Man of Steel (2013) Poster

(2013)

User Reviews

Add a Review
2,594 Reviews
Sort by:
10/10
An Epic Ride!
crimson_knight_721 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
At first I was very nervous at the prospect of another Superman movie. Especially considering how horrible "Superman Returns" was; however, "Man of Steel" was a roller coaster of a ride as we not only witness Kal El's (Clark Kent's) origins, but we are shown Superman the way he is supposed to be.

With expert direction brought to us by Zack Snyder and the assistance of Christopher Nolan, "Man of Steel" is packed full of action and emotional depth. No Superman movie has ever come close to achieving the atmosphere illustrated in the comics or the cartoon series until Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel". Sure it has a lot of action, but anyone who is a true Superman fan knows that Kal El's battles were almost always explosively long. Furthermore, the biblical metaphors were absolutely brilliant! As Superman was intended to be portrayed as a "Christ Like" figure, you see his journey in "Man of Steel" not all that much different from the New Testament. (Ex: When Clark Kent asked the priest for advice, behind him was a stained glass window of Christ praying to His Father before He was arrested and crucified. Next scene Clark Kent willingly submits himself to be arrested, ascends into the "heavens", and than descends in a crucified form) As Superman's story is not about becoming the best, but an immigrant facing the challenge of home VS heritage, we see Zack Snyder's portrayal of Superman reflect the "Man of Steel" originally designed by Joseph Shuster.

Furthermore, who could forget such actors like Henry Cavill (Clark Kent),or Amy Adams (Lois Lane). Every actor in this movie left their mark, but I needed very little convincing to believe that Cavill was the face of Superman, or that Adams could be a persuasive Lois Lane. And although I am not particularly a fan of Michael Shannon, he was the perfect General Zod. With the level of ferocity Shannon provided, not to mention his one liners, this was by far his best role yet!

This movie soared through my expectations and it will be the first time I ever give a Superman movie a perfect 10!
70 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Meh of feels
notafanof7 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I remember the day this film came out like it was yesterday. Because it literally was. It only came out three years ago. Me and a buddy skipped school to see this film opening day. We were so excited for this film and we were not even Superman fans. The trailer where Zod's menacing voice over told Kal El to turn himself in or watch earth suffer the consequences was chilling and a stroke of advertising genius. Easily one of the best trailers ever made. Our combined hype for this film was like the hype I had experienced for The Dark Knight Rises. I guess I should have got a clue as the mixed feelings I had for that film were multiplied ten fold in this film. Man of steel is a mess. The pacing is off with the film cutting back and forth too much in time at the beginning leaving adult Clark Kent a half baked husk of a character. Speaking of characters, where is the character development in this film? I had almost zero attachment to any of the characters presented. Which is either a symptom of me not really knowing the characters of the comics as a converting superman fan, or is a result of poor writing. The film did have some interesting ideas when it came to the visual design of the costumes and technology. The Cgi became a mixed bag of untextured and obvious Cgi men punching each other, which certainly disappointed me as I found some of the action scenes to be otherwise terrific. And then the action scenes went on,and on, and then I got quite bored and by the time the best fight started between Zod and Superman, I didn't care anymore because I knew Superman had to win. I mean it would have been cool if I was not so exhausted by the previous thirty minutes of mind numbing and repetitive violence inflicted on extremely fake looking Cgi people. The film felt longer than it was and is, sadly, not re-watchable at all with it's drab, miserable, tone and inconsistent pacing. A very low 5 out of 10 for this bloated bore.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Who the f cares about the critics?
Fanboy21813 June 2013
I know what the critics has said. They complained about too much action, superman being too serious, lack of romance, etc. Since Zack Snyder directed this movie, I don't think he cared about the critics. Don't get me wrong, he DOES care about the fans' opinion. Seems like he really wanted to really satisfy the fans. I see why critics complained about too much action. For me it's just his way to satisfy the viewers. This is the kind of movie that is just really satisfying. When the movie ended, I got that 'satisfying' feeling instead of the 'wanting more' feeling. It's like it was really enough.

Even Snyder's best movies (before this) which were 300 & Watchmen didn't have more ratings than 64% on Rotten Tomatoes. I think the fans should have anticipated the bad reviews. His style is actually what critics hate. The over the top action and CGI is actually his trademark. So, even from the beginning, I think this is actually the kind of movie the producers wanted. About the lack of romance, I really do think it's saved for the sequel. The sequel will definitely explore more about the relationship between Clark and Lois. This film focused on 2 aspects: the origin (krypon,struggle finding his place) & the action (Zod and his army). Don't expect humor or romance.

The visuals were spectacular! What's best about this movie is its action scenes. The action were just relentless. I think the fans would not be disappointed at all. Yes, I know there is only a very few humor this movie but that actually doesn't even matter. The battle between Superman & Zod will definitely 'wow' everyone but the critics. I mean who cares about the critics opinion? A superhero movie MUST NOT be judged by the critics opinion, what's more important is the audience's opinion about the movie and especially the fans'. I think the movie really delivered. Most people will definitely like this movie. I am really sure that many fanboys will consider this as the best comic book of all time. This is a MUST SEE for people who like action movie. The action were better than last year's The Avengers.

The sequel really have a great potential. Considering the minimum amount of romance in this movie (since they just knew each other, and superman was also more focused on Zod), the next movie could explore more of that. One of the things missing from the movie was also the presence of Clark Kent at the daily planet. It's one of the trade marks. But, I believe the sequel will show more scenes in the Daily Planet which is interesting to see.

As a conclusion, I think Man of Steel is so far the best action movie this year. This movie really is a Snyder movie. But it also has a quite lot of nolan-esque feel to it especially in the around first 45 minutes.

