversed from every other superhero (a fact I learned about through Kill Bill Vol 2 ), the outcast angle (and perhaps a bit of duality between his Kryptonian side and his human side, as projected through Kal-El and Clark Kent respectively), and the theological angle (now even more apparent in MoS, with Zod as a devil-like figure, among other things). Above all, I also kinda see Superman as representing every man; we all have a nerdy Clark Kent side, and we all have a strong Superman side, and the Superman character overall provides a perfect role model for balancing the two and maintaining morality.

The big problems I see is that, as mentioned before, Superman did get too goody-good, he was rather one-sided most of the time, and he never really had a big challenge on the big screen. Until now.

[Al_The_Strange]

Man of Steel

I've only ever read a few specific Superman comics (namely, the Death of Superman, The World Without a Superman, and The Return of Superman series), but from those issues, I always knew that a better film adaptation was long overdue. Sure, Richard Donner's film was fun and imaginative, and Bryan Singer did his best to make an earnest adaptation, but every Superman film has been so cheesy, silly, and shallow that they never really stood the test of time. They may always capture the hearts and imaginations of fans, but the Man of Steel deserves more. He needs a challenge. He needs a story worth telling.

Following in the success of the Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel finally delivers an earnest, powerful, hardcore rendition of Superman. There is no camp or cheese here; this film is a straight-faced, serious, and inspiring take on the classic hero. It starts off strong on planet Krypton; it's not the lavish, dialogue-heavy, crystalline world we saw in Superman: The Movie, this is an imaginative and working society under fire, and that in itself is a sight worth seeing. Things slow down a lot on Earth, but for the film's last half, the action hits hard and fast, and never lets up until the end. It's relentless as superpowered characters slam into each other at rocketing speeds, blasting entire city blocks in their wake. In some of the most frightening and intense scenes, alien machines pummel huge parts of Metropolis to a flattened ruin. It can be rather exhausting for audiences, but this was the spectacle I always wanted out of Superman: the epic and highly-destructive clash of menacing, otherworldly forces.

Fortunately, the story for this film is quite sound as well. Some viewers might not dig it though, because nothing about it is traditional or expected. Clark Kent's origins in Smallville are told in a series of flashbacks, mixing up the narrative substantially. He doesn't work at the Daily Planet in this film, so there are no games between him and Lois Lane regarding his secret identity. Frankly, I like these directions better, because it forces the film to focus on the most important aspect: the Man of Steel himself. This film explores the main character on a more intimate level, showing the lessons he learns from living among humans, showing the importance of moral strength and moderation, and showing the emotional vulnerabilities of the character as he matures. Through it all, the traditional themes surrounding Superman emerge; he is still something of a Christ-like figure (maybe even moreso now, with General Zod appearing like the devil, and with Krypton's fate mirroring Satan's rebellion against heaven), and he still does everything for the greater good (even at the expense of morality, in direct contrast to Batman, who could never break his moral code, even for a greater good).

Many viewers will make the same complaints for Man of Steel that were already made for Sucker Punch, Watchmen, and 300: heartless, cold, and lacking in depth. Although I can understand the complaints for those films, I felt Man of Steel was the warmest film Zach Snyder has made to date. Even though the film doesn't offer a terribly complex story or any depth in minor characters, it does succeed in achieving the right level of pathos to make the audience care for the main character (something that other Snyder films always struggled with).

This film looks visually impressive, with strong photography and editing. Many shots appear shakey and jarring, but I rarely found it problematic. I really enjoyed how tight and intimate certain shots are. Acting is not bad: I felt that Henry Cavill was very good as the title character, Amy Adams played Lois Lane in a sensible manner (for once!), while Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe stole the show repeatedly. I didn't mind every other performance either. Writing is good. This production has fine-looking sets, props, and costumes; special effects tend to be a bit on the glossy, fake-looking side, but are still astounding. Even though Hans Zimmer's score doesn't offer any memorable themes the way John Williams did, I felt it was beautiful at times and appropriately bombastic other times.

