Superman: Man Of Steel (2013)

[Adrian Bamforth]

Not exactly dumber but they're getting more convoluted, plot driven and referential at the expense of decent story and characters.

I agree: Plot has become king... which doesn't sound like a bad thing, but for me Christopher Nolan's films feel more like 3 hour montages, each scene there to inch the story onward rather than letting us relax and get to know the characters.

[JOE SOAP]

He sets 'em up, you knock 'em down. 57% critics, 82% audience on RT.

Seems the Yank critics get/like DREDD a lot more than they get/like home-grown Snyderman.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

Sadly critics don't get sequels made and from the early public response, Man of Steel is raking the money in and fan reactions have been positive.

[Charlie boy]

Well, with the money it has already made, it looks like DC will soon be knocking out film after film if claims that Man of Steel would decide the likelihood of DC universe movie franchises coming thick and fast were true (to be fair though, I think they could have said almost anybody was to write/produce/direct Man of Steel and it would still prove to be the big success). I will get around to seeing MOS eventually and a part of me is looking forward to the inevitable rumours and claims that will soon be appearing everywhere on who will be playing the lead in the next DC film.

[JOE SOAP]

(to be fair though, I think they could have said almost anybody was to write/produce/direct Man of Steel and it would still prove to be the big success).

Just like Superman Returns.

[radiator]

Are blockbusters getting dumber or am I just becoming more discerning?

Not exactly dumber but they're getting more convoluted, plot driven and referential at the expense of decent story and characters.

Well that sums it up exactly. A lot of big franchise films these days tend to feel to me like join-the-dots exercises. My minimum requirement for these type of films is a fun, entertaining story with memorable characters and a simple, satisfying narrative arc. Even this seems to be beyond most modern blockbusters with their hugely over-complicated, plothole-ridden, episodic and unevenly paced narratives.

Is it weird that I find myself nostalgic for the simpler, dumb summertime thrills of films like Independence Day, Men in Black, Point Break and The Rock?

A lot of people these days seem to champion the latter Fast and the Furious films in this respect, but I just can't bring myself to go there.

[radiator]

Found myself at a loose end tonight with a few hours to kill so gave in to the hype and went to see it. Regret not opting for Behind the Candleabra instead!

Not that it was terrible - I quite enjoyed the first hour or so and there's some genuinely nice touches throughout - but after that first hour... man. So, so over the top, and every bit as rushed, muddled and convoluted as the films I was griping about earlier.

Characterisation is desperately weak - this is a film where characters say things like "I am a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist" out loud. They really lean on the fact that everyone knows these characters already - someone unfamiliar with them would be hard-pressed to describe their personalities or motivations at all based on this film alone. So many redundant bit part characters that really should have been combined together or cut entirely.

The cgi effects get numbing really quickly. So... Many... Explosions. It's really quite exhausting and outright boring by the end. There just isn't a sense of scale or tangibility to them - its all just excessive digital noise. I've never watched a Transformers movie, but based on what everyone says about them this must be what they're like. Also: really dodgy rubber-man 'digital doubles' in the fight scenes. Thought we'd moved on from that?

This may not be fair as I only really know Superman from the Donner movies - but is it just me or was Superman not really all that Super? He wasn't really given any opportunity to be charming or particularly heroic, or really ingratiate himself with humanity - it's all just one thing happening after another and lacks context. The film seems a bit embarrassed to even call him 'Superman'.

Less would have been a lot more.

[Frank]

Don't know if I can summon the energy to go see this. I seem to be getting ever more jaded with big blockbuster films. Are blockbusters getting dumber or am I just becoming more discerning?

It'll be an absolute monster. It's the kind of film folk with no real interest in seeing it will still go and see. Fair play to them.

Well it's going to have to do colossal business to make a profit on the rumoured $225m budget and the same again on advertising!

Found myself at a loose end tonight with a few hours to kill so gave in to the hype and went to see it. Regret not opting for Behind the Candelabra instead!

See what I mean?

[Mardroid]

Just booked a couple of tickets for me and a mate at Imax in Waterloo. Dear me is that place expensive... I could pay under half the price at my local! (To be fair Bromley Cinema isn't in the same league...)

[nicklambo]

Saw it today and definitely enjoyed it with some of the same reservations as others...however i am with John...sure there was a bit near the end where I could see Christopher Reeve in Henrys face.....subtle and very cool....

[DrRocka]

Just rolled in from watching it and I'm firmly in agreement with CF.... I absolutely LOVED this until buildings began to get smashed up. And more buildings. And more buildings. All the themes and at times, quite subtle ideas that had been set up (very well, imho) until that point suddenly became forgotten in favour of big explosion and constant superpowered scrapping and macguffins.

That said, I really enjoyed it - certainly a great Superman film, and no Mr Burdis, you're not alone - I definatley saw Christopher Reeve's face in the light at the end!

[DrRocka]

Oh, yeah - was the fact that he was 33 years old a reference to Jesus?

[Jim_Campbell]

What's below is (I believe) a massive spoiler. If you have any intention of seeing this movie, you should probably not unhide the rest of this post.

[spoiler]So... I haven't seen this movie, and now I'm certain that I'm not going to. Superman kills Zod? People are OK with that, are they? I don't see how you can put this down as being acceptable in context, or it's 'updating' or 're-imagining' or a necessary change when making the transition to film. To me, that means the movie has a character who looks a lot like Superman, but who isn't Superman.

(Yes, yes, 'Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow'... hardly the same thing, is it? Moore wrote that knowing that it would be the final story of the 'Silver Age' Superman and had the luxury of telling a story that ended that incarnation of Superman.)

To me, that's a deal-breaker. That's discarding something absolutely, intrinsically fundamental to the character. It's akin to Batman confronting the Joker at the end of The Dark Knight (movie), pulling out a .45 and shooting him in the face.

Snyder, Nolan, whoever, has made a conscious decision to establish this franchise as being about a Superman who kills. Fuck that.
[/spoiler]

[Radbacker]

like you Jim I haven't seen it yet but IIRC [spoiler]its been a while since I've seen it but Superman kills Zod in the original Superman 2 as well, and after he's de-powered him so he's effectively murdering a human and from what I've read he's apparently quite cut up at having to kill Zod in this one (though no mention that he sheds a tear about the tens of thousands of humans that surely get killed with all the city wide destruction at the end), I'm also willing to give these deaths the benefit of the doubt as this is essentially Superman Begins and maybe by movie 2 he's got his whole no killing and not let any one die thing happening as he's wracked with guilt (not to mention hassled by the world governments)[/spoiler] though I may be wrong as it hasn't opened in Oz yet so only going off a few spoilery review's I've read.

Cu Radbacker

[Steve Green]

Was going to post exactly the same thing.