If this was compared to Iron man 3, if Iron man 3 was a 7, this movie is a 8.6.
1,570 out of 2,554 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
One of the stupidest movies ever made.
lyre15 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This review is going to be full of spoilers because I am going to mention various gaping plot inconsistencies and outright idiocies in this dog of a film.

Sure, it looks great and the special effects are generally well done. But some people need their movies to at least make some sense.

Let's start with a really basic one: the planet Krypton is going to be destroyed, and no one can be saved except one baby, presumably because they don't have any spacecraft.

Oh but wait, they do have spacecraft. In fact, they have so much spare technology they use it to send criminals into space... so that they will survive and provide enemies for Superman later in the movie.

Jor-El steals the Codex, which apparently contains the DNA of the Kryptonian race. Somehow, there are no backup copies. Oh but what about the actual Kryptonians who are running around destroying things... surely they each have their own DNA? Apparently not, somehow. And how about that baby-making machine in the scout ship: what was it supposed to use if there's only one Codex?

Clark just happens to hear about some top secret ice digging, and somehow knows to go there. How? And Lois Lane is somehow given a tour of the dig and a free place to stay even though she had to sue to be allowed there at all.

Clark discovers the spacecraft and somehow knows how to pilot it and land it somewhere. But then it never gets used again, for example to help fight the invaders later on. Doesn't it have the same kind of engine that's needed to destroy them? And it actually can fly rather than needing to be dropped via an airplane, as Clark's baby spacecraft is at the end of the film. But somehow no one thinks of this.

When Clark is taken to General Zod's ship, he loses his powers because he supposedly needs the gasses in earth's atmosphere to gain and retain his powers. Yet he's shown repeatedly operating in the vacuum of space. If he needed Earth's atmosphere to retain his powers, he should lose them in space.

In numerous fight scenes, massive damage is caused to probably inhabited buildings, which must have resulted in massive loss of life. Why wouldn't Clark/Superman immediately lure his enemies far away from the city, fight over the ocean, in the mountains, etc? In one scene he deliberately throws an enemy through a bunch of buildings, apparently not caring who gets hurt.

At the end, when the world engine is working, Superman flies into its gravity beam where his powers shouldn't exist because the conditions it's creating are like those of Krypton. But after being unable to do anything, he somehow just decides he's going to do it, and then instantly destroys the machine. Because if you really really decide, then you can do anything.

General Zod's ship will be flipped back into the Phantom Zone if its drive field comes in contact with another drive field of the same type, as found in Clark's baby spacecraft. But wait, don't all their small spacecraft use the same engine? Why don't they cause the same problem?

At the end, Superman and General Zod have an extended fight and appear to be equally matched, but when Zod threatens a prototypical family of Father, Mother and Child with his heat vision (and which he somehow doesn't manage to hurt although all he'd have to do is move his eyes slightly), Superman easily kills him, although he was completely unable to damage him until then. Again, just deciding to do something makes it happen.

These are just some of the really obvious major problems, how about some minor but equally stupid ones?

  • Perry White, Jenny and Steve are walking away from General Zor's ship when Perry says "where's Jenny?" Oh, she's suddenly stuck under rubble that apparently no one noticed falling, and she hasn't bothered to scream or make any sound at all. They struggle to free her, when suddenly the beam stops and they say "He saved us!", even though they didn't know anything about Superman trying to save them, nor that the destruction wouldn't resume, or in fact anything about what was going on.


  • Martha Kent is violently flung 20 feet or more. But apparently she's completely unhurt even though she's elderly and even a simple fall should have been damaging.


  • When Superman and Zor are fighting, they fly a great distance and end up falling through the ceiling of something that looks like Grand Central Station. After a few seconds, Lois Lane suddenly appears out of nowhere, because she should be in that scene.


  • In a 'heartwarming' scene at the end, Jonathan Kent sees young Clark playing with a cape and gets all misty eyed. Wait, how did he associate a kid playing with a cape with anything at all? Why would a cape signify something to him? It wouldn't.


This is a movie that didn't bother to make any sense, and the fact that people accept all the illogic, plot holes and dumbness of it really depresses me. Special effects shouldn't be enough to make a movie popular. The story and the logic of the story should count for at least as much and more.
1,627 out of 2,682 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Even for Marvel fans this is a must GO!
Luis Eduardo Moreno12 June 2013
The trailers of this movie were released in a so effective way that you start to fear if the product will fill your expectations. And with the usual critics-know-about-everything-nothing-is-good- to-me reviews the chances of be confused about this are increasing. As high as the expectations were raised after trailers, i have to tell you that you will not disappointed with this movie. Is different in many ways to the usual superhero movies but is a solid product that fits in what you expect from this kind of film. Nice references to previous movies are well executed and new plot additions are well received too. As you can expect from a Zack Snyder movie, there are several scenes that try to resemble graphic novel arts and in my opinion are very well made. Some of the nicest things about this movie is the way they made the fast moving scenes. The most of them (unfortunately i can't say all of them) look very realistic according laws of physics, the CGI are so well made that you wish that development for many movies you seen before. The movements are what you expect if such kind of people exist in reality.

About the plot, i believe this is the more controversial point of what i see in reviews across the internet. Most moviegoers like it a lot, but are critics the ones ( not all of them) that are giving mixed reviews. What you realize is that critics expect another Dark Knight but this movie is not looking to be a darker one of your beloved Superman. If you are smart enough to understand that this is ANOTHER hero you will be happy with the story. If you are looking for a fourth darker than Batman movie for sure you will agree with critics giving bad reviews. This is a Superman movie and in that scenario this is a very good one.

The movie has some flaws to me for sure ( i don't know about a perfect movie) but i will not comment about that as i believe everyone need to discover by themselves what - if any- dislike for their preferences.