More critical audiences may not see much beneath the film's nonstop action scenes, and others might be asking "why so serious?!" Honestly, this is the Superman film I always yearned for. Man of Steel delivers the gargantuan spectacle I always craved, but with just the right amount of attention to the central character).

5/5 (Entertainment: Perfect | Story: Very Good | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: A general yes to casual audiences, a rental for those who are more picky.

[bestever23]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I loved it. It delivered almost exactly what I wanted out of it.
I wanted the first half to be extended by another 15-30 minutes or so to give us more time with Jor-El and Jonathan to make their roles feel a little less rushed...also Lois' investigation and his 'journey'. It feels like there is a 2.5+ hour movie hidden in there.

Once the action really hits in the second half...
There was really only one instance where the effects I felt were rough and it looked way too CGI. But in such an effects heavy movie, that is forgivable.

Cavill was fantastic as Supes I thought. Shannon's Zod was honestly the weakest part of the film for me. He was good, but I never got that feeling I think Zod needs to convey.

I could probably ramble on and on about what I liked about it...and a few things that I did dislike but its late and in the end the dislikes I had are just nitpicks. This is one hell of a good fun watch in my opinion and I can't wait to watch it again after work tomorrow.


This movie has a story to tell (even if it should have been fleshed out a little more...for me at least ) and has all the spectacle you could ever want from a Superman movie.


Iron Man 3 was okay, Star Trek Into Darkness was quite good, but this was much better than both of them for me.


This is the Superman movie I've been waiting for since I was a little boy. Thank you Zack Snyder.

4.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzBmQMyYDBk

[jvince]

Green Lantern (2011)
dir. Martin Campbell

The Good: Uhmm... Blake Lively... looks hot here?

The Bad: Everything in this movie is shit. The story is shit. Ryan Reynolds is shit. Ryan Reynolds always looks like he's taking a shit. Peter Sarsgaard looks like a talking piece of shit. The music is shit. The special effects look shit. And the villain is literally a gigantic floating cloud of shit. For real (you could go check it out, but it's probably best if you don't).

The Bottom Line: Way to blow 200 mil. Green Lantern is the ugliest looking blockbuster around. It's f*cking gross. Avoid.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

Green Lantern (2011)
dir. Martin Campbell

The Good: Uhmm... Blake Lively... looks hot here?

The Bad: Everything in this movie is shit. The story is shit. Ryan Reynolds is shit. Ryan Reynolds always looks like he's taking a shit. Peter Sarsgaard looks like a talking piece of shit. The music is shit. The special effects look shit. And the villain is literally a gigantic floating cloud of shit. For real (you could go check it out, but it's probably best if you don't).

The Bottom Line: Way to blow 200 mil. Green Lantern is the ugliest looking blockbuster around. It's f*cking gross. Avoid.

I don't think you mentioned the word shit enough.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

Green Lantern (2011)

Everything in this movie is shit.
The story is shit.
Ryan Reynolds is shit.
Ryan Reynolds always looks like he's taking a shit.
Peter Sarsgaard looks like a talking piece of shit.
The music is shit.
The special effects look shit.
And the villain is literally a gigantic floating cloud of shit
It's f*cking gross.

I am not understanding your point. Why are your comments so vague? Please be more specific.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by jvince

Green Lantern (2011)
dir. Martin Campbell

The Good: Uhmm... Blake Lively... looks hot here?

The Bad: Everything in this movie is shit. The story is shit. Ryan Reynolds is shit. Ryan Reynolds always looks like he's taking a shit. Peter Sarsgaard looks like a talking piece of shit. The music is shit. The special effects look shit. And the villain is literally a gigantic floating cloud of shit. For real (you could go check it out, but it's probably best if you don't).

The Bottom Line: Way to blow 200 mil. Green Lantern is the ugliest looking blockbuster around. It's f*cking gross. Avoid.

Pretty much

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by jvince

Green Lantern (2011)
dir. Martin Campbell

The Good: Uhmm... Blake Lively... looks hot here?