In summary this is a super hero movie that even Marvel fans will appreciate as is giving a whole new level to a classic story, turning the most beloved hero in an actual hero and mixing a great graphic novel specialist with great digital artists to give you a full action packed movie that make a good foundations for sequels.
1,033 out of 1,777 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Remember that sinking feeling you had watching The Dark Knight Rises?
arthurcooper13 June 2013
I wanted to like this movie. Admittedly, I went in with high expectations, but I thought the names behind the movie, the actors and the beautiful trailer justified my high hopes.

And - at first - I thought it was all going to work out. For the first 40 minutes or so, this movie is awesome. Krypton, an ALIENated Clark Kent doing odd jobs on earth, a confused boy trying to cope with his powers...

Some reviewers have bashed the movie for being too serious, but there's nothing wrong with a little seriousness, or a little reverence towards the character. In the first half, I think the tone is perfect. A little dark, sure, but it all feels like we're building up towards something truly awesome. Then, kind of suddenly, the main story with Zod and the action starts. And, as much as I love action movies, I really wished it hadn't.

When the serious actions starts, all coherent story telling stops. In the blink of an eye the movie goes from feeling like a sci-fi Batman Begins to Transformers 3 minus the nuanced story telling. Suddenly Superman is here and we get these big sweeping beautiful scenes, and they're just completely boring and out of place. And I don't even want to talk about the totally contrived Lois Lane - Superman romance. (Lots of sighs, and "WTF?" comments at the theater I was in).

I kept waiting for it to recapture the tone of the first half, but the action just keeps getting bigger and dumber. In the middle of the unending action spectacle of the second half, I actually nodded off.

This movie had the creative talent, and the actors to make something really great. And I feel like without a Michael Bay explosion quota maybe they could have done it here... But in the end this is a missed opportunity.
1,002 out of 1,734 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The worlds greatest superhero gets the movie he deserves.
nb355013 June 2013
I saw Man Of Steel last night at an advance screening and at no point was I looking down on the movie.From the trailers and TV spots the movie really gets you interested and dying for more.And the Movie itself soars(yes I know ha-ha)above the expectations.

First of all Henry Cavill is an excellent Clark Kent/Superman.He really gives the character that "not wanted" or "don't feel like you belong" feeling.The cast in the movie is excellent including Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon.Russell Crowe really expands on Jor-el's character and makes him more than just a voice helping Clark.Michael Shannon as Zod is terrific.He was even better than Superman 2's Zod.

The fight scenes in the movie are astonishing.It makes up for all the lack of conflict Superman Returns had.The fight scenes are very destructive yes but there is a very good story around it so it wasn't just mindless explosions like Transformers.Man of steel was by far the best movie of the year.
1,134 out of 1,981 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
I Lost Faith In Humanity!... This Movie broke my heart!
Warning: Spoilers
I know that this is not a sequel to the other films or series... But if something should exist in this one is the consistency... You can not just take a symbol (for some like me sacred) such as SUPERMAN and make this joke called MAN OF STEEL only for get a lot of money (that is called "sell your soul")... The essence of Superman is that he is the symbol of hope, because of that SUPERMAN is not a SUPER-MAN by their supernatural powers, instead he is by their conviction, principles and values​​, the teachings of his father Jhonathan and what learns JOR-EL (not in 5 minutes)...

Therefore:

-SUPERMAN does not kill!!! (No matter what happens)

-Jhonathan always will protect Clark's secret, but never say it was better to let children die because of it. never!

-Jor-El dies stabbed? Lara dies alone???

-Jhonathan dies in a hurricane, and Clark does not do anything???

-Clark becomes Superman in less than 5 minutes, only for wearing the suit?

-Lois Lane tells almost half the planet that Clark is SUPERMAN (she even goes to the Kent house, looking for Clark with the police)...

-SUPERMAN does not kill... Did i told you that???

I've always admired the work of Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, Lawrence Fishburne, Diane Lane, among others... But I can not understand that they have agreed to participate in a film that should inspire people to always be better based on the fact that the truth, justice, equality and above all humanity are most powerful things of all the universe.

Today my heart feels stabbed and my faith in humanity more destroyed than ever, the few things that inspired me to always become a better person is destroyed, trampled and spit like crap ... Even worse is to see the indifference of those who criticize the movies and say that it is an excellent movie just to be full of special effects an a history without sense... Even I read someone say that Henry Cavill is much better SUPERMAN than Christopher Reeve, when the truth is that Chris Reeve was much more SUPER MAN in real life until the end of his days, than it was in their own movies...

I think at heart, that this team had in its hands the opportunity to do something magical, colossal but, they waste time in making this blockbuster only by the desire of the money ...

Dc Comics I will not even think of the anger I have against you right now!

I just hope that IMDb publish this review as it was written so that if any person connected directly with the creators of this movie can understand my frustration and maybe if they plan to make a sequel to this movie rectify and understand that they are are dealing not only with a success at the box office but the idea that behind that "S" which means HOPE hides much more... SUPERMAN is not a comic, not a fantasy character, not a marketing article... It is an idea, a way of life, that there are still good things in the world... respect that!

This is a translation with the help of Google Translate
580 out of 1,022 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Defiles everything that Superman stands for.... sad... pathetic
kinshukjaiswal15 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Guys... I'll be honest here... This movie does not do justice to Superman. I mean, for a person who doesn't know anything about Superman except that he flies around in a blue suit, will find the movie exceptionally good. But for a person who has ever tried to read Superman or watched Superman stuff before, this movie is going to be a disappointment.

The movie doesn't portray what Superman stands for. For the last 75 years, Superman has been a pacifist. He JUST DOESN'T KILL...NO MATTER WHAT.. HE JUST DOESN'T KILL....