The Bad: Everything in this movie is shit. The story is shit. Ryan Reynolds is shit. Ryan Reynolds always looks like he's taking a shit. Peter Sarsgaard looks like a talking piece of shit. The music is shit. The special effects look shit. And the villain is literally a gigantic floating cloud of shit. For real (you could go check it out, but it's probably best if you don't).

The Bottom Line: Way to blow 200 mil. Green Lantern is the ugliest looking blockbuster around. It's f*cking gross. Avoid.

I want this review to be photoshopped onto the back of the Blu-ray slipcover synopsis.

[Abdrewes]

In preparation for MOS, I revisited Superman Returns to find that it is one of the more impactful superhero films of the last ten years, it definitely make my top ten of such films.

Kevin Spacey's campy performance aside, I was glued to the screen from beginning to end.



I highly reccomend watching Matt Zoller Seits video essay on the film as well as his written review. I think he nails it!

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I don't think you mentioned the word shit enough.

Jvinces reviews have been becoming more and more hyperbolic.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jvince

Green Lantern (2011)
dir. Martin Campbell

[Show spoiler]

The Good: Uhmm... Blake Lively... looks hot here?

The Bad: Everything in this movie is shit. The story is shit. Ryan Reynolds is shit. Ryan Reynolds always looks like he's taking a shit. Peter Sarsgaard looks like a talking piece of shit. The music is shit. The special effects look shit. And the villain is literally a gigantic floating cloud of shit. For real (you could go check it out, but it's probably best if you don't).

The Bottom Line: Way to blow 200 mil. Green Lantern is the ugliest looking blockbuster around. It's f*cking gross. Avoid.

I shouldn't be posting about the fact that I actually liked this and own it. Oh well. Shit happens...

[Abdrewes]

Hated Man of Steel. Went from a lifeless and dull experience to an offensive and assaultive one. Big thumbs down for me

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Hated Man of Steel. Went from a lifeless and dull experience to an offensive and assaultive one. Big thumbs down for me

Superman Angry - YouTube

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Superman Angry - YouTube

Superman returns is waaaay better than this piece of junk. Seriously, the writing is WORSE than fast 6. Pure exposition from the first minute on, and basically everybody's chasing a McGuffin causing all kinds of collateral damage. I didn't think the film was entertaining for one second. Once the final battle cribs 911 imagery for effect, I went from disliking it to having utter contempt for it.

Don't even get me started on the cinematography. JJ Anrams looks like Kubrick in comparison

Charting my response:

When it was merely dull and over cranked: 4/10

When we started getting loads of product placement (sears, 711, IHOP): 3/10

When the final battle reached Transformers levels of irresponsibility and fetishization: 2/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Superman returns is waaaay better than this piece of junk. Seriously, the writing is WORSE than fast 6. Pure exposition from the first minute on, and basically everybody's chasing a McGuffin causing all kinds of collateral damage. I didn't think the film was entertaining for one second. Once the final battle cribs 911 imagery for effect, I went from disliking it to having utter contempt for it.

Don't even get me started on the cinematography. JJ Anrams looks like Kubrick in comparison

Charting my response:

When it was merely dull and over cranked: 4/10

When we started getting loads of product placement (sears, 711, IHOP): 3/10

When the final battle reached Transformers levels of irresponsibility and fetishization: 2/10

Well, I can't deny, I did see the product placements. Come to think of it, I never saw Superman shave. What's up, Gillette?

The experience is very intense, so it's clear that it's overly exhausting for many viewers. For me, I was more absorbed by the treatment of the story and characters.

This morning, I posted on my blog the things I felt made the movie a better adaptation. I also addressed a few of the criticisms: regarding the indiscriminate mass carnage, I felt it was something that made the invasion all the scarier. That machine that kept pounding the city down really freaked me out. I also felt that if Superman stopped fighting and focused solely on saving people, he wouldn't have been able to stop the larger conflict of General Zod destroying everything.

Other than that, I think I'll have to concede that most of the bad things didn't bother me much, so this might go down as yet another fantastic guilty pleasure.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Well, I can't deny, I did see the product placements. Come to think of it, I never saw Superman shave. What's up, Gillette?