SPOILER ALERT: 1. The movie shows that the blue suit was given to Superman by Jor-El. But this hasn't appeared in any version of Superman so far. In fact, its Martha Kent, who gave the suit to him.

2. Clark finds the suit on an abandoned Kryptonian Scout Ship. Now the point to be noted is... the ice around the ship was found to be over 3000 years old... So the ship must have landed there over 3000 years ago... While Clark's age is shown to be only 33 years... Does that mean Jor-El sent a ship to Earth 3000 years ago, with a suit that he wanted to give as a gift to his son 3000 years later??? 3. Jonathan Kent didn't die in a tornado... he died of a heart attack in all versions of Superman ever published...

4. The Genetic data of all kryptonians was never a part of Superman's body cells.. In fact, there were only a handful of survivors which escaped in the bottled city of Kandor.

5. Clark Kent grows up on Earth and spends 33 years of his life adjusting to his powers... Zod does that in minutes?????? 6. The much awaited Superman's Rippled Shield of the house of El which was much advertised... I didn't see in on Superman's suit... I saw it at the end-credits...

7. Superman goes super-sonic??? Blasphemy.... He is the guy who can travel faster than the speed of light... and they only manage to make him go super-sonic??? 8. Superman never lets innocent civilians get hurt... NEVER... He will give up his own life to protect them... Yet in the entire fight sequence he never tries to take the fight away from Metropolis. Instead he keeps on ramming Zod into buildings and brings down half the city...killing God know how many...

9. Helicopter sequence... Superman saves the guy who fell from the Helicopter which has gone out of control... But he lets the pilot and remaining crew perish and crash to the ground.

10. Superman coughs up in smoke... as shown in the movie itself... when he was a kid... he saved a bus from drowning... and then saved Pete Ross too... He is able to hold his breath under water... In the oil- rig scene... he stays under water when the oil rig explodes... When he takes flight for the first time he goes in the orbit in the outer space... all of that... and amidst a little smoke... he stars coughing like he has contracted Tuberculosis??? 11. Superman collapses and "BLEEDS" from the mouth when he enters Zod's ship... Dude.. seriously... Kryptonite makes him weak... and he becomes like an ordinary human in presence of a Red Sun like Krypton had... But never does he BLEED...

12. And the best one of all of them... Zod is trying to kill a few people with his heat vision... Superman has Zod in a vice and he is holding Zod's head... perfectly capable of directing Zod's heat vision wherever he pleases... or he could have covered up Zod's eyes with his hand... But instead... He chose to break his neck... Wow Superman... way to stand by everything to symbolized for the last 75 years...

Believe me when I say this... the movie was good.. but it just wasn't Superman... it was some random guy in a blue suit who flies around killing people.
634 out of 1,121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
No Superman here...
ivo_shandor16 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Live action filmmakers apparently don't know anything about Superman. I should warn you, I think the best Superman adaptation has been in animation, especially the animated series of the 90s with Tim Daly as Superman. Superman is always the boy scout, the Captain America of the DC Universe, honest, noble, brave and true. This is not the case in Man of Steel. The filmmakers were confused by Nolan. Nolan created a realistic and dark, brooding Batman series. Here is the problem. Batman is not realistic. And neither is Superman. You can't make Superman a dark, brooding individual who's confused about who he is.

The worst line in the movie is when Pa Kent says, "You should've let the boy die." He is referring to when young Clark rescues a bus full of children. Pa Kent would never, ever in a million years, say anything like this. Pa Kent is the same as Superman, honest, noble brave and true, a small-time farmer who has the simplest and heartfelt take on life. He just said you should've let people die...wrong. Superman is not like Batman, you can't turn him into a dark character, because that's not who he is. Nolan for some reason became the Joss Whedon of Marvel. Simply because Nolan had a hit with Batman, doesn't mean he should sheperd all upcoming DC films.

Whedon gets the game; he knows the characters and has even written quite a few comics. Nolan is a one note filmmaker, and he's not the best person to oversee DC. Also, Nolan is overpraised as a director, I say. Onto Zack Snyder, one of the worst filmmakers today. Snyder has no directing style. He simply thinks if he puts in an absurd amount of slow motion, that it will turn into gold. That's not how filmmaking works. Warner Bros. simply hired him because he was cheap and he made a cheap Superman. Warner Bros. clearly hired the wrong man for the job. Duncan Jones was even in the run, a far more visual and stylistic filmmaker than Snyder.

Snyder thinks that if he puts it in slow motion, it's cool. Wrong, the Wachowskis only put slow motion in the Matrix when it worked, not the whole movie. Snyder overuses a zoom in shot 5 times simply because he's not a stylistic filmmaker. It's the same shot Abrmas used in STar Trek, when they're space jumping to the drill in the first film, and then the Vengeance is falling through the atmosphere to San Francisco. Snyder merely saw other better films, and decided to rip them off, saying "hey that scene is cool and better than mine, maybe I'll out in there." Man of Steel is like a stupid combination of Transformers and JJ Abrams' Star Trek series. When Superman is battling the earth eating device, for no reason, Transformers Michael Bay tentacles suddenly come out and start attacking him. Okay....Also, Zod is defeated by a black hole device, sound familiar Embassador Spock? Its embarrassing that the first 20 minutes of the film on Krypton rip off Avatar, another terrible film. The filmmakers even got Krypton wrong. Krypton is supposed to be a paradise planet, no war, no disease, like the Amazon. Instead, Krypton is a sterile and cold, wasteland like planet, and you don't really feel sorry for seeing it blow up. Even Zod is left something to be desired. Shannon is rather William Shatner hammy as the villain. Zod should have been more like Khan, from Star Trek Into Darkness. Zod doesn't need armor, just needing a simple motivation for revenge would be fine for him. Killing Jor-El was also a mistake, yeah spoilers, he kills Jor-El, with immediately killed for me the hope of seeing his revenge story. Zod's costume should have been more like Khan's in Into Darkness, and funny enough, that's what other versions of his costume looked like.

Perry White doesn't do anything in the film, not one thing, he's just there because he's Perry White. Lois Lane also doesn't do anything, she's simple there because she's Lois Lane and her primary role in the film is to be rescued by Superman. Wow, you just destroyed the character of Lois Lane already. She's supposed to be a tough, self reliant and powerful leading lady for Superman. In this she's taken into a secret military base studying aliens and taken onto the secret military jet to destroy Zod's world eating device, then Zod takes her onto his ship...for no reason at all, simply because she's Lois Lane. Reporters would never be allowed to see these things. Her only role in the film is to be saved by Superman.

The nail in the coffin is the end fight with Superman and Zod. Spoilers, Metropolis is completely destroyed, knocking over 50 skyscrapers in their fight in the process, killing thousands. Superman and Zod are locked in a death grip, Zod about to use his heat vision to kill 4 innocent people. Superman in an attempt to save them...breaks Zod's neck. Thousands of people are already dead and you're worried about 4 people? Superman would never cause such violent destruction, he would always put out fires, do everything to keep buildings from falling, vowing never to let go, lest he gets someone hurt, he even said this in the final episode of the Justice League series in his fight against Darkseid.

Superman finds a ship that contains his suit and Jor-El's memories. Yeah, spoilers, no one designs his suit, not his mother or father, he simply finds it in a ship. Why was it there? Who used it before? Are you implying that 1000 years ago when the ships landed, they knew a Superman would be there? Are you implying someone was Superman before Superman? That really kills your whole, you're unique Clark theme in the movie...Superman simply finds his suit, which I thought was a laughable plot device, ruining Superman's back story. Watch the animated Superman instead.
61 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Utterly incoherent.
Andrew Sherlock19 October 2013
Wow - what a mess of a film 'Man Of Steel' is.

Scene after unconnected scene jump out of the screen. Trope after predictable trope are presented, with no connectivity and less narrative. It's as though somebody threw a few superman comics at a TV showing MTV. Most music videos contain more character development, better dialogue and more believable stories though.

One gets the impression that everything surrounding the action set pieces was an afterthought. Much of the film feels unrehearsed and performances often feel like first of second takes with under-directed actors unsure of the tone of the scene they are playing and the motivation of their characters.

Even the special effects, which are crucial to a film like this, are ropey. The early flying sequences are laughable; reminding one of the old superimposition methods. Later battle sequences suffer from the levity and flimsy feeling CGI often has, and since we have no idea about the people involved, we just don't care about the outcome.

Avoid at all costs.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Not great
cloudgamer22 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this because I plan on watching Batman vs Superman later on this week and thought I needed a catch up. Halfway through I found myself checking the time to see when the movie was going to finish and towards the end I was checking the time more and more frequently. There were several things I didn't like about the movie:

1. General Zod trying to take control of Krypton with like 5 people and 5 ships.

2. General Zod failing to take control of Krypton after he and his 5 people and 5 ships get surrounded by (or surrender to) ?government forces. I don't know what to make of that whole scene.

3. Clark Kent's father turning up when those kids were bullying him.

4. The dog being in the car when the tornado struck. Why were they travelling with their dog in the first place?

5. Casting of Louis Lane: personally I preferred Amy Adams in rom coms. Louis Lane played by AA is a likable character but doesn't come off as being the intelligent, strong willed news reporter that I want her to be.

6. It could just be me, but the clergyman in the church looked evil. I thought he was Zod in disguise until I saw the real Zod.

7. Why was there a random desert scene in the middle of the movie? And why didn't Superman and Louis Lane have their little heart to heart before they reached the barriers? That scene felt very awkward.

8. How and why did the fight scenes switch from Clark Kent's hometown to a very populated city. Why did Superman not try to minimise damage? Instead he let a truck hit the building he was standing in front of and jumped like a boss through the gap.

9. How did Jenny get trapped under that building and not the other two? That was the second stupidest moment in the movie.

10. Superman killing Zod in one second, which he had not done in the preceding one and half hours because of his morals. How can those morals go out the window in a second?

11. Louis Lane turning up at the museum. That must have been the stupidest moment in the whole movie.

12. The woman soldier at the end of the movie smiling because Superman was "hot". That was the third stupidest moment.

The more I think about it, there are so many inconsistencies and random scenes. Too much pointless action. Too many explosions. They were just included for the sake of it. Poor storyline after the first 40 minutes. Became boring after the first 40 minutes. I should have just read the synopsis. Hope Batman vs Superman is better.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Can be Summed up in a Word: Bland!
Jawbox522 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
After the all-round disappointment of Superman Returns, it was decided that a reboot was the best way to go for the iconic superhero following the success of the Dark Knight trilogy. Director Zack Snyder was brought on board, best known for his adaptions of the comics 300 and Watchmen (the former being overwhelmingly style over substance and the latter surprisingly good if uneven). Added to that the cast featured many excellent actors who could bring weight to their roles. However, for all the films potential it is just as dull and uninteresting as Superman Returns was despite its greatest efforts to avoid any comparison.

Story: A baby named Kal-El is sent to Earth from the planet Krypton just before it is destroyed. He grows up as Clark Kent and quickly learns that he is not part of the human race. But a general from Krypton comes to conquer Earth and Clark is the only person who can stop him. The general plot line is fine but it is told in such a messy manner that it pretty much ruins the film on its own. The entire set-up can be summed up as rushed. We see fragments of Clark's life as a teenager but learn next to nothing about his predicament or his relationship with his adopted parents, why should care about anything when these characters are as one-dimensional as it gets? Clark actually becoming Superman comes out of nowhere because there's none of the build-up needed, no questions are asked and there's no curiosity to what he really is. Once Zod arrives the film descends into scenes solely containing clunky dialogue and hectic headache-inducing action scenes.