The experience is very intense, so it's clear that it's overly exhausting for many viewers. For me, I was more absorbed by the treatment of the story and characters.

This morning, I posted on my blog the things I felt made the movie a better adaptation. I also addressed a few of the criticisms: regarding the indiscriminate mass carnage, I felt it was something that made the invasion all the scarier. That machine that kept pounding the city down really freaked me out. I also felt that if Superman stopped fighting and focused solely on saving people, he wouldn't have been able to stop the larger conflict of General Zod destroying everything.

Other than that, I think I'll have to concede that most of the bad things didn't bother me much, so this might go down as yet another fantastic guilty pleasure.

I try to avoid hyperbole in my reviews, but at times this felt Battlefield Earth-ian. The yelling, the Z-grade cinematography (crash zooms, shaky cam, washed out look), sleepy performances, poor characterization, huge contrivances, a Mickey mousey score that did WAY too much....don't even get me started on the destruction, I found it in poor taste too.

AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Superman Returns, Superman 2 and Superman:The Movie are all 8-9's for me. What happened? Oh yeah, Zack Snyder took a dump on my face.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I try to avoid hyperbole in my reviews, but at times this felt Battlefield Earth-ian. The yelling, the Z-grade cinematography (crash zooms, shaky cam, washed out look), sleepy performances, poor characterization, huge contrivances, a Mickey mousey score that did WAY too much....don't even get me started on the destruction, I found it in poor taste too.

AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Superman Returns, Superman 2 and Superman:The Movie are all 8-9's for me. What happened? Oh yeah, Zack Snyder took a dump on my face.

Bummer. It's like the exact opposite for me. Sorry it didn't work for you.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest blind-buy: Medium Cool

Why did I get this? Well, the cover art caught my attention, and all the descriptions of political upheaval sounded somewhat appealing.

A lot happened in the 1960s. There was war. There were assassinations. There were riots, marches, counter-cultural movements, and rebellions. Good or bad, the era was a scene of massive cultural change, and has often been the background for many interesting films.

In 1969, cinematographer released this film, Medium Cool, as a type of semi-fictitious snapshot of what was going on in this era. The nifty thing about this film is that it's a film from a documentary filmmakers about a documentary filmmaker, and the film purposefully blurs the line between fact and fiction (or rather, the line between documentary and film). The film also seems to explore some fascinating thematic territory regarding the job of documentary filmmakers, and the audience's morbid fascination with violence.

However, despite the interesting background, this film never did capture my interest. It's long, I saw little-to-no direction in it, and nothing really stood out in general. Sure, there are a few radical protesting and rioting scenes, but their stance is so neutral, I'm never even sure what the point of them are. For a political film, I was never clear on the politics, so nothing about the events really resonated with me. Maybe they'll appeal more to people from the era, who actually remember these type of events, but I'm left rather indifferent.

My biggest complaint, however, is the sheer lack of plot. This film is so random, lacking in structure or point, and with characters I really couldn't care much about. Some viewers may appreciate how well-grounded in reality everything seems (hence the documentary angle), but with only a sketchy sense of who these people are, I really couldn't care about them or what they were doing. It gets even more convoluted with seemingly random encounters thrown in (what is up with all the groovy music and dancing and psychedelic stuff in the last act?).

The good thing about the film is that it's well-filmed. A lot of shots look good, and with the documentary-style angles, parts of it will look jittery. Editing is not bad. Acting is not bad necessarily, but nobody's performance really swept me off my feet either. Writing is okay, and it's surprising how much cursing there is. This production has very real sets, props, and costumes. Music is really funky.

This is a darn good example of a film that's well loved but I can't stand: a film so well-grounded in reality that it throws out storytelling completely, making for a rather dull experience. Regardless, the film has garnered its share of acclaim, and chances are that anybody interested in the era and this style of filmmaking will love it.

2/5 (Entertainment: Poor | Story: None | Film: Good)

Recommendation: As a rental.

Well, at least this Blu-Ray looks great. Sound quality is good, but it seems like I have to really crank up the volume.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4/5