Hero: Superman is painfully dull and that is because he has no personality. He isn't intelligent, witty, charming, tough or reflective. This 'Superman' has none of the traits or complexities needed for the character to work, there isn't a second within the film where we get inside the characters head. He just walks around with the blank expression of a confused puppy or smashes other extra-terrestrials through large buildings. Adding to the poor character writing is Henry Cavill who is as wooden as a shed and I don't find anything he says remotely believable because of that.

Villains: Michael Shannon is usually great screen presence, but he is playing a truly terrible character here. They don't even try to give dimensions to Zod or make us see his dilemma, he's just a raging lunatic from the get go. Sadly that isn't remotely interesting. Shannon doesn't help matters as he goes for the insane bug-eyed look throughout, delivers most of the dialogue like he's chewing on marbles and most of his over-the-top rambling are just hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

Support: Amy Adams' Lois Lane is just as dull as Superman is. Adams is just a boring actress (and I think there were much better candidates for the role) and Lois herself is never defined as a character. She isn't the no-nonsense, charismatic reporter most people think of because even though she acts all tough she has to constantly be bailed out of situations and she's a charisma vacuum. Elsewhere Kevin Costner and Diane Lane bring respectability to the Kent's, while Russell Crowe does a solid job as Jor-El.

Action: The action scenes are made up of people being slammed through buildings or getting launched hundreds of feet. They are truly terrible. You know none of this will harm Superman or Zod unless they literally kill each other so it makes it all pointless. The climax goes on for what feels like an eternity (I feel like I had a birthday watching it), taking up the entire last third and it is just overkill on another level. From a technical standpoint they're filmed horribly and edited to within an inch of their life, meaning it's extremely difficult to tell what's happening half the time.

Music: Hans Zimmer's score is one of the most forgettable superhero scores of all time. I seriously cannot recall what the main theme sounded like, it was that bland. He provides the usual big trumpet sound, but nothing we haven't heard him do before and it's not remotely memorable.

Production: Visually the film is not very impressive. It's not as notably stylish as Snyder's previous efforts and although the Watchman style wouldn't suit the film, it would at least make what we're seeing look exciting. The film just has an overly drab colour scheme and would be best described as gloomy. None of the colours standout or pop, none of the locations look anything special and the film has a surprisingly low-budget look to it. As mentioned the editing is a complete mess, with the action scenes looking like they were edited by a maniac and certain scenes playing out like they were racing to the finish line to get them over with. The script and writing is by far the biggest issue however. Everything about the plot and characters feels either rushed, incomplete or as if it was written by a child. The film literally leaps from one scene to the next whilst never explaining anything and increasingly piles on the mindless action when it seems at a loss for what to do next.

Conclusion: For me Man of Steel is a massive disaster. For all Superman Returns' faults it had its heart in the right place, whereas this film seems clueless from the get and the fact people have given it so much acclaim baffles me beyond belief. It's literally half a film of boring scenes with no motivation, then another half of endless dumb action scenes. It's impossible to care about where the film is going or what the outcome will be when the key elements are such a complete mess. As a result Man of Steel becomes overly depressing and too action- heavy, which simply doesn't work for the character and sucks any out any possible enjoyment.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Excellent movie. See the 2-D though.
Paul Budde12 June 2013
I really enjoyed this movie. I am a big fan of action and superhero movies, and this did not disappoint. First of all I thought they did a great job on casting Superman. Henry Cavill fits the role perfectly. I liked the supporting cast, except thought they could have done better with Lois Lane. The plot starts out with Superman (Kal-El) being born, and quickly jumps into him being in his 20's and saving people. They show some of his growing up, through flashbacks but I wish they would have done more of this. You don't have to see any previous Superman movies to see this one, you get the whole back story. There was a ton of good action scenes, almost too much I thought. Plot was pretty good, but also pretty predictable. I saw the 3-D version, and I am not a big fan of 3-D. While this movie did not give me a headache, like 'The Hobbit', I didn't think the 3-D added that much, and I would recommend seeing the 2-D version! Overall I gave it a 9/10. Good action, fun, entertaining movie.
514 out of 936 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A Brand New Superman You've Never Seen Before
chrys13 June 2013
This is not like all the previous Superman movies. This is not "Smallville". This is not the sequel of "Superman Returns". This is "Man of Steel"! This movie is awesome.

I am not a big fan of Superman but this is the best Superman movie I've ever seen. (Christopher Reeve's version is also good, but this Man of Steel is better. And.. the Brandon Routh's version? Naaaaah...) The plot is really structural. Not so many flashbacks, so you won't get confused. The whole storyline is just really simple. It told the very beginning of Superman and then, yeah, his adulthood.

The special effects here, I think it is as awesome as Marvel's Avengers. Yeah, alien and superheroes, what do you expect? Battle scenes are good, I can feel Zack Snyder "300" sensation in here.

Henry Cavill succeeded bringing a whole new version of Superman to the big screen. He wiped out all our knowledge of the previous Superman movies and replaced it with a darker version of Superman (Nolan's kinda "darkness") This movie is enjoyable. See? There's still hope for DC Comics' superheroes movies.
583 out of 1,077 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worst Superman Ever
Charles Leatherwood14 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have NEVER been so disappointed in a movie in my life. How in the world can the story of Superman be screwed up so badly. I wish I could get my money back. The storyline was bad, the acting was bad, the action scenes were too much. Why would they do this to such a great story. I honestly do not see how anyone could like this movie if they have ever known anything about Superman. The scenes from Krypton were bad, the way they used flashbacks to tell the Smallville story was bad, the whole Zod storyline was poorly written. The battle scenes look like they destroyed Metropolis yet Clark goes to work at the Daily Planet at the end???? This was an overproduced poorly written movie with a storyline that has so much potential. I suggest everyone save their money.
408 out of 748 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
I wish I could give it a zero
the_Poppuns18 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
That's because it should not have been made.

I had no use for another Superman film. The Christopher Reeve films are there for us forever. The filmmakers of Superman Returns made a huge error with their storyline and therefore created what turned out to be a bad experience, but I would have given them a second chance. When they announced MOS as a reboot, I did not understand why anyone would bother. But when I heard Christopher Nolan was involved I figured there must be something good about it, since I love every film of his that I've seen.

Well it's apparent that the only reason for this film was to make money. The ONLY reason. Sears, IHOP, 7-ELeven, and U-Haul logos are shoved into your face during one of the "climactic" action scenes. And I mean you could see the washing machines at Sears. It was that bad. Beyond that those action scenes were just smashing scenes. Smashing buildings, smashing cars, smashing asphalt. The Hulk would have gotten sick of all the smashing. Just debris everywhere for a good half an hour. It literally made me tired. And the effects looked bad. People are tolerating this in movies lately for some reason but nothing about Superman flying or the explosions or the debris looked real. I don't understand how in 2013 the effects are looking faker/worse but they are. I guess to the video game crowd it doesn't matter, but my eyes want to believe what they're seeing even if it's a fantastical story.

The actors can't be blamed. They wanted to be a part of Superman. I get that. The fact is there wasn't anything they could have done to improve or make this movie worse. It was always going to be utter garbage. The story is stupid, the dialog is atrocious. I really sat there for about two hours wanting to slap someone, anyone. I haven't written a comment here in so long, but I had to. It was just that bad.
237 out of 427 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A fresh take on the iconic Superhero,
MisterFanatic12 June 2013
Jack Snyder's fresh take on Superman/Man of Steel is... fresh indeed. A superhero movie that maxes visual wizardry but beautifully balanced by emotional tones without feeling heavy. Gone is the sleek metal and crystal polish we have known replaced by a techno- organic theme (reminds me of Prometheus) that is both regal and advanced. This is perhaps the only Superman film with the best narrative of the Kryptonian's heritage and history. Good casting and an impressive performance by Russell Crowe. I give it an 8.5/10 (just behind Dark Knight Rises IMHO). The Dad in me deems this movie watchable by kids (more age-appropriate, less violent than Iron Man 3)
268 out of 487 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Man of Steel is great.
gamerzach711 June 2013
I have never been a hardcore superman fan, but I was fortunate enough to see an early showing of Zack Snyder's reboot. And I must say, I am quite impressed. Casual moviegoers and superhero fans will find something to enjoy. Man of Steel has great wreck- everything action that makes full use of 3D effects and simply looks awesome. The story is decently paced, and fueled by strong performances by Michael Shannon and Russell Crow(e). The character Perry White wasn't used to his full potential, but that's forgivable. If you're a fan of classic superman, you might be disappointed by the fact that this man of steel is pretty up- tight. He has only two or three lines that are humorous, making him less charming then the Christopher Reeve superman. The charm is replaced by the character development the man of steel experiences when he must choose between his past and his future. (that makes for an awesome showdown, by the way.) To summarize, I give Man of Steel an 8.6 for it's portrayal of a classic American hero.
465 out of 864 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
I weep..
wen7717 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'll confess I didn't weep, I came very close though. I was open minded, waiting, willing, then around a third of the way through I realised that what I was watching was more than just a film, another blockbuster, a popcorn munching way to while away the summer evening, what I was really watching was the moment story died..

This is a truly awful film.

It is beautifully shot, the costume almost inspires rather than inducing sniggers, the acting is quiet, understated, the CGI so effective they have almost crossed that last lingering barrier where real and manipulated are indistinguishable. The scale is epic.

And despite all of that I will repeat: this is a truly awful film. None of the above can redeem it. And its not an opinion, its a fact.

Some people have enjoyed it, a few I was with enjoyed it. And still, this is a truly awful film. That is not an opinion.

I really wanted to walk out, but I had a large pick and mix bucket and I dug deep and found the sugary will to endure.

Normally I try to give a balanced view, but I am sick of doing so. I am sick of giving the benefit of the doubt to people who quite clearly are making millions doing something they are unqualified to do: tell stories.

If you want characters, likable or interesting or funny or curious, just some - any- sense of character, this is not the film for you.

if you want humour, wry wit, cheesy gags, gentle social commentary, daft slapstick, this is not the film for you.

if you want mystery, intrigue, wonder, this is not the film for you.

if you want relationships, conflict born from fear and hope, blossoming romance, unrequited love, this is not the film for you.

if you want dialogue that stays with you, that will be quoted years from now, that makes you lean forward as if physically pulled into the story, this is not the film for you.

If you want mindless violence and a battle scene that lasts for three quarters of the movie, then this is the film for you.

If you want to know the entire story in the first five minutes, this is the film for you.

if you want the same story that every superman before this has already told, in a thousand rehashed, reheated ways.. this is the film for you.

In twenty years, people will still revisit the original film. No one will revisit this. Its special effects will be outdated in a year - so will any possible appeal.

I will repeat: this is a truly awful film. And that is not an opinion.
278 out of 507 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Instantly Forgettable
rocketstreamman1 July 2013
I wish I could burn this film from my memory for real. I'm seriously not kidding. I really don't know how to describe the dread I felt within the first half hour when I knew this was as bad as others had warned me it would be and even worse than most critics said it would be. It really was beyond cringe worthy and those space ships. Don't even get me started. I expected Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith to come crawling out of one with cigars in their mouth. Something blows up. A bunch of blurry images zoom by and then it starts again. And repeat. And repeat. Rinse and repeat. That's how I feel trying to wash out the bad taste this film left behind. Nolan should stick to directing and not producing. Snyder and David Goyer need to launch themselves into space so this planet never again has to be subjected to anything this illogical and monotonous.
100 out of 173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
This movie has no soul
spuzer5520 June 2013
I was really excited to see this movie considering all the creative and successful names that were attached to it. However I came out of it more frustrated than anything else. I really wanted to like this movie but I couldn't, and here are some reasons why:

Straight from the beginning, I couldn't help but notice that the movie was trying too hard to be similar to recently successful sci fi films rather than trying to find its own style (Avatar, The Avengers, Batman Begins and the Matrix come to mind). Then there were the minor plot holes, inconsistencies and lack of believability or followthrough that would have brought that extra touch of realism. But the real downfall of the film was the matter-of-fact and detached style by which it was presented to the audience. This left the movie emotionally empty and with no one to identify with. As the movie continued it became more of the same going through the motions (ok now this happened, and now this happened, oh and now this is happening) to the point where I didn't really care about the movie or characters any more, I just wanted the monotony to be over. This is the reason it felt rushed and long at the same time, like key elements were underdeveloped and missing. This is a great example of how you can have the most massive, amazing grandiose scale special effects and world altering events on screen but without the proper build up and audience investment I didn't really care about the characters, and continued to grow bored until I just wanted it to end. The trailers were more suspenseful than the actual movie for crying out loud.

I'm not sure whose fault it was- the editor, the director, the script, post production but a little more than half way through it started to feel like it was dragging. You can walk out of a really enjoyable film after 3 hours and not realize how much time has gone by. I would not have minded if the movie was 15 minutes longer but had the slightest bit of suspense, emotion or character development in it. It felt like it was cut down to its bare bones- you cant omit that stuff to make room for more special effects, if that is in fact what they were doing. No amount of action can ever replace good story telling. Instead what we got was clichéd one liners and characters going through the motions interacting with themselves so to speak instead of playing off each other, like in a bad video game. Even great acting from Michael Shannon and Russel Crowe wasn't enough to elevate their characters from appearing as one-dimensional cliff notes. It's not being too picky when you want something essential and basic that every movie should have and when many people didn't like the movie for the exact same reasons. I also found the writing to be lazy, and without giving too much away, certain plot elements could have been used to show that Superman was not just all brawn but brains as well. Plus, Lois knows and thats just boring.

It seems to be a growing trend in blockbuster movies these days, while trying to make the movie more modern, technologically up to date and fit for a younger audience, story telling takes a back seat to cheap thrills and special effects to get more people into the theater. It's a shame then that this movie feels like an attempt to mash together as many unoriginal blockbuster genres with as much mindless action special effects as humanly possible, most likely in an attempt to compete in the 'how big can we make this' superhero franchise. I like special effects and I know its good for business, but does the movie making process have to suffer to such an extent as a consequence? Even the Avengers with its multitude of characters was able to pull of an engaging thrill ride compared to this.

To those trying to undermine the critics I have a few things to say. I like Snyder's previous films and particularly enjoyed Watchmen, so I would have had no problem with a darker of more serious version of Superman, except this movie was none of those things. I feel a lot of people who will defend the movie don't have much to say besides 'superman was a badass compared to other movies' and 'it was visually impressive'. They refuse to see the whole picture and realize that a shiny toy is just a shiny toy. The critics didn't rate this movie poorly because it was serious, dark or they didn't like Snyder's style- it was because the movie didn't have a unique character, or any style Snyder is famous for. While that 'satisfied feeling' you had at the end of the movie instead of the 'wanting more' feeling really shows how mundane it really was. A movie of this magnitude should leave you wanting more, for a sequel or at least for a second viewing. After watching this movie I had no desire for either of those things. Just because a film has amazing special effects does not automatically make it a good movie.

What this movie did was ironically give me a new appreciation for Superman Returns. While Bryan Singer's approach to the character and story was somewhat dated, it was a polished work that (while it didn't appeal to everybody) was executed very well in all aspects, especially story telling. The difference is that people didn't like MOS not because it had a unique style, but because it wasn't a complete film, and the difference shows. An ideal Superman movie in my opinion would combine the best aspects of both films. A modern approach with exciting and relatable character development and story telling that Superman deserves. Just felt like I needed to express my disappointment and frustrations at this squandered potential.
135 out of 241 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Man of Steel is not Superman
Yash Nagori18 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
If you are a die-hard Superman fan then be ready for a huge disappointment.Not for a moment will you get the overwhelming warmth in your heart when superman saves the day which you got when Christopher Reeve played Superman.This is just another film which lacks totally lacks a solid story and the makers are completely confident that they will fool the audiences again with massive unnecessary special effects(Same goes with Iron Man 3).Lois Lane is apparently more smart than Man of Steel as she somehow manages to be present at all the locations where Man of Steel is about to fall.I came back home and watched the real Superman just to erase this bad portrayal of my favorite superhero.
230 out of 424 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Man of Steel 10/10
asad-aaly-388-67800212 June 2013
I am a big superman fan and luckily got a chance to see its early screening and believe me it was a brilliant movie. I had very high expectations from the movie and this film has completely exceeded my expectation. The visual effects and action sequences in the movie are actually the best I have ever seen. It easily overcomes The Avengers in every single way and will for sure emerge as a big blockbuster film at the box office. I don't know why the critics are saying that it focused more on the action than on clark kent's character. It was completely balanced in all ways. Its a must watch movie for every one and in my opinion its not only the best movie of this summer but also the best comic book movie of all time. And yes with a better score also put in by Hans Zimmer. 10/10
560 out of 1,069 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews